{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37230/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37230","id":"gutenberg_37230","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37230","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Fathers of the church"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nFRAUDS AND FOLLIES OF THE FATHERS\n\nA Review Of The Worth Of Their  Testimony\nTo The Four Gospels\n\nBy Joseph Mazzini Wheeler\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nTo expose the delirium and delinquencies of a respected or even\nrespectable body of men is always an ungracious, though it may not be\nan unnecessary, task. But when we are informed that rejection of\ncertain supernatural stories means our condemnation here and damnation\nhereafter, we feel tempted to examine the kind of men who first accepted\nand promulgated those stories. The man who tells me I shall be damned if\nI do not believe in his theories or thaumaturgy may have many estimable\nqualities, but he must not be surprised if, disregarding these, I call\nattention to instances of his credulity. When, moreover, priests\nassume authority over conduct on the ground that their Church or their\ndoctrines were God-given, it becomes necessary to investigate how that\nChurch and those doctrines were built up; and if we find superstitious\nfooleries and pious frauds mixed therein, it may do something to abate\nour confidence in priestly pretentions.\n\nIn regard to the Fathers, as to much else, the Catholic is the most\nconsistent of all Christian Churches. The men who established the\nChurch, and fixed what was and what was not Canonical Gospel, are surely\nentitled to some authority on the part of believers. When Protestants\nwish to prove the authenticity of their infallible book, they have to\nfall back upon the witness of the fallible Fathers whose authority they\nare at other times always ready to repudiate.\n\nThe intellectual and moral character of the men who were the original\ndepositaries of Christian faith and literature is then evidently of the\nutmost importance. All historical evidence as to the authenticity of\nthe New Testament, or the faithfulness of ecclesiastical history, comes\nthrough them. If they were credulous and untrustworthy, the edifice\nbuilt upon their testimony or their faith will be found to be tottering.\n\nNow, concerning the Fathers of the Christian Church, we have, at the\noutset, to allege that, as a class, not only were they superstitious\nand credulous, and therefore unreliable, but that many of them were\nabsolutely fraudulent, not hesitating to use any and every means to\nfurther the interests of their religion.\n\nBishop C. J. Ellicott, in his article on the Apocryphal Gospels, which\nappeared in the \"Cambridge Essays\" for 1856, pp. 175, 176, says: \"But\ncredulity is not the only charge which these early ages have to sustain.\nThey certainly cannot be pronounced free from the influence of pious\nfrauds.... It was an age of literary frauds. Deceit, if it had a good\nintention, frequently passed unchallenged.... However unwilling we may\nbe to admit it, history forces upon us the recognition of pious fraud\nas a principle which was by no means inoperative in the earliest ages of\nChristianity.\"\n\nJeremiah Jones says: \"To make testimonies out of forgeries and spurious\nbooks to prove the very foundation of the Christian revelation, was a\nmethod much practised by some of the Fathers, especially Justin Martyr,\nClemens Alexandrinus, and Lactantius.\"--\"A New and Full Method of\nSettling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament,\" part ii., chap,\nxxxiv., p. 318, vol. i. 1827.\n\nB. H. Cowper, a well-known champion of Christianity, and once editor of\nthe _Journal of Sacred Literature_, confesses in the Introduction to his\n\"Apocryphal Gospels\" (p. xxv., 1867): \"Ancient invention and industry\nwent even further, and produced sundry scraps about Herod, Veronica,\nLentuius, and Abgar, wrote epistles for Christ and his mother, and\nI know not how much besides. No difficulty stood in the way; ancient\ndocuments could easily be appealed to without necessarily existing;\nspirits could be summoned from the other world by a stroke of the pen,\nand be made to say anything; sacred names could be written and made a\npassport to fictions, and so on _ad libitum_.\"\n\nM. Daille says: \"For these forgeries are not new and of yesterday; but\nthe abuse hath been on foot above fourteen hundred years.\"--\"The\nRight Use of the Fathers,\" p. 12, 1675. Mosheim mentions a variety of\ncommentaries filled with impostores or fables on our Savior's life and\nsentiments, \"composed soon after his ascent into heaven, by men who,\nwithout being bad, perhaps, were superstitious, simple, and piously\ndeceitful. To these were afterwards added other writings\nfalsely accredited to the most holy apostles by fraudulent\nindividuals.\"--\"Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,\" part iii, chap.\nii, sec. 17, p. 65, vol. i. Stubbs's edition, 1863.\n\nThe same justly-renowned historian declares that \"a pernicious maxim\nwhich was current in the schools, not only of the Egyptians, the\nPlatonists, and the Pythagoreans, but also of the Jews, was very\nearly recognised by the Christians, and soon found among them numerous\npatrons--namely, that those who made it their business to deceive with\na view of promoting the cause of truth were deserving rather of\ncommendation than censure.\"--\"Commentaries on the Affairs of the\nChristians before the time of Constantino the Great.\" Second century.\nsec. 7, pp. 44, 45. R. S. Vidat's translation. 1813.\n\nDr. Gieseler, Professor of Theology in Gottingen, says: \"In reference to\nthe advancement of various Christian interests, and in like manner also\nto the confirmation of those developments of doctrine already mentioned,\n_the spurious literature_ which had arisen and continually increased\namong the Jews and Christians, was of great importance. The Christians\nmade use of such expressions and writings as had already been falsely\nattributed by Jews, from partiality to their religion, to honored\npersons of antiquity, and altered them in parts to suit their own wants,\nsuch as the book of Enoch and the fourth book of Ezra. But writings of\nthis kind were also fabricated anew by Christians, who quieted their\nconscience respecting the forgery with the idea of their good intention,\nfor the purpose of giving greater impressiveness to their doctrines and\nadmonitions by the reputation of respectable names, of animating their\nsuffering brethren to steadfastness, and of gaming over their opponents\nto Christianity.\"--\"Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,\" sec. 52, vol.\ni., pp. 157, 158. Translated by Dr. S. Davidson. T. & T. Clark's Foreign\nTheological Library.\n\nBut as our purpose is to examine these writings somewhat in detail, we\nwill commence with\n\n\n\n\nTHE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.\n\nThis name is given to those Christian writers who are alleged to have\nhad intercourse with the Apostles. These writings are said to date\nfrom about 97 to 150 a.c. Dr. J. Donaldson says: \"Of these writers\ninvestigation assures us only of the names of three, Clement, Polycarp\nand Papias. There is no satisfactory ground for attributing the 'Epistle\nof Barnabas' to Barnabas, the friend of Paul, nor the 'Pastor' of Hermas\nto the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans.\"* Yet it is to\nbe noticed that both these works were read in the primitive churches as\nScripture, and are included in the Sinaitic Codex, which is asserted to\nbe the most ancient manuscript of the New Testament extant.\n\n    * \"The Apostolical Fathers,\" chap, i., p. 101, 1874.\n\nWe take first\n\n\n\n\nST. CLEMENT.\n\nThere is a \"fellow-laborer\" with Paul of the name of Clement, mentioned\nin his Epistle to the Philippians (iv., 3), but whether this is the\nsame individual whom the Catholics make a Pope of Rome, and some of the\nFathers say was a kinsman of the Roman Emperor, is a matter of dispute,\nand much doubted by the best authorities. Bishop Lightfoot (\"St. Paul's\nEpistles: Philippians,\" p. 166) says: \"The notices of time and place are\nopposed to the identification of the two.\" A sufficient evidence of the\nestimation in which St. Clement was held, however, is to be found in the\nnumber of forgeries which Christian piety have palmed upon the world in\nhis name. In the Alexandrian Codex, one of the oldest and most important\nmanuscripts of the New Testament, two epistles addressed to the\nCorinthians stand inscribed with his name, and are enumerated in the\nlist of books of the New Testament. Of these, the second is on all hands\nallowed to be a forgery, and the first is generally considered to be\ninterpolated. That forgeries or interpolations have taken place in\nregard to those books of the same Codex which, upon the authority of\ncertain Fathers, have been formed into the received canon of sacred\nScripture, must not, of course, be suspected on pain of everlasting\nburning. The fact of the Epistle to the Hebrews being ascribed to St\nPaul, the second Epistle ascribed to St Peter, and such texts as those\nof the heavenly witnesses (1 John v., 7, 8), show any scholar that\nnothing of the kind could have taken place by any possibility whatever.\nIs it likely that God would allow his Holy Word to be tampered with?\n\nThe history of Clement of Rome, says Canon Westcott (\"On the Canon,\" p.\n22,1881), \"is invested with mythic dignity which is without example in\nthe Ante-Nicene Church.\" It was too utterly impossible for other Fathers\nand founders of the Church to be invested with mythic dignity. Jesus\nmust have come of the seed of King David, even though Joseph had nothing\nto do with his genealogy. \"The events of his life,\" Westcott goes on to\nsay, \"have become so strangely involved in consequence of the religious\nromances which bear his name, that they remain in inextricable\nconfusion.\" And so indeed they are; almost as badly as those of the\nfounder of Christianity.\n\nClement is called at one time a disciple of St. Paul, and at another of\nSt. Peter, who Paul withstood to his face because he was to be blamed\n(Gal. ii., 11). The Abbe Migne, in his Patrologie, makes him Pope in\n91 A.C. The Clementine Homilies, purporting to be written by Clement\nhimself, says he was ordained by Peter. Some put the first Popes as\nLinus, Cletus, Anacletus, and then Clement; others give their order as\nLinus, Cletus, Clement, Anacletus; others Clement, Linus, &c.; in\nshort, they are given every way. Baron Bunsen called Anacletus a purely\napocryphal and mythical personage, and some wicked sceptics have thought\nthe same of the whole batch. In addition to the two epistles which stand\non the same parchment with Holy Scripture, St. Clement is credited with\ntwo epistles to Virgins--which, though superstitious, are possibly none\nthe less authentic; two epistles to James the brother of the Incarnate\nGod, the Apostolic Canons (which include his own writings as sacred\nscripture), the Apostolic Constitutions, the Recognitions, a Liturgy,\nand twenty Clementine Homilies. All of these, says Mosheim, were\nfraudulently ascribed to this eminent father by some deceivers, for\nthe purpose of procuring them greater authority. Clement has also been\nsupposed the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts of the\nApostles.\n\nRestricting ourselves for the present to the first epistle, generally\nput forward as genuine, until a comparatively late date quoted as\nauthoritative scripture by the Fathers, put in the apostolic canons\namong sacred and inspired writings, and which Eusebius tells us (\"Hist.\nEccl.\" iii., 16) was publicly read in very many churches in old times\nand even in his own day; we at once discover evidence that the writer\ncould not have been akin to the Caesars or of a noble Roman family. He\nbespeaks his Jewish birth by his continual citation of the Jew books, by\nhis references to the services at Jerusalem (chaps. xl. and xli.), and\nby speaking of \"our father Jacob.\" But, like other Christian writers, he\nis very loose in his quotations. For instance, he jumbles up the first\nIsaiah and an apocryphal Ezekiel in the following quotation, \"Say to the\nchildren of my people, Though your sins reach from earth to heaven, and\nthough they be redder than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, yet if\nye turn to me with your whole heart, and say, 'Father,' I will listen to\nyou as to a holy people.\"* He mentions (chap, lv.) \"the blessed Judith,\"\nwhich book, by the way, Volkmar and others think must be dated a.c.\n117-118. He also (chap, xvii.) quotes Moses as saying, \"I am but as the\nsmoke of a pot,\" and other passages (chap. xxiii.-xxvi), probably from\nthe apocryphal \"Assumption of Moses.\" But this is no worse than Matthew\n(ii., 23) quoting as from the prophets, \"He shall be called a Nazarene;\"\nPaul's wrongly quoting the Psalms (Eph. iv., 8); or Jude (ver. 14)\nciting the apocryphal book of Enoch as by \"the seventh from Adam.\" But\nit somewhat vitiates his supposed testimony to the canonical books. It\nis evident, however, that he was acquainted with Paul's Epistles to the\nCorinthians, and his own reads at times like a bad imitation of Paul.\n\n     * Pp. 12 and 13, vol i., \"Ante-Nicene Christian Library.\"\n     All our citations, unless otherwise mentioned, will be taken\n     from this valuable series of volumes.\n\nThe apostle to the Gentiles, and thereby the real founder of modern\nChristianity, disregarding a certain threat of its supposed founder\n(Matt, v., 22), ventured, in arguing for the resurrection, the somewhat\nquestionable statement, \"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not\nquickened except it die\" (1 Cor. xv., 36). Clement altogether outdoes\nthis. He says (chap, xxv.):\n\n\"Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes\nplace in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round\nabout. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the\nonly one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of\nits dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of\nfrankincense and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is\nfulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of\nworm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird,\nbrings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up\nthat nest in which are the bones of its parents, and bearing these\nit passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called\nHeliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places\nthem on the altar of the sun, and, having done this, hastens back to its\nformer abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates,\nand find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was\ncompleted.\" This is the way the Christian evidences were presented by\nthe authoritative head of the Church in the first century. Tertullian\n(\"De Resurr. Cam.,\" sec. 10), takes Psalm xcii., 12, as referring to\nthis prodigy. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, St.\nEpiphanius, and other of the Fathers, follow Clement in his fable. It\nis said that Clement in this only followed Herodotus, Pliny, Ovid, and\nTacitus, who mention the phoenix. This is false. Herodotus (ii., 13)\nsimply relates the report of others, and does not intimate that he\nbelieved any part of it, but positively declares that some of the\nstatements were not credible. Pliny (\"Nat. Hist,\" x., 2) states\nexpressly that the accounts may be fabulous. Ovid (\"Metam.,\" xv.,\n392) uses the legend for poetical purposes. Tacitus (\"Ann.,\" vi., 28)\ndeclares that the statements are uncertain. These, be it remembered,\nwere unenlightened heathen, but the apostolic saint founds the\ndistinguishing article of the Christian creed upon this mistake of an\nEgyptian myth. May it not have been a phoenix, instead of a dove, which\ndescended on Jesus at Jordan? The cherubim described by Ezekiel were\ncurious fowl. There are some queer animals mentioned in the Apocalypse;\nIsaiah and Job mention unicorns, and the former dragons. The Jews were\nindeed great in the natural-history department. Rabbinical references to\nthe phoenix are numerous. The Talmud speaks of the zig, a bird of such\nmagnitude that when it spread out its wings the disc of the sun was\nobscured; and the bar-juchne, one of whose eggs once fell down and broke\nthree hundred cedars and submerged sixty villages.*\n\n     * See B. H. Cowper's article on the Talmud, in \"The Journal\n     of Sacred Literature,\" Jan., 1868.\n\nThe second epistle, or rather homily, of Clement, though equally bound\nup with the sacred records, and placed in the Apostolical Canon, is\nadmitted to be spurious, and is every way less notable. The concluding\nleaves of the Alexandrian manuscript have been lost. It ends abruptly\nwith this interesting chapter:--\n\n\"Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God in love and\nrighteousness, since we know not the day of the appearing of God.\nFor the Lord himself, being asked by one when his kingdom would come,\nreplied, 'When two shall be one, and that which is without as that which\nis within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.'\nNow, two are one when we speak the truth one to another, and there is\nun-feignedly one soul in two bodies. And 'that which is without as that\nwhich is within' meaneth this: He calls the soul 'that which is within,'\nand the body 'that which is without.' As, then, thy body is visible to\nsight, so also let thy soul be manifest by good works. And 'the male\nwith the female, neither male nor female, this \"....\n\nHere is an interesting quotation by the earliest Christian Father of\nwords uttered by God Incarnate upon an important matter. Had they found\ntheir way into the Canonical Gospels, what books would have been written\nupon their beauty and sublimity! As it is, we gather from Clement of\nAlexandria* that these words and other important sayings of Jesus were\nfound in the Gospel of the Egyptians. This gospel was certainly an\nancient one, and is supposed by Grabe, Erasmus, Du Pin, Father Simon,\nGrotius, Mills, and others, to have been among those referred to by Luke\nin his preamble: \"Forasmuch as _many_ have taken in hand to set forth in\norder a declaration of those things which are most surely believed\namong us.\" This Gospel of the Egyptians was received by the Ophites, the\nEncratites, the Valentinians, and the Sabellians. It was evidently at\none with the doctrines of the Essenes in regard to women. For instance,\nClement of Alexandria quotes from it the following: \"The Lord says to\nSalome: 'Death shall prevail as long as women bring forth children.'\" \"I\nam come to destroy the works of the woman, that is, the works of female\nconcupiscense, generation, and corruption. When you despise a covering\nfor your nakedness, and when two shall be one, and the male with\nthe female neither male nor female.\" Intimations that similar views\nregarding marriage were found in the early Christian Church may be\ngathered from Matt, xix., 12; Rev. xiv., 4; 1 Cor. vii., 8, etc. But the\nsubject is too delicate to be handled by other than a divinity student.\n\n     * \"Stromata,\" book ill-, 9, 13.     The English editors have\n     deemed it best to give the whole of this book in Latin.\n\nPassing, then, Clement's two epistles to virgins with the remark\nthat although generally rejected as spurious by Protestants, they are\nconsidered genuine by their editors, Wetstein, Bellet, and Cardinal\nVillecourt, we come to \"The Recognitions of Clement.\" Of these\nremarkable documents Hilgenfeld says, \"There is scarcely a single\nwriting which is of so great importance for the history of Christianity\nin its first stage.\" The editors of the Anti-Nicene Christian Library\ncall it \"a theological romance;\" but it is a question whether that\nepithet would not equally fit every other so-called historical\ncomposition of the first three centuries of the Christian era. Cardinal\nBaronius (\"Annal.\" tom, i., an. 51) call sit \"a gulf of filth and\nuncleanliness, full of prodigious lies and frantic fooleries.\" But\nCardinal Beliarmine says it was written either by Clement or by some\nother author as ancient and learned as he.\n\nIt begins, \"I, Clement, who was born in the city of Rome,\" and proceeds\nto narrate his thoughts on philosophy, his doubts and hopes of a future\nlife. To resolve these the worthy Father determined to go to Egypt,\nand bribe a magician to bring him a soul from the infernal regions to\nconsult whether the soul be immortal. But he heard of the Son of God\nin Judea and was ready to accredit the wonders ascribed to him.\nHaving heard Barnabas, Clement proceeds to Caesarea and sees Peter, who\ninstructs him concerning the True Prophet. And now comes the curious\npart of the story. Peter is engaged in continuous controversy on the\ntrue Mosaic and Christian religion with a miracle worker, called Simon\nthe magician, who it is said confessed he wrought his wonders by the\nhelp of the soul of a healthy young boy, who had been violently put to\ndeath for that purpose, and then called up from the dead and compelled\nto be his assistant. Peter follows this Simon about from place to\nplace, exposing him. He especially follows him to Rome. The astounding\nrevelation in connexion with this story we give in the words of the\nauthor of \"Supernatural Religion\" (vol. ii., p. 34): \"There cannot be a\ndoubt that the Apostle Paul is attacked in it, as the great enemy of\nthe true faith, under the hated name of Simon the magician, who Peter\nfollowed everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and confuting him. He\nis robbed of the title of 'Apostles of the Gentiles,' which, together\nwith the honor of founding the Churches of Antioch, of Laodicea, and of\nRome, is ascribed to Peter. All that opposition to Paul which is implied\nin the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere (1 Cor. i., 11, 12; 2 Cor.\nxi., 13--20; Philip i., 15, 16) is here realised and exaggerated, and\nthe personal difference with Peter to which Paul refers is widened into\nthe most bitter animosity.\"\n\nThe most able authorities, such as Davidson, B. Lightfoot, Mansel,\nHilgenfeld, Reuss, Baur, Scholten, and Schwegler agree in this view,\nwhich is strongly confirmed by the epistle of Peter to James, which\nstands as a preface to the Clementine Homilies, dealing with the same\nmatter of Simon Magus. Peter says: \"For some among the Gentiles have\nrejected my lawful preaching, and accepted certain lawless and foolish\nteaching of the hostile man.\" Canon Westcott, in his edition of 1866,\nsaid on this passage: \"There can be no doubt that St. Paul is referred\nto as 'the enemy'\" (on the Canon, p. 252). Since the quotation of this\ndamaging admission by the author of \"Supernatural Religion,\" it has been\nremoved. But whether the fact that the Simon Magus who is reviled in the\nClementine Recognitions is intended to represent Paul has the authority\nof Canon Westcott or not, there can be no doubt that this view better\nagrees with Paul's epistles, and all we know of the early Christians,\nthan the reconciling but unhistoric \"Acts of the Apostles,\" which took\nthe place of the Clementine \"theological romance,\" because, in the\nstruggle for existence, the Christian Church which was built on Paul\nrather than that which was built on Peter (Matt. xvi., 18), proved to be\nthe fittest to survive.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\n\n\nST. BARNABAS\n\nSt. Barnabas is the next of the Apostolic Fathers demanding our\nattention. Here, again, it is very doubtful if we have any of the\nauthentic words of the companion of Paul, so highly extolled by Renan,\nand declared by the author of the Acts of the Apostles to have been \"a\ngood man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith\" (xi., 24).\n\nThe epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, although generally received as\nhis for many ages, and repeatedly cited as Apostolic by Clement of\nAlexandria, and also cited by Origen, and found, together with the\n\"Shepherd\" of Hermas, in the Sinaitic Codex, is repudiated by most\nmodern scholars, and declared by the author of \"Supernatural Religion\"\nto be an instance of \"the singular facility with which, in the total\nabsence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed by\nthe Fathers to Apostles and their followers\" (vol. i., p. 233, 1879).\nAlthough the weight of authority is against its authenticity, it is\nstill supported as genuine by such scholars as Schmidt, Grieseler, and\nSamuel Sharpe; and it must be admitted that most of the arguments used\nagainst it have been based upon its contents not coming up to what\ncritics have supposed ought to be the Apostolic standard. At any rate,\nit is an-interesting relic of the early Church which is considered\ngenuine by the most important section of Christendom, the Roman\nCatholics. In Jerome's time it was still read among the Apocryphal\nScriptures, and in the Stichometria of Nicephorus (ninth century) it is\nput among the disputed books of the New Testament.\n\nBarnabas is still more questionably fathered with a gospel of his own,\nwhich is no longer extant. But as it appears to have contained a very\npeculiar statement to the effect that Jesus did not actually die upon\nthe cross, and that it was Judas who was crucified in his stead, which\nstatement has been taken up, from whatever quarter, by the Mohammedans,\nthis gospel is, of course, set down as a Mohammedan forgery.\n\nThe Catholics have a tradition that Barnabas was converted after\nwitnessing the miracle at that wondrous pool of Bethesda, where the\nangel came down troubling the waters. He was a Levite of Cyprus, and his\nname was formerly Joses. It is noteworthy that upon entering the Church,\nChristian converts took new names, a custom common to the Buddhists.\nClement of Alexandria says he was one of the seventy Apostles. He is\nstated to have converted Clement of Rome, and to have been stoned by the\nJews about the year 64. All these statements rest on the mere authority\nof the Church, not the slightest proof being forthcoming either for or\nagainst them. Nothing was known of his tomb until the year 478, when the\nCypriotes, being required to submit to the episcopal sway of Peter\nthe Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch, his coffin, with the Gospel of Saint\nMatthew inside, turned up in the nick of time to avert the calamity and\nassert the independence of a place having such indubitable relics.\nThe Church of Toulouse yet claims to have his body, and eight or nine\nchurches pretend to having possession of his head. Of the value of this\nwondrous head we shall presently have sufficient proof.\n\n\"The Acts of Barnabas,\" a so-called apocryphal book, gives an account,\nby Mark, of the journeyings and martyrdom of this Apostle (Vol. XVI.,\n\"Ante-Nicene Christian Library\"). The Evangelist tells how Paul was\nquite enraged against him so that, although he gave repentance on\nhis knees upon the earth to Paul, he would not endure it. \"And when I\nremained for three Sabbaths in entreaty and prayer on my knees, I was\nunable to prevail upon him about myself; for his great grievance against\nme was on account of my keeping several parchments in Pamphylia\" (p.\n294). Paul, according to this story, refused to accompany Barnabas if he\ntook Mark with him, and Barnabas elected to stand by Mark. They removed\na fever from one Timon by laying their hands upon him. \"And Barnabas\nhad received documents from Matthew, a book of the Word of God, and a\nnarrative of miracles and doctrines. This Barnabas laid upon the sick\nin each place we came to, and it immediately made a cure of their\nsufferings\" (p. 297). Once in their journeyings they found a certain\nrace being performed, and upon Barnabas rebuking the city, the western\npart fell, so that many were killed and wounded, and the rest fled for\nsafety to the Temple of Apollo. But our purpose is with the Apostolic\nepistle which goes under his name.\n\nJoses may have been a ready speaker, as is judged by his Christian name\nof Barnabas, or _Son of Exhortation_; but he certainly cannot be classed\nas a brilliant letter writer. His epistle, like many other Apostolic\ndocuments, would be considered dreadfully prosy but for its age and\nreputation. Though no great hand at _composing_, Barney had a remarkable\nfaculty for dealing with _types_. Types are an attractive study to\ntheologians; biblical stories--like that of Jonah and the whale,\nfor instance--which, taken in a plain and natural way, are evident\nabsurdities, serve capitally as divine types and symbols. At this sort\nof interpretation Barnabas was, as we shall see, a perfect master. He\noutdoes the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, by the way,\nTertullian (\"De Pudicitia, 20\") ascribes to Barnabas.\n\nHe prides himself upon his exegesis of Scripture, which he does not\nhesitate to ascribe to divine inspiration. \"Blessed be our Lord,\" he\nexclaims, \"who has placed in us wisdom and understanding of secret\nthings\" (c. vi., p. 110, vol. i., \"Ante-Nicene Christian Library\"); and,\nfurther on, he boldly avows inspiration on behalf of what Osburn calls\n\"a tissue of obscenity and absurdity which would disgrace the Hindoo\nMythology\" (\"Doctrinal Errors of the Apostolic and Early Fathers,\" p.\n25, 1835).\n\nAccording to Barnabas, the Mosaic legislation had Christ in view rather\nthan the sanitary condition of the Jews. He even manufactures a law of\nMoses in order to make out a type of Christ having vinegar to drink. He\nsays (c. vii., pp. 112, 113)  \"Moreover, when fixed to the cross, he\nhad given him to drink vinegar and gall. Hearken how the priests of the\npeople gave previous indication of this. His commandment having been\nwritten, the Lord enjoined, that whosoever did not keep the fast should\nbe put to death, because He also Himself was to offer in sacrifice for\nour sins the vessel of the Spirit, in order that the type established in\nIsaac, when he was offered upon the altar, might be fully accomplished.\nWhat, then, says He in the prophet? 'And let them eat of the goat, which\nis offered with fasting, for all their sins.' Attend carefully: 'And\nlet all the priests alone eat the inwards, unwashed with vinegar.'\nWherefore? Because to me, who am to offer my flesh for the sins of my\nnew people, ye are to give gall with vinegar to drink: eat ye alone,\nwhile the people fast and mourn in sackcloth and ashes.\"\n\nSome have supposed these spurious regulations were taken from\ntraditions, but the Rev. J. Jones says: \"I rather look upon it as _a\npious forgery and fraud_, there being nothing of the sort known to have\nbeen among the Jewish customs, and this book having several such frauds\nin it\" (\"A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of\nthe New Testament,\" vol. ii., p. 377, 1827). If it is not either of\nthese it is very clear that we have lost some important portions of\nGod's inspired word in the Pentateuch. Barnabas also has a chapter on\nthe red-heifer, which was sacred to Typhon among the Egyptians, as a\ntype of Christ, and says (chap, viii., p. 115) \"The calf is Jesus.\"\n\nIt appears, too, that Abraham was a Greek scholar some time before the\nGreek language was known, and that he circumcised his servants as a\ntype of Christianity. Barnabas knew, probably by inspiration, the exact\nnumber who were circumcised, and tells us (chap, ix., p. 116): \"Learn,\nthen, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first\nwho enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised\nthat rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For [the\nScriptures] saith, '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 eight are thus denoted--Ten by I, and Eight by H, you have [the\ninitials of the name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the\ngrace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says also 'Three Hundred.'\nHe signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He\nknows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No\none has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than\nthis, but I know that ye are worthy.\"\n\nVerily Barnabas must have been full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.\nNo wonder he was \"expressly set apart and sent forth to the work of\nan apostle by the order of the Holy Ghost\" (Acts xiii., 2--4). The\nimportance which he places upon numbers may be compared with that\nassigned by the author of the book of Revelation. Barney tells us that\nthe world will last 6,000 years because it was made in six days, and the\ninference is doubtless as true as the fact (?) on which it is based. His\nsystem of finding types in the Old Testament has lasted in the Christian\nChurch to our own time, and derives countenance from several passages\nof Paul. This most excellent piece of knowledge concerning Abraham\nis hardly more far-fetched than saying that Levi paid tithes to\nMel-chisedek because he was potentially in the loins of his forefather\nAbraham when he met him (Heb. vii., 9,10), or that Agar was a type of\nJerusalem (Gal. iv., 25).\n\nBarney applies to Jesus the passage, Isaiah xlv., 1, \"Thus saith the\nLord to his annointed, to _Cyrus_.\" This the Rev. J. Jones (p. 384)\ncalls \"a wilful and designed mistake.\" But his reference to prophecies\nare scarcely more disingenuously ingenious than Matthew's making Jesus\ngo to Egypt, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by\nthe prophet, saying, \"Out of Egypt have I called my son;\" he dwelt at\nNazareth, \"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,\nHe shall be called a Nazarene\" (ii., 23); or, saying that Jesus spoke in\nparables, \"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,\nsaying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which\nhave been kept secret from the foundation of the world\" (xiii., 35). His\nloose system of quotation may also be paralleled from the sacred\nvolume. In Matt, xxvii., 9, the passage from Zechariah xi., 12, 13, is\nattributed to Jeremiah; in Mark i., 2, a quotation from Malachi iii., 1,\nis ascribed to Isaiah; in 1 Corinth, ii., 9, a passage is quoted as Holy\nScriptures which is not found in the Old Testament, but is taken, as\nOrigen and Jerome state, from an apocryphal work, \"The Revelation of\nElias.\"\n\nOne more specimen of this Apostolical Father will suffice. It occurs\nchap, xi., p. 118, and is as remarkable for the Levite's understanding\nof the laws of Moses as for his information upon natural history: \"'And\nthou shalt not eat,' he says, 'the lamprey or the polypus, or the cuttle\nfish.' He means, 'Thou shalt not join thyself to be like to such men as\nare ungodly to the end and are condemned to death.' In like manner as\nthose fishes above accursed, float in the deep, not swimming like the\nrest, but make their abode in the mud at the bottom. Moreover, 'Thou\nshalt not,' he says, 'eat the hare.' Wherefore? 'Thou shalt not be a\ncorrupter of boys, nor like unto such.' Because the hare multiplies,\nyear by year, the places of its conception; for as many years as it\nlives so many [----Gr.----] it has. Moreover, 'Thou shalt not eat the\nhyena.' He means, 'Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor corrupter,\nnor like them that are such.' Wherefore? Because that animal annually\nchanges its sex, and is at one time male and at another female.\nMoreover, he has rightly detested the weasel. For he means, 'Thou shalt\nnot be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the\nmouth, on account of their uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to\nthose impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth. For this animal\nconceives by the mouth.'\" We will leave this shocking old Father with a\nvery serious question, as to the value of his testimony to the truth of\nChristianity.\n\n\n\n\nST. IGNATIUS.\n\nThis Apostolic saint need not detain us long. He is alleged to have\nbeen the identical babe taken up in the arms of Jesus as an example of\ninnocence and humility to his none too innocent or humble disciples.\nBut in truth his history is as untrustworthy and fabulous as that of the\nother heroes of the early Christian Church. St. Chrysostom tells us\nthat Ignatius never saw the Lord Jesus Christ, and he might have added\nneither did any of the other early Christian writers, with the possible\nexception of the author of the Revelation; unless, like Paul, they saw\nhim in a trance. He is said to have been a Syrian Bishop of Antioch,\nbut, like the Galilean fishermen, to have written in Greek. Fifteen\nepistles are ascribed to him, but of these eight are universally\nadmitted to be spurious, and the other seven are exceeding doubtful,\nthree only being found in the Syrian manuscript. Calvin said: \"Nothing\ncan be more disgusting than those silly trifles which are edited in the\nname of Ignatius.\" The reason for the Presbyterian's condemnation lay\nin the stress which these epistles place upon Episcopacy. The writer\ndeclares himself to have been inspired by the Spirit saying on this\nwise: \"Do nothing without the bishops (Phil. vii., p. 233). He says\nbishops are to be looked on even as the Lord himself (ad. Ephes. vi., p.\n152). Again, let all reverence deacons as Jesus Christ, of whose place\nthey are the keepers\" (ad. \"Trail.,\" chap, iii., p. 191), and \"He who\nhonors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without\nthe knowledge of the bishop does [in reality] serve the devil\" (ad.\n\"Smyrn,\" chap, ix., p. 249).\n\nDr. Donaldson (\"Apostolic Fathers,\" p. 102) says: \"The writings now\nascribed to him present a problem which has not yet been solved\"--\"in\nwhatever form they be examined, they will be found to contain opinions\nand exhibit modes of thought entirely unknown to any of the Ep-Apostolic\nwritings.\"\n\nIgnatius, who was surnamed Theophorus, is said to have been martyred,\nbut the year in which his death occurred is among the obscurities of\nearly Christian chronology. It is alleged that he voluntarily courted\ndeath by giving himself up as a Christian to Trajan when that emperor\nwas at Antioch, and that he was sent by a circuitous route all the way\nto-Rome in order to be devoured by wild beasts there, or, apparently,\nrather in order to write his epistles while a prisoner on his journey.\nBut no reference to this legend is to be traced during the first six\ncenturies of the Christian era. This absurd story is now generally\ndiscredited. The life and writings of Ignatius must be classed in the\nvast catalogue of Christian myths and fabrications.\n\n\n\n\nST. POLYCARP.\n\nMost of the little that is reported of this saint is also probably\nmythical. His importance chiefly depends upon his being made the link\nbetween the Apostle John and Irenaeus, the first writer who towards the\nclose of the second century names the four Gospels.\n\nArchbishop Usher (\"Proleg. ad Ignat. Ep.,\" chap, iii.). thought Polycarp\nwas the angel of the Church at Smyrna, referred to in Revelations ii.,\n8. A trivial objection to this is, that it would make Polycarp live\nuntil 100 years afterwards, as the old father is alleged to have lived\non through all the early persecutions, only to suffer death in 167,\nunder the reign of the mild and gentle Antoninus. Later critics,\nhowever, have decided that Statius Quadratus, under whom he is said to\nhave died, was pro-consul in a.d. 154-5 or 155-6--all of which shows\nthe very reliable nature of early Christian records. He is said to\nhave declared that he served Christ for eighty-six years, but learned\nauthorities are again divided as to whether he meant that as his age, or\nas dating from the time of his conversion. Irenaeus, from whom we get our\ninformation concerning Polycarp, gives us the following choice anecdote,\nwhich illustrates how these Christians loved one another: \"There are\nalso those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going\nto bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of\nthe bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly, lest even\nthe bathhouse fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is\nwithin.' And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one\noccasion and said, 'Dost thou know me?' 'I do know thee, the firstborn\nof Satan'\" (\"Irenaeus against Heresies,\" book iii., chap, iii., sec.\n4., p. 263, Vol. V. \"Ante-Nicene Christian Library\"). In the so-called\nEpistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which consists of a string of\nquotations from the Old Testament and Paul, occurs this passage: \"For\nwhosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is\nantichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross,\nis of the Devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his\nown lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment,\nhe is the first-born of Satan\" (chap, xii., p. 73). Schwegler and\nHilgenfeld consider the insertion of this phrase, \"firstborn of Satan,\"\nas proof of the inauthenticity of the Epistle. They argue that the\nwell-known saying was employed to give an appearance of reality to the\nforgery. Nor are there wanting other indications of its spuriousness.\nIt refers to the mythical martyr journey of Ignatius, and while treating\nhim as dead in chapter ix., has him alive and kicking again in chapter\nxiii.\n\nThe Church of Smyrna is said to have issued an encyclical letter\ndetailing Polycarp's martyrdom, which is reported by that eminent Church\nhistorian, or rather mythographist, Eusebius (\"Ec. Hist.,\" iv., 15). It\nrelates how \"as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to\nhim a voice from heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and show thyself a man O,\nPolycarp.' No one saw who it was that spoke to him, but those of our\nbrethren who were present heard the voice\" (chap, ix., p. 88). Upon\nwhich Dr. Donaldson quietly says (\"Apostolical Fathers,\" chap, iii.,\np. 202; 1874): \"It is not very probable that there was any voice from\nheaven; and it is improbable that there were Christians in the place to\nhear the voice.\"\n\nThe old father proved to be of the asbestos-like nature of Shadrach,\nMeshach, and Abednego. \"When he had pronounced this _amen_, and so\nfinished his prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled\nthe fire. And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it\nwas given 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 wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And\nhe 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 odor, as if frankincense or some precious\nspice had been smoking there\" (chap, xv., p. 92). But this divine\ninterposition was only to make a display--Polycarp was not to escape; he\nwas only saved from the flames to perish by the dagger. \"At length, when\nthose wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the\nfire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through\nwith a dagger. And on doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great\nquantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people\nwondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers\nand the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in\nour own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the\nCatholic church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his\nmouth either has been, or shall yet be, accomplished\" (chap, xvi., p.\n92). The account relates that Polycarp had a vision of his pillow on\nfire, and prophesied therefrom that he should be burnt alive.\n\nThe dove which flew out of Polycarp's side proved him to have been\npossessed of the Holy Ghost. Herodian relates that at the Apotheosis of\nthe Roman emperors it formed part of the solemnity to let an eagle fly\nfrom out of the burning pile of wood on which the corpse of the new\ndeity was cremated, to intimate that this bird of Jove carried the\nsoul of the deceased to heaven. Lucian, in his account of the death of\nPeregrinus, relates how he told the simpletons that at the death of this\nChristian martyr, a vulture flew up out of the flames, taking his course\ndirect to the skies, and screaming out in an articulate voice, \"Soaring\nabove the earth, I ascend to Olympus.\" The miracles at the death of\nPolycarp may be just as true as that of the earthquake and the saints\nhaving come out of their graves at the death of Jesus; but sceptics will\ndoubtless be found who consider, with Dr. Donaldson (p. 219), that \"not\none of the facts has proper historical testimony for it.\"\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\n\n\nHERMAS.\n\nThe \"Pastor\" of Hermas, the editors of the _Ante Nicene Christian,\nLibrary_ inform us in their Introductory notice (vol. I., p. 319), was\none of the most popular books, if not the most popular book, in the\nChristian Church during the second, third, and fourth centuries. W.\nOsburn, in his \"Doctrinal Errors of the Early Fathers,\" p. 35, 1835,\ndeclares--with much show of reason--it is \"the silliest book that ever\nexercised an influence over the human understanding.\" This gives a\nsufficient gauge of the value of the judgment of those centuries. As\nwith all other early Christian writings, with the exception of some of\nthe epistles of Paul, much doubt exists as to its author. The earliest\nopinion was that it was the production of the Hermas who is saluted by\nPaul in his Epistle to the Romans xiv., 14. Origen, in his commentary\non the Romans (bk. x., 31), states this opinion distinctly, and it is\nrepeated by the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius (hi., 3.,), and by\nJerome in his work against heresies (iv., 20, 2). There is an early\nAEthiopic version of Hermas which contains the curiously bold figment\nthat it was written by the Apostle Paul himself, under the title of\n\"Hermes,\" which name, as stated in the twelfth verse of the fourteenth\nchapter of the Acts of the Apostles, was bestowed upon him by the\ninhabitants of Lystra.\n\nThe Muratorian fragment on the Canon, however (the authorship of which\nis unknown, but which may plausibly be dated about the year 200,)\nasserts that \"The 'Pastor' was written very lately in our times, in\nthe city of Rome, by Hermas, while Bishop Pius, his brother, sat in the\nchair of the church of the city of Rome\" (i.e., 142--157 A.C.), and\nthe best modern authorities since the time of Mosheim incline to this\nopinion. Yet it is quite possible that the name of the author is as\nfictitious as the contents of the work.\n\nIt is a threefold collection of visions, commandments, and similitudes.\nThe author claims to receive a divine message and to record the words of\nangels, and there is evidence that in the early days of the Church\nthis claim was unquestioned. C. H. Hoole, in the introduction to his\ntranslation of the work (p. xi.) says: \"At the very earliest period it\nwas undoubtedly regarded as on a level with the canonical books of the\nNew Testament being distinctly quoted by Irenaeus as Scripture.\" Irenaeus,\nas everyone knows, is the first who mentions the four Gospels by name.\nClement of Alexandria speaks of it as divine revelation (Strom. I.,\nxxix). Origen claims it as inspired by God (loc. cit.) All the early\nFathers accepted its authority except Tertullian, and he only disputed\nit after he became an heretical Montanist. In his orthodox works he too\ncites it as part of Holy Scripture. Eusebius tells us that it was read\npublicly in the churches, and it is found in the Sinaitic Codex of the\nNew Testament, together with the epistle of Barnabas, along with the\ncanonical books. Dupin (\"Ecclesiastica Writers,\" p. 28, 1692,) says:\"The\n'Pastor' hath been admitted by many churches as canonical.\"\n\nHermes makes no mention of a Trinity nor of the Incarnation, and, though\nhe speaks of the Son of God, this Son of God seems to be the same as\nthe Holy Spirit. Of the man Jesus he makes no mention. When the Arians\nappealed to this book its reputation sank with the orthodox party. About\nthe year 494 it was condemned in the decree of Pope Gelasius, and from\nthat time it has declined in public favor. Jerome, who in his Chronicon\nhad lauded it, in his commentary on Habakkuk taxes it with _stultia_\nfoolishness. And not unjustly. Its visions are almost as fantastic as\nthose recorded in the Apocalypse. Its divine revelations are about on a\nlevel with the maudlin platitudes uttered through the lips of spiritist\ntrance mediums. Although so highly appreciated by the primitive\nChristians, there are few among the moderns who would not find his\nvagaries puerile and unreadable. He has a complete system of angelology.\n\"There are two angels with a man--one of righteousness, and the other of\niniquity--\" (Commandment Sixth, chap, ii., p. 359,) and these originate\nall evil and all good. There is even an angel over the beasts. Hermes is\nacquainted with this angel's name. It is Thegri (Vision iv., 2, p. 346).\nFrom these angels he receives much valueless information. Mosheim says\nof his work: \"It seems to have been written by a man scarcely sane,\nsince he thought himself at liberty to invent conversations between\nGod and angels, for the sake of giving precepts, which he considered\nsalutary, a more ready entrance into the minds of his readers. But\ncelestial spirits with him talk greater nonsense than hedgers, or\nditchers, or porters among ourselves\" (Ec. Hist., pt. ii., chap, ii.,\nsec. 21; vol. i., p. 69,1863). If we bear in mind that this book was the\nmost popular among the primitive Christians, we shall have a good idea\nof the extent of their attainments. In his work on Christian affairs\nbefore the time of Constantine, Mosheim gives his opinion of this Father\nthat \"he knowingly and wilfully was guilty of a cheat.\" \"At the time\nwhen he wrote,\" continues Mosheim, \"it was an established maxim with\nmany of the Christians, that it was pardonable in an advocate for\nreligion to avail himself of fraud and deception, if it were likely\nthat they might conduce towards the attainment of any considerable good\"\n(vol. i., p. 285; Vidal tr., 1813). He has also been deemed the forger\nof the Sibylline oracles. It is curious that in his second vision he\nconfounds an old woman, who is said to represent the Church, with the\nSibyl (Ch. iv., p. 331). Neither his reputation for veracity nor the\nvalue of his ethical teaching, as given by angels, is enhanced by his\nstatement that when commanded to love the truth he said to his angelic\nmessenger: \"I never spoke a true word in my life, but have ever spoken\ncunningly to all, and have affirmed a lie for the truth to all; and no\none ever contradicted me, but credit was given to my words.\" Whereupon\nthe divine visitor informs him that if he keeps the commandments now,\n\"even the falsehoods which you formerly told in your transactions may\ncome to be believed through the truthfulness of your present statements.\nFor even they can become worthy of credit\" (Commandment Third, p. 351).\n\nThe testimony of such a man would be of very little value indeed, but it\nis certain that he gives none whatever to the New Testament, and this,\nalthough his writings are the most extensive of any of the Apostolic\nFathers. Dr. Teschendorf even does not suggest that Hermas gives\nany indication of acquaintance with our Gospels, and although Canon\nWestcott, who admits \"it contains no definite quotation from either Old\nor New Testament\" (on the Canon, p. 200, 1881), strives to show that\nsome of his similitudes, such as that of the Church to a tower, may have\nbeen derived from the New Testament, Canon Sanday, another Christian\napologist, admits that these references are very doubtful. The only\ndirect quotation from Scripture is from a part which is not included in\nour Holy Bible, and which, indeed, is no longer extant. In the Second\nVision, chap. iii., he says: \"The Lord is near to them who return unto\nHim, as it is written in Eldad and Modat, who prophesied to the people\nin the wilderness.\" In Numbers xi, 26, 27, we read of Eldad and Medad\nwho prophesied in the camp, and a book under their name appears in the\nStichometria of Nicephorus among the apocrypha of the Old Testament.\n\nHaving thus cursorily reviewed the writings of the first five Fathers,\nwho are usually, though unwarrantably, denominated \"Apostolic,\" we will\nbriefly examine\n\n\n\n\nTHEIR TESTIMONY TO THE GOSPELS.\n\nThe matter indeed might be summarily dismissed with the remark that they\nafford no testimony to the Gospels whatever. But so much stress is laid\nupon them in this respect by orthodox writers (and necessarily so, for\nif the so-called Apostolical Fathers testify not of the Gospels, there\nis no evidence of their existence until the latter half of the second\ncentury) that we must pause and examine how far they bear the burden\nthat is laid upon them.\n\nWe have already seen that both the age and the authorship of every one\nof these works is of a most doubtful character. The names of every\none of the twelve apostles, of Paul, of Ignatius, of Polycarp, of the\nDiognetus mentioned in Acts xvii, 34, of Clement, of Linus, and of other\nearly Christians of repute, have been appended to the most unblushing\nforgeries. Among these so-called genuine remains, as found in Archbishop\nWake's version and the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, those attributed\nto Barnabas and Hermas are almost as certainly forged. Of the epistles\nassigned to Ignatius, Professor Andrews Norton says: \"There is, as\nit seems to me, no reasonable doubt that the seven shorter epistles\nascribed to Ignatius are, equally with all the rest, fabrications of a\ndate long subsequent to his time\" (\"The Evidence of the Genuineness\nof the Gospels,\" p. 350, vol. i., 2nd ed., 1847). The second of the\nepistles attributed to Clement is recognised by most scholars as\nspurious. The only remaining documents which we can at all allow to\nbe genuine are the first epistle of Clement and that of Polycarp. Even\nthese have not been undisputed. The former has been challenged as a\nforgery by Mr. J. M. Cotterill, in a curious work, entitled \"Peregrinus\nProteus,\" published by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1879; and the\nlatter by Blondel, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, Tayler, and others, and it is\ngenerally allowed to be interpolated.\n\nDr. Giles (\"Christian Records,\" p. 109, 1877,) says: \"The writings\nof the Apostolical Fathers labor under a more heavy load of doubt and\nsuspicion than any other ancient compositions either sacred or profane.\nIn former times, when the art of criticism was in its infancy, these\nwritings were ten times as extensive as they are now, and they were\ncirculated without the slightest doubt of their authenticity. But,\nas the spirit of inquiry grew, and the records of past time were\ninvestigated, the mists which obscured the subject were gradually\ndispersed, and the light of truth began to shine where there had\npreviously been nothing but darkness. Things which had chained and\nenslaved the mind for ages, dissolved and faded into nothing at the\ndawn of day, and objects that once held the most unbounded sway over the\nbelief, proved to be unreal beings, creatures of superstition, if not\nof fraud, placed like the lions in the path of the pilgrim, to deter him\nfrom proceeding on the way that leads to the heavenly city of truth.\"\n\nIn another place Dr. Giles remarks in regard to the question of the age\nand authorship of the these Fathers: \"The works which have been written\non this question are almost as numerous as those which concern the age,\nauthorship, and authenticity of the Gospels themselves, but the general\nissue of the inquiries which have been instituted, has been unfavorable\nto the antiquity of these works as remains of writers who were\ncontemporary with the Apostles, but favorable to the theory that they\nare productions of the latter half of the second century. That was the\ntime when so many Christian writings came into existence, and all the\nrecords of our religion were sedulously sought out, because tradition\nwas then becoming faint, original and even secondary witnesses had gone\noff the stage, and the great increase of the Christian community gave\nbirth to extended curiosity about its early history, whilst it furnished\ngreater safety to those who employed themselves in its service\"\n(\"Christian Records,\" chap, xi., p. 89).\n\nIf the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the miracles, and these\nso-called Apostolic Fathers had conversed with them, it is scarcely\ncredible that they would have omitted to name the actual books\nthemselves which possessed such high authority. This is the only way\nin which their evidence could be of real service to support the\nauthenticity of the New Testament writings as being the work of\nApostles. But this they fail to supply. There is not a single sentence\nin all their remaining works in which an unmistakeable allusion to the\nGospels, as we have them, is to be found. It is in vain that Christian\nevidence-mongers appeal to their citations of certain sayings of Jesus\nor certain doctrines of Christianity. No one disputes that these were in\ngeneral vogue early in the second century. But the point to be proved to\nthe Rationalist is that the supernatural events of the four Gospels were\ntestified to by eye-witnesses, who published their accounts at the time\nand in the place where the alleged supernatural occurrences took place.\nAnd of this the Apostolic Fathers afford no scrap of evidence. Of the\nsupernatural history of Jesus they know no more than Paul. They neither\nmention his immaculate conception nor his miracles; nor do they refer\nto any of the circumstances connected with his alleged material\nresurrection. This especially applies to the possibly genuine writings\nof Clement and Polycarp. Hermas, as we have mentioned, has no reference\nto any of the acts of Jesus. Barnabas has an allusion to \"great signs\nand wonders which were wrought in Israel,\" but he does not say what\nthey were nor when they happened. Ignatius alone, in a probably spurious\nepistle to the Ephesians, chap, xix, alludes to the virginity of Mary,\nher offspring, and the death of the Lord as \"three mysteries of renown;\"\nbut the details he gives concerning the brilliant star which appeared,\nand how all the rest of the stars and the sun and moon formed a chorus\nto this star, and its light was exceedingly \"great above them all,\"\nand how \"every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness\ndisappeared,\" show that the writer referred to other sources of\ninformation than those found in Matthew and Luke. In the full part of\nthe ninth chapter of the epistle to the Trallians,' he gives almost the\nwhole of the Apostles creed. This in itself would be sufficient evidence\nof its spuriousness.\n\nStress is laid by all writers on the external evidences upon certain\nalleged quotations from our gospels, which are said to be found in the\nearly Fathers. But the question naturally arises, if they considered\nthem to be of Apostolic authority why did they not mention them by name?\nThey say Moses says, but they never say Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John\nsays. They cite the words of Jesus, but not of his Evangelists. They\nalso say \"The Lord _said_\" rather than saith, which indicates they were\nrather indebted to tradition than to written accounts. Irenaeus says he\nheard Polycarp repeat the oral relations of John and of other hearers\nof the Lord, and Clement may have received his knowledge in the same\nmanner. We shall see from the testimony of Papias that he at least\npreferred tradition to the books with which he was acquainted. Moreover,\nsuch quotations of the sayings of Jesus as occur are never given in the\nsame words nor in the same order. Attempts are made to account for this\nby saying that they quoted loosely from memory. But is it likely they\nwould quote loosely words which they believed to be written by the\ninspiration of the Holy Ghost? This does not say much for their\nintellectual ability. Clement and Polycarp, for instance, both give, \"Be\npitiful that ye may be pitied,\" word for word; while the Gospel shews,\n\"Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.\" Clement says,\n\"Forgive that it may be forgiven you;\" Polycarp, \"Forgive and it shall\nbe forgiven you.\" The nearest to which is, \"For if ye forgive men their\ntrespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.\"\n\nSuch facts have constrained Mr. Sanday to admit in his work on the\nGospels in the Second Century that \"The author of Supernatural Religion\nis not without reason when he says they may be derived from other\ncollections than our actual Gospels\" (p. 87, 1876.) Canon Westcott\nhimself in summing up the results says:-- \"(1) No Evangelic reference in\nthe Apostolic Fathers can be referred certainly to a written record. (2)\nIt appears most probable from the form of the quotations that they were\nderived from oral tradition\" (p. 63, 1881.) We shall see, however, that\nwhether they went to other collections or relied upon oral traditions,\ntheir Evangelic references are never exactly the same as in our gospels.\nThey manifestly had other sources of information. Moreover it must be\nborne in mind that the Christian sayings very frequently crept into the\ntext by way of gloss. An illustration of this kind of interpolation is\nfound in the \"Epistle of Barnabas,\" chap, xix., p. 133, where we read,\n\"Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor murmur when thou givest.\" \"_Give\nto everyone that asketh thee_, and thou shalt know who is the good\nRecompenser of the reward.\" But for this supposed quotation being\nomitted in the oldest MS., the \"Codex Seaiticus,\" it would be considered\nevidence that the writer of the epistle was quoting from Luke vi.,\n30. In copying manuscripts there was no such strictness as in a modern\nprinting-office, where \"follow your copy\" is the compositor's rule. If\na transcriber at the time when our Gospels were in vogue (and be it\nremembered we have no manuscripts either of the Fathers or of the New\nTestament older than the fourth or fifth century after Jesus) saw a\nquotation different from the way in which he had been accustomed to\nsee it, he would not hesitate to alter it So that many of the alleged\nliteral quotations from our Gospels may be only emendations of the\nscribes who found the quotations were wrong and put them right. Dr.\nDonaldson, in the introduction to his Apostolical Fathers, chap, iii.,\np. 27, tells us how \"Each transcriber, as he copied, inserted the notes\nof previous readers into the text, and often from his heated imagination\nadded something himself.\" He also informs us (p. 28) \"That we know\nfor certain that even in the second and third centuries the letters of\nbishops and others were excised and interpolated in their lifetime.\" So\npure is the stream through which our Gospels have descended!\n\nThe able and learned author of \"Supernatural Religion\" well puts the\nargument: \"When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations\nclosely resembling, or we may add, even identical with passages\nwhich are 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 proof that the quotation is\nnecessarily from our Gospels, and not from some other similar work now\nno longer extant, and more especially not when, in the same writings,\nthere are other quotations from sources different from our Gospels\"\n(vol. i., pp. 213, 214, 1879.) That citations similar to those found in\nour Gospels are not necessarily taken therefrom may be instanced from\nIgnatius, or the writer who used his name who in his Epistle to the\nSmyrnaeans, chap, iii., p. 242, says: \"When, for instance, He came to\nthose who were with Peter He said to them: 'Lay hold, handle me and see\nthat I am not an incorporeal spirit.'\" According to Jerome (Vir. Illust.\n16) this quotation is from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. But for\nthis direct statement, it would of course be assigned by orthodox\ntraditionalists to a quotation from memory of Luke xxiv., 39. Origen,\nhowever, quoted this self-same passage from another work well known in\nthe early Church, but since lost or destroyed, the \"Preaching of Peter.\"\n\nBut whilst similarity would not prove their use, variation from the\nGospels is the best proof that they were not used. Such passages abound.\nClement, for instance, says: \"Our Apostles also knew, through the Lord\nJesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the episcopate\"\n(chap, xliv., p. 38.) He says \"it is written cleave to the holy, for\nthose that cleave to them shall themselves be made holy\" (chap, xlvi.,\np. 40.) He also quotes (chap. 1., p. 43) \"I will remember a propitious\nday, and will raise you up out of your tombs,\" which is probably from\nthe apocryphal fourth book of Ezra. Barnabas declares: \"The Lord says\n'He has accomplished a second fashioning in these last days. The Lord\nsays I will make the last like the first'\" (chap, vi., p. 3, Sinaitic.)\nHe quotes as a saying of Jesus: \"Those who wish to behold me, and lay\nhold of my kingdom, must through tribulation and suffering obtain me\"\n(chap, vii., p. 114.) And again: \"For the Scripture saith, 'And it shall\ncome to pass in the last days that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of\nHis pasture and their sheepfold and tower to destruction\" (chap, xvi.,\np. 129.) Other instances might be given. In the second Epistle of\nClement there are at least five such passages, but these suffice to show\nthat other documents than the Gospels were referred to, and that even\nwhere the sentiment is similar the expression is different It must\nbe borne in mind also that we have it on the authority of Luke in his\npreface that already in his time _many_ had taken in hand to set forth\nin order a declaration of those things which were most surely believed\namong Christians.\n\nMosheim, in his \"Ecclesiastical History\" (pt. ii., chap. ii., sec. 17,\np. 65, Stubbs' ed., 1863) speaks of \"A variety of commentaries, filled\nwith impostures and fables, on our Savior's life and sentiments composed\nsoon after his ascent into heaven, by men who without being bad,\nperhaps were superstitious, simple, and piously deceitful. To these\nwere afterwards added other writings, falsely ascribed to the most holy\napostles by fraudulent individuals.\" But these fraudulent individuals\nwere Christians, and the purpose of their frauds was to subserve the\ninterests of the Church. We have record of many other Gospels, not to\nmention Acts of Apostles and Revelations. Some of these were certainly\nanterior to our own. Such were probably the Gospel of Paul, whence\nMarcion's Gospel and Luke's were derived, the Gospel of Peter from\nwhich possibly Mark was compiled. The Oracles or Sayings of Jesus which\nprobably entered into the construction of Matthew together with the\nGospel to the Hebrews. The Gospel of the Egyptians, which we have\nalready seen as quoted by Clement, the original of which C. B. Waite\nthinks \"may have been in use among the Therapeutae of Egypt a long time\nbefore the introduction of Christianity, the passages relating to Christ\nbeing afterwards added\" (\"History of the Christian Religion to the\nyear 200,\" p. 77, Chicago, 1881.) According to Origen, Theophylact and\nJerome, this Gospel was written before the Gospel of Luke, and many\nlearned moderns have deemed it earlier than any of the Canonical\nGospels. At least contemporary with these were the Gospel of James\nor Protevangelion, the Gospel of Thomas or Infancy, and the Gospel of\nNicodemus or Acts of Pilate, all of which remain, although the Christian\nChurch has lost the doubtless equally respectable Gospels of Matthias,\nof Philip, of Bartholomew, of Andrew, and even of Judas Iscariot.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nWe have thus far seen that the five earliest Fathers of the Christian\nChurch have no claim to be considered Apostolic, and that, so far from\nbearing testimony to the authenticity of our canonical Gospels, their\nown age and authorship are disputed. We have noticed that their works\nnever mention by name any of the writers of the New Testament with the\nexception of Paul; that the sayings they ascribe to Jesus, while often\nsimilar to those found in our Gospels, are never identical with them,\nand that they contain much that is evidently derived from other sources.\nWe have in addition seen that there were numerous Gospels current in the\nearly days of the Christian Church; thus confirming the account of Luke\nthat _many_ had taken in hand to set forth in order the things believed\namong them.\n\nThe early Christian ages were characterised by anything rather than\nby investigation, or even by accuracy of representation. Deception\nin literary productions appears to have been the rule rather than\nthe exception. It was not only practised but defended. The author of\n\"Supernatural Religion\" says of these Fathers (pp. 460--1, vol. 1,\n1879):--\"No fable could be too gross, no invention too transparent, for\ntheir unsuspicious acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to\nedification. No period in the history of the world ever produced so many\nspurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name\nof every Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great\nMaster himself, was freely attached to every description of\nreligious forgery. False gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were\nunscrupulously circulated, and such pious falsification was not even\nintended or regarded as a crime, but perpetrated for the sake of\nedification. It was only slowly and after some centuries that many of\nthese works, once, as we have seen, regarded with pious veneration, were\nexcluded from the canon; and that genuine works shared this fate, whilst\nspurious ones usurped their places, is one of the surest results of\ncriticism.\"\n\nYet we are to suppose that while words written for edification were\nfalsely ascribed to other Apostles, it was utterly impossible with\nregard to our four Evangelists. We shall be better able to judge this\nquestion upon examining the testimony of the first person who mentions\nthe writings of the first two.\n\n\n\n\nPAPIAS.\n\nThe first information we get concerning this Father shows him to have\nbeen acquainted with other stories than those found in our Gospels. It\noccurs in Irenaeus against Heresies (book v., chap. xxxiii., sec. 3 and\n4, p. 146, vol. ix., _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_). Speaking of the\nrewards which will come in the flesh to Christians, he tells us that\n\"elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord, related that they had\nheard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times,\nand say: The days will come in which vines shall grow, each having ten\nthousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in\neach true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten\nthousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes,\nand every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine.\nAnd when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another cry\nout, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.'\"\n\nTaking Smith's Bible Dictionary as authority for the value of a metrete,\nviz., eight and two-thirds of a gallon, it follows that the product of\none millenial grape-vine will make a quantity of wine equal in bulk to\nthe planet Mercury, and allowing to the thousand million of the earth's\ninhabitants enough to keep them constantly intoxicated, say two gallons\nof wine a day to each person, it would keep them all dead drunk for\nthe space of thirty thousand million years! What a jolly old Father was\nthis! or, if he is to believed, what a jolly Jesus to promise and\njolly John to report such a millenial prospect. It beats the Mahommedan\nParadise. Irenaeus continues:--\n\n\"In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce\nten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains,\nand every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and\nthat all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce\nin similar proportions; and that all animals feeding on the productions\nof the earth should become peaceful and harmonious among each other,\nand be in perfect subjection to man. Sec. 4. And these things are borne\nwitness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of\nPolycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him.\nAnd he says in addition, 'Now these things are credible to believers.'\nAnd he says that when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them,\nand put the question, 'How then can things, about to bring forth so\nabundantly, be wrought by the Lord? The Lord declared, They who shall\ncome to these [times] shall see.'\" Which, in evasiveness, is on a par\nwith some of the utterances of Jesus in the Gospels. Dr. Donaldson\n(\"Apostolical Fathers,\" p. 897,1874,) says: \"There is nothing improbable\nin the statement that the Lord spoke in some such way, and it is not at\nall improbable that Papias took literally what was meant for allegory.\"\nDr. Giles seems to concur in the view that Papias repeated words of\nJesus.\n\nJ. Jones (on the Canon, vol. i., p. 370,1827,) thinks Papias both\nthe manufacturer of the doctrine of the Millenium and of this passage\nascribed to Christ calculated to support it. The idea he considers\nborrowed from the Jews. Perhaps it was, but it certainly finds some\ncountenance in the Apocalypse.\n\nThe statement that Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John conflicts\nwith the account in Eusebius (Ec. Hist, iii., 89), which implies that he\nreceived information from John the Presbyter after all the Apostles were\ndead. According to Eusebius (Ec. Hist, iii, 36,) and Jerome (De Viri\nIllust. xviii.), Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis, a city of Phyrgia.\nHe is supposed to have suffered martyrdom about 163 or 167. His work, in\nfive books, was entitled \"An Exposition of the Oracles (or Words) of\nthe Lord.\" Eusebius, in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History,\nchapter 39, gives us most of our information about Papias. His estimate\nof him, as a man of very limited understanding, does not deter us from\nregretting the loss of his writings. The fragments which remain cast\nsuch radiance on some of the dark points of the Christian evidences.\nPaley and all the school of evidence-writers cite him as proving the\nexistence of our Matthew and Mark. But he is now generally seen to prove\nthe very reverse.\n\nLet us first examine his statement in regard to Matthew. As given on\nthe authority of Eusebius, it reads that \"Matthew composed the _logia_\n[oracles or sayings] in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone interpreted\nthem as he was able.\"\n\nNow it is somewhat curious that Papias, probably in the second half\nof the second century, should be the first to give currency to the\ntradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel if that Gospel had been in\nexistence 100 years.\n\nBut that the work referred to was not the same we now have is manifest\nfrom its name _logia_, discourses, sayings, or oracles. It would be an\nutter misnomer for an historical narrative beginning with a detailed\nhistory of the genealogy, birth and infancy of Jesus, and the preaching\nof John the Baptist, and concluding with an equally minute account\nof his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, giving all his\nmovements and miracles, and which has for its evident aim throughout the\ndemonstration that Jesus was the Messiah. Our Gospel, not written by,\n_but according to_ Matthew, has no such title.\n\nMoreover, ours is a Greek and not a Hebrew Gospel. The testimony\nof Papias on this point is explicit It is, moreover, confirmed by a\nconsensus of all the Fathers: Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius,\nCyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, and all others\nwho allude to Matthew's Gospel declare that it was written in Hebrew.\nNow our Gospel is considered by the most competent authorities an\noriginal document. There is no ground whatever for considering it a\ntranslation, even if we knew that Matthew's Gospel had been properly\ntranslated, instead of everyone interpreting it as he was able. Many\nof the quotations in it from the Old Testament are taken not from the\nHebrew but directly from the Greek Septuagint. Its turns of language\nhave the stamp of Greek idiom, and could not have come in through\ntranslation. So that there is no reason for even indirectly connecting\nour Canonical Gospel according to Matthew with the _logia_ which Papias\nhad heard were composed by him.\n\nThis position is somewhat strengthened when we find in the Fragments\nof Papias, p. 442: \"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of\nimpiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not\npass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot,\nso that his bowels gushed out.\" Theophylact, after quoting this passage,\nadds other particulars, as if they were derived from Papias. He says\nthat Judas's eyes were so swollen that they could not see the light,\nthat they were so sunk that they could not be seen, even by the optical\ninstruments of physicians; that the rest of his body was covered with\nrunnings and worms, etc.\n\nIf Papias knew from Matthew that Judas had already hanged himself, and\nfurther from the Acts of the Apostles that he had fallen headlong in\na field and burst asunder, it was really too hard to inflict on poor\noft-killed Judas these additional cruelties. Surely it were better\n_that_ man had never been born, though in that case we know not how\nChristian Salvation would have been brought to the world. It seems as if\neach new Christian writer felt himself at liberty to invent a new death\nfor Judas, who was divinely appointed to bring about their redemption.\nBy Paul's saying Jesus appeared to the twelve (1 Cor. xv., 5), it is\nevident he knew nothing of Judas's suicide.\n\nAmong the fragmentary remains of Papias is one found in Eusebius, who\ntells us that: \"He also relates the story of a woman accused of many\ncrimes, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.\"\nIt would thence appear likely that if Papias saw and quoted from any\nGospel, though we have no other evidence than this that he did either,\nit was from the Gospel to the Hebrews, which some have thought the\noriginal of Matthew, and which would agree with the language in which he\ndeclares Matthew to have written. Orthodox writers endeavor to make out\nthat here Papias alludes to the story found in the eighth chapter of\nJohn. But surely if Eusebius knew the story in John was the same he\nwould not have ascribed it to another Gospel. In truth there is no\nevidence that John's narrative of the woman taken in adultery was extant\neven in the time of Eusebius. It is an undoubted interpolation contained\nin no ancient manuscript of value, and may have been taken from some\ntradition similar to that found in Papias, yet certainly not the same\nsince Papias speaks of many crimes, John only of one.\n\nWe think the reader will agree with Dr. Samuel Davidson, who in his\n\"Introduction to the Study of the New Testament,\" vol. i., p. 383, 1882,\nsays: \"There is no tangible evidence to connect the present Gospel\nwith the Apostle Matthew.\" Even the orthodox apologist, Neander, admits\n\"Matthew's Gospel, in its present form, was not the production of the\nApostle whose name it bears, but was _founded_ on an account written by\nhim in the Hebrew language, chiefly (but not wholly) for the purpose\nof presenting the discourses of Christ in a collective form\" (\"Life of\nChrist,\" cap. ii., sec. 4, p. 7). An admission sufficient to destroy the\ncredit of any profane work much less a divinely inspired record of the\nsayings and doings of an alleged God.\n\nThe author of \"Supernatural Religion,\" vol. i. p. 486, 1879, says: \"It\nis manifest from the evidence adduced, however, that Papias did not\nknow, our Gospels. It is not possible that he could have found it better\nto inquire 'What John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of\nthe Lord.... say, if he had known of Gospels such as ours, and believed\nthem to have been actually written by those Apostles, deliberately\ntelling him what they had to say. The work of Matthew being, however, a\nmere collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what\nthe Apostle himself said of the history and teaching of the Master. The\nevidence of Papias is in every respect most important. He is the first\nwriter who mentions that Matthew and Mark were believed to have written\nany works at all; but whilst he shows that he does not accord\nany canonical authority even to the works attributed to them, his\ndescription of those works and his general testimony comes with crushing\nforce against the pretensions made on behalf of our Gospels to Apostolic\norigin and authenticity.\"\n\nWe will now look at his testimony to Mark. \"Mark,\" he tells us, \"having\nbecome the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he\nremembered, though he did not arrange in order the sayings or deeds\nof Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him. But\nafterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his\ninstructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention\nof giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made\nno mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one\nthing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard and not\nto put anything fictitious into the statements.\"\n\nThis description likewise shows that our actual second Gospel could not,\nin its present form, have been the work of the Mark referred to. Mark or\nMarcus was an extremely common name in the early Christian period.\n\nIn the first place, our Gospel is no more like a man's preaching than it\nis like an epic poem. It has, moreover, no Petrine characteristics. Mark\ndoes not give the important passage about Christ's church being built\nupon Peter (Matt, xvi., 18); nor the distinguishing addition \"called\nPeter,\" in the calling of Simon; nor the narrative of Peter's miraculous\ndraught of fishes; of his walking on the sea; his being sent to prepare\nthe Passover, or the reproachful look of Jesus when Peter denied him. It\nalso omits the expression \"bitterly\" when the cock crew, and Peter wept.\nThese omissions have been attributed to Peter's excessive modesty. Apart\nfrom the absence of any evidence of this trait in the Apostle whom Paul\nwithstood to his face because he was to be blamed, it must have been a\npeculiar kind of modesty indeed to omit important passages and events\nlest the chief Apostle should seem too prominent, and to suppress the\nbitterness of his penitence!\n\nBut Irenaeus tells us the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter's death,\nwhile Clement of Alexandria makes out that he wrote it at the request of\nfriends which, when Peter knew, he neither hindered nor encouraged.\nSo from these accounts, neither of which accord with Papias, it would\nappear that Mark had no motive for lessening the prominence of Peter.\nPeter is alleged to have died about the year 60; so that, Papias dying\nabout the year 165, and writing late in life, his evidence on behalf of\nMark's Gospel would be about 100 years after it is alleged to have been\nwritten. This applies with equal force to Matthew. But so marvellous\nare the contents of these Gospels that even the most certain evidence of\ntheir existence 100 years later would be very unsatisfactory.\n\nIt will also be noticed that Papias no more mentions a _Gospel_ of Mark\nthan he does of Matthew. What he speaks of is not an inspired narrative,\nbut records written from memory. Now if Mark wrote from memory he did\nnot write from inspiration. The argument for the genuineness of the\nGospel is at the expense of its inspiration. But the evidence from the\nnumerous passages in which Mark agrees with Matthew and with Luke is\noverwhelming that it is not an original document written from memory\nat all, but with the writer having other documents directly before him.\nThis is admitted by all the best critics.\n\nPapias says Mark did not arrange in order the things which were said and\ndone by Christ, and that he was careful to omit none of the things which\nhe heard. How can this apply to our Gospel, which we have seen omits\nmany most important things with which Peter was most especially\nconcerned, and which moreover is the most orderly and consecutive of the\nGospels. Canon Sanday says (\"Gospels in the Second Century,\" p. 151):\n\"The second Gospel _is_ written in order, it is _not_ an original\ndocument. These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its\npresent shape the document to which Papias alludes.\" And again (p. 155):\n\"Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them, complies with the\nconditions of Papias' description to such an extent that we can claim\nPapias as a witness to them.\" Once more (p. 159), \"I am bound in candor\nto say that, so far as I can see myself at present, I am inclined to\nagree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' against his critics,\nthat the works to which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in\ntheir present form.\"\n\nDr. Davidson (Introduction to N. T., vol. i., p. 539, 1882,) declares:\n\"A careful examination of Papias's testimony shows that it does not\nrelate to our present Gospel, nor bring Mark into connection with it as\nits author. All we learn from it is, that Mark wrote notes of a Gospel\nwhich was not our canonical one.\"\n\nThe description of Papias would lead us to expect, not a regularly\nconcocted Gospel, but fragmentary reminiscences of Peter's preaching. It\nseems altogether more likely that the allusion is to the work known\nas the \"Preaching of Peter,\" which was undoubtedly popular in early\nChristian times, and which was used by Heracleon and Clement of\nAlexandria as authentic canonical Scripture. Since Papias gives no\nquotations whatever from these alleged writings of Matthew and Mark the\nwhole matter remains a bare tradition resting on the authority of this\nweak-minded Father. We are unaware if he took the slightest pains to\ntest the truth of the statements made. It is highly improbable that he\ndid anything of the kind. Dupin says: \"The judgment that ought to be\ngiven concerning him is that which hath been already given by Eusebius,\nthat is to say, that he was a very good man, but very credulous, and of\nvery mean parts, who delighted much in hearing and telling stories and\nmiracles. And since he was exceedingly inquisitive, and inclined to\nbelieve everything that was told him, it is not to be admired that he\nhath divulged divers errors and extravagant notions as the judgments of\nthe Apostles, and hath given us fabulous narratives for real histories,\nwhich shows that nothing is so dangerous in matters of religion, as\nlightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the\nappearance of piety without considering in the first place how true it\nis\" (\"A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers,\" vol. i., p. 50, 1692).\n\nTraditions coming from such a source could be of very little value. It\nis, however, certain that Papias preferred tradition to any book with\nwhich he was acquainted He says: \"For I imagined that what was to be\ngot from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living\nabiding voice \"--a saying which doubtless included the books of Matthew\nand Mark he referred to, and possibly others of the \"many\" who had\nwritten \"a declaration of those things which are surely believed among\nus,\" referred to by Luke. Jeremiah Jones thinks he refers to spurious\nproductions, as \"he never would have said this concerning any inspired\nbook\" (\"New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of\nthe New Testament,\" vol. i., p. 24). The idea of a Christian bishop\npreferring uncertain tradition to the sure and certain testimony of an\ninfallibly inspired revelation is well-nigh incredible to a Protestant\napologist.\n\nThis extreme credulity is evinced throughout the slight fragments which\nhas come down to us. He relates on the authority of Philip's daughters\nthat a man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another\nmiracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly\npoison and received no harm. After this we are not surprised at the\ninformation that the government of the world's affairs was left to\nangels, and that they made a mess of it. It is noticeable that while\nmentioning Matthew and Mark, and especially mentioning John, he never\nascribes to the latter any such writing as our fourth Gospel The only\nsaying which he does ascribe to him: \"The days shall come when vines\nshall grow, having each ten thousand branches,\" etc., is not only\nuncanonical but entirely dissimilar to the style of both Gospel and\nFirst Epistle, though not to that of the Apocalypse. Dr. Davidson\nconsiders his notices of St. John preclude Papias from having believed\nhim to be the author of a Gospel Had he known of such a document he\nwould surely have mentioned it as much as Matthew and Mark, and Eusebius\nwould not have failed to reproduce the testimony.\n\nPapias, bishop of Hierapolis, seems to have been a fair average specimen\nof the early Christian. Probably he was very devout and pious, but most\ncertainly he was not strong in intellect, and was ready to give credence\nto old wives' tales concerning the Christ or his Apostles. It is\nupon such authorities as these that the whole fabric of historical\nChristianity rests.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\n\n\n\nJUSTIN MARTYR.\n\nJustin, who is said to have derived his surname from having suffered\nmartyrdom about a.d. 166-167, is the first of the Fathers who shows any\ndetailed acquaintance with the statements found in the Gospels. A large\nnumber of spurious works have been attributed to him, but we take as\ngenuine the Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. In the first\nof these (chap, xlvi.) he indicates that he wrote about 150 years after\nthe birth of Jesus. He was born at Neapolis in Palestine, being by\ndescent a Greek, and in the early part of his life a heathen. He tells\nus he was converted to Christianity by an old man, whom his biographer,\nFather Halloix, thinks may have been an incarnate angel. Tillemont, the\nlearned Catholic historian, considers this highly probable. Fabricius\nthought it was Bishop Polycarp, but Credner considers the narrative\na fiction. It is difficult to believe that his Apologies were ever\npresented to the Roman Emperors or that his Dialogue with the Jew\nrepresents an actual controversy with an opponent.\n\nDr. Jortin speaks of Justin as \"of a warm and credulous temper\"\n(\"Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,\" chap, xv., p. 243, vol. i., 1846),\naind Mosheim declares \"The learned well know that Justin Martyr is not\nto be considered in every respect as an oracle, but that much of what\nhe relates is wholly undeserving of credit\" (\"Commentaries,\" vol i.,\np. 112; 1813). The Rev. John Jones includes him among those who did not\nscruple to use forged writings.\n\nIn chapters 20 and 44 of his first Apology, for instance, he appeals\nto the Sibylline book of prophecies respecting Christ and his kingdom,\nwhich it has been proved to a demonstration by David Blondell and\nothers, were forged by some early Christians with a view to persuading\nthe ignorant and unsuspecting heathen that their oracles had\nforetold Christ. Celsus, the heathen, detected and pointed out this\nfalsification.* He quotes spurious productions of Hystaspes, of Orpheus\nand Sophocles, in which Christians had foisted their own ideas. For\nnot content with counterfeiting the writings of celebrities among\nthemselves, they were equally unscrupulous in regard to the writings of\nthe Pagans.\n\n     * Origen, bk. vii;, 53; p. 475:--The Sibyl was appealed to\n     by Theophilus and other early Christian apologists. The\n     author of \"Questiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos,\" a work\n     falsely ascribed to Justin, says that Clement of Rome, in\n     his epistle to the Corinthians, appeals to the writings of\n     the Sibyl. In the present version there is no such allusion.\n\nJustin confidently affirms that Plato and Aristophanes mention the\nancient Sibyl as a prophetess, and he gravely relates concerning her\nbeing the daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldean history.\n\nHe says (1st Apol., chap. xxi., p. 25): \"And when we say also that the\nWord, who is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union,\nand that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose\nagain and ascended into heaven, we propound _nothing different_ from\nwhat you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.\" He\nargues (chap, xxiii., p. 27) that devils inspired the heathen poets and\npriests to relate beforehand the Christian narratives as having already\nhappened; and makes out (chap, liv.) that the devils, knowing\nthe prophetic words of Moses, invented the stories of Bacchus and\nBellorophon; \"And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah\nthat he should be born of a virgin, and by his own means ascend into\nheaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of.\" And so with Hercules\nand AEculapius. All of which puts us in mind of the learned divine who\nargued that God put the fossils into the earth less than 6000 years\nago, in order to deceive the geologists and exhibit the vanity of human\nknowledge.\n\nJustin also informs us (Apol., lxvi.) that through the suggestions\nof wicked demons, bread and wine were placed before the persons to be\ninitiated into the mysteries of Mithras in imitation of the Eucharist.\nHe could believe that Jesus, sitting at a table, actually offered his\nown body and blood to eat and drink, but the idea that the Christian\nSacrament of the Lord's Supper was copied from the Mysteries never\nstruck him. Having plenty of devils he put them to a deal of use. He\ntells us how they came into existence: \"God committed the care of men\nand of all things under heaven to angels whom he appointed over them.\nBut the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by\nlove of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons\"\n(2nd Apol. v., p. 75). These subdued the human race partly by magical\nwritings and partly by fears and punishments. Not content with inventing\nthe heathen mythology they raised up the Samaritans, Simon and Menander,\n\"who did many mighty works by magic.\" This is what he says the Jews said\nof Jesus (Dial, chap. Ixix). Justin twice has the audacity to assert\nthat the Romans erected a statue to the Samaritan Simon, as a god. He\ngives the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto. To Simon the Holy God. This, if\nnot a fraud, was a very gross error. Apart from the unlikelihood of the\nstory and its absence of corroboration by any heathen writer, a fragment\nhas been found with the inscription \"Semoni Sanco Deo,\" being probably\nthe base of a statue erected to the Sabine Deity, Semo Sancus. He\nfurther charges the Romans with human sacrifices in celebrating the\nmysteries of Saturn; a charge absolutely false and unsupported by\nany Pagan author, although repeated by the Christian Fathers, Tatian,\nCyprian, Tertullian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, etc. Justin also says the\ndevils put forward and aided Marcion the follower of Paul, who accused\nthe other apostles of having perverted the Gospel doctrines. He\nfrequently alleges that the Christians cast out devils in the name of\nJesus Christ, and that women and men among them possessed prophetic\ngifts, but he gives no special instance of any miracle wrought in his\nown time. He makes maniacs and demoniacs to be possessed by the spirits\nof the dead, and appeals to \"necromancy, divination by immaculate\nchildren, dream-senders and assistant spirits\" in proof of life after\ndeath (immortality he seems to have considered the gift of God). All the\nearly Fathers believed in necromancy. Lactantius (\"Divine Institutes,\"\nbook iv., chap, xxvii.) calls it the most certain proof of Christianity,\nbecause those who are skilled in calling forth the spirits of the dead\nbring Jupiter and other gods from the lower regions, but not Christ, for\nhe was not more than two days there. Justin says we ought to pray that\nthe evil angel may not seize our soul when it departs from the body.\n\nHe makes the victory over Amalek a type of Christ's victory over demons,\nand declares that Isaiah said evil angels inhabit the land of Tanis in\nEgypt. He declares of the Jews in the wilderness: \"The latchets of your\nshoes did not break, and your shoes waxed not old, and your garments\nwore not away, but _even those of the children grew along with them_\"\n(\"Dialogue with Trypho,\" 131, p. 266.) This is a very consistent\naddition to the fable found in Deut xxix., 5.\n\nHe charges (Dial., chap, lxxii.) the Jews with having removed passages\nfrom Ezra and Jeremiah, and in the following chapter with having taken\naway the words \"from the wood\" in the passage from the ninety-sixth\nPsalm, \"Tell ye among the nations the Lord hath reigned '_from the\nwood._''\" To which the note appended in the \"Ante-Nicene Christian\nLibrary\" edition (p. 189) is \"These words were not taken away by the\nJews, but added by some Christian.\"--Otto. Tertullian follows Justin in\nregard to this passage.\n\nHe complains of their rejecting the Septuagint version, and gravely\ntells how Ptolemy, King of Egypt, had seventy different translators shut\nup in seventy separate cots or cells for the purpose of translating the\nHebrew Scriptures. After the completion Ptolemy found the seventy men\n\"had not only given the same meaning but had employed the same words,\"\nwhereupon he believed \"the translation had been written by divine\npower.\" Byway of proof that he narrates no fable, he says, \"We\nourselves, having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little\ncots still preserved\" (\"Address to Greeks\" chap. xiii., p. 300). Ptolemy,\nhowever, he makes contemporary with Herod (Apol. xxxi., 33.) Christ,\nhe says, suffered under Herod the Ascalonite. He calls Moses the first\nProphet, yet declares \"He was predicted before he appeared, first, 5000\nyears before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800;\nin the succession of generations, prophets after prophets arose\" (1st\nApol., chap, xxxi., p. 38). David, he makes to have lived 1500 B.C.\n\nSpeaking of the Polygamy of the patriarchs (Dial., chap, cxxxiv.,\np. 269) he tells us \"certain dispensations of weighty mysteries were\naccomplished in each act of this sort.\" \"The marriages of Jacob were\ntypes of that which Christ was about to accomplish.\" The bloodthirsty\nGeneral Joshua was a type of Christ, and the sun standing still by his\norder shows \"how great the power was of the name of Jesus in the Old\nTestament\" He tells us the two advents were prefigured by the two goats,\nand continually finds clear prophecies of Christianity in passages which\nhave not the remotest allusion to it. To give one instance, he says:\n'And that it was foreknown that these infamous things should be uttered\nagainst those who confessed Christ, and that those who slandered\nhim, and said it was well to preserve the ancient customs, should be\nmiserable, hear what was briefly said by Isaiah, it is this: 'Woe unto\nthem that call sweet bitter, and bitter sweet.' Such interpretations\nare innumerable in Justin.\n\nIn his 1st Apology, chap, lv., \"On Symbols of the Cross,\" he says the\nseas cannot be sailed without cross-shaped masts, nor the earth tilled\nsave with cross-shaped instruments. \"And the human form differs from\nanimals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands\nextended, and having on the face, extending from the forehead, what\nis called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living\ncreature, and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so\nit was said by the prophet, 'The breath before our face is the Lord\nChrist,' which is a perversion of Lam. iv., 20: 'The breath of our\nnostrils, the anointed of the Lord.'\"\n\nHe put into the mouth of his antagonist Trypho, the following words\nwhich possibly represent the usual position taken up by the Jews: \"But\nChrist--if he has indeed been born and exists anywhere--is unknown, and\ndoes not even know himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint\nhim, and make him manifest to all. And you having accepted a\ngroundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are\ninconsiderately perishing\" (chap, viii., p. 97). In answer to this home\nthrust, Justin promises \"I shall prove to you as you stand here that we\nhave not believed empty fables.\" Justin was acquainted with the works of\nJosephus, and if the passage had been then in existence concerning Jesus\nbeing the Christ, who was punished on the Cross, and who appeared again\nthe third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and many other\nwonders about him; here was the opportunity to bring it forward. Instead\nof doing so, or stating who testified to the existence of Christ and his\nwonderful works, he rambles off to his favorite argument from prophecy\nand piles up a heap of interminable nonsense, which if put forward as a\nserious defence of Christianity at the present time, would either excite\nsuspicion of covert infidelity or be greeted with derision.\n\nIn his Apology he twice calls in evidence the Acts of Pilate, but as\nwith the books of the Sibyl, it is again a Christian forgery and not a\nheathen document he refers to. This is clear from one of the passages\nhe refers to being found in the extant Acts of Pilate or Gospel of\nNicodemus. If any official report had been sent by Pilate, it is not\nlikely to have related the miracles of the person put to death. Nor\nis it probable that Justin would have known the contents of such a\ndocument.\n\nJustin, in the beginning of the second half of the second century,\nbeing the very first Father who tells us of Jesus being God, born of the\nVirgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead and rising again and\nascending into heaven (for the spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius\nmust be dated after Justin's time) it is important to know where he got\nhis startling information from. He never once mentions Gospels by either\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He refers indeed at least thirteen\ntimes to \"Memoirs\" or \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\" but without the least\nindication of their nature, number or extent. In one place (Dial.,\n106) he seems to identify them with the Gospel of Peter, referred to\nby Serapion, Tertullian and Origen. Canon Westcott, who argues that it\nrefers to the Gospel of Mark, commonly placed under the authority of\nPeter, thus translates the passage: \"The mention of the fact that Christ\nchanged the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that the event has\nbeen written in his (Peter's) Memoirs.\" The best authorities agree\nthat upon strictly critical grounds the passage refers to Peter. The\n\"Ante-Nicene Christian Library\" (p. 233) however reads: \"And when it is\nsaid that he changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when\nit is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened.\" Making the\nwork referred to to be the memoirs of Jesus.\n\nThe only direct mention Justin makes of any writer in the New Testament\nis the following: \"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose\nname was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a\nrevelation that was made to him that those who believed in our Christ\nwould dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the\ngeneral, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men\nwould likewise take place\" (Dial., chap, lxxxi., p. 201). The author\nof \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"The manner in which John is here\nmentioned after the memoirs had been so constantly referred to, clearly\nshows that Justin did not possess any Gospel also attributed to John\"\n(vol. i., p. 298; 1879).\n\nThis conclusion is corroborated by many circumstances also adduced by\nDr. Davidson. For instance, his doctrine of the Logos is different from\nthat in the Gospel ascribed to John. He does not mention any of\nthe miracles found in that Gospel, and instead of knowing the long\ndiscourses given therein, declares \"Brief and concise utterances fell\nfrom him, for he was no sophist\" (Apol. i., chap, xiv., p. 18).\n\nThat he does name John, however, as the author of the Apocalypse, and\nrefers by name to the Old Testament writers no less than 197 times,\nwhile in about as many passages from the \"Memoirs\" he never identifies\ntheir writer, unless in that concerning Peter, is surely incompatible\nwith the idea that they were the Canonical Gospels.\n\nThe whole question of the identity of these \"Memoirs\" with our Gospels\nis ably and lengthily dealt with in English on the orthodox side, by\nLardner, Bishop Kaye, Professor Norton, and Canons Westcott and Sanday.\nThese arguments the inquiring reader should compare with those of\nBishop Marsh, Dr. Giles, Dr. Davidson, and the author of \"Supernatural\nReligion.\"\n\nIt is evident that the account of the sayings and doings of Jesus in the\n\"Memoirs\" are, in the main, very similar to the Synoptics, especially\nMatthew, and it is likely they were the principal materials from which\nour canon was formed. But it is not certain if Justin had one document,\ntwo, three, four, or a dozen. In his first Apology (chap, lxvi.) there\nis certainly found this expression: \"For the apostles in the memoirs\ncomposed by them, _which are called Gospels_, have thus delivered\nunto us,\" etc. (p. 69). But Dr. Donaldson says of the words in\nitalics \"Schliermacher, Marsh, and others, regarded these words as an\ninterpolation, and they certainly look like one\" (Critical History of\nChristian Literature, vol. ii., p. 329; 1866).\n\nExcept in one or two instances, parallels with our Gospels are only made\nby patching together passages from different Gospels. By this process\nthe connexion is broken, while the quotations in Justin have for the\nmost part a consecutive order, and, as is shown by the context, had such\nan order in the \"Memoirs\" from which they were taken. While quoting\nthem nearly 200 times he makes hardly a single allusion to those\ncircumstances of time and place which are found in our Gospels. He also\ngives particulars not to be found in the Canonical books. Thus he says\n(Dial., chap, lxxviii,) that Jesus was born in a cave, and cites Isaiah\nxxxiii., 16, as prophecying this. This contradicts Luke but is found in\nthe Gospel of James, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel according\nto the Hebrews. Matthew and Luke give discrepant accounts of the\ngenealogy of Jesus. Justin differs from both. He traces the Davidian\ndescent of the Christ through Mary, which again agrees with James. He\nnine times mentions the Magi coming from Arabia, not from the East. His\nquotation of the angel's message to Mary (Apol. i., 33) agrees better\nwith the Gospel of James than with Luke or Matthew. Speaking of the\njourney of Joseph and Mary to Bethlelem, Justin says: \"On the occasion of\nthe first census which was taken in Judaea, under Cyrenius, he (Joseph)\nwent up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he\nbelonged, to be enrolled.\" The differences between the account of Justin\nand that in Luke are manifest.\n\nHe states that Jesus made ploughs and yokes as a carpenter, which is\nfound in the Gospel of the Infancy. Thrice he speaks of John as \"sitting\nby Jordan\" (Dial. 49, 51, and 88), and he even narrates that when Jesus\nstepped into the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan. This also was\nfrom the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Epiphanius gives it from a\nversion found among the Ebionites. It was also mentioned in another\nearly Christian publication the \"Preaching of Paul.\" Justin has the Holy\nGhost say to Jesus at his baptism: \"This is my beloved son; to-day have\nI begotten thee.\" The same form of expression was used in the Gospel of\nthe Hebrews, and was so quoted by others of the Fathers.\n\nHe says (Dial., ciii.) that when the Jews went out to the Mount of\nOlives to take Jesus there was not a single man to help him. This is\nin contradiction to all our Gospels. He says that when Herod succeeded\nArchelaus, Pilate, by way of compliment, sent to him Jesus bound (chap,\nciii). He tells how they sat Jesus on the judgment seat, and said \"Judge\nus\" (Apol., chap, xxxv.) He also relates that Jesus said: \"In whatsoever\nthings I apprehend you, in those also will I judge you.\" Grotius and\nothers think this taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Upon\ntwo occasions Justin says that the Jews sent persons about the world to\nspread calumnies.\n\nSo manifestly has Justin gone to other sources than our four Gospels\nthat Canon Sanday admits: \"Either Justin has used a lost gospel or\ngospels, besides those that are still extant, or else he has used a\nrecension of these gospels with some slight changes of language and\nsome apocryphal additions\" (\"The Gospels in the Second Century,\" p. 129;\n1876). We conjecture that the \"Memoirs\" of Justin were the materials\nfrom which our Gospels were compiled, and that they were similar to or\nused in conjunction with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.\n\nCredner argues that he used the Gospel of Peter. It is noticeable that\nthe Diatessaron of Justin's pupil, Tatian, was called by Epiphanius the\nGospel according to the Hebrews. Theodoret tells us that the Nazarenes\nmade use of the Gospel of Peter, and we know by the testimony of the\nFathers generally that the Nazarene Gospel was that commonly called the\nGospel according to the Hebrews. That Justin used this once celebrated\nGospel seems all the more probable since we have the express testimony\nof Eusebius (\"Ec. History, iv.,\" 22) that it was used by Hegesipus,\nhis contemporary and compatriot.\n\n\n\n\nELEUTHERIUS\n\nNearly all our information concerning this worthy is derived from\nEusebius. He was born in Palestine of Jewish parents, and wrote five\nbooks of memoirs or commentaries no longer extant.\n\nAs he therein mentions Pope Eleutherius they must have been written\nafter B.C. 177. The date 185 is a probable one. The work of Hegesippus\nappears to have been the earliest attempt to give a history of\nearly Christianity, and as it is evident he represented the Jewish\nanti-Pauline school, which eventually was swamped by the Gentile\nelement, the loss or destruction of his writings is much to be\nregretted. Such fragments as Eusebius has thought proper to preserve\ncertainly makes one curious for more. The longest fragment concerns no\nless a person than the brother of the incarnate God. Eusebius gives it\nin the second book of his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" chap, xxiii., from\nwhich we extract the following:--\n\n\"James the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name,\nwas surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now,\nreceived the Government of the Church with the Apostles. This Apostle\nwas consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor\nfermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came\nupon his head\" [i.e., He was a Nazarite, see Numbers vi., 2-5; Judges\nxiii, 4-7; and xvi., 17. Jesus, we are told in the Gospel, came eating\nand drinking, and ordered his disciples when fasting to anoint the\nhead.] Hegesippus tells us of James, his brother: \"He never anointed\nwith oil\" [see James v., 14--17]; \"and never used a bath.\" [In this\nlatter respect too many holy saints have followed his insanitary\nexample], \"He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore\nwoollen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the temple\nalone, and was often found upon his bended knees and interceding for the\nforgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as a camel's\nin consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God.\"\n\nIn another fragment he takes to task Paul and those who say \"Eye hath\nnot seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the\nthings which God hath prepared for them that fear him.\" Hegesippus says\nthat \"those who say such things, lie against the divine scriptures and\nour Lord who says, 'Blessed are your eyes which see, and your ears which\nhear, 'etc.\"\n\nAll of which is very suggestive of the variety of faith and practice\nwhich existed among primitive Christians.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n\n\n\nIRENAEUS.\n\nThe accounts of this father which are given in various biographies are\npurely conjectural. His very existence has been disputed in a little\nbook published by Thomas Scott, of Ramsgate,* the author of which\ncontends that the Greek word _Eirenaios_, meaning \"peaceful\" is simply\nthe title of a treatise against heresies, the object of which was to\nallay sectarian discord, and that Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, is a purely\nmythical personage. Certain it is that very little is known of this old\nsaint. But in that respect he in no way differs from the other early\nfounders of Christianity.\n\n     * \"Irenaeus: A Leaf of Primitive Church History Corrected\n     and Re-Written,\" 1876.\n\nDodwell makes him to have been born in the year 97, but Dupin and the\nbest modern authorities place his birth about 140; a number, however,\nstrike a medium at about 120. The importance of his date is evident\nsince the work against heresies is the first writing which makes any\nmention of the four Gospels, and Irenaeus claims to have been a disciple\nof Polycarp, who was a hearer of John. This claim can only be made at\nall plausible by giving each of these holy martyrs an exceedingly long\nlife, for we have the word of Eusebius, that the book against heresies\nwas composed in the time of Eleutherius, the twelfth Pope, between 177\nand 192, and Irenaeus lived until the third century. He is said to have\nbeen made bishop of Lyons in 178, but how he managed to get transplanted\nfrom Asia Minor to Gaul, is one of those things which are left to our\nfaith and wonder.\n\nThe fact is, it is extremely doubtful if the author of the book against\nheresies ever saw Polycarp, and still more doubtful if Polycarp ever\nsaw John. He says John leaped out of the bath when he saw Cerinthus.\nNow Cerinthus was a heretic, who lived about the middle of the second\ncentury. He described John as wearing the _petalon_, the bishops\ninsignia of office. Fancy the retired fisherman, the beloved disciple,\nwho was told by his master to carry neither purse nor scrip, wearing the\npriestly robes of office! George Reber, in his curious book, \"The Christ\nof Paul,\" (New York, 1876), says (p. 178): \"The studied dishonesty of\nIrenaeus in attempting to palm off the Presbyter John for the Apostle, is\nas dark a piece of knavery as is to be found in the history of a church,\nwhich has encouraged such practices from the time it claimed to be the\ndepositary of all the divine wealth left by the apostles.\"\n\nIrenaeus is alleged to have suffered martyrdon about 202, but there is no\nevidence of this prior to the ninth century, when Gregory of Tours first\ncirculated a story to that effect. Even such orthodox writers as\nCave, Basnage, Dodwell, and others, doubt the martyrdon, since neither\nTertullian, Eusebius, Theodoret, nor other early writers refer to it.\nTwo churches in Lyons dispupted for centuries about the possession of\nhis relics, which the Catholics allege were afterwards sacriligeously\ndespoiled by the Calvinists: a story often refuted. His sacred head\nis said to have been kicked about in the gutters, but of course it was\nmiraculously restored to its place, and the skull, we believe, may be\nseen for a consideration at the present day. The original Greek text\nof the book against heresies is lost, and it exists only in a barbarous\nLatin version. At whatever time it was written, and it may probably be\ndated between 182 and 188, it testifies to the existence of numerous\nheresies in the Church. It contains many statements respecting the\nGnostics, particularly the Valentinian heresy. There we may read of\ntheir peculiar theories concerning God and Christ. Some thought the\nHebrew Jahveh a malignant deity whom Christ had come to destroy. Others\nwere foolish and wicked enough to ask whence God got the matter for\nhis creation. Cerinthus and his followers denied the virgin birth.\nCarpocrates and his school held that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and\njust like other men with the exception that inasmuch as his soul was\nstedfast and pure a power descended on him from the Father that by means\nof it he might escape from the creators of the world. Basilides taught\nthat Jesus did not suffer death, but Simon of Cyrene, being compelled,\nbore the cross and was crucified in his stead. Irenaeus does not forget\nto denounce these heretics as blasphemers and shameless sophists who\nspeak not a word of sense. He calls them slippery serpents and other\nchoice epithets such as the orthodox usually have in store for heretics,\nso that the reader is tempted to wish that the wretches could show cause\nwhy they should not summarily be damned. It is a notable fact that none\nof the heretical books or heretical gospels have been preserved; they\ncome to us only through the medium of such representations as their\nopponents chose to make of them.\n\nGeorge Reber says: \"The Fourth Gospel was written with no other purpose\nthan to prove the incarnation, and that purpose is so persistently kept\nup in every line and verse, from the beginning to the end, that if we\nstrike out this, and the miracles which are mere supports of the\nmain idea, there is nothing left, and so with the third book against\nHeresies--it has but one theme. The writer sets out with the _Logos_\nidea of this gospel, which is never lost sight of. He finds proof in\nthe traditions of the Church--in every page of the Old Testament--in\nthe Synoptics as well as in the fourth Gospel; and as we read his\nmisapplication of words and sentences, we should conclude that he was a\nlunatic if we did not know he was something else\" (p. 188). \"As we read\nwhole pages in Irenaeus, charging his adversaries with forgeries and\nfalse interpolations, we smile at the impudence and audacity of the man,\nwho has done more to pollute the pages of history than any other, and\nwhose footprints we can follow through the whole century, like the slime\nof a serpent\" (p. 216).\n\nReber, it will be seen, can be as abusive as Irenaeus himself. He calls\nhim \"one of the most dishonest historians of any age\" and \"the great\ncriminal of the second century;\" and endeavors to make out, on quite\ninsufficient grounds, that he was the forger of the Gospel according to\nJohn.\n\nDr. Samuel Davidson, in his able work on \"The Canon\" (p. 155; 1880),\nsays \"Irenaeus was credulous and blundering,\" and our case against him\nwill be sufficient if we prove these charges.\n\nThe orthodox Dr. Donaldson observes: \"What he says about the apostle\nJohn has the appearance of being, to say the least, highly colored\"\n(\"History of Christian Literature,\" vol. i., p. 157; 1864). The whole\npurport of his account concerning John was to refute heretics by the\nallegation of an apostolical succession which rests on his unsupported\ntestimony alone. The author of the work against Heresies was essentially\na priest, dwelling much on the authority of the priesthood and priestly\ntraditions. He did more perhaps than any other to lay the foundations\nof the Romish hierarchy. In his third book, chapter four, he gives\nthe opinion that every Church should agree with the Church of Rome on\naccount of its pre-eminent authority.\n\nHe considers oral traditions of no less importance than Scripture, and\ncites Clement, Polycarp, and those who were alleged to have heard the\napostles as decisive authorities. Hermes he calls divine Scripture. To\nbe outside the Church is to be outside truth. Holy Scripture is only\nsafely interpreted under control of the bishops.\n\nOur Father cites the authority of John, and all the elders in Asia, for\nthe assertion that the ministry of Jesus lasted twenty years, and\nthat he was over fifty years of age when he was crucified. In the\ntwenty-second chapter of his second book, he discusses the question at\nconsiderable length, and quotes John viii., 56-57, as establishing his\nopinion. For he argues the Jews would not have said to Jesus \"Thou art\nnot yet fifty years old,\" if he had only been thirty. Their object being\nto remind him of the short period he had been on earth, they certainly\nwould not extend it eighteen or twenty years. If Irenaeus was right in\nthis important matter, the evidence of the Gospel history is falsified;\nif wrong, what is the worth of his testimony as to the origin of the\nfour Gospels?\n\nIn regard to these he tells us there are mystic reasons why there could\nonly be four Gospels. \"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either\nmore or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of\nthe world in which we live, and four principal winds [or four Catholic\nSpirits] while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the\npillar and ground of the Church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it\nis fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality\non every side, and vivifying men afresh\" (Book iii., chap, xi, sect 8.,\np. 293). Dr. Giles in his \"Christian Records\" (p. 137), points out\nthat as this work was written many years after the apologies of Justin\nMartyr, there was ample time in the interval for the compilation of our\nGospels, out of the authentic \"Memoirs of the Apostles\" and \"Sayings of\nour Lord.\"\n\nIn his third book, chapter xxi., Irenaeus follows Justin in his foolish\ntale about the seventy Jewish elders, who made separate translations of\nthe Bible into Greek in the very same words from beginning to end.\nHe further tells us there was nothing astonishing in this since God\ninspired Ezra to re-write all the words of the former prophets and to\nre-establish the Mosaic law, destroyed during the captivity in Babylon.\nThe object of making the Septuagint version of Divine authority, was\nbecause the quotations in the Christians' Scriptures were taken from\nit, strangely enough, had the writers of those Scriptures been Jews. But\ndespite their boasted accuracy, Irenaeus (book iii., chap, xx., sec. 4)\nquotes Isaiah as saying, \"And the holy Lord remembered his dead Israel,\nwho had slept in the land of sepulture; and he came down to preach his\nsalvation to them that he might save them.\" In another place he quotes\nthis same passage as from Jeremiah, but it is in neither prophet Justin\nin his dialogue with Trypho had brought it forward as an argument\nagainst him, and accused the Jews of having fraudulently removed it from\nthe sacred text. The passage is, however, found in no ancient version\nor Jewish Targum, which fact may be regarded as a decisive proof of its\nspuriousness.\n\nHe follows Justin also in his tales of miracles asserting \"some do\ncertainly and truly drive out devils. Others have foreknowledge of\nthings to come, they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions.\nOthers still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they\nare made whole. Yea, moreover, the dead even have been raised up, and\nremained among us for many years.\" As with the other Fathers, he gives\nonly general statements not particular instances. He allows that\nthe heretics Simon and Carpoerates and their followers also perform\nmiracles, \"but not through the power of God but for the sake of\ndestroying and misleading mankind, by means of magical deceptions.\"\nNone of these Christian miracles were known to the heathen, and, as Dr.\nConyers Middle ton pointed out, in his \"Free Enquiry into the Miraculous\nPowers in the Christian Church,\" at this very same time when one\nAutolycus, an eminent heathen, challenged his friend Theophilus, Bishop\nof Antioch, a convert and champion of the Gospels, to show him but\none person who had \"been raised from the dead, on the condition of him\nturning Christian himself,\" Theophilus made plain by his answer that he\nwas not able to give him that satisfaction.\n\nIrenaeus follows Justin in making the angels mix with the daughters of\nmen, and also in his absurd typology. He even makes Balaam's ass a\ntype of the Savior. The cohabitation of Lot with his two daughters was\nprovidential and typical of the two sister synagogues, the Jewish and\nthe Christian.\n\nIn common with all the early Fathers he asserts the doctrine of the\nmillenium, and this in the grossest sense. We have already seen the\nquotation which he gives from Papias as the actual words of Jesus upon\nthis matter. He believed it would be a purely earthly glory and felicity\nafter the sort depicted in the Jewish apocalypses. This portion of his\nwritings, having been utterly discredited, is very often omitted. He\nbelieved the end of all things was near at hand. The world would last\nsix thousand years because made in six days. Antichrist would come from\nthe tribe of Dan and reign three years and five days in Jerusalem, when\nhe would be vanquished. The fall of Antichrist and the end of the world\nwould coincide with the fall of the Roman Empire, for the mysterious\nname of the beast is _Latinus_. Then the Lord was to come, and there\nwould be no more labor \"but unlimited wine swilling.\"\n\nIrenaeus affirms also on the same authority of tradition delivered to\nhim by those who had received it from the apostles, that Enoch and Elias\nwere translated into that very Paradise from which Adam was expelled,\nand that this was the place into which St. Paul was caught up. This is\naffirmed also by all the later Fathers, both Greek and Latin.\n\nOur space will not permit us to further enlarge on the vast appeals to\nfaith made by Irenaeus. Nor can we pause to deal with Tertullian,\nwho, with more impetuosity and no less acerbity, championed the same\northodoxy, shrinking not from the \"credo quia absurdum est,\" and who\nended by turning heretic. Nor with the learned Clement of Alexandria,\nwhose high speculations led also into contempt of the world and its\nways of science, art, and civilisation. Nor with the ascetic and\nself-emasculated Origen, at once profound and prolific, who, in his\nattempt to reconcile Christianity with reason, fell into such errors as\nbelieving in the pre-existence and pretemporal fall of souls, and the\nredemption of the inhabitants of the stars and even of Satan himself.\n\nWe must reserve a brief space for the great ecclesiastical historian.\n\n\n\n\nEUSEBIUS.\n\nIt is to this eminent Father that we are indebted for almost all we know\nof the lost Christian literature of the time preceding the establishment\nof Christianity by Constantine. He was born about 264 or 270, and was a\npriest in the time of Diocletian.\n\nDuring the persecution in that reign he retired to Egypt, where,\nhowever, he was imprisoned, but speedily released. This gave rise to a\nsuggestion that he had apostatised. \"Who art thou, Eusebius?\" exclaimed\nPotamon, Bishop of Heraclea, at the Council of Tyre, where Eusebius\nviolently conducted the \"persecution of Athanasius,\" \"to judge the\ninnocent Athanasius. Did'st thou not sit with me in prison in the time\nof the tyrant? They plucked out my eye for the confession of the truth.\nThou comest forth unharmed. How didst thou escape?\"\n\nIn 315 he became Bishop of Caesarea. His friendships were among the Arian\nparty in the Church, and his views, to say the least, inclined that way,\nand Dr. Newman, in his \"History of the Arians in the Fourth Century,\"\nspeaks of him as \"openly siding with the Arians, and sanctioning and\nsharing their deeds of violence.\" This, however, did not stand in the\nway of his sitting beside the Emperor Constantine, at the Council of\nNice, to anathematise and put down the Arians. He subscribed the\nNicene Creed, apparently with some reservations, as to the word\n_consubstantial._ It is noticeable that his history breaks off abruptly\nbefore the Council of Nice. Perhaps it was one of those matters he\nthought best to suppress as little to the credit of the Church or\nhimself. Athanasius, Petavius, Baronius, Montfaucon, and Moller consider\nhim an Arian. Bull, Cave, and Hely, defend his orthodoxy.\n\nOn account of his Arianism he has been violently attacked by Cardinal\nBaronius, who impugns the faith of the bishop, the character of the man,\nand the sincerity of the historian. He makes out Eusebius to have been\nsimply an ambitious and cruel courtier; calls him a calumniator, a\npanegyrist rather than an historian, and accuses him of falsifying the\nedicts of Constantine.\n\nGibbon, in his sixteenth chapter, says: \"The gravest of the\necclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that\nhe has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has\nsuppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion. Such an\nacknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has\nso openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid\na very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion\nwill derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was\nless tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of\ncourts than that of almost any of his contemporaries.\"* \"No one,\" says\nScaliger, \"has contributed more to Christian history, and no one has\ncommitted more mistakes.\" C. B. Waite, (\"History of the Christian\nReligion,\" p. 28) goes further and says: \"Not only the most unblushing\nfalsehoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character darken the\npages of his apologetic and historical writings.\" G. Reber (p. 104)\nsays: \"If we except Irenaeus, no writer has so studiously put himself to\nwork to impose falsehoods on the world as Eusebius.\"\n\n     * Dean Milman, in his Notes to Gibbon, vol. ii., p. 285;\n     1854, speaks of \"the loose and, it must be admitted, by no\n     means scrupulous authority of Eusebius.\"\n\nConstantine said of him that he ought not only to be bishop of Caesarea,\nbut bishop of the whole world. In his life of that emperor he amply\nrepays the flattery. That work is not an history but an extravagant\nrhetorical panegyric upon the man who murdered his son Crispus, his\nnephew Licinius, suffocated his wife Fausta, and who, to revenge a\npasquinade, was with difficulty restrained from the massacre of Rome,\nand who used the altar of the Church, which promised absolution and\noffered atonement for all sins, as a convenient footstool to the throne\nof the empire. In regard to Constantine's murders, Gibbon says (chap,\nxxviii.): \"The courtly bishop who has celebrated in an elaborate work\nthe virtues and piety of his hero, observes a prudent silence on the\nsubject of these tragic events.\"\n\nHe makes Constantine to have been converted by the miraculous appearance\nof a cross in the sky. It is a great question if his account of his\nbaptism is correct or if he was baptised in Rome by Pope Sylvester.\nIndeed, it is a question if Constantine was anything but a Pagan at\nheart until the end of his days.\n\nThe title of the thirty-first chapter of Eusebius's twelfth book of\n\"Evangelical Preparation,\" is a caution. It reads \"That falsehood, may\nbe employed by way of medicine for those who need it.\" He ascribes to\nPorphyry (a learned Pagan who had written against Christianity, but\nwhose works were destroyed by order of Theodosius) a forgery of his own\ntime, called \"The Philosophy of Oracles,\" and then cites it as evidence\nfor Christianity. He gives a forged passage ascribed to Phlegon, where\nthat Pagan is made to speak of the darkness which happened at the death\nof Jesus. If such a passage had been in existence it would have been\nmentioned by Origen, who refers to Phlegon, but who in his comment on\nMatthew xxvii., 45, concludes we must not be too positive that he spoke\nof this darkness in Matthew. He also makes Thallus, another heathen,\nbear testimony to the eclipse of the sun--another forgery.\n\nAt the very outset of his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" he knocks us over\nwith a pretended correspondence which passed between Jesus, who, Jerome\nsays, knew not how to write, and Abgarus, king of Edessa.\n\nThis correspondence, wherein Jesus is made to cite the words of the\nGospel of John, written probably a hundred years after, long did duty\namong Christian evidences, but is now given up by every critic of note\nas a forgery. Addison was one of the last to quote it as genuine.\n\nAs it would occupy too much space to follow this Father through all his\nmisstatements, we shall confine our attention to his misrepresentations\nof Josephus. One of the most notorious of these is the account of the\ndeath of Herod Agrippa, grandson of the monster who is supposed to\nhave ordered the slaughter of all the male children in the inland town\n\"Bethlehem, and the coasts thereof,\" on account of an obscure prophecy.\nIn the 12th chapter of Acts it is stated that Herod, as the people\nwere calling him a god, was smitten by an angel and was eaten by worms.\nJosephus says: \"Agrippa, casting his eyes upward, saw an owl, sitting\nupon a rope, overhead.\" Eusebius, in order to make Josephus agree with\nthe Acts of the Apostles, in transcribing the text of Josephus, struck\nout about the owl and substituted an angel. Lardner says: \"I know\nnot what good apology can be made for this.\" Nor do we, unless that\none-winged fowl is just as good as any other.\n\nHe makes Josephus' account of Theudas confirmatory of Acts v., 36;\nwhile, in fact, it disagrees with that account so much as to give\ncommentators the utmost perplexity. He also, tries to reconcile Josephus\nwith Luke by confounding the taxing in the time of Herod with that after\nthe banishment of Arche-laus, who reigned for nine years after Herod's\ndeath. Dr. Lardner's works (vol. i, p. 344) says: \"I must confess I\nascribe that not to ignorance but to somewhat a great deal worse. It is\nimpossible that a man of Eusebius's acuteness, who had the New Testament\nand Josephus before him, should think a census made after Archelaus was\nthe same with that before Herod died; but Eusebius was resolved to have\nSt. Luke's history confirmed by the express testimony of the Jewish\nhistorian, right or wrong.\"\n\nSuch instances make us suspect Eusebius in regard to the celebrated\ninterpolation in which Josephus is made to give evidence to Jesus as the\nChrist (Antiq. xviii., hi., 3). He at any rate first cited the forgery,\nwhich was unknown to Origen, and distinctly asserts that Josephus did\nnot acknowledge Christ. Dr. Lardner tells us the style of the paragraph\nis very Christian, if it be not the composition of Eusebius himself, as\nTanaquil Faber suspected.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Frauds and Follies of the Fathers: A Review of the Worth of Their Testimony to the Four Gospels","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":22982}