From all this it is clear that Christianity found both facilities and obstacles in the Roman Empire. Foremost among the facilities come universal peace, uniformity of language and ideas, and rapid and safe communication. Philosophy, by the blows it had struck at old pagan legends, and by its impotence to replace them, may also be reckoned as a useful auxiliary ; the Fathers of the Church speak of paganism in the same tone as Lucian. Finally, the religions of the East, by feeding the religious instinct, had prevented its perishing and kept it alive, to await the new birth of the Gospel. These were the facilities, but what obstacles stood in the way! The Roman Empire soon took to persecution, and over and over again engaged
in a death struggle with Christianity. The spirit of reasoning in Greek philosophy seized on the doctrinal elements of Christian teaching, and produced plenty of heresies. As to the popular pagan cults, although they had tended to preserve the religious instinct, yet from them could come no assistance in the warfare against those selfish and shameful passions, which in nations, as in individuals, always form the most serious obstacle to the work of salvation.

CHAPTER II

the primitive church at jerusalem

Judaism in the empire and in Palestine. The disciples of Jesus : their preaching and their organization. Saul of Tarsus. First conversions amongst Gentiles predisposed to Judaism.

"Salvation is of the Jews," said Jesus to the woman of Samaria. This saying is characteristic of the external aspect of the Gospel mission. Jerusalem was its starting- point, and it was in passing through the Jewish colonies, established more or less throughout the whole empire, that it touched the heathen races.

After Alexander and the Romans had opened up the world, Judaism left the parent hive. Outside Palestine, its cradle, it had had, since the exile, an important settlement in Babylon. Babylon, however, may be ignored in a history of primitive Christianity. Not so the Jewish colony at Alexandria, which formed about two-fifths of the population of that great town. From Alexandria emanated, besides the exegesis of Philo, the canonical book of Wisdom and several important apocryphal books. However, we need not dwell on the evangelization of Egypt either, for it is shrouded in obscurity. All the principal towns throughout the empire had a more or less large Jewish population, engaged in the smaller branches of commerce, and protected by special privileges, which had been renewed several times since the days of Alexander's earliest successors. The children of Israel assembled in their synagogues to listen to the reading and explanation of the Holy Books, to pray in common,

and to transact the spiritual and temporal affairs of the local congregation. Their religious discipline required them, first of all, to separate themselves as absolutely as possible from the heathen, then to have faith in the God of Israel, to acknowledge the Messianic hope, and to observe the Law, as modified, however, by circumstances, and freed from the narrow formalism of Jerusalem.

In Palestine, the one sanctuary of the worship of Jahve, the Temple, retained its high prestige. The sacerdotal hierarchy, swayed by the aristocratic Sadducean party, strictly maintained the ritual observances. But the luxury, the depravity, the religious indifference of these sacerdotal leaders, their subserviency to the Roman authorities, their contempt for the Messianic hope and the doctrine of the resurrection, had alienated from them the affection of the people, and, in the eyes of some, even cast discredit on the Temple itself. Some indeed were so disheartened that they fled the official sanctuary and its servants, and, afar from the world, devoted themselves to the service of God and a strict observance of the Law. The Essenes represented this movement: grouped in small communities they lived on the borders of the Dead Sea, near Engaddi.

The Sadducean priests persecuted Jesus Christ and His disciples. As for the Essenes, they lived alongside of the new Faith, and if they did embrace it, it was but slowly. The Pharisees, so often condemned in the Gospels for their hypocrisy, their false zeal, and their peculiar practices, did not form a special sect; the name was applied generally to all those who were ultra-scrupulous in following the Law, and not the Law only, but the thousand observances with which they had amplified it, attributing as much importance to them as to the fundamental precepts of morality. Still, they were faithful defenders of the Messianic hopes and of belief in the resurrection. Beneath their proud and overstrained attachment to details of observance, they had a solid foundation of faith and piety. Amongst them the Gospel made many excellent converts.

r. 13«4]

THE FIRST DISCIPLES

But what circumstances first attended that movement in the religious world of Palestine, which culminated in the foundation of the Church? All accounts agree in pointing out as its starting-point a small group of persons living in Jerusalem during the last years of the Emperor Tiberius (3^0_37 a.d.). These first believers acknowledged the name and doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, recently condemned to death by order of the procurator Pilate, at the instigation of the Jewish authorities. Many of them had known Him in life; all knew that He had been crucified; all believed also that He had risen from the dead; although only a few of their number had actually rejoiced over His presence after His resurrection. They believed Him to be the promised and expected Messiah, the Messenger, the Son of God, who was to re-establish in the world a reign of righteousness and bring about the final triumph of good over evil. He had promised to found a kingdom, the Kingdom of God, from which the wicked should be excluded, and which would be open to all who loved Him. His death indeed had delayed the accomplishment of this promise ; but its certain fulfilment was pledged to them by the triumphant defeat of death in the resurrection of the Master. He was now seated at the right hand of God, His Father, and from thence He would come again to manifest His glory and to found His Kingdom.

Meanwhile, His faithful followers went about spreading the good news, the Gospel, and thus gathering in the elect. They lived in close spiritual union: the same faith, the same expectation, bound them closely to one another. The leaders were twelve men who, during the preceding years, had lived in His most intimate circle; they had received from Jesus's lips the teaching they imparted in His name, and they could bear witness to His miracles. This intimacy with their Master had not indeed prevented their forsaking Him at the critical moment, and it was not without a struggle that they acknowledged His resurrection. But it was manifest before long that now their convictions were proof against all contradiction and all trials

This first group of the faithful were still deeply imbued with the Jewish spirit. Between them and the pious Jews there was scarcely room for dissension. All that the sincerely religious people of their nation believed, hoped, and practised, they also believed, hoped, and practised. They went with the rest to the Temple; they submitted to the common observances of the Law. One point alone distinguished them : for them the Messiah did not belong to a vague, uncertain future. They had found Him, for He had come and had revealed Himself: and they were sure of seeing Him again soon.

But if there was nothing in all this which ran counter to Jewish ideas or prejudices, it was not likely that such an expectation, and the social ties it led to, would suit the Jewish priesthood, or fail to affect it. To acknowledge the claim of Jesus, and specially to point to Him as the Hope of Israel, was to protest against the execution of One whom the rulers of the nation had thought dangerous, guilty, and worthy of death. Besides this, the popular movement which had so greatly alarmed the high priest was appearing in another form. Quiet preaching had replaced the loud acclamations, but there seemed already more steady adherents than during the lifetime of Jesus; they were increasing every day, and enrolling in an organized society. They had their leaders—the very friends whom Jesus had gathered round Him in Galilee at the first.

In these circumstances it would have been surprising had the Jewish authorities not made life difficult for the disciples of Jesus. And this is just what they did, as the book of the Acts records.¹ The apostles, when arrested and reprimanded, defied all prohibitions, and neither stripes nor imprisonment intimidated them. The priests, however, had not a free hand. The governor apparently was not inclined to lend himself to new condemnations. But there was worse to come. Stephen, one of the first converts, a zealous helper of the apostles, was accused of blasphemy against the Holy Place and against the Law of ¹ St Matt. x. 16-24 : 1 Thess. ii. 14.

PRIMITIVE ORGANIZATION

Moses. To judge by the speech he is described as making in the Acts of the Apostles, it does seem that his words were rather peculiarly vehement. At any rate, the Sanhedrim, perhaps encouraged by the weakness of the governor, or taking advantage of the post being temporarily vacant, pronounced sentence of death against Stephen, and caused him to be stoned in the traditional manner. They followed this up with severe measures against the faithful, and the terrified community dispersed for a time. But the alarm did not last long, and the " Church," as it now began to be called, soon came together again.

The internal organization of the Church seems to have been very simple. Converts were admitted by baptism, the symbol of their union with Jesus, in whose name it was administered, and also of the conversion, the moral reform promised by the believer. A common daily meal was the sign and bond of their corporate life. There they celebrated the Eucharist, a perceptible and mysterious memorial of the invisible Master. In those first days the desire for a common life was so intense that they even practised community of goods. This led to administrative developments; the apostles chose out seven helpers who were the fore-runners of the Deacons. A little later there appeared an intermediate dignity, a council of elders (presbyteri, priests), who assisted the apostles in general management and took counsel with them.

Although this first Christian community grew rather rapidly, it soon had to give up the hope of incorporating the main body of Palestinian Jews. Its missionary work came into conflict not only with the ill-will of the religious authorities, but also with public opinion. Opposed in Jerusalem, it spread in other directions, apparently rather to suit circumstances than according to any preconceived plan. The dispersion, following on the death of Stephen, scattered far and wide many enthusiastic believers, and they spread the " good news " not only throughout Palestine, but further still, in Phenicia and Syria, and even as far as the island of Cyprus. Galilee, the first home of the

Gospel, still preserved a nucleus of the early dHiptes S they were also found even at Damascus, in the kingdom of Arabia. It was at this time, and in these circumstances, that the infant Church gained the most unexpected adherent in the person of Saul of Tarsus, an eager and learned zealot of the Law, and till then a fanatical persecutor of the disciples of Jesus. Converted by a vision of the Lord as he journeyed from Jerusalem to Damascus, he joined himself first to the Christians there, and then began to evangelize the kingdom of Arabia.

Like all the first converts, Saul was a Jew by birth, imbued with the exclusive and disdainful spirit which inspired his race and influenced all their dealings with other nations. In this little Jewish world, it was taken for granted that the Kingdom of God was for the people of God, for the privileged race whom He had loaded with favours, and to whom He had made so many promises. But the people of God, as a whole, seemed but little disposed to join the ranks of believers in Jesus, and so there gradually arose among these latter a tendency to enlarge the borders of their community. Some of them, driven from Jerusalem by persecution, made their appeal to men like the minister of the Queen of Ethiopia and the centurion Cornelius, who were well disposed towards the Jewish faith, and who practised it to some extent. Even the Samaritans were attracted by the preaching of the Gospel. The book of the Acts relates some typical and characteristic episodes which, even when they do not expressly say so, convey the impression that such conversions were not unattended with difficulty. The admission of the centurion Cornelius and his companions into the Church roused such strong opposition among the Christians in Jerusalem, that the Apostle Peter found it necessary to confute them ; but he did so only by sheltering himself under a Divine intervention.

following spring, passing through Macedonia and by the coast of Asia, he definitely set sail for Phenicia and Palestine. About the Feast of Pentecost (58 A.D.)^{^[6]} he arrived at Jerusalem.

Paul thus returned to the cradle of Christianity, after long years spent in preaching the Gospel in distant lands, where no one else had as yet brought the " good news." He had laid solid and living foundations throughout the greater part of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. Thanks to him, the great towns of Ephesus, Thessalonica, and Corinth, and many others also, had churches glowing with faith, zeal, and charity. What these great achievements had cost him may be imagined; indeed he tells us something of it in one of his letters;^{^[7]} besides all the necessary inconveniences of long journeys, hunger and thirst, brigands and shipwrecks, he enumerates the results of his conflicts with the authorities, scourgings, stonings, " stripes above measure." The apostle was also a martyr. No one else had laboured or suffered more for the common faith. He brought to the mother church of Jerusalem the homage of his new foundations, and also, in token of their respectful love, a large tribute in alms. Yet he was far from hopeful as to the welcome awaiting him, and his misgivings, as was soon seen, were but too well founded.

The narrow spirit, which Paul's broad - minded tendency had encountered ten years ago, had been overcome in Antioch, but in Jerusalem things were very different. The apostles had long quitted the Holy City. And if in such surroundings there had ever been any men with a wider outlook, they seem to have followed the apostles, and had either migrated to Antioch or had taken to mission work. Thus left to themselves, the old conservatives could but become more inveterately rigid. At
their heackwas James, the brother of the Lord, who had been held in high esteem from the days of the first apostles, and had with them ruled the local church. He was renowned for sanctity and profoundly pious, but deeply attached to Jewish customs, and little inclined to minimize their obligatory character. The people about him had rather suffered Paul's boldness than acquiesced in it. From them had emanated the influences which for the moment divided the Christians in Antioch, and brought Peter and Paul into collision. They also sent out emissaries, who dogged Paul's footsteps in Asia Minor and Greece, and endeavoured to bring the Greeks and proselytes he had converted under the strict Judaic law, trying to impose circumcision upon them, and as a means to this end, striving to bring the apostle of the Gentiles into personal disrepute.

Over these conflicts and crises the peace-making book of the Acts passes very lightly. But by this time six letters of St Paul were already in circulation. They give us much more precise information. In the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, written during Paul's first visit to Corinth, there is no question, as yet, of this Judaizing opposition. The apostle pours out his heart to dearly- loved disciples; he recalls to their memory the trials they had to endure from the Jews, when Christianity was first preached to them. These trials have not ceased. They must be borne with patience. It is a pleasure to Paul to congratulate his Thessalonians on their attitude and conduct: he is proud of them. Their hearts are filled with the thought of the approaching advent of the Lord: the apostle answers their questions and does his best to calm them.

p. 30-1] JUDAIZING OPPOSITION

The Epistles to the Corinthians follow these idyllic letters, and both bear witness to some misunderstanding between the apostle and his neophytes. Their conduct seems to have given him more than one cause for complaint, but what hurts him most is, that different schools of opinion have grown up amongst them, and that his authority is called in question. Other missionaries have passed through Corinth since his vi»t. Some have made a show of a more advanced teaching than that of Paul, who had had to keep to the elements of the faith. Others came with letters of commendation, making capital out of the name and authority of the great apostles, compared to whom, Paul, they would have you believe, was only a second-rate missionary. All this had led to divisions, and in the Church of Corinth there is one party of Paul and another of Apollos; others appeal to Peter, and others again to Christ Himself.

Yet there is nothing in these letters to lead to the conclusion that the apostle's rivals had introduced Judaizing tendencies in Corinth. The way in which Paul speaks of circumcision and of idolators,¹ implies rather that his mind was quite easy on that score.

It was not so in Galatia. This country, evangelized by Paul during his first mission, and which he had twice visited since then, contained several Christian communities which had every reason to consider him as their special director. To them came the Judaizing preachers, telling them that Paul was an apostle of whom they should beware, and that salvation could only be secured by circumcision. The good Galatians allowed themselves to be got hold of and circumcised. When Paul heard this, he hastened to write them a burning epistle, in which his indignation at the stupidity of his beloved disciples struggles hard with the paternal tenderness he feels for them. Paul was not of a very long-suffering disposition ; these Judaizers suffer considerably at his hands in the letter to the Galatians.

The opinions which circumstances led him to express here in a more or less stormy manner, he repeats more calmly in his Epistle to the Romans,² written at Corinth during the winter preceding his return to Jerusalem.

Gentiles, Jews, all are sinners, some without the law, others under the law. The Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles, except their position as guardians of the Word of God. Salvation, justification, that is to say, ¹ I Cor. vii. 17-24 ; viii.-x. ² Rom. i.-xi.

reconciliation «rith God, can only come through faith. This is the meaning of the dispensation which began with Abraham.

Sin had reigned since Adam, and death by sin, and from Jesus Christ, the second Adam, flows life-giving grace. The Law of Moses, formerly inefficacious, and apt rather to cause sin than to justify, was now abrogated and replaced by the Christian Law, the law of liberty, which consists in the simple obligation of conformity to Jesus Christ.

This theology sweeps away the Mosaic Law entirely, not only its obligation, but even its utility. The law is of no use; it is no advantage to be a Jew. Here Paul suddenly faces a question of actual fact. What is then the position of Israel? The apostle does not hesitate. In spite of his strong feeling of nationality, he declares that the mission of Israel is at an end, or rather that it is interrupted. God, angry at their unbelief, has turned His face from them; it is to the Gentiles now that the Promise is addressed. Israel is like a branch broken off from the olive tree, and in his place the Gentiles are grafted in. Yet the time will come when the remnant of the people of God will share in the heritage.

This manifesto, addressed to the Christians in Rome, and passed on to other Christian communities, must have preceded the apostle on his visit to Jerusalem. In the eyes of his adversaries it amounted to a declaration of apostasy.¹ The law, circumcision, Jewish life, the dignity of the people of God, he repudiates all. The reception awaiting him in the Holy City is easy to imagine. Just then the national feeling was much excited. The rapacious and brutal rule of the Roman procurators had alienated the minds of these turbulent people more and more from the empire. The official priesthood, swamped by the fanaticism of the zealots, felt their authority failing; tumults, suppressed with difficulty, were always threatening round the temple; insurrection was at hand. No doubt,

¹ This is the term which the book of the Acts puts in the mouth of the Judaizing party in Jerusalem : a.irouTa.<j'ia.v di5d<TK€is airo Mwi'trewr.— Acts xxi. 21.

P. PS-4]

ST PAUL'S RETURN

the faithful followers of Jesus, absorbed in their own hopes, were not drawn into these excesses; but, in the midst of all this fierce exasperation, how were they to possess their souls in patience ?

Paul was welcomed by his friends, and presented himself before James the day after his arrival. There he found the council of "elders" assembled, and he told them of his apostolic journeys, of the churches which he had founded, and no doubt handed over to them at the same time the proceeds of the collection he had made for the needs of the mother-church. When he had finished, they began by congratulating him. Then they called his attention to the great number of Jewish converts,¹ to their extreme devotion to the Law, and to the unfortunate reputation which he (Paul) had amongst them. To remove these suspicions, the only thing for him to do was to prove, by some striking demonstration, that he had been calumniated, and that he was, as always, a faithful observer of the Law.

Paul, whose principle it was "to be all things to all men," accepted this solution of the difficulty. He joined four of the disciples, who had taken upon themselves the vow of Nazarites, allowed his head to be shorn, submitted with them to the customary ritual purifications, and took part with them in a series of devotional exercises in the Temple courts. These lasted seven days, and were concluded by a sacrifice. The writer of the Epistle to the Romans, after having bid such a decided farewell to the Law of Moses, again feels its weight upon his rebellious shoulders.

The ordeal was just over. God alone knows what would have happened when Paul found himself again face to face with those who had imposed it upon him. But suddenly the whole course of events was changed. If Paul was in bad odour among the Christian zealots, we may imagine that there was not much affection for him amongst the Jewish zealots. These latter saw him in the Temple, and at once made an uproar. He would have

¹ II<5<rcu fivpiaSa.

perished, had not the commander of the Roman garrison rescued him, protected him from the fanatics, and for his greater safety, sent him off to Caesarea, to the procurator Felix. There he was formally accused by the heads of the Jewish priesthood, but not convicted. Finally, after being kept two years in Caesarea, as he insisted upon his privilege as a Roman citizen, and his right to be judged by the emperor, he was sent to Rome.

Thus Paul escaped from internal dissensions to appear in the character of defender of the common faith. Like Jesus, he was denounced to the Romans by the Jews, his own countrymen.

But, at any rate, they distributed their hatred with impartiality, for James also, James the Judaizer, the head of the Judaizing Church, suffered from it. In 62 a.d. the high priest Annas the younger, taking advantage of the death of the procurator Festus, summoned James, with several other Christians, before the Sanhedrim, as violators of the Law, and sentenced them to be stoned. This sentence was immediately executed.

This enforced pause in the internal dissensions will serve for an inquiry as to what, in the eyes of the majority of Christian converts, was the relationship between the ancient Hebrew traditions and the new development introduced by the Gospel.

CHAPTER IV

t1ie christian ■ the apostolic age

The religious tradition of Israel. The Law of Moses, and faith in Jesus Christ. Biblical education. The end of all things. The person of Christ: His divinity. Jesus Christ, Son of God, the Saviour. The Christian life : renunciation of the world ; grouping in local confraternities. Religious assemblies on the lines of the synagogue. The Eucharist, the charismata. Organization of the infant churches.

The Christian convert, whether from the ranks of pure Judaism or from the bosom of paganism, came into the community by an act of faith in Christ Jesus.

He believed that Jesus was the Messiah expected by Israel, that He had died and had risen again, as had been foretold in the sacred books of the Jews.¹ His faith in Christ was, as it were, wrapped up in a more comprehensive faith in the religious tradition of Israel, however that tradition might be restricted or interpreted by individual preachers. The most ardent disciple of St Paul, if faithful to his master's fundamental opinions, could never dream of representing Christianity as a perfectly new religion. Moses might have become less important, but Abraham remained, and with Abraham a whole series of facts, persons, beliefs, and institutions, linking the Gospel to primitive history, to the very beginning of the world, and to God, its Creator.

To the new disciple this hoary past was personified in a nation, living with vigorous religious life in its Palestinian ¹ I Cor. xv. 3 ct scq.

centre, and its colonies in the Hellenic world. It was, moreover, represented by a unique sacred literature, of which the latest productions were books of his own day. For if the Old Testament be considered as a storehouse of the memorials of ancient Israel, it certainly should include Josephus. He related for the public of his own time, and above all for the Christians, the catastrophes which ruined the Jewish nation. After his day, the Jews seemed schismatic and undeveloped Christians; before them, on the contrary, the Christians were progressive Jews.

Whatever these transient relations were, it is certain that Christianity has its roots in Jewish tradition, that the first crises in its history are those of the separation of mother and child, that Christianity always regarded Jewish history as the preface to its own, and that the sacred books of Israel are sacred also to the Christian ; there was, indeed, a time when he knew no others.

Thus, admission into Christianity was necessarily and actually regarded as incorporation into Israel, an enlarged Israel it is true, but still fundamentally the same. As to this identity, however, opinions differed very early. The minds of the Jews of the 1st century were especially occupied with their national Law, and those of the Christians with their Founder and Head. The Judaic- Christians, who, of the two, preferred the Law, and only consented to the evangelization of the Gentiles under exceptional circumstances, were soon out of the main stream of opinion; in the 2nd century they were classed with heretics. Those who allowed the Gentiles a share in the privileges of the Gospel, although not on quite equal terms, were soon carried farther; and this not so much by the special influence of St Paul, as by the general trend of circumstances. They had to admit that to the Christian there was no equality between Jesus Christ and Moses; that the foundation is Jesus, and not the legislation of Sinai; that it is Faith that saves, and not the observance of the Law. The letters of St Paul, when they describe the first Christians, not as they were during times p. 38-9] JUDAIC FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY 29

of conflict but in their normal state, bear witness that this —except in Palestine—was the general position.

There is no doubt that the personal opinions of the apostle went much farther. But as to some of his theories, he docs not appear to have been followed, e.g., in his view of the Law as an occasion of sin.^{^[8]} The Church stopped short of his conception : the Law was considered as an abrogated rule, which had had only good effects in its time, and it was also acknowledged to have the value of a shadow, enhancing the new light of the Gospel, or even that of a figure, an imperfect type, a first attempt

To represent the Christianity of the first Gentile converts as charging blindly against the Law (like St Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians), would be to misunderstand it very gravely. The greater number of early converts, who were what is termed Hellenist-Christians, were deeply dyed with Judaism. St Paul himself, we must repeat, is no doubt represented one-sidedly by some of his statements; we shall receive a more accurate impression of his ordinary attitude by dwelling on that which the Church has retained, rather than by attending exclusively to what the Church has either allowed to drop, or interpreted in her own way.

Thus the Jewish tradition, the Old Testament, was adopted in its entirety by Christianity. From this fact, a very important advantage accrued to the new converts. The Bible gave them a history, and what a history! This book carried them back much farther than any of the Greek traditions—any tradition, that is, based on a rational foundation, and not confusing men with gods. The Bible took them back far behind the Macedonians, the Persians, the Jews themselves as a nation, and finally touched the most ancient period of Egyptian and Chaldean archaeology.^{^[9]}

What is infinitely more important, is that it goes back to the very origin of things. It shows the world issuing from the creative hand of God, the introduction of evil by the abuse of liberty, the first propagation of mankind, and the foundation of the earliest human institutions.

But besides these magnificent stories, the Bible furnished many others, of a charm and utility which soon became apparent. A glance at the monuments of primitive Christian art is enough to show what glowing impressions sprang from tales like those of Job, Jonah, Daniel, Susanna, and the three young Jews in the fiery furnace. The prophetic books bore witness to the expectation of the people of God, they disclosed all the characteristics of the Messiah and His kingdom, and justified the cessation of sacrifices and other Mosaic rites. Even the Wisdom literature, side by side with precepts of common and continual use, furnished valuable insight into Uncreated Wisdom. Of the value of Psalter there is hardly need to speak; its admirable prayers have ever been on the lips of Christians, and are the corner-stone of their liturgy.

P. 41-2]

EARLY CHRISTOLOGY

Of course, in accepting, or rather in retaining, books of such ancient date, and of such diverse character, the primitive Christian Church also accepted, or retained, the method in which these books were used both formerly and at that time. Whether at public readings in religious assemblies, as food for edification, or as a weapon in controversy, the Holy Scriptures always required interpretation. The character of these interpretations would vary according to the surroundings in which they were made, or the books to which they referred, but practically all interpretations agreed in assigning to the text a meaning applicable to the time then present, whether this meaning were or were not identical with that accepted when it first appeared. All those books are divine; the things which they tell us are the teaching of God Himself. This general principle, often proclaimed in the Church, is the very foundation of the religion of the Holy Scriptures, as practised by the first Christians, and as it had been practised by the Jews before them.

The traditions of Israel did not, however, only provide the Christian with food for meditation on the past; they turned his mind also towards the future, towards the region of hope. Here too much distinction must not be drawn between the books of the Old Testament and those of the New, or between the canonical and apocryphal books. All accentuate one point, the end of all things is at hand; God will shortly avenge Himself; His Messiah will come, or will return. And in spite of certain isolated traits which show that St Paul was occasionally free from this obsession, there is no doubt it overshadowed the minds of the first Christians.

But the thoughts of the faithful were always brought back, from the origin of all things or from their final end, to their religious state in the actual present. They were Christians through Jesus Christ, because a Man called Jesus, whom most of them had never seen, had called them to Himself. This Man had died ; He had risen again ; he was seated now at the right hand of God. He would soon reappear in glory, and fight a decisive battle against evil. Who was He ? Whence originated this conception of religious Leader, of powerful Representative of God, of Judge of all mankind ? As the Jewish Messiah, He had a history behind Him ; He had been predestinated by God, foretold and described by the prophets. One of His highest titles was that of Son of God. But on this most essential point there was no question of keeping within the Jewish tradition ; the declarations of St Paul, St John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, manifestly surpassed it. And their declarations only expanded the common belief, which, though at that time still wanting in power of expression, was deep and unyielding. Jesus, although He belonged, through the reality of His manhood, to the realm of visible creation, belonged also, in the very depth of His being, to the Godhead. How that could be was to be made clear by degrees. But the essence of this belief was in the souls of Christians from the first. The New Testament reveals it in its earliest as in its latest books ; following the New Testament, the early Christian books, whether orthodox or gnostic, all take this fundamental belief for granted, as universally accepted and firmly rooted in tradition.

And here considerable stress must be laid on the Jewish education, through which Christian thought had passed. Among pagans there were many ways of being divine; the old gods of Olympus were gods by birth, their genealogies were well known ; others, however, were merely deified heroes. The Macedonian and Moorish kings, like many others, had been worshipped ; so were the Roman emperors still. One god more or less was of no consequence to the polytheistic conscience.

It was quite otherwise with a conscience formed by the religion of Israel. " Hear O Israel! thy God, the God of Israel, is One." This credo is that of the modern, as of the ancient Jew, and expresses what is both most profound and most obvious in their religion. To admit that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are God, is to admit that they participate in the very essence of the One God, that they are, each of them, identical with Him, yet without being deprived of certain special characteristics.

This is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity ; not certainly, as it was formulated later, in opposition to transient heresies, but as it appealed to the general conscience of the early Christians, and claimed the homage of their faith. The generality of Christians in the 1st century, even in apostolic days, stood here almost exactly at the same point as present-day Christians. Theologians knew, or at any rate said, far more about it. Our subject, however, is religion, and not the schools.

But Jesus is not only the Messiah and the Son of God, He is also the Saviour.¹ If He welcomes all His

¹ This is the definition expressed by the celebrated formula, 'lijarovs Xpiarrii GeoC Tlds 2wtt}/j, which also gave the anagram, IX9TZ, and the symbol of the fish.

p. 44-5] FAITH SUPERSEDES THE LAW

These words lead us to conclude that the adversaries whom St Paul was combating were trying to introduce : ist, the observance of feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths; 2nd, abstinence from certain food, and practices of humiliation ; 3rd, the worship of angels. Perhaps the question of circumcision was still under discussion (ii. 11): it seems rather to be indicated in the term humiliation. Though this has all a Jewish flavour, yet the days of the controversy in the Epistle to the Galatians are over. The discussion no longer turns on the opposition between Faith and the Law, but rather on special ceremonies, corresponding with special doctrines, which they thought to establish on the apostolic foundations.

Behind these ceremonies is discernible a special line of teaching, of which the characteristic feature is the excessive importance attributed to the angels.¹ St Paul does not go into details; he rather expounds his own doctrine, than analyzes that of his adversaries. But the way he insists that everything was created by Jesus Christ, and for Him, that He holds the first place in the work of creation and in that of redemption, shows that the teachers of Colossae had tried to detract from the position of the Saviour in the minds of the Phrygians. Later heretical systems, as we shall see, set up the angels over against God, attributing to them the creation of the world, and the responsibility for evil, both moral and physical. But here the relations between God and the angels are entirely different. The angels are not the enemies of God, for they are worshipped, and they complete the work of salvation, left unfinished by the Christ. Yet all these characteristics, these intermediaries between God and the world, these distinctions as to food, these humiliations of

¹ The Essenes attributed a particular virtue to the knowledge of the names of the angels. (Josephus, Bell. jud. ii. 8, 7.) They also practised various forms of abstinence. Although these practices had a local character, there were, nevertheless, Essenes outside Engaddi, scattered in the towns, and living amongst the other Jews, whilst keeping up their own observances. In the 4th century, the worship of angels reappeared in Asia, and just in the very vicinity of the Lycus. The famous sanctuary of St Michael at Chonae, near the ancient Colossae (Bonnet, Narratio de miraculo a Michaele Archangelo Choms patrato; cf. Bull, critique, 1890, p. 441) may date from that time. The council of Laodicea mentions (1can. 35) religious coteries which assembled to do honour to the angels, and invoked them by name. Besides the three angels mentioned in the Bible, the Jews recognised many others, such as Uriel, Jeremiel, etc.

the flesh, these all show the connection between the Judaic gnosticism,¹ and the false doctrines St Paul opposed at Colossae.

Now the eTTiyvoocris, inculcated by the Apostle is of this kind. Progress in objective faith means progress in the conception of Christ. Note that the expressions used in these Epistles do not touch the relations between Christ and His heavenly Father. The expression, the Word, does not occur at all. Paul had no need for it, he was dealing only with the relation between Christ and creatures. An attempt was being made to reduce Him to the level of the angels; St Paul extols Him above every creature, and he does not only accord to Him the first place, but also makes Him the raison detre, the principle of life, the end, even the Author of creation.

From this high conception of Christ, his theory of the Church is derived.² The Church is the aggregate of all created beings touched by the work of salvation. God has extended salvation to men of every race, Greeks, Jews, Barbarians, Scythians, bond and free ; and this, by a free gift. The Church, thus recruited, owes all to Jesus Christ; He is its raison d'etre, its vital principle, its Head, its Chief. He came down from heaven to form it, by accomplishing the work of salvation upon the Cross. Since His Ascension, He still carries on, in His Church, the development and the perfecting of His work. He instituted the different degrees of ecclesiastical ministry, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, that He might fit the saints for their part in the corporate work, in that holy building which is the Body of Christ. By Christ's work, transmitted through these His instruments, we all grow in one faith, and in one knowledge

1 It is held by some that as St Paul in this passage speaks of aeons and of Pleroma, that he refers to the heresies of the Gnostics. But it is Paul himself, not his adversaries, who employs these terms, and in a different sense from that which they would have had among the Valentinians. It was the Gnostics who borrowed these words from St Paul just as they adopted St John's words Logos, Zoe, etc. (the Word and the Life).

2 Eph. iv., cf. Col. iii. i™

p. 74-5] ST PAUL'S CII1UST0L0GY 55

(eTrlyvaxrii), a faith and knowledge, having always the Son of God as their objective—and thus we attain the end of our calling, that complete manhood, which is the possession of Christ in all fulness.

Thus, in the Church, all doctrinal life comes from Jesus Christ; all progress in knowledge proceeds from Him, and leads to a more perfect apprehension of Him, and of that Pleroma, that Divine fulness, which dwells in Him. The whole Christian life comes from Him and leads to Him. Later on, St John expressed this great thought under the image of the Alpha and the Omega.

But this development of doctrine is attended with danger, due to false teaching, as variable as the wind or the chances of a game, which arising from the frowardness of man, craftily leads into error minds not yet fully established in the true faith.¹ Paul even suggests that these systems, straying from orthodox tradition, would culminate in a justification of sensual corruption.

The course of events more than justified the fears of the Apostle. The documents available for the understanding of these first phases of heresy, certainly carry us a long way from the time when St Paul wrote to the Colossians. They are, moreover, rather polemical than descriptive. But they make it clear, that long before the famous gnostic schools of Hadrian's reign, similar teaching to theirs insinuated itself everywhere, dividing the faithful laity, perverting the Gospel, and tending to transform it into an apology for human frailty.

Such is the situation revealed in the so-called pastoral letters, two of which, addressed to Timothy, apparently refer to some crisis in the province of Asia. The preachers of heresy are no longer alluded to vaguely as in the Epistle to the Colossians; their names are given : Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander. They pose as teachers of the Law (rojuoSiSacr/caXot) ; their teachings are Jewish fables; they address themselves to weak minds, full of curiosity, tormented with " itching ears," and St Paul says, especially to women, filling their minds with questions as ¹ Eph. iv. 17-24-
silly as they were subtle, with fables and endless genealogies. As to practice they inculcated abstinence from marriage, and from certain kinds of food. The resurrection was regarded as already past, i.e., there is no resurrection but that from sin. And, over and above the danger to faith involved by intercourse with these false teachers, it gave rise to controversies which strained the bonds of Christian charity.

The pastoral epistles show us St Paul much grieved to find so many tares in his apostolic harvest. Other documents, which allude to heresies and to the anxiety they cause the heads of the Church, exhibit not only grief but indignation, e.g., the Epistle of St Jude, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the Apocalypse of St John. Heretics are denounced as teachers of immorality, who degrade the grace of God, the Gospel, to the service of sensuality; for them Divine justice reserves the most terrible punishments. Here also we hear of cunningly devised fables; other things are condemned, but with more energy than precision.

St John also, in the seven letters with which his Apocalypse opens, shows himself much provoked. In the churches of Asia, a propaganda of immoral tendencies was raging. It allowed fornication, and meats offered in pagan sacrifice. The teaching on which this lax moral standard was grafted, is nowhere described ; it is characterized, however, by a strong term : the "depths of Satan."^{^[17]}The false teachers claim to be apostles, and are not; they pretend to be Jews, and are of the synagogue of the devil. Twice² they are mentioned by name; they are Nicolaitanes.

r. 77-8]

HERESY OF CERINTHUS

From all this certainly no clear conception results of the errors prevalent in Asia at the time of the Apocalypse. Nor does tradition throw any light on them. St Irenasus only knew the heresy of the Nicolaitanes³ from the words of St John ; he sums them up in the words indisfyc vivunt. Clement of Alexandria knows no more. Nevertheless, both connect the sect of the Nicolaitanes with the deacon Nicolas, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.^{^[18]}No such connection, however, has been proved.²

The Nicolaitanes are not the only heretics with whom St John met. Polycarp used to tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, on entering the baths at Ephesus,^{^[19]} saw there a certain Cerinthus, and immediately left, saying, " Let us fly ; the house may fall, for it shelters Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth." St Irenreus, who preserved this story of Polycarp's, gives^{^[20]} details on the doctrine of Cerinthus, and St Hippolytus^{^[21]} adds to his account. From them we learn that Cerinthus was in fact a Jewish teacher, an advocate of Sabbath observance, circumcision, and other rites. Like the Ebionites of Palestine, he taught that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary. God (>} virep ra o\a avBevrla) is too far above this world to concern himself with it at all, except through intermediaries. An angel created the universe; another, who gave the Law, is the God of the Jews. They are both too far below the Supreme Being to have any knowledge of Him. When Jesus was baptized a divine power, the Christ (Irenaeus) or the Holy Spirit (Hippolytus) proceeding from the Supreme God, descended upon Him, and dwelt within Him, but only until His Passion.^{^[22]}

About twenty years after the date of the Apocalypse, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, condemned to death as a Christian, and destined to be thrown to the wild beasts at Rome, passed rapidly through the province of Asia. In the letters which he had occasion to write to certain churches there, he also discusses the doctrinal situation, and warns the faithful against the heresies being sown in their midst.

And what strikes him above all is the tendency to split into sects and schisms. He had seen with his own eyes, at Philadelphia, heretical assemblies.^{^[23]}

" Some tried to deceive me according to the flesh, but the Spirit is not deceived, for it is of God. The Spirit knows whence it comes, and whither it goes, and reveals hidden things. I cried out in the midst of their speeches, I cried with a loud voice : ' Hold fast to the bishop, to the presbytery and to the deacons'—Some of them imagined that I spoke thus, because I knew of their separation; but He, for Whom I bear these chains, is my witness, that it was not the flesh, nor was it any man who had told me of this. It was the Holy Spirit, Who proclaims this precept: do nothing without the Bishop; keep your bodies as the temple of God ; love union, flee from division ; be imitators of Jesus Christ, as He is of His Father."

Those who promoted these assemblies were wandering preachers, who went from town to town sowing their tares. They were not always successful. Thus, on the road from Philadelphia to Smyrna, Ignatius met heretical preachers coming from Ephesus, where they had had no success.^{^[24]}Ignatius probably knew these heretics before coming to Asia, and wished to forewarn the churches there against an enemy, strange to them, though well known to him.

p. 80-1]

IIERETICA Is CI 11ISTO LOG V

The doctrine taught in these coMnticles was, abov« all, permeated with Judaism. It was no longer, of course, simply a question of the Jewish law, but of speculations combining three elements : the Mosaic ritual, the Gospel, and visionary dreams, foreign to both. The Jewish rites, having been excluded as a means of salvation, were now used to recommend and to give shape to rather peculiar religious systems. Ignatius often recurs to the Sabbath, circumcision, and other observances, which he characterises as out of date. He insists upon the authority of the New Testament and of the Prophets, whom he connects with the Gospel as indirectly opposed to the Law.

The Christology of the heretics, the only clearly defined part of their system, is a Docetic Christology: " Become deaf,¹ when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, the descendant of David, the son of Mary, who was truly born, did eat and drink, and who was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, and truly crucified ; who truly died in the sight of heaven, earth, and hell, who was truly raised from the dead by the power of His Father.²... If some who are atheists—that is to say, unbelievers —pretend He suffered only in appearance, they themselves living only in appearance, why then am I bound with these chains? Why do I desire to fight with beasts? Then do I die in vain." These expressions do not apply only to the reality of the death and resurrection of the Saviour ; they cover the whole of His earthly life. They are not aimed at the imperfect Docetism of Cerinthus, but at a real Docetism, like that of Saturnilas and of Marcion, according to whom Jesus Christ had only the appearance of a body.

Eschatology {i.e., the doctrine of the last things) is not touched on ; but the insistence with which Ignatius dwells upon the reality of Christ's resurrection, and upon the hope of individual resurrection, suggests that these heretics

1 Trail, ix. x.

2Observe the analogy with the second article of the Apostles' Creed.

also denied the resurrection of the body.^{^[25]} This would deprive morality of its strongest motive. The words of the letter to the Philadelphians: " Keep your body as the temple of God" seem to indicate that the new doctrines led to immorality. This, however, is merely hinted at. It was not on account of their misconduct, but rather of their sectarian spirit, that the new heretics were a danger to the Church.

P. 08-9]

NATION AT. RELIGIONS

On the death of Agrippa I. (44 a.d.) his kingdom had been restored to the procurators. But from 50 a.d. his son, Agrippa II., who was a favourite of the Emperor Claudius, obtained not only the little principality of Chalcis, in Anti-Lebanon, but also was given power of control over the temple, and the privilege of nominating the high priest. Three years later, his principality was exchanged for a kingdom beyond the Jordan, formed for him out of Philip's late tetrarchy, and part of that of Antipas. The Christians had no reason to complain of him. Indeed, during St Paul's trial before the Roman procurator, he showed himself on the whole favourable to the prisoner; and when St James, the brother of the Lord, was stoned by the order of Hanan the younger, the high priest, Agrippa, in his indignation at once deposed the pontiff. And during the insurrection the Christian community took refuge in his domain. This kindly prince lived till ioo A.D.

But the position of Palestinian Christianity is peculiar. It should therefore not detain us from a survey of the empire as a whole. Let us see what chances of external security the Church is likely to meet with there.

In the days of antiquity, it was regarded as a fundamental principle that¹ man has duties towards the Divinity, and that the citizen of any particular country has special obligations to the gods of his native land. A Roman owed an especial reverence to the gods of Rome, an Athenian to those of Athens, and so on. On the other hand, not only was he free from obligation to the gods of other lands, but he was forbidden to worship them. Religion was essentially national. It was as incongruous for a man to affiliate himself to any foreign cult as to take service in a foreign army, or to devote any fraction of his political activity to a foreign state.

This principle, however, did not forbid foreigners domiciled in the land (piitcqnes, incolae) to practise their alien religion. As they were forbidden to join in the national worship of their temporary home they would have been cut off from all religion, if they could not practise their own peculiar rites. This local contiguity, however, involved no blending of the two religions, no weakening of the barriers which divided them, and no change in the duties of the citizens towards their respective faiths.

This distinction between religions, being dependent on the separation between states, was necessarily disturbed by their fusion. The right of Roman citizenship, when extended to the inhabitants, the citizens, of towns once independent of Rome, naturally involved the spread of the Roman religion itself. Local rites, however, could not be abolished. Neither Fortuna of Praeneste, nor Diana of Aricia could be supposed to have lost her divinity, or

¹ Mommsen, Religions/revel nach romischen Recht, in the His- torische Zeitschrift, vol. Ixiv. (1890), p. 421, and especially Romisches Strafrecht (1899), p. 567, etc.

her claim to worship, because the citizens of Prasneste and of Aricia had become Roman citizens, and had as such incurred obligations to Vesta, to Jupiter Capitolinus, and other gods of the sovereign city. And just as the gods of Rome became the gods of the new citizens, so also the gods of the new citizens became the gods of Rome. When this religious fusion had once become a principle of political conduct, grave consequences ensued. The annexation of southern Italy to the Roman state brought into the Roman Pantheon all the divinities of the various Greek tribes, who had ancient and illustrious colonies on Italian soil.

This adlcctio in divorum ordinem, as it may be termed in Roman style, did not take place without certain formalities. We know the mode of procedure in the case of Apollo and yEsculapius. In many cases, they seem to have gone through a process of identification. Ares was identified with Mars, Aphrodite with Venus, and so on.

Thus the situation created by the annexations in Greece, and the colonization of the West could be met. This was so much to the good. But, both in the East and in the West, there were people whose national faiths would neither square with Greek polytheism, nor with the lines of the Latin religion.

The rulers of the empire would never have entertained the idea of depriving these far-distant subjects of theirs of their own gods; and evidently they carefully abstained from the attempt. All they did was to forbid certain customs which appeared contrary to morality, such as human sacrifices, castration, and circumcision. As to the Celtic religion, Augustus went farther and prohibited it to Roman citizens.

These exotic religions, however, cannot be said to have really blended with the religions of the empire. Isis, Astarte, and Mithras were tolerated, as were Teutates and Odin, but they never attained official recognition. The Celtic religion almost entirely disappeared, thanks to the progress of Roman civilization, or to speak more accurately, thanks to the spread of Latin or Roman law. The same may be said of the Iberian, Mauritanian, and ilyrian

p. 101-2] FUSION UNDER THE EMPIRE

religions, which were brought under the same influences. The oriental rites had a more tenacious vitality, and not only held their own in their respective homes, but also took root in far off Greece and Italy, and even beyond.

In the beginning, their spread was not welcomed. A Greek, and still more a Roman, when attached to his own traditions, shrank from taking part in these exotic rites. At last, however, the character of the empire became so mixed that repugnance ceased. Romans of the highest rank frequented the oriental rites, not only in the East as pilgrims, but even in Rome itself, in the temples set up in the vicinity of the Capitol.

This fusion was facilitated by the utter absence of any exclusiveness on the side of the foreign religions. A devotee of Isis never dreamed that his homage might not be welcomed by Jupiter Capitolinus. In the 4th century, the offices of priest of the Roman and of the oriental religions were held simultaneously by representatives of the oldest families in Rome. A man might be a member of the college of pontiffs or that of the augurs, without being thereby prevented from undergoing the Mithraic rite of the Taurobolia, or even from taking the lead in such ceremonies.

But this did not hold good with the Jewish and the Christian religion. Both of them required a separation which was absolute, and founded on something quite distinct from any feeling of patriotism. It was an exclusiveness of principle. The God of Israel and of the Christians was not a national God, one god amongst other gods. He was the One and only God, the God of the whole world, the Creator of the universe, the Lawgiver and Judge of the whole human race. Other gods were only false gods, defied men, demons, idols. They were of no account. Every other form of worship was a sacrilege. The religions of particular cities, or nations, or of the empire, were but false religions, diabolical errors against which it was the right and the duty of every man to protest.

These gods, these different rites, included by Jew and

Christian under one common condemnation, found a bond of union in this very condemnation, and in the collective reaction excited by it. Paganism now stood face to face with monotheism; and the antagonism which it encountered gave it a certain self-conscious existence.

And not only was paganism now aware of the common foe; it was also aware of its ally the State, the common guardian. Although there were in the Pantheon degrees of standing, though the Syrian goddess, for instance, was not on an equality with Jupiter or Apollo, yet there was a certain fellowship between the various cults. If all the gods were not the gods of the home country, yet none of them were radically opposed to the central group, that of the Roman gods strengthened, under the empire, by the divinities Roma and Augustus. These two universally reverenced gods were represented, and as it were incarnated on earth in all State officials, and lent additional prestige to the other gods, and so accentuated the official side of religion. Anyone not acknowledging them was clearly outside the national religion, as far as the empire had one : such men were without a god, atheists.

p. 10-pg]

ROME AND JUDAISM

As long as the Jews had a national existence, their colonies would be considered as connected with the Palestinian centre, and their national worship as a foreign rite, legal, and even binding on all of Jewish birth, wherever they might be domiciled. The successors of Alexander befriended these Jewish colonies. They not only tolerated, but protected and encouraged them. At the time of the Roman conquest, the Jews could show the pro-consuls charters, in which their existence was recognised, and various privileges specially accorded them, as to Sabbath observance, oaths, and military service. The Romans recognised all this. And even in places where such charters were non-existent, particularly in Rome, they adhered to the generally accepted procedure as to alien rites, and left the Jews unmolested. Yet, if it happened, and it frequently did happen, that Jews were Roman citizens, then complications arose. In the ist century of our era, many undoubted Jews attained positions of high dignity in the empire; but under Tiberius, a far greater number were pressed into the unhealthy army of Sardinia, or turned out of Italy.^{^[33]}They, or their parents, had once been slaves, whose emancipation had made them Roman citizens. Another case in point was that of the proselytes to Judaism. As long as it was only a question of accepting monotheism, and the Jewish moral code, and even of certain observances (such as that of the Sabbath, and of abstaining from swine's flesh), little difficulty arose, especially of course in the case of unimportant folk, and of those outside Rome. But in the case of a proselyte of the upper classes, or of an aristocratic family, if the conversion were so thorough as to involve circumcision, or any other rite implying complete incorporation into the Jewish community, the convert was considered to have thereby renounced his allegiance to the city of Rome ; he was an apostate, a traitor.

Thus real proselytes appear to have been very rare, even before Hadrian prohibited circumcision, or Severus enacted his edict against conversions to Judaism.

In theory, the destruction of the sanctuary at Jerusalem ought to have entailed the suppression, or prohibition, of Jewish rites. But in practice it did not. Vespasian, as a man of the world, clearly discerned that more was involved than nationality, and that Judaism would survive the Jewish State and even the Temple. He contented himself with diverting to Jupiter Capitolinus the tribute of the didrachma, formerly paid by the children of Israel to Jahve and his sanctuary. The Jews, thus involuntarily transformed into clients of the great Roman god, had no reason to complain of him, or the State under his zegis. They retained the liberty and even the privileges they had enjoyed. Thus, Judaism continued to be an authorised religion (religio licitd). Christianity, on the other hand, became a proscribed religion {religio illicita), as soon as the Romans grasped the characteristics which differentiated it from Judaism.

This did not occur immediately. The Roman governors, being practical men, did not care to be drawn into sectarian squabbles. As they had not given the subject any close attention, they had at first some difficulty in distinguishing Christians from Jews, and in understanding why the Christians were so unpopular with the Jews. The perplexities which beset Pilate again beset Gallio, the pro-consul of Achaia, when Paul fell out with the Jews of Corinth, and also the procurators Felix and Festus, when the Jewish high-priest prosecuted St Paul before them. And before this even, the authorities in Rome, observing that the Jews were perpetually quarrelling over a certain Chrestus, settled the matter by expelling both parties.

This ambiguity could not continue. The Jews were not likely to permit an abhorred sect to profit by their privileges, nor to allow themselves to be compromised by the imprudence of Christian evangelists. They were not long in opening the eyes of the authorities. From the time of Trajan it was forbidden to profess Christianity. Pliny,¹ appointed governor of Bithynia, 112 A.D., had never, until he assumed that office, taken any part in proceedings against Christians (cognitiones de christianis) ; but he knew that they did occur, and involved heavy penalties. There must, however, have been a definite moment when the supreme authority in such matters decided that to be a Christian was a penal offence. At what time did this occur? It is very difficult to ascertain. Before Trajan, two persecutions are generally supposed to have taken place, that of Nero, and that of Domitian. But the details related of these persecutions—the martyrdom of Roman Christians falsely charged with the conflagration in 64 A.D., and the death of a certain number of men of high rank.

o »

whom Domitian put out of the way as atheists—are peculiar occurrences easily accounted for quite apart from ¹ Pliny, Ep. x. 96.

p. 107-8] JEWS AND ( IIKISTI \\S

any officifiprohibition of Christianity, and may kave taken place before the existence of any proscriptive law. They do not therefore throw much light on the question.

St Peter in his epistle thus adjures the faithful:—" Let none of you suffer (-Tr^axerco) as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or a busy-body in other men's matters (aW0Tpi€7r!<TK07T0$). Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed."¹ The apostle here speaks of punishments which would be indicted by the authorities appointed to suppress theft, murder, etc., that is by the ordinary courts of justice. It seems improbable that these words would be written before the courts had been specially empowered to take action against Christians, as such. If the date of this epistle could but be fixed with accuracy and certainty, it would help considerably to clear up the point.

The supreme authorities of the empire had at this time, however, several opportunities of informing themselves on the position of the Christian communities with regard to Judaism, and to the laws then in force. It is unlikely that the trial of St Paul, for instance, would have failed to direct their attention to such points. The same may be said of the burning of Rome, and the consequent persecution of those "commonly called Christians."

We are told, though indeed, on rather late authority, that² Titus had grasped the difference between the two religions, and that when he decided to burn the Temple at Jerusalem, he hoped to exterminate both parties. Domitian set himself to augment the amount brought in by the didrachma. He required its payment, not only by Jews registered as such, but also by those who at-

¹ i Peter iv. 15, 16.

- That of a passage of Sulpicius Scverus, Chron. ii. 30, which is believed to have been copied from the lost part of Tacitus' history. At the council of war which took place on the eve of the Fall of Jerusalem, Titus advised the destruction of the Temple "quo plenius Iudaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur ; quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus profectas ; Christianos ex Iudaeis extitisse ; radice sublata stirpem facile perituram." According to Josephus, however, Titus entertained quite other views.

tempted to conceal their origin, and by any living according to Jewish custom, even though they were not Jews by birth, and did not enroll their names. This decision was very rigidly enforced and necessarily entailed a close investigation into the inter-relationship of the Jewish and Christian creeds. And beside these instances which we know, we may be sure others would arise which would claim the attention of the law-givers, and induce them to take a decided line.

When once the religion was proscribed, a private individual might institute proceedings against a Christian by denouncing him before the proper tribunal; or else by pointing him out to the authorities, and setting to work the magistrates, in Rome the prefect, in the provinces the governor and his subordinates. The crime being a capital offence, it was almost always¹ before the governors that the case finally came ; they, at any rate, invariably figure in the stories of the martyrs.

Many, beside Tertullian, have tried to determine what was the exact crime committed by professing Christianity. It is, I think, a mere question of terms. The judicial terminology of the Romans had no equivalent for apostasy from the national religion. The expression crimen laesae Romanae religionis, which occurs once in Tertullian, gives us the right idea, but then it was not a term in general use. The crimen laesae maiestatis (high treason) was, on the contrary, well defined by the law. At the time under consideration, and in the conditions existing when the difficulty arose, there was little difference between the two. An accuser, who wished to take proceedings in proper form, might perhaps have brought an action against a Christian on a charge of high treason. Whether such a case ever actually occurred I know not.²

1 Some towns had preserved their criminal jurisdiction. Their magistrates no doubt condemned many martyrs; but we have no information on this point.

2The only case known that may be an instance of the use of this form of procedure, is that mentioned by Justin in his second Apology, chap. ii. A Roman woman was accused of Christianity by her husband. He " laid an accusation against her, saying that she was a Christian ;"

p. 110-1] PROSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS

passions had been eliminated. In this higher state, she was able to conceive. From the mere sight of the angels, who attended the Saviour, she conceives and gives birth to the third substance, which is pneumatic or spiritual existence (7rvevixaru^k

So far, we are still in the ante-chambers of the inferior world, the Kenoma which is opposed to the Pleroma. The concrete world has yet to be made; only, the three substances, material, psychic, and pneumatic (or spiritual) of which it was to be composed, are as yet in existence. The Creator now at last appears. But he is scarcely a creator, in the strict sense of the word, for the elements of his work exist before him. Hachamoth cannot form him out of the spiritual (pneumatic) substance, over which she exercises no control; she forms him out of animated (psychical) substance. Thus produced, the Creator or Demiurge forms in his turn all animate (psychic) or material (hylic) beings which exist. He is the father of the first, the creator of the rest, the king of both. Among the beings thus produced, we must mention specially the seven heavens, which are angels, but not pure spirits (7rveufxara). The Demiurge works blindly ; unconsciously he reproduces the Pleroma in the inferior sphere of his activity. Hachamoth, in the Kenoma, corresponds to the Abyss, and the Demiurge to the first-born Intellect, the angels or heavens to the other aeons. Knowing nothing of all that is above him, the Demiurge believes himself to be the sole author and master of the universe. It is he who said through the Prophets: " I am God, and there are no other Gods beside me." He made man, but only material man, and animal (psychic) man. Certain men are superior to the others : these are pneumatic or spiritual men. They are not the work of the Demiurge exclusively : a spark of the spiritual substance, brought forth by Hachamoth, has entered into them; and by the infusion of this superior element, they constitute the " elect" of the human race.¹

¹ There are, if we may so say, three places: the Pleroma, where the aeons dwell; the. Ogdoad, the dwelling-place of Hachamoth- Sophia ; the Hebdomad, where the Demiurge dwells; three chiefs,

r. Wl^]

123

VALENTIN US

We will now«Kaminc the Gnostic system of salvation. Of the three kinds of men, some, the material men, are incapable of salvation. They must inevitably perish, with the matter of which they are formed. The spiritual (pneumatic) men have no need of salvation ; they are elect by their very nature. Between these two are the psychic men, who are capable of salvation, but incapable of attaining it, without help from on high. The scheme of Redemption is intended for them. The Redeemer is formed of four elements. The first, without being actually material, has the semblance of matter; the semblance is sufficient, as matter docs not need salvation. The second element is psychic, the third pneumatic, the fourth divine: this is Jesus, the last reon. These three last elements then proceed respectively from the Demiurge, Hachamoth, and from the Pleroma. The aron Jesus did not, however, descend into the Redeemer until the moment of his baptism ; at the moment of his being brought before Pilate, he returned to the Pleroma, taking with him the pneumatic or spiritual element, and leaving the psychic element, clothed with his material semblance, to suffer.

When the creative power of the Demiurge is exhausted, humanity will come to an end. Hachamoth, at last transformed into a celestial neon, will take her place in the Pleroma and become the spouse of Jesus the Saviour. The spiritual (pneumatic) men will pass into the Pleroma with her; they will marry the Saviour's attendant angels. The Demiurge will take the place of Hachamoth, and thus mount one step higher on the ladder of being. He will be followed by those among the psychic men who have attained their aim; the rest, as well as material men, will perish in a general conflagration, which will destroy all matter.

In ordinary phraseology, these three kinds of men arc Valentinians, ordinary Christians, and non-Christians.

the Abyss, Hachamoth, the Demiurge ; three kinds of beings, the divine abstractions (rcons), the inferior abstractions (matter, soul, spirit), and the concrete world.

The first are irrevocably predestined to eternal life, and the last to annihilation. A Valentinian has nothing to do but to let himself live; his acts, whatever they may be, cannot touch the spiritual nature of his being: his spirit is quite independent of his flesh, and is not responsible for it. The moral consequences of this are evident.

Valentinus is an accommodating heretic. No doubt he grants his followers a great deal of liberty in this world, and reserves for them, in the other world, all the advantages of deification. But then he allows that members of the main body of the Church, ordinary Christians, may by practising virtue attain a fairly comfortable felicity. Even the Demiurge himself, the responsible author of Creation, whom the other sects condemned pretty severely, has a very respectable career arranged for him.

The Valentinian Gnosis is throughout a nuptial Gnosticism. From the first abstract aeons to the end, there are perpetual syzygies, marriages, and generations. In this, as in its morality, it recalls rather the Simonian system than that of Saturninus. Basilides,^{^[59]} on the contrary, resembles Saturninus, in that he symbolizes the long process of evolution from the abstract to the concrete otherwise than by imagery connected with sex. His aeons, like the angels of Saturninus, are celibates. But his whole system is not less complicated than that of Valentinus.

125

V. 171-2]

BASILIDES

From the unbegotten Father proceeds Nous; from Nous, Logos; from Logos, Phronesis; from Phronesis, Sophia and Dunamis; who, in their turn bring forth Virtues, Powers, Angels. In this manner the first heaven is populated. There are no less than 365 heavens; that which we sac is t\m last of them. It is inhabited h^the creating angels, of whom the chief is the God of the Jews. He claimed to bring all other peoples into subjection to the nation he favoured, which gave rise to a struggle between him and his companions. In order to restore peace, and deliver man from the tyranny of the demiurges, the Supreme Father sends down Nous, who takes upon him, in Jesus, the semblance of humanity. At the time of his passion, the Redeemer transferred his own form to Simon the Cyrenian, who was crucified in his place. There was, therefore, no reason to honour the crucified, and certainly none to suffer martyrdom for his name's sake. Salvation consisted in a knowledge of the truth, as taught by Basilides.

The Old Testament is rejected as having been inspired by the creator angels. Magic, by which men acquire the mastery over these evil spirits, was much esteemed by the Basilidians. They made use of mystic words; the best known being Abraxas or Abrasax ; the letters of this word in Greek notation give the number 365, that of the heavenly worlds. Their morality is as determinist as that of the Valentinians. Faith is a matter of temperament, not of will. The Passions have a sort of independent existence. They are called appendices, and are animal natures connected with the rational being, who thus finds himself burdened with the abnormal instincts of the wolf or the ape, the lion, the goat, and so on.¹ Without being essentially injured by the mistakes into which its passions lead it, the spiritual soul must nevertheless suffer from the consequences of such mistakes: each sin indeed must be expiated by suffering, if not in this life then in another, for metempsychosis formed a part of the system.

In practical life it seems that originally the Basilidians accepted the rules of ordinary morality. Clement of Alexandria tells us that Basilides and his son Isodore allowed marriage and denounced immorality; but in his day the Basilidians were, as to this, not true to the teach-

¹ Compare this feature with the passions of Hachamoth in the Valentinian system.

ing of their master. By the end of the 2nd century, they had a well-established reputation for immorality.¹

This sect, like that of Valentinus, was primarily a school of thought.

This was also the case with the Gnosticism of Carpocrates.² Like Valentinus and Basilides he was an Alexandrian. His wife, Alexandria, was a native of the island of Cephalonia ; and their son Epiphanes, an infant prodigy, died at the age of seventeen, having already written a book On Justice. Epiphanes was worshipped as a god at Cephalonia, like Simon in Samaria. In the town of Same the Cephalonians erected a temple and a museum, where with sacrifices and literary festivals they celebrated his apotheosis.

Carpocrates was a Platonic philosopher, more or less touched with Gnostic Christianity. He believed in one God, from whom emanated a whole hierarchy of angels. The visible world is their work.³ The souls of men first moved around the Father-God ; then they fell into the power of matter, from which they have to be released to go back to their original state. Jesus, the son of Joseph, naturally born like other men, and subject as they are to metempsychosis, was able, by a remembrance of what he had known in his first existence, and by power sent from above, to obtain dominion over the rulers of this world, and to re-ascend to the Father. It is in the power of all men by following his example, and by the method he used, to despise the creators of this world and to escape from them. They can achieve this equally well, or even better, than he did. This scheme of deliverance is consistent with all conditions of life, and with every kind of act.

If this deliverance is not attained in this life, as it usually is, successive transmigrations will complete what

1 Strom, iii. i et seq.

2 Irenseus i. 25 ; the others followed him, except Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iii. 2, who has preserved important fragments of the Ilepi diKaioiruvTjs of Epiphanes.

3 St Irenseus, in his summary, does not say these angels had rebelled against the Father-God ; but this seems to be implied, and is asserted by St Epiphanius.

127

r. 173-4]

CAUPOCRATES

is lacking. Moreover, all actions are in thwnselves indifferent ; it is only human opinion which makes them good or evil. The "justice," taught by Epiphanes, was essentially community of goods. All property, including women, is to be common to all, exactly as is the light of day.

In many of these particulars, we recognise the influence of Plato. The myth of Phaedrus is grafted upon the Gospel.

Magic was much esteemed by the Carpocratians. Their worship had clearly marked Hellenic features. We have already seen how they honoured the founders of the sect. They also had painted, or sculptured, images of Jesus Christ, reproduced, it was said, from a portrait of Him taken by Pilate's order; they crowned these with flowers, as also those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other wise men.

St Irenaeus refuses to believe that these heretics carried their moral teaching to its extreme limits, or that they went so far as to give themselves up to the abominations which it would authorise. But he acknowledges their moral perversion and the scandal caused thereby. He reproaches the Carpocratians for degrading Christianity, and asks how they can dare claim to belong to Jesus, who, in the Gospel, inculcates such a very different moral code.

The Carpocratians had an answer to this. They declared that the true teaching of Jesus was given secretly to the disciples, and by them communicated only to those worthy of it.

3. Gnostic Teaching

It is unnecessary to go farther with the description of the various Gnostic systems. Certain common and fundamental conceptions are easily discernible under their diversity.

1. God, the Creator and Lawgiver of the Old Testament, is not the True God. Above him, at an infinite distance, is the Father-God, the supreme First Cause of all being.

2. The God of the Old Testament^new not the True God, and in this ignorance the world shared, until the appearance of Jesus Christ, who did indeed proceed from the True God.

3. Between the True God and creation is interposed a most complicated series of beings, divine in their origin ; at some point or other in this series, occurs a catastrophe, which destroys the harmony of the whole. The visible world—often including its creator—originates in this primal disorder.

4. In humanity there are some elements capable of redemption, having come in one way or another from the celestial world above the Demiurge. Jesus Christ came into the world to deliver them from it.

5. As the incarnation could not really amount to a true union between divinity and matter, the accursed, the Gospel story is explained as a moral and transitory union between a divine eeon and the concrete personality of Jesus, or again, by a simple semblance of humanity.

6. Neither the passion nor the resurrection of Christ is therefore real; the future of the predestinate does not permit of the resurrection of the body.

7. The divine element which has strayed into humanity, that is, the predestinated soul, has no solidarity with the flesh which oppresses it. Either the flesh must be annihilated by asceticism (rigorism), or at least the responsibility of the soul for the weaknesses of the flesh must be denied (libertinism).

p. 176-7]

129

PTOLEMY'S LETTER

Such conceptions could certainly not appeal to the authority of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was absolutely repudiated as the inspiration of the Creator. The main body of the Church held to the Israelite Bible, and found a way by which Jahve could be identified with the Heavenly Father. That the Gnostics never did. The letter of Ptolemy to Flora,¹ shows us how the Valentinians practised biblical interpretation. There, the Mosaic Law, as an inference from certain texts in the Gospels, is attributed to three different authors : Moses, the Elders of Israel, and God. In that which is of God, a distinction is drawn between the laws that are good—those of the Decalogue and of natural morality— which the Saviour did not abolish, but fulfilled; and the laws that are unrighteous, such as that of retaliation (lex fallow's), abrogated by the Saviour ; and lastly, those laws which had but the value of shadows, or symbols, such as the ceremonial laws. But it is clear that this sacred Law, composed as it is of good and bad precepts, could not be attributed to the infinitely perfect Being, any more than to the enemy of all good. It is therefore the work of an intermediate God, of the Creator. " Flora," says the teacher, concluding his argument, " must not be disturbed to hear that the spirit of evil, and the intermediate spirit (the Creator) both emanate from the Being who is supremely perfect." " You will learn this," he says, " God helping you, by means of the apostolic tradition, which to us also has been transmitted, along with the custom of judging all doctrines, by the rule of the Saviour's teaching."

This exegetical attitude is, in fact, easy to understand The religious thinkers of the 2nd century felt, as we do, a perpetual temptation to criticize Nature and the Law. Man may well complain of the brutality of the forces of Nature, not only on his own account, but for the sake of all creatures; in other words, man from his very circumscribed point of view, is naturally inclined to maintain that the world is ill-arranged. So likewise, the Law being laid down for the general run of cases, ignores, and cannot but ignore, a thousand particular instances, and in consequence it often appears to be absurd and unjust. But the heart of man dimly discerns that, above this world with its miseries, there is an Infinite Goodness, manifesting itself in love, and not in simple justice. Suppose that a highly cultivated Greek, in this mood, had the Bible put into his hands. The Old Testament confronts him with

or in writing, like Fronto, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, and above all, the philosopher Celsus. Fronto believed in the Thyestean feasts, of which he accused the Christians.¹His other objections we know but partially. Celsus' work, the True Discourse, could be almost entirely rewritten from the quotations of Origen, who refuted it much later.²

The aim of Celsus in the Discourse, was to convert the Christians by shaming them out of their religion. And he at least took the trouble to study his subject. He does not repeat the popular calumnies; he had read the Bible and many Christian books. He is aware of their divisions, and grasps the difference between the Gnostic sects and the main body of the Church. First Christianity is refuted from the Jewish point of view, in a dialogue in which a Jew sets forth his objections to Jesus Christ. Then Celsus comes forward on his own account with a wholesale attack- on both the Jewish and the Christian religions; he asserts the striking superiority of the religion and philosophy of the Greeks, carps at Bible history and the resurrection of Christ, and declares that the apostles and their successors had but added to the original absurdities. He is not, however, always blindly unjust: he approves of some things, notably of the Gospel ethics, and the doctrine of the Logos. He even winds up by an exhortation to the Christians to abandon their religious and political isolation, and to conform to the common religion, for the sake of the State and the Roman Empire, which these divisions weaken. That is his chief anxiety. Celsus was a highly cultivated man of the world, but with a practical turn. Like all cultivated people he takes a general interest in philosophy, but is

is the case. He alludes rather to the more or less cynical philosophers like Crescens, Peregrinus, etc. In one place (p. 402 Dindorf) he compares them to rots iv t-q IIciXcuot/kt? 5v<r<T(^at, that is to the Jews of Palestine.

1 Octavius 9, 31. Possibly Ccecilian, the pagan inquirer in the dialogue of Minucius Felix, was inspired by the discourse of Fronto ; but only the particulars about the feasts are definitely quoted from Fronto.

2 Aube, Histoirc des persecutions, ii., p. 277.

not a pMizan of any one sect. He supports the established religion, not from any deep conviction, but because a well- bred man should have a religion, and naturally the received religion of the State.

The True Discourse, published towards the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, does not appear to have much impressed those to whom it was addressed. The Christian writers of the 2nd century never allude to it. About 246 a.d. it fell by chance into the hands of Origen, who till then had never heard either of the book or its author.

Nevertheless, Celsus was not quite insignificant. He was a friend of Lucian, who dedicated his book on The False Prophet to him. Lucian also alludes to the Christians, but only in passing in his usual flippant manner. They supplied some features in his celebrated caricature "The death of Peregrinus." But he can hardly be said to have attacked them. On the contrary, his endless gibes against the gods and the religions of his day rather told in their favour. In his False Prophet, he acknowledges, without bitterness, that they had no more sympathy with religious impostors than he had himself.

149

r. 203-4 J

CilUISTI \N • \POLOGIES

The Christians, for their part, were extremely jealous for the good name of their religion. They could not tolerate the calumnies on their meetings, though indeed against such slanders no defence is possible. The foolishness which accepts them is ineradicable. Is not the stupid accusation of practising ritual murder brought against the Jews, again and again, even in our own day ? It was, however, necessary to protest. And on the other hand, it was but natural, that, under the good emperors, Christians should wish to come to an understanding with the authorities, and to convince them that their persecution of the followers of Christ was undeserved. And when the pens of skilled rhetoricians and philosophers gave literary expression to the hatred of the Christians, was it not fitting that those "brethren" whom God had endowed with intellectual gifts, should use them for the common defence? Thus originated the "Apologies," some of which are still extant, whilst others have left traces more or less distinct.

First must be noticed those addressed to the emperors, beginning with Hadrian (117-138), to whom Ouadratus presented his Apology. He appears to be the same person as a certain Ouadratus who lived in Asia at that time, and was a distinguished missionary and prophet. His work has not come down to us, but was still read in the time of Eusebius,^{^[69]} who says that Ouadratus was induced to compose it, by the fact that wicked men were "troubling the brethren." This is a little vague, but corresponds well enough with the state of things in the province of Asia, revealed by the rescript of Fundanus. In the Apology, Ouadratus alluded to people cured, or raised from the dead by the Saviour, as being still alive in his time.'^{^[70]}

The Apologies of Aristides and of Justin were addressed to the Emperor Antoninus (138-161).^{^[71]} Aristides was an Athenian philosopher. His address has only recently been discovered.^{^[72]} It is of an extremely simple character. He compares the notions of the Divinity held by barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians, naturally much to the advantage of the latter, with a eulogy on their morals and charity. He hints at calumnies, but gives no details. Nor is there any protest against legislation entailing persecution. The author comes forward himself at once, describes to the prince the impression the spectacle of the world made upon him, and the conclusions which he drew from it, as to the nature of God, the worship which is His due, and that which is in fact rendered to Him, by various classes of men. This classification recalls that in the " Preaching of Peter."¹For further information Aristides refers the emperor to the Christian books.

Justin is far better known than Aristides. Yet only a part even of his apologetic writings are extant. But we have the Apologies, or rather the Apology he addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, about 152 A.D. Like Aristides, Justin was a philosopher, that is a citizen of the world, travelling from town to town, with his short cloak and freedom of speech. A native of Neapolis² in Palestine, in the land of Samaria, he passed from one school to another. The Platonists held him for a time; but he did not find among them complete rest for his soul. He had happened to be present at several martyrdoms which moved him profoundly, and led him to reflect on the convictions which led to such constancy. In this frame of mind, a conversation with a mysterious old man led to his conversion. When he became a Christian, he changed nothing in his outward appearance as a philosopher, nor his manner of life; they gave him opportunities for gaining the ear of the public, and for proclaiming the Gospel teaching which he at once made it his mission to spread and defend. He became a Christian about 133 A.D., no doubt at Ephesus, where shortly afterwards he had (V. 135 A.D.) a dialogue with a learned Jew, called Trypho. Afterwards he came to Rome, and stayed some time there. He wrote a great deal, not only

1 See above, p. 109.

2 Now Nablous, near the site of the ancient Sichem.

151

r. son]

JUSTIN'S "APOLOGY"

against external enemies,¹ but also against the heretical schools which were then in full swing.^{^[73]}

His Apology is addressed to the Emperor^{^[74]} Antoninus Augustus, to the princes Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, to the Senate, and to the Roman people : " On behalf of those whom the whole human race hates and persecutes, Justin, the son of Priscus, and grandson of Bracchius, a native of Flavia Neapolis in Syria-Palestine, and one of them, presents this address and petition." He protests at once (4-12) that the Christians ought not to be persecuted for the name they bear, but for their crimes, if they have committed any. He then disposes of the calumnies against them (13-67), and after having shown what they are not, he sets forth what they actually are. He depicts Christian morals, and explains the meaning of their assemblies, and much calumniated mysteries, baptism and the Eucharist. Why, he asks, again and again, why all this hatred, these slanders, these persecutions ? According to him, it is all the work of malicious demons. To them he attributes not only the hostile attitude of public opinion and the government, but also the divisions among Christians brought about by heretics, like Simon, Menander, and Marcion. Before Christ these malignant demons had molested the wise men of old, who, inspired by the Word of God (Ao'yo? cnrepfxariKos), were in some respects Christians themselves, like Heraclitus, and above all Socrates. He, like Christ and the Christians, had been
put to death on a charge of atheism and hostility to the gods of the State.¹

He writes roughly and incorrectly and without much regard to order, after the manner of the philosophers of the day. He is also defective on the critical side. Justin, referring to the history of the Septuagint, makes Herod a contemporary of Ptolemy Philadelphus, an anachronism of two hundred years. He had seen on the island in the Tiber, a dedicatory inscription in honour of the god Semo Sancus; from this he inferred that Simon Magus, in whom he took special interest, had been in Rome, and that the State had accorded him divine honours.

To his Apology, Justin appended a copy of the rescript of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus,² which may have come into his hands at Ephesus. Influenced by the impression made by three summary condemnations, which the prefect Urbicus pronounced against Christians, he shortly afterwards wrote what is known as his second Apology.³ He appeals here directly to Roman public opinion, protesting anew against unjustifiable severities, and replying to various criticisms.

Justin did not confine himself to writing. He was much given to speaking in places of public assembly. He was a mark for the malignant abuse of the philosophers, and had no hesitation in repaying them in kind, calling them in his turn gluttons and liars. A cynic, named Crescens,⁴ who was given to railing against Christians, had

1 Justin never mentions Epictetus. It is difficult to believe that he had never heard of him, but he may not have known the writings which enlighten us about this philosopher " Saint." One would like to know whether Justin would have applied to him also his characterization of the ancient sages. Of the Thoughts of Marcus Aurelius, he clearly had no knowledge.

2 See above, p. 83.

3 Eusebius (iv. 18) speaks of two Apologies of Justin, addressed one to Antoninus, the other to Marcus Aurelius. He has no doubt mistaken the Supplement to the one only Apology for a separate Apology. At any rate this Supplement cannot have been written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, for Urbicus, the Prefect of Rome mentioned there, was Prefect under Antoninus, before 160 a.d.

4 For Crescens, see Apol. ii. 3, ii.; Tatian, Oratio, p. 157.

153

r. a§8-9]

MELITO—A P0LL1N \1US

a special encounter with him. In a public discussion between the two, taken down in writing, Crescens did not get the best of it. The simple-minded Justin would have liked the emperors to read the report. But Crescens had other weapons at his command, and Justin soon perceived that his enemy was aiming at his death ; an object not difficult to attain.

After the Apology, Justin wrote his Dialogue with Trypho.^{^[75]} Here he takes up again and, no doubt, amplifies his discussion with a Jew at Ephesus, twenty years back. This work is of great value in the history of Christian and Jewish controversy, and of the beginning of Christian theology.²

A few years later, Marcus Aurelius being then sole emperor (169-177), two Apologies were addressed to him by the Asiatic bishops, Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Persecution had sprung up again in their province; the officials had apparently received new and stringent instructions. We have but a few fragments, preserved by Eusebius,^{^[76]} of the Apology of Melito, in which the bishop discusses the idea that Christianity, born under Augustus, was in effect contemporaneous with the empire and the peace of Rome, and that only Nero and Domitian, bad emperors, enemies to the common weal, had ever sanctioned the persecutors of Christianity. The new religion in fact brings good fortune to the empire, and Melito almost insinuates that mutual understanding would be possible. This was a very optimistic view to take at that time. Yet it was that destined to prevail.

Of the Apology of Apollinaris nothing is known, unless the passage from his writings where Eusebius⁴ found the reference to the Thundering Legion, formed a part of it.

A third Apology, also the work of an Asiatic, Miltiades, appears to be of this time.¹

We have, on the other hand, the entire text of a fourth work of a similar nature, the Apology of Athenagoras,²addressed to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (177-180 A.D.). Athenagoras, like Aristides, was an Athenian philosopher. He writes on the usual theme of the Apologies in a better style, and with more method than does Justin. Christians are not what people think them. They reject idolatry and polytheism no doubt, but do not the best and wisest philosophers do so also? With their reasonable belief in the Unity of God, the doctrine of the Word and the Holy Spirit can be easily harmonized. The atrocities imputed to them are abominable slanders, their morality on the contrary is pure, even austere. Why should men who believe and live thus be subjected to torture and death?

In fact, matters were becoming very serious for the Christians. There was good reason for the multiplication of Apologies under Marcus Aurelius. That wise emperor did not understand Christianity. To him it seemed inconceivable that such sects could be worth study, or that he could be expected to alter the laws of the empire for them. In vain the Christians tried to get the ear of the philosopher; they found they were dealing with a statesman who was all the more inflexible because he was so conscientious. Besides, the calamities which overshadowed this reign added fuel to the hatred of the populace, long exasperated by the continued progress of Christianity. Melito speaks of new decrees {kuivci Soy/iara) as causing much suffering in Asia; and Athenagoras bears witness that in Greece also the persecution had become intolerable. At this moment, in the last years of Marcus Aurelius, with the memorable scenes at Lyons and Carthage (Martyrs of Scilli), we get our first glimpse of Christianity in Gaul and Africa.

Peace returned after the death of Marcus Aurelius.

1 Eusebius (v. 17) says it was addressed, irpbs tov<s koa-fitkovs &pxovras.

2 Eusebius does not mention it.

185

p. 254-5]

THE CHURCH OF LYONS

The Church of Rome, the inner life of which was so intense during the ist century of its history, could not but be a centre from which Christianity radiated. From the beginning, it was known far and wide by its authority, teaching, zeal, and charity, and its evangelizing influence must have been early felt in regions nearer at hand. But as to this we have no detailed information. There is no evidence of the foundation, or existence, of any other Christian group in Italy, during the whole of the 2nd century.^{^[98]} The oldest churches of the north of which the age can be reckoned with any accuracy, Ravenna, Milan, and Aquileia, date back barely to the time of Severus. Probably in the south—in the Campagna, for instance, or in the neighbourhood of Rome—churches were founded earlier. But even if this were not merely a conjecture, we should still have to ascertain to what extent these groups had organised themselves, and how far they were distinct from what was callcd the Church of Roiw. Only the Roman Church is mentioned by the ancient authors of the time, or by the later writers who allude to this period.

In Gaul also, and in Africa, the beginnings of Christianity are shrouded in darkness. It is conjectured, but only conjectured, that in the 2nd century a Christian colony existed at Marseilles. Under Marcus Aurelius there was a church at Lyons and another at Vienne. A little later, St Irenaeus mentions churches in Germania, and also in Celtic countries. So we may conclude that in these remote days, Christianity had already spread to some extent in ancient Gaul. The Church of Lyons was a radiating centre, a kind of mother-church. Amongst its members were indeed many Asiatics and Phrygians, but the native element was represented. We hear of local notabilities, such as Vettius Epagathus and Alexander the physician. Bishop. Pothinus, an old man of ninety, and Irenaeus the priest, presided over the little community. A severe trial befell them, 177 A.D. The Christians, though still few in number, were very unpopular. Men believed, or pretended to believe, all the abominable calumnies which were everywhere circulated about the Christian assemblies. No one would lodge them ; the baths were closed to them ; they were excluded from the marketplace ; they were hooted, beaten, and ill-treated in a thousand ways. At last the malicious reports attained such proportions, that the authorities intervened. The municipal magistrates and the tribune of the Roman cohort, stationed in Lyons, arrested a certain number of Christians, and put them to torture, with their slaves, some of whom were pagans. Most of the Christians stood firm, though the executioners, excited by the mob, carried the torture to the extreme limits of cruelty. A few, however— about ten—fell away. But an especially serious feature was, that the pagan slaves did not hesitate to confirm the current tales of infanticide and debauchery.

The legate of the district being absent, these preliminary proceedings did not lead to any sentence. The confessors, released from the rack, were thrown, still quivering from their tortures, into loathsome dungeons, without either attention or food. Their brethren who were still at liberty, braved a thousand dangers to bring them help. Several died in prison, notably the old Bishop Pothinus. The apostates had not been separated from the rest. Touched by the loving-kindness of the confessors, and strengthened by their example, they nearly all repented of their weakness and professed the faith anew.

On the legate's return, several sentences were pronounced. Sanctus, the deacon of Vienne;¹ Maturus, a neophyte of amazing courage; Blandina, a frail and delicate female slave, and an Asiatic, Attalus of Pergamos, one of the pillars of the Church of Lyons, were all condemned to be thrown to the wild beasts, and were despatched to the amphitheatre. The first to gain the martyr's palm were Sanctus and Maturus; they were first burned on a red-hot chair, and then devoured by raging beasts. That day, the beasts would not touch Blandina; so she was led back to prison, with Attalus, who had been discovered to be a Roman citizen.

The legate then deemed it wise to consult the emperor. Marcus Aurelius replied as might have been expected ; the apostates were to be released, and the others executed. A last hearing took place. To the great surprise of the judge, and of all present, the apostates had become confessors, and but few remained to be set at liberty.

It was now the season when crowds poured into Lyons, from all the cities of Gaul, for the festivities held at the Altar of Rome and Augustus, at the confluence of the Saone and the Rhone. Games in the amphitheatre always formed a part of the official rejoicings. Those Christians who could claim the title of Roman citizens, the legate decapitated. There were still enough for the wild beasts. In spite of his Roman citizenship, Attalus was amongst these. He came in first, accompanied by the Phrygian physician Alexander, who had only just been arrested. Others followed. The last to suffer were Ponticus, a

¹ Si&kovov an-o Bihvijs. This expression seems to indicate that Sanctus was the head of the Christian community in Vienne.

187

p. 2*7-8]

IREX/EUS

child fifteen years of age, and the admirable Blandina, who, to the last, upheld the courage of her companions by her example and words. The remains of the martyrs were burned by the executioners, and their ashes were thrown into the Rhone.

When all was over, a letter with the melancholy but glorious tale was sent to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, in the name of the " servants of Christ, living at Vienne and Lyons."^{^[99]}

In this letter, the Church of Lyons also expressed its views on Montanism; some letters from the confessors on the same subject were also enclosed. Several were addressed to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia ; another, to the Bishop of Rome, Eleutherus, was taken direct to him by the priest Irenasus. The final salutation ran thus : " We salute you in God, now and always, Father Eleutherus. We have begged Irenaeus, our brother and companion,² to carry these letters to you, and we commend him to you, as a man full of zeal for the cause of Christ. If we had thought that rank added to anyone's merit, we should first have presented him to you as priest of the Church."³

This commission caused the temporary absence of Irenaeus. After the catastrophe, it fell to him, as bishop, to reanimate the remnants of the Church of Lyons. During the peace which followed the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, he had to devote himself entirely to his duties as pastor and missionary. The variety of languages spoken in Gaul added to his difficulties. Greek was not

1 If the fact of Vienne being mentioned first has any significance, it can only be that of an act of courtesy on the part of the Christians at Lyons towards their brethren at Vienne. For the whole occurrence is certainly connected specially with Lyons. The magistrates of that colony would clearly have had no jurisdiction at Vienne ; neither would the legate. Sanctus, the deacon of Vienne, seems to have been arrested at Lyons ; no one else from Vienne is mentioned.

2 Tov dd{\<p6v i)nwv Kal KOivwvbv.

3 The tone of this letter seems a little singular. We cannot help recalling the African confessors, whose presumption caused so much trouble to St Cyprian.

sufficient in Lyons, an essentially Latin city; and outside the town Celtic was necessary. Moreover, Gnosticism was spreading in Gaul, as elsewhere. Ptolemaeus was gaining adherents there, either by personal influence, or by his writings ; the Asiatic Mark, much opposed at home, had it more his own way with the simple, fervent souls of the Christians of the Rhone valley. Irenneus dealt with these heretics, along with many others—for in this field increase is rapid—in a large work of which some valuable Greek fragments and a complete Latin version have come down to us. His Refutation of False Knowledge appeared about 185 A.D. In the following years, we find him much taken up with the religious affairs of Rome, in which he was always deeply interested.

In Africa also, the curtain, which hides the first days from us, is raised upon scenes of martyrdom. It is but natural to suppose that Christianity was early established in the great city of Carthage. That it spread thence into the interior, is clear from the fact, that under the proconsul Vigellius Saturninus (180 A.D.), who first took strong repressive measures, a certain number of Christians were found in the little town of Scilli, at a considerable distance from the metropolis. Twelve of these, seven men and five women, were tried at Carthage before the pro-consul, July 17, 180 A.D., and upon their refusal to "return to Roman customs," they were all condemned to death and executed. This was not the first time that Christian blood flowed in Africa. The title of " first martyr " was given, in the 4th century, to one Namphano, of Madaura, in Numidia. We gather from the writings of Tertullian, that at the end of the 2nd century, Christians were very numerous in Carthage and the provinces; but he gives no details, and mentions four places only—Uthina, Adrumetum, Thysdrus, and Lambesis. Of the contemporary bishops of Carthage he says not one word.

189

p. 260-1]

DIONVSWJfc OF COIUNTII

Beyond the Adriatic, Christian evangelization, even in apostolic times, reached several of the coast towns in Dal- rwatia¹ and Epirws ; Nicopolis is mentioned in St Paul's epistles.² Epiphanes, the son of the heretic Basilides, came from the island of Cephalonia.³ On the Greek mainland, the Church of Corinth, founded by St Paul, and already mentioned in connection with St Clement, still held a very important position. On his journey to Rome, Ilegesippus conversed at Corinth with the Bishop Primus.

In all these lands, the reign of Antoninus had been a trying time for the Christians. As was always and everywhere the case, the opposition they encountered came less from the imperial magistrates than from the local authorities, whose zeal, however, had been moderated by Antoninus. Melito, under Marcus Aurelius, could quote rescripts of the preceding emperor addressed either to the assembly of Achaia,⁴ or to the municipalities of Athens, Larissa, and Thessalonica.

Dionysius, who succeeded Primus as Bishop of Corinth, was a man of considerable importance. He was consulted on all sides, and his letters quickly obtained a wide circulation.⁵ They were collected into a volume, perhaps during his lifetime: Eusebius had it in his hands, and made a very interesting abstract from it, for his history. In addition to the letter to the Romans,⁶ there was also one addressed to the Church of Lacedasmon, in which he urged them to have a care for sound doctrine, and for peace and unity; another letter was addressed to the Church in Athens, which had just passed through an all but fatal crisis. The Athenians, having lost their Bishop Publius during a persecution, had wearied of the faith and of the Christian life, and had relapsed almost into paganism. Happily, the zeal of their new bishop, Ouadratus, brought them back to the fold. In this letter, Dionysius reminds

¹ 2 Tim. iv. 10. ² Titus iii. 12. ³ See p. 126.

4 llpos 7rdi'ras"E\\7;i'as: this is the Koiv6v of Achaia, which met at Corinth.

5 Some ill-intentioned persons tampered with his letters, that they might appear to have his sanction for their special views. Eusebius designates these letters by the expression Ka0o\iKal 71710s ras (Koalas firto-roXa/, which doubtless accords with their title, //. E. iv. 23.

⁰ See above, p. 178.

the Athenians of their first bishop, Dionysius the Areo- pagite, converted by St Paul.

In Crete, there were already at least two churches, that of Gortyna and that of Knossos. To the Church at Gortyna, where the bishop was named Philip, Dionysius addressed congratulations on their courage—shown no doubt under some persecution; at the same time, he advised them to beware of heretics. It was perhaps at Dionysius' instigation that Philip wrote a treatise against the Marcionites.¹ In his letter to the Knossians, Dionysius advises their Bishop Pinytus not to exaggerate the duty of continence, but to consider the weakness of human nature. Pinytus replies, thanking the Bishop of Corinth, and begging him to write again, and not to fear rising above the first elements, or meting out to the Cretans more solid food. Dionysius also wrote to the more distant churches of Nicomedia and Amastris, and to a lady named Chryso- phora. These letters throw but little light upon the Christian communities of Greece, at the end of the 2nd century. There are no particulars as to the countries farther north.²

On the other side of the y£gean, as well as in Greece, Christianity had old and deep roots. Around the Church of Ephesus, the chief of those founded by St Paul, many others sprang up at an early date. Those of Alexandria- Troas, Colossas, Laodicea, and Hierapolis are mentioned in his epistles. The Apocalypse refers besides to those of Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Thyatira. The churches of Magnesia (on the Meander) and of Tralles appear in the letters of St Ignatius. Many others, only known later, no doubt existed from the beginning of the 2nd century.

Behind Asia Proper, many Christian communities existed on the plain of Phrygia. Phrygia was essentially

1 Eusebius iv. 25.

2 Between the time of St Paul and the 4th century, the only document extant which alludes to the churches of Macedonia is the Epistle of St Polycarp to the Church of Philippi, written in the time of St Ignatius, c. 115 a.d.

2 Cornelius, in one of his letters to Fabius of Antioch (Eusebius vi. 43) says that Novatian sought out, in some obscure corner of Italy, three bishops, all simple and uneducated men {dypoUovs Kal dirXovo-Tdrovs), who, having drunk deep, consecrated him. One of them afterwards craved pardon of Cornelius, who admitted him to lay communion ; the others were immediately deposed from their bishoprics. I have only made (p. 236 of this volume) and only make here a very cautious use of the details of this letter to Fabius, in which Novatian is abused did their best to obtain his recognition b> the \*i\o\t Church. On receiving this news and other intelligence from Rome, Cyprian officially recognized Cornelius.

Thus the Novatianist schism, which gave birth to an important sect, did not arise from a doctrinal, but from a personal question. Novatian had no special views on penance. Novatus' antecedents in Carthage show him to have been favourable, rather than opposed, to some relaxation of discipline. During the controversies of the preceding year, Novatian had drawn up the letters of the Roman clergy and confessors, those letters which, St Cyprian tells us,¹ "were sent throughout the whole world, and reached all the churches and all believers." Now, in these letters, two points were laid down : first, that the lapsi were to be admitted to penance, of which the duration and the conditions were to be referred to the bishops, who would give their decision when peace was re-established; and further, that apostates in danger of death might be readmitted to communion.² During the persecution, Novatian had succeeded in evading the authorities, but had given no proof of any extraordinary heroism.³ No one could have forseen that he would become the champion of exclusive rigorism. But when once the schism was organized, it was inevitably bound to take up an attitude and principles opposed to those of Cornelius on this burning question. •

About the middle of May, the Council of Carthage, with Cyprian as president, met at last, and ruled that all penitent lapsi, without distinction, should be admitted to penance, and in the hour of death, at least, reconciled to the Church; that the length of the penance should depend on the gravity of the case; that bishops, priests, and

with the violence then customary in controversy. The writer of this document clearly overshoots the mark ; e.g., when he attributes to the devil the conversion of Novatian, doubts the validity of his baptism, and turns his theological knowledge into ridicule. Several of the shafts, directed against his troublesome rival, also hit Pope Fabian (for it was undoubtedly he who ordained Novatian priest), and also the leaders of the Roman Church during the Decian persecution.

¹ Ep. lv. 5. ² Ep. xxx. 8. ³ Eusebius vi. 43, § 16.

other clergy might be admitted to penance, like the rest, but not reinstated in their office. These decisions were transmitted to Rome. Cornelius, like most of the Roman clergy, shared the views of the African bishops. Nevertheless, wishing to settle a matter which concerned so many with the fullest possible authority, he himself summoned a Council of all the Italian bishops.

Then the different positions began to define themselves, and the party of Novatian appeared as that in favour of the most puritanical rigorism. No peace between the Church and the deserters!—perpetual anathemas on the idolaters! So ran the watchword of the new sect. They did not, indeed, forbid the apostates to do penance; on the contrary, they urged it on them vehemently, though depriving them of all hope of readmission to the congregation, even at their last hour. This was the discipline formerly meted out to adulterers, as well as apostates; but it had been for long reserved exclusively for the latter. Novatian and his followers insisted that this must continue, and that the concession granted to adultery ought not to be extended to apostasy. This summed up primitive Novatianism. Once separated from the Church, however, the sect soon fell into new and additional varieties of dissent. In the beginning, it only protested against the relaxation of a point of discipline, which, though rightly adopted and applied at a time when only isolated cases of apostasy occurred,¹ could not be enforced in the face of the innumerable defections, produced by a persecution of universal and unusual severity.

Theoretically, this position was a strong one, and it gives the key to the relative success of the new schism. The personal influence of Novatian helped the schism much, as did the prodigious activity with which his adherents, Novatus in particular, strove to discredit Cornelius. The Council of Rome assembled. There were present sixty bishops, not to mention the priests and deacons of Rome, and those who accompanied, or repre-

¹ That this continued to be the discipline at ordinary times was clearly shown at the Council of Elvira, at the end of the 3rd century.

sented their bishops. The letters from the Council of Carthage were read to the assembly. They set forth the principle to be applied in restoring the lapsed to communion, and invited the Italian bishops to condemn the founder of the new schism. This hope was fulfilled : Novatian and his followers were expelled from the Church, and the disciplinary ruling of the Council of Africa was solemnly approved. These decisions were embodied in a synodical letter, signed by all the bishops present, and agreed to by all those absent.

Strengthened by this two-fold manifesto from the episcopates of Italy and Africa, Cornelius hastened to send out, in all directions, copies of the proceedings of the Synod, together with a full account of Novatian and his schism. In Africa, Cyprian supported him with energy; the waverers were but few and isolated.¹ Nevertheless, Bishop Euaristus, one of the consecrators of Novatian, came to Carthage, with a Roman deacon, Nicostratus, a confessor of the last persecution, and several others; and they succeeded in organizing a small Novatianist Church in the African capital, with a certain Maximus as bishop. No doubt a similar success followed in other places. In Gaul, Bishop Marcian, of Aries, joined the sect of Novatian, and treated apostates on his lines. This is the only serious case of defection recorded in the West.

In the East, things went much further. Novatian's views found a footing in various parts of Asia Minor. The Bishop of Antioch, Fabius, openly became their patron. He, however, did not long occupy the See, and his brethren of Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia took a different view, so that the movement was soon got under. He had also against him the very considerable weight of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, who was of the same mind as Cornelius and Cyprian. From the time of the persecution, he had ordered the restoration to communion of all the lapsed, in the hour of death; and at the first sign of peace, he circulated, throughout Egypt, a sort of penitential tariff, wherein the different degrees of guilt ¹ See especially the letter to Antoninus (Ep. Iv.).

were classified, and each accorded their proper penalty. Novatian's letters made no impression on him; he answered them candidly, but gently, as was his way, telling Cornelius' rival that the best thing for him to do, was to drop his pretentions to the episcopate. Dionysius also applied himself zealously to win back the Roman confessors, who had been led into schism. This was a matter of great importance, and Cyprian also threw himself into it, with equal spirit. These two great bishops, whose positions and careers present so many points of resemblance, had independently taken up the same attitude, and they were successful. The Roman confessors nearly all repented, abandoned Novatian, and returned to the Church, where Cornelius and his followers readily received them, even restoring those who had held office in the Church to their former position. In the eyes of the Christian masses, this proved very damaging to Novatian's prestige, and Cornelius and his two allies, Dionysius and Cyprian, gave wide publicity to these opportune retractations.

Besides the letters against Novatianism, written for that purpose, there also exists a sort of homily, entitled Ad Novatianum, wherein he is severely taken to task. It seems to have been written in Rome.^{^[158]}

But his little church still managed to exist ; a certain number of believers, "firm in the Gospel,"^{^[159]} still clung to Novatian. He, in addition to his controversial writings, poured out practical treatises for his disciples. We have specimens of this literature, in his De cibis judaicis, probably also in the De spectacidis, and the De bono pudicitiae. These, and some other works^{^[160]} attributed to him, have come down to us through St Cyprian. A good many others were known to St Jerome.^{^[161]} The above- mentioned works have this in common, tMt they were written during a time of persecution, either under Gallus or Valerian, when Novatian was separated from his disciples. According to a tradition of his sect,^{^[162]} he was a victim of the persecution under Valerian.

The party in Carthage in favour of clemency had been for months, in their campaign against Cyprian, making capital out of the vanity of the confessors, and the indecent haste of the lapsi. They must have been much surprised at the turn things were taking in Rome. Novatus, going from one extreme to another, was with the Roman confessors, organizing a party on severely puritan and rigorist lines.

On the other hand, the Council of 251, by its clemency to the libcllatics, and other less deeply involved apostates, deprived the promoters of the schism of a good number of sympathizers. Felicissimus, on his side, tried to strengthen his position. He had himself ordained deacon, that is treasurer, of the opposition Church they were founding. They scoured Africa to beat up recruits, especially from the episcopate, hoping to set up a rival council to Cyprian's, to depose Cyprian himself, and to establish the lax discipline, which was the aim, or the pretext, for the whole of this intrigue.

Their success was slight. Twenty-five bishops were expected ; five only turned up—three apostates and two heretics. One of the heretics was the same Privatus of Lambesis, who, some years previously, had been deposed by a large council. At the same time, more than forty bishops arrived in Carthage for Cyprian's usual May

Council, the second after the persecMon. The Council met on May 15, 252. Privatus presented himself, and desired to plead his cause, and to be reinstated : but in vain.

In view of the persecution, which under the new Emperor Gallus was just breaking over the Church, the Council granted communion to the lapsed of all degrees, who had conscientiously done penance till then. This still further diminished the raison detre of the opposition. But it did not affect the partisans of Felicissimus, who, for over a year, had been promoting a schism, and not doing penance.

They did not therefore relinquish their little opposition Council. They pronounced a sentence of deposition against Cyprian, and appointed, as his successor, Fortun- atus, one of the five factious priests. Cyprian did not disturb himself. He had the whole African episcopate on his side, and the whole Christian population of Carthage, except a small body of intriguers, called, from the name of their chief, by the sobriquet of Infelicissimi.

Felicissimus set out for Rome with some of his party; they did their utmost to get their new bishop, Fortunatus, recognized. Pope Cornelius banished them from the Church; but, as they made a great commotion, and threatened to publish letters of Fortunatus, full of infamous calumnies against Cyprian, Cornelius took fright, and consented to read the documents they submitted. This concession, the reason for which escapes us, annoyed Cyprian considerably, and he was not a man to be put out without cause.^{^[163]}

349

■480-1]

BISHOP NEPOS

Before fresh political disturbances set inK: was desisted by a terrible plague, which swept away a great part of the population. The Christians were conspicuous for their zeal in nursing the sick and burying the dead.^{^[202]} It was at least a time of religious peace; Gallienus himself wrote to Dionysius and to several other bishops, to inform them that he had ordered their churches and cemeteries to be restored to them. Naturally the bishop was a strong partizan of this prince, who does not usually excite much admiration. In one of his letters, written in 262, Dionysius notes that whereas the persecutors had rapidly passed away,^{^[203]} the tenth year of the reign of this holy and pious emperor would soon be celebrated with rejoicings.

During his stormy episcopate, Dionysius still found time and opportunity for theology, and thus turned to account the great learning he had acquired under Origen, and developed during his headship of the School of Alexandria. This School, as I have already said, was suited rather to the intellectual tlite than to ordinary minds. Even among those who read, there were many who accepted neither the profundity of Origen's Gnosticism, nor the subtleties of allegorical interpretation. Their great light was a bishop called Nepos, and his book, called The Refutation of the Allegorists, was placed by his partizans on a level with the Gospels. Its subject was the Millenium, and Nepos set himself to prove that as described in the Apocalypse it was not allegorical, but was to be an actual fact. Dionysius, uneasy at its success, and the strife it stirred up amongst the Christians, went to the no me of Arsinoe, the centre of the movement, and called together the priests and teachers (StSaaKciXoug) of the different villages. They brought Nepos' book, and quietly and honestly discussed it for three days, from morning till night, to such good purpose that the Bishop of Alexandria brought them all round, even Korakion,
the chief of the 'Millenarians. Dionysius, however, not content with this viva voce refutation, published two treatises on the subject, called " On the Promises."¹ Eusebius quotes from it, amongst other things, a long passage upon the author of the Apocalypse. It is a piece of fine criticism. According to Dionysius, the Apocalypse could not be by the same author as the Fourth Gospel, but was the work of another John, not the great apostle.

Nepos, the opponent of the allegorists, was already dead when Dionysius turned his attention to his book. He was apparently Bishop of Arsinoe. Dionysius, who had known him personally, had a great opinion of his piety, zeal, and knowledge of the Scriptures, and even of his poetical gifts. He had composed a great number of hymns sung by the faithful with much profit.²

Possibly this incident occurred in the beginning of Valerian's reign (254-56). Later on Dionysius was occupied with controversies of another kind.

Far away to the west of Egypt, between the desert of Marmarica and the Great Syrtis, stretches a high and fertile plain. There from very early days, Hellenism had flourished round the brilliant Doric town of Cyrene. Under the Roman Empire, Cyrenaica with Crete formed a province quite distinct from that of Egypt. The group of five towns—Cyrene, Ptolemais, Berenice, Sozusa (Apollonia) and Arsinoe (Teuchira)—which it contained,³ was often called Pentapolis. There were very important Jewish colonies there.⁴ Early in Trajan's time they made a revolt, and nearly all perished during its suppression. The name of this country appears in the Gospel history. It was a Jew from Cyrene who assisted the Saviour to carry His cross.⁵Others were present on the Day of Pentecost, and some were amongst the enemies of St Stephen. Amongst the many converts was that Lucius of Cyrene, who took part

¹ llept iirayyeXiQv. ² Eusebius vii. 24, 25.

3 This Arsinoe must not be confused with the Arsinoe just mentioned in connection with Nepos.

4 Jason of Cyrene, a Jewish writer in the 2nd century B.C., wrote a history, of which an epitome is preserved in the Second Book of Maccabees. ⁵ Matt, xxvii. 32 ; Mark xv. 21 ; Luke xxiii. 26.

351

p. 483-4]

CYRENAICA

in the foundation of thejhurch of Ai^ch.¹ The Gospel seems to have reached Cyrene itself very early. And in Dionysius' time each² of the five cities seems to have had its bishop.

These churches had then a special connection with the See of Alexandria. Dionysius wrote to them often,³ and held himself responsible for them, and above all for their teaching. Even before Valerian's persecution, the controversy which the spread of Sabellianism stirred up in Ptolemais had called his attention that way. It is not likely that Sabellius ever set foot in Cyrenaica ; but his writings may have found their way there, and besides, the views identified with his name in Rome, had already made a sensation in Asia, Carthage, and elsewhere. In Cyrenaica their success was very great: some bishops favoured the Monarchian doctrine ; in those churches the Word was no longer regarded as the Son of God, and distinct from the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity became but a matter of words: the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, meant no more than three successive aspects of the Divine Unity (Monad) in Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification. The word ulo7rdnop (Son-Father) was often employed, and fitly expressed their conception of the identity of the Divine Persons. The so-called Gospel of the Egyptians was much esteemed by the Monarchians,⁴ and apparently favoured this view.

¹ Acts ii. io ; vi. 9 ; xi. 20 ; xiii. 1.

- Eusebius (vii. 26) gives the names of Dionysius' correspondents on Sabellianism. They were four: Ammon, Bishop of Berenice, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus. If these last three were bishops, as seems probable, that makes four bishops, or five with Basilides, bishop twv Kara tt]v IIei»ra7ro\n' vapoiKiQv mentioned later on.

3 Eusebius (loc. cit.) mentions several letters to Basilides, a Bishop of Pentapolis ; one of these in response to various questions on points of casuistry submitted to him, is preserved in the Byzantine canon law ; in another, Dionysius alludes to his own commentary on Ecclesi- astes. To Bishop Euphranor he dedicated a book On the Temptations.

4 This description of the system rests on the authority of St Epiphanius, Haer. 57 ; the quotations from the writings of Dionysius in Eusebius vii. 6 (cf. 26) and from S. Athanasius, De sent. Dionysii are by no means so definite.

In spite of the support of local bishops, this teaching met with much opposition. Both parties agreed to refer the matter to the Bishop of Alexandria. The delegates appeared before Dionysius, bearing credentials, and proposed to argue the case before him.

But the Modalists were very simple if they imagined that a disciple of Origen could decide in their favour. The Bishop of Alexandria would not even hear them ; he wrote at once to Pentapolis, hoping to deter those who were straying from the truth, and as an opportunity offered he warned Pope Xystus II. and sent him his letter to the Cyrenians.¹ But the Cyrenians turned a deaf ear. The controversy, interrupted no doubt by Valerian's persecution, began afresh as soon as peace was restored. Dionysius returned to the attack, and wrote letter after letter to Pentapolis. In one of these² addressed to Ammon and Euphranor, he seems to have gone too far, and to have attempted to refute the heretics not only with the generally received doctrine of the Church, but also with an exposition of the tenets peculiar to Origen's School. The opponents of the School in Alexandria took advantage of this. Without troubling themselves to ask their bishop for an explanation, they went to Rome, and denounced him to Pope Dionysius, who summoned a synod, looked into the matter, and found various doctrinal improprieties in the letter under suspicion, notably three:—The use of the term " creature," in connection with the Son of God ; a theory of the Trinity with three such distinct hypostases, that they might be regarded as three gods; and finally, a marked repugance to the term o/moova-iog (consubstantial).³

1 Eusebius vii. 6. In chap. xxvi. he enumerates four letters against Sabellius: to Ammon, Bishop of Berenice, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and to Ammon and Euporus.

2 I think this letter, so much spoken of by St Athanasius, is distinct from those mentioned by Eusebius. It might, however, at a push be identified, perhaps, with that to Ammon and Euporus.

3 Athanasius, De sent. Dion. c. 5. It is well to note that S. Athanasius treats the matter rather controversially than historically. His chronology is much at fault. He believes the two Dionysiuses lived long before (tfxwpoadtv iroXv) the council which condemned Paul of Samosata (De syn. 43).

353

p. 486-7] DIONYSIUS^{^[204]} THEOLOGY

The Bishop of Rome, in his own name and in that of the Council, sent an impressive letter¹ to Alexandria, in which he again condemned the Sabellian errors ; and then, turning to the arguments used to refute them, without mentioning any names, he blamed those who, like the Marcionites, spoke of three separate hypostases, or who represented the Son of God as a creature. Their appeal to the authority of the Book of Proverbs was not legitimate, for though Wisdom says of herself: "The Lord created me," their interpretation of the text was not correct.^{^[205]}

In a separate letter^{^[206]} to Dionysius he invited him to explain himself. He did so, and in defence of his position sent four books to the pope, his namesake, entitled Refutation and Apology,^{^[207]} which appear to have set at rest the Roman scruples.

This controversy does not seem to have made much impression at the time; but a great stir was made about it in the 4th century. The Arians quoted the authority of Dionysius of Alexandria. His successor Athanasius, being eager to clear him from complicity in it, wrote a whole treatise " On the Opinion of Dionysius." He carefully explains the suspected letter, but hardly quotes it at all, and he takes the opinion of his predecessor, rather, from the Apology, which was an afterthought, and thus interprets the first document by the second. St Basil^{^[208]} also read both documents; and his verdict was very unfavourable. Holding no brief for former bishops of Alexandria, he had no hesitation in pronouncing Dionysius to be a forerunner of Arianism in its most pronounced form. The difference between the language of the two books in no wise escaped his notice, but he attributes it to the instability of the author, whose good faith, however, he does not question.

But neither St Athanasius' optimism, nor St Basil's
severity quite corresponds il'ith the actual facts. Dionysius was a disciple of Origen ; it was with Origen's system that he fought the Modalists. Now, this system had two aspects. According as the Word is viewed in relation to the finite transitory world, or to God, He appears either as distinct from God, and partaking in some degree of the character of a created being; or else, as co-eternal with God, and deriving from the divine substance. The Modalists might be met by the first aspect; and the second was calculated to reassure those who were disturbed by the excessively clear cut lines of demarcation drawn between the different manifestations, or hypostases, and by their subordination. The transition from one aspect to the other involved no contradiction ; they were linked together in Origen's system; orthodoxy was safeguarded by the juxtaposition of complementary doctrines. But the whole system was academic; it formed no part of the teaching of the Church; it might even be said that the Church ignored it. When men of action like Pope Dionysius came across isolated fragments of the system, they did not trouble to put them back in their context, or to judge of them in relation to the whole system; they estimated them on their own merits, according to the ordinary teaching, not of the schools, but of the Church. Hence such incidents as the controversy between Dionysius the pope and Dionysius the bishop.

Quite at the end of his career, the great Bishop of Alexandria was, as we have seen, invited to the first Council of Antioch, to judge Paul of Samosata. He was no longer fit for so long a journey ; but he gave his opinion in writing. And perhaps Eusebius, the Alexandrian deacon, who appeared at one of the first councils, came as his representative. Eusebius was held in great esteem on account of his fine attitude during the Decian persecution. Being one of the earliest to return to the town, he played an important part in the government of the persecuted flock. Under Valerian, he stood as a confessor before the prefect /Emilian, with his bishop, and shared Dionysius' exile. In one of the wars which desolated

Arercius, Bishop of Hierapolis, 195, 205

Achaia, St Paul's mission to, 20, 21 Adlectio in divorum ordinem, 74 /Eon, the, 119, 120, 123, 124 Africa, Christianity in, 143, 188, 282-312

Agabus, his gift of prophecy, 35 Agape, the, as distinct from the

Eucharist, 385 Agrippa II.—St Paul's trial, 43 his treatment of the Christians, 72 deposes Hanan, 86 Alcibiades, Judaic Christian

preacher, 94, 95 Alexander, Bishop of Caesarea, 318, 333

Alexandria, Judaism in, 9

Christian school, 237-60, 356-60 Dionysius, Bishop of, 345*55 Alogi, the, their doubts and criticisms, 102 «., 199 220, 226, 243

Anatolus, a Christian, 355 Angels, the position of, 52, 53, 117 Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, 172 and Polycarp, 174 the Paschal controversy, 210 Annas the younger. See Hanan II. Antioch, foundation of a Christian community at, 17-26 Christianity in, 322-26 Novatianism in, 337 dispute as to the Bishop of, 341 -44 Lucian's theology, 361-64

417

Antiochus Epiphanes, his attempt

to Hellenize the Jews, 3 Antitheses, the book of, 136 Antoninus Pius, rescripts on the Christians, 83 n. treatment of the Christians during his reign, 176, 189 Apelles and Marcion, 175

his doctrine, 180-82 Apocalypse, the, death of St Peter, 46

author of, 99-102 of St Peter, 109

St John's authority in the

churches of Asia, 192 the millenium, 197 Apocryphal Acts, 369-73 Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, his Apology, 153, 155 his attack on Montanism, 198 treatise on the Paschal celebration, 209 Apollonius, martyrdom of, 183 Apologies, Christian, addressed to the Emperors, and the people, 148-56

Apostolic succession, 388-91 Aquila, a native of Pontus, and St

Paul, 20, 40 Arabia, Christianity in, 335, 336 Aristides, Athenian philosopher,

his Apologies, 149, 150 Aristo, author of the dialogue of

Papiscus and Jason, 89 Aristobulus, and St Paul, 44 2 D

Ascensions of fames, 96 Asceticism, 113, 141

of the Montanists, 197, 198 orthodox, 375, 376 in Mithraism, 396 in Manichceism, 408 Asia Minor, St Paul's missions to, 17, 20 Churches in, 195 Paschal controversy in, 208-11 Christianity in Upper, 314-22 Asmoneean, high priests, 4

princes, 39 Athanasius, St, and theology of Hermas, 171 Dionysius' theology, 352-53 on the Hypotyposes, 356 Athenagoras, Athenian philosopher, his Apology, 154 his treatise, 155 Athens, St Paul at, 20

bishops of, 68 Attalus of Pergamos, martyrdom of, 186

Aurelian, Emperor, and Queen

Zenobia, 340-41 Aurelius, Marcus, Emperor, his treatment of the Christians, 153-55, 182, 212, 261

Babylon, pillage of, 3

Judaism in, 9 Baptism, early converts admitted by, 13 controversy on, 303-13 preparation for, 365-68 Bardesanes, 328-30 Bar-Kocheba, revolt of, 87 Barnabas, St, organizes the Church in Antioch, 17 separation from St Paul, 19 the Epistle of, 109 Basilicus, a Marcionite, 179, 181 Basilides, 119

his doctrine, 124-27, 132 Beryllus, Bishopof Bostra, 335

Bishop as head of the Church, 65-70

Bishops, list of, in Rome, 172 Bithynia, Churches in, 191 Bito, Valerius, envoy to Corinth, 161

Blandina, martyrdom of, 186

Caius, a Roman Christian, and the tombs of the Apostles, 45 and Proclus, 221 Callistus of Antium transports the cemetery to the Via Appia, 213

and Hippolytus, 214, 215, 226-34 Carpocrates, 119

his doctrine, 126, 127, 132, 133 Carpophorus, and Callistus, 214215

Carthage, execution of Christians at, 188 and Rome, 282-85 Catechumens, 366, 385 Catholic epistles, 108 Celsus and Gnosticism, 119 The True Discourse, 147, 148 the doctrine of the Logos, 222 Christian school of Alexandria, 240

Cerdon, and Marcion, 135 Cerinthus, the teachings of, 57, 58, 94

Christian apologies, 148-55 Christian books, the, 97-111 Christianity, Roman Empire the home of, 1-8 converts to, 14 in Antioch, 17-20 Christian life in the apostolic

age, 27-38 and the State, 71-84 prosecution of Christians, 79-84 end of Judaic, 85-96 attractiveness of, 143-46 among the patricians, 158 in Italy and Gaul, 184

Christianity (continued)— and Sunday, 207 in Egypt, 238-43 the Decian persecution, 267-72 Valerian persecutions, 272-76 in the East, before Decius, 314-36 Christian morals, 365-80 the Christian Society, 381-91 reaction against, 392-415 Christology, St Paul's, 54, 55 heretical, 58, 59 of Simon Magus, 116 Church, the, its primitive organization, 9-15, 37 in Antioch, iS [36

primitive Christian worship, 34- St Paul's theory of, 54-6 in Philippi and Ephesus, 65 and Gnosticism, 136-42 in Rome under Nero and

Commodus, 157-83 of the 2nd century, 184-95 and State in the 3rd century,

261-81 in Africa, 282-313 its organization and authority, 381-91

Circumcision, difficulties as to, 18,19 Claudius, Emperor, his treatment

of the Jews, 40 Clemens, Flavius, Consul, a Christian, execution of, 158, 159 Clement,St(Titus Flavius Clemens), of Alexandria—St Peter's visit in Rome, 45 on Nero's persecution and burning of Rome, 46 the Nicolaitanes, 57 the apostle Philip and his

daughters, 98 n. St John, 104

Basilides and Valentinus, 132 his life, writings, and doctrine, 162, 243-48 Clement, St, Bishop of Rome—the ecclesiastical hierarchy, 65 elemental (continued)— the Epistles of, 46, 65, 68, 110 his letter, 161-63 Cleobius, 116

Cleomenes, a Modalist, 225 Clergy, the, 385

celibacy of, 386, 3S7 Colossians, Epistle to the, 50-52, 55 Commodus, Roman Emperor, succeeds Marcus Aurelius, 182, 212 Confessors, the, 385, 386 Corinth, St Paul, 20

Church founded at, 21, 23, 36 dissensions in the Church at, 161 Corinthians, Epistles to the, 21-23,

27, 35-37, 50. Cornelius, the Centurion—Admission into the Church, 14, 41 Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, and Novatian, 296-301 and Cyprian, 302, 303 and Novatianism, 337, 338 Crescens, the cynic philosopher,

146, 147, 152, 153 Crete, Churches in, 190 Cyprian, St, appearance before the Pro-consul, 273 311 persecution under Valerian, 27476

his life, doctrine, and writings, 288-95

the Novatian schism, 295-300 and Cornelius, 302, 303 and Pope Stephen, 303-10 execution of, 312 Cyrenaica, Sabellianism in, 351

Decius, Emperor, his persecutions

of the Christians, 267-72 Demiurge, the, 119, 122, 123, 130,

179

Desposyni, 88

Didache, the (teaching), 109, 388 Didasca/ia of ihe Apostles, 388 Dionysius the Areopagite, 68

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth — St Peter's visit to Rome, 45 the Bishops of Athens, 68 his writings, 189, 190, 229 and Marcionism, 316 Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria— The Decian persecution, 268 the Valerian persecution, 273 Church property, 277 and Novatianism, 337 his capture and escape, 345, 346 his treatment of the Apostates, 347 exile under Valerian, 348 the Alexandrian crisis, 348 and Bishop Nepos, 349, 350 and Sabellianism, 351, 352 his theology, 353-55 Disciples, the, their preaching and primitive organisation, 10-15 first called Christians, 17 difficulties at Antioch, 19 Di-theism, 229 Docetism, 59, 181, 325 Domitian—Persecution of Christians, 78-82, 88, 159 assassination of, 159, 160 Domitilla, Flavia, her trial and

exile, 159 Domna, Julia, wife of Emperor

Severus, 263 Dositheus, 116

Ebionites, the, 57

their doctrine, 91, 92, 216 Edessa, Christianity in, 326-30 Egypt, and Judaism, 9 Gnosticism in, 119 Christian communities in, 143, 239-44

under the Greeks and Romans,

237, 239

Egyptians, Gospel according to

the, 92, 107 Elders, the Council of, 13, 18, 63 Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 182 Elkesai, his mysterious book, 94, 95

Elvira, Council of, 378-80

celibacy of the clergy, 387 Encratism, 373, 375 Ennoia (thought) of Simon Magus, US

Epaphras, and St Paul, 50 Ephebus, Claudius, envoy to

Corinth, 161 Ephesians, Epistle to the, 50, 54

55 58 60, 64 Ephesus, St Paul remains three years at, 20 Church formed at, 21 government of the Church at, 65 Epigonus, a Modalist, 225 Epiphanes, an infant prodigy, 126, _ 127

Epiphanius, St, 88 n. and the Nazarenes, 93 and the Elkesaites, 95 Ascension of Jatnes, 96 Valentinus, 132 n. The Panarion, 142 and the Alogi, 199 n. Origen's works, 255 and the Encratites, 375 Episcopate, the, 62-70 Eschatology (the doctrine of the

last things), 59 Essenes, the, 10

and the angels, 53 n. Eucharist, the celebration of the,

13, 35j 374, 375 Eusebius of Caesarea, 47 n. Hadrian's letter, 83 11. the ancient bishops of Jerusalem, 88

Bar-Kocheba's revolt, 89 the Judaic Christians, 92 Nazarenes, 93 Quadratus' Apology, 149 writings to the Greeks, 151 155 n.

Dionysius of Corinth, 177 Rhodo's works, 182 trial of Apollonius, 183 n.

Eusebius of C^B ea (\nHnued )— Montanism, 200 The Little Labyrinth, 220 persecution under Valerian, 275, 276

Bishop Serapion, 324 his list of bishops, 332, 334 letters of Dionysius, 345 on Sabellianism, 351 n. and Origen, 361 Eusebius, Deacon of Alexandria, afterwards Bishop of Laodicea, and the Decian persecutions,

354, 355 writings of Porphyry, 403 the first appearance of Mani- chteism, 405, 406 Evangelization, and apologetics, 143-56

Fabian, Pope, forms ecclesiastical divisions, in Rome, 235 martyrdom of, 269 Faith supersedes the law, 32-34 Felicissimus, excommunication of,

294, 295, 302 Felix, Procurator, trial of St Paul,

26, 43. 73 Festus, Procurator, death of, 26, 85

trial of St Paul, 43, 78 Flavian family, 158-62 Florinus, the Gnostic, 137 Fortunatus, envoy to Corinth, 161 Fronto, 147

Fundanus, C. Minucius, Pro-consul of Asia, Hadrian's letter to, 83

Galatians, Epistle to the, 23, 33 Galilee, the first home of the

Gospel, 13, 14 Gallio, the Procurator of Achaia,

and St Paul, 78 Gaul, Christian community in, 143 Gentiles, the, and the Church in Antioch, 17 and St Paul, 24 and Christianity, 28

George, the Monk, 101 n. Germany, Christian community in, 143

Glycon, the worship of, 316 Gnostics, the, 54 n. Judaizing, 61

foundations and teachings of,

112-33

the Encratite tendency, 373 the school of Plotinus, 399 Greek Jews. See Jews Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-C?esarea, his life and writings, 319-22

Haciiamoth (the desire of wisdom), 121-23, 179 Hadrian, Emperor, his treatment of the Christians, 83 revolt of Bar-Kocheba, 87 Hanan II., the high priest, his deposition for ordering the stoning of St James, 72, 85, 86 Harnack, the dispersion of the twelve apostles, 15 ?i. the use of the word Christian,

17 71.

St Paul at Jerusalem, 21 Chresto, 40 n.

St Paul's imprisonment, 43 n. the episcopate, 66 n., 68 n. his catalogue of bibliographic

allusions, 139 n. Little Questions of Mary, 14 on. infant Christianity, 145 n. Soter" s letter, 177 martyrdoms, 194 11. Hebrews, the Epistle to the, St

Peter's death, 46 Hebrews, Gospel according to the,

88, 90, 92, 107 Hegesippus, the father of Church History, his list of bishops, 68, 175

his description of the Church, 90 Simon and Cleobius, 116

Hegesippus, Saturninus, 117 n.

his Memoirs, 141 Hellenist Christians, 29 Heracleon, disciple of Valentinus, his commentary on the Gospel of St John, 178 Heresies, the first, 49-61 Nicolaitanes, 57 Cerinthus, 37

unity of brethren threatened by, 62

the Alogi, 102 n, 199, 220-23, 226, 243

Gnosticism and Marcionism, 11242, 175, 178-81, 244 writings against, 141, 142, 227 first brought to Rome, 173 Montanism, 196-206, 221 Theodotians, 217-20 Modalists, 224-26, 351 worship of Mithras, 393-98 Neo-Platonism, 398-403 Manichaeism, 404-11 Judaism, 411-15 Hermas, a Roman Christian, 65 7 he Shepherd of, 68, 69, no, 164,

165, 171, 172, 376 on Gnosticism, 136, 137 his life, 165-67 his theology, 168-72, 217 Herod Agrippa, 4 his harsh treatment of the

disciples, and death, 15 division of his kingdom, 71 Herod Antipas, 15 his possessions, 71 beheads John the Baptist, 72 Herod Archelaus, 4 his possessions, 71 Herod Philip, his possessions, 71

and the Christians, 72 Herod, the great, 4

his death, 71 Hierarchy, growth of the, 63 Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenasus, heresy of Cerinthus, 57

Hippolytus (continued)— the episcopate, 69 Basilides, 124 n. syntagma agaitist heresies, 141 Montanism, 204 and Callistus, 214, 226-30 his writings, 215, 231-34 Theodotians, 217 The Little Labyrinth, 220 Defence of the Gospel of fohn and

the Apocalypse, 220 doctrine of the Logos, 221, 222,

226-30 Canons of, 388 Hyacinthus, 183

Hymenaeus, a preacher of heresy, 55

Ignatius, St, Bishop of Antioch, apostolic traditions, 45 his letters against heresies, 58, 59 the episcopate, 64, 67 Judaism, 94

and the Apocalypse, 100 Simon Magus, 118 martyrdom and tomb of, 163, 164 advice to virgins, 386 Irenaeus, St—St Peter in Rome, 45 and the Nicolaitanes, 56 heresy of Cerinthus, 57, 58 the observance of Easter, 68 Judaic Christians, 90, 91 authorship of the Apocalypse, 101 doctrine of Simon Magus, 115118

and Valentinus, 120 system of Basilides, 124, n. and Carpocrates, 126, 127 and Florinus, 137 and Marcion, 139 Gnostic documents, 140 St Clement's letter, 162 and Ptolemy, 178 the martyrs of Lyons, 187 his Refutation of False Knowledge, 188, 195

Irenaiy, St fantiiwyt)— Paschal controversy, 211 and the Alogi, 220 doctrine of the Logos, 223 Israel, the Children of, their religion, 3, 9, 10, 24, 27-33 return to Egypt, 239, 240 at Jamnia, 412

Jaiive, the Creator, 3

worship of, in Palestine, 10 James, St, the brother of the Lord, and the Church at Antioch, 18 his attitude towards St Paul, 22,25 stoned to death, 26, 85 head of the local Church, 63 James, Epistle to St, 65 Jerome, St—the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 88 theology of Hermas, 171 11. Jerusalem, the national sanctuary at, 3

her rulers and insurrection, 4 the primitive Church at, 9-15 difficulties with the Church at

Antioch, 19 Paul returns to, 21 taken by Pompey, 39 dispersal of the Christians, 4S revolution in, and the Church's

migration from, 86 Hegesippus, 90 Jesus Christ, first disciples of, 11 faith in, 27

the person of, and His divinity,

31-33, 144, 215, 216, 221 St Paul's Christology, 59 heretical Christology, 57-59 His length of life, 105 Gnostic doctrine of, 116, 117, 121,

123, 125, 216 Marcion's doctrine of, 135 and Manichaeism, 407 Jews, their religion, 3, 27

and the primitive Church at Jerusalem, 12

Jews (1cotitmueff)— Hellenist, 16

difficulties with the church at

Antioch, iS, 19 their opposition, 23 foundation of Christianity, 27-29 colony in and expulsion from

Rome, 39 and St Paul, 43 transcendental Judaism, 53, 54 their priesthood an enemy to

Christians, 72 and Rome, 76, 77 inter-relationship of, 78, 79 end of Judaic Christianity, 85-96 evangelization of, 143 aristocratic, 157

opposition to Christianity, 41 r-15 John, the elder, possible author of the Apocalypse, 102, 104 n., 106 theology of Hermas, 171 John, St, difficulties at Antioch, 18 St Peter's death, 46 alpha and omega, 55 the Apocalypse of, 56 the Nicolaitanes, 56 heresy of Cerinthus, 57 authorship of the Apocalypse, Gospel, and Epistles, 97-100 at Ephesus and Patmos, 192 Josephus, and the Essenes, 53

in Rome, 157 Judaea, first appearance of Christianity in, 3 Judaic Christianity. See Jews Judaism. See Jews Judas Barsabbas, difficulties at Antioch, 18 his gift of prophecy, 35 Judas Iscariot, reports of his end, 105

Julius Africanus, his life and

writings, 333-36 Jus Gladii, 72

Justin, St, philosopher, his apology, 83 tu

Justin, St ^^fimued)— revolt of Bar-Kocheba, 87 n. and Jewish converts, 89, 90 the Apocalypse, 99, 100 and Simon Magus, 115 and Saturninus, 117, 118 on Gnosticism, 138, 139 against all heresies, 141 his history and apologies, 150-53 his discussion with Crescens, 152, 153

his dialogue with Trypho, 153 and the Cynics, 175 his martyrdom, 176

Kenoma, the, 122 Kerygmes of Peter, the, 95

Laodicea, the Council of, 53 n

controversies, 209 Linus, Bishop of Rome, 44 Logos, doctrine of the, 222, 223,

226, 243 Lucanus, his doctrine, 179 Lucian, The False Prophet, 148

his theology, 362-64 Lyons, the Church of, martyrs of, 185, 186

Macedonia, conquest of Persia, 2

St Paul's missions to, 20, 21 Magians, the, 393 Magus, Simon, and popular

Gnosticism, 114-19 Malchion and Paul of Samosata,

342, 378 Manicheans, the sect of the, 19

their doctrine, 404-11 Marcellina, a follower of Carpocrates, 133, 174, 195 Marcia, wife of Emperor Com-

modus, a Christian, 183, 212 Marcion, doctrine of, 59, 133-36, 179, 180 and Polycarp, 139, 174 in Rome, 173-75

Mark, the Gospel of St, 99,106, 107 Matthew, Gospel of St, resemblance to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 88, 91 synoptic Gospels, 106, 107 Maturus, a neophite, amazing

courage of, 186 Maximilla, a Montanist, 200, 201 Maximin, Emperor, 266

dethronement and death, 234 Melito, Bishop of Sardis, the Apologist, 83, 153-55 his writings, 193-95 his books on prophecy, 198 the Paschal celebration, 209 Menander of Capparatea, 116, 118 Messiah, the, the Jews' hopes of, 10, 12

the Christian converts belief in,

27, 32 _t

Methodius, Bishop of Olympus, his life and writings, 360, 361 and Porphyry, 403 Millenium, the expected, 197

Nepos on the, 349, 350 Miltiades, his Apology, 154, 155

his treatise, 198 Mission of Paul and Barnabas in Upper Asia Minor, 17, 18 of Paul in Macedonia, Greece, and Ephesus, 19, 20 Mithras, the worship of, 393-98 Modalists, doctrine of the, 224, 225 Monarchy (consubstantiality), 225, 397

Montanism, doctrine of, 196-206

and Marcion, 287 Morals, Christian, 365-80 Mosaic law, 24, 27-34 Muratorian Canon, 369

Namphano of Madaura, first

African martyr, 188 Narcissus, Bishop, 332 National religions, 73 Nazarenes, the, 91, 93

Neo-Platonism, 378-403

Nepos, Bishop, Refutation of the

Allegorists, 349 Nero, Emperor, burning of Rome and persecution of the Christians, 47, 78, 82, 212 the Church in Rome under, 157-83 Nicolaitanes, heresy of the, 56, 57 Noetus, a Modalist, excommunication of, 224, 225 Novatian, a priest of the Roman Church, his writings, 235 the schism of, 295-303 in Antioch, 337 in Asia Minor, 338 Novatus, and St Cyprian, 294-99

Odenath, Prince of Palmyra, 340 (Ecumenical Council, 389 Old Testament, adopted by Christianity, 29, 30 and Gnosticism, 128, 129 and Marcionism, 134, 136 Ophite (serpent) sects, 118, 119 Origen—St Peter's visit to Rome, 45 Judaic Christians, 90-93 the Simonians, 118 and Paul, a heretic of Alexandria, 119 The True Discourse, 148 St Clement's letter, 161 and Hippolytus, 215 and Pope Fabian, 235 his life, doctrine, and literary

works, 247-60, 354, 359 persecuting edicts, 263 Exhortation to Afartyrdom, 266 his tortures and death, 269 in Ciesarea, 318, 319 his discussion with Beryllus, 335 Eastern theology after, 356-64 his exegesis, 391

Pagans, their worship, 37, 38, 76

general decay of, 392 Palestine, worship of Jahve in, 10

Panarion, th-e, by St Epiphanius, 142

Pantnsnus, converted Stoic, the Gospel to the Hebrews, 92, 242, 243

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and the virgin prophetesses, 98, 99 authorship of the Apocalypse, 100-2

Apology of Quadratus, 149 n. his writings, 192, 193 Papylus of Thyatira, his martyrdom, 194 n.

Paraclete, the, 200, 206, 287 Paschal controversy, the, 207-11 Patripassianism, 226 Paul, a teacher from Antioch, 119 Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, his history and doctrine, 341-44 Eastern theology after, 356-64 his double office, 378 Paul, St, of Tarsus, his conversion, 14

the Church at Antioch, 17 missions of, 17-20 action as to circumcision, 19 his reception at Jerusalem, 21, 25 his position among the Jewish

Christians, 22-25 his letters, 22, 23 his captivity, 25, 26, 43 the new Christian's life, 34, 35 the Church at Corinth, 36 origin of the Roman Church, 41 expounds the Gospel in Rome, 43 Epistle to the Philippians, 43 visits Spain, 43 his death in Rome, 47, 48 his rule in missionary work, 49 his Epistles, 50-52, 97 position of the angels, 53 his Christology, 54 Judaic Christians, 93, 94 Elkesaites, 95 in Phrygia, 191

Paul (continued)— St, in Cilicia, 315 the Acts of \ 370-72 Pella, Christians take refuge at, 86

Church at, 89 Penance, 376, 377 Pepuza, as the new Jerusalem, 199 Perpetua, her captivity and martyrdom, 286 Persia, in the sixth century and after, 2

destruction of the Chaldean Empire, 3 Peter, St, and Cornelius, 14 arrest of, 15

difficulties of the Church at

Antioch, 18, 19 in Rome, 41, 45 the Church of, 45 his death in Rome, 46 his position in the primitive community, 63 his writings, 109 Peter, apocryphal Gospel of St, 325, 372

Peter, Epistles of St, 46, 56, 65, 79, 100

Philadelphians, St Ignatius' letter to, 60

Philemon, Epistle to, 50 Philetus, 55

Philip, the evangelist, his four daughters, virgin prophetesses, 98, 192

Philippians, Epistle to the, 65 Philo, exegesis of, 9 pleads before Caligula, 40 his doctrine, 113, 221, 401 Phoenician colonization, 282-85 Phrygia, Churches in, 190

Montanism in, 204 Pierius, life and writings, 357 Pleroma, the, 120, 123 Pliny, Governor of Bithynia, and the persecution of the Christians, 7 8, 81

Plotinus, his life and writings,

398, 399 Politus, a Marcionite, 179, 181 Polycarp, St, Bishop of Smyrna— heresy of Cerinthus, 57, 60 ecclesiastical hierarchy, 65 St Paul's Epistles and pastoral

letters, 98 the Apocalypse, 100, 101 Gnosticism, and Marcionism,

138, 139, 174 at Rome, 175 his martyrdom, 193 Paschal celebration, 210 Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus— virgin prophetesses, 98 his description of St John, 104 Paschal celebration, 210 Pompey, capture of Jerusalem, 4, 39 Pomponia Grrecina, Patrician

Christian, 158 Porphyry, his writings, 402, 403 Praxeas, his doctrine, 224 Priests, their position, 65 Primus, Bishop of Corinth, 189 Priscilla, wife of Aquila, receives

Paul at Corinth, 20, 40, 44 Priscilla, the Christian cemetery of,

158, 159, 177, 214 Proclus, a Montanist, 203, 204, 221 Ptolemaeus and St Irenasus, 178 Ptolemy, his letter to Flora, 128, 129, 139 in Gaul, 188 Pudens, a Roman Christian, 44 Puteoli, Christians at, 42

Quadratus, Bishop of Athens, his Apology, 149 his zeal, 189

Religion, investigation and speculation amongst the first Christians, 49 national, 73

fusion under the Empire, 74, 75

Re*«iatio»s, the Book of. See

Apocalypse Rhodo, an Asiatic—his arguments with Apelles, 180, 181 his works, 182 Roman Church, the, origin of, 39-48 relations with Cyprian, 288-312 influences of, 3S9-91 Roman Empire, the home of Christianity, 1-8 the provinces and municipal

organization, 4 manners, customs, and religion, 5-7

the episcopate, 62-70 Christianity and the State of, 7184

Romans, Epistle to the, 23, 41, 44 Rome (see also Roman Churcii and Empire), growth and prosperity of, 4, 5 St Paul's manifesto to Christians

in, 24 Jewish colony in, 39 St Paul in, 43 St Peter in, 45

death of SS. Peter and Paul, 46-48 burning of, 47 her bishops, 68, 172 and Judaism, 77 the Church in, 157-83, 195 controversies in, 212-36 her colonization and administration, 283, 284

Sabellius, a modalist, 225, 227 his influence in Cyrenaica, 35' Sagaris, Bishop of Laodicea,

martyrdom, 195 Salvation, Gnostic system of, 123 Samaria, Gnosticism in, 114, 115 Sanctus, the Deacon of Vienne—

his martyrdom, 186 Sanhedrim, stoning of Stephen, 13 stoning of James, 26 its power, 72

Sassanides, the, 339 Saturninus, of Antioch—his doctrine, 59, 117 Bishop of Toulouse, his martyrdom, 269 See vigi'LLius Saul. See Paul SciHi, the martyrs of, 1S8, 286 Sees, Metropolitan, 383 Sejanus, and the Jews, 40 Seleucidce, the kingdom of, put an

end to by Pompey, 4 Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, 32427

Silas, mission to Antioch, 18 joins St Paul on his missions, 20

his gift of prophecy, 35 leaves Jerusalem, 98 Simeon, head of the Church of Jerusalem, 63, 87 his martyrdom, 88 Simon Magus. See Magus Soter, Bishop of Rome—his letter, 177

Spain, St Paul's visit to, 43

Christian community in, 143 Stephen, Pope, and St Cyprian, 303-10 his death, 311 and Dionysius, 338 Stephen, St, the stoning of, 13 Suetonius on the Jewish expulsion from Rome, 40 his opinion of Christianity, 146 Sunday devoted to divine worship,

37, 207, 396 Symmachus, an Ebionite—his Greek version of the Old Testament, 92 Syneros—his doctrine, 179 Synoptic Gospels, 89, 107, 20S Syria, 64

Gnosticism in, 114-19 Christianity in southern, 330-36 Syzygies, 118, 124

Tacitus, Hero, and the burning of Rome, 47 his opinion of Christianity, 146 Tatian, Oration to the Greeks, 155, 156

in Rome, 175 Taurobolia, the rite of, 396 Teaching, the, of the Apostles. See

Didache Temple, the destruction of the, 3 its high prestige in Palestine, 10 attitude of Christian and Jew towards, 38 Tertullian —St Peter's visit to Rome, 45 Christianity as a crime, 80 and St John's death, 104 and Gnosticism, 132, 133 Christians in Carthage, 188 and Montanism, 202-6 and Praxeas, 224 doctrine of the compassion, 228 De Pudicitia, 230 his apology and ad nationes, 262 Christian associations, 279 African Christianity, 285 his life and works, 286-88 on baptism, 306, 365, 367 and Herminiamus, 317 and Theophilus, 324 Themison—his encyclical, 200 Theodotus—his doctrine, 200, 21720

Theology, Eastern, 356-64 • Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch—his

writings, 155, 323 Thessalonica, Church formed at, 21 Thessalonians, Epistle to the, 22,

49, 64 «.

Thomas, the apostle, Christianity in Edessa, 327, 328

Thomas, the apostle (continued)

Acts of, 373 Thought (ennoia), doctrine of Simon

Magus, 115 Tiberius, Emperor, 11 expulsion of Jews from Rome, 39, 77

Timothy joins Paul in his missions, 20

in Asia, 191 Timothy, Epistle to, 55, 374 Titus and the two religions, 79 Tongues, the gift of, 35 Trajan and Christianity, 78, 81-83

martyrdom of Simeon, 88 Trastevere, Jewish colony in, 39 Trinity, the doctrine of the, 32

Valentinus—his doctrine, 119-24, 132

and Hermas, 138, 173 in Rome, 175, 178 Valerian, Emperor, Christian persecution under, 272-76 Vespasian and Judaism, 77

revolution at Jerusalem, 86 Victor, Pope, pardon of the confessors, 183 the Paschal controversy, 210,

211 death, 213

and Theodotus, 217-19 Vigellius Saturninus, Pro-consul, persecutes the Christians, 188

Wisdom, the Book of 9

Zenobia, Queen—her conquests and final defeat, 340 and Paul of Samosata, 341, 343 Zephyrinus, Pope, 213-26

^{^[1]} Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Herder, 1902-1903, 2nd vol.

^{^[2]} Texte und Un tersuch ungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur) Leipzig, Hinreich.

^{^[3]} Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Pt. I.; Die Uber- lieferung und der Bestand (1893), Pt. XI. ; Die Chronologie (18971904). I must mention also the collection of Christian writings of the three first centuries, published by the Academy of Berlin: several volumes have already appeared.

^{^[4]} Especially that of P£re Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de I'Afrique chritienne (1901).

^{^[5]} Besides the passage in the Acts (xi. 26), where this name first appears, it is only used twice in the New Testament (Acts xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16), and then as a name used by non-Christians. It is not found, either, in the Apostolic Fathers, except in St Ignatius, who was a native of Antioch (Harnack, Mission, p. 295).

^{^[6]} This date has been much disputed. Harnack, Chronologic, vol. i., pp. 233 ct scq.y places it four or five years earlier. I cannot accept his arguments, to which Schiirer, Gcschichic dcs jiidischen Volkcs, 3rd ed., vol. i., p. 578, has sufficiently replied.

- 2 Cor. xi. 12.

^{^[8]} Rom. vii. 7-11.

^{^[9]} We know now that the stages of this development are much shorter in the Bible than they were in reality. But we are now dealing with the history as it appeared to the early believers, and not as it is now being continuously unfolded to us by the discoveries of archreology.

^{^[10]} Schiirer, Geschichtc der jiidischcn Volkes, etc., 3rd ed., vol. iii., p. 28.

^{^[11]} Philo, Leg. ad Caium, 23.

^{^[12]} Josephus, Ant. xviii. 3, 5 ; Tacitus, Ann. ii. 85 ; Suetonius, Tiberius, 36.

^{^[13]} On this point, see Boissier, Tacite, p. 146.

^{^[14]} These were the " Danaides" and the " Dirces" of St Clement.

^{^[15]} Eusebius gives the date as 67 or 6S ; but there is some ambiguity, for he assigns the same date to the persecution of Nero, and that persecution, i.e., the tortures described by Tacitus, certainly began in the summer of 64.

^{^[16]} 'Apxv^!^Kal ££ovaiai.

^{^[17]} Rev. ii. 24. ² Ibid. ii. 6, 15.

³ Irenseus, i. 26; iii. 11. Clement, Strom, ii. ir8; iii. 25, 26.

The description of Hippolytus (Pseudo-Tert. 48; Epiph. 25, 26;

Philastr. 33 ; cf. Photius, cod. 232) relates to a system of serpent- worship.

^{^[18]} Acts vi. 5 : he was one of the seven deacons : xaI XiKiXaov irpoaifKvTovy 'Avrioxta: no other details are given. Clement bears witness to the immorality of the sect; but he imputes no blame to Nicolas, of whom he relates the following story : Nicolas had a wife, of whom he was inordinately jealous. The apostles having reproached him, he brought her into the assembly and offered to allow anyone to take her (yrjfiai). He had no other wife. His son was of most exemplary conduct, and he had several daughters who passed their lives in virginity. His maxim was that the flesh must be abused (irapaxprjo-Oai rr) aapKl). Matthew said the same. They both used these words in an ascetic sense, but the schismatics twisted their meaning.

^{^[19]} Irenreus, Haer. iii. 3 ; cf. Eusebius iv. 14.

^{^[20]} Haer. i. 26.

⁶ As represented in Pseudo-Tert. 48, Epiph. 28, Philastr. 36. The Philosophumena (vii. 33) only repeat what St Irenaeus has already said.

^{^[22]} According to Hippolytus, Cerinthus taught that Jesus was not yet risen from the dead, but that he would rise at the general resur

rection of the just. This improbable statement of his tenets is contradicted by Irenaeus.

^{^[24]} Philad. vii. ³ Eph. ix.

^{^[25]} Cf. Polycarp, Philipp. vii. : "He who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, he is an anti-christ; he who does not accept the witness of the cross, he is of the devil; he who twists the words of the Lord for his own lusts, and says there will be no resurrection and no judgment to come, he is the first-born of Satan."

^{^[26]} Like Pseudo-Barnabas, for instance. ³ Eph. xviii. ⁴ Eph. vii.

⁵ Magn. viii. The old editions have it: 6'y <?<mv avrov \6yos atdios,

Eternal Abyss. This is regarded as an argument against the authenticity of this letter and of others. Th. Zahn has proved {PP. apost.,

^{^[29]} If we knew more about the "angels" of the churches in Asia, spoken of at the commencement of the Apocalypse, it might perhaps be possible to state whether by this symbolic term the bishops of these churches were meant. It would not be surprising if this were the case, for scarcely twenty years separate the Apocalypse and the letters of Ignatius. The exact meaning, however, is not certain.

^{^[30]} The value of these dates would be rather lessened, though not destroyed, if we admitted with Harnack (Chronologie, vol. i., p. 158, etc.) that they were all derived from a little Roman Episcopal Chronicle of the time of Marcus Aurelius, whence St Irenaeus and various other chronologists, and later writers on the heresies, drew their information. But the existence of this primitive liber pontificalis is far from being established, and it would be rash to base any argument on such a hypothetical document. Even if the existence of the text which Harnack thinks he has been able to re-construct be granted, it is still difficult to believe that, had there been no single monarchical bishop in Rome, before Anicetus, it would have been possible to represent him, only a few years after his death, as the successor of a long line of bishops, and to get credence for the tale, not only from the local public, for whom the little chronicle was evidently intended, but also from men like Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, who had good opportunities for acquiring reliable information.

^{^[31]} Adv. Noeturn, I.

^{^[32]} See the documents collected by Dom. F. Cabrol, in his Diction- tiaire d'ArchMogie Chrt'tienne, vol. i., p. 1204. Cf. Canones Hippolyti, c. 10.

^{^[33]} Tacitus, Ann. ii., 85 : "Actum et de sacris Aegyptiis Iudaicisquc pellendis, factumque Patrum consultum ut quattuor milia libertini generis ea superstitione infecta quis idonea aetas in insulam Sardinian! veherentur coercendis illic latrociniis, et si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum ; ceteri cederent Italia nisi certain ante diem profanos ritus exuissent."

^{^[34]} Eus. iv. 9. Eusebius found this letter, in Latin, at the end of Justin's first apology. He translated it into Greek. This is the text we now have, in the manuscripts of Justin. It has been erroneously supposed, that Rufinus, instead of re-translating this document into Latin, took the original text from the manuscript of Justin. It is very unlikely an author like Rufinus would have done this.

^{^[35]} Eusebius, H. E. iv. 26.

^{^[36]} The rescripts on the Christians, by Antoninus Pius to the assembly of Asia, and by Marcus Aurelius to the Roman senate (the affair of the Thundering Legion) are apocryphal. They are generally printed with the apologies of St Justin. The first took in Eusebius, who reproduced it (under the name of Marcus Aurelius), H.E. iv. 13.

^{^[37]} Zahn, Kanonsgeschichte, vol. ii., p. 642 et seq.; Harnack, Chronologic, vol. i., p. 631 et seq.; cf. Hilgenfeld, N. T. extra canonem, fasc. iv., p. 15 ; and Handmann's contribution to the Texte und Unters., 1888.

^{^[38]} H. E. iv. 6. The comments on Aristo of Pella are to be found in Harnack, Altchr. Litteratur, vol. i., p. 92.

^{^[39]} We can form some idea of the extent of this toleration, when we consider that it was permissible to side either with Philo, or with Akiba, to believe either in the resurrection of the dead, or in absolute annihilation, to look forward to the Messianic hope or to scoff at it, to philosophize like Ecclesiastes, or like the Wisdom of Solomon, etc.

^{^[40]} Dial. 17.

^{^[41]} This is the term employed by St Epiphanius, notably in the chapter (xxix.) of his Panarium devoted to this sect. The name Ebioneans is used by him to denote a particular heretical system of which we shall hear more. St Jerome generally employs the term Nazarenes to denote the Judaic-Christians, but evidently he regards Ebionites and Nazarenes as the same.

^{^[42]} Acts xxiv. 5. ³ St Luke vi. 20 ; St Matt. v. 3.

4 In the account in the Philosophumena, it is said that Jesus received that name, and the name "The Christ of God," on account of

his fidelity to the Law.

^{^[45]} " Quae autem sunt prophetica, curiosius exponere nituntur."

⁰ A confusion with the Gospel of the Hebrews.

^{^[47]} Philosoph. ix. 13 ; cf. Origen (Eusebius, H. E. vi. 38) and Epiphanius, Haer. xxx.

^{^[48]} It is not impossible that such a book existed, and it may even

have been written in Trajan's time. Its foundation was a preaching of repentance ; and there seems no reason why the Elkesaites of Alcibiades, if they had fabricated the whole thing, should have taken so much trouble to produce what was simply a call to repentance. In matters of that kind, the proclamation is quickly followed by the effect. We have but to remember the preaching of Hermas, which was almost contemporary with that of Elkesai. Cf. Harnack, Chronologie, ii.l P- ⁱ⁶7j 537- ³ The word Spirit, in Semitic languages, is feminine.

^{^[50]} Acts xxi. 8, 9. ² Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39.

³ Clement of Alexandria {Strom, iii. vi. 53 ; cf. Eusebius, H. E. iii. 30) says that the Apostle Philip had daughters, and that they married. It is possible that he refers to Philip the Evangelist, in which case the marriages mentioned by Clement must be reduced to two,

^{^[51]} George the Monk (Hamartolos) in the first edition of his chronicle, in the reign of Nerva, had noted that Papias said in the second book of his Logia, the Apostle John was put to death by the Jews {cf. Mark x. 39). This passage was omitted by George in the definitive edition of his chronicle ; see Boor's edition, coll. Teubner, vol. ii., p. 447-

^{^[52]} The opposition of the " Alogi,"at the beginning of the Montanist movement, must be pointed out. It is curious that these opponents of the new prophecy, who were in line with the orthodox church in other matters, should have disputed the authenticity of the Johannine books. To some people, at least, the origin of these books cannot have been so clear, as was that of the epistles of St Paul. For the " Alogi," see below chapter xv.

^{^[53]} Other gospels were drawn up for the Christians of those remote days besides the canonical gospels, and obtained recognition at least in some circles. In endeavouring to gauge the standards of those days we are quite entitled to refer to them. The author of the Gospel of Peter takes for granted the existence of our four canonical gospels. Yet it is incredible how little care he takes to adjust his gospel with those of his predecessors. The legend of Judas (see below), though irreconcilable with the canonical gospels, was none the less accepted by Papias. I shall deal later on with the relations of the apocryphal Acts of St Paul to the Acts of the Apostles.

^{^[54]} I should be loth to admit that these Asiatic memories, whatever be the authority on which they rest, should be divided between two Johns, a disciple and an apostle, who both lived in Asia. Papias certainly clearly distinguishes two Johns, but does not connect them both with his native land. The John of Asia is either an apostle, or else a mere disciple : we must take our choice. If the traditional belief is abandoned, then it must be admitted that John the disciple was confused with the son of Zebedee, just as Philip the deacon was confused with Philip the apostle. The story of the two tombs, mentioned as a common report by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius vii. 25) is not confirmed by the tradition on the monuments at Ephesus ; at Ephesus, but one sanctuary and one John were known.

^{^[55]} Hegesippus, in Eusebius, H. E. iv. 22 ; Irenseus i. 23 ; Pseudo- Tert., de Praescr., 46.

^{^[56]} A century after Justin, Origen (Cels. i. 57) assures us that there were not thirty Simonians left in the world.

^{^[57]} The well-known confusion of the old Sabine god, Semo Sancus, Deus Fidius, with Simo sanctus Deus.

^{^[58]} Haer. i. 29-31. Neither Justin nor Hegesippus classifies these heretics ; they seem to be all included in the general term of Simonians.

^{^[59]} This description of the system of Basilides is taken from St Irenaeus (i. 28) who was followed by St Hippolytus in his Syntagna, (Pseudo-Tert., Epiph., Haer. 24; Philastr. 32). The Philosophu- viena gives quite a different idea of the system, but taken from documents, the origin of which is now considered doubtful. Clement of Alexandria has preserved some interesting particulars of its moral tendencies.

^{^[59]} Epiphanius, Haer. xxxiii. 3-7. Re-edited with comments, by Harnack, in the Sitzungsberichte of the Academy of Berlin, 1902, p. 507-541.

^{^[60]} IreruEus, Haer. iii. 3. ² Justin, Apol. i. 26.

3 Irenreus, Haer. iv. 6.

4 Harnack has had the patience to compile a minute catalogue of all these bibliographic allusions. Die Ucberlicferung undder Bestami

^{^[63]} l.ivTa.^p.0. Kard. iraffCiv 7eyev77fiAvwv alpiaeuv (Apol. i. 26).

^{^[64]} This has been done by R. A. Lipsius (Die Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Wien, 1865.

^{^[65]} Cod. 121.

^{^[66]} The catalogue of heresies printed at the end of the De Prescrip- tionibus of Tertullian is only a summary of the Syntagma of Hippolytus ; this little work belongs apparently to a date somewhere about the year 210. Epiphanius (see 377) and Philastrius (see 385), the first especially, have also made great use of the Syntagma. And finally, the chapter on Noetus, which forms the end of his work, has come down to us separately.

^{^[67]} Marcus Aurelius (Thoughts xi. 3) notes this attitude, but without approval. If the Gallileans Epictetus speaks of (Arrian, Diss. IV. vii. 6) were really Christians, that passage may also refer to it.

^{^[68]} On the great attractions of infant Christianity, see Harnack, Die Mission unci Ausbreitung des Christenthums in den ersten drci Jahr- hunderten, 1902, p. 72-209.

^{^[69]} H. E. |v. 3 ; cf. iii. 37, and v. 17 for the prophet Quadratus.

^{^[70]} Eiy tovs tj/xertpov? -xpbvovs. The passage is reproduced by Eusebius, loc. cit. This does not mean alive until the time of Hadrian. Papias, who seems to have read the Apology of Quadratus (Texte unci Utit., vol. v., p. 170) may have been led by that to make the exorbitant assertion, 'Adpiavov Zfav. Quadratus, who wrote between 117 and 138, might quite well regard the years, c. 80-100, as belonging to his own time.

^{^[71]} It is not easy to fix the date of Aristides between these limits ; yet the first ten years (138-147) are the more likely.

^{^[72]} The Apology of Aristides (Rendel Harris and Armitage Robinson), in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. i. (1891). The opening portion was first discovered in Armenian ; then the whole text in a Syriac manuscript at Mount Sinai ; and finally, the original Greek text was recognised in a composition published a long time ago, the Legend of Barlaam and Josaphat. (Boissonnade, Anecdota Graeca, vol. iv., p. 239-255; Migne, P. G., vol. xcvi., p. 1108-1124; BaaiXev, irpovolq. Geou . . .)

^{^[72]} Eusebius (iv. 18) speaks of two writings, "To the Greeks," Ilpis "EWrjvas, in one of which, amongst other things, the nature of demons was dealt with—the other bore the special title of " Refutation,""EXcyx⁰*- In a third, "On the Sovereignty of God," he establishes the Divine Unity both on the Holy Scriptures and the books of the Greeks. Finally, another book set forth various questions as to the soul, giving the solutions of philosophers, and promising to give his own later on.

^{^[73]} We know, by name only, of a book against all heresies (.Apol. i. 26), and of another against Marcion (Irenams IV., vi. 2). Perhaps they were parts of one work.

^{^[74]} This title, incorrectly handed down, has led to much discussion, which is given or epitomised in Harnack's Chronologic, p. 279 el seq.

^{^[75]} It is not known where the Dialogue was written, but probably not in Rome.

^{^[76]} H. E. iv. 26, §§ 6-11.

^{^[77]} See p. 151, note 2, of this volume.

^{^[78]} Melito, Ilepi &\T)6das ; Apollinaris, a work in two books with the same title ; five books, irpbs "EW-qvas; his vepi evce^elas, mentioned by Photius, must be identical with the Apology ; Miltiades, II/>6s "EWrjvas, in two books. Eusebius iv. 26, 27 ; v. 17. These are all lost.

^{^[79]} Tacitus, Attn. xiii. 32 ; Christian inscriptions of the 3rd century mention Pomponii Bassi, and even a Pompom'us Graecinus (De Rossi, Roma soft., vol. ii., p. 281, 362).

^{^[80]} De Rossi, Bull. 1889, 1890.

^{^[81]} C. I. L., vol. vi., note 16246 ; cf 948 and 8942.

^{^[82]} Dio Cassius, lxvii. 14 ; cf. Suetonius, Domitian 15.

^{^[83]} According to the chronographer Bruttias, Eusebius, in his chronicle, ad ami. Abr. 2110 (cf. H. E. iii. 18) speaks of this other Flavia Domitilla, the daughter of a sister of the consul, who was exiled to the Isle of Pontia. As he does not mention the exile of the consul and his wife, we might be inclined to fear that this Flavia Domitilla had been confused with the other. The two islands, however, are quite distinct, and St Jerome, who visited Pontia, had seen there the rooms which had been occupied by "the most illustrious of women," exiled for the faith, under Domitian. The legend of the Saints, Nereus and Achilleus (brothers. See Roman Breviary, 12th May) implies that this Domitilla was martyred and buried at Terracina. I think that Tillemont {Hist. eccl., vol. ii., p. 224); De Rossi {Bull., 1875, p. 72-77), and Achelis {Texte and Unt., vol. xi. (2), p. 49), are right in distinguishing two Flavia Domitillas.

^{^[84]} Except the First Epistle of St Peter. See above, p. 46, note 3.

^{^[85]} Clem. i. 1, 2, 44, 47.

^{^[86]} "The Church of God, which dwells in Rome to the Church of God which dwells in Corinth . . ."

^{^[87]} In /oh. i. 29, a doubtful identification.

^{^[88]} Mand. iv. 3 ; Sim. viii. 6. Hermas again is not very dogmatic about backsliders: "This man will not pull through; it will be difficult for him to save his soul." If, at times, he seems to shut out from forgiveness men guilty of some sin, it is because they turn away from repentance.

^{^[89]} Filius autem Spiritus sanctus est, runs the old Latin version ; these startling words have disappeared from the Greek text and the other Latin version.

^{^[90]} Hermas never employs either the term Word, nor that of Christ. Nor does the name of Jesus appear cither in The Shepherd.

^{^[91]} Compare Dionysius of Rome, in Athanasius, De deer. Nicaen., 26.

^{^[92]} Tertullian attributes his departure to friction with Marcion, about a woman. He also says that Philomena came to grief. In her ecstasies, she had communications with a child, who sometimes was Christ, and sometimes St Paul.

^{^[93]} <$avepu<reLs. He wrote another book, Syllogisms, attacking Moses and the Prophets. Origen {in Gen. ii. 2) quotes a fragment of it. Other bits are given in the De Paradiso of St Ambrose. Cf. Texte und Unt. vi. (3), p. in.

^{^[94]} Eusebius v. 13.

^{^[95]} Philosoph. ix. 12.

^{^[96]} <:7rt iratSdq. Kal <f>i\ocro<f>lq. ^eporj^vov, says Eusebius ; St Jerome (De viris ill. 42 ; cf. 53, 70) calls him a senator.

^{^[97]} The trial of Apollonius was amongst ancient mariyria, collected by Eusebius. In his ecclesiastical history, he gives a summary of it (v. 21). Quite lately, two new versions of this martyria have been published ; one in Armenian (Reports of the Berlin Academy, 1893, p. 72S) ; the other in Greek (Anal. Holland., vol. xiv., p. 286). From these accounts, the original text raises some difficulties. See Harnack's commentaries (Reports of the Berlin Academy, loc. tit.); Mommsen (ibid., 1894, p. 497); K. J. Neumann (Der rom. Staat tind die allgemeine Kirche, vol. i., p. 79) ; Gefifcken (Nachrichten, Gottingen, phil. hist, cl., 1904, p. 262). The story of the accuser being executed, although his accusation had given rise to a criminal trial, is very improbable. The tale, reported only by Eusebius, may arise from some confusion ; some accident to the accuser may have been transformed into a legal punishment.

^{^[98]} When St Paul landed at Puteoli, 61 a.d., he was received by a company of disciples established there (Acts xxviii. 13, 14). It is quite possible that this group continued to exist, and it may have organized itself into a church connected with that of Rome, but we know nothing about it.

184

^{^[99]} "EXeyxos koX avarpoirr] rrjs \I/evSwi>iHfji.ov yvwvews.

^{^[100]} Cf. the article " Montanismus," by the same author, in the Encyclopedia of Hauck, vol. xiii. (1903), p. 417.

^{^[101]} Sunday is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (xx. 7) in connection with an event which occurred, 57 a.d. The Didache and The Shepherd of Hennas speak of the " Stations."

•-'07

^{^[102]} It may seem surprising that people who acknowledged the fourth Gospel should feel such repugnance to a system so closely allied to it. Their reply was : " It is odd of you to give the name of Word to the Son. John does it, no doubt, but he was in the habit of allegorizing." Hippolytus, Contra No'et. 15.

^{^[103]} Tdi' ~aj3{\\ioi> dWwirev ws /jlt} <ppovovvra dpdws.

^{^[104]} See above, p. 95. ³ See above, p. 116.

⁴ We meet with it again in the book on heresies by Philaster, and

also in the appendix to the Prescriptions of Tertullian (Praescr. 45-53). The conclusion has been preserved by itself, under the form of a homily against Noetus.

^{^[106]} Other documents, about which it is necessary to exercise some reserve, are those (concerning different sects) which arose out of this same book, the Philosophumena; they seem to betray the same origin, and perhaps the hand of a forger. It is therefore wise to regard with some suspicion their statements as to the Naassenes Peratae, the Sethes, and Justin the Gnostic ; and what they add to the previous traditions about Simon, Basilides, and the Docetae. See Salmon, in Hermathena, 1885, p. 389; Stahelin, in Texte unci Unt., vol. vi. (3).

^{^[107]} Adv. Praxeam 27: "Obducti distinctione Patris et Filii quam manente coniunctione disponimus . . . aliter ad suam nihilominus sententiam interpretari conantur ut aeque in una persona utrumque distinguant Patrem et Filium, dicentes Filium carnem esse, id est hominem, id est Jesum ; Patrem autem spiritum, id est Deum, id est Christum. Et qui unum eumdemque contendunt Patrem et Filium iam incipiunt dividere illos potius quam unare." . . . 29: " Nec compassus est Pater Filio ; sic enim directam blasphemiam in Patrem veriti, diminui earn hoc modo sperant, concedentes iam Patrem et Filium duos esse, si Filius quidem patitur, Pater vero compatitur. Stulti et in hoc. Quid est enim compati quam cum alio pati ?"

^{^[108]} Hippolytus had perhaps lived there.

- Prudentius, Peristeph. xi., takes his information from the inscription of Damasus Hippolytusfertur (Ihm. No. 37), but he confounds the martyr of the Via Tiburtina with another martyr Hippolytus, sur- named Nonnus, commemorated at Porto on August 22, and embellishes their combined history with incidents borrowed from the legend of Hippolytus, the son of Theseus.

^{^[110]} Eusebius vi. 20, 22 ; Hier. De viris 61 ; Rufinus, H. E. vi. 16.

^{^[111]} Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pontiff p. 545. It appears that Gelasius is here depending on a Greek document. See the work of L. Saltet on the sources of the Eranistes of Theodoret, published in the Revue dhistoire ecclesiastique of Lou vain, 1905, p. 516 et seq.

^{^[112]} Apollinaris (Mai. Script. Vet., vol. i., p. 173).

^{^[113]} Already in the Paschal Chronicle {c. 640).

⁶ It is with this history that Hippolytus still appears in the Roman Breviary, and in the Martyrology.

^{^[114]} An official festival was instituted to celebrate this event; it was continued, in the Christian calendar, as a festival dedicated to the Maccabees and to St Peter ad Vincula, on August 1. On Roman Egypt, see Lambroso, LlEgitto al tempo dei Greet e dei Romani, Rome, 1882.

^{^[115]} He also commanded the army. In Egypt, the commanders of legions were not, as elsewhere, legates of senatorial rank, or they could not have been subordinate to a knight, not of the higher class, like the Egyptian prefect. They were praefecti castrorum. Augustus forbade senators, or knights of high rank, to live in Egypt. He dared not allow men of such importance to be in surroundings so conducive to ambitious designs.

^{^[116]} On this subject, see Harnack, Chronologic, vol. i., p. 202. The list of Julius Africanus is compiled from indications in Eusebius.

^{^[117]} These figures, taken together, amount to 128 years ; they begin,

therefore, about the year 61 a.d. ³ ii. 16.

^{^[119]} Acta S. Petri Alex. (Migne, P. G., vol. xviii., p. 461 ; cf. Lumbroso, LEgitto al tempo dei Greci e dei Romani, Rome, 1882, p. 185. If Mark the Evangelist is identified with "John, whose surname was Mark," mentioned in the Acts, and in the Epistles of St Paul and St Peter, the Alexandrian tradition has to meet the serious objection that Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius vii. 25) refers to his history, without betraying the least suspicion that he had any connection with the Egyptian metropolis.

^{^[119]} Plutarch, the brother of Heraclas, Serenus, Heraclides, Heron, another Serenus, a woman called Hera'is, Basilides, Potamaena, Marcella. Eusebius vi. 4, 5.

^{^[120]} Apol. i. 29.

^{^[121]} Euelpius, authorized to preach by Neon, Bishop of Laranda ; Faulinus, by Celsus of Iconium ; Theodotius, by Atticus of Synnada. These men are otherwise unknown.

^{^[122]} Ile/H apx&v.

^{^[123]} Origen, in Eusebius vi. 19.

^{^[124]} A hundred years later, the Council of Nicea, where the Bishop of Alexandria was influential, began its canons by an enactment on this point.

^{^[125]} Eusebius (vi. 23) refers here to the Second Book of his Apology for Origen, now lost. Photius (cod. 118) has preserved some features of it, and seems to have deduced from it, that Eusebius and Pamphilus did not implicate any but Egyptian bishops, in the condemnation of Origen. St Jerome (Rufinus, Apol. i. 20) appears to have heard rumours of a more extensive episcopal condemnation : " Damnatur a Demetrio episcopo ; exceptis Palaestinae, et Arabiae, et Phoenices atque Achaiae sacerdotibus in damnationem eius consentit orbis ; Roma ipsa contra hunc cogit senatum ; non propter dogmatum novi- tatem nec propter haeresim, ut nunc adversus eum rabidi canes similant, sed quia gloriam eloquentiae eius et scientiae ferre non poterant, et illo dicente omnes muti putabantur."

^{^[126]} I say no more, in spite of Harnack, Chronologie, vol. ii., p. 25 (cf. Ueberliej\ p. 332) and Bardenhewer, Gesch., vol. ii., p. 80. The passage of Photius, on which they depend, is derived from one of the many malicious legends about Origen. See this passage in Dollinger, Hippolyt und Kallist, p. 264 ; and in Harnack, Ueberlief p. 332 {cf. Migne, P. G., vol. civ., p. 1229). Even before it was amended by Dollinger, Tillemont had cleared up the tradition upon this point {Hist, eccl., vol. iii., p. 769).

^{^[127]} Proverbs viii. 22, according to the Greek version : '0 Ktfptos Hanoi ne apxT)" 65Qv avrov. St Jerome translates it Dominus possedit me elsewhere (Gen. xiv.), where the present participle (qone) of the same verb(qano) occurs twice. He translates it the first time (v. 14) by que creavit, and the second time (v. 22) by possesses.

^{^[128]} This conception of original sin, as originating outside the world of sense, differs considerably from that of the Church. It is more like the Valentinian theory. Yet, according to Valentinus, original sin was attributable to a divine being ; that is not the case here.

^{^[129]} Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit; idem etiam de christianis sanxit. Spartian, Severus 17 (vol. i., p. 137, Peter).

^{^[130]} For the intellectual position of that day, in matters of philosophy and religion, see Jean Reville, La n'ligion a RSme sous les S&vtres, 1S86, p. 190 et seq.

^{^[131]} See above, pp. 231 and 250.

³ Lampridius, Alexander, 22, 29, 43, 45, 49, 51.

^{^[133]} Eusebius vi. 28 ; Origen, In Matth. 28.

^{^[134]} St Jerome, De virz's, 56.

^{^[135]} Firmilian, ap. Cypr., ep. lxxv. 10.

^{^[136]} Cat. lib.

^{^[137]} Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius vii. 10.

^{^[138]} For this persecution, see (1st) Cyrian, Ep. 1-56 ; De lapsisj (2nd) Dionysius of Alexandria, letters to Fabius of Antioch (Eusebius vi. 41, 42) to Domitius and Didymus (Eusebius vii. 11, 20), to Germanus

^{^[139]} For the persecution ofValerian, see (1st) Dionysius of Alexandria, letters to Hermammon (Eusebius vii. 10) and to Germanus (vii. 11). In this last letter, he reproduces the account of his trial before the Prefect of Egypt in 257. (Note that the letter to Domitian and Didymus, which Eusebius gives later, relates to the Decian persecution, and not to that of Valerian); (2nd) Cyprian, Ep. lxxvi.-lxxix.; (3rd) Passion of St Cyprian ; (4th) The Life of St Cyprian, by his deacon Pontius ; (5th) The Passions of St Fructuosus, Bishop of Tarragona, and his companions, Marien and James, of SS. Montanus, Lucius, etc.; (6th) Eusebius vii. 12.

^{^[140]} Account of the appearance of St Cyprian before the proconsul of Africa, Aspasius Paternus, on August 30, 257. The proconsul said to the Bishop—" Qui Romanam religionem non colunt debere Romanas caeremonias recognoscere. . . . Non solum de epis- copis verum etiam de presbyteris mihi scribere dignati sunt (Valeri- anus and Gallienus impp.). . . . Praeceperunt etiam ne in aliquibus locis conciliabula fiant nec ccemeteria ingrediantur. Si quis itaque hoc tam salubre praeceptum non observaverit, capite plectetur. In the account of the trial of St Dionysius of Alexandria, the Prefect

^{^[141]} Cyprian, Ep. Ixxvi.-lxxix. These confessors were scattered in groups throughout the metallum of Sigus, a few miles to the southeast of Cirta, in Numidia. The bishops had all taken part in the Council of Carthage in 256.

^{^[142]} Ep. lxxx.

^{^[143]} For the martyrs of Massa Candida, near Utica, see a treatise by

^{^[144]} He was then in Thrace, near Byzantium. These edicts are mentioned by Eusebius (vii. 30) and by Lactantius, De mortibus pers. 6. No martyrdom we know of can be connected with them.

^{^[145]} He imagined he had succeeded : "Quod ipsum (the assemblies) facere desisse (adfirmabant) post edictum meum quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse vetueram (Ep. x. 96).

^{^[146]} Apol. 39. ² See Cyprian, Ep. Ixvii. 6.

³ Beside the argument from expediency, some have thought they discerned indications that the Roman Church availed itself of the burial club legislation ; but these indications are extremely slight, and

of very doubtful significance.

^{^[149]} The documents collected by Monceaux (Hist. litt. de PAfriquc chrt'tienne, vol. i., p. 5) do not represent native legends, but only Byzantine compilations of late date, with no foundation in local tradition.

^{^[150]} Tertullian (Adv. fudeos i.) mentions, as converted to Christ, Getulorum varietates et Maurorum multifines. But we have reason to distrust his exaggeration.

^{^[151]} This does not apply to sermons; even in the time of St Augustine, preaching still went on in Punic. And a knowledge of this language was indispensable for the exercise of the ministry in certain localities.

^{^[152]} Pro-consular Numidia was such part of the ancient kingdom of Numidia, or Africa nova, as fell to the pro-consulate, when the province was divided between the pro-consul and the legate. Scilli has not yet been identified.

^{^[153]} Tertullian, Ad Scap. 3, relates that he became blind.

^{^[154]} It is not absolutely impossible that he was the lawyer Tertullian, of whose writings some fragments are included in the Digest, i. 3, 27 I xxix. i. 23 ; xlviii. 2, 28 ; xlix. 17, 4.

^{^[155]} He is generally regarded as such ; but it is possible that he may have been Bishop of Tuburbum Minus.

^{^[156]} De jejun. 13. This book was written about the year 220 ; it is one of Tertullian's last writings.

^{^[157]} Cyprian, Ep. 69. ⁴ He was also called Thascius.

^{^[158]} M. Harnack thinks it the work of Xystus II. (Texte und W., vol. xiii. i ; cf. vol. xx., 3, p. 116 ; Chrotiologie, vol. ii., p. 387).

^{^[159]} Novatianusplebi in Evangelioperstanti salutem, title of De cibis.

^{^[160]} Adversus fudaeos, De laude martyrii, Quod idola dii non sin/.

^{^[161]} De Pascha, De sabbato, De circuincisione, De sacerdote, De oratione, De instantia, De Attalo.

^{^[162]} Socrates, H. E. iv. 28 ; Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, at the end of the 6th century, saw a "passion" of Novatian—a fictitious composition of no value. The name of a martyr Novatian appears in the martyrology of St Jerome on June 29. I think it must be the same who had figured also on the 27th at the head of a list which has an African look. It seems very unlikely that the founder of the schism would have got into the calendars of the Church. The Roman calendar, which forms a part of the pseudo (Hieronymian) compilation, took its final form about 422 A.D., shortly after the last Novatian churches in Rome were closed.

^{^[163]} Ep. xlv., xlviii.

^{^[164]} Cornelius and Cyprian are commemorated together in Kalendar and Collect (September 16). See Roman Breviary, and Benson's Cyprian, pp. 610-620, for the complications about the calendars.— Translator's Note.

^{^[165]} Cyprian, Ep. Ixxv. 7 (letter of Firmilian); Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius vii. 7.

^{^[166]} This is apparent from the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions.

^{^[167]} The attitude of Eusebius in the matter leads to this conclusion. To him, "the ancient use" is that baptism is not repeated, but only imposition of hands ; Cyprian's method seemed to him an innovation.

^{^[168]} Amongst Cyprian's letters, lxix.-lxxv. relate to this matter. Letter Ixix. ad Magnum, however, does not touch the main question. Cyprian is considering the particular case of the Novatianists, whom he classes with other heretics, and he expounds his doctrine on clinical baptism.

^{^[169]} Theproceso verbal of this Council is preserved. It is the most ancient document of the kind. The bishops say they are assembled ex provincia Africa Numidia Mauritania.

- Such, no doubt, was the belief also of l'rivatus of Lambesis, but that did not prevent his deposition by the Council of Africa.

^{^[171]} Pisidia and Lyeaonia then formed part of the province of Galatia. It is not certain that the " Galatians," to whom the celebrated Epistle was addressed, were true Galatians, inhabitants of the ancient Celtic territory. There is no reason why the name should not simply refer to the Christian communities founded by St Paul in Lystra, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, during his first missionary journey.

^{^[172]} We have a letter from Origen to Gregory in chap. xiii. of the Philocalia.

^{^[173]} Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemoniacus formed part of the province of Cappadocia in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

^{^[174]} In the next century, it was said that Gregory found only seventeen Christians in Neo-Caesarea, and left there at his death only seventeen pagans.

^{^[175]} St Alexander, the charcoal-burner.

^{^[176]} See p. 306 of this volume.

^{^[177]} The Bop&Ses of Gregory (Ep. can. 5) are no doubt identical with the Boparol of Zosimus, Hist. nova. i. 27, 31, 34.

^{^[178]} St Gregory Thaumaturgus certainly wrote: 1st. The Panegyric of Origen ; 2nd. The Epistle, containing the Canons, addressed to a lepuraros irairas, no doubt some neighbouring bishop, who had consulted him ; 3rd. The Creed ; 4th. The Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. Of more doubtful authenticity are the treatises addressed to Theo- pompus, On the impassibility or passibility of God, To Tatian, On the Soul, and To Philagrius or Evagrius, on Consubstantiality. The first of these exists only in Syriac (Ryssel, Greg. Thaum, 1880, p. 73, German version); the third appears among the works of Saints Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., vol. xxxvii., p. 383, vol. xlvi., p. 1101). The other writings which bear his name are apocryphal, notably the Kara /xtyos 7r/o-m, which is the work of an Apollinarian. For his biography apart from his works, see Eusebius vi. 30 ; vii. 14, 28, 30. His panegyric by St Gregory of Nyssa, and the few details furnished by St Basil, represent traditions collected about a century after the death of the saint in Pontus, either by the authors themselves or by their grandmother Macrina, who was living in Pontus soon after the death of Gregory, and may have seen him.

^{^[179]} Eusebius vi. 11.

^{^[180]} St Jerome (De Viris_} 64 : cf. Chronologie, 01. 251, 4) speaks of a priest of Antioch called Germinus, who must have lived under Bishop Zebinus, and who left literary remains.

^{^[181]} See above, p. 269, also p. 336.

^{^[182]} Eusebius v. 23 ; cf. see above, p. 211.

^{^[183]} Ed. Hallier, Tcxte unci Unt., vol. ix. 1, p. S6.

^{^[184]} De Dca Syria.

* Lipsius, Die Edesscnisclie Abgarsage (1880); Tixeront, Les Orpines de PEglise cPEdcsse (1888).

^{^[186]} Otto, Corpus Apol., vol. ix. 423.

^{^[187]} Cureton, Spic. Syriacum; French translation in Nau, Bardesane Pastrologue, le Livre des lois despays, Paris, 1899; Eusebius, Praep. ev. vi. 9, 10, has preserved two fragments to be found also in the Recogn. Clem. ix. 19, etc. Cf. Nau, Une Biographic im'dite de Bardesane Pastrologue, Paris, 1897.

^{^[188]} Was it the Emperor Caracalla ?

^{^[189]} He may have been the author of the Acts of St Thomas, written about this time, or at least of the hymns in it, which are touched with Gnosticism.

^{^[190]} Eusebius v. 12, 22, 23, 25 ; vi. 8-11. ² Ibid. iv. 5 ; v. 12.

³ Eusebius gives this as the starting-point of the list. But even supposing that a Christian community organized itself round the

Roman camp after the siege, and that this community had bishops, the difficulty still exists, though the time is a little prolonged.

^{^[193]} Eusebius vi. 20, 23.

^{^[194]} Ibid. 33 : rbv auTrjpa nal Kvptov ijfiQiv \{yeiv roXfiCiv fii; Trpov<peffTdvai Kar' ioiav ovaias ireptyparprjv rrpb rrjs eU ivOpwirovs indtifjilas, nrjSi nr\v Oeirt^Ta iSlavZytft ^Tfo\iTevofiivr)v airru nbvrjv TT)V TrarpiK^v.

^{^[195]} Eusebius vii. 29, Trjs twv iir 'AfTtoxetas 'EWtjvikuv Traidevrijpluv diarpt^rjs irpoeuTiis.

^{^[196]} This seems to imply that Artemas was still living and in Rome. See above, pp. 218 and 220.

^{^[197]} This is St Hilary's explanation (Dc synodis, 81, 86) and St Basil's (Ep. 52); St Athanasius (De syn. 43) has another which is very subtle. Some years before, Pope Dionysius had reproved Dionysius of Alexandria for his hesitation in making use of the term. It is quite clear that the same meaning was not attached to it everywhere.

^{^[198]} See p. 273 of this volume. ² To Germanus, Eusebius vii. 11.

3 For fragments of this apology, see Eusebius vi. 40 ; vii. 11.

4 Eusebius vii. 21.

⁶ No doubt in 262, after the death of Macrianus and his two sons.

Mommsen, Rom. Gcsch., vol. iii., p. 571» 1.

- Eusebius vii. 22. ³ Eusebius vii. 22, 23.

^{^[204]} Athanasius, De decretis Nic. sytt., c. 26.

⁸ See above, p. 257, note 1.

^{^[206]} Athanasius, De sent. Dion., c. 13.

^{^[207]} Eusebius vii. 26 ; cf. Athan., De synodis, 44 ; De decretis Nic., 25, and De sent. Dion, passim. ⁵ Ep. 41.

^{^[209]} The letter of Theonas to the high chamberlain, Lucian, is a modern fabrication ; see Batiffol. Bull, critic., vol. vii., p. 155.

^{^[210]} Neither Eusebius nor St Jerome speak of Theognostus.

356

^{^[211]} Cod. 282.

^{^[212]} Ep. 4, ad Serap., c. 11 ; De Decretis Nic., c. 25. Stephen Gobar (Photius, cod. 232) is rather scandalized at these quotations.

^{^[213]} Adv. Eunonium, Migne, P. G., vol. xlv., p. 661. A fragment of Theognostus has been found at Venice by Fr. Diekamp, and published by him in the Theol. Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1902, p. 483 ; cf. Harnack, in Texte und Unt., vol. xxiv., fasc. 3.

^{^[214]} On Pierius, see Eusebius vii. 32 ; St Jerome, De viris, 76 ; cf.

Ep., 49, 70; in Matth. xxiv. 36; Photius, cod. 118, 119; and the extracts from Philip of Side, published by C. de Boor (Texte und Unt., vol. v., fasc. 2).

^{^[216]} Theodore, the poet-advocate of Alexandria, quoted in the 5th century by Philip of Side (Texte und Unt., vol. v., fasc. 2, p. 171 ; cf. Photius, loc. tit.), says that Pierius and his brother Isidore were both martyrs, and that a great temple (vaov ^yiarov) was erected in their honour at Alexandria. It is certain that there was in Alexandria a Church of Pierius (Epip., Haer. lxix. 2). Perhaps two distinct Pierius have been confused.

^{^[217]} Procopius of Gaza, In Genes, iii. 21 (Migne, P. G., vol. lxxxviii., p. 221) ; Leontius of Byzantium (Mai, Scrip, vet., vol. vii., p. 85), and Justinian (Ep. ad. Menam., P. G., vol. lxxxvi., p. 961) quote a book of Peter irept rod p.7jdi irpov-jrapxei" ttjv ^XV" Hyo^ a/xaprrjaaaav tovto eh aQ/xa p\Yi6r)vai, in which the pre-existence of the soul and its fall, before its union with the body, is treated as a pagan idea (iWrjviKrjs (piXoaofilas) and quite contrary to Christian piety.

^{^[218]} The seven fragments of the treatise upon the resurrection preserved are in Syriac (Pitra-Martin, Anal., vol. iv., pp. 189 and 426), except the first (II. A.) which comes from another book of Pierius, upon the divinity (irepl OebT-qros), quoted at the Council of Ephesus, several fragments of which have also been found in the Syriac MSS. discovered by P. Martin (loc. tit., pp. 187, 425).

^{^[219]} Apol. i. adv. lib. Ruf., c. 11.

^{^[220]} Socrates also, H. E. vi. 13, says that in his dialogue Xenon,

Methodius spoke of Origen with admiration. It is possible that this dialogue is identical with that on creatures (Photius, cod. 235), in which a speaker called Xenon does come in. ³ Cod. 237.

^{^[222]} According to the legend regarding him, which is, however, rather vague (ws o wepl avrov \6yos), Lucian was born at Samosata, of distinguished parents ; in his early youth he attended at Edessa the lectures of a celebrated exegist called Macarius. But all this is very doubtful. The narrator appears to be inspired more by recollections of Lucian, the satirist, and of the fame of the schools at Edessa in the 5th century, than by trustworthy tradition. He wrote, besides, at rather a late date, for he relies upon Philostorgius. Upon this subject, see Pio Franchi de Cavalieri in the Studi e doc. distoriae diritto, 1897, p. 110 et seq. ; cf. Nuovo Bull, di archeol. crist., 1904, p. 37.

^{^[223]} St Jerome, Praef. in Evv. in Paralip., ep. 106,

^{^[224]} Gospels of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, of St Peter ; see above, pp. 89, 122, 325, 351. The Gnostics possessed also gospels of Thomas, of Philip, of Mathias, etc.

^{^[225]} Besides these fragments just enumerated, and some of less length already known, we have now a Coptic version compiled with patient wisdom by Carl Schmidt, by means of about 2000 fragments of a papyrus manuscript in the library at Heidelberg. These fragments, unfortunately, are far from representing the entire original text, but Schmidt has arranged and restored them as far as possible, has translated them into German, and provided them with commentaries on all the questions arising. C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli, Leipzig, 1904.

^{^[226]} For the text of these writings consult the edition of Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, which includes them all. The collection, published in 1851 by Tischendorf under the same title, is far surpassed by this new edition ; as are also the Acta Thomae and the Acta Andreae cum laudatione contexta, published in 1883 and 1895

^{^[227]} The account of the martyrdom of St Peter was afterwards detached from the rest of the story and developed, and provided with various topographical details it was attributed to Linus, the first successor of the Apostle. The same name was attached later on to the Passion of St Paul taken from the Acta Fault.

^{^[228]} See pp. 190 and 316 of this volume.

⁴ Strom, iii. 91.

⁶ Ep. lxiii.

^{^[231]} In certain countries, as we learn from the "canonical" Epistle of St Gregory, Thaumaturgus, and other Oriental documents, there was a sort of classification of the penitents, distinguished by the names of Hearers (aKpoibfuevot), Kneelers (viroiriirTovTa), and Bystanders (avoTavTii).

^{^[232]} The Council of Elvira, c. 57, speaks of Christian ladies who lent

clothes to decorate the pagan processions. ² De lafisis, 6.

^{^[234]} Similar abuses are condemned in canons 19 and 20 of the Council of Elvira.

^{^[235]} There were among Christians, actors and gladiators, even light women and lenones. It is needless to say that such professions were not allowed by the ecclesiastical authorities.

^{^[236]} Upon this subject see my memoir " Le concile d'Elvire et les flamines Chretiens," in the Melanges Renter, 1887, p. 159 et seq.

^{^[237]} As to the legends about St James, I have expressed my opinions on them in a memoir entitled "St Jacques en Galice," published in the Annates du Midi, vol. xii. (1900), p. 145.

^{^[238]} Those of Legio (Asturica), of Saragossa, of Emerita, of Ossonova (Faro), of Evora, of Acci (Guadix), Castulo, Mentesa, Urci, Toledo, Salavia,Eliocroca;of Cordova,Seville,Tucci,lpagrum, Illiberis,Malaga.

^{^[239]} Letter of Cornelius, Eusebius vi. 43.

^{^[240]} The same offices, except that of doorkeeper, are mentioned about the same time, in the correspondence of St Cyprian as existing in Carthage.

^{^[241]} In other churches we hear also of seven deacons ; no doubt a reminiscence of the "seven deacons" of Jerusalem (Counc. of Neo- Caesarea, can. 15).

^{^[242]} We learn this from documents relating to the seizure of churches in 303. It is, however, quite impossible to be exact. The legends about some of these presbyteral churches of the 4th century place their origin very far back. But, though roughly speaking quite credible, these legends are not to be relied on for details.

^{^[243]} Beside the facts already quoted, see Canon 25 of the Council of Elvira.

^{^[244]} Already St Ignatius of Antioch, Ad. Polyc., 5, had advised virgins not to plume themselves on their profession, or to set themselves above their bishops,

^{^[245]} Ep. 258, ad Epiph.

^{^[246]} lUpl 7-77s eV llepuidt nayiKw, analyzed by Photius, cod. 81.

^{^[247]} Even Saturn, the precursor and father of Zeus, had his equivalent in Zervan, or Time personified, who seems to have been added to the Iranian Pantheon in Babylon.

^{^[248]} See especially Justin, Apol. i. 66, and Tertullian, De baptismo, 5 ; de Corona 15 ; Praesc. 40.

^{^[249]} Still the Sol invictus was not peculiar to the Mithraists ; other religious confraternities also venerated it.

^{^[250]} In his Ecclesiastical History, vii. 31, Eusebius bears witness that Manichaeism, of Persian origin, was then already very prevalent. He wrote in the first years of the 4th century.

^{^[251]} I give here only the principal points. The Manichaean mythology is as complicated by adventures as was that of the early Babylonians, with which it had features in common.

^{^[252]} The apocalyptic books of Baruch and Esdras, written during the generation which followed the great catastrophe, promised that Israel should be restored very shortly. On these books see Schiirer, op. cit., vol. iii., p. 223 et seg.

• See the curious stories related by St Epiphanius, Haer. 30.

^{^[254]} A rather later collection, the Tosephta, has not attained the canonical authority the Mishna enjoys amongst Jews.

^{^[255]} Each of these Talmuds consists of two parts, the Mishna, common to both, which forms the text ; and the Gemara or commentary, which is different in each Talmud.

^{^[256]} The Council of Elvira, about 300, forbade Christians to eat with Jews, or to have their harvests blessed by them (c. 49, 50).