THE FREETHINKER'S TEXT-BOOK. 

PART II. 

CHRISTIANITY:

ITS EVIDENCES. ITS ORIGIN. 

ITS MORALITY. ITS HISTORY. 

BY ANNIE BESANT. 

SECTION I. --ITS EVIDENCES UNRELIABLE. 

The origin of all religions, and the ignorance which is the root of theGod-idea, having been dealt with in Part I. Of this Text-Book, it nowbecomes our duty to investigate the evidences of the origin and of thegrowth of Christianity, to examine its morality and its dogmas, to studythe history of its supposed founder, to trace out its symbols and itsceremonies; in fine, to show cause for its utter rejection by theFreethinker. The foundation stone of Christianity, laid in Paradise bythe Creation and Fall of Man 6, 000 years ago, has already been destroyedin the first section of this work; and we may at once, therefore, proceed to Christianity itself. The history of the origin of the creedis naturally the first point to deal with, and this may be divided intotwo parts: 1. The evidences afforded by profane history as to its originand early growth. 2. Its story as told by itself in its own documents. 

The most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane historyis their extreme paucity; the very existence of Jesus cannot be provedfrom contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a starwhich guides foreign sages to Judæa; a massacre of all the infants of atown within the Roman Empire by command of a subject king; a teacher whoheals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, and who raisesthe mouldering corpse; a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem intriumphal procession, without opposition from the Roman legions ofCæsar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own countrymen, and handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death byRoman law; a three hours' darkness over all the land; an earthquakebreaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number of ghostswandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, andappearing to a crowd of above 500 people; a man risen from the deadascending bodily into heaven without any concealment, and in the broaddaylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvellous eventstook place, we are told, and yet they have left no ripple on the currentof contemporary history. There is, however, no lack of such history, andan exhaustive account of the country and age in which the hero of thestory lived is given by one of his own nation--a most painstaking andlaborious historian. "How shall we excuse the supine inattention of thePagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented bythe hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses?During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead wereraised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequentlysuspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece andRome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinaryoccupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterationsin the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign ofTiberius the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the RomanEmpire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Eventhis miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, thecuriosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an ageof science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca andthe elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, orreceived the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of thesephilosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomenaof nature--earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which hisindefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other haveomitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye hasbeen witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter ofPliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusualduration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect oflight which followed the murder of Cæsar, when, during the greatest partof the year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendour. This season of obscurity, which cannot surely be compared with thepreternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated bymost of the poets and historians of that memorable age" (Gibbon's"Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. , pp. 191, 192. Ed. 1821). 

If Pagan historians are thus curiously silent, what deduction shall wedraw from the similar silence of the great Jewish annalist? Is itcredible that Josephus should thus have ignored Jesus Christ, if onetithe of the marvels related in the Gospels really took place? Sodamning to the story of Christianity has this difficulty been felt, thata passage has been inserted in Josephus (born A. D. 37, died about A. D. 100) relating to Jesus Christ, which runs as follows: "Now, there wasabout this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receivethe truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, andmany of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at thesuggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to thecross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for heappeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets hadforetold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at thisday" ("Antiquities of the Jews, " book xviii. , ch. Iii. , sect. 3). Thepassage itself proves its own forgery: Christ drew over scarcely anyGentiles, if the Gospel story be true, as he himself said: "I am notsent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew xv. 24). AJew would not believe that a doer of wonderful works must necessarily bemore than man, since their own prophets were said to have performedmiracles. If Josephus believed Jesus to be Christ, he would assuredlyhave become a Christian; while, if he believed him to be God, he wouldhave drawn full attention to so unique a fact as the incarnation of theDeity. Finally, the concluding remark that the Christians were "notextinct" scarcely coincides with the idea that Josephus, at Rome, musthave been cognisant of their increasing numbers, and of theirpersecution by Nero. It is, however, scarcely pretended now-a-days, byany scholar of note, that the passage is authentic. Sections 2 and 4were manifestly written one after the other. "There were a great numberof them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; andthus an end was put to this sedition. _About the same time another sadcalamity put the Jews into disorder_. " The forged passage breaks thecontinuity of the history. The oldest MSS. Do not contain this section. It is first quoted by Eusebius, who probably himself forged it; and itsauthenticity is given up by Lardner, Gibbon, Bishop Warburton, and manyothers. Lardner well summarises the arguments against itsauthenticity:--

"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors beforeEusebius. 

"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has any where mentioned the name orword _Christ_, in any of his works; except the testimony abovementioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother. 

"It interrupts the narrative. 

"The language is quite Christian. 

"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, andcould not have omitted quoting it, had it been then in the text. 

"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerningJosephus. 

"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expresslystates that historian (Josephus) being a Jew, has not taken the leastnotice of Christ. 

"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor ClemensAlexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, norOrigen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. 

"But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv. Of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms, that Josephus, who had mentioned John theBaptist, did not acknowledge Christ" (Answer to Dr. Chandler, as quotedin Taylor's "Diegesis, " pp. 368, 369. Ed. 1844). 

Keim thinks that the remarks of Origen caused the forgery; aftercriticising the passage he winds up: "For all these reasons, the passagecannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the CatholicChurch of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the FourthGospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have givencause for it" ("Jesus of Nazara, " p. 25, English edition, 1873). 

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and thestyle of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage asa forgery interpolated in the text during the third century by somepious Christian, who was scandalised that so famous a writer as Josephusshould have taken no notice of the Gospels, or of Christ their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we mightas well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, asto find this notice of Christ among the Judaising writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the lawsof Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How then could he havewritten that _Jesus was the Christ?_ Such an admission would have provedhim to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage underconsideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for abeliever in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like anill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything aroundit. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversieswith the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. ButEusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i. , II), is the first who quotesit, and our reliance on the judgment or even the honesty of this writeris not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in hisworks as undoubtedly genuine" ("Christian Records, " by Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 30. Ed. 1854). 

On the other side the student should consult Hartwell Horne's"Introduction. " Ed. 1825, vol. I. , p. 307-11. Renan observes that thepassage--in the authenticity of which he believes--is "in the style ofJosephus, " but adds that "it has been retouched by a Christian hand. "The two statements seem scarcely consistent, as such "retouching" wouldsurely alter "the style" ("Vie de Jésus, " Introduction, p. 10. Ed. 1863). 

Paley argues that when the multitude of Christians living in the time ofJosephus is considered, it cannot "be believed that the religion, andthe transaction upon which it was founded, were too obscure to engagethe attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place in his history" ("Evid. Of Christianity, " p. 73. Ed. 1845). We answer, it is plain, from thefact that Josephus entirely ignores both, that the pretended story ofJesus was not widely known among his contemporaries, and that the earlyspread of Christianity is much exaggerated. But says Paley: "Be, however, the fact, or the cause of the omission in Josephus, what itmay, no other or different history on the subject has been given by himor is pretended to have been given" (Ibid, pp. 73, 74). Our contentionbeing that the supposed occurrences never took place at all, no historyof them is to be looked for in the pages of a writer who was relatingonly facts. Josephus speaks of James, "the brother of Jesus, who wascalled Christ" ("Antiquities, " book xx. , ch. Ix. , sect. 1), and thispassage shares the fate of the longer one, being likewise rejectedbecause of being an interpolation. The other supposed reference ofJosephus to Jesus is found in his discourse on Hades, wherein he saysthat all men "shall be brought before God the Word; for to him hath theFather committed all judgment; and he, in order to fulfil the will ofhis Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" ("Works ofJosephus, " by Whiston, p. 661). Supposing that this passage weregenuine, it would simply convey the Jewish belief that theMessiah--Christ--the Anointed, was the appointed judge, as in Dan. Vii. , 9-14, and more largely in the Book of Enoch. 

The silence of Jewish writers of this period is not confined toJosephus, and this silence tells with tremendous weight against theChristian story. Judge Strange writes: "Josephus knew nothing of thesewonderments, and he wrote up to the year 93, being familiar with all thechief scenes of the alleged Christianity. Nicolaus of Damascus, whopreceded him and lived to the time of Herod's successor Archelaus, andJustus of Tiberias, who was the contemporary and rival of Josephus inGalilee, equally knew nothing of the movement. Philo-Judæus, whooccupied the whole period ascribed to Jesus, and engaged himself deeplyin figuring out the Logos, had heard nothing of the being who wasrealising at Jerusalem the image his fancy was creating" ("Portraitureand Mission of Jesus, " p. 27). 

We propose now to go carefully through the alleged testimonies toChristianity, as urged in Paley's "Evidences of Christianity, " followinghis presentment of the argument step by step, and offering objections toeach point as raised by him. 

The next historian who is claimed as a witness to Christianity isTacitus (born A. D. 54 or 55, died A. D. 134 or 135), who writes, dealingwith the reign of Nero, that this Emperor "inflicted the most cruelpunishments upon a set of people, who were holden in abhorrence fortheir crimes, and were commonly called Christians. The founder of thatname was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as acriminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicioussuperstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread notonly over Judæa the source of this evil, but reached the city also:whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and wherethey find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those wereapprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vastmultitude discovered by them; all which were condemned, not so much forthe crime of burning the city, as for their hatred of mankind. Theirexecutions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to piecesby dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over withcombustible materials, were set up as lights in the night-time, and thusburned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on thisoccasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimesstanding in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; atother times driving a chariot himself; till at length these men, thoughreally criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to becommiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to thepublic welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man" ("Annals, "book xv. , sect. 44). 

This was probably written, if authentic, about A. D. 107. The reasonsagainst the authenticity of this passage are thus given by RobertTaylor: "This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christianquotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or ofany Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the ChristianFathers. 

"It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotesthe works of Tacitus: and though his argument immediately called for theuse of this quotation with so loud a voice, that his omission of it, ifit had really existed, amounts to a violent improbability. 

"This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutelyimpossible that he should have spoken of him had his writings containedsuch a passage. 

"It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely tothe work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions andrecognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ orChristians before his time. 

"It has nowhere been stumbled on by the laborious and all-seekingEusebius, who could by no possibility have missed of it. .. . 

"There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the worldbefore the fifteenth century. 

"It rests then entirely upon the fidelity of a single individual. Andhe, having the ability, the opportunity, and the strongest possibleincitement of interest to induce him to introduce the interpolation. 

"The passage itself, though unquestionably the work of a master, andentitled to be pronounced the _chef d'oeuvre_ of the art, betrays the_penchant_ of that delight in blood, and in descriptions of bloodyhorrors, as peculiarly characteristic of the Christian disposition as itwas abhorrent to the mild and gentle mind, and highly cultivated tasteof Tacitus. 

 * * * * *

"It is falsified by the 'Apology of Tertullian, ' and the far morerespectable testimony of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who explicitly statesthat the Christians, up to his time, the third century, had never beenvictims of persecution; and that it was in provinces lying beyond theboundaries of the Roman Empire, and not in Judæa, that Christianityoriginated. 

"Tacitus has, in no other part of his writings, made the least allusionto Christ or Christians. 

"The use of this passage as a part of the 'Evidences of the ChristianReligion, ' is absolutely modern" ("Diegesis, " pp. 374--376). 

Judge Strange--writing on another point--gives us an argument againstthe authenticity of this passage: "As Josephus made Rome his place ofabode from the year 70 to the end of the century, there inditing hishistory of all that concerned the Jews, it is apparent that, had therebeen a sect flourishing in the city who were proclaiming the risen Jesusas the Messiah in his time, the circumstance was one this careful anddiscerning writer could not have failed to notice and to comment on"("Portraiture and Mission of Jesus, " p. 15). It is, indeed, passingstrange that Josephus, who tells us so much about false Messiahs andtheir followers, should omit--as he must have done if this passage ofTacitus be authentic--all reference to this additional false Messiah, whose followers in the very city where Josephus was living, underwentsuch terrible tortures, either during his residence there, orimmediately before it. Burning men, used as torches, adherents of aJewish Messiah, ought surely to have been unusual enough to haveattracted his attention. We may add to these arguments that, supposingsuch a passage were really written by Tacitus, the two lines regardingChristus look much like an interpolation, as the remainder would runmore connectedly if they were omitted. But the whole passage is of morethan doubtful authenticity, being in itself incredible, if the Acts andthe Epistles of the New Testament be true; for this persecution is saidto have occurred during the reign of Nero, during which Paul abode inRome, teaching in peace, "no man forbidding him" (Acts xxviii. 31);during which, also, he wrote to the Romans that they need not be afraidof the government if they did right (Romans xii. 34); clearly, if thesepassages are true, the account in Tacitus must be false; and as hehimself had no reason for composing such a tale, it must have beenforged by Christians to glorify their creed. 

The extreme ease with which this passage might have been inserted in alleditions of Tacitus used in modern times arises from the fact that allsuch editions are but copies of one single MS. , which was in thepossession of one single individual; the solitary owner might make anyinterpolations he pleased, and there was no second copy by which hisaccuracy might be tested. "The first publication of any part of the'Annals of Tacitus' was by Johannes de Spire, at Venice, in the year1468--his imprint being made from a single MS. , in his own power andpossession only, and purporting to have been written in the eighthcentury. .. . From this all other MSS. And printed copies of the works ofTacitus are derived. " ("Diegesis, " p. 373. )

Suetonius (born about A. D. 65, died in second century) writes: "TheChristians, a race of men of a new and mischievous (or magical)superstition, were punished. " In another passage we read of Claudius, who reigned A. D. 41-54: "He drove the Jews, who, at the suggestion ofChrestus, were constantly rioting, out of Rome. " From this we mightinfer that there was at that time a Jewish leader, named Chrestus, living in Rome, and inciting the Jews to rebellion. His followers wouldprobably take his name, and, expelled from Rome, they would spread thisname in all directions. If the passage in Acts xi. 20 and 26 be of anyhistorical value, it would curiously strengthen this hypothesis, sincethe "disciples were called Christians first in Antioch, " and themissionaries to Antioch, who preached "unto the Jews only, " came fromCyprus and Cyrene, which would naturally lie in the way of fugitivesfrom Rome to Asia Minor. They would bring the name Christian with them, and the date in the Acts synchronises with that in Suetonius. Chrestuswould appear to have left a sect behind him in Rome, bearing his name, the members of which were prosecuted by the Government, very likely astraitors and rebels. Keim's good opinion of Suetonius is much degradedby this Chrestus: "In his 'Life of Claudius, ' who expelled the Jews fromRome, he has shown his undoubted inferiority to Tacitus as a historianby treating 'Christ' as a restless and seditious Jewish agitator, whowas still living in the time of Claudius, and, indeed, in Rome" ("Jesusof Nazara, " p. 33). 

It is natural that modern Christians should object to a Jewish Chrestusstarting up at Rome simultaneously with their Jewish Christus in Judæa, who, according to Luke's chronology, must have been crucified about A. D. 43. The coincidence is certainly inconvenient; but if they refuse thetestimony of Suetonius concerning Chrestus, the leader, why should theyaccept it concerning the Christians, the followers? Paley, of course, although he quotes Suetonius, omits all reference at this stage to theunlucky Chrestus; his duty was to present evidences of, not against, Christianity. Most dishonestly, however, he inserts a reference to itlater on (p. 73), where, in a brief _résumé_ of the evidence, he uses itas a link in his chain: "When Suetonius, an historian contemporary withTacitus, relates that, in the time of Claudius, the Jews were makingdisturbances at Rome, Christus being their leader. " Why does not Paleyexplain to us how Jesus came to be leading Jews at Rome during the reignof Claudius, and why he incited them to riot? No such incident isrelated in the life of Jesus of Nazareth; and if Suetonius be correct, the credit of the Gospels is destroyed. To his shame be it said, thatPaley here deliberately refers to a passage, _which he has not venturedto quote_, simply that he may use the great name of Suetonius tostrengthen his lamentably weak argument, by the pretence that Suetoniusmentions Jesus of Nazareth, and thus makes him a historical character. Few more disgraceful perversions of evidence can be found, even in theannals of controversy. H. Horne refers to this passage in proof of theexistence of Christ (Introduction, vol. I. , page 202); but withoutoffering any explanation of the appearance of Christ in Rome some yearsafter he ought to have been dead. 

Juvenal is next dragged forward by Paley as a witness, because hementioned the punishment of some criminals: "I think it sufficientlyprobable that these [Christian executions] were the executions to whichthe poet refers" ("Evidences, " p. 29. ) Needless to say that there is nota particle of proof that they were anything of the kind; but whenevidence is lacking, it is necessary to invent it. 

Pliny the Younger (born A. D. 61, died A. D. 115) writes to the EmperorTrajan, about A. D. 107, to ask him how he shall treat the Christians, and as Paley has so grossly misrepresented this letter, it will be wellto reproduce the whole of it. It contains no word of Christians dyingboldly as Paley pretends, nor, indeed, of the punishment of death beinginflicted at all. The word translated "punishment" is _supplicium_ (acc. Of _supplicium_) in the original, and is a term which, like the French_supplice_, derived from it, may mean the punishment of death, or anyother heavy penalty. The translation of the letter runs as follows: "C. Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, Health. --It is customary with me to referto you, my lord, matters about which I entertain a doubt. For who isbetter able either to rule my hesitation, or to instruct my ignorance? Ihave never been present at the inquiries about the Christians, and, therefore, cannot say for what crime, or to what extent, they areusually punished, or what is the nature of the inquiry about them. Norhave I been free from great doubts whether there should not be adistinction between ages, or how far those of a tender frame should betreated differently from the robust; whether those who repent should notbe pardoned, so that one who has been a Christian should not deriveadvantage from having ceased to be one; whether the name itself of beinga Christian should be punished, or only crime attendant upon the name?In the meantime I have laid down this rule in dealing with those whowere brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they wereChristians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them tobe led off. For I had no doubt in my mind that, whatever it might bewhich they acknowledged, obduracy and inflexible obstinacy, at allevents should be punished. There were others guilty of like folly, whomI set aside to be sent to Rome, because they were Roman citizens. In thenext place, when this crime began, as usual, gradually to spread, itshowed itself in a variety of ways. An indictment was set forth withoutany author, containing the names of many who denied that they wereChristians or ever had been; and, when I set the example, they called onthe gods, and made offerings of frankincense and wine to your image, which I, for this purpose, had ordered to be brought out, together withthe images of the gods. Moreover, they cursed Christ; none of which actscan be extorted from those who are really Christians. I consequentlygave orders that they should be discharged. Again, others, who have beeninformed against, said that they were Christians, and afterwards deniedit; that they had been so once but had ceased to be so, some three yearsago, some longer than that, some even twenty years before; all of theseworshipped your image, and the statues of the gods; they also cursedChrist. But they asserted that this was the sum total of their crime orerror, whichever it may be called, that they were used to come togetheron a stated day before it was light, and to sing in turn, amongthemselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by anoath--not to anything wicked--but that they would not commit theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything hadbeen entrusted to them when called upon to restore it. After this theysaid that it was their custom to separate, and again to meet together totake their meals, which were in common and of a harmless nature; butthat they had ceased even to do this since the proclamation which Iissued according to your commands, forbidding such meetings to be held. I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servantmaids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and toapply the torture. But I found that it was nothing but a bad andexcessive superstition, and I consequently adjourned the inquiry, andconsulted you upon the subject. For it seemed to me to be a matter onwhich it was desirable to take advice, in consequence of the number ofthose who are in danger. For there are many of every age, of every rank, and even of both sexes, who are invited to incur the danger, and willstill be invited. For the infection of this superstition has spreadthrough not only cities, but also villages and the country, though itseems possible to check and remedy it. At all events it is evident thatthe temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to befrequented, and the sacred solemnities, which had been intermitted, arerevived, and victims are sold everywhere, though formerly it wasdifficult to find a buyer. It is, therefore, easy to believe that anumber of persons may be corrected, if the door of repentance be leftopen" (Ep. 97). 

It is urged by Christian advocates that this letter at least shows howwidely Christianity had spread at this early date; but we shall laterhave occasion to draw attention to the fact that the name "Christian"was used before the reputed time of Christ to describe someextensively-spread sects, and that the worshippers of the EgyptianSerapis were known by that title. It may be added that the authenticityof this letter is by no means beyond dispute, and that R. Taylor urgessome very strong arguments against it. Among others, he suggests: "Theundeniable fact that the first Christians were the greatest liars andforgers that had ever been in the whole world, and that they actuallystopped at nothing. .. . The flagrant atopism of Christians being found inthe remote province of Bithynia, before they had acquired any notorietyin Rome. .. . The inconsistency of the supposition that so just and morala people as the primitive Christians are assumed to have been, shouldhave been the first to provoke the Roman Government to depart from itsuniversal maxims of toleration, liberality, and indifference. .. . The useof the torture to extort confession. .. . The choice of women to be thesubjects of this torture, when the ill-usage of women was, in likemanner, abhorrent to the Roman character" ("Diegesis, " pp. 383, 384). 

Paley boldly states that Martial (born A. D. 43, died about A. D. 100)makes the Christians "the subject of his ridicule, " because he wrote anepigram on the stupidity of admiring any vain-glorious fool who wouldrush to be tormented for the sake of notoriety. Hard-set must Christiansbe for evidence, when reduced to rely on such pretended allusions. 

Epictetus (flourished first half of second century) is claimed asanother witness, because he states that "It is possible a man may arriveat this temper, and become indifferent to these things from madness, orfrom habit, as the Galileans" (Book iv. , chapter 7). The Galileans, i. E. , the people of Galilee, appear to have had a bad name, and it ishighly probable that Epictetus simply referred to them, just as he mighthave said as an equivalent phrase for stupidity, "like the Boeotians. "In addition to this, the followers of Judas the Gaulonite were known asGalileans, and were remarkable for the "inflexible constancy which, indefence of their cause, rendered them insensible of death and tortures"("Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. , p. 214). 

Marcus Aurelius (born A. D. 121, died A. D. 180) is Paley's last support, as he urges that fortitude in the face of death should arise fromjudgment, "and not from obstinacy, like the Christians. " As no onedisputes the existence of a sect called Christians when Marcus Aureliuswrote, this testimony is not specially valuable. 

Paley, so keen to swoop down on any hint that can be twisted into anallusion to the Christians, entirely omits the interesting letterwritten by the Emperor Adrian to his brother-in-law Servianus, A. D. 134. The evidence is not of an edifying character, and this accounts for theomission: "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those areconsecrated to the god Serapis, who, I find, call themselves the bishopsof Christ" (Quoted in "Diegesis, " p. 386). 

Such are the whole external evidences of Christianity until after A. D. 160. In a time rich in historians and philosophers one man, Tacitus, ina disputed passage, mentions a Christus punished under Pontius Pilate, and the existence of a sect bearing his name. Suetonius, Pliny, Adrian, possibly Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, casually mention some peoplecalled Christians. 

The Rev. Dr. Giles thus summarises the proofs of the weakness of earlyChristian evidences in "profane history:"--

"Though the remains of Grecian and Latin profane literature which belongto the first and second centuries of our era are enough to form alibrary of themselves, they contain no allusion to the New Testament. .. . The Latin writers, who lived between the time of Christ's crucifixionand the year A. D. 200, are Seneca, Lucan, Suetonius, Tacitus, Persius, Juvenal, Martial, Pliny the Elder, Silius Italicus, Statius, Quintilian, and Pliny the Younger, besides numerous others of inferior note. Thegreater number of these make mention of the Jews, but not of theChristians. In fact, Suetonius, Tacitus, and the younger Pliny, are theonly Roman writers who mention the Christian religion or its founder"("Christian Records, " by Rev. Dr. Giles, P. 36). 

"The Greek classic writers, who lived between the time of Christ'scrucifixion and the year 200, are those which follow: Epictetus, Plutarch, Ælian, Arrian, Galen, Lucian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ptolemy, Marcus Aurelius (who, though a Roman emperor, wrote in Greek), Pausanias, and many others of less note. The allusions to Christianityfound in their works are singularly brief" (Ibid, p. 42). 

What does it all, this "evidence, " amount to? One writer, Tacitus, records that a man, called by his followers "Christ"--for no onepretends that Christ is anything more than a title given by hisdisciples to a certain Jew named Jesus--was put to death by PontiusPilate. And suppose he were, what then? How is this a proof of thereligion called Christianity? Tacitus knows nothing of themiracle-worker, of the risen and ascended man; he is strangely ignorantof all the wonders that had occurred; and, allowing the passage to begenuine, it tells sorely against the marvellous history given by theChristians of their leader, whose fame is supposed to have spread farand wide, and whose fame most certainly must so have spread had hereally performed all the wonderful works attributed to him. But nonecessity lies upon the Freethinker, when he rejects Christianity, todisprove the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, although wepoint to the inadequacy of the evidence even of his existence. Thestrength of the Freethought position is in no-wise injured by theadmission that a young Jew named Joshua (i. E. Jesus) may have wanderedup and down Galilee and Judæa in the reign of Tiberius, that he may havebeen a religious reformer, that he may have been put to death by PontiusPilate for sedition. All this is perfectly likely, and to allow it in noway endorses the mass of legend and myth encrusted round this tinynucleus of possible fact. This obscure peasant is not the ChristianJesus, who is--as we shall later urge--only a new presentation of theancient Sun-God, with unmistakeable family likeness to his elderbrothers. The Reverend Robert Taylor very rightly remarks, concerningthis small historical possibility: "These are circumstances which fallentirely within the scale of rational possibility, and draw for no morethan an ordinary and indifferent testimony of history, to command themind's assent. The mere relation of any historian, living near enough tothe time supposed to guarantee the probability of his competentinformation on the subject, would have been entitled to ouracquiescence. We could have no reason to deny or to doubt what such anhistorian could have had no motive to feign or to exaggerate. The proof, even to demonstration, of these circumstances would constitute no stepor advance towards the proof of the truth of the Christian religion;while the absence of a sufficient degree of evidence to render eventhese circumstances unquestionable must, _à fortiori_, be fatal to thecredibility of the less credible circumstances founded upon them"("Diegesis, " p. 7). 

But Paley pleads some indirect evidence on behalf of Christianity, whichdeserves a word of notice since the direct evidence so lamentably breaksdown. He urges that: "there is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passedtheir lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily under-gone, in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely inconsequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they alsosubmitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. " Nearly 200pages are devoted to the proof of this proposition, a proposition whichit is difficult to characterise with becoming courtesy, when we know thecomplete and utter absence of any "satisfactory evidence" that theoriginal witnesses did anything of the kind. 

It is pleaded that the "original witnesses passed their lives inlabours, etc. , in attestation of the accounts they delivered. " Theevidence of this may be looked for either in Pagan or in Christianwritings. Pagan writers know literally nothing about the "originalwitnesses, " mentioning, at the utmost, but "the Christians;" and theseChristians, when put to death, were not so executed in attestation ofany accounts delivered by them, but wholly and solely because of theevil deeds and the scandalous practices rightly or wrongly attributed tothem. Supposing--what is not true--that they had been executed for theircreed, there is no pretence that they were eye-witnesses of the miraclesof Christ. 

Paley's first argument is drawn "from the nature of the case"--i. E. , that persecution ought to have taken place, whether it did or not, because both Jews and Gentiles would reject the new creed. So far as theJews are concerned, we hear of no persecution from Josephus. If weinterrogate the Christian Acts, we hear but of little, two persons onlybeing killed. We learn also that "many thousands of Jews" belonged tothe new sect, and were propitiated by Christian conformity to the law;and that, when the Jews rose against Paul--not as a Christian, but as abreaker of the Mosaic law--he was promptly delivered by the Romans, whowould have set him at liberty had he not elected to be tried at Rome. Ifwe turn to the conduct of the Pagans, we meet the same blank absence ofevidence of persecution, until we come to the disputed passage inTacitus, wherein none of the eye-witnesses are said to have beenconcerned; and we have, on the other side, the undisputed fact that, under the imperial rule of Rome, every subject nation practised its owncreed undisturbed, so long as it did not incite to civil disturbances. "The religious tenets of the Galileans, or Christians, were never made asubject of punishment, or even of inquiry" ("Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. , p. 215). 

This view of the matter is thoroughly corroborated by Lardner: "Thedisciples of Jesus Christ were under the protection of the Roman law, since the God they worshipped and whose worship they recommended, wasthe God of the heavens and the earth, the same God whom the Jewsworshipped, and the worship of whom was allowed of all over the RomanEmpire, and established by special edicts and decrees in most, perhapsin all the places, in which we meet with St. Paul in his travels"("Credibility, " vol. I. , pt. I, pp. 406, 407. Ed. 1727). He also quotes"a remarkable piece of justice done the Jews at Doris, in Syria, byPetronius, President of that province. The fact is this: Some rash youngfellows of the place got in and set up a statue of the Emperor in theJews' synagogue. Agrippa the Great made complaints to Petroniusconcerning this injury. Whereupon Petronius issued a very sharp preceptto the magistrates of Doris. He terms this action an offence, notagainst the Jews only, but also against the Emperor; says, it isagreeable to the law of nature that every man should be master of hisown places, according to the decree of the Emperor. I have, says he, given directions that they who have dared to do these things contrary tothe edict of Augustus, be delivered to the centurion Vitellius Proculus, that they may be brought to me, and answer for their behaviour. And Irequire the chief men in the magistracy to discover the guilty to thecenturion, unless they are willing to have it thought, that thisinjustice has been done with their consent; and that they see to it, that no sedition or tumult happen upon this occasion, which, I perceive, is what some are aiming at. .. . I do also require, that for the future, you seek no pretence for sedition or disturbance, but that all menworship [God] according to their own customs" (Ibid, pp. 382, 383). After giving some other facts, Lardner sums up: "These are authentictestimonies in behalf of the equity of the Roman Government in general, and of the impartial administration of justice by the Romanpresidents--toward all the people of their provinces, how much soeverthey differed from each other in matters of religion" (Ibid, p. 401). 

The evidence of persecution which consists in quotations from theChristian books ("Evidences, " pages 33-52) cannot be admitted withoutevidence of the authenticity of the books quoted. The Acts and thePauline epistles so grossly contradict each other that, having nothingoutside themselves with which to compare them, they are mutuallydestructive. "The epistle to the Romans presents special difficulties toits acceptance as a genuine address to the Church of Rome in the eraascribed to it. The faith of this Church, at this early period, is saidto be 'spoken of throughout the whole world'; and yet when Paul, according to the Acts, at a later time visited Rome, so little had thisalleged Church influenced the neighbourhood, that the inquiring Jews ofRome are shown to be totally ignorant of what constituted Christianity, and to have looked to Paul to enlighten them" ("Portraiture and Missionof Jesus, " p. 15). 2 Cor. Is of very doubtful authenticity. The passagein James shows no fiery persecution. Hebrews is of later date. 2 Thess. Again very doubtful. The "suffering" spoken of by Peter appears, fromthe context, to refer chiefly to reproaches, and a problematical "if anyman suffer as a Christian. " Had those he wrote to been then suffering, surely the apostle would have said: "_When_ any man suffers . .. Let himnot be ashamed. " The whole question of the authenticity of the canonicalbooks will be challenged later, and the weakness of this division ofPaley's evidences will then be more fully apparent. Meanwhile we subjoinLardner's view of these passages. He has been arguing that the Romans"protected the many rites of all their provinces;" and he proceeds:"There is, however, one difficulty which, I am aware, may be started bysome persons. If the Roman Government, to which all the world was thensubject, was so mild and gentle, and protected all men in the professionof their several religious tenets, and the practice of all theirpeculiar rites, whence comes it to pass that there are in the Epistlesso many exhortations to the Christians to patience and constancy, and somany arguments of consolation suggested to them, as a suffering body ofmen? [Here follow some passages as in Paley. ] To this I answer: 1. Thatthe account St. Luke has given in the Acts of the Apostles of thebehaviour of the Roman officers out of Judæa, and in it, is confirmednot only by the account I have given of the genius and nature of theRoman Government, but also by the testimony of the most ancientChristian writers. The Romans did afterwards depart from these moderatemaxims; but it is certain that they were governed by them as long as thehistory of the Acts of the Apostles reaches. Tertullian and diversothers do affirm that Nero was the first Emperor that persecuted theChristians; nor did he begin to disturb them till after Paul had leftRome the first time he was there (when he was sent thither by Festus), and, therefore, not until he was become an enemy to all mankind. And Ithink that, according to the account which Tacitus has given of Nero'sinhumane treatment of the Christians at Rome, in the tenth year of hisreign, what he did then was not owing to their having differentprinciples in religion from the Romans, but proceeded from a desire hehad to throw off from himself the odium of a vile action--namely, setting fire to the city--which he was generally charged with. AndSulpicius Severus, a Christian historian of the fourth century, says thesame thing" ("Credibility of the Gospel History, " vol. I. , pages416-420). Lardner, however, allows that the Jews persecuted theChristians where they could although they were unable to slay them. Theyprobably persecuted them much in the same fashion that the Christianshave persecuted Freethinkers during the present century. 

But Paley adduces further the evidence of Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, Ignatius, and a circular letter of the Church of Smyrna, to prove thesufferings of the eye-witnesses ("Evidences, " pages 52-55). When we passinto writings of this description in later times, there is, indeed, plenty of evidence--in fact, a good deal too much, for they testify tosuch marvellous occurrences, that no trust is possible in anything whichthey say. Not only was St. Paul's head cut off, but the worthy Bishop ofRome, Linus, his contemporary (who is supposed to relate his martyrdom), tells us how, "instead of blood, nought but a stream of pure milk flowedfrom his veins;" and we are further instructed that his severed headtook three jumps in "honour of the Trinity, and at each spot on which itjumped there instantly struck up a spring of living water, which retainsat this day a plain and distinct taste of milk" ("Diegesis, " pp. 256, 257). Against a mass of absurd stories of this kind, the _only evidence_of the persecution of Paley's eye-witnesses, we may set the remarks ofGibbon: "In the time of Tertullian and Clemens of Alexandria the gloryof martyrdom was confined to St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. James. It wasgradually bestowed on the rest of the Apostles by the more recentGreeks, who prudently selected for the theatre of their preaching andsufferings some remote country beyond the limits of the Roman Empire"("Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. , p. 208, note). Later there was, indeed, more persecution; but even then the martyrdoms afford no evidence of thetruth of Christianity. Martyrdom proves the sincerity, _but not thetruth_, of the sufferer's belief; every creed has had its martyrs, andas the truth of one creed excludes the truth of every other, it followsthat the vast majority have died for a delusion, and that, therefore, the number of martyrs it can reckon is no criterion of the truth of acreed, but only of the devotion it inspires. While we allow that theChristians underwent much persecution, there can be no doubt that thenumber of the sufferers has been grossly exaggerated. One can scarcelyhelp suspecting that, as real martyrs were not forthcoming in as vastnumbers as their supposed bones, martyrs were invented to fit thewealth-producing relics, as the relics did not fit the historicalmartyrs. "The total disregard of truth and probability in therepresentations of these primitive martyrdoms was occasioned by a verynatural mistake. The ecclesiastical writers of the fourth and fifthcenturies ascribed to the magistrates of Rome the same degree ofimplacable and unrelenting zeal which filled their own breasts againstthe heretics, or the idolaters of their own time. .. . But it is certain, and we may appeal to the grateful confessions of the first Christians, that the greatest part of those magistrates, who exercised in theprovinces the authority of the Emperor, or of the Senate, and to whosehands alone the jurisdiction of life and death was entrusted, behavedlike men of polished manners and liberal education, who respected therules of justice, and who were conversant with the precepts ofphilosophy. They frequently declined the odious task of persecution, dismissed the charge with contempt, or suggested to the accusedChristian some legal evasion by which he might elude the severity of thelaws. (Tertullian, in his epistle to the Governor of Africa, mentionsseveral remarkable instances of lenity and forbearance which hadhappened within his own knowledge. ). .. The learned Origen, who, from hisexperience, as well as reading, was intimately acquainted with thehistory of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that thenumber of martyrs was very inconsiderable. .. . The general assertion ofOrigen may be explained and confirmed by the particular testimony of hisfriend Dionysius, who, in the immense city of Alexandria, and under therigorous persecution of Decius, reckons only ten men and seven women whosuffered for the profession of the Christian name" ("Decline and Fall, "vol. Ii. , pp. 224-226. See throughout chap. Xvi. ). Gibbon calculates thewhole number of martyrs of the Early Church at "somewhat less than twothousand persons;" and remarks caustically that the "Christians, in thecourse of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greaterseverities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal ofinfidels" (pp. 273, 274). Supposing, however, that the most exaggeratedaccounts of Church historians were correct, how would that supportPaley's argument? His contention is that the "eye-witnesses" ofmiraculous events died in testimony of their belief in them; and myriadsof martyrs in the second and third centuries are of no assistance tohim. So we will retrace our steps to the eye-witnesses, and we find theposition of Gibbon--as to the lives and labours of the Apostles beingwritten later by men not confining themselves to facts--endorsed byMosheim, who judiciously observes: "Many have undertaken to write thishistory of the Apostles, a history which we find loaded with fables, doubts, and difficulties, when we pursue it further than the books ofthe New Testament, and the most ancient writers in the Christian Church"("Eccles. Hist. , " p. 27, ed. 1847). What "ancient writers" Mosheimalludes to it is difficult to guess, as may be judged from hiscriticisms quoted below, on the "Apostolic Fathers, " the most ancient ofall; and in estimating the worth of his opinion, it is necessary toremember that he was himself an earnest Christian, although a learnedand candid one, so that every admission he makes, which tells againstChristianity, is of double weight, it being the admission of a friendand defender. 

To the credit of Paley's apostolic evidences (Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, Ignatius, and letter from Smyrna), we may urge the following objections. Clement's writings are much disputed: "The accounts which remain of hislife, actions, and death are, for the most part, uncertain. Two_Epistles to the Corinthians_, written in Greek, have been attributed tohim, of which the second has been looked upon as spurious, and the firstas genuine, by many learned writers. But even this latter seems to havebeen corrupted and interpolated by some ignorant and presumptuousauthor. .. . The learned are now unanimous in regarding the other writingswhich bear the name of Clemens (Clement) . .. As spurious productionsascribed by some impostor to this venerable prelate, in order to procurethem a high degree of authority" (Ibid, pp. 31, 32). 

"The first epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved tous in a single manuscript only. Though very frequently referred to byancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars ofWestern Europe until happily discovered in the Alexandrianmanuscript. .. . Who the Clement was, to whom these writings are ascribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined. The general opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul(Phil. Iv. 3). The writings themselves contain no statement as to theirauthor. .. . Although, as has been said, positive certainty cannot bereached on the subject, we may with great probability conclude that wehave in this epistle a composition of that Clement who is known to usfrom Scripture as having been an associate of the great apostle. Thedate of this epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after somepersecution (chapter I) which the Roman Church had endured; and the onlyquestion is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero orDomitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if thelatter, we must place it towards the close of the first century, or thebeginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement ofthis question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopelessconfusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between himand the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matterdoubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. Theprobability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the epistle may be dated about A. D. 97" ("The Writings of theApostolic Fathers. " Translated by Rev. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Donaldson, andRev. F. Crombie, pp. 3, 4. Ed. 1867). "Only a single-manuscript copy ofthe work is extant, at the end of the Alexandrian manuscript of theScriptures. This copy is considerably mutilated. In some passages thetext is manifestly corrupt, and other passages have been suspected ofbeing interpolations" (Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels, " vol. I, p. 336. Ed. 1847). 

The second epistle is rejected on all sides. "It is now generallyregarded as one of the many writings which have been falsely ascribed toClement. .. . The diversity of style clearly points to a different writerfrom that of the first epistle" ("Apostolic Fathers, " page 53). "Thesecond epistle . .. Is not mentioned at all by the earlier Fathers whorefer to the first. Eusebius, who is the first writer who mentions it, expresses doubt regarding it, while Jerome and Photius state that it wasrejected by the ancients. It is now universally regarded as spurious"("Supernatural Religion, " pp. 220, 221). "There is a second epistleascribed to Clement, but we know not that this is as highly approved asthe former, and know not that it has been in use with the ancients. There are also other writings reported to be his, verbose and of greatlength. Lately, and some time ago, those were produced that contain thedialogues of Peter and Apion, of which, however, not a syllable isrecorded by the primitive Church" (Eusebius' "Eccles. Hist. " bk. Iii. , chap. 38). "The first Greek Epistle alone can be confidently pronouncedgenuine" (Westcott on the "Canon of the New Testament, " p. 24. Ed. 1875). The first epistle "is the only piece of Clement that can be relied on asgenuine" ("Lardner's Credibility, " pt. Ii. , vol. I. , p. 62. Ed. 1734). "Besides the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians there is a fragmentof a piece, called his second epistle, which being doubtful, or ratherplainly not Clement's, I don't quote as his. " (Ibid, p. 106. )

This very dubious Clement (Paley quotes, be it said, from the first--orleast doubtful--of his writings) only says that _one_ of Paley'soriginal witnesses was martyred, namely Peter; Paul, of course, was notan eye-witness of Christ's proceedings. 

The _Vision of Hermas_ is a simple rhapsody, unworthy of a moment'sconsideration, of which Mosheim justly remarks: "The discourse which heputs into the mouths of those celestial beings is more insipid andsenseless than what we commonly hear among the meanest of the multitude"("Eccles. Hist, " p. 32). Its date is very doubtful; the Canon ofMuratori puts it in the middle of the second century, saying that it waswritten by Hermas, brother to Pius, Bishop of Rome, who died A. D. 142. (See "Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, " vol. I. , pp. 341, 342. ) "The_Epistle to the Philippians_, which is ascribed to Polycarp, Bishop ofSmyrna, who, in the middle of the second century, suffered martyrdom ina venerable and advanced age, is looked upon by some as genuine; byothers as spurious; and it is no easy matter to determine this question"("Eccles. Hist, " p. 32). "Upon no internal ground can any part of thisEpistle be pronounced genuine; there are potent reasons for consideringit spurious, and there is no evidence of any value whatever supportingits authenticity" ("Sup. Rel. , " p. 283). 

The editors of the "Apostolic Fathers" dispute this assertion, and say:"It is abundantly established by external testimony, and is alsosupported by the internal evidence" (p. 67). But they add: "The epistlebefore us is not perfect in any of the Greek MSS. Which contain it. Butthe chapters wanting in Greek are contained in an ancient Latin version. While there is no ground for supposing, as some have done, that thewhole epistle is spurious, there seems considerable force in thearguments by which many others have sought to prove chap. Xiii. To be aninterpolation. The date of the epistle cannot be satisfactorilydetermined. It depends on the conclusion we reach as to some points, very difficult and obscure, connected with that account of the martyrdomof Polycarp which has come down to us. We shall not, however, be farwrong if we fix it about the middle of the second century" (Ibid, pp. 67, 68). Poor Paley! this weak evidence to the martyrdom of hiseye-witnesses comes 150 years after Christ; and even then all thatPolycarp may have said, if the epistle chance to be authentic, is that"they suffered, " without any word of their martyrdom!

The authenticity of the letters of Ignatius has long been a matter ofdispute. Mosheim, who accepts the seven epistles, says that, "Though Iam willing to adopt this opinion as preferable to any other, yet Icannot help looking upon the authenticity of the epistle to Polycarp asextremely dubious, on account of the difference of style; and, indeed, the whole question relating to the epistles of St. Ignatius in generalseems to me to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed withmany difficulties" ("Eccles. Hist. , " p. 22). 

"There are in all fifteen epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the ApostleJohn, one to Mary of Cassobelæ, one to the Tarsians, one to theAntiochians, one to Hero (a deacon of Antioch), one to the Philippians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, oneto the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnians, and oneto Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin; all the rest areextant also in Greek. It is now the universal opinions of critics thatthe first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. Theybear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a laterage than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makesthe least reference to them; and they are now, by common consent, setaside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve specialpurposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch. But, after the question has been thus simplified, it still remainssufficiently complex. Of the seven epistles which are acknowledged byEusebius" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Iii. , chap. 36), we possess two Greekrecensions, a shorter and a longer. "It is plain that one or other ofthese exhibits a corrupt text; and scholars have, for the most part, agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters ofIgnatius. .. . But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters hadbeen generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still apretty prevalent opinion among scholars that even it could not beregarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubtedauthenticity. .. . Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was, until recently, accepted without much opposition . .. As exhibiting thegenuine form of the epistles of Ignatius. But a totally different aspectwas given to the question by the discovery of a Syriac version of threeof these epistles among the MSS. Procured from the monastery of St. MaryDeipara, in the desert of Nitria, in Egypt [between 1838 and 1842]. .. . On these being deposited in the British Museum, the late Dr. Cureton, who then had charge of the Syriac department, discovered among them, first, the epistle to Polycarp, and then again the same epistle, withthose to the Ephesians and to the Romans, in two other volumes ofmanuscripts" ("Apostolic Fathers, " pp. 139-142). Dr. Cureton gave it ashis opinion that the Syriac letters are "the only true and genuineletters of the venerable Bishop of Antioch that have either come down toour times or were ever known in the earliest ages of the ChristianChurch" ("Corpus Ignatianum, " ed. 1849, as quoted in the "ApostolicFathers, " p. 142). 

"I have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfiedupon that comparison that the larger are an interpolation of thesmaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger. Idesire no better evidence in a thing of this nature. .. . But whether thesmaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop ofAntioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed thepens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may haveshown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficultquestion" ("Credibility, " pt. 2, vol. Ii. , p. 153). The Syriac versionwas then, of course, unknown. Professor Norton, the learned Christiandefender of the Gospels, says: "The seven shorter epistles, thegenuineness of which is contended for, come to us in bad company. .. . There is, as it seems to me, no reasonable doubt that the seven shorterepistles ascribed to Ignatius are equally, with all the rest, fabrications of a date long subsequent to his time. " "I doubt whetherany book, in its general tone of sentiment and language, ever betrayeditself as a forgery more clearly than do these pretended epistles ofIgnatius" ("Genuineness of the Gospels, " vol. I. , pp. 350 and 353, ed. 1847). 

"What, then, is the position of the so-called Ignatian epistles? Towardsthe end of the second century Irenæus makes a very short quotation froma source unnamed, which Eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in anepistle attributed to Ignatius. Origen, in the third century, quotes afew words, which he ascribes to Ignatius, although without definitereference to any particular epistle; and, in the fourth century, Eusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no otherevidence. There are, however, fifteen epistles extant, all of which areattributed to Ignatius, of all of which, with the exception of three, which are only known in a Latin version, we possess both Greek and Latinversions. Of seven of these epistles--and they are those mentioned byEusebius--we have two Greek versions, one of which is very much shorterthan the other; and, finally, we now possess a Syriac version of threeepistles, only in a form still shorter than the shorter Greek version, in which are found all the quotations of the Fathers, without exception, up to the fourth century. Eight of the fifteen epistles are universallyrejected as spurious (ante, p. 263). The longer Greek version of theremaining seven epistles is almost unanimously condemned as grosslyinterpolated; and the great majority of critics recognise that theshorter Greek version is also much interpolated; whilst the Syriacversion, which, so far as MSS. Are concerned, is by far the most ancienttext of any letters which we possess, reduces their number to three, andtheir contents to a very small compass indeed. It is not surprising thatthe vast majority of critics have expressed doubt more or less strongregarding the authenticity of all these epistles, and that so large anumber have repudiated them altogether. One thing is quiteevident--that, amidst such a mass of falsification, interpolation, andfraud, the Ignatian epistles cannot, in any form, be considered evidenceon any important point. .. . In fact, the whole of the Ignatian literatureis a mass of falsification and fraud" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , pp. 270, 271, 274). The student may judge from this confusion, of fifteen reducedto seven long, and seven long reduced to seven short, and seven shortreduced to three, and those three very doubtful, how thoroughly reliablemust be Paley's arguments drawn from this "contemporary of Polycarp. "Our editors of the "Fathers" very frankly remark: "As to the personalhistory of Ignatius, almost nothing is known" ("Apostolic Fathers, " p. 143). Why, acknowledging this, they call him "celebrated, " it is hard tosay. Truly, the ways of Christian commentators are dark!

Paley's quotation is taken from the epistle to the Smyrnaeans (not oneof the Syriac, be it noted), and is from the shorter Greek recension. Itoccurs in chap. Iii. , and only says that Peter, and those who were withhim, saw Jesus after the resurrection, and believed: "for this causealso they despised death, and were found its conquerors. " Men whobelieved in a resurrection might naturally despise death; but it is hardto see how this quotation--even were it authentic--shows that theapostles suffered for their belief. What strikes one as mostremarkable--if Paley's contention of the sufferings of the witnesses betrue, and these writings authentic--is that so very little mention ismade of the apostles, of their labours, toils, and sufferings, and thatthese epistles are simply a kind of patchwork, chiefly of Old Testamentmaterials, mixed up with exhortations about Christ. 

The circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna is a curious document. Paley quotes a terrible account of the tortures inflicted, and one wouldimagine on reading it that many must have been put to death. We aresurprised to learn, from the epistle itself, that Polycarp was only thetwelfth martyr between the two towns of Smyrna and Philadelphia! Theamount of dependence to be placed on the narrative may be judged by thefollowing:--"As the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it wasgiven to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preservedthat 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 whenfilled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he appeared within, not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread thatis baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, weperceived such a sweet odour, as if frankincense or some such preciousspices had been burning there. At length, when those men perceived thathis body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded anexecutioner to go near, and pierce him with a dagger. And on his doingthis, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so thatthe fire was extinguished" ("Apostolic Fathers, " p. 92). What reliancecan be placed on historians(?) who gravely relate that fire does notburn, and that when a man is pierced with a dagger a dove flies out, together with sufficient blood to quench a flaming pile? To make thisprecious epistle still more valuable, one of its transcribers adds toit:--"I again, Pionius, wrote them (these things) from the previouslywritten copy, having carefully searched into them, and the blessedPolycarp having manifested them to me through a revelation[!] even as Ishall show in what follows. I have collected these things, when they hadalmost faded away through the lapse of time" (Ibid, p. 96). If this ishistory, then any absurd dream may be taken as the basis of belief. Wemay add that this epistle does not mention the martyrdoms of theeye-witnesses, and it is hard to know why Paley drags it in, unless hewants to make us believe that his eye-witnesses suffered all thetortures he quotes; but even Paley cannot pretend that there is ascintilla of proof of their undergoing any such trials. Thus falls thewhole argument based on the "twelve men, whose probity and good sense Ihad long known, " dying for the persistent assertion of "a miraclewrought before their eyes, " who are used as a parallel of the apostles, as an argument against Hume. For we have not yet proved that there wereany eye-witnesses, or that they made any assertions, and we haveentirely failed to prove that the eye-witnesses were martyred at all, orthat the death of any one of them, save that of Peter, is even mentionedin the alleged documents, so that the "satisfactory evidences" of the"original witnesses of the Christian miracles" suffering and dying inattestation of those miracles amount to this, that in a disputeddocument Peter is said to have been martyred, and in another, still moredoubtful, "the rest of the apostles" are said to have "suffered. " Thusthe first proposition of Paley falls entirely to the ground. The honesttruth is that the history of the twelve apostles is utterly unknown, andthat around their names gathers a mass of incredible and nonsensicalmyth and legend, similar in kind to other mythological fables, andentirely unworthy of credence by reasonable people. 

Nor is proof less lacking of submission "from the same motives, to newrules of conduct. " Nowhere is there a sign that Christian morality wasenforced by appeal to the miracles of Christ; miracles were, in thosedays, too common an incident to attract much attention, and, indeed, ifthey could not win belief in the mission from those Jews before whomthey were said to have been performed, what chance would they have hadwhen the story of their working was only repeated by hearsay? Again, therules of conduct were not "new;" the best parts of the Christianmorality had been taught long before Christ (as we shall prove later onby quotations), and were familiar to the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, from the writings of their own philosophers. There would have beennothing remarkable in a new sect growing up among these peoples, accustomed as they were to the schools of the philosophers, with theirvarious groups of disciples distinguished by special names. Why is thereanything more wonderful in these Christian societies with a high moralcode, than in the severe and stately morality inculcated and practisedby the Stoics? For the submission of conduct to the "new rules, " theless said the better. 1 Corinthians does not give us a very lofty ideaof the morality current among the Christians there, and the angryreproaches of Jude imply much depravity; the messages to the sevenChurches are generally reproving, not to dwell on many scatteredpassages of the same character. Outsiders, moreover, speak very harshlyof the Christian societies. Tacitus--whose testimony must be allowedsome weight, if he be quoted as a proof of the existence of thesect--says that they were held in abhorrence for their crimes, and werecondemned for their "enmity to mankind" (the expression of Tacitus mayeither mean _haters of_ mankind, or _hated by_ mankind), expressionswhich show that the adherents of the higher and purer morality were, atleast, singularly unfortunate in the impressions of it which theyconveyed to their neighbours by their lives; and we find, further, themost scandalous crimes imputed to the Christians, necessitating theenforcement against them of edicts passed to put down the shamefulBacchanalian mysteries. And here, indeed, is the true cause of thepersecution to which they were subjected under the just and mercifulRoman sway, and this is a point that should not be lost sight of by thestudent. 

About 186 B. C. , according to Livy (lib. Xxxix. C. 8-19), the RomanGovernment, discovering that certain "Bacchanalian mysteries" werehabitually celebrated in Rome, issued stern edicts against theparticipants in them, and succeeding in, at least partially, suppressingthem. The reason given by the Consul Postumius for these edicts waspolitical, not religious. "Could they think, " he asked, "that youths, initiated under such oaths as theirs, were fit to be made soldiers? Thatwretches brought out of the temple of obscenity could be trusted witharms? That those contaminated with the foul debaucheries of thesemeetings should be the champions for the chastity of the wives andchildren of the Roman people?" "Let us now closely examine how far theEleusinian and Bacchanalian feasts resembled the ChristianAgapae--whether the latter, modified and altered a little according tothe change which would take place in the taste of the age, originatedfrom the former, or were altogether from a different source. We haveseen that the forementioned Pagan feasts were, throughout Italy, in avery flourishing state about 186 years before the Christian era. We havealso seen that about this time they were, at least, partially suppressedin Italy, and those who were wont to take part in them dispersed overthe world. Being zealously devoted to the religion of which these feastswere part, it is very natural to suppose that, wherever the votaries ofthis superstition settled, they soon established these feasts, whichthey were enabled to carry on secretly, and, therefore, for aconsiderable time, undetected. .. . Both Pagans and Christians, in ancienttimes, were particularly careful not to disclose their _mysteries_; todo so, in violation of their oaths, would cost their lives" ("TheProphet of Nazareth, " by E. P. Meredith, notes, pp. 225, 226). Mr. Meredith then points out how in Rome, in Lyons, in Vienne, "theChristians were actually accused of murdering children and others--ofcommitting adultery, incest, and other flagrant crimes in their secretlovefeasts. The question, therefore, arises--were they really guilty ofthe barbarous crimes with which they were so often formally charged, andfor the commission of which they were almost as often legally condemned, and punished with death? Is it probable that persons _at Rome_, who hadonce belonged to these lovefeasts, should tell a deliberate falsehoodthat the Christians perpetrated these abominable vices, and that otherpersons _in France_, who had also been connected with these feasts, should falsely state that the Christians were guilty of the very sameexecrable crimes? There was no collusion or connection whatever betweenthese parties, and in making their statements, they could have noself-interested motive. They lived in different countries, they did notmake their statements within twenty years of the same time, and bymaking such statements they rendered themselves liable to be punishedwith death. .. . The same remark applies to the disclosures made, about150 years after, by certain females in Damascus, far remote from eitherLyons or Rome. These make precisely the same statement--that they hadonce been Christians, that they were privy to criminal acts among them, and that these Christians, in their very churches, committed licentiousdeeds. The Romans would never have so relentlessly persecuted theChristians had they not been guilty of some such atrocities as were laidto their charge. There are on record abundant proofs that the Romans, from the earliest account we have of them, tolerated all harmlessreligions--all such as were not directly calculated to endanger thepublic peace, or vitiate public morals, or render life and propertyunsafe. .. . So well known were those horrid vices to be carried on by allChristians in their nocturnal and secret assemblies, and so certain itwas thought that every one who was a Christian participated in them, that for a person to be known to be a Christian was thought a strongpresumptive proof that he was guilty of these offences. Hence, personsin their preliminary examinations, who, on being interrogated, answeredthat they were Christians, were thought proper subjects for committal toprison. .. . Pliny further indicates that while some brought before him, on information, refused to tell him anything as to the nature of theirnocturnal meetings, others replied to his questions as far as their oathpermitted them. They told him that it was their practice, as Christians, to meet on a stated day, before daylight, to sing hymns; and to bindthemselves by a solemn oath that they would do no wrong; that they wouldnot steal, nor rob, nor commit any act of unchastity; that they wouldnever violate a trust; and that they joined together in a common andinnocent repast. While all these answers to the questions of theProconsul are suggestive of the crimes with which the Christians werecharged, still they are a denial of every one of them. .. . The wholetenor of historical facts is, however, against their testimony, and theProconsul did not believe them; but, in order to get at the entiretruth, put some of them to the torture, and ultimately adjourned theirtrial [see ante, pp. 203-205]. The manner in which Greek and Latinwriters mention the Christians goes far to show that they were guilty ofthe atrocious crimes laid to their charge. Suetonius (in Nero) callsthem, 'A race of men of new and villainous superstition' [see ante, p. 201]. The Emperor Adrian, in a letter to his brother-in-law, Servianus, in the year 134, as given by Vospicius, says: 'There is no presbyter ofthe Christians who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or aminister of obscene pleasures. ' Tacitus tells us that Nero inflictedexquisite punishment upon those people who, under the vulgar appellationof Christians, were held in abhorrence for their crimes. He also, in thesame place, says they were 'odious to mankind;' and calls their religiona 'pernicious superstition' [see ante, p. 99]. Maximus, likewise, in hisletter, calls them 'votaries of execrable vanity, ' who had 'filled theworld with infamy. ' It would appear, however, that owing to the extrememeasures taken against them by the Romans, both in Italy and in all theprovinces, the Christians, by degrees, were forced to abandon entirelyin their Agapae infant murders, together with every species ofobscenity, retaining, nevertheless, some relics of them, such as the_kiss of charity_, and the bread and wine, which they contended wastransubstantiated into real flesh and blood. .. . A very common way ofrepelling these charges was for one sect of Christians, which, ofcourse, denounced all other sects as heretics, to urge that humansacrifices and incestuous festivals were not celebrated by that sect, but that they _were_ practised by other sects; such, for example, as theMarcionites and the Capocratians. (Justin Mart. , 'Apology, ' i. , 35;Iren. , adv. Haer. I. , 24; Clem. Alex. , i. , 3. ) When Tertullian joinedthe Montanists, another sect of Christians, he divulged the criminalsecrets of the Church which he had so zealously defended, by saying, inhis 'Treatise on Fasting, ' c. 17, that 'in the Agapae the young men laywith their sisters, and wallowed in wantonness and luxury'. .. . Remnantsof these execrable customs remained for a long time, and vestiges ofthem exist to this very day, as well in certain words and phrases as inpractice. The communion table to this very day is called _the altar_, the name of that upon which the ancients sacrificed their victims. Theword _sacrament_ has a meaning, as used by Pliny already cited, whichcarries us back to the solemn oath of the Agapaeists. The word _mass_carries us back still further, and identifies the present mass with thatof the Pagans. .. . Formerly the consecrated bread was called _host_, which word signifies a _victim_ offered _as sacrifice_, anciently_human_ very often. .. . Jerome and other Fathers called the communionbread--_little body_, and the communion table--_mystical table_; thelatter, in allusion to the heathen and early Christian mysteries, andthe former, in reference to the children sacrificed at the Agapae. Thegreat doctrine of transubstantiation directly points to the abominablepractice of eating human flesh at the Agapae. .. . Upon the whole, it isimpossible, from the mass of evidence already adduced, to avoid theconclusion that the early Christians, in their Agapae, were reallyguilty of the execrable vices with which they were so often charged, andfor which they were sentenced to death. This once admitted, a reasonableand adequate cause can be assigned for the severe persecutions of theChristians by the Roman Government--a Government which applied preciselythe same laws and modes of persecution and punishment to them as to thevotaries of the Bacchanalian and Eleusinian mysteries, well known tohave been accustomed to offer human sacrifices, and indulge in the mostobscene lasciviousness in their secret assemblies; and a Governmentwhich tolerated all kinds of religions, except those which encouragedpractices dangerous to human life, or pernicious to the morals ofsubjects. Nor can the facts already advanced fail to show clearly thatthe Christian Agapae were of Pagan origin--were identically the same asthose Pagan feasts which existed simultaneously with them" (Ibid, notes, pp. 227, 231). 

There can be no doubt that the Christians suffered for these crimeswhether or no they were guilty of them: "Three things are allegedagainst us: Atheism, Thyestean feasts, OEdipodean intercourse, " saysAthenagoras ("Apology, " ch. Iii). Justin Martyr refers to the samecharges ("2nd Apology, " ch. Xii). "Monsters of wickedness, we areaccused of observing a holy rite, in which we kill a little child andthen eat it, in which after the feast we practise incest. .. . Come, plunge your knife into the babe, enemy of none, accused of none, childof all; or if that is another's work, simply take your place beside ahuman being dying before he has really lived, await the departure of thelately-given soul, receive the fresh young blood, saturate your breadwith it, freely partake" ("Apology, " Tertullian, secs. 7, 8). Tertullianpleads earnestly that these accusations were false: "if you cannot doit, you ought not to believe it of others. For a Christian is a man aswell as you" (Ibid). Yet, when Tertullian became a Montanist, hedeclared that these very crimes _were_ committed at the Agapae, so thathe spoke falsely either in the one case or in the other. "It wassometimes faintly insinuated, and sometimes boldly asserted, that thesame bloody sacrifices and the same incestuous festivals, which were sofalsely ascribed to the orthodox believers, were in reality celebratedby the Marcionites, by the Carpocratians, and by several other sects ofthe Gnostics. .. . Accusations of a similar kind were retorted upon theChurch by the schismatics who had departed from its communion; and itwas confessed on all sides that the most scandalous licentiousness ofmanners prevailed among great numbers of those who affected the name ofChristians. A Pagan magistrate, who possessed neither leisure norabilities to discern the almost imperceptible line which divides theorthodox faith from heretical depravity, might easily have imagined thattheir mutual animosity had extorted the discovery of their common guilt"("Decline and Fall, " Gibbon, vol. Ii. , pp. 204, 205). It was fortunate, the historian concludes, that some of the magistrates reported that theydiscovered no such criminality. It is, be it noted, simultaneously withthe promulgation of these charges that the persecution of the Christianstakes place; during the first century very little is heard of such, andthere is very little persecution [see ante, pp. 209-213]. In thefollowing century the charges are frequent, and so are the persecutions. 

To these strong arguments may be added the acknowledgment in 1. Cor. Xi. , 17, 22, of disorder and drunkenness at these Agapae; the habit ofspeaking of the communion feast as "the Christian _mysteries_, " a habitstill kept up in the Anglican prayer-book; the fact that they took place_at night_, under cover of darkness, a custom for which there was notthe smallest reason, unless the service were of a nature soobjectionable as to bring it under the ban of the tolerant Roman law;and lastly, the use of the cross, and the sign of the cross, the centralChristian emblem, and one that, especially in connection with themysteries, is of no dubious signification. Thus, in the twilight inwhich they were veiled in those early days, the Christians appear to usas a sect of very different character to that bestowed upon them byPaley. A little later, when they emerge into historical light, their ownwriters give us sufficient evidence whereby we may judge them; and wefind them superstitious, grossly ignorant, quarrelsome, cruel, dividedinto ascetics and profligates, between whom it is hard to award the palmfor degradation and indecency. 

Having "proved"--in the above fashion--that a number of people in thefirst century advanced "an extraordinary story, " underwent persecution, and altered their manner of life, because of it, Paley thinks it "in thehighest degree probable, that the story for which these personsvoluntarily exposed themselves to the fatigues and hardships which theyendured, was a _miraculous_ story; I mean, that they pretended tomiraculous evidence of some kind or other" ("Evidences, " p. 64). Thatthe Christians believed in a miraculous story may freely beacknowledged, but it is evidence of the truth of the story that we want, not evidence of their belief in it. Many ignorant people believe inwitchcraft and in fortune-telling now-a-days, but their belief onlyproves their own ignorance, and not the truth of either superstition. The next step in the argument is that "the story which Christians have_now_" is "the story which Christians had _then_" and it is urged thatthere is in existence no trace of any story of Jesus Christ"substantially different from ours" ("Evidences, " p. 69). It is hard tojudge how much difference is covered by the word "substantially. " Allthe apocryphal gospels differ very much from the canonical, insertsayings and doings of Christ not to be found in the received histories, and make his character the reverse of good or lovable to a far greaterextent than "the four. " That Christ was miraculously born, workedmiracles, was crucified, buried, rose again, ascended, may be acceptedas "substantial" parts of the story. Yet Mark and John knew nothing ofthe birth, while, if the Acts and the Epistles are to be trusted, theapostles were equally ignorant; thus the great doctrine of theIncarnation of God without natural generation, is thoroughly ignored byall save Matthew and Luke, and even these destroy their own story bygiving genealogies of Jesus through Joseph, which are useless unlessJoseph was his real father. The birth from a virgin, then has no claimto be part of Paley's miraculous story in the earliest times. Theevidence of miracle-working by Christ to be found in the Epistles ischiefly conspicuous by its absence, but it figures largely inpost-apostolic works. The crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension aregenerally acknowledged, and these three incidents compose the wholestory for which a consensus of testimony can be claimed; it will, perhaps, be fair to concede also that Christ is recognised universallyas a miracle-worker, in spite of the strange silence of the epistles. Weneed not refer to the testimony of Clement, Polycarp or Ignatius, havingalready shown what dependence may be placed on their writings. But wehave now three new witnesses, Barnabas, Quadratus, and Justin Martyr. Paley says: "In an epistle, bearing the name of Barnabas, the companionof Paul, probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have thesufferings of Christ, " etc. (Evidences p. 75). "Probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age!" Is Paley joking with his readers, oronly trading on their ignorance? "The letter itself bears no author'sname, is not dated from any place, and is not addressed to any specialcommunity. _Towards the end of the second century, however, traditionbegan to ascribe it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. The first writerwho mentions it is Clement of Alexandria_ [head of the AlexandrianSchool, A. D. 205] who calls its author several times the 'ApostleBarnabas'. .. . We have already seen in the case of the Epistles ascribedto Clement of Rome, and, as we proceed, we shall become only toofamiliar with the fact, the singular facility with which, in the totalabsence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed bythe Fathers to Apostles and their followers. .. . Credulous piety whichattributed writings to every Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soonfound authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character. .. . Inthe earlier days of criticism, some writers, without much question, adopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the Epistles, butthe great mass of critics are now agreed in asserting that thecomposition, which itself is perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributedto Barnabas the friend and fellow worker of Paul. Those who maintain theformer opinion date the Epistle about A. D. 70-73, or even earlier, butthis is scarcely the view of any living critic" ("SupernaturalReligion, " vol. I. , pp. 237-239). 

"From its contents it seems unlikely that it was written by a companionof Apostles and a Levite. In addition to this, it is probable thatBarnabas died before A. D. 62; and the letter contains not only anallusion to the destruction of the Jewish temple, but also affirms theabnegation of the Sabbath, and the general celebration of the Lord'sDay, which seems to show that it could not have been written before thebeginning of the second century" ("Westcott on the Canon, " p. 41). "Nothing certain is known as to the author of the following epistle. Thewriter's name is Barnabas; but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it tothe illustrious friend and companion of St. Paul. .. . The internalevidence is now generally regarded as conclusive against thisopinion. .. . The external evidence [ascribing it to Barnabas] is ofitself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing toascribe this writing to Barnabas, the apostle. .. . The general opinionis, that its date is not later than the middle of the second century, and that it cannot be placed earlier than some twenty or thirty years orso before. In point of style, both as respects thought and expression, avery low place must be assigned it. We know nothing certain of theregion in which the author lived, or where the first readers were to befound" ("Apostolic Fathers, " pp. 99, 100). The Epistle is not ascribedto Barnabas at all until the close of the second century. Eusebius marksit as "spurious" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Iii. , chap. Xxv). Lardner speaksof it as "probably Barnabas's, and certainly ancient" ("Credibility, "pt. Ii. , vol. Ii. , p. 30). When we see the utter conflict of evidence asto the writings of all these "primitive" authors, we can scarcely wonderat the frank avowal of the Rev. Dr. Giles: "The writings of theApostolical Fathers labour under a more heavy load of doubt andsuspicion than any other ancient compositions, either sacred or profane"("Christian Records, " p. 53). 

Paley, in quoting "Quadratus, " does not tell us that the passage hequotes is the only writing of Quadratus extant, and is only preserved byEusebius, who says that he takes it from an apology addressed byQuadratus to the Emperor Adrian. Adrian reigned from A. D. 117-138, andthe apology must consequently have been presented between these dates. If the apology be genuine, Quadratus makes the extraordinary assertionthat some of the people raised from the dead by Jesus were then living. Jesus is only recorded to have raised three people--a girl, a young man, and Lazarus; we will take their ages at ten, twenty, and thirty. "Someof" those raised cannot be less than two out of the three; we will saythe two youngest. Then they were alive at the respectable ages of from95-116, and from 105-126. The first may be taken as just within thelimits of possibility; the second as beyond them; but Quadratus talks ina wholesale fashion, which quite destroys his credibility, and we canlay but little stress on the carefulness or trustworthiness of ahistorian who speaks in such reckless words. Added to this, we find notrace of this passage until Eusebius writes it in the fourth century, and it is well known that Eusebius was not too particular in hisquotations, thinking that his duty was only to make out the best case hecould. He frankly says: "We are totally unable to find even the barevestiges of those who may have travelled the way before us; unless, perhaps, what is only presented in the slight intimations, which some indifferent ways have transmitted to us in certain partial narratives ofthe times in which they lived. .. . _Whatsoever_, therefore, _we deemlikely to be advantageous to_ the proposed subject we shall endeavour toreduce to a compact body" ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk. I. , chap. I). Accordingly, he produces a full Church History out of materials whichare only "slight intimations, " and carefully draws out in detail a pathof which not "even the bare vestiges" are left. Little wonder that hehad to rely so much upon his imagination, when he had to build a church, and had no straws for his bricks. 

Paley brings Justin Martyr (born about A. D. 103, died about A. D. 167) ashis last authority--as after his time the story may be taken asestablished--and says: "From Justin's works, which are still extant, might be collected a tolerably complete account of Christ's life, in allpoints agreeing with that which is delivered in our Scriptures; taken, indeed, in a great measure, from those Scriptures, but still provingthat this account, and no other, was the account known and extant inthat age" ("Evidences, " p. 77). If "no other" account was extant, Justinmust have largely drawn on his own imagination when he pretends to bequoting. Jesus, according to Justin, is conceived "of the Word"("Apol. , " i. 33), not of the Holy Ghost, the third person, the HolyGhost being said to be identical with the Word; and he is thus conceivedby himself. He is born, not in Bethlehem in a stable, but in a "cavenear the village, " because Joseph could find no lodging in Bethlehem("Dial. " 78). The magi come, not from "the East, " but from Arabia("Dial. " 77). Jesus works as a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes("Dial. " 88). The story of the baptism is very different ("Dial. " 88). In the trial Jesus is set on the judgment seat, and tauntingly bidden tojudge his accusers ("Apol. , " i. 35). All the apostles deny him, andforsake him, after he is crucified ("Apol. , " i. 50). These instancesmight be increased, and, as we shall see later, Justin manifestly quotesfrom accounts other than the canonical gospels. Yet Paley pretends that"no other" account was extant, and that in the very face of Luke i. 1, which declares that "many have taken in hand" the writing of suchhistories. If Paley had simply said that the story of a miracle-worker, named the Anointed Saviour, who was born of a virgin, was crucified, rose and ascended into heaven, was told with many variations among theChristians. From about 100 years after his supposed birth, he would havespoken truly; and had he added to this, that the very same story wastold among Egyptians and Hindoos, many hundreds of years earlier, hewould have treated his readers honestly, although he might not therebyhave increased their belief in the "divine origin of Christianity. "

Before we pass on to the last evidences offered by Paley, whichnecessitate a closer investigation into the value of the testimony borneby the patristic, to the canonical, writings, it will be well to putbroadly the fact, that these Fathers are simply worthless as witnessesto any matter of fact, owing to the absurd and incredible stories whichthey relate with the most perfect faith. Of critical faculty they havenone; the most childish nonsense is accepted by them, with the gravestface; no story is too silly, no falsehood too glaring, for them tobelieve and to retail, in fullest confidence of its truth. Grossignorance is one of their characteristics; they are superstitious, credulous, illiterate, to an almost incredible extent. Clement considersthat "the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a futureresurrection" by the following "fact, " among others: "Let us considerthat wonderful sign which takes place in Eastern lands--that is, inArabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which iscalled a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives 500 years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, itbuilds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, intowhich, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But, as the fleshdecays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished bythe juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it hasacquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of itsparent, and, bearing these, it passes from the land of Arabia intoEgypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And in open day, flying in thesight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and, havingdone this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspectthe registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the500th year was completed" (1st Epistle of Clement, chap. Xxv. ). Surelythe evidence here should satisfy Paley as to the truth of this story:"the open day, " "flying in the sight of all men, " the priests inspectingthe registers, and all this vouched for by Clement himself! How reliablemust be the testimony of the apostolic Clement! Tertullian, theApostolic Constitutions, and Cyril of Jerusalem mention the same tale. We have already drawn attention to that which _was seen by_ the writersof the circular letter of the Church of Smyrna. Barnabas loses himselfin a maze of allegorical meanings, and gives us some delightfulinstruction in natural history; he is dealing with the directions ofMoses as to clean and unclean animals: "'Thou shalt not, ' he says, 'eatthe hare. ' Wherefore? 'Thou shalt not be a corrupter of boys, nor likeunto such. ' Because the hare multiplies, year by year, the places of itsconception; for as many years as it lives, so many _foramina_ it has. Moreover, 'Thou shalt not eat the hyaena. '. .. Wherefore? Because thatanimal annually changes its sex, and is at one time male, and at anotherfemale. Moreover, he has rightly detested the weasel . .. For this animalconceives by the mouth. .. . Behold how well Moses legislated" (Epistle ofBarnabas, chapter x. ). "'And Abraham circumcised ten and eight and threehundred men of his household. ' What, then, was the knowledge given tohim in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. Theten and the eight are thus denoted--Ten by I, and Eight by H. You haveJesus. And because the cross was to express the grace by the letter T, he says also Three Hundred. He signifies, therefore, Jesus by twoletters, and the cross by one. .. . No one has been admitted by me to amore excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye areworthy" (Ibid, chapter ix. ). And this is Paley's companion of theApostles! Ignatius tells us of the "star of Bethlehem. " "A star shoneforth in heaven above all other stars, and the light of which wasinexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And allthe rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to thisstar" (Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. Xix. ). Why should we acceptIgnatius' testimony to the star, and reject his testimony to the sun andmoon and stars singing to it? Or take Origen against Celsus: "I havethis further to say to the Greeks, who will not believe that our Saviourwas born of a virgin: that the Creator of the world, if he pleases, canmake every animal bring forth its young in the same wonderful manner. As, for instance, the _vultures propagate their kind in this uncommonway, _ as the best writers of natural history do acquaint us" (chap, xxxiii. , as quoted in "Diegesis, " p. 319). Or shall we turn to Irenæus, so invaluable a witness, since he knew Polycarp, who knew John, who knewJesus? Listen, then, to the reminiscences of John, as reported byIrenæus: "John related the words of the Lord concerning the times of thekingdom of God: the days would come when vines would grow, each with10, 000 shoots, and to each shoot 10, 000 branches, and to each branch10, 000 twigs, and to each twig 10, 000 clusters, and to each cluster10, 000 grapes, and each grape which is crushed will yield twenty-fivemeasures of wine. And when one of the saints will reach after one ofthese clusters, another will cry: 'I am a better cluster than it; takeme, and praise the Lord because of me. ' Likewise, a grain of wheat willproduce 10, 000 ears, each ear 10, 000 grains, each grain ten pounds offine white flour. Other fruits, and seeds, and herbs in proportion. Thewhole brute creation, feeding on such things as the earth brings forth, will become sociable and peaceable together, and subject to man with allhumility" ("Iren. Haer. , " v. , 33, 3-4, as quoted in Keim's "Jesus ofNazara, " p. 45). What trust can be placed in the truth of facts to whichthese men pretend to bear witness when we find St. Augustine preachingthat "he himself, being at that time Bishop of Hippo Regius, hadpreached the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to a wholenation of men and women that had no heads, but had their eyes in theirbosoms; and in countries still more southerly he preached to a nationamong whom each individual had but one eye, and that situate in themiddle of the forehead" ("Syntagma, " p. 33, as quoted in "Diegesis, " p. 257). 

Eusebius tells us of a man, named Sanctus, who was tortured until hisbody "was one continued wound, mangled and shrivelled, that had entirelylost the form of man;" and, when the tormentors began again on the sameday, he "recovered the former shape and habit of his limbs" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. V. , chap. I. ). He then was sent to the amphitheatre, passingdown the lane of scourgers, was dragged about and lacerated by the wildbeast, roasted in an iron chair, and after this was "at lastdispatched!" Other accounts, such as that of a man scourged till hisbones were "bared of the flesh, " and then slowly tortured, are given ashistory, as though a man in that condition would not speedily bleed todeath. But it is useless to give more of these foolish stories, whichweary us as we toil through the writings of the early Church. Well mayMosheim say that the "Apostolic Fathers, and the other writers, who, inthe infancy of the Church, employed their pens in the cause ofChristianity, were neither remarkable for their learning nor theireloquence" ("Eccles. Hist, " p. 32). Thoroughly unreliable as they are, they are useless as witnesses of supposed miraculous events; and, inrelating ordinary occurrences, they should not be depended upon in anymatter of importance, unless they be corroborated by more trustworthyhistorians. 

The last point Paley urges in support of his proposition is, that theaccounts contained in "the historical Books of the New Testament" are"deserving of credit as histories, " and that such is "the situation ofthe authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed that, if any one ofthe four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose. " This brings us, indeed, to the crucial point of our investigation, for, as we can gainso little information from external sources, we are perforce driven tothe Christian writings themselves. If they break down under criticism ascompletely as the external evidences have done, then Christianitybecomes hopelessly discredited as to its historical basis, and mustsimply take rank with the other mythologies of the world. But before wecan accept the writings as historical, we are bound to investigate theirauthenticity and credibility. Does the external evidence suffice toprove their authenticity? Do the contents of the books themselvescommend them as credible to our intelligence? It is possible that, although the historical evidence authenticating them be somewhatdefective, yet the thorough coherency and reasonableness of the booksmay induce us to consider them as reliable; or, if the latter points belacking from the supernatural character of the occurrences related, yetthe evidence of authenticity may be so overwhelming as to place theaccuracy of the accounts beyond cavil. But if external evidence bewanting, and internal evidence be fatal to the truthfulness of thewritings, then it will become our duty to remove them from the temple ofhistory, and to place them in the fairy gardens of fancy and of myth, where they may amuse and instruct the student, without misleading him asto questions of fact. 

The positions which we here lay down are:--

_a_. That forgeries bearing the names of Christ, and of the apostles, and of the early Fathers, were very common in the primitive Church. 

_b_. That there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from theapocryphal writings. 

_c_. That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writingswere selected. 

_d_. That before about A. D. 180 there is no trace of _four_ Gospelsamong the Christians. 

_e_. That before that date Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are notselected as the four evangelists. 

_f_. That there is no evidence that the four Gospels mentioned aboutthat date were the same as those we have now. 

_g_. That there is evidence that two of them were not the same. 

_h_. That there is evidence that the earlier records were not theGospels now esteemed canonical. 

_i_. That the books themselves show marks of their later origin. 

_j_. That the language in which they are written is presumptive evidenceagainst their authenticity. 

_k_. That they are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit, from (1)the miracles with which they abound, (2) the numerous contradictions ofeach by the others, (3) the fact that the story of the hero, thedoctrines, the miracles, were current long before the supposed dates ofthe Gospels; so that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed ofolder materials. 

Paley begins his argument by supposing that the first and fourth Gospelswere written by the apostles Matthew and John, "from personal knowledgeand recollection" ("Evidences, " p. 87), and that they must therefore beeither true, or wilfully false; the latter being most improbable, asthey would then be "villains for no end but to teach honesty, andmartyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage" (Ibid, page88). But supposing that Matthew and John wrote some Gospels, we shouldneed proof that the Gospels which we have, supposing them to be copiesof those thus written, have not been much altered since they left theapostles' hands. We should next ask how Matthew can report from"personal knowledge and recollection" all that comes in his Gospel_before he was called from his tax-gathering_, as well as many incidentsat which he was not present? and whether his reliability as a witness isnot terribly weakened by his making no distinction between what was factwithin his own knowledge, and what was simple hearsay? Further, weremark that some of the teaching is the reverse of teaching "honesty, "and that such instruction as Matt. V. 39-42 would, if accepted, exactlysuit "villains;" that the extreme glorification of the master wouldnaturally be reflected upon "the twelve" who followed him, and theauthority of the writers would thereby be much increased and confirmed;that pure moral teaching on some points is no guarantee of the moralityof the teacher, for a tyrant, or an ambitious priest, would naturallywish to discourage crime of some kinds in those he desired to rule; thatsuch tyrant or priest could find no better creed to serve his purposethan meek, submissive, non-resisting, heaven-seeking Christianity. Thuswe find Mosheim saying of Constantine: "It is, indeed, probable thatthis prince perceived the admirable tendency of the Christian doctrineand precepts to promote the stability of government, by preserving thecitizens in their obedience to the reigning powers, and in the practiceof those virtues that render a State happy" ("Eccles. Hist, " p. 87). Wediscover Charlemagne enforcing Christianity among the Saxons by swordand fire, hoping that it would, among other things, "induce them tosubmit more tamely to the government of the Franks" (Ibid, p. 170). Andwe see missionaries among the savages usurping "a despotic dominion overtheir obsequious proselytes" (Ibid, p. 157); and "St. Boniface, " the"apostle of Germany, " often employing "violence and terror, andsometimes artifice and fraud, in order to multiply the number ofChristians" (Ibid, p. 169). Thus do "villains" very often "teachhonesty. " Nor is it true that these apostles were "martyrs [theirmartyrdom being unproved] without the least prospect of honour oradvantage;" on the contrary, they desired to know what they would get byfollowing Jesus. "_What shall we have_, therefore?. .. Ye which havefollowed me shall sit upon twelve thrones" (Matt. Xix. 27-30); and, further, in Mark ix. 28-31, we are told that any one who forsakesanything for Jesus shall receive "an hundredfold _now in this time, "_ aswell as eternal life in the world to come. Surely, then, there was"prospect" enough of "honour and advantage"? These remarks apply quiteas strongly to Mark and Luke, neither of whom are pretended to beeye-witnesses. Of Mark we know nothing, except that it is said thatthere was a man named John, whose surname was Mark (Acts xii. 12 and25), who ran away from his work (Acts xv. 38); and a man named Marcus, nephew of Barnabas (Col. Iv. 10), who may, or may not, be the same, butis probably somebody else, as he is with Paul; and one of the same nameis spoken of (2 Tim. Ii. ) as "profitable for the ministry, " which JohnMark was not, and who (Philemon 24) was a "fellow-labourer" with Paul inRome, while John Mark was rejected in this capacity by Paul at Antioch. Why Mark, or John Mark, should write a Gospel, he not having been aneye-witness, or why Mark, or John Mark, should be identical with Markthe Evangelist, only writers of Christian evidences can hope tounderstand. 

A. _That forgeries, bearing the names of Christ, of the apostles, and ofthe early Fathers, were very common in the primitive Church_. 

"The opinions, or rather the conjectures, of the learned concerning thetime when the books of the New Testament were collected into one volume, as also about the authors of that collection, are extremely different. This important question is attended with great and almost insuperabledifficulties to us in these latter times" (Mosheim's "Eccles. Hist. , " p. 31). These difficulties arise, to a great extent, from the large numberof forgeries, purporting to be writings of Christ, of the apostles, andof the apostolic Fathers, current in the early Church. "For, not longafter Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life anddoctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed bypersons whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writingsdiscovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all;productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulentmen, as the writings of the holy apostles" (Ibid, p. 31). "Anothererroneous practice was adopted by them, which, though it was not souniversal as the other, was yet extremely pernicious, and proved asource of numberless evils to the Christian Church. The Platonists andPythagoreans held it as a maxim, that it was not only lawful, but evenpraiseworthy, to deceive, and even to use the expedient of a lie, inorder to advance the cause of truth and piety. The Jews, who lived inEgypt, had learned and received this maxim from them, before the comingof Christ, as appears incontestably from a multitude of ancient records;and the Christians were infected from both these sources with the samepernicious error, as appears from the number of books attributed falselyto great and venerable names, from the Sibylline verses, and severalsuppositious productions which were spread abroad in this and thefollowing century. It does not, indeed, seem probable that all thesepious frauds were chargeable upon the professors of real Christianity, upon those who entertained just and rational sentiments of the religionof Jesus. The greatest part of these fictitious writings undoubtedlyflowed from the fertile invention of the Gnostic sects, though it cannotbe affirmed that even true Christians were entirely innocent andirreproachable in this matter" (Ibid, p. 55). "This disingenuous andvicious method of surprising their adversaries by artifice, and strikingthem down, as it were, by lies and fiction, produced, among otherdisagreeable effects, a great number of books, which were falselyattributed to certain great men, in order to give these spuriousproductions more credit and weight" (Ibid, page 77). These forgedwritings being so widely circulated, it will be readily understood that"It is not so easy a matter as is commonly imagined rightly to settlethe Canon of the New Testament. For my own part, I declare, with manylearned men, that, in the whole compass of learning, I know no questioninvolved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties than this. There are, indeed, considerable difficulties relating to the Canon ofthe Old Testament, as appears by the large controversies between theProtestants and Papists on this head in the last, and latter end of thepreceding, century; but these are solved with much more ease than thoseof the New. .. . In settling the old Testament collection, all that isrequisite is to disprove the claim of a few obscure books, which havebut the weakest pretences to be looked upon as Scripture; but, in theNew, we have not only a few to disprove, but a vast number to exclude[from] the Canon, which seem to have much more right to admission thanany of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament; and, besides, toevidence the genuineness of all those which we do receive, since, according to the sentiments of some who would be thought learned, thereare none of them whose authority has not been controverted in theearliest ages of Christianity. .. . The number of books that claimadmission [to the canon] is very considerable. Mr. Toland, in hiscelebrated catalogue, has presented us with the names of aboveeighty. .. . There are many more of the same sort which he has notmentioned" (J. Jones on "The Canon of the New Testament, " vol. I. , pp. 2-4. Ed. 1788). 

The following list will give some idea of the number of the apocryphalwritings from which the four Gospels, and other books of the NewTestament, finally emerge as canonical:--

GOSPELS. 

1. Gospel according to the Hebrews. 2. Gospel written by Judas Iscariot. 3. Gospel of Truth, made use of by the Valentinians. 4. Gospel of Peter. 5. Gospel according to the Egyptians. 6. Gospel of Valentinus. 7. Gospel of Marcion. 8. Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles. 9. Gospel of Basilides. 10. Gospel of Thomas (extant). 11. Gospel of Matthias. 12. Gospel of Tatian. 13. Gospel of Scythianus. 14. Gospel of Bartholomew. 15. Gospel of Apelles. 16. Gospels published by Lucianus and Hesychius17. Gospel of Perfection. 18. Gospel of Eve. 19. Gospel of Philip. 20. Gospel of the Nazarenes (qy. Same as first)21. Gospel of the Ebionites. 22. Gospel of Jude. 23. Gospel of Encratites. 24. Gospel of Cerinthus. 25. Gospel of Merinthus. 26. Gospel of Thaddaeus. 27. Gospel of Barnabas. 28. Gospel of Andrew. 29. Gospel of the Infancy (extant). 30. Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate and Descent of Christ to the Under World (extant). 31. Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (extant). 32. Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (extant). 33. Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (extant). 34. Syriac Gospel of the Boyhood of our Lord Jesus (extant). 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

35. Letter to Agbarus by Christ (extant). 36. Letter to Leopas by Christ (extant). 37. Epistle to Peter and Paul by Christ. 38. Epistle by Christ produced by Manichees. 39. Hymn by Christ (extant). 40. Magical Book by Christ. 41. Prayer by Christ (extant). 42. Preaching of Peter. 43. Revelation of Peter. 44. Doctrine of Peter. 45. Acts of Peter. 46. Book of Judgment by Peter. 47. Book, under the name of Peter, forged by Lentius. 48. Preaching of Peter and Paul at Rome. 49. The Vision, or Acts of Paul and Thecla. 50. Acts of Paul. 51. Preaching of Paul. 52. Piece under name of Paul, forged by an "anonymous writer in Cyprian's time. "53. Epistle to the Laodiceans under name of Paul (extant). 54. Six letters to Seneca under name of Paul (extant). 55. Anabaticon or Revelation of Paul. 56. The traditions of Matthias. 57. Book of James. 58. Book, under name of James, forged by Ebionites. 59. Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas. 60. Acts of John. 61. Book, under name of John, forged by Ebionites. 62. Book under name of John. 63. Book, under name of John, forged by Lentius. 64. Acts of Andrew. 65. Book under name of Andrew. 66. Book, under name of Andrew, by Naxochristes and Leonides. 67. Book under name of Thomas. 68. Acts of Thomas. 69. Revelation of Thomas. 70. Writings of Bartholomew. 71. Book, under name of Matthew, forged by Ebionites. 72. Acts of the Apostles by Leuthon, or Seleucus. 73. Acts of the Apostles used by Ebionites. 74. Acts of the Apostles by Lenticius. 75. Acts of the Apostles used by Manichees. 76. History of the Twelve Apostles by Abdias (extant). 77. Creed of the Apostles (extant). 78. Constitutions of the Apostles (extant). 79. Acts, under Apostles' names, by Leontius. 80. Acts, under Apostles' names, by Lenticius. 81. Catholic Epistle, in imitation of the Apostles of Themis, on the Montanists. 82. Revelation of Cerinthus, nominally apostolical. 83. Book of the Helkesaites which fell from Heaven. 84. Books of Lentitius. 85. Revelation of Stephen. 86. Works of Dionysius the Areopagite (extant). 87. History of Joseph the carpenter (extant). 88. Letter of Agbarus to Jesus (extant). 89. Letter of Lentulus (extant). 90. Story of Veronica (extant). 91. Letter of Pilate to Tiberius (extant). 92. Letters of Pilate to Herod (extant). 93. Epistle of Pilate to Cæsar (extant). 94. Report of Pilate the Governor (extant). 95. Trial and condemnation of Pilate (extant). 96. Death of Pilate (extant). 97. Story of Joseph of Arimathraea (extant). 98. Revenging of the Saviour (extant). 99. Epistle of Barnabas. 100. Epistle of Polycarp. 101-15. Fifteen epistles of Ignatius (see above, pages 217-220. )116. Shepherd of Hermas. 117. First Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement (possibly partly authentic). 118. Second Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement. 119. Apostolic Canons of Clement. 120. Recognitions of Clement and Clementina. 121-122. Two Epistles of St. Clement of Rome (written in Syriac). 123-128. Six books of Justin Martyr. 129-132. Four books of Justin Martyr. 

The above are collected from Jones' On the Canon, Supernatural Religion, Eusebius, Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels, Dr. Giles' Christian Records, and the Apostolic Fathers. 

After reading this list, the student will be able to appreciate thevalue of Paley's argument, that, "if it had been an easy thing in theearly times of the institution to have forged Christian writings, and tohave obtained currency and reception to the forgeries, we should havehad many appearing in the name of Christ himself" ("Evidences, " p. 106). Paley acknowledges "one attempt of this sort, deserving of the smallestnotice;" and, in a note, adds three more of those mentioned above. Letus see what the evidence is of the genuineness of the letter to Agbarus, the "one attempt" in question, as given by Eusebius. Agbarus, the princeof Edessa, reigning "over the nations beyond the Euphrates with greatglory, " was afflicted with an incurable disease, and, hearing of Jesus, sent to him to entreat deliverance. The letter of Agbarus is carried toJesus, "at Jerusalem, by Ananias, the courier, " and the answer of Jesus, also written, is returned by the same hands. The letter of Jesus runs asfollows, and is written in Syriac: "Blessed art thou, O Agbarus, who, without seeing me, hast believed in me! For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe, that they who have not seenme may believe and live. But in regard to what thou hast written, that Ishould come to thee, it is necessary that I should fulfil all thingshere, for which I have been sent. And, after this fulfilment, thus to bereceived again by Him that sent me. And after I have been received up, Iwill send to thee a certain one of my disciples, that he may heal thyaffliction, and give life to thee, and to those who are with thee. "After the ascension of Jesus, Thaddaeus, one of the seventy, is sent toEdessa, and lodges in the house of Tobias, the son of Tobias, and healsAgbarus and many others. "These things were done in the 340th year"(Eusebius does not state what he reckons from). The proof given byEusebius for the truth of the account is as follows: "Of this also wehave the evidence, in a written answer, taken from the public records ofthe city of Edessa, then under the government of the king. For, in thepublic registers there, which embrace the ancient history and thetransactions of Agbarus, these circumstances respecting him are foundstill preserved down to the present day. There is nothing, however, likehearing the epistles themselves, taken by us from the archives, and thestyle of it, as it has been literally translated by us, from the Syriaclanguage" ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk. I. , chap. Xiii. ). And Paley calls thisan attempt at forgery, "deserving of the smallest notice, " and dismissesit in a few lines. It would be interesting to know for what other"Scripture, " canonical or uncanonical, there is evidence of authenticityso strong as for this; exactness of detail in names; absence of anyexaggeration more than is implied in recounting any miracle; thetransaction recorded in the public archives; seen there by Eusebiushimself; copied down and translated by him; such evidence for any one ofthe Gospels would make belief far easier than it is at present. Theassertion of Eusebius was easily verifiable at the time (to use thefavourite argument of Christians for the truth of any account); and ifEusebius here wrote falsely, of what value is his evidence on any otherpoint? A Freethinker may fairly urge that Eusebius is _not_ trustworthy, and that this assertion of his about the archives is as likely to befalse as true; but the Christian can scarcely admit this, when so muchdepends, for him, on the reliability of the great Church historian, allwhose evidence would become worthless if he be once allowed to havedeliberately fabricated that which did not exist. 

We have already noticed the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, andpointed out the numerous forgeries circulated under their names, and theconsequent haze hanging over all the early Christian writers, until wereach the time of Justin Martyr. Thus we entirely destroy the wholebasis of Paley's argument, that "the historical books of the NewTestament . .. Are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of Christianwriters, beginning with those who were contemporary with the Apostles, or who immediately followed them" ("Evidences, " page 111;) for we haveno certain writings of any such contemporaries. In dealing with thepositions _f_. And _h_. , we shall seek to prove that in the writings ofthe Apostolic Fathers--taking them as genuine--as well as in JustinMartyr, and in other Christian works up to about A. D. 180, thequotations said to be from the canonical Gospels conclusively show thatother Gospels were used, and not our present ones; but no furtherevidence than the long list of apocryphal writings, given on pp. 240-243is needed in order to prove our first proposition, that _forgeries, bearing the name of Christ, of the apostles, and of the early fathers, were very common in the primitive Church_. 

B. "_That there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from theapocryphal writings_. " "Their pretences are specious and plausible, forthe most part going under the name of our Saviour himself, his apostles, their companions, or immediate successors. They are generally thought tobe cited by the first Christian writers with the same authority (atleast, many of them) as the sacred books we receive. This Mr. Tolandlabours hard to persuade us; but, what is more to be regarded, men ofgreater merit and probity have unwarily dropped expressions of the likenature. _Everybody knows_ (says the learned Casaubon against CardinalBaronius) _that Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and therest of the primitive writers, were wont to approve and cite books whichnow all men know to be apocryphal. Clemens Alexandrinus_ (says hislearned annotator, Sylburgius) _was too much pleased with apocryphalwritings_. Mr. Dodwell (in his learned dissertation on Irenæus) tells usthat, _till Trajan, or, perhaps, Adrian's time, no canon was fixed; thesupposititious pieces of the heretics were received by the faithful, theapostles' writings bound up with theirs, and indifferently used in thechurches. _ To mention no more, the learned Mr. Spanheim observes, _thatClemens Alexandrinus and Origen very often cite apocryphal books underthe express name of Scripture_. .. . How much Mr. Whiston has enlarged theCanon of the New Testament, is sufficiently known to the learned amongus. For the sake of those who have not perused his truly valuable booksI would observe, that he imagines the 'Constitutions of the Apostles' tobe inspired, and of greater authority than the occasional writings ofsingle Apostles and Evangelists. That the two Epistles of Clemens, theDoctrine of the Apostles, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd ofHermas, the second book of Esdras, the Epistles of Ignatius, and theEpistle of Polycarp, are to be reckoned among the sacred authentic booksof the New Testament; as also that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation, Preaching, Gospel and Acts of Peter, were sacred books, and, if theywere extant, should be of the same authority as any of the rest" (J. Jones, on the "Canon, " p. 4-6). This same learned writer further says:"That many, or most of the books of the New Testament, have beenrejected by heretics in the first ages, is also certain. FaustusManichæus and his followers are said to have rejected all the NewTestament, as not written by the Apostles. Marcion rejected all, exceptSt. Luke's Gospel. The Manichees disputed much against the authority ofSt. Matthew's Gospel. The Alogians rejected the Gospel of St. John asnot his, but made by Cerinthus. The Acts of the Apostles were rejectedby Severus, and the sect of his name. The same rejected all Paul'sEpistles, as also did the Ebionites, and the Helkesaites. Others, whodid not reject all, rejected some particular epistles. .. . Several of thebooks of the New Testament were not universally received, even amongthem who were not heretics, in the first ages. .. . Several of them havehad their authority disputed by learned men in later times" (Ibid, pp. 8, 9). 

If recognition by the early writers be taken as a proof of theauthenticity of the works quoted, many apocryphal documents must standhigh. Eusebius, who ranks together the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd ofHermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, theInstitutions of the Apostles, and the Revelation of John (now accountedcanonical) says that these were not embodied in the Canon (in his time)"notwithstanding that they are recognised by most ecclesiasticalwriters" ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk. Iii. , chap. Xxv. ). The Canon, in histime, was almost the same as at present, but the canonicity of theepistles of James and Jude, the 2nd of Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of John, and the Revelation, was disputed even as late as when he wrote. Irenæusranks the Pastor of Hermas as Scripture; "he not only knew, but alsoadmitted the book called Pastor" (Ibid, bk. V. , chap. Viii. ). "ThePastor of Hermas is another work which very nearly secured permanentcanonical rank with the writings of the New Testament. It was quoted asHoly Scripture by the Fathers, and held to be divinely inspired, and itwas publicly read in the churches. It has place with the Epistle ofBarnabas in the Sinaitic Codex, after the canonical books"("Supernatural Religion, " vol. I. , p. 261). 

The two Epistles of Clement are only "preserved to us in the CodexAlexandrinus, a MS. Assigned by the most competent judges to the secondhalf of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, in which theseEpistles follow the books of the New Testament. The second Epistle . .. Thus shares with the first the honour of a canonical position in one ofthe most ancient codices of the New Testament" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 220). These epistles are, also, amongst those mentioned in the ApostolicCanons. "Until a comparatively late date this [the first of Clement]Epistle was quoted as Holy Scripture" (Ibid, p. 222). Origen quotes theEpistle of Barnabas as Scripture, and calls it a "Catholic Epistle"(Ibid, p. 237), and this same Father regards the Shepherd of Hermas asalso divinely inspired. (Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels, " vol. I. , p. 341). Gospels, other than the four canonical, are quoted as authenticby the earliest Christian writers, as we shall see in establishingposition _h_; thus destroying Paley's contention ("Evidences, " p. 187)that there are no quotations from apocryphal writings in the ApostolicalFathers, the fact being that such quotations are sown throughout theirsupposed writings. 

It is often urged that the expression, "it is written, " is enough toprove that the quotation following it is of canonical authority. 

"Now with regard to the value of the expression, 'it is written, ' it maybe remarked that in no case could its use, in the Epistle of Barnabas, indicate more than individual opinion, and it could not, for reasons tobe presently given, be considered to represent the opinion of theChurch. In the very same chapter in which the formula is used inconnection with the passage we are considering, it is also employed tointroduce a quotation from the Book of Enoch, [Greek: peri hou gegraptaihos Henoch legei], and elsewhere (c. Xii. ) he quotes from anotherapocryphal book as one of the prophets. .. . He also quotes (c. Vi. ) theapocryphal book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture, and in like manner severalunknown works. When it is remembered that the Epistle of Clement to theCorinthians, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas itself, andmany other apocryphal works have been quoted by the Fathers as HolyScripture, the distinctive value of such an expression may beunderstood" (Ibid, pp. 242, 243). "The first Christian writers . .. Quoteecclesiastical books from time to time as if they were canonical"(Westcott on "The Canon, " p. 9). "In regard to the use of the word[Greek: gegraptai], introducing the quotation, the same writer[Hilgenfeld] urges reasonably enough that it cannot surprise us at atime when we learn from Justin Martyr that the Gospels were readregularly at public worship [or rather, that the memorials of theApostles were so read]; it ought not, however, to be pressed too far asinvolving a claim to special divine inspiration, as the same word isused in the epistle in regard to the apocryphal book of Enoch; and it isclear, also, from Justin, that the Canon of the Gospels was not yetformed, but only forming" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " Rev. W. Sanday, p. 73. Ed. 1876). Yet, in spite of all this, Paley says, "Thephrase, 'it is written, ' was the very form in which the Jews quotedtheir Scriptures. It is not probable, therefore, that he would have usedthis phrase, and without qualification, of any books but what hadacquired a kind of Scriptural authority" ("Evidences, " p. 113). Tischendorf argues on Paley's lines and says that "it was natural, therefore, to apply this form of expression to the Apostles' writings, as soon as they had been placed in the Canon with the books of the OldTestament. When we find, therefore, in ancient ecclesiastical writings, quotations from the Gospels introduced with this formula, 'it iswritten, ' we must infer that, at the time when the expression was used, the Gospels were certainly treated as of equal authority with the booksof the Old Testament" ("When Were Our Gospels Written?" p. 89. Eng. Ed. , 1867). Dr. Tischendorf, if he believe in his own argument, must greatlyenlarge his Canon of the New Testament. 

Paley's further plea that "these apocryphal writings were not read inthe churches of Christians" ("Evidences, " p. 187) is thoroughly false. Eusebius tells us of the Pastor of Hermas: "We know that it has beenalready in public use in our churches" ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk. Iii. , ch. 3). Clement's Epistle "was publicly read in the churches at the Sundaymeetings of Christians" ("Sup. Rel, " vol. I. , p. 222). Dionysius ofCorinth mentions this same early habit of reading any valued writing inthe churches: "In this same letter he mentions that of Clement to theCorinthians, showing that it was the practice to read in the churches, even from the earliest times. 'To-day, ' says he, 'we have passed theLord's holy-day, in which we have read your epistle, in reading which weshall always have our minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also, from that written to us before by Clement'" (Eusebius' "Eccles. Hist. , "bk. Iv. , ch. 23). So far is "reading in the churches" to be accepted asa proof, even of canonicity, much less of genuineness, that Eusebiusremarks that "the disputed writings" were "publicly used by many in mostof the churches" (Ibid, bk. Iii. , ch. 31). Paley then takes as a furthermark of distinction, between canonical and uncanonical, that the latter"were not admitted into their volume" and "do not appear in theircatalogues, " but we have already seen that the only MS. Copy ofClement's first Epistle is in the Codex Alexandrinus (see ante p. 246), while the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas find their placein the Sinaitic Codex (see ante p. 246); the second Epistle of Clementis also in the Codex Alexandrinus, and both epistles are in theApostolic constitutions (see ante p. 247). The Canon ofMuratori--worthless as it is, it is used as evidence byChristians--brackets the Apocalypse of John and of Peter ("Sup. Rel. , "vol. Ii. , p. 241). Canon Westcott says: "'Apocryphal' writings wereadded to manuscripts of the New Testament, and read in churches; and thepractice thus begun continued for a long time. The Epistle of Barnabaswas still read among the 'apocryphal Scriptures' in the time of Jerome;a translation of the Shepherd of Hermas is found in a MS. Of the LatinBible as late as the fifteenth century. The spurious Epistle to theLaodicenes is found very commonly in English copies of the Vulgate fromthe ninth century downwards, and an important catalogue of the Apocryphaof the New Testament is added to the Canon of Scripture subjoined to theChronographia of Nicephorus, published in the ninth century" ("On theCanon, " pp. 8, 9). Paley's fifth distinction, that they "were notnoticed by their [heretical] adversaries" is as untrue as the precedingones, for even the fragments of "the adversaries" preserved in Christiandocuments bear traces of reference to the apocryphal writings, although, owing to the orthodox custom of destroying unorthodox books, referencesof any sort by heretics are difficult to find. Again, Paley should haveknown, when he asserted that the uncanonical writings were not allegedas of authority, that the heretics _did_ appeal to gospels other thanthe canonical. Marcion, for instance, maintained a Gospel varying fromthe recognised one, while the Ebionites contended that their HebrewGospel was the only true one. Eusebius further tells us of books"adduced by the heretics under the name of the Apostles, such, viz. , ascompose the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthew, and others besidethem, or such as contain the Acts of the Apostles, by Andrew and John, and others" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Iii. , ch. 25. See also ante p. 246). Itis hard to believe that Paley was so grossly ignorant as to know nothingof these facts; did he then deliberately state what he knew to beutterly untrue? His last "mark" does not touch our position, as thecommentaries, etc. , are too late to be valuable as evidence for thealleged superiority of the canonical writings during the first twocenturies. The other section of Paley's argument, that "when theScriptures [a very vague word] are quoted, or alluded to, they arequoted with peculiar respect, as books _sui generis_" is met by thedetails given above as to the fashion in which the Fathers referred tothe writings now called uncanonical, and by the evidence adduced in thissection we may fairly claim to have proved that, so far as externaltestimony goes, _there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from theapocryphal writings_. 

But there is another class of evidence relied upon by Christians, wherewith they seek to build up an impassable barrier between theirsacred books and the dangerous uncanonical Scriptures, namely, theintrinsic difference between them, the dignity of the one, and thepuerility of the other. Of the uncanonical Gospels Dr. Ellicott writes:"Their real demerits, their mendacities, their absurdities, theircoarseness, the barbarities of their style, and the inconsequence oftheir narratives, have never been excused or condoned" ("CambridgeEssays, " for 1856, p. 153, as quoted in introduction of "The ApocryphalGospels, " by B. H. Cowper, p. X. Ed. 1867). "We know before we read themthat they are weak, silly, and profitless--that they are despicablemonuments even of religious fiction" (Ibid, p. Xlvii). How far are suchharsh expressions consonant with fact? It is true that many of the talesrelated are absurd, but are they more absurd than the tales related inthe canonical Gospels? One story, repeated with variations, runs asfollows: "This child Jesus, being five years old, was playing at thecrossing of a stream, and he collected the running waters into pools, and immediately made them pure, and by his word alone he commanded them. And having made some soft clay, he fashioned out of it twelve sparrows;and it was the Sabbath when he did these things. And there were alsomany other children playing with him. And a certain Jew, seeing whatJesus did, playing on the Sabbath, went immediately and said to Joseph, his father, Behold, thy child is at the water-course, and hath takenclay and formed twelve birds, and hath profaned the Sabbath. And Josephcame to the place, and when he saw him, he cried unto him, saying, Whyart thou doing these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful todo? And Jesus clapped his hands, and cried unto the sparrows, and saidto them, Go away; and the sparrows flew up and departed, making a noise. And the Jews who saw it were astonished, and went and told their leaderswhat they had seen Jesus do" ("Gospel of Thomas: Apocryphal Gospels, "B. H. Cowper, pp. 130, 131). Making the water pure by a word is no moreabsurd than turning water into wine (John ii. 1-11); or than sending anangel to trouble it, and thereby making it health-giving (John v. 2-4);or than casting a tree into bitter waters, and making them sweet (Ex. Xv. 25). The fashioning of twelve sparrows out of soft clay is notstranger than making a woman out of a man's rib (Gen. Ii. 21); neitheris it more, or nearly so, curious as making clay with spittle, andplastering it on a blind man's eyes in order to make him see (John ix. 6); nay, arguing _à la_ F. D. Maurice, a very strong reason might be madeout for this proceeding. Thus, Jesus came to reveal the Father to men, and his miracles were specially arranged to show how God works in theworld; by turning the water into wine, and by multiplying the loaves, hereminds men that it is God whose hand feeds them by all the ordinaryprocesses of nature. In this instructive miracle of the clay formed intosparrows, which fly away at his bidding, Jesus reveals his unity withthe Father, as the Word by whom all things were originally made; for"out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field andevery fowl of the air" (Gen. Ii. 19) at the creation, and when the Sonwas revealed to bring about the new creation, what more appropriatemiracle could he perform than this reminiscence of paradise, clearlysuggesting to the Jews that the Jehovah, who, of old, formed the fowlsof the air out of the ground, was present among them in the incarnateWord, performing the same mighty work? Exactly in this fashion doMaurice, Robertson, and others of their school, deal with the miraclesof Christ recorded in the canonical gospels (see Maurice on theMiracles, Sermon IV. , in "What is Revelation?"). The number, twelve, isalso significant, being that of the tribes of Israel, and the localcolouring--the complaining Jews and the violated Sabbath--is in perfectharmony with the other gospels. The action of Jesus, vindicating theconduct complained of by the performance of a miracle, is in the fullestaccord with similar instances related in the received stories. It is, however, urged that some of the miracles of Jesus, as given in theapocrypha, are dishonouring to him, because of their destructivecharacter; the son of Annas, the scribe, spills the water the childJesus has collected, and Jesus gets angry and says, "Thou also shaltwither like a tree;" and "suddenly the boy withered altogether" (Ap. Gos. , p. 131). This seems in thorough unity with the spirit Jesus showedin later life, when he cursed the fig-tree, because it did not bearfruit in the wrong season, and "presently the fig-tree withered away"(Matt. Xxi. 19). Or a child, running against him purposely, falls dead;or a master lifting his hand against him, has the arm withered whichessays to strike. Later, of Judas, who betrays him, we read that, "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowelsgushed out" (Acts i. 18); while, in the Old Testament, which speaks ofChrist, we are told, in figures, we learn that, when Jeroboam tried toseize a prophet, "his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, sothat he could not pull it in again to him" (1 Kings xiii. 4). Ifdestructiveness be thought injurious when related of Jesus, what shallwe say to the wanton destruction of the herd of swine which Jesus filledwith devils, and sent racing into the sea? (Matt. Viii. 28-34. ) Themiracle the child works to rectify a mistake of his father's in hiscarpenter's business, taking hold of some wood which has been cut tooshort and lengthening it, is certainly not more silly than the miracleworked by the man when money is short, and he (Matt. Xvii. 24-27) sendsPeter to catch a fish with money in its mouth (why not, by the way, havefished directly for the coin? it would be quite as possible for a cointo transfix itself on a hook, as for a fish, with a piece of money inits mouth, to swallow a hook). Other miracles recorded in the apocryphalgospels, of healing and of raising the dead, are identical in spiritwith those told of him in the canonical. We may also remark that, unlessthere were some received traditions of miracles worked by Jesus in hishousehold, there is no reason for the evident expectation of some helpwhich is said to have been shown by Mary when the guests want wine atthe wedding (John ii. 3-5). That verse 11 states that this was his firstmiracle is only one of the many inconsistencies of the gospel stories. Passing from these gospels of the infancy to those which tell of thesufferings of Jesus, we shall find in the "Gospel of Nicodemus, or Actsof Pilate, " much that shows their full accordance with the receivedwritings of the New Testament. This point is so important, as equalisingthe canonical and uncanonical gospels, that no excuse is needed forproving it by somewhat extensive extracts. The gospel opens as follows:"I, Ananias, a provincial warden, being a disciple of the law, from thedivine Scriptures recognised our Lord Jesus Christ, and came to him byfaith; and was also accounted worthy of holy baptism. Now, whensearching the records of what was wrought in the time of our Lord JesusChrist, which the Jews laid up under Pontius Pilate, I found that theseActs were written in Hebrew, and by the good pleasure of God Itranslated them into Greek for the information of all who call on thename of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the government of our Lord FlaviusTheodosius, the 17th year, and in the 6th consulate of FlaviusValentinianus, in the 9th indiction. " It may here be noted for what itis worth that Justin Martyr (1st Apology, chap, xxxv. ) refers the Romansto the Acts of Pilate as public documents open to them, which istestimony far stronger than he gives to any canonical gospel. "In the15th year of the government of Tiberius Cæsar, King of the Romans, andof Herod, King of Galilee, the 9th year of his reign, on the 8th beforethe calends of April, which is the 25th of March; in the consulship ofRufus and Rubellio; in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, when JosephCaiaphas was high priest of the Jews. Whatsoever, after the cross andpassion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour God, Nicodemus recordedand wrote in Hebrew, and left to posterity, is after this fashion"("Apocryphal Gospels, " B. H. Cowper, pp. 229, 230). In the first chapterwe learn how the Jews came to Pilate, and accuse Jesus, "that he saithhe is the son of God and a king; moreover, he profaneth the Sabbaths, and wisheth to abolish the law of our fathers. " After some conversation, Jesus is brought, and in chap. 2 we read the message from Pilate's wife, and "Pilate, having called the Jews, said to them, Ye know that my wifeis religious, and inclined to practise Judaism with you. They said untohim, Yea, we know it. Pilate saith to them, Behold my wife hath sent tome, saying, Have nothing to do with this just man, for I have sufferedvery much because of him in the night. But the Jews answered, and saidto Pilate, Did we not tell thee that he is a magician? Behold, he hathsent a dream to thy wife. " The trial goes on, and Pilate declares theinnocence of Jesus, and then confers with him as in John xviii. 33-37. Then comes the question (chaps, iii. And iv. ): "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? Jesus saith to him, Truth is from heaven. Pilate saith, Is truth not upon earth? Jesus saith to Pilate, Thou seest how they whosay the truth are judged by those who have power upon earth. And, leaving Jesus within the prætorium, Pilate went out to the Jews, andsaith unto them, I find no fault in him. " The conversation betweenPilate and the Jews is then related more fully than in the canonicalaccounts, and after this follows a scene of much pathos, which is farmore in accord with the rest of the tale than the accepted story, wherein the multitude are represented as crying with one voice for hisdeath. Nicodemus (chap. V. ) first rises and speaks for Jesus: "Releasehim, and wish no evil against him. If the miracles which he doth are ofGod, they will stand; but, if of men, they will come to nought. .. Now, therefore, release this man, for he is not deserving of death. " Then(chaps. Vi. , vii. , and viii. ): "One of the Jews, starting up, asked thegovernor that he might say a word. The governor saith, If thou wiltspeak, speak. And the Jew said, I lay thirty-eight years on my bed inpain and affliction. And when Jesus came, many demoniacs, and personssuffering various diseases, were healed by him; and some young men hadpity on me, and carried me with my bed, and took me to him; and whenJesus saw me, he had compassion, and said the word to me, Take up thybed, and walk; and I took up my bed and walked. The Jews said to Pilate, Ask him what day it was when he was healed. He that was healed said, Onthe Sabbath. The Jews said, Did we not tell thee so? that on the Sabbathhe healeth and casteth out demons? And another Jew, starting up, said, Iwas born blind; I heard a voice, but saw no person; and as Jesus passedby, I cried with a loud voice, Have pity on me, Son of David, and he hadpity on me, and placed his hands upon my eyes, and immediately I saw. And another Jew, leaping up, said, I was a cripple, and he made mestraight with a word. And another said, I was a leper, and he healed mewith a word. And a certain woman cried out from a distance, and said, Ihad an issue of blood, and I touched the hem of his garment, and myissue of blood, which had been for twelve years, was stayed. The Jewssaid, We have a law not to admit a woman to witness. And others, amultitude, both of men and of women, cried and said, This man is aprophet, and demons are subject unto him. Pilate said to those who saidthat demons were subject to him, Why were your teachers not also subjectto him? They say unto Pilate, We know not. And others said, That heraised up Lazarus from the sepulchre, when he had been dead four days. And the governor, becoming afraid, said to all the multitude of theJews, Why will ye shed innocent blood?" The story proceeds much as inthe gospels, the names of the malefactors being given; and when Pilateremarks the three hours' darkness to the Jews, they answer, "An eclipseof the sun has happened in the usual manner" (chap. Xi. ). Chap. Xiii. Gives a full account of the conversation between the Jews and the Romansoldiers alluded to in Matt. Xxviii. 11-15. The remaining chaptersrelate the proceedings of the Jews after the resurrection, and are of nospecial interest. There is a second Gospel of Nicodemus, varying on somepoints from the one quoted above, which assumes to be "compiled by aJew, named Aeneas; translated from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek, byNicodemus, a Roman Toparch. " Then we find a second part of the Gospel ofNicodemus, or "The Descent of Christ to the Under World, " which relateshow Jesus descended into Hades, and how he ordered Satan to be bound, and then he "blessed Adam on the forehead with the sign of the cross;and he did this also to the patriarchs, and the prophets, and martyrs, and forefathers, and took them up, and sprang up out of Hades. " Thisstory manifestly runs side by side with the tradition in 1. Pet. Iii. 19, 20, wherein it is stated that Jesus "went and preached unto thespirits in prison, " and that preaching is placed between his death (v. 18) and his resurrection (v. 21). The saving by baptism (v. 21) is alsoalluded to in this connection in Nicodemus, wherein (chap, xi. ) the deadare baptised. The Latin versions of the Gospels of Nicodemus vary indetails from the Greek, but not more than do the four canonical. Inthese, as in all the apocryphal writings, there is nothing specially todistinguish them from the accepted Scriptures; improbabilities andcontradictions abound in all; miracles render them all alike incredible;myriad chains of similarity bind them all to each other, necessitatingeither the rejection of all as fabulous, or the acceptance of all ashistorical. Whether we regard external or internal evidence, we come tothe same conclusion, _that there is nothing to distinguish the canonicalfrom the uncanonical writings_. 

C. _That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writingswere selected_. Tremendously damaging to the authenticity of the NewTestament as this statement is, it is yet practically undisputed byChristian scholars. Canon Westcott says frankly: "It cannot be deniedthat the Canon was formed gradually. The condition of society and theinternal relations of the Church presented obstacles to the immediateand absolute determination of the question, which are disregarded now, only because they have ceased to exist. The tradition which representsSt. John as fixing the contents of the New Testament, betrays the spiritof a later age" (Westcott "On the Canon, " p. 4). "The track, however, which we have to follow is often obscure and broken. The evidence of theearliest Christian writers is not only uncritical and casual, but isalso fragmentary" (Ibid, p. 11). "From the close of the second century, the history of the Canon is simple, and its proof clear. .. Before thattime there is more or less difficulty in making out the details of thequestion. .. . Here, however, we are again beset with peculiardifficulties. The proof of the Canon is embarrassed both by the generalcharacteristics of the age in which it was fixed, and by the particularform of the evidence on which it first depends. The spirit of theancient world was essentially uncritical" (Ibid, pp. 6-8). In dealingwith "the early versions of the New Testament, " Westcott admits that "itis not easy to over-rate the difficulties which beset any inquiry intothe early versions of the New Testament" ("On the Canon, " p. 231). Hespeaks of the "comparatively scanty materials and vague or conflictingtraditions" (Ibid). The "original versions of the East and West" arecarefully examined by him; the oldest is the "Peshito, " in Syriac--i. E. , Aramæan, or Syro-Chaldaic. This must, of course, be only a translationof the Testament, if it be true that the original books were written inGreek. The time when this version was formed is unknown, and Westcottargues that "the very obscurity which hangs over its origin is a proofof its venerable age" (Ibid, p. 240); and he refers it to "the firsthalf of the second century, " while acknowledging that he does so"without conclusive authority" (Ibid). The Peshito omits the second andthird epistles of John, second of Peter, that of Jude, and theApocalypse. The origin of the Western version, in Latin, is quite asobscure as that of the Syriac; and it is also incomplete, compared withthe present Canon, omitting the epistle of James and the second of Peter(Ibid, p. 254). All the evidence so laboriously gathered together by thelearned Canon proves our proposition to demonstration. But, it isadmitted on all hands, that "it is impossible to assign any certain timewhen a collection of these books, either by the Apostles, or by anycouncil of inspired or learned men, near their time, was made. .. . Thematter is too certain to need much to be said of it" (Jones "On theCanon, " vol. I, p. 7). Jones adds that he hopes to confute "thesespecious objections . .. In the fourth part of this book, " in which heendeavours to prove the Gospels and Acts to be _genuine_, so that itdoes not much matter when they were collected together. In the time ofEusebius the Canon was still unsettled, as he ranks among the disputedand spurious works, the epistles of James and Jude, second of Peter, second and third of John, and the Apocalypse ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk. Iii. , chap. 25). It is not necessary to offer any further proof in support ofour position, _that it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonicalwritings were selected. _

D. _That before about_ A. D. 180 _there is no trace of_ FOUR _gospelsamong the Christians_. The first step we take in attacking the fourcanonical gospels, apart from the writings of the New Testament as awhole, is to show that there was no "sacred quaternion" spoken of beforeabout A. D. 180, i. E. , the supposed time of Irenæus. Irenæus is said tohave been a bishop of Lyons towards the close of the second century; wefind him mentioned in the letter sent by the Churches of Vienne andLyons to "brethren in Asia and Phrygia, " as "our brother and companionIrenæus, " and as a presbyter much esteemed by them ("Eccles. Hist. " bk. V. , chs. 1, 4). This letter relates a persecution which occurred in "the17th year of the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Verus, " i. E. , A. D. 177. Paley dates the letter about A. D. 170, but as it relates the persecutionof A. D. 177, it is difficult to see how it could be written about sevenyears before the persecution took place. In that persecution Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, is said to have been slain; he was succeeded by Irenæus(Ibid bk. V. , ch. 5), who, therefore, could not possibly have beenbishop before A. D. 177, while he ought probably to be put a year or twolater, since time is needed, after the persecution, to send the accountof it to Asia by the hands of Irenæus, and he must be supposed to havereturned and to have settled down in Lyons before he wrote hisvoluminous works; A. D. 180 is, therefore, an almost impossibly earlydate, but it is, at any rate, the very earliest that can be pretendedfor the testimony now to be examined. The works against heresies wereprobably written, the first three about A. D. 190, and the remainderabout A. D. 198. Irenæus is the first Christian writer who mentions_four_ Gospels; he says:--"Matthew produced his Gospel, written amongthe Hebrews, in their own dialect, whilst Peter and Paul proclaimed theGospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us inwriting what had been preached by him. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, thedisciple of our Lord, the same that lay upon his bosom, also publishedthe Gospel, whilst he was yet at Ephesus in Asia" (Quoted by Eusebius, bk. V. , ch. 8, from 3rd bk. Of "Refutation and Overthrow of FalseDoctrine, " by Irenæus). 

The reasons which compelled Irenæus to believe that there must beneither less nor more than four Gospels in the Church are so convincingthat they deserve to be here put on record. "It is not possible that theGospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, sincethere are four zones [sometimes translated 'corners' or 'quarters'] ofthe world in which we live, and four Catholic spirits, while the Churchis scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and grounding ofthe Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting sheshould have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, andvivifying men afresh. From which fact it is evident that the Word, theArtificer of all, He that sitteth upon the Cherubim, and contains allthings, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under fouraspects, but bound together by one Spirit. .. . For the Cherubim too werefour-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Sonof God. .. . And, therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated" ("Irenæus, " bk. Iii. , chap, xi. , sec. 8). The Rev. Dr. Giles, writing on Justin Martyr, the greatChristian apologist, candidly says: "The very names of the EvangelistsMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him--do not occuronce in all his works. It is, therefore, childish to say that he hasquoted from our existing Gospels, and so proves their existence, as theynow are, in his own time. .. . He has nowhere remarked, like those Fathersof the Church who lived several ages after him, that there are _four_Gospels of higher importance and estimation than any others. .. . All thiswas the creation of a later age, but it is wanting in Justin Martyr, andthe defect leads us to the conclusion that our four Gospels had not thenemerged from obscurity, but were still, if in being, confounded with alarger mass of Christian traditions which, about this very time, werebeginning to be set down in writing" ("Christian Records, " pp. 71, 72). 

Had these four Gospels emerged before A. D. 180, we should most certainlyfind some mention of them in the Mishna. "The Mishna, a collection ofJewish traditions compiled about the year 180, takes no notice ofChristianity, though it contains a chapter headed 'De Cultu Peregrino, of strange worship. ' This omission is thought by Dr. Paley to provenothing, for, says he, 'it cannot be disputed but that Christianity wasperfectly well known to the world at this time. ' It cannot, certainly, be disputed that Christianity was _beginning_ to be known to the world, but whether it had yet emerged from the lower classes of persons amongwhom it originated, may well be doubted. It is a prevailing error, inbiblical criticism, to suppose that the whole world was feelingly aliveto what was going on in small and obscure parts of it. The existence ofChristians was probably known to the compilers of the Mishna in 180, even though they did not deign to notice them, but they could not havehad any knowledge of the New Testament, or they would undoubtedly havenoticed it; if, at least, we are right in ascribing to it so high acharacter, attracting (as we know it does) the admiration of every onein every country to which it is carried" (Ibid, p. 35). 

There is, however, one alleged proof of the existence of four, and onlyfour, Gospels, put forward by Paley:--Tatian, a follower of JustinMartyr, and who flourished about the year 170, composed a harmony orcollection of the Gospels, which he called Diatessaron, of the Four. This title, as well as the work, is remarkable, because it shows, thatthen, as now, there were four and only four, Gospels in general use withChristians ("Evidences, " pp. 154, 155). Paley does not state, untillater, that the "follower of Justin Martyr" turned heretic and joinedthe Encratites, an ascetic and mystic sect who taught abstinence frommarriage, and from meat, etc. ; nor does he tell us how doubtful it iswhat the Diatessaron--now lost--really contained. He blandly assures usthat it is a harmony of the four Gospels, although all the evidence isagainst him. Irenæus, as quoted by Eusebius, says of Tatian that "havingapostatised from the Church, and being elated with the conceit of ateacher, and vainly puffed up as if he surpassed all others, " heinvented some new doctrines, and Eusebius further tells us: "Their chiefand founder, Tatianus, having formed a certain body and collection ofGospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that isthe Gospel by the four, or the Gospel formed of the four" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Iv. , ch. 29). Could Eusebius have written that Tatian formedthis, _I know not how_, if it had been a harmony of the Gospelsrecognised by the Church when he wrote? and how is it that Paley knowsall about it, though Eusebius did not? And still further, aftermentioning the Diatessaron, Eusebius says _of another of Tatian'sbooks_: "This book, indeed, appears to be the most elegant andprofitable of all his works" (Ibid). More profitable than a harmony ofthe four Gospels! So far as the name goes, as given by Eusebius, itwould seem to imply one Gospel written by four authors. Epiphaniusstates: "Tatian is said to have composed the Gospel by four, which iscalled by some, the Gospel according to the Hebrews" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , p. 155). Here we get the Diatessaron identified with thewidely-spread and popular early Gospel of the Hebrews. Theodoret (circaA. D. 457) says that he found more than 200 such books in use in Syria, the Christians not perceiving "the evil design of the composition;" andthis is Paley's harmony of the Gospels! Theodoret states that he tookthese books away, "and instead introduced the Gospels of the fourEvangelists;" how strange an action in dealing with so useful a work asa harmony of the Gospels, to confiscate it entirely and call it an evildesign! To complete the value of this work as evidence to "four, andonly four, Gospels, " we are told by Victor of Capua, that it was alsocalled Diapente, i. E. , "by five" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , p. 153). Infact, there is no possible reason for calling the work--whose contentsate utterly unknown--a _harmony_ of the Gospels at all; the notion thatit is a harmony is the purest of assumptions. There is some slightevidence in favour of the identity of the Diatessaron with the Gospel ofthe Hebrews. "Those, however, who called the Gospel used by Tatian theGospel according to the Hebrews, must have read the work, and all thatwe know confirms their conclusion. The work was, in point of fact, foundin wide circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, theGospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly current. Thesingular fact that the earliest reference to Tatian's 'harmony' is madea century and a half after its supposed composition, that no writerbefore the 5th century had seen the work itself, indeed, that only twowriters before that period mention it at all, receives its naturalexplanation in the conclusion that Tatian did not actually compose anyharmony at all, but simply made use of the same Gospel as his masterJustin Martyr, namely, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, by whichname his Gospel had been called by those best informed" ("Sup. Rel. , "vol. Ii. , pp. 158, 159). As it is not pretended by any that there is anymention of _four_ Gospels before the time of Irenæus, excepting this"harmony, " pleaded by some as dated about A. D. 170, and by others asbetween 170 and 180, it would be sheer waste of time and space to provefurther a point admitted on all hands. This step of our argument is, then, on solid and unassailable ground--_that before about_ A. D. 180_there is no trace of FOUR Gospels among the Christians_. 

E. _That, before that date, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are notselected as the four evangelists. _ This position necessarily followsfrom the preceding one, since four evangelists could not be selecteduntil four Gospels were recognised. Here, again, Dr. Giles supports theargument we are building up. He says: "Justin Martyr never once mentionsby name the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This circumstanceis of great importance; for those who assert that our four canonicalGospels are contemporary records of our Saviour's ministry, ascribe themto Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and to no other writers. In this theyare, in a certain sense, consistent; for contemporary writings [?histories] are very rarely anonymous. If so, how could they be proved tobe contemporary? Justin Martyr, it must be remembered, wrote in 150; butneither he, nor any writer before him, has alluded, in the most remotedegree, to four specific Gospels, bearing the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Let those who think differently produce the passages inwhich such mention is to be found" ("Christian Records, " Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 73). Two of these names had, however, emerged a little earlier, beingmentioned as evangelists by Papias, of Hierapolis. His testimony will befully considered below in establishing position _g_. 

F. _That there is no evidence that the four Gospels mentioned about thatdate were the same as those we have now. _ This brings us to a mostimportant point in our examination; for we now attack the very key ofthe Christian position--viz. , that, although the Gospels be notmentioned by name previous to Irenæus, their existence can yet beconclusively proved by quotations from them, to be found in the writingsof the Fathers who lived before Irenæus. Paley says: "The historicalbooks of the New Testament--meaning thereby the four Gospels and theActs of the Apostles--are quoted, or alluded to, by a series ofChristian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with theApostles or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close andregular succession from their time to the present. " And he urges that"the medium of proof stated in this proposition is, of all others, themost unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, and isnot diminished by the lapse of ages" ("Evidences, " pp. 111, 112). Thewriters brought in evidence are: Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, and the epistle from Lyonsand Vienne. Before examining the supposed quotations in as great detailas our space will allow, two or three preliminary remarks are needed onthe value of this offered evidence as a whole. 

In the first place, the greater part of the works brought forward aswitnesses are themselves challenged, and their own dates are unknown;their now accepted writings are only the residuum of a mass offorgeries, and Dr. Giles justly says: "The process of elimination, whichgradually reduced the so-called writings of the first century from twofolio volumes to fifty slender pages, would, in the case of any otherprofane works, have prepared the inquirer for casting from him, withdisgust, the small remnant, even if not fully convicted of spuriousness;for there is no other case in record of so wide a disproportion betweenwhat is genuine and what is spurious" ("Christian Records, " p. 67). Their testimony is absolutely worthless until they are themselvessubstantiated; and from the account given of them above (pp 214-221, and232-235), the student is in a position to judge of the value of evidencedepending on the Apostolic Fathers. Professor Norton remarks: "When weendeavour to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the writingsascribed to Apostolical Fathers, we, in fact, weaken its force. At thevery extremity of the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest, we are attaching defective links, which will bear no weight"("Genuineness of the Gospels, " vol. I. , p. 357). Again, supposing thatwe admit these witnesses, their repetition of sayings of Christ, orreferences to his life, do not--in the absence of quotations specifiedby them as taken from Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, andJohn--prove that, because similar sayings or actions are recorded in thepresent canonical Gospels, therefore, these latter existed in theirdays, and were in their hands. Lardner says on this point: "Here is, however, one difficulty, and 'tis a difficulty which may frequentlyoccur, whilst we are considering these very early writers, who wereconversant with the Apostles, and others who had seen or heard our Lord;and were, in a manner, as well acquainted with our Saviour's doctrineand history as the Evangelists themselves, unless their quotations orallusions are very express and clear. The question, then, here is, whether Clement in these places refers to words of Christ, written andrecorded, or whether he reminds the Corinthians of words of Christ, which he and they might have heard from the Apostles, or othereye-and-ear-witnesses of our Lord. Le Clerc, in his dissertation on thefour Gospels, is of opinion that Clement refers to written words of ourLord, which were in the hands of the Corinthians, and well known tothem. On the other hand, I find, Bishop Pearson thought, that Clementspeaks of words which he had heard from the Apostles themselves, ortheir disciples. I certainly make no question but the three firstGospels were writ before this time. And I am well satisfied that Clementmight refer to our written Gospels, though he does not exactly agreewith them in expression. But whether he does refer to them is not easyto determine concerning a man who, very probably, knew these thingsbefore they were committed to writing; and, even after they were so, might continue to speak of them, in the same manner he had been wont todo, as things he was well informed of, without appealing to theScriptures themselves" ("Credibility, " pt. II. , vol. I. , pp. 68-70). Canon Westcott, after arguing that the Apostolic Fathers are muchinfluenced by the Pauline Epistles, goes on to remark: "Nothing has beensaid hitherto of the coincidences between the Apostolic Fathers and theCanonical Gospels. From the nature of the case, casual coincidences oflanguage cannot be brought forward in the same manner to prove the useof a history as of a letter. The same facts and words, especially ifthey be recent and striking, may be preserved in several narratives. References in the sub-apostolic age to the discourses or actions of ourLord, as we find them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as they go, that what the Gospels relate was then held to be true; but it does notnecessarily follow that they were already in use, and were the actualsource of the passages in question. On the contrary, the mode in whichClement refers to our Lord's teaching--'the Lord said, ' not'saith'--seems to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not toany written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which arestill found in our Gospels. The main testimony of the Apostolic Fathersis, therefore, to the substance, and not to the authenticity, of theGospels" ("On the Canon, " pp. 51, 52). An examination of the ApostolicFathers gives us little testimony as to "the substance of the Gospels;"but the whole passage is here given to show how much Canon Westcott, writing in defence of the Canon, finds himself obliged to give up of theposition occupied by earlier apologists. Dr. Giles agrees with thejustice of these remarks of Lardner and Westcott. He writes: "Thesayings of Christ were, no doubt, treasured up like household jewels byhis disciples and followers. Why, then, may we not refer the quotationof Christ's words, occurring in the Apostolical Fathers, to an origin ofthis kind? If we examine a few of those quotations, the supposition, just stated, will expand into reality. .. . The same may be said of everysingle sentence found in any of the Apostolical Fathers, which, on firstsight, might be thought to be a decided quotation from one of theGospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. It is impossible todeny the truth of this observation; for we see it confirmed by the factthat the Apostolical Fathers do actually quote Moses, and other oldTestament writers, by name--'Moses hath said, ' 'but Moses says, 'etc. --in numerous passages. But we nowhere meet with the words, 'Matthewhath said in his Gospel, ' 'John hath said, ' etc. They always quote, notthe words of the Evangelists, but the words of Christ himself directly, which furnishes the strongest presumption that, though the sayings ofChrist were in general vogue, yet the evangelical histories, into whichthey were afterwards embodied, were not then in being. But the converseof this view of the case leads us to the same conclusion. TheApostolical Fathers quote sayings of Christ which are not found in ourGospels. .. . There is no proof that our New Testament was in existenceduring the lives of the Apostolical Fathers, who, therefore, could notmake citations out of books which they had never seen" ("ChristianRecords, " pp. 51-53). "There is no evidence that they [the four Gospels]existed earlier than the middle of the second century, for they are notnamed by any writer who lived before that time" (Ibid, p. 56). Insearching for evidence of the existence of the Gospels during theearlier period of the Church's history, Christian apologists havehitherto been content to seize upon a phrase here and there somewhatresembling a phrase in the canonical Gospels, and to put that forward asa proof that the Gospels then were the same as those we have now. Thisrough-and-ready plan must now be given up, since the most learnedChristian writers now agree, with the Freethinkers, that such a methodis thoroughly unsatisfactory. 

Yet, again, admitting these writers as witnesses, and allowing that theyquote from the same Gospels, their quotations only prove that theisolated phrases they use were in the Gospels of their day, and are alsoin the present ones; and many such cases might occur in spite of greatvariations in the remainder of the respective Gospels, and would by nomeans prove that the Gospels they used were identical with ours. IfJosephus, for instance, had ever quoted some sentences of Socratesrecorded by Plato, that quotation, supposing that Josephus werereliable, would prove that Plato and Socrates both lived beforeJosephus, and that Plato wrote down some of the sayings of Socrates; butit would not prove that a version of Plato in our hands to-day wasidentical with that used by Josephus. The scattered and isolatedpassages woven in by the Fathers in their works would fail to prove theidentity of the Gospels of the second century with those of thenineteenth, even were they as like parallel passages in the canonicalGospels as they are unlike them. 

It is "important, " says the able anonymous writer of "SupernaturalReligion, " "that we should constantly bear in mind that a great numberof Gospels existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, andof most of which even the names are lost. We will not here do more thanrefer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement ofthe author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek: polloi])have taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which aresurely believed among us, etc. ' It is, therefore, evident that beforeour third synoptic was written, many similar works were already incirculation. Looking at the close similarity of the large portions ofthe three synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the [Greek:polloi] here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other, and to ourGospels; and this is known to have been the case, for instance, amongstthe various forms of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews, ' distinctmention of which we meet with long before we hear anything of ourGospels. When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotationsclosely resembling, or, we may add, even identical with passages whichare found in our Gospels--the source of which, however, is notmentioned, nor is any author's name indicated--the similarity, or evenidentity, cannot by any means be admitted as evidence that the quotationis necessarily from our Gospels, and not from some other similar worknow no longer extant; and more especially not when, in the samewritings, there are other quotations from apocryphal sources differentfrom our Gospels. Whether regarded as historical records or as writingsembodying the mere tradition of the early Christians, our Gospels cannotfor a moment be recognised as the exclusive depositaries of the genuinesayings and doings of Jesus; and so far from the common possession bymany works in early times of such words of Jesus, in closely similarform, being either strange or improbable, the really remarkablephenomena is that such material variation in the report of the moreimportant historical teaching should exist amongst them. But whilstsimilarity to our Gospels in passages quoted by early writers fromunnamed sources cannot prove the use of our Gospels, variation from themwould suggest or prove a different origin; and, at least, it is obviousthat quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot, in any case, indicate their existence" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , pp. 217-219). 

We will now turn to the witness of Paley's Apostolic Fathers, bearingalways in mind the utter worthlessness of their testimony; worthless asit is, however, it is the only evidence Christians have to bring forwardto prove the identity of their Gospels with those [supposed to havebeen] written in the first century. Let us listen to the opinion givenby Bishop Marsh: "From the Epistle of Barnabas, no inference can bededuced that he had read any part of the New Testament. From the genuineepistle, as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be inferred thatClement had read the first Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Shepherdof Hermas no inference whatsoever can be drawn. From the Epistles ofIgnatius, it may be concluded that he had read St. Paul's Epistle to theEphesians, and that there existed in his time evangelical writings, though it cannot be shown that he has quoted from them. From Polycarp'sEpistle to the Philippians, it appears that he had heard of St. Paul'sEpistle to that community, and he quotes a passage which is in the firstEpistle to the Corinthians, and another which is in the Epistle to theEphesians; but no positive conclusion can be drawn with respect to anyother epistle, or any of the four Gospels" (Marsh's "Michaelis, " vol. I. , p. 354, as quoted in Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels, " vol. I. , p. 3). Very heavily does this tell against the authenticity of theserecords, for "if the four Gospels and other books were written by thosewho had been eye-witnesses of Christ's miracles, and the five ApostolicFathers had conversed with the Apostles, it is not to be conceived thatthey would not have named the actual books themselves which possessed sohigh authority, and would be looked up to with so much respect by allthe Christians. This is the only way in which their evidence could be ofuse to support the authenticity of the New Testament as being the workof the Apostles; but this is a testimony which the five ApostolicalFathers fail to supply. There is not a single sentence, in all theirremaining works, in which a clear allusion to the New Testament is to befound" ("Christian Records, " Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 50). 

Westcott, while claiming in the Apostolic Fathers a knowledge of most ofthe epistles, writes very doubtfully as to their knowledge of theGospels (see above p. 264), and after giving careful citations of allpossible quotations, he sums up thus: "1. No evangelic reference in theApostolic Fathers can be referred certainly to a written record. 2. Itappears most probable from the form of the quotations that they werederived from oral tradition. 3. No quotation contains any element whichis not substantially preserved in our Gospels. 4. When the text givendiffers from the text of our Gospels it represents a later form of theevangelic tradition. 5. The text of St. Matthew corresponds more nearlythan the other synoptic texts with the quotations and references as awhole" ("On the Canon, " p. 62). There appears to be no proof whatever ofconclusions 3 and 4, but we give them all as they stand. But we willtake these Apostolic Fathers one by one, in the order used by Paley. 

BARNABAS. We have already quoted Bishop Marsh and Dr. Giles as regardshim. There is "nothing in this epistle worthy of the name of evidenceeven of the existence of our Gospels" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 260). The quotation sometimes urged, "There are many called, few chosen, " isspoken of by Westcott as a "proverbial phrase, " and phrases similar inmeaning and manner may be found in iv. Ezra, viii. 3, ix. 15 ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 245); in the latter work the words occur in arelation similar to that in which we find them in Barnabas; in both thejudgment is described, and in both the moral drawn is that there aremany lost and few saved; it is the more likely that the quotation istaken from the apocryphal work, since many other quotations are drawnfrom it throughout the epistle. The quotation "Give to every one thatasketh thee, " is not found in the supposed oldest MS. , the CodexSinaiticus, and is a later interpolation, clearly written in by sometranscriber as appropriate to the passage in Barnabas. The last supposedquotation, that Christ chose men of bad character to be his disciples, that "he might show that he came not to call the righteous, butsinners, " is another clearly later interpolation, for it jars with thereasoning of Barnabas, and when Origen quotes the passage he omits thephrase. In a work which "has been written at the request, and ispublished at the cost of the Christian Evidence Society, " and which mayfairly, therefore, be taken as the opinion of learned, yet mostorthodox, Christian opinion, the Rev. Mr. Sanday writes: "The generalresult of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas may, perhaps, bestated thus, that while not supplying by itself certain and conclusiveproof of the use of our Gospels, still the phenomena accord better withthe hypothesis of such a use. This epistle stands in the second line ofthe Evidence, and as a witness is rather confirmatory than principal"("Gospels in the Second Century, " p. 76. Ed. 1876). And this is all thatthe most modern apologetic criticism can draw from an epistle of whichPaley makes a great display, saying that "if the passage remarked inthis ancient writing had been found in one of St. Paul's Epistles, itwould have been esteemed by every one a high testimony to St. Matthew'sGospel" ("Evidences, " p. 113). 

CLEMENT OF ROME. --"Tischendorf, who is ever ready to claim the slightestresemblance in language as a reference to new Testament writings, admitsthat although this Epistle is rich in quotations from the Old Testament, and here and there that Clement also makes use of passages from PaulineEpistles, he nowhere refers to the Gospels" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. Pp. 227, 228). The Christian Evidence Society, through Mr. Sanday, thuscriticises Clement: "Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clementupon the question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels?There are two passages of some length which are, without doubt, evangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from theCanonical Gospels or not may be doubted" ("Gospels in the SecondCentury, " page 61). After balancing the arguments for and against thefirst of these passages, Mr. Sanday concludes: "Looking at the argumentson both sides, so far as we can give them, I incline, on the whole, tothe opinion that Clement is not quoting from our Gospels; but I am quiteaware of the insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nicebalance of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large thatthe conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. Anythinglike confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me entirely out ofplace. Very much the same is to be said of the second passage" (Ibid, p. 66). 

The quotations in Clement, apparently from some other evangelic work, will be noted under head _h_, and these are those cited in Paley. 

HERMAS. --Tischendorf relinquishes this work also as evidence for theGospels. Lardner writes: "In _Hermas_ are no express citations of anybooks of the New Testament" ("Credibility, " vol. I. Pt. 2, p. 116). Hethinks, however, that he can trace "allusions to" "words of Scripture. "Westcott says that "The _Shepherd_ contains no definite quotation fromeither Old or New Testament" ("On the Canon, " p. 197); but he alsothinks that Hermas was "familiar with" some records of "Christ'steaching. " Westcott, however, does not admit Hermas as an ApostolicFather at all, but places him in the middle of the second century. "Asregards the direct historical evidence for the genuineness of theGospels, it is of no importance. No book is cited in it by name. Thereare no evident quotations from the Gospels" (Norton's "Genuineness ofthe Gospels, " vol. I, pp. 342, 343). 

IGNATIUS. --It would be wasted time to trouble about Ignatius at all, after knowing the vicissitudes through which his supposed works havepassed (see ante pp. 217-220); and Paley's references are such vague"quotations" that they may safely be left to the judgment of the reader. Tischendorf, claiming two and three phrases in it, says somewhatconfusedly: "Though we do not wish to give to these references adecisive value, and though they do not exclude all doubt as to theirapplicability to our Gospels, and more particularly to that of St. John, they nevertheless undoubtedly bear traces of such a reference" ("Whenwere our Gospels Written, " p. 61, Eng. Ed. ). This conclusion refers, inTischendorf, to Polycarp, as well as to Ignatius. In these IgnatianEpistles, Mr. Sanday only treats the Curetonian Epistles (see ante, p. 218) as genuine, and in these he finds scarcely any coincidences withthe Gospels. The parallel to Matthew x. 16, "Be ye, therefore, wise asserpents and harmless as doves, " is doubtful, as it is possible "thatIgnatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from one ofthe original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical 'Spruch-Sammlung'), out of which our Gospel was composed" ("Gospels in the Second Century, "p. 78). An allusion to the "star" of Bethlehem may have, "as it appearsto have, reference to the narrative of Matt, ii. .. [but see, ante, p. 233, where the account given of the star is widely different from theevangelic notice]. These are (so far as I am aware) the onlycoincidences to be found in the Curetonian version" (Ibid, pp. 78, 79). 

POLYCARP. --This epistle lies under a heavy weight of suspicion, and hasbesides little worth analysing as possible quotations from the Gospels. Paley quotes, "beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us intotemptation. " Why not finish the passage? Because, if he had done so, thecontext would have shown that it was not a quotation from a gospelidentical with our own--"beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead usinto temptation, as the Lord hath said, The spirit, indeed, is willing, but the flesh is weak. " If this be a quotation at all, it is from somelost gospel, as these words are nowhere found thus conjoined in theSynoptics. 

Thus briefly may these Apostolic Fathers be dismissed, since theirtestimony fades away as soon as it is examined, as a mist evaporatesbefore the rays of the rising sun. We will call up Paley's otherwitnesses. 

PAPIAS. --In the fragment preserved by Eusebius there is no quotation ofany kind; the testimony of Papias is to the names of the authors of twoof the Gospels, and will be considered under _g_. 

JUSTIN MARTYR. --We now come to the most important of the supposedwitnesses, and, although students must study the details of thecontroversy in larger works, we will endeavour to put briefly beforethem the main reasons why Freethinkers reject Justin Martyr as bearingevidence to the authenticity of the present Gospels, and in this_résumé_ we begin by condensing chapter iii. Of "Supernatural Religion", vol. I. , pp. 288-433, so far as it bears on our present position. JustinMartyr is supposed to have died about A. D. 166, having been put to deathin the reign of Marcus Aurelius; he was by descent a Greek, but became aconvert to Christianity, strongly tinged with Judaism. The longerApology, and the Dialogue with Trypho, are the works chiefly relied uponto prove the authenticity. The date of the first Apology is probablyabout A. D. 147; the Dialogue was written later, perhaps between A. D. 150and 160. In these writings Justin quotes very copiously from the OldTestament, and he also very frequently refers to facts of Christianhistory, and to sayings of Jesus. Of these references, for instance, some fifty occur in the first Apology, and upwards of seventy in theDialogue with Trypho; a goodly number, it will be admitted, by means ofwhich to identify the source from which he quotes. Justin himselffrequently and distinctly says that his information and quotations arederived from the "Memoirs of the Apostles, " but, except upon oneoccasion, which we shall hereafter consider, when he indicates Peter, henever mentions an author's name. Upon examination it is found that, withonly one or two brief exceptions, the numerous quotations from these"Memoirs" differ more or less widely from parallel passages in ourSynoptic Gospels, and in many cases differ in the same respects assimilar quotations found in other writings of the second century, thewriters of which are known to have made use of uncanonical Gospels; andfurther, that these passages are quoted several times, at intervals, byJustin, with the same variations. Moreover, sayings of Jesus are quotedfrom the "Memoirs" which are not found in our Gospels at all, and factsin the life of Jesus, and circumstances of Christian history, derivedfrom the same source, not only are not found in our Gospels, but are incontradiction with them. Various theories have been put forward byChristian apologists to lessen the force of these objections. It hasbeen suggested that Justin quoted from memory, condensed or combined tosuit his immediate purpose; that the "Memoirs" were a harmony of theGospels, with additions from some apocryphal work; that along with ourGospels Justin used apocryphal Gospels; that he made use of our Gospels, preferring, however, to rely chiefly on an apocryphal one. Results sodiverse show how dubious must be the value of the witness of JustinMartyr. Competent critics almost universally admit that Justin had noidea of ranking the "Memoirs of the Apostles" among canonical writings. The word translated "Memoirs" would be more correctly rendered"Recollections, " or "Memorabilia, " and none of these three terms is anappropriate title for works ranking as canonical Gospels. Great numbersof spurious writings, under the names of apostles, were current in theearly Church, and Justin names no authors for the "Recollections" hequotes from, only saying that they were composed "by his Apostles andtheir followers, " clearly indicating that he was using some collectiverecollections of the Apostles and those who followed them. The word"Gospels, " in the plural, is only once applied to these "Recollections;""For the Apostles, in the 'Memoirs' composed by them, which are calledGospels. " "The last expression [Greek: kaleitai euaggelai], as manyscholars have declared, is a manifest interpolation. It is, in allprobability, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. Which some copyistafterwards inserted in the text. If Justin really stated that the'Memoirs' were called Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he shouldnever call them so himself. In no other place in his writings does heapply the plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referringto the 'so-called Gospel, ' which he states that he had carefully read, and which, of course, can only be Justin's 'Memoirs, ' and again, inanother part of the same dialogue, Justin quotes passages which arewritten 'in the Gospel. ' The term 'Gospel' is nowhere else used byJustin in reference to a written record. " The public reading of theRecollections, mentioned by Justin, proves nothing, since many works, now acknowledged as spurious, were thus read (see ante, pp. 248, 249). Justin does not regard the Recollections as inspired, attributinginspiration only to prophetic writings, and he accepts them as authenticsolely because the events they narrate are prophesied of in the OldTestament. The omission of any author's name is remarkable, since, inquoting from the Old Testament, he constantly refers to the author byname, or to the book used; but in the very numerous quotations, supposedto be from the Gospels, he never does this, save in one single instance, mentioned below, when he quotes Peter. On the theory that he had ourfour Gospels before him, this is the more singular, since he wouldnaturally have distinguished one from the other. The only writing in theNew Testament referred to by name is the Apocalypse, by "a certain manwhose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, " and it isimpossible that John should be thus mentioned, if Justin had alreadybeen quoting from a Gospel bearing his name under the general title ofRecollections. Justin clearly quotes from a _written_ source andexcludes oral tradition, saying that in the Recollections is recorded"_everything_ that concerns our Saviour Christ. " (The proofs that Justinquotes from records other than the Gospels will be classed underposition _h_, and are here omitted. ) Justin knows nothing of theshepherds of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, nor of thestar guiding the wise men to the place where Jesus was, although herelates the story of the birth, and the visit of the wise men. Two shortpassages in Justin are identical with parallel passages in Matthew, but"it cannot be too often repeated, that the mere coincidence of shorthistorical sayings in two works by no means warrants the conclusion thatthe one is dependent on the other. " In the first Apology, chaps, xv. , xvi. , and xvii. Are composed almost entirely of examples of Christ'steaching, and with the exception of these two brief passages, not onequotation agrees verbally with the canonical Gospels. We have referredto one instance wherein the name of Peter is mentioned in connectionwith the Recollections. Justin says: "The statement also that he (Jesus)changed the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is alsowritten in _his_ 'Memoirs, '" etc. This refers the "Memoirs" to Peter, and it is suggested that it is, therefore, a reference to the Gospel ofMark, Mark having been supposed to have written his Gospel under thedirection of Peter. There was a "Gospel according to Peter" current inthe early Church, probably a variation from the Gospel of the Hebrews, so highly respected and so widely used by the primitive writers. It isvery probable that this is the work to which Justin so often refers, andthat it originally bore the simple title of "The Gospel, " or the"Recollections of Peter. " A version of this Gospel was also known as the"Gospel According to the Apostles, " a title singularly like the"Recollections of the Apostles" by Justin. Seeing that in Justin's workshis quotations, although so copious, do not agree with parallel passagesin our Gospels, we may reasonably conclude that "there is no evidencethat he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, evenbe cited to prove their very existence, and much less the authenticityand character of records whose authors he does not once name. " Passingfrom this case, ably worked out by this learned and clever writer (andwe earnestly recommend our readers, if possible, to study his carefulanalysis for themselves, since he makes the whole question thoroughlyintelligible to _English_ readers, and gives them evidence whereby theycan form their own judgments, instead of accepting ready-madeconclusions), we will examine Canon Westcott's contention. He admitsthat the difficulties perplexing the evidence of Justin are "great;"that there are "additions to the received narrative, and remarkablevariations from its text, which, in some cases, are both repeated byJustin and found also in other writings" ("On the Canon, " p. 98). Weregret to say that Dr. Westcott, in laying the case before his readers, somewhat misleads them, although, doubtless, unintentionally. He speaksof Justin telling us that "Christ was descended from Abraham throughJacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David, " and omits the fact that Justintraces the descent to Mary alone, and knows nothing as to a descenttraced to Joseph, as in both Matthew and Luke (see below, under _h_). Hespeaks of Justin mentioning wise men "guided by a star, " forgetting thatJustin says nothing of the guidance, but only writes: "That he shouldarise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed beforehand. .. . Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of his birth, as isrecorded in the 'Memoirs' of his Apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped him" ("Dial. , " ch. Cvi. ). He speaks of Justin recording "the singing of the Psalmafterwards" (after the last supper), omitting that Justin only saysgenerally ("Dial. , " ch. Cvi. , to which Dr. Westcott refers us) that"when living with them (Christ) sang praises to God. " But as wehereafter deal with these discrepancies, we need not dwell on them now, only warning our readers that since even such a man as Dr. Westcott thusmisrepresents facts, it will be well never to accept any inferencesdrawn from such references as these without comparing them with theoriginal. One of the chief difficulties to the English reader is to geta reliable translation. To give but a single instance. In the version ofJustin here used (that published by T. Clark, Edinburgh), we find in the"Dialogue, " ch. Ciii. , the following passage: "His sweat fell down likedrops of blood while he was praying. " And this is referred to by CanonWestcott (p. 104) as a record of the "bloody sweat. " Yet, in theoriginal, there is no word analogous to "of blood;" the passage runs:"sweat as drops fell down, " and it is recorded by Justin as a proof thatthe prophecy, "my bones are poured out _like water_" was fulfilled inChrist. The clumsy endeavour to create a likeness to Luke xxii. 44destroys Justin's argument. Further on (p. 113) Dr. Westcott admits thatthe words "of blood" are not found in Justin; but it is surelymisleading, under these circumstances, to say that Justin mentions "thebloody sweat. " Westcott only maintains seven passages in the whole ofJustin's writings, wherein he distinctly quotes from the "Memoirs;"_i. E. , _ only seven that can be maintained as quotations from thecanonical Gospels--the contention being that the "Memoirs" _are_ theGospels. He says truly, if naively, "The result of a first view of thesepassages is striking. " Very striking, indeed; for, "of the seven, fiveagree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or St. Luke, _exhibiting, indeed, three slight various readings not elsewhere found_, but such asare easily explicable. The sixth is a condensed summary of words relatedby St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an important variation in thetext of a verse, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain" (pp. 130, 131. The italics are our own). That is, there are only seven distinctquotations, and all of these, save two, are different from our Gospels. The whole of Dr. Westcott's analysis of these passages is severelycriticised in "Supernatural Religion, " and in the edition of 1875 of Dr. Westcott's book, from which we quote, some of the expressions hepreviously used are a little modified. The author of "SupernaturalReligion" justly says: "The striking result, to summarise CanonWestcott's own words, is this. Out of seven professed quotations fromthe 'Memoirs, ' in which he admits we may expect to find the exactlanguage preserved, five present three variations; one is a compressedsummary, and does not agree verbally at all; and the seventh presents animportant variation" (vol. I. , p. 394). 

Dr. Giles speaks very strongly against Paley's distortion of JustinMartyr's testimony, complaining: "The works of Justin Martyr do not fallin the way of one in a hundred thousand of our countrymen. How is it, then, to be deprecated that erroneous statements should be current abouthim! How is it to be censured that his testimony should be changed, andhe should be made to speak a falsehood!" ("Christian Records, " p. 71). Dr. Giles then argues that Justin would have certainly named the booksand their authors had they been current and reverenced in his time; thatthere were numberless Gospels current at that date; that Justin mentionsoccurrences that are only found related in such apocryphal Gospels. Hethen compares seventeen passages in Justin Martyr with parallel passagesin the Gospels, and concludes that Justin "gives us Christ's sayings intheir traditionary forms, and not in the words which are found in ourfour Gospels. " We will select two, to show his method of criticising, translating the Greek, instead of giving it, as he does, in theoriginal. In the Apology, ch. Xv. , Justin writes: "If thy right eyeoffend thee, cut it out, for it is profitable for thee to enter into thekingdom of heaven with one eye, than having two to be thrust into theeverlasting fire. " "This passage is very like Matt. V. 29: 'If thy righteye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it isprofitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thatthy whole body should be cast into hell. ' But it is also like Matt, xviii. 9: 'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it fromthee; it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather thanhaving two eyes to be cast into hell-fire. ' And it bears an equallikeness to Mark ix. 47: 'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; itis better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell-fire. ' Yet, strange to say, it isnot identical in words with either of the three" (pp. 83, 84). "I camenot to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. " "In this onlyinstance is there a perfect agreement between the words of Justin andthe canonical Gospels, three of which, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, give thesame saying of Christ in the same words. A variety of thoughts here rushupon the mind. Are these three Gospels based upon a common document? Ifso, is not Justin Martyr's citation drawn from the same anonymousdocument, rather than from the three Gospels, seeing he does not namethem? If, on the other hand, Justin has cited them accurately in thisinstance, why has he failed to do so in the others? For no other reasonthan that traditionary sayings are generally thus irregularly exact orinexact, and Justin, citing from them, has been as irregularly exact asthey were" (Ibid, p. 85). "The result to which a perusal of his workswill lead is of the gravest character. He will be found to quote nearlytwo hundred sentiments or sayings of Christ; but makes hardly a singleclear allusion to all those circumstances of time or place which give somuch interest to Christ's teaching, as recorded in the four Gospels. Theinference is that he quotes Christ's sayings as delivered by traditionor taken down in writing before the four Gospels were compiled" (Ibid, pp. 89, 90). Paley and Lardner both deal with Justin somewhat briefly, calling every passage in his works resembling slightly any passage inthe Gospels a "quotation;" in both cases only ignorance of Justin'swritings can lead any reader to assent to the inferences they draw. 

HEGESIPPUS was a Jewish Christian, who, according to Eusebius, flourished about A. D. 166. Soter is said to have succeeded Anicetus inthe bishopric of Rome in that year, and Hegesippus appears to have beenin Rome during the episcopacy of both. He travelled about from place toplace, and his testimony to the Gospels is that "in every city thedoctrine prevails according to what is declared by the law, and theprophets, and the Lord" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Iv. , ch. 22). Further, Eusebius quotes the story of the death of James, the Apostle, written byHegesippus, and in this James is reported to have said to the Jews: "Whydo ye now ask me respecting Jesus, the Son of Man? He is now sitting inthe heavens, on the right hand of great power, and is about to come onthe clouds of heaven. " And when he is being murdered, he prays, "O LordGod and Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" (see"Eccles. Hist. , " bk. Ii. , ch. 23). The full absurdity of regarding thisas a testimony to the Gospels will be seen when it is remembered that itis implied thereby that James, the brother and apostle of Christ, knewnothing of his words until he read them in the Gospels, and that he wasmurdered before the Gospel of Luke, from which alone he could quote theprayer of Jesus, is thought, by most Christians, to have been written. One other fragment of Hegesippus is preserved by Stephanus Gobarus, wherein Hegesippus, speaking against Paul's assertion "that eye hath notseen, nor ear heard, " opposes to it the saying of the Lord, "Blessed areyour eyes, for they see, and your ears that hear. " This is paralleled byMatt. Xiii. 16 and Luke x. 23. "We need not point out that the sayingreferred to by Hegesippus, whilst conveying the same sense as that inthe two Gospels, differs as materially from them as they do from eachother, and as we might expect a quotation taken from a different, thoughkindred, source, like the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to do" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 447). Why does not Paley tell us that Eusebius writesof him, not that he quoted from the Gospels, but that "he also statessome particulars from the Gospel of the Hebrews and from the Syriac, andparticularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he himself was aconvert from the Hebrews. Other matters he also records as taken fromthe unwritten tradition of the Jews" ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk. Iv. , ch 22). Here, then, we have the source of the quotations in Hegesippus, and yetPaley conceals this, and deliberately speaks of him as referring to ourGospel of Matthew!

EPISTLE OF THE CHURCHES OF LYONS AND VIENNE. --Paley quietly dates thisA. D. 170, although the persecution it describes occurred in A. D. 177(see ante, pp. 257, 258). The "exact references to the Gospels of Lukeand John and to the Acts of the Apostles, " spoken of by Paley("Evidences, " p. 125), are not easy to find. Westcott says: "It containsno reference by name to any book of the New Testament, but itscoincidences of language with the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, withthe Acts of the Apostles, with the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (?), Ephesians, Philippians, and the First to Timothy, withthe first Catholic Epistles of St. Peter and St. John, and with theApocalypse, are indisputable" ("On the Canon, " p. 336). Unfortunately, neither Paley nor Dr. Westcott refer us to the passages in question, Paley quoting only one. We will, therefore, give one of these at fulllength, leaving our readers to judge of it as an "exact reference:""Vattius Epagathus, one of the brethren who abounded in the fulness ofthe love of God and man, and whose walk and conversation had been sounexceptionable, though he was only young, shared in the same testimonywith the elder Zacharias. He walked in all the commandments andrighteousness of the Lord blameless, full of love to God and hisneighbour" ("Eusebius, " bk. V. , chap. I). This is, it appears, an "exactreference" to Luke i. 6, and we own we should not have known it unlessit had been noted in "Supernatural Religion. " Tischendorf, on the otherhand, refers the allusion to Zacharias to the Protevangelium of James("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , p. 202). 

The second "exact reference" is, that Vattius had "the Spirit moreabundantly than Zacharias;" "such an unnecessary and insidiouscomparison would scarcely have been made had the writer known our Gospeland regarded it as inspired Scripture" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , p. 204). The quotation "that the day would come when everyone that slayeth youwill think he is doing God a service, " is one of those isolated sayingsreferred to Christ which might be found in any account of his works, ormight have been handed down by tradition. This epistle is the lastwitness called by Paley, prior to Irenæus, and might, indeed, fairly beregarded as contemporary with him. 

Although Paley does not allude to the "Clementines, " books falselyascribed to Clement of Rome, these are sometimes brought to prove theexistence of the Gospels in the second century. But they are useless aswitnesses, from the fact that the date at which they were themselveswritten is a matter of dispute. "Critics variously date the compositionof the original Recognitions from about the middle of the second centuryto the end of the third, though the majority are agreed in placing them, at least, in the latter century" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , p. 5). "It isunfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for determining thedate of the Clementine Homilies" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " Rev. W. Sanday, p. 161). Part of the Clementines, called the "Recognitions, "is useless as a basis for argument, for these "are only extant in aLatin translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospelshave evidently been assimilated to the canonical text which Rufinushimself uses" (Ibid). Of the rest, "we are struck at once by the smallamount of exact coincidence, which is considerably less than that whichis found in the quotations from the Old Testament" (Ibid, p. 168). "Inthe Homilies there are very numerous quotations of expressions of Jesus, and of Gospel History, which are generally placed in the mouth of Peter, or introduced with such formula as 'The teacher said, ' 'Jesus said, ' 'Hesaid, ' 'The prophet said, ' but in no case does the author name thesource from which these sayings and quotations are derived. .. . De Wettesays, 'The quotations of evangelical works and histories in thepseudo-Clementine writings, from their free and unsatisfactory nature, permit only uncertain conclusions as to their written source. ' Criticshave maintained very free and conflicting views regarding that source. Apologists, of course, assert that the quotations in the Homilies aretaken from our Gospels only. Others ascribe them to our Gospels, with asupplementary apocryphal work, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, orthe Gospel according to Peter. Some, whilst admitting a subsidiary useof some of our Gospels, assert that the author of the Homilies employs, in preference, the Gospel according to Peter; whilst others, recognisingalso the similarity of the phenomena presented by these quotations withthose of Justin's, conclude that the author does not quote our Gospelsat all, but makes use of the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gospelaccording to the Hebrews. Evidence permitting of such divergentconclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character" ("Sup. Rel. , "vol. Ii. , pp. 6, 7). 

On Basilides (teaching c. A. D. 135) and Valentinus (A. D. 140), two ofthe early Gnostic teachers, we need not delay, for there is scarcelyanything left of their writings, and all we know of them is drawn fromthe writings of their antagonists; it is claimed that they knew and madeuse of the canonical Gospels, and Canon Westcott urges this view ofBasilides, but the writer of "Supernatural Religion" characterises thisplea "as unworthy of a scholar, and only calculated to mislead readerswho must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of the case" (vol. Ii. , p. 42). Basilides says that he received his doctrine from Glaucias, the "interpreter of Peter, " and "it is apparent, however, thatBasilides, in basing his doctrines on these apocryphal books asinspired, and upon tradition, and in having a special Gospel calledafter his own name, which, therefore, he clearly adopts as the exponentof his ideas of Christian truth, absolutely ignores the canonicalGospels altogether, and not only does not offer any evidence for theirexistence, but proves that he did not recognise any such works as ofauthority. Therefore, there is no ground whatever for Tischendorf'sassumption that the Commentary of Basilides 'On the Gospel' was writtenupon our Gospels, but that idea is, on the contrary, negatived in thestrongest way by all the facts of the case" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , pp. 45, 46). Both with this ancient heretic, as with Valentinus, it isimpossible to distinguish what is ascribed to him from what is ascribedto his followers, and thus evidence drawn from either of them is weakereven than usual. 

Marcion, the greatest heretic of the second century, ought to prove auseful witness to the Christians if the present Gospels had beenaccepted in his time as canonical. He was the son of the ChristianBishop of Sinope, in Pontus, and taught in Rome for some twenty years, dating from about A. D. 140. Only one Gospel was acknowledged by him, andfierce has been the controversy as to what this Gospel was. It is onlyknown to us through his antagonists, who generally assert that theGospel used by him was the third Synoptic, changed and adapted to suithis heretical views. Paley says, "This rash and wild controversialistpublished a recension or chastised edition of St. Luke's Gospel"("Evidences, " p. 167), but does not condescend to give us the smallestreason for so broad an assertion. This question has, however, beenthoroughly debated among German critics, the one side maintaining thatMarcion mutilated Luke's Gospel, the other that Marcion's Gospel wasearlier than Luke's, and that Luke's was made from it; while some, again, maintained that both were versions of an older original. Fromthis controversy we may conclude that there was a strong likenessbetween Marcion's Gospel and the third Synoptic, and that it isimpossible to know which is the earlier of the two. The resolution ofthe question is made hopeless by the fact that "the principal sources ofour information regarding Marcion's Gospel are the works of his mostbitter denouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , p. 88). "At the very best, even if the hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel wasa mutilated Luke were established, Marcion affords no evidence in favourof the authenticity or trustworthy character of our third Synoptic. HisGospel was nameless, and his followers repudiated the idea of its havingbeen written by Luke; and regarded even as the earliest testimony forthe existence of Luke's Gospel, that testimony is not in confirmation ofits genuineness and reliability, but, on the contrary, condemns it asgarbled and interpolated" (Ibid, pp. 146, 147). 

It is scarcely worth while to refer to the supposed evidence of the"Canon of Muratori, " since the date of this fragment is utterly unknown. In the year 1740 Muratori published this document in a collection ofItalian antiquities, stating that he had found it in the Ambrosianlibrary at Milan, and that he believed that the MS. From which he tookit had been in existence about 1000 years. It is not known by whom theoriginal was written, and it bears no date: it is but a fragment, commencing: "at which, nevertheless, he was present, and thus he placedit. Third book of the Gospel according to Luke. " Further on it speaks of"the fourth of the Gospels of John. " The value of the evidence of ananonymous fragment of unknown date is simply _nil_. "It is by someaffirmed to be a complete treatise on the books received by the Church, from which fragments have been lost; while others consider it a merefragment itself. It is written in Latin, which by some is represented asmost corrupt, whilst others uphold it as most correct. The text isfurther rendered almost unintelligible by every possible inaccuracy oforthography and grammar, which is ascribed diversely to the transcriber, to the translator, and to both. Indeed, such is the elastic condition ofthe text, resulting from errors and obscurity of every imaginabledescription, that, by means of ingenious conjectures, critics are ableto find in it almost any sense they desire. Considerable difference ofopinion exists as to the original language of the fragment, the greaternumber of critics maintaining that the composition is a translation fromthe Greek, while others assert it to have been originally written inLatin. Its composition is variously attributed to the Church of Africa, and to a member of the Church in Rome" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. Ii. , pp. 238, 239). On a disputable scrap of this kind no argument can be based; thereis no evidence even to show that the thing was in existence at all untilMuratori published it; it is never referred to by any early writer, noris there a scintilla of evidence that it was known to the early Church. 

After a full and searching analysis of all the documents, orthodox andheretical, supposed to have been written in the first two centuriesafter Christ, the author of "Supernatural Religion" thus sumsup:--"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing onthe point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any one of thoseGospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus. .. . Any argument for the mere existence of our Synoptics based upon theirsupposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects has the inevitabledisadvantage, that the very testimony which would show their existencewould oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use byheretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by anywriter, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined" (vol. Ii. , pp, 248, 249). Nor is the fact of this blank absence of evidence of identityall that can be brought to bear in support of our proposition, for thereis another fact that tells very heavily against the identity of the nowaccepted Gospels with those that were current in earlier days, namely, the noteworthy charge brought against the Christians that they changedand altered their sacred books; the orthodox accused the unorthodox ofvarying the Scriptures, and the heretics retorted the charge with equalpertinacity. The Ebionites maintained that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthewwas the only authentic Gospel, and regarded the four Greek Gospels asunreliable. The Marcionites admitted only the Gospel resembling that ofLuke, and were accused by the orthodox of having altered that to suitthemselves. Celsus, writing against Christianity, formulates the charge:"Some believers, like men driven by drunkenness to commit violence onthemselves, have altered the Gospel history, since its firstcomposition, three times, four times, and oftener, and have re-fashionedit, so as to be able to deny the objections made against it" ("OrigenCont. Celsus, " bk. Ii. , chap. 27, as quoted by Norton, p. 63). Origenadmits "that there are those who have altered the Gospels, " but pleadsthat it has been done by heretics, and that this "is no reproach againsttrue Christianity" (Ibid). Only, most reverend Father of the Church, ifheretics accuse orthodox, and orthodox accuse heretics, of altering theGospels, how are we to be sure that they have come down unaltered to us?Clement of Alexandria notes alterations that had been made. Dionysius, of Corinth, complaining of the changes made in his own writings, bearswitness to this same fact: "It is not, therefore, matter of wonder ifsome have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to becompared with these" ("Eusebius, " bk. Iv. , ch. 23). Faustus, theManichæan, the great opponent of Augustine, writes: "For many thingshave been inserted by your ancestors in the speeches of our Lord, which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especiallysince--as already it has been often proved by us--that these things werenot written by Christ, nor his Apostles, but a long while after theirassumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing withthemselves, who made up their tale out of report and opinions merely;and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the Apostles of the Lord, or on those who were supposed to have followed the Apostles; theymendaciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits_according to_ them" (Lib. 33, ch. 3, as quoted and translated in"Diegesis, " pp. 61, 62). 

The truth is, that in those days, when books were only written, thewidest door was opened to alterations, additions, and omissions;incidents or remarks written, perhaps, in the margin of the text by onetranscriber, were transferred into the text itself by the next copyist, and were thereafter indistinguishable from the original matter. In thisway the celebrated text of the three witnesses (1 John, v. 7) issupposed to have crept into the text. Dealing with this, in reference tothe New Testament, Eichhorn points out that it was easy to alter amanuscript in transcribing it, and that, as manuscripts were written forindividual use, such alterations were considered allowable, and that thealtered manuscript, being copied in its turn, such changes passed intocirculation unnoticed. Owners of manuscripts added to them incidents ofthe life of Christ, or any of his sayings, which they had heard of, andwhich were not recorded in their own copies, and thus the story grew andgrew, and additional legends were incorporated with it, until thehistorical basis became overlaid with myth. The vast number of readingsin the New Testament, no less--according to Dr. Angus, one of thepresent Revision Committee--than 100, 000, prove the facility with whichvariations were introduced into MSS. By those who had charge of them. Inheated and angry controversy between different schools of monks appealswere naturally made to the authority of the Scriptures, and what morelikely--indeed more certain--than that these monks should introducevariations into their MS. Copies favouring the positions for which theywere severally contending?

The most likely way in which the Gospels grew into their present formsis, that the various traditions relating to Christ were written down indifferent places for the instruction of catechumens, and that these, passing from hand to hand, and mouth to mouth, grew into a large mass ofdisjointed stories, common to many churches. This mass was graduallysifted, arranged, moulded into historical shape, which should fit intothe preconceived notions of the Messiah, and thus the four Gospelsgradually grew into their present form, and were accepted on all handsas the legacy of the apostolic age. No careful reader can avoid noticingthe many coincidences of expression between the three synoptics, anddeducing from these coincidences the conclusion that one narrativeformed the basis of the three histories. Ewald supposes the existence ofa _Spruchsammlung_--collected sayings of Christ--but such a collectionis not enough to explain the phenomena we refer to. Dr. Davidson says:"The rudiments of an original oral Gospel were formed in Jerusalem, inthe bosom of the first Christian Church; and the language of it musthave been Aramæan, since the members consisted of Galileans, to whomthat tongue was vernacular. It is natural to suppose that they wereaccustomed to converse with one another on the life, actions, anddoctrines of their departed Lord, dwelling on the particulars thatinterested them most, and rectifying the accounts given by one another, where such accounts were erroneous, or seriously defective. TheApostles, who were eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ, couldimpart correctness to the narratives, giving them a fixed character inregard to authenticity and form. In this manner an original oral Gospelin Aramæan was formed. We must not, however, conceive of it as put intothe shape of any of our present Gospels, or as being of like extent; butas consisting of leading particulars in the life of Christ, probably themost striking and the most affecting, such as would leave the bestimpression on the minds of the disciples. The incidents and sayingsconnected with their Divine Master naturally assumed a particular shapefrom repetition, though it was simply a rudimental one. They were notcompactly linked in regular or systematic sequence. They were the oralgerm and essence of a Gospel, rather than a proper Gospel itself, atleast, according to our modern ideas of it. But the Aramæan language wassoon laid aside. When Hellenists evinced a disposition to receiveChristianity, and associated themselves with the small number ofPalestinian converts, Greek was necessarily adopted. As theGreek-speaking members far out-numbered the Aramæan-speaking brethren, the oral Gospel was put into Greek. Henceforward Greek, the language ofthe Hellenists, became the medium of instruction. The truths and facts, before repeated in Hebrew, were now generally promulgated in Greek bythe apostles and their converts. The historical cyclus, which had beenforming in the Church at Jerusalem, assumed a determinate character inthe Greek tongue" ("Introduction to the New Testament, " by S. Davidson, LL. D. , p. 405. Ed. 1848). Thus we find learned Christians obliged toadmit an uninspired collection as the basis of the inspired Gospel, andlaying down a theory which is entirely incompatible with the idea thatthe Synoptic Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. OurGospels are degraded into versions of an older Gospel, instead of beingthe inspired record of contemporaries, speaking "that we do know. "

Canon Westcott writes of the three Synoptic Gospels, that "theyrepresent, as is shown by their structure, a common basis, commonmaterials, treated in special ways. They evidently contain only a verysmall selection from the words and works of Christ, and yet theircontents are included broadly in one outline. Their substance isevidently much older than their form. .. . The only explanation of thenarrow and definite limit within which the evangelic history (exclusiveof St. John's Gospel) is confined, seems to be that a collection ofrepresentative words and works was made by an authoritative body, suchas the Twelve, at a very early date, and that this, which formed thebasis of popular teaching, gained exclusive currency, receiving onlysubordinate additions and modifications. This Apostolic Gospel--the oralbasis, as I have endeavoured to show elsewhere, of the Synopticnarratives--dates unquestionably from the very beginning of theChristian society" ("On the Canon, " preface, pp. Xxxviii. , xxxix). Mr. Sanday speaks of the "original documents out of which our Gospel wascomposed" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " page 78), and he writes:"Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew whatwas the common original of the two Synoptic texts" (Ibid, p. 65). "Thefirst three Gospels of our Canon are remarkably alike, their writersagree in relating the same thing, not only in the same manner, butlikewise in the very words, as must be evident to every common readerwho has paid the slightest attention to the subject. .. . [Here follow anumber of parallel passages from the three synoptics. ] The agreementbetween the three evangelists in these extracts is remarkable, and leadsto the question how such coincidences could arise between works which, from the first years of Christianity until the beginning of theseventeenth century, were understood to be perfectly independent, and tohave had each a separate and independent origin. The answer to thisquestion may at last, after more than a hundred years of discussion, begiven with tolerable certainty, if we are allowed to judge of thissubject according to the rules of reason and common sense, by which allother such difficulties are resolved. 'The most eminent critics'--wequote from 'Marsh's Michaelis, ' vol. Iii. , part 2, page 170--'are atpresent decidedly of opinion that one of the two suppositions mustnecessarily be adopted--either that the three evangelists copied fromeach other, or that all the three drew from _a common source_, and thatthe notion of an absolute independence, in respect to the composition ofour three first Gospels, is no longer tenable'. .. . The alternativebetween _a common source_ and _copying from each other_, is now nolonger in the same position as in the days of Michaelis or Bishop Marsh. To decide between the two is no longer difficult. No one will now admitthat either of the four evangelists has copied from the other three, 1. Because in neither of the four is there the slightest notice of theothers. 2. Because, if either of the evangelists may be thought, fromthe remarkable similarity of any particular part of his narrative, tohave copied out of either of the other Gospels, we immediately lightupon so many other passages, wholly inconsistent with what the otherthree have related on the same subject, that we immediately ask why hehas not copied from the others on those points also. It only remains, therefore, for us to infer that there was a common source, firsttraditional and then written--the [Greek: Apomnemoneumata], in short, or'Memorials, ' etc. , of Justin Martyr, and that from this source the fourcanonical Gospels, together with thirty or forty others, many of whichare still in existence, were, at various periods of early Christianity, compiled by various writers" ("Christian Records, " Dr. Giles, pp. 266, 270, 271). Dean Alford puts forward a somewhat similar theory; heconsiders that the oral teaching of the apostles to catechumens andothers, the simple narrative of facts relating to Christ, gradually grewinto form and was written down, and that this accounts for the markedsimilarity of some passages in the different Gospels. He says:--"Ibelieve, then, that the Apostles, in virtue not merely of their havingbeen eye-and-ear witnesses of the Evangelic history, but especially of_their office_, gave to the various Churches their testimony in _anarrative of facts_, such narrative being modified in each case by theindividual mind of the Apostle himself, and his sense of what wasrequisite for the particular community to which he was ministering. .. . It would be easy and interesting to follow the probable origin andgrowth of this cycle of narratives of the words and deeds of our Lord inthe Church at Jerusalem, for both the Jews and the Hellenists--thelatter under such teachers as Philip and Stephen--commissioned andauthenticated by the Apostles. In the course of such a process someportions would naturally be written down by private believers for theirown use, or that of friends. And as the Church spread to Samaria, Caesarea, and Antioch, the want would be felt in each of those places ofsimilar cycles of oral teaching, which, when supplied, wouldthenceforward belong to, and be current in, those respective Churches. And these portions of the Evangelic history, oral or partiallydocumentary, would be adopted under the sanction of the Apostles, whowere as in all things, so especially in this, the appointed anddivinely-guided overseers of the whole Church. This _common substratumof Apostolic teachings_--never formally adopted by all, but subject toall the varieties of diction and arrangement, addition and omission, incident to transmission through many individual minds, and into manydifferent localities--_I believe to have been the original source of thecommon part of our three Gospels_" ("Greek Test. , " Dean Alford, vol. I. , Prolegomena, ch. I. , sec. 3, par. 6; ed. 1859. The italics are DeanAlford's). 

Eichhorn's theory of the growth of the Gospels is one very generallyaccepted; he considers that the present Gospels were not in commoncirculation before the end of the second century, and that before thattime other Gospels were in common use, differing considerably from eachother, but resting on a common foundation of historical fact; all these, he thinks, were versions of an "original Gospel, " a kind of roughoutline of Christ's life and discourses, put together without method orplan, and one of these would be the "Memoirs of the Apostles, " of whichJustin Martyr speaks. The Gospels, as we have them, are carefulcompilations made from these earlier histories, and we notice that, atthe end of the second, and the beginning of the third, centuries, theleaders of the Church endeavour to establish the authority of the fourmore methodically arranged Gospels, so as to check the reception ofother Gospels, which were relied upon by heretics in theircontroversies. 

Strauss gives a careful _resume_ of the various theories of theformation of the Gospels held by learned men, and shows how the mythictheory was gradually developed and strengthened; "according to George, _mythus_ is the creation of a fact out of an idea" ("Life of Jesus, "Strauss, vol. I. , p. 42; ed. 1846), and the mythic theory supposes thatthe ideas of the Messiah were already in existence, and that the storyof the Gospels grew up by the translation of these ideas into facts:"Many of the legends respecting him [Jesus] had not to be newlyinvented; they already existed in the popular hope of the Messiah, having been mostly derived, with various modifications, from the OldTestament, and had merely to be transferred to Jesus, and accommodatedto his character and doctrines. In no case could it be easier for theperson who first added any new feature to the description of Jesus, tobelieve himself its genuineness, since his argument would be: Such andsuch things must have happened to the Messiah; Jesus was the Messiah;therefore, such and such things happened to him" (Ibid, pp. 81, 82). "Itis not, however, to be imagined that any one individual seated himselfat his table to invent them out of his own head, and write them down ashe would a poem; on the contrary, these narratives, like all otherlegends, were fashioned by degrees, by steps which can no longer betraced; gradually acquired consistency, and at length received a fixedform in our written Gospels" (Ibid, p. 35). From the considerations hereadduced--the lack of quotations from our Gospels in the earliestChristian writers, both orthodox and heretical; the accusations againsteach made by the other of introducing chants and modifications in theGospels; the facility with which MSS. Were altered before theintroduction of printing; the coincidences between the Gospels, showingthat they are drawn from a common source; from all these facts wefinally conclude _that there is no evidence that the Four Gospelsmentioned about that date_ (A. D. 180) _were the same as those we havenow. _

G. _That there is evidence that two of them were not the same. _ "Thetestimony of Papias is of great interest and importance in connectionwith our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical writer whomentions the tradition that Matthew and Mark composed written records ofthe life and teaching of Jesus; but no question has been morecontinuously contested than that of the identity of the works to whichhe refers with our actual Canonical Gospels. Papias was Bishop ofHierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first half of the second century, and issaid to have suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius about A. D. 164-167. About the middle of the second century he wrote a work in fivebooks, entitled 'Exposition of the Lord's Oracles, ' which, with theexception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by Eusebius andIrenæus, is unfortunately no longer extant. This work was less based onwritten records of the teaching of Jesus than on that which Papias hadbeen able to collect from tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his contemporary, Hegesippus, Papias avowedly preferstradition to any written works with which he was acquainted" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , pp. 449, 450). Before giving the testimony attributed toPapias, we must remark two or three points which will influence ourjudgment concerning him. Paley speaks of him, on the authority ofIrenæus, as "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp" ("Evidences, "p. 121); but Paley omits to tell us that Eusebius points out thatIrenæus was mistaken in this statement, and that Papias "by no meansasserts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of the holy Apostles, but informs us that he received the doctrines of faith from theirintimate friends" ("Eccles. Hist. ", bk. Iii. , ch. 39). Eusebius subjoinsthe passage from Papias, which states that "if I met with any one whohad been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquirewhat were the declarations of the elders: what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other ofthe disciples of our Lord; what was said by Aristion, and the PresbyterJohn, disciples of the Lord" (Ibid). Seeing that Papias died betweenA. D. 164 and 167, and that the disciples of Jesus were Jesus' owncontemporaries, any disciple that Papias heard, when a boy, would havereached a portentous age, and, between the age of the disciple and theyouth of Papias, the reminiscences would probably be of a somewhat hazycharacter. It is to Papias that we owe the wonderful account of thevines (ante, p. 234) of the kingdom of God, given by Irenæus, who statesthat "these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearerof John, and a companion of Polycarp. .. . And he says, in addition, 'Nowthese things are credible to believers. ' And he says that 'when thetraitor, Judas, did not give credit to them, and put the question, Howthen can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by theLord? the Lord declared, They who shall come to these (times) shallsee'" ("Irenæus Against Heresies, " bk. V. , ch. 33, sec. 4). Therecollections of Papias scarcely seem valuable as to quality. Next wenote that Papias could scarcely put a very high value on the Apostolicwritings, since he states that "I do not think that I derived so muchbenefit from books as from the living voice of those that are stillsurviving" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Iii. , ch. 39), i. E. , of those who hadbeen followers of the Apostles. How this remark of Papias tallies withthe supposed respect shown to the Canonical Gospels by primitivewriters, it is for Christian apologists to explain. We then mark that wehave no writing of Papias to refer to that pretends to be original. Wehave only passages, said to be taken from his writings, preserved in theworks of Irenæus and Eusebius, and neither of these ecclesiasticalpenmen inspire the student with full confidence; even Eusebius mentionshim in doubtful fashion; "there are said to be five books of Papias;" hegives "certain strange parables of our Lord and of his doctrine, andsome other matters rather too fabulous;" "he was very limited in hiscomprehension, as is evident from his discourses" ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk. Iii. , ch. 39). We thus see that the evidence of Papias is discredited atthe very outset, perhaps to the advantage of the Christians, however, for his testimony is fatal to the Canonical Gospels. Papias is said tohave written: "And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being theinterpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with greataccuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or doneby our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gavehim such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of ourLord's discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writingsome things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive toone thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anythingfalsely in these accounts" ("Eccles. Hist. , " bk iii. , ch. 39). How fardoes this account apply to the Gospel now known as "according to St. Mark?" Far from showing traces of Petrine influence, such traces areconspicuous by their absence. "Not only are some of the most importantepisodes in which Peter is represented by the other Gospels _as_ aprincipal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the Gospel there isthe total absence of anything which is specially characteristic ofPetrine influence and teaching. The argument that these omissions aredue to the modesty of Peter is quite untenable, for not only doesIrenæus, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this Gospelwas only written after the death of Peter, but also there is no modestyin omitting passages of importance in the history of Jesus, simplybecause Peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, forinstance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial of his master, which could not but have filled a sad place in the Apostle's memory. Onthe other hand, there is no adequate record of special matter which theintimate knowledge of the doings and sayings of Jesus possessed by Petermight have supplied to counterbalance the singular omissions. There isinfinitely more of the spirit of Peter in the first Gospel than there isin the second. The whole internal evidence, therefore, shows that thispart of the tradition of the Presbyter John transmitted by Papias doesnot apply to our Gospel" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , pp. 459, 460). But a farstronger objection to the identity of the work spoken of by Papias withthe present Gospel of Mark, is drawn from the description of thedocument as given by him. "The discrepancy, however, is still moremarked when we compare with our actual second Gospel the account of thework of Mark, which Papias received from the Presbyter. Mark wrote downfrom memory some parts [Greek: enia] of the teaching of Peter regardingthe life of Jesus, but as Peter adapted his instructions to the actualcircumstances [Greek: pros tas chreias] and did not give a consecutivereport [Greek: suntaxis] of the discourses or doings of Jesus, Mark wasonly careful to be accurate, and did not trouble himself to arrange inhistorical order [Greek: taxis] his narrative of the things which weresaid or done by Jesus, but merely wrote down facts as he rememberedthem. This description would lead us to expect a work composed offragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of Peter, without orderlysequence or connection. The absence of orderly arrangement is the mostprominent feature in the description, and forms the burden of the whole. Mark writes 'what he remembered;' 'he did not arrange in order thethings that were either said or done by Christ;' and then follow theapologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a hearer orfollower of the Lord, but derived his information from the occasionalpreaching of Peter, who did not attempt to give a consecutive narrative, and, therefore, Mark was not wrong in merely writing things withoutorder as he happened to hear or remember them. Now it is impossible inthe work of Mark here described to recognise our present second Gospel, which does not depart in any important degree from the order of theother two Synoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evidentcharacter of orderly arrangement. .. . The great majority of critics, therefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the PresbyterJohn recorded by Papias does not apply to our second Canonical Gospel atall" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. 1, pp. 460, 461). "This document, also, ismentioned by Papias, as quoted by Eusebius; the account which they giveof it is not applicable to the work which we now have. For the 'Gospelaccording to St. Mark' professes to give a continuous history ofChrist's life, as regularly as the other three Gospels, but the worknoticed by Papias is expressly stated to have been memoranda, taken downfrom time to time as Peter delivered them, and it is not said that Markever reduced these notes into the form of a more perfect history"("Christian Records, " Rev. Dr. Giles, pp. 94, 95). "It is difficult tosee in what respects Mark's Gospel is more loose and disjointed thanthose of Matthew and Luke. .. . We are inclined to agree with those whoconsider the expression [Greek: ou taxei] unsuitable to the presentGospel of Mark. As far as we are able to understand the entire fragment, it is most natural to consider John the Presbyter or Papias assigning asense to [Greek: ou taxei] which does not agree with the character ofthe canonical document" ("Introduction to the New Testament, " Dr. Davidson, p. 158). This Christian commentator is so disgusted with theconviction he honestly expresses as to the unsuitability of the phrasein question as applied to Mark, that he exclaims: "We presume that Johnthe Presbyter was not infallible. .. . In the present instance, he appearsto have been mistaken in his opinion. His power of perception wasfeeble, else he would have seen that the Gospel which he describes asbeing written [Greek: ou taxei], does not differ materially inarrangement from that of Luke. Like Papias, the Presbyter was apparentlydestitute of critical ability and good judgment, else he could not haveentertained an idea so much at variance with fact" (Ibid, p. 159). Wemay add, for what it is worth, that "according to the unanimous beliefof the early Church this Gospel was written at _Rome. _ Hence theconclusion was drawn that it must have been composed in _the language ofthe Romans_; that is, Latin. Even in the old Syriac version, a remark isannexed, stating that the writer preached the Gospel in Roman (Latin) atRome; and the Philoxenian version has a marginal annotation to the sameeffect. The Syrian Churches seem to have entertained this opiniongenerally, as may be inferred not only from these versions, but fromsome of their most distinguished ecclesiastical writers, such asEbedjesu. Many Greek Manuscripts, too, have a similar remark regardingthe language of our Gospel, originally taken, perhaps from the Syriac"(Ibid, pp. 154, 155). We conclude, then, that the document alluded to bythe Presbyter John, as reported by Papias through Eusebius, cannot beidentical with the present canonical Gospel of Mark. Nor is thetestimony regarding Matthew less conclusive: "Of Matthew he has statedas follows: 'Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, andevery one translated it as he was able'" ("Eccles. Hist, " Eusebius, bk. Iii. , ch. 39). The word here translated "history" is [Greek: ta logia]and would be more correctly rendered by "oracles" or "discourses, " andmuch controversy has arisen over this term, it being contended that[Greek: logia] could not rightly be extended so as to include anyrecords of the life of Christ: "It is impossible upon any but arbitrarygrounds, and from a foregone conclusion, to maintain that a workcommencing with a detailed history of the birth and infancy of Jesus, his genealogy, and the preaching of John the Baptist, and concludingwith an equally minute history of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, andresurrection, and which relates all the miracles, and has for itsevident aim throughout the demonstration that Messianic prophecy wasfulfilled in Jesus, could be entitled [Greek: ta logia] the oracles ordiscourses of the Lord. For these and other reasons . .. The majority ofcritics deny that the work described by Papias can be the same as theGospel in our Canon bearing the name of Matthew" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , pp. 471, 472). But the fact which puts the difference between thepresent "Matthew" and that spoken of by Papias beyond dispute is thatMatthew, according to Papias, "wrote in the Hebrew dialect, " i. E. , theSyro-Chaldaic, or Aramæan, while the canonical Matthew is written inGreek. "There is no point, however, on which the testimony of theFathers is more invariable and complete than that the work of Matthewwas written in Hebrew or Aramaic" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 475). Thisindustrious author quotes Papias, Irenæus, Pantænus in Eusebius, Eusebius, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, in support ofhis assertion, and remarks that "the same tradition is repeated byChrysostom, Augustine and others" (Ibid, pp. 475-477). "We believe thatMatthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, meaning by that term the commonlanguage of the Jews of his time, because such is the uniform statementof all ancient writers who advert to the subject. To pass over otherswhose authority is of less weight, he is affirmed to have written inHebrew by Papias, Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Nor does anyancient author advance a contrary opinion" ("Genuineness of theGospels, " Norton, vol. I. , pp. 196, 197). "Ancient historical testimonyis unanimous in declaring that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, i. E. , in the Aramæan or Syro-Chaldaic language, at that time the vernaculartongue of the Jews in Palestine" (Davidson's "Introduction to the NewTestament, " p. 3). After a most elaborate presentation of the evidences, the learned doctor says: "Let us now pause to consider this account ofthe original Gospel of Matthew. It runs through all antiquity. Nonedoubted of its truth, as far as we can judge from their writings. Thereis not the least trace of an opposite tradition" (Ibid, p. 37). Thedifficulty of Christian apologists is, then, to prove that the Gospelwritten by Matthew in Hebrew is the same as the Gospel according toMatthew in Greek, and sore have been the shifts to which they have beendriven in the effort. Dean Alford, unable to deny that all the testimonywhich could be relied upon to prove that Matthew wrote at all, alsoproved that he wrote in Hebrew, and aware that an unauthorisedtranslation, which could not be identified with the original, couldnever claim canonicity, fell back on the remarkable notion that hehimself translated his Hebrew Gospel into Greek; in the edition of hisGreek Testament published in 1859, however, he gives up this notion infavour of the idea that the original Gospel of Matthew was written inGreek. 

Of his earlier theory of translation by Matthew, Davidson justly says:"It is easy to perceive its gratuitous character. It is a clumsyexpedient, devised for the purpose of uniting two conflictingopinions--for saving the credit of ancient testimony, which is on theside of a Hebrew original, and of meeting, at the same time, thedifficulties supposed to arise from the early circulation of theGreek. .. . The advocates of the double hypothesis go in the face ofancient testimony. Besides, they believe that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, for the use of Jewish converts. Do they also suppose his Greek Gospel tohave been intended for the same class? If so, the latter was plainlyunnecessary: one Gospel was sufficient for the same persons. Or do theybelieve that the second edition of it was designed for GentileChristians? if so, the notion is contradicted by internal evidence, which proves that it was written specially for Jews. In short, thehypothesis is wholly untenable, and we are surprised that it should havefound so many advocates" ("Introduction to the New Testament, " p. 52). The fact is, that no one knows who was the translator--or, rather, thewriter--of the Greek Gospel. Jerome honestly says that it is not knownwho translated it into Greek. Dr. Davidson has the following strangeremarks: "The author indeed must ever remain unknown; but whether hewere an apostle or not, he must have had the highest sanction in hisproceeding. His work was performed with the cognisance, and under theeye of Apostolic men. The reception it met with proved the generalbelief of his calling, and competency to the task. Divinesuperintendence was exercised over him" (Ibid, pp. 72, 73). It isdifficult to understand how Dr. Davidson knows that divinesuperintendence was exercised over an unknown individual. Dr. Gilesargues against the hypothesis that our Greek Gospel is a translation:"If St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, why has the originalperished? The existing Greek text is either a translation of the Hebrew, or it is a separate work. But it cannot be a translation, for manyreasons, 1. Because there is not the slightest evidence on record of itsbeing a translation. 2. Because it is unreasonable to believe that anauthentic work--written by inspiration--would perish, or be supersededby, an unauthenticated translation--for all translations are lessauthentic than their originals. 3. Because there are many features inour present Gospel according to St. Matthew, which are common to theGospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; which would lead to the inference thatthe latter are translations also. Besides, there is nothing in theGospel of St. Matthew, as regards its style or construction, that wouldlead to the inference of its being a translation, any more than all theother books contained in the New Testament. For these reasons weconclude that the 'Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, ' which perhaps no onehas seen since Pantænus, who brought it from India, and the 'GreekGospel according to St. Matthew, ' are separate and independent works"("Christian Records. " Rev. Dr. Giles, pp. 93, 94). It must not beforgotten that there was in existence in the early Church a HebrewGospel which was widely spread, and much used. It was regarded by theEbionites, or Jewish Christians, later known as Nazarenes, as the onlyauthentic Gospel, and Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century, says:"They have the Gospel of Matthew very complete; for it is well knownthat this is preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew"("Opp. , " i. 124, as quoted by Norton). But this Gospel, known as the"Gospel according to the Hebrews, " was not the same as the Greek "Gospelaccording to St. Matthew. " If it had been the same, Jerome would nothave thought it worth while to translate it; the quotations that hemakes from it are enough to prove to demonstration that the presentGospel of Matthew is not that spoken of in the earliest days. "Thefollowing positions are deducible from St. Jerome's writings: 1. Theauthentic Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. 2. The Gospelaccording to the Hebrews was used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. 3. This Gospel was identical with the Aramæan original of Matthew"(Davidson's "Introduction to the New Testament, " p. 12). To thesearguments may be added the significant fact that the quotations inMatthew from the Old Testament are taken from the Septuagint, and notfrom the Hebrew version. The original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew wouldsurely not have contained quotations from the Greek translation, ratherthan from the Hebrew original, of the Jewish Scriptures. If our presentGospel is an accurate translation of the original Matthew, we mustbelieve that the Jewish Matthew, writing for Jews, did not use theHebrew Scriptures, with which his readers would be familiar, but wentout of his way to find the hated Septuagint, and re-translated it intoHebrew. Thus we find that the boasted testimony said to be recorded byPapias to the effect that Matthew and Mark wrote our two firstsynoptical Gospels breaks down completely under examination, and thatinstead of proving the authenticity of the present Gospels, it provesdirectly the reverse, since the description there given of the writingsascribed to Matthew and Mark is not applicable to the writings that nowbear their names, so that we find that in Papias _there is evidence thattwo of the Gospels were not the same_. 

H. _That there is evidence that the earlier records were not the Gospelsnow esteemed Canonical. _ This position is based on the undisputed factthat the "Evangelical quotations" in early Christian writings differvery widely from sentences of somewhat similar character in theCanonical Gospels, and also from the circumstance that quotations not tobe found in the Canonical Gospels are found in the writings referred to. Various theories are put forward, as we have already seen, to accountfor the differences of expression and arrangement: the Fathers are saidto have quoted loosely, to have quoted from memory, to have combined, expanded, condensed, at pleasure. To prove this general laxity ofquotation, Christian apologists rely much on what they assert is asimilar laxity shown in quoting from the Old Testament; and Mr. Sandayhas used this argument with considerable skill. But it does not followthat variations in quotations from the Old Testament spring from laxityand carelessness; they are generally quite as likely to spring frommultiplicity of versions, for we find Mr. Sanday himself saying that"most of the quotations that we meet with are taken from the LXX. Version; and the text of that version was, at this particular timeespecially, uncertain and fluctuating. There is evidence to show that itmust have existed in several forms, which differed more or less fromthat of the extant MSS. It would be rash, therefore, to conclude atonce, because we find a quotation differing from the present text of theLXX. , that it differed from that which was used by the writer making thequotation" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " pp. 16, 17). Besides, itmust not be forgotten that the variation is sometimes too persistent tospring from looseness of quotation, and that the same variation is notalways confined to one author. The position for which we contend will bemost clearly appreciated by giving, at full length, one of the passagesmost relied upon by Christian apologists; and we will take, as anexample of supposed quotation, the long passage in Clement, chap. Xiii. :--

MATTHEW. CLEMENT. LUKE. 

 Especially remembering the word of the Lord Jesus when he spake, teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For this he said:v. 7. Blessed are Pity he, that he may be vi. 36. Be ye, the pitiful, for they pitied: forgive, that it therefore, shall be pitied. May be forgiven unto merciful, asvi. 14. For if ye you. Your Father alsoforgive men their As ye do, so shall it is merciful. Trespasses, your heavenly be done unto you; vi. 37. Acquit, Father will as ye give, so shall it and ye shall bealso forgive you. Be given unto you; as acquitted. Vii. 12. All things, ye judge, so shall it vi. 31. And as yetherefore, whatsoever be judged unto you; would that theyye would that as ye are kind, so should do untomen should do unto shall kindness be you, do ye alsoyou, even so do ye shown unto you; with unto themunto them. That measure ye mete, likewise. Vii. 2. For with with it shall it be vi. 18. Give, andwhat judgment ye measured unto you. It shall be givenjudge, ye shall be unto you. Judged, and with vi. 37. And judgewhat measure ye not, and ye shallmete it shall be not be judged. Formeasured unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again. 

The English, as here given, represents as closely as possible both theresemblances and the differences of the Greek text. What reader, inreading this, can believe that Clement picked out a bit here and a bitthere from the Canonical Gospels, and then wove them into one connectedwhole, which he forthwith represented as said thus by Christ? To theunprejudiced student the hypothesis will, at once, suggest itself--theremust have been some other document current in Clement's time, whichcontained the sayings of Christ, from which this quotation was made. Only the exigencies of Christian apologetic work forbid the generaladoption of so simple and so natural a solution of the question. Mr. Sanday says: "Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if weonly knew what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts . .. Thedifferences in these extra-Canonical quotations do not exceed thedifferences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves; yet by far thelarger proportion of critics regard the resemblances in the Synoptics asdue to a common written source used either by all three or by two ofthem" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " p. 65). It is clear that Jesuscould not have said these passages in the words given by Matthew, Clement, and Luke, repeating himself in three different forms, nowconnectedly, now in fragments; two, at least, out of the three must givean imperfect report. Mr. Sanday, by speaking of "the common original ofthe two Synoptic texts, " clearly shows that he does not regard theSynoptic version as original, and thereby helps to buttress ourcontention, that the Gospels we have now are not the only ones that werecurrent in the early Church, and that they had no exclusiveauthority--in fact, that they were not "Canonical. " Further on, Mr. Sanday, referring to Polycarp, says: "I cannot but think that there hasbeen somewhere a written version different from our Gospels to which heand Clement have had access . .. It will be observed that all thequotations refer either to the double or treble Synoptics, where we havealready proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than asingle form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to theindividual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, therefore, not without reason when he says that they may be derived fromother collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility cannot beexcluded" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " pp. 86, 87). The otherpassage from Clement is yet more unlike anything in the CanonicalGospels: in chap. Xlvi. We read:--

MATTHEW. CLEMENT. LUKE. MARK. Xxvi. 24. He said: xvii. 1. Xiv. 21. Woe toWoe to that Woe to that man; Woe through that man by whomman by whom well for him whom they the Son of man isthe Son of man that he had not (offences) delivered up, wellis delivered been born, than come. For him if thatup; well for that he should 2. It were man had not beenhim if that offend one of my advantageous for born. Man had not elect; better him that a great ix. 42. Andbeen born. For him a millstone were whosoever shallxviii. 6. But millstone should hanged around offend one ofwhoso shall be attached (to his neck, and he these little onesoffend one of him), and he cast in the sea, which believe inthese little should be than that he me, it is well forones which drowned in the should offend him rather that abelieve in me, it sea, than that one of these great millstonewere profitable he should offend little ones. Were hanged aboutfor him that a one of my little his neck, and hegreat millstone ones. Thrown in the sea. Were suspendedupon hisneck, and thathe were drownedin the depthof the sea. 

"This quotation is clearly not from our Gospels, but is derived from adifferent written source. .. . The slightest comparison of the passagewith our Gospels is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that itis neither a combination of texts, nor a quotation from memory. Thelanguage throughout is markedly different, and, to present even asuperficial parallel, it is necessary to take a fragment of thediscourse of Jesus at the Last Supper, regarding the traitor who shoulddeliver him up (Matt. Xxvi. 24), and join it to a fragment of hisremarks in connection with the little child whom he set in the midst(xviii. 6)" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , pp. 233, 234). 

In Polycarp a passage is found much resembling that given from Clement, chap, xiii. , but not exactly reproducing it, which is open to the samecriticism as that passed on Clement. 

If we desire to prove that Gospels other than the Canonical were in use, the proof lies ready to our hands. In chap. Xlvi. Of Clement we read:"It is written, cleave to the holy, for they who cleave to them shall bemade holy. " In chap. Xliv. : "And our Apostles knew, through our LordJesus Christ, that there would be contention regarding the office of theepiscopate. " The author of "Supernatural Religion" gives us passagessomewhat resembling this. He said: "There shall be schisms andheresies, " from Justin Martyr ("Trypho, " chap. Xxxv): "There shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires forsupremacy, " from the "Clementine Homilies": "From these came the falseChrists, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of theChurch, " from Hegesippus (vol. I. P. 236). 

In Barnabas we read, chap. Vi. : "The Lord saith, He maketh a newcreation in the last times. The Lord saith, Behold I make the first asthe last. " Chap. Vii. : Jesus says: "Those who desire to behold me, andto enter into my kingdom, must, through tribulation and suffering, layhold upon me. "

In Ignatius we find: Ep. Phil. , chap, vii. : "But the Spirit proclaimed, saying these words: Do ye nothing without the Bishop. " "There is, however, one quotation, introduced as such, in this same Epistle, thesource of which Eusebius did not know, but which Origen refers to 'thePreaching of Peter, ' and Jerome seems to have found in the Nazareneversion of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews. ' This phrase isattributed to our Lord when he appeared 'to those about Peter and saidto them, Handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. ' Butfor the statement of Origen, that these words occurred in the 'Preachingof Peter, ' they might have been referred without much difficulty to Lukexxiv. 39" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " p. 81). And they mostcertainly would have been so referred, and dire would have beenChristian wrath against those who refused to admit these words as aproof of the canonicity of Luke's Gospel in the time of Ignatius. 

If, turning to Justin Martyr, we take one or two passages resemblingother passages to be found in the Canonical, we shall then see the sametype of differences as we have already remarked in Clement. In thefifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the first "Apology" we find acollection of the sayings of Christ, most of which are to be read in theSermon on the Mount; in giving these Justin mentions no written workfrom which he quotes. He says: "We consider it right, before giving youthe promised explanation, to cite a few precepts given by Christhimself" ("Apology, " chap. Xiv). If these had been taken from Gospelswritten by Apostles, is it conceivable that Justin would not have usedtheir authority to support himself?

MATTHEW. JUSTIN. 

v. 46. For if ye should love And of our love to all, hethem which love you, what reward taught this: If ye love themhave ye? do not even the that love ye, what new thingspublicans the same? do ye? for even fornicators do this; but I say unto you: Prayv. 44. But I say unto you, for your enemies, and love themlove your enemies, bless them which hate you, and bless themwhich curse you, do good to which curse you, and offerthem which hate you, and pray prayer for them whichfor them which despitefully use despitefully use you. You and persecute you. 

The corresponding passage in Luke is still further from Justin (Luke vi. 32-35). "It will be observed that here again Justin's Gospel reversesthe order in which the parallel passage is found in our synoptics. Itdoes so indeed, with a clearness of design which, even without theactual peculiarities of diction and construction, would indicate aspecial and different source. The passage varies throughout from ourGospels, but Justin repeats the same phrases in the same orderelsewhere" ("Sup. Rel, " v. I. P. 353, note 2). 

MATTHEW. JUSTIN. 

v. 42. Give thou to him that He said: Give ye to every oneasketh thee, and from him that that asketh, and from him thatwould borrow of thee turn not desireth to borrow turn not yethou away. Away: for if ye lend to them from whom ye hope to receive, Luke vi. 34. And if you lend what new thing do ye? for evento them from whom ye hope to the publicans do this. Receive, what thank have ye; forsinners also lend to sinners to But ye, lay not up for yourselvesreceive as much again. Upon the earth, where moth and rust do corrupt, and robbersMatt. Vi. 19, 20. Lay not up for break through, but lay up foryourselves treasures upon earth, yourselves in the heavens, wherewhere moth and rust doth corrupt, neither moth nor rust dothand where thieves break corrupt. Through and steal. But lay upfor yourselves treasures in heaven, For what is a man profited, is hewhere neither moth nor shall gain the whole world, butrust doth corrupt, and where destroy his soul? or what shall hethieves do not break through give in exchange for it? Lay up, nor steal. Therefore, in the heavens, where neither most nor rust doth corrupt. Xvi. 26. For what shall aman be profited if he shall gainthe whole world, but lose hissoul? or what shall a man give inexchange for his soul?

This passage is clearly unbroken in Justin, and forms one connectedwhole; to parallel it from the Synoptics we must go from Matthew v. , 42, to Luke vi. , 34, then to Matthew vi. , 19, 20, off to Matthew xvi. 26, and back again to Matthew vi. 19; is such a method of quotation likely, especially when we notice that Justin, in quoting passages on a givensubject (as at the beginning of chap. Xv. On chastity), separates thequotations by an emphatic "And, " marking the quotation taken fromanother place? These passages will show the student how necessary it isthat he should not accept a few words as proof of a quotation from asynoptic, without reading the whole passage in which they occur. Thecoincidence of half a dozen words is no quotation when the context isdifferent, and there is no break between the context and the wordsrelied upon. "It is absurd and most arbitrary to dissect a passage, quoted by Justin as a consecutive and harmonious whole, and findingparallels more or less approximate to its various phrases scattered upand down distant parts of our Gospels, scarcely one of which is notmaterially different from the reading of Justin, to assert that he isquoting these Gospels freely from memory, altering, excising, combining, and inter-weaving texts, and introverting their order, but neverthelessmaking use of them and not of others. It is perfectly obvious that suchan assertion is nothing but the merest assumption" ("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 364). Mr. Sanday's conclusion as to Justin is: "The _à priori_probabilities of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin'sGospel, alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately orimmediately of our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them anexclusive authority, and that he probably made use along with them ofother documents no longer extant" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " p. 117). It is needless to multiply analyses of quotations, as the systemapplied to the two given above can be carried out for himself by thestudent in other cases. But a far weightier proof remains that Justin's"Memoirs of the Apostles" were not the Canonical Gospels; and that is, that Justin used expressions, and mentions incidents which are _not_ tobe found in our Gospels, and some of which _are_ to be found inApocryphal Gospels. For instance, in the first "Apology, " chap. Xiii. , we read: "We have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of himis not to consume by fire what he has brought into being for oursustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and withgratitude to him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for ourcreation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualitiesof the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons;and to present before him petitions for our existing again inincorruption through faith in him. Our teacher of these things is JesusChrist, who also was born for this purpose. " "He has exhorted us to leadall men, by patience and gentleness, from shame and the love of evil"(Ibid, chap. Xvi. ). "For the foal of an ass stood _bound to a vine_"(Ibid, chap. Xxxii. ). "The angel said to the _Virgin_, Thou shalt callhis name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins" (chap. Xxxiii. ). "They tormented him, and set him on the judgment seat, andsaid, Judge us" (chap. Xxxv. ). "Our Lord Jesus Christ said, Inwhatsoever things I shall take you, in these I shall judge you"("Trypho, " chapter xlviii. ). These are only some out of the manypassages of which no resemblance is to be found in the CanonicalGospels. 

The best way to show the truth of Paley's contention--that "fromJustin's works, which are still extant, might be collected a tolerablycomplete account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing with thatwhich is delivered in our Scriptures; taken indeed, in a great measure, from those Scriptures, but still proving that this account and no other, was the account known and extant in that age" ("Evidences, " p. 77)--willbe to give the story from Justin, mentioning every notice of Christ inhis works, which gives anything of his supposed life, only omittingpassages relating solely to his teaching, such as those given above. Thelarge majority of these are taken from the "Dialogue with Trypho, " awearisome production, in which Justin endeavours to convince a Jew thatChrist is the Messiah, by quotations from the Jewish Scriptures (which, by the way, include Esdras, thus placing that book on a level with theother inspired volumes). A noticeable peculiarity of this Dialogue is, that any alleged incident in Christ's life is taken as true, not becauseit is authenticated as historical, but simply because it was prophesiedof; Justin's Christ is, in fact, an ideal, composed out of theprophecies of the Jews, and fitted on to a Jew named Jesus. 

 Christ was the offspring truly brought forth from the Father, before the creation of anything else, the Word begotten of God, before all his works, and he appeared before his birth, sometimes as a flame of fire, sometimes as an angel, as at Sodom, to Moses, to Joshua. He was called by Solomon, Wisdom; and by the Prophets and by Christians, the King, the Eternal Priest, God, Lord, Angel, Man, the Flower, the Stone, the Cornerstone, the Rod, the Day, the East, the Glory, the Rock, the Sword, Jacob, Israel, the Captain, the Son, the Helper, the Redeemer. He was born into the World by the over-shadowing of God the Holy Ghost, who is none other than the Word himself, and produced without sexual union by a virgin of the seed of Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David, his birth being announced by an angel, who told the Virgin to call his name Jesus, for he should save his people from their sins. Joseph, the spouse of Mary, desired to put her away, but was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife, the angel telling him that what was in her womb was of the Holy Ghost. At the first census taken in Judæa, under Cyrenius, the first Roman Procurator, he left Nazareth where he lived, and went to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, his family being of the tribe of Judah, and then was ordered to proceed to Egypt with Mary and the child, and remain there until another revelation warned them to return to Judæa. At Bethlehem Joseph could find no lodging in the village, so took up his quarters in a cave near, where Christ was born and placed in a manger. Here he was found by the Magi from Arabia, who had been to Jerusalem inquiring what king was born there, they having seen a star rise in heaven. They worshipped the child and gave him gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and warned by a revelation, went home without telling Herod where they had found the child. So Herod, when Joseph, Mary, and the child had gone into Egypt, as they were commanded, ordered the whole of the children then in Bethlehem to be massacred. Archelaus succeeded Herod, and was succeeded himself by another Herod. The child grew up like all other men, and was a man without comeliness, and inglorious, working as a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes, and when he was thirty years of age, more or less, he went to Jordan to be baptised by John, who was the herald of his approach. When he stepped into the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and when he came out of the water the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, and at the same instant a voice came from the heavens: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. " He was tempted by Satan, and of like passions with men; he was spotless and sinless, and the blameless and righteous man; he made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, and he raised the dead; he was called, because of his mighty works, a magician, and a deceiver of the people. He stood in the midst of his brethren the Apostles, and when living with them sang praises unto God. He changed the names of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, and of another of the Apostles to Peter. He ordered his acquaintance to bring him an ass, and the foal of an ass which stood bound to a vine, and he mounted and rode into Jerusalem. He overthrew the tables of the money-changers in the temple. He gave us bread and wine in remembrance of his taking our flesh and of shedding his blood. He took upon him the curses of all, and by his stripes the human race is healed. On the day in which he was to be crucified (elsewhere called the night before) he took three disciples to the hill called Olivet, and prayed; his sweat fell to the ground like drops, his heart and also his bones trembling; men went to the Mount of Olives to seize him; he was seized on the day of the Passover, and crucified during the Passover; Pilate sent Jesus bound to Herod; before Pilate he kept silence; they set Christ on the judgment seat, and said: "Judge us;" he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; his hands and feet were pierced; they cast lots for his vesture, and divided it; they that saw him crucified, shook their heads and mocked him, saying: "Let him who raised the dead save himself. " "He said he was the Son of God; let him come down; let God save him. " He gave up his spirit to the Father, and after he was crucified all his acquaintance forsook him, having denied him. He rose on the third day; he was crucified on Friday, and rose on "the day of the Sun, " and appeared to the Apostles and taught them to read the prophecies, and they repented of their flight, after they were persuaded by himself that he had beforehand warned them of his sufferings, and that these sufferings were prophesied of. They saw him ascend. The rulers in heaven were commanded to admit the King of Glory, but seeing him uncomely and dishonoured they asked, "Who is this King of Glory?" God will keep Christ in heaven until he has subdued his enemies the devils. He will return in glory, raise the bodies of the dead, clothe the good with immortality, and send the bad, endued with eternal sensibility into everlasting fire. He has the everlasting kingdom. 

These references to Jesus are scattered up and down through Justin'swritings, without any chronological order, a phrase here, a phrasethere; only in one or two instances are two or three things related evenin the same chapter. They are arranged here connectedly, as nearly aspossible in the usually accepted order, and the greatest care has beentaken not to omit any. It will be worth while to note the differencesbetween this and our Gospels, and also the allusions to other Gospelswhich it contains. Christ is clearly subsequent in time to the Father, being brought forth from him; he conceives himself, he being hereidentified with the Holy Ghost; it is the _virgin_ who descends fromDavid, a fact of which there is no hint given in our Gospels; the reasonof the name Jesus is told to the Virgin instead of to Joseph; we hearnothing of the shepherds and the glory of the Lord round the chantingangels; Jesus is uncomely, and works making ploughs and yokes, of which, we hear nothing in the Gospels; the fire at the baptism is not mentionedin the Gospels, and the voice from heaven speaks in words not found inthem; he is called a magician, of which accusation we know nothing fromthe four; the colt of the ass is tied to a vine, a circumstance omittedin the canonical writings; it is no where said in the New Testament thatthe bread at the Lord's supper is given in remembrance of _theincarnation_, but, on the contrary, it is in remembrance of _the death_of Christ; the crucifixion is not stated to have taken place during thePassover, but on the contrary the Fourth Gospel places it before, theothers after, the Passover; we hear nothing of Christ set on thejudgment seat in the Gospels: the _vesture_ is not divided according toJohn, who draws a distinction between the _vesture_ and the _raiment_which is not recognised by Justin; the taunts of the crowd aredifferent; the denial of Christ by all the Apostles is uncanonical, asis also their forsaking him _after_ the crucifixion; we do not hear ofthe "day of the Sun" in our Gospels, nor of the rulers of heaven andtheir reception of Christ. In fact, there are more points of divergencethan of coincidence between the details of the story of Jesus given byJustin and that given in the Four Gospels, and yet Paley says that: "allthe references in Justin are made without mentioning the author; whichproves that these books were perfectly notorious, and that there were noother accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no others soreceived and credited, as to make it necessary to distinguish these fromthe rest" ("Evidences, " p. 123). And Paley has actually the hardihood tostate that what "seems extremely to be observed is, that in all Justin'sworks, from which might be extracted almost a complete life of Christ, there are but two instances in which he refers to anything as said ordone by Christ, which is not related concerning him in our presentGospels; which shows that these Gospels, and these, we may say, alone, were the authorities from which the Christians of that day drew theinformation upon which they depended" (Ibid pp. 122, 123). Paley, probably, never intended that a life of Christ should "be extracted"from "all Justin's works. " It is done above, and the reader may judgefor himself of Paley's truthfulness. One of the "two instances" is givenas follows: "The other, of a circumstance in Christ's baptism, namely, afiery or luminous appearance upon the water, which, according toEpiphanius, is noticed in the Gospel of the Hebrews; and which might betrue; but which, whether true or false, is mentioned by Justin with aplain mark of diminution when compared with what he quotes as restingupon Scripture authority. The reader will advert to this distinction. 'And then, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John wasbaptising, as Jesus descended into the water, a fire also was kindled inJordan; and when he came up out of the water, _the apostles of this ourChrist have written_, that the Holy Ghost lighted upon him as a dove'"(Ibid, p. 123). The italics here are Paley's own. Now let the readerturn to the passage itself, and he will find that Paley has deliberatelyaltered the construction of the phrases, in order to make a"distinction" that Justin does not make, inserting the reference to theapostles in a different place to that which it holds in Justin. Is itcredible that such duplicity passes to-day for argument? one can onlyhope that the large majority of Christians who quote Paley are ignorant, and are, therefore, unconscious of the untruthfulness of the apologist;the passage quoted is taken from the "Dialogue with Trypho, " chap. 88, and runs as follows: "Then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptising, and when he had stepped into the water, a firewas kindled in the Jordan; and when he came out of the water, the HolyGhost lighted on him like a dove; the apostles of this very Christ ofours wrote" [thus]. The phrase italicised by Paley concludes theaccount, and if it refers to one part of the story, it refers to all;thus the reader can see for himself that Justin makes no "mark ofdiminution" of any kind, but gives the whole story, fire, Holy Ghost, and all, as from the "Memoirs. " The mockery of Christ on the cross isworded differently in Justin and in the Gospels, and he distinctly saysthat he quotes from the "Memoirs. " "They spoke in mockery the wordswhich are recorded in the memoirs of his Apostles: 'He said he was theSon of God; let him come down: let God save him'" ("Dial. " chap. Ci. ). 

If we turn to the Clementines, we find, in the same way, passages not tobe found in the Canonical Gospels. "And Peter said: We remember that ourLord and Teacher, as commanding us, said: Keep the mysteries for me, andthe sons of my house" ("Hom. " xix. Chap. 20). "And Peter said: If, therefore, of the Scriptures some are true and some are false, ourTeacher rightly said: 'Be ye good money-changers, ' as in the Scripturesthere are some true sayings and some spurious" ("Hom. " ii. Chap. 51; seealso iii. Chap. 50. And xviii. Chap. 20). This saying of Christ is foundin many of the Fathers. "To those who think that God tempts, as theScriptures say he [Jesus] said: 'The tempter is the wicked one, who alsotempted himself'" ("Hom. " iii. Chap. 55). 

Of the Clementine "Homilies" Mr. Sanday remarks, "several apocryphalsayings, and some apocryphal details, are added. Thus the Clementinewriter calls John a 'Hemerobaptist, ' _i. E. , _ member of a sect whichpractised daily baptism. He talks about a rumour which became current inthe reign of Tiberius, about the 'vernal equinox, ' that at the same timea King should arise in Judæa who should work miracles, making the blindto see, the lame to walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, andraising the dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, withMark, he calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa, ' and that ofher daughter 'Bernice. ' He also limits the ministry of our Lord to oneyear" ("Gospels in the Second Century, " pp. 167, 168). But it isneedless to multiply such passages; three or four would be enough toprove our position: whence were they drawn, if not from recordsdiffering from the Gospels now received? We, therefore, conclude that inthe numerous Evangelical passages quoted by the Fathers, which are notin the Canonical Gospels, we find _evidence that the earlier recordswere not the Gospels now esteemed Canonical. _

I. _That the books themselves show marks of their later origin. _ Weshould draw this conclusion from phrases scattered throughout theGospels, which show that the writers were ignorant of local customs, habits, and laws, and therefore could not have been Jews contemporarywith Jesus at the date when he is alleged to have lived. We find a clearinstance of this ignorance in the mention made by Luke of the censuswhich is supposed to have brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehemimmediately before the birth of Jesus. If Jesus was born at the timealleged "the Roman census in question must have been made either underHerod the Great, or at the commencement of the reign of Archelaus. Thisis in the highest degree improbable, for in those countries which werenot reduced _in formam provinciæ_, but were governed by _regibussociis_, the taxes were levied by these princes, who paid a tribute tothe Romans; and this was the state of things in Judæa prior to thedeposition of Archelaus. .. . The Evangelist relieves us from a furtherinquiry into this more or less historical or arbitrary combination byadding that this taxing was first made when Cyrenius (Quirinus) _wasGovernor of_ Syria [Greek: haegemoneuontos taes Surias Kuraeniou] for itis an authenticated point that the assessment of Quirinus did not takeplace either under Herod or early in the reign of Archelaus, the periodat which, according to Luke, Jesus was born. Quirinus was not at thattime Governor of Syria, a situation held during the last years of Herodby Lentius Saturninus, and after him by Quintilius Varus; and it was nottill long after the death of Herod that Quirinus was appointed Governorof Syria. That Quirinus undertook a census of Judæa we know certainlyfrom Josephus, who, however, remarks that he was sent to execute thismeasure when Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria(compare "Ant. , " bk. Xvii. Ch. 13, sec. 5; bk. Xviii. Ch. 1, sec. 1;"Wars of the Jews, " bk. Ii. Ch. 8, sec. 1; and ch. 9, sec. 1) thus, about ten years after the time at which, according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus must have been born" (Strauss's "Life of Jesus, " vol. I. , pp. 202-204). 

The confusion of dates, as given in Luke, proves that the writer wasignorant of the internal history of Judæa and the neighbouringprovinces. The birth of Jesus, according to Luke, must have taken placesix months after the birth of John Baptist, and as John was born duringthe reign of Herod, Jesus must also have been born under the same King, or else at the commencement of the reign of Archelaus. Yet Luke saysthat he was born during the census in Judæa, which, as we have seen justabove, took place ten years later. "The Evangelist, therefore, in orderto get a census, must have conceived the condition of things such asthey were after the deposition of Archelaus; but in order to get acensus extending to Galilee, he must have imagined the kingdom to havecontinued undivided, as in the time of Herod the Great. [Strauss hadexplained that the reduction of the kingdom of Archelaus into a Romanprovince did not affect Galilee, which was still ruled by Herod Antipasas an allied prince, and that a census taken by the Roman Governorwould, therefore, not extend to Galilee, and could not affect Joseph, who, living at Nazareth, would be the subject of Herod. See, asillustrative of this, Luke xxiii. 6, 7. ] Thus he deals in manifestcontradictions; or, rather, he has an exceedingly sorry acquaintancewith the political relations of that period; for he extends the censusnot only to the whole of Palestine, but also (which we must not forget)to the whole Roman world" (Strauss's "Life of Jesus, " vol. I. , p. 206). 

After quoting one of the passages of Josephus referred to above, Dr. Giles says: "There can be little doubt that this is the mission ofCyrenius which the Evangelist supposed to be the occasion of the visitof Christ's parents to Bethlehem. But such an error betrays on the partof the writer a great ignorance of the Jewish history, and of Jewishpolitics; for, if Christ was born in the reign of Herod the Great, noRoman census or enrolment could have taken place in the dominions of anindependent King. If, however, Christ was born in the year of thecensus, not only Herod the Great, but Archelaus, also, his son, wasdead. Nay, by no possibility can the two events be brought together; foreven after the death of Archelaus, Judæa alone became a Roman province;Galilee was still governed by Herod Antipas as an independent prince, and Christ's parents would not have been required to go out of their owncountry to Jerusalem, for the purpose of a census which did not comprisetheir own country, Galilee. Besides which, it is notorious that theRoman census was taken from house to house, at the residence of each, and not at the birth-place or family rendezvous of each tribe"("Christian Records, " pp. 120, 121). Another "striking witness to thelate composition of the Gospels is furnished by expressions, denotingideas that could not have had any being in the time of Christ and hisdisciples, but must have been developed afterwards, at a time when theChristian religion was established on a broader and still increasingbasis" (Ibid, p. 169). Dr. Giles has collected many of these, and wetake them from his pages. In John i. 15, 16, we read: "John bare witnessof him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that comethafter me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of hisfulness have all we received, and grace for grace. " At that time nonehad received of the "fulness of Christ, " and the saying in the mouth ofJohn Baptist is an anachronism. The word "cross" is several times usedsymbolically by Christ, as expressing patience and self-denial; butbefore his own crucifixion the expression would be incomprehensible, andhe would surely not select a phraseology his disciples could notunderstand; "Bearing the cross" is a later phrase, common amongChristians. Matthew xi. 12, Jesus, speaking while John the Baptist isstill living, says: "From the days of John the Baptist until now"--anexpression that implies a lapse of time. The word "gospel" was not inuse among Christians before the end of the second century; yet we findit in Matthew iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13; Mark i. 14, viii. 35, x. 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 9; Luke ix. 6. The unclean spirit, or ratherspirits, who were sent into the swine (Mark v. 9, Luke viii. 30), answered to the question, "What is thy name?" that his name was Legion. "The Four Gospels are written in Greek, and the word 'legion' is Latin;but in Galilee and Peraea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, butHebrew, or a dialect of it. The word 'legion' would be perfectlyunintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody inthe country" (Ibid, p. 197). The account of Matthew, that Jesus rode onthe ass _and_ the colt, to fulfil the prophecy, "Behold thy king comethunto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass"(xxi. 5. 7), shows that Matthew did not understand the Hebrew idiom, which should be rendered "sitting upon an ass, even upon a colt, thefoal of an ass, " and related an impossible riding feat to fulfil themisunderstood prophecy. The whole trial scene shows ignorance of Romancustoms: the judge running in and out between accused and people, offering to scourge him _and_ let him go--a course not consistent withRoman justice; then presenting him to the people with a crown of thornsand purple robe. The Roman administration would not condescend to aprocedure so unjust and so undignified. The mass of contradictions inthe Gospels, noticed under _k_, show that they could not have beenwritten by disciples possessing personal knowledge of the eventsnarrated; while the fact that they are written in Greek, as we shall seebelow, under _j_, proves that they were not written by "unlearned andignorant" Jews, and were not contemporary records, penned by theimmediate followers of Jesus. From these facts we draw the conclusion. _that the books themselves show marks of their later origin. _

J. _That the language in which they are written is presumptive evidenceagainst their authenticity. _ We are here dealing with the supposedhistory of a Jewish prophet written by Jews, and yet we find it writtenin Greek, a language not commonly known among the Jews, as we learn fromthe testimony of Josephus: "I have so completely perfected the work Iproposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew ora foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could soaccurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in thesebooks. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceedthem in the learning belonging to the Jews. I have also taken a greatdeal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand theelements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomedmyself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek withsufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learnthe languages of many nations . .. On which account, as there have beenmany who have done their endeavours with great patience to obtain thislearning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that havesucceeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains"("Ant. " bk. Xx. Ch. 11, sec 2). He further tells us that "I grew weary, and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing totranslate our history into a foreign and, to us, unaccustomed language"(Ibid, Preface). The chief reason, perhaps, for this general ignoranceof Greek was the barbarous aversion of the Rabbis to foreign literature. "No one will be partaker of eternal life who reads foreign literature. Execrable is he, as the swineherd, execrable alike, who teaches his sonthe wisdom of the Greeks" (translated from Latin translation of RabbiAkiba, as given in note in Keim's "Jesus of Nazara, " vol. I. P, 295). Itis noteworthy, also, that the Evangelists quote generally from theSeptuagint, and that loyal Jews would have avoided doing so, since "thetranslation of the Bible into Greek had already been the cause of grief, and even of hatred, in Jerusalem" (Ibid, p. 294). In the face of this weare asked to believe that a Galilean fisherman, by the testimony of Actsiv. 13, unlearned and ignorant, outstripped his whole nation, save the"two or three that have succeeded" in learning Greek, and wrote aphilosophical and historical treatise in that language. Also thatMatthew, a publican, a member of the most degraded class of the Jews, was equally learned, and published a history in the same tongue. Yetthese two marvels of erudition were unknown to Josephus, who expresslystates that the two or three who had learned Greek, were "immediatelywell rewarded for their pains. " The argument does not tell against Markand Luke, as no one knows anything about these two writers, and they mayhave been Greeks, for anything we know to the contrary. If Mark, however, is to be identified with John Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, then it will lie also against him. Leaving aside the main difficulty, pointed out above, it is grossly improbable, on the face of it, thatthese Jewish writers should employ Greek, even if they knew it, insteadof their own tongue. They were writing the story of a Jew; why shouldthey translate all his sayings instead of writing them down as they fellfrom his lips? Their work lay among the Jews. Eight years after thedeath of Jesus they rebuked one of their number, Peter, who eat with"men uncircumcised" (Acts xi. 3); nineteen years afterwards they stillwent only "unto the circumcision" (Gal. Ii. 9); twenty-seven yearsafterwards they were still in Jerusalem, teaching Jews, and carefullyfulfilling the law (Acts xxi. 18-24); after this, we hear no more ofthem, and they must all have been old men, not likely to then change theJewish habits of their lives. Besides, why should they do so? theirwhole sphere of work was entirely Jewish, and, if they were educatedenough to write at all, they would surely write for the benefit of thoseamongst whom they worked. The only parallel for so curious a phenomenonas these Greek Gospels, written by ignorant Jews, would be found if aCornish fisherman and a low London attorney, both perfectly ignorant ofGerman, wrote in German the sayings and doings of a Middlesex carpenter, and as their work was entirely confined to the lower classes of thepeople, who knew nothing of German, and they desired to place withintheir reach full knowledge of the carpenter's life, they circulated itamong them in German only, and never wrote anything about him inEnglish. The Greek text of the Gospels proves that they were written inlater times, when Christianity found its adherents among the Gentilepopulations. It might, indeed, be fairly urged that the Greek text is asuggestion that the creed did not originate in Judæa at all, but was theoffshoot of Gentile thought rather than of Jewish. However that may be, the Greek text forbids us to believe that these Gospels were written bythe Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, and we conclude _that the languagein which they are written is presumptive evidence against theirauthenticity_. 

K. _That they are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit from (1) themiracles with which they abound. (2) The numerous contradictions of eachby the others. (3) The fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, the miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of theGospels, so that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of oldermaterials. _

(1) _The miracles with which they abound. _ Paley asks: "Why should wequestion the genuineness of these books? Is it for that they containaccounts of supernatural events? I apprehend that this, at the bottom, is the real, though secret cause of our hesitation about them; for, hadthe writings, inscribed with the names of Matthew and John, relatednothing but ordinary history, there would have been no more doubtwhether these writings were theirs, than there is concerning theacknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have beenno doubt at all" ("Evidences, " pp. 105, 106). There is a certain amountof truth in this argument. We _do_--openly, however, and notsecretly--doubt any and every book which is said to be a record ofmiracles, written by an eye-witness of them; the more important thecontents of a book, the more keenly are its credentials scrutinised; themore extraordinary the story it contains, the more carefully are itsevidences sifted. In dealing with Josephus, we examine his authenticitybefore relying at all on his history; finding there is little doubt thatthe book was written by him, we value it as the account of an apparentlycareful writer. When we come to passages like one in "Wars of the Jews, "bk. Vi. Ch. 5, sec. 3--which tells us among the portents whichforewarned the Jews of the fall of the temple: "A heifer, as she was ledby the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midstof the temple"--we do _not_ believe it, any more than we believe thatthe devils went into the swine. If such fables, instead of formingexcrescences here and there on the history of Josephus, which may be cutoff without injury to the main record, were so interwoven with thehistory as to be part and parcel of it, so that no history would remainif they were all taken away, then we should reject Josephus as a tellerof fables, and not a writer of history. If it were urged that Josephuswas an eye-witness, and recorded what he saw, then we should answer:Either your history is not written by Josephus at all, but is falselyassigned to him in order to give it the credit of being written by acontemporary and an eye-witness; or else your Josephus is a charlatan, who pretended to have seen miracles in order to increase his prestige. If this supposed history of Josephus were widely spread and exercisedmuch influence over mankind, then its authenticity would be verycarefully examined and every weak point in the evidences for it tested, just as the Gospels are to-day. We may add, that it is absurd toparallel the Evangelists and Josephus, as though we knew of the one nomore than we do of the others. Josephus relates his own life, giving usan account of his family, his childhood, and his education; he thentells us of his travels, of all he did, and of the books he wrote, andthe books themselves bear his own announcement of his authorship; forinstance, we read: "I, Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth an Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, am the authorof this work" ("Wars of the Jews, " Preface, sec. I). To which of theGospels is such an announcement prefixed? even in Luke, where thehistorian writes a preface, it is not said: "I, Luke, " and anonymouswritings must be of doubtful authenticity. Which of the Evangelists hasrelated for us his own life, so that we may judge of his opportunitiesof knowing what he tells? To which of their histories is such externaltestimony given as that of Tacitus to Josephus, in spite of the contemptfelt by the polished Roman towards the whole Jewish race? Nothing can bemore misleading than to speak of Josephus and of the Evangelists asthough their writings stood on the same level; every mark ofauthenticity is present in the one; every mark of authenticity is absentin the other. 

We shall argue as against the miraculous accounts of the Gospels--first, that the evidence is insufficient and far below the amount of evidencebrought in support of more modern miracles; secondly, that the power towork miracles has been claimed by the Church all through her history, and is still so claimed, and it is, therefore, impossible to mark anyperiod wherein miracles ceased; and, thirdly, that not only areChristian miracles unproven, but that all miracles are impossible, aswell as useless if possible. 

Paley, arguing for the truth of Christian miracles, _and of these only_, endeavours to lay down canons which shall exclude all others. Thus, heexcludes: "I. Such accounts of supernatural events as are found only inhistories by some ages posterior to the transaction. .. . II. Accountspublished in one country of what passed in a distant country, withoutany proof that such accounts were known or received at home. .. . III. _Transient_ rumours. .. . IV. _Naked_ history (fragments, unconnected withsubsequent events dependent on the miracles). .. . V. In a certain way, and to a certain degree, _particularity_, in names, dates, places, circumstances, and in the order of events preceding or following. .. . VI. Stories on which nothing depends, in which no interest is involved, nothing is to be done or changed in consequence of believing them. .. . VII. Accounts which come merely _in affirmance_ of opinions alreadyformed. .. . It is not necessary to admit as a miracle, what can beresolved into a _false perception_ (such miracles as healing the blind, lame, etc. , cannot be reduced under this head), . .. Or _imposture_ . .. Or _tentative_ miracles (where, out of many attempts, one succeeds) . .. Or _doubtful_ (possibly explainable as coincidence, or effect ofimagination) . .. Or exaggeration" ("Evidences, " pp. 199-218). Paley thencriticises some miracles alleged by Hume, and argues against them. Hevery fairly criticises and disposes of them, but fails to see that thesame style of argument would dispose of his Gospel ones. The Cardinal deRetz sees, at a church in Saragossa, a man who lighted the lamps, andthe canons told him "that he had been several years at the gate with oneleg only. I saw him with two. " Paley urges that "it nowhere appears thathe (the Cardinal) either examined the limb, or asked the patient, orindeed any one, a single question about the matter" ("Evidences, " page224). Well argued, Dr. Paley; and in the man who sat outside thebeautiful gate of the Temple, who examined the limb, or questioned thepatient? Canons I. And II. Exclude the Gospel miracles, unless theGospels are proved to be written by those whose names they bear, andeven then there is no proof that either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, published their Gospels in Judæa, or that their accounts were "receivedat home. " The doubt and obscurity hanging over the origin of the Gospelsthemselves, throws the like doubt and obscurity on all that they relate. "Transient rumours, " "false perception, " "imposture, " "doubtful, " and"exaggeration"--there is a door open to all these things in the slow andgradual putting together of the collection of legends now known as "theGospels. " We argue that the witness of the Gospels to the miraclescannot be accepted until the Gospels themselves are authenticated, andthat the evidence in support of the miracles is, therefore, insufficient. Strauss shows us very clearly how the miracles recorded inthe Gospels became ascribed to Jesus. "That the Jewish people in thetime of Jesus expected miracles from the Messiah is in itself natural, since the Messiah was a second Moses, and the greatest of the prophets, and to Moses and the prophets the national legend attributed miracles ofall kinds. .. . But not only was it pre-determined in the popularexpectation that the Messiah should work miracles in general--theparticular kinds of miracles which he was to perform were fixed, also inaccordance with Old Testament types and declarations. Moses dispensedmeat and drink to the people in a supernatural manner (Ex. Xvi. Xvii. ):the same was expected, as the rabbis explicitly say, from the Messiah. At the prayer of Elisha, eyes were in one case closed, in another, opened supernaturally (2 Kings vi. ): the Messiah also was to open theeyes of the blind. By this prophet and his master, even the dead hadbeen raised (1 Kings xvii; 2 Kings iv. ); hence to the Messiah also powerover death could not be wanting. Among the prophecies, Is. Xxxv, 5, 6(comp. Xlii. 7), was especially influential in forming this part of theMessianic idea. It is here said of the Messianic times: Then shall theeyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped; thenshall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shallsing" ("Life of Jesus, " vol. Ii. , pp. 235, 236. ) In dealing with thealleged healing of the blind, Strauss remarks: "How should we representto ourselves the sudden restoration of vision to a blind eye by a wordor a touch? as purely miraculous and magical? That would be to give upthinking on the subject. As magnetic? There is no precedent of magnetismhaving influence over a disease of this nature. Or, lastly, aspsychical? But blindness is something so independent of the mental life, so entirely corporeal, that the idea of its removal at all, still lessof its sudden removal by means of a mental operation, is not to beentertained. We must, therefore, acknowledge that an historicalconception of these narratives is more than merely difficult to us; andwe proceed to inquire whether we cannot show it to be probable thatlegends of this kind should arise unhistorically. .. . That these deeds ofElisha were conceived, doubtless with reference to the passage ofIsaiah, as a real opening of the eyes of the blind, is proved by theabove rabbinical passage [stating that the Messiah would do all that inancient times had been done by the hands of the righteous, vol. I. , p. 81, note], and hence cures of the blind were expected from the Messiah. Now, if the Christian community, proceeding as it did from the bosom ofJudaism, held Jesus to be the Messianic personage, it must manifest thetendency to ascribe to him every Messianic predicate, and, therefore, the one in question" (Ibid, 292, 293). 

Not only, then, are the miracles rendered doubtful by the dubiouscharacter of the records in which they are found, but there is a clearand reasonable explanation why we should expect to find them in anyhistory of a supposed Messiah. Christian apologists appear to haveoverlooked the statement in the Gospels that Jesus objected to publicitybeing given to his supposed miracles; the natural conclusion thatsceptics draw from this assertion, is that the miracles never took placeat all, and that the supposed modesty of Jesus is invented in order toaccount for the ignorance of the people concerning the alleged marvels. Judge Strange fairly remarks: "The appeal to miracles is a veryquestionable resort. Now, as Jesus is repeatedly represented to haveexhorted those on whose behalf they were wrought to keep the mattersecret to themselves, and as when such signs, upon being asked for, wererefused to be accorded by him, and the desire to have them was repressedas sinful, it is to be gathered, in spite of the sayings to thecontrary, that the writers were aware that there was no such publicsense of the occurrence of these marvels as must have attached to themhad they really been enacted, and we are left to the conclusion thatthere were in fact no such demonstrations" ("The Portraiture and Missionof Jesus, " p. 23). Clearly, miracles are useless, as evidence, unlessthey are publicly performed, and the secresy used by Jesus suggestsfraud rather than miraculous power, and savours of the conjuror ratherthan of the "God. " But, further, there is far stronger evidence forlater Church miracles than for those of Christ, or of the apostles, andif evidence in support of miracles is good for anything, these moremodern miracles must command our belief. Eusebius relates the followingmiracle of Narcissus, the thirtieth Bishop of Jerusalem, A. D. 180, asone among many: "Whilst the deacons were keeping the vigils the oilfailed them; upon which all the people being very much dejected, Narcissus commanded the men that managed the lights to draw water from aneighbouring well, and to bring it to him. They having done it as soonas said, Narcissus prayed over the water, and then commanded them, in afirm faith in Christ, to pour it into the lamps. When they had also donethis, contrary to all natural expectation, by an extraordinary anddivine influence, the nature of the water was changed into the qualityof oil, and by most of the brethren a small quantity was preserved fromthat time until our own, as a specimen of the wonder then performed"("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Vi. , chap. 9). St. Augustine bears personal witnessto more than one miracle which happened in his own presence, and gives along list of cures performed in his time. "One thing may be affirmed, that nothing of importance is omitted, and in regard to essentialdetails they are as explicit as the mass of other cases reported. Inevery instance names and addresses are stated, and it will have beenobserved that all these miracles occurred in, or near to, Hippo, and inhis own diocese. It is very certain that in every case the fact of themiracle is asserted in the most direct and positive terms" ("Sup. Rel. , "vol. I. , pp. 167, 168). 

None can deny that miraculous powers have been claimed by ChristianChurches from the time of Christ down to the present day, and that thereis no break which can be pointed to as the date at which these powersceased. "From the first of the Fathers to the last of the Popes asuccession of bishops, of saints, and of martyrs, and of miracles, iscontinued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was sogradual, and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particularlink we should break the chain of tradition. Every age bears testimonyto the wonderful events by which it was distinguished; and its testimonyappears no less weighty and respectable than that of the precedinggeneration, till we are insensibly led on to accuse our owninconsistency, if in the eighth or in the twelfth century we deny to thevenerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree of confidencewhich, in the second century, we had so liberally granted to Justin orto Irenæus. If the truth of any of those miracles is appreciated bytheir apparent use and propriety, every age had unbelievers to convince, heretics to confute, and idolatrous nations to convert; and sufficientmotives might always be produced to justify the interposition of heaven. And yet, since every friend to revelation is persuaded of the reality, and every reasonable man is convinced of the cessation, of miraculouspowers, it is evident that there must have been _some period_ in whichthey were either suddenly or gradually withdrawn from the ChristianChurch. Whatever era is chosen for that purpose, the death of theApostles, the conversion of the Roman empire, or the extinction of theArian heresy, the insensibility of the Christians who lived at that timewill equally afford a just matter of surprise. They still supportedtheir pretensions after they had lost their power. Credulity performedthe office of faith; fanaticism was permitted to assume the language ofinspiration; and the effects of accident or contrivance were ascribed tosupernatural causes. The recent experience of genuine miracles shouldhave instructed the Christian world in the ways of Providence, andhabituated their eye (if we may use a very inadequate expression) to thestyle of the Divine Artist" (Gibbon's "Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. , chap, xv. , p. 145). The miraculous powers were said to have been givenby Christ himself to his disciples. "These signs shall follow them thatbelieve; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak withmew tongues; they shall take up serpents; and, if they drink any deadlything, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, andthey shall recover" (Mark xvi. 17, 18). This power is exercised by theApostles (see Acts throughout), by believers in the Churches (1 Cor. Xii. 9, 10; Gal. Iii. 5; James v. 14, 15); at any rate, it was in forcein the time with which these books treat, according to the Christians. Justus, surnamed Barsabas, drinks poison, and is unhurt (Eusebius, bk. Iii. , chap. Xxxix. ). Polycarp's martyrdom, supposed to be in the nextgeneration, is accompanied by miracle (Epistle of Church of Smyrna;Apostolical Fathers, p. 92; see ante, pp. 220, 221). At Hierapolis thedaughters of Philip the Apostle tell Papias how one was there raisedfrom the dead (Eusebius, bk. Iii. , ch. Xxxix. ). Justin Martyr pleads themiracles worked in his own time in Rome itself (second "Apol. , " ch. Vi. ). Irenæus urges that the heretics cannot work miracles as can theCatholics: "they can neither confer sight on the blind, nor hearing onthe deaf, nor chase away all sorts of demons . .. Nor can they cure theweak, or the lame, or the paralytic" ("Against Heretics, " bk. Ii. , ch. Xxxi. , sec. 2). Tertullian encourages Christians to give up worldlypleasures by reminding them of their grander powers: "what nobler thanto tread under foot the gods of the nations, to exorcise evil spirits, to perform cures?" ("De Spectaculis, " sec. 29). "Origen claims forChristians the power still to expel demons, and to heal diseases, in thename of Jesus; and he states that he had seen many persons so cured ofmadness, and countless other evils" (quoted from "Origen against Celsus"in "Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 154. A mass of evidence on this subject willbe found in chap. V. Of this work, on "The Permanent Stream ofMiraculous Pretension"). St. Augustine's testimony has been alreadyreferred to. St. Ambrose discovered the bones of SS. Gervasius andProtasius; and "these relics were laid in the Faustinian Basilic, andthe next morning were translated into the Ambrosian Basilic; duringwhich translation a blind man, named Severus, a butcher by trade, wascured by touching the bier on which the relics lay with a handkerchief, and then applying it to his eyes. He had been blind several years, wasknown to the whole city, and the miracle was performed before aprodigious number of people; and is testified also by St. Austin[Augustine], who was then at Milan, in three several parts of his works, and by Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose" ("Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, etc. , " by Rev. Alban Butler, vol. Xii. , pp. 1001, 1002; ed. 1838; published in two vols. , each containing six vols. ). The sacredstigmata of St. Francis d'Assisi (died 1226) were seen and touched bySt. Bonaventure, Pope Alexander IV. , Pope-Gregory IX. , fifty friars, many nuns, and innumerable crowds (Ibid, vol. X. , pp. 582, 583). Thissame saint underwent the operation of searing, and, "when the surgeonwas about to apply the searing-iron, the saint spoke to the fire, saying: 'Brother fire, I beseech thee to burn me gently, that I may beable to endure thee. ' He was seared very deep, from the ear to theeyebrow, but seemed to feel no pain at all" (Ibid, p. 575). The miraclesof St. Francis Xavier (died 1552) are borne witness to on all sides, andresulted in the conversion of crowds of Indians; even so late as 1744, when the Archbishop of Goa, by order of John V. Of Portugal, attended bythe Viceroy, the Marquis of Castel Nuovo, visited the saint's relics, "the body was found without the least bad smell, " and had "not sufferedthe least alteration, or symptom of corruption" (Ibid, vol. Xii. , p. 974). The chain of miracles extends right down to the present day. AtLourdes, in this year (1876), the Virgin was crowned by the CardinalArchbishop of Paris in the presence of thirty-five prelates and onehundred thousand people. During the mass performed at the Grotto by theNuncio, Madeleine Lancereau, of Poictiers, aged 61, known by a largenumber of the pilgrims as having been unable to walk without crutchesfor nineteen years, was radically cured. Here is a better authenticatedmiracle than anyone in the Gospel story; yet no Protestant even cares toinvestigate the matter, or believes its truth to be within the limits ofpossibility. Thus we see that not a century has, passed since A. D. 30which has not been thickly sown with miracles, and there is no reasonwhy we should believe in the miracles of the first century, and rejectthose of the following eighteen; nor is the first century even "thebeginning of miracles, " for before that date Jewish and Pagan miraclesare to be found in abundance. Why should Bible miracles be severed fromtheir relations all over the world, so that belief in them iscommendable faith, while belief in the rest is reprehensible credulity?"The fact is, however, that the Gospel miracles were preceded andaccompanied by others of the same type; and we may here merely mentionexorcism of demons, and the miraculous cure of disease, as popularinstances; they were also followed by a long succession of others, quiteas well authenticated, whose occurrence only became less frequent inproportion as the diffusion of knowledge dispelled popular credulity. Even at the present day a stray miracle is from time to time reported inoutlying districts, where the ignorance and superstition which formerlyproduced so abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled"("Sup. Rel. , " vol. I. , p. 148). "Ignorance, and its invariableattendant, superstition, have done more than mere love of the marvellousto produce and perpetuate belief in miracles, and there cannot be anydoubt that the removal of ignorance always leads to the cessation ofmiracles" (Ibid, p. 144). 

Special objection has often been raised against one class ofmiracles--common to the Gospels and to all miraculous narratives--whichhas severely taxed the faith even of the Christians themselves--thatclass, namely, which consists of the healing of those "possessed withdevils. " Exorcism has always been a favourite kind of miracle, but, inthese days, very few believe in the possibility of possession, and thelanguage of the Evangelists on the subject has consequently given riseto much trouble of mind. Prebendary Row, in a work on "The Supernaturalin the New Testament Possible, Credible, and Historical"--one of thevolumes issued by the Christian Evidence Society in answer to"Supernatural Religion"--deals fully with this difficulty; it has beenurged that possession was simply a form of mania, and on this Mr. Rowsay: "Now, on the assumption that possession was simple mania, andnothing more, the following suppositions are the only possible ones. First, that our Lord really distinguished between mania and possession;but that the Evangelists have inaccurately reported his words andactions, through the media of their own subjective impressions, or, inshort, have attributed to him language that he did not really utter. Second, that our Lord knew that possession was a form of mania, andadopted the current notions of the time in speaking of it, and that thewords were really uttered by him. Third, that with similar knowledge, headopted the language as part of the curative process. Fourth, that heaccepted the validity of the distinction, and that it was a real oneduring those times" ("Supernatural in the New Testament, " pp. 251, 252). Mr. Row argues that: "If possession be mania, there is nothing in thelanguage which the Evangelists have attributed to our Lord whichcompromises the truthfulness of his character. If, on the other hand, weassume that possession was an objective fact, there is nothing in ourexisting scientific knowledge of the human mind which proves that thepossessions of the New Testament were impossible" (Ibid). Mr. Rowrejects the first alternative, and accepts the accuracy of the Evangelicrecords. But he considers that if possession were simply mania, Jesus, knowing the nature of the disease, might reasonably use language suitedto the delusion, as most likely to effect a cure; he could not arguewith a maniac that he was under a delusion, but would rightly usewhatever method was best fitted to ensure recovery. If this idea berejected, and the reality of demoniacal possession maintained as mostconsonant with the behaviour of Jesus, then Mr. Row argues that there isno reason to consider it impossible that either good or evil spiritsshould be able to influence man, and that psychological science does notwarrant us in a denial of the possibility of such influence. 

The utter uselessness of miracles--supposing them to be possible--isworthy of remembrance. They must not be accepted as proofs of a divinemission, for false prophets can work them as well as true (Deut. Xiii. , 1-5; Matt. Xxiv. , 24; 2 Thess. Ii. , 9; Rev. Xiii. , 13-15, etc. ) and itmay be that God himself works them to deceive (Deut. Xiii. , 3). Satancan work miracles to authenticate the false doctrines of hisemissaries, and there is no test whereby to distinguish the miracleworked by God from the miracle worked by Satan. Hence a miracle isutterly useless, for the credibility of a teacher rests on the moralitythat he teaches, and if this is good, it is accepted without a miracleto attest its goodness, so that the attesting miracle is superfluous. Ifit is bad, it is rejected in spite of a miracle to attest its authority, so that the attesting miracle is deceptive. The only use of a miraclemight be to attest a revelation of otherwise unknowable facts, which hadnothing to do with any moral teaching; and seeing that such revelationcould not be investigated, as it dealt with the unknowable, it would behighly dangerous--and, perhaps, blasphemous--to accept it on the faithof the miracle, for it might quite as likely be a revelation made bySatan to injure, as by God to benefit, mankind. Allowing that God andSatan exist, it would seem likely--judging Christianity by itsfruits--that the Christian religion is such a malevolent revelation ofthe evil one. 

The objection we raise is, however, of far wider scope than theassertion of the lack of evidence for the New Testament miracles; it isagainst all, and not only against Christian, miracles. "As far as theimpossibility of supernatural occurrences is concerned, Pantheism andAtheism occupy precisely the same grounds. If either of them propounds atrue theory of the universe, any supernatural occurrence, whichnecessarily implies a supernatural agent to bring it about, isimpossible, and the entire controversy as to whether miracles have everbeen actually performed is a foregone conclusion. Modern Atheism, whileit does not venture in categorical terms to affirm that no God exists, definitely asserts that there is no evidence that there is one. Itfollows that, if there is no evidence that there is a God, there can beno evidence that a miracle ever has been performed, for the very idea ofa miracle implies the idea of a God to work one. If, therefore, Atheismis true, all controversy about miracles is useless. They are simplyimpossible, and to inquire whether an impossible event has happened isabsurd. To such a person the historical inquiry, as far as a miracle isconcerned, must be a foregone conclusion. It might have a littleinterest as a matter of curiosity; but even if the most unequivocalevidence could be adduced that an occurrence such as we callsupernatural had taken place, the utmost that it could prove would bethat some most extraordinary and abnormal fact had taken place in natureof which we did not know the cause. But to prove a miracle to any personwho consistently denies that he has any evidence that any being existswhich is not a portion of and included in the material universe, ordeveloped out of it, is impossible" ("The Supernatural in the NewTestament, " by Prebendary Row, pp. 14, 15). We maintain that Natureincludes _everything_, and that, therefore, the _supernatural_ is animpossibility. Every new fact, however marvellous, must, therefore, bewithin Nature; and while our ignorance may for awhile prevent us fromknowing in what category the newly-observed phenomenon should beclassed, it is none the less certain that wider knowledge will allot toit its own place, and that more careful observation will reduce it underlaw, i. E. , within the observed sequence or concurrence of phenomena. Thenatural, to the unthinking, coincides with their own knowledge, andsupernatural, to them, simply means super-known; therefore, in ignorantages, miracles are every-day occurrences, and as knowledge widens themiraculous diminishes. The books of unscientific ages--that is, allearly literature--are full of miraculous events, and it may be taken asan axiom of criticism that the miraculous is unhistorical. 

(2). _The numerous contradictions of each by the others. _--We shall hereonly present a few of the most glaring contradictions in the Gospels, leaving untouched a mass of minor discrepancies. We find the principalof these when we compare the three synoptics with the Fourth Gospel, butthere are some irreconcilable differences even between the three. Thecontradictory genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke--farthercomplicated, in part, by a third discordant genealogy inChronicles--have long been the despair of Christian harmonists. "Oncomparing these lists, we find that between David and Christ there areonly two names which occur in both Matthew and Luke--those of Zorobabeland of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus. In tracing the listdownwards from David there would be less difficulty in explaining this, at least, to a certain point, for Matthew follows the line of Solomon, and Luke that of Nathan--both of whom were sons of David. But even inthe downward line, on reaching Salathiel, where the two genealogiesagain come into contact, we find, to our astonishment, that in Luke heis the son of Neri, whilst in Matthew his father's name is Jechonias. From Zorobabel downwards, the lists are again divergent, until we reachJoseph, who in St. Luke is placed as the son of Heli, whilst in St. Matthew his father's name is Jacob" ("Christian Records, " Dr. Giles, p. 101). According to Chronicles, Jotham is the great-great-grandson ofAhaziah; according to Matthew, he is his son (admitting that the Ahaziahof Chronicles is the Ozias of Matthew); according to Chronicles, Jechonias is the grandson of Josiah, according to Matthew, he is hisson; according to Chronicles, Zorababel is the son of Pedaiah, accordingto Matthew, he is the son of Salathiel, according to Luke, he is the sonof Neri; according to Chronicles, Zorobabel left eight children, butneither Matthew's Abiud, nor Luke's Rhesa, are among them. The samediscordance is found when Matthew and Luke again touch each other inJoseph, the husband of Mary; according to the one, Jacob begat Joseph, according to the other, Joseph was the son of Heli. To crown theabsurdity of the whole, we are given two genealogies of Joseph, who isno relation to Jesus at all, if the story of the virgin-birth be true, while none is given of Mary, through whom alone Jesus is said to havederived his humanity. We have, therefore, no genealogy at all of Jesusin the Gospels. Various theories have been put forward to reconcile theirreconcilable; some say that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, ofwhich supposition it is enough to remark that "Mary, the daughter of, "can scarcely be indicated by "Joseph, the son of. " It is also said thatJoseph was legally the son of Jacob, although naturally the son of Heli, it being supposed that Jacob died childless, and that his brother Heliaccording to the Levitical law, married the widow of Jacob; but hereJoseph's grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers should be the same, Heliand Jacob being supposed to be brothers. Besides, if Joseph were legallythe son of Jacob, only the genealogy of Jacob should be given, sincethat only would be Joseph's genealogy. No man can reckon his paternalancestry through two differing lines. To make matters in yet morehopeless confusion, we find Chronicles giving twenty-two generationswhere Matthew gives seventeen, and Luke twenty-three; while, from Davidto Christ, Matthew reckons twenty-eight and Luke forty-three, a mostmarvellous discrepancy. 

"If we compare the genealogies of Matthew and Luke together, we becomeaware of still more striking discrepancies. Some of these differencesindeed are unimportant, as the opposite direction of the two tables. .. . More important is the considerable difference in the number ofgenerations for equal periods, Luke having forty-one between David andJesus, whilst Matthew has only twenty-six. The main difficulty, however, lies in this: that in some parts of the genealogy in Luke totallydifferent persons are made the ancestors of Jesus from those in Matthew. It is true, both writers agree in deriving the lineage of Jesus throughJoseph from David and Abraham, and that the names of the individualmembers of the series correspond from Abraham to David, as well as twoof the names in the subsequent portion: those of Salathiel andZorobabel. But the difficulty becomes desperate when we find that, withthese two exceptions about midway, the whole of the names from David tothe foster father of Jesus are totally different in Matthew and in Luke. In Matthew the father of Joseph is called Jacob; in Luke, Heli. InMatthew the son of David through whom Joseph descended from that King isSolomon; in Luke, Nathan; and so on, the line descends, in Matthew, through the race of known Kings; in Luke, through an unknown collateralbranch, coinciding only with respect to Salathiel and Zorobabel, whilstthey still differ in the names of the father of Salathiel and the son ofZorobabel. .. . A consideration of the insurmountable difficulties, whichunavoidably embarrass every attempt to bring these two genealogies intoharmony with one another, will lead us to despair of reconciling them, and will incline us to acknowledge, with the more free-thinking class ofcritics, that they are mutually contradictory. Consequently, they cannotboth be true. .. . In fact, then, neither table has any advantage over theother. If the one is unhistorical, so also is the other, since it isvery improbable that the genealogy of an obscure family like that ofJoseph, extending through so long a series of generations, should havebeen preserved during all the confusion of the exile, and the disturbedperiod that followed. .. . According to the prophecies, the Messiah couldonly spring from David. When, therefore, a Galilean, whose lineage wasutterly unknown, and of whom consequently no one could prove that he wasnot descended from David, had acquired the reputation of being theMessiah; what more natural than that tradition should, under differentforms, have early ascribed to him a Davidical descent, and thatgenealogical tables, corresponding with this tradition, should have beenformed? which, however, as they were constructed upon no certain data, would necessarily exhibit such differences and contradictions as we findactually existing between the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke" ("Lifeof Jesus, " by Strauss, vol. I. , pp. 130, 131, and 137-139). 

The accounts of the several angelic warnings to Mary and to Josephappear to be mutually exclusive. Most theologians, says Strauss, "maintaining, and justly, that the silence of one Evangelist concerningan event which is narrated by the other, is not a negation of the event, they blend the two accounts together in the following manner: 1, theangel makes known to Mary her approaching pregnancy (Luke); 2, she thenjourneys to Elizabeth (the same Gospel); 3, after her return, hersituation being discovered, Joseph takes offence (Matthew); whereupon, 4, he likewise is visited by an angelic apparition (the same Gospel). But this arrangement of the incidents is, as Schliermacher has alreadyremarked, full of difficulty; and it seems that what is related by oneEvangelist is not only pre-supposed, but excluded, by the other. For, inthe first place, the conduct of the angel who appears to Joseph is noteasily explained, if the same, or another, angel had previously appearedto Mary. The angel (in Matthew) speaks altogether as if hiscommunication were the first in this affair. He neither refers to themessage previously received by Mary, nor reproaches Joseph because hehad not believed it; but, more than all, the informing Joseph of thename of the expected child, and the giving him a full detail of thereasons why he should be so called (Mat. I. 21), would have been whollysuperfluous had the angel (according to Luke i. 31) already indicatedthis name to Mary. Still more incomprehensible is the conduct of thebetrothed parties, according to this arrangement of events. Had Marybeen visited by an angel, who had made known to her an approachingsupernatural pregnancy, would not the first impulse of a delicate womanhave been to hasten to impart to her betrothed the import of the divinemessage, and by this means to anticipate the humiliating discovery ofher situation, and an injurious suspicion on the part of her affiancedhusband? But exactly this discovery Mary allows Joseph to make fromothers, and thus excites suspicion; for it is evident that theexpression [Greek: heurethae en gastri echousa] (Mat. I. 18) signifies adiscovery made independent of any communication on Mary's part, and itis equally clear that in this manner only does Joseph obtain theknowledge of her situation, since his conduct is represented as theresult of that discovery [Greek: (euriskesthai)]" ("Life of Jesus, " v. I. , pp. 146, 147). 

Strauss gives a curious list, showing the gradual growth of the mythrelating to the birth of Jesus (we may remark No. 3 is distinctly out ofplace when referred to Olshausen: it should be referred to the earlyFathers, from whom Olshausen derived it):--

"1. Contemporaries of Jesus and composers of the genealogies: Joseph andMary man and wife--Jesus the offspring of their marriage. 

"2. The age and authors of our histories of the birth of Jesus: Mary andJoseph betrothed only; Joseph having no participation in the conceptionof the child, and, previous to his birth, no conjugal connection withMary. 

"3. Olshausen and others: subsequent to the birth of Jesus, Joseph, though then the husband of Mary, relinquishes his matrimonial rights. 

"4. Epiphanius, Protevangelium, Jacobi, and others: Joseph a decrepitold man, no longer to be thought of as a husband; the childrenattributed to him are of a former marriage. More especially it is not asa bride and wife that he receives Mary; he takes her merely under hisguardianship. 

"5. Protevang. , Chrysostom, and others: Mary's virginity was not onlynot destroyed by any subsequent births of children by Joseph, it was notin the slightest degree impaired by the birth of Jesus. 

"6. Jerome: Not Mary only, but Joseph also, observed an absolutevirginity, and the pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons, hutmerely cousins to Jesus" ("Life of Jesus, " vol. I. , p. 188). 

Thus we see how a myth gradually forms itself, bit after bit being addedto it, until the story is complete. 

The account given by Luke of the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary isclearly mythical, and not historical: "Apart from the intention of thenarrator, can it be thought natural that two friends visiting oneanother should, even in the midst of the most extraordinary occurrences, break forth into long hymns, and that their conversation should entirelylose the character of dialogue, the natural form on such occasions? By asupernatural influence alone could the minds of the two friends beattuned to a state of elevation, so foreign to their every-day life. Butif indeed Mary's hymn is to be understood as the work of the HolySpirit, it is surprising that a speech emanating immediately from thedivine source of inspiration should not be more striking for itsoriginality, but should be so interlarded with reminiscences from theOld Testament, borrowed from the song of praise spoken by the mother ofSamuel (1 Sam. Ii) under analogous circumstances. Accordingly, we mustadmit that the compilation of this hymn, consisting of recollectionsfrom the Old Testament, was put together in a natural way; but allowingits composition to have been perfectly natural, it cannot be ascribed tothe artless Mary, but to him who poetically wrought out the tradition incirculation respecting the scene in question" ("Life of Jesus, " byStrauss, vol. I. , pp. 196, 197). 

The notes of time given for the birth of Christ are irreconcilable. According to Matthew he is born in the reign of Herod the King:according to Luke, he is born six months after John Baptist, whose birthis referred to the reign of the same monarch; yet in Luke, he is alsoborn at the time of the census, which must have taken place at least tenyears later; thus Luke contradicts Matthew, and also contradictshimself. The discrepancies surrounding the birth are not yet complete;passing the curious differences between Matthew and Luke, Matthewknowing nothing about the visit of the shepherds, and Luke nothing ofthe visit of the Magi, and the consequent slaughter of the babes, wecome to a direct conflict between the Evangelists; Matthew informs usthat Joseph, Mary, and the child, fled into Egypt from Bethlehem toavoid the wrath of King Herod, and that they were returning to Judæa, when Joseph, hearing that Archelaus was ruling there, turned aside toGalilee, and came and dwelt "in a city called Nazareth. " Luke, on thecontrary, says that when the days of Mary's purification wereaccomplished they took the child up to Jerusalem, and presented him inthe Temple, and then, after this, returned to Galilee, to "their owncity, Nazareth. " Moreover, had Herod wanted to find him, he could havetaken him at the Temple, where his presentation caused much commotion. In Matthew, the turning into Galilee is clearly a new thing; in Luke, itis returning home; and in Luke there is no space of time wherein theflight into Egypt can by any possibility be inserted. We may add awonder why Galilee was a safer residence than Judæa, since Antipas, itsruler, was a son of Herod, and would, _primâ facie_, be as dangerous ashis brother Archelaus. 

The conduct of Herod is incredible if we accept Matthew's account:"Herod's first anxious question to the magi is to ascertain the time ofthe appearance of the star. He 'inquires diligently' (ii. 7); and hemust have had a motive for so doing. What was this motive? Could he haveany other purpose than that of determining the age under which noinfants in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem should be allowed to live?But, according to the narrative, Herod never conceived the idea ofslaughtering the children till he found that he had been 'mocked of thewise men;' and the mythical nature of the story is betrayed by thisanticipation of motives which, at the time spoken of could have noexistence. Yet, further, Herod, who, though in a high degree cruel, unjust, and unscrupulous, is represented as a man of no slight sagacity, clearness of purpose, and strength of will, and who feels a deadlyjealousy of an infant whom he _knows_ to have been recently born inBethlehem, a place only a few miles distant from Jerusalem, is heredescribed not as sending his own emissaries privately to put him todeath, or despatching them with the Magi, or detaining the Magi atJerusalem, until he had ascertained the truth of their tale, and thecorrectness of the answer of the priests and scribes, but as simplysuffering the Magi to go by themselves, at the same time charging themto return with the information for which he had shown himself sofeverishly anxious. This strange conduct can be accounted for only onthe ground of a judicial blindness; but they who resort to such anexplanation must suppose that it was inflicted in order to save thenew-born Christ from the death thus threatened; and if they adopt thishypothesis, they must further believe that this arrangement likewiseensured the death of a large number of infants instead of one. A naturalreluctance to take up such a notion might prompt the question, Why werethe Magi brought to Jerusalem at all? If they knew that the star was thestar of Christ (ii. 2), and were by this knowledge conducted toJerusalem, why did it not suffice to guide them straight to Bethlehem, and thus prevent the slaughter of the innocents? Why did the star desertthem after its first appearance, not to be seen again till they issuedfrom Jerusalem? or, if it did not desert them, why did they ask of Herodand the priests the road which they should take, when, by thehypothesis, the star was ready to guide?" ("The English Life of Jesus, "by Thomas Scott, pp. 34, 35; ed. 1872). To these improbabilities must beadded the remarkable fact that Josephus, who gives a very detailedhistory of Herod, entirely omits any hint of this stupendous crime. 

The story of the temptation of Jesus is full of contradictions. Matthewiv. 2, 3, implies that the first visit of the tempter was made _after_the forty days' fast, while Mark and Luke speak of his being tempted forforty days. According to Matthew, the angels came to him when the Devilleft him; but, according to Mark, they ministered to him throughout. According to Matthew, the temptation to cast himself down is the secondtrial, and the offer of the kingdoms of the world the third: in Luke theorder is reversed. In additions to these contradictions, we must notethe absurdity of the story. The Devil "set him on a pinnacle of thetemple. " Did Jesus and the Devil go flying through the air together, till the Devil put Jesus down? What did the people in the courts belowthink of the Devil and a man standing on a point of the temple in thefull sight of Jerusalem? Did so unusual an occurrence cause noastonishment in the city? Where is the high mountain from which Jesusand the Devil saw all round the globe? Is it true that the Devil givespower to whom he will? If so, why is it said that the powers are"ordained of God"?

Another "discrepancy, concerning the denial of Christ by Peter, furnishes a still stronger proof that these records have not come downto us with the exactness of a contemporary character, much less with theauthority of inspiration. The four accounts of Peter's denial varyconsiderably. The variations will be more intelligible, exhibited in atabular form" (Giles' "Christian Records, " p. 228). We present thetable, slightly altered in arrangement, and corrected in some details:--

 MATTHEW. MARK. LUKE. JOHN. 1st. Seated without Beneath in In the On entering in the the palace, by midst of the to the palace, to a the fire, to a hall where damsel that damsel. Maid. Jesus was kept the being tried, door. Seated by the fire, to a maid. 

2nd. Out in the Out in the Still in the In the hall, porch, having porch, having hall, in standing by left the room, left the room, answer to a the fire, in in answer to in answer to man. Answer to the a second a second bystanders. Maid. Maid. 

3rd. Out in the Out in the Still in the Still in the porch, to the porch, to the hall, to a man. Hall, to a bystanders. Bystanders. Man. 

In addition to these discrepancies, we find that Jesus prophesies thatPeter shall deny him thrice "before the cock crow, " while in Mark thecock crows immediately after the first denial: in Luke, Jesus and Peterremain throughout the scene of the denial in the same hall, so that theLord may turn and look upon Peter; while Matthew and Mark place him"beneath" or "without, " and make the third denial take place in theporch outside--a place where Jesus, by the context, certainly could notsee him. 

How long did the ministry of Jesus last? Luke places his baptism in thefifteenth year of Tiberius (iii. 1), and he might have been crucifiedunder Pontius Pilate at any time within the seven years following. TheSynoptics mention but one Passover, and at that Jesus was crucified, thus limiting his ministry to one year, unless he broke the Mosaic law, and disregarded the feast; clearly his triumphal entry into Jerusalem ishis first visit there in his manhood, since we find all the city movedand the people asking: "Who is this? And the multitude said, This isJesus the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee" (Matt. Xxi. 10, 11). Hisperson would have been well known, had he visited Jerusalem before andworked miracles there. If, however, we turn to the Fourth Gospel, hisministry must extend over at least two years. According to Irenæus, he"did not want much of being fifty years old" when the Jews disputed withhim ("Against Heresies, " bk. Ii. , ch. 22, sec. 6), and he taught fornearly twenty years. Dr. Giles remarks that "the first three Gospelsplainly exhibit the events of only one year; to prove them erroneous ordefective in so important a feature as this, would be to detract greatlyfrom their value" ("Christian Records, " p. 112). "According to the firstthree Gospels, Christ's public life lasted only one year, at the end ofwhich he went up to Jerusalem and was crucified" (Ibid, p. 11). "Wouldthis questioning [on the triumphal entry] have taken place if Jesus hadoften made visits to Jerusalem, and been well known there? The multitudewho answered the question, and who knew Jesus, consisted of those 'whohad come to the feast, '--St. John indicates this [xii. 12]--but thepeople of Jerusalem knew him not, and, therefore, asked 'Who is this?'"(Ibid, p. 113). The fact is, that we know nothing certainly as to thebirth, life, death, of this supposed Christ. His story is one tissue ofcontradictions. It is impossible to believe that the Synoptics and thefourth Gospel are even telling the history of the same person. Thediscourses of Jesus in the Synoptics are simple, although parabolical;in the Fourth they are mystical, and are being continually misunderstoodby the people. The historical divergences are marked. The fourth Gospel"tells us (ch. 1) that at the beginning of his ministry Jesus was atBethabara, a town near the junction of the Jordan with the Dead Sea;here he gains three disciples, Andrew and another, and then Simon Peter:the next day he goes into Galilee and finds Philip and Nathanael, and onthe following day--somewhat rapid travelling--he is present, with thesedisciples, at Cana, where he performs his first miracle, goingafterwards with them to Capernaum and Jerusalem. At Jerusalem, whitherhe goes for 'the Jews' passover, ' he drives out the traders from thetemple and remarks, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raiseit up:' which remark causes the first of the strange misunderstandingsbetween Jesus and the Jews peculiar to this Gospel, simplemisconceptions which Jesus never troubles himself to set right. Jesusand his disciples then go to the Jordan, baptising, whence Jesus departsinto Galilee with them, because he hears that the Pharisees know he isbecoming more popular than the Baptist (ch. Iv. , 1, 3). All this happensbefore John is cast into prison, an occurrence which is a convenientnote of time. We turn to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus asrelated by the three. Jesus is in the south of Palestine, but, hearingthat John is cast into prison, he departs into Galilee, and resides atCapernaum. There is no mention of any ministry in Galilee and Judæabefore this; on the contrary, it is only 'from that time' that 'Jesus_began_ to preach. ' He is alone, without disciples, but, walking by thesea, he comes upon Peter, Andrew, James, and John, and calls them. Nowif the fourth Gospel is true, these men had joined him in Judæa, followed him to Galilee, south again to Jerusalem, and back to Galilee, had seen his miracles and acknowledged him as Christ, so it seemsstrange that they had deserted him and needed a second call, and yetmore strange is it that Peter (Luke v. 1-11) was so astonished andamazed at the miracle of the fishes. The driving out of the traders fromthe temple is placed by the Synoptics at the very end of his ministry, and the remark following it is used against him at his trial: so wasprobably made just before it. The next point of contact is the historyof the 5, 000 fed by five loaves (ch. Vi. ); the preceding chapter relatesto a visit to Jerusalem unnoticed by the three: indeed, the historiesseem written of two men, one the 'prophet of Galilee' teaching in itscities, the other concentrating his energies on Jerusalem. The accountof the miraculous feeding is alike in all: not so the succeeding accountof the multitude. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus and the crowd fall todisputing, as usual, and he loses many disciples: among the three, Lukesays nothing of the immediately following events, while Matthew and Marktell us that the multitudes--as would be natural--crowded round him totouch even the hem of his garment. This is the same as always: in thethree the crowd loves him; in the fourth it carps at and argues withhim. We must again miss the sojourn of Jesus in Galilee according to thethree, and his visit to Jerusalem according to the one, and pass to hisentry into Jerusalem in triumph. Here we notice a most remarkabledivergence: the Synoptics tell us that he was going up to Jerusalem fromGalilee, and, arriving on his way at Bethphage, he sent for an ass androde thereon into Jerusalem: the fourth Gospel relates that he wasdwelling at Jerusalem, and leaving it, for fear of the Jews, he retired, not into Galilee, but 'beyond Jordan, into a place where John at firstbaptised, ' i. E. , Bethabara, 'and _there he abode_. ' From thence he wentto Bethany and raised to life a putrefying corpse: this stupendousmiracle is never appealed to by the earlier historians in proof of theirmaster's greatness, though 'much people of the Jews' are said to haveseen Lazarus after his resurrection; this miracle is also given as thereason for the active hostility of the priests, 'from that day forward. 'Jesus then retires to Ephraim near the wilderness, from which town hegoes to Bethany, and thence in triumph to Jerusalem, being met by thepeople 'for that they heard that he had done this miracle. ' The twoaccounts have absolutely nothing in common except the entry intoJerusalem, and the preceding events of the Synoptics exclude those ofthe fourth Gospel, as does the latter theirs. If Jesus abode inBethabara and Ephraim, he could not have come from Galilee; if hestarted from Galilee, he was not abiding in the south. John xiii. -xvii. Stand alone, with the exception of the mention of the traitor. On thearrest of Jesus, he is led (ch. Xviii. 13) to Annas, who sends him toCaiaphas, while the others send him direct to Caiaphas, but this isimmaterial. He is then taken to Pilate: the Jews do not enter thejudgment-hall, lest, being defiled, they could not eat the passover, afeast which, according to the Synoptics, was over, Jesus and hisdisciples having eaten it the night before. Jesus is exposed to thepeople at the sixth hour (ch. Xix. 14), while Mark tells us he wascrucified three hours before--at the third hour--a note of time whichagrees with the others, since they all relate that there was darknessfrom the sixth to the ninth hour, i. E. , there was thick darkness at thetime when, 'according to St. John, ' Jesus was exposed. Here ourevangelist is in hopeless conflict with the three. The accounts aboutthe resurrection are irreconcilable in all the Gospels, and mutuallydestructive. It remains to notice, among these discrepancies, one or twopoints which did not come in conveniently in the course of thenarrative. During the whole of the fourth Gospel, we find Jesusconstantly arguing for his right to the title of Messiah. Andrew speaksof him as such (i. 41); the Samaritans acknowledge him (iv. 42); Peterowns him (vi. 69); the people call him so (vii. 26, 31, 41); Jesusclaims it (viii. 24); it is the subject of a law (ix. 22); Jesus speaksof it as already claimed by him (x. 24, 25); Martha recognises it (xi. 27). We thus find that, from the very first, this title is openlyclaimed by Jesus, and his right to it openly canvassed by the Jews. But--in the three--the disciples acknowledge him as Christ, and hecharges them to 'tell _no man_ that he was Jesus the Christ" (Matt. Xvi. 20; Mark viii. 29, 30; Luke ix. 20, 21); and this in the same year thathe blames the Jews for not owning this Messiahship, since he had toldthem who he was 'from the beginning' (ch. Viii. 24, 25): so that, if'John' was right, we fail to see the object of all the mystery about it, related by the Synoptics. We mark, too, how Peter is, in their account, praised for confessing him, for flesh and blood had not revealed it tohim, while in the fourth Gospel, 'flesh and blood, ' in the person ofAndrew, reveal to Peter that the Christ is found; and there seems littlepraise due to Peter for a confession which had been made two or threeyears earlier by Andrew, Nathanael, John Baptist, and the Samaritans. Contradiction can scarcely be more direct. In John vii. Jesus owns thatthe Jews know his birthplace (28), and they state (41, 42) that he comesfrom Galilee, while Christ should be born at Bethlehem. Matthew and Lukedistinctly say Jesus was born at Bethlehem; but here Jesus confesses theright knowledge of those who attribute his birthplace to Galilee, instead of setting their difficulty at rest by explaining that thoughbrought up at Nazareth he was born in Bethlehem. But our writer wasapparently ignorant of their accounts ("According to St John, " by AnnieBesant. Scott Series, pp. 11-14, ed. 1873). These are but a few of thecontradictions in the Gospels, which compel us to reject them ashistorical narratives. 

(3) _The fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, the miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of the Gospels_, etc. Thereare two mythical theories as to the growth of the story of Jesus, whichdemand our attention; the first, that of which Strauss is the best knownexponent, which acknowledges the historical existence of Jesus, butregards him as the figure round which has grown a mythus, moulded by theMessianic expectations of the Jews: the second, which is indifferent tohis historical existence, and regards him as a new hero of the ancientsun-worship, the successor of Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, Bacchus, etc. Tothis school, it matters not whether there was a Jesus of Nazareth ornot, just as it matters not whether a Krishna or an Osiris had anhistorical existence or not; it is _Christ_, the Sun-god, not _Jesus_, the Jewish peasant, whom they find worshipped in Christendom, and whois, therefore, the object of their interest. 

According to the first theory, whatever was expected of the Messiah hasbeen attributed to Jesus. "When not merely the particular nature andmanner of an occurrence is critically suspicious, its externalcircumstances represented as miraculous and the like; but where likewisethe essential substance and groundwork is either inconceivable initself, or is in striking harmony with some Messianic idea of the Jewsof that age, then not the particular alleged course and mode of thetransaction only, but the entire occurrence must be regarded asunhistorical" (Strauss' "Life of Jesus, " vol. I. , p. 94). The mythictheory accepts an historical groundwork for many of the stories aboutJesus, but it does not seek to explain the miraculous by attenuating itinto the natural--as by explaining the story of the transfiguration tohave been developed from the fact of Jesus meeting secretly two men, andfrom the brilliancy of the sunlight dazzling the eyes of thedisciples--but it attributes the incredible portions of the history tothe Messianic theories current among the Jews. The Messiah would do thisand that; Jesus was the Messiah; therefore, Jesus did this andthat--such, argue the supporters of the mythical theory, was the methodin which the mythus was developed. The theory finds some support in thepeculiar attitude of Justin Martyr, for instance, who believes a numberof things about Jesus, not because the things are thus recorded of himin history, but because the prophets stated that such things shouldhappen to the Messiah. Thus, Jesus is descended from David, because theMessiah was to come of David's lineage. His birth is announced by anangelic visitant, because the birth of the Messiah must not be lesshonoured than that of Isaac or of Samson; he is born of a virgin, because God says of the Messiah, "this day have _I_ begotten thee, "implying the direct paternity of God, and because the prophecy in Is. Vii. 14 was applied to the Messiah by the later Jews (see Septuaginttranslation, [Greek: parthenos], _a pure virgin_, while the Hebrew word[Hebrew: almah] signifies a young woman; the Hebrew word for virgin[Hebrew: betulah] not being used in the text of Isaiah), the ideas of"son of God" and "son of a virgin" completing each other; born atBethlehem, because there the Messiah was to be born (Micah v. 1);announced to shepherds, because Moses was visited among the flocks, andDavid taken from the sheepfolds at Bethlehem; heralded by a star, because a star should arise out of Jacob (Num. Xxiv. 17), and "theGentiles shall come to thy light" (Is. Lx. 3); worshipped by magi, because the star was seen by Balaam, the magus, and astrologers would bethose who would most notice a star; presented with gifts by theseEastern sages, because kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer gifts (Ps. Lxxii. 10); saved from the destruction of the infants by a jealous king, because Moses, one of the great types of the Messiah, was so saved;flying into Egypt and thence returning, because Israel, again a type ofthe Messiah, so fled and returned, and "out of Egypt have I called myson" (Hos. Xi. 1); at twelve years of age found in the temple, becausethe duties of the law devolved on the Jewish boy at that age, and whereshould the Messiah then be found save in his Father's temple? recognisedat his baptism by a divine voice, to fulfil Is. Xlii. 1; hovered over bya dove, because the brooding Spirit (Gen. I. 2) was regarded asdove-like, and the Spirit was to be especially poured on the Messiah(Is. Xlii. 1); tempted by the devil to test him, because God tested hisgreatest servants, and would surely test the Messiah; fasting forty daysin the wilderness, because the types of the Messiah--Moses andElijah--thus fasted in the desert; healing all manner of disease, because Messiah was to heal (Is. Xxxv. 5, 6); preaching, because Messiahwas to preach (Is. Lxi. 1, 2); crucified, because the hands and feet ofMessiah were to be pierced (Ps. Xxii. 16); mocked, because Messiah wasto be mocked (Ibid 6-8); his garments divided, because thus it wasspoken of Messiah (Ibid, 18); silent before his judges, because Messiahwas not to open his mouth (Is. Liii. 7); buried by the rich, becauseMessiah was thus to find his grave (Ib. 9); rising again, becauseMessiah's could not be left in hell (Ps. Xvi. 10); sitting at God'sright hand, because there Messiah was to sit as king (Ps. Cx. 1). Thusthe form of the Messiah was cast, and all that had to be done was topour in the human metal; those who alleged that the Messiah had come inthe person of Jesus of Nazareth, adapted his story to the story of theMessiah, pouring the history of Jesus into the mould already made forthe Messiah, and thus the mythus was transformed into a history. 

This theory is much strengthened by a study of the prophecies quoted inthe New Testament, since we find that they are very badly "set;" take asa specimen those referred to in Matthew i. And ii. "Now all this wasdone, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by theprophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, " etc (i. 22, 23). If we refer to Is. Vii. , from whence the prophecy is taken, we shall seethe wresting of the passage which is necessary to make it into a"Messianic prophecy. " Ahaz, king of Judah, is hard pressed by the kingsof Samaria and Syria, and he is promised deliverance by the Lord, beforethe virgin's son, Immanuel, should be of an age to discern between goodand evil. How Ahaz could be given as a sign of a birth which was not totake place until more than 700 years afterwards, it is hard to say, norcan we believe that Ahaz was not delivered from his enemies until Jesuswas old enough to know right from wrong. According to the Gospels, thename "Immanuel" was never given to Jesus, and in the prophecy isbestowed on the child simply as a promise that, "God" being "with us, "Judah should be delivered from its foes. The same child is clearlyspoken of as the child of Isaiah and his wife in Is. Viii. 3, 4; and inverses 6-8 we find that the two kings of Samaria and Syria are to beconquered by the king of Assyria, who shall fill "thy land, O_Immanuel!_" thus referring distinctly to the promised child as livingin that time. The Hebrew word translated "virgin" does not, as we havealready shown, mean "a pure virgin, " as translated in the Septuagint. Itis used for a young woman, a marriageable woman, or even to describe awoman who is being embraced by a man. Micah's supposed prophecy in Matt. Ii. 5, 6, is as inapplicable to Christ as that of Isaiah. Turning backto Micah, we find that he "that is to be ruler in Israel" shall be bornin Bethlehem, but Jesus was never ruler in Israel, and the descriptioncannot therefore be applied to him; besides, finishing the passage inMicah (v. 5) we read that this same ruler "shall be the peace when theAssyrian shall come into our land, " so that the prophecy has a local andimmediate fulfilment in the circumstances of the time. Matthew ii. 15 isonly made into a prophecy by taking the second half of a historicalreference in Hosea to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt; it would be asreasonable to prove in this fashion that the Bible teaches a denial ofGod, "as is spoken by David the prophet, There is no God. " Thefulfilment of the saying of Jeremy the prophet is as true as all thepreceding (verses 17, 18); Jeremy bids Rahel not to weep for thechildren who are carried into bondage, "for they shall come again fromthe land of the enemy . .. Thy children shall come again to their ownborder" (Jer. Xxxi. 16, 17). Very applicable to the slaughtered babes, and so honest of "Matthew" to quote just so much of the "prophecy" asserved his purpose, leaving out that which altered its whole meaning. After these specimens, we are not surprised to find that--unable to finda prophecy fit to twist to suit his object--our evangelist quietlyinvents one, and (verse 23) uses a prophecy which has no existence inwhat was "spoken by the prophets. " It is needless to go through all theother passages known as Messianic prophecies, for they may all be dealtwith as above; the guiding rule is to refer to the Old Testament in eachcase, and not to trust to the quotation as given in the New, and then toread the whole context of the "prophecy, " instead of resting contentwith the few words which, violently wrested from their natural meaning, are forced into a superficial resemblance with the story recorded in theGospels. 

The second theory, which regards Jesus as a new hero of the ancientsun-worship, is full of intensest interest. Dupuis, in his great work onsun-worship ("Origines de Tous les Cultes") has drawn out in detail thevarious sun-myths, and has pointed to their common features. Brieflystated, these points are as follows: the hero is born about Dec. 25th, without sexual intercourse, for the sun, entering the winter solstice, emerges in the sign of Virgo, the heavenly virgin. His mother remainsever-virgin, since the rays of the sun, passing through the zodiacalsign, leave it intact. His infancy is begirt with dangers, because thenew-born sun is feeble in the midst of the winter's fogs and mists, which threaten to devour him; his life is one of toil and peril, culminating at the spring equinox in a final struggle with the powers ofdarkness. At that period the day and the night are equal, and both fightfor the mastery; though the night veil the sun, and he seems dead;though he has descended out of sight, below the earth, yet he risesagain triumphant, and he rises in the sign of the Lamb, and is thus theLamb of God, carrying away the darkness and death of the winter months. Henceforth, he triumphs, growing ever stronger and more brilliant. Heascends into the zenith, and there he glows, "on the right hand of God, "himself God, the very substance of the Father, the brightness of hisglory, and the "express image of his person, " "upholding all things" byhis heat and his life-giving power; thence he pours down life and warmthon his worshippers, giving them his very self to be their life; hissubstance passes into the grape and the corn, the sustainers of health;around him are his twelve followers, the twelve signs of the zodiac, thetwelve months of the year; his day, the Lord's Day, is Sunday, the dayof the Sun, and his yearly course, ever renewed, is marked each year, bythe renewed memorials of his career. The signs appear in the long arrayof sun-heroes, making the succession of deities, old in reality, although new-named. 

It may be worth noting that Jesus is said to be born at Bethlehem, aword that Dr. Inman translates as the house "of the hot one" ("AncientFaiths, " vol. I. , p. 358; ed. 1868); Bethlehem is generally translated"house of bread, " and the doubt arises from the Hebrew letters beingoriginally unpointed, and the points--equivalent to vowel sounds--beinginserted in later times; this naturally gives rise to great latitude ofinterpretation, the vowels being inserted whenever the writer ortranslator thinks they ought to come in, or where the traditionaryreading requires them (see Part 1. , pp. 13, and 31, 32). 

Each point in the story of Jesus may be paralleled in earlier tales; thebirth of Krishna was prophesied of; he was born of Devaki, although shewas shut up in a tower, and no man was permitted to approach her. Hisbirth was hymned by the Devas--the Hindoo equivalent for angels--and abright light shone round where he was. He was pursued by the wrath ofthe tyrant king, Kansa, who feared that Krishna would supplant him inthe kingdom. The infants of the district were massacred, but Krishnamiraculously escaped. He was brought up among the poor until he reachedmaturity. He preached a pure morality, and went about doing good. Hehealed the leper, the sick, the injured, and he raised the dead. Hishead was anointed by a woman; he washed the feet of the Brahmins; he waspersecuted, and finally slain, being crucified. He went down into hell, rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven (see "AsiaticResearches, " vol. I. ; on "The Gods of Greece, Italy, and India, " by SirWilliam Jones, an essay which, though very imperfect, has much in itthat is highly instructive). He is pictorially represented as standingon the serpent, the type of evil; his foot crushes its head, while thefang of the serpent pierces his heel; also, with a halo round his head, this halo being always the symbol of the Sun-god; also, with his handsand feet pierced--the sacred stigmata--and with a hole in his side. Infact, some of the representations of him could not be distinguished fromthe representations of the crucified Jesus. 

The name of "Krishna" is by Sir William Jones, and by many otherswritten "Crishna, " and I have seen it spelt "Cristna. " The resemblanceit bears, when thus written, to "Christ" is apparent only, there is noetymological similarity. Krishna is derived from the Sanscrit "Krish, "to scrape, to draw, to colour. Krishna means black, or violet-coloured;Christ comes from the Greek [Greek: christos] the anointed. ColonelVallancy, Sir W. Jones tells us, informed him that "Crishna" in Irishmeans the Sun ("As. Res. , " p. 262; ed. 1801); and there is no doubt thatthe Hindu Krishna is a Sun-god; the "violet-coloured" might well be areference to the deep blue of the summer sky. 

If Moses be a type of Christ, must not Bacchus be admitted to the samehonour? In the ancient Orphic verses it was said that he was born inArabia; picked up in a box that floated on the water; was known by thename of Mises, as "drawn from the water;" had a rod which he couldchange into a serpent, and by means of which he performed miracles;leading his army, he passed the Red Sea dryshod; he divided the riversOrontes and Hydaspes with his rod; he drew water from a rock; where hepassed the land flowed with wine, milk, and honey (see "Diegesis, " pp. 178, 179). 

The name Christ Jesus is simply the anointed Saviour, or else ChrestosJesus, the good Saviour; a title not peculiar to Jesus of Nazareth. Wefind Hesus, Jesous, Yes or Ies. This last name, [Greek: Iaes], was oneof the titles of Bacchus, and the simple termination "us" makes it"Jesus;" from this comes the sacred monogram I. H. S. , really the Greek[Greek: UAeS]--IES; the Greek letter [Greek: Ae], which is the capitalE, has by ignorance been mistaken for the Latin H, and the ancient nameof Bacchus has been thus transformed into the Latin monogram of Jesus. In both cases the letters are surrounded with a halo, the sun-rays, symbolical of the sun-deity to whom they refer. This halo surrounds theheads of gods who typify the sun, and is continually met with in Indiansculptures and paintings. 

Hercules, with his twelve labours, is another source of Christian fable. "It is well known that by Hercules, in the physical mythology of theheathens, was meant the _Sun_, or _solar light_, and his twelve famouslabours have been referred to the sun's passing through the twelvezodiacal signs; and this, perhaps, not without some foundation. But thelabours of Hercules seem to have had a still higher view, and to havebeen originally designed as emblematic memorials of what the real _Sonof God_ and _Saviour of the world_ was to do and suffer for oursakes--[Greek: Noson Theletaeria panta komixon]--'_Bringing a cure forall our ills_, ' as the Orphic hymn speaks of Hercules" (Parkhurst's"Hebrew Lexicon, " page 520; ed. 1813). As the story of Hercules camefirst in time, it must be either a prophecy of Christ, an inadmissiblesupposition, or else of the sources whence the story of Christ has beendrawn. 

Aesculapius, the heathen "Good Physician, " and "the good Saviour, "healed the sick and raised the dead. He was the son of God and ofCoronis, and was guarded by a goatherd. 

Prometheus is another forerunner of Christ, stretched in cruciformposition on the rocks, tormented by Jove, the Father, because he broughthelp to man, and winning for man, by his agony, light and knowledge. 

Osiris, the great Egyptian God, has much in common with the ChristianJesus. He was both god and man, and once lived on earth. He was slain bythe evil Typhon, but rose again from the dead. After his resurrection hebecame the Judge of all men. Once a year the Egyptians used to celebratehis death, mourning his slaying by the evil one: "this grief for thedeath of Osiris did not escape some ridicule; for Xenophanes, theIonian, wittily remarked to the priests of Memphis, that if they thoughtOsiris a man they should not worship him, and if they thought him a Godthey need not talk of his death and suffering. .. . Of all the gods Osirisalone had a place of birth and a place of burial. His birthplace wasMount Sinai, called by the Egyptians Mount Nyssa. Hence was derived thegod's Greek name Dionysus, which is the same as the HebrewJehovah-Nissi" ("Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity, " bySamuel Sharpe, pp. 10, 11; ed. 1863). Various places claimed the honourof his burial. "Serapis" was a god's name, formed out of "Osiris" and"Apis, " the sacred bull, and we find (see ante, p. 206) that the EmperorAdrian wrote that the "worshippers of Serapis are Christians, " and thatbishops of Serapis were bishops of Christ; although the stories differin detail, as is natural, since the Christian tale is modified by othermyths--Osiris, for instance, is married--the general outline is thesame. We shall see, in Section II. , how thoroughly Pagan is the originof Christianity. 

We find the Early Fathers ready enough to claim these analogies, inorder to recommend their religion. Justin Martyr argues: "When we saythat the word, who is the first birth of God, was produced withoutsexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified anddied, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothingdifferent from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons ofJupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe toJupiter; Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, andso ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb fromlimb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames toescape his toils; and the sons of Leda, the Dioscuri; and Perseus, sonof Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose toheaven on the horse Pegasus" ("First Apology, " ch. Xxi. ). "If we assertthat the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, differentfrom ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinarything to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But ifanyone objects that he was crucified, in this also he is on a par withthose reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have nowenumerated. .. . And if we even affirm that he was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that wesay that he made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, weseem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done byAEsculapius" (Ibid, ch. Xxi. ). "Plato, in like manner, used to say thatRhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; andwe say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ"(Ibid, ch. Viii. ) In ch. Liv. Justin argues that the devils invented allthese gods in order that when Christ came his story should be thought tobe another marvellous tale like its predecessors! On the whole, we canscarcely wonder that Caecilius (about A. D. 211) taunted the earlyChristians with those facts: "All these figments of cracked-brainedopiniatry and silly solaces played off in the sweetness of song bydeceitful poets, by you, too credulous creatures, have been shamefullyreformed, and made over to your own God" (as quoted in R. Taylor's"Diegesis, " p. 241). That the doctrines of Christianity had the sameorigin as the story of Christ, and the miracles ascribed to him, weshall prove under section ii. , while section iii. Will prove the same asto his morality. Judge Strange fairly says: "The Jewish Scriptures andthe traditionary teaching of their doctors, the Essenes and Therapeuts, the Greek philosophers, the neo-platonism of Alexandria, and theBuddhism of the East, gave ample supplies for the composition of thedoctrinal portion of the new faith; the divinely procreated personagesof the Grecian and Roman pantheons, the tales of the Egyptian Osiris, and of the Indian Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, furnished the materials forthe image of the new saviour of mankind; and every surrounding mythologypoured forth samples of the 'mighty works' that were to be attributed tohim to attract and enslave his followers: and thus, first from Judaism, and finally from the bosom of heathendom, we have our matured expressionof Christianity" ("The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus, " p. 27). Fromthe mass of facts brought together above, we contend that the Gospels_are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit, from (1) the miracleswith which they abound, (2) the numerous contradictions of each by theothers, (3) the fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, themiracles, were current long before the supposed dates of the Gospels; sothat these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of older materials_. 

We have thus examined, step by step, the alleged evidences ofChristianity, both external and internal; we have found it impossible torely on its external witnesses, while the internal testimony is fatal toits claims; it is, at once, unauthenticated without, and incrediblewithin. After earnest study, and a careful balancing of proofs, we findourselves forced to assert that THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AREUNRELIABLE. 

 * * * * *

APPROXIMATE DATES CLAIMED FOR THE CHIEF CHRISTIAN AND HERETICALAUTHORITIES. 

A. D. 

Between 92 and 125 Clement of Rome Very doubtfulBetween 90 and 138 Barnabas " "Said to be martyred 107 Ignatius " "Between 117 and 138 Quadratus " "Possibly 138 Hermas " "About 150-170 Papias " "About 135-145 Basilides and " " ValentinusAbout 140-160 MarcionSaid to be martyred 166 Polycarp Very doubtfulSaid to be martyred 166 Justin MartyrAfter 166 HegesippusAbout 177 Epistle of Lyons and VienneBetween 150 and 290 Clementines Real date quite unknownBetween 166 and 176 Dionysius of CorinthAbout 176 AthenagorasBetween 170 and 175 Tatian177 to about 200 IrenæusAbout 193 TertullianAbout 200 Celsus Very doubtful205 Clement of Alexandria succeeded as head of School. About 205 Porphyry205-249 Origen

THE SO-CALLED TEN PERSECUTIONS. 

A. D. 61 under Nero81 " Domitian107 " Trajan166 " Marcus Aurelius193 " Severus235 under Maximin249 " Decius254 " Valerian272 " Aurelian303 " Diocletian

DATES OF ROMAN EMPERORS. 

AT ALLEGED BIRTH OF CHRIST. 

Augustus Cæsar

A. D. 14 Tiberius33 Caligula41 Claudius54 Nero68 Galba Otho69 Vitellius69 Vespasian79 Titus81 Domitian96 Nerva98 Trajan associated117 Hadrian138 Antoninus Pius161 Marcus Aurelius180 Commodus192 Pertinax193 Julian Severus211 Caracalla and Geta217 Macrinus218 Heliogabalus222 Alexander Severus235 Maximin237 The Gordians Maximus and Galbinus238 Maximus, Galbinus, and Gordian238 Gordian alone244 Philip249 Decius251 Gallus253 Valerian260 Gallienus268 Claudius270 Aurelian275 Tacitus276 Florianus276 Probus282 Carus283 Carinus and Numerian285 Diocletian286 Maximian associated305 Galerius and Constantius 305 Severus and Maximin306 Constantine Licinius Maxentius324 Constantine alone

 * * * * *

INDEX TO SECTION I. OF PART II. 

 * * * * *

INDEX OF BOOKS USED. 

Adrian. .. 206 " quoted by Meredith. .. 225Agbarus, letter of, in Eusebius. .. 243Akiba, quoted in Keim. .. 315Alford, Greek Testament. .. 288Apostolic Fathers. .. 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 230Athenagoras, Apology. .. 226Augustine, Syntagma, quoted in Diegesis. .. 234

Barnabas, Epistle of. .. 233, 302Besant, According to St. John. .. 337Butler, Lives of the Fathers, etc. .. 324

Caecilius, quoted in Diegesis. .. 348Celsus, quoted by Norton. .. 233Clement, First Epistle. .. 233, 299, 300, 301Clementine, Homilies. .. 310 " quoted in Supernatural Religion. .. 301Corpus Ignatianum, quoted in Apostolic Fathers. .. 218

Davidson, Introduction to New Testament. .. 286, 294, 295, 296, 298

Ellicott, quoted in Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels. .. 250

Epictetus. .. 206Epiphanius, quoted by Norton. .. 297Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. .. 216, 230, 231, 234, 243, 246, 248 250, 257, 260, 277, 279, 284, 290 291, 292, 294, 321, 323 " quoted in Apostolic Fathers. .. 217

Faustus, quoted in Diegesis. .. 284

Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. .. 195, 206, 209, 112 213, 227, 322Giles, Christian Records. .. 197, 207, 230, 259, 261, 263, 265 267, 276, 288, 293, 297, 313, 328 335, 336

Hegesippus, quoted in Supernatural Religion. .. 302Home, Introduction to New Testament. .. 197, 203

Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. .. 220 " " Ephesians. .. 233 " " Philippians. .. 302Inman, Ancient Faiths. .. 344Irenæus, Against Heresies. .. 258, 291, 323, 336 " quoted in Keim. .. 234 " quoted in Eusebius. .. 258

Jones, The Canon of the New Testament. .. 240, 245, 257Jones, Sir W. , Asiatic Researches. .. 345Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. .. 195, 198, 315 " Wars of the Jews. .. 317 " Discourse on Hades. .. 198Justin Martyr, First Apology. .. 231, 253, 302, 347 " Second Apology. .. 226, 323 " Dialogue with Trypho. .. 231, 275, 302, 310Juvenal. .. 203

Keim, Jesus of Nazara. .. 197, 202, 315

Lardner, Answer to Dr. Chandler, quoted from Diegesis. .. 196 " Credibility of the Gospels. .. 209, 210, 211, 216, 218 230, 263, 269Livy. .. 222

Marcus Aurelius. .. 206Marsh, quoted in Norton. .. 267 " quoted in Giles. .. 287Meredith, Prophet of Nazareth. .. 223Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History. .. 214, 216, 217, 235, 237, 238, 239Muratori, Canon of. .. 282

Nicodemus, Gospel of. .. 253Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels. .. 215, 216, 219, 247, 263, 269, 295

Origen, quoted in Gibbon. .. 213 " " Diegesis. .. 234 " " Supernatural Religion. .. 323

Paley, Evidences of Christianity. .. 198, 202, 203, 205 208, 209, 210, 212, 228, 229, 231 235, 236, 243, 244, 247, 248, 260 262, 269, 273, 281, 290, 309, 317 319Papias, quoted by Eusebius. .. 291 " Irenæus. .. 291Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon. .. 346Pliny, Epistles. .. 203Pilate, Acts of. .. 253

Quadratus, quoted by Eusebius. .. 230

Renan, Vie de Jésus. .. 197Row, The Supernatural in the New Testament. .. 325, 327

Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century. .. 248, 269, 270 279, 287, 298, 300, 302, 305, 311Scott, English Life of Jesus. .. 334Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology. .. 347Smyrna, Circular Epistle of the Church of. .. 221Strange, Portraiture and Mission of Jesus. .. 198, 201, 210 321, 348Strauss, Life of Jesus. .. 289, 312, 320, 330, 331, 332Suetonius. .. 201, 202, 225Supernatural Religion. .. 215, 216, 219, 229, 246, 247, 248 249, 260, 261, 266, 268, 269, 271 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 290, 292, 293, 295, 301, 302, 303 304, 322, 325

Tacitus, Annals. .. 199, 222, 225Taylor, Diegesis. .. 196, 200, 201, 205, 206, 208, 212, 346Tertullian, Apology. .. 226 " De Spectaculis. .. 323 " quoted in Gibbon. .. 213 " " Meredith. .. 225Thomas, Gospel of. .. 251Tischendorf, When were our Gospels Written?. .. 248, 270

Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament. .. 216, 229, 247, 249 256, 268, 270, 274 275, 278, 286

 * * * * *

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 

Analogies of Christian doctrines. .. 347Apocryphal Gospels, specimens of. .. 250 " Books, recognised. .. 245Authenticity of Apology of Quadratus. .. 230 " Epistle of Barnabas. .. 229 " " Clement. .. 214 " " Ignatius. .. 217 " " Polycarp. .. 216 " " Smyrna. .. 220 " Vision of Hermas. .. 216

Books read in churches. .. 248 " in volume of Scriptures. .. 249

Christian Agapae. .. 223Christianity advantageous to tyrants. .. 237

Date of birth of Christ. .. 333Dates of Fathers, etc. .. 349Dates of Roman Emperors. .. 350Diatessaron of Tatian. .. 259

Evidence of Adrian. .. 206 " Apostolic Fathers. .. 263, 267 " Barnabas. .. 268 " Basilides and Valentinus. .. 280 " Canon of Muratori. .. 282 " Clement . .. 269 " Clementines. .. 279 " Hegesippus. .. 277 " Hermas. .. 269 " Ignatius. .. 270 " Josephus. .. 195 " Justin Martyr. .. 271 " Marcion. .. 281 " Marcus Aurelius. .. 206 " Papias. .. 271 " Pliny. .. 203 " Polycarp. .. 270 " Suetonius. .. 201 " Tacitus. .. 199

Forgeries in Early Church. .. 238 " List of. .. 240Four Gospels: when recognised. .. 257 " why only four. .. 258

Gospels, changes made in. .. 283 " contradictions in. .. 328 " contradictions between synoptical and fourth. .. 337 " growth of. .. 285, 289 " identity of modern and ancient unproven. .. 262 " many current. .. 266 " of later origin. .. 311 " of Matthew and Mark not those of Papias. .. 290 " original, different from canonical. .. 298 " similarity of canonical and uncanonical. .. 245 " synoptical. .. 286 " time of selection unknown. .. 256Genealogies of Jesus. .. 328Greek not commonly known by Jews. .. 314

Ignorance of Early Fathers. .. 232

Krishna, meaning of. .. 345

Length of Jesus' Ministry. . 336Life of Christ from Justin Martyr. .. 306

Martyrs, small number of. .. 212Massacre of infants unlikely. .. 333Matthew, written in Hebrew. .. 394Miracles. .. 316Morality of Early Christians. .. 221Mythical Theory of Jesus. .. 340

Passages in Fathers, not in canonical Gospels. .. 301Persecution, absence of. .. 209Phrase "it is written". .. 247Positions laid down as to Gospels. .. 236Position A. .. 238 " B. .. 245 " C. .. 256 " D. .. 257 " E. .. 261 " F. .. 262 " G. .. 290 " H. .. 298 " I. .. 311 " J. .. 314 " K. .. 316Prophecies, Messianic. .. 342

Silence of Jewish writers. .. 198, 201, 259 " Pagan " . .. 193, 206Story of Christ pre-Christian. .. 340Son-worship and Christ. .. 343

Temptation of Christ. .. 334Ten Persecutions. .. 350Types of Christ. .. 345

SECTION II. --ITS ORIGIN PAGAN. 

There are two ancient and widely-spread creeds to which we must chieflylook for the origin of Christianity, namely, Sun-worship andNature-worship. It is doubtful which of the twain is the elder, and theyare closely intertwined, the central idea of each being the same;personally, I am inclined to think that Nature-worship is the older ofthe two, because it is the simpler and the nearer; the barbarian, slowlyemerging into humanity, would be more likely to worship the force whichwas the most immediately wonderful to him, the power of generation ofnew life; to recognise the sun as the great life producer seems to implysome little growth of reason and of imagination; sun-worship seems theidealisation of nature-worship, for the same generative force is adoredin both, and round the idea of this production of new life all creedsrevolve. Christian symbols and Christian ceremonies speak as plainly tothe student of ancient religions as the stars speak to the astronomer, and the rocks to the geologian; Christian Churches are as full of thefossil relics of the old creeds as are the earth's strata of the bonesof extinct animals. We shall expect to find, then, a family resemblancerunning through all Eastern creeds--of which Christianity is one--and weshall not be surprised to find similar symbols expressing similar ideas;there are, in fact, cardinal symbols re-appearing in all these alliedreligions; the virgin and child; the trinity in unity; the cross; thesehave their roots struck deep in human nature, and are found in everyEastern creed. So also can we trace sacraments and ceremonies, and manyminor dogmas. In looking back into those ancient creeds it is necessaryto get rid of the modern fashion of regarding any natural object asimmodest. Sir William Jones justly remarks that in Hindustan "it neverseems to have entered the heads of the legislators, or people, thatanything natural could be offensively obscene; a singularity whichpervades all their writings and conversation, but is no proof ofdepravity in their morals" ("Asiatic Researches, " vol. I. , p. 255). Gross injustice is sometimes done to ancient creeds by contemplatingthem from a modern point of view; in those days every power of Naturewas thought divine, and most divine of all was deemed the power ofcreation, whether worshipped in the sun, whose beams impregnated theearth, or in the male and female organs of generation, the universalcreators of life in the animal world; thus we find in all ancientsculptures carvings of the phallus and the yoni, expressed bothnaturally and symbolically, the representations becoming more and moreconventional and refined as civilisation advanced; of the infant worldit may be said that it was "naked, and was not ashamed;" as it grewolder, and clothed the human form, it also draped its religious symbols, but as the body remains unaltered under its garments, so the ideaconcealed beneath the emblems remains the same. 

The union of male and female is, then, the foundation of all religions;the heaven marries the earth, as man marries woman, and that union isthe first marriage. Saturn is the sky, the male, or active energy; Rheais the earth, the female, or receptive; and these are the father and themother of all. The Persians of old called the sky Jupiter, or Jupater, "Ju the Father. " The sun is the agent of the generative power of thesky, and his beams fecundate the earth, so that from her all life isproduced. Thus the sun becomes worshipped as the Father of all, and thesun is the emblem which crowns the images of the Supreme God; the vernalequinox is the resurrection of the sun, and the sign of the zodiac inwhich he then is becomes the symbol of his life-producing power; thusthe bull, and afterwards the ram, became his sign as Life-Giver, and theSun-god was pictured as bull, or as ram (or lamb), or else with thehorns of his, emblem, and the earthly animals became sacred for hissake. Mithra, the Sun-god of Persia, is sculptured as riding on a bull;Osiris, the Sun-god of Egypt, wears the horns of the bull, and isworshipped as Osiris-Apis, or Serapis, the Sun-god in the sign of Apis, the bull. Later, by the precession of the equinoxes, the sun at thevernal equinox has passed into the sign of the ram (called in Persia, the lamb), and we find Jupiter Ammon, Jupiter with ram's horns, andJesus the Lamb of God. These symbols all denote the sun victorious overdarkness and death, giving life to the world. The phallus is the othergreat symbol of the Life-Giver, generating life in woman, as the sun inthe earth. Bacchus, Adonis, Dionysius, Apollo, Hercules, Hermes, Thammuz, Jupiter, Jehovah, Jao, or Jah, Moloch, Baal, Asher, Mahadeva, Brahma, Vishnu, Mithra, Atys, Ammon, Belus, with many another, these areall the Life-Giver under different names; they are the Sun, the Creator, the Phallus. Red is their appropriate colour. When the sun or thePhallus is not drawn in its natural form, it is indicated by a symbol:the symbol must be upright, hard, or else burning, either conical, orclubbed at one end. Thus--the torch, flame of fire, cone, serpent, thyrsus, triangle, letter T, cross, crosier, sceptre, caduceus, knobbedstick, tall tree, upright stone, spire, tower, minaret, upright pole, arrow, spear, sword, club, upright stump, etc. , are all symbols of thegenerative force of the male energy in Nature of the Supreme God. 

One of the most common, and the most universally used, is THE CROSS. Carved at first simply as phallus, it was gradually refined; we meet itas three balls, one above the two; the letter T indicated it, which, bythe slightest alteration, became the cross now known as the Latin: thus"Barnabas" says that "the cross was to express the grace by the letterT" (ante, p. 233). We find the cross in India, Egypt, Thibet, Japan, always as the sign of life-giving power; it was worn as an amulet bygirls and women, and seems to have been specially worn by the womenattached to the temples, as a symbol of what was, to them, a religiouscalling. The cross is, in fact, nothing but the refined phallus, and inthe Christian religion is a significant emblem of its Pagan origin; itwas adored, carved in temples, and worn as a sacred emblem by sun andnature worshippers, long before there were any Christians to adore, carve, and wear it. The crowd kneeling before the cross in RomanCatholic and in High Anglican Churches, is a simple reproduction of thecrowd who knelt before it in the temples of ancient days, and the girlswho wear it amongst ourselves, are--in the most innocent unconsciousnessof its real signification--exactly copying the Indian and Egyptian womenof an elder time. Saturn's symbol was a cross and a ram's horn. Jupiterbore a cross with a horn. Venus a circle with a cross. The Egyptiandeities a cross and oval. (The signification of these will be dealt withbelow. ) The Druids sought oak trees with two main arms growing in shapeof a cross, and, if they failed to find such, nailed a beam cross-wise. The chief pagodas in India are built, like many Christian churches, inthe form of a cross. I have read in a book on church architecture thatchurches should be built either in the form of a cross, or else in thatof a ship, typifying the ark; i. E. , they should either be built in theform of the phallus or the yoni, the ship or ark being one of thesymbols of the female energy (see below, p. 361). 

The CRUCIFIX, or cross with human figure stretched upon it, is alsofound in ancient times, although not so frequently as the simple cross. The crucifix appears to have arisen from the circle of the horizon beingdivided into four parts, North, South, East, and West, and the Sun-god, drawn within, or on, the circle, came into contact with each cardinalpoint, his feet and head touching, or intersecting, two, while hisoutstretched arms point to the other quarters. Plato says that the "nextpower to the Supreme God was decussated, or figured in the shape of across, on the universe. " Krishna is painted and sculptured on a cross. The Egyptians thus drew Osiris, and sometimes we find a circle drawnwith the dividing lines, and in the midst is stretched the dead body ofOsiris. Robert Taylor gives another origin for the crucifix: "Theignorant gratitude of a superstitious people, while they adored theriver [Nile] on whose inundations the fertility of their provincesdepended, could not fail of attaching notions of sanctity and holinessto the posts that were erected along its course, and which, by a_transverse beam_, indicated the height to which, at the spot where thebeam was fixed, the waters might be expected to rise. This cross at oncewarned the traveller to secure his safety, and formed a standard of thevalue of land. Other rivers may add to the fertility of the countrythrough which they pass, but the Nile is the absolute cause of thatgreat fertility of the Lower Egypt, which would be all a desert, as badas the most sandy parts of Africa without this river. It supplies itboth with soil and moisture, and was therefore gratefully addressed, notmerely as an ordinary river-god, but by its express title of theEgyptian Jupiter. The crosses, therefore, along the banks of the riverwould naturally share in the honour of the stream, and be the mostexpressive emblem of good fortune, peace, and plenty. The two ideascould never be separated: the fertilising flood was the _waters oflife_, that conveyed every blessing, and even existence itself, to theprovinces through which they flowed. One other and most obvioushieroglyph completed the expressive allegory. The _Demon of Famine_, who, should the waters fail of their inundation, or not reach theelevation indicated by the position of the transverse beam upon theupright, would reign in all his horrors over their desolated lands. Thissymbolical personification was, therefore, represented as a miserableemaciated wretch, who had grown up 'as a tender plant, and as a root outof a dry ground, who had no form nor comeliness; and when they shouldsee him, there was no beauty that they should desire him. ' Meagre werehis looks; sharp misery had worn him to the bone. His crown of thornsindicated the sterility of the territories over which he reigned. Thereed in his hand, gathered from the banks of the Nile, indicated that itwas only the mighty river, by keeping within its banks, and thuswithholding its wonted munificence, that placed an unreal sceptre in hisgripe. He was nailed to the cross, in indication of his entire defeat. And the superscription of his infamous title, 'THIS IS THE KING OF THEJEWS, ' expressively indicated that _Famine, Want_, or _Poverty_, ruledthe destinies of the most slavish, beggarly, and mean race of men withwhom they had the honour of being acquainted" ("Diegesis, " p. 187). While it may very likely be true that the miserable aspect given toJesus crucified is copied from some such original as Mr. Taylor heresketches, we are tolerably certain that the general idea of the crucifixhad the solar origin described above. 

Very closely joined to the notion of the cross is the idea of theTRINITY IN UNITY, and we need not delay upon it long. It is as universalin Eastern religions as the cross, and comes from the same idea; alllife springs from a trinity in unity in man, and, therefore, God isthree in one. This trinity is, of course, symbolised by the cross, andespecially by the lotus, and any "three in one" leaf; from this has cometo Christianity the conventional triple foliage so constantly seen inChurch carvings, the _fleur-de-lis_, the triangle, etc. , which arenow--as of old--accepted as the emblems of the trinity. The persons ofthe trinity are found each with his own name; in India, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, and it is Vishnu who becomes incarnate; in Egypt different citieshad different trinities, and "we have a hieroglyphical inscription inthe British Museum as early as the reign of Sevechus of the eighthcentury before the Christian era, showing that the doctrine of Trinityin Unity already formed part of their religion, and that in each of thetwo groups last mentioned the three gods only made one person"("Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christology, " by S. Sharpe, p. 14). Mr. Sharpe might have gone to much earlier times and "already" havefound the adoration of the trinity in unity; as far back as the firstwho bowed in worship before the generative force of the male three inone. Osiris, Horus, and Ra form one of the Egyptian trinities; Horus theSon, is also one of a trinity in unity made into an amulet, and calledthe Great God, the Son God, and the Spirit God. Horus is the slayer ofTyphon, the evil one, and is sometimes represented as standing on itshead, and as piercing its head with a spear, reminding us of Krishna, the incarnation of Vishnu, the second person of the Indian Trinity. 

These trinities, however, were not complete in themselves, for thefemale element is needed for the production of life; hence, we find thatin most nations a fourth person is joined to the trinity, as Isis, themother of Horus, in Egypt, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, inChristendom; the Egyptian trinity is often represented as Osiris, Horus, and Isis, but we more generally find the female constituting the fourthelement, in addition to the triune, and symbolised by an oval, orcircle, typical of the female organ of reproduction; thus the _cruxansata_ of the Egyptians, the "symbol of life" held in the hand by theEgyptian deities, is a cross or oval, i. E. , the T with an oval at thetop; the circle with the cross inside, symbolises, again, the male andfemale union; also the six-rayed star, the pentacle, the doubletriangle, the triangle and circle, the pit with a post in it, the key, the staff with a half-moon, the complicated cross. The same union isimaged out in all androgynous deities, in Elohim, Baalim, Baalath, Arba-il, the bearded Venus, the feminine Jove, the virgin and child. Incountries where the Yoni worship was more popular than that of thePhallus, the VIRGIN and CHILD was a favourite deity, and to this we nowturn. 

Here, as in the history of the cross, we find sun and nature worshipintertwined. The female element is sometimes the Earth, and sometimesthe individual. The goddesses are as various in names as the gods. Is, Isis, Ishtar, Astarte, Mylitta, Sara, Mrira, Maia, Parvati, Mary, Miriam, Eve, Juno, Venus, Diana, Artemis, Aphrodite, Hera, Rhea, Cybele, Ceres, and others, are the earth under many names; the receptive female, the producer of life, the Yoni. Black is the special colour of femaledeities, and the black Isis and Horus, the black Mary and Jesus are ofpeculiar sanctity. Their emblems are: the earth, moon, star of the sea, circle, oval, triangle, pomegranate, door, ark, fish, ship, horseshoe, chasm, cave, hole, celestial virgin, etc. They bore first the titles nowworn by Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus, and were reverenced as the"queen of heaven. " Ishtar, of Babylonia, was the "Mother of the Gods, "and the "Queen of the Stars. " Isis, of Egypt, was "our Immaculate Lady. "She was figured with a crown of stars, and with the crescent moon. Venuswas an ark brooded over by a dove, or the moon floating on the water. They are "the mother, " "mamma, " "emma, " "ummah, " or "the woman. " Thesymbols are everywhere the same, though given with different names. Everywhere it is Mary, the mother; the female principle in nature, adored side by side with the male. She shares in the work of creationand salvation, and has a kind of equality with the Father of all; hencewe hear of the immaculate conception. She produces a child alone in somestories, without even divine co-operation. The Virgo of the Zodiac isrepresented in ancient sculptures and drawings as a woman suckling achild, and the Paamylian feasts were celebrated at the spring equinox, and were the equivalent of the Christian feast of the Annunciation, whenthe power of the highest overshadowed Mary of Nazareth. Thus in India, we have Devaki and Krishna; in Egypt, Osiris and Horus--the "Saviour ofthe World;" in Christendom, Mary and Christ; the pictures and carvingsof India and Egypt would be indistinguishable from those of Europe, wereit not for the differences of dress. Apis, the sacred Egyptian bull, wasalways born without an earthly father, and his mother never had a secondcalf. So the later Sun-god, Jesus, is born without sexual intercourse, and Mary never bears another child. Jupiter visits Leda as a swan; Godvisits Mary as an overshadowing dove. The salutation of Gabriel to Maryis curiously like that of Mercury to Electra: "Hail, most happy of allwomen, you whom Jupiter has honoured with his couch; your blood willgive laws to the world, I am the messenger of the gods. " The mother ofFohi, the great Chinese God, became _enceinte_ by walking in thefootsteps of a giant. The mother of Hercules did not lose her virginity. The savages of St. Domingo represented the chief divinity by a femalefigure called the "mother of God. " On Friday, the day of Freya, orVenus, many Christians still eat only fish, fish being sacred to thefemale deity. 

In Comtism we find the latest development of woman-worship, wherein the"emotional sex" becomes the sacred sex, to be guarded, cherished, sustained, adored; and thus in the youngest religion the stamp of theeldest is found. 

Thus womanhood has been worshipped in all ages of the world, andmaternity has been deified by all creeds: from the savage who bowedbefore the female symbol of motherhood, to the philosophic Comtist whoadores woman "in the past, the present, and the future, " as mother, wife, and daughter, the worship of the female element in nature has runside by side with that of the male; the worship is one and the same inall religions, and runs in an unbroken thread from the barbarous ages tothe present time. 

The doctrines of the mediation, and the divinity of Christ, and of theimmortality of the soul, are as pre-Christian as the symbols which wehave examined. 

The idea of _the Mediator_ comes to us from Persia, and the title wasborne by Mithra before it was ascribed to Christ. Zoroaster taught thatthere was existence itself, the unknown, the eternal, "Zeruane Akerne, ""time without bounds. " From this issued Ormuzd, the good, the light, thecreator of all. Opposite to Ormuzd is Ahriman, the bad, the dark, thedeformer of all. Between these two great deities comes Mithra, theMediator, who is the Reconciler of all things to God, who is one withOrmuzd, although distinct from him. Mithra, as we have seen, is the Sunin the sign of the Bull, exactly parallel to Jesus, the Sun in the signof the Lamb, both the one and the other being symbolised by that sign ofthe zodiac in which the sun was at the spring equinox of his supposeddate. "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labours the kingdom of darkness shall be lit withheaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into hisfavour, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to bepurified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, thereconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to manhe is the life-giver and mediator. He brings the 'Word, ' as Brahmabrings the Vedas, from the mouth of the Eternal. (See Plutarch 'De Isid. Et Osirid. ;' also Dr. Hyde's 'De Religione Vet. Pers. , ' ch. 22; see also'Essay on Pantheism, ' by Rev. J. Hunt. ) It was just prior to the returnof the Jews from living among the people who were dominated by theseideas, that the splendid chapter of Isaiah (xl. ), or indeed the seriesof chapters which form the closing portion of the book, were written:'Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Prepare ye the way ofthe Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Everyvalley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain. ' Andthen follows a magnificent description of the greatness and supremacy ofGod, and this is followed by chapters which tell of a Messiah, orconquering prince, who will redeem the nation from its enemies, andrestore them to the light of the divine favour, and which predict amillennium, a golden age of purified and glorified humanity. It is thusmanifest that the inspiration of these writings came to the Jewishpeople from their contact with the religious thought of the Persians, and not from any supernatural source. From this time the Jews began tohold worthier ideas concerning God, and to cherish expectations of agolden age, a kingdom of heaven, which the Messiah, who was to be thesent messenger of God, should inaugurate. And this kingdom was to be akingdom of righteousness, a day of marvellous light, a rule under whichall evil and darkness were to perish" ("Plato, Philo, and Paul, " Rev. J. W. Lake, pp. 15, l6. )

The growth of the philosophical side of the dogma of the _Divinity ofChrist_ is as clearly traceable in Pagan and Jewish thought as is thedogma of the incarnation of the Saviour-God in the myths of Krishna, Osiris, etc. Two great teachers of the doctrine of the "Logos, " the"Word, " of God, stand out in pre-Christian times--the Greek Plato andthe Jewish Philo. We borrow the following extract from pp. 19, 20, ofthe pamphlet by Mr. Lake above referred to, as showing the generaltheological position of Plato; its resemblance to Christian teachingwill be at once apparent (it must not be forgotten that Plato lived B. C. 400):--

"The speculative thought and the religious teaching of Plato arediffused throughout his voluminous writings; but the following is apopular summary of them, by Madame Dacier, contained in her introductionto what have been classed as the 'Divine Dialogues:'--

"'That there is but one God, and that we ought to love and serve him, and to endeavour to resemble him in holiness and righteousness; thatthis God rewards humility and punishes pride. 

"'That the true happiness of man consists in being united to God, andhis only misery in being separated from him. 

"'That the soul is mere darkness, unless it be illuminated by God; thatmen are incapable even of praying well, unless God teaches them thatprayer which alone can be useful to them. 

"'That there is nothing solid and substantial but piety; that this isthe source of all virtues, and that it is the gift of God. 

"'That it is better to die than to sin. 

"'That it is better to suffer wrong than to do it. 

"'That the "Word" ([Greek: Logos]) formed the world, and rendered itvisible; that the knowledge of the Word makes us live very happily herebelow, and that thereby we obtain felicity after death. 

"'That the soul is immortal, that the dead shall rise again, that thereshall be a final judgment--both of the righteous and of the wicked, whenmen shall appear only with their virtues or vices, which shall be theoccasion of their eternal happiness or misery. '"

It is this Logos who was "figured in the shape of a cross on theuniverse" (ante, p. 358). The universe, which is but the materialisedthought of God, is made by his Logos, his Word, which is the expressionof his thought. In the Christian creed it is the Logos, the Word of God, by whom all things are made (John i. 1-3). The very name, as well as thethought, is the same, whether we turn over the pages of Plato or thoseof John. Philo, the great Jewish Platonist, living in Alexandria at theclose of the last century B. C. And in the first half of the firstcentury after Christ, speaks of the Logos in terms that, to our ears, seem purely Christian. Philo was a man of high position among the Jewsin Alexandria, being "a man eminent on all accounts, brother toAlexander the alabarch [governor of the Jews], and one not unskilful inphilosophy" (Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews, " bk. Xviii. , ch. 8, sec. 1). This "Alexander was a principal person among all hiscontemporaries both for his family and wealth" (Ibid, bk. Xx, ch. 5, sec. 2). He was the principal man in the Jewish embassage to Caius(Caligula) A. D. 39-40, and was then a grey-headed old man. Keim speaksof him as about sixty or seventy years old at that time, and puts hisbirth at about B. C. 20. He writes: "The Theology of Philo is in greatmeasure founded on his peculiar combination of the Jewish, the Platonic, and the Neo-Platonic conception of God. The God of the Old Testament, the exalted God, as he is called by the modern Hegelian philosophy, stood in close relations to the Greek Philosophers' conception of God, which believed that the Supreme Being could be accurately defined by thenegative of all that was finite. In accordance with this, Philo alsodescribed God as the simple Entity; he disclaimed for him every name, every quality, even that of the Good, the Beautiful, the Blessed, theOne. Since he is still better than the good, higher than the Unity, hecan never be known _as_, but only _that_, he is: his perfect name isonly the four mysterious letters (Jhvh)--that is, pure Being. By suchmeans, indeed, neither a fuller theology nor God's influence on theworld was to be obtained. And yet it was the problem of philosophy, aswell as of religion, to shed the light of God upon the world, and tolead it again to God. But how could this Being which was veiled from theworld be brought to bear upon it? By Philo, as well as by all thephilosophy of the time, the problem could only be solved illogically. Yet, by modifying his exalted nature, it might be done. If not by hisbeing, yet by his work he influences the world; his powers, his angels, all in it that is best and mightiest, the instrument, the interpreter, the mediator and messenger of God; his pattern and his first-born, theSon of God, the Second God, even himself God, the divine Word or Logoscommunicate with the world; he is the ideal and actual type of the worldand of humanity, the architect and upholder of the world, the manna andthe rock in the wilderness" ("Jesus of Nazara, " vol. I. , pp. 281, 282). 

"Man is fallen. .. . There is no man who is without sin, and even theperfect man, if he should be born, does not escape from it. .. . Yet thereis a redemption, willed by God himself, and brought to pass by the actof a wise man. Adam's successors still preserve the types of theirrelationship to the Father, although in an obscure form, each manpossesses the knowledge of good and evil and an incorruptible judgment, subject to reason; his spiritual strength is even now aided by theDivine Logos, the image, copy, and reflection of the blessed nature. Hence it follows that man can discern and see all the stains with whichhe has wilfully or involuntarily defiled his life, that man by means ofhis self-knowledge can decide to subdue his passions, to despise hispleasures and desires, to wage the battle of repentance, and to be justat any cost, and by the fundamental virtues of humanity, piety, andjustice, to imitate the virtues of the Father. .. . In such perfection asis possible to all, even to women and to slaves, since no one is a slaveby nature, the wise man is truly rich. He is noble and free who canproudly utter the saying of Sophocles, God is my ruler, not one amongmen! Such a one is priest, king, and prophet, he is no longer merely ason and scholar of the Logos, he is the companion and son of God. .. . Godis the eternal guide and director of the world, himself requiringnothing, and giving all to his children. It is of his goodness that hedoes not punish as a judge, but that, as the giver of grace, he bearswith all. With him all things are possible; he deals with all, even withthat which is almost beyond redemption. From him all the world hopes forforgiveness of sins, the Logos, the high priest, and intercessor, andthe patriarchs pray for it; he grants it, not for the world's sake, butof his own gracious nature, to those who can truly believe. He loves thehumble, and saves those whom he knows to be worthy of healing. His graceelects the pious before they are born, giving them victory oversensuality, and steadfastness in virtue. He reveals himself to holysouls by his Spirit, and by his divine light leads those who are tooweak by nature even to understand the external world, beyond the limitsof human nature to that which is divine" ("Jesus of Nazara, " pp. 283-287). Such are the most important passages of Keim's _résumé_ ofPhilo's philosophy, and its resemblance to Christian doctrine isunmistakeable, and adds one more proof to the fact that Christianity isAlexandrian rather than Judæan. It will be well to add to this sketchthe passages carefully gathered out of Philo's works by Jacob Bryant, who endeavoured to prove, from their resemblance to passages in the NewTestament, that Philo was a Christian, forgetting that Philo's workswere mostly written when Jesus was a child and a youth, and that henever once mentions Jesus or Christianity. It must not be forgotten thatPhilo lived in Alexandria, not in Judæa, and that between theCanaanitish and the Hellenic Jews there existed the most bitterhostility, so that--even were the story of Jesus true--it could not havereached Philo before A. D. 40, at which time he was old and gray-headed. We again quote from Mr. Lake's treatise, who prints the parallelpassages, and we would draw special attention to the similarity ofphraseology as well as of idea:

_Identity of the Christ of the New Testament with the Logos of Philo. _

Philo, describing the Logos, The New Testament, speakingsays:-- of Jesus says:--

'The Logos is the Son 'This is the Son of God. 'of God the Father. '--De John i. 34. Profugis. 

'The first begotten of God. ' 'And when he again bringeth--De Somniis. His first-born into the world. '--Heb. I. 6. 

'And the most ancient of 'That he is the first-bornall beings. '--De Conf. Ling. Of every creature. '--Col. I. 15. 

'The Logos is the image 'Christ, the image of theand likeness of God. '--De invisible God. '--Col. I. 15. Monarch. 'The brightness of his (God's) glory, and the express image of his person. '--Heb. I. 3. 

'The Logos is superior to 'Being made so muchthe angels. '--De Profugis. Better that the angels. Let all the angels of God worship him. '--Heb. I. 4, 6. 

'The Logos is superior to 'Thou hast put all thingsall beings in the world. '--De in subjection under his feet. 'Leg. Allegor. --Heb. Ii. 8. 

'The Logos is the instrument 'All things were made byby whom the world was him (the Word or Logos), made. '--De Leg. Allegor. And without him was not anything made that was'The divine word by whom made. '--John i. 3all things were ordered anddisposed. '--De Mundi Opificio. 'Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. '--i Cor. Viii. 6. 

 'By whom also he made the worlds. '--Heb. I. 2. 

'The Logos is the light of 'The Word (Logos) wasthe world, and the intellectual the true light. '--John i. 9. Sun. '--De Somniis. 'The life and the light of men. '--John i. 4. 

 'I am the light of the world. ' --John viii. 12. 

'The Logos only can see 'He that is of God, he God. '--De Confus. Ling. Hath seen the Father. '--John vi. 46. 

 'No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. "--John i. 18. 

'He is the most ancient 'Now, O Father, glorifyof God's works. '--De Confus thou me with thine own selfLing. With the glory which I had with thee before the world'And was before all things. ' was. '--John xvii. 5. --De Leg. Allegor. 'He was in the beginning with God. '--John i. 2. 

 'Before all worlds. '--2 Tim. I. 9. 

'The Logos is esteemed 'Christ, who is over all, the same as God. '--De God blessed for evermore. 'Somniis. --Rom. Ix. 5. 

 'Who, being in the form of God. Thought it no robbery to be equal with God. '--Phil. Ii. 6. 

'The Logos was eternal. ' 'Christ abideth for ever. --De Plant. Noë. --John xii. 34. 

 'But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. '--Heb. I. 8. 

'The Logos supports the 'Upholding all things byworld, is the connecting the word of his power. '--Heb. Power by which all things i. 3. Are united. '--De Profugis. 'By him all things consist. ''The Logos is nearest to --Col. I. 17. God, without any separation;being, as it were, fixed upon 'I and my Father are one. 'the only true existing Deity, --John x. 30. Nothing coming between to 'That they may be one asdisturb that unity. "--De we are. '--John i. 18. Profugis. 

'The Logos is free from 'The only begotten Son, all taint of sin, either who is in the bosom of thevoluntary or involuntary. '--De Father. '--John i. 18. Profugis. 'The blood of Christ, who'The Logos the fountain offered himself withoutof life. Spot to God. '--Heb. Ix. 14. 

'It is of the greatest 'Who did no sin, neitherconsequence to every person to was guile found in hisstrive without remission to mouth. '--1 Pet. Ii. 22. Approach to the divine Logos, the Word of God above, who 'Whosoever shall drink of theis the fountain of all wisdom; water that I shall give him, that by drinking largely shall never thirst, but theof that sacred spring, instead water that I shall give himof death, he may be rewarded shall be in him a well ofwith everlasting life. '--De water springing up intoProfugis. Everlasting life, '--John iv. 14. 

'The Logos is the shepherd 'The great shepherd of theof God's flock. Flock. .. Our Lord Jesus. '-- Heb. Xiii. 20. 'The deity, like a shepherd, and at the same time 'I am the good shepherd, andlike a monarch, acts with the know my sheep, and am knownmost consummate order and of mine. '--John x. 14. Rectitude, and has appointedhis First-born, the upright 'Christ . .. The shepherd andLogos, like the substitute of guardian of your souls. '--a mighty prince, to take care 1 Pet. Ii. 25. Of his sacred flock. '--DeAgricult. 'For Christ must reign till he hath put all his enemies underThe Logos, Philo says, is his feet. '--1 Cor xv. 25. 'The great governor of theworld; he is the creative and 'Christ, above all principality, princely power, and through and might, and dominion, andthese the heavens and the every name that is named, notwhole world were produced. ' only in this world, but in the--De Profugis. World to come . . And God hath put all things under his feet. '-- Eph. I. 21, 22

'The Logos is the physician 'The spirit of the Lord isthat heals all evil. '--De upon me, because he hathLeg. Allegor. Anointed me to heal the broken-hearted. '--Luke iv. 18. 

_The Logos the Seal of God. _ _Christ the Seal of God. _

'The Logos, by whom the 'In whom also, after thatworld was framed, is the seal, ye believed, ye were sealedafter the impression of which with the holy seal of promise. 'everything is made, and is --Eph. I. 13rendered the similitude and 'Jesus, the son of man . .. Himimage of the perfect Word of hath God the FatherGod. '--De Profugis. Sealed. '--John vi. 27. 

'The soul of man is an 'Christ, the brightness ofimpression of a seal, of which his (God's) glory, and thethe prototype and original express image of his person. Characteristic is the everlasting --Heb. I. 3. Logos. '--De PlantationeNoë. 

_The Logos the source of _Christ the source of eternalimmortal life_. Life_. 

Philo says 'that when the 'The dead (in Christ) shallsoul strives after its best and be raised incorruptible. '--1noblest life, then the Logos Cor. Xv. 52frees it from all corruption, 'Because the creature itselfand confers upon it the gift also shall be deliveredof immortality. '--De C. Q. From the bondage of corruptionErud. Gratiâ. Into the glorious liberty of the children of God. '--Rom. Vii. 21. The New Testament callsPhilo speaks of the Logos Christ the Beloved Son:--'Thisnot only as the Son of God is my beloved Sonand his first begotten, but in whom I am well pleased. 'also styles him 'his beloved --Matt. Iii. 17; Luke ix. 35;Son. '--De Leg. Allegor. 2 Pet. I. 17 'The Son of his love. '--Col. I. 13. 

Philo says 'that good men 'But ye are come unto mountare admitted to the assembly Zion, and to the city of theof the saints above. Living God, and to an innumerable company of angels, 'Those who relinquish human and to the spirits of just mendoctrines, and become made perfect. '--Heb. Xii. 22, 23the well-disposed disciples ofGod, will be one day translated 'Giving thanks unto the Fatherto an incorruptible and which hath made us theperfect order of beings. "--De inheritance of the saints inSacrifices. Light. '--Col. I. 12. 

Philo says 'that the just The New Testament makes Jesus toman, when he dies is translated say:to another state by theLogos, by whom the world 'No man can come to me, exceptwas created. For God by the Father which hath sent mehis said Word (Logos), by draw him; and I will raise himwhich he made all things, up on the last day. '--John vi. 44will raise the perfect manfrom the dregs of this world, 'No man cometh to the Father butand exalt him near himself. By me. '--John xvi. 6. He will place him near hisown person. '--De Sacrificiis. 'Where I am, there also shall my servant be . .. Him will my fatherPhilo says that the Logos honour. 'is the true High Priest, whois without sin and anointed The New Testament speaks of Jesusby God:-- as the High Priest:

'It is the world, in which 'Seeing then that we have a greatthe Logos, God's First-born, High Priest that is passed intothat great High Priest, resides. The heavens, Jesus, the Son ofAnd I assert that this God, let is hold fast ourHigh Priest is no man, but profession. '--Heb. Iv. 14. The Holy Word of God; whois not capable of either 'For such an High Priest became us, voluntary or involuntary sin, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and hence his head is anointed separate from sinners. '--Heb. Vii. 26. With oil. '--De Profugis. The New Testament says of Christ:Philo mentions the Logosas the great High Priest and 'We have such an High Priest, who isMediator for the sins of the set on the throne of the majest inworld. Speaking of the rebellion the heavens, a mediator of aof Korah, he introduces the better covenant. '--Heb. Viii. 1-6. Logos as saying :-- 'But Christ being come an High'It was I who stood in the Priest . .. Entered at once intomiddle between the Lord and the holy place, having obtainedyou. Eternal redemption for us. '--Heb. Ix. 11, 12. 'The sacred Logos pressedwith zeal and without remission The New Testament says of John, thethat he might stand forerunner of Jesus, that he preachedbetween the dead and the 'the baptism of repentance for theliving. --Quis Rerum Div. Remission of sins. '--Mark i. 4. Haeres. Jesus says:--The Logos, the SaviourGod, who brings salvation as 'Ye will not come to me, that yethe reward of repentance and might have life. '--John v. 40. Righteousness. 'Beloved, we be now the sons of'If then men have from God; and it doth not yet appeartheir very souls a just what we shall be; but we know thatcontrition, and are changed, when he doth appear we shall beand have humbled themselves for like him. '--1 John iii. 2. Their past errors, acknowledgingand confessing their 'As we have born the image of thesins, such persons shall find earthy, we shall also bear the imagepardon from the Saviour and of the heavenly. '--1 Cor. Xv. 49. Merciful God, and receive amost choice and great advantage 'For if we have been plantedof being like the Logos together in the likeness of hisof God, who was originally death, we shall be also in thethe great archetype after likeness of his resurrection. '--which the soul of man was Rom. Vi. 5. Formed. '--De Execrationibus. 

Here, then, we get, complete, the idea of Christ as the Word of God, andwe see that Christianity is as lacking in originality on these points asin everything else. We may note, also, that this Platonic idea wascurrent among the Jews before Philo, although he gives it to us morethoroughly and fully worked out: in the apocryphal books of the Jews wefind the idea of the Logos in many passages in Wisdom, to take but asingle case. 

The widely-spread existence of this notion is acknowledged by DeanMilman in his "History of Christianity. " He says: "This Being was moreor less distinctly impersonated, according to the more popular or morephilosophic, the more material or the more abstract, notions of the ageor people. This was the doctrine from the Ganges, or even the shores ofthe Yellow Sea to the Ilissus; it was the fundamental principle of theIndian religion and the Indian philosophy; it was the basis ofZoroastrianism; it was pure Platonism; it was the Platonic Judaism ofthe Alexandrian school. Many fine passages might be quoted from Philo, on the impossibility that the first self-existing Being should becomecognisable to the sense of man; and even in Palestine, no doubt, Johnthe Baptist and our Lord himself spoke no new doctrine, but rather thecommon sentiment of the more enlightened, when they declared that 'noman had seen God at any time. ' In conformity with this principle, theJews, in the interpretation of the older Scriptures, instead of directand sensible communication from the one great Deity, had interposedeither one or more intermediate beings as the channels of communication. According to one accredited tradition alluded to by St. Stephen, the lawwas delivered by the 'disposition of angels;' according to another, thisoffice was delegated to a single angel, sometimes called the angel ofthe Law (see Gal. Iii. 19); at others, the Metatron. But the moreordinary representative, as it were, of God, to the sense and mind ofman, was the Memra, or the Divine Word; and it is remarkable that thesame appellation is found in the Indian, the Persian, the Platonic, andthe Alexandrian systems. By the Targumists, the earliest Jewishcommentators on the Scriptures, this term had been already applied tothe Messiah; nor is it necessary to observe the manner in which it hasbeen sanctified by its introduction into the Christian scheme. Thisuniformity of conception and coincidence of language indicates thegeneral acquiescence of the human mind in the necessity of somemediation between the pure spiritual nature of the Deity and the moraland intellectual nature of man" (as quoted by Lake). And "thisuniformity of conception and coincidence of language indicates, " also, that Christianity has only received and repeated the religious ideaswhich existed in earlier times. How can that be a revelation from Godwhich was well known in the world long before God revealed it? Theacknowledgment of the priority of Pagan thought is the destruction ofthe supernatural claims of Christianity based on the same thought; thatcannot be supernatural after Christ which was natural before him, northat sent down from heaven which was already on earth as the product ofhuman reason. The Rev. Mr. Lake fairly says: "We have evidence--clear, conclusive, irrefutable evidence--as to what this doctrine really is. Wecan trace its birth-place in the philosophic speculations of the ancientworld, we can note its gradual development and growth, we can see it inits early youth passing (through Philo and others) from Grecianphilosophy into the current of Jewish thought; then, after restingawhile in the Judaism of the period of the Christian era, we see itslightly changing its character, as it passes through Gamaliel, Paul--the writers of the Fourth Gospel and of the Epistle to theHebrews--through Justin Martyr and Tertullian, into the stream of earlyChristian thought, and now from a sublime philosophical speculation itbecomes dwarfed and corrupted into a church dogma, and finally getshardened as a frozen mass of absurdity, stupidity, and blasphemy, in theNicene and Athanasian creeds" ("Philo, Plato, and Paul, " pp. 71, 72). 

The idea of IMMORTALITY was by no means "brought to light" by Christ, asis pretended. The early Jews had clearly no idea of life after death;"for in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shallgive thee thanks?" (Ps. Vi. 5). "Like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more. .. . Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead?Shall the dead arise and praise thee? Shall thy lovingkindness bedeclared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? Shall thywonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land offorgetfulness?" (Ps. Lxxxviii. 5, 10-12). "The dead praise not the Lord"(Ps. Cxv. 17). "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sonsof men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that theythemselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of menbefalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, sodieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that man hath nopre-eminence above a beast" (Eccles. Iii. 18, 19). "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave" (Ibid, ix. 10). "The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that godown into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, heshall praise thee" (Is. Xxxviii. 18, 19). In strict accordance with thisbelief, that death was the end of man, the pre-captivity Jews regardedwealth, strength, prosperity, and all earthly blessings, as the rewardof virtue. After the captivity they change their tone; in thepost-Babylonian Psalms life after death is distinctly spoken of: "Myflesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell"(Ps. Xvi. 9, 10); together with other passages. In the apocryphal JewishScriptures the belief in immortality appears over and over again. 

To say that Jesus "brought life and immortality to light through theGospel, " even to the Jews, is to contend for a position against allevidence. If from the Jews we turn to the Pagan thinkers, immortality isproclaimed by them long before the Jews have dreamed about it. TheEgyptians, in their funeral ritual, went through the judgment of thesoul before Osiris: "The resurrection of the dead to a second life hadbeen a deep-rooted religious opinion among the Egyptians from theearliest times" ("Egyptian Mythology, " Sharpe, p. 52), and they appear tohave believed in a transmigration of souls through the lower animals, and an ultimate return to the original body; to this end they preservedthe body as a mummy, so that the soul, on its return, might find itsoriginal habitation still in existence: any who believe in theresurrection of the body should clearly follow the example of theancient Egyptians. In later times, the more instructed Egyptiansbelieved in a spiritual resurrection only, but the mass of the peopleclung to the idea of a bodily resurrection (Ibid, p. 54). "It is to thelater times of Egyptian history, perhaps to the five centuriesimmediately before the Christian era, that the religious opinionscontained in the funeral papyri chiefly belong. The roll of papyrusburied with the mummy often describes the funeral, and then goes on tothe return of the soul to the body, the resurrection, the various trialsand difficulties which the deceased will meet and overcome in the nextworld, and the garden of paradise in which he awaits the day ofjudgment, the trial on that day, and it then shows the punishment whichwould have awaited him if he had been found guilty" (Ibid, p. 64). Wehave already seen that the immortality of the soul was taught by Plato(ante, p. 364). The Hindus taught that happiness or misery hereafterdepended upon the life here. "If duty is performed, a good name will beobtained, as well as happiness, here and after death" ("Mahabharata, "xii. , 6, 538, in "Religious and Moral Sentiments from Indian Writers, " byJ. Muir, p. 22). The "Mahabharata" was written, or rather collected, inthe second century before Christ. "Poor King Rantideva bestowed waterwith a pure mind, and thence ascended to heaven. .. . King Nriga gavethousands of largesses of cows to Brahmans; but because he gave away onebelonging to another person, he went to hell" (Ibid, xiv. 2, 787 and2, 789. Muir, pp, 31, 32). "Let us now examine into the theology ofIndia, as reported by Megasthenes, about B. C. 300 (Cory's 'AncientFragments, ' p. 226, _et seq_. ). 'They, the Brahmins, regard the presentlife merely as the conception of persons presently to be born, and deathas the birth into a life of reality and happiness, to those who rightlyphilosophise: upon this account they are studiously careful in preparingfor death'" (Inman's "Ancient Faiths, " vol. Ii. , p. 820). Zoroaster(B. C. 1, 200, or possibly 2, 000) taught: "The soul, being a bright fire, by the power of the Father remains immortal, and is the mistress oflife" (Ibid, p. 821). "The Indians were believers in the immortality ofthe soul, and conscious future existence. They taught that immediatelyafter death the souls of men, both good and bad, proceed together alongan appointed path to the bridge of the gatherer, a narrow path toheaven, over which the souls of the pious alone could pass, whilst thewicked fall from it into the gulf below; that the prayers of his livingfriends are of much value to the dead, and greatly help him on hisjourney. As his soul enters the abode of bliss, it is greeted with theword, 'How happy art thou, who hast come here to us, mortality toimmortality!' Then the pious soul goes joyfully onward to Ahura-Mazdao, to the immortal saints, the golden throne, and Paradise" (Ibid, p. 834). From these notions the writer of the story of Jesus drew his idea of the"narrow way" that led to heaven, and of the "strait gate" through whichmany would be unable to pass. Cicero (bk. Vi. "Commonwealth, " quoted byInman) says: "Be assured that, for all those who have in any wayconducted to the preservation, defence, and enlargement of their nativecountry, there is a certain place in heaven, where they shall enjoy aneternity and happiness. " It is needless to further multiply quotationsin order to show that our latest development of these Eastern creedsonly reiterated the teaching of the earlier phases of religious thought. 

"But, at least, " urge the Christians, "we owe the sublime idea of theUNITY OF GOD to revelation, and this is grander than the Polytheism ofthe Pagan world. " Is it not, however, true, that just as Christians urgethat the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are but one God, so the thinkersof old believed in one Supreme Being, while the multitudinous gods werebut as the angels and saints of Christianity, his messengers, hissubordinates, not his rivals? All savages are Polytheists, just as werethe Hebrews, whose god "Jehovah" was but their special god, strongerthan the gods of the nations around them, gods whose existence theynever denied; but as thought grew, the superior minds in each nationrose over the multitude of deities to the idea of one Supreme Beingworking in many ways, and the loftiest flights of the "prophets" of theJewish Scriptures may be paralleled by those of the sages of othercreeds. Zoroaster taught that "God is the first, indestructible, eternal, unbegotten, indivisible, dissimilar" ("Ancient Fragments, "Cory, p. 239, quoted by Inman). In the Sabaean Litany (two extracts onlyof this ancient work are preserved by El Wardi, the great Arabichistorian) we read: "Thou art the Eternal One, in whom all order iscentred. .. . Thou dost embrace all things. Thou art the Infinite andIncomprehensible, who standest alone" ("Sacred Anthology, " by M. D. Conway, pp. 74, 75). "There is only one Deity, the great soul. He iscalled the Sun, for he is the soul of all beings. That which is One, thewise call it in divers manners. Wise poets, by words, make thebeautiful-winged manifold, though he is One" ("Rig-Veda, " B. C. 1500, from "Anthology, " p. 76). "The Divine Mind alone is the whole assemblageof the gods. .. . He (the Brahmin) may contemplate castle, air, fire, water, the subtile ether, in his own body and organs; in his heart, theStar; in his motion, Vishnu; in his vigour, Hara; in his speech, Agni;in digestion, Mitra; in production, Brahma; but he must consider thesupreme Omnipresent Reason as sovereign of them all" ("Manu, " about B. C. 1200; his code collected about B. C. 300; from "Anthology, " p. 81). On anancient stone at Bonddha Gaya is a Sanscrit inscription to Buddha, inwhich we find: "Reverence be unto thee, an incarnation of the Deity andthe Eternal One. OM! [the mysterious name of God, equivalent to pureexistence, or the Jewish Jhvh] the possessor of all things in vitalform! Thou art Brahma, Veeshnoo, and Mahesa!. .. I adore thee, who artcelebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms" ("AsiaticResearches, " Essay xi. , by Mr. Wilmot; vol. I. , p. 285). Plato'steaching is, "that there is but one God" (ante, p. 364), and wherever wesearch, we find that the more thoughtful proclaimed the unity of theDeity. This doctrine must, then, go the way of the rest, and it must beacknowledged that the boasted revelation is, once more, but thespeculation of man's unassisted reason. 

Turning from these cardinal doctrines to the minor dogmas and ceremoniesof Christianity, we shall still discover it to be nothing but a survivalof Paganism. 

BAPTISM seems to have been practised as a religious rite in all solarcreeds, and has naturally, therefore, found its due place in the latestsolar faith. "The idea of using water as emblematic of spiritualwashing, is too obvious to allow surprise at the antiquity of this rite. Dr. Hyde, in his treatise on the 'Religion of the Ancient Persians, 'xxxiv. 406, tells us that it prevailed among that people. 'They do notuse circumcision for their children, but only baptism or washing for theinward purification of the soul. They bring the child to the priest intothe church, and place him in front of the sun and fire, which ceremonybeing completed, they look upon him as more sacred than before. Lordsays that they bring the water for this purpose in bark of theHolm-tree; that tree is in truth the Haum of the Magi, of which we spokebefore on another occasion. Sometimes also it is otherwise done byimmersing him in a large vessel of water, as Tavernier tells us. Aftersuch washing, or baptism, the priest imposes on the child the name givenby his parents'" ("Christian Records, " Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 129). 

"The Baptismal fonts in our Protestant churches, and we can hardly saymore especially the little cisterns at the entrance of our Catholicchapels, are not imitations, but an unbroken and never interruptedcontinuation of the same _aquaminaria_, or _amula_, which the learnedMontfaucon, in his 'Antiquities, ' shows to have been _vases of holywater, which were placed by the heathens at the entrance of theirtemples, to sprinkle themselves with upon entering those sacrededifices_" ("Diegesis, " R. Taylor, p. 219). Among the Hindus, to bathein the Ganges is to be regenerated, and the water is holy because itflows from Brahma's feet. Tertullian, arguing that water, as being God'searliest and most favoured creation, and brooded over by thespirit--Vishnu also is called Narayan, "moving on the waters"--wassanctifying in its nature, says: "'Well, but the nations, who arestrangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to theiridols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy. ' So they do, but these cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. For washing isthe channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites ofsome notorious Isis or Mithra; and the gods themselves likewise theyhonour by washings. .. . At the Appollinarian and Eleusinian games theyare baptised; and they presume that the effect of their doing that isthe regeneration, and the remission of the penalties due to theirperjuries. .. . Which fact, being acknowledged, we recognise here also thezeal of the devil rivalling the things of God, while we find him, too, practising baptism in his subjects" ("On Baptism, " chap. V. ). As "thedevil" did it first, it seems scarcely fair to accuse _him_ of copying. 

Closely allied to baptism is the idea of regeneration, being born again. In baptism the purification is wrought by the male deity, typified inthe water flowing from the throne or the feet of the god. Inregeneration without water the purification is wrought by the femaledeity. The earth is the mother of all, and "as at birth the new beingemerges from the mother, so it was supposed that emergence from aterrestrial cleft was equivalent to a new birth" (Inman's "AncientFaiths, " vol. I. , p. 415; ed. 1868). Hence the custom of squeezingthrough a hole in a rock, or passing through a perforated stone, orbetween and under stones set up for the purpose; a natural cleft in arock or in the earth was considered as specially holy, and to some ofthese long pilgrimages are still made in Eastern lands. On emerging fromthe hole, the devotee is re-born, and the sins of the past are no longercounted against him. 

CONFIRMATION was also a rite employed by the ancient Persians. "Afterwards, in the fifteenth year of his age, when he begins to put onthe tunic, the sudra and the girdle, that he may enter upon religion, and is engaged upon the articles of belief, the priest bestows upon himconfirmation, that he may from that time be admitted into the number ofthe faithful, and may be looked upon as a believer himself" (Dr. Hyde on"Religion of the Ancient Persians, " tr. By Dr. Giles in "ChristianRecords, " pp. 129, 130). 

LORD'S SUPPER. --Bread and wine appear to have been a regular offering tothe Sun-god, whose beams ripen the corn and the grape, and who mayindeed, by a figure, be said to be transubstantiated thus for the foodof man. The Persians offered bread and wine to Mithra; the people ofThibet and Tartary did the same. Cakes were made for the Queen ofheaven, kneaded of dough, and were offered up to her with incense anddrink-libations (Jer. Vii. 18, and xliv. 19). Ishtar was worshipped withcakes, or buns, made out of the finest flour, mingled with honey, andthe ancient Greeks offered the same: this bread seems to have beensometimes only offered to the deity, sometimes also eaten by theworshippers; in the same way the bread and the wine are offered to Godin the Eucharist, and he is prayed to accept "our alms _and oblations_. "The Easter Cakes presented by the clergyman to his parishioners--an oldEnglish custom, now rarely met with--are the cakes of Ishtar, oval inform, symbolising the yoni. We have already dealt fully with theapparent similarity between the Christian Agapae, and the Bacchanalianmysteries (ante, pp. 222-227). The supper of Adoneus, Adonai, literally, the "supper of the Lord, " formed part of these feasts, identical in namewith the supper of the Christian mysteries. The Eleusinian mysteries, celebrated at Eleusis, in honour of Ceres, goddess of corn, and Bacchus, god of wine, compel us to think of bread and wine, the very substance ofthe gods, as it were, there adored. And Mosheim gives us the origin ofmany of the Christian eucharistic ceremonies. He writes: "The profoundrespect that was paid to the Greek and Roman mysteries, and theextraordinary sanctity that was attributed to them, was a furthercircumstance that induced the Christians to give their religion a mysticair, in order to put it upon an equal foot, in point of dignity, withthat of the Pagans. For this purpose they gave the name of mysteries tothe institutions of the gospel, and decorated particularly the holySacrament with that solemn title. They used in that sacred institution, as also in that of baptism, several of the terms employed in the heathenmysteries; and proceeded so far, at length, as even to adopt some of therites and ceremonies of which these renowned mysteries consisted. Thisimitation began in the Eastern provinces; but after the time of Adrian, who first introduced the mysteries among the Latins, it was followed bythe Christians, who dwelt in the Western parts of the Empire. A greatpart, therefore, of the service of the church, in this century [A. D. 100-200], had a certain air of the heathen mysteries, and resembled themconsiderably in many particulars" ("Eccles. Hist. , " 2nd century, p. 56). 

The whole system of THE PRIESTHOOD was transplanted into Christianityfrom Paganism; the Egyptian priesthood, however, was in great parthereditary, and in this differs from the Christian, while resembling theJewish. The priests of the temple of Dea (Syria) were, on the otherhand, celibate, and so were some orders of the Egyptian priests. Someclasses of priests closely resembled Christian monks, living inmonasteries, and undergoing many austerities; they prayed twice a day, fasted often, spoke little, and lived much apart in their cells insolitary meditation; in the most insignificant matters the samesimilarity may be traced. "When the Roman Catholic priest shaves the topof his head, it is because the Egyptian priest had done the same before. When the English clergyman--though he preaches his sermon in a silk orwoollen robe--may read the Liturgy in no dress but linen, it is becauselinen was the clothing of the Egyptians. Two thousand years before theBishop of Rome pretended to hold the keys of heaven and earth, there wasan Egyptian priest with the high-sounding title of Appointed keeper ofthe two doors of heaven, in the city of Thebes" ("Egyptian Mythology, "S. Sharpe, preface, p. Xi. ). The white robes of modern priests areremnants of the same old faith; the more gorgeous vestments are theancient garb of the priests officiating in the temple of female deities;the stole is the characteristic of woman's dress; the pallium is theemblem of the yoni; the alb is the chemise; the oval or circularchasuble is again the yoni; the Christian mitre is the high cap of theEgyptian priests, and its peculiar shape is simply the open mouth of thefish, the female emblem. In old sculptures a fish's head, with openmouth pointing upwards, is often worn by the priests, and is scarcelydistinguishable from the present mitre. The modern crozier is the hookedstaff, emblem of the phallus; the oval frame for divine things is thefemale symbol once more. Thus holy medals are generally oval, and theVirgin is constantly represented in an oval frame, with the child in herarms. In some old missals, in representations of the Annunciation, wesee the Virgin standing, with the dove hovering in front above her, andfrom the dove issues a beam of light, from the end of which, as ittouches her stomach, depends an oval containing the infant Jesus. 

The tinkling bell--used at the Mass at the moment of consecration--isthe symbol of male and female together--the clapper, the male, withinthe hollow shell, the female--and was used in solar services at themoment of sacrifice. The position of the fingers of the priest inblessing the congregation is the old symbolical position of the fingersof the solar priest. The Latin form, with the two fingers and thumbupraised--copied in Anglican churches--is said rightly by ecclesiasticalwriters to represent the trinity; but the trinity it represents is thereal human trinity: the more elaborate Greek form is intended torepresent the cross as well. The decoration of the cross with flowers, specially at Easter-tide, was practised in the solar temples, and therethe phallus, upright on the altar, was garlanded with spring blossoms, and was adored as the "Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from theFather, " and indeed one with him, his very self. The sacred books of theEgyptians were written by the god Thoth, just as the sacred books of theChristians were written by the god the Holy Ghost. The rosary and crosswere used by Buddhists in Thibet and Tartary. The head of the religionin those countries, the Grand Llama, is elected by the priests of acertain rank, as the Pope by his Cardinals. The faithful observe fasts, offer sacrifice for the dead, practise confession, use holy water, honour relics, make processions; they have monasteries and convents, whose inmates take vows of poverty and chastity; they flagellatethemselves, have priests and bishops--in fact, they carry out the wholesystem of Catholicism, and have done so, since centuries before Christ, so that a Roman Catholic priest, on his first mission among them, exclaimed that the Devil had invented an imitation of Christianity inorder to deceive and ruin men. As with baptism, the imitation is olderthan the original!

"The rites and institutions, by which the Greeks, Romans, and othernations, had formerly testified their religious veneration forfictitious deities, were now adopted, with some slight alterations, byChristian bishops, and employed in the service of the true God. [This isthe way a Christian writer accounts for the resemblance his candourforces him to confess; we should put it, that Christianity, growing outof Paganism, naturally preserved many of its customs. ]. .. . Hence ithappened that in these times the religion of the Greeks and Romansdiffered very little in its external appearance from that of theChristians. They had both a most pompous and splendid ritual. Gorgeousrobes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers, processions, lustrations, images, gold and silver vases, and many such circumstances of pageantry, were equally to be seen in the heathen temples and the Christianchurches" (Mosheim's "Eccles. Hist. , " fourth century, p. 105). SaysDulaure: "These two Fathers [Justin and Tertullian] are in no fashionembarrassed by this astonishing resemblance; they both say that thedevil, knowing beforehand of the establishment of Christianity, and ofthe ceremonies of this religion, inspired the Pagans to do the same, soas to rival God and injure Christian worship" ("Histoire Abrégée deDifferens Cultes, " t. I. , p. 522; ed. 1825). 

The idea of _angels and devils_ has also spread from the far East; theJews learned it from the Babylonians, and from the Jews and theEgyptians it passed into Christianity. The Persian theology had sevenangels of the highest order, who ever surrounded Ormuzd, the goodcreator; and from this the Jews derived the seven archangels alwaysbefore the Lord, and the Christians the "seven spirits of God" (Rev. Iii. 1), and the "seven angels which stood before God" (Ibid, viii. 2). The Persians had four angels--one at each corner of the world;Revelation has "four angels standing on the four corners of the earth"(vii. 1). The Persians employed them as Mediators with the Supreme; themajority of Christians now do the same, and all Christians did so inearlier times. Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and other Fathers, speakof angels as ruling the earth, the planets, etc. Michael is the angel ofthe Sun, as was Hercules, and he fights with and conquers the dragon, asHercules the Python, Horus the monster Typhon, Krishna the serpent. ThePersians believed in devils as well as in angels, and they also hadtheir chief, Ahriman, the pattern of Satan. These devils--or dews, ordevs--struggled against the good, and in the end would be destroyed, andAhriman would be chained down in the abyss, as Satan in Rev. Xx. Ahrimanflew down to earth from heaven as a great dragon (Rev. Xii. 3 and 9), the angels arming themselves against him (Ibid, verse 7). Straussremarks: "Had the belief in celestial beings, occupying a particularstation in the court of heaven, and distinguished by particular names, originated from the revealed religion of the Hebrews--had such a beliefbeen established by Moses, or some later prophet--then, according to theviews of the supranaturalist, they might--nay, they must--be admitted tobe correct. But it is in the Maccabaean Daniel and in the apocryphalTobit that this doctrine of angels, in its more precise form, firstappears; and it is evidently a product of the influence of the Zendreligion of the Persians on the Jewish mind. We have the testimony ofthe Jews themselves that they brought the names of the angels with themfrom Babylon" ("Life of Jesus, " vol. I. , p. 101). 

Dr. Kalisch, after having remarked that "the notions [of the Jews]concerning angels fluctuated and changed, " says that "at an earlyperiod, the belief in spirits was introduced into Palestine from easternAsia through the ordinary channels of political and commercialinterchange, " and that to the Hebrew "notions heathen mythology offersstriking analogies;" "it would be unwarranted, " the learned doctor goeson, "to distinguish between the 'established belief of the Hebrews' and'popular superstition;' we have no means of fixing the boundary linebetween both; we must consider the one to coincide with the other, or weshould be obliged to renounce all historical inquiry. The belief inspirits and demons was not a concession made by educated men to theprejudices of the masses, but a concession which all--the educated aswell as the uneducated--made to Pagan Polytheism" ("Historical andCritical Commentary on the Old Testament. " Leviticus, part ii. , pp. 284-287. Ed. 1872). "When the Jews, ever open to foreign influence inmatters of faith, lived under Persian rule, they imbibed, among manyother religious views of their masters, especially their doctrines ofangels and spirits, which, in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris, were most luxuriantly developed. " Some of the angels are now"distinguished by names, which the Jews themselves admit to haveborrowed from their heathen rulers;" "their chief is Mithron, orMetatron, corresponding to the Persian Mithra, the mediator betweeneternal light and eternal darkness; he is the embodiment of divineomnipotence and omnipresence, the guardian of the world, the instructorof Moses, and the preserver of the law, but also a terrible avenger ofdisobedience and wickedness, especially in his capacity of Supreme Judgeof the dead" (Ibid, pp. 287, 288). This is "the angel of the Lord" whowent before the children of Israel, of whom God said "my name is in him"(see Ex. Xxiii. 20-23), and who is identified by many Christiancommentators as the second person in the Trinity. The belief in devilsis the other side of the belief in angels, and "we see, above all, Satanrise to greater and more perilous eminence both with regard to his powerand the diversity of his functions. " "This remarkable advance indemonology cannot be surprising, if we consider that the Persian systemknown as that of Zoroaster, and centering in the dualism of a good andevil principle, flourished most and attained its fullest development, just about the time of the Babylonian exile" (Ibid, pp. 292, 293). ThePersian creed supplies us, as Dr. Kalisch has well said, with "thesources from which the demonology of the Talmud, the Fathers and theCatholic Church has been derived" (Ibid, p. 318). 

The whole ideas of the _judgment of the dead_, the _destruction of theworld by fire_, and the _punishment of the wicked_, are also purelyPagan. Justin Martyr says truly that as Minos and Rhadamanthus wouldpunish the wicked, "we say that the same thing will be done, but by thehand of Christ" ("Apology" 1, chap. Viii). "While we say that there willbe a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of theStoics; and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowedwith sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of thegood being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shallseem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers" (Ibid, chap. Xx). In the Egyptian creed Osiris is generally the Judge of the dead, though sometimes Horus is represented in that character; the dead man isaccused before the Judge by Typhon, the evil one, as Satan is the"accuser of the brethren;" forty-two assessors declare the innocence ofthe accused of the crimes they severally note; the recording angelwrites down the judgment; the soul is interceded for by the lesser gods, who offer themselves as an atoning sacrifice (see Sharpe's "EgyptianMythology, " pp. 49-52). A pit, or lake of fire, is the doom of thecondemned. The good pass to Paradise, where is the tree of life: thefruit of this tree confers health and immortality. In the Persianmythology the tree of life is planted by the stream that flows from thethrone of Ormuzd (Rev. Xxii. I and 2). The Hindu creed has the samestory, and it is also found among the Chinese. 

The monastic life comes to us from India and from Egypt; in bothcountries solitaries and communities are found. Bartholémy St. Hilaire, in his book on Buddha, gives an account of the Buddhist monasterieswhich is worthy perusal. From Egypt the contagion of asceticism spreadover Christendom. "From Philo also we learn that a large body ofEgyptian Jews had embraced the monastic rules and the life ofself-denial, which we have already noted among the Egyptian priests. They bore the name of Therapeuts. They spent their time in solitarymeditation and prayer, and only saw one another on the seventh day. Theydid not marry; the women lived the same solitary and religious life asthe men. Fasting and mortification of the flesh were the foundation oftheir virtues" ("Egyptian Mythology, " S. Sharpe, p. 79). In theseEgyptian deserts grew up those wild and bigoted fanatics--some Jews, some Pagans, and apparently no difference between them--who, appearinglater under the name of Christians, formed the original of the Westernmonasticism. It was these monks who tore Hypatia to pieces in the greatchurch of Alexandria, and who formed the strength of "that savage andilliterate party, who looked upon all sorts of erudition, particularlythat of a philosophical kind, as pernicious, and even destructive totrue piety and religion" (Mosheim's "Eccles. Hist, " p. 93). There can beno doubt of the identity of the Christians and the Therapeuts, and thisidentity is the real key to the spread of "Christianity" in Egypt andthe surrounding countries. Eusebius tells us that Mark was said to bethe first who preached the Gospel in Egypt, and "so great a multitude ofbelievers, both of men and women, were collected there at the veryoutset, that in consequence of their extreme philosophical disciplineand austerity, Philo has considered their pursuits, their assemblies, and entertainments, as deserving a place in his descriptions" ("Eccles. Hist, " bk. Ii. , chap. Xvi). We will see what Philo found in Egypt, before remarking on the date at which he lived. Eusebius states (wecondense bk. Ii. , chap. Xvii) that Philo "comprehends the regulationsthat are still observed in our churches even to the present time;" thathe "describes, with the greatest accuracy, the lives of our ascetics;"these Therapeuts, stated by Eusebius to be Christians, were "everywherescattered over the world, " but they abound "in Egypt, in each of itsdistricts, and particularly about Alexandria. " In every house one roomwas set aside for worship, reading, and meditation, and here they keptthe "inspired declarations of the prophets, and hymns, " they had also"commentaries of ancient men, " who were "the founders of the sect;" "itis highly probable that the ancient commentaries which he says theyhave, are the very Gospels and writings of the apostles;" Eusebiusthinks that none can "be so hardy as to contradict his statement thatthese Therapeuts were Christians, when their practices are to be foundamong none but in the religion of Christians;" and "why should we add tothese their meetings, and the separate abodes of the men and the womenin these meetings, and the exercises performed by them, which are stillin vogue among us at the present day, and which, especially at thefestival of our Saviour's passion, we are accustomed to pass in fastingand watching, and in the study of the divine word? All these theabove-mentioned author has accurately described and stated in hiswritings, and are the same customs that are observed by us alone, at thepresent day, particularly the vigils of the great festival, and theexercises in them, and the hymns that are commonly recited among us. .. . Besides this, he describes the grades of dignity among those whoadminister the ecclesiastical services committed to them, those of thedeacons, and the presidencies of the episcopate as the highest. " ThusPhilo wrote of "the original practices handed down from the apostles. "The important points to notice here are: that in the time of Philo, these Christians were scattered all over the world; that thecommentaries they had, which Eusebius says were the Christian's gospels, were the works of _ancient_ men, who founded the sect, so that thefounders were men who lived long before Philo's time; that they werethoroughly organised, proving thereby that their sect was not a new onein his day; that the "discipline, " organised association, ranks ofpriests, etc. , implied a long existence of the sect before Philo studiedit, and that such existence was clearly not consistent with anypersecution being then directed against it. Philo writes of flourishingand orderly communities, founded by men who had long since passed away, and had bequeathed their writings to their followers for theirinstruction and guidance. And what was the date of Philo? He himselfgives us a clear note of time; in A. D. 40 he was sent on an embassy tothe Emperor Caligula at Rome, to complain of a persecution to which theJews were being subjected by Flaccus; he describes himself as being, inA. D. 40, "a grey-headed old man. " The Rev. J. W. Lake puts him atsixty-five or seventy years of age at that period, and consequentlywould place his birth twenty-five or thirty years before the birth ofJesus ("Plato, Philo, and Paul, " by Rev. J. W. Lake, pp. 33, 34). Gibbon, in a note to chap. 15, vol. Ii. (p. 180), says that "by provingit (the treatise on the Therapeuts) was composed as early as the time ofAugustus, Basnage has demonstrated, in spite of Eusebius, and a crowd ofmodern Catholics, that the Therapeuts were neither Christians normonks. " Or rather, he has proved that Christians existed before the timeof Christ, since Augustus died A. D. 14, and before that date Philo founda long-established sect holding Christian doctrines and practising"apostolic" customs. A man, who in A. D. 40 was grey-headed, spoke of theChristian Gospels as writings of ancient men, founders of awell-organised sect. Now we see why Christianity has so much in commonwith the Egyptian mythology. Because it grew out of Egypt; its Gospelscame from thence; its ceremonies were learned there; its virgin is Isis;its Christ Osiris and Horus; the mask of the revelation of God dropsfrom off it, and we see the true face, the ancient Egyptian religion, with a feature here and there moulded by the cognate ideas of otherEastern creeds, all of which flowed into Alexandria, and mingled in itsseething cauldron of thought. 

There is also a Jewish sect which we must not overlook, in dealing withthe sources of Christianity, that, namely, known as the Essenes. Gibbonregards the Therapeuts and the Essenes as interchangeable terms, butmore careful investigation does not bear out this conclusion, althoughthe two sects strongly resemble each other, and have many doctrines incommon; he says, however, truly: "The austere life of the Essenians, their fasts and excommunications, the community of goods, the love ofcelibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and the warmth, though not thepurity of their faith, already offered a lively image of the primitivediscipline" ("Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. , ch. Xv. , p. 180). It is toJosephus that we must turn for an account of the Essenes; a brief sketchof them is given in Antiquities of the Jews, bk. Xviii. , chap. I. Hesays: "The doctrine of the Essenes is this: That all things are bestascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem thatthe rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and whenthey send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do notoffer sacrifices, because they have more pure lustrations of their own;on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of lifebetter than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves tohusbandry. " They had all things in common, did not marry and kept noservants, thus none called any master (Matt. Xxiii. 8, 10). In the "Warsof the Jews, " bk. Ii. , chap, viii. , Josephus gives us a fuller account. "There are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers ofthe first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; andthe third sect who pretends to a severer discipline are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection forone another than the other sects [John xiii. 35]. These Essenes rejectpleasures as an evil [Matt. Xvi. 24], but esteem continence and theconquest over our passions to be virtue. They neglect wedlock. .. . Theydo not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage [Matt. Xix. 12, lastclause of verse, 1 Cor. Vii. 27, 28, 32-35, 37, 38, 40]. .. . These menare despisers of riches [Matt. Xix. 21, 23, 24] . .. It is a law amongthem, that those who come to them must let what they have be common tothe whole order [Acts iv. 32-37, v. 1-11]. .. . They also have stewardsappointed to take care of their common affairs [Acts vi. 1-6]. .. . If anyof their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own [Matt. X. 11]. .. . For which reason theycarry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts [Matt. X. 9, 10]. .. . As for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; forbefore sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put upcertain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as ifthey made a supplication for its rising [the Essenes were thensun-worshippers]. .. . A priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawfulfor anyone to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food uponthem [Eph. V. 18-20. 1 Cor. X. 30, 31. 1 Tim. Iv. 4, 5]. .. . Theydispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion[Eph. Iv. 26]. .. . Whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; butswearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury; forthey say, that he who cannot be believed without swearing by God, isalready condemned [Matt. V. 34-37]. " We insert these references into theaccount given by Josephus of the Essenes, in order to show the identityof teaching of the Gospels and the Essenes. The Essenes excommunicatedthose who sinned grievously; each promised, on entrance to the society, to exercise piety, observe justice, do no harm to any, show fidelity toall, and especially to those in authority, love truth, reprove lying, keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains. Theresemblance between the Essenes and the early Christians is on manypoints so strong that it is impossible to deny that the two areconnected; if Jesus of Nazareth had any historical existence, he musthave been one of the sect of the Essenes, who publicly preached many oftheir doctrines, and endeavoured to popularise them. We are thus led toconclude that the Jewish side of Christianity is simply Essenian, butthat the major part of the religion is purely Pagan, and that its riseunder the name of Christianity must be sought for in Alexandria ratherthan in Judæa. 

The saints who play so great a part in the history of Christianity are, solely and simply, the old Pagan deities under new names. The ancientcreeds were intertwined with the daily life of the people, and passedon, practically unchanged, although altered in name. "Ancient errors, inspite of the progress of knowledge, were respected. Civilisation, as itgrew, only refined them, embellished them, or hid them under anallegorical veil" ("Histoire Abrégée de Differens Cultes, " Dulauré, t. I. , p. 20). "A remarkable passage in the life of Gregory, surnamedThaumaturgus, i. E. , the wonder-worker, will illustrate this point in theclearest manner. This passage is as follows [here it is given in Latin]:'When Gregory perceived that the ignorant multitude persisted in theiridolatry, on account of the pleasures and sensual gratifications whichthey enjoyed at the Pagan festivals, he granted them a permission toindulge themselves in the like pleasures, in celebrating the memory ofthe holy martyrs, hoping that, in process of time they would return, oftheir own accord, to a more virtuous and regular course of life. ' Thereis no sort of doubt that, by this permission, Gregory allowed theChristians to dance, sport, and feast at the tombs of the martyrs upontheir respective festivals, and to do everything which the Pagans wereaccustomed to do in their temples, during the feasts celebrated inhonour of their gods" (Mosheim's "Eccles. Hist. , " 2nd century; note, p. 56). "The virtues that had formerly been ascribed to the heathentemples, to their lustrations, to the statues of their gods and heroes, were now attributed to Christian churches, to water consecrated bycertain forms of prayer, and to the images of holy men. And the sameprivileges that the former enjoyed under the darkness of Paganism, wereconferred upon the latter under the light of the Gospel, or, rather, under that cloud of superstition that was obscuring its glory. It istrue that, as yet, images were not very common [of this there is noproof]; nor were there any statues at all [equally unproven]. But it is, at the same time, as undoubtedly certain, as it is extravagant andmonstrous, that the worship of the martyrs was modelled, by degrees, according to the religious services that were paid to the gods beforethe coming of Christ" (Ibid, 4th century; p. 98). The fact is, thatwherever there was a popular god, he passed into the pantheon ofChristendom under a new name, as "Christianity" spread. Dulaure, in hiswork above-quoted, gives a mass of details--mostly very unsavoury--whichleave no doubt upon this point. The essence of the old worship was theworship of Nature, as we have seen, and a favourite deity was Priapus;this god was worshipped under the names of St. Fontin, St. Guerlichon, or Greluchon, St. Remi, St. Gilles, St. Arnaud, SS. Cosmo and Damian, etc. , in the various provinces of France, Italy, and other RomanCatholic lands; and his worship, with its distinctive rites of the mostindecent character, remained in practice up to, at least, 1740 inFrance, and 1780 in Italy. (See throughout the above work. ) IfChristians knew a little more about their creed they would be far lessproud of it, and far less devout, than they are at present. 

Mr. Glennie, in a pamphlet reprinted from "In the Morning Land, " pointsout the resemblance between Christianity and "Osirianism, " as he namesthe religion of Osiris: "'The peculiar character of Osiris, ' says SirGardner Wilkinson, 'his coming upon earth for the benefit of mankind, with the titles of "Manifester of Good" and "Revealer of Truth;" hisbeing put to death by the malice of the Evil One; his burial andresurrection, and his becoming the judge of the dead, are the mostinteresting features of the Egyptian religion. This was the greatmystery; and this myth and his worship were of the earliest times, anduniversal in Egypt. ' And, with this central doctrine of Osirianism, soperfectly similar to that of Christianism, doctrines are associatedprecisely analogous to those associated in Christianism with its centraldoctrine. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, the Godheadis conceived as a Trinity, yet are the three Gods declared to be onlyone God. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find theworship of a divine mother and child. In ancient Osirianism, as inmodern Christianism, there is a doctrine of atonement. In ancientOsirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the vision of a lastjudgment, and resurrection of the body. And finally, in ancientOsirianism, as in modern Christianism, the sanctions of morality are alake of fire and tormenting demons on the one hand, and on the other, eternal life in the presence of God. Is it possible, then, that suchsimilarities of doctrines should not raise the most serious questions asto the relation of the beliefs about Christ to those about Osiris; as tothe cause of this wonderful similarity of the doctrines of Christianismto those of Osirianism; nay, as to the possibility of the wholedoctrinal system of modern orthodoxy being but a transformation of theOsiris-myth?" ("Christ and Osiris, " pp. 13, 14). 

Thus we find that the cardinal doctrines and the ceremonies ofChristianity are of purely Pagan origin, and that "Christianity" was inexistence long ages before Christ. Christianity is only, as we havesaid, a patchwork composed of old materials; from the later Jews comesthe Unity of God; from India and Egypt the Trinity in Unity; from Indiaand Egypt the crucified Redeemer; from India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, the virgin mother and the divine son; from Egypt its priests and itsritual; from the Essenes and the Therapeuts its ascetism; from Persia, India, and Egypt, its Sacraments; from Persia and Babylonia its angelsand its devils; from Alexandria the blending into one of many lines ofthought. There is nothing original in this creed, save its specialappeal to the ignorant and to babes; "not many wise men after the flesh"are found among its adherents; it is an appeal to the darkness of theworld, not to its light: to superstition, not to knowledge; to faith, not to reason. As its root is, so also are its fruits, and when--afterglancing at its morality--we turn to its history, we shall see that thecorrupt tree bears corrupt fruit, and that from the evil stem of athinly disguised Paganism spring forth the death-bringing branches ofthe Upas-tree Christianity, stunting the growth of the youngcivilisation of the West, and drugging, with its poisonousdew-droppings, the Europe which lay beneath its shade, swoon-slumberingin the death stupor of the Ages of Darkness and of Faith. 

 * * * * *

INDEX TO SECTION II. OF PART II. 

 * * * * *

INDEX OF BOOKS USED. 

Cicero, Commonwealth, quoted by Inman. .. 376Cory, Ancient Fragments, quoted by Inman. .. 377

Dulaure, Histoire Abregee de Differens Cultes. .. 383, 390

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. .. 386

Gibbon, Decline and Fall. .. 388Glennie, In the Morning Land. .. 391

Hyde, quoted by Giles. .. 378, 379

Inman, Ancient Faiths. .. 376, 379

Jones, Sir W. , Asiatic Researches. .. 356, 377Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. .. 364, 388 " Wars of the Jews. .. 389Justin Martyr, First Apology. .. 385

Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary. .. 384, 385Keim, Jesus of Nazara. .. 365

Lake, Plato, Philo, and Paul. .. 363, 364, 367, 374, 388

Mahabharata, quoted by Muir. .. 376Manu, quoted in Anthology. .. 377Milman, History of Christianity, quoted by Lake. .. 373Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History. .. 380, 382, 386, 390, 391

Plato. .. 358 " summarised by Mdme. Dacier. .. 364

Rig Veda, quoted in Anthology. .. 377

Sabaean Litany, quoted in Anthology. .. 377Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology. .. 360, 375, 381, 385, 386Strauss, Life of Jesus. .. 383

Taylor, Diegesis. .. 359, 378Tertullian, On Baptism. .. 379

Zoroaster, quoted by Inman. .. 376

 * * * * *

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 

Angels and devils. .. 383

Baptism. .. 378

Confirmation. .. 379Cross. .. 357Crucifix. .. 358

Devils and angels. .. 383Divinity of Christ. .. 363

Essenes. .. 388

Immortality. .. 374

Judgment of the Dead. .. 385

Logos, ideas of. .. 364Lord's Supper. .. 379

Mediator. .. 362Mithras. .. 362Monasticism. .. 385

Nature and Sun-worship the origin of creeds. .. 355

Osirianism and Christianity. .. 391

Philo, date of. .. 367, 387Plato's teaching. .. 364Priesthood. .. 381

Saints, old gods. .. 391Symbols of male energy. .. 356 " female energy. .. 361 " both in present ceremonies. .. 381

Therapeuts. .. 386Trinity. .. 359

Union of male and female foundation of religion. .. 355Unity of God. .. 377

Virgin and child. .. 360

Zoroaster's teaching. .. 362, 376

SECTION III. --ITS MORALITY FALLIBLE. 

How much may fairly be included under the title "Christian Morality"?Some of the more enlightened Christians would confine the term to themorality of the New Testament, and would exclude the Hebrew code asbeing the outcome of a barbarous age. But the Freethinker may fairlycontend that any moral rules taught by the Bible are part of Christianmorality. By the statute 9 and 10 William III, cap. 32, the "HolyScriptures of the Old and New Testament" are declared to be "of divineauthority, " and there is no exclusion indicated of the Mosaic code; thisstatute is binding on all British subjects educated as Christians, andenacts penalties against those who infringe it. By Article VI. Of theChurch of England, Holy Scripture is defined as "those canonical booksof the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt inthe Church, " and a list is subjoined. In Article VII. We are instructedthat the "Commandments which are called moral" are to be obeyed, butthat the "civil precepts" of the Mosaic code ought not "of necessity tobe received in any commonwealth;" from which we may conclude that theChurch does not feel bound to enforce, as "of necessity, " polygamy, prostitution, murder of heretics, and slavery. She does not venture todesignate such precepts as immoral, but she does not feel bound inconscience to enforce them, for which small concession we must feelgrateful. Passing from the law of the land to the Bible itself, we findthat the Mosaic code must certainly be recognised as divine. Jesushimself proclaims: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and theprophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfil, " and this isemphasised by the declaration: "Whosoever, therefore, shall break _oneof these least_ commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be calledleast in the kingdom of heaven. " The Broad Church party will be verylittle, if this be true. Turning to the Old Testament, we find that someof the most immoral precepts are spoken by God himself, immediatelyafter the "Ten Commandments;" surely that which "The Lord said" out of"the thick darkness where God was, " from the top of Sinai "on a smoke, with the thunderings and lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, " canscarcely be reverently designated as "the outcome of a barbarous age"?Yet it is under these circumstances that God taught that a Hebrewservant might be bought for seven years; that a wife might be given himby his master, and that the wife and the children proceeding from theunion belonged to the master; that the servant could only go free bydeserting his wife and his own children and leaving them in slavery (Ex. Xxi. 1-6). It was under these circumstances that God taught that a manmight sell his daughter to be a "maid servant" (the translator'seuphemism for concubine), and that, "if she please not her master" shemay be bought back again, or if he "take him another" (translatorsupplying "wife" as throwing an air of respectability over thetransaction) she may go free (Ibid. 7-11). It was under thesecircumstances that God taught that if a man should beat a male or femaleslave to death, he should not be punished, providing the slave did notdie till "a day or two" after, because the slave was only "his money"(Ibid. 20, 21). Why blame a Legree, when he only acts on the permissiongiven by God from Mount Sinai? Dr. Colenso writes: "I shall never forgetthe revulsion of feeling with which a very intelligent Christian native, with whose help I was translating these words into the Zulu tongue, first heard them as words said to be uttered by the same great andgracious Being whom I was teaching him to trust in and adore. His wholesoul revolted against the notion, that the great and blessed God, themerciful Father of all mankind, would speak of a servant, or maid, asmere 'money, ' and allow a horrible crime to go unpunished, because thevictim of the brutal usage had survived a few hours. My own heart andconscience at the time fully sympathised with his" ("The Pentateuch andBook of Joshua, " p. 9, ed. 1862). It was under these circumstances thatGod taught that a thief, who possessed nothing of his own, should "besold for his theft" (Ex. Xxii. 3). It was under these circumstances thatGod taught: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ibid 18). To thiscruel and wicked command myriads of unfortunate human beings have beensacrificed; in the course of the Middle Ages hundreds of thousandsperished; in France and Germany "many districts and large towns burnedtwo, three, and four hundred witches every year, in some the annualexecutions destroyed nearly one per cent. Of the whole population. .. . The Reformation, which swept away so many superstitions, left this, themost odious of all, in full activity. The Churchmen of England, theLutherans of Germany, the Calvinists of Geneva, Scotland, and NewEngland rivalled the most bigoted Roman Catholics in their severities. Indeed, the Calvinists, though the most opposite of all to the Church ofRome, were in this respect perhaps the most implicit imitators of herdelusions" ("The Bible; What it is, " by C. Bradlaugh, p. 262). "Duringthe seventeenth century, 40, 000 persons are said to have been put todeath for witchcraft in England alone. In Scotland the number wasprobably, in proportion to the population, much greater; for it iscertain that even in the last forty years of the sixteenth century theexecutions were not fewer than 17, 000" (Ibid, p. 263). The Puritans inNew England signalised themselves by their merciless severity towardswizards and witches. France was the first country to stem the tide ofcruelty. In 1680 Louis XIV. "issued a proclamation prohibiting allfuture prosecutions for witchcraft; and directing that even those whomight profess the art should only be punished as impostors. " In England"the last execution was at Huntingdon, in 1716;" in Scotland, atDarnock, in 1722. The last person burned as a witch was Maria Sanger, atWurzburg, in Bavaria, 1749 (Ibid, p. 265). Such fruit has borne thecommand of God from Sinai. It was under these circumstances that Godtaught that any who sacrificed to any God but himself should be "utterlydestroyed" (Ex. Xxii. 20). The practical effect of this we shallpresently see, in conjunction with other passages. 

If we pass from these precepts, given with such special solemnity, tothe other articles of the so-called Mosaic code, we shall find rules ofan equally immoral character. Lev. Xxiv. 16 commands that "he thatblasphemeth the name of the Lord" shall be stoned. Lev. Xxv. 44-46directs the Hebrews to buy bondmen and bondwomen of the nations aroundthem, "and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children afteryou, to inherit them for a possession, " thus sanctioning theslave-traffic. Leviticus xxvii. 29 distinctly commands human sacrifice, forbidding the redemption of any that are "devoted of men. " Clear as thewords are, their meaning has been hotly contested, because of the stainthey affix on the Mosaic code. "[Hebrew: MOT VOMOT]" that he die. Thecommentators take much trouble to soften this terrible sentence. According to Raschi, it concerns a man condemned to death, in which casehe must not be redeemed for money. According to others, it is necessarythat the person shall be devoted by public authority, and not by privatevow; and the Talmud speaks of Jephthah as a fanatic for having thoughtthat a human being could serve as a victim, as a burnt-offering; butthere are too many facts which prove the existence and the execution ofthis barbarous law; see, besides, the paraphrase of Ben Ouziel: [Hebrew:KL APRShA TMVL DDYN QShVL MYTChYYB] "all anathema which shall beanathematised of the human race cannot be redeemed neither by money, byvows, nor by sacrifices, neither by prayers for mercy before God, sincehe is condemned to death" (Lévitique, par Cahen, p. 143; ed. 1855). Thus Jephthah devoted to the Lord "whatsoever cometh out of the doors ofmy house to meet me, " and, his daughter being the one who came, he "didwith her according to his vow" (Judges xi. 30-40). 

Kalisch, in his Commentary on the Old Testament, gives us an exhaustiveessay on "Human Sacrifices among the Hebrews, " endeavouring, as far aspossible, to defend his people from the charge of offering suchsacrifices to Jehovah by reducing instances of it to a minimum. He says, however: "Yet we have at least two clear and unquestionable instances ofhuman sacrifices offered to Jehovah. The first is the immolation ofJephthah's daughter. " He then analyses the account, pointing out that itwas clearly a sacrifice to _Jehovah_, and that Jephthah's "intention ofsacrificing his daughter was publicly known for two full months; nopriest, no prophet, no elder, no magistrate interfered, or evenremonstrated. " Even further: "The event gave rise to a popular customannually observed by the maidens of Israel; Jephthah's deed evidentlymet with universal approbation; it was regarded as praiseworthy piety;and indeed he could not have ventured to make his vow, had not humanvictims offered to Jehovah been deemed particularly meritorious in histime; otherwise he must have apprehended to provoke by it the wrath ofGod, rather than procure his assistance. Nothing can be clearer or moredecided. .. . The fact stands indisputable that human sacrifices offeredto Jehovah were possible among the Hebrews long after the time of Moses, without meeting a check or censure from the teachers and leaders of thenation--a fact for which the sad political confusion that prevailed inthe period of the Judges is insufficient to account" (Leviticus, PartI. , pp. 383-385; ed. 1867). Kalisch further points out that the vow ofJephthah promises a _human_ sacrifice; the Hebrew expression signifies"_whoever_ comes forth" (see p. 383), and "the Hebrew words, in fact, absolutely exclude any animal whatever; they admit none but a humanbeing, who alone can be described as going out of the house to meetsomebody; for, though the restrictive usage of the East binds girlsgenerally to the seclusion of the house, it seems to have been a commoncustom for Hebrew women to proceed and meet returning conquerors withmusic and rejoicing; and the sacrifice of one animal, an extremely pooroffering after a most signal and most important success, would certainlynot have been promised by a previous vow solemnly pronounced" (Ibid, pp. 385, 386). Our commentator justly adds: "From the tenour of thenarrative it is manifest that the deed was no isolated case, but thathuman sacrifices were on emergencies of peculiar moment habituallyoffered to God, and expected to secure his aid. One instance like thatof Jephthah not only justifies, but necessitates, the influence of ageneral custom. Pious men slaughtered human victims not to Moloch, norto any other foreign deity, but to the national God Jehovah" (Ibid, p. 390). "The second recorded instance of human sacrifices killed in honourof Jehovah forms a remarkable incident in the life of David" (Ibid, p. 390). We read in 2 Sam. Xxi. That God said that a famine then prevailingwas on account of Saul and of his bloody house; that David desired tomake an "atonement;" that seven men of Saul's family were hanged "in thehill _before the Lord_;" that then they were buried, with Saul andJonathan, "and, _after that_, God was intreated for the land. " "Itparticularly concerns us to observe that the whole matter was, in thefirst instance, referred to Jehovah; that David was plainly informed ofthe intention of the Gibeonites of 'hanging up' the seven persons'before Jehovah' as an 'atonement;' that he willingly surrendered themfor that atrocity; that he evidently expected from that act a cessationof the famine; and that this calamity is reported to have reallydisappeared in consequence of the offering" (Ibid, p. 392). Kalisch, inhis anxiety to diminish as far as possible the evidence that humansacrifices were enjoined by the law, urges that the passage in Leviticus(xxvii. 29) merely implies that "everything so devoted shall bedestroyed. The extirpation of the men, as a rule heathen enemies inCanaan, or Hebrew idolaters, is indeed referred to a command of Jehovah, but it is not intended as a _sacrifice_ to him" (Ibid, p. 409). Surelythis verges on quibbling, and is not even then borne out by the context. Leviticus xxvii. Deals entirely with private "singular vows, " and the"devoting" (_Cherem_) of "man and beast and of the field of hispossession, " is not the judicial devoting to destruction of anidolatrous city or individual, but a special voluntary offering from apious worshipper. Besides, even if such judicial duties were "the rule, "what of the exceptions? There are several indications of the practice ofhuman sacrifice to Jehovah beyond the two related by Kalisch (thecommand to sacrifice Isaac is in itself a consecration by God of theabomination); the curious account of Aaron's death--whose garments aretaken off and put on his son, and who thereupon dies at the top of themount, having walked up there for that purpose, clearly indicates thathe did not die a natural death (Numbers xx. 23-28). Many think that "thefire from the Lord" which devoured Nadab and Abihu (Lev. X. 1-5) denotesthe sacrifice "before the Lord" of the offending priests. Kalisch demursto these latter charges, and to some other additional ones, but says:"It is, therefore, undoubted that human sacrifices were offered by theHebrews from the earliest times up to the Babylonian period, both inhonour of Jehovah and of heathen deities, not only by depravedidolaters, but sometimes even by pious servants of God; they probablyceased to be presented to Jehovah not much before they ceased to bepresented at all" (Leviticus, part i. , p. 396). We cannot here omit tonotice the command of God in Exodus xxii. 29, 30: "The first-born of thysons shalt thou give to me. Likewise thou shalt do with thine oxen andwith thy sheep, " etc. As against this we read a command in chap. Xiii. 13, "All the first-born of man among thy children thou shalt redeem. "Here, as in many other instances, we get contradictory commands, bestexplained by the fact that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands. Kalisch says: "It is impossible to deny that the first-born sons werefrequently sacrificed, not only by idolatrous Israelites, in honour offoreign gods, as Moloch and Baal, but by pious men in honour of Jehovah;but the Pentateuch, the embodiment of the more enlightened and advancedcreed of the Hebrews, distinctly commanded the redemption of thefirst-born" (Ibid, p. 404). Kalisch--we may point out--considers thePentateuch in its present form as post Babylonian, and regards it as areforming agent in the Jewish community. 

In Numbers v. 12-31 we find the command to practise the brutal andsuperstitious custom of the ordeal, the endorsement of the whole ordealsystem of the Middle Ages. Deuteronomy xiii. Is entirely devoted tocommands of murder, and is the indulgence given beforehand to everypersecuting priest. The prophet whom God uses to prove his people, is tobe put to death for being God's instrument; anyone who tries to turnpeople aside from God is to be stoned, and the hand of the nearest anddearest is to be "first upon him to put him to death;" any city whichbecomes idolatrous is to be destroyed, the inhabitants and the cattleare to be slain, and everything else is to be burnt. Deuteronomy xvii. 2-7 is to the same effect. These commands have also borne abundantfruit. Who can reckon the millions of human lives that have been spiltin obedience to them? The slaughter of the Midianites, of the people ofJericho, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, and of many another city, marking with blood each step of the people of God, who smote "all thesouls that were" in each, and "let none remain"--all these are but asthe first-fruits of the great harvest of human slaughter, reaped for theglory of God. Right through the "sacred volume" runs the scarlet river, staining every page; when its record closes, the Church takes it up, andthe river rolls on down the centuries; let the Inquisition tell over itsvictims; let Spain reckon her murdered ones, 31, 912 burnt alive in thatone land alone; let the Netherlands speak of their slain sons anddaughters; let France and Italy swell the tale; nor let England andScotland be forgotten, nor the blood-roll of Ireland be missed; Catholicmurdering Arian; Arian slaying Catholic; Romanist burning Protestant;Protestant hanging Romanist. The names of those who obey God's commandmay be changed, but they all do the same accursed work, spreadingreligion everywhere with fire and sword; nor does the harm confineitself to Jews and Christians only, for Mahomet, the prophet of Arabia, catches up the teaching of Moses and re-echoes it, and the Moslemfollows on the inspired path, and stains it once again with human blood. A God, a Bible, a priesthood--how have they ruined the world; how fairand bright might earth have been had there been no teachers of religion!

 "How powerless were the mightiest monarch's arm, Vain his loud threat and impotent his frown! How ludicrous the priest's dogmatic roar! The weight of his exterminating curse How light! and his affected charity, To suit the pressure of the changing times, What palpable deceit! but for thy aid, Religion! but for thee, prolific fiend, Who peoplest earth with demons, hell with men, And heaven with slaves! Thou taintest all thou look'st upon. .. .. .. "

--("Queen Mab, " by P. B. Shelley; can. 6. Collected works, p. 12, edition1839. )

Deuteronomy xxi. 10-14 instructs the Hebrew that if, after victory, hesees a beautiful woman and desires her, he may take her, and if later, "thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither shewill, " to starvation, to misery, what matter, after God's chosen issatisfied. Deut. Xxiii. 2 punishes a man for that which is no fault ofhis, his illegitimate birth. We have omitted many absurd precepts foundin this Mosaic code, and have only chosen those which are grosslyimmoral, and can be defended by no kind of reasoning as to "defective, "or "imperfect" morality, "suited to a nation in a low stage ofcivilisation. "

These laws not only fall short of a perfect morality, but they aredistinctly and foully immoral, and tend directly to the brutalisation ofthe nation which should live under them. It is true that there is muchpure morality in this code, and some refined feeling here and there. These jewels are curiously out of place in their surroundings. Imagine apeople so savage as to need laws permitting all the abominationsreferred to above, and yet so cultivated as to be capable ofappreciating the beauty of: "If thou see the ass of him that hateth theelying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him; thou shaltsurely help him" (Exodus xxiii. 5). It is time that it should bepublicly acknowledged that the so-called Mosaic code is literally amosaic of scattered fragments of legislation, of various ages, andvarious stages of civilisation, put together a few hundred years beforeChrist. At present, the whole code lies on the shoulders ofChristianity, and is fairly pleaded against it by the Freethinker. 

It is not necessary to speak here against the practical morality of OldTestament saints; the very names of Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, etc. , bring before the mind's eye a list ofcrimes so foul, so cowardly, so bloody, that no enumeration of them canbe needed. Of them, we may fairly say with Virgil:--

 "Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa. "

Turning to the New Testament morality, we may attack it in various ways:we may argue that the better part of it is not new, and therefore cannotbe regarded as especially inspired, or that it leaves out of accountmany virtues necessary to the well-being of families and states; or wemay contend that much of it is harmful, and much of it impracticable. 

The better part is that which is NON-ORIGINAL. All that is fair andbeautiful in Christian morality had been taught in the world ages beforeChrist was born. Buddha, Confucius, Lao-Tsze, Mencius, Zoroaster, Manu, taught the noble human morality found in some of the teaching ascribedto Christ (throughout this Section the morality put into Christ's mouthin the New Testament will be treated as his). 

Christ taught the duty of returning good for evil. Buddha said: "A manwho foolishly does me wrong I will return to him the protection of myungrudging love; the more evil comes from him, the more good shall gofrom me" ("Anthology, " by Moncure D. Conway, page 240). In the BuddhistDhammapada we read: "Let a man overcome anger by love; let him overcomeevil by good; let him overcome the greedy by liberality, the liar bytruth" (Ibid, p. 307). Again: "Hatred does not cease by hatred at anytime; hatred ceases by love; this is an old rule" (Ibid, p. 131). Lao-Tsze says: "The good I would meet with goodness. The not good Iwould meet with goodness also. The faithful I would meet with faith. Thenot faithful I would meet with faith also. Virtue is faithful. Recompense injury with kindness" (Ibid, p. 365). Confucius struck a yethigher and truer note: "Some one said, 'What do you say concerning theprinciple that injury should be recompensed with kindness?' The Sagereplied, 'With what, then, will you recompense kindness? Recompensekindness with kindness, and injury with justice'" (Ibid, p. 6). Manuplaces "returning good for evil" in his tenfold system of duties; in hiscode also we find: "By forgiveness of injuries the learned are purified"(Ibid, p. 311). The "golden rule" is as old as the generous and justheart. The Saboean Book of the Law taught: "Let none of you treat hisbrother in a way which he himself would dislike" (Ibid, p. 7). "Tsze-Kung asked, 'Is there one word which may serve as a rule for one'swhole life?' Confucius answered, 'Is not reciprocity such a word? Whatyou do not wish done to yourself, do not to others. When you arelabouring for others let it be with the same zeal as if it were foryourself'" (Ibid, pp. 6, 7). 

If Christ taught humility, we read from Lao-Tsze: "I have three preciousthings which I hold fast and prize--Compassion, Economy, Humility. Beingcompassionate, I can therefore be brave. Being economical, I cantherefore be liberal. Not daring to take precedence of the world, I cantherefore become chief among the perfect ones. In the present day mengive up compassion, and cultivate only courage. They give up economy andaim only at liberality. They give up the last place, and seek only thefirst. It is their death" (Ibid, p. 216). Lao-Tsze says again: "Byundivided attention to the passion-nature and tenderness it is possibleto be a little child. By putting away impurity from the hidden eye ofthe heart, it is possible to be without spot. There is a purity andquietude by which we may rule the whole world. To keep tenderness, Ipronounce strength. .. . The fact that the weak can conquer the strong andthe tender the hard, is known to all the world; yet none carry it out inpractice. The reason of heaven does not strive, yet conquers well; doesnot call, yet things come of their own accord; is slack, yet plans well"(Ibid, pp. 323, 324). Again: "The sage . .. Puts himself last, and yet isfirst; abandons himself, and yet is preserved. Is not this throughhaving no selfishness? Hereby he preserves self-interest intact. He isnot self-displaying, and therefore he shines. He is not self-approving, and therefore he is distinguished. He is not self-praising, andtherefore he has merit. He is not self-exalting, and therefore he standshigh; and inasmuch as he does not strive, no one in all the worldstrives with him. That ancient saying, 'He that humbles himself shall bepreserved entire'--oh, it is no vain utterance" (Ibid, pp. 327, 328). 

Jesus is said to be pre-eminent as a moral teacher because he directedhis teaching to the improvement of the heart, knowing that from a goodheart a good life would flow; in Manu's code we read: "Action, eithermental, verbal, or corporeal, bears good or evil fruit as itself is goodor evil . .. Of that threefold action be it known in the world that theheart is the instigator" (Ibid, p. 4). Buddha said: "It is the heart oflove and faith accompanying good actions which spreads, as it were, abeneficent shade from the world of men to the world of angels" (Ibid, p. 234). Jesus reminded the people that the ceremonial duties of religionwere small compared with "the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and truth;" Manu wrote: "To a man contaminated by sensuality, neither the Vedas, nor liberality, nor sacrifices, nor observances, norpious austerities will procure felicity. A wise man must faithfullydischarge his moral duties, even though he dares not constantly performthe ceremonies of religion. He will fall very low if he performsceremonial acts only, and fails to discharge his moral duties" (Ibid, p. 3). Exactly parallel to a saying of Jesus is one in the Saboean Book ofthe Law: "Adhere so firmly to the truth that your yea shall be yea, andyour nay, nay" (Ibid, p. 7). 

In urging that all great moral duties were taught by pre-Christianthinkers, we do not mean that Christ took his moral sayings from thebooks of these great Eastern teachers; there was no necessity that heshould go so far in search of them, for in the teachings of the Rabbisof his nation he found all of which he stood in need. Many of theseteachings have been preserved in the more modern Talmud, grains of wheatamid much chaff, the moral thoughts of some of the purest Jewish minds. "Take the Talmud and study it, and then judge from what uninspiredsource Jesus drew much of his highest teaching. 'Whoso looketh on thewife of another with a lustful eye, is considered as if he had committedadultery'--(Kalah). 'With what measure we mete, we shall be measuredagain'--(Johanan). 'What thou wouldst not like to be done to thyself, donot to others; this is the fundamental law'--(Hillel). 'If he beadmonished to take the splinter out of his eye, he would answer, Takethe beam out of thine own'--(Tarphon). 'Imitate God in his goodness. Betowards thy fellow-creatures as he is towards the whole creation. Clothethe naked; heal the sick; comfort the afflicted; be a brother to thechildren of thy Father. ' The whole parable of the houses built on therock and on the sand is taken out of the Talmud, and such instances ofquotation might be indefinitely multiplied" ("On Inspiration;" by AnnieBesant; Scott Series, p. 20). From these founts Jesus drew his morality, and spoke as Jew to Jews, out of the Jewish teachings. To point outthese facts is by no means to disparage the nobler part of Christianmorality. It is rather to elevate Humanity by showing that pure thoughtsand gracious words are human, not divine; that the so-called"inspiration" is in all races cultivated to a certain point, and not inone alone; that morality is a fair blossom of earth, not aheaven-transplanted exotic, and grows naturally out of the rich soil ofthe loving human heart and the noble human brain. 

What nobler or grander moral teachings can be found anywhere thanbreathe through the following passages, taken from the "bibles of allnations" so ably collected for us by Mr. Corway in the "SacredAnthology" quoted from above? "Let a man continually take pleasure intruth, in justice, in laudable practices and in purity; let him keep insubjection his speech, his arm, and his appetites. Wealth and pleasuresrepugnant to law, let him shun; and even lawful acts which may causepain, or be offensive to mankind. Let him not have nimble hands, restless feet, or voluble eyes; let him not be flippant in his speech, nor intelligent in doing mischief. Let him walk in the path of good men"(Manu, p. 7). "He who neglecteth the duties of this life is unfit forthis, much less for any higher world" ("Bhagavat Gita, " p. 26). "Charityis the free gift of anything not injurious. If no benefit is intended, or the gift is harmful, it is not charity. There must also be the desireto assist, or to show gratitude. It is not charity when gifts are givenfrom other considerations, as when animals are fed that they may beused, or presents given by lovers to bind affection, or to slaves tostimulate labour. It is found where man, seeking to diffuse happinessamong all men--those he loves, and those he loves not--digs canals andpools, makes roads, bridges, and seats, and plants trees for shade. Itis found where, from compassion for the miserable and the poor, who havenone to help them, a man erects resting-places for wanderers, anddrinking-fountains, or provides food, raiment, medicine for the needy, not selecting one more than another. This is true charity, and bearsmuch fruit" ("Katha Chari, " pp. 219, 220). "Never will I seek, norreceive, private individual salvation--never enter into final peacealone; but for ever, and everywhere, will I live and strive for theuniversal redemption of every creature throughout the world" (Kwan-yin, p. 233). "All men have in themselves the feelings of mercy and pity, ofshame and hatred of vice. It is for each one by culture to let thesefeelings grow, or to let them wither. They are part of the organisationof men, as much as the limbs or senses, and may be trained as well. Themountain Nicon-chau naturally brings forth beautiful trees. Even whenthe trunks are cut down, young shoots will constantly rise up. If cattleare allowed to feed there, the mountain looks bare. Shall we say, then, that bareness is natural to the mountain? So the lower passions are letloose to eat down the nobler growths of reverence and love in the heartof man; shall we, therefore, say that there are no such feelings in hisheart at all? Under the quiet peaceful airs of morning and evening theshoots tend to grow again. Humanity is the heart of man; justice is thepath of man. To know heaven is to develop the principle of our highernature" (Mencius, pp. 275, 276). "The first requisite in the pursuit ofvirtue is, that the learner think of his own improvement, and do not actfrom a regard to (the admiration of) others" ("The She-King, " p. 286). "Benevolence, justice, fidelity, and truth, and to delight in virtuewithout weariness, constitute divine nobility" (Mencius, p. 339). "Virtue is a service man owes himself; and though there were no heaven, nor any God to rule the world, it were not less the binding law of life. It is man's privilege to know the right and follow it. Betray andprosecute me, brother men! Pour out your rage on me, O malignant devils!Smile, or watch my agony with cold disdain, ye blissful gods! Earth, hell, heaven, combine your might to crush me--I will still hold fast bythis inheritance! My strength is nothing--time can shake and cripple it;my youth is transient--already grief has withered up my days; myheart--alas! it seems well nigh broken now! Anguish may crush itutterly, and life may fail; but even so my soul, that has not tripped, shall triumph, and dying, give the lie to soulless destiny, that daresto boast itself man's master" ("Ramayana, " pp. 340, 341). What Christianapostle left behind him the records of such words as those of Confucius, boldly spoken to a king: "Ke K'ang, distressed about the number ofthieves in his kingdom, inquired of Confucius how he might do away withthem? The sage said, 'If you, sir, were not covetous, the people wouldnot steal, though you should pay them for it. ' Ke K'ang asked, 'What doyou say about killing the unprincipled for the good of the principled?'Confucius said, 'In carrying out your government, why use killing atall? Let the rulers desire what is good, and the people will be good. The grass must bend when the wind blows across it. ' How can men whocannot rectify themselves, rectify others?" ("Analects of Confucius, " p. 358). 

In "The Wheel of the Law, " by Henry Alabaster, we find some mostinteresting information on the moral teaching of Buddhism, and thefollowing quotation is taken from one of the Sutras: "On a certainoccasion the Lord Buddha led a number of his disciples to a village ofthe Kalamachou, where his wisdom and merit and holiness were known. Andthe Kalamachou assembled, and did homage to him and said, 'Many priestsand Brahmins have at different times visited us, and explained theirreligious tenets, declaring them to be excellent, but each abused thetenets of every one else, whereupon we are in doubt as to whose religionis right and whose wrong; but we have heard that the Lord Buddha teachesan excellent religion, and we beg that we may be freed from doubt, andlearn the truth. ' And the Lord Buddha answered, 'You were right todoubt, for it was a doubtful matter. I say unto all of you, Do notbelieve in what ye have heard; that is, when you have heard anyone saythis is especially good or extremely bad; do not reason with yourselvesthat if it had not been true, it would not have been asserted, and sobelieve in its truth. Neither have faith in traditions, because theyhave been handed down for many generations and in many places. Do notbelieve in anything because it is rumoured and spoken of by many; do notthink that it is a proof of its truth. Do not believe merely because thewritten statement of some old sage is produced; do not be sure that thewriting has ever been revised by the said sage, or can be relied on. Donot believe in what you have fancied, thinking that because an idea isextraordinary it must have been implanted by a Dewa, or some wonderfulbeing. Do not believe in guesses, that is, assuming some thing athaphazard as a starting-point, draw your conclusions from it; reckoningyour two and your three and your four before you have fixed your numberone. Do not believe because you think there is analogy, that is, asuitability in things and occurrences, such as believing that there mustbe walls of the world, because you see water in a basin, or that MountMeru must exist because you have seen the reflection of trees: or thatthere must be a creating God because houses and towns have builders. .. . Do not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and masters, orbelieve and practise merely because they believe and practise. I tellyou all, you must of your own selves know that 'this is evil this ispunishable, this is censured by wise men, belief in this will bring noadvantage to one, but will cause sorrow. ' And when you know this, theneschew it. I say to all you dwellers in this village, answer me this. Lopho, that is covetousness, Thoso, that is anger and savageness, andMoho, that is ignorance and folly--when any or all of these arise in thehearts of men, is the result beneficial or the reverse?' And theyanswered, 'It is not beneficial, O Lord!' Then the Lord continued, 'Covetous, passionate, and ignorant men destroy life and steal, andcommit adultery, and tell lies, and incite others to follow theirexample, is it not so?' And they answered, 'It is as the Lord says. ' Andhe continued, 'Covetousness, passion, ignorance, the destruction oflife, theft, adultery, and lying, are these good or bad, right or wrong?Do wise men praise or blame them? Are they not unprofitable, and causesof sorrow?' And they replied, 'It is as the Lord has spoken. ' And theLord said, 'For this I said to you, do not believe merely because youhave heard, but when of your own consciousness you know a thing to beevil, abstain from it. ' And then the Lord taught of that which is good, saying, 'If any of you know of yourselves that anything is good and notevil, praised by wise men, advantageous, and productive of happiness, then act abundantly according to your belief. Now I ask you, Alopho, absence of covetousness, Athoso, absence of passion, Amoho, absence offolly, are these profitable or not?' And they answered, 'Profitable. 'The Lord continued, 'Men who are not covetous, or passionate, orfoolish, will not destroy life, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor telllies; is it not so?' And they answered, 'It is as the Lord says. ' Thenthe Lord asked, 'Is freedom from covetousness, passion, and folly, fromdestruction of life, theft, adultery, and lying, good or bad, right orwrong, praised or blamed by wise men, profitable, and tending tohappiness or not?' And they replied, 'It is good, right, praised by thewise, profitable, and tending to happiness. ' And the Lord said, 'Forthis I taught you, not to believe merely because you have heard, butwhen you believed of your own consciousness, then to act accordingly andabundantly'" (pp. 35-38). In this wise fashion did Buddha found hismorality, basing it on utility, the true measure of right and wrong. Buddhism has its Five Commandments, certainly equal in value to the TenCommandments of Jews and Christians:--

"First. Thou shall abstain from destroying or causing the destruction ofany living thing. 

"Second. Thou shalt abstain from acquiring or keeping, by fraud orviolence, the property of another. 

"Third. Thou shalt abstain from those who are not proper objects for thylust. 

"Fourth. Thou shalt abstain from deceiving others either by word ordeed. 

"Fifth. Thou shalt abstain from intoxication" (Ibid, p. 57). 

From Dr. Muir's translations of "religious and moral sentiments, "already quoted from, we might fill page after page with purest morality. "Let a man be virtuous even while yet a youth; for life is transitory. If duty is performed, a good name will be obtained, as well ashappiness, here and after death" ("Mahabharata, " xii. , 6538, p. 22). "Deluded by avarice, anger, fear, a man does not understand himself. Heplumes himself upon his high birth, contemning those who are notwell-born; and overcome by the pride of wealth, he reviles the poor. Hecalls others fools, and does not look to himself. He blames the faultsof others, but does not govern himself. When the wise and the foolish, the rich and the poor, the noble and the ignoble, the proud and thehumble, have departed to the cemetery and all sleep there, theirtroubles are at an end, and their bodies are stripped of flesh, littleelse than bones, united by tendons--other men then perceive nodifference between them, whereby they could recognise a distinction ofbirth or of form. Seeing that all sleep, deposited together in theearth, why do men foolishly seek to treat each other injuriously? Hewho, after bearing this admonition, acts in conformity therewith fromhis birth onwards, shall attain the highest blessedness" (Ibid, xi. 116, p. 23). 

Such are a few of the moral teachings current in the East before thetime of Christ. Since that period, these non-Christian nations have goneon in their paths, and many a gem of pure morality might be culled fromtheir later writings, but we have only here presented teachings thatwere pre-Christian, so as to prove how little need there was for a Godto become incarnate to teach morality to the world. "Revealed morality"has nothing grander to say than this earth-born morality, nothingsublimer comes from Judæa than comes from Hindustan and from China. Justas the symbolism of Christianity comes from nature, and is common tomany creeds, so does the morality of Christianity flow from nature, andis common to many faiths; when nations attain to a certain stage ofcivilisation, and inherit a certain amount of culture, they also developa morality proportionate to the point they have reached, becausemorality is necessary to the stability of States, and utility formulatesthe code of moral laws. Christianity can no longer stand on a pinnacleas the sole possessor of a pure and high morality. The pedestal she hasoccupied is built out of the bricks of ignorance, and her apostles andher master must take rank among their brethren of every age and clime. 

It is a serious fault in Christian morality that it has so manyOMISSIONS in it. It is full of exhortations to bear, to suffer, to bepatient; it sorely lacks appeals to patriotism, to courage, toself-respect. "The heroes of Paganism exemplified the heroism ofenterprise. Patriotism, chivalrous deeds of valour, high-souledaspirations after glory, stern justice taking its course in their hands, while natural feeling was held in abeyance--this was the line in whichthey shone. Our blessed Lord illustrated all virtues indeed, but mostespecially the passive ones. His heroism took its colouring fromendurance. Women, though inferior to men in enterprise, usually come outbetter than men in suffering; and it is always to be remembered that ourblessed Lord held his humanity, not of the stronger, but of the weakersex" ("Thoughts on Personal Religion, " by Dean Goulburn, vol. Ii. , p. 99; ed. 1866). What is this but to say, in polite language, that Jesuswas very effeminate? The Christian religion has all the vices ofslavery, and encourages submission to evil instead of resistance to it;it has in it the pathetic beauty of the meekness of the bruised andbeaten wife still loving the injurer, of the slave forgiving theslave-driver, but it is a beauty which perpetuates the wrong of which itis born. Better, far better, both for oppressor and for oppressed, isresistance to cruelty than submission to it; submission encourages thewrong-doer where resistance would check him, and Christianity fails inthat it omits to value strong men and true patriots, rebels againstauthority which is unjust. Rome taught its citizens to reverencethemselves, to love their country, to maintain freedom: the Roman woulddie gladly for his mother-country, and deemed his duty as a citizen theforemost of his obligations. The love of country, and the sense ofservice owed to the State, is the grandest and sublimest virtue of thePagan world. All felt it, from the highest to the lowest: at Thermopylaethe Spartans died gladly for the land they covered with their bodies, faithful unto death to the duty entrusted to them by their country; menand women equally felt the paramount claim of the State, and mothersgave their sons to death rather than that they should fail in dutythere. The Roman was taught to value the Republic above its officers; toresist the highest if he grasped at unfair supremacy; to maintaininviolate the rights and the liberties of the people. Christianityundermined all these manly virtues; it preached obedience to "the powersthat be, " whether they were good or bad; it upheld the authority of aNero as "ordained of God, " and pronounced damnation on those whoresisted him; and so it paved the way for the despotism of the MiddleAges, by crushing out the manhood of the nations, and fashioning theminto Oriental slaves. Little wonder that kings embraced Christianity, and forced it on their subjects, for it placed the nations bound attheir footstools, and endorsed the tyranny of man with the authority ofGod. Throughout the New Testament what word is there of patriotism? Thecitizenship is in heaven. What incitement to heroism? Resist not thepower. What appeal to self-reverence? In my flesh dwelleth no goodthing. What cry against injustice and oppression? Honour the king, andgive obedience to the froward. Christianity makes a paradise for tyrantsand a hell for the oppressed. 

Intertwined with the evil of omissions of duty is the direct injury ofcommanding NON-RESISTANCE, and of enforcing INDIFFERENCE TO EARTHLYCARES. "I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shallsmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyman will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thycloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with himtwain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow ofthee turn not thou away" (Matt. V. 39-42). The surface meaning of thesewords is undeniable; they are the amplification of the command, "resistnot evil. " What effect would obedience to these injunctions have upon aState? None committing an assault would be punished; every unjust suitwould succeed; every forced concession would be endorsed; every beggarwould live in luxury; every borrower would spend at will. Nay more;those who did wrong would be rewarded, and would be thus encouraged togo on in their evil ways. Meanwhile, the man who was insulted would beagain struck; the poor man who had lost one thing would lose two; thehard-working, frugal labourer would have to support the beggar and theborrower out of the fruits of his toil. Such is Christ's code of civillaws: he is deliberately abrogating the Mosaic code, "an eye for an eyeand a tooth for a tooth, " and is replacing it by his own. If the Mosaiclaw is to be taken literally--as it was--that which is to replace itmust also be taken literally, or else one code would be abolished, andthere would be none to succeed it, so that the State would be left in acondition of lawlessness. Suppose, however, that we allow that thepassage is to be taken metaphorically, what then? A metaphor must mean_something_: what does this metaphor mean? It can scarcely signify theexact opposite of what it intimates, and yet the exact opposite is truemorality. Only a system of taking Christ's words "contrariwise" can makethem useful as civil rules, and even "oriental exaggeration" canscarcely be credited with saying the diametrically contrary of its realmeaning. But it is urged that, if all men were Christians, then thisteaching would be right, and Christ was bound to give a perfectmorality. That is to say, if people were different to what they are, this teaching of Christ would not be injurious because--it would beunneeded! If there were no robbers, and no assaulters, and no borrowers, then the morality of the Sermon on the Mount would be most harmless. High praise, truly, for a legislator that his laws would not beinjurious when they were no longer needed. Christ should have rememberedthat the "law is made for sinners, " and that such a law as he gives hereis a direct encouragement to sin. 

We can scarcely wonder that, inculcating a course of conduct which mustinevitably lead to poverty, Christ should hold up a state of poverty asdesirable. We read in Matthew v. 3, "Blessed are the poor _in spirit_"and it is contended that it is poverty only of spirit which Christblesses; if so, he blesses the source of much wretchedness, forpoor-spirited people get trampled down, and are a misery to themselvesand a burden to those about them. If, however, we turn to Luke vi. 20, we find the declaration: "Blessed are ye poor, " addressed directly tohis Apostles, who were anything but poor in spirit (Luke ix. 46, andxxii. 24); and we find it, further, joined with the announcement, "blessed are ye that hunger now, " and followed by the curses: "Woe untoyou that are rich . .. Woe unto you that are full. " If "hunger" means"hunger after righteousness, " the antithesis "full" must also mean "fullof righteousness, " a state on which Christ would surely not pronounce awoe. Mr. Bradlaugh well draws out the various thoughts in these mostunfortunate sayings: "Is poverty of spirit the chief amongst virtues, that Jesus gives it the prime place in his teaching? Is poverty ofspirit a virtue at all? Surely not. Manliness of spirit, honesty ofspirit, fulness of rightful purpose, these are virtues; but poverty ofspirit is a crime. When men are poor in spirit, then do the proud andhaughty in spirit oppress and trample upon them, but when men are truein spirit and determined (as true men should be) to resist and preventevil, wrong, and injustice whenever they can, then is there greateropportunity for happiness here, and no lesser fitness for the enjoymentof future happiness, in some may be heaven, hereafter. Are you poor inspirit, and are you smitten; in such case what did Jesus teach? 'Untohim that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other' (Luke vi. 29). It were better far to teach that 'he who courts oppression sharesthe crime. ' Rather say, if smitten once, take careful measures toprevent a future smiting. I have heard men preach passive resistance, but this teaches actual invitation of injury, a course degrading in theextreme . .. The poverty of spirit principle is enforced to the fullestconceivable extent--'Him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to takethy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him thattaketh away thy goods ask them not again' (Luke vi. 29, 30). Poverty ofperson is the only possible sequence to this extraordinary manifestationof poverty of spirit. Poverty of person is attended with manyunpleasantnesses; and if Jesus knew that poverty of goods would resultfrom his teaching, we might expect some notice of this. And so thereis--as if he wished to keep the poor content through their lives withpoverty, he says, 'Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God'(Luke vi. 20) . .. Poor in spirit and poor in pocket. With no courage towork for food, or money to purchase it, we might well expect to find theman who held these doctrines with empty stomach also; and what doesJesus teach? 'Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled'. .. Craven in spirit, with an empty purse and hungry mouth--what next?The man who has not manliness enough to prevent wrong, will probablybemoan his hard fate, and cry bitterly that so sore are the misfortuneshe endures. And what does Jesus teach? 'Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh' (Luke vi. 21) . .. Jesus teaches that the poor, thehungry, and the wretched shall be blessed. This is not so. The blessingonly comes when they have ceased to be poor, hungry, and wretched. Contentment under poverty, hunger, and misery is high treason, not toyourself alone but to your fellows. These three, like foul diseases, spread quickly wherever humanity is stagnant and content with wrong"("What Did Jesus Teach?" pp. 1-3). 

But Jesus did more than panegyrise poverty; he gave still more exactdirections to his disciples as to how poverty should be attained. Matt. Vi. 25-34 is as mischievous a passage as has been penned by anymoralist. "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what yeshall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. " It is saidthat "take no thought" means, "be not over anxious;" if this be so, whydoes Christ emphasise it by quoting birds and lilies as examples, things, which, literally, take _no_ thought? the argument is: birds donot store food in barns, yet God feeds them. You are more valuable thanthe birds. God will take equal care of you if you follow the birds'example. The lilies spin no raiment, yet God clothes them. So shall heclothe you, if you follow their example. The passage has no meaning, theillustrations no appositeness, unless Christ means that _no_ thought isto be taken for the future. He makes the argument still stronger: "theGentiles seek" meat, drink, and clothing. But God, your Father, knowsyour need for all these things. Therefore, "seek ye first the kingdom ofGod and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Take, therefore, no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall takethought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evilthereof. " If Christ only meant the common-place advice, "do not beover-anxious, " he then lays the most absurd stress on it, and speaks inthe most exaggerated way. Sensible Gentiles do not worry themselves byover-anxiety, after they have taken for the morrow's needs all the carethey can; but they do not act like birds or like lilies, for they knowthat many a bird starves in a hard winter because it is not capable ofgathering and storing food into barns, and that many a garbless lily isshrivelled up by the cold east wind. They notice that though men andwomen are "much better than" birds and lilies, yet God does not alwaysfeed and clothe them; that, on the contrary, many a poor creature diesof starvation and of winter's bitter cold; when our daily papers recordno inquests on those who die from want, because none but God takesthought for them, then it will be time enough for us to cease frompreparing for the morrow, and to trust that "heavenly Father" who atpresent "knoweth that" we "have need of these things, " and, knowing, lets so many of his children starve for lack of them. 

The true meaning of Christ is plainly shown by his injunctions to thetwelve apostles and to the seventy when he sent them on a journey: "Takenothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, normoney; neither have two coats apiece" (Luke ix. 3); and: "Carry neitherpurse, nor scrip, nor shoes . .. In the same house remain, eating anddrinking such things as they give" (Ibid, x. 4, 7). The same spiritbreathes in his injunction to the young man: "Go and sell that thouhast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; andcome and follow me" (Matt. Xix. 21). The fact is that Jesus held theascetic doctrine, that poverty was, in itself, meritorious; and, incommon with many sects, he regarded the highest life as the life of themendicant teacher. His doctrine of poverty passed on into the Churchthat bears his name, and one of the three vows taken by those who aspireto lead "the angelic life" is the vow of poverty. The mendicant friarsof the Middle Ages, the "sturdy beggars, " are the lineal descendants ofthe Eastern mendicants, and are the fruits of the morality taught byChrist. On this point, as on many others, the morality of the Epistlesis far higher than that of the Gospels, and the common-sense andrighteous law, "that if any would not work neither should he eat" is, however, incompatible with Christ's admiration for mendicancy, a farmore wholesome and salutary kind of moral teaching than that which wehave been considering. 

The dogma of rewards and punishments as taught by Christ is fatal to allreality of virtue. To do right from hope of heaven: to avoid wrong forfear of hell: such virtue is only skin-deep, and will not stand roughusage. True virtue does right because it _is_ right, and thereforebeneficial, and not from hope of a personal reward, or from dread of apersonal punishment, hereafter. Christianity is the apotheosis ofselfishness, gilded over with piety; self is the pivot on which allturns: "What shall it _profit_ a man if he gain the whole world, andlose _his own_ soul?" (Mark viii. 36). "He that receiveth a prophet inthe name of a prophet _shall receive a prophet's reward_; and he thatreceiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man _shall receivea righteous man's reward_. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one ofthese little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he _shall in nowise lose his reward_" (Matt. X. 41, 42). "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, _him will Iconfess also_ before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shalldeny me before men, _him will I also deny_ before my Father which is inheaven" (Ibid, 32, 33). "Pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thyFather, which seeth in secret, _shall reward thee_ openly" (Ibid, vi. 6). "We have forsaken all and followed thee: _what shall we havetherefore_?. .. When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, _ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones_" (Matt. Xix. 27, 28). Thepassages might be multiplied; but these are sufficient to show thethorough selfishness inculcated. All is done with an eye to personalgain in the future; even the cold water is to be given, not because the"little one" is thirsty and needs it, but for the reward promisedtherefore to the giver. Pure, generous love is excluded: there is ataint of selfishness in every gift. 

The thought of Heaven is also injurious to human welfare, because menlearn to disregard earth for the sake of "the glory to be revealed. "People whose "citizenship is in heaven, " make but sorry citizens ofearth, for they regard this world as "no continuing city, " while they"seek one to come. " Hence, as all history shows us, they are apt todespise this world while dreaming about another, to trouble little aboutearth's wrongs while thinking of the mansions in the skies; to acquiescein any assertion that "the whole world lieth in wickedness, " and totrouble themselves but little as to the means of improving it. From thisline of thought follows the long list of monasteries and nunneries, wherein people "separate" themselves from this world in order to"prepare" for another. All this evil flows directly from the Christianmorality which teaches that all hopes, efforts, and aims should beturned towards laying up treasures in heaven, where also the heartshould be. One need scarcely add a word of reprobation as to thehorrible doctrine of eternal torture, although that, too, is part of theteaching of Christ. The whole conscience of civilised mankind is soturning against that shameful and cruel dogma, that it is only nowbelieved among the illiterate and uncultured of the Christians, and soonwill be too savage even for them. It has, however, hardened the heartsof many in days gone by, and has made the burning of heretics seem anappropriate act of faith, since men only began on earth the roastingwhich God was to continue to all eternity. 

The morality of Christ is also faulty because it shares in thepersecuting spirit of the Mosaic code. The disciples are told:"Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye departout of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily, Isay unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom andGomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" (Matt. X. 14, 15). Christ proclaims openly: "Think not that I am come to send peace onearth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a manat variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, andthe daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall bethey of his own household" (Ibid, 34-36). To a man whom he calls tofollow him, and who asks to be allowed first to bury his father, Christgives the brutal reply: "Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou andpreach the kingdom of God" (Luke x. 60). Another time he says: "If anyman come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, andchildren, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, hecannot be my disciple" (Ibid, xiv. 26). A religion that destroys thehome, that introduces discord into the family, that bids its votarieshate all else save Christ, acts as a disintegrating force in human life, and cannot be too strongly opposed. 

Neither must we forget the teaching of Christ regarding marriage. Hedeliberately places virginity above marriage, and counselsself-mutilation to those capable of making the sacrifice. "All mencannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given . .. There beeunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven'ssake. _He that is able to receive it, let him receive it_" (Matt. Xix. 11, 12). Following this, 1 Cor. Vii. Teaches the superiority of anunmarried state, and threatens "trouble in the flesh" to those whomarry. And in Rev. Xiv. 1-4, we find, following the Lamb, with specialprivileges, 144, 000 who "were not defiled with women; for they arevirgins. " This coarse and insulting way of regarding women, as thoughthey existed merely to be the safety-valves of men's passions, and thatthe best men were above the temptation of loving them, has been thesource of unnumbered evils. To this saying of Christ are due theself-mutilations of many, such as Origen, and the destruction of myriadsof human lives in celibacy; monks and nuns innumerable owe to this evilteaching their shrivelled lives and withered hearts. For centuries theleaders of Christian thought spoke of women as of a necessary evil, andthe greatest saints of the Church are those who despised women the most. The subjection of women in Western lands is wholly due to Christianity. Among the Teutons women were honoured, and held a noble and dignifiedplace in the tribe; Christianity brought with it the evil Eastern habitof regarding women as intended for the toys and drudges of man, andintensified it with a special spite against them, as the daughters ofEve, who was first "deceived. " Strangely different to the *generalEastern feeling and showing a truer and nobler view of life, is theprecept of Manu: "Where women are honoured, there the deities arepleased; but where they are dishonoured, there all religious acts becomefruitless" ("Anthology, " p. 310). 

Evil also is the teaching that repentance is higher than purity: "joyshall be in heaven over one sinner that repenth, _more than_ over ninetyand nine just persons which need no repentance" (Luke xv. 7, 10). Thefatted calf is slain for the prodigal son, who returns home after he haswasted all his substance; and to the laborious elder son, during themany years of his service, the father never gave even a kid that hemight make merry with his friends (Ibid, 29). What is all this butputting a premium upon immorality, and instructing people that the morethey sin, the more joyous will be their welcome whenever they may chooseto reform, and, like the prodigal, think to mend their broken fortunesby repentance?

Thoroughly immoral is the teaching contained in the two parables in Lukexvi. In the one, a steward who has wasted his master's goods, iscommended because he went and bribed his employer's debtors to assisthim, by suggesting to them that they should cheat his master by alteringthe amount of the bills they owed him. In the other, the parable of therich man and Lazarus, the evil moral is taught that riches are inthemselves deserving of punishment, and poverty of reward. The rich manis in hell simply because he was rich, and the poor man in Abraham'sbosom simply because he was poor; it can scarcely add, one may remark, to the pleasure of heaven for the Lazaruses all to look at the Diveses, and be unable to reach them, even to give them a single drop of water. 

Thus whether we see that the nobler part of the Christian morality ispre-Christian, and is neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Hindu, norBuddhist, but is simply human, and belongs to the race and not to onecreed. Whether we note the omissions in its code, making it insufficientfor human guidance; whether we mark its errors, mistakes, and injuriousteachings; whichever point of view we take from which to consider it, wefind in it nothing to distinguish it above other moral codes, or toprevent it from being classed among other moralities, as being a mixtureof good and bad, and, therefore, not to be taken as an, unerring guide, being like them, all FALLIBLE. 

 * * * * *

INDEX TO SECTION III. OF PART II. 

 * * * * *

INDEX OF BOOKS USED. 

Bhagavat Gita, in Anthology. .. 406Bradlaugh, The Bible: what it is. .. 397 " What Did Jesus Teach?. .. 414Buddha, in Anthology. .. 403, 405 " Wheel of the Law. .. 408

Cahen, Lévitique. .. 398Colenso, Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. .. 396Confucius, in Anthology. .. 403, 404, 408

Dante, Inferno. .. 403Dhammapada, in Anthology. .. 403

Gouldburn, Thoughts on Personal Religion. .. 411

Kalisch, Leviticus. .. 399, 400, 401Katha-Chari, in Anthology. .. 407Kwan-yin, in Anthology. .. 407

Lao-Tsze, in Anthology. .. 403, 404

Mahabharata, in Muir. .. 410Manu, in Anthology. .. 404, 405, 406, 419Mencius, in Anthology. .. 407

Prayer Book, Art. Vi. Vii. .. . 395

Ramayana, in Anthology. .. 407

Sabaean Book of the Law, in Anthology. .. 404, 405Shelley, Queen Mab. .. 402She-King, in Anthology. .. 407Statutes, 9 and 10 William III. Cap. 32. .. 395

Talmud, quoted by Besant. .. 405

 * * * * *

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 

Christian morality, compared with others. .. 403 " degrading to women. .. 419 " immoral towards sin. .. 419 " non-original. .. 403 " non-resistant. .. 412 " omissions in. .. 411 " paved way for despotism. .. 412 " persecuting in spirit. .. 418 " sanctions mendicancy. .. 416 " selfish. .. 417 " what included in. .. 395

Heaven and Hell, harm done by belief in. .. 417Heroism of Paganism. .. 412Human sacrifice, sanctioned by God. .. 398 " among Jews. .. 398

Marriage, teaching of Christ concerning. .. 419Morality of great Pagan teachers. .. 406 " compared with that of Christ. .. 403Murder of blasphemer, sanctioned by God. .. 397 " heretics. .. 401

Ordeal, sanctioned by God. .. 401

Poverty inculcated by Christ. .. 414Prostitution, sanctioned by God. .. 402

Religion, evil of. .. 402

Sale of daughter sanctioned by God. .. 396 " thief. .. 396Slaves, beaten to death. .. 396Slavery, sanctioned by God. .. 396, 397

Unthrift taught by Christ. .. 415Utility the test of morality. .. 411 " religion according to Buddha. .. 408

Value of Christianity to tyrants. .. 412

Witches, number of killed. .. 397Witch-murder, sanctioned by God. .. 397

SECTION IV. --ITS HISTORY. 

This section does not pretend, within the short limits of some fiftypages, to give even a complete summary of Christian history. It proposesonly to draw up an impeachment against Christianity from the facts ofits history which occurred in the day of its power, from the time ofConstantine, up to the time of the Reformation. If it be urged thatChristianity was corrupt during this period, and ought not therefore tobe judged by it, we can only reply that, corrupt or not, it is the onlyChristianity there was, and if only bad fruit is brought forth, it isfair to conclude that the tree which bears nothing else is also bad. Ifthe bishops, and clergy, and missionaries were ignorant, sensual, tyrannical, and superstitious, they are none the less therepresentatives of Christianity, and if these are not true Christians, _where are the true Christians_ from A. D. 324 to A. D. 1, 500?

We propose, in this section, to practically condense the dark side ofMosheim's "Ecclesiastical History, " as translated from the Latin by Dr. A. Maclaine (ed. 1847), only adding, here and there, extracts from otherwriters; all extracts, therefore, except where otherwise specified, willbe taken from this valuable history, a history which, perhaps from itssize and dryness, is not nearly so much studied by Freethinkers as itshould be; its special worth for our object is that Dr. Mosheim is asincere Christian, and cannot, therefore, be supposed to strain anypoint unduly against the religion to which he himself belongs. 

During the second and third centuries the Christians appear to havegrown in power and influence, and their faith, made up out of many oldercreeds and forming a kind of eclectic religion, gradually spreadthroughout the Roman empire, and became a factor in political problems. In the struggles between the opposing Roman emperors, A. D. 310-324, theweight of the Christian influence was thrown on the side of Constantine, his rivals being strongly opposed to Christianity; Maximin Galerius wasa bitter persecutor, and his successor, Maximin, trod in his steps inA. D. 312, and 313, Maxentius was defeated by Constantine, and Maximin byLicinius, and in A. D. 312 Constantine and Licinius granted liberty ofworship to the Christians; in the following year, according to Mosheim, or in A. D. 314 according to Eusebius, a second edict was issued fromMilan, by the two emperors, which granted "to the Christians and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of worship which they may wish . .. That no freedom at all shall be refused to Christians, to follow or tokeep their observances or worship; but that to each one power be grantedto devote his mind to that worship which he may think adapted tohimself" (Eusebius, "Eccles. Hist. " p. 431). Licinius, however, renewedthe war against Constantine, who immediately embraced Christianity, thussecuring to himself the sympathy and assistance of the faith which nowfor the first time saw its votary on the imperial throne of the world, and Licinius, by allying himself with Paganism, and persecuting theChristians, drove them entirely over to Constantine, and was finallydefeated and dethroned, A. D. 324. From that date Christianity wassupreme, and became the established religion of the State. Dr. Draperregards the conversion of Constantine from the point of view takenabove. He says: "It had now become evident that the Christiansconstituted a powerful party in the State, animated with indignation atthe atrocities they had suffered, and determined to endure them nolonger. After the abdication of Diocletian (A. D. 305), Constantine, oneof the competitors for the purple, perceiving the advantages that wouldaccrue to him from such a policy, put himself forth as the head of theChristian party. This gave him, in every part of the empire, men andwomen ready to encounter fire and sword in his behalf; it gave himunwavering adherents in every legion of the armies. In a decisivebattle, near the Milvian bridge, victory crowned his schemes. The deathof Maximin, and subsequently that of Licinius, removed all obstacles. Heascended the throne of the Cæsars--the first Christian emperor. Place, profit, power--these were in view of whoever now joined the conqueringsect. Crowds of worldly persons, who cared nothing about its religiousideas, became its warmest supporters. Pagans at heart, their influencewas soon manifested in the Paganisation of Christianity that forthwithensued. The emperor, no better than they, did nothing to check theirproceedings. But he did not personally conform to the ceremonialrequirements of the Church until the close of his evil life, A. D. 337"("History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, " p. 39; ed. 1875). Constantine, in fact, was not baptised until a few days beforehis death. 

The character of the first Christian emperor is not one which strikes uswith admiration. As emperor he sank into "a cruel and dissolute monarch, corrupted by his fortune, or raised by conquest above the necessity ofdissimulation . .. The old age of Constantine was disgraced by theopposite yet reconcilable vices of rapaciousness and prodigality"(Gibbon's "Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. , p. 347). He was as effeminate ashe was vicious. "He is represented with false hair of various colours, laboriously arranged by the skilful artists of the time; a diadem of anew and more expensive fashion; a profusion of gems and pearls, ofcollars and bracelets, and a variegated flowing robe of silk, mostcuriously embroidered with flowers of gold. " To his other vices he addedmost bloodthirsty cruelty. He strangled Licinius, after defeating him;murdered his own son Crispus, his nephew Licinius, and his wife Fausta, together with a number of others. It must indeed have needed anefficacious baptism to wash away his crimes; and "future tyrants wereencouraged to believe that the innocent blood which they might shed in along reign would instantly be washed away in the waters of regeneration"(Ibid, pp. 471, 472). 

The wealth of the Christian churches was considerable during the thirdcentury, and the bishops and clergy lived in much pomp and luxury. "Though several [bishops] yet continued to exhibit to the worldillustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian virtue, yet manywere sunk in luxury and voluptuousness, puffed up with vanity, arrogance, and ambition, possessed with a spirit of contention anddiscord, and addicted to many other vices that cast an undeservedreproach upon the holy religion of which they were the unworthyprofessors and ministers. This is testified in such an ample manner bythe repeated complaints of many of the most respectable writers of thisage, that truth will not permit us to spread the veil which we shouldotherwise be desirous to cast over such enormities among an order sosacred. .. . The example of the bishops was ambitiously imitated by thepresbyters, who, neglecting the sacred duties of their station, abandoned themselves to the indolence and delicacy of an effeminate andluxurious life. The deacons, beholding the presbyters deserting thustheir functions, boldly usurped their rights and privileges; and theeffects of a corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of thesacred order" (p. 73). During this century also we find much scandalcaused by the pretended celibacy of the clergy, for thepeople--regarding celibacy as purer than marriage, and considering that"they, who took wives, were of all others the most subject to theinfluence of malignant demons"--urged their clergy to remain celibate, "and many of the sacred order, especially in Africa, consented tosatisfy the desires of the people, and endeavoured to do this in such amanner as not to offer an entire violence to their own inclinations. Forthis purpose, they formed connections with those women who had made vowsof perpetual chastity; and it was an ordinary thing for an ecclesiasticto admit one of these fair saints to the participation of his bed, butstill under the most solemn declarations, that nothing passed in thiscommerce that was contrary to the rules of chastity and virtue" (p. 73). Such was the morality of the clergy as early as the third century!

The doctrine of the Church in these primitive times was as confused asits morality was impure. In the first century (during which we reallyknow nothing of the Christian Church), Dr. Mosheim, in dealing with"divisions and heresies, " points to the false teachers mentioned in theNew Testament, and the rise of the Gnostic heresy. Gnosticism (from[Greek: gnosis] knowledge), a system compounded of Christianity andOriental philosophy, long divided the Church with the doctrines known asorthodox. The Gnostics believed in the existence of the two opposingprinciples of good and evil, the latter being by many considered as thecreator of the world. They held that from the Supreme God emanated anumber of Æons--generally put at thirty; (see throughout "IrenæusAgainst Heresies")--and some maintained that one of these, Christ, descended on the man Jesus at his baptism, and left him again justbefore his passion; others that Jesus had not a real, but only anapparent, body of flesh. The Gnostic philosophy had many forms and manyinterdivisions; but most of the "heresies" of the first centuries werebranches of this one tree: it rose into prominence, it is said, aboutthe time of Adrian, and among its early leaders were Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus. In addition to the various Gnostic theories, there was adeep mark of division between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians; theformer developed into the sects, of Nazarenes and Ebionites, but werenaturally never very powerful in the Church. In the second century, asthe Christians become more visible, their dissensions are also moreclearly marked; and it is important to observe that there is no periodin the history of Christianity wherein those who laid claim to the name"Christian" were agreed amongst themselves as to what Christianity was. Gnosticism we see now divided into two main branches, Asiatic andEgyptian. The Asiatic believed that, in addition to the two principlesof good and evil, there was a third being, a mixture of both, theDemiurgus, the creator, whose son Jesus was; they maintained that thebody of Jesus was only apparent; they enforced the severest disciplineagainst the body, which was evil, in that it was material; and marriage, flesh, and wine were forbidden. The Elcesaites were a judaising branchof this Asiatic Gnosticism; Saturninus of Antioch, Ardo of Syria, andMarcion of Pontus headed the movement, and after them Lucan, Severus, Blastes, Apelles, and Bardesanes formed new sects. Tatian (see ante, pp. 259, 260) had many followers called Tatianists, and in connection withhim and his doctrines we hear of the Eucratites, Hydroparastates (thewater-drinkers), and Apotactites. The Eucratites appear to have been inexistence before Tatian professed Gnosticism, but he so increased theirinfluence as to be sometimes regarded as their founder. The EgyptianGnostics were less ascetic, and mostly favoured the idea that Jesus hada real body on which the Æon descended and joined himself thereunto. They regarded him as born naturally of Joseph and Mary. Basilides, andValentinus headed the Egyptians, and then we have as sub-divisions theCarpocratians, Ptolemaites, Secundians, Heracleonites, Marcosians, Adamites, Cainites, Sethites, Florinians, Ophites, Artemonites, andHermogenists; in addition to these we have the Monarchians orPatripassians, who maintained that there was but one God, and that theFather suffered (whence this name) in the person of Christ. This longlist may be closed with the Montanists, a sect joined by Tertullian (seehis account of the orthodox after he became a Montanist, ante, p. 225);they held that Montanes, their founder, was the Paraclete promised byChrist, missioned to complete the Christian code; he forbade secondmarriages, the reception into the Church of those who had beenexcommunicated for grievous sin, and inculcated the sternest asceticism. He opposed all learning as anti-Christian, a doctrine which was rapidlyspreading among Christians, and which seems, indeed, to have been anintegral part of the religion from its very beginning (Matt. Xi. 25, 1Cor. I. 26, 27). In the third century the heretic camp received a newlight in the person of Manes, or Manichæus, a Persian magus; he appearsto have been a man of great learning, a physician, an astronomer, aphilosopher. He taught the old Persian creed tinctured withChristianity, Christ being identical with Mithras (see ante, p. 362), and having come upon earth in an apparent body only to deliver mankind. Manes was the paraclete sent to complete his teaching; the body wasevil, and only by long struggle and mortification could man be deliveredfrom it, and reach final blessedness. Those who desired to lead thehighest life, _the elect_, abstained from flesh, eggs, milk, fish, wine, and all intoxicating drink, and remained in the strictest celibacy; theywere to live on bread, herbs, pulse, and melons, and deny themselvesevery comfort and every gratification (see pp. 80-82). The Hieracites inEgypt were closely allied with the Manichæans. The Novatians differedfrom the orthodox only in their refusal to receive again into the Churchany who had committed grievous crimes, or who had lapsed duringpersecution. The Arabians denied the immortality of the soul, maintaining that it died with the body, and that body and soul togetherwould be revivified by God. The controversies on the persons of theGodhead now increased in intensity. Noctus of Smyrna maintained thedoctrine of the Patripassians, that God was one and indivisible, andsuffered to redeem mankind; Sabellius also taught that God was one, butthat Jesus was a man, to whom was united a "certain energy only, proceeding from the Supreme Parent" (p. 83). He also denied the separatepersonality of the Holy Ghost. Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, taught a cognate doctrine, and founded the sect of the Paulians orPaulianists, and was consequently degraded from his office. Thus we seethat the history of the Church, before it came to power, is a mass ofquarrels and divisions, varied by ignorance and licentiousness. If weexclude Origen, whose writings contain much that is valuable, the worksproduced by Christian writers in these centuries might be thrown intothe sea, and the world would be none the poorer for the loss. 

CENTURY IV. 

Constantine attained undisputed and sole authority A. D. 324, and in theyear 325 he summoned the first general council, that of Nicea, or Nice, which condemned the errors of Arius, and declared Christ to be of thesame substance as the Father. This council has given its name to the"Nicene Creed, " although that creed, as now recited, differs somewhatfrom the creed issued at Nice, and received its present form at theCouncil of Constantinople, A. D. 381. During the reign of Constantine, the Church grew swiftly in power and influence, a growth much aided bythe penal laws passed against Paganism. The moment Christianity was ableto seize the sword, it wielded it remorselessly, and cut its way tosupremacy in the Roman world. Bribes and penalties shared together inthe work of conversion. "The hopes of wealth and honours, the example ofan emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles, diffusedconviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually fill theapartments of a palace. The cities, which signalised a forward zeal bythe voluntary destruction of their temples, were distinguished bymunicipal privileges and rewarded with popular donatives; and the newcapital of the East gloried in the singular advantage thatConstantinople was never profaned by the worship of idols. As the lowerranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those whopossessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soonfollowed by dependent multitudes. The salvation of the common people waspurchased at an easy rate, if it be true, that, in one year, twelvethousand men were baptised at Rome, besides a proportionable number ofwomen and children; and that a white garment, with twenty pieces ofgold, had been promised by the emperor to every convert" (Gibbon's"Decline and Fall, " vol. Ii. Pp. 472, 473). With Constantine began theruinous system of dowering the Church with State funds. The emperordirected the treasurers of the province of Carthage to pay over to thebishop of that district £18, 000 sterling, and to honour his furtherdrafts. Constantine also gave his subjects permission to bequeath theirfortunes to the Church, and scattered public money among the bishopswith a lavish hand. The three sons of Constantine followed in his steps, "continuing to abrogate and efface the ancient superstitions of theRomans, and other idolatrous nations, and to accelerate the progress ofthe Christian religion throughout the empire. This zeal was no doubt, laudable; its end was excellent; but, in the means used to accomplishit, there were many things worthy of blame" (p. 88). Julian succeded topart of the empire in A. D. 360, and to sole authority in A. D. 361. Hewas educated as a Christian, but reverted to philosophic Paganism, andduring his short reign he revoked the special privileges granted toChristianity, and placed all creeds on the most perfect civil equality. Julian's dislike of Christianity, and his philosophic writings directedagainst it, have gained for him, from Christian writers, the title of"the Apostate. " The emperors who succeeded were, however, all Christian, and used their best endeavours to destroy Paganism. Christianity spreadapace; "multitudes were drawn into the profession of Christianity, notby the power of conviction and argument, but by the prospect of gain, and the fear of punishment" (p. 102). "The zeal and diligence with whichConstantine and his successors exerted themselves in the cause ofChristianity, and in extending the limits of the Church, prevent oursurprise at the number of barbarous and uncivilised nations, whichreceived the Gospel" (p. 90); and Dr. Mosheim admits that: "There is nodoubt but that the victories of Constantine the Great, the fear ofpunishment, and the desire of pleasing this mighty conqueror and hisimperial successors, were the weighty arguments that moved wholenations, as well as particular persons, to embrace Christianity" (p. 91). Fraud, as well as force and favour, lent its aid to the progress of"the Gospel. " We hear of the "imprudent methods employed to allure thedifferent nations to embrace the Gospel" (p. 98): "disgraceful" would bea fitter term whereby to designate them, for Dr. Mosheim speaks of "theendless frauds of those odious impostors, who were so far destitute ofall principles, as to enrich themselves by the ignorance and errors ofthe people. Rumours were artfully spread abroad of prodigies andmiracles to be seen in certain places (a trick often practised by theheathen priests), and the design of these reports was to draw thepopulace, in multitudes, to these places, and to impose upon theircredulity . .. Nor was this all; certain tombs were falsely given out forthe sepulchres of saints and confessors. The list of the saints wasaugmented by fictitious names, and even robbers were converted intomartyrs. Some buried the bones of dead men in certain retired places, and then affirmed that they were divinely admonished, by a dream, thatthe body of some friend of God lay there. Many, especially of the monks, travelled through the different provinces; and not only sold, with mostfrontless impudence, their fictitious relics, but also deceived the eyesof the multitude with ludicrous combats with evil spirits or genii. Awhole volume would be requisite to contain an enumeration of the variousfrauds which artful knaves practised, with success, to delude theignorant, when true religion was almost entirely superseded by horridsuperstition" (p. 98). When to all these weapons we add the forgerieseverywhere circulated (see ante, pp. 240-243), we can understand howrapidly Christianity spread, and how "the faithful" were renderedpliable to those whose interests lay in deceiving them. During thiscentury flourished some of the greatest fathers of the Church, pre-eminent among whom we note Ambrose, of Milan, Augustine, of Hippo, and the great ecclesiastical doctor, Jerome. Already, in this century, we find clear traces of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and "when anew pontiff was to be elected by the suffrages of the presbyters and thepeople, the city of Rome was generally agitated with dissensions, tumults, and cabals, whose consequences were often deplorable and fatal"(p. 94). By a decree of the Council of Constantinople, the bishop ofthat city was given precedence next after the Roman prelate, and thejealousy which arose between the bishops of the two imperial citiesfomented the disputes which ended, finally, in the separation of theEastern and Western Churches. Of the officers of the Church in thiscentury we read that: "The bishops, on the one hand, contended with eachother, in the most scandalous manner, concerning the extent of theirrespective jurisdictions, while, on the other, they trampled upon therights of the people, violated the privileges of the inferior ministers, and imitated, in their conduct, and in their manner of living, thearrogance, voluptuousness, and luxury of magistrates and princes" (pp. 95, 96). 

In this century is the first instance of the burning alive of a heretic, and it was Spain who lighted that first pile. Theodosius, of all theemperors of this age, was the bitterest persecutor of the heretic sects. "The orthodox emperor considered every heretic as a rebel against thesupreme powers of heaven and of earth; and each of those powers mightexercise their peculiar jurisdiction over the soul and body of theguilty. .. . In the space of fifteen years [A. D. 380-394], he promulgatedat least fifteen severe edicts against the heretics; more especiallyagainst those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity; and to deprivethem of every hope of escape, he sternly enacted, that if any laws orrescripts should be alleged in their favour, the judges should considerthem as the illegal productions either of fraud or forgery. .. . Theheretical teachers . .. Were exposed to the heavy penalties of exile andconfiscation, if they presumed to preach the doctrine, or to practisethe rites of their _accursed_ sects. .. . Their religious meetings, whether public or secret, by day or by night, in cities or in thecountry, were equally proscribed by the edicts of Theodosius: and thebuilding or ground, which had been used for that illegal purpose, wasforfeited to the imperial domain. It was supposed, that the error of theheretics could proceed only from the obstinate temper of their minds;and that such a temper was a fit object of censure and punishment. .. . The sectaries were gradually disqualified for the possession ofhonourable or lucrative employments; and Theodosius was satisfied withhis own justice, when he decreed, that as the Eunonians distinguishedthe nature of the Son from that of the Father, they should be incapableof making their wills, or of receiving any advantages from testamentarydonations" (Gibbon's "Decline and Fall, " vol. Iii. Pp. 412, 413). 

One important event of this century must not be omitted, the dispersionof the great Alexandrine library, collected by the Ptolemies. In thesiege of Alexandria by Julius Cæsar, the Philadelphian library in themuseum, containing some 400, 000 volumes, had been burned; but therestill remained the "daughter library" in the Serapion, containing about300, 000 books. During the episcopate of Theophilus, predecessor ofCyril, a riot took place between the Christians and the Pagans, and thelatter "held the Serapion as their head-quarters. Such were the disorderand bloodshed that the emperor had to interfere. He despatched arescript to Alexandria, enjoining the bishop, Theophilus, to destroy theSerapion; and the great library, which had been collected by thePtolemies, and had escaped the fire of Julius Cæsar, was by that fanaticdispersed" ("Conflict of Religion and Science, " p. 54), A. D. 389. ToChristian bigotry it is that we owe the loss of these rich treasures ofantiquity. 

Heresies grew and strengthened during this fourth century. Chief leaderin the heretic camp was Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria; he assertedthat the Son, although begotten of the Father before the creation ofaught else, was not "of the same substance" as the Father, but only "oflike substance;" a vast number of the Christians embraced hisdefinition, and thus began the long struggle between the Arians and theCatholics. Arius also "took the ground that there was a time when, fromthe very nature of sonship, the Son did not exist, and a time at whichhe commenced to be, asserting that it is the necessary condition of thefilial relation that a father must be older than his son. But thisassertion evidently denied the co-eternity of the three persons of theTrinity; it suggested a subordination or inequality among them, andindeed implied a time when the Trinity did not exist. Hereupon thebishop, who had been the successful competitor against Arius [for theepiscopate], displayed his rhetorical powers in public debates on thequestion, and, the strife spreading, the Jews and Pagans, who formed avery large portion of the population of Alexandria, amused themselveswith theatrical representations of the contest on the stage--the pointof their burlesques being the equality of age of the Father and his Son"(Ibid, p. 53). Gibbon quotes an amusing passage to show how widelyspread was the interest in the subject debated between the rivalparties: "This city is full of mechanics and slaves, who are all of themprofound theologians, and preach in the shops and in the streets. If youdesire a man to change a piece of silver, he informs you wherein the Sondiffers from the Father; if you ask the price of a loaf, you are told, by way of reply, that the Son is inferior to the Father; and if youinquire whether the bath is ready, the answer is, that the Son was madeout of nothing" (Gibbon's "Decline and Fall, " vol. Iii. P. 402). Ariusmaintained that "the _Logos_ was a dependent and spontaneous production, created from nothing by the will of the Father. The Son, by whom allthings were made, had been begotten before all worlds, and the longestof the astronomical periods could be compared only as a fleeting momentto the extent of his duration; yet this duration was not infinite, andthere _had_ been a time which preceded the ineffable generation of the_Logos_. .. . He governed the universe in obedience to the will of hisFather and Monarch" (Ibid, pp. 18, 19). The "Nicene creed" of thePrayer-book consists of the creed promulgated by the Council of Nice, with the anathema at the end omitted, and with the addition of somephrases joined to it at the Council at Constantinople, and the insertionof the Filioque. At the Council of Nice, Arius was condemned andbanished, to the triumph of his great opponent, Athanasius; but he wasrecalled in A. D. 330, obtained the banishment of Athanasius in A. D. 335, and died suddenly, under very suspicious circumstances, in A. D. 336. Throughout this century the struggle proceeded furiously, each party inturn getting the upper hand, as the emperor of the time inclined towardsCatholicism or towards Arianism, and each persecuting the adherents ofthe other. Among Arian subdivisions we find Semi-Arians, Eusebians, Aetians, Eunomians, Acasians, Psathyrians, etc. Then we have theApollinarians, who maintained that Christ had no human soul, thedivinity supplying its place; the Marcellians, who taught that a divineemanation descended on Christ. Allied to the Manichæan heresy were thePriscillians, the Saccophori, the Solitaries, and many others; and, inaddition, the Messalians or Euchites, the Luciferians, the Origenists, the Antidicomarianites, and the Collyridians. A quarrel about theconsecration of a bishop gave rise to fierce struggles not connectedwith the doctrine, so much as with the discipline of the Church. TheBishops of Numidia were angered by not having been called to theconsecration of Cæcilianus Bishop of Carthage, and, assembling together, they elected and consecrated a rival bishop to that see, and declaredCæcilianus incompetent for the episcopal office. Donatus, Bishop of CasaNigra, was the foremost of these Numidian malcontents, and from him thesect of Donatists took its name; they denied the orders of thoseordained by Cæcilianus, and hence the validity of the Sacramentsadministered by them. Excommunicated themselves, "they boldlyexcommunicated the rest of mankind who had embraced the impious party ofCæcilianus, and of the traditors, from whom he derived his pretendedordination. They asserted with confidence, and almost with exultation, that the apostolical succession was interrupted, that _all_ the bishopsof Europe and Asia were infected by the contagion of guilt and schism, and that the prerogatives of the Catholic Church were confined to thechosen portion of the African believers, who alone had preservedinviolate the integrity of their faith and discipline. This rigid theorywas supported by the most uncharitable conduct. Whenever they acquired aproselyte, even from the distant provinces of the east, they carefullyrepeated the sacred rites of baptism and ordination; as they rejectedthe validity of those which he had already received from the hands ofheretics or of schismatics" (Gibbon's "Decline and Fall, " vol. Iii. Pp. 5, 6). A number of Donatists, known as Circumcelliones, "maintainedtheir cause by the force of arms, and overrunning all Africa, filledthat province with slaughter and rapine, and committed the most enormousacts of perfidy and cruelty against the followers of Caecilianus" (p. 109). To complete the darkly terrible picture of the Church in thefourth century, we need only note the various orders of fanatical monks, filthy in their habits, densely ignorant, hopelessly superstitious, amongst whom may be numbered the travelling mendicants calledSarabaites. "Many of the Coenobites were chargeable with vicious andscandalous practices. This order, however, was not so universallycorrupt as that of the Sarabaites, who were, for the most part, profligates of the most abandoned kind" (p. 102). The pen wearies overthe list of scandals of these early Christian ages; we can but sketchthe outline here; let the student fill the picture in, and he will findeven blacker shades needed to darken it enough. 

CENTURY V. 

This century sees the destruction of the Roman Empire of the West, andthe rise into importance of the great Gothic monarchies. The Christianemperors of the East put down paganism with a strong hand, conferringstate offices on Christians only, and forbidding pagan ceremonies[unless under Christian names]. The sons of Constantine had pronouncedthe penalty of death and confiscation against any who sacrificed to theold gods; and Theodosius, in A. D. 390, had forbidden, under heavypenalties, all pagan rites. This work of repression was rigorouslycarried on. Clovis, king of the Franks, embraced Christianity, findingits profession "of great use to him, both in confirming and enlarginghis empire" (p. 117); and many of the barbarous tribes were "convertedto the faith" by means of pretended miracles, "pious frauds . .. Verycommonly practised in Gaul and in Spain at this time, in order tocaptivate, with more facility, the minds of a rude and barbarous people, who were scarcely susceptible of a rational conviction" (pp. 117, 118). The supremacy of the see of Rome advanced with rapid strides during thiscentury. The people depending, in their superstitious ignorance, on theclergy, and the clergy on the bishops, it became the interest of thesavage kings to be on friendly terms with the latter, and to increasetheir influence; and as the bishops, in their turn, leant upon thecentral authority of Rome, the power of the pontiff rapidly increased. This power was still further augmented by the struggles for supremacyamong the Eastern bishops, for by favouring sometimes one and sometimesanother, he fostered the habit of looking to Rome for aid. In the East, five "patriarchs" were raised over the rest of the bishops, thePatriarch of Constantinople standing at their head. Thus, East and Westdrifted ever more apart. Mosheim speaks of "the ambitious quarrels andthe bitter animosities that rose among the patriarchs themselves, andwhich produced the most bloody wars, and the most detestable and horridcrimes. The Patriarch of Constantinople distinguished himself in theseodious contests. Elated with the favour and proximity of the ImperialCourt, he cast a haughty eye on all sides, where any objects were to befound on which he might exercise his lordly ambition. On the one hand, he reduced under his jurisdiction the Patriarchs of Alexandria andAntioch, as prelates only of the second order; and on the other, heinvaded the diocese of the Roman Pontiff, and spoiled him of severalprovinces. The two former prelates, though they struggled with vehemenceand raised considerable tumults by their opposition, yet they struggledineffectually, both for want of strength, and likewise on account of avariety of unfavourable circumstances. But the Roman Pontiff, farsuperior to them in wealth and power, contended also with more vigourand obstinacy; and, in his turn, gave a deadly wound to the usurpedsupremacy of the Byzantine Patriarch. The attentive inquirer into theaffairs of the Church, from this period, will find, in the events nowmentioned, the principal source of those most scandalous and deplorabledissensions which divided first the Eastern Church into various sects, and afterwards separated it entirely from that of the West. He will findthat these ignominious schisms flowed chiefly from the unchristiancontentions for dominion and supremacy which reigned among those who setthemselves up for the fathers and defenders of the Church" (p. 123). 

Learning during this century fell lower and lower, in spite of theschools established and fostered by the emperors, and while knowledgediminished, vice increased. "The vices of the clergy were now carried tothe most enormous lengths; and all the writers of this century, whoseprobity and virtue render them worthy of credit, are unanimous in theiraccounts of the luxury, arrogance, avarice, and voluptuousness of thesacerdotal orders. The bishops, particularly those of the first rank, created various delegates or ministers, who managed for them the affairsof their dioceses, and a sort of courts were gradually formed, wherethese pompous ecclesiastics gave audience, and received the homage of acringing multitude" (p. 123). Superstition performed its maddest freakin the Stylites, men "who stood motionless on the tops of pillars;" theoriginal maniac being one Simon, a Syrian, who actually spentthirty-seven years of his life on pillars, the last of which was fortycubits high. Another of the same class spent sixty-eight years in thisuseful manner (see pp. 128, 129, and _note_). The Agapae were abolished, and auricular confession was established, during this century. 

Among the bishops of this century, one name deserves an immortality ofinfamy. It is that of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Under his rule tookplace the terrible murder of Hypatia, that pure and beautiful Platonicteacher, who was dragged by a fanatic mob, headed by Peter the Reader, into the great church of Alexandria, and tortured to death on the stepsof the high altar. Cyril's "hold upon the audiences of the giddy city[Alexandria] was, however, much weakened by Hypatia, the daughter ofTheon, the mathematician, who not only distinguished herself by herexpositions of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, but also by hercomments on the writings of Apollonius and other geometers. Each day, before her academy, stood a long train of chariots; her lecture-room wascrowded with the wealth and fashion of Alexandria. .. . Hypatia and Cyril!Philosophy and bigotry. They cannot exist together. So Cyril felt, andon that feeling he acted. As Hypatia repaired to her academy, she wasassaulted by Cyril's mob--a mob of many monks. Stripped naked in thestreet, she was dragged into a church, and there killed by the club ofPeter the Reader [A. D. 415]. The corpse was cut to pieces, the flesh wasscraped from the bones with shells, and the remnants cast into a fire. For this frightful crime Cyril was never called to account. It seemed tobe admitted that the end sanctified the means" (Draper's "Conflictbetween Religion and Science, " p. 55). 

The heresies of the last century were continued in this, and various newones arose. Chief among these was the heresy of Nestorius, a Bishop ofConstantinople, who distinguished so strongly between the two natures inChrist as to make a double personality, and he regarded the Virgin Maryas mother of _Christ_, but not mother of _God_. The Council of Ephesus(A. D. 431) was called to decide the point, and was presided over by thegreat antagonist of Nestorius, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. The matterwas settled very quickly. Church Councils vote on disputed points, andthe vote of the majority constitutes orthodoxy. The Council was heldbefore the arrival of the bishops who sympathised with Nestorius, andthus, by the simple expedient of getting everything over before theopponents arrived, it was settled for evermore that Christ is one personwith two natures. A heresy of the very opposite character was that ofEutyches, abbot of the monastery in Constantinople. He maintained thatin Christ there was only one nature, "that of the incarnate word, " andhis opinion was endorsed by a council called at Ephesus, A. D. 449; butthis decree was annulled by the Council of Chalcedon (reckoned thefourth OEcumenical), A. D. 451, wherein it was again declared that Christhad two natures in one person. It was at the Council of Ephesus, in A. D. 449, that Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, was so beaten by theother bishops that he died of his wounds, and the bishops who held withhim hid themselves under benches to get out of the way of theirinfuriate brothers in Christ (see notes on pp. 136, 137). TheTheopaschites were a branch of the Eutychian heresy, and theMonophysites were a cognate sect; from these arose the Acephali, Anthropomorphites, Barsanuphites, and Esaianists. Not less importantthan the heresy of Eutyches was that of Pelagius, a British monk, whotaught that man did not inherit original sin on account of Adam's fall, but that each was born unspotted into the world, and was capable ofrising to the height of virtue by the exercise of his natural faculties. The semi-Pelagians held that man could turn to God by his own strength, but that divine grace was necessary to enable him to persevere. 

One heretic of this period deserves a special word of record. Vigilantius was a Gallic priest, remarkable for his eloquence andlearning, and he devoted himself to an effort to reform the Church inSpain. "Among other things, he denied that the tombs and the bones ofthe martyrs were to be honoured with any sort of homage or worship; andtherefore censured pilgrimages that were made to places that werereputed holy. He turned into derision the prodigies which were said tobe wrought in the temples consecrated to martyrs, and condemned thecustom of performing vigils in them. He asserted, and indeed withreason, that the custom of burning tapers at the tombs of the martyrs inbroad day, was imprudently borrowed from the ancient superstition of thePagans. He maintained, moreover, that prayers addressed to departedsaints were void of all efficacy; and treated with contempt fastings andmortifications, the celibacy of the clergy, and the various austeritiesof the monastic life. And finally he affirmed that the conduct of thosewho, distributing their substance among the indigent, submitted to thehardships of a voluntary poverty, or sent a part of their treasures toJerusalem for devout purposes, had nothing in it acceptable to theDeity" (p. 129). Under these circumstances we can scarcely wonder thatVigilantius was scouted as a heretic by all orthodox, lucre-lovingclerics. He is the forerunner of a long line of protesters against theever-growing strength and superstition of the Church. 

CENTURY VI. 

The darkness deepens as we proceed. Christianity spread among thebarbarous tribes of the East and West, but "it must, however, beacknowledged, that of these conversions, the greatest part were owing tothe liberality of the Christian princes, or to the fear of punishment, rather than to the force of argument or to the love of truth. In Gaul, the Jews were compelled by Childeric to receive the ordinance ofbaptism; and the same despotic method of converting was practised inSpain" (p. 141). "They required nothing of these barbarous people thatwas difficult to be performed, or that laid any remarkable restraintupon their appetites and passions. The principal injunctions theyimposed upon these rude proselytes were that they should get by heartcertain summaries of doctrine, and to pay the images of Christ and thesaints the same religious services which they had formerly offered tothe statues of the gods" (p. 142). Libraries were formed in many of themonasteries, and schools were opened, but apparently only for those whointended to enter the monastic life; these, however, did not flourish, for many bishops showed "bitter aversion" towards "every sort oflearning and erudition, which they considered as pernicious to theprogress of piety" (p. 144). "Greek literature was almost everywhereneglected. .. . Philosophy fared still worse than literature; for it wasentirely banished from all the seminaries which were under theinspection and government of the ecclesiastical order" (Ibid). Thewealth of the Church grew apace. "The arts of a rapacious priesthoodwere practised upon the ignorant devotion of the simple; and even theremorse of the wicked was made an instrument of increasing theecclesiastical treasure. For an opinion was propagated with industryamong the people, that the remission of their sins was to be purchasedby their liberalities to the churches and monks" (p. 146). "The monasticorders, in general, abounded with fanatics and profligates; the _latter_were more numerous than the _former_ in the Western convents, while inthose of the East the fanatics were predominant" (ibid). It was in thiscentury (A. D. 529) that the great Benedictine rule was composed byBenedict of Nursia. The Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553, is reckonedas the fifth general Council. It is said to have condemned the doctrinesof Origen, thus summarised by Mosheim:--"1. That in the Trinity the_Father_ is greater than the _Son_, and the _Son_ than the _Holy Ghost_. 2. The _pre-existence_ of souls, which Origen considered as sent intomortal bodies for the punishment of sins committed in a former state ofbeing. 3. That the _soul_ of Christ was united to the _word_ before theincarnation. 4. That the sun, moon, and stars, etc. , were animated andendowed with rational souls. 5. That after the resurrection all bodieswill be of a round figure. 6. That the torments of the damned will havean end; and that as Christ had been crucified in this world to savemankind, he is to be crucified in the next to save the devils" (p. 151, note). Among the various notabilities of this age none are speciallyworthy attention, save Brethius, Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great, Benedict of Nursia, Gregory of Tours, and Isidore of Seville. Theheresies of former centuries continued during this, and severalunimportant additional sects sprang up. The Monophysites gained instrength under Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, and became known as Jacobites, and exist to this day in Abyssinia and America. Six small sects grew upamong the Monophysites and died away again, which held varying opinionsabout the nature of the body of Christ We find also the Corrupticolæ, Agnoetæ, Tritheists, Philoponists, Cononites, and Damianists, the fourlast of which differed as to the nature of the Trinity. Thus was rentinto innumerable factions the supposed-to-be-indivisible Christianity, and the most bloody persecutions disgraced the uppermost party of themoment. 

CENTURY VII. 

Many are the missionary enterprises of this century, and we find themissionaries grasping at temporal power, and exercising a "princelyauthority over the countries where their ministry had been successful"(p. 157). Learning had almost vanished; "they, who distinguishedthemselves most by their taste and genius, carried their studies littlefarther than the works of Augustine and Gregory the Great; and it is ofscraps collected out of these two writers, and patched together withoutmuch uniformity, that the best productions of this century are entirelycomposed. .. . The schools which had been committed to the care andinspection of the bishops, whose ignorance and indolence were now becomeenormous, began to decline apace, and were in many places, fallen intoruin. The bishops in general were so illiterate, that few of that bodywere capable of composing the discourses which they delivered to thepeople. Such of them as were not totally destitute of genius, composedout of the writings of Augustine and Gregory a certain number of insipidhomilies, which they divided between themselves, and their stupidcolleagues, that they might not be obliged through incapacity todiscontinue preaching the doctrines of Christianity to their people" (p. 159). "The progress of vice among the subordinate rulers and ministersof the Church was, at this time, truly deplorable. .. . In those veryplaces, that were consecrated to the advancement of piety and theservice of God, there was little else to be seen than ghostly ambition, insatiable avarice, pious frauds, intolerable pride, and a superciliouscontempt of the natural rights of the people, with many other vicesstill more enormous" (p. 161). The wealth of the Church increasedrapidly; it grew fat on the wages of sin. "Abandoned profligates, whohad passed their days in the most enormous pursuits, and whose guiltyconsciences filled them with terror and remorse, were comforted with thedelusive hopes of obtaining pardon, and making atonement for theircrimes by leaving the greatest part of their fortune to some monasticsociety. Multitudes, impelled by the unnatural dictates of a gloomysuperstition, deprived their children of fertile lands and richpatrimonies in favour of the monks, by whose prayers they hoped torender the Deity propitious" (p. 161). The only new sect of anyimportance in this century is that of the Monothelites, later known asMaronites; they taught that Christ had but one will, but the doctrine iswrapped up in so many subtleties as to be almost incomprehensible. Theywere condemned, in the sixth General Council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 680. It was during this century that "Boniface V. Enacted thatinfamous law, by which the churches became places of refuge to all whofled thither for protection; a law which procured a sort of impunity tothe most enormous crimes, and gave a loose rein to the licentiousness ofthe most abandoned profligates" (p. 164). The effect of this law wasthat the monasteries became the refuge of bandits and murderers, whoissued from them to plunder and to destroy, and paid for the security oftheir persons by bestowing on their hosts a portion of the spoil theyhad collected during their raids. Such were the civilizing and purifyingeffects of Christianity. 

CENTURY VIII. 

Winfred, better known as Boniface, "the Apostle of Germany, " is, perhaps, the chief ecclesiastical figure of this century. He taughtChristianity right through Germany; was consecrated bishop in A. D. 723, created archbishop in A. D. 738, and Primate of Germany and Belgium inA. D. 746; in A. D. 755 he was murdered in Friesland, with fifty otherecclesiastics. Much stress is laid upon his martyrdom by Christianwriters, but Boniface, after all, only received from the Frieslandersthe measure he had meted out to their brethren, and there seems no goodreason why Christian missionaries should claim a monopoly of the rightto kill. Mosheim allows that he "often employed violence and terror, andsometimes artifice and fraud" (p. 169) in order to gain converts, and hewas supported by Charles Martel, the enemy of Friesland, and appearedamong the Germans as the friend and agent of their foes. A few yearslater, Charlemagne spread Christianity among the Saxons with greatvigour. For "a war broke out, at this time, between Charlemagne and theSaxons, which contributed much to the propagation of Christianity, though not by the force of a rational persuasion. The Saxons were, atthis time, a numerous and formidable people, who inhabited aconsiderable part of Germany, and were engaged in perpetual quarrelswith the Franks concerning their boundaries, and other matters ofcomplaint. Hence Charlemagne turned his armies against this powerfulnation, A. D. 772, with a design not only to subdue that spirit of revoltwith which they had so often troubled the empire, but also to abolishtheir idolatrous worship, and engage them to embrace the Christianreligion. He hoped, by their conversion, to vanquish their obstinacy, imagining that the divine precepts of the Gospel would assuage theirimpetuous and restless passions, mitigate their ferocity, and inducethem to submit more tamely to the government of the Franks. Theseprojects were great in idea, but difficult in execution; accordingly, the first attempt to convert the Saxons, after having subdued them, wasunsuccessful, because it was made without the aid of violence, orthreats, by the bishops and monks, whom the victor had left among thatconquered people, whose obstinate attachment to idolatry no argumentsnor exhortations could overcome. [Mark the _naïveté_ of thisconfession. ] More forcible means were afterwards used to draw them intothe pale of the Church, in the wars which Charlemagne carried on in theyears 775, 776, and 780, against that valiant people, whose love ofliberty was excessive, and whose aversion to the restraints ofsacerdotal authority was inexpressible. During these wars theirattachment to the superstition of their ancestors was so warmly combatedby the allurements of reward, by the terror of punishment, and by theimperious language of victory, that they suffered themselves to bebaptised, though with inward reluctance, by the missionaries, which theemperor sent among them for that purpose" (p. 170). Rebellion broke outonce more, headed by the two most powerful Saxon chiefs, but they werewon over by Charlemagne, who persuaded them "to make a public and solemnprofession of Christianity, in the year 785, and to promise an adherenceto that divine religion for the rest of their days. To prevent, however, the Saxons from renouncing a religion which they had embraced withreluctance, several bishops were appointed to reside among them, schoolsalso were erected, and monasteries founded, that the means ofinstruction might not be wanting. The same precautions were employedamong the Huns in Pannonia, to maintain in the profession ofChristianity that fierce people whom Charlemagne had converted to thefaith, when, exhausted and dejected by various defeats, they were nolonger able to make head against his victorious arms, and chose ratherto be Christians than slaves" (p. 170). The grateful Church canonizedCharlemagne, the brutal soldier who had so enlarged her borders; "not toenter into a particular detail of his vices, whose numbercounter-balanced that of his virtues, it is undeniably evident that hisardent and ill-conducted zeal for the conversion of the Huns, Frieslanders, and Saxons, was more animated by the suggestions ofambition, than by a principle of true piety; and that his main view inthese religious exploits was to subdue the converted nations under hisdominion, and to tame them to his yoke, which they supported withimpatience, and shook off by frequent revolts. It is, moreover, wellknown, that this boasted saint made no scruple of seeking the allianceof the infidel Saracens, that he might be more effectually enabled tocrush the Greeks, notwithstanding their profession of the Christianreligion" (p. 171). Thus was Christianity spread by fire and sword, andwhere-ever the cross passed it left its track in blood. While thesoldiers thus converted the heathen, "the clergy abandoned themselves totheir passions without moderation or restraint; they were distinguishedby their luxury, their gluttony, and their lust" (p. 173). To theseevils was added that of gross deception, for a bad clergy used badweapons; false miracles abounded in every direction; "the corruptdiscipline that then prevailed admitted of those fallacious stratagems, which are very improperly called _pious_ frauds; nor did the heralds ofthe gospel think it at all unlawful to terrify or to allure to theprofession of Christianity, by fictitious prodigies, those obduratehearts which they could not subdue by reason and argument" (p. 171). Thewealth of the Church increased year by year. "An opinion prevaileduniversally at this time, though its authors are not known, that thepunishment which the righteous judge of the world has reserved for thetransgressions of the wicked, was to be prevented and annulled byliberal donations to God, to the saints, to the churches and clergy. Inconsequence of this notion, the great and opulent--who were, generallyspeaking, the most remarkable for their flagitious and abominablelives--offered, out of the abundance which they had received byinheritance or acquired by rapine, rich donations to departed saints, their ministers upon earth, and the keepers of the temples that wereerected in their honour, in order to avoid the sufferings and penaltiesannexed by the priests to transgression in this life, and to escape themisery denounced against the wicked in a future state. This new andcommodious method of making atonement for iniquity was the principalsource of those immense treasures which, from this period, began to flowin upon the clergy, the churches, and monasteries, and continued toenrich them through succeeding ages down to the present time" (p. 174). Another source of wealth is to be found in the desire of the kings ofthe various warring tribes to attach to themselves the bishop and clergyin their dominions; by bestowing on these lands and dignities theysecured to themselves the aid which the Church officials had it in theirpower to render, for not only could bishops bring to the support oftheir suzerain the physical succour of armies, but they could alsolaunch against his enemies that terrible bolt of mediaeval times, excommunication, which, "rendered formidable by ignorance, struck terrorinto the boldest and most resolute hearts" (p. 174). In these lattergifts we see the origin of the temporalities and titles attached toepiscopal sees and to cathedral chapters. During this century the powerof the Roman Pontiff swelled to an enormous degree, and his swayextended into civil and political affairs: so supreme an authority hadhe become that, in A. D. 751, the Frankish states of the realm--convokedby Pepin to sanction his design of seizing on the French throne, thenoccupied by Childeric III. --directed that an embassy should be sent tothe Pope Zachary, to ask whether it was not right that a weak monarchshould be dethroned; and on the answer of the Pope in the affirmativebeing received, Childeric was dethroned without opposition, and Pepinwas crowned in his stead. 

In the East, the Church was torn with dissensions, while the imperialthrone was rocking under the repeated attacks of the Turks--a tribedescended from the Tartars--who entered Armenia, struggled with theSaracens for dominion, subdued them partially, and then turned theirarms against the Greek empire. The great controversy of this century isthat on the worship of images, between the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae(image worshippers), and the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae (imagebreakers). The Emperor Bardanes, a supporter of the Monothelite heresy, ordered that a picture representing the sixth general council should beremoved from the Church of St. Sophia, because that council hadcondemned the Monothelites. Not content with doing this (A. D. 712), Bardanes sent an order to Rome that all pictures and images of the samenature should be removed from places of worship. Constantine, the Pope, immediately set up six pictures, representing the six general councils, in the porch of St. Peter's, and called a council at Rome, whichdenounced the Emperor as an apostate. Bardanes was dethroned by arevolution, but his successor, Leo, soon took up the quarrel. In A. D. 726, he issued an imperial edict commanding the removal of all imagesfrom the churches and forbidding all image worship, save only thoserepresenting the crucifixion of Christ. Pope Gregory I. Excommunicatedthe Emperor, and insurrections broke out all over the empire inconsequence; the Emperor retorted by calling a council atConstantinople, which deposed the bishop of that city for his leaningstowards image worship, and put a supporter of the Emperor in his place. The contest was carried on by Constantine, who succeeded his father, Leo, in A. D. 741, and who, in A. D. 754, called a council, atConstantinople--recognised by the Greek Church as the seventh generalcouncil--which condemned the use and worship of images. Leo IV. (A. D. 775) issued penal laws against image worshippers, but he was poisoned byIrene, his wife, in A. D. 780, and she entered into an alliance with PopeAdrian, so that the Iconoduli became triumphant in their turn. Whilethis controversy raged, a second arose as to the procession of the HolyGhost. The creed of Constantinople (see ante, p. 434) ran--"I believe inthe Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from theFather;" to this phrase the words, "and the Son, " had been added in theWest, originally by some Spanish bishops; the Greeks protested againstan unauthorised addition being inserted into a creed promulgated by ageneral council, and received by the universal Church as the symbol offaith. Thus arose the celebrated controversy on the "Filioque, " whichwas one of the chief causes of the great schism between the Eastern andWestern Churches in the ninth century. 

The Arian, Manichæan, Marcionite, and Monothelite heresies spread, during this century, through the Greek Church, and, where the Arabiansruled, the Nestorians and Monophysites also flourished. In the LatinChurch a phase of the Nestorian heresy made its way, under the name ofAdoptianism, a name given because its adherents regarded Christ, so faras his manhood was concerned, as the Son of God by adoption only. 

CENTURY IX. 

Christendom, during this century, as during the preceding one, wasthreatened and harassed by the inroads of Mahommedan powers, and thefirst gleams of returning light began to penetrate its thickdarkness--light proceeding from the Arabians and the Saracens, therestorers of knowledge and of science. It is not here our duty to tracethat marvellous work of the revival of thought--thought whichChristianity had slain, but which, revived by Mahommedanism, wasdestined to issue in the new birth of heretic philosophy. While thiswork was proceeding among the Saracens, the Arabians, and the Moors, Christendom went on its way, degraded, vicious, and superstitious; onlyhere and there an effort at learning was made, and some few went to theArabian schools, and returned with some tincture of knowledge. JohnScotus Erigena, a subtle and acute thinker, left behind him works whichhave made some regard him as the founder of the _Realist_ school of themiddle ages, the school which followed Aristotle, in opposition to the_Nominalists_, who held with Zeno and the Stoics. Erigena taught thatthe soul would be re-absorbed into the divine spirit, from which it hadoriginally emanated; from God all things had come--to Him would theyultimately return; God alone was eternal, and in the end nothing but Godwould exist. Some of Erigena's works naturally fell under thedispleasure of the Church, and were duly burned: he was a philosopher, and therefore dangerous. 

While this slight effort at thought was thus frowned upon, vice made itsway unchecked and unrebuked by the authorities. "The impiety andlicentiousness of the greater part of the clergy arose, at this time, toan enormous height, and stand upon record in the unanimous complaints ofthe most candid and impartial writers of this century. In the East, tumult, discord, conspiracies, and treason reigned uncontrolled, and allthings were carried by violence and force. These abuses appeared in manythings, but particularly in the election of the Patriarchs ofConstantinople. .. . In the western provinces, the bishops were becomevoluptuous and effeminate to a very high degree. They passed their livesamidst the splendour of courts, and the pleasures of a luxuriousindolence, which corrupted their taste, extinguished their zeal, andrendered them incapable of performing the solemn duties of theirfunction; while the inferior clergy were sunk in licentiousness, mindednothing but sensual gratifications, and infected with the most heinousvices the flock whom it was the very business of their ministry topreserve, or to deliver from the contagion of iniquity. Besides, theignorance of the sacred order was, in many places, so deplorable thatfew of them could either read or write, and still fewer were capable ofexpressing their wretched notions with any degree of method orperspicuity" (p. 193). "Many other causes also contributed to dishonourthe Church, by introducing into it a corrupt ministry. A nobleman who, through want of talents, activity, or courage, was rendered incapable ofappearing with dignity in the cabinet, or with honour in the field, immediately turned his views towards the Church, aimed at adistinguished place among its chiefs and rulers, and became, inconsequence, a contagious example of stupidity and vice to the inferiorclergy. The patrons of churches, in whom resided the right of election, unwilling to submit their disorderly conduct to the keen censure ofzealous and upright pastors, industriously looked for the most abject, ignorant, and worthless ecclesiastics, to whom they committed the cureof souls" (p. 193). Of the Roman pontiffs, Mosheim says: "The greatestpart of them are only known by the flagitious actions that havetransmitted their names with infamy to our times" (p. 194). And "theenormous vices that must have covered so many pontiffs with infamy inthe judgment of the wise, formed not the least obstacle to theirambition in these memorable times, nor hindered them from extendingtheir influence and augmenting their authority both in church and state"(p. 195). Among the vast mass of forgeries which gradually built up thesupremacy of the Roman see, the famous Isidorian Decretals deserve aword of notice. They were issued about A. D. 845, and consisted of "aboutone hundred pretended decrees of the early Popes, together with certainspurious writings of other church dignitaries and acts of synods. Thisforgery produced an immense extension of the papal power. It displacedthe old system of church government, divesting it of the republicanattributes it had possessed, and transforming it into an absolutemonarchy. It brought the bishops into subjection to Rome, and made thepontiff the supreme judge of the clergy of the whole Christian world. Itprepared the way for the great attempt, subsequently made by Hildebrand, to convert the states of Europe into a theocratic priest kingdom, withthe Pope at its head" (Draper's "Conflict of Religion and Science, " p. 271). We note during this century a remarkable growth of saints. Everyone wanted a saint through whom to approach God, and the supplykept pace with the demand. "This preposterous multiplication of saintswas a new source of abuses and frauds. It was thought necessary to writethe lives of these celestial patrons, in order to procure for them theveneration and confidence of a deluded multitude; and here lying wonderswere invented, and all the resources of forgery and fable exhausted tocelebrate exploits which had never been performed, and to perpetuate thememory of holy persons who had never existed" (p. 200). The contest onimages still raged furiously, success being now on the one side, now onthe other; various councils were called by either party, until, in A. D. 879, a council at Constantinople, reckoned by the Greeks as the eighthgeneral council, sanctioned the worship of images, which thereaftertriumphed in the East. In the West, the opposition to image-worshipgradually died away. The _Filioque_ contest also continued hotly andwidened the breach between East and West yet more. The final separationwas not long delayed. The ever-increasing jealousy between Rome andConstantinople had at last reached a height which made even nominalunion impossible, and the smouldering fire burst into sudden flame. InA. D. 858 Photius was made Patriarch of Constantinople, by the EmperorMichael, in the room of Ignatius, deprived and banished by that prince. A council, held at Constantinople in A. D. 861, endorsed the appointmentof the emperor; but Ignatius appealed to Rome, and Pope Nicholas I. Readily took up his quarrel. A council was held at Rome, in A. D. 862, inwhich the pontiff excommunicated Photius and his adherents. It wasanswered by one at Constantinople, in A. D. 866, wherein Nicholas waspronounced unworthy of his office and outside the pale of Christiancommunion. Yet another council of Constantinople, A. D. 869, approved theaction of Basilius, the new emperor, who recalled Ignatius, andimprisoned Photius. When Ignatius died, Photius was reinstated (A. D. 878), and he was acknowledged by the Roman pontiff, John VIII. , atanother council of Constantinople, A. D. 879, on the understanding thatthe jurisdiction over Bulgaria, claimed both by Pope and Patriarch, should be definitely yielded to Rome. This, however, was not done; andthe Pope sent a legate to Constantinople, recalling his declaration infavour of Photius. The legate, Marinus, was cast into prison; and whenhe was later raised to the pontificate, he remembered the outrage, andanew excommunicated Photius. A. D. 886 saw the fall and imprisonment ofPhotius, and union might have been maintained but for the extravagantdemands of the Roman pontiff, who required the degradation of allpriests and bishops ordained by Photius. The Greeks indignantly refused, and at last the great schism took place, which severed from each otherentirely the Eastern and the Western Churches. 

The ancient heresy of the Paulicians had not yet died out, spite ofhaving suffered much persecution at Catholic hands, and under theEmperors Michael and Leo, a fierce attack upon these unfortunate beingstook place. They were hunted down and executed without mercy, and atlast they turned upon their persecutors, and revenged themselves bymurdering the bishop, magistrates, and judges in Armenia, after whichthey fled to the countries under Saracen rule. After a while, theygradually returned to the Greek empire; but when the Empress Theodorawas regent, during her son's minority, she issued a stern decree againstthem. "The decree was severe, but the cruelty with which it was put inexecution, by those who were sent into Armenia for that purpose, washorrible beyond expression; for these ministers of wrath, afterconfiscating the goods of above a hundred thousand of that miserablepeople, put their possessors to death in the most barbarous manner, andmade them expire slowly in a variety of the most exquisite tortures" (p. 212). 

In addition to the heresies inherited from the previous centuries, threenew ones, important in their issues, arose to divide yet more thedivided indivisible Church. A monk, named Pascasius Radbert, wrote atreatise (A. D. 831 and 845), in which he maintained that, at theEucharist, the substance of the bread and wine became changed, byconsecration, into the body and blood of Christ, and that this body "wasthe same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered upon the cross, and was raised from the dead" (p. 205). Charles the Bald bade Erigenaand Ratramn (or Bertramn) draw up the true doctrine of the Church, andthe long controversy began which is continued even in the present day. The second great dispute arose on the question of predestination anddivine grace. Godeschalcus, an eminent Saxon monk, returning from Romein A. D. 847, resided for a space in Verona, where he spoke much onpredestination, affirming that God had, from all eternity, predestinedsome to heaven and others to hell. He was condemned at a council held inMayence, A. D. 848, and in the following year, at another council, he wasagain condemned, and was flogged until he burned, with his own hand, theapology for his opinions he had presented at Mayence. The third greatcontroversy regarded the manner of Christ's birth, and monks furiouslydisputed whether or no Christ was born after the fashion of otherinfants. The details of this dispute need not here be entered into. 

CENTURY X. 

"The deplorable state of Christianity in this century, arising partlyfrom that astonishing ignorance that gave a loose rein both tosuperstition and immorality, and partly from an unhappy concurrence ofcauses of another kind, is unanimously lamented by the various writerswho have transmitted to us the history of these miserable times" (p. 213). Yet "the gospel" spread. The Normans embraced "a religion of whichthey were totally ignorant" (p. 214), A. D. 912, because Charles theSimple of France offered Count Rollo a large territory on condition thathe would marry his daughter and embrace Christianity: Rollo gladlyaccepted the territory and its encumbrances. Poland came next into thefold of the Church, for the Duke of Poland, Micislaus, was persuaded byhis wife to profess Christianity, A. D. 965, and Pope John III. Promptlysent a bishop and a train of priests to convert the duke's subjects. "But the exhortations and endeavours of these devout missionaries, whowere unacquainted with the language of the people they came to instruct[how effective must have been their arguments!] would have been entirelywithout effect, had they not been accompanied with the edicts and penallaws, the promises and threats of Micislaus, which dejected the courageand conquered the obstinacy of the reluctant Poles" (p. 214). "TheChristian religion was established in Russia by means every way similarto those that had occasioned its propagation in Poland" (p. 215); theGreek wife of the Russian duke persuaded him to adopt her creed, and hewas baptized A. D. 987. Mosheim assumes that the Russian people followedtheir princes of their own accord, since "we have, at least, no accountof any compulsion or violence being employed in their conversion" (p. 215); if the Russians adopted Christianity without compulsion orviolence, all we can say is, that their conversion is unique. The Daneswere converted in A. D. 949, Otto the Great having defeated them, andhaving made it an imperative condition of peace, that they shouldprofess Christianity. The Norwegians accepted the religion of Jesus onthe same terms. Thus the greater part of Europe became Christian, and weeven hear a cry raised by Pope Sylvester II. For the deliverance ofPalestine from the Mahommedans--for a holy war. Christianity having nowbecome so strong, learning had become proportionately weak; it had beensinking lower and lower during each succeeding epoch, and in this tenthcentury it reached its deepest stage of degradation. "The deplorableignorance of this barbarous age, in which the drooping arts wereentirely neglected, and the sciences seemed to be upon the point ofexpiring for want of encouragement, is unanimously confessed andlamented by all the writers who have transmitted to us any accounts ofthis period of time" (p. 218). In vain a more enlightened emperor in theEast strove to revive learning and encourage study: "many of the mostcelebrated authors of antiquity were lost, at this time, through thesloth and negligence of the Greeks" (p. 219). "Nor did the cause ofphilosophy fare better than that of literature. Philosophers, indeed, there were; and, among them, some that were not destitute of genius andabilities; but none who rendered their names immortal by productionsthat were worthy of being transmitted to posterity" (p. 219). So low, under the influence of Christianity, had sunk the literature ofGreece--Greece Pagan, which once brought forth Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Euclid, Zenophon, and many another mighty one, whose fame rollsdown the ages--that Greece had become Greece Christian, and the vitalityof her motherhood had been drained from her, and left her withoutstrength to conceive men. In the West things were yet worse--instead ofRome Pagan, that had spread light and civilization--the Rome of Cicero, of Virgil, of Lucretius--we have Rome Christian, spreader of darknessand of degradation, the Rome of the Popes and the monks. The Latins"were, almost without exception, sunk in the most brutish and barbarousignorance, so that, according to the unanimous accounts of the mostcredible writers, nothing could be more melancholy and deplorable thanthe darkness that reigned in the western world during this century. .. . In the seminaries of learning, such as they were, the seven liberalsciences were taught in the most unskilful and miserable manner, andthat by the monks, who esteemed the arts and sciences no further than asthey were subservient to the interests of religion, or, to speak moreproperly, to the views of superstition" (p. 219). But the light fromArabia was struggling to penetrate Christendom. Gerbert, a native ofFrance, travelled into Spain, and studied in the Arabian schools ofCordova and Seville, under Arabian doctors; he developed mathematicalability, and returned into Christendom with some amount of learning:raised to the papal throne, under the name of Sylvester II. , he tried torestore the study of science and philosophy, and found that hisgeometrical figures "were regarded by the monks as magical operations, "and he himself "as a magician and a disciple of Satan" (p. 220). 

The vice of the clergy was something terrible. "These corruptions weremounted to the most enormous height in that dismal period of the Churchwhich we have now before us. Both in the eastern and western provinces, the clergy were, for the most part, composed of a most worthless set ofmen, shamefully illiterate and stupid, ignorant, more especially inreligious matters, equally enslaved to sensuality and superstition, andcapable of the most abominable and flagitious deeds. This dismaldegeneracy of the sacred order was, according to the most credibleaccounts, principally owing to the pretended chiefs and rulers of theuniversal Church, who indulged themselves in the commission of the mostodious crimes, and abandoned themselves to the lawless impulse of themost licentious passions without reluctance or remorse--who confounded, in short, all difference between just and unjust, to satisfy theirimpious ambition, and whose spiritual empire was such a diversifiedscene of iniquity and violence as never was exhibited under any of thosetemporal tyrants who have been the scourges of mankind" (p. 221). Suchis the verdict passed on Christian rule by a Christian historian. In theEast we see such men as Theophylact; "this _exemplary_ prelate, who soldevery ecclesiastical benefice as soon as it became vacant, had in hisstable above 2000 hunting horses, which he fed with pignuts, pistachios, dates, dried grapes, figs steeped in the most exquisite wines, to allwhich he added the richest perfumes. One Holy Thursday, as he wascelebrating high-mass, his groom brought him the joyful news that one ofhis favourite mares had foaled; upon which he threw down the Liturgy, left the church, and ran in raptures to the stable, where, havingexpressed his joy at that grand event, he returned to the altar tofinish the divine service, which he had left interrupted during hisabsence" (p. 221, note). We shall see, in a moment, how the masses ofthe people were housed and fed while such insane luxury surroundedhorses. In the west, the weary tale of the Roman pontiffs cannot all benarrated here. Take the picture as drawn by Hallam: "This drearyinterval is filled up, in the annals of the papacy, by a series ofrevolutions and crimes. Six popes were deposed, two murdered, onemutilated. Frequently two, or even three, competitors, among whom it isnot always possible by any genuine criticism to distinguish the trueshepherd, drove each other alternately from the city. A few respectablenames appear thinly scattered through this darkness; and sometimes, perhaps, a pope who had acquired estimation by his private virtues maybe distinguished by some encroachment on the rights of princes, or theprivileges of national churches. But, in general, the pontiffs of thatage had neither leisure nor capacity to perfect the great system oftemporal supremacy, and looked rather to a vile profit from the sale ofepiscopal confirmations, or of exemptions to monasteries. The corruptionof the head extended naturally to all other members of the Church. Allwriters concur in stigmatizing the dissoluteness and neglect of decencythat prevailed among the clergy. Though several codes of ecclesiasticaldiscipline had been compiled by particular prelates, yet neither thesenor the ancient canons were much regarded. The bishops, indeed, who wereto enforce them, had most occasion to dread their severity. They wereobtruded upon their sees, as the supreme pontiffs were upon that ofRome, by force or corruption. A child of five years old was madeArchbishop of Rheims. The see of Narbonne was purchased for another atthe age of ten" ("Europe during the Middle Ages, " p. 353, ed. 1869). John X. Made pope at the solicitation of his mistress Theodora, themother-in-law of the sovereign, and murdered at the instance ofTheodora's daughter, Marozia; John XI. , illegitimate son of the sameMarozia, and of the celibate pontiff, Sergius III. ; Boniface VII. Expelled, banished, returning and murdering the reigning pope: whatavails it to chronicle these monsters? Below the popes, a clergy asvicious as their rulers, squandering money, plundered from the people indissoluteness and luxury. And the people, what of them?

As late as A. D. 1430 the houses of the peasantry were "constructed ofstones put together without mortar; the roofs were of turf--a stiffenedbull's-hide served for a door. The food consisted of coarse vegetableproducts, such as peas, and even the bark of trees. In some places theywere unacquainted with bread. Cabins of reeds plastered with mud, housesof wattled stakes, chimneyless peat fires, from which there was scarcelyan escape for the smoke, dens of physical and moral pollution swarmingwith vermin, wisps of straw twisted round the limbs to keep off thecold, the ague-stricken peasant with no help except shrine-cure, " i. E. , cure by the touching bone of saint, or image of virgin (Draper's"Conflict between Religion and Science, " p. 265). Even among thewealthy, the life was coarse and rough; carpets were unknown; drainagenever thought of. The Anglo-Saxon "'nobles, devoted to gluttony andvoluptuousness, never visited the church, but the matins and the masswere read over to them by a hurrying priest in their bed-chambers, before they rose, themselves not listening. The common people were aprey to the more powerful; their property was seized, their bodiesdragged away to distant countries; their maidens were either thrown intoa brothel or sold for slaves. Drinking, day and night, was the generalpursuit: vices, the companions of inebriety, followed, effeminating themanly mind. ' The baronial castles were dens of robbers. The Saxonchronicler [William of Malmesbury, from whom the quotation above]records how men and women were caught and dragged into thosestrongholds, hung up by their thumbs or feet, fire applied to them, knotted strings twisted round their heads, and many other tormentsinflicted to extort ransom" (Ibid, p. 266). When the barons had nearlyfinished their evil lives, the church stepped in, claiming her share ofthe plunder and the wealth thus amassed, and opening the gates ofparadise to the dying thief. The cities were as wretched as theirinhabitants: no paving, no cleaning, no lighting. In the country the oldRoman roads were unmended, unkept; Europe was slipping backwards intouttermost barbarism. Meanwhile things were very different where theblighting power of Christianity was not in the ascendant. "Europe at thepresent day does not offer more taste, more refinement, more elegance, than might have been seen, at the epoch of which we are speaking, in thecapitals of the Spanish Arabs. Their streets were lighted and solidlypaved. The houses were frescoed and carpeted; they were warmed in winterby furnaces, and cooled in summer with perfumed air brought byunderground pipes from flower-beds. They had baths, and libraries, anddining-halls, fountains of quicksilver and water. City and country werefull of conviviality, and of dancing to the lute and mandolin. Insteadof the drunken and gluttonous wassail orgies of their northernneighbours, the feasts of the Saracens were marked by sobriety. Wine wasprohibited. .. . In the tenth century, the Khalif Hakem II. Had madebeautiful Andalusia the paradise of the world. Christians, Mussulmans, Jews, mixed together without restraint. .. . All learned men, no matterfrom what country they came, or what their religious views, werewelcomed. The khalif had in his palace a manufactory of books, andcopyists, binders, illuminators. He kept book-buyers in all the greatcities of Asia and Africa. His library contained 400, 000 volumes, superbly bound and illuminated" (Ibid, pp. 141, 142). When theChristians in the fifteenth century seized "beautiful Andalusia, " theyerected the Inquisition, burned the books, burned the people, banishedthe Jews and the Moors, and founded the miserable land known as modernSpain. 

There was but little heresy during this melancholy century; people didnot think enough even to think badly. The Paulicians spread throughBulgaria, and established themselves there under a patriarch of theirown. Some Arians still existed. Some Anthropomorphites gave sometrouble, maintaining that God sat on a golden throne, and was served byangels with wings: their "heresy" is, however, directly supported by theScriptures. A. D. 999, a man named Lentard began to speak against theworship of images, and the payment of tithes to priests, and assertedthat in the Old Testament prophecies truth and falsehood are mingled. His disciples seem to have merged into the Albigenses in the nextcentury. 

The year A. D. 1000 deserves a special word of notice. Christians fanciedthat the world was to last for but one thousand years after the birth ofChrist, and that it would therefore come to an end in A. D. 1000. "Manycharters begin with these words: 'As the world is now drawing to itsclose. ' An army marching under the emperor Otho I. Was so terrified byan eclipse of the sun, which it conceived to announce this consummation, as to disperse hastily on all sides" ("Europe during the Middle Ages, "Hallam, P. 599) "Prodigious numbers of people abandoned all their civilconnections, and their parental relations, and giving over to thechurches or monasteries all their lands, treasures, and worldly effects, repaired with the utmost precipitation to Palestine, where they imaginedthat Christ would descend to judge the world. Others devoted themselvesby a solemn and voluntary oath to the service of the churches, convents, and priesthood, whose slaves, they became in the most rigorous sense ofthat word, performing daily their heavy tasks; and all this from anotion that the Supreme Judge would diminish the severity of theirsentence, and look upon them with a more favourable and propitious eye, on account of their having made themselves the slaves of his ministers. When an eclipse of the sun or moon happened to be visible, the citieswere deserted, and their miserable inhabitants fled for refuge to hollowcaverns, and hid themselves among the craggy rocks, and under thebending summits of steep mountains. The opulent attempted to bribe theDeity and the saintly tribe, by rich donations conferred upon thesacerdotal and monastic orders, who were looked upon as the immediatevicegerents of heaven" (p. 226). Thus the Church still reaped wealth outof the fear of the people she deluded, and while fields lay unsown, andhouses stood unrepaired, and the foundations of famine were laid, MotherChurch gathered lands and money into her capacious lap, and troubledlittle about the starving children, provided she herself could wax faton the good things of the world which she professed to have renounced. 

CENTURY XI. 

The Prussians, during this century, were driven into the fold of theChurch. A Christian missionary, Adalbert, bishop of Prague, had beenmurdered by the "fierce and savage Prussians, " and in order to show thecivilising results of the gentle Christian creed, Boleslaus, king ofPoland, entered "into a bloody war with the Prussians, and he obtained, by the force of penal laws and of a victorious, army, what Adalbertcould not effect by exhortation and argument. He dragooned this savagepeople into the Christian Church" (p. 230). Some of his followers trieda gentler method of conversion, and were murdered by the Prussians, whoclearly saw no reason why Christians should do all the killing. We havealready seen that Sylvester II. Called upon the Christian princes tocommence a "holy war" against "the infidels" who held the holy places ofChristianity. Gregory VII. Strove to stir them up in like fashion, andhad gathered together an army of upwards of 50, 000 men, whom he proposedto lead in person into Palestine. The Pope, however, quarrelled withHenry IV. , emperor of Germany, and his project fell through. At theclose of this century, the long-talked of effort was made. Peter theHermit, who had travelled through Palestine, came into Europe andrelated in all directions tales of the sufferings of the Christiansunder the rule of the "barbarous" Saracens. He appealed to Urban II. , the then Pope, and Urban, who at first discouraged him, seeing thatPeter had succeeded in rousing the most warlike nations of ChristianEurope into enthusiasm, called a council at Placentia, A. D. 1095, andappealed to the Christian princes to take up the cause of the Cross. Thecouncil was not successful, and Urban summoned another at Clermont, andhimself addressed the assembly. "It is the will of God" was the shoutthat answered him, and the people flew to arms. "Every means was used toexcite an epidemical frenzy, the remission of penance, the dispensationfrom those practices of self-denial which superstition imposed orsuspended at pleasure, the absolution of all sins, and the assurance ofeternal felicity. None doubted that such as persisted in the warreceived immediately the reward of martyrdom. False miracles andfanatical prophecies, which were never so frequent, wrought up theenthusiasm to a still higher pitch. [Mosheim states, p. 231, that Peterthe Hermit carried about with him a letter from heaven, calling on alltrue Christians to deliver their brethren from the infidel yoke. ] Andthese devotional feelings, which are usually thwarted and balanced byother passions, fell in with every motive that could influence the menof that time, with curiosity, restlessness, the love of licence, thirstfor war, emulation, ambition. Of the princes who assumed the cross, some, probably from the beginning, speculated upon forming independentestablishments in the East. In later periods, the temporal benefits ofundertaking a crusade undoubtedly blended themselves with less selfishconsiderations. Men resorted to Palestine, as in modern times they havedone to the colonies, in order to redeem their time, or repair theirfortune. Thus Gui de Lusignan, after flying from France for murder, wasultimately raised to the throne of Jerusalem. To the more vulgar classwere held out inducements which, though absorbed in the more overrulingfanaticism of the first crusade, might be exceedingly efficacious whenit began rather to flag. During the time that a crusader bore the cross, he was free from suit for his debts, and the interest of them wasentirely abolished; he was exempted, in some instances, at least, fromtaxes, and placed under the protection of the Church, so that he couldnot be impleaded in any civil court, except on criminal charges, ordisputes relating to land" ("Europe during the Middle Ages, " Hallam, pp. 29, 30). Thus fanaticism and earthly pleasures and benefits all pushedmen in the same direction, and Europe flung itself upon Palestine. Men, women, and children, poured eastwards in that first crusade, and thismixed vanguard of the coming army of warriors was led by Peter theHermit and Gaultier Sans-Avoir. This vanguard was "a motley assemblageof monks, prostitutes, artists, labourers, lazy tradesmen, merchants, boys, girls, slaves, malefactors, and profligate debauchees;" "it wasprincipally composed of the lowest dregs of the multitude, who wereanimated solely by the prospect of spoil and plunder, and hoped to maketheir fortunes by this holy campaign" (p. 232). "This first division, intheir march through Hungary and Thrace, committed the most flagitiouscrimes, which so incensed the inhabitants of the countries through whichthey passed, particularly those of Hungary and Turcomania, that theyrose up in arms and massacred the greatest part of them" (Ibid). "FatherMaimbourg, notwithstanding his immoderate zeal for the holy war, andthat fabulous turn which enables him to represent it in the mostfavourable points of view, acknowledges frankly that the first divisionof this prodigious army committed the most abominable enormities in thecountries through which they passed, and that there was no kind ofinsolence, in justice, impurity, barbarity, and violence, of which theywere not guilty. Nothing, perhaps, in the annals of history can equalthe flagitious deeds of this infernal rabble" (Ibid, note). Few of theseunhappy wretches reached the Holy Land. "To engage in the crusade and toperish in it, were almost synonymous" (Hallam, p. 30), even for thosewho entered Palestine. The loss of life was something terrible. "Weshould be warranted by contemporary writers in stating the loss of theChristians alone during this period at nearly a million; but at theleast computation, it must have exceeded half that number" (Ibid). Thereal army, under Godfrey de Bouillon, consisted of some 80, 000well-appointed horse and foot. But at Nice the crowd of crusadersnumbered 700, 000, after the great slaughter in Hungary. Jerusalem wastaken, A. D. 1099, and it was there "where their triumph was consummated, that it was stained with the most atrocious massacre; not limited to thehour of resistance, but renewed deliberately even after that famouspenitential procession to the holy sepulchre, which might have calmedtheir ferocious dispositions if, through the misguided enthusiasm of theenterprise, it had not been rather calculated to excite them" (Ibid, p. 31). The last crusade occurred A. D. 1270, and between the first in 1096and the last in 1270, human lives were extinguished in numbers it isimpossible to reckon, increasing ever the awful sum total of the miserylying at the foot of the blood-red cross of Christendom. 

A collateral advantage accrued to the clergy through the crusades;"their wealth, continually accumulated, enabled them to become theregular purchasers of landed estates, especially in the time of thecrusades, when the fiefs of the nobility were constantly in the marketfor sale or mortgage" (Ibid, p. 333). 

The last vestiges of nominal paganism were erased in this century, andit remained only under Christian names. Capital punishment wasproclaimed against all who worshipped the old deities under their oldtitles, and "this dreadful severity contributed much more towards theextirpation of paganism, than the exhortations and instructions ofignorant missionaries, who were unacquainted with the true nature of thegospel, and dishonoured its pure and holy doctrines by their licentiouslives and their superstitious practices" (p. 236). Learning began torevive, as men, educated in the Arabian schools, gradually spread overEurope; thus: "the school of Salernum, in the kingdom of Naples, wasrenowned above all others for the study of physic in this century, andvast numbers crowded thither from all the provinces of Europe to receiveinstruction in the art of healing; but the medical precepts whichrendered the doctors of Salernum so famous were all derived from thewritings of the Arabians, or from the schools of the Saracens in Spainand Africa" (p. 237). "About the year 1050, the face of philosophy beganto change, and the science of logic assumed a new aspect. Thisrevolution began in France, where several of the books of Aristotle hadbeen brought from the schools of the Saracens in Spain, and it waseffected by a set of men highly renowned for their abilities and genius, such as Berenger, Roscellinus, Hildebert, and after them by Gilbert dela Porre, the famous Abelard and others" (p. 238). Thus we see that inscience, in philosophy, in logic, we alike owe to Arabia the revival ofthought in Christendom. Progress, however, was very slow, and thethought was not yet strong enough to arouse the fears of the Church, soit spread for a while in peace. 

Hallam sums up for us the state of learning, or rather of ignorance, during the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, and his accountmay well find its place here. "When Latin had thus ceased to be a livinglanguage, the whole treasury of knowledge was locked up from the eyes ofthe people. The few who might have imbibed a taste for literature, ifbooks had been accessible to them, were reduced to abandon pursuits thatcould only be cultivated through a kind of education not easily withintheir reach. Schools confined to cathedrals and monasteries, andexclusively designed for the purposes of religion, afforded noencouragement or opportunities to the laity. The worst effect was that, as the newly-formed languages were hardly made use of in writing, Latinbeing still preserved in all legal instruments and publiccorrespondence, the very use of letters, as well as of books, wasforgotten. For many centuries, to sum up the account of ignorance in aword, it was rare for a layman, of whatever rank, to know how to signhis name. Their charters, till the use of seals became general, weresubscribed with the mark of the cross. Still more extraordinary it wasto find one who had any tincture of learning. Even admitting everyindistinct commendation of a monkish biographer (with whom a knowledgeof church music would pass for literature), we could make out a veryshort list of scholars. None certainly were more distinguished as suchthan Charlemagne and Alfred. But the former, unless we reject a veryplain testimony, was incapable of writing; and Alfred found difficultyin making a translation from the pastoral instruction of St. Gregory, onaccount of his imperfect knowledge of Latin. Whatever mention, therefore, we find of learning and the learned, during these dark ages, must be understood to relate only to such as were within the pale ofclergy, which indeed was pretty extensive, and comprehended many who didnot exercise the offices of religious ministry. But even the clergywere, for a long period, not very materially superior, as a body, to theuninstructed laity. An inconceivable cloud of ignorance overspread thewhole face of the Church, hardly broken by a few glimmering lights, whoowe almost the whole of their distinction to the surroundingdarkness. .. . Of this prevailing ignorance it is easy to produce abundanttestimony. Contracts were made verbally, for want of notaries capable ofdrawing up charters; and these, when written, were frequently barbarousand ungrammatical to an incredible degree. For some considerableintervals, scarcely any monument of literature has been preserved, except a few jejune chronicles, the vilest legends of saints, or versesequally destitute of spirit and metre. In almost every council theignorance of the clergy forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted byone held in 992, that scarcely a single person was to be found in Romeitself who knew the first element of letters. Not one priest of athousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a commonletter of salutation to another. In England, Alfred declares that hecould not recollect a single priest south of the Thames (the mostcivilised part of England) at the time of his accession who understoodthe ordinary prayers, or could translate Latin into his mother-tongue. Nor was this better in the time of Dunstan, when it is said, none of theclergy knew how to write or translate a Latin letter. The homilies whichthey preached were compiled for their use by some bishops, from formerworks of the same kind, or the writings of the Christian fathers. .. . Ifwe would listen to some literary historians, we should believe that thedarkest ages contained many individuals, not only distinguished amongtheir contemporaries, but positively eminent for abilities andknowledge. A proneness to extol every monk of whose productions a fewletters or a devotional treatise survives, every bishop of whom it isrelated that he composed homilies, runs through the laborious work ofthe Benedictines of St. Maur, the 'Literary History of France, ' and, ina less degree, is observable even in Tiraboschi, and in most books ofthis class. Bede, Alcuin, Hincmar, Raban, and a number of inferiornames, become real giants of learning in their uncritical panegyrics. But one might justly say, that ignorance is the smallest defect of thewriters of these dark ages. Several of these were tolerably acquaintedwith books; but that wherein they are uniformly deficient is originalargument or expression. Almost every one is a compiler of scraps fromthe fathers, or from such semi-classical authors as Boethius, Cassiodorus, or Martinus Capella. Indeed, I am not aware that thereappeared more than two really considerable men in the republic ofletters from the sixth to the middle of the eleventh century--John, surnamed Scotus, or Erigena, a native of Ireland, and Gerbert, whobecame pope by the name of Sylvester II. : the first endowed with a boldand acute metaphysical genius, the second excellent, for the time whenhe lived, in mathematical science and useful mechanical invention"("Europe during the Middle Ages, " Hallam, pp. 595-598). 

If we look at the ministers of the Church, the old story of tyranny andvice is told over again during this century. Among its popes is numberedBenedict IX. , deposed for his profligacy, restored and again deposed, restored by force of arms, and selling the pontificate, so that threepopes at once claimed the tiara, and were all three declared unworthy, and a fourth placed on the throne. Fresh disturbances followed, and newusurpers, until in A. D. 1059 the election of the pope was taken out ofthe hands of the people and transferred to the college of cardinals, achange which was much struggled against, but which was ultimatelyadopted. In A. D. 1073 Hildebrand was elected pope under the title ofGregory VII. ; this man, perhaps, more than any other, augmented thetemporal power of the papacy. It was he who moulded the church into theform of an absolute monarchy, and fought against all local privilegesand national freedom of the churches in each land; it was he who claimedrule over all kings and princes, and treated them as vassals of theRoman see; it was he who, in 1074, calling a council at Rome, caused itto decree the celibacy of the clergy, so that priests having no home, and no family ties, might feel their only home in the Church, and theironly tie to Rome; it was he who struggled against Germany, and who keptthe excommunicated emperor standing barefoot and almost naked in thesnow for three days, in the courtyard of his castle. A bold bad man wasthis Hildebrand, but a man of genius and a master-mind, who conceivedthe mighty idea of a universal Church, wherein all princes should bevassals, and the head of the Church absolute monarch of the world. 

It was at the annual council of Rome, A. D. 1076, that Pope Gregory VII. Recited and proclaimed "all the ancient maxims, all the doubtfultraditions, all the excessive pretensions, by which he could support hissupremacy. It was, in a manner, the abridged code of his domination--thelaws of servitude that he proposed to the world at large. Here are theterms of this charter of theocracy: 'The Roman Church is founded by Godalone. The Roman pontiff alone can legitimately take the title ofuniversal . .. There shall be no intercourse whatever held with personsexcommunicated by the Pope, and none may dwell in the same house withthem. .. . He alone may wear the imperial insignia. All the princes of theearth shall kiss the feet of the Pope, but of none other. .. . He has theright of deposing emperors. .. . The sentence of the Pope can be revokedby none, and he alone can revoke the sentences passed by others. He canbe judged by none. None may dare to pronounce sentence on one whoappeals to the See Apostolic. To it shall be referred all major causesby the whole Church. The Church of Rome never has erred, and never canerr, as Scripture warrants. A Roman pontiff, canonically ordained, atonce becomes, by the merit of Saint Peter, indubitably holy. By hisorder and with his permission it is lawful for subjects to accuseprinces. .. . The Pope can loose subjects from the oath of fealty. ' Suchare the fundamental articles promulgated by Gregory VII. In the Councilof Rome, which the official historian of the Church reproduced in thecommencement of the seventeenth century as being authentic andlegitimate, and Rome has never disavowed it. Borrowed in part from thefalse Decretals, resting, most of them, on the fabulous donation ofConstantine, and on the successive impostures and usurpations of thefirst barbarous ages, they received from the hand of Gregory VII. A newcharacter of force and unity. That pontiff stamped them with thesanction of his own genius. Such authority had never before beencreated: it made every other power useless and subaltern" ("Life ofGregory VII. , " by Villemain, trans. By Brockley, vol. Ii. , pp. 53-55). Thus the struggle became inevitable between the temporal and thespiritual powers. "In every country there was a dual government:--1. That of a local kind, represented by a temporal sovereign. 2. That of aforeign kind, acknowledging the authority of the Pope. This Romaninfluence was, in the nature of things, superior to the local; itexpressed the sovereign will of one man over all the nations of thecontinent conjointly, and gathered overwhelming power from itscompactness and unity. The local influence was necessarily of a feeblenature, since it was commonly weakened by the rivalries of conterminousstates and the dissensions dexterously provoked by its competitor. Onnot a single occasion could the various European states form a coalitionagainst their common antagonist. Whenever a question arose, they wereskilfully taken in detail, and commonly mastered. The ostensible objectof papal intrusion was to secure for the different peoples, moralwell-being; the real object was to obtain large revenues and givesupport to large bodies of ecclesiastics. The revenues thus abstractedwere not unfrequently many times greater than those passing into thetreasury of the local power. Thus, on the occasion of Innocent IV. Demanding provision to be made for three hundred additional Italianclergy by the Church of England, and that one of his nephews, a mereboy, should have a stall in Lincoln Cathedral, it was found that the sumalready annually abstracted by foreign ecclesiastics from England wasthrice that which went into the coffers of the king. While thus thehigher clergy secured every political appointment worth having, andabbots vied with counts in the herds of slaves they possessed--some, itis said, owned not fewer than twenty thousand--begging friars pervadedsociety in all directions, picking up a share of what still remained tothe poor. There was a vast body of non-producers, living in idleness andowning a foreign allegiance, who were subsisting on the fruits of thetoil of the labourers" ("Conflict between Religion and Science, " Draper, pp. 266, 267). 

The struggle between the Greek and Latin Churches, hushed for awhile, broke out again fiercely A. D. 1053, and in 1054 Rome excommunicatedConstantinople, and Constantinople excommunicated Rome. The disputes asto transubstantiation continued, and shook the Roman Church with theirviolence. Outside orthodoxy, some of the old heresies lingered on. ThePaulicians wandered throughout Europe, and became known in Italy as thePaterini and the Cathari, in France as the Albigenses, Bulgarians, orPublicans. The Council of Orleans condemned them to be burned alive, andmany perished. 

CENTURY XII. 

The wars which spread Christianity were not yet entirely over, but weonly hear of them now on the outskirts, so to speak, of Europe, exceptwhere some tribes apostatized now and then, and were brought back to thetrue faith by the sword. The struggles between the popes and the morestiff-necked princes as to their relative rights and privilegescontinued, and we sometimes see the curious spectacle of a pontiff onthe side of the people, or rather of the barons, against the king:whenever this is so, we find that the king is struggling against Romansupremacy, and that the pope uses the power of the nation to subdue therebellious monarch. We do not find Rome interfering to save the peoplefrom oppression when the oppressor is a faithful and obedient son ofHoly Church. 

Fresh heresies spread during this century, and we everywhere met withone corrective--death. Most of them appear to have grown out of the oldManichæan heresy, and taught much of the old asceticism. The Cathariwere hunted down and put to death throughout Italy. Arnold of Brescia, who loudly protested against the possessions of the Church, andmaintained that church revenues should be handed over to the State, proved himself so extremely distasteful to the clergy that they arrestedhim, crucified him and burned his dead body (A. D. 1155). Peter de Bruys, who objected to infant baptism, and may be called the ancestor of theBaptists, was burnt A. D. 1130. Many other reformers shared the samefate, and one large sect must here be noted. Peter Waldus, its founder, was a merchant of Lyons, who (A. D. 1160) employed a priest to translatethe Gospels for him, together with other portions of the Bible. Studyingthese, he resolved to abandon his business and distribute his wealthamong the poor, and, in A. D. 1180, he became a public preacher, andformed an association to teach the doctrines of the Gospel, as heconceived them, against the doctrines of the Church. The sect firstassumed only the simple name of "the poor men of Lyons, " but soon becameknown as the Waldenses, one of the most powerful and most widely spreadsects of the Middle Ages. They were, in fact, the precursors of theReformation, and are notable as heretics protesting against the authortyof Rome because that authority did not commend itself to their reason;thus they asserted the right of private judgment, and for that assertionthey deserve a niche in the great temple of heretic thought. 

CENTURY XIII. 

In the far west of Europe paganism still struggled against Christianity, and from A. D. 1230 to 1280 a long, fierce war was waged against thePrussians, to confirm them in the Christian faith; the Teutonic knightsof St. Mary succeeded finally in their apostolic efforts, and at last"established Christianity and fixed their own dominion in Prussia" (p. 309), whence they made forays into the neighbouring countries, and"pillaged, burned, massacred, and ruined all before them. " In Spain, Christianity had a yet sadder triumph, for there the civilized Moorswere falling under the brutal Christians, and the "garden of the world"was being invaded by the hordes of the Roman Church. The end, however, had not yet come. In France, we see the erection of THE INQUISITION, themost hateful and fiendish tribunal ever set up by religion. Theheretical sects were spreading rapidly in southern provinces of France, and Innocent III. , about the commencement of this century, sent legatesextraordinary into the southern provinces of France to do what thebishops had left undone, and to extirpate heresy, in all its variousforms and modifications, without being at all scrupulous in using suchmethods as might be necessary to effect this salutary purpose. Thepersons charged with this ghostly commission were Rainier, a Cistercianmonk, Pierre de Castelnau, archdeacon of Maguelonne, who became alsoafterwards a Cistercian friar. These eminent missionaries were followedby several others, among whom was the famous Spaniard, Dominic, founderof the order of preachers, who, returning from Rome in the year 1206, fell in with these delegates, embarked in their cause, and laboured bothby his exhortations and actions in the extirpation of heresy. Thesespiritual champions, who engaged in this expedition upon the soleauthority of the pope, without either asking the advice, or demandingthe succours of the bishops, and who inflicted capital punishment uponsuch of the heretics as they could not convert by reason and argument, were distinguished in common discourse by the title of _inquisitors_, and from them the formidable and odious tribunal called the_Inquisition_ derived its origin (pp. 343, 344). In A. D. 1229, acouncil of Toulouse "erected in every city a _council of inquisitorsconsisting of one priest and two laymen_" (Ibid). In A. D. 1233, GregoryIX. Superseded this tribunal by appointing the Dominican monks asinquisitors, and the pope's legate in France thereupon went from city tocity, wherever these monks had a monastery, and there appointed some oftheir number "inquisitors of heretical pravity. " The princes of Europewere then persuaded to lend the aid of the State to the work of blood, and to commit to the flames those who were handed over as heretics tothe civil power by the inquisitors. The plan of working was mostmethodical. 

The rules of torture were carefully drawn out: the prisoner was strippednaked, the hair cut off, and the body then laid on the rack and bounddown; the right, then the left, foot tightly bound and strained bycords; the right and left arm stretched; the fleshy part of the armcompressed with fine cords; all the cords tightened together by oneturn; a second and third turn of the same kind: beyond this, with therack, women were not to be tortured; with men a fourth turn wasemployed. These directions were written in a Manual, used by the GrandInquisitor of Seville as late as A. D. 1820. An analysis is given by Dr. Rule, in his "History of the Inquisition, " Appendix to vol. I. , pp. 339-359, ed. 1874. Then we hear, elsewhere, of torture by roasting thefeet, by pulleys, by red-hot pincers--in short, by every abominableinstrument of cruelty which men, inspired by religion, could conceive. Let the student take Llorente and Dr. Rule alone, and he will learnenough of the Inquisition horrors to make him shudder at the sight of across--at the name of Christianity. 

Llorente gives the most revolting details of the torture of Jean deSalas, at Valladolid, A. D. 1527, and this one case may serve as aspecimen of Inquisition work during these bloodstained centuries. Stripped to his shirt, he was placed on the _chevalet_ (a narrow frame, wherein the body was laid, with no support save a pole across themiddle), and his feet were raised higher than his head; tightly twistedcords cut through his flesh, and were twisted yet tighter and tighter asthe torture proceeded; fine linen, thrust into his mouth and throat, added to the unnatural position, made breathing well nigh impossible, and on the linen water slowly fell, drop by drop, from a suspendedvessel over his head, till every struggling breath stained the clothwith blood (see "Histoire critique de l'Inquisition d'Espagne, " t. II. , pp. 20-23, ed. 1818). This Spanish Inquisition, during its existence, punished heretics as follows:--

Burnt alive . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31, 912

Burnt in effigy. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 17, 659

Heavily punished. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 291, 450 ------- Total 341, 021

(Ibid, t. IV. P. 271). Add to this list the ruined families, some ofwhose members fell victims to the Inquisition, and then--rememberingthat Spain was but one of the countries which it desolated--let thestudent judge of the huge total of human agony caused by this awfulinstitution. Nor must it be forgotten that its dungeons did not gapeonly for those who opposed the pretensions of Rome; men of science, philosophers, thinkers, all these were its foes; Llorente gives a listof no less than 119 learned and eminent scientific men who, in Spainalone, fell under the scourge of the Inquisition (see t. II. Pp. 417-483). 

One special crime of the Church in this age must not be forgotten: hertreatment of Roger Bacon. Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk, who notonly studied Greek, Hebrew, and Oriental languages, but who devotedhimself to natural science, and made many discoveries in astronomy, chemistry, optics, and mathematics. He is said to have discoveredgunpowder, and he proposed a reform of the calendar similar to thatintroduced by Gregory XIII. , 300 years later. His reward was to behooted at as a magician, and to be confined in a dungeon for many years. 

The heretics spread and increased in this century, spite of the terribleweapon brought to bear against them. The "Brethren and Sisters of theFree Spirit, " known also as Beghards, Beguttes, Bicorni, Beghins, andTurlupins, were the chief additional body. They believed that all thingshad emanated from God, and that to Him they would return; and to thisEastern philosophy they added practical fanaticism, rushing wildlyabout, shouting, yelling, begging. The Waldenses and Albigensesmultiplied, and diversity of opinion spread in every direction. 

CENTURY XIV. 

This fourteenth century is one of the epochs that sorely test theingenuity of believers in papal infallibility; for the cardinals, havingelected one pope in A. D. 1378, rapidly took a dislike to him, andelected a second. The first choice, Urban VI. , remained at Rome; thesecond, Clement VII. , betook himself to Avignon. They dulyexcommunicated each other, and the Latin Church was rent in twain. "Thedistress and calamity of these times is beyond all power of description;for not to insist upon the perpetual contentions and wars between thefactions of the several popes, by which multitudes lost their fortunesand lives, all sense of religion was extinguished in most places, andprofligacy arose to a most scandalous excess. The clergy, while theyvehemently contended which of the reigning popes was the true successorof Christ, were so excessively corrupt as to be no longer studious tokeep up even an appearance of religion or decency" ("Europe During theMiddle Ages, " Hallam, p. 359). 

Meanwhile, the struggle between Rome and the heretics went on withever-increasing fury. In England, Dr. John Wickcliff, rector ofLutterworth, became famous by his attack on the mendicant orders in A. D. 1360, and from that time he raised his voice louder and louder, till hespoke against the pope himself. He translated the Bible into English, attacked many of the prevailing superstitions, and although condemned asholding heretical opinions, he yet died in peace, A. D. 1387. Romerevenged itself by digging up his bones and burning them, about thirteenyears later. Rebellion spread even among the monks of the Church, and avast number of some nonconformist Franciscan monks, termed Spirituals, were burned for their refusal to obey the pope on matters of discipline. The intense hatred between the Franciscan and Dominican orders made thelatter the willing instrument of the papacy; and, in their character asinquisitors, they hunted down their unfortunate rivals as heretics. TheFlagellants, a sect who wandered about flogging themselves to the gloryof God, fell also under the merciless hands of the inquisitors, as didalso the Knights Templars in France. A new body, known as the Dancers, started up in A. D. 1373, and spread through Flanders; but the priestsprayed them away by exorcising the dancing devils that, they said, inhabited the members of this curious sect. Among the sufferers of thiscentury one name must not be forgotten: it is that of Ceccus Asculanus. This man was an Aristotelian philosopher, an astrologer, amathematician, and a physician. "This unhappy man, having performed someexperiments in mechanics that seemed miraculous to the vulgar, andhaving also offended many, and among the rest his master [the Duke ofCalabria], by giving out some predictions which were said to have beenfulfilled, was universally supposed to deal with infernal spirits, andburned for it by the inquisitors, at Florence, in the year 1337" (p. 355). There seems no green spot on which to rest the eye in this wearystretch of blood and fire. 

CENTURY XV. 

In this fifteenth century the knell of the Church rang out; it ismemorable evermore in history for the discovery of the New World, andthe consequent practical demonstration of the falsehood of the wholetheory of the patristic and ecclesiastical theology. In the flood only"Noah and his three sons, with their wives, were saved in an ark. Ofthese sons, Sham remained in Asia and repeopled it. Ham peopled Africa;Japhet, Europe. As the fathers were not acquainted with the existence ofAmerica, they did not provide an ancestor for its people" ("Conflictbetween Religion and Science, " Dr. Draper, p. 63). Lactantius, indeed, inveighed against the folly of those who believed in the existence ofthe antipodes, and Augustine maintained that it was impossible thereshould be people living on the other side of the earth. Besides, "in theday of judgment, men on the other side of a globe could not see the Lorddescending through the air" (Ibid, p. 64). Clearly there was no otherside, theologically; only Columbus sailed there. Another fatal blow wasstruck at the Church by the invention of the printing press, about A. D. 1440, an invention which made knowledge possible for the many, and bydiffusion of knowledge made heresy likewise certain. It is not for me, however, to trace here the progress of heretic thought; that brightertask is for another pen; mine only to turn over the bloodstained andblack pages of the Church. One name stands out in the list of thepontiffs of this century, which is almost unparalleled in its infamy; itis that of Roderic Borgia, Pope Alexander VI. Foully vicious, cruel, andbloodthirsty, he is startlingly bad, even for a pope. Among his childrenare found the names of Cæsar and Lucretia Borgia, names whose verymention recalls a list of horrible crimes. Alexander died A. D. 1503, from swallowing, by mistake, a poison which he and his son Cæsar hadprepared for others. Turning to the heretics, we see great lives cutshort by the terrible blows of the inquisition:--Savanarola, the braveItalian preacher, the reformer monk, tortured and burned A. D. 1498; JohnHuss, the enemy of the papacy, burned A. D. 1415, in direct violation ofthe safe conduct granted him; Jerome, of Prague, the friend andcompanion of Huss, burned A. D. 1416. Myriads of their unhappy followersshared their fate in every European land. But to Spain belongs theterrible pre-eminence of cruelty in this last century before theReformation. In the year 1478 a bull of Pope Sixtus IV. Established theInquisition in Spain. "In the first year of the operation of theInquisition, 1481, two thousand victims were burnt in Andalusia; besidesthese, many thousands were dug up from their graves and burnt; seventeenthousand were fined or imprisoned for life. Whoever of the persecutedrace could flee, escaped for his life. Torquemada, now appointedInquisitor-General for Castile and Leon, illustrated his office by hisferocity. Anonymous accusations were received, the accused was notconfronted by witnesses, torture was relied upon for conviction; it wasinflicted in vaults where no one could hear the cries of the tormented. As, in pretended mercy, it was forbidden to inflict torture a secondtime, with horrible duplicity it was affirmed that the torment had notbeen completed at first, but had only been suspended out of charityuntil the following day! The families of the convicted were plunged intoirretrievable ruin. .. . This frantic priest destroyed Hebrew Bibleswherever he could find them, and burnt six thousand volumes of Orientalliterature at Salamanca, under an imputation that they inculcatedJudaism" (Draper's "Conflict of Science and Religion, " p. 146). Torquemada was, indeed, a worthy successor of Moses. During his eighteenyears of power, his list of victims is as follows:--

Burnt at the stake alive. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10, 220Burnt in effigy, the persons having died in prison or fled the country. .. .. .. .. .. . 6, 860Punished with infamy, confiscation, perpetual imprisonment, or loss of civil rights . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 97, 321 -------Total . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 114, 401

--("History of the Inquisition, " by Dr. W. H. Rule, vol. I. , p. 150. Fulldetails of numbers are given in the "Histoire critique de l'Inquisitiond'Espagne, " Llorente, t. I. , pp. 272-281). 

Cardinal Ximenes was not quite so successful as Torquemada, but stillhis roll is long:

Burnt at the stake alive . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3, 564Burnt in effigy . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 1, 232Punished heavily . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 48, 059 --------(Ibid, p. 186). Total . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 52, 855

In A. D. 1481, in the bishoprics of Seville and Cadiz, "two thousandJudaizers were burnt in person, and very many in effigy, of whom thenumber is not known, besides seventeen thousand subject to cruelpenance" (Ibid, p. 133). In A. D. 1485, no less than 950 persons wereburned at Villa Real, now Ciudad Real. 

Spite of all this awful suffering, heretics and Jews remainedantagonistic to the church, and in March, A. D. 1492, the edict of theexpulsion of the Jews was signed. "All unbaptized Jews, of whatever age, sex, or condition, were ordered to leave the realm by the end of thefollowing July. If they revisited it, they should suffer death. Theymight sell their effects, and take the proceeds in merchandise or billsof exchange, but not in gold or silver. Exiled thus, suddenly from theland of their birth, the land of their ancestors for hundreds of years, they could not in the glutted market that arose sell what theypossessed. Nobody would purchase what could be got for nothing afterJuly. The Spanish clergy occupied themselves by preaching in the publicsquares sermons filled with denunciations against their victims, who, when the time for expatriation came, swarmed in the roads, and filledthe air with their cries of despair. Even the Spanish onlookers wept atthe scene of agony. Torquemada, however, enforced the ordinance that noone should afford them any help. .. . Thousands, especially mothers withnursing children, infants, and old people, died by the way--many of themin the agonies of thirst" (Ibid, p. 147). Thus was a peaceable, industrious, thoughtful population, driven out of Spain by the Church. Nor did her hand stay even here. Ferdinand, alas! had completed theconquest of the Moors; true, Granada had only yielded under pledge ofliberty of worship, but of what value is the pledge of the Christian tothe heretic? The Inquisition harried the land, until, in February 1502, word went out that all unbaptized Moors must leave Spain by the end ofApril. "They might sell their property, but not take away any gold orsilver; they were forbidden to emigrate to the Mahommedan dominions; thepenalty of disobedience was death. Their condition was thus worse thanthat of the Jews, who had been permitted to go where they chose" (Ibid, p. 148). And so the Moors were driven out, and Spain was left toChristianity, to sink down to what she is to-day. 3, 000, 000 persons aresaid to have been expelled as Jews, Moors and Moriscoes. The Moorsdeparted, --they who had made the name of Spain glorious, and had spreadscience and thought through Europe from that focus of light, --they whohad welcomed to their cities all who thought, no matter what theircreed, and had covered with an equal protection Mahommedan, Christian, and Jew. 

Nor let the Protestant Christian imagine that these deeds of blood areRoman, not Christian. The same crimes attach to every Church, and Rome'sblack list is only longer because her power is greater. Let us glance atProtestant communions. In Hungary, Giska, the Hussite, massacred andbruised the Beghards. In Germany, Luther cried, "Why, if men hang thethief upon the gallows, or if they put the rogue to death, why shouldnot we, with all our strength, attack these popes and cardinals, thesedregs of the Roman Sodom? Why not wash our hands in their blood?" ("TheSpanish Inquisition, " Le Maistre, p. 67, ed. 1838). Sandys, Bishop ofLondon, wrote in defence of persecution. Archbishop Usher, in an addresssigned by eleven other bishops, said: "Any toleration to the papists isa grievous sin. " Knox said, "The people are bound in conscience to putto death the queen, along with all her priests. " The English Parliamentsaid, "Persecution was necessary to advance the glory of God. " TheScotch Parliament decreed death against Catholics as idolaters, saying"it was a religious obligation to execute them" (Ibid, pp. 67, 68). Cranmer, A. D. 1550, condemned six anabaptists to death, one of whom, awoman, was burned alive, and in the following year another was committedto the flames; this primate held a commission with "some others, toexamine and search after all anabaptists, heretics, or contemners of thebook of Common Prayer" ("Students' History of England, " D. Hume, p. 291, ed. 1868). 

In Switzerland, Calvin burned Servetus. In America, the Puritans carriedon the same hateful tradition, and whipped the harmless Quakers fromtown to town. Wherever the cross has gone, whether held by RomanCatholic, by Lutheran, by Calvinist, by Episcopalian, by Presbyterian, by Protestant dissenter, it has been dipped in human blood, and hasbroken human hearts. Its effect on Europe was destructive, barbarising, deadly, until the dawning light of science scattered the thick blackclouds which issued from the cross. One indisputable fact, pregnant withinstruction, is the extremely low rate of increase of the population ofEurope during the centuries when Christianity was supreme. "What, then, does this stationary condition of the population mean? It means, foodobtained with hardship, insufficient clothing, personal uncleanness, cabins that could not keep out the weather, the destructive effects ofcold and heat, miasm, want of sanitary provisions, absence ofphysicians, uselessness of shrine cure, the deceptiveness of miracles, in which society was putting its trust; or, to sum up a long catalogueof sorrows, wants and sufferings in one term--it means a highdeath-rate. But, more, it means deficient births. And what does thatpoint out? Marriage postponed, licentious life, private wickedness, demoralized society" (Draper's "Conflict of Religion and Science, " p. 263). "The surface of the Continent was for the most part covered withpathless forests; here and there it was dotted with monasteries andtowns. In the lowlands and along the river courses were fens, sometimeshundreds of miles in extent, exhaling their pestiferous miasms, andspreading agues far and wide. " In towns there was "no attempt made atdrainage, but the putrefying garbage and rubbish were simply thrown outof the door. Men, women, and children slept in the same apartment; notunfrequently domestic animals were their companions; in such a confusionof the family it was impossible that modesty and morality could bemaintained. The bed was usually a bag of straw; a wooden log served as apillow. Personal cleanliness was utterly unknown; great officers ofstate, even dignitaries so high as the Archbishop of Canterbury, swarmedwith vermin; such, it is related, was the condition of Thomas à Becket, the antagonist of an English king. To conceal personal impurity, perfumes were necessarily and profusely used. The citizen clothedhimself in leather, a garment which, with its ever-accumulatingimpurity, might last for many years. He was considered to be incircumstances of ease, if he could procure fresh meat once a week forhis dinner. The streets had no sewers; they were without pavement orlamps. After night-fall, the chamber-shutters were thrown open, andslops unceremoniously emptied down, to the discomforture of the wayfarertracking his path through the narrow streets, with his dismal lantern inhis hand" (Ibid, p. 265). Little wonder indeed, that plagues sweptthrough the cities, destroying their inhabitants wholesale. The Churchcould only pray against them, or offer shrines where votive offeringsmight win deliverance; "not without a bitter resistance on the part ofthe clergy, men began to think that pestilences are not punishmentsinflicted by God on society for its religious shortcomings, but thephysical consequences of filth and wretchedness; that the proper mode ofavoiding them is not by praying to the saints, but by ensuring personaland municipal cleanliness. In the twelfth century it was found necessaryto pave the streets of Paris, the stench in them was so dreadful. Atonce dysenteries and spotted fever diminished; a sanitary condition, approaching that of the Moorish cities of Spain, which had been pavedfor centuries, was attained" (Ibid, p. 314). The death-rate was stillfurther diminished by the importation of the physician's skill from theArabs and the Moors; the Christians had depended on the shrine of thesaint, and the bone of the martyr, and the priest was the doctor of bodyas well as of soul. "On all the roads pilgrims were wending their way tothe shrines of saints, renowned for the cures they had wrought. It hadalways been the policy of the Church to discourage the physician and hisart; he interfered too much with the gifts and profits of theshrines. .. . For patients too sick to move or be moved, there were noremedies except those of a ghostly kind--the Paternoster and the Ave"(Ibid, p. 269). Thus Christianity set itself against all popularadvancement, against all civil and social progress, against allimprovement in the condition of the masses. It viewed every change withdistrust, it met every innovation with opposition. While it reignedsupreme, Europe lay in chains, and even into the new world it carriedthe fetters of the old. Only as Christianity has grown feebler hascivilization strengthened, and progress has been made more and morerapidly as a failing creed has lost the power to oppose. And now, day byday, that progress becomes swifter; now, day by day, the oppositionbecomes fainter, and soon, passing over the ruins of a shatteredreligion, Free Thought shall plant the white banner of Liberty in themidst of the temple of Humanity; that temple which, long desecrated bypriests and overshadowed by gods, shall then be consecrated for evermoreto the service of its rightful owner, and shall be filled with the gloryof man, the only god, and shall have its air melodious with the voice ofthe prayer which is work. 

 * * * * *

INDEX TO SECTION IV. OF PART II. 

 * * * * *

INDEX OF BOOKS USED. 

Draper, Conflict of Religion and Science. .. 425, 433, 437, 449, 455, 456, 464, 465, 471, 472, 475, 476Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. .. 424Gibbon, Decline and Fall. .. 425, 429, 432, 433, 435Hallam, Europe during the Middle Ages. .. 454, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 470, 471Hume, Student's History of England. .. 474Le Maistre, Spanish Inquisition. .. 474Llorente, Histoire critique de l'Inquisition d'Espagne. .. 468, 469, 472, 473Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History. .. Used throughoutRule, History of the Inquisition. .. 468, 472Villemain, Life of Gregory VII. .. 464 * * * * *

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 

Advent of Christ expected. .. 456, 457Alexandrine Library, destruction of. .. 432Arius. .. 433, 434Boniface, Apostle of Germany. .. 442Century 2nd and 3rd. .. 423, 429Century 4th. .. 429, 435Century 5th. .. 435, 439Century 6th. .. 439, 441Century 7th. .. 441, 442Century 8th. .. 442, 447Century 9th. .. 447, 451Century 10th. .. 451, 457Century 11th. .. 457, 465Century 12th. .. 466, 467Century 13th. .. 467, 469Century 14th. .. 469, 470Century 15th. .. 471, 474Charlemagne. .. 442, 444Christianity, general effect of. .. 474, 476Church, wealth of. .. 425, 440, 441, 444, 457, 460Church, doctrine of. .. 426, 450Church, refuge for evil doers. .. 442Clergy, frauds of. .. 431, 444, 448, 449Clergy, vice of. .. 426, 431, 435, 437, 441, 447, 448, 451, 453, 454, 469Constantine. .. 424, 425Conversions. .. 429, 430, 435, 439, 443, 451, 457, 467Crusades. .. 452, 458Eastern and Western Churches, separation of. .. 449, 450Endowment of Church, first. .. 429Filioque. .. 446, 449Heresies. .. 426-428, 433-435, 438, 440, 442, 446, 450, 456, 465, 466, 470, 471, 472, 473Heretic, first burnt alive. .. 431 " number burned in Spain. .. 469, 472Hildebrand. .. 463, 464Hypatia, murder of. .. 437Iconoclastic controversy. .. 445, 446Ignorance of bishops. .. 441Inquisition. .. 467-469, 472-474Isidorian decretals. .. 448Jews, expulsion of, from Spain. .. 473, 474Learning, lack of. .. 437, 439, 451, 452, 453, 461, 462, 463 " revival of. .. 460, 461Moors, learning of. .. 447, 453, 456 " expulsion of, from Spain. .. 473, 474Patristic geography. .. 471People, misery of. .. 455, 475, 476Protestant persecution. .. 474, 475Rome, supremacy of. .. 436, 445, 448, 464, 465 " badness of Popes of. .. 454, 463, 464, 469, 471Stylites. .. 437Torquemada. .. 472, 473