The Christ Of Paul Part 8

CHAPTER XVII.

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 a.s.sa.s.sinated 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 G.o.ds 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 be _capitally_ punished, yet with this restriction, that if any one will renounce Christianity and evince his sincerity by supplicating our G.o.ds, 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.

CHAPTER XVIII.

The office of Bishop foreign to churches established by Paul, which were too poor and too few in number to support the order.--Third chapter of the second Epistle to Timothy, and the one to t.i.tus, forgeries.--The writings of the Fathers 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. "The _Elders_ which are among you I exhort, who _am 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 Therapeutae had taken possession of the church, got the upper-hand of Paul and his followers, and introduced their government of the Episcopacy. Did Paul inst.i.tute 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 G.o.d." The first to the Corinthians, "Unto the church of G.o.d which is at Corinth;"

second Corinthians, "Unto the church of G.o.d 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 G.o.d." 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 a.s.signs two hundred to the churches in Macedonia. As Paul had numerous churches in Macedonia, we are safe to a.s.sign 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 cla.s.s 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 ent.i.tled 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's _Diegesis_, 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 t.i.tus. 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 t.i.tus 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 Therapeutae 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 t.i.tus 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 a.s.sign 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 t.i.tus 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 t.i.tus to continue the work (_t.i.tus_ i. 5), while he proceeded west in the direction of Macedonia. The epistle to t.i.tus 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 t.i.tus as Bishop, and to give him advice. t.i.tus 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 G.o.d; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre." (_t.i.tus_ i. 7.) Was it necessary to give such advice to "t.i.tus, 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. t.i.tus 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 a.s.serted. "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 G.o.d, 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 be _within the altar_ he 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 in _the place of G.o.d_," (_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 Deacons _as Jesus Christ_, and the _Bishops as the Father_; without these _there 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 G.o.d; 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 G.o.d forgives all that repent, if they return to the _unity of G.o.d and to the council of the bishop_"

(_Ignatius to Phil_., sec. 8.) "See that ye all follow your Bishop as _Jesus Christ the Father_." (_Ignatius to Smyrnaeus_, sec. 8.) "It is good to have due regard both _to G.o.d and to the Bishop_." (Ib., sec. 9.)

These pa.s.sages prove, that there was a party in the church that was opposed to the order of Bishops, introduced by the Therapeutae, 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 Therapeutae 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 Therapeutae 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 inst.i.tuted at Alexandria. If Christian churches are not indebted to the Therapeutae for their form of church government, from what source do they derive it? _Not_ From the Jews; not from Paul; not from the Apostles.

CHAPTER XIX.

Linus never Bishop of Rome.--Clement, third Bishop, and his successors to the time of Anicetus, myths.--Chronology of Eusebius exposed, also that of Irenaeus.

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 a.s.sistance 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." (_Irenaeus_, 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, pa.s.ses 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.