|
THE APOSTLES
Two of them, the principal, Peter and John, are described to be “anthropoi agrammatoi kai idiotai—unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts iv, 13); all Twelve were of the same type and well matched. They were variously picked up from among the humblest and most superstitious of the Galilee peasants, fishermen and laborers, “called” personally, we are told by the Son of God, the proclaimed King-to-be of the Jews, to be his counsellors and associates in the establishment of his earthly and heavenly Kingdoms—of Jews. As for the King-to-be and his prospective Court, a saddening and repellent portraiture is sketched in the inspired Biographies: though it is true, “The chronology of the birth of Christ and the subsequent Biblical events is most uncertain.” (CE. vii, 419.) His parents and family regarded him as insane and sought to resrtrain him by foree. (Mark iii, 21; cf. John x, 20.) He and his Apostle-band toured Palestine with a retinue of bare-foot and unwrshed peasant men and women, shocking polite people by their habits of not washing even their hands to eat when invited as guests, and by the violence of their language. These traits ran in his peasant family and relatives, His cousin, known as John the Baptist, was a desert dervish, unwashed and unshorn, who wore a leather loin-strap for clothes and whose regular diet, was wild bumble-bee honey and raw grasshoppers. His own brother James was an unkempt and filthy as any Saint in the calendar; of him Bishop Eusebius records: “James, the brother of the Lord, ... a razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath”! (HE. II, 23.) With the Master at their head, the Troupe wandered up and down the little land, proclaiming the immediate end of the world, playing havoc with the legions of devils who infested the peasantry, and preaching Hell and Damnation for all who would not heed their fanatical preachments.
APOSTOLIC GREED AND STRIFE.
As for the Twelve, the hope of great reward was the inspiredly recorded motive of these peanants; who left their petty crafts for hope of greater gain by following the lowly King-to-be. The zeal and greed for personal aggrandizement of the Chosen Twelve is constantly revealed throughout the inspired record. hardly had the Holy Twelve gotten organized and into action, when the cunning and crafty Peter, spokesman for the craft, boldly came forward and advanced the itching palm: “Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” (Matt. xix, 27.) And the Master came back splendidly with the Promise: “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son 116 of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. xix, 28). But even these brillant future rewards could not satisfy the greed of the Holy Ones, and led not to gratitude, but to greater greed and strife.
The Mother of James and John, probably inspired by them, and zealous for their greater glory, came secretly with her two sons, to Jesus, “worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him” (Matt. xx, 20); and when Jesus asked her what it was, “she saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.” (v. 21.) But Mark contradicts the assurance of Matthew that it was Mrs. Zebedee who came and made the request, and avers that “James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, stying, Maister, we would that thou shouldst do for us whatsoever we shall desire,” and stated their own modest demands for preferment. (Mark x, 35-37.) But, in either contradictory event, both agree that “when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.” (Matt. xxix, 24; Mark x, 41.)
Not during the whole one—or three—years of association with their Master, did these holy Apostles abate their greed and strife. Several times are recorded desputes among them as to “who should be greatest among them” (Matt. xviii, 1; Mark ix, 33-34; Luke ix, 46)—here again the “harmony of the Gospels” assuring the constant inharmony of the Apostles. And even at the Last Supper, when Jesus had announced that one of them would that night betray him to death, “there was also strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.” (Luke xxii, 24.) And great was the disgust of the Master at his miserable Apostles, and especially at the craven and crafty Peter, Jesus had spurned him with blasting scorn, “and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense to me” (Matt. xvi, 23); and again the Gospels are in harmony (Mt. xvi, 23; Mk. viii, 33). Such are the Holy Apostles of Jesus Christ, said to be painted by some of themselves through inspiration. This “Satan” Peter, later constituted “Saint” Peter, shall again deserve our attention.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Under this rubric CE. lists, as those who were “converted with the apostles,” and, after them, were the first propagandists of the Truth, the Catholic Saints Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, and Hermas; they fill up the first half of the second century of the era. The “traditions” preserved of these saintly Fathers of the Church are very scanty and dubious; but from what exists they were all within the apostolic description of Peter and John, “ignorant and unlearned men,” and like Bishop Pipias, as described by Bishop Eusebius, “men of very small minds, if we may judge from their own words,” of which we shall now read for ourselves. It will be noted that all these Fathers, like all the sub-apostolic Fathers for the first two centuries and more, were ex-Pagans, and (with the alleged exception of “Pope” Clement), were Greeks, of scattered parts of the Empire, who wrote and taught in Greek, and with the very questionable exception of Clement, had nothing to do with “the Church which sojourns at Rome.” Each was the Bishop and head of his 117 own local, and independent, Church; and never once does one of them (except Clement of Rome, in a forged Epistle), speak of or mention the Church of Rome, or more than barely mention Peter (and only as one of the Apostles), nor mention or quote a single book of the New Testament,—though they are profuse in quoting the Old Testament books, canonical and apocryphal, the Pagan gods, and the Sibylline oracles, as inspired testimonies of Jesus Christ. The significance of all this will appear.
1. Clement of Rome(about 30-96 A.D.). He is alleged to be the first, second, third, or fourth, Bishop, or Pope, of Rome (CE. iv, 13); and to be the author of two Epistles to the Corinthians, besides other bulky and important forgeries, thus confessed and catalogued by CE:
“Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement: (1) The ‘Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians.' Many critics have believed them genuine [they having been read in the Churches]. ... But it is now admitted on all hands that they cannot be by the same author as the genuine [?] Epistle to the Corinthians. ... (2) Two Epistles to Virgins.' (3) At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. (4) Ascribed to Clement are the ‘Apostolic Constitutions,' ‘Apostolic Canons,' and the “Testament of our lord.' (5) The ‘Clementines' or ‘Pseudo-Clementines,' including the Recognitions and Homilies,” hereafter to be noticed. (CE. iv, 14-15; cf. 17, 39.)The second of these alleged Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians is thus admittedly a forgery, together with everything else in his name but the alleged First Epistle. The case for this First Epistle is little if any better; but as it is the very flimsy basis of one of the proudest claims of Holy Church—though suppressed as “proof” of another claim which it disproves,—it is, as it were, plucked as a brand from the burning of all the other Clementine forgeries, and placed at the head of all the writings of the Fathers. Of this I Clement EB. says: “The author is certainly not Clement of Rome, whatever may be our judgment as to whether or not Clement was a bishop, a martyr, a disciple of the apostles. The martyrdom, set forth in untrustworthy Acts, has for its sole foundation the identification of Clement of Rome with Flavius Clement the consul, who was executed by cominand of Domitian,”—A.D. 81-96. (EB. iii, 3486.) This First Epistle is supposed to have been written about the year 96-98, by Clement, friend and coworker of Paul, according to the late “tradition” first set in motion by Dionysius, A.D. 170. But “This Clement,” says CE., after citing the Fathers, “was probably a Philippian.” (CE. iv, 13.) “Who the Clement was to whom the writings were ascribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined.” (ANF. i, 2.)
It is notable that the pretendedly genuine “First Epistle” does not contain or mention the name of any one as its author, nor name Clement; its address is simply: “The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojurning at Corinth.” There is only one MS. of it in existence, a translation into Latin from the original Greek. This is the celebrated MS. of “Holy Scripture” 118 known as Codex A, which was discovered and presented to Charles I of England by Cyril of Alexandria, in 1628; the Fathers cited both I and II Clement as Scripture. On this MS., at the end of I Clement, is written, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians”: a subscription which proves itself a forgery and that it was not written by Clement, who could not know that a later forger would write a “Second Clement,” so as to give him occasion to call his own the First. (ANF. viii, 55-56.)
By whomever this “First Epistle” was written, by Father, Bishop, or Pope of Rome, his zeal and his intelligence are demonstrated by his argument, in Chapter xxv, of the truth of the Resurrection; in proof of which he makes this powerful and faith-compelling plea: “Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the City called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the 500th year was completed.” (ANF. i. p. 12. Note: “This fable respecting the phoenix is mentioned by Herodotus (ii, 73) and by Pliny (Nat. X, 2), and is used as above by Tertullian (De Resurr., see. 13), and by others of the Fathers.” CF,. iv, 15.)
The occasion for the pretended writing of this Epistle, and the very high significance of it, will be noticed when we treat of the origin of the Church which sojourns at Roine.
2. Ignatius: Saint, Bishop of Antioch (born in Syria, c. 50—died rather latitudinously “between 98 and 117”). “More than one of the early ecclesiastical writers has given credence, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Saviour took up in his armos, as described in Mark, ix, 35.” (CE. vii, 644.) “If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch,” (CE, vii, 644),—thus casting doubt on another and a most monumental but confused Church “tradition.” He was the subject of very extensive forgeries; fifteen Epistles bear the name of Ignatius, including one to the Virgin Mary, and her reply; two to the apostle John, others to the Philippians, Tarsians, Antiocheans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp, besides a forged Martyrium; the clerical forgers were very active with the name of Saint Ignatius. Of these, eight Epistles and the Martyrium are confessedly forgeries; “they are by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch” (ANF. i, 46; CE. vii, 645); though, says CE., “if the 119 Martyrum is genuine, this work has been greatly interpolated.” As to the seven supposed by some to be genuine, “even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form” (CE. vii, 645); and even the authenticity of the “genuine seven” was warmly disputed for several centuries. The dubious best that CE. can say is: “Perhaps the best evidence for their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name ... UNLESS, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or FORGED.” (Ib. p. 646.)
As good proofs as may be that these “seven genuine” are late forgeries, are: of each one of them, as printed in the ANF., there are “two recensions, a shorter and a longer,” printed in parallel columno, thus demonstrating that the longer at least is “greatly interpolated”; the most significant being a refercnce to Peter and Paul, constituting the “interpolated” part of Chap. vii of the Epistle to the Romans, hereafter noticed. That as a whole they are late forgeries, is further proved by the fact, stated by Cardinal Newman, that “the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven Epistles” (CE, vii, 646); this including the impossibilities—for that epoch—of the elaborated hierarchy of the Imperial Church as having been instituted by the humble Nazarene,—who was to “come again” and put an end to all earthly things within the generation; the infallibility of the Church, the supernatural virtue of virginity, and the primacy of the See of Rome,—at the supposed time of Ignatius, a little horde of nondescripts burrowing in the Catacombs of imperial Rome! Oh, Church of God: never a scrap of paper even touched by you but was a loathsome forgery to the glory of your fictitious God and Christ! So as Father Saint Ignatius did not write anything authentic, he escapes the self-condemnation of the other Apostolic Fathers. May his martyred remains rest in peace.
3. Polycarp: (69—155). Saint, Bishop of Smyrna, Martyr. Only one Epistle, addressed to the Philippians, remains of Polycarp, and of it CE. discusses the “serious question” of its genuineness, which depends upon that of the Ignatian Epistles, and vice versa, above discussed; it says: “If the former were forgeries, the latter, which supports—it might almost be said presupposes—them, must be a forgery from the same hand.” (CE. xii, 219.) Poor Church of God, cannot you produce something of your Saints that isn't a forgery?
But if Saint Polycarp did not write anything genuine, his Church of Smyrna did itself proud in doing honor to his pretended Martyrtioin, in A.D. 154-5, or 165-6 (lb.)—so exact is Church “tradition.” In one of the earliest Encyclicals—(not issued by a Pope)—the wondrous tale is told. It it; addressed: “The “The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the holy and Catholic—[first use of term]—Church in every place”; and proceeds in glowing words to recount the virtues, capture, trial and condemnation to death by fire, of the holy St. Polycarp. Just before his capture, polycarp dreamed that his pillow was afire; he 120 exclaimed to those around, “prophetically, ‘I am to be burned alive.'” The forged and fabling Epistle proceeds: “Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, ‘Be strong, and show thyself a man, O Polycarp.' No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice” (Ch. ix). Then the details of his trial before the magistrates, and the verbatim report of his prayer when led to his fate (xiv). Then (Chap. xv):
“When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch., like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle of fire the body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we prececived such a sweet odor (coming from the pile), as if frankincene or some such precious spices had been smoking there. (Ch. xvi.) At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished”! (Letter of the Church at Smyrna, ANF. i. 39-44; CE. xii, 221.)Even this holy Encyclical, at least as to its appended date, is not without suspicion; for, “The possibility remains that the subscription was tampered with by a later hand. But 155 must be approximately correct.” (CE. xii, 221.) Oh, for something saintly above suspicion!
4. Barnabas: (no dates given): Saint, a Jew; styled an Apostle, and variously a Bishop, and wholly “traditional.” “Though nothing is recorded of Barnabas for some years, he evidently acquired a high position in the Church”; for “a rather late tradition recorded by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius—[over 200 years later]—says he was one of the Seventy Disciples; but Acts (iv, 36-37)” indicates the contrary. “Various traditions represent him as the first Bishop of Milan, as preaching at Alexandria and at Rome, whose fourth Bishop, St. Clement, he is said to have converted, and as having suffered martyrdom in Cyprus. The traditions are all late and untrustworthy. He is credited by Tertullian (probably falsely) with the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Epistle attributed to him.” (CE. ii, 300, 301.) Saint Barnabas, or his clerical counterfeiter, had some queer notions of natural history. Expounding the reasons why Moses banned certain animals as “unclean” and unfit for “Kosher” food, the Saintly writer says: that Moses banned the hare, “Because the hare multiplies, year by year, the places of its conception; for as many years as it lives, so many it has”; and the hyena, “Wherefore? Because that animal annually changes its sex, and is at one time male, and at another female”; and the weasel, “For this animal conceives by the mouth.” (Epist. Barnabas, Ch. x,; ANF. i, 143.) 121 Perhaps from this, other holy Fathers derived the analogous idea, to save the rather imperiled virginity of “the proliferous but ever Virgin mother of God,” Mary, that she “per aurem concepit—conceived through her ear”—as sung in the sacred Hymn of the Church:
“Gaude Virgo, mater Christi,Thus we have, in CE. (supra) several Fathers imputed as liars, and a suspicion suggested as to Paul's inspired Epistle to the Hebrews (which is another forgery), and the admission of a forged Epistle of Saint Barnabas. Poor Church of Christ!
Quae per aurem concepisti,
Gabriels nuntio.”
(Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, 1, p. 212.)
5. Hermas: Saint, Martyr, seems to have missed being Bishop, “first or second century,”—though the Church Saint record is so confused that I cannot vouch whether this one is the reputed author of the forged Epistle of Barnabas. But “in the lists of the Seventy Apostles by the Pseudo-Doretheus and the Pseudo-Hippolytus [two more forgeries], Hermas figures as Bishop of Philippi. No one any longer supposes that he was the author of the Shepherd of Hermas, the date of which is about 40 A.D., though from Origen onwards Church-writers have expressed this view, and accordingly have given that allegorical work a place among the writings of the apostolic Fathers.” (EB. ii, 2021; cf. CE. vii, 268.) The latter says that this “work had great authority in ancient times and was ranked with Holy Scripture” and included as such in the MSS. of Holy Writ; but it is called “apocryphal and false,”—like everything else the Holy Church has ever had for “Scripture” or for self-aggrandizement. The pious author quotes the quaint forged Eldad and Medad as Scripture, and the Pagan Sibyls as inspired Oracles of God.
Can't find what you're looking for? Have an idea or a question? Let us know in the Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
| Need to ask me a question? Something missing, broken, or incorrect? I make every attempt to reply to all email. Click here to send me an email. |
