The Historical Proofs of Christianity [pp. 51-84]

THE PRINCETON RE VIEW.
or sage whom they personated. In this literary device there
was often no deliberate purpose to deceive. It early led, however, to intentional fraud. This practice passed over into certain Christian circles where Judaic and Judaizing influences
prevailed. The distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrine, which may be traced to the Alexandrian philosophy,
availed as a partial excuse for it. Writings were fabricated
like the Sibylline Oracles and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.
But pious frauds of this nature, as every one feels, are repugnant
to the sense of truth which Christianity demands and fosters.
Christianity brought in a purer standard. In the ancient
church, as now, books of this sort were earnestly condemned by
enlightened Christians. Tertullian informs us that the presbyter
who was convicted of writing in the name of Paul the Acta
Pauli et Thecle confessed his offence, and was deposed from
his office.' This incident shows what must have been the feeling entertained by Christians generally in regard to this species
of benevolent imposture. The reader can judge for himself as
to the moral tone of the Gospel and Epistle which we are considering. Did the author, as regards sound ethical feeling,
stand on the low plane of the manufacturers of spurious books?
Would such a man fabricate, in the name of an apostle, a fictitious history of the Lord? Such a work, let it be noticed, is of
an utterly diverse character from a merely didactic writing.
Doubts have been entertained, both in ancient and modern
times, of the genuineness of the Second Epistle of Peter. But if
we can conceive of a well-meaning Christian, with a conscience
imperfectly trained, undertaking to compose a homily under the
name of an apostle, it is still something utterly different from
the attempt to traverse the ground, which to him must have
been sacred ground, that was already covered by the authentic.
Gospels. The irreverence, the audacity, of such a procedure far
outstrips any examples furnished by the Gospels known to be
apocryphal, which mainly confine themselves to the infancy of
Jesus and to the Virgin Mary. Baur, in defending his position,
actually compares the author of this Gospel to the apostle Paul.
Paul, he reminds us, was not one of the Twelve. Why should
"De Baptismo," T5.
8o