banner

Last Updated on :
Saturday, November 22, 2014

 

sp spacer

CONTENTS || PREVIOUS || NEXT

spacer

The Doctrine of the Trinity:
P White


spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer

 

It is not proposed in this chapter to examine in any great detail the general conditions prevailing during and immediately following on Apostolic times, but rather to appreciate the conditions existent during the period when it is affirmed by many, that more definite and emphatic teaching was given in relation to the Godhead.

In relation to the period prior to Apostolic times, suffice it to say that the Jews received the Old Testament as an undoubted revelation to them by God of Himself. The Apostles and the early Christians in their time considered that these writings still constituted an infallible guide and a truthful record of God and His work. With this fact Dr. Samuel Davidson concurs in his article on the "Canon" in Encyclopedia Britannica: -

" The first christians relied on the Old Testament as their chief religious book. To them it was of divine origin and authority."

 

The Gospels and Epistles being a revelation of a fuller nature at a later time than the period of Old Testament revelations, were entrusted to these early Apostles and disciples and were considered by them as of equal authority with the Old Testament, as Dr. Davidson continues to point out in the article just referred to:-

"The New Testament writing came into gradual use by the side of the older Jewish documents, according to the times in which they appeared and the reputed names of the authors."

 

Another historian also writes that: -

"Before the middle of the second century, most of the books composing the New Testament were in every Christian Church throughout the known world, and were read and regarded as the divine rule of faith and practice. And hence it may be concluded, that it was while some of the Apostles were still living, or certainly while their disciples and immediate successors were everywhere to be met with, that these books were carefully distinguished from other things written by man. That those four of them which are called Gospels were combined during the life time of St. John and that the first three were approved by this holy personage, we learn from the testimony of Eusebius." -Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., p. 93.

 

Eusebius, also writing in his history of this matter, says: -

"After Mark and Luke had already published their gospels, they say that John, who during all this time was proclaiming, the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three gospels previously written, having been distributed among all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth." -Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book iii., chap. xxiv., A.D. 81-96.

 

It may therefore be truthfully stated that to the early Christians the Old Testament writings, and with them the letters of the Apostles, and the Gospel records of the companions of Christ, were a true, proper and authorised rule of life and doctrine. They even, at so early a time, differentiated between the books of God and the books of man. It is therefore with no little satisfaction that in the controversies of to-day the same standard is available in all its sanctity and faithfulness by which to judge of the truth in these discussions.

Whether those early Christians accepted the works now known as the "Apostolic Fathers," or whether they rejected them as of man's authorship being merely of some service for exhortation, and useful for promulgating the truth of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, but not having the seal of divine approbation and blessing -- it is impossible at this late date to ascertain. Suffice it that in this day the works are extant which those primitive followers of Christ and early successors of the Apostles received as of undoubted Divine origin.

STATE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.
THE APOSTOLIC WARNINGS

 

In relation to the early Christians themselves, the successors of those to whom the New Testament writings were addressed, much more should be recorded here; for on the conditions under which this early society existed, together with its institutions, rests the value of their testimony.

Under the Apostles, the Churches assumed a very uncompromising attitude; the world to them was unclean, with all its arrangements and natural attractions, with which it was spiritual death to mingle:-

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John ii. 15).

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James iv. 4).

 

By the early Christians, the immediate successors, and in some cases the associates of the later Apostles, the same attitude was maintained.

The system of control in the ecclesias, or churches, was of the most simple order: the body governed the body. Writing of this matter in the "Earliest Times," in the first century, Dr. Mosheim records in his Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 87, that : -

"The assembled people elected their own presiding officers and teachers, or freely approved such as came recommended by others. They also either repudiated laws proposed by the presiding officers at their meetings, or voted for making them binding: they both excluded and re-admitted wicked and unworthy members; they decided the controversies and disputes that arose; they heard and determined the causes of presbyters and deacons; in a word they did every thing which marks the parties invested with supreme power in any state."

 

Mosheim continues and further sketches the internal constitutions: he says that:-

"Three or four presbyters, men of gravity and holiness, placed over those little societies, could easily proceed with harmony, and needed no head or president. But when, as churches grew larger, there was an increased number not only of presbyters and inferior ministers, but also of labours and occupations varying in character, it became necessary that the council of presbyters should have a president, a man of distinguished gravity and prudence, who should distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and be as it were the central point of the whole society. He was at first denominated the angel [Rev. ii. 1], but afterwards, the bishop; that word in Greek -- EPISKOPOS, an inspector, or overseer -- being indicative of his principal business . . . Those, however, who judge of bishops in the first and golden age of Christianity from their successors in the following centuries, blend and confound characters that are very different. For in this first century and the next, a bishop had charge of a single church, which might ordinarily be contained in a private house; nor was he its lord, but in reality its minister and servant; instructing the people, conducting all parts of public worship, and attending on the sick and necessitous in person. Undoubtedly, such things as he could not manage and perform he committed to the presbyters; but he had no power to decree or sanction anything until it was approved by the presbyters and people. The emoluments of this singularly laborious and perilous office were very small. . . It was not long, however, before the extent of episcopal jurisdiction and power was enlarged. For the bishops who lived in cities either themselves or through their presbyters, gathered new churches in the neighbouring towns and country. As these continued under the protection and care of the bishops by whose ministry or procurement they received Christianity, ecclesiastical provinces were gradually formed, which the Greeks afterwards denominated dioceses." -Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., pp. 91, 92.

 

Such, indeed, was the ideal condition of this early people; as a religious body, subject only to God their Father and blessed in their purity and simplicity by Jesus Christ their Saviour. While on one hand a contemplation of such a state must commend itself to all lovers of truth and righteousness; each delighting in the other, and all in God; yet in that very fact was their weakness, as their Lord had recorded some half a century before, when instructing His Apostles in their first mission:-

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless (marg., simple) as doves" (Matt. x. 16).

 

They readily followed the last injunction, but from lack of experience they did not realise that the world was really to them a "world of wolves."

Too truly had the Apostle Peter warned this primitive body that

"there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them" (2 Peter ii.1).

 

The Apostle to the Gentiles also had sorrowfully to record even after "the space of three years during which time he ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears," that after his decease:

"Grievous wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts xx. 29-30).

 

Continually did this Apostle passionately appeal to these simple, yet earnest minded people to protect themselves from the world and its philosophies:-

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world" (Col. ii.8).

 

But he had to admit that even as he wrote: -

"The mystery of iniquity doth already work" (2 Thess. ii. 7).

 

While John the beloved disciple of the Lord at a later date, only some thirty years from the Apostle's prediction, had to put on record the complete fulfilment of that sorrowful yet truthful prophecy. He says that

"Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world " (1 John iv. 3).

 

These, therefore, were the fears, or rather it was the realisation of the fears of the Apostles, at the close of the true Apostolic age; for with John's death the curtain was to be drawn over that period when God made known His purpose to man. After this time the authority of all writings is uncertain and they must be judged by the standard of Holy Writ, in accordance with this last Apostle's injunction.-

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John iv. 1).

 

Neander, the historian of, and voluminous writer on, early church history and doctrines, thus beautifully closes his remarks on this age of inspired men: -

"With John the apostolic age of the church naturally closes. The doctrine of the gospel which by him had been still exhibited in its original purity was now exposed, without the support of apostolic authority, to a conflict with a host of opponents, some of whom had already made their appearance." -Neander, Planting of Christianity and Antignostikus, vol.i, p. 413.

 

ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE WORLD CORRUPTS THE EARLY PURITY IN DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE

 

It is not strange to record, but rather a fact to be anticipated in the light of these warnings, and of the nascent corruption in the constitution of their ecclesias, that long before the Church had succeeded to any great degree in "turning men to God from idols" they had lost much of their original purity of doctrine.

Harnack writing in his article on "Montanism," in the Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. xvi., pp. 774, 775, says that:-

"From the middle of the second century a change began to take place in the outward circumstances of Christianity. The Christian faith had hitherto been maintained in a few small congregations scattered over the Roman Empire. These congregations were provided with only the most indispensable constitutional forms, neither stricter nor more numerous than were required by a religious bond resting on supernatural expectations, strict discipline, and brotherly love. This state of things passed away. . . . Should the church take the decisive step into the world, consent to its arrangements, conform to its customs, acknowledge as far as possible its authorities, and satisfy its requirements? Or ought she, on the other hand, to remain, as she had been at first, a society of religious devotees, separated and shut out from the world by a rigorous discipline and working on it only through a direct propaganda? This was the dilemma that the church had to face in the second half of the second century. . . It was natural that warning voices should then be raised in the church against secular tendencies. . . . that demands should be made for a restoration of the old discipline and severity, and for a return to apostolic simplicity and purity. The church as a whole, however, under pressure of circumstances rather than by a spontaneous impulse, decided otherwise. She marched through the open door into the Roman state, . . . she furnished herself with everything of value that could be taken over from the world without over straining the elastic structure of the organisation which she now adopted. With the aid of its
philosophy she created her new Christian theology, . . . and she contrived to borrow some hints even from its religious worship. [Which of course at that time was the pagan worship of idols and natural powers. -- Author] ... But what of those believers of the old school who protested in the name of the gospel against this secular church, and who wished to gather together a people prepared for their God regardless alike of numbers and circumstances? Why, they joined an enthusiastic movement which had originated amongst a small circle in a remote province, and had at first a merely local importance. . . They had to withdraw from the church, to be known as 'Montanists,' and thus to assume the characters of a sect. Their enthusiasm and their prophesyings were denounced as demoniacal; their expectation of a glorious earthly kingdom of Christ was stigmatised as Jewish, . . and their conduct as hypocritical. . . . These views found very little acceptance in the third century, and in the course of the fourth they died out. . . The writings of Tertullian afford the clearest demonstration that what is called Montanism was a reaction against secularism in the church, and an effort to conserve the privileges of primitive christianity."

 

Of the same period Dr. Merle D'Aubigne', author of the History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, writes in his Introduction to Ranke's History of the Popes:-

"The evangelical, which is the primitive system, extends only to the commencement of the second century. Then the word of God reigned supreme, and a living faith in the grace which that word proclaims, was regarded as entirely sufficient for saving the sinner; but at the commencement of the second century the void left in the Church by the death of the apostles, and the invasion of the house of God by the human element, brought about a general alteration in the spirit and organisation of the Church, and a great crisis ensued."

 

And of a little later period another writer, the Rev. Joseph Milner, records in his Church History, vol. i., p. 336:-

"That a deep declension from Christian purity had taken place not only in the East, where false Philosophy aided its progress, but also in the West, where the operation of no peculiar cause can be traced beyond the common influence of prosperity on human depravity, is now completely evident. . . It deserves to be remarked, that the first grand and general declension, after the primary effusion of the Divine Spirit, should be fixed about the middle of this [third] century."

 

So the decline in the simplicity of the early Church commenced; and was not to be stayed until

"That man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thess ii. 3, 4).

 

The climax came. Hallam, in his Europe During the Middle Ages, p. 405 thus describes this period: -

"Passing rapidly from a condition of distress and persecution to the summit of prosperity, the church degenerated as rapidly from her ancient purity, and forfeited the respect of future ages, in the same proportion as she acquired the blind veneration of her own."

 

For as Dean Milman says of Constantine's* time:-

"Christianity may now be said to have ascended the imperial throne: with the single exception of Julian, from this period the monarchs of the Roman empire professed the religion of the Gospel. This important crisis in the history of Christianity almost forcibly arrests the attention to contemplate the change wrought in Christianity by its advancement into a dominant power in the state. . . It could not but submit to these laws, framed, as it might seem, with its own concurrent voice. . . The interference of the civil power, in some of its most private affairs, the promulgation of its canons, and even in some cases the election of its bishops, by the state, was the price which it must inevitably pay for its association with the ruling power. . . The more ardent and unworldly would fondly suppose that a Christian emperor would always be actuated by Christian motives, and that the imperial authority, instead of making aggressions on Christian independence, would rather bow in humble submission to its acknowledged dominion. . . The Emperor as little anticipated that he was introducing an antagonistic power into the administration of human affairs. . . This antagonistic principle of independence, was inherent in the new religion, and would not cease till it had asserted and, for a considerable period, exercised an authority superior to that of the civil government. Already in Athanasius might be seen the one subject of Constantine who dared to resist his will. From Athanasius, who owned himself a subject, but with inflexible adherence to his own opinions, to Ambrose, who rebuked the great Theodosius, and from Ambrose up to the Pope who set his foot on the neck of the prostrate Emperor, the progress was slow, but natural and certain." -Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., pp. 389, 390.

 

 

*Who could be shown to be the "man-child of sin," to use the expositors' expression, that is, he was the beginning of that system of iniquity in the full development of which is the Pope, apostolically styled the "man of sin" (see Rev. xii. and 2 Thess. ii.).

The serious and at the same time unexpected ramifications of this revolution is referred to by Dean Milman in the rise of Constantinople and the transfer of the seat of government to that city:-

"The foundation of Constantinople marks one of the periods of change in the annals of the world. . . . The removal of the seat of empire from Rome might, indeed, at first appear to strengthen the decaying cause of Paganism. . . . But its more remote and eventual consequences were favourable to the consolidation and energy of the Christian power in the west. The absence of a secular competitor allowed the Papal authority to grow up and to develop its secret strength . . . The extinction of the Western empire . . . left all the awe which attached to the old Roman name, or which followed the possession of the imperial city, to gather round the tiara of the Pontiff. In any other city the Pope would in vain have asserted his descent from St. Peter; the long habit of connecting together the name of Rome with supreme dominion, silently co-operated in establishing the spiritual despotism of the Papal See." -Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., pp. 330, 331.

 

Lastly, a vivid picture of this final result achieved by the early corrupters of the pure and simple faith is to be discovered in Maitland's valuable work, The Church in the Catacombs, pp. 75, 76, where, commenting on a painting or drawing found, executed by Diogenes, in the Catacombs, he says:-

"Could we imagine the humble Diogenes, whom we see engaged in his melancholy task, to look out from the entrance to the crypt, and behold, in their present splendour, the domes and palaces of Christian Rome; to see the cross which he could only wear in secret on his coarse woollen tunic, glittering from every pinnacle of the eternal city; how would he hail the arrival of a promised millennium, and confidently infer the abolition of idolatrous service! Glowing with the zeal of the Cyprianic age, he hastes to the nearest temple, to give thanks for the marvellous change: he stops short at the threshold, for by a strange mistake he has encountered incense and images and the purple-bearing train of the Pontifex Maximus. What remains for him, but to wander solitary beside the desolate Tiber, by those 'waters of Babylon to sit down and weep,' while he remembers his ancient Zion."

 

Thus from simple innovations came great changes which not only in the outward form destroyed the aspect of Christianity to the world, and of the world to Christianity; but internally as great, if not greater changes had been accomplished. First, the appointment of bishops and priests, arising from early necessity and convenience in the growing churches, was made and grew until it completely wrecked the simple institutions and godly fellowship of the golden age of Christianity. The priestly order multiplied out of all proportion to the community and as has been briefly alluded to here, and will be more fully noticed later, they arrogated to themselves not only the power to govern the body, but also to decide upon matters of doctrine, and even when occasion arose to arbitrarily alter the accepted basis of faith, until there appeared that great apostasy of apostasies -- the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which claims not only the guardianship of man in this world, but pursues him to the eternal side of the grave, there to wreak its vengeance or to bestow its blessing and rewards upon him.

 

"GREVIOUS WOLVES ENTER IN" AND DESTROY THE
SIMPLICITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCTRINES

 

 

Great as was the declension of the church from her primeval position in relation to the world, her declension in forms and creeds was greater still. In the spirit of the writing of Hallam the greater her prosperity in worldly matters, the greater her degeneration in spiritual concerns. As the degeneration increased, the greater was her attractiveness as a new scope for the exploiting of the systems of philosophy which beset her so closely on all sides.

Mosheim records of those early times that

"Christian societies were scarcely formed, and in a manner organised, when at once there were men everywhere, who, little contented with the simplicity and purity of that religion which the apostles taught, attempted innovations, and of their own heads wanted to fashion a religion for themselves." -Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 115.

 

Of these men he continues:-

"The philosophers and learned men, who came over to the Christians in this [second] century, were no inconsiderable protection and ornament to this holy religion, by their discussions, their writings, and their talents. But if any are disposed to question, whether the Christian cause received more benefit than injury from these men, I must confess myself unable to decide the point. For the noble simplicity, and the majestic dignity of the Christian religion were lost, or at least impaired, when these philosophers presumed to associate their dogmas with it, and to bring faith and piety under the dominion of human reason." -Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., p. 142.

 

Still later in his writings Dr. Mosheim writes more emphatically of the harm these philosophers did to the Christian beliefs.--

"This philosophy imprudently adopted by Origen and other Christians, did immense harm to Christianity. For it led the teachers of it to involve in philosophic obscurity many parts of our religion, which were in themselves plain and easy to be understood; and to add to the precepts of the Saviour no few things, of which not a word can be found in the holy Scriptures. . . Finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following centuries [i.e., from the second] from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined." -Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., p. 157.

 

Another historian bears witness to the same corruption at this early period of the Church. The Rev. Joseph Milner in his Church History, vol. ii., p. 28, records that

"This whole period [a generation previous to the persecution of Diocletian] as well as the whole scene of the persecution is very barren of such [godly] characters. . . . Moreover, the prevalence of superstition on the one hand, and the decay of Evangelical knowledge on the other, are equally apparent."

 

And Eusebius, whose work is the basis of much of the modern ecclesiastical histories, states as the object of the writing of his work at approximately A.D. 325-335, that it was

"to describe the character, times, and number of those who, stimulated by, the desire of innovation, and advancing to the greatest errors, announced themselves leaders in the propagation of false opinions, like grievous wolves unmercifully assaulting the flock of Christ. "-Ecclesiastical History, Preface xii.

 

 

"OF YOUR OWNSELVES SHALL MEN ARISE"

 

 

As might be expected these men who brought in "damnable heresies" were not content with the simple rules of government which the Apostles had instituted. From being violators of the will of God it was but a short step to being violators of the Church itself, in full opposition to the precept of the Apostle, not to be

"as lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock" (1 Peter v. 3).

 

Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv., informs us that

"The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honourable servants of a free people. Whenever the episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters by the suffrage of the whole congregation."

 

This original simplicity with the presence of such men, as both Mosheim and Milner declare, were admitted into their midst, was impossible for long: they were not satisfied with the "noble simplicity and the majestic dignity," nor were they content with being the "first of their equals and the honourable servants of a free people." But they would be "lords over God's heritage," and in many cases, too, for "filthy lucre's sake." Of the last extract Gibbon says in the same chapter:-

"Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were governed more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles. . . The prelates of the third century imperceptibly changed the language of exhortation into that of command. . . They exalted the unity and power of the church as it was represented in the EPISCOPAL OFFICE. . . . Each of them exacted from his flock the same implicit obedience as if that favourite metaphor had been literally just. . . The democratical part of the constitution was, in many places, very warmly supported by the zealous or interested opposition of the inferior clergy. But their patriotism received the ignominious epithets of faction and schism."

 

From this situation Gibbon continues to demonstrate the uprise of the "memorable distinction of the laity and of the clergy," and how that the "bishop being the natural steward of the Church, the public state was intrusted to his care, without account or control," and that "by some of these unfaithful stewards the riches of the church were lavished in sensual pleasures, by others they were perverted to the purpose of private gain, of fraudulent purchases, and of capricious usury."

How these offices developed into the present invidious distinction between lay and clergy is noted by Dean Milman, in his History of Christianity, vol. ii., pp. 28, 29: -

"The bishop gradually assumed the title of pontiff; the presbyters became a sacerdotal order. From the Old Testament, and even from paganism, the Christians, at first as ennobling metaphors, adopted their sacred appellations. Insensibly the meaning of these significant titles worked into the Christian system. They as sumed, as it were, a privilege of nearer approach to the Deity; and a priestly caste grew rapidly up in a religion which, in its primary institution, acknowledged only one mediator between earth and heaven."

 

The inconsistency involved in the reception of a "priestly order" into this simple body, Dr. Neander shows in his General History of Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 249:-

"Such a guild of priests [as existed under the Mosaic economy] having the exclusive care of providing for their religious wants, and serving as mediators by whom all other men must first be placed in connection with God and divine things -- such a priestly caste could find no place within Christianity. . . Christ, the Prophet and High Priest for entire humanity, was the end of the prophetic office and of the priesthood."

 

So rapid was the social advance of this unwarranted order, that in Constantine's time this
body of Christians who retained their distinctness in the community were frequently admitted to the imperial presence; thus fusing church and state, as has been more comprehensively shown earlier in this chapter. The development of the clergy took place until in A.D. 315 a special law for clerics was issued:-

"A.D. 315. A new law recognised the clerical order as a distinct and privileged class. It exempted them from the onerous municipal offices, which had begun to press heavily upon the more opulent inhabitants of the towns. " -Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 313.

 

Passing by the origin of this dangerous caste, which in modern times has contributed in no small degree to the discredit placed on the Christian name, as the Apostle Peter fully foresaw "and many shall follow their (the false teachers) pernicious ways; by reason of which the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you" (2 Peter ii. 2, 3). Let us revert to a consideration of the state of the Church as described by Gibbon.

This historian is not alone in the testimony to this great corruption; Mosheim also affirms the same departures from primitive rule and practice, and writing of the Synods and Councils says:-

"These Synods or Councils, of which no vestige appears before the middle of this [second] century, changed nearly the whole form of the church. For in the first place, the ancient rights and privileges of the people were, by them, very much abridged; and on the other hand, the authority and dignity of the bishops were not a little augmented. At first, they did not deny themselves to be the representatives of their churches, and guided by instructions from the people; but gradually they made higher pretensions, maintaining that power was given them by Christ himself, to decide upon rules of faith and conduct for the members of his church." Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., p. 161.

 

"Decide upon rule of faith and conduct"! In the face of such claims and such testimony to the departure from the early faith, what credence can be placed in their doctrines? A writer here and there may indeed remain firm, as is quickly perceived by a perusal of their works, but the great body had strayed far from the pure stream of the religion of Jesus Christ, whom they so falsely claimed as their Master, to those philosophically adulterated waters from which the Church has so extensively drawn since their times.

Bishop Bull contends for the sanctity of the decisions of the Synods in relation to matters of faith and conduct. He considers any demur to be impious, and says of the Council of Nice particularly, though not exclusively that

"If we imagine that in the question of the utmost moment the whole of the rulers of the Church altogether erred, how will the promise of Christ our Lord hold good, who engaged to be present, even to the end of the world, with the Apostles, and consequently with their successors? For, since the promise extends to the end of the world, and yet the Apostles were not to continue alive so long, Christ must most certainly be regarded as addressing, in the persons of the Apostles, their successors also in that office." Defensio Fidei Nicance, p. 3.

 

One wonders whether the Bishop would agree to this authority being vested in all the Synods and Councils of the Romish Church. Assuredly in point of chronological sequence the claim of Rome -- for an unbroken descent -- must be granted; but does that admission therefore allow that their bulls and decrees are lawful and divinely authorised and in point of truth, always without error?

The promise of Christ to His Apostles, quoted by Dr. Bull, is evidently a personal promise:-

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world " (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20).

 

It should be noted first of all that this particular command to teach is to the Apostles themselves, who went forth and preached the word as the "Acts of the Apostles " records and that miracles testified to the truth of their mission: -

"And they went forth, and preached every where the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mark xvi. 20).

 

And therefore as Mark here shows the "to be with you alway " should be referred to the "Lord working with them." No difficulty need be apprehended in the mere appearance of the word "world " (Gk., aion) for the definition of it, as given by Dr. Robert Young is "age, indefinite time, dispensation," and is properly used as descriptive of "the Apostolic age, or Jewish dispensation." (See Dr. Adam Clark on Matt. xxviii. 20).

To this conclusion the eminent Trinitarian, Bishop Burnet agrees in his Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 281: -

"Those words of our Saviour, with which St. Matthew concludes his Gospel, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world,' infer no infallibility, but only a promise of assistance and protection. . . God's 'being with any,' 'His walking with them,' 'His being in the midst of them,' 'His never leaving nor forsaking them,' are expressions often used in the Scripture, which signify no more but God's watchful providence, guiding supporting, and protecting His people: all this is far from infallibility."

 

The argument, then, is that the records of antiquity lose their trustworthiness in the hands of such as arrogated to themselves the right to decide upon matters of faith and practice; and, further, that all authority which may under more favourable circumstances have been allowed must be eliminated by reason of their system having allowed philosophers, who had at one time nothing in common, not only to enter the Church and to occupy prominent and authoritative offices, but to freely mingle their philosophies with the original and pure doctrines of Jesus and the Apostles.

As has been noticed these philosophies were gradually adapted to, and grafted upon these received doctrines, leaving only a section, -- the true body -- to stand as witnesses to testify against this unholy alliance of paganised philosophy with the revelation of God.

Readily does one endorse the statement of Tertullian (circa A.D. 207) as quoted in the preface to the 1871 edition of Dr. Priestley's A History of the Corruption of Christianity, that

"That is the true faith which is the most ancient, and that a corruption which is modern."

 

Much more might be written of this uprise of false teachers, and of the introduction of the great apostasy from primitive beliefs, but sufficient evidence has been produced to destroy the claim of current times: the over-ruling power of decision in doctrinal matters of the Church, by reason of its unbroken descent from the Apostles. Without examining the credentials of the Church for this "unbroken descent from the Apostles," let it be appreciated that though this claim be granted as far as occupancy of office is concerned yet in the face of the corruption as is here recorded, it would avail nothing in its opposition to the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

The writings of the companions of Jesus Christ can alone be of authority in their record "of all that Jesus began both to do and teach." The books which now comprise the Bible accepted in its original form by all in the first and second centuries, must still remain the sole Standard of Appeal.

The necessity of some such recognised standard through all ages, to bear witness to "the truth," is apparent from Dr. Mosheim's comment in his Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., p. 84. He says, speaking particularly of early times:-

"Any religion will gradually be corrupted and become extinct, unless there are persons continually at hand, who shall explain and inculcate it."

 

Again, as Dr. Flint points out, once allow the Divine records to be doubted, or any question of their authority to be entertained, and speculation immediately ensues and devastates the revelation of God.

"As soon as an inspired record is left at all, as soon as any speculation is allowed on its contents, as soon as the process of forming doctrine is permitted to begin, all conceivable right to stop the movement anywhere is lost." Rev. Dr. Robert Flint, Encyclopedia Britannica, Art., "Theism."

 

Milner's testimony quoted before, was that the centuries which most needed firm and able exponents were the most devoid of them; therefore to the Bible can seekers after the truth of Christianity of these modern times alone repair for the certain faith as it is in Jesus, and use the testimony of the Christian Fathers only as contributory evidence.

Their testimony may be used, especially in their witness to departures from original beliefs, but their writings as a whole are so signally contradictory, while in many cases the Platonising of Christianity has introduced doctrine of the most extreme absurdity, that little or no credence can be placed upon them to ascertain what doctrines were really held. Occasionally a book is discovered which stands above its contemporaries as a lighthouse predominates the waves, wherein a clear sound is heard -- the last faint and still waning echoes of the original gospel truths.

CHAPTER II: The Use And Abuse Of Scripture

 


spacer