SECTION I.--ITS EVIDENCES UNRELIABLE.

The origin of all religions, and the ignorance which is the root of the

God-idea, having been dealt with in Part I. of this Text-Book, it now

becomes our duty to investigate the evidences of the origin and of the

growth of Christianity, to examine its morality and its dogmas, to study

the history of its supposed founder, to trace out its symbols and its

ceremonies; in fine, to show cause for its utter rejection by the

Freethinker. The foundation stone of Christianity, laid in Paradise by

the Creation and Fall of Man 6,000 years ago, has already been destroyed

in the first section of this work; and we may at once, therefore,

proceed to Christianity itself. The history of the origin of the creed

is naturally the first point to deal with, and this may be divided into

two parts: 1. The evidences afforded by profane history as to its origin

and early growth. 2. Its story as told by itself in its own documents.

The most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane history

is their extreme paucity; the very existence of Jesus cannot be proved

from contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a star

which guides foreign sages to Judæa; a massacre of all the infants of a

town within the Roman Empire by command of a subject king; a teacher who

heals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, and who raises

the mouldering corpse; a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem in

triumphal procession, without opposition from the Roman legions of

Cæsar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own countrymen,

and handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death by

Roman law; a three hours' darkness over all the land; an earthquake

breaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number of ghosts

wandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, and

appearing to a crowd of above 500 people; a man risen from the dead

ascending bodily into heaven without any concealment, and in the broad

daylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvellous events

took place, we are told, and yet they have left no ripple on the current

of contemporary history. There is, however, no lack of such history, and

an exhaustive account of the country and age in which the hero of the

story lived is given by one of his own nation--a most painstaking and

laborious historian. "How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the

Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by

the 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 were

raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently

suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and

Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary

occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations

in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of

Tiberius the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman

Empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even

this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the

curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age

of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and

the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or

received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these

philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena

of nature--earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his

indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have

omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has

been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of

Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual

duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of

light which followed the murder of Cæsar, when, during the greatest part

of the year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendour.

This season of obscurity, which cannot surely be compared with the

preternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated by

most 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 we

draw from the similar silence of the great Jewish annalist? Is it

credible that Josephus should thus have ignored Jesus Christ, if one

tithe of the marvels related in the Gospels really took place? So

damning to the story of Christianity has this difficulty been felt, that

a 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 was

about 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 receive

the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and

many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the

suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the

cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he

appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had

foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;

and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this

day" ("Antiquities of the Jews," book xviii., ch. iii., sect. 3). The

passage itself proves its own forgery: Christ drew over scarcely any

Gentiles, if the Gospel story be true, as he himself said: "I am not

sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew xv. 24). A

Jew would not believe that a doer of wonderful works must necessarily be

more than man, since their own prophets were said to have performed

miracles. If Josephus believed Jesus to be Christ, he would assuredly

have become a Christian; while, if he believed him to be God, he would

have drawn full attention to so unique a fact as the incarnation of the

Deity. Finally, the concluding remark that the Christians were "not

extinct" scarcely coincides with the idea that Josephus, at Rome, must

have been cognisant of their increasing numbers, and of their

persecution by Nero. It is, however, scarcely pretended now-a-days, by

any scholar of note, that the passage is authentic. Sections 2 and 4

were manifestly written one after the other. "There were a great number

of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and

thus an end was put to this sedition. _About the same time another sad

calamity put the Jews into disorder_." The forged passage breaks the

continuity of the history. The oldest MSS. do not contain this section.

It is first quoted by Eusebius, who probably himself forged it; and its

authenticity is given up by Lardner, Gibbon, Bishop Warburton, and many

others. Lardner well summarises the arguments against its

authenticity:--

"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus,

which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before

Eusebius.

"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has any where mentioned the name or

word _Christ_, in any of his works; except the testimony above

mentioned, 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, and

could not have omitted quoting it, had it been then in the text.

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

Josephus.

"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly

states that historian (Josephus) being a Jew, has not taken the least

notice of Christ.

"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens

Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, nor

Origen 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 the

Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ" (Answer to Dr. Chandler, as quoted

in Taylor's "Diegesis," pp. 368, 369. Ed. 1844).

Keim thinks that the remarks of Origen caused the forgery; after

criticising the passage he winds up: "For all these reasons, the passage

cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic

Church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth

Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius,

and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given

cause for it" ("Jesus of Nazara," p. 25, English edition, 1873).

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the

style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as

a forgery interpolated in the text during the third century by some

pious Christian, who was scandalised that so famous a writer as Josephus

should have taken no notice of the Gospels, or of Christ their subject.

But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might

as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as

to 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 laws

of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How then could he have

written that _Jesus was the Christ?_ Such an admission would have proved

him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under

consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a

believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an

ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around

it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr,

Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies

with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But

Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i., II), is the first who quotes

it, and our reliance on the judgment or even the honesty of this writer

is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his

works 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 the

passage--in the authenticity of which he believes--is "in the style of

Josephus," but adds that "it has been retouched by a Christian hand."

The two statements seem scarcely consistent, as such "retouching" would

surely alter "the style" ("Vie de Jésus," Introduction, p. 10. Ed.

1863).

Paley argues that when the multitude of Christians living in the time of

Josephus is considered, it cannot "be believed that the religion, and

the transaction upon which it was founded, were too obscure to engage

the attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place in his history" ("Evid.

of Christianity," p. 73. Ed. 1845). We answer, it is plain, from the

fact that Josephus entirely ignores both, that the pretended story of

Jesus was not widely known among his contemporaries, and that the early

spread of Christianity is much exaggerated. But says Paley: "Be,

however, the fact, or the cause of the omission in Josephus, what it

may, no other or different history on the subject has been given by him

or is pretended to have been given" (Ibid, pp. 73, 74). Our contention

being that the supposed occurrences never took place at all, no history

of them is to be looked for in the pages of a writer who was relating

only facts. Josephus speaks of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was

called Christ" ("Antiquities," book xx., ch. ix., sect. 1), and this

passage shares the fate of the longer one, being likewise rejected

because of being an interpolation. The other supposed reference of

Josephus to Jesus is found in his discourse on Hades, wherein he says

that all men "shall be brought before God the Word; for to him hath the

Father committed all judgment; and he, in order to fulfil the will of

his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" ("Works of

Josephus," by Whiston, p. 661). Supposing that this passage were

genuine, it would simply convey the Jewish belief that the

Messiah--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 to

Josephus, and this silence tells with tremendous weight against the

Christian story. Judge Strange writes: "Josephus knew nothing of these

wonderments, and he wrote up to the year 93, being familiar with all the

chief scenes of the alleged Christianity. Nicolaus of Damascus, who

preceded him and lived to the time of Herod's successor Archelaus, and

Justus of Tiberias, who was the contemporary and rival of Josephus in

Galilee, equally knew nothing of the movement. Philo-Judæus, who

occupied the whole period ascribed to Jesus, and engaged himself deeply

in figuring out the Logos, had heard nothing of the being who was

realising at Jerusalem the image his fancy was creating" ("Portraiture

and Mission of Jesus," p. 27).

We propose now to go carefully through the alleged testimonies to

Christianity, as urged in Paley's "Evidences of Christianity," following

his presentment of the argument step by step, and offering objections to

each point as raised by him.

The next historian who is claimed as a witness to Christianity is

Tacitus (born A.D. 54 or 55, died A.D. 134 or 135), who writes, dealing

with the reign of Nero, that this Emperor "inflicted the most cruel

punishments upon a set of people, who were holden in abhorrence for

their crimes, and were commonly called Christians. The founder of that

name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a

criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious

superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not

only over Judæa the source of this evil, but reached the city also:

whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where

they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were

apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast

multitude discovered by them; all which were condemned, not so much for

the crime of burning the city, as for their hatred of mankind. Their

executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt.

Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces

by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with

combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night-time, and thus

burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this

occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes

standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at

other times driving a chariot himself; till at length these men, though

really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be

commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the

public 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 reasons

against the authenticity of this passage are thus given by Robert

Taylor: "This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian

quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of

any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian

Fathers.

"It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes

the works of Tacitus: and though his argument immediately called for the

use of this quotation with so loud a voice, that his omission of it, if

it had really existed, amounts to a violent improbability.

"This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutely

impossible that he should have spoken of him had his writings contained

such a passage.

"It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to

the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and

recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ or

Christians before his time.

"It has nowhere been stumbled on by the laborious and all-seeking

Eusebius, who could by no possibility have missed of it....

"There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world

before the fifteenth century.

"It rests then entirely upon the fidelity of a single individual. And

he, having the ability, the opportunity, and the strongest possible

incitement of interest to induce him to introduce the interpolation.

"The passage itself, though unquestionably the work of a master, and

entitled to be pronounced the _chef d'oeuvre_ of the art, betrays the

_penchant_ of that delight in blood, and in descriptions of bloody

horrors, as peculiarly characteristic of the Christian disposition as it

was abhorrent to the mild and gentle mind, and highly cultivated taste

of Tacitus.

* * * * *

"It is falsified by the 'Apology of Tertullian,' and the far more

respectable testimony of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who explicitly states

that the Christians, up to his time, the third century, had never been

victims of persecution; and that it was in provinces lying beyond the

boundaries of the Roman Empire, and not in Judæa, that Christianity

originated.

"Tacitus has, in no other part of his writings, made the least allusion

to Christ or Christians.

"The use of this passage as a part of the 'Evidences of the Christian

Religion,' is absolutely modern" ("Diegesis," pp. 374--376).

Judge Strange--writing on another point--gives us an argument against

the authenticity of this passage: "As Josephus made Rome his place of

abode from the year 70 to the end of the century, there inditing his

history of all that concerned the Jews, it is apparent that, had there

been a sect flourishing in the city who were proclaiming the risen Jesus

as the Messiah in his time, the circumstance was one this careful and

discerning writer could not have failed to notice and to comment on"

("Portraiture and Mission of Jesus," p. 15). It is, indeed, passing

strange that Josephus, who tells us so much about false Messiahs and

their followers, should omit--as he must have done if this passage of

Tacitus be authentic--all reference to this additional false Messiah,

whose followers in the very city where Josephus was living, underwent

such terrible tortures, either during his residence there, or

immediately before it. Burning men, used as torches, adherents of a

Jewish Messiah, ought surely to have been unusual enough to have

attracted his attention. We may add to these arguments that, supposing

such a passage were really written by Tacitus, the two lines regarding

Christus look much like an interpolation, as the remainder would run

more connectedly if they were omitted. But the whole passage is of more

than doubtful authenticity, being in itself incredible, if the Acts and

the Epistles of the New Testament be true; for this persecution is said

to have occurred during the reign of Nero, during which Paul abode in

Rome, teaching in peace, "no man forbidding him" (Acts xxviii. 31);

during which, also, he wrote to the Romans that they need not be afraid

of the government if they did right (Romans xii. 34); clearly, if these

passages are true, the account in Tacitus must be false; and as he

himself had no reason for composing such a tale, it must have been

forged by Christians to glorify their creed.

The extreme ease with which this passage might have been inserted in all

editions of Tacitus used in modern times arises from the fact that all

such editions are but copies of one single MS., which was in the

possession of one single individual; the solitary owner might make any

interpolations he pleased, and there was no second copy by which his

accuracy might be tested. "The first publication of any part of the

'Annals of Tacitus' was by Johannes de Spire, at Venice, in the year

1468--his imprint being made from a single MS., in his own power and

possession only, and purporting to have been written in the eighth

century.... from this all other MSS. and printed copies of the works of

Tacitus are derived." ("Diegesis," p. 373.)

Suetonius (born about A.D. 65, died in second century) writes: "The

Christians, 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 of

Chrestus, were constantly rioting, out of Rome." From this we might

infer that there was at that time a Jewish leader, named Chrestus,

living in Rome, and inciting the Jews to rebellion. His followers would

probably take his name, and, expelled from Rome, they would spread this

name in all directions. If the passage in Acts xi. 20 and 26 be of any

historical value, it would curiously strengthen this hypothesis, since

the "disciples were called Christians first in Antioch," and the

missionaries to Antioch, who preached "unto the Jews only," came from

Cyprus and Cyrene, which would naturally lie in the way of fugitives

from Rome to Asia Minor. They would bring the name Christian with them,

and the date in the Acts synchronises with that in Suetonius. Chrestus

would appear to have left a sect behind him in Rome, bearing his name,

the members of which were prosecuted by the Government, very likely as

traitors and rebels. Keim's good opinion of Suetonius is much degraded

by this Chrestus: "In his 'Life of Claudius,' who expelled the Jews from

Rome, he has shown his undoubted inferiority to Tacitus as a historian

by treating 'Christ' as a restless and seditious Jewish agitator, who

was still living in the time of Claudius, and, indeed, in Rome" ("Jesus

of Nazara," p. 33).

It is natural that modern Christians should object to a Jewish Chrestus

starting 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 the

testimony of Suetonius concerning Chrestus, the leader, why should they

accept it concerning the Christians, the followers? Paley, of course,

although he quotes Suetonius, omits all reference at this stage to the

unlucky Chrestus; his duty was to present evidences of, not against,

Christianity. Most dishonestly, however, he inserts a reference to it

later on (p. 73), where, in a brief _résumé_ of the evidence, he uses it

as a link in his chain: "When Suetonius, an historian contemporary with

Tacitus, relates that, in the time of Claudius, the Jews were making

disturbances at Rome, Christus being their leader." Why does not Paley

explain to us how Jesus came to be leading Jews at Rome during the reign

of Claudius, and why he incited them to riot? No such incident is

related 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, that

Paley here deliberately refers to a passage, _which he has not ventured

to quote_, simply that he may use the great name of Suetonius to

strengthen his lamentably weak argument, by the pretence that Suetonius

mentions Jesus of Nazareth, and thus makes him a historical character.

Few more disgraceful perversions of evidence can be found, even in the

annals of controversy. H. Horne refers to this passage in proof of the

existence of Christ (Introduction, vol. i., page 202); but without

offering any explanation of the appearance of Christ in Rome some years

after he ought to have been dead.

Juvenal is next dragged forward by Paley as a witness, because he

mentioned the punishment of some criminals: "I think it sufficiently

probable that these [Christian executions] were the executions to which

the poet refers" ("Evidences," p. 29.) Needless to say that there is not

a particle of proof that they were anything of the kind; but when

evidence is lacking, it is necessary to invent it.

Pliny the Younger (born A.D. 61, died A.D. 115) writes to the Emperor

Trajan, 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 well

to reproduce the whole of it. It contains no word of Christians dying

boldly as Paley pretends, nor, indeed, of the punishment of death being

inflicted 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 any

other heavy penalty. The translation of the letter runs as follows: "C.

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, Health.--It is customary with me to refer

to you, my lord, matters about which I entertain a doubt. For who is

better able either to rule my hesitation, or to instruct my ignorance? I

have never been present at the inquiries about the Christians, and,

therefore, cannot say for what crime, or to what extent, they are

usually punished, or what is the nature of the inquiry about them. Nor

have I been free from great doubts whether there should not be a

distinction between ages, or how far those of a tender frame should be

treated differently from the robust; whether those who repent should not

be pardoned, so that one who has been a Christian should not derive

advantage from having ceased to be one; whether the name itself of being

a Christian should be punished, or only crime attendant upon the name?

In the meantime I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who

were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were

Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time,

threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to

be led off. For I had no doubt in my mind that, whatever it might be

which they acknowledged, obduracy and inflexible obstinacy, at all

events should be punished. There were others guilty of like folly, whom

I set aside to be sent to Rome, because they were Roman citizens. In the

next place, when this crime began, as usual, gradually to spread, it

showed itself in a variety of ways. An indictment was set forth without

any author, containing the names of many who denied that they were

Christians or ever had been; and, when I set the example, they called on

the gods, and made offerings of frankincense and wine to your image,

which I, for this purpose, had ordered to be brought out, together with

the images of the gods. Moreover, they cursed Christ; none of which acts

can be extorted from those who are really Christians. I consequently

gave orders that they should be discharged. Again, others, who have been

informed against, said that they were Christians, and afterwards denied

it; that they had been so once but had ceased to be so, some three years

ago, some longer than that, some even twenty years before; all of these

worshipped your image, and the statues of the gods; they also cursed

Christ. But they asserted that this was the sum total of their crime or

error, whichever it may be called, that they were used to come together

on a stated day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among

themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an

oath--not to anything wicked--but that they would not commit theft,

robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had

been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it. After this they

said that it was their custom to separate, and again to meet together to

take their meals, which were in common and of a harmless nature; but

that they had ceased even to do this since the proclamation which I

issued according to your commands, forbidding such meetings to be held.

I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant

maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to

apply the torture. But I found that it was nothing but a bad and

excessive superstition, and I consequently adjourned the inquiry, and

consulted you upon the subject. For it seemed to me to be a matter on

which it was desirable to take advice, in consequence of the number of

those 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 will

still be invited. For the infection of this superstition has spread

through not only cities, but also villages and the country, though it

seems possible to check and remedy it. At all events it is evident that

the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be

frequented, and the sacred solemnities, which had been intermitted, are

revived, and victims are sold everywhere, though formerly it was

difficult to find a buyer. It is, therefore, easy to believe that a

number of persons may be corrected, if the door of repentance be left

open" (Ep. 97).

It is urged by Christian advocates that this letter at least shows how

widely Christianity had spread at this early date; but we shall later

have occasion to draw attention to the fact that the name "Christian"

was used before the reputed time of Christ to describe some

extensively-spread sects, and that the worshippers of the Egyptian

Serapis were known by that title. It may be added that the authenticity

of this letter is by no means beyond dispute, and that R. Taylor urges

some very strong arguments against it. Among others, he suggests: "The

undeniable fact that the first Christians were the greatest liars and

forgers that had ever been in the whole world, and that they actually

stopped at nothing.... The flagrant atopism of Christians being found in

the remote province of Bithynia, before they had acquired any notoriety

in Rome.... The inconsistency of the supposition that so just and moral

a people as the primitive Christians are assumed to have been, should

have been the first to provoke the Roman Government to depart from its

universal maxims of toleration, liberality, and indifference.... The use

of the torture to extort confession.... The choice of women to be the

subjects of this torture, when the ill-usage of women was, in like

manner, 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 an

epigram on the stupidity of admiring any vain-glorious fool who would

rush to be tormented for the sake of notoriety. Hard-set must Christians

be for evidence, when reduced to rely on such pretended allusions.

Epictetus (flourished first half of second century) is claimed as

another witness, because he states that "It is possible a man may arrive

at this temper, and become indifferent to these things from madness, or

from 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 is

highly probable that Epictetus simply referred to them, just as he might

have said as an equivalent phrase for stupidity, "like the Boeotians."

In addition to this, the followers of Judas the Gaulonite were known as

Galileans, and were remarkable for the "inflexible constancy which, in

defence 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 from

judgment, "and not from obstinacy, like the Christians." As no one

disputes the existence of a sect called Christians when Marcus Aurelius

wrote, this testimony is not specially valuable.

Paley, so keen to swoop down on any hint that can be twisted into an

allusion to the Christians, entirely omits the interesting letter

written 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 the

omission: "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are

consecrated to the god Serapis, who, I find, call themselves the bishops

of 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, in

a 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 people

called Christians.

The Rev. Dr. Giles thus summarises the proofs of the weakness of early

Christian evidences in "profane history:"--

"Though the remains of Grecian and Latin profane literature which belong

to the first and second centuries of our era are enough to form a

library of themselves, they contain no allusion to the New Testament....

The Latin writers, who lived between the time of Christ's crucifixion

and 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. The

greater number of these make mention of the Jews, but not of the

Christians. In fact, Suetonius, Tacitus, and the younger Pliny, are the

only 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's

crucifixion 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 Christianity

found 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 one

pretends that Christ is anything more than a title given by his

disciples to a certain Jew named Jesus--was put to death by Pontius

Pilate. And suppose he were, what then? How is this a proof of the

religion called Christianity? Tacitus knows nothing of the

miracle-worker, of the risen and ascended man; he is strangely ignorant

of all the wonders that had occurred; and, allowing the passage to be

genuine, it tells sorely against the marvellous history given by the

Christians of their leader, whose fame is supposed to have spread far

and wide, and whose fame most certainly must so have spread had he

really performed all the wonderful works attributed to him. But no

necessity lies upon the Freethinker, when he rejects Christianity, to

disprove the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, although we

point to the inadequacy of the evidence even of his existence. The

strength of the Freethought position is in no-wise injured by the

admission that a young Jew named Joshua (i.e. Jesus) may have wandered

up and down Galilee and Judæa in the reign of Tiberius, that he may have

been a religious reformer, that he may have been put to death by Pontius

Pilate for sedition. All this is perfectly likely, and to allow it in no

way endorses the mass of legend and myth encrusted round this tiny

nucleus of possible fact. This obscure peasant is not the Christian

Jesus, who is--as we shall later urge--only a new presentation of the

ancient Sun-God, with unmistakeable family likeness to his elder

brothers. The Reverend Robert Taylor very rightly remarks, concerning

this small historical possibility: "These are circumstances which fall

entirely within the scale of rational possibility, and draw for no more

than an ordinary and indifferent testimony of history, to command the

mind's assent. The mere relation of any historian, living near enough to

the time supposed to guarantee the probability of his competent

information on the subject, would have been entitled to our

acquiescence. We could have no reason to deny or to doubt what such an

historian could have had no motive to feign or to exaggerate. The proof,

even to demonstration, of these circumstances would constitute no step

or advance towards the proof of the truth of the Christian religion;

while the absence of a sufficient degree of evidence to render even

these circumstances unquestionable must, _à fortiori_, be fatal to the

credibility of the less credible circumstances founded upon them"

("Diegesis," p. 7).

But Paley pleads some indirect evidence on behalf of Christianity, which

deserves a word of notice since the direct evidence so lamentably breaks

down. He urges that: "there is satisfactory evidence that many,

professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed

their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily under-gone,

in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in

consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also

submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct." Nearly 200

pages are devoted to the proof of this proposition, a proposition which

it is difficult to characterise with becoming courtesy, when we know the

complete and utter absence of any "satisfactory evidence" that the

original witnesses did anything of the kind.

It is pleaded that the "original witnesses passed their lives in

labours, etc., in attestation of the accounts they delivered." The

evidence of this may be looked for either in Pagan or in Christian

writings. Pagan writers know literally nothing about the "original

witnesses," mentioning, at the utmost, but "the Christians;" and these

Christians, when put to death, were not so executed in attestation of

any accounts delivered by them, but wholly and solely because of the

evil deeds and the scandalous practices rightly or wrongly attributed to

them. Supposing--what is not true--that they had been executed for their

creed, there is no pretence that they were eye-witnesses of the miracles

of 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 the

Jews are concerned, we hear of no persecution from Josephus. If we

interrogate the Christian Acts, we hear but of little, two persons only

being killed. We learn also that "many thousands of Jews" belonged to

the 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 a

breaker of the Mosaic law--he was promptly delivered by the Romans, who

would have set him at liberty had he not elected to be tried at Rome. If

we turn to the conduct of the Pagans, we meet the same blank absence of

evidence of persecution, until we come to the disputed passage in

Tacitus, wherein none of the eye-witnesses are said to have been

concerned; and we have, on the other side, the undisputed fact that,

under the imperial rule of Rome, every subject nation practised its own

creed undisturbed, so long as it did not incite to civil disturbances.

"The religious tenets of the Galileans, or Christians, were never made a

subject of punishment, or even of inquiry" ("Decline and Fall," vol.

ii., p. 215).

This view of the matter is thoroughly corroborated by Lardner: "The

disciples of Jesus Christ were under the protection of the Roman law,

since the God they worshipped and whose worship they recommended, was

the God of the heavens and the earth, the same God whom the Jews

worshipped, and the worship of whom was allowed of all over the Roman

Empire, and established by special edicts and decrees in most, perhaps

in 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, by

Petronius, President of that province. The fact is this: Some rash young

fellows of the place got in and set up a statue of the Emperor in the

Jews' synagogue. Agrippa the Great made complaints to Petronius

concerning this injury. Whereupon Petronius issued a very sharp precept

to the magistrates of Doris. He terms this action an offence, not

against the Jews only, but also against the Emperor; says, it is

agreeable to the law of nature that every man should be master of his

own places, according to the decree of the Emperor. I have, says he,

given directions that they who have dared to do these things contrary to

the edict of Augustus, be delivered to the centurion Vitellius Proculus,

that they may be brought to me, and answer for their behaviour. And I

require the chief men in the magistracy to discover the guilty to the

centurion, unless they are willing to have it thought, that this

injustice 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 men

worship [God] according to their own customs" (Ibid, pp. 382, 383).

After giving some other facts, Lardner sums up: "These are authentic

testimonies in behalf of the equity of the Roman Government in general,

and of the impartial administration of justice by the Roman

presidents--toward all the people of their provinces, how much soever

they differed from each other in matters of religion" (Ibid, p. 401).

The evidence of persecution which consists in quotations from the

Christian books ("Evidences," pages 33-52) cannot be admitted without

evidence of the authenticity of the books quoted. The Acts and the

Pauline epistles so grossly contradict each other that, having nothing

outside themselves with which to compare them, they are mutually

destructive. "The epistle to the Romans presents special difficulties to

its acceptance as a genuine address to the Church of Rome in the era

ascribed to it. The faith of this Church, at this early period, is said

to be 'spoken of throughout the whole world'; and yet when Paul,

according to the Acts, at a later time visited Rome, so little had this

alleged Church influenced the neighbourhood, that the inquiring Jews of

Rome are shown to be totally ignorant of what constituted Christianity,

and to have looked to Paul to enlighten them" ("Portraiture and Mission

of Jesus," p. 15). 2 Cor. is of very doubtful authenticity. The passage

in James shows no fiery persecution. Hebrews is of later date. 2 Thess.

again very doubtful. The "suffering" spoken of by Peter appears, from

the context, to refer chiefly to reproaches, and a problematical "if any

man suffer as a Christian." Had those he wrote to been then suffering,

surely the apostle would have said: "_When_ any man suffers ... let him

not be ashamed." The whole question of the authenticity of the canonical

books will be challenged later, and the weakness of this division of

Paley's evidences will then be more fully apparent. Meanwhile we subjoin

Lardner'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 by

some persons. If the Roman Government, to which all the world was then

subject, was so mild and gentle, and protected all men in the profession

of their several religious tenets, and the practice of all their

peculiar rites, whence comes it to pass that there are in the Epistles

so many exhortations to the Christians to patience and constancy, and so

many arguments of consolation suggested to them, as a suffering body of

men? [Here follow some passages as in Paley.] To this I answer: 1. That

the account St. Luke has given in the Acts of the Apostles of the

behaviour of the Roman officers out of Judæa, and in it, is confirmed

not only by the account I have given of the genius and nature of the

Roman Government, but also by the testimony of the most ancient

Christian writers. The Romans did afterwards depart from these moderate

maxims; but it is certain that they were governed by them as long as the

history of the Acts of the Apostles reaches. Tertullian and divers

others do affirm that Nero was the first Emperor that persecuted the

Christians; nor did he begin to disturb them till after Paul had left

Rome 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 I

think that, according to the account which Tacitus has given of Nero's

inhumane treatment of the Christians at Rome, in the tenth year of his

reign, what he did then was not owing to their having different

principles in religion from the Romans, but proceeded from a desire he

had to throw off from himself the odium of a vile action--namely,

setting fire to the city--which he was generally charged with. And

Sulpicius Severus, a Christian historian of the fourth century, says the

same thing" ("Credibility of the Gospel History," vol. i., pages

416-420). Lardner, however, allows that the Jews persecuted the

Christians where they could although they were unable to slay them. They

probably persecuted them much in the same fashion that the Christians

have 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 the

sufferings of the eye-witnesses ("Evidences," pages 52-55). When we pass

into writings of this description in later times, there is, indeed,

plenty of evidence--in fact, a good deal too much, for they testify to

such marvellous occurrences, that no trust is possible in anything which

they say. Not only was St. Paul's head cut off, but the worthy Bishop of

Rome, Linus, his contemporary (who is supposed to relate his martyrdom),

tells us how, "instead of blood, nought but a stream of pure milk flowed

from his veins;" and we are further instructed that his severed head

took three jumps in "honour of the Trinity, and at each spot on which it

jumped there instantly struck up a spring of living water, which retains

at 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 of

Gibbon: "In the time of Tertullian and Clemens of Alexandria the glory

of martyrdom was confined to St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. James. It was

gradually bestowed on the rest of the Apostles by the more recent

Greeks, who prudently selected for the theatre of their preaching and

sufferings 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 the

truth of Christianity. Martyrdom proves the sincerity, _but not the

truth_, of the sufferer's belief; every creed has had its martyrs, and

as the truth of one creed excludes the truth of every other, it follows

that 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 a

creed, but only of the devotion it inspires. While we allow that the

Christians underwent much persecution, there can be no doubt that the

number of the sufferers has been grossly exaggerated. One can scarcely

help suspecting that, as real martyrs were not forthcoming in as vast

numbers as their supposed bones, martyrs were invented to fit the

wealth-producing relics, as the relics did not fit the historical

martyrs. "The total disregard of truth and probability in the

representations of these primitive martyrdoms was occasioned by a very

natural mistake. The ecclesiastical writers of the fourth and fifth

centuries ascribed to the magistrates of Rome the same degree of

implacable and unrelenting zeal which filled their own breasts against

the 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 the

provinces the authority of the Emperor, or of the Senate, and to whose

hands alone the jurisdiction of life and death was entrusted, behaved

like men of polished manners and liberal education, who respected the

rules of justice, and who were conversant with the precepts of

philosophy. They frequently declined the odious task of persecution,

dismissed the charge with contempt, or suggested to the accused

Christian some legal evasion by which he might elude the severity of the

laws. (Tertullian, in his epistle to the Governor of Africa, mentions

several remarkable instances of lenity and forbearance which had

happened within his own knowledge.)... The learned Origen, who, from his

experience, as well as reading, was intimately acquainted with the

history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the

number of martyrs was very inconsiderable.... The general assertion of

Origen may be explained and confirmed by the particular testimony of his

friend Dionysius, who, in the immense city of Alexandria, and under the

rigorous persecution of Decius, reckons only ten men and seven women who

suffered for the profession of the Christian name" ("Decline and Fall,"

vol. ii., pp. 224-226. See throughout chap. xvi.). Gibbon calculates the

whole number of martyrs of the Early Church at "somewhat less than two

thousand persons;" and remarks caustically that the "Christians, in the

course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater

severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of

infidels" (pp. 273, 274). Supposing, however, that the most exaggerated

accounts of Church historians were correct, how would that support

Paley's argument? His contention is that the "eye-witnesses" of

miraculous events died in testimony of their belief in them; and myriads

of martyrs in the second and third centuries are of no assistance to

him. So we will retrace our steps to the eye-witnesses, and we find the

position of Gibbon--as to the lives and labours of the Apostles being

written later by men not confining themselves to facts--endorsed by

Mosheim, who judiciously observes: "Many have undertaken to write this

history of the Apostles, a history which we find loaded with fables,

doubts, and difficulties, when we pursue it further than the books of

the New Testament, and the most ancient writers in the Christian Church"

("Eccles. Hist.," p. 27, ed. 1847). What "ancient writers" Mosheim

alludes to it is difficult to guess, as may be judged from his

criticisms quoted below, on the "Apostolic Fathers," the most ancient of

all; and in estimating the worth of his opinion, it is necessary to

remember that he was himself an earnest Christian, although a learned

and candid one, so that every admission he makes, which tells against

Christianity, is of double weight, it being the admission of a friend

and 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 his

life, actions, and death are, for the most part, uncertain. Two

_Epistles to the Corinthians_, written in Greek, have been attributed to

him, of which the second has been looked upon as spurious, and the first

as genuine, by many learned writers. But even this latter seems to have

been corrupted and interpolated by some ignorant and presumptuous

author.... The learned are now unanimous in regarding the other writings

which bear the name of Clemens (Clement) ... as spurious productions

ascribed by some impostor to this venerable prelate, in order to procure

them a high degree of authority" (Ibid, pp. 31, 32).

"The first epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved to

us in a single manuscript only. Though very frequently referred to by

ancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars of

Western Europe until happily discovered in the Alexandrian

manuscript.... 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 their

author.... Although, as has been said, positive certainty cannot be

reached on the subject, we may with great probability conclude that we

have in this epistle a composition of that Clement who is known to us

from Scripture as having been an associate of the great apostle. The

date of this epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy.

It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some

persecution (chapter I) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only

question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or

Domitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the

latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century, or the

beginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of

this question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless

confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter,

others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him

and the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter

doubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. The

probability 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 the

Apostolic Fathers." Translated by Rev. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Donaldson, and

Rev. F. Crombie, pp. 3, 4. Ed. 1867). "Only a single-manuscript copy of

the work is extant, at the end of the Alexandrian manuscript of the

Scriptures. This copy is considerably mutilated. In some passages the

text is manifestly corrupt, and other passages have been suspected of

being interpolations" (Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels," vol. i, p.

336. Ed. 1847).

The second epistle is rejected on all sides. "It is now generally

regarded as one of the many writings which have been falsely ascribed to

Clement.... The diversity of style clearly points to a different writer

from that of the first epistle" ("Apostolic Fathers," page 53). "The

second epistle ... is not mentioned at all by the earlier Fathers who

refer to the first. Eusebius, who is the first writer who mentions it,

expresses doubt regarding it, while Jerome and Photius state that it was

rejected by the ancients. It is now universally regarded as spurious"

("Supernatural Religion," pp. 220, 221). "There is a second epistle

ascribed to Clement, but we know not that this is as highly approved as

the 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 great

length. Lately, and some time ago, those were produced that contain the

dialogues of Peter and Apion, of which, however, not a syllable is

recorded by the primitive Church" (Eusebius' "Eccles. Hist." bk. iii.,

chap. 38). "The first Greek Epistle alone can be confidently pronounced

genuine" (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 as

genuine" ("Lardner's Credibility," pt. ii., vol. i., p. 62. Ed. 1734).

"Besides the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians there is a fragment

of a piece, called his second epistle, which being doubtful, or rather

plainly not Clement's, I don't quote as his." (Ibid, p. 106.)

This very dubious Clement (Paley quotes, be it said, from the first--or

least doubtful--of his writings) only says that _one_ of Paley's

original witnesses was martyred, namely Peter; Paul, of course, was not

an eye-witness of Christ's proceedings.

The _Vision of Hermas_ is a simple rhapsody, unworthy of a moment's

consideration, of which Mosheim justly remarks: "The discourse which he

puts into the mouths of those celestial beings is more insipid and

senseless than what we commonly hear among the meanest of the multitude"

("Eccles. Hist," p. 32). Its date is very doubtful; the Canon of

Muratori puts it in the middle of the second century, saying that it was

written 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 of

Smyrna, who, in the middle of the second century, suffered martyrdom in

a venerable and advanced age, is looked upon by some as genuine; by

others as spurious; and it is no easy matter to determine this question"

("Eccles. Hist," p. 32). "Upon no internal ground can any part of this

Epistle be pronounced genuine; there are potent reasons for considering

it spurious, and there is no evidence of any value whatever supporting

its 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 also

supported by the internal evidence" (p. 67). But they add: "The epistle

before us is not perfect in any of the Greek MSS. which contain it. But

the chapters wanting in Greek are contained in an ancient Latin version.

While there is no ground for supposing, as some have done, that the

whole epistle is spurious, there seems considerable force in the

arguments by which many others have sought to prove chap. xiii. to be an

interpolation. The date of the epistle cannot be satisfactorily

determined. It depends on the conclusion we reach as to some points,

very difficult and obscure, connected with that account of the martyrdom

of Polycarp which has come down to us. We shall not, however, be far

wrong if we fix it about the middle of the second century" (Ibid, pp.

67, 68). Poor Paley! this weak evidence to the martyrdom of his

eye-witnesses comes 150 years after Christ; and even then all that

Polycarp 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 of

dispute. Mosheim, who accepts the seven epistles, says that, "Though I

am willing to adopt this opinion as preferable to any other, yet I

cannot help looking upon the authenticity of the epistle to Polycarp as

extremely dubious, on account of the difference of style; and, indeed,

the whole question relating to the epistles of St. Ignatius in general

seems to me to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed with

many 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 Apostle

John, one to Mary of Cassobelæ, one to the Tarsians, one to the

Antiochians, one to Hero (a deacon of Antioch), one to the Philippians,

one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one

to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnians, and one

to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin; all the rest are

extant also in Greek. It is now the universal opinions of critics that

the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They

bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later

age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes

the least reference to them; and they are now, by common consent, set

aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special

purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.

But, after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains

sufficiently complex. Of the seven epistles which are acknowledged by

Eusebius" ("Eccles. Hist," bk. iii., chap. 36), we possess two Greek

recensions, a shorter and a longer. "It is plain that one or other of

these exhibits a corrupt text; and scholars have, for the most part,

agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of

Ignatius.... But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had

been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a

pretty prevalent opinion among scholars that even it could not be

regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted

authenticity.... Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was,

until recently, accepted without much opposition ... as exhibiting the

genuine form of the epistles of Ignatius. But a totally different aspect

was given to the question by the discovery of a Syriac version of three

of these epistles among the MSS. procured from the monastery of St. Mary

Deipara, 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, with

those to the Ephesians and to the Romans, in two other volumes of

manuscripts" ("Apostolic Fathers," pp. 139-142). Dr. Cureton gave it as

his opinion that the Syriac letters are "the only true and genuine

letters of the venerable Bishop of Antioch that have either come down to

our times or were ever known in the earliest ages of the Christian

Church" ("Corpus Ignatianum," ed. 1849, as quoted in the "Apostolic

Fathers," p. 142).

"I have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied

upon that comparison that the larger are an interpolation of the

smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger. I

desire no better evidence in a thing of this nature.... But whether the

smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of

Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the

pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have

shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult

question" ("Credibility," pt. 2, vol. ii., p. 153). The Syriac version

was then, of course, unknown. Professor Norton, the learned Christian

defender of the Gospels, says: "The seven shorter epistles, the

genuineness of which is contended for, come to us in bad company....

There is, as it seems to me, no reasonable doubt that the seven shorter

epistles ascribed to Ignatius are equally, with all the rest,

fabrications of a date long subsequent to his time." "I doubt whether

any book, in its general tone of sentiment and language, ever betrayed

itself as a forgery more clearly than do these pretended epistles of

Ignatius" ("Genuineness of the Gospels," vol. i., pp. 350 and 353, ed.

1847).

"What, then, is the position of the so-called Ignatian epistles? Towards

the end of the second century Irenæus makes a very short quotation from

a source unnamed, which Eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in an

epistle attributed to Ignatius. Origen, in the third century, quotes a

few words, which he ascribes to Ignatius, although without definite

reference to any particular epistle; and, in the fourth century,

Eusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no other

evidence. There are, however, fifteen epistles extant, all of which are

attributed to Ignatius, of all of which, with the exception of three,

which are only known in a Latin version, we possess both Greek and Latin

versions. Of seven of these epistles--and they are those mentioned by

Eusebius--we have two Greek versions, one of which is very much shorter

than the other; and, finally, we now possess a Syriac version of three

epistles, 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 universally

rejected as spurious (ante, p. 263). The longer Greek version of the

remaining seven epistles is almost unanimously condemned as grossly

interpolated; and the great majority of critics recognise that the

shorter Greek version is also much interpolated; whilst the Syriac

version, which, so far as MSS. are concerned, is by far the most ancient

text of any letters which we possess, reduces their number to three, and

their contents to a very small compass indeed. It is not surprising that

the vast majority of critics have expressed doubt more or less strong

regarding the authenticity of all these epistles, and that so large a

number have repudiated them altogether. One thing is quite

evident--that, amidst such a mass of falsification, interpolation, and

fraud, the Ignatian epistles cannot, in any form, be considered evidence

on any important point.... In fact, the whole of the Ignatian literature

is a mass of falsification and fraud" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., pp. 270,

271, 274). The student may judge from this confusion, of fifteen reduced

to seven long, and seven long reduced to seven short, and seven short

reduced to three, and those three very doubtful, how thoroughly reliable

must be Paley's arguments drawn from this "contemporary of Polycarp."

Our editors of the "Fathers" very frankly remark: "As to the personal

history of Ignatius, almost nothing is known" ("Apostolic Fathers," p.

143). Why, acknowledging this, they call him "celebrated," it is hard to

say. Truly, the ways of Christian commentators are dark!

Paley's quotation is taken from the epistle to the Smyrnaeans (not one

of the Syriac, be it noted), and is from the shorter Greek recension. It

occurs in chap. iii., and only says that Peter, and those who were with

him, saw Jesus after the resurrection, and believed: "for this cause

also they despised death, and were found its conquerors." Men who

believed in a resurrection might naturally despise death; but it is hard

to see how this quotation--even were it authentic--shows that the

apostles suffered for their belief. What strikes one as most

remarkable--if Paley's contention of the sufferings of the witnesses be

true, and these writings authentic--is that so very little mention is

made of the apostles, of their labours, toils, and sufferings, and that

these epistles are simply a kind of patchwork, chiefly of Old Testament

materials, 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 would

imagine on reading it that many must have been put to death. We are

surprised to learn, from the epistle itself, that Polycarp was only the

twelfth martyr between the two towns of Smyrna and Philadelphia! The

amount of dependence to be placed on the narrative may be judged by the

following:--"As the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was

given to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved

that we might report to others what then took place. For the fire,

shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when

filled with 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 that

is baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we

perceived such a sweet odour, as if frankincense or some such precious

spices had been burning there. At length, when those men perceived that

his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an

executioner to go near, and pierce him with a dagger. And on his doing

this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that

the fire was extinguished" ("Apostolic Fathers," p. 92). What reliance

can be placed on historians(?) who gravely relate that fire does not

burn, 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 this

precious epistle still more valuable, one of its transcribers adds to

it:--"I again, Pionius, wrote them (these things) from the previously

written copy, having carefully searched into them, and the blessed

Polycarp having manifested them to me through a revelation[!] even as I

shall show in what follows. I have collected these things, when they had

almost faded away through the lapse of time" (Ibid, p. 96). If this is

history, then any absurd dream may be taken as the basis of belief. We

may add that this epistle does not mention the martyrdoms of the

eye-witnesses, and it is hard to know why Paley drags it in, unless he

wants to make us believe that his eye-witnesses suffered all the

tortures he quotes; but even Paley cannot pretend that there is a

scintilla of proof of their undergoing any such trials. Thus falls the

whole argument based on the "twelve men, whose probity and good sense I

had long known," dying for the persistent assertion of "a miracle

wrought 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 were

any eye-witnesses, or that they made any assertions, and we have

entirely failed to prove that the eye-witnesses were martyred at all, or

that the death of any one of them, save that of Peter, is even mentioned

in the alleged documents, so that the "satisfactory evidences" of the

"original witnesses of the Christian miracles" suffering and dying in

attestation of those miracles amount to this, that in a disputed

document Peter is said to have been martyred, and in another, still more

doubtful, "the rest of the apostles" are said to have "suffered." Thus

the first proposition of Paley falls entirely to the ground. The honest

truth is that the history of the twelve apostles is utterly unknown, and

that around their names gathers a mass of incredible and nonsensical

myth and legend, similar in kind to other mythological fables, and

entirely unworthy of credence by reasonable people.

Nor is proof less lacking of submission "from the same motives, to new

rules of conduct." Nowhere is there a sign that Christian morality was

enforced by appeal to the miracles of Christ; miracles were, in those

days, too common an incident to attract much attention, and, indeed, if

they could not win belief in the mission from those Jews before whom

they were said to have been performed, what chance would they have had

when the story of their working was only repeated by hearsay? Again, the

rules of conduct were not "new;" the best parts of the Christian

morality had been taught long before Christ (as we shall prove later on

by quotations), and were familiar to the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians,

from the writings of their own philosophers. There would have been

nothing remarkable in a new sect growing up among these peoples,

accustomed as they were to the schools of the philosophers, with their

various groups of disciples distinguished by special names. Why is there

anything more wonderful in these Christian societies with a high moral

code, than in the severe and stately morality inculcated and practised

by the Stoics? For the submission of conduct to the "new rules," the

less said the better. 1 Corinthians does not give us a very lofty idea

of the morality current among the Christians there, and the angry

reproaches of Jude imply much depravity; the messages to the seven

Churches are generally reproving, not to dwell on many scattered

passages of the same character. Outsiders, moreover, speak very harshly

of the Christian societies. Tacitus--whose testimony must be allowed

some weight, if he be quoted as a proof of the existence of the

sect--says that they were held in abhorrence for their crimes, and were

condemned for their "enmity to mankind" (the expression of Tacitus may

either mean _haters of_ mankind, or _hated by_ mankind), expressions

which show that the adherents of the higher and purer morality were, at

least, singularly unfortunate in the impressions of it which they

conveyed to their neighbours by their lives; and we find, further, the

most scandalous crimes imputed to the Christians, necessitating the

enforcement against them of edicts passed to put down the shameful

Bacchanalian mysteries. And here, indeed, is the true cause of the

persecution to which they were subjected under the just and merciful

Roman sway, and this is a point that should not be lost sight of by the

student.

About 186 B.C., according to Livy (lib. xxxix. c. 8-19), the Roman

Government, discovering that certain "Bacchanalian mysteries" were

habitually celebrated in Rome, issued stern edicts against the

participants in them, and succeeding in, at least partially, suppressing

them. The reason given by the Consul Postumius for these edicts was

political, not religious. "Could they think," he asked, "that youths,

initiated under such oaths as theirs, were fit to be made soldiers? That

wretches brought out of the temple of obscenity could be trusted with

arms? That those contaminated with the foul debaucheries of these

meetings should be the champions for the chastity of the wives and

children of the Roman people?" "Let us now closely examine how far the

Eleusinian and Bacchanalian feasts resembled the Christian

Agapae--whether the latter, modified and altered a little according to

the change which would take place in the taste of the age, originated

from the former, or were altogether from a different source. We have

seen that the forementioned Pagan feasts were, throughout Italy, in a

very flourishing state about 186 years before the Christian era. We have

also seen that about this time they were, at least, partially suppressed

in Italy, and those who were wont to take part in them dispersed over

the world. Being zealously devoted to the religion of which these feasts

were part, it is very natural to suppose that, wherever the votaries of

this superstition settled, they soon established these feasts, which

they were enabled to carry on secretly, and, therefore, for a

considerable time, undetected.... Both Pagans and Christians, in ancient

times, were particularly careful not to disclose their _mysteries_; to

do so, in violation of their oaths, would cost their lives" ("The

Prophet of Nazareth," by E.P. Meredith, notes, pp. 225, 226). Mr.

Meredith then points out how in Rome, in Lyons, in Vienne, "the

Christians were actually accused of murdering children and others--of

committing adultery, incest, and other flagrant crimes in their secret

lovefeasts. The question, therefore, arises--were they really guilty of

the barbarous crimes with which they were so often formally charged, and

for the commission of which they were almost as often legally condemned,

and punished with death? Is it probable that persons _at Rome_, who had

once belonged to these lovefeasts, should tell a deliberate falsehood

that the Christians perpetrated these abominable vices, and that other

persons _in France_, who had also been connected with these feasts,

should falsely state that the Christians were guilty of the very same

execrable crimes? There was no collusion or connection whatever between

these parties, and in making their statements, they could have no

self-interested motive. They lived in different countries, they did not

make their statements within twenty years of the same time, and by

making such statements they rendered themselves liable to be punished

with death.... The same remark applies to the disclosures made, about

150 years after, by certain females in Damascus, far remote from either

Lyons or Rome. These make precisely the same statement--that they had

once been Christians, that they were privy to criminal acts among them,

and that these Christians, in their very churches, committed licentious

deeds. The Romans would never have so relentlessly persecuted the

Christians had they not been guilty of some such atrocities as were laid

to their charge. There are on record abundant proofs that the Romans,

from the earliest account we have of them, tolerated all harmless

religions--all such as were not directly calculated to endanger the

public peace, or vitiate public morals, or render life and property

unsafe.... So well known were those horrid vices to be carried on by all

Christians in their nocturnal and secret assemblies, and so certain it

was 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 strong

presumptive proof that he was guilty of these offences. Hence, persons

in their preliminary examinations, who, on being interrogated, answered

that they were Christians, were thought proper subjects for committal to

prison.... Pliny further indicates that while some brought before him,

on information, refused to tell him anything as to the nature of their

nocturnal meetings, others replied to his questions as far as their oath

permitted them. They told him that it was their practice, as Christians,

to meet on a stated day, before daylight, to sing hymns; and to bind

themselves by a solemn oath that they would do no wrong; that they would

not steal, nor rob, nor commit any act of unchastity; that they would

never violate a trust; and that they joined together in a common and

innocent repast. While all these answers to the questions of the

Proconsul are suggestive of the crimes with which the Christians were

charged, still they are a denial of every one of them.... The whole

tenor of historical facts is, however, against their testimony, and the

Proconsul did not believe them; but, in order to get at the entire

truth, put some of them to the torture, and ultimately adjourned their

trial [see ante, pp. 203-205]. The manner in which Greek and Latin

writers mention the Christians goes far to show that they were guilty of

the atrocious crimes laid to their charge. Suetonius (in Nero) calls

them, '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 of

the Christians who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a

minister of obscene pleasures.' Tacitus tells us that Nero inflicted

exquisite punishment upon those people who, under the vulgar appellation

of Christians, were held in abhorrence for their crimes. He also, in the

same place, says they were 'odious to mankind;' and calls their religion

a 'pernicious superstition' [see ante, p. 99]. Maximus, likewise, in his

letter, calls them 'votaries of execrable vanity,' who had 'filled the

world with infamy.' It would appear, however, that owing to the extreme

measures taken against them by the Romans, both in Italy and in all the

provinces, the Christians, by degrees, were forced to abandon entirely

in their Agapae infant murders, together with every species of

obscenity, retaining, nevertheless, some relics of them, such as the

_kiss of charity_, and the bread and wine, which they contended was

transubstantiated into real flesh and blood.... A very common way of

repelling these charges was for one sect of Christians, which, of

course, denounced all other sects as heretics, to urge that human

sacrifices and incestuous festivals were not celebrated by that sect,

but that they _were_ practised by other sects; such, for example, as the

Marcionites and the Capocratians. (Justin Mart., 'Apology,' i., 35;

Iren., adv. Haer. i., 24; Clem. Alex., i., 3.) When Tertullian joined

the Montanists, another sect of Christians, he divulged the criminal

secrets of the Church which he had so zealously defended, by saying, in

his 'Treatise on Fasting,' c. 17, that 'in the Agapae the young men lay

with their sisters, and wallowed in wantonness and luxury'.... Remnants

of these execrable customs remained for a long time, and vestiges of

them exist to this very day, as well in certain words and phrases as in

practice. The communion table to this very day is called _the altar_,

the name of that upon which the ancients sacrificed their victims. The

word _sacrament_ has a meaning, as used by Pliny already cited, which

carries us back to the solemn oath of the Agapaeists. The word _mass_

carries us back still further, and identifies the present mass with that

of 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 communion

bread--_little body_, and the communion table--_mystical table_; the

latter, in allusion to the heathen and early Christian mysteries, and

the former, in reference to the children sacrificed at the Agapae. The

great doctrine of transubstantiation directly points to the abominable

practice of eating human flesh at the Agapae.... Upon the whole, it is

impossible, from the mass of evidence already adduced, to avoid the

conclusion that the early Christians, in their Agapae, were really

guilty of the execrable vices with which they were so often charged, and

for which they were sentenced to death. This once admitted, a reasonable

and adequate cause can be assigned for the severe persecutions of the

Christians by the Roman Government--a Government which applied precisely

the same laws and modes of persecution and punishment to them as to the

votaries of the Bacchanalian and Eleusinian mysteries, well known to

have been accustomed to offer human sacrifices, and indulge in the most

obscene lasciviousness in their secret assemblies; and a Government

which tolerated all kinds of religions, except those which encouraged

practices dangerous to human life, or pernicious to the morals of

subjects. Nor can the facts already advanced fail to show clearly that

the Christian Agapae were of Pagan origin--were identically the same as

those Pagan feasts which existed simultaneously with them" (Ibid, notes,

pp. 227, 231).

There can be no doubt that the Christians suffered for these crimes

whether or no they were guilty of them: "Three things are alleged

against us: Atheism, Thyestean feasts, OEdipodean intercourse," says

Athenagoras ("Apology," ch. iii). Justin Martyr refers to the same

charges ("2nd Apology," ch. xii). "Monsters of wickedness, we are

accused of observing a holy rite, in which we kill a little child and

then eat it, in which after the feast we practise incest.... Come,

plunge your knife into the babe, enemy of none, accused of none, child

of all; or if that is another's work, simply take your place beside a

human being dying before he has really lived, await the departure of the

lately-given soul, receive the fresh young blood, saturate your bread

with it, freely partake" ("Apology," Tertullian, secs. 7, 8). Tertullian

pleads earnestly that these accusations were false: "if you cannot do

it, you ought not to believe it of others. For a Christian is a man as

well as you" (Ibid). Yet, when Tertullian became a Montanist, he

declared that these very crimes _were_ committed at the Agapae, so that

he spoke falsely either in the one case or in the other. "It was

sometimes faintly insinuated, and sometimes boldly asserted, that the

same bloody sacrifices and the same incestuous festivals, which were so

falsely ascribed to the orthodox believers, were in reality celebrated

by the Marcionites, by the Carpocratians, and by several other sects of

the Gnostics.... Accusations of a similar kind were retorted upon the

Church by the schismatics who had departed from its communion; and it

was confessed on all sides that the most scandalous licentiousness of

manners prevailed among great numbers of those who affected the name of

Christians. A Pagan magistrate, who possessed neither leisure nor

abilities to discern the almost imperceptible line which divides the

orthodox faith from heretical depravity, might easily have imagined that

their 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 they

discovered no such criminality. It is, be it noted, simultaneously with

the promulgation of these charges that the persecution of the Christians

takes place; during the first century very little is heard of such, and

there is very little persecution [see ante, pp. 209-213]. In the

following 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 of

speaking of the communion feast as "the Christian _mysteries_," a habit

still 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 not

the smallest reason, unless the service were of a nature so

objectionable 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 central

Christian emblem, and one that, especially in connection with the

mysteries, is of no dubious signification. Thus, in the twilight in

which they were veiled in those early days, the Christians appear to us

as a sect of very different character to that bestowed upon them by

Paley. A little later, when they emerge into historical light, their own

writers give us sufficient evidence whereby we may judge them; and we

find them superstitious, grossly ignorant, quarrelsome, cruel, divided

into ascetics and profligates, between whom it is hard to award the palm

for degradation and indecency.

Having "proved"--in the above fashion--that a number of people in the

first century advanced "an extraordinary story," underwent persecution,

and altered their manner of life, because of it, Paley thinks it "in the

highest degree probable, that the story for which these persons

voluntarily exposed themselves to the fatigues and hardships which they

endured, was a _miraculous_ story; I mean, that they pretended to

miraculous evidence of some kind or other" ("Evidences," p. 64). That

the Christians believed in a miraculous story may freely be

acknowledged, but it is evidence of the truth of the story that we want,

not evidence of their belief in it. Many ignorant people believe in

witchcraft and in fortune-telling now-a-days, but their belief only

proves 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 that

there is in existence no trace of any story of Jesus Christ

"substantially different from ours" ("Evidences," p. 69). It is hard to

judge how much difference is covered by the word "substantially." All

the apocryphal gospels differ very much from the canonical, insert

sayings 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 greater

extent than "the four." That Christ was miraculously born, worked

miracles, was crucified, buried, rose again, ascended, may be accepted

as "substantial" parts of the story. Yet Mark and John knew nothing of

the birth, while, if the Acts and the Epistles are to be trusted, the

apostles were equally ignorant; thus the great doctrine of the

Incarnation of God without natural generation, is thoroughly ignored by

all save Matthew and Luke, and even these destroy their own story by

giving genealogies of Jesus through Joseph, which are useless unless

Joseph was his real father. The birth from a virgin, then has no claim

to be part of Paley's miraculous story in the earliest times. The

evidence of miracle-working by Christ to be found in the Epistles is

chiefly conspicuous by its absence, but it figures largely in

post-apostolic works. The crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension are

generally acknowledged, and these three incidents compose the whole

story for which a consensus of testimony can be claimed; it will,

perhaps, be fair to concede also that Christ is recognised universally

as a miracle-worker, in spite of the strange silence of the epistles. We

need not refer to the testimony of Clement, Polycarp or Ignatius, having

already shown what dependence may be placed on their writings. But we

have now three new witnesses, Barnabas, Quadratus, and Justin Martyr.

Paley says: "In an epistle, bearing the name of Barnabas, the companion

of Paul, probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have the

sufferings of Christ," etc. (Evidences p. 75). "Probably genuine,

certainly belonging to that age!" Is Paley joking with his readers, or

only trading on their ignorance? "The letter itself bears no author's

name, is not dated from any place, and is not addressed to any special

community. _Towards the end of the second century, however, tradition

began to ascribe it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. The first writer

who mentions it is Clement of Alexandria_ [head of the Alexandrian

School, A.D. 205] who calls its author several times the 'Apostle

Barnabas'.... We have already seen in the case of the Epistles ascribed

to Clement of Rome, and, as we proceed, we shall become only too

familiar with the fact, the singular facility with which, in the total

absence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed by

the Fathers to Apostles and their followers.... Credulous piety which

attributed writings to every Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soon

found authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character.... In

the earlier days of criticism, some writers, without much question,

adopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the Epistles, but

the great mass of critics are now agreed in asserting that the

composition, which itself is perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributed

to Barnabas the friend and fellow worker of Paul. Those who maintain the

former opinion date the Epistle about A.D. 70-73, or even earlier, but

this is scarcely the view of any living critic" ("Supernatural

Religion," vol. i., pp. 237-239).

"From its contents it seems unlikely that it was written by a companion

of Apostles and a Levite. In addition to this, it is probable that

Barnabas died before A.D. 62; and the letter contains not only an

allusion to the destruction of the Jewish temple, but also affirms the

abnegation of the Sabbath, and the general celebration of the Lord's

Day, which seems to show that it could not have been written before the

beginning of the second century" ("Westcott on the Canon," p. 41).

"Nothing certain is known as to the author of the following epistle. The

writer's name is Barnabas; but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it to

the illustrious friend and companion of St. Paul.... The internal

evidence is now generally regarded as conclusive against this

opinion.... The external evidence [ascribing it to Barnabas] is of

itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to

ascribe this writing to Barnabas, the apostle.... The general opinion

is, 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 or

so before. In point of style, both as respects thought and expression, a

very low place must be assigned it. We know nothing certain of the

region in which the author lived, or where the first readers were to be

found" ("Apostolic Fathers," pp. 99, 100). The Epistle is not ascribed

to Barnabas at all until the close of the second century. Eusebius marks

it as "spurious" ("Eccles. Hist," bk. iii., chap. xxv). Lardner speaks

of it as "probably Barnabas's, and certainly ancient" ("Credibility,"

pt. ii., vol. ii., p. 30). When we see the utter conflict of evidence as

to the writings of all these "primitive" authors, we can scarcely wonder

at the frank avowal of the Rev. Dr. Giles: "The writings of the

Apostolical Fathers labour under a more heavy load of doubt and

suspicion than any other ancient compositions, either sacred or profane"

("Christian Records," p. 53).

Paley, in quoting "Quadratus," does not tell us that the passage he

quotes is the only writing of Quadratus extant, and is only preserved by

Eusebius, who says that he takes it from an apology addressed by

Quadratus to the Emperor Adrian. Adrian reigned from A.D. 117-138, and

the apology must consequently have been presented between these dates.

If the apology be genuine, Quadratus makes the extraordinary assertion

that 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. "Some

of" those raised cannot be less than two out of the three; we will say

the two youngest. Then they were alive at the respectable ages of from

95-116, and from 105-126. The first may be taken as just within the

limits of possibility; the second as beyond them; but Quadratus talks in

a wholesale fashion, which quite destroys his credibility, and we can

lay but little stress on the carefulness or trustworthiness of a

historian who speaks in such reckless words. Added to this, we find no

trace of this passage until Eusebius writes it in the fourth century,

and it is well known that Eusebius was not too particular in his

quotations, thinking that his duty was only to make out the best case he

could. He frankly says: "We are totally unable to find even the bare

vestiges of those who may have travelled the way before us; unless,

perhaps, what is only presented in the slight intimations, which some in

different ways have transmitted to us in certain partial narratives of

the times in which they lived.... _Whatsoever_, therefore, _we deem

likely to be advantageous to_ the proposed subject we shall endeavour to

reduce to a compact body" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk. i., chap. i).

Accordingly, he produces a full Church History out of materials which

are only "slight intimations," and carefully draws out in detail a path

of which not "even the bare vestiges" are left. Little wonder that he

had 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) as

his last authority--as after his time the story may be taken as

established--and says: "From Justin's works, which are still extant,

might be collected a tolerably complete account of Christ's life, in all

points agreeing with that which 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). If "no other" account was extant, Justin

must have largely drawn on his own imagination when he pretends to be

quoting. Jesus, according to Justin, is conceived "of the Word"

("Apol.," i. 33), not of the Holy Ghost, the third person, the Holy

Ghost being said to be identical with the Word; and he is thus conceived

by himself. He is born, not in Bethlehem in a stable, but in a "cave

near 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 to

judge his accusers ("Apol.," i. 35). All the apostles deny him, and

forsake him, after he is crucified ("Apol.," i. 50). These instances

might be increased, and, as we shall see later, Justin manifestly quotes

from 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 such

histories. 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 the

Christians. from about 100 years after his supposed birth, he would have

spoken truly; and had he added to this, that the very same story was

told among Egyptians and Hindoos, many hundreds of years earlier, he

would have treated his readers honestly, although he might not thereby

have increased their belief in the "divine origin of Christianity."