PART V.

The Apostatic[A] Period.

LESSON XXXI.

(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

ELEMENTS OF APOSTACY IN THE CHURCH.

ANALYSIS.

I. Characters of the Early Christians.

II. Controversy and dissentions among the Apostles and Elders.

III. Schisms--Defections--and Church wide Demoralization among the

Saints.

REFERENCES.

The Student will find a Treatise upon the subject of Apostasy in the

Writer's "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History" as also in his "New

Witness for God," Vol. I, as well as in the notes that follow.

[Footnote A: "Apostatic: Pertaining to an apostate or

apostasy."--Dictionary.]

NOTES.

_The Subject Proposed:_ It now becomes m. 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 which will bring us to the

culmination of the ages--to the completion of all the dispensations of

the gospel in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, in which will

be "gathered together in one all things in Christ, both which are in

heaven and earth, even in him." (Eph. i:10.)

_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 has 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.

_Ambitious Controversies of the Apostles:_ 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 the one on the right hand of Jesus and the other on His left when

He should come into His Kingdom.[A] 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.[B] 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,[C] 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.

[Footnote A: Matt. xx:20-24.]

[Footnote B: Matt. xxvi:69-75.]

[Footnote C: Acts xv.]

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 Jew and Gentile 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 in 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?"[A] 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.[B]

[Footnote A: Galatians ii.]

[Footnote B: Acts xvi:1-4.]

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.[A] 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.

[Footnote A: Gal. i:6, 7.]

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.[A] 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.

[Footnote A: Acts xiii:13.]

_Schisms Among the Early Christians:_ 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?"[A] There were endless strifes as well as divisions

among them, which caused Paul to denounce them as carnally minded.[B]

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.[C] 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.[D] They desecrated the ordinances of the Lord's Supper

by their drunkenness, for which they were sharply reproved by the

Apostle.[E] 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,[F] some denying

the resurrection of the dead, while others possessed not the knowledge

of God, which the Apostle declared was their shame.[G] 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.[H] From this

second letter, also, we learn that there were many in the church at

large who corrupted the word of God;[I] that there were those, even in

the ministry, who were "false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming

themselves into the apostles of Christ."[J]

[Footnote A: I Cor. i:12, 13.]

[Footnote B: I Cor. iii:3, 4.]

[Footnote C: I Cor. v:1-3.]

[Footnote D: I Cor. vi:1-20; and Matt, xviii:15, 17.]

[Footnote E: I Cor. xi:2-22 and 29, 30.]

[Footnote F: I Cor. xi:19.]

[Footnote G: I Cor. xv:12-34.]

[Footnote H: II Cor. xi. 21.]

[Footnote I: II Cor. ii:17.]

[Footnote J: II Cor. xi:12-14.]

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."[A]

[Footnote A: Gal. i:6, 7.]

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."[A] "Beware of dogs," said he again to the same people;

"beware of evil workers; beware of the concision."[B] "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."[C] 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."[D]

[Footnote A: Phil. i:15, 16.]

[Footnote B: Phil. iii:2.]

[Footnote C: Phil. iii:17, 19.]

[Footnote D: Col. ii:8, 18.]

Defections Among Paul's Converts: 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."[A] 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.[B] Others had "erred concerning the

faith" and had "given heed to vain babblings, and opposition of science

falsely so called."[C] 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.[D] 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 overthrow the faith of

some."[E] Demos, once a fellow-laborer with Paul, had forsaken him,

"having loved this present world;"[F] 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.[G]

[Footnote A: I Tim. i:3-7.]

[Footnote B: I Tim. i:19, 20.]

[Footnote C: I Tim. vi:20, 21.]

[Footnote D: II Tim. i:15.]

[Footnote E: II Tim. ii:16, 18.]

[Footnote F: II Tim. iv:10.]

[Footnote G: II Tim. iv:16.]

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.[A]

[Footnote A: Titus i:9-14.]

_The Demoralization of Christians Widespread:_ 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.[A] He charged also that some were wresting the

epistles of Paul, as they were some of the "other scriptures," unto

their own destruction.[B]

[Footnote A: II Peter ii.]

[Footnote B: Ibid. iii; 16.]

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."[A] "Try the spirits," said he, in the same epistle, "whether

they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the

world."[B] 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."[C]

[Footnote A: I John ii:18, 19.]

[Footnote B: I John iv:1.]

[Footnote C: II John vii:5.]

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."[A] 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.

[Footnote A: Jude 3, 4.]

_Object of the Review:_ 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;[A] 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.

[Footnote A: II Tim. iii, 13.]

LESSON XXXII.

(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

PROGRESS OF THE APOSTACY.

ANALYSIS.

I. The Existence of False Teachers in the Church.

II. Promulgation of False Doctrines.

REFERENCES.

The Works cited in the Last Lesson and the authorities cited in the

notes.

NOTES.

_The Rise of False Teachers:_ I cannot, of course, here 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 effect of their

doctrines upon the Christian religion.

_Position of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches,

Respectively, on the Question of Early Christian Apostasy:_

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 History--which should be regarded not so much

as the history of the Church as the history of piety--to 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 religion--a

false religion--as is fully predicted, as we shall see later, in

the New Testament prophecies, and of which the works of Protestant

writers go far toward proving--then the only possible way in which the

true Christian religion and the Church of Christ could be restored

would be by a reopening 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.

_Declension of Excellence in Early Christian Writers:_ 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 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Vol. i, pp. 656, 657.]

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

truthworthiness 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

specially 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Lardner's Works, vol. viii. p. 330.]

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 uncorrupted virgin, whilst if there were any at all at 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 who 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Eus. Ec. Hist., bk. iii. ch. 32.]

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."[A]

[Footnote A: Institutes, bk. i, cent. 1, part ii, ch. ii.]

This condition of things with reference to the writers in the centuries

under consideration, naturally leads one to the reflection that if

there was 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p.

248.]

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 men--meaning

thereby men who were associated with the Apostles--the 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Eusebius, bk. iii, ch. 39.]

Prodicus is censured by Clement of Alexandria for holding that men are

of nature the children of Deity.[A]

[Footnote A: Lardner Works, vol. viii, p. 418.]

_Controversy Over Baptism for the Dead:_ 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 bold peculiar views; but that is no reason

why the general principle should be condemned.[A] He taught that Jesus

Christ went to Hades and preached there, and brought hence all that

believed on him. "The ancients," continues 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

believe in Him, for which reason, as he says, "their souls remained in

Hell."[B]

[Footnote A: Lardner Works, vol. viii, 449; also I Peter iii:18-21;

Ibid, iv:6; I Cor. xv:29.]

[Footnote B: Ibid, p. 460.]

Marcion is also condemned for believing in the eternity of matter.[A]

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.[B]

[Footnote A: Ibid. p. 581-2.]

[Footnote B: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 345.]

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 the 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 council of Nice,[A] 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."[B]

[Footnote A: Held in 325 A. D.]

[Footnote B: Jortin, vol. i, p. 166, note.]

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.

_II. 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 probably in itself, and is embraced by several learned

moderns, particularly by Vitringa, and by the late Rev. Mr. Brekel of

Liverpool."[A]

[Footnote A: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 344.]

_Conditions of the Church in the First Three Centuries:_ 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 kind of heathenish Christianity which

mingled itself with the true Christian religion."[A]

[Footnote A: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 345.]

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 came 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church vol

i p. 191.]

Dr. Phillip 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 corruptions from all the lands in which it was

planted, and to reflect the complexion of all their systems of religion

and philosophy."[A]

[Footnote A: Eccles. Hist., vol. i, p. 49.]

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 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Gibbon's Roman Empire, Preface by Dean Milman, p. 15.]

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 them--to 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 consist--the 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 rites--justified, as

was supposed, by a comparison of the Christian oblations with Jewish

victims and sacrifices--in 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

designed 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Institutes, vol. i, cent, ii, part ii, ch. iv.]

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.[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid. cen. iii, part ii, ch. iv.]

LESSON XXXIII.

(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

CONSTANTINE.

ANALYSIS.

I. The Revolution of the Fourth Century.

II. Conversion and Character of the First Christian Emperor.

REFERENCES.

See the References to Authorities given in the notes.

NOTES.

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.

Parentage and Station of Constantine: 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 bora 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

Constantine's 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.[A] 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 Constantine to make it the ensign

of his banners and his protection against the power of the enemy.[B]

According to Theodoret, the emperor was converted through the arguments

of his Christian mother.[C] According to Zosimus, it was through the

arguments of an Egyptian Christian bishop--supposed to be Hosius,

Bishop of Corduba--who promised him absolution for his crimes, which

included a number of murders, if he would but accept Christianity.[D]

[Footnote A: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. i, p. 252. Decline and Fall., vol.

ii, chap. xx.]

[Footnote B: Eusebius' Life of Constantine, bk. i, 27.]

[Footnote C: Hist. Eccles., vol. i, bk. i, ch. 17.]

[Footnote D: Zosimus, bk. ii, p. 104.]

The Conversion of Constantine: 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 the number

who at least admitted Christ to the pantheon of the gods. By 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 respected the pagan forms of worship; for hearing that the

Franks, who had been inclined to rebel 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Neander's Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 8.]

The story of Constantine's 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[A]--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."[B] Five years after

his supposed miraculous conversion "we find marks of the pagan state

religion upon the imperial coins."[C] "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."[D] While on the day

Constantinople was formally made the capital of the empire, he honored

the statue of Fortune with 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."[E]

[Footnote A: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iii, ch. xx.]

[Footnote B: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 21.]

[Footnote C: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 21.]

[Footnote D: Intellectual Development of Europe, vol. i, p. 280.]

[Footnote E: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xx.]

The Character of Constantine. Turing 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 throug 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 24.]

"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."[A]

[Footnote A: Mosheim's Institutes, vol. i, p. 214.]

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."[A] 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: "Maximian 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."[B] 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 deaths of

some others about the same time, with whom Constantine had till then

lived in friendship."[C] After which the Doctor immediately adds--in

the very face of all the facts he adduces, and after reciting the

condemnation of both heathen and Christian writers of some of these

murders--the 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."[D] 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 marshaling the order of the battle, and

giving out the words of command by divine inspiration bestowed in

answer to his prayer."[E]

[Footnote A: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 39.]

[Footnote B: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 39.]

[Footnote C: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 44.]

[Footnote D: Neander Ch. His., vol. ii, p. 25.]

[Footnote E: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 25.]

_Concluding Reflections Upon Constantine:_ 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 Asiatic despot. In

the last days of his life, he put aside the imperial purple, and,

assuming the customary white garment, 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Draper, Intellectual Development, vol. i, p. 283.]

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."[A]

[Footnote A: Decline and Fall, ch. xx.]

The First "Christian" Emperor: 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

acceptance did not tend rather to the corruption of what remained true

in the Christianity then extant, than to the establishment of true

religion.

LESSON XXXIV.

(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

CHRISTIANITY A PERSECUTING RELIGION.

ANALYSIS.

I. Transposition of the Attitude of Christianity and Paganism.

1. Persecution of the Pagans.

2. Persecution of the Heretics.

REFERENCES.

See the Authorities cited in the notes.

NOTES.

_The Edict of Milan:_ 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 Constantine 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 sooth-saying 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Life of Constantine (Eusebius) I, ii, ch. 44.]

_A Contrast Between Christian and Heathen Methods:_ 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."[A] 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."[B] 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,[C] 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.[D] 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."[E] 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 worshippers of the great and only true God, and yet

everybody, that pleased, was able to molest and destroy them, as he saw

good?"

[Footnote A: Ibid, ch. 54.]

[Footnote B: Life of Constantine (Eusebius), iv, ch., 23, 25.]

[Footnote C: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 169.]

[Footnote D: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, pp. 26, 27.]

[Footnote E: Lardner Works, vol. iv. p. 49.]

_The Policy of Constantine Indefensible:_ 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 approval--and

it would not be difficult to believe, under all the circumstances, at

the suggestion--of 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 be 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Lardner, Works, vol. viii, p. 169.]

This edict was supplemented a few years later[A] by the following edict:

[Footnote A: In 353 A. D., according to Gothford.]

"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 anyone 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."[A] 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 relations 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."[B] 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.[C] 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."[D] 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."[E] And so LeClerc, as

quoted by Lardner:

[Footnote A: The law is extant in the Theodocian Code.]

[Footnote B: Neander, vol. ii. p. 34]

[Footnote C: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, pp. 88-110.]

[Footnote D: Ibid., p. 67.]

[Footnote E: Lardner, Works, vol. viii, p. 164.]

"Thus it was that the Christians continued to return to the pagan

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."[A]

[Footnote A: Lardner Works vol. viii, p. 276.]

_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 tolerance

was manifested by Christian sects towards each other; 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 their

friendship."[A] 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.[B] 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."[C] In his

zeal to enforce orthodoxy, the emperor forgot his former moderation,

and in 326 A. D.--the year following the council at Nicea--he 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:

[Footnote A: Decline and Fall, ch. xxi.]

[Footnote B: Decline and Fall, ch. xxi.]

[Footnote C: Decline and Fall, ch. xxi.]

"Wherefore, since this your pernicious wickedness is no longer to be

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 in 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Lardner Works, vol. iv. p. 36.]

"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."[A] And

thus 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:

[Footnote A: Life of Constantine, Eusebius, p. 66.]

"We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth, which obtrudes

itself on the the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without

hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has

feigned, on the subject of martyrdom, 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,[A] the

bishops of the imperial city extended their dominion over the laity

as well as the 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 Grotious, 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 Grotious, 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!"[A]

[Footnote A: This event occurred about 476 A. D.]

[Footnote B: Decline and Fall, ch. xvi.]

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 passage just quoted, they

remain 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."[A] 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."[B] 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.

[Footnote A: Luke ix:54-56.]

[Footnote B: Matt. x:34-36.]

LESSON XXXV.

(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

MORAL STATUS OF THE CHURCH AFTER CONSTANTINE.

ANALYSIS.

I. Moral Requirements of the Gospel.

II. Moral Decline in the First Three Christian Centuries.

REFERENCES.

Authority cited in the notes.

_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 awaken the

next morning all pagan.[A] 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 or 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.

[Footnote A: End of Religious Controversy, Milner, Letter 26.]

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 treatise concerning the tendency to

diversions 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 corruptions 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,[A] but to Justin Martyr, of the second

century, who, in reference to the change produced in the lives of

Christian converts, said:

[Footnote A: Cor. vi:9-11.]

_Moral Status of Christians of the Second Century:_ "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

they 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."[A]

[Footnote A: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. I, p. 250.]