SECTION V.

_On the Origin of the Arts._

What! we would know the precise theology--of Thoth, Zerdusht, or

Sanchoniathon, although we know not who invented the shuttle. The first

weaver, the first mason, the first smith were undoubtedly great

geniuses; yet no account has been made of them. And why? Because not one

of them invented a perfect art. He who first hollowed the trunk of an

oak for the purpose of crossing a river did not build galleys; nor did

they who piled up unhewn stones, and laid pieces of wood across them,

dream of the pyramids. Everything is done by degrees, and the glory

belongs to no one.

All was done in the dark, until philosophers, aided by geometry, taught

men to proceed with accuracy and safety.

It was left for Pythagoras, on his return from his travels, to show

workmen the way to make an exact square. He took three rules: one three,

one four, and one five feet long, and with these he made a right-angled

triangle. Moreover, it was found that the side 5 furnished a square just

equal to the two squares produced by the sides 4 and 3; a method of

importance in all regular works.

This is the famous theorem which he had brought from India, and which

we have elsewhere said was known in China long before, according to the

relation of the Emperor Cam-hi. Long before Plato, the Greeks made use

of a single geometrical figure to double the square.

Archytas and Erastothenes invented a method of doubling the cube, which

was impracticable by ordinary geometry, and which would have done honor

to Archimedes.

This Archimedes found the method of calculating exactly the quantity of

alloy mixed with gold; for gold had been worked for ages before the

fraud of the workers could be discovered. Knavery existed long before

mathematics. The pyramids, built with the square, and corresponding

exactly with the four cardinal points, sufficiently show that geometry

was known in Egypt from time immemorial; and yet it is proved that Egypt

is quite a new country.

Without philosophy we should be little above the animals that dig or

erect their habitations, prepare their food in them, take care of their

little ones in their dwellings, and have besides the good fortune, which

we have not, of being born ready clothed. Vitruvius, who had travelled

in Gaul and Spain, tells us that in his time the houses were built of a

sort of mortar, covered with thatch or oak shingles, and that the people

did not make use of tiles. What was the time of Vitruvius? It was that

of Augustus. The arts had scarcely yet reached the Spaniards, who had

mines of gold and silver; or the Gauls, who had fought for ten years

against Cæsar.

The same Vitruvius informs us that in the opulent and ingenious town of

Marseilles, which traded with so many nations, the roofs were only of a

kind of clay mixed with straw.

He says that the Phrygians dug themselves habitations in the ground;

they stuck poles round the hollow, brought them together at the top, and

laid earth over them. The Hurons and the Algonquins are better lodged.

This gives us no very lofty idea of Troy, built by the gods, and the

palace of Priam:

_Apparet domus intus, et atria longa patescunt;_

_Apparent Priami et veterum penetralia regum._

A mighty breach is made; the rooms concealed

Appear, and all the palace is revealed--

The halls of audience, and of public state.--DRYDEN.

To be sure, the people are not lodged like kings; huts are to be seen

near the Vatican and near Versailles. Besides, industry rises and falls

among nations by a thousand revolutions:

_Et campus ubi Troja fuit._

....the plain where Troy once stood.

We have our arts, the ancients had theirs. We could not make a galley

with three benches of oars, but we can build ships with a hundred pieces

of cannon. We cannot raise obelisks a hundred feet high in a single

piece, but our meridians are more exact. The byssus is unknown to us,

but the stuffs of Lyons are more valuable. The Capitol was worthy of

admiration, the church of St. Peter is larger and more beautiful. The

Louvre is a masterpiece when compared with the palace of Persepolis, the

situation and ruins of which do but tell of a vast monument to barbaric

wealth. Rameau's music is probably better than that of Timotheus; and

there is not a picture presented at Paris in the Hall of Apollo (salon

d'Apollon) which does not excel the paintings dug out of Herculaneum.

APIS.

Was the ox Apis worshipped at Memphis as a god, as a symbol, or as an

ox? It is likely that the fanatics regarded him as a god, the wise as

merely a symbol, and that the more stupid part of the people worshipped

the ox. Did Cambyses do right in killing this ox with his own hand? Why

not? He showed to the imbecile that their god might be put on the spit

without nature's arming herself to avenge the sacrilege. The Egyptians

have been much extolled. I have not heard of a more miserable people.

There must always have been in their character, and in their government,

some radical vice which has constantly made vile slaves of them. Let it

be granted that in times almost unknown they conquered the earth; but in

historical times they have been subjugated by all who have chosen to

take the trouble--by the Assyrians, by the Greeks, by the Romans, by the

Arabs, by the Mamelukes, by the Turks, by all, in short, but our

crusaders, who were even more ill-advised than the Egyptians were

cowardly. It was the Mameluke militia that beat the French under St.

Louis. There are, perhaps, but two things tolerable in this nation; the

first is, that those who worshipped an ox never sought to compel those

who adored an ape to change their religion; the second, that they have

always hatched chickens in ovens.

[Illustration: A vast monument to barbaric wealth.]

We are told of their pyramids; but they are monuments of an enslaved

people. The whole nation must have been set to work on them, or those

unsightly masses could never have been raised. And for what use were

they? To preserve in a small chamber the mummy of some prince, or

governor, or intendant, which his soul was to reanimate at the end of a

thousand years. But if they looked forward to this resurrection of the

body, why did they take out the brains before embalming them? Were the

Egyptians to be resuscitated without brains?

APOCALYPSE.

SECTION I.

Justin the Martyr, who wrote about the year 270 of the Christian era,

was the first who spoke of the Apocalypse; he attributes it to the

apostle John the Evangelist. In his dialogue with Tryphon, that Jew asks

him if he does not believe that Jerusalem is one day to be

re-established? Justin answers that he believes it, as all Christians do

who think aright. "There was among us," says he, "a certain person

named John, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus; he foretold that the

faithful shall pass a thousand years in Jerusalem."

The belief in this reign of a thousand years was long prevalent among

the Christians. This period was also in great credit among the Gentiles.

The souls of the Egyptians returned to their bodies at the end of a

thousand years; and, according to Virgil, the souls in purgatory were

exorcised for the same space of time--_et mille per annos_. The New

Jerusalem of a thousand years was to have twelve gates, in memory of the

twelve apostles; its form was to be square; its length, breadth, and

height were each to be a thousand stadii--_i.e._, five hundred leagues;

so that the houses were to be five hundred leagues high. It would be

rather disagreeable to live in the upper story; but we find all this in

the twenty-first chapter of the Apocalypse.

If Justin was the first who attributed the Apocalypse to St. John, some

persons have rejected his testimony; because in the same dialogue with

the Jew Tryphon he says that, according to the relation of the apostles,

Jesus Christ, when he went into the Jordan, made the water boil, which,

however, is not to be found in any writing of the apostles.

The same St. Justin confidently cites the oracles of Sibyls; he moreover

pretends to have seen the remains of the places in which the seventy-two

interpreters were confined in the Egyptian pharos, in Herod's time. The

testimony of a man who had had the misfortune to see these places seems

to indicate that he might possibly have been confined there himself.

St. Irenæus, who comes afterwards, and who also believed in the reign of

a thousand years, tells us that he learned from an old man that St. John

wrote the Apocalypse. But St. Irenæus is reproached with having written

that there should be but four gospels, because there are but four

quarters of the world, and four cardinal points, and Ezekiel saw but

four animals. He calls this reasoning a demonstration. It must be

confessed that Irenæus's method of demonstrating is quite worthy of

Justin's power of sight.

Clement of Alexandria, in his _"Electa"_ mentions only an Apocalypse of

St. Peter, to which great importance was attached. Tertullian, a great

partisan of the thousand years' reign, not only assures us that St. John

foretold this resurrection and reign of a thousand years in the city of

Jerusalem, but also asserts that this Jerusalem was already beginning to

form itself in the air, where it had been seen by all the Christians of

Palestine, and even by the Pagans, at the latter end of the night, for

forty nights successively; but, unfortunately, the city always

disappeared as soon as it was daylight.

Origen, in his preface to St. John's Gospel, and in his homilies, quotes

the oracles of the Apocalypse, but he likewise quotes the oracles of

Sibyls. And St. Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote about the middle of

the third century, says, in one of his fragments preserved by Eusebius,

that nearly all the doctors rejected the Apocalypse as a book devoid of

reason, and that this book was composed, not by St. John, but by one

Cerinthus, who made use of a great name to give more weight to his

reveries.

The Council of Laodicea, held in 360, did not reckon the Apocalypse

among the canonical books. It is very singular that Laodicea, one of the

churches to which the Apocalypse was addressed, should have rejected a

treasure designed for itself, and that the bishop of Ephesus, who

attended the council, should also have rejected this book of St. John,

who was buried at Ephesus.

It was visible to all eyes that St. John was continually turning about

in his grave, causing a constant rising and falling of the earth. Yet

the same persons who were sure that St. John was not quite dead were

also sure that he had not written the Apocalypse. But those who were for

the thousand years' reign were unshaken in their opinion. Sulpicius

Severus, in his "Sacred History," book xi., treats as mad and impious

those who did not receive the Apocalypse. At length, after numerous

oppositions of council to council, the opinion of Sulpicius Severus

prevailed. The matter having been thus cleared up, the Church came to

the decision, from which there is no appeal, that the Apocalypse is

incontestably St. John's.

Every Christian communion has applied to itself the prophecies contained

in this book. The English have found in it the revolutions of Great

Britain; the Lutherans, the troubles of Germany; the French reformers,

the reign of Charles IX., and the regency of Catherine de Medici, and

they are all equally right. Bossuet and Newton have both commented on

the Apocalypse, yet, after all, the eloquent declamations of the one,

and the sublime discoveries of the other, have done them greater honor

than their commentaries.

SECTION II.

Two great men, but very different in their greatness, have commented on

the Apocalypse in the seventeenth century: Newton, to whom such a study

was very ill suited, and Bossuet, who was better fitted for the

undertaking. Both gave additional weapons to their enemies, by their

commentaries, and, as has elsewhere been said, the former consoled

mankind for his superiority over them, while the latter made his enemies

rejoice.

The Catholics and the Protestants have both explained the Apocalypse in

their favor, and have each found in it exactly what has accorded with

their interests. They have made wonderful commentaries on the great

beast with seven heads and ten horns, with the hair of a leopard, the

feet of a bear, the throat of a lion, the strength of a dragon, and to

buy and sell it was necessary to have the character and number of the

beast, which number was 666.

Bossuet finds that this beast was evidently the Emperor Diocletian, by

making an acrostic of his name. Grotius believed that it was Trajan. A

curate of St. Sulpice, named La Chétardie, known from some strange

adventures, proves that the beast was Julian. Jurieu proves that the

beast is the pope. One preacher has demonstrated that it was Louis XIV.

A good Catholic has demonstrated that it was William, king of England.

It is not easy to make them all agree.

There have been warm disputes concerning the stars which fell from

heaven to earth, and the sun and moon, which were struck with darkness

in their third parts.

There are several opinions respecting the book that the angel made the

author of the Apocalypse eat, which book was sweet to the mouth and

bitter to the stomach. Jurieu asserted that the books of his adversary

were designated thereby, and his argument was retorted upon himself.

There have been disputes about this verse: "And I heard a voice from

heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great

thunder; and I heard the voice of harpers harping on their harps."

It is quite clear that it would have been better to have respected the

Apocalypse than to have commented upon it.

Camus, bishop of Bellay, printed in the last century a large book

against the monks, which an unfrocked monk abridged. It was entitled

"Apocalypse," because in it he exposed the dangers and defects of the

monastic life; and "Melito's Apocalypse" (_"Apocalypse de Méliton?"_),

because Melito, bishop of Sardis, in the second century, had passed for

a prophet. This bishop's work has none of the obscurities of St. John's

Apocalypse. Nothing was ever clearer. The bishop is like a magistrate

saying to an attorney, "You are a forger and a cheat--do you comprehend

me?"

The bishop of Bellay computes, in his Apocalypse or Revelations, that

there were in his time ninety-eight orders of monks endowed or

mendicant, living at the expense of the people, without employing

themselves in the smallest labor. He reckoned six hundred thousand monks

in Europe. The calculation was a little strained; but it is certain that

the real number of the monks was rather too large.

He assures us that the monks are enemies to the bishops, curates, and

magistrates; that, among the privileges granted to the Cordeliers, the

sixth privilege is the certainty of being saved, whatever horrible crime

you may have committed, provided you belong to the Order of St. Francis;

that the monks are like apes; the higher they climb, the plainer you see

their posteriors; that the name of _monk_ has become so infamous and

execrable that it is regarded by the monks themselves as a foul reproach

and the most violent insult that can be offered them.

My dear reader, whoever you are, minister or magistrate, consider

attentively the following short extract from our bishop's book:

"Figure to yourself the convent of the Escorial or of Monte Cassino,

where the cœnobites have everything necessary, useful, delightful,

superfluous and superabundant--since they have their yearly revenue of a

hundred and fifty thousand, four hundred thousand, or five hundred

thousand crowns; and judge whether Monsieur l'Abbé has wherewithal to

allow himself and those under him to sleep after dinner.

"Then imagine an artisan or laborer, with no dependence except on the

work of his hands, and burdened with a large family, toiling like a

slave every day and at all seasons, to feed them with the bread of

sorrow and the water of tears; and say, which of the two conditions is

pre-eminent in poverty."

This is a passage from the "Episcopal Apocalypse" which needs no

commentary. All that is wanted is an angel to come and fill his cup with

the wine of the monks, to slake the thirst of the laborers who plow,

sow, and reap, for the monasteries.

But this prelate, instead of writing a useful book, only composed a

satire. Consistently with his dignity, he should have stated the good as

well as evil. He should have acknowledged that the Benedictines have

produced many good works, and that the Jesuits have rendered great

services to literature. He might have blessed the brethren of La

Charité, and those of the Redemption of the Captives. Our first duty is

to be just. Camus gave too much scope to his imagination. St. François

de Sales advised him to write moral romances; but he abused the advice.

ANTI-TRINITARIANS.

These are heretics who might pass for other than Christians. However,

they acknowledge Jesus as Saviour and Mediator; but they dare to

maintain that nothing is more contrary to right reason than what is

taught among Christians concerning the Trinity of persons in one only

divine essence, of whom the second is begotten by the first, and the

third proceeds from the other two; that this unintelligible doctrine is

not to be found in any part of Scripture; that no passage can be

produced which authorizes it; or to which, without in any wise departing

from the spirit of the text, a sense cannot be given more clear, more

natural, or more conformable to common notions, and to primitive and

immutable truths; that to maintain, as the orthodox do, that in the

divine essence there are several distinct persons, and that the Eternal

is not the only true God, but that the Son and the Holy Ghost must be

joined with Him, is to introduce into the Church of Christ an error the

most gross and dangerous, since it is openly to favor polytheism; that

it implies a contradiction, to say that there is but one God, and that,

nevertheless, there are three _persons_, each of which is truly God;

that this distinction, of _one_ in _essence_, and _three_ in _person_,

was never in Scripture; that it is manifestly false, since it is certain

that there are no fewer essences than persons, nor persons than

essences; that the three persons of the Trinity are either three

different substances, or accidents of the divine essence, or that

essence itself without distinction; that, in the first place, you make

three Gods; that, in the second, God is composed of accidents; you adore

accidents, and metamorphose accidents into persons; that, in the third,

you unfoundedly and to no purpose divide an indivisible subject, and

distinguish into _three_ that which within itself has no distinction;

that if it be said that the three personalities are neither different

substances in the divine essence, nor accidents of that essence, it will

be difficult to persuade ourselves that they are anything at all; that

it must not be believed that the most rigid and decided Trinitarians

have themselves any clear idea of the way in which the three

_hypostases_ subsist in God, without dividing His substance, and

consequently without multiplying it; that St. Augustine himself, after

advancing on this subject a thousand reasonings alike dark and false,

was forced to confess that nothing intelligible could be said about the

matter; they then repeat the passage by this father, which is, indeed, a

very singular one: "When," says he, "it is asked what are _the three_,

the language of man fails and terms are wanting to express them."

"_Three persons_, has, however, been said--not for the purpose of

expressing anything, but in order to say something and not remain mute."

_"Dictum est tres personæ, non ut aliquid diceretur, sed ne

taceretur"._--De Trinit. lib. v. cap. 9; that modern theologians have

cleared up this matter no better; that, when they are asked what they

understand by the word _person_, they explain themselves only by saying

that it is a certain incomprehensible distinction by which are

distinguished in one nature only, a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost;

that the explanation which they give of the terms _begetting_ and

_proceeding_, is no more satisfactory, since it reduces itself to saying

that these terms indicate certain incomprehensible relations existing

among the three persons of the Trinity; that it may be hence gathered

that the state of the question between them and the orthodox is to know

whether there are in God three distinctions, of which no one has any

definite idea, and among which there are certain relations of which no

one has any more idea.

From all this they conclude that it would be wiser to abide by the

testimony of the apostles, who never spoke of the Trinity, and to banish

from religion forever all terms which are not in the scriptures--as

_trinity_, _person_, _essence_, _hypostasis_, _hypostatic_ and _personal

union_, _incarnation_, _generation_, _proceeding_, and many others of

the same kind; which being absolutely devoid of meaning, since they are

represented by no real existence in nature, can excite in the

understanding none but false, vague, obscure, and undefinable notions.

To this article let us add what Calmet says in his dissertation on the

following passage of the Epistle of John the Evangelist: "For there are

three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy

Ghost; and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness

in earth, the spirit, the water and the blood; and these three are one."

Calmet acknowledges that these two verses are not in any ancient bible;

indeed, it would be very strange if St. John had spoken of the Trinity

in a letter, and said not a word about it in his Gospel. We find no

trace of this dogma, either in the canonical or in the apocryphal

gospels. All these reasons and many others might excuse the

anti-trinitarians, if the councils had not decided. But as the heretics

pay no regard to councils, we know not what measures to take to confound

them. Let us content ourselves with believing and wishing them to

believe.

APOCRYPHA--APOCRYPHAL.

(FROM THE GREEK WORD SIGNIFYING _hidden_.)

It has been very well remarked that the divine writings might, at one

and the same time, be sacred and apocryphal; sacred, because they had

undoubtedly been dictated by God Himself; apocryphal, because they were

hidden from the nations, and even from the Jewish people.

That they were hidden from the nations before the translation executed

at Alexandria, under the Ptolemies, is an acknowledged truth. Josephus

declares it in the answer to Appian, which he wrote after Appian's

death; and his declaration has not less strength because he seeks to

strengthen it by a fable. He says in his history that the Jewish books

being all-divine, no foreign historian or poet had ever dared to speak

of them. And, immediately after assuring us that no one had ever dared

to mention the Jewish laws, he adds that the historian Theopompus,

having only intended to insert something concerning them in his history,

God struck him with madness for thirty days; but that, having been

informed in a dream that he was mad only because he had wished to know

divine things and make them known to the profane, he asked pardon of

God, who restored him to his senses.

Josephus in the same passage also relates that a poet named Theodectes,

having said a few words about the Jews in his tragedies, became blind,

and that God did not restore his sight until he had done penance.

As for the Jewish people, it is certain that there was a time when they

could not read the divine writings; for it is said in the Second Book of

Kings (chap, xxii., ver. 8), and in the Second Book of Chronicles (chap,

xxxiv., ver. 14), that in the reign of Josias they were unknown, and

that a single copy was accidentally found in the house of the high

priest Hilkiah.

The twelve tribes which were dispersed by Shalmaneser have never

re-appeared; and their books, if they had any, have been lost with them.

The two tribes which were in slavery at Babylon and allowed to return at

the end of seventy years, returned without their books, or at least they

were very scarce and very defective, since Esdras was obliged to

restore them. But although during the Babylonian captivity these books

were apocryphal, that is, hidden or unknown to the people, they were

constantly sacred--they bore the stamp of divinity--they were, as all

the world agrees, the only monument of truth upon earth.

We now give the name of apocrypha to those books which are not worthy of

belief; so subject are languages to change! Catholics and Protestants

agree in regarding as apocryphal in this sense, and in rejecting, the

prayer of Manasseh, king of Judah, contained in the Second Book of

Kings; the Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees; the Fourth Book of

Esdras; although these books were incontestably written by Jews. But it

is denied that the authors were inspired by God, like the Jews.

The other books, rejected by the Protestants only, and consequently

considered by them as not inspired by God Himself, are the Book of

Wisdom, though it is written in the same style as the Proverbs;

Ecclesiasticus, though the style is still the same; the first two books

of Maccabees, though written by a Jew, But they do not believe this Jew

to have been inspired by God--Tobit--although the story is edifying. The

judicious and profound Calmet affirms that a part of this book was

written by Tobit the father, and a part by Tobit the son; and that a

third author added the conclusion of the last chapter, which says that

Tobit the younger expired at the age of one hundred and twenty-seven

years, and that he died rejoicing over the destruction of Nineveh.

The same Calmet, at the end of his preface, has these words: "Neither

the story itself, nor the manner in which it is told, bears any fabulous

or fictitious character. If all Scripture histories, containing anything

of the marvellous or extraordinary, were to be rejected, where is the

sacred book which is to be preserved?"

Judith is another book rejected by the Protestants, although Luther

himself declares that "this book is beautiful, good, holy, useful, the

language of a holy poet and a prophet animated by the Holy Spirit, that

had been his instructor," etc.

It is indeed hard to discover at what time Judith's adventure happened,

or where the town of Bethulia was. The degree of sanctity in Judith's

action has also been disputed; but the book having been declared

canonical by the Council of Trent, all disputes are at an end.

Other books are Baruch, although it is written in the style of all the

other prophets; Esther, of which the Protestants reject only some

additions after the tenth chapter. They admit all the rest of the book;

yet no one knows who King Ahasuerus was, although he is the principal

person in the story; Daniel, in which the Protestants retrench

Susannah's adventure and that of the children in the furnace; but they

retain Nebuchadnezzar's dream and his grazing with the beasts.

_On the Life of Moses, an Apocryphal Book of the Highest Antiquity._

The ancient book which contains the life and death of Moses seems to

have been written at the time of the Babylonian captivity. It was then

that the Jews began to know the names given to the angels by the

Chaldæans and Persians.

Here we see the names of Zinguiel, Samael, Tsakon, Lakah, and many

others of which the Jews had made no mention.

The book of the death of Moses seems to have been written later. It is

known that the Jews had several very ancient lives of Moses and other

books, independently of the Pentateuch. In them he was called Moni, not

Moses; and it is asserted that _mo_ signified _water_, and _ni_ the

particle _of_. He was called by the general name of Melk. He received

those of Joakim, Adamosi, Thetmosi; and it has been thought that he was

the same person whom Mane then calls Ozarziph.

Some of these old Hebrew manuscripts were withdrawn from their covering

of dust in the cabinets of the Jews about the year 1517. The learned

Gilbert Gaumin, who was a perfect master of their language, translated

them into Latin about the year 1535. They were afterwards printed and

dedicated to Cardinal Bérule. The copies have become extremely scarce.

Never were rabbinism, the taste for the marvellous and the imagination

of the orientals displayed to greater excess.

_Fragment of the Life of Moses._

A hundred and thirty years after the settling of the Jews in Egypt, and

sixty years after the death of the patriarch Joseph, Pharaoh, while

sleeping, had a dream. He saw an old man holding a balance; in one scale

were all the inhabitants of Egypt; in the other was an infant, and this

infant weighed more than all the Egyptians together. Pharaoh forthwith

called together his _shotim_, or sages. One of the wise men said: "O

king, this infant is a Jew who will one day do great evil to your

kingdom. Cause all the children of the Jews to be slain; thus shalt thou

save thy empire, if, indeed, the decrees of fate can be opposed."

Pharaoh was pleased with this advice. He sent for the midwives and

ordered them to strangle all the male children of which the Jewesses

were delivered. There was in Egypt a man named Abraham, son of Keath,

husband to Jocabed, sister to his brother. This Jocabed bore him a

daughter named Mary, signifying "persecuted," because the Egyptians,

being descended from Ham, persecuted the Israelites, who were evidently

descended from Shem. Jocabed afterwards brought forth Aaron, signifying

"condemned to death," because Pharaoh had condemned all the Jewish

infants to death. Aaron and Mary were preserved by the angels of the

Lord, who nursed them in the fields and restored them to their parents

when they had reached the period of adolescence.

At length Jocabed had a third child; this was Moses, who, consequently,

was fifteen years younger than his brother. He was exposed on the Nile.

Pharaoh's daughter found him while bathing, had him nursed and adopted

him as her son, although she was not married.

Three years after, her father, Pharaoh, took a fresh wife, on which

occasion he held a great feast. His wife was at his right hand, and at

his left was his daughter, with little Moses. The child, in sport, took

the crown and put it on his head. Balaam, the magician, the king's

eunuch, then recalled his majesty's dream. "Behold," said he, "the child

who is one day to do so much mischief! The spirit of God is in him. What

he has just now done is a proof that he has already formed the design of

dethroning you. He must instantly be put to death." This idea pleased

Pharaoh much.

They were about to kill little Moses when the Lord sent his angel

Gabriel, disguised as one of Pharaoh's officers, to say to him: "My

lord, we should not put to death an innocent child, which is not yet

come to years of discretion; he put on your crown only because he wants

judgment. You have only to let a ruby and a burning coal be presented to

him; if he choose the coal, it is clear that he is a blockhead who will

never do any harm; but if he take the ruby it will be a sign that he

has too much sense to burn his fingers; then let him be slain."

A ruby and a coal were immediately brought. Moses did not fail to take

the ruby; but the angel Gabriel, by a sort of legerdemain, slipped the

coal into the place of the precious stone. Moses put the coal into his

mouth and burned his tongue so horribly that he stammered ever after;

and this was the reason that the Jewish lawgiver could never articulate.

Moses was fifteen years old and a favorite with Pharaoh. A Hebrew came

to complain to him that an Egyptian had beaten him after lying with his

wife. Moses killed the Egyptian. Pharaoh ordered Moses' head to be cut

off. The executioner struck him, but God instantly changed Moses' neck

into a marble column, and sent the angel Michael, who in three days

conducted Moses beyond the frontiers.

The young Hebrew fled to Mecano, king of Ethiopia, who was at war with

the Arabs. Mecano made him his general-in-chief; and, after Mecano's

death, Moses was chosen king and married the widow. But Moses, ashamed

to have married the wife of his lord, dared not to enjoy her, but placed

a sword in the bed between himself and the queen. He lived with her

forty years without touching her. The angry queen at length called

together the states of the kingdom of Ethiopia, complained that Moses

was of no service to her, and concluded by driving him away and placing

on the throne the son of the late king.

Moses fled into the country of Midian, to the priest Jethro. This priest

thought his fortune would be made if he could put Moses into the hands

of Pharaoh of Egypt, and began by confining him in a low cell and

allowing him only bread and water. Moses grew fat in his dungeon, at

which Jethro was quite astonished. He was not aware that his daughter

Sephora had fallen in love with the prisoner, and every day, with her

own hands, carried him partridges and quails, with excellent wine. He

concluded that Moses was protected by God and did not give him up to

Pharaoh.

However, Jethro the priest wished to have his daughter married. He had

in his garden a tree of sapphire, on which was engraven the word _Jaho_

or _Jehovah_. He caused it to be published throughout the country that

he would give his daughter to him who could tear up the sapphire tree.

Sephora's lovers presented themselves, but none of them could so much as

bend the tree. Moses, who was only seventy-seven years old, tore it up

at once without an effort. He married Sephora, by whom he soon had a

fine boy named Gerson.

As he was one day walking in a small wood, he met God (who had formerly

called Himself Sadai, and then called Himself Jehovah), and God ordered

him to go and work miracles at Pharaoh's court. He set out with his wife

and son. On the way they met an angel (to whom no name is given), who

ordered Sephora to circumcise little Gerson with a knife made of stone.

God sent Aaron on the same errand, but Aaron thought his brother had

done wrong in marrying a Midianite; he called her a very coarse name,

and little Gerson a bastard, and sent them the shortest way back to

their own country.

Aaron and Moses then went to Pharaoh's palace by themselves. The gate of

the palace was guarded by two lions of an enormous size. Balaam, one of

the king's magicians, seeing the two brothers come, set the lions upon

them; but Moses touched them with his rod, and the lions, humbly

prostrating themselves, licked the feet of Aaron and Moses. The king, in

astonishment, had the two pilgrims brought into the presence of all his

magicians, that they might strive which could work the most miracles.

The author here relates the ten plagues of Egypt, nearly as they are

related in Exodus. He only adds that Moses covered all Egypt with lice,

to the depth of a cubit; and that he sent among all the Egyptians lions,

wolves, bears, and tigers, which ran into all the houses,

notwithstanding that the doors were bolted, and devoured all the little

children.

According to this writer, it was not the Jews who fled through the Red

Sea; it was Pharaoh, who fled that way with his army: the Jews ran after

him; the waters separated right and left to see them fight; and all the

Egyptians, except the king, were slain upon the sand. Then the king,

finding that his own was the weaker side, asked pardon of God. Michael

and Gabriel were sent to him and conveyed him to the city of Nineveh,

where he reigned four hundred years.

_The Death of Moses._

God had declared to the people of Israel that they should not go out of

Egypt until they had once more found the tomb of Joseph. Moses found it

and carried it on his shoulders through the Red Sea. God told him that

He would bear in mind this good action and would assist him at the time

of his death. When Moses had lived six score years, God came to announce

to him that he must die and had but three hours more to live. The bad

angel Samael was present at the conversation. As soon as the first hour

had passed he began to laugh for joy that he should so soon carry off

the soul of Moses; and Michael began to weep. "Be not rejoiced, thou

wicked beast," said the good to the bad angel; "Moses is going to die,

but we have Joshua in his stead."

When the three hours had elapsed God commanded Gabriel to take the dying

man's soul. Gabriel begged to be excused. Michael did the same. These

two angels having refused, God addressed Himself to Zinguiel. But this

angel was no more willing to obey than the others. "I," said he, "was

formerly his preceptor, and I will not kill my disciple." Then God,

being angry, said to the bad angel Samael, "Well, then, wicked one, thou

must take his soul." Samael joyfully drew his sword and ran up to Moses.

The dying man rose up in wrath, his eyes sparkling with fire. "What!

thou villain," said Moses, "wouldst thou dare to kill me?--me, who when

a child, put on my head the crown of a Pharaoh; who have worked miracles

at the age of eighty years; who have led sixty millions of men out of

Egypt; who have cut the Red Sea in two; who have conquered two kings so

tall that at the time of the flood they were not knee-deep in water?

Begone, you rascal; leave my presence instantly."

This altercation lasted a few moments longer, during which time Gabriel

prepared a litter to convey the soul of Moses, Michael a purple mantle,

and Zinguiel a cassock. God then laid His hands on Moses' breast and

took away his soul.

It is to this history that St. Jude the apostle alludes in his epistle

when he says that the archangel Michael contended with the devil for the

body of Moses. As this fact is to be found only in the book which I have

just quoted, it is evident that St. Jude had read it, and that he

considered it as a canonical book.

The second history of the death of Moses is likewise a conversation with

God. It is no less pleasant and curious than the first. A part of this

dialogue is as follows:

_Moses._--I pray Thee, O Lord, let me enter the land of promise, at

least for two or three years.

_God._--No; My decree expressly saith that thou shalt not enter it.

_Moses._--Grant, at least, that I may be carried thither after my

death.

_God._--No; neither dead nor alive.

_Moses._--Alas! but, good Lord, thou showest such clemency to Thy

creatures; Thou pardonest them twice or three times; I have sinned but

once, and am not to be forgiven!

_God._--Thou knowest not what thou sayest; thou hast committed six sins.

I remember to have sworn thy death, or the destruction of Israel; one of

the two must be accomplished. If thou wilt live Israel must perish.

_Moses._--O Lord, be not so hasty. All is in Thy hands. Let Moses

perish, rather than one soul in Israel.

After several discourses of this sort, the echo of the mountain says to

Moses, "Thou hast but five hours to live." At the end of five hours God

sends for Gabriel, Zinguiel and Samael. He promises Moses that he shall

be buried and carries away his soul.

When we reflect that nearly the whole earth has been infatuated by

similar stories, and that they have formed the education of mankind, the

fables of Pilpay, Lokman, or Æsop appear quite reasonable.

_Apocryphal Books of the New Law._

There were fifty gospels, all very different from one another, of which

there remain only four entire--that of James, that of Nicodemus, that of

the infancy of Jesus, and that of the birth of Mary. Of the rest we have

nothing more than fragments and slight notices.

The traveller Tournefort, sent into Asia by Louis XIV., informs us that

the Georgians have preserved the gospel of the Infancy, which was

probably communicated to them by the Azmenians.

In the beginning, several of these gospels, now regarded as apocryphal,

were cited as authentic, and were even the only gospels that were cited.

In the Acts of the Apostles we find these words uttered by St. Paul

(chap. xx., ver. 35), "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He

said, it is more blessed to give than to receive."

St. Barnabas, in his Catholic Epistle (Nos. 4 and 7), makes Jesus Christ

speak thus: "Let us resist all iniquity; let us hate it. Such as would

see Me enter into My kingdom must follow Me through pain and sorrow."

St. Clement, in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, puts these words

into the mouth of Jesus Christ: "If you are assembled in My bosom and do

not follow My commandments, I shall reject you and say to you, 'Depart

from Me; I know you not; depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity.'"

He afterwards attributes to Jesus Christ these words: "Keep your flesh

chaste and the seal unspotted, in order that you may receive eternal

life."

In the Apostolical Constitutions, composed in the second century, we

find these words: "Jesus Christ has said, 'Be ye honest exchange

brokers.'"

We find many similar quotations, not one of which is taken from the four

gospels recognized by the Church as the only canonical ones. They are,

for the most part, taken from the gospel according to the Hebrews, a

gospel which was translated by St. Jerome, and is now considered as

apocryphal.

St. Clement the Roman says, in his second Epistle: "The Lord, being

asked when his reign should come, answered: 'When two shall make one,

when that which is without shall be within, when the male shall be

female, and when there shall be neither female nor male.'"

These words are taken from the gospel according to the Egyptians; and

the text is repeated entire by St. Clement of Alexandria. But what could

the author of the Egyptian gospels, and what could St. Clement himself

be thinking of? The words which he quotes are injurious to Jesus Christ;

they give us to understand that He did not believe that His reign would

come at all. To say that a thing will take place when two shall make

one, when the male shall be female, is to say that it will never take

place. A passage like this is rabbinical, much rather than evangelical.

There were also two apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. They are quoted by

St. Epiphanius. In these Acts it is related that St. Paul was the son of

an idolatrous father and mother, and turned Jew in order to marry the

daughter of Gamaliel; and that either being refused, or not finding her

a virgin, he took part with the disciples of Jesus. This is nothing less

than blasphemy against St. Paul.

_The Other Apocryphal Books of the First and Second Centuries._

I.

The Book of Enoch, the seventh man after Adam, which mentions the war of

the rebellious angels, under their captain, Samasia, against the

faithful angels led by Michael. The object of the war was to enjoy the

daughters of men, as has been said in the article on "Angel."

II.

The Acts of St. Thecla and St. Paul, written by a disciple named John,

attached to St. Paul. In this history Thecla escapes from her

persecutors to go to St. Paul, disguised as a man. She also baptizes a

lion; but this adventure was afterwards suppressed. Here, too, we have

the portrait of Paul: _Statura brevi, calvastrum, cruribus curvis,

sorosum, superciliis junctis, naso aquilino, plenum gratia Dei._

Although this story was recommended by St. Gregory Nazianzen, St.

Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, and others, it had no reputation among the

other doctors of the Church.

III.

The Preaching of Peter. This writing is also called the Gospel or

Revelation of Peter. St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of it with great

praise; but it is easy to perceive that some impostor had taken that

apostle's name.

IV.

The Acts of Peter, a work equally supposititious.

V.

The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. It is doubted whether this book

is by a Jew or a Christian of the primitive ages; for it is said in the

Testament of Levi that at the end of the seventh week there shall come

priests given to idolatry--_bellatores_, _avari_, _scribæ iniqui_,

_impudici_, _puerorum corrupt ores et pecorum_; that there shall then be

a new priesthood; that the heavens shall be opened; and that the glory

of the Most High, and the spirit of intelligence and sanctification,

shall descend upon this new priest; which seems to foretell Jesus

Christ.

VI.

The Letter of Abgarus, a pretended king of Edessa, to Jesus Christ, and

Jesus Christ's answer to King Abgarus. It is, indeed, believed that, in

the time of Tiberius, there was a toparch of Edessa who had passed from

the service of the Persians into that of the Romans, but his epistolary

correspondence has been considered by all good critics as a chimera.

VII.

The Acts of Pilate. Pilate's letter to Tiberius on the death of Jesus

Christ The life of Procula, Pilate's wife.

VIII.

The Acts of Peter and Paul, in which is the history of St. Peter's

quarrel with Simon the magician. Abdias, Marcellus, and Hegesippus have

all three written this story. St. Peter first disputed with Simon which

should resuscitate one of the Emperor Nero's relatives, who had just

died; Simon half restored him, and St. Peter finished the resurrection.

Simon next flew up in the air, but Peter brought him down again, and the

magician broke his legs. The Emperor Nero, incensed at the death of his

magician, had St. Peter crucified with his head downwards, and St. Paul

decapitated, as one of St. Peter's party.

IX.

The Acts of Blessed Paul the Apostle and Teacher of the Nations. In this

book St. Paul is made to live at Rome for two years after St. Peter's

death. The author says that when St. Paul's head was cut off there

issued forth milk instead of blood, and that Lucina, a devout woman, had

him buried twenty miles from Rome, on the way to Ostia, at her country

house.

X.

The Acts of the Blessed Apostle Andrew. The author relates that St.

Andrew went to the city of the Myrmidons and that he baptized all the

citizens. A young man named Sostratus, of the town of Amarea, which is

at least better known than that of the Myrmidons, came and said to the

blessed Andrew: "I am so handsome that my mother has conceived a passion

for me. I abhorred so execrable a crime, and have fled. My mother, in

her fury, accuses me to the proconsul of the province of having

attempted to violate her. I can make no answer, for I would rather die

than accuse my mother." While he was yet speaking, the guards of the

proconsul came and seized him. St Andrew accompanied the son before the

judge, and pleaded his cause. The mother, not at all disconcerted,

accused St. Andrew himself of having instigated her son to the crime.

The proconsul immediately ordered St. Andrew to be thrown into the

river; but, the apostle having prayed to God, there came a great

earthquake, and the mother was struck by a thunderbolt.

After several adventures of the same sort the author has St. Andrew

crucified at Patras.

XI.

The Acts of St. James the Greater. The author has him condemned to death

at Jerusalem by the pontiff, and, before his crucifixion, he baptizes

the registrar.

XII.

The Acts of St. John the Evangelist. The author relates that, at

Ephesus--of which place St. John wast bishop--Drusilla, being converted

by him, desired no more of her husband Andronicus's company, but retired

into a tomb. A young man named Callimachus, in love with her, repeatedly

pressed her, even in her tomb, to consent to the gratification of his

passion. Brasilia, being urged both by her husband and her lover, wished

for death, and obtained it. Callimachus, when informed of her loss, was

still more furious with love; he bribed one of Andronicus's domestics,

who had the keys of the tomb; he ran to it, stripped his mistress of her

shroud, and exclaimed, "What thou wouldst not grant me living, thou

shalt grant me dead," A serpent instantly issued from the tomb; the

young man fainted; the serpent killed him, as also the domestic who was

his accomplice, and coiled itself round his body. St. John arrives with

the husband, and, to their astonishment, they find Callimachus alive.

St. John orders the serpent to depart, and the serpent obeys. He asks

the young man how he has been resuscitated. Callimachus answered that an

angel had appeared to him, saying, "It was necessary that thou shouldst

die in order to revive a Christian." He immediately asked to be

baptized, and begged that John would resuscitate Drusilla. The apostle

having instantly worked this miracle, Callimachus and Drusilla prayed

that he would also be so good as to resuscitate the domestic. The

latter, who was an obstinate pagan, being restored to life, declared

that he would rather die than be a Christian, and, accordingly, he

incontinently died again; on which St. John said that a bad tree always

bears bad fruit.

Aristodemus, high-priest of Ephesus, though struck by such a prodigy,

would not be converted; he said to St. John: "Permit me to poison you;

and, if you do not die, I will be converted." The apostle accepted the

proposal; but he chose that Aristodemus should first poison two

Ephesians condemned to death. Aristodemus immediately presented to them

the poison, and they instantly expired. St. John took the same poison,

which did him no harm. He resuscitated the two dead men, and the

high-priest was converted.

St. John having attained the age of ninety-seven years, Jesus Christ

appeared to him, and said, "It is time for thee to come to My table, and

feast with thy brethren"; and soon after the apostle slept in peace.

XIII.

The History of the Blessed James the Less, and the brothers Simon and

Jude. These apostles went into Persia, and performed things as

incredible as those related of St. Andrew.

XIV.

The Acts of St. Matthew, apostle and evangelist. St. Matthew goes into

Ethiopia, to the great town of Nadaver, where he restores to life the

son of Queen Candace, and founds Christian churches.

XV.

The Acts of the Blessed Bartholomew in India. Bartholomew went first to

the temple of Astaroth. This goddess delivered oracles, and cured all

diseases. Bartholomew silenced her, and made sick all those whom she had

cured. King Polimius disputed with him; the devil declared, before the

king, that he was conquered, and St. Bartholomew consecrated King

Polimius bishop of the Indies.

XVI.

The Acts of the Blessed Thomas, apostle of India. St. Thomas entered

India by another road, and worked more miracles than St. Bartholomew. He

at last suffered martyrdom, and appeared to Xiphoro and Susani.

XVII.

The Acts of the Blessed Philip. He went to preach in Scythia. They

wished to make him a sacrifice to Mars, but he caused a dragon to issue

from the altar and devour the children of the priests. He died at

Hierapolis, at the age of eighty-seven. It is not known what town this

was, for there were several of the name.

All these histories are supposed to have been written by Abdias, bishop

of Babylon, and were translated by Julius Africanus.

XVIII.

To these abuses of the Holy Scriptures was added one less revolting--one

which did not fail in respect for Christianity, like those which have

just been laid before the reader, viz., the Liturgies attributed to St

James, St. Peter, and St. Mark, the falsehood of which has been shown by

the learned Tillemont.

XIX.

Fabricius places among the apocryphal writings the Homily (attributed to

St. Augustine) on the manner in which the Symbol was formed. But he

certainly does not mean to insinuate that this Symbol or Creed, which we

call the Apostles', is the less true and sacred. It is said in this

Homily, in Rufinus, and afterwards in Isidorus, that ten days after the

ascension, the apostles, being shut up together for fear of the Jews,

Peter said, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty;" Andrew, "and in

Jesus Christ, His only son;" James, "who was conceived by the Holy

Ghost;" and that thus, each apostle having repeated an article, the

Creed was completed.

This story not being in the Acts of the Apostles, our belief in it is

dispensed with--but not our belief in the Creed, of which the apostles

taught the substance. Truth must not suffer from the false ornaments in

which it has been sought to array her.

XX.

The Apostolical Constitutions. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,

which were formerly supposed to have been digested by St. Clement the

Roman, are now ranked among the apocryphal writings. The reading of a

few chapters is sufficient to show that the apostles had no share in

this work. In the eleventh chapter, women are ordered not to rise before

the ninth hour. In the first chapter of the second book it is desired

that bishops should be learned, but in the time of the apostles there

was no hierarchy--no bishop attached to a single church. They went about

teaching from town to town, from village to village; they were called

_apostles_, not _bishops_; and, above all things, they did not pride

themselves on being learned.

In the second chapter of the second book it is said that a bishop should

have but one wife, to take great care of his household; which only goes

to prove that at the close of the first and the commencement of the

second century, when the hierarchy was beginning to be established, the

priests were married.

Through almost the whole book the bishops are regarded as the judges of

the faithful; but it is well known that the apostles had no

jurisdiction.

It is said, in chapter xxi., that both parties must be heard; which

supposes an established jurisdiction. In chapter xxvi. it is said, "The

bishop is your prince, your king, your emperor, your God upon earth."

These expressions are somewhat at variance with the humility of the

apostles.

In chapter xxviii., "At the feasts of the Agapae, there must be given to

the deacon double that which is given to an old woman, and to the priest

double the gift to the deacon, because the priests are the counsellors

of the bishops and the crown of the Church. The reader shall have a

portion, in honor of the prophets, as also the chanter and the

door-keeper. Such of the laity as wish to receive anything shall apply

to the bishop through the deacon." The apostles never used any term

answering to _laity_, or marking the difference between the profane and

the priesthood.

In chapter xxxiv., "You must reverence the bishop as a king, honor him

as a master, and give him your fruits, the works of your hands, your

first fruits, your tenths, your savings, the presents that are made to

you, your corn, your wine, your oil, your wool," etc. This is a strong

article.

In chapter lvii., "Let the church be long; let it look towards the East;

let it resemble a ship; let the bishop's throne be in the middle; let

the reader read the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles,

Job," etc.

In chapter xvii. of the third book, "Baptism is administered for the

death of Jesus; oil for the Holy Ghost. When we are plunged into the

water, we die; when we come out of it, we revive. The Father is the God

of all. Christ is the only Son of God, his beloved Son, and the Lord of

glory. The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, sent by Christ the teacher,

preaching Christ Jesus." This doctrine would now be explained in more

canonical terms.

In chapter vii. of the fifth book are quoted some verses of the Sibyls

on the coming of Jesus and the resurrection. This was the first time

that the Christians admitted the verses of the Sibyls, which they

continued to do for more than three hundred years. In chapter v. of the

eighth book are these words: "O God Almighty, give to the bishop,

through Christ, the participation of the Holy Spirit." In chapter iv.,

"Commend yourself to God alone, through Jesus Christ"; which does not

sufficiently express the divinity of our Lord. In chapter xii. is the

Constitution of James, the brother of Zebedee.

In chapter xv. the deacon is to say aloud, "Incline yourselves before

God through Christ." At the present day these expressions are not very

correct.

XXI.

The Apostolical Canons. The sixth canon ordains that no bishop or priest

shall separate himself from his wife on pretence of religion; if he do

so, he is to be excommunicated, and if he persist he is to be driven

away. The seventh--that no priest shall ever meddle with secular

affairs. The nineteenth--that he who has married two sisters shall not

be admitted into the clergy. The twenty-first and twenty-second--that

eunuchs shall be admitted into the priesthood excepting such as have

castrated themselves. Yet Origen was a priest, notwithstanding this law.

The fifty-fifth--that if a bishop, a priest, a deacon, or a clerk eat

flesh which is not clear of blood, he shall be displaced. It is quite

evident that these canons could not be promulgated by the apostles.

XXII.

The Confessions of St. Clement to James, brother of the Lord, in ten

books, translated from Greek into Latin by Rufinus. This book commences

with a doubt respecting the immortality of the soul: _"Utrumne sit mihi

aliqua vita post mortem, an nihil omnino postea sim futurus"_. St.

Clement, disturbed by this doubt and wishing to know whether the world

was eternal or had been created---whether there were a Tartarus and a

Phlegethon, an Ixion and a Tantalus, etc., resolved to go into Egypt to

learn necromancy, but having heard of St. Bartholomew, who was preaching

Christianity, he went to him in the East, at the time when Barnabas was

celebrating a Jewish feast. He afterwards met St. Peter at Cæsarea, with

Simon the magician and Zacchæus. They disputed together, and St. Peter

related to them all that had passed since the death of Jesus. Clement

turned Christian, but Simon remained a magician.

Simon fell in love with a woman named Luna, and, while waiting to marry

her, he proposed to St. Peter, to Zacchæus, to Lazarus, to Nicodemus, to

Dositheus, and to several others, that they should become his disciples.

Dositheus answered him at once with a blow from a stick; but the stick

having passed through Simon's body as if it had been smoke, Dositheus

worshipped him and became his lieutenant, after which Simon married his

mistress and declared that she was Luna herself, descended from heaven

to marry him.

But enough of the Confessions of St. Clement. It must, however, be

remarked that in the ninth book the Chinese are spoken of under the name

of Seres as the justest and wisest of mankind. After them come the

Brahmins, to whom the author does the justice that was rendered them by

all antiquity. He cites them as models of soberness, mildness, and

justice.

XXIII.

St. Peter's Letter to St. James, and St. Clement's Letter to the same

St. James, brother of the Lord, governor of the Holy Church of the

Hebrews at Jerusalem, and of all churches. St. Peter's Letter contains

nothing curious, but St. Clement's is very remarkable. He asserts that

Peter declared him bishop of Rome before his death, and his coadjutor;

that he laid his hands upon his head, and made him sit in the episcopal

chair in the presence of all the faithful; and that he said to him,

"Fail not to write to my brother James as soon as I am dead."

This letter seems to prove that it was not then believed that St. Peter

had suffered martyrdom, since it is probable that this letter,

attributed to St. Clement, would have mentioned the circumstance. It

also proves that Cletus and Anacletus were not reckoned among the

bishops of Rome.

XXIV.

St. Clement's Homilies, to the number of nineteen. He says in his first

homily what he had already said in his confessions--that he went to St.

Peter and St. Barnabas at Cæsarea, to know whether the soul was

immortal, and the world eternal.

In the second homily, No. xxxviii., we find a much more extraordinary

passage. St. Peter himself, speaking of the Old Testament, expresses

himself thus: "The written law contains certain false things against the

law of God, the Creator of heaven and earth; the devil has done this,

for good reasons; it has also come to pass through the judgments of God,

in order to discover such as would listen with pleasure to what is

written against Him," etc.

In the sixth homily St. Clement meets with Appian, the same who had

written against the Jews in the time of Tiberius. He tells Appian that

he is in love with an Egyptian woman and begs that he will write a

letter in his name to his pretended mistress to convince her, by the

example of all the gods, that love is a duty. Appian writes a letter and

St. Clement answers it in the name of his pretended mistress, after

which they dispute on the nature of the gods.

XXV.

Two Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinthians. It hardly seems just to

have ranked these epistles among the apocryphal writings. Some of the

learned may have declined to recognize them because they speak of "the

phoenix of Arabia, which lives five hundred years, and burns itself in

Egypt in the city of Heliopolis." But there is nothing extraordinary in

St. Clement's having believed this fable which so many others believed,

nor in his having written letters to the Corinthians.

It is known that there was at that time a great dispute between the

church of Corinth and that of Rome. The church of Corinth, which

declared itself to have been founded first, was governed in common;

there was scarcely any distinction between the priests and the

seculars, still less between the priests and the bishop; all alike had a

deliberative voice, so, at least, several of the learned assert. St.

Clement says to the Corinthians in his first epistle: "You have laid the

first foundations of sedition; be subject to your priests, correct

yourselves by penance, bend the knees of your hearts, learn to obey." It

is not at all astonishing that a bishop of Rome should use these

expressions.

In the second epistle we again find that answer of Jesus Christ, on

being asked when His kingdom of heaven should come: "When two shall make

one, when that which is without shall be within, when the male shall be

female, when there shall be neither male nor female."

XXVI.

Letter from St. Ignatius the martyr to the Virgin Mary, and the Virgin's

answer to St. Ignatius:

"To Mary the Mother of Christ, from her devoted Ignatius: You should

console me, a neophyte, and a disciple of your John. I have heard

several wonderful things of your Jesus, at which I have been much

astonished. I desire with all my heart to be informed of them by you,

who always lived in familiarity with Him and knew all His secrets. Fare

you well. Comfort the neophytes, who are with me from you and through

you. Amen."

"The Holy Virgin's Answer to Her Dear Disciple Ignatius:

"The Humble Servant of Jesus Christ: All the things which you have

learned from John are true; believe in them; persevere in your belief;

keep your vow of Christianity. I will come and see you with John, you

and those who are with you. Be firm in the faith; act like a man; let

not severity and persecution disturb you, but let your spirit be

strengthened and exalted in God your Saviour. Amen."

It is asserted that these letters were written in the year 116 of the

Christian era, but they are not therefore the less false and absurd.

They would even have been an insult to our holy religion had they not

been written in a spirit of simplicity, which renders everything

pardonable.

XXVII.

Fragments of the Apostles. We find in them this passage: "Paul, a man of

short stature, with an aquiline nose and an angelic face. Instructed in

heaven, said to Plantilla, of Rome, before he died: 'Adieu, Plantilla,

thou little plant of eternal salvation; know thy own nobility; thou art

whiter than snow; thou art registered among the soldiers of Christ; thou

art an heiress to the kingdom of heaven.'" This was not worthy to be

refuted.

XXVIII.

There are eleven Apocalypses, which are attributed to the patriarchs and

prophets, to St. Peter, Cerinthus, St. Thomas, St. Stephen the first

martyr, two to St. John, differing from the canonical one, and three to

St. Paul. All these Apocalypses have been eclipsed by that of St. John.

XXIX.

The Visions, Precepts, and Similitudes of Hermas. Hermas seems to have

lived about the close of the first century. They who regard his book as

apocryphal are nevertheless obliged to do justice to his morality. He

begins by saying that his foster-father had sold a young woman at Rome.

Hermas recognized this young woman after the lapse of several years, and

loved her, he says, as if she had been his sister. He one day saw her

bathing in the Tiber; he stretched forth his hand, drew her out of the

river and said in his heart, "How happy should I be if I had a wife like

her in beauty and in manners." Immediately the heavens opened, and he

all at once beheld this same wife, who made him a courtesy from above,

and said, "Good morning, Hermas." This wife was the Christian Church;

she gave him much good advice.

A year after, the spirit transported him to the same place where he had

seen this beauty, who nevertheless was old; but she was fresh in her

age, and was old only because she had been created from the beginning of

the world, and the world had been made for her.

The Book of Precepts contains fewer allegories, but that of Similitudes

contains many. "One day," says Hennas, "when I was fasting and was

seated on a hill, giving thanks to God for all that he had done for me,

a shepherd came, sat down beside me, and said, 'Why have you come here

so early?' 'Because I am going through the stations,' answered I. 'What

is a station?' asked the shepherd. 'It is a fast.' 'And what is this

fast?' 'It is my custom.' 'Ah!' replied the shepherd, 'you know not what

it is to fast; all this is of no avail before God. I will teach you that

which is true fasting and pleasing to the Divinity. Your fasting has

nothing to do with justice and virtue. Serve God with a pure heart; keep

His commandments; admit into your heart no guilty designs. If you have

always the fear of God before your eyes--if you abstain from all evil,

that will be true fasting, that will be the great fast which is

acceptable to God.'"

This philosophical and sublime piety is one of the most singular

monuments of the first century. But it is somewhat strange that, at the

end of the Similitudes, the shepherd gives him very good-natured

maidens--_valde affabiles_--to take care of his house and declares to

him that he cannot fulfil God's commandments without these maidens, who,

it is plain, typify the virtues.

This list would become immense if we were to enter into every detail. We

will carry it no further, but conclude with the Sibyls.

XXX.

The Sibyls.--What is most apocryphal in the primitive church is the

prodigious number of verses in favor of the Christian religion

attributed to the ancient sibyls. Diodorus Siculus knew of only one, who

was taken at Thebes by the Epigoni, and placed at Delphos before the

Trojan war. Ten sibyls--that is, ten prophetesses, were soon made from

this one. She of Cuma had most credit among the Romans, and the sibyl

Erythrea among the Greeks.

As all oracles were delivered in verse, none of the sibyls could fail to

make verses; and to give them greater authority they sometimes made them

in acrostics also. Several Christians who had not a zeal according to

knowledge not only misinterpreted the ancient verses supposed to have

been written by the sibyls, but also made some themselves, and which is

worse, in acrostics, not dreaming that this difficult artifice of

acrosticizing had no resemblance whatever to the inspiration and

enthusiasm of a prophetess. They resolved to support the best of causes

by the most awkward fraud. They accordingly made bad Greek verses, the

initials of which signified in Greek--Jesus, Christ, Son, Saviour, and

these verses said that with five loaves and two fishes He should feed

five thousand men in the desert and that with the fragments that

remained He should fill twelve baskets.

The millennium and the New Jerusalem, which Justin had seen in the air

for forty nights, were, of course, foretold by the sibyls. In the fourth

century Lactantius collected almost all the verses attributed to the

sibyls and considered them as convincing proofs. The opinion was so

well authorized and so long held that we still sing hymns in which the

testimony of the sibyls is joined with the predictions of David:

_Solvet sæclum in favilla,_

_Teste David cum Sibylla._

This catalogue of errors and frauds has been carried quite far enough. A

hundred might be repeated, so constantly has the world been composed of

deceivers and of people fond of being deceived.

But let us pursue no further so dangerous a research. The elucidation of

one great truth is worth more than the discovery of a thousand

falsehoods. Not all these errors, not all the crowd of apocryphal books

have been sufficient to injure the Christian religion, because, as we

all know, it is founded upon immutable truths. These truths are

supported by a church militant and triumphant, to which God has given

the power of teaching and of repressing. In several countries it unites

temporal with spiritual authority. Prudence, strength, wealth are its

attributes, and although it is divided, and its divisions have

sometimes stained it with blood, it may be compared to the Roman

commonwealth--constantly torn by internal dissensions, but constantly

triumphant.

APOSTATE.

It is still a question among the learned whether the Emperor Julian was

really an apostate and whether he was ever truly a Christian. He was

not six years old when the Emperor Constantius, still more barbarous

than Constantine, had his father, his brother, and seven of his cousins

murdered. He and his brother Gallus with difficulty escaped from this

carnage, but he was always very harshly treated by Constantius. His life

was for a long time threatened, and he soon beheld his only remaining

brother assassinated by the tyrant's order. The most barbarous of the

Turkish sultans have never, I am sorry to say it, surpassed in cruelty

or in villainy the Constantine family. From his tenderest years study

was Julian's only consolation. He communicated in secret with the most

illustrious of the philosophers, who were of the ancient religion of

Rome. It is very probable that he professed that of his uncle

Constantius only to avoid assassination. Julian was obliged to conceal

his mental powers, as Brutus had done under Tarquin. He was less likely

to be a Christian, as his uncle had forced him to be a monk and to

perform the office of reader in the church. A man is rarely of the

religion of his persecutor, especially when the latter wishes to be

ruler of his conscience.

Another circumstance which renders this probable is that he does not say

in any of his works that he had been a Christian. He never asks pardon

for it of the pontiffs of the ancient religion. He addresses them in his

letters as if he had always been attached to the worship of the senate.

It is not even proved that he practised the ceremonies of the

Taurobolium, which might be regarded as a sort of expiation, and that

he desired to wash out with bull's blood that which he so unfortunately

called the stain of his baptism. However, this was a pagan form of

devotion, which is no more a proof than the assembling at the mysteries

of Ceres. In short, neither his friends nor his enemies relate any fact,

any words which can prove that he ever believed in Christianity, and

that he passed from that sincere belief to the worship of the gods of

the empire. If such be the case they who do not speak of him as an

apostate appear very excusable.

Sound criticism being brought to perfection, all the world now

acknowledges that the Emperor Julian was a hero and a wise man--a stoic,

equal to Marcus Aurelius. His errors are condemned, but his virtues are

admitted. He is now regarded, as he was by his contemporary, Prudentius,

author of the hymn _"Salvete flores martyrum"_. He says of Julian:

_Ductor fortissimus armis,_

_Conditor et legum celeberrimus; ore manuque_

_Consultor patriæ; sed non consultor habendus_

_Religionis; amans tercentum millia divum_

_Perfidus ille Deo, sed non est perfidus orbi_.

Though great in arms, in virtues, and in laws,--

Though ably zealous in his country's cause,

He spurned religion in his lofty plan,

Rejecting God while benefiting man.

His detractors are reduced to the miserable expedient of striving to

make him appear ridiculous. One historian, on the authority of St.

Gregory Nazianzen, reproaches him with having worn too large a beard.

But, my friend, if nature gave him a long beard why should he wear it

short? He used to shake his head. Carry thy own better. His step was

hurried. Bear in mind that the Abbé d'Aubignac, the king's preacher,

having been hissed at the play, laughs at the air and gait of the great

Corneille. Could you hope to turn Marshal de Luxembourg into ridicule

because he walked ill and his figure was singular? He could march very

well against the enemy. Let us leave it to the ex-Jesuit Patouillet, the

ex-Jesuit Nonotte, etc., to call the Emperor Julian--_the Apostate_.

Poor creatures! His Christian successor, Jovian, called him _Divus_

Julianus.

Let us treat this mistaken emperor as he himself treated us. He said,

"We should pity and not hate them; they are already sufficiently

unfortunate in erring on the most important of questions." Let us have

the same compassion for him, since we are sure that the truth is on our

side. He rendered strict justice to his subjects, let us then render it

to his memory. Some Alexandrians were incensed against a bishop, who, it

is true, was a wicked man, chosen by a worthless cabal. His name was

George Biordos, and he was the son of a mason. His manners were lower

than his birth. He united the basest perfidy with the most brutal

ferocity, and superstition with every vice. A calumniator, a persecutor,

and an impostor--avaricious, sanguinary, and seditious, he was detested

by every party and at last the people cudgelled him to death. The

following is the letter which the Emperor Julian wrote to the

Alexandrians on the subject of this popular commotion. Mark how he

addresses them, like a father and a judge:

"What!" said he, "instead of reserving for me the knowledge of your

wrongs you have suffered yourselves to be transported with anger! You

have been guilty of the same excesses with which you reproach your

enemies! George deserved to be so treated, but it was not for you to be

his executioners. You have laws; you should have demanded justice," etc.

Some have dared to brand Julian with the epithets intolerant and

persecuting--the man who sought to extirpate persecution and

intolerance! Peruse his fifty-second letter, and respect his memory. Is

he not sufficiently unfortunate in not having been a Catholic, and

consequently in being burned in hell, together with the innumerable

multitude of those who have not been Catholics, without our insulting

him so far as to accuse him of intolerance?

_On the Globes of Fire said to have issued from the Earth to prevent the

rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem under the Emperor Julian._

It is very likely that when Julian resolved to carry the war into Persia

he wanted money. It is also very likely that the Jews gave him some for

permission to rebuild their temple, which Titus had partly destroyed,

but of which there still remained the foundations, an entire wall, and

the Antonine tower. But is it as likely that globes of fire burst upon

the works and the workmen and caused the undertaking to be relinquished.

Is there not a palpable contradiction in what the historians relate?

1. How could it be that the Jews began by destroying (as they are said

to have done) the foundations of the temple which it was their wish and

their duty to rebuild on the same spot? The temple was necessarily to be

on Mount Moriah. There it was that Solomon had built it. There it was

that Herod had rebuilt it with greater solidity and magnificence, having

previously erected a fine theatre at Jerusalem, and a temple to Augustus

at Cæsarea. The foundations of this temple, enlarged by Herod, were,

according to Josephus, as much as twenty-five feet broad. Could the

Jews, in Julian's time, possibly be mad enough to wish to disarrange

these stones which were so well prepared to receive the rest of the

edifice, and upon which the Mahometans afterwards built their mosque?

What man was ever foolish and stupid enough thus to deprive himself at

great cost and excessive labor of the greatest advantage that could

present itself to his hands and eyes? Nothing is more incredible.

2. How could eruptions of flame burst forth from the interior of these

stones? There might be an earthquake in the neighborhood, for they are

frequent in Syria, but that great blocks of stone should have vomited

clouds of fire! Is not this story entitled to just as much credit as all

those of antiquity?

3. If this prodigy, or if an earthquake, which is not a prodigy, had

really happened would not the Emperor Julian have spoken of it in the

letter in which he says that he had intended to rebuild this temple?

Would not his testimony have been triumphantly adduced? Is it not

infinitely more probable that he changed his mind? Does not this letter

contain these words:

_"Quid de templo sua dicent, quod, quum tertio sit eversum, nondum

hodiernam usque diem instauratur? Hæc ego, non ut illis exprobarem, in

medium adduxi, utpote qui templum illud tanto intervallo a ruinis

excitare voluerim; sed ideo commemoravi, ut ostenderem delirasse

prophetas istos, quibus cum stolidis aniculis negotium erat"._

"What will they (the Jews) say of their temple which has been destroyed

for the third time and is not yet restored? I speak of this, not for the

purpose of reproaching them, for I myself had intended to raise it once

more from its ruins, but to show the extravagance of their prophets who

had none but old women to deal with."

Is it not evident that the emperor having paid attention to the Jewish

prophecies, that the temple should be rebuilt more beautiful than ever

and that all the nations of the earth should come and worship in it,

thought fit to revoke the permission to raise the edifice? The

historical probability, then, from the emperor's own words, is, that

unfortunately holding the Jewish books, as well as our own, in

abhorrence, he at length resolved to make the Jewish prophets lie.

The Abbé de la Blétrie, the historian of the Emperor Julian, does not

understand how the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed three times. He

says that apparently Julian reckoned as a third destruction the

catastrophe which happened during his reign. A curious destruction this!

the non-removal of the stones of an old foundation. What could prevent

this writer from seeing that the temple, having been built by Solomon,

reconstructed by Zorobabel, entirely destroyed by Herod, rebuilt by

Herod himself with so much magnificence, and at last laid in ruins by

Titus, manifestly made three destructions of the temple? The reckoning

is correct. Julian should surely have escaped calumny on this point.

The Abbé de la Blétrie calumniates him sufficiently by saying that all

his virtues were only seeming, while all his vices were real. But Julian

was not hypocritical, nor avaricious, nor fraudulent, nor lying, nor

ungrateful, nor cowardly, nor drunken, nor debauched, nor idle, nor

vindictive. What then were his vices?

4. Let us now examine the redoubtable argument made use of to persuade

us that globes of fire issued from stones. Ammianus Marcellinus a pagan

writer, free from all suspicion, has said it. Be it so: but this

Ammianus has also said that when the emperor was about to sacrifice ten

oxen to his gods for his first victory over the Persians, nine of them

fell to the earth before they were presented to the altar. He relates a

hundred predictions--a hundred prodigies. Are we to believe in them? Are

we to believe in all the ridiculous miracles related by Livy?

Besides, who can say that the text of Ammianus Marcellinus has not been

falsified? Would it be the only instance in which this artifice has been

employed?

I wonder that no mention is made of the little fiery crosses which all

the workmen found on their bodies when they went to bed. They would have

made an admirable figure along with the globes.

The fact is that the temple of the Jews was not rebuilt, and it may be

presumed never will be so. Here let us hold, and not seek useless

prodigies. _Globi Hammarum_--globes of fire, issue neither from stones

nor from earth. Ammianus, and those who have quoted him, were not

natural philosophers. Let the abbé de la Blétrie only look at the fire

on St. John's day, and he will see that flame always ascends with a

point, or in a cloud, and never in a globe. This alone is sufficient to

overturn the nonsense which he comes forward to defend with injudicious

criticism and revolting pride.

After all, the thing is of very little importance. There is nothing in

it that affects either faith or morals; and historical truth is all that

is here sought for.

APOSTLES.

_Their Lives, their Wives, their Children._

After the article "Apostle" in the Encyclopædia, which is as learned as

it is orthodox, very little remains to be said. But we often hear it

asked--Were the apostles married? Had they any children? if they had,

what became of those children? Where did the apostles live? Where did

they write? Where did they die? Had they any appropriated districts? Did

they exercise any civil ministry? Had they any jurisdiction over the

faithful? Were they bishops? Had they a hierarchy, rites, or ceremonies?

I.

_Were the Apostles Married?_

There is extant a letter attributed to St. Ignatius the Martyr, in which

are these decisive words: "I call to mind your sanctity as I do that of

Elias, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the chosen disciples Timothy,

Titus, Evadius, and Clement; yet I do not blame such other of the

blessed as were bound in the bonds of marriage, but hope to be found

worthy of God in following their footsteps in his kingdom, after the

example of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Isaiah, and the other

prophets--of Peter and Paul, and the apostles who were married."

Some of the learned assert that the name of St. Paul has been

interpolated in this famous letter: however, Turrian and all who have

seen the letters of Ignatius in the library of the Vatican acknowledge

that St. Paul's name appears there. And Baronius does not deny that this

passage is to be found in some Greek manuscripts: _Non negamus in

quibusdam græcis codicibus._ But he asserts that these words have been

added by modern Greeks.

In the old Oxford library there was a manuscript of St. Ignatius's

letters in Greek, which contained the above words; but it was, I

believe, burned with many other books at the taking of Oxford by

Cromwell. There is still one in Latin in the same library, in which the

words _Pauli et apostolorum_ have been effaced, but in such a manner

that the old characters may be easily distinguished.

It is however certain that this passage exists in several editions of

these letters. This dispute about St. Paul's marriage is, after all, a

very frivolous one. What matters it whether he was married or not, if

the other apostles were married? His first Epistle to the Corinthians is

quite sufficient to prove that he might be married, as well as the rest:

"Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about

a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the

Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear

working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?"

It is clear from this passage that all the apostles were married, as

well as St. Peter. And St. Clement of Alexandria positively declares

that St. Paul had a wife. The Roman discipline has changed, which is no

proof that the usage of the primitive ages was not different.

II.

_Children of the Apostles._

Very little is known of their families. St. Clement of Alexandria says

that Peter had children, that Philip had daughters, and that he gave

them in marriage. The Acts of the Apostles specify St. Philip, whose

four daughters prophesied, of whom it is believed that one was married,

and that this one was St. Hermione.

Eusebius relates that Nicholas, chosen by the apostles to co-operate in

the sacred ministry with St. Stephen, had a very handsome wife, of whom

he was jealous. The apostles having reproached him with his jealousy, he

corrected himself of it, brought his wife to them and said, "I am ready

to yield her up; let him marry her who will." The apostles, however, did

not accept his proposal. He had by his wife a son and several daughters.

Cleophas, according to Eusebius and St. Epiphanius, was brother to St.

Joseph, and father of St. James the Less, and of St. Jude, whom he had

by Mary, sister to the Blessed Virgin. So that St. Jude the apostle was

first cousin to Jesus Christ.

Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, tells us that two grandsons of St. Jude

were informed against to the emperor Domitian as being descendants of

David and having an incontestable right to the throne of Jerusalem.

Domitian, fearing that they might avail themselves of this right, put

questions to them himself, and they acquainted him with their genealogy.

The emperor asked them what fortune they had. They answered that they

had thirty-nine acres of land, which paid tribute, and that they worked

for their livelihood. He then asked them when Jesus Christ's kingdom was

to come, and they told him "At the end of the world." After which

Domitian permitted them to depart in peace; which goes far to prove that

he was not a persecutor. This, if I mistake not, is all that is known

about the children of the apostles.

III.

_Where did the Apostles Live? Where did They Die?_

According to Eusebius, James, sur named the Just, brother to Jesus

Christ, was in the beginning placed first _on the episcopal throne_ of

the city of Jerusalem; these are his own words. So that, according to

him, the first bishopric was that of Jerusalem--supposing that the Jews

knew even the name of _bishop_. It does, indeed, appear very likely that

the brother of Jesus Christ should have been the first after him, and

that the very city in which the miracle of our salvation was worked

should have become the metropolis of the Christian world. As for the

_episcopal throne_, that is a term which Eusebius uses by anticipation.

We all know that there was then neither throne nor see.

Eusebius adds, after St. Clement, that the other apostles did not

contend with St. James for this dignity. They elected him immediately

after the Ascension. "Our Lord," says he, "after His resurrection, had

given to James, surnamed the Just, to John and to Peter the gift of

knowledge"--very remarkable words. Eusebius mentions James first, then

John, and Peter comes last. It seems but just that the brother and the

beloved disciple of Jesus should come before the man who had denied Him.

Nearly the whole Greek Church and all the reformers ask, Where is

Peter's primacy? The Catholics answer--If he is not placed first by the

fathers of the church, he is in the Acts of the Apostles. The Greeks and

the rest reply that he was not the first bishop; and the dispute will

endure as long as the churches.

St. James, this first bishop of Jerusalem, always continued to observe

the Mosaic law. He was a Rechabite; he walked barefoot, and never

shaved; went and prostrated himself in the Jewish temple twice a day,

and was surnamed by the Jews _Oblia_, signifying the just. They at

length applied to him to know who Jesus Christ was, and having answered

that Jesus was the son of man, who sat on the right hand of God, and

that He should come in the clouds, he was beaten to death. This was St.

James the Less.

St. James the Greater was his uncle, brother to St. John the Evangelist,

and son of Zebedee and Salome. It is asserted that Agrippa, king of the

Jews, had him beheaded at Jerusalem. St. John remained in Asia and

governed the church of Ephesus, where, it is said, he was buried. St.

Andrew, brother to St Peter, quitted the school of St. John for that of

Jesus Christ. It is not agreed whether he preached among the Tartars or

in Argos; but, to get rid of the difficulty, we are told that it was in

Epirus. No one knows where he suffered martyrdom, nor even whether he

suffered it at all. The _Acts_ of his martyrdom are more than suspected

by the learned. Painters have always represented him on a saltier-cross,

to which his name has been given. This custom has prevailed without its

origin being known.

St. Peter preached to the Jews dispersed in Pontus, Bithynia,

Cappadocia, at Antioch, and at Babylon. The Acts of the Apostles do not

speak of his journey to Rome, nor does St. Paul himself make any mention

of it in the letters which he wrote from that capital. St. Justin is the

first accredited author who speaks of this journey, about which the

learned are not agreed. St. Irenæus, after St. Justin, expressly says

that St. Peter and St. Paul came to Rome, and that they entrusted its

government to St. Linus. But here is another difficulty: if they made

St. Linus inspector of the rising Christian society at Rome, it must be

inferred that they themselves did not superintend it nor remain in that

city.

Criticism has cast upon this matter a thousand uncertainties. The

opinion that St. Peter came to Rome in Nero's reign and filled the

pontifical chair there for twenty-five years, is untenable, for Nero

reigned only thirteen years. The wooden chair, so splendidly inlaid in

the church at Rome, can hardly have belonged to St. Peter: wood does not

last so long; nor is it likely that St. Peter delivered his lessons from

this chair as in a school thoroughly formed, since it is averred that

the Jews of Rome were violent enemies to the disciples of Jesus Christ.

The greatest difficulty perhaps is that St. Paul, in his epistle written

to the Colossians from Rome, positively says that he was assisted only

by Aristarchus, Marcus, and another bearing the name of Jesus. This

objection has, to men of the greatest learning, appeared to be

insurmountable.

In his letter to the Galatians he says that he obliged James, Cephas,

and John, who seemed to be pillars, to acknowledge himself and Barnabas

as pillars also. If he placed James before Cephas, then Cephas was not

the chief. Happily, these disputes affect not the foundation of our holy

religion. Whether St. Peter ever was at Rome or not, Jesus Christ is no

less the Son of God and the Virgin Mary; He did not the less rise again;

nor did He the less recommend humility and poverty; which are neglected,

it is true, but about which there is no dispute.

Callistus Nicephorus, a writer of the fourteenth century, says that

"Peter was tall, straight and slender, his face long and pale, his beard

and hair short, curly, and neglected--his eyes black, his nose long,

and rather flat than pointed." So Calmet translates the passage.

St. Bartholomew is a word corrupted from Bar. Ptolomaios, son of

Ptolemy. The Acts of the Apostles inform us that he was a Galilean.

Eusebius asserts that he went to preach in India, Arabia Felix, Persia,

and Abyssinia. He is believed to have been the same as Nathanael. There

is a gospel attributed to him; but all that has been said of his life

and of his death is very uncertain. It has been asserted that Astyages,

brother to Polemon, king of Armenia, had him flayed alive; but all good

writers regard this story as fabulous.

St. Philip.--According to the apocryphal legends he lived eighty-seven

years, and died in peace in the reign of Trajan.

St. Thomas Didymus.--Origen, quoted by Eusebius, says that he went and

preached to the Medes, the Persians, the Caramanians, the Baskerians,

and the magi--as if the magi had been a people. It is added that he

baptized one of the magi, who had come to Bethlehem. The Manichæans

assert that a man who had stricken Thomas was devoured by a lion. Some

Portuguese writers assure us that he suffered martyrdom at Meliapour, in

the peninsula of India. The Greek Church believes that he preached in

India, and that from thence his body was carried to Edessa. Some monks

are further induced to believe that he went to India, by the

circumstance that, about the end of the fifteenth century, there were

found, near the coast of Ormuz, some families of Nestorians, who had

been established there by a merchant of Moussoul, named Thomas. The

legend sets forth that he built a magnificent palace for an Indian king

named Gondaser: but all these stories are rejected by the learned.

St. Matthias.--No particulars are known of him. His life was not found

until the twelfth century by a monk of the abbey of St. Matthias of

Treves. He said he had it from a Jew, who translated it for him from

Hebrew into Latin.

St. Matthew.--According to Rufinus, Socrates, and Abdias, he preached

and died in Ethiopia. Heracleon makes him live a long time and die a

natural death. But Abdias says that Hyrtacus, king of Ethiopia, brother

to Eglypus, wishing to marry his niece Iphigenia, and finding that he

could not obtain St. Matthew's permission, had his head struck off and

set fire to Iphigenia's house. He to whom we owe the most circumstantial

gospel that we possess deserved a better historian than Abdias.

St. Simon the Canaanite, whose feast is commonly joined with that of St.

Jude.--Of his life nothing is known. The modern Greeks say that he went

to preach in Libya, and thence into England. Others make him suffer

martyrdom in Persia.

St. Thaddæus or Lebbæus.--The same as St. Jude, whom the Jews in St.

Matthew call brother to Jesus Christ, and who, according to Eusebius,

was his first cousin. All these relations, for the most part vague and

uncertain, throw no light on the lives of the apostles. But if there is

little to gratify our curiosity, there is much from which we may derive

instruction. Two of the four gospels, chosen from among the fifty-four

composed by the first Christians, were not written by apostles.

St. Paul was not one of the twelve apostles, yet he contributed more

than any other to the establishment of Christianity. He was the only man

of letters among them. He had studied under Gamaliel. Festus himself,

the governor of Judæa, reproaches him with being too learned; and,

unable to comprehend the sublimities of his doctrine, he says to him,

_"Insanis, Paule, multæ te litteræ ad insaniam convertunt"_. "Paul, thou

art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."

In his first epistle to the Corinthians he calls himself _sent_. "Am I

not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

Are ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle unto others, yet,

doubtless, I am unto you," etc.

He might, indeed, have seen Jesus while he was studying at Jerusalem

under Gamaliel. Yet it may be said that this was not a reason which

could authorize his apostleship. He had not been one of the disciples of

Jesus; on the contrary, he had persecuted them, and had been an

accomplice in the death of St. Stephen. It is astonishing that he does

not rather justify his voluntary apostleship by the miracle which Jesus

Christ afterwards worked in his favor--by the light from heaven which

appeared to him at midday and threw him from his horse, and by his being

carried up to the third heaven.

St. Epiphanius quotes Acts of the Apostles, believed to have been

composed by those Christians called Ebionites, or poor, and which were

rejected by the Church--acts very ancient, it is true, but full of abuse

of St. Paul. In them it is said that St. Paul was born at Tarsus of

idolatrous parents--_utroque parente gentili procreatus_--that, having

come to Jerusalem, where he remained some time, he wished to marry the

daughter of Gamaliel; that, with this design, he became a Jewish

proselyte and got himself circumcised; but that, not obtaining this

virgin (or not finding her a virgin), his vexation made him write

against circumcision, against the Sabbath, and against the whole law.

_"Quumque Hierosolymam accessisset, et ibidem aliquandiu mansisset,

pontificis filiam ducere in animum induxisse, et eam ab rem proselytum

factum, atque circumcisum esse; postea quod virginem eam non accepisset,

succensuisse, et adversus circumcisionem, ac sabbathum totamque legem

scripsisse."_

These injurious words show that these primitive Christians, under the

name of the poor, were still attached to the Sabbath and to

circumcision, resting this attachment on the circumcision of Jesus

Christ and his observance of the Sabbath; and that they were enemies to

St. Paul, regarding him as an intruder who sought to overturn

everything. In short, they were heretics; consequently they strove to

defame their enemies, an excess of which party spirit and superstition

are too often guilty. St. Paul, too, calls them "false apostles,

deceitful workers," and loads them with abuse. In his letter to the

Philippians he calls them dogs.

St. Jerome asserts that he was born at Gisceala, a town of Galilee, and

not at Tarsus. Others dispute his having been a Roman citizen, because

at that time there were no Roman citizens at Tarsus, nor at Galgala, and

Tarsus was not a Roman colony until about a hundred years after. But we

must believe the Acts of the Apostles, which were inspired by the Holy

Ghost, and therefore outweigh the testimony of St. Jerome, learned as he

might be.

Every particular relative to St. Peter and St. Paul is interesting. If

Nicephorus has given us a portrait of the one, the Acts of St. Thecla,

which, though not canonical, are of the first century, have furnished us

with a portrait of the other. He was, say these acts, short in stature,

his head was bald, his thighs were crooked, his legs thick, his nose

aquiline, his eyebrows joined, and he was full of the grace of

God.--_Statura brevi, etc._

These Acts of St. Paul and St. Thecla were, according to Tertullian,

composed by an Asiatic, one of Paul's own disciples, who at first put

them forth under the apostle's name; for which he was called to account

and displaced--that is, excluded from the assembly; for the hierarchy,

not being then established, no one could, properly speaking, be

displaced.

IV.

_Under What Discipline Did the Apostles and Primitive Disciples Live?_

It appears that they were all equal. Equality was the great principle of

the Essenians, the Rechabites, the Theraputæ, the disciples of John, and

especially those of Jesus Christ, who inculcated it more than once.

St. Barnabas, who was not one of the twelve apostles, gave his voice

along with theirs. St. Paul, who was still less a chosen apostle during

the life of Jesus, not only was equal to them, but had a sort of

ascendancy; he rudely rebukes St. Peter.

When they are together we find among them no superior. There was no

presiding, not even in turn. They did not at first call themselves

bishops. St. Peter gives the name of _bishop_, or the equivalent

epithet, only to Jesus Christ, whom he calls _the inspector of souls_.

This name of _inspector_ or _bishop_ was afterwards given to the

ancients, whom we call _priests_; but with no ceremony, no dignity, no

distinctive mark of pre-eminence. It was the office of the ancients or

elders to distribute the alms. The younger of them were chosen by a

plurality of voices to serve the tables, and were seven in number; all

which clearly verifies the reports in common. Of jurisdiction, of power,

of command, not the least trace is to be found.

It is true that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for not giving all

their money to St. Peter, but retaining a small part for their own

immediate wants without confessing it--for corrupting, by a trifling

falsehood, the sanctity of their gifts; but it is not St. Peter who

condemns them. It is true that he divines Ananias' fault; he reproaches

him with it and tells him that he has lied to the Holy Ghost; after

which Ananias falls down dead. Then comes Sapphira; and Peter, instead

of warning, interrogates her, which seems to be the action of a judge.

He makes her fall into the snare by saying, "Tell me whether ye sold the

land for so much." The wife made the same answer as her husband. It is

astonishing that she did not, on reaching the place, learn of her

husband's death--that no one had informed her of it--that she did not

observe the terror and tumult which such a death must have occasioned,

and above all, the mortal fear lest the officers of justice should take

cognizance of it as of a murder. It is strange that this woman should

not have filled the house with her cries, but have been quietly

interrogated, as in a court of justice, where silence is rigidly

enforced. It is still more extraordinary that Peter should have said to

her, "Behold the feet of them which have carried thy husband out at the

door, and shall carry thee out"--on which the sentence was instantly

executed. Nothing can more resemble a criminal hearing before a despotic

judge.

But it must be considered that St. Peter is here only the organ of

Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost; that it is to them that Ananias and his

wife have lied, and it is they who punish them with sudden death; that,

indeed, this miracle was worked for the purpose of terrifying all such

as, while giving their goods to the Church, and saying that they have

given all, keep something back for profane uses. The judicious Calmet

shows us how the fathers and the commentators differ about the salvation

of these two primitive Christians, whose sin consisted in simple though

culpable reticence.

Be this as it may, it is certain that the apostles had no jurisdiction,

no power, no authority, but that of persuasion, which is the first of

all, and upon which every other is founded. Besides, it appears from

this very story that the Christians lived in common. When two or three

of them were gathered together, Jesus Christ was in the midst of them.

They could all alike receive the Spirit. Jesus was their true, their

only superior; He had said to them:

"Be not ye called rabbi; for one is your master, even Christ; and all ye

are brethren. And call no man your father upon earth; for one is your

father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is

your master, even Christ."

In the time of the apostles there was no ritual, no liturgy; there were

no fixed hours for assembling, no ceremonies. The disciples baptized the

catechumens, and breathed the Holy Ghost into their mouths, as Jesus

Christ had breathed on the apostles; and as, in many churches, it is

still the custom to breathe into the mouth of a child when administering

baptism. Such were the beginnings of Christianity. All was done by

inspiration--by enthusiasm, as among the Therapeutæ and the Judaïtes, if

we may for a moment be permitted to compare Jewish societies, now become

reprobate, with societies conducted by Jesus Christ Himself from the

highest heaven, where He sat at the right hand of His Father. Time

brought necessary changes; the Church being extended, strengthened, and

enriched, had occasion for new laws.

APPARITION.

It is not at all uncommon for a person under strong emotion to see that

which is not. In 1726 a woman in London, accused of being an accomplice

in her husband's murder, denied the fact; the dead man's coat was held

up and shaken before her, her terrified imagination presented the

husband himself to her view; she fell at his feet and would have

embraced him. She told the jury that she had seen her husband. It is not

wonderful that Theodoric saw in the head of a fish, which was served up

to him, that of Symmachus, whom he had assassinated--or unjustly

executed; for it is precisely the same thing.

Charles IX., after the massacre of St. Bartholomew, saw dead bodies and

blood; not in his dreams, but in the convulsions of a troubled mind

seeking for sleep in vain. His physician and his nurse bore witness to

it. Fantastic visions are very frequent in hot fevers. This is not

seeing in imagination; it is seeing in reality. The phantom exists to

him who has the perception of it. If the gift of reason vouchsafed to

the human machine were not at hand to correct these illusions, all

heated imaginations would be in an almost continual transport, and it

would be impossible to cure them.

It is especially in that middle state between sleeping and waking that

an inflamed brain sees imaginary objects and hears sounds which nobody

utters. Fear, love, grief, remorse are the painters who trace the

pictures before unsettled imaginations. The eye which sees sparks in the

night, when accidentally pressed in a certain direction, is but a faint

image of the disorders of the brain.

No theologian doubts that with these natural causes the Master of nature

has sometimes united His divine influence. To this the Old and the New

Testament bear ample testimony. Providence has deigned to employ these

apparitions--these visions--in favor of the Jews, who were then its

cherished people.

It may be that, in the course of time, some really pious souls, deceived

by their enthusiasm, have believed that they had received from an

intimate communication with God that which they owed only to their

inflamed imaginations. In such cases there is need of the advice of an

honest man, and especially of a good physician.

The stories of apparitions are innumerable. It is said to have been in

consequence of an apparition that St. Theodore, in the beginning of the

fourth century, went and set fire to the temple of Amasia and reduced it

to ashes. It is very likely that God did not command this action, in

itself so criminal, by which several citizens perished, and which

exposed all the Christians to a just revenge.

God might permit St. Potamienne to appear to St. Basilides; for there

resulted no disturbance to the state. We will not deny that Jesus Christ

might appear to St. Victor. But that St. Benedict saw the soul of St.

Germanus of Capua carried up to heaven by angels; and that two monks

afterwards saw the soul of St. Benedict walking on a carpet extended

from heaven to Mount Cassino--this is not quite so easy to believe.

It may likewise, without any offence to our august religion, be doubted

whether St. Eucherius was conducted by an angel into hell, where he saw

Charles Mattel's soul; and whether a holy hermit of Italy saw the soul

of Dagobert chained in a boat by devils, who were flogging it without

mercy; for, after all, it is rather difficult to explain satisfactorily

how a soul can walk upon a carpet, how it can be chained in a boat, or

how it can be flogged.

But, it may very well be that heated brains have had such visions; from

age to age we have a thousand instances of them. One must be very

enlightened to distinguish, in this prodigious number of visions, those

which came from God Himself from those which were purely the offspring

of imagination.

The illustrious Bossuet relates, in his funeral oration over the

Princess Palatine, two visions which acted powerfully on that princess,

and determined the whole conduct of her latter years. These heavenly

visions must be believed since they are regarded as such by the discreet

and learned bishop of Meaux, who penetrated into all the depths of

theology and even undertook to lift the veil which covers the

Apocalypse.

He says, then, that the Princess Palatine, having lent a hundred

thousand francs to her sister, the queen of Poland, sold the duchy of

Rételois for a million, and married her daughters advantageously. Happy

according to the world, but unfortunately doubting the truths of the

Christian religion, she was brought back to her conviction, and to the

love of these ineffable truths by two visions. The first was a dream in

which a man born blind told her that he had no idea of light, and that

we must believe the word of others in things of which we cannot

ourselves conceive. The second arose from a violent shock of the

membranes and fibres of the brain in an attack of fever. She saw a hen

running after one of her chickens, which a dog held in his mouth. The

Princess Palatine snatched the chick from the dog, on which a voice

cried out: "Give him back his chicken; if you deprive him of his food he

will not watch as he ought." But the princess exclaimed, "No, I will

never give it back."

The chicken was the soul of Anne of Gonzaga, Princess Palatine; the hen

was the Church, and the dog was the devil. Anne of Gonzaga, who was

never to give back the chicken to the dog, was _efficacious grace_.

Bossuet preached this funeral oration to the Carmelite nuns of the

Faubourg St. Jacques, at Paris, before the whole house of Condé; he used

these remarkable words: "Hearken, and be especially careful not to hear

with contempt the order of the Divine warnings, and the conduct of

Divine grace."

The reader, then, must peruse this story with the same reverence with

which its hearers listened to it. These extraordinary workings of

Providence are like the miracles of canonized saints, which must be

attested by irreproachable witnesses. And what more lawful deponent can

we have to the apparitions and visions of the Princess Palatine than the

man who employed his life in distinguishing truth from appearance? who

combated vigorously against the nuns of Port Royal on the formulary;

against Paul Ferri on the catechism; against the minister Claude on the

variations of the Church; against Doctor Dupin on China; against Father

Simon on the understanding of the sacred text; against Cardinal

Sfondrati on predestination; against the pope on the rights of the

Gallican Church; against the archbishop of Cambray on pure and

disinterested love. He was not to be seduced by the names, nor the

titles, nor the reputation, nor the dialectics of his adversaries. He

related this fact; therefore he believed it. Let us join him in his

belief, in spite of the raillery which it has occasioned. Let us adore

the secrets of Providence, but let us distrust the wanderings of the

imagination, which Malebranche called _la folle du logis_. For these two

visions accorded to the Princess Palatine are not vouchsafed to every

one.

Jesus Christ appeared to St. Catharine of Sienna; he espoused her and

gave her a ring. This mystical apparition is to be venerated, for it is

attested by Raymond of Capua, general of the Dominicans, who confessed

her, as also by Pope Urban VI. But it is rejected by the learned Fleury,

author of the "Ecclesiastical History." And a young woman who should now

boast of having contracted such a marriage might receive as a nuptial

present a place in a lunatic asylum.

The appearance of Mother Angelica, abbess of Port Royal, to Sister

Dorothy is related by a man of very great weight among the Jansenists,

the Sieur Dufossé, author of the _"Mémoirs de Pontis"_. Mother Angelica,

long after her death, came and seated herself in the church of Port

Royal, in her old place, with her crosier in her hand. She commanded

that Sister Dorothy should be sent for and to her she told terrible

secrets. But the testimony of this Dufossé is of less weight than that

of Raymond of Capua, and Pope Urban VI., which, however, have not been

formally received.

The writer of the above paragraphs has since read the Abbé Langlet's

four volumes on "Apparitions," and thinks he ought not to take anything

from them. He is convinced of all the apparitions verified by the

Church, but he has some doubts about the others, until they are

authentically recognized. The Cordeliers and the Jacobins, the

Jansenists and the Molinists have all had their apparitions and their

miracles. _"Iliacos inter muros peccatur et extra."_