The Trinity, or fourth period of Christianity.
If we may judge of the opposition made to the doctrines of the fourth Gospel by the vehemence and bad feeling with which they were defended, we conclude that if they were not successfully refuted, they did not escape just and severe criticism. The sudden change from the Logos of Philo to thehypostasisof John—from Christ a spirit who had descended from Heaven and taken up a temporary abode in the human form, and a Christ who was born a God, lived and remained such through death and the resurrection—was too great a change to be suddenly taken, without provoking the sneers and animadversions of the enemies of the new faith, who were on the lookout to expose its weaknesses, and ridicule its inconsistencies. What gave force and point to their attacks was, that the change from the Logos of the Synoptics to that of the fourth Gospel was one of necessity, forced upon Christians by the tactics of the Gnostics, in order to maintain a principle which lay at the foundation of their religion: that is, the atonement.
In the war waged between them and their enemies, Christians found it a source of great relief and satisfaction, to learn that the doctrines of John's Gospel, which were announced in the first verses of the first chapter, were in harmony with the theology of Plato. Whatever inconsistencies might be imputed to them on account of the change of their ideas as to the nature of Christ, their present views were the same as those held by the great philosopher of Greece, whose wisdom had entitled him to be called Plato the Divine. The study of the works of the Athenian by Christians of this period was the natural result of this feeling, and we discover a constant increase of this admiration until his ascendency is complete, and the nature of the Godhead determined by his genius. The followers of Plato were no less gratified to find that the doctrines of the fourth Gospel were in harmony with the school of their great teacher; so much so that it removed, the prejudice, and reduced the distance which formerly separated them from the Christians.*
* Some proofs of the respect which the Christiansentertained for the person and doctrines of Plato, may befound in De la Mothe le Vager, torn. v. p. 135, and Basnage,tom. IV. p. 29-79. Decline and Fall, vol. I. p. 440, note29.
According to John, theWordexisted with the Father from the beginning—was equal to the Father, and was the Creator of all things. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were co-equal and co-eternal. With Plato, the Father, or First Cause, the Logos, and Spirit of the Universe, existed from the beginning, and were endowed with co-ordinate powers; but, according to him, all divine natures flow from the One, or First Cause, as light flows from the sun, and are bound in unity, and are one; so the three persons in the Godhead of Plato are one, and constitute a triad in unity.
The theology of the fourth Gospel approached so near to that of Plato, that it was natural that one should insensibly run into the other, and was what might have been expected. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are equal, as the First Cause, the Logos, and the Spirit of the Universe are equal. As the two proceed from the One, or First Cause, with Plato, and are united, so the two proceed from the Father, and are one, and in both cases form a trinity in unity.
The circle is now complete. Paul was dethroned by the Alexandrian Philo, and his Christology in turn is overthrown by the mixed theology of John and Plato. We can readily detect the violence done the works of the fathers, in order to give the authority of their names to this new phase of Christianity. "Wherefore come all ye together as to one temple of God—as to one altar—as to one Jesus Christ—who proceeds from One Father, and exists in one and is returned to One" (Ignatius to Magnesians, sec. 7.) This language expresses the Platonic idea in all its completeness. It could hardly be expected that Christianity could take upon itself this new phase without opening the door for new causes for dispute, as will always be the case when men presume to reason on spiritual generation, and from negative ideas attempt to draw positive conclusions.
Sabellius, of Egypt, undertook to find a middle ground, and while he admitted the triad in unity, he claimed that there was but one person in the Godhead, and that the Word and Spirit are only virtues or emanations of the Deity. But his doctrine conceded too much to the theology of the Greek to suit the followers of Arius, and not enough to satisfy the orthodox; and so, after a vain struggle, Sabellius and his doctrine? were swallowed up and lost sight of in the strife created by the opposing views which suddenly sprang up in the church at Alexandria. We give the origin of the dispute in the words of Socrates, a writer of the fifth century.
"After Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achilles was installed in the Episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the church, attempted one day, in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery,the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the Presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imagining that the Bishop entertained the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan, controverted his statements with excessive pertinacity, advancing another error which was directly opposed indeed to that which he supposed himself called upon to refute. 'If,' said he, 'the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not in being. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his existence from nothing.'" (Ecclesiastical History, book i. chap. 5.)
From a little spark, continues the writer, a large fire was kindled, which ran throughout all Egypt, Libya, the upper Thebes, and finally through Asia and Europe. After disturbing the peace of the world for fourteen hundred years, the dispute which commenced at Alexandria remains unsettled to this day.
We now approach a new era. Up to this time the religion of a people had no connection with the powers of the State. Constantine is the first to set an example. Indebted to the Christians for their assistance in the civil war between himself and Licinius, under the pretext of preserving the peace of the church, he wrote an epistle to Alexander and Arius, admonishing them to forbear and cease to quarrel about things they can neither explain or comprehend. Thus commenced a connection between church and State which has proved so ruinous to the cause of true religion, and the peace of the church ever since. This interference was continued by Constantine throughout his reign, and at the time of his death the affairs of the church and State were so interwoven that it became difficult, at times, to distinguish between the office of a Bishop and the powers of the Emperor. The spirit of faction in the church proved superior to the authority of Constantine, and in order to restore peace, he was forced to call an assembly of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons from every part of the Christian world. What was meant to restore harmony, only furnished fresh subjects for dispute, so that the progress of mankind has rather been retarded than assisted by the piety and wisdom of the Nicene fathers. The attempt to fix a standard of faith by the decrees of councils has proven to be the greatest folly in which men were ever engaged, as it has been the source of the greatest misery and suffering; and proves, by the evils which flow from it, that all such efforts are vain and presumptuous. As well undertake to fix a standard for the fine arts, and determine by a decree the combination of colors, and how the lights and shades shall be mingled in making a picture to please the eye, and satisfy the taste of all.
That which followed what was done at the Council of Nice, shows of what little value are the decrees of such bodies in establishing or in assisting the cause of truth. Council followed council, without arriving any nearer to the settlement of the dispute. In the fourth century alone, there were forty-five councils; of these, thirteen decided against Arius, fifteen in his favor, and seventeen for the Semiarians. (Draper'sIntellectual Development, page 222.) The divisions and quarrels among Christians sapped the strength, and finally led to the disruption of the Roman empire, and prepared the way for the armies of Persia, and the conquest of Mahomet.
The Catholic Epistles.
The Catholic Epistles, as they are called, if genuine, should be regarded as of the highest authority in everything which relates to the early age of Christianity. That some are the real productions of an Apostle, some so in part, and others wholly spurious, is susceptible of the most satisfactory proof. The epistle of James, and the first of Peter, if we except certain parts of the latter, have strong claims to be treated as the works of the writers whose names they bear; while the second of Peter, the first, second, and third of John, and the one ascribed to Jude, carry on their face unmistakable marks of forgery.
The writer of the first epistle of Peter was a Jew, not a Greek, and it was addressed to Jewish converts. His mind dwells on events in Jewish history, for he speaks of Sarah, Abraham, and Moses, and refers to the traditions of the Jewish rabbins and elders. (1 Pet. i. 18.) Although addressed tostrangers, the epistle was meant for Jews, who, through persecution in Judea, fled into foreign countries; for to Peter was committed the ministry of the circumcision. (Gal. ii. 9.) Besides, the persons to whom Peter writesare styled "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people" (1 Peter ii. 9), which can only apply to the Jewish nation. "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." (Exodusxix. 6.)
The letter shows that Peter was still a Jew, and altogether proves that he had not changed his views on circumcision. The vision on the house-top had not yet taken place. But there is a spirit of pure morality running through the greater part of the epistle, which brings it near the time of Christ, and makes it out of place in a later period of Christianity. It is conclusive proof of its canonical authority, that it is inserted in the Syriac version of the New Testament, executed at the close of the first or early in the second century; and it is equally conclusive against the second of Peter, that it is not included in the same work. Hermas has not fewer than seven allusions to the first epistle, which is sufficient to prove its antiquity.
This epistle was also written before the order of Bishops was recognized in the church, and Christians had not departed from their first simple ideas of ecclesiastical government. Peter himself claimed to be nothing more than elder. "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am alsoan elder" (i Peter v. I.)
The place where the letter bears date corresponds with our ideas of the movements of Peter, for his labors, whatever they may have been, were confined to Asia, not far beyond the confines of Judea.
But if the first of Peter is in the main genuine, it did not escape corruption at the hands of the poisoners of truth in the second century. "Who verily was fore-ordained beforethe foundationof the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (i Peter i. 20.) "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in theflesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in thefleshhath ceased from sin." (1 Peter iv. I.) When these verses were written, Christianity had passed into its third period, for here is announceda Christwho was co-eternal with the Father, and wasincarnate.
Most of the first chapter, if not all, is undoubtedly spurious. The boastful spirit with which it commences; the doctrinal announcements, and the tone in which they are delivered are entirely different from that shown in the following chapters. It is written as something to be used against an adversary, and, like all forgeries inserted into genuine writings for such purposes, much is crowded into a small space.
In this chapter is declared the preexistence of Christ, or the Alexandrian Logos; the resurrection; foreknowledge and election, and sanctification—all disputed points in theology, which required the authority of an Apostle to settle: but neither of which had anything to do with Christ or the religion he taught. It will be noticed, that the crucifixion is mentioned twice: once in connection with the twentieth verse, which asserts the eternity of the Logos, and the other in close connection with the second verse, which holds to the doctrine of election. As the preexistence of Christ was no part of Christianity when Peter wrote, which was, according to Lardner and others, in A.D. 64, but belongs to a later period; and as the subject mentioned in the twentieth and twenty-first verses is the same, and cannot be separated, it follows that both are spurious.
So we would say of the mention of the resurrection in the third verse. It is connected with a doctrinal point which had no existence in Peter's time, and, if it had, was in dispute, and was inserted into this chapter to give it Apostolic authority. The mention of the resurrection in the twenty-first verse of the third chapter, holds also a suspicious connection with the doctrine of baptism.
The true commencement of this epistle will be found in the first verse of the second chapter. Here we discover quite a different spirit. Here commence the plain, simple and pure doctrines of the Christian faith, which in the end will secure the victory. Peter and James are each examples to prove that a mind wedded to a single idea, which had for ages entered into the religion of a people, may be contracted and fettered by it, and yet be free to expand under the influence of the true genius of Christianity, and become liberal on other subjects. Neither Peter nor James could shake off the Jewish notion of circumcision, for it began with the father of that people by the command of God, and was to be binding on his descendants to the end of time. With them, like all the laws of God, the law of circumcision was unchangeable. But notwithstanding all this, they each had heart enough to take in the great truths of Christianity as declared by the lips of its founder. These men, who were slaves to one idea, who dogged the footsteps of Paul because he taught the doctrine of the uncircumcision, could yet teach men the duty to "love thy neighbor as thyself." (James ii. 8.)
No two writings can be more unlike than the two epistles ascribed to Peter. The second is filled with the boasting and controversial bitterness of the times of the Gnostics. In the primitive churches the authenticity of this epistle was a subject of doubt. It was not, as stated, included in the Syriac version of the New Testament, which cannot be accounted for, except that it was not in existence when it was compiled, at the beginning of the second century. But the internal evidence furnished by the epistle itself is sufficient to prove that it never was written by Peter.
The following contains the spirit of Irenaeus when he speaks of his intimacy with Polycarp: "And this voice which came from heavenwe heard, when we were with himin the holy mount." (2 Peter i. 18.) "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter ii. 1.) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." (Chap. ii. 3.) "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken anddestroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.... Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you." (Chap. ii. 12, 13.) "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." (Chap. ii. 21, 22.) The letter is filled with all the venom and bitterness of the Gnostic quarrels.
We have already said enough to prove the two epistles of John spurious, and who it was that wrote them. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard\ which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." (1 John i. 1, 2.) Iræneus, in a letter to Florinus, says, in speaking of Polycarp: "Well, therefore, could I describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught; his going out and coming in; the whole tenor of his life; his personal appearance; the discourses which he made to the people. How would he speak of the conversations which he had held with John and others who had seen the Lord. How did he make mention of their words, and whatsoever he had heard from them respecting the Lord." All this he can say without a blush; although Polycarp never saw John, and in all his letters, which are numerous, he never claims he did. He saw Paul, but not John. The manner in which John is made to speak of Christ is much the same as Irenaeus makes mention of Polycarp. Effect is meant to be given to what was stated in both cases, by dwelling on details.
After having qualified himself as witness in this boastful spirit, he proceeds to deal out blows on the heads of his adversaries: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (i John ii. 4.) "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (Chap. ii. 22.) "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." (Chap. iv. 2, 3.) Such is the spirit throughout the two epistles ascribed to John. The Apostle is forced on the stage to make war on the Gnostics, and maintain the dogma of the incarnation in the language of a blackguard.
The epistle of Jude is nothing but a bolt hurled at the head of Paul, from the hand of one who assumed the name of an apostle.
What is said of the first epistle of Peter may be said of that which is attributed to James. It was written by a Jew, for he says: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (James ii. 21.) The text shows it was written during the Pauline period of Christianity, and was the work of James, or some one else, in reply to Paul, who claimed that faith without works were sufficient for salvation. It makes no allusion to the disputed dogmas of the second century, and like the first of Peter, breathes a spirit of Christianity which approached near the time of Christ. The frequent allusions to it by Hermas are in favor of an early date: it is included in the Syriac version, which leaves its antiquity without question.
We cannot fail to be struck with the fact, that Peter and James, both Jews, who were the disciples and companions of Christ, are free from doctrinal dogmas, and preach doctrines like those of their Great Teacher, full of charity, kindness, and love. It is only when we come to the writings and forgeries of the Greek that we encounter subtle and unintelligible dogmas, which involved men in endless disputes, excited the most violent passions, and terminated in wars and disturbances of all kind.
What is remarkable, too, neither of these Jewish writers makes any reference to the Gospels, nor to the miracles or prodigies spoken of in them; nor does either make mention of the miraculous conception and birth of Christ. All these things sprang from the Greeks. To be sure, Paul preached the resurrection; but he believed because he saw Christ after the crucifixion, in a vision, James is silent on the greatest event since the creation, of which, if true, he was a witness. The hand of the spoiler failed to leave his mark on the pages of James the son of Alpheus. Addressed to the "Twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," the epistle which bears his name had obtained too wide a circulation, and was in the hands of too many, before the age of forgery commenced, to be an easy subject for mutilation. It was written in Judea, and addressed to the whole Jewish people. It was for them alone, and in their special custody, and if it comes down to us without a spot or stain, as it came from the pen of the writer, it is because it was too well guarded and protected by its friends to admit of corruption. Why did James withhold from the twelve tribes the great fact that Christ had risen from the dead? He speaks of his cruel death; why not mention the still more important fact, that he rose superior to the grave, and put death under his feet? "Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you." (James v. 6.)
No Christians in Rome from A. D. 66 to A. D. 117.
From the death of Paul in A. D. 66, as we have before stated, to the reign of Adrian in A. D. 117, Rome was without a Christian population. Such is history when properly rendered. The course of Nero filled them with horror, and at the time of his death Rome was deserted by them. After he ceased to reign there followed the civil wars, the most fearful in the annals of Rome. Galba, after all obstacles in his way to power had been removed by the sword, entered the city through a scene of blood, and men expected nothing less than the renewal of all the cruelties of Nero's reign. (Annals of Tacitus, Appendix to book xvi.) Then commenced the civil war between Vespasian and Vitellius, which was the cause of untold misery to the Roman people. The city of Rome was burned to the ground. "From the foundation of the city to that hour, the Roman people had felt no calamity so deplorable, no disgrace so humiliating." (__Tacitus, book iii. sec. 22.)
The condition of the times is truly depicted in the concise and eloquent language of the author of the "Decline and Fall": "During fourscore years (excepting only the short and doubtful respite by Vespasian's reign) Rome groaned beneath an unrelenting tyranny which exterminated the ancient families of the Republic, and was fatal to almost every virtue and every talent that arose during that unhappy period." (Vol. I. page 47)
Obscene rites alleged to be practised by Christians; their indifference towards all who differed from them in their ideas on religion; their isolation from the rest of mankind, had excited the hatred of the Pagan world; so that in large cities, where the population was lawless and difficult to restrain, they were liable to be attacked and torn to pieces without notice and without provocation. All the evils which befell the empire were referred to the Christians, and were regarded as proof that the Roman people had, by tolerating them, incurred the anger of heaven. Their presence was considered a curse upon the earth. Tertullian exclaims: "If the Tiber rises against the walls of the city, or the Nile does not overflow its banks; if there is a drought, or earthquake, or famine, or pestilence, the cry at once is, Take the Christians to the Lion." (Apology, chap, xl.)
It was this state of feeling that made it dangerous, especially during the civil war, for Christians to remain in Rome. Domitian, the son of Vespasian, commenced his reign in A. D. 81, and was assassinated in A. D. 96. That we have no account of any Christians being put to death under his reign is proof that they had not returned from the provinces. It is the fashion with historians to allege great cruelty towards Christians during this reign. We have searched for the evidence, but have failed to find it. Suetonius lived during his reign; had personal knowledge of many things he describes; gives the names of numerous victims and their offences; mentions the cruelties inflicted on the Jews; but does not even make use of the word Christian, or give the name of any one who suffered on account of his religion. The cruelty of Domitian spent itself on those who were guilty of political offences; but the interested and partisan traditions of the second century delight to make him a monster who took pleasure in shedding Christian blood. He did not fail to persecute Christians because he had no inclination to do so—for he punished what he called impiety to the gods with severity—but because there was none in Rome during his reign to persecute.*
* See Appendix D.
Trajan succeeded to the empire in A. D. 98. During his reign, which continued to A. D. 117, what proof there is on the subject tends to show that Christians had not yet returned to the capital. So little did Trajan know about them, that Pliny, in writing to him for advice as to how he should deal with them, is compelled to describe to him their doctrines, practices and forms of worship. Had there been any in Rome at the time, there would have been no necessity for this; and besides, had there been any there, the mode of treatment of them by the emperor would afford a precedent for Pliny without calling for special instructions. But we can affirm with confidence that no Christian dared live in Rome during this reign, which continued for nineteen years, for the reason that to be one during this time was a crime punishable by death.
In answer to Pliny's letter, in speaking of Christians, Trajan writes: "If they be brought before you, and are convicted, let them becapitallypunished, yet with this restriction, that if any one will renounce Christianity and evince his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however suspected he may be in the past, he shall obtain pardon for the future on his repentance."
It is not at all astonishing that Pliny, in writing Trajan about his mode of treating Christians, had to tell him who they were, and describe the way in which they conducted themselves. From A.D. 64, when Tacitus speaks of them in connection with the great fire, and their sufferings at the time, no historian makes any mention of them, as dwellers in Rome, to the end of the century. The obscure allusion to them by Juvenal and Martial, in a satirical vein, relates solely to their conduct under torture, inflicted by Nero at the time Rome was burned.
Suetonius, who was secretary to the Emperor Adrian, wrote the life and times of the Emperors from Augustus to Domitian; and if we except the doubtful allusion to them in the reign of Claudius, he does not even make use of the word Christian, or speak of anything in connection with them. During the time of which we have been speaking, lived and wrote Quintilian, Juvenal, Statius, and Martial.
The office of Bishop foreign to churches established byPaul, which were too poor and too few in number to supportthe order.—Third chapter of the second Epistle to Timothy,and the one to Titus, forgeries.—The writings of theFathers corrupted.
Elders or Seniors, in ancient Jewish polity, were persons who were selected on account of their age and experience to administer justice among the people,—who also held the first rank in the synagogue as presidents. The office of the Elder, with the Jews, commenced with Moses, and was continued until after the days of the Apostles. They were selected with reference to age and knowledge, without regard to anything else. It is evident that the Apostles did not depart from the Jewish form of church government, but adopted and continued it du ring their lives. The epistle of James was written in A.D. 61. At that time the church was governed by Elders.
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the Elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." (James v. 14.) In A.D. 64, Peter was an Elder, for that is the date of the first epistle which bears his name. "TheElderswhich are among you I exhort, whoam also an Elder." (1 Peter vi. 1.)
We hear nothing of the office of Bishop until we enter the second age of Christianity, when the Therapeutæ had taken possession of the church, got the upper-hand of Paul and his followers, and introduced their government of the Episcopacy. Did Paul institute a government for the churches established by him, different from that of Peter and James?
Paul had no place for the office of Bishop in the churches which he founded and organized. In all cases except one he addresses his epistles to the church, and those that are sanctified in Christ. The letter to the Romans is addressed, "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God." The first to the Corinthians, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth;" second Corinthians, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia;" Galatians, "And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia;" Ephesians, "To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus;" Thessalonians, "Unto the church of the Thessalonians, which is in God." Only in one instance does Paul make any other or different address. His epistle to the Philippians is addressed, "To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi,with the Bishops and Deacons:" a simple spurious addition to the forms of address in all other cases.
The letter to the Philippians was written in A. D. 62 or A. D. 63, when Paul was in Rome. The epistle to the Thessalonians was written in A. D. 52, while he was in Corinth. For ten years Paul had been writing letters to the different churches, and in his epistle to the Philippians he uses the word Bishop for the first time. In this epistle the name of the Bishop is not given, which is significant. The contents of this letter show that there was no Bishop at Philippi at the time it was written.
When Paul was a prisoner in Rome the first time, the church at that place sent Epaphroditus to visit him, with means to supply his wants.
Thankful for the remembrance in which he was held, he sent the letter spoken of, and as some return for their kindness, he promised to send to them Timothy. "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state." (Phil. ii. 19.) "Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me," (Chap. ii. 23.) If there was a Bishop in the church at Philippi, why not mention his name? or why send Timothy to them at all to supply their spiritual wants?
How many members composed the church at Philippi to require the services of a Bishop and deacons? Paul had been there once, and perhaps the second time. He was called there for the first time by a vision; but he soon got into trouble, and even into prison, and remained but a short time. The author of the life of Paul (Renan) claims that he went into Macedonia the second time, and remained about six months, from June to November (page 261). The same writer says: "A country was reputed evangelized when the name of Jesus was pronounced there and half a score of persons had been converted. A church frequently contained no more than twelve or fifteen members. Probably all the converts of St. Paul in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece did not exceed one thousand." Of this number, in a note to the twenty-second chapter, he assigns two hundred to the churches in Macedonia. As Paul had numerous churches in Macedonia, we are safe to assign to the church at Philippi the one-half of the whole number of his followers in that country. The first converts to Christianity were from the poorer class of people, and were not able to even support Paul, so that he had to maintain himself by manual labor as a tent-maker. The question may well be asked, what necessity was there for a Bishop and deacons at Philippi, and how were they to be supported? Lucian, in his dialogue entitled Philopatris, while he no doubt exaggerates the poverty and mean appearance of Paul's followers, he at the same time throws much light on their true condition. He speaks of them as "a set of tatterdemalions, almost naked, with fierce looks." (Taylor'sDiegesis, 376.) The truth is, all the churches which owe their origin to Paul were so small and so poor, that their government was of the most simple and economical kind. The first epistle of Paul to Timothy is intended to settle the position and claims of a Bishop in the church, and give the authority of Paul to the order. It is by such obvious forgeries as this, and others we will produce, that we are able to form any idea of the violence of the quarrels among the early Christians, as to the rights or standing of a Bishop in the church.
What arouses suspicion, and at last convinces us, that the third chapter of the first epistle to Timothy is a forgery, is that there is too much on the subject of Bishops from Paul all at once. If the episcopate form of government underlaid or was at the bottom of Paul's mode of government, it surely would have come to the surface or made itself known before it suddenly starts up in the first to Timothy; for he had been engaged in building up churches for at least fifteen years before that.
It is characteristic of the forgeries of the second century, when they are inserted into genuine writings, to make their appearance in the form of boulders, very much condensed, but out of place. There is nothing diffusible about them, and we never suspect their presence until we stumble upon or over them. The way the subject of Bishops is introduced, at once creates suspicion. "This is a true saying. If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good thing." It is intended to convey the idea in the start, that the office had been long in existence, and that the profits were such as to excite the cupidity of men. The office of Bishop, in the time of Paul, even if such an office had any existence, was not, as we have shown, a good thing, but the opposite; but in the second century, when the forgery was perpetrated, it was. Good critics have pronounced the whole of the first of Timothy a forgery. The weight of the evidence is in favor of this belief. As to the third chapter, there can be no question.
The effort to make it appear that Paul recognized the episcopate form of church government is repeated in the epistle to Titus. It is to be remarked that this effort is only made in the last epistles written by him. The first of Timothy was written in A. D. 64; that to Titus in A. D. 65. All the epistles between A. D. 52 and A. D. 62, have nothing to say on the subject of Bishops. Those written between these two periods, at Paul's death had obtained a wide circulation among all the churches of Asia and Europe, which made it impossible for those who were engaged in corrupting his writings to make changes that could be easily detected and exposed. As long as he lived it could not be done. But the reverse is true of those which were written just before his death. Besides, the Therapeutæ element did not begin to work until A. D. 57, and had not grown bold and strong enough to venture on the corruptions of Paul's writings until some time after his death.
The inference that is meant to be drawn from parts of his epistle is that Titus was a Bishop when Paul left him in Crete. Compared with other countries where Paul had churches, Crete was comparatively insignificant, and if Paul's converts in Europe and Asia did not exceed one thousand, and we have no reason to think they did, what portion of this number can we assign to the church at Crete, if there was one there at all? Renan says, "A church frequently contained no more than twelve or fifteen members." (Life of Christ, page 326.) Twelve or fifteen Christians and not more, if that many, composed the church at Crete. Did that number require the presence of a Bishop and elders?
The real truth of the matter is easily discovered. Paul, in A. D. 64, made a visit to all the churches in company with Titus and others, and stopped at Crete, which was the first time he was ever on the island, so far as we have any proof on the subject. After making some few converts, he left Titus to continue the work (Titusi. 5), while he proceeded west in the direction of Macedonia. The epistle to Titus was written from Nicopolis in the summer or fall of A. D. 64, and says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." (Chap. i. 5.) That is, to organize churches and appoint the elders.
Had this subject about church organization ceased at this point, there would not be much to complain of, although the word "ordain" had no place in the vocabulary of Paul. He ordained no one, after any form or ceremony, nor did he pretend to impart to his followers any but his own spirit and power.
In the seventh verse he proceeds to address Titus as Bishop, and to give him advice. Titus was no Bishop when Paul left him in Crete, nor did he hold any office, but was simply a fellow-laborer, like Luke, Mark, and Timothy. The men of the second century would have it understood that Paul was surrounded by a galaxy of Bishops. "For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre." (Titusi. 7.) Was it necessary to give such advice to "Titus, mine own son after the common faith?" The forgery is a clumsy one because it is out of place, and evidently inserted for a purpose. Titus was directed by Paul to leave Crete and meet him in Nicopolis, where he meant to spend the winter.
As has been stated, the only means we have of judging of the resistance made to the claims of the Bishop is from the extravagance of these demands, and the violence with which they are asserted. "Wherefore it becomes you to run together, according to the will of your Bishop, even as also ye do. For your renowned Presbyter, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the Bishop as the strings are to the harp." (Ignatius to the Eph., sec. 4.) "Let no man deceive himself: Except a man bewithin the altarhe is deprived of the bread of life." (Ib., sec. 5.) "I exhort you, that you study to do all things in a divine concord, your Bishop presiding inthe place of God," (Ignatius to Magnesians, sec. 6.) "It is therefore necessary that you do nothing without your Bishop, even as ye are wont. In like manner, let all reverence the Deaconsas Jesus Christ, and theBishops as the Father; without thesethere is no church. Wherefore guard yourselves against such persons: And that ye will do, if ye are not puffed up, but continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God; and from your Bishop and from the commands of the Apostles. He that is within the altar is pure. But he that is without, is not pure. That is, he that doeth anything without the Bishop and the Presbyters and Deacons is not pure in conscience." (Ignatius to Trallians, secs. 2, 3, 7.) "But the Spirit spake, saying in this wise: Do nothing without the Bishop; But God forgives all that repent, if they return to theunity of God and to the council of the bishop" (Ignatius to Phil., sec. 8.) "See that ye all follow your Bishop asJesus Christ the Father." (Ignatius to Smyrnæus, sec. 8.) "It is good to have due regard bothto God and to the Bishop." (Ib., sec. 9.)
These passages prove, that there was a party in the church that was opposed to the order of Bishops, introduced by the Therapeutæ, and that party no doubt were the followers of Paul. To silence them, the Epistles of Paul and the writings of the fathers were filled with forgeries and alterations so extravagant and obvious that they have defeated the object in view.
It is hardly necessary to ask the question, where it was the Therapeutæ form of government, by Bishops, was first organized. Alexandria seems to have been the common mother of all that is new in religion. It is here where have sprung up, in all ages, those subtle questions which have led the minds of men from sense and reason to pursue mischievous phantoms. We infer from the writings of Eusebius, and from other sources, that the Therapeutæ Christians in Alexandria were numerous at an early date. The letter of Adrian from Alexandria, in A. D. 134, is the first notice we have of a church with a Bishop at its head. It was this letter that led the author of the "Decline and Fall," after a careful survey of the subject, with a penetration that nothing escaped, and an industry which left no ground unexplored, to conclude that the first regular Christian church government was instituted at Alexandria. If Christian churches are not indebted to the Therapeutæ for their form of church government, from what source do they derive it?NotFrom the Jews; not from Paul; not from the Apostles.
Linus never Bishop of Rome.—Clement, third Bishop, and hissuccessors to the time of Anicetus, myths.—Chronology ofEusebius exposed, also that of Irenæus.
At what time was Linus, said to be the successor of Peter, made Bishop of Rome? The last trace we have of him, he was with Paul, in Rome, in the fall of A. D. 65. After this we know nothing of him, except from vague and more than doubtful tradition. According to Irenaeus, it was when Peter and Paul were in Rome together, after they had laid the foundation of the church at that place. Paul went to Rome for the first time in A. D. 61, where he remained to the spring of A. D. 63. We have shown that during this time Peter was not there. Paul remained absent until the summer or fall of A. D. 65, and soon after his return was committed to prison. In A. D. 64, Peter was in Babylon, two thousand miles away. As Irenaeus is the founder of the story, and the only authority in subsequent ages, when it was that Linus was appointed over the church of Rome as the successor of Peter, it devolves on those who pretend to believe him to show when it was that Peter and Paul were together in Rome, laying the foundation of a church, or anything else. This can never be done; and if not, it destroys the first link in the Apostolic chain, and what is left is worthless.
The importance attached to Clement as the third Bishop of Rome will be a sufficient excuse for a critical examination, as to who he was, when he lived, and the position he occupied. The authority that Clement was Bishop of Rome is the same we have in any other case for links to keep up the Apostolic succession; for Irenaeus not only supplies an Apostle from whom to start, but also the intermediate links in the chain, to the time of authentic history. In this he finds great assistance in his ready invention of traditions, which we are required to believe without question, for fear of incurring the sin of unbelief, and subject ourselves to being called slippery eels, trying to evade the truth. The x following is his language: "The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing (in his ears), and their traditions before his eyes." (Irenæus, book iii. chap. 3, sec. 3.)
It may be affirmed with confidence, that we know nothing of the person who is called Clement, and made third Bishop in the Church of Rome. If he had held the office at the time it is claimed he did—the latter part of the first century—it would have been in the power of Irenaeus to give us a full account of him: when he took the office, and when he died; for if he had been a real character, there must have been persons living, at the time Irenaeus flourished, who had seen and known him, so that the historian had ample material to inform posterity of everything which related to the life of the third Bishop. But he gives no information—does not give a date—or the source from which he derives his authority, but has left the world to grope in darkness ever since. We have his word, and that is all.
It is impossible that a person should fill an office of importance in the church in Rome, at the end of the first century, without leaving some tangible evidence that he had once an existence; but Clement, like a shadow, passes over the earth, without a single mark of any kind to prove he ever lived. There is a dispute, as to when and how he died. Some say he was banished into the Crimea by Trajan, and there suffered martyrdom by drowning. Others that he died a peaceful death, A.D. 100. There is nothing known about him, and for that reason, everything which concerns him is variously stated. This could not be, had he been a real character in history. It is only fictions of the brain that elude you, when you attempt to grasp them.
We are not told when he first filled the office which it is claimed he did. Eusebius states, that he succeeded Anacletus in the twelfth year of Domitian's reign, A. D. 93. Cave, in his life of Clement, from the best light he could get, adopted the conclusion of Dodwell, that he became bishop about A. D. 64 or A. D. 65. The reason of this confusion is readily explained. The Clement referred to by Paul has been made to fill the place of an imaginary Clement at the end of the century—a person who only existed in the brain of Irenaeus; and in trying to fix time and dates, the real and imaginary Clement create confusion. Irenaeus has purposely left the subject in darkness, as he does the time when Peter went to Rome, and John to Asia. Dates are always fatal to falsehood and misrepresentations. The real Clement is referred to by Paul in the fourth chapter and third verse of the epistle to the Philip-pians, which was written from Rome in A. D. 63. This is the only notice that is taken of him, and he is made the third Bishop of Rome by Irenaeus, simply because his name is found among others in one of Paul's epistles, as it was in the case of Linus, who was made first. Who was it that wrote the letter to the Corinthians ascribed to Clement? We cannot tell who wrote all, but we can who did write a part. The address of this letter by a person who, it is claimed, was at the time a Bishop, to a church outside the city, which, it was said, appealed to him for advice, is the first bold attempt, on the part of the See of Rome, to enforce an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Papal authority. Can any reason be given why the church at Corinth, during the first century, should appeal to Rome for advice on any subject? The church at Corinth was the oldest, and after Paul's death knew of no higher authority than itself. There are no signs of a church to which an appeal could be made to the end of the century, except those manufactured by the aid of tradition, which do not deserve to be mentioned when men mean to be serious.
This letter, like everything else suspicious, has no date. We can fix the date with almost entire certainty to every letter written by Paul, and there is no reason why a date should not be given to the one to the Corinthians, except that there is something wrong about it, and a date would expose the fraud. Archbishop Wake supposes it to have been written soon after the termination of the persecution under Nero, between the years A. D. 64 and A. D. 70, Lard-ner refers it to the year A. D. 96. (Chevallier H. E. Introduction.) The writer of this epistle was careful to leave no internal evidence by which its date could be determined, and what there is of that character is inserted apparently to mislead or afford grounds for dispute.
We have a right to demand the letter of the Corinthians to Clement, to which his is the answer; for it is more probable that a letter received at Rome of so much importance would be preserved, than one sent away into a distant country. We not only have not the letter, but we cannot learn what it was about. There can be no doubt of the early date of the letter, for it makes no allusion to the Gospels, and was written during the lives of the first fathers of the church, such as Polycarp and Ignatius. It has but little of the odor of the second century about it.
From all the light we can collect on this perplexing question, we would say that the letter itself was written by some of the early fathers, and made afterwards, with some alterations, to conform to the purposes for which it was wanted—that is, the entering wedge of Papal supremacy. It is evident that Irenaeus is attempting to make the Clement of Paul take the place of a creature of his own creation, and thus impose upon the world, as he did in the case of John and Mark.
In manipulating the letter he provided for Peter in Rome and Paul in the Occident. In naming the successors to Clement, Irenaeus says: "To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherus does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiasticaltraditionfrom the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the Apostles until now, and handed downin truth."
Including Linus and Anacletus, here are twelvetraditionalbishops in succession. Why traditional?
For the reason that most of them, and all, except the three last, are not real or historical characters.
Commencing with Nero, about the time when the tradition commences, and coming down to, and including Commodus, cotemporary with Eleutherus, there are thirteen emperors, one more than the number of Bishops in the same time, and history gives the time when each was born, when each became a ruler, when each ceased to reign, the manner of his death, and the qualities for which each was distinguished. It was an age of chronology, when dates of important events were as carefully preserved as in our own day; and yet Irenaeus has failed to give a single date in connection with his twelve traditional Bishops. We do not even know there was such a tradition, except that he says so, and we are very certain that there was no church in Rome to preserve it, if there was.
This vagueness and uncertainty—where certainty, if the statements were true, could be easily attained, but easily exposed, if false—must have been used with great effect, by the philosophers of the third century, against Christians, for it forced Eusebius to fix up dates for each of these traditional bishops. He makes each appear in order, like so many shadows, and he reminds us, as he goes through the roll, of the showman in a panorama, who explains each figure as it takes its place on the canvas. What Irenaeus dared not do in the second, Eusebius dared do in the fourth century. On such subjects, his whole history proves, he had no scruples; and he admits, indirectly, that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion.
It will be noticed that he gives no authority for his dates, for the reason that he has none. Irenaeus could find none in the second century. It is not probable Eusebius would be any better supplied in the fourth. It is evident he went to work and divided the whole time in which it is claimed the twelve Bishops lived, between them, so as to make each appear at a given time, marked by the accession of the emperors who reigned during the traditional era. We will give his statements as he makes them himself:—
"After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, he was succeeded by his son Titus; in the second year of whose reign, Linus, Bishop of the church at Rome, who had held the office about twelve years, transferred it to Anacletus." (Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 13.) "In the twelfth year of the same reign, after Anacletus had been Bishop of Rome twelve years, he was succeeded by Clement." (Ib., book iii. chap. 4.) "In the third year of the above-mentioned reign (Trajan's), Clement, Bishop of Rome, committed the episcopal charge to Euaristus, and departed this life, after superintending of the divine word nine years." (Ib., book iii. chap. 34.) "About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan, Euaristus had completed the eighth year as Bishop of Rome, and was succeeded in his episcopal office by Alexander." (Ib., book iv. chap. 1.) "In the third year of the same reign (Adrian's), Alexander, Bishop of Rome, died, having completed the tenth year of his ministration. Xystus was his successor." (Ib., book iv. chap. 4.) "And Adrian being now in the twelfth year of his reign, Xystus, who had now completed the tenth year of his episcopate, was succeeded by Telesphorus." (Id., book iv. chap. 5.) "The Emperor Adrian, having finished his mortal career after the twenty-first year of his reign, is succeeded by Antoninus, called Pius, in the government of the Romans. In the first year of this reign, and in the eleventh year of his episcopate, Telesphorus departed this life, and was succeeded in charge of the Roman church by Hyginus." (Ib., book iv. chap. 10.) "Hyginus dying after the fourth year of his office, Pius received the episcopate." (Ib., book iv. chap. 11.) "Pius dying at Rome in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, the church was governed by Anicetus." (Ib., book iv. chap. 11.) "It was in the eighth year of the above-mentioned reign, to wit, that of Verus, that Anicetus, who held the episcopate of Rome for eleven years, was succeeded by Soter." (3., book iv. chap. 19.) "Soter, Bishop of Rome, died after having held the episcopate eight years. He was succeeded by Eleutherus." (Ib., book v. Introduction.) "In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Eleutherus, who had held the episcopate thirteen years, was succeeded by Victor." (Ib., book v. chap. 22.)
We give a list of the emperors, and the time of accession of each to the government of the Empire, commencing with Vespasian, coming down to the time of Commodus: