Jerom speaking of the different manner which writers found themselves
obliged to use, in their controversial, and dogmatical writings,
intimates, that in controversy whose end was victory, rather than
truth, it was allowable to employ every artifice which would best serve
to conquer an adversary; in proof of which "Origen, says he, Methodius,
Eusebius, Apollinaris, have written many thousands of lines against
Celsus, and Porphyry: consider with what arguments and what slippery
problems they baffle what was contrived against them by the spirit of
the devil: and because they are sometimes forced to speak, they speak
not what they think, but what is necessary against those who are called
Gentiles. I do not mention the Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilarius, lest I be thought not so
much defending myself, as accusing others, &c." Op. Tom. 4. p. 2.
p.:256. Middleton's Free Enquiry, p. 158. It is remarkable that the
names mentioned by Jerom are the names of the early apologists for
Christianity. When the Church got the upper hand however, they found a
better way to confute those wicked men, Celsus and Porphyry, than by
"slippery problems" and by speaking "not what they thought (to be true)
but what was necessary against those who are called Gentiles," viz. by
seeking after, and burning carefully their troublesome works. Of the
fathers of the Church who were its pillars, leaders, and great men. Dr.
Middleton observes in his Preface to his Enquiry, &c, p. 31, as
follows: "I have shown by many indisputable facts, that the ancient
Fathers were extremely credulous and superstitious, possessed with
strong prejudices, and an enthusiastic zeal in favor not only of
Christianity in general, but of every particular doctrine, which a wild
imagination could engraft upon it, and scrupling no art or means by
which they might propagate the same principles. In short they were of a
character front which nothing could be expected that was candid and
impartial; nothing but what a weak or crafty understanding could supply
towards confirming those prejudices with which they happened to be
possessed, especially where religion was the subject, which above all
other motives strengthens every bias, and inflames every passion of the
human mind. And that this was actually the case, I have shown also, by
many instances in which we find them roundly affirming as true things
evidently false and fictitious; in order to strengthen as they fancied
the evidences of the Gospel or to serve a present turn of confuting an
adversary: or of enforcing a particular point which they were labouring
to establish."
In p. 81 of the Introductory Discourse, he says, "Let us consider then
in the next place what light these same forgeries [those of the Fathers
of the fourth century] will afford us in looking backwards also into
the earlier ages up to the times of the Apostles. And first, when we
reflect on that surprising confidence and security with which the
principal fathers of this fourth age have affirmed as true what they
themselves had either forged, or what they knew at least to be forged;
it is natural to suspect, that so bold a defiance of sacred truth could
not be acquired, or become general at once, but must have been carried
gradually to that heighth, by custom and the example of former times,
and a long experience of what the credulity and superstition, of the
multitude (i.e. of Christians) would bear."
"Secondly, this suspicion will be strengthened by considering, that
this age [the 4th century] in which Christianity was established by the
civil power, had no real occasion for any miracles. For which reason,
the learned among the Protestants have generally supposed it to have
been the very era of their cessation and for the same reason the
fathers also themselves when they were disposed to speak the truth,
have not scrupled to confess, that the miraculous shifts were then
actually withdrawn, because the church stood no longer in need of them.
So that it must have been a rash and dangerous experiment, to begin to
forge miracles, at a time when there was no particular temptation to
it; if the use of such fictions had not long been tried, and the
benefit of them approved; and recommended by their ancestors; who
wanted every help towards supporting themselves under the pressures and
persecutions with which the powers on earth were afflicting them.''
"Thirdly, if we compare the principal fathers of the fourth with those
of the earlier ages. We shall observe the same characters of zeal and
piety in them all, but more learning, more judgment, and less credulity
in the later fathers. If these then be found either to have forced
miracles themselves, or to have propagated what they knew to be forged,
or to have been deluded so far by other people's forgeries as to take
them for real miracles; (of the one or the other of which they were all
unquestionably guilty) it will naturally excite in us the same
suspicion of their predecessors, who in the same cause, and with the
same zeal were less learned and more credulous, and in greater need of
such arts for their defence and security.
"Fourthly. As the personal characters of the earlier fathers give them
no advantage over their successors, so neither does the character of
the earlier ages afford any real cause of preference as to the point of
integrity above the latter. The first indeed are generally called and
held to be the purest: but when they had once acquired that title from
the authority of a few leading men; it is not strange to find it
ascribed to them by every body else; without knowing or inquiring into
the grounds of it. But whatever advantage of purity those first ages
may claim in some particular respects, it is certain that they were
defective in some others, above all which have since succeeded them.
For there never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history,
in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed, nor in which so
many spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under
the name of Christ, and the apostles, and the apostolic writers, as in
those primitive ages; several of which forged hooks are frequently
cited and applied to the defence of Christianity by the most eminent
fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces, and of equal
authority with the scriptures themselves. And no man surely can doubt
but that those who would either forge or make use of forged books,
would in the same cause and for the same ends, make use of forged
miracles." Let the reader remember that the Gospels according to
Matthew and John are forgeries, and then apply this reasoning of Dr.
Middleton's to the miracles contained in those Gospels. With regard to
all the miracles of the New Testament, we know them only by report, and
it is an acknowledged, because a demonstrable fact, that the age in
which the accounts of these miracles were published, was an age
overflowing with imposture and credulity. "Such," says Bishop Fell,
"was the license of fiction in the first ages, and so easy the
credulity, that testimony of the facts of that time is to be received
with great caution, as not only the pagan world, but the church of God,
has just reason to complain of its fabulous age." Stillingfleet says,
"that antiquity is defective most where it is most important, In the
awe immediately succeeding that of the apostles." Now be it
recollected, that the Gospels first appeared in this age of fraud and
credulity; and be it further remembered, that the authenticity of the
Gospels, according to Matthew and John can be subverted, if marks of
imposture, which would cause the rejection of any other books, are
sufficient to affect the authenticity of those received as sacred. It
is to be remarked farther, that the church in its first ages was full
of forged hooks, giving accounts of the same events, different from
those of the books of the New Testament. The different sects, and the
church itself, was torn by as many schisms then as it ever has been
since, who mutually accuse each other of corrupting the Christians
scriptures, and of lying, and cheating most abominably.
All reasoning therefore from books published at this time, and whose
authenticity is supported only by the testimony of acknowledged liars;
and which have been tampered with too as these certainly were, is
exceedingly unsatisfactory. And yet such is the basis on which rests
the credibility of the miracles of the New Testament. Dr. Middleton,
after having shown, beginning at the earliest of the fathers
immediately after the apostles, that they were all most amazingly
credulous and superstitious: and having demonstrated from their own
words, that from Justin Martyr downwards they were all liars, observes
as follows, p. 157, Free Inquiry: "Now it is agreed by all, that these
fathers, whose testimonies I have been just reciting were the most
eminent lights of the fourth century; all of them sainted by the
catholic church, and highly reverenced at this day in all churches, for
their piety, probity, and learning. Yet from the specimens of them
above given, it is evident, that they would not scruple to propagate
any fiction, how gross so ever, which served to promote the interest
either of Christianity in general, or of any particular rite or
doctrine which they were desirous to recommend. St. Jerom in effect
confesses it, for after the mention of a silly story, concerning the
Christians of Jerusalem, who used to shew in the ruins of the temple,
certain stones of a reddish color, which they pretended to have been
stained by the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain
between the temple and the altar, he adds, but I do not find fault with
an error which flows from a hatred of the Jews, and a pious zeal for
the Christian faith. If the miracles then of the fourth century, so
solemnly attested by the most celebrated and revered fathers of the
church, are to be rejected after all as fabulous, it must needs give a
fatal blow to the credit of all the miracles even of the preceding
centuries; since there is not a single father whom I have mentioned in
this fourth age, who for zeal and piety may not be compared with the
best of the more ancient, and for knowledge, and for learning be
preferred to them all. For instance, there was not a person in all the
primitive church more highly respected in his own days than St.
Epiphanius, for the purity of his life as well as the extent of his
leaning. He was master of five languages, and has left behind him one
of the most useful works which remain to us from antiquity. St. Jerom,
who personally knew him, calls him the father of all bishops, and a
shining star among them; the man of God of blessed memory; to whom the
people used to flock in crowds, offering their little children to his
benediction, kissing his feet, and catching the hem of his garment.
This holy man and light of the church, the great man of his day,
asserts upon his own knowledge, "that in imitation of our Saviour's
miracle at Cana in Galilee several fountains and rivers in his days
were annually turned into wine. A fountain at Cibyra, a city of Caria,
and another at Gerasa in Arabia, prove the truth of this. I myself have
drunk out of the fountain at Cibyra, and my brethren out of the other
at Gerasa; and many testify the same thing of the river Nile in Egypt."
Advers. Haeres, 1. 2, c. 130. Middleton's Inquiry, p. 151, 152] "All
the rest (Dr. Middleton goes on to say) were men of the same character,
who spent their lives and studies in propagating the faith, and in
combating the vices and the heresies of their times. Yet none of them
have scrupled, we see, to pledge their faith for the truth, of facts
which no man of sense can believe, and which their warmest admirers are
forced to give up as fabulous. If such persons then could willfully
attempt to deceive; and if the sanctity of their characters cannot
assure us of their fidelity, what better security can we have from
those who lived before them? Or what cure for our scepticism with
regard, to any of the miracles above mentioned? Was the first asserter
of them, Justin Martyr more pious, cautious, learned, judicious, or
less credulous than Epiphanius? Or were those virtues more conspicuous
in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, than in
Athanasius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Jerom, Austin? Nobody, I dare say,
will venture to affirm it. If these later fathers, then, biased by a
false zeal or interest, could be tempted to propagate a known lie, or
with all their learning and knowledge could be so weakly credulous as
to believe the absurd stories which they themselves attest, there must
be always reason to suspect, that the same prejudices would operate
even more strongly in the earlier fathers, prompted by the same zeal
and the same interests, yet endued with less learning, less judgment,
and more credulity.
Such Christian reader, were the fathers, the leaders, and the great men
of the church, and the apologists for your religion. And it is upon the
credibility of these convicted knaves that ultimately, and
substantially depends your belief. For it is upon their testimony and
tradition that you receive and believe in the authenticity of the N.T.,
its doctrines and miracles.
I hope that if you choose to build your faith upon the testimony of
such witnesses, that you will not think it unreasonable in me to
presume to doubt the truth of opinions and miracles supported by the
testimony of men like the fathers. I am willing, because I think it
reasonable, to let every man follow his own judgment, and do I ask too
much to be permitted without offence to enjoy the same liberty with
regard to these things; which I conceive no fair man will now say, (if
what has been brought forward be true) are positively provable as true,
and worthy of unhesitating assent.
For the case is thus. The gospels are accused of being written by
credulous and superstitious authors whose names are not certainly
known; as containing too inconsistent and contradictory accounts of
prodigies and miracles; and also palpable marks of forgery. Now to
convince a thinking man, that histories of such suspected character,
containing relations of miracles, are divine or even really written, by
the persons to whom they are ascribed, and not either some of the many
spurious productions, with which it is notorious and acknowledged, the
age in which they appeared abounded, calculated to astonish the
credulous and superstitious! or else writings of authors who were
themselves infected with the grossest superstitious credulity, what is
the testimony?
For the first hundred years after the lives of the supposed authors,
none at all. And the earliest fathers who speak of them are all
convicted of gross credulity, and incapacity to distinguish genuine
from, fictitious writings, (for they admitted as genuine scripture many
books confessedly nonsensical forgeries,) but what is worse, are
manifestly guilty by the evidence of their own words of having been
palpable liars, cheats, and forgers. But, "it is an obvious rule in the
admission of evidence in any cause whatsoever, that the more important
the matter to be determined by it is, the more unsullied, and
unexceptionable ought to be the characters of the witnesses to be. And
when no court of justice among us in determining a question of fraud to
the value of sixpence will admit the testimony of witnesses who are
themselves notoriously convicted of the same offence of which the
defendant is accused;" how can it be expected that any reasonable
unprejudiced person should reasonably be required to admit similar
evidence, i.e. the testimony of such men as the fathers in favor of the
divine authority of books which are accused of being the offspring of
fraud and credulity; and which relate too to a case of the greatest
importance possible, not to himself only, but to the whole human race?!
For my own part, I cannot; and I think I could not without renouncing
all those rules and principles of evidence, and of good sense, which in
all other cases are universally respected. And when we consider the
character of those by whom these histories were first received and
believed, the unreasonableness of insisting upon the belief of these
accounts will appear aggravated. What was the character of the early
Gentile Christians? This we can ascertain from only two sources--the
writings of their leaders, and those of their heathen contemporaries.
According to the latter they were very weak and credulous. The
primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross
credulity by all their enemies. Celsus says that they cared neither to
receive nor to give any reason of their faith, and that it was an usual
saying with them, do not examine, but believe only, and thy faith will
save thee. Julian affirms, that the sum, of all their wisdom was
comprised in this single precept, believe. The Gentiles, says Arnobius,
make it their constant business to laugh at our faith, and to lash our
credulity with their facetious jokes.
"The fathers on the other hand, defend themselves by saying, that they
did nothing more: on this occasion than what the philosophers had
always done; that Pythagoras' precepts were inculcated by an ipse
dixit, and that they had found the same method useful with the vulgar,
who were not at leisure to examine things; whom they taught therefore
to believe, even without reasons: and that the heathens themselves,
though they did not confess it in words, yet practiced the same in
their acts." Middleton's Free Enquiry. Introduc. Disc. p. 92. Lucian
says, "that whenever any crafty juggler expert in his trade, and who
knew how to make a right use of things, went over to the Christians, he
was sure to grow rich immediately, by making a prey of their
simplicity." [De Morte Pereg.]
If we turn to the writings of the earliest fathers; from these writings
of the great men of the Church at that time we shall form but a very
mean idea of the understandings of the little ones, since their
writings are not one whit superior to the "godly Epistles" of the
lowest orders of fanatics in the last, and present century, they are
remarkable for nothing more than manifesting the extreme simplicity,
and credulity, together with the sincere piety of the writers. The
fathers who succeeded them were better informed, but not at all behind
them in credulity, and enthusiasm. Tertullian, the most powerful mind
among them during the first two hundred years, reasons as follows.
"The Son of God was crucified: it is no shame to own it, because it is
a thing to be ashamed of. The Son of God died: it is wholly credible,
because it is absurd. When buried he rose again to life: it is certain,
because it is impossible." De Carne Christi, Section 5.