CHAPTER XVII

CHAPTER XVII

THE PERSECUTION UNDER DOMITIAN.

Teter 73) considerable length and of remarkable merit."

He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church.

We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own.?

And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness.'

CHAPTER XIII.

Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.

AFTer Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him." his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years," delivered his office to Anencletus.* But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months.*

In the second year of

CHAPTER XVII.

CHAPTER XIV.

The Persecution under Domitian.

Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God.

He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us,! although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.'

In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus,' the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius,' the second bishop.

CHAPTER XV.

Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.

In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus! after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years.

The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker.

His words are as follows :? " With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life."

MSS., arid in a Syriac version, consists of fifty-nine chapters, and is. found in all editions of the Apostolic Fathers.

It purports to have been written from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, but bears the name of no author.

Unanimous tradition, however (beginning with Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, IV. 23), ascribes it to Clement, Bishop of Rome, and scholars, with hardly an exception, accept it as his work,

It was, in all probability, written immediately after the persecution of Domitian, in the last years of the first century, and is one of the earliest, perhaps the very earliest, post-biblical works which we have.

It was held in very high repute in the early Church, and in the Alexandrian Codex it stands among the canonical books as a part of the New Testament (though this is exceptional; cf. chap. 3, above, and chap. 25, below, in both of which this epistle is omitted, though Eusebius is giving lists of New

Testament books, both accepted and disputed).

We have had the epistle complete only since 1875, when Bryennios discovered a MS. containing it and other valuable works.

Previously a part of the epistle had been wanting.

In consequence the older editions have been superseded by the more recent.

See appendix to Lightfoot's edition (1877), which gives the recovered portions of the text; so, also, the later editions of Gebhardt and Harnack's, and of Hilgenfeld's Apostolic Fathers.

The epistle is translated in the AzteNicene Fathers, |. p. 5-21.

CHAPTER XVI.

The Epistle of Clement.

THERE is extant an epistle of this Clement? which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of 2 peydAn Te Kai Gavmacia.

3 See the epistle itself, especially chaps.

1 and 3.

It was these seditions in the church at Corinth which occasioned the epistle.

1 Vespasian reigned from July 1 (if his reign be dated from the time he was proclaimed emperor in Egypt; if from the death of Vitellius, Dec. 20), 69, to June 24, 79 A-D.

_ Pats 2 In his Chvon. (Armenian) Eusebius gives the length of Linus episcopate as fourteen years, while Jerome gives it as eleven years.

Both figures are about equally reliable; see above, chap. 2, note i.

4 Compare the words of Dionysius of Corinth, in Bk. IV. chap23.

Though the epistle was held in high esteem, it was not looked upon as a part of the New Testament canon.

5 Hegesippus' testimony upon this point is no langer extant.

1 The persecutions under Nero and Domitian were not undertaken by the state as such; they were simply personal matters, and established no precedent as to the conduct of the state toward Christianity.

They were rather spasmodic outbursts of personal enmity, but were looked upon with great horror as the first to which the Church was subjected.

There was no general persecution, which took in all parts of the empire, until the reign of Decius

3 Of Anencletus, or Cletus, as he is also called, we know nothing more than that he was one of the traditional first three bishops of Rome.

Hippolytus makes two bishops, Anencletus and Cletus, out of the one man, and he is followed by the Roman Catholic

Church (see above, chap. 2, note 1). According to chap. 15, Anencletus held office twelve years.

4 Titus died Dec. 13, A.D. 81.

He therefore reigned two years and six months, instead of two years and two months as Eusebius states.

(249-251), but Domitian's cruelty and ferocity were extreme, and many persons of the highest rank fell under his condemnation and suffered banishment and even death, not especially on account of Christianity, though there were Christians among them, but on account of his jealousy, and for political reasons of various sorts.

That Domitian's persecution of the Christians was not of long duration is testified by Tertullian, 4fo/. 5.

Upon the persecutions of 1 8s A.D.; on Annianus, see above, Bk. II, chap. 24, note 2.

_ 2*SBiAvos.

According to one tradition Abilius was ordained presbyter with his successor Cerdon by Mark himself (see Smith and Wace).

According to another (Af. Const. VII. 46) he was appointed bishop by Luke.

He held office thirteen years according to chap. 21, below.

Valesius claims that the name should be written Avilius, regarding it as a Latin name, and _ citing in support of his opinion the name of a prefect of Egypt, Avilius Flaccus, mentioned by Philo, and the fact that the name of Avilius' predecessor, Annianus, is also Latin. the Christians, see, among other works, Wieseler's Dze Chrzstenverfolgungen der Casaren, hist. und chronolog. untersucht, 1878; Uhlhorn's Der Kampf des Christenthums mit dem Hetdenthum, English translation by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; and especially the keen essay of Overbeck, Gesetze der romischen Kaiser gegen die Christen, in his Studien 2ur Gesch. der alten Kirche,

I. (1875).

1 On Anencletus, see chap, 13, note 3.

2 Phil. iv. 3.

For an account of Clement, see above, chap. 4, note 19; and upon the order of succession of the Roman bishops, see chap. 2, note I.

® The fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasian is abundantly confirmed by the absence of any tradition to the opposite effect.

Compare Tertullian's Afo/. chap.

5, where the persecutions of Nero and Domitian are recorded.

1 This epistle of Clement, which is still extant in two Greek

THE CHURCH "HISTORY | OF -EUSEBIUS:

(ATs 2x8:

CHAPTER XIX.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Domitian commands the Descendants of David The Apostle John and the Apocalypse. to be slain.

Ir is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of PatBut when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says' that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself.

Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. mos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.!

Irenzeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of

John,? speaks as follows concerning him:

If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the Ttevelation.

For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the

CHAPTER XX.

reign of Domitian."

The Relatives of our Saviour.

To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories

" Or the family of the Lord there were still

living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they

were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus.?, For Domitian feared the comthe persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.

And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time.

For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian ®

Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome,' was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ. two sons were designated as heirs to the empire, while Flavius

Clemens himself was made Domitian's colleague in the consulship.

But immediately afterward Clemens was put to death and Domitilla was banished.

Suetonius (Domzt, chap. 15) accuses Clemens of contemtissime inertig, and Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) of atheism

(aGedrntos).

These accusations are just such as heathen writers of that age were fond of making against the Christians (compare, for instance, Athenagoras' Adv, Gent. chap. 4, and Tertullian's Afol, chap. 42).

Accordingly it has been very commonly held that both Flavius Clemens and Domitilla were Christians, and were punished on that account.

But early tradition makes only Domitilla a Christian; and certainly if Clemens also—a man of such high rank

—had been a Christian, an early tradition to that effect would be somewhere preserved.

We must, therefore, conclude that his offense was something else than Christianity.

The very silence of Christian tradition as to Clement is an argument for the truth of the tradition in regard to Domitilla, and the heathen historians referred to confirm its main points, though they differ in minor details.

The Acts of Martyrdom of Nereus and Achilles represent Domitilla as the niece, not the wife, of Flavius Clemens, and Eusebius does the same.

More than that, while the heathen writers report that Domitilla was banished to the island Pandeteria, these Acts, as well as Eusebius and Jerome (Ef. adv. Eustachium, Migne's ed., Ep.

CVIII. 7), give the island of Pontia as the place of banishment.

Tillemont and other writers have therefore assumed that there were two Domitillas, — aunt and niece, —one banished to one island, the other to another.

But this is very improbable, and it is easier to suppose that there was but one Domitilla and but one island, and that the discrepancies are due to, carelessness or to the mistakes of transcribers.

Pandeteria and Pontia were two small islands in the Mediterranean, just west of central Italy, and were very frequently employed by the Roman emperors as places of exile for prisoners.

1 Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenzus (V. 30.

3, quoted just below, and again in Eusebius V. 8) assigns the banishment of John and the apocalyptic visions to the reign of Domitian.

This was formerly the common opinion, and is still held by some respectable writers, but strong internal evidence has driven most modern scholars to the conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment therefore (upon the assumption that John wrote the Apocalypse, upon which see chap. 24, note 19) taking place under Nero instead of Domitian.

If we accept this, we have the remarkable phenomenon of an event taking place at an earlier date than that assigned it by tradition, an exceptional and inexplicable thing.

We have too the difficulty of se uodng. for the erroneousness of so early and unanimous a tradition.

The case thus stood for years, until in 1886 Vischer published his pamphlet Dre Offenbarung des $ohannes, eine jiidische Apocalypse in Christlicher Bearbeittun

(Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Band II.

Heft. 3), which if his theory were true, would reconcile external and internal evidence in a most satisfactory manner, throwing the original into the reign of Nero's successor, and the Christian recension into the reign of Domitian.

Compare especially Harnack's a: pendix to Vischer's pamphlet; and upon the Apocalypse itself, see chap. 24, below.

? Rey, xiii. 18, It will be noticed that Eusebius is careful not to commit himself here on the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse.

See below, chap. 24, note 20.

' 3 Higa Adv, Her. V. 30. 3; quoted also below, in Bk. V. chap.

4 Jerome, in his version of the Chron. of Eusebius (year of Abr.

2112), says that the historian and chronographer Bruttius recorded that many of the Christians suffered martyrdom under Domitian.

Since the works of Bruttius are not extant, we have no means of verifying the statement.

Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) relates some of the banishments which took place under Domitian, among them that of Flavia Domitilla, who was, as we know, a Christian; but he does not himself say that any of these people were Christians, nor does he speak of a persecution of the Christians.

_ | madatds Kkaréxer Adyos.

It is noticeable that, although Eusebius has the written authority of Hegesippus for this account, he still speaks of it as supported y "ancient tradition." This is different from his ordinary custom, and serves to make us careful in drawing conclusions as to the nature of Eusebius' authority for any statement from the expression used in introducing it.

1 This Jude was the brother of James, " the brother of the Lord," who is mentioned in Jude 1, and is to be distinguished from Jude

(Thaddeus-Lebbzeus), one of the Twelve, whose name appears in the catalogues of Luke (Luke vi. 14 and Acts i. 1 ) as the son of James (not his brother, as the A. V. translates; the Greek words are 'Iovdas "IaxwBov).

For a discussion of the relationship of these men to Christ, see above, Bk. I. chap, 12, note 14.

Of the son of ee and father of the young men mentioned in this chapter we now nothing.

5 We learn from Suetonius (Domi#. chap. 1s) that the events referred to by Eusebius in the next sentence took place at the ve end of Domitian's reign; that is, in the year 96 A.D., the Afekenth year of his reign, as Eusebius says.

Dion Cassius also (LXVII. 14) puts these events in the same year.

2 According to Andrew's Lexicon, " An Evocatus was a soldier who, having served out his time, was called upon to do military duty as a volunteer."

© Flavius Clemens was a cousin of Domitian, and his wife, Domitilla, a niece of the emperor.

They stood high in favor, and their This suspiciousness is perfectly in keeping with the character of Domitian.

The same thing is told also of Vespasian, in chap, 12;

III. 22.]

DOMITIAN AND THE GRANDSONS OF JUDE.

record the history of those days,' voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them.

It was at this time

that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode ing of Christ as Herod also had feared it.

And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii,> half of which be-

longed to each of them ; and this property at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition." did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes* and sup-

CHAPTER XXI.

ported themselves by their own labor."®

'Then they showed their hands, exhibiting Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continof Alexandria.

AFTER Nerva had reigned a little more

than a year! he was succeeded by Trajan.

It was during the first year of his reign that Abilius,? who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen years, was succeeded by Cerdon2 He was the third that presided

over that church after Annianus,* who was the first.

At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter.

Linus was the first, and after him came

Anencletus.° uous toil as evidence of their own labor.

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one

according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to

the persecution of the Church.

But when they were released they ruled the churches, because they were witnesses® and were also

CHAPTER XXII.

Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch. relatives of the Lord.'

And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan.

These things are related by Hegesippus.

Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian At this time Ignatius! was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first.2

Symeon® likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first. in the following words :* " Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some

11 See Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 1 sq., and Suetonius' Domztiait, hap. 23. intelligence,? he very soon ceased, and even

12 Tiarally: "the word of the ancients among us" (6 T@v map" miv apxaiwy Adyos).

On the tradition itself, see chap. 1, note 6.

recalled those whom he had banished."

But after Domitian had reigned fifteen 1 From Sept. 18, 96, to Jan. 27, 98 A.D.

2 On Abilius, see chap. 14, note 2, above.

3 According to the legendary Acts of St. Maxk, Cerdo was one of the presbyters ordained by Mark.

According to Eusebius (77. £2.

IV. 1'and Chron.) he held office until the twelfth year of Trajan. years," and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that fess Ss Be Ah but in his case the political situation was far more serious, and revolutions under the lead of one of the royal family might most naturally be expected just after the terrible destruction.

The same act js also mentioned in connection with Trajan, in chap. 32, and there is no reason to doubt its truthfulness, for the Jews were well known as a most rebellious and troublesome people.

, 3 A denarius was a Roman silver coin, in value about sixteen, or, according to others, about nineteen, cents.

_ 4 "Taxes or tributes were paid commonly in the products of the land'? (Val.).

4 On Annianus, see Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

5 On the order of succession of the early Roman bishops, see above, chap. 2, note x.

Paul and Peter are here placed together by Eusebius, as co-bishops of Rome.

Compare the association of the two apostles by Caius, and by Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. II. chap. 25).

1 On Ignatius' life, writings, and martyrdom, see bélow, chap. 36.

2 We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion of his name before the great name of Ignatius.

The tendency would be, of course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apdstles, and to make him the first bishop.

This tendency is seen i Athanasius and Chrysostom, who do not mention Evodius at all;| also in the Afost. Const. VII. 46, where, however, it is said that Evodius was ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul (as in the parallel case of Clement oF Rome).

The fact that the name of Evodius appears here shows that the tradition that he was the first bishop seemed to the author too old and too strong to be set aside.

Origen (2 Luc.

Hom. VI.) is an indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch.

As to the respective dates of the early bishops of Antioch, we know nothing certain.

On their chronology, see Harnack, Dze Zezt des Ignatius, and cf. Salmon's article Evodius, in Smith and Wace's

Dict. of Christ. Biog.

5 Most editors (including Valesius, Heinichen, Crusé, &c.) reard the quotation from Hegesippus as extending through § 8; but it really ends here, and from this point on Eusebius reproduces the sense in his own words (and so Bright gives it in his edition). This is perfectly clear, for in the first place, the infinitive émiderxvdvac occurs in the next sentence, a form possible only in indirect discourse; and secondly, as Lightfoot has pointed out, the statement of § 8 is repeated in chap. 32, § 6, and there in the exact language of Hegesippus, which differs enough from the language of § 8 to show that the latter is a free reproduction.

6 wdprupas.

On the use of this word, see chap. 32, note 15.

7 Compare Renan's Les Evangiles, p466.

8 Tertullian, Afo/. chap. 59 7. ovvecews.

Lat. sed gua et homo.

10 Domitian reigned from Dec. 13, 81 A-D., to Sept. 18, 96.

8 On Symeon, see above, chap. 11, note 4.

THE CHURCH: HISTORY OF SUSEBIUS:

[III. 23.

which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable.

Take and read the account which runs as follows :?® " Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale,

but a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory., For when, after the tyrant's death," he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one" of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.

When he

had come to one of the cities not far away

CHAPTER. XXIII.

Narrative concerning Fohn the Apostle.

AT that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.'

And that he was still alive at that time? may be established by the testimony of two witnesses.

They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church ; and such indeed were Irenzeus and Clem-

ent of Alexandria.2

The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows :* "And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them.

(the name of which is given by some *), and had consoled the brethren in other matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of ardent temperament, he said, 'This one I commit to thee in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.'

And when the bishop had accepted the charge and had promised all, he repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus.

But the presbyter,*

taking home the youth committed to him, For he remained among them until the time of Trajan."° And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words:® "But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan,

is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradi-

tion.'"

Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved?' indicates the time,' and subjoins a narrative mention of John a little below as "'an aged man"? would seem to point to the end of the century rather than to Nero's time.

At any rate, Eusebius understood Clement as referring to Domitian, and in the presence of unanimous tradition for Domitian, and in the absence of any counter-tradition, we can hardly understand him otherwise.

1 See chap. 1, note 6, and chap. 18, note x.

* That is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan.

8 The test of a man's trustworthiness in Eusebius' mind— and not in his alone—was his orthodoxy.

Irenzus has always been looked upon as orthodox, and so was Clement, in the early Church, which reckoned him among the saints.

His name, however, was omitted in the Martyrology issued by Clement VIII., on the ground that his orthodoxy was open to suspicion.

® Quts Dives salvetur, chap. 42.

10 nUOov ov MOov, aAAa OvTa Adyov.

Clement in these words asserts the truth of the story which he relates.

We cannot regard it as very strongly corroborated, for no one else records it, and yet we can hardly doubt that Clement gives it in good faith.

It may have been an invention of some early Christian, but it is so fully in accord with what we know of John's character that there exists no reason for refusing to believe that at least a groundwork of truth underlies it, even though the story may have gained in the telling of it.

It is certainly beautiful, and fully worthy of the " beloved disciple."

1l See note 8 12 «Anpw eva yé twa KAnpdcwv.

Compare the note of Heinichen in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. I. p122.

Upon the use of the word xAjpos in the early Church, see Baur's Das Christenthun: und ate christliche Kirche der dret ersten Fahrhunderte, 2d ed., p.

266 sq., and especially Ritschl's Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq.

Ritschi shows that the word KAjpos was originally used by the Fathers in the general sense of order or rank (Rezhe,

Rang), and that from this arose its later use to denote church officers as a class,—theclergy.

Ashe remarks, the word is employed in this later specific sense for the first time in this passage of Clement's Qxz's

Dives salvetur.

Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian are the next Ones to use it in the same sense.

Ritschl remarks in connection with this passage:

'' Da fiir eine Wahl der Gemeindebeamten durch das Loos alle sonstigen Beweisen fehlen, und da in dem vorliegenden

Satze die Einsetzung yon einer Mehrzahl von émioxomot durch den Apostel ohne jede Methode erwahnt wird, so fallt jeder Grund hinweg, dass bei der Wahl einzelner Beamten das Mittel des Loosens angewandt sein sollte, zumal bei dieser Deutung ein Pleonasmus vorausgesetzt wiirde.

Es ist vielmehr zu erklaren, dass Johannes an einzelnen Orten mehrere Beamte zugleich eingesetzt, an anderen Orten wo schon ein Collegium bestand, dem Beamtenstande je ein Mitglied eingereiht habe.'

4 Ireneus, Adv. Her. Il. 22. 5.

5 It is in this immediate connection that Irenzeus makes the extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty years.

A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John's continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap. x, note

6).

Irenaeus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in IIT. 3, 4 (quoted just below).

It may also be said that the opinion as to Christ's age is founded upon subjective grounds (cf. the preceding paragraph of Irenzeus) and upon a miataken interpretation of John viii. 55, 57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the testimony (which itself may have been only the result of a subjective opinion) is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view already adopted.

Such a fact as John's own presence in Ephesus at a certain period could hardly be subject to such uncertainty and to the influence of dogmatic prepossessions.

It is significant of Eusebius' method that he omits entirely Irenzeus' statement as to the length of Christ's ministry, with which he did not agree (as shown by his account in Bk. I. chap. ro), while extracting from his statement the single fact which he wishes here to establish,

The falsity of the context he must have recognized, and yet, in his respect for Irenzus, the great maintainer of sound doctrine, he nowhere refers to it.

The information which John is said, in this passage, to have conveyed to the " presbyters of Asia" is that Christ lived to old age.

The whole passage affords an instance of how much of error may be contained in what, to all appearances, should be a very trustworthy tradition, Internal evidence must come to the support of external, and with all its alleged uncertainty and subjectivity, must play a great part in the determination of the truth of history.

8 Adv. Her. X11. 3, 4.

7 rls 0 cwoduevos mAovaLos:

Onzs Dives salvetur.

This able and interesting little treatise upon the proper use of wealth is still extant, and is found in the various editions of Clement's works;

English translation in the A xte-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), II. p.

591-604.

The sound common sense of the book, and its freedom from undue asceticism are conspicuous, and furnish a pleasing contrast to most of the writings of that age...

13 According to Stroth the Chronzcon Paschale gives Smyrna as the name of this city, and it has been suggested that Clement withholds the name in order to spare the reputation of Polycarp, ste according to tradition, was appointed bishop of that city by ohn, 14 The same man that is called a bishop just above is here called apresbyter.

It is such passages—and they are not uncommon in the early Fathers — that have seemed to many to demonstrate conclusively the original identity of presbyters and bishops, an identity which is maintained by most Presbyterians, and is admitted by many

Episcopalians (e.g. by Lightfoot in his essay on the Christian Ministry, printed in his Commentary on Philippians).

On the other 8 He indicates the time only by saying 'after the tyrant was dead," which might refer either to Domitian or to Nero.

But the

ql -23.)

THE APOSTLE JOHN AND THE YOUNG ROBBER.

reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized ® him.

After this he relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon him the seal of the Lord" he had given him a perfect protection.

But some youths

of his own age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus prematurely freed from restraint.

At first they enticed him by costly entertainments ; then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they took him with them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with them in some greater crime.

He gradually

became accustomed to such practices, and on account of the positiveness of his character," leaving the right path, and taking the bit in his teeth like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, he rushed the more violently down into the depths.

And finally despairing of salvation

in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having committed some great crime, since he was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like fate with the rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, most cruel of them all. Time passed, and some necessity having arisen, they sent for John.

But he, when he had set in order the other matters on account of which he had come, said, 'Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit which both I and Christ committed to thee, the church, over which thou presidest, being witness.'

But the bishop was at first confounded, thinking that he was falsely charged in regard to money which he had not received, and he could neither believe the accusation respecting what he had not, nor could he disbelieve John.

But when he said, 'I demand the young man and the soul of the brother,' the old man, groaning deeply and at the same time bursting into tears, said, 'He is dead.'

'How and what kind of death?'

'He is dead to God,' he said ; ' for he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, he haunts the mountain with a band like himself.'

But the apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head with great lamentation, he said, 'A fine guard I left fora brother's soul! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.'

He rode away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place, he was

taken prisoner by the robbers' outpost.

He, however, neither fled nor made entreaty, hand, the passages which reveal a distinction between presbyters and bishops are very early, and are adduced not merely by prelatists, but by such disinterested scholars as Harnack (in his translation of Hatch's Organization of the Early Christian Churches) as proving that there was from the beginning a difference of some sort between a bishop and a presbyter.

I cannot enter here into a discussion of the various views in regard to the original relation between bishops and presbyters. I desire simply to suggest a theory of my own, leaving the fuller exposition of it for some future time.

My theory is that the word mpeaBUrepos was originally employed in the most general sense to indicate any church officer, thus practically equivalent to the nyovmevos of Heb. xiii. 17, and the mownyny of Eph. iv. rr.

The terms éwioxomos and é.axovos, on the other hand, were employed to designate specific church officers charged with the performance of specific duties.

If this were so, we should expect the general term to be used before the particular designations, and this is just what we find in the New Testament.

We should expect further that the general term and the specific terms might be used by the same person in the same context, according as he thought of the officers in general or of a particular division of the officers; on the other hand the general term and one of the specific terms could never be co-ordinated (we could never find " presbyter and bishop,"' "' presbyter ad deacon ''), but we should expect to find the specific terms thus co-ordinated (*' bishops azd deacons').

An examination of the Epistle to the Philippians, of the Pastoral Epistles, of Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, and of the Didache will show that our expectations are fully realized.

This theory explains the fact that so frequently presbyters and bishops seem to be identical (the general and the specific term might of course in many cases used interchangeably), and also the fact that so frequently they seem to be quite distinct.

It explains still further the remarkable fact that while in the first century we never find a distinction in official rank between bishops and presbyters, that distinction appears early in the second.

In many churches it must early have become necessary to a) point some of the officers as a special committee to take charge of the economic affairs of the congregation,

The members of such a committee might very naturally be given the special name éwicxoror (see Hatch's discussion of the

use of this word in his work already referred to).

In some churches the duties might be of such a character that the bishops would need assistants (to whom it would be natural to give the name diaxovos), and such assistants would of course be closely associated with the bishops, as we find them actually associated with them in the second and following centuries (a fact which Hatch has emphasized).

Of course where the bishops constituted. a special and smaller committee of the general body, entrusted with such important duties, they would naturally acquire especial influence and power, and thus the chairman of the committee —the chairman of the bishops as such, not of the presbyters, though he mzght be that also— would in time, as a central authority was more and more felt to be necessary, gradually assume the supremacy, retaining his original name émicxKomos.

As the power was thus concentrated in his hands, the committee of bishops as such would cease to be necessary, and he would require only the deacons, who should carry out his directions in economic matters, as we find them doingin the second century.

The elevation of the bishop would of course separate him from the other officers in such a way that although still a presbyter (i.e. an officer), he would cease to be called longer by the general name.

In the same way the deacons obliged to devote themselves to their specific duties, would cease to have much to do with the more general functions of the other officers; to whom finally the name presbyter

— originally a general term — would be confined, and thus become a distinctive name for part of the officers.

In their hands would remain the general disciplinary functions which had belonged from the beginning to the entire body of officers as such, and their rank would naturally be second only to that of the bishop, for the deacons as assistants only, not Menendent officers, could not outrank them

(though they struggled hard in the third and fourth centuries to do so).

It is of course likely that in a great many churches the simple undivided office would long remain, and that bishops and deacons as specific officers distinguished from the general body would not exist. ut after the distinction between the three orders had been sharply drawn in one part of Christendom, it must soon spread throughout the Church and become established even in places where it had not been produced by a natural process of-evolution.

The Church organization of the second century is thus complete, and its further development need not concern us here, for it is not matter of controversy.

Nor is this the place to show how thc local church officers gradually assumed the spiritual functions which belonged originally to peated, prophets, and teachers.

The Didache is the document which has shed most light upon that process, and Harnack in his edition of it has done most to make the matter clear. saurus for examples.

Gregory Nazianzen, in his Orat. XL., gives the reason for this use of the word:

'* We call baptism a seal," he says, '' because it is a preservative and a sign of ownership." Chrysostom, in his third Homily on 2 Cor. § 7, says, 'So also art thou thyself made king and priest and prophet in the laver; a king, haying dashed to earth all the deeds of wickedness and slain thy sins; a priest, in that thou offerest thyself to God, having sacrificed thy body and being thyself slain also; .

. a prophet, knowing what shall be, and being inspired by God, and sealed.

For as upon soldiers a seal, so is also the Spirit put upon the faithful.

And if thou desert, thou art manifest to all.

For the Jews had circumcision for a seal, but we the earnest of the Spirit." (Wicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII. p. 293.) 15 éfurice: literally, "' enlightened him." The verb dwrigw was

.very commonly used among the Fathers, with the meaning "' to baptize."

See Suicer's Thesaurus, where numerous examples of this use of the word by Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and others, are given.

. r ] 16 ryv ohpayida xvpiov.

The word odpayis was very widely used in the primitive Church to denote baptism.

See Suicer's 7he17 Literally, '' greatness of his nature" (uéye8os dicews).

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

(III. 23.

with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following way.

Those great and truly divine men, I mean

the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works.

And this

they did because they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man.

Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles,' although he had innumerable mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to 'hear unspeakable utterances there.® And the rest of the followers of our Saviour,

the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things.

Nevertheless, of all the disciples * of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

For Matthew, who had

at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his

Gospel to writing in his native tongue,® and thus but cried out, 'For this did I come; lead

me to your captain.'

The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was.

But when he recognized John approaching, he

turned in shame to flee.

But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might, crying out, 'Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thine own father, unarmed, aged? Pity me, my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of life.

T will give account to Christ for thee.

If need be, I will willingly endure thy death as the Lord suffered death for us.

For thee will I give up my life.

Stand, believe; Christ hath sent

me.'

And he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down ; then he threw away his arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And when the old man approached, he embraced him, making confession with lamentations as he was able, baptizing himself a second time with tears, and concealing only his right hand.

But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness with the Saviour, besought him, fell upon his knees, kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by repentance, and led him back to the church.

And making intercession for him with copious prayers, and struggling together with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not depart, as they say, until he had restored him to the church, furnishing a great example of true repentance and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection.'

CHAPTER XXIV.

The Order of the Gospels.

Tuis extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers.

Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle.

And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine.'

That it has rele eS i od ee al his immediate followers, who threw it into the fetter half of the cenSee Schaff's Ch. Hist. I. 701-724 for a full defense of its tury. authenticity and a comprehensive account of the controversy; also

P. 406-411 for the literature of the subject.

For the most complete summary of the external evidence, see Ezra Abbott's The Author ship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880.

Among recent works, compare Weiss' Leben Yesu, 1. 84-124, and his WV. T. Enleztun

> 586-620, for a defense of the Gospel, and upon the other side Holtzmann's Feeds) 413-460, and Weizsacker's A fost. Zettalter, p. 5311 The testimony of antiquity, — both orthodox and heretical, — to the authenticity of John's Gospel is universal, with the exception of a single unimportant sect of the second century, the Alogi, who denied the Johannine authorship on account of the Lo os doctrine which they rejected, and very absurdly ascribed the Gospel to the Gnostic Cerinthus; though its absolute opposition to Cerinthus' views 1s so apparent that Irenzeus (III. 11.1) even supposed John to have written the Gospel against Cerinthus.

'The writings of the second century are full of the apinit of John's Gospel, and exhibit frequent parallels fe jangwoge: too close to be mistaken; while from the last quarter of the second century on it is universally and express] cribed to John (Theophilus of Antioch and the Muratoring Frageoent being the first to name him as its author),

The Church never entertained a doubt of its authenticity until the end of the seventeenth century, when it was first questioned by the English Deists; but its genuineness was vindicated, and only scattering and occasional attacks were made upon it until the rise of the Tiibingen school, since which time its authenticity has been one of the most fiercely contested po'ts in apostolic history.

Its opponents haye been o liged gradually to throw back the date of its origin, until now no sensible critic thinks of assigning it to a time later than the early part of the ? Overbeck remarks that Eusebius in this passage is the first to tell us that Paul wrote no more than what we have in the canon.

But this is a mistake, for Origen (quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below) states it just as distinctly as Eusebius does. The truth is, neither of them says it directly, and yet it is clear enough when this passage is taken in connection with chapter 3, that it is what Eusebius meant, and the same idea underlies the statement of the Muratorian Fragment. Of course this does not prove that Paul wrote only the epistles which we have (which is indeed contrary to fact), but it shows what the idea of the early Church was.

3 See 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.

4 The majority of the MSS., followed by Burton, Schwegler, and Laemmer, read S:arpiBov instead of #a8nTov; and Burton therefore translates, sed tamen ex his omnibus sole Mattheus et Foannes nobis reliquerunt commentarios de vita et sermonibus Domini, but of all these only Matthew and John have left us commentaries on the life and conversations of the Lord."

Two important MSS., however, read 120n7Oy, and this is confirmed by Rufinus and adopted by Heinichen, Closs, and Cruse.

> That Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew, although denied by

III. 24.]

THE ORDER OF :THE GOSPELS.

indicated this in the beginning of their account.

For Matthew, after the forty days'

fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: " Now when he heard that John was deliyered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee."®

Mark likewise says: "Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee."

And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, "adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels,® they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason.

The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness ; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds ae

done by Christ at the beginning of his min-

istry.'

And this indeed is true.

For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,' and

They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period ; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist.

And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus " ; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in AZnon near Salim ;" where he states the matter clearly in the words: " For John was not yet cast into prison." "* John

accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life.

And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit." These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us."* But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. up John in prison." ? many, is at present the prevailing opinion among scholars, and may be accepted as a fact both on account of its intrinsic probability and of the testimony of the Fathers, which begins with the statement of Papias, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 39, below, is confirmed by Irenzus (III. 1. 1, quoted below, V. 8, § 2), whether independently of Papias or not, we cannot say, — by Pantznus (but see below, Bk.

V. chap. 10), by Origen (see below, VI. 25), by Jerome (de vzr. zl. 3), — who says that a copy of it still exviced ip the library at Czsarea, —and by Epiphanius (Her. XXIX. 9). The question as to the relation of this Hebrew original to our present Greek Matthew is much more difficult.

That our Greek Matthew is a mere translation of the original Hebrew was once a prevailing theory, but is now completely abandoned.

That Matthew himself wrote both is a common conservative position, but is denied by most critical scholars, many of whom deny him the composition even of the Hebrew original. Uponthe theory that the original Hebrew Matthew was identical with the '' Gospel according to the Hebrews," see chap. 27, note

8. Upon the synoptic problem, see above, II. 15, note 4; and see the works mentioned there for a discussion of this original Matthew, and in addition the recent works by Gla, Origznal-Sprache des Matt.

Evang., 1887, and Resch, Agrapha, Leipzig, 1889.

The very natural reason which Eusebius gives for the composition of Matthew's Gospel — viz. that, when on the point of going to other nations, he committed it to writing, and thus compensated them for the loss of his presence — occurs in none of the earlier reports of the composition of the Gospel which we now possess.

It was probably a fact which he took from common tradition, as he remarks in the previous sentence that tradition says '' they undertook it from necessity."

6 Upon the date and authorship of the Gospel of Luke, see above, chap. 4, notes 12 and 15.

Upon Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

7 No writer before Eases! time, so far as is known, assigned the reason given by him for the composition of John's Gospel.

Jerome, de vir. zl. chap. 9, repeats the view, combining with it the anti-heretical purpose.

The indefinite expression, '' they say," shows that Eusebius was recording tradition commonly received in_his time, and does not involve the authority of any particular writer.

This object — viz. the supplementing and filling out of the accounts of the Synoptists —is assumed as the real object by some modern scholars; but it is untenable, for though the book serves this purpose to a great extent, the author's real aim was much higher, — viz. the establishment of belief in the Messiahship and divinity of Christ

(John xx. 31 sqq-), and he chose his materials accordingly.

The Muratorian Fragment says, "' The Fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, ' Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to us.'

On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind."

Irenzus (III. 11. 1) supposes John to have written his Gospel as a polemic against Cerinthus.

Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 14), says that John wrote a spiritual Gospel, as a supplement to the other Gospels, which had sufficiently described the external facts.

The opinion of Eusebius is very superficial. Upon examination of the Gospels it will be seen that, of the events which John relates independently of the synoptists, but a small portion occurred before the imprisonment of John the Baptist.

John's Gospel certainly does incidentally supplement the Synoptists in a remarkable manner, but not in any such intentonal and artificial way as Eusebius supposes.

Compare Weiss'

Einleitung, p. 602 sqq., and Schaff's Ch. A7zst. Il. p. 680 sqq.

seen that the events which they record are not all comprised within a single year, as Eusebius thought, but that they are scattered over the whole period of his ministry, although confined to his work in Galilee up to the time of his last journey to Judea, six months before his crucifixion.

The distinction between John and the Synoptists, as to the events recorded, is therefore rather that of place than of time; but the distinction is not absolute.

® Matt. iv. 12.

10 Mark i. 14.

11 Luke iii. 20.

12 John ii. 11.

The arguments of Eusebius, whether original or borrowed from his predecessors, are certainly very ingenious, and he makes out apparently quite a strong case for his opinion; but a careful harmony of the four Gospels shows that it is untenable.

8 The Synoptic Gospels certainly give the impression that Christ's public ministry lasted but a single year; and were it not for the additional light which John throws upon the subject, the one year ministry would be universally accepted, as it was by many of the early Poiheon= ce. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,

Lactantius, &c.

John, however, expressly mentions three, perhaps four, passovers, so that Christ's ministry lasted either two or three years.

Upon comparison of the Synoptists with John, it will be 18 i 3 iii. 23.

14 , 57d, verse 24.

Eusebius approaches here the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, mentioned in note 7, above, who considered John's Gospel a spiritual supplement to the others,—a position which the Gospel certainly fills most admirably.

16 See Bk. II. chap. 15.

THE (CHURCH JFISTOR YeORIEUSEBIUS.

[IIT. 24.

alypse, the opinions of most men are still diHe states that since many others had niore L

vided."

But at the proper time this question rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his character.

But in spite of the slight external testimony to the epistles the conclusion of Weiss seems correct, that '' inasmuch as the second and third clearly betray the same author, and inasmuch as the second is related to the first in such a manner that they must either be by the same author or the former be regarded as an entirly aimless imitation of the latter, so everything favors the ascription of them both to the author of the first, viz. to the apostle." (22d. p. 469.)

20 The Apocalypse is one of the best authenticated books of the New Testament.

It was used by Papias and others of the earliest Fathers, and already by Justin Martyr was expressly ascribed to the apostle John.

(Compare also the epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Eusebius, V. 1.) Tradition, so far as we have it, is unanimous (with the exception of the Alogi, an insignificant heretical sect of the second century, who attributed the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel to Cerinthus.

Caius is not an exception; see below, chap. 28, note 4) in ascribing the Apocalypse to the apostle John, until Dionysius of Alexandria, who subjected the book to severe literary criticism (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 25), and upon the assumption of the genuineness of the Gospel and the first Epistle, doubted its authenticity on account of its divergence from these writings both in spirit and in style.

He says (VII. 2s, § 2) that some others before him had denied the Johannine authorship and ascribed the book to Cerinthus, but the way in which he speaks of them shows that there cannot have been a ruling tradition to that effect.

He may have referred simply to the Alogi, or he may have included others of whom we do not know.

He himself rejects this hypothesis, and supposes the books to have been written by some

John, not the apostle (by what John he does not decide), and does. not deny the inspiration and prophetic character of the book.

Dionysius was led to exercise criticism upon the Apocal pse (which. was as well supported by tradition as -any book of the New Testament) from dogmatic reasons. The supposed sensuous and material-istic conceptions of the Apocalypse were offensive to the spiritual-. izing tendencies of the thlecanceiae school, and the offensiveness. increased with time.

Although Dionysius held the work as inspired. and authoritative, yet his position would lead logically to the ex-. clusion of the Apocalypse from the canon, just as Hermas had been already excluded, alshough Origen held it to be inspired and authori-tative in the same sense in which Dionysius held the Apocalypse tobe, —i.e, as composed by an apostle's pupil, not by an apostle. Apocalyptic literature did not belong properly to the New Testament, but rather to the prophetic portion of the Old Testament; but the number: of the Old Testament prophets was already complete (according to the Muratorian Fragment), and therefore no prophetic writing (e.g.

Hermas) could find a place there; nor, on the other hand, could it be made a part of the New Testament, for it was not apostolic. The same was true of the Apocalypse of Peter, and the only thing which kept the Apocalypse of John in the canon was its supposed apostolic authorship.

It was received as a part of the New Testament not because it. was apocalyptic, but because it was apostolic, and thus the criticism of Dionysius would lead logically to its rejection from the canon.

John's Apocalypse is the only New Testament book cited by Justin. as ypad7 (so also by the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, Eusebius, V.

1), and this because of its prophetic character, It must have been (according to their Spinlony either a true prophecy (and therefore inspired by the Holy Spirit) or a forgery.

Its authenticity being accepted, the former alternative necessarily followed, and it was placed upon a line with the Old Testament prophets, i.e. with the yeaoy.

After Dionysius' time doubts of its authenticity became quite widespread in the Eastern Church, and among the doubters was Eusebius, who evidently wished to ascribe it to the mysterious probytce John, whose existence he supposed to be established by Papias in a passage quoted in chap. 39, §

4, below (compare the note on the passage).

Eusebius' treatment of the book js hesitating. He evidently himself discredited its apostolic authority, but at the same time he realized (as a historian more keenly than Dionysius the theologian) the great weight of external testimony to its authenticity, and therefore he gives his readers the liberty (in the next chapter) of putting it either with the Homologoumena or with the vdé@or.

It legitimately belonged among the omologoumena, but Donysius' attitude toward it doubtless led Eusebius to think that it might at some time in the future be thrown out of the canon, and of course his own objections to its contents and_ his doubts as to its apostolicity caused him to contemplate such a possibility not without pleasure (see the next chapter, noter), In en 18, above, he speaks of it as the "so-called" Apocaly se of John, but in other places he repeats many testimonies in favor of its authenticity (see the next note), and only in chapter 39 does he state clearly his own opinion in the matter, which even there he does not press as a fixed conviction.

The reason for the doubts of the book's genuineness on the part of Eusebius and so many others lay evidently most of all in objections to the contents of the book, which seemed to favor chiliasm, and had been reatly abused for the advancement of the crassest chiliastic views. any, eke Dionysius of Alexandria, were no doubt influenced also by the : eee it was impossible that the Gospel and the Apocalypse could

¢ the works of one author, and they preferred to sacrifice the latter rather than the former.

The book has found objectors in almost every age of the Church, but has continued to hold its place in the canon (its position was never disturbed in the Western Chace and stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with

the rest of the apostles."

So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them.

1% But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times.

But the other two

are disputed.'® In regard to the Apoc17 See Luke i. 1-4.

Eusebius puts the case more strongly than Luke himself.

Luke does not say that others had rashly undertaken. the composition of their narratives, nor does he say that he himself writes in order to free his readers from the uncertain suppositions of others; but at the same time the interpretation which Eusebius gives is, though not an exact, yet certainly a natural one, and we have no right to accuse him, as has been done, of intentional falsification of the text of the Gospel.

Eusebius also augments Luke's statement by the mention of the source from which the latter gained his knowledge, viz., "' from his intimacy and stay with Paul, and from his acquaintance with the rest ofthe apostles.'? If Eusebius intended to convey the impression that Luke said this, he is of course inexcusable, but we have no reason to suppose this to be the case.

It is simply the explanation on the part of Eusebius of an indefinite statement of Luke's by a fact which was universally assumed as true.

That he was adding to Luke's own account peckebly never occurred to him.

He does not pretend to quote Luke's exact words.

18 The testimony to the first Epistle of John goes hand in hand with that to the fourth Gospel (cf. note 1, above).

But we can find still clearer trace of the Epistle in the early part of the second century than of the Gospel (e.g. in Polycarp's

Epistle, where traces of the Gospel are wanting; and so, too, in Papias, according to chap.

39, below).

The writings of the second century are full of the spirit of the Epistle as well as of the Gospel, and exhibit frequent parallels in language too close to be mistaken.

The first express testimony as to its authorship occurs in the Muratorian Fragment.

The first systematic attack upon the Epistle was made by Bretschneider, in 1820, in connection with the attack upon the Gospel. The Tiibingen school likewise rejected both.

Before Bretschneider there had been a few critics (e.g. Lange, 1797) who had rejected the Epistle while accepting the Gospel, and since then a few have accepted the Epistle while rejecting the Gospel; but these are exceptional cases.

The 'Gospel and Epistle have almost universally, and quite rightly, been regarded as the work of the same author, and may be said to stand or fall together, Cf. the works cited in note z, and also Westcott's

Epistles of St. ¥ohn.

(On the use of mpdrepa instead of mpwrn, see Pp. 388, note.) 19 The Muratorian Fragment expressly ascribes two epistles toJohn.

Citations from the second Epistle appear first in Irenzus, though he does not distinguish it from the first.

Clement of Alexandria Sete Il. 15) quotes from x John under the formula John says in his larger Epistle," showing that he knew of a second.

The lack of citations from the second and third Epistles is easily explained fy their brevity and the minor importance of their doctrinal contents, he second and third Epistles belong to the seven A ntilegomena,

Origen cites the first Epistle often, the second and third never, and of the latter he says " not all agree that they are genuine" (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25), and apparently he himself did not consider them of apostolic origin (cf. Weiss' Einleitung, p87).

Origen's treatment of the Catholic Epistles was im licitly followed by his pupil Dionysius and by succeeding generations.

Eusebius himself does not express his own judgment in the matter, but simply records the state of tradition which was a mere repetition of Origen's position in regard to them.

Jerome (de v7r. 7//.9 and 18) says that most writers ascribe them to the presbyter Fohn — an opinion which evidently arose upon the basis of the author's self-designation in 2 John 1, and 3 John 1, and some modern critics (among them

Reuss and Wieseler) have done the same.

Eusebius himself in the next chapter implies that such an opinion existed in his day, though he does not express his own view on the matter.

He placed them however, among the Antilegomena.

(On the presbyter John, see below, chap. 39, note 4.) hat the two epistles fell originally into the class o Antilegomena was due doubtless to the peculiar selfdesignation mentioned, which seemed to distinguish the author from the apostle, and also to their private and doctrinally unimportant Tabs Church) as an, authentic work of the apostle John.

The Tiibingen school exalted the Apocalypse to the honorable position of

SET 2 5)

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.

the New Testament which have been already mentioned.

First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels ;? following them the Acts of the Apostles.

After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul ;* next in likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients."

CHAPTER XXV.

accepted and The Divine Scriptures that are those that are not. thenticity or original authority of the works of the two classes, but only to their canonicity or uncanonicity at the time Eusebius wrote. his interpretation will help us to understand the peculiar way in which Eusebius treats the Apocalypse, and thus his treatment of it becomes an argument in favor of the interpretation.

He puts it, first, among the Homologoumena with an eiye pavein, and then among the vé@o with an et davein.

No one, so far as I know, has explained why it should be put among the vd@or as an alternative to the Hommologoumena, instead of among the A ztzlegomena, which, on the common interpretation of the relation of the classes, might be naturally expected.

If the view presented is correct, the reason is clear.

The Antzlegomena were those works which had been disputed, but were becoming more and more widely accepted as canonical.

The Apocalypse could not, under any circumstances, fall into this class, for the doubts raised against it in the orthodox Church were of recent date.

It occupied, in fact, a peculiar position, for there was no other work which, while accepted as canonical, was' doubted in the present more than in the past.

Eusebius then must either put it into a special class or put it conditionally into two different classes, as he does.

If the doubts should become so widespread as to destroy its canonicity, it would fall naturally into the v60ot, for then it would hold the same position as the other works of that class, As an historian, Eusebius sees the tendency and undoubtedly has the idea that the Apocalypse may eventually, like the other Christian works of the same class (the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc,), become one of the vo@o, one of the works which, formerly accepted, is at length commonly denied to be canonical: and so, as an historian, he 'presents the alternative.

The Apocalypse was the only work in regard to which any doubt could exist. a SINCE we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of one of the five genuine monuments of the apostolic age, and from it as a basis conducted their attacks upon the other Johannine writings.

The more modern critical school is doubtful about it as well as the rest of the Johannine literature, and the latest theory makes the Apocalypse a Jewish document in a Christianized form (see above, chap. 18, note 1). Compare especially Holtzmann's £z7ateige Pp. 411-413, and Weiss' Ezxleztung, p93.

See Bk. vit. chap. 25, where Eusebius quotes a lengthy discussion of the Apocalypse by Dionysius of Alexandria. tie also cites opinions favorable to the authenticity of the Apocalypse from Justin (in IV. 18, below), Theophilus (IV. 24), Irenzus (V. 8), and Origen (VI. 25), but such scattered testimonies can hardly be regarded as the fulfillment of the definite promise which he makes in this passage.

1 This chapter is the only place in which Eusebius attempts to treat the canon systematically, and in it he is speaking purely as an historian, not as a critic.

He is endeavoring to give an accurate statement of the general opinion of the orthodox Church of his day in regard to the number and names of its sacred books.

He does not, in this passage, apply to the various works any criterion of canonicity further than their acceptance as canonical by the orthodox Church.

He simply records A #5 state of the canon; he does not endeavor to form a canon.

He has nothing to do, therefore, with the nature and origin of the books which the church accepts.

As remarked by Weiss (Zzxlettung in das N. T., p. 96), the influence of Eusebius in the formation of the canon is very commonly overestimated.

He contributed himself very little; his office was to record the usage of the church of his age, not to mould it.

Eusebius' failure to mention explicitly in this passage the Epistle to the Hebrews, has caused considerable misunderstanding.

The explanation, if the view presented be adopted, is simple.

Eusebius included it, I believe, among the epistles of Paul, and did not especially mention it, simply because there was no dispute about its canonicity.

Its Pauline authorship had been widely disputed, as Eusebius informs us elsewhere, and various theories had been proposed to account for it; but its canonicity had not been doubted in the orthodox Church, and therefore doubts as to the authorship of it did not in the least endanger its place among the Homologoumena, as used here in a technical sense; and since Eusebius was simply stating the works of each class, not discussing the nature and origin of those works, he could, in perfect fairness, include it in Paul's epistles (where he himself believed it belonged) without entering upon any discussion of it.

Another noticeable omission is that of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

All efforts to find a satisfactory reason for this are fruitless.

It should have been placed among the vé@o. with the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as Eusebius' treatment of it in other passages shows.

It must be assumed, with Holtzmann, that the omission of it was nothing more nor less than an oversight.

The church whose judgment he takes is, in the main, the church of the Orient, and in hat church at this time all the works which we now call canonical (and only those) were already commonly ac- 'cepted, or were becoming more and more widely accepted as such.

From the standpoint, then, of canonicity, Eusebius divided the 'works which he mentions in this chapter into two classes: the canonical (including the Homologoumena and the Antilegomena) and the uncanonical (including the vd@or and the avamAdcpara aipetikav avdpav).

But the vd¥oc he connects much more closely with the Homologoumena and Antilegomena than with the heretical works, which are, in fact, separated from all the rest and placed in a 'class by themselves.

What, then, is the relation of the Homologoumena, Antilegomena, and v6@or to each other, as Eusebius classifies them?

The crucial point is the relation of the vd@ou to the avriveyopeva.

Liicke (Ueber den N. T. Kanon des Eusebius, p.

11 sq.) identified the two, but such identification is im ossible in this 'passage.

The passages which he cites to confirm his view prove vonly that the word A z#zJegomena is commonly employed by EuseEusebius, then, classifies the works mentioned in this chapter upon two principles; first, in relation to canonicity, into the canonical and the uncanonical; and secondly, in relation to character, into the orthodox (Homologoumena, Antilegomena, which are canonical, and vé80r, which are uncanonical), and heterodox

(which are not, and never have been, canonical, never have been accepted as of use or authority).

The Homologoumena and Antilegomena, then, are both canonical and orthodox, the avamAdomara aipeTiKay avSpov are neither canonical nor orthodox, while the vé@0c occupy a peculiar position, being orthodox but not canonical.

The lastnamed are much more closely related to the canonical than to the heterodox works, because when the canon was a less concrete and exact thing than it had at length become, they were associated with the other orthodox works as, like them, useful for edification and instruction.

With the heretical works they had never been associated, and possessed in common with them only the negative characteristic of non-canonicity.

Eusebius naturally connects them closely with the former, and severs them completely from the latter.

The only reason for mentioning the latter at all was the fact that they bore the names of apostles, and thus might be supposed, as they often had been—by Christians, as well as by unbelievers — to be sacred books like the rest.

The statement of the canon gives Eusebius an opportunity to warn his readers against them. bius in a general sense to include all disputed works, and therefore, of course, the vé@0c also; that is, the term AxtiJegomena is ordinarily used, not as identical with vé@or, but as inclusive of it.

This, however, establishes nothing as to Eusebius' technical use of the -words in the present passage, where he is endeavoring to draw close

'distinctions.

Various views have been taken since Liicke's time upon the relation of these terms to each other in this connection; but, to me at least, none of them seem satisfactory, and I have been led to adopt the following simple explanation.

The Antilegomena, n the narrower sense peculiar to this summaty, were works which, in Eusebius' day, were, as he believed, commonly accepted by the Eastern Church as canonical, but which, nevertheless, as he well knew, had not always been thus accepted, and, indeed, were not even then universally accepted'as such. The tendency, however, was aye in the direction' of their ever-wider acceptance.

On the other hand, the vé80c were works which, although they had been used by the Fathers, and were quoted as ypaby by some of them, were, at this time, not acknowledged as canonical.

Although perhaps not universally rejected from the canon, yet they were commonly so rejected, and the tendency was distinctly in the direction of their everwider rejection.

Whatever their merit, and whatever their antiquity and their claims to authenticity, Eusebius could not place them among the canonical books.

The term vé@or, then, in this passage, must not be taken, as it commonly is, to mean spurious or unauthentic, but to mean uncanonical. tt is in this sense, as against the 'canonical Homologoumena and Antilegomena, that Eusebius, as I believe, uses it here, and his use of it in this sense is perfectly legitiUpon Eusebius' New Testament Canon, see especially the work of Liicke referred to above, also Westcott's Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed., p. 414 sq., Harnack's Lehre der Zwodf Afpostel, p. 6 sq., Holtzmann's ZLinledtung tn das N.T., p154 Sq, and Weiss' E7nleztung, p. 92 sq. e The greater part of the present note was read before | the American Society of Church History in December, 1888, and is printed in Vol. I. of that Society's papers, New York, 1889, p. 251 sq. mate.

In using it he passes no judgment upon the authenticity of the works referred to; that, in the present case, is not his concern.

2 On Matthew, see the previous chapter, note 5; on Mark, Bk.

TI. chap. 15, note 4; on 7 ike, Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15; on John, the previous chapter, note 1.

As an historian he observed tendencies, and judged accordingly.

'He saw that the puna: of the A xtrlegomena was on the increase, that of the vd@o on the decrease, and already he could draw a sharp distinction between them, as Clement of Alexandria could not do a century before.

The distinction drawn has no relation to the au3 See above, chap. 4, note r4.

4 See chap. 3, note 16.

Eusebius evidently means to include the

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

(Ill. 25.

Teachings of the Apostles ; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject," but which others class with the accepted books.* And

among these some have placed also the ~ Gospel according to the Hebrews,* with which order the extant former epistle of John,' and likewise the epistle of Peter,' must be maintained.

After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John,' concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time.

These then belong

among the accepted writings.

Among the disputed writings," which are nevertheless recognized" by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James " and that of Jude," also the second epistle of Peter,' and those that are called the second and third of John," whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person

Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. p. 133 sqqFor the most important literature, see Schaff, the Hist. ll. p. 671 sqq., and Gebhardt and Harnack's edition, p. xl. sqq21 tov Aveo u Acyopuevar Sidaxat, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Avdaxn tav da5exa amootdAwy, a brief document in sixteen chapters, was published in 1884 by Philotheos Bryennios,

Metropolitan of Nicomedia, from a MS. discovered by him in the Jerusalem convent in Constantinople in 1873.

The discovery threw the whole theological world into a state of excitement, and the books and articles upon the subject from America and from every nation in Europe have appeared by the hundred.

No such important find. has been made for many years.

The light which the little document has thrown upon early Church history is very great, while at the same time the questions which it has opened are numerous and weighty.

Although many points in regard to its origin and nature are still undecided, the following general positions may be accepted as practically established.

It is composed of two parts, of which the former (chaps. 1-6) is a redaction of an independent moral treatise, probably of Jewish origin, entitled the Two Ways, which was known and used in Alexandria, and there formed the basis of other writings of the same name.

Among the rejected

writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul," and the so-called Shepherd," and the Apocalypse of Peter," and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas," and the so-called

Epistle to the Hebrews among Paul's epistles at this point, for he mentions it nowhere else in this chapter (see above, note 1).

(e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, chaps. 18-21, and the Ecclesiastical Canons) whiek were at first supposed to have been based upon the Teaching itself.

(Bryennios, Harnack, and others supposed that the Teaching was based upon Barnabas, but this view has never been widely accepted.) This (Jewish) Two Ways which was in existence certainly before the end of the first century (how much

5 See the previous chapter, note 18.

6 See chap. 3, note 1.

68 kyowTéov, :

7 See the previous chapter, note 20.

Upon Eusebius' treatment in this chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note 1, above.

8 Compare the previous chapter, note 21.

9 év OuoAoyoupmevots.

15 See the previous chapter, | earlier we do not know) was early in the second century (if not before)

10 ray avTiAeyomevwr. note 19. made a part of a primitive church manual, viz. our present 7eachUL yywpinwv.

16 éy Trois vdGots. ing of the Twelve Apostles.

The Two Ways, both before and at

See Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46.

17 See above, chap. 3, note 20, | the time of (perhaps after) its incorporation into the Teaching, re13 See zbzd. note 47.

18 /bzd. note 23. ceived important additions, partly of a Christian character.

The 14 See above, chap. 3, note 4.

19 Jbtd. note g. completed Teaching dates from Syria, though this is denied by many writers (e.g. by Harnack), who prefer, upon what seem to me insufficient grounds, Egypt as the place of composition.

The completed Teaching formed the basis of a part of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which originated in Syria in the fourth century.

The most complete and useful edition is that of Schaff (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 3d ed., New York,

1889), which contains the Greek text with English translation and a very full discussion of the work itself and of the various questions. which are affected by its discovery.

Harnack's important edition Die Lehre der zwilf Apostel (Texte und Untersuchungen sur

Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., 11. 1 and 2, 1884) is still the standard German work upon the subject, though it represents many positions in regard to the origin and history of the work which have since been proved incorrect, and which he himself has given up.

His article in Herzog, 2d ed., XVII. 656 sqq. and his Dze AfostelLehre und die jitdischen Beiden Wege, 1886, should therefore be compared with his original work. Schaff's book contains a very complete digest of the literature down to the close of 1888.

As to the osition which the Teachzxg occupied in the canon we know very ittle, on account of the very sparing use of it made by the early

Fathers.

Clement of Alexandria cites it once as Scripture (ypad7), but no other writer before the time of Eusebius treats it in the same way, and yet Eusebius' mention of it among the vééor shows that it must have enjoyed a wide circulation at some time and have been accepted by at least a portion of the Church as a book worthy to be read in divine service, and thus in a certain sense as a part of the canon.

In Eusebius' time, however, its canonicity had been denied (though according to Athanasius Fes¢. EP. 39, it was still used in catechetical instruction), and he was therefore obliged to relegate it to a position among the vo#0..

Upon Eusebius' use of the plural per oes see the writer's article in the Andover Review, April,

1886, p. 439 sq.

2 aetovaw.

See the previous chapter, note 20.

23 Tots OuoAoyoumevors.

See note 1, above.

#4 This Gospel, probably composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), is no longer extant, but w@ possess a few fragments of it in Greek and Latin which are collected by Grabe, Sic. I, 15-31, and by Hilgenfeld, V. 7, Extra Can. rec. Ul.

The existing material upon which to base a judgment as to the nature of the lost Gospel and as to its. relation to our canonical gospels is very limited. i is certain, however, that it cannot in its original form have been a working over of our canonical Matthew (as many have thought); it contains too many little marks of originality over against our

Greek Matthew to admit of such .4 supposition.

'That it was, on the other hand, the 20 The author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is unknown.

No name appears in the epistle itself, and no hints are given which enable us to ascribe it to any known writer.

External testimony, without a dissenting voice, ascribes it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul.

But this testimony, although unanimous, is neither very strong nor very extensive.

The first to use the epistle is Clement of Alexandria, who expressly and frequently ascribes it to Barnabas the companion of Paul.

Origen quotes from the epistle twice, calling it the Epistle of Barnabas, but without expressing any judgment as to its authenticity, and without defining its author more closely.

Jerome (de vir, zl. 6) evidently did not doubt its authenticity, but placed it nevertheless among de Apocrypha, and his opinion prevailed down to the seventeenth century.

It is difficult to decide what Eusebius thought in regard to its authorship.

His putting it among the vo@or here does not prove that he considered it unauthentic (see note 1, above); nor, on the other hand, does his classing it among the Axtilegomena just below prove that he Consanres. it authentic, but non-apostolic, as some have claimed.

Although, therefore, the direct external testimony which we have is in favor of the apostolic Barnabas as its author, it is to be noticed that there must have existed a widespread doubt as to its authenticity, during the first three centuries, to have caused its complete rejection from the canon before the time of Eusebius.

That this rejection arose from the fact that Barnabas was not himself one of the twelve apostles cannot be.

For apostolic authorship was not the sole test of canonicity, and Barnabas stood in close enough relation to the apostles to have secured his work a place in the canon, during the period of its gradual formation, had its authenticity been undoubted.

We may therefore set this inference over against the direct external testimony for Barnabas' authorship.

When we come to internal testimony, the arguments are conclusive against '' the Levite Barnabas" as the author of the epistle.

These arguments have been well stated by Donaldson, in his Aéstory of Christian Literature, I. p.

204 sqq.

Milligan, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog., endeavors to break the force of these arguments, and concludes that the authenticity of the epistle is highly probable; but his Positions are far from conclusive, and he may be said to stand almost alone among modern scholars.

Especially during the last few years, the verdict against the epistle's authenticity has become practically unaaimous.

Some have supposed the author to have been an unknown man by the name of Barnabas; but this is pure conjecture.

That the author lived in Alexandria is apparently the ruling opinion, and is quite probable,

It is certain that the epistle was written between the destruction of Jerusalem (a.p. 7°) and the time of Clement of Alexandria; almost certain that it was written before the building of lia Capitolina; and probable that it was written between too and 120, though dates ranging all the way from the beginning of Vespasian's reign to the end of Hadrian's have been and are still, defended by able scholars.

The epistle is still extant in a corrupt Greek original and in an ancient Latin translation.

It 1s contained in all the editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt and Harnack's second edition, 1876, and Hilgenfeld's edition of 1877).

An English translation is given in the Anteoriginal of which our Greek Matthew is the translation is also impossible; a comparison of its fragments with our Matthew is sufficient to prove this.

That it was the original source from which pease ane bute indepen common matter is possible— more cannot be said.

Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. Il.

709-712) and Westcott (H7st. of the Canon, p. 515 sqq.) ve the rerio tee tions which are supposed to have been made from it. How many of them are actually to be traced back to it as their source is not certain.

It is possible, but not certain, that Papias had seen it (see chap. 39,

↑ Back to top