Kitabı oku: «Frauds and Follies of the Fathers»

I

To expose the delirium and delinquencies of a respected or even respectable body of men is always an ungracious, though it may not be an unnecessary, task. But when we are informed that rejection of certain supernatural stories means our condemnation here and damnation hereafter, we feel tempted to examine the kind of men who first accepted and promulgated those stories. The man who tells me I shall be damned if I do not believe in his theories or thaumaturgy may have many estimable qualities, but he must not be surprised if, disregarding these, I call attention to instances of his credulity. When, moreover, priests assume authority over conduct on the ground that their Church or their doctrines were God-given, it becomes necessary to investigate how that Church and those doctrines were built up; and if we find superstitious fooleries and pious frauds mixed therein, it may do something to abate our confidence in priestly pretentions.

In regard to the Fathers, as to much else, the Catholic is the most consistent of all Christian Churches. The men who established the Church, and fixed what was and what was not Canonical Gospel, are surely entitled to some authority on the part of believers. When Protestants wish to prove the authenticity of their infallible book, they have to fall back upon the witness of the fallible Fathers whose authority they are at other times always ready to repudiate.

The intellectual and moral character of the men who were the original depositaries of Christian faith and literature is then evidently of the utmost importance. All historical evidence as to the authenticity of the New Testament, or the faithfulness of ecclesiastical history, comes through them. If they were credulous and untrustworthy, the edifice built upon their testimony or their faith will be found to be tottering.

Now, concerning the Fathers of the Christian Church, we have, at the outset, to allege that, as a class, not only were they superstitious and credulous, and therefore unreliable, but that many of them were absolutely fraudulent, not hesitating to use any and every means to further the interests of their religion.

Bishop C. J. Ellicott, in his article on the Apocryphal Gospels, which appeared in the "Cambridge Essays" for 1856, pp. 175, 176, says: "But credulity is not the only charge which these early ages have to sustain. They certainly cannot be pronounced free from the influence of pious frauds.... It was an age of literary frauds. Deceit, if it had a good intention, frequently passed unchallenged.... However unwilling we may be to admit it, history forces upon us the recognition of pious fraud as a principle which was by no means inoperative in the earliest ages of Christianity."

Jeremiah Jones says: "To make testimonies out of forgeries and spurious books to prove the very foundation of the Christian revelation, was a method much practised by some of the Fathers, especially Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Lactantius."—"A New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament," part ii., chap, xxxiv., p. 318, vol. i. 1827.

B. H. Cowper, a well-known champion of Christianity, and once editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature, confesses in the Introduction to his "Apocryphal Gospels" (p. xxv., 1867): "Ancient invention and industry went even further, and produced sundry scraps about Herod, Veronica, Lentuius, and Abgar, wrote epistles for Christ and his mother, and I know not how much besides. No difficulty stood in the way; ancient documents could easily be appealed to without necessarily existing; spirits could be summoned from the other world by a stroke of the pen, and be made to say anything; sacred names could be written and made a passport to fictions, and so on ad libitum."

M. Daillé says: "For these forgeries are not new and of yesterday; but the abuse hath been on foot above fourteen hundred years."—"The Right Use of the Fathers," p. 12, 1675. Mosheim mentions a variety of commentaries filled with impostores or fables on our Savior's life and sentiments, "composed soon after his ascent into heaven, by men who, without being bad, perhaps, were superstitious, simple, and piously deceitful. To these were afterwards added other writings falsely accredited to the most holy apostles by fraudulent individuals."—"Institutes of Ecclesiastical History," part iii, chap. ii, sec. 17, p. 65, vol. i. Stubbs's edition, 1863.

The same justly-renowned historian declares that "a pernicious maxim which was current in the schools, not only of the Egyptians, the Platonists, and the Pythagoreans, but also of the Jews, was very early recognised by the Christians, and soon found among them numerous patrons—namely, that those who made it their business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth were deserving rather of commendation than censure."—"Commentaries on the Affairs of the Christians before the time of Constantino the Great." Second century. sec. 7, pp. 44, 45. R. S. Vidat's translation. 1813.

Dr. Gieseler, Professor of Theology in Gottingen, says: "In reference to the advancement of various Christian interests, and in like manner also to the confirmation of those developments of doctrine already mentioned, the spurious literature which had arisen and continually increased among the Jews and Christians, was of great importance. The Christians made use of such expressions and writings as had already been falsely attributed by Jews, from partiality to their religion, to honored persons of antiquity, and altered them in parts to suit their own wants, such as the book of Enoch and the fourth book of Ezra. But writings of this kind were also fabricated anew by Christians, who quieted their conscience respecting the forgery with the idea of their good intention, for the purpose of giving greater impressiveness to their doctrines and admonitions by the reputation of respectable names, of animating their suffering brethren to steadfastness, and of gaming over their opponents to Christianity."—"Compendium of Ecclesiastical History," sec. 52, vol. i., pp. 157, 158. Translated by Dr. S. Davidson. T. & T. Clark's Foreign Theological Library.

But as our purpose is to examine these writings somewhat in detail, we will commence with

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

This name is given to those Christian writers who are alleged to have had intercourse with the Apostles. These writings are said to date from about 97 to 150 a.c. Dr. J. Donaldson says: "Of these writers investigation assures us only of the names of three, Clement, Polycarp and Papias. There is no satisfactory ground for attributing the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to Barnabas, the friend of Paul, nor the 'Pastor' of Hermas to the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans."¹ Yet it is to be noticed that both these works were read in the primitive churches as Scripture, and are included in the Sinaitic Codex, which is asserted to be the most ancient manuscript of the New Testament extant.

We take first

ST. CLEMENT

There is a "fellow-laborer" with Paul of the name of Clement, mentioned in his Epistle to the Philippians (iv., 3), but whether this is the same individual whom the Catholics make a Pope of Rome, and some of the Fathers say was a kinsman of the Roman Emperor, is a matter of dispute, and much doubted by the best authorities. Bishop Lightfoot ("St. Paul's Epistles: Philippians," p. 166) says: "The notices of time and place are opposed to the identification of the two." A sufficient evidence of the estimation in which St. Clement was held, however, is to be found in the number of forgeries which Christian piety have palmed upon the world in his name. In the Alexandrian Codex, one of the oldest and most important manuscripts of the New Testament, two epistles addressed to the Corinthians stand inscribed with his name, and are enumerated in the list of books of the New Testament. Of these, the second is on all hands allowed to be a forgery, and the first is generally considered to be interpolated. That forgeries or interpolations have taken place in regard to those books of the same Codex which, upon the authority of certain Fathers, have been formed into the received canon of sacred Scripture, must not, of course, be suspected on pain of everlasting burning. The fact of the Epistle to the Hebrews being ascribed to St Paul, the second Epistle ascribed to St Peter, and such texts as those of the heavenly witnesses (1 John v., 7, 8), show any scholar that nothing of the kind could have taken place by any possibility whatever. Is it likely that God would allow his Holy Word to be tampered with?

The history of Clement of Rome, says Canon Westcott ("On the Canon," p. 22,1881), "is invested with mythic dignity which is without example in the Ante-Nicene Church." It was too utterly impossible for other Fathers and founders of the Church to be invested with mythic dignity. Jesus must have come of the seed of King David, even though Joseph had nothing to do with his genealogy. "The events of his life," Westcott goes on to say, "have become so strangely involved in consequence of the religious romances which bear his name, that they remain in inextricable confusion." And so indeed they are; almost as badly as those of the founder of Christianity.

Clement is called at one time a disciple of St. Paul, and at another of St. Peter, who Paul withstood to his face because he was to be blamed (Gal. ii., 11). The Abbé Migne, in his Patrologie, makes him Pope in 91 A.C. The Clementine Homilies, purporting to be written by Clement himself, says he was ordained by Peter. Some put the first Popes as Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, and then Clement; others give their order as Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacletus; others Clement, Linus, &c.; in short, they are given every way. Baron Bunsen called Anacletus a purely apocryphal and mythical personage, and some wicked sceptics have thought the same of the whole batch. In addition to the two epistles which stand on the same parchment with Holy Scripture, St. Clement is credited with two epistles to Virgins—which, though superstitious, are possibly none the less authentic; two epistles to James the brother of the Incarnate God, the Apostolic Canons (which include his own writings as sacred scripture), the Apostolic Constitutions, the Recognitions, a Liturgy, and twenty Clementine Homilies. All of these, says Mosheim, were fraudulently ascribed to this eminent father by some deceivers, for the purpose of procuring them greater authority. Clement has also been supposed the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts of the Apostles.

Restricting ourselves for the present to the first epistle, generally put forward as genuine, until a comparatively late date quoted as authoritative scripture by the Fathers, put in the apostolic canons among sacred and inspired writings, and which Eusebius tells us ("Hist. Eccl." iii., 16) was publicly read in very many churches in old times and even in his own day; we at once discover evidence that the writer could not have been akin to the Caesars or of a noble Roman family. He bespeaks his Jewish birth by his continual citation of the Jew books, by his references to the services at Jerusalem (chaps. xl. and xli.), and by speaking of "our father Jacob." But, like other Christian writers, he is very loose in his quotations. For instance, he jumbles up the first Isaiah and an apocryphal Ezekiel in the following quotation, "Say to the children of my people, Though your sins reach from earth to heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, yet if ye turn to me with your whole heart, and say, 'Father,' I will listen to you as to a holy people."² He mentions (chap, lv.) "the blessed Judith," which book, by the way, Volkmar and others think must be dated a.c. 117-118. He also (chap, xvii.) quotes Moses as saying, "I am but as the smoke of a pot," and other passages (chap. xxiii.-xxvi), probably from the apocryphal "Assumption of Moses." But this is no worse than Matthew (ii., 23) quoting as from the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene;" Paul's wrongly quoting the Psalms (Eph. iv., 8); or Jude (ver. 14) citing the apocryphal book of Enoch as by "the seventh from Adam." But it somewhat vitiates his supposed testimony to the canonical books. It is evident, however, that he was acquainted with Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, and his own reads at times like a bad imitation of Paul.

The apostle to the Gentiles, and thereby the real founder of modern Christianity, disregarding a certain threat of its supposed founder (Matt, v., 22), ventured, in arguing for the resurrection, the somewhat questionable statement, "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die" (1 Cor. xv., 36). Clement altogether outdoes this. He says (chap, xxv.):

"Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parents, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and, having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed." This is the way the Christian evidences were presented by the authoritative head of the Church in the first century. Tertullian ("De Resurr. Cam.," sec. 10), takes Psalm xcii., 12, as referring to this prodigy. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, St. Epiphanius, and other of the Fathers, follow Clement in his fable. It is said that Clement in this only followed Herodotus, Pliny, Ovid, and Tacitus, who mention the phoenix. This is false. Herodotus (ii., 13) simply relates the report of others, and does not intimate that he believed any part of it, but positively declares that some of the statements were not credible. Pliny ("Nat. Hist," x., 2) states expressly that the accounts may be fabulous. Ovid ("Metam.," xv., 392) uses the legend for poetical purposes. Tacitus ("Ann.," vi., 28) declares that the statements are uncertain. These, be it remembered, were unenlightened heathen, but the apostolic saint founds the distinguishing article of the Christian creed upon this mistake of an Egyptian myth. May it not have been a phoenix, instead of a dove, which descended on Jesus at Jordan? The cherubim described by Ezekiel were curious fowl. There are some queer animals mentioned in the Apocalypse; Isaiah and Job mention unicorns, and the former dragons. The Jews were indeed great in the natural-history department. Rabbinical references to the phoenix are numerous. The Talmud speaks of the zig, a bird of such magnitude that when it spread out its wings the disc of the sun was obscured; and the bar-juchne, one of whose eggs once fell down and broke three hundred cedars and submerged sixty villages.³

The second epistle, or rather homily, of Clement, though equally bound up with the sacred records, and placed in the Apostolical Canon, is admitted to be spurious, and is every way less notable. The concluding leaves of the Alexandrian manuscript have been lost. It ends abruptly with this interesting chapter:—

"Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, since we know not the day of the appearing of God. For the Lord himself, being asked by one when his kingdom would come, replied, 'When two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.' Now, two are one when we speak the truth one to another, and there is un-feignedly one soul in two bodies. And 'that which is without as that which is within' meaneth this: He calls the soul 'that which is within,' and the body 'that which is without.' As, then, thy body is visible to sight, so also let thy soul be manifest by good works. And 'the male with the female, neither male nor female, this "....

Here is an interesting quotation by the earliest Christian Father of words uttered by God Incarnate upon an important matter. Had they found their way into the Canonical Gospels, what books would have been written upon their beauty and sublimity! As it is, we gather from Clement of Alexandria⁴ that these words and other important sayings of Jesus were found in the Gospel of the Egyptians. This gospel was certainly an ancient one, and is supposed by Grabe, Erasmus, Du Pin, Father Simon, Grotius, Mills, and others, to have been among those referred to by Luke in his preamble: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." This Gospel of the Egyptians was received by the Ophites, the Encratites, the Valentinians, and the Sabellians. It was evidently at one with the doctrines of the Essenes in regard to women. For instance, Clement of Alexandria quotes from it the following: "The Lord says to Salome: 'Death shall prevail as long as women bring forth children.'" "I am come to destroy the works of the woman, that is, the works of female concupiscense, generation, and corruption. When you despise a covering for your nakedness, and when two shall be one, and the male with the female neither male nor female." Intimations that similar views regarding marriage were found in the early Christian Church may be gathered from Matt, xix., 12; Rev. xiv., 4; 1 Cor. vii., 8, etc. But the subject is too delicate to be handled by other than a divinity student.

Passing, then, Clement's two epistles to virgins with the remark that although generally rejected as spurious by Protestants, they are considered genuine by their editors, Wetstein, Bellet, and Cardinal Villecourt, we come to "The Recognitions of Clement." Of these remarkable documents Hilgenfeld says, "There is scarcely a single writing which is of so great importance for the history of Christianity in its first stage." The editors of the Anti-Nicene Christian Library call it "a theological romance;" but it is a question whether that epithet would not equally fit every other so-called historical composition of the first three centuries of the Christian era. Cardinal Baronius ("Annal." tom, i., an. 51) call sit "a gulf of filth and uncleanliness, full of prodigious lies and frantic fooleries." But Cardinal Beliarmine says it was written either by Clement or by some other author as ancient and learned as he.

It begins, "I, Clement, who was born in the city of Rome," and proceeds to narrate his thoughts on philosophy, his doubts and hopes of a future life. To resolve these the worthy Father determined to go to Egypt, and bribe a magician to bring him a soul from the infernal regions to consult whether the soul be immortal. But he heard of the Son of God in Judea and was ready to accredit the wonders ascribed to him. Having heard Barnabas, Clement proceeds to Cæsarea and sees Peter, who instructs him concerning the True Prophet. And now comes the curious part of the story. Peter is engaged in continuous controversy on the true Mosaic and Christian religion with a miracle worker, called Simon the magician, who it is said confessed he wrought his wonders by the help of the soul of a healthy young boy, who had been violently put to death for that purpose, and then called up from the dead and compelled to be his assistant. Peter follows this Simon about from place to place, exposing him. He especially follows him to Rome. The astounding revelation in connexion with this story we give in the words of the author of "Supernatural Religion" (vol. ii., p. 34): "There cannot be a doubt that the Apostle Paul is attacked in it, as the great enemy of the true faith, under the hated name of Simon the magician, who Peter followed everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and confuting him. He is robbed of the title of 'Apostles of the Gentiles,' which, together with the honor of founding the Churches of Antioch, of Laodicea, and of Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All that opposition to Paul which is implied in the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere (1 Cor. i., 11, 12; 2 Cor. xi., 13—20; Philip i., 15, 16) is here realised and exaggerated, and the personal difference with Peter to which Paul refers is widened into the most bitter animosity."

The most able authorities, such as Davidson, B. Lightfoot, Mansel, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Baur, Scholten, and Schwegler agree in this view, which is strongly confirmed by the epistle of Peter to James, which stands as a preface to the Clementine Homilies, dealing with the same matter of Simon Magus. Peter says: "For some among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching, and accepted certain lawless and foolish teaching of the hostile man." Canon Westcott, in his edition of 1866, said on this passage: "There can be no doubt that St. Paul is referred to as 'the enemy'" (on the Canon, p. 252). Since the quotation of this damaging admission by the author of "Supernatural Religion," it has been removed. But whether the fact that the Simon Magus who is reviled in the Clementine Recognitions is intended to represent Paul has the authority of Canon Westcott or not, there can be no doubt that this view better agrees with Paul's epistles, and all we know of the early Christians, than the reconciling but unhistoric "Acts of the Apostles," which took the place of the Clementine "theological romance," because, in the struggle for existence, the Christian Church which was built on Paul rather than that which was built on Peter (Matt. xvi., 18), proved to be the fittest to survive.