may be regarded as belonging to the former class. To the latter must be referred the fourth Gospel, which was written for the express purpose of exalting the divine nature of Jesus at the expense of his human nature, and with other objects on which it would be premature to dilate at present; its authorship having, by a 'pious fraud' of the Elders of the Church, been attributed to the Apostle John, in order to stamp it with his authority.

Whilst legends of various kinds grew up and spread rapidly among the early Christians, many genuine records must, on the other hand, have fallen a prey to the remorseless tooth of time, and many more, it is to be feared, were ruthlessly destroyed. The prefatory statement of the third Canonical Gospel, Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,' demonstrates that at the time when that document was composed and promulgated (apparently towards the end of the first century) there were extant numerous similar written histories. And as we now have only the two bearing the names of Matthew and Mark,-for the fourth Gospel is manifestly of later date than the third, as are likewise the writings known as the Apocryphal Gospels,-the reasonable inference is that those 'many' others have been destroyed. For it cannot be doubted that as soon as schisms arose within the bosom of the Church,-and the disputes between Paul and the other Apostles at Jerusalem demonstrate how early this was, the dominant and self-styled orthodox party would, most properly as they conceived, have exerted themselves to root out heresy in every form; and one of the most effectual ways to do this was by suppressing all the writings of other parties that happened not to coincide with their own opinions, whether as regards facts or doctrines, and especially the latter. They had not yet come to the suppression of the writers likewise, though they did not fail to adopt this effectual means of enforcing uniformity as soon as they had it in their power to do so. A religious body possessing or exercising temporal authority can no more tolerate heresy or schism, than the civil power can permit the existence of rebellion or sedition.

Both will employ every means at their command to enforce submission and uniformity; and the experience of all ages shows that religious persecutions have ever been more uncompromising and merciless than civil ones.

It will not be out of place here to remark that the Acts of the Apostles give but a faint idea of the odium theologicum' which raged even in the time of the Apostles themselves. A striking instance of its intensity is recorded by Irenæus, who relates that Polycarp had been heard to repeat how, when on a certain occasion St. John, 'the one of his disciples whom Jesus loved,' and who ought to have been, if any one was, imbued with his Lord's spirit, went to the baths at Ephesus and there happened to meet the 'heretic' Cerinthus, he started back and exclaimed, 'Let us flee; for the enemy of truth is here, and the roof may fall on us.' This statement, it must be remembered, is that of one who was a personal disciple of the Apostle, and therefore is not likely to have misrepresented his master's language or conduct, especially as he himself followed his example. For, as is likewise recorded by Irenæus, when Polycarp was asked by Marcion, Dost thou know me?' he replied, Know thee? yes; I know thee well; thou art the first-born of Satan.' 'So careful,' remarks Irenæus approvingly, were the Apostles and their disciples not to hold the least intercourse with such as adulterated the truth.'

6

If such were the sentiments and language of the Apostles of Jesus and their immediate disciples, it is only natural that the same should have served as models for their successors, among whom it appears to have been the invariable practice to regard assumed heretics and infidels as being necessarily monsters of depravity, whose moral character, therefore, they have not serupled to blacken, and to whom they have delighted to apply the vilest epithets. Orthodoxy' seems, indeed, in all ages to have appropriated to itself vituperative language as its own peculiar. 'Devils, Antichrists, maniacs, Jews, polytheists, atheists, dogs, wolves, lions, hares, chameleons, hydras, eels, cuttlefish, goats, beetles, leeches,' are among the choice epithets which the orthodox Athanasius heaped on the devoted heads of his opponent Arius

and his followers. And at the present day right worthy imitators of the great champion of orthodoxy are to be found in the adherents of the infallible Pope of Rome. In a recent number of thePerseveranza,' the most moderate newspaper in Italy, it is said with truth that 'the organs of the Church party, if not the worst and most venomous of all that appear in Italy, yield the palm to none as far as low malignity is concerned. Not a Christian word issues from the mouth of the dependants of the Vatican, and the very supposition of one would be regarded as an insult. They blaspheme and curse all who do not blaspheme and curse with them, and regard it as a sin to believe in God or in Christ, except as beings who have no end in view but that of ministering to their desires and gratifying their vengeance.'

Dean Stanley, from whose Lectures on the Eastern Church' the foregoing list of select Athanasian epithets has been copied, says, apologetically, that there may be cases where such language is justifiable.' But who is to be the judge when and where it is proper to be used? And if in any case it is justifiable on the one side, surely it must be equally so on the other; unless, indeed, those who are subjected to such abuse prove themselves by their silence to be better Christians than their revilers.

The system of suppressing heretical writings, adopted in the first ages of Christianity, like that of vilifying their authors and putting them to death whenever practicable, has unhappily continued to be that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. One of the primary duties of the Holy Inquisition, established in the beginning of the thirteenth century, was to prevent the dissemination of error, that is to say, of every thing contrary to the doctrines of the Church. The efficient manner in which this duty was performed is matter of history. Its operation has, however, been most visible, though perhaps not altogether so exhaustive, in the persecution to which the works of heterodox writers have been subjected since the invention of printing. Ranke writes :—' In the year 1543, Caraffa decreed that no book, whether new or old, and whatever its contents, should for the future be printed without permission from the Inquisition. Booksellers were enjoined to

:

send in a catalogue of their stock, and to sell nothing without their assent; and the officers of customs also received orders to deliver no packages, whether of printed books or manuscript, to their address without first laying them before the Inquisition. This gradually gave rise to an index of prohibited books. Nor were printers and booksellers the only persons subjected to these stringent regulations; even on private persons it was enforced, as a duty of conscience, to denounce all forbidden books, and to contribute their utmost towards the destruction of all that should come to their knowledge. These laws were carried into execution with incredible success'*. Books which had once been in every house were so effectually suppressed that not a single copy of them is now to be found in the most extensive libraries. One book in particular, Of the Benefit of the Death of Christ,' is noted as having experienced this fate. It was written in Tuscan, was many times reprinted, and was eagerly read in every part of Italy. But the Inquisition detected in it the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone. They proscribed it, and it is now as hopelessly lost as the second decade of Livy'+.

Of the unceasing operation of this system down to the present day, the following remarkable instance may be cited. A correspondent of The Times' newspaper, writing from Naples on April 24th, 1871, says: In walking through the Villa [Reale, or public gardens,] at the beginning of the week, I was struck with a spectacle which I never witnessed before. The paths, especially near the Riviera, and the flower-beds, were enamelled with fragments of paper, which a man was sweeping up with a long broom. . . . . Day after day the same scene presented itself in spite of incessant brooming, and on examining the fragments more minutely, I found they were printed portions of various parts of the New Testament. A few steps further on, at the end ⚫ of the Villa, there were two kiosks, at one of which Bibles were sold, and at the other portions of the New Testament were distributed gratuitously. A crowd had assembled around, and each

....

* History of the Popes' (tr. Foster), i. 161.

+ Macaulay's 'Essays.'

person was supplied with copies, and often resupplied '*. The irresistible conclusion is, that many of the persons so supplied and often resupplied with copies of the New Testament were agents of the clerical party, who forthwith proceeded to destroy the same, and to scatter the fragments about in the manner described.

It is, however, far from being intended to attribute such conduct to the Church of Rome alone. The following instance serves to prove that heathens can be quite as intolerant as 'Christians.' In the island of Madagascar the first English missionaries had completed an edition of the entire Bible in the native language, before they were compelled to leave the island by the persecution to which they were subjected in 1835, under Queen Ranavalona the First. Of this edition not more than a dozen copies are now known to be in existence, so diligently were they sought out and destroyed by the Queen's orders +.

If such has been the fate of printed books of which numerous copies could be so easily made, what must not have been the effect of the like inquisitorial proceedings on the part of the dominant section of the Christian Church in times anterior to the introduction of printing, when single copies were produced only by the laborious process of writing! How little, then, are we in a position to know the true character of such writings of the earliest ages of Christianity as by the orthodox, that is to say the strongest, party were stigmatized as schismatic or heretical, and in consequence condemned and destroyed! And how much reason is there not to fear that, in frequent instances, it was not error but truth that was thus stifled and suppressed! How many Gospels' and how many Epistles' of the Apostles and their immediate successors may not be lost! Who can say, indeed, that we possess all the writings of St. Paul himself, and whether it was with the free will of the other Apostles and their immediate disciples that we enjoy those that have had the good fortune to escape, especially the First Epistle to the Corinthians?

6

*The Times' of May 2nd, 1871.

† Sibree, ‘Madagascar and its People.'