EUSEBIUS: HISTORY OF THE CHURCH FROM CHRIST TO CONSTANTINE CENTURIES I & II -- SOME PARALLELS WITH THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORED CHURCH - CENTURIES XIX & X X A few years ago the Church celebrated its sesquicentennial, an event noted by the publication of several new histories of early church leaders and events. In these circumstances it is of interest to review another great church history written by the first trained historian of the Primitive Church, the Greek ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, who wrote the first history of the original Christian Church. Eusebius' History , covers the period from the end of the New Testament Acts of the Apostles through the period of the great persecutions up to the civil establishment of the Church under the Emperor Constantine -- a period in the history of the original church reaching approximately twice as far beyond Jesus as the current histories of the Restored Church extend beyond Joseph Smith. As is well known, First Century Christian missionaries carried the Gospel beyond Palestine, first to the Greek colonies in Asia Minor, then to Greece itself, and finally to Rome. Not long thereafter Christianity was carried to Alexandria, Gaul, Spain, and North Africa. Missionaries of the Restoration first carried the Gospel to Canada, and from there to Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia. We are now expanding rapidly in Africa and the Far East. Within a few years Spanish will be the predominant language of church members, just as Greek and Latin early supplanted Aramaic as the language of early Christianity. While relatively small compared to the population of the world, and some other churches, the Restored Church has converted more people in its first hundred and fifty years than the entire population of the Roman Empire under Augustus. And this without the compulsion exercised by Constantine the Great when he made Christianity the religion of Rome. While every soul is precious, and much work remains to be done, we're not doing too badly. Wasatch Front Mormons are raised on a diet of sometimes strained parallels between biblical geography and scriptural references such as "And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's House shall be established in the tops of the mountains" (Isaiah 2:2); that "Brother Brigham" was a latter-day Moses; that the Rocky Mountains stretching from Canada to Chile are the "everlasting hills" referred to in Genesis 49:26; and that the Lord deliberately prearranged for the world to have two Jordan Rivers, the one leading from Galilee to the Dead Sea and the other from Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake, just so LDS kids would know that they are the true successors to the Children of Israel. There are, however, far more impressive genuine parallels between the historical experiences and doctrines of the Primitive Church and the first years of the Restored Church which we are prone to neglect or totally overlook. A number of these doctrines and events are discussed below. HISTORICAL PARALLELS The spread of the Primitive Church was fortuitously dependent on the Pax Romana , the dominating military presence in the Mediterranean world and throughout Europe at the time of Jesus' birth and ministry. Roman control of the Mediterranean made possible peaceful passage of Christian missionaries throughout the territory of Rome and its provinces, and Roman tolerance for the religions of its many peoples favored the early spread of Christianity. As already noted, first century Christian missionaries carried the Gospel beyond Palestine first to the Greek colonies in Asia minor, then to Greece itself, and after the briefest possible delay to Rome the Imperial capital. Within a few further years, Roman soldiers and merchant converts were carrying the message of Christianity into northern Europe, North Africa, and Asia. In our day, the spread of Mormonism was no less dependent during its first century on the Pax Britannica , and, more recently, on the Pax Americana which, with their control of world sea lanes and widespread colonies, overseas possessions, and military bases permitted entry of Mormon missionaries first into Canada, shortly afterwards into Great Britain, and soon into France, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia and the Pacific Islands. Because of its appeal to the underclass in the Ancient World and a form of worship which did not provide for the adoration of emperors, the rapid growth of Primitive Christianity was soon seen as a threat to Roman society, drawing upon itself opprobrium and persecution. Similarly, the appeal of Mormonism to the humble and deprived, and the emphasis of the Restoration on cooperative living and an Old Testament family structure, was seen by many as a threat to class-privileged 19th C. Europe as well as to freewheeling American democracy and the monogamous family unit inherited from the European Reformation (I do not include Catholicism, since concubinage was a regular part of Upper Class lifestyle in most pre-Counter Reformation Catholic Europe -- (see Michael Wood, In Search of the Middle Ages , Facts on File Publications: New York, 1987). So both Primitive Christianity and the Restored Church both benefitted from the extraordinary coincidence of having been founded during the altogether unhistoric existence of two great religiously liberal super powers under whose relatively benevolent protection they could take root and spread. And, similarly, each later came to experience persecution unparalleled by virtually any other contemporary religion, resulting in significant changes in their external forms of worship and their relationship to the State. With the destruction of Jerusalem in 90 A.D., which until that point had been the center of the Christian Church (most of the early general conferences of Church leaders took place in Jerusalem, see Acts 1:4 and 21:15), there was a great exodus of church members to Asia Minor. Many of these congregated in Cappadocia, which shortly became St. Paul's Missionary Training Center, the "Happy Valley" of the day. There remain today hundreds of houses, churches (and a temple?) carved out of the tufa hills in Cappadocia in which the exiled Saints lived following their expulsion from Palestine. Gathering strength during this period of exile, the Church, within a couple of generations was able to send trained missionaries to convert tens of thousands in the remote forests of Germany and England. (There is some discussion below of some of the art forms and architecture created by early Christians in this new center of Christian life). In a striking parallel, the Latter-day Saints were compelled to leave Nauvoo, at almost exactly the same moment of evolution of the Restoration, for the equally desertic and remote valleys of the American Great Basin, where they developed their own temples, art forms, and sub-culture, while building strength to move out a couple of generations later, seeing membership grow from a few hundred thousands to six and a half millions in a matter of fifty years. Most Latter-day Saints are familiar from Sunday School or Seminary with at least the rudiments of LDS history. But unlike most other Christian denominations, very few details are taught in the LDS church about the history of the Primitive Church. Indeed, the only book on the subject which comes to mind is Apostle David O. McKay's Ancient Apostles , which of course precedes the period of which we are speaking. For one reason or another, we skip from the missionary journeys of Paul to the Great Apostasy, overlooking some three hundred vital years of highly significant Church history, during which most LDS theologians agree there was still valid priesthood on earth and many important political and doctrinal battles were waged. So most of the parallels between early Christian doctrine and experiences and the doctrines and experiences of the Restored Church are unknown even to relatively well-read Mormons. This is a pity, because an early history of the Primitive Church exists, written by a valiant defender of the Faith as delivered by the Apostles (who knew some of the grandchildren of the converts of the Apostles intimately) and who in all probability held a still valid bishopric in the Early Church while Truth still prevailed and the Great Apostasy was yet unvictorious. EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN Eusebius was a learned Greek member of the Church who, as noted, wrote the first (and for several hundred years more, the only) history of the original Christian Church covering the period from the end of the Acts of the Apostles through the period of great persecutions up to the civil establishment of the church under the Emperor Constantine -- a period in the history of the original church reaching approximately twice as far beyond Jesus as current Church history reaches beyond the life of Joseph Smith. This early Historian of the Christian Church was a native of Caesaria, a city built by Herod on the coast of Palestine not far from modern Haifa. Caesaria was the capital of the Province of Judea for most of the Roman procurators after Pilate -- and was indeed the city from which Paul was dispatched to Rome for trial after his appeal from Festus to Caesar. Eusebius thus came into contact with Christianity early, being a student of Pamphilus whose school contained one of the largest libraries in the region. He thus knew, or had access to the writing of many of the second generation converts to Christianity, personally witnessed many of the healings and miracles in the early church, participated in the resolution of several of the early heresies which were already creeping into the Church (it is clear from his writings that the Church was aware of and highly sensitive to the warnings of the Savior and apostles of the danger of apostasy), and was witness to many of the early persecutions in which Christians were tortured to bring about a denial of their testimonies. Those who have read accounts of the Hahn's Mill Massacre would be equally moved by Eusebius account of elderly widows, young virgins, and saintly deacons throwing themselves into the flames to end their suffering from the flayings, burnings, and beatings of anti-Christian mobs, often acting as vigilante gangs going beyond the intentions of Roman government authorities, just as later, Illinois militia groups exceeded the instructions of Governor Ford in pillaging and burning Mormon settlements. To give further importance to his record of the Primitive Church, it should be noted that Eusebius was not only a trained historian, but a bishop (and from what we know of him and the limited progress of the apostasy at this moment in time, very probably a bishop with valid priesthood authority -- experienced in doctrine and church administration. And there are some marvelous doctrinal and organizational parallels to be found in Eusebius' History of the Church, as well as warnings and lessons to which we LDS might well pay attention as Mormonism becomes a world church and undertakes important relations with different cultures and governments around the globe. DOCTRINAL PARALLELS Interest in Eusebius for LDS readers will be greatest in comparing Church organization and doctrine. Indeed this third century historian provides so much collateral evidence of the validity of Restored Church organization and doctrine that one wonders why his History is not more often quoted in Gospel Doctrine manuals and Missionary Lesson materials. To cite just a few examples: Jesus and the Godhead Eusebius clearly understood that while unified in will and purpose, the Godhead consists of distinct personages. Book I, Section 2 of the History states that Christ was "The first and only begotten of God, the commander-in-chief of the spiritual and immortal host of heaven . . . the fashioner, with the Father, of all things . . . who has received from the Father lordship and dominion, godhood and power, and honor". Eusebius (and presumably the Church of his time) also understood Jesus to have been the Jehovah of the Old Testament. To quote the History , "The great servant Moses and his companions, before him Abraham, the very first and his children; and all the righteous prophets who have since appeared -- recognized Him in visions . . . and paid due honor to him as God's Son." The author of the History then goes on to cite another three pages of Old Testament happenings to fortify his argument that Jehovah could be none other than the Lord of the New Testament. The modern editor of the History , duly confused by the extant Trinitarian heresy, dutifully observes in footnote 2, page 48, that "Eusebius' view that the Old Testament theophanies were appearances of Christ (in human form, though not yet born a man) seems impossible to us." But not impossible to a Latter-day Saint. Christ's Genealogy Eusebius also offers a highly plausible reconciliation of the discrepancies in Christ's genealogy as variously given in Luke and Matthew. His argument is based on the parentage accorded to children raised up by surviving younger brothers to their deceased older brothers in accordance with Mosaic commandment. This should be familiar territory to Latter-day Saints familiar with temple sealings where adopted children are accounted in Church records as being of the parentage of the adoptive father. Eusebius dismisses as untenable the often heard argument that the alternative genealogy is through descent from Jesus' mother Mary. The great historian passes on much which was received in early tradition regarding the youth of Jesus and his relationship with his cousin John, which is passed over in the New Testament for lack of space. Taking into account how much oral tradition has been preserved in the first couple of generations of the Restoration regarding early events, the oral teachings of the Prophet, and the location of individual houses in Zion, Far West, and Nauvoo, and how some of these houses have been reconstructed, it is fully believable that much valid tradition has been preserved in Eusebius' History. When my wife and I visited Ephesus, we found a strong local tradition that Mary left Jerusalem with other Saints during the time of the Jewish uprising and the terrible slaughter by Vespasian, spending the final years of her life in the mountains near Ephesus. Eusebius also identifies John the Beloved as having served as first bishop of Ephesus (see discussion below), and recalling that Christ on the cross charged this same John with the care of his mother, this is not implausible. Apostles, Bishops, Dioceses, and Stakes Which brings up other fascinating elements of The History. Eusebius records that Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome and James whom he identifies (as we LDS believe, but as the Roman church denies) as "the brother of Christ"), the first bishop of Jerusalem; with John the first bishop of Ephesus. Latter-day Saints have always viewed this Catholic claim as spurious. But upon reading Eusebius' account, I've given the matter new thought, and it doesn't now seem entirely implausible in the light of what else Eusebius has to say. According to Eusebius, the bishops of his day had much the same responsibilities given to bishops in the Doctrine and Covenants -- responsibility for the work of the priests (presbyters), oversight of the poor (in which early bishops, as they do today, relied heavily on the deacons), and general management of church members within their jurisdiction. But these jurisdictions were much larger -- usually an entire city and its environs. Joseph Smith lived longer than Christ and had more time to develop church organization. He also had exposure to the Anglo-American democratic political experience, and served as mayor of a sizeable town in Illinois, as well as having dealings with the state legislature. So early on, Nauvoo was divided into political/ecclesiastical wards. And based on Brigham Young's understanding of Joseph's intentions, the basic unit of the Church today remains the Ward -- though some of us remember when wards had as many members as many present day stakes. And many early LDS stakes were coterminous with Utah counties (indeed, the Tooele stake extended north to include almost the entire western half of Idaho). As recently as when the author was a member of the Washington, D.C. stake High Council, the stake covered parts of three counties, and as a member of the Paris stake presidency, the stake extended over almost a fourth of France from north to south and east to west. It seems that in Peter's era, the smallest political unit was the Roman diocese, comparable to a modern county. Thus the Church adopted the diocese as its unit of government, comparable, at least until recent years, to an LDS stake. And when one reflects that a number of early LDS apostles served both as apostles and as stake presidents (Charles C. Rich, Heber J. Grant, and others), it is not unbelievable that James may well have served as bishop of Jerusalem, John of Ephesus, and Peter of Rome. This wouldn't make the current bishop of Rome either an apostle or head of the church any more than it would make my former missionary companion and good friend Joel Dunn, who served as president of the Tooele Stake, either an apostle or President of the Church just because Heber J. Grant once served as Tooele Stake President during an era when priesthood leadership was spread much thinner than today. But it does help one understand how the confusion originally arose when the apostles died and conflicts for primacy arose among bishops. Eusebius mentions as a matter of course that most bishops, both those who were apostles and their successors, were married. He also speaks at times of "Presidents" of some of the churches -- presumably smaller branches in lesser localities not yet ready for bishops -- as in the missions of the church today. It may be of interest to recall that in the Restored Church, bishops originally served at stake level, and that wards were initially presided over by presidents. It was under President Brigham Young that the two offices were combined (on the understanding that Bishops -- as High Priests -- could fill both callings, economizing on scarce, experienced priesthood). Upon implementing this new policy, stake (diocesenal) bishops were discontinued. So significant organizational change has taken place even in the LDS Church (viz. the change from church-wide Seventies Quorums to stake quorums, and more recently the dissolution of stake Seventies' quorums in favor of First and Second Quorums of Seventy at General Authority level). Interestingly, Eusebius records that bishops of his day presided over "forty-six priests" and "seven deacons" (Book 5). It is unclear why a priests quorum in the Primitive Church had forty-six members instead of forty-eight, but possibly the bishop -- though an Aaronic priest -- and a Counselor (though Eusebius does not specifically mention counselors) were not counted in the number, though considered members of the quorum. We of course use a somewhat different method for calculating quorum membership in our day: the bishop is quorum president, but is not included in its membership when making up a full quorum. If the bishop were, however, included, our number would actually be forty-nine. In our day, counselors are never included in the priest's quorum. What is striking is that the size of the quorum was so close to today's LDS usage -- and so different from Catholic, or Episcopalian practice where there is no set number of priests under a bishop's jurisdiction. What is even stranger is his speaking of "seven deacons". Today the number is twelve. But perhaps there was an affinity for the sacred number of seven for some unrecorded reason. It is particularly noteworthy in this connection that Eusebius says that the Seventy were still known and active in his day. Modern Catholicism and Protestantism have had no role for the Seventy in church organization or function for at least fifteen hundred years, unless one accepts former Catholic tradition (abandoned under John XXIII) which restricted the number of Cardinals to seventy. This is not beyond conceivability. The Cardinals represent the nations of the earth in carrying out committee work (the "Sacred Congregations") and the daily business of the Catholic church, just as the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under the direction of the Twelve, do much the same thing for the Restored Church. It may well be that the Cardinals are (were) a reflection of the Seventy, continued with changed title and somewhat changed function in the Roman Church, as did the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon, while the Twelve and First Presidency disappeared as a result of persecution and apostasy. The traditional Christian Church, in both its Catholic and Protestant forms, unlike the Restored Church, recognizes only one priesthood -- though both the Catholic and the more conservative of the Reformed churches accept the notion of hierarchy, i.e. of Bishops, or "overseers", of parish priests. The LDS Church, based on modern day revelation, teaches that there are in fact two priesthoods -- the Greater or Melchizedek priesthood, that held by Jesus and the Twelve (and others called to the ministry in the early days of Christianity) which holds the spiritual keys to the Kingdom (receipt of revelation for the overall direction of the Lord's Church on earth; bestowal of the Holy Ghost following one's baptism by a priest of the lesser priesthood; blessing of infants, the sick, and those seeking specific guidance in the affairs of life (Patriarchal blessings); direction of the missionary work throughout the world; and the overall administration of church affairs -- including the calling of lower-ranking officials. Acts 19:1-6 tells us that when Paul was traveling with Apollos, "they came upon certain disciples and he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. . . . And when [Paul] had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied". It is evident that these disciples had been baptized by someone holding the lesser priesthood without authority to confer the Holy Ghost, while Paul, an Apostle, who did have such power, used it to bestow this spiritual blessing on the new believers. It is thus highly significant that Eusebius reported that just such differences in priesthood authority still prevailed nearly two hundred years after the deaths of the Apostles -- though the notion of the higher priesthood seems to have disappeared shortly after Eusebius' time. In LDS Church government, a Bishop is recognized as the senior office in the Aaronic Priesthood, the bishop presiding over a group (or quorum) of up to 48 priests. This number seems to be derived from a simple numerical progression: there are twelve deacons in a quorum, twenty-four teachers, and forty-eight priests. Since a deacon is the first office in the lesser priesthood, it is evident that the Lord intended these introductory quorums to be kept small to provide for the close instruction necessary to prepare these newcomers to church government for greater future responsibilities. Architectural Parallels Our early bishop/historian devotes ten paragraphs to describing church architecture. The parallels with LDS church layout are striking. Of course we know that cathedrals are the seats of the bishops of the Catholic (and Anglican) churches, and primarily for this reason are larger and more elegant than the structures of common parish churches. But one is left wondering about the elaborate layout of the interior of the typical cathedral -- the nave for worshipers being separated from the choir by a rood screen, the choir being reserved essentially for priests, and the outer ambulatory containing a series of private chapels. Latter-day Saints readily identify this structure with the revealed pattern of temples, which are not used for every-day worship as are ordinary churches (and today's cathedrals), but are reserved for solemnizing marriages, performing vicarious baptisms for the dead, and for other of the highest and most sacred investiture ceremonies of the priesthood. Eusebius tells us that some of the early churches (the names cathedral and basilica had not yet appeared) were of special construction and surrounded by a protective fence, being apparently used for exceptionally sacred rites of the priesthood. These edifices had a large foyer, having built into them a large font and special ceremonial rooms. This has been modified in Catholic cathedrals and churches into the small font containing holy water with which worshippers anoint their foreheads upon entering the church. In LDS edifices, such washing facilities are found only in Temples (baptismal fonts being located in other areas entirely in both chapels and temples). By his description of the marble and precious decoration found in these special facilities and his description of the "thrones" and "altars" and many "small rooms", a Latter-day Saint may well wonder whether Eusebius is not describing something far more akin to a temple than any normal church. Indeed, a provocative BYU Study draws some remarkable parallels between cathedral construction and LDS temples, a document well worth reading in connection with this portion of Eusebius. Of not least interest to a Latter-day Saint, Eusebius says that a volume of Plates of Brass was customarily kept in the entry of the cathedral. This was apparently an almanac of some kind (scriptures? genealogical materials as per Laban's plates?). Eusebius does not explain the use of these brass plates. The typical walled LDS temple similarly has an outer assembly area in which temple patrons (and even non-members accompanying them to weddings, which, being without the requisite recommend from a bishop the non-member will be unable to witness in person), may assemble for meditation and prayer and the singing of hymns while awaiting the beginning of the next temple service (which are continuously scheduled so that the wait is usually no more than half an hour). Those holding the appropriate priesthood, and a recommend of worthiness from a bishop, are then admitted to the temple proper. And at an appropriate moment are taken behind the "veil", which with the change of times and understanding appears to have been transformed into the rood screen of the cathedral (see separate paper on parallels between Orthodox Church architecture and Mormon temples). And later still -- if this is the purpose for which the couple have entered the temple -- they may enter a sealing chapel for this special ceremony. Visiting such magnificent cathedrals as those of Chartres or Reims or Cologne or Winchester or Salisbury or Milan, the author has heard the thought expressed how readily these monuments to the faith of past generations might be adapted for full temple use in the Millennium without having to move as much as a stone of their elegant fabric. The Popes Eusebius casts significant light on the evolution of the Papacy. He relates that early in the Church, the most important and influential bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome came to be referred to as Papas (remember that even today the LDS bishop is "Father of his Ward"). So there were several "popes" in the early church. And it was not until Roman primacy was well established several hundred years later that this title became restricted in use to the Bishop of Rome in the western church. In the Orthodox tradition of Greece and Eastern Europe, bishops are still referred to as papas. Early Heresies One of the unexplained lapses in the traditional historical accounts of the life of Eusebius was his support during a certain period for Arius, author of the infamous Arian heresy. Already the scholars of the Roman church (as some will remember, Rome always had an extraordinary affinity for things Greek), were working hard to assimilate Greek philosophy to Christian teachings. Even Paul informed the Athenians during his sermon on Mars Hill that he was about to explain to them "The Unknown God" of whom he had read in one of their temples. So the Platonic concept of the Universal God, the unembodied and infinitely extended "Prime Mover", in which most educated Greeks and Romans already believed, had great appeal. And the "Trinitarian heresy" was already strongly rooted in the Greek and Roman church. As time and culture intervened between the simple teachings of Jesus -- that while he and his father were one in will and purpose, and that as Firstborn of many brethren the Son of Man had done nothing he had not seen his Father do, the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were but three manifestations of one God (as later demonstrated by St. Patrick using the clover leaf as his example) was soon to prevail as orthodoxy in the Roman church. So the teachings of Arius, who preached the original doctrine of a separate Father, a Son who sought only to do the will of the Father, and of a Holy Ghost who was the messenger/agent of both, struck a responsive chord in Eusebius, who, as has been seen, had a pretty clear understanding of the relationships within the Godhead. And Eusebius for a time became Arius' supporter and protector as he saw Greek philosophy at work contaminating revealed doctrine. A responsive chord was also touched among the newly Christianized Germanic tribes of the far north who had not yet been seduced by Greek philosophy. But as Eusebius came to appreciate the divisiveness this doctrinal split was having within the church, and fearing the return of state persecution (the Roman state was now relying on the Christian church to hold the Empire together and was sure to use force to preserve doctrinal unity -- as was made clear by Constantine's Second Edict, clarifying that his "toleration decree" applied only to the "catholic" church, and his destruction of his co-Emperor Licinius who questioned his authority to do so); and repulsed by the excessive positions adopted by some of the more extreme Arians who were by now beyond merely insisting on the individuality of Christ, to deny his very divinity, edging towards the Nestorian heresy, Eusebius relented, denounced Arius, and adopted the Roman view that the Trinity was, after all, a great mystery we humans could never fully understand. Regrettably, the early church didn't have an apostle named Orson Pratt who could reconcile the concept of God as spirit universally extended throughout and acting upon every particle of the universe, with God as personage of tabernacle, Father of a Son, the "only begotten in the flesh", Savior of all mankind, yet but one among "many brethren" (begotten spiritually by the same father), who by righteous living could become "heirs and joint heirs" with Him, ruling as Gods and Kings of their own dominions forever. Gifts of the Spirit Still in the Church Eusebius records that there were still men endowed with the Spirit living in his time. And while it would be risky to make judgments at this distance, it appears as if Polycarp, Ireneus, Theophilus, and Justin, among others (the so-called Apostolic Fathers), quite possibly still held valid priesthood. Eusebius considered them to be holy men, and records that they healed the sick and received revelations which helped save their associates and followers from some of the persecutions. Indeed, he writes, "Many members of the Church have prophetic gifts and by the Spirit speak with all kinds of tongues. . . [and] dead men have actually been raised and remained with us for many years. Indeed, it is impossible to enumerate the gifts which throughout the world the Church has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ . . . ." (Ibid. p. 210). The teachings of these great men, such as we have of them, seem far more in accord with our fullness of understanding than with contemporary Catholic or Protestant teachings. At the very least it is heartwarming to read Eusebius' accounts of the doings and teachings of these great missionary bishops living so close to the time of the Savior. It is like reading of some of the more powerful pioneer LDS bishops and stake presidents of our time -- the founders of the Arizona, Idaho colonies, the settlers of Bear Lake and Central and Southern Utah, the Mexican colonies, the founders of Mormon Station (Reno), San Bernardino, Las Vegas, and Cardston, and the hardships and sacrifices encountered in the opening of the French, Italian, and German missions. Nor should one forget some of the comparable heresies of our day: Lyman Wight who felt he had been set apart by Joseph Smith as head of his own independent kingdom (and therefore, he thought, of an independent church); James Strang, ditto; Samuel Brannon, who let the appeal of wealth and political power (the better to serve the church) alienate him; and even Joseph Smith II and his "Reorganized Church". In each of these cases there is an historical or doctrinal basis for the apostasy. And so there were in the original Christian church. This is why the brethren caution us to avoid doctrinal hobby horses. Even truth, carried to an extreme, becomes falsehood. Church Organization and Government While he does not unequivocally record a functioning First Presidency, as such, Eusebius clearly describes a leading role for the three principal apostles, Peter, James, and John, whom he suggestively describes often acted as a group. And we must recall that it took some years for the institutionalized First Presidency as we know it today to take shape. When Joseph Smith died, some (including one of his counselors) were still in doubt as to its functioning. And even with the precedent of Brigham Young, it was a couple of years before John Taylor assumed the office of President of the Church after Brigham died. But Eusebius makes clear that the remaining apostles met together as frequently as travel and the constraints of distance made possible. And that they corresponded with each other regularly. He tells us what we know about the remaining life, circumstances, and death of those he knew about. It is evident that Apostle (later President) David O. McKay relied upon Eusebius as the basis for much of his book The Early Apostles. Eusebius' Theory of Government For those acquainted with the "Two Swords" theory of government and the long tradition of anointing kings as God's civil agents on earth (LDS can at this point reflect on the temple ceremony and the Lyman Wight/James Strang heresy), Eusebius appears as a result of the cessation of persecution under Constantine to have adopted the view that a Christian ruler, by reason of such anointing, partook of the God-nature and might appropriately be adored, if not worshiped, by a believing Christian -- more or less as were Constantine's apotheosized Imperial forebears under pagan Roman religion. This is a somewhat startling turnabout for a Christian bishop who earlier recorded with admiration the deaths only a few years earlier of Christian martyrs for their refusal to sacrifice to the Roman "Emperor Gods" -- though, to be sure, Constantine now represented the one true God and His Christ. Adaptation of the Church to Civil Government Under Constantine Finally, Eusebius critically records how some of the more politically conscious (and arrogant) bishops of his day were already adopting Roman court dress and positioning themselves outside their churches on their "thrones", to be viewed by the throngs of passers-by to magnify their position and the official status of the church under Constantine (and to impress the non-Christian laity with their importance). While he does not mention this in his History -- since it had not happened at this early date (indeed, this was a title still applied to the head of the Roman state religion) the name title Pontifex Maximus (Great Bridge Builder -- [between heaven and earth]) was soon appropriated by the Pope as further emphasis of his importance. Similarly the miter worn by Catholic bishops, according to Eusebius, was adapted from the headdress worn by the Jewish High Priest. If so, it bears about as little resemblance to pictorial reconstructions of the High Priestly toque as does the modern LDS temple cap -- though it is probable that both the ancient toque and the miter were much changed through apostasy and human fashion, and that the modest contemporary temple cap restores the early simplicity of Samuel's temple dress. Symbolism in the Early Church It sometimes appears that the Restored Church occasionally bends over backwards to avoid usages well established in traditional Christianity in order to emphasize our theological differences. For example, we avoid using the cross to identify our building, we do not make the sign of the cross or genuflect in our churches as other Christians almost universally do. Some years ago my wife and I visited ancient Cappadocia, one of the earliest and most successful missionfields in the Primitive Church. It was in Cappadocia that Paul established the first MTC to prepare missionaries for the work. And, as was earlier stated, Cappadocia was the region to which many early Christians fled following the destruction of Jerusalem in 90 A.D. by Vespasian. There were any number of cliffs and tufa hills in the region, many of which were hollowed out as residences for the early displaced persons of the Church. And, as would be natural, some were prepared as chapels. It was interesting to us to see paintings done as early as 100 A.D. in which the apostles are identified by halos above their heads and angels by wings. These symbols are, then, not late apostate catholic inventions. They were usages of the earliest Christians, obviously intended to be stylistic indicators of a message to be conveyed to a largely illiterate membership. In effect, they were the missionary slides and instructional temple paintings of the day. At a time when the Church is reported to be considering setting aside ordinance rooms in selected regional chapels for endowment purposes, should we be surprised if the Primitive Church arrived at a similar solution in Cappadocia and elsewhere? Indeed, the possibility that "Temple Rooms" existed within selected chapels in the Primitive Church could readily account for why no noteworthy separate temple structures are to be found in the architecture of the period. And why the great cathedrals of later times included choir screens (veils) separating the congregation from the priestly services and why so many small oratories, or side chapels -- which the BYU Studies paper relates to sealing rooms, are included. If indeed such devices were incorporated in earlier chapels, cultural inertia may well have dictated their continuation, even though knowledge of their original use was lost. As for the later glorious stained glass windows, what better technical substitute for the teachings today projected by technicolor film for the instruction of initiates in the Gospel story. Of course angels do not fly with wings. But what better symbol to suggest beings with supreme powers of locomotion. And General Authorities are not endowed with halos above their heads, but saintly beings are not infrequently filled with such divine light that their faces appear to glow with intelligence. I remember as a teenager attending a stake fireside at which Apostle David O. McKay was the speaker. At one point in his sermon I literally had to shake my head and blink my eyes to convince myself that he didn't have a halo over his head. And more recently, at a stake conference in Hermosillo, Mexico, during the conference visit of Elder Dallin Oaks a similar, if less striking, phenomenon occurred. According to Eusebius, and despite our modern aversion, the cross was also much used in early Christian paintings. And while one has no difficulty accepting contemporary church instruction to avoid its use as a degrading symbol of Roman punishment, it does provide a powerful identifying token of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, and one can understand why the early church made use of it -- as it did of the fish symbol, signifying in Greek Ichthyos -- Iesu Christo, theos, hieronymos, soter ( Jesus Christ, God, Lord, and Savior). Our Book of Mormon and Temple symbolism, All-seeing eye, Sun, Moon, and Star stones, Great Dipper, compasses and squares, and the Beehive, are similar in their symbolism. What the Restored Church really needs (and I think few would disagree) is a universal architecture as immediately identifiable as the minarets of a mosque or the steeple surmounted by the cross of traditional Christianity. Maybe every Mormon church should have a Moroni on top, as did the old Washington, D.C. chapel. The Name of the Church As for the proud title Holy Roman and Catholic Church, Eusebius adds enlightening insight. He uses the terms Catholic Church frequently in his History. Catholic is, of course, merely the Greek for "universal". The term obviously came into use to describe that body of (as yet for a time) non-apostate, non-heretical dioceses and churches in full communion with each other. As the Restored Church becomes larger, we are more prone to emphasize its universality by describing its world role. If there were more educated Greek or Latin speakers in today's church, and if the term had not already been appropriated, "catholic" would be a fully appropriate term for the Church today. Though, for reasons our British cousins might appreciate (the Brits don't talk of the British Automobile Association, or the British Football League, as we are wont to speak of the American Automobile Association or the American Football League) -- they just call it the Automobile Association and the Football League, arrogantly assuming that anyone who speaks English will know that they couldn't be referring to anyone else's Automobile Association or Football League. So we of the Church today, probably do well not to try to speak of the Catholic or World or International Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The simple title Church of Jesus Christ -- with the addition of Latter-day Saints to distinguish the Restoration from the Primitive Church, suffices. As for the Roman part, that came into use long after Eusebius, and was indeed not emphasized until after the great schism between the Eastern and Western churches in 1054, coming into customary use to distinguish that part of the split still directed by Rome, as opposed to the remainder under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchs of Constantinople (the Greek Orthodox Church), Alexandria (the Coptic Church) and the other Patriarchates having no allegiance to Rome. While it is true that the Church today is striving to escape identification as an "American" church, this problem presents itself because we live in a world of theoretically equal nation states, rather than of a world empire. Association with a single preeminent nation now carries disadvantages rather than conferring a distinctive cachet . Holy is, of course, just an Anglo Saxon equivalent for Saint, which is very much a part of the name of the Church of the Restoration. Eusebius alternatively with catholic , employs the term Church of God. Combining the two, one arrives at something like "Universal Church of the Saints of God". It seems the early members did not regularly call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ -- apparently preferring the more neutral Church of God. Possibly this was intended to put more emphasis on the Father. Or perhaps it was just shorthand. As with the name of The Holy Priesthood After the Order of the Son of God , which, to avoid the too frequent use of the name of Deity, is called the Melchisedec Priesthood after one of its righteous and distinguished holders in antiquity (as instructed in D&C 107:3 ), it is perhaps not inappropriate to speak in every day usage of The Church , or The Restored Church , The LDS Church , or even The Mormon Church . The Role of Mary in the Early Church A final thought from Eusebius. The History confers perhaps more emphasis on the sanctity and unique role of Mary as the preordained mother of the Only Begotten than we are accustomed to accord her in the Restored Church. As suggested elsewhere, this is probably because during the height of the Catholic ascendancy she came almost to displace the Son as an object of prayer and worship. Of course, we recognize the importance of women, marriage, and priestess/queens as essential to the exaltation of both sexes, certainly more than any other religious group on earth. But in our preaching/teaching system of precepts for both boys and girls, we place perhaps more emphasis on Eve than Mary, as noted, probably because of the exaggerated attention given Mary in Catholic doctrine and theology. This is too bad. As was said earlier about exaggerating even true doctrine until overemphasis makes it false, Mariolatry became a heresy of the first order. The belief that one must (or may) pray to Mary because of her greater humanity and compassion to intercede with her Son on our behalf, is a corruption of Jesus' teaching that we should pray only to the Father in the name of the Son. Nevertheless, as the Angel Gabriel said when he announced the forthcoming birth of Jesus, "Blessed art thou among women" -- and on Mother's Day, Christmas, the Relief Society Birthday, and in our teachings and sermons on women's role and the great women of history, perhaps we should shy away less from focussing on the role of this marvelous, saintly, and elect handmaid of the Lord, while continuing to avoid the excesses which led the Third Century Church into apostasy. There, in review, we have some of the more striking parallels between some of the lost teachings and practices of the Primitive Church as recorded by its earliest historian, and similar exceptional teachings and practices of the Restored Church, none of them reflected in the doctrines of any of the denominations of today. The true nature of the Trinity; that Jesus was in fact the Jehovah of the Old Testament; that there are two priesthoods -- a Greater and a Lesser; the notion that the office of Bishop includes that of presiding over a quorum of forty-eight other Aaronic Priests charged with the external ceremonies and activities of the church; and the existence of special churches (temples) employed for higher priesthood rites and ceremonies. It is a pity that LDS Sunday Schools, Seminaries, and Priesthood Quorums do not make more use of Eusebius' History of the Church as a teaching tool to strengthen testimonies and reinforce the sense of ties and identification of members of the Restored Church with the pre-Apostasy Church of the time its Founder .References Eusebius, History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Dorsad Press: New York, 1965. Maxwell Staniforth, The Apostolic Fathers. Dorset Press: New York, 1968 Michael Wood, In Search of the Middle Ages. Facts on File: New York, 1987.