Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

had seen many things which never existed, and thus become the dupes of deception?* Could not impostors, strongly attached to a sect whereby they subsisted, and which therefore they had an interest to support, attest miracles, and publish facts, with the falsehood of which they were well acquainted? and could not the first Christians, by a pious fraud, afterwards add or retrench things essential to the works ascribed to the apostles? We know that Origen, so early as the third century, complained loudly of the corruption of manuscripts. "What shall we say (exclaims he) of the errors of transcribers, and of the impious temerity with which they have corrected the text? What shall we say of the licence of those, who promiscuously interpolate or erase at their pleasure?" These questions form warrantable prejudices against the persons to whom the gospels have been ascribed, and against the purity of their text.

It is also extremely difficult to ascertain, with any degree of certainty, whether those books belong to the authors whose names they bear. It is a well known fact, that in the first ages of Christianity there was a

* Whoever has perused the ancient historians, particularly Herodotus, Plutarch, Livy, and Josephus, must feel the force of this reasoning. These writers, with a pious credulity similar to that of Christians, relate prodigies pregnant with absurdities, which they themselves pretended to have witnessed, or were witnessed by others. Among the wonders that appeared at Rome, some time before the triumvirate, many statues of the Gods sweat blood and water; and there was an Ox which spoke. Under the empire of Caligula, the statue of Jupiter at Olympus burst forth into such loud fits of laughter, that those who were taking it down to carry to Rome, abandoned their work and fled in terror. A Crow prognosticated misfortune to Domitian, and an Owl paid the same compliment to Herod.

very great number of gospels, different from one another, and composed for the use of different churches and different sects of Christians. The truth of this has been confessed by ecclesiastical historians of the greatest credit.* There is therefore reason to suspect, that the persons who composed these gospels might, with the view of giving them more weight, have attributed them to apostles, or disciples, who actually had no share in them. That idea, once adopted by ignorant and credulous Christians, might be transmitted from age to age, and pass at last for unquestionable, in times when it was no longer possible to ascertain the authors or the facts related.

It is well known, that among some fifty gospels, with which Christianity in its commencement was inun

* Vide Tillemont, tom. ii. p. 47, 257, 438. St. Epiphan. Homil. 34. The celebrated Henry Dodwell affirms, that it was not till the reign of Trajan, or indeed of Hadrian (i. e. more than a century after Christ) that a collection, or canon, of the books of the New Testament was made. These writings had even till then been concealed in the archives of churches, and were only in the hands of priests, who could dispose of them at their pleasure. Dodwell's Dissertations on Irenæum, p. 66, &c. To this may be added, the profound work of Mr. Freret, published in 1766, under the title of Examen Critique des Apologistes de la Religions Chretienne.

It is evident, that, among the first Christian doctors, there was a great number of pious forgers, who, to make their cause prevail, framed and forged gospels, legends, romances, oracles of Sybils, and other works, of which the imposture and folly were so striking, that the church itself has been forced to reject them. To be convinced of this, we have only to cast our eyes on the work entitled Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, pubJished by J. A. Fabricius, at Hamburgh, 1719. The practice of framing Evangelical Romances, was not even recently left off in the Romish Church. A Jesuit, called father Jerome Xavier, a

dated, the church, assembled in council at Nice, chose four of them only, and rejected the rest as apocryphal, although the latter had nothing more ridiculous in them than those which were admitted. Thus, at the ⚫ end of three centuries, (i. e. in the three hundred and twenty-fifth year of the Christian era,) some bishops decided, that these four gospels were the only ones which ought to be adopted, or which had been really inspired by the Holy Ghost. A miracle enabled them to discover this important truth, so difficult to be discerned, at a time even then not very remote from that of the apostles. They placed, it is said, promiscuously, books apocryphal and authentic under an altar :the Fathers of the Council betook themselves to prayers, in order to obtain of the Lord, that he would permit the false or doubtful books to remain under the altar, whilst those which were truly inspired by the Holy Ghost should place themselves above it-a circumstance which did not fail to occur. It is then on this miracle that our faith depends! It is to it that

a Missionary, in Persia, composed a ridiculous history of Jesus, his mother, and St. Peter, in the Persian and Latin languages, which was published under the title Historica Christi Persica, in 4to. Lugd. Batav. 1639. L'Histoire du Peuple de Dieu, by the Rev. Father Berruyer, is well known. In the thirteenth century, the Cordeliers composed a book under the title L'Evangila Eternal.

In all ages, Christians, whether Orthodox or Heretics, have been piously occupied in deceiving the simple. Some have gone so far as to palm works on Jesus, and we have a pretended letter of his to king Abgarus. It ought to be remarked, that authors approved by the Church, such as St. Clemens Romanus, St. Ignatius Martyr, St. Justin, and St. Clement of Alexandria, have quoted passages which are not to be found in the four gospels admitted at present.

Christians owe the assurance of possessing the true gospels, or faithful memoirs of the life of Christ! It is from these only they are permitted to deduce the principles of their belief, and the rules of conduct which they ought to observe, in order to obtain eternal salvation!

Thus, the authority of the books which serve for the basis of the Christian religion, is founded solely on the authority of a council, of an assembly of priests and bishops. But these bishops and priests, judges and parties in an affair wherein they were obviously interes ted, could they not be themselves deceived? Indepen'dently of the apocryphal miracle, which enabled them to distinguish the true gospels from the false, had they any sign, which could fairly enable them to distinguish the writings which they ought to receive from those which they ought to reject?

Some will tell us, that the church assembled in a general council is infallible; that then the Holy Ghost inspires it, and that its decisions ought to be regarded as those of God himself. If we demand, where is the proof that the church enjoys this infallibility? It will be answered, that the gospel assures it, and that Jesus Christ has expressly promised to assist and enlighten his church until the consummation of ages. Here the incredulous will reply, that the church-then, or its ministers, create rights to themselves; for it is their authority which alone establishes the authenticity of books whereby their own authority is established; this is obviously a circle of errors. In short, an assembly of bishops and priests has decided, that the books which attribute to themselves an infallible authority, have been divinely inspired.

Notwithstanding that decision, there still remain

some difficulties on the authenticity of the gospels. In the first place, it may be asked, whether the decision of the Council of Nice, composed of three hundred and eighteen bishops, ought to be regarded as that of the universal church? Were all who formed that assembly entirely of the same opinion among themselves? Were there no disputes among these men inspired by the Holy Ghost? Was their decision unanimously accepted? Had not the secular authority of Constantine a chief share in the adoption of the decrees of that celebrated council? In this case, was it not the imperial power, rather than the spiritual authority, which decided the authenticity of the gospels?

In the second place, many theologists agree, that the universal church, although infallible in dogma, may err in facts. Now it is evident, that in the case alluded to, dogma depends on fact. Indeed, before deciding whether the dogmas contained in the gospels be divine, it was necessary to know, beyond the possibility of a doubt, whether the four gospels in question were really written by the inspired authors to whom they are ascribed; this is obviously a fact. It was further necessary to know, whether these gospels have never been altered, mutilated, augmented, interpolated, or falsified, by the different hands through which they have passed in the course of three centuries; this is likewise a fact. Can the fathers of the church infallibly guarantee the probity of all the depositaries of those writings, and the exactness of all the transcribers? Can these fathers decide definitively, that, during so long a period, none could insert marvellous relations or dogmas in these memoirs, unknown to those who are their supposed authors? Does not ecclesiastical history inform us, that, in the origin of Christianity, there were

« ZurückWeiter »