The Great Apostasy Part 7

14. Not only was the form of the baptismal rite radically changed, but the application of the ordinance was perverted. The practice of administering baptism to infants was recognized as orthodox in the third century, and was doubtless of earlier origin. In a prolonged disputation as to whether it was safe to postpone the baptism of infants until the eighth day after birth--in deference to the Jewish custom of performing circ.u.mcision on that day--it was gravely decided that such delay would be dangerous, as jeopardizing the future well-being of the child should it die before attaining the age of eight days, and that baptism ought to be administered as soon after birth as possible.--(See Milner, "Church History," Cent. III; ch. 13.) A more infamous doctrine than that of the condemnation of unbaptized infants can scarcely be imagined, and a stronger proof of the heresies that had invaded and corrupted the early Church need not be sought.

Such a doctrine is foreign to the gospel and to the Church of Christ, and its adoption as an essential tenet is proof of apostasy.--(For a discussion of infant baptism, see the author's "Articles of Faith,"

Lecture 6. See Note 4, end of chapter.)

**Changes in the Ordinance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper**.

15. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper has been regarded as an essential ordinance from the time of its establishment in the Church by Jesus Christ. Yet in spite of its sanct.i.ty it has undergone radical alteration both as to its symbolism and its accepted purpose. The sacrament, as inst.i.tuted by the Savior and as administered during the days of the apostolic ministry, was as simple as it was sacred and solemn. Accompanied by the true spirit of the gospel, its simplicity was sanctifying; as interpreted by the spirit of apostasy its simplicity became a reproach. Hence we find that in the third century, long sacramental prayers were prescribed, and much pomp was introduced. Vessels of gold and silver were used by such congregations as could afford them, and this with ostentatious display. Nonmembers and members "who were in a penitential state" were excluded from the sacramental service--in imitation of the exclusiveness accompanying heathen mysteries. Disputation and dissension arose as to the proper time of administering the sacrament--morning, noon, or evening; and as to the frequency with which the ordinance should be celebrated.--(See Note 5, end of chapter.)

16. At a later date the doctrine of _Transubstantiation_ was established as an essential tenet of the Roman Church. This briefly summarized, is to the effect that the species--i. e., the bread and wine used in the sacrament--lose their character as mere bread and wine, and become in fact the flesh and blood of the crucified Christ.

The trans.m.u.tation is a.s.sumed to take place in such a mystical way as to delude the senses; and so, though actual flesh and actual blood, the elements still appear to be bread and wine. This view, so strongly defended and earnestly reverenced by orthodox members of the Roman Church, is vehemently denounced by others as "an absurd tenet,"-- (Milner) and a "monstrous and unnatural doctrine."--(Mosheim.)

17. There has been much discussion as to the origin of this doctrine,--(See Note 6, end of chapter.) the Roman Catholics claiming for it a great antiquity, while their opponents insist that it was an innovation of the eighth or ninth century. According to Milner it was openly taught in the ninth century;--(Milner, "Church History," Cent.

IX, ch. 1.) was formally established as a dogma of the Church by the Council of Placentia A. D. 1095,--(The same, Cent. XI, ch. 1) and was made an essential article of creed, belief in which was required of all by action of the Roman ecclesiastical court about 1160.--(The same, Cent. XIII, ch. 1.) An official edict of the pope, Innocent III, confirmed the dogma as a binding tenet and requirement of the Church in 1215;--(Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. XIII, Part II, ch. 3:2.) and it remains practically in force in the Roman Catholic Church today.

The doctrine was adopted by the Greek Church in the seventeenth century.--(The same. Cent. XVII, Part II, ch. 2:3.)

18. The consecrated emblems, or "host," being regarded as the actual flesh and blood of Christ, were adored as of themselves divine. Thus, "a very pernicious practice of idolatry was connected with the reception of this doctrine. Men fell down before the consecrated host, and worshipped it as G.o.d; and the novelty, absurdity, and impiety of this abomination very much struck the minds of all men who were not dead to a sense of true religion."--(Milner, "Church History," Cent.

XIII, ch. 1.) The "elevation of the host,"--i. e., the presentation of the consecrated emblems before the congregation for adoration, is a feature of the present day ritual of worship in the Roman Catholic Church. The celebration of the ma.s.s is taught to be an actual though mystic sacrifice, in which the Son of G.o.d is daily offered up anew as a constantly recurring atonement for the present sins of the a.s.sembled worshippers. A further perversion of the sacrament occurred in the administration of bread alone, instead of both bread and wine as originally required.

19. Thus was the plain purpose and a.s.sured efficacy of the sacrament hidden beneath a cloud of mystery and ceremonial display. Contrast such with the solemn simplicity of the ordinance as inst.i.tuted by our Lord,--He took bread and wine, blessed them and gave to His disciples and said, "This do in remembrance of me."--(Luke 22:19, 20; compare Matt. 26:27, 28.) Of the bread He said, "This is my body;" of the wine, "This is my blood;" yet at that time His body was unpierced, His blood was unshed. The disciples ate bread, not flesh of a living man, and drank wine, not blood; and this they were commanded to do in remembrance of Christ.--(For a general treatment of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, see the author's "Articles of Faith," Lecture 9.) The perversion of the sacrament is evidence of departure from the spirit of the gospel of Christ, and when made an essential dogma of a church is proof of the apostate condition of that church.

20. Behold, "_they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant_."--(See Isaiah 24:4-6.)

NOTES.

1. _Ceremonies Added as a Compromise_. "Both Jews and heathens were accustomed to a vast variety of pompous and magnificent ceremonies in their religious service. And as they considered these rites as an essential part of religion, it was but natural that they should behold with indifference, and even with contempt, the simplicity of the Christian worship, which was dest.i.tute of those idle ceremonies that rendered their service so specious and striking. To remove then, in some measure, this prejudice against Christianity, the bishops thought it necessary to increase the number of rites and ceremonies, and thus to render the public worship more striking to the outward senses. This addition of external rites was also designed to remove the opprobrious calumnies which the Jewish and pagan priests cast upon the Christians on account of the simplicity of their worship, esteeming them little better than atheists, because they had no temples, altars, victims, priests, nor anything of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so p.r.o.ne to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the Church adopted, therefore, certain external ceremonies, that thus they might captivate the senses of the vulgar, and be able to refute the reproaches of their adversaries." (Mosheim, "Ecclesiastical History,"

Cent. II, Part II, ch. 4:2, 3.)

A note appended to the foregoing excerpt by the translator, Dr.

Archibald Maclaine, reads as follows:

"A remarkable pa.s.sage in the life of Gregory, surnamed Thaumaturgus, i. e., the wonder worker, will ill.u.s.trate this point in the clearest manner. The pa.s.sage is as follows: 'When Gregory perceived that the ignorant mult.i.tude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the pleasures and sensual gratifications which they enjoyed at the pagan festivals, he granted them a permission to indulge themselves in the like pleasures, in celebrating the memory of the holy martyrs, hoping that in process of time, they would return of their own accord to a more virtuous and regular course of life.' There is no sort of doubt, but that by this permission, Gregory allowed the Christians to dance, sport, and feast at the tombs of the martyrs upon their respective festivals, and to do everything which the pagans were accustomed to do in their temples during the feasts celebrated in honor of their G.o.ds."

The Gregory referred to in the note last quoted flourished about the middle of the third century. He acquired the t.i.tle Thaumaturgus from his fame as a worker of miracles, the genuineness of which achievements is disputed by many authorities. He was bishop of New Caesarea, and a man of great influence in the Church. His sanction of ceremonies, patterned after pagan rites, was doubtless of far-reaching effect.

2. _Church Ceremonial in the Fifth Century_. "The sublime and simple theology of the primitive Christians was gradually corrupted, and the Monarchy of heaven, already clouded by metaphysical subtleties, was degraded by the introduction of a popular mythology, which tended to restore the reign of polytheism. As the objects of religion were gradually reduced to the standard of the imagination, the rites and ceremonies were introduced that seemed most powerfully to affect the senses of the vulgar. If, in the beginning of the fifth century, Tertullian or Lactantius had been suddenly raised from the dead, to a.s.sist at the festival of some popular saint or martyr, they would have gazed with astonishment and indignation on the profane spectacle, which had succeeded to the pure and spiritual worship of a Christian congregation. As soon as the doors of the Church were thrown open they must have been offended by the smoke of incense, the perfume of flowers, and the glare of lamps and tapers, which diffused, at noonday, a gaudy, superfluous, and, in their opinion a sacriligious light. If they approached the bal.u.s.trade of the altar, they made their way through the prostrate crowd, consisting for the most part, of strangers and pilgrims, who resorted to the city on the vigil of the feast; and who already felt the strong intoxication of fanaticism, and perhaps of wine. Their devout kisses were imprinted on the walls and pavements of the sacred edifice; and their fervent prayers were directed, whatever might be the language of their church, to the bones, the blood, or the ashes of the saints, which were usually concealed by a linen or silken veil from the eyes of the vulgar. The Christians frequented the tombs of the martyrs, in the hope of obtaining, from their powerful intercession, every sort of spiritual, but more especially of temporal blessings. * * * The same uniform original spirit of superst.i.tion might suggest, in the most distant ages and countries, the same methods of deceiving the credulity, and of affecting the services, of mankind; but it must ingeniously be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superst.i.tions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved, in less than a century, the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals."--(Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," ch.

XXVIII.)

3. _Early Form of Christian Baptism_. History furnishes ample proof that in the first century after the death of Christ, baptism was administered solely by immersion. Tertullian thus refers to the immersion ceremony common in his day: "There is no difference whether one is washed in a sea or in a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a channel; nor is there any difference between those whom John dipped in Jordan, and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber. * * *

We are immersed in the water."

Justin Martyr describes the ceremony as practiced by himself. First describing the preparatory examination of the candidate, he proceeds: "After that they are led by us to where there is water, and are born again in that kind of new birth by which we ourselves were born again.

For in the name of G.o.d, the Father and Lord of all, and of Jesus Christ, our Savior, and of the Holy Spirit, the immersion in water is performed; because the Christ hath also said, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"

Bishop Bennet says concerning the practices of the early Christians: "They led them into the water and laid them down in the water as a man is laid in a grave; and then they said those words, 'I baptize (or wash) thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;' then they raised them up again, and clean garments were put on them; from whence came the phrases of being baptized into Christ's death, of being buried with Him by baptism into death, of our being risen with Christ, and of our putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, of putting off the old man, and putting on the new."

"That the apostles immersed whom they baptized there is no doubt. * *

* And that the ancient church followed their example is very clearly evinced by innumerable testimonies of the fathers."--(Vossius.)

"Burying as it were the person baptized in the water, and raising him out again, without question was anciently the more usual method."--(Archbishop Seeker.)

"_Immersion_ was the usual method in which baptism was administered in the early Church. * * * Immersion was undoubtedly a common mode of administering baptism, and was not discontinued when infant baptism prevailed. * * * Sprinkling gradually took the place of immersion without any formal renunciation of the latter."--(Canon Farrar.)

4. _Historical Notes on Infant Baptism_. "The baptism of infants, in the first two centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown. * * *

The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages no trace of it appears; and it was introduced without the command of Christ."--(Curcullaeus.)

"It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism. * * * We cannot prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism. From those places where baptism of a whole family is mentioned (as in Acts 16:33; I Cor. 1:16) we can draw no such conclusion, because the inquiry is still to be made, whether there were any children in the families of such an age that they were not capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity; for this is the only point on which the case turns. * *

* As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this (the apostolic) period. * * * That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus, a trace of infant baptism appears; and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin."--(Johann Neander, a German theologian who flourished in the first half of the nineteenth century.)

"Let them therefore come when they are grown up--when they can understand--when they are taught whither they are to come. Let them become Christians when they can know Christ."--(Tertullian, one of the Latin "Christian Fathers;" he lived from 150 to 220 A. D.) Tertullian's almost violent opposition to the practice of pedo-baptism is cited by Neander as "a proof that it was then not usually considered an apostolic ordinance; for in that case he would hardly have ventured to speak so strongly against it."

Martin Luther, writing in the early part of the sixteenth century, declared: "It cannot be proven by the sacred scriptures that infant baptism was inst.i.tuted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles."

"By _tekna_ the Apostle understands, not infants, but posterity; in which significance the word occurs in many places of the New Testament (see among others John 8:39); whence it appears that the argument which is very commonly taken from this pa.s.sage for the baptism of infants, is of no force, and good for nothing."--(Limborch, a native of Holland, and a theologian of repute; he lived 1633-1712.)

5. _Summary of Changes in the Sacrament as an Ordinance_. "Errors concerning the sacrament, and its signification, and the manner of administering it, grew rapidly in the professed Christian churches during the early centuries of the Christian era. As soon as the power of the priesthood had departed, much disputation arose in matters of ordinance, and the observance of the sacrament became distorted.

Theological teachers strove to foster the idea that there was much mystery attending this naturally simple and most impressive ordinance; that all who were not in full communion with the Church should be excluded, not only from partic.i.p.ation in the ordinance, which was justifiable, but from the privilege of witnessing the service, lest they profane the mystic rite by their unhallowed presence. Then arose the heresy of transubstantiation,--which held that the sacramental emblems by the ceremony of consecration lost their natural character of simple bread and wine, and became in reality flesh and blood,--actually parts of the crucified body of Christ. Arguments against such dogmas is useless. Then followed the veneration of the emblems by the people, the bread and wine--regarded as part of Christ's tabernacle, being elevated in the ma.s.s for the adoration of the people; and later, the custom of suppressing half of the sacrament was introduced. By the innovation last mentioned, only the bread was administered, the dogmatic a.s.sertion being that both the body and the blood were represented in some mystical way in one of the 'elements.'

Certain it is, that Christ required His disciples to both eat and drink in remembrance of Him."--(The Author, "Articles of Faith,"

Lecture 9, Note 4.)

6. _As to the Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation_. As stated in the text, the date of origin of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation has been debated. The following summary is instructive. "Protestants combatting the Catholic idea of the real presence of the flesh and blood in the eucharist--transubstantiation-- have endeavored to prove that this doctrine was not of earlier origin than the eighth century. In this, however, the evidence is against them. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing early in the second century, says of certain supposed heretics: 'They do not admit of eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins.'

(Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans.) So Justin Martyr, also writing in the first half of the second century: 'We do not receive them [the bread and the wine] as ordinary food or ordinary drink, but as by the word of G.o.d, Jesus Christ, our Savior, was made flesh and took upon him both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also the food which was blessed by the prayer of the word which proceeded from Him, and from which our flesh and blood, by trans.m.u.tation, receive nourishment, is, we are taught, both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.' (Justin's Apology to Emperor Antoninus.) After Justin's time the testimony of the fathers is abundant. There can be no doubt as to the antiquity of the idea of the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the eucharist; but that proves--as we said of infant baptism--not that the doctrine is true, but that soon after the apostles had pa.s.sed away, the simplicity of the gospel was corrupted or else entirely departed from."--(B. H. Roberts, "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History," p. 133.)

CHAPTER IX.

**Internal Causes.--Continued**.

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

2. A comparison between the plan of organization on which the Primitive Church was founded and the ecclesiastical system which took its place will afford valuable evidence as to the true or apostate condition of the modern Church. The Primitive Church was officered by apostles, pastors, high priests, seventies, elders, bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons.--(See Luke 6:13 and Mark 3:14; Eph. 4:11; Heb.

5:1-5; Luke 10:1-11; Acts 14:23; 15:6; I Peter 5:1; I Tim. 3:1; t.i.tus 1:17; Rev. 1:6; Acts 13:1; I Tim. 3:8-12.) We have no evidence that the presiding council of the Church, comprising the twelve apostles, was continued beyond the earthly ministry of those who had been ordained to that holy calling during the life of Christ or soon after His ascension. Nor is there record of any ordination of individuals to the apostleship, irrespective of membership in the council of twelve, beyond those whose calling and ministry are chronicled in the New Testament, which, as a historical record, ends with the first century.

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

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

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

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

7. Rome, so long the "mistress of the world" in secular affairs, arrogated to herself a pre-eminence in church matters, and the bishop of Rome claimed supremacy. It is doubtless true that the church at Rome was organized by Peter and Paul. Tradition, founded on error, said that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome; and those who successively were acknowledged as bishops of the metropolis claimed to be, in fact, lineal successors of the presiding apostle.

The high but none the less false claim is made by the Catholic Church in this day, that the present pope is the last lineal successor--not alone to the bishopric but to the apostleship.

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

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