1. The Nephite Christian Church.—For nearly two centuries the Nephite Christian church flourished in great prosperity. For that length of time the truth seems to have been preserved in its fullness, and the church in its unity. With the third century, however, began that apostasy which eventually terminated by a complete subversion of the church of Christ on the Western hemisphere.

2. Pride of Wealth and Class Distinctions.—The peace and righteousness of two centuries brought great prosperity and wealth to the Nephite Christians—to the entire western hemisphere; but the commencement of the third century began to develop the fact that pride was pressing fast upon the heels of that prosperity. Up to the commencement of the third century the Nephite Christians had all things common; but early in the third century that order of things was broken up. Class distinctions arose, men began to pride themselves on their fine apparel and jewels. They began to build churches to get gain, and to deny the true church of Christ. Others, professing to be Christians, denied much of that which Messiah taught, and administered that which was sacred to those to whom it had been forbidden, because of unworthiness.

3. The Anti-Christian Church Persecutions.—There also arose an anti-Christian church, which persecuted the true church, despising the members thereof because of their humility, and hating them because of the power of God which was with them. Among the twelve apostles whom Jesus selected from the Nephites three desired that they might remain upon the earth until Messiah should come in his glory. This request was granted them, and their bodies were changed that they were not subject to death. They had remained with the church up to the time of which we write, and against them the anti-Christian church was especially embittered. The apostates sought to kill them as the Jews at Jerusalem tried to kill Jesus; they cast them into prison and into dens of wild beasts; but the Lord delivered them from prisons, murders and the wild beasts, and that by the manifestations of his power. Yet the miracles did not convert their ungodly persecutors, and the wicked increased rapidly in numbers.

4. Revival of Old Distinctions.—Soon the ancient distinctions between Nephites and Lamanites which for two centuries had been buried in oblivion, began to be employed to designate the two peoples which gradually began to be formed. The true Christians were called Nephites, and their enemies Lamanite. All the old bitterness which attached to the names in former times was revived.

5. It was but a few years after the apostasy began before the wicked outnumbered the righteous. For a while the name "Nephites" designated the true followers of Messiah, but soon they became as proud and as wicked as the Lamanites, and righteousness was subverted.

6. Revival of Secret Organizations.—The old secret societies were revived for robbery and plunder. Early in the fourth century (320 A. D.) Ammoran, who had charge of the Nephite records, hid them up, revealing the place of their concealment only to Mormon, a lad then ten years of age, giving him a charge to go, when he was twenty-four years old, and take the plates of Nephi and record on them the things he had witnessed among the people. About the same time the three Nephite apostles disappeared from among the people; the church no longer being worthy of their administrations, the Lord took them away. All miracles, healings, and other spiritual manifestations ceased. Mormon, a historian and a righteous man, remained with them, but he was forbidden to preach to them. A black pall of spiritual darkness settled over the land and the minds of the people.

7. An Attempt to Reorganize the Church.—Forty years later, after a series of disastrous wars, by which one might reasonably expect the Nephites would be humbled and brought to seek the Lord, an attempt to re-establish the church was made. Mormon received a commandment to preach repentance and baptism to the people, a commandment which he willingly obeyed; but all to no purpose. The people would not repent. They hardened their hearts against God and made themselves fit only for destruction.

8. Utter Destruction of the Nephites.—That destruction was not very remote. Towards the close of that century which witnessed the climax of their wickedness saw their destruction. By permission of the Lamanites the Nephites assembled about the hill called by them Cumorah and prepared for the last great struggle. It took place in the year 385 A. D., and resulted in the entire destruction of the Nephite people, except, perhaps, a few who fled southward. Mormon was slain, and his son, the last of the Nephites, was preserved to record the destruction and the desolation which followed it, and hid up the records of the great race which had founded kingdoms and republics upon the western hemisphere that would vie with those of Persia, Macedonia or Greece; and cities that in extent and grandeur must have equalled those of Antioch, Alexandria, Tyre or Sidon.

9. The Reign of Anarchy.—That civilization was destroyed, the empires and republics were overthrown, government was destroyed, anarchy reigned. The people, chiefly Lamanites, who survived the terrible conflict about Cumorah, broke up into tribes, each fiercely contending with the other. Cities were laid waste to crumble into shapeless heaps of ruin, with here and there a monument that defied the ravages of time and proudly stood a silent witness of the greatness of the departed race which reared it. Such was the apostasy on the western hemisphere, and such the result which followed it.

REVIEW.

1. For how long did the Nephite Christian church keep the faith?

2. In the third century what occurred?

3. On what were their class distinctions based?

4. State what you can of the rise and course of the anti-Christian church.

5. What of the rise of old distinctions?

6. What old organizations were revived in the fourth century?

7. What attempt was made to reorganize the church?

8. Where were the Nephites destroyed?

9. What followed the destruction of the Nephites?

Footnotes

1. These statements are sustained in the following scriptures. Matt. x:16-40; Luke vi:22-26; John xv:18-22.2. Acts vii: 55-60.3. Acts xii: 1, 2.4. Eusebius Bk. II, ch. xxiii.5. Acts xii.6. Mosheim Part I, ch. v.7. Matt. xxvii: 22-25.8. Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Bk. vi, ch. ix.9. Luke xxi: 5-9, 20-24.10. Eusebius Bk. III, ch. v. The Saints were also warned to flee from Jerusalem by Messiah himself when they should see armies begin to encompass it.—See Luke xxi: 20-24.11. Decline and Fall Vol. I, ch. 1.12. Annals lib. xv, ch. 44.13. Decline and Fall I, ch. xvi. See also Guizot's note on same page.14. This is according to the testimony of Eusebius, quoting Hagesippus and Tertullian. (Eusebius Book III, ch. xx). But other authorities claim that Domitian's edicts against the Christians were not revoked until after his death.15. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. I. Second Cent. ch. ii.16. Decline and Fall, vol. I, ch. xvi.17. Eusebius Eccle. Hist. Bk. v, ch. i and ii.18. Decline and Fall, vol. I, ch. xvi.19. Mosheim's Eccl. His. vol. I, cent. iii, ch. ii.20. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. I, cent. iv, ch. i.21. Quoted by Murdock in Mosheim.—See note—Mosheim Eccl. Hist. vol. I, p. 210.22. Revelation ch. xiii: 1-7.23. According to Eusebius, however, Helena was converted to Christianity by her son.—De Veta Constantine I, iii, ch: 47.24. Constantine had caused to be put to death, through jealousy and on what, to say the least, was very slight and very suspicious testimony, his son Crispus, his wife Fausta, and his brother-in-law Licinius.25. Decline and Fall, vol. I, ch. xvi.26. Decline and Fall vol. I, ch. xvi.27. Mosheim vol. I, Book i, part ii, ch. iv.28. Acts ii: 41. Acts viii: 12, 35-40.29. That exorcism was not annexed to baptism till some time in the third century, and after the admission of the Platonic philosophy into the church, may almost be demonstrated. The ceremonies used at baptism in the second century are described by Justin Martyr in his second apology, and by Tertullian in his book de Corono Militas. But neither makes mention of exorcism. This is a cogent argument to prove that it was admitted by Christians after the times of these fathers, and of course in the third century. Egypt perhaps first received it. Murdock's Mosheim vol. I, p. 190.—(Note.)30. Mosheim vol. I, book i, part ii, ch. iv.31. According to Schlegel, the so-called apostolic constitution (b. viii, ch. 32) enjoined a three years' course of preparation; yet with allowance of some exceptions.32. That is, the evening preceding the day on which Messiah is supposed to have arisen from the dead, and the evening preceding the seventh Sunday after Easter, the anniversary of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Apostles in a remarkable manner (Acts ii.)33. Mosheim vol. I, book ii, part ii. ch. iv.34. Cyprian's Epistles, letter 76.35. Eusebius Eccl. Hist. b. vi, ch. 43.36. Milner's Church Hist. vol. I pp. 429, 430.37. Such is the opinion of Milner—Church Hist. vol. I. p. 430.38. The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.—Paul to the Corinthians. (I Cor. xi: 23-26.)39. These facts are clearly taught by Messiah when he established the sacrament among the Nephites; and of course it was established among the Jews for the same purpose that it was among the Nephites. After having broken the bread and blessed it, and passed it to the multitude, Messiah said: "This shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if you do always remember me, ye shall have my Spirit to be with you." So when he had administered the wine: "Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done; * * * this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you; and this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me, ye shall have my Spirit to be with you."—III Nephi, xviii. See also Moroni, iv and v, where the prayer of consecration is given.40. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. I, book i, cent. iii, part 2, chapter iv. The banishment of unbaptized people from sacrament meetings was forbidden among the Nephites by Messiah. III Nephi xviii: 22-23.41. Protestants combating the Catholic idea of the real presence of the flesh and blood in the eucharist—transubstantiation—have endeavored to prove that this doctrine was not of earlier origin than the eighth century. In this, however, the evidence is against them. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing early in the second century says of certain supposed heretics: "They do not admit of eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." (Epistles of Ignatius to the Smyrneans.) So Justin Martyr, also writing in the first half of the second century:—"We do not receive them [the bread and the win] as ordinary food or ordinary drink; but as by the word of God Jesus Christ, our Savior, was made flesh and took upon him both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also the food which was blessed by the prayer of the word which proceeded from him, and from which our flesh and blood, by transmutation, receive nourishment, is, we are taught, both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." (Justin's Apology to Emperor Antonius.) After Justin's time the testimony of the fathers is abundant. There can be no doubt as to the antiquity of the idea of the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the eucharist; but that proves—as we said of infant baptism—not that the doctrine is true, but that soon after the apostles had passed away, the simplicity of the gospel was corrupted or else entirely departed from.42. Luke xxii. Matt. xxvi. III Nephi xviii.43. It will be remembered that the quorum of the twelve was perpetuated on the western hemisphere by filling up vacancies as fast as they occurred (IV Nephi: 14), but for how long a period is uncertain.44. Acts xv: 1-30. Rev. i-iv.45. During a greater part of this century (the second) all the churches continued to be, as at the first, independent of each other. * * * Each church was a kind of small republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned by the people.—Ecclesiastical History, Mosheim Vol. I, book ii, cent. ii, part ii, ch. ii.46. As might be expected, however, there was a peculiar respect paid to the churches founded by the apostles—the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome. Those churches were appealed to in controversies on points of doctrine, "as most likely to know what the apostles taught," but the appeal had no other significance than that.47. Clement, the third bishop of Rome, is my authority for the above statement. It appears that the Corinthians had deposed some of their bishops, and Clement in an epistle which he wrote to them said: "Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons [the bishops], and afterward they provided a continuance [i.e., gave instructions] that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by other men of repute with the consent of the whole church, and have ministered unblamably * * * these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out of their ministration."—See also Gibbon's "Decline and Fall," vol. I, ch. xv.48. Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim) vol. I, bk. i, cent. iii, part ii, ch. ii.49. Dr. Mosheim in his Institutes of Ecclesiastical History states that next to the patriarchs were bishops called exarchs; but this his translator (Murdock) denies. Certain it is, however, that there were bishops who presided over several provinces, just as the civil exarchs did. These Mosheim may have considered as corresponding to the civil exarchs; while his translator insists that they were merely the "first metropolitans of the civil dioceses." The difference seems to be one of terms rather than of facts; but there is this to say in favor of the translator, that the bishops exercising jurisdiction over several provinces did not correspond to the number of civil exarchs. There was not an exarch bishop over each civil diocese, and perhaps this is the reason the learned translator objects to the term of ecclesiastical exarch.50. In course of time the terms arch-bishop and metropolitan came to be used interchangeably.51. Matt. xvi:19.52. Irenaeus against Heresy, bk. III, ch. iii: 2, 3.53. Matt. xvi:15-18.54. St. John i:42.55. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English: Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that by the plain course of the words Peter is here declared to be the rock upon which the church was to be built.—Footnote in Douay Bible on these passages.56. As if it read: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven; and I say unto thee, Peter, upon this principle I will build my church."57. Matt. xxviii:18-20.58. Milner's End of Religious Controversy—Letter xxviii.59. Orson Pratt's Works, Divine Authenticity, No.3.60. Milner's Church Hist. Vol. III, pp. 53, 69—note.61. See Bossuet's Universal History, Vol. I, p. 558. J. Andrew Cramer, German translation.62. See Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim) bk. III, part ii, ch. ii:6.63. Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim) bk. III, part ii, ch. ii:11.64. The cardinals are senators of the church and counselors of the successors of St. Peter. There are now three orders of cardinals, viz., bishops, priests and deacons; six of these are bishops, fifty are priests and fourteen deacons. Sixtus V. [between A. D. 1585 and 1590] fixed the number of cardinals at seventy in order to imitate the ancient Sanhedrin of the Jews which was composed of seventy elders, and it is this assembly which is now called the Sacred College.—History of all religions (Burder) p. 336.65. Apologists of the popes may say what they will about purchased indulgences not being intended to remit sins, or a grant of permission to commit sin; and claim that they are only a remission of the whole or part of the temporal punishment due to sin. But if indulgences remit the temporal penalties of sins, what is that but the remission of sin or at least of its effects, which, for all practical purposes, would be the same as remission of sin? And if penalties attached to sins are set aside in advance of the commission of the sins, what is that but a license to commit sin? "Come," said Tetzel, in selling indulgences in Germany early in the 16th century, "come and I will give you letters all properly sealed, by which even the sins that you intend to commit may be pardoned. * * * There is no sin so great but that an indulgence cannot remit."—Hist. Reformation, D'Aubigne's, bk. III, ch. i. Tetzel defends this doctrine in his Antithesis 99, 100, 101. [See note 8, end of section.]66. II Thess. ii:4.67. Page 127.68. Mosheim.69. Tertullian's Apology, ch. xlii.70. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. I, bk, ii, part ii, ch. 4.71. Historie de Manicheism, tom ii, page 642.72. Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim) vol. I, bk. ii, part ii.73. I Cor. xii: 8-10.74. That it was proper for the Christian bishops to increase the restraints upon the licentiousness of transgression, will be readily granted by all who consider the circumstances of those times. But whether it was for the advantage of Christianity, to borrow rules for this salutary ordinance from the enemies of truth, and thus to consecrate, as it were, a part of the pagan superstition, many persons very justly call in question.—Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim) book I, cent. 2, part ii, ch. iii.75. Gen. i:26, 27. Jesus Christ was in the form of man, yet he is said to be the express image of God's person—Heb. i: 1-2.76. Matt. iii: 16, 17.77. Acts vii: 55, 56.78. John x: 30, and John xiv: 8-11.79. John xvii: 11, 21.80. John xiv: 26. John xv: 26. John xvi: 13-15.81. John xvii: 4, 5.82. Heb. iv: 2.83. John i:3. [See note 6, end of section].84. Some authorities say seven pairs were introduced in this manner.85. The statement is condensed from Mosheim; Dr. Benton, for years professor of divinity at Oxford, in his Brampton lectures states that the matter was "inert and powerless though co-eternal with the supreme God, and, like Him, without beginning."86. The Gnostics desired to avoid making God the author of evil, hence it is a leading principle in their philosophy that all evil has its origin in matter, and as matter was created by one of the Aeons, not by God, the Lord in the Gnostic system is relieved from the responsibility of being the author of evil.87. The statement of the Gnostic philosophy I have condensed from Mosheim and Dr. Benton, than whom there can be no higher authority on this subject.88. Gibbon's Decline and Fall, vol. ii, ch. xxii.89. The subject is difficult of illustration; but the following will perhaps aid the student to grasp the Sabellian doctrine. We see the ocean is a liquid; let us next imagine it frozen into solid ice; next as entirely dissolved into vapor. Here we have the same substance in three different aspects, but whether we speak of it as the liquid ocean, the frozen ocean or the ocean dissolved into vapor, it is always the same ocean, the same substance, but under different aspects. Whether he appeared as the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost, he was always the same God. Such was the Sabellian theory in respect to Deity. Mosheim represents Sabellius as teaching that the divine nature was divided into portions, that one portion became separate, was called the Son, and was joined to the man Jesus. The Holy Ghost was a similar portion or part of the Eternal Father. The weight of authority is against the learned Doctor in this matter, however, and in favor of the statement of Sabellius' views in the text of this work.90. This is the Nicene Creed as it was formulated by that celebrated council. The so-called Nicene Creed used in the Catholic, Lutheran and English Churches is this creed as modified by the Council of Constantinople, A. D., 381. There is no material difference in them.91. Mosheim, Gibbon, Montfaucon and others insist that Athanasius is not the author of this creed, and this may be true, but I have not yet heard of its being rejected as an explanation of the Nicene Creed. Indeed, notwithstanding its authenticity has long been suspected, it still stands in the English prayer book and is recited in the church of England service upon the most notable feasts, Christmas, Epiphany etc.92. Church of England Book of Common Prayer, p. 49 Athanasius is credited with having confessed that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate on the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts. (Decline and Fall, vol. II, ch. xxi.) We would naturally think that whoever the author of the Athanasian Creed may be, that such would be his mental condition. Nor are we very much surprised when we hear Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, frankly pronouncing it the work of a drunken man.93. Catholic Belief (Bruno) p. 1. This work is endorsed by His eminence Cardinal Manning.94. Church of England Book of Common Prayer, p. 311.95. Gen. i: 26, 27.96. Heb. i: 3.97. Phil. ii: 5, 6.98. It is remarkable how clearly men will reason upon the absurdity of immaterialism in everything except in respect to God. As an example, take the reasoning of Rev. John Wesley in regard to the supposed immateriality of the fire in hell: "But it has been questioned by some whether there be any fire in hell; that is, any material fire. Nay, if there be any fire it is unquestionably material. For what is immaterial fire? The same as immaterial water or earth! Both the one and the other is absolute nonsense, a contradiction in terms. Either, therefore, we must affirm it to be material, or we deny its existence." Now apply that correct reasoning to the immaterial God of the orthodox Christian and what is the result? Let us try the experiment by substituting the word God, for the word fire in the quotation:—But it is questioned by some whether there be any God, that is, any material God. Nay, if there be any God, he is unquestionably material. For what is an immaterial God? The same as immaterial water or earth! both the one and the other [that is, both immaterial God and immaterial earth] is absolute nonsense, a contradiction in terms. Either, therefore, we must affirm him to be material, or we deny his existence.99. II Peter ii: I.100. Mosheim, book II, cent. iv, part ii, ch. iii.101. The phraseology of the philosophers was, "living according to nature, and living above nature." The former was the rule for all men, the latter for the philosophers who aimed at perfect virtue.102. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., book I, cent. i, part ii, ch. iii.103. Mosheim, book II, cent. iv, part ii, ch. ii.104. Decline and Fall (Gibbon) vol. 1, ch. xvi.105. Mosheim, book II, cent. iv, part ii, ch. iii.106. The above quotation is taken from the third and fourth books on "The Providence of God" by Salvian, who flourished in the 5th century, a priest of Marseilles, and one who knew whereof he wrote, as he was dealing with affairs of which he was a witness.107. Book VI and VII of The Providence of God.—Salvian.108. Mosheim, book III, cent. ix, part ii, chap. ii.109. See Milner's introduction to the first volume of his Church History. It will also be seen in that introduction that Milner wrote his history to counteract the influence that he feared the great work of the too candid Mosheim might exert, viz., to create the impression "That real religion appears scarcely to have had any existence." Hence the admissions of Dr. Milner to the sad condition of the church in the tenth century have a peculiar significance since he would not admit its corruption unless compelled to by the facts.110. This is Caesar Baronius, a Catholic historian of the 16th century. His "Annales Ecclesiastical" comprise twelve volumes and were published in Rome, 1588-1607. He was a candidate for the papacy in 1605, but failed to secure the election.111. Milner's Ch. Hist., vol. iii, cent. x, ch. i. The only thing which seems to console the learned doctor in respect to this terrible condition of the church is that the scripture predicted this awful state, and the truth of scripture was "vindicated by events of all others the most disagreeable to a pious mind."—Ibid.112. Acts xx: 27-30.113. II Tim. iv: 1-4.114. II Peter i: 21.115. II Peter ii: 1-3.116. Tim. iv: 1, 2.117. That is, that the day of Messiah's glorious coming is at hand.118. Letteth and let are the old English equivalents of hindereth and hinder. The student will remember that Shakespeare makes Hamlet say to those who seek to prevent him following the ghost of his father when beckoned to private interview—"Still am I called. Unhand me, gentlemen. By heaven I'll make a ghost of him that lets me"—i.e. that hinders me.119. II Thes. ii: 1-12.120. Isaiah xxiv: 4-6.121. Gal. iii. 8, 19, 24, 25.122. Heb. xiii: 20.123. Rev. xiv: 6, 7.