1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/56a7037efade777cbf8c315aaabc4807.pdf?Expires=1711584000&Signature=o2aN8uTiCNyg-N4Ap2TI6wdlW8KUniG99A7JfJ-ELNm6t2VG4SZjY8WYdy%7EBq-SGiIwmATsM7Cus1AtJzZC-qe-H5LO5e5i98SpGESSnOtjTzkQUsLxh5HPnVZg0NPbJCRlJYpgAw6%7EFYNkdDYKUY5P3ly9z0d6l3cfZtOsvnuxnQNN3O1eMxz3LSfExZzs%7EaZ5eChmDGnq3SAUplYjUqyLTcyHQk5jCOk0QxT9hEf%7EkFQV0SAzOlfau0DHlx02YKLzcTjMQ6gtPoA53CuoiPrYjaubtUZ-j1tPUz2xfuQTkG6-dD1hGB5ejLVkPSYdTmr2GCjlG7MJsACYv-9ULsw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f492cd31ef135b2e67cc79839d73c581
PDF Text
Text
i'jp I
6*
7
NATIONALSECULARSOCIEW
FRAUDS AND FOLLIES OF THE
FATHERS. •
By J. M. WHEELER.
------ -------I.
To expose the delirium and delinquencies of a respected or even
respectable body of men is always an ungracious, though it may
not be an unnecessary, task. But when we are informed that re
jection of certain supernatural stories means our condemnation
here and damnation hereafter, we feel tempted to examine the
kind of men who first accepted and promulgated those stories.
The man who tells me I shall be damned if I do not believe in
his theories or thaumaturgy may have many estimable qualities,
but he must not be surprised if, disregarding these, I call
attention to instances of his credulity. When, moreover, priests
assume authority over conduct on the ground that their Church
or their doctrines were God-given, it becomes necessary to in
vestigate how that Church and those doctrines were built up;
and if we find superstitious fooleries and pious frauds mixed
therein, it may do something to abate our confidence in priestly
pretentions.
In regard to the Fathers, as to much else, the Catholic is the
most consistent of all Christian Churches. The men who
established the Church, and fixed what was and what was not
Canonical Gospel, are surely entitled to some authority on
the part of believers. When Protestants wish to prove the
authenticity of their infallible book, they have to fall back upon
the witness of the fallible Fathers whose authority they are
at other times always ready to repudiate.
The intellectual and moral character of the men who were the
origi»al depositaries of Christian faith and literature is then
evidently of the utmost importance. All historical evidence as
to the authenticity of the New Testament, or the faithfulness of
ecclesiastical history, comes through them. If they were cre
dulous and untrustworthy, the edifice built upon their testimony
or their faith will be found to be tottering.
Now, concerning the Fathers of the Christian Church, we have,
at the outset, to allege that, as a class, not only were they super
stitious and credulous, and therefore unreliable, but that many
of them were absolutely fraudulent, not hesitating to use any
and every means to further the interests of their religion.
Bishop C. J. Ellicott, in his article on the Apocryphal Gospels,
which appeared in the “Cambridge Essays” for 1856, pp. 175
*
�2
176, says : “ But credulity is not the only charge which these early
ages have to sustain. They certainly cannot be pronounced
free from the influence of pious frauds. .... It was an age of
literary frauds. Deceit, if it had a good intention, frequentlypassed unchallenged.............. However unwilling we may be to
admit it, history forges upon us the recognition of pious fraud
as a principle which wa3 by no means inoperative in the earliest
ages of Christianity.”
Jeremiah Jones says: “To make testimonies out of forgeries
and spurious books to prove the very foundation of the Christian
revelation, was a method much practised by some of the Fathers,
especially Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Lactantius.”
—“ A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority
of the New Testament,” part ii., chap, xxxiv., p. 318, vol. i.
1827.
B. H. Cowper, a well-known champion of Christianity, and
once editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature, confesses in the
Introduction to his “Apocryphal Gospels” (p. xxv., 1867):
“ Ancient invention and industry went even further, and pro
duced sundry scraps about Herod, Veronica, Lentulus, and
Abgar, wrote epistles for Christ and his mother, and I know
not how much besides. No difficulty stood in the way ; ancient
documents could easily be appealed to without necessarily exist
ing ; spirits could be summoned from the other world by a
stroke of the pen, and be made to say anything; sacred names
could be written and made a passport to fictions, and so on
ad libitum."
M. Daille says: “For these forgeries are not new and of
yesterday; but the abuse hath been on foot above fourteen
hundred years.”—“ The Right Use of the Fathers,” p. 12, 1675.
Mosheim mentions “ a variety of commentaries filled with im
postures or fables on our Savior’s life and sentiments, composed
soon after his ascent into heaven, by men who, without being
bad, perhaps, were superstitious, simple, and piously deceitfuF
To these were afterwards added other writings falsely accredited
to the most holyapostles by fraudulent individuals.”—“Institutes
of Ecclesiastical History,” part iii., chap, ii., sec. 17, p. 65, vol. i.
Stubbs’s edition, 1863.
The same justly-renowned historian declares that “apernicious
maxim which was current in the schools, not only of the
Egyptians, the Platonists, and the Pythagoreans, but also of the
Jews, was very early recognised by the Christians, and soon
found.among them numerous patrons—namely, that those who
made it their business to deceive with a view of promoting the
cause of truth were deserving rather of commendation than
censure.”—“ Commentaries on the Affairs of the Christians
before the time of Constantine the Great.” Second century,
sec. 7, pp. 41, 45. R. S. Vidal’s translation. 1813.
Dr. Gieseler, Professor of Theology in Gottingen, says: “In
reference to the advancement of various Christian interests, and
�o
in like manner also to the confirmation of those developments of
doctrine already mentioned, the spurious literature which had
arisen and continually increased among the Jews and Christians,
was of great importance. The Christians made use of such
expressions and writings as had already been falsely attributed
by Jews, from partiality to their religion, to honored persons of
antiquity, and altered them in parts to suit their own wants,
such as the book of Enoch and the fourth book of Ezra. But
writings of this kind were also fabricated anew by Christians,
who quieted their conscience respecting the forgery with the idea
of their good intention, for the purpose of giving greater im
pressiveness to their doctrines and admonitions by the reputation
of respectable names, of animating their suffering brethren to
steadfastness, and of gaining over their opponents to Christianity.”
—“ Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,” sec. 52, vol. i.,
pp. 157, 158. Translated by Dr. S. Davidson. T. & T. Clark’s
Foreign Theological Library.
But as our purpose is to examine these writings somewhat in
detail, we will commence with
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
This name is given to those Christian writers who are alleged
to have had intercourse with the Apostles. These writings are
said to date from about 97 to 150 A.c. Dr. J. Donaldson says :
“ Of these writers investigation assures us only of the names of
three, Clement, Polycarp and Papias. There is no satisfactory
ground for attributing the ‘ Epistle of Barnabas ’ to Barnabas,
the friend of Paul, nor the ‘Pastor’ of Hermas to the Hermas
mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans.”1 Yet it is to be noticed
that both these works were read in the primitive churches as
Scripture, and are included in the Sinaitic Codex, which is
asserted to be the most ancient manuscript of the New Testa
ment extant. We take first
St. Clement.
There is a “fellow-laborer” with Paul of the name of Clement,
mentioned in his Epistle to the Philippians (iv., 3), but whether
this its the same individual whom the Catholics make a Pope of
Rome, and some of the Fathers say was a kinsman of the Roman
Emperor, is a matter of dispute, and much doubted by the best
authorities. Bishop Lightfoot (“St. Paul’s Epistles: Philippians.”
p. 166) says: “ The notices of time and place are opposed to the
identification of the two.” A sufficient evidence of the estima
tion in which St. Clement was held, however, is to be found in
the number of forgeries which Christian piety have palmed upon
the world in his name. In the Alexandrian Codex, one of
the oldest and most important manuscripts of the New Testa
ment, two epistles addressed to the Corinthians stand inscribed
1 “The Apostolical Fathers,” ehap. i., p. 101, 1874.
�with his name, and are enumerated in the list of books of the
New Testament. Of these, the second is on all hands allowed
to be a forgery, and the first is generally considered to be inter
polated. That forgeries or interpolations have taken place in
regard to those books of the same Codex which, upon the
authority of certain Fathers, have been formed into the received
canon of sacred Scripture, must not, of course, be suspected on
pain of everlasting burning. The fact of the Epistle to the
Hebrews being ascribed to St. Paul, the second Epistle ascribed
to St. Peter, and such texts as those of the heavenly witnesses
(1 John v., 7, 8), show any scholar that nothing of the kind
could have taken place by any possibility whatever. Is it likely
that God would allow his Holy Word to be tampered with?
The history of Clement of Rome, says Canon Westcott (“On
the Canon,” p. 22,1881), “is invested with mythic dignity which
is without example in the Ante-Nicene Church.” It was too
utterly impossible for other Fathers and founders of the Church
to be invested with mythic dignity. Jesus must have come of the
seed of King David, even though Joseph had nothing to do with
his genealogy. “The events of his life,” Westcott goes on to
say, “have become so strangely involved in consequence of the
religious romances which bear his name, that they remain in
inextricable confusion.” And so indeed they are ; almost as
badly as those of the founder of Christianity.
Clement is called at one time a disciple of St. Paul, and at
another of St. Peter, who Paul withstood to his face because he was
to be blamed (Gal. ii., 11). The Abbé Migne, in his Patrologie,
makeshim Pope in 91 A.c. The Clementine Homilies, purporting
to be written by Clement himself, says he was ordained by Peter.
Some put the first Popes as Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, and then
Clement; others give their order as Linus, Cletus, Clement,
Anacletus ; others Clement, Linus, &c. ; in short, they are given
every way. Baron Bunsen called Anacletus a purely apocryphal
and mythical personage, and some wicked sceptics have thought
the same of the whole batch. In addition to the two epistles
which stand on the same parchment with Holy Scripture,
St. Clement is credited with two epistles to Virgins—which,
though superstitious, are possibly none the less authentic ; two
epistles to James the brother of the Incarnate God, the Apos
tolic Canons (which include his own writings as sacred
scripture), the Apostolic Constitutions, the Recognitions, a
Liturgy, and twenty Clementine Homilies. All of these, says
Mosheim, were fraudulently ascribed to this eminent father by
some deceivers, for the purpose of procuring them greater
authority. Clement has also been supposed the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts of the Apostles.
Restricting ourselves for the present to the first epistle, gene
rally put forward as genuine, until a comparatively late date quoted
as authoritative scripture by the Fathers, put in the apostolic
canons among sacred and inspired writings, and which Eusebius
�5
tells us (“Hist. Eccl.” iii., 16) was publicly read in very many
churches in old times and even in his own day ; we at once dis
cover evidence that the writer could not have been akin to the
Csesars or of a noble Roman family. He bespeaks his Jewish
birth by his continual citation of the Jew books, by his
references to the services at Jerusalem (chaps, xl. and xli.), and
by speaking of “ our father Jacob.” But, like other Christian
writers, he is very loose in his quotations. For instance, he
jumbles up the first Isaiah and an apocryphal Ezekiel in the
following quotation, “ Say to the children of my people, Though
your sins reach from earth to heaven, and though they be redder
than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, yet if ye turn to me
with your whole heart, and say, ‘ Father,’ I will listen to you as
to a holy people.”1 He mentions (chap, lv.) “the blessed Judith,”
which book, by the way, Volkmar and others think must be
dated a.c. 117-118. He also (chap, xvii.) quotes Moses as
saying, “ I am but as the smoke of a pot,” and other passages
(chap, xxiii.—xxvi.), probably from the apocryphal “Assumption
of Moses.” But this is no worse than Matthew (ii., 23) quoting
as from the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene
Paul’s
wrongly quoting the Psalms (Eph. iv., 8); or Jude (ver. 14) citing
the apocryphal book of Enoch as by “ the seventh from Adam.”
But it somewhat vitiates his supposed testimony to the canonical
books. It is evident, however, that he was acquainted with
Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, and his own reads at times
like a bad imitation of Paul.
The apostle to the Gentiles, and thereby the real founder of
modern Christianity, disregarding a certain threat of its sup
posed founder (Matt, v., 22), ventured, in arguing for the resur
rection, the somewhat questionable statement, “Thoufool, that
which thou sowest is not quickened except it die ” (1 Cor. xv.,
36). Clement altogether outdoes this. He says (chap, xxv.) :
‘‘ Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection]
which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and
the countries round about. There is a certain bird which
is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives
five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws
near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense and
myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it
enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of
worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of
the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired
strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its
parents, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into
Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying
in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun,
. 1 Pp. 12 and 13, vol. i., “ Ante-Nicene Christian Library.” All our
citations, unless otherwise mentioned, will be taken from this valuable
series of volumes.
�6
and, having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The
priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it
has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.”
This is the way the Christian evidences were presented by the
authoritative head of the Church in the first century. Tertullian (“ De Resurr. Carn.,” sec. 10), takes Psalm xcii., 12, as
referring to this prodigy. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St.
Gregory, St. Epiphanius, and other of the Fathers, follow Clement
in his fable. It is said that Clement in this only followed
Herodotus, Pliny, Ovid, and Tacitus, who mention the phoenix.
This is false. Herodotus (ii., 13) simply relates the report of
others, and does not intimate that he believed any part of it,
but positively declares that some of the statements were not
credible. Pliny (“ Nat. Hist.,” x., 2) states expressly that the
accounts may be fabulous. Ovid (“ Metam.,” xv., 392) uses the
legend for poetical purposes. Tacitus (“ Ann.,” vi., 28) declares
that the statements are uncertain. These, be it remembered, were
unenlightened heathen, but the apostolic saint founds the dis
tinguishing article of the Christian creed upon this mistake of an
Egyptian myth. May it not have been a pboenix, instead of a
dove, which descended on Jesus at Jordan? The cherubim
described by Ezekiel were curious fowl. There are some queer
animals mentioned in the Apocalypse ; Isaiah and Job mention
unicorns, and the former dragons. The Jews were indeed great
in the natural-history department. Rabbinical references to the
phoenix are numerous. The Talmud speaks of the zig, a bird of
such magnitude that when it spread out its wings the disc of the
sun was obscured ; and the bar-juchne, one of whose eggs once
fell down and broke three hundred cedars and submerged sixty
villages.1
The second epistle, or rather homily, of Clement, though
equally bound up with the sacred records, and placed in the
Apostolical Canon, is admitted to be spurious, and is every way
less notable. The concluding leaves of the Alexandrian manu
script have been lost. It ends abruptly with this interesting
chapter:—
“ Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God
in love and righteousness, since we know not the day of the
appearing of God. For the Lord himself, being asked by one
when his kingdom would come, replied, ‘ When two shall be
one, and that which is without as that which is within, and the
male with the female, neither male nor female.’ Now, two are
one when we speak the truth one to another, and there is unfeignedly one soul in two bodies. And ‘ that which is without
as that which is within ’ meaueth this : He calls the soul ‘ that
which is within,’ and the body ‘ that which is without.’ As,
then, thy body is visible to sight, so also let thy soul be mani
1 See B. H. Cowper’s article on the Talmud, in “The Journal of
Sacred Literature," Jan., 1868.
�7
fest by good works. And ‘ the male with the female, neither male
nor female, this ”.....
Here is an interesting quotation by the earliest Christian
Father of words uttered by God Incarnate upon an important
matter. Had they found their way into the Canonical Gospels,
what books would have been written upon their beauty and
sublimity ! As it is, we gather from Clement of Alexandria1
that these words and other important sayings of Jesus were
found in the Gospel of the Egyptians. This gospel was certainly
an ancient one, and is supposed by Grabe, Erasmus, Du Pin,
Father Simon, Grotius, Mills, and others, to have been among
those referred to by Luke in his preamble: “Forasmuch as
many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of
those things which are most surely believed among us.” This
Gospel of the Egyptians was received by the Ophites, the
Encratites, the Valentinians, and the Sabellians. It was evidently
at one with the doctrines of the Essenes in regard to women.
For instance, Clement of Alexandria quotes from it the following:
“The Lord says to Salome: ‘Death shall prevail as long as
women bring forth children.’” “I am come to destroy the
works of the woman, that is, the works of female concupiscense, generation, and corruption. When you despise a covering
for your nakedness, and when two shall be one, and the male with
the female neither male nor female.” Intimations that similar
views regarding marriage were found in the early Christian
Church may be gathered from Matt, xix., 12 ; Rev. xiv., 4;
I Cor. vii., 8, etc. But the subject is too delicate to be handled
by other than a divinity student.
Passing, then, Clement’s two epistles to virgins with the remark
that although generally rejected as spurious by Protestants, they
are considered genuine by their editors, Wetstein, Bellet, and
Cardinal Villecourt, we come to “The Recognitions of Clement.”
Of these remarkable documents Hilgenfeld says, “ There is
scarcely a single writing which is of so great importance for the
history of Christianity in its first stage.” The editors of the
Anti-Nicene Christian Library call it “a theological romance
but it is a question whether that epithet would not equally
fit e^ery other so-called historical composition of the first three
centuries of the Christian era. Cardinal Baronius (“Annal.”
tom. i., an. 51) call sit “a gulf of filth and uncleanliness, full of
prodigious lies and frantic fooleries.” But Cardinal Bellarmine
says it was written either by Clement or by some other author
as ancient and learned as he.
It begins, “ I, Clement, who was born in the city of Rome,”
and proceeds to narrate his thoughts on philosophy, his doubts
and hopes of a future life. To resolve these the worthy Father
•determined to go to Egypt, and bribe a magician to bring him
1 ‘‘Stromata,” book iii., 9, 13. The English editors have deemed
it best to give the whole of this book in Latin.
�8
a soul from the infernal regions to consult whether the soul be
immortal. But he heard of the Son of God in Judea and was
ready to accredit the wonders ascribed to him. Having heard
Barnabas, Clement proceeds to Caesarea and sees Peter, who
instructs him concerning the True Prophet. And now comes
the curious part of the story. Peter is engaged in continuous
controversy on the true Mosaic and Christian religion with a
miracle worker, called Simon the magician, who it is said con
fessed he wrought his wonders by the help of the soul of a
healthy young boy, who had been violently put to death for that
purpose, and then called up from the dead and compelled to be
his assistant. Peter follows this Simon about from place to
place, exposing him. He especially follows him to Rome. The
astounding revelation in connexion with this story we give in the
words of the author of “ Supernatural Religion ” (vol. ii., p. 34):
“ There cannot be a doubt that the Apostle Paul is attacked in
it, as the great enemy of the true faith, under the hated name
of Simon the magician, who Peter followed everywhere for the
purpose of unmasking and confuting him. He is robbed of the
title of ‘ Apostles of the Gentiles,’ which, together with the
honor of founding the Churches of Antioch, of Laodicea, and of
Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All that opposition to Paul which is
implied in the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere (1 Cor. ,
i., 11, 12 ; 2 Cor. xi., 13—20; Philip i., 15, 16) is here realised <
and exaggerated, and the personal difference with Peter to which
Paul refers is widened into the most bitter animosity.”
The most able authorities, such as Davidson, Bp. Lightfoot,
Mansel, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Baur, Scholten, and Schwegler agree
in this view, which is strongly confirmed by the epistle of Peter
to James, which stands as a preface to the Clementine Homilies,
dealing with the same matter of Simon Magus. Peter says :
“ For some among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preach
ing, and accepted certain lawless and foolish teaching of the
hostile man.” Canon Westcott, in his edition of 1866, said on
this passage : “There can be no doubt that St. Paul is referred
to as ‘the enemy’” (on the Canon, p. 252). Since the quota
tion of this damaging admission by the author of “ Supernatural
Religion,” it has been removed. But whether the fact that the
Simon Magus who is reviled in the Clementine Recognitions is
intended to represent Paul has the authority of Canon Westcott
or not, there can be no doubt that this view better agrees with
Paul’s epistles, and all we know of the early Christians, than the
reconciling but unhistoric “ Acts of the Apostles,” which took
the place of the Clementine “ theological romance,” because, in
the struggle for existence, the Christian Church which was
built on Paul rather than that which was built on Peter (Matt,
xvi., 18), proved to be the fittest to survive.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.O.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FRAUDS AND FOLLIES OF THE
FATHERS.
By
J.
M.
WHEELER.
------ >------
II.
St. Barxabas is the next of the Apostolic Fathers demanding
our attention. Here, again, it is very doubtful if we have any
of the authentic words of the companion of Paul, so highly
extolled by Renan, and declared by the author of the Acts of
the Apostles to have been “ a good man, and full of the Holv
Ghost and of faith ” (xi., 24).
The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, although generally
received as his for many ages, and repeatedly cited as Apos
tolic by Clement of Alexandria, and also cited by Origen,
and found, together with the “ Shepherd” of Hermas, in the
Sinaitic Codex, is repudiated by most modern scholars, and
declared by the author of “ Supernatural Religion ” to be an
instance of “ the singular facility with which, in the total
absence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were
ascribed by the Fathers to Apostles and their followers”
(vol. i., p. 233, 1879). Although the weight of authority is
against its authenticity, it is still supported as genuine by
such scholars as Schmidt, Gieseler, and Samuel Sharpe ; and
it must be admitted that most of the arguments used against
it have been based upon its contents not coming up to what
critics have supposed ought to be the Apostolic standard. At
any rate, it is an interesting relic of the early Church which is
considered genuine by the most important section of Christen
dom, the Roman Catholics. In Jerome’s time it was still read
among the Apocryphal Scriptures, and in the Stichometria of
Nice^horus (ninth century) it is put among the disputed books
of the New Testament.
Barnabas is still more questionably fathered with a gospel
of his own, which is no longer extant. But as it appears to
have contained a very peculiar statement to the effect that Jesus
did not actually die upon the cross, and that it was Judas who
was crucified in his stead, which statement has been taken up,
from whatever quarter, by the Mohammedans, this gospel is’
of course, set down as a Mohammedan forgery.
The Catholics have a tradition that Barnabas was converted
after witnessing the miracle at that wondrous pool of Bethesda
where the angel came down troubling the waters. He was a
�10
Levite of Cyprus, and his name was formerly Joses. It is
noteworthy that upon entering the Church, Christian converts
took new names, a custom common to the Buddhists. Clement
of Alexandria says he was one of the seventy Apostles. He is
stated to have converted Clement of Rome, and to have been
stoned by the Jews about the year 64. All these statements
rest on the mere authority of the Church, not the slightest
proof being forthcoming either for or against them. Nothing
was known of his tomb until the year 478, when the Cypriotes,
being required to submit to the episcopal sway of Peter the
Fuller. Patriarch of Antioch, his coffin, with the Gospel of
Saint Matthew inside, turned up in the nick of time to avert
the calamity and assert the independence of a place having
such indubitable relics. The Church of Toulouse yet claims
to have his body, and eight or nine churches pretend to having
possession of his head. Of the value of this wondrous head we
shall presently have sufficient proof.
“ The Acts of Barnabas,” a so-called apocryphal book, gives
an account, by Mark, of the journeyings and martyrdom of
this Apostle (Vol. XVI., “ Ante-Nicene Christian Library ”).
The Evangelist tells how Paul was quite enraged against him
so that, although he gave repentance on his knees upon the
■earth to Paul, he would not endure it. “And when I
remained for three Sabbaths in entreaty and prayer on my
knees, I was unable to prevail upon him about myself; for his
great grievance against me was on account of my keeping
several parchments in Pamphylia ” (p. 294). Paul, according
to this story, refused to accompany Barnabas if he took Mark
with him, and Barnabas elected to stand by Mark. They
removed a fever from one Timon by laying their hands upon
him. “ And Barnabas had received documents from Matthew,
a book of the Word of God, and a narrative of miracles and
doctrines. This Barnabas laid upon the sick in each place we
came to, and it immediately made a cure of their sufferings ”
(p. 297). Once in their journeyings they found a certain race
being performed, and upon Barnabas rebuking the city, the
western part fell, so that many were killed and wounded, and
tbe rest fled for safety to the Temple of Apollo. But our
purpose is with the Apostolic epistle which goes under his
name.
Joses may have been a ready speaker, as is judged by his
Christian name of Barnabas, or Son of Exhortation; but he
■certainly cannot be classed as a brilliant letter writer. His
epistle, like many other Apostolic documents, would be con
sidered dreadfully prosy but for its age and reputation.
Though no great hand at composing, Barney had a remark
able faculty for dealing with types. Types are an attractive
■study to theologians ; biblical stories—like that of Jonah and
the whale, for instance—which, taken in a plain and natural
way, are evident absurdities, serve capitally as divine types
�11
and symbols. At this sort of interpretation Barnabas was, as
we shall see, a perfect master. He outdoes the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which, by the way,, Tertullian (“ De
Pudicitia, 20 ”) ascribes to Barnabas.
He prides himself upon his exegesis of Scripture, which he
does not hesitate to ascribe to divine inspiration. “ Blessed
be our Lord,” he exclaims, “ who has placed in us wisdom
and understanding of secret things ” (c. vi., p. 110, vol. i.»
“ Ante-Nicene Christian Library”); and, further on, he boldly
avows inspiration on behalf of what Osburn calls “ a tissue of
obscenity and absurdity which would disgrace the Hindoo
Mythology ” (“ Doctrinal Errors of the Apostolic and Early
Fathers,” p. 25, 1835).
According to Barnabas, the Mosaic legislation had Christ in
view rather than the sanitary condition of the Jews. He even
manufactures a law of Moses in order to make out a type of
Christ having vinegar to drink. He says (c. vii., pp. 112, 113):
“ Moreover, when fixed to the cross, he had given him to
drink vinegar and gall. Hearken how the priests of the
people gave previous indication of this. His commandment
having been written, the Lord enjoined, that whosoever did
not keep the fast should be put to death, because He also Him
self was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the
Spirit, in order that the type established in Isaac, when he
was offered upon the altar, might be fully accomplished.
What, then, says He in the prophet ? ‘ And let them eat of
the goat, which is offered with fasting, for all their sins.’
Attend carefully: ‘ And let all the priests alone eat the in
wards, unwashed with vinegar.’ Wherefore ? Because to
me, who am to offer my flesh for the sins of my new people,
ye are to give gall with vinegar to drink : eat ye alone, while
the people fast and mourn in sackcloth and ashes.’*
Some have supposed these spurious regulations were taken
from traditions, but the Rev. J. Jones says : “ I rather look
upon it as a pious forgery and fraud, there being nothing of
the sort known to have been among the Jewish customs, and
this book having several such frauds in it ” (“ A New and Full
Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New
Testament,” vol. ii., p. 377, 1827). If it is not either of these
it is very clear that we have lost some important portions of
God’s inspired word in the Pentateuch. Barnabas also has a
chapter on the red-heifer, which was sacred to Typhon among
the Egyptians, as a type of Christ, and says (chap, viii., p. 115)
“ The calf is Jesus.”
It appears, too, that Abraham was a Greek scholar some
time before the Greek language was known, and that he
circumcised his servants as a type of Christianity. Barnabas
knew, probably by inspiration, the exact number who were
circumcised, and tells us (chap, ix., p. 116): “ Learn, then, my
children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the
�12
first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit
to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of
the three letters. For [the Scriptures] saith, ‘ And Abraham
circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his
household.’ What, then, was the knowledge given to him in
this ? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred.
The ten and eight are thus denoted—Ten by 1, and Eight by
H, you have [the initials of the name of] Jesus. And because
the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the
letter T, he says also ‘ Three Hundred.’ He signifies, there
fore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows
this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His
doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more ex
cellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are
worthy.”
Verily Barnabas must have been full of faith and of the
Holy Ghost. No wonder he was “ expressly set apart and sent
forth to the work of an apostle by the order of the Holy Ghost ”
(Acts xiii., 2—4). The importance which he places upon
numbers may be compared with that assigned by the author
of the book of Revelation. Barney tells us that the world
will last 6,000 years because it was made in six days, and
the inference is doubtless as true as the fact (?) on which it
is based. His system of finding types in the Old Testament
has lasted in the Christian Church to our own time, and
derives countenance from several passages of Paul. This most
excellent piece of knowledge concerning Abraham is hardly
more far-fetched than saying that Levi paid tithes to Melchisedek because he was potentially in the loins of his fore
father Abraham when he met him (Heb. vii., 9, 10), or that
Agar was a type of Jerusalem (Gal. iv., 25).
Barney applies to Jesus the passage, Isaiah xlv., 1, “ Thus
saith the Lord to his annointed, to Cyrus.” This the Rev.
J. Jones (p. 384) calls “ a wilful and designed mistake.”
But his reference to prophecies are scarcely more disin
genuously ingenious than Matthew’s making Jesus go to
Egypt, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, “ Out of Egypt have I called
my son;” he dwelt at Nazareth, “that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene” (ii., 23); or, saying that Jesus spoke in parables,
“ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
saying, I will open my mouth in parables ; I will utter things
which have been kept secret from the foundation of the
world” (xiii., 35). His loose system of quotation may also be
paralleled from the sacred volume. In Matt, xxvii., 9, the pas
sage from Zechariah xi., 12, 13, is attributed to Jeremiah ;
in Mark i., 2, a quotation from Malachi iii., 1, is ascribed to
Isaiah ; in 1 Corinth, ii., 9, a passage is quoted as Holy Scrip
tures which is not found in the Old Testament, but is taken,
�13
■as Origen and Jerome state, from an apocryphal work, “ The
Revelation of Elias.”
One more specimen of this Apostolical Father will suffice. It
occurs chap, xi., p. 118, and is as remarkable for the Levite’s un
derstanding of the laws of Moses as for his information upon
natural history: “ ‘ And thou shalt not eat,’ he says, ‘ the
lamprey or the polypus, or the cuttie fish.’ He means, ‘ Thou
shalt not join thyself to be like to such men as are ungodly to
the end and are condemned to death.’ In like manner as those
fishes above accursed, float in the deep, not swimming like
the rest, but make their abode in the mud at the bottom.
Moreover, ‘ Thou shalt not,’ he says, ‘ eat the hare.’ Where
fore ? ‘ Thou shalt not be a corrupter of boys, nor like unto
such.’ Because the hare multiplies, year by year, the places
of its conception; for as many years as it lives so many
Tpv7ras it has. Moreover, ‘ Thou shalt not eat the hyena.’
He means, ‘ Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor corrupter,
nor like them that are such.’ Wherefore ? Because that
animal annually changes its sex, and is at one time male and
at another female. Moreover, he has rightly detested the
weasel. For he means, ‘ Thou shalt not be like to those
whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth,
■on account of their uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to
those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth.
For this animal conceives by the mouth.’ ” We will leave
this shocking old Father with a very serious question, as to
the value of his testimony to the truth of Christianity.
St. Ignatius.
This Apostolic saint need not detain us long. He is alleged
to have been the identical babe taken up in the arms of Jesus
as an example of innocence and humility to his none too
innocent or humble disciples. But in truth his history is as
untrustworthy and fabulous as that of the other heroes of the
early Christian Church. St. Chrysostom tells us that Ignatius
never saw the Lord Jesus Christ, and he might have added
neither did any of the other early Christian writers, with the
possible exception of the author of the Revelation; unless, like
Paul, they saw him in a trance. He is said to have been a
Syrian Bishop of Antioch, but, like the Galilean fishermen,
to have written.in Greek. Fifteen epistles are ascribed to him’
but of these eight are universally admitted to be spurious’
and the other seven are exceeding doubtful, three only being
found in the Syrian manuscript. Calvin said: “Nothin?
can be more disgusting than those silly trifles which are
edited in the name of Ignatius.” The reason for the Pres
byterian’s condemnation lay in the stress which these epistles
place upon Episcopacy. The writer declares himself to have
been inspired by the Spirit saying on this wise : “ Do nothing
without the bishops (Phil. vii.,p. 233). He says bishops are to
�14
be looked on even as the Lord himself (ad. Ephes. vi„ p. 152).
Again, let all reverence deacons as Jesus Christ, of whose
place they are the keepers” (ad. “Trail.,” chap, iii., p. 191),
au j
^pnors the bishop has been honored by God; he
who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop does
in reality] serve the devil” (ad. “ Smyrn,” chap, ix., p. 249).
Dr. Donaldson (“Apostolic Fathers,” p. 102) says: “The
writings now ascribed to him present a problem which has not
yet been solved”—“ in whatever form they be examined, they
will be found to contain opinions and exhibit modes of thought
entirely unknown to any of the Ep-Apostolic writings.”
Ignatius, who was surnamed Theophorus, is said to have
jeen martyred, but the year in which his death occurred is
among the obscurities of early Christian chronology. It is
alleged that he voluntarily courted death by giving himself
up as a Christian to Trajan when that emperor was at Antioch,
and that he was sent by a circuitous route all the way toSome in order to be devoured by wild beasts there, or, ap
parently, rather in order to write his epistles while a prisoner
on his journey. But no reference to this legend is to be
traced during the first six centuries of the Christian era.
This absurd story is now generally discredited. The life and
writings of Ignatius must be classed in the vast catalogue of
Christian myths and fabrications.
St. Polycarp.
Most of the little that is reported of this saint is also probably
mythical. His importance chiefly depends upon his being
made the link between the Apostle John and Irenaeus, the
first writer who towards the close of the second century names
the four Gospels.
Archbishop Usher (“Proleg. ad Ignat. Ep.,” chap, iii.)
thought Polycarp was the angel of the Church at Smyrna,
referred to in Revelations ii., 8. A trivial objection to this is,
that it would make Polycarp live until 100 years afterwards,
as the old father is alleged to have lived on through all the
early persecutions, only to suffer death in 167, under the
reign of the mild and gentle Antoninus. Later critics, how
ever, have decided that Statius Quadratus, under whom he is
said to have died, was pro-consul in a.d. 154-5 or 155-6—all of
which shows the very reliable nature of early Christian records.
He is said to have declared that he served Christ for eightysix years, but learned authorities are again divided as to
whether he meant that as his age, or as dating from the time
of his conversion. Irenaeus, from whom we get our informa
tion concerning Poly carp, gives us the following choice
anecdote, which illustrates how these Christians loved one
another: “ There are also those who heard from him that
John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and.
perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house
�15
without bathing, exclaiming, ‘ Let us fly, lest even the bath
house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is
within.’ And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met
him on one occasion and said, ‘ Dost thou know me ?’ ‘ I do
know thee, the firstborn of Satan’” (“Irenaeus against
Heresies,” book iii., chap, iii., sec. 4., p. 263, Vol. V. “ AnteNicene Christian Library ”). In the so-called Epistle of Poly
carp to the Philippians, which consists of a string of quota
tions from the Old Testament and Paul, occurs this passage :
“ For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come
in the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the
testimony of the cross, is of the Devil; and whosoever perverts
the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is
neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of
Satan ” (chap, xii., p. 73). Schwegler and Hilgenfeld consider
the insertion of this phrase, “ firstborn of Satan,” as proof of
the inauthenticity of the Epistle. They argue that the wellknown saying was employed to give an appearance of reality
to the forgery. Nor are there wanting other indications of
its spuriousness. It refers to the mythical martyr journey of
Ignatius, and while treating him as dead in chapter ix., has
him alive and kicking again in chapter xiii.
The Church of Smyrna is said to have issued an encyclical
letter detailing Polycarp’s martyrdom, which is reported by
that eminent Church historian, or rather mythographist,
Eusebius (“ Ec. Hist.,” iv., 15). It relates how “as Poly carp
was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice
from heaven, saying, ‘ Be strong, and show thyself a man 0,
Polycarp.’ No one saw who it was that spoke to him. but
those of our brethren who were present heard the voice ”
(chap, ix., .p. 88). Upon which Dr. Donaldson quietly says
(“ Apostolical Fathers,” chap, iii., p. 202 ; 1874) : “ It is not
very probable that there was any voice from heaven; and it is
improbable that there were Christians in the place to hear the
voice.”
The old father proved to be of the asbestos-like nature of
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. “When he had pro
nounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those who were
appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame
blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to
witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved
that we might report to others what then took place. For the
fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a
ship when filled with wind, encompassed as by a circle the
body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh
which is burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as gold and
silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we perceived such a
sweet odor, as if frankincense or some precious spice had
been smoking there ” (chap, xv., p. 92). But this divine inter
position was only to make a display—Polycarp was not to
�16
escape ; he was only saved from the flames to perish by the
dagger. “At length, when those wicked men perceived that his
body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an
executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger.
And on doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great
quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all
the people wondered that there should be such a difference
between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most
admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been
an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic
church which is in Smyrna.. For every word that went out of
his mouth either has been, or shall yet be, accomplished”
(chap, xvi., p. 92). The account relates that Polycarp had a
vision of his pillow on fire, and prophesied therefrom that he
should be burnt alive.
The dove which flew out of Polycarp’s side proved him to
have been possessed of the Holy Ghost. Herodian relates that
at the Apotheosis of the Roman emperors it formed part of
the solemnity to let an eagle fly from out of the burning pile
of wood on which the corpse of the new deity was cremated,
to intimate that this bird of Jove carried the soul of the
deceased to heaven. Lucian, in his account of the death of
Peregrinus, relates how he told the simpletons that at the
death of this Christian martyr, a vulture flew up out of the
flames, taking his course direct to the skies, and screaming
out in an articulate voice, “ Soaring above the earth, I ascend
to Olympus.” The miracles at the death of Polycarp may
be just as true as that of the earthquake and the saints
having come out of their graves at the death of Jesus ; but
sceptics will doubtless be found who consider, with Dr.
Donaldson (p. 219), that “ not one of the facts has proper
historical testimony for it.”
PRICE ONE PENNY
London: Freethought Publishing Company,28,Stonecutter St.,E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FRAUDS AND FOLLIES OF THE
FATHERS.
ZBat J". ZLZE. WHEELER.
-------- o--- - ---
III.
Hermas.
The “ Pastor ” of Hermas, the editors of the Ante Nicene Chris
tian Library inform us in their Introductory notice (vol. I., p.
A19), was one of the most popular books, if not the most popular
book, in the Christian Church during the second, third, and
fourth centuries. W. Osburn, in his “Doctrinal Errors of the
Early Eathers,” p. 35, 1835, declares—with much show of reason
—it is “the silliest book that ever exercised an influence over
the human understanding.” This gives a sufficient gauge of the
value of the judgment of those centuries. As with all other
early Christian writings, with the exception of some of the
■epistles of Paul, much doubt exists as to its author. The earliest
opinion was that it was the production of the Hermas who is
saluted by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans xiv., 14. _ Origen,
in his commentary on the Romans (bk. x., 31), states this opinion
distinctly, and it is repeated by the ecclesiastical historian Euse
bius (iii., 3.,), and by Jerome in his work against heresies
(iv., 20, 2). There is an early AEthiopic version of Hermas
which contains the curiously bold figment that it was written
by the Apostle Paul himself, under the title of “ Hermes,” which
name, as stated in the twelfth verse of the fourteenth chapter of
the Acts of the Apostles, was bestowed upon him by the in
habitants of Lystra.
The Muratorian fragment on the Canon, however (the author
ship of which is unknown, but which may plausibly be dated
about the year 200,) asserts that “The ‘Pastor’ was written very
lately in our times, in the city of Rome, by Hermas, while Bishop
Pius,, his brother, sat in the chair of the church of the city of
Rome” (i.e., 142—157 A.C.), and the best modern authorities
since the time of Mosheim incline to this opinion. Yet it is
quite possible that the name of the author is as fictitious as the
contents of the work.
It is a threefold collection of visions, commandments, and
■similitudes. The author claims to receive a divine message and
to record the words of angels, and there is evidence that in the
early days of the Church this claim was unquestioned. C. H.
Hoole, in the introduction to his translation of the work (p. xi.)
�18
says: “At the very earliest period it was undoubtedly regarded
as on a level with the canonical books of the New Testament
being distinctly quoted by Irenteus as Scripture.” Irenseus, as
everyone knows, is the first who mentions the four Gospels by
name. Clement of Alexandria speaks of it as divine revelation
(Strom. I., xxix). Origen claims it as inspired by God (Zoe. ciZ.).
All the early Fathers acccepted its authority except Tertullian,.
and he only disputed it after he became an heretical Montanist.
In his orthodox works he too cites it as part of Holy Scripture.
Eusebius tells us that it was read publicly in the churches, and it
is found in the Sinaitic Codex of the New Testament, together
with the epistle of Barnabas, along with the canonical books.
Dupin (“Ecclesiastical Writers,” p. 28,1692,) says:“ The ‘Pastor’
hath been admitted by many churches as canonical.”
Hermas makes no mention of a Trinity nor of the Incarnation,
and, though he speaks of the Son of God, this Son of God seems
to be the same as the Holy Spirit. Of the man Jesus he makes
no mention. When the Arians appealed to this book its reputa
tion sank with the orthodox party. About the year 494 it was
condemned in the decree of Pope Gelasius, and from that time it
has declined in public favor. Jerome, who in his Chronicon had
lauded it, in his commentary on Habakkuk taxes it with stultia,
foolishness. And not unjustly. Its visions are almost as fantastic
as those recorded in the Apocalypse. Its divine revelations are
about on a level with the maudlin platitudes uttered through the
lips of spiritist trance mediums. Although so highly appreciated
by the primitive Christians, there are few among the moderns
who would not find his vagaries puerile and unreadable. He has
a complete system of angelology. “ There are two angels with a
man—one of righteousness, and the other of iniquity—” (Com
mandment Sixth, chap, ii., p. 359,) and these originate all evil and
all good. There is even an angel over the beasts. Hermas is
acquainted with this angel’s name. It is Thegri (Vision iv., 2,
p. 346). From these angels he receives much valueless information.
Mosheim says of his work : “It seems to have been written by a
man scarcely sane, since he thought himself at liberty to invent
conversations between God and angels, for the sake of giving'
.precepts, which he considered salutary, a more ready entrance
into the minds of his readers. But celestial spirits with him talk
; greater nonsense than hedgers, or ditchers, or porters among our
selves ” (Ec. Hist., pt. ii., chap, ii., sec. 21 ; vol. i., p. 69,1863). If
we beai' in mind that this book was the most popular among
the primitive Christians, we shall have a good idea of the
extent of their attainments. In his work on Christian affairs
before the time of Constantine, Mosheim gives his opinion of this
Father that “he knowingly and wilfully was guilty of a cheat.”
“ At the time when he wrote,” continues Mosheim, “it was an
established maxim with many of the Christians, that it was pardon
able in an advocate for religion to avail himself of fraud and
deception, if it were likely that they might conduce towards the
�19
attainment of any considerable good” (vol. i., p. 285 ; Vidal tr.,
1813). He has also been deemed the forger of the Sibylline
oracles. It is curious that in his second vision he confounds an
■old woman, who is said to represent the Church, with the Sibyl
(Ch. iv., p. 331). Neither his reputation for veracity nor the
value of his ethical teaching, as given by angels, is enhanced by
his statement that when commanded to love the truth he said to
his angelic messenger : “ I never spoke a true word in my life,
but have ever spoken cunningly to all, and have affirmed a lie for
the truth to all; and no one ever contradicted me, but credit was
given to my words.” Whereupon the divine visitor informs him
that if he keeps the commandments now, ‘ ‘ even the falsehoods
which you formerly told in your transactions may come to be be
lieved through the truthfulness of your present statements. For
even they can become worthy of credit ” (Commandment Third,
p. 351).
The testimony of such a man would be of very little
value indeed, but it is certain that he gives none what
ever to the New Testament, and this, although his writings
are the most extensive of any of the Apostolic Fathers.
Dr. Tischendorf even does not suggest that Hermas gives
any indication of acquaintance with our Gospels, and al
though Canon Westcott, who admits “it contains no definite
quotation from either Old or New Testament” (on the Canon, p.
200, 1881), strives to show that some of his similitudes, such as
that of the Church to a tower, may have been derived from the
New Testament, Canon Sanday, another Christian apologist,
admits that these references are very doubtful. The only
direct quotation from Scripture is from a part which is not
included in our Holy Bible, and which, indeed, is no longer
extant. In the Second Vision, chap, iii., he says: “The Lord is
near to them who return unto Him, as it is written in Eldad and
Modat, who prophesied to the people in the wilderness.” In
Numbers xi., 26, 27, we read of Eldad and Medad who prophe
sied in the camp, and a book under their name appears in the
Stichometria of Nicephorus among the apocrypha of the Old
Testament.
Having thus cursorily reviewed the writings of the first five
Fathers, who are usually, though unwarrantably, denominated
“Apostolic,” we will briefly examine
THEIR TESTIMONY TO THE GOSPELS.
The matter indeed might be summarily dismissed with the
remark that they afford no testimony to the Gospels whatever.
But so much stress is laid upon them in this respect by orthodox
writers (and necessarily so, for if the so-called Apostolical
Fathers testify not of the Gospels, there is no evidence of their
existence until the latter half of the second century) that we must
pause and examine how far they bear the burden that is laid upon
them.
�20
We have already seen that both the age and the authorship
of every one of these works is of a most doubtful character.
The names of every one of the twelve apostles, of Paul, of
Ignatius, of Polycarp, of the Diognetus mentioned in Acts xvii.,
34, of Clement, of Linus, and of other early Christians of repute,
have been appended to the most unblushing forgeries. Among
these so-called genuine remains, as found in Archbishop Wake’s
version and the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, those attributed
to Barnabas and Hermas are almost as certainly forged. Of
the epistles assigned to Ignatius, Professor Andrews Norton
says: “ There is, as it seems to me, no reasonable doubt that the
seven shorter epistles ascribed to Ignatius are, equally with all
the rest, fabrications of a date long subsequent to his time ”■
(“The Evidence of the Genuineness of the Gospels,” p. 350,.
vol. i., 2nd ed., 1847). The second of the epistles attributed to
Clement is recognised by most scholars as spurious. The only re
maining documents which we can at all allow to be genuine are
the first epistle of Clement and that of Polycarp. Even these
have not been undisputed. The former has been challenged as a
forgery by Mr. J. M. Cotterill, in a curious work, entitled
“Peregrinus Proteus,” published by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1879 ; and the latter by Blondel, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld,
Tayler, and others, and it is generally allowed to be interpolated..
Dr. Giles (“Christian Records,” p. 109, 1877,) says: “The
writings of the Apostolical Fathers labor under a more heavy load
of doubt and suspicion than any other ancient compositions either
sacred or profane. In former times, when the art of criticism
was in its infancy, these writings were ten times as extensive as
they are now, and they were circulated without the slightest
-doubt of their authenticity. But, as the spirit of inquiry grew,
and the records of past time were investigated, the mists which
obscured the subject were gradually dispersed, and the fight of
truth began to shine where there had previously been nothing but
darkness. Things which had chained and enslaved the mind for
ages, dissolved and faded into nothing at the dawn of day, and
objects that once held the most unbounded sway over the belief,
proved to be unreal beings, creatures of superstition, if not of
fraud, placed like the lions in the path of the pilgrim, to deter
him from proceeding on the way that leads to the heavenly city
of truth.”
In another place Dr. Giles remarks in regard to the question
of the age and authorship of the these Fathers: “The works
which have been written on this question are almost as numerous
as those which concern the age, authorship, and authenticity of
the Gospels themselves, but the general issue of the inquiries
which have been instituted, has been unfavorable to the antiquity
of these works as remains of writers who were contemporary
with the Apostles, but favorable to the theory that they are pro
ductions of the latter half of the second century. That was the
time when so many Christian writings came into existence, and
�21
all the record« of our religion were sedulously Bought out. be
cause tradition was then becoming faint, original and even
secondary witnesses had gone off the stage, and the great increase
of the Christian community gave birth to extended curiosity
about its early history, whilst it furnished greater safety to those
who employed themselves in its service ” (“ Christian Records,’’
chap, xi., p. 89).
If the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the miracles, and
these so-called Apostolic Fathers had conversed with them, it
is scarcely credible that they would have omitted to name the
actual books themselves which possessed such high authority.
This is the only way in which their evidence could be of real
service to support the authenticity of the New Testament writings
as being the work of Apostles. But this they fail to supply.
There is not a single sentence in all their remaining works in
which an unmistakeable allusion to the Gospels, as we have them,
is to be found. It is in vain that Christian evidence-mongers
appeal to their citations of certain sayings of Jesus or certain
doctrines of Christianity. No one disputes that these were in
general vogue early in the second century. But the point to be
proved to the Rationalist is that the supernatural events of the
four Gospels were testified to by eye-witnesses, who pubfished their accounts at the time and in the place where the
alleged supernatural occurrences took place. And of this the
Apostolic Fathers afford no scrap of evidence. Of the superna
tural history of Jesus they know no more than Paul. They
neither mention his immaculate conception nor his miracles; nor
do they refer to any of the circumstances connected with his
alleged material resurrection. This especially applies to the
possibly genuine writings of Clement and Polycarp. Hernias, as
we have mentioned, has no reference to any of the acts of Jesus.
Barnabas has an allusion to “ great signs and wonders which were
wrought in Israel,” but he does not say what they were nor when
they happened. Ignatius alone, in a probably spurious epistle to
the. Ephesians, chap, xix, alludes to the virginity of Mary, her off
spring, and the death of the Lord as “three mysteries of renown;”
but the details he gives concerning the brilliant star which
appeared, and how all the rest of the stars and the sun and moon
formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly “great
above them all,” and how “every kind of magic was destoyed,
and every bond of wickedness disappeared,” show that the writer
referred to other sources of information than those found in
Matthew and Luke. In the full part of the ninth chapter of the
epistle to the Trallians,die gives almost the whole of the Apostles
creed. This in itself would be sufficient evidence of its
spuriousness.
Stress is laid by all writers on the external evidences upon
certain alleged quotations from our gospels, which are said to be
found in the early Fathers. But the question naturally arises, if
they considered them to be of Apostolic authority why did they
�22
not mention them by name? They say Moses says, but they
never say Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John says. They cite the
words of Jesus, but not of his Evangelists. They also say “ The
Lord said ” rather than saith, which indicates they were rather
indebted to tradition than to written accounts. Irenæus says he
heard Polycarp repeat the oral relations of John and of other
hearers of the Lord, and Clement may have received his know
ledge in the same manner. We shall see from the testimony of
Papias that he at least preferred tradition to the books with
which he was acquainted. Moreover, such quotations of the
sayings of Jesus as occur are never given in the same words nor
in the same order. Attempts are made to account for this
by saying that they quoted loosely from memory. But is it likely
they would quote loosely words which they believed to be
written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? This does not say
much for their intellectual ability. Clement and Polycarp, for
instance, both give, “ Be pitiful that ye may be pitied,” word for
word; while the Gospel shews, “Blessed are the merciful for
they shall obtain mercy.” Clement says, “Forgive that it may
be forgiven you ; ” Polycarp, “ Forgive and it shall be forgiven
you.” The nearest to which is, “ For if ye forgive men their
trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.”
Such facts have constrained Mr. Sanday to admit in his work
on the Gospels in the Second Century that “ The author of Super
natural Religion is not without reason when he says they may be
derived from other collections than our actual Gospels ”
(p. 87, 1876.) Canon Westcott himself in summing up the
results says:—“ (1) No Evangelic reference in the Apostolic
Fathers can be referred certainly to a written record. (2) It
appears most probable from the form of the quotations that they
were derived from oral tradition” (p. 63, 1881.) We shall see,
however, that whether they went to other collections or relied
upon oral traditions, their Evangelic references are never
exactly the same as in our gospels. They manifestly had other
sources of information. Moreover it must be borne in mind that
the Christian sayings very frequently crept into the text by way
of gloss. An illustration of this kind of interpolation is found in
the “Epistle of Barnabas,” chap, xix., p. 133, where we read,
“Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor murmur when thou givest.”
“ Grive to everyone that asketh thee, and thou shalt know who is
the good Recompenser of the reward.” But for this supposed
quotation being omitted in the oldest MS., the “Codex
Sinaiticus,” it would be considered evidence that the writer of the
epistle was quoting from Luke vi., 30. In copying manuscripts
there was no such strictness as in a modern printing-office, where
“ follow your copy ” is the compositor’s rule. If a transcriber at
the time when our Gospels were in vogue (and be it remembered
we have no manuscripts either of the Fathers or of the New
Testament older than the fourth or fifth century after Jesus) saw
a quotation different from the way in which he had been
�23
accustomed to see it, he would not hesitate to alter it. So that
many of the alleged literal quotations from our Gospels may be
only emendations of the scribes who found the quotations were
wrong and put them right. Dr. Donaldson, in the introduction
to his Apostolical Fathers, chap, iii., p. 27, tells us how “Each
transcriber, as he copied, inserted the notes of previous readers
into the text, and often from his heated imagination added
something himself.” He also informs us (p. 28) “That we know
for certain that even in the second and third centuries the letters
of bishops and others were excised and interpolated in their life
time.” So pure is the stream through which our Gospels have
descended!
The able and learned author of “ Supernatural Religion ” well
puts the argument: “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 proof that the quotation 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 sources different from our Gospels ”
(volt, pp. 213,214,1879.) That citations similar to those found in
our Gospels are not necessarily taken therefrom may be instanced
from Ignatius, or the writer who used his name who in his Epistle to
the Smyrnseans, chap, iii., p. 242, says : “ When, for instance,
He came to those who were with Peter He said to them : ‘ Lay
hold, handle me and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.’ ”
According to Jerome (Vir. Illust. 16) this quotation is from the
Gospel of the Xazarenes. But for this direct statement, it would
of course be assigned by orthodox traditionalists to a quotation
from memory of Luke xxiv., 39. Origen, however, quoted this
self-same passage from another work well known in the early
Church, but since lost or destroyed, the “ Preaching of Peter.”
But whilst similarity would not prove their use, variation from
the Gospels is the best proof that they were not used. Such
passages abound. Clement, for instance, says: “ Our Apostles
*
also knew, through the Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be
strife on account of the episcopate (chap, xliv., p. 38.) He says
“it is written cleave to the holy, for those that cleave to them
shall themselves be made holy” (chap, xlvi., p. 40.) He also
quotes (chap. L, p. 43) “ I will remember a propitious day, and
will raise you up Out of your tombs,” which is probably from the
apocryphal fourth book of Ezra. Barnabas declares: “The
Lord says ‘ He has accomplished a second fashioning in these
last days. The Lord says I will make the last like the first ’ ”
(chap, vi., p. 3, Sinaitic.) He quotes as a saying of Jesus:
“Those who wish to behold me, and'layhold of my kingdony
must through tribulation and suffering obtain me ” (chap, vii.’
p. 114.) And again: “ For the Scripture saith, ‘ And it shail
�24
come to pass in the last days that the Lord will deliver up the
sheep of His pasture and their sheepfold and tower to destruc
tion” (chap, xvi., p. 129.) Other instances might be given.
In the second Epistle of Clement there are at least five such
passages, but these suffice to show that other documents than
the Gospels were referred to, and that even where the sentiment
is similar the expression is different. It must be borne in mind
also that we have it on the authority of Luke in his preface that
already in his time many had taken in hand to set forth in order
a declaration of those things which were most surely believed
among Christians.
Mosheim, in his “Ecclesiastical History” (pt. ii., chap, ii.,
sec. 17, p. 65, Stubbs’ ed., 1863) speaks of “A variety of com
mentaries, filled with impostures and fables, on our Savior’s life
and sentiments composed soon after his ascent into heaven, by
men who without being bad, perhaps were superstitious, simple,
and piously deceitful. To these were afterwards added other
writings, falsely ascribed to the most holy apostles by
fraudulent individuals.” But these fraudulent individuals were
Christians, and the purpose of their frauds was to subserve the
interests of the Church. We have record of many other
Gospels, not to mention Acts of Apostles and Revelations. Some
of these were certainly anterior to our own. Such were probably
the Gospel of Paul, whence Marcion’s Gospel and Luke’s were
derived, the Gospel of Peter from which possibly Mark was com
piled. The Oracles or Sayings of Jesus which probably entered
into the construction of Matthew together with the Gospel to the
Hebrews. The Gospel of the Egyptians, which we have already
seen as quoted by Clement, the original of which C. B. Waite
thinks “ may have been in use among the Therapeutic of Egypt
a long time before the introduction of Christianity, the passages
relating to Christ being afterwards added” (“History of the
Christian Religion to the year 200,” p. 77, Chicago, 1881.)
According to Origen, Theophylact and Jerome, this Gospel was
written before the Gospel of Luke, and many learned moderns
have deemed it earlier than any of the Canonical Gospels. At
least contemporary with these were the Gospel of James or
Protevangelion, the Gospel of Thomas or Infancy, and the
Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, all of which remain,
■although the Christian Church has lost the doubtless equally
respectable Gospels of Matthias, of Philip, of Bartholomew, of
Andrew, and even of Judas Iscariot.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London : Freethought Publishing Company, 63 Fleet Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FRAUDS AND FOLLIES OF THE
FATHERS.
By CT. M. WHEELEB.
-------------- 0--------------
IV.
WE have thus far seen that the five earliest Fathers of the
Christian Church have no claim to be considered Apostolic, and
that, so far from bearing testimony to the authenticity of our
canonical Gospels, their own age and authorship are disputed.
We have noticed that their works never mention by name any of
the writers of the New Testament with the exception of Paul;
that the sayings they ascribe to Jesus, while often similar to those
found in our Gospels, are never identical with them, and that they
contain much that is evidently derived from other sources. We
have in addition seen that there were numerous Gospels current
in the early days of the Christian Church; thus confirming the
account of Luke that many had taken in hand to set forth in order
the things believed among them.
The early Christian ages were characterised by anything rather
than by investigation, or even by accuracy of representation.
Deception in literary productions appears to have been the rule
rather than the exception. It was not only practised but defended.
The author of “Supernatural Religion” says of these Fathers
“No fable could be too gross, no in
(pp. 460—1, vol. 1,1879)
vention too transparent, for their unsuspicious acceptance, if it
assumed a pious form or tended to edification. No period in the
history of the world ever produced so many spurious works as
the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of every
Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great
Master himself, was freely attached to every description of re
ligious forgery. False gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were
unscrupulously circulated, and such pious falsification was not
even intended or regarded as a crime, but perpetrated for the
sake of edification. It was only slowly and after some centuries
that many of these works, once, as we have seen, regarded with
pious veneration, were excluded from the canon ; and that genuine
works shared this fate, whilst spurious ones usurped their places,
is one of the surest results of criticism.”
Yet we are to suppose that while words written for edification
were falsely ascribed to other Apostles, it was utterly impossible
with regard to our four Evangelists. We shall be better able
to judge this question upon examining the testimony of the first
person who mentions the writings of the first two.
�26
Papias.
The first information we get concerning this Father shows him
to have been acquainted with other stories than those found in
our Gospels. It occurs in Irenaeus against Heresies (book v., chap,
xxxiii., sec. 3 and 4, p. 146, vol. ix., Ante-Nicene Christian
Library). Speaking of the rewards which will come in the flesh
to Christians, he tells us that “elders who saw John the disciple
of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord
used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will
come in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand
branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true
twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten
thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand
grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty
metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold
of a cluster, another cry out, ‘ I am a better cluster, take me ;
bless the Lord through me.”
Taking Smith’s Bible Dictionary as authority for the value of
a metrete, viz., eight and two-thirds of a gallon, it follows that
the product of one millenial grape-vine will make a quantity of
wine equal in bulk to the planet Mercury, and allowing to the
thousand million of the earth’s inhabitants enough to keep them
constantly intoxicated, say two gallons of wine a day to each
person, it would keep them all dead drunk for the space of thirty
thousand million years ! What a jolly old Father was this ! or,
if he is to believed, what a jolly Jesus to promise and jolly John
to report such a millenial prospect. It beats the Mahommedan
Paradise. Irenaeus continues :—
“In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat
would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should
have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten
pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit
bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar
proportions ; and that all animals feeding on the productions of
the earth should become peaceful and harmonious among each
other, and be in perfect subjection to man. Sec. 4. And these
things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of
John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book ; for there
were five books compiled by him. And he says in addition,
‘Now these things are credible to believers.’ And he says that
when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the
question, ‘ How then can things, about to bring forth so abun
dantly, be wrought by the Lord ? The Lord declared, They who
shall come to these [times] shall see.’ ” Which, in evasiveness,
is on a par with some of the utterances of Jesus in the Gospels. Dr.
Donaldson (“Apostolical Fathers,” p. 397, 1874,) says : “ There
is nothing improbable in the statement that the Lord spoke in
some such way, and it is not at all improbable that Papias took
literally what was meant for allegory.” Dr. Giles seems to
concur in the view that Papias repeated words of Jesus.
�27
,L Jones (on the Canon, vol, i., p. 370,1827,) thinks Papias both
the manufacturer of the doctrine of the Millenium and of this
passage ascribed to Christ calculated to support it. The idea
he considers borrowed from the Jews. Perhaps it was, but it
certainly finds some countenance in the Apocalypse.
The statement that Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John con
flicts with the account in Eusebius (Ec. Hist, iii., 39), which implies
that he received information from John the Presbyter after all
the Apostles were dead. According to Eusebius (Ec. Hist, iii.,
36,) and Jerome (De Viri Illust. xviii.), Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis, a city of Phyrgia. He is supposed to have suffered martyr
dom about 163 or 167. His work, in five books, was entitled
“An Exposition of the Oracles (or Words) of the Lord.”
Eusebius, in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter
39, gives us most of our information about Papias. His estimate
of mm, as a man of very limited understanding, does not deter
US from regretting the loss of his writings. The fragments which
remain cast such radiance on some of the dark points of the
Christian evidences. Paley and all the school of evidence-writers
■cite him as proving the existence of our Matthew and Mark.
But he is now generally seen to prove the very reverse.
Let us first examine his statement in regard to Matthew.
As giveu on the authority of Eusebius, it reads that “Matthew
composed the logia (oracles or sayings] in the Hebrew dialect,
«nd everyone interpreted them as he was able.”
Now it is somewhat curious that Papias, probably in the second
half of the second century, should be the first to give currency to
the tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel if that Gospel had
been in existence 100 years.
But that the work referred to was not the same we now have
is manifest from its name logia, discourses, sayings, or oracles.
It would be an utter misnomer for an historical narrative begin
ning with a detailed history of the genealogy, birth and infancy
of Jesus, and the preaching of John the Baptist, and concluding
with an equally minute account of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion,
and resurrection, giving all his movements and miracles, and
which has for its evident aim throughout the demonstration
that<Jesus was the Messiah. Our Gospel, not written by, but
according to Matthew, has no such title.
Moreover, ours is a Greek and not a Hebrew Gospel. The testi
mony of Papias on this point is explicit. It is, moreover, con
firmed by a consensus of all the Fathers : Irenaeus, Pantsenus,
Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrysostom,
Augustine, and all others who allude to Matthew’s Gospel declare
that it was written in Hebrew. Now our Gospel is considered by
the most competent authorities an original document. There is
no ground whatever for considering it a translation, even if we
knew that Matthew’s Gospel had been properly translated, in
stead of everyone interpreting it as he was able. Many of the
-quotations in it from the Old Testament are taken not from the
�28
Hebrew but directly from the Greek Septuagint. Its turns of
language have the stamp of Greek idiom, and could not have come
in through translation. So that there is no reason for even
indirectly connecting our Canonical Gospel according to Matthew
with the logia which Papias had heard were composed by him.
This position is somewhat strengthened when we find in the
Fragments of Papias, p. 442: “Judas walked about in this;
world a sad example of impiety ; for his body having swollen to
such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass
easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed
out.” Theophylact, after quoting this passage, adds other parti
culars, as if they were derived from Papias. He says that Judas’s,
eyes were so swollen that they could not see the light, that they
were so sunk that they could not be seen, even by the optical in
struments of physicians; that the rest of his body was covered
with runnings and worms, etc.
. If Papias knew from Matthew that Judas had already hanged
himself, and further from the Acts of the Apostles that he had
fallen headlong in a field and burst asunder, it was really too hard
to inflict on poor oft-killed Judas these additional cruelties. Surely
it were better that man had never been born, though in that case
we know not how Christian Salvation would have been brought
to the world. It seems as if each new Christian writer felt him
self at liberty to invent a new death for Judas, who was divinely
appointed to bring about their redemption. By Paul’s saying
Jesus appeared to the twelve (1 Cor. xv., 5), it is evident he knew
nothing of Judas’s suicide.
Among the fragmentary remains of Papias is one found in
Eusebius, who tells us that: “He also relates the story of a
woman accused of many crimes, which is contained in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.” It would thence appear likely that
if Papias saw and quoted from any Gospel, though we have no
other evidence than this that he did either, it was from the
Gospel to the Hebrews, which some have thought the original of
Matthew, and which would agree with the language in which he
declares Matthew to have written. Orthodox writers endeavor
to make out that here Papias alludes to the story found in the
eighth chapter of John. But surely if Eusebius knew the story
in John was the same he would not have ascribed it to another
Gospel. In truth there is no evidence that John’s narrative of
the woman taken in adultery was extant even in the time of
Eusebius. It is an undoubted interpolation contained in no
ancient manuscript of value, and may have been taken from
some tradition similar to that found in Papias, yet certainly not
the same since Papias speaks of many crimes, John only of one.
We think the reader will agree with Dr. Samuel Davidson, who
in his “Introduction to the Study of the New Testament,”
vol. i., p. 383, 1882, says: “There is no tangible evidence to
connect the present Gospel with the Apostle Matthew.” Even
the orthodox apologist, Neander, admits “Matthew’s Gospel, in
�29
its present form, was not the production of the Apostle whose
name it bears, but was founded on an account written by him in
the Hebrew language, chiefly (but not wholly) for the purpose of
presenting the discourses of Christ in a collective form ” (“ Life
of Christ,” cap. ii., sec. 4, p. 7). An admission sufficient to
destroy the credit of any profane work much less a divinely in
spired record of the sayings and doings of an alleged God.
The author of “Supernatural Religion,” vol. i. p. 486, 1879,
says: “It is manifest from the evidence adduced, however, that
Papias did not know our Gospels. It is not possible that he
could have found it better to inquire ‘What John or Matthew,
or what any other of the disciples of the Lord .... say, if he
had known of Gospels such as ours, and believed them to have
been actually written by those Apostles, deliberately telling him
what they had to say. The work of Matthew being, however, a
mere collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire
what the Apostle himself said of the history and teaching of the
Master. The evidence of Papias is in every respect most im
portant. He is the first writer who mentions that Matthew and
Mark were believed to have written any works at all; but whilst
he shows that he does not accord any canonical authority even to
the works attributed to them, his description of those works and
his general testimony comes with crushing force against the pre
tensions made on behalf of our Gospels to Apostolic origin and
authenticity.”
We will now look at his testimony to Mark. “ Mark,” he tells
us, “having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accu
rately whatsoever he remembered, though he did not arrange in
order the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the
Lord nor accompanied him. But afterwards, as I said, he accom
panied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessi
ties [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular
narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no
mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them.
For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he
had heard and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”
This description likewise shows that our actual second Gospel
coujd not, in its present form, have been the work of the Mark
referred to. Mark or Marcus was an extremely common name
in the early Christian period.
In the first place, our Gospel is no more like a man’s preaching
than it is like an epic poem. It has, moreover, no Petrine cha
racteristics. Mark does not give the important passage about
Christ’s church being built upon Peter (Matt, xvi., 18) ; nor the
distinguishing addition “ called Peter,” in the calling of Simon ;
nor the narrative of Peter’s miraculous draught of fishes ; of his
walking on the sea; his being sent to prepare the Passover, or
the reproachful look of Jesus when Peter denied him. It also
omits the expression “bitterly” when the cock crew, and Peter
wept. These omissions have been attributed to Peter’s excessive
�30
modesty. Apart from the absence of any evidence of this trait
in the Apostle whom Paul withstood to his face because he was to
be blamed, it must have been a peculiar kind of modesty indeed
to omit important passages and events lest the chief Apostle
should seem too prominent, and to suppress the bitterness of his
penitence!
But Irenseus tells us the Gospel of Mark was written after
Peter’s death, while Clement of Alexandria makes out that he
wrote it at the request of friends which, when Peter knew, he
neither hindered nor encouraged. So from these accounts,
neither of which accord with Papias, it would appear that Mark
had no motive for lessening the prominence of Peter. Peter,
is alleged to have died about the year 60; so that, Papias
dying about the year 165, and writing late in life, his evidence
on behalf of Mark’s Gospel would be about 100 years after it is
alleged to have been written. This applies with equal force to
Matthew. But so marvellous are the contents of these Gospels
that even the most certain evidence of their existence 100 years
later would be very unsatisfactory.
It will also be noticed that Papias no more mentions a Gospel
of Mark than he does of Matthew. What he speaks of is not an
inspired narrative, but records written from memory. Now if
Mark wrote from memory he did not write from inspiration. The
argument for the genuineness of the Gospel is at the expense of
its inspiration. But the evidence from the numerous passages
in which Mark agrees with Matthew and with Luke is over
whelming that it is not an original document written froih me
mory at all, but with the writer having other documents directly
before him. This is admitted by all the best critics.
Papias says Mark did not arrange in order the things which
were said and done by Christ, and that he was careful to omit
none of the things which he heard. How can this apply to our
Gospel, which we have seen omits many most important things
with which Peter was most especially concerned, and which more
over is the most orderly and consecutive of the Gospels. Canon
Sanday says (“ Gospels in the Second Century,” p. 151) : “The
second Gospel is written in order, it is not an original document.
These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its pre
sent shape the document to which Papias alludes.” And again
(p. 155): “Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them,
complies with the conditions of Papias’ description to such an
extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them.” Once
more (p. 159), “I am bound in candor to say that, so far as I can
see myself at present, I am inclined to agree with the author of
‘ Supernatural Religion ’ against his critics, that the works to
which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their pre
sent form.”
Dr. Davidson (Introduction to N. T., vol. L, p. 539, 1882,)
declares: “ A careful examination of Papias’s testimony shows
that it does not relate to our present Gospel, nor bring Mark
�31
into connection with it as its author. All we learn from it is,
that Mark wrote notes of a Gospel which was not our canonical
one.”
The description of Papias would lead us to expect, not a regu
larly concocted Gospel, but fragmentary reminiscences of Peter’s
preaching. It seems altogether more likely that the allusion is
to the work known as the “Preaching of Peter,” which was un
doubtedly popular in early Christian times, and which was used
by Heracleon and Clement of Alexandria as authentic canonical
Scripture. Since Papias gives no quotations whatever from these
alleged writings of Matthew and Mark the whole matter remains
a bare tradition resting on the authority of this weak-minded
Father. We are unaware if he took the slightest pains to test
the truth of the statements made. It is highly improbable that
he did anything of the kind. Dupin says : “The judgment that
ought to be given concerning him is that which hath been already
given by Eusebius, that is to say, that he was a very good man,
but very credulous, and of very mean parts, who delighted much
in hearing and telling stories and miracles. And since he was
exceedingly inquisitive, and inclined to believe everything that
was told him, it is not to be admired that he hath divulged divers
errors and extravagant notions as the judgments of the Apostles,
and hath given us fabulous narratives for real histories, which
shows that nothing is so dangerous in matters of religion, as
lightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the
appearance of piety without considering in the first place
how true it is” (“A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers,”
vol. i., p. 50, 1692).
Traditions coming from such a source could be of very little
value. It is, however, certain that Papias preferred tradition to
any book with which he was acquainted. He says: ‘1 For I
imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profit
able to me as what came from the living abiding voice ”—a
saying which doubtless included the books of Matthew and Mark
he referred to, and possibly others of the “many” who had
written “a declaration of those things which are surely believed
among us,” referred to by Luke. Jeremiah Jones thinks he
refers to spurious productions, as “he never would have said
this concerning any inspired book” (“New and Full Method of
Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament,”
vol. i., p. 24). The idea of a Christian bishop preferring un
certain tradition to the sure and certain testimony of an infallibly
inspired revelation is well-nigh incredible to a Protestant
apologist.
This extreme credulity is evinced throughout the slight frag
ments which has come down to us. He relates on the authority
of Philip’s daughters that a man was raised to life in his day. He
also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed
Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison and received no
harm. After this we are not surprised at the information that
�32
the government of the world’s affairs was left to angels, and that
they made a mess of it. It is noticeable that while mentioning
Matthew and Mark, and especially mentioning John, he never
ascribes to the latter any such writing as our fourth Gospel.
The only saying which he does ascribe to him: “The days
shall come when vines shall grow, having each ten thou
sand branches,” etc., is not only uncanonical but entirely dis
similar to the style of both Gospel and First Epistle, though
not to that of the Apocalypse. Dr. Davidson considers his
notices of St. John preclude Papias from having believed him to
be the author of a Gospel. Had he known of such a document
he would surely have mentioned it as much as Matthew and
Mark, and Eusebius would not have failed to reproduce the
testimony.
Papias, bishop of Ilierapolis, seems to have been a fair average
■specimen of the early Christian. Probably he was very devout
and pious, but most certainly he was not strong in intellect, and
was ready to give credence to old wives’ tales concerning the
Christ or his Apostles. It is upon such authorities as these that
the whole fabric of historical Christianity rests.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63 Fleet Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FRAUDS AND FOLLIES OF THE
FATHERS.
LB-Z- ¿r. nvc. wheelhb.
-------------- 0--------------
V.
Justin Martyr.
Justin, who is said to have derived his surname from having
suffered martyrdom about a.d. 166—167, is the first of the
Fathers who shows any detailed acquaintance with the state
ments found in the Gospels. A large number of spurious works
have been attributed to him, but we take as genuine the Apologies
and the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. In the first of these
(chap, xlvi.) he indicates that he wrote about 150 years after the
birth of Jesus. He was born at Neapolis in Palestine, being by
descent a Greek, and in the early part of his life a heathen. He
tells us he was converted to Christianity by an old man, whom
his biographer, Father Halloix, thinks may have been an incarnate
angel. Tillemont, the learned Catholic historian, considers this
highly probable. Fabricius thought it was Bishop Polycarp, but
Credner considers the narrative a fiction. It is difficult to believe
that his Apologies were ever presented to the Roman Emperors
or that his Dialogue with the Jew represents an actual contro
versy with an opponent.
Dr. Jortin speaks of Justin as “ of a warm and credulous
temper” (“Remarkson Ecclesiastical History,” chap, xv., p. 243,
vol. i., 1846), and Mosheim declares “The learned well know that
Justin Martyr is not to be considered in every respect as an
oracle, but that much of what he relates is wholly undeserving of
credit” (“ Commentaries,” vol i., p. 112; 1813). The Rev. John
Jones includes him among those who did not scruple to use
forged writings.
In chapters 20 and 44 of his first Apology, for instance, he
appeals to the Sibylline book of prophecies respecting Christ
and his kingdom, which it has been proved to a demonstration by
David Blondell and others, were forged by some early Christians
with a view to persuading the ignorant and unsuspecting heathen
that their oracles had foretold Christ. Celsus, the heathen,
detected and pointed out this falsification. He quotes spurious
*
* Origen, bk. vii;, 53; p. 475 :—The Sibyl was appealed to by
Theophilus and other early Christian apologists. The author of
“ Questiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos,” a work falsely ascribed
to Justin, says that Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corin
thians, appeals to the writings of the Sibyl. In the present version
there is no such allusion.
�34:
productions of Hystaspes, of Orpheus and Sophocles, in which
Christians had foisted their own ideas. For not content with
counterfeiting the writings of celebrities among themselves, they
were equally unscrupulous in regard to the writings of the
Pagans.
Justin confidently affirms that Plato and Aristophanes mention
the ancient Sibyl as a prophetess, and he gravely relates concern
ing her being the daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldean
history.
He says (1st Apol., chap, xxi., p. 25) : “And when we say also
that the Word, who is the first birth of God, was produced with
out sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was
crucified and died, and rose again and ascended into heaven, we
propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those
whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.” He argues (chap, xxiii., p. 27)
that devils inspired the heathen poets and priests to relate before
hand the Christian narratives as having already happened; and
makes out (chap, liv.) that the devils, knowing the prophetic
words of Moses, invented the stories of Bacchus and Bellorophon ;
“And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah that
he should be born of a virgin, and by his own means ascend into
heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of.” And so
with Hercules and TEculapius. All of which puts us in mind of the
learned divine who argued that God put the fossils into the earth
less than 6000 years ago, in order to deceive the geologists and
exhibit the vanity of human knowledge.
Justin also informs us (Apol., Ixvi.) that through the suggestions
of wicked demons, bread and wine were placed before the persons
to be initiated into the mysteries of Mithras in imitation of the
Eucharist. He could believe that Jesús, sitting at a table, actually
offered his own body and blood to eat and drink, but the idea
that the Christian Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was copied
from the Mysteries never struck him. Having plenty of devils
he put them to a deal of use. He tells us how they came into
existence: “God committed the care of men and of all things
under heaven to angels whom he appointed over them. But the
angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by
love of women, and begat children who are those that are called
demons ” (2nd Apol. v., p. 75). These subdued the human
race partly by magical writings and partly by fears and punish
ments. Not content with inventing the heathen mythology they
raised up the Samaritans, Simon and Menander, “who did many
mighty works by magic.” This is what he says the Jews said of
Jesus (Dial, chap. lxix). Justin twice has the audacity to assert
that the Romans erected a statue to the Samaritan Simon, as a
god. He gives the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto. To Simon
the Holy God. This, if not a fraud, was a very gross error.
Apart from the unlikelihood of the story and its absence of corro
boration by any heathen writer, a fragment has been found with
the inscription “Semoni Sanco Deo,” being probably the base of
�35
a statue erected to the Sabine Deity, Semo Sancus. He further
charges the Romans with human sacrifices in celebrating the
mysteries of Saturn; a charge absolutely false and unsup
ported by any Pagan author, although repeated by the Christian
Fathers, Tatian, Cyprian, Tertullian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, etc.
Justin also says the devils put forward and aided Marcion the
follower of Paul, who accused the other apostles of having per
verted the Gospel doctrines. He frequently alleges that the
Christians cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ, and that
women and men among them possessed prophetic gifts, but he
gives no special instance of any miracle wrought in his own
time. He makes maniacs and demoniacs to be possessed by the
spirits of the dead, and appeals to “necromancy, divination by
immaculate children, dream-senders and assistant spirits ” in proof
of life after death (immortality he seems to have considered the
gift of God). All the early Fathers believed in necromancy.
Lactantius (“ Divine Institutes,” book iv., chap, xxvii.) calls it the
most certain proof of Christianity, because those who are skilled
in calling forth the spirits of the dead bring Jupiter and other
gods from the lower regions, but not Christ, for he was not
more than two days there. Justin says we ought to pray that the
evil angel may not seize our soul when it departs from the body.
He makes the victory over Amalek a type of Christ’s victory
over demons, and declares that Isaiah said evil angels inhabit the
land of Tanis in Egypt. He declares of the Jews in the wilder
ness: “ The latchets of your shoes did not break, and your shoes
waxed not old, and your garments wore not away, but even those
of the children grew along with them" (“ Dialogue with Trypho,”
131, p. 266.) This is a very consistent addition to the fable found
in Deut. xxix., 5.
He charges (Dial., chap, lxxii.) the Jews with having removed
passages from Ezra and Jeremiah, and in the following chapter
with having taken away the words “from the wood” in the
passage from the ninety-sixth Psalm, “ Tell ye among the nations
the Lord hath reigned ‘from the wood'" To which the note
appended in the “Ante-Nicene Christian Library” edition (p. 189)
is “ These words were not taken away by the Jews, but added by
some Christian.”—Otto. Tertullian follows Justin in regard to
this passage.
He complains of their rejecting the Septuagint version, and
gravely tells how Ptolemy, King of Egypt, had seventy different
translators shut up in seventy separate cots or cells for the pur
pose of translating the Hebrew Scriptures. After the com
pletion Ptolemy found the seventy men “ had not only given the
same meaning but had employed the same words,” whereupon he
believed “the translation had been written by divine power.”
Byway of proof that he narrates no fable, he says, “We ourselves,
having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots still
preserved” (“Addressto Greeks chap.xiii., p. 300). Ptolemy, how
ever, he makes contemporary with Herod (Apol. xxxi., 33.) Christ,
�36
he says, suffered under Herod the Ascalonite. He calls Moses the
first Prophet, yet declares “He was predicted before he appeared,
first, 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000,
and yet again 800; in the succession of generations, prophets
after prophets arose ” (1st. Apol., chap, xxxi., p. 33). David, he
makes to have lived 1500 B.c.
Speaking of the Polygamy of the patriarchs (Dial., chap, cxxxiv.,
p. 269) he tells us “ certain dispensations of weighty mysteries
were accomplished in each act of this sort.” “The marriages of
Jacob were types of that which Christ was about to accomplish.”
The bloodthirsty General Joshua was a type of Christ, and the
sun standing still by his order shows “how great the power
was of the name of Jesus in the Old Testament.” He tells us
the two advents were prefigured by the two goats, and con
tinually finds clear prophecies of Christianity in passages which
have not the remotest allusion to it. To give one instance, he
says : ‘ And that it was foreknown that these infamous things
should be uttered against those who confessed Christ, and that
those who slandered him, and said it was well to preserve the
ancient customs, should be miserable, hear what was briefly said
by Isaiah, it is this: Woe unto them that call sweet bitter, and
bitter sweet.’ ” Such interpretations are innumerable in Justin.
In his 1st Apology, chap, lv., “ On Symbols of the Cross,” he
says the seas cannot be sailed without cross-shaped masts, nor the
earth tilled save with cross-shaped instruments. “And the
human form differs from animals in nothing else than in its being
erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face,
extending from the forehead, what is called the nose, through
which there is respiration for the living creature, and this shows
no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the
prophet, ‘The breath before our face is the Lord Christ,’ which
is a perversion of Lam. iv., 20: “The breath of our nostrils,
the anointed of the Lord.’ ”
He put into the mouth of his antagonist Trypho, the following
words which possibly represent the usual position taken up by
the Jews: “But Christ—if he has indeed been born and exists
anywhere—is unknown, and does not even know himself, and
has no power until Elias come to anoint him, and make him
manifest to all. And you having accepted a groundless report,
invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately
perishing ” (chap, viii., p. 97). In answer to this home thrust,
Justin promises “I shall prove to you as you stand here that we
have not believed empty fables.” Justin was acquainted with the
works of Josephus, and if the passage had been then in existence
concerning Jesus being the Christ, who was punished on the
Cross, and who appeared again the third day, the divine prophets
having spoken these and many other wonders about him ; here
was the opportunity to bring it forward. Instead of doing so,
or stating who testified to the existence of Christ and his won
derful works, he rambles off to Iris favorite argument from
�37
r
prophecy and piles up a heap of interminable nonsense, which if
put forward as a serious defence of Christianity at the present
time, would either excite suspicion of covert infidelity or be
greeted with derision.
In his Apology he twice calls in evidence the Acts of Pilate,
but as with the books of the Sibyl, it is again a Christian forgery
and not a heathen document he refers to. This is clear from one
of the passages he refers to being found in the extant Acts of
Pilate or Gospel of Nicodemus. If any official report had been
sent by Pilate, it is not likely to have related the miracles of the
person put to death. Nor is it probable that Justin would have
known the contents of such a document.
Justin, in the beginning of the second half of the second
century,' being the very first Father who tells us of Jesus being
God, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate,
dead and rising again and ascending into heaven (for the
spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius must be dated after
Justin’s time) it is important to know where he got his startling
information from. He never once mentions Gospels by either
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He refers indeed at least
thirteen times to “Memoirs” or “Memoirs of the Apostles,” but
without the least indication of their nature, number or extent.
- In one place (Dial., 106) he seems to identify them with the
Gospel of Peter, referred to by Serapion, Tertullian and Origen.
Canon Westcott, who argues that it refers to the Gospel of Mark,
commonly placed under the authority of Peter, thus translates
the passage : “ The mention of the fact that Christ changed the
name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that the event has been
written in his (Peter’s) Memoirs.” The best authorities agree that
upon strictly critical grounds the passage refers to Peter. The
“Ante-Nicene Christian Library ” (p. 233) however reads: “ And
when it is said that he changed the name of one of the Apostles
to Peter ; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this
so happened.” Making the work referred to to be the memoirs
of Jesus.
The only direct mention Justin makes of any writer in the
New Testament is the following : “And further, there was a
certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the Apostles
of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him
that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand
years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short,
the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise
take place” (Dial., chap, lxxxi., p. 201). The author of “Super
natural Religion” says: “The manner in which John is here
mentioned after the memoirs had been so constantly referred to,
clearly shows that Justin did not possess any Gospel also attri
buted to John (vol. i., p. 298; 1879).
This conclusion is corroborated by many circumstances also
adduced by Dr. Davidson. For instance, his doctrine of the
Logos is different from that in the Gospel ascribed to John. He
�38
does not mention any of the miracles found in that Gospel, and
instead of knowing the long discourses given therein, declares
“Brief and concise utterances fell from him, for he was no
sophist ” (Apol. i., chap, xiv., p. 18).
That he does name John, however, as the author of the
Apocalypse, and refers by name to the Old Testament writers no
less than 197 times, while in about as many passages from the
“Memoirs” he never identifies their writer, unless in that con
cerning Peter, is surely incompatible with the idea that they were
the Canonical Gospels.
The whole question of the identity of these “Memoirs” with
our Gospels is ably and lengthily dealt with in English on the
orthodox side, by Lardner, Bishop Kaye, Professor Norton, and
Canons Westcott and Sanday. These arguments the inquiring
reader should compare with those of Bishop Marsh, Dr. Giles,
Dr. Davidson, and the author of “Supernatural Religion.”
It is evident that the account of the sayings and doings of
Jesus in the “Memoirs” are, in the main, very similar to the
Synoptics, especially Matthew, and it is likely they were the
principal materials from which our canon was formed. But it is
not certain if Justin had one document, two, three, four, or a
dozen. In his first Apology (chap, lxvi.) there is certainly
found this expression: “For the apostles in the memoirs com
posed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered
unto us,” etc. (p. 69). But Dr. Donaldson says of the words in
italics “ Schliermacher, Marsh, and others, regarded these words
as an interpolation, and they certainly look like one ” (Critical
History of Christian Literature, vol. ii., p. 329 ; 1866).
Except in one or two instances, parallels with our Gospels are
only made by patching together passages from different Gospels.
By this process the connexion is broken, while the quotations in
Justin have for the most part a consecutive order, and, as is shown
by the context, had such an order in the “ Memoirs ” from which
they were taken. While quoting them nearly 200 times he
makes hardly a single allusion to those circumstances of time and
place which are found in our Gospels. He also gives particulars
not to be found in the Canonical books. Thus he says (Dial.,
chap, lxxviii,) that Jesus was born in a cave, and cites Isaiah xxxiii.,
16, as prophecying this. This contradicts Luke but is found in
the Gospel of James, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel
according to the Hebrews. Matthew and Luke give discrepant
accounts of the genealogy of Jesus. Justin differs from both.
He traces the Davidian descent of the Christ through Mary,
which again agrees with James. He nine times mentions the
Magi coming from Arabia, not from the East. His quotation of
the angel’s message to Mary (Apol. i., 33) agrees better with the
Gospel of James than with Luke or Matthew. Speaking of the
journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethelem, Justin says: “ On the
occasion of the first census which was taken in Judsea, under
Cyrenius, he (Joseph) went up from Nazareth, where he lived,
�39
to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled.” The differences between the account of Justin and that in Luke are
manifest.
He states that Jesus made ploughs and yokes as a carpenter,
which is found in the Gospel of the Infancy. Thrice he speaks of
John as “sitting by Jordan” (Dial. 49, 51, and 88), and he even
narrates that when Jesus stepped into the water a fire was
kindled in the Jordan. This also was from the Gospel according
to the Hebrews. Epiphanius gives it from a version found
among the Ebionites. It was also mentioned in another early
Christian publication the “Preaching of Paul.” Justin has the
Holy Ghost say to Jesus at his baptism: “This is my beloved
son ; to-day have I begotten thee.” The same form of expres
sion was used in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and was so quoted
by others of the Fathers.
He says (Dial., ciii.) that when the Jews went out to the Mount
of Olives to take Jesus there was not a single man to help him,
This is in contradiction to all our Gospels. He says that when
Herod succeeded Archelaus, Pilate, by way of compliment, sent
to him Jesus bound (chap, ciii.) He tells how they sat Jesus on
the judgment seat, and said “Judge us ” (Apol., chap, xxxv.) He
also relates that Jesus said: “ In whatsoever things I apprehend
you, in those also will I judge you.” Grotius and others think
this taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Upon two
occasions Justin says that the J ews sent persons about the world
to spread calumnies.
So manifestly has Justin gone to other sources than our four
Gospels that Canon Sanday admits: “Either Justin has used a
lost gospel or gospels, besides those that are still extant, or else
he has used a recension of these gospels with some slight changes
of language and some apocryphal additions” (“The Gospels in
the Second Century,” p. 129; 1876). We conjecture that the
“Memoirs’’ of Justin were the materials from which our Gospels
were compiled, and that they were similar to or used in con
junction with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Credner argues that he used the Gospel of Peter. It is notice
able that the Diatessaron of Justin’s pupil, Tatian, was called by
Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Theodoret
tells us that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel of Peter, and
we know by the testimony of the Fathers generally that the
Nazarene Gospel was that commonly called the Gospel according
to the Hebrews. That Justin used this once celebrated Gospel
Seems all the more probable since we have the express testimony
of Eusebius (“Ec. History, iv.,” 22) that it was used by Hegesipus, his contemporary and compatriot.
°
Hegesippus.
Nearly all our information concerning this worthy is derived
from Eusebius. He was born in Palestine of Jewish parents, and
wrote five books of memoirs or commentaries no longer extant.
�40
As he therein mentions Pope Eleutherius they must have been
written after b.c. 177. The date 185 is a probable one. The
work of Hegesippus appears to have been the earliest attempt to
give a history of early Christianity, and as it is evident he repre
sented the Jewish anti-Pauline school, which eventually was
swamped by the Gentile element, the loss or destruction of his
writings is much to be regretted. Such fragments as Eusebius
has thought proper to preserve certainly makes one curious for
more. The longest fragment concerns no less a person than the
brother of the incarnate God. Eusebius gives it in the second
book of his “Ecclesiastical History,” chap, xxiii., from which we
extract the following:—
“ James the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of
this name, was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our
Lord until now, received the Government of the Church with the
Apostles. This Apostle was consecrated fr im his mother’s womb.
He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from
animal food. A razor never came upon his head” [i.e., He was
a Nazarite, see Numbers vi., 2-5 ; Judges xiii., 4-7 ; and xvi.,
17. Jesus, we are told in the Gospel, came eating and drinking,
and ordered his disciples when fasting to anoint the head.]
Hegesippus tells us of James, his brother : “ He never anointed with
oil” [see James v., 14—17]; “andneverusedabath.” [In this latter
respect too many holy saints have followed his insanatory example],
“He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuaiy. He never wore
woollen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering
the temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees
and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his
knees became as hard as a camel’s in consequence of his habitual
supplication and kneeling before God.”
In another fragment he takes to task Paul and those who say
“ Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the
heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that
fear him.” Hegesippus says that “those who say such things,
He against the divine scriptures and our Lord who says, ‘ Blessed
are your eyes which see, and your ears which hear,’ etc.”
All of which is very suggestive of the variety of faith and
practice which existed among primitive Christians.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63 Fleet Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FRAUDS AND FOLLIES OF THE
FATHERS.
By CT. nVE- WHEELED.
-------------- 0-------------
VI.
Irejleus.
The accounts of this father which are given in various biographies
are purely conjectural. His very existence has been disputed in
a little book published by Thomas Scott, of Ramsgate, the author
*
of which contends that the Greek word JEirenaios, meaning'
“peaceful” is simply the title of a treatise against heresies, the
object of which was to allay sectarian discord, and that Irenaeus,
bishop of Lyons, is a purely mythical personage. Certain it is
that very little is known of this old saint. But in that respect he
in no way differs from the other early founders of Christianity.
Dodwell makes him to have been born in the year 97, but
Dupin and the best modern authorities place his birth about 140 ;
a number, however, strike a medium at about 120. The im
portance of his date is evident since the work against heresies
is the first writing which makes any mention of the four Gospels,
and Irenaeus claims to have been a disciple of Polycarp, who was
a hearer of John. This claim can only be made at all plausible by
giving each of these holy martyrs an exceedingly long life, for we
have the word of Eusebius, that the book against heresies was com
posed in the time of Eleutherius, the twelfth Pope, between
177 and 192, and Irenaeus lived until the third century. He
is said to have been made bishop of Lyons in 178, but how he
managed to get transplanted from Asia Minor to Gaul, is one of
those things which are left to our faith and wonder.
The fact is, it is extremely doubtful if the author of the book
against heresies ever saw Polycarp, and still more doubtful if
Pblycarp ever saw John. He says John leaped out of the bath
when he saw Cerinthus. Now Cerinthus was a heretic, who lived
about the middle of the second century. He described John as
wearing the petalon, the bishops insignia of office. Fancy the
retired fisherman, the beloved disciple, who was told by his master
to carry neither purse nor scrip, wearing the priestly robes of
office ! George Reber, in his curious book, “The Christ of Paul,”
(New York, 1876), says (p. 178) : “The studied dishonesty of
Irenaeus in attempting to palm off the Presbyter John for the
Apostle, is as dark a piece of knavery as is to be found in the
*“ Irenaeus : A Leaf of Primitive Church History Corrected and
Re-Written,” 1876.
�42
history of a church, which has encouraged such practices from
the time it claimed to be the depositary of all the divine wealth
left by the apostles.”
Irenaeus is alleged to have suffered martyrdon about 202, but
there is no evidence of this prior to the ninth century, when
Gregory of Tours first circulated a story to that effect. Even such
orthodox writers as Cave, Basnage, Dodwell, and others, doubt
the martyrdon, since neither Tertullian, Eusebius, Theodoret,
nor other early writers refer to it. Two churches in Lyons dispupted for centuries about the possession of his relics, which the
Catholics allege were afterwards sacriligeously despoiled by the
Calvinists: a story often refuted. His sacred head is said to have
been kicked about in the gutters, but of course it was miracu
lously restored to its place, and the scidl, we believe, may be
seen for a consideration at the present day. The original
Greek text of the book against heresies is lost, and it exists
only in a barbarous Latin version. At whatever time it was
written, and it may probably be dated between 182 and 188, it
testifies to the existence of numerous heresies in the Church. It
contains many statements respecting the Gnostics, particularly
the Valentinian heresy. There we may read of their peculiar
theories concerning God and Christ. Some thought the Hebrew
Jahveh a malignant deity whom Christ had come to destroy.
Others were foolish and wicked enough to ask whence God got
the matter for his creation. Cerinthus and his followers denied
the virgin birth. Carpocrates and his school held that Jesus was
the son of Joseph, and just like other men with the exception
that inasmuch as his soul was stedfast and pure a power descended
on him from the Father that by means of it he might escape from
the creators of the world. Basilides taught that Jesus did not
suffer death, but Simon of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the
cross and was crucified in his stead. Irenaeus does not forget to
denounce these heretics as blasphemers and shameless sophists
who speak not a word of sense. He calls them slippery serpents
and other choice epithets such as the orthodox usually have in
store for heretics, so that the reader is tempted to wish that the
wretches could show cause why they should not summarily be
damned. It is a notable fact that none of the heretical books or
heretical gospels have been preserved; they come to us only
through the medium of such representations as their opponents
chose to make of them.
George Reber says: “ The Fourth Gospel was written with no
other purpose than to prove the incarnation, and that purpose is
so persistently kept up in every line and verse, from the begin
ning to the end, that if we strike out this, and the miracles which
are mere supports of the main idea, there is nothing left, and so
with the third book against Heresies—it has but one theme. The
writer sets out with the Loyq^_idea of this gospel, which is never
lost sight of. He finds proor-dn the traditions of the Church—
in every page of che Old Testament^-in the Synoptics as well
�43
as in the fourth Gospel; and as we read his misapplication of
words and sentences, we should conclude that he was a lunatic if
we did not know he was something else ” (p. 188). “As we read
whole pages in Irenaeus, charging his adversaries with forgeries
and false interpolations, we smile at the impudence and audacity
of the man, who has done more to pollute the pages of history
than any other, and whose footprints we can follow through the
whole century, like the slime of a serpent” (p. 216).
Reber, it will be seen, can be as abusive as Irenaeus himself.
He calls him “ one of the most dishonest historians of any age ”
and “the great criminal of the second century;” and endeavors
to make out, on quite insufficient grounds, that he was the forger
of the Gospel according to John.
Dr. Samuel Davidson, in his able work on “The Canon”
(p. 155; 1880), says “ Irenaeus was credulous and blundering,”
and our case against him will be sufficient if we prove these
Charges.
The orthodox Dr. Donaldson observes : “What he says about
the apostle John has the appearance of being, to say the least,
highly colored” (“History of Christian Literature,” vol. i.,
p. 157 ; 1864). The whole purport of his account concerning
John was to refute heretics by the allegation of an apostolical
succession which rests on his unsupported testimony alone. The
author of the work against Heresies was essentially a priest, dwell
ing much on the authority of the priesthood and priestly traditions.
He did more perhaps than any other to lay the foundations of the
Romish hierarchy. In his third book, chapter four, he gives the
opinion that every Church should agree with the Church of
Rome on account of its pre-eminent authority.
He considers oral traditions of no less importance than
Scripture, and cites Clement, Polycarp, and those who were
alleged to have heard the apostles as decisive authorities. Hermas
he calls divine Scripture. To be outside the Church is to be
outside truth. Holy Scripture is only safely interpreted under
control of the bishops.
Our Father cites the authority of John, and all the elders in
Asia, for the assertion that the ministry of Jesus lasted twenty
ygars, and that he was over fifty years of age when he was
crucified. In the twenty-second chapter of his second book, he
discusses the question at considerable length, and quotes
John viii., 56-57, as establishing his opinion. For he argues the
Jews would not have said to Jesus “ Thou art not yet fifty years
old,” if he had only been thirty. Their object being to remind
him of the short period he had been on earth, they certainly
would not extend it eighteen or twenty years. If Irenaeus was
right in this important matter, the evidence of the Gospel history
is falsified; if wrong, what is the worth of his testimony as to
the origin of the four Gospels ?
In regard to these he tells us there are mystic reasons why
there could only be four Gospels. “It is not possible that
�44
the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they
are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live,
and four principal winds [or four Catholic Spirits] while the Church
is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground
of the Church is the gospel and the spirit of life ; it is fitting that
she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every
side, and vivifying men afresh ? (book iii., chap, xi., sect. 8., p. 293).
Dr. Giles in his “ Christian Records ” (p. 137), points out that as
this work was written many years after the apologies of Justin
Martyr, there was ample time in the interval for the compilation
of our Gospels, out of the authentic “ Memoirs of the Apostles”
and “ Sayings of our Lord.”
In his third book, chapter xxi., Irenaeus follows Justin in his
foolish tale about the seventy Jewish elders, who made separate
translations of the Bible into Greek in the very same words from
beginning to end. He further tells us there was nothing astonish
ing in this since God inspired Ezra to re-write all the words of
the former prophets and to re-establish the Mosaic law, destroyed
during the captivity in Babylon. The object of making the
Septuagint version of Divine authority, was because the
quotations in the Christians’ Scriptures were taken from it,
strangely enough, had the writers of those Scriptures been Jews.
But despite their boasted accuracy, Irenaeus (book iii., chap, xx.,
sec. 4) quotes Isaiah as saying, “And the holy Lord remembered his
dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulture ; and he came
down to preach his salvation to them that he might save them.”
In another place he quotes this same passage as from Jeremiah,
but it is in neither prophet. Justin in his dialogne with Trypho
had brought it forward as an argument against him, and accused
the Jews of having fraudulently removed it from the sacred
text. The passage is, however, found in no ancient version or
Jewish Targum, which fact may be regarded as a decisive proof
of its spuriousness.
- He follows Justin also in his tales of miracles asserting “ some
do certainly and truly drive out devils. Others have foreknow
ledge of things to come, they see visions, and utter prophetic
expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands
upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moveover, the dead
even have been raised up, and remained among us for many
years.” As with the other Fathers, he gives only general state
ments not particular instances. He allows that the heretics
Simon and Carpoerates and their followers also perform miracles,
“but not through the power of God but for the sake of destroy
ing and misleading mankind, by means of magical deceptions.”
None of these Christian miracles were known to the heathen, and,
as Dr. Conyers Middleton pointed out, in his “ Free Enquiry into
the Miraculous Powers in the Christian Church,” at this very
same time when one Autolycus, an eminent heathen, challenged
his friend Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, a convert and
champion of the Gospels, to show him but one person who had
�45
been raised from the dead, on the condition of him turning
Christian himself, Theophilus made plain by his answer that he
was not able to give him that satisfaction.
Irenaeus follows Justin in making the angels mix with the
daughters of men, and also in his absurd typology. He even
makes Balaam’s ass a type of the Savior. The cohabitation of
Lot with his two daughters was providential and typical of the
two sister synagogues, the Jewish and the Christian.
In common with all the early Fathers he asserts the doctrine
•of the millenium, and this in the grossest sense. We have
already seen the quotation which he gives from Papias as the
actual words of Jesus upon this matter. He believed it would
be a purely earthly glory and felicity after the sort depicted in
the Jewish apocalypses. This portion of his writings, baying
been utterly discredited, is very often omitted. Hebelieved the
end of all things.was near at hand. The world would last six
thousand years because made in six days. Antichrist would come
from the tribe of Dan and reign three years and five days in
Jerusalem, when he would be vanquished. The fall of Antichrist
and the end of the world would coincide with the fall of the
Roman Empire, for the mysterious name of the beast is Latinus.
Then the Lord was to come, and there would be no more labor
but unlimited wine swilling.
Irenseus affirms also on the same authority of tradition deli
vered to him by those who had received it from the apostles,
that Enoch and Elias were translated into that very Paradise
from which Adam was expelled, and that this was the place into
which St. Paul was caught up. This is affirmed also by all the
later Fathers, both Greek and Latin.
Our space will not permit us to further enlarge on the vast
appeals to faith made by Irenaeus. Nor can we pause to deal
with Tertullian, who, with more impetuousity and no less acerbity,
championed the same orthodoxy, shrinking not from the “ credo
quia absurdum est,” and who ended by turning heretic. Nor with
the learned Clement of Alexandria, whose high speculations led
also into contempt of the world and its ways of science, art,
and civilisation. Nor with the ascetic and self-emasculated
Origen, at once profound and prolific, who, in his attempt to
reconcile Christianity with reason, fell into such errors as
believing in the pre-existence and pretemporal fall of souls, and
the redemption of the inhabitants of the stars and even of Satan
himself.
. We must reserve a brief space for the great ecclesiastical
historian
Eusebius.
It is to this eminent Father that we are indebted for almost all
we know of the lost Christian literature of the time preceding
the establishment of Christianity by Constantine. He was born
about 264 or 270, and was a priest in the time of Diocletian.
�46
During the persecution in that reign he retired to Egypt, where,,
however, he was imprisoned, but speedily released. This gave
rise to a suggestion that he had apostatised. “Who art thou,
Eusebius?” exclaimed Potamon, Bishop of Heraclea, at the
Council of Tyre, where Eusebius violently conducted the perse
cution of Athanasius,” “to judge the innocent Athanasius.
Did’st thou not sit with me in prison in the time of the tyrant ?
They plucked out my eye for the confession of the truth. Thou
earnest forth unharmed. How did’st thou escape ?”
In 315 he became Bishop of Cfesarea. His friendships were
among the Arian party in the Church, and his views, to say the
least, inclined that way, and Dr. Newman, in his “ History of the
Arians in the Fourth Century,” speaks of him as “ openly siding
with the Arians, and sanctioning and sharing their deeds of
violence.” This, however, did not stand in the way of his sitting
beside the Emperor Constantine, at the Council of Nice, to anathe
matise and put down the Arians. He subscribed the Nicene Creed,
apparently with some reservations, as to the word consubstantiai.
It is noticeable that his history breaks off abruptly before the
Council of Nice. Perhaps it was one of those matters he thought
best to suppress as little to the credit of the Church or himself.
Athanasius, Petavius, Baronius, Montfaucon, and Moller con
sider him an Arian. Bull, Cave, and Hely, defend his orthodoxy.
On account of his Arianism he has been violently attacked by
Cardinal Baronius, who impugns the faith of the bishop, the
character of the man, and the sincerity of the historian. He
makes out Eusebius to have been simply an ambitious and cruel
courtier; calls him a calumniator, a panegyrist rather than an
historian, and accuses him of falsifying the edicts of Constan
tine.
Gibbon, in his sixteenth chapter, 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.
Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a
writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of
history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the
other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the
character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and
more practised in the arts of courts than that of almost any of
his contemporaries.”* “ No one,” says Scaliger, “ has contributed
more to Christian history, and no one has committed more mis
takes.” C. B. Waite, (“ History of the Christian Religion,” p. 28)
goes further and says: “Not only the most unblushing false
hoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character darken the
pages of his apologetic and historical writings.” G. Reber
*Dean Milman, in his Notes to Gibbon, vol. ii., p. 285; 1854, speaks
of “ the loose and, it mast be admitted, by no means scrupulous
authority of Eusebius.”
�47
(p. 104) says: “ If we except Irenaeus, no writer has so studiously
put himself to work to impose falsehoods on the world as
Eusebius.”
Constantine said of him that he ought not only to be bishop
of Caesarea, but bishop of the whole world. In his life of that
emperor he amply repays the flattery. That work is not an
history but an extravagant rhetorical panegyric upon the man
who murdered his son Crispus, his nephew Licinius, suffocated
his wife Fausta, and who, to revenge a pasquinade, was with
difficulty restrained from the massacre of Rome, and who used
the altar of the Church, which promised absolution and offered
atonement for all sins, as a convenient footstool to the throne of
the empire. In regard to Constantine’s murders, Gibbon says
(chap, xxviii.): “The courtly bishop who has celebrated in an
elaborate work the virtues and piety of his hero, observes a
prudent silence on the subject of these tragic events.”
He makes Constantine to have been converted by the miracu- •
lous appearance of a cross in the sky. It is a great question if
his account of his baptism is correct or if he was baptised in
Rome by Pope Sylvester. Indeed, it is a question if Constantine
was anything but a Pagan at heart until the end of his days.
The title of the thirty-first chapter of Eusebius’s twelfth book
of “Evangelical Preparation,” is a caution. It reads “That
falsehood, may be employed by way of medicine for those who
need it.” He ascribes to Porphyry (a learned Pagan who had
written against Christianity, but whose works were destroyed by
order of Theodosius) a forgery of his own time, called “ The
Philosophy of Oracles,” and then cites it as evidence for Christ
ianity. He gives a forged passage ascribed to Phlegon, where
that Pagan is made to speak of the darkness which happened at
the death of Jesus. If such a passage had been in existence it
would have been mentioned by Origen, who refers to Phlegon,
, but who in his comment on Matthew xxvii., 45, concludes we
must not be too positive that he spoke of this darkness in
Matthew. He also makes Thallus, another heathen, bear testi
mony to the eclipse of the sun—another forgery.
At the very outset of his “ Ecclesiastical History,” he knocks
u§t over with a pretended correspondence which passed between
Jesus, who, Jerome says, knew not how to write, and Abgarus,
king of Edessa.
This correspondence, wherein Jesus is made to cite the words
of the Gospel of J ohn, written probably a hundred years after,
long did duty among Christian evidences, but is now given up
by every critic of note as a forgery. Addison was one of the last
to quote it as genuine.
As it would occupy too much space to follow this Father
through all his misstatements, we shal Iconfine our attention to
his misrepresentations of Josephus. One o the most notorious of
these is the account of the death of Herod Agrippa, grandson of
the monster who is supposed to have ordered the slaughter of all
�the male children in the inland town “Bethlehem, and the coasts
thereof,” on account of an obscure prophecy. In the 12th
chapter of Acts it is stated that Herod, as the people were calling
him a god. was smitten by an angel and was eaten by worms.
Josephus says: “ Agrippa, casting his eyes upward, saw an owl,
sitting upon a rope, overhead.” Eusebius, in order to make
Josephus agree with the Acts of the Apostles, in transcribing the
text of Josephus, struck out about the owl and substituted an
angel. Lardner says : “ I know not what good apology can be
made for this.” Nor do we, unless that one-winged fowl is just
as good as any other.
He makes Josephus’ account of Theudas confirmatory of
Acts v., 36 ; while, in fact, it disagrees with that account so
much as to give commentators the utmost perplexity. He also
tries to reconcile Josephus with Luke by confounding the taxing
*
in the time of Herod with that after the banishment of Archelaus, who reigned for nine years after Herod’s death. Dr.
Lardner’s works (vol. i., p. 344) says: “I must confess I ascribe
that not to ignorance but to somewhat a great deal worse. It is
impossible that a man of Eusebius’s acuteness, who had the New
Testament and Josephus before him. should think a census made
after Archelaus was the same with that before Herod died; but
Eusebius was resolved to have St. Luke’s history confirmed by
the express testimony of the Jewish historian, right or wrong.”
Such instances make us suspect Eusebius in regard to the cele
brated interpolation in which Josephus is made to give evidence
to Jesus as the Christ (Antiq. xviii., iii., 3). He at any rate first
cited the forgery, which was unknown to Origen, and distinctly
asserts that Josephus did not acknowledge Christ. Dr.
Lardner tells us the style of the paragraph is very Christian, if it
be not the composition of Eusebius himself, as Tanaquil Faber
suspected.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London -. Fbeethought Publishing Company, 63 Fleet Street, E.C.
�
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
Frauds and follies of the Fathers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wheeler, J. M. (Joseph Mazzini) [1850-1898]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 48 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. In six parts, paged continuously. Annotations in pencil. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Freethought Publishing Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N687
G5785
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Frauds and follies of the Fathers), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Christianity
Fathers of the Church
NSS