A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD.
BY
ELDER B. H. ROBERTS
AUTHOR OF
"THE GOSPEL,"
"THE LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR,"
"OUTLINES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY,"
"SUCCESSION IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH,"
ETC., ETC.
"Some millions must be wrong, that's pretty clear. * * * * 'Tis time that some new prophet should appear."
PUBLISHED BY
GEORGE Q. CANNON & SONS COMPANY,
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
1895.
PREFACE.
Three quarters of a century have passed away since Joseph Smith first declared that he had received a revelation from God. From that revelation and others that followed there has sprung into existence what men call a new religion—"Mormonism;" and a new church, the institution commonly known as the "Mormon Church," the proper name of which, however, is THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
Though it may seem a small matter, the reader should know that "Mormonism" is not a new religion. Those who accept it do not so regard it; it makes no such pretentions. The institution commonly called the "Mormon Church," is not a new church; it makes no such pretensions, as will be seen by its very name—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This of itself discloses what "The Mormon Church" claims to be—the Church of Jesus Christ; and to distinguish it from the Church of Jesus Christ that existed in former days, the phrase "of Latter-day Saints" is added. "Mormonism," I repeat, is not a new religion; it is the Old Religion, the Everlasting Gospel, restored again to the earth through the revelations received by Joseph Smith.
At a glance the reader will observe that these claims in behalf of "Mormonism" pre-suppose the destruction of the primitive Christian Church, a complete apostasy from the Christian religion; and hence, from the standpoint of a believer, "Mormonism" is the Gospel of Jesus Christ restored; and the institution which grows out of it—the church—is the Church of Jesus Christ re-established among men.
During the three quarters of a century that have elapsed since the first revelation was announced by Joseph Smith, the world has been flooded with all manner of rumors concerning the origin of "Mormonism," its doctrines, its organization, its purposes, its history. Books enough to make a respectable library, as to size, have been written on these subjects, but the books, in the main, are the works of avowed enemies, or of sensational writers who chose "Mormonism" for a subject because in it they supposed they had a theme that would be agreeable to their own vicious tastes and perverted talents, and give satisfactory returns in money for their labor. This latter class of writers have not only written without regard to truth, but without shame. They are ghouls who have preyed upon the misfortunes of an unpopular people solely for the money or notoriety they could make out of the enterprise.
That I may not be thought to overstate the unreliability of anti-Mormon literature, I make an excerpt from a book written by Mr. Phil Robinson, called Sinners and Saints.[[1]] Mr. Robinson came to Utah in 1882 as a special correspondent of The New York World, and stayed in Utah some five or six months, making "Mormonism" and the Latter-day Saints a special study. On the untrustworthiness of the literature in question, he says:
"Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism? From anti-Mormons only. I have ransacked the literature of the subject, and yet I really could not tell anyone where to go for an impartial book about Mormonism later in date than Burton's 'City of the Saints,' published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on one side, and I think I can defy any one to name another book about the Mormons worthy of honest respect. From that truly awful book, 'The History of the Saints,' published by one Bennett (even an anti-Mormon has styled him 'the greatest rascal that ever came to the West,') in 1842, down to Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not to my knowledge a single Gentile work before the public that is not utterly unreliable from its distortion of facts. Yet it is from these books—for there are no others—that the American public has acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of Utah."
It may be asked why have not the Saints themselves written books refuting the misrepresentations of their detractors, and giving correct information about themselves and their religion. To that inquiry there are several answers. One is that they have made the attempt. Perhaps not on a sufficiently extensive scale. They may not have appreciated fully the importance of doing so; but chiefly the reason they have not published more books in their own defense, and have not been more solicitous about refuting slanders published against them, is because of the utter impossibility of getting a hearing. The people to whom they appealed were hopelessly prejudiced against them. Their case was prejudged and they themselves condemned before a hearing could be had. These were the disadvantages under which they labored; and how serious such disadvantages are, only those know who have felt the cruel tyranny of prejudice.
Now, however, there seems to be a change in the tide of their affairs. Prejudice has somewhat subsided. There is in various quarters indications of a willingness to hear what accredited representatives of the "Mormon" faith may have to say in its behalf. It is this circumstance that has induced the author to present for the consideration of his fellow-men this work, which is written, however, not with a view of defending the character of the Latter-day Saints, but to set forth the message that "Mormonism" has to proclaim to the world, and point out the evidences of divine inspiration in him through whom that message was delivered.
The author has chosen for his work the title, "A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD," because that is the relation Joseph Smith, the great modern prophet, sustains to this generation; and it is the author's purpose to prove, first, that the world stands in need of such a witness; and, second, that Joseph Smith is that witness.
The subject is treated under four THESES.
I.
The world needs a New Witness for God.
II.
The Church of Christ was destroyed; there has been an apostasy from the Christian religion so complete and universal as to make necessary a New Dispensation of the Gospel;
III.
The Scriptures declare that the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the last days—in the hour of God's judgment—will be restored to the earth by a re-opening of the heavens, and giving a New Dispensation thereof to the children of men.
IV.
Joseph Smith is the New Witness for God; a prophet divinely authorized to preach the Gospel and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
How well the writer has succeeded in sustaining these propositions, the reader will judge for himself; he only asks that his treatment of the subjects be considered with candor.
To guard against error or inaccuracy in doctrine the writer applied to the First Presidency of the Church for a committee of brethren well known for their soundness in the faith, and broad knowledge of the doctrines of the Church, to hear read the manuscript of this book. Whereupon Elder Franklin D. Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles of the New Dispensation, and Church Historian; Elder George Reynolds, one of the author's fellow-Presidents in the First Council of the Seventies; and Elder John Jaques, Assistant Church Historian, were appointed as such committee; and to these brethren, for their patient labor in reading the manuscript, and for their suggestions and corrections, the writer is under lasting obligations.
THE AUTHOR.
Footnotes
[1]. p. 245.
CONTENTS
THESIS I.
THE WORLD NEEDS A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD.
The Necessity of a New Witness
THESIS II.
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WAS DESTROYED; THERE HAS BEEN AN APOSTASY FROM THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, SO COMPLETE AND UNIVERSAL AS TO MAKE NECESSARY A NEW DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL.
The Effect of Pagan Persecution on the Christian Church
The Effect of Peace, Wealth and Luxury on Christianity
Changes in the Form and Spirit of Church Government—Corruption of the Popes
Change in Public Worship—In the Ordinances of the Gospel
The Testimony of Prophecy to the Apostasy
Catholic Arguments—Protestant Admissions
THESIS III.
THE SCRIPTURES DECLARE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE LAST DAYS—IN THE HOUR OF GOD'S JUDGMENT—WILL BE RESTORED TO THE EARTH BY A RE-OPENING OF THE HEAVENS, AND GIVING A NEW DISPENSATION THEREOF TO THE CHILDREN OF MEN.
The Necessity of a New Revelation—The Arguments of Modern Christians Against it Considered
Prophetic History of the Church—The Restoration of the Gospel by an Angel
THESIS IV.
JOSEPH SMITH IS THE NEW WITNESS FOR GOD; A PROPHET DIVINELY AUTHORIZED TO TEACH THE GOSPEL, AND RE-ESTABLISH THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST ON EARTH.
The New Witness Introduced
A New Dispensation of the Gospel
Objections to the New Witness Considered
The Character of the New Witness
Fitness in the Development of the New Dispensation
The Evidence of Scriptural and Perfect Doctrine
Manner of the Prophet's Teaching
The testimony of Toil and Suffering—Exertion and Danger—A Christian Argument Applied
The Testimony of Miracles—The Evidence of Fulfilled Promises
[By an error Chapter XIX. was numbered XX., hence the apparent omission.]
The Evidence of Prophecy
The Evidence of Prophecy—Continued
The Evidence of Prophecy—Continued
The Evidence of Prophecy—Concluded
The Church Founded by Joseph Smith, a Monument to his Inspiration
Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling of Joseph Smith Derived from the Comprehensiveness of the Work he Introduced
Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling of Joseph Smith Derived from the Comprehensiveness of the Work he Introduced—Continued
Evidence of Inspiration Derived from the Wisdom in the Plan Proposed for the Betterment of the Temporal Condition of Mankind
Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's Place in it, and his Doctrine Respecting the Gods
Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's Place in it, and his Doctrines Respecting the Gods—Continued
Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's Place in it, and his Doctrine Respecting the Gods—Concluded
The Testimony of the Martyrdom—Conclusion
THESIS I.
The World Needs a New Witness for God.
CHAPTER I.
THE NECESSITY OF A NEW WITNESS.
THE very title of this book may give offense. "A New Witness for God!" will exclaim both ministry and laity of Christendom; "are not the Old Witnesses sufficient? Has not their testimony withstood the assaults of unbelievers, atheists and agnostics alike for nineteen centuries? What need have we for a New Witness? Every weapon that hostile criticism could suggest, has been brought to bear against the tower of our faith based on the testimony of the Old Witnesses; and it stands more victorious now than ever, four square to all the winds that blow.[[1]] The testimony of the Old Witnesses has outlived the ridicule of Voltaire, the solemn sneers of Gibbon, the satire of Bolingbroke, the ribaldry of Paine; just as it will outlive the insidious assaults of the German mythical school, and the rationalistic school of critics, which are now much in vogue. Such the confident boast of orthodox Christians.
"Meanwhile, every diocesan conference rings with the wail over 'infidel opinions.' It grows notoriously more and more difficult to get educated men to take any interest in the services or doctrines of the church; * * * literature and the periodical press are becoming either more indifferent, or more hostile to the accepted Christianity year by year; the upper strata of the working class, upon whom the future of that class depends, either stand coldly aloof from all the Christian sects, or throw themselves into secularism. Passionate appeals are made to all sections of Christians, to close their ranks, not against each other, but against the 'skepticism rampant' among the cultivated class and the religious indifference of the democracy."[[2]]
In the face of these facts, notwithstanding the confident boasts of orthodox Christians about the invulnerableness of the testimony of the Old Witnesses, it will be well for us to look a little more closely into the achievements of Christianity, Catholic as well as Protestant, and see if they are as satisfactory when measured by actual results, as they are claimed to be in the fervid rhetoric of the orthodox special pleader.
What is distinctly and commonly recognized as the Christian religion, was founded some nineteen centuries ago[[3]], by the personal ministry of Jesus Christ, and those whom he chose as Apostles. For about three centuries it had a hard struggle for existence. The persecutions waged against it, first by the Jews, from whose religious faith it may be said to have sprung; and second, from the pagans, then in possession of all secular power, well-nigh overcame it. The "beast" made war upon the saints and "prevailed against them." Then Constantine, the friend of Christianity, succeeded to the imperial throne of Rome, and external persecution ceased. Christian ministers were invited to the court of the emperor and loaded with wealth and honors. Magnificent churches were erected, and the hitherto despised religion became the favorite protege of the imperial government. From a precarious and wretched existence, the Christian church was suddenly raised to a position of magnificence and power. Nor was it long in playing the part of the camel which, being permitted by the kind indulgence of its master to put its head within the tent during a violent storm, next protruded its shoulders, then its whole body, and turning about kicked out its master.[[4]] So did the Christian ecclesiastical power with the civil power. That is to say, that which was at first granted to the church as a privilege was soon demanded as a right; and what was at first received by grace, was at the last taken by force. On the ruins of pagan Rome, rose papal Rome, and while the latter power did not abolish secular government, it did make it subservient to ecclesiasticism. From the chair of St. Peter, the Roman pontiffs ruled the world absolutely. Kings and emperors obeyed them, and all stood in awe before the throne of the triple-crowned successor of St. Peter.
Finally, through the mutual jealousy and ambition of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, a controversy arose which, in the ninth century, resulted in a great and lasting division of Christendom into two great ecclesiastical bodies; viz., the Greek Catholic or Eastern Church, and the Roman Catholic or Western Church. In the Western Church the secular or civil power continued to be regarded as subordinate to ecclesiastical authority, a sort of convenient instrument to execute the decrees of the church. Hence Roman Catholic Christianity drew to itself all that prestige in the propagation of its doctrines which comes from the authority and support of the state; and though the power of the state was held to be subordinate to that of the church, no one who has read our Christian annals can help being struck with the importance of the civil power as a factor in the propagation of Roman Catholic Christianity. The barbarous peoples who came in contact with the Christian nations, were often compelled to accept the so-called Christian religion as one of the terms of capitulation; and the fear of the sword often eked out the arguments of the priests, and was generally much more effective.
I think it proper that the above statement should be emphasized by the following proofs:
"In the year 772, A. D., Charlemagne, king of the Franks, undertook to tame, and to withdraw from idolatry, the extensive nation of the Saxons, who occupied a large portion of Germany, and were almost perpetually at war with the Franks, respecting their boundaries and other things; for he hoped that if their minds could become imbued with the Christian doctrines, they would gradually lay aside their ferocity, and learn to yield submission to the empire of the Franks. The first attack upon their heathenism produced little effect, being made not with the force of arms, but by some bishops and monks whom the victor had left for that purpose among the vanquished nation. But much better success attended the subsequent wars which Charlemagne undertook, in the years 775, 776, and 780, A D., against that heroic people, so fond of liberty, and so impatient, especially of sacerdotal domination. For in these assaults, not only rewards, but also the sword and punishments were so successfully applied upon those adhering to the superstition of their ancestors, that they reluctantly ceased from resistance, and allowed the doctors whom Charles employed to administer to them Christian baptism. Widekind and Albion, indeed, who were two of the most valiant Saxon chiefs, renewed their former insurrections; and attempted to prostrate again by violence and war, that Christianity which had been set up by violence. But the martial courage, and the liberality of Charles at length brought them, in the year 785, solemnly to declare that they were Christians, and would continue to be so. * * * The Huns inhabiting Pannonia, were treated the same way as the Saxons; for Charles so exhausted and humbled them by successive wars, as to compel them to prefer becoming Christians to being slaves."[[5]]
In Denmark, during the tenth century, "the Christian cause had to struggle with great difficulties and adversities, under King Gorman, although the queen was a professed Christian. But Harald, surnamed Blatand, the son of Gorman, having been vanquished by Otto the Great, about the middle of the century, made a profession of Christianity in the year 949, and was baptized. * * * Perhaps Harald, who had his birth and education from a Christian mother, Tyra, was not greatly averse from the Christian religion; and yet it is clear that in the present transaction he yielded rather to the demands of his conqueror, than to his own inclinations. For Otto, being satisfied that the Danes would never cease to harass their neighbors with wars and rapine, if they retained the martial religion of their fathers, made it a condition of the peace with Harald that he and his people should become Christians."[[6]]
"Waldemar I., King of Denmark, obtained very great fame by the many wars he undertook against the pagan nations, the Slavs, the Wends, the Vandals, and others. He fought not only for the interests of his subjects, but likewise for the extension of Christianity; and wherever he was successful, he demolished the temples and images of the gods, the altars and groves, and commanded the Christian worship to be set up. * * * The Fins who infested Sweden with frequent inroads, were attacked by Eric IX., King of Sweden, called St. Eric, after his death, and by him subdued after many bloody battles. * * * The vanquished nation was commanded to follow the religion of the conqueror, which most of them did with reluctance and disgust."
"Towards the close of the century [the tenth], * * * some merchants of Bremen or of Lubec trading to Livonia, took along with them Mainhard, a regular canon of St. Augustine in the monastery of Segberg in Halsatia, to bring that warlike and uncivilized nation to the Christian faith. But as few listened to him, Mainhard consulted the Roman pontiff, who created him the first bishop of the Livonians, and desired that war should be waged against the opposers. This war, which was first waged with the Esthonians, was extended farther and prosecuted more rigorously by Berthold, the second bishop of the Livonians, after the death of Mainhard; for this, Berthold, formerly Abbot of Lucca, marched with a strong army from Saxony, and recommended Christianity not by arguments but by slaughter and battle. Following his example, the third bishop, Albert, previously a canon of Bremen, entering Livonia in the year 1198, well supported by a fresh army raised in Saxony, and fixing his camp at Riga, he instituted, by authority of Innocent III., the Roman pontiff, the military order of knight's sword-bearers, who should compel the Livonians by force of arms to submit to baptism. New forces were marched from time to time from Germany, by whose valor and that of the sword-bearers the wretched people were subdued and exhausted, so that they at last substituted the images of Christ and the saints in place of their idols."[[7]]
A volume of evidence similar in import to the foregoing could be compiled, showing that from the accession of Constantine the Great down to the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church did not hesitate to employ the civil power to enforce conversion and punish recalcitrants.
If the Eastern Church has been less successful in extending the borders of Christianity by means of conquests waged by the civil power, it was because the division of the world it occupied afforded less opportunity than Western Europe, where a great struggle was on between the race of men made weak by the effete civilization of Rome and the more vigorous barbarians. But while the Eastern Church made less direct use of the sword to extend its dominions, it nevertheless had the state for an ally which sustained it at need.
When in the sixteenth century the great revolt against the authority of the pope and the religion of the Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the Protestant churches, they, too, in the main, formed alliances with the states in which they were founded. Nay, in the very struggle for their existence, the states of Germany, of Holland, Scandinavia and of England, drew the sword in their behalf and by their support made it possible for the seceding religionists to establish churches despite all efforts of the Roman pontiffs to prevent them; and after the revolution was an accomplished fact, the states above enumerated continued to give support to the churches founded within their borders. If the church and the state in some instances were regarded as separate and distinct societies, they acted at the same time as close neighbors, and nearly interested in each other's welfare. If they lived separate, they were not estranged; and each at need gave the other support.
I have thought it necessary to call the attention of the reader to the conditions in which Christianity has existed since the days of Constantine under all three great divisions of Christendom—the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and Protestant—in order that he might be reminded of the fact that circumstances of the most propitious character have existed for the propagation of the so-called Christian religion. Christendom has had at its command the wealth and intelligence of Europe; it has been able to follow the commerce of European states into every country of the world; and not only its commerce, but its conquests as well; and wherever the love of adventure or the desire for conquest has led Christian soldiers, Christian priests have either accompanied or followed them, that the gospel, in the hands of the Christian minister, might be a balm for the wounds inflicted by the sword in the hands of the Christian soldier; so that if Christian armies were a bane to the savages, the Christian priests might be an antidote!
Yet with all the advantages which came to Christianity through the support of the state; with the intelligence and wealth of Europe behind it; with the privilege of following in the wake of its commerce and conquests; what has Christendom done in the way of converting the world to its religion? But a little over one-fourth of the inhabitants of the earth are even nominally Christian! There are in the world, according to statistics published on the subject:
Roman Catholics ...........................206,588,206
Protestants (all sects) ................... 89,825,348
Greek and Russian Churches ................ 75,691,382
Oriental Churches ......................... 6,770,000
Making the total of all Christians........ 378,874,936.
The other religions stand as follows:
Brahminical Hindoos .......................120,000,000
Followers of Buddha, Shinto and
Confucius .................................482,600,000Mohammedans ...............................169,054,789
Jews ....................................... 7,612,784
Parsees (fire-worshipers in Persia) ........ 1,000,000
Pagans not otherwise enumerated ...........277,000,000
Making a total of .......................1,007,267,573[[8]]
Surely when the superior advantages for the propagation of the Christian religion are taken into account, one could reasonably expect better results than this, after a period of nineteen centuries, sixteen of which may be said to have been of a character favorable to the extension of the borders of the church.
But let us take a nearer view of the status of Christendom. As seen in the foregoing, but a little more than one-fourth of the population of the earth is even nominally Christian. No one will contend that all those nominally Christians are really Christians. Church membership may be one thing, conversion to the Christian religion quite another. If those who are Christians in name only, and church members from custom or for worldly advantage were separated from those who are Christians upon principle, upon conversion and real faith, the number of Christians in the world would be materially reduced. For it cannot be denied that when any religion becomes popular there are multitudes of insincere men who will outwardly accept it, and give it lip-service in return for the advantages that accrue to them socially, financially or politically.
Moreover, Christendom is not united in one great body or church; but on the contrary it is divided into numerous contending factions whose differences are so far fundamental that there appears no prospect of reconciliation among them. The Catholics refuse to recognize any power of salvation in Protestantism. To the Catholic the Protestant is an heretic, a renegade child; and on the other hand, to the Protestant, the Catholic is an idolator, and the pope the very anti-Christ, prophesied of in scripture.
Nor are the Roman and Greek Catholics much nearer at one with each other than the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Away back in the ninth century, as a result of the controversy between the Eastern and Western Churches, Pope Nicholas, in a council held at Rome, solemnly excommunicated Photius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, and had his ordination declared null and void. The Greek emperor resented this conduct of the pope, and under his sanction Photius, in his turn, convened what he called an acumenical council, in which he pronounced sentence of excommunication and deposition against the pope, and got it subscribed by twenty-one bishops and others amounting in number to one thousand.
Although this breach was patched up after the death of the Emperor Michael, difficulties broke out again between the East and the West from time to time, until finally in the eleventh century, when Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, opposed the Western Church with respect to their making use of unleavened bread in the sacrament, their observation of the Sabbath, and fasting on Saturdays, charging therein that they lived in communion with the Jews. Pope Leo IX. replied, and in his apology for the Western Churches, declaimed warmly against the false doctrine of the Greeks, and ended by placing on the altar of Santa Sophia, by his legates, a deed of excommunication against the Patriarch, Michael Cerularius. This was the final rupture. From that time the mutual hatred of the Greeks and the Latins became insuperable, insomuch that they have continued ever since separated from each other's communion.[[9]]
Though both the Greek and the Protestant Churches are separated from the Roman Catholic Church, yet there is no union or fellowship between them; on the contrary, they hold doctrines so opposite that union between them is out of the question. At least so remote is the prospect, that all attempts at union have been ineffectual.
Turn now to Protestant Christendom. Surely we shall find a union of organization and agreement of sentiment here! But no; division, on the contrary, is multiplied. Protestant Christendom is divided into numerous sects between some of which the gulf of separation is almost as broad and deep as that which separates Protestants from Catholics. Such is the distracted condition of Protestant Christendom that sects are daily multiplying, and confusion is constantly increasing. Nor can one refrain from saying with Cardinal Gibbons, that "This multiplying of creeds is a crying scandal, and a great stumbling-block in the way of the conversion of the heathen nations."[[10]] And I will add, equally a stumbling-block to the conversion of the unbelievers living among Christians.
This last class of persons named, the unbelievers living among Christians, we must now consider; and note the effect of their assaults upon Christianity. They are, for the most part, without organization; without unity of purpose, except in so far as they are united in their disbelief of revealed religion. Their position being essentially a negative one, the incentive to organization is not active. It requires unity of purpose and organization of effort to build; those who content themselves with pointing out the defects, real or imagined, of the work of the builders, or saying the structure does not answer well the purposes for which it was erected, feel no such necessity for organization as the builders do.
In consequence of having no organization, infidels keep no account of their numerical strength; they publish no statistics, and therefore we have no way of estimating how numerous they are. But no one with large acquaintance in Christian countries, and who is in touch with the trend of modern religious thought, can doubt that the number of unbelievers is considerable, and their influence upon the Christian religion more damaging than Christian enthusiasts are willing to admit.
What a motley crowd this great body of unbelievers is! First is the downright atheist who says plainly, "There is no God. Nothing but blind force is operating in the universe; there is no Providence whose will can interrupt the destined course of nature." Providence they set down as a dream. "The universe and all its varied phenomena are generated by natural forces out of cosmic atoms, and into atoms to be again resolved," is their creed.
Following the atheist is the deist, who, while not one whit behind the atheist in rejecting revealed religion, is of the opinion that mind is somewhere operating in the universe, but refuses to recognize that intelligence as associated with a personality. Still that Intelligence, whatever or wherever it be, is God; but with them is always "It," never "He."
Then comes the agnostic. He prefers to suspend his judgment on the question of Deity; and with a modesty, not always free from affectation, says, "I don't know. The evidence in the case is not quite clear; in fact it is sometimes quite conflicting." He questions; is debating; but you find his sympathies, at bottom, on the side of unbelief.
Next to the agnostic comes the rationalist, who, while he leaves God more or less of an open question, has his mind made up in respect to Jesus Christ. He recognizes him as a good man, though mistaken on many questions; but though he strips Jesus of all divinity, he nevertheless recognizes him as the friend of God and of man; and sees embodied in him, moreover, "the symbol of those religious forces in man which are primitive, essential and universal."[[11]]
Such are the varied classes which assail the Christian religion. Their methods of assault, though having much in common, are as varied as the kinds of unbelievers. The atheist mockingly asks if there be a God why he does not make himself manifest to all the world; why he keeps himself shrouded in mystery? Why not reveal himself to all as well as to a chosen few? Pushing aside the testimony of those who say they have stood in his presence, he boldly asserts there is no God, because no one has ever seen him; he has not made himself known to men, and in conclusion he points to the natural and uninterrupted order of things in the universe as proof that all things are governed by blind forces instead of intelligence, whether a personality or apart from personality.
The deists say nearly all that the atheists say; but admitting an intelligence back of all phenomena in the universe, they pretend to read his will in the book of nature,[[12]] and contrast its perfections with the imperfections of all written books of revelation. To them the Bible—the Christian volume of revelation—is imperfect and contradictory; it teaches a morality and seems to tolerate practices unworthy of a Being of infinite goodness.
The agnostics join with the deists in their objections. They see all the contradictions, imperfections and alleged immorality that deists see in the Christian volume of revelation; and with them question the authenticity and credibility of the scriptures. If they differ from the deists in anything, it is simply in arriving at a less positive conclusion. But the worst is to come.
There has arisen within our century, mainly in Germany, a class of theological writers, who indeed profess a reverence both for the name and person of Jesus Christ, and a real regard, moreover, for the scriptures as "embodiments of what is purest and holiest in religious feeling;" and yet they degrade Christ to a mere name, and strip the scriptures of all their force as the word of God, by denying the historical character of the Biblical narrative. Starting with the postulate that the miraculous is impossible and never happens, or at least has never been proven,[[13]] they relegate the scriptures—the New Testament as well as the Old—to the realms of poetry, legend or myth, because they are filled with accounts of the miraculous.[[14]]
This movement of theological thought had its origin in a new science, the science of historical criticism, which had its birth in our own nineteenth century. The new science consisted simply in applying to the mass of materials on which much of ancient history had been hitherto based—myths, legends and oral traditions—the rules[[15]] embodying the judgment of sound discretion upon the value of different sorts of evidence. The effect of the application of this principle to the materials out of which our ancient histories were constructed, was to banish to the realms of pure myth or doubtful legend much which our fathers accepted as historical fact. The relations of ancient authors are no longer received with as ready a belief as formerly; nor are all ancient authors any longer put upon the same footing and regarded as equally credible, or all parts of their work supposed to rest upon the same basis.[[16]] Many old, fond theories have been shattered; in some respects the whole face of antiquity has been changed,[[17]] and instead of now looking upon the ancients as demi-gods, and the condition in which they lived as being something supernatural, we are made to feel that they were men of like passions with ourselves, possessed of the same weaknesses, actuated by the same motives of self interest, ambition, jealousy, love, hatred; and that the conditions surrounding them were no more supernatural than those which surround us. The science of historical criticism by the application of its main principle has stripped ancient times of their prodigies, and has either brought those demi-gods of legend to earth and made them appear very human, or has banished them entirely from real existence.
So long as the leading principle of this new science was applied to profane history alone; and the revolution it inaugurated confined to smashing the myths of ancient Greece, Rome, Babylon, Egypt and India, no complaints were heard. Indeed, the work was very generally applauded. But when the same principle began to be applied to what, by Christians at least, was considered sacred history, then an exception was pleaded.
This difficulty was met by orthodox believers much in the same way that an earlier question, one about miracles, was met by Conyers Middleton. It will be remembered that the Catholic Church has always claimed for herself the power of working miracles from the earliest days until the present; and cites, in confirmation of her claims, testimony that seems at once respectable and sufficient. The Protestants, with the Anglican Church at their head, in the discussions to which reference is here made, conceded that the possession of the gift of working miracles was prima facie evidence of divine authority and soundness of faith.[[18]] So much being conceded, Protestants were puzzled when to fix the date that miracles ceased. They were certain that no miracles had happened in their times, but were equally positive that they had occurred in the early Christian centuries. But the recent testimony presented by their Catholic opponents was just as worthy of belief as the testimony of the early Christian Fathers; in some respects it was better, because it was within reach for examination. What was to be done? If this recent testimony of the Catholic Church concerning miracles was to be rejected, could the earlier testimony of the Christian Fathers stand? The discussion had reached this point when Middleton published his "Free Inquiry," in which he held that the miracles claimed by the Catholic Church, both in former and recent times must stand or fall together. For if the testimony of the early Christian Fathers and contemporary witnesses could confirm the former, the testimony of the recent witnesses, being just as respectable as the former, and hence as worthy of belief, would confirm the latter. Middleton met the difficulty by rejecting all testimony to miracles after the close of the apostolic age. When it was suggested that the New Testament miracles might be treated in a like summary manner, he took the position that the New Testament account of miracles was inspired, and therefore beyond the reach of criticism.
So likewise I say, orthodox Christians were disposed to meet the application of this principle of Historical Criticism under consideration. They protested against the application of it to sacred history. They insisted that the marvelous occurrences related in the Bible, and which read so much like myth or legend, were recorded by inspired writers, hence above criticism. The exception pleaded, however, was not granted. There were bold spirits both within the church as well as outside of it, who did not hesitate, at least so far as the Old Testament was concerned, to apply the new methods of criticism to sacred history.
The conclusions of those who started with the hypothesis that what we call the miraculous is impossible, would not be difficult to forecast. From the outset, with them, the Old Testament was doomed. In the wonderful incidents related as the experience of the patriarchs, of Moses, Aaron, Joshua and the kings and prophets of Israel, this school of critics could discern a striking parallel to the legends of Rome, of Greece and Egypt; and as readily rejected the one as the other. They rejected also the cosmogony of Genesis, insisting that it was not the history of the creation but poetry, and as such must be regarded, but not as fact.
Suspicion once cast upon the historical value of sacred writings, the critics grew bolder and declared that portions of the sacred narrative presented the appearance of being simply myths; and from this by degrees it soon became the fashion to attach a legendary character to the whole of the Old Testament. It was decided by the same class of critics that the whole narrative, in the main, rests upon oral tradition and that that tradition was not written until long after the supposed events occurred. Moreover, when the old traditions were written, the work was done by poets bent rather on glorifying their country than upon recording facts; and it is claimed that at times they did not hesitate to allow imagination to amplify the oral traditions or at need to invent new occurrences, to fill up blanks in their annals. The authorship of the sacred books was held to be a matter of great uncertainty, as well as the date at which they were written; but certainly they were not written until long after the dates usually assigned for their production. This style of criticism not only got rid of the cosmogony of Genesis, but discredited as histories the whole collection of books comprising the Old Testament. The Fall of man, that fact which gives meaning to the atonement of Christ, and without which the scheme of Christian salvation is but an idle fable—was regarded as merely a myth. So, too, were the revelations of God to the patriarchs; his communion with Enoch; his warning to Noah, together with the story of the flood; the building of Babel's tower; the visions of Abraham; the calling of Moses; the splendid display of God's power in the deliverance of Israel from bondage; the law written upon the tables of stone by the finger of God, the ark of the covenant and the visible presence of God with Israel; the visitation of angels to the prophets; their communion with God and the messages of reproof, of warning or of comfort they brought to the people—all, all were myths, distorted legends, uncertain traditions told by ecstatic poets, falsely esteemed prophets! Such was the wreck which this new science of criticism made of the Old Testament.
There was scarcely a halt between the wrecking of the Old Testament by this new school of critics and their assault upon the New. Their success gave them confidence, and they attacked the Christian documents with more vigor than they had the Old Testament. By research which did not need to be very extensive in order to conduct them to the facts, they discovered that the age which witnessed the rise of the Christian religion was one in which there existed a strong preconception in favor of miracles; that is, the miraculous was universally believed, and it was held by our new school of critics that this pre-conception in favor of miracles influenced the writers of the New Testament to insert them in their narratives.
Ever present in their New Testament criticism as in that of the Old, was the cardinal principle that miracles never take place—the miraculous is the impossible;[[19]] hence whenever our anti-miracle critics found accounts of miracles interwoven in the biographies of Jesus, or in the epistles of the apostles, they inexorably relegated them to the sphere of myth or legend.[[20]]
Unhappily for orthodox believers who cling to the gospel narratives as reliable statements of fact, they themselves found it necessary to discard as apocryphal many of the books and writings which sprang into existence in the early Christian centuries; books which pretended to relate incidents in the life of Messiah, especially those which treated of his childhood and youth. The marvelous account of his moulding oxen, asses, birds and other figures out of clay, which at his command would walk or fly away; his power to turn his playmates into kids; his striking dead with a curse the boys who offended him; his stretching a short board to its requisite length; his silencing those who try to teach him[[21]]—all this, and much more, Christians had to discard as pure fable. But they stopped short with the pruning process at the books of the New Testament as we now have them.
Our new school of critics, however, infatuated with the chief principle of their new science, went right on with the pruning, and made as sad work of the New Testament as they had with the Old. They rejected the miraculous in the New Testament writings as well as the account of miracles which the Christians themselves rejected in the apocryphal writings. By this step they got rid of the story of the miraculous conception and birth of Christ; of the journey of the vision-led magi; of the dream-led Joseph; of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and of the Father at Christ's baptism; of converting water into wine; of Christ walking upon the water; of the miraculously fed multitude; of the healing of the sick by a word or with a touch; casting out devils; the raising of the dead; the earthquake; the rending of the vail of the temple; and the miraculous three hours' darkness at the crucifixion; Christ's resurrection from the dead; his appearance after the resurrection; his final ascension into heaven; and the declaration of the two angels that he would come again to the earth as he had left it: in the clouds of heaven and in great glory. The new criticism got rid of all this—all that makes Christ God, or one of the persons of the Godhead, or that ascribes to him powers above those that may be possessed by a man. Christ's divinity is destroyed by this method of criticism, and one instinctively asks what there is left, and is told—"The manifestations of the God concealed in the depths of the human conscience."[[22]] "God-man, eternally incarnate, not an individual but an idea!"[[23]]
To this then it comes at last, a Christianity without a Christ—that is, without a divine Christ; and a Christ not divine—not God manifest in the flesh, is no Christ. We had trusted that Jesus of Nazareth had been he who would have redeemed not only all Israel, but all the nations of the earth. We and our fathers had believed that he had brought life and immortality to light through the gospel; but alas! it turns out according to our new school of critics, that his "revelations of blissful scenes of existence beyond death and the grave, are but one of the many impostures which time after time have been palmed off on credulous mankind!" Christ but a man, "the moralist and teacher of Capernaum and Gennesaret"—nothing more! On a level with Socrates, or Hillel, or Philo! What a void this new school of criticism makes! A Christianity without the assurance of the resurrection! without the hope of the glorious return of the Messiah, to reward every man according to his works!
The new school of critics does not question so severely as other critics have done the authenticity of the Christian documents, or the date of their origin. Indeed, one of their chief apostles concedes the authenticity of the gospels and their antiquity.[[24]] But after having admitted the authenticity and antiquity of the Christian documents, they then proceed to mutilate the story they relate—the gospel they teach—as to render it practically valueless to mankind. This is accomplished by regarding the Christian documents as legends,[[25]] from which if we would arrive at historical truth must be excluded all that is miraculous,[[26]] and hence all that makes Christ God. And while to the imagination of the idealist much that is of value and that is beautiful may remain in the attenuated Christianity which the new criticism would leave us, yet for the great body of humanity such a Christianity would be worthless. For however beautiful the moral precepts of the merely human Jesus may be, they will have no perceptible influence on the lives of the multitude unless back of them stands divine authority, accompanied by a conviction of the fact of man's immortality and his accountability to God for his conduct. Shorn of these parts, what remains may be beautiful; but it would be as the beauty of a man from whom the spark of life had fled—the beauty of the dead. Of course the orthodox Christian denies that this style of attack on the Christian religion has had any success. To him it is an "attack" which has "failed." "In spite of all the efforts of an audacious criticism," says one, "as ignorant as bold—the truth of the sacred narrative stands firm, the stronger for the shocks that it has resisted; the boundless store of truth and life which for eighteen centuries has been the ailment of humanity is not (as Rationalism boasts) dissipated. God is not divested of his grace, or man of his dignity—nor is the tie between heaven and earth broken. The foundation of God—the everlasting gospel—still standeth secure—and every effort that is made to overthrow, does but more firmly establish it."[[27]]
Let us examine this matter more nearly, and with less partiality than Rawlinson has done. If for the new school of critics to succeed means that the orthodox view respecting Jesus of Nazareth, and the religion he founded must be entirely overthrown by being driven out of existence, then the new criticism is an "attack" which has "failed," for orthodox Christianity, that is, the Christianity which recognizes Christ as divine—as God, and the New Testament as divinely inspired and stating the substantial facts of Messiah's life—is still with us.
There are a number of reasons why the orthodox view of Christ has not been entirely overthrown by the new criticism. First, the great body of Christians which constitute the Catholic Church have been preserved in the orthodox faith of Christ by the protecting aegis afforded by the authority of that Church. Recognizing the church as superior to the written word, alike its custodian and interpreter, and accepting the meaning which the church attaches to the Bible as infallible, Catholics, I say, have been preserved from the faith-shattering effects of the New Criticism. Second, the criticism has been conducted, in the main, and especially in the early stages of it, in the German language, and hence has been largely confined to the German nation. Third, the discussion wherever it has taken place has been carried on over the heads of the laity; it has not been within their reach, hence to a large extent it has been without effect upon them—an "attack that has failed." But in each case, let it be remembered, its non-effect is the result of not coming in contact with it. In one case it has been kept away from the people by the authority of the church; in the other through the inability of the laity, outside of Germany, to understand the language in which the attack was written; and thirdly, through the inability of the masses to bring the necessary scholarship to the investigation.
But, on the other hand, if to attract to itself a large following, both among clergymen and laity, and especially among scholars; if to modify prevailing orthodox opinion concerning the historical character of the Old Testament, and force concessions respecting the character at least of some parts of the Christian documents; if to permeate all Christendom—the Catholic Church perhaps excepted—with doubt concerning the divinity of Christ, and to threaten in the future the faith of millions of Christians—if to do this is to succeed, then the new criticism is succeeding, for that is what it is doing. Forty years ago it was the complaint of German orthodox writers that this German neology, as the new criticism is sometimes called, had left "No objective ground or standpoint," on which the believing theological science can build with any feeling of security.[[28]] "Nor," says the same authority, "is the evil in question confined to Germany. The works regarded as most effective in destroying the historical faith of Christians abroad, have received an English dress, and are, it is to be feared, read by persons very ill-prepared by historical studies to withstand their specious reasonings, alike in our country and in America. The tone, moreover, of German historical writings generally is tinged with the prevailing unbelief; and the faith of the historical student is likely to be undermined, almost without his having his suspicions aroused, by covert assumptions of the mythical character of the sacred narrative, in works professing to deal chiefly, or entirely with profane subjects."[[29]]
It is more than thirty years since these admissions were made; since then the German works complained of have been more generally translated and widely read than before. Besides, since then, Renan has given his "Origins of Christianity"[[30]] to the world, and by his great learning, but more especially by the power and irresistible charm of his treatment of the subject, has popularized the conceptions of the Rationalists, until now the virus of their infidelity may be said to be poisoning all Protestant Christendom.
What must ever be an occasion for chagrin, not to say humiliation, to orthodox Christendom, is, its inability to meet in any effectual way the assaults of this new criticism. In Germany they complain against Strauss for having written his "Life of Jesus" in the German language. If he must write such a book, so full of unbelief in the orthodox conception of Jesus, he ought at least to have had the grace to have written it in Latin![[31]]
For his rationalism Renan is driven out of the Church of Rome; but this only gives notoriety to his views, creates a desire to read his books and spreads abroad his unbelief. When the Presbyterian Church takes to task one of its most brilliant scholars[[32]] for accepting the results of the new criticism, he is sustained by the powerful Presbyterian Synod of New York and acquitted; and when an appeal is taken to the general assembly of the church and he is finally condemned, he is able to retort that while he was condemned by the general assembly, it was by numbers and not by intelligence that he was overcome; it was the less intelligent Presbyteries of the rural district that gave the necessary strength to his opponents. The better informed members—members from the cities and centers of education and enlightenment—were with him.[[33]] The defense commonly made for orthodox Christianity is an appeal to its antiquity and its past victories. Its defenders point with pride to the failure of the proud boast of Voltaire, who was foolish enough to say: "In twenty years Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice it took twelve apostles to rear." "Some years after his death," say the orthodox, "his very printing press was employed in printing New Testaments, and thus spreading abroad the gospel." Gibbon with solemn sneer devoted his gorgeous history[[34]] to sarcasm upon Christ and his followers. "His estate," say the orthodox, "is now in the hands of one who devotes large sums to the propagation of the very truth Gibbon labored to sap."[[35]]
All this may be very well, but even in their day these men of the eighteenth century had a large following, and did much damage to orthodox belief. In fact, it is not inconsistent to claim that, in an indirect way, they were the forerunners of our new school of criticism; for many Christian scholars not satisfied with the answers made to the infidel writers of the eighteenth century have accepted the results of this new criticism as a solution of the difficulties urged against christianity by the infidels of the eighteenth century.
It is time now to pause and summarize what has been thus far discussed:
First, the divided state of Christendom of itself argues something wrong; for nearly every page of holy scripture urges the unity of Christ's Church. "Is Christ divided?"[[36]] is the ringing question that the apostle of the Gentiles asks the schismatically inclined church at Corinth. "I beseech you, brethren," says he, "by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment."[[37]] He then proceeds to tell them that they are utterly at fault in one saying that he was of Paul; another that he was of Apollos, and another that he was of Cephas.[[38]] What he would say of divided, not to say warring Christendom of today, one may not conjecture, further than to say that if the incipient divisions in Corinth provoked his condemnation, the open rupture and conflicting creeds of the Christianity of the nineteenth century would merit still harsher reproof.
Second, the failure of Christianity to evangelize the world in nineteen centuries, sixteen of which, to all human judgment, appear to have been especially favorable to that evangelization, since at the back of Christianity stood the powerful nations of Europe whose commerce and conquests opened the gates of nearly all nations to Christian missionaries—argues some weakness in a religion bottomed on divine revelation and sustained through all these centuries (so Christians claim) by divine power. To be compelled to admit after all these centuries favorable to the establishment of Christianity that now only a little more than one-fourth of the population of our earth is even nominally Christian is to confess that the results do not do credit to a religion making the claims and possessing the advantages of Christianity.
Third, the existence of a broad and constantly widening stream of unbelief, not only in Christian lands and apart from Christian communion, but within the very churches claiming to be churches of Christ, together with the inability of the orthodox to meet and silence the infidel revilers of the Christian religion—tells its own tale of weakness; and bears testimony of the insufficiency of the Christian evidences to bring conviction to the doubting minds of many sincere and moral people.
All these considerations proclaim in trumpet-tones
"'Tis time that some new prophet should appear."
Mankind stand in need of a new witness for God—a witness who may speak not as the scribes or the pharisees, but in the clear, ringing tones of one clothed with authority from God. The world is weary of the endless wrangling of the scholastics. They settle nothing. Their speculations merely shroud all in profounder mystery, and beget more uncertainty. They darken counsel by words without knowledge. Therefore, to heal the schisms in Christendom; to bring order out of the existing chaos; to stay the stream of unbelief within the churches; to convert the Jews; to evangelize the world; to bring to pass that universal reign of truth, of peace, of liberty, of righteousness that all the prophets have predicted—the world needs a new witness for God.
Footnotes
[1]. Such is the language, slightly paraphrased, which Mrs. Humphrey Ward puts in the mouth of the orthodox Ronalds in her dialogue entitled The New Reformation (See Agnosticism and Christianity—Humbolt Library Series, page 151); and it accurately states the claims of the orthodox Christian.
[2]. "Agnosticism and Christianity," p. 151. The passage is paraphrased.
[3]. I thus carefully qualify the statement for the reason that I believe the Christian religion—that is, the Gospel, has a much earlier existence than the birth of Christ. Messiah is spoken of in Scripture as "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world," from which expression in connection with many other evidences—too numerous to mention here (see the Author's work "The Gospel," ch. xxxii.)—I get the idea that the plan of man's redemption through the atonement of Jesus Christ is at least as old as the foundation of the world. It was revealed to Adam, and the Patriarchs, to Abraham, to Moses, and to some of the prophets; and finally through the earthly ministry of the Son of God himself; but it is an error to suppose that it came into existence first through the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth on earth.
[4]. Æsop's Fables.
[5]. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Institutes, book iii., cent. viii., part i., chap. i. (Murdock's translation always quoted.)
[6]. Mosheim, book iii., cent. x., part i., chap. i.
[7]. Mosheim, book iii., cent. xii., part i., chap. i.
[8]. "What the World Believes," Gay Bros & Co., New York. Dr. Hurst's "Outline History of the Church" (1875) gives the following population to the creeds:
Christianity ........................ 407 Millions.
Judaism ............................... 7 "
Buddhism ............................ 340 "
Mohammedism ......................... 200 "
Brahmanism .......................... 175 "
Confucianism ......................... 80 "
All other forms of religious belief . 174 "
While this is a little different grouping of the religions than that in the text, the computation is approximately the same. "Of the Christian populations of the world, 131,007,449 are assigned to Protestantism, 200,339,390 to Roman Catholicism, and 76,390,040 to the oriental churches. In the New World, comprising North and South America, the Roman Catholics are in the majority, having about sixty millions" (Behm & Wagner). The above is also quoted with favor by Dr. Joseph Faa Di Bruno in his work "Catholic Belief," p. 397.
[9]. Burder's History of all Religions (1860), p. 140; also Buck's Theol. Dic., Art. Greek Church.
[10]. Faith of our Fathers, p. 109.
[11]. Christianity and Agnosticism, p. 161.
[12]. "The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical and mechanical. * * * * The Almighty Lecturer (Deity), by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if he had said to the inhabitants of this globe we call ours, 'I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to each other.' * * * * * In Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us far better than books can do, the existence of a God and at the same time proclaim his attributes. It is by exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in his works and imitate him in his ways. When we see his care and goodness extended over all his creatures, it teaches us our duty towards each other while it calls forth our gratitude to him."—Thomas Paine.
[13]. "It is not in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of constant experience that we banish miracle from history. We do not say 'miracle is impossible'; we say: 'there has been hitherto no miracle proved.' * * * * Till we have new light, we shall maintain, therefore, this principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture." Renan, Life of Jesus, E. T. pp. 44, 45.
[14]. "Let the gospels be in part legendary, that is evident since they are full of miracles and the supernatural." "Renan, Life of Jesus, p. 19." Renan is one of the chief writers of the rationalistic school.
"No just perception of the true nature of history is possible without a just perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and of the impossibility of miracles." Strauss, Leben Jesu, Vol. I., p. 64. E. T.
[15]. "Canons," is the scientific term.
[16]. "Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History." (Sir G. C. Lewis) Vol. I., p. 2, of the Introduction.
[17]. The whole world of profane history has been revolutionized: * * * * The views of the ancient world formerly entertained have been in ten thousand points either modified or revised—a new antiquity has been raised up out of the old—while much that was unreal in the picture of past times which men had formed to themselves has disappeared, consigned to that "Limbo large and broad" into which "all things transitory and vain" are finally received, a fresh revelation has in many cases taken the place of the old view, which has dissolved before the wand of the critic; and a firm and strong fabric has arisen out of the shattered debris of the fallen systems.—George Rawlinson's "Historical Evidences" (London Edition) pp. 28, 29.
[18]. A footnote scarcely affords the space necessary in which to discuss the value of miracles as evidence to the truth of a religion or the divine authority of the miracle worker; but a few observations at this particular point will be, in the estimation of the author, apropos. It is a mistake on the part of the Protestants or any one else to concede that the power to work miracles is absolute evidence of the truth of a religion, or of the divine calling of the miracle worker. Too much importance has been given to miracles as evidence of divine authority. Looking upon what are commonly called miracles, not as events or effects contrary to the laws of nature, but interventions on the part of God (through the operation of natural, though perhaps to man unknown laws) for the benefit of his children, and recognizing God as the Father of all mankind, it would be an extremely narrow conception of the love and mercy of the Deity to suppose that he would confine these interventions to any one class of his children. Surely it is egotism run mad for a people to suppose that they have succeeded so far in becoming the special favorites of heaven that all God's special providences will be confined to them. No, no; he who maketh his sun to rise on the evil as well as the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust alike, is capable of better things than men ascribe to him in this matter of miracles. But it does not follow that those who enjoy these special manifestations have correct religious creeds or possess the fullness of truth. Equally erroneous is it to suppose that the powers of evil cannot work what are called miracles; that is, put into operation forces as yet unknown to man which produce effects uncommon to his experience. Can it be that our Christian writers have forgotten that "to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths—win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequences?" Have they forgotten that the miracles of Moses were well nigh matched by those of the magicians of Egypt? That Simon Magus, notwithstanding he had no lot nor part in the things of God, yet had wrought miracles. Have they forgotten that in the description given us in Holy Writ (II. Thess. ii.) of the rise of Anti-Christ, that Satan shall have power to work "signs and lying wonders," and that God will permit the strong delusions that those might be condemned who believe not the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness? Have they forgotten that the word of prophecy hath said that even unclean spirits, "devils," shall have the power of "working miracles," even calling down fire from heaven, to deceive the inhabitants of the earth? (Rev. xvi)? If miracles are to be taken as an absolute test of divine authority, will not the unclean spirits, these miracle-working devils, prove the divinity of their mission? Again, it said that "John" (the baptist), than whom there is no greater prophet, "did no miracle" (John x. 41). It appears, therefore, that not all that are sent of God work miracles; and we see that devils have in the past and will in the future possess that power; hence miracles are not as important a class of testimony as they have usually been esteemed; and writers are utterly at fault who regard them as an absolute test of true religion or divine authority.
[19]. I find it necessary to say another word on miracles. There is a general misapprehension, I think, of what a miracle really is. The commonly accepted definition of the term is, "an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature." Renan defines a miracle to be, "not simply the inexplicable, it is a formal derogation from recognized laws in the name of a particular desire." What is especially faulty in these definitions is this: Miracles are held to be outside or contrary to the laws of nature. Let us examine this. Two hundred years ago the only motive powers known to ocean navigators were wind and the ocean currents. Suppose at that time those old mariners had seen one of our modern ocean steamers running against both ocean currents and the wind; and, withal, making better speed in spite of both wind and tide than the old time sailing vessel could even when running before the wind and the ocean currents in her favor. What would have been the effect of such a sight on the mind of the old-time sailor? "It is a miracle!" he would have exclaimed; that is, it would have been an "effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things," "a derogation from recognized laws." But is such an effect to us who know something of the force of steam contrary to the laws of nature? No; it is simply the employment of forces in nature of which the old-time mariner was ignorant; and while it would have been a miracle to him, to us it is merely the application of a newly discovered force of nature, and it is now so common that we cease to look upon it with wonder. So with the things that we now in our ignorance call miracles—such as the healing of the sick, restoring the blind to sight, making the lame to walk, through the exercise of faith, and the resurrection of the dead—instead of these things being in "derogation from recognized laws," we shall yet learn that they are done simply by the application of laws of which we are as yet in ignorance. With man's limited knowledge of the laws of nature, how presumptuous it is in him to say that the healing of the sick or even the resurrection of the dead are in "derogation of the laws of nature," or that deviation from those few laws of nature with which he is acquainted will never happen, or is impossible! Better reasoners are they who, like George Rawlinson, say, "Miraculous interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a regular, fixed, and established rule of his (God's) government as the working ordinarily by what are called natural laws." In other words, what we in our ignorance call miracles, are to God merely the results of the application of higher laws or forces of nature not yet learned by man. Miracles are to be viewed as a part of the divine economy.
[20]. It will be observed that throughout a difference between myth and legend is recognized. Strauss thus distinguishes between them: "Mythus is the creation of a fact out of an idea; legend the seeing of an idea in a fact, or arising out of it." "The myth is therefore pure and absolute imagination," says Rawlinson; "the legend has a basis of fact, but amplifies, abridges, or modifies that basis at its pleasure." And thus De Wette: "The myth is an idea in a vestment of facts; the legend contains facts pervaded and transformed by ideas."
[21]. All this and a hundred other things equally silly and untrue which mar rather than dignify the character of Jesus Christ are related in the "First Gospel of the Infancy," translated by Mr. Henry Sike, professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge. "The Infancy" was accepted by the Gnostics, a Christian sect of the second century.
[22]. "Life of Jesus" (Renan), p. 50, E. T.
[23]. "Life of Jesus" (Strauss), vol. III., p. 434, E. T.
[24]. "Upon the whole, I accept the four canonical gospels as authentic. All, in my judgment, date back to the first century, and they are substantially by the authors to whom they are attributed." "Renan's Life of Jesus," Introduction, p. 34, E. T.
[25]. "Let the Gospels be in part legendary, that is evident since they are full of miracles and the supernatural. . . . . The historic value which I attribute to the Gospels is now, I think, quite understood. They are neither biographies, after the manner of Suetonius, nor fictitious legends, like those of Philostratus; they are legendary biographies." Renan, "Life of Jesus," Introduction, p. 17 38.
[26]. "Till we have new light, we shall maintain, therefore, this principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture, that the duty of the historian is to interpret it, and to seek what portion of truth and what portion error it may contain. Such are the rules which have been followed in this life" (of Christ). Renan, "Life of Jesus," p. 45, E. T.
[27]. "Historical Evidences" (Rawlinson), p. 228.
[28]. "Historical Evidences," (Rawlinson), Preface.
[29]. "Historical Evidences" (Rawlinson), see Preface. See also Keil's preface to his "Comment on Joshua."
[30]. "Origins of Christianity" in three volumes; "The Life of Jesus," "The Apostles," "Saint Paul."
[31]. See Preface to Strauss' "Life of Jesus."
[32]. Dr. C. A. Briggs.
[33]. The triumphant language of Dr. Briggs in the North American Review is: "The majority of votes in favor of the suspension was very great. But if the votes are weighed as well as counted the disparity will not be regarded as serious. The basis of representation in the general assembly gives the small presbyteries in the country districts and on the frontiers a vastly greater power than they are entitled to by their numbers or influence, while the strong presbyteries in our large cities and in the great communities are put at a serious disadvantage. The general assemblies, as they are now constituted, represent the least intelligent portion of the church, and not unfrequently a majority in the Assembly really represents a minority of the ministers and people in the denomination. A majority of a general assembly is not taken seriously by intelligent Presbyterians."
[34]. "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
[35]. The remarks in relation to both Gibbon and Voltaire are to be found in the Christian Visitor for 1889.
[36]. 1 Cor. i. 13.
[37]. Ibid verse 10.
[38]. 1 Cor. i. 12.
THESIS II.
The Church of Christ Was Destroyed: There Has Been an Apostasy from the Christian Religion, So Complete and Universal, as to Make Necessary a New Dispensation of the Gospel.
CHAPTER II.
THE EFFECT OF PAGAN PERSECUTION ON THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
A variety of causes have operated to produce the result stated in my second Thesis, among which I shall first consider those terrible persecutions with which the saints were afflicted in the first centuries of our era.
Let it not be a matter of surprise that I class those persecutions as among the means through which the church was destroyed. The force of heathen rage was aimed at the leaders and strong men of the body religious; and being long-continued and relentlessly cruel, those most steadfast in their adherence to the church invariably became its victims. These being stricken down, it left none but weaklings to contend for the faith, and made possible those subsequent innovations in the religion of Jesus which a pagan public sentiment demanded, and which so completely changed both the spirit and form of the Christian religion as to subvert it utterly.
Let me further ask that no one be surprised that violence is permitted to operate in such a case. The idea that the right is always victorious in this world; that truth is always triumphant and innocence always divinely protected, are old, fond fables with which well-meaning men have amused credulous multitudes; but the stern facts of history and actual experience in life correct the pleasing delusion. Do not misunderstand me. I believe in the ultimate victory of the right, the ultimate triumph of truth, the final immunity of innocence from violence. These—innocence, truth and the right—will be at the last more than conquerors; they will be successful in the war, but that does not prevent them from losing some battles. It should be remembered always that God has given to man his agency; and that fact implies that one man is as free to act wickedly as another is to do righteousness. Cain was as free to murder his brother as that brother was to worship God; and so the pagans and Jews were as free to persecute and murder the Christians as the Christians were to live virtuously and worship Christ as God. The agency of man would not be worth the name if it did not grant liberty to the wicked to fill the cup of their iniquity, as well as liberty to the virtuous to round out the measure of their righteousness. Such perfect liberty or agency God has given man; and it is only so variously modified as not to thwart his general purposes. Hence it comes that even when stealthy Murder in sight of his helpless victim meditates the crime, no voice to prevent the act "speaks through the blanket of the dark" crying, "Hold! hold!" Of course it follows that running parallel with this fact of man's liberty is the solemn truth of his full responsibility for the use he makes of it.
In the light of these reflections, then, I say that after Christ, as before his day, the kingdom of heaven suffered violence and the violent took it by force.[[1]] How far that violence, as manifested in the persecutions of the first three Christian centuries, was effectual as a factor in causing the destruction of the church is now to engage our attention.
At the outset, however, there is a difficulty I cannot pass without comment—the disagreement of eminent writers on the extent and severity of the persecutions endured by the Christians up to the accession of Constantine to the imperial throne of Rome. On the one hand infidel writers, such as Gibbon and Dodwell, have sought to minimize the suffering of the Christians under the persecutions, and on the other, Christian writers, such as Milner, Paley and Fox, have sought to magnify it. The motive on the part of both infidels and Christians is obvious. The more violent and extensive the persecutions, the more the martyrs, the more glorious the triumph for the church. While on the other hand, if the persecutions can be proven to be limited, the suffering made to appear trifling and the martyrs few in number, the church is robbed of so much of her glory. Doubtless both parties have gone to extremes in the contention. Unfortunately for the Christian side of the controversy, there is much reason for believing that the account of Christian suffering within the period named has been much exaggerated. Their chief authority—Eusebius—has thrown more or less suspicion upon the trustworthiness of all that he has written, by declaring in the opening chapter of his Ecclesiastical History and elsewhere that "Whatsoever, therefore, we deem likely to be advantageous to the proposed subject, we shall endeavor to reduce to a compact body by historical narration. For this purpose we have collected the materials that have been scattered by our predecessors, and culled, as from some intellectual meadows, the appropriate extracts from ancient authors."[[2]]
On these passages Gibbon remarks: "The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history, has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other."[[3]] Draper also refers to the same when, commenting upon the inaccuracies of early Christian writers, he says: "In historical compositions there was a want of fair dealing and truthfulness almost incredible to us; thus, Eusebius naively avows that in his history he shall omit whatever might tend to the discredit of the church, and magnify whatever might conduce to her glory."[[4]]
But while it must be conceded that there is much reason for believing that the Christian fathers exaggerated both the extent and severity of those early persecutions, it remains clear that both the extent and severity of them were greater and more baneful to the church than infidel writers allow; and the truth of it may be proven independent of the testimonies of the Christian fathers. The proofs I refer to are the edicts themselves, considered in the light of the well-known cruelty of the Roman people, intensified by the malice of religious zeal aroused to suppress an obnoxious society whose doctrines were held to be destructive of the ancient religion of Rome, and a menace to the existence of the state itself.
Passing by the persecutions inflicted upon the Christians by the Jews, an account of which is to be found in the New Testament, I call attention to the first great pagan persecution under the cruel edict of the Emperor Nero. For our information in respect to this persecution we are indebted not to any Christian writer, but to the judicious Tacitus, whom even "the most sceptical criticism is obliged to respect."[[5]] Nero having set on fire the city of Rome, in order that he might witness a great conflagration, and wishing to divert suspicion from himself, first accused and then tried to compel the Christians to confess the great crime—and now Tacitus:
"With this view he inflicted the most exquisite tortures on those men who, under the vulgar appellation of Christians, were already branded with deserved infamy. They derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. For awhile this dire superstition was checked; but it again burst forth; and not only spread itself over Judea, the first seat of this mischievous sect, but was even introduced into Rome, the common asylum which receives and protects whatever is impure, whatever is atrocious. The confessions of those that were seized discovered a great multitude of their accomplices, and they were all convicted, not so much for the crime of setting fire to the city, as for their hatred of human kind. They died in torments, and their torments were embittered by insults and derision. Some were nailed on crosses; others sewn up in the skins of wild beasts, and exposed to the fury of dogs; others, again, smeared over with combustible materials, were used as torches to illuminate the darkness of the night. The gardens of Nero were destined for the melancholy spectacle, which was accompanied with a horse-race, and honored with the presence of the emperor, who mingled with the populace in the dress and attitude of a charioteer. The guilt of the Christians deserved indeed the most exemplary punishments, but the public abhorrence was changed into commiseration, from the opinion that those unhappy wretches were sacrificed, not so much to the public welfare as to the cruelty of a jealous tyrant."[[6]]
Eminent scholars are divided in opinion as to whether this persecution under Nero extended to the provinces or was confined to the city of Rome. Gibbon assumes that it was both brief and confined to the city. According to Milman "M. Guizot, on the authority of Suplicious Severus and of Orosius inclines to the opinion of those who extend the persecution to the provinces. Mosheim rather leans to that side on this much disputed question. Neander takes the view of Gibbon, which is, in general, that of the most learned writers."[[7]]
This controversy need not detain us a moment. It matters not to my purpose whether the edicts of Nero extended to the provinces or were limited in their operations to the Christians within the capital. The testimony of Tacitus is sufficient to prove, first, that the persecution was general within the city; second its terrible cruelty; and third, the great abhorrence in which the Christians were held by the Romans.
I submit to the consideration of the reader that a people so greatly detested as the Christians, were not likely to meet with gentle treatment from the Romans; and when, as subsequently it came to pass, the people clamored for the sacrifice of the saints whom they abhorred as the enemies of mankind, instead of looking upon them with commiseration as the citizens of Rome did in their persecution under Nero—when the Roman people, I say, clamored for the sacrifice of the Christians and the emperors were cruel enough, and unjust enough to issue edicts for their destruction, the persecutions of those times were neither so limited nor so free from severity as Gibbon and others would have us believe. Even in this persecution under Nero, if no edicts were sent into the provinces commanding the execution of Christians, it is not unreasonable to believe that the despisers of the followers of Christ, finding warrant for their conduct by what was taking place at Rome, under the supervision of the emperor himself, would not hesitate to inflict hardships upon the saints without the formality of his proclamation.
It was this unofficial persecution which, without doubt, arose in the provinces as an indirect result of the persecution in the capital, that has led a number of prominent writers to believe that Nero's persecution extended throughout the empire. However that may be, a "great multitude" suffered in the city of Rome, and were subject to such tortures and cruel modes of death—described, mark you, by the unfriendly Tacitus—that little is left to be added even by the fervid imaginations of the Christian fathers. It is reasonable to believe that the subsequent persecutions were not freer from cruelty than this one under Nero; and therefore, though some allowance must be made for exaggeration in the writings of the Christian fathers, it may be safely concluded that those persecutions which preceded the reign of Constantine were both widespread and horribly cruel.
What is usually denominated the third persecution of the Christian Church occurred in the reign of Trajan, 98—117 A. D. Here, as in the persecution under Nero, we may determine something of the severity and manner of it from a Roman writer. Trajan intrusted the government of Bithynia and Pontius to his personal friend, the younger Pliny. The new governor, in his administration of the affairs of his provinces, found himself perplexed as to what course he should pursue in regard to the Christians brought before him for trial. He accordingly wrote to his master for instruction; and I deem his letter of such importance as showing the severity to which Christians were subject, the character of the Christians, and the number of unfaithful members who had evidently entered the church by that time, that I give it in extenso:
"Health.—It is my usual custom, sir, to refer all things, of which I harbor any doubts, to you. For who can better direct my judgment in its hesitation, or instruct my understanding in its ignorance? I never had the fortune to be present at any examination of Christians, before I came into this province. I am, therefore, at a loss, to determine what is the usual object either of inquiry or of punishment, and to what length either of them is to be carried. It has also been with me a question very problematical, whether any distinction should be made between the young and the old, the tender and the robust; whether any room should be given for repentance, or the guilt of Christianity, once incurred is not to be expiated by the most unequivocal retraction; whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct, or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment. In the meantime, this has been my method, with respect to those who were brought before me as Christians: If they pleaded guilty, I interrogated them twice afresh, with a menace of capital punishment. In case of obstinate perseverance, I ordered them to be executed. For of this I had no doubt, whatever was the nature of their religion, that a sullen and obstinate inflexibility called for the vengeance of the magistrate. Some who were infected with the same madness whom, on account of their privilege of citizenship, I reserve to be sent to Rome, to be referred to your tribunal. In the course of this business, information pouring in, as is usual when they are encouraged, more cases occurred. An anonymous libel was exhibited, with a catalogue of names of persons, who yet declared they were not Christians then or ever had been; and they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image, which for this purpose I had ordered to be brought with the images of the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense, and execrated Christ, none of which things I am told a real Christian can ever be compelled to do. On this account I dismissed them. Others named by an informer, first affirmed and then denied the charge of Christianity, declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years ago, others still longer, some even twenty years ago. All of them worshiped your image, and the statues of the gods, and also execrated Christ. And this was the account which they gave of the nature of their religion they once professed, whether it deserves the name of crime or error, namely, that they were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight, and repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath with an obligation of not committing any wickedness; but on the contrary, of abstaining from thefts, robberies, and adulteries; also, of not violating their promise, or denying a pledge; after which it was their custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless meal, from which last practice they however desisted, after the publication of my edict, in which, agreeably to your order, I forbade any societies of that sort. On which account I judged it the more necessary, to inquire, by torture, from two females, who were said to be deaconesses, what is the real truth. But nothing could I collect, except a depraved and excessive superstition. Deferring, therefore, any further investigation, I determined to consult you. For the number of the culprits is so great, as to call for serious consultation. Many persons are informed against of every age, and of both sexes; and more still will be in the same situation. The contagion of the superstition hath spread not only through cities, but even villages and the country. Not that I think it impossible to check and correct it. The success of my efforts hitherto forbids such desponding thoughts; for the temples, once almost desolate, begin to be frequented, and the sacred solemnities which had long been intermitted, are now attended afresh, and the sacrificed victims are now sold everywhere, which once could scarcely find a purchaser. Whence, I conclude, that many might be reclaimed, were the hope of impunity, on repentance, absolutely confirmed."[[8]]
To this Trajan sent the following answer: "You have done perfectly right, my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning Christians. For truly no one general rule can be laid down which will apply itself to all cases. These people must not be sought after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be capitally punished, yet with this restriction, that if anyone renounce Christianity, and evidence his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for the future, on his repentance. But anonymous libels in no case ought to be attended to; for the precedent would be of the worst sort, and perfectly incongruous to the maxims of my government."[[9]]
Gibbon makes much of the perplexity of Pliny as to how to proceed against the Christians. For since the life of that Roman had been employed in the acquisition of learning and the business of the world; since from the age of nineteen he had pleaded with distinction in the tribunals of Rome; therefore, from the ignorance of this Roman governor, the great historian of the Decline and Fall concludes that there were no general laws or decrees of the senate in force against the Christians previous to Pliny accepting the governorship of Bithynia.[[10]] There is nothing, however, in the circumstance of Pliny's ignorance to justify such a conclusion.
It is not difficult to conceive how laws and decrees against the Christians could exist and yet a man employed as Pliny was have no technical knowledge of the modus operandi of procedure against them. His very letter, quoted above, seems to recognize the existence of such laws before he went into Bithynia; for he pleads as an excuse for his ignorance of how to proceed in the business neither the non-existence, nor the newness of the laws, but merely the fact that he had never been present at the examination of Christians brought to trial previous to accepting the governorship of his provinces.
In like spirit Gibbon points to the mildness of both the emperor and the governor as being against the idea that this persecution was very severe. Giving full credit for that mildness, what was the status of the Christians as to liability to persecution in Bithynia and Pontus after Pliny received the instruction of his master? (1) They were not to be sought after, that is, hunted down for the mere sake of destroying them; (2) anonymous complaints or libels were not to be entertained against them; (3) if brought before the judge and they would renounce their religion by supplicating the gods of Rome, they were to receive pardon. So far the tender mercies of Trajan extended. They could still be accused by any one bold enough to affix his name to the charge; and if the accused Christians refused to deny the faith, they were punished by sentence of death. When it is considered how bitter was the malice of their enemies, and how wide-spread the detestation of Christianity, it will be conceded that even in Bithynia and Pontus, notwithstanding the mildness of the emperor and the humanity of the governor, there was still left plenty of opportunity to vex the church and make persecution contribute to its destruction. I say even in Bithynia and Pontus this was the case; how much more was it so in those provinces where less humane magistrates than Pliny administered the laws, and who proceeded without asking for instruction from the emperor! In such provinces the saints were liable to be accused anonymously, put to the torture, not with a view to force from them a confession, but a denial of the charge, failing in which they were executed without mercy.
The limits of this inquiry forbids anything like an exhaustive examination of the several persecutions endured by the Christians. I shall therefore content myself with a brief reference to those most disastrous to the church.
Passing by, then, the persecutions under Aurelius and Verus, in which the sufferings of the Christians in Gaul were most severe—especially in the cities of Lyons and Vienne,[[11]] where churches were well nigh destroyed by its violence; and also passing by the persecutions which arose under the edicts of Severus, which were issued more especially to prevent the propagation of Christianity than to punish those already converts to it, I come to that general and terrible persecution under Decius Trajan, in the middle of the third century. The incentive which prompted the action of Decius against the Christians is variously ascribed to hatred of his predecessor, Philip, whom he had murdered, and who was friendly to the church; to his zeal for paganism; and lastly to his fear, feigned or real, that the Christians would usurp the empire. Perhaps all these motives combined impelled him to make war upon the church. According to the representations of one Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius, the persecution, at least in Africa, began before the edicts of Decius were issued. "The persecution with us," says the writer referred to, "did not begin with the imperial edict but precede it by a whole year. And a certain prophet and poet, inauspicious to the city [Alexandria], whoever he was, excited the mass of the heathens against us, stirring them up to their native superstition. Stimulated by him, and taking full liberty to exercise any kind of wickedness, they considered this the only piety, and the worship of their demons, viz, to slay us. * * But as the sedition and civil war overtook the wretches, their cruelty was diverted from us to one another. We then drew a little breath, while their rage against us was a little abated. But, presently, that change from a milder reign was announced to us, and much terror was now threatening us. The decree [of Decius] had arrived, very much like that which was foretold by our Lord, exhibiting the most dreadful aspects so that, if it were possible, the very elect would stumble. All indeed were greatly alarmed, and many of the more eminent immediately gave way to them; others, who were in public offices, were led forth by their very acts; others were brought by their acquaintances and when called by name, they approached the impure and unholy sacrifices. But pale and trembling, as if they were not to sacrifice but themselves to be the victims and the sacrifices to the idols. They were jeered by many of the surrounding multitude, and were obviously equally afraid to die and to offer the sacrifice. But some advanced with greater readiness to the altar and boldly asserted that they had never before been Christians, concerning whom the declaration of our Lord is most true, that they will scarcely be saved. Of the rest, some followed the one or the other of the preceding; some fled, others were taken, and of these some held out as far as the prison and bonds, and some after a few days' imprisonment abjured Christianity before they entered the tribunal. And some, also, after enduring the torture for a time, at last renounced. Others, however, firm and blessed pillars of the Lord, confirmed by the Lord himself, and receiving in themselves strength and power, suited and proportioned to their faith, became admirable witnesses of his kingdom."[[12]]
Eusebius at great length recounts the suffering of individuals both in the east and west divisions of the empire, but it is not necessary to follow him through all those details. It will be sufficient to say that this persecution was more terrible than any which preceded it. It extended over the whole empire, and had for its avowed object the enforced apostasy of the Christians.[[13]]
How unrelenting the efforts must have been to encompass either the destruction or the apostasy of the Christians will appear when it is known that the governors of the provinces were "commanded, on pain of forfeiting their own lives, either to exterminate all Christians utterly, or bring them back by pain and tortures to the religion of their fathers." "During two years," continues Mosheim, "a great multitude of Christians in all the Roman provinces were cut off by various species of punishment and suffering. This persecution was more cruel and terrific than any that preceded it; and immense numbers dismayed, not so much by the fear of death, as by the dread of the long-continued tortures by which the magistrates endeavored to overcome the constancy of the Christians, professed to renounce Christ; and procured for themselves safety, either by sacrificing, i. e., offering incense before the idols, or by certificates purchased with money."[[14]]
Gibbon, who never admits the severity of the persecutions under the emperors, except when compelled by undeniable facts, says, of this one under Decius: "The fall of Philip (the predecessor of Decius) introduced with a change of masters, a new system of government so oppressive to the Christians that their former condition, ever since the time of Domitian, was represented as a state of perfect freedom and security, if compared with the rigorous treatment which they experienced under the short reign of Decius. * * * The bishops of the most considerable cities were removed by exile or death; the vigilance of the magistrates prevented the clergy of Rome during sixteen months from proceeding to the new election; and it was the opinion of the Christians that the emperor would more patiently endure a competition for the purple than a bishop for the capital."[[15]]
Milner, quoting Cyprian, says concerning the effect of this persecution: "Vast numbers lapsed into idolatry immediately. Even before men were accused as Christian many ran to the forum and sacrificed to the gods as they were ordered; and the crowds of apostates were so great that the magistrates wished to delay numbers of them till the next day, but they were importuned by the wretched suppliants to be allowed to prove themselves heathens that very night."[[16]]
The reign of Decius was brief, lasting only two years, and toward the close of it, as if surfeited with slaughter, the violent persecution against the saints relaxed somewhat of its severity; but his successors, Gallus and his son Volusian, renewed it. A pestilential disease broke out about this time and spread through a number of the provinces, and this the pagan priests persuaded the populace was a curse sent upon the people on account of the toleration shown to the Christians. This was sufficient to re-kindle the flames of hatred and for two years more the Church of Christ suffered violence as it had done under Decius.
There remains but one more persecution to notice, that which is commonly known as the Diocletian. It could be called more properly the Galerian persecution; for Galerius, son-in-law to the emperor, and one with two others—Constantius Chlorus and Maximian—who shared with him the responsibility of governing the empire,[[17]] had most to do with it. It is said that Galerius was urged to secure the edicts of Diocletian against the Christians by his mother, Romlia, a very haughty woman, who had taken offense because the saints had excluded her from their sacrament meetings. Be that as it may, it is generally conceded that this severest of all persecutions against the Church of Christ was inaugurated and carried on through the hatred and influence of Galerius.
According to Eusebius[[18]] the persecution began in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian—303 A. D. The emperor in issuing his first edict could not be brought to the infamy of aiming at the lives of the saints; it appears he could only be brought to that by degrees. His first edict ordered the destruction of the Christian churches, and the surrender of the holy scriptures and the degradation of Christians from office. Shortly after this the royal palace at Nicomedia was twice set on fire, and from it Galerius fled, giving out that he feared Christian malice had attempted his life. The Christians being charged with the crime the incident was made the excuse for issuing a second edict, "in consequence of which whole families of the pious were slain at the imperial command, some with the sword, some also with fire. But the populace, binding another number upon planks, threw them into the depths of the sea."[[19]]
A rebellion which occurred in Syria about this time was also charged to Christian intrigue, and a third edict was issued commanding that the heads of the church everywhere should be thrust into prison. "The spectacle of affairs after these events exceeds all description. Innumerable multitudes were imprisoned in every place, and the dungeons formerly destined for murderers and the vilest criminals were then filled with bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, readers and exorcists, so that there was no room left for those condemned for crimes."[[20]] It was ordered after a time that the prisoners should be granted their liberty on condition that they offer sacrifice at the shrine of the heathen gods. To effect that purpose the judges were commanded to employ the most excruciating tortures.
Diocletian thought to destroy the Christian "superstition" by overcoming the constancy of the leaders; but meeting with more resistance than he anticipated, he at last issued a fourth edict, directing the magistrates to compel all Christians, irrespective of age, sex, or official position, to offer sacrifice to the gods; and to employ tortures to compel that apostasy. The magistrates yielded strict obedience to the edict of the emperor, and the Christian church was reduced to the last extremity.[[21]] The scenes of suffering from tortures and bloodsheds throughout the empire, except in Gaul, where Constantine reigned, defy description. "Thousands, both men, and women and children," says Eusebius, speaking of those who suffered in Egypt, "despising the present life for the sake of our Savior's doctrine, submitted to death in various shapes. Some, after being tortured with scrappings[[22]] and the rack, and the most dreadful scourgings, and other innumerable agonies which one might shudder to hear, were finally committed to the flames; and some plunged and drowned in the sea, others voluntarily offering their own heads to their executioners, others dying in the midst of their torments, some wasted away by famine, and others again fixed to the cross. Some, indeed, were executed as malefactors usually were; others, more cruelly, were nailed with the head downwards, and kept alive until they were destroyed by starving on the cross itself."[[23]]
After describing similar but still more cruel tortures endured by the Christians of Thebais, Eusebius continues: "And all these things were doing not only for a few days or some time but for a series of whole years. At one time ten or more, at another more than twenty, at another time not less than thirty, and even sixty, and again at another time, a hundred men with their wives and little children were slain in one day, whilst they were condemned to various and varied punishments. We ourselves have observed when on the spot, many crowded together in one day suffering decapitation, some the torments of the flames; so that the murderous weapon was completely blunted, and having lost its edge, broke to pieces; and the executioners themselves wearied with the slaughter, were obliged to relieve one another."[[24]]
Gibbon, whose very reluctance to concede the severity of these persecutions induces me to quote him as often as admissions are forced from his unwilling lips, says of this persecution: "The magistrates were commanded to employ every method of severity which might reclaim them from their odious superstition, and obliged them to return to the established worship of the gods. This rigorous order was extended, by a subsequent edict, to the whole body of Christians, who were exposed to a violent and general persecution. Instead of those salutary restraints which had required the direct and solemn testimony of an accuser, it became the duty as well as the interest of the imperial officer to discover, to pursue, and to torment the most obnoxious among the faithful. Heavy penalties were denounced against all who should presume to save a prescribed sectary from the just indignation of the gods and the emperors."[[25]]
This persecution lasted for ten years; and at the end of that time the church presented a melancholy spectacle. Everywhere, even in Gaul, the Christian houses of worship were laid in ruins. Streams of Christian blood had flowed in every province of the empire, excepting in Gaul, where Constantine governed; and there, it will be remembered, a previous persecution under Aurelius and Verus had well-nigh destroyed the churches. Public worship was suspended. The saints were either driven to apostasy by tortures, had fled from the provinces to the barbarians, or kept themselves concealed. Meantime the magistrates incited as much by avarice as by hatred of Christianity, confiscated not only the church property, but also the private possessions of the ministers. In other cases the church leaders were either slain, or mutilated and sent to the mines or banished from the country. "Many through dread of undergoing torture had made way with their own lives, and many apostatized from the faith; and what remained of the Christian community, consisted of weak, poor and timorous persons."[[26]]
After adopting these measures for the destruction of the church, severities of another character were put in operation. "It was thought necessary to subject to the most intolerable hardships the condition of those perverse individuals who should still reject the religion of nature, of Rome, and of their ancestors. Persons of liberal birth were declared incapable of holding any honors or employments; slaves were forever deprived of the hopes of freedom, and the whole body of the people were put out of the protection of the law. The judges were authorized to hear and determine every action that was brought against a Christian. But the Christians were not permitted to complain of any injury which they themselves had suffered; and thus those unfortunate sectaries were exposed to the severity, while they were excluded from the benefits of public justice. This new species of martyrdom, so painful and lingering, so obscure and ignominious was, perhaps, the most proper to weary the constancy of the faithful; nor can it be doubted that the passions and interest of mankind were disposed on this occasion to second the designs of the emperors."[[27]] That the Romans considered the destruction of the Christian church completed by the Diocletian persecution is witnessed by the inscriptions upon monuments and medals. Two pillars in Spain, erected to commemorate the reign of Diocletian bore the following; on the first—
"DIOCLETIAN, JOVIAN, MAXIMIAN HERCULIUS, CAESARES AUGUSTI, FOR HAVING EXTENDED THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE EAST AND WEST, AND FOR HAVING EXTINGUISHED THE NAME OF CHRISTIANS, WHO BROUGHT THE REPUBLIC TO RUIN;"
On the second,
"DIOCLETIAN, ETC., FOR HAVING ADOPTED GALERIUS IN THE EAST, FOR HAVING EVERYWHERE ABOLISHED THE SUPERSTITION OF CHRIST, FOR HAVING EXTENDED THE WORSHIP OF THE GODS."
And on the medal of Diocletian this: "THE NAME OF CHRISTIAN BEING EXTINGUISHED."[[28]]
When it is remembered that these persecutions, to which I have briefly referred, ran through more than three centuries; that the emperors whose edicts inaugurated them possessed unlimited power to execute their decrees; that the age in which they occurred was cruel beyond modern comprehension; that Roman, that is to say, pagan hatred of Christians was venomously bitter, because they were made to believe that the existence of the ancient religion of Rome and latterly the existence of the empire itself depended upon the destruction of Christianity—when all this is remembered, it is not to be wondered at that the saints were worn out, or so nearly so that only "weak and timorous" men were left to ineffectually resist the paganization of Christianity—the destruction of the Church of Christ.
Footnotes
[1]. Matt. xi. 12.
[2]. "Euseb. Eccl. Hist.," Book VIII., ch. ii. and ch. xii.
[3]. "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 486, Ed. of 1880.
[4]. "Intellectual Development of Europe," Vol. I., p. 360.
[5]. Of the burning of Rome, the punishment of the Christians and this celebrated passage in the writings of the famous Roman annalist, Gibbon, from whom I quote the phrase above, says: "The most sceptical criticism is obliged to respect the truth of this extraordinary fact and the integrity of this celebrated passage of Tacitus. The former [the burning of Rome and the punishment of the Christians] is confirmed by the diligent and accurate Suetonius, who mentions the punishment which Nero inflicted on the Christians, a sect of men who had embraced a new and criminal superstition. The latter may be proved by the consent of the most ancient manuscripts, by the imimitable character of the style of Tacitus, by his reputation, which guarded his text from the interpolation of pious fraud." "Decline and Fall," Vol. i., p. 448.
[6]. "Tacitus Annl.," lib, XV., ch. 44.
[7]. See Milman's Note in "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 450.
[8]. I have taken Milner's translation of the Epistle. See "Ch. Hist.," Vol I., p. 145.
[9]. "Milner's Ch. Hist.," Vol. I., p. 148.
[10]. "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 453.
[11]. An account of these persecutions at great length will be found in the letters of the survivors sent to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. "Eusebius," Book V., ch. i.
[12]. That is, they were executed. Eusebius, Bk. vi., Ch. xli.
[13]. See Murdock's note in Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Bk. i, Cent. iii, Ch. ii.
[14]. Mosheim, (Murdock) Bk. i, Cent. iii, Ch. ii.
[15]. "Decline and Fall," Vol i., Ch. xvi.
[16]. Milner's Church Hist., Vol. i, Cent. iii, Ch. viii.
[17]. The situation was this: A year after his elevation to the imperial throne, Diocletian, believing the government of the vast empire of Rome a task too great for a single mind, chose Maximianus Herculius, commonly called Maximian, to be his colleague and to share with him the title of Augustus. After a few years each of the emperors chose a colleague in order to still further divide the labor of administration. These were Constantius Chlorus and Galerius Maximianus, usually called by his first name. Constantius and Galerius occupied an inferior position to that of Diocletian and Maximian, and were honored only with the title of "Caesar."
[18]. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. ii.
[19]. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. vi.
[20]. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. vi.
[21]. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent, iv, Part i, Ch. i.
[22]. This torture was raking the flesh from the body by means of an iron-toothed instrument.
[23]. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. viii.
[24]. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. ix.
[25]. "Decline and Fall," Vol. i, p. 481. Gibbon claims, however, that "notwithstanding the severity of this law, the virtuous courage of many of the pagans in concealing their friends or relatives, affords an honorable proof, that the rage of superstition had not extinguished in their minds the sentiments of nature and humanity."—Ibid.
[26]. Schlegel, quoted by Murdock, see note Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent. iv, Bk. ii. Ch. i.
[27]. "Decline and Fall," Vol. i, ch. xvi, p. 477. Gibbon undertakes to modify what he has here written by saying that the policy of a well-ordered government must sometimes have interposed in behalf of the oppressed Christians. "This wants proof," says Milman in a footnote on the remark, "the edict of Diocletian was executed in all its rigor during the rest of the reign;" and gives reference to Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, ch. xiii.
[28]. See Milner's Church History, Vol. ii, cent. iv, ch. ii, I also give the following in evidence of the severity of the persecution of the Christians in the early centuries of our era; and since it is taken from the funeral oration pronounced by Libanius over the body of his friend, the Emperor Julian, commonly called the apostate—because in manhood he renounced that Christianity which had been forced on him in childhood, and attempted to restore the ancient religion of Rome—it is of the same character of evidence as that already found in the statements of Tacitus and Pliny—it is the testimony of one unfriendly to Christianity, who could have no motive for exaggerating the sufferings of the Christians. Referring to the mildness of the methods of persecution adopted by Julian against the Christians, Labanius says: "They who adhered to corrupt religion [he means the Christians] were in great terrors [on his accession to the throne] and expected that their eyes would be plucked out, that their heads would be cut off, and that rivers of their blood would flow from the multitude of slaughters. They apprehended their new master would invent new kinds of torment, in comparison of which mutilation, sword, fire, drowning, being buried alive, would appear slight pains. For the preceding emperors had employed against them all these kinds of punishments."
CHAPTER III.
THE EFFECT OF PEACE, WEALTH AND LUXURY ON CHRISTIANITY.
Disastrous as the persecutions of the early Christian centuries were, still more mischievous to the church were those periods of tranquility which intervened between the outbursts of rage that prompted them. Peace may have her victories, no less renowned than those of war; and so, too, she has her calamities, and they are not less destructive than those of war. War may destroy nations, but ease and luxury mankind corrupt—the body and the mind. Especially is peace dangerous to the church. Prosperity relaxes the reins of discipline; people feel less and less the need of a sustaining providence; but in adversity the spirit of man feels after God, and he is correspondingly more devoted to the service of religion.