CHANGE IN PUBLIC WORSHIP--IN THE ORDINANCES OF THE GOSPEL.
It yet remains to note some of those changes in the public worship of
the church, and in the ordinances of the gospel, which contributed to
the great apostasy.
The simplicity of the Christian religion was made a reproach to the
Church of Christ by the pagan priests. "The Christians have no temples,
therefore they have no gods," was an argument sufficiently convincing
to the heathens. It was but natural, perhaps, to seek to cast off this
reproach; but the effort to do so led to the introduction of many
ceremonies quite at variance with the gospel. The early Christian
Saints were accustomed to meet on the first day of the week for public
worship; the meetings, during the first century at least, being held,
for the most part, in private houses. The ceremonies were of the
simplest character. They consisted of reading the scriptures, the
exhortation of the president of the assembly--"neither eloquent nor
long, but full of warmth and love," [1]--the testimony of such as felt
moved upon by the Holy Ghost to bear testimony, exhort or prophesy; the
singing of hymns; the administration of the sacrament and prayers.
But all this was soon changed. The bishops and other public teachers in
the third century, framed their discourses and exhortations according
to the rules of Grecian eloquence; "and were better adapted," says a
learned writer, [2] "to call forth the admiration of the rude multitude
who love display, than to amend the heart. And that no folly and no
senseless custom might be omitted in their public assemblies, the
people were allowed to applaud their orators, as had been practiced
in the forums and theatres; nay, they were instructed both to applaud
and to clap the preachers." This was a wide departure from that spirit
of meekness and humility enjoined by Messiah upon his ministers. And
when to these customs was added the splendid vestments of the clergy,
the magnificence of the temples, with all the pageantry of altars,
surrounded with burning tapers, clouds of incense, beautiful images,
the chanting of choirs, processions and other mummeries without
number--one sees but little left of that simple worship instituted by
the Messiah and his apostles.
About the third century incense began to be used. The Christians of
the first and second centuries abhorred the use of incense in public
worship as being a part of the worship of idols. [3] It first became a
custom to use it at funerals against offensive smells; then in public
worship to disguise the bad air of crowded assemblies; then at the
consecration of bishops and magistrates, and by these steps its use at
last degenerated into a superstitious rite.
In the fourth century matters became still worse. The public
supplications by which the pagans were accustomed to appease their
gods, were borrowed from them, and were celebrated in many places
with great pomp. To the temples, to water consecrated in due form,
and the images of holy men, the same efficacy was ascribed and the
same privileges assigned as had been attributed to the pagan temples,
statues and lustrations before the advent of Christ. [4]
In the third century also arose the worship of martyrs. It is true
that worship or adoration was relative, and a distinction was made
between the worship of martyrs and the worship paid to God; but by
degrees the worship of martyrs was made to conform with that which the
pagans had in former times paid to their gods. [5] This was done out of
indiscreet eagerness to allure the pagans to embrace Christianity. [6]
"When Gregory [surnamed Thaumaturgus on account of the numerous miracle
she is said to have wrought--born in Pontus, in the second decade of
the third century] perceived that the ignorant and simple multitude
persisted in their idolatry, on account of the sensuous pleasures and
delights it afforded--he allowed them in celebrating the memory of
the holy martyrs, to indulge themselves and give a loose to pleasure
(i. e., as the thing itself, and both what precedes and what follows,
place beyond all controversy, he allowed them at the sepulchres of
the martyrs on their feast days, to dance, to use sports, to indulge
in conviviality, and do all things that the worshipers of idols were
accustomed to do in their temples, on their festival days), hoping
that in process of time they would spontaneously come over to a more
becoming and correct manner of life." [7]
While pagan rites and ceremonies were increasing in the church, the
gifts and graces characteristic of apostolic times, seemed to have
gradually departed from it. Protestant writers insist that the age
of miracles closed with the fourth or fifth century, and that after
that the extra-ordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost must not be expected.
Catholic writers, on the other hand, insist that miracles have always
continued in the church; yet those spiritual manifestations which they
describe after the fourth and fifth centuries savor of invention on the
part of the priests and childish credulity on the part of the people;
or else what is claimed to be miraculous falls far short of the power
and dignity of those spiritual manifestations which the primitive
church was wont to witness. The virtues and prodigies ascribed to
the bones and other relics of the martyrs and saints are purile in
comparison with the healings, by the anointing with oil and the
laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, interpretations, prophecies,
revelations, casting out devils in the name of Jesus Christ; to say
nothing of the gifts of faith, wisdom, knowledge, discernment of
spirits, etc., common in the church in the days of the apostles. [8]
There is nothing in the scriptures or in reason that would lead one to
believe that the miraculous gifts were to be discontinued. Still this
plea is made by modern Christians--explaining the absence of these
spiritual powers among them--that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy
Ghost were only intended to accompany the proclamation of the gospel
during the first few centuries until the church was able to make its
way without them, and then they were to be done away. It is sufficient
to remark upon this that it is assumption and stands without warrant
either of scripture or right reason, and proves that men had so far
changed the religion of Jesus Christ that it became a form of godliness
without the power thereof. [9]
It appears to have been the custom of the apostles in the case of
members of the church grievously transgressing the moral law of the
gospel, to require repentance and confession before the church;
and in the event of a stubborn adherence to sin the offender was
excommunicated, that is, he was excluded from the communion of the
church and the fellowship of the saints. For the crimes of murder,
idolatry and adultery some of the churches excommunicated those guilty
of them forever; in other churches they were received back, but only
after long and painful probation.
The manner in which excommunication was performed in apostolic times
is not clear, but there is every reason to believe the process was
very simple. In the course of time, however, this simple form of
excommunication was changed, by being burdened with many rites and
ceremonies borrowed from pagan sources. [10] It was not enough that the
fellowship of the saints be withdrawn from the offender and he left
to the mercy of God, or the buffetings of Satan, according as he was
worthy of the one or the other; but the church must load him down with
anathemas too terrible to contemplate. The power of excommunication,
too, eventually, passed from the body of the church into the hands
of the bishops, and finally into those of the pope. At first
excommunication meant the loss of the fellowship of the saints and such
other punishment as God Himself might see proper to inflict; the church
leaving the Lord to be the minister of His own vengeance. But gradually
it came to mean in some instances banishment from home and country, the
confiscation of property, the loss not only of church fellowship, but
loss of civil rights and the rights of Christian burial. In the case of
a monarch, excommunication absolved his subjects from their allegiance;
and in the case of a subject, it robbed him of the protection of his
sovereign. No anathema was so terrible but it was pronounced against
the excommunicated, until the sweet mercies of God were overshadowed by
the black pall of man's inhumanity.
The outward ordinances of the gospel consisted of baptism, the laying
on of hands for the imparting of the Holy Ghost, and the Lord's supper.
The laying on of hands was also employed in ordaining men to the
priesthood and in administering to the sick. In the latter case it was
accompanied by anointing with oil.
Baptism was administered by immersing the candidate in water. The only
pre-requisites were faith in Jesus Christ and repentance.
As soon as the candidate professed these he was admitted into the
church by baptism. [11] In a short time, however, the simplicity of
this ordinance was corrupted and burdened with useless ceremonies.
In the second century the newly baptized converts, since by baptism
they had been born again, were taught to exhibit in their conduct
the innocence of little infants. Milk and honey, the common food of
infants, were administered to them, after their baptism, to remind them
of their infancy in the church. Moreover, since by baptism they were
released from being servants of the devil, and became God's free men,
certain forms borrowed from the Roman ceremony of manumission of slaves
was employed in baptism. As by baptism also they were supposed to be
made God's soldiers, like newly enlisted soldiers in the Roman army,
they were sworn to obey their commander. [12] A century later (the
third) further ceremonies were added. It was supposed that some evil
spirit was resident in all vicious persons and impelled them to sin.
Therefore, before entering the sacred fount for baptism, an exorcist
by a solemn, menacing formula declared them free from the bondage of
Satan, and hailed them servants of Christ. [13] After baptism the new
converts returned home "decorated with a crown and a white robe; the
first being indicative of their victory over the world and their lusts,
the latter of their acquired innocence." [14] We have already noted
the fact that baptism was administered in the days of the apostles as
soon as profession of faith and repentance was made, but in the second
and third centuries baptism was only administered twice a year, and
then only to such candidates as had gone through a long preparation and
trial. [15] The times chosen for the administration of the ordinance
were on the vigils of Easter and Whitsuntide, [16] and in the fourth
century it had become the custom to accompany the ceremony with lighted
wax candles, to put salt--an emblem of purity and wisdom--in the mouth
of the baptized, and everywhere a double anointing was administered to
the candidates, the one before the other after baptism. [17]
It must have been early in the third century that the form of baptism
began to be changed. Up to this time it had been performed only by
immersion of the whole body. But in the first half of the third
century, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, during a controversy respecting
the re-baptism of those who in times of persecution had denied the
faith, decided that those whose weak state of health did not permit
them to be immersed, were sufficiently baptized by being sprinkled.
[18] The first case of this kind of baptism is related by Eusebius. The
person to whom it was so administered was Novatus, a desperate heretic,
who created a schism in the church and became the founder of a sect.
He was among the number of so-called Christians who put off baptism
as long as he dared; in order to enjoy a life of sin and then through
baptism, just before death, obtain forgiveness--a custom very prevalent
in those times. Novatus being attacked with an obstinate disease, and
supposed to be at the point of death, was baptized by having water
sprinkled upon him as he lay in bed; "if indeed," says Eusebius, "it be
proper to say one like him did receive baptism." [19]
This innovation continued to spread until now the general rule among
Christians is to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. For this change
there is no warrant of revelation. It destroys the symbol there is
in baptism as taught by Messiah and his apostles--that of a burial
and resurrection--of a death and birth--a death unto sin, a birth
unto righteousness. It is one of those innovations which changed an
ordinance of the everlasting covenant. [20]
About the same time that the form of administering baptism was changed
it began to be misapplied, that is, it was administered to infants.
Just when this custom came into vogue may not be determined, but
clearly it has no warrant for its existence either in the doctrine or
practice of the apostles or any New Testament writer. No truth is more
plainly taught by the apostles than that baptism is for the remission
of sins, and must be preceded by faith and repentance; and as infants
are incapable of sin, and of exercising faith, or of repenting,
evidently they are not fit subjects for baptism.
Still it became the custom in the latter part of the second century or
early in the third to baptize infants. In the year 253 A. D., a council
of sixty bishops, in Africa--at which Cyprian, bishop of Carthage,
presided--considered the question whether infants should be baptized
within two or three days after birth, or whether baptism should be
deferred until the eighth day, as was the custom of the Jews in respect
to circumcision. The council decided that they should be baptized at
once, within a day or two after birth. [21] It will be observed that
the question was not as to whether infants should be baptized or not,
but when they should be baptized, within a day or two after birth or
not until they were eight days old.
The matter was treated in the council as if infant baptism was a custom
of long standing. This proves, not that infant baptism is a correct
doctrine, or that it was derived from the teachings of the apostles--as
some aver [22]--but that in a century or so after the introduction of
the gospel, men began to pervert it by changing and misapplying its
ordinances. The false doctrine of infant baptism is now practiced by
nearly all so-called Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant.
Much as the simple rite of baptism was burdened with useless
ceremonies, changed in its form and misapplied, it was not more
distorted than was the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The nature of
the sacrament--usually called Eucharist--and the purposes for which
it was instituted are so plain that he who runs may read. From Paul's
description of the ordinance, it is clear' that the broken bread was
intended to be an emblem of the Messiah's broken body; the wine an
emblem of his blood, shed for sinful man; and his disciples were to
eat the one and drink the other in remembrance of him until he should
return; and by this ceremony show forth the Lord's death. [23] It was
designed as a memorial of Messiah's great atonement for mankind, a
token and witness unto the Father that the Son was always remembered.
It was to be a sign that those partaking of it were willing to take
upon them the name of Christ, to remember him always and keep his
commandments. In consideration of these things being observed, the
saints were always to have the Spirit of the Lord to be with them.
In this spirit and without great ceremony the sacrament was
administered for some time. But in the third century there were longer
prayers and more ceremony connected with the administration of the
sacrament than in the century preceding. Disputations arose as to the
proper time of administering it. Some considered the morning, others
the afternoon, and some the evening the most suitable time. All were
not agreed either as to how often the ordinance should be celebrated.
Gold and silver vessels were used, and neither those doing penance, nor
those unbaptized, though believers, were permitted to be present at
the celebration of the ordinance; "which practice, it is well known,
was derived from the pagan mysteries." [24] Very much of mystery began
to be associated with it even at an early date. The bread and the
wine through the prayer of consecration were considered to undergo a
mystic change, by which they were converted into and became the very
body and the very blood of Jesus Christ; so that they were no longer
regarded as emblems of Messiah's body and blood, but the body and blood
itself. [25] This is the doctrine of transubstantiation. This dogma
established, it was but a short step to the "elevation of the host;"
that is, the elevation of the bread and wine before it was distributed,
so that it might be viewed and worshiped by the people. This was called
the adoration of the symbols. It was idolatry--the worship of the bread
and wine falsely taught to be the Lord Jesus. [26]
Hence came the Mass, or the idea of a sacrifice being connected with
the celebration of the Eucharist. It was held that as Jesus was truly
present in the bread and wine he could be offered up as an oblation to
his Eternal Father. The death of the victim was not supposed to occur
in reality, but mystically, in such a way, however, as to constitute a
true sacrifice, commemorative of that of the cross and not different
from it in essence. The same Victim was present, and offered up by
Christ through his minister the priest. The sacrifice at the cross was
offered with real suffering, true shedding of blood, and real death of
the Victim; in the mass it was taught there was a mystical suffering, a
mystical shedding of blood and a mystical death of the same Victim.
Into such absurdities was the simple sacrament of the Lord's Supper
distorted! When attended with all the pomp and ceremony of splendid
altars, lighted tapers, processions, elevations and chantings; offered
up by the priests and bishops clad in splendid vestments and in the
midst of clouds of incense, accompanied by mystic movements and
genuflections of bishops and priests, the church could congratulate
itself on having removed the reproach at the first fastened upon the
Christians for not having altars and a sacrifice. The mass took away
the reproach; and the new converts to Christianity were accustomed to
see the same rites and ceremonies employed in this mystical sacrifice
of the Son of God as they had seen employed in offering up sacrifices
to the pagan deities.
In time the idea became prevalent that the body and blood of Messiah
were equally and entirely present under each "species"--that is,
equally and entirely present in the bread and in the wine; and was
equally and entirely given to the faithful which ever they received.
This idea, of course, rendered it unnecessary to partake of both bread
and wine--hence the practice of communion in one kind. That is, the
sacrament was administered by giving bread alone to the communicant.
To remark that this was changing the ordinance of the sacrament as
instituted by Messiah--suppressing half of it in fact--can scarcely be
necessary, since it is so well known that he administered both bread
and wine when instituting the sacred ordinance. [27]
Thus, through changing the ordinances of the gospel; by misapplying
them in some cases, and adding pagan rites to them in others; by
dragging into the service of the church the ceremonies employed in
heathen temples in the worship of pagan gods; by departing from the
moral law of the gospel, until the pages of Christian church history
are well nigh as dark in immorality, as cruel and bloody as those
that recount the wickedness of pagan Rome; [28] by changing the form
and departing from the spirit of government in the church as fixed
by Jesus, coupled with the corrupting influence of luxury which came
with repose and wealth, together with the destruction visited upon
the noblest and best of the servants and saints of God by the pagan
persecutions which continued through three centuries--all this, I
say, brought to pass the apostasy for which I am contending in these
pages--the destruction of the Church of Christ on earth.
Footnotes
1. Justin Martyr, First Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius.
2. Mosheim.
3. Tertullian's Apology, ch. xiii.
4. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., vol. I, bk. ii, ch. 4.
5. Historie de Manicheism, tom ii, p. 642.
6. Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim), vol. I, bk. ii, part ii.
7. Nyssen's Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus.
8. I Cor. xii: 8--10.
9. "It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy
Spirit (speaking of I Cor. xii) were common in the church for more than
two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period
when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and from a
vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches
and power and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular
upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [the spiritual gifts]
almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The
cause of this was not (as has been supposed) because there was no more
occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians. This
is a miserable mistake, not a twentieth part of it was then nominally
Christians. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all
Christians, so-called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of
the spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he
came to examine his church, could hardly find faith upon earth. This
was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were
no longer to be found in the Christian Church--because the Christians
were turned heathens again and only had a dead form left."--_John
Wesley_ (Wesley's Works, vol. vii, Sermon 89, pages 26, 27).
10. "That it was proper for the Christian bishops to increase
restraints upon the licentiousness of transgressors will be readily
granted by all who consider the circumstances of those times. But
whether it was for the advantage of Christianity to borrow rules
for this salutary ordinance from the enemies of truth, and thus to
consecrate, as it were, a part of pagan superstition, many persons very
justly call in question."--Eccl. History (Mosheim), book i, cent, ii,
part ii, ch. iii.
11. Acts ii: 41. Acts viii: 12, 35--40.
12. Mosheim, vol. i, book i, part ii, ch. iv.
13. That exorcism was not annexed to baptism till some time in the
third century, and after the admission of the Platonic philosophy
into the church, may almost be demonstrated. The ceremonies used at
baptism in the second century are described by Justin Martyr in his
second apology, and by Tertullian in his book _de Corono Militis._ But
neither makes mention of exorcism. This is a cogent argument to prove
that it was admitted by Christians after the times of these fathers,
and of course in the third century. Egypt perhaps first received
it,--Murdock's Mosheim, vol. i, p. 190. (Note.)
14. Mosheim, vol. i, book i, part ii, ch. iv.
15. According to Schlegel, the so-called apostolic constitution (b.
viii. ch. xxxii) enjoined a three years' course of preparation; yet
with allowance of some exceptions.
16. That is, in the evening preceding the day on which Messiah is
supposed to have arisen from the dead, and the evening preceding the
seventh Sunday after Easter, the anniversary of Pentecost, when the
Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Apostles in a remarkable manner.
(Acts ii.)
17. Mosheim, vol. i, book ii, part ii, ch. iv.
18. Cyprian's Epistles, letter 76.
19. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., b. vi, ch. 43.
20. In writing to the saints of Rome, Paul says: "Know ye not, that so
many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection" (Rom. vi: 3--5.) In writing to the saints of
Colosse, the same apostle reminds them that they had been "Buried with
him [Christ] in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through
the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead"
(Col. ii: 12). In these passages the terms "buried" and "planted"
are in plain allusion to the manner in which the saints had received
the ordinance of baptism, which could not have been by sprinkling or
pouring, as there is no burial or planting in the likeness of Christ's
death, or being raised in the likeness of his resurrection in that; but
in immersion there is.--"The Gospel" (Roberts), page 185.
21. Milner's Church Hist., vol. i, pp. 429, 430.
22. Such is the opinion of Milner--Church Hist., vol. i, p. 430.
23. "The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread;
and when he had given thanks, he brake it and said, Take, eat: this is
my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After
the same manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup
is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,
in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (I Cor. xi: 23--26.)
24. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., bk. i, cent. iii, part ii, ch. iv.
25. Protestants combating 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 Eucharist 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 wine) as
ordinary food or ordinary drink; but as by the word of God 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 transmutation, 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 passed away, the simplicity of the
gospel was corrupted or else entirely departed from.
26. As evidence of the superstition which was connected with the
Eucharist, note the following. "If any one through negligence, shall
destroy the Eucharist, _i. e.,_ the sacrifice; let him do penance one
year. * * * * If he lets it fall on the ground, carelessly, he must
sing fifty Psalms. Whoever neglects to take care of the sacrifice, so
that worms get into it, or it lose its color, or taste, must do penance
thirty or twenty days; and the sacrifice must be burned in the fire.
Whoever turns up the cup at the close of the solemnity of the mass must
do penance forty days. If a drop from the cup should fall on the altar,
the minister must suck up the drop and do penance three days; and the
linen cloth which the drop touched must be washed three times, over
the cup, and the water in which it is washed be cast into the fire."
Decisions of Pope Gregory III.--Harduin's Concilia.
27. Luke xxii. Matt. xxvi.
28. The wickedness of the Christian world in the dark ages and during
the progress of the "Reformation" was such that the author of the
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," in closing his famous sixteenth
chapter which deals with the persecution of the Christians during
the first three centuries of our era, can say, and his arraignment
cannot be successfully contradicted: "We conclude this chapter by a
melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that
even admitting without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has
recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdom, it
must still be acknowledged, that the Christians, in course of their
intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each
other, than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels. During the
ages of ignorance which followed the subversion of the Roman Empire
in the west, 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, war, massacres
and the institution of the holy office (the Inquisition). And as the
reformers were animated by the love of civil as well as of religious
freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own interest with that of
the clergy, and enforced by fire and the sword the terrors of spiritual
censurers. In the Netherlands alone more than one hundred thousand of
the subjects of Charles V. are said to have suffered by the hand of the
executioner; and this extraordinary number is attested by Grotius (See
Grotius Annal. de Rebus Belgiers). * * * If we are obliged to submit
our belief to the authority of Grotius, it must be allowed, that the
number of Protestants who were executed in a single province and a
single reign, far exceed that of the primitive martyrs in the space of
three centuries, and of the Roman Empire." "Decline and Fall," vol. i,
ch. xvi.