{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13349/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13349","id":"gutenberg_13349","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13349","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature"],"text":"THE FREETHINKER'S TEXT-BOOK.\n\nPART II.\n\nCHRISTIANITY:\n\nITS EVIDENCES.\nITS ORIGIN.\n\nITS MORALITY.\nITS HISTORY.\n\nBY ANNIE BESANT.\n\n\n\n\nSECTION I.--ITS EVIDENCES UNRELIABLE.\n\n\nThe origin of all religions, and the ignorance which is the root of the\nGod-idea, having been dealt with in Part I. of this Text-Book, it now\nbecomes our duty to investigate the evidences of the origin and of the\ngrowth of Christianity, to examine its morality and its dogmas, to study\nthe history of its supposed founder, to trace out its symbols and its\nceremonies; in fine, to show cause for its utter rejection by the\nFreethinker. The foundation stone of Christianity, laid in Paradise by\nthe Creation and Fall of Man 6,000 years ago, has already been destroyed\nin the first section of this work; and we may at once, therefore,\nproceed to Christianity itself. The history of the origin of the creed\nis naturally the first point to deal with, and this may be divided into\ntwo parts: 1. The evidences afforded by profane history as to its origin\nand early growth. 2. Its story as told by itself in its own documents.\n\nThe most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane history\nis their extreme paucity; the very existence of Jesus cannot be proved\nfrom contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a star\nwhich guides foreign sages to Jud\u00e6a; a massacre of all the infants of a\ntown within the Roman Empire by command of a subject king; a teacher who\nheals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, and who raises\nthe mouldering corpse; a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem in\ntriumphal procession, without opposition from the Roman legions of\nC\u00e6sar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own countrymen,\nand handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death by\nRoman law; a three hours' darkness over all the land; an earthquake\nbreaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number of ghosts\nwandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, and\nappearing to a crowd of above 500 people; a man risen from the dead\nascending bodily into heaven without any concealment, and in the broad\ndaylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvellous events\ntook place, we are told, and yet they have left no ripple on the current\nof contemporary history. There is, however, no lack of such history, and\nan exhaustive account of the country and age in which the hero of the\nstory lived is given by one of his own nation--a most painstaking and\nlaborious historian. \"How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the\nPagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by\nthe hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses?\nDuring the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples,\nthe doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies.\nThe lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were\nraised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently\nsuspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and\nRome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary\noccupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations\nin the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of\nTiberius the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman\nEmpire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even\nthis miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the\ncuriosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age\nof science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and\nthe elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or\nreceived the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these\nphilosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena\nof nature--earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his\nindefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have\nomitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has\nbeen witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of\nPliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual\nduration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of\nlight which followed the murder of C\u00e6sar, when, during the greatest part\nof the year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendour.\nThis season of obscurity, which cannot surely be compared with the\npreternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated by\nmost of the poets and historians of that memorable age\" (Gibbon's\n\"Decline and Fall,\" vol. ii., pp. 191, 192. Ed. 1821).\n\nIf Pagan historians are thus curiously silent, what deduction shall we\ndraw from the similar silence of the great Jewish annalist? Is it\ncredible that Josephus should thus have ignored Jesus Christ, if one\ntithe of the marvels related in the Gospels really took place? So\ndamning to the story of Christianity has this difficulty been felt, that\na passage has been inserted in Josephus (born A.D. 37, died about A.D.\n100) relating to Jesus Christ, which runs as follows: \"Now, there was\nabout this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,\nfor he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive\nthe truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and\nmany of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the\nsuggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the\ncross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he\nappeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had\nforetold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;\nand the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this\nday\" (\"Antiquities of the Jews,\" book xviii., ch. iii., sect. 3). The\npassage itself proves its own forgery: Christ drew over scarcely any\nGentiles, if the Gospel story be true, as he himself said: \"I am not\nsent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel\" (Matthew xv. 24). A\nJew would not believe that a doer of wonderful works must necessarily be\nmore than man, since their own prophets were said to have performed\nmiracles. If Josephus believed Jesus to be Christ, he would assuredly\nhave become a Christian; while, if he believed him to be God, he would\nhave drawn full attention to so unique a fact as the incarnation of the\nDeity. Finally, the concluding remark that the Christians were \"not\nextinct\" scarcely coincides with the idea that Josephus, at Rome, must\nhave been cognisant of their increasing numbers, and of their\npersecution by Nero. It is, however, scarcely pretended now-a-days, by\nany scholar of note, that the passage is authentic. Sections 2 and 4\nwere manifestly written one after the other. \"There were a great number\nof them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and\nthus an end was put to this sedition. _About the same time another sad\ncalamity put the Jews into disorder_.\" The forged passage breaks the\ncontinuity of the history. The oldest MSS. do not contain this section.\nIt is first quoted by Eusebius, who probably himself forged it; and its\nauthenticity is given up by Lardner, Gibbon, Bishop Warburton, and many\nothers. Lardner well summarises the arguments against its\nauthenticity:--\n\n\"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus,\nwhich was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before\nEusebius.\n\n\"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has any where mentioned the name or\nword _Christ_, in any of his works; except the testimony above\nmentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.\n\n\"It interrupts the narrative.\n\n\"The language is quite Christian.\n\n\"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and\ncould not have omitted quoting it, had it been then in the text.\n\n\"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning\nJosephus.\n\n\"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly\nstates that historian (Josephus) being a Jew, has not taken the least\nnotice of Christ.\n\n\"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens\nAlexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, nor\nOrigen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony.\n\n\"But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv. of the first book of that work,\nOrigen openly affirms, that Josephus, who had mentioned John the\nBaptist, did not acknowledge Christ\" (Answer to Dr. Chandler, as quoted\nin Taylor's \"Diegesis,\" pp. 368, 369. Ed. 1844).\n\nKeim thinks that the remarks of Origen caused the forgery; after\ncriticising the passage he winds up: \"For all these reasons, the passage\ncannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic\nChurch of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth\nGospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius,\nand after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given\ncause for it\" (\"Jesus of Nazara,\" p. 25, English edition, 1873).\n\n\"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the\nstyle of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as\na forgery interpolated in the text during the third century by some\npious Christian, who was scandalised that so famous a writer as Josephus\nshould have taken no notice of the Gospels, or of Christ their subject.\nBut the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might\nas well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as\nto find this notice of Christ among the Judaising writings of Josephus.\nIt is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws\nof Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How then could he have\nwritten that _Jesus was the Christ?_ Such an admission would have proved\nhim to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under\nconsideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a\nbeliever in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an\nill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around\nit. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr,\nTertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies\nwith the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But\nEusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i., II), is the first who quotes\nit, and our reliance on the judgment or even the honesty of this writer\nis not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his\nworks as undoubtedly genuine\" (\"Christian Records,\" by Rev. Dr. Giles,\np. 30. Ed. 1854).\n\nOn the other side the student should consult Hartwell Horne's\n\"Introduction.\" Ed. 1825, vol. i., p. 307-11. Renan observes that the\npassage--in the authenticity of which he believes--is \"in the style of\nJosephus,\" but adds that \"it has been retouched by a Christian hand.\"\nThe two statements seem scarcely consistent, as such \"retouching\" would\nsurely alter \"the style\" (\"Vie de J\u00e9sus,\" Introduction, p. 10. Ed.\n1863).\n\nPaley argues that when the multitude of Christians living in the time of\nJosephus is considered, it cannot \"be believed that the religion, and\nthe transaction upon which it was founded, were too obscure to engage\nthe attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place in his history\" (\"Evid.\nof Christianity,\" p. 73. Ed. 1845). We answer, it is plain, from the\nfact that Josephus entirely ignores both, that the pretended story of\nJesus was not widely known among his contemporaries, and that the early\nspread of Christianity is much exaggerated. But says Paley: \"Be,\nhowever, the fact, or the cause of the omission in Josephus, what it\nmay, no other or different history on the subject has been given by him\nor is pretended to have been given\" (Ibid, pp. 73, 74). Our contention\nbeing that the supposed occurrences never took place at all, no history\nof them is to be looked for in the pages of a writer who was relating\nonly facts. Josephus speaks of James, \"the brother of Jesus, who was\ncalled Christ\" (\"Antiquities,\" book xx., ch. ix., sect. 1), and this\npassage shares the fate of the longer one, being likewise rejected\nbecause of being an interpolation. The other supposed reference of\nJosephus to Jesus is found in his discourse on Hades, wherein he says\nthat all men \"shall be brought before God the Word; for to him hath the\nFather committed all judgment; and he, in order to fulfil the will of\nhis Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ\" (\"Works of\nJosephus,\" by Whiston, p. 661). Supposing that this passage were\ngenuine, it would simply convey the Jewish belief that the\nMessiah--Christ--the Anointed, was the appointed judge, as in Dan. vii.,\n9-14, and more largely in the Book of Enoch.\n\nThe silence of Jewish writers of this period is not confined to\nJosephus, and this silence tells with tremendous weight against the\nChristian story. Judge Strange writes: \"Josephus knew nothing of these\nwonderments, and he wrote up to the year 93, being familiar with all the\nchief scenes of the alleged Christianity. Nicolaus of Damascus, who\npreceded him and lived to the time of Herod's successor Archelaus, and\nJustus of Tiberias, who was the contemporary and rival of Josephus in\nGalilee, equally knew nothing of the movement. Philo-Jud\u00e6us, who\noccupied the whole period ascribed to Jesus, and engaged himself deeply\nin figuring out the Logos, had heard nothing of the being who was\nrealising at Jerusalem the image his fancy was creating\" (\"Portraiture\nand Mission of Jesus,\" p. 27).\n\nWe propose now to go carefully through the alleged testimonies to\nChristianity, as urged in Paley's \"Evidences of Christianity,\" following\nhis presentment of the argument step by step, and offering objections to\neach point as raised by him.\n\nThe next historian who is claimed as a witness to Christianity is\nTacitus (born A.D. 54 or 55, died A.D. 134 or 135), who writes, dealing\nwith the reign of Nero, that this Emperor \"inflicted the most cruel\npunishments upon a set of people, who were holden in abhorrence for\ntheir crimes, and were commonly called Christians. The founder of that\nname was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a\ncriminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious\nsuperstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not\nonly over Jud\u00e6a the source of this evil, but reached the city also:\nwhither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where\nthey find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were\napprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast\nmultitude discovered by them; all which were condemned, not so much for\nthe crime of burning the city, as for their hatred of mankind. Their\nexecutions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt.\nSome were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces\nby dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with\ncombustible materials, were set up as lights in the night-time, and thus\nburned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this\noccasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes\nstanding in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at\nother times driving a chariot himself; till at length these men, though\nreally criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be\ncommiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the\npublic welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man\" (\"Annals,\"\nbook xv., sect. 44).\n\nThis was probably written, if authentic, about A.D. 107. The reasons\nagainst the authenticity of this passage are thus given by Robert\nTaylor: \"This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian\nquotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of\nany Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian\nFathers.\n\n\"It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes\nthe works of Tacitus: and though his argument immediately called for the\nuse of this quotation with so loud a voice, that his omission of it, if\nit had really existed, amounts to a violent improbability.\n\n\"This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutely\nimpossible that he should have spoken of him had his writings contained\nsuch a passage.\n\n\"It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to\nthe work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and\nrecognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ or\nChristians before his time.\n\n\"It has nowhere been stumbled on by the laborious and all-seeking\nEusebius, who could by no possibility have missed of it....\n\n\"There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world\nbefore the fifteenth century.\n\n\"It rests then entirely upon the fidelity of a single individual. And\nhe, having the ability, the opportunity, and the strongest possible\nincitement of interest to induce him to introduce the interpolation.\n\n\"The passage itself, though unquestionably the work of a master, and\nentitled to be pronounced the _chef d'oeuvre_ of the art, betrays the\n_penchant_ of that delight in blood, and in descriptions of bloody\nhorrors, as peculiarly characteristic of the Christian disposition as it\nwas abhorrent to the mild and gentle mind, and highly cultivated taste\nof Tacitus.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"It is falsified by the 'Apology of Tertullian,' and the far more\nrespectable testimony of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who explicitly states\nthat the Christians, up to his time, the third century, had never been\nvictims of persecution; and that it was in provinces lying beyond the\nboundaries of the Roman Empire, and not in Jud\u00e6a, that Christianity\noriginated.\n\n\"Tacitus has, in no other part of his writings, made the least allusion\nto Christ or Christians.\n\n\"The use of this passage as a part of the 'Evidences of the Christian\nReligion,' is absolutely modern\" (\"Diegesis,\" pp. 374--376).\n\nJudge Strange--writing on another point--gives us an argument against\nthe authenticity of this passage: \"As Josephus made Rome his place of\nabode from the year 70 to the end of the century, there inditing his\nhistory of all that concerned the Jews, it is apparent that, had there\nbeen a sect flourishing in the city who were proclaiming the risen Jesus\nas the Messiah in his time, the circumstance was one this careful and\ndiscerning writer could not have failed to notice and to comment on\"\n(\"Portraiture and Mission of Jesus,\" p. 15). It is, indeed, passing\nstrange that Josephus, who tells us so much about false Messiahs and\ntheir followers, should omit--as he must have done if this passage of\nTacitus be authentic--all reference to this additional false Messiah,\nwhose followers in the very city where Josephus was living, underwent\nsuch terrible tortures, either during his residence there, or\nimmediately before it. Burning men, used as torches, adherents of a\nJewish Messiah, ought surely to have been unusual enough to have\nattracted his attention. We may add to these arguments that, supposing\nsuch a passage were really written by Tacitus, the two lines regarding\nChristus look much like an interpolation, as the remainder would run\nmore connectedly if they were omitted. But the whole passage is of more\nthan doubtful authenticity, being in itself incredible, if the Acts and\nthe Epistles of the New Testament be true; for this persecution is said\nto have occurred during the reign of Nero, during which Paul abode in\nRome, teaching in peace, \"no man forbidding him\" (Acts xxviii. 31);\nduring which, also, he wrote to the Romans that they need not be afraid\nof the government if they did right (Romans xii. 34); clearly, if these\npassages are true, the account in Tacitus must be false; and as he\nhimself had no reason for composing such a tale, it must have been\nforged by Christians to glorify their creed.\n\nThe extreme ease with which this passage might have been inserted in all\neditions of Tacitus used in modern times arises from the fact that all\nsuch editions are but copies of one single MS., which was in the\npossession of one single individual; the solitary owner might make any\ninterpolations he pleased, and there was no second copy by which his\naccuracy might be tested. \"The first publication of any part of the\n'Annals of Tacitus' was by Johannes de Spire, at Venice, in the year\n1468--his imprint being made from a single MS., in his own power and\npossession only, and purporting to have been written in the eighth\ncentury.... from this all other MSS. and printed copies of the works of\nTacitus are derived.\" (\"Diegesis,\" p. 373.)\n\nSuetonius (born about A.D. 65, died in second century) writes: \"The\nChristians, a race of men of a new and mischievous (or magical)\nsuperstition, were punished.\" In another passage we read of Claudius,\nwho reigned A.D. 41-54: \"He drove the Jews, who, at the suggestion of\nChrestus, were constantly rioting, out of Rome.\" From this we might\ninfer that there was at that time a Jewish leader, named Chrestus,\nliving in Rome, and inciting the Jews to rebellion. His followers would\nprobably take his name, and, expelled from Rome, they would spread this\nname in all directions. If the passage in Acts xi. 20 and 26 be of any\nhistorical value, it would curiously strengthen this hypothesis, since\nthe \"disciples were called Christians first in Antioch,\" and the\nmissionaries to Antioch, who preached \"unto the Jews only,\" came from\nCyprus and Cyrene, which would naturally lie in the way of fugitives\nfrom Rome to Asia Minor. They would bring the name Christian with them,\nand the date in the Acts synchronises with that in Suetonius. Chrestus\nwould appear to have left a sect behind him in Rome, bearing his name,\nthe members of which were prosecuted by the Government, very likely as\ntraitors and rebels. Keim's good opinion of Suetonius is much degraded\nby this Chrestus: \"In his 'Life of Claudius,' who expelled the Jews from\nRome, he has shown his undoubted inferiority to Tacitus as a historian\nby treating 'Christ' as a restless and seditious Jewish agitator, who\nwas still living in the time of Claudius, and, indeed, in Rome\" (\"Jesus\nof Nazara,\" p. 33).\n\nIt is natural that modern Christians should object to a Jewish Chrestus\nstarting up at Rome simultaneously with their Jewish Christus in Jud\u00e6a,\nwho, according to Luke's chronology, must have been crucified about A.D.\n43. The coincidence is certainly inconvenient; but if they refuse the\ntestimony of Suetonius concerning Chrestus, the leader, why should they\naccept it concerning the Christians, the followers? Paley, of course,\nalthough he quotes Suetonius, omits all reference at this stage to the\nunlucky Chrestus; his duty was to present evidences of, not against,\nChristianity. Most dishonestly, however, he inserts a reference to it\nlater on (p. 73), where, in a brief _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the evidence, he uses it\nas a link in his chain: \"When Suetonius, an historian contemporary with\nTacitus, relates that, in the time of Claudius, the Jews were making\ndisturbances at Rome, Christus being their leader.\" Why does not Paley\nexplain to us how Jesus came to be leading Jews at Rome during the reign\nof Claudius, and why he incited them to riot? No such incident is\nrelated in the life of Jesus of Nazareth; and if Suetonius be correct,\nthe credit of the Gospels is destroyed. To his shame be it said, that\nPaley here deliberately refers to a passage, _which he has not ventured\nto quote_, simply that he may use the great name of Suetonius to\nstrengthen his lamentably weak argument, by the pretence that Suetonius\nmentions Jesus of Nazareth, and thus makes him a historical character.\nFew more disgraceful perversions of evidence can be found, even in the\nannals of controversy. H. Horne refers to this passage in proof of the\nexistence of Christ (Introduction, vol. i., page 202); but without\noffering any explanation of the appearance of Christ in Rome some years\nafter he ought to have been dead.\n\nJuvenal is next dragged forward by Paley as a witness, because he\nmentioned the punishment of some criminals: \"I think it sufficiently\nprobable that these [Christian executions] were the executions to which\nthe poet refers\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 29.) Needless to say that there is not\na particle of proof that they were anything of the kind; but when\nevidence is lacking, it is necessary to invent it.\n\nPliny the Younger (born A.D. 61, died A.D. 115) writes to the Emperor\nTrajan, about A.D. 107, to ask him how he shall treat the Christians,\nand as Paley has so grossly misrepresented this letter, it will be well\nto reproduce the whole of it. It contains no word of Christians dying\nboldly as Paley pretends, nor, indeed, of the punishment of death being\ninflicted at all. The word translated \"punishment\" is _supplicium_ (acc.\nof _supplicium_) in the original, and is a term which, like the French\n_supplice_, derived from it, may mean the punishment of death, or any\nother heavy penalty. The translation of the letter runs as follows: \"C.\nPliny to the Emperor Trajan, Health.--It is customary with me to refer\nto you, my lord, matters about which I entertain a doubt. For who is\nbetter able either to rule my hesitation, or to instruct my ignorance? I\nhave never been present at the inquiries about the Christians, and,\ntherefore, cannot say for what crime, or to what extent, they are\nusually punished, or what is the nature of the inquiry about them. Nor\nhave I been free from great doubts whether there should not be a\ndistinction between ages, or how far those of a tender frame should be\ntreated differently from the robust; whether those who repent should not\nbe pardoned, so that one who has been a Christian should not derive\nadvantage from having ceased to be one; whether the name itself of being\na Christian should be punished, or only crime attendant upon the name?\nIn the meantime I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who\nwere brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were\nChristians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time,\nthreatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to\nbe led off. For I had no doubt in my mind that, whatever it might be\nwhich they acknowledged, obduracy and inflexible obstinacy, at all\nevents should be punished. There were others guilty of like folly, whom\nI set aside to be sent to Rome, because they were Roman citizens. In the\nnext place, when this crime began, as usual, gradually to spread, it\nshowed itself in a variety of ways. An indictment was set forth without\nany author, containing the names of many who denied that they were\nChristians or ever had been; and, when I set the example, they called on\nthe gods, and made offerings of frankincense and wine to your image,\nwhich I, for this purpose, had ordered to be brought out, together with\nthe images of the gods. Moreover, they cursed Christ; none of which acts\ncan be extorted from those who are really Christians. I consequently\ngave orders that they should be discharged. Again, others, who have been\ninformed against, said that they were Christians, and afterwards denied\nit; that they had been so once but had ceased to be so, some three years\nago, some longer than that, some even twenty years before; all of these\nworshipped your image, and the statues of the gods; they also cursed\nChrist. But they asserted that this was the sum total of their crime or\nerror, whichever it may be called, that they were used to come together\non a stated day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among\nthemselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an\noath--not to anything wicked--but that they would not commit theft,\nrobbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had\nbeen entrusted to them when called upon to restore it. After this they\nsaid that it was their custom to separate, and again to meet together to\ntake their meals, which were in common and of a harmless nature; but\nthat they had ceased even to do this since the proclamation which I\nissued according to your commands, forbidding such meetings to be held.\nI therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant\nmaids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to\napply the torture. But I found that it was nothing but a bad and\nexcessive superstition, and I consequently adjourned the inquiry, and\nconsulted you upon the subject. For it seemed to me to be a matter on\nwhich it was desirable to take advice, in consequence of the number of\nthose who are in danger. For there are many of every age, of every rank,\nand even of both sexes, who are invited to incur the danger, and will\nstill be invited. For the infection of this superstition has spread\nthrough not only cities, but also villages and the country, though it\nseems possible to check and remedy it. At all events it is evident that\nthe temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be\nfrequented, and the sacred solemnities, which had been intermitted, are\nrevived, and victims are sold everywhere, though formerly it was\ndifficult to find a buyer. It is, therefore, easy to believe that a\nnumber of persons may be corrected, if the door of repentance be left\nopen\" (Ep. 97).\n\nIt is urged by Christian advocates that this letter at least shows how\nwidely Christianity had spread at this early date; but we shall later\nhave occasion to draw attention to the fact that the name \"Christian\"\nwas used before the reputed time of Christ to describe some\nextensively-spread sects, and that the worshippers of the Egyptian\nSerapis were known by that title. It may be added that the authenticity\nof this letter is by no means beyond dispute, and that R. Taylor urges\nsome very strong arguments against it. Among others, he suggests: \"The\nundeniable fact that the first Christians were the greatest liars and\nforgers that had ever been in the whole world, and that they actually\nstopped at nothing.... The flagrant atopism of Christians being found in\nthe remote province of Bithynia, before they had acquired any notoriety\nin Rome.... The inconsistency of the supposition that so just and moral\na people as the primitive Christians are assumed to have been, should\nhave been the first to provoke the Roman Government to depart from its\nuniversal maxims of toleration, liberality, and indifference.... The use\nof the torture to extort confession.... The choice of women to be the\nsubjects of this torture, when the ill-usage of women was, in like\nmanner, abhorrent to the Roman character\" (\"Diegesis,\" pp. 383, 384).\n\nPaley boldly states that Martial (born A.D. 43, died about A.D. 100)\nmakes the Christians \"the subject of his ridicule,\" because he wrote an\nepigram on the stupidity of admiring any vain-glorious fool who would\nrush to be tormented for the sake of notoriety. Hard-set must Christians\nbe for evidence, when reduced to rely on such pretended allusions.\n\nEpictetus (flourished first half of second century) is claimed as\nanother witness, because he states that \"It is possible a man may arrive\nat this temper, and become indifferent to these things from madness, or\nfrom habit, as the Galileans\" (Book iv., chapter 7). The Galileans,\ni.e., the people of Galilee, appear to have had a bad name, and it is\nhighly probable that Epictetus simply referred to them, just as he might\nhave said as an equivalent phrase for stupidity, \"like the Boeotians.\"\nIn addition to this, the followers of Judas the Gaulonite were known as\nGalileans, and were remarkable for the \"inflexible constancy which, in\ndefence of their cause, rendered them insensible of death and tortures\"\n(\"Decline and Fall,\" vol. ii., p. 214).\n\nMarcus Aurelius (born A.D. 121, died A.D. 180) is Paley's last support,\nas he urges that fortitude in the face of death should arise from\njudgment, \"and not from obstinacy, like the Christians.\" As no one\ndisputes the existence of a sect called Christians when Marcus Aurelius\nwrote, this testimony is not specially valuable.\n\nPaley, so keen to swoop down on any hint that can be twisted into an\nallusion to the Christians, entirely omits the interesting letter\nwritten by the Emperor Adrian to his brother-in-law Servianus, A.D. 134.\nThe evidence is not of an edifying character, and this accounts for the\nomission: \"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are\nconsecrated to the god Serapis, who, I find, call themselves the bishops\nof Christ\" (Quoted in \"Diegesis,\" p. 386).\n\nSuch are the whole external evidences of Christianity until after A.D.\n160. In a time rich in historians and philosophers one man, Tacitus, in\na disputed passage, mentions a Christus punished under Pontius Pilate,\nand the existence of a sect bearing his name. Suetonius, Pliny, Adrian,\npossibly Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, casually mention some people\ncalled Christians.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Giles thus summarises the proofs of the weakness of early\nChristian evidences in \"profane history:\"--\n\n\"Though the remains of Grecian and Latin profane literature which belong\nto the first and second centuries of our era are enough to form a\nlibrary of themselves, they contain no allusion to the New Testament....\nThe Latin writers, who lived between the time of Christ's crucifixion\nand the year A.D. 200, are Seneca, Lucan, Suetonius, Tacitus, Persius,\nJuvenal, Martial, Pliny the Elder, Silius Italicus, Statius, Quintilian,\nand Pliny the Younger, besides numerous others of inferior note. The\ngreater number of these make mention of the Jews, but not of the\nChristians. In fact, Suetonius, Tacitus, and the younger Pliny, are the\nonly Roman writers who mention the Christian religion or its founder\"\n(\"Christian Records,\" by Rev. Dr. Giles, P. 36).\n\n\"The Greek classic writers, who lived between the time of Christ's\ncrucifixion and the year 200, are those which follow: Epictetus,\nPlutarch, \u00c6lian, Arrian, Galen, Lucian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus,\nPtolemy, Marcus Aurelius (who, though a Roman emperor, wrote in Greek),\nPausanias, and many others of less note. The allusions to Christianity\nfound in their works are singularly brief\" (Ibid, p. 42).\n\nWhat does it all, this \"evidence,\" amount to? One writer, Tacitus,\nrecords that a man, called by his followers \"Christ\"--for no one\npretends that Christ is anything more than a title given by his\ndisciples to a certain Jew named Jesus--was put to death by Pontius\nPilate. And suppose he were, what then? How is this a proof of the\nreligion called Christianity? Tacitus knows nothing of the\nmiracle-worker, of the risen and ascended man; he is strangely ignorant\nof all the wonders that had occurred; and, allowing the passage to be\ngenuine, it tells sorely against the marvellous history given by the\nChristians of their leader, whose fame is supposed to have spread far\nand wide, and whose fame most certainly must so have spread had he\nreally performed all the wonderful works attributed to him. But no\nnecessity lies upon the Freethinker, when he rejects Christianity, to\ndisprove the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, although we\npoint to the inadequacy of the evidence even of his existence. The\nstrength of the Freethought position is in no-wise injured by the\nadmission that a young Jew named Joshua (i.e. Jesus) may have wandered\nup and down Galilee and Jud\u00e6a in the reign of Tiberius, that he may have\nbeen a religious reformer, that he may have been put to death by Pontius\nPilate for sedition. All this is perfectly likely, and to allow it in no\nway endorses the mass of legend and myth encrusted round this tiny\nnucleus of possible fact. This obscure peasant is not the Christian\nJesus, who is--as we shall later urge--only a new presentation of the\nancient Sun-God, with unmistakeable family likeness to his elder\nbrothers. The Reverend Robert Taylor very rightly remarks, concerning\nthis small historical possibility: \"These are circumstances which fall\nentirely within the scale of rational possibility, and draw for no more\nthan an ordinary and indifferent testimony of history, to command the\nmind's assent. The mere relation of any historian, living near enough to\nthe time supposed to guarantee the probability of his competent\ninformation on the subject, would have been entitled to our\nacquiescence. We could have no reason to deny or to doubt what such an\nhistorian could have had no motive to feign or to exaggerate. The proof,\neven to demonstration, of these circumstances would constitute no step\nor advance towards the proof of the truth of the Christian religion;\nwhile the absence of a sufficient degree of evidence to render even\nthese circumstances unquestionable must, _\u00e0 fortiori_, be fatal to the\ncredibility of the less credible circumstances founded upon them\"\n(\"Diegesis,\" p. 7).\n\nBut Paley pleads some indirect evidence on behalf of Christianity, which\ndeserves a word of notice since the direct evidence so lamentably breaks\ndown. He urges that: \"there is satisfactory evidence that many,\nprofessing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed\ntheir lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily under-gone,\nin attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in\nconsequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also\nsubmitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.\" Nearly 200\npages are devoted to the proof of this proposition, a proposition which\nit is difficult to characterise with becoming courtesy, when we know the\ncomplete and utter absence of any \"satisfactory evidence\" that the\noriginal witnesses did anything of the kind.\n\nIt is pleaded that the \"original witnesses passed their lives in\nlabours, etc., in attestation of the accounts they delivered.\" The\nevidence of this may be looked for either in Pagan or in Christian\nwritings. Pagan writers know literally nothing about the \"original\nwitnesses,\" mentioning, at the utmost, but \"the Christians;\" and these\nChristians, when put to death, were not so executed in attestation of\nany accounts delivered by them, but wholly and solely because of the\nevil deeds and the scandalous practices rightly or wrongly attributed to\nthem. Supposing--what is not true--that they had been executed for their\ncreed, there is no pretence that they were eye-witnesses of the miracles\nof Christ.\n\nPaley's first argument is drawn \"from the nature of the case\"--i.e.,\nthat persecution ought to have taken place, whether it did or not,\nbecause both Jews and Gentiles would reject the new creed. So far as the\nJews are concerned, we hear of no persecution from Josephus. If we\ninterrogate the Christian Acts, we hear but of little, two persons only\nbeing killed. We learn also that \"many thousands of Jews\" belonged to\nthe new sect, and were propitiated by Christian conformity to the law;\nand that, when the Jews rose against Paul--not as a Christian, but as a\nbreaker of the Mosaic law--he was promptly delivered by the Romans, who\nwould have set him at liberty had he not elected to be tried at Rome. If\nwe turn to the conduct of the Pagans, we meet the same blank absence of\nevidence of persecution, until we come to the disputed passage in\nTacitus, wherein none of the eye-witnesses are said to have been\nconcerned; and we have, on the other side, the undisputed fact that,\nunder the imperial rule of Rome, every subject nation practised its own\ncreed undisturbed, so long as it did not incite to civil disturbances.\n\"The religious tenets of the Galileans, or Christians, were never made a\nsubject of punishment, or even of inquiry\" (\"Decline and Fall,\" vol.\nii., p. 215).\n\nThis view of the matter is thoroughly corroborated by Lardner: \"The\ndisciples of Jesus Christ were under the protection of the Roman law,\nsince the God they worshipped and whose worship they recommended, was\nthe God of the heavens and the earth, the same God whom the Jews\nworshipped, and the worship of whom was allowed of all over the Roman\nEmpire, and established by special edicts and decrees in most, perhaps\nin all the places, in which we meet with St. Paul in his travels\"\n(\"Credibility,\" vol. i., pt. I, pp. 406, 407. Ed. 1727). He also quotes\n\"a remarkable piece of justice done the Jews at Doris, in Syria, by\nPetronius, President of that province. The fact is this: Some rash young\nfellows of the place got in and set up a statue of the Emperor in the\nJews' synagogue. Agrippa the Great made complaints to Petronius\nconcerning this injury. Whereupon Petronius issued a very sharp precept\nto the magistrates of Doris. He terms this action an offence, not\nagainst the Jews only, but also against the Emperor; says, it is\nagreeable to the law of nature that every man should be master of his\nown places, according to the decree of the Emperor. I have, says he,\ngiven directions that they who have dared to do these things contrary to\nthe edict of Augustus, be delivered to the centurion Vitellius Proculus,\nthat they may be brought to me, and answer for their behaviour. And I\nrequire the chief men in the magistracy to discover the guilty to the\ncenturion, unless they are willing to have it thought, that this\ninjustice has been done with their consent; and that they see to it,\nthat no sedition or tumult happen upon this occasion, which, I perceive,\nis what some are aiming at.... I do also require, that for the future,\nyou seek no pretence for sedition or disturbance, but that all men\nworship [God] according to their own customs\" (Ibid, pp. 382, 383).\nAfter giving some other facts, Lardner sums up: \"These are authentic\ntestimonies in behalf of the equity of the Roman Government in general,\nand of the impartial administration of justice by the Roman\npresidents--toward all the people of their provinces, how much soever\nthey differed from each other in matters of religion\" (Ibid, p. 401).\n\nThe evidence of persecution which consists in quotations from the\nChristian books (\"Evidences,\" pages 33-52) cannot be admitted without\nevidence of the authenticity of the books quoted. The Acts and the\nPauline epistles so grossly contradict each other that, having nothing\noutside themselves with which to compare them, they are mutually\ndestructive. \"The epistle to the Romans presents special difficulties to\nits acceptance as a genuine address to the Church of Rome in the era\nascribed to it. The faith of this Church, at this early period, is said\nto be 'spoken of throughout the whole world'; and yet when Paul,\naccording to the Acts, at a later time visited Rome, so little had this\nalleged Church influenced the neighbourhood, that the inquiring Jews of\nRome are shown to be totally ignorant of what constituted Christianity,\nand to have looked to Paul to enlighten them\" (\"Portraiture and Mission\nof Jesus,\" p. 15). 2 Cor. is of very doubtful authenticity. The passage\nin James shows no fiery persecution. Hebrews is of later date. 2 Thess.\nagain very doubtful. The \"suffering\" spoken of by Peter appears, from\nthe context, to refer chiefly to reproaches, and a problematical \"if any\nman suffer as a Christian.\" Had those he wrote to been then suffering,\nsurely the apostle would have said: \"_When_ any man suffers ... let him\nnot be ashamed.\" The whole question of the authenticity of the canonical\nbooks will be challenged later, and the weakness of this division of\nPaley's evidences will then be more fully apparent. Meanwhile we subjoin\nLardner's view of these passages. He has been arguing that the Romans\n\"protected the many rites of all their provinces;\" and he proceeds:\n\"There is, however, one difficulty which, I am aware, may be started by\nsome persons. If the Roman Government, to which all the world was then\nsubject, was so mild and gentle, and protected all men in the profession\nof their several religious tenets, and the practice of all their\npeculiar rites, whence comes it to pass that there are in the Epistles\nso many exhortations to the Christians to patience and constancy, and so\nmany arguments of consolation suggested to them, as a suffering body of\nmen? [Here follow some passages as in Paley.] To this I answer: 1. That\nthe account St. Luke has given in the Acts of the Apostles of the\nbehaviour of the Roman officers out of Jud\u00e6a, and in it, is confirmed\nnot only by the account I have given of the genius and nature of the\nRoman Government, but also by the testimony of the most ancient\nChristian writers. The Romans did afterwards depart from these moderate\nmaxims; but it is certain that they were governed by them as long as the\nhistory of the Acts of the Apostles reaches. Tertullian and divers\nothers do affirm that Nero was the first Emperor that persecuted the\nChristians; nor did he begin to disturb them till after Paul had left\nRome the first time he was there (when he was sent thither by Festus),\nand, therefore, not until he was become an enemy to all mankind. And I\nthink that, according to the account which Tacitus has given of Nero's\ninhumane treatment of the Christians at Rome, in the tenth year of his\nreign, what he did then was not owing to their having different\nprinciples in religion from the Romans, but proceeded from a desire he\nhad to throw off from himself the odium of a vile action--namely,\nsetting fire to the city--which he was generally charged with. And\nSulpicius Severus, a Christian historian of the fourth century, says the\nsame thing\" (\"Credibility of the Gospel History,\" vol. i., pages\n416-420). Lardner, however, allows that the Jews persecuted the\nChristians where they could although they were unable to slay them. They\nprobably persecuted them much in the same fashion that the Christians\nhave persecuted Freethinkers during the present century.\n\nBut Paley adduces further the evidence of Clement, Hermas, Polycarp,\nIgnatius, and a circular letter of the Church of Smyrna, to prove the\nsufferings of the eye-witnesses (\"Evidences,\" pages 52-55). When we pass\ninto writings of this description in later times, there is, indeed,\nplenty of evidence--in fact, a good deal too much, for they testify to\nsuch marvellous occurrences, that no trust is possible in anything which\nthey say. Not only was St. Paul's head cut off, but the worthy Bishop of\nRome, Linus, his contemporary (who is supposed to relate his martyrdom),\ntells us how, \"instead of blood, nought but a stream of pure milk flowed\nfrom his veins;\" and we are further instructed that his severed head\ntook three jumps in \"honour of the Trinity, and at each spot on which it\njumped there instantly struck up a spring of living water, which retains\nat this day a plain and distinct taste of milk\" (\"Diegesis,\" pp. 256,\n257). Against a mass of absurd stories of this kind, the _only evidence_\nof the persecution of Paley's eye-witnesses, we may set the remarks of\nGibbon: \"In the time of Tertullian and Clemens of Alexandria the glory\nof martyrdom was confined to St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. James. It was\ngradually bestowed on the rest of the Apostles by the more recent\nGreeks, who prudently selected for the theatre of their preaching and\nsufferings some remote country beyond the limits of the Roman Empire\"\n(\"Decline and Fall,\" vol. ii., p. 208, note). Later there was, indeed,\nmore persecution; but even then the martyrdoms afford no evidence of the\ntruth of Christianity. Martyrdom proves the sincerity, _but not the\ntruth_, of the sufferer's belief; every creed has had its martyrs, and\nas the truth of one creed excludes the truth of every other, it follows\nthat the vast majority have died for a delusion, and that, therefore,\nthe number of martyrs it can reckon is no criterion of the truth of a\ncreed, but only of the devotion it inspires. While we allow that the\nChristians underwent much persecution, there can be no doubt that the\nnumber of the sufferers has been grossly exaggerated. One can scarcely\nhelp suspecting that, as real martyrs were not forthcoming in as vast\nnumbers as their supposed bones, martyrs were invented to fit the\nwealth-producing relics, as the relics did not fit the historical\nmartyrs. \"The total disregard of truth and probability in the\nrepresentations of these primitive martyrdoms was occasioned by a very\nnatural mistake. The ecclesiastical writers of the fourth and fifth\ncenturies ascribed to the magistrates of Rome the same degree of\nimplacable and unrelenting zeal which filled their own breasts against\nthe heretics, or the idolaters of their own time.... But it is certain,\nand we may appeal to the grateful confessions of the first Christians,\nthat the greatest part of those magistrates, who exercised in the\nprovinces the authority of the Emperor, or of the Senate, and to whose\nhands alone the jurisdiction of life and death was entrusted, behaved\nlike men of polished manners and liberal education, who respected the\nrules of justice, and who were conversant with the precepts of\nphilosophy. They frequently declined the odious task of persecution,\ndismissed the charge with contempt, or suggested to the accused\nChristian some legal evasion by which he might elude the severity of the\nlaws. (Tertullian, in his epistle to the Governor of Africa, mentions\nseveral remarkable instances of lenity and forbearance which had\nhappened within his own knowledge.)... The learned Origen, who, from his\nexperience, as well as reading, was intimately acquainted with the\nhistory of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the\nnumber of martyrs was very inconsiderable.... The general assertion of\nOrigen may be explained and confirmed by the particular testimony of his\nfriend Dionysius, who, in the immense city of Alexandria, and under the\nrigorous persecution of Decius, reckons only ten men and seven women who\nsuffered for the profession of the Christian name\" (\"Decline and Fall,\"\nvol. ii., pp. 224-226. See throughout chap. xvi.). Gibbon calculates the\nwhole number of martyrs of the Early Church at \"somewhat less than two\nthousand persons;\" and remarks caustically that the \"Christians, in the\ncourse of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater\nseverities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of\ninfidels\" (pp. 273, 274). Supposing, however, that the most exaggerated\naccounts of Church historians were correct, how would that support\nPaley's argument? His contention is that the \"eye-witnesses\" of\nmiraculous events died in testimony of their belief in them; and myriads\nof martyrs in the second and third centuries are of no assistance to\nhim. So we will retrace our steps to the eye-witnesses, and we find the\nposition of Gibbon--as to the lives and labours of the Apostles being\nwritten later by men not confining themselves to facts--endorsed by\nMosheim, who judiciously observes: \"Many have undertaken to write this\nhistory of the Apostles, a history which we find loaded with fables,\ndoubts, and difficulties, when we pursue it further than the books of\nthe New Testament, and the most ancient writers in the Christian Church\"\n(\"Eccles. Hist.,\" p. 27, ed. 1847). What \"ancient writers\" Mosheim\nalludes to it is difficult to guess, as may be judged from his\ncriticisms quoted below, on the \"Apostolic Fathers,\" the most ancient of\nall; and in estimating the worth of his opinion, it is necessary to\nremember that he was himself an earnest Christian, although a learned\nand candid one, so that every admission he makes, which tells against\nChristianity, is of double weight, it being the admission of a friend\nand defender.\n\nTo the credit of Paley's apostolic evidences (Clement, Hermas, Polycarp,\nIgnatius, and letter from Smyrna), we may urge the following objections.\nClement's writings are much disputed: \"The accounts which remain of his\nlife, actions, and death are, for the most part, uncertain. Two\n_Epistles to the Corinthians_, written in Greek, have been attributed to\nhim, of which the second has been looked upon as spurious, and the first\nas genuine, by many learned writers. But even this latter seems to have\nbeen corrupted and interpolated by some ignorant and presumptuous\nauthor.... The learned are now unanimous in regarding the other writings\nwhich bear the name of Clemens (Clement) ... as spurious productions\nascribed by some impostor to this venerable prelate, in order to procure\nthem a high degree of authority\" (Ibid, pp. 31, 32).\n\n\"The first epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved to\nus in a single manuscript only. Though very frequently referred to by\nancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars of\nWestern Europe until happily discovered in the Alexandrian\nmanuscript.... Who the Clement was, to whom these writings are ascribed,\ncannot with absolute certainty be determined. The general opinion is,\nthat he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul\n(Phil. iv. 3). The writings themselves contain no statement as to their\nauthor.... Although, as has been said, positive certainty cannot be\nreached on the subject, we may with great probability conclude that we\nhave in this epistle a composition of that Clement who is known to us\nfrom Scripture as having been an associate of the great apostle. The\ndate of this epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy.\nIt is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some\npersecution (chapter I) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only\nquestion is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or\nDomitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the\nlatter, we must place it towards the close of the first century, or the\nbeginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of\nthis question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless\nconfusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter,\nothers placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him\nand the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter\ndoubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. The\nprobability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period,\nso that the epistle may be dated about A.D. 97\" (\"The Writings of the\nApostolic Fathers.\" Translated by Rev. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Donaldson, and\nRev. F. Crombie, pp. 3, 4. Ed. 1867). \"Only a single-manuscript copy of\nthe work is extant, at the end of the Alexandrian manuscript of the\nScriptures. This copy is considerably mutilated. In some passages the\ntext is manifestly corrupt, and other passages have been suspected of\nbeing interpolations\" (Norton's \"Genuineness of the Gospels,\" vol. i, p.\n336. Ed. 1847).\n\nThe second epistle is rejected on all sides. \"It is now generally\nregarded as one of the many writings which have been falsely ascribed to\nClement.... The diversity of style clearly points to a different writer\nfrom that of the first epistle\" (\"Apostolic Fathers,\" page 53). \"The\nsecond epistle ... is not mentioned at all by the earlier Fathers who\nrefer to the first. Eusebius, who is the first writer who mentions it,\nexpresses doubt regarding it, while Jerome and Photius state that it was\nrejected by the ancients. It is now universally regarded as spurious\"\n(\"Supernatural Religion,\" pp. 220, 221). \"There is a second epistle\nascribed to Clement, but we know not that this is as highly approved as\nthe former, and know not that it has been in use with the ancients.\nThere are also other writings reported to be his, verbose and of great\nlength. Lately, and some time ago, those were produced that contain the\ndialogues of Peter and Apion, of which, however, not a syllable is\nrecorded by the primitive Church\" (Eusebius' \"Eccles. Hist.\" bk. iii.,\nchap. 38). \"The first Greek Epistle alone can be confidently pronounced\ngenuine\" (Westcott on the \"Canon of the New Testament,\" p. 24. Ed. 1875).\nThe first epistle \"is the only piece of Clement that can be relied on as\ngenuine\" (\"Lardner's Credibility,\" pt. ii., vol. i., p. 62. Ed. 1734).\n\"Besides the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians there is a fragment\nof a piece, called his second epistle, which being doubtful, or rather\nplainly not Clement's, I don't quote as his.\" (Ibid, p. 106.)\n\nThis very dubious Clement (Paley quotes, be it said, from the first--or\nleast doubtful--of his writings) only says that _one_ of Paley's\noriginal witnesses was martyred, namely Peter; Paul, of course, was not\nan eye-witness of Christ's proceedings.\n\nThe _Vision of Hermas_ is a simple rhapsody, unworthy of a moment's\nconsideration, of which Mosheim justly remarks: \"The discourse which he\nputs into the mouths of those celestial beings is more insipid and\nsenseless than what we commonly hear among the meanest of the multitude\"\n(\"Eccles. Hist,\" p. 32). Its date is very doubtful; the Canon of\nMuratori puts it in the middle of the second century, saying that it was\nwritten by Hermas, brother to Pius, Bishop of Rome, who died A.D. 142.\n(See \"Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels,\" vol. i., pp. 341, 342.) \"The\n_Epistle to the Philippians_, which is ascribed to Polycarp, Bishop of\nSmyrna, who, in the middle of the second century, suffered martyrdom in\na venerable and advanced age, is looked upon by some as genuine; by\nothers as spurious; and it is no easy matter to determine this question\"\n(\"Eccles. Hist,\" p. 32). \"Upon no internal ground can any part of this\nEpistle be pronounced genuine; there are potent reasons for considering\nit spurious, and there is no evidence of any value whatever supporting\nits authenticity\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" p. 283).\n\nThe editors of the \"Apostolic Fathers\" dispute this assertion, and say:\n\"It is abundantly established by external testimony, and is also\nsupported by the internal evidence\" (p. 67). But they add: \"The epistle\nbefore us is not perfect in any of the Greek MSS. which contain it. But\nthe chapters wanting in Greek are contained in an ancient Latin version.\nWhile there is no ground for supposing, as some have done, that the\nwhole epistle is spurious, there seems considerable force in the\narguments by which many others have sought to prove chap. xiii. to be an\ninterpolation. The date of the epistle cannot be satisfactorily\ndetermined. It depends on the conclusion we reach as to some points,\nvery difficult and obscure, connected with that account of the martyrdom\nof Polycarp which has come down to us. We shall not, however, be far\nwrong if we fix it about the middle of the second century\" (Ibid, pp.\n67, 68). Poor Paley! this weak evidence to the martyrdom of his\neye-witnesses comes 150 years after Christ; and even then all that\nPolycarp may have said, if the epistle chance to be authentic, is that\n\"they suffered,\" without any word of their martyrdom!\n\nThe authenticity of the letters of Ignatius has long been a matter of\ndispute. Mosheim, who accepts the seven epistles, says that, \"Though I\nam willing to adopt this opinion as preferable to any other, yet I\ncannot help looking upon the authenticity of the epistle to Polycarp as\nextremely dubious, on account of the difference of style; and, indeed,\nthe whole question relating to the epistles of St. Ignatius in general\nseems to me to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed with\nmany difficulties\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" p. 22).\n\n\"There are in all fifteen epistles which bear the name of Ignatius.\nThese are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle\nJohn, one to Mary of Cassobel\u00e6, one to the Tarsians, one to the\nAntiochians, one to Hero (a deacon of Antioch), one to the Philippians,\none to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one\nto the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnians, and one\nto Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin; all the rest are\nextant also in Greek. It is now the universal opinions of critics that\nthe first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They\nbear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later\nage than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes\nthe least reference to them; and they are now, by common consent, set\naside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special\npurposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.\nBut, after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains\nsufficiently complex. Of the seven epistles which are acknowledged by\nEusebius\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" bk. iii., chap. 36), we possess two Greek\nrecensions, a shorter and a longer. \"It is plain that one or other of\nthese exhibits a corrupt text; and scholars have, for the most part,\nagreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of\nIgnatius.... But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had\nbeen generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a\npretty prevalent opinion among scholars that even it could not be\nregarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted\nauthenticity.... Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was,\nuntil recently, accepted without much opposition ... as exhibiting the\ngenuine form of the epistles of Ignatius. But a totally different aspect\nwas given to the question by the discovery of a Syriac version of three\nof these epistles among the MSS. procured from the monastery of St. Mary\nDeipara, in the desert of Nitria, in Egypt [between 1838 and 1842]....\nOn these being deposited in the British Museum, the late Dr. Cureton,\nwho then had charge of the Syriac department, discovered among them,\nfirst, the epistle to Polycarp, and then again the same epistle, with\nthose to the Ephesians and to the Romans, in two other volumes of\nmanuscripts\" (\"Apostolic Fathers,\" pp. 139-142). Dr. Cureton gave it as\nhis opinion that the Syriac letters are \"the only true and genuine\nletters of the venerable Bishop of Antioch that have either come down to\nour times or were ever known in the earliest ages of the Christian\nChurch\" (\"Corpus Ignatianum,\" ed. 1849, as quoted in the \"Apostolic\nFathers,\" p. 142).\n\n\"I have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied\nupon that comparison that the larger are an interpolation of the\nsmaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger. I\ndesire no better evidence in a thing of this nature.... But whether the\nsmaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of\nAntioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the\npens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have\nshown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult\nquestion\" (\"Credibility,\" pt. 2, vol. ii., p. 153). The Syriac version\nwas then, of course, unknown. Professor Norton, the learned Christian\ndefender of the Gospels, says: \"The seven shorter epistles, the\ngenuineness of which is contended for, come to us in bad company....\nThere is, as it seems to me, no reasonable doubt that the seven shorter\nepistles ascribed to Ignatius are equally, with all the rest,\nfabrications of a date long subsequent to his time.\" \"I doubt whether\nany book, in its general tone of sentiment and language, ever betrayed\nitself as a forgery more clearly than do these pretended epistles of\nIgnatius\" (\"Genuineness of the Gospels,\" vol. i., pp. 350 and 353, ed.\n1847).\n\n\"What, then, is the position of the so-called Ignatian epistles? Towards\nthe end of the second century Iren\u00e6us makes a very short quotation from\na source unnamed, which Eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in an\nepistle attributed to Ignatius. Origen, in the third century, quotes a\nfew words, which he ascribes to Ignatius, although without definite\nreference to any particular epistle; and, in the fourth century,\nEusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no other\nevidence. There are, however, fifteen epistles extant, all of which are\nattributed to Ignatius, of all of which, with the exception of three,\nwhich are only known in a Latin version, we possess both Greek and Latin\nversions. Of seven of these epistles--and they are those mentioned by\nEusebius--we have two Greek versions, one of which is very much shorter\nthan the other; and, finally, we now possess a Syriac version of three\nepistles, only in a form still shorter than the shorter Greek version,\nin which are found all the quotations of the Fathers, without exception,\nup to the fourth century. Eight of the fifteen epistles are universally\nrejected as spurious (ante, p. 263). The longer Greek version of the\nremaining seven epistles is almost unanimously condemned as grossly\ninterpolated; and the great majority of critics recognise that the\nshorter Greek version is also much interpolated; whilst the Syriac\nversion, which, so far as MSS. are concerned, is by far the most ancient\ntext of any letters which we possess, reduces their number to three, and\ntheir contents to a very small compass indeed. It is not surprising that\nthe vast majority of critics have expressed doubt more or less strong\nregarding the authenticity of all these epistles, and that so large a\nnumber have repudiated them altogether. One thing is quite\nevident--that, amidst such a mass of falsification, interpolation, and\nfraud, the Ignatian epistles cannot, in any form, be considered evidence\non any important point.... In fact, the whole of the Ignatian literature\nis a mass of falsification and fraud\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., pp. 270,\n271, 274). The student may judge from this confusion, of fifteen reduced\nto seven long, and seven long reduced to seven short, and seven short\nreduced to three, and those three very doubtful, how thoroughly reliable\nmust be Paley's arguments drawn from this \"contemporary of Polycarp.\"\nOur editors of the \"Fathers\" very frankly remark: \"As to the personal\nhistory of Ignatius, almost nothing is known\" (\"Apostolic Fathers,\" p.\n143). Why, acknowledging this, they call him \"celebrated,\" it is hard to\nsay. Truly, the ways of Christian commentators are dark!\n\nPaley's quotation is taken from the epistle to the Smyrnaeans (not one\nof the Syriac, be it noted), and is from the shorter Greek recension. It\noccurs in chap. iii., and only says that Peter, and those who were with\nhim, saw Jesus after the resurrection, and believed: \"for this cause\nalso they despised death, and were found its conquerors.\" Men who\nbelieved in a resurrection might naturally despise death; but it is hard\nto see how this quotation--even were it authentic--shows that the\napostles suffered for their belief. What strikes one as most\nremarkable--if Paley's contention of the sufferings of the witnesses be\ntrue, and these writings authentic--is that so very little mention is\nmade of the apostles, of their labours, toils, and sufferings, and that\nthese epistles are simply a kind of patchwork, chiefly of Old Testament\nmaterials, mixed up with exhortations about Christ.\n\nThe circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna is a curious document.\nPaley quotes a terrible account of the tortures inflicted, and one would\nimagine on reading it that many must have been put to death. We are\nsurprised to learn, from the epistle itself, that Polycarp was only the\ntwelfth martyr between the two towns of Smyrna and Philadelphia! The\namount of dependence to be placed on the narrative may be judged by the\nfollowing:--\"As the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was\ngiven to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved\nthat we might report to others what then took place. For the fire,\nshaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when\nfilled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr.\nAnd he appeared within, not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that\nis baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we\nperceived such a sweet odour, as if frankincense or some such precious\nspices had been burning there. At length, when those men perceived that\nhis body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an\nexecutioner to go near, and pierce him with a dagger. And on his doing\nthis, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that\nthe fire was extinguished\" (\"Apostolic Fathers,\" p. 92). What reliance\ncan be placed on historians(?) who gravely relate that fire does not\nburn, and that when a man is pierced with a dagger a dove flies out,\ntogether with sufficient blood to quench a flaming pile? To make this\nprecious epistle still more valuable, one of its transcribers adds to\nit:--\"I again, Pionius, wrote them (these things) from the previously\nwritten copy, having carefully searched into them, and the blessed\nPolycarp having manifested them to me through a revelation[!] even as I\nshall show in what follows. I have collected these things, when they had\nalmost faded away through the lapse of time\" (Ibid, p. 96). If this is\nhistory, then any absurd dream may be taken as the basis of belief. We\nmay add that this epistle does not mention the martyrdoms of the\neye-witnesses, and it is hard to know why Paley drags it in, unless he\nwants to make us believe that his eye-witnesses suffered all the\ntortures he quotes; but even Paley cannot pretend that there is a\nscintilla of proof of their undergoing any such trials. Thus falls the\nwhole argument based on the \"twelve men, whose probity and good sense I\nhad long known,\" dying for the persistent assertion of \"a miracle\nwrought before their eyes,\" who are used as a parallel of the apostles,\nas an argument against Hume. For we have not yet proved that there were\nany eye-witnesses, or that they made any assertions, and we have\nentirely failed to prove that the eye-witnesses were martyred at all, or\nthat the death of any one of them, save that of Peter, is even mentioned\nin the alleged documents, so that the \"satisfactory evidences\" of the\n\"original witnesses of the Christian miracles\" suffering and dying in\nattestation of those miracles amount to this, that in a disputed\ndocument Peter is said to have been martyred, and in another, still more\ndoubtful, \"the rest of the apostles\" are said to have \"suffered.\" Thus\nthe first proposition of Paley falls entirely to the ground. The honest\ntruth is that the history of the twelve apostles is utterly unknown, and\nthat around their names gathers a mass of incredible and nonsensical\nmyth and legend, similar in kind to other mythological fables, and\nentirely unworthy of credence by reasonable people.\n\nNor is proof less lacking of submission \"from the same motives, to new\nrules of conduct.\" Nowhere is there a sign that Christian morality was\nenforced by appeal to the miracles of Christ; miracles were, in those\ndays, too common an incident to attract much attention, and, indeed, if\nthey could not win belief in the mission from those Jews before whom\nthey were said to have been performed, what chance would they have had\nwhen the story of their working was only repeated by hearsay? Again, the\nrules of conduct were not \"new;\" the best parts of the Christian\nmorality had been taught long before Christ (as we shall prove later on\nby quotations), and were familiar to the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians,\nfrom the writings of their own philosophers. There would have been\nnothing remarkable in a new sect growing up among these peoples,\naccustomed as they were to the schools of the philosophers, with their\nvarious groups of disciples distinguished by special names. Why is there\nanything more wonderful in these Christian societies with a high moral\ncode, than in the severe and stately morality inculcated and practised\nby the Stoics? For the submission of conduct to the \"new rules,\" the\nless said the better. 1 Corinthians does not give us a very lofty idea\nof the morality current among the Christians there, and the angry\nreproaches of Jude imply much depravity; the messages to the seven\nChurches are generally reproving, not to dwell on many scattered\npassages of the same character. Outsiders, moreover, speak very harshly\nof the Christian societies. Tacitus--whose testimony must be allowed\nsome weight, if he be quoted as a proof of the existence of the\nsect--says that they were held in abhorrence for their crimes, and were\ncondemned for their \"enmity to mankind\" (the expression of Tacitus may\neither mean _haters of_ mankind, or _hated by_ mankind), expressions\nwhich show that the adherents of the higher and purer morality were, at\nleast, singularly unfortunate in the impressions of it which they\nconveyed to their neighbours by their lives; and we find, further, the\nmost scandalous crimes imputed to the Christians, necessitating the\nenforcement against them of edicts passed to put down the shameful\nBacchanalian mysteries. And here, indeed, is the true cause of the\npersecution to which they were subjected under the just and merciful\nRoman sway, and this is a point that should not be lost sight of by the\nstudent.\n\nAbout 186 B.C., according to Livy (lib. xxxix. c. 8-19), the Roman\nGovernment, discovering that certain \"Bacchanalian mysteries\" were\nhabitually celebrated in Rome, issued stern edicts against the\nparticipants in them, and succeeding in, at least partially, suppressing\nthem. The reason given by the Consul Postumius for these edicts was\npolitical, not religious. \"Could they think,\" he asked, \"that youths,\ninitiated under such oaths as theirs, were fit to be made soldiers? That\nwretches brought out of the temple of obscenity could be trusted with\narms? That those contaminated with the foul debaucheries of these\nmeetings should be the champions for the chastity of the wives and\nchildren of the Roman people?\" \"Let us now closely examine how far the\nEleusinian and Bacchanalian feasts resembled the Christian\nAgapae--whether the latter, modified and altered a little according to\nthe change which would take place in the taste of the age, originated\nfrom the former, or were altogether from a different source. We have\nseen that the forementioned Pagan feasts were, throughout Italy, in a\nvery flourishing state about 186 years before the Christian era. We have\nalso seen that about this time they were, at least, partially suppressed\nin Italy, and those who were wont to take part in them dispersed over\nthe world. Being zealously devoted to the religion of which these feasts\nwere part, it is very natural to suppose that, wherever the votaries of\nthis superstition settled, they soon established these feasts, which\nthey were enabled to carry on secretly, and, therefore, for a\nconsiderable time, undetected.... Both Pagans and Christians, in ancient\ntimes, were particularly careful not to disclose their _mysteries_; to\ndo so, in violation of their oaths, would cost their lives\" (\"The\nProphet of Nazareth,\" by E.P. Meredith, notes, pp. 225, 226). Mr.\nMeredith then points out how in Rome, in Lyons, in Vienne, \"the\nChristians were actually accused of murdering children and others--of\ncommitting adultery, incest, and other flagrant crimes in their secret\nlovefeasts. The question, therefore, arises--were they really guilty of\nthe barbarous crimes with which they were so often formally charged, and\nfor the commission of which they were almost as often legally condemned,\nand punished with death? Is it probable that persons _at Rome_, who had\nonce belonged to these lovefeasts, should tell a deliberate falsehood\nthat the Christians perpetrated these abominable vices, and that other\npersons _in France_, who had also been connected with these feasts,\nshould falsely state that the Christians were guilty of the very same\nexecrable crimes? There was no collusion or connection whatever between\nthese parties, and in making their statements, they could have no\nself-interested motive. They lived in different countries, they did not\nmake their statements within twenty years of the same time, and by\nmaking such statements they rendered themselves liable to be punished\nwith death.... The same remark applies to the disclosures made, about\n150 years after, by certain females in Damascus, far remote from either\nLyons or Rome. These make precisely the same statement--that they had\nonce been Christians, that they were privy to criminal acts among them,\nand that these Christians, in their very churches, committed licentious\ndeeds. The Romans would never have so relentlessly persecuted the\nChristians had they not been guilty of some such atrocities as were laid\nto their charge. There are on record abundant proofs that the Romans,\nfrom the earliest account we have of them, tolerated all harmless\nreligions--all such as were not directly calculated to endanger the\npublic peace, or vitiate public morals, or render life and property\nunsafe.... So well known were those horrid vices to be carried on by all\nChristians in their nocturnal and secret assemblies, and so certain it\nwas thought that every one who was a Christian participated in them,\nthat for a person to be known to be a Christian was thought a strong\npresumptive proof that he was guilty of these offences. Hence, persons\nin their preliminary examinations, who, on being interrogated, answered\nthat they were Christians, were thought proper subjects for committal to\nprison.... Pliny further indicates that while some brought before him,\non information, refused to tell him anything as to the nature of their\nnocturnal meetings, others replied to his questions as far as their oath\npermitted them. They told him that it was their practice, as Christians,\nto meet on a stated day, before daylight, to sing hymns; and to bind\nthemselves by a solemn oath that they would do no wrong; that they would\nnot steal, nor rob, nor commit any act of unchastity; that they would\nnever violate a trust; and that they joined together in a common and\ninnocent repast. While all these answers to the questions of the\nProconsul are suggestive of the crimes with which the Christians were\ncharged, still they are a denial of every one of them.... The whole\ntenor of historical facts is, however, against their testimony, and the\nProconsul did not believe them; but, in order to get at the entire\ntruth, put some of them to the torture, and ultimately adjourned their\ntrial [see ante, pp. 203-205]. The manner in which Greek and Latin\nwriters mention the Christians goes far to show that they were guilty of\nthe atrocious crimes laid to their charge. Suetonius (in Nero) calls\nthem, 'A race of men of new and villainous superstition' [see ante, p.\n201]. The Emperor Adrian, in a letter to his brother-in-law, Servianus,\nin the year 134, as given by Vospicius, says: 'There is no presbyter of\nthe Christians who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a\nminister of obscene pleasures.' Tacitus tells us that Nero inflicted\nexquisite punishment upon those people who, under the vulgar appellation\nof Christians, were held in abhorrence for their crimes. He also, in the\nsame place, says they were 'odious to mankind;' and calls their religion\na 'pernicious superstition' [see ante, p. 99]. Maximus, likewise, in his\nletter, calls them 'votaries of execrable vanity,' who had 'filled the\nworld with infamy.' It would appear, however, that owing to the extreme\nmeasures taken against them by the Romans, both in Italy and in all the\nprovinces, the Christians, by degrees, were forced to abandon entirely\nin their Agapae infant murders, together with every species of\nobscenity, retaining, nevertheless, some relics of them, such as the\n_kiss of charity_, and the bread and wine, which they contended was\ntransubstantiated into real flesh and blood.... A very common way of\nrepelling these charges was for one sect of Christians, which, of\ncourse, denounced all other sects as heretics, to urge that human\nsacrifices and incestuous festivals were not celebrated by that sect,\nbut that they _were_ practised by other sects; such, for example, as the\nMarcionites and the Capocratians. (Justin Mart., 'Apology,' i., 35;\nIren., adv. Haer. i., 24; Clem. Alex., i., 3.) When Tertullian joined\nthe Montanists, another sect of Christians, he divulged the criminal\nsecrets of the Church which he had so zealously defended, by saying, in\nhis 'Treatise on Fasting,' c. 17, that 'in the Agapae the young men lay\nwith their sisters, and wallowed in wantonness and luxury'.... Remnants\nof these execrable customs remained for a long time, and vestiges of\nthem exist to this very day, as well in certain words and phrases as in\npractice. The communion table to this very day is called _the altar_,\nthe name of that upon which the ancients sacrificed their victims. The\nword _sacrament_ has a meaning, as used by Pliny already cited, which\ncarries us back to the solemn oath of the Agapaeists. The word _mass_\ncarries us back still further, and identifies the present mass with that\nof the Pagans.... Formerly the consecrated bread was called _host_,\nwhich word signifies a _victim_ offered _as sacrifice_, anciently\n_human_ very often.... Jerome and other Fathers called the communion\nbread--_little body_, and the communion table--_mystical table_; the\nlatter, in allusion to the heathen and early Christian mysteries, and\nthe former, in reference to the children sacrificed at the Agapae. The\ngreat doctrine of transubstantiation directly points to the abominable\npractice of eating human flesh at the Agapae.... Upon the whole, it is\nimpossible, from the mass of evidence already adduced, to avoid the\nconclusion that the early Christians, in their Agapae, were really\nguilty of the execrable vices with which they were so often charged, and\nfor which they were sentenced to death. This once admitted, a reasonable\nand adequate cause can be assigned for the severe persecutions of the\nChristians by the Roman Government--a Government which applied precisely\nthe same laws and modes of persecution and punishment to them as to the\nvotaries of the Bacchanalian and Eleusinian mysteries, well known to\nhave been accustomed to offer human sacrifices, and indulge in the most\nobscene lasciviousness in their secret assemblies; and a Government\nwhich tolerated all kinds of religions, except those which encouraged\npractices dangerous to human life, or pernicious to the morals of\nsubjects. Nor can the facts already advanced fail to show clearly that\nthe Christian Agapae were of Pagan origin--were identically the same as\nthose Pagan feasts which existed simultaneously with them\" (Ibid, notes,\npp. 227, 231).\n\nThere can be no doubt that the Christians suffered for these crimes\nwhether or no they were guilty of them: \"Three things are alleged\nagainst us: Atheism, Thyestean feasts, OEdipodean intercourse,\" says\nAthenagoras (\"Apology,\" ch. iii). Justin Martyr refers to the same\ncharges (\"2nd Apology,\" ch. xii). \"Monsters of wickedness, we are\naccused of observing a holy rite, in which we kill a little child and\nthen eat it, in which after the feast we practise incest.... Come,\nplunge your knife into the babe, enemy of none, accused of none, child\nof all; or if that is another's work, simply take your place beside a\nhuman being dying before he has really lived, await the departure of the\nlately-given soul, receive the fresh young blood, saturate your bread\nwith it, freely partake\" (\"Apology,\" Tertullian, secs. 7, 8). Tertullian\npleads earnestly that these accusations were false: \"if you cannot do\nit, you ought not to believe it of others. For a Christian is a man as\nwell as you\" (Ibid). Yet, when Tertullian became a Montanist, he\ndeclared that these very crimes _were_ committed at the Agapae, so that\nhe spoke falsely either in the one case or in the other. \"It was\nsometimes faintly insinuated, and sometimes boldly asserted, that the\nsame bloody sacrifices and the same incestuous festivals, which were so\nfalsely ascribed to the orthodox believers, were in reality celebrated\nby the Marcionites, by the Carpocratians, and by several other sects of\nthe Gnostics.... Accusations of a similar kind were retorted upon the\nChurch by the schismatics who had departed from its communion; and it\nwas confessed on all sides that the most scandalous licentiousness of\nmanners prevailed among great numbers of those who affected the name of\nChristians. A Pagan magistrate, who possessed neither leisure nor\nabilities to discern the almost imperceptible line which divides the\northodox faith from heretical depravity, might easily have imagined that\ntheir mutual animosity had extorted the discovery of their common guilt\"\n(\"Decline and Fall,\" Gibbon, vol. ii., pp. 204, 205). It was fortunate,\nthe historian concludes, that some of the magistrates reported that they\ndiscovered no such criminality. It is, be it noted, simultaneously with\nthe promulgation of these charges that the persecution of the Christians\ntakes place; during the first century very little is heard of such, and\nthere is very little persecution [see ante, pp. 209-213]. In the\nfollowing century the charges are frequent, and so are the persecutions.\n\nTo these strong arguments may be added the acknowledgment in 1. Cor.\nxi., 17, 22, of disorder and drunkenness at these Agapae; the habit of\nspeaking of the communion feast as \"the Christian _mysteries_,\" a habit\nstill kept up in the Anglican prayer-book; the fact that they took place\n_at night_, under cover of darkness, a custom for which there was not\nthe smallest reason, unless the service were of a nature so\nobjectionable as to bring it under the ban of the tolerant Roman law;\nand lastly, the use of the cross, and the sign of the cross, the central\nChristian emblem, and one that, especially in connection with the\nmysteries, is of no dubious signification. Thus, in the twilight in\nwhich they were veiled in those early days, the Christians appear to us\nas a sect of very different character to that bestowed upon them by\nPaley. A little later, when they emerge into historical light, their own\nwriters give us sufficient evidence whereby we may judge them; and we\nfind them superstitious, grossly ignorant, quarrelsome, cruel, divided\ninto ascetics and profligates, between whom it is hard to award the palm\nfor degradation and indecency.\n\nHaving \"proved\"--in the above fashion--that a number of people in the\nfirst century advanced \"an extraordinary story,\" underwent persecution,\nand altered their manner of life, because of it, Paley thinks it \"in the\nhighest degree probable, that the story for which these persons\nvoluntarily exposed themselves to the fatigues and hardships which they\nendured, was a _miraculous_ story; I mean, that they pretended to\nmiraculous evidence of some kind or other\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 64). That\nthe Christians believed in a miraculous story may freely be\nacknowledged, but it is evidence of the truth of the story that we want,\nnot evidence of their belief in it. Many ignorant people believe in\nwitchcraft and in fortune-telling now-a-days, but their belief only\nproves their own ignorance, and not the truth of either superstition.\nThe next step in the argument is that \"the story which Christians have\n_now_\" is \"the story which Christians had _then_\" and it is urged that\nthere is in existence no trace of any story of Jesus Christ\n\"substantially different from ours\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 69). It is hard to\njudge how much difference is covered by the word \"substantially.\" All\nthe apocryphal gospels differ very much from the canonical, insert\nsayings and doings of Christ not to be found in the received histories,\nand make his character the reverse of good or lovable to a far greater\nextent than \"the four.\" That Christ was miraculously born, worked\nmiracles, was crucified, buried, rose again, ascended, may be accepted\nas \"substantial\" parts of the story. Yet Mark and John knew nothing of\nthe birth, while, if the Acts and the Epistles are to be trusted, the\napostles were equally ignorant; thus the great doctrine of the\nIncarnation of God without natural generation, is thoroughly ignored by\nall save Matthew and Luke, and even these destroy their own story by\ngiving genealogies of Jesus through Joseph, which are useless unless\nJoseph was his real father. The birth from a virgin, then has no claim\nto be part of Paley's miraculous story in the earliest times. The\nevidence of miracle-working by Christ to be found in the Epistles is\nchiefly conspicuous by its absence, but it figures largely in\npost-apostolic works. The crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension are\ngenerally acknowledged, and these three incidents compose the whole\nstory for which a consensus of testimony can be claimed; it will,\nperhaps, be fair to concede also that Christ is recognised universally\nas a miracle-worker, in spite of the strange silence of the epistles. We\nneed not refer to the testimony of Clement, Polycarp or Ignatius, having\nalready shown what dependence may be placed on their writings. But we\nhave now three new witnesses, Barnabas, Quadratus, and Justin Martyr.\nPaley says: \"In an epistle, bearing the name of Barnabas, the companion\nof Paul, probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have the\nsufferings of Christ,\" etc. (Evidences p. 75). \"Probably genuine,\ncertainly belonging to that age!\" Is Paley joking with his readers, or\nonly trading on their ignorance? \"The letter itself bears no author's\nname, is not dated from any place, and is not addressed to any special\ncommunity. _Towards the end of the second century, however, tradition\nbegan to ascribe it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. The first writer\nwho mentions it is Clement of Alexandria_ [head of the Alexandrian\nSchool, A.D. 205] who calls its author several times the 'Apostle\nBarnabas'.... We have already seen in the case of the Epistles ascribed\nto Clement of Rome, and, as we proceed, we shall become only too\nfamiliar with the fact, the singular facility with which, in the total\nabsence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed by\nthe Fathers to Apostles and their followers.... Credulous piety which\nattributed writings to every Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soon\nfound authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character.... In\nthe earlier days of criticism, some writers, without much question,\nadopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the Epistles, but\nthe great mass of critics are now agreed in asserting that the\ncomposition, which itself is perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributed\nto Barnabas the friend and fellow worker of Paul. Those who maintain the\nformer opinion date the Epistle about A.D. 70-73, or even earlier, but\nthis is scarcely the view of any living critic\" (\"Supernatural\nReligion,\" vol. i., pp. 237-239).\n\n\"From its contents it seems unlikely that it was written by a companion\nof Apostles and a Levite. In addition to this, it is probable that\nBarnabas died before A.D. 62; and the letter contains not only an\nallusion to the destruction of the Jewish temple, but also affirms the\nabnegation of the Sabbath, and the general celebration of the Lord's\nDay, which seems to show that it could not have been written before the\nbeginning of the second century\" (\"Westcott on the Canon,\" p. 41).\n\"Nothing certain is known as to the author of the following epistle. The\nwriter's name is Barnabas; but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it to\nthe illustrious friend and companion of St. Paul.... The internal\nevidence is now generally regarded as conclusive against this\nopinion.... The external evidence [ascribing it to Barnabas] is of\nitself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to\nascribe this writing to Barnabas, the apostle.... The general opinion\nis, that its date is not later than the middle of the second century,\nand that it cannot be placed earlier than some twenty or thirty years or\nso before. In point of style, both as respects thought and expression, a\nvery low place must be assigned it. We know nothing certain of the\nregion in which the author lived, or where the first readers were to be\nfound\" (\"Apostolic Fathers,\" pp. 99, 100). The Epistle is not ascribed\nto Barnabas at all until the close of the second century. Eusebius marks\nit as \"spurious\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" bk. iii., chap. xxv). Lardner speaks\nof it as \"probably Barnabas's, and certainly ancient\" (\"Credibility,\"\npt. ii., vol. ii., p. 30). When we see the utter conflict of evidence as\nto the writings of all these \"primitive\" authors, we can scarcely wonder\nat the frank avowal of the Rev. Dr. Giles: \"The writings of the\nApostolical Fathers labour under a more heavy load of doubt and\nsuspicion than any other ancient compositions, either sacred or profane\"\n(\"Christian Records,\" p. 53).\n\nPaley, in quoting \"Quadratus,\" does not tell us that the passage he\nquotes is the only writing of Quadratus extant, and is only preserved by\nEusebius, who says that he takes it from an apology addressed by\nQuadratus to the Emperor Adrian. Adrian reigned from A.D. 117-138, and\nthe apology must consequently have been presented between these dates.\nIf the apology be genuine, Quadratus makes the extraordinary assertion\nthat some of the people raised from the dead by Jesus were then living.\nJesus is only recorded to have raised three people--a girl, a young man,\nand Lazarus; we will take their ages at ten, twenty, and thirty. \"Some\nof\" those raised cannot be less than two out of the three; we will say\nthe two youngest. Then they were alive at the respectable ages of from\n95-116, and from 105-126. The first may be taken as just within the\nlimits of possibility; the second as beyond them; but Quadratus talks in\na wholesale fashion, which quite destroys his credibility, and we can\nlay but little stress on the carefulness or trustworthiness of a\nhistorian who speaks in such reckless words. Added to this, we find no\ntrace of this passage until Eusebius writes it in the fourth century,\nand it is well known that Eusebius was not too particular in his\nquotations, thinking that his duty was only to make out the best case he\ncould. He frankly says: \"We are totally unable to find even the bare\nvestiges of those who may have travelled the way before us; unless,\nperhaps, what is only presented in the slight intimations, which some in\ndifferent ways have transmitted to us in certain partial narratives of\nthe times in which they lived.... _Whatsoever_, therefore, _we deem\nlikely to be advantageous to_ the proposed subject we shall endeavour to\nreduce to a compact body\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk. i., chap. i).\nAccordingly, he produces a full Church History out of materials which\nare only \"slight intimations,\" and carefully draws out in detail a path\nof which not \"even the bare vestiges\" are left. Little wonder that he\nhad to rely so much upon his imagination, when he had to build a church,\nand had no straws for his bricks.\n\nPaley brings Justin Martyr (born about A.D. 103, died about A.D. 167) as\nhis last authority--as after his time the story may be taken as\nestablished--and says: \"From Justin's works, which are still extant,\nmight be collected a tolerably complete account of Christ's life, in all\npoints agreeing with that which is delivered in our Scriptures; taken,\nindeed, in a great measure, from those Scriptures, but still proving\nthat this account, and no other, was the account known and extant in\nthat age\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 77). If \"no other\" account was extant, Justin\nmust have largely drawn on his own imagination when he pretends to be\nquoting. Jesus, according to Justin, is conceived \"of the Word\"\n(\"Apol.,\" i. 33), not of the Holy Ghost, the third person, the Holy\nGhost being said to be identical with the Word; and he is thus conceived\nby himself. He is born, not in Bethlehem in a stable, but in a \"cave\nnear the village,\" because Joseph could find no lodging in Bethlehem\n(\"Dial.\" 78). The magi come, not from \"the East,\" but from Arabia\n(\"Dial.\" 77). Jesus works as a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes\n(\"Dial.\" 88). The story of the baptism is very different (\"Dial.\" 88).\nIn the trial Jesus is set on the judgment seat, and tauntingly bidden to\njudge his accusers (\"Apol.,\" i. 35). All the apostles deny him, and\nforsake him, after he is crucified (\"Apol.,\" i. 50). These instances\nmight be increased, and, as we shall see later, Justin manifestly quotes\nfrom accounts other than the canonical gospels. Yet Paley pretends that\n\"no other\" account was extant, and that in the very face of Luke i. 1,\nwhich declares that \"many have taken in hand\" the writing of such\nhistories. If Paley had simply said that the story of a miracle-worker,\nnamed the Anointed Saviour, who was born of a virgin, was crucified,\nrose and ascended into heaven, was told with many variations among the\nChristians. from about 100 years after his supposed birth, he would have\nspoken truly; and had he added to this, that the very same story was\ntold among Egyptians and Hindoos, many hundreds of years earlier, he\nwould have treated his readers honestly, although he might not thereby\nhave increased their belief in the \"divine origin of Christianity.\"\n\nBefore we pass on to the last evidences offered by Paley, which\nnecessitate a closer investigation into the value of the testimony borne\nby the patristic, to the canonical, writings, it will be well to put\nbroadly the fact, that these Fathers are simply worthless as witnesses\nto any matter of fact, owing to the absurd and incredible stories which\nthey relate with the most perfect faith. Of critical faculty they have\nnone; the most childish nonsense is accepted by them, with the gravest\nface; no story is too silly, no falsehood too glaring, for them to\nbelieve and to retail, in fullest confidence of its truth. Gross\nignorance is one of their characteristics; they are superstitious,\ncredulous, illiterate, to an almost incredible extent. Clement considers\nthat \"the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future\nresurrection\" by the following \"fact,\" among others: \"Let us consider\nthat wonderful sign which takes place in Eastern lands--that is, in\nArabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is\ncalled a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives 500 years.\nAnd when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it\nbuilds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into\nwhich, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But, as the flesh\ndecays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by\nthe juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has\nacquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its\nparent, and, bearing these, it passes from the land of Arabia into\nEgypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And in open day, flying in the\nsight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and, having\ndone this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect\nthe registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the\n500th year was completed\" (1st Epistle of Clement, chap. xxv.). Surely\nthe evidence here should satisfy Paley as to the truth of this story:\n\"the open day,\" \"flying in the sight of all men,\" the priests inspecting\nthe registers, and all this vouched for by Clement himself! How reliable\nmust be the testimony of the apostolic Clement! Tertullian, the\nApostolic Constitutions, and Cyril of Jerusalem mention the same tale.\nWe have already drawn attention to that which _was seen by_ the writers\nof the circular letter of the Church of Smyrna. Barnabas loses himself\nin a maze of allegorical meanings, and gives us some delightful\ninstruction in natural history; he is dealing with the directions of\nMoses as to clean and unclean animals: \"'Thou shalt not,' he says, 'eat\nthe hare.' Wherefore? 'Thou shalt not be a corrupter of boys, nor like\nunto such.' Because the hare multiplies, year by year, the places of its\nconception; for as many years as it lives, so many _foramina_ it has.\nMoreover, 'Thou shalt not eat the hyaena.'... Wherefore? Because that\nanimal annually changes its sex, and is at one time male, and at another\nfemale. Moreover, he has rightly detested the weasel ... For this animal\nconceives by the mouth.... Behold how well Moses legislated\" (Epistle of\nBarnabas, chapter x.). \"'And Abraham circumcised ten and eight and three\nhundred men of his household.' What, then, was the knowledge given to\nhim in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The\nten and the eight are thus denoted--Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have\nJesus. And because the cross was to express the grace by the letter T,\nhe says also Three Hundred. He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two\nletters, and the cross by one.... No one has been admitted by me to a\nmore excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are\nworthy\" (Ibid, chapter ix.). And this is Paley's companion of the\nApostles! Ignatius tells us of the \"star of Bethlehem.\" \"A star shone\nforth in heaven above all other stars, and the light of which was\ninexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all\nthe rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this\nstar\" (Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. xix.). Why should we accept\nIgnatius' testimony to the star, and reject his testimony to the sun and\nmoon and stars singing to it? Or take Origen against Celsus: \"I have\nthis further to say to the Greeks, who will not believe that our Saviour\nwas born of a virgin: that the Creator of the world, if he pleases, can\nmake every animal bring forth its young in the same wonderful manner.\nAs, for instance, the _vultures propagate their kind in this uncommon\nway,_ as the best writers of natural history do acquaint us\" (chap,\nxxxiii., as quoted in \"Diegesis,\" p. 319). Or shall we turn to Iren\u00e6us,\nso invaluable a witness, since he knew Polycarp, who knew John, who knew\nJesus? Listen, then, to the reminiscences of John, as reported by\nIren\u00e6us: \"John related the words of the Lord concerning the times of the\nkingdom of God: the days would come when vines would grow, each with\n10,000 shoots, and to each shoot 10,000 branches, and to each branch\n10,000 twigs, and to each twig 10,000 clusters, and to each cluster\n10,000 grapes, and each grape which is crushed will yield twenty-five\nmeasures of wine. And when one of the saints will reach after one of\nthese clusters, another will cry: 'I am a better cluster than it; take\nme, and praise the Lord because of me.' Likewise, a grain of wheat will\nproduce 10,000 ears, each ear 10,000 grains, each grain ten pounds of\nfine white flour. Other fruits, and seeds, and herbs in proportion. The\nwhole brute creation, feeding on such things as the earth brings forth,\nwill become sociable and peaceable together, and subject to man with all\nhumility\" (\"Iren. Haer.,\" v., 33, 3-4, as quoted in Keim's \"Jesus of\nNazara,\" p. 45). What trust can be placed in the truth of facts to which\nthese men pretend to bear witness when we find St. Augustine preaching\nthat \"he himself, being at that time Bishop of Hippo Regius, had\npreached the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to a whole\nnation of men and women that had no heads, but had their eyes in their\nbosoms; and in countries still more southerly he preached to a nation\namong whom each individual had but one eye, and that situate in the\nmiddle of the forehead\" (\"Syntagma,\" p. 33, as quoted in \"Diegesis,\" p.\n257).\n\nEusebius tells us of a man, named Sanctus, who was tortured until his\nbody \"was one continued wound, mangled and shrivelled, that had entirely\nlost the form of man;\" and, when the tormentors began again on the same\nday, he \"recovered the former shape and habit of his limbs\" (\"Eccles.\nHist,\" bk. v., chap. i.). He then was sent to the amphitheatre, passing\ndown the lane of scourgers, was dragged about and lacerated by the wild\nbeast, roasted in an iron chair, and after this was \"at last\ndispatched!\" Other accounts, such as that of a man scourged till his\nbones were \"bared of the flesh,\" and then slowly tortured, are given as\nhistory, as though a man in that condition would not speedily bleed to\ndeath. But it is useless to give more of these foolish stories, which\nweary us as we toil through the writings of the early Church. Well may\nMosheim say that the \"Apostolic Fathers, and the other writers, who, in\nthe infancy of the Church, employed their pens in the cause of\nChristianity, were neither remarkable for their learning nor their\neloquence\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" p. 32). Thoroughly unreliable as they are,\nthey are useless as witnesses of supposed miraculous events; and, in\nrelating ordinary occurrences, they should not be depended upon in any\nmatter of importance, unless they be corroborated by more trustworthy\nhistorians.\n\nThe last point Paley urges in support of his proposition is, that the\naccounts contained in \"the historical Books of the New Testament\" are\n\"deserving of credit as histories,\" and that such is \"the situation of\nthe authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed that, if any one of\nthe four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose.\" This brings us,\nindeed, to the crucial point of our investigation, for, as we can gain\nso little information from external sources, we are perforce driven to\nthe Christian writings themselves. If they break down under criticism as\ncompletely as the external evidences have done, then Christianity\nbecomes hopelessly discredited as to its historical basis, and must\nsimply take rank with the other mythologies of the world. But before we\ncan accept the writings as historical, we are bound to investigate their\nauthenticity and credibility. Does the external evidence suffice to\nprove their authenticity? Do the contents of the books themselves\ncommend them as credible to our intelligence? It is possible that,\nalthough the historical evidence authenticating them be somewhat\ndefective, yet the thorough coherency and reasonableness of the books\nmay induce us to consider them as reliable; or, if the latter points be\nlacking from the supernatural character of the occurrences related, yet\nthe evidence of authenticity may be so overwhelming as to place the\naccuracy of the accounts beyond cavil. But if external evidence be\nwanting, and internal evidence be fatal to the truthfulness of the\nwritings, then it will become our duty to remove them from the temple of\nhistory, and to place them in the fairy gardens of fancy and of myth,\nwhere they may amuse and instruct the student, without misleading him as\nto questions of fact.\n\nThe positions which we here lay down are:--\n\n_a_. That forgeries bearing the names of Christ, and of the apostles,\nand of the early Fathers, were very common in the primitive Church.\n\n_b_. That there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the\napocryphal writings.\n\n_c_. That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writings\nwere selected.\n\n_d_. That before about A.D. 180 there is no trace of _four_ Gospels\namong the Christians.\n\n_e_. That before that date Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not\nselected as the four evangelists.\n\n_f_. That there is no evidence that the four Gospels mentioned about\nthat date were the same as those we have now.\n\n_g_. That there is evidence that two of them were not the same.\n\n_h_. That there is evidence that the earlier records were not the\nGospels now esteemed canonical.\n\n_i_. That the books themselves show marks of their later origin.\n\n_j_. That the language in which they are written is presumptive evidence\nagainst their authenticity.\n\n_k_. That they are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit, from (1)\nthe miracles with which they abound, (2) the numerous contradictions of\neach by the others, (3) the fact that the story of the hero, the\ndoctrines, the miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of\nthe Gospels; so that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of\nolder materials.\n\nPaley begins his argument by supposing that the first and fourth Gospels\nwere written by the apostles Matthew and John, \"from personal knowledge\nand recollection\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 87), and that they must therefore be\neither true, or wilfully false; the latter being most improbable, as\nthey would then be \"villains for no end but to teach honesty, and\nmartyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage\" (Ibid, page\n88). But supposing that Matthew and John wrote some Gospels, we should\nneed proof that the Gospels which we have, supposing them to be copies\nof those thus written, have not been much altered since they left the\napostles' hands. We should next ask how Matthew can report from\n\"personal knowledge and recollection\" all that comes in his Gospel\n_before he was called from his tax-gathering_, as well as many incidents\nat which he was not present? and whether his reliability as a witness is\nnot terribly weakened by his making no distinction between what was fact\nwithin his own knowledge, and what was simple hearsay? Further, we\nremark that some of the teaching is the reverse of teaching \"honesty,\"\nand that such instruction as Matt. v. 39-42 would, if accepted, exactly\nsuit \"villains;\" that the extreme glorification of the master would\nnaturally be reflected upon \"the twelve\" who followed him, and the\nauthority of the writers would thereby be much increased and confirmed;\nthat pure moral teaching on some points is no guarantee of the morality\nof the teacher, for a tyrant, or an ambitious priest, would naturally\nwish to discourage crime of some kinds in those he desired to rule; that\nsuch tyrant or priest could find no better creed to serve his purpose\nthan meek, submissive, non-resisting, heaven-seeking Christianity. Thus\nwe find Mosheim saying of Constantine: \"It is, indeed, probable that\nthis prince perceived the admirable tendency of the Christian doctrine\nand precepts to promote the stability of government, by preserving the\ncitizens in their obedience to the reigning powers, and in the practice\nof those virtues that render a State happy\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" p. 87). We\ndiscover Charlemagne enforcing Christianity among the Saxons by sword\nand fire, hoping that it would, among other things, \"induce them to\nsubmit more tamely to the government of the Franks\" (Ibid, p. 170). And\nwe see missionaries among the savages usurping \"a despotic dominion over\ntheir obsequious proselytes\" (Ibid, p. 157); and \"St. Boniface,\" the\n\"apostle of Germany,\" often employing \"violence and terror, and\nsometimes artifice and fraud, in order to multiply the number of\nChristians\" (Ibid, p. 169). Thus do \"villains\" very often \"teach\nhonesty.\" Nor is it true that these apostles were \"martyrs [their\nmartyrdom being unproved] without the least prospect of honour or\nadvantage;\" on the contrary, they desired to know what they would get by\nfollowing Jesus. \"_What shall we have_, therefore?... Ye which have\nfollowed me shall sit upon twelve thrones\" (Matt. xix. 27-30); and,\nfurther, in Mark ix. 28-31, we are told that any one who forsakes\nanything for Jesus shall receive \"an hundredfold _now in this time,\"_ as\nwell as eternal life in the world to come. Surely, then, there was\n\"prospect\" enough of \"honour and advantage\"? These remarks apply quite\nas strongly to Mark and Luke, neither of whom are pretended to be\neye-witnesses. Of Mark we know nothing, except that it is said that\nthere was a man named John, whose surname was Mark (Acts xii. 12 and\n25), who ran away from his work (Acts xv. 38); and a man named Marcus,\nnephew of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10), who may, or may not, be the same, but\nis probably somebody else, as he is with Paul; and one of the same name\nis spoken of (2 Tim. ii.) as \"profitable for the ministry,\" which John\nMark was not, and who (Philemon 24) was a \"fellow-labourer\" with Paul in\nRome, while John Mark was rejected in this capacity by Paul at Antioch.\nWhy Mark, or John Mark, should write a Gospel, he not having been an\neye-witness, or why Mark, or John Mark, should be identical with Mark\nthe Evangelist, only writers of Christian evidences can hope to\nunderstand.\n\nA. _That forgeries, bearing the names of Christ, of the apostles, and of\nthe early Fathers, were very common in the primitive Church_.\n\n\"The opinions, or rather the conjectures, of the learned concerning the\ntime when the books of the New Testament were collected into one volume,\nas also about the authors of that collection, are extremely different.\nThis important question is attended with great and almost insuperable\ndifficulties to us in these latter times\" (Mosheim's \"Eccles. Hist.,\" p.\n31). These difficulties arise, to a great extent, from the large number\nof forgeries, purporting to be writings of Christ, of the apostles, and\nof the apostolic Fathers, current in the early Church. \"For, not long\nafter Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and\ndoctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by\npersons whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings\ndiscovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all;\nproductions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent\nmen, as the writings of the holy apostles\" (Ibid, p. 31). \"Another\nerroneous practice was adopted by them, which, though it was not so\nuniversal as the other, was yet extremely pernicious, and proved a\nsource of numberless evils to the Christian Church. The Platonists and\nPythagoreans held it as a maxim, that it was not only lawful, but even\npraiseworthy, to deceive, and even to use the expedient of a lie, in\norder to advance the cause of truth and piety. The Jews, who lived in\nEgypt, had learned and received this maxim from them, before the coming\nof Christ, as appears incontestably from a multitude of ancient records;\nand the Christians were infected from both these sources with the same\npernicious error, as appears from the number of books attributed falsely\nto great and venerable names, from the Sibylline verses, and several\nsuppositious productions which were spread abroad in this and the\nfollowing century. It does not, indeed, seem probable that all these\npious frauds were chargeable upon the professors of real Christianity,\nupon those who entertained just and rational sentiments of the religion\nof Jesus. The greatest part of these fictitious writings undoubtedly\nflowed from the fertile invention of the Gnostic sects, though it cannot\nbe affirmed that even true Christians were entirely innocent and\nirreproachable in this matter\" (Ibid, p. 55). \"This disingenuous and\nvicious method of surprising their adversaries by artifice, and striking\nthem down, as it were, by lies and fiction, produced, among other\ndisagreeable effects, a great number of books, which were falsely\nattributed to certain great men, in order to give these spurious\nproductions more credit and weight\" (Ibid, page 77). These forged\nwritings being so widely circulated, it will be readily understood that\n\"It is not so easy a matter as is commonly imagined rightly to settle\nthe Canon of the New Testament. For my own part, I declare, with many\nlearned men, that, in the whole compass of learning, I know no question\ninvolved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties than this.\nThere are, indeed, considerable difficulties relating to the Canon of\nthe Old Testament, as appears by the large controversies between the\nProtestants and Papists on this head in the last, and latter end of the\npreceding, century; but these are solved with much more ease than those\nof the New.... In settling the old Testament collection, all that is\nrequisite is to disprove the claim of a few obscure books, which have\nbut the weakest pretences to be looked upon as Scripture; but, in the\nNew, we have not only a few to disprove, but a vast number to exclude\n[from] the Canon, which seem to have much more right to admission than\nany of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament; and, besides, to\nevidence the genuineness of all those which we do receive, since,\naccording to the sentiments of some who would be thought learned, there\nare none of them whose authority has not been controverted in the\nearliest ages of Christianity.... The number of books that claim\nadmission [to the canon] is very considerable. Mr. Toland, in his\ncelebrated catalogue, has presented us with the names of above\neighty.... There are many more of the same sort which he has not\nmentioned\" (J. Jones on \"The Canon of the New Testament,\" vol. i., pp.\n2-4. Ed. 1788).\n\nThe following list will give some idea of the number of the apocryphal\nwritings from which the four Gospels, and other books of the New\nTestament, finally emerge as canonical:--\n\nGOSPELS.\n\n1. Gospel according to the Hebrews.\n2. Gospel written by Judas Iscariot.\n3. Gospel of Truth, made use of by the Valentinians.\n4. Gospel of Peter.\n5. Gospel according to the Egyptians.\n6. Gospel of Valentinus.\n7. Gospel of Marcion.\n8. Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles.\n9. Gospel of Basilides.\n10. Gospel of Thomas (extant).\n11. Gospel of Matthias.\n12. Gospel of Tatian.\n13. Gospel of Scythianus.\n14. Gospel of Bartholomew.\n15. Gospel of Apelles.\n16. Gospels published by Lucianus and Hesychius\n17. Gospel of Perfection.\n18. Gospel of Eve.\n19. Gospel of Philip.\n20. Gospel of the Nazarenes (qy. same as first)\n21. Gospel of the Ebionites.\n22. Gospel of Jude.\n23. Gospel of Encratites.\n24. Gospel of Cerinthus.\n25. Gospel of Merinthus.\n26. Gospel of Thaddaeus.\n27. Gospel of Barnabas.\n28. Gospel of Andrew.\n29. Gospel of the Infancy (extant).\n30. Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate and Descent\n    of Christ to the Under World (extant).\n31. Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (extant).\n32. Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (extant).\n33. Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (extant).\n34. Syriac Gospel of the Boyhood of our Lord Jesus (extant).\n\nMISCELLANEOUS.\n\n35. Letter to Agbarus by Christ (extant).\n36. Letter to Leopas by Christ (extant).\n37. Epistle to Peter and Paul by Christ.\n38. Epistle by Christ produced by Manichees.\n39. Hymn by Christ (extant).\n40. Magical Book by Christ.\n41. Prayer by Christ (extant).\n42. Preaching of Peter.\n43. Revelation of Peter.\n44. Doctrine of Peter.\n45. Acts of Peter.\n46. Book of Judgment by Peter.\n47. Book, under the name of Peter, forged by Lentius.\n48. Preaching of Peter and Paul at Rome.\n49. The Vision, or Acts of Paul and Thecla.\n50. Acts of Paul.\n51. Preaching of Paul.\n52. Piece under name of Paul, forged by an \"anonymous writer in Cyprian's\n    time.\"\n53. Epistle to the Laodiceans under name of Paul (extant).\n54. Six letters to Seneca under name of Paul (extant).\n55. Anabaticon or Revelation of Paul.\n56. The traditions of Matthias.\n57. Book of James.\n58. Book, under name of James, forged by Ebionites.\n59. Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas.\n60. Acts of John.\n61. Book, under name of John, forged by Ebionites.\n62. Book under name of John.\n63. Book, under name of John, forged by Lentius.\n64. Acts of Andrew.\n65. Book under name of Andrew.\n66. Book, under name of Andrew, by Naxochristes and Leonides.\n67. Book under name of Thomas.\n68. Acts of Thomas.\n69. Revelation of Thomas.\n70. Writings of Bartholomew.\n71. Book, under name of Matthew, forged by Ebionites.\n72. Acts of the Apostles by Leuthon, or Seleucus.\n73. Acts of the Apostles used by Ebionites.\n74. Acts of the Apostles by Lenticius.\n75. Acts of the Apostles used by Manichees.\n76. History of the Twelve Apostles by Abdias (extant).\n77. Creed of the Apostles (extant).\n78. Constitutions of the Apostles (extant).\n79. Acts, under Apostles' names, by Leontius.\n80. Acts, under Apostles' names, by Lenticius.\n81. Catholic Epistle, in imitation of the Apostles of\n    Themis, on the Montanists.\n82. Revelation of Cerinthus, nominally apostolical.\n83. Book of the Helkesaites which fell from Heaven.\n84. Books of Lentitius.\n85. Revelation of Stephen.\n86. Works of Dionysius the Areopagite (extant).\n87. History of Joseph the carpenter (extant).\n88. Letter of Agbarus to Jesus (extant).\n89. Letter of Lentulus (extant).\n90. Story of Veronica (extant).\n91. Letter of Pilate to Tiberius (extant).\n92. Letters of Pilate to Herod (extant).\n93. Epistle of Pilate to C\u00e6sar (extant).\n94. Report of Pilate the Governor (extant).\n95. Trial and condemnation of Pilate (extant).\n96. Death of Pilate (extant).\n97. Story of Joseph of Arimathraea (extant).\n98. Revenging of the Saviour (extant).\n99. Epistle of Barnabas.\n100. Epistle of Polycarp.\n101-15. Fifteen epistles of Ignatius (see above, pages 217-220.)\n116. Shepherd of Hermas.\n117. First Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement (possibly partly\n     authentic).\n118. Second Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement.\n119. Apostolic Canons of Clement.\n120. Recognitions of Clement and Clementina.\n121-122. Two Epistles of St. Clement of Rome (written in Syriac).\n123-128. Six books of Justin Martyr.\n129-132. Four books of Justin Martyr.\n\nThe above are collected from Jones' On the Canon, Supernatural Religion,\nEusebius, Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels,\nDr. Giles' Christian Records, and the Apostolic Fathers.\n\nAfter reading this list, the student will be able to appreciate the\nvalue of Paley's argument, that, \"if it had been an easy thing in the\nearly times of the institution to have forged Christian writings, and to\nhave obtained currency and reception to the forgeries, we should have\nhad many appearing in the name of Christ himself\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 106).\nPaley acknowledges \"one attempt of this sort, deserving of the smallest\nnotice;\" and, in a note, adds three more of those mentioned above. Let\nus see what the evidence is of the genuineness of the letter to Agbarus,\nthe \"one attempt\" in question, as given by Eusebius. Agbarus, the prince\nof Edessa, reigning \"over the nations beyond the Euphrates with great\nglory,\" was afflicted with an incurable disease, and, hearing of Jesus,\nsent to him to entreat deliverance. The letter of Agbarus is carried to\nJesus, \"at Jerusalem, by Ananias, the courier,\" and the answer of Jesus,\nalso written, is returned by the same hands. The letter of Jesus runs as\nfollows, and is written in Syriac: \"Blessed art thou, O Agbarus, who,\nwithout seeing me, hast believed in me! For it is written concerning me,\nthat they who have seen me will not believe, that they who have not seen\nme may believe and live. But in regard to what thou hast written, that I\nshould come to thee, it is necessary that I should fulfil all things\nhere, for which I have been sent. And, after this fulfilment, thus to be\nreceived again by Him that sent me. And after I have been received up, I\nwill send to thee a certain one of my disciples, that he may heal thy\naffliction, and give life to thee, and to those who are with thee.\"\nAfter the ascension of Jesus, Thaddaeus, one of the seventy, is sent to\nEdessa, and lodges in the house of Tobias, the son of Tobias, and heals\nAgbarus and many others. \"These things were done in the 340th year\"\n(Eusebius does not state what he reckons from). The proof given by\nEusebius for the truth of the account is as follows: \"Of this also we\nhave the evidence, in a written answer, taken from the public records of\nthe city of Edessa, then under the government of the king. For, in the\npublic registers there, which embrace the ancient history and the\ntransactions of Agbarus, these circumstances respecting him are found\nstill preserved down to the present day. There is nothing, however, like\nhearing the epistles themselves, taken by us from the archives, and the\nstyle of it, as it has been literally translated by us, from the Syriac\nlanguage\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk. i., chap. xiii.). And Paley calls this\nan attempt at forgery, \"deserving of the smallest notice,\" and dismisses\nit in a few lines. It would be interesting to know for what other\n\"Scripture,\" canonical or uncanonical, there is evidence of authenticity\nso strong as for this; exactness of detail in names; absence of any\nexaggeration more than is implied in recounting any miracle; the\ntransaction recorded in the public archives; seen there by Eusebius\nhimself; copied down and translated by him; such evidence for any one of\nthe Gospels would make belief far easier than it is at present. The\nassertion of Eusebius was easily verifiable at the time (to use the\nfavourite argument of Christians for the truth of any account); and if\nEusebius here wrote falsely, of what value is his evidence on any other\npoint? A Freethinker may fairly urge that Eusebius is _not_ trustworthy,\nand that this assertion of his about the archives is as likely to be\nfalse as true; but the Christian can scarcely admit this, when so much\ndepends, for him, on the reliability of the great Church historian, all\nwhose evidence would become worthless if he be once allowed to have\ndeliberately fabricated that which did not exist.\n\nWe have already noticed the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and\npointed out the numerous forgeries circulated under their names, and the\nconsequent haze hanging over all the early Christian writers, until we\nreach the time of Justin Martyr. Thus we entirely destroy the whole\nbasis of Paley's argument, that \"the historical books of the New\nTestament ... are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of Christian\nwriters, beginning with those who were contemporary with the Apostles,\nor who immediately followed them\" (\"Evidences,\" page 111;) for we have\nno certain writings of any such contemporaries. In dealing with the\npositions _f_. and _h_., we shall seek to prove that in the writings of\nthe Apostolic Fathers--taking them as genuine--as well as in Justin\nMartyr, and in other Christian works up to about A.D. 180, the\nquotations said to be from the canonical Gospels conclusively show that\nother Gospels were used, and not our present ones; but no further\nevidence than the long list of apocryphal writings, given on pp. 240-243\nis needed in order to prove our first proposition, that _forgeries,\nbearing the name of Christ, of the apostles, and of the early fathers,\nwere very common in the primitive Church_.\n\nB. \"_That there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the\napocryphal writings_.\" \"Their pretences are specious and plausible, for\nthe most part going under the name of our Saviour himself, his apostles,\ntheir companions, or immediate successors. They are generally thought to\nbe cited by the first Christian writers with the same authority (at\nleast, many of them) as the sacred books we receive. This Mr. Toland\nlabours hard to persuade us; but, what is more to be regarded, men of\ngreater merit and probity have unwarily dropped expressions of the like\nnature. _Everybody knows_ (says the learned Casaubon against Cardinal\nBaronius) _that Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the\nrest of the primitive writers, were wont to approve and cite books which\nnow all men know to be apocryphal. Clemens Alexandrinus_ (says his\nlearned annotator, Sylburgius) _was too much pleased with apocryphal\nwritings_. Mr. Dodwell (in his learned dissertation on Iren\u00e6us) tells us\nthat, _till Trajan, or, perhaps, Adrian's time, no canon was fixed; the\nsupposititious pieces of the heretics were received by the faithful, the\napostles' writings bound up with theirs, and indifferently used in the\nchurches._ To mention no more, the learned Mr. Spanheim observes, _that\nClemens Alexandrinus and Origen very often cite apocryphal books under\nthe express name of Scripture_.... How much Mr. Whiston has enlarged the\nCanon of the New Testament, is sufficiently known to the learned among\nus. For the sake of those who have not perused his truly valuable books\nI would observe, that he imagines the 'Constitutions of the Apostles' to\nbe inspired, and of greater authority than the occasional writings of\nsingle Apostles and Evangelists. That the two Epistles of Clemens, the\nDoctrine of the Apostles, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of\nHermas, the second book of Esdras, the Epistles of Ignatius, and the\nEpistle of Polycarp, are to be reckoned among the sacred authentic books\nof the New Testament; as also that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation,\nPreaching, Gospel and Acts of Peter, were sacred books, and, if they\nwere extant, should be of the same authority as any of the rest\" (J.\nJones, on the \"Canon,\" p. 4-6). This same learned writer further says:\n\"That many, or most of the books of the New Testament, have been\nrejected by heretics in the first ages, is also certain. Faustus\nManich\u00e6us and his followers are said to have rejected all the New\nTestament, as not written by the Apostles. Marcion rejected all, except\nSt. Luke's Gospel. The Manichees disputed much against the authority of\nSt. Matthew's Gospel. The Alogians rejected the Gospel of St. John as\nnot his, but made by Cerinthus. The Acts of the Apostles were rejected\nby Severus, and the sect of his name. The same rejected all Paul's\nEpistles, as also did the Ebionites, and the Helkesaites. Others, who\ndid not reject all, rejected some particular epistles.... Several of the\nbooks of the New Testament were not universally received, even among\nthem who were not heretics, in the first ages.... Several of them have\nhad their authority disputed by learned men in later times\" (Ibid, pp.\n8, 9).\n\nIf recognition by the early writers be taken as a proof of the\nauthenticity of the works quoted, many apocryphal documents must stand\nhigh. Eusebius, who ranks together the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of\nHermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the\nInstitutions of the Apostles, and the Revelation of John (now accounted\ncanonical) says that these were not embodied in the Canon (in his time)\n\"notwithstanding that they are recognised by most ecclesiastical\nwriters\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk. iii., chap. xxv.). The Canon, in his\ntime, was almost the same as at present, but the canonicity of the\nepistles of James and Jude, the 2nd of Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of John,\nand the Revelation, was disputed even as late as when he wrote. Iren\u00e6us\nranks the Pastor of Hermas as Scripture; \"he not only knew, but also\nadmitted the book called Pastor\" (Ibid, bk. v., chap. viii.). \"The\nPastor of Hermas is another work which very nearly secured permanent\ncanonical rank with the writings of the New Testament. It was quoted as\nHoly Scripture by the Fathers, and held to be divinely inspired, and it\nwas publicly read in the churches. It has place with the Epistle of\nBarnabas in the Sinaitic Codex, after the canonical books\"\n(\"Supernatural Religion,\" vol. i., p. 261).\n\nThe two Epistles of Clement are only \"preserved to us in the Codex\nAlexandrinus, a MS. assigned by the most competent judges to the second\nhalf of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, in which these\nEpistles follow the books of the New Testament. The second Epistle ...\nthus shares with the first the honour of a canonical position in one of\nthe most ancient codices of the New Testament\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., p.\n220). These epistles are, also, amongst those mentioned in the Apostolic\nCanons. \"Until a comparatively late date this [the first of Clement]\nEpistle was quoted as Holy Scripture\" (Ibid, p. 222). Origen quotes the\nEpistle of Barnabas as Scripture, and calls it a \"Catholic Epistle\"\n(Ibid, p. 237), and this same Father regards the Shepherd of Hermas as\nalso divinely inspired. (Norton's \"Genuineness of the Gospels,\" vol. i.,\np. 341). Gospels, other than the four canonical, are quoted as authentic\nby the earliest Christian writers, as we shall see in establishing\nposition _h_; thus destroying Paley's contention (\"Evidences,\" p. 187)\nthat there are no quotations from apocryphal writings in the Apostolical\nFathers, the fact being that such quotations are sown throughout their\nsupposed writings.\n\nIt is often urged that the expression, \"it is written,\" is enough to\nprove that the quotation following it is of canonical authority.\n\n\"Now with regard to the value of the expression, 'it is written,' it may\nbe remarked that in no case could its use, in the Epistle of Barnabas,\nindicate more than individual opinion, and it could not, for reasons to\nbe presently given, be considered to represent the opinion of the\nChurch. In the very same chapter in which the formula is used in\nconnection with the passage we are considering, it is also employed to\nintroduce a quotation from the Book of Enoch, [Greek: peri hou gegraptai\nhos Henoch legei], and elsewhere (c. xii.) he quotes from another\napocryphal book as one of the prophets.... He also quotes (c. vi.) the\napocryphal book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture, and in like manner several\nunknown works. When it is remembered that the Epistle of Clement to the\nCorinthians, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas itself, and\nmany other apocryphal works have been quoted by the Fathers as Holy\nScripture, the distinctive value of such an expression may be\nunderstood\" (Ibid, pp. 242, 243). \"The first Christian writers ... quote\necclesiastical books from time to time as if they were canonical\"\n(Westcott on \"The Canon,\" p. 9). \"In regard to the use of the word\n[Greek: gegraptai], introducing the quotation, the same writer\n[Hilgenfeld] urges reasonably enough that it cannot surprise us at a\ntime when we learn from Justin Martyr that the Gospels were read\nregularly at public worship [or rather, that the memorials of the\nApostles were so read]; it ought not, however, to be pressed too far as\ninvolving a claim to special divine inspiration, as the same word is\nused in the epistle in regard to the apocryphal book of Enoch; and it is\nclear, also, from Justin, that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet\nformed, but only forming\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" Rev. W.\nSanday, p. 73. Ed. 1876). Yet, in spite of all this, Paley says, \"The\nphrase, 'it is written,' was the very form in which the Jews quoted\ntheir Scriptures. It is not probable, therefore, that he would have used\nthis phrase, and without qualification, of any books but what had\nacquired a kind of Scriptural authority\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 113).\nTischendorf argues on Paley's lines and says that \"it was natural,\ntherefore, to apply this form of expression to the Apostles' writings,\nas soon as they had been placed in the Canon with the books of the Old\nTestament. When we find, therefore, in ancient ecclesiastical writings,\nquotations from the Gospels introduced with this formula, 'it is\nwritten,' we must infer that, at the time when the expression was used,\nthe Gospels were certainly treated as of equal authority with the books\nof the Old Testament\" (\"When Were Our Gospels Written?\" p. 89. Eng. Ed.,\n1867). Dr. Tischendorf, if he believe in his own argument, must greatly\nenlarge his Canon of the New Testament.\n\nPaley's further plea that \"these apocryphal writings were not read in\nthe churches of Christians\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 187) is thoroughly false.\nEusebius tells us of the Pastor of Hermas: \"We know that it has been\nalready in public use in our churches\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk. iii., ch.\n3). Clement's Epistle \"was publicly read in the churches at the Sunday\nmeetings of Christians\" (\"Sup. Rel,\" vol. i., p. 222). Dionysius of\nCorinth mentions this same early habit of reading any valued writing in\nthe churches: \"In this same letter he mentions that of Clement to the\nCorinthians, showing that it was the practice to read in the churches,\neven from the earliest times. 'To-day,' says he, 'we have passed the\nLord's holy-day, in which we have read your epistle, in reading which we\nshall always have our minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also,\nfrom that written to us before by Clement'\" (Eusebius' \"Eccles. Hist.,\"\nbk. iv., ch. 23). So far is \"reading in the churches\" to be accepted as\na proof, even of canonicity, much less of genuineness, that Eusebius\nremarks that \"the disputed writings\" were \"publicly used by many in most\nof the churches\" (Ibid, bk. iii., ch. 31). Paley then takes as a further\nmark of distinction, between canonical and uncanonical, that the latter\n\"were not admitted into their volume\" and \"do not appear in their\ncatalogues,\" but we have already seen that the only MS. copy of\nClement's first Epistle is in the Codex Alexandrinus (see ante p. 246),\nwhile the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas find their place\nin the Sinaitic Codex (see ante p. 246); the second Epistle of Clement\nis also in the Codex Alexandrinus, and both epistles are in the\nApostolic constitutions (see ante p. 247). The Canon of\nMuratori--worthless as it is, it is used as evidence by\nChristians--brackets the Apocalypse of John and of Peter (\"Sup. Rel.,\"\nvol. ii., p. 241). Canon Westcott says: \"'Apocryphal' writings were\nadded to manuscripts of the New Testament, and read in churches; and the\npractice thus begun continued for a long time. The Epistle of Barnabas\nwas still read among the 'apocryphal Scriptures' in the time of Jerome;\na translation of the Shepherd of Hermas is found in a MS. of the Latin\nBible as late as the fifteenth century. The spurious Epistle to the\nLaodicenes is found very commonly in English copies of the Vulgate from\nthe ninth century downwards, and an important catalogue of the Apocrypha\nof the New Testament is added to the Canon of Scripture subjoined to the\nChronographia of Nicephorus, published in the ninth century\" (\"On the\nCanon,\" pp. 8, 9). Paley's fifth distinction, that they \"were not\nnoticed by their [heretical] adversaries\" is as untrue as the preceding\nones, for even the fragments of \"the adversaries\" preserved in Christian\ndocuments bear traces of reference to the apocryphal writings, although,\nowing to the orthodox custom of destroying unorthodox books, references\nof any sort by heretics are difficult to find. Again, Paley should have\nknown, when he asserted that the uncanonical writings were not alleged\nas of authority, that the heretics _did_ appeal to gospels other than\nthe canonical. Marcion, for instance, maintained a Gospel varying from\nthe recognised one, while the Ebionites contended that their Hebrew\nGospel was the only true one. Eusebius further tells us of books\n\"adduced by the heretics under the name of the Apostles, such, viz., as\ncompose the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthew, and others beside\nthem, or such as contain the Acts of the Apostles, by Andrew and John,\nand others\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" bk. iii., ch. 25. See also ante p. 246). It\nis hard to believe that Paley was so grossly ignorant as to know nothing\nof these facts; did he then deliberately state what he knew to be\nutterly untrue? His last \"mark\" does not touch our position, as the\ncommentaries, etc., are too late to be valuable as evidence for the\nalleged superiority of the canonical writings during the first two\ncenturies. The other section of Paley's argument, that \"when the\nScriptures [a very vague word] are quoted, or alluded to, they are\nquoted with peculiar respect, as books _sui generis_\" is met by the\ndetails given above as to the fashion in which the Fathers referred to\nthe writings now called uncanonical, and by the evidence adduced in this\nsection we may fairly claim to have proved that, so far as external\ntestimony goes, _there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the\napocryphal writings_.\n\nBut there is another class of evidence relied upon by Christians,\nwherewith they seek to build up an impassable barrier between their\nsacred books and the dangerous uncanonical Scriptures, namely, the\nintrinsic difference between them, the dignity of the one, and the\npuerility of the other. Of the uncanonical Gospels Dr. Ellicott writes:\n\"Their real demerits, their mendacities, their absurdities, their\ncoarseness, the barbarities of their style, and the inconsequence of\ntheir narratives, have never been excused or condoned\" (\"Cambridge\nEssays,\" for 1856, p. 153, as quoted in introduction of \"The Apocryphal\nGospels,\" by B.H. Cowper, p. x. Ed. 1867). \"We know before we read them\nthat they are weak, silly, and profitless--that they are despicable\nmonuments even of religious fiction\" (Ibid, p. xlvii). How far are such\nharsh expressions consonant with fact? It is true that many of the tales\nrelated are absurd, but are they more absurd than the tales related in\nthe canonical Gospels? One story, repeated with variations, runs as\nfollows: \"This child Jesus, being five years old, was playing at the\ncrossing of a stream, and he collected the running waters into pools,\nand immediately made them pure, and by his word alone he commanded them.\nAnd having made some soft clay, he fashioned out of it twelve sparrows;\nand it was the Sabbath when he did these things. And there were also\nmany other children playing with him. And a certain Jew, seeing what\nJesus did, playing on the Sabbath, went immediately and said to Joseph,\nhis father, Behold, thy child is at the water-course, and hath taken\nclay and formed twelve birds, and hath profaned the Sabbath. And Joseph\ncame to the place, and when he saw him, he cried unto him, saying, Why\nart thou doing these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to\ndo? And Jesus clapped his hands, and cried unto the sparrows, and said\nto them, Go away; and the sparrows flew up and departed, making a noise.\nAnd the Jews who saw it were astonished, and went and told their leaders\nwhat they had seen Jesus do\" (\"Gospel of Thomas: Apocryphal Gospels,\"\nB.H. Cowper, pp. 130, 131). Making the water pure by a word is no more\nabsurd than turning water into wine (John ii. 1-11); or than sending an\nangel to trouble it, and thereby making it health-giving (John v. 2-4);\nor than casting a tree into bitter waters, and making them sweet (Ex.\nxv. 25). The fashioning of twelve sparrows out of soft clay is not\nstranger than making a woman out of a man's rib (Gen. ii. 21); neither\nis it more, or nearly so, curious as making clay with spittle, and\nplastering it on a blind man's eyes in order to make him see (John ix.\n6); nay, arguing _\u00e0 la_ F.D. Maurice, a very strong reason might be made\nout for this proceeding. Thus, Jesus came to reveal the Father to men,\nand his miracles were specially arranged to show how God works in the\nworld; by turning the water into wine, and by multiplying the loaves, he\nreminds men that it is God whose hand feeds them by all the ordinary\nprocesses of nature. In this instructive miracle of the clay formed into\nsparrows, which fly away at his bidding, Jesus reveals his unity with\nthe Father, as the Word by whom all things were originally made; for\n\"out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and\nevery fowl of the air\" (Gen. ii. 19) at the creation, and when the Son\nwas revealed to bring about the new creation, what more appropriate\nmiracle could he perform than this reminiscence of paradise, clearly\nsuggesting to the Jews that the Jehovah, who, of old, formed the fowls\nof the air out of the ground, was present among them in the incarnate\nWord, performing the same mighty work? Exactly in this fashion do\nMaurice, Robertson, and others of their school, deal with the miracles\nof Christ recorded in the canonical gospels (see Maurice on the\nMiracles, Sermon IV., in \"What is Revelation?\"). The number, twelve, is\nalso significant, being that of the tribes of Israel, and the local\ncolouring--the complaining Jews and the violated Sabbath--is in perfect\nharmony with the other gospels. The action of Jesus, vindicating the\nconduct complained of by the performance of a miracle, is in the fullest\naccord with similar instances related in the received stories. It is,\nhowever, urged that some of the miracles of Jesus, as given in the\napocrypha, are dishonouring to him, because of their destructive\ncharacter; the son of Annas, the scribe, spills the water the child\nJesus has collected, and Jesus gets angry and says, \"Thou also shalt\nwither like a tree;\" and \"suddenly the boy withered altogether\" (Ap.\nGos., p. 131). This seems in thorough unity with the spirit Jesus showed\nin later life, when he cursed the fig-tree, because it did not bear\nfruit in the wrong season, and \"presently the fig-tree withered away\"\n(Matt. xxi. 19). Or a child, running against him purposely, falls dead;\nor a master lifting his hand against him, has the arm withered which\nessays to strike. Later, of Judas, who betrays him, we read that,\n\"falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels\ngushed out\" (Acts i. 18); while, in the Old Testament, which speaks of\nChrist, we are told, in figures, we learn that, when Jeroboam tried to\nseize a prophet, \"his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so\nthat he could not pull it in again to him\" (1 Kings xiii. 4). If\ndestructiveness be thought injurious when related of Jesus, what shall\nwe say to the wanton destruction of the herd of swine which Jesus filled\nwith devils, and sent racing into the sea? (Matt. viii. 28-34.) The\nmiracle the child works to rectify a mistake of his father's in his\ncarpenter's business, taking hold of some wood which has been cut too\nshort and lengthening it, is certainly not more silly than the miracle\nworked by the man when money is short, and he (Matt. xvii. 24-27) sends\nPeter to catch a fish with money in its mouth (why not, by the way, have\nfished directly for the coin? it would be quite as possible for a coin\nto transfix itself on a hook, as for a fish, with a piece of money in\nits mouth, to swallow a hook). Other miracles recorded in the apocryphal\ngospels, of healing and of raising the dead, are identical in spirit\nwith those told of him in the canonical. We may also remark that, unless\nthere were some received traditions of miracles worked by Jesus in his\nhousehold, there is no reason for the evident expectation of some help\nwhich is said to have been shown by Mary when the guests want wine at\nthe wedding (John ii. 3-5). That verse 11 states that this was his first\nmiracle is only one of the many inconsistencies of the gospel stories.\nPassing from these gospels of the infancy to those which tell of the\nsufferings of Jesus, we shall find in the \"Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts\nof Pilate,\" much that shows their full accordance with the received\nwritings of the New Testament. This point is so important, as equalising\nthe canonical and uncanonical gospels, that no excuse is needed for\nproving it by somewhat extensive extracts. The gospel opens as follows:\n\"I, Ananias, a provincial warden, being a disciple of the law, from the\ndivine Scriptures recognised our Lord Jesus Christ, and came to him by\nfaith; and was also accounted worthy of holy baptism. Now, when\nsearching the records of what was wrought in the time of our Lord Jesus\nChrist, which the Jews laid up under Pontius Pilate, I found that these\nActs were written in Hebrew, and by the good pleasure of God I\ntranslated them into Greek for the information of all who call on the\nname of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the government of our Lord Flavius\nTheodosius, the 17th year, and in the 6th consulate of Flavius\nValentinianus, in the 9th indiction.\" It may here be noted for what it\nis worth that Justin Martyr (1st Apology, chap, xxxv.) refers the Romans\nto the Acts of Pilate as public documents open to them, which is\ntestimony far stronger than he gives to any canonical gospel. \"In the\n15th year of the government of Tiberius C\u00e6sar, King of the Romans, and\nof Herod, King of Galilee, the 9th year of his reign, on the 8th before\nthe calends of April, which is the 25th of March; in the consulship of\nRufus and Rubellio; in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, when Joseph\nCaiaphas was high priest of the Jews. Whatsoever, after the cross and\npassion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour God, Nicodemus recorded\nand wrote in Hebrew, and left to posterity, is after this fashion\"\n(\"Apocryphal Gospels,\" B.H. Cowper, pp. 229, 230). In the first chapter\nwe learn how the Jews came to Pilate, and accuse Jesus, \"that he saith\nhe is the son of God and a king; moreover, he profaneth the Sabbaths,\nand wisheth to abolish the law of our fathers.\" After some conversation,\nJesus is brought, and in chap. 2 we read the message from Pilate's wife,\nand \"Pilate, having called the Jews, said to them, Ye know that my wife\nis religious, and inclined to practise Judaism with you. They said unto\nhim, Yea, we know it. Pilate saith to them, Behold my wife hath sent to\nme, saying, Have nothing to do with this just man, for I have suffered\nvery much because of him in the night. But the Jews answered, and said\nto Pilate, Did we not tell thee that he is a magician? Behold, he hath\nsent a dream to thy wife.\" The trial goes on, and Pilate declares the\ninnocence of Jesus, and then confers with him as in John xviii. 33-37.\nThen comes the question (chaps, iii. and iv.): \"Pilate saith unto him,\nWhat is truth? Jesus saith to him, Truth is from heaven. Pilate saith,\nIs truth not upon earth? Jesus saith to Pilate, Thou seest how they who\nsay the truth are judged by those who have power upon earth. And,\nleaving Jesus within the pr\u00e6torium, Pilate went out to the Jews, and\nsaith unto them, I find no fault in him.\" The conversation between\nPilate and the Jews is then related more fully than in the canonical\naccounts, and after this follows a scene of much pathos, which is far\nmore in accord with the rest of the tale than the accepted story,\nwherein the multitude are represented as crying with one voice for his\ndeath. Nicodemus (chap. v.) first rises and speaks for Jesus: \"Release\nhim, and wish no evil against him. If the miracles which he doth are of\nGod, they will stand; but, if of men, they will come to nought... Now,\ntherefore, release this man, for he is not deserving of death.\" Then\n(chaps. vi., vii., and viii.): \"One of the Jews, starting up, asked the\ngovernor that he might say a word. The governor saith, If thou wilt\nspeak, speak. And the Jew said, I lay thirty-eight years on my bed in\npain and affliction. And when Jesus came, many demoniacs, and persons\nsuffering various diseases, were healed by him; and some young men had\npity on me, and carried me with my bed, and took me to him; and when\nJesus saw me, he had compassion, and said the word to me, Take up thy\nbed, and walk; and I took up my bed and walked. The Jews said to Pilate,\nAsk him what day it was when he was healed. He that was healed said, On\nthe Sabbath. The Jews said, Did we not tell thee so? that on the Sabbath\nhe healeth and casteth out demons? And another Jew, starting up, said, I\nwas born blind; I heard a voice, but saw no person; and as Jesus passed\nby, I cried with a loud voice, Have pity on me, Son of David, and he had\npity on me, and placed his hands upon my eyes, and immediately I saw.\nAnd another Jew, leaping up, said, I was a cripple, and he made me\nstraight with a word. And another said, I was a leper, and he healed me\nwith a word. And a certain woman cried out from a distance, and said, I\nhad an issue of blood, and I touched the hem of his garment, and my\nissue of blood, which had been for twelve years, was stayed. The Jews\nsaid, We have a law not to admit a woman to witness. And others, a\nmultitude, both of men and of women, cried and said, This man is a\nprophet, and demons are subject unto him. Pilate said to those who said\nthat demons were subject to him, Why were your teachers not also subject\nto him? They say unto Pilate, We know not. And others said, That he\nraised up Lazarus from the sepulchre, when he had been dead four days.\nAnd the governor, becoming afraid, said to all the multitude of the\nJews, Why will ye shed innocent blood?\" The story proceeds much as in\nthe gospels, the names of the malefactors being given; and when Pilate\nremarks the three hours' darkness to the Jews, they answer, \"An eclipse\nof the sun has happened in the usual manner\" (chap. xi.). Chap. xiii.\ngives a full account of the conversation between the Jews and the Roman\nsoldiers alluded to in Matt. xxviii. 11-15. The remaining chapters\nrelate the proceedings of the Jews after the resurrection, and are of no\nspecial interest. There is a second Gospel of Nicodemus, varying on some\npoints from the one quoted above, which assumes to be \"compiled by a\nJew, named Aeneas; translated from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek, by\nNicodemus, a Roman Toparch.\" Then we find a second part of the Gospel of\nNicodemus, or \"The Descent of Christ to the Under World,\" which relates\nhow Jesus descended into Hades, and how he ordered Satan to be bound,\nand then he \"blessed Adam on the forehead with the sign of the cross;\nand he did this also to the patriarchs, and the prophets, and martyrs,\nand forefathers, and took them up, and sprang up out of Hades.\" This\nstory manifestly runs side by side with the tradition in 1. Pet. iii.\n19, 20, wherein it is stated that Jesus \"went and preached unto the\nspirits in prison,\" and that preaching is placed between his death (v.\n18) and his resurrection (v. 21). The saving by baptism (v. 21) is also\nalluded to in this connection in Nicodemus, wherein (chap, xi.) the dead\nare baptised. The Latin versions of the Gospels of Nicodemus vary in\ndetails from the Greek, but not more than do the four canonical. In\nthese, as in all the apocryphal writings, there is nothing specially to\ndistinguish them from the accepted Scriptures; improbabilities and\ncontradictions abound in all; miracles render them all alike incredible;\nmyriad chains of similarity bind them all to each other, necessitating\neither the rejection of all as fabulous, or the acceptance of all as\nhistorical. Whether we regard external or internal evidence, we come to\nthe same conclusion, _that there is nothing to distinguish the canonical\nfrom the uncanonical writings_.\n\nC. _That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writings\nwere selected_. Tremendously damaging to the authenticity of the New\nTestament as this statement is, it is yet practically undisputed by\nChristian scholars. Canon Westcott says frankly: \"It cannot be denied\nthat the Canon was formed gradually. The condition of society and the\ninternal relations of the Church presented obstacles to the immediate\nand absolute determination of the question, which are disregarded now,\nonly because they have ceased to exist. The tradition which represents\nSt. John as fixing the contents of the New Testament, betrays the spirit\nof a later age\" (Westcott \"On the Canon,\" p. 4). \"The track, however,\nwhich we have to follow is often obscure and broken. The evidence of the\nearliest Christian writers is not only uncritical and casual, but is\nalso fragmentary\" (Ibid, p. 11). \"From the close of the second century,\nthe history of the Canon is simple, and its proof clear... Before that\ntime there is more or less difficulty in making out the details of the\nquestion.... Here, however, we are again beset with peculiar\ndifficulties. The proof of the Canon is embarrassed both by the general\ncharacteristics of the age in which it was fixed, and by the particular\nform of the evidence on which it first depends. The spirit of the\nancient world was essentially uncritical\" (Ibid, pp. 6-8). In dealing\nwith \"the early versions of the New Testament,\" Westcott admits that \"it\nis not easy to over-rate the difficulties which beset any inquiry into\nthe early versions of the New Testament\" (\"On the Canon,\" p. 231). He\nspeaks of the \"comparatively scanty materials and vague or conflicting\ntraditions\" (Ibid). The \"original versions of the East and West\" are\ncarefully examined by him; the oldest is the \"Peshito,\" in Syriac--i.e.,\nAram\u00e6an, or Syro-Chaldaic. This must, of course, be only a translation\nof the Testament, if it be true that the original books were written in\nGreek. The time when this version was formed is unknown, and Westcott\nargues that \"the very obscurity which hangs over its origin is a proof\nof its venerable age\" (Ibid, p. 240); and he refers it to \"the first\nhalf of the second century,\" while acknowledging that he does so\n\"without conclusive authority\" (Ibid). The Peshito omits the second and\nthird epistles of John, second of Peter, that of Jude, and the\nApocalypse. The origin of the Western version, in Latin, is quite as\nobscure as that of the Syriac; and it is also incomplete, compared with\nthe present Canon, omitting the epistle of James and the second of Peter\n(Ibid, p. 254). All the evidence so laboriously gathered together by the\nlearned Canon proves our proposition to demonstration. But, it is\nadmitted on all hands, that \"it is impossible to assign any certain time\nwhen a collection of these books, either by the Apostles, or by any\ncouncil of inspired or learned men, near their time, was made.... The\nmatter is too certain to need much to be said of it\" (Jones \"On the\nCanon,\" vol. i, p. 7). Jones adds that he hopes to confute \"these\nspecious objections ... in the fourth part of this book,\" in which he\nendeavours to prove the Gospels and Acts to be _genuine_, so that it\ndoes not much matter when they were collected together. In the time of\nEusebius the Canon was still unsettled, as he ranks among the disputed\nand spurious works, the epistles of James and Jude, second of Peter,\nsecond and third of John, and the Apocalypse (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk. iii.,\nchap. 25). It is not necessary to offer any further proof in support of\nour position, _that it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical\nwritings were selected._\n\nD. _That before about_ A.D. 180 _there is no trace of_ FOUR _gospels\namong the Christians_. The first step we take in attacking the four\ncanonical gospels, apart from the writings of the New Testament as a\nwhole, is to show that there was no \"sacred quaternion\" spoken of before\nabout A.D. 180, i.e., the supposed time of Iren\u00e6us. Iren\u00e6us is said to\nhave been a bishop of Lyons towards the close of the second century; we\nfind him mentioned in the letter sent by the Churches of Vienne and\nLyons to \"brethren in Asia and Phrygia,\" as \"our brother and companion\nIren\u00e6us,\" and as a presbyter much esteemed by them (\"Eccles. Hist.\" bk.\nv., chs. 1, 4). This letter relates a persecution which occurred in \"the\n17th year of the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Verus,\" i.e., A.D. 177.\nPaley dates the letter about A.D. 170, but as it relates the persecution\nof A.D. 177, it is difficult to see how it could be written about seven\nyears before the persecution took place. In that persecution Pothinus,\nbishop of Lyons, is said to have been slain; he was succeeded by Iren\u00e6us\n(Ibid bk. v., ch. 5), who, therefore, could not possibly have been\nbishop before A.D. 177, while he ought probably to be put a year or two\nlater, since time is needed, after the persecution, to send the account\nof it to Asia by the hands of Iren\u00e6us, and he must be supposed to have\nreturned and to have settled down in Lyons before he wrote his\nvoluminous works; A.D. 180 is, therefore, an almost impossibly early\ndate, but it is, at any rate, the very earliest that can be pretended\nfor the testimony now to be examined. The works against heresies were\nprobably written, the first three about A.D. 190, and the remainder\nabout A.D. 198. Iren\u00e6us is the first Christian writer who mentions\n_four_ Gospels; he says:--\"Matthew produced his Gospel, written among\nthe Hebrews, in their own dialect, whilst Peter and Paul proclaimed the\nGospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these,\nMark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in\nwriting what had been preached by him. And Luke, the companion of Paul,\ncommitted to writing the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the\ndisciple of our Lord, the same that lay upon his bosom, also published\nthe Gospel, whilst he was yet at Ephesus in Asia\" (Quoted by Eusebius,\nbk. v., ch. 8, from 3rd bk. of \"Refutation and Overthrow of False\nDoctrine,\" by Iren\u00e6us).\n\nThe reasons which compelled Iren\u00e6us to believe that there must be\nneither less nor more than four Gospels in the Church are so convincing\nthat they deserve to be here put on record. \"It is not possible that the\nGospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since\nthere are four zones [sometimes translated 'corners' or 'quarters'] of\nthe world in which we live, and four Catholic spirits, while the Church\nis scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and grounding of\nthe Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting she\nshould have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and\nvivifying men afresh. From which fact it is evident that the Word, the\nArtificer of all, He that sitteth upon the Cherubim, and contains all\nthings, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four\naspects, but bound together by one Spirit.... For the Cherubim too were\nfour-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son\nof God.... And, therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things,\namong which Christ Jesus is seated\" (\"Iren\u00e6us,\" bk. iii., chap, xi.,\nsec. 8). The Rev. Dr. Giles, writing on Justin Martyr, the great\nChristian apologist, candidly says: \"The very names of the Evangelists\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him--do not occur\nonce in all his works. It is, therefore, childish to say that he has\nquoted from our existing Gospels, and so proves their existence, as they\nnow are, in his own time.... He has nowhere remarked, like those Fathers\nof the Church who lived several ages after him, that there are _four_\nGospels of higher importance and estimation than any others.... All this\nwas the creation of a later age, but it is wanting in Justin Martyr, and\nthe defect leads us to the conclusion that our four Gospels had not then\nemerged from obscurity, but were still, if in being, confounded with a\nlarger mass of Christian traditions which, about this very time, were\nbeginning to be set down in writing\" (\"Christian Records,\" pp. 71, 72).\n\nHad these four Gospels emerged before A.D. 180, we should most certainly\nfind some mention of them in the Mishna. \"The Mishna, a collection of\nJewish traditions compiled about the year 180, takes no notice of\nChristianity, though it contains a chapter headed 'De Cultu Peregrino,\nof strange worship.' This omission is thought by Dr. Paley to prove\nnothing, for, says he, 'it cannot be disputed but that Christianity was\nperfectly well known to the world at this time.' It cannot, certainly,\nbe disputed that Christianity was _beginning_ to be known to the world,\nbut whether it had yet emerged from the lower classes of persons among\nwhom it originated, may well be doubted. It is a prevailing error, in\nbiblical criticism, to suppose that the whole world was feelingly alive\nto what was going on in small and obscure parts of it. The existence of\nChristians was probably known to the compilers of the Mishna in 180,\neven though they did not deign to notice them, but they could not have\nhad any knowledge of the New Testament, or they would undoubtedly have\nnoticed it; if, at least, we are right in ascribing to it so high a\ncharacter, attracting (as we know it does) the admiration of every one\nin every country to which it is carried\" (Ibid, p. 35).\n\nThere is, however, one alleged proof of the existence of four, and only\nfour, Gospels, put forward by Paley:--Tatian, a follower of Justin\nMartyr, and who flourished about the year 170, composed a harmony or\ncollection of the Gospels, which he called Diatessaron, of the Four.\nThis title, as well as the work, is remarkable, because it shows, that\nthen, as now, there were four and only four, Gospels in general use with\nChristians (\"Evidences,\" pp. 154, 155). Paley does not state, until\nlater, that the \"follower of Justin Martyr\" turned heretic and joined\nthe Encratites, an ascetic and mystic sect who taught abstinence from\nmarriage, and from meat, etc.; nor does he tell us how doubtful it is\nwhat the Diatessaron--now lost--really contained. He blandly assures us\nthat it is a harmony of the four Gospels, although all the evidence is\nagainst him. Iren\u00e6us, as quoted by Eusebius, says of Tatian that \"having\napostatised from the Church, and being elated with the conceit of a\nteacher, and vainly puffed up as if he surpassed all others,\" he\ninvented some new doctrines, and Eusebius further tells us: \"Their chief\nand founder, Tatianus, having formed a certain body and collection of\nGospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that is\nthe Gospel by the four, or the Gospel formed of the four\" (\"Eccles.\nHist,\" bk. iv., ch. 29). Could Eusebius have written that Tatian formed\nthis, _I know not how_, if it had been a harmony of the Gospels\nrecognised by the Church when he wrote? and how is it that Paley knows\nall about it, though Eusebius did not? And still further, after\nmentioning the Diatessaron, Eusebius says _of another of Tatian's\nbooks_: \"This book, indeed, appears to be the most elegant and\nprofitable of all his works\" (Ibid). More profitable than a harmony of\nthe four Gospels! So far as the name goes, as given by Eusebius, it\nwould seem to imply one Gospel written by four authors. Epiphanius\nstates: \"Tatian is said to have composed the Gospel by four, which is\ncalled by some, the Gospel according to the Hebrews\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol.\nii., p. 155). Here we get the Diatessaron identified with the\nwidely-spread and popular early Gospel of the Hebrews. Theodoret (circa\nA.D. 457) says that he found more than 200 such books in use in Syria,\nthe Christians not perceiving \"the evil design of the composition;\" and\nthis is Paley's harmony of the Gospels! Theodoret states that he took\nthese books away, \"and instead introduced the Gospels of the four\nEvangelists;\" how strange an action in dealing with so useful a work as\na harmony of the Gospels, to confiscate it entirely and call it an evil\ndesign! To complete the value of this work as evidence to \"four, and\nonly four, Gospels,\" we are told by Victor of Capua, that it was also\ncalled Diapente, i.e., \"by five\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. ii., p. 153). In\nfact, there is no possible reason for calling the work--whose contents\nate utterly unknown--a _harmony_ of the Gospels at all; the notion that\nit is a harmony is the purest of assumptions. There is some slight\nevidence in favour of the identity of the Diatessaron with the Gospel of\nthe Hebrews. \"Those, however, who called the Gospel used by Tatian the\nGospel according to the Hebrews, must have read the work, and all that\nwe know confirms their conclusion. The work was, in point of fact, found\nin wide circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, the\nGospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly current. The\nsingular fact that the earliest reference to Tatian's 'harmony' is made\na century and a half after its supposed composition, that no writer\nbefore the 5th century had seen the work itself, indeed, that only two\nwriters before that period mention it at all, receives its natural\nexplanation in the conclusion that Tatian did not actually compose any\nharmony at all, but simply made use of the same Gospel as his master\nJustin Martyr, namely, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, by which\nname his Gospel had been called by those best informed\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\"\nvol. ii., pp. 158, 159). As it is not pretended by any that there is any\nmention of _four_ Gospels before the time of Iren\u00e6us, excepting this\n\"harmony,\" pleaded by some as dated about A.D. 170, and by others as\nbetween 170 and 180, it would be sheer waste of time and space to prove\nfurther a point admitted on all hands. This step of our argument is,\nthen, on solid and unassailable ground--_that before about_ A.D. 180\n_there is no trace of FOUR Gospels among the Christians_.\n\nE. _That, before that date, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not\nselected as the four evangelists._ This position necessarily follows\nfrom the preceding one, since four evangelists could not be selected\nuntil four Gospels were recognised. Here, again, Dr. Giles supports the\nargument we are building up. He says: \"Justin Martyr never once mentions\nby name the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This circumstance\nis of great importance; for those who assert that our four canonical\nGospels are contemporary records of our Saviour's ministry, ascribe them\nto Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and to no other writers. In this they\nare, in a certain sense, consistent; for contemporary writings [?\nhistories] are very rarely anonymous. If so, how could they be proved to\nbe contemporary? Justin Martyr, it must be remembered, wrote in 150; but\nneither he, nor any writer before him, has alluded, in the most remote\ndegree, to four specific Gospels, bearing the names of Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and John. Let those who think differently produce the passages in\nwhich such mention is to be found\" (\"Christian Records,\" Rev. Dr. Giles,\np. 73). Two of these names had, however, emerged a little earlier, being\nmentioned as evangelists by Papias, of Hierapolis. His testimony will be\nfully considered below in establishing position _g_.\n\nF. _That there is no evidence that the four Gospels mentioned about that\ndate were the same as those we have now._ This brings us to a most\nimportant point in our examination; for we now attack the very key of\nthe Christian position--viz., that, although the Gospels be not\nmentioned by name previous to Iren\u00e6us, their existence can yet be\nconclusively proved by quotations from them, to be found in the writings\nof the Fathers who lived before Iren\u00e6us. Paley says: \"The historical\nbooks of the New Testament--meaning thereby the four Gospels and the\nActs of the Apostles--are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of\nChristian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the\nApostles or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and\nregular succession from their time to the present.\" And he urges that\n\"the medium of proof stated in this proposition is, of all others, the\nmost unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, and is\nnot diminished by the lapse of ages\" (\"Evidences,\" pp. 111, 112). The\nwriters brought in evidence are: Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius,\nPolycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, and the epistle from Lyons\nand Vienne. Before examining the supposed quotations in as great detail\nas our space will allow, two or three preliminary remarks are needed on\nthe value of this offered evidence as a whole.\n\nIn the first place, the greater part of the works brought forward as\nwitnesses are themselves challenged, and their own dates are unknown;\ntheir now accepted writings are only the residuum of a mass of\nforgeries, and Dr. Giles justly says: \"The process of elimination, which\ngradually reduced the so-called writings of the first century from two\nfolio volumes to fifty slender pages, would, in the case of any other\nprofane works, have prepared the inquirer for casting from him, with\ndisgust, the small remnant, even if not fully convicted of spuriousness;\nfor there is no other case in record of so wide a disproportion between\nwhat is genuine and what is spurious\" (\"Christian Records,\" p. 67).\nTheir testimony is absolutely worthless until they are themselves\nsubstantiated; and from the account given of them above (pp 214-221, and\n232-235), the student is in a position to judge of the value of evidence\ndepending on the Apostolic Fathers. Professor Norton remarks: \"When we\nendeavour to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the writings\nascribed to Apostolical Fathers, we, in fact, weaken its force. At the\nvery extremity of the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest,\nwe are attaching defective links, which will bear no weight\"\n(\"Genuineness of the Gospels,\" vol. i., p. 357). Again, supposing that\nwe admit these witnesses, their repetition of sayings of Christ, or\nreferences to his life, do not--in the absence of quotations specified\nby them as taken from Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and\nJohn--prove that, because similar sayings or actions are recorded in the\npresent canonical Gospels, therefore, these latter existed in their\ndays, and were in their hands. Lardner says on this point: \"Here is,\nhowever, one difficulty, and 'tis a difficulty which may frequently\noccur, whilst we are considering these very early writers, who were\nconversant with the Apostles, and others who had seen or heard our Lord;\nand were, in a manner, as well acquainted with our Saviour's doctrine\nand history as the Evangelists themselves, unless their quotations or\nallusions are very express and clear. The question, then, here is,\nwhether Clement in these places refers to words of Christ, written and\nrecorded, or whether he reminds the Corinthians of words of Christ,\nwhich he and they might have heard from the Apostles, or other\neye-and-ear-witnesses of our Lord. Le Clerc, in his dissertation on the\nfour Gospels, is of opinion that Clement refers to written words of our\nLord, which were in the hands of the Corinthians, and well known to\nthem. On the other hand, I find, Bishop Pearson thought, that Clement\nspeaks of words which he had heard from the Apostles themselves, or\ntheir disciples. I certainly make no question but the three first\nGospels were writ before this time. And I am well satisfied that Clement\nmight refer to our written Gospels, though he does not exactly agree\nwith them in expression. But whether he does refer to them is not easy\nto determine concerning a man who, very probably, knew these things\nbefore they were committed to writing; and, even after they were so,\nmight continue to speak of them, in the same manner he had been wont to\ndo, as things he was well informed of, without appealing to the\nScriptures themselves\" (\"Credibility,\" pt. II., vol. i., pp. 68-70).\nCanon Westcott, after arguing that the Apostolic Fathers are much\ninfluenced by the Pauline Epistles, goes on to remark: \"Nothing has been\nsaid hitherto of the coincidences between the Apostolic Fathers and the\nCanonical Gospels. From the nature of the case, casual coincidences of\nlanguage cannot be brought forward in the same manner to prove the use\nof a history as of a letter. The same facts and words, especially if\nthey be recent and striking, may be preserved in several narratives.\nReferences in the sub-apostolic age to the discourses or actions of our\nLord, as we find them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as they go,\nthat what the Gospels relate was then held to be true; but it does not\nnecessarily follow that they were already in use, and were the actual\nsource of the passages in question. On the contrary, the mode in which\nClement refers to our Lord's teaching--'the Lord said,' not\n'saith'--seems to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not to\nany written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which are\nstill found in our Gospels. The main testimony of the Apostolic Fathers\nis, therefore, to the substance, and not to the authenticity, of the\nGospels\" (\"On the Canon,\" pp. 51, 52). An examination of the Apostolic\nFathers gives us little testimony as to \"the substance of the Gospels;\"\nbut the whole passage is here given to show how much Canon Westcott,\nwriting in defence of the Canon, finds himself obliged to give up of the\nposition occupied by earlier apologists. Dr. Giles agrees with the\njustice of these remarks of Lardner and Westcott. He writes: \"The\nsayings of Christ were, no doubt, treasured up like household jewels by\nhis disciples and followers. Why, then, may we not refer the quotation\nof Christ's words, occurring in the Apostolical Fathers, to an origin of\nthis kind? If we examine a few of those quotations, the supposition,\njust stated, will expand into reality.... The same may be said of every\nsingle sentence found in any of the Apostolical Fathers, which, on first\nsight, might be thought to be a decided quotation from one of the\nGospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. It is impossible to\ndeny the truth of this observation; for we see it confirmed by the fact\nthat the Apostolical Fathers do actually quote Moses, and other old\nTestament writers, by name--'Moses hath said,' 'but Moses says,'\netc.--in numerous passages. But we nowhere meet with the words, 'Matthew\nhath said in his Gospel,' 'John hath said,' etc. They always quote, not\nthe words of the Evangelists, but the words of Christ himself directly,\nwhich furnishes the strongest presumption that, though the sayings of\nChrist were in general vogue, yet the evangelical histories, into which\nthey were afterwards embodied, were not then in being. But the converse\nof this view of the case leads us to the same conclusion. The\nApostolical Fathers quote sayings of Christ which are not found in our\nGospels.... There is no proof that our New Testament was in existence\nduring the lives of the Apostolical Fathers, who, therefore, could not\nmake citations out of books which they had never seen\" (\"Christian\nRecords,\" pp. 51-53). \"There is no evidence that they [the four Gospels]\nexisted earlier than the middle of the second century, for they are not\nnamed by any writer who lived before that time\" (Ibid, p. 56). In\nsearching for evidence of the existence of the Gospels during the\nearlier period of the Church's history, Christian apologists have\nhitherto been content to seize upon a phrase here and there somewhat\nresembling a phrase in the canonical Gospels, and to put that forward as\na proof that the Gospels then were the same as those we have now. This\nrough-and-ready plan must now be given up, since the most learned\nChristian writers now agree, with the Freethinkers, that such a method\nis thoroughly unsatisfactory.\n\nYet, again, admitting these writers as witnesses, and allowing that they\nquote from the same Gospels, their quotations only prove that the\nisolated phrases they use were in the Gospels of their day, and are also\nin the present ones; and many such cases might occur in spite of great\nvariations in the remainder of the respective Gospels, and would by no\nmeans prove that the Gospels they used were identical with ours. If\nJosephus, for instance, had ever quoted some sentences of Socrates\nrecorded by Plato, that quotation, supposing that Josephus were\nreliable, would prove that Plato and Socrates both lived before\nJosephus, and that Plato wrote down some of the sayings of Socrates; but\nit would not prove that a version of Plato in our hands to-day was\nidentical with that used by Josephus. The scattered and isolated\npassages woven in by the Fathers in their works would fail to prove the\nidentity of the Gospels of the second century with those of the\nnineteenth, even were they as like parallel passages in the canonical\nGospels as they are unlike them.\n\nIt is \"important,\" says the able anonymous writer of \"Supernatural\nReligion,\" \"that we should constantly bear in mind that a great number\nof Gospels existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and\nof most of which even the names are lost. We will not here do more than\nrefer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement of\nthe author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek: polloi])\nhave taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which are\nsurely believed among us, etc.' It is, therefore, evident that before\nour third synoptic was written, many similar works were already in\ncirculation. Looking at the close similarity of the large portions of\nthe three synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the [Greek:\npolloi] here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other, and to our\nGospels; and this is known to have been the case, for instance, amongst\nthe various forms of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' distinct\nmention of which we meet with long before we hear anything of our\nGospels. When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations\nclosely resembling, or, we may add, even identical with passages which\nare found in our Gospels--the source of which, however, is not\nmentioned, nor is any author's name indicated--the similarity, or even\nidentity, cannot by any means be admitted as evidence that the quotation\nis necessarily from our Gospels, and not from some other similar work\nnow no longer extant; and more especially not when, in the same\nwritings, there are other quotations from apocryphal sources different\nfrom our Gospels. Whether regarded as historical records or as writings\nembodying the mere tradition of the early Christians, our Gospels cannot\nfor a moment be recognised as the exclusive depositaries of the genuine\nsayings and doings of Jesus; and so far from the common possession by\nmany works in early times of such words of Jesus, in closely similar\nform, being either strange or improbable, the really remarkable\nphenomena is that such material variation in the report of the more\nimportant historical teaching should exist amongst them. But whilst\nsimilarity to our Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from\nunnamed sources cannot prove the use of our Gospels, variation from them\nwould suggest or prove a different origin; and, at least, it is obvious\nthat quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot, in any case,\nindicate their existence\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., pp. 217-219).\n\nWe will now turn to the witness of Paley's Apostolic Fathers, bearing\nalways in mind the utter worthlessness of their testimony; worthless as\nit is, however, it is the only evidence Christians have to bring forward\nto prove the identity of their Gospels with those [supposed to have\nbeen] written in the first century. Let us listen to the opinion given\nby Bishop Marsh: \"From the Epistle of Barnabas, no inference can be\ndeduced that he had read any part of the New Testament. From the genuine\nepistle, as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be inferred that\nClement had read the first Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Shepherd\nof Hermas no inference whatsoever can be drawn. From the Epistles of\nIgnatius, it may be concluded that he had read St. Paul's Epistle to the\nEphesians, and that there existed in his time evangelical writings,\nthough it cannot be shown that he has quoted from them. From Polycarp's\nEpistle to the Philippians, it appears that he had heard of St. Paul's\nEpistle to that community, and he quotes a passage which is in the first\nEpistle to the Corinthians, and another which is in the Epistle to the\nEphesians; but no positive conclusion can be drawn with respect to any\nother epistle, or any of the four Gospels\" (Marsh's \"Michaelis,\" vol.\ni., p. 354, as quoted in Norton's \"Genuineness of the Gospels,\" vol. i.,\np. 3). Very heavily does this tell against the authenticity of these\nrecords, for \"if the four Gospels and other books were written by those\nwho had been eye-witnesses of Christ's miracles, and the five Apostolic\nFathers had conversed with the Apostles, it is not to be conceived that\nthey would not have named the actual books themselves which possessed so\nhigh authority, and would be looked up to with so much respect by all\nthe Christians. This is the only way in which their evidence could be of\nuse to support the authenticity of the New Testament as being the work\nof the Apostles; but this is a testimony which the five Apostolical\nFathers fail to supply. There is not a single sentence, in all their\nremaining works, in which a clear allusion to the New Testament is to be\nfound\" (\"Christian Records,\" Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 50).\n\nWestcott, while claiming in the Apostolic Fathers a knowledge of most of\nthe epistles, writes very doubtfully as to their knowledge of the\nGospels (see above p. 264), and after giving careful citations of all\npossible quotations, he sums up thus: \"1. No evangelic reference in the\nApostolic Fathers can be referred certainly to a written record. 2. It\nappears most probable from the form of the quotations that they were\nderived from oral tradition. 3. No quotation contains any element which\nis not substantially preserved in our Gospels. 4. When the text given\ndiffers from the text of our Gospels it represents a later form of the\nevangelic tradition. 5. The text of St. Matthew corresponds more nearly\nthan the other synoptic texts with the quotations and references as a\nwhole\" (\"On the Canon,\" p. 62). There appears to be no proof whatever of\nconclusions 3 and 4, but we give them all as they stand. But we will\ntake these Apostolic Fathers one by one, in the order used by Paley.\n\nBARNABAS. We have already quoted Bishop Marsh and Dr. Giles as regards\nhim. There is \"nothing in this epistle worthy of the name of evidence\neven of the existence of our Gospels\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., p. 260).\nThe quotation sometimes urged, \"There are many called, few chosen,\" is\nspoken of by Westcott as a \"proverbial phrase,\" and phrases similar in\nmeaning and manner may be found in iv. Ezra, viii. 3, ix. 15 (\"Sup.\nRel.,\" vol. i., p. 245); in the latter work the words occur in a\nrelation similar to that in which we find them in Barnabas; in both the\njudgment is described, and in both the moral drawn is that there are\nmany lost and few saved; it is the more likely that the quotation is\ntaken from the apocryphal work, since many other quotations are drawn\nfrom it throughout the epistle. The quotation \"Give to every one that\nasketh thee,\" is not found in the supposed oldest MS., the Codex\nSinaiticus, and is a later interpolation, clearly written in by some\ntranscriber as appropriate to the passage in Barnabas. The last supposed\nquotation, that Christ chose men of bad character to be his disciples,\nthat \"he might show that he came not to call the righteous, but\nsinners,\" is another clearly later interpolation, for it jars with the\nreasoning of Barnabas, and when Origen quotes the passage he omits the\nphrase. In a work which \"has been written at the request, and is\npublished at the cost of the Christian Evidence Society,\" and which may\nfairly, therefore, be taken as the opinion of learned, yet most\northodox, Christian opinion, the Rev. Mr. Sanday writes: \"The general\nresult of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas may, perhaps, be\nstated thus, that while not supplying by itself certain and conclusive\nproof of the use of our Gospels, still the phenomena accord better with\nthe hypothesis of such a use. This epistle stands in the second line of\nthe Evidence, and as a witness is rather confirmatory than principal\"\n(\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" p. 76. Ed. 1876). And this is all that\nthe most modern apologetic criticism can draw from an epistle of which\nPaley makes a great display, saying that \"if the passage remarked in\nthis ancient writing had been found in one of St. Paul's Epistles, it\nwould have been esteemed by every one a high testimony to St. Matthew's\nGospel\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 113).\n\nCLEMENT OF ROME.--\"Tischendorf, who is ever ready to claim the slightest\nresemblance in language as a reference to new Testament writings, admits\nthat although this Epistle is rich in quotations from the Old Testament,\nand here and there that Clement also makes use of passages from Pauline\nEpistles, he nowhere refers to the Gospels\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i. pp.\n227, 228). The Christian Evidence Society, through Mr. Sanday, thus\ncriticises Clement: \"Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement\nupon the question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels?\nThere are two passages of some length which are, without doubt,\nevangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the\nCanonical Gospels or not may be doubted\" (\"Gospels in the Second\nCentury,\" page 61). After balancing the arguments for and against the\nfirst of these passages, Mr. Sanday concludes: \"Looking at the arguments\non both sides, so far as we can give them, I incline, on the whole, to\nthe opinion that Clement is not quoting from our Gospels; but I am quite\naware of the insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice\nbalance of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that\nthe conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. Anything\nlike confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me entirely out of\nplace. Very much the same is to be said of the second passage\" (Ibid, p.\n66).\n\nThe quotations in Clement, apparently from some other evangelic work,\nwill be noted under head _h_, and these are those cited in Paley.\n\nHERMAS.--Tischendorf relinquishes this work also as evidence for the\nGospels. Lardner writes: \"In _Hermas_ are no express citations of any\nbooks of the New Testament\" (\"Credibility,\" vol. i. pt. 2, p. 116). He\nthinks, however, that he can trace \"allusions to\" \"words of Scripture.\"\nWestcott says that \"The _Shepherd_ contains no definite quotation from\neither Old or New Testament\" (\"On the Canon,\" p. 197); but he also\nthinks that Hermas was \"familiar with\" some records of \"Christ's\nteaching.\" Westcott, however, does not admit Hermas as an Apostolic\nFather at all, but places him in the middle of the second century. \"As\nregards the direct historical evidence for the genuineness of the\nGospels, it is of no importance. No book is cited in it by name. There\nare no evident quotations from the Gospels\" (Norton's \"Genuineness of\nthe Gospels,\" vol. i, pp. 342, 343).\n\nIGNATIUS.--It would be wasted time to trouble about Ignatius at all,\nafter knowing the vicissitudes through which his supposed works have\npassed (see ante pp. 217-220); and Paley's references are such vague\n\"quotations\" that they may safely be left to the judgment of the reader.\nTischendorf, claiming two and three phrases in it, says somewhat\nconfusedly: \"Though we do not wish to give to these references a\ndecisive value, and though they do not exclude all doubt as to their\napplicability to our Gospels, and more particularly to that of St. John,\nthey nevertheless undoubtedly bear traces of such a reference\" (\"When\nwere our Gospels Written,\" p. 61, Eng. ed.). This conclusion refers, in\nTischendorf, to Polycarp, as well as to Ignatius. In these Ignatian\nEpistles, Mr. Sanday only treats the Curetonian Epistles (see ante, p.\n218) as genuine, and in these he finds scarcely any coincidences with\nthe Gospels. The parallel to Matthew x. 16, \"Be ye, therefore, wise as\nserpents and harmless as doves,\" is doubtful, as it is possible \"that\nIgnatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from one of\nthe original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical 'Spruch-Sammlung'),\nout of which our Gospel was composed\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\"\np. 78). An allusion to the \"star\" of Bethlehem may have, \"as it appears\nto have, reference to the narrative of Matt, ii... [but see, ante, p.\n233, where the account given of the star is widely different from the\nevangelic notice]. These are (so far as I am aware) the only\ncoincidences to be found in the Curetonian version\" (Ibid, pp. 78, 79).\n\nPOLYCARP.--This epistle lies under a heavy weight of suspicion, and has\nbesides little worth analysing as possible quotations from the Gospels.\nPaley quotes, \"beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into\ntemptation.\" Why not finish the passage? Because, if he had done so, the\ncontext would have shown that it was not a quotation from a gospel\nidentical with our own--\"beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us\ninto temptation, as the Lord hath said, The spirit, indeed, is willing,\nbut the flesh is weak.\" If this be a quotation at all, it is from some\nlost gospel, as these words are nowhere found thus conjoined in the\nSynoptics.\n\nThus briefly may these Apostolic Fathers be dismissed, since their\ntestimony fades away as soon as it is examined, as a mist evaporates\nbefore the rays of the rising sun. We will call up Paley's other\nwitnesses.\n\nPAPIAS.--In the fragment preserved by Eusebius there is no quotation of\nany kind; the testimony of Papias is to the names of the authors of two\nof the Gospels, and will be considered under _g_.\n\nJUSTIN MARTYR.--We now come to the most important of the supposed\nwitnesses, and, although students must study the details of the\ncontroversy in larger works, we will endeavour to put briefly before\nthem the main reasons why Freethinkers reject Justin Martyr as bearing\nevidence to the authenticity of the present Gospels, and in this\n_r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ we begin by condensing chapter iii. of \"Supernatural Religion\",\nvol. i., pp. 288-433, so far as it bears on our present position. Justin\nMartyr is supposed to have died about A.D. 166, having been put to death\nin the reign of Marcus Aurelius; he was by descent a Greek, but became a\nconvert to Christianity, strongly tinged with Judaism. The longer\nApology, and the Dialogue with Trypho, are the works chiefly relied upon\nto prove the authenticity. The date of the first Apology is probably\nabout A.D. 147; the Dialogue was written later, perhaps between A.D. 150\nand 160. In these writings Justin quotes very copiously from the Old\nTestament, and he also very frequently refers to facts of Christian\nhistory, and to sayings of Jesus. Of these references, for instance,\nsome fifty occur in the first Apology, and upwards of seventy in the\nDialogue with Trypho; a goodly number, it will be admitted, by means of\nwhich to identify the source from which he quotes. Justin himself\nfrequently and distinctly says that his information and quotations are\nderived from the \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\" but, except upon one\noccasion, which we shall hereafter consider, when he indicates Peter, he\nnever mentions an author's name. Upon examination it is found that, with\nonly one or two brief exceptions, the numerous quotations from these\n\"Memoirs\" differ more or less widely from parallel passages in our\nSynoptic Gospels, and in many cases differ in the same respects as\nsimilar quotations found in other writings of the second century, the\nwriters of which are known to have made use of uncanonical Gospels; and\nfurther, that these passages are quoted several times, at intervals, by\nJustin, with the same variations. Moreover, sayings of Jesus are quoted\nfrom the \"Memoirs\" which are not found in our Gospels at all, and facts\nin the life of Jesus, and circumstances of Christian history, derived\nfrom the same source, not only are not found in our Gospels, but are in\ncontradiction with them. Various theories have been put forward by\nChristian apologists to lessen the force of these objections. It has\nbeen suggested that Justin quoted from memory, condensed or combined to\nsuit his immediate purpose; that the \"Memoirs\" were a harmony of the\nGospels, with additions from some apocryphal work; that along with our\nGospels Justin used apocryphal Gospels; that he made use of our Gospels,\npreferring, however, to rely chiefly on an apocryphal one. Results so\ndiverse show how dubious must be the value of the witness of Justin\nMartyr. Competent critics almost universally admit that Justin had no\nidea of ranking the \"Memoirs of the Apostles\" among canonical writings.\nThe word translated \"Memoirs\" would be more correctly rendered\n\"Recollections,\" or \"Memorabilia,\" and none of these three terms is an\nappropriate title for works ranking as canonical Gospels. Great numbers\nof spurious writings, under the names of apostles, were current in the\nearly Church, and Justin names no authors for the \"Recollections\" he\nquotes from, only saying that they were composed \"by his Apostles and\ntheir followers,\" clearly indicating that he was using some collective\nrecollections of the Apostles and those who followed them. The word\n\"Gospels,\" in the plural, is only once applied to these \"Recollections;\"\n\"For the Apostles, in the 'Memoirs' composed by them, which are called\nGospels.\" \"The last expression [Greek: kaleitai euaggelai], as many\nscholars have declared, is a manifest interpolation. It is, in all\nprobability, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist\nafterwards inserted in the text. If Justin really stated that the\n'Memoirs' were called Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should\nnever call them so himself. In no other place in his writings does he\napply the plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring\nto the 'so-called Gospel,' which he states that he had carefully read,\nand which, of course, can only be Justin's 'Memoirs,' and again, in\nanother part of the same dialogue, Justin quotes passages which are\nwritten 'in the Gospel.' The term 'Gospel' is nowhere else used by\nJustin in reference to a written record.\" The public reading of the\nRecollections, mentioned by Justin, proves nothing, since many works,\nnow acknowledged as spurious, were thus read (see ante, pp. 248, 249).\nJustin does not regard the Recollections as inspired, attributing\ninspiration only to prophetic writings, and he accepts them as authentic\nsolely because the events they narrate are prophesied of in the Old\nTestament. The omission of any author's name is remarkable, since, in\nquoting from the Old Testament, he constantly refers to the author by\nname, or to the book used; but in the very numerous quotations, supposed\nto be from the Gospels, he never does this, save in one single instance,\nmentioned below, when he quotes Peter. On the theory that he had our\nfour Gospels before him, this is the more singular, since he would\nnaturally have distinguished one from the other. The only writing in the\nNew Testament referred to by name is the Apocalypse, by \"a certain man\nwhose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ,\" and it is\nimpossible that John should be thus mentioned, if Justin had already\nbeen quoting from a Gospel bearing his name under the general title of\nRecollections. Justin clearly quotes from a _written_ source and\nexcludes oral tradition, saying that in the Recollections is recorded\n\"_everything_ that concerns our Saviour Christ.\" (The proofs that Justin\nquotes from records other than the Gospels will be classed under\nposition _h_, and are here omitted.) Justin knows nothing of the\nshepherds of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, nor of the\nstar guiding the wise men to the place where Jesus was, although he\nrelates the story of the birth, and the visit of the wise men. Two short\npassages in Justin are identical with parallel passages in Matthew, but\n\"it cannot be too often repeated, that the mere coincidence of short\nhistorical sayings in two works by no means warrants the conclusion that\nthe one is dependent on the other.\" In the first Apology, chaps, xv.,\nxvi., and xvii. are composed almost entirely of examples of Christ's\nteaching, and with the exception of these two brief passages, not one\nquotation agrees verbally with the canonical Gospels. We have referred\nto one instance wherein the name of Peter is mentioned in connection\nwith the Recollections. Justin says: \"The statement also that he (Jesus)\nchanged the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is also\nwritten in _his_ 'Memoirs,'\" etc. This refers the \"Memoirs\" to Peter,\nand it is suggested that it is, therefore, a reference to the Gospel of\nMark, Mark having been supposed to have written his Gospel under the\ndirection of Peter. There was a \"Gospel according to Peter\" current in\nthe early Church, probably a variation from the Gospel of the Hebrews,\nso highly respected and so widely used by the primitive writers. It is\nvery probable that this is the work to which Justin so often refers, and\nthat it originally bore the simple title of \"The Gospel,\" or the\n\"Recollections of Peter.\" A version of this Gospel was also known as the\n\"Gospel According to the Apostles,\" a title singularly like the\n\"Recollections of the Apostles\" by Justin. Seeing that in Justin's works\nhis quotations, although so copious, do not agree with parallel passages\nin our Gospels, we may reasonably conclude that \"there is no evidence\nthat he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, even\nbe cited to prove their very existence, and much less the authenticity\nand character of records whose authors he does not once name.\" Passing\nfrom this case, ably worked out by this learned and clever writer (and\nwe earnestly recommend our readers, if possible, to study his careful\nanalysis for themselves, since he makes the whole question thoroughly\nintelligible to _English_ readers, and gives them evidence whereby they\ncan form their own judgments, instead of accepting ready-made\nconclusions), we will examine Canon Westcott's contention. He admits\nthat the difficulties perplexing the evidence of Justin are \"great;\"\nthat there are \"additions to the received narrative, and remarkable\nvariations from its text, which, in some cases, are both repeated by\nJustin and found also in other writings\" (\"On the Canon,\" p. 98). We\nregret to say that Dr. Westcott, in laying the case before his readers,\nsomewhat misleads them, although, doubtless, unintentionally. He speaks\nof Justin telling us that \"Christ was descended from Abraham through\nJacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David,\" and omits the fact that Justin\ntraces the descent to Mary alone, and knows nothing as to a descent\ntraced to Joseph, as in both Matthew and Luke (see below, under _h_). He\nspeaks of Justin mentioning wise men \"guided by a star,\" forgetting that\nJustin says nothing of the guidance, but only writes: \"That he should\narise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed beforehand....\nAccordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of his birth, as is\nrecorded in the 'Memoirs' of his Apostles, the Magi from Arabia,\nrecognising the sign by this, came and worshipped him\" (\"Dial.,\" ch.\ncvi.). He speaks of Justin recording \"the singing of the Psalm\nafterwards\" (after the last supper), omitting that Justin only says\ngenerally (\"Dial.,\" ch. cvi., to which Dr. Westcott refers us) that\n\"when living with them (Christ) sang praises to God.\" But as we\nhereafter deal with these discrepancies, we need not dwell on them now,\nonly warning our readers that since even such a man as Dr. Westcott thus\nmisrepresents facts, it will be well never to accept any inferences\ndrawn from such references as these without comparing them with the\noriginal. One of the chief difficulties to the English reader is to get\na reliable translation. To give but a single instance. In the version of\nJustin here used (that published by T. Clark, Edinburgh), we find in the\n\"Dialogue,\" ch. ciii., the following passage: \"His sweat fell down like\ndrops of blood while he was praying.\" And this is referred to by Canon\nWestcott (p. 104) as a record of the \"bloody sweat.\" Yet, in the\noriginal, there is no word analogous to \"of blood;\" the passage runs:\n\"sweat as drops fell down,\" and it is recorded by Justin as a proof that\nthe prophecy, \"my bones are poured out _like water_\" was fulfilled in\nChrist. The clumsy endeavour to create a likeness to Luke xxii. 44\ndestroys Justin's argument. Further on (p. 113) Dr. Westcott admits that\nthe words \"of blood\" are not found in Justin; but it is surely\nmisleading, under these circumstances, to say that Justin mentions \"the\nbloody sweat.\" Westcott only maintains seven passages in the whole of\nJustin's writings, wherein he distinctly quotes from the \"Memoirs;\"\n_i.e.,_ only seven that can be maintained as quotations from the\ncanonical Gospels--the contention being that the \"Memoirs\" _are_ the\nGospels. He says truly, if naively, \"The result of a first view of these\npassages is striking.\" Very striking, indeed; for, \"of the seven, five\nagree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or St. Luke, _exhibiting,\nindeed, three slight various readings not elsewhere found_, but such as\nare easily explicable. The sixth is a condensed summary of words related\nby St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an important variation in the\ntext of a verse, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain\" (pp. 130,\n131. The italics are our own). That is, there are only seven distinct\nquotations, and all of these, save two, are different from our Gospels.\nThe whole of Dr. Westcott's analysis of these passages is severely\ncriticised in \"Supernatural Religion,\" and in the edition of 1875 of Dr.\nWestcott's book, from which we quote, some of the expressions he\npreviously used are a little modified. The author of \"Supernatural\nReligion\" justly says: \"The striking result, to summarise Canon\nWestcott's own words, is this. Out of seven professed quotations from\nthe 'Memoirs,' in which he admits we may expect to find the exact\nlanguage preserved, five present three variations; one is a compressed\nsummary, and does not agree verbally at all; and the seventh presents an\nimportant variation\" (vol. i., p. 394).\n\nDr. Giles speaks very strongly against Paley's distortion of Justin\nMartyr's testimony, complaining: \"The works of Justin Martyr do not fall\nin the way of one in a hundred thousand of our countrymen. How is it,\nthen, to be deprecated that erroneous statements should be current about\nhim! How is it to be censured that his testimony should be changed, and\nhe should be made to speak a falsehood!\" (\"Christian Records,\" p. 71).\nDr. Giles then argues that Justin would have certainly named the books\nand their authors had they been current and reverenced in his time; that\nthere were numberless Gospels current at that date; that Justin mentions\noccurrences that are only found related in such apocryphal Gospels. He\nthen compares seventeen passages in Justin Martyr with parallel passages\nin the Gospels, and concludes that Justin \"gives us Christ's sayings in\ntheir traditionary forms, and not in the words which are found in our\nfour Gospels.\" We will select two, to show his method of criticising,\ntranslating the Greek, instead of giving it, as he does, in the\noriginal. In the Apology, ch. xv., Justin writes: \"If thy right eye\noffend thee, cut it out, for it is profitable for thee to enter into the\nkingdom of heaven with one eye, than having two to be thrust into the\neverlasting fire.\" \"This passage is very like Matt. v. 29: 'If thy right\neye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is\nprofitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that\nthy whole body should be cast into hell.' But it is also like Matt,\nxviii. 9: 'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from\nthee; it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than\nhaving two eyes to be cast into hell-fire.' And it bears an equal\nlikeness to Mark ix. 47: 'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it\nis better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than,\nhaving two eyes, to be cast into hell-fire.' Yet, strange to say, it is\nnot identical in words with either of the three\" (pp. 83, 84). \"I came\nnot to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.\" \"In this only\ninstance is there a perfect agreement between the words of Justin and\nthe canonical Gospels, three of which, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, give the\nsame saying of Christ in the same words. A variety of thoughts here rush\nupon the mind. Are these three Gospels based upon a common document? If\nso, is not Justin Martyr's citation drawn from the same anonymous\ndocument, rather than from the three Gospels, seeing he does not name\nthem? If, on the other hand, Justin has cited them accurately in this\ninstance, why has he failed to do so in the others? For no other reason\nthan that traditionary sayings are generally thus irregularly exact or\ninexact, and Justin, citing from them, has been as irregularly exact as\nthey were\" (Ibid, p. 85). \"The result to which a perusal of his works\nwill lead is of the gravest character. He will be found to quote nearly\ntwo hundred sentiments or sayings of Christ; but makes hardly a single\nclear allusion to all those circumstances of time or place which give so\nmuch interest to Christ's teaching, as recorded in the four Gospels. The\ninference is that he quotes Christ's sayings as delivered by tradition\nor taken down in writing before the four Gospels were compiled\" (Ibid,\npp. 89, 90). Paley and Lardner both deal with Justin somewhat briefly,\ncalling every passage in his works resembling slightly any passage in\nthe Gospels a \"quotation;\" in both cases only ignorance of Justin's\nwritings can lead any reader to assent to the inferences they draw.\n\nHEGESIPPUS was a Jewish Christian, who, according to Eusebius,\nflourished about A.D. 166. Soter is said to have succeeded Anicetus in\nthe bishopric of Rome in that year, and Hegesippus appears to have been\nin Rome during the episcopacy of both. He travelled about from place to\nplace, and his testimony to the Gospels is that \"in every city the\ndoctrine prevails according to what is declared by the law, and the\nprophets, and the Lord\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" bk. iv., ch. 22). Further,\nEusebius quotes the story of the death of James, the Apostle, written by\nHegesippus, and in this James is reported to have said to the Jews: \"Why\ndo ye now ask me respecting Jesus, the Son of Man? He is now sitting in\nthe heavens, on the right hand of great power, and is about to come on\nthe clouds of heaven.\" And when he is being murdered, he prays, \"O Lord\nGod and Father forgive them, for they know not what they do\" (see\n\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk. ii., ch. 23). The full absurdity of regarding this\nas a testimony to the Gospels will be seen when it is remembered that it\nis implied thereby that James, the brother and apostle of Christ, knew\nnothing of his words until he read them in the Gospels, and that he was\nmurdered before the Gospel of Luke, from which alone he could quote the\nprayer of Jesus, is thought, by most Christians, to have been written.\nOne other fragment of Hegesippus is preserved by Stephanus Gobarus,\nwherein Hegesippus, speaking against Paul's assertion \"that eye hath not\nseen, nor ear heard,\" opposes to it the saying of the Lord, \"Blessed are\nyour eyes, for they see, and your ears that hear.\" This is paralleled by\nMatt. xiii. 16 and Luke x. 23. \"We need not point out that the saying\nreferred to by Hegesippus, whilst conveying the same sense as that in\nthe two Gospels, differs as materially from them as they do from each\nother, and as we might expect a quotation taken from a different, though\nkindred, source, like the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to do\" (\"Sup.\nRel.,\" vol. i., p. 447). Why does not Paley tell us that Eusebius writes\nof him, not that he quoted from the Gospels, but that \"he also states\nsome particulars from the Gospel of the Hebrews and from the Syriac, and\nparticularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he himself was a\nconvert from the Hebrews. Other matters he also records as taken from\nthe unwritten tradition of the Jews\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk. iv., ch 22).\nHere, then, we have the source of the quotations in Hegesippus, and yet\nPaley conceals this, and deliberately speaks of him as referring to our\nGospel of Matthew!\n\nEPISTLE OF THE CHURCHES OF LYONS AND VIENNE.--Paley quietly dates this\nA.D. 170, although the persecution it describes occurred in A.D. 177\n(see ante, pp. 257, 258). The \"exact references to the Gospels of Luke\nand John and to the Acts of the Apostles,\" spoken of by Paley\n(\"Evidences,\" p. 125), are not easy to find. Westcott says: \"It contains\nno reference by name to any book of the New Testament, but its\ncoincidences of language with the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, with\nthe Acts of the Apostles, with the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans,\nCorinthians (?), Ephesians, Philippians, and the First to Timothy, with\nthe first Catholic Epistles of St. Peter and St. John, and with the\nApocalypse, are indisputable\" (\"On the Canon,\" p. 336). Unfortunately,\nneither Paley nor Dr. Westcott refer us to the passages in question,\nPaley quoting only one. We will, therefore, give one of these at full\nlength, leaving our readers to judge of it as an \"exact reference:\"\n\"Vattius Epagathus, one of the brethren who abounded in the fulness of\nthe love of God and man, and whose walk and conversation had been so\nunexceptionable, though he was only young, shared in the same testimony\nwith the elder Zacharias. He walked in all the commandments and\nrighteousness of the Lord blameless, full of love to God and his\nneighbour\" (\"Eusebius,\" bk. v., chap. i). This is, it appears, an \"exact\nreference\" to Luke i. 6, and we own we should not have known it unless\nit had been noted in \"Supernatural Religion.\" Tischendorf, on the other\nhand, refers the allusion to Zacharias to the Protevangelium of James\n(\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. ii., p. 202).\n\nThe second \"exact reference\" is, that Vattius had \"the Spirit more\nabundantly than Zacharias;\" \"such an unnecessary and insidious\ncomparison would scarcely have been made had the writer known our Gospel\nand regarded it as inspired Scripture\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. ii., p. 204).\nThe quotation \"that the day would come when everyone that slayeth you\nwill think he is doing God a service,\" is one of those isolated sayings\nreferred to Christ which might be found in any account of his works, or\nmight have been handed down by tradition. This epistle is the last\nwitness called by Paley, prior to Iren\u00e6us, and might, indeed, fairly be\nregarded as contemporary with him.\n\nAlthough Paley does not allude to the \"Clementines,\" books falsely\nascribed to Clement of Rome, these are sometimes brought to prove the\nexistence of the Gospels in the second century. But they are useless as\nwitnesses, from the fact that the date at which they were themselves\nwritten is a matter of dispute. \"Critics variously date the composition\nof the original Recognitions from about the middle of the second century\nto the end of the third, though the majority are agreed in placing them,\nat least, in the latter century\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. ii., p. 5). \"It is\nunfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for determining the\ndate of the Clementine Homilies\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" Rev.\nW. Sanday, p. 161). Part of the Clementines, called the \"Recognitions,\"\nis useless as a basis for argument, for these \"are only extant in a\nLatin translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels\nhave evidently been assimilated to the canonical text which Rufinus\nhimself uses\" (Ibid). Of the rest, \"we are struck at once by the small\namount of exact coincidence, which is considerably less than that which\nis found in the quotations from the Old Testament\" (Ibid, p. 168). \"In\nthe Homilies there are very numerous quotations of expressions of Jesus,\nand of Gospel History, which are generally placed in the mouth of Peter,\nor introduced with such formula as 'The teacher said,' 'Jesus said,' 'He\nsaid,' 'The prophet said,' but in no case does the author name the\nsource from which these sayings and quotations are derived.... De Wette\nsays, 'The quotations of evangelical works and histories in the\npseudo-Clementine writings, from their free and unsatisfactory nature,\npermit only uncertain conclusions as to their written source.' Critics\nhave maintained very free and conflicting views regarding that source.\nApologists, of course, assert that the quotations in the Homilies are\ntaken from our Gospels only. Others ascribe them to our Gospels, with a\nsupplementary apocryphal work, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or\nthe Gospel according to Peter. Some, whilst admitting a subsidiary use\nof some of our Gospels, assert that the author of the Homilies employs,\nin preference, the Gospel according to Peter; whilst others, recognising\nalso the similarity of the phenomena presented by these quotations with\nthose of Justin's, conclude that the author does not quote our Gospels\nat all, but makes use of the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews. Evidence permitting of such divergent\nconclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\"\nvol. ii., pp. 6, 7).\n\nOn Basilides (teaching c. A.D. 135) and Valentinus (A.D. 140), two of\nthe early Gnostic teachers, we need not delay, for there is scarcely\nanything left of their writings, and all we know of them is drawn from\nthe writings of their antagonists; it is claimed that they knew and made\nuse of the canonical Gospels, and Canon Westcott urges this view of\nBasilides, but the writer of \"Supernatural Religion\" characterises this\nplea \"as unworthy of a scholar, and only calculated to mislead readers\nwho must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of the case\" (vol.\nii., p. 42). Basilides says that he received his doctrine from Glaucias,\nthe \"interpreter of Peter,\" and \"it is apparent, however, that\nBasilides, in basing his doctrines on these apocryphal books as\ninspired, and upon tradition, and in having a special Gospel called\nafter his own name, which, therefore, he clearly adopts as the exponent\nof his ideas of Christian truth, absolutely ignores the canonical\nGospels altogether, and not only does not offer any evidence for their\nexistence, but proves that he did not recognise any such works as of\nauthority. Therefore, there is no ground whatever for Tischendorf's\nassumption that the Commentary of Basilides 'On the Gospel' was written\nupon our Gospels, but that idea is, on the contrary, negatived in the\nstrongest way by all the facts of the case\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. ii., pp.\n45, 46). Both with this ancient heretic, as with Valentinus, it is\nimpossible to distinguish what is ascribed to him from what is ascribed\nto his followers, and thus evidence drawn from either of them is weaker\neven than usual.\n\nMarcion, the greatest heretic of the second century, ought to prove a\nuseful witness to the Christians if the present Gospels had been\naccepted in his time as canonical. He was the son of the Christian\nBishop of Sinope, in Pontus, and taught in Rome for some twenty years,\ndating from about A.D. 140. Only one Gospel was acknowledged by him, and\nfierce has been the controversy as to what this Gospel was. It is only\nknown to us through his antagonists, who generally assert that the\nGospel used by him was the third Synoptic, changed and adapted to suit\nhis heretical views. Paley says, \"This rash and wild controversialist\npublished a recension or chastised edition of St. Luke's Gospel\"\n(\"Evidences,\" p. 167), but does not condescend to give us the smallest\nreason for so broad an assertion. This question has, however, been\nthoroughly debated among German critics, the one side maintaining that\nMarcion mutilated Luke's Gospel, the other that Marcion's Gospel was\nearlier than Luke's, and that Luke's was made from it; while some,\nagain, maintained that both were versions of an older original. From\nthis controversy we may conclude that there was a strong likeness\nbetween Marcion's Gospel and the third Synoptic, and that it is\nimpossible to know which is the earlier of the two. The resolution of\nthe question is made hopeless by the fact that \"the principal sources of\nour information regarding Marcion's Gospel are the works of his most\nbitter denouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. ii., p.\n88). \"At the very best, even if the hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel was\na mutilated Luke were established, Marcion affords no evidence in favour\nof the authenticity or trustworthy character of our third Synoptic. His\nGospel was nameless, and his followers repudiated the idea of its having\nbeen written by Luke; and regarded even as the earliest testimony for\nthe existence of Luke's Gospel, that testimony is not in confirmation of\nits genuineness and reliability, but, on the contrary, condemns it as\ngarbled and interpolated\" (Ibid, pp. 146, 147).\n\nIt is scarcely worth while to refer to the supposed evidence of the\n\"Canon of Muratori,\" since the date of this fragment is utterly unknown.\nIn the year 1740 Muratori published this document in a collection of\nItalian antiquities, stating that he had found it in the Ambrosian\nlibrary at Milan, and that he believed that the MS. from which he took\nit had been in existence about 1000 years. It is not known by whom the\noriginal was written, and it bears no date: it is but a fragment,\ncommencing: \"at which, nevertheless, he was present, and thus he placed\nit. Third book of the Gospel according to Luke.\" Further on it speaks of\n\"the fourth of the Gospels of John.\" The value of the evidence of an\nanonymous fragment of unknown date is simply _nil_. \"It is by some\naffirmed to be a complete treatise on the books received by the Church,\nfrom which fragments have been lost; while others consider it a mere\nfragment itself. It is written in Latin, which by some is represented as\nmost corrupt, whilst others uphold it as most correct. The text is\nfurther rendered almost unintelligible by every possible inaccuracy of\northography and grammar, which is ascribed diversely to the transcriber,\nto the translator, and to both. Indeed, such is the elastic condition of\nthe text, resulting from errors and obscurity of every imaginable\ndescription, that, by means of ingenious conjectures, critics are able\nto find in it almost any sense they desire. Considerable difference of\nopinion exists as to the original language of the fragment, the greater\nnumber of critics maintaining that the composition is a translation from\nthe Greek, while others assert it to have been originally written in\nLatin. Its composition is variously attributed to the Church of Africa,\nand to a member of the Church in Rome\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. ii., pp. 238,\n239). On a disputable scrap of this kind no argument can be based; there\nis no evidence even to show that the thing was in existence at all until\nMuratori published it; it is never referred to by any early writer, nor\nis there a scintilla of evidence that it was known to the early Church.\n\nAfter a full and searching analysis of all the documents, orthodox and\nheretical, supposed to have been written in the first two centuries\nafter Christ, the author of \"Supernatural Religion\" thus sums\nup:--\"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on\nthe point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any one of those\nGospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus....\nAny argument for the mere existence of our Synoptics based upon their\nsupposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects has the inevitable\ndisadvantage, that the very testimony which would show their existence\nwould oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use by\nheretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any\nwriter, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined\" (vol. ii., pp,\n248, 249). Nor is the fact of this blank absence of evidence of identity\nall that can be brought to bear in support of our proposition, for there\nis another fact that tells very heavily against the identity of the now\naccepted Gospels with those that were current in earlier days, namely,\nthe noteworthy charge brought against the Christians that they changed\nand altered their sacred books; the orthodox accused the unorthodox of\nvarying the Scriptures, and the heretics retorted the charge with equal\npertinacity. The Ebionites maintained that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew\nwas the only authentic Gospel, and regarded the four Greek Gospels as\nunreliable. The Marcionites admitted only the Gospel resembling that of\nLuke, and were accused by the orthodox of having altered that to suit\nthemselves. Celsus, writing against Christianity, formulates the charge:\n\"Some believers, like men driven by drunkenness to commit violence on\nthemselves, have altered the Gospel history, since its first\ncomposition, three times, four times, and oftener, and have re-fashioned\nit, so as to be able to deny the objections made against it\" (\"Origen\nCont. Celsus,\" bk. ii., chap. 27, as quoted by Norton, p. 63). Origen\nadmits \"that there are those who have altered the Gospels,\" but pleads\nthat it has been done by heretics, and that this \"is no reproach against\ntrue Christianity\" (Ibid). Only, most reverend Father of the Church, if\nheretics accuse orthodox, and orthodox accuse heretics, of altering the\nGospels, how are we to be sure that they have come down unaltered to us?\nClement of Alexandria notes alterations that had been made. Dionysius,\nof Corinth, complaining of the changes made in his own writings, bears\nwitness to this same fact: \"It is not, therefore, matter of wonder if\nsome have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord,\nsince they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be\ncompared with these\" (\"Eusebius,\" bk. iv., ch. 23). Faustus, the\nManich\u00e6an, the great opponent of Augustine, writes: \"For many things\nhave been inserted by your ancestors in the speeches of our Lord, which,\nthough put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially\nsince--as already it has been often proved by us--that these things were\nnot written by Christ, nor his Apostles, but a long while after their\nassumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with\nthemselves, who made up their tale out of report and opinions merely;\nand yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the Apostles of the Lord,\nor on those who were supposed to have followed the Apostles; they\nmendaciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits\n_according to_ them\" (Lib. 33, ch. 3, as quoted and translated in\n\"Diegesis,\" pp. 61, 62).\n\nThe truth is, that in those days, when books were only written, the\nwidest door was opened to alterations, additions, and omissions;\nincidents or remarks written, perhaps, in the margin of the text by one\ntranscriber, were transferred into the text itself by the next copyist,\nand were thereafter indistinguishable from the original matter. In this\nway the celebrated text of the three witnesses (1 John, v. 7) is\nsupposed to have crept into the text. Dealing with this, in reference to\nthe New Testament, Eichhorn points out that it was easy to alter a\nmanuscript in transcribing it, and that, as manuscripts were written for\nindividual use, such alterations were considered allowable, and that the\naltered manuscript, being copied in its turn, such changes passed into\ncirculation unnoticed. Owners of manuscripts added to them incidents of\nthe life of Christ, or any of his sayings, which they had heard of, and\nwhich were not recorded in their own copies, and thus the story grew and\ngrew, and additional legends were incorporated with it, until the\nhistorical basis became overlaid with myth. The vast number of readings\nin the New Testament, no less--according to Dr. Angus, one of the\npresent Revision Committee--than 100,000, prove the facility with which\nvariations were introduced into MSS. by those who had charge of them. In\nheated and angry controversy between different schools of monks appeals\nwere naturally made to the authority of the Scriptures, and what more\nlikely--indeed more certain--than that these monks should introduce\nvariations into their MS. copies favouring the positions for which they\nwere severally contending?\n\nThe most likely way in which the Gospels grew into their present forms\nis, that the various traditions relating to Christ were written down in\ndifferent places for the instruction of catechumens, and that these,\npassing from hand to hand, and mouth to mouth, grew into a large mass of\ndisjointed stories, common to many churches. This mass was gradually\nsifted, arranged, moulded into historical shape, which should fit into\nthe preconceived notions of the Messiah, and thus the four Gospels\ngradually grew into their present form, and were accepted on all hands\nas the legacy of the apostolic age. No careful reader can avoid noticing\nthe many coincidences of expression between the three synoptics, and\ndeducing from these coincidences the conclusion that one narrative\nformed the basis of the three histories. Ewald supposes the existence of\na _Spruchsammlung_--collected sayings of Christ--but such a collection\nis not enough to explain the phenomena we refer to. Dr. Davidson says:\n\"The rudiments of an original oral Gospel were formed in Jerusalem, in\nthe bosom of the first Christian Church; and the language of it must\nhave been Aram\u00e6an, since the members consisted of Galileans, to whom\nthat tongue was vernacular. It is natural to suppose that they were\naccustomed to converse with one another on the life, actions, and\ndoctrines of their departed Lord, dwelling on the particulars that\ninterested them most, and rectifying the accounts given by one another,\nwhere such accounts were erroneous, or seriously defective. The\nApostles, who were eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ, could\nimpart correctness to the narratives, giving them a fixed character in\nregard to authenticity and form. In this manner an original oral Gospel\nin Aram\u00e6an was formed. We must not, however, conceive of it as put into\nthe shape of any of our present Gospels, or as being of like extent; but\nas consisting of leading particulars in the life of Christ, probably the\nmost striking and the most affecting, such as would leave the best\nimpression on the minds of the disciples. The incidents and sayings\nconnected with their Divine Master naturally assumed a particular shape\nfrom repetition, though it was simply a rudimental one. They were not\ncompactly linked in regular or systematic sequence. They were the oral\ngerm and essence of a Gospel, rather than a proper Gospel itself, at\nleast, according to our modern ideas of it. But the Aram\u00e6an language was\nsoon laid aside. When Hellenists evinced a disposition to receive\nChristianity, and associated themselves with the small number of\nPalestinian converts, Greek was necessarily adopted. As the\nGreek-speaking members far out-numbered the Aram\u00e6an-speaking brethren,\nthe oral Gospel was put into Greek. Henceforward Greek, the language of\nthe Hellenists, became the medium of instruction. The truths and facts,\nbefore repeated in Hebrew, were now generally promulgated in Greek by\nthe apostles and their converts. The historical cyclus, which had been\nforming in the Church at Jerusalem, assumed a determinate character in\nthe Greek tongue\" (\"Introduction to the New Testament,\" by S. Davidson,\nLL.D., p. 405. Ed. 1848). Thus we find learned Christians obliged to\nadmit an uninspired collection as the basis of the inspired Gospel, and\nlaying down a theory which is entirely incompatible with the idea that\nthe Synoptic Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Our\nGospels are degraded into versions of an older Gospel, instead of being\nthe inspired record of contemporaries, speaking \"that we do know.\"\n\nCanon Westcott writes of the three Synoptic Gospels, that \"they\nrepresent, as is shown by their structure, a common basis, common\nmaterials, treated in special ways. They evidently contain only a very\nsmall selection from the words and works of Christ, and yet their\ncontents are included broadly in one outline. Their substance is\nevidently much older than their form.... The only explanation of the\nnarrow and definite limit within which the evangelic history (exclusive\nof St. John's Gospel) is confined, seems to be that a collection of\nrepresentative words and works was made by an authoritative body, such\nas the Twelve, at a very early date, and that this, which formed the\nbasis of popular teaching, gained exclusive currency, receiving only\nsubordinate additions and modifications. This Apostolic Gospel--the oral\nbasis, as I have endeavoured to show elsewhere, of the Synoptic\nnarratives--dates unquestionably from the very beginning of the\nChristian society\" (\"On the Canon,\" preface, pp. xxxviii., xxxix). Mr.\nSanday speaks of the \"original documents out of which our Gospel was\ncomposed\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" page 78), and he writes:\n\"Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew what\nwas the common original of the two Synoptic texts\" (Ibid, p. 65). \"The\nfirst three Gospels of our Canon are remarkably alike, their writers\nagree in relating the same thing, not only in the same manner, but\nlikewise in the very words, as must be evident to every common reader\nwho has paid the slightest attention to the subject.... [Here follow a\nnumber of parallel passages from the three synoptics.] The agreement\nbetween the three evangelists in these extracts is remarkable, and leads\nto the question how such coincidences could arise between works which,\nfrom the first years of Christianity until the beginning of the\nseventeenth century, were understood to be perfectly independent, and to\nhave had each a separate and independent origin. The answer to this\nquestion may at last, after more than a hundred years of discussion, be\ngiven with tolerable certainty, if we are allowed to judge of this\nsubject according to the rules of reason and common sense, by which all\nother such difficulties are resolved. 'The most eminent critics'--we\nquote from 'Marsh's Michaelis,' vol. iii., part 2, page 170--'are at\npresent decidedly of opinion that one of the two suppositions must\nnecessarily be adopted--either that the three evangelists copied from\neach other, or that all the three drew from _a common source_, and that\nthe notion of an absolute independence, in respect to the composition of\nour three first Gospels, is no longer tenable'.... The alternative\nbetween _a common source_ and _copying from each other_, is now no\nlonger in the same position as in the days of Michaelis or Bishop Marsh.\nTo decide between the two is no longer difficult. No one will now admit\nthat either of the four evangelists has copied from the other three, 1.\nBecause in neither of the four is there the slightest notice of the\nothers. 2. Because, if either of the evangelists may be thought, from\nthe remarkable similarity of any particular part of his narrative, to\nhave copied out of either of the other Gospels, we immediately light\nupon so many other passages, wholly inconsistent with what the other\nthree have related on the same subject, that we immediately ask why he\nhas not copied from the others on those points also. It only remains,\ntherefore, for us to infer that there was a common source, first\ntraditional and then written--the [Greek: Apomnemoneumata], in short, or\n'Memorials,' etc., of Justin Martyr, and that from this source the four\ncanonical Gospels, together with thirty or forty others, many of which\nare still in existence, were, at various periods of early Christianity,\ncompiled by various writers\" (\"Christian Records,\" Dr. Giles, pp. 266,\n270, 271). Dean Alford puts forward a somewhat similar theory; he\nconsiders that the oral teaching of the apostles to catechumens and\nothers, the simple narrative of facts relating to Christ, gradually grew\ninto form and was written down, and that this accounts for the marked\nsimilarity of some passages in the different Gospels. He says:--\"I\nbelieve, then, that the Apostles, in virtue not merely of their having\nbeen eye-and-ear witnesses of the Evangelic history, but especially of\n_their office_, gave to the various Churches their testimony in _a\nnarrative of facts_, such narrative being modified in each case by the\nindividual mind of the Apostle himself, and his sense of what was\nrequisite for the particular community to which he was ministering....\nIt would be easy and interesting to follow the probable origin and\ngrowth of this cycle of narratives of the words and deeds of our Lord in\nthe Church at Jerusalem, for both the Jews and the Hellenists--the\nlatter under such teachers as Philip and Stephen--commissioned and\nauthenticated by the Apostles. In the course of such a process some\nportions would naturally be written down by private believers for their\nown use, or that of friends. And as the Church spread to Samaria,\nCaesarea, and Antioch, the want would be felt in each of those places of\nsimilar cycles of oral teaching, which, when supplied, would\nthenceforward belong to, and be current in, those respective Churches.\nAnd these portions of the Evangelic history, oral or partially\ndocumentary, would be adopted under the sanction of the Apostles, who\nwere as in all things, so especially in this, the appointed and\ndivinely-guided overseers of the whole Church. This _common substratum\nof Apostolic teachings_--never formally adopted by all, but subject to\nall the varieties of diction and arrangement, addition and omission,\nincident to transmission through many individual minds, and into many\ndifferent localities--_I believe to have been the original source of the\ncommon part of our three Gospels_\" (\"Greek Test.,\" Dean Alford, vol. i.,\nProlegomena, ch. i., sec. 3, par. 6; ed. 1859. The italics are Dean\nAlford's).\n\nEichhorn's theory of the growth of the Gospels is one very generally\naccepted; he considers that the present Gospels were not in common\ncirculation before the end of the second century, and that before that\ntime other Gospels were in common use, differing considerably from each\nother, but resting on a common foundation of historical fact; all these,\nhe thinks, were versions of an \"original Gospel,\" a kind of rough\noutline of Christ's life and discourses, put together without method or\nplan, and one of these would be the \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\" of which\nJustin Martyr speaks. The Gospels, as we have them, are careful\ncompilations made from these earlier histories, and we notice that, at\nthe end of the second, and the beginning of the third, centuries, the\nleaders of the Church endeavour to establish the authority of the four\nmore methodically arranged Gospels, so as to check the reception of\nother Gospels, which were relied upon by heretics in their\ncontroversies.\n\nStrauss gives a careful _resume_ of the various theories of the\nformation of the Gospels held by learned men, and shows how the mythic\ntheory was gradually developed and strengthened; \"according to George,\n_mythus_ is the creation of a fact out of an idea\" (\"Life of Jesus,\"\nStrauss, vol. i., p. 42; ed. 1846), and the mythic theory supposes that\nthe ideas of the Messiah were already in existence, and that the story\nof the Gospels grew up by the translation of these ideas into facts:\n\"Many of the legends respecting him [Jesus] had not to be newly\ninvented; they already existed in the popular hope of the Messiah,\nhaving been mostly derived, with various modifications, from the Old\nTestament, and had merely to be transferred to Jesus, and accommodated\nto his character and doctrines. In no case could it be easier for the\nperson who first added any new feature to the description of Jesus, to\nbelieve himself its genuineness, since his argument would be: Such and\nsuch things must have happened to the Messiah; Jesus was the Messiah;\ntherefore, such and such things happened to him\" (Ibid, pp. 81, 82). \"It\nis not, however, to be imagined that any one individual seated himself\nat his table to invent them out of his own head, and write them down as\nhe would a poem; on the contrary, these narratives, like all other\nlegends, were fashioned by degrees, by steps which can no longer be\ntraced; gradually acquired consistency, and at length received a fixed\nform in our written Gospels\" (Ibid, p. 35). From the considerations here\nadduced--the lack of quotations from our Gospels in the earliest\nChristian writers, both orthodox and heretical; the accusations against\neach made by the other of introducing chants and modifications in the\nGospels; the facility with which MSS. were altered before the\nintroduction of printing; the coincidences between the Gospels, showing\nthat they are drawn from a common source; from all these facts we\nfinally conclude _that there is no evidence that the Four Gospels\nmentioned about that date_ (A.D. 180) _were the same as those we have\nnow._\n\nG. _That there is evidence that two of them were not the same._ \"The\ntestimony of Papias is of great interest and importance in connection\nwith our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical writer who\nmentions the tradition that Matthew and Mark composed written records of\nthe life and teaching of Jesus; but no question has been more\ncontinuously contested than that of the identity of the works to which\nhe refers with our actual Canonical Gospels. Papias was Bishop of\nHierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first half of the second century, and is\nsaid to have suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius about A.D.\n164-167. About the middle of the second century he wrote a work in five\nbooks, entitled 'Exposition of the Lord's Oracles,' which, with the\nexception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by Eusebius and\nIren\u00e6us, is unfortunately no longer extant. This work was less based on\nwritten records of the teaching of Jesus than on that which Papias had\nbeen able to collect from tradition, which he considered more authentic,\nfor, like his contemporary, Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers\ntradition to any written works with which he was acquainted\" (\"Sup.\nRel.,\" vol. i., pp. 449, 450). Before giving the testimony attributed to\nPapias, we must remark two or three points which will influence our\njudgment concerning him. Paley speaks of him, on the authority of\nIren\u00e6us, as \"a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp\" (\"Evidences,\"\np. 121); but Paley omits to tell us that Eusebius points out that\nIren\u00e6us was mistaken in this statement, and that Papias \"by no means\nasserts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of the holy Apostles,\nbut informs us that he received the doctrines of faith from their\nintimate friends\" (\"Eccles. Hist.\", bk. iii., ch. 39). Eusebius subjoins\nthe passage from Papias, which states that \"if I met with any one who\nhad been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire\nwhat were the declarations of the elders: what was said by Andrew,\nPeter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of\nthe disciples of our Lord; what was said by Aristion, and the Presbyter\nJohn, disciples of the Lord\" (Ibid). Seeing that Papias died between\nA.D. 164 and 167, and that the disciples of Jesus were Jesus' own\ncontemporaries, any disciple that Papias heard, when a boy, would have\nreached a portentous age, and, between the age of the disciple and the\nyouth of Papias, the reminiscences would probably be of a somewhat hazy\ncharacter. It is to Papias that we owe the wonderful account of the\nvines (ante, p. 234) of the kingdom of God, given by Iren\u00e6us, who states\nthat \"these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer\nof John, and a companion of Polycarp.... And he says, in addition, 'Now\nthese things are credible to believers.' And he says that 'when the\ntraitor, Judas, did not give credit to them, and put the question, How\nthen can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the\nLord? the Lord declared, They who shall come to these (times) shall\nsee'\" (\"Iren\u00e6us Against Heresies,\" bk. v., ch. 33, sec. 4). The\nrecollections of Papias scarcely seem valuable as to quality. Next we\nnote that Papias could scarcely put a very high value on the Apostolic\nwritings, since he states that \"I do not think that I derived so much\nbenefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still\nsurviving\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" bk. iii., ch. 39), i.e., of those who had\nbeen followers of the Apostles. How this remark of Papias tallies with\nthe supposed respect shown to the Canonical Gospels by primitive\nwriters, it is for Christian apologists to explain. We then mark that we\nhave no writing of Papias to refer to that pretends to be original. We\nhave only passages, said to be taken from his writings, preserved in the\nworks of Iren\u00e6us and Eusebius, and neither of these ecclesiastical\npenmen inspire the student with full confidence; even Eusebius mentions\nhim in doubtful fashion; \"there are said to be five books of Papias;\" he\ngives \"certain strange parables of our Lord and of his doctrine, and\nsome other matters rather too fabulous;\" \"he was very limited in his\ncomprehension, as is evident from his discourses\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk.\niii., ch. 39). We thus see that the evidence of Papias is discredited at\nthe very outset, perhaps to the advantage of the Christians, however,\nfor his testimony is fatal to the Canonical Gospels. Papias is said to\nhave written: \"And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the\ninterpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great\naccuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done\nby our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave\nhim such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our\nLord's discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing\nsome things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to\none thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything\nfalsely in these accounts\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" bk iii., ch. 39). How far\ndoes this account apply to the Gospel now known as \"according to St.\nMark?\" Far from showing traces of Petrine influence, such traces are\nconspicuous by their absence. \"Not only are some of the most important\nepisodes in which Peter is represented by the other Gospels _as_ a\nprincipal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the Gospel there is\nthe total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of\nPetrine influence and teaching. The argument that these omissions are\ndue to the modesty of Peter is quite untenable, for not only does\nIren\u00e6us, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this Gospel\nwas only written after the death of Peter, but also there is no modesty\nin omitting passages of importance in the history of Jesus, simply\nbecause Peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, for\ninstance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial of his master,\nwhich could not but have filled a sad place in the Apostle's memory. On\nthe other hand, there is no adequate record of special matter which the\nintimate knowledge of the doings and sayings of Jesus possessed by Peter\nmight have supplied to counterbalance the singular omissions. There is\ninfinitely more of the spirit of Peter in the first Gospel than there is\nin the second. The whole internal evidence, therefore, shows that this\npart of the tradition of the Presbyter John transmitted by Papias does\nnot apply to our Gospel\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., pp. 459, 460). But a far\nstronger objection to the identity of the work spoken of by Papias with\nthe present Gospel of Mark, is drawn from the description of the\ndocument as given by him. \"The discrepancy, however, is still more\nmarked when we compare with our actual second Gospel the account of the\nwork of Mark, which Papias received from the Presbyter. Mark wrote down\nfrom memory some parts [Greek: enia] of the teaching of Peter regarding\nthe life of Jesus, but as Peter adapted his instructions to the actual\ncircumstances [Greek: pros tas chreias] and did not give a consecutive\nreport [Greek: suntaxis] of the discourses or doings of Jesus, Mark was\nonly careful to be accurate, and did not trouble himself to arrange in\nhistorical order [Greek: taxis] his narrative of the things which were\nsaid or done by Jesus, but merely wrote down facts as he remembered\nthem. This description would lead us to expect a work composed of\nfragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of Peter, without orderly\nsequence or connection. The absence of orderly arrangement is the most\nprominent feature in the description, and forms the burden of the whole.\nMark writes 'what he remembered;' 'he did not arrange in order the\nthings that were either said or done by Christ;' and then follow the\napologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a hearer or\nfollower of the Lord, but derived his information from the occasional\npreaching of Peter, who did not attempt to give a consecutive narrative,\nand, therefore, Mark was not wrong in merely writing things without\norder as he happened to hear or remember them. Now it is impossible in\nthe work of Mark here described to recognise our present second Gospel,\nwhich does not depart in any important degree from the order of the\nother two Synoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evident\ncharacter of orderly arrangement.... The great majority of critics,\ntherefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the Presbyter\nJohn recorded by Papias does not apply to our second Canonical Gospel at\nall\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. 1, pp. 460, 461). \"This document, also, is\nmentioned by Papias, as quoted by Eusebius; the account which they give\nof it is not applicable to the work which we now have. For the 'Gospel\naccording to St. Mark' professes to give a continuous history of\nChrist's life, as regularly as the other three Gospels, but the work\nnoticed by Papias is expressly stated to have been memoranda, taken down\nfrom time to time as Peter delivered them, and it is not said that Mark\never reduced these notes into the form of a more perfect history\"\n(\"Christian Records,\" Rev. Dr. Giles, pp. 94, 95). \"It is difficult to\nsee in what respects Mark's Gospel is more loose and disjointed than\nthose of Matthew and Luke.... We are inclined to agree with those who\nconsider the expression [Greek: ou taxei] unsuitable to the present\nGospel of Mark. As far as we are able to understand the entire fragment,\nit is most natural to consider John the Presbyter or Papias assigning a\nsense to [Greek: ou taxei] which does not agree with the character of\nthe canonical document\" (\"Introduction to the New Testament,\" Dr.\nDavidson, p. 158). This Christian commentator is so disgusted with the\nconviction he honestly expresses as to the unsuitability of the phrase\nin question as applied to Mark, that he exclaims: \"We presume that John\nthe Presbyter was not infallible.... In the present instance, he appears\nto have been mistaken in his opinion. His power of perception was\nfeeble, else he would have seen that the Gospel which he describes as\nbeing written [Greek: ou taxei], does not differ materially in\narrangement from that of Luke. Like Papias, the Presbyter was apparently\ndestitute of critical ability and good judgment, else he could not have\nentertained an idea so much at variance with fact\" (Ibid, p. 159). We\nmay add, for what it is worth, that \"according to the unanimous belief\nof the early Church this Gospel was written at _Rome._ Hence the\nconclusion was drawn that it must have been composed in _the language of\nthe Romans_; that is, Latin. Even in the old Syriac version, a remark is\nannexed, stating that the writer preached the Gospel in Roman (Latin) at\nRome; and the Philoxenian version has a marginal annotation to the same\neffect. The Syrian Churches seem to have entertained this opinion\ngenerally, as may be inferred not only from these versions, but from\nsome of their most distinguished ecclesiastical writers, such as\nEbedjesu. Many Greek Manuscripts, too, have a similar remark regarding\nthe language of our Gospel, originally taken, perhaps from the Syriac\"\n(Ibid, pp. 154, 155). We conclude, then, that the document alluded to by\nthe Presbyter John, as reported by Papias through Eusebius, cannot be\nidentical with the present canonical Gospel of Mark. Nor is the\ntestimony regarding Matthew less conclusive: \"Of Matthew he has stated\nas follows: 'Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and\nevery one translated it as he was able'\" (\"Eccles. Hist,\" Eusebius, bk.\niii., ch. 39). The word here translated \"history\" is [Greek: ta logia]\nand would be more correctly rendered by \"oracles\" or \"discourses,\" and\nmuch controversy has arisen over this term, it being contended that\n[Greek: logia] could not rightly be extended so as to include any\nrecords of the life of Christ: \"It is impossible upon any but arbitrary\ngrounds, and from a foregone conclusion, to maintain that a work\ncommencing with a detailed history of the birth and infancy of Jesus,\nhis genealogy, and the preaching of John the Baptist, and concluding\nwith an equally minute history of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and\nresurrection, and which relates all the miracles, and has for its\nevident aim throughout the demonstration that Messianic prophecy was\nfulfilled in Jesus, could be entitled [Greek: ta logia] the oracles or\ndiscourses of the Lord. For these and other reasons ... the majority of\ncritics deny that the work described by Papias can be the same as the\nGospel in our Canon bearing the name of Matthew\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i.,\npp. 471, 472). But the fact which puts the difference between the\npresent \"Matthew\" and that spoken of by Papias beyond dispute is that\nMatthew, according to Papias, \"wrote in the Hebrew dialect,\" i.e., the\nSyro-Chaldaic, or Aram\u00e6an, while the canonical Matthew is written in\nGreek. \"There is no point, however, on which the testimony of the\nFathers is more invariable and complete than that the work of Matthew\nwas written in Hebrew or Aramaic\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., p. 475). This\nindustrious author quotes Papias, Iren\u00e6us, Pant\u00e6nus in Eusebius,\nEusebius, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, in support of\nhis assertion, and remarks that \"the same tradition is repeated by\nChrysostom, Augustine and others\" (Ibid, pp. 475-477). \"We believe that\nMatthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, meaning by that term the common\nlanguage of the Jews of his time, because such is the uniform statement\nof all ancient writers who advert to the subject. To pass over others\nwhose authority is of less weight, he is affirmed to have written in\nHebrew by Papias, Iren\u00e6us, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Nor does any\nancient author advance a contrary opinion\" (\"Genuineness of the\nGospels,\" Norton, vol. i., pp. 196, 197). \"Ancient historical testimony\nis unanimous in declaring that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, i.e.,\nin the Aram\u00e6an or Syro-Chaldaic language, at that time the vernacular\ntongue of the Jews in Palestine\" (Davidson's \"Introduction to the New\nTestament,\" p. 3). After a most elaborate presentation of the evidences,\nthe learned doctor says: \"Let us now pause to consider this account of\nthe original Gospel of Matthew. It runs through all antiquity. None\ndoubted of its truth, as far as we can judge from their writings. There\nis not the least trace of an opposite tradition\" (Ibid, p. 37). The\ndifficulty of Christian apologists is, then, to prove that the Gospel\nwritten by Matthew in Hebrew is the same as the Gospel according to\nMatthew in Greek, and sore have been the shifts to which they have been\ndriven in the effort. Dean Alford, unable to deny that all the testimony\nwhich could be relied upon to prove that Matthew wrote at all, also\nproved that he wrote in Hebrew, and aware that an unauthorised\ntranslation, which could not be identified with the original, could\nnever claim canonicity, fell back on the remarkable notion that he\nhimself translated his Hebrew Gospel into Greek; in the edition of his\nGreek Testament published in 1859, however, he gives up this notion in\nfavour of the idea that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in\nGreek.\n\nOf his earlier theory of translation by Matthew, Davidson justly says:\n\"It is easy to perceive its gratuitous character. It is a clumsy\nexpedient, devised for the purpose of uniting two conflicting\nopinions--for saving the credit of ancient testimony, which is on the\nside of a Hebrew original, and of meeting, at the same time, the\ndifficulties supposed to arise from the early circulation of the\nGreek.... The advocates of the double hypothesis go in the face of\nancient testimony. Besides, they believe that Matthew wrote in Hebrew,\nfor the use of Jewish converts. Do they also suppose his Greek Gospel to\nhave been intended for the same class? If so, the latter was plainly\nunnecessary: one Gospel was sufficient for the same persons. Or do they\nbelieve that the second edition of it was designed for Gentile\nChristians? if so, the notion is contradicted by internal evidence,\nwhich proves that it was written specially for Jews. In short, the\nhypothesis is wholly untenable, and we are surprised that it should have\nfound so many advocates\" (\"Introduction to the New Testament,\" p. 52).\nThe fact is, that no one knows who was the translator--or, rather, the\nwriter--of the Greek Gospel. Jerome honestly says that it is not known\nwho translated it into Greek. Dr. Davidson has the following strange\nremarks: \"The author indeed must ever remain unknown; but whether he\nwere an apostle or not, he must have had the highest sanction in his\nproceeding. His work was performed with the cognisance, and under the\neye of Apostolic men. The reception it met with proved the general\nbelief of his calling, and competency to the task. Divine\nsuperintendence was exercised over him\" (Ibid, pp. 72, 73). It is\ndifficult to understand how Dr. Davidson knows that divine\nsuperintendence was exercised over an unknown individual. Dr. Giles\nargues against the hypothesis that our Greek Gospel is a translation:\n\"If St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, why has the original\nperished? The existing Greek text is either a translation of the Hebrew,\nor it is a separate work. But it cannot be a translation, for many\nreasons, 1. Because there is not the slightest evidence on record of its\nbeing a translation. 2. Because it is unreasonable to believe that an\nauthentic work--written by inspiration--would perish, or be superseded\nby, an unauthenticated translation--for all translations are less\nauthentic than their originals. 3. Because there are many features in\nour present Gospel according to St. Matthew, which are common to the\nGospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; which would lead to the inference that\nthe latter are translations also. Besides, there is nothing in the\nGospel of St. Matthew, as regards its style or construction, that would\nlead to the inference of its being a translation, any more than all the\nother books contained in the New Testament. For these reasons we\nconclude that the 'Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew,' which perhaps no one\nhas seen since Pant\u00e6nus, who brought it from India, and the 'Greek\nGospel according to St. Matthew,' are separate and independent works\"\n(\"Christian Records.\" Rev. Dr. Giles, pp. 93, 94). It must not be\nforgotten that there was in existence in the early Church a Hebrew\nGospel which was widely spread, and much used. It was regarded by the\nEbionites, or Jewish Christians, later known as Nazarenes, as the only\nauthentic Gospel, and Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century, says:\n\"They have the Gospel of Matthew very complete; for it is well known\nthat this is preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew\"\n(\"Opp.,\" i. 124, as quoted by Norton). But this Gospel, known as the\n\"Gospel according to the Hebrews,\" was not the same as the Greek \"Gospel\naccording to St. Matthew.\" If it had been the same, Jerome would not\nhave thought it worth while to translate it; the quotations that he\nmakes from it are enough to prove to demonstration that the present\nGospel of Matthew is not that spoken of in the earliest days. \"The\nfollowing positions are deducible from St. Jerome's writings: 1. The\nauthentic Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. 2. The Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews was used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. 3.\nThis Gospel was identical with the Aram\u00e6an original of Matthew\"\n(Davidson's \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" p. 12). To these\narguments may be added the significant fact that the quotations in\nMatthew from the Old Testament are taken from the Septuagint, and not\nfrom the Hebrew version. The original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew would\nsurely not have contained quotations from the Greek translation, rather\nthan from the Hebrew original, of the Jewish Scriptures. If our present\nGospel is an accurate translation of the original Matthew, we must\nbelieve that the Jewish Matthew, writing for Jews, did not use the\nHebrew Scriptures, with which his readers would be familiar, but went\nout of his way to find the hated Septuagint, and re-translated it into\nHebrew. Thus we find that the boasted testimony said to be recorded by\nPapias to the effect that Matthew and Mark wrote our two first\nsynoptical Gospels breaks down completely under examination, and that\ninstead of proving the authenticity of the present Gospels, it proves\ndirectly the reverse, since the description there given of the writings\nascribed to Matthew and Mark is not applicable to the writings that now\nbear their names, so that we find that in Papias _there is evidence that\ntwo of the Gospels were not the same_.\n\nH. _That there is evidence that the earlier records were not the Gospels\nnow esteemed Canonical._ This position is based on the undisputed fact\nthat the \"Evangelical quotations\" in early Christian writings differ\nvery widely from sentences of somewhat similar character in the\nCanonical Gospels, and also from the circumstance that quotations not to\nbe found in the Canonical Gospels are found in the writings referred to.\nVarious theories are put forward, as we have already seen, to account\nfor the differences of expression and arrangement: the Fathers are said\nto have quoted loosely, to have quoted from memory, to have combined,\nexpanded, condensed, at pleasure. To prove this general laxity of\nquotation, Christian apologists rely much on what they assert is a\nsimilar laxity shown in quoting from the Old Testament; and Mr. Sanday\nhas used this argument with considerable skill. But it does not follow\nthat variations in quotations from the Old Testament spring from laxity\nand carelessness; they are generally quite as likely to spring from\nmultiplicity of versions, for we find Mr. Sanday himself saying that\n\"most of the quotations that we meet with are taken from the LXX.\nVersion; and the text of that version was, at this particular time\nespecially, uncertain and fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it\nmust have existed in several forms, which differed more or less from\nthat of the extant MSS. It would be rash, therefore, to conclude at\nonce, because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the\nLXX., that it differed from that which was used by the writer making the\nquotation\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" pp. 16, 17). Besides, it\nmust not be forgotten that the variation is sometimes too persistent to\nspring from looseness of quotation, and that the same variation is not\nalways confined to one author. The position for which we contend will be\nmost clearly appreciated by giving, at full length, one of the passages\nmost relied upon by Christian apologists; and we will take, as an\nexample of supposed quotation, the long passage in Clement, chap.\nxiii.:--\n\nMATTHEW.                   CLEMENT.                      LUKE.\n\n                           Especially remembering\n                           the word of the Lord Jesus\n                           when he spake, teaching\n                           gentleness and\n                           long-suffering.\n                           For this he said:\nv. 7. Blessed are          Pity he, that he may be    vi. 36. Be ye,\nthe pitiful, for they      pitied: forgive, that it   therefore,\nshall be pitied.           may be forgiven unto       merciful, as\nvi. 14. For if ye          you.                       your Father also\nforgive men their          As ye do, so shall it      is merciful.\ntrespasses, your heavenly  be done unto you;          vi. 37. Acquit,\nFather will                as ye give, so shall it    and ye shall be\nalso forgive you.          be given unto you; as      acquitted.\nvii. 12. All things,       ye judge, so shall it      vi. 31. And as ye\ntherefore, whatsoever      be judged unto you;        would that they\nye would that              as ye are kind, so         should do unto\nmen should do unto         shall kindness be          you, do ye also\nyou, even so do ye         shown unto you; with       unto them\nunto them.                 that measure ye mete,      likewise.\nvii. 2. For with           with it shall it be        vi. 18. Give, and\nwhat judgment ye           measured unto you.         it shall be given\njudge, ye shall be                                    unto you.\njudged, and with                                      vi. 37. And judge\nwhat measure ye                                       not, and ye shall\nmete it shall be                                      not be judged. For\nmeasured unto you.                                    with what measure\n                                                      ye mete, it shall\n                                                      be measured unto\n                                                      you again.\n\nThe English, as here given, represents as closely as possible both the\nresemblances and the differences of the Greek text. What reader, in\nreading this, can believe that Clement picked out a bit here and a bit\nthere from the Canonical Gospels, and then wove them into one connected\nwhole, which he forthwith represented as said thus by Christ? To the\nunprejudiced student the hypothesis will, at once, suggest itself--there\nmust have been some other document current in Clement's time, which\ncontained the sayings of Christ, from which this quotation was made.\nOnly the exigencies of Christian apologetic work forbid the general\nadoption of so simple and so natural a solution of the question. Mr.\nSanday says: \"Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we\nonly knew what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts ... The\ndifferences in these extra-Canonical quotations do not exceed the\ndifferences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves; yet by far the\nlarger proportion of critics regard the resemblances in the Synoptics as\ndue to a common written source used either by all three or by two of\nthem\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" p. 65). It is clear that Jesus\ncould not have said these passages in the words given by Matthew,\nClement, and Luke, repeating himself in three different forms, now\nconnectedly, now in fragments; two, at least, out of the three must give\nan imperfect report. Mr. Sanday, by speaking of \"the common original of\nthe two Synoptic texts,\" clearly shows that he does not regard the\nSynoptic version as original, and thereby helps to buttress our\ncontention, that the Gospels we have now are not the only ones that were\ncurrent in the early Church, and that they had no exclusive\nauthority--in fact, that they were not \"Canonical.\" Further on, Mr.\nSanday, referring to Polycarp, says: \"I cannot but think that there has\nbeen somewhere a written version different from our Gospels to which he\nand Clement have had access ... It will be observed that all the\nquotations refer either to the double or treble Synoptics, where we have\nalready proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a\nsingle form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the\nindividual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is,\ntherefore, not without reason when he says that they may be derived from\nother collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility cannot be\nexcluded\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" pp. 86, 87). The other\npassage from Clement is yet more unlike anything in the Canonical\nGospels: in chap. xlvi. we read:--\n\nMATTHEW.          CLEMENT.          LUKE.             MARK.\nxxvi. 24.         He said:          xvii. 1.          xiv. 21. Woe to\nWoe to that       Woe to that man;  Woe through       that man by whom\nman by whom       well for him      whom they         the Son of man is\nthe Son of man    that he had not   (offences)        delivered up, well\nis delivered      been born, than   come.             for him if that\nup; well for      that he should    2. It were        man had not been\nhim if that       offend one of my  advantageous for  born.\nman had not       elect; better     him that a great  ix. 42. And\nbeen born.        for him a         millstone were    whosoever shall\nxviii. 6. But     millstone should  hanged around     offend one of\nwhoso shall       be attached (to   his neck, and he  these little ones\noffend one of     him), and he      cast in the sea,  which believe in\nthese little      should be         than that he      me, it is well for\nones which        drowned in the    should offend     him rather that a\nbelieve in me, it sea, than that    one of these      great millstone\nwere profitable   he should offend  little ones.      were hanged about\nfor him that a    one of my little                    his neck, and he\ngreat millstone   ones.                               thrown in the sea.\nwere suspended\nupon his\nneck, and that\nhe were drowned\nin the depth\nof the sea.\n\n\"This quotation is clearly not from our Gospels, but is derived from a\ndifferent written source.... The slightest comparison of the passage\nwith our Gospels is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that it\nis neither a combination of texts, nor a quotation from memory. The\nlanguage throughout is markedly different, and, to present even a\nsuperficial parallel, it is necessary to take a fragment of the\ndiscourse of Jesus at the Last Supper, regarding the traitor who should\ndeliver him up (Matt. xxvi. 24), and join it to a fragment of his\nremarks in connection with the little child whom he set in the midst\n(xviii. 6)\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., pp. 233, 234).\n\nIn Polycarp a passage is found much resembling that given from Clement,\nchap, xiii., but not exactly reproducing it, which is open to the same\ncriticism as that passed on Clement.\n\nIf we desire to prove that Gospels other than the Canonical were in use,\nthe proof lies ready to our hands. In chap. xlvi. of Clement we read:\n\"It is written, cleave to the holy, for they who cleave to them shall be\nmade holy.\" In chap. xliv.: \"And our Apostles knew, through our Lord\nJesus Christ, that there would be contention regarding the office of the\nepiscopate.\" The author of \"Supernatural Religion\" gives us passages\nsomewhat resembling this. He said: \"There shall be schisms and\nheresies,\" from Justin Martyr (\"Trypho,\" chap. xxxv): \"There shall be,\nas the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for\nsupremacy,\" from the \"Clementine Homilies\": \"From these came the false\nChrists, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the\nChurch,\" from Hegesippus (vol. i. p. 236).\n\nIn Barnabas we read, chap. vi.: \"The Lord saith, He maketh a new\ncreation in the last times. The Lord saith, Behold I make the first as\nthe last.\" Chap. vii.: Jesus says: \"Those who desire to behold me, and\nto enter into my kingdom, must, through tribulation and suffering, lay\nhold upon me.\"\n\nIn Ignatius we find: Ep. Phil., chap, vii.: \"But the Spirit proclaimed,\nsaying these words: Do ye nothing without the Bishop.\" \"There is,\nhowever, one quotation, introduced as such, in this same Epistle, the\nsource of which Eusebius did not know, but which Origen refers to 'the\nPreaching of Peter,' and Jerome seems to have found in the Nazarene\nversion of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews.' This phrase is\nattributed to our Lord when he appeared 'to those about Peter and said\nto them, Handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.' But\nfor the statement of Origen, that these words occurred in the 'Preaching\nof Peter,' they might have been referred without much difficulty to Luke\nxxiv. 39\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" p. 81). And they most\ncertainly would have been so referred, and dire would have been\nChristian wrath against those who refused to admit these words as a\nproof of the canonicity of Luke's Gospel in the time of Ignatius.\n\nIf, turning to Justin Martyr, we take one or two passages resembling\nother passages to be found in the Canonical, we shall then see the same\ntype of differences as we have already remarked in Clement. In the\nfifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the first \"Apology\" we find a\ncollection of the sayings of Christ, most of which are to be read in the\nSermon on the Mount; in giving these Justin mentions no written work\nfrom which he quotes. He says: \"We consider it right, before giving you\nthe promised explanation, to cite a few precepts given by Christ\nhimself\" (\"Apology,\" chap. xiv). If these had been taken from Gospels\nwritten by Apostles, is it conceivable that Justin would not have used\ntheir authority to support himself?\n\nMATTHEW.                              JUSTIN.\n\nv. 46. For if ye should love          And of our love to all, he\nthem which love you, what reward      taught this: If ye love them\nhave ye? do not even the              that love ye, what new things\npublicans the same?                   do ye? for even fornicators do\n                                      this; but I say unto you: Pray\nv. 44. But I say unto you,            for your enemies, and love them\nlove your enemies, bless them         which hate you, and bless them\nwhich curse you, do good to           which curse you, and offer\nthem which hate you, and pray         prayer for them which\nfor them which despitefully use       despitefully use you.\nyou and persecute you.\n\nThe corresponding passage in Luke is still further from Justin (Luke vi.\n32-35). \"It will be observed that here again Justin's Gospel reverses\nthe order in which the parallel passage is found in our synoptics. It\ndoes so indeed, with a clearness of design which, even without the\nactual peculiarities of diction and construction, would indicate a\nspecial and different source. The passage varies throughout from our\nGospels, but Justin repeats the same phrases in the same order\nelsewhere\" (\"Sup. Rel,\" v. i. p. 353, note 2).\n\nMATTHEW.                               JUSTIN.\n\nv. 42. Give thou to him that           He said: Give ye to every one\nasketh thee, and from him that         that asketh, and from him that\nwould borrow of thee turn not          desireth to borrow turn not ye\nthou away.                             away: for if ye lend to them\n                                       from whom ye hope to receive,\nLuke vi. 34. And if you lend           what new thing do ye? for even\nto them from whom ye hope to           the publicans do this.\nreceive, what thank have ye; for\nsinners also lend to sinners to        But ye, lay not up for yourselves\nreceive as much again.                 upon the earth, where moth and\n                                       rust do corrupt, and robbers\nMatt. vi. 19, 20. Lay not up for       break through, but lay up for\nyourselves treasures upon earth,       yourselves in the heavens, where\nwhere moth and rust doth corrupt,      neither moth nor rust doth\nand where thieves break                corrupt.\nthrough and steal. But lay up\nfor yourselves treasures in heaven,    For what is a man profited, is he\nwhere neither moth nor                 shall gain the whole world, but\nrust doth corrupt, and where           destroy his soul? or what shall he\nthieves do not break through           give in exchange for it? Lay up,\nnor steal.                             therefore, in the heavens, where\n                                       neither most nor rust doth corrupt.\nxvi. 26. For what shall a\nman be profited if he shall gain\nthe whole world, but lose his\nsoul? or what shall a man give in\nexchange for his soul?\n\nThis passage is clearly unbroken in Justin, and forms one connected\nwhole; to parallel it from the Synoptics we must go from Matthew v., 42,\nto Luke vi., 34, then to Matthew vi., 19, 20, off to Matthew xvi. 26,\nand back again to Matthew vi. 19; is such a method of quotation likely,\nespecially when we notice that Justin, in quoting passages on a given\nsubject (as at the beginning of chap. xv. on chastity), separates the\nquotations by an emphatic \"And,\" marking the quotation taken from\nanother place? These passages will show the student how necessary it is\nthat he should not accept a few words as proof of a quotation from a\nsynoptic, without reading the whole passage in which they occur. The\ncoincidence of half a dozen words is no quotation when the context is\ndifferent, and there is no break between the context and the words\nrelied upon. \"It is absurd and most arbitrary to dissect a passage,\nquoted by Justin as a consecutive and harmonious whole, and finding\nparallels more or less approximate to its various phrases scattered up\nand down distant parts of our Gospels, scarcely one of which is not\nmaterially different from the reading of Justin, to assert that he is\nquoting these Gospels freely from memory, altering, excising, combining,\nand inter-weaving texts, and introverting their order, but nevertheless\nmaking use of them and not of others. It is perfectly obvious that such\nan assertion is nothing but the merest assumption\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol.\ni., p. 364). Mr. Sanday's conclusion as to Justin is: \"The _\u00e0 priori_\nprobabilities of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's\nGospel, alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or\nimmediately of our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an\nexclusive authority, and that he probably made use along with them of\nother documents no longer extant\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" p.\n117). It is needless to multiply analyses of quotations, as the system\napplied to the two given above can be carried out for himself by the\nstudent in other cases. But a far weightier proof remains that Justin's\n\"Memoirs of the Apostles\" were not the Canonical Gospels; and that is,\nthat Justin used expressions, and mentions incidents which are _not_ to\nbe found in our Gospels, and some of which _are_ to be found in\nApocryphal Gospels. For instance, in the first \"Apology,\" chap. xiii.,\nwe read: \"We have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of him\nis not to consume by fire what he has brought into being for our\nsustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with\ngratitude to him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for our\ncreation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities\nof the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons;\nand to present before him petitions for our existing again in\nincorruption through faith in him. Our teacher of these things is Jesus\nChrist, who also was born for this purpose.\" \"He has exhorted us to lead\nall men, by patience and gentleness, from shame and the love of evil\"\n(Ibid, chap. xvi.). \"For the foal of an ass stood _bound to a vine_\"\n(Ibid, chap. xxxii.). \"The angel said to the _Virgin_, Thou shalt call\nhis name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins\" (chap.\nxxxiii.). \"They tormented him, and set him on the judgment seat, and\nsaid, Judge us\" (chap. xxxv.). \"Our Lord Jesus Christ said, In\nwhatsoever things I shall take you, in these I shall judge you\"\n(\"Trypho,\" chapter xlviii.). These are only some out of the many\npassages of which no resemblance is to be found in the Canonical\nGospels.\n\nThe best way to show the truth of Paley's contention--that \"from\nJustin's works, which are still extant, might be collected a tolerably\ncomplete account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing with that\nwhich is delivered in our Scriptures; taken indeed, in a great measure,\nfrom those Scriptures, but still proving that this account and no other,\nwas the account known and extant in that age\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 77)--will\nbe to give the story from Justin, mentioning every notice of Christ in\nhis works, which gives anything of his supposed life, only omitting\npassages relating solely to his teaching, such as those given above. The\nlarge majority of these are taken from the \"Dialogue with Trypho,\" a\nwearisome production, in which Justin endeavours to convince a Jew that\nChrist is the Messiah, by quotations from the Jewish Scriptures (which,\nby the way, include Esdras, thus placing that book on a level with the\nother inspired volumes). A noticeable peculiarity of this Dialogue is,\nthat any alleged incident in Christ's life is taken as true, not because\nit is authenticated as historical, but simply because it was prophesied\nof; Justin's Christ is, in fact, an ideal, composed out of the\nprophecies of the Jews, and fitted on to a Jew named Jesus.\n\n    Christ was the offspring truly brought forth from the Father,\n    before the creation of anything else, the Word begotten of God,\n    before all his works, and he appeared before his birth,\n    sometimes as a flame of fire, sometimes as an angel, as at\n    Sodom, to Moses, to Joshua. He was called by Solomon, Wisdom;\n    and by the Prophets and by Christians, the King, the Eternal\n    Priest, God, Lord, Angel, Man, the Flower, the Stone, the\n    Cornerstone, the Rod, the Day, the East, the Glory, the Rock,\n    the Sword, Jacob, Israel, the Captain, the Son, the Helper, the\n    Redeemer. He was born into the World by the over-shadowing of\n    God the Holy Ghost, who is none other than the Word himself, and\n    produced without sexual union by a virgin of the seed of Jacob,\n    Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David, his birth being announced by an\n    angel, who told the Virgin to call his name Jesus, for he should\n    save his people from their sins. Joseph, the spouse of Mary,\n    desired to put her away, but was commanded in a vision not to\n    put away his wife, the angel telling him that what was in her\n    womb was of the Holy Ghost. At the first census taken in Jud\u00e6a,\n    under Cyrenius, the first Roman Procurator, he left Nazareth\n    where he lived, and went to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, his\n    family being of the tribe of Judah, and then was ordered to\n    proceed to Egypt with Mary and the child, and remain there until\n    another revelation warned them to return to Jud\u00e6a. At Bethlehem\n    Joseph could find no lodging in the village, so took up his\n    quarters in a cave near, where Christ was born and placed in a\n    manger. Here he was found by the Magi from Arabia, who had been\n    to Jerusalem inquiring what king was born there, they having\n    seen a star rise in heaven. They worshipped the child and gave\n    him gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and warned by a revelation,\n    went home without telling Herod where they had found the child.\n    So Herod, when Joseph, Mary, and the child had gone into Egypt,\n    as they were commanded, ordered the whole of the children then\n    in Bethlehem to be massacred. Archelaus succeeded Herod, and was\n    succeeded himself by another Herod. The child grew up like all\n    other men, and was a man without comeliness, and inglorious,\n    working as a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes, and when he\n    was thirty years of age, more or less, he went to Jordan to be\n    baptised by John, who was the herald of his approach. When he\n    stepped into the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and\n    when he came out of the water the Holy Ghost lighted on him like\n    a dove, and at the same instant a voice came from the heavens:\n    \"Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.\" He was tempted\n    by Satan, and of like passions with men; he was spotless and\n    sinless, and the blameless and righteous man; he made whole the\n    lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, and he raised the\n    dead; he was called, because of his mighty works, a magician,\n    and a deceiver of the people. He stood in the midst of his\n    brethren the Apostles, and when living with them sang praises\n    unto God. He changed the names of the sons of Zebedee to\n    Boanerges, and of another of the Apostles to Peter. He ordered\n    his acquaintance to bring him an ass, and the foal of an ass\n    which stood bound to a vine, and he mounted and rode into\n    Jerusalem. He overthrew the tables of the money-changers in the\n    temple. He gave us bread and wine in remembrance of his taking\n    our flesh and of shedding his blood. He took upon him the curses\n    of all, and by his stripes the human race is healed. On the day\n    in which he was to be crucified (elsewhere called the night\n    before) he took three disciples to the hill called Olivet, and\n    prayed; his sweat fell to the ground like drops, his heart and\n    also his bones trembling; men went to the Mount of Olives to\n    seize him; he was seized on the day of the Passover, and\n    crucified during the Passover; Pilate sent Jesus bound to Herod;\n    before Pilate he kept silence; they set Christ on the judgment\n    seat, and said: \"Judge us;\" he was crucified under Pontius\n    Pilate; his hands and feet were pierced; they cast lots for his\n    vesture, and divided it; they that saw him crucified, shook\n    their heads and mocked him, saying: \"Let him who raised the dead\n    save himself.\" \"He said he was the Son of God; let him come\n    down; let God save him.\" He gave up his spirit to the Father,\n    and after he was crucified all his acquaintance forsook him,\n    having denied him. He rose on the third day; he was crucified on\n    Friday, and rose on \"the day of the Sun,\" and appeared to the\n    Apostles and taught them to read the prophecies, and they\n    repented of their flight, after they were persuaded by himself\n    that he had beforehand warned them of his sufferings, and that\n    these sufferings were prophesied of. They saw him ascend. The\n    rulers in heaven were commanded to admit the King of Glory, but\n    seeing him uncomely and dishonoured they asked, \"Who is this\n    King of Glory?\" God will keep Christ in heaven until he has\n    subdued his enemies the devils. He will return in glory, raise\n    the bodies of the dead, clothe the good with immortality, and\n    send the bad, endued with eternal sensibility into everlasting\n    fire. He has the everlasting kingdom.\n\nThese references to Jesus are scattered up and down through Justin's\nwritings, without any chronological order, a phrase here, a phrase\nthere; only in one or two instances are two or three things related even\nin the same chapter. They are arranged here connectedly, as nearly as\npossible in the usually accepted order, and the greatest care has been\ntaken not to omit any. It will be worth while to note the differences\nbetween this and our Gospels, and also the allusions to other Gospels\nwhich it contains. Christ is clearly subsequent in time to the Father,\nbeing brought forth from him; he conceives himself, he being here\nidentified with the Holy Ghost; it is the _virgin_ who descends from\nDavid, a fact of which there is no hint given in our Gospels; the reason\nof the name Jesus is told to the Virgin instead of to Joseph; we hear\nnothing of the shepherds and the glory of the Lord round the chanting\nangels; Jesus is uncomely, and works making ploughs and yokes, of which,\nwe hear nothing in the Gospels; the fire at the baptism is not mentioned\nin the Gospels, and the voice from heaven speaks in words not found in\nthem; he is called a magician, of which accusation we know nothing from\nthe four; the colt of the ass is tied to a vine, a circumstance omitted\nin the canonical writings; it is no where said in the New Testament that\nthe bread at the Lord's supper is given in remembrance of _the\nincarnation_, but, on the contrary, it is in remembrance of _the death_\nof Christ; the crucifixion is not stated to have taken place during the\nPassover, but on the contrary the Fourth Gospel places it before, the\nothers after, the Passover; we hear nothing of Christ set on the\njudgment seat in the Gospels: the _vesture_ is not divided according to\nJohn, who draws a distinction between the _vesture_ and the _raiment_\nwhich is not recognised by Justin; the taunts of the crowd are\ndifferent; the denial of Christ by all the Apostles is uncanonical, as\nis also their forsaking him _after_ the crucifixion; we do not hear of\nthe \"day of the Sun\" in our Gospels, nor of the rulers of heaven and\ntheir reception of Christ. In fact, there are more points of divergence\nthan of coincidence between the details of the story of Jesus given by\nJustin and that given in the Four Gospels, and yet Paley says that: \"all\nthe references in Justin are made without mentioning the author; which\nproves that these books were perfectly notorious, and that there were no\nother accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no others so\nreceived and credited, as to make it necessary to distinguish these from\nthe rest\" (\"Evidences,\" p. 123). And Paley has actually the hardihood to\nstate that what \"seems extremely to be observed is, that in all Justin's\nworks, from which might be extracted almost a complete life of Christ,\nthere are but two instances in which he refers to anything as said or\ndone by Christ, which is not related concerning him in our present\nGospels; which shows that these Gospels, and these, we may say, alone,\nwere the authorities from which the Christians of that day drew the\ninformation upon which they depended\" (Ibid pp. 122, 123). Paley,\nprobably, never intended that a life of Christ should \"be extracted\"\nfrom \"all Justin's works.\" It is done above, and the reader may judge\nfor himself of Paley's truthfulness. One of the \"two instances\" is given\nas follows: \"The other, of a circumstance in Christ's baptism, namely, a\nfiery or luminous appearance upon the water, which, according to\nEpiphanius, is noticed in the Gospel of the Hebrews; and which might be\ntrue; but which, whether true or false, is mentioned by Justin with a\nplain mark of diminution when compared with what he quotes as resting\nupon Scripture authority. The reader will advert to this distinction.\n'And then, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was\nbaptising, as Jesus descended into the water, a fire also was kindled in\nJordan; and when he came up out of the water, _the apostles of this our\nChrist have written_, that the Holy Ghost lighted upon him as a dove'\"\n(Ibid, p. 123). The italics here are Paley's own. Now let the reader\nturn to the passage itself, and he will find that Paley has deliberately\naltered the construction of the phrases, in order to make a\n\"distinction\" that Justin does not make, inserting the reference to the\napostles in a different place to that which it holds in Justin. Is it\ncredible that such duplicity passes to-day for argument? one can only\nhope that the large majority of Christians who quote Paley are ignorant,\nand are, therefore, unconscious of the untruthfulness of the apologist;\nthe passage quoted is taken from the \"Dialogue with Trypho,\" chap. 88,\nand runs as follows: \"Then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan,\nwhere John was baptising, and when he had stepped into the water, a fire\nwas kindled in the Jordan; and when he came out of the water, the Holy\nGhost lighted on him like a dove; the apostles of this very Christ of\nours wrote\" [thus]. The phrase italicised by Paley concludes the\naccount, and if it refers to one part of the story, it refers to all;\nthus the reader can see for himself that Justin makes no \"mark of\ndiminution\" of any kind, but gives the whole story, fire, Holy Ghost,\nand all, as from the \"Memoirs.\" The mockery of Christ on the cross is\nworded differently in Justin and in the Gospels, and he distinctly says\nthat he quotes from the \"Memoirs.\" \"They spoke in mockery the words\nwhich are recorded in the memoirs of his Apostles: 'He said he was the\nSon of God; let him come down: let God save him'\" (\"Dial.\" chap. ci.).\n\nIf we turn to the Clementines, we find, in the same way, passages not to\nbe found in the Canonical Gospels. \"And Peter said: We remember that our\nLord and Teacher, as commanding us, said: Keep the mysteries for me, and\nthe sons of my house\" (\"Hom.\" xix. chap. 20). \"And Peter said: If,\ntherefore, of the Scriptures some are true and some are false, our\nTeacher rightly said: 'Be ye good money-changers,' as in the Scriptures\nthere are some true sayings and some spurious\" (\"Hom.\" ii. chap. 51; see\nalso iii. chap. 50. and xviii. chap. 20). This saying of Christ is found\nin many of the Fathers. \"To those who think that God tempts, as the\nScriptures say he [Jesus] said: 'The tempter is the wicked one, who also\ntempted himself'\" (\"Hom.\" iii. chap. 55).\n\nOf the Clementine \"Homilies\" Mr. Sanday remarks, \"several apocryphal\nsayings, and some apocryphal details, are added. Thus the Clementine\nwriter calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' _i.e.,_ member of a sect which\npractised daily baptism. He talks about a rumour which became current in\nthe reign of Tiberius, about the 'vernal equinox,' that at the same time\na King should arise in Jud\u00e6a who should work miracles, making the blind\nto see, the lame to walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and\nraising the dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with\nMark, he calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of\nher daughter 'Bernice.' He also limits the ministry of our Lord to one\nyear\" (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" pp. 167, 168). But it is\nneedless to multiply such passages; three or four would be enough to\nprove our position: whence were they drawn, if not from records\ndiffering from the Gospels now received? We, therefore, conclude that in\nthe numerous Evangelical passages quoted by the Fathers, which are not\nin the Canonical Gospels, we find _evidence that the earlier records\nwere not the Gospels now esteemed Canonical._\n\nI. _That the books themselves show marks of their later origin._ We\nshould draw this conclusion from phrases scattered throughout the\nGospels, which show that the writers were ignorant of local customs,\nhabits, and laws, and therefore could not have been Jews contemporary\nwith Jesus at the date when he is alleged to have lived. We find a clear\ninstance of this ignorance in the mention made by Luke of the census\nwhich is supposed to have brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem\nimmediately before the birth of Jesus. If Jesus was born at the time\nalleged \"the Roman census in question must have been made either under\nHerod the Great, or at the commencement of the reign of Archelaus. This\nis in the highest degree improbable, for in those countries which were\nnot reduced _in formam provinci\u00e6_, but were governed by _regibus\nsociis_, the taxes were levied by these princes, who paid a tribute to\nthe Romans; and this was the state of things in Jud\u00e6a prior to the\ndeposition of Archelaus.... The Evangelist relieves us from a further\ninquiry into this more or less historical or arbitrary combination by\nadding that this taxing was first made when Cyrenius (Quirinus) _was\nGovernor of_ Syria [Greek: haegemoneuontos taes Surias Kuraeniou] for it\nis an authenticated point that the assessment of Quirinus did not take\nplace either under Herod or early in the reign of Archelaus, the period\nat which, according to Luke, Jesus was born. Quirinus was not at that\ntime Governor of Syria, a situation held during the last years of Herod\nby Lentius Saturninus, and after him by Quintilius Varus; and it was not\ntill long after the death of Herod that Quirinus was appointed Governor\nof Syria. That Quirinus undertook a census of Jud\u00e6a we know certainly\nfrom Josephus, who, however, remarks that he was sent to execute this\nmeasure when Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria\n(compare \"Ant.,\" bk. xvii. ch. 13, sec. 5; bk. xviii. ch. 1, sec. 1;\n\"Wars of the Jews,\" bk. ii. ch. 8, sec. 1; and ch. 9, sec. 1) thus,\nabout ten years after the time at which, according to Matthew and Luke,\nJesus must have been born\" (Strauss's \"Life of Jesus,\" vol. i., pp.\n202-204).\n\nThe confusion of dates, as given in Luke, proves that the writer was\nignorant of the internal history of Jud\u00e6a and the neighbouring\nprovinces. The birth of Jesus, according to Luke, must have taken place\nsix months after the birth of John Baptist, and as John was born during\nthe reign of Herod, Jesus must also have been born under the same King,\nor else at the commencement of the reign of Archelaus. Yet Luke says\nthat he was born during the census in Jud\u00e6a, which, as we have seen just\nabove, took place ten years later. \"The Evangelist, therefore, in order\nto get a census, must have conceived the condition of things such as\nthey were after the deposition of Archelaus; but in order to get a\ncensus extending to Galilee, he must have imagined the kingdom to have\ncontinued undivided, as in the time of Herod the Great. [Strauss had\nexplained that the reduction of the kingdom of Archelaus into a Roman\nprovince did not affect Galilee, which was still ruled by Herod Antipas\nas an allied prince, and that a census taken by the Roman Governor\nwould, therefore, not extend to Galilee, and could not affect Joseph,\nwho, living at Nazareth, would be the subject of Herod. See, as\nillustrative of this, Luke xxiii. 6, 7.] Thus he deals in manifest\ncontradictions; or, rather, he has an exceedingly sorry acquaintance\nwith the political relations of that period; for he extends the census\nnot only to the whole of Palestine, but also (which we must not forget)\nto the whole Roman world\" (Strauss's \"Life of Jesus,\" vol. i., p. 206).\n\nAfter quoting one of the passages of Josephus referred to above, Dr.\nGiles says: \"There can be little doubt that this is the mission of\nCyrenius which the Evangelist supposed to be the occasion of the visit\nof Christ's parents to Bethlehem. But such an error betrays on the part\nof the writer a great ignorance of the Jewish history, and of Jewish\npolitics; for, if Christ was born in the reign of Herod the Great, no\nRoman census or enrolment could have taken place in the dominions of an\nindependent King. If, however, Christ was born in the year of the\ncensus, not only Herod the Great, but Archelaus, also, his son, was\ndead. Nay, by no possibility can the two events be brought together; for\neven after the death of Archelaus, Jud\u00e6a alone became a Roman province;\nGalilee was still governed by Herod Antipas as an independent prince,\nand Christ's parents would not have been required to go out of their own\ncountry to Jerusalem, for the purpose of a census which did not comprise\ntheir own country, Galilee. Besides which, it is notorious that the\nRoman census was taken from house to house, at the residence of each,\nand not at the birth-place or family rendezvous of each tribe\"\n(\"Christian Records,\" pp. 120, 121). Another \"striking witness to the\nlate composition of the Gospels is furnished by expressions, denoting\nideas that could not have had any being in the time of Christ and his\ndisciples, but must have been developed afterwards, at a time when the\nChristian religion was established on a broader and still increasing\nbasis\" (Ibid, p. 169). Dr. Giles has collected many of these, and we\ntake them from his pages. In John i. 15, 16, we read: \"John bare witness\nof him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh\nafter me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his\nfulness have all we received, and grace for grace.\" At that time none\nhad received of the \"fulness of Christ,\" and the saying in the mouth of\nJohn Baptist is an anachronism. The word \"cross\" is several times used\nsymbolically by Christ, as expressing patience and self-denial; but\nbefore his own crucifixion the expression would be incomprehensible, and\nhe would surely not select a phraseology his disciples could not\nunderstand; \"Bearing the cross\" is a later phrase, common among\nChristians. Matthew xi. 12, Jesus, speaking while John the Baptist is\nstill living, says: \"From the days of John the Baptist until now\"--an\nexpression that implies a lapse of time. The word \"gospel\" was not in\nuse among Christians before the end of the second century; yet we find\nit in Matthew iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13; Mark i. 14, viii. 35,\nx. 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 9; Luke ix. 6. The unclean spirit, or rather\nspirits, who were sent into the swine (Mark v. 9, Luke viii. 30),\nanswered to the question, \"What is thy name?\" that his name was Legion.\n\"The Four Gospels are written in Greek, and the word 'legion' is Latin;\nbut in Galilee and Peraea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but\nHebrew, or a dialect of it. The word 'legion' would be perfectly\nunintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in\nthe country\" (Ibid, p. 197). The account of Matthew, that Jesus rode on\nthe ass _and_ the colt, to fulfil the prophecy, \"Behold thy king cometh\nunto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass\"\n(xxi. 5. 7), shows that Matthew did not understand the Hebrew idiom,\nwhich should be rendered \"sitting upon an ass, even upon a colt, the\nfoal of an ass,\" and related an impossible riding feat to fulfil the\nmisunderstood prophecy. The whole trial scene shows ignorance of Roman\ncustoms: the judge running in and out between accused and people,\noffering to scourge him _and_ let him go--a course not consistent with\nRoman justice; then presenting him to the people with a crown of thorns\nand purple robe. The Roman administration would not condescend to a\nprocedure so unjust and so undignified. The mass of contradictions in\nthe Gospels, noticed under _k_, show that they could not have been\nwritten by disciples possessing personal knowledge of the events\nnarrated; while the fact that they are written in Greek, as we shall see\nbelow, under _j_, proves that they were not written by \"unlearned and\nignorant\" Jews, and were not contemporary records, penned by the\nimmediate followers of Jesus. From these facts we draw the conclusion.\n_that the books themselves show marks of their later origin._\n\nJ. _That the language in which they are written is presumptive evidence\nagainst their authenticity._ We are here dealing with the supposed\nhistory of a Jewish prophet written by Jews, and yet we find it written\nin Greek, a language not commonly known among the Jews, as we learn from\nthe testimony of Josephus: \"I have so completely perfected the work I\nproposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or\na foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so\naccurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these\nbooks. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed\nthem in the learning belonging to the Jews. I have also taken a great\ndeal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the\nelements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed\nmyself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with\nsufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn\nthe languages of many nations ... on which account, as there have been\nmany who have done their endeavours with great patience to obtain this\nlearning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have\nsucceeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains\"\n(\"Ant.\" bk. xx. ch. 11, sec 2). He further tells us that \"I grew weary,\nand went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to\ntranslate our history into a foreign and, to us, unaccustomed language\"\n(Ibid, Preface). The chief reason, perhaps, for this general ignorance\nof Greek was the barbarous aversion of the Rabbis to foreign literature.\n\"No one will be partaker of eternal life who reads foreign literature.\nExecrable is he, as the swineherd, execrable alike, who teaches his son\nthe wisdom of the Greeks\" (translated from Latin translation of Rabbi\nAkiba, as given in note in Keim's \"Jesus of Nazara,\" vol. i. p, 295). It\nis noteworthy, also, that the Evangelists quote generally from the\nSeptuagint, and that loyal Jews would have avoided doing so, since \"the\ntranslation of the Bible into Greek had already been the cause of grief,\nand even of hatred, in Jerusalem\" (Ibid, p. 294). In the face of this we\nare asked to believe that a Galilean fisherman, by the testimony of Acts\niv. 13, unlearned and ignorant, outstripped his whole nation, save the\n\"two or three that have succeeded\" in learning Greek, and wrote a\nphilosophical and historical treatise in that language. Also that\nMatthew, a publican, a member of the most degraded class of the Jews,\nwas equally learned, and published a history in the same tongue. Yet\nthese two marvels of erudition were unknown to Josephus, who expressly\nstates that the two or three who had learned Greek, were \"immediately\nwell rewarded for their pains.\" The argument does not tell against Mark\nand Luke, as no one knows anything about these two writers, and they may\nhave been Greeks, for anything we know to the contrary. If Mark,\nhowever, is to be identified with John Mark, sister's son to Barnabas,\nthen it will lie also against him. Leaving aside the main difficulty,\npointed out above, it is grossly improbable, on the face of it, that\nthese Jewish writers should employ Greek, even if they knew it, instead\nof their own tongue. They were writing the story of a Jew; why should\nthey translate all his sayings instead of writing them down as they fell\nfrom his lips? Their work lay among the Jews. Eight years after the\ndeath of Jesus they rebuked one of their number, Peter, who eat with\n\"men uncircumcised\" (Acts xi. 3); nineteen years afterwards they still\nwent only \"unto the circumcision\" (Gal. ii. 9); twenty-seven years\nafterwards they were still in Jerusalem, teaching Jews, and carefully\nfulfilling the law (Acts xxi. 18-24); after this, we hear no more of\nthem, and they must all have been old men, not likely to then change the\nJewish habits of their lives. Besides, why should they do so? their\nwhole sphere of work was entirely Jewish, and, if they were educated\nenough to write at all, they would surely write for the benefit of those\namongst whom they worked. The only parallel for so curious a phenomenon\nas these Greek Gospels, written by ignorant Jews, would be found if a\nCornish fisherman and a low London attorney, both perfectly ignorant of\nGerman, wrote in German the sayings and doings of a Middlesex carpenter,\nand as their work was entirely confined to the lower classes of the\npeople, who knew nothing of German, and they desired to place within\ntheir reach full knowledge of the carpenter's life, they circulated it\namong them in German only, and never wrote anything about him in\nEnglish. The Greek text of the Gospels proves that they were written in\nlater times, when Christianity found its adherents among the Gentile\npopulations. It might, indeed, be fairly urged that the Greek text is a\nsuggestion that the creed did not originate in Jud\u00e6a at all, but was the\noffshoot of Gentile thought rather than of Jewish. However that may be,\nthe Greek text forbids us to believe that these Gospels were written by\nthe Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, and we conclude _that the language\nin which they are written is presumptive evidence against their\nauthenticity_.\n\nK. _That they are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit from (1) the\nmiracles with which they abound. (2) The numerous contradictions of each\nby the others. (3) The fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines,\nthe miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of the\nGospels, so that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of older\nmaterials._\n\n(1) _The miracles with which they abound._ Paley asks: \"Why should we\nquestion the genuineness of these books? Is it for that they contain\naccounts of supernatural events? I apprehend that this, at the bottom,\nis the real, though secret cause of our hesitation about them; for, had\nthe writings, inscribed with the names of Matthew and John, related\nnothing but ordinary history, there would have been no more doubt\nwhether these writings were theirs, than there is concerning the\nacknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have been\nno doubt at all\" (\"Evidences,\" pp. 105, 106). There is a certain amount\nof truth in this argument. We _do_--openly, however, and not\nsecretly--doubt any and every book which is said to be a record of\nmiracles, written by an eye-witness of them; the more important the\ncontents of a book, the more keenly are its credentials scrutinised; the\nmore extraordinary the story it contains, the more carefully are its\nevidences sifted. In dealing with Josephus, we examine his authenticity\nbefore relying at all on his history; finding there is little doubt that\nthe book was written by him, we value it as the account of an apparently\ncareful writer. When we come to passages like one in \"Wars of the Jews,\"\nbk. vi. ch. 5, sec. 3--which tells us among the portents which\nforewarned the Jews of the fall of the temple: \"A heifer, as she was led\nby the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst\nof the temple\"--we do _not_ believe it, any more than we believe that\nthe devils went into the swine. If such fables, instead of forming\nexcrescences here and there on the history of Josephus, which may be cut\noff without injury to the main record, were so interwoven with the\nhistory as to be part and parcel of it, so that no history would remain\nif they were all taken away, then we should reject Josephus as a teller\nof fables, and not a writer of history. If it were urged that Josephus\nwas an eye-witness, and recorded what he saw, then we should answer:\nEither your history is not written by Josephus at all, but is falsely\nassigned to him in order to give it the credit of being written by a\ncontemporary and an eye-witness; or else your Josephus is a charlatan,\nwho pretended to have seen miracles in order to increase his prestige.\nIf this supposed history of Josephus were widely spread and exercised\nmuch influence over mankind, then its authenticity would be very\ncarefully examined and every weak point in the evidences for it tested,\njust as the Gospels are to-day. We may add, that it is absurd to\nparallel the Evangelists and Josephus, as though we knew of the one no\nmore than we do of the others. Josephus relates his own life, giving us\nan account of his family, his childhood, and his education; he then\ntells us of his travels, of all he did, and of the books he wrote, and\nthe books themselves bear his own announcement of his authorship; for\ninstance, we read: \"I, Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth an Hebrew,\na priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself,\nand was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, am the author\nof this work\" (\"Wars of the Jews,\" Preface, sec. I). To which of the\nGospels is such an announcement prefixed? even in Luke, where the\nhistorian writes a preface, it is not said: \"I, Luke,\" and anonymous\nwritings must be of doubtful authenticity. Which of the Evangelists has\nrelated for us his own life, so that we may judge of his opportunities\nof knowing what he tells? To which of their histories is such external\ntestimony given as that of Tacitus to Josephus, in spite of the contempt\nfelt by the polished Roman towards the whole Jewish race? Nothing can be\nmore misleading than to speak of Josephus and of the Evangelists as\nthough their writings stood on the same level; every mark of\nauthenticity is present in the one; every mark of authenticity is absent\nin the other.\n\nWe shall argue as against the miraculous accounts of the Gospels--first,\nthat the evidence is insufficient and far below the amount of evidence\nbrought in support of more modern miracles; secondly, that the power to\nwork miracles has been claimed by the Church all through her history,\nand is still so claimed, and it is, therefore, impossible to mark any\nperiod wherein miracles ceased; and, thirdly, that not only are\nChristian miracles unproven, but that all miracles are impossible, as\nwell as useless if possible.\n\nPaley, arguing for the truth of Christian miracles, _and of these only_,\nendeavours to lay down canons which shall exclude all others. Thus, he\nexcludes: \"I. Such accounts of supernatural events as are found only in\nhistories by some ages posterior to the transaction.... II. Accounts\npublished in one country of what passed in a distant country, without\nany proof that such accounts were known or received at home.... III.\n_Transient_ rumours.... IV. _Naked_ history (fragments, unconnected with\nsubsequent events dependent on the miracles).... V. In a certain way,\nand to a certain degree, _particularity_, in names, dates, places,\ncircumstances, and in the order of events preceding or following.... VI.\nStories on which nothing depends, in which no interest is involved,\nnothing is to be done or changed in consequence of believing them....\nVII. Accounts which come merely _in affirmance_ of opinions already\nformed.... It is not necessary to admit as a miracle, what can be\nresolved into a _false perception_ (such miracles as healing the blind,\nlame, etc., cannot be reduced under this head), ... or _imposture_ ...\nor _tentative_ miracles (where, out of many attempts, one succeeds) ...\nor _doubtful_ (possibly explainable as coincidence, or effect of\nimagination) ... or exaggeration\" (\"Evidences,\" pp. 199-218). Paley then\ncriticises some miracles alleged by Hume, and argues against them. He\nvery fairly criticises and disposes of them, but fails to see that the\nsame style of argument would dispose of his Gospel ones. The Cardinal de\nRetz sees, at a church in Saragossa, a man who lighted the lamps, and\nthe canons told him \"that he had been several years at the gate with one\nleg only. I saw him with two.\" Paley urges that \"it nowhere appears that\nhe (the Cardinal) either examined the limb, or asked the patient, or\nindeed any one, a single question about the matter\" (\"Evidences,\" page\n224). Well argued, Dr. Paley; and in the man who sat outside the\nbeautiful gate of the Temple, who examined the limb, or questioned the\npatient? Canons I. and II. exclude the Gospel miracles, unless the\nGospels are proved to be written by those whose names they bear, and\neven then there is no proof that either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John,\npublished their Gospels in Jud\u00e6a, or that their accounts were \"received\nat home.\" The doubt and obscurity hanging over the origin of the Gospels\nthemselves, throws the like doubt and obscurity on all that they relate.\n\"Transient rumours,\" \"false perception,\" \"imposture,\" \"doubtful,\" and\n\"exaggeration\"--there is a door open to all these things in the slow and\ngradual putting together of the collection of legends now known as \"the\nGospels.\" We argue that the witness of the Gospels to the miracles\ncannot be accepted until the Gospels themselves are authenticated, and\nthat the evidence in support of the miracles is, therefore,\ninsufficient. Strauss shows us very clearly how the miracles recorded in\nthe Gospels became ascribed to Jesus. \"That the Jewish people in the\ntime of Jesus expected miracles from the Messiah is in itself natural,\nsince the Messiah was a second Moses, and the greatest of the prophets,\nand to Moses and the prophets the national legend attributed miracles of\nall kinds.... But not only was it pre-determined in the popular\nexpectation that the Messiah should work miracles in general--the\nparticular kinds of miracles which he was to perform were fixed, also in\naccordance with Old Testament types and declarations. Moses dispensed\nmeat and drink to the people in a supernatural manner (Ex. xvi. xvii.):\nthe same was expected, as the rabbis explicitly say, from the Messiah.\nAt the prayer of Elisha, eyes were in one case closed, in another,\nopened supernaturally (2 Kings vi.): the Messiah also was to open the\neyes of the blind. By this prophet and his master, even the dead had\nbeen raised (1 Kings xvii; 2 Kings iv.); hence to the Messiah also power\nover death could not be wanting. Among the prophecies, Is. xxxv, 5, 6\n(comp. xlii. 7), was especially influential in forming this part of the\nMessianic idea. It is here said of the Messianic times: Then shall the\neyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then\nshall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall\nsing\" (\"Life of Jesus,\" vol. ii., pp. 235, 236.) In dealing with the\nalleged healing of the blind, Strauss remarks: \"How should we represent\nto ourselves the sudden restoration of vision to a blind eye by a word\nor a touch? as purely miraculous and magical? That would be to give up\nthinking on the subject. As magnetic? There is no precedent of magnetism\nhaving influence over a disease of this nature. Or, lastly, as\npsychical? But blindness is something so independent of the mental life,\nso entirely corporeal, that the idea of its removal at all, still less\nof its sudden removal by means of a mental operation, is not to be\nentertained. We must, therefore, acknowledge that an historical\nconception of these narratives is more than merely difficult to us; and\nwe proceed to inquire whether we cannot show it to be probable that\nlegends of this kind should arise unhistorically.... That these deeds of\nElisha were conceived, doubtless with reference to the passage of\nIsaiah, as a real opening of the eyes of the blind, is proved by the\nabove rabbinical passage [stating that the Messiah would do all that in\nancient times had been done by the hands of the righteous, vol. i., p.\n81, note], and hence cures of the blind were expected from the Messiah.\nNow, if the Christian community, proceeding as it did from the bosom of\nJudaism, held Jesus to be the Messianic personage, it must manifest the\ntendency to ascribe to him every Messianic predicate, and, therefore,\nthe one in question\" (Ibid, 292, 293).\n\nNot only, then, are the miracles rendered doubtful by the dubious\ncharacter of the records in which they are found, but there is a clear\nand reasonable explanation why we should expect to find them in any\nhistory of a supposed Messiah. Christian apologists appear to have\noverlooked the statement in the Gospels that Jesus objected to publicity\nbeing given to his supposed miracles; the natural conclusion that\nsceptics draw from this assertion, is that the miracles never took place\nat all, and that the supposed modesty of Jesus is invented in order to\naccount for the ignorance of the people concerning the alleged marvels.\nJudge Strange fairly remarks: \"The appeal to miracles is a very\nquestionable resort. Now, as Jesus is repeatedly represented to have\nexhorted those on whose behalf they were wrought to keep the matter\nsecret to themselves, and as when such signs, upon being asked for, were\nrefused to be accorded by him, and the desire to have them was repressed\nas sinful, it is to be gathered, in spite of the sayings to the\ncontrary, that the writers were aware that there was no such public\nsense of the occurrence of these marvels as must have attached to them\nhad they really been enacted, and we are left to the conclusion that\nthere were in fact no such demonstrations\" (\"The Portraiture and Mission\nof Jesus,\" p. 23). Clearly, miracles are useless, as evidence, unless\nthey are publicly performed, and the secresy used by Jesus suggests\nfraud rather than miraculous power, and savours of the conjuror rather\nthan of the \"God.\" But, further, there is far stronger evidence for\nlater Church miracles than for those of Christ, or of the apostles, and\nif evidence in support of miracles is good for anything, these more\nmodern miracles must command our belief. Eusebius relates the following\nmiracle of Narcissus, the thirtieth Bishop of Jerusalem, A.D. 180, as\none among many: \"Whilst the deacons were keeping the vigils the oil\nfailed them; upon which all the people being very much dejected,\nNarcissus commanded the men that managed the lights to draw water from a\nneighbouring well, and to bring it to him. They having done it as soon\nas said, Narcissus prayed over the water, and then commanded them, in a\nfirm faith in Christ, to pour it into the lamps. When they had also done\nthis, contrary to all natural expectation, by an extraordinary and\ndivine influence, the nature of the water was changed into the quality\nof oil, and by most of the brethren a small quantity was preserved from\nthat time until our own, as a specimen of the wonder then performed\"\n(\"Eccles. Hist,\" bk. vi., chap. 9). St. Augustine bears personal witness\nto more than one miracle which happened in his own presence, and gives a\nlong list of cures performed in his time. \"One thing may be affirmed,\nthat nothing of importance is omitted, and in regard to essential\ndetails they are as explicit as the mass of other cases reported. In\nevery instance names and addresses are stated, and it will have been\nobserved that all these miracles occurred in, or near to, Hippo, and in\nhis own diocese. It is very certain that in every case the fact of the\nmiracle is asserted in the most direct and positive terms\" (\"Sup. Rel.,\"\nvol. i., pp. 167, 168).\n\nNone can deny that miraculous powers have been claimed by Christian\nChurches from the time of Christ down to the present day, and that there\nis no break which can be pointed to as the date at which these powers\nceased. \"From the first of the Fathers to the last of the Popes a\nsuccession of bishops, of saints, and of martyrs, and of miracles, is\ncontinued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so\ngradual, and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular\nlink we should break the chain of tradition. Every age bears testimony\nto the wonderful events by which it was distinguished; and its testimony\nappears no less weighty and respectable than that of the preceding\ngeneration, till we are insensibly led on to accuse our own\ninconsistency, if in the eighth or in the twelfth century we deny to the\nvenerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree of confidence\nwhich, in the second century, we had so liberally granted to Justin or\nto Iren\u00e6us. If the truth of any of those miracles is appreciated by\ntheir apparent use and propriety, every age had unbelievers to convince,\nheretics to confute, and idolatrous nations to convert; and sufficient\nmotives might always be produced to justify the interposition of heaven.\nAnd yet, since every friend to revelation is persuaded of the reality,\nand every reasonable man is convinced of the cessation, of miraculous\npowers, it is evident that there must have been _some period_ in which\nthey were either suddenly or gradually withdrawn from the Christian\nChurch. Whatever era is chosen for that purpose, the death of the\nApostles, the conversion of the Roman empire, or the extinction of the\nArian heresy, the insensibility of the Christians who lived at that time\nwill equally afford a just matter of surprise. They still supported\ntheir pretensions after they had lost their power. Credulity performed\nthe office of faith; fanaticism was permitted to assume the language of\ninspiration; and the effects of accident or contrivance were ascribed to\nsupernatural causes. The recent experience of genuine miracles should\nhave instructed the Christian world in the ways of Providence, and\nhabituated their eye (if we may use a very inadequate expression) to the\nstyle of the Divine Artist\" (Gibbon's \"Decline and Fall,\" vol. ii.,\nchap, xv., p. 145). The miraculous powers were said to have been given\nby Christ himself to his disciples. \"These signs shall follow them that\nbelieve; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with\nmew tongues; they shall take up serpents; and, if they drink any deadly\nthing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and\nthey shall recover\" (Mark xvi. 17, 18). This power is exercised by the\nApostles (see Acts throughout), by believers in the Churches (1 Cor.\nxii. 9, 10; Gal. iii. 5; James v. 14, 15); at any rate, it was in force\nin the time with which these books treat, according to the Christians.\nJustus, surnamed Barsabas, drinks poison, and is unhurt (Eusebius, bk.\niii., chap. xxxix.). Polycarp's martyrdom, supposed to be in the next\ngeneration, is accompanied by miracle (Epistle of Church of Smyrna;\nApostolical Fathers, p. 92; see ante, pp. 220, 221). At Hierapolis the\ndaughters of Philip the Apostle tell Papias how one was there raised\nfrom the dead (Eusebius, bk. iii., ch. xxxix.). Justin Martyr pleads the\nmiracles worked in his own time in Rome itself (second \"Apol.,\" ch.\nvi.). Iren\u00e6us urges that the heretics cannot work miracles as can the\nCatholics: \"they can neither confer sight on the blind, nor hearing on\nthe deaf, nor chase away all sorts of demons ... nor can they cure the\nweak, or the lame, or the paralytic\" (\"Against Heretics,\" bk. ii., ch.\nxxxi., sec. 2). Tertullian encourages Christians to give up worldly\npleasures by reminding them of their grander powers: \"what nobler than\nto tread under foot the gods of the nations, to exorcise evil spirits,\nto perform cures?\" (\"De Spectaculis,\" sec. 29). \"Origen claims for\nChristians the power still to expel demons, and to heal diseases, in the\nname of Jesus; and he states that he had seen many persons so cured of\nmadness, and countless other evils\" (quoted from \"Origen against Celsus\"\nin \"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., p. 154. A mass of evidence on this subject will\nbe found in chap. v. of this work, on \"The Permanent Stream of\nMiraculous Pretension\"). St. Augustine's testimony has been already\nreferred to. St. Ambrose discovered the bones of SS. Gervasius and\nProtasius; and \"these relics were laid in the Faustinian Basilic, and\nthe next morning were translated into the Ambrosian Basilic; during\nwhich translation a blind man, named Severus, a butcher by trade, was\ncured by touching the bier on which the relics lay with a handkerchief,\nand then applying it to his eyes. He had been blind several years, was\nknown to the whole city, and the miracle was performed before a\nprodigious number of people; and is testified also by St. Austin\n[Augustine], who was then at Milan, in three several parts of his works,\nand by Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose\" (\"Lives of the Fathers,\nMartyrs, etc.,\" by Rev. Alban Butler, vol. xii., pp. 1001, 1002; ed.\n1838; published in two vols., each containing six vols.). The sacred\nstigmata of St. Francis d'Assisi (died 1226) were seen and touched by\nSt. Bonaventure, Pope Alexander IV., Pope-Gregory IX., fifty friars,\nmany nuns, and innumerable crowds (Ibid, vol. x., pp. 582, 583). This\nsame saint underwent the operation of searing, and, \"when the surgeon\nwas about to apply the searing-iron, the saint spoke to the fire,\nsaying: 'Brother fire, I beseech thee to burn me gently, that I may be\nable to endure thee.' He was seared very deep, from the ear to the\neyebrow, but seemed to feel no pain at all\" (Ibid, p. 575). The miracles\nof St. Francis Xavier (died 1552) are borne witness to on all sides, and\nresulted in the conversion of crowds of Indians; even so late as 1744,\nwhen the Archbishop of Goa, by order of John V. of Portugal, attended by\nthe Viceroy, the Marquis of Castel Nuovo, visited the saint's relics,\n\"the body was found without the least bad smell,\" and had \"not suffered\nthe least alteration, or symptom of corruption\" (Ibid, vol. xii., p.\n974). The chain of miracles extends right down to the present day. At\nLourdes, in this year (1876), the Virgin was crowned by the Cardinal\nArchbishop of Paris in the presence of thirty-five prelates and one\nhundred thousand people. During the mass performed at the Grotto by the\nNuncio, Madeleine Lancereau, of Poictiers, aged 61, known by a large\nnumber of the pilgrims as having been unable to walk without crutches\nfor nineteen years, was radically cured. Here is a better authenticated\nmiracle than anyone in the Gospel story; yet no Protestant even cares to\ninvestigate the matter, or believes its truth to be within the limits of\npossibility. Thus we see that not a century has, passed since A.D. 30\nwhich has not been thickly sown with miracles, and there is no reason\nwhy we should believe in the miracles of the first century, and reject\nthose of the following eighteen; nor is the first century even \"the\nbeginning of miracles,\" for before that date Jewish and Pagan miracles\nare to be found in abundance. Why should Bible miracles be severed from\ntheir relations all over the world, so that belief in them is\ncommendable faith, while belief in the rest is reprehensible credulity?\n\"The fact is, however, that the Gospel miracles were preceded and\naccompanied by others of the same type; and we may here merely mention\nexorcism of demons, and the miraculous cure of disease, as popular\ninstances; they were also followed by a long succession of others, quite\nas well authenticated, whose occurrence only became less frequent in\nproportion as the diffusion of knowledge dispelled popular credulity.\nEven at the present day a stray miracle is from time to time reported in\noutlying districts, where the ignorance and superstition which formerly\nproduced so abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled\"\n(\"Sup. Rel.,\" vol. i., p. 148). \"Ignorance, and its invariable\nattendant, superstition, have done more than mere love of the marvellous\nto produce and perpetuate belief in miracles, and there cannot be any\ndoubt that the removal of ignorance always leads to the cessation of\nmiracles\" (Ibid, p. 144).\n\nSpecial objection has often been raised against one class of\nmiracles--common to the Gospels and to all miraculous narratives--which\nhas severely taxed the faith even of the Christians themselves--that\nclass, namely, which consists of the healing of those \"possessed with\ndevils.\" Exorcism has always been a favourite kind of miracle, but, in\nthese days, very few believe in the possibility of possession, and the\nlanguage of the Evangelists on the subject has consequently given rise\nto much trouble of mind. Prebendary Row, in a work on \"The Supernatural\nin the New Testament Possible, Credible, and Historical\"--one of the\nvolumes issued by the Christian Evidence Society in answer to\n\"Supernatural Religion\"--deals fully with this difficulty; it has been\nurged that possession was simply a form of mania, and on this Mr. Row\nsay: \"Now, on the assumption that possession was simple mania, and\nnothing more, the following suppositions are the only possible ones.\nFirst, that our Lord really distinguished between mania and possession;\nbut that the Evangelists have inaccurately reported his words and\nactions, through the media of their own subjective impressions, or, in\nshort, have attributed to him language that he did not really utter.\nSecond, that our Lord knew that possession was a form of mania, and\nadopted the current notions of the time in speaking of it, and that the\nwords were really uttered by him. Third, that with similar knowledge, he\nadopted the language as part of the curative process. Fourth, that he\naccepted the validity of the distinction, and that it was a real one\nduring those times\" (\"Supernatural in the New Testament,\" pp. 251, 252).\nMr. Row argues that: \"If possession be mania, there is nothing in the\nlanguage which the Evangelists have attributed to our Lord which\ncompromises the truthfulness of his character. If, on the other hand, we\nassume that possession was an objective fact, there is nothing in our\nexisting scientific knowledge of the human mind which proves that the\npossessions of the New Testament were impossible\" (Ibid). Mr. Row\nrejects the first alternative, and accepts the accuracy of the Evangelic\nrecords. But he considers that if possession were simply mania, Jesus,\nknowing the nature of the disease, might reasonably use language suited\nto the delusion, as most likely to effect a cure; he could not argue\nwith a maniac that he was under a delusion, but would rightly use\nwhatever method was best fitted to ensure recovery. If this idea be\nrejected, and the reality of demoniacal possession maintained as most\nconsonant with the behaviour of Jesus, then Mr. Row argues that there is\nno reason to consider it impossible that either good or evil spirits\nshould be able to influence man, and that psychological science does not\nwarrant us in a denial of the possibility of such influence.\n\nThe utter uselessness of miracles--supposing them to be possible--is\nworthy of remembrance. They must not be accepted as proofs of a divine\nmission, for false prophets can work them as well as true (Deut. xiii.,\n1-5; Matt. xxiv., 24; 2 Thess. ii., 9; Rev. xiii., 13-15, etc.) and it\nmay be that God himself works them to deceive (Deut. xiii., 3). Satan\ncan work miracles to authenticate the false doctrines of his\nemissaries, and there is no test whereby to distinguish the miracle\nworked by God from the miracle worked by Satan. Hence a miracle is\nutterly useless, for the credibility of a teacher rests on the morality\nthat he teaches, and if this is good, it is accepted without a miracle\nto attest its goodness, so that the attesting miracle is superfluous. If\nit is bad, it is rejected in spite of a miracle to attest its authority,\nso that the attesting miracle is deceptive. The only use of a miracle\nmight be to attest a revelation of otherwise unknowable facts, which had\nnothing to do with any moral teaching; and seeing that such revelation\ncould not be investigated, as it dealt with the unknowable, it would be\nhighly dangerous--and, perhaps, blasphemous--to accept it on the faith\nof the miracle, for it might quite as likely be a revelation made by\nSatan to injure, as by God to benefit, mankind. Allowing that God and\nSatan exist, it would seem likely--judging Christianity by its\nfruits--that the Christian religion is such a malevolent revelation of\nthe evil one.\n\nThe objection we raise is, however, of far wider scope than the\nassertion of the lack of evidence for the New Testament miracles; it is\nagainst all, and not only against Christian, miracles. \"As far as the\nimpossibility of supernatural occurrences is concerned, Pantheism and\nAtheism occupy precisely the same grounds. If either of them propounds a\ntrue theory of the universe, any supernatural occurrence, which\nnecessarily implies a supernatural agent to bring it about, is\nimpossible, and the entire controversy as to whether miracles have ever\nbeen actually performed is a foregone conclusion. Modern Atheism, while\nit does not venture in categorical terms to affirm that no God exists,\ndefinitely asserts that there is no evidence that there is one. It\nfollows that, if there is no evidence that there is a God, there can be\nno evidence that a miracle ever has been performed, for the very idea of\na miracle implies the idea of a God to work one. If, therefore, Atheism\nis true, all controversy about miracles is useless. They are simply\nimpossible, and to inquire whether an impossible event has happened is\nabsurd. To such a person the historical inquiry, as far as a miracle is\nconcerned, must be a foregone conclusion. It might have a little\ninterest as a matter of curiosity; but even if the most unequivocal\nevidence could be adduced that an occurrence such as we call\nsupernatural had taken place, the utmost that it could prove would be\nthat some most extraordinary and abnormal fact had taken place in nature\nof which we did not know the cause. But to prove a miracle to any person\nwho consistently denies that he has any evidence that any being exists\nwhich is not a portion of and included in the material universe, or\ndeveloped out of it, is impossible\" (\"The Supernatural in the New\nTestament,\" by Prebendary Row, pp. 14, 15). We maintain that Nature\nincludes _everything_, and that, therefore, the _supernatural_ is an\nimpossibility. Every new fact, however marvellous, must, therefore, be\nwithin Nature; and while our ignorance may for awhile prevent us from\nknowing in what category the newly-observed phenomenon should be\nclassed, it is none the less certain that wider knowledge will allot to\nit its own place, and that more careful observation will reduce it under\nlaw, i.e., within the observed sequence or concurrence of phenomena. The\nnatural, to the unthinking, coincides with their own knowledge, and\nsupernatural, to them, simply means super-known; therefore, in ignorant\nages, miracles are every-day occurrences, and as knowledge widens the\nmiraculous diminishes. The books of unscientific ages--that is, all\nearly literature--are full of miraculous events, and it may be taken as\nan axiom of criticism that the miraculous is unhistorical.\n\n(2). _The numerous contradictions of each by the others._--We shall here\nonly present a few of the most glaring contradictions in the Gospels,\nleaving untouched a mass of minor discrepancies. We find the principal\nof these when we compare the three synoptics with the Fourth Gospel, but\nthere are some irreconcilable differences even between the three. The\ncontradictory genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke--farther\ncomplicated, in part, by a third discordant genealogy in\nChronicles--have long been the despair of Christian harmonists. \"On\ncomparing these lists, we find that between David and Christ there are\nonly two names which occur in both Matthew and Luke--those of Zorobabel\nand of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus. In tracing the list\ndownwards from David there would be less difficulty in explaining this,\nat least, to a certain point, for Matthew follows the line of Solomon,\nand Luke that of Nathan--both of whom were sons of David. But even in\nthe downward line, on reaching Salathiel, where the two genealogies\nagain come into contact, we find, to our astonishment, that in Luke he\nis the son of Neri, whilst in Matthew his father's name is Jechonias.\nFrom Zorobabel downwards, the lists are again divergent, until we reach\nJoseph, who in St. Luke is placed as the son of Heli, whilst in St.\nMatthew his father's name is Jacob\" (\"Christian Records,\" Dr. Giles, p.\n101). According to Chronicles, Jotham is the great-great-grandson of\nAhaziah; according to Matthew, he is his son (admitting that the Ahaziah\nof Chronicles is the Ozias of Matthew); according to Chronicles,\nJechonias is the grandson of Josiah, according to Matthew, he is his\nson; according to Chronicles, Zorababel is the son of Pedaiah, according\nto Matthew, he is the son of Salathiel, according to Luke, he is the son\nof Neri; according to Chronicles, Zorobabel left eight children, but\nneither Matthew's Abiud, nor Luke's Rhesa, are among them. The same\ndiscordance is found when Matthew and Luke again touch each other in\nJoseph, the husband of Mary; according to the one, Jacob begat Joseph,\naccording to the other, Joseph was the son of Heli. To crown the\nabsurdity of the whole, we are given two genealogies of Joseph, who is\nno relation to Jesus at all, if the story of the virgin-birth be true,\nwhile none is given of Mary, through whom alone Jesus is said to have\nderived his humanity. We have, therefore, no genealogy at all of Jesus\nin the Gospels. Various theories have been put forward to reconcile the\nirreconcilable; some say that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, of\nwhich supposition it is enough to remark that \"Mary, the daughter of,\"\ncan scarcely be indicated by \"Joseph, the son of.\" It is also said that\nJoseph was legally the son of Jacob, although naturally the son of Heli,\nit being supposed that Jacob died childless, and that his brother Heli\naccording to the Levitical law, married the widow of Jacob; but here\nJoseph's grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers should be the same, Heli\nand Jacob being supposed to be brothers. Besides, if Joseph were legally\nthe son of Jacob, only the genealogy of Jacob should be given, since\nthat only would be Joseph's genealogy. No man can reckon his paternal\nancestry through two differing lines. To make matters in yet more\nhopeless confusion, we find Chronicles giving twenty-two generations\nwhere Matthew gives seventeen, and Luke twenty-three; while, from David\nto Christ, Matthew reckons twenty-eight and Luke forty-three, a most\nmarvellous discrepancy.\n\n\"If we compare the genealogies of Matthew and Luke together, we become\naware of still more striking discrepancies. Some of these differences\nindeed are unimportant, as the opposite direction of the two tables....\nMore important is the considerable difference in the number of\ngenerations for equal periods, Luke having forty-one between David and\nJesus, whilst Matthew has only twenty-six. The main difficulty, however,\nlies in this: that in some parts of the genealogy in Luke totally\ndifferent persons are made the ancestors of Jesus from those in Matthew.\nIt is true, both writers agree in deriving the lineage of Jesus through\nJoseph from David and Abraham, and that the names of the individual\nmembers of the series correspond from Abraham to David, as well as two\nof the names in the subsequent portion: those of Salathiel and\nZorobabel. But the difficulty becomes desperate when we find that, with\nthese two exceptions about midway, the whole of the names from David to\nthe foster father of Jesus are totally different in Matthew and in Luke.\nIn Matthew the father of Joseph is called Jacob; in Luke, Heli. In\nMatthew the son of David through whom Joseph descended from that King is\nSolomon; in Luke, Nathan; and so on, the line descends, in Matthew,\nthrough the race of known Kings; in Luke, through an unknown collateral\nbranch, coinciding only with respect to Salathiel and Zorobabel, whilst\nthey still differ in the names of the father of Salathiel and the son of\nZorobabel.... A consideration of the insurmountable difficulties, which\nunavoidably embarrass every attempt to bring these two genealogies into\nharmony with one another, will lead us to despair of reconciling them,\nand will incline us to acknowledge, with the more free-thinking class of\ncritics, that they are mutually contradictory. Consequently, they cannot\nboth be true.... In fact, then, neither table has any advantage over the\nother. If the one is unhistorical, so also is the other, since it is\nvery improbable that the genealogy of an obscure family like that of\nJoseph, extending through so long a series of generations, should have\nbeen preserved during all the confusion of the exile, and the disturbed\nperiod that followed.... According to the prophecies, the Messiah could\nonly spring from David. When, therefore, a Galilean, whose lineage was\nutterly unknown, and of whom consequently no one could prove that he was\nnot descended from David, had acquired the reputation of being the\nMessiah; what more natural than that tradition should, under different\nforms, have early ascribed to him a Davidical descent, and that\ngenealogical tables, corresponding with this tradition, should have been\nformed? which, however, as they were constructed upon no certain data,\nwould necessarily exhibit such differences and contradictions as we find\nactually existing between the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke\" (\"Life\nof Jesus,\" by Strauss, vol. i., pp. 130, 131, and 137-139).\n\nThe accounts of the several angelic warnings to Mary and to Joseph\nappear to be mutually exclusive. Most theologians, says Strauss,\n\"maintaining, and justly, that the silence of one Evangelist concerning\nan event which is narrated by the other, is not a negation of the event,\nthey blend the two accounts together in the following manner: 1, the\nangel makes known to Mary her approaching pregnancy (Luke); 2, she then\njourneys to Elizabeth (the same Gospel); 3, after her return, her\nsituation being discovered, Joseph takes offence (Matthew); whereupon,\n4, he likewise is visited by an angelic apparition (the same Gospel).\nBut this arrangement of the incidents is, as Schliermacher has already\nremarked, full of difficulty; and it seems that what is related by one\nEvangelist is not only pre-supposed, but excluded, by the other. For, in\nthe first place, the conduct of the angel who appears to Joseph is not\neasily explained, if the same, or another, angel had previously appeared\nto Mary. The angel (in Matthew) speaks altogether as if his\ncommunication were the first in this affair. He neither refers to the\nmessage previously received by Mary, nor reproaches Joseph because he\nhad not believed it; but, more than all, the informing Joseph of the\nname of the expected child, and the giving him a full detail of the\nreasons why he should be so called (Mat. i. 21), would have been wholly\nsuperfluous had the angel (according to Luke i. 31) already indicated\nthis name to Mary. Still more incomprehensible is the conduct of the\nbetrothed parties, according to this arrangement of events. Had Mary\nbeen visited by an angel, who had made known to her an approaching\nsupernatural pregnancy, would not the first impulse of a delicate woman\nhave been to hasten to impart to her betrothed the import of the divine\nmessage, and by this means to anticipate the humiliating discovery of\nher situation, and an injurious suspicion on the part of her affianced\nhusband? But exactly this discovery Mary allows Joseph to make from\nothers, and thus excites suspicion; for it is evident that the\nexpression [Greek: heurethae en gastri echousa] (Mat. i. 18) signifies a\ndiscovery made independent of any communication on Mary's part, and it\nis equally clear that in this manner only does Joseph obtain the\nknowledge of her situation, since his conduct is represented as the\nresult of that discovery [Greek: (euriskesthai)]\" (\"Life of Jesus,\" v.\ni., pp. 146, 147).\n\nStrauss gives a curious list, showing the gradual growth of the myth\nrelating to the birth of Jesus (we may remark No. 3 is distinctly out of\nplace when referred to Olshausen: it should be referred to the early\nFathers, from whom Olshausen derived it):--\n\n\"1. Contemporaries of Jesus and composers of the genealogies: Joseph and\nMary man and wife--Jesus the offspring of their marriage.\n\n\"2. The age and authors of our histories of the birth of Jesus: Mary and\nJoseph betrothed only; Joseph having no participation in the conception\nof the child, and, previous to his birth, no conjugal connection with\nMary.\n\n\"3. Olshausen and others: subsequent to the birth of Jesus, Joseph,\nthough then the husband of Mary, relinquishes his matrimonial rights.\n\n\"4. Epiphanius, Protevangelium, Jacobi, and others: Joseph a decrepit\nold man, no longer to be thought of as a husband; the children\nattributed to him are of a former marriage. More especially it is not as\na bride and wife that he receives Mary; he takes her merely under his\nguardianship.\n\n\"5. Protevang., Chrysostom, and others: Mary's virginity was not only\nnot destroyed by any subsequent births of children by Joseph, it was not\nin the slightest degree impaired by the birth of Jesus.\n\n\"6. Jerome: Not Mary only, but Joseph also, observed an absolute\nvirginity, and the pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons, hut\nmerely cousins to Jesus\" (\"Life of Jesus,\" vol. i., p. 188).\n\nThus we see how a myth gradually forms itself, bit after bit being added\nto it, until the story is complete.\n\nThe account given by Luke of the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary is\nclearly mythical, and not historical: \"Apart from the intention of the\nnarrator, can it be thought natural that two friends visiting one\nanother should, even in the midst of the most extraordinary occurrences,\nbreak forth into long hymns, and that their conversation should entirely\nlose the character of dialogue, the natural form on such occasions? By a\nsupernatural influence alone could the minds of the two friends be\nattuned to a state of elevation, so foreign to their every-day life. But\nif indeed Mary's hymn is to be understood as the work of the Holy\nSpirit, it is surprising that a speech emanating immediately from the\ndivine source of inspiration should not be more striking for its\noriginality, but should be so interlarded with reminiscences from the\nOld Testament, borrowed from the song of praise spoken by the mother of\nSamuel (1 Sam. ii) under analogous circumstances. Accordingly, we must\nadmit that the compilation of this hymn, consisting of recollections\nfrom the Old Testament, was put together in a natural way; but allowing\nits composition to have been perfectly natural, it cannot be ascribed to\nthe artless Mary, but to him who poetically wrought out the tradition in\ncirculation respecting the scene in question\" (\"Life of Jesus,\" by\nStrauss, vol. i., pp. 196, 197).\n\nThe notes of time given for the birth of Christ are irreconcilable.\nAccording to Matthew he is born in the reign of Herod the King:\naccording to Luke, he is born six months after John Baptist, whose birth\nis referred to the reign of the same monarch; yet in Luke, he is also\nborn at the time of the census, which must have taken place at least ten\nyears later; thus Luke contradicts Matthew, and also contradicts\nhimself. The discrepancies surrounding the birth are not yet complete;\npassing the curious differences between Matthew and Luke, Matthew\nknowing nothing about the visit of the shepherds, and Luke nothing of\nthe visit of the Magi, and the consequent slaughter of the babes, we\ncome to a direct conflict between the Evangelists; Matthew informs us\nthat Joseph, Mary, and the child, fled into Egypt from Bethlehem to\navoid the wrath of King Herod, and that they were returning to Jud\u00e6a,\nwhen Joseph, hearing that Archelaus was ruling there, turned aside to\nGalilee, and came and dwelt \"in a city called Nazareth.\" Luke, on the\ncontrary, says that when the days of Mary's purification were\naccomplished they took the child up to Jerusalem, and presented him in\nthe Temple, and then, after this, returned to Galilee, to \"their own\ncity, Nazareth.\" Moreover, had Herod wanted to find him, he could have\ntaken him at the Temple, where his presentation caused much commotion.\nIn Matthew, the turning into Galilee is clearly a new thing; in Luke, it\nis returning home; and in Luke there is no space of time wherein the\nflight into Egypt can by any possibility be inserted. We may add a\nwonder why Galilee was a safer residence than Jud\u00e6a, since Antipas, its\nruler, was a son of Herod, and would, _prim\u00e2 facie_, be as dangerous as\nhis brother Archelaus.\n\nThe conduct of Herod is incredible if we accept Matthew's account:\n\"Herod's first anxious question to the magi is to ascertain the time of\nthe appearance of the star. He 'inquires diligently' (ii. 7); and he\nmust have had a motive for so doing. What was this motive? Could he have\nany other purpose than that of determining the age under which no\ninfants in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem should be allowed to live?\nBut, according to the narrative, Herod never conceived the idea of\nslaughtering the children till he found that he had been 'mocked of the\nwise men;' and the mythical nature of the story is betrayed by this\nanticipation of motives which, at the time spoken of could have no\nexistence. Yet, further, Herod, who, though in a high degree cruel,\nunjust, and unscrupulous, is represented as a man of no slight sagacity,\nclearness of purpose, and strength of will, and who feels a deadly\njealousy of an infant whom he _knows_ to have been recently born in\nBethlehem, a place only a few miles distant from Jerusalem, is here\ndescribed not as sending his own emissaries privately to put him to\ndeath, or despatching them with the Magi, or detaining the Magi at\nJerusalem, until he had ascertained the truth of their tale, and the\ncorrectness of the answer of the priests and scribes, but as simply\nsuffering the Magi to go by themselves, at the same time charging them\nto return with the information for which he had shown himself so\nfeverishly anxious. This strange conduct can be accounted for only on\nthe ground of a judicial blindness; but they who resort to such an\nexplanation must suppose that it was inflicted in order to save the\nnew-born Christ from the death thus threatened; and if they adopt this\nhypothesis, they must further believe that this arrangement likewise\nensured the death of a large number of infants instead of one. A natural\nreluctance to take up such a notion might prompt the question, Why were\nthe Magi brought to Jerusalem at all? If they knew that the star was the\nstar of Christ (ii. 2), and were by this knowledge conducted to\nJerusalem, why did it not suffice to guide them straight to Bethlehem,\nand thus prevent the slaughter of the innocents? Why did the star desert\nthem after its first appearance, not to be seen again till they issued\nfrom Jerusalem? or, if it did not desert them, why did they ask of Herod\nand the priests the road which they should take, when, by the\nhypothesis, the star was ready to guide?\" (\"The English Life of Jesus,\"\nby Thomas Scott, pp. 34, 35; ed. 1872). To these improbabilities must be\nadded the remarkable fact that Josephus, who gives a very detailed\nhistory of Herod, entirely omits any hint of this stupendous crime.\n\nThe story of the temptation of Jesus is full of contradictions. Matthew\niv. 2, 3, implies that the first visit of the tempter was made _after_\nthe forty days' fast, while Mark and Luke speak of his being tempted for\nforty days. According to Matthew, the angels came to him when the Devil\nleft him; but, according to Mark, they ministered to him throughout.\nAccording to Matthew, the temptation to cast himself down is the second\ntrial, and the offer of the kingdoms of the world the third: in Luke the\norder is reversed. In additions to these contradictions, we must note\nthe absurdity of the story. The Devil \"set him on a pinnacle of the\ntemple.\" Did Jesus and the Devil go flying through the air together,\ntill the Devil put Jesus down? What did the people in the courts below\nthink of the Devil and a man standing on a point of the temple in the\nfull sight of Jerusalem? Did so unusual an occurrence cause no\nastonishment in the city? Where is the high mountain from which Jesus\nand the Devil saw all round the globe? Is it true that the Devil gives\npower to whom he will? If so, why is it said that the powers are\n\"ordained of God\"?\n\nAnother \"discrepancy, concerning the denial of Christ by Peter,\nfurnishes a still stronger proof that these records have not come down\nto us with the exactness of a contemporary character, much less with the\nauthority of inspiration. The four accounts of Peter's denial vary\nconsiderably. The variations will be more intelligible, exhibited in a\ntabular form\" (Giles' \"Christian Records,\" p. 228). We present the\ntable, slightly altered in arrangement, and corrected in some details:--\n\n       MATTHEW.        MARK.           LUKE.           JOHN.\n1st.   Seated without  Beneath in      In the          On entering\n       in the          the palace, by  midst of the    to the\n       palace, to a    the fire, to a  hall where      damsel that\n       damsel.         maid.           Jesus was       kept the\n                                       being tried,    door.\n                                       seated by\n                                       the fire, to a\n                                       maid.\n\n2nd.   Out in the      Out in the      Still in the    In the hall,\n       porch, having   porch, having   hall, in        standing  by\n       left the room,  left the room,  answer to a     the fire, in\n       in answer to    in answer to    man.            answer to the\n       a second        a second                        bystanders.\n       maid.           maid.\n\n3rd.   Out in the      Out in the      Still in the    Still in the\n       porch, to the   porch, to the   hall, to a man. hall, to a\n       bystanders.     bystanders.                     man.\n\nIn addition to these discrepancies, we find that Jesus prophesies that\nPeter shall deny him thrice \"before the cock crow,\" while in Mark the\ncock crows immediately after the first denial: in Luke, Jesus and Peter\nremain throughout the scene of the denial in the same hall, so that the\nLord may turn and look upon Peter; while Matthew and Mark place him\n\"beneath\" or \"without,\" and make the third denial take place in the\nporch outside--a place where Jesus, by the context, certainly could not\nsee him.\n\nHow long did the ministry of Jesus last? Luke places his baptism in the\nfifteenth year of Tiberius (iii. 1), and he might have been crucified\nunder Pontius Pilate at any time within the seven years following. The\nSynoptics mention but one Passover, and at that Jesus was crucified,\nthus limiting his ministry to one year, unless he broke the Mosaic law,\nand disregarded the feast; clearly his triumphal entry into Jerusalem is\nhis first visit there in his manhood, since we find all the city moved\nand the people asking: \"Who is this? And the multitude said, This is\nJesus the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee\" (Matt. xxi. 10, 11). His\nperson would have been well known, had he visited Jerusalem before and\nworked miracles there. If, however, we turn to the Fourth Gospel, his\nministry must extend over at least two years. According to Iren\u00e6us, he\n\"did not want much of being fifty years old\" when the Jews disputed with\nhim (\"Against Heresies,\" bk. ii., ch. 22, sec. 6), and he taught for\nnearly twenty years. Dr. Giles remarks that \"the first three Gospels\nplainly exhibit the events of only one year; to prove them erroneous or\ndefective in so important a feature as this, would be to detract greatly\nfrom their value\" (\"Christian Records,\" p. 112). \"According to the first\nthree Gospels, Christ's public life lasted only one year, at the end of\nwhich he went up to Jerusalem and was crucified\" (Ibid, p. 11). \"Would\nthis questioning [on the triumphal entry] have taken place if Jesus had\noften made visits to Jerusalem, and been well known there? The multitude\nwho answered the question, and who knew Jesus, consisted of those 'who\nhad come to the feast,'--St. John indicates this [xii. 12]--but the\npeople of Jerusalem knew him not, and, therefore, asked 'Who is this?'\"\n(Ibid, p. 113). The fact is, that we know nothing certainly as to the\nbirth, life, death, of this supposed Christ. His story is one tissue of\ncontradictions. It is impossible to believe that the Synoptics and the\nfourth Gospel are even telling the history of the same person. The\ndiscourses of Jesus in the Synoptics are simple, although parabolical;\nin the Fourth they are mystical, and are being continually misunderstood\nby the people. The historical divergences are marked. The fourth Gospel\n\"tells us (ch. 1) that at the beginning of his ministry Jesus was at\nBethabara, a town near the junction of the Jordan with the Dead Sea;\nhere he gains three disciples, Andrew and another, and then Simon Peter:\nthe next day he goes into Galilee and finds Philip and Nathanael, and on\nthe following day--somewhat rapid travelling--he is present, with these\ndisciples, at Cana, where he performs his first miracle, going\nafterwards with them to Capernaum and Jerusalem. At Jerusalem, whither\nhe goes for 'the Jews' passover,' he drives out the traders from the\ntemple and remarks, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise\nit up:' which remark causes the first of the strange misunderstandings\nbetween Jesus and the Jews peculiar to this Gospel, simple\nmisconceptions which Jesus never troubles himself to set right. Jesus\nand his disciples then go to the Jordan, baptising, whence Jesus departs\ninto Galilee with them, because he hears that the Pharisees know he is\nbecoming more popular than the Baptist (ch. iv., 1, 3). All this happens\nbefore John is cast into prison, an occurrence which is a convenient\nnote of time. We turn to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as\nrelated by the three. Jesus is in the south of Palestine, but, hearing\nthat John is cast into prison, he departs into Galilee, and resides at\nCapernaum. There is no mention of any ministry in Galilee and Jud\u00e6a\nbefore this; on the contrary, it is only 'from that time' that 'Jesus\n_began_ to preach.' He is alone, without disciples, but, walking by the\nsea, he comes upon Peter, Andrew, James, and John, and calls them. Now\nif the fourth Gospel is true, these men had joined him in Jud\u00e6a,\nfollowed him to Galilee, south again to Jerusalem, and back to Galilee,\nhad seen his miracles and acknowledged him as Christ, so it seems\nstrange that they had deserted him and needed a second call, and yet\nmore strange is it that Peter (Luke v. 1-11) was so astonished and\namazed at the miracle of the fishes. The driving out of the traders from\nthe temple is placed by the Synoptics at the very end of his ministry,\nand the remark following it is used against him at his trial: so was\nprobably made just before it. The next point of contact is the history\nof the 5,000 fed by five loaves (ch. vi.); the preceding chapter relates\nto a visit to Jerusalem unnoticed by the three: indeed, the histories\nseem written of two men, one the 'prophet of Galilee' teaching in its\ncities, the other concentrating his energies on Jerusalem. The account\nof the miraculous feeding is alike in all: not so the succeeding account\nof the multitude. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus and the crowd fall to\ndisputing, as usual, and he loses many disciples: among the three, Luke\nsays nothing of the immediately following events, while Matthew and Mark\ntell us that the multitudes--as would be natural--crowded round him to\ntouch even the hem of his garment. This is the same as always: in the\nthree the crowd loves him; in the fourth it carps at and argues with\nhim. We must again miss the sojourn of Jesus in Galilee according to the\nthree, and his visit to Jerusalem according to the one, and pass to his\nentry into Jerusalem in triumph. Here we notice a most remarkable\ndivergence: the Synoptics tell us that he was going up to Jerusalem from\nGalilee, and, arriving on his way at Bethphage, he sent for an ass and\nrode thereon into Jerusalem: the fourth Gospel relates that he was\ndwelling at Jerusalem, and leaving it, for fear of the Jews, he retired,\nnot into Galilee, but 'beyond Jordan, into a place where John at first\nbaptised,' i.e., Bethabara, 'and _there he abode_.' From thence he went\nto Bethany and raised to life a putrefying corpse: this stupendous\nmiracle is never appealed to by the earlier historians in proof of their\nmaster's greatness, though 'much people of the Jews' are said to have\nseen Lazarus after his resurrection; this miracle is also given as the\nreason for the active hostility of the priests, 'from that day forward.'\nJesus then retires to Ephraim near the wilderness, from which town he\ngoes to Bethany, and thence in triumph to Jerusalem, being met by the\npeople 'for that they heard that he had done this miracle.' The two\naccounts have absolutely nothing in common except the entry into\nJerusalem, and the preceding events of the Synoptics exclude those of\nthe fourth Gospel, as does the latter theirs. If Jesus abode in\nBethabara and Ephraim, he could not have come from Galilee; if he\nstarted from Galilee, he was not abiding in the south. John xiii.-xvii.\nstand alone, with the exception of the mention of the traitor. On the\narrest of Jesus, he is led (ch. xviii. 13) to Annas, who sends him to\nCaiaphas, while the others send him direct to Caiaphas, but this is\nimmaterial. He is then taken to Pilate: the Jews do not enter the\njudgment-hall, lest, being defiled, they could not eat the passover, a\nfeast which, according to the Synoptics, was over, Jesus and his\ndisciples having eaten it the night before. Jesus is exposed to the\npeople at the sixth hour (ch. xix. 14), while Mark tells us he was\ncrucified three hours before--at the third hour--a note of time which\nagrees with the others, since they all relate that there was darkness\nfrom the sixth to the ninth hour, i.e., there was thick darkness at the\ntime when, 'according to St. John,' Jesus was exposed. Here our\nevangelist is in hopeless conflict with the three. The accounts about\nthe resurrection are irreconcilable in all the Gospels, and mutually\ndestructive. It remains to notice, among these discrepancies, one or two\npoints which did not come in conveniently in the course of the\nnarrative. During the whole of the fourth Gospel, we find Jesus\nconstantly arguing for his right to the title of Messiah. Andrew speaks\nof him as such (i. 41); the Samaritans acknowledge him (iv. 42); Peter\nowns him (vi. 69); the people call him so (vii. 26, 31, 41); Jesus\nclaims it (viii. 24); it is the subject of a law (ix. 22); Jesus speaks\nof it as already claimed by him (x. 24, 25); Martha recognises it (xi.\n27). We thus find that, from the very first, this title is openly\nclaimed by Jesus, and his right to it openly canvassed by the Jews.\nBut--in the three--the disciples acknowledge him as Christ, and he\ncharges them to 'tell _no man_ that he was Jesus the Christ\" (Matt. xvi.\n20; Mark viii. 29, 30; Luke ix. 20, 21); and this in the same year that\nhe blames the Jews for not owning this Messiahship, since he had told\nthem who he was 'from the beginning' (ch. viii. 24, 25): so that, if\n'John' was right, we fail to see the object of all the mystery about it,\nrelated by the Synoptics. We mark, too, how Peter is, in their account,\npraised for confessing him, for flesh and blood had not revealed it to\nhim, while in the fourth Gospel, 'flesh and blood,' in the person of\nAndrew, reveal to Peter that the Christ is found; and there seems little\npraise due to Peter for a confession which had been made two or three\nyears earlier by Andrew, Nathanael, John Baptist, and the Samaritans.\nContradiction can scarcely be more direct. In John vii. Jesus owns that\nthe Jews know his birthplace (28), and they state (41, 42) that he comes\nfrom Galilee, while Christ should be born at Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke\ndistinctly say Jesus was born at Bethlehem; but here Jesus confesses the\nright knowledge of those who attribute his birthplace to Galilee,\ninstead of setting their difficulty at rest by explaining that though\nbrought up at Nazareth he was born in Bethlehem. But our writer was\napparently ignorant of their accounts (\"According to St John,\" by Annie\nBesant. Scott Series, pp. 11-14, ed. 1873). These are but a few of the\ncontradictions in the Gospels, which compel us to reject them as\nhistorical narratives.\n\n(3) _The fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, the miracles,\nwere current long before the supposed dates of the Gospels_, etc. There\nare two mythical theories as to the growth of the story of Jesus, which\ndemand our attention; the first, that of which Strauss is the best known\nexponent, which acknowledges the historical existence of Jesus, but\nregards him as the figure round which has grown a mythus, moulded by the\nMessianic expectations of the Jews: the second, which is indifferent to\nhis historical existence, and regards him as a new hero of the ancient\nsun-worship, the successor of Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, Bacchus, etc. To\nthis school, it matters not whether there was a Jesus of Nazareth or\nnot, just as it matters not whether a Krishna or an Osiris had an\nhistorical existence or not; it is _Christ_, the Sun-god, not _Jesus_,\nthe Jewish peasant, whom they find worshipped in Christendom, and who\nis, therefore, the object of their interest.\n\nAccording to the first theory, whatever was expected of the Messiah has\nbeen attributed to Jesus. \"When not merely the particular nature and\nmanner of an occurrence is critically suspicious, its external\ncircumstances represented as miraculous and the like; but where likewise\nthe essential substance and groundwork is either inconceivable in\nitself, or is in striking harmony with some Messianic idea of the Jews\nof that age, then not the particular alleged course and mode of the\ntransaction only, but the entire occurrence must be regarded as\nunhistorical\" (Strauss' \"Life of Jesus,\" vol. i., p. 94). The mythic\ntheory accepts an historical groundwork for many of the stories about\nJesus, but it does not seek to explain the miraculous by attenuating it\ninto the natural--as by explaining the story of the transfiguration to\nhave been developed from the fact of Jesus meeting secretly two men, and\nfrom the brilliancy of the sunlight dazzling the eyes of the\ndisciples--but it attributes the incredible portions of the history to\nthe Messianic theories current among the Jews. The Messiah would do this\nand that; Jesus was the Messiah; therefore, Jesus did this and\nthat--such, argue the supporters of the mythical theory, was the method\nin which the mythus was developed. The theory finds some support in the\npeculiar attitude of Justin Martyr, for instance, who believes a number\nof things about Jesus, not because the things are thus recorded of him\nin history, but because the prophets stated that such things should\nhappen to the Messiah. Thus, Jesus is descended from David, because the\nMessiah was to come of David's lineage. His birth is announced by an\nangelic visitant, because the birth of the Messiah must not be less\nhonoured than that of Isaac or of Samson; he is born of a virgin,\nbecause God says of the Messiah, \"this day have _I_ begotten thee,\"\nimplying the direct paternity of God, and because the prophecy in Is.\nvii. 14 was applied to the Messiah by the later Jews (see Septuagint\ntranslation, [Greek: parthenos], _a pure virgin_, while the Hebrew word\n[Hebrew: almah] signifies a young woman; the Hebrew word for virgin\n[Hebrew: betulah] not being used in the text of Isaiah), the ideas of\n\"son of God\" and \"son of a virgin\" completing each other; born at\nBethlehem, because there the Messiah was to be born (Micah v. 1);\nannounced to shepherds, because Moses was visited among the flocks, and\nDavid taken from the sheepfolds at Bethlehem; heralded by a star,\nbecause a star should arise out of Jacob (Num. xxiv. 17), and \"the\nGentiles shall come to thy light\" (Is. lx. 3); worshipped by magi,\nbecause the star was seen by Balaam, the magus, and astrologers would be\nthose who would most notice a star; presented with gifts by these\nEastern sages, because kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer gifts (Ps.\nlxxii. 10); saved from the destruction of the infants by a jealous king,\nbecause Moses, one of the great types of the Messiah, was so saved;\nflying into Egypt and thence returning, because Israel, again a type of\nthe Messiah, so fled and returned, and \"out of Egypt have I called my\nson\" (Hos. xi. 1); at twelve years of age found in the temple, because\nthe duties of the law devolved on the Jewish boy at that age, and where\nshould the Messiah then be found save in his Father's temple? recognised\nat his baptism by a divine voice, to fulfil Is. xlii. 1; hovered over by\na dove, because the brooding Spirit (Gen. i. 2) was regarded as\ndove-like, and the Spirit was to be especially poured on the Messiah\n(Is. xlii. 1); tempted by the devil to test him, because God tested his\ngreatest servants, and would surely test the Messiah; fasting forty days\nin the wilderness, because the types of the Messiah--Moses and\nElijah--thus fasted in the desert; healing all manner of disease,\nbecause Messiah was to heal (Is. xxxv. 5, 6); preaching, because Messiah\nwas to preach (Is. lxi. 1, 2); crucified, because the hands and feet of\nMessiah were to be pierced (Ps. xxii. 16); mocked, because Messiah was\nto be mocked (Ibid 6-8); his garments divided, because thus it was\nspoken of Messiah (Ibid, 18); silent before his judges, because Messiah\nwas not to open his mouth (Is. liii. 7); buried by the rich, because\nMessiah was thus to find his grave (Ib. 9); rising again, because\nMessiah's could not be left in hell (Ps. xvi. 10); sitting at God's\nright hand, because there Messiah was to sit as king (Ps. cx. 1). Thus\nthe form of the Messiah was cast, and all that had to be done was to\npour in the human metal; those who alleged that the Messiah had come in\nthe person of Jesus of Nazareth, adapted his story to the story of the\nMessiah, pouring the history of Jesus into the mould already made for\nthe Messiah, and thus the mythus was transformed into a history.\n\nThis theory is much strengthened by a study of the prophecies quoted in\nthe New Testament, since we find that they are very badly \"set;\" take as\na specimen those referred to in Matthew i. and ii. \"Now all this was\ndone, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the\nprophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child,\" etc (i. 22, 23).\nIf we refer to Is. vii., from whence the prophecy is taken, we shall see\nthe wresting of the passage which is necessary to make it into a\n\"Messianic prophecy.\" Ahaz, king of Judah, is hard pressed by the kings\nof Samaria and Syria, and he is promised deliverance by the Lord, before\nthe virgin's son, Immanuel, should be of an age to discern between good\nand evil. How Ahaz could be given as a sign of a birth which was not to\ntake place until more than 700 years afterwards, it is hard to say, nor\ncan we believe that Ahaz was not delivered from his enemies until Jesus\nwas old enough to know right from wrong. According to the Gospels, the\nname \"Immanuel\" was never given to Jesus, and in the prophecy is\nbestowed on the child simply as a promise that, \"God\" being \"with us,\"\nJudah should be delivered from its foes. The same child is clearly\nspoken of as the child of Isaiah and his wife in Is. viii. 3, 4; and in\nverses 6-8 we find that the two kings of Samaria and Syria are to be\nconquered by the king of Assyria, who shall fill \"thy land, O\n_Immanuel!_\" thus referring distinctly to the promised child as living\nin that time. The Hebrew word translated \"virgin\" does not, as we have\nalready shown, mean \"a pure virgin,\" as translated in the Septuagint. It\nis used for a young woman, a marriageable woman, or even to describe a\nwoman who is being embraced by a man. Micah's supposed prophecy in Matt.\nii. 5, 6, is as inapplicable to Christ as that of Isaiah. Turning back\nto Micah, we find that he \"that is to be ruler in Israel\" shall be born\nin Bethlehem, but Jesus was never ruler in Israel, and the description\ncannot therefore be applied to him; besides, finishing the passage in\nMicah (v. 5) we read that this same ruler \"shall be the peace when the\nAssyrian shall come into our land,\" so that the prophecy has a local and\nimmediate fulfilment in the circumstances of the time. Matthew ii. 15 is\nonly made into a prophecy by taking the second half of a historical\nreference in Hosea to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt; it would be as\nreasonable to prove in this fashion that the Bible teaches a denial of\nGod, \"as is spoken by David the prophet, There is no God.\" The\nfulfilment of the saying of Jeremy the prophet is as true as all the\npreceding (verses 17, 18); Jeremy bids Rahel not to weep for the\nchildren who are carried into bondage, \"for they shall come again from\nthe land of the enemy ... thy children shall come again to their own\nborder\" (Jer. xxxi. 16, 17). Very applicable to the slaughtered babes,\nand so honest of \"Matthew\" to quote just so much of the \"prophecy\" as\nserved his purpose, leaving out that which altered its whole meaning.\nAfter these specimens, we are not surprised to find that--unable to find\na prophecy fit to twist to suit his object--our evangelist quietly\ninvents one, and (verse 23) uses a prophecy which has no existence in\nwhat was \"spoken by the prophets.\" It is needless to go through all the\nother passages known as Messianic prophecies, for they may all be dealt\nwith as above; the guiding rule is to refer to the Old Testament in each\ncase, and not to trust to the quotation as given in the New, and then to\nread the whole context of the \"prophecy,\" instead of resting content\nwith the few words which, violently wrested from their natural meaning,\nare forced into a superficial resemblance with the story recorded in the\nGospels.\n\nThe second theory, which regards Jesus as a new hero of the ancient\nsun-worship, is full of intensest interest. Dupuis, in his great work on\nsun-worship (\"Origines de Tous les Cultes\") has drawn out in detail the\nvarious sun-myths, and has pointed to their common features. Briefly\nstated, these points are as follows: the hero is born about Dec. 25th,\nwithout sexual intercourse, for the sun, entering the winter solstice,\nemerges in the sign of Virgo, the heavenly virgin. His mother remains\never-virgin, since the rays of the sun, passing through the zodiacal\nsign, leave it intact. His infancy is begirt with dangers, because the\nnew-born sun is feeble in the midst of the winter's fogs and mists,\nwhich threaten to devour him; his life is one of toil and peril,\nculminating at the spring equinox in a final struggle with the powers of\ndarkness. At that period the day and the night are equal, and both fight\nfor the mastery; though the night veil the sun, and he seems dead;\nthough he has descended out of sight, below the earth, yet he rises\nagain triumphant, and he rises in the sign of the Lamb, and is thus the\nLamb of God, carrying away the darkness and death of the winter months.\nHenceforth, he triumphs, growing ever stronger and more brilliant. He\nascends into the zenith, and there he glows, \"on the right hand of God,\"\nhimself God, the very substance of the Father, the brightness of his\nglory, and the \"express image of his person,\" \"upholding all things\" by\nhis heat and his life-giving power; thence he pours down life and warmth\non his worshippers, giving them his very self to be their life; his\nsubstance passes into the grape and the corn, the sustainers of health;\naround him are his twelve followers, the twelve signs of the zodiac, the\ntwelve months of the year; his day, the Lord's Day, is Sunday, the day\nof the Sun, and his yearly course, ever renewed, is marked each year, by\nthe renewed memorials of his career. The signs appear in the long array\nof sun-heroes, making the succession of deities, old in reality,\nalthough new-named.\n\nIt may be worth noting that Jesus is said to be born at Bethlehem, a\nword that Dr. Inman translates as the house \"of the hot one\" (\"Ancient\nFaiths,\" vol. i., p. 358; ed. 1868); Bethlehem is generally translated\n\"house of bread,\" and the doubt arises from the Hebrew letters being\noriginally unpointed, and the points--equivalent to vowel sounds--being\ninserted in later times; this naturally gives rise to great latitude of\ninterpretation, the vowels being inserted whenever the writer or\ntranslator thinks they ought to come in, or where the traditionary\nreading requires them (see Part 1., pp. 13, and 31, 32).\n\nEach point in the story of Jesus may be paralleled in earlier tales; the\nbirth of Krishna was prophesied of; he was born of Devaki, although she\nwas shut up in a tower, and no man was permitted to approach her. His\nbirth was hymned by the Devas--the Hindoo equivalent for angels--and a\nbright light shone round where he was. He was pursued by the wrath of\nthe tyrant king, Kansa, who feared that Krishna would supplant him in\nthe kingdom. The infants of the district were massacred, but Krishna\nmiraculously escaped. He was brought up among the poor until he reached\nmaturity. He preached a pure morality, and went about doing good. He\nhealed the leper, the sick, the injured, and he raised the dead. His\nhead was anointed by a woman; he washed the feet of the Brahmins; he was\npersecuted, and finally slain, being crucified. He went down into hell,\nrose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven (see \"Asiatic\nResearches,\" vol. i.; on \"The Gods of Greece, Italy, and India,\" by Sir\nWilliam Jones, an essay which, though very imperfect, has much in it\nthat is highly instructive). He is pictorially represented as standing\non the serpent, the type of evil; his foot crushes its head, while the\nfang of the serpent pierces his heel; also, with a halo round his head,\nthis halo being always the symbol of the Sun-god; also, with his hands\nand feet pierced--the sacred stigmata--and with a hole in his side. In\nfact, some of the representations of him could not be distinguished from\nthe representations of the crucified Jesus.\n\nThe name of \"Krishna\" is by Sir William Jones, and by many others\nwritten \"Crishna,\" and I have seen it spelt \"Cristna.\" The resemblance\nit bears, when thus written, to \"Christ\" is apparent only, there is no\netymological similarity. Krishna is derived from the Sanscrit \"Krish,\"\nto scrape, to draw, to colour. Krishna means black, or violet-coloured;\nChrist comes from the Greek [Greek: christos] the anointed. Colonel\nVallancy, Sir W. Jones tells us, informed him that \"Crishna\" in Irish\nmeans the Sun (\"As. Res.,\" p. 262; ed. 1801); and there is no doubt that\nthe Hindu Krishna is a Sun-god; the \"violet-coloured\" might well be a\nreference to the deep blue of the summer sky.\n\nIf Moses be a type of Christ, must not Bacchus be admitted to the same\nhonour? In the ancient Orphic verses it was said that he was born in\nArabia; picked up in a box that floated on the water; was known by the\nname of Mises, as \"drawn from the water;\" had a rod which he could\nchange into a serpent, and by means of which he performed miracles;\nleading his army, he passed the Red Sea dryshod; he divided the rivers\nOrontes and Hydaspes with his rod; he drew water from a rock; where he\npassed the land flowed with wine, milk, and honey (see \"Diegesis,\" pp.\n178, 179).\n\nThe name Christ Jesus is simply the anointed Saviour, or else Chrestos\nJesus, the good Saviour; a title not peculiar to Jesus of Nazareth. We\nfind Hesus, Jesous, Yes or Ies. This last name, [Greek: Iaes], was one\nof the titles of Bacchus, and the simple termination \"us\" makes it\n\"Jesus;\" from this comes the sacred monogram I.H.S., really the Greek\n[Greek: UAeS]--IES; the Greek letter [Greek: Ae], which is the capital\nE, has by ignorance been mistaken for the Latin H, and the ancient name\nof Bacchus has been thus transformed into the Latin monogram of Jesus.\nIn both cases the letters are surrounded with a halo, the sun-rays,\nsymbolical of the sun-deity to whom they refer. This halo surrounds the\nheads of gods who typify the sun, and is continually met with in Indian\nsculptures and paintings.\n\nHercules, with his twelve labours, is another source of Christian fable.\n\"It is well known that by Hercules, in the physical mythology of the\nheathens, was meant the _Sun_, or _solar light_, and his twelve famous\nlabours have been referred to the sun's passing through the twelve\nzodiacal signs; and this, perhaps, not without some foundation. But the\nlabours of Hercules seem to have had a still higher view, and to have\nbeen originally designed as emblematic memorials of what the real _Son\nof God_ and _Saviour of the world_ was to do and suffer for our\nsakes--[Greek: Noson Theletaeria panta komixon]--'_Bringing a cure for\nall our ills_,' as the Orphic hymn speaks of Hercules\" (Parkhurst's\n\"Hebrew Lexicon,\" page 520; ed. 1813). As the story of Hercules came\nfirst in time, it must be either a prophecy of Christ, an inadmissible\nsupposition, or else of the sources whence the story of Christ has been\ndrawn.\n\nAesculapius, the heathen \"Good Physician,\" and \"the good Saviour,\"\nhealed the sick and raised the dead. He was the son of God and of\nCoronis, and was guarded by a goatherd.\n\nPrometheus is another forerunner of Christ, stretched in cruciform\nposition on the rocks, tormented by Jove, the Father, because he brought\nhelp to man, and winning for man, by his agony, light and knowledge.\n\nOsiris, the great Egyptian God, has much in common with the Christian\nJesus. He was both god and man, and once lived on earth. He was slain by\nthe evil Typhon, but rose again from the dead. After his resurrection he\nbecame the Judge of all men. Once a year the Egyptians used to celebrate\nhis death, mourning his slaying by the evil one: \"this grief for the\ndeath of Osiris did not escape some ridicule; for Xenophanes, the\nIonian, wittily remarked to the priests of Memphis, that if they thought\nOsiris a man they should not worship him, and if they thought him a God\nthey need not talk of his death and suffering.... Of all the gods Osiris\nalone had a place of birth and a place of burial. His birthplace was\nMount Sinai, called by the Egyptians Mount Nyssa. Hence was derived the\ngod's Greek name Dionysus, which is the same as the Hebrew\nJehovah-Nissi\" (\"Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity,\" by\nSamuel Sharpe, pp. 10, 11; ed. 1863). Various places claimed the honour\nof his burial. \"Serapis\" was a god's name, formed out of \"Osiris\" and\n\"Apis,\" the sacred bull, and we find (see ante, p. 206) that the Emperor\nAdrian wrote that the \"worshippers of Serapis are Christians,\" and that\nbishops of Serapis were bishops of Christ; although the stories differ\nin detail, as is natural, since the Christian tale is modified by other\nmyths--Osiris, for instance, is married--the general outline is the\nsame. We shall see, in Section II., how thoroughly Pagan is the origin\nof Christianity.\n\nWe find the Early Fathers ready enough to claim these analogies, in\norder to recommend their religion. Justin Martyr argues: \"When we say\nthat the word, who is the first birth of God, was produced without\nsexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and\ndied, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing\ndifferent from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of\nJupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to\nJupiter; Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius,\nwho, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and\nso ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from\nlimb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to\nescape his toils; and the sons of Leda, the Dioscuri; and Perseus, son\nof Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to\nheaven on the horse Pegasus\" (\"First Apology,\" ch. xxi.). \"If we assert\nthat the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different\nfrom ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary\nthing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if\nanyone objects that he was crucified, in this also he is on a par with\nthose reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now\nenumerated.... And if we even affirm that he was born of a virgin,\naccept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we\nsay that he made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we\nseem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by\nAEsculapius\" (Ibid, ch. xxi.). \"Plato, in like manner, used to say that\nRhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and\nwe say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ\"\n(Ibid, ch. viii.) In ch. liv. Justin argues that the devils invented all\nthese gods in order that when Christ came his story should be thought to\nbe another marvellous tale like its predecessors! On the whole, we can\nscarcely wonder that Caecilius (about A.D. 211) taunted the early\nChristians with those facts: \"All these figments of cracked-brained\nopiniatry and silly solaces played off in the sweetness of song by\ndeceitful poets, by you, too credulous creatures, have been shamefully\nreformed, and made over to your own God\" (as quoted in R. Taylor's\n\"Diegesis,\" p. 241). That the doctrines of Christianity had the same\norigin as the story of Christ, and the miracles ascribed to him, we\nshall prove under section ii., while section iii. will prove the same as\nto his morality. Judge Strange fairly says: \"The Jewish Scriptures and\nthe traditionary teaching of their doctors, the Essenes and Therapeuts,\nthe Greek philosophers, the neo-platonism of Alexandria, and the\nBuddhism of the East, gave ample supplies for the composition of the\ndoctrinal portion of the new faith; the divinely procreated personages\nof the Grecian and Roman pantheons, the tales of the Egyptian Osiris,\nand of the Indian Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, furnished the materials for\nthe image of the new saviour of mankind; and every surrounding mythology\npoured forth samples of the 'mighty works' that were to be attributed to\nhim to attract and enslave his followers: and thus, first from Judaism,\nand finally from the bosom of heathendom, we have our matured expression\nof Christianity\" (\"The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus,\" p. 27). From\nthe mass of facts brought together above, we contend that the Gospels\n_are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit, from (1) the miracles\nwith which they abound, (2) the numerous contradictions of each by the\nothers, (3) the fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, the\nmiracles, were current long before the supposed dates of the Gospels; so\nthat these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of older materials_.\n\nWe have thus examined, step by step, the alleged evidences of\nChristianity, both external and internal; we have found it impossible to\nrely on its external witnesses, while the internal testimony is fatal to\nits claims; it is, at once, unauthenticated without, and incredible\nwithin. After earnest study, and a careful balancing of proofs, we find\nourselves forced to assert that THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY ARE\nUNRELIABLE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPPROXIMATE DATES CLAIMED FOR THE CHIEF CHRISTIAN AND HERETICAL\nAUTHORITIES.\n\nA.D.\n\nBetween 92 and 125         Clement of Rome         Very doubtful\nBetween 90 and 138         Barnabas                  \"     \"\nSaid to be martyred 107    Ignatius                  \"     \"\nBetween 117 and 138        Quadratus                 \"     \"\nPossibly 138               Hermas                    \"     \"\nAbout 150-170              Papias                    \"     \"\nAbout 135-145              Basilides and             \"     \"\n                             Valentinus\nAbout 140-160              Marcion\nSaid to be martyred 166    Polycarp                 Very doubtful\nSaid to be martyred 166    Justin Martyr\nAfter 166                  Hegesippus\nAbout 177                  Epistle of Lyons\n                             and Vienne\nBetween 150 and 290        Clementines              Real date quite unknown\nBetween 166 and 176        Dionysius of Corinth\nAbout 176                  Athenagoras\nBetween 170 and 175        Tatian\n177 to about 200           Iren\u00e6us\nAbout 193                  Tertullian\nAbout 200                  Celsus                   Very doubtful\n205                        Clement of Alexandria\n                             succeeded as head of\n                             School.\nAbout 205                  Porphyry\n205-249                    Origen\n\nTHE SO-CALLED TEN PERSECUTIONS.\n\nA.D.\n61 under Nero\n81    \"  Domitian\n107   \"  Trajan\n166   \"  Marcus Aurelius\n193   \"  Severus\n235 under Maximin\n249   \"   Decius\n254   \"   Valerian\n272   \"   Aurelian\n303   \"   Diocletian\n\nDATES OF ROMAN EMPERORS.\n\nAT ALLEGED BIRTH OF CHRIST.\n\nAugustus C\u00e6sar\n\nA.D.\n14 Tiberius\n33 Caligula\n41 Claudius\n54 Nero\n68 Galba\n   Otho\n69 Vitellius\n69 Vespasian\n79 Titus\n81 Domitian\n96 Nerva\n98 Trajan associated\n117 Hadrian\n138 Antoninus Pius\n161 Marcus Aurelius\n180 Commodus\n192 Pertinax\n193 Julian\n    Severus\n211 Caracalla and Geta\n217 Macrinus\n218 Heliogabalus\n222 Alexander Severus\n235 Maximin\n237 The Gordians\n    Maximus and Galbinus\n238 Maximus, Galbinus, and Gordian\n238 Gordian alone\n244 Philip\n249 Decius\n251 Gallus\n253 Valerian\n260 Gallienus\n268 Claudius\n270 Aurelian\n275 Tacitus\n276 Florianus\n276 Probus\n282 Carus\n283 Carinus and Numerian\n285 Diocletian\n286 Maximian associated\n305 Galerius and Constantius\n    305 Severus and Maximin\n306 Constantine\n    Licinius\n    Maxentius\n324 Constantine alone\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX TO SECTION I. OF PART II.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX OF BOOKS USED.\n\nAdrian...206\n   \" quoted by Meredith...225\nAgbarus, letter of, in Eusebius...243\nAkiba, quoted in Keim...315\nAlford, Greek Testament...288\nApostolic Fathers...215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 230\nAthenagoras, Apology...226\nAugustine, Syntagma, quoted in Diegesis...234\n\nBarnabas, Epistle of...233, 302\nBesant, According to St. John...337\nButler, Lives of the Fathers, etc...324\n\nCaecilius, quoted in Diegesis...348\nCelsus, quoted by Norton...233\nClement, First Epistle...233, 299, 300, 301\nClementine, Homilies...310\n   \" quoted in Supernatural Religion...301\nCorpus Ignatianum, quoted in Apostolic Fathers...218\n\nDavidson, Introduction to New Testament...286, 294, 295, 296, 298\n\nEllicott, quoted in Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels...250\n\nEpictetus...206\nEpiphanius, quoted by Norton...297\nEusebius, Ecclesiastical History...216, 230, 231, 234, 243, 246, 248\n                                   250, 257, 260, 277, 279, 284, 290\n                                             291, 292, 294, 321, 323\n   \" quoted in Apostolic Fathers...217\n\nFaustus, quoted in Diegesis...284\n\nGibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire...195, 206, 209, 112\n                                                    213, 227, 322\nGiles, Christian Records...197, 207, 230, 259, 261, 263, 265\n                                267, 276, 288, 293, 297, 313, 328\n                                                         335, 336\n\nHegesippus, quoted in Supernatural Religion...302\nHome, Introduction to New Testament...197, 203\n\nIgnatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans...220\n   \"          \"             Ephesians...233\n   \"          \"             Philippians...302\nInman, Ancient Faiths...344\nIren\u00e6us, Against Heresies...258, 291, 323, 336\n   \" quoted in Keim...234\n   \" quoted in Eusebius...258\n\nJones, The Canon of the New Testament...240, 245, 257\nJones, Sir W., Asiatic Researches...345\nJosephus, Antiquities of the Jews...195, 198, 315\n   \" Wars of the Jews...317\n   \" Discourse on Hades...198\nJustin Martyr, First Apology...231, 253, 302, 347\n   \"           Second Apology...226, 323\n   \"           Dialogue with Trypho...231, 275, 302, 310\nJuvenal...203\n\nKeim, Jesus of Nazara...197, 202, 315\n\nLardner, Answer to Dr. Chandler, quoted from\n               Diegesis...196\n   \"     Credibility of the\n               Gospels...209, 210, 211, 216, 218\n                                   230, 263, 269\nLivy...222\n\nMarcus Aurelius...206\nMarsh, quoted in Norton...267\n   \" quoted in Giles...287\nMeredith, Prophet of Nazareth...223\nMosheim, Ecclesiastical\n            History...214, 216, 217, 235, 237, 238, 239\nMuratori, Canon of...282\n\nNicodemus, Gospel of...253\nNorton, Genuineness of the Gospels...215, 216, 219, 247,\n                                          263, 269, 295\n\nOrigen, quoted in Gibbon...213\n   \"       \"      Diegesis...234\n   \"       \"      Supernatural Religion...323\n\nPaley, Evidences of Christianity...198, 202, 203, 205\n                      208, 209, 210, 212, 228, 229, 231\n                      235, 236, 243, 244, 247, 248, 260\n                      262, 269, 273, 281, 290, 309, 317\n                                                   319\nPapias, quoted by Eusebius...291\n   \"              Iren\u00e6us...291\nParkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon...346\nPliny, Epistles...203\nPilate, Acts of...253\n\nQuadratus, quoted by Eusebius...230\n\nRenan, Vie de J\u00e9sus...197\nRow, The Supernatural in the New Testament...325, 327\n\nSanday, Gospels in the Second Century...248, 269, 270\n                      279, 287, 298, 300, 302, 305, 311\nScott, English Life of Jesus...334\nSharpe, Egyptian Mythology...347\nSmyrna, Circular Epistle of the Church of...221\nStrange, Portraiture and Mission of Jesus...198, 201, 210\n                                               321, 348\nStrauss, Life of Jesus...289, 312, 320, 330, 331, 332\nSuetonius...201, 202, 225\nSupernatural Religion... 215, 216, 219, 229, 246, 247, 248\n                      249, 260, 261, 266, 268, 269, 271\n                      276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283\n                      290, 292, 293, 295, 301, 302, 303\n                                          304, 322, 325\n\nTacitus, Annals...199, 222, 225\nTaylor, Diegesis...196, 200, 201, 205, 206, 208, 212, 346\nTertullian, Apology...226\n    \"       De Spectaculis...323\n    \"       quoted in Gibbon...213\n    \"          \"      Meredith...225\nThomas, Gospel of...251\nTischendorf, When were our Gospels Written?...248, 270\n\nWestcott, On the Canon of the New Testament...216, 229, 247, 249\n                                              256, 268, 270, 274\n                                              275, 278, 286\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\nAnalogies of Christian doctrines...347\nApocryphal Gospels, specimens of...250\n   \"       Books, recognised...245\nAuthenticity of Apology of Quadratus...230\n   \"            Epistle of Barnabas...229\n   \"                \"      Clement...214\n   \"                \"      Ignatius...217\n   \"                \"      Polycarp...216\n   \"                \"      Smyrna...220\n   \"            Vision of Hermas...216\n\nBooks read in churches...248\n   \"  in volume of Scriptures...249\n\nChristian Agapae...223\nChristianity advantageous to tyrants...237\n\nDate of birth of Christ...333\nDates of Fathers, etc...349\nDates of Roman Emperors...350\nDiatessaron of Tatian...259\n\nEvidence of Adrian...206\n   \"        Apostolic Fathers...263, 267\n   \"        Barnabas...268\n   \"        Basilides and Valentinus...280\n   \"        Canon of Muratori...282\n   \"        Clement ...269\n   \"        Clementines...279\n   \"        Hegesippus...277\n   \"        Hermas...269\n   \"        Ignatius...270\n   \"        Josephus...195\n   \"        Justin Martyr...271\n   \"        Marcion...281\n   \"        Marcus Aurelius...206\n   \"        Papias...271\n   \"        Pliny...203\n   \"        Polycarp...270\n   \"        Suetonius...201\n   \"        Tacitus...199\n\nForgeries in Early Church...238\n    \"        List of...240\nFour Gospels: when recognised...257\n    \"         why only four...258\n\nGospels, changes made in...283\n    \"    contradictions in...328\n    \"    contradictions between synoptical and fourth...337\n    \"    growth of...285, 289\n    \"    identity of modern and ancient unproven...262\n    \"    many current...266\n    \"    of later origin...311\n    \"    of Matthew and Mark not those of Papias...290\n    \"    original, different from canonical...298\n    \"    similarity of canonical and uncanonical...245\n    \"    synoptical...286\n    \"    time of selection unknown...256\nGenealogies of Jesus...328\nGreek not commonly known by Jews...314\n\nIgnorance of Early Fathers...232\n\nKrishna, meaning of...345\n\nLength of Jesus' Ministry..336\nLife of Christ from Justin Martyr...306\n\nMartyrs, small number of...212\nMassacre of infants unlikely...333\nMatthew, written in Hebrew...394\nMiracles...316\nMorality of Early Christians...221\nMythical Theory of Jesus...340\n\nPassages in Fathers, not in canonical Gospels...301\nPersecution, absence of...209\nPhrase \"it is written\"...247\nPositions laid down as to Gospels...236\nPosition A...238\n    \"    B...245\n    \"    C...256\n    \"    D...257\n    \"    E...261\n    \"    F...262\n    \"    G...290\n    \"    H...298\n    \"    I...311\n    \"    J...314\n    \"    K...316\nProphecies, Messianic...342\n\nSilence of Jewish writers...198, 201, 259\n    \"      Pagan     \" ...193, 206\nStory of Christ pre-Christian...340\nSon-worship and Christ...343\n\nTemptation of Christ...334\nTen Persecutions...350\nTypes of Christ...345\n\n\n\n\nSECTION II.--ITS ORIGIN PAGAN.\n\n\nThere are two ancient and widely-spread creeds to which we must chiefly\nlook for the origin of Christianity, namely, Sun-worship and\nNature-worship. It is doubtful which of the twain is the elder, and they\nare closely intertwined, the central idea of each being the same;\npersonally, I am inclined to think that Nature-worship is the older of\nthe two, because it is the simpler and the nearer; the barbarian, slowly\nemerging into humanity, would be more likely to worship the force which\nwas the most immediately wonderful to him, the power of generation of\nnew life; to recognise the sun as the great life producer seems to imply\nsome little growth of reason and of imagination; sun-worship seems the\nidealisation of nature-worship, for the same generative force is adored\nin both, and round the idea of this production of new life all creeds\nrevolve. Christian symbols and Christian ceremonies speak as plainly to\nthe student of ancient religions as the stars speak to the astronomer,\nand the rocks to the geologian; Christian Churches are as full of the\nfossil relics of the old creeds as are the earth's strata of the bones\nof extinct animals. We shall expect to find, then, a family resemblance\nrunning through all Eastern creeds--of which Christianity is one--and we\nshall not be surprised to find similar symbols expressing similar ideas;\nthere are, in fact, cardinal symbols re-appearing in all these allied\nreligions; the virgin and child; the trinity in unity; the cross; these\nhave their roots struck deep in human nature, and are found in every\nEastern creed. So also can we trace sacraments and ceremonies, and many\nminor dogmas. In looking back into those ancient creeds it is necessary\nto get rid of the modern fashion of regarding any natural object as\nimmodest. Sir William Jones justly remarks that in Hindustan \"it never\nseems to have entered the heads of the legislators, or people, that\nanything natural could be offensively obscene; a singularity which\npervades all their writings and conversation, but is no proof of\ndepravity in their morals\" (\"Asiatic Researches,\" vol. i., p. 255).\nGross injustice is sometimes done to ancient creeds by contemplating\nthem from a modern point of view; in those days every power of Nature\nwas thought divine, and most divine of all was deemed the power of\ncreation, whether worshipped in the sun, whose beams impregnated the\nearth, or in the male and female organs of generation, the universal\ncreators of life in the animal world; thus we find in all ancient\nsculptures carvings of the phallus and the yoni, expressed both\nnaturally and symbolically, the representations becoming more and more\nconventional and refined as civilisation advanced; of the infant world\nit may be said that it was \"naked, and was not ashamed;\" as it grew\nolder, and clothed the human form, it also draped its religious symbols,\nbut as the body remains unaltered under its garments, so the idea\nconcealed beneath the emblems remains the same.\n\nThe union of male and female is, then, the foundation of all religions;\nthe heaven marries the earth, as man marries woman, and that union is\nthe first marriage. Saturn is the sky, the male, or active energy; Rhea\nis the earth, the female, or receptive; and these are the father and the\nmother of all. The Persians of old called the sky Jupiter, or Jupater,\n\"Ju the Father.\" The sun is the agent of the generative power of the\nsky, and his beams fecundate the earth, so that from her all life is\nproduced. Thus the sun becomes worshipped as the Father of all, and the\nsun is the emblem which crowns the images of the Supreme God; the vernal\nequinox is the resurrection of the sun, and the sign of the zodiac in\nwhich he then is becomes the symbol of his life-producing power; thus\nthe bull, and afterwards the ram, became his sign as Life-Giver, and the\nSun-god was pictured as bull, or as ram (or lamb), or else with the\nhorns of his, emblem, and the earthly animals became sacred for his\nsake. Mithra, the Sun-god of Persia, is sculptured as riding on a bull;\nOsiris, the Sun-god of Egypt, wears the horns of the bull, and is\nworshipped as Osiris-Apis, or Serapis, the Sun-god in the sign of Apis,\nthe bull. Later, by the precession of the equinoxes, the sun at the\nvernal equinox has passed into the sign of the ram (called in Persia,\nthe lamb), and we find Jupiter Ammon, Jupiter with ram's horns, and\nJesus the Lamb of God. These symbols all denote the sun victorious over\ndarkness and death, giving life to the world. The phallus is the other\ngreat symbol of the Life-Giver, generating life in woman, as the sun in\nthe earth. Bacchus, Adonis, Dionysius, Apollo, Hercules, Hermes,\nThammuz, Jupiter, Jehovah, Jao, or Jah, Moloch, Baal, Asher, Mahadeva,\nBrahma, Vishnu, Mithra, Atys, Ammon, Belus, with many another, these are\nall the Life-Giver under different names; they are the Sun, the Creator,\nthe Phallus. Red is their appropriate colour. When the sun or the\nPhallus is not drawn in its natural form, it is indicated by a symbol:\nthe symbol must be upright, hard, or else burning, either conical, or\nclubbed at one end. Thus--the torch, flame of fire, cone, serpent,\nthyrsus, triangle, letter T, cross, crosier, sceptre, caduceus, knobbed\nstick, tall tree, upright stone, spire, tower, minaret, upright pole,\narrow, spear, sword, club, upright stump, etc., are all symbols of the\ngenerative force of the male energy in Nature of the Supreme God.\n\nOne of the most common, and the most universally used, is THE CROSS.\nCarved at first simply as phallus, it was gradually refined; we meet it\nas three balls, one above the two; the letter T indicated it, which, by\nthe slightest alteration, became the cross now known as the Latin: thus\n\"Barnabas\" says that \"the cross was to express the grace by the letter\nT\" (ante, p. 233). We find the cross in India, Egypt, Thibet, Japan,\nalways as the sign of life-giving power; it was worn as an amulet by\ngirls and women, and seems to have been specially worn by the women\nattached to the temples, as a symbol of what was, to them, a religious\ncalling. The cross is, in fact, nothing but the refined phallus, and in\nthe Christian religion is a significant emblem of its Pagan origin; it\nwas adored, carved in temples, and worn as a sacred emblem by sun and\nnature worshippers, long before there were any Christians to adore,\ncarve, and wear it. The crowd kneeling before the cross in Roman\nCatholic and in High Anglican Churches, is a simple reproduction of the\ncrowd who knelt before it in the temples of ancient days, and the girls\nwho wear it amongst ourselves, are--in the most innocent unconsciousness\nof its real signification--exactly copying the Indian and Egyptian women\nof an elder time. Saturn's symbol was a cross and a ram's horn. Jupiter\nbore a cross with a horn. Venus a circle with a cross. The Egyptian\ndeities a cross and oval. (The signification of these will be dealt with\nbelow.) The Druids sought oak trees with two main arms growing in shape\nof a cross, and, if they failed to find such, nailed a beam cross-wise.\nThe chief pagodas in India are built, like many Christian churches, in\nthe form of a cross. I have read in a book on church architecture that\nchurches should be built either in the form of a cross, or else in that\nof a ship, typifying the ark; i.e., they should either be built in the\nform of the phallus or the yoni, the ship or ark being one of the\nsymbols of the female energy (see below, p. 361).\n\nThe CRUCIFIX, or cross with human figure stretched upon it, is also\nfound in ancient times, although not so frequently as the simple cross.\nThe crucifix appears to have arisen from the circle of the horizon being\ndivided into four parts, North, South, East, and West, and the Sun-god,\ndrawn within, or on, the circle, came into contact with each cardinal\npoint, his feet and head touching, or intersecting, two, while his\noutstretched arms point to the other quarters. Plato says that the \"next\npower to the Supreme God was decussated, or figured in the shape of a\ncross, on the universe.\" Krishna is painted and sculptured on a cross.\nThe Egyptians thus drew Osiris, and sometimes we find a circle drawn\nwith the dividing lines, and in the midst is stretched the dead body of\nOsiris. Robert Taylor gives another origin for the crucifix: \"The\nignorant gratitude of a superstitious people, while they adored the\nriver [Nile] on whose inundations the fertility of their provinces\ndepended, could not fail of attaching notions of sanctity and holiness\nto the posts that were erected along its course, and which, by a\n_transverse beam_, indicated the height to which, at the spot where the\nbeam was fixed, the waters might be expected to rise. This cross at once\nwarned the traveller to secure his safety, and formed a standard of the\nvalue of land. Other rivers may add to the fertility of the country\nthrough which they pass, but the Nile is the absolute cause of that\ngreat fertility of the Lower Egypt, which would be all a desert, as bad\nas the most sandy parts of Africa without this river. It supplies it\nboth with soil and moisture, and was therefore gratefully addressed, not\nmerely as an ordinary river-god, but by its express title of the\nEgyptian Jupiter. The crosses, therefore, along the banks of the river\nwould naturally share in the honour of the stream, and be the most\nexpressive emblem of good fortune, peace, and plenty. The two ideas\ncould never be separated: the fertilising flood was the _waters of\nlife_, that conveyed every blessing, and even existence itself, to the\nprovinces through which they flowed. One other and most obvious\nhieroglyph completed the expressive allegory. The _Demon of Famine_,\nwho, should the waters fail of their inundation, or not reach the\nelevation indicated by the position of the transverse beam upon the\nupright, would reign in all his horrors over their desolated lands. This\nsymbolical personification was, therefore, represented as a miserable\nemaciated wretch, who had grown up 'as a tender plant, and as a root out\nof a dry ground, who had no form nor comeliness; and when they should\nsee him, there was no beauty that they should desire him.' Meagre were\nhis looks; sharp misery had worn him to the bone. His crown of thorns\nindicated the sterility of the territories over which he reigned. The\nreed in his hand, gathered from the banks of the Nile, indicated that it\nwas only the mighty river, by keeping within its banks, and thus\nwithholding its wonted munificence, that placed an unreal sceptre in his\ngripe. He was nailed to the cross, in indication of his entire defeat.\nAnd the superscription of his infamous title, 'THIS IS THE KING OF THE\nJEWS,' expressively indicated that _Famine, Want_, or _Poverty_, ruled\nthe destinies of the most slavish, beggarly, and mean race of men with\nwhom they had the honour of being acquainted\" (\"Diegesis,\" p. 187).\nWhile it may very likely be true that the miserable aspect given to\nJesus crucified is copied from some such original as Mr. Taylor here\nsketches, we are tolerably certain that the general idea of the crucifix\nhad the solar origin described above.\n\nVery closely joined to the notion of the cross is the idea of the\nTRINITY IN UNITY, and we need not delay upon it long. It is as universal\nin Eastern religions as the cross, and comes from the same idea; all\nlife springs from a trinity in unity in man, and, therefore, God is\nthree in one. This trinity is, of course, symbolised by the cross, and\nespecially by the lotus, and any \"three in one\" leaf; from this has come\nto Christianity the conventional triple foliage so constantly seen in\nChurch carvings, the _fleur-de-lis_, the triangle, etc., which are\nnow--as of old--accepted as the emblems of the trinity. The persons of\nthe trinity are found each with his own name; in India, Brahma, Vishnu,\nSiva, and it is Vishnu who becomes incarnate; in Egypt different cities\nhad different trinities, and \"we have a hieroglyphical inscription in\nthe British Museum as early as the reign of Sevechus of the eighth\ncentury before the Christian era, showing that the doctrine of Trinity\nin Unity already formed part of their religion, and that in each of the\ntwo groups last mentioned the three gods only made one person\"\n(\"Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christology,\" by S. Sharpe, p. 14).\nMr. Sharpe might have gone to much earlier times and \"already\" have\nfound the adoration of the trinity in unity; as far back as the first\nwho bowed in worship before the generative force of the male three in\none. Osiris, Horus, and Ra form one of the Egyptian trinities; Horus the\nSon, is also one of a trinity in unity made into an amulet, and called\nthe Great God, the Son God, and the Spirit God. Horus is the slayer of\nTyphon, the evil one, and is sometimes represented as standing on its\nhead, and as piercing its head with a spear, reminding us of Krishna,\nthe incarnation of Vishnu, the second person of the Indian Trinity.\n\nThese trinities, however, were not complete in themselves, for the\nfemale element is needed for the production of life; hence, we find that\nin most nations a fourth person is joined to the trinity, as Isis, the\nmother of Horus, in Egypt, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in\nChristendom; the Egyptian trinity is often represented as Osiris, Horus,\nand Isis, but we more generally find the female constituting the fourth\nelement, in addition to the triune, and symbolised by an oval, or\ncircle, typical of the female organ of reproduction; thus the _crux\nansata_ of the Egyptians, the \"symbol of life\" held in the hand by the\nEgyptian deities, is a cross or oval, i.e., the T with an oval at the\ntop; the circle with the cross inside, symbolises, again, the male and\nfemale union; also the six-rayed star, the pentacle, the double\ntriangle, the triangle and circle, the pit with a post in it, the key,\nthe staff with a half-moon, the complicated cross. The same union is\nimaged out in all androgynous deities, in Elohim, Baalim, Baalath,\nArba-il, the bearded Venus, the feminine Jove, the virgin and child. In\ncountries where the Yoni worship was more popular than that of the\nPhallus, the VIRGIN and CHILD was a favourite deity, and to this we now\nturn.\n\nHere, as in the history of the cross, we find sun and nature worship\nintertwined. The female element is sometimes the Earth, and sometimes\nthe individual. The goddesses are as various in names as the gods. Is,\nIsis, Ishtar, Astarte, Mylitta, Sara, Mrira, Maia, Parvati, Mary,\nMiriam, Eve, Juno, Venus, Diana, Artemis, Aphrodite, Hera, Rhea, Cybele,\nCeres, and others, are the earth under many names; the receptive female,\nthe producer of life, the Yoni. Black is the special colour of female\ndeities, and the black Isis and Horus, the black Mary and Jesus are of\npeculiar sanctity. Their emblems are: the earth, moon, star of the sea,\ncircle, oval, triangle, pomegranate, door, ark, fish, ship, horseshoe,\nchasm, cave, hole, celestial virgin, etc. They bore first the titles now\nworn by Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus, and were reverenced as the\n\"queen of heaven.\" Ishtar, of Babylonia, was the \"Mother of the Gods,\"\nand the \"Queen of the Stars.\" Isis, of Egypt, was \"our Immaculate Lady.\"\nShe was figured with a crown of stars, and with the crescent moon. Venus\nwas an ark brooded over by a dove, or the moon floating on the water.\nThey are \"the mother,\" \"mamma,\" \"emma,\" \"ummah,\" or \"the woman.\" The\nsymbols are everywhere the same, though given with different names.\nEverywhere it is Mary, the mother; the female principle in nature,\nadored side by side with the male. She shares in the work of creation\nand salvation, and has a kind of equality with the Father of all; hence\nwe hear of the immaculate conception. She produces a child alone in some\nstories, without even divine co-operation. The Virgo of the Zodiac is\nrepresented in ancient sculptures and drawings as a woman suckling a\nchild, and the Paamylian feasts were celebrated at the spring equinox,\nand were the equivalent of the Christian feast of the Annunciation, when\nthe power of the highest overshadowed Mary of Nazareth. Thus in India,\nwe have Devaki and Krishna; in Egypt, Osiris and Horus--the \"Saviour of\nthe World;\" in Christendom, Mary and Christ; the pictures and carvings\nof India and Egypt would be indistinguishable from those of Europe, were\nit not for the differences of dress. Apis, the sacred Egyptian bull, was\nalways born without an earthly father, and his mother never had a second\ncalf. So the later Sun-god, Jesus, is born without sexual intercourse,\nand Mary never bears another child. Jupiter visits Leda as a swan; God\nvisits Mary as an overshadowing dove. The salutation of Gabriel to Mary\nis curiously like that of Mercury to Electra: \"Hail, most happy of all\nwomen, you whom Jupiter has honoured with his couch; your blood will\ngive laws to the world, I am the messenger of the gods.\" The mother of\nFohi, the great Chinese God, became _enceinte_ by walking in the\nfootsteps of a giant. The mother of Hercules did not lose her virginity.\nThe savages of St. Domingo represented the chief divinity by a female\nfigure called the \"mother of God.\" On Friday, the day of Freya, or\nVenus, many Christians still eat only fish, fish being sacred to the\nfemale deity.\n\nIn Comtism we find the latest development of woman-worship, wherein the\n\"emotional sex\" becomes the sacred sex, to be guarded, cherished,\nsustained, adored; and thus in the youngest religion the stamp of the\neldest is found.\n\nThus womanhood has been worshipped in all ages of the world, and\nmaternity has been deified by all creeds: from the savage who bowed\nbefore the female symbol of motherhood, to the philosophic Comtist who\nadores woman \"in the past, the present, and the future,\" as mother,\nwife, and daughter, the worship of the female element in nature has run\nside by side with that of the male; the worship is one and the same in\nall religions, and runs in an unbroken thread from the barbarous ages to\nthe present time.\n\nThe doctrines of the mediation, and the divinity of Christ, and of the\nimmortality of the soul, are as pre-Christian as the symbols which we\nhave examined.\n\nThe idea of _the Mediator_ comes to us from Persia, and the title was\nborne by Mithra before it was ascribed to Christ. Zoroaster taught that\nthere was existence itself, the unknown, the eternal, \"Zeruane Akerne,\"\n\"time without bounds.\" From this issued Ormuzd, the good, the light, the\ncreator of all. Opposite to Ormuzd is Ahriman, the bad, the dark, the\ndeformer of all. Between these two great deities comes Mithra, the\nMediator, who is the Reconciler of all things to God, who is one with\nOrmuzd, although distinct from him. Mithra, as we have seen, is the Sun\nin the sign of the Bull, exactly parallel to Jesus, the Sun in the sign\nof the Lamb, both the one and the other being symbolised by that sign of\nthe zodiac in which the sun was at the spring equinox of his supposed\ndate. \"Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness,\nand through his labours the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with\nheaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his\nfavour, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be\npurified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the\nreconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love.\nIn relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man\nhe is the life-giver and mediator. He brings the 'Word,' as Brahma\nbrings the Vedas, from the mouth of the Eternal. (See Plutarch 'De Isid.\net Osirid.;' also Dr. Hyde's 'De Religione Vet. Pers.,' ch. 22; see also\n'Essay on Pantheism,' by Rev. J. Hunt.) It was just prior to the return\nof the Jews from living among the people who were dominated by these\nideas, that the splendid chapter of Isaiah (xl.), or indeed the series\nof chapters which form the closing portion of the book, were written:\n'Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Prepare ye the way of\nthe Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every\nvalley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low,\nand the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.' And\nthen follows a magnificent description of the greatness and supremacy of\nGod, and this is followed by chapters which tell of a Messiah, or\nconquering prince, who will redeem the nation from its enemies, and\nrestore them to the light of the divine favour, and which predict a\nmillennium, a golden age of purified and glorified humanity. It is thus\nmanifest that the inspiration of these writings came to the Jewish\npeople from their contact with the religious thought of the Persians,\nand not from any supernatural source. From this time the Jews began to\nhold worthier ideas concerning God, and to cherish expectations of a\ngolden age, a kingdom of heaven, which the Messiah, who was to be the\nsent messenger of God, should inaugurate. And this kingdom was to be a\nkingdom of righteousness, a day of marvellous light, a rule under which\nall evil and darkness were to perish\" (\"Plato, Philo, and Paul,\" Rev.\nJ.W. Lake, pp. 15, l6.)\n\nThe growth of the philosophical side of the dogma of the _Divinity of\nChrist_ is as clearly traceable in Pagan and Jewish thought as is the\ndogma of the incarnation of the Saviour-God in the myths of Krishna,\nOsiris, etc. Two great teachers of the doctrine of the \"Logos,\" the\n\"Word,\" of God, stand out in pre-Christian times--the Greek Plato and\nthe Jewish Philo. We borrow the following extract from pp. 19, 20, of\nthe pamphlet by Mr. Lake above referred to, as showing the general\ntheological position of Plato; its resemblance to Christian teaching\nwill be at once apparent (it must not be forgotten that Plato lived B.C.\n400):--\n\n\"The speculative thought and the religious teaching of Plato are\ndiffused throughout his voluminous writings; but the following is a\npopular summary of them, by Madame Dacier, contained in her introduction\nto what have been classed as the 'Divine Dialogues:'--\n\n\"'That there is but one God, and that we ought to love and serve him,\nand to endeavour to resemble him in holiness and righteousness; that\nthis God rewards humility and punishes pride.\n\n\"'That the true happiness of man consists in being united to God, and\nhis only misery in being separated from him.\n\n\"'That the soul is mere darkness, unless it be illuminated by God; that\nmen are incapable even of praying well, unless God teaches them that\nprayer which alone can be useful to them.\n\n\"'That there is nothing solid and substantial but piety; that this is\nthe source of all virtues, and that it is the gift of God.\n\n\"'That it is better to die than to sin.\n\n\"'That it is better to suffer wrong than to do it.\n\n\"'That the \"Word\" ([Greek: Logos]) formed the world, and rendered it\nvisible; that the knowledge of the Word makes us live very happily here\nbelow, and that thereby we obtain felicity after death.\n\n\"'That the soul is immortal, that the dead shall rise again, that there\nshall be a final judgment--both of the righteous and of the wicked, when\nmen shall appear only with their virtues or vices, which shall be the\noccasion of their eternal happiness or misery.'\"\n\nIt is this Logos who was \"figured in the shape of a cross on the\nuniverse\" (ante, p. 358). The universe, which is but the materialised\nthought of God, is made by his Logos, his Word, which is the expression\nof his thought. In the Christian creed it is the Logos, the Word of God,\nby whom all things are made (John i. 1-3). The very name, as well as the\nthought, is the same, whether we turn over the pages of Plato or those\nof John. Philo, the great Jewish Platonist, living in Alexandria at the\nclose of the last century B.C. and in the first half of the first\ncentury after Christ, speaks of the Logos in terms that, to our ears,\nseem purely Christian. Philo was a man of high position among the Jews\nin Alexandria, being \"a man eminent on all accounts, brother to\nAlexander the alabarch [governor of the Jews], and one not unskilful in\nphilosophy\" (Josephus' \"Antiquities of the Jews,\" bk. xviii., ch. 8,\nsec. 1). This \"Alexander was a principal person among all his\ncontemporaries both for his family and wealth\" (Ibid, bk. xx, ch. 5,\nsec. 2). He was the principal man in the Jewish embassage to Caius\n(Caligula) A.D. 39-40, and was then a grey-headed old man. Keim speaks\nof him as about sixty or seventy years old at that time, and puts his\nbirth at about B.C. 20. He writes: \"The Theology of Philo is in great\nmeasure founded on his peculiar combination of the Jewish, the Platonic,\nand the Neo-Platonic conception of God. The God of the Old Testament,\nthe exalted God, as he is called by the modern Hegelian philosophy,\nstood in close relations to the Greek Philosophers' conception of God,\nwhich believed that the Supreme Being could be accurately defined by the\nnegative of all that was finite. In accordance with this, Philo also\ndescribed God as the simple Entity; he disclaimed for him every name,\nevery quality, even that of the Good, the Beautiful, the Blessed, the\nOne. Since he is still better than the good, higher than the Unity, he\ncan never be known _as_, but only _that_, he is: his perfect name is\nonly the four mysterious letters (Jhvh)--that is, pure Being. By such\nmeans, indeed, neither a fuller theology nor God's influence on the\nworld was to be obtained. And yet it was the problem of philosophy, as\nwell as of religion, to shed the light of God upon the world, and to\nlead it again to God. But how could this Being which was veiled from the\nworld be brought to bear upon it? By Philo, as well as by all the\nphilosophy of the time, the problem could only be solved illogically.\nYet, by modifying his exalted nature, it might be done. If not by his\nbeing, yet by his work he influences the world; his powers, his angels,\nall in it that is best and mightiest, the instrument, the interpreter,\nthe mediator and messenger of God; his pattern and his first-born, the\nSon of God, the Second God, even himself God, the divine Word or Logos\ncommunicate with the world; he is the ideal and actual type of the world\nand of humanity, the architect and upholder of the world, the manna and\nthe rock in the wilderness\" (\"Jesus of Nazara,\" vol. i., pp. 281, 282).\n\n\"Man is fallen.... There is no man who is without sin, and even the\nperfect man, if he should be born, does not escape from it.... Yet there\nis a redemption, willed by God himself, and brought to pass by the act\nof a wise man. Adam's successors still preserve the types of their\nrelationship to the Father, although in an obscure form, each man\npossesses the knowledge of good and evil and an incorruptible judgment,\nsubject to reason; his spiritual strength is even now aided by the\nDivine Logos, the image, copy, and reflection of the blessed nature.\nHence it follows that man can discern and see all the stains with which\nhe has wilfully or involuntarily defiled his life, that man by means of\nhis self-knowledge can decide to subdue his passions, to despise his\npleasures and desires, to wage the battle of repentance, and to be just\nat any cost, and by the fundamental virtues of humanity, piety, and\njustice, to imitate the virtues of the Father.... In such perfection as\nis possible to all, even to women and to slaves, since no one is a slave\nby nature, the wise man is truly rich. He is noble and free who can\nproudly utter the saying of Sophocles, God is my ruler, not one among\nmen! Such a one is priest, king, and prophet, he is no longer merely a\nson and scholar of the Logos, he is the companion and son of God.... God\nis the eternal guide and director of the world, himself requiring\nnothing, and giving all to his children. It is of his goodness that he\ndoes not punish as a judge, but that, as the giver of grace, he bears\nwith all. With him all things are possible; he deals with all, even with\nthat which is almost beyond redemption. From him all the world hopes for\nforgiveness of sins, the Logos, the high priest, and intercessor, and\nthe patriarchs pray for it; he grants it, not for the world's sake, but\nof his own gracious nature, to those who can truly believe. He loves the\nhumble, and saves those whom he knows to be worthy of healing. His grace\nelects the pious before they are born, giving them victory over\nsensuality, and steadfastness in virtue. He reveals himself to holy\nsouls by his Spirit, and by his divine light leads those who are too\nweak by nature even to understand the external world, beyond the limits\nof human nature to that which is divine\" (\"Jesus of Nazara,\" pp.\n283-287). Such are the most important passages of Keim's _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of\nPhilo's philosophy, and its resemblance to Christian doctrine is\nunmistakeable, and adds one more proof to the fact that Christianity is\nAlexandrian rather than Jud\u00e6an. It will be well to add to this sketch\nthe passages carefully gathered out of Philo's works by Jacob Bryant,\nwho endeavoured to prove, from their resemblance to passages in the New\nTestament, that Philo was a Christian, forgetting that Philo's works\nwere mostly written when Jesus was a child and a youth, and that he\nnever once mentions Jesus or Christianity. It must not be forgotten that\nPhilo lived in Alexandria, not in Jud\u00e6a, and that between the\nCanaanitish and the Hellenic Jews there existed the most bitter\nhostility, so that--even were the story of Jesus true--it could not have\nreached Philo before A.D. 40, at which time he was old and gray-headed.\nWe again quote from Mr. Lake's treatise, who prints the parallel\npassages, and we would draw special attention to the similarity of\nphraseology as well as of idea:\n\n_Identity of the Christ of the New Testament with the Logos of Philo._\n\nPhilo, describing the Logos,      The New Testament, speaking\nsays:--                           of Jesus says:--\n\n'The Logos is the Son             'This is the Son of God.'\nof God the Father.'--De           John i. 34.\nProfugis.\n\n'The first begotten of God.'      'And when he again bringeth\n--De Somniis.                     his first-born into the\n                                  world.'--Heb. i. 6.\n\n'And the most ancient of          'That he is the first-born\nall beings.'--De Conf. Ling.      of every creature.'--Col. i. 15.\n\n'The Logos is the image           'Christ, the image of the\nand likeness of God.'--De         invisible God.'--Col. i. 15.\nMonarch.                          'The brightness of his\n                                  (God's) glory, and the express\n                                  image of his person.'--Heb.\n                                  i. 3.\n\n'The Logos is superior to         'Being made so much\nthe angels.'--De Profugis.        better that the angels. Let\n                                  all the angels of God worship\n                                  him.'--Heb. i. 4, 6.\n\n'The Logos is superior to         'Thou hast put all things\nall beings in the world.'--De     in subjection under his feet.'\nLeg. Allegor.                     --Heb. ii. 8.\n\n'The Logos is the instrument      'All things were made by\nby whom the world was             him (the Word or Logos),\nmade.'--De Leg. Allegor.          and without him was not\n                                  anything made that was\n'The divine word by whom          made.'--John i. 3\nall things were ordered and\ndisposed.'--De Mundi Opificio.    'Jesus Christ, by whom\n                                  are all things.'--i Cor. viii. 6.\n\n                                  'By whom also he made\n                                  the worlds.'--Heb. i. 2.\n\n'The Logos is the light of        'The Word (Logos) was\nthe world, and the intellectual   the true light.'--John i. 9.\nsun.'--De Somniis.\n                                  'The life and the light of\n                                  men.'--John i. 4.\n\n                                  'I am the light of the world.'\n                                  --John viii. 12.\n\n'The Logos only can see           'He that is of God, he\n God.'--De Confus. Ling.          hath seen the Father.'--John\n                                  vi. 46.\n\n                                  'No man hath seen God\n                                  at any time. The only begotten\n                                  Son which is in the\n                                  bosom of the Father, he\n                                  hath declared him.\"--John\n                                  i. 18.\n\n'He is the most ancient           'Now, O Father, glorify\nof God's works.'--De Confus       thou me with thine own self\nLing.                             with the glory which I had\n                                  with thee before the world\n'And was before all things.'      was.'--John xvii. 5.\n--De Leg. Allegor.\n                                  'He was in the beginning\n                                  with God.'--John i. 2.\n\n                                  'Before all worlds.'--2\n                                  Tim. i. 9.\n\n'The Logos is esteemed            'Christ, who is over all,\nthe same as God.'--De             God blessed for evermore.'\nSomniis.                          --Rom. ix. 5.\n\n                                  'Who, being in the form\n                                  of God. thought it no robbery\n                                  to be equal with God.'--Phil.\n                                  ii. 6.\n\n'The Logos was eternal.'          'Christ abideth for ever.\n--De Plant. No\u00eb.                  --John xii. 34.\n\n                                  'But to the Son he saith,\n                                  Thy throne, O God, is for\n                                  ever and ever.'--Heb. i. 8.\n\n'The Logos supports the           'Upholding all things by\nworld, is the connecting          the word of his power.'--Heb.\npower by which all things         i. 3.\nare united.'--De Profugis.\n                                  'By him all things consist.'\n'The Logos is nearest to          --Col. i. 17.\nGod, without any separation;\nbeing, as it were, fixed upon     'I and my Father are one.'\nthe only true existing Deity,     --John x. 30.\nnothing coming between to         'That they may be one as\ndisturb that unity.\"--De          we are.'--John i. 18.\nProfugis.\n\n'The Logos is free from           'The only begotten Son,\nall taint of sin, either          who is in the bosom of the\nvoluntary or involuntary.'--De    Father.'--John i. 18.\nProfugis.\n                                  'The blood of Christ, who\n'The Logos the fountain           offered himself without\nof life.                          spot to God.'--Heb. ix. 14.\n\n'It is of the greatest            'Who did no sin, neither\nconsequence to every person to    was guile found in his\nstrive without remission to       mouth.'--1 Pet. ii. 22.\napproach to the divine Logos,\nthe Word of God above, who        'Whosoever shall drink of the\nis the fountain of all wisdom;    water that I shall give him,\nthat by drinking largely          shall never thirst, but the\nof that sacred spring, instead    water that I shall give him\nof death, he may be rewarded      shall be in him a well of\nwith everlasting life.'--De       water springing up into\nProfugis.                         everlasting life,'--John iv. 14.\n\n'The Logos is the shepherd        'The great shepherd of the\nof God's flock.                   flock... our Lord Jesus.'--\n                                  Heb. xiii. 20.\n'The deity, like a shepherd,\nand at the same time              'I am the good shepherd, and\nlike a monarch, acts with the     know my sheep, and am known\nmost consummate order and         of mine.'--John x. 14.\nrectitude, and has appointed\nhis First-born, the upright       'Christ ... the shepherd and\nLogos, like the substitute of     guardian of your souls.'--\na mighty prince, to take care     1 Pet. ii. 25.\nof his sacred flock.'--De\nAgricult.                         'For Christ must reign till he\n                                  hath put all his enemies under\nThe Logos, Philo says, is         his feet.'--1 Cor xv. 25.\n'The great governor of the\nworld; he is the creative and     'Christ, above all principality,\nprincely power, and through       and might, and dominion, and\nthese the heavens and the         every name that is named, not\nwhole world were produced.'       only in this world, but in the\n--De Profugis.                    world to come .. and God hath\n                                  put all things under his feet.'--\n                                  Eph. i. 21, 22\n\n'The Logos is the physician       'The spirit of the Lord is\nthat heals all evil.'--De         upon me, because he hath\nLeg. Allegor.                     anointed me to heal the\n                                  broken-hearted.'--Luke iv.\n                                  18.\n\n_The Logos the Seal of God._     _Christ the Seal of God._\n\n'The Logos, by whom the           'In whom also, after that\nworld was framed, is the seal,    ye believed, ye were sealed\nafter the impression of which     with the holy seal of promise.'\neverything is made, and is        --Eph. i. 13\nrendered the similitude and       'Jesus, the son of man ... him\nimage of the perfect Word of      hath God the Father\nGod.'--De Profugis.               sealed.'--John vi. 27.\n\n'The soul of man is an            'Christ, the brightness of\nimpression of a seal, of which    his (God's) glory, and the\nthe prototype and original        express image of his person.\ncharacteristic is the everlasting --Heb. i. 3.\nLogos.'--De Plantatione\nNo\u00eb.\n\n_The Logos the source of          _Christ the source of eternal\nimmortal life_.                   life_.\n\nPhilo says 'that when the         'The dead (in Christ) shall\nsoul strives after its best and   be raised incorruptible.'--1\nnoblest life, then the Logos      Cor. xv. 52\nfrees it from all corruption,     'Because the creature itself\nand confers upon it the gift      also shall be delivered\nof immortality.'--De C.Q.         from the bondage of corruption\nErud. Grati\u00e2.                     into the glorious liberty of\n                                  the children of God.'--Rom.\n                                  vii. 21.\n                                  The New Testament calls\nPhilo speaks of the Logos         Christ the Beloved Son:--'This\nnot only as the Son of God        is my beloved Son\nand his first begotten, but       in whom I am well pleased.'\nalso styles him 'his beloved      --Matt. iii. 17; Luke ix. 35;\nSon.'--De Leg. Allegor.           2 Pet. i. 17\n                                  'The Son of his love.'--Col.\n                                  i. 13.\n\nPhilo says 'that good men         'But ye are come unto mount\nare admitted to the assembly      Zion, and to the city of the\nof the saints above.              living God, and to an\n                                  innumerable company of angels,\n'Those who relinquish human       and to the spirits of just men\ndoctrines, and become             made perfect.'--Heb. xii. 22, 23\nthe well-disposed disciples of\nGod, will be one day translated   'Giving thanks unto the Father\nto an incorruptible and           which hath made us the\nperfect order of beings.\"--De     inheritance of the saints in\nSacrifices.                       light.'--Col. i. 12.\n\nPhilo says 'that the just         The New Testament makes Jesus to\nman, when he dies is translated   say:\nto another state by the\nLogos, by whom the world          'No man can come to me, except\nwas created. For God by           the Father which hath sent me\nhis said Word (Logos), by         draw him; and I will raise him\nwhich he made all things,         up on the last day.'--John vi. 44\nwill raise the perfect man\nfrom the dregs of this world,     'No man cometh to the Father but\nand exalt him near himself.       by me.'--John xvi. 6.\nHe will place him near his\nown person.'--De Sacrificiis.     'Where I am, there also shall my\n                                  servant be ... him will my father\nPhilo says that the Logos         honour.'\nis the true High Priest, who\nis without sin and anointed       The New Testament speaks of Jesus\nby God:--                         as the High Priest:\n\n'It is the world, in which        'Seeing then that we have a great\nthe Logos, God's First-born,      High Priest that is passed into\nthat great High Priest, resides.  the heavens, Jesus, the Son of\nAnd I assert that this            God, let is hold fast our\nHigh Priest is no man, but        profession.'--Heb. iv. 14.\nthe Holy Word of God; who\nis not capable of either          'For such an High Priest became us,\nvoluntary or involuntary sin,     who is holy, harmless, undefiled,\nand hence his head is anointed    separate from sinners.'--Heb. vii. 26.\nwith oil.'--De Profugis.\n                                  The New Testament says of Christ:\nPhilo mentions the Logos\nas the great High Priest and      'We have such an High Priest, who is\nMediator for the sins of the      set on the throne of the majest in\nworld. Speaking of the rebellion  the heavens, a mediator of a\nof Korah, he introduces the       better covenant.'--Heb. viii. 1-6.\nLogos as saying :--\n                                  'But Christ being come an High\n'It was I who stood in the        Priest ... entered at once into\nmiddle between the Lord and       the holy place, having obtained\nyou.                              eternal redemption for us.'--Heb.\n                                  ix. 11, 12.\n'The sacred Logos pressed\nwith zeal and without remission   The New Testament says of John, the\nthat he might stand               forerunner of Jesus, that he preached\nbetween the dead and the          'the baptism of repentance for the\nliving.--Quis Rerum Div.          remission of sins.'--Mark i. 4.\nHaeres.\n                                  Jesus says:--\nThe Logos, the Saviour\nGod, who brings salvation as      'Ye will not come to me, that ye\nthe reward of repentance and      might have life.'--John v. 40.\nrighteousness.\n                                  'Beloved, we be now the sons of\n'If then men have from            God; and it doth not yet appear\ntheir very souls a just           what we shall be; but we know that\ncontrition, and are changed,      when he doth appear we shall be\nand have humbled themselves for   like him.'--1 John iii. 2.\ntheir past errors, acknowledging\nand confessing their              'As we have born the image of the\nsins, such persons shall find     earthy, we shall also bear the image\npardon from the Saviour and       of the heavenly.'--1 Cor. xv. 49.\nmerciful God, and receive a\nmost choice and great advantage   'For if we have been planted\nof being like the Logos           together in the likeness of his\nof God, who was originally        death, we shall be also in the\nthe great archetype after         likeness of his resurrection.'--\nwhich the soul of man was         Rom. vi. 5.\nformed.'--De Execrationibus.\n\nHere, then, we get, complete, the idea of Christ as the Word of God, and\nwe see that Christianity is as lacking in originality on these points as\nin everything else. We may note, also, that this Platonic idea was\ncurrent among the Jews before Philo, although he gives it to us more\nthoroughly and fully worked out: in the apocryphal books of the Jews we\nfind the idea of the Logos in many passages in Wisdom, to take but a\nsingle case.\n\nThe widely-spread existence of this notion is acknowledged by Dean\nMilman in his \"History of Christianity.\" He says: \"This Being was more\nor less distinctly impersonated, according to the more popular or more\nphilosophic, the more material or the more abstract, notions of the age\nor people. This was the doctrine from the Ganges, or even the shores of\nthe Yellow Sea to the Ilissus; it was the fundamental principle of the\nIndian religion and the Indian philosophy; it was the basis of\nZoroastrianism; it was pure Platonism; it was the Platonic Judaism of\nthe Alexandrian school. Many fine passages might be quoted from Philo,\non the impossibility that the first self-existing Being should become\ncognisable to the sense of man; and even in Palestine, no doubt, John\nthe Baptist and our Lord himself spoke no new doctrine, but rather the\ncommon sentiment of the more enlightened, when they declared that 'no\nman had seen God at any time.' In conformity with this principle, the\nJews, in the interpretation of the older Scriptures, instead of direct\nand sensible communication from the one great Deity, had interposed\neither one or more intermediate beings as the channels of communication.\nAccording to one accredited tradition alluded to by St. Stephen, the law\nwas delivered by the 'disposition of angels;' according to another, this\noffice was delegated to a single angel, sometimes called the angel of\nthe Law (see Gal. iii. 19); at others, the Metatron. But the more\nordinary representative, as it were, of God, to the sense and mind of\nman, was the Memra, or the Divine Word; and it is remarkable that the\nsame appellation is found in the Indian, the Persian, the Platonic, and\nthe Alexandrian systems. By the Targumists, the earliest Jewish\ncommentators on the Scriptures, this term had been already applied to\nthe Messiah; nor is it necessary to observe the manner in which it has\nbeen sanctified by its introduction into the Christian scheme. This\nuniformity of conception and coincidence of language indicates the\ngeneral acquiescence of the human mind in the necessity of some\nmediation between the pure spiritual nature of the Deity and the moral\nand intellectual nature of man\" (as quoted by Lake). And \"this\nuniformity of conception and coincidence of language indicates,\" also,\nthat Christianity has only received and repeated the religious ideas\nwhich existed in earlier times. How can that be a revelation from God\nwhich was well known in the world long before God revealed it? The\nacknowledgment of the priority of Pagan thought is the destruction of\nthe supernatural claims of Christianity based on the same thought; that\ncannot be supernatural after Christ which was natural before him, nor\nthat sent down from heaven which was already on earth as the product of\nhuman reason. The Rev. Mr. Lake fairly says: \"We have evidence--clear,\nconclusive, irrefutable evidence--as to what this doctrine really is. We\ncan trace its birth-place in the philosophic speculations of the ancient\nworld, we can note its gradual development and growth, we can see it in\nits early youth passing (through Philo and others) from Grecian\nphilosophy into the current of Jewish thought; then, after resting\nawhile in the Judaism of the period of the Christian era, we see it\nslightly changing its character, as it passes through Gamaliel,\nPaul--the writers of the Fourth Gospel and of the Epistle to the\nHebrews--through Justin Martyr and Tertullian, into the stream of early\nChristian thought, and now from a sublime philosophical speculation it\nbecomes dwarfed and corrupted into a church dogma, and finally gets\nhardened as a frozen mass of absurdity, stupidity, and blasphemy, in the\nNicene and Athanasian creeds\" (\"Philo, Plato, and Paul,\" pp. 71, 72).\n\nThe idea of IMMORTALITY was by no means \"brought to light\" by Christ, as\nis pretended. The early Jews had clearly no idea of life after death;\n\"for in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shall\ngive thee thanks?\" (Ps. vi. 5). \"Like the slain that lie in the grave,\nwhom thou rememberest no more.... Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead?\nShall the dead arise and praise thee? Shall thy lovingkindness be\ndeclared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? Shall thy\nwonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of\nforgetfulness?\" (Ps. lxxxviii. 5, 10-12). \"The dead praise not the Lord\"\n(Ps. cxv. 17). \"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons\nof men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they\nthemselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men\nbefalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so\ndieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that man hath no\npre-eminence above a beast\" (Eccles. iii. 18, 19). \"There is no work,\nnor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave\" (Ibid, ix. 10).\n\"The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go\ndown into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he\nshall praise thee\" (Is. xxxviii. 18, 19). In strict accordance with this\nbelief, that death was the end of man, the pre-captivity Jews regarded\nwealth, strength, prosperity, and all earthly blessings, as the reward\nof virtue. After the captivity they change their tone; in the\npost-Babylonian Psalms life after death is distinctly spoken of: \"My\nflesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell\"\n(Ps. xvi. 9, 10); together with other passages. In the apocryphal Jewish\nScriptures the belief in immortality appears over and over again.\n\nTo say that Jesus \"brought life and immortality to light through the\nGospel,\" even to the Jews, is to contend for a position against all\nevidence. If from the Jews we turn to the Pagan thinkers, immortality is\nproclaimed by them long before the Jews have dreamed about it. The\nEgyptians, in their funeral ritual, went through the judgment of the\nsoul before Osiris: \"The resurrection of the dead to a second life had\nbeen a deep-rooted religious opinion among the Egyptians from the\nearliest times\" (\"Egyptian Mythology,\" Sharpe, p. 52), and they appear to\nhave believed in a transmigration of souls through the lower animals,\nand an ultimate return to the original body; to this end they preserved\nthe body as a mummy, so that the soul, on its return, might find its\noriginal habitation still in existence: any who believe in the\nresurrection of the body should clearly follow the example of the\nancient Egyptians. In later times, the more instructed Egyptians\nbelieved in a spiritual resurrection only, but the mass of the people\nclung to the idea of a bodily resurrection (Ibid, p. 54). \"It is to the\nlater times of Egyptian history, perhaps to the five centuries\nimmediately before the Christian era, that the religious opinions\ncontained in the funeral papyri chiefly belong. The roll of papyrus\nburied with the mummy often describes the funeral, and then goes on to\nthe return of the soul to the body, the resurrection, the various trials\nand difficulties which the deceased will meet and overcome in the next\nworld, and the garden of paradise in which he awaits the day of\njudgment, the trial on that day, and it then shows the punishment which\nwould have awaited him if he had been found guilty\" (Ibid, p. 64). We\nhave already seen that the immortality of the soul was taught by Plato\n(ante, p. 364). The Hindus taught that happiness or misery hereafter\ndepended upon the life here. \"If duty is performed, a good name will be\nobtained, as well as happiness, here and after death\" (\"Mahabharata,\"\nxii., 6,538, in \"Religious and Moral Sentiments from Indian Writers,\" by\nJ. Muir, p. 22). The \"Mahabharata\" was written, or rather collected, in\nthe second century before Christ. \"Poor King Rantideva bestowed water\nwith a pure mind, and thence ascended to heaven.... King Nriga gave\nthousands of largesses of cows to Brahmans; but because he gave away one\nbelonging to another person, he went to hell\" (Ibid, xiv. 2,787 and\n2,789. Muir, pp, 31, 32). \"Let us now examine into the theology of\nIndia, as reported by Megasthenes, about B.C. 300 (Cory's 'Ancient\nFragments,' p. 226, _et seq_.). 'They, the Brahmins, regard the present\nlife merely as the conception of persons presently to be born, and death\nas the birth into a life of reality and happiness, to those who rightly\nphilosophise: upon this account they are studiously careful in preparing\nfor death'\" (Inman's \"Ancient Faiths,\" vol. ii., p. 820). Zoroaster\n(B.C. 1,200, or possibly 2,000) taught: \"The soul, being a bright fire,\nby the power of the Father remains immortal, and is the mistress of\nlife\" (Ibid, p. 821). \"The Indians were believers in the immortality of\nthe soul, and conscious future existence. They taught that immediately\nafter death the souls of men, both good and bad, proceed together along\nan appointed path to the bridge of the gatherer, a narrow path to\nheaven, over which the souls of the pious alone could pass, whilst the\nwicked fall from it into the gulf below; that the prayers of his living\nfriends are of much value to the dead, and greatly help him on his\njourney. As his soul enters the abode of bliss, it is greeted with the\nword, 'How happy art thou, who hast come here to us, mortality to\nimmortality!' Then the pious soul goes joyfully onward to Ahura-Mazdao,\nto the immortal saints, the golden throne, and Paradise\" (Ibid, p. 834).\nFrom these notions the writer of the story of Jesus drew his idea of the\n\"narrow way\" that led to heaven, and of the \"strait gate\" through which\nmany would be unable to pass. Cicero (bk. vi. \"Commonwealth,\" quoted by\nInman) says: \"Be assured that, for all those who have in any way\nconducted to the preservation, defence, and enlargement of their native\ncountry, there is a certain place in heaven, where they shall enjoy an\neternity and happiness.\" It is needless to further multiply quotations\nin order to show that our latest development of these Eastern creeds\nonly reiterated the teaching of the earlier phases of religious thought.\n\n\"But, at least,\" urge the Christians, \"we owe the sublime idea of the\nUNITY OF GOD to revelation, and this is grander than the Polytheism of\nthe Pagan world.\" Is it not, however, true, that just as Christians urge\nthat the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are but one God, so the thinkers\nof old believed in one Supreme Being, while the multitudinous gods were\nbut as the angels and saints of Christianity, his messengers, his\nsubordinates, not his rivals? All savages are Polytheists, just as were\nthe Hebrews, whose god \"Jehovah\" was but their special god, stronger\nthan the gods of the nations around them, gods whose existence they\nnever denied; but as thought grew, the superior minds in each nation\nrose over the multitude of deities to the idea of one Supreme Being\nworking in many ways, and the loftiest flights of the \"prophets\" of the\nJewish Scriptures may be paralleled by those of the sages of other\ncreeds. Zoroaster taught that \"God is the first, indestructible,\neternal, unbegotten, indivisible, dissimilar\" (\"Ancient Fragments,\"\nCory, p. 239, quoted by Inman). In the Sabaean Litany (two extracts only\nof this ancient work are preserved by El Wardi, the great Arabic\nhistorian) we read: \"Thou art the Eternal One, in whom all order is\ncentred.... Thou dost embrace all things. Thou art the Infinite and\nIncomprehensible, who standest alone\" (\"Sacred Anthology,\" by M.D.\nConway, pp. 74, 75). \"There is only one Deity, the great soul. He is\ncalled the Sun, for he is the soul of all beings. That which is One, the\nwise call it in divers manners. Wise poets, by words, make the\nbeautiful-winged manifold, though he is One\" (\"Rig-Veda,\" B.C. 1500,\nfrom \"Anthology,\" p.76). \"The Divine Mind alone is the whole assemblage\nof the gods.... He (the Brahmin) may contemplate castle, air, fire,\nwater, the subtile ether, in his own body and organs; in his heart, the\nStar; in his motion, Vishnu; in his vigour, Hara; in his speech, Agni;\nin digestion, Mitra; in production, Brahma; but he must consider the\nsupreme Omnipresent Reason as sovereign of them all\" (\"Manu,\" about B.C.\n1200; his code collected about B.C. 300; from \"Anthology,\" p. 81). On an\nancient stone at Bonddha Gaya is a Sanscrit inscription to Buddha, in\nwhich we find: \"Reverence be unto thee, an incarnation of the Deity and\nthe Eternal One. OM! [the mysterious name of God, equivalent to pure\nexistence, or the Jewish Jhvh] the possessor of all things in vital\nform! Thou art Brahma, Veeshnoo, and Mahesa!... I adore thee, who art\ncelebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms\" (\"Asiatic\nResearches,\" Essay xi., by Mr. Wilmot; vol. i., p. 285). Plato's\nteaching is, \"that there is but one God\" (ante, p. 364), and wherever we\nsearch, we find that the more thoughtful proclaimed the unity of the\nDeity. This doctrine must, then, go the way of the rest, and it must be\nacknowledged that the boasted revelation is, once more, but the\nspeculation of man's unassisted reason.\n\nTurning from these cardinal doctrines to the minor dogmas and ceremonies\nof Christianity, we shall still discover it to be nothing but a survival\nof Paganism.\n\nBAPTISM seems to have been practised as a religious rite in all solar\ncreeds, and has naturally, therefore, found its due place in the latest\nsolar faith. \"The idea of using water as emblematic of spiritual\nwashing, is too obvious to allow surprise at the antiquity of this rite.\nDr. Hyde, in his treatise on the 'Religion of the Ancient Persians,'\nxxxiv. 406, tells us that it prevailed among that people. 'They do not\nuse circumcision for their children, but only baptism or washing for the\ninward purification of the soul. They bring the child to the priest into\nthe church, and place him in front of the sun and fire, which ceremony\nbeing completed, they look upon him as more sacred than before. Lord\nsays that they bring the water for this purpose in bark of the\nHolm-tree; that tree is in truth the Haum of the Magi, of which we spoke\nbefore on another occasion. Sometimes also it is otherwise done by\nimmersing him in a large vessel of water, as Tavernier tells us. After\nsuch washing, or baptism, the priest imposes on the child the name given\nby his parents'\" (\"Christian Records,\" Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 129).\n\n\"The Baptismal fonts in our Protestant churches, and we can hardly say\nmore especially the little cisterns at the entrance of our Catholic\nchapels, are not imitations, but an unbroken and never interrupted\ncontinuation of the same _aquaminaria_, or _amula_, which the learned\nMontfaucon, in his 'Antiquities,' shows to have been _vases of holy\nwater, which were placed by the heathens at the entrance of their\ntemples, to sprinkle themselves with upon entering those sacred\nedifices_\" (\"Diegesis,\" R. Taylor, p. 219). Among the Hindus, to bathe\nin the Ganges is to be regenerated, and the water is holy because it\nflows from Brahma's feet. Tertullian, arguing that water, as being God's\nearliest and most favoured creation, and brooded over by the\nspirit--Vishnu also is called Narayan, \"moving on the waters\"--was\nsanctifying in its nature, says: \"'Well, but the nations, who are\nstrangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their\nidols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy.' So they do,\nbut these cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. For washing is\nthe channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites of\nsome notorious Isis or Mithra; and the gods themselves likewise they\nhonour by washings.... At the Appollinarian and Eleusinian games they\nare baptised; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is\nthe regeneration, and the remission of the penalties due to their\nperjuries.... Which fact, being acknowledged, we recognise here also the\nzeal of the devil rivalling the things of God, while we find him, too,\npractising baptism in his subjects\" (\"On Baptism,\" chap. v.). As \"the\ndevil\" did it first, it seems scarcely fair to accuse _him_ of copying.\n\nClosely allied to baptism is the idea of regeneration, being born again.\nIn baptism the purification is wrought by the male deity, typified in\nthe water flowing from the throne or the feet of the god. In\nregeneration without water the purification is wrought by the female\ndeity. The earth is the mother of all, and \"as at birth the new being\nemerges from the mother, so it was supposed that emergence from a\nterrestrial cleft was equivalent to a new birth\" (Inman's \"Ancient\nFaiths,\" vol. i., p. 415; ed. 1868). Hence the custom of squeezing\nthrough a hole in a rock, or passing through a perforated stone, or\nbetween and under stones set up for the purpose; a natural cleft in a\nrock or in the earth was considered as specially holy, and to some of\nthese long pilgrimages are still made in Eastern lands. On emerging from\nthe hole, the devotee is re-born, and the sins of the past are no longer\ncounted against him.\n\nCONFIRMATION was also a rite employed by the ancient Persians.\n\"Afterwards, in the fifteenth year of his age, when he begins to put on\nthe tunic, the sudra and the girdle, that he may enter upon religion,\nand is engaged upon the articles of belief, the priest bestows upon him\nconfirmation, that he may from that time be admitted into the number of\nthe faithful, and may be looked upon as a believer himself\" (Dr. Hyde on\n\"Religion of the Ancient Persians,\" tr. by Dr. Giles in \"Christian\nRecords,\" pp. 129, 130).\n\nLORD'S SUPPER.--Bread and wine appear to have been a regular offering to\nthe Sun-god, whose beams ripen the corn and the grape, and who may\nindeed, by a figure, be said to be transubstantiated thus for the food\nof man. The Persians offered bread and wine to Mithra; the people of\nThibet and Tartary did the same. Cakes were made for the Queen of\nheaven, kneaded of dough, and were offered up to her with incense and\ndrink-libations (Jer. vii. 18, and xliv. 19). Ishtar was worshipped with\ncakes, or buns, made out of the finest flour, mingled with honey, and\nthe ancient Greeks offered the same: this bread seems to have been\nsometimes only offered to the deity, sometimes also eaten by the\nworshippers; in the same way the bread and the wine are offered to God\nin the Eucharist, and he is prayed to accept \"our alms _and oblations_.\"\nThe Easter Cakes presented by the clergyman to his parishioners--an old\nEnglish custom, now rarely met with--are the cakes of Ishtar, oval in\nform, symbolising the yoni. We have already dealt fully with the\napparent similarity between the Christian Agapae, and the Bacchanalian\nmysteries (ante, pp. 222-227). The supper of Adoneus, Adonai, literally,\nthe \"supper of the Lord,\" formed part of these feasts, identical in name\nwith the supper of the Christian mysteries. The Eleusinian mysteries,\ncelebrated at Eleusis, in honour of Ceres, goddess of corn, and Bacchus,\ngod of wine, compel us to think of bread and wine, the very substance of\nthe gods, as it were, there adored. And Mosheim gives us the origin of\nmany of the Christian eucharistic ceremonies. He writes: \"The profound\nrespect that was paid to the Greek and Roman mysteries, and the\nextraordinary sanctity that was attributed to them, was a further\ncircumstance that induced the Christians to give their religion a mystic\nair, in order to put it upon an equal foot, in point of dignity, with\nthat of the Pagans. For this purpose they gave the name of mysteries to\nthe institutions of the gospel, and decorated particularly the holy\nSacrament with that solemn title. They used in that sacred institution,\nas also in that of baptism, several of the terms employed in the heathen\nmysteries; and proceeded so far, at length, as even to adopt some of the\nrites and ceremonies of which these renowned mysteries consisted. This\nimitation began in the Eastern provinces; but after the time of Adrian,\nwho first introduced the mysteries among the Latins, it was followed by\nthe Christians, who dwelt in the Western parts of the Empire. A great\npart, therefore, of the service of the church, in this century [A.D.\n100-200], had a certain air of the heathen mysteries, and resembled them\nconsiderably in many particulars\" (\"Eccles. Hist.,\" 2nd century, p. 56).\n\nThe whole system of THE PRIESTHOOD was transplanted into Christianity\nfrom Paganism; the Egyptian priesthood, however, was in great part\nhereditary, and in this differs from the Christian, while resembling the\nJewish. The priests of the temple of Dea (Syria) were, on the other\nhand, celibate, and so were some orders of the Egyptian priests. Some\nclasses of priests closely resembled Christian monks, living in\nmonasteries, and undergoing many austerities; they prayed twice a day,\nfasted often, spoke little, and lived much apart in their cells in\nsolitary meditation; in the most insignificant matters the same\nsimilarity may be traced. \"When the Roman Catholic priest shaves the top\nof his head, it is because the Egyptian priest had done the same before.\nWhen the English clergyman--though he preaches his sermon in a silk or\nwoollen robe--may read the Liturgy in no dress but linen, it is because\nlinen was the clothing of the Egyptians. Two thousand years before the\nBishop of Rome pretended to hold the keys of heaven and earth, there was\nan Egyptian priest with the high-sounding title of Appointed keeper of\nthe two doors of heaven, in the city of Thebes\" (\"Egyptian Mythology,\"\nS. Sharpe, preface, p. xi.). The white robes of modern priests are\nremnants of the same old faith; the more gorgeous vestments are the\nancient garb of the priests officiating in the temple of female deities;\nthe stole is the characteristic of woman's dress; the pallium is the\nemblem of the yoni; the alb is the chemise; the oval or circular\nchasuble is again the yoni; the Christian mitre is the high cap of the\nEgyptian priests, and its peculiar shape is simply the open mouth of the\nfish, the female emblem. In old sculptures a fish's head, with open\nmouth pointing upwards, is often worn by the priests, and is scarcely\ndistinguishable from the present mitre. The modern crozier is the hooked\nstaff, emblem of the phallus; the oval frame for divine things is the\nfemale symbol once more. Thus holy medals are generally oval, and the\nVirgin is constantly represented in an oval frame, with the child in her\narms. In some old missals, in representations of the Annunciation, we\nsee the Virgin standing, with the dove hovering in front above her, and\nfrom the dove issues a beam of light, from the end of which, as it\ntouches her stomach, depends an oval containing the infant Jesus.\n\nThe tinkling bell--used at the Mass at the moment of consecration--is\nthe symbol of male and female together--the clapper, the male, within\nthe hollow shell, the female--and was used in solar services at the\nmoment of sacrifice. The position of the fingers of the priest in\nblessing the congregation is the old symbolical position of the fingers\nof the solar priest. The Latin form, with the two fingers and thumb\nupraised--copied in Anglican churches--is said rightly by ecclesiastical\nwriters to represent the trinity; but the trinity it represents is the\nreal human trinity: the more elaborate Greek form is intended to\nrepresent the cross as well. The decoration of the cross with flowers,\nspecially at Easter-tide, was practised in the solar temples, and there\nthe phallus, upright on the altar, was garlanded with spring blossoms,\nand was adored as the \"Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the\nFather,\" and indeed one with him, his very self. The sacred books of the\nEgyptians were written by the god Thoth, just as the sacred books of the\nChristians were written by the god the Holy Ghost. The rosary and cross\nwere used by Buddhists in Thibet and Tartary. The head of the religion\nin those countries, the Grand Llama, is elected by the priests of a\ncertain rank, as the Pope by his Cardinals. The faithful observe fasts,\noffer sacrifice for the dead, practise confession, use holy water,\nhonour relics, make processions; they have monasteries and convents,\nwhose inmates take vows of poverty and chastity; they flagellate\nthemselves, have priests and bishops--in fact, they carry out the whole\nsystem of Catholicism, and have done so, since centuries before Christ,\nso that a Roman Catholic priest, on his first mission among them,\nexclaimed that the Devil had invented an imitation of Christianity in\norder to deceive and ruin men. As with baptism, the imitation is older\nthan the original!\n\n\"The rites and institutions, by which the Greeks, Romans, and other\nnations, had formerly testified their religious veneration for\nfictitious deities, were now adopted, with some slight alterations, by\nChristian bishops, and employed in the service of the true God. [This is\nthe way a Christian writer accounts for the resemblance his candour\nforces him to confess; we should put it, that Christianity, growing out\nof Paganism, naturally preserved many of its customs.].... Hence it\nhappened that in these times the religion of the Greeks and Romans\ndiffered very little in its external appearance from that of the\nChristians. They had both a most pompous and splendid ritual. Gorgeous\nrobes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers, processions, lustrations,\nimages, gold and silver vases, and many such circumstances of pageantry,\nwere equally to be seen in the heathen temples and the Christian\nchurches\" (Mosheim's \"Eccles. Hist.,\" fourth century, p. 105). Says\nDulaure: \"These two Fathers [Justin and Tertullian] are in no fashion\nembarrassed by this astonishing resemblance; they both say that the\ndevil, knowing beforehand of the establishment of Christianity, and of\nthe ceremonies of this religion, inspired the Pagans to do the same, so\nas to rival God and injure Christian worship\" (\"Histoire Abr\u00e9g\u00e9e de\nDifferens Cultes,\" t. i., p. 522; ed. 1825).\n\nThe idea of _angels and devils_ has also spread from the far East; the\nJews learned it from the Babylonians, and from the Jews and the\nEgyptians it passed into Christianity. The Persian theology had seven\nangels of the highest order, who ever surrounded Ormuzd, the good\ncreator; and from this the Jews derived the seven archangels always\nbefore the Lord, and the Christians the \"seven spirits of God\" (Rev.\niii. 1), and the \"seven angels which stood before God\" (Ibid, viii. 2).\nThe Persians had four angels--one at each corner of the world;\nRevelation has \"four angels standing on the four corners of the earth\"\n(vii. 1). The Persians employed them as Mediators with the Supreme; the\nmajority of Christians now do the same, and all Christians did so in\nearlier times. Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and other Fathers, speak\nof angels as ruling the earth, the planets, etc. Michael is the angel of\nthe Sun, as was Hercules, and he fights with and conquers the dragon, as\nHercules the Python, Horus the monster Typhon, Krishna the serpent. The\nPersians believed in devils as well as in angels, and they also had\ntheir chief, Ahriman, the pattern of Satan. These devils--or dews, or\ndevs--struggled against the good, and in the end would be destroyed, and\nAhriman would be chained down in the abyss, as Satan in Rev. xx. Ahriman\nflew down to earth from heaven as a great dragon (Rev. xii. 3 and 9),\nthe angels arming themselves against him (Ibid, verse 7). Strauss\nremarks: \"Had the belief in celestial beings, occupying a particular\nstation in the court of heaven, and distinguished by particular names,\noriginated from the revealed religion of the Hebrews--had such a belief\nbeen established by Moses, or some later prophet--then, according to the\nviews of the supranaturalist, they might--nay, they must--be admitted to\nbe correct. But it is in the Maccabaean Daniel and in the apocryphal\nTobit that this doctrine of angels, in its more precise form, first\nappears; and it is evidently a product of the influence of the Zend\nreligion of the Persians on the Jewish mind. We have the testimony of\nthe Jews themselves that they brought the names of the angels with them\nfrom Babylon\" (\"Life of Jesus,\" vol. i., p. 101).\n\nDr. Kalisch, after having remarked that \"the notions [of the Jews]\nconcerning angels fluctuated and changed,\" says that \"at an early\nperiod, the belief in spirits was introduced into Palestine from eastern\nAsia through the ordinary channels of political and commercial\ninterchange,\" and that to the Hebrew \"notions heathen mythology offers\nstriking analogies;\" \"it would be unwarranted,\" the learned doctor goes\non, \"to distinguish between the 'established belief of the Hebrews' and\n'popular superstition;' we have no means of fixing the boundary line\nbetween both; we must consider the one to coincide with the other, or we\nshould be obliged to renounce all historical inquiry. The belief in\nspirits and demons was not a concession made by educated men to the\nprejudices of the masses, but a concession which all--the educated as\nwell as the uneducated--made to Pagan Polytheism\" (\"Historical and\nCritical Commentary on the Old Testament.\" Leviticus, part ii., pp.\n284-287. Ed. 1872). \"When the Jews, ever open to foreign influence in\nmatters of faith, lived under Persian rule, they imbibed, among many\nother religious views of their masters, especially their doctrines of\nangels and spirits, which, in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris,\nwere most luxuriantly developed.\" Some of the angels are now\n\"distinguished by names, which the Jews themselves admit to have\nborrowed from their heathen rulers;\" \"their chief is Mithron, or\nMetatron, corresponding to the Persian Mithra, the mediator between\neternal light and eternal darkness; he is the embodiment of divine\nomnipotence and omnipresence, the guardian of the world, the instructor\nof Moses, and the preserver of the law, but also a terrible avenger of\ndisobedience and wickedness, especially in his capacity of Supreme Judge\nof the dead\" (Ibid, pp. 287, 288). This is \"the angel of the Lord\" who\nwent before the children of Israel, of whom God said \"my name is in him\"\n(see Ex. xxiii. 20-23), and who is identified by many Christian\ncommentators as the second person in the Trinity. The belief in devils\nis the other side of the belief in angels, and \"we see, above all, Satan\nrise to greater and more perilous eminence both with regard to his power\nand the diversity of his functions.\" \"This remarkable advance in\ndemonology cannot be surprising, if we consider that the Persian system\nknown as that of Zoroaster, and centering in the dualism of a good and\nevil principle, flourished most and attained its fullest development,\njust about the time of the Babylonian exile\" (Ibid, pp. 292, 293). The\nPersian creed supplies us, as Dr. Kalisch has well said, with \"the\nsources from which the demonology of the Talmud, the Fathers and the\nCatholic Church has been derived\" (Ibid, p. 318).\n\nThe whole ideas of the _judgment of the dead_, the _destruction of the\nworld by fire_, and the _punishment of the wicked_, are also purely\nPagan. Justin Martyr says truly that as Minos and Rhadamanthus would\npunish the wicked, \"we say that the same thing will be done, but by the\nhand of Christ\" (\"Apology\" 1, chap. viii). \"While we say that there will\nbe a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the\nStoics; and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed\nwith sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the\ngood being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall\nseem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers\" (Ibid, chap.\nxx). In the Egyptian creed Osiris is generally the Judge of the dead,\nthough sometimes Horus is represented in that character; the dead man is\naccused before the Judge by Typhon, the evil one, as Satan is the\n\"accuser of the brethren;\" forty-two assessors declare the innocence of\nthe accused of the crimes they severally note; the recording angel\nwrites down the judgment; the soul is interceded for by the lesser gods,\nwho offer themselves as an atoning sacrifice (see Sharpe's \"Egyptian\nMythology,\" pp. 49-52). A pit, or lake of fire, is the doom of the\ncondemned. The good pass to Paradise, where is the tree of life: the\nfruit of this tree confers health and immortality. In the Persian\nmythology the tree of life is planted by the stream that flows from the\nthrone of Ormuzd (Rev. xxii. i and 2). The Hindu creed has the same\nstory, and it is also found among the Chinese.\n\nThe monastic life comes to us from India and from Egypt; in both\ncountries solitaries and communities are found. Barthol\u00e9my St. Hilaire,\nin his book on Buddha, gives an account of the Buddhist monasteries\nwhich is worthy perusal. From Egypt the contagion of asceticism spread\nover Christendom. \"From Philo also we learn that a large body of\nEgyptian Jews had embraced the monastic rules and the life of\nself-denial, which we have already noted among the Egyptian priests.\nThey bore the name of Therapeuts. They spent their time in solitary\nmeditation and prayer, and only saw one another on the seventh day. They\ndid not marry; the women lived the same solitary and religious life as\nthe men. Fasting and mortification of the flesh were the foundation of\ntheir virtues\" (\"Egyptian Mythology,\" S. Sharpe, p. 79). In these\nEgyptian deserts grew up those wild and bigoted fanatics--some Jews,\nsome Pagans, and apparently no difference between them--who, appearing\nlater under the name of Christians, formed the original of the Western\nmonasticism. It was these monks who tore Hypatia to pieces in the great\nchurch of Alexandria, and who formed the strength of \"that savage and\nilliterate party, who looked upon all sorts of erudition, particularly\nthat of a philosophical kind, as pernicious, and even destructive to\ntrue piety and religion\" (Mosheim's \"Eccles. Hist,\" p. 93). There can be\nno doubt of the identity of the Christians and the Therapeuts, and this\nidentity is the real key to the spread of \"Christianity\" in Egypt and\nthe surrounding countries. Eusebius tells us that Mark was said to be\nthe first who preached the Gospel in Egypt, and \"so great a multitude of\nbelievers, both of men and women, were collected there at the very\noutset, that in consequence of their extreme philosophical discipline\nand austerity, Philo has considered their pursuits, their assemblies,\nand entertainments, as deserving a place in his descriptions\" (\"Eccles.\nHist,\" bk. ii., chap. xvi). We will see what Philo found in Egypt,\nbefore remarking on the date at which he lived. Eusebius states (we\ncondense bk. ii., chap. xvii) that Philo \"comprehends the regulations\nthat are still observed in our churches even to the present time;\" that\nhe \"describes, with the greatest accuracy, the lives of our ascetics;\"\nthese Therapeuts, stated by Eusebius to be Christians, were \"everywhere\nscattered over the world,\" but they abound \"in Egypt, in each of its\ndistricts, and particularly about Alexandria.\" In every house one room\nwas set aside for worship, reading, and meditation, and here they kept\nthe \"inspired declarations of the prophets, and hymns,\" they had also\n\"commentaries of ancient men,\" who were \"the founders of the sect;\" \"it\nis highly probable that the ancient commentaries which he says they\nhave, are the very Gospels and writings of the apostles;\" Eusebius\nthinks that none can \"be so hardy as to contradict his statement that\nthese Therapeuts were Christians, when their practices are to be found\namong none but in the religion of Christians;\" and \"why should we add to\nthese their meetings, and the separate abodes of the men and the women\nin these meetings, and the exercises performed by them, which are still\nin vogue among us at the present day, and which, especially at the\nfestival of our Saviour's passion, we are accustomed to pass in fasting\nand watching, and in the study of the divine word? All these the\nabove-mentioned author has accurately described and stated in his\nwritings, and are the same customs that are observed by us alone, at the\npresent day, particularly the vigils of the great festival, and the\nexercises in them, and the hymns that are commonly recited among us....\nBesides this, he describes the grades of dignity among those who\nadminister the ecclesiastical services committed to them, those of the\ndeacons, and the presidencies of the episcopate as the highest.\" Thus\nPhilo wrote of \"the original practices handed down from the apostles.\"\nThe important points to notice here are: that in the time of Philo,\nthese Christians were scattered all over the world; that the\ncommentaries they had, which Eusebius says were the Christian's gospels,\nwere the works of _ancient_ men, who founded the sect, so that the\nfounders were men who lived long before Philo's time; that they were\nthoroughly organised, proving thereby that their sect was not a new one\nin his day; that the \"discipline,\" organised association, ranks of\npriests, etc., implied a long existence of the sect before Philo studied\nit, and that such existence was clearly not consistent with any\npersecution being then directed against it. Philo writes of flourishing\nand orderly communities, founded by men who had long since passed away,\nand had bequeathed their writings to their followers for their\ninstruction and guidance. And what was the date of Philo? He himself\ngives us a clear note of time; in A.D. 40 he was sent on an embassy to\nthe Emperor Caligula at Rome, to complain of a persecution to which the\nJews were being subjected by Flaccus; he describes himself as being, in\nA.D. 40, \"a grey-headed old man.\" The Rev. J.W. Lake puts him at\nsixty-five or seventy years of age at that period, and consequently\nwould place his birth twenty-five or thirty years before the birth of\nJesus (\"Plato, Philo, and Paul,\" by Rev. J.W. Lake, pp. 33, 34).\nGibbon, in a note to chap. 15, vol. ii. (p. 180), says that \"by proving\nit (the treatise on the Therapeuts) was composed as early as the time of\nAugustus, Basnage has demonstrated, in spite of Eusebius, and a crowd of\nmodern Catholics, that the Therapeuts were neither Christians nor\nmonks.\" Or rather, he has proved that Christians existed before the time\nof Christ, since Augustus died A.D. 14, and before that date Philo found\na long-established sect holding Christian doctrines and practising\n\"apostolic\" customs. A man, who in A.D. 40 was grey-headed, spoke of the\nChristian Gospels as writings of ancient men, founders of a\nwell-organised sect. Now we see why Christianity has so much in common\nwith the Egyptian mythology. Because it grew out of Egypt; its Gospels\ncame from thence; its ceremonies were learned there; its virgin is Isis;\nits Christ Osiris and Horus; the mask of the revelation of God drops\nfrom off it, and we see the true face, the ancient Egyptian religion,\nwith a feature here and there moulded by the cognate ideas of other\nEastern creeds, all of which flowed into Alexandria, and mingled in its\nseething cauldron of thought.\n\nThere is also a Jewish sect which we must not overlook, in dealing with\nthe sources of Christianity, that, namely, known as the Essenes. Gibbon\nregards the Therapeuts and the Essenes as interchangeable terms, but\nmore careful investigation does not bear out this conclusion, although\nthe two sects strongly resemble each other, and have many doctrines in\ncommon; he says, however, truly: \"The austere life of the Essenians,\ntheir fasts and excommunications, the community of goods, the love of\ncelibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and the warmth, though not the\npurity of their faith, already offered a lively image of the primitive\ndiscipline\" (\"Decline and Fall,\" vol. ii., ch. xv., p. 180). It is to\nJosephus that we must turn for an account of the Essenes; a brief sketch\nof them is given in Antiquities of the Jews, bk. xviii., chap. i. He\nsays: \"The doctrine of the Essenes is this: That all things are best\nascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that\nthe rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and when\nthey send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not\noffer sacrifices, because they have more pure lustrations of their own;\non which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple,\nbut offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life\nbetter than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to\nhusbandry.\" They had all things in common, did not marry and kept no\nservants, thus none called any master (Matt. xxiii. 8, 10). In the \"Wars\nof the Jews,\" bk. ii., chap, viii., Josephus gives us a fuller account.\n\"There are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of\nthe first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and\nthe third sect who pretends to a severer discipline are called Essenes.\nThese last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for\none another than the other sects [John xiii. 35]. These Essenes reject\npleasures as an evil [Matt. xvi. 24], but esteem continence and the\nconquest over our passions to be virtue. They neglect wedlock.... They\ndo not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage [Matt. xix. 12, last\nclause of verse, 1 Cor. vii. 27, 28, 32-35, 37, 38, 40].... These men\nare despisers of riches [Matt. xix. 21, 23, 24] ... it is a law among\nthem, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to\nthe whole order [Acts iv. 32-37, v. 1-11].... They also have stewards\nappointed to take care of their common affairs [Acts vi. 1-6].... If any\nof their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them,\njust as if it were their own [Matt. x. 11].... For which reason they\ncarry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts [Matt. x. 9,\n10].... As for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for\nbefore sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up\ncertain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if\nthey made a supplication for its rising [the Essenes were then\nsun-worshippers].... A priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful\nfor anyone to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest,\nwhen he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin,\nand when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food upon\nthem [Eph. v. 18-20. 1 Cor. x. 30, 31. 1 Tim. iv. 4, 5].... They\ndispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion\n[Eph. iv. 26].... Whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but\nswearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury; for\nthey say, that he who cannot be believed without swearing by God, is\nalready condemned [Matt. v. 34-37].\" We insert these references into the\naccount given by Josephus of the Essenes, in order to show the identity\nof teaching of the Gospels and the Essenes. The Essenes excommunicated\nthose who sinned grievously; each promised, on entrance to the society,\nto exercise piety, observe justice, do no harm to any, show fidelity to\nall, and especially to those in authority, love truth, reprove lying,\nkeep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains. The\nresemblance between the Essenes and the early Christians is on many\npoints so strong that it is impossible to deny that the two are\nconnected; if Jesus of Nazareth had any historical existence, he must\nhave been one of the sect of the Essenes, who publicly preached many of\ntheir doctrines, and endeavoured to popularise them. We are thus led to\nconclude that the Jewish side of Christianity is simply Essenian, but\nthat the major part of the religion is purely Pagan, and that its rise\nunder the name of Christianity must be sought for in Alexandria rather\nthan in Jud\u00e6a.\n\nThe saints who play so great a part in the history of Christianity are,\nsolely and simply, the old Pagan deities under new names. The ancient\ncreeds were intertwined with the daily life of the people, and passed\non, practically unchanged, although altered in name. \"Ancient errors, in\nspite of the progress of knowledge, were respected. Civilisation, as it\ngrew, only refined them, embellished them, or hid them under an\nallegorical veil\" (\"Histoire Abr\u00e9g\u00e9e de Differens Cultes,\" Dulaur\u00e9, t.\ni., p. 20). \"A remarkable passage in the life of Gregory, surnamed\nThaumaturgus, i.e., the wonder-worker, will illustrate this point in the\nclearest manner. This passage is as follows [here it is given in Latin]:\n'When Gregory perceived that the ignorant multitude persisted in their\nidolatry, on account of the pleasures and sensual gratifications which\nthey enjoyed at the Pagan festivals, he granted them a permission to\nindulge themselves in the like pleasures, in celebrating the memory of\nthe holy martyrs, hoping that, in process of time they would return, of\ntheir own accord, to a more virtuous and regular course of life.' There\nis no sort of doubt that, by this permission, Gregory allowed the\nChristians to dance, sport, and feast at the tombs of the martyrs upon\ntheir respective festivals, and to do everything which the Pagans were\naccustomed to do in their temples, during the feasts celebrated in\nhonour of their gods\" (Mosheim's \"Eccles. Hist.,\" 2nd century; note, p.\n56). \"The virtues that had formerly been ascribed to the heathen\ntemples, to their lustrations, to the statues of their gods and heroes,\nwere now attributed to Christian churches, to water consecrated by\ncertain forms of prayer, and to the images of holy men. And the same\nprivileges that the former enjoyed under the darkness of Paganism, were\nconferred upon the latter under the light of the Gospel, or, rather,\nunder that cloud of superstition that was obscuring its glory. It is\ntrue that, as yet, images were not very common [of this there is no\nproof]; nor were there any statues at all [equally unproven]. But it is,\nat the same time, as undoubtedly certain, as it is extravagant and\nmonstrous, that the worship of the martyrs was modelled, by degrees,\naccording to the religious services that were paid to the gods before\nthe coming of Christ\" (Ibid, 4th century; p. 98). The fact is, that\nwherever there was a popular god, he passed into the pantheon of\nChristendom under a new name, as \"Christianity\" spread. Dulaure, in his\nwork above-quoted, gives a mass of details--mostly very unsavoury--which\nleave no doubt upon this point. The essence of the old worship was the\nworship of Nature, as we have seen, and a favourite deity was Priapus;\nthis god was worshipped under the names of St. Fontin, St. Guerlichon,\nor Greluchon, St. Remi, St. Gilles, St. Arnaud, SS. Cosmo and Damian,\netc., in the various provinces of France, Italy, and other Roman\nCatholic lands; and his worship, with its distinctive rites of the most\nindecent character, remained in practice up to, at least, 1740 in\nFrance, and 1780 in Italy. (See throughout the above work.) If\nChristians knew a little more about their creed they would be far less\nproud of it, and far less devout, than they are at present.\n\nMr. Glennie, in a pamphlet reprinted from \"In the Morning Land,\" points\nout the resemblance between Christianity and \"Osirianism,\" as he names\nthe religion of Osiris: \"'The peculiar character of Osiris,' says Sir\nGardner Wilkinson, 'his coming upon earth for the benefit of mankind,\nwith the titles of \"Manifester of Good\" and \"Revealer of Truth;\" his\nbeing put to death by the malice of the Evil One; his burial and\nresurrection, and his becoming the judge of the dead, are the most\ninteresting features of the Egyptian religion. This was the great\nmystery; and this myth and his worship were of the earliest times, and\nuniversal in Egypt.' And, with this central doctrine of Osirianism, so\nperfectly similar to that of Christianism, doctrines are associated\nprecisely analogous to those associated in Christianism with its central\ndoctrine. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, the Godhead\nis conceived as a Trinity, yet are the three Gods declared to be only\none God. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the\nworship of a divine mother and child. In ancient Osirianism, as in\nmodern Christianism, there is a doctrine of atonement. In ancient\nOsirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the vision of a last\njudgment, and resurrection of the body. And finally, in ancient\nOsirianism, as in modern Christianism, the sanctions of morality are a\nlake of fire and tormenting demons on the one hand, and on the other,\neternal life in the presence of God. Is it possible, then, that such\nsimilarities of doctrines should not raise the most serious questions as\nto the relation of the beliefs about Christ to those about Osiris; as to\nthe cause of this wonderful similarity of the doctrines of Christianism\nto those of Osirianism; nay, as to the possibility of the whole\ndoctrinal system of modern orthodoxy being but a transformation of the\nOsiris-myth?\" (\"Christ and Osiris,\" pp. 13, 14).\n\nThus we find that the cardinal doctrines and the ceremonies of\nChristianity are of purely Pagan origin, and that \"Christianity\" was in\nexistence long ages before Christ. Christianity is only, as we have\nsaid, a patchwork composed of old materials; from the later Jews comes\nthe Unity of God; from India and Egypt the Trinity in Unity; from India\nand Egypt the crucified Redeemer; from India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome,\nthe virgin mother and the divine son; from Egypt its priests and its\nritual; from the Essenes and the Therapeuts its ascetism; from Persia,\nIndia, and Egypt, its Sacraments; from Persia and Babylonia its angels\nand its devils; from Alexandria the blending into one of many lines of\nthought. There is nothing original in this creed, save its special\nappeal to the ignorant and to babes; \"not many wise men after the flesh\"\nare found among its adherents; it is an appeal to the darkness of the\nworld, not to its light: to superstition, not to knowledge; to faith,\nnot to reason. As its root is, so also are its fruits, and when--after\nglancing at its morality--we turn to its history, we shall see that the\ncorrupt tree bears corrupt fruit, and that from the evil stem of a\nthinly disguised Paganism spring forth the death-bringing branches of\nthe Upas-tree Christianity, stunting the growth of the young\ncivilisation of the West, and drugging, with its poisonous\ndew-droppings, the Europe which lay beneath its shade, swoon-slumbering\nin the death stupor of the Ages of Darkness and of Faith.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX TO SECTION II. OF PART II.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX OF BOOKS USED.\n\nCicero, Commonwealth, quoted by Inman...376\nCory, Ancient Fragments, quoted by Inman...377\n\nDulaure, Histoire Abregee de Differens Cultes...383, 390\n\nEusebius, Ecclesiastical History...386\n\nGibbon, Decline and Fall...388\nGlennie, In the Morning Land...391\n\nHyde, quoted by Giles...378, 379\n\nInman, Ancient Faiths...376, 379\n\nJones, Sir W., Asiatic Researches...356, 377\nJosephus, Antiquities of the Jews...364, 388\n   \"      Wars of the Jews...389\nJustin Martyr, First Apology...385\n\nKalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary...384, 385\nKeim, Jesus of Nazara...365\n\nLake, Plato, Philo, and Paul...363, 364, 367, 374, 388\n\nMahabharata, quoted by Muir...376\nManu, quoted in Anthology...377\nMilman, History of Christianity, quoted by Lake...373\nMosheim, Ecclesiastical History...380, 382, 386, 390, 391\n\nPlato...358\n   \" summarised by Mdme. Dacier...364\n\nRig Veda, quoted in Anthology...377\n\nSabaean Litany, quoted in Anthology...377\nSharpe, Egyptian Mythology...360, 375, 381, 385, 386\nStrauss, Life of Jesus...383\n\nTaylor, Diegesis...359, 378\nTertullian, On Baptism...379\n\nZoroaster, quoted by Inman...376\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX  OF SUBJECTS.\n\nAngels and devils...383\n\nBaptism...378\n\nConfirmation...379\nCross...357\nCrucifix...358\n\nDevils and angels...383\nDivinity of Christ...363\n\nEssenes...388\n\nImmortality...374\n\nJudgment of the Dead...385\n\nLogos, ideas of...364\nLord's Supper...379\n\nMediator...362\nMithras...362\nMonasticism...385\n\nNature and Sun-worship the origin of creeds...355\n\nOsirianism and Christianity...391\n\nPhilo, date of...367, 387\nPlato's teaching...364\nPriesthood...381\n\nSaints, old gods...391\nSymbols of male energy...356\n   \"       female energy...361\n   \"       both in present ceremonies...381\n\nTherapeuts...386\nTrinity...359\n\nUnion of male and female foundation of religion...355\nUnity of God...377\n\nVirgin and child...360\n\nZoroaster's teaching...362, 376\n\n\n\n\nSECTION III.--ITS MORALITY FALLIBLE.\n\n\nHow much may fairly be included under the title \"Christian Morality\"?\nSome of the more enlightened Christians would confine the term to the\nmorality of the New Testament, and would exclude the Hebrew code as\nbeing the outcome of a barbarous age. But the Freethinker may fairly\ncontend that any moral rules taught by the Bible are part of Christian\nmorality. By the statute 9 and 10 William III, cap. 32, the \"Holy\nScriptures of the Old and New Testament\" are declared to be \"of divine\nauthority,\" and there is no exclusion indicated of the Mosaic code; this\nstatute is binding on all British subjects educated as Christians, and\nenacts penalties against those who infringe it. By Article VI. of the\nChurch of England, Holy Scripture is defined as \"those canonical books\nof the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in\nthe Church,\" and a list is subjoined. In Article VII. we are instructed\nthat the \"Commandments which are called moral\" are to be obeyed, but\nthat the \"civil precepts\" of the Mosaic code ought not \"of necessity to\nbe received in any commonwealth;\" from which we may conclude that the\nChurch does not feel bound to enforce, as \"of necessity,\" polygamy,\nprostitution, murder of heretics, and slavery. She does not venture to\ndesignate such precepts as immoral, but she does not feel bound in\nconscience to enforce them, for which small concession we must feel\ngrateful. Passing from the law of the land to the Bible itself, we find\nthat the Mosaic code must certainly be recognised as divine. Jesus\nhimself proclaims: \"Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the\nprophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfil,\" and this is\nemphasised by the declaration: \"Whosoever, therefore, shall break _one\nof these least_ commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called\nleast in the kingdom of heaven.\" The Broad Church party will be very\nlittle, if this be true. Turning to the Old Testament, we find that some\nof the most immoral precepts are spoken by God himself, immediately\nafter the \"Ten Commandments;\" surely that which \"The Lord said\" out of\n\"the thick darkness where God was,\" from the top of Sinai \"on a smoke,\nwith the thunderings and lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet,\" can\nscarcely be reverently designated as \"the outcome of a barbarous age\"?\nYet it is under these circumstances that God taught that a Hebrew\nservant might be bought for seven years; that a wife might be given him\nby his master, and that the wife and the children proceeding from the\nunion belonged to the master; that the servant could only go free by\ndeserting his wife and his own children and leaving them in slavery (Ex.\nxxi. 1-6). It was under these circumstances that God taught that a man\nmight sell his daughter to be a \"maid servant\" (the translator's\neuphemism for concubine), and that, \"if she please not her master\" she\nmay be bought back again, or if he \"take him another\" (translator\nsupplying \"wife\" as throwing an air of respectability over the\ntransaction) she may go free (Ibid. 7-11). It was under these\ncircumstances that God taught that if a man should beat a male or female\nslave to death, he should not be punished, providing the slave did not\ndie till \"a day or two\" after, because the slave was only \"his money\"\n(Ibid. 20, 21). Why blame a Legree, when he only acts on the permission\ngiven by God from Mount Sinai? Dr. Colenso writes: \"I shall never forget\nthe revulsion of feeling with which a very intelligent Christian native,\nwith whose help I was translating these words into the Zulu tongue,\nfirst heard them as words said to be uttered by the same great and\ngracious Being whom I was teaching him to trust in and adore. His whole\nsoul revolted against the notion, that the great and blessed God, the\nmerciful Father of all mankind, would speak of a servant, or maid, as\nmere 'money,' and allow a horrible crime to go unpunished, because the\nvictim of the brutal usage had survived a few hours. My own heart and\nconscience at the time fully sympathised with his\" (\"The Pentateuch and\nBook of Joshua,\" p. 9, ed. 1862). It was under these circumstances that\nGod taught that a thief, who possessed nothing of his own, should \"be\nsold for his theft\" (Ex. xxii. 3). It was under these circumstances that\nGod taught: \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live\" (Ibid 18). To this\ncruel and wicked command myriads of unfortunate human beings have been\nsacrificed; in the course of the Middle Ages hundreds of thousands\nperished; in France and Germany \"many districts and large towns burned\ntwo, three, and four hundred witches every year, in some the annual\nexecutions destroyed nearly one per cent. of the whole population....\nThe Reformation, which swept away so many superstitions, left this, the\nmost odious of all, in full activity. The Churchmen of England, the\nLutherans of Germany, the Calvinists of Geneva, Scotland, and New\nEngland rivalled the most bigoted Roman Catholics in their severities.\nIndeed, the Calvinists, though the most opposite of all to the Church of\nRome, were in this respect perhaps the most implicit imitators of her\ndelusions\" (\"The Bible; What it is,\" by C. Bradlaugh, p. 262). \"During\nthe seventeenth century, 40,000 persons are said to have been put to\ndeath for witchcraft in England alone. In Scotland the number was\nprobably, in proportion to the population, much greater; for it is\ncertain that even in the last forty years of the sixteenth century the\nexecutions were not fewer than 17,000\" (Ibid, p. 263). The Puritans in\nNew England signalised themselves by their merciless severity towards\nwizards and witches. France was the first country to stem the tide of\ncruelty. In 1680 Louis XIV. \"issued a proclamation prohibiting all\nfuture prosecutions for witchcraft; and directing that even those who\nmight profess the art should only be punished as impostors.\" In England\n\"the last execution was at Huntingdon, in 1716;\" in Scotland, at\nDarnock, in 1722. The last person burned as a witch was Maria Sanger, at\nWurzburg, in Bavaria, 1749 (Ibid, p. 265). Such fruit has borne the\ncommand of God from Sinai. It was under these circumstances that God\ntaught that any who sacrificed to any God but himself should be \"utterly\ndestroyed\" (Ex. xxii. 20). The practical effect of this we shall\npresently see, in conjunction with other passages.\n\nIf we pass from these precepts, given with such special solemnity, to\nthe other articles of the so-called Mosaic code, we shall find rules of\nan equally immoral character. Lev. xxiv. 16 commands that \"he that\nblasphemeth the name of the Lord\" shall be stoned. Lev. xxv. 44-46\ndirects the Hebrews to buy bondmen and bondwomen of the nations around\nthem, \"and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after\nyou, to inherit them for a possession,\" thus sanctioning the\nslave-traffic. Leviticus xxvii. 29 distinctly commands human sacrifice,\nforbidding the redemption of any that are \"devoted of men.\" Clear as the\nwords are, their meaning has been hotly contested, because of the stain\nthey affix on the Mosaic code. \"[Hebrew: MOT VOMOT]\" that he die. The\ncommentators take much trouble to soften this terrible sentence.\nAccording to Raschi, it concerns a man condemned to death, in which case\nhe must not be redeemed for money. According to others, it is necessary\nthat the person shall be devoted by public authority, and not by private\nvow; and the Talmud speaks of Jephthah as a fanatic for having thought\nthat a human being could serve as a victim, as a burnt-offering; but\nthere are too many facts which prove the existence and the execution of\nthis barbarous law; see, besides, the paraphrase of Ben Ouziel: [Hebrew:\nKL APRShA TMVL DDYN QShVL MYTChYYB] \"all anathema which shall be\nanathematised of the human race cannot be redeemed neither by money, by\nvows, nor by sacrifices, neither by prayers for mercy before God, since\nhe is condemned to death\" (L\u00e9vitique, par Cahen, p. 143; ed. 1855).\nThus Jephthah devoted to the Lord \"whatsoever cometh out of the doors of\nmy house to meet me,\" and, his daughter being the one who came, he \"did\nwith her according to his vow\" (Judges xi. 30-40).\n\nKalisch, in his Commentary on the Old Testament, gives us an exhaustive\nessay on \"Human Sacrifices among the Hebrews,\" endeavouring, as far as\npossible, to defend his people from the charge of offering such\nsacrifices to Jehovah by reducing instances of it to a minimum. He says,\nhowever: \"Yet we have at least two clear and unquestionable instances of\nhuman sacrifices offered to Jehovah. The first is the immolation of\nJephthah's daughter.\" He then analyses the account, pointing out that it\nwas clearly a sacrifice to _Jehovah_, and that Jephthah's \"intention of\nsacrificing his daughter was publicly known for two full months; no\npriest, no prophet, no elder, no magistrate interfered, or even\nremonstrated.\" Even further: \"The event gave rise to a popular custom\nannually observed by the maidens of Israel; Jephthah's deed evidently\nmet with universal approbation; it was regarded as praiseworthy piety;\nand indeed he could not have ventured to make his vow, had not human\nvictims offered to Jehovah been deemed particularly meritorious in his\ntime; otherwise he must have apprehended to provoke by it the wrath of\nGod, rather than procure his assistance. Nothing can be clearer or more\ndecided.... The fact stands indisputable that human sacrifices offered\nto Jehovah were possible among the Hebrews long after the time of Moses,\nwithout meeting a check or censure from the teachers and leaders of the\nnation--a fact for which the sad political confusion that prevailed in\nthe period of the Judges is insufficient to account\" (Leviticus, Part\nI., pp. 383-385; ed. 1867). Kalisch further points out that the vow of\nJephthah promises a _human_ sacrifice; the Hebrew expression signifies\n\"_whoever_ comes forth\" (see p. 383), and \"the Hebrew words, in fact,\nabsolutely exclude any animal whatever; they admit none but a human\nbeing, who alone can be described as going out of the house to meet\nsomebody; for, though the restrictive usage of the East binds girls\ngenerally to the seclusion of the house, it seems to have been a common\ncustom for Hebrew women to proceed and meet returning conquerors with\nmusic and rejoicing; and the sacrifice of one animal, an extremely poor\noffering after a most signal and most important success, would certainly\nnot have been promised by a previous vow solemnly pronounced\" (Ibid, pp.\n385, 386). Our commentator justly adds: \"From the tenour of the\nnarrative it is manifest that the deed was no isolated case, but that\nhuman sacrifices were on emergencies of peculiar moment habitually\noffered to God, and expected to secure his aid. One instance like that\nof Jephthah not only justifies, but necessitates, the influence of a\ngeneral custom. Pious men slaughtered human victims not to Moloch, nor\nto any other foreign deity, but to the national God Jehovah\" (Ibid, p.\n390). \"The second recorded instance of human sacrifices killed in honour\nof Jehovah forms a remarkable incident in the life of David\" (Ibid, p.\n390). We read in 2 Sam. xxi. that God said that a famine then prevailing\nwas on account of Saul and of his bloody house; that David desired to\nmake an \"atonement;\" that seven men of Saul's family were hanged \"in the\nhill _before the Lord_;\" that then they were buried, with Saul and\nJonathan, \"and, _after that_, God was intreated for the land.\" \"It\nparticularly concerns us to observe that the whole matter was, in the\nfirst instance, referred to Jehovah; that David was plainly informed of\nthe intention of the Gibeonites of 'hanging up' the seven persons\n'before Jehovah' as an 'atonement;' that he willingly surrendered them\nfor that atrocity; that he evidently expected from that act a cessation\nof the famine; and that this calamity is reported to have really\ndisappeared in consequence of the offering\" (Ibid, p. 392). Kalisch, in\nhis anxiety to diminish as far as possible the evidence that human\nsacrifices were enjoined by the law, urges that the passage in Leviticus\n(xxvii. 29) merely implies that \"everything so devoted shall be\ndestroyed. The extirpation of the men, as a rule heathen enemies in\nCanaan, or Hebrew idolaters, is indeed referred to a command of Jehovah,\nbut it is not intended as a _sacrifice_ to him\" (Ibid, p. 409). Surely\nthis verges on quibbling, and is not even then borne out by the context.\nLeviticus xxvii. deals entirely with private \"singular vows,\" and the\n\"devoting\" (_Cherem_) of \"man and beast and of the field of his\npossession,\" is not the judicial devoting to destruction of an\nidolatrous city or individual, but a special voluntary offering from a\npious worshipper. Besides, even if such judicial duties were \"the rule,\"\nwhat of the exceptions? There are several indications of the practice of\nhuman sacrifice to Jehovah beyond the two related by Kalisch (the\ncommand to sacrifice Isaac is in itself a consecration by God of the\nabomination); the curious account of Aaron's death--whose garments are\ntaken off and put on his son, and who thereupon dies at the top of the\nmount, having walked up there for that purpose, clearly indicates that\nhe did not die a natural death (Numbers xx. 23-28). Many think that \"the\nfire from the Lord\" which devoured Nadab and Abihu (Lev. x. 1-5) denotes\nthe sacrifice \"before the Lord\" of the offending priests. Kalisch demurs\nto these latter charges, and to some other additional ones, but says:\n\"It is, therefore, undoubted that human sacrifices were offered by the\nHebrews from the earliest times up to the Babylonian period, both in\nhonour of Jehovah and of heathen deities, not only by depraved\nidolaters, but sometimes even by pious servants of God; they probably\nceased to be presented to Jehovah not much before they ceased to be\npresented at all\" (Leviticus, part i., p. 396). We cannot here omit to\nnotice the command of God in Exodus xxii. 29, 30: \"The first-born of thy\nsons shalt thou give to me. Likewise thou shalt do with thine oxen and\nwith thy sheep,\" etc. As against this we read a command in chap. xiii.\n13, \"All the first-born of man among thy children thou shalt redeem.\"\nHere, as in many other instances, we get contradictory commands, best\nexplained by the fact that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands.\nKalisch says: \"It is impossible to deny that the first-born sons were\nfrequently sacrificed, not only by idolatrous Israelites, in honour of\nforeign gods, as Moloch and Baal, but by pious men in honour of Jehovah;\nbut the Pentateuch, the embodiment of the more enlightened and advanced\ncreed of the Hebrews, distinctly commanded the redemption of the\nfirst-born\" (Ibid, p. 404). Kalisch--we may point out--considers the\nPentateuch in its present form as post Babylonian, and regards it as a\nreforming agent in the Jewish community.\n\nIn Numbers v. 12-31 we find the command to practise the brutal and\nsuperstitious custom of the ordeal, the endorsement of the whole ordeal\nsystem of the Middle Ages. Deuteronomy xiii. is entirely devoted to\ncommands of murder, and is the indulgence given beforehand to every\npersecuting priest. The prophet whom God uses to prove his people, is to\nbe put to death for being God's instrument; anyone who tries to turn\npeople aside from God is to be stoned, and the hand of the nearest and\ndearest is to be \"first upon him to put him to death;\" any city which\nbecomes idolatrous is to be destroyed, the inhabitants and the cattle\nare to be slain, and everything else is to be burnt. Deuteronomy xvii.\n2-7 is to the same effect. These commands have also borne abundant\nfruit. Who can reckon the millions of human lives that have been spilt\nin obedience to them? The slaughter of the Midianites, of the people of\nJericho, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, and of many another city,\nmarking with blood each step of the people of God, who smote \"all the\nsouls that were\" in each, and \"let none remain\"--all these are but as\nthe first-fruits of the great harvest of human slaughter, reaped for the\nglory of God. Right through the \"sacred volume\" runs the scarlet river,\nstaining every page; when its record closes, the Church takes it up, and\nthe river rolls on down the centuries; let the Inquisition tell over its\nvictims; let Spain reckon her murdered ones, 31,912 burnt alive in that\none land alone; let the Netherlands speak of their slain sons and\ndaughters; let France and Italy swell the tale; nor let England and\nScotland be forgotten, nor the blood-roll of Ireland be missed; Catholic\nmurdering Arian; Arian slaying Catholic; Romanist burning Protestant;\nProtestant hanging Romanist. The names of those who obey God's command\nmay be changed, but they all do the same accursed work, spreading\nreligion everywhere with fire and sword; nor does the harm confine\nitself to Jews and Christians only, for Mahomet, the prophet of Arabia,\ncatches up the teaching of Moses and re-echoes it, and the Moslem\nfollows on the inspired path, and stains it once again with human blood.\nA God, a Bible, a priesthood--how have they ruined the world; how fair\nand bright might earth have been had there been no teachers of religion!\n\n  \"How powerless were the mightiest monarch's arm,\n  Vain his loud threat and impotent his frown!\n  How ludicrous the priest's dogmatic roar!\n  The weight of his exterminating curse\n  How light! and his affected charity,\n  To suit the pressure of the changing times,\n  What palpable deceit! but for thy aid,\n  Religion! but for thee, prolific fiend,\n  Who peoplest earth with demons, hell with men,\n  And heaven with slaves!\n  Thou taintest all thou look'st upon.......\"\n\n--(\"Queen Mab,\" by P.B. Shelley; can. 6. Collected works, p. 12, edition\n1839.)\n\nDeuteronomy xxi. 10-14 instructs the Hebrew that if, after victory, he\nsees a beautiful woman and desires her, he may take her, and if later,\n\"thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she\nwill,\" to starvation, to misery, what matter, after God's chosen is\nsatisfied. Deut. xxiii. 2 punishes a man for that which is no fault of\nhis, his illegitimate birth. We have omitted many absurd precepts found\nin this Mosaic code, and have only chosen those which are grossly\nimmoral, and can be defended by no kind of reasoning as to \"defective,\"\nor \"imperfect\" morality, \"suited to a nation in a low stage of\ncivilisation.\"\n\nThese laws not only fall short of a perfect morality, but they are\ndistinctly and foully immoral, and tend directly to the brutalisation of\nthe nation which should live under them. It is true that there is much\npure morality in this code, and some refined feeling here and there.\nThese jewels are curiously out of place in their surroundings. Imagine a\npeople so savage as to need laws permitting all the abominations\nreferred to above, and yet so cultivated as to be capable of\nappreciating the beauty of: \"If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee\nlying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him; thou shalt\nsurely help him\" (Exodus xxiii. 5). It is time that it should be\npublicly acknowledged that the so-called Mosaic code is literally a\nmosaic of scattered fragments of legislation, of various ages, and\nvarious stages of civilisation, put together a few hundred years before\nChrist. At present, the whole code lies on the shoulders of\nChristianity, and is fairly pleaded against it by the Freethinker.\n\nIt is not necessary to speak here against the practical morality of Old\nTestament saints; the very names of Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses,\nJoshua, Samuel, David, etc., bring before the mind's eye a list of\ncrimes so foul, so cowardly, so bloody, that no enumeration of them can\nbe needed. Of them, we may fairly say with Virgil:--\n\n    \"Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa.\"\n\nTurning to the New Testament morality, we may attack it in various ways:\nwe may argue that the better part of it is not new, and therefore cannot\nbe regarded as especially inspired, or that it leaves out of account\nmany virtues necessary to the well-being of families and states; or we\nmay contend that much of it is harmful, and much of it impracticable.\n\nThe better part is that which is NON-ORIGINAL. All that is fair and\nbeautiful in Christian morality had been taught in the world ages before\nChrist was born. Buddha, Confucius, Lao-Tsze, Mencius, Zoroaster, Manu,\ntaught the noble human morality found in some of the teaching ascribed\nto Christ (throughout this Section the morality put into Christ's mouth\nin the New Testament will be treated as his).\n\nChrist taught the duty of returning good for evil. Buddha said: \"A man\nwho foolishly does me wrong I will return to him the protection of my\nungrudging love; the more evil comes from him, the more good shall go\nfrom me\" (\"Anthology,\" by Moncure D. Conway, page 240). In the Buddhist\nDhammapada we read: \"Let a man overcome anger by love; let him overcome\nevil by good; let him overcome the greedy by liberality, the liar by\ntruth\" (Ibid, p. 307). Again: \"Hatred does not cease by hatred at any\ntime; hatred ceases by love; this is an old rule\" (Ibid, p. 131).\nLao-Tsze says: \"The good I would meet with goodness. The not good I\nwould meet with goodness also. The faithful I would meet with faith. The\nnot faithful I would meet with faith also. Virtue is faithful.\nRecompense injury with kindness\" (Ibid, p. 365). Confucius struck a yet\nhigher and truer note: \"Some one said, 'What do you say concerning the\nprinciple that injury should be recompensed with kindness?' The Sage\nreplied, 'With what, then, will you recompense kindness? Recompense\nkindness with kindness, and injury with justice'\" (Ibid, p. 6). Manu\nplaces \"returning good for evil\" in his tenfold system of duties; in his\ncode also we find: \"By forgiveness of injuries the learned are purified\"\n(Ibid, p. 311). The \"golden rule\" is as old as the generous and just\nheart. The Saboean Book of the Law taught: \"Let none of you treat his\nbrother in a way which he himself would dislike\" (Ibid, p. 7).\n\"Tsze-Kung asked, 'Is there one word which may serve as a rule for one's\nwhole life?' Confucius answered, 'Is not reciprocity such a word? What\nyou do not wish done to yourself, do not to others. When you are\nlabouring for others let it be with the same zeal as if it were for\nyourself'\" (Ibid, pp. 6, 7).\n\nIf Christ taught humility, we read from Lao-Tsze: \"I have three precious\nthings which I hold fast and prize--Compassion, Economy, Humility. Being\ncompassionate, I can therefore be brave. Being economical, I can\ntherefore be liberal. Not daring to take precedence of the world, I can\ntherefore become chief among the perfect ones. In the present day men\ngive up compassion, and cultivate only courage. They give up economy and\naim only at liberality. They give up the last place, and seek only the\nfirst. It is their death\" (Ibid, p. 216). Lao-Tsze says again: \"By\nundivided attention to the passion-nature and tenderness it is possible\nto be a little child. By putting away impurity from the hidden eye of\nthe heart, it is possible to be without spot. There is a purity and\nquietude by which we may rule the whole world. To keep tenderness, I\npronounce strength.... The fact that the weak can conquer the strong and\nthe tender the hard, is known to all the world; yet none carry it out in\npractice. The reason of heaven does not strive, yet conquers well; does\nnot call, yet things come of their own accord; is slack, yet plans well\"\n(Ibid, pp. 323, 324). Again: \"The sage ... puts himself last, and yet is\nfirst; abandons himself, and yet is preserved. Is not this through\nhaving no selfishness? Hereby he preserves self-interest intact. He is\nnot self-displaying, and therefore he shines. He is not self-approving,\nand therefore he is distinguished. He is not self-praising, and\ntherefore he has merit. He is not self-exalting, and therefore he stands\nhigh; and inasmuch as he does not strive, no one in all the world\nstrives with him. That ancient saying, 'He that humbles himself shall be\npreserved entire'--oh, it is no vain utterance\" (Ibid, pp. 327, 328).\n\nJesus is said to be pre-eminent as a moral teacher because he directed\nhis teaching to the improvement of the heart, knowing that from a good\nheart a good life would flow; in Manu's code we read: \"Action, either\nmental, verbal, or corporeal, bears good or evil fruit as itself is good\nor evil ... of that threefold action be it known in the world that the\nheart is the instigator\" (Ibid, p. 4). Buddha said: \"It is the heart of\nlove and faith accompanying good actions which spreads, as it were, a\nbeneficent shade from the world of men to the world of angels\" (Ibid, p.\n234). Jesus reminded the people that the ceremonial duties of religion\nwere small compared with \"the weightier matters of the law, justice,\nmercy, and truth;\" Manu wrote: \"To a man contaminated by sensuality,\nneither the Vedas, nor liberality, nor sacrifices, nor observances, nor\npious austerities will procure felicity. A wise man must faithfully\ndischarge his moral duties, even though he dares not constantly perform\nthe ceremonies of religion. He will fall very low if he performs\nceremonial acts only, and fails to discharge his moral duties\" (Ibid, p.\n3). Exactly parallel to a saying of Jesus is one in the Saboean Book of\nthe Law: \"Adhere so firmly to the truth that your yea shall be yea, and\nyour nay, nay\" (Ibid, p. 7).\n\nIn urging that all great moral duties were taught by pre-Christian\nthinkers, we do not mean that Christ took his moral sayings from the\nbooks of these great Eastern teachers; there was no necessity that he\nshould go so far in search of them, for in the teachings of the Rabbis\nof his nation he found all of which he stood in need. Many of these\nteachings have been preserved in the more modern Talmud, grains of wheat\namid much chaff, the moral thoughts of some of the purest Jewish minds.\n\"Take the Talmud and study it, and then judge from what uninspired\nsource Jesus drew much of his highest teaching. 'Whoso looketh on the\nwife of another with a lustful eye, is considered as if he had committed\nadultery'--(Kalah). 'With what measure we mete, we shall be measured\nagain'--(Johanan). 'What thou wouldst not like to be done to thyself, do\nnot to others; this is the fundamental law'--(Hillel). 'If he be\nadmonished to take the splinter out of his eye, he would answer, Take\nthe beam out of thine own'--(Tarphon). 'Imitate God in his goodness. Be\ntowards thy fellow-creatures as he is towards the whole creation. Clothe\nthe naked; heal the sick; comfort the afflicted; be a brother to the\nchildren of thy Father.' The whole parable of the houses built on the\nrock and on the sand is taken out of the Talmud, and such instances of\nquotation might be indefinitely multiplied\" (\"On Inspiration;\" by Annie\nBesant; Scott Series, p. 20). From these founts Jesus drew his morality,\nand spoke as Jew to Jews, out of the Jewish teachings. To point out\nthese facts is by no means to disparage the nobler part of Christian\nmorality. It is rather to elevate Humanity by showing that pure thoughts\nand gracious words are human, not divine; that the so-called\n\"inspiration\" is in all races cultivated to a certain point, and not in\none alone; that morality is a fair blossom of earth, not a\nheaven-transplanted exotic, and grows naturally out of the rich soil of\nthe loving human heart and the noble human brain.\n\nWhat nobler or grander moral teachings can be found anywhere than\nbreathe through the following passages, taken from the \"bibles of all\nnations\" so ably collected for us by Mr. Corway in the \"Sacred\nAnthology\" quoted from above? \"Let a man continually take pleasure in\ntruth, in justice, in laudable practices and in purity; let him keep in\nsubjection his speech, his arm, and his appetites. Wealth and pleasures\nrepugnant to law, let him shun; and even lawful acts which may cause\npain, or be offensive to mankind. Let him not have nimble hands,\nrestless feet, or voluble eyes; let him not be flippant in his speech,\nnor intelligent in doing mischief. Let him walk in the path of good men\"\n(Manu, p. 7). \"He who neglecteth the duties of this life is unfit for\nthis, much less for any higher world\" (\"Bhagavat Gita,\" p. 26). \"Charity\nis the free gift of anything not injurious. If no benefit is intended,\nor the gift is harmful, it is not charity. There must also be the desire\nto assist, or to show gratitude. It is not charity when gifts are given\nfrom other considerations, as when animals are fed that they may be\nused, or presents given by lovers to bind affection, or to slaves to\nstimulate labour. It is found where man, seeking to diffuse happiness\namong all men--those he loves, and those he loves not--digs canals and\npools, makes roads, bridges, and seats, and plants trees for shade. It\nis found where, from compassion for the miserable and the poor, who have\nnone to help them, a man erects resting-places for wanderers, and\ndrinking-fountains, or provides food, raiment, medicine for the needy,\nnot selecting one more than another. This is true charity, and bears\nmuch fruit\" (\"Katha Chari,\" pp. 219, 220). \"Never will I seek, nor\nreceive, private individual salvation--never enter into final peace\nalone; but for ever, and everywhere, will I live and strive for the\nuniversal redemption of every creature throughout the world\" (Kwan-yin,\np. 233). \"All men have in themselves the feelings of mercy and pity, of\nshame and hatred of vice. It is for each one by culture to let these\nfeelings grow, or to let them wither. They are part of the organisation\nof men, as much as the limbs or senses, and may be trained as well. The\nmountain Nicon-chau naturally brings forth beautiful trees. Even when\nthe trunks are cut down, young shoots will constantly rise up. If cattle\nare allowed to feed there, the mountain looks bare. Shall we say, then,\nthat bareness is natural to the mountain? So the lower passions are let\nloose to eat down the nobler growths of reverence and love in the heart\nof man; shall we, therefore, say that there are no such feelings in his\nheart at all? Under the quiet peaceful airs of morning and evening the\nshoots tend to grow again. Humanity is the heart of man; justice is the\npath of man. To know heaven is to develop the principle of our higher\nnature\" (Mencius, pp. 275, 276). \"The first requisite in the pursuit of\nvirtue is, that the learner think of his own improvement, and do not act\nfrom a regard to (the admiration of) others\" (\"The She-King,\" p. 286).\n\"Benevolence, justice, fidelity, and truth, and to delight in virtue\nwithout weariness, constitute divine nobility\" (Mencius, p. 339).\n\"Virtue is a service man owes himself; and though there were no heaven,\nnor any God to rule the world, it were not less the binding law of life.\nIt is man's privilege to know the right and follow it. Betray and\nprosecute me, brother men! Pour out your rage on me, O malignant devils!\nSmile, or watch my agony with cold disdain, ye blissful gods! Earth,\nhell, heaven, combine your might to crush me--I will still hold fast by\nthis inheritance! My strength is nothing--time can shake and cripple it;\nmy youth is transient--already grief has withered up my days; my\nheart--alas! it seems well nigh broken now! Anguish may crush it\nutterly, and life may fail; but even so my soul, that has not tripped,\nshall triumph, and dying, give the lie to soulless destiny, that dares\nto boast itself man's master\" (\"Ramayana,\" pp. 340, 341). What Christian\napostle left behind him the records of such words as those of Confucius,\nboldly spoken to a king: \"Ke K'ang, distressed about the number of\nthieves in his kingdom, inquired of Confucius how he might do away with\nthem? The sage said, 'If you, sir, were not covetous, the people would\nnot steal, though you should pay them for it.' Ke K'ang asked, 'What do\nyou say about killing the unprincipled for the good of the principled?'\nConfucius said, 'In carrying out your government, why use killing at\nall? Let the rulers desire what is good, and the people will be good.\nThe grass must bend when the wind blows across it.' How can men who\ncannot rectify themselves, rectify others?\" (\"Analects of Confucius,\" p.\n358).\n\nIn \"The Wheel of the Law,\" by Henry Alabaster, we find some most\ninteresting information on the moral teaching of Buddhism, and the\nfollowing quotation is taken from one of the Sutras: \"On a certain\noccasion the Lord Buddha led a number of his disciples to a village of\nthe Kalamachou, where his wisdom and merit and holiness were known. And\nthe Kalamachou assembled, and did homage to him and said, 'Many priests\nand Brahmins have at different times visited us, and explained their\nreligious tenets, declaring them to be excellent, but each abused the\ntenets of every one else, whereupon we are in doubt as to whose religion\nis right and whose wrong; but we have heard that the Lord Buddha teaches\nan excellent religion, and we beg that we may be freed from doubt, and\nlearn the truth.' And the Lord Buddha answered, 'You were right to\ndoubt, for it was a doubtful matter. I say unto all of you, Do not\nbelieve in what ye have heard; that is, when you have heard anyone say\nthis is especially good or extremely bad; do not reason with yourselves\nthat if it had not been true, it would not have been asserted, and so\nbelieve in its truth. Neither have faith in traditions, because they\nhave been handed down for many generations and in many places. Do not\nbelieve in anything because it is rumoured and spoken of by many; do not\nthink that it is a proof of its truth. Do not believe merely because the\nwritten statement of some old sage is produced; do not be sure that the\nwriting has ever been revised by the said sage, or can be relied on. Do\nnot believe in what you have fancied, thinking that because an idea is\nextraordinary it must have been implanted by a Dewa, or some wonderful\nbeing. Do not believe in guesses, that is, assuming some thing at\nhaphazard as a starting-point, draw your conclusions from it; reckoning\nyour two and your three and your four before you have fixed your number\none. Do not believe because you think there is analogy, that is, a\nsuitability in things and occurrences, such as believing that there must\nbe walls of the world, because you see water in a basin, or that Mount\nMeru must exist because you have seen the reflection of trees: or that\nthere must be a creating God because houses and towns have builders....\nDo not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and masters, or\nbelieve and practise merely because they believe and practise. I tell\nyou all, you must of your own selves know that 'this is evil this is\npunishable, this is censured by wise men, belief in this will bring no\nadvantage to one, but will cause sorrow.' And when you know this, then\neschew it. I say to all you dwellers in this village, answer me this.\nLopho, that is covetousness, Thoso, that is anger and savageness, and\nMoho, that is ignorance and folly--when any or all of these arise in the\nhearts of men, is the result beneficial or the reverse?' And they\nanswered, 'It is not beneficial, O Lord!' Then the Lord continued,\n'Covetous, passionate, and ignorant men destroy life and steal, and\ncommit adultery, and tell lies, and incite others to follow their\nexample, is it not so?' And they answered, 'It is as the Lord says.' And\nhe continued, 'Covetousness, passion, ignorance, the destruction of\nlife, theft, adultery, and lying, are these good or bad, right or wrong?\nDo wise men praise or blame them? Are they not unprofitable, and causes\nof sorrow?' And they replied, 'It is as the Lord has spoken.' And the\nLord said, 'For this I said to you, do not believe merely because you\nhave heard, but when of your own consciousness you know a thing to be\nevil, abstain from it.' And then the Lord taught of that which is good,\nsaying, 'If any of you know of yourselves that anything is good and not\nevil, praised by wise men, advantageous, and productive of happiness,\nthen act abundantly according to your belief. Now I ask you, Alopho,\nabsence of covetousness, Athoso, absence of passion, Amoho, absence of\nfolly, are these profitable or not?' And they answered, 'Profitable.'\nThe Lord continued, 'Men who are not covetous, or passionate, or\nfoolish, will not destroy life, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor tell\nlies; is it not so?' And they answered, 'It is as the Lord says.' Then\nthe Lord asked, 'Is freedom from covetousness, passion, and folly, from\ndestruction of life, theft, adultery, and lying, good or bad, right or\nwrong, praised or blamed by wise men, profitable, and tending to\nhappiness or not?' And they replied, 'It is good, right, praised by the\nwise, profitable, and tending to happiness.' And the Lord said, 'For\nthis I taught you, not to believe merely because you have heard, but\nwhen you believed of your own consciousness, then to act accordingly and\nabundantly'\" (pp. 35-38). In this wise fashion did Buddha found his\nmorality, basing it on utility, the true measure of right and wrong.\nBuddhism has its Five Commandments, certainly equal in value to the Ten\nCommandments of Jews and Christians:--\n\n\"First. Thou shall abstain from destroying or causing the destruction of\nany living thing.\n\n\"Second. Thou shalt abstain from acquiring or keeping, by fraud or\nviolence, the property of another.\n\n\"Third. Thou shalt abstain from those who are not proper objects for thy\nlust.\n\n\"Fourth. Thou shalt abstain from deceiving others either by word or\ndeed.\n\n\"Fifth. Thou shalt abstain from intoxication\" (Ibid, p. 57).\n\nFrom Dr. Muir's translations of \"religious and moral sentiments,\"\nalready quoted from, we might fill page after page with purest morality.\n\"Let a man be virtuous even while yet a youth; for life is transitory.\nIf duty is performed, a good name will be obtained, as well as\nhappiness, here and after death\" (\"Mahabharata,\" xii., 6538, p. 22).\n\"Deluded by avarice, anger, fear, a man does not understand himself. He\nplumes himself upon his high birth, contemning those who are not\nwell-born; and overcome by the pride of wealth, he reviles the poor. He\ncalls others fools, and does not look to himself. He blames the faults\nof others, but does not govern himself. When the wise and the foolish,\nthe rich and the poor, the noble and the ignoble, the proud and the\nhumble, have departed to the cemetery and all sleep there, their\ntroubles are at an end, and their bodies are stripped of flesh, little\nelse than bones, united by tendons--other men then perceive no\ndifference between them, whereby they could recognise a distinction of\nbirth or of form. Seeing that all sleep, deposited together in the\nearth, why do men foolishly seek to treat each other injuriously? He\nwho, after bearing this admonition, acts in conformity therewith from\nhis birth onwards, shall attain the highest blessedness\" (Ibid, xi. 116,\np. 23).\n\nSuch are a few of the moral teachings current in the East before the\ntime of Christ. Since that period, these non-Christian nations have gone\non in their paths, and many a gem of pure morality might be culled from\ntheir later writings, but we have only here presented teachings that\nwere pre-Christian, so as to prove how little need there was for a God\nto become incarnate to teach morality to the world. \"Revealed morality\"\nhas nothing grander to say than this earth-born morality, nothing\nsublimer comes from Jud\u00e6a than comes from Hindustan and from China. Just\nas the symbolism of Christianity comes from nature, and is common to\nmany creeds, so does the morality of Christianity flow from nature, and\nis common to many faiths; when nations attain to a certain stage of\ncivilisation, and inherit a certain amount of culture, they also develop\na morality proportionate to the point they have reached, because\nmorality is necessary to the stability of States, and utility formulates\nthe code of moral laws. Christianity can no longer stand on a pinnacle\nas the sole possessor of a pure and high morality. The pedestal she has\noccupied is built out of the bricks of ignorance, and her apostles and\nher master must take rank among their brethren of every age and clime.\n\nIt is a serious fault in Christian morality that it has so many\nOMISSIONS in it. It is full of exhortations to bear, to suffer, to be\npatient; it sorely lacks appeals to patriotism, to courage, to\nself-respect. \"The heroes of Paganism exemplified the heroism of\nenterprise. Patriotism, chivalrous deeds of valour, high-souled\naspirations after glory, stern justice taking its course in their hands,\nwhile natural feeling was held in abeyance--this was the line in which\nthey shone. Our blessed Lord illustrated all virtues indeed, but most\nespecially the passive ones. His heroism took its colouring from\nendurance. Women, though inferior to men in enterprise, usually come out\nbetter than men in suffering; and it is always to be remembered that our\nblessed Lord held his humanity, not of the stronger, but of the weaker\nsex\" (\"Thoughts on Personal Religion,\" by Dean Goulburn, vol. ii., p.\n99; ed. 1866). What is this but to say, in polite language, that Jesus\nwas very effeminate? The Christian religion has all the vices of\nslavery, and encourages submission to evil instead of resistance to it;\nit has in it the pathetic beauty of the meekness of the bruised and\nbeaten wife still loving the injurer, of the slave forgiving the\nslave-driver, but it is a beauty which perpetuates the wrong of which it\nis born. Better, far better, both for oppressor and for oppressed, is\nresistance to cruelty than submission to it; submission encourages the\nwrong-doer where resistance would check him, and Christianity fails in\nthat it omits to value strong men and true patriots, rebels against\nauthority which is unjust. Rome taught its citizens to reverence\nthemselves, to love their country, to maintain freedom: the Roman would\ndie gladly for his mother-country, and deemed his duty as a citizen the\nforemost of his obligations. The love of country, and the sense of\nservice owed to the State, is the grandest and sublimest virtue of the\nPagan world. All felt it, from the highest to the lowest: at Thermopylae\nthe Spartans died gladly for the land they covered with their bodies,\nfaithful unto death to the duty entrusted to them by their country; men\nand women equally felt the paramount claim of the State, and mothers\ngave their sons to death rather than that they should fail in duty\nthere. The Roman was taught to value the Republic above its officers; to\nresist the highest if he grasped at unfair supremacy; to maintain\ninviolate the rights and the liberties of the people. Christianity\nundermined all these manly virtues; it preached obedience to \"the powers\nthat be,\" whether they were good or bad; it upheld the authority of a\nNero as \"ordained of God,\" and pronounced damnation on those who\nresisted him; and so it paved the way for the despotism of the Middle\nAges, by crushing out the manhood of the nations, and fashioning them\ninto Oriental slaves. Little wonder that kings embraced Christianity,\nand forced it on their subjects, for it placed the nations bound at\ntheir footstools, and endorsed the tyranny of man with the authority of\nGod. Throughout the New Testament what word is there of patriotism? The\ncitizenship is in heaven. What incitement to heroism? Resist not the\npower. What appeal to self-reverence? In my flesh dwelleth no good\nthing. What cry against injustice and oppression? Honour the king, and\ngive obedience to the froward. Christianity makes a paradise for tyrants\nand a hell for the oppressed.\n\nIntertwined with the evil of omissions of duty is the direct injury of\ncommanding NON-RESISTANCE, and of enforcing INDIFFERENCE TO EARTHLY\nCARES. \"I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall\nsmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any\nman will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy\ncloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him\ntwain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of\nthee turn not thou away\" (Matt. v. 39-42). The surface meaning of these\nwords is undeniable; they are the amplification of the command, \"resist\nnot evil.\" What effect would obedience to these injunctions have upon a\nState? None committing an assault would be punished; every unjust suit\nwould succeed; every forced concession would be endorsed; every beggar\nwould live in luxury; every borrower would spend at will. Nay more;\nthose who did wrong would be rewarded, and would be thus encouraged to\ngo on in their evil ways. Meanwhile, the man who was insulted would be\nagain struck; the poor man who had lost one thing would lose two; the\nhard-working, frugal labourer would have to support the beggar and the\nborrower out of the fruits of his toil. Such is Christ's code of civil\nlaws: he is deliberately abrogating the Mosaic code, \"an eye for an eye\nand a tooth for a tooth,\" and is replacing it by his own. If the Mosaic\nlaw is to be taken literally--as it was--that which is to replace it\nmust also be taken literally, or else one code would be abolished, and\nthere would be none to succeed it, so that the State would be left in a\ncondition of lawlessness. Suppose, however, that we allow that the\npassage is to be taken metaphorically, what then? A metaphor must mean\n_something_: what does this metaphor mean? It can scarcely signify the\nexact opposite of what it intimates, and yet the exact opposite is true\nmorality. Only a system of taking Christ's words \"contrariwise\" can make\nthem useful as civil rules, and even \"oriental exaggeration\" can\nscarcely be credited with saying the diametrically contrary of its real\nmeaning. But it is urged that, if all men were Christians, then this\nteaching would be right, and Christ was bound to give a perfect\nmorality. That is to say, if people were different to what they are,\nthis teaching of Christ would not be injurious because--it would be\nunneeded! If there were no robbers, and no assaulters, and no borrowers,\nthen the morality of the Sermon on the Mount would be most harmless.\nHigh praise, truly, for a legislator that his laws would not be\ninjurious when they were no longer needed. Christ should have remembered\nthat the \"law is made for sinners,\" and that such a law as he gives here\nis a direct encouragement to sin.\n\nWe can scarcely wonder that, inculcating a course of conduct which must\ninevitably lead to poverty, Christ should hold up a state of poverty as\ndesirable. We read in Matthew v. 3, \"Blessed are the poor _in spirit_\"\nand it is contended that it is poverty only of spirit which Christ\nblesses; if so, he blesses the source of much wretchedness, for\npoor-spirited people get trampled down, and are a misery to themselves\nand a burden to those about them. If, however, we turn to Luke vi. 20,\nwe find the declaration: \"Blessed are ye poor,\" addressed directly to\nhis Apostles, who were anything but poor in spirit (Luke ix. 46, and\nxxii. 24); and we find it, further, joined with the announcement,\n\"blessed are ye that hunger now,\" and followed by the curses: \"Woe unto\nyou that are rich ... woe unto you that are full.\" If \"hunger\" means\n\"hunger after righteousness,\" the antithesis \"full\" must also mean \"full\nof righteousness,\" a state on which Christ would surely not pronounce a\nwoe. Mr. Bradlaugh well draws out the various thoughts in these most\nunfortunate sayings: \"Is poverty of spirit the chief amongst virtues,\nthat Jesus gives it the prime place in his teaching? Is poverty of\nspirit a virtue at all? Surely not. Manliness of spirit, honesty of\nspirit, fulness of rightful purpose, these are virtues; but poverty of\nspirit is a crime. When men are poor in spirit, then do the proud and\nhaughty in spirit oppress and trample upon them, but when men are true\nin spirit and determined (as true men should be) to resist and prevent\nevil, wrong, and injustice whenever they can, then is there greater\nopportunity for happiness here, and no lesser fitness for the enjoyment\nof future happiness, in some may be heaven, hereafter. Are you poor in\nspirit, and are you smitten; in such case what did Jesus teach? 'Unto\nhim that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other' (Luke vi.\n29). It were better far to teach that 'he who courts oppression shares\nthe crime.' Rather say, if smitten once, take careful measures to\nprevent a future smiting. I have heard men preach passive resistance,\nbut this teaches actual invitation of injury, a course degrading in the\nextreme ... the poverty of spirit principle is enforced to the fullest\nconceivable extent--'Him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take\nthy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that\ntaketh away thy goods ask them not again' (Luke vi. 29, 30). Poverty of\nperson is the only possible sequence to this extraordinary manifestation\nof poverty of spirit. Poverty of person is attended with many\nunpleasantnesses; and if Jesus knew that poverty of goods would result\nfrom his teaching, we might expect some notice of this. And so there\nis--as if he wished to keep the poor content through their lives with\npoverty, he says, 'Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God'\n(Luke vi. 20) ... Poor in spirit and poor in pocket. With no courage to\nwork for food, or money to purchase it, we might well expect to find the\nman who held these doctrines with empty stomach also; and what does\nJesus teach? 'Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled'\n... Craven in spirit, with an empty purse and hungry mouth--what next?\nThe man who has not manliness enough to prevent wrong, will probably\nbemoan his hard fate, and cry bitterly that so sore are the misfortunes\nhe endures. And what does Jesus teach? 'Blessed are ye that weep now,\nfor ye shall laugh' (Luke vi. 21) ... Jesus teaches that the poor, the\nhungry, and the wretched shall be blessed. This is not so. The blessing\nonly comes when they have ceased to be poor, hungry, and wretched.\nContentment under poverty, hunger, and misery is high treason, not to\nyourself alone but to your fellows. These three, like foul diseases,\nspread quickly wherever humanity is stagnant and content with wrong\"\n(\"What Did Jesus Teach?\" pp. 1-3).\n\nBut Jesus did more than panegyrise poverty; he gave still more exact\ndirections to his disciples as to how poverty should be attained. Matt.\nvi. 25-34 is as mischievous a passage as has been penned by any\nmoralist. \"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye\nshall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.\" It is said\nthat \"take no thought\" means, \"be not over anxious;\" if this be so, why\ndoes Christ emphasise it by quoting birds and lilies as examples,\nthings, which, literally, take _no_ thought? the argument is: birds do\nnot store food in barns, yet God feeds them. You are more valuable than\nthe birds. God will take equal care of you if you follow the birds'\nexample. The lilies spin no raiment, yet God clothes them. So shall he\nclothe you, if you follow their example. The passage has no meaning, the\nillustrations no appositeness, unless Christ means that _no_ thought is\nto be taken for the future. He makes the argument still stronger: \"the\nGentiles seek\" meat, drink, and clothing. But God, your Father, knows\nyour need for all these things. Therefore, \"seek ye first the kingdom of\nGod and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.\nTake, therefore, no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take\nthought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil\nthereof.\" If Christ only meant the common-place advice, \"do not be\nover-anxious,\" he then lays the most absurd stress on it, and speaks in\nthe most exaggerated way. Sensible Gentiles do not worry themselves by\nover-anxiety, after they have taken for the morrow's needs all the care\nthey can; but they do not act like birds or like lilies, for they know\nthat many a bird starves in a hard winter because it is not capable of\ngathering and storing food into barns, and that many a garbless lily is\nshrivelled up by the cold east wind. They notice that though men and\nwomen are \"much better than\" birds and lilies, yet God does not always\nfeed and clothe them; that, on the contrary, many a poor creature dies\nof starvation and of winter's bitter cold; when our daily papers record\nno inquests on those who die from want, because none but God takes\nthought for them, then it will be time enough for us to cease from\npreparing for the morrow, and to trust that \"heavenly Father\" who at\npresent \"knoweth that\" we \"have need of these things,\" and, knowing,\nlets so many of his children starve for lack of them.\n\nThe true meaning of Christ is plainly shown by his injunctions to the\ntwelve apostles and to the seventy when he sent them on a journey: \"Take\nnothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, nor\nmoney; neither have two coats apiece\" (Luke ix. 3); and: \"Carry neither\npurse, nor scrip, nor shoes ... in the same house remain, eating and\ndrinking such things as they give\" (Ibid, x. 4, 7). The same spirit\nbreathes in his injunction to the young man: \"Go and sell that thou\nhast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and\ncome and follow me\" (Matt. xix. 21). The fact is that Jesus held the\nascetic doctrine, that poverty was, in itself, meritorious; and, in\ncommon with many sects, he regarded the highest life as the life of the\nmendicant teacher. His doctrine of poverty passed on into the Church\nthat bears his name, and one of the three vows taken by those who aspire\nto lead \"the angelic life\" is the vow of poverty. The mendicant friars\nof the Middle Ages, the \"sturdy beggars,\" are the lineal descendants of\nthe Eastern mendicants, and are the fruits of the morality taught by\nChrist. On this point, as on many others, the morality of the Epistles\nis far higher than that of the Gospels, and the common-sense and\nrighteous law, \"that if any would not work neither should he eat\" is,\nhowever, incompatible with Christ's admiration for mendicancy, a far\nmore wholesome and salutary kind of moral teaching than that which we\nhave been considering.\n\nThe dogma of rewards and punishments as taught by Christ is fatal to all\nreality of virtue. To do right from hope of heaven: to avoid wrong for\nfear of hell: such virtue is only skin-deep, and will not stand rough\nusage. True virtue does right because it _is_ right, and therefore\nbeneficial, and not from hope of a personal reward, or from dread of a\npersonal punishment, hereafter. Christianity is the apotheosis of\nselfishness, gilded over with piety; self is the pivot on which all\nturns: \"What shall it _profit_ a man if he gain the whole world, and\nlose _his own_ soul?\" (Mark viii. 36). \"He that receiveth a prophet in\nthe name of a prophet _shall receive a prophet's reward_; and he that\nreceiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man _shall receive\na righteous man's reward_. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of\nthese little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple,\nverily I say unto you, he _shall in nowise lose his reward_\" (Matt. x.\n41, 42). \"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, _him will I\nconfess also_ before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall\ndeny me before men, _him will I also deny_ before my Father which is in\nheaven\" (Ibid, 32, 33). \"Pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy\nFather, which seeth in secret, _shall reward thee_ openly\" (Ibid, vi.\n6). \"We have forsaken all and followed thee: _what shall we have\ntherefore_?... When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,\n_ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones_\" (Matt. xix. 27, 28). The\npassages might be multiplied; but these are sufficient to show the\nthorough selfishness inculcated. All is done with an eye to personal\ngain in the future; even the cold water is to be given, not because the\n\"little one\" is thirsty and needs it, but for the reward promised\ntherefore to the giver. Pure, generous love is excluded: there is a\ntaint of selfishness in every gift.\n\nThe thought of Heaven is also injurious to human welfare, because men\nlearn to disregard earth for the sake of \"the glory to be revealed.\"\nPeople whose \"citizenship is in heaven,\" make but sorry citizens of\nearth, for they regard this world as \"no continuing city,\" while they\n\"seek one to come.\" Hence, as all history shows us, they are apt to\ndespise this world while dreaming about another, to trouble little about\nearth's wrongs while thinking of the mansions in the skies; to acquiesce\nin any assertion that \"the whole world lieth in wickedness,\" and to\ntrouble themselves but little as to the means of improving it. From this\nline of thought follows the long list of monasteries and nunneries,\nwherein people \"separate\" themselves from this world in order to\n\"prepare\" for another. All this evil flows directly from the Christian\nmorality which teaches that all hopes, efforts, and aims should be\nturned towards laying up treasures in heaven, where also the heart\nshould be. One need scarcely add a word of reprobation as to the\nhorrible doctrine of eternal torture, although that, too, is part of the\nteaching of Christ. The whole conscience of civilised mankind is so\nturning against that shameful and cruel dogma, that it is only now\nbelieved among the illiterate and uncultured of the Christians, and soon\nwill be too savage even for them. It has, however, hardened the hearts\nof many in days gone by, and has made the burning of heretics seem an\nappropriate act of faith, since men only began on earth the roasting\nwhich God was to continue to all eternity.\n\nThe morality of Christ is also faulty because it shares in the\npersecuting spirit of the Mosaic code. The disciples are told:\n\"Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart\nout of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily, I\nsay unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and\nGomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city\" (Matt. x. 14, 15).\nChrist proclaims openly: \"Think not that I am come to send peace on\nearth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man\nat variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and\nthe daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be\nthey of his own household\" (Ibid, 34-36). To a man whom he calls to\nfollow him, and who asks to be allowed first to bury his father, Christ\ngives the brutal reply: \"Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and\npreach the kingdom of God\" (Luke x. 60). Another time he says: \"If any\nman come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and\nchildren, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he\ncannot be my disciple\" (Ibid, xiv. 26). A religion that destroys the\nhome, that introduces discord into the family, that bids its votaries\nhate all else save Christ, acts as a disintegrating force in human life,\nand cannot be too strongly opposed.\n\nNeither must we forget the teaching of Christ regarding marriage. He\ndeliberately places virginity above marriage, and counsels\nself-mutilation to those capable of making the sacrifice. \"All men\ncannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given ... there be\neunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's\nsake. _He that is able to receive it, let him receive it_\" (Matt. xix.\n11, 12). Following this, 1 Cor. vii. teaches the superiority of an\nunmarried state, and threatens \"trouble in the flesh\" to those who\nmarry. And in Rev. xiv. 1-4, we find, following the Lamb, with special\nprivileges, 144,000 who \"were not defiled with women; for they are\nvirgins.\" This coarse and insulting way of regarding women, as though\nthey existed merely to be the safety-valves of men's passions, and that\nthe best men were above the temptation of loving them, has been the\nsource of unnumbered evils. To this saying of Christ are due the\nself-mutilations of many, such as Origen, and the destruction of myriads\nof human lives in celibacy; monks and nuns innumerable owe to this evil\nteaching their shrivelled lives and withered hearts. For centuries the\nleaders of Christian thought spoke of women as of a necessary evil, and\nthe greatest saints of the Church are those who despised women the most.\nThe subjection of women in Western lands is wholly due to Christianity.\nAmong the Teutons women were honoured, and held a noble and dignified\nplace in the tribe; Christianity brought with it the evil Eastern habit\nof regarding women as intended for the toys and drudges of man, and\nintensified it with a special spite against them, as the daughters of\nEve, who was first \"deceived.\" Strangely different to the *general\nEastern feeling and showing a truer and nobler view of life, is the\nprecept of Manu: \"Where women are honoured, there the deities are\npleased; but where they are dishonoured, there all religious acts become\nfruitless\" (\"Anthology,\" p. 310).\n\nEvil also is the teaching that repentance is higher than purity: \"joy\nshall be in heaven over one sinner that repenth, _more than_ over ninety\nand nine just persons which need no repentance\" (Luke xv. 7, 10). The\nfatted calf is slain for the prodigal son, who returns home after he has\nwasted all his substance; and to the laborious elder son, during the\nmany years of his service, the father never gave even a kid that he\nmight make merry with his friends (Ibid, 29). What is all this but\nputting a premium upon immorality, and instructing people that the more\nthey sin, the more joyous will be their welcome whenever they may choose\nto reform, and, like the prodigal, think to mend their broken fortunes\nby repentance?\n\nThoroughly immoral is the teaching contained in the two parables in Luke\nxvi. In the one, a steward who has wasted his master's goods, is\ncommended because he went and bribed his employer's debtors to assist\nhim, by suggesting to them that they should cheat his master by altering\nthe amount of the bills they owed him. In the other, the parable of the\nrich man and Lazarus, the evil moral is taught that riches are in\nthemselves deserving of punishment, and poverty of reward. The rich man\nis in hell simply because he was rich, and the poor man in Abraham's\nbosom simply because he was poor; it can scarcely add, one may remark,\nto the pleasure of heaven for the Lazaruses all to look at the Diveses,\nand be unable to reach them, even to give them a single drop of water.\n\nThus whether we see that the nobler part of the Christian morality is\npre-Christian, and is neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Hindu, nor\nBuddhist, but is simply human, and belongs to the race and not to one\ncreed. Whether we note the omissions in its code, making it insufficient\nfor human guidance; whether we mark its errors, mistakes, and injurious\nteachings; whichever point of view we take from which to consider it, we\nfind in it nothing to distinguish it above other moral codes, or to\nprevent it from being classed among other moralities, as being a mixture\nof good and bad, and, therefore, not to be taken as an, unerring guide,\nbeing like them, all FALLIBLE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX TO SECTION III. OF PART II.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX OF BOOKS USED.\n\nBhagavat Gita, in Anthology...406\nBradlaugh, The Bible: what it is...397\n   \"       What Did Jesus Teach?...414\nBuddha, in Anthology...403, 405\n   \"       Wheel of the Law...408\n\nCahen, L\u00e9vitique...398\nColenso, Pentateuch and Book of Joshua...396\nConfucius, in Anthology...403, 404, 408\n\nDante, Inferno...403\nDhammapada, in Anthology...403\n\nGouldburn, Thoughts on Personal Religion...411\n\nKalisch, Leviticus...399, 400, 401\nKatha-Chari, in Anthology...407\nKwan-yin, in Anthology...407\n\nLao-Tsze, in Anthology...403, 404\n\nMahabharata, in Muir...410\nManu, in Anthology...404, 405, 406, 419\nMencius, in Anthology...407\n\nPrayer Book, Art. vi. vii....395\n\nRamayana, in Anthology...407\n\nSabaean Book of the Law, in Anthology...404, 405\nShelley, Queen Mab...402\nShe-King, in Anthology...407\nStatutes, 9 and 10 William III. cap. 32...395\n\nTalmud, quoted by Besant...405\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\nChristian morality, compared with others...403\n   \"                degrading to women...419\n   \"                immoral towards sin...419\n   \"                non-original...403\n   \"                non-resistant...412\n   \"                omissions in...411\n   \"                paved way for despotism...412\n   \"                persecuting in spirit...418\n   \"                sanctions mendicancy...416\n   \"                selfish...417\n   \"                what included in...395\n\nHeaven and Hell, harm done by belief in...417\nHeroism of Paganism...412\nHuman sacrifice, sanctioned by God...398\n   \"             among Jews...398\n\nMarriage, teaching of Christ concerning...419\nMorality of great Pagan teachers...406\n   \" compared with that of Christ...403\nMurder of blasphemer, sanctioned by God...397\n   \"      heretics...401\n\nOrdeal, sanctioned by God...401\n\nPoverty inculcated by Christ...414\nProstitution, sanctioned by God...402\n\nReligion, evil of...402\n\nSale of daughter sanctioned by God...396\n   \"    thief...396\nSlaves, beaten to death...396\nSlavery, sanctioned by God...396, 397\n\nUnthrift taught by Christ...415\nUtility the test of morality...411\n   \" religion according to Buddha...408\n\nValue of Christianity to tyrants...412\n\nWitches, number of killed...397\nWitch-murder, sanctioned by God...397\n\n\n\n\nSECTION  IV.--ITS HISTORY.\n\n\nThis section does not pretend, within the short limits of some fifty\npages, to give even a complete summary of Christian history. It proposes\nonly to draw up an impeachment against Christianity from the facts of\nits history which occurred in the day of its power, from the time of\nConstantine, up to the time of the Reformation. If it be urged that\nChristianity was corrupt during this period, and ought not therefore to\nbe judged by it, we can only reply that, corrupt or not, it is the only\nChristianity there was, and if only bad fruit is brought forth, it is\nfair to conclude that the tree which bears nothing else is also bad. If\nthe bishops, and clergy, and missionaries were ignorant, sensual,\ntyrannical, and superstitious, they are none the less the\nrepresentatives of Christianity, and if these are not true Christians,\n_where are the true Christians_ from A.D. 324 to A.D. 1,500?\n\nWe propose, in this section, to practically condense the dark side of\nMosheim's \"Ecclesiastical History,\" as translated from the Latin by Dr.\nA. Maclaine (ed. 1847), only adding, here and there, extracts from other\nwriters; all extracts, therefore, except where otherwise specified, will\nbe taken from this valuable history, a history which, perhaps from its\nsize and dryness, is not nearly so much studied by Freethinkers as it\nshould be; its special worth for our object is that Dr. Mosheim is a\nsincere Christian, and cannot, therefore, be supposed to strain any\npoint unduly against the religion to which he himself belongs.\n\nDuring the second and third centuries the Christians appear to have\ngrown in power and influence, and their faith, made up out of many older\ncreeds and forming a kind of eclectic religion, gradually spread\nthroughout the Roman empire, and became a factor in political problems.\nIn the struggles between the opposing Roman emperors, A.D. 310-324, the\nweight of the Christian influence was thrown on the side of Constantine,\nhis rivals being strongly opposed to Christianity; Maximin Galerius was\na bitter persecutor, and his successor, Maximin, trod in his steps in\nA.D. 312, and 313, Maxentius was defeated by Constantine, and Maximin by\nLicinius, and in A.D. 312 Constantine and Licinius granted liberty of\nworship to the Christians; in the following year, according to Mosheim,\nor in A.D. 314 according to Eusebius, a second edict was issued from\nMilan, by the two emperors, which granted \"to the Christians and to all,\nthe free choice to follow that mode of worship which they may wish ...\nthat no freedom at all shall be refused to Christians, to follow or to\nkeep their observances or worship; but that to each one power be granted\nto devote his mind to that worship which he may think adapted to\nhimself\" (Eusebius, \"Eccles. Hist.\" p. 431). Licinius, however, renewed\nthe war against Constantine, who immediately embraced Christianity, thus\nsecuring to himself the sympathy and assistance of the faith which now\nfor the first time saw its votary on the imperial throne of the world,\nand Licinius, by allying himself with Paganism, and persecuting the\nChristians, drove them entirely over to Constantine, and was finally\ndefeated and dethroned, A.D. 324. From that date Christianity was\nsupreme, and became the established religion of the State. Dr. Draper\nregards the conversion of Constantine from the point of view taken\nabove. He says: \"It had now become evident that the Christians\nconstituted a powerful party in the State, animated with indignation at\nthe atrocities they had suffered, and determined to endure them no\nlonger. After the abdication of Diocletian (A.D. 305), Constantine, one\nof the competitors for the purple, perceiving the advantages that would\naccrue to him from such a policy, put himself forth as the head of the\nChristian party. This gave him, in every part of the empire, men and\nwomen ready to encounter fire and sword in his behalf; it gave him\nunwavering adherents in every legion of the armies. In a decisive\nbattle, near the Milvian bridge, victory crowned his schemes. The death\nof Maximin, and subsequently that of Licinius, removed all obstacles. He\nascended the throne of the C\u00e6sars--the first Christian emperor. Place,\nprofit, power--these were in view of whoever now joined the conquering\nsect. Crowds of worldly persons, who cared nothing about its religious\nideas, became its warmest supporters. Pagans at heart, their influence\nwas soon manifested in the Paganisation of Christianity that forthwith\nensued. The emperor, no better than they, did nothing to check their\nproceedings. But he did not personally conform to the ceremonial\nrequirements of the Church until the close of his evil life, A.D. 337\"\n(\"History of the Conflict between Religion and Science,\" p. 39; ed.\n1875). Constantine, in fact, was not baptised until a few days before\nhis death.\n\nThe character of the first Christian emperor is not one which strikes us\nwith admiration. As emperor he sank into \"a cruel and dissolute monarch,\ncorrupted by his fortune, or raised by conquest above the necessity of\ndissimulation ... the old age of Constantine was disgraced by the\nopposite yet reconcilable vices of rapaciousness and prodigality\"\n(Gibbon's \"Decline and Fall,\" vol. ii., p. 347). He was as effeminate as\nhe was vicious. \"He is represented with false hair of various colours,\nlaboriously arranged by the skilful artists of the time; a diadem of a\nnew and more expensive fashion; a profusion of gems and pearls, of\ncollars and bracelets, and a variegated flowing robe of silk, most\ncuriously embroidered with flowers of gold.\" To his other vices he added\nmost bloodthirsty cruelty. He strangled Licinius, after defeating him;\nmurdered his own son Crispus, his nephew Licinius, and his wife Fausta,\ntogether with a number of others. It must indeed have needed an\nefficacious baptism to wash away his crimes; and \"future tyrants were\nencouraged to believe that the innocent blood which they might shed in a\nlong reign would instantly be washed away in the waters of regeneration\"\n(Ibid, pp. 471, 472).\n\nThe wealth of the Christian churches was considerable during the third\ncentury, and the bishops and clergy lived in much pomp and luxury.\n\"Though several [bishops] yet continued to exhibit to the world\nillustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian virtue, yet many\nwere sunk in luxury and voluptuousness, puffed up with vanity,\narrogance, and ambition, possessed with a spirit of contention and\ndiscord, and addicted to many other vices that cast an undeserved\nreproach upon the holy religion of which they were the unworthy\nprofessors and ministers. This is testified in such an ample manner by\nthe repeated complaints of many of the most respectable writers of this\nage, that truth will not permit us to spread the veil which we should\notherwise be desirous to cast over such enormities among an order so\nsacred.... The example of the bishops was ambitiously imitated by the\npresbyters, who, neglecting the sacred duties of their station,\nabandoned themselves to the indolence and delicacy of an effeminate and\nluxurious life. The deacons, beholding the presbyters deserting thus\ntheir functions, boldly usurped their rights and privileges; and the\neffects of a corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of the\nsacred order\" (p. 73). During this century also we find much scandal\ncaused by the pretended celibacy of the clergy, for the\npeople--regarding celibacy as purer than marriage, and considering that\n\"they, who took wives, were of all others the most subject to the\ninfluence of malignant demons\"--urged their clergy to remain celibate,\n\"and many of the sacred order, especially in Africa, consented to\nsatisfy the desires of the people, and endeavoured to do this in such a\nmanner as not to offer an entire violence to their own inclinations. For\nthis purpose, they formed connections with those women who had made vows\nof perpetual chastity; and it was an ordinary thing for an ecclesiastic\nto admit one of these fair saints to the participation of his bed, but\nstill under the most solemn declarations, that nothing passed in this\ncommerce that was contrary to the rules of chastity and virtue\" (p. 73).\nSuch was the morality of the clergy as early as the third century!\n\nThe doctrine of the Church in these primitive times was as confused as\nits morality was impure. In the first century (during which we really\nknow nothing of the Christian Church), Dr. Mosheim, in dealing with\n\"divisions and heresies,\" points to the false teachers mentioned in the\nNew Testament, and the rise of the Gnostic heresy. Gnosticism (from\n[Greek: gnosis] knowledge), a system compounded of Christianity and\nOriental philosophy, long divided the Church with the doctrines known as\northodox. The Gnostics believed in the existence of the two opposing\nprinciples of good and evil, the latter being by many considered as the\ncreator of the world. They held that from the Supreme God emanated a\nnumber of \u00c6ons--generally put at thirty; (see throughout \"Iren\u00e6us\nAgainst Heresies\")--and some maintained that one of these, Christ,\ndescended on the man Jesus at his baptism, and left him again just\nbefore his passion; others that Jesus had not a real, but only an\napparent, body of flesh. The Gnostic philosophy had many forms and many\ninterdivisions; but most of the \"heresies\" of the first centuries were\nbranches of this one tree: it rose into prominence, it is said, about\nthe time of Adrian, and among its early leaders were Marcion, Basilides,\nand Valentinus. In addition to the various Gnostic theories, there was a\ndeep mark of division between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians; the\nformer developed into the sects, of Nazarenes and Ebionites, but were\nnaturally never very powerful in the Church. In the second century, as\nthe Christians become more visible, their dissensions are also more\nclearly marked; and it is important to observe that there is no period\nin the history of Christianity wherein those who laid claim to the name\n\"Christian\" were agreed amongst themselves as to what Christianity was.\nGnosticism we see now divided into two main branches, Asiatic and\nEgyptian. The Asiatic believed that, in addition to the two principles\nof good and evil, there was a third being, a mixture of both, the\nDemiurgus, the creator, whose son Jesus was; they maintained that the\nbody of Jesus was only apparent; they enforced the severest discipline\nagainst the body, which was evil, in that it was material; and marriage,\nflesh, and wine were forbidden. The Elcesaites were a judaising branch\nof this Asiatic Gnosticism; Saturninus of Antioch, Ardo of Syria, and\nMarcion of Pontus headed the movement, and after them Lucan, Severus,\nBlastes, Apelles, and Bardesanes formed new sects. Tatian (see ante, pp.\n259, 260) had many followers called Tatianists, and in connection with\nhim and his doctrines we hear of the Eucratites, Hydroparastates (the\nwater-drinkers), and Apotactites. The Eucratites appear to have been in\nexistence before Tatian professed Gnosticism, but he so increased their\ninfluence as to be sometimes regarded as their founder. The Egyptian\nGnostics were less ascetic, and mostly favoured the idea that Jesus had\na real body on which the \u00c6on descended and joined himself thereunto.\nThey regarded him as born naturally of Joseph and Mary. Basilides, and\nValentinus headed the Egyptians, and then we have as sub-divisions the\nCarpocratians, Ptolemaites, Secundians, Heracleonites, Marcosians,\nAdamites, Cainites, Sethites, Florinians, Ophites, Artemonites, and\nHermogenists; in addition to these we have the Monarchians or\nPatripassians, who maintained that there was but one God, and that the\nFather suffered (whence this name) in the person of Christ. This long\nlist may be closed with the Montanists, a sect joined by Tertullian (see\nhis account of the orthodox after he became a Montanist, ante, p. 225);\nthey held that Montanes, their founder, was the Paraclete promised by\nChrist, missioned to complete the Christian code; he forbade second\nmarriages, the reception into the Church of those who had been\nexcommunicated for grievous sin, and inculcated the sternest asceticism.\nHe opposed all learning as anti-Christian, a doctrine which was rapidly\nspreading among Christians, and which seems, indeed, to have been an\nintegral part of the religion from its very beginning (Matt. xi. 25, 1\nCor. i. 26, 27). In the third century the heretic camp received a new\nlight in the person of Manes, or Manich\u00e6us, a Persian magus; he appears\nto have been a man of great learning, a physician, an astronomer, a\nphilosopher. He taught the old Persian creed tinctured with\nChristianity, Christ being identical with Mithras (see ante, p. 362),\nand having come upon earth in an apparent body only to deliver mankind.\nManes was the paraclete sent to complete his teaching; the body was\nevil, and only by long struggle and mortification could man be delivered\nfrom it, and reach final blessedness. Those who desired to lead the\nhighest life, _the elect_, abstained from flesh, eggs, milk, fish, wine,\nand all intoxicating drink, and remained in the strictest celibacy; they\nwere to live on bread, herbs, pulse, and melons, and deny themselves\nevery comfort and every gratification (see pp. 80-82). The Hieracites in\nEgypt were closely allied with the Manich\u00e6ans. The Novatians differed\nfrom the orthodox only in their refusal to receive again into the Church\nany who had committed grievous crimes, or who had lapsed during\npersecution. The Arabians denied the immortality of the soul,\nmaintaining that it died with the body, and that body and soul together\nwould be revivified by God. The controversies on the persons of the\nGodhead now increased in intensity. Noctus of Smyrna maintained the\ndoctrine of the Patripassians, that God was one and indivisible, and\nsuffered to redeem mankind; Sabellius also taught that God was one, but\nthat Jesus was a man, to whom was united a \"certain energy only,\nproceeding from the Supreme Parent\" (p. 83). He also denied the separate\npersonality of the Holy Ghost. Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch,\ntaught a cognate doctrine, and founded the sect of the Paulians or\nPaulianists, and was consequently degraded from his office. Thus we see\nthat the history of the Church, before it came to power, is a mass of\nquarrels and divisions, varied by ignorance and licentiousness. If we\nexclude Origen, whose writings contain much that is valuable, the works\nproduced by Christian writers in these centuries might be thrown into\nthe sea, and the world would be none the poorer for the loss.\n\n\nCENTURY IV.\n\n\nConstantine attained undisputed and sole authority A.D. 324, and in the\nyear 325 he summoned the first general council, that of Nicea, or Nice,\nwhich condemned the errors of Arius, and declared Christ to be of the\nsame substance as the Father. This council has given its name to the\n\"Nicene Creed,\" although that creed, as now recited, differs somewhat\nfrom the creed issued at Nice, and received its present form at the\nCouncil of Constantinople, A.D. 381. During the reign of Constantine,\nthe Church grew swiftly in power and influence, a growth much aided by\nthe penal laws passed against Paganism. The moment Christianity was able\nto seize the sword, it wielded it remorselessly, and cut its way to\nsupremacy in the Roman world. Bribes and penalties shared together in\nthe work of conversion. \"The hopes of wealth and honours, the example of\nan emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles, diffused\nconviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually fill the\napartments of a palace. The cities, which signalised a forward zeal by\nthe voluntary destruction of their temples, were distinguished by\nmunicipal privileges and rewarded with popular donatives; and the new\ncapital of the East gloried in the singular advantage that\nConstantinople was never profaned by the worship of idols. As the lower\nranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those who\npossessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soon\nfollowed by dependent multitudes. The salvation of the common people was\npurchased at an easy rate, if it be true, that, in one year, twelve\nthousand men were baptised at Rome, besides a proportionable number of\nwomen and children; and that a white garment, with twenty pieces of\ngold, had been promised by the emperor to every convert\" (Gibbon's\n\"Decline and Fall,\" vol. ii. pp. 472, 473). With Constantine began the\nruinous system of dowering the Church with State funds. The emperor\ndirected the treasurers of the province of Carthage to pay over to the\nbishop of that district \u00a318,000 sterling, and to honour his further\ndrafts. Constantine also gave his subjects permission to bequeath their\nfortunes to the Church, and scattered public money among the bishops\nwith a lavish hand. The three sons of Constantine followed in his steps,\n\"continuing to abrogate and efface the ancient superstitions of the\nRomans, and other idolatrous nations, and to accelerate the progress of\nthe Christian religion throughout the empire. This zeal was no doubt,\nlaudable; its end was excellent; but, in the means used to accomplish\nit, there were many things worthy of blame\" (p. 88). Julian succeded to\npart of the empire in A.D. 360, and to sole authority in A.D. 361. He\nwas educated as a Christian, but reverted to philosophic Paganism, and\nduring his short reign he revoked the special privileges granted to\nChristianity, and placed all creeds on the most perfect civil equality.\nJulian's dislike of Christianity, and his philosophic writings directed\nagainst it, have gained for him, from Christian writers, the title of\n\"the Apostate.\" The emperors who succeeded were, however, all Christian,\nand used their best endeavours to destroy Paganism. Christianity spread\napace; \"multitudes were drawn into the profession of Christianity, not\nby the power of conviction and argument, but by the prospect of gain,\nand the fear of punishment\" (p. 102). \"The zeal and diligence with which\nConstantine and his successors exerted themselves in the cause of\nChristianity, and in extending the limits of the Church, prevent our\nsurprise at the number of barbarous and uncivilised nations, which\nreceived the Gospel\" (p. 90); and Dr. Mosheim admits that: \"There is no\ndoubt but that the victories of Constantine the Great, the fear of\npunishment, and the desire of pleasing this mighty conqueror and his\nimperial successors, were the weighty arguments that moved whole\nnations, as well as particular persons, to embrace Christianity\" (p.\n91). Fraud, as well as force and favour, lent its aid to the progress of\n\"the Gospel.\" We hear of the \"imprudent methods employed to allure the\ndifferent nations to embrace the Gospel\" (p. 98): \"disgraceful\" would be\na fitter term whereby to designate them, for Dr. Mosheim speaks of \"the\nendless frauds of those odious impostors, who were so far destitute of\nall principles, as to enrich themselves by the ignorance and errors of\nthe people. Rumours were artfully spread abroad of prodigies and\nmiracles to be seen in certain places (a trick often practised by the\nheathen priests), and the design of these reports was to draw the\npopulace, in multitudes, to these places, and to impose upon their\ncredulity ... Nor was this all; certain tombs were falsely given out for\nthe sepulchres of saints and confessors. The list of the saints was\naugmented by fictitious names, and even robbers were converted into\nmartyrs. Some buried the bones of dead men in certain retired places,\nand then affirmed that they were divinely admonished, by a dream, that\nthe body of some friend of God lay there. Many, especially of the monks,\ntravelled through the different provinces; and not only sold, with most\nfrontless impudence, their fictitious relics, but also deceived the eyes\nof the multitude with ludicrous combats with evil spirits or genii. A\nwhole volume would be requisite to contain an enumeration of the various\nfrauds which artful knaves practised, with success, to delude the\nignorant, when true religion was almost entirely superseded by horrid\nsuperstition\" (p. 98). When to all these weapons we add the forgeries\neverywhere circulated (see ante, pp. 240-243), we can understand how\nrapidly Christianity spread, and how \"the faithful\" were rendered\npliable to those whose interests lay in deceiving them. During this\ncentury flourished some of the greatest fathers of the Church,\npre-eminent among whom we note Ambrose, of Milan, Augustine, of Hippo,\nand the great ecclesiastical doctor, Jerome. Already, in this century,\nwe find clear traces of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and \"when a\nnew pontiff was to be elected by the suffrages of the presbyters and the\npeople, the city of Rome was generally agitated with dissensions,\ntumults, and cabals, whose consequences were often deplorable and fatal\"\n(p. 94). By a decree of the Council of Constantinople, the bishop of\nthat city was given precedence next after the Roman prelate, and the\njealousy which arose between the bishops of the two imperial cities\nfomented the disputes which ended, finally, in the separation of the\nEastern and Western Churches. Of the officers of the Church in this\ncentury we read that: \"The bishops, on the one hand, contended with each\nother, in the most scandalous manner, concerning the extent of their\nrespective jurisdictions, while, on the other, they trampled upon the\nrights of the people, violated the privileges of the inferior ministers,\nand imitated, in their conduct, and in their manner of living, the\narrogance, voluptuousness, and luxury of magistrates and princes\" (pp.\n95, 96).\n\nIn this century is the first instance of the burning alive of a heretic,\nand it was Spain who lighted that first pile. Theodosius, of all the\nemperors of this age, was the bitterest persecutor of the heretic sects.\n\"The orthodox emperor considered every heretic as a rebel against the\nsupreme powers of heaven and of earth; and each of those powers might\nexercise their peculiar jurisdiction over the soul and body of the\nguilty.... In the space of fifteen years [A.D. 380-394], he promulgated\nat least fifteen severe edicts against the heretics; more especially\nagainst those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity; and to deprive\nthem of every hope of escape, he sternly enacted, that if any laws or\nrescripts should be alleged in their favour, the judges should consider\nthem as the illegal productions either of fraud or forgery.... The\nheretical teachers ... were exposed to the heavy penalties of exile and\nconfiscation, if they presumed to preach the doctrine, or to practise\nthe rites of their _accursed_ sects.... Their religious meetings,\nwhether public or secret, by day or by night, in cities or in the\ncountry, were equally proscribed by the edicts of Theodosius: and the\nbuilding or ground, which had been used for that illegal purpose, was\nforfeited to the imperial domain. It was supposed, that the error of the\nheretics could proceed only from the obstinate temper of their minds;\nand that such a temper was a fit object of censure and punishment....\nThe sectaries were gradually disqualified for the possession of\nhonourable or lucrative employments; and Theodosius was satisfied with\nhis own justice, when he decreed, that as the Eunonians distinguished\nthe nature of the Son from that of the Father, they should be incapable\nof making their wills, or of receiving any advantages from testamentary\ndonations\" (Gibbon's \"Decline and Fall,\" vol. iii. pp. 412, 413).\n\nOne important event of this century must not be omitted, the dispersion\nof the great Alexandrine library, collected by the Ptolemies. In the\nsiege of Alexandria by Julius C\u00e6sar, the Philadelphian library in the\nmuseum, containing some 400,000 volumes, had been burned; but there\nstill remained the \"daughter library\" in the Serapion, containing about\n300,000 books. During the episcopate of Theophilus, predecessor of\nCyril, a riot took place between the Christians and the Pagans, and the\nlatter \"held the Serapion as their head-quarters. Such were the disorder\nand bloodshed that the emperor had to interfere. He despatched a\nrescript to Alexandria, enjoining the bishop, Theophilus, to destroy the\nSerapion; and the great library, which had been collected by the\nPtolemies, and had escaped the fire of Julius C\u00e6sar, was by that fanatic\ndispersed\" (\"Conflict of Religion and Science,\" p. 54), A.D. 389. To\nChristian bigotry it is that we owe the loss of these rich treasures of\nantiquity.\n\nHeresies grew and strengthened during this fourth century. Chief leader\nin the heretic camp was Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria; he asserted\nthat the Son, although begotten of the Father before the creation of\naught else, was not \"of the same substance\" as the Father, but only \"of\nlike substance;\" a vast number of the Christians embraced his\ndefinition, and thus began the long struggle between the Arians and the\nCatholics. Arius also \"took the ground that there was a time when, from\nthe very nature of sonship, the Son did not exist, and a time at which\nhe commenced to be, asserting that it is the necessary condition of the\nfilial relation that a father must be older than his son. But this\nassertion evidently denied the co-eternity of the three persons of the\nTrinity; it suggested a subordination or inequality among them, and\nindeed implied a time when the Trinity did not exist. Hereupon the\nbishop, who had been the successful competitor against Arius [for the\nepiscopate], displayed his rhetorical powers in public debates on the\nquestion, and, the strife spreading, the Jews and Pagans, who formed a\nvery large portion of the population of Alexandria, amused themselves\nwith theatrical representations of the contest on the stage--the point\nof their burlesques being the equality of age of the Father and his Son\"\n(Ibid, p. 53). Gibbon quotes an amusing passage to show how widely\nspread was the interest in the subject debated between the rival\nparties: \"This city is full of mechanics and slaves, who are all of them\nprofound theologians, and preach in the shops and in the streets. If you\ndesire a man to change a piece of silver, he informs you wherein the Son\ndiffers from the Father; if you ask the price of a loaf, you are told,\nby way of reply, that the Son is inferior to the Father; and if you\ninquire whether the bath is ready, the answer is, that the Son was made\nout of nothing\" (Gibbon's \"Decline and Fall,\" vol. iii. p. 402). Arius\nmaintained that \"the _Logos_ was a dependent and spontaneous production,\ncreated from nothing by the will of the Father. The Son, by whom all\nthings were made, had been begotten before all worlds, and the longest\nof the astronomical periods could be compared only as a fleeting moment\nto the extent of his duration; yet this duration was not infinite, and\nthere _had_ been a time which preceded the ineffable generation of the\n_Logos_.... He governed the universe in obedience to the will of his\nFather and Monarch\" (Ibid, pp. 18,19). The \"Nicene creed\" of the\nPrayer-book consists of the creed promulgated by the Council of Nice,\nwith the anathema at the end omitted, and with the addition of some\nphrases joined to it at the Council at Constantinople, and the insertion\nof the Filioque. At the Council of Nice, Arius was condemned and\nbanished, to the triumph of his great opponent, Athanasius; but he was\nrecalled in A.D. 330, obtained the banishment of Athanasius in A.D. 335,\nand died suddenly, under very suspicious circumstances, in A.D. 336.\nThroughout this century the struggle proceeded furiously, each party in\nturn getting the upper hand, as the emperor of the time inclined towards\nCatholicism or towards Arianism, and each persecuting the adherents of\nthe other. Among Arian subdivisions we find Semi-Arians, Eusebians,\nAetians, Eunomians, Acasians, Psathyrians, etc. Then we have the\nApollinarians, who maintained that Christ had no human soul, the\ndivinity supplying its place; the Marcellians, who taught that a divine\nemanation descended on Christ. Allied to the Manich\u00e6an heresy were the\nPriscillians, the Saccophori, the Solitaries, and many others; and, in\naddition, the Messalians or Euchites, the Luciferians, the Origenists,\nthe Antidicomarianites, and the Collyridians. A quarrel about the\nconsecration of a bishop gave rise to fierce struggles not connected\nwith the doctrine, so much as with the discipline of the Church. The\nBishops of Numidia were angered by not having been called to the\nconsecration of C\u00e6cilianus Bishop of Carthage, and, assembling together,\nthey elected and consecrated a rival bishop to that see, and declared\nC\u00e6cilianus incompetent for the episcopal office. Donatus, Bishop of Casa\nNigra, was the foremost of these Numidian malcontents, and from him the\nsect of Donatists took its name; they denied the orders of those\nordained by C\u00e6cilianus, and hence the validity of the Sacraments\nadministered by them. Excommunicated themselves, \"they boldly\nexcommunicated the rest of mankind who had embraced the impious party of\nC\u00e6cilianus, and of the traditors, from whom he derived his pretended\nordination. They asserted with confidence, and almost with exultation,\nthat the apostolical succession was interrupted, that _all_ the bishops\nof Europe and Asia were infected by the contagion of guilt and schism,\nand that the prerogatives of the Catholic Church were confined to the\nchosen portion of the African believers, who alone had preserved\ninviolate the integrity of their faith and discipline. This rigid theory\nwas supported by the most uncharitable conduct. Whenever they acquired a\nproselyte, even from the distant provinces of the east, they carefully\nrepeated the sacred rites of baptism and ordination; as they rejected\nthe validity of those which he had already received from the hands of\nheretics or of schismatics\" (Gibbon's \"Decline and Fall,\" vol. iii. pp.\n5, 6). A number of Donatists, known as Circumcelliones, \"maintained\ntheir cause by the force of arms, and overrunning all Africa, filled\nthat province with slaughter and rapine, and committed the most enormous\nacts of perfidy and cruelty against the followers of Caecilianus\" (p.\n109). To complete the darkly terrible picture of the Church in the\nfourth century, we need only note the various orders of fanatical monks,\nfilthy in their habits, densely ignorant, hopelessly superstitious,\namongst whom may be numbered the travelling mendicants called\nSarabaites. \"Many of the Coenobites were chargeable with vicious and\nscandalous practices. This order, however, was not so universally\ncorrupt as that of the Sarabaites, who were, for the most part,\nprofligates of the most abandoned kind\" (p. 102). The pen wearies over\nthe list of scandals of these early Christian ages; we can but sketch\nthe outline here; let the student fill the picture in, and he will find\neven blacker shades needed to darken it enough.\n\n\nCENTURY V.\n\n\nThis century sees the destruction of the Roman Empire of the West, and\nthe rise into importance of the great Gothic monarchies. The Christian\nemperors of the East put down paganism with a strong hand, conferring\nstate offices on Christians only, and forbidding pagan ceremonies\n[unless under Christian names]. The sons of Constantine had pronounced\nthe penalty of death and confiscation against any who sacrificed to the\nold gods; and Theodosius, in A.D. 390, had forbidden, under heavy\npenalties, all pagan rites. This work of repression was rigorously\ncarried on. Clovis, king of the Franks, embraced Christianity, finding\nits profession \"of great use to him, both in confirming and enlarging\nhis empire\" (p. 117); and many of the barbarous tribes were \"converted\nto the faith\" by means of pretended miracles, \"pious frauds ... very\ncommonly practised in Gaul and in Spain at this time, in order to\ncaptivate, with more facility, the minds of a rude and barbarous people,\nwho were scarcely susceptible of a rational conviction\" (pp. 117, 118).\nThe supremacy of the see of Rome advanced with rapid strides during this\ncentury. The people depending, in their superstitious ignorance, on the\nclergy, and the clergy on the bishops, it became the interest of the\nsavage kings to be on friendly terms with the latter, and to increase\ntheir influence; and as the bishops, in their turn, leant upon the\ncentral authority of Rome, the power of the pontiff rapidly increased.\nThis power was still further augmented by the struggles for supremacy\namong the Eastern bishops, for by favouring sometimes one and sometimes\nanother, he fostered the habit of looking to Rome for aid. In the East,\nfive \"patriarchs\" were raised over the rest of the bishops, the\nPatriarch of Constantinople standing at their head. Thus, East and West\ndrifted ever more apart. Mosheim speaks of \"the ambitious quarrels and\nthe bitter animosities that rose among the patriarchs themselves, and\nwhich produced the most bloody wars, and the most detestable and horrid\ncrimes. The Patriarch of Constantinople distinguished himself in these\nodious contests. Elated with the favour and proximity of the Imperial\nCourt, he cast a haughty eye on all sides, where any objects were to be\nfound on which he might exercise his lordly ambition. On the one hand,\nhe reduced under his jurisdiction the Patriarchs of Alexandria and\nAntioch, as prelates only of the second order; and on the other, he\ninvaded the diocese of the Roman Pontiff, and spoiled him of several\nprovinces. The two former prelates, though they struggled with vehemence\nand raised considerable tumults by their opposition, yet they struggled\nineffectually, both for want of strength, and likewise on account of a\nvariety of unfavourable circumstances. But the Roman Pontiff, far\nsuperior to them in wealth and power, contended also with more vigour\nand obstinacy; and, in his turn, gave a deadly wound to the usurped\nsupremacy of the Byzantine Patriarch. The attentive inquirer into the\naffairs of the Church, from this period, will find, in the events now\nmentioned, the principal source of those most scandalous and deplorable\ndissensions which divided first the Eastern Church into various sects,\nand afterwards separated it entirely from that of the West. He will find\nthat these ignominious schisms flowed chiefly from the unchristian\ncontentions for dominion and supremacy which reigned among those who set\nthemselves up for the fathers and defenders of the Church\" (p. 123).\n\nLearning during this century fell lower and lower, in spite of the\nschools established and fostered by the emperors, and while knowledge\ndiminished, vice increased. \"The vices of the clergy were now carried to\nthe most enormous lengths; and all the writers of this century, whose\nprobity and virtue render them worthy of credit, are unanimous in their\naccounts of the luxury, arrogance, avarice, and voluptuousness of the\nsacerdotal orders. The bishops, particularly those of the first rank,\ncreated various delegates or ministers, who managed for them the affairs\nof their dioceses, and a sort of courts were gradually formed, where\nthese pompous ecclesiastics gave audience, and received the homage of a\ncringing multitude\" (p. 123). Superstition performed its maddest freak\nin the Stylites, men \"who stood motionless on the tops of pillars;\" the\noriginal maniac being one Simon, a Syrian, who actually spent\nthirty-seven years of his life on pillars, the last of which was forty\ncubits high. Another of the same class spent sixty-eight years in this\nuseful manner (see pp. 128, 129, and _note_). The Agapae were abolished,\nand auricular confession was established, during this century.\n\nAmong the bishops of this century, one name deserves an immortality of\ninfamy. It is that of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Under his rule took\nplace the terrible murder of Hypatia, that pure and beautiful Platonic\nteacher, who was dragged by a fanatic mob, headed by Peter the Reader,\ninto the great church of Alexandria, and tortured to death on the steps\nof the high altar. Cyril's \"hold upon the audiences of the giddy city\n[Alexandria] was, however, much weakened by Hypatia, the daughter of\nTheon, the mathematician, who not only distinguished herself by her\nexpositions of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, but also by her\ncomments on the writings of Apollonius and other geometers. Each day,\nbefore her academy, stood a long train of chariots; her lecture-room was\ncrowded with the wealth and fashion of Alexandria.... Hypatia and Cyril!\nPhilosophy and bigotry. They cannot exist together. So Cyril felt, and\non that feeling he acted. As Hypatia repaired to her academy, she was\nassaulted by Cyril's mob--a mob of many monks. Stripped naked in the\nstreet, she was dragged into a church, and there killed by the club of\nPeter the Reader [A.D. 415]. The corpse was cut to pieces, the flesh was\nscraped from the bones with shells, and the remnants cast into a fire.\nFor this frightful crime Cyril was never called to account. It seemed to\nbe admitted that the end sanctified the means\" (Draper's \"Conflict\nbetween Religion and Science,\" p. 55).\n\nThe heresies of the last century were continued in this, and various new\nones arose. Chief among these was the heresy of Nestorius, a Bishop of\nConstantinople, who distinguished so strongly between the two natures in\nChrist as to make a double personality, and he regarded the Virgin Mary\nas mother of _Christ_, but not mother of _God_. The Council of Ephesus\n(A.D. 431) was called to decide the point, and was presided over by the\ngreat antagonist of Nestorius, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. The matter\nwas settled very quickly. Church Councils vote on disputed points, and\nthe vote of the majority constitutes orthodoxy. The Council was held\nbefore the arrival of the bishops who sympathised with Nestorius, and\nthus, by the simple expedient of getting everything over before the\nopponents arrived, it was settled for evermore that Christ is one person\nwith two natures. A heresy of the very opposite character was that of\nEutyches, abbot of the monastery in Constantinople. He maintained that\nin Christ there was only one nature, \"that of the incarnate word,\" and\nhis opinion was endorsed by a council called at Ephesus, A.D. 449; but\nthis decree was annulled by the Council of Chalcedon (reckoned the\nfourth OEcumenical), A.D. 451, wherein it was again declared that Christ\nhad two natures in one person. It was at the Council of Ephesus, in A.D.\n449, that Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, was so beaten by the\nother bishops that he died of his wounds, and the bishops who held with\nhim hid themselves under benches to get out of the way of their\ninfuriate brothers in Christ (see notes on pp. 136, 137). The\nTheopaschites were a branch of the Eutychian heresy, and the\nMonophysites were a cognate sect; from these arose the Acephali,\nAnthropomorphites, Barsanuphites, and Esaianists. Not less important\nthan the heresy of Eutyches was that of Pelagius, a British monk, who\ntaught that man did not inherit original sin on account of Adam's fall,\nbut that each was born unspotted into the world, and was capable of\nrising to the height of virtue by the exercise of his natural faculties.\nThe semi-Pelagians held that man could turn to God by his own strength,\nbut that divine grace was necessary to enable him to persevere.\n\nOne heretic of this period deserves a special word of record.\nVigilantius was a Gallic priest, remarkable for his eloquence and\nlearning, and he devoted himself to an effort to reform the Church in\nSpain. \"Among other things, he denied that the tombs and the bones of\nthe martyrs were to be honoured with any sort of homage or worship; and\ntherefore censured pilgrimages that were made to places that were\nreputed holy. He turned into derision the prodigies which were said to\nbe wrought in the temples consecrated to martyrs, and condemned the\ncustom of performing vigils in them. He asserted, and indeed with\nreason, that the custom of burning tapers at the tombs of the martyrs in\nbroad day, was imprudently borrowed from the ancient superstition of the\nPagans. He maintained, moreover, that prayers addressed to departed\nsaints were void of all efficacy; and treated with contempt fastings and\nmortifications, the celibacy of the clergy, and the various austerities\nof the monastic life. And finally he affirmed that the conduct of those\nwho, distributing their substance among the indigent, submitted to the\nhardships of a voluntary poverty, or sent a part of their treasures to\nJerusalem for devout purposes, had nothing in it acceptable to the\nDeity\" (p. 129). Under these circumstances we can scarcely wonder that\nVigilantius was scouted as a heretic by all orthodox, lucre-loving\nclerics. He is the forerunner of a long line of protesters against the\never-growing strength and superstition of the Church.\n\n\nCENTURY VI.\n\n\nThe darkness deepens as we proceed. Christianity spread among the\nbarbarous tribes of the East and West, but \"it must, however, be\nacknowledged, that of these conversions, the greatest part were owing to\nthe liberality of the Christian princes, or to the fear of punishment,\nrather than to the force of argument or to the love of truth. In Gaul,\nthe Jews were compelled by Childeric to receive the ordinance of\nbaptism; and the same despotic method of converting was practised in\nSpain\" (p. 141). \"They required nothing of these barbarous people that\nwas difficult to be performed, or that laid any remarkable restraint\nupon their appetites and passions. The principal injunctions they\nimposed upon these rude proselytes were that they should get by heart\ncertain summaries of doctrine, and to pay the images of Christ and the\nsaints the same religious services which they had formerly offered to\nthe statues of the gods\" (p. 142). Libraries were formed in many of the\nmonasteries, and schools were opened, but apparently only for those who\nintended to enter the monastic life; these, however, did not flourish,\nfor many bishops showed \"bitter aversion\" towards \"every sort of\nlearning and erudition, which they considered as pernicious to the\nprogress of piety\" (p. 144). \"Greek literature was almost everywhere\nneglected.... Philosophy fared still worse than literature; for it was\nentirely banished from all the seminaries which were under the\ninspection and government of the ecclesiastical order\" (Ibid). The\nwealth of the Church grew apace. \"The arts of a rapacious priesthood\nwere practised upon the ignorant devotion of the simple; and even the\nremorse of the wicked was made an instrument of increasing the\necclesiastical treasure. For an opinion was propagated with industry\namong the people, that the remission of their sins was to be purchased\nby their liberalities to the churches and monks\" (p. 146). \"The monastic\norders, in general, abounded with fanatics and profligates; the _latter_\nwere more numerous than the _former_ in the Western convents, while in\nthose of the East the fanatics were predominant\" (ibid). It was in this\ncentury (A.D. 529) that the great Benedictine rule was composed by\nBenedict of Nursia. The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553, is reckoned\nas the fifth general Council. It is said to have condemned the doctrines\nof Origen, thus summarised by Mosheim:--\"1. That in the Trinity the\n_Father_ is greater than the _Son_, and the _Son_ than the _Holy Ghost_.\n2. The _pre-existence_ of souls, which Origen considered as sent into\nmortal bodies for the punishment of sins committed in a former state of\nbeing. 3. That the _soul_ of Christ was united to the _word_ before the\nincarnation. 4. That the sun, moon, and stars, etc., were animated and\nendowed with rational souls. 5. That after the resurrection all bodies\nwill be of a round figure. 6. That the torments of the damned will have\nan end; and that as Christ had been crucified in this world to save\nmankind, he is to be crucified in the next to save the devils\" (p. 151,\nnote). Among the various notabilities of this age none are specially\nworthy attention, save Brethius, Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great,\nBenedict of Nursia, Gregory of Tours, and Isidore of Seville. The\nheresies of former centuries continued during this, and several\nunimportant additional sects sprang up. The Monophysites gained in\nstrength under Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, and became known as Jacobites,\nand exist to this day in Abyssinia and America. Six small sects grew up\namong the Monophysites and died away again, which held varying opinions\nabout the nature of the body of Christ We find also the Corrupticol\u00e6,\nAgnoet\u00e6, Tritheists, Philoponists, Cononites, and Damianists, the four\nlast of which differed as to the nature of the Trinity. Thus was rent\ninto innumerable factions the supposed-to-be-indivisible Christianity,\nand the most bloody persecutions disgraced the uppermost party of the\nmoment.\n\n\nCENTURY VII.\n\n\nMany are the missionary enterprises of this century, and we find the\nmissionaries grasping at temporal power, and exercising a \"princely\nauthority over the countries where their ministry had been successful\"\n(p. 157). Learning had almost vanished; \"they, who distinguished\nthemselves most by their taste and genius, carried their studies little\nfarther than the works of Augustine and Gregory the Great; and it is of\nscraps collected out of these two writers, and patched together without\nmuch uniformity, that the best productions of this century are entirely\ncomposed.... The schools which had been committed to the care and\ninspection of the bishops, whose ignorance and indolence were now become\nenormous, began to decline apace, and were in many places, fallen into\nruin. The bishops in general were so illiterate, that few of that body\nwere capable of composing the discourses which they delivered to the\npeople. Such of them as were not totally destitute of genius, composed\nout of the writings of Augustine and Gregory a certain number of insipid\nhomilies, which they divided between themselves, and their stupid\ncolleagues, that they might not be obliged through incapacity to\ndiscontinue preaching the doctrines of Christianity to their people\" (p.\n159). \"The progress of vice among the subordinate rulers and ministers\nof the Church was, at this time, truly deplorable.... In those very\nplaces, that were consecrated to the advancement of piety and the\nservice of God, there was little else to be seen than ghostly ambition,\ninsatiable avarice, pious frauds, intolerable pride, and a supercilious\ncontempt of the natural rights of the people, with many other vices\nstill more enormous\" (p. 161). The wealth of the Church increased\nrapidly; it grew fat on the wages of sin. \"Abandoned profligates, who\nhad passed their days in the most enormous pursuits, and whose guilty\nconsciences filled them with terror and remorse, were comforted with the\ndelusive hopes of obtaining pardon, and making atonement for their\ncrimes by leaving the greatest part of their fortune to some monastic\nsociety. Multitudes, impelled by the unnatural dictates of a gloomy\nsuperstition, deprived their children of fertile lands and rich\npatrimonies in favour of the monks, by whose prayers they hoped to\nrender the Deity propitious\" (p. 161). The only new sect of any\nimportance in this century is that of the Monothelites, later known as\nMaronites; they taught that Christ had but one will, but the doctrine is\nwrapped up in so many subtleties as to be almost incomprehensible. They\nwere condemned, in the sixth General Council, held at Constantinople,\nA.D. 680. It was during this century that \"Boniface V. enacted that\ninfamous law, by which the churches became places of refuge to all who\nfled thither for protection; a law which procured a sort of impunity to\nthe most enormous crimes, and gave a loose rein to the licentiousness of\nthe most abandoned profligates\" (p. 164). The effect of this law was\nthat the monasteries became the refuge of bandits and murderers, who\nissued from them to plunder and to destroy, and paid for the security of\ntheir persons by bestowing on their hosts a portion of the spoil they\nhad collected during their raids. Such were the civilizing and purifying\neffects of Christianity.\n\n\nCENTURY VIII.\n\n\nWinfred, better known as Boniface, \"the Apostle of Germany,\" is,\nperhaps, the chief ecclesiastical figure of this century. He taught\nChristianity right through Germany; was consecrated bishop in A.D. 723,\ncreated archbishop in A.D. 738, and Primate of Germany and Belgium in\nA.D. 746; in A.D. 755 he was murdered in Friesland, with fifty other\necclesiastics. Much stress is laid upon his martyrdom by Christian\nwriters, but Boniface, after all, only received from the Frieslanders\nthe measure he had meted out to their brethren, and there seems no good\nreason why Christian missionaries should claim a monopoly of the right\nto kill. Mosheim allows that he \"often employed violence and terror, and\nsometimes artifice and fraud\" (p. 169) in order to gain converts, and he\nwas supported by Charles Martel, the enemy of Friesland, and appeared\namong the Germans as the friend and agent of their foes. A few years\nlater, Charlemagne spread Christianity among the Saxons with great\nvigour. For \"a war broke out, at this time, between Charlemagne and the\nSaxons, which contributed much to the propagation of Christianity,\nthough not by the force of a rational persuasion. The Saxons were, at\nthis time, a numerous and formidable people, who inhabited a\nconsiderable part of Germany, and were engaged in perpetual quarrels\nwith the Franks concerning their boundaries, and other matters of\ncomplaint. Hence Charlemagne turned his armies against this powerful\nnation, A.D. 772, with a design not only to subdue that spirit of revolt\nwith which they had so often troubled the empire, but also to abolish\ntheir idolatrous worship, and engage them to embrace the Christian\nreligion. He hoped, by their conversion, to vanquish their obstinacy,\nimagining that the divine precepts of the Gospel would assuage their\nimpetuous and restless passions, mitigate their ferocity, and induce\nthem to submit more tamely to the government of the Franks. These\nprojects were great in idea, but difficult in execution; accordingly,\nthe first attempt to convert the Saxons, after having subdued them, was\nunsuccessful, because it was made without the aid of violence, or\nthreats, by the bishops and monks, whom the victor had left among that\nconquered people, whose obstinate attachment to idolatry no arguments\nnor exhortations could overcome. [Mark the _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ of this\nconfession.] More forcible means were afterwards used to draw them into\nthe pale of the Church, in the wars which Charlemagne carried on in the\nyears 775, 776, and 780, against that valiant people, whose love of\nliberty was excessive, and whose aversion to the restraints of\nsacerdotal authority was inexpressible. During these wars their\nattachment to the superstition of their ancestors was so warmly combated\nby the allurements of reward, by the terror of punishment, and by the\nimperious language of victory, that they suffered themselves to be\nbaptised, though with inward reluctance, by the missionaries, which the\nemperor sent among them for that purpose\" (p. 170). Rebellion broke out\nonce more, headed by the two most powerful Saxon chiefs, but they were\nwon over by Charlemagne, who persuaded them \"to make a public and solemn\nprofession of Christianity, in the year 785, and to promise an adherence\nto that divine religion for the rest of their days. To prevent, however,\nthe Saxons from renouncing a religion which they had embraced with\nreluctance, several bishops were appointed to reside among them, schools\nalso were erected, and monasteries founded, that the means of\ninstruction might not be wanting. The same precautions were employed\namong the Huns in Pannonia, to maintain in the profession of\nChristianity that fierce people whom Charlemagne had converted to the\nfaith, when, exhausted and dejected by various defeats, they were no\nlonger able to make head against his victorious arms, and chose rather\nto be Christians than slaves\" (p. 170). The grateful Church canonized\nCharlemagne, the brutal soldier who had so enlarged her borders; \"not to\nenter into a particular detail of his vices, whose number\ncounter-balanced that of his virtues, it is undeniably evident that his\nardent and ill-conducted zeal for the conversion of the Huns,\nFrieslanders, and Saxons, was more animated by the suggestions of\nambition, than by a principle of true piety; and that his main view in\nthese religious exploits was to subdue the converted nations under his\ndominion, and to tame them to his yoke, which they supported with\nimpatience, and shook off by frequent revolts. It is, moreover, well\nknown, that this boasted saint made no scruple of seeking the alliance\nof the infidel Saracens, that he might be more effectually enabled to\ncrush the Greeks, notwithstanding their profession of the Christian\nreligion\" (p. 171). Thus was Christianity spread by fire and sword, and\nwhere-ever the cross passed it left its track in blood. While the\nsoldiers thus converted the heathen, \"the clergy abandoned themselves to\ntheir passions without moderation or restraint; they were distinguished\nby their luxury, their gluttony, and their lust\" (p. 173). To these\nevils was added that of gross deception, for a bad clergy used bad\nweapons; false miracles abounded in every direction; \"the corrupt\ndiscipline that then prevailed admitted of those fallacious stratagems,\nwhich are very improperly called _pious_ frauds; nor did the heralds of\nthe gospel think it at all unlawful to terrify or to allure to the\nprofession of Christianity, by fictitious prodigies, those obdurate\nhearts which they could not subdue by reason and argument\" (p. 171). The\nwealth of the Church increased year by year. \"An opinion prevailed\nuniversally at this time, though its authors are not known, that the\npunishment which the righteous judge of the world has reserved for the\ntransgressions of the wicked, was to be prevented and annulled by\nliberal donations to God, to the saints, to the churches and clergy. In\nconsequence of this notion, the great and opulent--who were, generally\nspeaking, the most remarkable for their flagitious and abominable\nlives--offered, out of the abundance which they had received by\ninheritance or acquired by rapine, rich donations to departed saints,\ntheir ministers upon earth, and the keepers of the temples that were\nerected in their honour, in order to avoid the sufferings and penalties\nannexed by the priests to transgression in this life, and to escape the\nmisery denounced against the wicked in a future state. This new and\ncommodious method of making atonement for iniquity was the principal\nsource of those immense treasures which, from this period, began to flow\nin upon the clergy, the churches, and monasteries, and continued to\nenrich them through succeeding ages down to the present time\" (p. 174).\nAnother source of wealth is to be found in the desire of the kings of\nthe various warring tribes to attach to themselves the bishop and clergy\nin their dominions; by bestowing on these lands and dignities they\nsecured to themselves the aid which the Church officials had it in their\npower to render, for not only could bishops bring to the support of\ntheir suzerain the physical succour of armies, but they could also\nlaunch against his enemies that terrible bolt of mediaeval times,\nexcommunication, which, \"rendered formidable by ignorance, struck terror\ninto the boldest and most resolute hearts\" (p. 174). In these latter\ngifts we see the origin of the temporalities and titles attached to\nepiscopal sees and to cathedral chapters. During this century the power\nof the Roman Pontiff swelled to an enormous degree, and his sway\nextended into civil and political affairs: so supreme an authority had\nhe become that, in A.D. 751, the Frankish states of the realm--convoked\nby Pepin to sanction his design of seizing on the French throne, then\noccupied by Childeric III.--directed that an embassy should be sent to\nthe Pope Zachary, to ask whether it was not right that a weak monarch\nshould be dethroned; and on the answer of the Pope in the affirmative\nbeing received, Childeric was dethroned without opposition, and Pepin\nwas crowned in his stead.\n\nIn the East, the Church was torn with dissensions, while the imperial\nthrone was rocking under the repeated attacks of the Turks--a tribe\ndescended from the Tartars--who entered Armenia, struggled with the\nSaracens for dominion, subdued them partially, and then turned their\narms against the Greek empire. The great controversy of this century is\nthat on the worship of images, between the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae\n(image worshippers), and the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae (image\nbreakers). The Emperor Bardanes, a supporter of the Monothelite heresy,\nordered that a picture representing the sixth general council should be\nremoved from the Church of St. Sophia, because that council had\ncondemned the Monothelites. Not content with doing this (A.D. 712),\nBardanes sent an order to Rome that all pictures and images of the same\nnature should be removed from places of worship. Constantine, the Pope,\nimmediately set up six pictures, representing the six general councils,\nin the porch of St. Peter's, and called a council at Rome, which\ndenounced the Emperor as an apostate. Bardanes was dethroned by a\nrevolution, but his successor, Leo, soon took up the quarrel. In A.D.\n726, he issued an imperial edict commanding the removal of all images\nfrom the churches and forbidding all image worship, save only those\nrepresenting the crucifixion of Christ. Pope Gregory I. excommunicated\nthe Emperor, and insurrections broke out all over the empire in\nconsequence; the Emperor retorted by calling a council at\nConstantinople, which deposed the bishop of that city for his leanings\ntowards image worship, and put a supporter of the Emperor in his place.\nThe contest was carried on by Constantine, who succeeded his father,\nLeo, in A.D. 741, and who, in A.D. 754, called a council, at\nConstantinople--recognised by the Greek Church as the seventh general\ncouncil--which condemned the use and worship of images. Leo IV. (A.D.\n775) issued penal laws against image worshippers, but he was poisoned by\nIrene, his wife, in A.D. 780, and she entered into an alliance with Pope\nAdrian, so that the Iconoduli became triumphant in their turn. While\nthis controversy raged, a second arose as to the procession of the Holy\nGhost. The creed of Constantinople (see ante, p. 434) ran--\"I believe in\nthe Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the\nFather;\" to this phrase the words, \"and the Son,\" had been added in the\nWest, originally by some Spanish bishops; the Greeks protested against\nan unauthorised addition being inserted into a creed promulgated by a\ngeneral council, and received by the universal Church as the symbol of\nfaith. Thus arose the celebrated controversy on the \"Filioque,\" which\nwas one of the chief causes of the great schism between the Eastern and\nWestern Churches in the ninth century.\n\nThe Arian, Manich\u00e6an, Marcionite, and Monothelite heresies spread,\nduring this century, through the Greek Church, and, where the Arabians\nruled, the Nestorians and Monophysites also flourished. In the Latin\nChurch a phase of the Nestorian heresy made its way, under the name of\nAdoptianism, a name given because its adherents regarded Christ, so far\nas his manhood was concerned, as the Son of God by adoption only.\n\n\nCENTURY IX.\n\n\nChristendom, during this century, as during the preceding one, was\nthreatened and harassed by the inroads of Mahommedan powers, and the\nfirst gleams of returning light began to penetrate its thick\ndarkness--light proceeding from the Arabians and the Saracens, the\nrestorers of knowledge and of science. It is not here our duty to trace\nthat marvellous work of the revival of thought--thought which\nChristianity had slain, but which, revived by Mahommedanism, was\ndestined to issue in the new birth of heretic philosophy. While this\nwork was proceeding among the Saracens, the Arabians, and the Moors,\nChristendom went on its way, degraded, vicious, and superstitious; only\nhere and there an effort at learning was made, and some few went to the\nArabian schools, and returned with some tincture of knowledge. John\nScotus Erigena, a subtle and acute thinker, left behind him works which\nhave made some regard him as the founder of the _Realist_ school of the\nmiddle ages, the school which followed Aristotle, in opposition to the\n_Nominalists_, who held with Zeno and the Stoics. Erigena taught that\nthe soul would be re-absorbed into the divine spirit, from which it had\noriginally emanated; from God all things had come--to Him would they\nultimately return; God alone was eternal, and in the end nothing but God\nwould exist. Some of Erigena's works naturally fell under the\ndispleasure of the Church, and were duly burned: he was a philosopher,\nand therefore dangerous.\n\nWhile this slight effort at thought was thus frowned upon, vice made its\nway unchecked and unrebuked by the authorities. \"The impiety and\nlicentiousness of the greater part of the clergy arose, at this time, to\nan enormous height, and stand upon record in the unanimous complaints of\nthe most candid and impartial writers of this century. In the East,\ntumult, discord, conspiracies, and treason reigned uncontrolled, and all\nthings were carried by violence and force. These abuses appeared in many\nthings, but particularly in the election of the Patriarchs of\nConstantinople.... In the western provinces, the bishops were become\nvoluptuous and effeminate to a very high degree. They passed their lives\namidst the splendour of courts, and the pleasures of a luxurious\nindolence, which corrupted their taste, extinguished their zeal, and\nrendered them incapable of performing the solemn duties of their\nfunction; while the inferior clergy were sunk in licentiousness, minded\nnothing but sensual gratifications, and infected with the most heinous\nvices the flock whom it was the very business of their ministry to\npreserve, or to deliver from the contagion of iniquity. Besides, the\nignorance of the sacred order was, in many places, so deplorable that\nfew of them could either read or write, and still fewer were capable of\nexpressing their wretched notions with any degree of method or\nperspicuity\" (p. 193). \"Many other causes also contributed to dishonour\nthe Church, by introducing into it a corrupt ministry. A nobleman who,\nthrough want of talents, activity, or courage, was rendered incapable of\nappearing with dignity in the cabinet, or with honour in the field,\nimmediately turned his views towards the Church, aimed at a\ndistinguished place among its chiefs and rulers, and became, in\nconsequence, a contagious example of stupidity and vice to the inferior\nclergy. The patrons of churches, in whom resided the right of election,\nunwilling to submit their disorderly conduct to the keen censure of\nzealous and upright pastors, industriously looked for the most abject,\nignorant, and worthless ecclesiastics, to whom they committed the cure\nof souls\" (p. 193). Of the Roman pontiffs, Mosheim says: \"The greatest\npart of them are only known by the flagitious actions that have\ntransmitted their names with infamy to our times\" (p. 194). And \"the\nenormous vices that must have covered so many pontiffs with infamy in\nthe judgment of the wise, formed not the least obstacle to their\nambition in these memorable times, nor hindered them from extending\ntheir influence and augmenting their authority both in church and state\"\n(p. 195). Among the vast mass of forgeries which gradually built up the\nsupremacy of the Roman see, the famous Isidorian Decretals deserve a\nword of notice. They were issued about A.D. 845, and consisted of \"about\none hundred pretended decrees of the early Popes, together with certain\nspurious writings of other church dignitaries and acts of synods. This\nforgery produced an immense extension of the papal power. It displaced\nthe old system of church government, divesting it of the republican\nattributes it had possessed, and transforming it into an absolute\nmonarchy. It brought the bishops into subjection to Rome, and made the\npontiff the supreme judge of the clergy of the whole Christian world. It\nprepared the way for the great attempt, subsequently made by Hildebrand,\nto convert the states of Europe into a theocratic priest kingdom, with\nthe Pope at its head\" (Draper's \"Conflict of Religion and Science,\" p.\n271). We note during this century a remarkable growth of saints.\nEveryone wanted a saint through whom to approach God, and the supply\nkept pace with the demand. \"This preposterous multiplication of saints\nwas a new source of abuses and frauds. It was thought necessary to write\nthe lives of these celestial patrons, in order to procure for them the\nveneration and confidence of a deluded multitude; and here lying wonders\nwere invented, and all the resources of forgery and fable exhausted to\ncelebrate exploits which had never been performed, and to perpetuate the\nmemory of holy persons who had never existed\" (p. 200). The contest on\nimages still raged furiously, success being now on the one side, now on\nthe other; various councils were called by either party, until, in A.D.\n879, a council at Constantinople, reckoned by the Greeks as the eighth\ngeneral council, sanctioned the worship of images, which thereafter\ntriumphed in the East. In the West, the opposition to image-worship\ngradually died away. The _Filioque_ contest also continued hotly and\nwidened the breach between East and West yet more. The final separation\nwas not long delayed. The ever-increasing jealousy between Rome and\nConstantinople had at last reached a height which made even nominal\nunion impossible, and the smouldering fire burst into sudden flame. In\nA.D. 858 Photius was made Patriarch of Constantinople, by the Emperor\nMichael, in the room of Ignatius, deprived and banished by that prince.\nA council, held at Constantinople in A.D. 861, endorsed the appointment\nof the emperor; but Ignatius appealed to Rome, and Pope Nicholas I.\nreadily took up his quarrel. A council was held at Rome, in A.D. 862, in\nwhich the pontiff excommunicated Photius and his adherents. It was\nanswered by one at Constantinople, in A.D. 866, wherein Nicholas was\npronounced unworthy of his office and outside the pale of Christian\ncommunion. Yet another council of Constantinople, A.D. 869, approved the\naction of Basilius, the new emperor, who recalled Ignatius, and\nimprisoned Photius. When Ignatius died, Photius was reinstated (A.D.\n878), and he was acknowledged by the Roman pontiff, John VIII., at\nanother council of Constantinople, A.D. 879, on the understanding that\nthe jurisdiction over Bulgaria, claimed both by Pope and Patriarch,\nshould be definitely yielded to Rome. This, however, was not done; and\nthe Pope sent a legate to Constantinople, recalling his declaration in\nfavour of Photius. The legate, Marinus, was cast into prison; and when\nhe was later raised to the pontificate, he remembered the outrage, and\nanew excommunicated Photius. A.D. 886 saw the fall and imprisonment of\nPhotius, and union might have been maintained but for the extravagant\ndemands of the Roman pontiff, who required the degradation of all\npriests and bishops ordained by Photius. The Greeks indignantly refused,\nand at last the great schism took place, which severed from each other\nentirely the Eastern and the Western Churches.\n\nThe ancient heresy of the Paulicians had not yet died out, spite of\nhaving suffered much persecution at Catholic hands, and under the\nEmperors Michael and Leo, a fierce attack upon these unfortunate beings\ntook place. They were hunted down and executed without mercy, and at\nlast they turned upon their persecutors, and revenged themselves by\nmurdering the bishop, magistrates, and judges in Armenia, after which\nthey fled to the countries under Saracen rule. After a while, they\ngradually returned to the Greek empire; but when the Empress Theodora\nwas regent, during her son's minority, she issued a stern decree against\nthem. \"The decree was severe, but the cruelty with which it was put in\nexecution, by those who were sent into Armenia for that purpose, was\nhorrible beyond expression; for these ministers of wrath, after\nconfiscating the goods of above a hundred thousand of that miserable\npeople, put their possessors to death in the most barbarous manner, and\nmade them expire slowly in a variety of the most exquisite tortures\" (p.\n212).\n\nIn addition to the heresies inherited from the previous centuries, three\nnew ones, important in their issues, arose to divide yet more the\ndivided indivisible Church. A monk, named Pascasius Radbert, wrote a\ntreatise (A.D. 831 and 845), in which he maintained that, at the\nEucharist, the substance of the bread and wine became changed, by\nconsecration, into the body and blood of Christ, and that this body \"was\nthe same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered upon the cross,\nand was raised from the dead\" (p. 205). Charles the Bald bade Erigena\nand Ratramn (or Bertramn) draw up the true doctrine of the Church, and\nthe long controversy began which is continued even in the present day.\nThe second great dispute arose on the question of predestination and\ndivine grace. Godeschalcus, an eminent Saxon monk, returning from Rome\nin A.D. 847, resided for a space in Verona, where he spoke much on\npredestination, affirming that God had, from all eternity, predestined\nsome to heaven and others to hell. He was condemned at a council held in\nMayence, A.D. 848, and in the following year, at another council, he was\nagain condemned, and was flogged until he burned, with his own hand, the\napology for his opinions he had presented at Mayence. The third great\ncontroversy regarded the manner of Christ's birth, and monks furiously\ndisputed whether or no Christ was born after the fashion of other\ninfants. The details of this dispute need not here be entered into.\n\n\nCENTURY X.\n\n\n\"The deplorable state of Christianity in this century, arising partly\nfrom that astonishing ignorance that gave a loose rein both to\nsuperstition and immorality, and partly from an unhappy concurrence of\ncauses of another kind, is unanimously lamented by the various writers\nwho have transmitted to us the history of these miserable times\" (p.\n213). Yet \"the gospel\" spread. The Normans embraced \"a religion of which\nthey were totally ignorant\" (p. 214), A.D. 912, because Charles the\nSimple of France offered Count Rollo a large territory on condition that\nhe would marry his daughter and embrace Christianity: Rollo gladly\naccepted the territory and its encumbrances. Poland came next into the\nfold of the Church, for the Duke of Poland, Micislaus, was persuaded by\nhis wife to profess Christianity, A.D. 965, and Pope John III. promptly\nsent a bishop and a train of priests to convert the duke's subjects.\n\"But the exhortations and endeavours of these devout missionaries, who\nwere unacquainted with the language of the people they came to instruct\n[how effective must have been their arguments!] would have been entirely\nwithout effect, had they not been accompanied with the edicts and penal\nlaws, the promises and threats of Micislaus, which dejected the courage\nand conquered the obstinacy of the reluctant Poles\" (p. 214). \"The\nChristian religion was established in Russia by means every way similar\nto those that had occasioned its propagation in Poland\" (p. 215); the\nGreek wife of the Russian duke persuaded him to adopt her creed, and he\nwas baptized A.D. 987. Mosheim assumes that the Russian people followed\ntheir princes of their own accord, since \"we have, at least, no account\nof any compulsion or violence being employed in their conversion\" (p.\n215); if the Russians adopted Christianity without compulsion or\nviolence, all we can say is, that their conversion is unique. The Danes\nwere converted in A.D. 949, Otto the Great having defeated them, and\nhaving made it an imperative condition of peace, that they should\nprofess Christianity. The Norwegians accepted the religion of Jesus on\nthe same terms. Thus the greater part of Europe became Christian, and we\neven hear a cry raised by Pope Sylvester II. for the deliverance of\nPalestine from the Mahommedans--for a holy war. Christianity having now\nbecome so strong, learning had become proportionately weak; it had been\nsinking lower and lower during each succeeding epoch, and in this tenth\ncentury it reached its deepest stage of degradation. \"The deplorable\nignorance of this barbarous age, in which the drooping arts were\nentirely neglected, and the sciences seemed to be upon the point of\nexpiring for want of encouragement, is unanimously confessed and\nlamented by all the writers who have transmitted to us any accounts of\nthis period of time\" (p. 218). In vain a more enlightened emperor in the\nEast strove to revive learning and encourage study: \"many of the most\ncelebrated authors of antiquity were lost, at this time, through the\nsloth and negligence of the Greeks\" (p. 219). \"Nor did the cause of\nphilosophy fare better than that of literature. Philosophers, indeed,\nthere were; and, among them, some that were not destitute of genius and\nabilities; but none who rendered their names immortal by productions\nthat were worthy of being transmitted to posterity\" (p. 219). So low,\nunder the influence of Christianity, had sunk the literature of\nGreece--Greece Pagan, which once brought forth Pythagoras, Socrates,\nPlato, Euclid, Zenophon, and many another mighty one, whose fame rolls\ndown the ages--that Greece had become Greece Christian, and the vitality\nof her motherhood had been drained from her, and left her without\nstrength to conceive men. In the West things were yet worse--instead of\nRome Pagan, that had spread light and civilization--the Rome of Cicero,\nof Virgil, of Lucretius--we have Rome Christian, spreader of darkness\nand of degradation, the Rome of the Popes and the monks. The Latins\n\"were, almost without exception, sunk in the most brutish and barbarous\nignorance, so that, according to the unanimous accounts of the most\ncredible writers, nothing could be more melancholy and deplorable than\nthe darkness that reigned in the western world during this century....\nIn the seminaries of learning, such as they were, the seven liberal\nsciences were taught in the most unskilful and miserable manner, and\nthat by the monks, who esteemed the arts and sciences no further than as\nthey were subservient to the interests of religion, or, to speak more\nproperly, to the views of superstition\" (p. 219). But the light from\nArabia was struggling to penetrate Christendom. Gerbert, a native of\nFrance, travelled into Spain, and studied in the Arabian schools of\nCordova and Seville, under Arabian doctors; he developed mathematical\nability, and returned into Christendom with some amount of learning:\nraised to the papal throne, under the name of Sylvester II., he tried to\nrestore the study of science and philosophy, and found that his\ngeometrical figures \"were regarded by the monks as magical operations,\"\nand he himself \"as a magician and a disciple of Satan\" (p. 220).\n\nThe vice of the clergy was something terrible. \"These corruptions were\nmounted to the most enormous height in that dismal period of the Church\nwhich we have now before us. Both in the eastern and western provinces,\nthe clergy were, for the most part, composed of a most worthless set of\nmen, shamefully illiterate and stupid, ignorant, more especially in\nreligious matters, equally enslaved to sensuality and superstition, and\ncapable of the most abominable and flagitious deeds. This dismal\ndegeneracy of the sacred order was, according to the most credible\naccounts, principally owing to the pretended chiefs and rulers of the\nuniversal Church, who indulged themselves in the commission of the most\nodious crimes, and abandoned themselves to the lawless impulse of the\nmost licentious passions without reluctance or remorse--who confounded,\nin short, all difference between just and unjust, to satisfy their\nimpious ambition, and whose spiritual empire was such a diversified\nscene of iniquity and violence as never was exhibited under any of those\ntemporal tyrants who have been the scourges of mankind\" (p. 221). Such\nis the verdict passed on Christian rule by a Christian historian. In the\nEast we see such men as Theophylact; \"this _exemplary_ prelate, who sold\nevery ecclesiastical benefice as soon as it became vacant, had in his\nstable above 2000 hunting horses, which he fed with pignuts, pistachios,\ndates, dried grapes, figs steeped in the most exquisite wines, to all\nwhich he added the richest perfumes. One Holy Thursday, as he was\ncelebrating high-mass, his groom brought him the joyful news that one of\nhis favourite mares had foaled; upon which he threw down the Liturgy,\nleft the church, and ran in raptures to the stable, where, having\nexpressed his joy at that grand event, he returned to the altar to\nfinish the divine service, which he had left interrupted during his\nabsence\" (p. 221, note). We shall see, in a moment, how the masses of\nthe people were housed and fed while such insane luxury surrounded\nhorses. In the west, the weary tale of the Roman pontiffs cannot all be\nnarrated here. Take the picture as drawn by Hallam: \"This dreary\ninterval is filled up, in the annals of the papacy, by a series of\nrevolutions and crimes. Six popes were deposed, two murdered, one\nmutilated. Frequently two, or even three, competitors, among whom it is\nnot always possible by any genuine criticism to distinguish the true\nshepherd, drove each other alternately from the city. A few respectable\nnames appear thinly scattered through this darkness; and sometimes,\nperhaps, a pope who had acquired estimation by his private virtues may\nbe distinguished by some encroachment on the rights of princes, or the\nprivileges of national churches. But, in general, the pontiffs of that\nage had neither leisure nor capacity to perfect the great system of\ntemporal supremacy, and looked rather to a vile profit from the sale of\nepiscopal confirmations, or of exemptions to monasteries. The corruption\nof the head extended naturally to all other members of the Church. All\nwriters concur in stigmatizing the dissoluteness and neglect of decency\nthat prevailed among the clergy. Though several codes of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline had been compiled by particular prelates, yet neither these\nnor the ancient canons were much regarded. The bishops, indeed, who were\nto enforce them, had most occasion to dread their severity. They were\nobtruded upon their sees, as the supreme pontiffs were upon that of\nRome, by force or corruption. A child of five years old was made\nArchbishop of Rheims. The see of Narbonne was purchased for another at\nthe age of ten\" (\"Europe during the Middle Ages,\" p. 353, ed. 1869).\nJohn X. made pope at the solicitation of his mistress Theodora, the\nmother-in-law of the sovereign, and murdered at the instance of\nTheodora's daughter, Marozia; John XI., illegitimate son of the same\nMarozia, and of the celibate pontiff, Sergius III.; Boniface VII.\nexpelled, banished, returning and murdering the reigning pope: what\navails it to chronicle these monsters? Below the popes, a clergy as\nvicious as their rulers, squandering money, plundered from the people in\ndissoluteness and luxury. And the people, what of them?\n\nAs late as A.D. 1430 the houses of the peasantry were \"constructed of\nstones put together without mortar; the roofs were of turf--a stiffened\nbull's-hide served for a door. The food consisted of coarse vegetable\nproducts, such as peas, and even the bark of trees. In some places they\nwere unacquainted with bread. Cabins of reeds plastered with mud, houses\nof wattled stakes, chimneyless peat fires, from which there was scarcely\nan escape for the smoke, dens of physical and moral pollution swarming\nwith vermin, wisps of straw twisted round the limbs to keep off the\ncold, the ague-stricken peasant with no help except shrine-cure,\" i.e.,\ncure by the touching bone of saint, or image of virgin (Draper's\n\"Conflict between Religion and Science,\" p. 265). Even among the\nwealthy, the life was coarse and rough; carpets were unknown; drainage\nnever thought of. The Anglo-Saxon \"'nobles, devoted to gluttony and\nvoluptuousness, never visited the church, but the matins and the mass\nwere read over to them by a hurrying priest in their bed-chambers,\nbefore they rose, themselves not listening. The common people were a\nprey to the more powerful; their property was seized, their bodies\ndragged away to distant countries; their maidens were either thrown into\na brothel or sold for slaves. Drinking, day and night, was the general\npursuit: vices, the companions of inebriety, followed, effeminating the\nmanly mind.' The baronial castles were dens of robbers. The Saxon\nchronicler [William of Malmesbury, from whom the quotation above]\nrecords how men and women were caught and dragged into those\nstrongholds, hung up by their thumbs or feet, fire applied to them,\nknotted strings twisted round their heads, and many other torments\ninflicted to extort ransom\" (Ibid, p. 266). When the barons had nearly\nfinished their evil lives, the church stepped in, claiming her share of\nthe plunder and the wealth thus amassed, and opening the gates of\nparadise to the dying thief. The cities were as wretched as their\ninhabitants: no paving, no cleaning, no lighting. In the country the old\nRoman roads were unmended, unkept; Europe was slipping backwards into\nuttermost barbarism. Meanwhile things were very different where the\nblighting power of Christianity was not in the ascendant. \"Europe at the\npresent day does not offer more taste, more refinement, more elegance,\nthan might have been seen, at the epoch of which we are speaking, in the\ncapitals of the Spanish Arabs. Their streets were lighted and solidly\npaved. The houses were frescoed and carpeted; they were warmed in winter\nby furnaces, and cooled in summer with perfumed air brought by\nunderground pipes from flower-beds. They had baths, and libraries, and\ndining-halls, fountains of quicksilver and water. City and country were\nfull of conviviality, and of dancing to the lute and mandolin. Instead\nof the drunken and gluttonous wassail orgies of their northern\nneighbours, the feasts of the Saracens were marked by sobriety. Wine was\nprohibited.... In the tenth century, the Khalif Hakem II. had made\nbeautiful Andalusia the paradise of the world. Christians, Mussulmans,\nJews, mixed together without restraint.... All learned men, no matter\nfrom what country they came, or what their religious views, were\nwelcomed. The khalif had in his palace a manufactory of books, and\ncopyists, binders, illuminators. He kept book-buyers in all the great\ncities of Asia and Africa. His library contained 400,000 volumes,\nsuperbly bound and illuminated\" (Ibid, pp. 141, 142). When the\nChristians in the fifteenth century seized \"beautiful Andalusia,\" they\nerected the Inquisition, burned the books, burned the people, banished\nthe Jews and the Moors, and founded the miserable land known as modern\nSpain.\n\nThere was but little heresy during this melancholy century; people did\nnot think enough even to think badly. The Paulicians spread through\nBulgaria, and established themselves there under a patriarch of their\nown. Some Arians still existed. Some Anthropomorphites gave some\ntrouble, maintaining that God sat on a golden throne, and was served by\nangels with wings: their \"heresy\" is, however, directly supported by the\nScriptures. A.D. 999, a man named Lentard began to speak against the\nworship of images, and the payment of tithes to priests, and asserted\nthat in the Old Testament prophecies truth and falsehood are mingled.\nHis disciples seem to have merged into the Albigenses in the next\ncentury.\n\nThe year A.D. 1000 deserves a special word of notice. Christians fancied\nthat the world was to last for but one thousand years after the birth of\nChrist, and that it would therefore come to an end in A.D. 1000. \"Many\ncharters begin with these words: 'As the world is now drawing to its\nclose.' An army marching under the emperor Otho I. was so terrified by\nan eclipse of the sun, which it conceived to announce this consummation,\nas to disperse hastily on all sides\" (\"Europe during the Middle Ages,\"\nHallam, P. 599) \"Prodigious numbers of people abandoned all their civil\nconnections, and their parental relations, and giving over to the\nchurches or monasteries all their lands, treasures, and worldly effects,\nrepaired with the utmost precipitation to Palestine, where they imagined\nthat Christ would descend to judge the world. Others devoted themselves\nby a solemn and voluntary oath to the service of the churches, convents,\nand priesthood, whose slaves, they became in the most rigorous sense of\nthat word, performing daily their heavy tasks; and all this from a\nnotion that the Supreme Judge would diminish the severity of their\nsentence, and look upon them with a more favourable and propitious eye,\non account of their having made themselves the slaves of his ministers.\nWhen an eclipse of the sun or moon happened to be visible, the cities\nwere deserted, and their miserable inhabitants fled for refuge to hollow\ncaverns, and hid themselves among the craggy rocks, and under the\nbending summits of steep mountains. The opulent attempted to bribe the\nDeity and the saintly tribe, by rich donations conferred upon the\nsacerdotal and monastic orders, who were looked upon as the immediate\nvicegerents of heaven\" (p. 226). Thus the Church still reaped wealth out\nof the fear of the people she deluded, and while fields lay unsown, and\nhouses stood unrepaired, and the foundations of famine were laid, Mother\nChurch gathered lands and money into her capacious lap, and troubled\nlittle about the starving children, provided she herself could wax fat\non the good things of the world which she professed to have renounced.\n\n\nCENTURY XI.\n\n\nThe Prussians, during this century, were driven into the fold of the\nChurch. A Christian missionary, Adalbert, bishop of Prague, had been\nmurdered by the \"fierce and savage Prussians,\" and in order to show the\ncivilising results of the gentle Christian creed, Boleslaus, king of\nPoland, entered \"into a bloody war with the Prussians, and he obtained,\nby the force of penal laws and of a victorious, army, what Adalbert\ncould not effect by exhortation and argument. He dragooned this savage\npeople into the Christian Church\" (p. 230). Some of his followers tried\na gentler method of conversion, and were murdered by the Prussians, who\nclearly saw no reason why Christians should do all the killing. We have\nalready seen that Sylvester II. called upon the Christian princes to\ncommence a \"holy war\" against \"the infidels\" who held the holy places of\nChristianity. Gregory VII. strove to stir them up in like fashion, and\nhad gathered together an army of upwards of 50,000 men, whom he proposed\nto lead in person into Palestine. The Pope, however, quarrelled with\nHenry IV., emperor of Germany, and his project fell through. At the\nclose of this century, the long-talked of effort was made. Peter the\nHermit, who had travelled through Palestine, came into Europe and\nrelated in all directions tales of the sufferings of the Christians\nunder the rule of the \"barbarous\" Saracens. He appealed to Urban II.,\nthe then Pope, and Urban, who at first discouraged him, seeing that\nPeter had succeeded in rousing the most warlike nations of Christian\nEurope into enthusiasm, called a council at Placentia, A.D. 1095, and\nappealed to the Christian princes to take up the cause of the Cross. The\ncouncil was not successful, and Urban summoned another at Clermont, and\nhimself addressed the assembly. \"It is the will of God\" was the shout\nthat answered him, and the people flew to arms. \"Every means was used to\nexcite an epidemical frenzy, the remission of penance, the dispensation\nfrom those practices of self-denial which superstition imposed or\nsuspended at pleasure, the absolution of all sins, and the assurance of\neternal felicity. None doubted that such as persisted in the war\nreceived immediately the reward of martyrdom. False miracles and\nfanatical prophecies, which were never so frequent, wrought up the\nenthusiasm to a still higher pitch. [Mosheim states, p. 231, that Peter\nthe Hermit carried about with him a letter from heaven, calling on all\ntrue Christians to deliver their brethren from the infidel yoke.] And\nthese devotional feelings, which are usually thwarted and balanced by\nother passions, fell in with every motive that could influence the men\nof that time, with curiosity, restlessness, the love of licence, thirst\nfor war, emulation, ambition. Of the princes who assumed the cross,\nsome, probably from the beginning, speculated upon forming independent\nestablishments in the East. In later periods, the temporal benefits of\nundertaking a crusade undoubtedly blended themselves with less selfish\nconsiderations. Men resorted to Palestine, as in modern times they have\ndone to the colonies, in order to redeem their time, or repair their\nfortune. Thus Gui de Lusignan, after flying from France for murder, was\nultimately raised to the throne of Jerusalem. To the more vulgar class\nwere held out inducements which, though absorbed in the more overruling\nfanaticism of the first crusade, might be exceedingly efficacious when\nit began rather to flag. During the time that a crusader bore the cross,\nhe was free from suit for his debts, and the interest of them was\nentirely abolished; he was exempted, in some instances, at least, from\ntaxes, and placed under the protection of the Church, so that he could\nnot be impleaded in any civil court, except on criminal charges, or\ndisputes relating to land\" (\"Europe during the Middle Ages,\" Hallam, pp.\n29, 30). Thus fanaticism and earthly pleasures and benefits all pushed\nmen in the same direction, and Europe flung itself upon Palestine. Men,\nwomen, and children, poured eastwards in that first crusade, and this\nmixed vanguard of the coming army of warriors was led by Peter the\nHermit and Gaultier Sans-Avoir. This vanguard was \"a motley assemblage\nof monks, prostitutes, artists, labourers, lazy tradesmen, merchants,\nboys, girls, slaves, malefactors, and profligate debauchees;\" \"it was\nprincipally composed of the lowest dregs of the multitude, who were\nanimated solely by the prospect of spoil and plunder, and hoped to make\ntheir fortunes by this holy campaign\" (p. 232). \"This first division, in\ntheir march through Hungary and Thrace, committed the most flagitious\ncrimes, which so incensed the inhabitants of the countries through which\nthey passed, particularly those of Hungary and Turcomania, that they\nrose up in arms and massacred the greatest part of them\" (Ibid). \"Father\nMaimbourg, notwithstanding his immoderate zeal for the holy war, and\nthat fabulous turn which enables him to represent it in the most\nfavourable points of view, acknowledges frankly that the first division\nof this prodigious army committed the most abominable enormities in the\ncountries through which they passed, and that there was no kind of\ninsolence, in justice, impurity, barbarity, and violence, of which they\nwere not guilty. Nothing, perhaps, in the annals of history can equal\nthe flagitious deeds of this infernal rabble\" (Ibid, note). Few of these\nunhappy wretches reached the Holy Land. \"To engage in the crusade and to\nperish in it, were almost synonymous\" (Hallam, p. 30), even for those\nwho entered Palestine. The loss of life was something terrible. \"We\nshould be warranted by contemporary writers in stating the loss of the\nChristians alone during this period at nearly a million; but at the\nleast computation, it must have exceeded half that number\" (Ibid). The\nreal army, under Godfrey de Bouillon, consisted of some 80,000\nwell-appointed horse and foot. But at Nice the crowd of crusaders\nnumbered 700,000, after the great slaughter in Hungary. Jerusalem was\ntaken, A.D. 1099, and it was there \"where their triumph was consummated,\nthat it was stained with the most atrocious massacre; not limited to the\nhour of resistance, but renewed deliberately even after that famous\npenitential procession to the holy sepulchre, which might have calmed\ntheir ferocious dispositions if, through the misguided enthusiasm of the\nenterprise, it had not been rather calculated to excite them\" (Ibid, p.\n31). The last crusade occurred A.D. 1270, and between the first in 1096\nand the last in 1270, human lives were extinguished in numbers it is\nimpossible to reckon, increasing ever the awful sum total of the misery\nlying at the foot of the blood-red cross of Christendom.\n\nA collateral advantage accrued to the clergy through the crusades;\n\"their wealth, continually accumulated, enabled them to become the\nregular purchasers of landed estates, especially in the time of the\ncrusades, when the fiefs of the nobility were constantly in the market\nfor sale or mortgage\" (Ibid, p. 333).\n\nThe last vestiges of nominal paganism were erased in this century, and\nit remained only under Christian names. Capital punishment was\nproclaimed against all who worshipped the old deities under their old\ntitles, and \"this dreadful severity contributed much more towards the\nextirpation of paganism, than the exhortations and instructions of\nignorant missionaries, who were unacquainted with the true nature of the\ngospel, and dishonoured its pure and holy doctrines by their licentious\nlives and their superstitious practices\" (p. 236). Learning began to\nrevive, as men, educated in the Arabian schools, gradually spread over\nEurope; thus: \"the school of Salernum, in the kingdom of Naples, was\nrenowned above all others for the study of physic in this century, and\nvast numbers crowded thither from all the provinces of Europe to receive\ninstruction in the art of healing; but the medical precepts which\nrendered the doctors of Salernum so famous were all derived from the\nwritings of the Arabians, or from the schools of the Saracens in Spain\nand Africa\" (p. 237). \"About the year 1050, the face of philosophy began\nto change, and the science of logic assumed a new aspect. This\nrevolution began in France, where several of the books of Aristotle had\nbeen brought from the schools of the Saracens in Spain, and it was\neffected by a set of men highly renowned for their abilities and genius,\nsuch as Berenger, Roscellinus, Hildebert, and after them by Gilbert de\nla Porre, the famous Abelard and others\" (p. 238). Thus we see that in\nscience, in philosophy, in logic, we alike owe to Arabia the revival of\nthought in Christendom. Progress, however, was very slow, and the\nthought was not yet strong enough to arouse the fears of the Church, so\nit spread for a while in peace.\n\nHallam sums up for us the state of learning, or rather of ignorance,\nduring the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, and his account\nmay well find its place here. \"When Latin had thus ceased to be a living\nlanguage, the whole treasury of knowledge was locked up from the eyes of\nthe people. The few who might have imbibed a taste for literature, if\nbooks had been accessible to them, were reduced to abandon pursuits that\ncould only be cultivated through a kind of education not easily within\ntheir reach. Schools confined to cathedrals and monasteries, and\nexclusively designed for the purposes of religion, afforded no\nencouragement or opportunities to the laity. The worst effect was that,\nas the newly-formed languages were hardly made use of in writing, Latin\nbeing still preserved in all legal instruments and public\ncorrespondence, the very use of letters, as well as of books, was\nforgotten. For many centuries, to sum up the account of ignorance in a\nword, it was rare for a layman, of whatever rank, to know how to sign\nhis name. Their charters, till the use of seals became general, were\nsubscribed with the mark of the cross. Still more extraordinary it was\nto find one who had any tincture of learning. Even admitting every\nindistinct commendation of a monkish biographer (with whom a knowledge\nof church music would pass for literature), we could make out a very\nshort list of scholars. None certainly were more distinguished as such\nthan Charlemagne and Alfred. But the former, unless we reject a very\nplain testimony, was incapable of writing; and Alfred found difficulty\nin making a translation from the pastoral instruction of St. Gregory, on\naccount of his imperfect knowledge of Latin. Whatever mention,\ntherefore, we find of learning and the learned, during these dark ages,\nmust be understood to relate only to such as were within the pale of\nclergy, which indeed was pretty extensive, and comprehended many who did\nnot exercise the offices of religious ministry. But even the clergy\nwere, for a long period, not very materially superior, as a body, to the\nuninstructed laity. An inconceivable cloud of ignorance overspread the\nwhole face of the Church, hardly broken by a few glimmering lights, who\nowe almost the whole of their distinction to the surrounding\ndarkness.... Of this prevailing ignorance it is easy to produce abundant\ntestimony. Contracts were made verbally, for want of notaries capable of\ndrawing up charters; and these, when written, were frequently barbarous\nand ungrammatical to an incredible degree. For some considerable\nintervals, scarcely any monument of literature has been preserved,\nexcept a few jejune chronicles, the vilest legends of saints, or verses\nequally destitute of spirit and metre. In almost every council the\nignorance of the clergy forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted by\none held in 992, that scarcely a single person was to be found in Rome\nitself who knew the first element of letters. Not one priest of a\nthousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a common\nletter of salutation to another. In England, Alfred declares that he\ncould not recollect a single priest south of the Thames (the most\ncivilised part of England) at the time of his accession who understood\nthe ordinary prayers, or could translate Latin into his mother-tongue.\nNor was this better in the time of Dunstan, when it is said, none of the\nclergy knew how to write or translate a Latin letter. The homilies which\nthey preached were compiled for their use by some bishops, from former\nworks of the same kind, or the writings of the Christian fathers.... If\nwe would listen to some literary historians, we should believe that the\ndarkest ages contained many individuals, not only distinguished among\ntheir contemporaries, but positively eminent for abilities and\nknowledge. A proneness to extol every monk of whose productions a few\nletters or a devotional treatise survives, every bishop of whom it is\nrelated that he composed homilies, runs through the laborious work of\nthe Benedictines of St. Maur, the 'Literary History of France,' and, in\na less degree, is observable even in Tiraboschi, and in most books of\nthis class. Bede, Alcuin, Hincmar, Raban, and a number of inferior\nnames, become real giants of learning in their uncritical panegyrics.\nBut one might justly say, that ignorance is the smallest defect of the\nwriters of these dark ages. Several of these were tolerably acquainted\nwith books; but that wherein they are uniformly deficient is original\nargument or expression. Almost every one is a compiler of scraps from\nthe fathers, or from such semi-classical authors as Boethius,\nCassiodorus, or Martinus Capella. Indeed, I am not aware that there\nappeared more than two really considerable men in the republic of\nletters from the sixth to the middle of the eleventh century--John,\nsurnamed Scotus, or Erigena, a native of Ireland, and Gerbert, who\nbecame pope by the name of Sylvester II.: the first endowed with a bold\nand acute metaphysical genius, the second excellent, for the time when\nhe lived, in mathematical science and useful mechanical invention\"\n(\"Europe during the Middle Ages,\" Hallam, pp. 595-598).\n\nIf we look at the ministers of the Church, the old story of tyranny and\nvice is told over again during this century. Among its popes is numbered\nBenedict IX., deposed for his profligacy, restored and again deposed,\nrestored by force of arms, and selling the pontificate, so that three\npopes at once claimed the tiara, and were all three declared unworthy,\nand a fourth placed on the throne. Fresh disturbances followed, and new\nusurpers, until in A.D. 1059 the election of the pope was taken out of\nthe hands of the people and transferred to the college of cardinals, a\nchange which was much struggled against, but which was ultimately\nadopted. In A.D. 1073 Hildebrand was elected pope under the title of\nGregory VII.; this man, perhaps, more than any other, augmented the\ntemporal power of the papacy. It was he who moulded the church into the\nform of an absolute monarchy, and fought against all local privileges\nand national freedom of the churches in each land; it was he who claimed\nrule over all kings and princes, and treated them as vassals of the\nRoman see; it was he who, in 1074, calling a council at Rome, caused it\nto decree the celibacy of the clergy, so that priests having no home,\nand no family ties, might feel their only home in the Church, and their\nonly tie to Rome; it was he who struggled against Germany, and who kept\nthe excommunicated emperor standing barefoot and almost naked in the\nsnow for three days, in the courtyard of his castle. A bold bad man was\nthis Hildebrand, but a man of genius and a master-mind, who conceived\nthe mighty idea of a universal Church, wherein all princes should be\nvassals, and the head of the Church absolute monarch of the world.\n\nIt was at the annual council of Rome, A.D. 1076, that Pope Gregory VII.\nrecited and proclaimed \"all the ancient maxims, all the doubtful\ntraditions, all the excessive pretensions, by which he could support his\nsupremacy. It was, in a manner, the abridged code of his domination--the\nlaws of servitude that he proposed to the world at large. Here are the\nterms of this charter of theocracy: 'The Roman Church is founded by God\nalone. The Roman pontiff alone can legitimately take the title of\nuniversal ... There shall be no intercourse whatever held with persons\nexcommunicated by the Pope, and none may dwell in the same house with\nthem.... He alone may wear the imperial insignia. All the princes of the\nearth shall kiss the feet of the Pope, but of none other.... He has the\nright of deposing emperors.... The sentence of the Pope can be revoked\nby none, and he alone can revoke the sentences passed by others. He can\nbe judged by none. None may dare to pronounce sentence on one who\nappeals to the See Apostolic. To it shall be referred all major causes\nby the whole Church. The Church of Rome never has erred, and never can\nerr, as Scripture warrants. A Roman pontiff, canonically ordained, at\nonce becomes, by the merit of Saint Peter, indubitably holy. By his\norder and with his permission it is lawful for subjects to accuse\nprinces.... The Pope can loose subjects from the oath of fealty.' Such\nare the fundamental articles promulgated by Gregory VII. in the Council\nof Rome, which the official historian of the Church reproduced in the\ncommencement of the seventeenth century as being authentic and\nlegitimate, and Rome has never disavowed it. Borrowed in part from the\nfalse Decretals, resting, most of them, on the fabulous donation of\nConstantine, and on the successive impostures and usurpations of the\nfirst barbarous ages, they received from the hand of Gregory VII. a new\ncharacter of force and unity. That pontiff stamped them with the\nsanction of his own genius. Such authority had never before been\ncreated: it made every other power useless and subaltern\" (\"Life of\nGregory VII.,\" by Villemain, trans. by Brockley, vol. ii., pp. 53-55).\nThus the struggle became inevitable between the temporal and the\nspiritual powers. \"In every country there was a dual government:--1.\nThat of a local kind, represented by a temporal sovereign. 2. That of a\nforeign kind, acknowledging the authority of the Pope. This Roman\ninfluence was, in the nature of things, superior to the local; it\nexpressed the sovereign will of one man over all the nations of the\ncontinent conjointly, and gathered overwhelming power from its\ncompactness and unity. The local influence was necessarily of a feeble\nnature, since it was commonly weakened by the rivalries of conterminous\nstates and the dissensions dexterously provoked by its competitor. On\nnot a single occasion could the various European states form a coalition\nagainst their common antagonist. Whenever a question arose, they were\nskilfully taken in detail, and commonly mastered. The ostensible object\nof papal intrusion was to secure for the different peoples, moral\nwell-being; the real object was to obtain large revenues and give\nsupport to large bodies of ecclesiastics. The revenues thus abstracted\nwere not unfrequently many times greater than those passing into the\ntreasury of the local power. Thus, on the occasion of Innocent IV.\ndemanding provision to be made for three hundred additional Italian\nclergy by the Church of England, and that one of his nephews, a mere\nboy, should have a stall in Lincoln Cathedral, it was found that the sum\nalready annually abstracted by foreign ecclesiastics from England was\nthrice that which went into the coffers of the king. While thus the\nhigher clergy secured every political appointment worth having, and\nabbots vied with counts in the herds of slaves they possessed--some, it\nis said, owned not fewer than twenty thousand--begging friars pervaded\nsociety in all directions, picking up a share of what still remained to\nthe poor. There was a vast body of non-producers, living in idleness and\nowning a foreign allegiance, who were subsisting on the fruits of the\ntoil of the labourers\" (\"Conflict between Religion and Science,\" Draper,\npp. 266, 267).\n\nThe struggle between the Greek and Latin Churches, hushed for awhile,\nbroke out again fiercely A.D. 1053, and in 1054 Rome excommunicated\nConstantinople, and Constantinople excommunicated Rome. The disputes as\nto transubstantiation continued, and shook the Roman Church with their\nviolence. Outside orthodoxy, some of the old heresies lingered on. The\nPaulicians wandered throughout Europe, and became known in Italy as the\nPaterini and the Cathari, in France as the Albigenses, Bulgarians, or\nPublicans. The Council of Orleans condemned them to be burned alive, and\nmany perished.\n\n\nCENTURY XII.\n\n\nThe wars which spread Christianity were not yet entirely over, but we\nonly hear of them now on the outskirts, so to speak, of Europe, except\nwhere some tribes apostatized now and then, and were brought back to the\ntrue faith by the sword. The struggles between the popes and the more\nstiff-necked princes as to their relative rights and privileges\ncontinued, and we sometimes see the curious spectacle of a pontiff on\nthe side of the people, or rather of the barons, against the king:\nwhenever this is so, we find that the king is struggling against Roman\nsupremacy, and that the pope uses the power of the nation to subdue the\nrebellious monarch. We do not find Rome interfering to save the people\nfrom oppression when the oppressor is a faithful and obedient son of\nHoly Church.\n\nFresh heresies spread during this century, and we everywhere met with\none corrective--death. Most of them appear to have grown out of the old\nManich\u00e6an heresy, and taught much of the old asceticism. The Cathari\nwere hunted down and put to death throughout Italy. Arnold of Brescia,\nwho loudly protested against the possessions of the Church, and\nmaintained that church revenues should be handed over to the State,\nproved himself so extremely distasteful to the clergy that they arrested\nhim, crucified him and burned his dead body (A.D. 1155). Peter de Bruys,\nwho objected to infant baptism, and may be called the ancestor of the\nBaptists, was burnt A.D. 1130. Many other reformers shared the same\nfate, and one large sect must here be noted. Peter Waldus, its founder,\nwas a merchant of Lyons, who (A.D. 1160) employed a priest to translate\nthe Gospels for him, together with other portions of the Bible. Studying\nthese, he resolved to abandon his business and distribute his wealth\namong the poor, and, in A.D. 1180, he became a public preacher, and\nformed an association to teach the doctrines of the Gospel, as he\nconceived them, against the doctrines of the Church. The sect first\nassumed only the simple name of \"the poor men of Lyons,\" but soon became\nknown as the Waldenses, one of the most powerful and most widely spread\nsects of the Middle Ages. They were, in fact, the precursors of the\nReformation, and are notable as heretics protesting against the authorty\nof Rome because that authority did not commend itself to their reason;\nthus they asserted the right of private judgment, and for that assertion\nthey deserve a niche in the great temple of heretic thought.\n\n\nCENTURY XIII.\n\n\nIn the far west of Europe paganism still struggled against Christianity,\nand from A.D. 1230 to 1280 a long, fierce war was waged against the\nPrussians, to confirm them in the Christian faith; the Teutonic knights\nof St. Mary succeeded finally in their apostolic efforts, and at last\n\"established Christianity and fixed their own dominion in Prussia\" (p.\n309), whence they made forays into the neighbouring countries, and\n\"pillaged, burned, massacred, and ruined all before them.\" In Spain,\nChristianity had a yet sadder triumph, for there the civilized Moors\nwere falling under the brutal Christians, and the \"garden of the world\"\nwas being invaded by the hordes of the Roman Church. The end, however,\nhad not yet come. In France, we see the erection of THE INQUISITION, the\nmost hateful and fiendish tribunal ever set up by religion. The\nheretical sects were spreading rapidly in southern provinces of France,\nand Innocent III., about the commencement of this century, sent legates\nextraordinary into the southern provinces of France to do what the\nbishops had left undone, and to extirpate heresy, in all its various\nforms and modifications, without being at all scrupulous in using such\nmethods as might be necessary to effect this salutary purpose. The\npersons charged with this ghostly commission were Rainier, a Cistercian\nmonk, Pierre de Castelnau, archdeacon of Maguelonne, who became also\nafterwards a Cistercian friar. These eminent missionaries were followed\nby several others, among whom was the famous Spaniard, Dominic, founder\nof the order of preachers, who, returning from Rome in the year 1206,\nfell in with these delegates, embarked in their cause, and laboured both\nby his exhortations and actions in the extirpation of heresy. These\nspiritual champions, who engaged in this expedition upon the sole\nauthority of the pope, without either asking the advice, or demanding\nthe succours of the bishops, and who inflicted capital punishment upon\nsuch of the heretics as they could not convert by reason and argument,\nwere distinguished in common discourse by the title of _inquisitors_,\nand from them the formidable and odious tribunal called the\n_Inquisition_ derived its origin (pp. 343, 344). In A.D. 1229, a\ncouncil of Toulouse \"erected in every city a _council of inquisitors\nconsisting of one priest and two laymen_\" (Ibid). In A.D. 1233, Gregory\nIX. superseded this tribunal by appointing the Dominican monks as\ninquisitors, and the pope's legate in France thereupon went from city to\ncity, wherever these monks had a monastery, and there appointed some of\ntheir number \"inquisitors of heretical pravity.\" The princes of Europe\nwere then persuaded to lend the aid of the State to the work of blood,\nand to commit to the flames those who were handed over as heretics to\nthe civil power by the inquisitors. The plan of working was most\nmethodical.\n\nThe rules of torture were carefully drawn out: the prisoner was stripped\nnaked, the hair cut off, and the body then laid on the rack and bound\ndown; the right, then the left, foot tightly bound and strained by\ncords; the right and left arm stretched; the fleshy part of the arm\ncompressed with fine cords; all the cords tightened together by one\nturn; a second and third turn of the same kind: beyond this, with the\nrack, women were not to be tortured; with men a fourth turn was\nemployed. These directions were written in a Manual, used by the Grand\nInquisitor of Seville as late as A.D. 1820. An analysis is given by Dr.\nRule, in his \"History of the Inquisition,\" Appendix to vol. i., pp.\n339-359, ed. 1874. Then we hear, elsewhere, of torture by roasting the\nfeet, by pulleys, by red-hot pincers--in short, by every abominable\ninstrument of cruelty which men, inspired by religion, could conceive.\nLet the student take Llorente and Dr. Rule alone, and he will learn\nenough of the Inquisition horrors to make him shudder at the sight of a\ncross--at the name of Christianity.\n\nLlorente gives the most revolting details of the torture of Jean de\nSalas, at Valladolid, A.D. 1527, and this one case may serve as a\nspecimen of Inquisition work during these bloodstained centuries.\nStripped to his shirt, he was placed on the _chevalet_ (a narrow frame,\nwherein the body was laid, with no support save a pole across the\nmiddle), and his feet were raised higher than his head; tightly twisted\ncords cut through his flesh, and were twisted yet tighter and tighter as\nthe torture proceeded; fine linen, thrust into his mouth and throat,\nadded to the unnatural position, made breathing well nigh impossible,\nand on the linen water slowly fell, drop by drop, from a suspended\nvessel over his head, till every struggling breath stained the cloth\nwith blood (see \"Histoire critique de l'Inquisition d'Espagne,\" t. II.,\npp. 20-23, ed. 1818). This Spanish Inquisition, during its existence,\npunished heretics as follows:--\n\nBurnt alive .......................  31,912\n\nBurnt in effigy....................  17,659\n\nHeavily punished................... 291,450\n                                    -------\n                              Total 341,021\n\n(Ibid, t. IV. p. 271). Add to this list the ruined families, some of\nwhose members fell victims to the Inquisition, and then--remembering\nthat Spain was but one of the countries which it desolated--let the\nstudent judge of the huge total of human agony caused by this awful\ninstitution. Nor must it be forgotten that its dungeons did not gape\nonly for those who opposed the pretensions of Rome; men of science,\nphilosophers, thinkers, all these were its foes; Llorente gives a list\nof no less than 119 learned and eminent scientific men who, in Spain\nalone, fell under the scourge of the Inquisition (see t. II. pp.\n417-483).\n\nOne special crime of the Church in this age must not be forgotten: her\ntreatment of Roger Bacon. Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk, who not\nonly studied Greek, Hebrew, and Oriental languages, but who devoted\nhimself to natural science, and made many discoveries in astronomy,\nchemistry, optics, and mathematics. He is said to have discovered\ngunpowder, and he proposed a reform of the calendar similar to that\nintroduced by Gregory XIII., 300 years later. His reward was to be\nhooted at as a magician, and to be confined in a dungeon for many years.\n\nThe heretics spread and increased in this century, spite of the terrible\nweapon brought to bear against them. The \"Brethren and Sisters of the\nFree Spirit,\" known also as Beghards, Beguttes, Bicorni, Beghins, and\nTurlupins, were the chief additional body. They believed that all things\nhad emanated from God, and that to Him they would return; and to this\nEastern philosophy they added practical fanaticism, rushing wildly\nabout, shouting, yelling, begging. The Waldenses and Albigenses\nmultiplied, and diversity of opinion spread in every direction.\n\n\nCENTURY XIV.\n\n\nThis fourteenth century is one of the epochs that sorely test the\ningenuity of believers in papal infallibility; for the cardinals, having\nelected one pope in A.D. 1378, rapidly took a dislike to him, and\nelected a second. The first choice, Urban VI., remained at Rome; the\nsecond, Clement VII., betook himself to Avignon. They duly\nexcommunicated each other, and the Latin Church was rent in twain. \"The\ndistress and calamity of these times is beyond all power of description;\nfor not to insist upon the perpetual contentions and wars between the\nfactions of the several popes, by which multitudes lost their fortunes\nand lives, all sense of religion was extinguished in most places, and\nprofligacy arose to a most scandalous excess. The clergy, while they\nvehemently contended which of the reigning popes was the true successor\nof Christ, were so excessively corrupt as to be no longer studious to\nkeep up even an appearance of religion or decency\" (\"Europe During the\nMiddle Ages,\" Hallam, p. 359).\n\nMeanwhile, the struggle between Rome and the heretics went on with\never-increasing fury. In England, Dr. John Wickcliff, rector of\nLutterworth, became famous by his attack on the mendicant orders in A.D.\n1360, and from that time he raised his voice louder and louder, till he\nspoke against the pope himself. He translated the Bible into English,\nattacked many of the prevailing superstitions, and although condemned as\nholding heretical opinions, he yet died in peace, A.D. 1387. Rome\nrevenged itself by digging up his bones and burning them, about thirteen\nyears later. Rebellion spread even among the monks of the Church, and a\nvast number of some nonconformist Franciscan monks, termed Spirituals,\nwere burned for their refusal to obey the pope on matters of discipline.\nThe intense hatred between the Franciscan and Dominican orders made the\nlatter the willing instrument of the papacy; and, in their character as\ninquisitors, they hunted down their unfortunate rivals as heretics. The\nFlagellants, a sect who wandered about flogging themselves to the glory\nof God, fell also under the merciless hands of the inquisitors, as did\nalso the Knights Templars in France. A new body, known as the Dancers,\nstarted up in A.D. 1373, and spread through Flanders; but the priests\nprayed them away by exorcising the dancing devils that, they said,\ninhabited the members of this curious sect. Among the sufferers of this\ncentury one name must not be forgotten: it is that of Ceccus Asculanus.\nThis man was an Aristotelian philosopher, an astrologer, a\nmathematician, and a physician. \"This unhappy man, having performed some\nexperiments in mechanics that seemed miraculous to the vulgar, and\nhaving also offended many, and among the rest his master [the Duke of\nCalabria], by giving out some predictions which were said to have been\nfulfilled, was universally supposed to deal with infernal spirits, and\nburned for it by the inquisitors, at Florence, in the year 1337\" (p.\n355). There seems no green spot on which to rest the eye in this weary\nstretch of blood and fire.\n\n\nCENTURY XV.\n\n\nIn this fifteenth century the knell of the Church rang out; it is\nmemorable evermore in history for the discovery of the New World, and\nthe consequent practical demonstration of the falsehood of the whole\ntheory of the patristic and ecclesiastical theology. In the flood only\n\"Noah and his three sons, with their wives, were saved in an ark. Of\nthese sons, Sham remained in Asia and repeopled it. Ham peopled Africa;\nJaphet, Europe. As the fathers were not acquainted with the existence of\nAmerica, they did not provide an ancestor for its people\" (\"Conflict\nbetween Religion and Science,\" Dr. Draper, p. 63). Lactantius, indeed,\ninveighed against the folly of those who believed in the existence of\nthe antipodes, and Augustine maintained that it was impossible there\nshould be people living on the other side of the earth. Besides, \"in the\nday of judgment, men on the other side of a globe could not see the Lord\ndescending through the air\" (Ibid, p. 64). Clearly there was no other\nside, theologically; only Columbus sailed there. Another fatal blow was\nstruck at the Church by the invention of the printing press, about A.D.\n1440, an invention which made knowledge possible for the many, and by\ndiffusion of knowledge made heresy likewise certain. It is not for me,\nhowever, to trace here the progress of heretic thought; that brighter\ntask is for another pen; mine only to turn over the bloodstained and\nblack pages of the Church. One name stands out in the list of the\npontiffs of this century, which is almost unparalleled in its infamy; it\nis that of Roderic Borgia, Pope Alexander VI. Foully vicious, cruel, and\nbloodthirsty, he is startlingly bad, even for a pope. Among his children\nare found the names of C\u00e6sar and Lucretia Borgia, names whose very\nmention recalls a list of horrible crimes. Alexander died A.D. 1503,\nfrom swallowing, by mistake, a poison which he and his son C\u00e6sar had\nprepared for others. Turning to the heretics, we see great lives cut\nshort by the terrible blows of the inquisition:--Savanarola, the brave\nItalian preacher, the reformer monk, tortured and burned A.D. 1498; John\nHuss, the enemy of the papacy, burned A.D. 1415, in direct violation of\nthe safe conduct granted him; Jerome, of Prague, the friend and\ncompanion of Huss, burned A.D. 1416. Myriads of their unhappy followers\nshared their fate in every European land. But to Spain belongs the\nterrible pre-eminence of cruelty in this last century before the\nReformation. In the year 1478 a bull of Pope Sixtus IV. established the\nInquisition in Spain. \"In the first year of the operation of the\nInquisition, 1481, two thousand victims were burnt in Andalusia; besides\nthese, many thousands were dug up from their graves and burnt; seventeen\nthousand were fined or imprisoned for life. Whoever of the persecuted\nrace could flee, escaped for his life. Torquemada, now appointed\nInquisitor-General for Castile and Leon, illustrated his office by his\nferocity. Anonymous accusations were received, the accused was not\nconfronted by witnesses, torture was relied upon for conviction; it was\ninflicted in vaults where no one could hear the cries of the tormented.\nAs, in pretended mercy, it was forbidden to inflict torture a second\ntime, with horrible duplicity it was affirmed that the torment had not\nbeen completed at first, but had only been suspended out of charity\nuntil the following day! The families of the convicted were plunged into\nirretrievable ruin.... This frantic priest destroyed Hebrew Bibles\nwherever he could find them, and burnt six thousand volumes of Oriental\nliterature at Salamanca, under an imputation that they inculcated\nJudaism\" (Draper's \"Conflict of Science and Religion,\" p. 146).\nTorquemada was, indeed, a worthy successor of Moses. During his eighteen\nyears of power, his list of victims is as follows:--\n\nBurnt at the stake alive................... 10,220\nBurnt in effigy, the persons having died\n  in prison or fled the country............  6,860\nPunished with infamy, confiscation, perpetual\n  imprisonment, or loss of civil\n  rights .................................. 97,321\n                                           -------\nTotal .....................................114,401\n\n--(\"History of the Inquisition,\" by Dr. W.H. Rule, vol. i., p. 150. Full\ndetails of numbers are given in the \"Histoire critique de l'Inquisition\nd'Espagne,\" Llorente, t. I., pp. 272-281).\n\nCardinal Ximenes was not quite so successful as Torquemada, but still\nhis roll is long:\n\nBurnt at the stake alive ................... 3,564\nBurnt in effigy ............................ 1,232\nPunished heavily .......................... 48,059\n                                            ------\n--(Ibid, p. 186). Total ................... 52,855\n\nIn A.D. 1481, in the bishoprics of Seville and Cadiz, \"two thousand\nJudaizers were burnt in person, and very many in effigy, of whom the\nnumber is not known, besides seventeen thousand subject to cruel\npenance\" (Ibid, p. 133). In A.D. 1485, no less than 950 persons were\nburned at Villa Real, now Ciudad Real.\n\nSpite of all this awful suffering, heretics and Jews remained\nantagonistic to the church, and in March, A.D. 1492, the edict of the\nexpulsion of the Jews was signed. \"All unbaptized Jews, of whatever age,\nsex, or condition, were ordered to leave the realm by the end of the\nfollowing July. If they revisited it, they should suffer death. They\nmight sell their effects, and take the proceeds in merchandise or bills\nof exchange, but not in gold or silver. Exiled thus, suddenly from the\nland of their birth, the land of their ancestors for hundreds of years,\nthey could not in the glutted market that arose sell what they\npossessed. Nobody would purchase what could be got for nothing after\nJuly. The Spanish clergy occupied themselves by preaching in the public\nsquares sermons filled with denunciations against their victims, who,\nwhen the time for expatriation came, swarmed in the roads, and filled\nthe air with their cries of despair. Even the Spanish onlookers wept at\nthe scene of agony. Torquemada, however, enforced the ordinance that no\none should afford them any help.... Thousands, especially mothers with\nnursing children, infants, and old people, died by the way--many of them\nin the agonies of thirst\" (Ibid, p. 147). Thus was a peaceable,\nindustrious, thoughtful population, driven out of Spain by the Church.\nNor did her hand stay even here. Ferdinand, alas! had completed the\nconquest of the Moors; true, Granada had only yielded under pledge of\nliberty of worship, but of what value is the pledge of the Christian to\nthe heretic? The Inquisition harried the land, until, in February 1502,\nword went out that all unbaptized Moors must leave Spain by the end of\nApril. \"They might sell their property, but not take away any gold or\nsilver; they were forbidden to emigrate to the Mahommedan dominions; the\npenalty of disobedience was death. Their condition was thus worse than\nthat of the Jews, who had been permitted to go where they chose\" (Ibid,\np. 148). And so the Moors were driven out, and Spain was left to\nChristianity, to sink down to what she is to-day. 3,000,000 persons are\nsaid to have been expelled as Jews, Moors and Moriscoes. The Moors\ndeparted,--they who had made the name of Spain glorious, and had spread\nscience and thought through Europe from that focus of light,--they who\nhad welcomed to their cities all who thought, no matter what their\ncreed, and had covered with an equal protection Mahommedan, Christian,\nand Jew.\n\nNor let the Protestant Christian imagine that these deeds of blood are\nRoman, not Christian. The same crimes attach to every Church, and Rome's\nblack list is only longer because her power is greater. Let us glance at\nProtestant communions. In Hungary, Giska, the Hussite, massacred and\nbruised the Beghards. In Germany, Luther cried, \"Why, if men hang the\nthief upon the gallows, or if they put the rogue to death, why should\nnot we, with all our strength, attack these popes and cardinals, these\ndregs of the Roman Sodom? Why not wash our hands in their blood?\" (\"The\nSpanish Inquisition,\" Le Maistre, p. 67, ed. 1838). Sandys, Bishop of\nLondon, wrote in defence of persecution. Archbishop Usher, in an address\nsigned by eleven other bishops, said: \"Any toleration to the papists is\na grievous sin.\" Knox said, \"The people are bound in conscience to put\nto death the queen, along with all her priests.\" The English Parliament\nsaid, \"Persecution was necessary to advance the glory of God.\" The\nScotch Parliament decreed death against Catholics as idolaters, saying\n\"it was a religious obligation to execute them\" (Ibid, pp. 67, 68).\nCranmer, A.D. 1550, condemned six anabaptists to death, one of whom, a\nwoman, was burned alive, and in the following year another was committed\nto the flames; this primate held a commission with \"some others, to\nexamine and search after all anabaptists, heretics, or contemners of the\nbook of Common Prayer\" (\"Students' History of England,\" D. Hume, p. 291,\ned. 1868).\n\nIn Switzerland, Calvin burned Servetus. In America, the Puritans carried\non the same hateful tradition, and whipped the harmless Quakers from\ntown to town. Wherever the cross has gone, whether held by Roman\nCatholic, by Lutheran, by Calvinist, by Episcopalian, by Presbyterian,\nby Protestant dissenter, it has been dipped in human blood, and has\nbroken human hearts. Its effect on Europe was destructive, barbarising,\ndeadly, until the dawning light of science scattered the thick black\nclouds which issued from the cross. One indisputable fact, pregnant with\ninstruction, is the extremely low rate of increase of the population of\nEurope during the centuries when Christianity was supreme. \"What, then,\ndoes this stationary condition of the population mean? It means, food\nobtained with hardship, insufficient clothing, personal uncleanness,\ncabins that could not keep out the weather, the destructive effects of\ncold and heat, miasm, want of sanitary provisions, absence of\nphysicians, uselessness of shrine cure, the deceptiveness of miracles,\nin which society was putting its trust; or, to sum up a long catalogue\nof sorrows, wants and sufferings in one term--it means a high\ndeath-rate. But, more, it means deficient births. And what does that\npoint out? Marriage postponed, licentious life, private wickedness,\ndemoralized society\" (Draper's \"Conflict of Religion and Science,\" p.\n263). \"The surface of the Continent was for the most part covered with\npathless forests; here and there it was dotted with monasteries and\ntowns. In the lowlands and along the river courses were fens, sometimes\nhundreds of miles in extent, exhaling their pestiferous miasms, and\nspreading agues far and wide.\" In towns there was \"no attempt made at\ndrainage, but the putrefying garbage and rubbish were simply thrown out\nof the door. Men, women, and children slept in the same apartment; not\nunfrequently domestic animals were their companions; in such a confusion\nof the family it was impossible that modesty and morality could be\nmaintained. The bed was usually a bag of straw; a wooden log served as a\npillow. Personal cleanliness was utterly unknown; great officers of\nstate, even dignitaries so high as the Archbishop of Canterbury, swarmed\nwith vermin; such, it is related, was the condition of Thomas \u00e0 Becket,\nthe antagonist of an English king. To conceal personal impurity,\nperfumes were necessarily and profusely used. The citizen clothed\nhimself in leather, a garment which, with its ever-accumulating\nimpurity, might last for many years. He was considered to be in\ncircumstances of ease, if he could procure fresh meat once a week for\nhis dinner. The streets had no sewers; they were without pavement or\nlamps. After night-fall, the chamber-shutters were thrown open, and\nslops unceremoniously emptied down, to the discomforture of the wayfarer\ntracking his path through the narrow streets, with his dismal lantern in\nhis hand\" (Ibid, p. 265). Little wonder indeed, that plagues swept\nthrough the cities, destroying their inhabitants wholesale. The Church\ncould only pray against them, or offer shrines where votive offerings\nmight win deliverance; \"not without a bitter resistance on the part of\nthe clergy, men began to think that pestilences are not punishments\ninflicted by God on society for its religious shortcomings, but the\nphysical consequences of filth and wretchedness; that the proper mode of\navoiding them is not by praying to the saints, but by ensuring personal\nand municipal cleanliness. In the twelfth century it was found necessary\nto pave the streets of Paris, the stench in them was so dreadful. At\nonce dysenteries and spotted fever diminished; a sanitary condition,\napproaching that of the Moorish cities of Spain, which had been paved\nfor centuries, was attained\" (Ibid, p. 314). The death-rate was still\nfurther diminished by the importation of the physician's skill from the\nArabs and the Moors; the Christians had depended on the shrine of the\nsaint, and the bone of the martyr, and the priest was the doctor of body\nas well as of soul. \"On all the roads pilgrims were wending their way to\nthe shrines of saints, renowned for the cures they had wrought. It had\nalways been the policy of the Church to discourage the physician and his\nart; he interfered too much with the gifts and profits of the\nshrines.... For patients too sick to move or be moved, there were no\nremedies except those of a ghostly kind--the Paternoster and the Ave\"\n(Ibid, p. 269). Thus Christianity set itself against all popular\nadvancement, against all civil and social progress, against all\nimprovement in the condition of the masses. It viewed every change with\ndistrust, it met every innovation with opposition. While it reigned\nsupreme, Europe lay in chains, and even into the new world it carried\nthe fetters of the old. Only as Christianity has grown feebler has\ncivilization strengthened, and progress has been made more and more\nrapidly as a failing creed has lost the power to oppose. And now, day by\nday, that progress becomes swifter; now, day by day, the opposition\nbecomes fainter, and soon, passing over the ruins of a shattered\nreligion, Free Thought shall plant the white banner of Liberty in the\nmidst of the temple of Humanity; that temple which, long desecrated by\npriests and overshadowed by gods, shall then be consecrated for evermore\nto the service of its rightful owner, and shall be filled with the glory\nof man, the only god, and shall have its air melodious with the voice of\nthe prayer which is work.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX TO SECTION IV. OF PART II.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX OF BOOKS USED.\n\nDraper, Conflict of Religion and Science...425, 433, 437, 449, 455,\n  456, 464, 465, 471, 472, 475, 476\nEusebius, Ecclesiastical History...424\nGibbon, Decline and Fall...425, 429, 432, 433, 435\nHallam, Europe during the Middle Ages...454, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461,\n  462, 463, 470, 471\nHume, Student's History of England...474\nLe Maistre, Spanish Inquisition...474\nLlorente, Histoire critique de l'Inquisition d'Espagne...468, 469, 472, 473\nMosheim, Ecclesiastical History...Used throughout\nRule, History of the Inquisition...468, 472\nVillemain, Life of Gregory VII...464\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\nAdvent of Christ expected...456, 457\nAlexandrine Library, destruction of...432\nArius...433, 434\nBoniface, Apostle of Germany...442\nCentury 2nd and 3rd...423, 429\nCentury 4th...429, 435\nCentury 5th...435, 439\nCentury 6th...439, 441\nCentury 7th...441, 442\nCentury 8th...442, 447\nCentury 9th...447, 451\nCentury 10th...451, 457\nCentury 11th...457, 465\nCentury 12th...466, 467\nCentury 13th...467, 469\nCentury 14th...469, 470\nCentury 15th...471, 474\nCharlemagne...442, 444\nChristianity, general effect of...474, 476\nChurch, wealth of...425, 440, 441, 444, 457, 460\nChurch, doctrine of...426, 450\nChurch, refuge for evil doers...442\nClergy, frauds of...431, 444, 448, 449\nClergy, vice of...426, 431, 435, 437, 441, 447, 448, 451, 453, 454, 469\nConstantine...424, 425\nConversions...429, 430, 435, 439, 443, 451, 457, 467\nCrusades...452, 458\nEastern and Western Churches, separation of...449, 450\nEndowment of Church, first...429\nFilioque...446, 449\nHeresies...426-428, 433-435, 438, 440, 442, 446, 450, 456,\n  465, 466, 470, 471, 472, 473\nHeretic, first burnt alive...431\n    \"    number burned in Spain...469, 472\nHildebrand...463, 464\nHypatia, murder of...437\nIconoclastic controversy...445, 446\nIgnorance of bishops...441\nInquisition...467-469, 472-474\nIsidorian decretals...448\nJews, expulsion of, from Spain...473, 474\nLearning, lack of...437, 439, 451, 452, 453, 461, 462, 463\n     \"    revival of...460, 461\nMoors, learning of...447, 453, 456\n  \"    expulsion of, from Spain...473, 474\nPatristic geography...471\nPeople, misery of...455, 475, 476\nProtestant persecution...474, 475\nRome, supremacy of...436, 445, 448, 464, 465\n  \"   badness of Popes of...454, 463, 464, 469, 471\nStylites...437\nTorquemada...472, 473","title":"Christianity: Its Evidences, Its Origin, Its Morality, Its History","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":116466}