← catalogue

The Christ of Paul; Or, The Enigmas of Christianity

by George Reber · English · Gutenberg #38376 · 436,050 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Christ of Paul; Or, The Enigmas of Christianity
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Christ of Paul; Or, The Enigmas of Christianity

Author: George Reber


        
Release date: December 22, 2011 [eBook #38376]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38376

Credits: Produced by David Widger


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CHRIST OF PAUL; OR, THE ENIGMAS OF CHRISTIANITY ***




Produced by David Widger






THE CHRIST OF PAUL;

OR, THE ENIGMAS OF CHRISTIANITY

ST. JOHN NEVER IN ASIA MINOR. IRENAEUS THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
THE FRAUDS OF THE CHURCHMEN OF THE SECOND CENTURY EXPOSED.

By George Reber

1876.




CHAPTER I.

     Death of Stephen.--Conversion of Paul.--His retirement to
     Arabia and return to Damascus and Jerusalem.

Let the reader imagine that he is in Jerusalem, in Judea, about the year
A.D. 34. There is unusual tumult in the vicinity of the Temple. A large
crowd has gathered, and, stirred up by some strong provocation, is
swayed like the billows in a storm. As we approach, we see a young man,
who is trying to raise his voice above the din. There is something very
striking in his looks. He is pale, but firm. His eyes gleam with an
unearthly light. As the crowd surges and threatens, he is calm. His
thoughts and looks are directed more to Heaven than Earth.

But in this crowd there is a young man of an entirely different stamp.
He is excited and angry. His eyes are red with rage, and he is seen
moving among the crowd like an incendiary. The crisis came, and poor
Stephen stood first on the list of Christian martyrs. This little
bleared-eyed, angry man is not yet satisfied. Like the tiger that
has tasted blood, he thirsts for more. He goes about Jerusalem like
a madman. He fills the prisons with men and women who believed with
Stephen. When he had done all the injury he could in Jerusalem, he asked
and received permission to go to Damascus on a like mission. On his way,
while he is breathing out threatenings and slaughter, he is struck down
in his mad career. He saw in it the hand of God. Everything is changed
in a moment. The fiery stream of burning lava, which rushed in one
direction, now turned and ran with equal violence the other way.

Philosophers may differ as to what befell Paul on his way to Damascus;
but as for himself, he never doubted. The Christ that he persecuted had
spoken to him. His faith in what he saw in his vision he bore in his
bosom, as he did his heart; and in a life of toil, suffering, and
sorrow, he clung to it to the end.

We can hardly tell what were the feelings of Paul when he awoke to
consciousness, because we cannot judge him as we would other men. He had
raised his hand against the Son of God, and now, after a severe reproof,
he was appointed by him to be his special minister on earth. Paul did
just what we might suppose he would. He withdrew from the world, avoided
Jerusalem, and, as he says, went into Arabia. There, alone, he meditated
over the wonderful scenes through which he had passed. The more he
thought, the more he believed he had talked with Christ, the Son of
God, and the more he believed he had been selected to spread his Gospel
throughout the earth.

Once convinced that his vision was a reality, it was natural for him to
make himself believe that these visions were repeated; and through life,
in all his acts and movements, he believed he was under the guidance
of the same hand that smote him on the plains of Damascus. He goes from
place to place as a Spirit from above directs him, and when he speaks
he speaks not for himself, but for Him who sent him, Positive and
overbearing by nature, he imagines himself to be the minister of the
Son of God, and becomes intolerant, vain and exacting. All his ideas are
crystallized, and will not bend or yield.

As he was specially selected to preach, he believed in the doctrine of
election. When he believed at all, he believed too much; for it was his
nature to overrun. He had witnessed Christ--others had not; but, in the
absence of proof, they must substitute faith. Works are nothing--faith
everything. What he saw and believed, others must believe without
seeing.

His theology, from his natural temperament and the circumstances of his
conversion, took an austere cast, which made the relation between man
and the Creator that of guardian and ward. God himself, in the mind of
Paul, is almost hideous. Some are given over to damnation before they
are born; while others are destined to be saved before they have had a
chance to sin.

It is difficult to tell whether the religious faith of Paul was fully
fixed and determined before he left his retreat in Arabia and returned
to Damascus, or whether it was the growth of after experience and
reflection. At some period of his life, and early too, he had settled
in his mind the true relation which Christ bore to humanity. He had the
best of reasons for his belief on that subject. He was in Jerusalem at
a time when it was not impossible that Mary herself was living; and
if not, he saw Peter and was with him fifteen days, when he had every
opportunity to inform himself about the early history of Christ. Will
any one say that Paul, with a mind awake to everything that related to
Christ, would not inquire and find out all that was known about Him who
had spoken to him from the clouds, when he was in Jerusalem, and could
question those who had been his companions on this earth? If there was
anything remarkable about his birth or death, Peter would have told it,
and Paul would have repeated it all along the shores of the Archipelago,
or wherever he went.

But Paul, from first to last, preached that Christ was born of woman,
and was of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. Upon this point
he yielded nothing, and stood to it to the death. Paul was a man of
learning, and wrote with great power. Longinus classed him among the
great men of Greece. But in action and in deeds is where he went
beyond all other men. Upon his shoulders, as he believed, was left the
conversion of the world; and he had a will and energy equal to the task.
Believing that the Son of God stood at his side, as he performed the
mission which had been assigned him, he neither feared nor trembled, but
stood up with a bold front in the presence of Festus and King Agrippa.
The unsparing cruelty of Nero had no terrors for him.

After Paul had remained in Arabia long enough to collect his thoughts,
and determine the course he should pursue, he went back to Damascus.
At last he made up his mind to go to Jerusalem and see Peter. What must
have been his feelings as he approached the holy city, and passed
along the place where he assisted, three years before, in the death of
Stephen! Paul never forgave himself for the part he took in this murder.

Can we imagine with what feelings he approached Peter, or why he
approached him at all? If he felt sad and grieved at the part he took
in the death of Stephen, he did not feel as if he met Peter as his
superior, for he conceded nothing to any of the Apostles. There was no
point upon which he was more sensitive. Paul did not visit Peter to be
taught and instructed as to his duties, nor to learn from him the
great truths of Christianity; for he had learned all this from a higher
source, and felt himself more able to give instruction than to receive
it from others. Speaking of his doctrines, he says: "For I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of
Jesus Christ" (_Galatians_ i. 12). Doubtless he came to learn from
Peter everything he knew of the personal history of Christ. He had many
questions to ask about his habits--mode of life--his employments--about
Mary, Joseph, and the whole family of Jesus. The smallest incident in
his early life would be dear to Paul, and he would lock the remembrance
of it in his bosom, as a sacred treasure.

In this way fifteen days passed over, when Paul again left Jerusalem,
and afterwards went into Syria and Cilicia, where he was followed by
divine visions and revelations. He spent the year A.D. 42 in Antioch,
where he taught, assisted by Barnabas. Here he took up a collection for
the brethren of Judea, who were suffering from the effects of a famine
which took place during the reign of Claudius Caesar, and returned with
it to Jerusalem. Having discharged his trust, he went back to Antioch,
accompanied by Barnabas and Mark. All we know with certainty about Paul,
from this time forward, we must gather, for the most part, from his
Epistles to the churches; for all other sources of information are
suspicious and doubtful. An act, especially one of importance connected
with his labors as an Apostle, attributed to him by others, and not
spoken of at all by himself, should be excluded from the pages of
authentic history.




CHAPTER II.

     Paul and Barnabas start west to preach the Gospel.--The
     prevailing ideas on religion in Asia Minor.--Theology of
     Plato and Philo.--The effect produced by the preaching of
     Paul.

Paul, in the year A.D. 45, with Barnabas and Mark as his companions, set
his face west in the direction of Asia Minor. The people who inhabited
the country from Antioch in Syria along the north coast of the
Mediterranean and the AEgean, or the Archipelago, to Thessalonica in
Macedonia, were for the most part descendants of the early colonists
from Greece. A large number of cities were scattered along the shores,
which had been enriched by commerce, and were the seats of learning
and luxury. The Greek of Asia Minor, in the latter part of the first
century, was not the Greek of the time of Pericles and Epaminondas.

His levity and cunning had outlived his courage, his love of country and
stern endurance. The college at Alexandria was the source of all light
and learning, and the doctrines of that celebrated school, like a subtle
fluid, pervaded all classes of men. It was here that Plato took lessons
which led him to explore the mysterious nature of the Deity, and expose
to the eyes of mortals the nature of the divine persons who regulated
the affairs of the universe. In his imagination he populated Heaven, and
divided among the different deities the share of each in the
government of the world. According to Plato there was one God who was
superessential, and in him was blended or united all that was powerful
and good. This he called the _One_, or the first principle of things.
Proculus, of the same school, says the _One_ is the God of all gods, the
Unity of the unities, the Holy among the holies. Plato compares him with
the sun. For as the sun by his light not only confers the power of being
seen on visible objects, but is likewise the cause of their generation,
nutriment, and increase, so the good of the One, through superessential
light, imparts being and power. As a consequence, both Plato and
Pythagoras conclude that the immediate issue of this ineffable Cause
must be gods, and each must partake of the same nature and have a
superessential existence. That "everything in nature which is the result
of progression exists in a mysterious unity and similitude with its
first cause. They are superessential, and differ in no respect from the
highest good. From the supereminent Cause, as from an exalted place
of survey, we may contemplate the divine unities, that is, the gods,
flowing in admirable and ineffable order, and at the same time abiding
in profound union with each other, and with their Cause."

The first procession, from the first One, or intelligible Cause, is the
intelligible Triad, consisting of Being, Life, and Intellect, which
are the three highest things after the first God. Plato, in his
_Parmenides_, calls the Author of the Universe Intellect and Father, and
represents him commanding the junior gods to imitate the power which he
employed in their generation. It follows, that that which generated from
the Father is offspring, Son or Logos, second in the Triad. The third
power or principle in the Triad is Intellect, or Spirit of the Universe.
Here we have the Father, the Logos, and the Soul of the Universe in
a mysterious union; and as they all proceed from the One, are one in
unity. The author of "Decline and Fall" thus defines the theology of
Plato: "The vain hope of extricating himself from these difficulties
which must forever oppress the feeble powers of the human mind,
might induce Plato to consider the divine nature under the threefold
modification of the First Cause, the Reason or Logos and the Soul or
Spirit of the Universe. His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and
animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archial or original
principles were represented in the Platonic system as three gods, united
with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos
was particularly considered, under the more accessible character of the
Son of an Eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world."
(Vol. I., page 438.)

Such is an outline of the theology of Plato, as we learn it from the
"Explanatory translation" of Taylor to the _Cratylus_ and other works
of the great light of Greece. The ideas of Plato, under the teachings
of the Alexandrian school, underwent changes and modifications, but were
the source of all subsequent systems of theology, and we can readily
detect in each the genius of the Athenian. Through the invitation of the
Ptolemies, large numbers of Jews settled in the new capital of Egypt,
who carried with them the laws and institutions of Moses. It was
not many years before the religious ideas of the descendants of the
colonists were tinctured and in some degree moulded after the doctrines
taught at the school of Alexandria. Under the lead of Philo a new
school arose, which was formed from a union of "Mosaic faith and Grecian
philosophy," in which the distinctive features of each are clearly
preserved.

Philo Judaeus was an Alexandrian Jew, descended from a noble and
sacerdotal family, and was distinguished in his day for his wisdom
and eloquence. He was born before Christ, and survived him. He was the
author of numerous works, and esteemed one of the most learned men of
his day. A tumult arose in Alexandria between the Jews and the Greeks,
and out of each party three were chosen as embassadors to go to Rome and
lay the case before Caligula, who was then emperor. Philo was chosen as
one to represent his countrymen, and undertook to act as chief spokesman
in the imperial presence. He was treated with insolence--ordered to
be silent--and the emperor was so carried away by his passions that
personal violence seemed imminent. The equanimity of the philosopher
was not disturbed, and having discharged his duty, he quitted the palace
filled with the contempt for the tyrant which has loaded his memory in
all subsequent ages. (Josephus, _Antiq_., lib. xviii. ch. 8, sec. I.)

The system taught by Philo dispensed with the third person in the
Godhead, which was composed of the Father and the _Logos_, a divine
_Duad_, which did not exist in unity, like the trinity of Plato: but
the Logos with him, like the Mediator of the Hebrews, was possessed of
mediatorial powers, and was an intercessor in behalf of the fallen race
of Adam. It is difficult to define the relation of the _Logos_ of Philo
with the Creator of the Universe, whether he is an attribute which is
made manifest in creative power, or whether he has a separate existence.
He is the Son of God, and was with the Father before the world was
created. His powers embrace the mediatorial, and he stands between God
and man, and represents the Father in his providences to our race. He is
not an hypostasis, and yet he was begotten.

Such are some of the ideas which prevailed in Asia Minor, and other
countries along the shores of the Mediterranean, when Paul and Barnabas
entered the country, bringing with them a new religion. It is as
difficult to define what Paul's real belief was of the relations which
Christ bore to the Creator, as it is to determine the real belief of
Philo on the same subject. With Paul, Christ was the Son of God, but
what was the exact relation he did not pretend to say. He says he is
less than the angels--superior to Moses (Hebrews ii. and iii.); but he
nowhere says he is equal to God. Paul seems to have been less concerned
about the nature of Christ, and the place occupied by him in the
Godhead, than he was about his mediatorial powers. Through the fall of
Adam, all men were under condemnation, and it was the office of Christ,
through his blood, to make atonement, and once more restore man to the
favor of the Creator. With him Christ was not the Creator, like the
Logos of Philo, but was the Saviour of the world. He did not exist from
the beginning, but, like all flesh, from his natural birth. But still he
was, as was the _Logos_ of Philo, the Son of God.

With such ideas, Paul made his way among the Greeks. The Jews were the
first to make war upon him. But he stood his ground and gained more. The
small churches which he established were like so many fortresses in an
enemy's country. Wherever he went he started discussion. The friction
between the new and the old ideas produced heat: and with heat came
light.

But, after all, Paul's converts, for the most part, were from the less
informed and the middle classes. The learned turned away from him,
because he had no tangible proof to satisfy them that what he preached
was true. The story of his conversion was improbable, and could be
ascribed to the effects of natural causes.

The time for miracles had not yet come, and Paul did not claim anything
from them.*

     * Had it been true that an apron which came in contact with
     Paul's person could cure diseases, all Asia would have been
     converted while he was making a few hundred believers.

Tacitus speaks of Christians as a race of men detested for their evil
practices, and classes their doctrines among the pernicious things which
flowed into Rome as into a common sewer. (_Annals_, lib. xv. sec 54.)
Still the churches established by Paul grew slowly, but seemed to
require the influence of his presence and personal efforts to keep
them alive. As long as the fight went on between Paul and the Jews, and
unconverted Gentiles, his lofty courage and iron will were enough to
hold him up. But he soon had troubles of a different kind. He found them
in the churches themselves. It is not difficult to tell what would be
the effect of Paul's ideas when brought face to face with doctrines
of the Alexandrian school. It was like the meeting of the acid and the
alkali. The first sign of the effervescence appears at Corinth, and two
hundred years passed before it ceased, if it ceased at all. From the
time the quarrel commenced at Corinth, between the followers of Paul,
until the time when the questions disappear altogether, mental phenomena
are exhibited unlike any other in the history of man. Even the quarrels
and disputes of the Realists and Nominalists of the thirteenth century
bear no comparison. The contest between the different sects had all
the earnestness of a struggle between gladiators. From being warm
disputants, men became dishonest. Books were forged entire, others were
mutilated, and some suppressed and put out of sight. It was an age of
downright dishonesty on all sides. But from these dark and discordant
elements arose the true Church.




CHAPTER III.

     Therapeutae of Philo--and Essenes of Josephus.--An account of
     them.--Their disappearance from history, and what became of
     them.

In the beginning of the first century there existed a sect or society
which exercised great influence over the fortune and affairs of the
world; but, before the second had elapsed, was insensibly lost in the
commingling of creeds and sects which sprang up in the mean time. Like a
billow on the sea, it rose high and spread far; but at last disappears,
or is lost in the great ocean. We refer to the Therapeutae of Philo and
the Essenes of Josephus. Their origin is lost in the distant past; nor
is it proven who was the founder of the sect. Although the Therapeutae
were found in every part of the Roman empire, Alexandria was the centre
of their operations. Their learning and knowledge were derived from
the schools of Alexandria; and to the climate of Egypt, which, by some
immutable law of nature, disposed men to embrace a gloomy asceticism,
they are indebted for their morose and cruel discipline. From this
society were furnished all the monks which populated the deserts of
Africa before the Christian era began.

The Essenes were one of the three leading sects among the Jews; the
Sadducees and Pharisees forming the other two. Josephus, who fully
describes them, in early life was a member, and for three years took up
his abode in the desert, and suffered all the pains, and endured all the
hardships of monastic life. They were confined to no locality, but were
found in every city in Europe and Asia. When travelling from place to
place, they were received and provided for by members of their sect
without charge, so that when one of them made his appearance in a
strange city, he found there one already appointed for the special
purpose of taking care of strangers and providing for their wants. They
neither bought from nor sold to each other, but each took what his wants
required, as if it were his own.

"And as for their piety towards God," says Josephus, "it is very
extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane
matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their
forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. After this,
every one of them is sent away by their curators, to exercise some of
those arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great
diligence till the fifth hour, after which they assemble themselves
together in one place, and when they have clothed themselves in white
veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water, and, after their
purification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of
their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to
enter; while they go after a pure manner into the dining-room, as into
a certain holy temple, and quietly sit themselves down; upon which the
baker lays their loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of
one sort of food and sets it before every one of them; but a priest says
grace before meat; and it is unlawful for any one to taste of the food
before grace be said. The same priest, when he has dined, says grace
again after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise
God, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside
their [white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again
until the evening; then they return home to supper, after the same
manner." (Josephus, _Wars_, lib. ii. chap. 8, sec. 5.)

The time allowed for probation, before admission to the fraternity,
was three years, and in the meantime the temper and disposition of the
neophyte were put to the severest test, and not until he had given ample
proof of his sincerity or ability to submit to the laws and ordinances
of the sect was he deemed fit for admission; but before he is allowed
to do so, he is required to swear, "that, in the first place, he will
exercise piety towards God; and then that he will observe justice
towards men; and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his
own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate
the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; that he will ever show
fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no
one obtains the government without God's assistance; and that if he
be in authority, he will at no time whatever abuse his authority, nor
endeavor to outshine his subjects, either in his garments, or any other
finery; that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to
himself to reprove those that tell lies; and that he will keep his hands
clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will
neither conceal anything from those of his own sect, nor discover any of
their doctrines to others--no, not though any one should compel him so
to do, at the hazard of his life. Moreover, he swears to communicate
their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them
himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve
their books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels [or
messengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes
to themselves." (Jos., _Wars_, lib. ii. ch. 8, sec. 6.)

The following is the account given by Philo of this sect, preserved in
the pages of Eusebius:--

"'This kind of men is everywhere scattered over the world, for the
Greeks and barbarians should share in so permanent a benefit. They
abound, however, in Egypt, in each of its districts, and particularly
Alexandria. But the principal men among them from every quarter emigrate
to a place situated on a moderate elevation of land beyond the Lake
Maria, very advantageously located both for safety and temperature of
the air, as if it were the native country of the Therapeutae.'"

"After describing what kind of habitations they have, he says of the
churches: 'In every house there is a sacred apartment which they call
the Semneion or Monasterium, where, retired from men, they perform the
mysteries of a pious life. Hither they bring nothing with them, neither
drink nor food, nor anything else requisite to the necessities of the
body; they only bring the law and the inspired declarations of the
prophets, and hymns, and such things by which knowledge and piety may be
augmented and perfected.' After other matters he adds: 'The whole time
between the morning and the evening is a constant exercise; for as they
are engaged with the sacred Scriptures, they reason and comment upon
them, explaining the philosophy of their country in an allegorical
manner. For they consider the verbal interpretation as signs indicative
of a sacred sense communicated in obscure intimations. They have also
commentaries of ancient men, who, as founders of the sect, have left
many monuments of their doctrine in allegorical representations which
they use as certain models, imitating the manner of the original
institution.'"

These facts appear to have been stated by a man who at least has paid
attention to those that have expounded the sacred writings. But it is
highly probable that the ancient commentaries which he says they have
are the very Gospels and writings of the Apostles, and probably some
expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and many others of St. Paul's epistles.
Afterwards again, concerning the new psalms which they composed, he thus
writes: 'Thus they not only pass their time in meditation, but compose
songs and hymns unto God, noting them of necessity with measure
uncommonly serious through every variety of metres and tunes.' Many
other things concerning these persons, he writes in the same book....

Why need we add to these an account of their meetings, and the separate
abodes of the men and the women in these meetings, and the exercises
performed by them, which are still in vogue among us at the present day,
and which, especially at the festival of our Saviour's passion, we are
accustomed to use in our fastings and watchings, and in the study of
the divine word. All these the above-mentioned author has accurately
described and stated in his writings, and they are the same customs that
are observed by us alone at the present day, particularly the vigils of
the great festival, and the exercises in them, and the hymns that are
commonly recited among us. He states that whilst one sings gracefully
with a certain measure, the others, listening in silence, join
in singing the final clauses of the hymns; also, that on the
above-mentioned days they lie on straw spread on the ground, and to use
his own words, 'They abstain altogether from wine, and taste no flesh.
Water is their only drink, and the relish of their bread, salt and
hyssop.' Besides this, he describes the grades of dignity among those
who administer the ecclesiastical services committed to them, those of
the _Deacons_ and the _Presidencies_ of the _Episcopate_ as the highest.
But, whosoever desires to have a more accurate knowledge of these
things, may learn them from the history already cited; but that Philo,
when he wrote these statements, had in view the first heralds of the
gospel, and the original practices handed down from the Apostles, must
be obvious to all. (Euseb. Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 17.)

They had their churches, their Bishops (called Presidencies of the
Episcopate), Deacons and monasteries. They used sacred writings, which
they read in their churches with comments, and which they believed were
divinely inspired. Commentaries were written on these writings, as they
are on the present Gospels. Their mode of worship was much the same as
in our own day; and they had missionaries all over Asia, and in many
parts of Europe. The day observed by Christians afterwards as the
festival of our Saviour's passion was observed by them as sacred, and
which they passed in fasting, watching, and the study of the sacred
writings. All this we are assured is true, by the authority of Josephus,
Philo, and Eusebius. So strong is the resemblance in doctrines, and form
of church government, between these ancient Therapeutae, that Eusebius,
because he could not deny the similitude, undertook the task of proving
that the Essenes were Christians, and that their sacred writings were
the four Gospels. He says: "But it is highly probable that the ancient
writings which he (Philo) says they have, are the very Gospels and
writings of the Apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient
prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and many
others of St. Paul's epistles." (Eus., Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 17.)

Eusebius has not deceived himself--he only hoped to deceive others. If
the Essenes were not Christians, then it is evident that much which is
claimed as original in Christianity was copied from them. "Basnage has
examined with the most critical accuracy the curious treatise of Philo,
which describes the Therapeutae. By proving that it was composed as early
as the time of Augustus, he has demonstrated, in spite of Eusebius and a
crowd of _modern Catholics_, that the Therapeutae were neither Christians
nor monks." (_Decline and Fall_, Vol. I. page 283, chapter xv., note
162.)

"Much dispute has arisen among the learned concerning this sect. Some
have imagined them to be Judaizing Gentiles; but Philo supposes them to
be Jews, by speaking of them as a branch of the sect of the Essenes,
and especially classes them among the followers of Moses. Others have
maintained that the Therapeutae were an Alexandrian sect of Jewish
converts to the Christian faith, who devoted themselves to monastic
'life. But this is impossible, for Philo, who wrote before Christianity
appeared in Egypt, speaks of this as an established fact" (Buck's
_Theological Dictionary_.')

And now, what has become of the Therapeutae?--of their sacred writings?
Where are their Elders, their Deacons and the Presidency of the
Episcopate, or Bishops? All writers agree that they soon disappeared
after the introduction of Christianity. "How long," continues Buck,
"this sect continued, is uncertain, but it is not improbable that
after the appearance of Christianity in Egypt, it soon became extinct."
Gibbon, in speaking of the disappearance of this sect from history,
says: "It still remains probable that they changed their names,
preserved their manners, and adopted some new article of faith." (Vol.
I. page 283, n. 162.)

This sect did not mingle and lose itself in the huge mass of Pagans, for
between the two there was no neutral ground on which they might meet and
agree. The antagonism between them had continued too long, and there
was traditional hatred on both sides. Paul threw the doors of the church
wide open, and, as we shall see, the Therapeutae soon entered, and by
their numbers took possession, and barred them against the founder
and all his followers. What did the Therapeutae do with their sacred
writings, which, Eusebius claims, were nothing more than our present
Gospels? To suppose that they abandoned and destroyed them altogether is
not possible, considering their antiquity, and the veneration in which
they were held for generations.




CHAPTER IV.

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.

It is a question of great interest in history, if nothing more, when and
where it was that the Christian Church, in the form in which it has come
down to us, had its origin.

To be sure, there are many who are satisfied with an orthodox belief
on the subject, because they have never questioned their sources of
information. But the world has grown to that age when traditional
dogmas, or whatever they may be called, must be subject to the test
which advancing knowledge imposes. Tried by this test, what is true will
appear brighter; what is false will be thrown off; and man, relieved of
a burden which only weighed him down, will move on to an improved and
better life. Man is not doomed by the condition of his nature to be
eternally tugging at the stone of Sisyphus--nor is it consistent with
the laws of a wise and beneficent Creator that mankind, in order to
be prosperous and happy, should be compelled to live under a perpetual
delusion. Like the source of some river, often traced to a mountain
rill or the oozing waters of a morass, so the beginning of the church
or churches of our own day is to be looked for in some obscure corner of
history, covered by the _debris_ of ages.

Located on a narrow isthmus between the AEgean and Ionian seas stood
Corinth, one of the principal cities of Greece. Situated where the
commerce from the East and the West meet _in transitu_, it grew in
opulence and wealth, and was distinguished for the arts, and for the
luxury and licentiousness of its inhabitants. Here Venus had a temple,
presided over by a thousand priestesses, whose attractions increased the
numbers who came from all parts of Greece to assist in celebrating the
Isthmian games. It was at this place Paul planted a church, between
the years A.D. 51 and A.D. 53, and where he remained eighteen months,
working as no one but himself could work to build up and strengthen it.

Paul left Corinth for a time for other fields of labor, because he
belonged to no one place, but his mission embraced the world. The
commerce of Corinth attracted to the place people from every part of
the empire, east and west, and with others a large number of Alexandrian
Jews. Among them were many of the Thera-peutae, who brought with them
into Greece the doctrines of Philo.

During Paul's absence there came to Corinth Apollos of Alexandria. He
was an eloquent man and learned in the Scriptures. It is a subject of
regret that we do not know more of his history than we find in the Acts,
and in the Epistles of Paul. What were the doctrines he taught when he
first appeared in Ephesus, where he spent some time before he went
to Corinth, we cannot tell, but he was fervent in spirit, "and taught
diligently the things of the Lord." He had heard of John the Baptist,
for he was a historic character, and Josephus tells how he baptized
multitudes in the waters of the Jordan; but he seems to have known
nothing about Christ or the doctrines he taught. He spoke in the
synagogue, which proves that what he taught did not give offence, to the
Jews. In Ephesus he attracted the notice of Aquila and Priscilla, Jewish
Christians, who had been expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius on
account of some disturbance growing out of quarrels between Jews and
Christians.* Under their instructions Apollos was made a convert to
Christianity.

     * See Appendix A.

The Jews, as has been shown, were divided into three sects--Pharisees,
Sadducees, and the Essenes. Every Jew belonged to or connected himself
with the one or the other. Those who went to Alexandria, in time took
the name of Therapeutae, which, it is claimed, was the same as the
Essenes. However this may be, Philo describes them as a Jewish sect.
That Apollos was one of them may be claimed with great reason. A Jew,
born in Alexandria, he could scarcely escape being one. Raised under the
shadow of the college of Alexandria, of a fervent spirit and a man of
thought, he could not fail to be impressed by the doctrines taught
by that celebrated school. They were the prevailing and fashionable
doctrines of the day. That he brought with him to Ephesus the Logos
idea of Philo is clearly proven by what took place after his arrival.
It seems his conversion to the Christian faith under the instruction of
Aquila and Priscilla was easy, which proves that the difference which
separated them in the first place was not great. Like all Jews, he was
looking for some kind of Saviour or Deliverer, and they convinced him
that Christ was the one. He now undertook to convince others. "For
he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the
Scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts xviii. 28.) But the Alexandrian
notions of the Logos or Son of God soon began to show out in his
discourses and make trouble. Some began to cry, I am for Paul; and
others, I am for Apollos (1 Cor. iii. 4).

Paul's ideas on some points did not suit the Alexandrian school. The
birth of Christ from human parents, in the speculative minds of this
people, stripped him of all mystery; and with them, on subjects like
this, where there is no mystery there is nothing real. There could be no
other difference between the followers of Paul and Apollos, except as to
the origin and nature of Christ, and his relations to the Creator;
and there was none. The strife grew to such dimensions that Paul is
constrained to write an epistle to the church, in which we can see
what was at the bottom of the trouble. In his First Epistle, to the
Corinthians, Paul names four parties whose quarrels disturbed the peace
of the Church: the Paul party, who maintained the doctrines of Paul as
to the human origin of Christ; the party of Apollos, who, without doubt,
taught the doctrines of Philo; the party of Cephas, which held to the
doctrines of circumcision; and the Christ party. We infer that the last
was composed of negative men, or those who occupied neutral ground--the
_fence_ men of our day. It could not have been of much importance, for
we never hear of it again.

It was neither the first, third, or fourth of these parties that called
out the letter to the Corinthians. It was the wisdom of the Greek school
and Apollos' "excellency of speech" that disturbed Paul, and continued
to do so to the end of his life. But see with what force he opposes to
the wisdom of the Greeks the revelations which came to him from God This
letter displays all the characteristics of Paul. "And my speech and
my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in
demonstration of the Spirit, and of power: that your faith should
not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. But God hath
revealed _them_ unto us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God. Now we have received, not the
spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know
the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we
speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they
are foolishness unto him: neither can he know _them_, because they are
spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord,
that he may instruct him? But _we have the mind of Christ_" (1 Cor. ch.
ii.) Here it is not Paul that denounces the wisdom of the Greek school,
but it is God himself. Such is Paul.

It is not difficult to tell to which of the four parties at Corinth this
epistle was addressed. That the difference between Paul and Apollos grew
out of opposing opinions as to the nature of Christ admits of little
doubt, and is rendered certain by the first, second, and third chapters
of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. He says: "For other foundation
can no man lay than _that is laid_, which is Jesus Christ." That is, I
have taught to you Christ as he is, and it is not for any other man to
teach anything different. He declares that "according to the grace of
God _which is given unto me_, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the
foundation.".... "let every man _take heed how he buildeth thereon._"
Here is a plain intimation that the Christ of Paul rested upon a
different foundation from that of Apollos--the one divine, the other
human. "I have planted, Apollos watered." That is, I have planted the
seed that will produce the true fruit, and it is for others only to
cultivate and nourish what I have planted.

He tells the Corinthians that they were born unto a knowledge of Christ
through his gospel--that is, through his preaching; and that if they
had ten thousand instructors, of these there would not be many who, as
spiritual fathers, could reveal to them the truth as he had. "Wherefore,
I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto
you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who
shall bring you into remembrance of _my ways which be in Christ, as
I teach everywhere in every church_." (1 Cor. iv. 16, 17.) What more
conclusive evidence could be asked that Apollos was preaching doctrines
different from those of Paul as to the nature of Christ, than that the
latter sent Timothy to counteract them? and what other doctrines was the
former teaching than those of the Alexandrian school? When Paul says all
Asia had turned against him, it could only be on the questions which
had sprung up between himself and Apollos. It could not be on account of
circumcision, because on this point the Greeks would agree with Paul.
It was not on account of different views on the subject of the
resurrection, because that was retained and became the foundation of
the Christian faith. There was but a single point upon which those who
professed Christianity at that day could turn upon Paul, and that is
his "ways which be in Christ" as he taught them in all the churches. The
quarrels of Paul with the Jews on the subject of circumcision died away
in the church not long after his death, drowned out by the Greek and
Therapeutae element; but the cause of the strife between the followers
of Paul and Apollos has continued down, in some form, even to our own
times.

It could not be long after his letter to the Corinthians that the
doctrines preached by Apollos spread through all the churches of Asia
Minor and became the established orthodox faith. Paul, in the Second
Epistle to Timothy, says: "All Asia has turned against me." A mere
change of name--Therapeutae to Christian--and the revolution was
complete. It was made so rapidly that the world scarcely noticed it. The
Therapeutae, who were spread over Europe, Asia, and portions of Africa,
disappeared so suddenly that it has always been a problem in history
what became of them. But we can find here and there, in the history of
the times, evidences that the few friends of Paul did not give up the
contest with their powerful foe without a struggle. These struggles come
to the surface of history like the bubbles from the mouth of a drowning
man.

But little change in doctrines was required to justify the Therapeutae in
taking upon themselves the name of Christians. Christ, with Paul, was a
Mediator, and so was the Logos of Philo. "What intelligent person," says
the latter, "who views mankind engaged in unworthy and wicked pursuits,
but must be grieved to the heart, and call upon that Saviour God, that
these crimes may be exterminated, and that by a ransom and price of
redemption being given for his soul, it may again obtain its freedom.
It pleased God, therefore, to appoint his Logos to be a Mediator. To his
Word, the chief and most ancient of all in heaven, the great Author of
the world gave this especial gift: that he should stand as a medium (or
intercessor) between the Creator and the created; and he is accordingly
the Advocate of all mortals." (_Jacob Bryant, quoted in Clarke's
Commentaries on St. John's Gospel_.) As the Therapeutae of Philo were
the descendants of a Jewish colony who had settled in Egypt, and
still retained in some degree their Mosaic ideas and belief in the
Old Testament, under the light of the school of Alexandria, where the
doctrines of Philo were taught, they readily adopted the Alexandrian
ideas of the Logos. The belief in some intermediate or mediatorial power
between God and man was common to the Jews as well as most other
people. Adam, by his disobedience, had broken the law, and if he or his
descendants are ever to be restored to the favor of the Creator, it is
to be done through the office of a Mediator. The notions of Philo on the
nature of the Logos suited the Therapeutae much better than did those of
Paul, and after a short struggle we will discover the Alexandrian dogmas
to be the creed of the orthodox. Christ's appearance on earth, his death
and resurrection, are what Paul preached, and what the Therapeutae, who
were converted by him, believed. These features were retained in the
church after the Philo ideas of the Logos had displaced the Christ of
Paul. It was only Paul's doctrine of the descent of Jesus from Mary and
Joseph after the flesh that was thrown aside by them. The intervention
of the Virgin, at a later period in the history of the church, was the
means by which the Christ of Paul was made the Son of God in the sense
of the Alexandrian school.

The transition of the Therapeutae to Christianity was easy. Little or no
change was made in the form of the services in the church. According to
Eusebius, they sang hymns. They read sacred books and made comments
on them as well after as before the change. Like the first Christian
community, they held all their property in common. They said grace at
table both before and after meals, according to Josephus, which they
continued to do after they took the name of Christians. They made no
change in their fasts and festivals, and retained the monasteries. The
transfer of the form of the Therapeutae church government to the new
church was the work of time, and was not fully effected until the second
century. The influence of Paul's name, with other causes, was too strong
during the first to permit the change.

A Bishop in a Christian church is the work of the second century. Like
every other new feature in its history, we find the first Bishop at
Alexandria. Gibbon says: "The extensive commerce of Alexandria, and its
proximity to Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion. It
was at first embraced by great numbers of the Therapeutae, or Essenians
of the lake Mareotis, a Jewish sect which had abated much of its
reverence for the Mosaic ceremonies. The austere life of the Essenians,
their fasts and excommunications, the community of goods, the love of
celibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and the warmth though not the purity
of their faith, already offered a very lively image of the primitive
discipline. It was in the school of Alexandria that the Christian
theology appears to have assumed a regular and scientific form; and when
Hadrian visited Egypt he found a church, composed of Jews and of
Greeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive
prince." (Ch. xv. (162) (163), vol. I. p. 283.)*

     * After the author had written out his views as above, he
     met with the following passages from the writings of
     Michaelis, the great German critic, quoted in Taylor's
     Diegesis. Of the Therapeutae, he says they are a "Jewish
     sect, which began to spread itself at Ephesus, and to
     threaten great mischief to Christianity in the time (or
     indeed previous to the time) of St. Paul, on which account,
     in his epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to
     Timothy, he declares himself openly against them."
     (Diegesisy 58.)

     Again: "It is evident from the above-mentioned epistles of
     Paul, that, to the great mortification of the apostle, they
     insinuated themselves very early into the church." (60.) The
     writer does not wish to be understood that the disturbances
     created in the church were confined to Corinth, and that
     Apollos was the only one who taught during the life of Paul
     the doctrines of the Alexandrian school. Wherever Paul had
     founded a church, there the Therapeutae element was at work.
     Apollos, by his superior eloquence and learning, was
     distinguished from a host of agitators, and called forth the
     special notice of Paul. element was at work. Apollos, by his
     superior eloquence and learning, was distinguished from a
     host of agitators, and called forth the special notice of
     Paul.

It is safe to say that it was the Therapeutae who caused the troubles
in the churches in Paul's time and afterwards, because no other sect or
society was so extended, and had the power to make the disturbance so
universal. Paul could complain of no other, and it was this sect that
turned all Asia against him. There is no way to account for the sudden
and wonderful increase of Christians in a few years before Paul's death,
unless we can refer the cause to the sudden conversion of the Therapeutae
to the new religion. When they are suddenly lost to sight, the small
churches of Paul have grown great in numbers, and spread over Europe and
Asia in an incredibly short space of time.

Before going to press, the writer came into the possession of the works
of Michaelis, where we find the following passage: "But even before
Apollos had received the instructions of Aquila and Priscilla, he taught
publicly in the synagogue at Ephesus concerning the Messiah. Hence it is
not improbable that the Essenes introduced themselves into the church
at Ephesus by means of Apollos, who came from Alexandria, in the
neighborhood of which city, according to Philo, the Essenes were not
only numerous but were held in high estimation." (Vol. iv. p. 85.) It
would seem from this that Apollos only continued to do at Corinth what
he first began at Ephesus.

No man of any age suffered so much abuse, nor was there ever one whose
memory labored under such a weight of obloquy as that of Paul--first
from the followers of Apollos; and afterwards from the Catholics of
the second century, when the mother of God rose like a new star in
the heavens. The first half of the Acts was written, as will be shown,
expressly to exalt Peter over him and degrade him from the rank of an
Apostle. The Revelation ascribed to St. John is nothing but a bitter
tirade of denunciation against Paul and his followers. He is called a
liar, "the false prophet," who with the beast was cast alive into a lake
of burning fire. He is the great red dragon who stood before the woman
ready to devour the child Jesus as soon as he was born, and who warred
with Michael and the angels. Paul is not only denounced, but Christ
himself is made to declare his status in the Godhead. "I Jesus have sent
mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches." (xxii.
16.) What the things were to which the angel was to bear testimony,
sufficiently appears in every portion of the book of Revelation. Why was
Paul the subject of so much abuse? There can be but one answer. It was
because of the way in which he taught Christ in all the churches,
which he had learned from the Apostles in his interviews with them
at Jerusalem, and probably from Joseph and Mary themselves, for they
occurred about the year A.D. 40.




CHAPTER V.

     Review of the past.--What follows in the future.

Let us assume a stand at the beginning of Adrian's reign, A.D. 117, and
make a survey of the Christian world as it presents itself at that day.
A half-century has passed since the death of Paul. Since then, Rome has
been without a Christian population. Driven from the city through the
cruel butcheries of the tyrant, they took refuge in the provinces,
especially Asia Minor, where they remained until the reign of Adrian
and his successor, the tolerant Antoninus Pius. In the mean time, the
Therapeutan element of Christianity had been steadily on the increase,
while that of Paul had correspondingly declined. The proclamation of
Adrian, or rather his letter to Fundanus, a governor of one of the
provinces, prohibiting the punishment of Christians on account of their
religion, was the first intimation from the capital of the empire that
they could return in safety. From this time Christians began to return
to Rome in a steady stream, so that within the next twenty years they
had so increased in numbers that they once more take a place in history,
and are found mixed up in the history of the imperial city.

But at this time Christians, in their contest with the Pagans, found the
evidence of Christianity, as it then stood, not sufficient to contend
with the infidelity of the age. The old religion of Rome was hallowed by
time, supported by the learned men of that day, and upheld by the power
of the State. The Gospels had not yet appeared; the world was without a
miracle; Mary, the bride of Heaven, afterwards the central figure in the
Hierarchy of the orthodox, had no place in history. Peter had not
been in Rome, or John in Asia. The personal influence of Paul and his
immediate followers had kept alive the spirit of Christianity in Asia;
but now Paul is no more, and the influence of his name has nearly passed
away. The proof that there ever were such persons as Christ and his
disciples had become faint. The dim light of tradition, and what Paul,
and his companion Barnabas, said of him in their epistles, comprised
about all the evidence at that day to sustain the claims of
Christianity. But Paul himself had not seen Christ, except under such
circumstances as might excite suspicion of either delusion or fraud. He
had seen Peter, and remained with him, in the first place fifteen days;
and afterwards went to Jerusalem, where he saw all of the disciples who
were then living. What Paul learned from the disciples, with his vision
near Damascus, was sufficient to convince him of the reality of Christ
and the truth of the religion he taught. But the proof all lay within
himself. The genuine epistles of Peter, as we will show, were so
corrupted by the men of the second century, that we have no means of
knowing how much of the original remains or how much has been added. The
epistle of James, which is the only writing by an Apostle, or any one
else, that has come down to us from the Apostolic age without some
evidence of fraud and corruption, only speaks of Christ as a just man,
and makes no mention of the prodigies and wonders claimed to have taken
place at the time of his birth and death; nor does he take notice of
the miracles and wonderful things spoken of in the Gospels. The proof,
whatever it may have been, that Christ ever existed, was too weak to
overcome or even contend against the skepticism of the age.

So far we have said nothing of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, because
it was cast to one side, for the reason that it was a standing argument
against the Alexandrian ideas of the Logos--and was regarded as of
no authority in the church until it had been improved by important
additions made afterwards, and passed into the present Greek version.
With such proof as existed at the time we write of, Christianity could
not hold its ground against the great pressure brought to bear it
down--much less make headway against such powerful opposition. The time
to supply new proof of the reality of Christ was favorable. All the
scenes in his life lay within the boundaries of Galilee, Samaria, and
Judea--the greater part in and about Jerusalem. Since his death the
Legions of Rome had been there, and left nothing standing except a few
towers, reserved for military defence. The silence of death, for almost
a half century, had reigned in the streets of Jerusalem. The greater
part of the Jewish people had been put to death by the sword, or carried
away into captivity. All who lived during the time of Christ, by age and
the calamities of war had gone to their graves. We shall soon see the
Synoptics appear in intervals such as circumstances demanded, each
bearing the name of an Apostle, or the name of some one who wrote at
their dictation. A little further down in the century we will find
men engaged in laying the foundation of a church, whose claims to
infallibility and supremacy are based on "apostolic succession." When we
come to this period we will find all ecclesiastical history to consist
of traditions, and a time in the world's life which is populated by
Bishops and high-church dignitaries, who pass before us without speech
or action, like shadows on a wall. We shall find Peter has been in Rome;
John at Ephesus; Paul in Gaul, Spain, and Britain. We will find parties
engaged in exalting Peter above all the other Apostles--and the same
influence at work to put down Paul. Again we will see Paul restored
to favor, but his writings defaced by forgeries, to conform to the
doctrines of the day. We shall also see Christians enter into quarrels
among themselves, which continue through centuries.

Books are forged, traditions manufactured, and the works of the Fathers
shamefully altered and corrupted. Later in the century, brought out by
a pressure which made it necessary, the fourth Gospel will appear, and
Christianity pass from the Alexandrian Logos to the Incarnate God.
By casting our eyes still further down the centuries, we will see
Christianity and the philosophy of Plato strangely allied, which brings
us to the era of the Trinity. Let us first inquire into the origin of
the first three Gospels.




CHAPTER VI.

     How the Four Gospels Originated

The origin of the Gospels has proved a Serbonian bog, in which many
writers who have attempted an explanation have floundered without
finding solid ground. Scarcely two writers agree. Why should there be
any doubt in a matter of so much importance, where the evidence could so
readily be obtained at the time they were written, and so safely guarded
and preserved? Truth, in a historic period like that in which it is
claimed the Gospels were written, need not be left in the dark. The true
difficulty has grown out of the fact, that writers who have undertaken
to give the origin of the Gospels have looked, as men do in most other
cases, to outside sources for information; whereas the explanation of
the origin is to be found within the Gospels themselves, and nowhere
else. By looking for light where none is to be found, writers on this
subject have had their attention withdrawn from the direction where the
truth is to be discovered. If we bear in mind that men eighteen hundred
years ago were much like men of to-day, that the emotion or effect a
given event or occurrence produces in the minds of men of our own time
would be the same as upon those who lived in the first part of the
second century, we have a compass, such as it is, to guide us through
this Cimmerian darkness. What would excite ridicule, or appear false and
improbable to intelligent minds of our own times, would appear equally
so to such minds as Pliny and Tacitus at their ages of the world.

In imagination let us take a stand at the beginning of the second
century, and make ourselves citizens of the Roman empire under the reign
of Adrian. We can well imagine how the minds of thinking and intelligent
people were affected on the first appearance of the present Greek
version of Matthew's Gospel. It set forth some of the most astounding
events in the history of the world, and which the world heard of for the
_first time_. When Christ was put to death, all the land, from the sixth
to the ninth hour, was covered with darkness; the veil of the temple was
rent in twain from the top to the bottom; the earth did quake, and the
rocks were rent asunder; the graves were opened, and many bodies of
saints which slept arose and came out of their graves, and went into the
holy city and appeared unto many. Suppose that some morning we
should pick up our daily paper, and find under the telegraph head an
announcement of like events as having occurred in London or Paris. At
first we might be fearfully startled, but would soon feel satisfied that
it was all a hoax, after the style of Professor Locke's story of the
Moon. If the authors of the story expected to accomplish anything
by such startling announcements, they failed by attempting too much.
Whether the earth was covered with darkness, or was shaken by an
earthquake, or the dead got out of their graves and went down into the
city, were facts easily inquired into, in that age of the world.

Matthew further states that a star went before the wise men of the East,
till it came and stood over where the young child was. How could a star
a million of miles off lead any one on this earth, and how could it at
that distance be in a position to indicate a spot on the earth where the
child was? He also states, that when Herod found he was mocked he was
wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in _Bethlehem_
and all the coast thereof, from two years old and under. We can readily
imagine the Pagans, who composed the learned and intelligent men of
their day, at work in exposing the story of Herod's cruelty, by showing
that, considering the extent of territory embraced in the order, and the
population within it, the assumed destruction of life stamped the story
false and ridiculous. A Governor of a Roman province who dared make such
an order would be so speedily overtaken by the vengeance of the Roman
people, that his head would fall from his body before the blood of his
victims had time to dry. Archelaus, his son, was deposed for offences
not to be spoken of when compared with this massacre of the infants.

But that part of the first Gospel which related to the dream of Joseph
and the conception of Mary was what most excited the criticism and
ridicule of the people of that day. The whole and sole foundation of the
new religion was _a dream_. The simplicity of Joseph, too, provoked a
smile, if nothing more. The story at the sepulchre was overdrawn, and
threw discredit over all. "And behold, there was a great earthquake: for
the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back
the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like
lightning, and his raiment white as snow." (_Matthew_ xxviii. 2, 3.)
Such aerial bodies are not given to the employments assigned to the
angel in this case. Rolling stones, say the wise men, by spiritual
essences is ridiculous and absurd. Besides, who knows anything of the
great earthquake? We find no account of it, nor is it even mentioned
anywhere else.

So men reasoned eighteen hundred years ago--and so they would to-day.
It is evident that the author of the first Gospel had overdone his part,
and injured the cause he meant to advance. The blunders and mistakes of
the first Gospel made it necessary that there should be a second. This
gave rise to a second Gospel, not by the same hand, but by some other,
who felt the pressure that had been brought to bear on Matthew.

As this second Gospel was written with a special purpose, we must expect
a great resemblance in it to the first, except where the former makes
statements which were the occasion of so much criticism on the part of
the philosophers; and in such cases, the best course to pursue would
be to say nothing. Naked contradiction would not answer. Mark has not
a word to say about the story of Joseph and the angel. He omits the
earthquake at the crucifixion, and the resurrection of the dead, for
these things were susceptible of disproof; but tells of the darkness,
and the rent in the temple, because the former was comparative, and may
have been a dark cloud in the heavens; and as to the case of the temple,
no one could disprove the story, for it was destroyed. The story of the
angel and stone is entirely omitted, but the stone is removed from the
mouth of the sepulchre when the women appear, and a young man is found
in the inside, who is presumed to have done it. Matthew says that Joseph
of Arimathea deposited the body of Christ in the sepulchre, and then
rolled a great stone to the door. Afterwards the priest and Pharisees
caused the entrance to be made _secure_, for fear that the body would be
stolen, and the disciples then claim that he had risen from the dead.
If so, say the philosophers, the work was not so poorly done that _one_
young man could roll the stone from the door, as stated by Mark. It
would be beyond his strength.

Luke removes the objection; when the women come to the sepulchre in
the morning they found the stone removed, and the body of Christ was
missing. There was no young man inside, but _two_ men were found
standing on the outside, who, no doubt, were competent to do the work.
The story of the star which led the wise men, and the murder of the
infants at Bethlehem, is also omitted. We are justified in saying that
those who were engaged in getting up the _first_ Gospel, or those who
succeeded them, were driven to abandon some false and impossible and
improbable things stated in that Gospel, by proof, in some cases, of
their falsehood, and in others by the force of argument and ridicule.

Matthew had related the story of Joseph and the angel, and that admitted
of no change or modification. Mark says nothing about it, but silence
will not answer; for the philosophers still claim that all depends upon
a _dream_, and the dreams of Joseph are no better than the dreams of any
other man. If the story could not be modified, it might be corroborated.
So, when it came to Luke's turn to speak he adds the story of Zacharias,
and the interview between Mary and the angel Gabriel. All now occurs in
_daylight_, and dreams which had been the subject of so much ridicule
are dispensed with.

When Zacharias went to the temple to burn incense, he found on the
outside a great multitude of people. The crowd has no connection with
the story, except as these people are wanted for witness as to what
happened _in the sanctuary_. While Zacharias was offering incense
within, there appeared to him an angel standing on the right side of
the altar. The position of the angel is defined with precision, that it
might not be claimed that what appeared to him was a phantom. Zacharias
saw him and was afraid.

As further evidence that the angel was not some optical illusion,
Gabriel spoke, and gave Zacharias such information about the future
birth of a son to him that he was disposed to doubt the truth of it. As
a punishment for his reasonable doubts, he is struck dumb. The interview
continued so long that the crowd on the outside began to be uneasy,
and when Zacharias did come out he had lost the power of speech. This
convinced the multitude (but how, is not stated) that he had seen a
vision in the temple. After this, Gabriel made a visit to Mary in open
day, and held a conversation, in which he announced to her the birth of
a son through the overshadowing influence of the Holy Ghost, who would
reign over the house of Jacob forever. Then follows the scene between
Mary and her cousin Elisabeth.

In Luke's account of the announcement of the birth of Christ by divine
agency, the story of Joseph is entirely omitted, and new witnesses are
introduced. His story was well studied; every precaution was taken to
silence cavil and make such a case as would remove doubts. The blunders
of Matthew were not to be repeated. The birth of Christ and John, who
was afterwards called the Baptist, are ingeniously associated in the
announcement of the angel, to give color to what is said of them in the
Gospels afterwards.

What objections were made by the philosophers to the story of Luke at
the time, we have no means of knowing; but if any were made, there is no
subsequent effort to improve it, and so it remains to this day.

The question interests us to know when and from whom did Luke get his
information. If he had it from any one who had the means of knowing what
he tells us, it must have been from Paul, for we have no knowledge that
he had any acquaintance, or relations of any kind, with either of the
disciples. He was Paul's companion: we find him with Paul at Troas, A.D.
50; thence he attended him to Jerusalem, continued with him during his
troubles in Judea, and sailed in the same ship with him when he was
sent a prisoner to Rome, where he stayed with him during his two years'
confinement. He was with him during his second imprisonment, and, as we
will show in the proper place, he died with Paul in Rome, and was one
of the victims of Nero's reign. If Paul knew what Luke states as to the
divine emanation of Christ, why does he not make some allusion to it in
his numerous epistles?--and how can we understand that he could, with
such knowledge, deny this divine creation, and preach to the last that
Christ was born according to natural law?

Luke, too, made mistakes, which John afterwards corrected in the fourth
Gospel.

We can best illustrate the claim that the three last Gospels were
written in the order they appeared, as a necessity to meet the
objections and cavils of the philosophers, by taking some leading
subject which is mentioned by all. Take the case of the _resurrection_.
Matthew says: "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some
doubted." (Matt, xxviii. 17.) To leave the question where Matthew leaves
it would be fatal. In such a case there must be no doubt. Mark makes
Christ appear three times under such circumstances as to render
a mistake next to impossible, and to silence the most obstinate
skepticism. He first appears to Mary Magdalene, who was convinced that
it was Christ, because she went and told the disciples that he had
risen, and that she had seen him. They disbelieved, nor could they be
convinced until he appeared to them. They in turn told it to the other
disciples, who were also skeptical; and, that they might be convinced,
Christ also appeared to them as they sat at meat, when he upbraided them
for their unbelief.

This story is much improved in the hands of Mark, but, in the anxiety to
make a clear case, it is overdone, as often happens when the object is
to remedy or correct an oversight or mistake previously made. There was
a large amount of skepticism to be overcome, but the proof offered
was sufficient to do it, and remove all doubts from the minds of the
disciples. Considering Christ had told the disciples he would rise, why
did they doubt at all? Owing to some strange oversight, neither Matthew
nor Mark says in what way Christ made his appearance--whether it was in
the body or only in the spirit. If in the latter, it would be fatal to
the whole theory of the resurrection. We conclude from what followed,
that the philosophers of that day, who would concede nothing to the
claims of Christianity, took advantage of this oversight, and denied the
resurrection of Christ in the body. It was the business of Luke to put
this disputed question in its true light, and silence the objection.
He says that when Christ appeared and spoke to the disciples they were
afraid. "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they
had seen a _spirit._" (Luke xxiv. 37.) Christ then showed the wounds in
his hands and feet. "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of
a honeycomb: And he took it, and did _eat before them_." (Luke xxiv. 42,
43.) Now who dare doubt? Why some doubted, as Matthew says they did,
is hard to explain. The account of Luke should have satisfied the
philosophers that it was a body and not a spirit that appeared to the
disciples. But we can believe they were not, from what is afterwards
said on this subject. The story of the fish and honeycomb was incredible
and absurd. It was a fish-story. If true, why did Matthew and Mark fail
to mention it?

Luke had overdone the matter, and instead of convincing the Pagans, he
only excited their ridicule.

Now comes John's turn. He does not omit entirely the story of Christ
eating fish, for that would not do, after there had been so much said
about it. He might leave it to be inferred that Luke made a mistake, so
he modifies the story and omits the ridiculous part of it. The scene
is laid on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias. Under the direction of
Christ, Peter drew his net to land full of fish. "Jesus saith unto them,
Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou?
knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh _bread,
and giveth them, and fish_ like wise." (John xxi. 12, 13.) It does not
appear from this account that Christ ate of the fish at all. He took
the fish and gave to the disciples; the inference is, that they were the
ones that ate. In Luke the statement is reversed:--the disciples gave
the fish to Christ, and he ate. John has taken out of the story that
which was absurd, but he leaves us to infer that Luke was _nearsighted
or careless_ in his account of what took place. If you leave out of
Luke's account the part that relates to the fish and honeycomb, he fails
to prove what it really was which appeared to the disciples.

Christ, he says, said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself." (Ch. xxiv. 39.) "And while they yet believed not for joy, and
wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" (Ch. xxiv. 41.) It
seems from this that the disciples could not be convinced until Christ
had actually eaten something. Now if you strike out the eating part,
which John does, and which no doubt the ridicule cast upon it drove him
to do, Luke leaves the question open just where he found it. It was the
business of John to leave it clean, and put an end to all cavil.

Jesus appeared to the disciples when they assembled at Jerusalem. "And
when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side." (John
xx. 20.) They were satisfied, and no doubts were expressed. But Thomas
was not present, and when he was told that Jesus had appeared to the
disciples, he refused to believe, nor would he, "Except I shall see in
his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of
the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John
xx. 25.) Now if Thomas can be convinced with all his doubts, it would
be foolish after that to deny that Christ was not in the body when he
appeared to his disciples.

After eight days Christ again appears, without any object that we can
discover but to convince Thomas. Then said he to Thomas, "Reach hither
thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust
it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." (John xx. 27.) It
is not stated whether he did as he was directed; but he was convinced,
and exclaimed, "_My Lord and my God_."

What fault the Pagans found with this account we have not the means of
knowing; but if they still disbelieved, they were more skeptical than
Thomas himself. We should be at a loss to understand why the writers of
the first three Gospels entirely omitted the story of Thomas, if we were
not aware that when John wrote the state of the public mind was such,
that proof of the most unquestionable character was demanded that Christ
had risen in the body. John selected a person who claimed he was hard
to convince, and if the evidence was such as to satisfy him, it ought to
satisfy the balance of the world.

John's services are again required to repair the blunders and oversights
of the writers of the first three Gospels in relation to the body of
Christ after the crucifixion. Matthew states that Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary went on the first day of the week to see the sepulchre. No
other purpose is expressed. Mark says that early in the morning of the
first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and
Salome brought spices to anoint the body. According to Luke, after the
women who had followed Christ from Galilee had seen the body deposited
in the tomb, they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested
the Sabbath day. The body was deposited in the tomb some time on Friday,
and remained until Sunday morning, on the first day of the Jewish week.
Doubtless, in the climate of Syria, the body in the mean time must have
undergone such a change as to make it difficult to either embalm or even
anoint it. The Pagans at that day could hardly fail to take advantage of
this mistake or blunder. But John again comes to the rescue and sets the
matter right. According to him, Joseph of Arimathea had permission to
take the body, which he did, and carried it away. "And there came also
Nicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus by night) and brought a
mixture of myrrh and aloes, _about a hundred pounds weight_. Then took
they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices,
as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John xix. 39, 40.)

John now fully silenced the cavils of the enemy and taken the proper
steps to preserve the body until the morning of the third day.

The subject might be further pursued, but enough has been said to
furnish a key to the origin of the Gospels. Christians in their contests
with the Pagans resemble the course of a retreating army, which falls
back to take a stronger position. Each time the position is improved,
until one at last is found which is impregnable. We can readily see how
it is that the first three Gospels so closely resemble each other,
the exact language for whole passages being alike in all. Mark copies
Matthew, and Luke uses the words of both. It is only when the last
undertakes to improve or modify something written by those who wrote
previously, that the difference becomes obvious. That the Christians in
the beginning of the second century had books of some kind before the
three first Gospels appeared in the present shape is beyond all dispute.
The sacred writings of the Therapeutae, as we have shown, were full of
the most sound morality, and contained all the essential principles of
Christianity. These writings were ancient--had been regarded as sacred
for generations among them, and were so much like the present Gospels
that Eusebius claimed them to be the same, and that the Therapeutae were
Christians. No doubt the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was extant, and if it
was rejected by the Christians of that day, because it did not contain
the two first chapters of the Greek version, there was no reason why
they should reject the Sermon on the Mount, and all the sublime and pure
religion taught by Christ. The sacred writings of the Therapeutae--the
Hebrew version of Matthew, the Epistle of James and the first of
Peter--furnished the principles and doctrines which now form the life of
Christianity; and the great want of the day--that is, some proof of the
actual existence of the person of Christ, by those who had seen him and
were familiar with him before his death--was supplied in the first three
Gospels, by the testimony of those who claimed to be his disciples, or
by those who, it is said, wrote at their dictation.

In what quarter of the globe were the Synoptics written, and by whom?
All that can be said on this subject with certainty is, that the Greek
version of Matthew, the source of all, was not written in Judea, or by
one who knew anything of the geography of the country, or the history of
the Jews. He was ignorant of both. What excuse was there but ignorance
for making the order for the massacre of the infants to include
Bethlehem, and all _the coast thereof_, which would take in at least the
one-half of all Judea, and involve in one common slaughter, according to
the calculations of learned men, several thousand innocent children?
The Greek writer of Matthew evidently believed that Bethlehem was
an insignificant hamlet, situated on the coast of the Mediterranean,
whereas it is as far in the interior as Jerusalem; and not far from the
centre of Judea. The writer's ignorance of Jewish history will appear
still more conspicuous, when we speak of the application which he makes
of prophecy to the person of Jesus. Whoever the writer may have been, it
is evident that he received his education at the college at Alexandria,
where Medicine and Divinity were taught, and regarded as inseparable.
From the union of the two, recovery from diseases was ascribed to
supernatural powers. A fever was a demon, which was not to be expelled
by virtue of any material remedy, but by incantations, spells, and
magic. It was by such power Christ cleansed the leper--healed the
centurion's servant--touched the hand of Peter's wife's mother and
drove away the fever--expelled the devils from two men into swine,
and performed many other cures. The whole of the first Gospel has an
Alexandrian look not easily to be mistaken--if we except the miracle of
the loaves and fishes, walk of Christ on the water, and other wonders of
a like nature, which is the work of some one later in the century. The
deserts in the neighborhood of Alexandria abounded with monasteries from
the earliest accounts of the Therapeutae to the conquest of Egypt by the
Mahometan power, which were filled with monks who were celebrated
for their piety, their miracles, their power to expel devils and heal
diseases. The pages of Sozomen and Socrates abound with the names
of monks who cured the palsy, expelled demons, and cured the sick.
(Sozomen, _Ecc. Hist._, lib. vi., ch. 28.)




CHAPTER VII.

     John the son of Zebedee never in Asia Minor.--John the
     Presbyter substituted.--The work of Irenaeus and Eusebius.--
     John the disciple has served to create an enigma in
     history.--John of Ephesus a myth.

Was John the son of Zebedee ever in Asia? To ask a question which
implies a doubt on a subject that has been agreed on for almost twenty
centuries, will probably startle many even in this age of inquiry and
progress. It may be a question whether he who makes a discovery in
science or the arts which facilitates the advance of mankind, or he who
contributes by his labors to remove a delusion which has stood in the
way of progress, is most entitled to the gratitude of his fellow-men. A
falsehood, as long as it stands unquestioned, may and does receive the
respect which is due to the truth; but there is a time when, no matter
how hoary with age, it must pass away and give place to the latter.

John the son of Zebedee the fisherman, upon careful inquiry, can never
be successfully confounded with him of Ephesus. His character, as
developed in the Synoptics, is composed of negative qualities. We find
him in Jerusalem when he had got to be fifty years old, without any
evidence, up to that time, that he had been out of sight of the walls
of the city, and no proof that he said or did anything worthy of notice.
His name is mentioned in connection with some of the great scenes in the
life of Christ, but he takes no part, and, like the supernumeraries on
the stage, his presence is only needed to fill up a required number.
To be sure, Paul speaks of him in connection with James and Peter as
pillars of the church--which has no significance, as the nine other
disciples were all moderate men, and the church at the time few in
number and easily managed. John of the Synoptics is not only lymphatic
and of negative qualities, but, from his condition in life and pursuits,
must have had but little learning of any kind. John of the Greeks is
a man of learning, and a scholar. He was master of the Greek, and was
familiar with the abstruse and subtle philosophy of that speculative
people. He was at home in all the different and various doctrines of
the Gnostics, and proved himself the most able man of the age in his
contests with those numerous sects which embraced the most learned men
of the second century. In fine, this John of Galilee, whose name is
seldom mentioned, or if so, not for anything he said or did, who lives
to be more than fifty without the least notice being taken of him, or
allusion made--this phlegmatic John, after he has passed the meridian
of life, and his powers are on the decline, has all at once become a
teacher, and the great light of Grecian theology, and wields a pen with
the fire and spirit of Demosthenes! A change and complete transformation
like this is nowhere else to be found in the history of the world. The
truth is, the John of Galilee is not the John of Ephesus. The latter
is a phantom of some Greek's brain, which has served to mislead men for
ages.

If John the disciple had ever passed out of Syria into Asia Minor, so
important a fact would find a place in some authentic history; and from
the time he put his foot in the country, his meanderings, like those
of Paul, would be well known and preserved. We leave him in Jerusalem in
A.D. 50, and the next time we hear of him he is in Ephesus. When he left
Judea, and when he arrived in Asia Minor, no one pretends to know.
From the year forty-eight, and perhaps much sooner, to the spring of
sixty-five, Paul spent nine-tenths of his time travelling up and down
the Archipelago, establishing and visiting the churches. He made the
circuit three times, and it was his uniform practice, in closing his
epistles to the different churches, to mention those of the brethren who
were with him, even if they were not of much importance; and yet in none
of them does he mention the name of John. Considering that John was an
Apostle, this silence of Paul can be accounted for only by the fact that
he did not hear of or see him in Asia Minor, and was in Ephesus as late
as the year sixty-four, and still later, sixty-five, and up to that time
John had not been there, for Paul makes no mention of him.

What historical proof is there that is worthy of credit, that John was
ever in Asia Minor? The whole story rests on the shoulders of Irenaeus.

Here is what he says: "Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by
Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times
of Trajan, is a true witness of the traditions." (Book III. sec. 3.)
Irenaeus cites no authority, and we have a right, in a matter of so much
importance, to demand of him some evidence that what he states is true.
In this absence of any reference to written testimony we have a right
to infer that there was none, and that there was no ground for the
assertion but tradition. This Irenaeus is forced to admit. The book on
heresies was written, as we shall show, about A.D. 181. According to
authentic history, Paul was in Ephesus in sixty-five, the last time. If
the statement of Irenaeus is founded on tradition, and there is no other,
then the tradition that Paul left John in Ephesus is one hundred and
sixteen years old. We will see what a tradition so old, handed down to
future ages, is worth, coming from Irenaeus. A tradition over one hundred
years old, when first inserted into the pages of history by one of the
most dishonest historians of any age, is the authority we have in our
day for believing a most important fact in the history of the Christian
church. The caption to the section from which the above passage was
taken will explain the reason why Irenaeus undertook to misrepresent the
truth of history: "_A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in
the various churches, a perpetual succession of Bishops was kept up_."
He was engaged in furnishing an apostle to the churches in Asia Minor
and some parts of Greece, for an "apostolic succession." We will find
him engaged in doing a great deal of this kind of business before we are
done with him. The proof that John was not in Ephesus is conclusive.
The language of Irenaeus implies that Paul placed John in charge of the
church when he left for Rome _for he says John remained_. This is not
so. When Paul left Ephesus, in the year A. D. 64 or 65, he left Timothy
there in charge of the church, and he remained until Paul got into
trouble in Rome, in the fall of A. D. 65, when the latter sent for him.
Would Paul leave the church in the charge of Timothy when one of the
Apostles was there, especially as he was so young that some objected to
him on account of his age? In writing to Timothy to meet him in Rome,
would Paul fail to make some mention of the Apostle, if he had been in
Ephesus when he left?--Not one word to an Apostle who would naturally
take charge of the church, in the absence of himself and Timothy?

It is clear, then, that John had not been in Ephesus up to the fall or
summer of A. D. 65, when Timothy left to go to Rome; and the question
is, was he there after this? and if so, when? Polycarp presided over the
church at Smyrna, which was not far from Ephesus, and between the two
points there was constant intercourse by land and water; and if John had
succeeded Timothy at the latter place, would not he, Polycarp, take some
notice of so important a fact? He speaks of Paul in his letter to
the Philippians, and why not mention John, who was one of the twelve
Apostles? Polycarp lived to the end of the century, and it is claimed
John also lived to about that time, and as they both lived so long
in such close proximity, how natural it would be that the intercourse
between them should be most intimate, and that the former should mention
those relations with an Apostle in writing to the churches he addressed,
Irenaeus felt the force of this, and undertakes to show that Polycarp was
the _hearer and disciple of John_. He says: "These things are attested
by Papias, who was John's hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an
ancient writer, who mentions them in the fourth book of his works."
(Quoted in Eusebius, _Ecc_. Hist., book iii., chap. 39.) It is meant
that it should be understood from this passage that both Papias and
Polycarp had seen and heard John the Apostle. Now Papias never conversed
with John, the son of Zebedee the fisherman, and he says so, in a
fragment preserved in the writings of Eusebius. After quoting the
passage just cited from Irenaeus, Eusebius says: "But Papias himself, in
the preface to his discourses, by no means asserts that he was a hearer
and an eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but informs us that he received
the doctrines of faith _from their intimate friends_, which he states
in the following words: 'But I shall not regret to subjoin to my
interpretations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time
accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received
it _from the elders_, and have recorded it in order to give additional
confirmation to the truth by my testimony. For I never, like many,
delighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the
truth; neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are
given from the Lord to our faith, and that came from the truth itself.
But if I met with any one who had been a follower of the elders
anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of
the elders,--what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas,
James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what
was said by Aristion, and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord;
for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the
living voice of those that are still surviving.' And the same Papias
of whom we now speak professes to have received the declarations of the
Apostles _from those that were in company with them_, and says also that
he was a hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John. For, as he has
often mentioned them by name, he also gives their statements in his own
works." (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 39.)

He says he never conversed with John, but with the elders, and that _he
was a hearer of Presbyter John, and so was Polycarp_. When Irenaeus says
that Papias conversed with John, without telling which John, he knew
that no one would be thought of but the disciple; and such would
have been the case, had not Eusebius preserved this fragment from the
writings of Papias. Polycarp and Papias both conversed with the same
John, who was John the Presbyter. In another place Irenaeus says: "But
Polycarp also was only instructed by this Apostle, and had conversed
with many who had seen Christ." (Book iii. chap. 3, sec. 3.) This is a
palpable falsehood, and so appears from the passage just cited. He cites
no authority, but lets facts of so much importance in history depend
on his simple word. If what is stated be true, why does not Polycarp
himself say something about the sources from which he derived his
doctrines? Nothing would give so great weight to his preaching as that
he derived what he taught from those who had listened to Christ and his
Apostles. Why speak of Paul, and what he taught, and not of Jesus and
his disciples, and what they taught?

The world is indebted to Irenaeus for the story of what took place
between John and Cerinthus at the bath-house in Ephesus. Speaking of
Polycarp, and how in all respects he was superior to Valentinianus and
Marcion, he says: "_There are also those_ who heard from him (Polycarp)
that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and
perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without
bathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down,
because Cerinthus is within. '" (Book iii. chap. 3.)

Now it has been shown that John the disciple of the Lord never saw
Polycarp, and if anything of the kind ever did take place, it was
between Polycarp and John the Presbyter. The latter is a historic
character, spoken of by Polycarp, who lived about this time, and was
a Presbyter in the church; and it is evident that Irenaeus seeks to
confound the Apostle with him. It is for this reason he describes him in
the above passage as "the disciple of the Lord," for which there was
no reason, unless he meant to deceive. We have proved that he tried it
once, and when the first falsehood is uttered it is easy to fabricate
a second. This is the first blow that was directed by Irenaeus against
Cerinthus, a leader among the Gnostics; but it is only initiatory to
still heavier ones which are to follow.

Marcion was a distinguished character among the Gnostics, and he too
must receive some damaging blows at the hands of Polycarp, the disciple
of John. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on
one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?"--"I do know thee--the
first-born of Satan."--"Such," continues the writer, "was the horror
which the _Apostles and the disciples_ had against holding even a verbal
communication with any of the corrupters of the truth." (Book iii. chap.
3.)

The Apostle in this case was John the Presbyter, if any one, and the
disciple Polycarp the martyr, who had, in fact, never seen any of the
Apostles. It is to be noted that no authority is given by Irenaeus for
these stories, though they are introduced as some things which somebody
had said. Such is history.

The value of tradition from the authority of Irenaeus may be judged of by
the following statement he makes, evidently intended to strengthen the
assertion he made about the presence of St. John in Asia Minor. In
all cases where he wants it to appear that the Apostle was there, he
connects the principal subject with other statements in a way as if
the main fact was incidentally mentioned. "Now Jesus was, as it were,
beginning to be thirty years old when he came to receive baptism, and
according to those men he preached only one year, reckoning from his
baptism. On completing his thirtieth year he suffered, being still a
young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that
the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that extends
onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the
fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age,
which our Lord possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of
teacher, even as the gospel and all the elders testify." "Those who were
conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord (affirming) that
John gave to them that information. And he remained among them up to the
time of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other
Apostles, and heard the same account from them, and bear testimony as
to the validity of the statement. Which, then, should we rather
believe?--whether such as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the
Apostles, and who never in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of
an Apostle?" (Book ii. chap. 22, sec. 5.)

It seems that Irenaeus had got into a dispute with Ptolemaeus, and
attempts to silence him, as he does all opponents, by the authority of
the disciples, and especially of John, who is the only one he names.
John, too, was in Asia at the time. It is not said where the other
Apostles were. Ptolemaeus claimed, as appears in the first part of the
same section, "that Christ preached for one year only, and then suffered
in the twelfth month." The argument with Ptolemaeus was, that Christ was
too young, and preached too short a time, to be regarded as a teacher of
much authority; and in this way, as Irenaeus says, "destroying his whole
work, and robbing him of that age which is both necessary and more
honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which
also, as a teacher, he excelled all others." The objection is put down
in a summary way, claiming that the time of Christ's preaching extended
over a period of _ten years_. This is what the Apostles stated, _and
what John said while he was in Asia, and who remained there to the time
of the death of Trajan_.

Ecclesiastical history claims three years only as the period of Christ's
ministry, but it can be proven that the truth lies on the side of
Ptolemaeus. Did John, while he was in Asia, and the other Apostles, no
matter where, give rise to such absurd and false traditions? If John
was in Ephesus at the time Paul went to Rome, in the year A. D. 65, and
remained to the time of Trajan, as stated by Irenaeus, he was in Asia
thirty-five years. During this time his history must have been so
interwoven with the affairs of the church, holding the rank of an
Apostle, that nothing could be more easy than to prove his presence in
the country. There is no difficulty in following the footsteps of Paul
for each year after he set out to preach the gospel, whether in Europe
or Asia; and so with any real character who has been conspicuous for his
talents, or from the position he held in his day. But neither Irenaeus
nor Eusebius have been able to furnish the world with the least evidence
of a substantial character of the presence of John in Asia, although
they have undertaken it, and exhausted their ingenuity in trying to do
so. If no better proof can be given of the presence of John in Asia,
after a residence of thirty-five years, than a grave, which may as well
be claimed to be that of Hannibal as that of John, the world will be
satisfied he never was there. Eusebius has displayed his characteristic
ingenuity, and shown his usual disregard for truth in an effort to prove
that the grave of John was in Ephesus, and that it was identified as
late as the latter part of the second or beginning of the third century.
He travels out of his way to do it--manifests from the way he does it
that he is engaged in a fraud, and, between the fear of detection and
anxiety for success, he makes poor work of it. He causes Polycrates, who
was Bishop of Ephesus, to write a letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, with
the apparent purpose of informing him that some mighty luminaries had
fallen asleep in Asia, but, in fact, to give an opportunity to make
mention of the grave of John as being there in Ephesus. Who these
luminaries were who had fallen asleep, he does not name; but dismisses
this part of the subject and proceeds to say: "Moreover, John, that
rested on the bosom of our Lord, he also rests at Ephesus." Some other
matters are introduced into the letter, which related to the burial of
Philip and his two daughters at Hierapolis; but this was only intended
to conceal the real purpose and design of the writer.

Victor was Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the third century, after
John, if we admit he was in Asia, had been dead one hundred years. In
writing to Victor about persons who had lately died, and without saying
who they were, why should Polycrates make mention of the grave of John
as located in Ephesus, which, if true, would have been as well known to
all Asia as the tomb of Washington is known to the enlightened world to
be at Mount Vernon?

That intelligent men of the second and third centuries denied and
disproved the presence of John in Asia, is rendered certain by the
struggles and desperate efforts of their adversaries to establish the
affirmative. The indications are, that the philosophers proved that the
person whom the Christians claimed to be the Apostle John was some other
John; in all probability, John the Presbyter. Upon this point the proof
seems to have been so conclusive that the Christians were driven to
the necessity of proving that there were two Johns--one besides the
presbyter. Eusebius takes this task upon himself. We quote from
the above letter of Polycrates to Victor: "For in Asia also mighty
luminaries have fallen asleep, which will rise again at the last day at
the appearance of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven,
and shall gather again all the saints. Philip, one of the twelve
Apostles, sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters.
Another of his daughters, who lived in the Holy Spirit, rests at
Ephesus. Moreover, John, that rested on the bosom of the Lord, who was a
priest that bore the sacerdotal plate, and martyr, and teacher, he
also rests at Ephesus." (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. ch. 31.) Owing
either to a bad translation, or design on the part of the writer, two
distinct characters are so run together in the same sentence, that we
would suppose them to be one person if we did not know that the person
who leaned on the bosom of the Lord could not be the one who bore the
sacerdotal plate, and was a martyr.

It would seem from this effort to make it appear that there were two
Johns buried at Ephesus, that the philosophers proved that the John who
bore the sacerdotal plate was the one the Christians were attempting to
impose on the world as the real John, and that the proof was such that
they had to yield the point, and claim that there were two graves--one
the martyr's, and the other the Apostle's. Eusebius felt conscious that
it was not safe to rest his case here, and we find him reaching out in
every direction for further proof, satisfied with anything that will
give color to the fact he labors to establish.

In another place he states: "Where it is also proper to observe the name
of John is twice mentioned. The former of which he (Papias) mentions
with Peter and James and Matthew, and the other apostles; evidently
meaning the evangelist. But in a separate point of his discourse
he ranks the other John with the rest not included in the number of
apostles, placing Aristion before him. He distinguishes him plainly by
the name of Presbyter. So that it is here proved that the statement of
those is true who assert there were _two_ of _the same_ name in Asia,
that there were also two tombs in Ephesus, and that both are called
John's even to this day; _which it is particularly necessary to
observe_" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap, xxxix.) As much as to
say to the objecting philosophers, If you have proved that one John in
Asia was the Presbyter John, we prove by Papias that there were two,
and that one of them was the Apostle. If this is so, it is only by
inference. But it spoils the argument when it is shown that when Papias
speaks of the two Johns, he does not say they were in Asia, or where
they were. He speaks at the same time of all the Apostles, or nearly so,
by name, but does not mention them, or any of them, in connection with
any place. To subserve a particular purpose, Irenaeus had asserted that
John had been in Ephesus, where he remained a long time, without the
least authority to sustain him. It was a bare, naked assertion without
proof.

In the third and fourth centuries, during the time of Eusebius, this
assertion had grown to great importance, by reason that, on the fact
that it was so, was founded the Apostolic succession of nearly all the
churches in Europe, and most of Asia. To maintain the presence of John
in Asia was as important as it was to prove that Peter had been in Rome.
Understanding the importance of this fact, the philosophers directed
their attacks upon it, showing that the man the Christians called the
Apostle was somebody else. It devolved upon Eusebius, the most learned
man of his day, to defend the position. The task exceeded his ability,
but not his inclination to deceive. If we except Irenaeus, no writer has
so studiously put himself to work to impose falsehoods on the world as
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. His genius was employed in various ways,
and especially in perverting chronology. Speaking of a class of men who
gave themselves up to such employments, the author of the "Intellectual
Development of Europe," page 147, says: "Among those who have been
guilty of this literary offence, the name of the celebrated Eusebius,
the Bishop of Caesarea in the time of Constantine, should be designated,
since in his chronography and Synchronal tables he purposely 'perverted
chronology for the sake of making synchronisms.' (_Bunsen_.) It is true,
as Niebuhr asserts, 'He is a very dishonest writer.' To a great
extent, the superseding of the Egyptian annals was brought about by his
influence. It was forgotten, however, that of all things chronology is
the least suited to be an object of inspiration, and that, though men
may be wholly indifferent to truth for its own sake, and consider it
not improper to wrest it unscrupulously to what they may suppose a just
purpose, yet that it will vindicate itself at last" His character for
truth stood no better among writers of the fifth century, for Socrates
fairly charges that in his life of Constantine he had more regard for
his own advancement than he had for the truth of history. (Book i.
ch. 1.) A whole volume is devoted to display the virtues and exalt
the character of a man who had murdered his son Crispus--his nephew
Licinius--suffocated his wife Fausta in a steam bath, and who, to
revenge a pasquinade, was with difficulty restrained from the massacre
of the entire population of Rome.

In another part of this volume we will have occasion to detect and
expose the genius of this Father, in his attempt to create a chronology
so as to give semblance to a list of men who never existed, but who were
required to fill an important gap in the life of the church. No fitter
instrument could be found to help consummate the fraud conceived by
Irenaeus to impose a spurious John on the world than Eusebius of Caesarea.




CHAPTER VIII.

     The Gnostics.--Irenaeus makes war on them.--His mode of
     warfare.--The Apostolic succession and the object.--No
     church in Rome to the time of Adrian.--Peter never in Rome--
     nor Paul in Britain, Gaul, or Spain.--Forgeries of Irenaeus.

Before we approach the principal subject treated of in this section, it
will be proper to say something of a sect or society which in its day
took a leading part in the affairs of the world, but which has long
since disappeared from history, and whose former existence is now only
known to the careful reader. We refer to the Gnostics, who for the
most part flourished in the second century. They were divided among
themselves into more than fifty different sects. "The principal among
them were known under the names of Basilidians, Valentinians, and
Marcionites. They abounded in Egypt, Asia, Rome, and were found in
considerable numbers in the provinces of the West. Each of these sects
could boast of its Bishops and congregations, of its doctors and
martyrs, and instead of the four Gospels adopted by the church, they
produced a multitude of histories, in which the actions and discourses
of Christ and his apostles were _adapted_ to their respective tenets."--
(Decline and Fall, chap. xv. vol. I. p. 257.) They supported their
opinions by various fictitious and apocryphal writings of Adam, Abraham,
Zoroaster, Christ, and the Apostles. They were for the most part
composed of Gentiles who denied the divine authority of the Old
Testament, and rejected the Mosaic account of the creation, of the
origin and fall of man, and claimed that a God was unworthy of
adoration, who for a trivial offence of Adam and Eve pronounced sentence
of condemnation on all their descendants. They adored Christ as an
_AEon_, or divine emanation, who appeared on the earth to reclaim man
from the paths of error and point out to him the ways of truth; but with
these opinions they mingled many sublime and obscure tenets derived from
oriental philosophy. This divine _AEon_ or emanation they considered was
the Son of God, but was inferior to the Father, and they rejected his
humanity on the principle that everything corporeal is essentially and
intrinsically evil. They agreed with the Christians in their abhorrence
of polytheism and idolatry, and both regarded the former as a
composition of human fraud and error, and demons as the authors and
patrons of the latter.

As we have stated, the Gnostics for the most part sprang up in the
second century and disappeared in the fourth and fifth, suppressed by a
law of the Emperor Constantine. "The Emperor enacted a law by which they
were forbidden to assemble in their own houses of prayer, in private
houses, or in, public places, but were compelled to enter the Catholic
church.... Hence the greater number of these sectarians were led by fear
of consequences to join themselves to the church. Those who adhered to
their original sentiments did not at their death leave any disciples to
propagate their heresies, for, owing to the restrictions to which they
were subjected, they were prevented from preaching their doctrines."--
(Sozomen, Ecc. Hist., book ii ch. 32.)

Thus passed from history the Gnostics, "the most polite, the most
learned and most wealthy of the Christian name." (Decline and Fall,
chap. xv. vol. I. p. 256.) Such was the character of the men who,
brought into collision with the orthodox Christians in the second
century, became involved in the most violent and bitter struggles in
which men were ever engaged. It was to defeat and destroy these men that
Irenaeus devoted the labor of a lifetime, that on their ruin he might
erect the Catholic church. The undertaking was Herculean, but the means
employed were well chosen, vigorously and tenaciously pursued, and its
success is one of the most remarkable and exceptional cases in history
of the triumph of cunning, falsehood, and fraud. The grand idea was,
that Christ, the Son of God, was the founder of the church on earth, and
that, at his death, the power to establish others after him he conferred
on the Apostles, and upon no one else. As they might confer this power
on others as they had received it from Christ, so these last could in
turn do the same to those who followed them, and in this way continue
the church through all time. This is what Irenaeus calls the "Apostolic
succession." A church which could not prove its connection with Christ
through this Apostolic chain was no church at all, and it amounted to
impiety and vile heresy for such a pretended church to undertake to
explain or understand his gospel. Such a church has no relation to
Christ, but with demons and evil spirits.

Irenaeus found it much less difficult to show that there was no such
succession in the Gnostic churches than he did in proving that it
existed in his own. To do this, as we will show in another place, he was
forced to introduce on to the stage the names of at least nine persons
who, he claimed, had been Bishops of Rome, most of whom were mere myths
and never had an existence, and those who had were never in Rome at all.

Christ, at his death, he further maintains, not only conferred on the
Apostles the sole right to establish churches, but also imparted to them
some divine knowledge or gifts which they on their death intrusted
to the church as a special deposit for the benefit of all who yielded
obedience to her authority. These precious gifts left with the church
Irenaeus compares to money or riches deposited in a bank by a rich man.
But we will let him speak for himself: "Since, therefore, we have such
proof, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others, which is
easy to obtain from the church; since the Apostles, like a rich man
depositing his _money in a bank_, lodged in her hands most copiously all
things pertaining to the truth; so that every man, whosoever, _can draw_
from her the water of eternal life. For she is the entrance to life, and
all others are thieves and robbers." (Book iii. chap. 4, sec. I.) Having
established the principal proposition by his mere assertion (which is
his way of making history of all kinds), Irenaeus next proceeds to show
that the Gnostics could not trace any connection with a church founded
by the Apostles. "For prior to Valentinianus (he says), those who follow
Valentinianus had no existence: nor did those from Marcion exist before
Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom
I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and
inventors of their perversity." (Book iii. chap. 4, sec. 3.)

The ancient Father has, so far, established two of his main
propositions: first, that a church must derive its origin through the
Apostles, or some one of them, to be genuine; and second, that there was
no such connection in the churches of the Gnostics; and it only remains
to show that the church claiming to be orthodox had. He declines to
point out the order of succession in all the churches, but consents
to do it in the case of Rome, which, he says, according to tradition,
derived from the Apostles, was founded and organized at Rome by the
two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Book iii. chap. 3, sec. 2.) The
church at Rome, founded by such great lights as Peter and Paul, Irenaeus
continues, should be regarded of the highest authority in the church,
for, he says, "it is a matter of necessity that every church should
agree with _this_ church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that
is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has
been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."
(Sec. 2.)

As Peter was selected to be head of the church, and Rome the capital of
the Christian world, the scheme to establish a church on the ground of
an Apostolic succession must fail, unless it can appear that Peter had
not only been there at some time, but that he was also the founder of a
church at the holy city. A letter said to have been written by Clement,
the third Bishop of Rome, is selected as the medium by which it is made
to appear that Peter had been in Rome; and Irenaeus took upon himself
to show what he was engaged in while there. At the proper place we will
show that this Clement is a fiction, brought on the stage as a link in
the Apostolic chain forged by the great criminal of the second century.

Now follows a forgery so apparent on its face, that it does not require
the skill of an expert to detect it.

"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to those who, in
these last days, have wrestled manfully for the faith; let us take
the noble examples of our own age. Through envy, the faithful and most
righteous pillars of the church have been persecuted even to the most
dreadful deaths. Let us place before your eyes the good Apostles. Peter,
by unjust envy, underwent not one or two, but many labors: and thus
having borne testimony unto death, he went into the place of glory,
which was due to him. Through envy, Paul obtained the reward of
patience. Seven times he was in bonds; he was scourged; was stoned.
He preached both in the East and in the West, leaving behind him the
glorious report of his faith. And thus having taught the whole world
of righteousness, and reached the fullest extremity of the West, he
suffered martyrdom by the command of the governors, and departed out of
this world, and went to the holy place, having become a most exemplary
pattern of patience." (_Epistle I. of Clement to Corinthians_, sec. 5.)
By the side of this extract we will lay a passage of Irenaeus. Speaking
of the writers of the Gospels, he says: "Matthew also issued a written
Gospel among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul
were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church."
(Book iii. chap. 1.) Now, we assert with confidence, that the hand which
penned the first passage wrote them both. It is not said in so many
words, in Clement's letter, that Peter was in Rome, but it is to be
inferred, as in the case of John at Eph-esus. Irenaeus seldom states
anything which is positively untrue in direct language, but makes
falsehood inferential. The passage we have quoted does not contain a
single truth, except as it relates to Paul. Paul and Peter were never
engaged together in laying the foundation of a church. They quarrelled
in Damascus and could never agree. The doctrine of circumcision formed
an impassable wall between them, and, as we will show, was never given
up by Peter. Besides, it is not true that Peter had anything to do in
laying the foundation of the church at Rome.

Christians, during the reign of Claudius in Rome, were too few in number
and too poor to form a church, especially such an one as would require
the office of a Bishop. Renan, in speaking of the church in the time of
Claudius, says it was composed of a "little group--every one smelt of
garlic. These ancestors of Roman prelates were poor proletaries, dirty,
alike clownish, clothed in filthy gabardines, having the bad breath of
people who live badly. Their retreats breathed that odor of wretchedness
exhaled by persons meanly clothed and fed, and collected in a small
room." (_Life of Paul_, 96.)

We have no reason to believe that at any time during the life of Peter
was the church of Rome, if there was any church there at all, composed
of different materials or greater in numbers than at the time referred
to. What was there for a Bishop to do in such a crowd, or what was there
to keep him from starvation? Christians engaged in riots growing out
of the hostility between them and the Jews, were driven from Rome by
an edict of the Emperor Claudius, and did not return during his reign,
which ceased in A.D. 54, when that of Nero commenced. In A.D. 58 they
had not rallied, and at that time Rome was without a church. It was
the practice in all cases with Paul to address Christians through the
churches, where churches were established; but his Epistle, in A.D. 58,
to the Romans, is addressed not to a church, but "_to all that be in
Rome_" In his three years' imprisonment in that city, commencing in the
spring of A.D. 61, he makes no mention of a church, nor does he during
the second, which lasted from the summer or fall of A.D. 65 to the
spring of A.D. 66. There is no proof that the historian can discover,
worthy of his notice, that there was a church in Rome of any kind, even
down to the time of Adrian, A.D. 117, and even later. We are overrun
with traditions on this subject, the creations of the second century,
to which the attention of the reader will be called when we treat of the
twelve traditional Bishops named by Irenaeus. Adrian, in the seventeenth
year of his reign, knew so little about a Christian church, that he
supposed the office of a Bishop belonged to the worship of the god
Serapis. In a letter written by him from Alexandria, A.D. 134, to his
brother-in-law Servianus, he says: "The worshippers of Serapis are
Christians, and those are devoted to the god Serapis, who, I find, call
themselves Bishop of Christ."

We will dismiss this part of the subject for the present, with the
promise to return to it in a subsequent chapter, when it will be
demonstrated that there was no Christian church in Rome until after the
reign of Antoninus Pius.*

     * See Appendix C

Were Peter and Paul together in Rome at all? Paul went there in the
spring of A.D. 61, for the first time, and remained until the spring
or summer of A.D. 63. During this time he wrote four epistles, as
follows:--to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon,
and, if we except the first, he closes them by naming the persons who
are with him. He says nothing about Peter, nor does he mention his name,
so far as we know, during the three years he was confined in Rome. That
Paul should omit to mention Peter, one of the Apostles, in some of his
letters, is the very best proof that he was not in Rome at all. After
his release in the spring of A.D. 63, after making a visit to the
churches in Europe and Asia, he returned to Rome again in the fall of
A.D. 65. He had with him a few friends who stood by him to the last.
They were Luke, Mark, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia. There could not have
been many other Christians in Rome at the time besides those named,
because Paul, after naming the above who sent salutations to Timothy,
adds, "and all the other brethren," which implies that there were not
many of them. Paul does not mention Peter, because he was not there.
Timothy, no doubt, was with Paul in the winter of A.D. 65 and A.D. 66,
and was put to death in the spring of the latter year, with his friend
and fellow-laborer. We never hear of him again. In the spring of A.D.
66, the labors and sorrows of the great Apostle of the Gentiles ceased.
He had fought the good fight--he had finished his work--he had _kept
the faith_; and now, by his death, bore testimony to the doctrines he
preached. He was among the last of Nero's victims. Nothing that
belongs to history is surer than that Peter and Paul never were in Rome
together, laying the foundation of a church, or anything else.

Having proved that one-half of what is stated by Irenaeus in the passage
which we have quoted is false, according to the usual rule for testing
the truth of any statement, we might claim that the remaining half
is also untrue. But we ask no such advantage in disproving any of the
statements made by this father.

_When_ was Peter in Rome? No writer in the first or second century
pretends to give the time when he was in Rome, or when he died.

Irenaeus gives the names of twelve Bishops who succeeded each other,
commencing with Linus, but does not give a single date, so that we can
tell when or how long any one of them held the office. This want of
dates, where it was easy to give them--if what was stated was true--was
urged with so much force against what Irenaeus said, that Eusebius, in
the fourth century, undertook to fix the time when these traditional
Bishops succeeded to, and how long each held the office. He fails to say
when Peter first became Bishop, or when he ceased to be the head of
the church, but commences giving dates from the time of Linus, his
successor. Without intending, he has furnished the data to determine
when Peter died, if his dates are correct, which is _not even probable_.
He says: "After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, he was succeeded
by his son Titus; in the second year of whose reign, Linus, Bishop of
the church of Rome, who held the office about twelve years, transferred
it to Anacletus." (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii. ch. 13.) As Linus
succeeded Peter, the latter must have died just before his successor
took the office. Titus became emperor June 24th, A. D. 79, and as Linus
died two years after this, after holding the office twelve years, he
became Bishop in A. D. 69; which must have been the year of Peter's
death. Nero died in June A. D. 68, and at his death the persecution
against Christians ceased altogether. It is not claimed that Galba,
Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, or Titus ever inflicted persecution of
any kind on Christians during the time they held the government of the
empire. Eusebius, in attempting to fix a date when the second Bishop
took office, answers the objections made to the vagueness of Irenaeus,
but robs Peter of the laurels of a martyr.

But it is claimed that Linus was installed Bishop before the death of
Peter, and Irenaeus pretends to give the time. He says: "The blessed
Apostles then having founded and built up the church, committed unto the
hands of Linus the office of the Episcopate." (Book iii. ch. 2, sec.
3.) The blessed Apostles are Peter and Paul. Now we have just shown that
these Apostles were never in Rome together, and that there was no church
to be committed to the charge of Linus or anybody else. As it is an
important part of the story that Peter died a martyr at Rome, this could
only happen to him between A. D. 64 and A. D. 68, for the persecution
under Nero commenced during the former year, and ended with his death in
A. D. 68. We have the most conclusive proof that Peter was not in Rome
in A. D. 64, when the persecutions under Nero commenced, nor afterwards.
He was in Babylon--whether Babylon in Assyria, Babylon in Mesopotamia
or Egypt--he was in Babylon more than two thousand miles away. Peter was
born about the time of Christ, and was sixty-four years of age when the
persecutions under Nero began. He was married, and when he wrote his
first Epistle he was in Babylon and had his family with him, for he
mentions the name of Marcus, and calls him his son. "The church that is
at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus,
my son." (1 Peter v. 13.)

The date of this epistle is fixed by Dr. Lard-ner and other critics at
A. D. 64. Did Peter, at the age of sixty-four, when he heard that Nero
was feeding the wild beasts of the Amphitheatre with the flesh and bones
of Christians, "lured by the smell of blood," start for Rome? If Peter
was in Babylon in A. D. 64, an "Apostolic succession," so far as it
depends on him, must fail, and Rome must surrender the authority by
which she has held the religious world in subjection for the last
seventeen centuries.

But this she will never do, as long as her audacity and cunning are left
to hatch schemes to escape from the dilemma. Inspired by despair, she
now claims that Peter means Rome when he says Babylon, and that the
Marcus spoken of was not the son of Peter, but the nephew of Barnabas
and companion of Paul! Just as well claim anything else, and say Babylon
means Alexandria, and that Marcus was the stepson of Nero. Here two
impressions are made: one that the letter was written at Babylon, and
the other that Peter was attended by his son. Are both false? What did
Peter, or anybody else, expect to gain by giving false impressions? By
an agreement between Peter and Paul, made early and observed strictly,
the labors of the former were limited to the circumcised, and he found
them in large numbers in cities watered by the Euphrates. There and in
Judea, among the Jewish people, was the scene of Peter's labors, and
there he died. He had no business in Rome. As there was no church in
Rome in A. D. 64, it is impossible, if Peter was there at the time, for
him to make the salutation he does in his address to his countrymen. He
could say, "the church that is at Babylon," but not "the church that is
at Rome," for there was none.*

     * See Appendix B.

Mark the son of Peter, and Mark the nephew of Barnabas, are two
different persons, whom the genius of Irenaeus seeks to confound. The
epistle to Philemon was written in the latter part of A. D. 63, which
shows that Paul, Timothy, and Mark were then in Rome. They left in
the following spring. During the winter of A. D. 63, Paul wrote the
Colossians that they might expect Mark to visit them, and it would seem
that he had made arrangements with them of some kind in regard to him,
when he arrived among them. "Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas (_touching
whom ye received commandments_: if he come unto you, receive him.") Col.
iv. 10.

Unless Mark changed his mind afterwards, he went from Rome to Colosse in
Phrygia. The next reliable information we have of Paul after the spring
of A. D. 63, except at Nicopolis in A. D. 64, he is back in Rome in
the fall of A. D. 65, and in prison; and the first knowledge we have of
Mark, he is in some part of Asia Minor. Timothy and Mark were together,
and Paul writes to the former from his prison, to come to Rome and to
bring the latter with him, and to get there before the winter sets in;
which request was complied with. To suppose that Mark had been to
Rome in the mean time would be most unreasonable, and against all the
probabilities in the case. There was nothing to take him there until
Paul called him back. If Peter was in Rome when he wrote his first
epistle, in A. D. 64, Mark the nephew of Barnabas was not with him. If
Mark saw Peter at all in A. D. 64, it was not in Rome. Nor did he see
him that year in Babylon in Egypt, or Babylon in Mesopotamia or Chaldea.

The latter Babylon was long known for its vices and wickedness, and was
called a sink of iniquity; and as Rome had become corrupt and steeped in
crime of all kinds, it is claimed that Peter uses the word Babylon in a
typical sense when he was writing from Rome! If this is so, he did not
write from Babylon in Egypt or Mesopotamia, as some have contended, for
they were each small and inconsiderable places of no importance, and
there could be no object in using either as a type to represent the
corruptions of Rome. If Mark saw Peter in Babylon, it was in Chaldea.
Measured by degrees of longitude, Rome and this Babylon are more than
two thousand miles apart. Why would Mark make a visit to Peter involving
a journey of four thousand miles, br half that distance? He never did.
He could not. He went among the Colossians under some arrangement made
by Paul, and no doubt remained with them until he was wanted at Rome.
When Peter calls Mark his son, he means just what he says. Mark the
companion of Paul, and Mark the son of Peter, are two different men.

What should take Peter to Rome or keep him there when burning and
torturing Christians was one of the amusements of Nero? Had Peter's
character for courage so much improved that he went there when all the
Christians had gone, to defy Nero, and invite his destruction? There
is something in the character of Peter that makes it improbable, if not
impossible, that he should be in Rome in a time of danger. He was a man
of strong impulses, but a constitutional coward. He followed Christ to
the scene of the crucifixion, "but he followed him afar off." (Matt.
xxvi. 58.) He had pride, and a proper sense of manliness, and when he
was betrayed through a want of courage into the commission of a mean
act, he had spirit and sense enough to be ashamed of it. He denied
Christ, but it cost him bitter tears of repentance. Either his cowardice
or his jealousy stood in the way of his coming to the aid of Paul,
whenever Paul was in danger of his life. When the Jews were about to
tear him to pieces in Jerusalem, and he had to be rescued by the Roman
soldiers, Peter was nowhere about, and we do not even hear of him, In
his trials before the Roman Governors, when he had no one to stand by
him but a few faithful companions, the presence of Peter, at such a
time, would have done much to aid and console the great champion of a
common cause. But in all these places there was danger, and where danger
was was no place for Peter.

He lacked moral, as he did physical courage. At Damascus he did not
hesitate to sit at the same table with the uncircumcised, when there was
no one present to object; but when those came from Jerusalem who could
not tolerate the liberal ideas of Paul on circumcision, he cowardly
sneaked away. Paul took fire at the appearance of so much meanness, and
boldly reproved him. Is this the kind of man who would enter the lion's
den, and brave the wrath of Nero at a time when the tyrant was flooding
the streets of Rome with the blood of Christians?

Justin Martyr was born about the year A. D. 100, and was a native of
Neapolis in Syria. (Apology, sec. I.) At the beginning of the reign of
Antoninus Pius he fixed his abode in Rome, and afterwards wrote numerous
works, principally devoted to the defence of Christians. (Cave's _Life
of Martyr_, vol. 2, chap. 6.) No one had better opportunities of knowing
about Peter, and the church at Rome, than he had, and no one who wrote
as much as he did which concerned Christianity, would have been more
likely to mention him, if what Irenaeus says of him had been true. He
is so oblivious of Peter that he seems to have been unconscious of his
existence. No writer in the first years of the second century, who is
entitled to credit, speaks of him, and he first begins to figure in
the pages of Irenaeus when the disputes with the Gnostics were at their
height. The Clementines were composed later in the century, when Pauline
Christianity was giving way to the new school, and the dogma of an
Apostolic succession had taken possession of the church. Dionysius,
Bishop of Corinth, who lived and wrote during the reign of Marcus
Antoninus and his son Commodus, about A. D. 180, according to Eusebius,
also states that Paul and Peter were at Rome together engaged in laying
the foundation of a church. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 25.)
But this writer has got out of the Pauline period, and even goes beyond
Irenaeus, for he states, according to the same authority, that Peter and
Paul laid the foundation of the church at Corinth.

Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, Apollinarius of Hierapolis,
all writers about the same time, A. D. 180, like Irenaeus, take sides
against the Gnostics, and show that they were committed to the new
school. From this time Irenaeus is quoted as the authority for the fact
that Peter and Paul had founded the church at Rome, and we are asked
to give special weight to what he says, as he was the companion of
Polycarp, who had seen and conversed with John.

Speaking of Paul, Clement is made to say, "He preached both in the East
and in the West--taught the whole world righteousness, and reached the
farthest extremity of the West, and suffered martyrdom, by the command
of the Governors." This passage has long been a stumbling-block among
learned critics. It is the only authority on which is founded the story,
that after Paul was discharged from prison in A. D. 63, he went into
Spain, Gaul, and Britain. Caius, the Presbyter, in the beginning of the
third century, says: "Writings not included in the canon of Scripture
expressly mention the journey from Rome into Spain." Hippolytus, in the
same century, says that Paul went as far as Illyricum, preaching the
gospel. Athanasius, in the fourth century, says that St. Paul did not
hesitate to go to Rome and Spain. Jerome, in the same century, says that
"St. Paul, after his release from his trial before Nero, preached the
Gospels in the Western parts." (Quoted from Chevallier's _Apostolical
Epistles_, note, p. 487.)

These is no authority for Paul's travels in the Western provinces,
except the passage from Clement, and as Irenaeus is the founder of the
story, it is not improved by the repetition of subsequent writers.
The whole is a transparent falsehood. From the time of Paul's career,
commencing with his adventure near Damascus to the time of his
imprisonment in Rome, in the spring of A. D. 61, we have an account of
his travels, and know where he was each year during this time. He never
in this time went west of Rome. In the spring of A. D. 63, in company
with Mark, Titus, Timothy and others, he left Rome and went in all
probability to Colosse, where, in pursuance of some agreement he made
with the people of that place, he left Mark. How long he remained is
uncertain, but the next time we hear of him he is in Crete, where no
doubt he spent the winter of A. D. 63 and A. D. 64, In the mean time he
made some converts, whom he left in charge of Titus, and in the spring
went west into Macedonia. Some time in the summer or fall of A. D. 64
we find him in Nicopolis, where he informed Titus he meant to spend
the winter. The following spring or summer he went to Rome and was soon
imprisoned. If he was at Colosse or Crete in A. D. 63, and Nicopolis in
A. D. 64, he could not have gone to Britain, Gaul, and Spain between
the spring of A. D. 63 and the summer of A. D. 65, for it would not be
possible.

But it is conclusive that Paul did not go into the provinces of the West
after his release from prison; that there is no mention of his travels
in the West, except what is said in this passage from the letter
of Clement--a thing impossible, when we consider that he never went
anywhere but he made his mark, and left his footprints behind him. Even
Paul himself, in his subsequent letters, makes no allusion to any such
travels, which is accountable upon no other hypothesis than that he
never made them. But what was gained in fabricating this passage?

The idea of Irenaeus, that there could be no church unless its origin
could be traced to some one of the Apostles, who were special bankers
of divine favors, never left him. He furnished Rome with Peter, and Asia
with John, and now he is required to furnish one for the churches in
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Here were churches in these countries in his
day, and who had authority to establish them? It would not do to claim
that either of the Twelve had been in the West, for even falsehood has
its' boundaries. Paul will do. He is the great Apostle of the Gentiles.
Besides, according to the Acts, he had submitted to ordination at the
hands of the Apostles. The explanation of the reasons which dictated
this spurious passage in Clement's letter is consistent with the acts of
Irenaeus, and the whole current of his thoughts throughout his life.
But this story, invented by him, has been repeated by others, until it
settled down--as history! It is clear from the proof here shown, that
Irenaeus has no claim to our belief as a writer, and that the statements
he makes in regard to Peter in Rome and Paul in the West are mere
inventions of his own to assist him in his disputes with the Gnostics,
in which he was engaged for the best part of his life.




CHAPTER IX.

     The claim of Irenaeus that Mark was the interpreter of Peter,
     and Luke the author of the third Gospel, considered.--Luke
     and Mark both put to death with Paul in Rome.

Irenaeus, after stating that Peter and Paul preached in Rome and laid the
foundation of a church at that place, continues: "After their departure,
Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us
in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of
Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him." (Book iii. sec.
1.) Again no time is given. The last time we know anything of Mark and
Luke that is certain, or at all reliable, they were both with Paul in
Rome. In his second letter to Timothy he says: "Only Luke is with me.
Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the
ministry." (2 Timothy iv. 11.) That Timothy obeyed this request and
took Mark with him, does not admit of doubt. Paul and Timothy were
inseparable, and Mark was Paul's near friend and companion. This must
have been in the fall of A. D. 65, when Paul was in prison, with little
or no hope to escape the second time from the fangs of Nero.

At the time Timothy and Mark entered Rome, the fury of Nero raged with
all its sanguinary cruelty. It was just about the time the conspiracy
of Piso was brought to light. Made mad by his fears, he struck in all
directions. Not content with the destruction of the conspirators, he put
to death all who offended his vanity or moved his jealousy. Seneca, a
man whose many virtues added lustre to the Roman people, and who was
an honor to any age, was not suffered to live. His very virtues gave
offence to the tyrant. Lu-can and others, distinguished for genius and
learning, were put to death. Tacitus says that at this time "the city
presented a scene of blood, and funerals darkened all the streets."
(Annals, book XV. sec. 21.) Speaking of the events of the year 66, when
Paul was put to death, the same writer says: "We have nothing before us
but tame servility, and a deluge of blood spilt by a tyrant in the
hour of peace. The heart recoils from the dismal story. But let it be
remembered by those who may hereafter think these events worthy of
their notice, that I have discharged the duty of an historian, and if in
relating the fate of so many eminent citizens, who resigned their lives
to the will of one man, I mingle tears with indignation, let me be
allowed to feel for the unhappy. The truth is, the wrath of Heaven was
bent against the Roman State. The calamities that followed cannot, like
the slaughter of an army or the sacking of a city, be painted forth
in one general draught. Repeated murders must be given in succession."
(Annals, B. XVI. sec. XVI.) The author then proceeds to give a long
list of victims. At the time Paul was in prison, and Mark and Luke
his companions were with him, the Roman legions, under the command of
Vespasian, were marching to make war upon the Jews, if they had not
done so already. They had rebelled and defied the power of Rome. At this
time, no Jew could be in Rome and live. Not only was the anger of Nero
aroused against them, but that of the entire people of Rome--and
this feeling did not abate until after almost the entire nation was
destroyed. No doubt Timothy, Luke, Linus, Paul, and all others who were
with them, perished in the general calamity. Why put to death Paul,
and not his fellow-laborers? Nero waged war not against Christians, but
against Christianity. We trace all these parties inside the gates of
Rome, and then we lose their trail forever. There is not one single item
of reliable proof that any one of them ever left the doomed city. The
footprints of Christians going into Rome at this time were like the
tracks going into the cave of Polyphemus--many were seen going in, but
none coming out.

We learn from Eusebius and Jerome, that Mark went to Egypt and founded a
church at Alexandria, and the latter states that he died and was buried
there in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. This is impossible. As
Nero commenced his reign A.D. 54, this would made him die in A.D. 62.
Now we find him alive with Paul in A.D. 65. Eusebius, in his loose way,
says: "The same Mark, _they say also_, being the first that was sent
to Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he had written, and first
established churches in Alexandria." (Book I. ch. 16.) This father
had special reasons why he wanted to get Mark to Alexandria. The close
resemblance between Christians and Therapeutae, as we have shown, was
a reason with him why he should insist that the latter were in fact
believers in Christ by a different name. Mark is sent to be their
teacher, and was claimed to be the founder of this new sect of
Christians. Nothing is wider from the truth. If ever Mark or Luke left
Rome, there is no reason why we should not hear something of them.
Situated as they were in their relations with the founders of
Christianity, had they survived the slaughter at Rome, one or both would
have left behind them evidence, of some kind, of their escape. What
remained of Paul, Timothy, Mark, Luke, Linus and others after they
entered Rome in the winter of A.D. 65 and A.D. 66, could only be found
after that time among the graves of Nero's victims. Whatever Mark and
Luke wrote, in the nature of Gospels, was written before they entered
the gates for the last time.

As this was in A. D. 65 or A. D. 66, and the gospels ascribed to
them were neither extant nor known before the beginning of the second
century, we are forced to look to some other quarter for those who wrote
them.

But what proof is there that Mark and Peter were on such intimate terms
as is claimed by Irenaeus? None, except that which is afforded in the
first Epistle of Peter (1 Peter v. 13), wherein Mark is spoken of
by Peter as his son. What better evidence can we have of the studied
dishonesty of Irenaeus, than his attempt to have it appear or believed
that the Mark referred to in the first of Peter, was the companion of
Paul and interpreter of Peter? We have just shown he was not--but an
entirely different person, and it sweeps away the whole foundation
upon which rests the claim that the Gospel of Mark was written at the
dictation of Peter. While Mark was with Paul, either in Rome or Asia
Minor, Peter, with his son Mark, is preaching among the Jews of Chaldea.

What Presbyter John says on this subject is here worthy of notice.
Eusebius, speaking of the writings of Papias, says: "He also inserted
into his work other accounts of the above-mentioned Aristion respecting
our Lord, as also the _traditions_ of the Presbyter John, to which
referring those that are desirous of learning them, we shall now subjoin
to the extracts from him already given a _tradition_ which _he_, sets
forth concerning Mark, who wrote the Gospel, in the following words:
'And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the interpreter of
Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not in
the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither
heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, he was in company with
Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, _but not to give
a history of our Lord's discourses._'" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii.
chap. 39.) Papias here gives _a tradition_ derived through Presbyter
John. Slender proof that Peter dictated the Gospel of Mark! To rank
among canonical Gospels, and as a corner-stone of Christianity, with the
authority of an inspired book, the proof falls far below what we have a
right to expect and demand. On such a subject it is no proof at all. It
is difficult to tell what Mark did write, according to Papias. What he
did write was not in the order in which the events in the life of Christ
occurred--nor in the order in which he spoke or taught. Peter would not
allow him to give the history of our Lord's discourses. If that is so,
then the Gospel to which Papias refers is not our present Gospel of
Mark. This relates the acts of Christ in the order of time, and gives
his discourses in full. In this respect the second Gospel does not
differ from the first and third. It is quite probable that Mark, in his
intercourse with the Apostles, may have learned many things in relation
to Christ which he wrote out, but which, like the Hebrew Gospel
of Matthew, was condemned or cast one side, as it did not help to
strengthen the new ideas in relation to Christ, which sprang up some
time before the death of Paul. But we can never know what Mark wrote, as
Papias does not claim he ever saw it, nor do we know of any one who did.

What is said by Clement of Alexandria and all other writers on the
origin of the second Gospel is derived from the extract taken from the
works of Papias, and from what is said by Irenaeus: their statements do
not better the case, any more than a superstructure will give strength
to the base on which it rests. If Mark ever wrote anything, it would
contain nothing that did not accord with Paul, for he was not only his
fellow-traveller, but he was his fellow-laborer in the spread of the
doctrines of Christianity; and so near and dear were the relations
between them, that when Paul saw his end approach, he wrote to Timothy
to bring Mark with him, as brother would for brother, for a parting
inter view. What Paul taught, Mark believed--and Paul dead or Paul in
life would have made no difference with Mark.

After reading the Gospel of Mark, who would suppose that he had been the
companion of Paul and the interpreter of Peter? We would expect to find
some thought or expression that had in it the soul of Paul, as his very
spirit penetrated all his followers and made them a reflex of himself.
Paul drew from the depths of his own consciousness, which he took for
revelations, the ideas which formed the basis of his religion and
made Christ what he believed him to be. It was a holy faith with him,
disconnected from all material laws. The second Gospel is founded on
works, and the divinity of Christ proven by his power over the laws
of the universe. All nature bows down before him; even demons and evil
spirits fly before his presence. Mark the interpreter of Peter!! Where
do we see Peter in the Gospel of Mark? What, all at once, has become of
circumcision? Did he, after his quarrel with Paul, shake off his Jewish
prejudice and bigotry and rise to a higher plane? The proof is he did
not.

Paul, Luke, and Mark were as companions inseparable--they were
fellow-laborers, held the same doctrines, died for the same cause and at
the same time.

In another chapter we inquired from what source Luke got his knowledge
of the wonderful statement he makes in relation to the visitation of the
angel to Mary and Zacharias, for he did not get it from Paul, who never
mentions the name of Mary. We now ask, from whom did Mark learn the
story of John the Baptist? Paul knew nothing about him. Who had a better
opportunity than he to know everything which related to him, if he had
been the person described by Mark? What better proof can be offered to
show that neither Luke nor Mark wrote the Gospels ascribed to them,
than that they are made to state matters which lay at the bottom of
Christianity in after-ages, of which Paul, their teacher and co-laborer,
knew nothing? To find the authors of these Gospels we must look to the
second century.




CHAPTER X.

     Acts of the Apostles.--Schemes to exalt Peter at the expense
     of Paul.

The Acts of the Apostles dates between A. D. 140 or 150 and A. D. 170.
The book, _as we now find it_, was not in existence before Justin's
_Apology_, because before his time there were no miracles, as will
be shown; while the Acts abounds in those of the most extravagant
character. Between A. D. 140 or 150, and A. D. 180, is the time when
the war among the different sects raged with the greatest violence, and
frauds and forgeries were practised by all parties without remorse or
shame. It was during this time that Lazarus was made to rise superior to
death, and assume his place among men, after his body had become putrid
and began to decay. There was nothing too false or extravagant for
parties to assert at this period of the world, and the only wonder
is, that the absurd stories of the age have passed down to subsequent
generations as truths of a revealed religion.

The book of the Acts, in its present form, came to light soon after
the doctrine of the Apostolic succession was conceived, for it is very
evident that the first half is devoted to give prominence to Peter among
the Apostles, who was to be made the corner-stone of the Church. As
all other churches are made to bow to the supremacy of Rome, so all the
Apostles must be subordinate to Peter. This is so obvious that the work
is overdone. On the day of Pentecost he is put forward to explain the
miracle of the cloven tongue, and show that it was in accordance with
what the prophet Joel had foretold--which if Peter did say what he is
made to say, only proved his ignorance of what the prophet meant. His
miraculous powers are wonderful. He cured a man forty years old, who
had been lame from his birth, so that he leaped and walked. His power
extends over death, and he raises Dorcas from the grave. He is now chief
speaker. Ananias and his wife Sapphira fall down dead before him. So
extraordinary is his power over diseases, "that they brought forth the
sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that _at the
least the shadow of Peter_ passing by might overshadow some of them."
(Acts v. 15.)

It is surprising that the incredulity of the Jews did not give way
before such wonderful works; but it seems it did not, and the only
effect produced on their minds was to send Peter to prison. Peter is
twice committed to prison for doing good, and the sole object in sending
him there is to give an opportunity to the Lord to deliver him, and show
that he is under the special protection and guardianship of God. "And
behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the
prison; and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise
up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said
unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals: and so he did. And he
saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me." (Acts xii.
7, 8.) "And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a
surety that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of
the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the
Jews" (verse 11).

The person over whom the Lord had manifested so much care, must
certainly have been set apart to act some great part in his providences
towards our race. At the time we are writing about, the struggle between
the followers of Peter and Paul was raging; the latter claiming that the
Apostle of the Gentiles was of equal authority as to doctrine with
Peter or any of the Apostles; while the former insisted that Paul had a
special commission--to convert the Gentiles--and as he had performed
his work, his mission ceased, and he was no longer to be regarded as an
authority in the church. No less a person than God himself can settle
the dispute, and the cunningly devised stories of Cornelius, and Paul's
conversion, are introduced into the Acts in order to give the Lord an
opportunity to decide between the two parties.

Cornelius, a devout man, is laboring under what is called religious
conviction, and is in doubt what to do. He stands in need of a spiritual
adviser, and when in this condition of mind, "He saw in a vision
evidently about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to
him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was
afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers
and thy alms are come up for a memorial before God. And now send men to
Joppa, and call for one _Simon_, whose surname is Peter." (Acts x. 3,
4, 5.) The centurion was sent to Peter, because he was the depositary of
divine light, and the dispenser of spiritual gifts--an intimation from
God to all the world, for all ages, where men must look to, to find the
true interpreter and expounder of religious faith. Cornelius did as he
was commanded.

But it was not enough that this was true of Peter; but it must be shown
that Paul was but a simple missionary, whose powers ended with his
death. To do this, the story of his conversion in the Acts is told,
notwithstanding it is in direct conflict with what Paul says himself
on the subject. When Ananias was requested by the Lord to call on Paul
while he was still prostrate from the effects of the blow he received
near Damascus, he declined to do so--apparently in fear of Paul, on
account of his previous treatment of Christians. This gave the Lord
an opportunity to tell Ananias, why he is anxious to do as he was
requested. "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen
vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the
children of Israel: for I will shew him how great things he must suffer
for my name's sake." (Acts ix. 15, 16.)

The Lord has now settled all disputes between the followers of Peter
and Paul, and the office of each is settled and defined. Under such a
judgment, pronounced by God himself, no wonder the influence of Paul
ceased to be felt in the latter part of the second century, and Peter
proportionally increased in weight and authority. This attempt to put up
Peter and put down Paul, determines the date of the Acts, and fixes
it somewhere between A.D. 150 and A.D. 170, a period in the century
prolific of spurious writings. It may be called the Petrine age of
Christianity.

When Paul made his defence before the Jews at Jerusalem, and explained
to them the mode of his conversion, it would be dangerous, or at least
suspicious, to leave out the story of Cornelius; but as it differed so
much from the one he gives in second Corinthians, it was necessary to
omit the one given in the epistle entirely. But the fraud is easily
detected. The account as given in the Acts, to the sixth verse
inclusive, is as it was doubtless delivered by Paul; but from this
point the story diverges from the one given by himself, and is a sheer
fabrication. "And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was
come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a
great. light round about me." (Acts xxii. 6.) Then according to Paul's
account, given in his letter to the Corinthians, he was caught up to the
third heaven, and there heard unspeakable words which it was not lawful
for man to utter. What transpired between God and Paul, all took place
in heaven, where no man could bear witness. The account in the Acts,
which commences in the seventh verse, says that after the light shone
from heaven, Paul fell to the ground, and did not ascend to heaven, but
was led by the same light to Damascus. This version is to let in the
story of Ananias. He could not bear witness to what passed between the
Lord and Paul in the third heaven, but he might if the scene was laid
on the earth. Besides, what passed between the Lord and Paul the latter
does not pretend to state, for the words he heard were unspeakable and
not lawful for man to utter. There is nothing in the story in the Acts
that is unspeakable or unlawful to be repeated, unless it is to be
regarded as a piece of blasphemy.

Had Paul told the story as given in the Acts in his defence, there was
nothing in it to arouse the Jews to such a pitch of madness as to cause
them to insist that he should be put to death. There was more in it to
provoke a sneer than to excite anger. The scene in Jerusalem, when Paul
was compelled to make his defence, was in A.D. 58, and he could have
appealed to Ananias, who in the course of nature might still be living,
and others, if the story was true. It was not the story in the Acts
that incensed the Jews. When Paul claimed he was taken up to heaven, and
there met the Lord and talked to him face to face, he had reached,
in the minds of his hearers, a point in blasphemy that drove them to
frenzy, so that they exclaimed: "Away with such a fellow from the earth:
for it is not fit that he should live." The Jews listened to Stephen
with patience until he exclaimed, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and
the Son of man standing at the right hand of God," when they could stand
it no longer, and ran upon him with one accord and stoned him to
death. It is clear that Paul's defence, made before the Jews, of his
conversion, is omitted, and the story of Ananias substituted, to aid the
enemies of Paul in placing Peter over him.

When we find the same story variously stated by Paul, and in the Acts,
there should be no hesitation in choosing between the two. The Acts,
like the works of the early fathers, bears so many marks of forgeries,
to suit the emergencies and wants of the day, that very little contained
in either is of any historic value. The epistles of Paul had obtained
a large circulation before the time when the men of the second century
inaugurated an era of forgeries, and long before the Acts were in
existence; so that the forgers were compelled to exercise great caution
when they came to deal with the epistles, and only ventured to insert
passages into the genuine writings to give the sanction of his name to
the doctrines of the Alexandrian or Johannean school, or some dogma of
the day. Such passages are scattered all through the epistles, but
we can easily point them out, for they are doctrinal and exceedingly
pointed.

Peter disappears at the end of the twelfth chapter; but enough has been
done to make him chief among the Apostles, and claim for him a spiritual
supremacy in all matters which relate to the church. John, afterwards
the great light of Asia, only plays the part of an esquire to Peter, his
lord and superior. They are often together, but John is not suffered to
speak. It was designed that John, who was to take Asia in charge, should
stand next to Peter; but the writer, by imposing silence on him on
all occasions, took care that the supremacy of Peter was not put in
jeopardy. The preaching of Philip in Samaria was a device to show that
Peter and John were superior to the rest of the Apostles in their power
to confer the Holy Ghost. Philip made many converts, both men and women,
and he baptized them--but his baptism was not sufficient. "Now when the
Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the
word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. They laid their hands
on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."--Acts viii. 14, 17.

According to Paul, and this is made clear by the quarrels between him
and Peter, as related in the epistles, the latter was tenacious to the
last for the Jewish rite of circumcision, and we have no evidence, and
no reason to believe, that he ever gave it up. A sectarian Jew would
never answer to be the head and founder of a Catholic church. The
sectarian character of Peter must be got rid of, and we see studied
efforts in the Acts to do so. We have seen that Peter, in the first
words he addressed to Cornelius, took the opportunity to declare that he
believed in the doctrine that God was no respecter of persons. But this
was not enough, in the opinion of the writer of the Acts, or at least
the first half, and to make Peter's emancipation from his old Jewish
opinions more conspicuous, and enable him to explain how it happened
that the change was brought about, the vision of Peter on the house-top
is produced. He went up upon the house-top to pray, about the sixth
hour, and became very hungry; but while they were preparing something
for him to eat, he had a trance, "And saw heaven opened, and a certain
vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the
four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of
four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things,
and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill
and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything
that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second
time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done
thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven."

The command of the Lord to Peter to eat, was a command to give up his
Jewish views and notions; for that all flesh was alike, and equally
proper to be taken on an empty stomach. Peter was at a loss to
understand the vision, and while he was revolving the subject in
his mind, Cornelius and his party came to be instructed by him, in
accordance with the directions of the Lord. When Cornelius, who was
of the Gentiles, made at known the object of his visit, Peter at once
understood the import of the vision, and exclaimed, "Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respecter of persons," and that the gospel of
Christ is to supply the spiritual wants of all nations, as the beasts
and fowls are to furnish food for the hungry.

The conversion of Peter receives further importance and prominence
from the defence he is compelled to make before the brethren, for his
disregard of the rite of circumcision in the baptism of Cornelius. Peter
makes a speech, in which he declares that he was commanded by God, not
less than three times, to give up his old Jewish notions; and no sooner
was the command given than Cornelius, a Gentile, who was sent to him by
God, made his appearance. The command from God to Peter, and the arrival
of the centurion, who was instructed by the Lord to come to him, left
him no choice in the matter, and that he baptized the Gentile, in
obedience to the commands of the Lord. The reason was sufficient. "When
they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God,
saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto
life." (Acts. xi. 18.) The wall between Jew and Gentile is now broken
down, and Peter a fit subject for the head of a universal or catholic
church.

It seems that the person who put the speech into the mouth of Peter,
renouncing circumcision, was not satisfied with what he said at the
time. Something had been omitted or overlooked. Peter had shed his
Jewish skin, but the Lord had not given him a commission to preach
the gospel to all nations, and this he must have to be the head of a
universal church. At the council held at Jerusalem by the Apostles
to settle the question of circumcision, Peter, according to the Acts,
seizes the opportunity to supply the omission: "And when there had been
much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren,
ye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that
the Gentiles, by _my mouth_, should hear the word of the gospel, and
believe." (Acts xv. 7.) Now there was no occasion for Peter to make this
claim or assertion, for it had nothing to do with the subject before
the council, and was not true. The account which Paul gives of what took
place at the council is quite different, contradictory, and no doubt
true. He says, when he stated before the council the trouble and
vexations which were occasioned by this rite, and reasons why it should
not be forced on the Gentiles, that Peter, James, and John agreed with
him--gave him the right hand of fellowship, and then entered into a
compact that he should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.
(Gal. ii.)

This agreement was never departed from; but not so with regard to
circumcision. That Peter, James, and all the disciples disregarded the
order of the Council in regard to that subject, is rendered clear by
their subsequent conduct. After that, as much as two years, for the
Council was held in A.D. 49 or A.D. 50, and the epistle to the Galatians
was written in A. D. 52, Peter went to Antioch, where he found Paul.
He ate with the uncircumcised until some Jewish converts came from
Jerusalem at the instance of James, who found fault with his course.
Peter, it seems, then changed front and stood up for circumcision. "I
withstood him to the face," says Paul, for he was wrong. A discussion
springs up. Paul claimed that men were not to be saved through old rites
and ceremonies, nor by-works, but by faith. At this time, neither James
nor Peter had given up their contracted notions on the Jewish rite.
Nor had Peter as late as A. D. 57, twenty-four years after the death of
Christ. Of the four parties which disturbed the peace of the church at
Corinth at the time of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, which
was written in A. D. 57, the party of _Cephas_ was one. Peter was at the
head of a party which held out for circumcision, seven years after the
council at Jerusalem; and if he had not given it up then, when he was
fifty-seven years old, there is no reason to believe he did after that.
Nothing gave the men in the second century who undertook to put Peter
at the head of a universal church so much trouble as this thing of
circumcision, which we can readily detect by the pains and labors they
have taken to free him from it. But the stain will not wash out.

The story told in the Acts about the way in which Peter was
disenthralled from his narrow Jewish notions, is wholly inconsistent
with the subsequent history of the church at Jerusalem. After the
Lord had taken so much pains to prove to the disciples that a new
dispensation had commenced, and the wall between the Jews and Gentiles
was broken down, there was no reason why they should not all dispense
with the practice of circumcision. But they never did. The fifteen first
Bishops of Jerusalem, commencing with James and including Judas, were
all circumcised Jews. (Eus., Ex. 77., B., iv. ch. v. Sulpicius Severus,
vol. 11-31.) With the twelve disciples, jealousy of Paul, who fought
this Jewish practice to the last, seemed to be the most active feeling
of their natures, and we seldom hear of them unless they were dogging
his footsteps, and stirring up the Jews against him. It was through
their intrigues that the doors of the synagogue were slammed in his face
wherever he went.

The doctrine of ordination, through which that deposit of divine riches
which Irenaeus says Christ left with the Apostles is made to flow in an
uninterrupted current through all time, is conspicuously presented in
the Acts. When Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch, and about to start
for the West, on a mission to preach to the Gentiles, the Lord said,
"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them,
they sent them away." (Acts xiii. 2, 3.) Nothing could impose so great a
humiliation as this upon Paul. The Lord again interferes and assigns him
to a special duty, and to make this humiliation complete, he is ordered
to receive his commission at the hands of the Apostles. Who laid their
hands on Barnabas and Paul, is not stated, nor is it of any importance,
as the object of the statement is to make it apparent that the latter,
the great light of the Gentiles, submitted to the rite of ordination by
the imposition of hands, administered by some one of the Apostles.
Will any one believe this story to be true? If he does, he does not
understand the character of Paul. There is nothing he would resent with
so much feeling, as he would such an admission on his part that he was
less than an Apostle. When it was claimed he was not, his soul took
fire, and in his address to the Galatians, in the first chapter, he
delivers himself in this defiant strain: "_Paul, an Apostle, (not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised
him from the dead_.) But when it pleased God, who separated me from my
mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that
I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with
flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were
Apostles before me." (Gal. i. I, 15, 16, 17.) Is this the Paul who
patiently submits to receive his commission from an Apostle to preach
the doctrines of Christ to the nations of the earth at Antioch, when he
is about to commence his labors?

It is not enough that Paul should submit to receive the Holy Ghost at
the hands of the Apostle, and in this way be authorized to preach the
gospel; but he gives the ordinance his full sanction by conferring
ordination on others. "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at
Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus;
and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the
Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so
much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And when Paul had laid
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with
tongues, and prophesied." (Acts xix. 1, 2, 6.) No stronger proof could
be given that the followers of Paul were opposed to the Episcopacy
and the doctrine of succession and ordination, and contended against
a government by Bishops with zeal to the last, than the labored and
frequent efforts that are made to show that he himself gave his sanction
to the order.

For Paul's persistence in claiming a human origin for Christ, there
was a studied effort in the second century to destroy his claims as an
Apostle; but after his epistles had undergone alterations so as to
make Christ the Son of God in the sense of the Catholics of the second
century, he was restored to favor, and his powers wonderfully magnified.
He is now able to work miracles, and his power to heal diseases is such,
that whatever comes in contact with his person, is so filled or imbued
with holy energy, that its curative properties are sufficient to put
death at defiance.

It is clear that the Acts of the Apostles is not the work of one
century, but of two. The real itinerary of Paul commences in the
thirteenth chapter, and from this to the end of the Acts, we can trace
his footsteps in his various journeys among the churches, until he
finally enters the gates of Rome, in the spring of A.D. 61.




CHAPTER XI.

     Matthew the author of the only genuine Gospel.--Rejected,
     because it did not contain the first two chapters of the
     present Greek version.

Matthew, surnamed Levi, was a native of Galilee. Before his conversion
to Christianity he was a publican, or tax-gatherer, under the Romans,
and collected the customs of all goods exported or imported at
Capernaum, a maritime town on the Sea of Galilee, and received tribute
paid by passengers who went by water. From the position of Matthew, he
must have been a man of some learning and judgment, and from what we
know of the early lives of the other Apostles, the only one among
them, except perhaps Peter and James, that was capable of writing out a
correct account of what was said and done by Christ.

As the first church at Jerusalem increased in number, and new converts
were added to it, there was a necessity that there should be some
written history given of what was said and taught by Christ before his
death; and as Matthew was in every way qualified, the task was imposed
on him. Matthew wrote this book about A.D. 40, not much, if any, more
than seven years after the death of Christ. Everything was fresh in his
memory, and no doubt he was particular to give to the new converts a
full and correct knowledge of all the doctrines taught by Christ, and
especially to place before them his sermon on the mount, so full of
divine morality, which was to form the soul of the new religion.

From all we know with certainty, this Gospel of Matthew was the only
account of Christ in use among the members of the first Christian
church, and their only means of information, except what they learned
direct from the other Apostles. Everything, then, was just as it fell
from the lips of Christ, and had the odor of fresh-gathered flowers.
How the Christians at Jerusalem clung to this Gospel of Matthew, their
sufferings and persecutions through a period of more than two centuries
will bear witness. These Christians, afterwards called by way of
aversion Ebionites, were charged with the alteration of the Scriptures.
This alteration, according to Epiphanius, consisted in the omission
of the first two chapters of Matthew, which contain the account of
the miraculous conception of Christ. The statements of Epiphanius are
verified by the fact, that at the time these two chapters were added,
by the men of the second century, we can trace through the pages of
Ignatius, and other early fathers, numerous forgeries and interpolations
which are unmistakable, and were intended to sustain the new aspect
which Christianity took on in the early part of the second century. The
addition of the two chapters, and the forgeries, belong to the period
when the religion of Paul had passed off into the Philo-Alexandrian
period of Christianity. Eusebius informs us what were the crimes of the
Ebionites: "They are properly called Ebionites by the ancients, as those
who cherished a low and mean opinion of Christ. For they consider him
a _plain and common man_, and justified in his advances in virtue, and
that he was born of the Virgin Mary by natural generation." (Eusebius,
Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 27.)

The views held by the Ebionites of Christ were derived from the Gospel
of Matthew, and what they learned direct from the Apostles. Matthew had
been a hearer of Christ--a companion of the Apostles, and had seen and
no doubt conversed with Mary. When he wrote his Gospel everything was
fresh in his mind, and there could be no object on his part, in writing
the life of Jesus, to state falsehoods or omit important truths in order
to deceive his countrymen. If what is stated in the two first chapters
in regard to Christ is true, Matthew would have known of them; and,
knowing them, why should he omit them in giving an account of his
life? It was impossible to pass from the first to the second stage
of Christianity, as long as the Gospel of Matthew was recognized as
authority in the church. It stood as a mountain in the way, and had to
be torn down and made way with. The history of the Ebionites, from the
time they are charged with altering the Scriptures, to the time when
they disappear from history, is one of tyranny and bloody persecution.
In the reign of Adrian, what was left of them settled in the little town
of Pilla, beyond the Jordan, from whence they spread themselves into
villages adjacent to Damascus. Some traces of them can be discovered as
late as the fourth century, when they "insensibly melted away; either
into the church or synagogue." (_Gibbon_, ch. xv. vol. I. p. 255.) With
them perished the genuine Gospel of Matthew, the only Gospel written by
an Apostle.

Much useless labor has been bestowed on the question, whether the
genuine Gospel was written in the Hebrew or Greek language. How this may
be is of little consequence, since the genuine writing is no longer in
existence. It is just as certain that the present version of Matthew was
written in Greek, as that the genuine one was published in the Hebrew
tongue. To the church of Rome the world is indebted for the destruction
of the only genuine Gospel, and with it the only authentic account of
Christ. No greater loss could befall the world. It was written in the
dawn of Christianity, before corrupt and ambitious men sought to make
religion a way to power and distinction. The truths contained in this
Gospel stood in the way of a gigantic scheme, conceived by corrupt and
arrogant men, who saw in a church established by the authority of
God, the road to the highest point of human power and grandeur. They
succeeded, but their success,--

     "Brought death into the world and all our woe."

It was not necessary to reject all of Matthew's Gospel, and it is very
evident that much was retained--such as the discourses of Christ and
some portions of history.




CHAPTER XII.

     The character of Irenaeus and probable time of his birth.--
     His partiality for traditions.--The claim of the Gnostics,
     that Christ did not suffer, the origin of the fourth
     Gospel.--Irenaeus the writer.

The time when Irenaeus was born is variously stated. In the introduction
to his works against heresies, translated by Alexander Roberts, D.D.,
and the Rev. W. H. Rambaut, A. B., is the following passage on this
subject: "We possess a very scanty account of the personal history of
Irenaeus. It has been generally supposed he was a native of Smyrna, or
some neighboring city in Asia Minor. Harvey, however, thinks that he
was probably born in Syria, and removed in boyhood to Smyrna. He himself
tells us (lib. iii. sec. 3, 4) that he was in early youth acquainted
with Polycarp, the illustrious Bishop of that city. A sort of clue is
thus furnished as to the date of his birth. Dodwell supposes that he was
born as early as A.D. 97, but this is clearly a mistake, and the general
date of his birth is somewhere between A.D. 120 and A.D. 140" (page 18).

Among the many strong and representative men who have impressed their
genius on the Catholic Church, and given to it its distinctive features,
none have equalled Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons. It may in truth be
said he was the father of the church. He assisted at its birth; took
charge of its infancy; planted within its bosom seeds which sprouted and
bore fruit which has been the source of its nourishment and strength for
seventeen hundred years and more. It is enough to say of him, that he
placed in the heart of the church the seed which bore the fruit of the
Inquisition.

From the adoption of Trajan, in A.D. 98 to the death of the Antonines,
in 180, a period of eighty-two years, has been selected by the learned
author of the "Decline and Fall" as the most happy and prosperous
period in the annals of the human race. (Vol. I. page 47.) Had he
omitted the last of the Antonines, under whose reign Justin Martyr and
other good men were put to death, the learned author would have come
nearer the truth of history.

It was the prospect of peace and protection held out under this state of
things that influenced the Christians who had survived the cruelties of
other reigns to once more return to the imperial city. As soon as
they were sufficiently numerous it was natural to adopt some form of
government; but what that form was, we have no means of knowing,
except by the dangerous light of tradition. It must be always fatal to
tradition, where it claims to be important, that contemporaneous history
says nothing about it. It is certain that the uninterrupted repose
of the church to the time of Antoninus Verrus, A.D. 161, gave rise to
disputes among Christians; for when they were relieved from the fears of
an outward enemy, they soon found cause for quarrel among themselves. On
the introduction of the first three Gospels, which happened during
this time, as we shall prove, the character of Christ, or rather his
mysterious birth from the Virgin, gave rise to numberless controversies.

Irenaeus was born at the right time to be thrust into the midst of them,
and as soon as he was able to comprehend anything, his ears were filled
with the disputes of the various contending parties. He was born with a
love of contention planted in him, and had the best school ever de-vised
to cultivate and strengthen it. The character of his mind was bold and
daring, and in support of the cause he espoused, he had no scruples or
shame in resorting to falsehood and forgery. If the end was good, in his
sight, it was all the same to him, whether it was reached by truth or
its opposite. Such, indeed, was the prevailing morality of the age.
Towards his adversaries he was bitter and vindictive, applying to them
low and vile language, such as thieves and robbers. He claimed to look
with contempt upon those who differed from him, and took pleasure in the
repeated use of the word _heretic_. Whether he ever saw Polycarp or not,
and it is no proof he did because he says so, he claimed great advantage
from it, because, as he declares again and again, Polycarp was the
disciple of the Apostle John. He is only one remove from an Apostle, and
for what he states he claimed the weight of Apostolic authority.

We say again, it is very doubtful whether he ever saw Polycarp; and it
is very certain the latter never saw John. The studied dishonesty of
Irenaeus, in attempting to palm off the Presbyter John for the Apostle,
is as dark a piece of knavery as is to be found in the history of a
church which has encouraged such practices from the time it claimed to
be the depository of all the divine wealth left by the Apostles.

Driven to the wall by the sharp logic and superior wisdom of that
class of Christians who were distinguished by the name of Gnostics, his
devious and ingenious mind undertook to cut them off from all claims
as members of a Christian church, by interposing the doctrine of the
Apostolic succession. This step once taken involved the necessity of
repeated forgeries and frauds. Cowardly Peter is to be changed into a
hero,--sent to Rome, where death is certain, and there die a Christian
martyr. John, who had not life and force enough in him to rise above the
masses, and no more knowledge than is wanted to dip a net into the sea,
is to be converted into a fiery spirit, and put forth a book which is to
fall like a thunderbolt on the heads of the heretics. If anything arises
in the course of the debates, which, to ordinary men, would present
difficulties, with Irenaeus they were easily disposed of by tradition.
He had traditions for all emergencies, and when his adversaries dared
dispute him, he stands ready to silence them by abuse. He says: "But,
again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from
the Apostles, (and) which is preserved by means of the successions of
Presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they
themselves are wiser not merely than the Presbyters, but even than the
Apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. It comes
to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture
nor to tradition. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal,
my very dear friend, endeavoring like slippery serpents to escape at all
points." (Irenaeus, Vol. I. book iii. page 260.)

He brings often and repeated charges against his enemies for forgeries,
and at the same time makes more himself than all of them put together.
In the disputes about the twofold nature of Christ as he appears in the
Synoptics, and as will be fully explained hereafter, the Gnostics had
the advantage in the argument. If Christ the God descended upon the man
Christ at the baptism in the Jordan, it left him at the crucifixion.
Then, say the Gnostics, there _is no atonement_, for the Son of God did
not shed his blood. No other man, in that or any other age, could meet
the crisis but Irenaeus; and the result is the fourth Gospel.

The time when this Gospel first appeared as a historical fact, has been
so thoroughly sifted by late writers on that subject, that it will only
be necessary here to notice some of the prominent reasons why its date
is fixed after the middle of the second century. All allusions, or
pretended allusions, found in the writings of the fathers, on inspection
will be found to be the work of those who have attempted to poison the
fountains of history. Papias lived near the age of John, and if John had
written he must have known and spoken about it, as he speaks of Matthew
and Mark; but he says nothing about John or Luke. He was Bishop of
Heliopolis A. D. 165, and informs us that it was his habit to inquire of
those who were the followers of the elders, what was said by them: what
was said by Andrew and Peter or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John,
Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord. (Eusebius, Ecc.
Hist., book iii. chap. 39.)

The Apology of Justin to the emperor was written some time between the
years A. D. 130 and A. D. 160. The precise time is not known, and there
is some uncertainty about it. In his Apology, Justin makes thirty-five
distinct allusions to Matthew, eighteen to Luke, and five to Mark, and
if he says anything which points to John at all, on examination it will
appear that the allusions are found elsewhere, in writings anterior to
Justin. "For Christ said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven.'" This, it is claimed, is taken from the
fourth Gospel, which must have been in existence when Justin wrote. The
language in the Gospel is, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Except
a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3.)
This language, imputed to Christ, was drawn from a common source--from
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as has been fully proven, and so in
every other instance where the writer seems to allude to the Gospel of
John.

The new ideas concerning Christ found in this Gospel had not yet dawned
upon the world when Justin wrote, for on that subject he had not got
beyond what was contained in the Synoptics; or, to speak with greater
accuracy, his Logos idea was that of Philo, which differed from that of
John.

An examination of this subject by the most learned and careful writers,
proves that there is no reliable evidence that the fourth Gospel was in
existence before A. D. 175, when a direct reference is made to it in
the Clementine homilies, a production written in praise of Peter against
Marcion. The language quoted is unmistakably the language of John.
Tatian, who wrote between A. D. 160 and A. D. 185, quotes from the
fourth Gospel: "And this is what was said, Darkness does not comprehend
the light; the Logos is the light of God." In the nineteenth chapter
we read: "All things were made by him, and without him not a thing was
made." These were quotations from John without his being named as the
author; but Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote about A. D. 176, especially
ascribes the Gospel to him. "In the second book of this treatise
addressed to Antolycus, he says: 'Whence the holy Scriptures teach us,
and all who carried in them a holy spirit, of whom John says, In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.'" It may be claimed as an
historic fact, that the fourth Gospel was extant in A. D. 175, and that
all efforts to give it an early date spring from uncertain data: obscure
allusions and doubtful inferences altogether too vague and unreliable to
satisfy the mind in pursuit of truth.




CHAPTER XIII.

     Why Irenaeus wrote the fourth Gospel in the name of John.--
     He shows that the Gospels could not be less than four, and
     proves the doctrine of the incarnation by the Old Testament
     and the Synoptics.--The author of the epistles attributed to
     St. John.

The zeal of Irenaeus against his adversaries had carried him so far in
support of the doctrine of the incarnation that he ventured upon a
new Gospel, under the name and authority of an Apostle. Without
the authority of some one of the Apostles to sustain him, of what
consequence would the opinion of one man be, on a question which
involved the substance and essence of Christianity? Nothing would be
easier than to publish a fourth Gospel in the name of-some one among the
disciples. They were all dead a hundred years or more, and the time and
place of their death no one knew.

But why did Irenaeus select the name of John? It was his policy to
select from among the twelve the one who had been the least conspicuous
during his life, so that what was said or done by him in Judea at one
time should not conflict with something else claimed to have been done
at the same time somewhere else. The one that said and did nothing in
his own country might be claimed to have said and done a great deal in
another. If the proof adduced to prove that John, the son of Zebedee,
was not the John of Ephesus, and that Irenaeus was engaged in making a
false substitute, we have gone a great way to show that he himself was
the author of the fourth Gospel. To be sure, John's presence in Asia was
required for the Apostolic succession; but the man who brought him there
for that purpose would be most likely to use his name in all other cases
when it might prove useful.

The book against Heresies was written between A. D. 182 and A. D. 188,
so that about eight years elapsed between the appearance of the Gospel
and the one against the heretics. In the mean time, no doubt the
Gospel had been attacked from more quarters than one, so that it became
necessary that the writer should come to its defence. The book against
Heresies is nothing more than a supplement to the Gospel, and the writer
had in view its defence as much, if not more, than he had the heresies
of the Gnostics.

No better evidence could be given of the violence with which the fourth
Gospel was attacked, when it first appeared, than the character of the
defence made to sustain it. That it was something new in the time of
Irenaeus is evident from the fact that he is called upon and employed
his genius to defend it. He is not called upon to defend either of the
other Gospels, because whatever doubts there may have been as to them,
the time for discussion had long passed away. But the fourth Gospel was
something new; it had not gone through that fermentation in the minds of
men which always follows the introduction of some new idea or principle,
but was undergoing that process at the time Irenaeus wrote in its
defence. If this Gospel had been written by John, it would have been,
at the time Irenaeus wrote, nearly one hundred years old, and its claims
settled years before he was born. The very arguments he brings to its
support are proofs that it is a fraud. He proves that it is genuine
because it is a necessity--just as pillars are necessary to the support
of a portico. In his mode of argument he proves that a falsehood may be
exposed by the poverty and weakness of the arguments which are relied
upon for its support.

Irenaeus proves not only that the appearance of the fourth Gospel was
something new, but that the doctrines it contained were unheard of
before. He says: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more
or fewer in number than they are; for since there are four zones of the
world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is
scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the
church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, it is fitting that she
should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and
vivifying men afresh." (Book III. chap. 2, sec. 8.) On this subject,
after drawing many illustrations from the Gospels in proof of his
position, he concludes as follows: "These things being so, all
who destroy the form of the Gospel are _vain, unlearned_, and also
_audacious_: those (I mean) who represent the aspects of the Gospel as
being more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer."
(Book III. chap. 2, sec. 9.)

The fourth Gospel was written with no other purpose than to prove the
incarnation, and that purpose is so persistently kept up in every line
and verse, from the beginning to the end, that if we strike out this,
and the miracles which are mere supports of the main idea, there is
nothing left. And so with the third book against Heresies--it has but
one theme. The writer sets out with the Logos idea of this Gospel,
which is never lost sight of. He finds proof in the traditions of the
church--in every page of the Old Testament--in the Synoptics, as well
as in the fourth Gospel; and as we read his misapplication of words and
sentences, we would conclude that he was a lunatic if we did not know
he was something else. He has no quarrel with the first three Gospels,
because he can see nothing in them that does not furnish proof of what
is taught in the fourth; and in the language which makes most against
his dogmas, he sees the clearest proof of their truth.

As an example of his mode of interpretation, and turning the plain sense
of words from their proper meaning to proofs that Christ was God in the
flesh, we will give his explanation of the prophecy of Isaiah, which
relates to his birth from a virgin: "Therefore, the Lord himself shall
give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and ye
shall call his name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat: before he
knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for
what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not
consent to evil, that he may choose that which is good." Here follow the
comments: "Carefully, then, has the holy Ghost pointed out, by what has
been said--His birth from a virgin and His essence, for he is God (for
the name of Emmanuel indicates this). And he shows that he is a man when
he says, 'Butter and honey shall he eat;' and in that he terms him a
child also, in saying, 'before he knows good from evil;' for these are
all tokens of a human infant. But that he 'will not consent to evil that
he may choose what is good,' this is proper to God; that by the fact,
that He shall eat butter and honey, we would understand that He is a
mere man only--nor on the other hand from the name Emmanuel, should
suspect him to be Christ without flesh." (Book ill. ch. 21, sec. 4.)
That is, Christ is in the flesh, because he is to eat butter and honey;
and he is God, because he knows how to distinguish between good and
evil; and as a consequence, the divine and human nature are united in
his person, and he is the incarnate God. We have shown in another part
of this work that the prophecy of Isaiah had nothing to do with a future
Christ, but was meant as a measure of time, governed by the period of
gestation.

Again: "'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I
make thine enemies Thy footstool.' Here (the Scripture) represents to
us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of
the heathen, and subjected to Him all his enemies. Since, therefore, the
Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has
fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the
destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, 'Then the Lord rained
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of
heaven.' For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking
with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their
wickedness. And this (text following) does declare the same truth: 'Thy
throne, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is
a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity:
therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.' For the Spirit designates
both [of them] by the name of God--both Him who is anointed as Son, and
Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: 'God stood in the
congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.' He (here) refers
to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but
these are the church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God--that
is, the Son Himself--has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks:
'The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.' Who
is meant by God? He of whom He has said, 'God shall come openly, our
God, and shall not keep silence;' that is, the Son, who came manifested
to men, who said, 'I have openly appeared to those who seek me not.'"
(Book ill. chap. 6, sec. 1.)

"And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, 'I am come down to
deliver this people.' For it is He who descended and ascended for the
salvatipn of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who
is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself--He who is, the Father
bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father." (Book
III. chap. 6, sec. 2.)

He quotes many passages from the Gospel of Matthew to prove his
doctrine. "But Matthew says, that the Magi, coming from the East,
exclaimed, 'For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to
worship Him;' and that, having been led by the star into the house of
Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by those gifts which they offered, who
it was that was worshipped: myrrh, because it was He who should die and
be buried for the mortal human race; gold, because He was a king, 'of
whose kingdom is no end;' and frankincense, because He was God, who also
'was made known in Judea,' and was 'declared to those who sought
Him not.'" (Book III. chap. 9, sec. 2.) "And then, (speaking of His)
baptism, Matthew says: 'The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit
of God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' For Christ _did not
at that descend upon Jesus_, neither was Christ o

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/38376