Apostasy of the Primitive Church

APOSTASY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

Elder Milton Bennion

Speaking from the standpoint of secular history, the funda­mental concepts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are Hebrew in their origin. Jesus often appealed to Moses, and the later Hebrew authorities, in support of His own religious teachings. His references to God, His Father, were after the manner of the Hebrew prophets; His summary of the fundamentals of religion, in terms of man’s relationship to God, and to his fellow men, was practically identical with that given by a young Jewish lawyer, discussion of which brought forth the Parable of the Good Samaritan

Jesus declared Himself to be in the image of the Father, and this declaration is reiterated by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The religion of Jesus was founded upon simple faith in a personal God, who, in a unique way, was declared to be the Father of Jesus Christ, but who was also the spiritual Father of all mankind. All men were, therefore, to be regarded as brothers. Thus the foundation principles or basic faith of the Gospel was made comprehensible to the masses of mankind, for whom it was intended as a guide, to right-living and to salvation in the world beyond. The ordinances of the Gospel were relatively few and simple, and symbolic of the sacrifices Jesus made for the salva­tion of mankind;

The disciples of Jesus accepted this simple, impressive faith in God, the Father of all, in Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son and special Messenger in Ilis plan of religions fellowship, and in this high type of moral living and consecration to service set forth in the teachings of Jesus. They accepted the simple ordi­nances provided in the Gospels as a pledge of faith and continued devotion to the cause. This was the status of the Church in the first century of the Christian Era.

OUTSIDE INFLUENCES

By the end of this century, however, the Church had come to be more under Greek and Roman than under Hebrew influence. With the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews the Christian Church became more and more an institution of the Gentiles and under the leadership of men schooled in Greek philosophy, but unschooled, relatively speaking, in the basic concepts of the Hebrew religion. These new leaders of the Church steadily ingrafted, as doctrines of the Church, more and more from Greek philosophy, as a substitute for the simple yet powerful and effective teachings of Jesus. This situation is well expressed by the German professor, Alfred Weber. In his His­tory of Philosophy, he says:

The breath of expiring Hellenism passed into Christianity. The doctrines of Plato and his latest interpreters continued to influence the ablest thinkers among the followers of the Gospel, and the philosophy of the Church during the entire middle ages merely reechoes the teachings of the great Athenian philosopher.

Jesus had founded His Church upon the principle of immediate, continuous, divine guidance, manifest through revelation and other gifts of the Holy Ghost. The historical records, however, show that in the later centuries the church leaders substituted for this divine guidance the philosophies of their learned leaders, who, at various times and places, appealed to the Neo-Platonic philosophy, which they had earlier vigourously combated; and, at other times, to Aristotle, whose philosophy and science was ultimately adopted by the Church. Aristotle’s works thus came to be one of the great sources of authority in the Medieval Church.

CONDITION FORESEEN

The influence of Neo-Platonism is very marked in the develop­ment of asceticism, and in some degrees of monasticism. The deprecation of the body and the bodily life, while manifested in some measure in the writings of St. Paul, was very greatly developed, and practised in extreme form, through the influence of Neo-Platonism and other Greek and Oriental cults. This teaching of extreme asceticism was predicted and denounced by St. Paul as the work of false teachers who should later arise “Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

The influence of Aristotle is even more marked in the develop­ment of church doctrine and in determining the policies of the Church. For instance, Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, discusses the nature of God and His relation to the world. Aristotle says:

Pure self-activity of reason is God’s most blessed and everlasting life.

After elaborating this thought he continues thus:

That there is then a substance which is eternal and immovable and separate from the objects of sense is evident from what has been said. And it has also been shown that this substance cannot have extension, but is without parts and indivisible. For it imparts motion through endless time, and nothing limited has unlimited potentiality. Now since every magnitude is either limited or unlimited, for the reason given God cannot have limited magnitude, nor yet can he have unlimited magnitude, because, in a word, there is no such magnitude.

And further that God is free from passion and from qualitative change has also been shown, for all other changes are subsequent to motion in space. Why these things are so is now clear.

OBVIOUS EFFECTS OF ARISTOTLE’S DOCTRINE

Comparison of this citation from Aristotle with the ideas and phrasing of the creeds developed in. the councils of the Church in the fourth century and later, makes clear the source from which some parts of the creeds were derived.

This particular example of the influence of Greek thought upon medieval Christian theology may be regarded as typical of how the Hebrew religions concepts of the Gospel, as taught by Jesus, gave place to a very different type of thought.

A further consequence of the alliance of the Church with the philosophy of Aristotle was the so-called warfare between science and theology that prevailed in the later middle ages and the beginning of modern times. The philosophy of Aristotle included the whole body of ancient science. This ancient science became part of the doctrine of the Church. The development of science was long delayed because students appealed to Aristotle as a final authority, as they did to the Bible and the church fathers in matters more distinctly theological. When scholars did break away from this practice and set about direct investigation of Nature, thereby making some discoveries in conflict with Aristotle and ancient scientific conceptions, these innovators were often denounced as heretics, sometimes threatened with death, and their writings committed to the flames. All this, of course, with the worthy motive of saving these and other possible heretics from future damnation. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make yon free” seems to have had little application here, unless it be assumed that all scientific truth was revealed, once for all, to Aristotle. This is, of course, quite contrary to the spirit and method of Aristotle himself.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament, is a plan of practical living based upon faith in God, the Father, in the brotherhood of all mankind, and in the possible salvation of all who would conform to the plan; it does not adopt any particular cosmological system, nor does it espouse any theory of natural science as against any other. The practice of Jesus and Ilis Apostles, in this respect, might well be stated in words derived, from His remark concerning His relation to the civil authority: Render unto science the things that belong to science and unto God the things that belong to God. Man’s salvation does not depend upon whether lie believes in the Ptolemaic or the Copernican astronomy, nor upon the truth or the falsity of either of these scientific theories. Had the Church left science to fight its own battles it would have been infinitely better both for the Church and for science. This so-called war­fare was in fact a-warfare between the old science and the new, in which the Church, unfortunately, found itself allied with the old, and in opposition to free investigation. In this we have a radical departure from the example of Jesus, who taught the truth as God the Father revealed it to Him, and as it concerned man’s relationship to and duties toward God and fellow men. The results of men’s efforts to observe Nature and to interpret these observations did not enter into the controversies recorded in the Gospels.

RELATIONSHIP OF CHURCH AND STATE

Another point of contrast between the Primitive and the Medieval Church is in their relation to the State. The remark of Jesus “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and onto God the things that are God’s” is generally regarded as giving sanction to separation of Church and State. For the sake of religion itself this seems to be highly desirable. Political government is based upon force; the laws of the State are enforced by civil or military power. This use of force, which is essential to the preservation of the State, is quite in contrast with the attitude and functions of the Church. The Church is a voluntary organization. Membership and compliance with the laws, principles, or rules of the Church, are all on a voluntary basis, except that fellowship or membership in the Church may, under some conditions, be denied an individual.

None of these things are true of the State. No one can choose whether or not he will be a member of the State, although, under some circumstances, he may transfer his citizenship from one State to another. He cannot, however, escape being a citizen or a subject of some State. He cannot sever his connection with the State at will, nor can he choose whether or not he will obey the laws without, in case of disobedience, assuming the risk of physical penalties imposed by the State.

The two institutions, Church and State, are, therefore, very different in their nature and functions. Each has a very im­portant place in human society, but each has its own place and should not seek to trespass upon the other. In this respect the Medieval Church was in grave error.

Church officials are also, or may be, citizens with all the rights of other citizens. Even as church officials they may advise their fellow-citizen church members as to their duties in all matters that concern the religions life. They may even do more than merely to pray for the civil authorities. They have no right, however, as church officials, to resort to the methods of compul­sion characteristic of the civil government.

In family government minors may lie subject both to persuasive and compulsory methods. In adult society at large, however, these two methods are, in general, divided between the Church and the State. The State may, of course, in its educative func­tions, also' use persuasive methods; the Church, however, may not properly use compulsion. Its methods are those of enlighten­ment, faith, love, kindness, even rebuke, if need be, but never compulsion. The Medieval Church fell far short of conformity to these standards; in fact, it often assumed civil authority and exercised compulsory methods in dealing both with States and with individuals.

NULLIFICATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD

The foregoing remarks pertain to generally accepted facts of history, and are in themselves sufficient to show how the Christian Church in medieval times and even earlier had departed from the fundamental teachings of Jesus. It is not our intention here to enter into theological controversies, nor to discuss the present status of Christian Churches. In no case should our differences of theological doctrine be the occasion of intolerance or of ill will. That there are such differences, however, cannot be ignored. The Latter-day Saints hold that, concurrent with the changes of doc­trine and policies we have here related, there were also changes in the forms and functions of the church government, involving loss of the divine authority of the Priesthood conferred by Jesus upon His immediate disciples. Irrespective of the question of succession in the offices of the Priesthood, the Latter-day Saints maintain that abuse of divine authority is in itself sufficient reason for its nullification, and when nullified it cannot, of course, be transmitted; it can only be restored by divine inter­vention.

The Church itself nullifies the Priesthood or divine authority conferred upon its individual members whenever the conduct of these individuals warrants disfellowship. May not God, then, nullify the Priesthood of all, when the Church itself has aposta­tized? This apostasy may come about by radical change of doctrine without divine authorization, or by departure from gospel standards of living.

The Latter-day Saints likewise hold that the ordinances of the Gospel as taught by Jesus were radically changed, and, in some instances, perverted into unwarranted usage. Out of these per­versions grew the doctrine of infant damnation, vigourously denounced by the Prophet Moroni in the closing chapters of the Book of Mormon, and published about one hundred years ago, while this doctrine was still widely accepted. Also grew the idea that the murderer may by confession and repentance at the last moment pass from the scaffold to salvation in the kingdom of Christ, while the well-behaved pagan is forever lost.

These doctrines, to be sure, are not now generally promulgated. They are, nevertheless, a heritage from the Medieval Church and in large measure, at least, the result of perversions of the teach­ings of Jesus, which teachings guarantee the possibility of salva­tion for all mankind who do not by their own acts forfeit this privilege.