In his second letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul warned the brethren of "a falling away" (Greek, apostasia) from the truth, to result in the manifestation of a phase of wickedness which he styled "that Wicked," "that man of sin," "the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped." 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 8. He added, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth [hindereth] will let [hinder], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed." Verses 7, 8. That is to say that the great apostasy was developing even in the days of Paul; he could trace its insidious workings even in many churches which he had planted; but there was a hindering element which for the time prevented its full development. Iniquity could not assume such proportions in the Christian church as to exalt itself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped," so long as paganism was the prevailing religion, and was upheld by the power which ruled the world. The persecutions which the church suffered from the heathen kept it comparatively pure; but when Constantine elevated Christianity to the throne of the world, all the errors which for nearly three centuries had been insinuating themselves into the church, were given ample room for exercise.
It is not our purpose to give a complete history of the progress of corruption in the church; we wish only to note briefly the progress of the apostasy until the time of Constantine, since it was in this period that nearly all the abominations of the Catholic Church had their birth. As a preface to this study, let the reader review the quotations which we have made from the writings of the apostles, in the chapter entitled, "The Apostolic Church," showing the evils that existed in the church even in their time. If such things existed when the churches had the benefit of the instruction of men commissioned by Heaven, and clothed with divine power, what might we not expect to find in the years following the death of the apostles? That which we have already quoted concerning the Fathers, and from their writings, is sufficient to show that there was an abundance of false teachers in the early church; we shall now see what was the legitimate result of their teaching.
We cannot better introduce this part of the subject than by the following quotation from Dr. Killen, concerning the heresies within a hundred years after the apostles:--
"But though the creed of the church was still to some extent substantially sound, it must be admitted that it was already beginning to suffer much from adulteration. One hundred years after the death of the apostle John, spiritual darkness was fast settling down upon the Christian community; and the Fathers, who flourished towards the commencement of the third century, frequently employ language for which they would have been sternly rebuked, had they lived in the days of the apostles and evangelists. Thus, we find them speaking of 'sins cleansed by repentance,' and of repentance as 'the price at which the Lord has determined to grant forgiveness.' We read of 'sins cleansed ,EI by alms and faith,' and of the martyr, by his sufferings, 'washing away his own iniquities.' We are told that by baptism 'we are cleansed from all our sins,' and 'regain that Spirit of God which Adam received at his creation and lost by his transgression.' 'The pertinacious wickedness of the devil,' says Cyprian, 'has power up to the saving water, but in baptism he loses all the poison of his wickedness.' The same writer insists upon the necessity of penance, a species of discipline unknown to the apostolic church, and denounces, with terrible severity, those who discourage its performance. 'By the deceitfulness of their lies,' says he, they interfere, 'that satisfaction be not given to God in his anger. . . . All pains are taken that sins be not expiated by due satisfaction and lamentations, that wounds be not washed clean by tears.' It may be said that some of these expressions are rhetorical, and that those by whom they were employed did not mean to deny the allsufficiency of the great sacrifice; but had these Fathers clearly apprehended the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, they would have recoiled from the use of language so exceedingly objectionable."--Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 2, chap. 5, paragraph
In the preface to the "Ancient Church," Dr. Killen says:--
"In the interval between the days of the apostles and the conversion of Constantine, the Christian commonwealth changed its aspect. The bishop of Rome-- a personage unknown to the writers of the New Testament--meanwhile rose into prominence, and at length took precedence of all other churchmen. Rites and ceremonies, of which neither Paul nor Peter ever heard, crept silently into use, and then claimed the rank of divine institutions. Officers, for whom the primitive disciples could have found no place, and titles, which to them would have been altogether unintelligible, began to challenge attention, and to be named apostolic."
The learned church historian, Mosheim, bears testimony to the same effect, and he also tells how it came to pass that unscriptural practices were introduced into the church. He says:--
"It is certain that to religious worship, both public and private, many rites were added, without necessity and to the great offense of sober and good men. The principal cause of this, I readily look for in the perverseness of mankind, who are more delighted with the pomp and splendor of external forms and pageantry, than with the true devotion of the heart, and who despise whatever does not gratify their eyes and ears. But other and additional causes may be mentioned, which, though they suppose no bad design, yet clearly betray indiscretion.
"First, There is good reason to suppose that the Christian bishops purposely multiplied sacred rites for the sake of rendering the Jews and the pagans more friendly to them. For both these classes had been accustomed to numerous and splendid ceremonies from their infancy, and had made no question of their constituting an essential part of religion. And hence, when they saw the new religion to be destitute of such ceremonies, they thought it too simple, and therefore despised it. To obviate this objection, the rulers of the Christian churches deemed it proper for them to be more formal and splendid in their public worship.
Secondly, The simplicity of the worship which Christians offered to the Deity, had given occasion to certain calumnies, maintained both by the Jews and the pagan priests. The Christians were pronounced atheists, because they were destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all that pomp, in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to consist. For unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what meets their eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian doctors thought they must introduce some external rites, which would strike the senses of people; so that they could maintain that they really had all those things of which Christians were charged with being destitute, though under different forms."
"Fourthly, Among the Greeks and the people of the East nothing was held more sacred than what were called the 'mysteries.' This circumstance led the Christians, in order to impart dignity to their religion, to say, that they also had similar mysteries, or certain holy rites concealed from the vulgar; and they not only applied the terms used in the pagan mysteries to the Christian institutions, particularly baptism and the Lord's Supper, but they gradually introduced also the rites which were designated by those terms. This practice originated in the Eastern provinces; and thence, after the times of Adrian (who first introduced the Grecian mysteries among the Latins), it spread among the Christians of the West. A large part therefore of the Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of the pagan mysteries."--Ecclesiastical History, book 1, cent. 2, part 2, chap. 4, sec. 1-5.
In view of the above testimony, we think that no one need to be led astray by any practice which he may find in the church. Let him first carefully and candidly examine the Scriptures to see if they sanction the practice. If they do not, then of course he should have nothing more to do with it. Then if he is anxious to know how the practice came to be one of the customs of the church, the quotations which we have made will enlighten him. Every ceremony of the church, if it be unscriptural, will be found to have been adopted from the heathen, or else to have been invented by the bishops of the early church, in order to catch the fancy of the heathen. By making the heathen believe that the Christian religion differed but very little from paganism, the bishops were enabled to gain many "converts." For proof of this, the reader has only to review the extracts from the writings of the Fathers that have been made in previous chapters.
In a note to the paragraphs last quoted, Mosheim says:--
"It will not be unsuitable to transcribe here, a very apposite, passage, which I accidentally met with, in Gregory Nyssen's 'Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus,' in the 'Works of Thaumaturgus,' as published by Vossius, p. 312, who gives the Latin only:--
"'When Gregory perceived that the ignorant and simple multitude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the sensitive pleasures and delights it afforded--he allowed them in celebrating the memory of the holy martyrs, to indulge themselves, and give a loose to pleasure (i.e., as the thing itself, and both what precedes and what follows, place beyond all controversy, he allowed them at the sepulchers of the martyrs on their feast days, to dance, to use sports, to indulge conviviality, and to do all things that the worshipers of idols were accustomed to do in their temples, on their festival days), hoping that in process of time they would spontaneously come over to a more becoming and more correct manner of life.'"
Read the above carefully. Mosheim says that Gregory Thaumaturgus, one of the most highly esteemed of the church Fathers, allowed his people, at their festivals in honor of the martyrs, not only "to dance, to use sports, to indulge conviviality," but also, "to do all things that the worshipers of idols were accustomed to do in their temples on their festival days." In order to know what this latter expression implies, we have only to read the following from the same author:--
"Of the prayers of pagan worshipers, whether we regard the matter or the mode of expression, it is impossible to speak favorably; they were not only destitute in general of everything allied to the spirit of genuine piety, but were sometimes framed expressly for the purpose of obtaining the countenance of Heaven to the most abominable and flagitious undertakings. In fact, the greater part of their religious observances were of an absurd and ridiculous nature, and in many instances strongly tinctured with the most disgraceful barbarism and obscenity. Their festivals and other solemn days were polluted by a licentious indulgence in every species of libidinous excess; and on these occasions they were not prohibited even from making the sacred mansions of their gods the scenes of vile and beastly gratification."-Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Commentaries (introduction), chap. 1, sec. 2.
"Absurd and ridiculous" practices; "disgraceful barbarism and obscenity;" "licentious indulgence in every species of libidinous excess;" and "scenes of vile and beastly gratification;"--such were the things in which one of the most renowned church Fathers indulged his parishioners, in order that they might not feel so much inclined to shake off their "Christian bonds" and return to heathenism. Surely this was doing evil that good might come. But however astute the policy of Gregory may have been, and we can easily believe that it would be effectual in holding his "converts," we cannot give him credit for great knowledge of human nature, if he thought that people would by such means "spontaneously come over to a more becoming and more correct mode of life."
Perhaps the reader may obtain a still clearer idea of the way the early church was paganized, by reading the following extracts from an article in the Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1852, on "Roman Catholic Missions in the Congo Free State," showing how in the seventeenth century the Jesuits "converted" the natives:--
"They introduced, as far as they could, all the rites and ceremonies of the Romish Church. The mass was celebrated with all due pomp; the confessional was erected in almost every village; penances of all grades and kinds were imposed; children and adults alike were required to perform the rosary, and the people en masse soon learned to make the sign of the cross, and most readily did they fall into the habit of wearing crucifixes, medals, and relics. There were certain heathenish customs, however, which the missionary Fathers found much difficulty in inducing the people to abandon; and they were never entirely successful until they substituted others of a similar character, which the natives regarded as a sort of equivalent for those they were required to give up."
The writer then gives an account of some of the superstitious rites which the Jesuits substituted for those which the heathen had formerly practiced, and continues thus:
"Another custom of the country at the root of which the ax was laid, was that of guarding their fruit trees and patches of grain with feteiches, which were supposed to possess themselves the power of punishing all trespassers. The practice was interdicted, but the people at the same time were recommended 'to use consecrated palm branches, and here and there in their patches of corn to set up the sign of the cross.' These details might be extended to almost any length, if it were necessary. A Roman Catholic of discernment may possibly see an essential difference between these heathenish customs that were abolished, and those that were substituted in there place; but we seriously doubt whether the simple-minded people of Congo were ever conscious of any material change in their code of superstitious rites, or derived any essential advantage by the exchange."
The same course is pursued to-day by Roman Catholic missionaries in heathen lands. It is very fitting that this should be so, for it was by such means that the Roman Catholic Church came into existence. It is very doubtful, also, if many simple-minded people in the early centuries were ever conscious of any material change in their code of superstitious rites, or derived any essential advantage by the change. It is common to speak of the "ruins of paganism," upon which the "the church" was built, but building upon those ruins was the ruin of Christianity, so far as "the church" was concerned. A church built of ruins will be a ruin from the start.
Heathen and Catholic Mysteries
We have already quoted Mosheim's statement that a large part of the Christian observances and institutions, even in the second century, had the aspect of pagan mysteries. Let us now read something more about those same mysteries. It will tally very well with what has been said of Gregory Thaumaturgus. Says Mosheim:--
"In addition to the public service of the gods, at which everyone was permitted to be present, the Egyptians, Persians, Grecians, Indians, and some other nations, had recourse to a species of dark and recondite worship, under the name of mysteries. . . . None were admitted to behold or partake in the celebration of these mysteries, but those who had approved themselves worthy of such distinction, by their fidelity and perseverance in the practice of a long and severe course of initiatory forms. . . . In the celebration of some of them, it is pretty plain that many things were done in the highest degree repugnant to virtue, modesty, and every finer feeling. . . . It is certain that the highest veneration was entertained by the people of every country for what were termed the mysteries; and the Christians, perceiving this, were induced to make their religion conform in many respects to this part of the heathen model, hoping that it might thereby the more readily obtain a favorable reception with those whom it was their object and their hope to convert."--Ecclesiastical Commentaries (introduction), chap. 1, sec. 13.
In a note to the above we find the following:--
"They adopted, for instance, in common with the pagan nations, the plan of dividing their sacred offices into two classes: the one public, to which every person was freely admitted; the other secret or mysterious, from which all the unprofessed were excluded. The initiated were those who had been baptized; the unprofessed, the catechumens. The mode of preparatory examination also bore a strong resemblance, in many respects, to the course of initiatory forms observed by the heathen nations, in regard to their mysteries. In a word, many forms and ceremonies, to pass over other things of the Christian worship, were evidently copied from these sacred rites of paganism; and we have only to lament that what was thus done with unquestionably the best intentions, should in some respects have been attended with an evil result."
How anyone, after reading testimonies like these, can complacently follow any practice on the ground that it has been the custom of the church for centuries, is a wonder to us. Well did Jeremiah say, "The customs of the people are vain." Jer. 10:3. To claim that a practice must be correct because it is drawn from church tradition, is about as logical as it would be to say that certain viands must be wholesome, because they were rescued from the gutter. It is true that we may find a wholesome article of food in the mire of the streets; but we should not regard the fact that it was found in such a place as evidence that it was good; so tradition may bring to us some things that are good; but the fact that they come to us by tradition should not recommend them to us, but should, on the contrary, cause us to regard them with suspicion. Says Dr. Archibald Bower, in his "History of the Popes:"-
"To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity. If it is confirmed by him [i.e., by tradition] alone, we can at most but suspend our belief, not rejecting it as false, because a liar may sometimes speak truth; but we cannot, upon his bare authority, admit it as true."--Vol. 1, p. 1.
So whenever we find a "custom" which rests on church tradition, the "person of known veracity" to whom we shall refer it is the Bible. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Dr. Carson, in his great work on baptism, says:--
"With respect to religious doctrines and institutions, there is no antecedent probability that those in existence at any time are actually in Scripture. The vast majority of religious rites used under the Christian name are the mere invention of men; and not a single institution of the Lord Jesus, as it is recorded in the New Testament, has been left unchanged; and it is no injustice to put each of them to the proof, because, if they are in Scripture, proof is at all times accessible."--Page 6.
This being the case, it is perfectly just to conclude, when men appeal to "the custom of the church" in support of any practice, that they are conscious that the Bible will not sustain their position. No one who can support his cause by the Scriptures will ever appeal to the Fathers or to tradition and custom.
But we have further direct testimony concerning the perversion of Christian ordinances. We have seen how an eminent Father allowed the people to retain heathen customs on their festival days. As early as in the second century, within less than a hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Christian church had begun to assume the color of heathenism. And as the heathen "mysteries," which were accompanied by so much that is pleasing to the natural heart, must have been that which the heathen would be the most loth to give up, the church Fathers, in the excess of their perverted zeal, claimed that they too had "mysteries" connected with their religion. Mosheim thus treats of this:--
"Religion having thus, in both its branches, the speculative as well as the practical, assumed a twofold character, the one public or common, the other private, or mysterious, it is not long before a distinction of a similar kind took place also in the Christian discipline, and form of divine worship. For observing that in Egypt, as well as in other countries, the heathen worshipers, in addition to their public religious ceremonies, to which everyone was admitted without distinction, had certain secret and most sacred rites, to which they gave the name of 'mysteries,' and at the celebration of which none, except persons of the most approved faith and discretion, were permitted to be present, the Alexandrian Christians first, and after them others, were beguiled into a notion that they could not do better than make the Christian discipline accommodate itself to this model. The multitude professing Christianity were therefore divided by them into the 'profane,' or those who were not as yet admitted to the mysteries, and the 'initiated,' or faithful and perfect. To the former belonged the 'catechumens,' or those that had indeed enrolled themselves under the Christian banner, but had never been regularly received into the fellowship of Christ's flock by the sacrament of baptism; as also those who, for some transgression or offense, had been expelled from communion with the faithful. The latter, who were properly termed 'the church,' consisted of all such as had been regularly admitted into the Christian community by baptism, and had never forfeited their privileges, as well as of those who, having by some misconduct incurred the penalty of excommunication, had, upon their repentance, been again received into the bosom of the church. It became, moreover, customary, even in this century, more especially in Egypt and the neighboring provinces, for persons desirous of being admitted into either of these classes, to be previously exercised and examined, we may even say tormented, for a great length of time, with a variety of ceremonies, for the most part nearly allied to those that were observed in preparing people for a sight of the heathen mysteries. Upon the same principle, a twofold form was given to divine worship, the one general and open to the people at large, the other special and concealed from all, except the faithful or initiated. To the latter belonged the common prayers, baptism, the agapae or love-feasts, and the Lord's Supper; and as none were permitted to be present at these 'mysteries,' as they were termed, save those whose admission into fellowship of the church was perfect and complete, so likewise was it expected that, as a matter of duty, the most sacred silence should be observed in regard to everything connected with the celebration of them, and nothing whatever relating thereto be committed to the ears of the profane. From this constitution of things it came to pass, not only that many terms and phrases made use of in the heathen mysteries were transferred and applied to different parts of the Christian worship, particularly to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that, in not a few instances, the sacred rites of the church were contaminated by the introduction of various pagan forms and ceremonies."--Ecclesiastical Commentaries, cent. 2, sec. 36.
Comment on the above is unnecessary, and so we leave it, to introduce a statement from Dr. Killen, concerning the perversion of the communion:--
"In the third century superstition already recognized a mystery in the mixture [i.e., of the cup]. 'We see,' says Cyprian, 'that in the water the people are represented, but that in the wine is exhibited the blood of Christ. When, however, in the cup water is mingled with wine, the people are united to Christ, and the multitude of the faithful are coupled and conjoined to him on whom they believe.' the bread was not put into the mouth of the communicant by the administrator, but was handed to him by a deacon; and it is said that, the better to show forth the unity of the church, all partook of one loaf made of a size sufficient to supply the whole congregation. The wine was administered separately, and was drunk out of a cup or chalice. As early as the third century an idea began to be entertained that the eucharist was necessary to salvation, and it was, in consequence, given to infants. None were now suffered to be present at its celebration but those who were communicants; for even the catechumens, or candidates for baptism, were obliged to withdraw before the elements were consecrated."--Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 3, chap. 3, paragraph 5.
Here we have the Roman Catholic mass fully developed within but little over a hundred years after the death of the apostles. In some things, however, we must allow that the ancients were more consistent than those of later years. Infant baptism, so called, is at the present time practiced by the greater part of Christendom. Now nothing is more easily demonstrated than that baptism is the door unto the church. "By one spirit are we all baptized into one body." This is admitted by those who administer to infants what they term "baptism," for Pedobaptists never baptize those who have been sprinkled in infancy. But to join in the celebration of the Lord's Supper is not a privilege only, but it is the duty of every member of the church. Therefore, if it is proper and right to baptize infants, it is certainly as necessary to administer to them the communion also. To deprive any church-member of the blessings of the communion is a grievous wrong. In this respect the ancients were certainly consistent in their error.
Perversion of the Ordinance of Baptism
It was not till a later period than that of which we are now writing, that sprinkling was substituted for baptism. In proof of this we quote the following from 'Mcclintock and Strong's Cyclopedia,' concerning Novatian, who lived in the middle of the third century:--
"It was altogether irregular and contrary to ecclesiastical rules to admit a man to the priestly office who had been baptized in bed; that is who had been merely sprinkled, and had not been wholly immersed in water in the ancient method. For by many, and especially by the Roman Christians, the baptism of clinics (so they called those who, lest they should die out of the church, were baptized on a sick-bed) was accounted less perfect, and indeed less valid, and not sufficient for the attainment of salvation."
Thus we see that it was not till after the third century that sprinkling was substituted for baptism. How it finally came to take the place of baptism is very readily seen; for since the Christians thought that if anyone should die without baptism he could not enter Heaven, they introduced "clinical baptism," that is, the sprinkling of those who were converted while on their death-bed, and who could not leave their beds to be immersed. But the thought would soon very naturally present itself, that if sprinkling were valid baptism in one case it must be in every case, and so, being much more easily administered and received, it soon entirely superseded true baptism.
But although in the period of which we are now writing (the second century) immersion was still practiced, we must not suppose that the ordinance of baptism had entirely escaped the prevailing contamination. After speaking of the baptism of bells, Bingham says:--
"And here we meet with a practice a little more ancient, but not less superstitious, than the former; which was a custom that began to prevail among some weak people in Africa, of giving baptism to the dead. the third council of Carthage speaks of it as a thing that ignorant Christians were a little fond of, and therefore gives a seasonable caution against it, to discourage the practice."--Antiquities of the Christian Church, book 11, chap. 4.
Killen (Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 3, chap. 2, paragraphs 10, 12) gives the following additional testimony as to how baptism was perverted from its original simplicity:--
"The candidate, as early as the third century, was exorcised before baptism, with a view to the expulsion of evil spirits; and , in some places, after the application of the water, when the kiss of peace was given to him, a mixture of milk and honey was administered. He was then anointed, and marked on the forehead with the sign of the cross."
"Baptism, as dispensed in apostolic simplicity, is a most significant ordinance; but the original rite was soon well-nigh hidden behind the rubbish of human inventions. The milk and honey, the unction, the crossing, the kiss of peace, and the imposition of hands, were all designed to render it more imposing; and, still farther to deepen the impression, it was already administered in the presence of none save those who had themselves been thus initiated. But the foolishness of God is wiser than man. Nothing is more to be deprecated than an attempt to improve upon the institutions of Christ. Baptism, as established by the divine founder of our religion, is a visible exhibition of the gospel; but, as known in the third century, it had much of the character of one of the heathen mysteries. It was intended to confirm faith; but it was now contributing to foster superstition. How soon had the gold become dim, and the most fine gold been changed!"
Concerning another superstition connected with baptism, Bingham speaks as follows:--
"Immediately after the unction the minister proceeded to consecrate the water, or the bishop, if he were present, consecrated it, while the priests were finishing the unction. For so the author under the name of Dionysius represents it. While the priests, says he, are finishing the unction, the bishop comes to the mother of adoption, so he calls the font, and by invocation sanctifies the water in it, thrice pouring in some of the holy chrism in a manner representing the sign of the cross. This invocation or consecration of the water by prayer, is mentioned by Tertullian; for he says, The waters are made the sacrament of sanctification by invocation of God. The Spirit immediately descends from Heaven, and resting upon them sanctifies them by himself, and they, being so sanctified, imbibe the power of sanctifying. And Cyprian declares that the water must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priests, that it may have power by baptism to wash away the sins of man. And so the whole council of Carthage, in the time of Cyprian, says, The water is sanctified by the prayer of the priest to wash away sin."--Antiquities, book 11, chap. 10.
Here again we have the "holy water" which plays so important a part in all Catholic ceremonies. All these ceremonies in connection with baptism were performed in order that the newly converted heathen might be impressed with the idea that the new religion had as much of pomp as the old. It was to Tertullian, as we have already seen (pp. 211, 212), that the Catholic Church is indebted for the superstition that the virtue of baptism lay in the water, and that as a consequence it must be sanctified.
In another place Bingham says of the superstitions connected with baptism:--
"We find in some of the ancient ritualists, but not in all, mention made of an unction preceding baptism, and used by way of preparation for it. . . . But the writers of the following ages speak distinctly of two unctions, the one before, the other after baptism; which they describe by different names and different ceremonies, to distinguish them one from the other. . . . Dr. Cave and some other learned persons are of opinion, that together with this unction, the sign of the cross was made upon the forehead of the party baptized. . . . To understand this matter exactly, we are to distinguish at least four several times, when the sign of the cross was used, during the preparation or consummation of the ceremonies of baptism. 1. At the admission of catechumens to the state of catechumenship and the general name of Christians. 2. In the time of exorcism and impostion of hands, while they were passing through the several stages of catechumens. 3. At the time of this unction before baptism. 4. And lastly, at the unction of confirmation, which was then usually the conclusion of baptism both in adult persons and infants; and many of the passages which speak of the sign of the cross in baptism, do plainly relate to this, as an appendage of baptism, and closely joined to it, as the last ceremony and consummation of it. . . . The third use of it was in this unction before baptism. For so the author under the name of Dionysius, describing the ceremony of anointing the party before the consecration of the water, says, The bishop begins the unction by thrice signing him with the sign of the cross, and then commits him to the priest to be anointed all over the body, whilst he goes and consecrated the water in the font."--Id., chap. 9.
That this was done as early as the second century, is evident from what has been quoted from Tertullian. (See p. 212.)
The reader may wonder somewhat how the candidate for baptism could be "anointed all over the body;" but his wonder on this score may be set at rest, while his amazement at the degradating superstition into which men early fell, may be increased, by reading what Bingham has to say further on this subject:--
"The ancients thought that immersion, or burying under water, did more lively represent the death and burial and resurrection of Christ, as well as our own death unto sin, and rising again to righteousness; and the divesting or unclothing the person to be baptized, did also represent the putting off the body of sin, in order to put on the new man, which is created in righteousness and true holiness. For which reason they observed the way of baptizing all persons naked and divested, by a total immersion under water, except in some particular cases of great exigence, wherein they allowed of sprinkling, as in the case of clinic baptism, or where there was a scarcity of water."--Id., chap. 11.
Truly here were "mysteries" which should have compensated the convert from heathenism for all that he had left. For the person who can say that no scandalous practices would necessarily result from the ordinance of baptism thus administered to all classes of people, and in secret, must first take leave of his sense. But Bingham goes on in this same connection to state the reason which they gave for baptizing people naked:--
"St. Chrysostom, speaking of baptism, says, Men were as naked as Adam in paradise, but with this difference: Adam was naked because he had sinned, but in baptism, a man was naked that he might be freed from sin; the one was divested of his glory which he once had, but the other put off the old man, which he did as easily as his clothes. St. Ambrose says, Men came as naked to the font, as they came into the world; and thence he draws an argument by way of allusion, to rich men, telling them how absurd it was, that a man who was born naked of his mother, and received naked by the church, should think of going rich into Heaven. Cyril of Jerusalem takes notice of this circumstance, together with the reasons of it, when he thus addresses himself to persons newly baptized: As soon as ye came into the inner part of the baptistery, ye put off your clothes, which is an emblem of putting off the old man with his deeds; and being thus divested, ye stood naked, imitating Christ, that was naked upon the cross, who by his nakedness spoiled principalities and powers, publicly triumphing over them in the cross. O wonderful thing! ye were naked in the sight of men, and were not ashamed, in this truly imitating the first man Adam, who was naked in paradise, and was not ashamed. . . . And Zeno Veronensis, reminding persons of their baptism, bids them rejoice, for they went down naked into the font, but rose again clothed in a white and heavenly garment, which if they did not defile, they might obtain the kingdom of Heaven. Athanasius, in his invectives against the Arians, among other things, lays this to their charge, that by their persuasions the Jews and Gentiles broke into the baptistery, and there offered such abuses to the catechumens as they stood with their naked bodies, as was shameful and abominable to relate. And a like complaint is brought against Peter, bishop of Apamea, in the council of Constantinople, under Mennas, that he cast out the neophytes, or persons newly baptized, out of the baptistery, when they were without their clothes and shoes. All which are manifest proofs that persons were baptized naked, either in imitation of Adam in paradise, or our Saviour upon the cross, or to signify their putting off the body of sin, and the old man with his deeds."
Benjamin Franklin, in his "Autobiography," tells how he came to break his resolution not to eat anything that had had life, and the conclusion which he draws seems very appropriate here. He says:--
"I had been formerly a great lover of fish, and when it came out of the frying-pan it smelt admirably well. I balanced some time between principle and inclination, till, recollecting that when the fish were opened I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs, then, thought I, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you;' so I dined upon the cod very heartily, and have since continued to eat as other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do."
Franklin's conclusion is very apt. When people determine upon a certain course, there is never any lack of "reasons" for so doing. These early Christians (?) had determined to copy the heathen "mysteries" as closely as possible, and consequently they were not at a loss to find "scriptural" warrant for their course. But we have not heard all Bingham's testimony. Although he does not accuse them of any licentious act, he gives evidence which, taking human nature into the account, and especially human nature as it then was, leaves no room for conjecture as to the effect. He continues:--
"And this practice was then so general, that we find no exception made, either with respect to the tenderness of infants, or the bashfulness of the female sex, save only where the case of sickness or disability made it necessary to vary from the usual custom. St. Chrysostom is an undeniable evidence in this matter. For writing about the barbarous proceedings of his enemies against him on the great Sabbath, or Saturday before Easter, among other tragical things which they committed, he reports this for one, That they came armed into the church, and by violence expelled the clergy, killing many in the baptistery, with which the women, who at that time were divested in order to be baptized, were put into such a terror that they fled away naked, and could not stay in the fright to put on such clothes as the modesty of their sex required."--Antiquities, book 11, chap. 11.
We will not disgust the reader with more of this at present. We do not give this much with the idea that it will give him pleasure, nor because we take pleasure in dwelling upon the frailties of others. We do it in order to show that a thing is not necessarily proper and right because it was practiced in the church at a very early period. It is a very common thing for people to argue that, although we have no direct scriptural warrant for the observance of Sunday, it must be proper to do so, because many of the early Christians kept it, and they must have received the practice from the apostles. But we think that no one will claim that the early Christians received from the apostles the custom of baptizing people naked; and therefore the argument from the custom of "the church," in behalf of Sunday-keeping, falls to the ground. We do not believe that all professed Christians indulged in such shameful perversions of a sacred ordinance. That there were those who adhered to the gospel as delivered in its simplicity and purity by our Saviour, there can be no doubt; but the fact that abominable and heathenish things were done in the name of Christianity, should cause us unhesitatingly to reject anything which we are urged to adopt on the sole ground that it was practiced by the early church.
It may be well to add right here that the men from whom we have quoted cannot be accused of being prejudiced against the early church, for, in spite of the evidence which they give of its corruption, they blindly follow the "custom" of the church in many particulars, especially in the matter of Sunday observance, and seem to imagine that "the custom of the church" can sanctify any act to which they are inclined. "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature."
Sign of the Cross, and Images
In our brief study of the perversion of the ordinance of baptism, we found frequent reference to the "sign of the cross." This superstition, which is still retained in the Catholic Church, was not confined to church ceremonies, but was connected with almost every act of life. Says Gibbon:--
"In all occasions of danger and distress, it was the practice of the primitive Christians to fortify their minds and bodies by the sign of the cross, which they used, in all their ecclesiastical rites, in all the daily occurrences of life, as an infallible preservative against every species of spiritual or temporal evil."--Decline and Fall, chap. 20, paragraph 13.
That this is not a prejudiced statement appears from the following from Mosheim, whose Christianity no one will question:--
"In the sign of the cross, they supposed there was great efficacy against all sorts of evils, and particularly against the machinations of evil spirits; and therefore no one undertook anything of much moment, without first crossing himself."--Ecclesiastical History, book 1, cent. 3, part 2, chap. 4, sec. 5.
Tertullian says that this was the custom in his day, and both he and Justin Martyr taught that the sign of the cross had great efficacy, and was absolutely essential. The reader will remember the extract from Tertullian, in which he claims that the Israelites conquered the Amalekites, not because Moses prayed, but because he exhibited the form of the cross.
For this custom, as for all others, there was, of course, no difficulty in finding a valid "reason." But we find that, like all other superstitions or abominable practices that were foisted upon the Christian church, it had its origin in heathenism. Says Dr. Killen:-
"It is a curious fact that the figure of the instrument of torture on which our Lord was put to death, occupied a prominent place among the symbols of the ancient heathen worship. From the most remote antiquity the cross was venerated in Egypt and Syria; it was held in equal honor by the Buddhists of the East; and, what is still more extraordinary, when the Spaniards first visited America, the well-known sign was found among the objects of worship in the idol temples of Anahuac. It is also remarkable that, about the commencement of our era, the pagans were wont to make the sign of a cross upon the forehead in the celebration of some of their sacred mysteries. A satisfactory explanation of the origin of such peculiarities in the ritual of idolatry can now scarcely be expected; but it certainly need not excite surprise if the early Christians were impressed by them, and if they viewed them as so many unintentional testimonies to the truth of their religion. The disciples displayed, indeed, no little ingenuity in their attempts to discover the figure of a cross in almost every object around them. They could recognize it in the trees and the flowers, in the fishes and the fowls, in the sails of a ship and the structure of the human body; and if they borrowed from their heathen neighbors the custom of making a cross upon the forehead, they would of course be ready to maintain that they thus only redeemed the holy sign from profanation. Some of them were, perhaps, prepared, on prudential grounds, to plead for its introduction. Heathenism was, to a considerable extent, a religion of bowings and genuflections; its votaries were, ever and anon, attending to some little rite or form; and, because of the multitude of these diminutive acts of outward devotion, its ceremonial was at once frivolous and burdensome. When the pagan passed into the church, he, no doubt, often felt, for a time, the awkwardness of the change; and was frequently on the point of repeating, as it were automatically, the gestures of his old superstition. It may, therefore, have been deemed expedient to supersede more objectionable forms by something of a Christian complexion; and the use of the sign of the cross here probably presented itself as an observance equally familiar and convenient. But the disciples would have acted more wisely had they boldly discarded all the puerilities of paganism; for credulity soon began to ascribe supernatural virtue to this vestige of the repudiated worship. As early as the beginning of the third century, it was believed to operate like a charm; and it was accordingly employed on almost all occasions by many of the Christians."--Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 1, chap. 3, paragraph 5.
What Dr. Killen says on this point leaves very little room for comment. Of course it must be understood that when Dr. Killen speaks of "the disciples" seeking to find the sign of the cross in everything in nature, he does not mean those who in the New Testament are called disciples, but the professed Christians of a later day.
On the use of images in connection with the sign of the cross Neander has the following:--
"The use of religious images among the Christians, did not proceed from their ecclesiastical, but from their domestic life. In the intercourse of daily life, the Christians saw themselves everywhere surrounded by objects of heathen mythology, or by such as shocked their moral and Christian feelings. Similar objects adorned the walls of chambers, the drinking vessels, and the signet rings (on which the heathen had constantly idolatrous images), to which, whenever they pleased, they could address their devotions; and the Christians naturally felt themselves obliged to replace these objects, which wounded their moral and religious feelings with others more suited to those feelings. Therefore, they gladly put the likeness of a shepherd, carrying a lamb upon his shoulders, on their cups, as a symbol of the Redeemer, who saves the sinners that return to him, according to the parable in the gospel. And Clement of Alexandria says, in reference to the signet rings of the Christians, 'Let our signet rings consist of a dove (the emblem of the Holy Ghost); or a fish, or a ship sailing towards heaven (the emblem of the Christian hope); and he who is a fisherman, let him remember the apostle, and the children who are dragged out from the water, for those men ought not to engrave idolatrous forms, to whom the use of them is forbidden; those can engrave no sword and no bow, who seek for peace; the friends of temperance cannot engrave drinking cups.' And yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from domestic life into the churches, as early as the end of the third century, and the walls of the churches were painted in the same way. . . . It is probable that the visible representation of the cross found its way very early into domestic and ecclesiastical life. This token was remarkably common among them; it was used to consecrate their rising and their going to bed, their going out and their coming in, and all the actions of daily life; it was the sign which Christians made involuntarily, whenever anything of a fearful nature surprised them. This was a mode of expressing, by means perceptible to the sense, the purely Christian idea, that all the actions of Christians, as well as the whole course of their life, must be sanctified by faith in the crucified Jesus, and by dependence upon him, and that this faith is the most powerful means of conquering all evil, and preserving oneself against it. But here also again, men were apt to confuse the idea and the token which represented it, and they attributed the effects of faith in the crucified Redeemer to the outward sign, to which they ascribed a supernatural, sanctifying, and preservative power; and error of which we find traces as early as the third century."--Rose's Neander, pp. 183, 184.
And that is as early as there is any evidence of a growing regard for the Sunday festival. The worship of images and the observance of the Sunday festival came into the church about the same time; but images were regarded with reverence a long time before Sunday was regarded as a sacred day.