Waite. History of the Christian religion : to the year two hundred. 1881.

8/4/2019 Waite. History of the Christian religion : to the year two hundred. 1881.

1/493


2/493


3/493


4/493


5/493


6/493


7/493


8/493


9/493

HISTORYOF THE

RisTiAN Religion,TO THE

YEAR TWO HUNDRED.

By CHAKLES B. WAITE, A.M.

"Teuth is the Daughter of Time."Aulus Gellius, in Nodes Atticm

THIIiD EDITION; HE VISED.

CHICAGO:C. V. WAITE & COMPANY.

1881


10/493

TH2 KEW ' ORK684529 AASTOR, LENOX ANDTILDEN FOU1SDATIONSR 1933 I.

Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 18S0, hjCHARLES B. WAITE,

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.Right of VMnslation reserved

i ' 'stereotyping,;Miidj.'r, Luse & Co.,

Binding,SVilliam Wilson.


11/493

PREFACE.This volume is the result of an investigation, ex-

tending through several years, and instituted for thesatisfaction of the author.Two years of the time were spent in the Library of

Ccnigress, which is peculiarly rich in the department ofBiblical Literature. It contains the writings of all theearlier fathers, in the original, and an immense collec-tion of the works of later writers.The intent to publish was formed upon ascertaining

facts and arriving at conclusions, which appeared ofgreat importance, and which had never before beenfully made known.To the accomplished librarian, who furnished the

author with every facility for the prosecution of hiswork, and gave him much valuable information, he re-

' turns his sincere thanks. Also to the assistant librari-, ans, for the promptness with which the treasures ofil the library were from time to time placed at hisr5 disposal.

It is believed that this will be found to be the mostcomplete record of the events connected with the


12/493

IV PREFACE. '

Christian religion during the first two centuries, whichhas ever been presented to the public.The time has been divided into six periods, and the

different writers and events are carefully arrangedin regular chronological order. In fixing the datesof the various writers, it was found that the subjectwas involved in much confusion.In each case, the different dates were carefully ex-amined, and the one selected which appeared the mostconsistent, and supported by the best authority.A comprehensive view is given of the gospels of the

first two centuries, with a brief sketch of those of alater date. The comparisons which have been institut-ed between the canonical and certain apocryphal gos-pels, is a peculiar feature of this work, and one whichis believed to be of great importance, in arriving atcorrect conclusions.The Gospel of Marcion has been reproduced from the

writings of the fathers, principally from the Greek ofEpiphanius. This is something which, so far as theauthor is aware, has never before been attempted inthis country.The references to authorities will be found useful to

those who may desire to pursue further the investiga-tion of the questions discussed.The reader will find considerable repetition in the

following pages. The importance of the subject, andthe necessity of examining many of the questionsfrom different points of view, would seem to jus-


13/493

PREFACE. Vtify, if not absolutely to demand, a re-statement fromtime to time, of the same facts and propositions indifferent chapters.

In the preparation and publication of this work,the author has proceeded upon the assumption thatthe ascertainment of the truth is all important, andthat its promulgation cannot fail to result in the per-manent benefit of the human race.The author is under special obligations to the Hon.

William Birney, of Washington, formerly Professor inthe University of France, who took a deep interest inthe prosecution of the work, and devoted many hoursto its examination and criticism.The final result of the undertaking is submitted to

the public, in the hope that it may add something tothe pages of reliable history.


14/493


15/493

TABLE OF CONTEXTS.First Period.Apostolic Age. A. D. 30 to A. D. 80.

CHAPTER I.The Lost Gospels of the Fikst Century.

CHAPTER II.John the BaptistJesus ChristPaulPeter and the other

ApostlesThe Epistles of the New Testament.

Second Period.Apostolic Fathers. A. D. 80 to 120.CHAPTER III.

Clement op RomeIgnatiusPolycarp.CHAPTER IV.

Lost Gospels of the Second Century.Gospel op the Hebrews.CHAPTER V.

Lost Gospels of the Second Century.Continued. Gospel of theEgyptians. CHAPTER VI.

Lost Gospels op the Second Century.Concluded.CHAPTER VIL

The Age of Miracles.Apollonius op Tyana.CHAPTER VI n.

Age of Miracles.Continuee. Simon Magus.


16/493

Vlll CONTENTS.CHAPTER IX.

Otiier Miracles and Miracle-WorkersJewish Superstitions-Miracles OP THE FathersMiracles of the New Testament.Third Period.

The Three Apocryphal Gospels.A. D. 120 to 130.CHAPTER X.

EXTANT APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.The Protevangelion, or Book of .James.

CHAPTER XI.The Protevangelion and the First Two Chapters of Luke a.ndMatthew compared.

CHAPTER XIT.Gospel of the Infancy.

CHAPTER XIII.The Gospel of the Infancy compared with the First Two Chap-

ters OF Luke and Matthew.CHAPTER XIV.

Origin and History of the Gospels of the Infancy.CHAPTER XV.

Acts of Pilate ; or The Gospel of Nicodemus.CHAPTER XVI.

Acts of Pilate and the Canonical Gospels covpaked.CHAPTER XVII.

Other Extant Apocryphal Gospels.CHAPTER XVIII.

Writers of the Third PeriodMenander SaturninusBasili-DES Barnabas, and others.

Fourth Period.Forty YearsOf Christian Writers.A. D. 130 to 170.

CHAPTER XIX.Writers from A. D. 130 to A. D. 150. CarpocratesHermasCe-

binthusValentinusPapias, and others.


17/493

CONTENTS. IXCHAPTER XX.

Makcion.A. D. 145.CHAPTER XXI.

Justin Martyr.A. D. 150 to 160.CHAPTER XXn

Wrttrrs PROM A. D. 150 TO 170. Continued.ApellesPeregr[NU8-MahcelltInaMoNTANUs Tatian, and others.

CHAPTER XXIII.Value op the Testimony op Eusebius,

CHAPTER XXIV.Review op Third and Fourth Periods.A. D. 120 to 170.

Fifth Period.The Four Canonical Gospels,A. D. 170 to A. D. 185.

CHAPTER XXV.The Four Canonical Gospels.

CHAPTER XXVI.The Four Gospels as a Group.

CHAPTER XXVII.History of Jesus as given in the Gospels.

CHAPTER XXVIII.The Gospel according to Lukb.

CHAPTER XXIX.The Gospel according to Mark,

CHAPTER XXX.The Gospel according to John.

CHAPTER XXXI.The Gospel according to Matthew.CHAPTER XXXIl.

The Acts op the Apostles.CHAPTER XXXIII.

Origin and History op Christian Doctrines.The ImmaculatbConceptionMiracles op ChristHis Material ResurrectionHisDivinityThe TrinityAtonementOriginal Sin, &c.


18/493

X CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XXXIV.Writers of the Fifth Period.AthenagorasTheophilus of An-TiocH PanTxEnusHegesippus, and others.

CHAPTER XXXV.Review of Fifth Period.Destruction of the Literature of the

GospelsList of Gospel Writings of that Age Lost or Destroyed.

Sixth Period.Close of the Second Century.A. D. 185 to A. D. 200.CHAPTER XXXVL

Writers of the Sixth Period.HeracleonSerapionPtolem^-US, AND others.

CHAPTER XXXV [LIreNvEusClement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.

CHAPTER XXXVIILFormation of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy.

CHAPTER XXXIX.Review of Sixth PeriodTestimony of Heathen Writers

General ReviewConclusion.


19/493

LIST OF CHRISTIAN WRITERSAND WRITINGS, OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES.

Chronologically Akranged.A.I>.

Oracles of Christ, by Matthew, 60Gospel of Paul, do.Gospel or Recollections of Peter, '*

Paul's Epistles. (See Note.)1. 2d Epistle to the Thessalonians, 52'2. 1st do. " " 533. 1st " " Corinthians, 574. 2d ' " "5. Epistle to the Galatians, 686. " " Romans, "7. '* to Philemon, 62'8. ' to the Colossians, "9. " *' Philippians, 63;10. " " Ephesians, "The General Epistle of Peter, (1st Peter), Sd

" James, '*" Jude, '

First Epistle of Clement of Rome, to the Corinthians, 97Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 115" " " Ephesians, * "' * to Polycarp, "

Gospel according to the Egyptians, "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 116Proverbs of Xystas, 119Menander, Prodicus, 120'


20/493

xu LIST OF WRITERS.A.D.

Preaching of Peter, Toctrine of Peter, 125Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, *'Sibylline Oracles, later form, Preaching of Paul, "Some Syriac Documents, *'Gospel according to the Hebrews, '*Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Philip, **Gospel of Matthaias, Gospel of Judas Iscariot, "Gospel or Harmony of Basilides, Book of the Helkesaites, "Midwife of our Savior, Gospel of Thaddseus, **And many other gospels now lost, written about this time.Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, "Acts of Peter and Andrew, Acts of John, Acts of St. Mary, "And more than 30 other books of Acts, some of which are extant.Apocalypse of Peter, Apocalpse of Paul, of Bartholomew. "

And many other books of Revelation, written about the same time.Satuminus, Basilides, "The ProtevangeHon, or Book of James, 'Aristides, Quadratus, 126Oospel of the Infancy, attributed to Thomas, 130Acts of Pilate, or Gospel of Nicodemus,Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle to Titus, attributed to Paul,First and Second Epistles to Timothy, attributed to Paul,General Epistle of John, (1st John),Second and Third Epistles of John.Agrippa Castor, Aristion, John the Presbyter,Revelation or Apocalypse of John,Carpocrates, 135Epistles to the Magnesians, Trallians, Smyrnaeans and Philadel-

phians, attributed to Ignatius, 140Epiphanes, Cerdon, Epistle to Diognetus, "Epistle to the Laodiceans, attributed to Paul, "Hermas, Author of The Shepherd, 145Oerinthus and his Gospel, "Marcion and his New Testament,


21/493

LIST OF WMITBES. xiiiApelles and his Gospel, Peregrinus, Marcellina, 160Epistle to the Hebrews, attributed to Paul, *'Soter, 164Tatian and his Harmony or Gospel, 170Phihp, Montanus, Second Epistle of Peter, "Gospel according to Luke, 'Aristo of Pella, Dionysius of Corinth, Miltiades, 175Maximus, Pinytus, Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, "Gospel according to Mark, '*Modestas, Musanus, 176Flon'nus, Blastus, Epistle of Chniches of Vienne and Lyons, 177Melito of SardJs, Athenagoras, Claudius ApoUmaris, "Gospel according to John, 178Theophilus of Antioch, Bardesanes, Hermogenes, 180Bacchylus of Corinth, Paiittenus, "Gospel according to Matthew, **Acts of the Apostles, "Marcia, . 183Hegesippus, 185Asterius Urbanus, 188Irenaeus, Cassianus, Ptolomreus, Heracleon, Victor, 190Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, Maximilla, Muratorian Fragment, "Theodotus, of Pyzantium, 192Rhodon, Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, 195Palnias, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, 196Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Noetus, Hermas, 3d, 200Praxeas, Symmachus, Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, "Seleucas, Artemon, Pistis Sophiae, "Juhus Africanus, 2d Epistle of Clement of Rome. * V*

[Note. The Epistles of Paul.We have taken as genuine, the tenepistles which constituted the Apostolicon of Marcion. The same course hasbeen adopted by Dr. Davidson, except that he rejects, upon what appeai-s in-sufficient grounds, the Epistle to the Ephesians.]


22/493


23/493

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.The History of the Christian Religion has met with

a reception from the public, and especially from thatgreat exponent of popular thought, the secular press,far more favorable than the author had expected.With but very few exceptions, the reviews have beenfair and liberal in spirit, while many of them havebeen in the highest degree commendatory.In this edition the author has availed himself of sun-

dry criticisms, as well as of the kind suggestions offriends, in making some corrections, which, it is be-lie v^ed, will add materially to the value of the work.The changes do not in any way affect the main prop-

ositions which peculiarly characterize the book, andwhich have given it such a hold upon the public mind.These remain unimpeached, and almost unassailed.The adverse criticisms have thus far been mostly of

a supeiiicial character. For instance, take that of J.T. Perry, of Cincinnati, who has written a somewhatelaborate review, in a series of articles published in"The Advance," of this City, The style and spirit ofthe writer, are in the main, unobjectionable, but thecharacter of his criticisms may be inferred from onewdiicli will be mentioned,

Mr. Perry states that the author has named one ofthe fathers of the church Catena; citing the phrase


24/493

XVI PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.Victor Capuaniis Catena, on p. 54, and in the Index.He comments on the supposed blunder, and speakssomewhat derisively of "Father Catena."The reader has only to notice that Capuanus is twice

referred to elsewhere on the same page, once as "VictorCapuanus," and again as ''Capuanus," and that on thesame page also is quoted a passage from Westcott, inwhich he speaks of "the MS. Catena," in order to seehow much force there is in this criticism. The misap-prehension of Mr. Perry arose from failing to notice,that by a typographical error, the apostrophe wasomitted at the end of the word Capuanus. The phraseshould be "Victor Capuanus' Catena;" the MS. Catenaof Victor Capuanus. This and some other typograph-ical errors are corrected in this edition.

In the Inter Ocean of this City there appeared a criti-cism emanating from the pen of Samuel Ives Curtiss,Professor in Chicago Theological Seminary.Not content with endeavoring in every possible way

to prejudice the author of the History in the minds ofhis readers. Professor Curtiss proceeds to misstate thecontents of the book itself. He represents the authoras saying that the first mention of the miracles ofChrist was in the Epistle of Barnabas, written some-where from A. D. 71 to 132. This would be entirely in-consistent with the statement repeatedly made in theHistory, that there is no evidence of the doctrine of themiracles of Jesus, from writers of the first century.That there might be no mistake as to the intention

of the writer of the review to attribute the dates to theauthor whom he was reviewing instead of giving themas his own, the whole sentence including the figures,is put in quotation marks; thus:

"So, too, he saj's that 'the first mention of the miracles of Jesus was in theEpistle of Barnabas, A. D. 71132.' "


25/493

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION. XVllNow, SO far from giving the Epistle of Barnabas any

such date, the author nowhere places it earlier than A.D. 130. [See pp. 266, 374.] In speaking of the miraclesof Christ, he says, p. 374,"The first Diention of these was in tlie Epistle of Barnabas, A. D. 130, and

in the Acts of Pilate and other apocryphal gospels which are supposed tohave been written about the same time."

We would fain believe that this was an inadvertence.But Professor Curtiss having on a former occasion ad-mitted, that in order to carry a point he had adopteda ''forced construction" of the Greek of the Gospel ofLuke, he is here placed under the suspicion of inten-tionally attributing to the writer he was reviewing,language which he never used. If he would "force"a meaning upon the author of a gospel, why should hehesitate to take a similar liberty with the language ofan opponent? Some two months afterward, when thereview was published in book form, the same state-ment was deliberately repeated, quotation marks andall.The same writer lately delivered a lecture upon the

date of the canonical gosx3els, in which he asserted thatthere was no record of their introduction, and no evi-dence that they displaced older gospels. The lectureis published in the same volume with the review. Thisstatement was replied to in the Chicago Times, by aleading lawyer of this City, in an ably written commu-nication, in which were shown various instances of thedisplacement of older gospels, and the substitution ofthe canonical in their stead. Even as late as the fifthcentury Theodoret found it necessary to suppress theGospel of Tatian, and substitute in its place the fourgospels.

"I found, myself," says Theodoret, [A. D. 430J, "upwards of two hundredsuch books held in honor among your churches, and collecting them all togeth-


26/493

Xviii PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.er, I had them put aside, and instead introduced the Gospels of the Four Evan-gelists. "Hgeret. Fab. 1. 20. See History, p. 285.And yet, in the face of such evidence, Professor Cur-

tiss boldly assertsthat there is no record of the in-troduction of the canonical gospels.The writer of this work is not apprehensive that it

will be greatly damaged by the attacks of one whosestrongest arguments consist of detraction and misrep-resentation, and who thus sets at defiance the well es-tablished facts of history.Such points as appear worth}^ of attention in the

various criticisms which have thus far appeared willhere be briefly noticed:Marcion and Luke.The author of "Supernatural

Religion" is said to have admitted that his earlier hy-pothesis concerning Marcion's Gospel was untenable,and that Luke was first written. This admission theauthor of that work was, according to Dr. Abbot, com-pelled to make, by reason of the "linguistic argument,"as urged by Dr. Sanday and others; that is, that thenumerous and remarkable peculiarities of languageand style which characterize the parts of Luke whichare also in Marcion are found so fully and completelyin those not in Marcion, as to render diversity of au-thorship entirely incredible.While we cannot but admire the frankness and hon-

esty of the author of "Supernatural Religion," in yield-ing the point when it appeared to him no longer ten-able, yet, if he had paid sufficient attention to the the-ory of Schleiermacher, the greatest of all the Germantheologians, as to the formation of the Gospel of Luke,this argument of Dr. Sanday would not have appearedso formidable.The theory of Schleiermacher is, that the Gospel of

Luke consists of a large number of manuscripts, the


27/493

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION. xixcompiler of which wrote no part of the gospel, or atleast only sufficient to bring the manuscripts into a con-tinuous narrative. We have shown further, that fromthe same stand point, Marcion would consist of a short-er form of most of the same manuscripts.

If, then, both compilers had the same documentsif Marcion omitted portions of these, while the authorof Luke inserted some of the portions which Marcionhad omitted, this would account for all the peculiari-ties of language and style which are common to theportions of Luke which are, and those whicii are notcontained in Marcion.The author of this work having fully discussed the

question, leaves his readers to decide for themselves..He certainly does not feel precluded by any admissionwhich may have been made by the author of "Super-natural Religion."Chrishna and Christ.It is claimed to have been

settled that the legends concerning Chrishna have orig-inated since the Christian era.We have yet to meet with a writer who has producedany tangible evidence to sustain the position. The ar-gument is based upon the facilities of intercommuni-cation between Palestine and India, which would ren-der interpolations possible, and upon the fact that thelegends of Chrishna are not in some of the older sa-cred books of the Hindoos.The first branch of the argument neutralizes itself;

since the same facilities which would enable the Hin-doos to interpolate from the Christian gospels, wouldfurnish the Christian missionaries equal opportunitiesto enrich their own gospels from the Hindoo writings.As to the omission of the legends from the Vedas, thatis no more strange than the fact that the Christian Bi-ble has an Old and a New Testament. K the Chrishna


28/493

XX PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.stories are later than the Vedas, that does not provethat they are also later than Christ.That they were anterior to the Christian era, is

maintained in a late work by Christian Lassen, an em-inent German scholar and Professor of ancient Indianlanguage and literature in the Royal University atBonn. In the second volume of his Indian Antiqui-ties, "Indische Alterthumskunde," pp. 1124 to 1128, hediscusses the question fully, and comes to the followingconclusion:

"I can discover no valid ground for the conjecture, that Christian legendshad then already (during the first three centuries of the Christian era) beentransferred to Krishna.""kann ich keinen triftigen Grund fur die Vermuthung entdecken, dass

Christhche Legenden damals schon auf Krishna iibertragen worden sei-en.''Alterthumskunde, vol. 2, p. 1128/ 2d Ed. Page 1109 of \st Edition.

Whether any such transfer was made at a later peri-od, he does not discuss. But if the integrity of theChrishna legends at any time after Christ be once es-tablished, the presumption of their continuance in thesame form becomes exceedingly strong, and in the ab-sence of evidence of change, conclusive.That Chrishna lived long before Christ is incontro-

vertible. Col. Wilford supposes him to have flourishedabout 1300 B. C; while according to Col. Tod, he wasborn B. C. 1156. Sir Wm. Jones says the story of hisbirth is long anterior to the birth of Christ, and thinksit was probably at the time of Homer. Lassen placeshim in the period preceding the Pandava.[Alterthum-skunde, vol. 1, pp. 765-770.] That the history of Chrish-na antedated Christianity was the opinion of Mr. H. TColebrooke, Major Moor and many others. That Chrish-na himself was before Christ is conceded in the Relig-ious Cyclopedia of McClintock and Strong.Here then, we have the older religion and the oldei

god. This, in the absence of any evidence on either


29/493

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION. xxiside, ought to settle the question. To assume withoutevidence that the older religion has been interpolatedfrom the later, and that the legends of the older herohave been made to conform to the history of a latercharacter, is worse than illogicalit is absurd. As wellmight one take a painting of one of the old masters,and claim that it has been retouched, to make it re-semble one known to have had a later origin.The Divinity of Christ, and his Immaculate Con-ception.Professor Elliott, of the Presbyterian Theo-

logical Seminary, quotes at some length from theHistory to show that according to the author certaindoctrines were not taught in the first century; and as-suming that the divinity of Christ was one of them,he makes quotations from Paul's writings apparentlyin favor of that doctrine. The author nowhere assertsthat the divinity of Christ was not taught in the firstcentury. On the contrary he shows, p. 377, that Plinyspoke of the Christians as singing hymns "to Christ asto God," and on p. 376, distinctly admits that such adoctrine was countenanced by Paul himselfThe author does maintain that there is no evidenceof the doctrine of the immaculate conception in the

first century, and the mistake of Professor Elliott arosefrom thinking this doctrine was necessarily involvedin the other.Marcion held that Christ in his conception and birth

was entirely human, but that when he was baptized,preparatory to entering upon his ministry, the HolyGhost descended upon him, and from that time, he be-came divine. This doctrine he claimed to have de-rived from Paul.

If the Epistles of Paul are studied in the light of thistheory, it will be seen that all of the expressions im-


30/493

XXll PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.plying the divinity of Christ, find a full explanation;while, so far from believing in the immaculate concep-tion, he says that Christ was of the seed of David, ac-cording to the flesh.When the Four Gospels were Written.The edit-

or of the San Francisco Chronicle, in a learned and veryfavorable review of the History, says that to many, theviews of the author in differing from eminent Germanscholars as to the date of the four gospels, will seemat the outset, to savor of presumption.

Of this he is fully aware. He can only say that hehas given his own convictions, after a careful and thor-ough examination. In so doing, he feels that he ismore at liberty to differ from the German scholars al-luded to, from the fact that they nearly all differ fromeach other. It is believed that in this work the solu-tion of the question is made easier by the applicationof a principle to which sufficient attention has notheretofore been given; a principle designated as thelaw of accretion. This properly applied, indicates forthe four gospels a date late in the second century.The historical evidence points the same way.Having arrived at his conclusions by evidence, bothinternal and external, the author feels justified in main-taining them, even against some eminent names. Heis not however unsupported by high German authority,Eichhorn and several others came to the conclusionthat the four gospels did not come into use until nearthe close of the second century.

Credibility of the GospelsArgument of Green-leaf.The argument of Prof. Greenleaf has been repro-duced by several of our critics. He undertook to applyto Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as witnesses, cer-tain presumptions and rules of evidence.


31/493

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION. XXlllThe first questions put to a witness are as to his name

and place of residence, and his means of knowledge ofthe facts concerning which he is expected to testify.But what are the names and where were the residencesof the men who wrote or compiled the four gospels?When did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John ever claim tohave written a gospel? So far from claiming any suchthing, if any one of them could be placed upon thewitness stand to-day, and questioned, he would un-doubtedly testify at once that he knew nothing aboutany gospel bearing his name, and never heard of it.There is, then, nobody in the witness box to whomthese legal presumptions and rules of evidence can beapplied.As to the presumption of validity arising from thegospels being ancient, and being in the possession of

the church, the law wisely provides for a record of ti-tle papers where the custodian is an interested party.Here there is no record, and the slight presumptionarising from possession has been overthrown.There have been many other criticisms, but these

are the most important. We must not pass, however,an allusion by one critic to the discrepancy betweenJosephus and the gospel historians, in reference to theperson whose wife had been taken by Herod. He saysa glance at Smith's Bible Dictionary, will explain theapparent diversity. Certainly; and how is it explained?Simply by adding to Philip another name, to make thename of this prince accord with the gospel narrative.This mode of making history conform to theology, isat least to be admired for its simplicity, and is not in-frequent in our religious and semi-religious cyclope-dias.

In conclusion, we again call attention to the fact thatnone of the main propositions of this work have been


32/493

XXIV PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.in the slightest degree impeached; much less, over-thrown,Nearly every one of these propositions is of a nega-tive character. A single positive fact upon the otherside would be sufficient for disproof. For instance, itis stated that no reference is made to the miraclesbi Christ by any writer, Christian, heathen or Jewish,until nearly a hundred years after they are said to havebeen performed. A single well attested passage fromany writer would disprove the assertion. Why is nosuch passage loroduced? Simply because it cannot befound.

Until these propositions are overthrown, this workwill remain, as it has thus far proved to be, an obsta-cle in the path of superstition, and an aid to the freesearcher after truth.

C. B. W.Chicago, Sept. 1, 188 1.


33/493

FIRST PERIOD. A. D. 30 TO A. D. 80.THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

1

CHAPTER I.LOST GOSPELS OF THE FIRST CENTURY.The Gospel of PaulGospel or Recollections op PeterRefer-

ences AND Citations by the Fathers op the ChurchViews op Mod-ern WritersOracles or Sayings op Christ, attributed to Mat-thewThese the Germs op the Synoptic Gospels, Luke, Mark andMatthew.

This is an attempt to write a history of the Chris-tian religion during the first two centuries. Not a his-tory of Christianity, which would require us to followthe principles of that religion, in their disseminationthrough various countries, and in their influence uponother institutions. Nor yet a history of the church;which would make it necessary to examine questionsof ecclesiastical polity, to trace the rise and progress ofdifferent forms of church government, and to noticethe manners and customs of the early Christians, andtheir treatment by the civil magistrates.

These are touched upon only in their bearing uponthe main object of the inquiry; which is, an examina-


34/493

2 FIRST PERIOD. A. D. 30 TO A. D. 80.

tion into the principal doctrines distinctive of theChristian religion, so far as they were known andtaught in the first two centuries; also the principalbooks through which those doctrines were dissemina-ted.The difficulty of the undertaking is great. The gos-

pels of the first century are unfortunately lost. Thereare left, of that century, only the epistles of Paul, theone epistle of Clement of Rome, some slight noticesby Jewish and heathen writers, and the few legendsand traditions preserved in the writings of the fath-ers, and in the extant second century gospels. Andwhen we enter upon the next century, though there ismore remaining than of the first, still, the great bodyof the Christian literature of that age also, has beenlost or destroyed.

Availing ourselves of what remains, we shall, thoughconscious of the magnitude of the task, enter uponit, at least with fidelity to truth, and in the hopethat something may be contributed to the pages of re-liable history.The time will be divided into six periods; to be des-

ignated as follows:First Period, Apostolic Age. A.D. 30 to A. D. 80.Second Period, Apostolic Fathers. . . 80 to . . 120.Third Period, The three Apoc-

ryphal Gospels. . . 120 to . . 130.Fourth Period. Forty Years of

Christian Writers. . . 130 to . . 170.Fifth Period, The four Canon-

ical Gospels. . . 170 to . . 185.Sixth Period, Close of the Sec-

ond Century. . . 185 to . . 200.


35/493

FIRST PERIOD.Lost Gospels of the First Century.

When Christianity had become partially establishedby the teaching of Christ and the preaching of his apos-tles and disciples, there arose among the Christiansof the various churches a necessity, and hence a de-mand, for some written testimonies or records of thelife and doctrines of their great master. But this needwas not so apparent, or pressing in the first century,and especially during the life-time of those who hadbeen with Jesus, and had been his followers andcompanions.Of the numerous gospels which were in circulation

in the second century, not more than three can, withany certainty, or with any high degree of probability,be traced back to the times of the apostles. These arethe Gospel of Paul, the Gospel or Recollections ofPeter, and the Oracles or Sayings of Christ, attributedto Matthew.

the gospel of PAUL.Ewald, one of the best of the German critics, con-

cludes that there was a Gospel of Paul; thinks it wasin the Greek language, and that it may have beenwritten by the evangelist Philip.'

It may be inferred that it afterward became incor-porated into the Gospel of Marcion, [A. D. 145], sinceMarcion was a follower of Paul, and for his own gos-pel claimed the sanction of that apostle.'MarcioD was a native of Sinope, a town of Asia

Minor, on the south shore of the Black Sea. It is sup-(1.) Jahrbucher, 1848, 1849.(2.) See Fabricius, Codex Apociyphus, Hamb. 1703, vol. 1, p. 372. Also His-

toiy of the Canon, by Westcott, 3d Ed. Lond. 1870, p. 282.


36/493

4 FIRST PERIOD. A. D. 30 TO A. I) bO.

posed that the church at Sinope was furnished by Paul,at the time of its formation, with a collection such ashe supplied to the other Asiatic Churches; containingrecords of the life and teachings of Christ.

It. was the opinion of Jerome, and of several otherwriters, that when Paul spoke of his gospel, [Rom. 2. 16;16. 25; 2d Thess. 2. 14]; he referred to a written gospelthen in circulation.Paul may have had such a gospel in mind; but his

language is not sufficiently explicit to justify us in con-cluding with any certainty, that he meant any thingmore than that gospel of good tidings, of which hewas the great expounder.There is, however, a more distinct trace of the Gospel

of Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 11,V. 23 to 25. By comparing this passage with Luke 22.19, 20, it will be seen that the language is almost iden-tical; while the parallel passages. Matt. 26. 26 to 28, andMark 14. 22 to 24, have no such complete similarity,though the idea is the same. The Gospel of Luke,whether directly, or through Marcion's, was foundedpartly upon the Gospel of Paul. That Paul had some-thing to do with a written gospel, which now appears,in whole or in part, in the compilation of Luke, is gen-erally acknowledged; and this passage in First Corin-thians, taken in connection with the correspondingpassage in Luke, is strong evidence, that in Corinthians,Paul refers to a written gospel, which he had "deliver-ed" to the Church at Corinth, and a portion of whichwritten gospel appears in Luke 22. 19, 20. Paul mayhave referred, also, to the same gospel, in Galatians 2. 2.

This supposition receives countenance from a passagein Tertullian. In his work against Marcion, [A. D. 207-210], after saying that Marcion did not ascribe hisgospel to any author, and arguing thence that it was


37/493

LOST GOSPELS OF THE FIRST CENTURY. Dnot authentic, he proceeds as follows:"Had Marcion even published his gospel in the name of Paul himself, the

single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding au-thorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. There would still bewanting that gospel which Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his be-hef, and with which he so earnestly wished liis own to agree, that he actuallyon that account went up to Jerusalem, to know and consult the apostles, 'lesthe should run or had been running in vain;' in other words, that the faithwhich he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in ac-cordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred vtdth the authors, andhaving agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their handsin fellowship, and divided then- labors thenceforth in the office of preachingthe gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and Paul to the Jews and Gen-tiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the enhghtener of Luke liimself, desired theauthority of his predecessors, for both his own faith and preaching, how muchmore may I not require fi-om Luke's Gospel, that which was necessary for thegospel of his master." Tertullian adv. Marcion, bk. 4, ch. 3, Ante-NiceneChristian Library, vol. 7, p. 180.

From this passage of Tertullian it is manifest, first,that there was a Gospel of Paul, and the inference isvery strong, that it was in writing; since Paul is repre-sented as going to Jerusalem to compare his gospelwith another, and while there, conferring with the"authors" of the other gospel; secondly, that it was ne-cessary, for the purpose of verification, that these twogospels should be compared; and thirdly, that all thiswas anterior to the Gospel according to Luke. It mightbe inferred, from the closing portion of the paragraph,that Tertullian thought the Gospel of Luke itself stoodin need of some verification.

It does not follow, however, that the gospel withwhich Paul was so anxious to compare his own, waswritten before his. The word "primitive" inserted bythe Ante-Mcene translator, in brackets, before the word"authors," we have therefore discarded, as unnecessaryto the sense, and unauthorized.The language of Tertullian is, "Denique, ut cum auctoribus contulit, et

convenitde regula fidei, dexteras miscuere," &c. TertuU. Op., torn. 1, p. 251.


38/493

6 FIRST PERIOD. A. D. 30 TO A. D. 80.The opinion of Ewald is, that the Greek Gospel of

Paul was the first ever written. There was probablyno great length of time intervening, between the originof that and of the other two gospels of the first century.The testimony of Irenseus, [A. D. 190], concerning

this gospel, is, that it was written by Luke."Luke, also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a

book, the Gospel preached by him.'"Notwithstanding the positive language here used, thestatement is to be taken with some allowance. Irenae-us was fully committed to the four gospels, and wasengaged in endeavoring to give them authority. Hemay be said, in fact, to have introduced them to thenotice of the literary world; since he is the first authorwho mentions more than one of them. He speaks fre-quently of these gospels, and argues that they shouldbe four in number, neither more nor less, because thereare four universal winds, and four quarters of theworld.Davidson calls him "credulous and blundering.'"Those who are so quick to receive the statement of

Irengeus, that the Gospel of Paul was written by Luke,a statement manifestly made to give apostolic sanctionto the Gospel of Luke, are not prepared to accept soreadily his assertion, that the ministry of Jesus lastedtwenty years, and that he was fifty years old at hiscrucifixion.'

THE GOSPEL OR RECOLLECTIONS OF PETER.Tnis was a book more generally known than the

Gospel of Paul, and of the existence of which therecan be no doubt. In the year 190, a large number of

(1.) Irenseus v. Haer. bk. 3, ch. 1, Ante-Nic. vol. 5, p. 259.(2.) Canon, p. 121.(3.) Iren. v. Hfer. 2. 22, Ante-Nic. vol. o, p. 196.


39/493

LOST GOSPELS OF TUE FIRST CENTURY. 7the Gospels of Peter were found in use by the Churchof Rhossus, in Cilicia; and so much were the Christiansof that church attached to them, that it became neces-sary for Serapion, one of the bishops, to suppress them,and to substitute the canonical gospels in their stead/Another case of the suppression of older gospels, in

use in the churches, to make way for those which hadbeen selected, will be noticed hereafter. [See Tatian.]

Eusebius, [A. D. 325,] speaking of the Gospel accord-ing to Peter, with other books, says:

"Neither among the ancient nor the ecclesiastical writers of oui- day, hasthere been one that has appealed to the testimony taken from them." Againin book 3, chapter 25, he speaks of the Gospel of Peter as among those thatwere "adduced by the heretics, under the name of the apostles," and "ofwliich no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession, has condescendedto make any mention in liis works;" and says, "they are to be ranked not on-ly among the spurious writings, but are to be rejected as altogether absurdand impious." Eccles. Hist, bk.'i, cA. 3.Eusebius had a peculiar faculty for diverging from

the truth. Let us see how far from it he has gone inthese assertions:

1. Justin Martyr, in the Dialogue, written about A.D. 160, says:

"Tlie mention of the fact, that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of theapostles, and that the event has been recorded m his (Peter's) Memoirs, to-gether with his having changed the name of two other brethren, who weresons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, tended to signify that he was the samethrough whom the surname Israel was given to Jacob, and Joshua toHosea." Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 106.The translation, as given in the Ante-Nicene Christian

Library, vol. 2,^. 233, is as follows:"And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles toPeter, and when it is widtten in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, aswell as that he changed the names of other two brothers," &c.

(1.) Dr. Laa-dner's Works, vol. 4, p. 636; Theodoret, Fab. Hser. 2.2; Euseb.Ecc. Hist. 6. 12; Lost and Hostile Gospels by S. Baring-Gould, p. 245.Theodoret there says, the Nazarenes held that Christ was a just man, and

they used the Gospel of Peter. He speaks as of his oa\ti day; A. D. 430.


40/493

8 FIRST PERIOD. A. D. 30 TO A. I). 80.The word "Him," commencing with a capital letter,

of course refers to Christ; thus making it read, thememoirs of Christ: and ignoring Peter as the author.The Greek is,Kal TO Etneiv neroovo/iiaHsvat avrov Ilevpov eva toov ArtoiroX-

oov, nai yEypdq)^ai ev vol's (xnoiivrji.iovEvi.ia6iv avrov, &c.Such a construction, beside referring the pronoun

avrov, [of Mm], at the close of the sentence, to the moredistant antecedent, contrary to the rule in such cases,attributes to Justin language which he is not in thehabit of using. Elsew^here, when speaking of thegospels which he cites so frequently, he calls them, notMemoirs of Christ, but "Memoirs of the Apostles." Hehas ten times "Memoirs of the Apostles," and five times"Memoirs;" not once "Memoirs of Christ."For the rendering we have adopted, we have the au-

thority of Dr. Westcott,' and other eminent scholars.Moreover, it is i^owerfully supported by the fact, thatthe only one of the canonical gospels which has thisaccount of the change of the name of James and Johnto Boanerges, is Mark, which has such an intimateconnection with the Gospel of Peter. [See Mark 3. 17.We conclude, therefore, that Justin Martyr here re-fers to the Memoirs or Recollections of Peter; whichcan be nothing else than the Gospel of Peter. It wasprobably a consideration of this passage, which in-duced Credner to say that Justin made use of thisgospel.'

2. The next writer who refers to the Gospel of Peter,is Tertullian; [A. D. 207-210.] He was one of the threefathers who were engaged in establishing the canonicalgospels. And as Irenaeus had undertaken to confound

(1.) Hist, of the Canon, p. 103.(2.) Geschict. N. T. Kan. p. 22.


41/493

LOST GOSPELS OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 9the Gospel of Paul with the Gospel of Luke, so Tertull-ian endeavors to identify the Gospel of Peter with theGospel of Mark. He says:"The Gospel which Mark published, is affirmed to be

Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was."Jones, who is unwilling to recognize the Gospel of

Peter as authoritative, attempts to break the force ofthis testimony by interpolating, in the translation, thewords "by some;" thus: "is affirmed by some to be Pe-ter's." But this is entirely unauthorized.The original is, "Evangelium quod edidit Marcus, Pe-

tri affirmatur, cujus interpres Marcus;" translated inthe Ante-Nicene collection, "That [gospel] which Markpublished, may be affirmed to be Peter's, whose inter-preter Mark was."Tertullian manifestly intended to assert, that in hisday, the Gospel of Mark was understoo'd to be Peters;or to have the Gospel of Peter for its original.

3. The third father w^ho referred to this Gospel, wasOrigen; A. D. 230.

"There are some," says he, "who sa^the brethren of Christ [here mention-ed] were the cliildren of Joseph, by a fonner wife, who Hved wth liim beforeMary; and they are mduced to this opmion by some passages in that which isentitled The Gospel of Peter, or The Book of James." Com. on Matt. 13. 55.

It must not be inferred that Origen here speaksof the books as the same; but that the opinion washeld, in accordance with passages in the one book orthe other. In the Protevangelion, or Book of James,as it was called, it is related, that when the high priesttold Joseph that he was the person selected to take thevirgin, he demurred, saying, "I am an old man andhave children; but she is young, and I fear lest I shouldappear ridiculous in Israel."

(1.) Tert. ad. Marcion, 4. 5.


42/493

10 FIRST PERIOD. A. D. m TO A. B. 80.Though Origen was not fully prepared to accept

this statement, not seeing it in the canonical gospels^which had then, to use his own language, been "cho-sen," ' and were thenceforth to be authoritative, yet thefact had become so well understood, from the previoususe of the other gospels, that it was, by most of thefathers, implicitly received as true, for a long time af-terward. Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact,(Ecumenius, and all the Latin Fathers till Ambrose,and the Greek Fathers afterward, held to the opinionthat Joseph was a widower, and had children by a for-mer wife; showing that the Gospel of Peter and theProtevangelion were regarded as authority.Thus we find the Gospel of Peter expressly referred

to by three of the fathers before Eusebius, thoughthat historian asserts that no one of them had conde-scended to mal^e any mention of it.Eusebius exhibited a still more reckless disregard for

the truth, in regard to the Preaching of Peter. Hemade a similar sweeping assertion respecting that;while the fact was, it had been mentioned by Herac-lion and Lactantius, and six times by Clement of Al-exandria, and every time with indications of approval.It may be well to mention an error of some writers,in supposing the Preaching of Peter and the Preachingof Paul to be one book, or parts of the same book,merely from their being mentioned in the same con-nection by Lactantius. Such an inference is not au-thorized.

(1.) "And that not four gospels but veiy many were ^^frniien, out of rchichthose we have were e?iosen, and delivered to the chttrches, we may perceive,"^c. Origen, m Pram. T^ncce, Horn. 1. t. 2, ]}. 210.Agaan: "Fom- gospels only have been approved, out of which the doctrines

of our Lord and Saviour are to be learned."These gospels were selected, or "separated" from othei-s.Westcott, p.317.


43/493

LOST GOSPELS OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 11Other writers have mentioned this gospel. Theodo-

ret, [A. D. 430], says, "The Nazarenes are Jews whovenerate Christ as a just man merely, and it is saidthey use the Gospel according to Peter.'"Credner thinks the gospel was one of the oldest writ-

ings of the church, and the source from which Justindrew many of his quotations; also that it was essential-ly identical with the Harmony of Tatian, and the Gos-pel according to the Hebrews.'

Dr. Mill' says it was publicly read by the Christians;and Mr. Whiston' asserts that it w^as, probably, insome sense, a sacred book.

Jones, who wishes to discredit it, says that it was in-terdicted by the decree of Pope Gelasius, [A. D. 494], ac-cording to some copies; though he does not explainhow the interdict crept into those copies, nor why itis not in the decree, as generally published, and as itappears in his own work, vol. 1 p. 154.The Gospel of Peter favored the opinions of the Doce-

tse, who held that Christ and Jesus were different; thatJesus really suffered, but Christ, only in appearance.

ISIorton," whose opinion is entitled to great weight,thinks this gospel was not a history of Christ's ministry.

Eev. S. Baring-Gould asks the question, "Was thisgospel a corrupted edition of St. Mark?" and answers itthus: "Probably not. We have not much ground onwhich to base an opinion, but there is just sufficient tomake it likely that such was not the case.'"

(1.) Haer. Fab. 2. 2.(2.) Gesch. d. N. T. Kanon, p. 22,(3.) Prolegom. in Nov. Test. sec. 336.(4.) Essay on the Constitutions of the Apostles, p. 24,(5.) Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, by Andrews Norton, Eos-

ton, 1837, vol. l,p. 2:M. Notes.(6.) Lost and Hostile Gospels, p. 221.


44/493


45/493


46/493


47/493


48/493

1-6 FIRST PERIOD. A. D. 30 70 A. D. 80.mistake of at least three years? Tiberius commenced;reigning A. D. 14, and the fifteenth year of his reignwould be A. D. 29, or when Jesus was thirty-three yearsof age, as he was four years old, at the commencementof the Christian . era.We do not, however, look upon this as a very seriousdiscrepancy, and think Dr. Lardner over-estimated thequestion, when he spoke of it as one of "very greatdifficulty." The word "ft5(?fi," "about," used by the gos-pel historian, relieves him from any very exact crit-icism.So of another objection; the statement that Annas

and Caiaphas were high priests; it being notorious thatthe Jews never had but one high j^riest at a time.This has been partially explained by showing thatJosephus, in one place, spoke of one as a high priest,who had held, but did not at the time referred to, holdthat office. The language here is somewhat more defi-nite, and appears more plainly to intimate that two didactually hold the position the same year.

This would indicate that this portion of the bookwas written long afterward, by one not acquaintedwith Jewish customs. Dr. Lardner says, "It would beextremely unreasonable to impute to St. Luke so greata mistake as the supposing there were properlytwo high priests among the Jews at the same time."The most effectual way to relieve him from the impu-tation is. not to charge upon him the authorship of awork which bears so many marks of having been writ-ten long after his day.

If the passage in Josephus concerning Christ weregenuine, then the failure to connect him with John theBaptist, would be utterly incomprehensible. But sinceit is the general verdict of scholars, that the paragraphin the 3d chapter of the 18th book of the Antiquities,


49/493


50/493


51/493


52/493


53/493

APOSTOLIC AGE. PAUL. 21wonderful epistles, written in the first century, whichare still extant, and the most of which are consideredby scholars to be genuine.Volumes have been written concerning Paul; works

abounding mostly in unmixed eulogy. It is the dutyof the impartial historian, while appreciating and ad-miring those grand qualities, which mark him as oneof the greatest men of any agewhile conceding hisintellectual and moral grandeur, his thorough convic-tion of the truth of tlie doctrines he was teaching, andthe zeal and devotion which he manifested in theirpropagation, to point out, at the same time, some ofthe defects in his character.The chief of these, which was the result of his ex-

cessive zeal, was an impatience, and even a vindictive-ness, toward those who differed with him in opinion.By an occasional outburst of that spirit of persecu-

tion, under the influence of which he had so unrelent-ingly pursued the Christians, he demonstrates, thathowever thorough was his religious conversion, it hadnot eradicated or essentially changed those traits ofcharacter, and peculiarities of disi30sition, which dis-tinguished him from other men. Commentators wouldhave us believe, that when, in his Epistle to the Gala-tians, he said, "T would they were even cut off, whotrouble you," he meant nothing more, than that theyshould be cut off from the church. But this he hadpower to have done; and did direct it, in addressingother churches. An examination of the context, andof the whole epistle, in the commencement of whichhe had anathematized any one w^ho should preachany other doctrine, ("let him be accursed,") togetherwith the application of a careful and thorough philo-logical analysis of the words used by the apostle, allcombine to give to his language a deeper meaning;


54/493

22 FIRST PERIOD. A. D. ZQ TO A. D. 80.

showing that in a moment of exasperation, he gave ut-terance to a sentiment, which, taken in connectionwith the teaching and practice of Peter, and the con-struction which was put upon some of the sayingsof Christ, resulted in the most fearful and wide spreadpersecutions, through subsequent ages.

It is not strange that the apostle should have suchfeelings toward those whom he saw endeavoring to re-move some of the beautiful pillars from the splendidedifice he was constructing; but it is to be regrettedthat he did not foresee the use which could be madeof his language in after times.Again: notwithstanding the spirit of kindness, of

brotherly love, and even of tenderness, pervading theletters of the apostle, there may be discovered occa-sionally, beneath it all, glimpses of an overbearing andtyrannical disposition. This is particularly noticeablein his injunctions to the female Christians, and inhis determination to discountenance any ambition ontheir part to take an equal place with their brothers,in the management of church affairs.They were permitted to hold the position of deacon-ess, an office the functions of which consisted princi-pally in ministering to the necessities of the saints.An office of labor and subserviency, they could fill, butnot one of honor; "I suffer not a woman to teach;" saidPaul; thus disclosing his domineering spirit, and hisinability to rise above the prejudices of the age.

This prohibition of the apostle was scrupulously car-ried out; and in the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 365, the11th Canon forbade the ordination of women for theministry, while the 44th Canon prohibited them fromentering into the altar.

(1.) London's Manual of Councils, pp. 284 to 287.


55/493


56/493


57/493


58/493


59/493


60/493


61/493


62/493


63/493


64/493


65/493


66/493


67/493


68/493


69/493


70/493


71/493


72/493


73/493


74/493


75/493


76/493


77/493


78/493


79/493


80/493


81/493


82/493


83/493


84/493


85/493


86/493


87/493


88/493


89/493


90/493


91/493


92/493


93/493


94/493


95/493


96/493


97/493


98/493


99/493


100/493


101/493


102/493


103/493


104/493


105/493


106/493


107/493


108/493


109/493


110/493


111/493


112/493


113/493


114/493


115/493


116/493


117/493


118/493


119/493


120/493


121/493


122/493


123/493


124/493


125/493


126/493


127/493


128/493


129/493


130/493


131/493


132/493


133/493


134/493


135/493


136/493


137/493


138/493


139/493


140/493


141/493


142/493


143/493


144/493


145/493


146/493


147/493


148/493


149/493


150/493


151/493


152/493


153/493


154/493


155/493


156/493


157/493


158/493


159/493


160/493


161/493


162/493


163/493


164/493


165/493


166/493


167/493


168/493


169/493


170/493


171/493


172/493


173/493


174/493


175/493


176/493


177/493


178/493


179/493


180/493


181/493


182/493


183/493


184/493


185/493


186/493


187/493


188/493


189/493


190/493


191/493


192/493


193/493


194/493


195/493


196/493


197/493


198/493


199/493


200/493


201/493


202/493


203/493


204/493


205/493


206/493


207/493


208/493


209/493


210/493


211/493


212/493


213/493


214/493


215/493


216/493


217/493


218/493


219/493


220/493


221/493


222/493


223/493


224/493


225/493


226/493


227/493


228/493


229/493


230/493


231/493


232/493


233/493


234/493


235/493


236/493


237/493


238/493


239/493


240/493


241/493


242/493


243/493


244/493


245/493


246/493


247/493


248/493


249/493


250/493


251/493


252/493


253/493


254/493


255/493


256/493


257/493


258/493


259/493


260/493


261/493


262/493


263/493


264/493


265/493


266/493


267/493


268/493


269/493


270/493


271/493


272/493


273/493


274/493


275/493


276/493


277/493


278/493


279/493


280/493


281/493


282/493


283/493


284/493


285/493


286/493


287/493


288/493


289/493


290/493


291/493


292/493


293/493


294/493


295/493


296/493


297/493


298/493


299/493


300/493


301/493


302/493


303/493


304/493


305/493


306/493


307/493


308/493


309/493


310/493


311/493


312/493


313/493


314/493


315/493


316/493


317/493


318/493


319/493


320/493


321/493


322/493


323/493


324/493


325/493


326/493


327/493


328/493


329/493

8/4/2019 Waite. History of the Christian religion

Waite. History of the Christian religion : to the year two hundred. 1881.

Documents

Transcript of Waite. History of the Christian religion : to the year two hundred. 1881.