{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38376/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38376","id":"gutenberg_38376","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38376","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Controversial literature","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600 -- Controversial literature"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRIST OF PAUL;\n\nOR, THE ENIGMAS OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nST. JOHN NEVER IN ASIA MINOR. IRENAEUS THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\nTHE FRAUDS OF THE CHURCHMEN OF THE SECOND CENTURY EXPOSED.\n\nBy George Reber\n\n1876.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n     Death of Stephen.--Conversion of Paul.--His retirement to\n     Arabia and return to Damascus and Jerusalem.\n\nLet the reader imagine that he is in Jerusalem, in Judea, about the year\nA.D. 34. There is unusual tumult in the vicinity of the Temple. A large\ncrowd has gathered, and, stirred up by some strong provocation, is\nswayed like the billows in a storm. As we approach, we see a young man,\nwho is trying to raise his voice above the din. There is something very\nstriking in his looks. He is pale, but firm. His eyes gleam with an\nunearthly light. As the crowd surges and threatens, he is calm. His\nthoughts and looks are directed more to Heaven than Earth.\n\nBut in this crowd there is a young man of an entirely different stamp.\nHe is excited and angry. His eyes are red with rage, and he is seen\nmoving among the crowd like an incendiary. The crisis came, and poor\nStephen stood first on the list of Christian martyrs. This little\nbleared-eyed, angry man is not yet satisfied. Like the tiger that\nhas tasted blood, he thirsts for more. He goes about Jerusalem like\na madman. He fills the prisons with men and women who believed with\nStephen. When he had done all the injury he could in Jerusalem, he asked\nand received permission to go to Damascus on a like mission. On his way,\nwhile he is breathing out threatenings and slaughter, he is struck down\nin his mad career. He saw in it the hand of God. Everything is changed\nin a moment. The fiery stream of burning lava, which rushed in one\ndirection, now turned and ran with equal violence the other way.\n\nPhilosophers may differ as to what befell Paul on his way to Damascus;\nbut as for himself, he never doubted. The Christ that he persecuted had\nspoken to him. His faith in what he saw in his vision he bore in his\nbosom, as he did his heart; and in a life of toil, suffering, and\nsorrow, he clung to it to the end.\n\nWe can hardly tell what were the feelings of Paul when he awoke to\nconsciousness, because we cannot judge him as we would other men. He had\nraised his hand against the Son of God, and now, after a severe reproof,\nhe was appointed by him to be his special minister on earth. Paul did\njust what we might suppose he would. He withdrew from the world, avoided\nJerusalem, and, as he says, went into Arabia. There, alone, he meditated\nover the wonderful scenes through which he had passed. The more he\nthought, the more he believed he had talked with Christ, the Son of\nGod, and the more he believed he had been selected to spread his Gospel\nthroughout the earth.\n\nOnce convinced that his vision was a reality, it was natural for him to\nmake himself believe that these visions were repeated; and through life,\nin all his acts and movements, he believed he was under the guidance\nof the same hand that smote him on the plains of Damascus. He goes from\nplace to place as a Spirit from above directs him, and when he speaks\nhe speaks not for himself, but for Him who sent him, Positive and\noverbearing by nature, he imagines himself to be the minister of the\nSon of God, and becomes intolerant, vain and exacting. All his ideas are\ncrystallized, and will not bend or yield.\n\nAs he was specially selected to preach, he believed in the doctrine of\nelection. When he believed at all, he believed too much; for it was his\nnature to overrun. He had witnessed Christ--others had not; but, in the\nabsence of proof, they must substitute faith. Works are nothing--faith\neverything. What he saw and believed, others must believe without\nseeing.\n\nHis theology, from his natural temperament and the circumstances of his\nconversion, took an austere cast, which made the relation between man\nand the Creator that of guardian and ward. God himself, in the mind of\nPaul, is almost hideous. Some are given over to damnation before they\nare born; while others are destined to be saved before they have had a\nchance to sin.\n\nIt is difficult to tell whether the religious faith of Paul was fully\nfixed and determined before he left his retreat in Arabia and returned\nto Damascus, or whether it was the growth of after experience and\nreflection. At some period of his life, and early too, he had settled\nin his mind the true relation which Christ bore to humanity. He had the\nbest of reasons for his belief on that subject. He was in Jerusalem at\na time when it was not impossible that Mary herself was living; and\nif not, he saw Peter and was with him fifteen days, when he had every\nopportunity to inform himself about the early history of Christ. Will\nany one say that Paul, with a mind awake to everything that related to\nChrist, would not inquire and find out all that was known about Him who\nhad spoken to him from the clouds, when he was in Jerusalem, and could\nquestion those who had been his companions on this earth? If there was\nanything remarkable about his birth or death, Peter would have told it,\nand Paul would have repeated it all along the shores of the Archipelago,\nor wherever he went.\n\nBut Paul, from first to last, preached that Christ was born of woman,\nand was of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. Upon this point\nhe yielded nothing, and stood to it to the death. Paul was a man of\nlearning, and wrote with great power. Longinus classed him among the\ngreat men of Greece. But in action and in deeds is where he went\nbeyond all other men. Upon his shoulders, as he believed, was left the\nconversion of the world; and he had a will and energy equal to the task.\nBelieving that the Son of God stood at his side, as he performed the\nmission which had been assigned him, he neither feared nor trembled, but\nstood up with a bold front in the presence of Festus and King Agrippa.\nThe unsparing cruelty of Nero had no terrors for him.\n\nAfter Paul had remained in Arabia long enough to collect his thoughts,\nand determine the course he should pursue, he went back to Damascus.\nAt last he made up his mind to go to Jerusalem and see Peter. What must\nhave been his feelings as he approached the holy city, and passed\nalong the place where he assisted, three years before, in the death of\nStephen! Paul never forgave himself for the part he took in this murder.\n\nCan we imagine with what feelings he approached Peter, or why he\napproached him at all? If he felt sad and grieved at the part he took\nin the death of Stephen, he did not feel as if he met Peter as his\nsuperior, for he conceded nothing to any of the Apostles. There was no\npoint upon which he was more sensitive. Paul did not visit Peter to be\ntaught and instructed as to his duties, nor to learn from him the\ngreat truths of Christianity; for he had learned all this from a higher\nsource, and felt himself more able to give instruction than to receive\nit from others. Speaking of his doctrines, he says: \"For I neither\nreceived it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of\nJesus Christ\" (_Galatians_ i. 12). Doubtless he came to learn from\nPeter everything he knew of the personal history of Christ. He had many\nquestions to ask about his habits--mode of life--his employments--about\nMary, Joseph, and the whole family of Jesus. The smallest incident in\nhis early life would be dear to Paul, and he would lock the remembrance\nof it in his bosom, as a sacred treasure.\n\nIn this way fifteen days passed over, when Paul again left Jerusalem,\nand afterwards went into Syria and Cilicia, where he was followed by\ndivine visions and revelations. He spent the year A.D. 42 in Antioch,\nwhere he taught, assisted by Barnabas. Here he took up a collection for\nthe brethren of Judea, who were suffering from the effects of a famine\nwhich took place during the reign of Claudius Caesar, and returned with\nit to Jerusalem. Having discharged his trust, he went back to Antioch,\naccompanied by Barnabas and Mark. All we know with certainty about Paul,\nfrom this time forward, we must gather, for the most part, from his\nEpistles to the churches; for all other sources of information are\nsuspicious and doubtful. An act, especially one of importance connected\nwith his labors as an Apostle, attributed to him by others, and not\nspoken of at all by himself, should be excluded from the pages of\nauthentic history.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n     Paul and Barnabas start west to preach the Gospel.--The\n     prevailing ideas on religion in Asia Minor.--Theology of\n     Plato and Philo.--The effect produced by the preaching of\n     Paul.\n\nPaul, in the year A.D. 45, with Barnabas and Mark as his companions, set\nhis face west in the direction of Asia Minor. The people who inhabited\nthe country from Antioch in Syria along the north coast of the\nMediterranean and the AEgean, or the Archipelago, to Thessalonica in\nMacedonia, were for the most part descendants of the early colonists\nfrom Greece. A large number of cities were scattered along the shores,\nwhich had been enriched by commerce, and were the seats of learning\nand luxury. The Greek of Asia Minor, in the latter part of the first\ncentury, was not the Greek of the time of Pericles and Epaminondas.\n\nHis levity and cunning had outlived his courage, his love of country and\nstern endurance. The college at Alexandria was the source of all light\nand learning, and the doctrines of that celebrated school, like a subtle\nfluid, pervaded all classes of men. It was here that Plato took lessons\nwhich led him to explore the mysterious nature of the Deity, and expose\nto the eyes of mortals the nature of the divine persons who regulated\nthe affairs of the universe. In his imagination he populated Heaven, and\ndivided among the different deities the share of each in the\ngovernment of the world. According to Plato there was one God who was\nsuperessential, and in him was blended or united all that was powerful\nand good. This he called the _One_, or the first principle of things.\nProculus, of the same school, says the _One_ is the God of all gods, the\nUnity of the unities, the Holy among the holies. Plato compares him with\nthe sun. For as the sun by his light not only confers the power of being\nseen on visible objects, but is likewise the cause of their generation,\nnutriment, and increase, so the good of the One, through superessential\nlight, imparts being and power. As a consequence, both Plato and\nPythagoras conclude that the immediate issue of this ineffable Cause\nmust be gods, and each must partake of the same nature and have a\nsuperessential existence. That \"everything in nature which is the result\nof progression exists in a mysterious unity and similitude with its\nfirst cause. They are superessential, and differ in no respect from the\nhighest good. From the supereminent Cause, as from an exalted place\nof survey, we may contemplate the divine unities, that is, the gods,\nflowing in admirable and ineffable order, and at the same time abiding\nin profound union with each other, and with their Cause.\"\n\nThe first procession, from the first One, or intelligible Cause, is the\nintelligible Triad, consisting of Being, Life, and Intellect, which\nare the three highest things after the first God. Plato, in his\n_Parmenides_, calls the Author of the Universe Intellect and Father, and\nrepresents him commanding the junior gods to imitate the power which he\nemployed in their generation. It follows, that that which generated from\nthe Father is offspring, Son or Logos, second in the Triad. The third\npower or principle in the Triad is Intellect, or Spirit of the Universe.\nHere we have the Father, the Logos, and the Soul of the Universe in\na mysterious union; and as they all proceed from the One, are one in\nunity. The author of \"Decline and Fall\" thus defines the theology of\nPlato: \"The vain hope of extricating himself from these difficulties\nwhich must forever oppress the feeble powers of the human mind,\nmight induce Plato to consider the divine nature under the threefold\nmodification of the First Cause, the Reason or Logos and the Soul or\nSpirit of the Universe. His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and\nanimated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archial or original\nprinciples were represented in the Platonic system as three gods, united\nwith each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos\nwas particularly considered, under the more accessible character of the\nSon of an Eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world.\"\n(Vol. I., page 438.)\n\nSuch is an outline of the theology of Plato, as we learn it from the\n\"Explanatory translation\" of Taylor to the _Cratylus_ and other works\nof the great light of Greece. The ideas of Plato, under the teachings\nof the Alexandrian school, underwent changes and modifications, but were\nthe source of all subsequent systems of theology, and we can readily\ndetect in each the genius of the Athenian. Through the invitation of the\nPtolemies, large numbers of Jews settled in the new capital of Egypt,\nwho carried with them the laws and institutions of Moses. It was\nnot many years before the religious ideas of the descendants of the\ncolonists were tinctured and in some degree moulded after the doctrines\ntaught at the school of Alexandria. Under the lead of Philo a new\nschool arose, which was formed from a union of \"Mosaic faith and Grecian\nphilosophy,\" in which the distinctive features of each are clearly\npreserved.\n\nPhilo Judaeus was an Alexandrian Jew, descended from a noble and\nsacerdotal family, and was distinguished in his day for his wisdom\nand eloquence. He was born before Christ, and survived him. He was the\nauthor of numerous works, and esteemed one of the most learned men of\nhis day. A tumult arose in Alexandria between the Jews and the Greeks,\nand out of each party three were chosen as embassadors to go to Rome and\nlay the case before Caligula, who was then emperor. Philo was chosen as\none to represent his countrymen, and undertook to act as chief spokesman\nin the imperial presence. He was treated with insolence--ordered to\nbe silent--and the emperor was so carried away by his passions that\npersonal violence seemed imminent. The equanimity of the philosopher\nwas not disturbed, and having discharged his duty, he quitted the palace\nfilled with the contempt for the tyrant which has loaded his memory in\nall subsequent ages. (Josephus, _Antiq_., lib. xviii. ch. 8, sec. I.)\n\nThe system taught by Philo dispensed with the third person in the\nGodhead, which was composed of the Father and the _Logos_, a divine\n_Duad_, which did not exist in unity, like the trinity of Plato: but\nthe Logos with him, like the Mediator of the Hebrews, was possessed of\nmediatorial powers, and was an intercessor in behalf of the fallen race\nof Adam. It is difficult to define the relation of the _Logos_ of Philo\nwith the Creator of the Universe, whether he is an attribute which is\nmade manifest in creative power, or whether he has a separate existence.\nHe is the Son of God, and was with the Father before the world was\ncreated. His powers embrace the mediatorial, and he stands between God\nand man, and represents the Father in his providences to our race. He is\nnot an hypostasis, and yet he was begotten.\n\nSuch are some of the ideas which prevailed in Asia Minor, and other\ncountries along the shores of the Mediterranean, when Paul and Barnabas\nentered the country, bringing with them a new religion. It is as\ndifficult to define what Paul's real belief was of the relations which\nChrist bore to the Creator, as it is to determine the real belief of\nPhilo on the same subject. With Paul, Christ was the Son of God, but\nwhat was the exact relation he did not pretend to say. He says he is\nless than the angels--superior to Moses (Hebrews ii. and iii.); but he\nnowhere says he is equal to God. Paul seems to have been less concerned\nabout the nature of Christ, and the place occupied by him in the\nGodhead, than he was about his mediatorial powers. Through the fall of\nAdam, all men were under condemnation, and it was the office of Christ,\nthrough his blood, to make atonement, and once more restore man to the\nfavor of the Creator. With him Christ was not the Creator, like the\nLogos of Philo, but was the Saviour of the world. He did not exist from\nthe beginning, but, like all flesh, from his natural birth. But still he\nwas, as was the _Logos_ of Philo, the Son of God.\n\nWith such ideas, Paul made his way among the Greeks. The Jews were the\nfirst to make war upon him. But he stood his ground and gained more. The\nsmall churches which he established were like so many fortresses in an\nenemy's country. Wherever he went he started discussion. The friction\nbetween the new and the old ideas produced heat: and with heat came\nlight.\n\nBut, after all, Paul's converts, for the most part, were from the less\ninformed and the middle classes. The learned turned away from him,\nbecause he had no tangible proof to satisfy them that what he preached\nwas true. The story of his conversion was improbable, and could be\nascribed to the effects of natural causes.\n\nThe time for miracles had not yet come, and Paul did not claim anything\nfrom them.*\n\n     * Had it been true that an apron which came in contact with\n     Paul's person could cure diseases, all Asia would have been\n     converted while he was making a few hundred believers.\n\nTacitus speaks of Christians as a race of men detested for their evil\npractices, and classes their doctrines among the pernicious things which\nflowed into Rome as into a common sewer. (_Annals_, lib. xv. sec 54.)\nStill the churches established by Paul grew slowly, but seemed to\nrequire the influence of his presence and personal efforts to keep\nthem alive. As long as the fight went on between Paul and the Jews, and\nunconverted Gentiles, his lofty courage and iron will were enough to\nhold him up. But he soon had troubles of a different kind. He found them\nin the churches themselves. It is not difficult to tell what would be\nthe effect of Paul's ideas when brought face to face with doctrines\nof the Alexandrian school. It was like the meeting of the acid and the\nalkali. The first sign of the effervescence appears at Corinth, and two\nhundred years passed before it ceased, if it ceased at all. From the\ntime the quarrel commenced at Corinth, between the followers of Paul,\nuntil the time when the questions disappear altogether, mental phenomena\nare exhibited unlike any other in the history of man. Even the quarrels\nand disputes of the Realists and Nominalists of the thirteenth century\nbear no comparison. The contest between the different sects had all\nthe earnestness of a struggle between gladiators. From being warm\ndisputants, men became dishonest. Books were forged entire, others were\nmutilated, and some suppressed and put out of sight. It was an age of\ndownright dishonesty on all sides. But from these dark and discordant\nelements arose the true Church.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n     Therapeutae of Philo--and Essenes of Josephus.--An account of\n     them.--Their disappearance from history, and what became of\n     them.\n\nIn the beginning of the first century there existed a sect or society\nwhich exercised great influence over the fortune and affairs of the\nworld; but, before the second had elapsed, was insensibly lost in the\ncommingling of creeds and sects which sprang up in the mean time. Like a\nbillow on the sea, it rose high and spread far; but at last disappears,\nor is lost in the great ocean. We refer to the Therapeutae of Philo and\nthe Essenes of Josephus. Their origin is lost in the distant past; nor\nis it proven who was the founder of the sect. Although the Therapeutae\nwere found in every part of the Roman empire, Alexandria was the centre\nof their operations. Their learning and knowledge were derived from\nthe schools of Alexandria; and to the climate of Egypt, which, by some\nimmutable law of nature, disposed men to embrace a gloomy asceticism,\nthey are indebted for their morose and cruel discipline. From this\nsociety were furnished all the monks which populated the deserts of\nAfrica before the Christian era began.\n\nThe Essenes were one of the three leading sects among the Jews; the\nSadducees and Pharisees forming the other two. Josephus, who fully\ndescribes them, in early life was a member, and for three years took up\nhis abode in the desert, and suffered all the pains, and endured all the\nhardships of monastic life. They were confined to no locality, but were\nfound in every city in Europe and Asia. When travelling from place to\nplace, they were received and provided for by members of their sect\nwithout charge, so that when one of them made his appearance in a\nstrange city, he found there one already appointed for the special\npurpose of taking care of strangers and providing for their wants. They\nneither bought from nor sold to each other, but each took what his wants\nrequired, as if it were his own.\n\n\"And as for their piety towards God,\" says Josephus, \"it is very\nextraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane\nmatters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their\nforefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. After this,\nevery one of them is sent away by their curators, to exercise some of\nthose arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great\ndiligence till the fifth hour, after which they assemble themselves\ntogether in one place, and when they have clothed themselves in white\nveils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water, and, after their\npurification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of\ntheir own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to\nenter; while they go after a pure manner into the dining-room, as into\na certain holy temple, and quietly sit themselves down; upon which the\nbaker lays their loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of\none sort of food and sets it before every one of them; but a priest says\ngrace before meat; and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food\nbefore grace be said. The same priest, when he has dined, says grace\nagain after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise\nGod, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside\ntheir [white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again\nuntil the evening; then they return home to supper, after the same\nmanner.\" (Josephus, _Wars_, lib. ii. chap. 8, sec. 5.)\n\nThe time allowed for probation, before admission to the fraternity,\nwas three years, and in the meantime the temper and disposition of the\nneophyte were put to the severest test, and not until he had given ample\nproof of his sincerity or ability to submit to the laws and ordinances\nof the sect was he deemed fit for admission; but before he is allowed\nto do so, he is required to swear, \"that, in the first place, he will\nexercise piety towards God; and then that he will observe justice\ntowards men; and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his\nown accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate\nthe wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; that he will ever show\nfidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no\none obtains the government without God's assistance; and that if he\nbe in authority, he will at no time whatever abuse his authority, nor\nendeavor to outshine his subjects, either in his garments, or any other\nfinery; that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to\nhimself to reprove those that tell lies; and that he will keep his hands\nclear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will\nneither conceal anything from those of his own sect, nor discover any of\ntheir doctrines to others--no, not though any one should compel him so\nto do, at the hazard of his life. Moreover, he swears to communicate\ntheir doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them\nhimself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve\ntheir books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels [or\nmessengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes\nto themselves.\" (Jos., _Wars_, lib. ii. ch. 8, sec. 6.)\n\nThe following is the account given by Philo of this sect, preserved in\nthe pages of Eusebius:--\n\n\"'This kind of men is everywhere scattered over the world, for the\nGreeks and barbarians should share in so permanent a benefit. They\nabound, however, in Egypt, in each of its districts, and particularly\nAlexandria. But the principal men among them from every quarter emigrate\nto a place situated on a moderate elevation of land beyond the Lake\nMaria, very advantageously located both for safety and temperature of\nthe air, as if it were the native country of the Therapeutae.'\"\n\n\"After describing what kind of habitations they have, he says of the\nchurches: 'In every house there is a sacred apartment which they call\nthe Semneion or Monasterium, where, retired from men, they perform the\nmysteries of a pious life. Hither they bring nothing with them, neither\ndrink nor food, nor anything else requisite to the necessities of the\nbody; they only bring the law and the inspired declarations of the\nprophets, and hymns, and such things by which knowledge and piety may be\naugmented and perfected.' After other matters he adds: 'The whole time\nbetween the morning and the evening is a constant exercise; for as they\nare engaged with the sacred Scriptures, they reason and comment upon\nthem, explaining the philosophy of their country in an allegorical\nmanner. For they consider the verbal interpretation as signs indicative\nof a sacred sense communicated in obscure intimations. They have also\ncommentaries of ancient men, who, as founders of the sect, have left\nmany monuments of their doctrine in allegorical representations which\nthey use as certain models, imitating the manner of the original\ninstitution.'\"\n\nThese facts appear to have been stated by a man who at least has paid\nattention to those that have expounded the sacred writings. But it is\nhighly probable that the ancient commentaries which he says they have\nare the very Gospels and writings of the Apostles, and probably some\nexpositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, and many others of St. Paul's epistles.\nAfterwards again, concerning the new psalms which they composed, he thus\nwrites: 'Thus they not only pass their time in meditation, but compose\nsongs and hymns unto God, noting them of necessity with measure\nuncommonly serious through every variety of metres and tunes.' Many\nother things concerning these persons, he writes in the same book....\n\nWhy need we add to these an account of their meetings, and the separate\nabodes of the men and the women in these meetings, and the exercises\nperformed by them, which are still in vogue among us at the present day,\nand which, especially at the festival of our Saviour's passion, we are\naccustomed to use in our fastings and watchings, and in the study of\nthe divine word. All these the above-mentioned author has accurately\ndescribed and stated in his writings, and they are the same customs that\nare observed by us alone at the present day, particularly the vigils of\nthe great festival, and the exercises in them, and the hymns that are\ncommonly recited among us. He states that whilst one sings gracefully\nwith a certain measure, the others, listening in silence, join\nin singing the final clauses of the hymns; also, that on the\nabove-mentioned days they lie on straw spread on the ground, and to use\nhis own words, 'They abstain altogether from wine, and taste no flesh.\nWater is their only drink, and the relish of their bread, salt and\nhyssop.' Besides this, he describes the grades of dignity among those\nwho administer the ecclesiastical services committed to them, those of\nthe _Deacons_ and the _Presidencies_ of the _Episcopate_ as the highest.\nBut, whosoever desires to have a more accurate knowledge of these\nthings, may learn them from the history already cited; but that Philo,\nwhen he wrote these statements, had in view the first heralds of the\ngospel, and the original practices handed down from the Apostles, must\nbe obvious to all. (Euseb. Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 17.)\n\nThey had their churches, their Bishops (called Presidencies of the\nEpiscopate), Deacons and monasteries. They used sacred writings, which\nthey read in their churches with comments, and which they believed were\ndivinely inspired. Commentaries were written on these writings, as they\nare on the present Gospels. Their mode of worship was much the same as\nin our own day; and they had missionaries all over Asia, and in many\nparts of Europe. The day observed by Christians afterwards as the\nfestival of our Saviour's passion was observed by them as sacred, and\nwhich they passed in fasting, watching, and the study of the sacred\nwritings. All this we are assured is true, by the authority of Josephus,\nPhilo, and Eusebius. So strong is the resemblance in doctrines, and form\nof church government, between these ancient Therapeutae, that Eusebius,\nbecause he could not deny the similitude, undertook the task of proving\nthat the Essenes were Christians, and that their sacred writings were\nthe four Gospels. He says: \"But it is highly probable that the ancient\nwritings which he (Philo) says they have, are the very Gospels and\nwritings of the Apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient\nprophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and many\nothers of St. Paul's epistles.\" (Eus., Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 17.)\n\nEusebius has not deceived himself--he only hoped to deceive others. If\nthe Essenes were not Christians, then it is evident that much which is\nclaimed as original in Christianity was copied from them. \"Basnage has\nexamined with the most critical accuracy the curious treatise of Philo,\nwhich describes the Therapeutae. By proving that it was composed as early\nas the time of Augustus, he has demonstrated, in spite of Eusebius and a\ncrowd of _modern Catholics_, that the Therapeutae were neither Christians\nnor monks.\" (_Decline and Fall_, Vol. I. page 283, chapter xv., note\n162.)\n\n\"Much dispute has arisen among the learned concerning this sect. Some\nhave imagined them to be Judaizing Gentiles; but Philo supposes them to\nbe Jews, by speaking of them as a branch of the sect of the Essenes,\nand especially classes them among the followers of Moses. Others have\nmaintained that the Therapeutae were an Alexandrian sect of Jewish\nconverts to the Christian faith, who devoted themselves to monastic\n'life. But this is impossible, for Philo, who wrote before Christianity\nappeared in Egypt, speaks of this as an established fact\" (Buck's\n_Theological Dictionary_.')\n\nAnd now, what has become of the Therapeutae?--of their sacred writings?\nWhere are their Elders, their Deacons and the Presidency of the\nEpiscopate, or Bishops? All writers agree that they soon disappeared\nafter the introduction of Christianity. \"How long,\" continues Buck,\n\"this sect continued, is uncertain, but it is not improbable that\nafter the appearance of Christianity in Egypt, it soon became extinct.\"\nGibbon, in speaking of the disappearance of this sect from history,\nsays: \"It still remains probable that they changed their names,\npreserved their manners, and adopted some new article of faith.\" (Vol.\nI. page 283, n. 162.)\n\nThis sect did not mingle and lose itself in the huge mass of Pagans, for\nbetween the two there was no neutral ground on which they might meet and\nagree. The antagonism between them had continued too long, and there\nwas traditional hatred on both sides. Paul threw the doors of the church\nwide open, and, as we shall see, the Therapeutae soon entered, and by\ntheir numbers took possession, and barred them against the founder\nand all his followers. What did the Therapeutae do with their sacred\nwritings, which, Eusebius claims, were nothing more than our present\nGospels? To suppose that they abandoned and destroyed them altogether is\nnot possible, considering their antiquity, and the veneration in which\nthey were held for generations.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.\n\nIt is a question of great interest in history, if nothing more, when and\nwhere it was that the Christian Church, in the form in which it has come\ndown to us, had its origin.\n\nTo be sure, there are many who are satisfied with an orthodox belief\non the subject, because they have never questioned their sources of\ninformation. But the world has grown to that age when traditional\ndogmas, or whatever they may be called, must be subject to the test\nwhich advancing knowledge imposes. Tried by this test, what is true will\nappear brighter; what is false will be thrown off; and man, relieved of\na burden which only weighed him down, will move on to an improved and\nbetter life. Man is not doomed by the condition of his nature to be\neternally tugging at the stone of Sisyphus--nor is it consistent with\nthe laws of a wise and beneficent Creator that mankind, in order to\nbe prosperous and happy, should be compelled to live under a perpetual\ndelusion. Like the source of some river, often traced to a mountain\nrill or the oozing waters of a morass, so the beginning of the church\nor churches of our own day is to be looked for in some obscure corner of\nhistory, covered by the _debris_ of ages.\n\nLocated on a narrow isthmus between the AEgean and Ionian seas stood\nCorinth, one of the principal cities of Greece. Situated where the\ncommerce from the East and the West meet _in transitu_, it grew in\nopulence and wealth, and was distinguished for the arts, and for the\nluxury and licentiousness of its inhabitants. Here Venus had a temple,\npresided over by a thousand priestesses, whose attractions increased the\nnumbers who came from all parts of Greece to assist in celebrating the\nIsthmian games. It was at this place Paul planted a church, between\nthe years A.D. 51 and A.D. 53, and where he remained eighteen months,\nworking as no one but himself could work to build up and strengthen it.\n\nPaul left Corinth for a time for other fields of labor, because he\nbelonged to no one place, but his mission embraced the world. The\ncommerce of Corinth attracted to the place people from every part of\nthe empire, east and west, and with others a large number of Alexandrian\nJews. Among them were many of the Thera-peutae, who brought with them\ninto Greece the doctrines of Philo.\n\nDuring Paul's absence there came to Corinth Apollos of Alexandria. He\nwas an eloquent man and learned in the Scriptures. It is a subject of\nregret that we do not know more of his history than we find in the Acts,\nand in the Epistles of Paul. What were the doctrines he taught when he\nfirst appeared in Ephesus, where he spent some time before he went\nto Corinth, we cannot tell, but he was fervent in spirit, \"and taught\ndiligently the things of the Lord.\" He had heard of John the Baptist,\nfor he was a historic character, and Josephus tells how he baptized\nmultitudes in the waters of the Jordan; but he seems to have known\nnothing about Christ or the doctrines he taught. He spoke in the\nsynagogue, which proves that what he taught did not give offence, to the\nJews. In Ephesus he attracted the notice of Aquila and Priscilla, Jewish\nChristians, who had been expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius on\naccount of some disturbance growing out of quarrels between Jews and\nChristians.* Under their instructions Apollos was made a convert to\nChristianity.\n\n     * See Appendix A.\n\nThe Jews, as has been shown, were divided into three sects--Pharisees,\nSadducees, and the Essenes. Every Jew belonged to or connected himself\nwith the one or the other. Those who went to Alexandria, in time took\nthe name of Therapeutae, which, it is claimed, was the same as the\nEssenes. However this may be, Philo describes them as a Jewish sect.\nThat Apollos was one of them may be claimed with great reason. A Jew,\nborn in Alexandria, he could scarcely escape being one. Raised under the\nshadow of the college of Alexandria, of a fervent spirit and a man of\nthought, he could not fail to be impressed by the doctrines taught\nby that celebrated school. They were the prevailing and fashionable\ndoctrines of the day. That he brought with him to Ephesus the Logos\nidea of Philo is clearly proven by what took place after his arrival.\nIt seems his conversion to the Christian faith under the instruction of\nAquila and Priscilla was easy, which proves that the difference which\nseparated them in the first place was not great. Like all Jews, he was\nlooking for some kind of Saviour or Deliverer, and they convinced him\nthat Christ was the one. He now undertook to convince others. \"For\nhe mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the\nScriptures that Jesus was Christ.\" (Acts xviii. 28.) But the Alexandrian\nnotions of the Logos or Son of God soon began to show out in his\ndiscourses and make trouble. Some began to cry, I am for Paul; and\nothers, I am for Apollos (1 Cor. iii. 4).\n\nPaul's ideas on some points did not suit the Alexandrian school. The\nbirth of Christ from human parents, in the speculative minds of this\npeople, stripped him of all mystery; and with them, on subjects like\nthis, where there is no mystery there is nothing real. There could be no\nother difference between the followers of Paul and Apollos, except as to\nthe origin and nature of Christ, and his relations to the Creator;\nand there was none. The strife grew to such dimensions that Paul is\nconstrained to write an epistle to the church, in which we can see\nwhat was at the bottom of the trouble. In his First Epistle, to the\nCorinthians, Paul names four parties whose quarrels disturbed the peace\nof the Church: the Paul party, who maintained the doctrines of Paul as\nto the human origin of Christ; the party of Apollos, who, without doubt,\ntaught the doctrines of Philo; the party of Cephas, which held to the\ndoctrines of circumcision; and the Christ party. We infer that the last\nwas composed of negative men, or those who occupied neutral ground--the\n_fence_ men of our day. It could not have been of much importance, for\nwe never hear of it again.\n\nIt was neither the first, third, or fourth of these parties that called\nout the letter to the Corinthians. It was the wisdom of the Greek school\nand Apollos' \"excellency of speech\" that disturbed Paul, and continued\nto do so to the end of his life. But see with what force he opposes to\nthe wisdom of the Greeks the revelations which came to him from God This\nletter displays all the characteristics of Paul. \"And my speech and\nmy preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in\ndemonstration of the Spirit, and of power: that your faith should\nnot stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. But God hath\nrevealed _them_ unto us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all\nthings, yea, the deep things of God. Now we have received, not the\nspirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know\nthe things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we\nspeak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the\nHoly Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the\nnatural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they\nare foolishness unto him: neither can he know _them_, because they are\nspiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet\nhe himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord,\nthat he may instruct him? But _we have the mind of Christ_\" (1 Cor. ch.\nii.) Here it is not Paul that denounces the wisdom of the Greek school,\nbut it is God himself. Such is Paul.\n\nIt is not difficult to tell to which of the four parties at Corinth this\nepistle was addressed. That the difference between Paul and Apollos grew\nout of opposing opinions as to the nature of Christ admits of little\ndoubt, and is rendered certain by the first, second, and third chapters\nof his First Epistle to the Corinthians. He says: \"For other foundation\ncan no man lay than _that is laid_, which is Jesus Christ.\" That is, I\nhave taught to you Christ as he is, and it is not for any other man to\nteach anything different. He declares that \"according to the grace of\nGod _which is given unto me_, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the\nfoundation.\".... \"let every man _take heed how he buildeth thereon._\"\nHere is a plain intimation that the Christ of Paul rested upon a\ndifferent foundation from that of Apollos--the one divine, the other\nhuman. \"I have planted, Apollos watered.\" That is, I have planted the\nseed that will produce the true fruit, and it is for others only to\ncultivate and nourish what I have planted.\n\nHe tells the Corinthians that they were born unto a knowledge of Christ\nthrough his gospel--that is, through his preaching; and that if they\nhad ten thousand instructors, of these there would not be many who, as\nspiritual fathers, could reveal to them the truth as he had. \"Wherefore,\nI beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto\nyou Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who\nshall bring you into remembrance of _my ways which be in Christ, as\nI teach everywhere in every church_.\" (1 Cor. iv. 16, 17.) What more\nconclusive evidence could be asked that Apollos was preaching doctrines\ndifferent from those of Paul as to the nature of Christ, than that the\nlatter sent Timothy to counteract them? and what other doctrines was the\nformer teaching than those of the Alexandrian school? When Paul says all\nAsia had turned against him, it could only be on the questions which\nhad sprung up between himself and Apollos. It could not be on account of\ncircumcision, because on this point the Greeks would agree with Paul.\nIt was not on account of different views on the subject of the\nresurrection, because that was retained and became the foundation of\nthe Christian faith. There was but a single point upon which those who\nprofessed Christianity at that day could turn upon Paul, and that is\nhis \"ways which be in Christ\" as he taught them in all the churches. The\nquarrels of Paul with the Jews on the subject of circumcision died away\nin the church not long after his death, drowned out by the Greek and\nTherapeutae element; but the cause of the strife between the followers\nof Paul and Apollos has continued down, in some form, even to our own\ntimes.\n\nIt could not be long after his letter to the Corinthians that the\ndoctrines preached by Apollos spread through all the churches of Asia\nMinor and became the established orthodox faith. Paul, in the Second\nEpistle to Timothy, says: \"All Asia has turned against me.\" A mere\nchange of name--Therapeutae to Christian--and the revolution was\ncomplete. It was made so rapidly that the world scarcely noticed it. The\nTherapeutae, who were spread over Europe, Asia, and portions of Africa,\ndisappeared so suddenly that it has always been a problem in history\nwhat became of them. But we can find here and there, in the history of\nthe times, evidences that the few friends of Paul did not give up the\ncontest with their powerful foe without a struggle. These struggles come\nto the surface of history like the bubbles from the mouth of a drowning\nman.\n\nBut little change in doctrines was required to justify the Therapeutae in\ntaking upon themselves the name of Christians. Christ, with Paul, was a\nMediator, and so was the Logos of Philo. \"What intelligent person,\" says\nthe latter, \"who views mankind engaged in unworthy and wicked pursuits,\nbut must be grieved to the heart, and call upon that Saviour God, that\nthese crimes may be exterminated, and that by a ransom and price of\nredemption being given for his soul, it may again obtain its freedom.\nIt pleased God, therefore, to appoint his Logos to be a Mediator. To his\nWord, the chief and most ancient of all in heaven, the great Author of\nthe world gave this especial gift: that he should stand as a medium (or\nintercessor) between the Creator and the created; and he is accordingly\nthe Advocate of all mortals.\" (_Jacob Bryant, quoted in Clarke's\nCommentaries on St. John's Gospel_.) As the Therapeutae of Philo were\nthe descendants of a Jewish colony who had settled in Egypt, and\nstill retained in some degree their Mosaic ideas and belief in the\nOld Testament, under the light of the school of Alexandria, where the\ndoctrines of Philo were taught, they readily adopted the Alexandrian\nideas of the Logos. The belief in some intermediate or mediatorial power\nbetween God and man was common to the Jews as well as most other\npeople. Adam, by his disobedience, had broken the law, and if he or his\ndescendants are ever to be restored to the favor of the Creator, it is\nto be done through the office of a Mediator. The notions of Philo on the\nnature of the Logos suited the Therapeutae much better than did those of\nPaul, and after a short struggle we will discover the Alexandrian dogmas\nto be the creed of the orthodox. Christ's appearance on earth, his death\nand resurrection, are what Paul preached, and what the Therapeutae, who\nwere converted by him, believed. These features were retained in the\nchurch after the Philo ideas of the Logos had displaced the Christ of\nPaul. It was only Paul's doctrine of the descent of Jesus from Mary and\nJoseph after the flesh that was thrown aside by them. The intervention\nof the Virgin, at a later period in the history of the church, was the\nmeans by which the Christ of Paul was made the Son of God in the sense\nof the Alexandrian school.\n\nThe transition of the Therapeutae to Christianity was easy. Little or no\nchange was made in the form of the services in the church. According to\nEusebius, they sang hymns. They read sacred books and made comments\non them as well after as before the change. Like the first Christian\ncommunity, they held all their property in common. They said grace at\ntable both before and after meals, according to Josephus, which they\ncontinued to do after they took the name of Christians. They made no\nchange in their fasts and festivals, and retained the monasteries. The\ntransfer of the form of the Therapeutae church government to the new\nchurch was the work of time, and was not fully effected until the second\ncentury. The influence of Paul's name, with other causes, was too strong\nduring the first to permit the change.\n\nA Bishop in a Christian church is the work of the second century. Like\nevery other new feature in its history, we find the first Bishop at\nAlexandria. Gibbon says: \"The extensive commerce of Alexandria, and its\nproximity to Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion. It\nwas at first embraced by great numbers of the Therapeutae, or Essenians\nof the lake Mareotis, a Jewish sect which had abated much of its\nreverence for the Mosaic ceremonies. The austere life of the Essenians,\ntheir fasts and excommunications, the community of goods, the love of\ncelibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and the warmth though not the purity\nof their faith, already offered a very lively image of the primitive\ndiscipline. It was in the school of Alexandria that the Christian\ntheology appears to have assumed a regular and scientific form; and when\nHadrian visited Egypt he found a church, composed of Jews and of\nGreeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive\nprince.\" (Ch. xv. (162) (163), vol. I. p. 283.)*\n\n     * After the author had written out his views as above, he\n     met with the following passages from the writings of\n     Michaelis, the great German critic, quoted in Taylor's\n     Diegesis. Of the Therapeutae, he says they are a \"Jewish\n     sect, which began to spread itself at Ephesus, and to\n     threaten great mischief to Christianity in the time (or\n     indeed previous to the time) of St. Paul, on which account,\n     in his epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to\n     Timothy, he declares himself openly against them.\"\n     (Diegesisy 58.)\n\n     Again: \"It is evident from the above-mentioned epistles of\n     Paul, that, to the great mortification of the apostle, they\n     insinuated themselves very early into the church.\" (60.) The\n     writer does not wish to be understood that the disturbances\n     created in the church were confined to Corinth, and that\n     Apollos was the only one who taught during the life of Paul\n     the doctrines of the Alexandrian school. Wherever Paul had\n     founded a church, there the Therapeutae element was at work.\n     Apollos, by his superior eloquence and learning, was\n     distinguished from a host of agitators, and called forth the\n     special notice of Paul. element was at work. Apollos, by his\n     superior eloquence and learning, was distinguished from a\n     host of agitators, and called forth the special notice of\n     Paul.\n\nIt is safe to say that it was the Therapeutae who caused the troubles\nin the churches in Paul's time and afterwards, because no other sect or\nsociety was so extended, and had the power to make the disturbance so\nuniversal. Paul could complain of no other, and it was this sect that\nturned all Asia against him. There is no way to account for the sudden\nand wonderful increase of Christians in a few years before Paul's death,\nunless we can refer the cause to the sudden conversion of the Therapeutae\nto the new religion. When they are suddenly lost to sight, the small\nchurches of Paul have grown great in numbers, and spread over Europe and\nAsia in an incredibly short space of time.\n\nBefore going to press, the writer came into the possession of the works\nof Michaelis, where we find the following passage: \"But even before\nApollos had received the instructions of Aquila and Priscilla, he taught\npublicly in the synagogue at Ephesus concerning the Messiah. Hence it is\nnot improbable that the Essenes introduced themselves into the church\nat Ephesus by means of Apollos, who came from Alexandria, in the\nneighborhood of which city, according to Philo, the Essenes were not\nonly numerous but were held in high estimation.\" (Vol. iv. p. 85.) It\nwould seem from this that Apollos only continued to do at Corinth what\nhe first began at Ephesus.\n\nNo man of any age suffered so much abuse, nor was there ever one whose\nmemory labored under such a weight of obloquy as that of Paul--first\nfrom the followers of Apollos; and afterwards from the Catholics of\nthe second century, when the mother of God rose like a new star in\nthe heavens. The first half of the Acts was written, as will be shown,\nexpressly to exalt Peter over him and degrade him from the rank of an\nApostle. The Revelation ascribed to St. John is nothing but a bitter\ntirade of denunciation against Paul and his followers. He is called a\nliar, \"the false prophet,\" who with the beast was cast alive into a lake\nof burning fire. He is the great red dragon who stood before the woman\nready to devour the child Jesus as soon as he was born, and who warred\nwith Michael and the angels. Paul is not only denounced, but Christ\nhimself is made to declare his status in the Godhead. \"I Jesus have sent\nmine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.\" (xxii.\n16.) What the things were to which the angel was to bear testimony,\nsufficiently appears in every portion of the book of Revelation. Why was\nPaul the subject of so much abuse? There can be but one answer. It was\nbecause of the way in which he taught Christ in all the churches,\nwhich he had learned from the Apostles in his interviews with them\nat Jerusalem, and probably from Joseph and Mary themselves, for they\noccurred about the year A.D. 40.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n     Review of the past.--What follows in the future.\n\nLet us assume a stand at the beginning of Adrian's reign, A.D. 117, and\nmake a survey of the Christian world as it presents itself at that day.\nA half-century has passed since the death of Paul. Since then, Rome has\nbeen without a Christian population. Driven from the city through the\ncruel butcheries of the tyrant, they took refuge in the provinces,\nespecially Asia Minor, where they remained until the reign of Adrian\nand his successor, the tolerant Antoninus Pius. In the mean time, the\nTherapeutan element of Christianity had been steadily on the increase,\nwhile that of Paul had correspondingly declined. The proclamation of\nAdrian, or rather his letter to Fundanus, a governor of one of the\nprovinces, prohibiting the punishment of Christians on account of their\nreligion, was the first intimation from the capital of the empire that\nthey could return in safety. From this time Christians began to return\nto Rome in a steady stream, so that within the next twenty years they\nhad so increased in numbers that they once more take a place in history,\nand are found mixed up in the history of the imperial city.\n\nBut at this time Christians, in their contest with the Pagans, found the\nevidence of Christianity, as it then stood, not sufficient to contend\nwith the infidelity of the age. The old religion of Rome was hallowed by\ntime, supported by the learned men of that day, and upheld by the power\nof the State. The Gospels had not yet appeared; the world was without a\nmiracle; Mary, the bride of Heaven, afterwards the central figure in the\nHierarchy of the orthodox, had no place in history. Peter had not\nbeen in Rome, or John in Asia. The personal influence of Paul and his\nimmediate followers had kept alive the spirit of Christianity in Asia;\nbut now Paul is no more, and the influence of his name has nearly passed\naway. The proof that there ever were such persons as Christ and his\ndisciples had become faint. The dim light of tradition, and what Paul,\nand his companion Barnabas, said of him in their epistles, comprised\nabout all the evidence at that day to sustain the claims of\nChristianity. But Paul himself had not seen Christ, except under such\ncircumstances as might excite suspicion of either delusion or fraud. He\nhad seen Peter, and remained with him, in the first place fifteen days;\nand afterwards went to Jerusalem, where he saw all of the disciples who\nwere then living. What Paul learned from the disciples, with his vision\nnear Damascus, was sufficient to convince him of the reality of Christ\nand the truth of the religion he taught. But the proof all lay within\nhimself. The genuine epistles of Peter, as we will show, were so\ncorrupted by the men of the second century, that we have no means of\nknowing how much of the original remains or how much has been added. The\nepistle of James, which is the only writing by an Apostle, or any one\nelse, that has come down to us from the Apostolic age without some\nevidence of fraud and corruption, only speaks of Christ as a just man,\nand makes no mention of the prodigies and wonders claimed to have taken\nplace at the time of his birth and death; nor does he take notice of\nthe miracles and wonderful things spoken of in the Gospels. The proof,\nwhatever it may have been, that Christ ever existed, was too weak to\novercome or even contend against the skepticism of the age.\n\nSo far we have said nothing of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, because\nit was cast to one side, for the reason that it was a standing argument\nagainst the Alexandrian ideas of the Logos--and was regarded as of\nno authority in the church until it had been improved by important\nadditions made afterwards, and passed into the present Greek version.\nWith such proof as existed at the time we write of, Christianity could\nnot hold its ground against the great pressure brought to bear it\ndown--much less make headway against such powerful opposition. The time\nto supply new proof of the reality of Christ was favorable. All the\nscenes in his life lay within the boundaries of Galilee, Samaria, and\nJudea--the greater part in and about Jerusalem. Since his death the\nLegions of Rome had been there, and left nothing standing except a few\ntowers, reserved for military defence. The silence of death, for almost\na half century, had reigned in the streets of Jerusalem. The greater\npart of the Jewish people had been put to death by the sword, or carried\naway into captivity. All who lived during the time of Christ, by age and\nthe calamities of war had gone to their graves. We shall soon see the\nSynoptics appear in intervals such as circumstances demanded, each\nbearing the name of an Apostle, or the name of some one who wrote at\ntheir dictation. A little further down in the century we will find\nmen engaged in laying the foundation of a church, whose claims to\ninfallibility and supremacy are based on \"apostolic succession.\" When we\ncome to this period we will find all ecclesiastical history to consist\nof traditions, and a time in the world's life which is populated by\nBishops and high-church dignitaries, who pass before us without speech\nor action, like shadows on a wall. We shall find Peter has been in Rome;\nJohn at Ephesus; Paul in Gaul, Spain, and Britain. We will find parties\nengaged in exalting Peter above all the other Apostles--and the same\ninfluence at work to put down Paul. Again we will see Paul restored\nto favor, but his writings defaced by forgeries, to conform to the\ndoctrines of the day. We shall also see Christians enter into quarrels\namong themselves, which continue through centuries.\n\nBooks are forged, traditions manufactured, and the works of the Fathers\nshamefully altered and corrupted. Later in the century, brought out by\na pressure which made it necessary, the fourth Gospel will appear, and\nChristianity pass from the Alexandrian Logos to the Incarnate God.\nBy casting our eyes still further down the centuries, we will see\nChristianity and the philosophy of Plato strangely allied, which brings\nus to the era of the Trinity. Let us first inquire into the origin of\nthe first three Gospels.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n     How the Four Gospels Originated\n\nThe origin of the Gospels has proved a Serbonian bog, in which many\nwriters who have attempted an explanation have floundered without\nfinding solid ground. Scarcely two writers agree. Why should there be\nany doubt in a matter of so much importance, where the evidence could so\nreadily be obtained at the time they were written, and so safely guarded\nand preserved? Truth, in a historic period like that in which it is\nclaimed the Gospels were written, need not be left in the dark. The true\ndifficulty has grown out of the fact, that writers who have undertaken\nto give the origin of the Gospels have looked, as men do in most other\ncases, to outside sources for information; whereas the explanation of\nthe origin is to be found within the Gospels themselves, and nowhere\nelse. By looking for light where none is to be found, writers on this\nsubject have had their attention withdrawn from the direction where the\ntruth is to be discovered. If we bear in mind that men eighteen hundred\nyears ago were much like men of to-day, that the emotion or effect a\ngiven event or occurrence produces in the minds of men of our own time\nwould be the same as upon those who lived in the first part of the\nsecond century, we have a compass, such as it is, to guide us through\nthis Cimmerian darkness. What would excite ridicule, or appear false and\nimprobable to intelligent minds of our own times, would appear equally\nso to such minds as Pliny and Tacitus at their ages of the world.\n\nIn imagination let us take a stand at the beginning of the second\ncentury, and make ourselves citizens of the Roman empire under the reign\nof Adrian. We can well imagine how the minds of thinking and intelligent\npeople were affected on the first appearance of the present Greek\nversion of Matthew's Gospel. It set forth some of the most astounding\nevents in the history of the world, and which the world heard of for the\n_first time_. When Christ was put to death, all the land, from the sixth\nto the ninth hour, was covered with darkness; the veil of the temple was\nrent in twain from the top to the bottom; the earth did quake, and the\nrocks were rent asunder; the graves were opened, and many bodies of\nsaints which slept arose and came out of their graves, and went into the\nholy city and appeared unto many. Suppose that some morning we\nshould pick up our daily paper, and find under the telegraph head an\nannouncement of like events as having occurred in London or Paris. At\nfirst we might be fearfully startled, but would soon feel satisfied that\nit was all a hoax, after the style of Professor Locke's story of the\nMoon. If the authors of the story expected to accomplish anything\nby such startling announcements, they failed by attempting too much.\nWhether the earth was covered with darkness, or was shaken by an\nearthquake, or the dead got out of their graves and went down into the\ncity, were facts easily inquired into, in that age of the world.\n\nMatthew further states that a star went before the wise men of the East,\ntill it came and stood over where the young child was. How could a star\na million of miles off lead any one on this earth, and how could it at\nthat distance be in a position to indicate a spot on the earth where the\nchild was? He also states, that when Herod found he was mocked he was\nwroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in _Bethlehem_\nand all the coast thereof, from two years old and under. We can readily\nimagine the Pagans, who composed the learned and intelligent men of\ntheir day, at work in exposing the story of Herod's cruelty, by showing\nthat, considering the extent of territory embraced in the order, and the\npopulation within it, the assumed destruction of life stamped the story\nfalse and ridiculous. A Governor of a Roman province who dared make such\nan order would be so speedily overtaken by the vengeance of the Roman\npeople, that his head would fall from his body before the blood of his\nvictims had time to dry. Archelaus, his son, was deposed for offences\nnot to be spoken of when compared with this massacre of the infants.\n\nBut that part of the first Gospel which related to the dream of Joseph\nand the conception of Mary was what most excited the criticism and\nridicule of the people of that day. The whole and sole foundation of the\nnew religion was _a dream_. The simplicity of Joseph, too, provoked a\nsmile, if nothing more. The story at the sepulchre was overdrawn, and\nthrew discredit over all. \"And behold, there was a great earthquake: for\nthe angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back\nthe stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like\nlightning, and his raiment white as snow.\" (_Matthew_ xxviii. 2, 3.)\nSuch aerial bodies are not given to the employments assigned to the\nangel in this case. Rolling stones, say the wise men, by spiritual\nessences is ridiculous and absurd. Besides, who knows anything of the\ngreat earthquake? We find no account of it, nor is it even mentioned\nanywhere else.\n\nSo men reasoned eighteen hundred years ago--and so they would to-day.\nIt is evident that the author of the first Gospel had overdone his part,\nand injured the cause he meant to advance. The blunders and mistakes of\nthe first Gospel made it necessary that there should be a second. This\ngave rise to a second Gospel, not by the same hand, but by some other,\nwho felt the pressure that had been brought to bear on Matthew.\n\nAs this second Gospel was written with a special purpose, we must expect\na great resemblance in it to the first, except where the former makes\nstatements which were the occasion of so much criticism on the part of\nthe philosophers; and in such cases, the best course to pursue would\nbe to say nothing. Naked contradiction would not answer. Mark has not\na word to say about the story of Joseph and the angel. He omits the\nearthquake at the crucifixion, and the resurrection of the dead, for\nthese things were susceptible of disproof; but tells of the darkness,\nand the rent in the temple, because the former was comparative, and may\nhave been a dark cloud in the heavens; and as to the case of the temple,\nno one could disprove the story, for it was destroyed. The story of the\nangel and stone is entirely omitted, but the stone is removed from the\nmouth of the sepulchre when the women appear, and a young man is found\nin the inside, who is presumed to have done it. Matthew says that Joseph\nof Arimathea deposited the body of Christ in the sepulchre, and then\nrolled a great stone to the door. Afterwards the priest and Pharisees\ncaused the entrance to be made _secure_, for fear that the body would be\nstolen, and the disciples then claim that he had risen from the dead.\nIf so, say the philosophers, the work was not so poorly done that _one_\nyoung man could roll the stone from the door, as stated by Mark. It\nwould be beyond his strength.\n\nLuke removes the objection; when the women come to the sepulchre in\nthe morning they found the stone removed, and the body of Christ was\nmissing. There was no young man inside, but _two_ men were found\nstanding on the outside, who, no doubt, were competent to do the work.\nThe story of the star which led the wise men, and the murder of the\ninfants at Bethlehem, is also omitted. We are justified in saying that\nthose who were engaged in getting up the _first_ Gospel, or those who\nsucceeded them, were driven to abandon some false and impossible and\nimprobable things stated in that Gospel, by proof, in some cases, of\ntheir falsehood, and in others by the force of argument and ridicule.\n\nMatthew had related the story of Joseph and the angel, and that admitted\nof no change or modification. Mark says nothing about it, but silence\nwill not answer; for the philosophers still claim that all depends upon\na _dream_, and the dreams of Joseph are no better than the dreams of any\nother man. If the story could not be modified, it might be corroborated.\nSo, when it came to Luke's turn to speak he adds the story of Zacharias,\nand the interview between Mary and the angel Gabriel. All now occurs in\n_daylight_, and dreams which had been the subject of so much ridicule\nare dispensed with.\n\nWhen Zacharias went to the temple to burn incense, he found on the\noutside a great multitude of people. The crowd has no connection with\nthe story, except as these people are wanted for witness as to what\nhappened _in the sanctuary_. While Zacharias was offering incense\nwithin, there appeared to him an angel standing on the right side of\nthe altar. The position of the angel is defined with precision, that it\nmight not be claimed that what appeared to him was a phantom. Zacharias\nsaw him and was afraid.\n\nAs further evidence that the angel was not some optical illusion,\nGabriel spoke, and gave Zacharias such information about the future\nbirth of a son to him that he was disposed to doubt the truth of it. As\na punishment for his reasonable doubts, he is struck dumb. The interview\ncontinued so long that the crowd on the outside began to be uneasy,\nand when Zacharias did come out he had lost the power of speech. This\nconvinced the multitude (but how, is not stated) that he had seen a\nvision in the temple. After this, Gabriel made a visit to Mary in open\nday, and held a conversation, in which he announced to her the birth of\na son through the overshadowing influence of the Holy Ghost, who would\nreign over the house of Jacob forever. Then follows the scene between\nMary and her cousin Elisabeth.\n\nIn Luke's account of the announcement of the birth of Christ by divine\nagency, the story of Joseph is entirely omitted, and new witnesses are\nintroduced. His story was well studied; every precaution was taken to\nsilence cavil and make such a case as would remove doubts. The blunders\nof Matthew were not to be repeated. The birth of Christ and John, who\nwas afterwards called the Baptist, are ingeniously associated in the\nannouncement of the angel, to give color to what is said of them in the\nGospels afterwards.\n\nWhat objections were made by the philosophers to the story of Luke at\nthe time, we have no means of knowing; but if any were made, there is no\nsubsequent effort to improve it, and so it remains to this day.\n\nThe question interests us to know when and from whom did Luke get his\ninformation. If he had it from any one who had the means of knowing what\nhe tells us, it must have been from Paul, for we have no knowledge that\nhe had any acquaintance, or relations of any kind, with either of the\ndisciples. He was Paul's companion: we find him with Paul at Troas, A.D.\n50; thence he attended him to Jerusalem, continued with him during his\ntroubles in Judea, and sailed in the same ship with him when he was\nsent a prisoner to Rome, where he stayed with him during his two years'\nconfinement. He was with him during his second imprisonment, and, as we\nwill show in the proper place, he died with Paul in Rome, and was one\nof the victims of Nero's reign. If Paul knew what Luke states as to the\ndivine emanation of Christ, why does he not make some allusion to it in\nhis numerous epistles?--and how can we understand that he could, with\nsuch knowledge, deny this divine creation, and preach to the last that\nChrist was born according to natural law?\n\nLuke, too, made mistakes, which John afterwards corrected in the fourth\nGospel.\n\nWe can best illustrate the claim that the three last Gospels were\nwritten in the order they appeared, as a necessity to meet the\nobjections and cavils of the philosophers, by taking some leading\nsubject which is mentioned by all. Take the case of the _resurrection_.\nMatthew says: \"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some\ndoubted.\" (Matt, xxviii. 17.) To leave the question where Matthew leaves\nit would be fatal. In such a case there must be no doubt. Mark makes\nChrist appear three times under such circumstances as to render\na mistake next to impossible, and to silence the most obstinate\nskepticism. He first appears to Mary Magdalene, who was convinced that\nit was Christ, because she went and told the disciples that he had\nrisen, and that she had seen him. They disbelieved, nor could they be\nconvinced until he appeared to them. They in turn told it to the other\ndisciples, who were also skeptical; and, that they might be convinced,\nChrist also appeared to them as they sat at meat, when he upbraided them\nfor their unbelief.\n\nThis story is much improved in the hands of Mark, but, in the anxiety to\nmake a clear case, it is overdone, as often happens when the object is\nto remedy or correct an oversight or mistake previously made. There was\na large amount of skepticism to be overcome, but the proof offered\nwas sufficient to do it, and remove all doubts from the minds of the\ndisciples. Considering Christ had told the disciples he would rise, why\ndid they doubt at all? Owing to some strange oversight, neither Matthew\nnor Mark says in what way Christ made his appearance--whether it was in\nthe body or only in the spirit. If in the latter, it would be fatal to\nthe whole theory of the resurrection. We conclude from what followed,\nthat the philosophers of that day, who would concede nothing to the\nclaims of Christianity, took advantage of this oversight, and denied the\nresurrection of Christ in the body. It was the business of Luke to put\nthis disputed question in its true light, and silence the objection.\nHe says that when Christ appeared and spoke to the disciples they were\nafraid. \"But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they\nhad seen a _spirit._\" (Luke xxiv. 37.) Christ then showed the wounds in\nhis hands and feet. \"And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of\na honeycomb: And he took it, and did _eat before them_.\" (Luke xxiv. 42,\n43.) Now who dare doubt? Why some doubted, as Matthew says they did,\nis hard to explain. The account of Luke should have satisfied the\nphilosophers that it was a body and not a spirit that appeared to the\ndisciples. But we can believe they were not, from what is afterwards\nsaid on this subject. The story of the fish and honeycomb was incredible\nand absurd. It was a fish-story. If true, why did Matthew and Mark fail\nto mention it?\n\nLuke had overdone the matter, and instead of convincing the Pagans, he\nonly excited their ridicule.\n\nNow comes John's turn. He does not omit entirely the story of Christ\neating fish, for that would not do, after there had been so much said\nabout it. He might leave it to be inferred that Luke made a mistake, so\nhe modifies the story and omits the ridiculous part of it. The scene\nis laid on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias. Under the direction of\nChrist, Peter drew his net to land full of fish. \"Jesus saith unto them,\nCome and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou?\nknowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh _bread,\nand giveth them, and fish_ like wise.\" (John xxi. 12, 13.) It does not\nappear from this account that Christ ate of the fish at all. He took\nthe fish and gave to the disciples; the inference is, that they were the\nones that ate. In Luke the statement is reversed:--the disciples gave\nthe fish to Christ, and he ate. John has taken out of the story that\nwhich was absurd, but he leaves us to infer that Luke was _nearsighted\nor careless_ in his account of what took place. If you leave out of\nLuke's account the part that relates to the fish and honeycomb, he fails\nto prove what it really was which appeared to the disciples.\n\nChrist, he says, said, \"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I\nmyself.\" (Ch. xxiv. 39.) \"And while they yet believed not for joy, and\nwondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?\" (Ch. xxiv. 41.) It\nseems from this that the disciples could not be convinced until Christ\nhad actually eaten something. Now if you strike out the eating part,\nwhich John does, and which no doubt the ridicule cast upon it drove him\nto do, Luke leaves the question open just where he found it. It was the\nbusiness of John to leave it clean, and put an end to all cavil.\n\nJesus appeared to the disciples when they assembled at Jerusalem. \"And\nwhen he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side.\" (John\nxx. 20.) They were satisfied, and no doubts were expressed. But Thomas\nwas not present, and when he was told that Jesus had appeared to the\ndisciples, he refused to believe, nor would he, \"Except I shall see in\nhis hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of\nthe nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.\" (John\nxx. 25.) Now if Thomas can be convinced with all his doubts, it would\nbe foolish after that to deny that Christ was not in the body when he\nappeared to his disciples.\n\nAfter eight days Christ again appears, without any object that we can\ndiscover but to convince Thomas. Then said he to Thomas, \"Reach hither\nthy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust\nit into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.\" (John xx. 27.) It\nis not stated whether he did as he was directed; but he was convinced,\nand exclaimed, \"_My Lord and my God_.\"\n\nWhat fault the Pagans found with this account we have not the means of\nknowing; but if they still disbelieved, they were more skeptical than\nThomas himself. We should be at a loss to understand why the writers of\nthe first three Gospels entirely omitted the story of Thomas, if we were\nnot aware that when John wrote the state of the public mind was such,\nthat proof of the most unquestionable character was demanded that Christ\nhad risen in the body. John selected a person who claimed he was hard\nto convince, and if the evidence was such as to satisfy him, it ought to\nsatisfy the balance of the world.\n\nJohn's services are again required to repair the blunders and oversights\nof the writers of the first three Gospels in relation to the body of\nChrist after the crucifixion. Matthew states that Mary Magdalene and the\nother Mary went on the first day of the week to see the sepulchre. No\nother purpose is expressed. Mark says that early in the morning of the\nfirst day of the week, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and\nSalome brought spices to anoint the body. According to Luke, after the\nwomen who had followed Christ from Galilee had seen the body deposited\nin the tomb, they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested\nthe Sabbath day. The body was deposited in the tomb some time on Friday,\nand remained until Sunday morning, on the first day of the Jewish week.\nDoubtless, in the climate of Syria, the body in the mean time must have\nundergone such a change as to make it difficult to either embalm or even\nanoint it. The Pagans at that day could hardly fail to take advantage of\nthis mistake or blunder. But John again comes to the rescue and sets the\nmatter right. According to him, Joseph of Arimathea had permission to\ntake the body, which he did, and carried it away. \"And there came also\nNicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus by night) and brought a\nmixture of myrrh and aloes, _about a hundred pounds weight_. Then took\nthey the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices,\nas the manner of the Jews is to bury.\" (John xix. 39, 40.)\n\nJohn now fully silenced the cavils of the enemy and taken the proper\nsteps to preserve the body until the morning of the third day.\n\nThe subject might be further pursued, but enough has been said to\nfurnish a key to the origin of the Gospels. Christians in their contests\nwith the Pagans resemble the course of a retreating army, which falls\nback to take a stronger position. Each time the position is improved,\nuntil one at last is found which is impregnable. We can readily see how\nit is that the first three Gospels so closely resemble each other,\nthe exact language for whole passages being alike in all. Mark copies\nMatthew, and Luke uses the words of both. It is only when the last\nundertakes to improve or modify something written by those who wrote\npreviously, that the difference becomes obvious. That the Christians in\nthe beginning of the second century had books of some kind before the\nthree first Gospels appeared in the present shape is beyond all dispute.\nThe sacred writings of the Therapeutae, as we have shown, were full of\nthe most sound morality, and contained all the essential principles of\nChristianity. These writings were ancient--had been regarded as sacred\nfor generations among them, and were so much like the present Gospels\nthat Eusebius claimed them to be the same, and that the Therapeutae were\nChristians. No doubt the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was extant, and if it\nwas rejected by the Christians of that day, because it did not contain\nthe two first chapters of the Greek version, there was no reason why\nthey should reject the Sermon on the Mount, and all the sublime and pure\nreligion taught by Christ. The sacred writings of the Therapeutae--the\nHebrew version of Matthew, the Epistle of James and the first of\nPeter--furnished the principles and doctrines which now form the life of\nChristianity; and the great want of the day--that is, some proof of the\nactual existence of the person of Christ, by those who had seen him and\nwere familiar with him before his death--was supplied in the first three\nGospels, by the testimony of those who claimed to be his disciples, or\nby those who, it is said, wrote at their dictation.\n\nIn what quarter of the globe were the Synoptics written, and by whom?\nAll that can be said on this subject with certainty is, that the Greek\nversion of Matthew, the source of all, was not written in Judea, or by\none who knew anything of the geography of the country, or the history of\nthe Jews. He was ignorant of both. What excuse was there but ignorance\nfor making the order for the massacre of the infants to include\nBethlehem, and all _the coast thereof_, which would take in at least the\none-half of all Judea, and involve in one common slaughter, according to\nthe calculations of learned men, several thousand innocent children?\nThe Greek writer of Matthew evidently believed that Bethlehem was\nan insignificant hamlet, situated on the coast of the Mediterranean,\nwhereas it is as far in the interior as Jerusalem; and not far from the\ncentre of Judea. The writer's ignorance of Jewish history will appear\nstill more conspicuous, when we speak of the application which he makes\nof prophecy to the person of Jesus. Whoever the writer may have been, it\nis evident that he received his education at the college at Alexandria,\nwhere Medicine and Divinity were taught, and regarded as inseparable.\nFrom the union of the two, recovery from diseases was ascribed to\nsupernatural powers. A fever was a demon, which was not to be expelled\nby virtue of any material remedy, but by incantations, spells, and\nmagic. It was by such power Christ cleansed the leper--healed the\ncenturion's servant--touched the hand of Peter's wife's mother and\ndrove away the fever--expelled the devils from two men into swine,\nand performed many other cures. The whole of the first Gospel has an\nAlexandrian look not easily to be mistaken--if we except the miracle of\nthe loaves and fishes, walk of Christ on the water, and other wonders of\na like nature, which is the work of some one later in the century. The\ndeserts in the neighborhood of Alexandria abounded with monasteries from\nthe earliest accounts of the Therapeutae to the conquest of Egypt by the\nMahometan power, which were filled with monks who were celebrated\nfor their piety, their miracles, their power to expel devils and heal\ndiseases. The pages of Sozomen and Socrates abound with the names\nof monks who cured the palsy, expelled demons, and cured the sick.\n(Sozomen, _Ecc. Hist._, lib. vi., ch. 28.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n     John the son of Zebedee never in Asia Minor.--John the\n     Presbyter substituted.--The work of Irenaeus and Eusebius.--\n     John the disciple has served to create an enigma in\n     history.--John of Ephesus a myth.\n\nWas John the son of Zebedee ever in Asia? To ask a question which\nimplies a doubt on a subject that has been agreed on for almost twenty\ncenturies, will probably startle many even in this age of inquiry and\nprogress. It may be a question whether he who makes a discovery in\nscience or the arts which facilitates the advance of mankind, or he who\ncontributes by his labors to remove a delusion which has stood in the\nway of progress, is most entitled to the gratitude of his fellow-men. A\nfalsehood, as long as it stands unquestioned, may and does receive the\nrespect which is due to the truth; but there is a time when, no matter\nhow hoary with age, it must pass away and give place to the latter.\n\nJohn the son of Zebedee the fisherman, upon careful inquiry, can never\nbe successfully confounded with him of Ephesus. His character, as\ndeveloped in the Synoptics, is composed of negative qualities. We find\nhim in Jerusalem when he had got to be fifty years old, without any\nevidence, up to that time, that he had been out of sight of the walls\nof the city, and no proof that he said or did anything worthy of notice.\nHis name is mentioned in connection with some of the great scenes in the\nlife of Christ, but he takes no part, and, like the supernumeraries on\nthe stage, his presence is only needed to fill up a required number.\nTo be sure, Paul speaks of him in connection with James and Peter as\npillars of the church--which has no significance, as the nine other\ndisciples were all moderate men, and the church at the time few in\nnumber and easily managed. John of the Synoptics is not only lymphatic\nand of negative qualities, but, from his condition in life and pursuits,\nmust have had but little learning of any kind. John of the Greeks is\na man of learning, and a scholar. He was master of the Greek, and was\nfamiliar with the abstruse and subtle philosophy of that speculative\npeople. He was at home in all the different and various doctrines of\nthe Gnostics, and proved himself the most able man of the age in his\ncontests with those numerous sects which embraced the most learned men\nof the second century. In fine, this John of Galilee, whose name is\nseldom mentioned, or if so, not for anything he said or did, who lives\nto be more than fifty without the least notice being taken of him, or\nallusion made--this phlegmatic John, after he has passed the meridian\nof life, and his powers are on the decline, has all at once become a\nteacher, and the great light of Grecian theology, and wields a pen with\nthe fire and spirit of Demosthenes! A change and complete transformation\nlike this is nowhere else to be found in the history of the world. The\ntruth is, the John of Galilee is not the John of Ephesus. The latter\nis a phantom of some Greek's brain, which has served to mislead men for\nages.\n\nIf John the disciple had ever passed out of Syria into Asia Minor, so\nimportant a fact would find a place in some authentic history; and from\nthe time he put his foot in the country, his meanderings, like those\nof Paul, would be well known and preserved. We leave him in Jerusalem in\nA.D. 50, and the next time we hear of him he is in Ephesus. When he left\nJudea, and when he arrived in Asia Minor, no one pretends to know.\nFrom the year forty-eight, and perhaps much sooner, to the spring of\nsixty-five, Paul spent nine-tenths of his time travelling up and down\nthe Archipelago, establishing and visiting the churches. He made the\ncircuit three times, and it was his uniform practice, in closing his\nepistles to the different churches, to mention those of the brethren who\nwere with him, even if they were not of much importance; and yet in none\nof them does he mention the name of John. Considering that John was an\nApostle, this silence of Paul can be accounted for only by the fact that\nhe did not hear of or see him in Asia Minor, and was in Ephesus as late\nas the year sixty-four, and still later, sixty-five, and up to that time\nJohn had not been there, for Paul makes no mention of him.\n\nWhat historical proof is there that is worthy of credit, that John was\never in Asia Minor? The whole story rests on the shoulders of Irenaeus.\n\nHere is what he says: \"Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by\nPaul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times\nof Trajan, is a true witness of the traditions.\" (Book III. sec. 3.)\nIrenaeus cites no authority, and we have a right, in a matter of so much\nimportance, to demand of him some evidence that what he states is true.\nIn this absence of any reference to written testimony we have a right\nto infer that there was none, and that there was no ground for the\nassertion but tradition. This Irenaeus is forced to admit. The book on\nheresies was written, as we shall show, about A.D. 181. According to\nauthentic history, Paul was in Ephesus in sixty-five, the last time. If\nthe statement of Irenaeus is founded on tradition, and there is no other,\nthen the tradition that Paul left John in Ephesus is one hundred and\nsixteen years old. We will see what a tradition so old, handed down to\nfuture ages, is worth, coming from Irenaeus. A tradition over one hundred\nyears old, when first inserted into the pages of history by one of the\nmost dishonest historians of any age, is the authority we have in our\nday for believing a most important fact in the history of the Christian\nchurch. The caption to the section from which the above passage was\ntaken will explain the reason why Irenaeus undertook to misrepresent the\ntruth of history: \"_A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in\nthe various churches, a perpetual succession of Bishops was kept up_.\"\nHe was engaged in furnishing an apostle to the churches in Asia Minor\nand some parts of Greece, for an \"apostolic succession.\" We will find\nhim engaged in doing a great deal of this kind of business before we are\ndone with him. The proof that John was not in Ephesus is conclusive.\nThe language of Irenaeus implies that Paul placed John in charge of the\nchurch when he left for Rome _for he says John remained_. This is not\nso. When Paul left Ephesus, in the year A. D. 64 or 65, he left Timothy\nthere in charge of the church, and he remained until Paul got into\ntrouble in Rome, in the fall of A. D. 65, when the latter sent for him.\nWould Paul leave the church in the charge of Timothy when one of the\nApostles was there, especially as he was so young that some objected to\nhim on account of his age? In writing to Timothy to meet him in Rome,\nwould Paul fail to make some mention of the Apostle, if he had been in\nEphesus when he left?--Not one word to an Apostle who would naturally\ntake charge of the church, in the absence of himself and Timothy?\n\nIt is clear, then, that John had not been in Ephesus up to the fall or\nsummer of A. D. 65, when Timothy left to go to Rome; and the question\nis, was he there after this? and if so, when? Polycarp presided over the\nchurch at Smyrna, which was not far from Ephesus, and between the two\npoints there was constant intercourse by land and water; and if John had\nsucceeded Timothy at the latter place, would not he, Polycarp, take some\nnotice of so important a fact? He speaks of Paul in his letter to\nthe Philippians, and why not mention John, who was one of the twelve\nApostles? Polycarp lived to the end of the century, and it is claimed\nJohn also lived to about that time, and as they both lived so long\nin such close proximity, how natural it would be that the intercourse\nbetween them should be most intimate, and that the former should mention\nthose relations with an Apostle in writing to the churches he addressed,\nIrenaeus felt the force of this, and undertakes to show that Polycarp was\nthe _hearer and disciple of John_. He says: \"These things are attested\nby Papias, who was John's hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an\nancient writer, who mentions them in the fourth book of his works.\"\n(Quoted in Eusebius, _Ecc_. Hist., book iii., chap. 39.) It is meant\nthat it should be understood from this passage that both Papias and\nPolycarp had seen and heard John the Apostle. Now Papias never conversed\nwith John, the son of Zebedee the fisherman, and he says so, in a\nfragment preserved in the writings of Eusebius. After quoting the\npassage just cited from Irenaeus, Eusebius says: \"But Papias himself, in\nthe preface to his discourses, by no means asserts that he was a hearer\nand an eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but informs us that he received\nthe doctrines of faith _from their intimate friends_, which he states\nin the following words: 'But I shall not regret to subjoin to my\ninterpretations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time\naccurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received\nit _from the elders_, and have recorded it in order to give additional\nconfirmation to the truth by my testimony. For I never, like many,\ndelighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the\ntruth; neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are\ngiven from the Lord to our faith, and that came from the truth itself.\nBut if I met with any one who had been a follower of the elders\nanywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of\nthe elders,--what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas,\nJames, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what\nwas said by Aristion, and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord;\nfor I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the\nliving voice of those that are still surviving.' And the same Papias\nof whom we now speak professes to have received the declarations of the\nApostles _from those that were in company with them_, and says also that\nhe was a hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John. For, as he has\noften mentioned them by name, he also gives their statements in his own\nworks.\" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 39.)\n\nHe says he never conversed with John, but with the elders, and that _he\nwas a hearer of Presbyter John, and so was Polycarp_. When Irenaeus says\nthat Papias conversed with John, without telling which John, he knew\nthat no one would be thought of but the disciple; and such would\nhave been the case, had not Eusebius preserved this fragment from the\nwritings of Papias. Polycarp and Papias both conversed with the same\nJohn, who was John the Presbyter. In another place Irenaeus says: \"But\nPolycarp also was only instructed by this Apostle, and had conversed\nwith many who had seen Christ.\" (Book iii. chap. 3, sec. 3.) This is a\npalpable falsehood, and so appears from the passage just cited. He cites\nno authority, but lets facts of so much importance in history depend\non his simple word. If what is stated be true, why does not Polycarp\nhimself say something about the sources from which he derived his\ndoctrines? Nothing would give so great weight to his preaching as that\nhe derived what he taught from those who had listened to Christ and his\nApostles. Why speak of Paul, and what he taught, and not of Jesus and\nhis disciples, and what they taught?\n\nThe world is indebted to Irenaeus for the story of what took place\nbetween John and Cerinthus at the bath-house in Ephesus. Speaking of\nPolycarp, and how in all respects he was superior to Valentinianus and\nMarcion, he says: \"_There are also those_ who heard from him (Polycarp)\nthat John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and\nperceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without\nbathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down,\nbecause Cerinthus is within. '\" (Book iii. chap. 3.)\n\nNow it has been shown that John the disciple of the Lord never saw\nPolycarp, and if anything of the kind ever did take place, it was\nbetween Polycarp and John the Presbyter. The latter is a historic\ncharacter, spoken of by Polycarp, who lived about this time, and was\na Presbyter in the church; and it is evident that Irenaeus seeks to\nconfound the Apostle with him. It is for this reason he describes him in\nthe above passage as \"the disciple of the Lord,\" for which there was\nno reason, unless he meant to deceive. We have proved that he tried it\nonce, and when the first falsehood is uttered it is easy to fabricate\na second. This is the first blow that was directed by Irenaeus against\nCerinthus, a leader among the Gnostics; but it is only initiatory to\nstill heavier ones which are to follow.\n\nMarcion was a distinguished character among the Gnostics, and he too\nmust receive some damaging blows at the hands of Polycarp, the disciple\nof John. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on\none occasion, and said, \"Dost thou know me?\"--\"I do know thee--the\nfirst-born of Satan.\"--\"Such,\" continues the writer, \"was the horror\nwhich the _Apostles and the disciples_ had against holding even a verbal\ncommunication with any of the corrupters of the truth.\" (Book iii. chap.\n3.)\n\nThe Apostle in this case was John the Presbyter, if any one, and the\ndisciple Polycarp the martyr, who had, in fact, never seen any of the\nApostles. It is to be noted that no authority is given by Irenaeus for\nthese stories, though they are introduced as some things which somebody\nhad said. Such is history.\n\nThe value of tradition from the authority of Irenaeus may be judged of by\nthe following statement he makes, evidently intended to strengthen the\nassertion he made about the presence of St. John in Asia Minor. In\nall cases where he wants it to appear that the Apostle was there, he\nconnects the principal subject with other statements in a way as if\nthe main fact was incidentally mentioned. \"Now Jesus was, as it were,\nbeginning to be thirty years old when he came to receive baptism, and\naccording to those men he preached only one year, reckoning from his\nbaptism. On completing his thirtieth year he suffered, being still a\nyoung man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that\nthe first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that extends\nonwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the\nfortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age,\nwhich our Lord possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of\nteacher, even as the gospel and all the elders testify.\" \"Those who were\nconversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord (affirming) that\nJohn gave to them that information. And he remained among them up to the\ntime of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other\nApostles, and heard the same account from them, and bear testimony as\nto the validity of the statement. Which, then, should we rather\nbelieve?--whether such as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the\nApostles, and who never in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of\nan Apostle?\" (Book ii. chap. 22, sec. 5.)\n\nIt seems that Irenaeus had got into a dispute with Ptolemaeus, and\nattempts to silence him, as he does all opponents, by the authority of\nthe disciples, and especially of John, who is the only one he names.\nJohn, too, was in Asia at the time. It is not said where the other\nApostles were. Ptolemaeus claimed, as appears in the first part of the\nsame section, \"that Christ preached for one year only, and then suffered\nin the twelfth month.\" The argument with Ptolemaeus was, that Christ was\ntoo young, and preached too short a time, to be regarded as a teacher of\nmuch authority; and in this way, as Irenaeus says, \"destroying his whole\nwork, and robbing him of that age which is both necessary and more\nhonorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which\nalso, as a teacher, he excelled all others.\" The objection is put down\nin a summary way, claiming that the time of Christ's preaching extended\nover a period of _ten years_. This is what the Apostles stated, _and\nwhat John said while he was in Asia, and who remained there to the time\nof the death of Trajan_.\n\nEcclesiastical history claims three years only as the period of Christ's\nministry, but it can be proven that the truth lies on the side of\nPtolemaeus. Did John, while he was in Asia, and the other Apostles, no\nmatter where, give rise to such absurd and false traditions? If John\nwas in Ephesus at the time Paul went to Rome, in the year A. D. 65, and\nremained to the time of Trajan, as stated by Irenaeus, he was in Asia\nthirty-five years. During this time his history must have been so\ninterwoven with the affairs of the church, holding the rank of an\nApostle, that nothing could be more easy than to prove his presence in\nthe country. There is no difficulty in following the footsteps of Paul\nfor each year after he set out to preach the gospel, whether in Europe\nor Asia; and so with any real character who has been conspicuous for his\ntalents, or from the position he held in his day. But neither Irenaeus\nnor Eusebius have been able to furnish the world with the least evidence\nof a substantial character of the presence of John in Asia, although\nthey have undertaken it, and exhausted their ingenuity in trying to do\nso. If no better proof can be given of the presence of John in Asia,\nafter a residence of thirty-five years, than a grave, which may as well\nbe claimed to be that of Hannibal as that of John, the world will be\nsatisfied he never was there. Eusebius has displayed his characteristic\ningenuity, and shown his usual disregard for truth in an effort to prove\nthat the grave of John was in Ephesus, and that it was identified as\nlate as the latter part of the second or beginning of the third century.\nHe travels out of his way to do it--manifests from the way he does it\nthat he is engaged in a fraud, and, between the fear of detection and\nanxiety for success, he makes poor work of it. He causes Polycrates, who\nwas Bishop of Ephesus, to write a letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, with\nthe apparent purpose of informing him that some mighty luminaries had\nfallen asleep in Asia, but, in fact, to give an opportunity to make\nmention of the grave of John as being there in Ephesus. Who these\nluminaries were who had fallen asleep, he does not name; but dismisses\nthis part of the subject and proceeds to say: \"Moreover, John, that\nrested on the bosom of our Lord, he also rests at Ephesus.\" Some other\nmatters are introduced into the letter, which related to the burial of\nPhilip and his two daughters at Hierapolis; but this was only intended\nto conceal the real purpose and design of the writer.\n\nVictor was Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the third century, after\nJohn, if we admit he was in Asia, had been dead one hundred years. In\nwriting to Victor about persons who had lately died, and without saying\nwho they were, why should Polycrates make mention of the grave of John\nas located in Ephesus, which, if true, would have been as well known to\nall Asia as the tomb of Washington is known to the enlightened world to\nbe at Mount Vernon?\n\nThat intelligent men of the second and third centuries denied and\ndisproved the presence of John in Asia, is rendered certain by the\nstruggles and desperate efforts of their adversaries to establish the\naffirmative. The indications are, that the philosophers proved that the\nperson whom the Christians claimed to be the Apostle John was some other\nJohn; in all probability, John the Presbyter. Upon this point the proof\nseems to have been so conclusive that the Christians were driven to\nthe necessity of proving that there were two Johns--one besides the\npresbyter. Eusebius takes this task upon himself. We quote from\nthe above letter of Polycrates to Victor: \"For in Asia also mighty\nluminaries have fallen asleep, which will rise again at the last day at\nthe appearance of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven,\nand shall gather again all the saints. Philip, one of the twelve\nApostles, sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters.\nAnother of his daughters, who lived in the Holy Spirit, rests at\nEphesus. Moreover, John, that rested on the bosom of the Lord, who was a\npriest that bore the sacerdotal plate, and martyr, and teacher, he\nalso rests at Ephesus.\" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. ch. 31.) Owing\neither to a bad translation, or design on the part of the writer, two\ndistinct characters are so run together in the same sentence, that we\nwould suppose them to be one person if we did not know that the person\nwho leaned on the bosom of the Lord could not be the one who bore the\nsacerdotal plate, and was a martyr.\n\nIt would seem from this effort to make it appear that there were two\nJohns buried at Ephesus, that the philosophers proved that the John who\nbore the sacerdotal plate was the one the Christians were attempting to\nimpose on the world as the real John, and that the proof was such that\nthey had to yield the point, and claim that there were two graves--one\nthe martyr's, and the other the Apostle's. Eusebius felt conscious that\nit was not safe to rest his case here, and we find him reaching out in\nevery direction for further proof, satisfied with anything that will\ngive color to the fact he labors to establish.\n\nIn another place he states: \"Where it is also proper to observe the name\nof John is twice mentioned. The former of which he (Papias) mentions\nwith Peter and James and Matthew, and the other apostles; evidently\nmeaning the evangelist. But in a separate point of his discourse\nhe ranks the other John with the rest not included in the number of\napostles, placing Aristion before him. He distinguishes him plainly by\nthe name of Presbyter. So that it is here proved that the statement of\nthose is true who assert there were _two_ of _the same_ name in Asia,\nthat there were also two tombs in Ephesus, and that both are called\nJohn's even to this day; _which it is particularly necessary to\nobserve_\" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap, xxxix.) As much as to\nsay to the objecting philosophers, If you have proved that one John in\nAsia was the Presbyter John, we prove by Papias that there were two,\nand that one of them was the Apostle. If this is so, it is only by\ninference. But it spoils the argument when it is shown that when Papias\nspeaks of the two Johns, he does not say they were in Asia, or where\nthey were. He speaks at the same time of all the Apostles, or nearly so,\nby name, but does not mention them, or any of them, in connection with\nany place. To subserve a particular purpose, Irenaeus had asserted that\nJohn had been in Ephesus, where he remained a long time, without the\nleast authority to sustain him. It was a bare, naked assertion without\nproof.\n\nIn the third and fourth centuries, during the time of Eusebius, this\nassertion had grown to great importance, by reason that, on the fact\nthat it was so, was founded the Apostolic succession of nearly all the\nchurches in Europe, and most of Asia. To maintain the presence of John\nin Asia was as important as it was to prove that Peter had been in Rome.\nUnderstanding the importance of this fact, the philosophers directed\ntheir attacks upon it, showing that the man the Christians called the\nApostle was somebody else. It devolved upon Eusebius, the most learned\nman of his day, to defend the position. The task exceeded his ability,\nbut not his inclination to deceive. If we except Irenaeus, no writer has\nso studiously put himself to work to impose falsehoods on the world as\nEusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. His genius was employed in various ways,\nand especially in perverting chronology. Speaking of a class of men who\ngave themselves up to such employments, the author of the \"Intellectual\nDevelopment of Europe,\" page 147, says: \"Among those who have been\nguilty of this literary offence, the name of the celebrated Eusebius,\nthe Bishop of Caesarea in the time of Constantine, should be designated,\nsince in his chronography and Synchronal tables he purposely 'perverted\nchronology for the sake of making synchronisms.' (_Bunsen_.) It is true,\nas Niebuhr asserts, 'He is a very dishonest writer.' To a great\nextent, the superseding of the Egyptian annals was brought about by his\ninfluence. It was forgotten, however, that of all things chronology is\nthe least suited to be an object of inspiration, and that, though men\nmay be wholly indifferent to truth for its own sake, and consider it\nnot improper to wrest it unscrupulously to what they may suppose a just\npurpose, yet that it will vindicate itself at last\" His character for\ntruth stood no better among writers of the fifth century, for Socrates\nfairly charges that in his life of Constantine he had more regard for\nhis own advancement than he had for the truth of history. (Book i.\nch. 1.) A whole volume is devoted to display the virtues and exalt\nthe character of a man who had murdered his son Crispus--his nephew\nLicinius--suffocated his wife Fausta in a steam bath, and who, to\nrevenge a pasquinade, was with difficulty restrained from the massacre\nof the entire population of Rome.\n\nIn another part of this volume we will have occasion to detect and\nexpose the genius of this Father, in his attempt to create a chronology\nso as to give semblance to a list of men who never existed, but who were\nrequired to fill an important gap in the life of the church. No fitter\ninstrument could be found to help consummate the fraud conceived by\nIrenaeus to impose a spurious John on the world than Eusebius of Caesarea.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n     The Gnostics.--Irenaeus makes war on them.--His mode of\n     warfare.--The Apostolic succession and the object.--No\n     church in Rome to the time of Adrian.--Peter never in Rome--\n     nor Paul in Britain, Gaul, or Spain.--Forgeries of Irenaeus.\n\nBefore we approach the principal subject treated of in this section, it\nwill be proper to say something of a sect or society which in its day\ntook a leading part in the affairs of the world, but which has long\nsince disappeared from history, and whose former existence is now only\nknown to the careful reader. We refer to the Gnostics, who for the\nmost part flourished in the second century. They were divided among\nthemselves into more than fifty different sects. \"The principal among\nthem were known under the names of Basilidians, Valentinians, and\nMarcionites. They abounded in Egypt, Asia, Rome, and were found in\nconsiderable numbers in the provinces of the West. Each of these sects\ncould boast of its Bishops and congregations, of its doctors and\nmartyrs, and instead of the four Gospels adopted by the church, they\nproduced a multitude of histories, in which the actions and discourses\nof Christ and his apostles were _adapted_ to their respective tenets.\"--\n(Decline and Fall, chap. xv. vol. I. p. 257.) They supported their\nopinions by various fictitious and apocryphal writings of Adam, Abraham,\nZoroaster, Christ, and the Apostles. They were for the most part\ncomposed of Gentiles who denied the divine authority of the Old\nTestament, and rejected the Mosaic account of the creation, of the\norigin and fall of man, and claimed that a God was unworthy of\nadoration, who for a trivial offence of Adam and Eve pronounced sentence\nof condemnation on all their descendants. They adored Christ as an\n_AEon_, or divine emanation, who appeared on the earth to reclaim man\nfrom the paths of error and point out to him the ways of truth; but with\nthese opinions they mingled many sublime and obscure tenets derived from\noriental philosophy. This divine _AEon_ or emanation they considered was\nthe Son of God, but was inferior to the Father, and they rejected his\nhumanity on the principle that everything corporeal is essentially and\nintrinsically evil. They agreed with the Christians in their abhorrence\nof polytheism and idolatry, and both regarded the former as a\ncomposition of human fraud and error, and demons as the authors and\npatrons of the latter.\n\nAs we have stated, the Gnostics for the most part sprang up in the\nsecond century and disappeared in the fourth and fifth, suppressed by a\nlaw of the Emperor Constantine. \"The Emperor enacted a law by which they\nwere forbidden to assemble in their own houses of prayer, in private\nhouses, or in, public places, but were compelled to enter the Catholic\nchurch.... Hence the greater number of these sectarians were led by fear\nof consequences to join themselves to the church. Those who adhered to\ntheir original sentiments did not at their death leave any disciples to\npropagate their heresies, for, owing to the restrictions to which they\nwere subjected, they were prevented from preaching their doctrines.\"--\n(Sozomen, Ecc. Hist., book ii ch. 32.)\n\nThus passed from history the Gnostics, \"the most polite, the most\nlearned and most wealthy of the Christian name.\" (Decline and Fall,\nchap. xv. vol. I. p. 256.) Such was the character of the men who,\nbrought into collision with the orthodox Christians in the second\ncentury, became involved in the most violent and bitter struggles in\nwhich men were ever engaged. It was to defeat and destroy these men that\nIrenaeus devoted the labor of a lifetime, that on their ruin he might\nerect the Catholic church. The undertaking was Herculean, but the means\nemployed were well chosen, vigorously and tenaciously pursued, and its\nsuccess is one of the most remarkable and exceptional cases in history\nof the triumph of cunning, falsehood, and fraud. The grand idea was,\nthat Christ, the Son of God, was the founder of the church on earth, and\nthat, at his death, the power to establish others after him he conferred\non the Apostles, and upon no one else. As they might confer this power\non others as they had received it from Christ, so these last could in\nturn do the same to those who followed them, and in this way continue\nthe church through all time. This is what Irenaeus calls the \"Apostolic\nsuccession.\" A church which could not prove its connection with Christ\nthrough this Apostolic chain was no church at all, and it amounted to\nimpiety and vile heresy for such a pretended church to undertake to\nexplain or understand his gospel. Such a church has no relation to\nChrist, but with demons and evil spirits.\n\nIrenaeus found it much less difficult to show that there was no such\nsuccession in the Gnostic churches than he did in proving that it\nexisted in his own. To do this, as we will show in another place, he was\nforced to introduce on to the stage the names of at least nine persons\nwho, he claimed, had been Bishops of Rome, most of whom were mere myths\nand never had an existence, and those who had were never in Rome at all.\n\nChrist, at his death, he further maintains, not only conferred on the\nApostles the sole right to establish churches, but also imparted to them\nsome divine knowledge or gifts which they on their death intrusted\nto the church as a special deposit for the benefit of all who yielded\nobedience to her authority. These precious gifts left with the church\nIrenaeus compares to money or riches deposited in a bank by a rich man.\nBut we will let him speak for himself: \"Since, therefore, we have such\nproof, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others, which is\neasy to obtain from the church; since the Apostles, like a rich man\ndepositing his _money in a bank_, lodged in her hands most copiously all\nthings pertaining to the truth; so that every man, whosoever, _can draw_\nfrom her the water of eternal life. For she is the entrance to life, and\nall others are thieves and robbers.\" (Book iii. chap. 4, sec. I.) Having\nestablished the principal proposition by his mere assertion (which is\nhis way of making history of all kinds), Irenaeus next proceeds to show\nthat the Gnostics could not trace any connection with a church founded\nby the Apostles. \"For prior to Valentinianus (he says), those who follow\nValentinianus had no existence: nor did those from Marcion exist before\nMarcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom\nI have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and\ninventors of their perversity.\" (Book iii. chap. 4, sec. 3.)\n\nThe ancient Father has, so far, established two of his main\npropositions: first, that a church must derive its origin through the\nApostles, or some one of them, to be genuine; and second, that there was\nno such connection in the churches of the Gnostics; and it only remains\nto show that the church claiming to be orthodox had. He declines to\npoint out the order of succession in all the churches, but consents\nto do it in the case of Rome, which, he says, according to tradition,\nderived from the Apostles, was founded and organized at Rome by the\ntwo glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Book iii. chap. 3, sec. 2.) The\nchurch at Rome, founded by such great lights as Peter and Paul, Irenaeus\ncontinues, should be regarded of the highest authority in the church,\nfor, he says, \"it is a matter of necessity that every church should\nagree with _this_ church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that\nis, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has\nbeen preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.\"\n(Sec. 2.)\n\nAs Peter was selected to be head of the church, and Rome the capital of\nthe Christian world, the scheme to establish a church on the ground of\nan Apostolic succession must fail, unless it can appear that Peter had\nnot only been there at some time, but that he was also the founder of a\nchurch at the holy city. A letter said to have been written by Clement,\nthe third Bishop of Rome, is selected as the medium by which it is made\nto appear that Peter had been in Rome; and Irenaeus took upon himself\nto show what he was engaged in while there. At the proper place we will\nshow that this Clement is a fiction, brought on the stage as a link in\nthe Apostolic chain forged by the great criminal of the second century.\n\nNow follows a forgery so apparent on its face, that it does not require\nthe skill of an expert to detect it.\n\n\"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to those who, in\nthese last days, have wrestled manfully for the faith; let us take\nthe noble examples of our own age. Through envy, the faithful and most\nrighteous pillars of the church have been persecuted even to the most\ndreadful deaths. Let us place before your eyes the good Apostles. Peter,\nby unjust envy, underwent not one or two, but many labors: and thus\nhaving borne testimony unto death, he went into the place of glory,\nwhich was due to him. Through envy, Paul obtained the reward of\npatience. Seven times he was in bonds; he was scourged; was stoned.\nHe preached both in the East and in the West, leaving behind him the\nglorious report of his faith. And thus having taught the whole world\nof righteousness, and reached the fullest extremity of the West, he\nsuffered martyrdom by the command of the governors, and departed out of\nthis world, and went to the holy place, having become a most exemplary\npattern of patience.\" (_Epistle I. of Clement to Corinthians_, sec. 5.)\nBy the side of this extract we will lay a passage of Irenaeus. Speaking\nof the writers of the Gospels, he says: \"Matthew also issued a written\nGospel among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul\nwere preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church.\"\n(Book iii. chap. 1.) Now, we assert with confidence, that the hand which\npenned the first passage wrote them both. It is not said in so many\nwords, in Clement's letter, that Peter was in Rome, but it is to be\ninferred, as in the case of John at Eph-esus. Irenaeus seldom states\nanything which is positively untrue in direct language, but makes\nfalsehood inferential. The passage we have quoted does not contain a\nsingle truth, except as it relates to Paul. Paul and Peter were never\nengaged together in laying the foundation of a church. They quarrelled\nin Damascus and could never agree. The doctrine of circumcision formed\nan impassable wall between them, and, as we will show, was never given\nup by Peter. Besides, it is not true that Peter had anything to do in\nlaying the foundation of the church at Rome.\n\nChristians, during the reign of Claudius in Rome, were too few in number\nand too poor to form a church, especially such an one as would require\nthe office of a Bishop. Renan, in speaking of the church in the time of\nClaudius, says it was composed of a \"little group--every one smelt of\ngarlic. These ancestors of Roman prelates were poor proletaries, dirty,\nalike clownish, clothed in filthy gabardines, having the bad breath of\npeople who live badly. Their retreats breathed that odor of wretchedness\nexhaled by persons meanly clothed and fed, and collected in a small\nroom.\" (_Life of Paul_, 96.)\n\nWe have no reason to believe that at any time during the life of Peter\nwas the church of Rome, if there was any church there at all, composed\nof different materials or greater in numbers than at the time referred\nto. What was there for a Bishop to do in such a crowd, or what was there\nto keep him from starvation? Christians engaged in riots growing out\nof the hostility between them and the Jews, were driven from Rome by\nan edict of the Emperor Claudius, and did not return during his reign,\nwhich ceased in A.D. 54, when that of Nero commenced. In A.D. 58 they\nhad not rallied, and at that time Rome was without a church. It was\nthe practice in all cases with Paul to address Christians through the\nchurches, where churches were established; but his Epistle, in A.D. 58,\nto the Romans, is addressed not to a church, but \"_to all that be in\nRome_\" In his three years' imprisonment in that city, commencing in the\nspring of A.D. 61, he makes no mention of a church, nor does he during\nthe second, which lasted from the summer or fall of A.D. 65 to the\nspring of A.D. 66. There is no proof that the historian can discover,\nworthy of his notice, that there was a church in Rome of any kind, even\ndown to the time of Adrian, A.D. 117, and even later. We are overrun\nwith traditions on this subject, the creations of the second century,\nto which the attention of the reader will be called when we treat of the\ntwelve traditional Bishops named by Irenaeus. Adrian, in the seventeenth\nyear of his reign, knew so little about a Christian church, that he\nsupposed the office of a Bishop belonged to the worship of the god\nSerapis. In a letter written by him from Alexandria, A.D. 134, to his\nbrother-in-law Servianus, he says: \"The worshippers of Serapis are\nChristians, and those are devoted to the god Serapis, who, I find, call\nthemselves Bishop of Christ.\"\n\nWe will dismiss this part of the subject for the present, with the\npromise to return to it in a subsequent chapter, when it will be\ndemonstrated that there was no Christian church in Rome until after the\nreign of Antoninus Pius.*\n\n     * See Appendix C\n\nWere Peter and Paul together in Rome at all? Paul went there in the\nspring of A.D. 61, for the first time, and remained until the spring\nor summer of A.D. 63. During this time he wrote four epistles, as\nfollows:--to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon,\nand, if we except the first, he closes them by naming the persons who\nare with him. He says nothing about Peter, nor does he mention his name,\nso far as we know, during the three years he was confined in Rome. That\nPaul should omit to mention Peter, one of the Apostles, in some of his\nletters, is the very best proof that he was not in Rome at all. After\nhis release in the spring of A.D. 63, after making a visit to the\nchurches in Europe and Asia, he returned to Rome again in the fall of\nA.D. 65. He had with him a few friends who stood by him to the last.\nThey were Luke, Mark, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia. There could not have\nbeen many other Christians in Rome at the time besides those named,\nbecause Paul, after naming the above who sent salutations to Timothy,\nadds, \"and all the other brethren,\" which implies that there were not\nmany of them. Paul does not mention Peter, because he was not there.\nTimothy, no doubt, was with Paul in the winter of A.D. 65 and A.D. 66,\nand was put to death in the spring of the latter year, with his friend\nand fellow-laborer. We never hear of him again. In the spring of A.D.\n66, the labors and sorrows of the great Apostle of the Gentiles ceased.\nHe had fought the good fight--he had finished his work--he had _kept\nthe faith_; and now, by his death, bore testimony to the doctrines he\npreached. He was among the last of Nero's victims. Nothing that\nbelongs to history is surer than that Peter and Paul never were in Rome\ntogether, laying the foundation of a church, or anything else.\n\nHaving proved that one-half of what is stated by Irenaeus in the passage\nwhich we have quoted is false, according to the usual rule for testing\nthe truth of any statement, we might claim that the remaining half\nis also untrue. But we ask no such advantage in disproving any of the\nstatements made by this father.\n\n_When_ was Peter in Rome? No writer in the first or second century\npretends to give the time when he was in Rome, or when he died.\n\nIrenaeus gives the names of twelve Bishops who succeeded each other,\ncommencing with Linus, but does not give a single date, so that we can\ntell when or how long any one of them held the office. This want of\ndates, where it was easy to give them--if what was stated was true--was\nurged with so much force against what Irenaeus said, that Eusebius, in\nthe fourth century, undertook to fix the time when these traditional\nBishops succeeded to, and how long each held the office. He fails to say\nwhen Peter first became Bishop, or when he ceased to be the head of\nthe church, but commences giving dates from the time of Linus, his\nsuccessor. Without intending, he has furnished the data to determine\nwhen Peter died, if his dates are correct, which is _not even probable_.\nHe says: \"After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, he was succeeded\nby his son Titus; in the second year of whose reign, Linus, Bishop of\nthe church of Rome, who held the office about twelve years, transferred\nit to Anacletus.\" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. ch. 13.) As Linus\nsucceeded Peter, the latter must have died just before his successor\ntook the office. Titus became emperor June 24th, A. D. 79, and as Linus\ndied two years after this, after holding the office twelve years, he\nbecame Bishop in A. D. 69; which must have been the year of Peter's\ndeath. Nero died in June A. D. 68, and at his death the persecution\nagainst Christians ceased altogether. It is not claimed that Galba,\nOtho, Vitellius, Vespasian, or Titus ever inflicted persecution of\nany kind on Christians during the time they held the government of the\nempire. Eusebius, in attempting to fix a date when the second Bishop\ntook office, answers the objections made to the vagueness of Irenaeus,\nbut robs Peter of the laurels of a martyr.\n\nBut it is claimed that Linus was installed Bishop before the death of\nPeter, and Irenaeus pretends to give the time. He says: \"The blessed\nApostles then having founded and built up the church, committed unto the\nhands of Linus the office of the Episcopate.\" (Book iii. ch. 2, sec.\n3.) The blessed Apostles are Peter and Paul. Now we have just shown that\nthese Apostles were never in Rome together, and that there was no church\nto be committed to the charge of Linus or anybody else. As it is an\nimportant part of the story that Peter died a martyr at Rome, this could\nonly happen to him between A. D. 64 and A. D. 68, for the persecution\nunder Nero commenced during the former year, and ended with his death in\nA. D. 68. We have the most conclusive proof that Peter was not in Rome\nin A. D. 64, when the persecutions under Nero commenced, nor afterwards.\nHe was in Babylon--whether Babylon in Assyria, Babylon in Mesopotamia\nor Egypt--he was in Babylon more than two thousand miles away. Peter was\nborn about the time of Christ, and was sixty-four years of age when the\npersecutions under Nero began. He was married, and when he wrote his\nfirst Epistle he was in Babylon and had his family with him, for he\nmentions the name of Marcus, and calls him his son. \"The church that is\nat Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus,\nmy son.\" (1 Peter v. 13.)\n\nThe date of this epistle is fixed by Dr. Lard-ner and other critics at\nA. D. 64. Did Peter, at the age of sixty-four, when he heard that Nero\nwas feeding the wild beasts of the Amphitheatre with the flesh and bones\nof Christians, \"lured by the smell of blood,\" start for Rome? If Peter\nwas in Babylon in A. D. 64, an \"Apostolic succession,\" so far as it\ndepends on him, must fail, and Rome must surrender the authority by\nwhich she has held the religious world in subjection for the last\nseventeen centuries.\n\nBut this she will never do, as long as her audacity and cunning are left\nto hatch schemes to escape from the dilemma. Inspired by despair, she\nnow claims that Peter means Rome when he says Babylon, and that the\nMarcus spoken of was not the son of Peter, but the nephew of Barnabas\nand companion of Paul! Just as well claim anything else, and say Babylon\nmeans Alexandria, and that Marcus was the stepson of Nero. Here two\nimpressions are made: one that the letter was written at Babylon, and\nthe other that Peter was attended by his son. Are both false? What did\nPeter, or anybody else, expect to gain by giving false impressions? By\nan agreement between Peter and Paul, made early and observed strictly,\nthe labors of the former were limited to the circumcised, and he found\nthem in large numbers in cities watered by the Euphrates. There and in\nJudea, among the Jewish people, was the scene of Peter's labors, and\nthere he died. He had no business in Rome. As there was no church in\nRome in A. D. 64, it is impossible, if Peter was there at the time, for\nhim to make the salutation he does in his address to his countrymen. He\ncould say, \"the church that is at Babylon,\" but not \"the church that is\nat Rome,\" for there was none.*\n\n     * See Appendix B.\n\nMark the son of Peter, and Mark the nephew of Barnabas, are two\ndifferent persons, whom the genius of Irenaeus seeks to confound. The\nepistle to Philemon was written in the latter part of A. D. 63, which\nshows that Paul, Timothy, and Mark were then in Rome. They left in\nthe following spring. During the winter of A. D. 63, Paul wrote the\nColossians that they might expect Mark to visit them, and it would seem\nthat he had made arrangements with them of some kind in regard to him,\nwhen he arrived among them. \"Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas (_touching\nwhom ye received commandments_: if he come unto you, receive him.\") Col.\niv. 10.\n\nUnless Mark changed his mind afterwards, he went from Rome to Colosse in\nPhrygia. The next reliable information we have of Paul after the spring\nof A. D. 63, except at Nicopolis in A. D. 64, he is back in Rome in\nthe fall of A. D. 65, and in prison; and the first knowledge we have of\nMark, he is in some part of Asia Minor. Timothy and Mark were together,\nand Paul writes to the former from his prison, to come to Rome and to\nbring the latter with him, and to get there before the winter sets in;\nwhich request was complied with. To suppose that Mark had been to\nRome in the mean time would be most unreasonable, and against all the\nprobabilities in the case. There was nothing to take him there until\nPaul called him back. If Peter was in Rome when he wrote his first\nepistle, in A. D. 64, Mark the nephew of Barnabas was not with him. If\nMark saw Peter at all in A. D. 64, it was not in Rome. Nor did he see\nhim that year in Babylon in Egypt, or Babylon in Mesopotamia or Chaldea.\n\nThe latter Babylon was long known for its vices and wickedness, and was\ncalled a sink of iniquity; and as Rome had become corrupt and steeped in\ncrime of all kinds, it is claimed that Peter uses the word Babylon in a\ntypical sense when he was writing from Rome! If this is so, he did not\nwrite from Babylon in Egypt or Mesopotamia, as some have contended, for\nthey were each small and inconsiderable places of no importance, and\nthere could be no object in using either as a type to represent the\ncorruptions of Rome. If Mark saw Peter in Babylon, it was in Chaldea.\nMeasured by degrees of longitude, Rome and this Babylon are more than\ntwo thousand miles apart. Why would Mark make a visit to Peter involving\na journey of four thousand miles, br half that distance? He never did.\nHe could not. He went among the Colossians under some arrangement made\nby Paul, and no doubt remained with them until he was wanted at Rome.\nWhen Peter calls Mark his son, he means just what he says. Mark the\ncompanion of Paul, and Mark the son of Peter, are two different men.\n\nWhat should take Peter to Rome or keep him there when burning and\ntorturing Christians was one of the amusements of Nero? Had Peter's\ncharacter for courage so much improved that he went there when all the\nChristians had gone, to defy Nero, and invite his destruction? There\nis something in the character of Peter that makes it improbable, if not\nimpossible, that he should be in Rome in a time of danger. He was a man\nof strong impulses, but a constitutional coward. He followed Christ to\nthe scene of the crucifixion, \"but he followed him afar off.\" (Matt.\nxxvi. 58.) He had pride, and a proper sense of manliness, and when he\nwas betrayed through a want of courage into the commission of a mean\nact, he had spirit and sense enough to be ashamed of it. He denied\nChrist, but it cost him bitter tears of repentance. Either his cowardice\nor his jealousy stood in the way of his coming to the aid of Paul,\nwhenever Paul was in danger of his life. When the Jews were about to\ntear him to pieces in Jerusalem, and he had to be rescued by the Roman\nsoldiers, Peter was nowhere about, and we do not even hear of him, In\nhis trials before the Roman Governors, when he had no one to stand by\nhim but a few faithful companions, the presence of Peter, at such a\ntime, would have done much to aid and console the great champion of a\ncommon cause. But in all these places there was danger, and where danger\nwas was no place for Peter.\n\nHe lacked moral, as he did physical courage. At Damascus he did not\nhesitate to sit at the same table with the uncircumcised, when there was\nno one present to object; but when those came from Jerusalem who could\nnot tolerate the liberal ideas of Paul on circumcision, he cowardly\nsneaked away. Paul took fire at the appearance of so much meanness, and\nboldly reproved him. Is this the kind of man who would enter the lion's\nden, and brave the wrath of Nero at a time when the tyrant was flooding\nthe streets of Rome with the blood of Christians?\n\nJustin Martyr was born about the year A. D. 100, and was a native of\nNeapolis in Syria. (Apology, sec. I.) At the beginning of the reign of\nAntoninus Pius he fixed his abode in Rome, and afterwards wrote numerous\nworks, principally devoted to the defence of Christians. (Cave's _Life\nof Martyr_, vol. 2, chap. 6.) No one had better opportunities of knowing\nabout Peter, and the church at Rome, than he had, and no one who wrote\nas much as he did which concerned Christianity, would have been more\nlikely to mention him, if what Irenaeus says of him had been true. He\nis so oblivious of Peter that he seems to have been unconscious of his\nexistence. No writer in the first years of the second century, who is\nentitled to credit, speaks of him, and he first begins to figure in\nthe pages of Irenaeus when the disputes with the Gnostics were at their\nheight. The Clementines were composed later in the century, when Pauline\nChristianity was giving way to the new school, and the dogma of an\nApostolic succession had taken possession of the church. Dionysius,\nBishop of Corinth, who lived and wrote during the reign of Marcus\nAntoninus and his son Commodus, about A. D. 180, according to Eusebius,\nalso states that Paul and Peter were at Rome together engaged in laying\nthe foundation of a church. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 25.)\nBut this writer has got out of the Pauline period, and even goes beyond\nIrenaeus, for he states, according to the same authority, that Peter and\nPaul laid the foundation of the church at Corinth.\n\nTheophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, Apollinarius of Hierapolis,\nall writers about the same time, A. D. 180, like Irenaeus, take sides\nagainst the Gnostics, and show that they were committed to the new\nschool. From this time Irenaeus is quoted as the authority for the fact\nthat Peter and Paul had founded the church at Rome, and we are asked\nto give special weight to what he says, as he was the companion of\nPolycarp, who had seen and conversed with John.\n\nSpeaking of Paul, Clement is made to say, \"He preached both in the East\nand in the West--taught the whole world righteousness, and reached the\nfarthest extremity of the West, and suffered martyrdom, by the command\nof the Governors.\" This passage has long been a stumbling-block among\nlearned critics. It is the only authority on which is founded the story,\nthat after Paul was discharged from prison in A. D. 63, he went into\nSpain, Gaul, and Britain. Caius, the Presbyter, in the beginning of the\nthird century, says: \"Writings not included in the canon of Scripture\nexpressly mention the journey from Rome into Spain.\" Hippolytus, in the\nsame century, says that Paul went as far as Illyricum, preaching the\ngospel. Athanasius, in the fourth century, says that St. Paul did not\nhesitate to go to Rome and Spain. Jerome, in the same century, says that\n\"St. Paul, after his release from his trial before Nero, preached the\nGospels in the Western parts.\" (Quoted from Chevallier's _Apostolical\nEpistles_, note, p. 487.)\n\nThese is no authority for Paul's travels in the Western provinces,\nexcept the passage from Clement, and as Irenaeus is the founder of the\nstory, it is not improved by the repetition of subsequent writers.\nThe whole is a transparent falsehood. From the time of Paul's career,\ncommencing with his adventure near Damascus to the time of his\nimprisonment in Rome, in the spring of A. D. 61, we have an account of\nhis travels, and know where he was each year during this time. He never\nin this time went west of Rome. In the spring of A. D. 63, in company\nwith Mark, Titus, Timothy and others, he left Rome and went in all\nprobability to Colosse, where, in pursuance of some agreement he made\nwith the people of that place, he left Mark. How long he remained is\nuncertain, but the next time we hear of him he is in Crete, where no\ndoubt he spent the winter of A. D. 63 and A. D. 64, In the mean time he\nmade some converts, whom he left in charge of Titus, and in the spring\nwent west into Macedonia. Some time in the summer or fall of A. D. 64\nwe find him in Nicopolis, where he informed Titus he meant to spend\nthe winter. The following spring or summer he went to Rome and was soon\nimprisoned. If he was at Colosse or Crete in A. D. 63, and Nicopolis in\nA. D. 64, he could not have gone to Britain, Gaul, and Spain between\nthe spring of A. D. 63 and the summer of A. D. 65, for it would not be\npossible.\n\nBut it is conclusive that Paul did not go into the provinces of the West\nafter his release from prison; that there is no mention of his travels\nin the West, except what is said in this passage from the letter\nof Clement--a thing impossible, when we consider that he never went\nanywhere but he made his mark, and left his footprints behind him. Even\nPaul himself, in his subsequent letters, makes no allusion to any such\ntravels, which is accountable upon no other hypothesis than that he\nnever made them. But what was gained in fabricating this passage?\n\nThe idea of Irenaeus, that there could be no church unless its origin\ncould be traced to some one of the Apostles, who were special bankers\nof divine favors, never left him. He furnished Rome with Peter, and Asia\nwith John, and now he is required to furnish one for the churches in\nGaul, Spain, and Britain. Here were churches in these countries in his\nday, and who had authority to establish them? It would not do to claim\nthat either of the Twelve had been in the West, for even falsehood has\nits' boundaries. Paul will do. He is the great Apostle of the Gentiles.\nBesides, according to the Acts, he had submitted to ordination at the\nhands of the Apostles. The explanation of the reasons which dictated\nthis spurious passage in Clement's letter is consistent with the acts of\nIrenaeus, and the whole current of his thoughts throughout his life.\nBut this story, invented by him, has been repeated by others, until it\nsettled down--as history! It is clear from the proof here shown, that\nIrenaeus has no claim to our belief as a writer, and that the statements\nhe makes in regard to Peter in Rome and Paul in the West are mere\ninventions of his own to assist him in his disputes with the Gnostics,\nin which he was engaged for the best part of his life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n     The claim of Irenaeus that Mark was the interpreter of Peter,\n     and Luke the author of the third Gospel, considered.--Luke\n     and Mark both put to death with Paul in Rome.\n\nIrenaeus, after stating that Peter and Paul preached in Rome and laid the\nfoundation of a church at that place, continues: \"After their departure,\nMark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us\nin writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of\nPaul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him.\" (Book iii. sec.\n1.) Again no time is given. The last time we know anything of Mark and\nLuke that is certain, or at all reliable, they were both with Paul in\nRome. In his second letter to Timothy he says: \"Only Luke is with me.\nTake Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the\nministry.\" (2 Timothy iv. 11.) That Timothy obeyed this request and\ntook Mark with him, does not admit of doubt. Paul and Timothy were\ninseparable, and Mark was Paul's near friend and companion. This must\nhave been in the fall of A. D. 65, when Paul was in prison, with little\nor no hope to escape the second time from the fangs of Nero.\n\nAt the time Timothy and Mark entered Rome, the fury of Nero raged with\nall its sanguinary cruelty. It was just about the time the conspiracy\nof Piso was brought to light. Made mad by his fears, he struck in all\ndirections. Not content with the destruction of the conspirators, he put\nto death all who offended his vanity or moved his jealousy. Seneca, a\nman whose many virtues added lustre to the Roman people, and who was\nan honor to any age, was not suffered to live. His very virtues gave\noffence to the tyrant. Lu-can and others, distinguished for genius and\nlearning, were put to death. Tacitus says that at this time \"the city\npresented a scene of blood, and funerals darkened all the streets.\"\n(Annals, book XV. sec. 21.) Speaking of the events of the year 66, when\nPaul was put to death, the same writer says: \"We have nothing before us\nbut tame servility, and a deluge of blood spilt by a tyrant in the\nhour of peace. The heart recoils from the dismal story. But let it be\nremembered by those who may hereafter think these events worthy of\ntheir notice, that I have discharged the duty of an historian, and if in\nrelating the fate of so many eminent citizens, who resigned their lives\nto the will of one man, I mingle tears with indignation, let me be\nallowed to feel for the unhappy. The truth is, the wrath of Heaven was\nbent against the Roman State. The calamities that followed cannot, like\nthe slaughter of an army or the sacking of a city, be painted forth\nin one general draught. Repeated murders must be given in succession.\"\n(Annals, B. XVI. sec. XVI.) The author then proceeds to give a long\nlist of victims. At the time Paul was in prison, and Mark and Luke\nhis companions were with him, the Roman legions, under the command of\nVespasian, were marching to make war upon the Jews, if they had not\ndone so already. They had rebelled and defied the power of Rome. At this\ntime, no Jew could be in Rome and live. Not only was the anger of Nero\naroused against them, but that of the entire people of Rome--and\nthis feeling did not abate until after almost the entire nation was\ndestroyed. No doubt Timothy, Luke, Linus, Paul, and all others who were\nwith them, perished in the general calamity. Why put to death Paul,\nand not his fellow-laborers? Nero waged war not against Christians, but\nagainst Christianity. We trace all these parties inside the gates of\nRome, and then we lose their trail forever. There is not one single item\nof reliable proof that any one of them ever left the doomed city. The\nfootprints of Christians going into Rome at this time were like the\ntracks going into the cave of Polyphemus--many were seen going in, but\nnone coming out.\n\nWe learn from Eusebius and Jerome, that Mark went to Egypt and founded a\nchurch at Alexandria, and the latter states that he died and was buried\nthere in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. This is impossible. As\nNero commenced his reign A.D. 54, this would made him die in A.D. 62.\nNow we find him alive with Paul in A.D. 65. Eusebius, in his loose way,\nsays: \"The same Mark, _they say also_, being the first that was sent\nto Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he had written, and first\nestablished churches in Alexandria.\" (Book I. ch. 16.) This father\nhad special reasons why he wanted to get Mark to Alexandria. The close\nresemblance between Christians and Therapeutae, as we have shown, was\na reason with him why he should insist that the latter were in fact\nbelievers in Christ by a different name. Mark is sent to be their\nteacher, and was claimed to be the founder of this new sect of\nChristians. Nothing is wider from the truth. If ever Mark or Luke left\nRome, there is no reason why we should not hear something of them.\nSituated as they were in their relations with the founders of\nChristianity, had they survived the slaughter at Rome, one or both would\nhave left behind them evidence, of some kind, of their escape. What\nremained of Paul, Timothy, Mark, Luke, Linus and others after they\nentered Rome in the winter of A.D. 65 and A.D. 66, could only be found\nafter that time among the graves of Nero's victims. Whatever Mark and\nLuke wrote, in the nature of Gospels, was written before they entered\nthe gates for the last time.\n\nAs this was in A. D. 65 or A. D. 66, and the gospels ascribed to\nthem were neither extant nor known before the beginning of the second\ncentury, we are forced to look to some other quarter for those who wrote\nthem.\n\nBut what proof is there that Mark and Peter were on such intimate terms\nas is claimed by Irenaeus? None, except that which is afforded in the\nfirst Epistle of Peter (1 Peter v. 13), wherein Mark is spoken of\nby Peter as his son. What better evidence can we have of the studied\ndishonesty of Irenaeus, than his attempt to have it appear or believed\nthat the Mark referred to in the first of Peter, was the companion of\nPaul and interpreter of Peter? We have just shown he was not--but an\nentirely different person, and it sweeps away the whole foundation\nupon which rests the claim that the Gospel of Mark was written at the\ndictation of Peter. While Mark was with Paul, either in Rome or Asia\nMinor, Peter, with his son Mark, is preaching among the Jews of Chaldea.\n\nWhat Presbyter John says on this subject is here worthy of notice.\nEusebius, speaking of the writings of Papias, says: \"He also inserted\ninto his work other accounts of the above-mentioned Aristion respecting\nour Lord, as also the _traditions_ of the Presbyter John, to which\nreferring those that are desirous of learning them, we shall now subjoin\nto the extracts from him already given a _tradition_ which _he_, sets\nforth concerning Mark, who wrote the Gospel, in the following words:\n'And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the interpreter of\nPeter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not in\nthe order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither\nheard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, he was in company with\nPeter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, _but not to give\na history of our Lord's discourses._'\" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii.\nchap. 39.) Papias here gives _a tradition_ derived through Presbyter\nJohn. Slender proof that Peter dictated the Gospel of Mark! To rank\namong canonical Gospels, and as a corner-stone of Christianity, with the\nauthority of an inspired book, the proof falls far below what we have a\nright to expect and demand. On such a subject it is no proof at all. It\nis difficult to tell what Mark did write, according to Papias. What he\ndid write was not in the order in which the events in the life of Christ\noccurred--nor in the order in which he spoke or taught. Peter would not\nallow him to give the history of our Lord's discourses. If that is so,\nthen the Gospel to which Papias refers is not our present Gospel of\nMark. This relates the acts of Christ in the order of time, and gives\nhis discourses in full. In this respect the second Gospel does not\ndiffer from the first and third. It is quite probable that Mark, in his\nintercourse with the Apostles, may have learned many things in relation\nto Christ which he wrote out, but which, like the Hebrew Gospel\nof Matthew, was condemned or cast one side, as it did not help to\nstrengthen the new ideas in relation to Christ, which sprang up some\ntime before the death of Paul. But we can never know what Mark wrote, as\nPapias does not claim he ever saw it, nor do we know of any one who did.\n\nWhat is said by Clement of Alexandria and all other writers on the\norigin of the second Gospel is derived from the extract taken from the\nworks of Papias, and from what is said by Irenaeus: their statements do\nnot better the case, any more than a superstructure will give strength\nto the base on which it rests. If Mark ever wrote anything, it would\ncontain nothing that did not accord with Paul, for he was not only his\nfellow-traveller, but he was his fellow-laborer in the spread of the\ndoctrines of Christianity; and so near and dear were the relations\nbetween them, that when Paul saw his end approach, he wrote to Timothy\nto bring Mark with him, as brother would for brother, for a parting\ninter view. What Paul taught, Mark believed--and Paul dead or Paul in\nlife would have made no difference with Mark.\n\nAfter reading the Gospel of Mark, who would suppose that he had been the\ncompanion of Paul and the interpreter of Peter? We would expect to find\nsome thought or expression that had in it the soul of Paul, as his very\nspirit penetrated all his followers and made them a reflex of himself.\nPaul drew from the depths of his own consciousness, which he took for\nrevelations, the ideas which formed the basis of his religion and\nmade Christ what he believed him to be. It was a holy faith with him,\ndisconnected from all material laws. The second Gospel is founded on\nworks, and the divinity of Christ proven by his power over the laws\nof the universe. All nature bows down before him; even demons and evil\nspirits fly before his presence. Mark the interpreter of Peter!! Where\ndo we see Peter in the Gospel of Mark? What, all at once, has become of\ncircumcision? Did he, after his quarrel with Paul, shake off his Jewish\nprejudice and bigotry and rise to a higher plane? The proof is he did\nnot.\n\nPaul, Luke, and Mark were as companions inseparable--they were\nfellow-laborers, held the same doctrines, died for the same cause and at\nthe same time.\n\nIn another chapter we inquired from what source Luke got his knowledge\nof the wonderful statement he makes in relation to the visitation of the\nangel to Mary and Zacharias, for he did not get it from Paul, who never\nmentions the name of Mary. We now ask, from whom did Mark learn the\nstory of John the Baptist? Paul knew nothing about him. Who had a better\nopportunity than he to know everything which related to him, if he had\nbeen the person described by Mark? What better proof can be offered to\nshow that neither Luke nor Mark wrote the Gospels ascribed to them,\nthan that they are made to state matters which lay at the bottom of\nChristianity in after-ages, of which Paul, their teacher and co-laborer,\nknew nothing? To find the authors of these Gospels we must look to the\nsecond century.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n     Acts of the Apostles.--Schemes to exalt Peter at the expense\n     of Paul.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles dates between A. D. 140 or 150 and A. D. 170.\nThe book, _as we now find it_, was not in existence before Justin's\n_Apology_, because before his time there were no miracles, as will\nbe shown; while the Acts abounds in those of the most extravagant\ncharacter. Between A. D. 140 or 150, and A. D. 180, is the time when\nthe war among the different sects raged with the greatest violence, and\nfrauds and forgeries were practised by all parties without remorse or\nshame. It was during this time that Lazarus was made to rise superior to\ndeath, and assume his place among men, after his body had become putrid\nand began to decay. There was nothing too false or extravagant for\nparties to assert at this period of the world, and the only wonder\nis, that the absurd stories of the age have passed down to subsequent\ngenerations as truths of a revealed religion.\n\nThe book of the Acts, in its present form, came to light soon after\nthe doctrine of the Apostolic succession was conceived, for it is very\nevident that the first half is devoted to give prominence to Peter among\nthe Apostles, who was to be made the corner-stone of the Church. As\nall other churches are made to bow to the supremacy of Rome, so all the\nApostles must be subordinate to Peter. This is so obvious that the work\nis overdone. On the day of Pentecost he is put forward to explain the\nmiracle of the cloven tongue, and show that it was in accordance with\nwhat the prophet Joel had foretold--which if Peter did say what he is\nmade to say, only proved his ignorance of what the prophet meant. His\nmiraculous powers are wonderful. He cured a man forty years old, who\nhad been lame from his birth, so that he leaped and walked. His power\nextends over death, and he raises Dorcas from the grave. He is now chief\nspeaker. Ananias and his wife Sapphira fall down dead before him. So\nextraordinary is his power over diseases, \"that they brought forth the\nsick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that _at the\nleast the shadow of Peter_ passing by might overshadow some of them.\"\n(Acts v. 15.)\n\nIt is surprising that the incredulity of the Jews did not give way\nbefore such wonderful works; but it seems it did not, and the only\neffect produced on their minds was to send Peter to prison. Peter is\ntwice committed to prison for doing good, and the sole object in sending\nhim there is to give an opportunity to the Lord to deliver him, and show\nthat he is under the special protection and guardianship of God. \"And\nbehold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the\nprison; and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise\nup quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said\nunto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals: and so he did. And he\nsaith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.\" (Acts xii.\n7, 8.) \"And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a\nsurety that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of\nthe hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the\nJews\" (verse 11).\n\nThe person over whom the Lord had manifested so much care, must\ncertainly have been set apart to act some great part in his providences\ntowards our race. At the time we are writing about, the struggle between\nthe followers of Peter and Paul was raging; the latter claiming that the\nApostle of the Gentiles was of equal authority as to doctrine with\nPeter or any of the Apostles; while the former insisted that Paul had a\nspecial commission--to convert the Gentiles--and as he had performed\nhis work, his mission ceased, and he was no longer to be regarded as an\nauthority in the church. No less a person than God himself can settle\nthe dispute, and the cunningly devised stories of Cornelius, and Paul's\nconversion, are introduced into the Acts in order to give the Lord an\nopportunity to decide between the two parties.\n\nCornelius, a devout man, is laboring under what is called religious\nconviction, and is in doubt what to do. He stands in need of a spiritual\nadviser, and when in this condition of mind, \"He saw in a vision\nevidently about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to\nhim, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was\nafraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers\nand thy alms are come up for a memorial before God. And now send men to\nJoppa, and call for one _Simon_, whose surname is Peter.\" (Acts x. 3,\n4, 5.) The centurion was sent to Peter, because he was the depositary of\ndivine light, and the dispenser of spiritual gifts--an intimation from\nGod to all the world, for all ages, where men must look to, to find the\ntrue interpreter and expounder of religious faith. Cornelius did as he\nwas commanded.\n\nBut it was not enough that this was true of Peter; but it must be shown\nthat Paul was but a simple missionary, whose powers ended with his\ndeath. To do this, the story of his conversion in the Acts is told,\nnotwithstanding it is in direct conflict with what Paul says himself\non the subject. When Ananias was requested by the Lord to call on Paul\nwhile he was still prostrate from the effects of the blow he received\nnear Damascus, he declined to do so--apparently in fear of Paul, on\naccount of his previous treatment of Christians. This gave the Lord\nan opportunity to tell Ananias, why he is anxious to do as he was\nrequested. \"But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen\nvessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the\nchildren of Israel: for I will shew him how great things he must suffer\nfor my name's sake.\" (Acts ix. 15, 16.)\n\nThe Lord has now settled all disputes between the followers of Peter\nand Paul, and the office of each is settled and defined. Under such a\njudgment, pronounced by God himself, no wonder the influence of Paul\nceased to be felt in the latter part of the second century, and Peter\nproportionally increased in weight and authority. This attempt to put up\nPeter and put down Paul, determines the date of the Acts, and fixes\nit somewhere between A.D. 150 and A.D. 170, a period in the century\nprolific of spurious writings. It may be called the Petrine age of\nChristianity.\n\nWhen Paul made his defence before the Jews at Jerusalem, and explained\nto them the mode of his conversion, it would be dangerous, or at least\nsuspicious, to leave out the story of Cornelius; but as it differed so\nmuch from the one he gives in second Corinthians, it was necessary to\nomit the one given in the epistle entirely. But the fraud is easily\ndetected. The account as given in the Acts, to the sixth verse\ninclusive, is as it was doubtless delivered by Paul; but from this\npoint the story diverges from the one given by himself, and is a sheer\nfabrication. \"And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was\ncome nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a\ngreat. light round about me.\" (Acts xxii. 6.) Then according to Paul's\naccount, given in his letter to the Corinthians, he was caught up to the\nthird heaven, and there heard unspeakable words which it was not lawful\nfor man to utter. What transpired between God and Paul, all took place\nin heaven, where no man could bear witness. The account in the Acts,\nwhich commences in the seventh verse, says that after the light shone\nfrom heaven, Paul fell to the ground, and did not ascend to heaven, but\nwas led by the same light to Damascus. This version is to let in the\nstory of Ananias. He could not bear witness to what passed between the\nLord and Paul in the third heaven, but he might if the scene was laid\non the earth. Besides, what passed between the Lord and Paul the latter\ndoes not pretend to state, for the words he heard were unspeakable and\nnot lawful for man to utter. There is nothing in the story in the Acts\nthat is unspeakable or unlawful to be repeated, unless it is to be\nregarded as a piece of blasphemy.\n\nHad Paul told the story as given in the Acts in his defence, there was\nnothing in it to arouse the Jews to such a pitch of madness as to cause\nthem to insist that he should be put to death. There was more in it to\nprovoke a sneer than to excite anger. The scene in Jerusalem, when Paul\nwas compelled to make his defence, was in A.D. 58, and he could have\nappealed to Ananias, who in the course of nature might still be living,\nand others, if the story was true. It was not the story in the Acts\nthat incensed the Jews. When Paul claimed he was taken up to heaven, and\nthere met the Lord and talked to him face to face, he had reached,\nin the minds of his hearers, a point in blasphemy that drove them to\nfrenzy, so that they exclaimed: \"Away with such a fellow from the earth:\nfor it is not fit that he should live.\" The Jews listened to Stephen\nwith patience until he exclaimed, \"Behold, I see the heavens opened, and\nthe Son of man standing at the right hand of God,\" when they could stand\nit no longer, and ran upon him with one accord and stoned him to\ndeath. It is clear that Paul's defence, made before the Jews, of his\nconversion, is omitted, and the story of Ananias substituted, to aid the\nenemies of Paul in placing Peter over him.\n\nWhen we find the same story variously stated by Paul, and in the Acts,\nthere should be no hesitation in choosing between the two. The Acts,\nlike the works of the early fathers, bears so many marks of forgeries,\nto suit the emergencies and wants of the day, that very little contained\nin either is of any historic value. The epistles of Paul had obtained\na large circulation before the time when the men of the second century\ninaugurated an era of forgeries, and long before the Acts were in\nexistence; so that the forgers were compelled to exercise great caution\nwhen they came to deal with the epistles, and only ventured to insert\npassages into the genuine writings to give the sanction of his name to\nthe doctrines of the Alexandrian or Johannean school, or some dogma of\nthe day. Such passages are scattered all through the epistles, but\nwe can easily point them out, for they are doctrinal and exceedingly\npointed.\n\nPeter disappears at the end of the twelfth chapter; but enough has been\ndone to make him chief among the Apostles, and claim for him a spiritual\nsupremacy in all matters which relate to the church. John, afterwards\nthe great light of Asia, only plays the part of an esquire to Peter, his\nlord and superior. They are often together, but John is not suffered to\nspeak. It was designed that John, who was to take Asia in charge, should\nstand next to Peter; but the writer, by imposing silence on him on\nall occasions, took care that the supremacy of Peter was not put in\njeopardy. The preaching of Philip in Samaria was a device to show that\nPeter and John were superior to the rest of the Apostles in their power\nto confer the Holy Ghost. Philip made many converts, both men and women,\nand he baptized them--but his baptism was not sufficient. \"Now when the\nApostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the\nword of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. They laid their hands\non them, and they received the Holy Ghost.\"--Acts viii. 14, 17.\n\nAccording to Paul, and this is made clear by the quarrels between him\nand Peter, as related in the epistles, the latter was tenacious to the\nlast for the Jewish rite of circumcision, and we have no evidence, and\nno reason to believe, that he ever gave it up. A sectarian Jew would\nnever answer to be the head and founder of a Catholic church. The\nsectarian character of Peter must be got rid of, and we see studied\nefforts in the Acts to do so. We have seen that Peter, in the first\nwords he addressed to Cornelius, took the opportunity to declare that he\nbelieved in the doctrine that God was no respecter of persons. But this\nwas not enough, in the opinion of the writer of the Acts, or at least\nthe first half, and to make Peter's emancipation from his old Jewish\nopinions more conspicuous, and enable him to explain how it happened\nthat the change was brought about, the vision of Peter on the house-top\nis produced. He went up upon the house-top to pray, about the sixth\nhour, and became very hungry; but while they were preparing something\nfor him to eat, he had a trance, \"And saw heaven opened, and a certain\nvessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the\nfour corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of\nfour-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things,\nand fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill\nand eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything\nthat is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second\ntime, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done\nthrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.\"\n\nThe command of the Lord to Peter to eat, was a command to give up his\nJewish views and notions; for that all flesh was alike, and equally\nproper to be taken on an empty stomach. Peter was at a loss to\nunderstand the vision, and while he was revolving the subject in\nhis mind, Cornelius and his party came to be instructed by him, in\naccordance with the directions of the Lord. When Cornelius, who was\nof the Gentiles, made at known the object of his visit, Peter at once\nunderstood the import of the vision, and exclaimed, \"Of a truth I\nperceive that God is no respecter of persons,\" and that the gospel of\nChrist is to supply the spiritual wants of all nations, as the beasts\nand fowls are to furnish food for the hungry.\n\nThe conversion of Peter receives further importance and prominence\nfrom the defence he is compelled to make before the brethren, for his\ndisregard of the rite of circumcision in the baptism of Cornelius. Peter\nmakes a speech, in which he declares that he was commanded by God, not\nless than three times, to give up his old Jewish notions; and no sooner\nwas the command given than Cornelius, a Gentile, who was sent to him by\nGod, made his appearance. The command from God to Peter, and the arrival\nof the centurion, who was instructed by the Lord to come to him, left\nhim no choice in the matter, and that he baptized the Gentile, in\nobedience to the commands of the Lord. The reason was sufficient. \"When\nthey heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God,\nsaying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto\nlife.\" (Acts. xi. 18.) The wall between Jew and Gentile is now broken\ndown, and Peter a fit subject for the head of a universal or catholic\nchurch.\n\nIt seems that the person who put the speech into the mouth of Peter,\nrenouncing circumcision, was not satisfied with what he said at the\ntime. Something had been omitted or overlooked. Peter had shed his\nJewish skin, but the Lord had not given him a commission to preach\nthe gospel to all nations, and this he must have to be the head of a\nuniversal church. At the council held at Jerusalem by the Apostles\nto settle the question of circumcision, Peter, according to the Acts,\nseizes the opportunity to supply the omission: \"And when there had been\nmuch disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren,\nye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that\nthe Gentiles, by _my mouth_, should hear the word of the gospel, and\nbelieve.\" (Acts xv. 7.) Now there was no occasion for Peter to make this\nclaim or assertion, for it had nothing to do with the subject before\nthe council, and was not true. The account which Paul gives of what took\nplace at the council is quite different, contradictory, and no doubt\ntrue. He says, when he stated before the council the trouble and\nvexations which were occasioned by this rite, and reasons why it should\nnot be forced on the Gentiles, that Peter, James, and John agreed with\nhim--gave him the right hand of fellowship, and then entered into a\ncompact that he should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.\n(Gal. ii.)\n\nThis agreement was never departed from; but not so with regard to\ncircumcision. That Peter, James, and all the disciples disregarded the\norder of the Council in regard to that subject, is rendered clear by\ntheir subsequent conduct. After that, as much as two years, for the\nCouncil was held in A.D. 49 or A.D. 50, and the epistle to the Galatians\nwas written in A. D. 52, Peter went to Antioch, where he found Paul.\nHe ate with the uncircumcised until some Jewish converts came from\nJerusalem at the instance of James, who found fault with his course.\nPeter, it seems, then changed front and stood up for circumcision. \"I\nwithstood him to the face,\" says Paul, for he was wrong. A discussion\nsprings up. Paul claimed that men were not to be saved through old rites\nand ceremonies, nor by-works, but by faith. At this time, neither James\nnor Peter had given up their contracted notions on the Jewish rite.\nNor had Peter as late as A. D. 57, twenty-four years after the death of\nChrist. Of the four parties which disturbed the peace of the church at\nCorinth at the time of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, which\nwas written in A. D. 57, the party of _Cephas_ was one. Peter was at the\nhead of a party which held out for circumcision, seven years after the\ncouncil at Jerusalem; and if he had not given it up then, when he was\nfifty-seven years old, there is no reason to believe he did after that.\nNothing gave the men in the second century who undertook to put Peter\nat the head of a universal church so much trouble as this thing of\ncircumcision, which we can readily detect by the pains and labors they\nhave taken to free him from it. But the stain will not wash out.\n\nThe story told in the Acts about the way in which Peter was\ndisenthralled from his narrow Jewish notions, is wholly inconsistent\nwith the subsequent history of the church at Jerusalem. After the\nLord had taken so much pains to prove to the disciples that a new\ndispensation had commenced, and the wall between the Jews and Gentiles\nwas broken down, there was no reason why they should not all dispense\nwith the practice of circumcision. But they never did. The fifteen first\nBishops of Jerusalem, commencing with James and including Judas, were\nall circumcised Jews. (Eus., Ex. 77., B., iv. ch. v. Sulpicius Severus,\nvol. 11-31.) With the twelve disciples, jealousy of Paul, who fought\nthis Jewish practice to the last, seemed to be the most active feeling\nof their natures, and we seldom hear of them unless they were dogging\nhis footsteps, and stirring up the Jews against him. It was through\ntheir intrigues that the doors of the synagogue were slammed in his face\nwherever he went.\n\nThe doctrine of ordination, through which that deposit of divine riches\nwhich Irenaeus says Christ left with the Apostles is made to flow in an\nuninterrupted current through all time, is conspicuously presented in\nthe Acts. When Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch, and about to start\nfor the West, on a mission to preach to the Gentiles, the Lord said,\n\"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called\nthem. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them,\nthey sent them away.\" (Acts xiii. 2, 3.) Nothing could impose so great a\nhumiliation as this upon Paul. The Lord again interferes and assigns him\nto a special duty, and to make this humiliation complete, he is ordered\nto receive his commission at the hands of the Apostles. Who laid their\nhands on Barnabas and Paul, is not stated, nor is it of any importance,\nas the object of the statement is to make it apparent that the latter,\nthe great light of the Gentiles, submitted to the rite of ordination by\nthe imposition of hands, administered by some one of the Apostles.\nWill any one believe this story to be true? If he does, he does not\nunderstand the character of Paul. There is nothing he would resent with\nso much feeling, as he would such an admission on his part that he was\nless than an Apostle. When it was claimed he was not, his soul took\nfire, and in his address to the Galatians, in the first chapter, he\ndelivers himself in this defiant strain: \"_Paul, an Apostle, (not of\nmen, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised\nhim from the dead_.) But when it pleased God, who separated me from my\nmother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that\nI might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with\nflesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were\nApostles before me.\" (Gal. i. I, 15, 16, 17.) Is this the Paul who\npatiently submits to receive his commission from an Apostle to preach\nthe doctrines of Christ to the nations of the earth at Antioch, when he\nis about to commence his labors?\n\nIt is not enough that Paul should submit to receive the Holy Ghost at\nthe hands of the Apostle, and in this way be authorized to preach the\ngospel; but he gives the ordinance his full sanction by conferring\nordination on others. \"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at\nCorinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus;\nand finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the\nHoly Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so\nmuch as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And when Paul had laid\nhis hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with\ntongues, and prophesied.\" (Acts xix. 1, 2, 6.) No stronger proof could\nbe given that the followers of Paul were opposed to the Episcopacy\nand the doctrine of succession and ordination, and contended against\na government by Bishops with zeal to the last, than the labored and\nfrequent efforts that are made to show that he himself gave his sanction\nto the order.\n\nFor Paul's persistence in claiming a human origin for Christ, there\nwas a studied effort in the second century to destroy his claims as an\nApostle; but after his epistles had undergone alterations so as to\nmake Christ the Son of God in the sense of the Catholics of the second\ncentury, he was restored to favor, and his powers wonderfully magnified.\nHe is now able to work miracles, and his power to heal diseases is such,\nthat whatever comes in contact with his person, is so filled or imbued\nwith holy energy, that its curative properties are sufficient to put\ndeath at defiance.\n\nIt is clear that the Acts of the Apostles is not the work of one\ncentury, but of two. The real itinerary of Paul commences in the\nthirteenth chapter, and from this to the end of the Acts, we can trace\nhis footsteps in his various journeys among the churches, until he\nfinally enters the gates of Rome, in the spring of A.D. 61.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n     Matthew the author of the only genuine Gospel.--Rejected,\n     because it did not contain the first two chapters of the\n     present Greek version.\n\nMatthew, surnamed Levi, was a native of Galilee. Before his conversion\nto Christianity he was a publican, or tax-gatherer, under the Romans,\nand collected the customs of all goods exported or imported at\nCapernaum, a maritime town on the Sea of Galilee, and received tribute\npaid by passengers who went by water. From the position of Matthew, he\nmust have been a man of some learning and judgment, and from what we\nknow of the early lives of the other Apostles, the only one among\nthem, except perhaps Peter and James, that was capable of writing out a\ncorrect account of what was said and done by Christ.\n\nAs the first church at Jerusalem increased in number, and new converts\nwere added to it, there was a necessity that there should be some\nwritten history given of what was said and taught by Christ before his\ndeath; and as Matthew was in every way qualified, the task was imposed\non him. Matthew wrote this book about A.D. 40, not much, if any, more\nthan seven years after the death of Christ. Everything was fresh in his\nmemory, and no doubt he was particular to give to the new converts a\nfull and correct knowledge of all the doctrines taught by Christ, and\nespecially to place before them his sermon on the mount, so full of\ndivine morality, which was to form the soul of the new religion.\n\nFrom all we know with certainty, this Gospel of Matthew was the only\naccount of Christ in use among the members of the first Christian\nchurch, and their only means of information, except what they learned\ndirect from the other Apostles. Everything, then, was just as it fell\nfrom the lips of Christ, and had the odor of fresh-gathered flowers.\nHow the Christians at Jerusalem clung to this Gospel of Matthew, their\nsufferings and persecutions through a period of more than two centuries\nwill bear witness. These Christians, afterwards called by way of\naversion Ebionites, were charged with the alteration of the Scriptures.\nThis alteration, according to Epiphanius, consisted in the omission\nof the first two chapters of Matthew, which contain the account of\nthe miraculous conception of Christ. The statements of Epiphanius are\nverified by the fact, that at the time these two chapters were added,\nby the men of the second century, we can trace through the pages of\nIgnatius, and other early fathers, numerous forgeries and interpolations\nwhich are unmistakable, and were intended to sustain the new aspect\nwhich Christianity took on in the early part of the second century. The\naddition of the two chapters, and the forgeries, belong to the period\nwhen the religion of Paul had passed off into the Philo-Alexandrian\nperiod of Christianity. Eusebius informs us what were the crimes of the\nEbionites: \"They are properly called Ebionites by the ancients, as those\nwho cherished a low and mean opinion of Christ. For they consider him\na _plain and common man_, and justified in his advances in virtue, and\nthat he was born of the Virgin Mary by natural generation.\" (Eusebius,\nEcc. Hist., book iii. chap. 27.)\n\nThe views held by the Ebionites of Christ were derived from the Gospel\nof Matthew, and what they learned direct from the Apostles. Matthew had\nbeen a hearer of Christ--a companion of the Apostles, and had seen and\nno doubt conversed with Mary. When he wrote his Gospel everything was\nfresh in his mind, and there could be no object on his part, in writing\nthe life of Jesus, to state falsehoods or omit important truths in order\nto deceive his countrymen. If what is stated in the two first chapters\nin regard to Christ is true, Matthew would have known of them; and,\nknowing them, why should he omit them in giving an account of his\nlife? It was impossible to pass from the first to the second stage\nof Christianity, as long as the Gospel of Matthew was recognized as\nauthority in the church. It stood as a mountain in the way, and had to\nbe torn down and made way with. The history of the Ebionites, from the\ntime they are charged with altering the Scriptures, to the time when\nthey disappear from history, is one of tyranny and bloody persecution.\nIn the reign of Adrian, what was left of them settled in the little town\nof Pilla, beyond the Jordan, from whence they spread themselves into\nvillages adjacent to Damascus. Some traces of them can be discovered as\nlate as the fourth century, when they \"insensibly melted away; either\ninto the church or synagogue.\" (_Gibbon_, ch. xv. vol. I. p. 255.) With\nthem perished the genuine Gospel of Matthew, the only Gospel written by\nan Apostle.\n\nMuch useless labor has been bestowed on the question, whether the\ngenuine Gospel was written in the Hebrew or Greek language. How this may\nbe is of little consequence, since the genuine writing is no longer in\nexistence. It is just as certain that the present version of Matthew was\nwritten in Greek, as that the genuine one was published in the Hebrew\ntongue. To the church of Rome the world is indebted for the destruction\nof the only genuine Gospel, and with it the only authentic account of\nChrist. No greater loss could befall the world. It was written in the\ndawn of Christianity, before corrupt and ambitious men sought to make\nreligion a way to power and distinction. The truths contained in this\nGospel stood in the way of a gigantic scheme, conceived by corrupt and\narrogant men, who saw in a church established by the authority of\nGod, the road to the highest point of human power and grandeur. They\nsucceeded, but their success,--\n\n     \"Brought death into the world and all our woe.\"\n\nIt was not necessary to reject all of Matthew's Gospel, and it is very\nevident that much was retained--such as the discourses of Christ and\nsome portions of history.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n     The character of Irenaeus and probable time of his birth.--\n     His partiality for traditions.--The claim of the Gnostics,\n     that Christ did not suffer, the origin of the fourth\n     Gospel.--Irenaeus the writer.\n\nThe time when Irenaeus was born is variously stated. In the introduction\nto his works against heresies, translated by Alexander Roberts, D.D.,\nand the Rev. W. H. Rambaut, A. B., is the following passage on this\nsubject: \"We possess a very scanty account of the personal history of\nIrenaeus. It has been generally supposed he was a native of Smyrna, or\nsome neighboring city in Asia Minor. Harvey, however, thinks that he\nwas probably born in Syria, and removed in boyhood to Smyrna. He himself\ntells us (lib. iii. sec. 3, 4) that he was in early youth acquainted\nwith Polycarp, the illustrious Bishop of that city. A sort of clue is\nthus furnished as to the date of his birth. Dodwell supposes that he was\nborn as early as A.D. 97, but this is clearly a mistake, and the general\ndate of his birth is somewhere between A.D. 120 and A.D. 140\" (page 18).\n\nAmong the many strong and representative men who have impressed their\ngenius on the Catholic Church, and given to it its distinctive features,\nnone have equalled Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons. It may in truth be\nsaid he was the father of the church. He assisted at its birth; took\ncharge of its infancy; planted within its bosom seeds which sprouted and\nbore fruit which has been the source of its nourishment and strength for\nseventeen hundred years and more. It is enough to say of him, that he\nplaced in the heart of the church the seed which bore the fruit of the\nInquisition.\n\nFrom the adoption of Trajan, in A.D. 98 to the death of the Antonines,\nin 180, a period of eighty-two years, has been selected by the learned\nauthor of the \"Decline and Fall\" as the most happy and prosperous\nperiod in the annals of the human race. (Vol. I. page 47.) Had he\nomitted the last of the Antonines, under whose reign Justin Martyr and\nother good men were put to death, the learned author would have come\nnearer the truth of history.\n\nIt was the prospect of peace and protection held out under this state of\nthings that influenced the Christians who had survived the cruelties of\nother reigns to once more return to the imperial city. As soon as\nthey were sufficiently numerous it was natural to adopt some form of\ngovernment; but what that form was, we have no means of knowing,\nexcept by the dangerous light of tradition. It must be always fatal to\ntradition, where it claims to be important, that contemporaneous history\nsays nothing about it. It is certain that the uninterrupted repose\nof the church to the time of Antoninus Verrus, A.D. 161, gave rise to\ndisputes among Christians; for when they were relieved from the fears of\nan outward enemy, they soon found cause for quarrel among themselves. On\nthe introduction of the first three Gospels, which happened during\nthis time, as we shall prove, the character of Christ, or rather his\nmysterious birth from the Virgin, gave rise to numberless controversies.\n\nIrenaeus was born at the right time to be thrust into the midst of them,\nand as soon as he was able to comprehend anything, his ears were filled\nwith the disputes of the various contending parties. He was born with a\nlove of contention planted in him, and had the best school ever de-vised\nto cultivate and strengthen it. The character of his mind was bold and\ndaring, and in support of the cause he espoused, he had no scruples or\nshame in resorting to falsehood and forgery. If the end was good, in his\nsight, it was all the same to him, whether it was reached by truth or\nits opposite. Such, indeed, was the prevailing morality of the age.\nTowards his adversaries he was bitter and vindictive, applying to them\nlow and vile language, such as thieves and robbers. He claimed to look\nwith contempt upon those who differed from him, and took pleasure in the\nrepeated use of the word _heretic_. Whether he ever saw Polycarp or not,\nand it is no proof he did because he says so, he claimed great advantage\nfrom it, because, as he declares again and again, Polycarp was the\ndisciple of the Apostle John. He is only one remove from an Apostle, and\nfor what he states he claimed the weight of Apostolic authority.\n\nWe say again, it is very doubtful whether he ever saw Polycarp; and it\nis very certain the latter never saw John. The studied dishonesty of\nIrenaeus, in attempting to palm off the Presbyter John for the Apostle,\nis as dark a piece of knavery as is to be found in the history of a\nchurch which has encouraged such practices from the time it claimed to\nbe the depository of all the divine wealth left by the Apostles.\n\nDriven to the wall by the sharp logic and superior wisdom of that\nclass of Christians who were distinguished by the name of Gnostics, his\ndevious and ingenious mind undertook to cut them off from all claims\nas members of a Christian church, by interposing the doctrine of the\nApostolic succession. This step once taken involved the necessity of\nrepeated forgeries and frauds. Cowardly Peter is to be changed into a\nhero,--sent to Rome, where death is certain, and there die a Christian\nmartyr. John, who had not life and force enough in him to rise above the\nmasses, and no more knowledge than is wanted to dip a net into the sea,\nis to be converted into a fiery spirit, and put forth a book which is to\nfall like a thunderbolt on the heads of the heretics. If anything arises\nin the course of the debates, which, to ordinary men, would present\ndifficulties, with Irenaeus they were easily disposed of by tradition.\nHe had traditions for all emergencies, and when his adversaries dared\ndispute him, he stands ready to silence them by abuse. He says: \"But,\nagain, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from\nthe Apostles, (and) which is preserved by means of the successions of\nPresbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they\nthemselves are wiser not merely than the Presbyters, but even than the\nApostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. It comes\nto this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture\nnor to tradition. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal,\nmy very dear friend, endeavoring like slippery serpents to escape at all\npoints.\" (Irenaeus, Vol. I. book iii. page 260.)\n\nHe brings often and repeated charges against his enemies for forgeries,\nand at the same time makes more himself than all of them put together.\nIn the disputes about the twofold nature of Christ as he appears in the\nSynoptics, and as will be fully explained hereafter, the Gnostics had\nthe advantage in the argument. If Christ the God descended upon the man\nChrist at the baptism in the Jordan, it left him at the crucifixion.\nThen, say the Gnostics, there _is no atonement_, for the Son of God did\nnot shed his blood. No other man, in that or any other age, could meet\nthe crisis but Irenaeus; and the result is the fourth Gospel.\n\nThe time when this Gospel first appeared as a historical fact, has been\nso thoroughly sifted by late writers on that subject, that it will only\nbe necessary here to notice some of the prominent reasons why its date\nis fixed after the middle of the second century. All allusions, or\npretended allusions, found in the writings of the fathers, on inspection\nwill be found to be the work of those who have attempted to poison the\nfountains of history. Papias lived near the age of John, and if John had\nwritten he must have known and spoken about it, as he speaks of Matthew\nand Mark; but he says nothing about John or Luke. He was Bishop of\nHeliopolis A. D. 165, and informs us that it was his habit to inquire of\nthose who were the followers of the elders, what was said by them: what\nwas said by Andrew and Peter or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John,\nMatthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord. (Eusebius, Ecc.\nHist., book iii. chap. 39.)\n\nThe Apology of Justin to the emperor was written some time between the\nyears A. D. 130 and A. D. 160. The precise time is not known, and there\nis some uncertainty about it. In his Apology, Justin makes thirty-five\ndistinct allusions to Matthew, eighteen to Luke, and five to Mark, and\nif he says anything which points to John at all, on examination it will\nappear that the allusions are found elsewhere, in writings anterior to\nJustin. \"For Christ said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter\ninto the Kingdom of Heaven.'\" This, it is claimed, is taken from the\nfourth Gospel, which must have been in existence when Justin wrote. The\nlanguage in the Gospel is, \"Jesus answered and said unto them, Except\na man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.\" (John iii. 3.)\nThis language, imputed to Christ, was drawn from a common source--from\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews, as has been fully proven, and so in\nevery other instance where the writer seems to allude to the Gospel of\nJohn.\n\nThe new ideas concerning Christ found in this Gospel had not yet dawned\nupon the world when Justin wrote, for on that subject he had not got\nbeyond what was contained in the Synoptics; or, to speak with greater\naccuracy, his Logos idea was that of Philo, which differed from that of\nJohn.\n\nAn examination of this subject by the most learned and careful writers,\nproves that there is no reliable evidence that the fourth Gospel was in\nexistence before A. D. 175, when a direct reference is made to it in\nthe Clementine homilies, a production written in praise of Peter against\nMarcion. The language quoted is unmistakably the language of John.\nTatian, who wrote between A. D. 160 and A. D. 185, quotes from the\nfourth Gospel: \"And this is what was said, Darkness does not comprehend\nthe light; the Logos is the light of God.\" In the nineteenth chapter\nwe read: \"All things were made by him, and without him not a thing was\nmade.\" These were quotations from John without his being named as the\nauthor; but Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote about A. D. 176, especially\nascribes the Gospel to him. \"In the second book of this treatise\naddressed to Antolycus, he says: 'Whence the holy Scriptures teach us,\nand all who carried in them a holy spirit, of whom John says, In the\nbeginning was the Word, and the Word was God.'\" It may be claimed as an\nhistoric fact, that the fourth Gospel was extant in A. D. 175, and that\nall efforts to give it an early date spring from uncertain data: obscure\nallusions and doubtful inferences altogether too vague and unreliable to\nsatisfy the mind in pursuit of truth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n     Why Irenaeus wrote the fourth Gospel in the name of John.--\n     He shows that the Gospels could not be less than four, and\n     proves the doctrine of the incarnation by the Old Testament\n     and the Synoptics.--The author of the epistles attributed to\n     St. John.\n\nThe zeal of Irenaeus against his adversaries had carried him so far in\nsupport of the doctrine of the incarnation that he ventured upon a\nnew Gospel, under the name and authority of an Apostle. Without\nthe authority of some one of the Apostles to sustain him, of what\nconsequence would the opinion of one man be, on a question which\ninvolved the substance and essence of Christianity? Nothing would be\neasier than to publish a fourth Gospel in the name of-some one among the\ndisciples. They were all dead a hundred years or more, and the time and\nplace of their death no one knew.\n\nBut why did Irenaeus select the name of John? It was his policy to\nselect from among the twelve the one who had been the least conspicuous\nduring his life, so that what was said or done by him in Judea at one\ntime should not conflict with something else claimed to have been done\nat the same time somewhere else. The one that said and did nothing in\nhis own country might be claimed to have said and done a great deal in\nanother. If the proof adduced to prove that John, the son of Zebedee,\nwas not the John of Ephesus, and that Irenaeus was engaged in making a\nfalse substitute, we have gone a great way to show that he himself was\nthe author of the fourth Gospel. To be sure, John's presence in Asia was\nrequired for the Apostolic succession; but the man who brought him there\nfor that purpose would be most likely to use his name in all other cases\nwhen it might prove useful.\n\nThe book against Heresies was written between A. D. 182 and A. D. 188,\nso that about eight years elapsed between the appearance of the Gospel\nand the one against the heretics. In the mean time, no doubt the\nGospel had been attacked from more quarters than one, so that it became\nnecessary that the writer should come to its defence. The book against\nHeresies is nothing more than a supplement to the Gospel, and the writer\nhad in view its defence as much, if not more, than he had the heresies\nof the Gnostics.\n\nNo better evidence could be given of the violence with which the fourth\nGospel was attacked, when it first appeared, than the character of the\ndefence made to sustain it. That it was something new in the time of\nIrenaeus is evident from the fact that he is called upon and employed\nhis genius to defend it. He is not called upon to defend either of the\nother Gospels, because whatever doubts there may have been as to them,\nthe time for discussion had long passed away. But the fourth Gospel was\nsomething new; it had not gone through that fermentation in the minds of\nmen which always follows the introduction of some new idea or principle,\nbut was undergoing that process at the time Irenaeus wrote in its\ndefence. If this Gospel had been written by John, it would have been,\nat the time Irenaeus wrote, nearly one hundred years old, and its claims\nsettled years before he was born. The very arguments he brings to its\nsupport are proofs that it is a fraud. He proves that it is genuine\nbecause it is a necessity--just as pillars are necessary to the support\nof a portico. In his mode of argument he proves that a falsehood may be\nexposed by the poverty and weakness of the arguments which are relied\nupon for its support.\n\nIrenaeus proves not only that the appearance of the fourth Gospel was\nsomething new, but that the doctrines it contained were unheard of\nbefore. He says: \"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more\nor fewer in number than they are; for since there are four zones of the\nworld in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is\nscattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the\nchurch is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, it is fitting that she\nshould have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and\nvivifying men afresh.\" (Book III. chap. 2, sec. 8.) On this subject,\nafter drawing many illustrations from the Gospels in proof of his\nposition, he concludes as follows: \"These things being so, all\nwho destroy the form of the Gospel are _vain, unlearned_, and also\n_audacious_: those (I mean) who represent the aspects of the Gospel as\nbeing more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer.\"\n(Book III. chap. 2, sec. 9.)\n\nThe fourth Gospel was written with no other purpose than to prove the\nincarnation, and that purpose is so persistently kept up in every line\nand verse, from the beginning to the end, that if we strike out this,\nand the miracles which are mere supports of the main idea, there is\nnothing left. And so with the third book against Heresies--it has but\none theme. The writer sets out with the Logos idea of this Gospel,\nwhich is never lost sight of. He finds proof in the traditions of the\nchurch--in every page of the Old Testament--in the Synoptics, as well\nas in the fourth Gospel; and as we read his misapplication of words and\nsentences, we would conclude that he was a lunatic if we did not know\nhe was something else. He has no quarrel with the first three Gospels,\nbecause he can see nothing in them that does not furnish proof of what\nis taught in the fourth; and in the language which makes most against\nhis dogmas, he sees the clearest proof of their truth.\n\nAs an example of his mode of interpretation, and turning the plain sense\nof words from their proper meaning to proofs that Christ was God in the\nflesh, we will give his explanation of the prophecy of Isaiah, which\nrelates to his birth from a virgin: \"Therefore, the Lord himself shall\ngive you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and ye\nshall call his name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat: before he\nknows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for\nwhat is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not\nconsent to evil, that he may choose that which is good.\" Here follow the\ncomments: \"Carefully, then, has the holy Ghost pointed out, by what has\nbeen said--His birth from a virgin and His essence, for he is God (for\nthe name of Emmanuel indicates this). And he shows that he is a man when\nhe says, 'Butter and honey shall he eat;' and in that he terms him a\nchild also, in saying, 'before he knows good from evil;' for these are\nall tokens of a human infant. But that he 'will not consent to evil that\nhe may choose what is good,' this is proper to God; that by the fact,\nthat He shall eat butter and honey, we would understand that He is a\nmere man only--nor on the other hand from the name Emmanuel, should\nsuspect him to be Christ without flesh.\" (Book ill. ch. 21, sec. 4.)\nThat is, Christ is in the flesh, because he is to eat butter and honey;\nand he is God, because he knows how to distinguish between good and\nevil; and as a consequence, the divine and human nature are united in\nhis person, and he is the incarnate God. We have shown in another part\nof this work that the prophecy of Isaiah had nothing to do with a future\nChrist, but was meant as a measure of time, governed by the period of\ngestation.\n\nAgain: \"'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I\nmake thine enemies Thy footstool.' Here (the Scripture) represents to\nus the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of\nthe heathen, and subjected to Him all his enemies. Since, therefore, the\nFather is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has\nfitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the\ndestruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, 'Then the Lord rained\nupon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of\nheaven.' For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking\nwith Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their\nwickedness. And this (text following) does declare the same truth: 'Thy\nthrone, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is\na right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity:\ntherefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.' For the Spirit designates\nboth [of them] by the name of God--both Him who is anointed as Son, and\nHim who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: 'God stood in the\ncongregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.' He (here) refers\nto the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but\nthese are the church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God--that\nis, the Son Himself--has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks:\n'The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.' Who\nis meant by God? He of whom He has said, 'God shall come openly, our\nGod, and shall not keep silence;' that is, the Son, who came manifested\nto men, who said, 'I have openly appeared to those who seek me not.'\"\n(Book ill. chap. 6, sec. 1.)\n\n\"And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, 'I am come down to\ndeliver this people.' For it is He who descended and ascended for the\nsalvatipn of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who\nis in the Father, and has the Father in Himself--He who is, the Father\nbearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father.\" (Book\nIII. chap. 6, sec. 2.)\n\nHe quotes many passages from the Gospel of Matthew to prove his\ndoctrine. \"But Matthew says, that the Magi, coming from the East,\nexclaimed, 'For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to\nworship Him;' and that, having been led by the star into the house of\nJacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by those gifts which they offered, who\nit was that was worshipped: myrrh, because it was He who should die and\nbe buried for the mortal human race; gold, because He was a king, 'of\nwhose kingdom is no end;' and frankincense, because He was God, who also\n'was made known in Judea,' and was 'declared to those who sought\nHim not.'\" (Book III. chap. 9, sec. 2.) \"And then, (speaking of His)\nbaptism, Matthew says: 'The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit\nof God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying,\nThis is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' For Christ _did not\nat that descend upon Jesus_, neither was Christ one and Jesus another:\nbut the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven\nand earth, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did\nalso take upon Him _flesh_, and was anointed by the Spirit from the\nFather--was made Jesus Christ.\" (Book III. chap. 9, sec. 3.)\n\nThe following is proof derived from Luke. \"As Zacharias, also,\nrecovering from the state of dumbness which he had suffered on account\nof unbelief, having been filled with a new spirit, did bless God in\na new manner. For all things had entered upon a new phase, the Word\narranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win\nback to God that human nature (_hominem_) which had departed from God.\"\n(Book III. chap. 10, sec. 2.)\n\nMany citations of a like nature are taken from Luke and Mark to prove\nthe _Logos_ doctrine of John's Gospel. Irenaeus even brings John upon\nthe stand to prove the doctrine of an incarnate Christ! which John\nhimself was the first to communicate. \"John, the disciple of the Lord,\npreaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to\nremove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men,\nand a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an\noffset of that 'knowledge' falsely so called, that he might confound\nthem, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things\nby His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but\nthe Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was,\nforsooth, one, but the Christ from above another.\"... \"The disciple of\nthe Lord, therefore, desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and\nto establish the rule of truth in the church, that there is one Almighty\nGod, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible;\nshowing at the same time, that by the _Word_, through whom God made\nthe creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the\ncreation: thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: 'In the beginning\nwas the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'\" (Bopkm.\nchap. 11, sec. 1.)\n\nHe makes many references to John, and sums up his complaints against the\nGnostics in the following words: \"But according to the opinion of no one\nof the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if any one carefully\nexamines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is\nbrought in by all of them as not having become _incarnate (sine carne)_\nand _impassible_, as is also the Christ from above.\" (Book III. chap,\nin, sec. 3.) The writer cites many passages from the epistle of Peter,\nall confirming the _Logos_ doctrines of John.\n\nThe following is the heading of chap. xxii. book III.: \"_Christ assumed\nactual flesh, conceived and born of the Virgin_.\" In this chapter the\ndoctrine of the incarnation is elaborately argued, and proof supplied\nfrom many quarters; but as there is a great sameness in the argument\nthroughout, it would only tire the reader to pursue the subject any\nfurther.\n\nThe third book against Heresies contains twenty-five chapters, which are\nextended through one hundred and seventeen pages, and throughout there\nis but one idea presented, and the proof offered in its support; and\nfrom the first to the last, there is a studied effort to turn the plain\nimport of biblical passages from their true meaning into the support of\nthe doctrines in the fourth Gospel. Thus this father of the church, in\nabout seven years after this Gospel appeared, came to its defence, and\nfor that purpose wrote a book, which must have cost him much time and\nstudy, for in its way it is a work of great research, and required an\nintimate acquaintance with the Old and New Testaments, and the writings\nof the Gnostics, which were numerous in his day. From the zeal which\nis shown throughout, it is evident that the writer had some personal\ninterest in the subject, and that he was defending his own doctrines,\nand not those of St. John or any one else.\n\nWe do not detect in the work against Heresies the lofty and sublime\ntone of the Gospel, and, from the nature of the subject, it could not\nbe expected. He is engaged in an attempt to impose on the world, and\nas what he declares to be the work of an Apostle has no foundation\nin truth, nor the doctrines it teaches, he struggles like a man in\na morass, who is compelled to seize upon anything to keep him from\nsinking. No doubt he was pressed hard by his adversaries, and he seems\nin his defence of the fourth Gospel like a gored bull with a pack at his\nfront and heels. We can detect the keen lance of his adversary, piercing\nhim to the quick, in the repeated cry of Antichrist, which is the\nfavorite weapon when hard pressed by his enemies.\n\nAs he fights all his battles in the name of St. John, hear him exclaim,\nin the first and second epistles, which he falsely ascribes to the\nApostle: \"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard\nthat Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby\nwe know that it is the last time. Who is a liar but he that denieth that\nJesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the\nSon.\" (1 John ii. 18, 22.) \"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every\nspirit that confesseth that' Jesus Christ is come in the _flesh_, is of\nGod: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come\nin the flesh, is not of God. And this is that _spirit_ of Antichrist,\nwhereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in\nthe world.\" (1 John iv. 2, 3.) \"For many deceivers are entered into the\nworld, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the _flesh_. This\nis a deceiver, and an Antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not\nthose things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.\nWhosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath\nnot God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the\nFather and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this\ndoctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:\nfor he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.\" (2\nJohn 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.)\n\nThe spirit that dictated the foregoing denunciations of those who\ndisbelieved the dogma of Christ incarnate, also gave birth to what\nfollows: \"But again, those who assert that he was simply a mere man,\nbegotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience,\nare in a state of death; having been not as yet joined to the Word\nof God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does\nhimself declare: 'If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free\nindeed.' But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel,\nthey are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; and not receiving\nthe incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors\nto death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says,\nmentioning His own gift of grace: 'I said, ye are all the sons of the\nHighest, and gods; but ye shall die like men.' He speaks undoubtedly\nthese words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but\nwho despise _the incarnation_ of the pure generation of the Word of\nGod, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves\nungrateful to the Word of God, who became _flesh_ for them.\" (Book iii.\nchap. 19, sec. I.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n     Four distinct eras in Christianity from Paul to the Council\n     of Nice.--The epistles of Paul and the works of the fathers\n     changed to suit each era.--The dishonesty of the times.\n\nFrom the time Paul commenced his labors, to the latter part of the\nsecond century, we can trace three eras or periods in the state and\ncharacter of Christianity, as marked and distinct as the various strata\nof the earth which indicate the different ages of their formation.\nFirst, the Pauline; second, the Philo-Alexandrian, which includes the\ntime of the first three Gospels; third, the Incarnation, which includes\nthe fourth Gospel. As we approach the end of the third century, we may\ninclude a fourth period--that of the Trinity.\n\nWe have stated elsewhere, that the distinguishing feature between\nthe Logos of Philo and the Christ of Paul was, that the former was\ncoexistent in point of time with the Creator or Father, while in case of\nthe latter, there was a time he did not exist. There was still another\ndifference: the Logos was begotten in heaven, but Christ was born on\nthe earth, of earthly parents. Through the influence of the Alexandrian\nJews, who had been converted to Christianity by the preaching of Paul,\nthe Christ of Paul was made to give way, in time, to the Logos of Philo.\nThis change can be traced in the forgeries which are found interlarded\nthrough the epistles of Paul, and the writings of the early fathers. We\ntrace the gradual and stealthy departure from the first to the second\nstages of Christianity in the use of terms in Paul's epistles which were\nemployed among the Gnostics and others in the early part of the\nsecond century. The epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians have been\npronounced by able critics to be spurious, because of some verse which\nhave an Alexandrian look; when it is easy to discover that these verses\nare mere insertions into the original text. The term _pleroma_, or\n_fulness_, was a favorite phrase among the Gnostics, and now we find\nit scattered here and there through the epistles: \"For it pleased the\nFather, _that in him_ should all fulness dwell.\" (Col. i. 19.) \"For in\nhim dwelleth all the _fulness_ of the Godhead bodily.\" (Col. ii. 9.)\n\"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head\nof all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that\nfilleth all in all.\" (Eph. i. 22, 23.) \"And to know the love of Christ,\nwhich passeth all knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the\nfulness of God.\" (Eph. iii. 19.) The preexistence of Christ, and his\nrank as God, is now openly avowed. \"For by him were all things created,\nthat are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,\nwhether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all\nthings were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things,\nand by him all things consist.\" (Col. i. 16, 17.) Here the Christ\nof Paul disappears, like the great Apostle himself. The works of the\nfathers are now mutilated by the same ruthless hand, to maintain the new\nphase which Christianity is forced to assume. \"Ignatius, who is called\nTheophorus to the church which is at Ephesus in Asia, deservedly happy,\nbeing blessed through the greatness and _fulness_ of God the Father, and\n_predestinated before the world began_, that it should be always unto an\nenduring and unchangeable glory; being united and chosen, through actual\nsuffering, according to the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our\nGod, all happiness by Jesus Christ and his undefiled grace.\" (Epistle\nto Eptsiceris, sec. 1. 17.) The balance of this section, which will be\ncited in a subsequent page, was added in the third or fourth century,\nwhen Christianity put on its fourth phase. \"For this cause they were\npersecuted also, being inspired by his grace, fully to convince the\nunbelievers that _there is one God_, who hath manifested himself by\nJesus Christ his Son, who is his _eternal Word_, not coming forth from\n_silence_, who in all things was well pleased in him that sent him.\" *\n(Sec. 8.)\n\n     * The word silence is a word which grew in use among the\n     Gnostics long after the time of Ignatius, and affords\n     unmistakable proof of the fraudulent interpolation.\n     Valentinianus, a Gnostic of the second century, held that\n     there is a certain Dyad (twofold being), who is\n     inexpressible by name, of whom one part should be called\n     Anhetus, unspeakable, and the other Silence. The word, in\n     the connection in which it is found in the passage from\n     Ignatius, speaking about what related to a later age, has\n     been the occasion of much discussion: some contending that\n     it has reference to the Silence of Valentinianus, which\n     proves the passage spurious; others, that it relates to the\n     erroneous opinions of heretics anterior to Valentinianus.\n     What heretics! (See Chevalier's Apostolical Gospels, note\n     6.)\n\nSuch passages as we have cited, and others of a like nature which might\nbe cited, have led critics to the conclusion that the writings which\ncontain them are forgeries; but if examined in _connection with the\ntexts_, it will be found that they are interpolations, forced into the\nplaces they fill. As the writings of Paul now stand, they present Christ\nin two distinct characters or aspects: his own as the Son of Man, from\nwhich he never wavered; and the other that of Philo. All through his\nepistles we find passages which inculcate doctrines with which he\ncombated during his whole life. All that is essential to, or that is\nembraced in, the writings of Philo, as to the nature of the Logos, may\nbe found in the epistles of Paul. We will give a few examples which we\ngather from the work of Jacob Bryant, and found among the notes of Adam\nClarke in his Commentaries on St. John.\n\nPhilo. \"First begotten of God.\"\n\nCOLOSSIANS i. 15. \"Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born\nof every creature.\"\n\nHEBREWS i. 6. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into\nthe world, he saith, \"And let all the angels of God worship him.\"\n\nPHILO. \"By whom the world was created.\" Hebrews i. 2. \"Hath in these\nlast days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all\nthings, by whom also he made the worlds.\"\n\n1 Corinthians viii. 6. \"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of\nwhom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, _by whom\nare all things, and we by him_.\"\n\nPhilo. \"_The most ancient of God's works, and before all things_.\"\n\n2 Timothy i. 9. \"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling,\nnot according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,\nwhich was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.\"\n\nPhilo. \"_Esteemed the same as God_.\" PHILIPPIANS ii. 6. \"Who, being in\nthe form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.\" Philo.\n\"He unites, supports, preserves, and perfects the world.\"\n\nCOLOSS. i. 17. \"And he is before all things, and by him all things\nconsist.\"\n\nPhilo. \"Free from all taint of sin, voluntary and involuntary.\"\n\nHebrews vii. 26. \"For such an high priest became us, who is holy,\nharmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the\nheavens.\"\n\nPhilo. \"_The Logos the foundation of wisdom._\"\n\n1 Corinthians i. 24. \"But unto them which are called, both Jews and\nGreeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.\"\n\nCOLOSS. ii. 3. \"In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and\nknowledge.\"\n\nPhilo. \"_Men being freed by the Logos from all corruption, shall be\nentitled to immortality_\"\n\n1 Corinthians xv. 52, 53. \"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,\nat the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be\nraised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.\" \"For this corruptible\nmust put on in-corruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.\"\n\nInconsistency cannot be claimed to be one of the faults of Paul; but if\nwe place these passages by the side of those in which he declares,\nin unmistakable language, his belief in the nature of Christ, we must\neither admit inconsistency or fraud. The influence of Paul had lost much\nof its force before his death in A.D. 66; and when Hadrian assumed the\ngovernment of the empire, A.D. 117, the Pauline era had nearly ceased.\nSpeaking of the great Apostle, Renan says: \"After his disappearance from\nthe scene of his apostolic struggles, we shall find him soon forgotten.\nHis death was probably regarded as the death of an agitator. The\nsecond century scarcely speaks of him, and apparently endeavors to\nsystematically blot out his memory. His epistles are then slightly read,\nand only regarded as authority by rather a slender group.\" (_Life of\nPaul_. page 327.)\n\nBut the same author tells us, on the same page, what history confirms,\nthat Paul, in the third century, wonderfully rises in the estimation of\nthe church, and resumes the place from which he had been deposed.\nThere is a good and obvious reason for the change. During this interval\nbetween the fall and rise of his influence, his epistles had been\nsubjected to the most glaring forgeries, in order to make them conform\nto the Philo-Alexandrian ideas which in the mean time prevailed.\n\nIt is to be remarked at this place, that the Logos idea of Philo\nencountered difficulties, when applied to the person of Jesus. It could\nnot be denied that he was the son of Mary; but it might be, that he was\nnot the son of Joseph. He is therefore born not of man. The influence of\na divine energy is substituted. No sooner is this new feature introduced\ninto the second stage of Christianity, than new ideas prevail, and are\nfound scattered through the works of the fathers. \"And the princes of\nthe world know not the virginity of Mary, and him who was born of her,\nand the death of the Lord: three mysteries noised abroad, yet done by\nGod in silence.\" \"Where is the wise and where is the disputer? Where is\nthe boasting of those who are called men of understanding? For our\nGod, Jesus Christ, was born in the womb of Mary, according to the\ndispensation of God.\" (Ignatius to Eph. sees. 18, 19.)\n\nThe foregoing are mere specimens. Christ is now the Son of God; but\nfor a time he is all humanity. He grows from infancy to manhood, and\nmanifests in himself the appetites and infirmities which belong to the\nflesh. His mind develops early; but, as with other mortals, it grew and\nexpanded as he advanced in years. But the time came when \"the heavens\nwere opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a\ndove, and lighting upon him.\" (Matt. iii. 16.) He was there proclaimed\nby a voice from heaven, to be the Son of God. Here is something Paul\nnever heard of. The new Logos of the gospel, like the Logos of Philo,\nwas without beginning, from everlasting; but from this point they\ndiverge.\n\nThe Logos of the Alexandrian was not an _hypostasis_, or a person, but\na divine emanation or spirit; of a nature unconceivable, which hovered\nover the earth, but never touched it. The new Christ descended from\nheaven as a spirit, took up its mysterious abode in the human form,\nwhere it dwelt until its ministry was complete, when, with the body\nwhich contained it, it encountered death--went down into the grave--but\non the third day broke the chains of death, and triumphantly ascended\ninto heaven, from whence it came.\n\nThe tendency of the minds of men at that day towards the discussions of\nmetaphysical and unintelligible subjects, soon led to endless disputes,\ngrowing out of this new feature of the Christian faith. How this\nmysterious union of God and man could and did exist, and when and how\nit was dissolved, were questions which caused much angry feeling and\nacrimonious discussion among Christians, which continued through the\nsecond, and even to the fourth century, when, according to the learned\nauthor of the \"Decline and Fall,\" they died out by \"the prevalence of\nmore fashionable controversies, and by the superior ascendant of the\nreigning power.\" (Gib-bon, vol. I. p. 257.)\n\nThe idle and profitless disputes of the second era of Christianity were\nforced, at a later day, to give way to those of the third. Cerinthus,\nand other Gnostics, maintained that the Son of God descended on the day\nof baptism in the form of a dove, and remained in its human receptacle\nuntil the time of the crucifixion, when it took its flight, leaving to\nthe human form all the agonies and sufferings of death. If this were\nso, there is no atonement: the Son of God has not offered himself as a\nsacrifice. The Gnostics had the advantage of consistency. If Christ\nwas a creature, like other men, when the Spirit descended upon him, and\nexisted apart from the flesh, then death could only reach the body,\nand when that was put to death, or about to be, and the Spirit lost\nits tabernacle or abiding-place, it must again return to the celestial\nabode.\n\nThe perplexities and interminable disputes, caused by such\nunintelligible subjects, at last led to the third period in the\nChristian religion: the doctrine of the _incarnation_. \"The _Word_ was\nmade flesh and dwelt among us, who was not born of blood, nor of the\nwill of man, but of God.\" (_John_ i. 13, 14.) God took upon himself\nthe form of man, and was God in man. The Logos of Philo has become an\nhypostasis, and walks upon the earth. The war with the Gnostics has\nchanged ground. The Son of God did not come down and take up his abode\nin the mortal form of Christ, but was Jesus himself, and when he came\nto suffer death there was no separation of divine and human natures, but\nthe real Son of God shed his blood, suffered, and died on the cross as a\nsacrifice for the sins of our race.\n\nThe paternal solicitude of Irenaeus in support of this new phase of\nChristianity is conspicuously displayed in the third book of his work\nagainst Heresies. \"But, according to these men, neither was the Word\nmade flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (_Soter_), who was produced from\n[the joint contributions of] all [the _AEons_]. For they will have it\nthat the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour,\ntoo, never became incarnate, nor _suffered_, but that he descended\nlike a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had\ndeclared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma....\nTherefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses,\nsays: 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.'\" (Chap. xi.\nsec. 3.) \"As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who existed\nin the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also\nalways present with mankind, was in these last days, according to the\ntime appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as\nHe became a man liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objection\nis set aside of those who say, 'If our Lord was born at that time,\nChrist had therefore no previous existence.' For I have shown that the\nSon of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from\nthe beginning; but when He became _incarnate_, and was made man, He\ncommenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a\nbrief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in\nAdam--namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God--that we\nmight recover in Christ Jesus.\" (Chap, xviii. sec. 1.) The forgers are\nagain at their work. The ancient fathers must be made to subscribe to\nthe new creed. \"For some there are who are wont to carry about the name\nof Christ in deceitful-ness, but do things unworthy of God, whom you\nmust avoid as ye would wild beasts. For they are raving dogs, which bite\nsecretly, of whom you must be aware, as men hardly to be cured. There\nis one physician, both carnal and spiritual, create and increate, God\n_manifest in the flesh_; both of Mary and of God; first capable _of\nsuffering_--then liable to suffer no more.\" (_Ignatius to Eph_. sec. 7.)\n\"For whosoever confesseth not that Jesus Christ is _come in the flesh_\nis Antichrist; and whosoever confesseth not his _sufferings upon the\ncross_ is from the devil. And whosoever perverts the oracles of God, he\nis the first-born of Satan.\" (Polycarp to Philippians, sec. 7.)\n\nThe above citations are a few of many others of a like character\nscattered through the works of the fathers, inserted long after their\ndeath, and evidently intended to combat the idea of Cerinthus and\nothers, that Christ did not suffer on the cross, and so it could not be\nclaimed that by his death he made an atonement for the sins of man. Both\nof these fathers lived near the time of Paul, and believed the doctrines\nhe preached: \"Ye are the passage of those that are killed for God; who\nhave been _instructed in the mysteries of the gospel with Paul_, who was\nsanctified and bore testimony even unto death, and is deservedly most\nhappy; at whose feet I would that I might be found when I shall have\nattained unto God, who through all his epistles makes mention of you in\nChrist.\" (_Ignatius to the Ephesians_, sec. 12.) \"For neither can I,\nnor any other such as I am, come up to the wisdom of the blessed and\nrenowned Paul, who being amongst you, in the presence of those who then\nlived, taught with exactness and soundness the word of truth; who in\nhis absence also wrote an epistle to you, unto which, if you diligently\nlook, you may be able to be edified in the faith delivered unto you,\nwhich is the mother of us all.\" (_Polycarp to the Philippians_, sec. 3.)\n\nPaul taught that Christ was born of woman, under the law; and Ignatius,\nthat he was \"truly of the race of David, according to the flesh.\"\n(Letter to the Eph., sec. 1.)\n\nThe letters of Polycarp and Ignatius seemed a kind of a free commons\nwhere forgeries might be committed by all; and they have been so often\nused for this purpose, in order to secure the authority of their names\nto the doctrines of the day, that there is very little of the originals\nleft. All parties were engaged in the practice; and each charged his\nadversary with doing the very thing that he was doing himself.\n\nAs we read whole pages in Irenaeus, charging his adversaries with\nforgeries and false interpolations, we smile at the impudence and\naudacity of the man, who has done more to pollute the pages of history\nthan any other, and whose foot-prints we can follow through the whole\ncentury, like the slime of a serpent.\n\nSpeaking of the forgeries of this century, Casaubon says: \"And in the\nlast place, it mightily affects me to see how many there were in the\nearliest times of the church, who considered it a capital exploit to\nlend to heavenly truth the help of their own inventions, in order that\nthe new doctrine might be more readily allowed by the wise among the\nGentiles. These officious lies, they were wont to say, were devised\nfor a good end; from which source, beyond question, sprang nearly\ninnumerable books, which that and the following age saw published by\nthose who were far from being bad men (for we are not speaking of the\nbooks of the heretics), under the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and of\nthe Apostles, and of other saints.\" (_Casaubon_, quoted by Lardner.)\nLardner is forced to admit \"that _Christians of or the Enigmas of\nChristianity, all sorts_ were guilty of this fraud--indeed, we may say\nit was one great fault of the times.\" (Vol. iv. page 54.)\n\nIn an age where falsehood was esteemed a merit, the truth cannot be\nexpected. Before we close what we have to say on the third period of\nChristianity, we cannot fail to notice what a wide gulf has grown up\nbetween the religious faith of Paul and his followers, and those who\ngave their assent to the doctrines of the fourth Gospel. But, wide as is\nthe gulf, those who call themselves Christians can stand on the opposite\nbanks and clasp hands as believers in a common faith. Why is this?\nSkilful artisans, in the second century and subsequent ages, have been\nbusy in bridging over this vast abyss, by adding to and taking away\nfrom what Paul taught, until to cross over is neither difficult nor\ndangerous.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n     The Trinity, or fourth period of Christianity.\n\nIf we may judge of the opposition made to the doctrines of the fourth\nGospel by the vehemence and bad feeling with which they were defended,\nwe conclude that if they were not successfully refuted, they did not\nescape just and severe criticism. The sudden change from the Logos\nof Philo to the _hypostasis_ of John--from Christ a spirit who had\ndescended from Heaven and taken up a temporary abode in the human form,\nand a Christ who was born a God, lived and remained such through death\nand the resurrection--was too great a change to be suddenly taken,\nwithout provoking the sneers and animadversions of the enemies of\nthe new faith, who were on the lookout to expose its weaknesses, and\nridicule its inconsistencies. What gave force and point to their attacks\nwas, that the change from the Logos of the Synoptics to that of the\nfourth Gospel was one of necessity, forced upon Christians by the\ntactics of the Gnostics, in order to maintain a principle which lay at\nthe foundation of their religion: that is, the atonement.\n\nIn the war waged between them and their enemies, Christians found it a\nsource of great relief and satisfaction, to learn that the doctrines\nof John's Gospel, which were announced in the first verses of the\nfirst chapter, were in harmony with the theology of Plato. Whatever\ninconsistencies might be imputed to them on account of the change of\ntheir ideas as to the nature of Christ, their present views were the\nsame as those held by the great philosopher of Greece, whose wisdom had\nentitled him to be called Plato the Divine. The study of the works of\nthe Athenian by Christians of this period was the natural result of this\nfeeling, and we discover a constant increase of this admiration until\nhis ascendency is complete, and the nature of the Godhead determined by\nhis genius. The followers of Plato were no less gratified to find that\nthe doctrines of the fourth Gospel were in harmony with the school of\ntheir great teacher; so much so that it removed, the prejudice, and\nreduced the distance which formerly separated them from the Christians.*\n\n     * Some proofs of the respect which the Christians\n     entertained for the person and doctrines of Plato, may be\n     found in De la Mothe le Vager, torn. v. p. 135, and Basnage,\n     tom. IV. p. 29-79.    Decline and Fall, vol. I. p. 440, note\n     29.\n\nAccording to John, the _Word_ existed with the Father from the\nbeginning--was equal to the Father, and was the Creator of all things.\nThe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were co-equal and co-eternal.\nWith Plato, the Father, or First Cause, the Logos, and Spirit of the\nUniverse, existed from the beginning, and were endowed with co-ordinate\npowers; but, according to him, all divine natures flow from the One, or\nFirst Cause, as light flows from the sun, and are bound in unity, and\nare one; so the three persons in the Godhead of Plato are one, and\nconstitute a triad in unity.\n\nThe theology of the fourth Gospel approached so near to that of Plato,\nthat it was natural that one should insensibly run into the other, and\nwas what might have been expected. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are\nequal, as the First Cause, the Logos, and the Spirit of the Universe are\nequal. As the two proceed from the One, or First Cause, with Plato, and\nare united, so the two proceed from the Father, and are one, and in both\ncases form a trinity in unity.\n\nThe circle is now complete. Paul was dethroned by the Alexandrian Philo,\nand his Christology in turn is overthrown by the mixed theology of John\nand Plato. We can readily detect the violence done the works of the\nfathers, in order to give the authority of their names to this new phase\nof Christianity. \"Wherefore come all ye together as to one temple of\nGod--as to one altar--as to one Jesus Christ--_who proceeds from One\nFather, and exists in one and is returned to One_\" (_Ignatius to\nMagnesians_, sec. 7.) This language expresses the Platonic idea in all\nits completeness. It could hardly be expected that Christianity could\ntake upon itself this new phase without opening the door for new causes\nfor dispute, as will always be the case when men presume to reason on\nspiritual generation, and from negative ideas attempt to draw positive\nconclusions.\n\nSabellius, of Egypt, undertook to find a middle ground, and while he\nadmitted the triad in unity, he claimed that there was but one person in\nthe Godhead, and that the Word and Spirit are only virtues or emanations\nof the Deity. But his doctrine conceded too much to the theology of\nthe Greek to suit the followers of Arius, and not enough to satisfy the\northodox; and so, after a vain struggle, Sabellius and his doctrine?\nwere swallowed up and lost sight of in the strife created by the\nopposing views which suddenly sprang up in the church at Alexandria. We\ngive the origin of the dispute in the words of Socrates, a writer of the\nfifth century.\n\n\"After Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under\nDiocletian, Achilles was installed in the Episcopal office, whom\nAlexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to.\nHe, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and\ngovernment of the church, attempted one day, in the presence of the\npresbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too\nphilosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery, _the Unity\nof the Holy Trinity_. A certain one of the Presbyters under his\njurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable\nlogical acumen, imagining that the Bishop entertained the same view of\nthis subject as Sabellius the Libyan, controverted his statements\nwith excessive pertinacity, advancing another error which was directly\nopposed indeed to that which he supposed himself called upon to refute.\n'If,' said he, 'the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a\nbeginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a\ntime when the Son was not in being. It therefore necessarily follows,\nthat he had his existence from nothing.'\" (_Ecclesiastical History_,\nbook i. chap. 5.)\n\nFrom a little spark, continues the writer, a large fire was kindled,\nwhich ran throughout all Egypt, Libya, the upper Thebes, and finally\nthrough Asia and Europe. After disturbing the peace of the world for\nfourteen hundred years, the dispute which commenced at Alexandria\nremains unsettled to this day.\n\nWe now approach a new era. Up to this time the religion of a people had\nno connection with the powers of the State. Constantine is the first to\nset an example. Indebted to the Christians for their assistance in the\ncivil war between himself and Licinius, under the pretext of preserving\nthe peace of the church, he wrote an epistle to Alexander and Arius,\nadmonishing them to forbear and cease to quarrel about things they\ncan neither explain or comprehend. Thus commenced a connection between\nchurch and State which has proved so ruinous to the cause of true\nreligion, and the peace of the church ever since. This interference was\ncontinued by Constantine throughout his reign, and at the time of his\ndeath the affairs of the church and State were so interwoven that it\nbecame difficult, at times, to distinguish between the office of a\nBishop and the powers of the Emperor. The spirit of faction in the\nchurch proved superior to the authority of Constantine, and in order to\nrestore peace, he was forced to call an assembly of Bishops, Presbyters,\nand Deacons from every part of the Christian world. What was meant to\nrestore harmony, only furnished fresh subjects for dispute, so that the\nprogress of mankind has rather been retarded than assisted by the piety\nand wisdom of the Nicene fathers. The attempt to fix a standard of faith\nby the decrees of councils has proven to be the greatest folly in which\nmen were ever engaged, as it has been the source of the greatest misery\nand suffering; and proves, by the evils which flow from it, that all\nsuch efforts are vain and presumptuous. As well undertake to fix a\nstandard for the fine arts, and determine by a decree the combination\nof colors, and how the lights and shades shall be mingled in making a\npicture to please the eye, and satisfy the taste of all.\n\nThat which followed what was done at the Council of Nice, shows of\nwhat little value are the decrees of such bodies in establishing or in\nassisting the cause of truth. Council followed council, without arriving\nany nearer to the settlement of the dispute. In the fourth century\nalone, there were forty-five councils; of these, thirteen decided\nagainst Arius, fifteen in his favor, and seventeen for the Semiarians.\n(Draper's _Intellectual Development_, page 222.) The divisions and\nquarrels among Christians sapped the strength, and finally led to the\ndisruption of the Roman empire, and prepared the way for the armies of\nPersia, and the conquest of Mahomet.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n     The Catholic Epistles.\n\nThe Catholic Epistles, as they are called, if genuine, should be\nregarded as of the highest authority in everything which relates to\nthe early age of Christianity. That some are the real productions of an\nApostle, some so in part, and others wholly spurious, is susceptible\nof the most satisfactory proof. The epistle of James, and the first of\nPeter, if we except certain parts of the latter, have strong claims to\nbe treated as the works of the writers whose names they bear; while\nthe second of Peter, the first, second, and third of John, and the one\nascribed to Jude, carry on their face unmistakable marks of forgery.\n\nThe writer of the first epistle of Peter was a Jew, not a Greek, and it\nwas addressed to Jewish converts. His mind dwells on events in Jewish\nhistory, for he speaks of Sarah, Abraham, and Moses, and refers to the\ntraditions of the Jewish rabbins and elders. (1 Pet. i. 18.) Although\naddressed to _strangers_, the epistle was meant for Jews, who, through\npersecution in Judea, fled into foreign countries; for to Peter was\ncommitted the ministry of the circumcision. (Gal. ii. 9.) Besides, the\npersons to whom Peter writes _are styled \"a chosen generation, a royal\npriesthood, a holy nation_, a peculiar people\" (1 Peter ii. 9), which\ncan only apply to the Jewish nation. \"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom\nof priests, and a holy nation.\" (_Exodus_ xix. 6.)\n\nThe letter shows that Peter was still a Jew, and altogether proves\nthat he had not changed his views on circumcision. The vision on\nthe house-top had not yet taken place. But there is a spirit of pure\nmorality running through the greater part of the epistle, which brings\nit near the time of Christ, and makes it out of place in a later period\nof Christianity. It is conclusive proof of its canonical authority, that\nit is inserted in the Syriac version of the New Testament, executed at\nthe close of the first or early in the second century; and it is equally\nconclusive against the second of Peter, that it is not included in\nthe same work. Hermas has not fewer than seven allusions to the first\nepistle, which is sufficient to prove its antiquity.\n\nThis epistle was also written before the order of Bishops was recognized\nin the church, and Christians had not departed from their first simple\nideas of ecclesiastical government. Peter himself claimed to be nothing\nmore than elder. \"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also\n_an elder_\" (i Peter v. I.)\n\nThe place where the letter bears date corresponds with our ideas of the\nmovements of Peter, for his labors, whatever they may have been, were\nconfined to Asia, not far beyond the confines of Judea.\n\nBut if the first of Peter is in the main genuine, it did not escape\ncorruption at the hands of the poisoners of truth in the second century.\n\"Who verily was fore-ordained before _the foundation_ of the world, but\nwas manifest in these last times for you.\" (i Peter i. 20.) \"Forasmuch\nthen as Christ hath suffered for us in the _flesh_, arm yourselves\nlikewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the _flesh_\nhath ceased from sin.\" (1 Peter iv. I.) When these verses were written,\nChristianity had passed into its third period, for here is announced _a\nChrist_ who was co-eternal with the Father, and was _incarnate_.\n\nMost of the first chapter, if not all, is undoubtedly spurious. The\nboastful spirit with which it commences; the doctrinal announcements,\nand the tone in which they are delivered are entirely different from\nthat shown in the following chapters. It is written as something to be\nused against an adversary, and, like all forgeries inserted into genuine\nwritings for such purposes, much is crowded into a small space.\n\nIn this chapter is declared the preexistence of Christ, or the\nAlexandrian Logos; the resurrection; foreknowledge and election, and\nsanctification--all disputed points in theology, which required the\nauthority of an Apostle to settle: but neither of which had anything to\ndo with Christ or the religion he taught. It will be noticed, that the\ncrucifixion is mentioned twice: once in connection with the twentieth\nverse, which asserts the eternity of the Logos, and the other in\nclose connection with the second verse, which holds to the doctrine of\nelection. As the preexistence of Christ was no part of Christianity when\nPeter wrote, which was, according to Lardner and others, in A.D. 64, but\nbelongs to a later period; and as the subject mentioned in the twentieth\nand twenty-first verses is the same, and cannot be separated, it follows\nthat both are spurious.\n\nSo we would say of the mention of the resurrection in the third verse.\nIt is connected with a doctrinal point which had no existence in Peter's\ntime, and, if it had, was in dispute, and was inserted into this chapter\nto give it Apostolic authority. The mention of the resurrection in\nthe twenty-first verse of the third chapter, holds also a suspicious\nconnection with the doctrine of baptism.\n\nThe true commencement of this epistle will be found in the first verse\nof the second chapter. Here we discover quite a different spirit. Here\ncommence the plain, simple and pure doctrines of the Christian faith,\nwhich in the end will secure the victory. Peter and James are each\nexamples to prove that a mind wedded to a single idea, which had for\nages entered into the religion of a people, may be contracted and\nfettered by it, and yet be free to expand under the influence of the\ntrue genius of Christianity, and become liberal on other subjects.\nNeither Peter nor James could shake off the Jewish notion of\ncircumcision, for it began with the father of that people by the command\nof God, and was to be binding on his descendants to the end of time.\nWith them, like all the laws of God, the law of circumcision was\nunchangeable. But notwithstanding all this, they each had heart enough\nto take in the great truths of Christianity as declared by the lips\nof its founder. These men, who were slaves to one idea, who dogged the\nfootsteps of Paul because he taught the doctrine of the uncircumcision,\ncould yet teach men the duty to \"love thy neighbor as thyself.\" (James\nii. 8.)\n\nNo two writings can be more unlike than the two epistles ascribed\nto Peter. The second is filled with the boasting and controversial\nbitterness of the times of the Gnostics. In the primitive churches the\nauthenticity of this epistle was a subject of doubt. It was not, as\nstated, included in the Syriac version of the New Testament, which\ncannot be accounted for, except that it was not in existence when it\nwas compiled, at the beginning of the second century. But the internal\nevidence furnished by the epistle itself is sufficient to prove that it\nnever was written by Peter.\n\nThe following contains the spirit of Irenaeus when he speaks of his\nintimacy with Polycarp: \"And this voice which came from heaven _we\nheard, when we were with him_ in the holy mount.\" (2 Peter i. 18.) \"But\nthere were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be\nfalse teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,\neven denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift\ndestruction.\" (2 Peter ii. 1.) \"And through covetousness shall they with\nfeigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time\nlingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.\" (Chap. ii. 3.) \"But\nthese, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and _destroyed_, speak\nevil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish\nin their own corruption.... Spots they are and blemishes, sporting\nthemselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you.\" (Chap.\nii. 12, 13.) \"For it had been better for them not to have known the way\nof righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy\ncommandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according\nto the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and, The\nsow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.\" (Chap. ii. 21, 22.)\nThe letter is filled with all the venom and bitterness of the Gnostic\nquarrels.\n\nWe have already said enough to prove the two epistles of John spurious,\nand who it was that wrote them. \"That which was from the beginning,\nwhich we have heard\\ which we have seen with our eyes, which we have\nlooked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; for the\nlife was manifested, and we have seen it, and shew unto you that eternal\nlife which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.\" (1 John i.\n1, 2.) Iraeneus, in a letter to Florinus, says, in speaking of Polycarp:\n\"Well, therefore, could I describe the very place in which the blessed\nPolycarp sat and taught; his going out and coming in; the whole tenor of\nhis life; his personal appearance; the discourses which he made to the\npeople. How would he speak of the conversations which he had held with\nJohn and others who had seen the Lord. How did he make mention of their\nwords, and whatsoever he had heard from them respecting the Lord.\" All\nthis he can say without a blush; although Polycarp never saw John, and\nin all his letters, which are numerous, he never claims he did. He saw\nPaul, but not John. The manner in which John is made to speak of Christ\nis much the same as Irenaeus makes mention of Polycarp. Effect is meant\nto be given to what was stated in both cases, by dwelling on details.\n\nAfter having qualified himself as witness in this boastful spirit, he\nproceeds to deal out blows on the heads of his adversaries: \"He that\nsaith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the\ntruth is not in him.\" (i John ii. 4.) \"Who is a liar but he that denieth\nthat Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father\nand the Son.\" (Chap. ii. 22.) \"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus\nChrist is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that confesseth\nnot that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God.\" (Chap. iv.\n2, 3.) Such is the spirit throughout the two epistles ascribed to John.\nThe Apostle is forced on the stage to make war on the Gnostics, and\nmaintain the dogma of the incarnation in the language of a blackguard.\n\nThe epistle of Jude is nothing but a bolt hurled at the head of Paul,\nfrom the hand of one who assumed the name of an apostle.\n\nWhat is said of the first epistle of Peter may be said of that which\nis attributed to James. It was written by a Jew, for he says: \"Was not\nAbraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son\nupon the altar?\" (James ii. 21.) The text shows it was written during\nthe Pauline period of Christianity, and was the work of James, or some\none else, in reply to Paul, who claimed that faith without works were\nsufficient for salvation. It makes no allusion to the disputed dogmas\nof the second century, and like the first of Peter, breathes a spirit\nof Christianity which approached near the time of Christ. The frequent\nallusions to it by Hermas are in favor of an early date: it is included\nin the Syriac version, which leaves its antiquity without question.\n\nWe cannot fail to be struck with the fact, that Peter and James, both\nJews, who were the disciples and companions of Christ, are free from\ndoctrinal dogmas, and preach doctrines like those of their Great\nTeacher, full of charity, kindness, and love. It is only when we come\nto the writings and forgeries of the Greek that we encounter subtle and\nunintelligible dogmas, which involved men in endless disputes, excited\nthe most violent passions, and terminated in wars and disturbances of\nall kind.\n\nWhat is remarkable, too, neither of these Jewish writers makes any\nreference to the Gospels, nor to the miracles or prodigies spoken of\nin them; nor does either make mention of the miraculous conception and\nbirth of Christ. All these things sprang from the Greeks. To be sure,\nPaul preached the resurrection; but he believed because he saw Christ\nafter the crucifixion, in a vision, James is silent on the greatest\nevent since the creation, of which, if true, he was a witness. The hand\nof the spoiler failed to leave his mark on the pages of James the son\nof Alpheus. Addressed to the \"Twelve tribes which are scattered abroad,\"\nthe epistle which bears his name had obtained too wide a circulation,\nand was in the hands of too many, before the age of forgery commenced,\nto be an easy subject for mutilation. It was written in Judea, and\naddressed to the whole Jewish people. It was for them alone, and in\ntheir special custody, and if it comes down to us without a spot or\nstain, as it came from the pen of the writer, it is because it was too\nwell guarded and protected by its friends to admit of corruption. Why\ndid James withhold from the twelve tribes the great fact that Christ had\nrisen from the dead? He speaks of his cruel death; why not mention the\nstill more important fact, that he rose superior to the grave, and put\ndeath under his feet? \"Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he\ndoth not resist you.\" (James v. 6.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n     No Christians in Rome from A. D. 66 to A. D. 117.\n\nFrom the death of Paul in A. D. 66, as we have before stated, to the\nreign of Adrian in A. D. 117, Rome was without a Christian population.\nSuch is history when properly rendered. The course of Nero filled them\nwith horror, and at the time of his death Rome was deserted by them.\nAfter he ceased to reign there followed the civil wars, the most fearful\nin the annals of Rome. Galba, after all obstacles in his way to power\nhad been removed by the sword, entered the city through a scene of\nblood, and men expected nothing less than the renewal of all the\ncruelties of Nero's reign. (_Annals of Tacitus_, Appendix to book xvi.)\nThen commenced the civil war between Vespasian and Vitellius, which was\nthe cause of untold misery to the Roman people. The city of Rome was\nburned to the ground. \"From the foundation of the city to that hour,\nthe Roman people had felt no calamity so deplorable, no disgrace so\nhumiliating.\" (__Tacitus, book iii. sec. 22.)\n\nThe condition of the times is truly depicted in the concise and eloquent\nlanguage of the author of the \"Decline and Fall\": \"During fourscore years\n(excepting only the short and doubtful respite by Vespasian's reign)\nRome groaned beneath an unrelenting tyranny which exterminated the\nancient families of the Republic, and was fatal to almost every virtue\nand every talent that arose during that unhappy period.\" (Vol. I. page\n47)\n\nObscene rites alleged to be practised by Christians; their indifference\ntowards all who differed from them in their ideas on religion; their\nisolation from the rest of mankind, had excited the hatred of the Pagan\nworld; so that in large cities, where the population was lawless and\ndifficult to restrain, they were liable to be attacked and torn to\npieces without notice and without provocation. All the evils which\nbefell the empire were referred to the Christians, and were regarded as\nproof that the Roman people had, by tolerating them, incurred the\nanger of heaven. Their presence was considered a curse upon the earth.\nTertullian exclaims: \"If the Tiber rises against the walls of the city,\nor the Nile does not overflow its banks; if there is a drought, or\nearthquake, or famine, or pestilence, the cry at once is, Take the\nChristians to the Lion.\" (_Apology_, chap, xl.)\n\nIt was this state of feeling that made it dangerous, especially during\nthe civil war, for Christians to remain in Rome. Domitian, the son of\nVespasian, commenced his reign in A. D. 81, and was assassinated in\nA. D. 96. That we have no account of any Christians being put to death\nunder his reign is proof that they had not returned from the provinces.\nIt is the fashion with historians to allege great cruelty towards\nChristians during this reign. We have searched for the evidence, but\nhave failed to find it. Suetonius lived during his reign; had personal\nknowledge of many things he describes; gives the names of numerous\nvictims and their offences; mentions the cruelties inflicted on the\nJews; but does not even make use of the word Christian, or give the\nname of any one who suffered on account of his religion. The cruelty of\nDomitian spent itself on those who were guilty of political offences;\nbut the interested and partisan traditions of the second century delight\nto make him a monster who took pleasure in shedding Christian blood. He\ndid not fail to persecute Christians because he had no inclination to\ndo so--for he punished what he called impiety to the gods with\nseverity--but because there was none in Rome during his reign to\npersecute.*\n\n     * See Appendix D.\n\nTrajan succeeded to the empire in A. D. 98. During his reign, which\ncontinued to A. D. 117, what proof there is on the subject tends to\nshow that Christians had not yet returned to the capital. So little did\nTrajan know about them, that Pliny, in writing to him for advice as\nto how he should deal with them, is compelled to describe to him their\ndoctrines, practices and forms of worship. Had there been any in Rome at\nthe time, there would have been no necessity for this; and besides, had\nthere been any there, the mode of treatment of them by the emperor would\nafford a precedent for Pliny without calling for special instructions.\nBut we can affirm with confidence that no Christian dared live in Rome\nduring this reign, which continued for nineteen years, for the reason\nthat to be one during this time was a crime punishable by death.\n\nIn answer to Pliny's letter, in speaking of Christians, Trajan\nwrites: \"If they be brought before you, and are convicted, let them be\n_capitally_ punished, yet with this restriction, that if any one will\nrenounce Christianity and evince his sincerity by supplicating our gods,\nhowever suspected he may be in the past, he shall obtain pardon for the\nfuture on his repentance.\"\n\nIt is not at all astonishing that Pliny, in writing Trajan about his\nmode of treating Christians, had to tell him who they were, and describe\nthe way in which they conducted themselves. From A.D. 64, when Tacitus\nspeaks of them in connection with the great fire, and their sufferings\nat the time, no historian makes any mention of them, as dwellers in\nRome, to the end of the century. The obscure allusion to them by Juvenal\nand Martial, in a satirical vein, relates solely to their conduct under\ntorture, inflicted by Nero at the time Rome was burned.\n\nSuetonius, who was secretary to the Emperor Adrian, wrote the life and\ntimes of the Emperors from Augustus to Domitian; and if we except the\ndoubtful allusion to them in the reign of Claudius, he does not even\nmake use of the word Christian, or speak of anything in connection with\nthem. During the time of which we have been speaking, lived and wrote\nQuintilian, Juvenal, Statius, and Martial.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n     The office of Bishop foreign to churches established by\n     Paul, which were too poor and too few in number to support\n     the order.--Third chapter of the second Epistle to Timothy,\n     and the one to Titus, forgeries.--The writings of the\n     Fathers corrupted.\n\nElders or Seniors, in ancient Jewish polity, were persons who were\nselected on account of their age and experience to administer justice\namong the people,--who also held the first rank in the synagogue as\npresidents. The office of the Elder, with the Jews, commenced with\nMoses, and was continued until after the days of the Apostles. They were\nselected with reference to age and knowledge, without regard to anything\nelse. It is evident that the Apostles did not depart from the Jewish\nform of church government, but adopted and continued it du ring their\nlives. The epistle of James was written in A.D. 61. At that time the\nchurch was governed by Elders.\n\n\"Is any sick among you? let him call for the Elders of the church; and\nlet them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.\"\n(James v. 14.) In A.D. 64, Peter was an Elder, for that is the date of\nthe first epistle which bears his name. \"The _Elders_ which are among\nyou I exhort, who _am also an Elder_.\" (1 Peter vi. 1.)\n\nWe hear nothing of the office of Bishop until we enter the second age\nof Christianity, when the Therapeutae had taken possession of the church,\ngot the upper-hand of Paul and his followers, and introduced their\ngovernment of the Episcopacy. Did Paul institute a government for the\nchurches established by him, different from that of Peter and James?\n\nPaul had no place for the office of Bishop in the churches which he\nfounded and organized. In all cases except one he addresses his epistles\nto the church, and those that are sanctified in Christ. The letter to\nthe Romans is addressed, \"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God.\" The\nfirst to the Corinthians, \"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth;\"\nsecond Corinthians, \"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,\nwith all the saints which are in all Achaia;\" Galatians, \"And all the\nbrethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia;\" Ephesians,\n\"To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ\nJesus;\" Thessalonians, \"Unto the church of the Thessalonians, which\nis in God.\" Only in one instance does Paul make any other or different\naddress. His epistle to the Philippians is addressed, \"To all the saints\nin Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, _with the Bishops and Deacons_:\"\na simple spurious addition to the forms of address in all other cases.\n\nThe letter to the Philippians was written in A. D. 62 or A. D. 63, when\nPaul was in Rome. The epistle to the Thessalonians was written in A. D.\n52, while he was in Corinth. For ten years Paul had been writing letters\nto the different churches, and in his epistle to the Philippians he\nuses the word Bishop for the first time. In this epistle the name of the\nBishop is not given, which is significant. The contents of this letter\nshow that there was no Bishop at Philippi at the time it was written.\n\nWhen Paul was a prisoner in Rome the first time, the church at that\nplace sent Epaphroditus to visit him, with means to supply his wants.\n\nThankful for the remembrance in which he was held, he sent the letter\nspoken of, and as some return for their kindness, he promised to send to\nthem Timothy. \"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly\nunto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.\"\n(Phil. ii. 19.) \"Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I\nshall see how it will go with me,\" (Chap. ii. 23.) If there was a Bishop\nin the church at Philippi, why not mention his name? or why send Timothy\nto them at all to supply their spiritual wants?\n\nHow many members composed the church at Philippi to require the services\nof a Bishop and deacons? Paul had been there once, and perhaps the\nsecond time. He was called there for the first time by a vision; but he\nsoon got into trouble, and even into prison, and remained but a short\ntime. The author of the life of Paul (Renan) claims that he went into\nMacedonia the second time, and remained about six months, from June\nto November (page 261). The same writer says: \"A country was reputed\nevangelized when the name of Jesus was pronounced there and half a score\nof persons had been converted. A church frequently contained no more\nthan twelve or fifteen members. Probably all the converts of St. Paul in\nAsia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece did not exceed one thousand.\" Of this\nnumber, in a note to the twenty-second chapter, he assigns two\nhundred to the churches in Macedonia. As Paul had numerous churches in\nMacedonia, we are safe to assign to the church at Philippi the one-half\nof the whole number of his followers in that country. The first converts\nto Christianity were from the poorer class of people, and were not able\nto even support Paul, so that he had to maintain himself by manual labor\nas a tent-maker. The question may well be asked, what necessity was\nthere for a Bishop and deacons at Philippi, and how were they to be\nsupported? Lucian, in his dialogue entitled Philopatris, while he no\ndoubt exaggerates the poverty and mean appearance of Paul's followers,\nhe at the same time throws much light on their true condition. He speaks\nof them as \"a set of tatterdemalions, almost naked, with fierce looks.\"\n(Taylor's _Diegesis_, 376.) The truth is, all the churches which owe\ntheir origin to Paul were so small and so poor, that their government\nwas of the most simple and economical kind. The first epistle of Paul to\nTimothy is intended to settle the position and claims of a Bishop in\nthe church, and give the authority of Paul to the order. It is by such\nobvious forgeries as this, and others we will produce, that we are\nable to form any idea of the violence of the quarrels among the early\nChristians, as to the rights or standing of a Bishop in the church.\n\nWhat arouses suspicion, and at last convinces us, that the third chapter\nof the first epistle to Timothy is a forgery, is that there is too much\non the subject of Bishops from Paul all at once. If the episcopate\nform of government underlaid or was at the bottom of Paul's mode of\ngovernment, it surely would have come to the surface or made itself\nknown before it suddenly starts up in the first to Timothy; for he had\nbeen engaged in building up churches for at least fifteen years before\nthat.\n\nIt is characteristic of the forgeries of the second century, when they\nare inserted into genuine writings, to make their appearance in the\nform of boulders, very much condensed, but out of place. There is\nnothing diffusible about them, and we never suspect their presence\nuntil we stumble upon or over them. The way the subject of Bishops is\nintroduced, at once creates suspicion. \"This is a true saying. If a man\ndesire the office of a bishop, he desires a good thing.\" It is intended\nto convey the idea in the start, that the office had been long in\nexistence, and that the profits were such as to excite the cupidity of\nmen. The office of Bishop, in the time of Paul, even if such an office\nhad any existence, was not, as we have shown, a good thing, but the\nopposite; but in the second century, when the forgery was perpetrated,\nit was. Good critics have pronounced the whole of the first of Timothy\na forgery. The weight of the evidence is in favor of this belief. As to\nthe third chapter, there can be no question.\n\nThe effort to make it appear that Paul recognized the episcopate form\nof church government is repeated in the epistle to Titus. It is to be\nremarked that this effort is only made in the last epistles written by\nhim. The first of Timothy was written in A. D. 64; that to Titus in A.\nD. 65. All the epistles between A. D. 52 and A. D. 62, have nothing to\nsay on the subject of Bishops. Those written between these two periods,\nat Paul's death had obtained a wide circulation among all the churches\nof Asia and Europe, which made it impossible for those who were engaged\nin corrupting his writings to make changes that could be easily detected\nand exposed. As long as he lived it could not be done. But the reverse\nis true of those which were written just before his death. Besides, the\nTherapeutae element did not begin to work until A. D. 57, and had not\ngrown bold and strong enough to venture on the corruptions of Paul's\nwritings until some time after his death.\n\nThe inference that is meant to be drawn from parts of his epistle is\nthat Titus was a Bishop when Paul left him in Crete. Compared with\nother countries where Paul had churches, Crete was comparatively\ninsignificant, and if Paul's converts in Europe and Asia did not exceed\none thousand, and we have no reason to think they did, what portion of\nthis number can we assign to the church at Crete, if there was one there\nat all? Renan says, \"A church frequently contained no more than twelve\nor fifteen members.\" (_Life of Christ_, page 326.) Twelve or fifteen\nChristians and not more, if that many, composed the church at Crete. Did\nthat number require the presence of a Bishop and elders?\n\nThe real truth of the matter is easily discovered. Paul, in A. D. 64,\nmade a visit to all the churches in company with Titus and others, and\nstopped at Crete, which was the first time he was ever on the island, so\nfar as we have any proof on the subject. After making some few converts,\nhe left Titus to continue the work (_Titus_ i. 5), while he proceeded\nwest in the direction of Macedonia. The epistle to Titus was written\nfrom Nicopolis in the summer or fall of A. D. 64, and says: \"For this\ncause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things\nthat are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed\nthee.\" (Chap. i. 5.) That is, to organize churches and appoint the\nelders.\n\nHad this subject about church organization ceased at this point, there\nwould not be much to complain of, although the word \"_ordain_\" had no\nplace in the vocabulary of Paul. He ordained no one, after any form or\nceremony, nor did he pretend to impart to his followers any but his own\nspirit and power.\n\nIn the seventh verse he proceeds to address Titus as Bishop, and to give\nhim advice. Titus was no Bishop when Paul left him in Crete, nor did he\nhold any office, but was simply a fellow-laborer, like Luke, Mark, and\nTimothy. The men of the second century would have it understood that\nPaul was surrounded by a galaxy of Bishops. \"For a bishop must be\nblameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not\ngiven to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.\" (_Titus_ i. 7.)\nWas it necessary to give such advice to \"Titus, mine own son after the\ncommon faith?\" The forgery is a clumsy one because it is out of place,\nand evidently inserted for a purpose. Titus was directed by Paul to\nleave Crete and meet him in Nicopolis, where he meant to spend the\nwinter.\n\nAs has been stated, the only means we have of judging of the resistance\nmade to the claims of the Bishop is from the extravagance of these\ndemands, and the violence with which they are asserted. \"Wherefore it\nbecomes you to run together, according to the will of your Bishop, even\nas also ye do. For your renowned Presbyter, worthy of God, is fitted as\nexactly to the Bishop as the strings are to the harp.\" (_Ignatius to the\nEph._, sec. 4.) \"Let no man deceive himself: Except a man be _within the\naltar_ he is deprived of the bread of life.\" (Ib., sec. 5.) \"I exhort\nyou, that you study to do all things in a divine concord, your Bishop\npresiding in _the place of God_,\" (_Ignatius to Magnesians_, sec. 6.)\n\"It is therefore necessary that you do nothing without your Bishop, even\nas ye are wont. In like manner, let all reverence the Deacons _as Jesus\nChrist_, and the _Bishops as the Father_; without these _there is no\nchurch_. Wherefore guard yourselves against such persons: And that ye\nwill do, if ye are not puffed up, but continue inseparable from Jesus\nChrist our God; and from your Bishop and from the commands of the\nApostles. He that is within the altar is pure. But he that is without,\nis not pure. That is, he that doeth anything without the Bishop and\nthe Presbyters and Deacons is not pure in conscience.\" (_Ignatius to\nTrallians_, secs. 2, 3, 7.) \"But the Spirit spake, saying in this wise:\nDo nothing without the Bishop; But God forgives all that repent, if\nthey return to the _unity of God and to the council of the bishop_\"\n(_Ignatius to Phil_., sec. 8.) \"See that ye all follow your Bishop as\n_Jesus Christ the Father_.\" (_Ignatius to Smyrnaeus_, sec. 8.) \"It is\ngood to have due regard both _to God and to the Bishop_.\" (Ib., sec. 9.)\n\nThese passages prove, that there was a party in the church that was\nopposed to the order of Bishops, introduced by the Therapeutae, and that\nparty no doubt were the followers of Paul. To silence them, the Epistles\nof Paul and the writings of the fathers were filled with forgeries\nand alterations so extravagant and obvious that they have defeated the\nobject in view.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to ask the question, where it was the Therapeutae\nform of government, by Bishops, was first organized. Alexandria seems to\nhave been the common mother of all that is new in religion. It is here\nwhere have sprung up, in all ages, those subtle questions which have led\nthe minds of men from sense and reason to pursue mischievous phantoms.\nWe infer from the writings of Eusebius, and from other sources, that the\nTherapeutae Christians in Alexandria were numerous at an early date. The\nletter of Adrian from Alexandria, in A. D. 134, is the first notice we\nhave of a church with a Bishop at its head. It was this letter that\nled the author of the \"Decline and Fall,\" after a careful survey of the\nsubject, with a penetration that nothing escaped, and an industry which\nleft no ground unexplored, to conclude that the first regular Christian\nchurch government was instituted at Alexandria. If Christian churches\nare not indebted to the Therapeutae for their form of church government,\nfrom what source do they derive it? _Not_ From the Jews; not from Paul;\nnot from the Apostles.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n     Linus never Bishop of Rome.--Clement, third Bishop, and his\n     successors to the time of Anicetus, myths.--Chronology of\n     Eusebius exposed, also that of Irenaeus.\n\nAt what time was Linus, said to be the successor of Peter, made Bishop\nof Rome? The last trace we have of him, he was with Paul, in Rome, in\nthe fall of A. D. 65. After this we know nothing of him, except from\nvague and more than doubtful tradition. According to Irenaeus, it was\nwhen Peter and Paul were in Rome together, after they had laid the\nfoundation of the church at that place. Paul went to Rome for the first\ntime in A. D. 61, where he remained to the spring of A. D. 63. We have\nshown that during this time Peter was not there. Paul remained absent\nuntil the summer or fall of A. D. 65, and soon after his return was\ncommitted to prison. In A. D. 64, Peter was in Babylon, two thousand\nmiles away. As Irenaeus is the founder of the story, and the only\nauthority in subsequent ages, when it was that Linus was appointed over\nthe church of Rome as the successor of Peter, it devolves on those who\npretend to believe him to show when it was that Peter and Paul were\ntogether in Rome, laying the foundation of a church, or anything else.\nThis can never be done; and if not, it destroys the first link in the\nApostolic chain, and what is left is worthless.\n\nThe importance attached to Clement as the third Bishop of Rome will be a\nsufficient excuse for a critical examination, as to who he was, when\nhe lived, and the position he occupied. The authority that Clement was\nBishop of Rome is the same we have in any other case for links to keep\nup the Apostolic succession; for Irenaeus not only supplies an Apostle\nfrom whom to start, but also the intermediate links in the chain, to\nthe time of authentic history. In this he finds great assistance in his\nready invention of traditions, which we are required to believe without\nquestion, for fear of incurring the sin of unbelief, and subject\nourselves to being called slippery eels, trying to evade the truth. The\nx following is his language: \"The blessed Apostles, then, having founded\nand built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office\nof the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the epistles to\nTimothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place\nfrom the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he\nhad seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might\nbe said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing (in his\nears), and their traditions before his eyes.\" (_Irenaeus_, book iii.\nchap. 3, sec. 3.)\n\nIt may be affirmed with confidence, that we know nothing of the person\nwho is called Clement, and made third Bishop in the Church of Rome. If\nhe had held the office at the time it is claimed he did--the latter part\nof the first century--it would have been in the power of Irenaeus to\ngive us a full account of him: when he took the office, and when he\ndied; for if he had been a real character, there must have been persons\nliving, at the time Irenaeus flourished, who had seen and known him, so\nthat the historian had ample material to inform posterity of everything\nwhich related to the life of the third Bishop. But he gives no\ninformation--does not give a date--or the source from which he derives\nhis authority, but has left the world to grope in darkness ever since.\nWe have his word, and that is all.\n\nIt is impossible that a person should fill an office of importance in\nthe church in Rome, at the end of the first century, without leaving\nsome tangible evidence that he had once an existence; but Clement, like\na shadow, passes over the earth, without a single mark of any kind to\nprove he ever lived. There is a dispute, as to when and how he died.\nSome say he was banished into the Crimea by Trajan, and there suffered\nmartyrdom by drowning. Others that he died a peaceful death, A.D. 100.\nThere is nothing known about him, and for that reason, everything which\nconcerns him is variously stated. This could not be, had he been a real\ncharacter in history. It is only fictions of the brain that elude you,\nwhen you attempt to grasp them.\n\nWe are not told when he first filled the office which it is claimed he\ndid. Eusebius states, that he succeeded Anacletus in the twelfth year of\nDomitian's reign, A. D. 93. Cave, in his life of Clement, from the best\nlight he could get, adopted the conclusion of Dodwell, that he became\nbishop about A. D. 64 or A. D. 65. The reason of this confusion is\nreadily explained. The Clement referred to by Paul has been made to fill\nthe place of an imaginary Clement at the end of the century--a person\nwho only existed in the brain of Irenaeus; and in trying to fix time\nand dates, the real and imaginary Clement create confusion. Irenaeus has\npurposely left the subject in darkness, as he does the time when Peter\nwent to Rome, and John to Asia. Dates are always fatal to falsehood\nand misrepresentations. The real Clement is referred to by Paul in the\nfourth chapter and third verse of the epistle to the Philip-pians, which\nwas written from Rome in A. D. 63. This is the only notice that is taken\nof him, and he is made the third Bishop of Rome by Irenaeus, simply\nbecause his name is found among others in one of Paul's epistles, as it\nwas in the case of Linus, who was made first. Who was it that wrote the\nletter to the Corinthians ascribed to Clement? We cannot tell who wrote\nall, but we can who did write a part. The address of this letter by a\nperson who, it is claimed, was at the time a Bishop, to a church outside\nthe city, which, it was said, appealed to him for advice, is the\nfirst bold attempt, on the part of the See of Rome, to enforce an\nacknowledgment of the supremacy of the Papal authority. Can any reason\nbe given why the church at Corinth, during the first century, should\nappeal to Rome for advice on any subject? The church at Corinth was the\noldest, and after Paul's death knew of no higher authority than itself.\nThere are no signs of a church to which an appeal could be made to the\nend of the century, except those manufactured by the aid of tradition,\nwhich do not deserve to be mentioned when men mean to be serious.\n\nThis letter, like everything else suspicious, has no date. We can fix\nthe date with almost entire certainty to every letter written by Paul,\nand there is no reason why a date should not be given to the one to the\nCorinthians, except that there is something wrong about it, and a date\nwould expose the fraud. Archbishop Wake supposes it to have been written\nsoon after the termination of the persecution under Nero, between the\nyears A. D. 64 and A. D. 70, Lard-ner refers it to the year A. D.\n96. (_Chevallier H. E. Introduction_.) The writer of this epistle\nwas careful to leave no internal evidence by which its date could be\ndetermined, and what there is of that character is inserted apparently\nto mislead or afford grounds for dispute.\n\nWe have a right to demand the letter of the Corinthians to Clement, to\nwhich his is the answer; for it is more probable that a letter received\nat Rome of so much importance would be preserved, than one sent away\ninto a distant country. We not only have not the letter, but we cannot\nlearn what it was about. There can be no doubt of the early date of the\nletter, for it makes no allusion to the Gospels, and was written during\nthe lives of the first fathers of the church, such as Polycarp and\nIgnatius. It has but little of the odor of the second century about it.\n\nFrom all the light we can collect on this perplexing question, we would\nsay that the letter itself was written by some of the early fathers, and\nmade afterwards, with some alterations, to conform to the purposes for\nwhich it was wanted--that is, the entering wedge of Papal supremacy. It\nis evident that Irenaeus is attempting to make the Clement of Paul take\nthe place of a creature of his own creation, and thus impose upon the\nworld, as he did in the case of John and Mark.\n\nIn manipulating the letter he provided for Peter in Rome and Paul in the\nOccident. In naming the successors to Clement, Irenaeus says: \"To this\nClement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then,\nsixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him Telesphorus,\nwho was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after\nhim, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherus does now,\nin the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the\nepiscopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical\n_tradition_ from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come\ndown to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the\nsame vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the\nApostles until now, and handed down _in truth_.\"\n\nIncluding Linus and Anacletus, here are twelve _traditional_ bishops in\nsuccession. Why traditional?\n\nFor the reason that most of them, and all, except the three last, are\nnot real or historical characters.\n\nCommencing with Nero, about the time when the tradition commences, and\ncoming down to, and including Commodus, cotemporary with Eleutherus,\nthere are thirteen emperors, one more than the number of Bishops in\nthe same time, and history gives the time when each was born, when each\nbecame a ruler, when each ceased to reign, the manner of his death,\nand the qualities for which each was distinguished. It was an age of\nchronology, when dates of important events were as carefully preserved\nas in our own day; and yet Irenaeus has failed to give a single date\nin connection with his twelve traditional Bishops. We do not even know\nthere was such a tradition, except that he says so, and we are very\ncertain that there was no church in Rome to preserve it, if there was.\n\nThis vagueness and uncertainty--where certainty, if the statements were\ntrue, could be easily attained, but easily exposed, if false--must have\nbeen used with great effect, by the philosophers of the third century,\nagainst Christians, for it forced Eusebius to fix up dates for each of\nthese traditional bishops. He makes each appear in order, like so many\nshadows, and he reminds us, as he goes through the roll, of the showman\nin a panorama, who explains each figure as it takes its place on the\ncanvas. What Irenaeus dared not do in the second, Eusebius dared do in\nthe fourth century. On such subjects, his whole history proves, he had\nno scruples; and he admits, indirectly, that he has related whatever\nmight redound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the\ndisgrace of religion.\n\nIt will be noticed that he gives no authority for his dates, for the\nreason that he has none. Irenaeus could find none in the second century.\nIt is not probable Eusebius would be any better supplied in the fourth.\nIt is evident he went to work and divided the whole time in which it\nis claimed the twelve Bishops lived, between them, so as to make each\nappear at a given time, marked by the accession of the emperors who\nreigned during the traditional era. We will give his statements as he\nmakes them himself:--\n\n\"After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, he was succeeded by his\nson Titus; in the second year of whose reign, Linus, Bishop of the\nchurch at Rome, who had held the office about twelve years, transferred\nit to Anacletus.\" (Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 13.) \"In the twelfth year\nof the same reign, after Anacletus had been Bishop of Rome twelve years,\nhe was succeeded by Clement.\" (Ib., book iii. chap. 4.) \"In the third\nyear of the above-mentioned reign (Trajan's), Clement, Bishop of Rome,\ncommitted the episcopal charge to Euaristus, and departed this life,\nafter superintending of the divine word nine years.\" (Ib., book iii.\nchap. 34.) \"About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan, Euaristus had\ncompleted the eighth year as Bishop of Rome, and was succeeded in his\nepiscopal office by Alexander.\" (Ib., book iv. chap. 1.) \"In the third\nyear of the same reign (Adrian's), Alexander, Bishop of Rome, died,\nhaving completed the tenth year of his ministration. Xystus was his\nsuccessor.\" (Ib., book iv. chap. 4.) \"And Adrian being now in the\ntwelfth year of his reign, Xystus, who had now completed the tenth year\nof his episcopate, was succeeded by Telesphorus.\" (Id., book iv. chap.\n5.) \"The Emperor Adrian, having finished his mortal career after the\ntwenty-first year of his reign, is succeeded by Antoninus, called Pius,\nin the government of the Romans. In the first year of this reign, and in\nthe eleventh year of his episcopate, Telesphorus departed this life, and\nwas succeeded in charge of the Roman church by Hyginus.\" (Ib., book iv.\nchap. 10.) \"Hyginus dying after the fourth year of his office, Pius\nreceived the episcopate.\" (Ib., book iv. chap. 11.) \"Pius dying at Rome\nin the fifteenth year of his episcopate, the church was governed by\nAnicetus.\" (Ib., book iv. chap. 11.) \"It was in the eighth year of the\nabove-mentioned reign, to wit, that of Verus, that Anicetus, who held\nthe episcopate of Rome for eleven years, was succeeded by Soter.\" (3.,\nbook iv. chap. 19.) \"Soter, Bishop of Rome, died after having held the\nepiscopate eight years. He was succeeded by Eleutherus.\" (Ib., book v.\nIntroduction.) \"In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Eleutherus,\nwho had held the episcopate thirteen years, was succeeded by Victor.\"\n(Ib., book v. chap. 22.)\n\nWe give a list of the emperors, and the time of accession of each to the\ngovernment of the Empire, commencing with Vespasian, coming down to the\ntime of Commodus:\n\n[Illustration: Table of Emperors 278]\n\nThe following tabular statement shows the year in which each Bishop took\nthe office, according to the statement of Eusebius, and the number of\nyears which each held it:--\n\n[Illustration: Table of Traditional Roman Bishops 279a]\n\n[Illustration: Table of Traditional Roman Bishops 279a]\n\nFrom A.D. 69, when Linus became Bishop, to the tenth year of Commodus,\nwhen Victor succeeded Eleutherus, the true time is one hundred\nand twenty-one years. The time, taking the period assigned to each\ntraditional Bishop, is one hundred and twenty-three years. In making a\ndead calculation under the circumstances, while we would not expect to\nfind any gross mistakes, we would expect to discover enough to detect\nthe true character of the work, for truth can never be so skilfully\ncounterfeited, but that we can readily distinguish it from that which is\nfalse and spurious. The difference between the skilful counterfeit and\nthe genuine bill is often slight, so much so that none but experts can\ndetect it; but it is this difference which termines its character.\n\nIf the time occupied by the Bishops had fallen short two years, we might\naccount for it on the principle of an interregnum; but where the time is\nin excess, it is proof of a blunder or mistake, on the part of some one\nwho is engaged in a dishonest employment.\n\nClement became Bishop in A.D. 91, and filled the office for nine years.\nThis leaves his successor to take his place in A.D. 100, whereas he took\nit in A.D. 101, one year after the office was vacant. Euaristus took the\noffice in A.D. 101, held it eight years, to A.D. 109; his successor\ntook his place in A.D. no, leaving a gap of one year. Telesphorus became\nBishop in A.D. 129, and served eleven years, which would leave the\noffice vacant in A.D. 140; but his successor takes it in A.D. 138, two\nyears before the death of his predecessor. Anicetus took the office in\nA.D. 157, and served eleven years, to A.D. 168. His successor, Soter,\ntook the office in the eighth year of Verus, which would be A.D. 169.\nHere is a clear gap of one year.\n\nIt was intended that the time assigned to the Bishops should correspond\nwith the true historic period, and be 121 instead of 123 years. There\nare three years of vacancies, and a lap of two years in the case of\nTelesphorus and Hyginus. If we deduct this lap, it will stand one\nhundred and twenty-one, the true time.\n\nEusebius meant well and intended no offence to chronology, but\nblundered, and in fixing twelve dates only makes four mistakes. During\na time when accuracy of dates is more important than at any other, there\nseems to have been less care exercised than in the same space of time\nin any period of history; and indeed, since the foundation of Rome, over\nseven hundred years before Christ, to the end of the empire, there have\nnot been so many mistakes and contradictions as to dates which relate to\nsuccessive rulers, as during this period of one hundred and twenty-one\nyears. But such is the difference between true and genuine, and false\nand spurious history.\n\nOf the twelve traditional Bishops of Irenaeus, Telesphorus is selected\nfor the honors of martyrdom. No period in Roman history could have\nbeen selected more unlikely and improbable for the death of a Christian\nBishop at Rome on account of his religion, than the reign of Antoninus\nPius. Not one drop of Christian blood was spilt in Rome during his reign\nof twenty-three years. Not only was there no blood spilt in Rome, but\nhe forbade the persecution of Christians in the provinces by an express\nedict. A modern writer, speaking of him, says: \"Open to conviction,\nuncorrupted by the vain and chimerical philosophy of the times, he was\ndesirous of doing justice to all mankind. Asia _propria_ was still the\nscene of vital Christianity and cruel persecution. These Christians\napplied to Antoninus, and complained of the many injuries they sustained\nfrom the people of the country. Earthquakes, it seems, had lately\nhappened, and the pagans were much terrified, and ascribed them to the\nvengeance of Heaven against Christians.\" (Milner, C. H., vol. I., page\n100.)\n\nHere follows the edict of the pious Emperor, addressed to the enemies\nof the Christians: \"As to the earthquakes which have happened in past\ntimes, or lately, is it not proper to remind you of your own despondency\nwhen they happened, and to desire you to compare your spirit with\ntheirs, and observe how serenely they confide in God? You live in\npractical ignorance of the Supreme God himself--you harass and persecute\nto death those who worship him, Concerning these same men, some others\nof the provincials wrote to our divine Hadrian, to whom he returned\nanswer, that they should not be molested unless they appeared to attempt\nsomething against the Roman government. Many also have signified to me\nconcerning these men, to whom I have returned an answer agreeable to the\nmaxims of my fathers. _But if any person will still persist in accusing\nthe Christians merely as such, let the accused be acquitted, though he\nappear to be a Christian, and let the accusor be punished_.\" Set up at\nEphesus in the common assembly of Asia.\n\nIs it possible that Telesphorus was put to death in Rome under the mild\nand gentle reign of such a man?\n\nIf the persons who are named by Irenaeus as Bishops were real and not\nfictitious, how is it that there was not something done or said by some\nor all of them, so as to connect them with the events which transpired\nduring their lives? They lived, if they lived at all, during the most\neventful period of Roman history. It was during the period of the civil\nwar, when Rome was reduced to ashes--when the Jewish nation was almost\ndestroyed by the legions of Titus, Jerusalem rendered a desert place,\nand the victorious armies of Trajan added Armenia, Mesopotamia, and\nAssyria to the Empire. During a period of seventy years, filled with the\nmost exciting scenes and mighty events the world has ever known, we have\nat least nine Bishops in Rome, whose presence is no more felt in the\nhistory of the times, than so many men who were dead and quietly resting\nin their graves. They do not even cast their shadows on the earth.\n\nThe first person on the list of these traditional Bishops who steps\nforth into the light, so that we see something real and tangible, is\nAnicetus. Hegisippus says, \"After coming to Rome, I made my stay with\nAnicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus.\" Taking the foregoing data as\ncorrect, Anicetus held the office of Bishop about A. D. 157. If the\nstatement of Hegisippus is true, which we are inclined to believe, not\nbecause he says so, but because it is probable, he is the first person\nwho had ever seen and talked with any of the traditional Bishops of\nIrenaeus, and he is tenth in order of succession. But it is not until we\ncome to Eleutherus that we have a historic character, whose acts can be\ntraced and found in the history of the times. Here we part company with\nspectres and deal with real life; but as we leave an age populated by\nphantoms, we enter into another stained with forgeries and fraud.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n     The prophetic period.--The fourteenth verse of the seventh\n     chapter of Isaiah explained.\n\nThe claims of Christ to be the Logos or Son of God, in the Alexandrian\nsense, are made manifest by prophecy and miracles. The Jews, influenced\nby the prophets of their nation, believed that a deliverer would\nsome day appear, who would deliver them out of the hands of all their\nenemies, and establish a temporal kingdom on the earth. But up to the\ntime when Christ appeared, and even to the present day, no one had shown\nhimself who realized their idea of this divine mission. The Christians\nat the time of Christ believed that he was the one spoken of by the old\nprophets, and that a spiritual deliverer, one who was to deliver men\nfrom the power of Satan, had been mistaken for one who with temporal\npower would rescue the Jewish people from the hands of their foes.\n\nBarnabas, the companion of Paul, firmly believed this to be so, and took\npains to cite many texts from the Old Testament to prove it. He cites\nnumerous passages from Daniel, and all the prophets, and especially\nsearched the pages of Isaiah, where he claims to have found at least\nsixteen different references made to Christ as the coming Saviour. But\nin all his references to the prophecies he makes none to the celebrated\npassage in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, on which is founded the\ndoctrine of the divine conception of Christ from a Virgin. He makes no\nallusion to the fourteenth verse of the chapter at all, so that he was\nignorant of the very foundation on which the Christianity of the second\ncentury was reared. Nor does Polycarp or Ignatius, except where their\nwritings have been clearly defaced by the forgeries of men, who wished\nto establish the new ideas of the day by the authority of the fathers.\n\nBut when we come down to the second century, as far as the times of\nJustin Martyr, we find pages in the writings of the day filled with a\nnew class of citations from the Old Testament, all of which foreshadow\nthe appearance of Christ, his birth from a virgin, and point him out as\nthe one foretold by the prophets. In his Apology to the emperor, Justin\nMartyr quotes numerous passages from the Old and New Testaments to prove\nthe divine mission of Christ, and speaks of his miraculous conception\nfrom the Virgin. (_Apology_, sec. 43)\n\nWe now enter a new era, filled with new ideas, and passages of Scripture\nwhich before had been overlooked, but which all at once were discovered\nto contain a meaning which concerned the eternal interests of mankind.\nThe Synoptics are now spread out before the world, and Christianity,\narmed by the voice of the prophets of God, is prepared to make a\nnew start. One fact will appear clear as we approach the end of this\nsubject, that all the men who undertook to strengthen the cause of\nChristianity by the application of prophecy to the person of Christ\nwere ignorant of Jewish history, and either wofully misunderstood the\nlanguage of the prophets, or foolishly attempted to pervert it.\n\nThere are four prophecies cited in the Gospel of Matthew from the Old\nTestament, which it is claimed point out Christ as the one foretold by\nthe old Jewish prophets. 1st. \"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and\nshall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which\nbeing interpreted is, God with us.\" (Matt. i. 23.) It must be borne in\nmind, as has been before stated, that when the new idea of the Logos\nwas started, it was found necessary in some way to make Christ more than\nmortal. To be the Son of God in the Alexandrian sense he must have God\nfor his father, and this could be only brought about through a virgin\novershadowed by his divine presence. In the zeal of these men, who\nundertook to prove it, they selected a passage from Isaiah which had no\napplication to anything outside of the Jewish history of the day.\n\nRezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, united and made war on\nAhaz, king of Ju-dah, and marched upon Jerusalem. Ahaz became alarmed\nat the combination, and feared the capture of the holy city and the\ndestruction of his kingdom. The Lord took compassion on him and his\npeople, and sent Isaiah to him with an order to meet him at the end of\nthe conduit of the upper pool, where he would inform him what would be\nthe fate of Judah and her enemies.\n\n\"Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and\nShearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in\nthe highway of the fuller's field; and say unto him, Take heed, and be\nquiet; fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of these\nsmoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the\nson of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have\ntaken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and\nvex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the\nmidst of it, even the son of Tabeal. Thus saith the Lord God, It shall\nnot stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Syria is\nDamascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin: and within threescore and\nfive years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. And the\nhead of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son.\nIf ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. Moreover,\nthe Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy\nGod; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said,\nI will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now,\nO house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will\nye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign:\nbehold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name\nImmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the\nevil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse\nthe evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be\nforsaken of both her kings. The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy\npeople, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from\nthe day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.\"\n(_Isaiah_ vii. 3-17.)\n\nThe Lord told Ahaz not to fear or be fainthearted, and he undertook to\ntell him how long it would be before Rezin and Pekah would be defeated\nand driven away. In fixing the time, Isaiah indulges in a poetic\nlicense, and purposely rendered it obscure. The language used expresses\nthis meaning: If a virgin should conceive from that time, the day when\nthe Lord spoke to Ahaz, the child would be born before his enemies would\nbe subdued or driven away; but not a great while before, for when they\nwere driven away, the child would still be so young as not to know how\nto refuse the evil and choose the good. If the Lord did not tell Ahaz\nin some way when his enemies would be subdued, then the object of the\ninterview entirely failed; for that was just what Ahaz wanted to know,\nand which the Lord promised to disclose to him. Be not faint-hearted,\nneither be afraid, for in such a time your deliverance shall come. If\nthe Lord wished to inform him that he would be delivered from Rezin and\nPekah, after the Messiah spoken of in the Scriptures should come, which\nhappened seven hundred years later, he would know no more after, than\nhe did before he conversed with the Lord. The Lord did not tell him the\nprecise day, but furnished Ahaz the data by which he might make his own\ncalculations.\n\nA very simple answer is purposely obscured by connecting some things\nwith it which have a remote bearing on the subject, and others which\nhave no connection with it at all. \"Butter and honey shall he eat,\nthat he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good,\" is an obscure\nallusion to the age of the child: and his name shall be called Immanuel,\nis of no significance, for he might as well be called by any other name.\nWhen we first read the passage, we see nothing distinct: all is in a\nkind of penumbra; but after looking for a short time, as in a curiously\nshaded picture, an image, an idea, shows or appears on the ground-work,\nwell marked and defined.\n\nThe explanation we have given of the passage from Isaiah is justified\nand made apparent by the language used in the first, second, and third\nverses of the eighth chapter of this prophet. It seems the Lord wished\nto prove to Ahaz, by actual demonstration, that what he promised should\nbe fulfilled to the letter. The prophet says, he took with him two\nfaithful witnesses and went in to the prophetess (who was the virgin)\nand she conceived and bare a son. Then when the son was born, the Lord\nsaid to the prophet, that before the child could pronounce the name of\nfather or mother, \"the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall\nbe taken away before the king of Assyria.\" Tiglath Pileser, king of\nthe Assyrians, did come to the aid of Ahaz, and made war on the\nSyrians--laid their country waste--took Damascus, and slew Rezin. He\nafflicted the land of Israel, and carried the people away captives.\n(Josephus, _Antiq_., book ix. chap. 12, sec. 3.) All this too within the\ntime promised Ahaz, according to Isaiah.\n\nThe mystical language used by Isaiah in the fourteenth verse of the\nseventh chapter, which has been the cause of so much speculation and\nfalse interpretation, springs from the poetic element of the Hebrew\nmind. Had Isaiah lived in our day, his sublime genius would have\nproduced a Paradise Lost; but in his own country, and in his own times,\nhis imagination dwelt upon ideas and thoughts which had their root in\nthe hearts of the Jewish people. The Hebrew poets found subjects within\nthe history of their own nation best suited to arouse their genius, and\nmove the hearts of the people. The sorrows and afflictions brought on\nthe nation by her enemies, and her final deliverance by the hand of the\nLord, are favorite themes, and inspire her poets with thoughts full of\ntenderness, and with denunciations which are sublime and often terrific.\nThe harp of Zion in the hands of the daughters of Judah, as they weep\nby the waters of Babylon, gives forth no sounds but those of sorrow; but\nthe genius of her prophets, inspired by a consciousness that a time\nof deliverance will come, deals out thunderbolts on the heads of their\noppressors.\n\nWhat are called the prophecies of Isaiah are nothing more, many of them,\nthan so many epic poems, like the Iliad of Homer, to celebrate scenes\nand real occurrences in Jewish history. The war upon Ahaz, king of\nJudah, by Rezin and Pekah, kings of Israel and Syria, took place during\nthe life of Isaiah: and the poet undertakes to commemorate the history\nof the times, in the form of a Jewish epic. He speaks of the past, and\nnot of things to come. The Jews were taught to believe that their nation\nwas the favorite people of God, and from the time of Moses to the last\nof her prophets, her poets did not hesitate to introduce the Lord, and\ncause him to take part in a Jewish epic, any more than Homer hesitated\nto introduce Jupiter and all the heathen gods into the story of the\nIliad. The meeting of the Lord and Ahaz at the \"end of conduit of the\nupper field,\" and what afterwards takes place, is the poetic license of\nthe poet, as he undertakes to narrate a portion of the history of his\nown time.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n     Bethlehem the birthplace of Christ, as foretold by the\n     prophets.--Cyrus, the deliverer and ruler referred to by\n     Micah the prophet.--The Lamentations of Jeremiah spoken of\n     by Matthew (Chap. ii. 18), refers to the Jews, and not to\n     the massacre of the infants by Herod.\n\nWhen Herod inquired of the wise men where Christ should be born, they\nsaid unto him, \"In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the\nprophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least\namong the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that\nshall rule my people Israel.\" (_Matt_. ii. 5, 6.)\n\nThe passage is taken from the prophet Micah, who was a cotemporary with\nJeremiah, and prophesied under the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,\nkings of Judah. He lived during the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the great\nenemy of the Jewish nation, and witnessed a large share of the miseries\nhe inflicted upon that people. We would infer from the first verse of\nthe fifth chapter, that his book was written at a time when the armies\nof the king of Babylon were encamped around the walls of Jerusalem.\n\n\"Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: _he hath laid siege\nagainst us_; they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the\ncheek.\" Looking forward to the time when the Jewish people will be\ndelivered from the power of Nebuchadnezzar and the Assyrian nation,\nand of their conquest by some other power, the prophet, aroused by a\nprophetic spirit, announces that the time is coming when Israel shall\nagain be free: \"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little\namong the thousands of Judah, yet opt of thee shall he come forth unto\nme that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of\nold, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time\nthat she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his\nbrethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And he shall stand\nand feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the\nLord his God; and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the\nends of the earth.\" (_Micah_ v. 2, 3, 4.)\n\nIn the tenth verse of the fourth chapter, the captivity of the Jews, and\ntheir transportation to Babylon, is distinctly announced, and they are\ntold that while in the hands of the Assyrians, they shall be as a woman\nin travail; but that, like her, they should in time be delivered from\nsuffering. The third verse of the fifth chapter declares that God will\nnot interfere in the mean time, and that they must wait for deliverance,\nand submit to their sufferings, as unavoidable as in the case of the\nwoman; that at the appointed time a deliverer would come, who would save\nand bring back a remnant of the people, who shall grow powerful and \"be\ngreat to the ends of the earth.\"\n\nNow it is deliverance from Assyrian captivity that is referred to, and\nit is to violate the fitness of time, place, history, and the state of\nthe Jews to apply it to anything else. Amidst the awful fate impending\nover the Jewish people, they wanted something to encourage and sustain\nthem; and the prophet undertook to do so, by a promise, that in time\ntheir captivity should cease, and they be allowed to return to their own\ncountry.\n\nBut deliverance is to come from Bethlehem Ephratah--words which\nsufficiently indicate from what quarter the deliverer was to come; and\nto give a false direction the word Ephratah is omitted in the text in\nMatthew. Bethlehem in Judea is surely not intended, but the country\nwatered by the river Euphrates. A little poetic license to create\nobscurity--a peculiarity of the Jewish prophets--does not at all render\nthe meaning doubtful. Cyrus was king of all the country watered by the\nEuphrates; and the Assyrian empire ceased to exist when he restored\nthe Jews to their own country. Cyrus was a ruler in Israel. He took\nthe direction of their affairs, ordered the temple to be rebuilt, and\ndirected how the means were to be provided to pay the expense. (Letter\nof Cyrus to Sisinnes and Sathrabouzanes. Josephus, Antiq., book xi.\nchap. 1, sec. 3.) Cyrus is the ruler alluded to, and not Christ. The\ndeliverer was to be at the head of a very ancient people--the Medes and\nPersians--who \"have been from old--from everlasting.\" When did Christ\nrule over Israel? Never.\n\nThat Jesus lived at Nazareth until he grew to be a young man could not\nbe disputed, and no doubt the fact was stated in the Hebrew Gospel of\nMatthew. He might live there, but he must be born in Bethlehem, and some\nexcuse must be had to get Mary there at the precise time when his birth\ntook place. The device of the tax to take her there at the time is weak\nand puerile, and proves that those who got it up were neither wise nor\nlearned. Matthew barely alludes to Bethlehem as the place of Christ's\nbirth. \"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of\nHerod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.\"\nLuke is more specific. \"And it came to pass in those days that there\nwent out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be\ntaxed.\" (_Luke_ ii. 1.) \"And all went to be taxed, every one into his\nown city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of\nNazareth, into Judea, into the city of David, which is called Bethlehem\n(because he was of the house and lineage of David), to be taxed with\nMary his espoused wife, being great with child.\" (Luke ii. 3, 4, 5.)\n\nThe Jews were taxed at the place where their property, real or personal,\nwas at the time of taxing, and not where their ancestors happened to be\nborn. A law or decree of the kind mentioned would involve a movement of\nalmost the entire population of Judea, and for no reason, unless it was\nto give the people a chance to defraud the tax-gatherer by concealing\ntheir effects.\n\nThe Cyrenius mentioned was sent out by Caesar \"to be a judge of that\nnation (the Jews) and take an account of their substance.\" (Josephus,\n_Antiq_., book xviii. chap. 1, sec. I.) It would not be necessary\nfor Joseph to go to Bethlehem, seventy-five miles away, where he had\nnothing, to give an account of his substance, when all he had was in\nNazareth. Besides, Judea was at this time under the government of Rome,\nand if there ever had been a law among the Jews requiring each one of\nthem to go to his native city to be taxed, the Romans could not have\nany object in enforcing it. Admit that Joseph was required to go to\nBethlehem because David was born there several hundred years before, to\nbe taxed: why was it necessary for Mary to go with him? He was to give\nto the Roman officer \"an account of his substance:\" and did this require\nthe presence of Mary?\n\nThe writer of Luke fixes the time when this tax was to be levied. It\nwas when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. Now this Cyrenius, according to\nJosephus, was a Roman senator, who was sent to Judea \"to take an account\nof the substance of the people,\" as a basis of taxation. This was after\nArchelaus, the son of Herod, had been deposed, and ten years after\nthe death of Herod. Christ was ten years old when Cyrenius was made\nGovernor, so that the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was ten\nyears before the decree to tax was made. The following are the words of\nJosephus: \"Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through\nother magistracies and had passed through them till he had been Consul,\nand one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this\ntime into Syria, with a few others sent by Caesar, to be a judge of\nthat nation, _and to take an account of their substance_.\" (Josephus,\n_Antiq_., book xviii. chap. I, sec. I.)\n\nHad the writer of Matthew known anything of Jewish history, he never\nwould have made so gross a blunder, and saved the immense amount of\nlabor that it has taken to explain away the effects of his ignorance.\nOne explanation of this mistake is, that there were two assessments--one\nabout the time Jesus was born, and the other ten years after. The first\nhas been proven to be a forgery, and was never made. (Renan's _Life of\nChrist_, chap. I. See note.) \"In Ramah was there a voice of lamentation\nand weeping and great mourning. Rachel weeping for her children and\nwould not be comforted.\" This, it is claimed, referred to the cruelties\nof Herod, to escape from which Joseph and Christ were forced to fly into\nEgypt; so that his subsequent return to Nazareth would answer to the\nprophecy, which says, \"_Behold, from Egypt I have called my Son_.\"\nIn the first place, the story of Herod's cruelties in the case of the\ninfants is an invention, without the least claim to truth, and was a\nlame excuse, as we have just stated, to get Christ into Egypt. \"Then\nHerod, when he saw he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth,\nand sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in\nall the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the\ntime which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.\" A very short\ntime, not more than two or three days, elapsed after the birth of\nChrist, when Herod, not hearing from the wise men, gave the command for\nthe wholesale murder of the infants. It was certainly giving Herod more\ncredit for cruelty than was necessary, even on that occasion, for as\nChrist was only a few days old when the order was given, it was useless\nmurder to include all under two years: ninety-five per cent, of the\ninfants might as well have been spared as not.\n\nIt is a matter of surprise that Josephus, the Jewish historian, who\nsuffers nothing deserving notice to escape his pen, has made no mention\nof a fact which, if true, would have filled Bethlehem and the country\nround about it with mourning. He could afford to make mention of the\nquarrels in Herod's family; but not one word to say about the wholesale\nslaughter of the infants. The story is so absurd, so easily exposed, and\nof no possible use, that it is omitted in Mark, Luke, and John.\n\nBut if the story is true, what has it to do with the troubles of Rachel?\nThe passage from Jeremiah refers to a time in the history of the Jews\nwhen Jerusalem was taken and held by the Assyrians, and a great number\nof that people had taken refuge in Egypt. The Jews were undergoing\ngreat afflictions, and God, through Jeremiah, undertakes to console and\ncomfort them. The Lord, in plain language, says: I know that there is\ngreat suffering in Ramah--much lamentation and bitter weeping. Israel\nhas lost many of her children, and she suffers great sorrow and grief.\n\"Thus saith the Lord: Refrain thy voice from weeping, for thy work shall\nbe rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land\nof the enemy.\" (_Jeremiah_ xxxi. 15, 16.) What has this to do with the\ncruelty of Herod?\n\nWe have stated that the massacre of the infants was an invention to\nform an excuse to get Jesus into Egypt; for his return from that country\nwould serve to prove that he was the one referred to when the Lord is\nmade to say, \"Out of Egypt I have called my son.\" Here, we confess, we\nare at a loss to express our astonishment. In the eleventh chapter of\nHosea, the Lord complains of the ingratitude of the Jewish nation, and\nreminds them what he had done for them in times past. He expresses the\nlove he had for them when the nation was young, and required the power\nof his arm to protect them. \"_When Israel was a child, then I loved him,\nand called my son out of Egypt_\" (_Hosea_. 1.) It need not be said, that\nthis refers to the deliverance of the Jews from the hands of Pharaoh.\nIsrael is the son spoken of who had _already_ passed out of Egypt. \"And\nhe came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled\nwhich was spoken by the prophets, _He shall be called a Nazarene_.\"\n(_Matthew_ ii. 23.) There is no such prophecy to be found in the Old\nTestament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n     Christ and John the Baptist\n\n\"THE beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is\nwritten in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,\nwhich shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the\nwilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.\"\n(_Mark_ i. 1,2, 3.) As in Matthew, at the very outset, the second Gospel\nstarts out to show that Christ is the one foretold by the prophets, and\nthat a direct reference is made to him by Isaiah, as one who was to\nbe preceded by another who was to prepare the way for his advent.\nCotemporaneous history, and a critical examination of the words of the\nprophet, will dispel the delusion.\n\nHezekiah, king of Judea, was improvident enough to show to the son of\nthe king of Babylon, then on a visit to him, all his treasures, and\nriches of every description; and \"there was nothing in his house, nor in\nall his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed him not.\" When Isaiah was told by\nthe king himself what he had done, the prophet spoke and said: \"Hear the\nword of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in\nthine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this\nday, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.\nAnd of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget,\nshall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the\nking of Babylon. Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, Good is the word of the\nLord which thou hast spoken. He said moreover, For there shall be peace\nand truth in my days.\" (_Isaiah_ xxxix. S, 6, 7, 8.) The Babylonian\ncaptivity-is here referred to.\n\nIsaiah then proceeds to declare that after great suffering, in their\nservitude under the Assyrians, the Lord would deliver the Jewish people,\nand that they should again be a great and prosperous nation. \"Comfort\nye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to\nJerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her\niniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord's hand double\nfor all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,\nPrepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway\nfor our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill\nshall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough\nplaces plain.\" (_Isaiah_ xl. 1,2, 3, 4.)\n\nWith what tenderness the prophet speaks to his countrymen, to assure\nthem that their captivity will not last forever! Divested of poetical\nlanguage and figures, the Lord says: In your lost condition in slavery\n(\"wilderness\") you shall hear the voice of the Lord to comfort you. Be\nprepared, for he will provide the means (\"highway\") for your deliverance\nfrom captivity. The words wilderness, desert, and highway are symbolical\nterms, representing the lost condition of the Jews and the promise made\nby the Lord, that he would provide means for their deliverance from\ntheir enemies. What follows, holds forth to the Jews a glorious future.\n\"Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be\nmade low.\" That is, the down-trodden and oppressed children of Israel\nshall once more take the stand of an independent nation; and the proud\nand lofty Assyrian shall in his turn be humbled, and come under the yoke\nof the conqueror. The idea which underlies the language of the prophet\nis, that the Jews will be ultimately restored to their own country, and\nagain become a prosperous people; and as is characteristic of all these\nJewish prophecies, the expressions, \"and the crooked shall be made\nstraight, and the rough places plain,\" are mere expletives, to obscure\nthe sense, and increase the ambiguity. Like the oracles of Greece, a\nsimple idea is concealed beneath figures and metaphors, and the mind\ndistracted by the introduction of thoughts that have no meaning, and no\nconnection with the subject.\n\nJosephus, after giving a full account of this prophecy from Isaiah says,\nit was subsequently fulfilled in the captivity and restoration of the\nJews, and that when he wrote, the words of the prophet had passed into\nhistory. (_Antiq_., book x. chap. 2, sec. 2.) The Lord, by the prophet,\nis addressing the Jews of that day about matters which directly\nconcerned them, and what was said had no more to do with John the\nBaptist preaching on the Jordan, in the neighborhood of the Arabian\ndesert, than it had with the travels of Livingstone over the sands of\nAfrica. The John referred to in Mark is a historic character, and all we\nknow about him we learn through Josephus.\n\nIn his day he was a reformer. Shocked at the low condition of the\nJews, who had reached the lowest deep in crimes and vices of all kinds,\nthrough the corruption of the priesthood, and tyranny of their civil\nGovernors, he undertook to reform abuses, and elevate the moral standard\nof the nation. Standing on the banks of the Jordan, crowds from the\nsurrounding country came to hear him denounce the sins of the people,\nand be baptized. He preached repentance, and those who did repent he\npurified with the mystic waters of the Jordan.\n\nIn the time of John, the Jewish people had become restive, and chafed\nunder the government of Rome. The elements of rebellion were then at\nwork, which, a few years later, led to open revolt, and the total\nruin of the nation. While the Jews overran with discontent, the Roman\nGovernors were filled with suspicion. Herod took alarm at the course\nof John, and caused him to be seized and confined in the castle of\nMacherus, situated on the borders of the desert, where he was afterwards\nput to death. All that is known of him is found in the following extract\nfrom Josephus:\n\n\"Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came\nfrom God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against\nJohn, that was called the _Baptist_; for Herod slew him, who was a good\nman, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness\ntowards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism;\nfor that washing [with water] would be acceptable to him if they made\nuse of it, not in order to the putting away [or remission] of some sins\n[only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the\nsoul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when\n[many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved\n[or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great\ninfluence John had over the people might put it into his power and\ninclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything\nhe should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent\nany mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties,\nby sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too\nlate. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious\ntemper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to\ndeath. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was\nsent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure against\nhim.\" (Josephus, _Antiq_., book xviii. chap. 5, sec. 2.)\n\nIt was this passage, and the one from Isaiah, \"The voice of him\nthat crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord,\" that\nsuggested the story of Christ coming from Galilee to the Jordan to be\nbaptized by John, and the scenes that followed. As Josephus, in the\npassage just quoted, speaks of what John was doing on the Jordan, and\nwhat occurred there, it is strange he takes no notice of the wonderful\nthings which took place at the time Christ was baptized, as described in\nMatthew. But, as we have shown, the prophecy of Isaiah has nothing to do\nwith John the Baptist.\n\nThe story that the life of John was the price paid for a jig danced\nbefore Herod, is not only false and absurd, but in one sense impossible.\nHerod was a Roman officer, and received his appointment from Rome. As\nthe Governor of a province, he acted under, and was governed by law.\nTo take life without sufficient cause, from mere wantonness or caprice,\nsubjected him to punishment and removal from office. Herod might put\nJohn to death as a promoter of sedition, but not to gratify the spite\nof a woman who had been accused of incest. Pilate dared not deliver\nover Christ to be crucified, until after he was charged by the Jews with\nconspiring against the government of Caesar. His claim to be king of the\nJews, which was made a charge against him, was the warrant which Pilate\nhad to surrender him to a merciless mob, which would not be satisfied\nwith anything less than his blood. The author of Matthew, it is clear,\nwas ignorant of the topography of Judea, the history of the Jews, and\nknew nothing of the fundamental principles of the Roman law.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n     The miracle of the cloven tongues.--Misapplication of a\n     prophecy of Joel.\n\nIn the Acts of the Apostles, a passage from Joel the prophet is spoken\nof by Peter, as foretelling what is called the miracle of tongues: At\nthe end of forty days Christ appeared to his disciples at Jerusalem, and\nbeing assembled together with them, they were commanded not to depart\nfrom Jerusalem until certain things should take place. Now the writer\nof the Acts forgot what he said in his Gospel, if he wrote both, for he\nthere tells us that Christ ascended the day of his resurrection, or at\nmost, the day after. Taking what we can glean from the four Gospels, and\ntaking the probabilities of the case into the account, the disciples,\na very short time after the death of Jesus, returned to Galilee. The\npublic mind was greatly moved against Jesus, which was more or less\ndirected against his followers, and as none of them were remarkable\nfor courage, it is hardly probable that they would tarry in Jerusalem,\nespecially as there was nothing to keep them. But according to the\nwriter in Luke, at the end of the forty days they were still in the\ncity, and were commanded not to leave until certain things took place.\n\nHe next says, \"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were\nall with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from\nheaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where\nthey were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as\nof fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were filled with the\nHoly Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave\nthem utterance.\" (_Acts_ ii. 1, 2, 3, 4.)\n\nThis is something truly wonderful, and we are astonished that so strange\nand important an event has found no place in history--especially as\na report of it must have been circulated far and wide, for the writer\nsays, that \"there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews out of every nation\nunder heaven,\" who came to see for themselves. The writer includes other\npeople besides Jews from every nation, and says: \"Now when this was\nnoised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded;\"\nand among these were \"Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers\nin Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia\"--people from \"Phrygia,\nPamphylia, Cretans and Arabians\"--and all heard spoken the language of\ntheir native countries.\n\nJosephus lived not long after this time, and if he did not reside\nin Jerusalem, he must have been often in the Jewish capital, and if\nanything so wonderful as this had taken place, he certainly must have\nheard of it, and it was not possible for him to forget it when he came\nto write his history, especially as things of no comparative importance\nare fully noted by him.\n\nThese things are so wonderful, that it is necessary to explain them by\nthe direct action of the Deity, in fulfilment of prophecy. The writer\nhas Peter make a speech, and Peter tells the crowd that they need not\nbe surprised, for what had just happened had all been foretold, and was\nnothing more than the fulfilment of a prophecy of Joel, who said: \"And\nit shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour put my\nSpirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,\nand your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream\ndreams. And on my servants and on my handmaids I will pour out in those\ndays of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: and I will shew wonders in\nheaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and\nvapor of smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into\nblood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.\" (_Acts_ ii.\n17, 18, 19, 20.)\n\nAll this has nothing more to do with, or has no more reference to, the\nmiracle of the cloven tongues than it has to the assassination of Julius\nCaesar in the Roman Senate. The Jews, at the time referred to by Joel,\nwere suffering under great afflictions. There had been a most severe\ndrought, and the land had been devoured by the locust, the canker-worms\nand caterpillar. As all calamities which befell the Jewish people were\nreferred by them to the displeasure of God on account of their sins,\nJoel exhorts them to repent, and promises, if they do, the Lord will\ncome to the rescue. \"Then will the Lord be zealous for his land and\npity the people. He will send down rain, and the floors shall be full of\nwheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. And I will\nrestore to you the years that the locust had eaten, the cancer-worm and\ncaterpillar and palmer-worm, my great army which I sent among you. And\nyou shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the\nLord your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you. And ye shall know\nthat I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and\nnone else: and my people shall never be ashamed.\"\n\nNow follows what Peter was made to say was the prophecy which foretold\nthe miracle of the cloven tongues. \"And it shall come to pass afterwards\nthat I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; and your sons and your\ndaughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your\nyoung men shall see visions.\" Which means, I will pour out my blessings\n(\"Spirit\") on all flesh, including the servants and handmaids--they\nshall be universal, and not confined to any class. Then all the young\nand the old shall rejoice and be happy. Their happiness shall be of\nthe most exalted kind, unalloyed with care, like delightful dreams and\nvisions. As the prophet had said in the beginning of this chapter: \"Blow\nye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all\nthe inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for\nit is nigh at hand; a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds\nand of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great\npeople and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be\nany more after it, even to the years of many generations.\" (_Joel_ ii.\n1, 2.)\n\nReferring to this terrible calamity which was to come, that the fear of\nit _might not interrupt this general state of happiness_ which is spoken\nof, the Lord tells the people that he will give them timely notice, that\nthey may be prepared: \"And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the\nearth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned\ninto darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the\nterrible day of the Lord come.\"\n\n(_Joel_ ii. 30, 31.) There could not be a state of universal joy among\nthe people, such as is described, as long as the \"great and terrible day\nof the Lord\" might overtake them any moment. There could be no happiness\nwhere there was constant fear. The Lord promised that a timely warning\nshould be given. Now what has this beautiful and sublime poem to do with\nthe miracle of the cloven tongues?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\n     Miracles.\n\nIt is in vain to deny the truth of a miracle on the ground that it is\nimpossible, and contravenes the well-established laws of the universe.\nThe power to create, implies the power to suspend; and as the\nperformance of a miracle is the exercise of creative energy, it is\njust as easy to exercise it in one case as another. All efforts to\ndemonstrate the impossibility of miracles have failed even in the hands\nof such men as Hume, because men reason on such subjects in a circle.\nStill it would be strange if there was no way to expose a false miracle,\nespecially where the results claimed from it are calculated to lead men\ninto error. When some unusual and extraordinary event which amounts to\na miracle is said to have occurred one hundred years ago, at a time when\nintelligent and inquisitive minds were around, and no notice is taken of\nit by them in giving an account of their own times, nor by any one else,\nit is safe to conclude that it never did take place, and that those who\nassert it for the first time at the end of the hundred years are engaged\nin an attempt to impose some fraud on their fellow-men.\n\nFrom the death of Christ, A.D. 33, to some time near A.D. 140, we claim\nthat no writer of profane or church history makes mention or speaks of\nthe miracles described in the first three Gospels, and not those of the\nfourth until long afterwards. It is by negative testimony alone that we\ncan arrive at the truth. In the first place, did the great Apostle of\nthe Gentiles perform the miracles that are ascribed to him in the Acts?\nIt is stated that at Lystra he cured a man who had been crippled from\nhis birth by his simple word; he exorcised the evil spirit that was in\nLydia; he raised Eutychus, who had fallen from a window; cast from\nhis hand, unhurt, the deadly viper; and such miraculous powers did he\npossess, \"that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or\naprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went\nout of them.\" (_Acts_ xix. 12.)\n\nPaul, in his epistles, does not mention or refer to any of these\nwonderful things, and does any man suppose, if true, he would fail to\nmake some allusion to them? He neither mentions the miracles ascribed\nto himself, nor those described in the four Gospels. Perhaps he did not\ndisbelieve in the possibility of miracles, for such belief was common\nto the age; but to believe them possible, and believe that one has been\nperformed, is another thing. \"Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought\namong you in all patience, in signs and wonders, and mighty deeds.\"\n(2 _Cor_. xii. 12.) The signs and wonders here spoken of were made\nto appear to the Corinthians alone, and have no reference to miracles\ndescribed in the New Testament, nor do we know what they were, for no\nnotice of them is taken in the Acts. In the 18th chapter and 9th verse,\nhe says that he had a vision which told him not to be afraid to speak,\nand not hold his peace. The \"mighty deeds\" refers to his works as\nan Apostle, and the \"signs and wonders\" rather to the fruits of his\npreaching than to any display of miraculous power.\n\nHad Paul possessed the power attributed to him in the Acts, it would\nhave been easier for him to have converted the world than to make the\nfew converts he made after the labor of a life. There were those living\nwho in the course of nature might have seen Lazarus, or heard of his\nresurrection, and had it been in the power of Paul to have cited his\ncase, or any of the miraculous cures claimed for Christ or any of his\ndisciples, the conversion of mankind would have been as rapid as the\nmovements of the earth. Every pagan temple and altar would have been\ndeserted, and their priests have fallen prostrate at the feet of Paul.\nA few pretended miracles and revelations on the part of Mahomet\nestablished his claim to be the prophet of God, and were the means,\nbacked by the scimitar, of fixing the faith of millions. Paul is\nsilent on the subject of the miracles. Barnabas was a companion and\nfellow-preacher with Paul.\n\nNo document extant to-day which relates to the Apostolic age is entitled\nto more, if as much confidence and credit, as the epistle which bears\nhis name. For some reason, it bears less evidence on its face of\nfraudulent manipulation than any other writing of that time, and it is\nthis evidence of its purity which excludes it from the list of canonical\nGospels this day. It has been referred to by a long list of fathers,\ncommencing with Origen, and coming down to writers of our day, as the\ngenuine production of the companion of the great Apostle. No one, not\neven the Apostles themselves, had more faith in Christ than he, and it\nseems to be the burden of his epistle to prove that he was the Saviour\nwho had been foretold by the prophets, and whom the Jews were anxiously\nexpecting. Had Christ, in his ministry among men, done or performed any\nact out of the course of nature which proved him superior to other\nmen in his power over the laws of nature--anything like command over\ndiseases, sickness, to say nothing of death--Barnabas would not have\nfailed to dwell upon everything of the kind with energy and zeal,\nbecause such powers would establish what he aimed to prove: that is,\nthat Christ was the one spoken of by the prophets. But, while he makes\nthe most labored application of the prophecies to Christ, he makes no\nallusion to any wonderful work he performed while he was on the earth.\nHe has not one word to say on the subject of the miracles ascribed to\nChrist in the Gospels.\n\nMuch may be inferred from the silence of Apollos on the subject of\nmiracles. The intercourse between the Jews at Alexandria and Judea was\nconstant. Nothing of importance could occur in Jerusalem without its\nbeing known in a short time on the banks of the Nile. The history of\nJohn the Baptist, the works he did at the Jordan, and the manner of his\ndeath, were all known to Apollos from some source, before Josephus wrote\nhis history of the Jews; but it seems he had never heard of Christ or\nany of his wonderful works. (_Acts_ xviii.) After his conversion he\ntaught that Christ was the one expected by the Jews, and he undertook to\nprove it by the prophecies in the Old Testament. It would have been far\neasier to establish this by the mention of the one-half the miracles\nascribed to Christ in the Gospels than by arguments drawn from prophecy,\nwhich were vague, obscure, and doubtful. But he had never heard of the\nresurrection of Lazarus, nor of the miracles of the loaves and fishes,\nnor of the wonderful things that happened to the swine in the country of\nthe Gadarenes.\n\nThere are now extant, writings which learned men refer to the Apostolic\nage, which have no value except as they may throw some light on the age\nin which they were written. We may mention the epistle of Paul to the\nLaodiceans; the epistles of Paul to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul, and\nthe Acts Paul and Thecla. In none of these writings is any mention made\nof the miracles of Paul, or those of the New Testament, and the silence\nof such works is only of consequence as it shows the universal ignorance\nof antiquity, or the Apostolic age, on the subject; for it is not to be\nsupposed that those things which were standing themes for discourses and\nbooks in the second century, would be unnoticed in the first, if they\ndid exist, as well at one time as the other. How can we account for\nthe silence of the fathers of the church on this subject? Ignatius and\nPolycarp were so near to the time of Paul and the disciples, and even\nChrist, that nothing which concerned any one of them was unknown, and if\nthe miracles ascribed to them had been real occurrences, nothing could\nbe more effective in the hands of these fathers for the spread of the\nreligion of Christianity.\n\nBut there is not only no mention by any one of them of the miracles,\nbut the Gospels have not yet appeared. Up to the beginning of the first\ncentury, there is no mention or reference made in any writing, either to\nthe Gospels, or the miracles they describe. Allusions are made in some\ncases to the Scriptures, in the most general terms; and as the Old\nTestament writings were called Scriptures, and there was the Hebrew\nGospel of Matthew, and the epistles of Barnabas, James, Peter, and Paul,\nto which the term Scripture might apply, the reference is of no value\nin fixing the date of the Gospels. The first distinct and unequivocal\nnotice of the first three Gospels is found in Justin Martyrs _Apology_;\nand he, who speaks of them for the first time, dilates on their\ncontents, and refers to Matthew, Mark, and Luke each by name: to Matthew\nnineteen, to Mark four, and to Luke fourteen times. From this time to\nthe present hour, every book abounds in references to these Gospels.\n\nAs yet the Gospel of John had not appeared. What is remarkable in the\nGospels, referred to by Justin, who makes a most elaborate disquisition\non the prophecies, citing many passages to prove that Christ was a\ndivine person, whose advent had been predicted, he does not make mention\nof any of his miracles, or of those of any of his disciples. He speaks\nof Christ's birth from the Virgin Mary, his miraculous conception, and\nall the leading acts of his life, as described in Matthew and others,\nbut seems to have had no knowledge of the miraculous works he performed.\n\nThe silence of Justin on the subject of miracles, and his extended\nnotice of the prophecies, can only be explained by the fact that there\nwas nothing said about them in the Gospels, and that they were inserted\nat a later day. As the quarrels among Christians in the second century\nintensified, and as the authority of the church grew to be paramount as\nwe approach the dark ages, no doubt the Gospels underwent a revision,\nand the miracles were added as a means to excite the awe and command\nthe belief of the Pagan world. The spirit for the creation of miracles\ncommenced in the church before the end of the second century--was\nencouraged by it, and has been continued down to our own times, and\nformed the most effective weapon for the conversion of the hordes of the\nNorth, and for the final overthrow of the followers of Arius. Each age\nhad its own miracles, in each of which was apportioned the amount\nof divine energy required to subdue the obstinacy and unbelief to be\novercome.\n\nThe silence of what are called profane writers on the subject of the\nmiracles is equally unaccountable--if they are to be regarded as real\noccurrences in history--and none as much so as that of the Jewish\nhistorian, Josephus. Of sacerdotal extraction, and of royal descent,\nFlavius Josephus was born A.D. 37. He was alive in A.D. 96, but the\ntime and manner of his death is unknown. His works comprise a complete\nhistory of the Jews, and omit nothing that was worthy of notice. He was\na youth of great ability and promise, and says of himself, \"When I was\na child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the\nlove I had for learning, on which account the high priest and principal\nmen of the city came frequently to me together, in order to know my\nopinion about the accurate understanding of points of law.\" (_Life of\nJosephus_, sec. I.)\n\nHere we have a historian of the right kind, living so near the time that\nhe must have seen and conversed with those who had seen and known Christ\nand his disciples. How are we to regard his silence? Had Christ been the\ncharacter which many suppose he was, a teacher endowed beyond all other\nmen, with a divine genius to declare the doctrines which are to govern\nman in his relations towards the Creator and towards each other, we can\nwell understand why, in A.D. 93, when Josephus wrote the history of the\nJews, he failed to notice him. His ministry extended through a period of\nonly one year, at a time when the Jewish people were chafing under the\nyoke of the Romans, and were preparing for a final struggle with the\nconquerors. At such a time, the presence of such a person as Christ,\nwho taught men to forgive their enemies, to love their neighbors as\nthemselves, and to cultivate feelings which dispose mankind to peace\nand charity, would most likely pass unnoticed. If Christ was more than\na great teacher--if he were the second person in the Godhead, who\ncondescended to visit the earth to instruct mankind, and while here\nperformed the wonderful works spoken of in the Gospels, then there is no\nway in which we can account for the silence of the Jewish historian. We\nare forced to admit that the Son of God, who took up his abode among\nmen to convince and instruct them, failed to make his presence known and\nfelt so as to attract the notice of him who undertook to give a minute\naccount of what happened at the time, and in the country where he\npreached and taught.\n\nThe attempt in the fourth century to force into history, between the\nregular course of events, a passage intended to break the force of total\nunconsciousness on the part of Josephus that there was such a person\nas Christ, to the eye of the critic is infinitely more damaging than\ncomplete silence. A quarrel, which led to a sedition, sprang up in\nJerusalem, about the use made by Pilate of sacred money, to bring\nwater into the city. \"_About the same time, also, another_ sad calamity\nhappened, which put the Jews into disorder.\" A Roman woman called\nPaulina, through the connivance of some of the gods of Isis, was seduced\nby a person of the name of Mundus. (_Antiq_., book xviii. chap. 3.)\nBetween these two events, is wedged, or forced in, a paragraph which\ncontains all the great historian has to say of Christ, and the events of\nhis life. Twenty-nine lines are taken to tell about the troubles\ngrowing out of the misapplication of the sacred money; one hundred and\nthirty-one about Paulina and her misfortunes, and _sixteen_ are all that\nthe historian requires to inform us of all he knows about Christ. Much\nbetter had he said nothing.\n\nIf Josephus makes no mention of Christ and his miracles, where must we\nlook? It is in vain to search among the writers of Greece and Rome. Out\nof the nine reasons given by Dr. Lardner for believing the passage from\nJosephus in relation to Christ spurious, the first is sufficient: it was\nnever quoted, or referred to, by any writer previous to _Eusebius_, who\nwrote in the fourth century.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n     Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.\n\nTHIS epistle has been the source of more controversy than any other book\nof the New Testament. It has been the cause of much useless labor\nand unprofitable research. In the first place, was Paul the author?\nTertullian ascribes it to Barnabas; Grotius to St. Luke, and Luther the\nreformer thought it was written by Apollos, mentioned in the Acts; but\nthe testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity is all in favor of Paul as the\nauthor. Allusions are made to it in the epistles of Ignatius about A. D.\n107. It is also referred to by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna in the year A.\nD. 108.\n\nInternal evidence, supplied by the epistle itself, is conclusive that\nPaul was the writer. No one better than he understood the veneration in\nwhich the Levitical law was held by the Jewish people, and the tenacity\nwith which they adhered to it. As he believed that this law had passed\naway, and that the Lord had made a new covenant with the Jewish nation,\nit was natural for him to labor to open the eyes of his countrymen,\nand bring them under the light of the new dispensation. It was for this\nreason, when he entered into a place for the first time, that he always\nbegan to teach in the synagogue. If Paul wrote to the Hebrews at all, it\nwould be just such an epistle as the one ascribed to him, except\ncertain portions, which were clearly written after the Pauline period of\nChristianity had passed away.\n\nAgain, it has been a question as to the language in which this epistle\nwas first written. At the time of Paul, the original Hebrew was\nunderstood by few, and had ceased to be the language of the Jews. The\noriginal Hebrew was broken in upon by several dialects--such as the\nEast Aramaean, or Chaldee, and the West Aramaean, or Syriac. The universal\nlanguage of the day was Greek, and no doubt Paul adopted it in writing\nto the Hebrews, who were dispersed over Europe, Asia, and parts of\nAfrica.\n\nAs the initiatory formula usual in the epistles of Paul is wanting in\nthis, it has been questioned whether it was really an epistle, or only a\ndiscourse intended for the general reader. The want of the usual formula\ncan be easily accounted for, when the mind becomes convinced that the\nfirst chapter is not the production of Paul. That it was written as it\nnow stands by the forgers of the second century admits of no doubt. The\ndesign of the writer is exposed in the very first and second verses of\nthe first chapter. \"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake\nin time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days\nspoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,\n_by whom also he made the worlds_.\"\n\nHere Christ is made the Creator by whom the worlds were made. Again:\n\"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the _express image of his\nperson, and upholding all things by the word of his power_, when he had\nby himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty\non high; being made so much _better than the angels_, as he hath by\n_inheritance_ obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which\nof the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I\nbegotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be\nto me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the\nworld, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.\" (_Heb_. i.\n3-6.)\n\nHere we find condensed into a few verses, and declared in the most\npointed language, the _Godship_ of Christ, first proclaimed by the\nmen of the second century, and which is in direct conflict with the\nremainder of the Epistle, and with what Paul taught during his whole\nlife.\n\nCommencing at the ninth verse of the second chapter, Paul says: \"But\nwe see Jesus, who was made a little _lower_ than the angels for the\nsuffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace\nof God should taste death for every man.\" \"For verily he took not on him\nthe nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.\" (Chap.\nii. 16.) \"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,\nconsider the Apostle and _High Priest_ of our profession, Christ Jesus;\nwho was faithful to him who appointed him, as also Moses was faithful\nin all his house. For _this man_ was accounted worthy of more glory than\nMoses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than\nthe house. For every house is builded by some man; _but he that built\nall things is God_.\" (Chap. iii. 1-5.)\n\nOn the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth verses of the second chapter,\nPaul declares that to angels \"is given the government of the world to\ncome;\" and to man, who was made but _little lower than the angels_, was\nconsigned the government of the earth. All men, according to Paul, like\nJesus, were born but little lower than the angels--and Christ by him is\nput on a level with all humanity. It is evident that the first chapter,\nas written by Paul, has been suppressed, and the one which has descended\nto us is made to take its place. It is not possible that Paul wrote the\nfirst and second chapters as they now stand. In the one case Christ is\nmade _more_ than the angels; and in the other case he is made _less_. In\nthe one case he is the Creator of the world, \"_upholding all things by\nthe word of his power_;\" in the other he is a High Priest of the order\nof Melchisedec, and one of the descendants of Abraham. In the first\nchapter he formed the world, and in the third chapter it is said,\n\"He who built all things is God.\" The doctrines here declared are\nunreconcilable, but it is not difficult to distinguish between those of\nPaul and those of the men of the second century.\n\nPaul speaks of three orders of the priesthood: that of Melchisedec, that\nunder the Levitical law, and that under the new covenant, with Christ\nat the head. What was the character of the priesthood of the order\nof Melchisedec, Paul does not say--nor do we know where to look for\ninformation on the subject. He was \"without father, without mother,\nwithout descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but\nmade like _unto the Son of God_: abideth a priest continually.\" (Chap.\nvii. 3.) When we are informed in the same chapter that Christ is a\npriest after the order of Melchisedec, \"who is made, not after the _law\nof a carnal commandment_, but after the power of an endless life\" (ver.\n16), we detect the insidious and subtle poison of the Johannian school.\n\nHere we have a Logos, who was in the beginning, and who would continue\nthrough all time, which could never be true of any of the descendants\nof Abraham. The priesthood under the Levitical law, Paul claimed, had\npassed away, and was succeeded by a much better one with Christ as\nits head. The last was superior to the old because it would \"continue\nforever, an unchangeable priesthood.\" (Chap. vii. 24.) In this new and\nbetter dispensation, Christ is as superior to Moses and Aaron, as the\nnew covenant is superior to the old. Christ is called a High Priest, \"a\nminister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord\npitched, and not man.\" (Chap. viii. 2.)\n\nIf Christ was the Son of God, born of a virgin, when Paul was\ninstructing his countrymen in the mysteries of the new covenant, and\nwas pointing out to them the relation which Christ bore to the same, as\ncompared with Moses under the old, how happened it that he fails to make\nmention of this important fact altogether? How can we account for the\nsilence of Paul at such a time on a subject of such vital importance?\nHe was a man of learning, and well versed in all that was written by the\nHebrew prophets; and if the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter of\nIsaiah had any application to Christ, or any other prophecy in the Old\nTestament, why did he not point them out to his countrymen, and in this\nway prove that Christ was not only superior to Moses, but to the angels?\nWhy call him a High Priest, and admit his Jewish descent, from the\nfather of the Hebrew nation? Who so well as Paul could define the\n_status_ of Christ under the new covenant? His numerous visits to\nJerusalem, not long after Christ's death, his intimacy with all the\ndisciples, gave him every and ample means for information; and the deep\ninterest he took in every particular which related to Christ stimulated\ninquiry; and whatever he found that was important to be known as a part\nof the new faith, he would not fail to proclaim in tones of thunder,\nfrom the Euphrates to the Tiber.\n\nWe can well imagine his astonishment when the doctrines of the Greek\nschool first began to make headway in his little churches. We can form\nsome idea of his feelings by reading the eleventh and twelfth chapters\nin the second epistle to the Corinthians: \"Would to God ye could bear\nwith me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous\nover you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband,\nthat I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest\nby any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your\nminds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if\nhe that cometh preacheth _another Jesus whom we have not preached_, or\nif ye received another spirit, which ye have not received, or another\ngospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.\" (2\nCor. xi. 1-4.) Rendered into plain language, he says: Would to God you\nwould pardon my zeal and anxiety on your account. Having instructed you\nin the religion of Christ, I am jealous and over-anxious that you should\nstand as examples of pure Christianity, and not surrender your pure and\nvirgin faith in Christ, carried away by the subtle doctrines of cunning\nmen. If any one speaks of Christ, and claims that he is anything\ndifferent from what I have taught you--or if any one has preached to you\na different religion or a different gospel, from that which you learned\nof me, you show your forbearance if you do not visit your anger upon\nthem, who thus labor to mislead and deceive you.\n\nThroughout these two chapters Paul shows deep sorrow on account of\nthe progress of the new faith, and with his expressions of regret, he\nmingles words of reproof. The troubles growing out of it followed him\nthrough life. They harassed him in his prison. He lived to see all Asia\nturned away from him. With an aching heart he makes one last request\nof Timothy: \"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many\nwitnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to\nteach others also.\" (2 _Tim_. ii. 2.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\n     The controversy between Ptolemaeus and Irenaeus as to the\n     length of Christ's ministry.--Christ was in Jerusalem but\n     once after he began to preach, according to the first three\n     Gospels, but three times according to John.--If the\n     statements made in the first three are true, everything\n     stated in the fourth could only happen after the death of\n     Christ.\n\nIt will be remembered that Ptolemaeus asserted that the time of Christ's\nministry did not exceed the period of one year. This drove Irenaeus to\nclaim that it continued for the space of ten years, on the authority\nof a tradition derived from John. The precise time when, and what,\nPtolemaeus wrote, we have no means in our day of finding out; for his\nwritings, like all those of the Gnostics, doubtless perished under\nthe destructive edict of the Emperor Constantine. We are at liberty to\nconclude that he wrote before the fourth Gospel appeared, as he limits\nthe time to one year, which agrees in that respect with the Synoptics.\nHad he had any knowledge of the fourth Gospel, he might, by adopting the\nmode of reasoning on this subject used by the orthodox, have made the\ntime three years instead of one. It will be noted that Irenaeus, in his\ncontroversy with Ptolemaeus, makes no mention of the fourth Gospel, but\nfalls back on a tradition. In a dispute with a sharp-witted adversary,\nhe found it safer to rely on a tradition, as evasive as the mirage of\nthe desert, than the authority of the fourth book of John. The reason\nfor this preference will be readily seen when the subject is understood.\nAccording to Matthew, after the temptation in the wilderness, Christ\nreturned to Nazareth, in Galilee. He left Nazareth and came and dwelt\nin Capernaum, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim, as spoken by\nEsaias: \"The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of\nthe sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people which sat in\ndarkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow\nof death light is sprung up. _From that time Jesus began to preach, and\nto say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand_.\" (Chapter iv. 15,\n16, 17.)\n\nHere the place where Christ commenced to preach is clearly defined; and\nas the spot had been pointed out by Isaiah seven hundred years before,\nthere could be no mistake, unless the inspiration of the great Hebrew\nprophet was at fault. Mark and Luke substantially agree with Matthew;\nso, according to all three, Christ began his labors at Capernaum. The\nprecise time in the year we cannot tell, but it must have been shortly\nafter the fourteenth of March (Nisan), when the celebration of the\nPassover commenced. At the following festival, as we will show, Christ\nwas put to death. In the meantime he had performed the greater part of\nhis work, which would require not much less than a year. That Christ\nshould go to Jerusalem to celebrate the first Passover after he began to\npreach is not only probable but almost certain. Everything shows that\nhe did. The laws of Moses commanded every Jew to observe this feast; and\nalthough no place is specified, all deemed it the highest religious duty\nto go to Jerusalem for that purpose. On such occasions \"an innumerable\nmultitude came hither out of the country--many beyond its limits,\"\naccording to Josephus. Hence the great destruction of the Jewish people,\nwho had come up to the holy city to celebrate, when it was destroyed by\nTitus. Christ could hardly fail to be present at the first celebration\nafter he began to preach, especially as he was accustomed to go every\nyear from childhood with his parents, according to Luke. If Christ\nattended the first festival after he began his work, his ministry\ncontinued for less than one year, for he went there but once after\nhe began to preach. The early part of his career was solely passed in\nGalilee, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke. His labors were confined\nto his own country, mostly in the neighborhood of the sea of Tiberias.\nAt length, as the time for the celebration of the Passover approached,\nhis thoughts were directed toward the city of David. At Caesarea Philippi\nhe concluded _at last_ to go to Jerusalem. \"From that time forth began\nJesus to shew unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and\nsuffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be\nkilled, and be raised again the third day.\" (_Matt_. xvi. 21.) At length\nhe \"departed from Galilee and came into the coasts of Judea beyond\nJordan.\" (Chap. xix. I.) \"And when he was come into Jerusalem all the\ncity was moved, saying, _Who is this?_\" (Chap. xxi. 10.) Would that\nquestion have been asked if he had been there the year before? That\nthis was Christ's first visit to Jerusalem, according to the first three\nGospels, will not admit of a doubt. Here he taught and preached until he\nwas handed over bound into the hands of Pilate. He never after this left\nthe city until his immortal spirit took its flight from Calvary. The\nitinary of Christ, as we have it in the first three Gospels, renders\nit impossible that he made any visit to Jerusalem except the one above\nmentioned. We can trace him, step by step, from the beginning to the\nend of his career. He began to preach at Capernaum, and from there\nhe traveled all over Galilee. In the meantime he delivered his divine\nSermon on the Mount. From the Mount he returned to Capernaum. From\nhere he entered a ship and rebuked the sea. He next crossed over to the\ncountry of the Gadarines. From there he recrossed the sea and went into\nhis own city.\n\nOnce more he travels over Galilee, preaching, and healing diseases. On\nthe shores of Tiberias he delivered the parable of the sower, and again\nwent back to his own country. While there he heard of the death of John\nthe Baptist; when he crossed over the sea of Tiberias, and on the east\nshore fed the multitude. After events which are fully declared, he and\nhis disciples crossed the sea and went to the land of Gennesaret. From\nthere he departed unto the coast of Tyre and Sidon. He returned unto the\nsea of Galilee, and went up into a mountain and again fed the multitude.\nFrom here he went unto the coast of Magdala, and from there to Caesarea\nPhilippi, when he made up his mind _at last_ to go to Jerusalem. In the\nmeantime it was not possible for him to have made a visit to the Holy\nCity. He had not even been in Judea. According to John, Christ did not\nmanifest his divine power at Capernaum, but at Cana. This was not a\ngreat while before the feast of the Passover, for he went from Cana to\nCapernaum, where he remained \"_not many days_\" but went to Jerusalem\nto celebrate. As John and the writers of the first three Gospels\nhave Christ attend the first festival after he began his ministry, it\nfollows, according to John, that Christ at that time had just begun\nto teach; while, if we believe the other three writers, he had nearly\nperformed his work, and came to Jerusalem to meet his death. The Gospel\nof John causes Christ to make three distinct visits to Jerusalem: first,\nsoon after the miracle at Cana, the same mentioned by Matthew, Mark\nand Luke; the second, when he attended a feast of the Jews, which Dr.\nRobertson and other learned writers claim was the Passover; and a third,\nwhen he went to witness the feast of the Tabernacle. _Now, if the first\nthree Gospels are true, then everything stated in the fourth as the\nworks of Christ must have been performed after his death!_ Every day,\nfrom the time he set out from Capernaum to teach, to his first and last\nentrance into Jerusalem, is accounted for in the first three Gospels.\nThis second visit was not without a special significance.\n\nSo strong was the proof in the last half of the second century that John\nhad never been to the western coast of the Mediterranean, that Irenaeus\nand others of that century dare not assert that the fourth Gospel\nwas written by him in Asia Minor. On this point the great criminal is\nsilent. But, in the Gospel itself, there is an evident effort made to\nhave it appear that it was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Even\nthe learned Basnage and Lampe were betrayed into this belief, and so\nwere others. Lardner fixes the date in the year 68, Owen 69, and the\nlearned Michaelis in 70. That such men should have fallen into this\nbelief is truly wonderful, for its fallacy is apparent at first view.\nThis Gospel, as none dispute, was written in reply to the Gnostics, and\nas none of that sect, as will be shown, was known to be in existence\nuntil the second century, it at once disposes of the question.\nChrysostom, Epiphanius, Mills, Fabricius and Bishop Tomline, with\nothers, saw the dilemma, and fixed the date of the Gospel at a later\nperiod--some at 97, and others at 98.\n\nThat part of this Gospel by which Dr. Lardner and others were misled is\nas follows: \"_Now there is at Jerusalem_, by the sheep-market, a pool\nwhich is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.\"\nFrom the language here used, they conclude that Jerusalem was standing\nwhen the Gospel was written, as the present is used instead of the past\ntense. Few things troubled the Catholics of the second century more than\nto find a convenient date for John's Gospel. If it was written before\nthe fall of Jerusalem, where there was a sheep market having five\nporches still standing, it was too early, by many years, for Corinthus\nand other leading Gnostics. If its date were fixed at the end of the\ncentury when John was in Asia Minor, Catholics were met with proof that\nJohn never was there. The story of the angel, and the man who had an\ninfirmity for eight-and-thirty years, was a clumsy invention to make way\nfor the deception as to the early date of the Gospel. If there was in\nfact such a pool as represented, whose medical properties were dependent\nupon the visitation of an angel, and which had properties to cure all\ndiseases, it was the only one of the kind, or anything like it, ever\nknown to man; its fame would have spread far and wide, and Jewish\nhistorians, who delight to dwell upon anything which belongs to their\ncountry, would have emphasized a phenomenon like the pool of Bethesda,\nas proof of divine favor shown to their nation. It excites the anger of\ncommentators, and Doddridge among the rest, that Josephus has failed to\nnotice it; and among the extraordinary motives assigned for his\nsilence is a fear that he \"_would disgust his pagan readers_\"! The same\ncommentator says: \"It is probable that the miracle was not wrought\nfor any length of time, and perhaps ceased on this occasion. This may\naccount for the surprising silence of Josephus in a story which made\nso much for the honor of his nation. He himself was not born when it\nhappened, and, though he might have heard the report of it, he would,\n_perhaps (in the modern way), oppose speculation and hypothesis to\nfact_.\" Jenks, another commentator, says: \"It is true the Jewish\nhistorians, who are not sparing in praise of Jerusalem, do none of them\nmention this pool, for which, perhaps, this is the reason: that it was\ntaken as a presage of the approach of the Messiah, and, _therefore, they\nwho denied him to be come industriously concealed such an indication\nof his coming_.\" No one has ever pretended to have found this pool,\nalthough pious travelers have found every other spot consecrated by the\nlife and death of Christ. Helena, the mother of Constantine, as early\nas A. D. 326, made a pilgrimage to the Holy City to discover the places\nmade sacred by scenes in the life of the Saviour; and when human\nenergy and skill failed, she called to her assistance the aid of the\nmiraculous. But the powers that enabled her to find the true cross,\nafter a waste in the earth of over three hundred years, and detect the\nplace of the Lord's sepulcher, and other sacred spots which Infidel\nhatred vainly attempted to obliterate, failed to discover the place\nwhere the angel of mercy found ground to rest her feet when she\ndescended from heaven, loaded with blessings for the blind, halt and\nwithered.\n\nIt is admitted by all writers, and especially Michaelis (vol. iii.\npart I, p. 280), that the Gospel of John was written in answer to the\nGnostics, and especially Corinthus, who lived in the last years of the\nfirst century. It was possible to spin out the life of John to the\nend of the century, and thus bring him near the time when Corinthus\nflourished; but it is fatal to the claim, set up by Irenaeus and others,\nthat John was the author of the fourth Gospel, that the quarrels which\ngrew out of the writings of Corinthus failed to attract notice until\nsome time about the middle of the second century. You may look in vain\namong all the writings of the Fathers and others of the first century to\nfind the name of Corinthus or any of his writings, although we can trace\nGnosticism, in its primitive stages, as early as the first years in the\nsecond. Still, it assumed but little importance in its contests with\nChristianity until some time after the year A. D. 117. Buck says that\n\"_Many persons were infected with the Gnostic heresy in the first\ncentury; though the sect did not render itself conspicuous, either for\nnumbers or reputation, before the reign of Adrian, when some writers\nerroneously date its rise_? There was no call or demand for the fourth\nGospel until Christians and Gnostics commenced their quarrels, which was\nlong after John's death, even admitting that he lived to be a hundred\nyears old. There was no help in the emergency which then arose, but to\nantedate the fourth Gospel, to confound the time when Cerinthus wrote\nwith the time when the spread of his doctrines created discussion among\nChristians.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\n     The phase assumed by Christianity in the fourth Gospel\n     demanded a new class of miracles from those given in the\n     first three.--A labored effort in this Gospel to sink the\n     humanity of Christ.--His address to Mary.--The temptation in\n     the wilderness ignored, and the last supper between him and\n     his disciples suppressed.--Interview between Christ and the\n     women and men of Samaria.--A labored effort to connect\n     Christ with Moses exposed.\n\nWhen the incarnation became a leading feature of Christianity, its whole\nspirit underwent a change from what it was in the first three Gospels.\nThe miracles which they describe are too tame for the new phase which\nChrist is made to assume. None of the five, except one, in the Gospel\nof John, are mentioned in the first three, for the apparent reason that\nthose in the Synoptics all fall short of upholding the claims set up\nfor Christ in the fourth. The subsidence of the sea at Tiberias, at his\ncommand, was some proof that he held control of the wind and waves, but\na lucky coincidence might account for part, and ocular deception for the\nrest. But, in that case, the constituents of the water were not changed.\nNot so with the water at the feast at Cana. The restoration of the\nwidow's son at Nain, and of the daughter of Jairus, might admit of\ndoubt, for the first had not shown signs of decided death, and the\nlatter may have been a case of _coma_--\"For the maid is not dead, but\nsleepeth.\" (_Matt_. ix. 24.) But in the case of Lazarus there could be\nno mistake. For four days the seal of death sat upon his brow, and flesh\nand blood were fast returning to their native dust. Christ, in the first\nthree Gospels, heals diseases and cures the blind; but how much was\nto be referred to his power as a god, and how much to the skill of a\n_Thera-peutae_, might invite discussion. But in the cases of the man who\nhad an infirmity for eight-and-thirty years, and the one born blind,\nthere could be no ground for dispute. The miracles selected proved all\nthat was claimed for Christ in the first part of the Gospel. He was\nmaster of the elements, death heard and obeyed his voice, and he held\nthe avenues which led from fife to the grave. The miracle of the loaves\nand fishes is the only one in the first three Gospels repeated by John,\nbecause it proved his power over nature; for if he did not change the\nelements, as he did at Cana, he multiplied them. We see in this Gospel\na studied effort to avoid anything like a human parentage for Christ, as\nstated in the first three Gospels. The trip to Bethlehem, the birth in\nthe manger, the journey of the wise men from the East, are all omitted.\nThe name of Mary in this Gospel is studiously kept in the background.\nShe is barely mentioned twice, once at the feast of Cana: \"And when\nthey wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine;\nJesus saith unto her, _Woman, what have I to do with thee?_\" The true\nanswer intended by the question was--_nothing_. Christ could not be\nentirely oblivious of earthly ties. He had lived under the same roof\nwith Mary. He had received from her many acts of kindness; and if nature\nwas allowed her empire over the heart; he must have felt for her the\naffection of a son. For him she had all the feelings of a mother. She\nfollowed and stood by him at the cross. As she stood and wept in his\nsight, the only words of consolation and endearment he could give her\nwere as cold and heartless as a Lapland wind: \"_Woman_, behold thy son\"!\nThe word \"_woman_\" was ever on his lips. When he recommends her, at the\nlast scene, to the care of the disciples, he is studied and guarded in\nhis language: \"Then saith he to the disciple, Behold _thy mother_.\" The\nscenes at the cross were too solemn to permit the studied purpose of an\nartful bigot to muzzle the voice of nature. Truth turns away from the\nstory.\n\nThe design of this Gospel to keep out of view the carnal nature of\nChrist, as it appears in the first three Gospels, is marked with\nJesuitical cunning. He who was born, not of blood, nor of the will\nof the flesh, but of God, must be so constituted as to be above the\nweaknesses and frailties of those who are born of earth. The temptations\nin the wilderness, which supply the most remarkable scenes in the life\nof Christ, and, as given in the first three Gospels, proved the power of\nthe Son of God over the Powers of Darkness, are wholly unnoticed in the\nGospel of John. He who was all God, without a link to connect him\nwith humanity, must be so superior to Satan as to be above his arts\nof seduction. John will not allow Christ to be tempted, because he was\nabove it; but, in sinking his humanity to favor a dogma, he keeps out of\nsight the most sublime and god-like portion of his character--the power\nto rise above the allurements of wealth, power, and dominion. It was by\nsuch things he proved himself a god. The design of the fourth Gospel is\noverdone. In making Christ all God, no chord of sympathy is left between\nhim and man. Even in the last supper, dwelt upon with so much tenderness\nby Matthew, Mark and Luke, we detect, by the silence of John, the spirit\nof the Jesuit. He makes no mention of it. Who can mistake the reason of\nthis silence? The tender scenes of this last interview between Christ\nand his disciples are sacrificed to make way for a senseless and\nheartless dogma. In the last supper, given in the Synoptics, the bread\nand wine are mere symbols of the death and sufferings of Christ. It was\nthis symbolic character of the sacrament that the writer of John wished\nto avoid. As the Lord's supper is with John a real sacrifice, each\nrepetition is a fresh atonement, and the bread and wine, by a miraculous\nconversion, are made flesh and blood. There could be no sacrifice of\nthe body of Christ _until death_, and, for that reason, the last supper\nbetween him and his disciples before the crucifixion is omitted. This\nmiraculous conversion of the elements has been one of the holy mysteries\nof the Church for ages past. It has been the bigot's wand. Millions have\nfallen down before the Host. It led the crusades. The fair fields of\nEurope and Asia have been whitened by the bones of its victims. In fine,\nit has been the armory in which fanaticism has forged her most fatal\nand dangerous weapons. With John, the body of Christ is never dead--the\ngrave cannot hold it; but it exists in a mysterious union with the\nChurch, so that every time the devout believer eats of the bread, or\ntouches the sacred cup to his lips, he partakes of the flesh and drinks\nthe blood of the Son of God. Such is the dogma which took its rise in\nthe last half of the second century, the offspring of a bitter, heated\ncontroversy which demands that reason be strangled to make room for\nfaith. It is the fate of this dogma, as it is of all like it, to\nbe associated with others equally false and absurd. It can have no\nfellowship with truth. Speaking of Christ, John says: \"The same was in\nthe beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him\nwas not anything made that was made.\" (Chap. i. 2, 3.) Christ says of\nhimself: \"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the\nwill of him that sent me.\" (Chap. vi. 38.) He was on earth thirty-three\nyears. In what business was this creator of worlds engaged for thirty\nyears of this time? If anything, so far as we can know, it was the\nbusiness of a carpenter. Did he do his Heavenly Father's business all\nthis time? This is what he says himself he was sent to do. The first\nproof he gave of the power of a god, while here, was at Cana. It\nwas here that he first manifested forth his glory, and inspired his\ndisciples with faith. The first three Gospels leave Christ to his\nhumanity to the time the angels took charge of him, and subject him,\nlike other mortals, to human employments. In John, a god with power to\ncreate worlds is bound up in the fate of mortals for thirty years, and\nonly escapes thralldom when the spell is broken at the marriage feast.\nWould he, who was with God in the beginning, whose word was sufficient\nto create worlds, submit to a fate like this?\n\nThe interview between Christ and the woman of Samaria affords abundant\nevidence of the spurious character of the fourth Gospel, and that the\nwriter was some Greek who was ignorant of the religion of Moses and the\nJews.\n\nThe temple of Jerusalem being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the\nSamaritans proposed to join the Jews after their captivity in rebuilding\nit; but the Jews refused the coalition. (_Ezra_ iv. 1-3.) This gave rise\nto other causes of dispute, until the most inveterate hatred grew up\nbetween the two peoples. At length, by permission of Alexander the\nGreat, the Samaritans erected a temple at Mount Gerizim, in opposition\nto the one at Jerusalem. The same worship was observed in both cities,\nand both people avoided the idolatry of surrounding nations. All the\nfollowers of Moses in Judea shared alike in the calamities which befell\nthe Jewish people; so all shared a common belief that God would at some\ntime, by the hand of a deliverer, restore to them all they had lost.\nIf by the hand of Cyrus the power of the Assyrian empire had been torn\ndown, the Temple rebuilt, and the Jews and Samaritans placed back in\ntheir homes in Judea; so, if some like calamity should befall them,\nthe same hand would again restore them to liberty and the land of their\ninheritance. The Jews and Samaritans, though divided on some things,\nwere alike the chosen people of God, and the promises made to one were\nmade to both. At the time Christ made his appearance in Samaria, the\npeople of that country had settled convictions as to what they might\nexpect from the promises made to them by Jehovah through Moses, their\ngreat lawgiver and prophet. These convictions, like the concretion of\nages, had solidified, and made up the Jewish and Samaritan character.\nWhatever might befall them, they had no expectations of a spiritual\ndeliverer of any kind. They recognized no spiritual bondage growing out\nof the sins of the first parents, like the believers in Christianity,\nfor Moses taught nothing of the kind. A personal sacrifice, like that of\nChrist, to save men from the condemnation of a broken law, never entered\ninto the mind of either Jew or Samaritan. Neither was cosmopolitan, and\nwith them a deliverer was a deliverer to the Jews and not the Gentiles.\nAfter Christ had convinced the woman at the well that he was a prophet,\nby telling her past life, she is made to say: \"I know that Messiah\ncometh which is called Christ; when he is come he will tell us all\nthings. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.\" It is said\nthat the woman believed; if so, did she understand him? With Christ,\nhe was the Son of God, equal with the Father; was with him in the\nbeginning, and by him the universe was made--_he was the Creator_. We\nask again, did the woman believe in such a Messiah, and did she believe\nthat he who spoke to her, and told her how many husbands she had had,\nwas that august Being? If there is room in the breast of any people for\na hope or expectation of such a person as Christ claimed to be, not a\nshade of either could be found in the hearts of the followers of Moses.\nLet a belief in such a Being have made its way into the Jewish mind, and\nthe whole structure, as it was reared by their great leader, would fall\nlike a baseless tower. Strike out the Semitic idea which was thundered\nfrom Sinai, and that very thing which cost the Jews ages of persecution\nwould with it be thrown away.\n\nThe woman was convinced by the arts of a fortune-teller, some of the\nSamaritans by what befell the woman, and others, because of what they\nsaw and heard themselves, believed \"_that Christ was the Saviour of the\nworld!_\" Here we reach a climax: did the Samaritans, in so short a time,\nrenounce Moses and the institutions of their fathers? Christ claimed\nbefore the Jews that he lived before Abraham. This they could not stand,\nbut took up stones and cast them at him, and, because he preached the\nend of the Mosaic law, they crucified and put him to death.\n\nThere are still some of the descendants of the Samaritans at Naplosa\n(the ancient Shech-em), at Gaza, Damascus and Cairo, who still retain\nthe faith held by their fathers in the time of Christ--a living protest\nagainst the truth of the story of the women and men of Samaria. Let him\nwho wishes to be convinced go among the remnant of this persecuted\nrace, witness their poverty, their sad and careworn faces, the work of\ncenturies of injustice and oppression, and ask them if they believe\nthe story of the woman at the well. They will point you to two thousand\nyears of suffering for their Mosaic faith, enough to \"bring tears down\nPluto's wan cheeks,\" and ask you, with a look of scorn, if the ancestors\nof such a people could ever be apostles.\n\nIn talking to the Jews, Christ is made to say: \"For had ye believed\nMoses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe\nnot his writings, how shall ye believe my words?\" (_John_ v. 46,47.)\nChrist here undertakes to make the Jews believe that he was the one\nwho had been foreseen and spoken of in ages past, and especially by the\ngreat prophet of the Hebrew people. Had any Jew in the time of Moses\nset up the claim that at some future day there would arise one among his\npeople who would be equal with God, but who would suffer death at their\nhands, as a ransom for the salvation not only of the Jews but of the\nGentiles, he would have ordered that such a prophet be stoned to death.\nBy him and \\ the Jews no such Saviour was expected or required. Adam and\nEve were the first to break the law, but God pronounced judgment upon\nthem before they left the Garden. The earth was cursed with thorns and\nthistles, for Adam's sake. By the sweat of his brow he was bound to eat\nof its fruits in sorrow all his days. Upon Eve were imposed the pains\nand sufferings of childbirth, and the duty of obedience. All this\nendured, both were to return to the dust from whence they came. This was\nall the punishment and all the atonement God demanded. He asked no more.\nWith Moses, death was the end of punishment. Those who committed the\nfirst sin made their own atonement, and so have all their descendants,\nin the eyes of Moses and the Jews. \"Had ye believed in Moses, ye would\nhave believed in me.\" Reverse this, and we have the exact truth: If ye\nbelieve in Moses, it is impossible to believe in me. How could they?\n\"Moses wrote of me.\" What did he write? To connect Christ with prophecy,\nlanguage of the most indefinite character is selected from all parts of\nthe Hebrew scriptures. \"The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's\nhead.\" Christ of the fourth Gospel is not of the seed of the woman.\n\"_The Word was made flesh?_\" and \"was not born of blood, nor the will\nof the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.\" \"The scepter shall not\ndepart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh\ncome.\" (_Gen_, xlix. 10). The Jews ceased to be an independent people,\nand the scepter departed from Judah at the time Pompey invaded the\ncountry, seized upon the Temple, deposed Aristobulus, the high priest,\nand put Hyrcanus in his place. (Josephus, _Wars_, Book I. chap. vii.\nsec. 6.) He deprived the Jews of all their conquests, restored the\nconquered, and placed Syria, together _with Judea_ and the country as\nfar as Egypt and Euphrates, under the command of Scaurus. (Ibid, sec. 7.)\n\nIn view of these events, Josephus bitterly laments the results, and\nsays: \"_We lost our liberty', and became subject to the Romans_, and\nwere deprived of that country which we had gained by our arms from the\nSyrians, and were compelled to restore it to the Syrians. Moreover, the\nRomans exacted of us, in a little time, above ten thousand talents.\"\n(Josephus, _Antiquities_, Book XIV. ch. iv. sec. v.) When did the Jews,\nafter the conquest of Pompey, shake off the yoke of the Romans? Between\nhis conquest and the birth of Christ at least sixty-seven years had\nintervened. In the meantime Caesar crossed the Rubicon, was assassinated\nin the senate; the empire was distracted by civil wars; Mark Antony and\nAugustus tried the fortune of battle with Brutus and Cassius, on the\nfield at Philippi, and the first of the Roman emperors had nearly\ncompleted a long reign of four-and-forty years. When Christ was born,\nthe scepter had departed from Judea, and the Jews were a nation of\nslaves.\n\nSpace will not allow us to pursue this subject farther. Throughout\nthe Gospel of John we discover the most studied and labored effort to\nconnect Christ with the religion of Moses, so that it may appear that in\nhimself he is only the response to the many prophesies contained in the\nHebrew scriptures. This Gospel is full of instances where the Jews, upon\nChrist's bare word--and sometimes not even that--gave up everything, and\nfollowed him, even to the cross. The day following the baptism, as John\nstood by the side of the disciples, Jesus walked by, when the Baptist\nexclaimed: \"_Behold the Lamb of God!_\" This was sufficient to induce two\nof the disciples to follow Christ, and one of them was so carried away\nthat he hunted up his brother, who was Peter, and told him they _had\nfound the Messiah, who was the Christ_. On the next day, Christ went\nto Galilee, and found Philip, whom he directed to follow him; and soon\nPhilip found Nathaniel, and told him, \"We have found him of whom _Moses,\nin the law, and the prophets, did write_.\" They had found no such\nthing. The conversion of Paul formed a new era in religious history. We\nmay well say, that when he left Judaism, he left the twelve disciples\nbehind him, for they could neither climb over or break down the wall of\ncircumcision which separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Paul quarreled\nwith and then left them, but took along with him enough of the Mosaic\nfaith to keep up a connection between the old and new religion, so\nthat we can trace the features of the child in those of the parent. He\ncarried with him _Monotheism_, but it was qualified in the glare of his\nvision at Damascus so that, in some sense, Christ was the Son of\nGod. Here was a clear departure from Moses, for which the Jews always\ndespised him. Then followed Paul's tug with the Greeks. In spite of him,\nthey established a dual government in Heaven. _The Son was equal with\nthe Father_, At this point there should have been an eternal separation\nbetween Jewry and Christianity. For nearly two thousand years, the Jews\nhave protested against an alliance, while, on the other side, Christians\nhave striven to maintain it. The two parties, in the meantime, were kept\nseparate by an ocean of blood which flowed between. No bridge could\never span it--no bridge ever can. In conclusion of this branch of the\nsubject, we repeat, that great efforts are made to have it appear in\nthis Gospel that Christ is in harmony with Moses and the prophets,\nwhereas there is scarce a word in it which declares his equality with\nthe Father (and it teaches little else) not met with a denial from\nSinai, amid \"thunders and lightnings\" and \"the voice of the trumpet\":\n\"_Thou shalt have no other gods before me?_\" Moses is sublime in threats\nand denunciations against those who depart from the true and _only_ God.\nThe men of the second century knew nothing of the spirit of the Mosaic\nfaith, or they never would have stultified themselves by such a work as\nthe fourth Gospel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n     The first two chapters of Matthew not in existence during\n     the time of Paul and Apollos.--A compromise was made between\n     their followers at the council at Smyrna, A. D. 107.--The\n     creed of the Church as it existed at that day determined,\n     and how Christ was made manifest.--Catholics of the second\n     century repudiate this creed and abuse Paul.--Further proof\n     that Irenaeus never saw Polycarp.--Injuries inflicted upon\n     the world by the fourth Gospel.\n\nWe have shown in another place that not long after Apollos arrived at\nCorinth he came in collision with Paul on some question which related\nto Christ. Just what that difference was, it is hard in this age of the\nworld to determine; but it will be sufficient for our purpose at this\ntime to show what it was not. Had it been claimed by Apollos and his\nfollowers that Christ was born in the way in which it is stated in\nMatthew's Gospel, Paul, instead of wasting a whole lifetime in fighting\nhis enemies, would have gone straight to Jerusalem, and proved by\nliving witnesses that there was not a word of truth in this Gospel\nwhich related to the supernatural birth of Christ. Paul's troubles with\nApollos and his school commenced as early as 57. At that time there were\nthousands upon thousands who were born about the time Christ was, and\nwere comparatively young men when he was put to death. It was before the\nfall of Jerusalem, and before any great calamity had befallen the Jewish\npeople. Many of the disciples may have been still living. Peter we know\nwas, for in 64 we find him preaching in Chaldea. Doubtless there\nwere still living, in Nazareth, women who grew up with Mary, and were\nacquainted with her entire history. The Greeks did not contend, as long\nas Paul lived, for anything stated in the first two chapters of Matthew\non the subject of the birth of Christ; for that reason there is no\nmention of Mary by Paul in any of his epistles. What, then, was the\ntrouble? With Philo, the Logos was born in Heaven, and from thence he\ndescended to earth. With Paul, Christ was born on the earth, and in this\nrespect did not differ from other mortals. If the Logos was the Son of\nGod, and came down from heaven, by what instrumentalities did he reach\nthe earth? It was for Apollos to show how this was brought about.\nNothing is more difficult in the history of Christianity than to\nfind out what was Apollos belief as to the way by which the Logos is\nconnected or identified with the man Christ. The story of the descent of\nthe Spirit in the form of a dove, at the Jordan, was not known until a\nlong time after Paul's death. Paul could not disprove it, for during his\nlife no one asserted it. To establish this connection, we gather from\nPaul that the school of Apollos had some subtle mode of reasoning, the\ndistillation of Greek wisdom and cunning. He never says what it was, but\ncompares it to the subtle sophistry with which the serpent deceived\nEve. To the wisdom of the Greeks Paul has nothing to oppose but direct\nrevelations from God. He sits in opposition to Hellenic sophistry, his\npower and wisdom derived from above. When he talks to the Jews, before\nthey will believe what he tells them, they demand that a sign shall\nbe given unto them--something tangible to the senses. But the Greeks\nrequired no proof of this kind. Conviction with them as to Christ was\nwholly dependent upon some device, doubtless an outgrowth of Platonic\nphilosophy. From what is said hereafter, we can venture the belief that\nwith Apollos the Logos was made Christ simply by the providence of God.\nHow this providence was exerted to bring about this result, was a proper\nsubject to employ the cunning, the wisdom and sophistry of the Greek\nschool. After Paul's death, and after the fall of Jerusalem, the change\nfrom the Logos from on high to the Christ of the earth, simply by the\nprovidence of God and the theory of Apollos, was too indefinite, and the\nreasoning of the Greeks too weak, to satisfy the minds of men. In the\nsecond century, Christianity had worked west, and the Latin element\nbegan to make itself felt in the Church, and we shall soon see the means\nemployed by Providence to bring the Logos into the world. We can readily\nsee why, in the disputes between Paul and the Greeks, as they stood in\nhis day, the name of Mary is nowhere mentioned. There was no necessity\nfor it. Ignatius, one of the oldest Fathers of the Church, was Bishop\nof Antioch in the year 70. When Trajan set out on his expedition against\nthe Parthians, he stopped for a short time in this city. As he had\nrefused to sacrifice to the gods for the safety of the Emperor, and was\noutspoken against the pagans, even in the royal presence, Ignatius was\ncondemned, and ordered to be sent to Rome to be devoured by the wild\nbeasts of the amphitheatre. This, as some say, was in A.D. 107; but some\nwriters, with greater plausibility, fix the time as late as 115. We will\nerr on the right side, and adopt the former period. On his way to Rome\nhe stayed some time at Smyrna, where he wrote letters to the churches\nin Asia, as a kind of legacy, in which he imparts to them a knowledge\nof the doctrines of the Church, and the foundation on which they were\nbased. No man of his day was better informed on such subjects than\nIgnatius, and the cruel fate that awaited him on his arrival in Rome\nwas an earnest that in what he said he was sincere. In his letter to the\nEphesians he tells how, in the first place, Christ came into the world.\n_He was born in the womb of Mary according to the dispensation of\nProvidence, of the seed of David, yet by the Holy Ghost_. Here is a\nplatform to which Paul himself could hardly object. That that which\nIgnatius declares to be the way in which Christ came into the world was\nthe doctrine of the Church in his day, and for some time after, cannot\nbe questioned. On his way to Rome he stopped at Smyrna, where Polycarp,\nwho was then Bishop at that place, lived, and it was there that Ignatius\nwrote his letter to the Ephesians. Polycarp stood at his side when the\nletter was written, and knew its contents, and probably took charge of\nit, for he himself says: \"The Epistles of Ignatius which he wrote unto\nus and _others_, as many as we have with us, we have sent unto you\naccording to your order, which are subjoined to thy epistle, from which\nye may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and\nof all things which portend to edification in our Lord.\" (_Epistle to\nPhilippians_). On his way to Rome, Ignatius stopped at different places,\nand everywhere the churches sent their bishops and other messengers to\nvisit and console the venerable Father on his way to the wild beasts;\nand everywhere he taught Christ as we find it at this day in his letter\nto the Ephesians. Here we have the doctrines or creed of the Church in\nthe beginning of the second century as to the status of Christ, as it\nwas declared by Polycarp, Ignatius, and all the churches of Asia. That\nPaul, at this time, was held in great estimation is evident from what\nPolycarp and others say of him in writing to the churches. Polycarp\nalone refers to his epistles twenty-six times, and in speaking of him\nsays: \"For neither can I, nor any other such as I am, come up to the\nwisdom of the blessed and renowned Paul, who, being amongst you in\nthe presence of those who then lived, taught with _exactness_ and\n_soundness_ the word of truth; who in his absence also wrote an epistle\nto you, unto which, if you diligently look, you may be able to be\nedified in the faith delivered unto you, which is the mother of us all.\"\n(_Polycarp to the Philippians_, sec. 3). Indeed, Polycarp's letter to\nthe Philippians is made up of quotations from the letter of the great\napostle. The bitter feeling which existed between the followers of Paul\nand Apollos had in a great measure died away at the close of the first\ncentury. Whatever difference of opinion there may have been between\nthese two great leaders, it seemed to be merged in the creed of the\nChurch in the days of Polycarp and other teachers of his time. With Paul\nand these men, Christ was born of woman and of the seed of David; but,\nwith the latter, it was by the Holy Ghost, through the providence of\nGod. As Paul has nowhere declared how and in what way Christ was the son\nof God, but believed him to be such from what he learned in his vision\nat Damascus and other places, his followers might readily accept the\nbelief declared by Ignatius and all the Fathers in his day. Mutual\nconcessions seem to have been made in the latter part of the first\ncentury; and while the followers of Apollos conceded the descent of\nChrist from David, the friends of Paul could readily admit that he was\nthe Son of God through the Holy Ghost by the dispensation of God. The\nviolent animosity against Paul which sprang up afterward in the Church\nwas an outgrowth of the second century. In this century, Paul becomes a\nliar and a heretic. To make Christ what the men of this century wished\nto have him appear in their quarrels with the Gnostics and others, it\nwas necessary to assail the great apostle. To admit that Christ was born\nin the womb of Mary, of the seed of David, would not admit the claim\nthat he was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost alone. It\nwas upon this point that Paul had thrown obstructions in the way of men\nwho were engaged in building up a Church controlling exclusively the\nhighway to heaven, and which in time was to govern the world. Here let\nme ask if the most acute intellect can detect in the doctrines of the\nChurch, as declared by Polycarp and others at the beginning of the\nsecond century, the faintest trace of the _incarnation of the fourth\nGospel, or the Trinity_, Both of these dogmas, which have convulsed the\nworld for eighteen hundred years, were unborn when the Fathers of all\nthe churches of Asia, at Smyrna, declared what was the faith of the\nChurch.\n\nWe have selected this place to settle a question of veracity between the\nwriter and Iraeneus. He says he saw Polycarp. We say he never did. Since\nthe introduction of the Gospels, especially the fourth, great importance\nhas been attached to the fact that Polycarp was a disciple of John, and\nthat Irenaeus had been instructed by the former. Speaking of Irenaeus,\nHorn, in his introduction, says: \"His testimony to the genuineness and\nauthenticity of the New Testament is the most important and valuable,\nbecause he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.\"\n(Vol. I. 83.) Now Polycarp never mentions John, but speaks of Paul. If\nhe did see John, John _never taught him the doctrine of the incarnation_\nas declared in the fourth Gospel. Polycarp _never heard of the\nincarnation_, and it follows as a matter of course he never taught\nIrenaeus anything of the kind. _Had he taught the incarnation, he never\nwould have indorsed Paul_. This attempt, on the part of the so-called\nBishop of Lyons, to trace the doctrines conceived and written by himself\nto a disciple, is a stupendous fraud, which has cost the world more\nmisery than all causes of suffering since his day combined. This Gospel\nhas been the means of defeating the mission of Christ on earth--_peace\nand good-will to all men_. There is not one word in it to encourage\nvirtue or reprove vice--not one for those who sorrow or are afflicted;\nno charity for any except the woman caught in adultery. Love for one\nanother he entreated of his disciples, but none for the world. The\nboundless love, the universal charity, which shine forth in the Sermon\non the Mount, and warm the heart, so that there flows from it all that\nis good in our natures--as the beautiful flowers of the earth are made\nto spring and bloom under the genial heat of the sun--finds no place\nin the Gospel of John. What is said and taught in this Gospel, when\ncompared with the teachings on the Mount, are as hollow groans from the\ncavern of Avernus compared with sweet sounds from the lyre of Orpheus.\nIt is belief--or damnation. \"He that believeth on Him is not condemned,\nbut he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not\nbelieved in the name of the only begotten Son of God.\" It was this\nGospel which gave birth to that bigotry and fanaticism which has brought\non the world all the sufferings and misery caused by the Inquisition. It\ndestroyed in the fourth century all the grand and beautiful temples and\nworks of architecture of Asia and Europe. The Pantheon barely escaped.\nIt applied the torch to the library at Alexandria. It kindled the fires\nof persecution in every age; and as it came down the centuries, like a\nblazing comet, it carried with it \"pestilence and war.\" It makes Christ\ncold and selfish. He cures diseases to exalt himself. A man was deprived\nof his sight from his birth, without any sin on his part, that he may\nhave an opportunity to make known his power. He thanks God for answering\nhis prayer for the death of Lazarus, that he might show the world that\nhe was master of the grave. This Gospel makes Christ vain and boastful.\nAgain and again he asserts that he is the Son of the Father; that the\nFather had sent him; that he came to save the world, and that the world\nwas to be judged by him: and yet, with all these pretensions, he could\nfind but few that believed him. All important events told of in this\nGospel, are unnatural. Some who stood by and saw Lazarus come forth from\nthe tomb with the habiliments of the grave still upon him, as if some\ngreat crime had been committed, ran for the police--for to inform the\nPharisees was about the same thing. When the Pharisees heard of it, they\ncalled together the priests, and held a council, to devise some plan to\nstop that kind of proceeding. What was the objection to raising a dead\nman to life? It would give offense to the Romans. Can anyone give a\nreason why? For this act, which, if true, would fill the heavens and the\nearth with awe, Christ was compelled to fly to the wilderness. If the\nscene at the grave of Lazarus, as related, was true, how different would\nhave been the conduct of those who witnessed it. All would have been\nstruck dumb and fallen prostrate at the feet of him who held the keys\nof life and death. The Pharisees would shake and cower, for fear that at\nany moment they might be struck dead by a bolt from heaven. There would\nnot have been a dry eye in all Jerusalem. What intelligence did Lazarus\nbring us from the spirit land? One word from the other world would be\nworth all this world of ours; but the world has gained nothing from the\nresurrection of Lazarus. This Gospel takes from God his omnipotence.\nWhen the Lord of the universe conceived a plan to prove to mankind that\nChrist was his Son and their Saviour, we must believe that he who made\nthe heavens and the earth, who regulates the stars in their courses, and\nwho said, \"Let there be light, and there was light,\" could not fail\nin his purpose. But the resurrection of Lazarus was a failure. It\naccomplished nothing. The tomb of Lazarus at Bethany was in sight from\nthe cross on Calvary.\n\nWe have stated that at Smyrna were declared the doctrines of the\nChristian Church in the year 107, as they were understood and taught by\nPolycarp, Ignatius, and all the great lights of Asia. And now we shall\nshow what assurances these Fathers gave to the world--why they knew that\nChrist was truly the Son of God. This is made manifest by signs in\nthe heavens. Ignatius first declares the belief of the Church on this\nsubject, and proceeds to ask this question: \"How was he made manifest to\nthe world?\" \"A star shone in heaven above all other stars; and its light\nwas inexpressible, and its novelty struck terror. All the rest of the\nstars, with the sun and moon, were the chorus to this star, that sent\nforth its light above all. And there was trouble, whence this novelty\ncame so unlike all the others. Hence all the power of magic was\ndissolved; and every bond of wickedness was destroyed; ignorance was\ntaken away and the old kingdom was abolished: God made manifest in the\nform of man, for the renewal of eternal life. Thence began what God\nprepared. From thenceforth all things were disturbed, forasmuch as he\ndesigned to abolish death.\" (_Epistle to Ephesians_, sec. 19.) This was\nthe way in which Christ made himself manifest to the world, as taught in\nall the churches in A.D. 107. The story of the star which led the wise\nmen to Bethlehem was an _afterthought_. At the time Ignatius declared\nthe doctrine of the Church, as to the way by which Christ was brought\ninto the world and how he was made manifest, the Gospel of Matthew had\nnot yet appeared; for, if it had, he would have given the story of the\nstar, and the wise men of the East, rather than that of the sun,\nmoon, and all the stars, for the former was the most probable and most\nsensible of the two. Why should he give one story which was false and\nimpossible on its face, if he could give another which, if false, was\nnot manifestly absurd. It is quite easy to tell why the story of the\nstars and moon leaving their orbits to dance attendance to a bright\nparticular star was abandoned. Such a commotion of the heavenly bodies\nwould have put the universe out of joint; and as the star projected its\nlight above all the other stars, and all the other stars and the moon\nand sun sang chorus to it, the display would have been apparent to all\nthe world. In the year A.D. 107, some few might have been alive who were\nliving at the time the phenomenon is said to have occurred; and if not,\nthen the children of those who lived at the time would have preserved\nthe tradition fresh in their minds, to say nothing of history. But as no\none living witnessed the scene enacted in the heavens, and none of their\ndescendants had heard of it, and no historian had recorded it, the men\nof the day laughed it down. One single star might have been seen by the\nwise men of the East, and no one else; and if the story was invented,\nas the wise men were dead before it was told, there was no danger of\ncontradiction. If the Gospel of Matthew was not extant A.D. 107, it\nis fatal to all the prophecy in the New Testament as to the fall of\nJerusalem. In the year A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell. The Roman standards\nwaved over its ruins. The daughters of Israel wept over the ashes of\ntheir homes. The holy city was no more, and he who wrote the Gospel of\nMatthew as it now stands wrote history. How much is the Christianity of\nthe Gospels indebted to the prophecies which foretold the fall of the\nJewish capital? In every age and in every country where Christianity\nfound a foothold, they were the corner-stone of the Christian faith.\nIn the hour of doubt and despair, when the heavens looked black and\nthe earth seemed to be a house of mourning, the Christian could draw\nconsolation from the tears shed by Christ as he wept over the fall of\nthe holy city. But Truth is inexorable. Her triumphant car moves on,\nthough she leaves in her wake the wreck of the brightest hopes, the most\ncherished creeds, and the most ambitious schemes. So she has done for\nages. And her pathway is marked by the overthrow of dogmas by which\nman vainly undertook to enslave the mind. To-day she is as mighty and\npowerful as ever.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n(A.)\n\nFew passages from history have given rise to more discussion than the\nfollowing from Suetonius: \"He,\" meaning the Emperor Claudius,\n\"banished all the Jews, who were continually making disturbance, at the\ninstigation of one Crestus.\" (_Life of Claudius_, sec. 25.) The original\nis as follows: \"_Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma\nexpulit_.\" Does this order of banishment refer to the Christians? Dr.\nLardner and others think not. All difficulties vanish when we bear in\nmind, that the Christians then at Rome were Jewish converts from Judea.\nThe writer knew little about Christians, and knowing them to be Jews, he\nsays all Jews were banished, which included the Jewish converts as\nwell as those who opposed Christianity. All engaged in the riot were\nincluded, and none but Jews were. These Jews were constantly making\ndisturbance at the instigation of one Crestus: that is, they were\nquarrelling about Crestus, which was a continual subject of quarrel\namong the converted and unconverted Jews everywhere. The writer knew so\nlittle about Christ that he failed to get the name correct, or there may\nhave been a mistake on the part of the transcribers.\n\n\n(B.)\n\nAs a proof that the most learned scholars and correct thinkers, when\nunder the influence of an early bias, are liable to the most gross\nmistakes and delusions, the following writers have given the authority\nof their names to the belief, that Peter uses the name Babylon in a\nfigurative sense: Grotius, Macknight, Hale, Bishop Tomline, Whitby, and\nLardner. But a large majority of writers hold to the literal meaning.\nBishop Pearson, Le Clerk, and Mills think that Peter speaks of Babylon\nin Egypt. Beza, Erasmus, Drusius, Dr. Cave, Lightfoot, Basnage,\nBeausobre, Dr. Benson, A. Clarke think that Peter intended Babylon in\nAssyria; Michaelis, that Babylon in Mesopotamia was meant. The frequent\nuse of the word Babylon in the Revelation attributed to St. John, which\nthere stands for Rome, is the principal argument used by those who\ncontend for a figurative sense. This book is the most impious and\nmalignant production among all the forgeries of the second century, and\nits design can be readily exposed, if it was worth the time to do it.\nChrist, whose last words were used in prayer for the forgiveness of his\nenemies, is made through St. John to pour forth feelings full of hatred\nagainst those who disagreed with the writer on matters of doctrine,\nespecially the followers of Paul. He hurls his envenomed shaft at the\nheart of the great Apostle. It was at Ephesus where the war was warmest\nbetween Paul's friends and the followers of the Alexandrian school. To\nthe church at that place, Christ is made to say: \"I know thy works, and\nthy labor, and thy patience, and _how thou canst not bear them which are\nevil_: and thou hast tried them which say they are _Apostles, and are\nnot, and hast found them liars_.\" (_Revelation_ ii. 2.) Who could use\nsuch language but a malignant partisan? Christ, the Son of God, is made\nto use the language of a bar-room bully. When will those who profess to\nbe Christians, learn that Christ was all kindness, gentleness, and love.\nThey admit the authenticity and divine origin of writings that prove the\nSon of God was not even a gentleman.\n\n\n(C.)\n\nThe writings ascribed to the Fathers, especially Polycarp and Ignatius,\nare entitled to little consideration; for nothing is clearer than that\ntheir names were used by the men of the second century to supply proof\nwhen disputes sprang up, or give authority to doctrines when divisions\narose. The introduction to the epistle of Ignatius, addressed to the\nchurch at Rome, is a bare-faced attempt to prove that there was a church\nat Rome during the reign of Trajan, at the beginning of the second\ncentury. It was written not only to prove that there was a church at\nRome at that time, but that it was the bank or depository of divine\nriches, \"_wholly filled with the grace of God, and entirely cleansed\nfrom any other doctrine_.\" But we submit the whole passage to the\njudgment of the reader. \"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the\nChurch which hath obtained mercy in the majesty of the Most High Father,\nand his only Son Jesus Christ, beloved and illuminated through the will\nof him who willeth all things, which are according to the love of Jesus\nChrist, our God; (to the church) which presides also in the place of the\nregion of the Romans, worthy of God, and of all honor and blessing and\npraise; worthy to receive that which she wishes, chaste, and pre-eminent\nin charity, bearing the name of Christ and of the Father, which I salute\nin the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are\nunited both in flesh and spirit to all his commands, and wholly filled\nwith the grace of God, and entirely cleansed from the stain of any other\ndoctrine, be all undefiled joy in Jesus Christ our God.\"\n\nThe forger overdid the work in which he was engaged. This language,\naddressed to a church illuminated with all things according to the\nwill of Christ and God, and worthy to receive all blessings and praise,\nproves that the passage was written at a time when the dogma of the\nApostolic succession was in vogue, and Rome was putting forth claims to\nspiritual supremacy.* No time was more unpropitious to prove that there\nwas _such a church_ at Rome, than that Goog embraced in the reign of\nTrajan, when Christianity was a crime, which subjected the believer to\nthe penalty of death. There being no Christians in Rome from the death\nof Paul to the time of Hadrian, it leaves the time to be taken up by\ntraditions, which was gladly seized upon by Irenaeus, who populated it\nwith Bishops and others, the offspring of his own imagination.\n\n     * The strong probability is, that the letter of Ignatius is\n     a forgery throughout, and was gotten up for the sake of the\n     introduction. Condemned by Trajan, and ordered to be carried\n     to Rome to be devoured by wild beasts, for the amusement of\n     the people, it is claimed the letter was written on his way\n     to that city. Why he should write to the church at Rome\n     while on his way there, is something remarkable, since there\n     is nothing in the letter that was important to be known to\n     the Christians, if there were any there, before his arrival.\n     The epistle breathes a spirit which is unnatural and\n     repugnant to every feeling of humanity. The following is a\n     specimen of the whole. \"May I enjoy the wild beasts which\n     are prepared for me; and pray that they may be found ready\n     for me: which I will even encourage to devour me all at\n     once, and not fear to touch me, as they have some others And\n     if they refuse, and will not, I will compel them.\" (Sec. 5.)\n     Why would Ignatius write an epistle of this character to the\n     Romans while he was on the way to Rome himself? especially\n     \"as he was pressed by the soldiers to arrive at the great\n     city before the public spectacle, that he might be delivered\n     to the wild beasts.\" Why import a Christian Bishop from\n     Antioch for the wild beasts of the Amphitheatre, if there\n     was one to be found in the mean time in Rome? Where was\n     Clement, the third Bishop? Our confidence is not increased\n     in the genuineness of this letter, that the first distinct\n     reference is made to it by Irenaeus.\n\n\n(D.)\n\nWRITERS in the third and fourth centuries, for reasons sufficiently\nobvious, take pleasure in scandalizing the name of Domitian as the\npersecutor of Christians, and the great enemy of the Christian cause. It\nis claimed he put to death many persons accused of Atheism, the common\ncharge against Christians, on account of their refusal to offer incense\nor to worship the ancient gods of Rome. Flavius Clemens, his cousin, is\ngiven as an instance. Now hear what a co-temporary historian has to say\non the subject:\n\n\"Flavius Clemens, his cousin-german, a man contemptible for his\nindolence, whose sons, then of tender age, he had avowedly destined for\nhis successor, and taking from them his former names, had ordered one\nto be called Vespasian, and the other Domitian, he suddenly put to death\nupon some slight suspicion, almost before the father was put out of his\nconsulship,\" (Suet, _Life of Domitian_, sec. 15.) As the tyrant affected\ngreat reverence for the gods, he would not fail to visit the most severe\npunishment on those whom he judged guilty of irreverence, and as the\nChristians of that day were bold in the face of the most imminent\ndanger, they could not escape the vengeance of the tyrant, had there\nbeen any in Rome upon whom he could lay his hands. With a disposition\nthat was willing to furnish any number of victims, Eusebius has\nsucceeded in giving the name of a single one. He says, \"At the same\ntime, for professing Christ, Flavius Domitilla, the niece of Flavius\nClemens, one of the consuls of Rome at that time, was transported, with\nmany others, to the Isle of Pontia.\" (Eus., E. H., book iii. chap. 18.)\nThe truthful father has succeeded in giving the name of one Christian\nwho had suffered under the reign of Domitian, and that was a case of\nbanishment.\n\nAs to the expression, \"and many others,\" it is only an easy way of\nconveying a falsehood without incurring the risk of detection. The story\nof John's banishment to the Isle of Pat-mos, like everything else\nwhich relates to this Apostle, is founded on a _tradition_ of the\nthird century, and is unworthy of serious notice. The story told by\nHegesippus, of the treatment received by the grandchildren of Jude,\ncalled the brother of Jesus, at the hands of Domitian, if entitled to\nany credit at all, only goes to refute the charges made against him. As\nthe story runs, these children were brought before him on the charge\nof being Christians. After hearing what they had to say, \"Domitian\ndismissed them--made no reply--but treating them with contempt as\nsimpletons, commanded them to be dismissed, and, by a decree, ordered\nthe persecution to cease. Thus delivered, they ruled the churches,\nboth as witnesses and relations of the Lord. Such is the statement of\nHegesippus,\" says Eusebius (book iii. chap. 20).\n\nHere is a clear case for persecution; but proceedings are dismissed, and\nthose who were the objects of it treated with contempt.\n\nSuetonius makes special mention of the persecution of the Jews under the\nreign of Domitian, who was governed, in their case, by his love of money\nrather than his regard for the cause of religion. The vast amount of\nmoney expended by him in the erection of palaces and public edifices had\nruined his finances, which he undertook to relieve by the confiscation\nof the large estates and wealth in the hands of this people. To his\nrapacity there was no limit in such cases, short of the ruin of his\nvictims. It is in vain to attempt to relieve the memory of the son of\nVespasian and brother of Titus from the ignominy of the most odious and\ndetestable crimes. From Augustus to Trajan, no one who bore the name of\nemperor is more justly entitled to the name of monster. He put to death\nhis own cousin, Flavius Sabinus, because, upon his being chosen at the\nconsular election to that office, the public crier had, by a blunder,\ndeclared him to the people--not consul, but emperor. Virtue as well as\nvice stood in awe in his presence.\n\nThe genius and learning of Tacitus and Pliny made it unsafe for them to\nremain in Rome, and both avoided danger by seeking obscurity. But to his\nother crimes are not to be added the murder of Christians, who were wise\nand cautious enough to avoid his presence.\n\nThe following dates are assigned to the epistles of Paul by Dr. Lardner\nand others:--\n\n[Illustration: Table 406]","title":"The Christ of Paul; Or, The Enigmas of Christianity","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":75078}