Church, and of Tradition
It is only in the Fathers of the Church, and the Councils, that we can
find the proofs of the authenticity of the Christian traditions, and
according to the proofs which remain it appears, that they only approved
or rejected opinions, as they found them favourable or injurious to the
interests of the party which they had embraced. Every ecclesiastical
writer, and every assembly of Bishops, adopted as canonical the writings
in which they found their own particular dogmas, the others they treated
as apocryphal or suppositious. A slight acquaintance with the writings
of the Fathers, will show us that we cannot rely on them for any facts;
we shall find that their books are filled with negligences, tales,
impertinences and falsehoods; we shall see them buried in the thickest
darkness of superstition and prejudice. Every word announces their
incredulity or their insincerity. St. Clement the Roman, believed the
fable of the phoenix reviving from its ashes, and cites it as a proof of
the resurrection.
Papias, who was the master of St. Irenæus, was, in the opinion of
Eusebius himself, a man of weak mind, a fabulous author, who had
contributed to lead many men into error, and amongst others St. Irenæus
who was his disciple, whom Eusebius regards as a very credulous man,
though he was the first ecclesiastical historian of note. It is not
surprising that those who have followed such guides have fallen into
error.
On the other side, we should never finish, were we to enter into a
detail of the excesses committed by the Fathers of the Church and the
Councils: their history would only serve to prove their ambition their
pride, their infatuation, their seditious spirit, their cheats, their
intrigues, and their cruelties in the persecutions which they excited
against their adversaries. It is nevertheless on the probity and on the
knowledge of these great personages that we are called to rely! It is
pretended that it is from them that we hold the pure oracles of truth;
must we then take lessons of mildness, of charity, of, holiness,
from the writings of some factious individuals, who were perpetually
quarrelling and treating their adversaries with the utmost cruelty,
whose works were filled with gall, whose conduct it is admitted even by
their own friends and admirers, was almost always unjust, violent, and
criminal? How can it be expected that we should find any point of unity
in the canons and decrees of assemblies agitated by intrigue, discord,
and animosity? How can we regard as saints, and infallible doctors, as
persons worthy of our confidence, perverse men, continually involved in
disputations with others, and in contradictions with themselves?
What guide can we expect to find in turbulent priests whose ambition,
avarice, and intriguing and persecuting spirit are every where visible?
It is only necessary to read ecclesiastical history to be convinced that
the picture which we have drawn of the Councils and Fathers is no ways
exaggerated.
On the other hand the writers and Councils on whose authority,
Christians are called upon to found their belief, do, in all their
traditions, but blindly follow and copy each other; we see them devoid
of the arts of reasoning, of logic, and of criticism; hence their
works are found filled with fables, vulgar errors, and forgeries. Is it
possible to believe the traditions of such a man as St. Jerome, who in
his life of St. Anthony, assures us that this holy man had a conference
with satyrs with goats feet? Do we not justly doubt the sincerity of St.
Augustine, when he says, "that he had seen a nation composed of men,
who had eyes in the middle of their stomachs?" Are such authors more
entitled to credit, than those of Robinson Crusoe, and of the Thousand
and One Nights?
Supposing even that at the commencement of Christianity, there had been
authentic books in which the actions and the discourses of Jesus Christ
and his Apostles had been faithfully related, should we be justified
in supposing that they have been handed down to us such as they were
originally? Prior to the invention of printing, it was doubtless much
easier to impose upon the public than it is now, and notwithstanding, we
see that the _Press_ gives currency to innumerable falsehoods.
The spirit of party causes every thing to be adopted that is useful
to its own cause. That granted, how easy was it for the heads of the
Church, who were once the only guardians of the holy books, either from
pious fraud, or a determined wish to deceive, to insert falsehoods and
articles of faith, in the books entrusted to their care.
The learned Dodwell admits, that the books which compose the New
Testament did not appear in public, until at least 100 Years after
Christ. If this fact be certain, how shall we convince ourselves that
they existed prior to this time? These books were solely entrusted to
the care of the ecclesiastical gentry, till the third or fourth
century, that is to say, to the guardianship of men, whose conduct
was universally regulated by self interest and party spirit, and who
possessed neither the probity nor knowledge requisite for discovering
the truth, or of transmitting it in its original purity. Thus each
doctor had the power of making such holy books as he pleased, and
when, under Constantine, the Christians saw themselves supported by the
Emperor, their chiefs were able to accept, and cause to be accepted as
authentic, and of rejecting as apocryphal, such books as suited their
interest, or did not agree with the prevailing doctrine. But were we
even sure of the authenticity of the books, which the church of this
day adopts, we are nevertheless, without any other guarantee of the
authority of the scriptures than the books themselves. Is there a
history which has the right to prove itself by itself? Can we rely upon
witnesses who give no other proof of what they advance than their own
words? Yet the first Christians have rendered themselves famous by their
deceptions, their factions, and their frauds, which are termed pious
when they tend to the advantage of religion. Have not these pious
falsehoods been ascribed to the works of Jesus Christ himself and to the
Apostles his successors? Have we not, in their manner, sybilline verses,
which are evidently all Christian prophecies, made afterwards, and often
copied word for word into the Old and New Testament? If it had pleased
the Fathers at the council of Nice, to regard these prophecies as
divinely inspired, what or who should have prevented them from inserting
them into the canon of the Scriptures? And from that the Christians
would not have failed to regard them in the present day, as indubitable
proofs of the truth of their religion.
If the Christians at the commencement of Christianity, gave credit to
works filled with reveries, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel
of the Infancy, the Letter of Jesus Christ to Algarus, what confidence
can we have in such of their books as remain? Can we flatter ourselves,
with having even these such as they were originally written? How can we
at the present time, distinguish the true from the false, in books, in
which enthusiasm, roguery and credulity pervade every page.
Since the gospels themselves fail in the proofs necessary to establish
their authenticity, and the truth of the facts which they relate, I
do not see that the epistles of St. Paul, or the Acts of the Apostles,
enjoy in this respect a greater advantage. If the first Christians had
no difficulty in attributing works to Jesus, would they have been over
scrupulous, in doing the same to his apostles, or in making for
them romantic legends, which length of time has caused to pass for
respectable books? If a body of powerful men, had it in their power to
command the credulity of the people, and found it their interest, they
would succeed, at the end of a few centuries, in establishing the belief
that the adventures of Don Quixote were perfectly true, and that the
prophecies of Nostradamus were inspirations of the divinity. By means of
glossaries, commentaries and allegories, we may find and prove whatever
we desire; however glaring an imposture may be, it may, by the aid of
time, deception, and force, pass in the end for a truth, which it is not
permitted to doubt; Determined cheats supported by public authority
may cause ignorance, which is always credulous to believe whatever
they choose, especially by persuading it that there is merit in not
perceiving inconsistencies, contradictions, and palpable absurdities,
and that there is danger in reasoning.