Explaining the Heresy of the Catholic Mass, Pt 2
Selected Scriptures
Speaking of sound theology, we are on Sunday nights doing a doctrinal study and we have covered a lot of things over the last many, many months and found ourselves pressed into a very important look at Roman Catholic theology. It rises out of all of our study of theology because this culture in which we live is so dominated by Romanism. We have demonstrated by raising of hands several times in this recent series that the majority of people who have come to Christ in this church and that would be the majority of people in this church have come out of a Roman Catholic background. And it is important for us to understand what it is that Roman Catholic theology teaches and what it is that Catholics believe and advocate. It is important for a number of reasons, the first and foremost reason that presents itself to me in this day is that evangelicalism is in a big hurry to redefine Catholic people as brothers and sisters in Christ. There is an eagerness to accept them because they talk about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and the cross and the resurrection, and even the Scripture. It is wishful thinking, however, to assume that people in the Roman Catholic Church are genuine Christians. In order to be genuine Christians they would have to believe something other than Roman Catholic theology.
The purpose of this series is by no means to belittle them, or to ridicule them, or to make them any kind of object of humor, no matter how bizarre the theological things that they advocate seem to us. But to maintain the age-old realization that they are still a mission field, that they need to be reached with the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, it's my conviction that they are the most fertile soil for evangelism perhaps in the world because while they know all the terms, and some of the historical facts concerning the Lord Jesus, they know that they do not know God and they do not have the assurance of eternal life. Through the years we have seen such a tremendous response to the gospel among people coming out of Catholic Churches. And we want to make sure that we don't allow ourselves to be lured into this very seductive kind of emphasis that's coming along now that we're all Christians together.
I also want to say, too, that what I'm telling you is essential Catholic doctrine and that is not to say that everybody in the Catholic Church, all people who are quote/unquote "Roman Catholics" believe this or even know this. Ignorance has always been a premium in Roman Catholicism. That's why for so many centuries everything was done in Latin, it didn't really matter whether the people understood it or not, it was all a kind of mystical and mechanical effort where ritual brought you through some ritualistic ceremonial mechanisms into communion with God through communing mystically with the church. And in recent years they have moved away from Latin in to the vernacular languages of the world, but still there is widespread ignorance among Roman Catholics, even as to the priesthood being unsure in many cases of what is important doctrine. And so we do understand that many people involved in Roman Catholicism have no idea what the Church's dogma is, they're just there going through the routine. However, to understand the truth is very important if we're going to expose the system for what it is and ignorance doesn't change that at all. And again, the purpose that we have in mind in dealing with this material is to demonstrate an evangelistic compassion toward people in Roman Catholicism...so close and yet so terribly far. In fact, as we remember from the writer of Hebrews, the hottest hell belongs to those who having known the cross and the truth of the cross have thereby trampled it under feet in unbelief. Theirs is the more severe eternal judgment. So they are not just a mission field, the are a great mission field, a needy mission field to which we have to go with great compassion and clarity of sound doctrine.
Now we are talking currently about the Mass, a pagan corruption, the Mass. It is a corruption of the Lord's table. I haven't taken the time to explain the biblical significance of the Lord's table because I've done that for all the years I've been here. We have covered the ground on the meaning of the Lord's table through the years every way possible, and I'm going to assume that you understand that. But I do want you to understand the error. I think you already know the truth. There, as I said, has been plenty of information that we've given from this pulpit in that regard.
I want to approach this tonight by looking at something that's very historical. This week I had the opportunity to read a book that was given to me by Rick Holland called Bloody Mary's Martyrs. It is a book that was produced in New York City in the year 2001. I have always been frankly extremely fascinated by the sixteenth century, particularly the sixteenth century in the UK, Scotland, Ireland and England, because of my own ancestry going back there both on my father's side, both parents of his. And I have always loved that particular century because of the tremendous influence and impact of the Reformation as it reached into England and Scotland and particularly the amazing ministry of John Knox. And so it is interesting to me to understand a little bit of the history of Bloody Mary, as she is known, Queen Mary Tudor. This book is a history of Mary and the martyrs that were slaughtered under her reign from the very inception of her reign she began the slaughter. The writer of the book says this, "In England, in the reign of Queen Mary Tudor, for 45 terrible months between February 4, 1555 and November 10,1558, two hundred and eighty-three Protestants were martyred, 227 men and 56 women. There are other records that indicate also there were four children. They were all burned alive, for certain, 283 were burned alive and that is how Queen Mary Tudor became known as Bloody Mary.
Let me read the record of the execution of just a few of the best known names. You can find a great amount of this history in Foxe's classic Book of Martyrs. There's also a wonderful other source if you can find it, it's a book written by J.C. Ryle called Light From Old Paths which also has a history of the Marion martyrs, as they are called. One was a wonderful preacher of the gospel named John Rogers. And John Rogers was burned in Smithsfield on Monday, the fourth of February, he was the first martyr that launched her 45 month campaign. He had assisted, here is his crime, he had assisted Tyndale and Coverdale in bringing out a most important version of the English Bible, a version commonly known as Matthew's Bible, taking Tyndale's New Testament and combining it with his own work in the Old Testament and putting it under the title of Matthew's Bible as a synonym to try to hide a little bit. It didn't bear his name but he was condemned as Rogers, alias Matthews. He was the first one who was burned at the stake. He was led forth to Smithsfield on foot within sight of the Church of the Sepulcher where he had preached. He was led through the streets of the parish where he had done the work of a pastor. And along the way stood his wife and ten children, one a newborn baby in the arms of his wife. As he passed his children, he was unable to do anything but to look at them and smile and say a brief word of greeting because of the diabolical cruelty of Bishop Bonner who had flatly refused him any opportunity to see his wife or his children when in prison. He only glanced at then and then walked on calmly to the stake, reciting Psalm 51. He walked, says Bishop Ryle, steadily, unflinchingly into a fiery grave and upon his arrival, the enthusiasm of the crowd knew no bounds, they rent the air with thunders of applause. Even Nol Elai(??) The French ambassador wrote home a description of the scene and said that Rogers went to his death as though he were walking to his wedding. Ridley says in the book, Bloody Mary's Martyrs, "On his last night in his prison cell at New Gate, he slept so soundly that his jailor had to wake him in the morning and tell him it was time for him to dress and prepare to leave for the place of execution. He was happy, because he knew that however much he might suffer in the fire, he would go directly to heaven."
Death came quickly. He held his hands in the fire and went through the motions of washing them as if the fire had been cold water. Then he withdrew them from the flames, held them aloft in the air and recited a prayer until he died soon afterwards.
Then there was John Hooper, another preacher of the gospel. When he arrived at the spot of his execution, he was allowed to pray though strictly forbidden to speak to the people. A box was placed before John Hooper containing a full pardon if he would only recant. His answer was, "Away with it, away with it." He was then fastened to the stake by an iron around his waist and fought his last fight with the king of terrors. Three times the faggots had to be lighted because they would not burn properly. Three quarters of an hour the noble sufferer endured the mortal agony as Foxe says, "Neither moving backward, forward, nor to any side but only praying, 'Lord, Jesus, have mercy on me. Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' And beating his breast with one hand till it was burned to a stump." Seven thousand were there to watch and a blind boy said, "You, sir, have enabled me to see the light of the gospel."
Then there was Robert Ferarre(?) burned at Kamarthon(?) on Friday, the thirtieth of March, the same year. He stood in the flames holding out his hands till they were burned to stumps until a bystander in mercy struck him on the head and put an end to his suffering. And so that Welch preacher passed away.
And then the two famous compatriots in the gospel, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer. Ridley arrived on the ground first and seeing Latimer come afterwards ran to him and embraced him saying, "Be of good heart, brother, for God will either assuage the fury of the flames or else He will strengthen us to abide it." Ridley's last words before the fire was lighted were these, "Heavenly Father, I give Thee most hardy thanks that Thou hast called me to a profession of Thee, even unto death. I beseech Thee, Lord God, have mercy on this realm of England and deliver the same from all her enemies." Latimer's last words were like the blast of a trumpet which rings even to this day, "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day by God's grace light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out." And when the flames began to rise, Ridley cried out with a loud voice, "Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit. Lord, receive my spirit." Latimer cried vehemently on the other side of the stake, "Father of heaven, receive my soul." Latimer died soon, an old man of eighty years of age. It took very little to set his spirit free from its earthly torment. Ridley suffered long and painfully from the bad management of the fire by those who attended the execution. At length, however, the flames reached the vital part of him and he fell at Latimer's feet and they were at rest. Ryle says they were lovely and beautiful in their lives and in death they were not divided.
John Philpot was burned in Smithsfield December 18, 1555. The night before his execution he went to his bedroom and thanked God that he was counted worthy to suffer for the truth. And when he came to Smithsfield he kneeled down and said, "I will pay my vows." He then kissed the stake and said, "Shall I disdain to suffer at this stake, seeing my Redeemer did not refuse to suffer a most vile death on the cross for me?" After that he meekly repeated the 106, 107 and 108 Psalm and being chained to the stake died very quietly.
And there was Thomas Cranmer who vacillated back and forth, back and forth and seemed to be very unfaithful. But in the end found his courage and came to his death. As he was being burned he said, "I will burn my hand that writes first for it is my hand that in the past has written things contrary to the truth. It shall burn first." And it did.
There is another amazing story of a girl named Peratine(?) Couchen(?). The Channel Islands were in the realm of Queen Mary and this is in the summer of 1556, a case arose there. There was a woman named Catherine(?) Couchen(?) and she lived in the Channel Islands with the two daughters, Paratine and Gillamine. Through a series of circumstances, a woman reported Catherine and her two daughters as heretics and the three women were convicted of heresy and sentenced to be burned. Paratine did not tell the judges at her trial that she was pregnant. When the fire was lit, the heat of the fire caused Paratine to give birth to her baby son who fell onto the faggots while the flames burned around him. One of the spectators rushed forward to save the baby and pulled him out of the fire and laid him on the grass. A man at arms picked him up and he was handed from one official to another till he was given to the sheriff in charge of the execution. The sheriff ordered his man to throw the baby back into the fire and he was burned with his mother, his grandmother and his aunt.
Well there are eight of the 283 and there are many more stories like that. And the question is...why? Why? And the answer is a single answer, amazingly enough. All of them, all 283 of them were burned and even more during the prior reign of Henry VIII, they were all burned because of one matter, they refused to admit and believe in the doctrine at the center of the Mass, the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. J.C. Ryle writes, "All without one exception were called to special account about the real presence and in every case their refusal to admit the doctrine formed one principle cause of their condemnation. They all died under Bloody Mary because they would not acknowledge that the wine and the bread at the Lord's table was the real presence of the body, the blood and the nature and the divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact, Foxes' book of martyrs records the very words of the martyrs when they died. Listen to what John Rogers said. "I was asked whether I believed in the sacrament to be the very body and blood of our Savior, Christ, that was born of the Virgin Mary and hanged on the cross really and substantially. I answered, 'I think it could be false. I cannot understand really and substantially to signify otherwise then corporeally, but corporeally Christ is only in heaven and so Christ cannot be corporeally in your sacrament.' And therefore he was condemned and burned." Here are the words of sentence against Bishop Ridley, "The said Nicholas Ridley affirms, maintains and stubbornly defends certain opinions, assertions and heresies contrary to the Word of God and the received faith of the Church as in denying the true and natural body and blood of Christ to be in the sacrament of the altar and secondarily, in affirming the substance of bread and wine to remain after the words of consecration." And so he was condemned and burned.
Now remember what I told you last time. The idea of the Mass is that when the priest consecrates the wine and the bread, they immediately and miraculously become the real blood and the real body of Jesus Christ and are no longer wine and no longer bread. Although they maintain the appearance of them, that is not the reality of them. What Ridley said was that before and after the consecration, it was still wine and it was still bread. And he was condemned and burned. His friend, Latimer, here's what was said against him, "That thou hast openly affirmed, defended and maintained that the true and natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priest is not really present in the sacrament of the altar and that in the sacrament of the altar remains still the substance of bread and wine." Same thing. And the good old man, Latimer, said, "After a corporeal being which the Romish Church furnisheth, Christ's body and blood is not in the sacraments under the forms of bread and wine. In denying it, he was condemned and burned.
Here is the address made by Bishop Bonner to Philpot, "You have offended and trespassed against the Sacrament of the Altar, denying the real presence of Christ's body and blood to be there, affirming also material bread and material wine to be in the Sacrament and not the substance of the body and blood of Christ. And because of that opinion, he was burned." Here's what Cranmer said with almost his last breath, this is in St. Mary's Church in Oxford, "As for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the Bishop of Winchester, to which my book teaches so true a doctrine that it shall stand at the last day before the judgment of God when the Papist's doctrine contrary there to shall be ashamed to show her face." You want to know what he said in his book? "They...the Papists say, that Christ is corporeally under or in the form of bread and wine. We say that Christ is not there, neither corporeally nor spiritually, but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine He is spiritually and corporeally he is in heaven and so he was burned." Three hundred years later the Roman Catholic Church was still doing this, the last martyr to the Catholic system in Spain was in the year 1826, a school teacher named Kaitano(?) Repoll(?), he was burned at the stake in 1826 for not taking his students to Mass, for not making them kneel before the Host and for saying, "Praise be to God," instead of "Hail Holy Mary."
It really is a horrible thing to think that an ordinance given by our Lord for the blessing of His beloved saints would be so corrupted and so defiled that it would become a devilish, satanic reason to slaughter the most faithful Christians and preachers of the gospel. But it did in the corrupting hands of the Roman system.
As I said, from the fourth of February 1555 to the tenth of November 1558, 45 months Protestants were put to the ultimate test about their conviction concerning the Lord's Table. That was the issue. Mary was a staunch Catholic. When she came to the throne, England had begun to be transformed by the Protestant Reformation. Luther had nailed his thesis to the door at Wittenberg about 38 years earlier, 1517, and 38 years the Reformation had spread to England. Just a footnote, I happened to have because they've been given to me by friends, some Bibles that were printed and used in that very period of time. In fact I have a copy of Matthew's Bible, I almost brought it to show you tonight but it's huge. It's a sacred treasure to me because I understand the price that John Rogers paid and the price that William Tyndale paid. Tyndale was executed and so was John Rogers.
Well the Reformation infuriated Queen Mary who was Catholic and she set out to erase the gospel of grace from her kingdom, and the standard she used was the Mass and Transubstantiation. For anybody who didn't affirm it, death came swiftly. And as I pointed out last time, the Catholic position is that in the cup and the bread after the priest consecrates it, he is doing something that has supernatural power that transforms it into the real presence of Jesus Christ. This was repulsive to the Reformers, to the true Christians. And what they said was that this Mass every time they did it was another sacrifice, a re-sacrifice of Christ who would be endlessly sacrificed over and over and over and over till the end of the world, they said. English Protestants would not participate in a Mass because that would be a denial of the sufficiency of the one offering of Jesus Christ. And so Mary made a law, if you deny the real presence of Christ in the bread and the cup, you're guilty of heresy and you will be burned. The true Christian faith and the true Christian understanding of the Lord's Table isn't anywhere close to the Roman perversion.
Just to review it. The Roman Catholic Church says the Mass is a real and true sacrifice for sins. Every Mass ever done by a priest is a real and true sacrifice. So there is not just one sacrifice at the cross, there are millions. The Roman Catholic view says the sacrifice is propitiatory, that is it provides a real satisfaction to propitiate or satisfy the justice of God. It therefore genuinely effects the remission of sins and the punishment that could come and should come to the sinner. However, it is only propitiatory if in fact, says Rome, the intention of the priest is pure and if the intention of the priest is not pure, then it does not have its validity. Although, they conceded, otherwise it would be pretty hard to get people to pay for a Mass if they thought it might not matter since the priest might not have true intentions, it does have some minimal propitiatory benefit even though the full efficacy depends upon the valid intention of the priest. The Roman Catholic Catechism, a more current one, quotes Vatican II, quote: "As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which Christ has been sacrificed is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." It is a sacrifice, it is an actual sacrifice though unbloody of the real Christ made on a real altar by a real priest, it is a sacrifice that the priest offers to God the Father, so you have a human priest offering to God the Father, God's own Son as a sacrifice that is propitiatory, redemptive and brings about the remission of sin to the degree that the intention of the priest is valid. It is a false sacrifice of a false Christ on a false altar by a false priest.
They say that Christ is a non-bloody sacrifice, but He is still...use the word immolated. Immolation is a word we don't hear a lot, but immolation...because we don't live in a sacerdotal sacrificial kind of culture, but immolation is the sacrificial killing of a victim. They say in the Mass Christ is actually immolated. He is sacrificially killed. Christ becomes in their language the Most Holy Victim, actually present in flesh and spirit and divinity in the bread and the wine though it appears still to be bread and wine. By the way, that's kind of an aorist atillion(?) influence that what we see is not the true reality. It is, in fact, mystical mumbo-jumbo. In fact, you remember what I told you in past studies, in the Mass the priest says in Latin, "This is My body," but in Latin it is, "Hocus Corpus meum...hocus Corpus meum." People didn't know Latin and that's where the little expression, "Hocus Pocus" came from. It's just so much meaningless hocus pocus.
Roman Catholic theology says the Mass is being offered for the redemption of the world...the redemption of the world. And as I said last time, the key to the whole thing is this transubstantiation...transforming the substance from bread and wine to the actual Christ. The holy Mass is the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ really present on the altar under the appearance of bread and wine and offered to God for the living and the dead for the sins of the living and the sins of the dead that needed to get themselves out of Purgatory where they're being purged from their sins. Elaguare(???) again who wrote The Glories of Mary says this, "We are struck with wonder when we find that in obedience to the words of his priest, Hocus Corpus Meum, this is My body, God Himself descends on the altar." Listen to what he says, "God comes whenever the priest calls him and as often as they call Him and places Himself in their hands even they...even though they should be His enemies." Some kind of power the priests have to call down God from heaven and it says, Elaguare, "After having come, God remains entirely at their disposal and they move Him as they please from one place to another. They may, if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle," that is in the little box where they keep the Host, "Or expose Him on the altar, or carry Him outside the Church. They may if they choose eat His flesh and give Him for the food of others besides the power of the priest surpasses that of the Blessed Virgin because she cannot absolve a Catholic from even the smallest sin." That, by the way, is in a volume called, "The Dignity and Duties of the Priest." This is their priestly power, to pull God down and infuse Him into the Mass and then move Him wherever they want. The priest then is supposed to be endowed with power by the Bishop at his ordination. The ordination of a priest is a very important event because he is given the power at his ordination to change the bread and the wine into the literal living body and blood of Christ. He literally is given the power to call God out of heaven and bring Him into those elements. In fact, they say the body of Christ is present down to the last eyelash and toenail. And when asked how is it possible for THE body of Christ which is one body to be everywhere in the world where Mass is being said at the same time, and the anser is, "It's a miracle."
After the adoration of the consecrated Host, the uplifted hands of the priest pretend to offer God the very body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for the living and the dead. And then in observance of the Eucharist, the priest eats Christ alive in the presence of the people. And then gives Him to the people under the appearance of bread.
It is a horrific and pagan event that goes on constantly. The congregation of the Blessed Sacrament is an organization devoted to carry out before the Blessed Sacrament a perpetual mission of prayer and supplication. There are people in that organization and a number of other organizations who spend all of their time praying to the box that contains the Host. Roman Catholics all over the world do this. We closed out last time by saying in Roman Catholic Churches they have people sign up to come at all hours of the day to pray to the box.
Now what is the source of this strange and bizarre system. And I'm not going to say anymore because we said enough last time. Where does this come from? Obviously from Satan, counterfeit, pagan religion. There is no special priesthood in Christianity, we're all kings and priests. We don't need human mediators, we have one Mediator, the man Christ Jesus. There are no more altars. The one sacrifice was made, there are no more altars, there are no more sacrifices. Jesus doesn't die again and again and again and again.
But why do they do this? Where does this come from? Paganism has to have...paganism has to have a..some symbols of religiosity. It has to give the illusion of mystery. It has to give the illusion of deity and divinity. It has to give the illusion of transcendence. It has to give the illusion of magic. This is just one concoction to pull it off.
Now I'm going to get a little academic for a few minutes, just grin and bear it for a while and maybe it will help you. Some of you will appreciate this...maybe not all. How can I say this in a few words? Not a skill that I have developed through the years...by the way. Who said "amen" about that? I can't argue with it...now think with me, okay? The New Testament conveys the idea of a composite society, that's new, that's revolutionary...just file that...a composite society. That is to say the New Testament presents a society in the world that is composed of two factions, okay? Society is made up of believers and non-believers, all right? Christians and non-Christians, those who believe the gospel and those who do not, those who proclaim with others deny, those who believe what others reject, this is a composite society. We understand that. We understand that in America, we live in a composite society, it goes way back to our Constitution which understands the separation of church and state, that we are living...that's just another way to say we live in a composite society. New Testament society then has church and state and they are completely different, completely separate, completely distinct loyalties. And we who live in this composite society as Christians must render loyalty to both the state and the church. We know that. The state demands our loyalty. It demands loyalty from every citizen to its laws. The church demands loyalty as the Word of God is brought to bear upon those who are part of it. So we live in a two-loyalty world. Not everybody does, but we as Christians do. We are told in the Bible to be model citizens, that the powers that be are ordained of God and we're to submit to them. We're even to pray for those that are over us, the rulers and governors and submit to them. And the state has been given by God a sword, that is authority even to the point of death to constrain and coerce us. This is the societal law of penalty. So the state has a sword and the state demands our loyalty for the well-being of those who live in that state.
The church also has a sword to constrain and to coerce. The church also has a sword to persuade, it is Scripture, it is the Law of God. If we do not obey the law of the state, we are physically alienated. If we do not obey the Law of God, we are spiritually alienated. This is what the New Testament teaches. We're going to have to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. We understand that. We also understand that the state is not the church, the church is not the state, they are completely distinct and Jesus made it absolutely clear when He said, "My Kingdom is not of this world."
Now let me tell you something. That concept which is so obvious to us is brand new in the New Testament...brand new. Nobody before the New Testament ever heard of such a thing, no one. All previous societies in the world were one loyalty, religion and the state were one. Religion and the state were one, all previous societies, including Israel, were sacral, sacred societies. That is they were unified and bound together by common religious loyalty. Government was inseparable from religion. Government wielded power in behalf of religion. No society in history, according to historians who have studied this, no society in history ever was composite. Pre-Christian society had no option. If you wonder about it, look at a Muslim country. What options do people living there have? There's no difference between Islamic religion and Islamic state. If you're not a Muslim, you may be killed. There are no composite societies. Hinduism, same thing, take any historical religion, there's no such thing as a composite society until you come to the New Testament and it lays it out. There were Christians throughout the history of the church who understood this. They understood that the state should not exercise power over them, but we saw tonight that the Queen of England, along with all the other monarchs, along with all the other state leaders of that time thought that they as the rulers of the state had the right to execute the people who didn't cooperate with their religious conviction. There was no difference. In fact they pretty much saw the king as exercising divine rite. And I told you, if you go to the Scottish Parliament to this day you'll see a chair at the top of the Scottish Presbyterian Parliament that's for the King of the Queen or his representative to sit symbolizing headship in the church. Even Israel was not a composite society. Everybody in Israel was to conform to Israel's moral, social, ethical, ceremonial laws. It wasn't until the New Testament that this was really made clear because the Jews lived in a theocratic kingdom, but the church exists as a part of a secular society. There's no such thing as a Christian society. There's no such thing as a Christian nation. There are only Christian people living in a nation and depending upon the number of them, they have a lessor or greater influence. There are only more or less Christians in a society, there's no such thing as a Christian nation or a Christian society.
But along comes the early church and what happens? They get persecuted by the Jews because they're not consistent with Jewish religion because Jewish religion and the Jewish state were one. They get persecuted by the Romans because they won't worship whom? The emperor, Caesar. Classic sacral culture, non-composite. Even when you went to the butcher shop to buy your meat, you bought meat at the butcher shop that had been offered to...what?...to idols. Christians could eat that stuff because an idol was nothing anyway. Sacral societies punished dissenters. Rome killed Christians. Right now, we just heard it on the news, the Afghan government going to try a Christian and execute him for being a Christian because they don't understand a composite society. The New Testament taught that, but sad to say, even coming out of the Reformation the Reformers never really applied it. That composite society began to disappear in history very fast. Second century, third century after Christ, the composite understanding is beginning to erode. In the year 250 Origen, early church father, suggests that the entire Roman Empire should unite in devotion to the true God and the Lord will slay all non-believers...that was Origen. This is a call to redefine the church of Jesus Christ to make it the all-embracing society and if they did that, God would slay all of the non-conformists. It was not long after that, 325, seventy-five years later, Constantine took power in the Roman Empire and did just that. What Constantine did was say there are too many gods, too many religions. If we're going to have a unified empire, we're going to have to have one religion and he picked Christianity. Everybody was to be a Christian. Non-Christians were punished. They were identified as heretics, revolutionaries, reactionaries, non-conformists and they were to be punished. Everybody was going to be a Christian. How you going to do that? Well you have to have a rite, you have to have a ritual, you have to have a ceremony that makes them all automatically Christians and so came infant baptism. Infant baptism did the trick. Go through a ceremonial washing after birth and this is an official entrance into the church, this is an official entrance into the Covenant people. Now the government has control over everybody. The government is the church. Religion and the state are inseparable. And so th