1. Simplicity of Public Worship Changed.—The public worship of the primitive Christians, as we have seen,^[67] was very simple, but its simplicity was soon corrupted. The bishops and other public teachers in the third century, framed their discourses and exhortations according to the rules of Grecian eloquence; "and were better adapted," says a learned writer,^[68] "to call forth the admiration of the rude multitude who love display, than to amend the heart. And that no folly and no senseless custom might be omitted in their public assemblies, the people were allowed to applaud their orators, as had been practiced in the forums and theaters; nay, they were instructed to applaud the preachers."

2. This was a wide departure from that spirit of meekness and humility enjoined by Messiah upon his ministers. And when to these customs was added the splendid vestments of the clergy, the magnificence of the temples, with all the pageantry of altars, surrounded with burning tapers, clouds of incense, beautiful images, the chanting of choirs, processions and other mummeries without number—one sees but little left of that simple worship instituted by the Messiah and his apostles. (See note 1, end of section).

3. About the third century incense began to be used. The Christians of the first and second centuries abhorred the use of incense in public worship, as being a part of the worship of idols.^[69] It first became a custom to use it at funerals, against offensive smells; then in public worship, to disguise the bad air of crowded assemblies; then at the consecration of bishops and magistrates, and by these steps at last degenerated into a superstitious rite.

4. In the fourth century matters became still worse. "The public supplications by which the pagans were accustomed to appease their gods, were borrowed from them, and were celebrated in many places with great pomp. To the temples, to water consecrated in due form, and the images of holy men, the same efficacy was ascribed to the pagan temples, statues and lustrations before the advent of Christ."^[70]

5. The Worship of Martyrs.—In the third century also arose the worship of martyrs. It is true that worship or adoration was relative, and a distinction was made between the worship of martyrs and the worship paid to God; but by degrees the worship of the martyrs was made to conform with that which the pagans had in former times paid to their gods.^[71] This was done out of indiscreet eagerness to allure the pagans to embrace Christianity.^[72] (See note 2, end of section).

6. Decline of Spiritual Gifts.—While pagan ceremonies and rites were increasing in the church, the gifts and graces characteristic of apostolic times, seemed to have gradually departed from it. Protestant writers insist that the age of miracles closed with the fourth or fifth century, and that after that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost must not be looked for. Catholic writers, on the other hand, insist that the power to perform miracles has always continued in the church; yet those spiritual manifestations which they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries savor of invention on the part of the priests and childish credulity on the part of the people; or else what is claimed to be miraculous falls far short of the power and dignity of those spiritual manifestations which the primitive church was wont to witness. 7. The virtues and prodigies ascribed to the bones and other relics of the martyrs and saints are puerile in comparison with the healings, by the anointing with oil and the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, interpretations, prophecies, revelations, casting out devils in the name of Jesus Christ; to say nothing of the gifts of faith, wisdom, knowledge, discernment of spirits, etc.,—common in the church in the days of the days of the apostles.^[73]

8. Nor is there anything in the scriptures or in reason that would lead one to believe that they were to be discontinued. Still this plea is made by modern Christians—explaining the absence of these spiritual powers among them—that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were only intended to accompany the proclamation of the gospel during the first few centuries until the church was able to make its way without them, and then they were to be done away. It is sufficient to remark upon this that it is assumption pure and simple, and stands without warrant either of scripture or right reason; and proves that men had so far changed the religion of Jesus Christ that it became a form of godliness without the power thereof. (See notes 3 and 4, end of section).

9. Causes and Manner of Excommunications.—It appears to have been the custom of the apostles in the case of members of the church grievously transgressing the moral law of the gospel to require repentance and confession before the church; and in the event of a stubborn adherence to sin the offender was excommunicated, that is, he was excluded from the communion of the church and the fellowship of the saints. For the crimes of murder, idolatry and adultery, some of the churches excommunicated those guilty of them forever; in other churches they were received back, but only after long and painful probation.

10. The manner in which excommunication was performed in apostolic times is not clear, but there is every reason to believe the process was very simple. In the course of time, however, this simple order of excommunication was changed, by being burdened with many rites and ceremonies borrowed from pagan sources.^[74] It was not enough that the fellowship of the saints be withdrawn from the offender and he left to the mercy of God, or the buffetings of Satan, according as he was worthy of the one or the other; but the church must load him down with anathemas too terrible to contemplate. The power of excommunication, too, eventually, passed from the body of the church into the hands of the bishops, and finally into those of the pope. At first excommunication meant the loss of the fellowship of the saints, and such other punishments as God himself might see fit to inflict; the church leaving the Lord to be the minister of his own vengeance. But gradually it came to mean in some instances banishment from home and country, the confiscation of property, the loss not only of religious fellowship with the saints, but the loss of civil rights; and the rights of Christian burial. In the case of a monarch excommunication absolved his subjects from their allegiance; and in the case of a subject, it robbed him of the protection of his sovereign. No anathema was so terrible but it was pronounced against the excommunicated, until the sweet mercies of God were overshadowed by the black pall of man's inhumanity.

11. Admixture of Pagan Philosophy with the Christian Religion.—The thing which contributed most to the subversion of the Christian religion was the employment of pagan philosophy to explain Christian doctrine. This brought about an admixture of these two discordant elements that while it failed to purge pagan philosophy of its errors, corrupted the doctrines of Christ and laid the foundations for those false notions in respect of God which obtain in the so-called Christian world unto this day.

12. Christian Doctrine Respecting God.—The scriptural doctrine in regard to God—and of course, that is the true Christian doctrine—is this: There is a being of infinite goodness and power, in form like man—for man was created in his image^[75]—who, with his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, constitute the great creative, and governing power or grand Presidency of the heavens and the earth. As persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct, yet one in attributes, one in purpose; the mind of one being the mind of the others.

13. That they are distinct and separate as persons was plainly manifested at the baptism of Jesus. On that occasion, as Jesus came up out of the water, John saw the Holy Ghost descend upon him, and at the same time the voice of the Father was heard speaking from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."^[76] Here we have the persons of the Godhead present but distinct from each other. Stephen, the martyr, in the presence of the angry crowd which took his life, saw the heavens open and "Jesus standing on the right hand of God."^[77] Here, too, the Father and Son are seen and, according to the testimony of the holy man, they are distinct personalities.

14. Yet Jesus said to the Jews: "I and my Father are one. * * * Believe that the Father is in me and I in him."^[78] But this oneness cannot have reference to the persons of the Father and of the Son, which we have seen are distinct. Their oneness, therefore, must consist in a unity of attributes, purposes, glory, power. Jesus in his great prayer just previous to his betrayal, said, in praying for his disciples: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one. * * * That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."^[79] Clearly it is not the uniting of the persons of his disciples into one person or body that Jesus prayed for; but he would have them of one mind and one spirit, as he and the Father are one. So also he had no wish that the person of one of his disciples should be crowded into that of another, and so on until they all became one person or body—but "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." That is, while remaining distinct as persons, Messiah would have the mind or Spirit of God in his disciples as it was in him, and as his was in the Father, that God might be all in all—the Father to be honored as the head and worshiped in the name of the Son; and the Holy Ghost to be revered as the witness and messenger of both the Father and the Son^[80]—the bond of union between God and men, as it is between the Father and the Son; in one word to be God in man.

15. Each of these persons in scripture is called God; and taken together they are God, or constitute the grand Presidency of heaven and earth, and as such are one, as well as in attributes. (See note 5, end of section).

16. The spirit of the Son had an existence with the Father before he was born in the flesh;^[81] and indeed it was by him, and through him—under the direction of the Father—that the worlds were made;^[82] "and without him was not anything made that was made."^[83]

17. Such is the simple doctrine of the Godhead taught to the primitive Saints by the apostles. It was implicitly believed as God's revelation to them upon the subject, and they were content to allow the revelation to excite their reverence without arousing their curiosity to the point where men of finite minds attempt to grasp the infinite, or circumscribe God in their understandings. In a short time, however, a change came, and men sought to explain the revelation that God had given of himself by the vain babblings of pagan science; and that led not only to much contention within the church, but to the adoption in the Christian creed of erroneous ideas in respect of Deity.

18. Gnostic and "New Platonic" Philosophy.—In order to give a clear explanation of this matter, it will be necessary to invite the attention of the student to Gnosticism and the Eclectic or "New Platonic" philosophy which arose in the early Christian centuries. First, then, as to Gnosticism. The Gnostics taught there existed from eternity a Being that embodied within himself all the virtues; a Being who is the purest light and is diffused throughout boundless space, which they called Pleroma. This Being, after dwelling alone and in absolute repose for an infinite period, by an operation purely mental, or by acting upon himself, produced two spirits^[84] of different sexes. By the marriage of these two spirits others of similar nature were produced, who, in their turn, produced others. Thus a celestial family was formed in the pleroma. These emanations from Deity, whether directly or from those spirits first begotten by Deity acting upon himself, were called Aeons, a term which was doubtless employed to signify their eternal duration, and perhaps the mode of their production.

19. Beyond this pleroma where God and his family dwelt, existed a rude and unformed mass of matter, heaving itself continually in wild commotion.^[85] This mass of the Aeons, wandering beyond the pleroma, discovered and reduced to order and beauty and then peopled it with human beings and with animals of different species. This builder of the world the Gnostics called the Demiurge [Dem-i-urge].^[86] Though possessed of many shining qualities, the Demiurge was by nature arrogant and domineering, hence he claims absolute authority over the new world to the exclusion altogether of the authority of the supreme God, and requires mankind to pay divine honors exclusively to him.

20. Man, according to the Gnostic philosophy, is composed of a terrestial, and therefore a vicious body; and of a celestial spirit, which in some sense is a particle of the Deity himself. The spirit is oppressed by the body, which is supposed to be the seat of all the lusts and other evils that flesh is heir to, and by the spirit of man is drawn away from the knowledge and worship of the true God, and led to pay reverence to the Demiurge and his associates. From this wretched bondage of evil God labors to rescue his offspring. But the Demiurge and his associates, eager to retain their power, resist the divine purpose and labor to efface all knowledge of the supreme Deity. The philosophy maintained, however, that God would ultimately prevail; and having restored to liberty most of the spirits now imprisoned in bodies, he will dissolve the fabric of the world. Then the primitive tranquility will return, and God will reign with the redeemed spirits in perfect happiness to all eternity.^[87]

21. When the followers of this philosophy became converted to Christianity, they looked upon Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as the latest Aeons or emanations from the Deity, sent forth to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter by revealing to them the true God; to fit them, though perfect knowledge to enter the sacred pleroma. In connection with this, however, some of these Christian Gnostics held that Jesus had no body at all, but was an unsubstantial phantom that constantly deceived the senses of those who thought they associated with him. Others of them said there doubtless was a man called Jesus born of human parents, upon whom one of the Aeons, called Christ, descended at his baptism, having quitted the pleroma for that purpose; but who, previous to the crucifixion of the man Jesus, withdrew from him and returned to the Deity. [See note 7, end of section.]

22. The Two Modes of Life to which Gnosticism led.—The Gnostic philosophy led to two widely different methods of life; one extremely ascetic and the other as extremely profligate. Gnostics believed matter to be utterly malignant, the source of all evil, therefore it was recommended by one party that the body should be weakened by fastings and the practice of other austerities, that the spirit might enjoy the greater liberty and be better able to contemplate heavenly things. The other party, on the contrary, maintained that men could safely indulge all their appetites and lustful desires, and that there was no moral difference in human actions. One leader of this persuasion—Carpocrates of Alexandria, who flourished in the second century—not only gave his disciples license to sin, but imposed on them the necessity of sinning, by teaching them the way to eternal salvation was open to those souls only which committed all kinds of enormity and wickedness. Such were the errors that grew out of Gnosticism, and which contributed to the corruption of the gospel soon after it was founded by the preaching of the apostles.

23. The New Platonic Philosophy.—The Eclectic or "New Platonic" philosophy which came into existence in the early Christian centuries, was compounded from all the systems which had preceded it, though following Plato more closely than any other teacher, for which reason its disciples assumed the name of New Platonics. The founders of this philosophy professed simply to follow truth, gathering up whatever was accordant with it, regardless of its source, or in what school it was taught—hence the name eclectic. Still the teachings of Plato formed the basis of their doctrines, and they embraced most of his dogmas concerning God, the human soul and the universe. We shall therefore learn the fundamental principles of the Eclectics by considering what the Athenian sage taught on these subjects.

24. Plato held that God and matter existed from all eternity—that they were co-eternal. Before the creation of the world matter had in itself a principle of motion, but without end or laws. This principle of motion Plato called the immortal soul of the universe. God wished to give form to this mass of eternal matter, regulate its motion, subject it to some end and to certain laws. Everything which exists in heaven or in earth, except Deity and unorganized matter, according to Plato's philosophy, had a beginning—there was a time when it did not exist; but there never was a time when the idea, that is, the form or plan of the thing, did not exist in the mind of Deity. This idea or intelligence existing with God from all eternity, is what Plato called the Logos—the word or intelligence of Deity. Many in the age of which we write saw in these doctrines a threefold expression of the divine nature—viz., the First Cause, the Reason or Logos, and the Spirit of the Universe; while others saw in these three principles three Gods, united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation; in which the Logos is regarded in the character of the Son of an Eternal Father, and the creator and governor of the work.^[88]

25. Plato's Logos, John's Word Considered Identical.—In the introduction of St. John's gospel, commencing—"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—in this Word, which the Apostle in another verse of his opening chapter declares was "made flesh and dwelt among men,"—plainly alluding to the pre-existence and birth of Messiah—the New Platonics saw the incarnation of the Logos of Plato, and according to the fashion of the times attempted to harmonize the revelations of God with the philosophy of men. (See note 8, end of section).

26. The Rank of the Logos in the Trinity.—It was trying to harmonize the revelations of God with these systems of philosophy which created the agitation in respect to the rank of the Logos, or Son of God, in the divine trinity; and the nature of the Trinity itself—that is, whether the three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct and separate though of the same substance, or merely the same substance under different aspects.

27. The Orthodox View.—The view held to be orthodox was that in God there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; each really distinct yet so united as to constitute but one personal God—of the same substance, and equal as to their eternity, power, and glory and all other perfections.

28. Sabellian Theory.—On one side of this orthodox theory stood the doctrine of Sabellius [Sa-bel-i-us], who held that there was but one divine person in the Godhead, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were but different aspects of the same God, and that the Trinity was one of names, merely, not of distinct persons.^[89] The Logos, in hi theory, is an attribute of Deity rather than a person; and its incarnation is reduced to an energy or inspiration of the Divine wisdom which filled the soul and directed all the actions of the man Jesus.

29. The Arian Theory.—On the other side of the orthodox line stood the theory of Arius [A-ri-us], who while he maintained a real distinction in the persons of the Divine Trinity, taught that the Son was created out of nothing by the will of the Father; and though the longest astronomical periods would not measure the time of his duration, yet there had been a time when he was not. Upon the Son thus created the Father bestowed great glory, yet he shone only by a reflected light, and governed the universe only in obedience to the will of the Father; in other words, the Son was subordinate to the Father, unequal as to eternity, power and glory.

30. The Nicene Council.—It was to still the rising commotion which arose in the church through the violent discussion of these several theories that the Emperor Constantine assembled the Council of Nice [Nes]. A. D. 325. In that council the theories of Arius were condemned and the orthodox creed stated thus:

We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, (that is) of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light; Very God of Very God; begotten not made; of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, that are in heaven and that are in earth: who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and was incarnate, and became man; suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens and will come to judge the living and the dead, and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say there was a time when he [the Son] was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made out of nothing, or affirm that he is of any other substance or essence, of that the Son of God was created, and mutable, or changeable, the Catholic Church doth pronounce accursed.^[90]

31. Athanasius [Ath-a-na-shi-us], who was the most active opponent of Arius, thus explains the Nicene doctrine, in what is commonly known as the creed of Athanasius.^[91]

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity and Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate; and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet these are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet they are not three Gods but one God.^[92] (See note 7, end of section.)

32. Immateriality of God.—The evil which grew out of these contentions in respect to Deity is found in the conclusion arrived at that God is an incorporeal, that is to say, an immaterial being; without body, without parts, without passions. The following is the Roman Catholic belief in respect to God:

There is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth, the supreme, incorporeal, uncreated being, who exists of himself, and is infinite in all his attributes, etc.^[93]

The Church of England teaches in her articles of faith:

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness,^[94] etc.

This plainly teaches the great error of the immateriality of God; and, indeed, that is the orthodox notion in respect to Deity, notwithstanding it finds so many express contradictions in the scriptures.

33. In the work of creation, God proposed to make man in his own image and likeness, and the proposition was executed.^[95] Moreover, Jesus is said to be the brightness of God's glory, "and the express image of his person."^[96] Again it is said, that Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."^[97] All this teaches that God has a form similar to that of man's; that he has organs, dimensions, proportions; that he occupies space and has relation to other objects in space; that he moves from place to place; and that so far as his actual person is concerned he cannot be in two places at one and the same instant. The question here arises as to those passages of scripture which declare the omnipresence of God, a thing which is impossible—speaking of his person—if what is here contended for be true. But God may be and is omnipresent by his influence, by his power, if not in his person. While his person is confined to one place at a time, as other substances are, his influence extends throughout the universe, as does also his power, and through this means he is omnipotent and omnipresent.

34. To assert the immateriality of God is not only to deny his personality, but his very existence; for an immaterial substance cannot exist. It can have no relation to time or space, no form, no extension, no parts. An immaterial substance is simply no substance at all; it is a contradiction of terms to say a substance is immaterial—it is the description of an infinite vacuum; and the difference between the atheist and the orthodox Christian is one of terms, not of fact; the former says, "There is no God;" the latter in his creed says, "God is nothing."^[98] (See note 10, end of section.)

35. Such were the absurdities into which the vain philosophies of the pagan led the Christian even in the early centuries of the Christian era; so that through these errors they even denied the Lord who bought them.^[99]

NOTES.

1. Christian Worship in the Fifth Century.—Public worship everywhere assumed a form more calculated for show and for the gratification of the eye. Various ornaments were added to the sacerdotal garments in order to increase the veneration of the people for the clerical order. The new forms of hymns, prayers and public fasts, are not easily enumerated. * * * In some places it was appointed, that the praises of God should be sung perpetually, day and night, the singers succeeding each other without interruption; as if the Supreme Being took pleasure in clamor and noise, and in the flatteries of men. The magnificence of the temples had no bounds. Splendid images were placed in them; and among these * * * the image of the Virgin Mary, holding her infant in her arms, occupied the most conspicuous place. Altars and repositories for relics, made of solid silver if possible, were procured in various places; from which may easily be conjectured, what must have been the splendor and the expense of the other sacred utensils.—Mosheim.

2. Martyr Worship (3rd century).—When Gregory [surnamed Thaumaturgus on account of the numerous miracles he is said to have wrought—born in Pontus, in the second decade of the third century] perceived that the ignorant and simple multitude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the 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 sepulchres of the martyrs on their fast days, to dance, to use sports, to indulge in conviviality, and do all things that the worshipers of idols were accustomed to do in their temples, on their festival days), hoping that in process of time, they would spontaneously come over to a more becoming and more correct manner of life.—Nyssen's Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus.

3. On the Continuance of Spiritual Gifts.—The affliction of devils, the confusion of tongues, deadly poisons and sickness [all of which were to be overcome by the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit] are all curses which have been introduced into the world by the wickedness of man. The blessings of the gospel are bestowed to counteract these curses. Therefore, as long as these curses exist, the promised signs [Mark xvi: 17, 18] are needed to counteract their evil consequences. If Jesus had not intended that the blessings should be as extensive and unlimited in point of time as the curses, he would have intimated something to that effect in his word. But when he makes a universal promise of certain powers, to enable every believer in the gospel throughout the world to overcome certain curses, entailed upon man, because of wickedness, it would be the rankest kind of infidelity not to believe the promised blessing necessary, as long as the curses abound among men.—Orson Pratt.

4. When and Why the Spiritual Gifts Ceased in the Church.—It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit [speaking of I Cor. xii] were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [the spiritual gifts] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been supposed) because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so-called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man when he came to examine his church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church—because the Christians were turned heathens again and only had a dead form left.—John Wesley (Wesley's Works, Vol. vii. Sermon 89, Pages 26, 27.)

5. Illustration of the Oneness of the Godhead.—The Godhead may be further illustrated by a council, composed of three men—all possessing equal wisdom, knowledge and truth, together with equal qualifications in every respect. Each person would be a separate, distinct person or substance from the other two, and yet the three would form but one council. Each alone possesses, by supposition, the same wisdom and truth that the three united or the one council possesses. The union of the three men in one council would not increase the knowledge of wisdom of either. Each man would be one part of the council when reference is made to his person; but the wisdom and truth of each man would be the whole wisdom and truth of the council, and not a part. If it were possible to divide truth, and other qualities of a similar nature into fractions, so that the Father should have the third part of truth, the third part of wisdom, the third part of knowledge, the third part of love, while the Son and the Holy Spirit possessed the other two-thirds of these qualities or affections, then neither of these persons could make "one God," "but only a part of a God." But because the divisibility of wisdom, truth or love is impossible, the whole of these qualities dwell in the Father—the whole dwells in the Son—the whole is possessed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is one part of the Godhead in essence; but the whole of God in wisdom, truth, and other similar qualities. If a truth could become three truths, distinct from each other, by dwelling in three substances, then there would be three Gods instead of one. But as it is, the trinity is three in essence, but one in truth and other similar principles. The oneness of the Godhead, as described in the scriptures, never was intended to apply to the essence, but only to the perfections and other attributes.—Orson Pratt.

6. Messiah the Author of the Gospel and Creator of the World.—Christ is the author of this gospel, of this earth, of men and women, of all the posterity of Adam and Eve, and of every living creature that lives upon the face of the earth, that flies in the heavens, that swims in the waters, or dwells in the field. Christ is the author of salvation to all this creation, to all things pertaining to this terrestial globe we occupy.—Brigham Young (Discourse, August 8, 1852).

7. The Phantom Theory of the Gnostics.—While the blood of Christ yet smoked on Mount Calvary, the Docetus [the name given to the Gnostic Christians] invented the impious and extravagant hypothesis, that, instead of issuing from the womb of the virgin, he had descended on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; that he had imposed on the senses of his enemies, and of his disciples; and that the ministers of Pilate had wasted their impotent rage on an airy phantom, who seemed to expire on the cross, and, after three days, to rise from the dead.—Gibbon.

8. The Fashion of Uniting Discordant Elements in Philosophy and Religion.—When we come to consider the state of philosophy at that time [the early Christian centuries], and the fashion which prevailed of catching at anything new, and of uniting discordant elements into fanciful systems, we shall not be surprised to find the doctrines of the gospel disguised and altered, and that, according to the language of that age, many new heresies were formed.—Burton's Brampton Lectures.

9. The Mysteries of Religion Deepened Through Attempted Explanation.—That devout and reverential simplicity of the first ages of the church, which taught men to believe when God speaks, and obey when God commands, appeared to most of the doctors of this age [the fifth century] to be unphilosophical and becoming only in the vulgar. Many of those, however, who attempted to explain and illustrate these doctrines, opened the way rather to disputation than for a rational faith and a holy life; for they did not so much explain, as involve in greater obscurity, and darken with ambiguous terms and incomprehensible distinctions the deep mysteries of revealed religion. And hence arose abundant matter for difficulties, contentions and animosities which flowed down to succeeding ages, and which can scarcely be removed by the efforts of human power. It hardly need be remarked, that some, while pressing their adversaries, incautiously fell into errors of an opposite character which were no less dangerous.—Mosheim.

10. Immaterialists are Atheists.—There are two classes of atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language; the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says, "There is no God;" the other says "God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then." The infidel says, "There is no such a substance as God." The immaterialist says, "There is such a substance as God, but it is 'without parts.'" The atheist says, "There is no such substance as spirit." The immaterialist says, "A spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room and fills no space, in the same way and after the same manner as matter not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand." The atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity; but the immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same thing as the atheist's endeavors to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words.—Orson Pratt (Absurdities of Immaterialism, page 11).

REVIEW.

1. Describe the simplicity of public worship in early Christian times. (Note 2, end of section III.)

2. What changes in the public worship were gradually introduced? (Note 1).

3. What was the object in introducing these changes?

4. In what manner was incense introduced into public worship?

5. What especially obnoxious practice became prevalent in the 4th century?

6. What can you say of the worship of martyrs? (Note 2).

7. Give an account of the decline of spiritual gifts in the church.

8. On this point what difference exists between Catholics and Protestants?

9. What can you say of Protestant excuses for the absence of the spiritual gifts of the gospel? (Notes 3 and 4).

10. What does the absence of spiritual gifts prove?

11. In what way were grievous offenses punished by the church?

12. What ceremonies finally became associated with excommunication?

13. What temporal punishments were sometimes associated with excommunication? 14. What can you say of the mingling of pagan philosophy with the Christian religion?

15. Give the scriptural doctrine respecting God.

16. Give an instance from scripture where the personages of the Godhead are seen to be distinct.

17. In what does the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost consist? (Note 5.)

18. How did the early Christians regard the scriptural doctrine of the Godhead?

19. By what means did men at last try to explain the revelation?

20. Give the Gnostic idea respecting God.

21. How did the Gnostics account for the creation of the world?

22. In what way did the Gnostics avoid making God the author of evil?

23. What is the nature of man according to the Gnostic philosophy?

24. What did the Gnostic philosophy look to as the culmination between the struggle of man with evil?

25. In what light did the Gnostics look upon Jesus Christ?

26. What fanciful theory did some of them hold respecting him? (Note 7).

27. To what two modes of life did the Gnostic philosophy lead?

28. What was the new Platonic philosophy?

29. What was Plato's idea of God?

30. In what way was there an attempt to harmonize the philosophy of Plato with the writings of St John?

31. State the "orthodox" doctrine respecting Deity in those times.

32. State the Sabellian theory.

33. Give an illustration of it.

34. State the Arian theory.

35. In what way did the Nicene Council decide the trinity controversy?

36. What confession did Athanasius make as to his inability to comprehend the Nicene creed?

37. What great error resulted from the controversy on the nature of Deity?

38. What passages of scripture refute the "orthodox" Christian notion that God is immaterial?

39. How from reason would you refute the notion that God is an immaterial Being?