1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e05f8bf20dc3fbf7232956ec2851e81e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tFMzI-tHwqzieL8ZWzDneyGUaEK308%7EiBTdEy7Z2kZ-4GhFMO6LgzQA1hU-k6mgzH0lBn%7EUC5MN9MLsZ8dK1lfzVr17GNRZXoAPQCCD09zTXNIfCB98islvEk2e25W3PE%7EsJEZJ0mXwjzOdu-wm4Js2y3XCttkQBLexvZiNK%7E1P8MwZEpElDd4TzphUGRl-V8AqNdPis0RSvh1%7ElGAsGviZz0kOflcYAp74KhCkmTRmkWZJMxQrB4OmEFXidXXIWkJod0ilx0rC7e5fZDB-6VMLH2Rnvmgpslrbq8I1H9%7Ea9-cE153EZbHnzDHy%7E9mfaLU2kWtfNoNVNtc3ITX9PRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5fcf591cf6e9265c4f7e150fec0904fa
PDF Text
Text
WH>05
PREFACE.
HILE the proof sheets of “ Our First Century ”
(published in this series in July 1873) were
being corrected, a stranger drew the writer’s attention
to a variety of matters connected with documents
supposed to belong to the first half of our second cen
tury. The stranger in question was William J. Birch,
of Florence, Esq., a gentleman and a scholar, who
carefully examined, and furnished the writer with
notes on the works of the Antenicene Fathers. The
mere reduction of those notes into a readable form ap
peared a Herculean task. For a time despair prevailed.
But in a happy moment the writer recollected the
admirable plan by which Mr F. A. Paley reduced
the Homeric chaos to order, and perceived, that since
the publication, in January 1866, of Mr Paley’s “In
troduction ” to his edition of our Iliad, every philolc gieal treatise should be modeled in accordance with
that “ Principia ” of the philological world. M r
Birch has been the originator of this tract, and the
plan of Mr Paley’s “Introduction” has been the
author’s model. The task has been a difficult one,
but the subject is important. For many thoughtful
readers of Church history have remarked that none of
the ecclesiastical historians have given a verified or
satisfactory account of the Christian Church during
the first two centuries of its supposed existence. In
stead of beginning their histories by explaining who
constituted the members of the primitive Christian
Church,—what they did,—what doctrines they taught,
—what became of the original founders,—when they
died,—where they were buried,—'who were their immediate successors,—and what became of them also,
church historians almost invariably commence by
W
�4
Preface.
giving an account concerning the systems of Grecian
philosophy and religion prevalent in the Roman
empire about the 202nd Olympiad, or a.d. 1 to 5,—
the ignorance and vice that then prevailed throughout
that empire,—the wretched condition of Rome (re
sembling very much the condition of all large Chris
tian communities in our own day, according to the
police reports),—the corrupt and harassed condition
of the Jews,—and concluding their commencement
with an essay on the assumed urgent necessity for the
promulgation of some new form of witchcraft in
Christian attire. But the ecclesiastical historians du
not give any evidence in support of the romance
which they try to dignify by naming it the “ history”
of the Christian Church during those two centuries.
They content themselves with grounding their state
ments on the first six books of Eusebius’ “ Ecclesias
tical History,” and on our “ New Testament,” al
though neither of these works, as we have them, can
be proved to be older than our fourth century ; and
although Eusebius expressly avows that he had scarcely
any trustworthy materials at all for the early part of
his history. In short, those historians treat Eusebius
as if he were an almost infallible guide regarding
matters for which he himself states he had not any
evidence or authority ; while they refuse his own
honest and explicit declarations that he knew virtually
nothing about that part of his history.
In the following pages an attempt has been made
to give to any one who may have a desire to write an
honest and well-grounded history of the Primitive
Christian Church, a suggestion regarding the difficul
ties of the subject, and a key to a rational method of
treating it.
Kilferest,
Feast of Assumption of B. F. Mary, 1874.
�PRIMITIVE CHURCH HISTORY.
EUSEBIUS.
O well as our materials afford scope for using our judg
ment, Eusebius, a.d. 315, appears to be not only
the earliest historian of the Christian Church, but also
almost the only authority we have regarding the per
sons, documents, events, and chronology relating to
that period, from a.d. 1 to a.d. 249, which is commonly
regarded as the subject of Primitive Church History.
Dr James S. Reid in his edition of Mosheim’s “ Insti
tutes,” p. 132, styles Eusebius, “this chief source of
our knowledge of ecclesiastical history.” Believers in
nearly all the great works which at one time or other,
have been considered to be of oracular authority, have
claimed for such works divine authority or inspiration.
Thus, it was said that Apollo dictated our “ Iliad ” to
“ Homer,”—that Jehovah dictated our “ Pentateuch ”
to “ Moses,”—that the “ Septuagint ” version of the
Old Testament was written under the influence of divine
illumination; (“for,” says Clemens Alexandrinus, Stro
mata, i. 22, “it was the counsel of God carried out for
the benefit of Grecian ears,”)—that the Holy Spirit dic
tated to the various writers the various tales and tracts
contained in our, “ New Testament,”—that the Arch
angel. Gabriel assisted Mohammed in the composition
of the “ Koran,”—and last, not least, that Constantine
the Great (“ 0, what a falling off was there ! ”) assisted
Eusebius in the compilation of his “ Ecclesiastical His
tory.” It is stated (Dr William Smith’s “ Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology ”), by
the late Mr George E. L. Cotton, that “ when Con
stantine visited Csesarea, he offered to give Eusebius
S
�6
Primitive Church History.
anything which would be beneficial to the Church there;
Eusebius requested him to order an examination to be
made of all documents connected with the history of
martyrs, so as to get a list of the times, places, manners,
and causes of their deaths from the archives of the pro
vinces. On this the history is founded, and of its
general trustworthiness, with the limitation necessary
from the principle of omission noticed above [referring
to “E. H.” viii. 2, of which more hereafter,] there can
be no doubt whatever! ”
Unfortunately, we do not know how far this story is
to be depended on,—if at all; because Mr Cotton has not
given his authority, and as he is dead we are not likely
to find it. Still less likely are we to find what was Mr
Cotton’s reason for believing that regarding the general
trustworthiness of Eusebius’ “ Ecclesiastical History,” at
least as we have it, 11 there can be no doubt whatever.”
We do not know even what means Constantine had at
his disposal for assisting Eusebius. We do not possess
any proof whatever that there were documents con
nected with the history of martyrs stored in the archives
of the provinces within the Roman Empire. It is also
entirely an assumption to say that Christianity as we
have it, possesses a historical existence as old as is
commonly supposed; for we know (‘ Our First Century/
p. 12), that “ All Jewish and heathen writers who
flourished during the first seventy years of our first
century are completely silent on the existence of the
Christian Church, and they appear utterly ignorant of
the miracles, doctrines, persons, and events related in
the narratives both of the now rejected and the received
gospels.” Moreover, to assume that the narratives con
tained in the first six books of Eusebius’ “ Ecclesiastical
History,” are substantially authentic and historical
would be an equally arbitrary assumption; for, in fact,
we know that the very reverse is the case. For those
narratives are stuffed with references to spurious docu
ments, to names of unknown men, with improbable and
�Eusebius.
7
ungrounded statements, and stories about miracles.
Eusebius’ want of sound critical judgment is so pain
fully manifest throughout his “Ecclesiastical History,”
that even his good faith has been called in question. His
accuser, Gibbon, (“Decline and Fall,” ch. xvi.,)says, “The
gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself,
indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might
redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all
that could tend to the disgrace of religion.” But this
accusation is scarcely honest. The “confession” re
ferred to occurs in “Ecclesiastical History,” bk. viii.,
ch. ii., and is avowedly applicable only to the last three
books of Eusebius’ “ Ecclesiastical History.” Just be
fore relating the persecution that commenced under
Diocletian, Eusebius says, “But it is not our part to
describe the unsatisfactory results of the inquiry into
these matters which meet us at the end, in addition
to those which occurred at the outset; nor is it our
part to hand down to memory their differences from
each other, or their inconsistencies. Therefore, we have
resolved not to make any further inquiry about them,
than in so far as we are likely to prove the divine
judgment to be true. Therefore, we have resolved not
to mention even those who have been sorely tried by
the inquiry [or persecution], or those who have made a
complete shipwreck of their salvation, and have been
cast away in the depths of the billows ;. but we will
add to the general inquiry only those points which are
likely to prove of use, in the first instance, to ourselves,
and in the second, to those who will succeed us.”
Having regard to the very imperfect literary morality
which prevailed among ancient writers, (sec “The
Iliad of Homer, with English notes,” by F. A. Paley,
M.A., vol. ii., Preface, p. xxxvi.,) this “confession”
of Eusebius is entitled to be regarded as a piece of
eximious literary honesty. For, having put his readers
on their guard, he had a perfect right to shape his
history with a view to any object he pleased.
�8
Primitive Church History.
So far as we are concerned, however, a much more
important subject is here involved—namely, what mate
rials Eusebius had for compiling his history. As he
nourished about a.d. 315, he, by himself, could not be
an authority of any value for events supposed to have
taken place about a.d. 100, still less could he be an
authority for events supposed to have taken place
about a.d. 60, or a.d. 30, or a.d. 1. Therefore with
out the external aid of genuine and authentic docu
ments, Eusebius could not have any better means
than we have for writing the primitive history of the
Christian Church. On this subject, a rational man
might think that Eusebius’ own declarations should be
sufficient. Yet, strange to say, those declarations have
been utterly ignored by writers on Eusebius, and on
ecclesiastical history. Nevertheless, they hold a con
spicuous place in Eusebius’ history; for, in the very
first chapter of the first book, he declares that he was
the first historian ■who had undertaken to write a his
tory of the Christian Church,—that it was beyond his
power to present that history in a full and continuous
state (svrsXT) %ai avapaXsivrov^—that in attempting the
subject, he was entering on a trackless and unbeaten
path,—that he was utterly unable to find even the bare
vestiges
yv^va) of those who may have toiled
through the way before him,—and that he had not
been able to find that any of the Christian Ecclesiasti
cal writers had directed their efforts to present any
thing carefully in this department of writing.
Now, with this candid and explicit declaration before
us, let us ask ourselves honestly, Why are we to suppose
that Eusebius had better materials for the compilation
of his history than those which he says he had ? The
answer is not by any means a difficult one. If the
trustworthiness of Eusebius be disproved, the history
of the Christian Church during our first two centuries,
as it is popularly believed, would be at an end. Euse
bius is our only authority for that period of Church
�Eusebius.
9
history, properly so called. Consequently the genuine
ness and the accuracy of his history have been regarded
as written under the influence of all but verbal inspira
tion. Moreover, Eusebius wrote his history in the very
manner calculated to make a history popular among
those who take an interest in it. A wrriter who wishes
to flatter the vanities and prejudices of nations, sects,
corporations, or families—if he have skill and fluency
—can easily attain his object by assigning dates, ex
ploits, and localities to certain names supposed to repre
sent real or imaginary heroes, martyrs, predecessors or
ancestors who figure in old legends. Speaking of the
legend regarding the settlement of Aeneas and his
Trojans in Latium, Niebuhr (“History of Rome,”
Vol. I., p. 188) says: “A belief of this sort does not
require a long time to become a national one, in spite
of the most obvious facts and the clearest historical
proofs; and then thousands would be ready to shed
blood for it. They that would introduce it need but
tell people roundly that it is what their forefathers
knew and believed, only the belief was neglected and
sank into oblivion.” In like manner, Eusebius has
not only assigned dates, exploits, martyrdoms, and
localities to various and illustrious names supposed to
represent the eponymous founders of Christianity during
our supposed first and second centuries ; but he has
also framed a history of those names which presents to
us a perspicuous and harmonious narrative so long as
we do not examine the doctrinal development and the
philological contradictions and inconsistencies contained
in the writings attributed to some of these names.
Bacon (Novum Organum, I. 88) says: “ It is the
greatest proof of want of skill to investigate the nature
of any object in itself alone; for that same nature,
which seems concealed and hidden in some instances,
is manifest and almost palpable in others, and excites
wonder in the former, whilst it hardly attracts attention
in the latter.” In like manner, Eusebius’ assignment
�io
Primitive Church History.
of dates in ecclesiastical history cannot be relied on as
being truly historical any more, for instance, than a
similar assignment of dates made by the compilers of
classical dictionaries to the Cyclic Poets.
Of course it was easy for Dr John Lempriere to state
that Stasinus wrote the “Cypria,” b.o. 900 ; that
Arctinus wrote the “ JEthiopis” and “Ilioupersis,” B.c.
776; that Agias wrote the “Nostoi,” b.c. 740; that
Lesches wrote the “Little Iliad,” b.c. 708; and that
Eugammon wrote the “Telegonia,” b.c. 566. But there
is not any contemporary evidence for these dates. The
state of penmanship in Greece prior to the time of
Herodotus, b.c. 443, and in the Christian Church prior
to the time of Origen, a.d. 220, are matters regarding
which we have not any direct evidence. Moreover,
what could Lempriere, or Aristotle, or even Herodotus,
know or prove regarding the occurrence of events sup
posed to have taken place in Greece at such remote
periods as those assigned to Arcturus and Stasinus ?
And, in like manner, what could Eusebius or even
Origen know regarding the occurrence of events sup
posed to have taken place among an obscure and insig
nificant sect, calling themselves “ Christians,” more
than two centuries before their time 1 At all events,
the sort of knowledge Eusebius had on the subject is
proved by his utterly uncritical perusal of the writings
attributed to names stated to have been contemporary
with each other, but which writings must have been
written at periods widely distant in time from each
other. As the Jews of Eusebius’ time regarded our
“Pentateuch,” finally revised about B.c. 400 (see Kalisch
on Leviticus, II. 639) as the identical words of Moses,
B.c. 1500, and the fountain-source of all Jewish litera
ture ; as the Greeks of Eusebius’ time regarded our
“Iliad” and “Odyssey,” really “epitomized and selected
from the general mass of ‘Homeric’ or ‘Cyclic’ ballad
poetry, not very long before Plato’s time,” or, say, B.c.
420 (see Paley’s “Iliad,” Introduction, Vol. I., p. xxvi.),
�Lemma.
11
as the work of Homer, b.c. 950, and the fountain-source
of all Greek literature; so, in like manner, Eusebius
took our “New Testament,” compiled probably as late as
a.d. 200, as the work of men supposed to have flourished
about a.d. 40, and the fountain-source of all Christian
literature !
To arrive at any clear approximation to the true state
of Primitive Church History, we must disregard all
mere text-books, since the oldest authority is too modern
and too erroneous to be depended on; and we must ex
amine the earliest extant and authentic works of the
Christian Fathers, and from the contents of these works
we must draw inferences and arrive at conclusions
grounded on sound philological principles.
LEMMA.
When we find a Christian ecclesiastical writer, of our
*
supposed second century, the author of a systematic
treatise of admitted genuineness, and which we have
ground for believing has been handed down to us with
out any serious corruption—(1) calling himself a Chris
tian; (2) explaining that he does so because he had
been “anointed”
but without mentioning or
giving any other indication that he had ever heard of
a person called Christ, or Jesus Christ; and, at the same
time, (3) attributing sayings (sometimes resembling,
but for the principal part differing from sayings put by
the writers of our New Testament into the mouth of
Jesus Christ) to the “Logos,” as an entirely spiritual
being or influence,—we are forced to the conclusion
that the writer in question must have been a Christian,
without any knowledge regarding the existence of the
.Jesus Christ mentioned in our ecclesiastical history;
and the fact of such an omission by such a writer sug
gests forcibly the probability (a) that there was not any
such person as Jesus Christ in existence before that
* For instance, Tatian.
�Primitive Church History.
writer’s time; (Z>) that the existence of such a person,
and all minute records of his life and career, were the
inventions of a later age; because such a writer must
have been aware of the existence of Jesus Christ and
of our “New Testament,” if such a person and such a
compilation had been in existence at or before the
writer’s time; and if the writer had been aware of their
existence, and had admitted their authority, he would
have referred to them specifically, and not to the vague
impersonalities termed “He,” “the Son,” “the Gospel,”
and “the Logos.” Also (c) we should be led to the
conclusion that such a writer must likewise be more
ancient than the writers of our “New Testament;” be
cause, when examining ancient literary works, we find
invariably that a written composition which is vague
in expression and scanty in details is older than another
written composition, on the same subject, which is
definite in expressions and copious in details.
Let us begin by applying these principles to the ex
tant apologies for the Christians by Tatian, Athenagoras,
and Theophilus. These writers are generally considered
to have flourished during our second century. Their
apologies are ominously silent on certain most important
matters. And if our philological principles be correct,
those apologies are most probably the oldest extant
writings produced by the Christian Church.
TATIAN.
Eusebius (“Ecclesiastical History,” IV. 29) tells us
that “Tatian having formed a certain collection of
gospels, I know not how, has given it the title diate-ssaron (“ by four ”), which is in the possession of
some even now.” Of these four gospels we do not
know anything. The only work of Tatian which has
come down to us is his “Address to the Greeks.” In
it he frequently mentions the Logos of Philo and
“Wisdom.” He says (5)—“The Logos, begotten in
�Athenagoras.
13
the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first
created for himself the necessary matter.” But Tatian
never mentions Jesus or the Christ, or Jesus Christ,
or miracles; nor is there anything in his “Address”
that shows he knew anything of our New Testament,
or of the narratives contained in it.
It is impossible to fix a date for Tatian; but as he
does not mention the Christians by name, nor attack
the Jews, it is probable that he may have flourished
before the destruction of Jerusalem by Hadrian, a.d.
135, prior to which time there does not appear to have
been any hostility between the Jews and the Christians.
ATHENAGORAS.
Athenagoras calls himself a Christian in his “Plea
for the Christians.” Yet he never mentions Jesus or
the Christ, or miracles. The authorities he quotes are
remarkable, namely, Homer, Hesiod, the Greek Tragics,
the Septuagint, and the sayings of the Logos.
In his “Plea,” § 32, he quotes, as a precept of the
Logos, “He that looketh on a woman to lust after her,
hath committed adultery already in his heart.” And
“ the Logos again says to us, ‘ If any one kiss a second
time, because it has given him pleasure, he sins,’.adding,
‘ Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be
given with the greatest care, since if there be mixed
with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us
from eternal life.’”
Athenagoras does not attack the Jews. Eusebius
does not even mention him. His “Plea” is addressed
to Aurelius and Commodus. This, however, is a matter
of very little weight. What is of much more conse
quence is the fact that while Tatian does not mention
any persecution of the Christians, Athenagoras alludes
to persecution, but only in one passage, namely, § 1,
and even there he does not speak of persecution unto
death; and the style of the passage is different from
�14
t Primitive Church History.
that of the rest of the work.
have been contemporaries.
He and Tatian seem to
THEOPHILUS.
Theophilus, of Antioch, has left us a defence of Chris
tianity in three books, addressed to his friend Autolycus.
Although he calls himself a Christian, he never men
tions Jesus or the Christ. Like Athenagoras, his
authorities are Homer, Hesiod, the Greek Tragics, and
the Septuagint, to which he adds prophecies of the
Sibyl; but he does not appear to have been acquainted
with our New Testament.
His definition of Christianity (I. 12) is remarkable.
He says to Autolycus—“About your laughing at me,
and calling me ‘Christian/ you know not what you are
saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet
and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what
ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first
anointed with oil ? Or what castle or house is beauti
ful or serviceable when it has not been anointed ? And
what man, when he enters into this fife or into the
gymnasium, is not anointed with oil ? And what work
has either ornament or beauty, unless it be anointed
and burnished? Then the air and all that is under
heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit;
and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of
God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this
account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.”
Theophilus treats the subject of miracles with con
tempt. Speaking (§ 13) concerning the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body, he says—“Then, as to your
denying that the dead are raised—for you say, ‘ Show
me even one who has been raised from the dead, that
seeing I may believe’—what great thing is it if you be
lieve when you have seen the thing done ?”
Eusebius makes Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus
of Lyons contemporaries. But this is most improbable;
�Silence of Our Second Century.
!5
because, while Theophilus apparently does not know
anything of Jesus, or the Christ, or our New Testament,
all these matters are perfectly well known by Irenseus,
who, therefore, we may reasonably infer to have been
a much later writer than Theophilus. For Christian
apologists could not have been ignorant of and silent
concerning Jesus Christ, if our New Testament had
been in existence and received in the Church when
they wrote.
SILENCE OF OUR SECOND CENTURY.
But not only are Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theo
philus silent regarding Jesus Christ, but all the Pagan
writers who flourished during our second century are
silent, not only regarding him, but regarding the Chris
tians. Now, is it probable that Josephus, Suetonius,
Pliny (junior), and Tacitus really knew more about
Jesus Christ than those early apologists for the Chris
tians who never name him ? Or is it probable that if
“great multitudes of Christians” during our first century
attracted the attention of one Jewish and three Pagan
writers, who flourished towards the end of that period,
that not even one Pagan writer would have taken
notice of so remarkable a sect during the whole of our
second century? These improbabilities amount to
almost an impossibility. And the fact (1) that there
is not any Pagan writer of our second century who
mentions the Christians, and (2) that those early apolo
gists never mention Jesus or Christ, amount almost
to positive proof that the passages regarding the Chris
tians now found in Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny (junior),
and Tacitus, are forgeries.
To this may be added the consideration that although
an uncritical antiquity might not instinctively anticipate
the doubts of modern criticism regarding the personality
of Jesus Christ, yet it should be borne in mind—(1)
That the historical reality of the gospel stories was
�16
Primitive Church History.
assailed at an early period, even before the time of
Tertullian; (2) That the early Christians were con
stantly altering, and frequently adding to, the narratives
and doctrines contained in their various and very different gospels ; and (3) That during several centuries the
Church had uncontrolled possession of all the remains
of Pagan literature now extant, and frequently corrupted
it for apologetic purposes.
Scarcely less remarkable is the fact that while Tatian,.
Athenagoras, and Theophilus scarcely ever mention the
Jews, and never with any expressions of hostility,
and while they are wholly silent regarding the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, the hostility between the Jews and
Christians and the destruction of Jerusalem are matters
which are perfectly familiar to our Matthew (xxiv. 1,2),
Mark (xiii. 1, 2), and Luke (xix. 44, xxi. 5, 6); while
the writer of our first epistle to the Thessalonians (ii.
16), speaking of the Jews, says—“The wrath is come
upon them to the uttermost,” and thereby shows plainly
that he was acquainted with the fact that Jerusalem
had been destroyed utterly, a.d. 135, by Hadrian. If
these latter writers flourished before the former, then
these latter writers could have acquired their knowledge
only by means of a miracle, which is a thing that has
never yet been proved to have occurred.
These facts (pointed out above) are very important,
and yet they do not appear to have attracted the serious
attention of the numerous and learned scholars who
have written against the supposed truth of Christianity.
Can it be that Primitive Christianity was a shadowy
system of mere asceticism and monotheism embodied
in the collections of sayings attributed to the Logos
who is mentioned by Philo and the writer of “The
Wisdom of Solomon,” xviii. 14-16 ; that those
“sayings” were expanded into the recondite doctrines
of baptismal regeneration, justification by faith, the
efficacy of the sacraments, electing grace, the final
perseverance of the saints, the verbal inspiration of
�Silence of our Second Century.
*7
holy scripture, salvation by means of a human sacrifice,
overlasting torments, inherited guilt, priestly remission
■of sin, and the like ; that, in course of time, this Logos
was, by some writers, identified with the Jewish
Christ; that these two ethereal beings were identified
with a mythical Jewish carpenter, who, it was pre
tended, bore the name of Jesus ; that this Jesus, for
the purposes of the mythology, was pretended to have
flourished at least seventy years before any person
heard of him; that the fabulous and rude exploits
attributed to this Jewish carpenter were invented by
the writers of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels; that,
*
in course of time, to those rude exploits more benevo
lent exploits were added ; that to identify the Jesus of
the Apocryphal Gospels with the Christ of the
Septuagint all the exploits of Jesus were referred sub
sequently to events, supposed prophecies, laws and
imagined allegories contained in the Septuagint; and
that from those expanded doctrines and a selection
from those exploits our New Testament has been
manufactured—in short, that our New Testament is a
growth from the Apocryphal Gospels and the Septua
gint 1 Startling as this hypothesis may appear to those
who see it here for the first time, it is strongly sup
ported by the remains we possess of the writings
attributed to those Fathers of the Christian Church,
who are supposed to have flourished during the first
two centuries of our era.
Among these remains are the writings known as the
Clementine “ Homilies ” and the Clementine “ Recog
nitions,” supposed originally to have been written by
the Clement mentioned in Philippians iv. 3. They
certainly represent the strong antagonistic views held
by the Petrine and Pauline parties in the early Chris
* Throughout tliis tract the word “ apocryphal” is used in the
conventional sense of ecclesiastical usage. If everything in this
world received its strictly just rights, it is wr four gospels that
are entitled to that epithet.
B
�18
Primitive Church History.
tian Church, and they must be very old productions.
By the best authorities they are considered to have
been written at a late part of our second century.
Others think that they belong to a still later date. Be
that as it may, they are very remarkable. The writer
quotes freely from Apocryphal Gospels and other
sources which have been long extinct, and he never
quotes from our New Testament. So, the later the
date of these “Homilies” and “Recognitions,” the
stronger is their evidence of the fact that our New
Testament is a collection of writings of much later date
than is usually supposed. As the Homilies contain the
more remarkable passages, only they shall be examined
here.
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES.
It is remarkable that in the second apology attributed
to Justin there are not any quotations from the sayings
of the Logos or from our New Testament. But in the
last section it aims a blow at Simon Magus who in the
Clementine Homilies xvii. 19, is generally admitted to
be identical with Paul. Referring to the opinion in
the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, bk. 1, “It was
necessary that Jesus should preach only a year; this
also is written (Isaiah Ixi. 2; Luke iv. 18, 19), ‘ He
hath sent me to proclaim the acceptable year of the
Lord.’ This both the prophet spake and the gospel.”
Peter says to Simon, “ If our Jesus appeared to you in
a vision, made himself known to you, and spoke to you,
it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this
is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or
through revelations that were from without, that he
spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for
instruction through apparitions ? And if you will say
1 it is possible,’ then I ask, ‘Why did our teacher abide
and discourse a whole year to those who were awake? ’
*
* If the writer knew of our fourth gospel, why did he not say
three years ?
�Clementine Homilies.
And how are we to believe your word, when you tell
us that he appeared to you 1 And how did he appear
to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to his
teaching ? But if you were seen and taught by him,
and became his apostle for a single, hour, proclaim his
utterances, interpret his sayings, love his apostles, con
tend not with me who companied with him.”
There is here evidently an allusion to some version
of the legend known as “ The Conversion of St Paul,”
which is related in our book called “ The Acts of the
Apostles,” ix. 1-19, in an improbable manner:—Paul
was leading an armed band to Damascus to make havoc
of the Christians there. Suddenly there shone about
him a light from heaven. He fell to the earth blinded,
and heard a voice saying to him, “ Saul! Saul! why
persecutest thou me?” Paul said, “Who art' thou,
Lord ?” And the Lord said, “lam Jesus whom thou
persecutest. ‘It is hard for thee to kick against the
goad.'’” Paul, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord,
what wilt thou have me to do ? ” And the Lord said
unto him, “ Arise, and go. into the city, and it shall be
told thee what thou must do.” His companions
stood by speechless, hearing a voice, but not seeing any
man. Paul arose blinded, and was led by his com
panions into Damascus. After three days the Lord
appeared in a vision to a disciple at Damascus, named
Ananias, whom he informed that he intended to send
Paul as an apostle, to the Gentiles, and he directed
Ananias to restore eyesight to Paul, who had already
seen Ananias in a vision. Ananias, after seeing hisvision, went his way, and, putting his hands on Paul,
said, “ Brother Saul I the Lord hath sent me that thou
mightest receive thy sight.” Immediately there fell
from Paul’s eyes a substance like scales, and lie received
sight, and was baptized. Then Paul remained some
days with the disciples who were at Damascus, and in
the synagogues he preached that Jesus is the son of
the Deity. The whole of this last clause is at variance
�20
Primitive Church History.
with the story in Galatians i. and ii., especially that
part i. 16, where Paul says that when he was converted
■“immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood,”
but, 17, “I went into Arabia!”
Taking the foregoing incidents in the order in which
they are related in the “Acts,” we have (1), a super
natural light from heaven,—(2), among the number
who saw it, only one man was blinded by it,—(3), a
voice whose words were heard by only that one man,—
(4), quoting from JEschylus’ Agamemnon, 1624, Dindorf, a precept exhorting Paul “not to kick against the
goad,”—(5), the immediate recognition of Jesus by
Paul, who had never seen or heard Jesus previously,—
<(6), the immediate conversion of Paul without any
reasons or arguments,—(7), the creation of Ananias,—
(8), a supernatural vision to Paul introducing him to a
knowledge of the yet unseen Ananias,—(9), a vision to
Ananias, introducing him to the as yet unseen Paul,—
■(10), and the restoration of Paul’s eyesight by the
mere touch of Ananias’ hand.
Here we have, firstly, a miracle overdoing its object;
because, by blinding Paul, his conversion was of but
little use to any one except himself, and as it was in
tended that he should become an apostle of Christianity,
more than half his worth would have been lost if his
■eyesight had not been restored.
Then, secondly, we have five miracles converting
Paul, but malignantly excluding his companions from
a, knowledge of the saving truth.
Thirdly, as it seems to be implied, Galatians ii. 18,
that the Lord could not undo his own work whether it
were bad or good, it became necessary to create Ananias
(verse 10), a man never heard of before or afterwards !
“ Oh ! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive.”
Fourthly, we have two visions preparing Ananias
and Paul for each other. And the whole is wound up
�Clementine Homilies.
2I
with the tenth miracle by which Ananias restores sight
to Paul! Five miracles to convert Paul, and five to
restore his eyesight.
Not to dwell on the idea that, in order to give force
to his own language, Divine Providence required to
quote from 2Eschylus, just as if an Englishman were to
say he heard him quoting from Shakspere—-can any
one for a moment doubt that such a complication of
miracles, involving the commission and correction of a
blunder, is a positive proof that they did not emanate
from Omniscience?
Regarding the age of these “ Homilies,” there is a
remarkable passage, Homily iii. 50, which throws some
light on the subject:—“Then Peter said: That the
true is mixed with the false. I remember on one occa
sion, that he said, in finding fault with the Sadducees,
‘ On this account you are in error, because you do not
know the true sayings of the Scriptures; for which
reason you are ignorant of the power of God.’ Now,
if he thought they ‘ did not know the truths of Scrip
ture,’ it is clear that he said this on the assumption that
there were falsehoods. Indeed, this appears in his
saying, ‘ Be ye well-approved money-changers,’—on the
view that there were both genuine and spurious sayings.
And by saying, ‘ Why do ye not perceive the reason
ableness of the Scriptures ? ’ he makes the intellect of
him who voluntarily exercises sound judgment a surer
guide [than that of him who does not.] ”
Some writers try to identify the first of the above
quotations with our Matthew xxii. 29, and with our
Mark xii. 24. But the expression, “ the true sayings
of the Scriptures,” is not to be found in our Matthew
or Mark. The writer of the passage above quoted
must have had a well known edition of that speech by
Jesus containing these words ; because otherwise the
whole argument which the writer puts into Peter’s
mouth would not have possessed any weight whatever.
From this circumstance, it may be inferred safely, that
�22
Primitive Church History.
■when the author of the Clementine Homilies was writ
ing, there was not attributed to our New Testament
that exclusive authority which it acquired subsequently :
if, in fact, at that time our New Testament, in its pre
sent shape, had any existence whatever. The hypo
thesis that it had not any existence is corroborated by
an examination of the references to the precepts of
Jesus, and to the incidents in his history contained in
the extant remains of the Fathers who are supposed to
have flourished during our first and second centuries.
If those Fathers were acquainted with our New Testa
ment, why do they systematically ignore it? Nay, why
do they use invariably the Apocryphal Gospels and
other lost sources of Gospel doctrine and history ?
REFERENCES.
Whatever may be thought concerning the silence of
the Pagan world regarding Christianity during our
second century, the silence of the earliest Christian
Fathers regarding our New Testament, is a matter of
undeniable importance. There are extant remains of
Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Hernias, Clement the
Homan, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Hegisippus, Justin Martyr, The Clementine Homilies and
Recognitions, the Epistle to Diognetus, Basilides,
Valentinus, Marcion, Dionysius, Melito, Claudius, the
Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, the Canon of Muratori,
Ptolemseus, and Heraclion. These are virtually all the
remains we have of Christian literature during our
second century, except, perhaps, some quotations from
the attack made on Christianity by Celsus, who
flourished towards the end of that century. Whether
any of these remains contains a reference to our New
Testament is a question which has been much disputed.
But, it is generally admitted, that if they do, then, such
references are very few when compared with the vast
number of references contained in those remains to other
�References.
23
Gospels, and other now lost and unknown sources re
garding the sayings and history of Jesus.
That there were a great number of other Gospels and
other now unknown sources in existence during our
second century is proved by the direct reference to
“many” who had taken in hand the history of Jesus
and Christianity prior to the compilation of our third
Gospel. See Luke i. 1. The author of “ Supernatural
Religion,”!. 218-9 says, “Looking at the close simi
larity of large portions of three synoptics, it is almost
certain that many of the croXXo/ here mentioned bore a
close analogy to each other, and to our Gospels; and
this is known to have been the case, for instance,
amongst the various forms of the 1 Gospel according to
the Hebrews,’ distinct mention of which we meet with
long before we hear anything of our Gospels. When
therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations
closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical with
passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of
which, however, is not mentioned, nor is any author’s
name indicated, the similarity or even identity cannot
by any means be admitted as evidence that the quota
tion is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from some
other similar work now no longer extant, and more
especially not when in the same writings there are other
quotations from apocryphal sources different from our
Gospels. Whether regarded as historical records, or as
writings embodying the mere tradition of the early
Christians, our Gospels cannot for a moment be recog
nised as the exclusive depositories of the genuine say
ings and doings of Jesus; and, so far from the com
mon possession by many works in early times of such'
words of Jesus in closely similar form being either
strange or improbable, the really remarkable phenome
non is, that such material variation in the report of the
more important historical teaching should exist amongst
them. But while similarity to our Gospels in passages
quoted by early writers from unnamed sources cannot
�24
Primitive Church History.
prove the use of our Gospels, variation from them
would suggest or prove a different origin, and at least
it is obvious that quotations which do not agree with
our Gospels, cannot, in any case, indicate their exist
ence. ... In proportion as we remove from apostolic
times without positive evidence of the existence and
authenticity of our Gospels, so does the value of their
testimony dwindle away.” Further on (ii. 248-50),
the writer says, “ After having exhausted the literature
and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not
found a single distinct trace of any one of those [synop
tic] Gospels during the first century and a-half after
the death of Jesus. Only once during the whole of
that period do we find any tradition even, that anyone
of our evangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that
tradition, so far from favouring our synoptics, is fatal
to the claims of the first and second. About the middle
of the second century, Papias, on the occasion to which
we refer, records that Matthew composed the Discourses
of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue : a statement which
totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to
apostolic origin. Mark, he said, wrote down from the
casual preaching of Peter the sayings and doings of
Jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he was not
himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded
what fell from the apostle. This description, likewise^
shows that our actual second Gospel could not, in its
present form, have been the work of Mark. There is
no other reference during the period to any writing of
Matthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work
ascribed to Luke. If it be considered that there is any
connection between Marcion’s Gospel and our third
synoptic, any evidence so derived is of an unfavourable
character for that Gospel, as it involves a charge against
it, of being interpolated and debased by Jewish ele
ments. Any argument for the mere existence of our
synoptics based upon their supposed rejection by her
etical leaders and sects has the inevitable disadvantage
�References.
0.5
that the very testimony which would shew their exist
ence would oppose their authenticity. There is no
evidence of their use by heretical leaders, however, and
no direct reference to them by any writer, heretical or
orthodox, whom we have examined. We need scarcely
add that no reason whatever has been shown for ac
cepting the testimony of these Gospels as sufficient to
establish the reality of miracles and of a direct Divine
revelation. It is not pretended that more than one of
the synoptic Gospels was written by an eye-witness of
the miraculous occurrences reported, and whilst no evi
dence has been, or can be, produced even of the histo
rical accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the
correctness of the inferences from the external pheno
mena exists, or is now even conceivable. The discre
pancy between the amount of evidence required, and
that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than,
under the circumstances, could have been thought pos
sible.” And (ii. 387), regarding our fourth Gospel he
says, “ For some century and a half, after the events
recorded in the work, there is not only no testimony
whatever connecting the fourth Gospel with the apostle
John, but no certain trace even of the existence of the
Gospel. There has not been the slightest evidence in
any of the writings of the Fathers which we have ex
amined, even of a tradition, that the apostle John had
composed any evangelical work at all; and the claim
advanced in favour of the Christian miracles of con
temporaneous evidence, of extraordinary force and
veracity, by undoubted eye-vritnesses completely falls
to the ground.”
Justin Martyr, in his “ First Apology,” sect, xv.,
enumerates several doctrines which Jesus Christ taught.
Amongst others, Justin says, “And of our love to all,.
He taught thus : £ If ye love them that love you, what
new thing do ye ? for even fornicators do this. But I
say unto you, pray for your enemies, and love them
that hate you, and bless them that curse you, and pray
�16
Primitive Church History.
for them that despitefully use you.’ ” The apologists
for Christianity refer this passage to our Matthew,
v. 46, 44 ; Luke vi. 28. These are fair specimens of
patristic quotation and apologetic reference. The re
semblances and the variations are patent to any one
who is able to read. Some readers will think the
differences so slight as to suggest that the passage was
a quotation from memory, while other readers will per
ceive that since the precept “ Pray for your enemies”
is not to be found in our New Testament, the passage
must have been taken from some other source.
In one of the very few fragments which we possess
from the Cyclic Poems, and also in our “ Iliad,” v. 83,
xvi. 334, xx. 477, the following line occurs,—
“Him dark death seized and the strong grasp of fate.”
To assume that the writer of the lost Cyclic borrowed
this line from our “ Iliad,” or vice versa, is to beg the
point in dispute. Under existing circumstances, it is
impossible to give a decided answer. It may be that
the line in question was a well-known formula taken by
both writers from some third source.
*
In our New Testament we have distinct references
-to apocryphal writings, Matthew xxiii. 35, Romans xv.
19, 24, 1 Corinthians xv. 6, Jude 14, 1 Peter iii. 19,
Ephesians iv. 9, &c., &c. While the writer of our
canonical book of “ Acts,” xx. 35, actually quotes from
an apocryphal writing when he gives us, as the words
of the Lord Jesus, the precept “ It is more blessed to
give than to receive.”
Sometimes the references in question exhibit only
slight variations from passages in our New Testament.
Regarding these variations, the writer of “ Supernatural
Religion,” with slight correction, ii. 17, 18, says, “The
* From Jerome’s Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians
we learn that the Apostle John, towards the close of his life, used
to quote, as a commandment of Jesus, the words, “ Little children,
love one anotherWhere did the framer of this story find that
quotation ?
�References.
variation in these passages, it may be argued, are not
very important. Certainly, if they were the exceptional
variations amongst a mass of quotations perfectly agree
ing with parallels in our Gospels, it might be exaggera
tion to base on such divergences a conclusion that they
were derived from a different source. When it is con
sidered, however, that the very reverse is the case, and
that these are passages selected for their closer agree
ment out of a multitude of others either more decidedly
differing from our Gospels, or not found in them at all,
the case entirely changes, and variations being the rule
instead of the exception, these, however slight, become
■evidence of the use of a Gospel different from ours.
As an illustration of the importance of slight variations
in connection with the question as to the source from
which quotations are derived, the following may at
random be pointed out. The passage, ‘ See thou say
nothing to any man, but go thy way, shew thyself to
the priest,’ occurring in a work like the Homilies,
would, supposing our second Gospel no longer extant,
be referred to Matthew viii. 4, with which it entirely
agrees, with the exception of its containing the one
extra word ‘ nothing.’ It however actually corre
sponds with Mark i. 44, though not with our first
Gospel. Then again, supposing that our first Gospel
had shared the fate of so many others of the -roXXo/ of
Luke (i. 1), and in some early work the following pas
sage were found : £ A prophet is not without honour
except in his own country and in his own house,’ this
passage would undoubtedly be claimed by apologists as
a quotation from Mark vi. 4, and as proving the exis
tence and use of that Gospel. The omission of the
words 1 and among his own kin’ would, at first, be ex
plained as mere abbreviation, or defect of memory ;
but on the discovery that part or all of these words are
omitted from some MSS., that, for instance, the phrase
is erased from the oldest copy known, the Codex
Sinaiticus, the derivation from the second Gospel would.
�28
Primitive Church History.
be considered as established. The author, notwith
standing, might never have seen that Gospel, for the
quotation corresponds with Matthew xiii. 57.”
In short, the author of “Supernatural Religion”
makes out a good case, which may be taken as proved
at least provisionally, for holding that the remains of
the Fathers in question (i.) mention incidents in the
Gospel history recorded in our New Testament, but
describe them differently. That (ii.) they mention in
cidents which are not recorded in our New Testament.
That (iii.) they quote precepts and sayings which partly *
agree and partly disagree with some of the precepts
and sayings contained in our New Testament. That
(iv.) they quote precepts similar in sense, but different
in words, from some precepts in our New Testament.
That (v.) they quote precepts similar in words, but
different in context, from some precepts in our New
Testament. That (vi.) they quote precepts which are
not in our New Testament. And (vii.), that they refer
frequently to (a.) other Gospels not now extant; to (6.)
other epistles not now extant; to (c.) other revelations
different from our Apocalypse; to (cZ.) other works,
now extant, as “ scripture,” but which works are not
now considered to be “scripture;” to (e.) works not
now extant, which those Fathers considered to be
“scripture,” and (/.) they never quote from our NewTestament ; on the contrary, as the author of “ Super
natural Religion,” i. 244, observes, “ AR the early
writers avoid our ^Gospels, if they knew them at all,
and systematically use other works.” Which “ other
works ” shall now be considered under the title of
THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
So long as a family has been always poor the mem
bers of it are indifferent to their genealogy. In like
manner nations, so long as they are depressed by igno
rance and want of home and foreign commerce, have
�The Apocryphal Gospels.
not any history. In hotli cases it happens that when
the family or nation become “ respectable,” which is a
euphemism for “ rich,” they search for their history
and origin. But by that time discovery may be vir
tually impossible. However, kind nature lias given
man faculties sufficient to provide for all his wants.
Where perception fails him fancy consoles him. Hence,
has arisen the vast mass of clannish, religious, and
national legends which exist even in the present day,
as well as the countless myriads of them which are ex
tinct. From these, therefore, all that a really veracious
historian can achieve is to point out the earliest histo
rical trace he can discover of the family, the. religion,
or the nation. Unfortunately, this method of proceed
ing is regarded by the persons interested as disrespect
ful : so disagreeable is truth to the human mind, even
though that mind be illuminated by the light of the
Gospel. There are, however, some people who prefer
truth to flattery, and
will not be shocked to hear
that before the time of Origen, a.d. 220, the Christian
Church has not any reliable history.
Unvarying tradition represents the founders of that
Church as “ unlettered and unskilful clowns,”—Acts
iv. 13, avdpa-roi aypayyaroi xai idiw-ai,—men, therefore,
who were utterly unable to write. Consequently the
original Gospel relating the doctrines, discourses, and
exploits of Jesus must have been preserved orally. If
so, variations in that Gospel must necessarily have
arisen, unless they were prevented by a miracle, and
we know from our fourth Gospel that such a miracle
was not called into existence, by the fact that the
writer of that Gospel took the liberty of making his
Gospel differ from all the extant Gospels, apocryphal
and canonical,—from every lost Gospel of which we
have any definite knowledge,—and from every extant
quotation from any other Gospel.
Even when reduced to writing, that original Gospel
would naturally be in an uncouth state, recoiding vindic-
�30
Primitive Church History.
live as well as beneficent exploits. Preaching puerile
doctrines (Luke xii. 33), and (Luke xiv. 26) impossibili
ties. Recording mere thaumaturgies,—Matthew xvii.
2, xxi. 19; Thomas i. 2,—such as the transfiguration
of Jesus, his withering of the barren fig tree, and his
giving life to twelve sparrows which he made of clay.
The utterly useless nature of these miracles renders it
highly probable that they are fragments of the primi
tive Gospel.
Several of the names, given in the Gospels to the
heroes and heroines who figure in them, savour strongly
of personification. To give a few instances
Jesus
means a “ Saviour;” Peter means a “ rock;” Paul means
a “worker;” St Perpetua is merely the first part of
perpetua felicitas, “eternal happiness.”
She and
Potentiana, “ power,” figure in the Acts of Peter and
Paul. Perpetua is retained in the Church of England
calendar (7th March), as are also St Prisca (18th Janu
ary), which is merely the first part of prisca fides,
“ancient faith,”—St Faith (6th October) and Lucy
(13th December), which is merely lux, “light,” speak
for themselves. St Felix, “ fortunate,” the saint that
brings good luck, has in some calendars not less than six
festival days. (See De Morgan’s “Book of Almanacs.’ )
The story of St Veronica is told in the Gospel regarding
“ The Avenging of the Saviour.” The name is really
a corruption of Bernice, but was afterwards ignorantly
supposed to be a jumble of vera, “ true,” and s/xuv, “ a
likeness,” meaning a true likeness of Jesus, and was
given to a holy woman who, it was said, had taken the
precaution of preserving the true likeness, miraculously
impressed on the handkerchief with which she wiped
the perspiration from his face.
Out of such shadows to manufacture anything re
sembling flesh and blood was a task of the very greatest
difficulty, requiring the inventive genius of anJEschylus.
Such a genius was not given to the Christian Church,
and the construction of the Gospels fell to the lot of
�‘The Apocryphal Gospels.
li
very inferior workmen. Nevertheless, although their
task was a very difficult one, their performances are not
wholly destitute of merit. On the writers of the oldest
Apocryphal Gospels, for instance “ The Gospel accord
ing to the Hebrews,” the task was laid of inventing
incidents, combining those incidents with the sayingsof the Logos, and weaving them into a self-consistent
although very improbable narrative. That their suc
cess, and even that of our later four evangelists, was
only partial, is a fact that was patent to the perception
of Origen, who (De Principiis, book iv., chap. i. § 16) tells
us repeatedly that the “ Scriptures do not contain
throughout a pure history of events, but of such as are
interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which
did not actually occur.” And he says, “ The Gospels
themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives :
v. c., the devil leading Jesus into a high mountain, to
show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole
world, and the glory of them. For who is there among
those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that
would not condemn those who think that with the eye
of the body—which requires a lofty height in order
that the parts lying under and adjacent may be seen—
the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and
Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner
in which their princes are glorified among men 1 And
the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innu
merable other passages like these, so that he will be
convinced that, in the histories that are literally re
corded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.”
From the writings of Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theo
philus, it is evident that the “ sayings” of the Logos
preceded the history of Jesus. That history—even as
represented in our four Gospels—is so conflicting with
itself, and the events related are so improbable, that,
among the events related, we strain our sight in vain to
distinguish between the false and the true ; if, in fact,
any of the events be true. That history was related in
�32
Primitive Church History.
a number of Gospels which are now lost. Among these
was the above-mentioned “ Gospel according to the
Hebrews,” which is quoted by Ignatius, who never
quotes from our Gospels. As before-mentioned, these
so-called Apocryphal Gospels were very numerous. We
know of Gospels according to Peter, to Thomas, to
James, to Judas, to Nicodemus, to Barnabas, to Mat
thias, to the Egyptians, to the Ebionites, to the Nazarenes, to the Twelve Apostles, &c., &c. In short, every
man who thought himself able to write a Gospel cleverly
felt himself at liberty to do so, and from what we know
regarding some of the incidents contained in them, it
is evident that the writers did not feel in the least con
strained to follow any particular model. There was
not any New Testament canon in existence until a
canon was framed by the council of Laodicea, a.d. 362.
So that during centuries the Christian Church had not
any reliable history of its founders or of itself. This
alone was a source of disagreement, uncertainty, doubt,
and confusion.
But in addition to this, we know from the Clemen
tine Homilies, and the canonical Acts and Pauline
Epistles, that there were two hostile parties in the
primitive Church which threatened to exterminate each
other. The one party, said to be headed by Peter, con
sidered Christianity a mere continuation of the Jewish
law j the other, said to be headed by Paul, represented
the glad tidings as the introduction of an entirely new
system of salvation, applicable to all mankind, and
superseding the dispensation of the law by a dispensa
tion of grace.
By these means Christianity came into the world
amidst a whirlwind of heresy, insubordination, schism,
and controversy. It may be, but we do not know,
that there was a time when the original founder of
Christianity, whoever he was, had not any followers.
If so, then, there was a time when the whole Christian
•Church was of one mind. Of course, to this time we
�The Apocryphal Gospels.
33
cannot assign any certain date, and it is quite possible
that it may not have had any existence. And unless
it can be shown that there has been such a time, these
controversies prove that there never was in the Church
any universally received account of Jesus Christ: the
idea of him was a myth from the beginning. The extant
remains of the Fathers, supposed to have flourished
during our first two centuries, abound with disputation,
malignity, superciliousness, and denunciation. It is
plain that the writers of those remains were men wholly
unacquainted with literary criticism, and with philology
as a science. Many of their arguments are extremely
puerile. But from these very circumstances they have
preserved to us the outline of a Gospel which may be
regarded as an edition, at least, of the primitive Gospel.
An intelligent, virtuous, zealous, and eminent Chris
tian of his day was one Marcion, said to have been
born at Sinope, in Paphlagonia, during the early part
■of our second century. He belonged to the Pauline
school of Christianity. He rejected the teaching of all
the apostles except Paul’s. This drew on him the
hatred of many contemporary writers. But so high
was his character, and so well did he support his views
that, even in the time of Epiphanius, A.D. 367, the fol
lowers of Marcion were said to be found throughout
the whole Christian world.
It is said that Marcion regarded as his sources of
Christian doctrine a Gospel and ten epistles supposed
to have been written by Paul, namely, Galatians, two
Corinthians, two Thessalonians, Romans, Laodiceans,
answering to our Ephesians, Philemon, Colossians, and
Philippians. The writer of “ Supernatural Religion,”
ii. 81, &c., says, “ None of the other books which now
form part of the canonical New Testament were either
mentioned or recognised by Marcion. This is the old
est collection of apostolic writings of which there is
any trace, but there was at that time no other ‘ Holy
Scripture’ than the Old Testament, and no New Testac
�34
Primitive Church History.
ment canon had yet been imagined. Marcion neither
claimed canonical authority for these writings, nor did
he associate with them any idea whatever of inspiration.”
Any remains of Marcion’s Gospel exist only in the
extant writings of his bitter and unphilological oppo
nents. It appears from those writings that Marcion’s
Gospel resembled our third Gospel, but was consider
ably shorter. Marcion held that matter is essentially
*
sinful, and that although material acts and functions
were in his Gospel assigned to Jesus, yet that He was
not a material being; a doctrine which has, at least,
the merit of accounting for the incident (John xx. 19)
that Jesus was able to glide, without causing disturb
ance, through a wall. Marcion’s opponents accused
him of having mutilated and adulterated our third
Gospel to support, his own views. But the fact is, that
passages in our Luke, said to have been omitted by
Marcion, are often not opposed to his system at all,
and sometimes even in favour of it; and, on the other
hand, passages which were retained in his Gospel are
contradictory to his views. This is not intelligible
upon any theory of arbitrary garbling of a Gospel in
the interest of a system. It is much more probable
that those unphilological Fathers mistook, and, with
characteristic assumption, asserted that the shorter, but
earlier, Gospel of Marcion was an abbreviation of our
much later canonical Gospel, instead of recognising the
latter as an extension of the former. It is not only
possible but very probable that, in the remote region
of Paphlagonia, the Gospel, used by Marcion, had re
mained unaltered, in sacred quietness, on the outskirts
* This Gnostic doctrine occurs more than once in our New Tes
tament. (See “The Jesus of History,” bk. iii., ch. 2, &c.) It lies
at the root of our John i. 3, where the writer (after saying that
the Logos was a god) adds, “all things were made by him, and
without him was not anything made that was made,” in order to
keep the Supreme Deity free from the pollution of touching matter,
and at the same time to keep the Logos in his proper place of
inferiority,
�The Apocryphal Gospels.
35
of Christianity; whilst, in the more active religious
centres of the Church, into the other Gospels there had
been infused fresh matter which had modified and in
creased their earlier forms. In the time of Irenaeus, a
comparatively late writer, it was easy to join him in
asserting that, because Marcion recognised only one
Gospel, he rejected our Gospels. But Irenaeus has not
even attempted to prove that Marcion was acquainted
with our Gospels, or that in Marcion’s day they had
any existence.
*
During all the controversies and debates, before the
time of Irenaeus,! we never hear our Gospels quoted.
It is to the lost Gospels and the Apocryphal Gospels
that those early Fathers appeal as containing “ The
Gospel.” This is an argument of very great weight,
and well worthy of the reader’s most serious considera
tion. For, there are writers who seek to disparage the
Apocryphal Gospels, and assert our much more modern
Gospels to be genuine, original, apostolical, and written
under the guidance of divine inspiration. Amongst
the number of such writers is Mosheim (“ Institutes,”
* Marcion’s so called l< heresy,” and the slanders heaped on him,
form a fair sample of the uncritical manner in which orthodoxy
treats mere difference. Marcion’s certainly old, and probably
genuine, edition of “The Gospel” was asserted to be a garbled
novelty, merely because it partly differed from our Luke’s Gospel,
which avowedly (i. 1) had “many” predecessors !—See the admir
able treatise on “Supernatural Religion,” part ii., ch. vii. Speak
ing of “a learned mythologist who had long laboured to rebuild
the fallen temple of Jupiter,” and who, to some persons, “ appeared
to be non compos,” Peacock says, “He has a system of his own,
which appears, in the present day, more absurd than other systems,
only because it has fewer followers. The manner in which the
spirit of system twists everything to its own views is truly wonder
ful. I believe that in every nation of the earth th e system which
has most followers will be found the most absurd in the eye of an
enlightened philosophy.”—Melincourt, ch. vi.
p It is impossible to assign an exact date to Irenaeus. The stories
which make him a contemporary of Tatian, and at the same time
relegate him to Gaul, are great nonsense. Prom his knowledge of
the greater part of the writings in our N ew Testament, it is probable
that Irenaeus flourished during our third century—a short time
before Origen.
�36
Primitive Church History.
century i., Part ii., chap, ii., sec. 17). According to
these writers, the Apocryphal Gospels are full of im
positions and fables, composed by persons of not any
bad intentions, perhaps, but who were superstitious,
simple, and addicted to what we should consider pious
frauds, although not so considered by those ignorant
and simple people. Such writers also inform us, in the
words of Mosheim, that the rulers of the Church sea
sonably interposed, and “ caused books which were
truly divine, and which came from apostolic hands, to
be speedily separated from that mass of trash into a
volume by themselves.” Such writers are bound to
explain how it came to pass that the early Fathers
invariably used that “ mass of trash,” and never noticed
those “ books which were truly divine, and which came
from apostolic hands! ” On the contrary, if those
“truly divine books” had any existence at that time,
those Fathers studiously avoided them. Just as Pindar
and the Greek Tragics “avoid” our Homer, and use
systematically the much older Cyclic Poems, if, in fact,
they knew our Homer at all, or if our Homer, in their
day, had any existence.
This omission by the early Fathers is a strong proof
that the works we have, purporting to be their remains,
are the genuine remains of at least a time prior to the
existence of the writings contained in our New Testa
ment. Because if those remains had been forgeries,
invented after the appearance of our New Testament,
assuredly the quotations found in those remains would
have been altered to correspond with the partly similar
and partly dissimilar passages in our New Testament,
while the other quotations would have been obliterated
altogether.
Nevertheless the old Apocryphal Gospels were so
imperfect in affording materials for proving that their
Logos or Jesus was identical with the Christ of the
Septuagint, that several of the early apologists for the
Christians were compelled to have recourse to the
�The Exaltation of Prophecy.
37
Greek Tragics, ecclesiastical miracles, Sibylline verses,
Hesiod, and even onr “ Homer,” to eke out their theory.
In the meantime—until more artistically framed Gospels
had been constructed—all writers of a Gospel considered
themselves at liberty to write a life of Jesus as best
they could, and without feeling themselves in the least
restricted by the contents of any previously existing
Gospel: just as prior to the time of Plato all the nume
rous Grecian “ Homers” considered themselves at
liberty to construct, and, as we know, did construct,
just as they pleased, any “Tale of Troy,” likely to
prove a good hit, without being restricted by the con
tents of any previously existing “ Ajaciad,” “ Achilliad,”
or “ Iliad."
Subsequently the great point with writers of Gospels
became the identification of Jesus, his exploits, and the
incidents in his mythical career, with certain incidents,
statements, supposed prophecies, and allegories con
tained in the Septuagint. The absence of all real facts
relating to a character so purely mythical as Jesus
Christ rendered this a difficult task. All great achieve
ments of the human mind must originate in very rudi
mentary beginnings. The formation of our Gospels is
not an exception to that rule. Their commencement
is clearly traceable to a mental phenomenon which
next manifested itself in the Church, namely,
THE EXALTATION OF PROPHECY.
Trypho, “Dialogue,” sec. viii., says to Justin, “But
if Christ be come and is anywhere, he is unknown,
nor does he know himself, nor can he be endued with
any power till Elias shall come and anoint him, and
make him manifest to all men. But you having re
ceived an idle rumour, shape a Christ for yourselves,
and for his sake lose utterly the present time.” To
this argument Justin does not reply by adducing any
miracle attributed to Jesus Christ, or any passage
from our New Testament, or the evidence of any
�38
Primitive Church History.
apostle, or of any person supposed to have been a con
temporary of Jesus.
*
But in reply, sec. xi., Justin
quotes Isaiah li. 4, 5, “ Hearken to me my people, and
give ear unto me, 0 ye kings : for a law shall proceed
from me, and my judgment for a light to the Gentiles.
My righteousness approaches speedily, and my salva
tion shall go forth, and on mine arm shall the Gentiles
trust.” And Justin quotes Jeremiah xxxi. 31, 32, to
* It is important to note here the omission of any reference to
Jesus’ baptism by J ohn the Baptist. Certainly that incident in
the life of Jesus was known to Justin, who relates it, “Dialogue,”
sec. lxxxviii., and states that on that occasion a fire was kindled
in the river Jordan, and that a voice came from heaven and
quoted from our second Psalm the words, “ Thou art my Son,
this day I have begotten thee.” This account of the incident is
in conformity with the record of it contained in Marcion’s Gospel,
Codex Bezae, and from what we know concerning “ The Gospel
according to the Hebrews,” it is extremely probable that Justin
quoted his account of that incident from the last-mentioned source.
The omission of it here suggests the idea that Justin did not
attach any weight to an unction in the administration of which
there was not any physical oil used. The neglect, by the primi
tive Christian mythologists, to cook a story to the effect that some
high priest, or other competent functionary, anointed Jesus, cre
ated an insuperable difficulty.
It is gravely asserted in Dr Wm. Smith’s “ New Testament
History,” p. 222-4, that the difficulty was surmounted (Luke vii.
36-50) by the easy and convenient, but not strictly legal interposi
tion of a prostitute ! But all really moral readers will prefer the
more dignified attempt to overcome the difficulty made in the
“Clementine Recognitions,” i. 45, where Peter says that “after
God had made the world .... he set an angel as chief over the
angels, a spirit over the spirits, a star over the stars, a demon
over the demons, a bird over the birds, a beast over the beasts, a
serpent over the serpents, a fish over the fishes, over men a man
who is Jesus Christ. But he is called Christ by a certain excellent
rite of religion ; for as there are certain names common to kings,
as Arsaces among the Persians, Caesar among the Romans, Pharaoh
among the Egyptians, so among the Jews a king is called Christ.
And the reason of the appellation is this : although, indeed, he
was the Son of God and the beginning of all things, he became
Man ; him first God anointed with oil which was taken from the
wood of the tree of life; therefore, from that anointing he is
called Christ.”—Q.E.D.
A disinterested looker-on may well be excused if he regard the
modern rejection of all the extant remains of Christian literature
that are older than our New Testament, as being virtually a piece
of critical suicide.
�The Exaltation of Prophecy.
39
the like effect. And then from these supposed pro
phecies Justin draws the following characteristic and
inconclusive inference : “ Therefore, if God did foretell
that he would make a new covenant, and that it should
he for a light of the Gentiles, and we plainly see and
are fully persuaded that, through the name of that
Jesus Christ, who wras crucified, men turn from idols
and all iniquity to the living God, and continue even
nnto death in the profession and in the practice of
piety ; both from the performance of such good works,
and also from the mighty miracles that followed, it was
easy for all men to perceive that this is the new law
and the new covenant, and the expectation of those
who, out of all nations, expected to receive bless
ings from God. For we are the true and spiritual
Israel.”
In like manner the writer of our second Peter i.
16-19, says, “We have not followed cunningly-devised
fables when we made known unto you the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-wit
nesses of his majesty; for he received from God the
Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice
to him from the excellent glory, 1 This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And this voice
which came from heaven we heard, when we were
•with him in the holy mountain; also we have a more
sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye
take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dirty place,
until the day dawn, and the light-bringer arise in
your hearts.” So, according to this -writer, supposed
prophecies contained in the Septuagint were “more
sure ” than the evidence of “ hearers ” and of “ eye
witnesses.”
Gibbon, “Decline and Fall,” ch. xv., observes cor
rectly regarding these apologists, that “ when they
would demonstrate the divine origin of Christianity,
they insist much more strongly on the predictions
�40
Primitive Church History.
which announced than the miracles which accompanied
the appearance of the Messiah.”
But the very idea of a prediction or prophecy in
volves a miracle, which, to say the least, is an event
the existence of which has never yet Been proved.
According to the logic of these Christian apologists,
passages in the Septuagint, written by persons and
under circumstances utterly unknown, are supposed to
be supernatural predictions necessarily involving the
future occurrence of certain other supernatural events.
Thus the former class of miracles prove the latter class
of miracles, while the former class of miracles rest on
an arbitrary interpretation of old and obscure writings.
But the weakness of this system of logic soon became
unsatisfactory. And the next development in the
Christian Church was a readiness to assert and a will
ingness to believe that the Christian religion proved
its divine origin because it had spread very widely.
This development gave rise to
ECCLESIASTICAL EXAGGERATION.
Justin in his “ Dialogue,” sec. cxvii., says, “ speak'
ing generally, there is not any race of men—either
foreign or Greek—or, in one word, by whatever name
called, either living on wains, or without houses at all,
or dwelling in huts as breeders of cattle, in which in
the name of the crucified Jesus, prayers and thanks
givings are not made to the father and creator of all.”
This assertion the learned and candid Mosheim, in his
“ Commentaries,” characterises as an “ exaggeration.”
Tertullian, in his tract, “ Against the Jews,” says :
“ In whom but the Christ now come have all nations
believed ? For in whom do all other nations (except
the Jews) confide? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia,
Cappadocia, and inhabitants of Pontus, and Asia, and
Pamphylia; the dwellers in Egypt, and inhabitants of
�Ecclesiastical Exaggeration.
41
the region beyond Cyrene; Romans and strangers ; and
in Jerusalem, both Jews and Proselytes; so that the
*
various tribes of the Getuli and the numerous hordes
of the Moors ; all the Spanish clans, and the different
nations of Gauls, and those regions of the Britons
inaccessible to the Romans but subject to Christ, and
of the Sarmatians, and the Dacians, and Germans, and
Scythians, and many unexplored nations and provinces,
and islands unknown to us, and which we cannot
enumerate: in all which places the name of Christ,
who has already come, now reigns.”
Commenting on this passage, Mosheim (p. 4) says :
“ What Tertullian here says of Christianity’s having in
his time been professed by various nations of the
Gauls, is directly contrary to the fact. In the time of
Tertullian the church of Gaul had not attained to any
degree of strength or size, but was quite in its infancy,
and confined within the limits of one individual nation,
as the inhabitants of the country themselves acknow
ledge. What he adds about Christ’s being acknow
ledged in those parts of Britain to which the Roman
arms had not penetrated, is still more widely removed
from the truth. Finally, his assertion that many
unexplored nations and unknown provinces and islands
had embraced Christianity, most plainly evinces that
lie suffered himself to be carried away by the warmth
of imagination, and did not sufficiently attend to what
he was committing to paper. For how could it be
possible that Tertullian should have been made
acquainted with what was done in unexplored regions
and unknown islands and provinces 1 In fact, instead
of feeling his way by means of certain and approved
testimony, he appears, in this instance, to have become
the dupe of vague and indistinct rumour.”
So far as Britain is concerned, a very different view
from that given by Tertullian is given by Mr Thomas
* It is a notorious fact that at this time, A.D. 220, there werenot any Jews permitted to even enter Jerusalem !
�42
Primitive Church History.
Wright in his admirable treatise, “ The Celt, the
Roman, and the Saxon,” p. 299, 300. Mr Wright says,
“It cannot but excite our astonishment that among
such an immense number of altars and inscriptions of
temples, and with so many hundreds of Roman
sepulchres and graves as have been opened in this
country, we find not a single trace of the religion of the
Gospel. We must bear in mind, moreover, that a
large proportion of these monuments belong to a late
period of the Roman occupation ; * in many of the
inscriptions relating to temples, the building is said to
have been rebuilt after having fallen into ruin through
its antiquity—vetustate collapsum—and the examina
tion of more than one of the more magnificent villas
has proved that they were erected on the site of an
older villa, which had probably been taken down for
the same reason. We seem driven by these circum
stances to the unavoidable conclusion that Christianity
was not established in Roman Britain, although it is a
conclusion totally at variance with the preconceived
notions into which we have been led by the ecclesiasti
cal historians.”
The writer of our epistle to the Colossians, i. 23,
says that “ the gospel was preached to every creature
which is under heaven.”
But the writer of our epistle to the Romans com
bines ecclesiastical exaggeration with the exaltation of
prophecy in a unique manner. The writer of the
nineteenth “Psalm” says, “The heavens declare the
glory of God.......... their voice is gone forth into all
the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”
Meaning thereby that the regular movements and the
splendour of the heavenly bodies proved them to be
the work of a great and superhuman intelligence. The
writer of our Epistle to the Romans, x. 18, quotes this
passage to prove that Christianity had been proclaimed
nil over the earth. He says, “Faith cometh by hear* That occupation terminated a.d. 4IS.
�Allegory.
43
ing, and hearing by the word of God. Bnt I say, have
they not heard ? Yes, verily, 4 their sound went into
all the earth and their words unto the ends of the
world.’ ” This curious and, in fact, childish sort of
reasoning was very prevalent among the Jews of
Alexandria; and as in our fourth gospel, xix. 36, we
have a ceremonial law perverted allegorically into a
prophecy concerning an incident in the mythical
history of Jesus, so here we have a statement concern
ing the heavenly bodies perverted allegorically into a
prophecy regarding the spread of Christianity. The
argument, such as it is, may be stated thus :—The
writer of our nineteenth “ Psalm ” foretold allegorically
the spread of Christianity over all the earth; that
writer wrote under the influence and with the aid of
divine guidance ; Christianity has been proclaimed;
therefore Christianity has spread over all the earth 1
Here, in addition to prophecy and exaggeration, we
have that distinguishing characteristic of the Jewish
philosophic school in Alexandria, namely, the
dement of
ALLEGORY.
It is difficult to understand how the human mind
could ever have thought that a description of one thing
under the image of another—that is to say, allegory—
-could possibly increase knowledge or diminish ignorance.
All allegorical interpretationsandillustrations are ground
less, uncertain, fanciful, and indistinct. The real par
allels they contain are mostly few and trifling. They
cannot prove anything. And, worst of all, the few
similitudes that allegories contain are invariably accom
panied by divergences, and in most cases the divergences
preponderate. In fact, nothing except extensive ac
quaintance with the phases of human folly could lead
a sensible man to believe that such a system of inter
pretation ever prevailed anywhere on earth. Never
theless such has been the case, nor is it yet wholly
extinct.
�44
Primitive Church History.
Dr Kalisch (“Leviticus,” i. 143, et seqi) says: “As
in nature, so in history, the same things are often
repeated at different times and in different degrees of
perfection; the development of nations and of mankind
advances in rhythmic cycles, each complete in itself,
and each analogous, hut superior, to the preceding..
The Hebrew mind, in the period of the old canon, had
created for itself a certain system of religious thought
and public devotion, compact and consistent, and for
the time entirely satisfactory. But the Jews advanced;
they unfolded the germs of the earlier literature, and
they assimilated to their own views ideas borrowed
from the creeds of other nations. Yet they had long
learnt to look upon the Old Testament as the allembracing code of wisdom and knowledge, which must
contain—it may be in obscure allusions or hidden
allegories—all truths that can ever be discovered by
the human intellect to the end of time; they acted
upon the conviction, ‘Turn it and turn it, for every
thing is in it.’ Therefore they strove to corroborate
any new conception or opinion by connecting it with
some really or apparently kindred passage of the Scrip
tures ; and they introduced that connection by the
word, ‘As it is written.’ For instance, Ben Zoma said,
‘ Who is wise ? He who learns from every body ■ forit is written, I acquired knowledge from all whotaught me’ (Psalm cxix. 99), though the words em
ployed have in the Psalms where they occur a very
different meaning, viz., ‘I have more knowledge than
all my teachers.’
“ Such midrashic elements began to appear from very
early times; in fact, not long after the completion of
the second Temple. ... At first the Jewish doctors
were cautious in this method : preserving the conscious
ness that the combinations were the work of their own
judgment, they desired the Scriptural passage to be
regarded as no more than, a mere ‘ support ’ of their
own view, or as implying, at best, only a ‘ hint ’ in
�Allegory.
45
reference to it; and the Mishna, still sparing in that
process, speaks of many new laws that ‘fly in the air
and have no Biblical foundation; ’ and of others that
are ‘like mountains suspended by a hair, as they are
little alluded to in the Bible, yet developed into
numerous ordinances.’ But gradually, though not
without opposition from some more sober sects, as the
Sadducees and Bseothusians, they pursued the same
path with greater boldness and assurance; they con
sidered no opinion safe against later fluctuations unless
guarded by Scriptural authority; they deemed it,
therefore, necessary to trace all the innumerable ex
pansions of the Law to the Bible, which they diligently
searched and unscrupulously employed for that object;
and they seriously and confidently pointed to their
discoveries, no matter how strange soever, as ‘ proofs ’
of the doctrines they were anxious to diffuse. In this
manner, that which at first was understood merely
as a happy and welcome parallel was imperceptibly
converted into an irrefutable argument. . . . Every
trace of sound comment vanished, and the Bible was
•overgrown with the weeds of eccentric paradox. All
the conclusions so obtained were endowed with tlie
same authority and holiness as the clear utterances of
the Bible. They were regarded not only as justified,
but as so excessively genuine and infallible, that Tal
mudists could propound the surprising rule, ‘He who
renders a verse according to its plain form (that is,
literally) is a falsifier,’ although they had the boldness
to add, ‘ He who makes any addition is a blasphemer.’
“ The history of the Christian or typical interpreta
tion of the Bible was in many respects analogous to
that of the Jewish schools. . . . The Hew Testament
offers numerous instances both of ‘ the support ’ and
‘ the proof: ’ the former is, as in the Mishnah and
Talmud, introduced by ‘ as it is written ’ or ‘ spoken; ’
the latter usually by ‘ that it might be fulfilled, what
was spoken or written.’
�46
Primitive Church History.
11 In narrating the life of Jesus, the Evangelists
introduce a series of events which, though they had
happened in previous times, occurred again in the
[supposed] history of Christ, but in a manner so
much more real that they were considered as the
‘fulfilment’ of the former. Jesus was born of the
Virgin Mary, that a corresponding promise given to
Isaiah more than seven hundred years before, and at
that time literally realised, might be fulfilled (Matthew
i. 23, ii. 15; Isaiah vii. 14; Hosea xi. 1). He was
taken to Egypt as a child and brought back to Pales
tine, that he might ‘ fulfil ’ in a deeper sense the words
of the prophet Hosea, originally applied to the
Hebrews, ‘out of Egypt have I called my son.’ The
child-murder at Bethlehem which he occasioned, was
the ‘fulfilment’ of the carnage perpetrated by the
Babylonians in Jerusalem at the time of its destruction,
about six centuries before; although the former was
utterly insignificant compared with the fearful blood
shed of the latter. . . . But the New Testament
proceeded even further in this direction.
The
principle of fulfilment was applied not only to events
but to laws. The command to roast the paschal lamb
entire, so that no bone of it is broken—to symbolise
the unity of the families and the nation-—-found its
true fulfilment (Exodus xii. 9, 46 ; John xix. 36),
when the legs of Christ were not broken after the
crucifixion. . . .
“A number of objections against these and all
typical views must at once crowd upon the reader’s
attention. He will first of all be struck by the
uncertainty and indistinctness of the interpretations.
Can Christ be at the same time the victim and the
mediating priest 1 If the victim, how can he inter
cede ? If the high-priest, how can his blood be shed
for atonement ? Yet he is represented both as the
one and the other; in either case the parallels are
worked out into microscopic details; and the inevitable
�Allegory.
Agy
result is a most perplexing confusion both in the
sacrificial rites and in the attributes of Christ. The
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems indeed to
have felt this difficulty; for he represents Christ as
the victim on earth, but as the high-priest after his
crucifixion in heaven, which is the holy of holies
where he performs his ministrations ; but if so, where
is the analogy between the ordinary sacrifices and that
of Christ ?
That one and chief inaccuracy led
naturally to unlimited and almost universal identifica
tions. Christ was contended to be, in his own and
sole person (Hebrews v. 9, 10, vi. 19, 20, vii. 26,
viii. 4), ‘victim, sacrifice, priest, altar, God, man, king,
high-priest, sheep, lamb, in fact, all in all, that he may
be our life in every respect; ’ till in this maze of
entanglement every landmark disappeared, and all
connection with the Old Testament was utterly lost.
Occasional similarities may be discoverable, because,
as -we have above remarked, historical events repeat
themselves within certain conditions; but even a
cursory examination will generally prove the decided
preponderance of the divergences. If Christ be the
‘ Passover,’ how can his life, even by the remotest
allegories, be harmonised with the requirements of the
paschal lamb, which was to be roasted, consumed
entirely, without the least portion being left, eaten
with bitter herbs, and killed annually ? Typical
explanations cannot be consistently followed out
without leading to absurdities, of which a treatise
(Quadratus quomodo Christus fuerit, by J. J. Cramer, in
his work De ara exteriori, xii. 1), entitled ‘ How Christ
-—the altar—was square ? ’ is but one specimen in a
large class. If their adherents gave due weight to this
consideration, they would attempt to test their re
ligious tenets by their own intrinsic merits, rather than
by unnaturally grafting them upon the Old Testament.
As many theologians, therefore, had not the courage
to interpret typically all details, they selected some as
�48
Primitive Church History.
adapted for that method, while they understood the
rest literally; but a principle which is not generally
applicable is not any principle at all, and reveals its
fatal weakness.”
OUR NEW TESTAMENT CANON.
So well as experience can guide us, and as (p. 37)
we have before observed, all great works are the
growth of human efforts from very small beginnings.
They are the joint production of time, study, per
severance, leisure, and skill. We know from their
own avowals that most of the great dramas of
JEschylus and of Sophocles were manufactured out
of the old Homeric ballads and the Cyclic Poems.
We know from the references contained in our “ Old
Testament” that it is for the most part a work
compiled after the return of the Jews from Babylon,
and manufactured out of between twenty and thirty
old works long since lost, such as “ The visions of
Iddo the Seer,” 2 Chron. ix. 29 ; “ The book of the
Wars of the Lord,” Numbers xxi. 14; “The book of
Jashur,” Joshua x. 13, &c. We know that there is
not any trace of our “Homer’s Iliad” until about the
time of Plato. Those who have made Shakspere their
study are generally agreed that his plays are to a very
considerable extent manufactured out of previously ex
isting ballads and dramas. Sir Isaac Newton was aided
in the composition of his Principia by the previous
works of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. And our
“ New Testament” was compiled out of previously ex
isting compilations, long ago either lost or destroyed,
and some still remaining, such as “The Gospel of the
Infancy,” “The Gospel of Nicodemus,” &c., * between
* See “The Book of Days,” Dec. 28, where, in an article by the
late Mr Wm. Pinkerton, the origin of the noble and unparalleled
game of Whist is traced, about a.d. 1740, from the puerile and
vulgar games called “ Whisk” and “Swabbers.”
�Our New Testament Canon.
49
the second and fourth centuries of the Christian
era.
Uncouth and worthless old ballads, and marvellous
tales, are highly prized, so long as those who read them
or listen to them have not anything better. In like
manner, during our second and third centuries there
existed a considerable quantity of what is now called
apocryphal ecclesiastical literature, which was then
decidedly popular, and at least a portion of it was by
many Christians regarded as scripture. So lately as
our fourth century, Athanasius, in his tract on the
“ Incarnation of the Word,” refers to the downfall of
idols in Egypt when Jesus went thither: a story re
corded in the gospel of the now called Pseudo Mat
thew. And in his fourth oration against the Arians
also, Athanasius mentions the fear of the keepers in
Hades when Jesus descended to the under world: a
story recorded in our Gospel of Nicodemus, and re
ferred to clearly in Ephesians iv. 9, 10, and 1 Peter
iii. 19, 20.
Of course it may be argued that our “ New Testa
ment” was written about a.d. 50,—that it sunk into
oblivion,—remained in utter obscurity for upwards of
a century and a half, in fact until the time of Irenaeus,
whatever time that may be,—and rose again after the
Apocryphal Gospels, &c., had enjoyed their little day of
popularity. But there is not any evidence to prove this.
There is not any analogous instance of such an occur
rence in the history of literature. And as the earliest
specimens of apocryphal Christian literature are silent
regarding the existence of Christ, this supposed long
slumber of our “New Testament” renders all knowledge
of him by Pliny junior, and Tacitus virtually impos
sible. While, on the other hand, there is such a close
relationship between parts of our “New Testament,”
and some sayings of the Logos quoted by the early
Fathers and parts of the gospel of Nicodemus, the
“Infancy,” &c., that reason compels us to infer that as
D
�50
Primitive Church History.
the great works of zEschylus, Sophocles, Shakspere,
“Homer,” our “Old Testament,” Newton, &c., arose
out of the older and inferior collections of literature
above mentioned; so the writings contained in our
“ New Testament ” arose out of the inferior and older
apocryphal Christian literature, which had been highly
prized by the members of the primitive Christian
Church so long as they had not any more skilfully
written doctrinal tracts or tales of thaumaturgy to read
or listen to. The world’s history shows us invariably
that ignorance must precede knowledge, that inefficiency
must precede skill, and that the human race must be
educated before the individual can achieve anything
useful or enduring.
Furthermore, the Logos, Jesus, Paul, and the Twelve
Apostles are shadowy personages, like all the unreal
heroes of the mythological world. Some of them—
such as Jesus, Peter, &c.—are made to pass through
three or four editions, just as the Homeric heroes Ajax,
Achilles, &c., are made to pass. It is admitted by all
advocates of Christianity that outside our “New Testa
ment” there is not any genuine and authentic account
of the heroes who flourish in that collection of writings.
Did those heroes, then, as well as our “New Testament,”
flourish, sink into oblivion, remain unknown dming a
century and a half, and rise again after the heroes and
heroines, Abgarus or Agbarus, Polycarp, Ignatius,
Thecla, Perpetua, Papias, Potentiana, Veronica, Felicitas, Lucy, Flora, &c., had enjoyed their little day of
notoriety ? This supposition is quite as untenable as the
former; because several documents, even in the extant
remains of the apocryphal Christian literature, mention
Jesus, Paul, Thomas, Peter, &c., but the writers of
those documents do not appeal to our “New Testament”
as being invested with exclusive authority, for the very
good reason (as stated before) that there is not any
trace of its having been so regarded by the Church
prior to the Council of Laodicea, a.d. 362. The apocry
�Our New Testament Canon.
5i
phal gospels—at least those according to “the Hebrews,"
“the ^Egyptians,” &c., &c.—were used not only by
heretical writers, but they were used by the whole
Christian Church down to the end of our second cen
tury, and by several orthodox writers after that time
Our four gospels were not able, at their first appearance,
to supersede the inferior, but really older, gospels which
were already in possession of authority and of the affec
tions of believers. The recognition of merit is a work
of time. No doubt so far back in the history of the
Church as the times of Irenaeus and Origen those
eminent writers perceived the great advantage which
our gospels gained over the older gospels, by rehabili
tating the memoirs of Jesus and his immediate followers,
and making the incidents therein contained identical
with some incident, prophecy, or allegory contained, or
supposed to be contained, in the Septuagint: in short,
in proving that “Jesus was the Christ;” that is to say,
identifying the Jesus of the apocryphal gospels with
the Christ of the Septuagint. But this superiority was
not at first recognized by those who had not the ability
to perceive it. They were contented with the rude
models which our evangelists rehabilitated. So lately
as our fourth century Eusebius (“E. H.,” iii. 25) tells
us “there are some who number among these [genuine
books of our New Testament] the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that
have received Christ are particularly delighted.” That
gospel is much the most ancient of which we have
any distinct traces. It appears to have been the model,
not only of the other old apocryphal gospels, “the
Gospel according to Peter,” that “according to the
-Egyptians,” that “according to the Nazarenes,” &c.,
&c.; but it appears to have been the model of our first
three gospels. Those gospels are remarkable for traces
of ingenuity, rather than originality; for old precepts
dressed in new words; for old stories with a new in
flexion given to them; personifications, and the like,
�52
Primitive Church History.
When these gospels gained ground, the temptation to
make Jesus no longer a man, but a demigod, and to
surround him with a dramatic narrative, relating super
natural incidents and nothing else, became irresistible.
In short, Jesus was now rendered a fit subject for a
romance, a tragedy, or an epic poem. The old “Gospel
according to the Hebrews ” furnished too tame a model
for the writer of our fourth gospel. It is remarkable,
moreover, that our fourth evangelist considered himself
quite free to clothe Jesus with any narrative he pleased,
provided he made a good hit. It is also remarkable
that the result verified the anticipation of the evangelist.
He appears to have taken as his model “Prometheus
Bound,” or “CEdipus Coloneus.” At all events, in our
fourth gospel all history, all realities of every kind, are
excluded utterly. And here the question arises, Could
such a being as Jesus ever have existed ? It is quite
plain that even the members of the early Christian
Church paused before they ascribed divine authority
to any of the numerous gospels that were afloat during
our second, third, and the greater part of our fourth
centuries. Credulity itself was startled! This is a
remarkable fact, and an important one also. It explains
why the formation of our New Testament canon was
postponed to so late a period as the council held at
Laodicea, a.d. 362. Time, and only time, can give an
appearance of reality to the supernatural; and, aided by
allegory, time can effect wonders. For it does not
require any great effort of sagacity to discern in the
Jesus of our New Testament the personification of the
head of the Jewish nation: in the Church, the personi
*
fication of that nation; in the twelve apostles, the
personification of the twelve tribes of Israel; and in
the doctrines of our “ New Testament,” a republication,
in a different form, of the doctrines contained in the
* The members of which nation, during centuries, have been
persecuted for putting to death a man of whom they never knew
anything, and who never had any objective existence.
�Our New Testament Canon.
53
Septuagint. Our “New Testament” does not contain
any useful moral precept not to be found in Pindar,
the Greek Tragics, and the Septuagint; and, conse
quently, it has not any valid claim to be considered a
revelation. It is merely a compilation of writings
selected by the Christian Church at various times
during the second, third, and fourth centuries, until—
as we have it, with the exception of the so-called
“Apocalypse”—it was sanctioned as the canon of faith
by the Council of Laodicea, about a.d. 362. The
“Apocalypse” having found its way into the version
known as the Latin Vulgate, obtained by that circum
stance a dubious sanctity. From the silence of ecclesi
astical history regarding any rational principle of selec
tion used by the Church in council, when arranging
our “New Testament” canon, it may be inferred
reasonably that the selection was not arrived at by
any rational principle, but that the question, in each
case, was put to the votes of the Council’s members,
and carried merely by the vote of the majority.
To say the least, the foregoing explanation is the
most probable approximation to the real history of our
“ New Testament,” and the date of its canonical
authority. That the compilations of narratives con
cerning the supposed life of Jesus contained in our
“New Testament” canon were in general circulation in
the Church during our second century, and more espe
cially that any one of our gospels was known to an
apostle and acknowledged by him, has never been
proved. The vast mass of Apocryphal gospel narra
tives, and epistles, and “Acts” from which our “New
Testament ” has been compiled resemble exactly those
masses of old, rude, uncouth, and legendary documents
from which the Greek Tragics, our “ Old Testament,”
our “Iliad,” Chaucer, and Shakspere have been com
piled. In all those cases the respective compilations
can be accounted for and explained in a natural
manner by treating them as selections, modifications,
�54
Primitive Church History.
adaptations, and reconstructions made skilfully from
rude legends. This explanation is complete in itself,
and does not leave us any improbability to wonder at,
or any miracle to believe. Those who receive that
explanation are not required to recognise in our “ New
Testament” anything except the natural career of
myths and legends again and again altered, modified,
improved, and reconstructed, until that compilation
enabled the Christian Church to model its system of
doctrine and Church government agreeably to the
Levitical system. That explanation possesses the
further merit, namely, that by means of it we can
discern the growth of Christianity. Of course we
cannot assign particular and specific dates to the
various documents we have passed under review; but
by means of that explanation we can perceive that
between the years a.d. 70 and a.d. 362 there took
place in the Christian Church the following
DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT.
A glance at the development of doctrine in the
Christian Church, as shown in the writings of those
Fathers who are supposed to have flourished from
Tatian to Origen, will help the student of Primitive
Church History to arrive at a true perception regarding
the growth of the Christian doctrines.
Firstly, we have Tatian, Hermas, Athenagoras, and
Theophilus, who knew of Christians and the Logos,
but did not know anything about Jesus, or the Christ,
or our New Testament. Their distinguishing doctrines
were (1) Monotheism and (2) Asceticism.
Secondly, we have Barnabas, James, the Clementine
Homilies and Recognitions, Clement the Roman, the
Apocalypse, Jude, Peter, Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp,
and Justin, who heard of Jesus Christ, knew the
sayings of the Logos and the history of Jesus, as
�Christian Mythology.
55
related in the Apocryphal Gospels, but they had not
any narratives of him corresponding with those in our
New Testament.
Thirdly, we have the epistles attributed to Paul and
our fourth Gospel. The writers of these works knew
most of the doctrines held by modern Christians, but
they did not know the narratives contained in our
first three Gospels.
Fourthly, we have the writings attributed to Nico
demus, Matthew, Luke, the writer of “ Acts,” and
Mark. The writers of these works were in possession
of a detailed history concerning the doctrines, preach
ings, genealogy, and exploits of Jesus. That history
was very far from being consistent. It contained as
many various reflections as the fragments of a broken
mirror. Though these writers knew most of the books
contained in our New Testament, yet they considered
other works not contained in that collection as equal in
authority. Both the history and doctrines of these
writers were different from those of the third class.
And, fifthly and lastly, we have the writings of
Irenseus and Origen, which show a knowledge of
everything contained in our New Testament, and of all
the principal doctrines held by modern Christians.
But now arises the question, How were these doc
trines and stories invented ? The answer is that they
were invented partly by zeal and partly by disordered
imagination. When they were believed they were
modified gradually by increase of labour and by in
crease of care and skill. We know in the present day
that savage tribes have their apostles and prophets, and
we know something of the method whereby those
worthies manage their affairs. So our next inquiry
shall be into
CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY.
More curiously nonsensical than the principle of
�56
Primitive Church History.
allegory is the principle of mythology. To account for
the origin of fire the myth was invented that
Prometheus stole it from heaven, a place which has not
any existence. To account for the origin of evil the
myths of Pandora’s box and Eve’s forbidden fruit were
invented. Whatever satisfies the minds that accept
such stories will be received, no matter what may be
the differences of time and place.
As we have seen, the 11 sayings ” of the Logos pre
ceded his biography. In Christianity the moral and
the philological preceded the historical; the abstract
preceded the concrete. This gave rise to endless
variations, differences, and contradictions in the history
of Jesus after he had been identified with the Logos.
Every incident of his life was related variously. Even
the date of his supposed crucifixion was disputed; for
we know from Eusebius (“ E. H.,” i., 9) that even in
his day some persons denied that Jesus suffered under
Pilate. Hence it was that in the so-called “Apostles’
Creed,” among remarkable and miraculous events, we
have the tame circumstance insisted on, namely, that
Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate.”
But in addition to this, the primitive Christian liter
ature was formed under a combination of circumstances
which introduced fresh elements of discord and obscu
rity. In ancient times, among both the Greeks and
the Jews, there was developed very remarkably a ten
dency to ascribe modern writings to ancient names.
(See “ Our First Century,” pp. 8-11.) Among the early
Christians, the self-same tendency was developed.
Although all the doctrines contained in the writings of
the early Fathers, and, at a later period, in our “ New
Testament,” are to be found in the ancient Septuagint,
(see “ Our First Century,” pp. 19-30), yet, among the
early Christians, whenever a writer made what the
Church considered to be a good hit, he was allowed to
ascribe his effusion to any ancient name he pleased ;
because the early Christians adopted the very illogical
�Christian Mythology.
57
principle of criticism, that whatever was edifying was
true, whatever was true was genuine, whatever was
genuine was old, whatever was old was apostolic, what
ever was apostolic was authoritative, and whatever
was authoritative was considered to he clothed with
Divine authority. This fanciful and puerile method
of criticism became a fruitful source of error, mysti
cism, nonsense, fable, fraud, and forgery. The texts
of the older Christian writers were thereby corrupted.
The corruptors introduced into the works of pagan
■writers, passages framed by Christians in order to
make those pagans, like the thief at the crucifixion,
testify to the divine origin of Christianity. (See ££ Our
First Century,” pp. 12-19.) And the writings, forming
the cycle of ancient “ New Testament ” literature, were
increased without restriction, and were allowed to be
ascribed to Jesus and his mythical followers : just as
the Greeks attributed any works they pleased to“ Hesiod” or ££ Homer,”—as the compilers of the Sep
tuagint attributed works to “ David ” * or “ Solomon,”
—and as the post-BabyIonian Jews, who compiled the
Hebrew Testament, attributed works to the very con
venient names of ££ Moses,” ££ Joshua,” and ££ Samuel.”
In this way spurious writings, attributed to Barnabas,
Hermas, Thomas, Clement, &c., &c., were regarded as
authoritative, long before our “ New Testament” had
any existence. And several of those spurious writings
were quoted as ££ Scripture,” or “ as it is written,” down
to the time of Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,
and even Athanasius. And there was not any attempt
made in the Christian Church to fix a canon of ££ New
Testament ” Scripture during the first three centuries of
our era. As before mentioned : such an attempt was
first made at the Council which assembled at Laodicea,
A.D. 362.
* See Psalm cli. in the Septuagint collection : it is there stated
that “ this is a genuine psalm of David, although supernumerary,
when he fought in single combat with Goliad.”
�58
Primitive Church History.
But the most difficult thing connected with this
business is to understand how these mythologists
deceived themselves into a belief in their own myths,
inventions, frauds, fables, and forgeries. Yet some of
these mythologists did believe their own myths : such
is the force of human imagination ! For there need
not be any doubt that the writer of our second epistle
to the Corinthians, xii. 2, 4, was quite sincere when
he said that he had been “ caught up into the third
heaven,” and “ into paradise.” The writer of our
“Apocalypse,” i. 10, informs us that he was “in the
spirit”—that is to say, in a trance—while he received the
communications mentioned in that tract. We read in
our “ Acts,” x 9, 10, that “ Peter went up upon the
housetop to pray, about the sixth hour; and he became
very hungry and would have eaten : but, while they
made ready, he fell into a tranceand while he was
in that state he learned, 28, “ that he should not call
any man common or unclean: ” a salutary truth, although
he learned it while in a state of imperfect conscious
ness : just as (see Martineau’s “ Rationale of Religious
Inquiry,” p. 100) the duty of testifying to the truth
was a virtue bom of the superstition that all men, who
will be saved, will owe their salvation to a certain pro
cess of witchcraft known as “justification by faith.”
That there were Freemasonlike secrets in the early
Christian Church we know from the Clementine
Homilies. Arguing against St Paid or Simon Magus,
Homily xix. § 20, “ Peter said : we remember that our
Lord and teacher, commanding us said, 1 Keep the
mysteries for me and the sons of my house.’ Where
fore, also, he explained to his disciples privately the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who
do battle with us, and do not examine into anything
except our statements, whether they be true or false, it
would be impious to explain these.” Perhaps the art
of falling into a trance was one of these mysteries. If
so, the secret was preserved for a considerable time.
�Christian Mythology.
59
Mosheim, “Institutes,” century xiv., ch. v., sec. 1, 2,
tells us that “the Hesychasts, or as they may be called
*
in Latin the Quietists, gave the Greek Church much
employment. Barlaam, a native of Calabria, a monk
■of the order of St Basil, and afterwards bishop of
Geraci in Calabria, travelling over Greece to inspect
the conduct of the monks, found not a few things
among them which were reprehensible ; but in none of
them more than in the Hesychasts at Mount Athos in
Thessaly, who were mystics or more perfect monks, who
sought for tranquillity of mind and the extinction of
all the passions by means of contemplation. For these
Quietists, in accordance with the prescription of their
early teachers, who said that there was a divine light
hid in the soul, seated themselves daily in some retired
corner, and fixed their eyes steadfastly for a consider
able time upon the navel of their belly; and in that
situation they boasted that a sort of divine light beamed
forth upon them from the mind itself, which diffused
through their souls wonderful delight. When asked
what kind of light this was, they answered that it was
the glory of God ; and they appealed for illustration to
the light which appeared at the transfiguration of Christ.
Barlaam, who was ignorant of the customs of mystics,
regarded this as absurd and fanatical; and to the monks
who followed this practice he applied the names of
Massalians and Euchites, and also the new name of
Navel-souls. On the other hand, Gregory Palamas,
archbishop of Thessalonica, defended the cause of the
monks against Barlaam. To put an end to this con
test a council was held at Constantinople, a.d. 1314,
in which the emperor Andronicus junior, and the patri
arch presided. Here the monks, with Palamas at their
head, were victorious: Barlaam 'was condemned, and,
leaving Greece, he returned to Italy.”
In the case of Peter we perceive there was the ele
ment of fasting. From what we know of the habits of
* From the Greek
“ tranquillity.”
�60
Primitive Church History.
savage nations, we learn that their sorcerers always fast
before doing anything of much importance. And we
may infer safely that in all the foregoing cases of fall
ing into a trance, the element of fasting was very
powerful. In this manner, then, a man might put
himself into a trance, and in that state he might con
ceive anything, whether useful or nonsensical, and be
lieve it to be a divine revelation. And if the revela
tion give satisfaction to the companions of the inspired
ones, the revelation will have plenty of true believers.
It thus appears that the Christian mythology is
essentially like those of all other known religions. It
is the offspring of disordered imagination. But it has
been said that Christianity is the only religion which
yields consolation to the believer. But all religions
give consolation to their believers. We do not know of
any man who died more firmly and finely than Socrates.
And not only is this the case, but even witchcraft yields
consolation to those who believe in it. In the “ Book of
Days,” under the date of the 21st of February, the reader
may find an elaborate article on “ The Folk Lore of Play
ing Cards,” by the late Mr William Pinkerton, F.S.A.
Towards the end of the article he says : “A few words
must be said on the professional fortune-tellers. That
they are, generally speaking, wilful impostors, is per
haps true. Yet, paradoxical though it may appear, the
writer feels bound to assert that these ‘card-cutters/
whose practice lies among the lowest classes of society,
really do a great deal of good. Few know what the
lowest classes in our large towns suffer when assailed
by mental affliction. They are, in most instances,
utterly destitute of the consolations of religion, and in
capable of sustained thought. Accustomed to live from
hand to mouth, their whole existence is bound in the
present, and they have no idea of the healing effects of
time. Their ill-regulated passions brook no self-denial,
and a predominant element of self rules their confused
minds. They know of no future, they think no o her
�Christian Mythology.
61
human being ever suffered as they do ; as they term it
themselves, ‘ they are upset.’ They perceive no resource,
no other remedy than a leap from the nearest bridge, or
a dose of arsenic from the first chemist’s shop. Haply
some friend or neighbour, one who has already suffered
and has been relieved, takes the wretched creature to a
fortune-teller. The seeress at once perceives that her
client is in distress, and shrewdly guessing the cause,
pretends that she sees it all in the cards. Having thus
asserted her superior intelligence, she affords her sym
pathy and consolation, and points to hope and a happy
future : blessed hope ! although in the form of a greasy
playing card. The sufferer, if not cured, is relieved.
The lacerated wounds, if not healed, are at least dressed :
and, in all probability, a suicide or a murder is pre
vented. Scenes of this character occur every day in the
meaner parts of London.”
It is a well known fact that the much reviled
Epicurean philosophy—the only true philosophy that
has yet been published—afforded consolation to those
who held it. Virgil (Georgies, ii., 490-2) says :—
“ Happy is he who, searching Nature’s laws,
Through known effects has traced the secret cause ;
Has trampled on all fears, relentless fate,
And the idea of a future state.”
Aristotle (Ethics, x., 9) says:—“He, then, who
exercises himself in the way of thought, and does his
best to improve it, and has the best mental disposition,
seems also to be the most beloved by the gods.” Com
menting on this passage, an eminent scholar says “ A very noble and consoling sentiment to those who
care little for popular notions, but everything for
Truth. It is humiliating to think how immeasurably
the Greek philosophers surpassed us of the present day
in this best and holiest of all virtues, love of Truth.”
But another item of Christian mythology is the asser
tion that the spread of the Christian religion was so great
�62
Primitive Church History.
that it must have received supernatural aid. Mosheim
(“Institutes,” century ii., ch. i., sec. 6) says:—“This
[supposed] rapid propagation of Christianity is ascribed
by the writers of the second century almost exclusively
to the efficient will of God, to the energy of divine
truth, and to the miracles wrought by Christians.”
These miracles, as mentioned by Tertullian, Origen,
&c., &c., and duly recorded by Dr Augustus Neander,
may be briefly explained as follows:—Arrangements
were made with certain members of the Christian
Church to say that they had died, and had been raised
from the dead. On being interrogated in the presence
of credulous persons, such as Tertullian and Origen,
these “resurrection-men” avowed the truth of that
which had been told concerning them. In this way
men who never had died, were pointed out, by second,
or third century apostles, as being walking testimonies
to the miraculous powers of the Christian Church
during our second century. But the fact is, that,
according to the latest statistics, while the number of
Christians on earth number about 353,000,000, the
Buddhists number about 483,000,000. There are
about 500,000,000 of other sectaries. And, in addi
tion to these facts, there is not anything supernatural
in the rise and progress of the Christian sect when we
investigate its history and explain its
ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANISATION.
As in the Jewish Church, organised after the return
from Babylon, and subsequently aided by the compila
tion of our Pentateuch, the public functions of religion
were intrusted solely to the priests and Levites, so in
the Primitive Christian Church those functions were
intrusted solely to the bishops and presbyters. At an
early time the bishops began to preside at the assem
blies of the Christians. Each assembly governed itself.
�Ecclesiastical Organisation.
63
By letters and deputations these assembles maintained
a mutual and friendly, but rather loosely connected,
intercourse with each other. So early as towards the
end of our second century provincial councils were
instituted, modeled probably partly on the Jewish
synagogues and partly on traditions regarding the
Amphictyonic Council, the Achaean League, and the
assemblies of the Ionic cities. At these councils or
synods decrees were enacted which were styled canons,
and which regulated every important controversy
regarding faith and discipline. The institution of
synods or councils succeeded so well that in a short
time their influence spread widely throughout the
Christian Church. A regular correspondence was
established between the provincial councils, which
mutually communicated and approved their respective
proceedings; and the Primitive Christian Church
assumed the form and acquired the strength of a fede
rative republic. Even a philosopher of the most scep
tical school must recognise the vast superiority of
Asceticism and Monotheism over uncritical polytheism,
and the revolting impurities of nature worship. The
Christians who held the former doctrines were inspired
with zeal for the promulgation of those tenets. A
consciousness of superiority inspires courage. A per
ception that we are fighting the cause of Virtue against
Vice inspires self-sacrifice. And there can be but very
little doubt that this union of exalted zeal and skilful
church organisation gave the primitive Christians that
almost insuperable power which even a comparatively
small force of well-trained and courageous volunteers
has so frequently exhibited when brought in contact
with an undisciplined multitude, ignorant of the sub
ject in dispute, unaware of its importance, and indif
ferent to the event.
So far the success of the primitive Christian Church
must be regarded as having been beneficial to the human
race. But “ the pulses of ambition may beat as freely
�64
Primitive Church History.
under sleeves of lawn as under an ordinary habit.” * The
bishops established gradually a difference among them
selves in dignity, and afterwards in authority; and the
titles of Metropolitans, and afterwards of Primates,
showed the success of individual ambition, and the
numerical increase of the Church.
Thus this progress of ecclesiastical organisation
showed also the power of the Church to resist any force
that might be brought against it either to exterminate
or persecute it. Before the Church was attacked it was
strong. This is the real secret of its success. It re
sisted successfully the exterminating persecution of it
by Decius, a.d. 249-251. The admiration this resist
ance drew forth increased its strength. It was recog
nised as a power in the state. The “ happy family ”
whose discordant elements composed the dominions of
Rome required daily some bond of union to assist the
Imperial Army in keeping together that once mighty
empire. The established Paganism was intended to be
such a bond of union. But the members of the various
religions that passed under the name which we call
Paganism, and which were tolerated and recognised at
Rome, were, for the most part, destitute of zeal, indif
ferent to the cause of Truth, without patriotism, and
addicted to luxury. Only Roman citizens had a free
country. The rest of Rome’s subjects were careless of
any interests except their own : they were selfish. The
Christians, on the other hand, were in the Roman Em
pire in a position analogous to the primitive Spartans
in Laconia. They were an organised, zealous, com
pact, and united band of warriors in a country whose
inhabitants were hostile but disunited, listless, and de
moralised. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that
when seeking to render the established religion of the
Roman Empire conducive and effective to the purposes
of imperial union, a.d. 313, Constantine should have
* Earl Grey, in reply to a bishop during the debates on the
Reform Bill of 1832.
�First Historical Glimpse of the Christians. 65
substituted Christian zeal and witchcraft for Pagan in
difference and idolatry.
*
Nevertheless, and notwith
standing the boastings of Tertullian, Justin, Paul, &c.,
&c., down to the time of Decius, the Christians were
not only an obscure but also an unobtrusive sect; and
they existed a considerable time before any one in the
present day could catch in civil history the
FIRST HISTORICAL GLIMPSE OF THE
CHRISTIANS.
So much has been written on the history of the
Christians, that a student, beginning his inquiries,
might well be excused if he supposed that the first men
tion of them, outside their church, had been accurately
ascertained long ago. Yet (strange as it may seem) it
would be difficult to mention a subject more enveloped
in disagreement, doubt, difficulty, and error. When
we attempt to examine it we are unable to see it du ring
the first two centuries of the commonly received Chris
tian era. But while the latter part of our first century
is adorned with forgeries introduced into the works of
one Jewish and three Pagan writers, the second century
is enveloped in a darkness that is more opaque than
that of the first. As the writer of our Odyssey says of
the Cimmerians, so we may say of our second century,
“ There darkness as of death is spread over wretched mortals.”
There does not appear to have been any attempt
made to introduce even one forgery into the writings of
the pagans who flourished during our second century.
This is a serious omission. It was a much greater
mistake than tampering with the works of Josephus,
Suetonius, Pliny junior, and Tacitus; because the gap
that occurs in our second century is more modern than
* Of course this substitution was effected by means of Constan
tine’s army, the soldiers of which did not much care about any
particular form of religion. The Christians were only a very small
fraction of his subjects.
E
�66
Primitive Church History.
the gap in the first seventy years of our first century,
and, consequently, is rendered more conspicuous. As we
have seen, Eusebius furnishes us with names analogous
to the names furnished to us by the biographers and
commentators on the Cyclic Poets; but those names
are “without form”—they are as unreal as chaos—
their times and their places have not any existence—
all we have are names which, like the shades in Hades,
flit about “ with an unearthly squeak.” No doubt
Eusebius sometimes quotes authorities, but they give
us little if any information regarding primitive church
history, and we know little if anything about them.
All the names assigned to Christians during~our first
and second centuries, flit about in shade, mist, gloom,
and darkness. They are names of persons supposed to
have been Christians, because they called themselves
by that name. But we know that some of them
attached very different meanings to the word “ Chris
tian.” They are pushed about at the pen points of
writers who compile unreal histories. And these
names are rocked up and down in the ocean of igno
rance, and on the waves of nonsense they are
“ Toss’d to and fro with jaculation dire.”
Outside the Church we have not any authorities for
the supposed persecutions of the Christians by Nero,
Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Aurelius, Severus, and
Maximin. After celebrating the felicity and increase
of the church, under good princes, Lactantius, who
died a.d. 325, in his work De Mortibus Persecutorum,
c. 3, 4, says—“After many years that execrable animal
appeared, Decius, who persecuted the church.” Gibbon
says, “ Decline and Fall,” chap, xvi, “ The fall of
Philip [a.d. 249, who is represented as being favour
able to the Christians] introduced, with the change
of masters, a new system of government, so oppres
sive to the Christians, that their former condition,
ever since the time of Domitian, was represented as
�First Historical Glimpse of the Christians. 67
a state of perfect freedom and security, if compared
with the rigorous treatment which they experienced
under the short reign of Decius.” Mosheim, Insti
tutes, century second, ch. i., and century third, ch. ii.,
says, “ Most of the Roman emperors of this [second]
century were of a mild character. .... Through this
lenity of the emperors, Christians living in the Roman
empire suffered far less than they would have done if
they had been under severer rulers. . . . But when
Decius Trajan came to the imperial throne (a.d. 249),
war, in all its horrors, burst upon the Christians."
Eusebius (“E. H.,” vi. 39) says: “Philip, after a
reign of seven years, was succeeded by Decius, who,
in consequence of his hatred to Philip, raised a perse
cution against the Church.” And he says, “The
number and greatness of Origen’s sufferings during
this persecution . . . the many epistles of the man
detail with not less truth than accuracy.” And
(“Roman History,” Vol. V. p. 322) Niebuhr says that
Decius “was the first who instituted a vehement per
secution of the Christians, for which he is cursed by
the ecclesiastical writers as much as he is praised by
the Pagan historians [the writers of the ‘Historia
Augusta ’ and Zosimus.] The cause of this persecution,
I think, must be sought for in the feeling antagonistic
to the tendency of his predecessor. The accounts
which we have of earlier persecutions are highly ex
aggerated, as Henry Dodwell has justly pointed out.
The persecution by Decius, however, was really a very
serious one ; it interrupted the peace which the Chris
tian Church had enjoyed for a long time.” It may be
concluded safely that there was not any persecution of
the Church before that by Decius. The Christians had
not any existence prior to a.d. 70. See “Our First
Century,” p. 51. All the writers on Church history
admit that prior to the accession of Decius to the
throne, a.d. 249, the Church enjoyed a long period
of repose. The stories regarding the martyrdoms of
�68
Primitive Church History.
James, Peter, Paul, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Stephen—
if, indeed, there ever were any such persons—are
stories, and nothing more. They have not any real
foundation. Even the martyrdom of Justin, called
the martyr, is more than doubtful. Of course he may
have been killed; but that circumstance, by itself,
would not prove the existence of a persecution directed
against, the whole Christian Church. The truth is that
from a.d. 70 to a.d. 249 the Church was unmolested,
and prior to A.D. 135 the Church was unknown to the
Pagan world. During that long period, extending over
a century and a half, the Christian Church, with its
skilfully contrived organization, had ample time to
become so strong, that its extirpation, even by a
Roman emperor, would be a matter requiring con
siderable time, expense, and exertion.
Be that as it may, one thing is certain, namely, that
outside the Church there does not appear to be any
trace of the Christians prior to the persecution of them,
a.d. 249, ordered by Decius, with a view to the utter
extermination of a sect which, since his time, has sur
vived to cause more bloodshed and misery to the human
race than any other sect which exists on the records of
history.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Primitive Church History
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 68 p. ; 19 cm
Notes: Lacking a title page. Title from p. 5. Place and publisher from KVK. Preface dated 1874.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1874
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church History-Early Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Primitive Church History), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1605