Chapter 329 of 2317

§ 204. Eusebius, Lactantius, Hosius.

On Eusebius see vol. III. 871–879—Add to Lit. the exhaustive article of Bp. Lightfoot in Smith and Wace, II. (1880), p. 308–348; Dr. Salmon, on the Chron. of Eus. ibid. 354–355; and Semisch in Herzog² IV. 390–398.

On Lactantius see vol. III. 955–959.—Add to Lit. Ebert: Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. I. (1874), p. 70–86; and his art. in Herzog² VIII. 364–366; and E. S. Ffoulkes in Smith and Wace III. 613–617.

On Hosius, see § 55 p. 179 sqq.; and vol. III. 627, 635, 636.—Add to Lit. P. Bonif. Gams (R.C.): Kirchengesch. v. Spanien, Regensb. 1862 sqq, , Bd II. 137–309 (the greater part of the second vol. is given to Hosius); W. Möller in Herzog² VI. 326–328; and T. D. C. Morse in Smith and Wace III. 162–174.

At the close of our period we meet with three representative divines, in close connection with the first Christian emperor who effected the politico-ecclesiastical revolution known as the union of church and state. Their public life and labors belong to the next period, but must at least be briefly foreshadowed here.

Eusebius, the historian, Lactantius, the rhetorician, and Hosius, the statesman, form the connecting links between the ante-Nicene and Nicene ages; their long lives—two died octogenarians, Hosius a centenarian—are almost equally divided between the two; and they reflect the lights and shades of both.¹⁵⁹³ Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea and a man of extensive and useful learning, and a liberal theologian; Lactantius, a professor of eloquence in Nicomedia, and a man of elegant culture; Hosius, bishop of Cordova and a man of counsel and action.¹⁵⁹⁴ They thus respectively represented the Holy Land, Asia Minor, and Spain; we may add Italy and North Africa, for Lactantius was probably a native Italian and a pupil of Arnobius of Sicca, and Hosius acted to some extent for the whole western church in Eastern Councils. With him Spain first emerges from the twilight of legend to the daylight of church history; it was the border land of the west which Paul perhaps had visited, which had given the philosopher Seneca and the emperor Trajan to heathen Rome, and was to furnish in Theodosius the Great the strong defender of the Nicene faith.

Eusebius, Lactantius, and Hosius were witnesses of the cruelties of the Diocletian persecution, and hailed the reign of imperial patronage. They carried the moral forces of the age of martyrdom into the age of victory. Eusebius with his literary industry saved for us the invaluable monuments of the first three centuries down to the Nicene Council; Lactantius bequeathed to posterity, in Ciceronian Latin, an exposition and vindication of the Christian religion against the waning idolatry of Greece and Rome, and the tragic memories of the imperial persecutors; Hosius was the presiding genius of the synods of Elvira (306), Nicaea (325), and Sardica (347), the friend of Athanasius in the defense of orthodoxy and in exile.

All three were intimately associated with Constantine the Great, Eusebius as his friend and eulogist, Lactantius as the tutor of his eldest son, Hosius as his trusted counsellor who probably suggested to him the idea of convening the first œcumenical synod; he was we may say for a few years his ecclesiastical prime minister. They were, each in his way, the emperor’s chief advisers and helpers in that great change which gave to the religion of the cross the moral control over the vast empire of Rome. The victory was well deserved by three hundred years of unjust persecution and heroic endurance, but it was fraught with trials and temptations no less dangerous to the purity and peace of the church than fire and sword.

The usual name is probably derived from Tertullian, who calls the followers of the apostles, Apostolici,) De Carne, 2; Proescr, Haer. 30). Westcott calls them sub-apostolic, Donaldson, ep-apostolic.

"The most striking feature of these writings," says Donaldson (p. 105),"is the deep living piety which pervades them. It consists in the warmest love to God, the deepest interest in man, and it exhibits itself in a healthy, vigorous, manly morality."

Like the N. T. Epistles, the writings of the Apostolic fathers generally open with an inscription and Christian salutation, and conclude with a benediction and doxology. The Ep. of Clement to the Corinthians beginning thus (ch. 1.): "The church of God, which sojournes in Rome to the church of God which sojournes in Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace from Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, be multiplied unto You." (Comp. 1 Cor. 1:2, 3; 2 Pet. 1:2.) It concludes (ch. 65, formerly ch. 59): "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all men everywhere who are called of God through Him, through whom be glory, honor, power, majesty, and eternal dominion unto Him from the ages past to the ages of ages. Amen."—The Ep. of Polycarp begins: " Polycarp, and the presbyters that are with him, to the church of God sojourning in Philippi: Mercy unto you and peace from God Almighty and from the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, be multiplied;" and it concludes."Grace be with you all. Amen." The Ep. of Barnabas opens and closes in a very general way, omitting the names of the writer and readers. The inscriptions and salutations of the Ignatian Epistles are longer and overloaded, even in the Syriac recension.

Comp. Euseb. H. E. III. 16; IV. 23, as regards the epistle of Clement, which continued to be read in the church of Corinth down to the time of Dionysius, a.d. 160, and even to the time of Eusebius and Jerome, in the fourth century. The Pastor Hermae is quoted by Irenaeus IV. 3, as "scriptura." and is treated by Clement of Alex. and Origen (Ad Rom. Comment. X. c. 31) as " scriptura valde utilis et divinitus inspirata."

The Codex Alexandrinus (A) of the fifth century contains, after the Apocalypse, the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, with a fragment of a homily; and the Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century gives, at the close, the Epistle of Barnabas complete in Greek, and also a part of the Greek Pastor Hermae.

Ascribed to Archbishop Whately.

Baur, Schwegler, and the other Tübingen critics show great want of spiritual discernment in assigning so many N. T. writings, even the Gospel of John to the borrowed moonlight of the post-apostolic age. They form the opposite extreme to the Roman overestimate of patristic teaching as being of equal authority with the Bible.

See above p. 184 sq., and my monograph, third revised edition, 1889.

There are six different conjectures. 1) Clement was the Philippian Clement mentioned by Paul. So Origen, Eusebius, Jerome. He may have been a Greek or a Roman laboring for a time in Philippi and afterwards in Rome. 2) A distant relative of the emperor Tiberius. So the pseudoClementine romances which are historically confused and worthless. 3) The Consul Flavius Clemens, Domitian’s cousin, who was put to death by him for "atheism" i.e. the Christian faith, a.d. 95, while his wife Domitilla (who founded the oldest Christian cemetery in Rome) was banished to an island. So Hilgenfeld, and, less confidently, Harnack. But our Clement died a natural death, and if he had been so closely related to the emperor, the fact would have been widely, spread in the church. 4) A nephew of Flavius Clemens. So the martyr acts of Nereus and Achilles, and Cav. de Rossi. 5) A son of Flavius Clemens. So Ewald. But the sons of the Consul, whom Domitian appointed his successors on the throne, were mere boys when Clement was bishop of Rome. 6) A Jewish freedman or son of a freedman belonging to the household of Flavius Clemens. Plausibly advocated by Lightfoot (p. 265). The imperial household seems to have been the centre of the Roman church from the time of Paul’s imprisonment (Phil. 4:22). Slaves and freedmen were often very intelligent and cultivated. Hermas )Vis. I. 1) and Pope Callistus )Philos. IX. 12) were formerly slaves. Funk concludes: res non liquet. So also Uhlhorn in Herzog.

Renan (p. 313) thinks that he was a Roman Jew. So also Lightfoot. But Justin Martyr had the same familiarity with the Old Testament, though he was a Gentile by birth and education.

§ 52, p. 166. Bryennios discusses this question at length in his Prolegomena, and comes to the conclusion that Clement was the third bishop of Rome, and the author of both Epistles to the Corinthians. He identifies him with the Clement in Phil. 4:3.

"Clément Romain." says the sceptical Renan, once a student of Roman Catholic theology in St. Sulpice."ne fut pas seulement un personnage réel, ce fut un personnage de premier ordre, un vrai chef d’Église, un évêque, avant que l’épiscopat fût nettement constitué j’ oserais presque dire un pape, si ce mot ne faisait ici un trop fort anachronisme. Son autorité passa pour la plus grande de toutes en Italie, en Grèce, en Macédonie, durant les dix dernières années du I^ersiècle. A la limite de l’ âge apostolique, il fut comme unapôtre, un épigone de la grande génération des disciples de Jésus, une des colonnes de cette Eglise de Rome, qui, depuis la destruction de Jérusalem, devenait de plus en plus le centre du christianisme."

The Alexandrian Bible codex dates from the fifth century, and was presented by Cyril Lucar, of Constantinople, to King Charles 1. in 1628. Since 1633 the Ep. of Cl. has been edited about thirty times from this single MS. It lacks the concluding chapters (57-66) in whole or in part, and is greatly blurred and defaced. It was carefully reexamined and best edited by Tischendorf (1867 and 1873), Lightfoot (1869 and 1877), Laurent (1870), and Gebhardt (in his first ed. 1875). Their conjectures have been sustained in great part by the discovery of the Constantinopolitan MS. See the critical Addenda in the Append. of Lightfoot, p. 396 sqq.

At that time metropolitan of Serrae (metropolivth" Serrw'n)-an ancient see Heraclea), in Macedonia—afterwards of Nicomedia. This Eastern prelate was most cordially welcomed by the scholars of the West, Catholic and Protestant, to an honored place in the republic of Christian learning. His discovery is of inestimable value. In his prolegomena and notes—all in Greek—he shows considerable knowledge of the previous editions of Clement (except that of Lightfoot, 1869) and of modern German literature. It is amusing to find familiar names turned into Greek, as Neander (oJ Nevandro"), Gieseler (oJ Giselevrio"), Hefele (oJ {Efelo"), Dressel (oJ Dressevlio"), Hilgenfeld (oJ JIlgemfevldo"), Jacobson (oJ jIakwbsovnio"), Tischendorf (Kwnstanvti'no" oJ Tisendovrfio"), Thiersch (oJ qeivrsio"), Schroeckh (oJ Sroivkcio"), Schwegler, (oJ Souevglero"), Schliemann (oJ Slimavnno"), Reithmayr (oJ Rei>qmavu>ro"), Uhlhorn (oJ Oujlcovrnio" ejn th'/ Real Encykl. von Herzog ejn levx. Clemens von ROM tom. B v. sel 721; p. xz v), etc. He complains, however, of " the higher" or " lofty criticism" (uJyhlh; kritikhv) and the " episcophobia" (ejpiskofobiva) of certain Germans, and his own criticism is checked by his reverence for tradition, which leads him to accept the Second Epistle of Clement as genuine, contrary to the judgment of the best scholars.

The Constantinopolitan codex belongs to the library of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre (tou' Panagivou Tavfou)in the Fanar or Phanar, the Greek district of Constantinople, whose inhabitants, the Fanariotes, were originally employed as secretaries and transcribers of documents. It is a small 8vo parchment of 120 leaves, dates from a.d. 1056, is clearly and carefully written in cursive characters, with accents, spiritus, punctuation (but without jota subscriptum), and contains in addition the second Epistle of Clement in full, the Greek Ep. of Barnabas, the larger Greek recension of the 12 Ignatian Epistles, the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (didach; tw'n dwvdeka ajpostovlwn), and a work of Chrysostom (a Synopsis of the Old and New Testments). The value of this text consists chiefly in the new matter of the first Ep. (about one-tenth of the whole, from the close of ch. 57 to the end), and the remainder of the second. It presents nearly four hundred variations. The Constantinopolitan codex is preferred by Hilgenfeld, the Alexandrian by Lightfoot, Gebhardt and Harnack. The Didache is far more important, but was not published till 1883.

This MS. which escaped the attention of French scholars, is now in Cambridge. It was written in the year 1170, in the Convent of Mar Saliba, at Edessa. It contains, with the exception of the Apocalypse, the entire New Testament in the Harclean recension (616) of the Philoxenian version (508), and the two Epistles of Clement between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles (instead of at the close, as in the Alexandrian Cod.), as if they were equal in authority to the canonical books. Bishop Lightfoot (Appendix to S. Clemens p. 238) says, that this Syriac version is conscientious and faithful, but with a tendency to run into paraphrase, and that it follows the Alex. rather than the Constantinopolitan text, but presents also some independent readings.

See § 50, p. 157, and § 66, p. 226, 228.

Mentioned at the close in ch. 65 (which in the Alex. text is ch. 59). Claudius and Valerius may have been connected with the imperial household as freedmen (Comp. Phil. 4:22). Fortunatus has been identified by some with the one mentioned 1 Cor. 16:17, as a younger member of the household of Stephanas in Corinth.

By the author of the Catalogue of contents prefixed to the Alexandrian codex, generally called Cod. A: by Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to Soter of Rome (Euseb. IV, 23); Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I. 3, § 3); Clement of Alexandria, who often quotes from it; Origen (Comm. in Joan. VI. § 36 and other places); Eusebius )H. E. III. 16; IV. 23; V. 6); Jerome )De Virisillustr. c. 15). Polycarp already used it, as appears from the similarity of several passages. All modern critics (with the exception of Baur, Schwegler, Volkmar, and Cotterill) admit the Clementine origin, which is supported by the internal evidence of style and doctrine. Cotterill’s Peregrinus Proteus (1879), which puts the Clementine Epistles in their present shape among the Stephanic fabrications, is an ingenious literary curiosity, but no serious argument. Renan says (p. 319): "Peu d’ écrits sontaussi authentiques."

Dionysius of Corinth (A. D. 170) first mentions the liturgical use of the Epistle in his church. Eusebius (III. 16) testifies from his own knowledge that it was read in very many churches (ejn pleivstai" ejkklhsivai") both in former times and in his own day. Comp. Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. 15.

1 Ch. 5. The tevrma th'" duvsew" must be Spain, whither Paul intended to go, Rom. 15:24, 28. To a Roman writing in Rome, Spain or Britain was the Western terminus of the earth. Comp. Strabo II.c. 1, 4; III. 2. The hJgouvmenoi are the Roman magistrates; others refer the word specifically to Tigellinus and Nymphidius, the prefects of the praetorium in 67, or to Helium and Polycletus, who ruled in Rome during the absence of Nero in Greece in 67.

Funk gives a list of quotations and parallel passages, Patr. Apost. I. 566-570. From this it appears that 157 are from the O. T., including the Apocrypha and (apparently) the Assumption of Moses, 158 from the N. T., but only three of the latter are strict quotations (ch. 46 from Matt. 26:24, and Luke 17:2; ch. 2 and 61 from Tit. 3:1). Clement mentions by name only one book of the N. T.,ejpistolh; tou' makarivou Pauvlou, with evident reference to I Cor. 1;10 sqq. Comp. also the lists of Scripture quotations in the ed. of Bryennios (p. 159-165), and G. and H. p. 144-155.

"When we remember," says Lightfoot, p. 268 sq., "that this prayer issued from the fiery furnace of persecution after experience of a cruel and capricious tyrant like Domitian, it will appear truly sublime—sublime in its utterances and still more sublime in its silence. Who would have grudged the Church, of Rome her primacy, if she had always spoken thus?" Ropes (l. c, p. 343): The sublimity of this prayer gains a peculiar sIgnificance when we remember that it was Domitian in whose behalf it was offered."

Renan (p. 314) call, .; his epistle "un beau morceau neutre, dont les disciples de Pierre et ceux de Paul durent se contenter également. Ilest probale qu’il fut un des agents les plus énergetiques de la grande œuvre qué etait en train de s’ accomplir, je veux dire, de la réconciliation posthume de Pierre et de Paul de la fusior des deux partis, sans l’union desquels l’œuvre du Christ ne pouvait que périr."

Ch. 32. An echo of Paul’s teaching is found in Polycarp, Ad Phil. c.1, where he refers to "the firm root of their faith, preached to them from olden times, which remains to this day, and bears fruit in our Lord Jesus Christ."

Ch. 49.

Ch. 46. Comp. Eph. 4:3 sqq.

3 Ch. 20: jWkevano" ajnqrwvpoi" avpevranto" kai; oiJ met j aujto;n kovsmoi tai'" aujtai'" tagai'" tou' despovtou dieuquvnontai. Lightfoot (p. 84) remarks on this passage: "Clement may possibly be referring to some known, but hardly accessible land, lying without the pillars of Hercules. But more probably he contemplated some unknown land in the far west beyond the ocean, like the fabled Atlantis of Plato, or the real America of modern discovery." Lightfoot goes on to say that this passage was thus understood by Irenaeus (II. 28, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V. 12), and Origen ) De Princ. II.6; In Ezech. VIII. 3), but that, at a later date, this opinion was condemned by Tertullian (De Pall. 2 Hermog. 25), Lactantius (Inst. II. 24), and Augustin )De Civit. Dei XVI. 9). For centuries the idea of Cosmas Indicopleustes that the earth was a plain surface and a parallelogram, prevailed in Christian literature.

See especially chs. 56, 58, 59, 63, of the Constantinopolitan and Syrian text.

Clement, Ad Cor. c. 25. Contrast with this account the fifteenth chapter of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians.

Tertullian )De Resurrect. 13), Origen (C. Cels. IV. 72), Ambrose (Hexaëm. V. 23, 79), Epiphanius, Rufinus, and other patristic writers. The Phoenix was a favorite symbol of renovation and resurrection, and even of Christ himself, among the early Christians, and appears frequently on coins, medals, rings, cups, and tombstones. But in this point they were no more superstitious than the most intelligent heathen contemporaries. Herodotus heard the marvelous story of the burial of the parent bird by the offspring from Egyptian priests, II. 73. Ovid and other Latin poets refer to it, and Claudian devotes a poem to it. Tacitus (Ann. VI. 28), Pliny ) H. Nat. X. 2), and Dion Cassius LVIII. 27) record that the Phoenix actually reappeared in Egypt, a.d. 34, after In interval of 250 years. According to Pliny the bird was also brought to Rome by a decree of Claudius, and exhibited in the comitium, in the year of the city 800 (A. D. 47). This, of course, was a fraud, but many, and among them probably Clement, who may have seen the wonderful bird from Egypt at the time, took it for genuine. But an inspired writer like Paul would never have made use of such a heathen fable as an argument for a Christian truth. "It is now known," says Lightfoot."that the story owes its origin to the symbolic and pictorial representations of astronomy. The appearance of the phoenix is the recurrence of a period marked by the heliacal rising of some prominent star or constellation." See on the whole subject Henrichsen, De Phoenicis Fabula (Havn. 1825), Cowper, Gebhardt and Harnack, Funk, and Lightfoot on ch. 25 of the Clementine Ep., Piper, Mythologie und Symbolik der christl. Kunst (1847) I. 446 sqq., and Lepsius, Chronologie der Aegypter (1849) 180 sq.

Ch. 1. The usual reading is: genomevna", which refers to past calamities. So Cod. C. The Alex. MS. is here defective, probably [genom]evna" .Lightfoot reads with the Syrian version ginomevna", " which are befalling us" (267 and 399), and refers the passage to the continued perils of the church under Domitian.

bebaiotavthn kai; ajrcaivan, c. 47.

The later date (93-97) is assIgned to the Epistle by Cotelier, Tillemont, Lardner, Möhler, Schliemann, Bunsen, Ritschl, Lipsius, Hilgenfeld, Donaldson, Bryennios, Harnack, Uhlhorn, Lightfoot (who puts the letter soon after the martyrdom of Flavius Clement, a.d. 95), Funk (who puts it after the death of Domitian, 96). But other writers, including Hugo Grotius, Grabe, Hefele, Wieseler, B. H. Cowper, assIgn the Epistle to an earlier date, and infer from ch. 41 that it must have been written before 70, when the temple service in Jerusalem was still celebrated. "Not everywhere, brethren," says Clement, "are the daily sacrifices offered (prosfevrontai qusivai), or the vows, or the sin-offerings, or the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only; and even there they are not offered prosfevretai) in every place, but only at the altar before the sanctuary, after the victim to be offered has been examined by the high-priest and the ministers already mentioned." This argument is very plausible, but not conclusive, since Josephus wrote a.d. 93 in a similar way of the sacrifices of the temple, using the praesens historicum, as if it still existed, Ant. III. 10. In ch. 6 Clement seems to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem when he says that "jealousy and strife have overthrown great cities and uprooted great nations." Cowper (l.c. p. 16) mentions the absence of any allusion to the Gospel of John as another argument. But the Synoptic Gospels are not named either, although the influence of all the Gospels and nearly all the Epistles can be clearly traced in Clement.

Ed. in full by Bryennios, Const. 1875, p. 113-142 with Greek notes; by Funk, with a Latin version (I. 144-171), and by Lightfoot with an English version (380-390).

It is first mentioned by Eusebius, but with the remark that it was not used by ancient writers )H. E. III. 38). Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., and Origen know only one Ep. of Clement. Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter to Bishop Soter of Rome, calls it, indeed, "the former" (protevra), but with reference to a later epistle of Soter to the Corinthians (Euseb. H. E. IV. 23). Bryennios, the discoverer of the complete copy, still vindicates the Clementine authorship of the homily, and so does Sprinzl (p. 28), but all other modern scholars give it up. Wocher (1830) assIgned it to Dionysius of Corinth, Hilgenfeld first to Soter of Rome, afterwards (Clem. Ep. ed. II. 1876, p. XLIX) to Clement of Alex. in his youth during his sojourn in Corinth, Harnack (1877) to a third Clement who lived in Rome between the Roman and the Alexandrian Clement, Lightfoot (App. p. 307) and Funk (Prol. xxxix) to an unknown Corinthian before a.d. 140, on account of the allusion to the Isthmian games (c. 7) and the connection with the Ep. of Clement. Comp. above p. 225.

Lightfoot (p. 317) calls it a testimony "of the lofty moral earnestness and triumphant faith which subdued a reluctant world, and laid it prostrate at the feet of the cross." but "almost worthless as a literary work."

Best edition with Latin version by Beelen: S. Clementis R. Epistolae binae, de Virginitate. Louvain, 1856. German translation by Zingerle (1827), French by Villecourt (1853), English in the "Ante-Nicene Library."

Villecourt, Beelen, Möhler, Champagny, Brück.

Mansi, Hefele, Alzog, Funk (Prol. XLII. sq.). Also all the Protestant critics except Wetstein, the discoverer. Lightfoot (l. c. p. 15 sq.) assIgns the document to the beginning of the third century. Eusebius nowhere mentions it.

See § 56, p. 183 sqq.

See § 114, p. 435 sqq.

They originated in the east of France between a.d. 829 and 847.

qeofovro"," bearer of God."The titles of the Epistles call him jIgnavtio" oJ kai; qeofovro", adding simply the Greek to the Latin name. The Martyrium Ignatii, c. 2, makes him explain the term, in answer to a question of Trajan, as meaning " one who has Christ in his breast."The still later legend (in Symeon Metaphrastes and the Menaea Graeca), by changing the accent. (qeovforo", Theophorus), gives the name the passive meaning, "one carried by God." because Ignatius was the child whom Christ took up in his arms and set before his disciples as a pattern of humilit y (Matt. 18:2). So the Acta Sanctorum, 1 Febr. I. 28. The Syrians called him Nurono, the Fiery, in allusion to his Latin name from Ignis.

Ap. Const. VI I. 46: jAntioceiva" Eujovdio" me;n uJp j ejmou' Pevtrou, JIgnavtio" de; uJpo; Pauvlou keceirotovnhtai. According to Eusebius (Chron., ed. Schoene II., p. 158) and Jerome, Ignatius was " Antiochiae secundus episcopus."Comp. Zahn, Ign v. A., p. 56 sqq., and Harnack, Die Zeit des Ign., p. 11 sq.

Comp. Zahn, p. 402, who rejects this tradition as altogether groundless: Es fehlt bei Ignatius auch jede leiseste Spur davon, dass er noch aus apostolischem Mund die Predigt gehört habe."He calls himself five times the least among the Antiochian Christians, and not worthy to be one of their number. From this, Zahn infers that he was converted late in life from determined hostility to enthusiastic devotion, like Paul (Comp. 1 Cor. 15:8-10).

{O ejsti stratiwtw'n tavgma is added here for explanation by the two Greek versions, and by Eusebius also, H. E. III. 36.

qhsauro;" a[timo" Mart. c. 6.

Lucian, in his satire on the Death of Peregrinus, represents this Cynic philosopher as a hyocritical bishop and confessor, who while in prison received and sent message, and was the centre of attention and correspondence among the credulous and good-natured Christians in Syria and Asia Minor. The coincidence is so striking that Zahn and Renan agree in the inference that Lucian knew the story of Ignatius, and intended to mimic him in the person of Peregrinus Proteus, as he mimicked the martyrdom of Polycarp. See Renan, Les évangiles, p. 430 sq.

Grabe proposes to read, in the Martyr. c, 2, dekavtw/ ejnnavtw/ e{tei, for ejnnavtw/ which would give the year 116. Tillemont and others escape the difficulty by suppossing, without good reason, a double Parthian expedition of Trajan, one in 107 and another in 115 or 116. Comp. Francke: Zur Geschichte Trajan’s. 1837, p. 253 sqq., and Büdinger, Untersuchungen zur röm. Kaisergesch. I. 153 sqq. Nirschl assumes even three oriental expeditions of TraJan. Wieseley and Frank defend the traditional date (107); Harnack puts the martyrdom down to the reIgn of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius, but without solid reasons Zahn (p. 58) leaves it indefinite between 107 and 116, Lightf. between 110 and 118,

So Uhlhorn, Zahn (248 sq.), Funk (XLVII.). Comp. Lightfoot (II. 390).

Polycarp writes to the Philippians (ch. 13), that he had sent them the Epistles of Ignatius (ta;" ejpistola;s jIgnativou, ta;" pemfqeivsa" hJmi'n uJp j aujtou' kai; a[lla"... ejpemyamen uJmi'n). Zahn and Funk maintain that this sylloge Polycarpiana consisted of six epistles, and excluded that to the Romans. (Ussher excluded the Ep. to Polycarp). Irenaeus quotes a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, Adv. Haer. V. 28, § 4. Origen speaks of several letters of Ignatius, and quotes a passage from Romans and another from Ephesians, Prol. in Cant. Cantic. and Hom. VI. in Luc. (III. 30 and 938, Delarue). Zahn (p. 513) finds also traces of Ignatius in Clement of Alexandria and Lucian’s book De Morte Peregrini, which was written soon after the martyrdom of Polycarp.

Ad Rom. c. 2, according to the Syriac text; c. 4, in the Greek.

Ch. 4 (Syr.), or 5-7 (Gr.).

Comp. Phil. 1:23, 24, and Matt. 26:39.

Ta;" kakotecniva" feu'ge, according to all the MSS., even the Syriac. Bunsen proposes to read kakotevcnou", in the sense of seductive women, coquettes, instead of kakotecniva" . But this, besides being a mere conjecture, would not materially soften the warning.

2 Tim. ii. 22.

Such Roman Catholic writers as Nirschl and Sprinzl find the whole theology and church polity of Rome in Ignatius. Episcopalians admire him for his advocacy of episcopacy; but he proves too little and too much for them; too little because Ignatius knows nothing of a diocesan, but only of a congregational episcopacy; too much because he requires absolute obedience to the bishop as the representative of Christ himself, while the Presbyters represent the apostles. Moreover the Ignatian episcopacy is free from the sacerdotal idea which came in later with Cyprian, but is intimated in Clement of Rome.

Calvin, who, however, knew only the spurious and worthless longer recension, calls the Ignatian Epistles abominable trash (Inst. I. 1, c. 13, § 29); Dr. W. D. Killen, who ought to know better, from strong anti-prelatic feeling, speaks of Ignatius, even according to the shorter Syriac recension, as an "anti-evangelical formalist, a puerile boaster, a mystic dreamer and crazy fanatic." (Ancient Church, 1859, p. 414). Neander is far more moderate, yet cannot conceive that a martyr so near the apostolic age should have nothing more important to say than "such things about obedience to the bishops ") Ch. H. I.192, note, Bost, ed.). Baur and the Tübingen critics reject the entire Ignatian literature as a forgery. Rothe on the other hand is favorably impressed with the martyr-enthusiasm of the Epistles, and Zahn (an orthodox Lutheran) thinks the Ignatian epistles in the shorter (Greek recension worthy of a comparison with the epistles of St. Paul (p. 400).

Still less by the apostle Peter, the alleged first Pope of Rome; on the contrary, he enters a solemn protest against hierarchical tendencies for all time to come, 1 Pet. 5:14.

On the change of date from 166 or 167 to 155 or 156, in consequence of Waddington’s researches, see p. 50.

Eusebius, H. E. V. 20.

Adv. Haer. iii. 3, § 4.

2 John 10

Ch. 7.

·Comp. 1 John 4:3.

Comp. 1 Pet. 4:17.

Matt. 6:13,

Matt. 26:41.

Adv. Haer. III. 3, § 4. Comp. Euseb. H E. III. 36, and Jerome De Vir. ill. c. 17.

Nor has its integrity been called in question with sufficient reason by Dallaeus, and more recently by Bunsen, Ritschl (in the second ed of his Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, p. 584-600), Renan (Journal des savants, 1874, and less confidently in L’église chret., 1879, p. 442 sqq.), and the author of Supernatural Religion (I. 274-278). But the genuineness and integrity of the Ep. are ably vindicated by Zahn (1873) and by Lightfoot ("Contemp. Rev. ." Feb. 1875, p. 838-852). The testimony of Irenaeus, who knew it ) Adv. Haer. III. 3, § 4), is conclusive. Renan urges chiefly the want of originality and force against it.

Ch. 2.

jEpistolav" must here probably be understood, like the Latin literae, of one epistle.

Gal. 4:26.

proagouvsh".

Ch. 3.

Cavritiv ejste seswsmevnoi oujk ejx e[rgwn, ajllav qelhvmati qeou', dia; jIhsou' Cristou', comp. Eph. 2:8, 9.

Funk (I. 573 sq.), counts only 6 quotations from the O. T., but 68 reminiscences of passages in Matthew (8), Mark (1), Luke (1), Acts (4), Romans, Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., James (1). 1 Pet. (10), 2 Pet. (1 and 2 John. Comp. the works on the canon of the N. T.

All sorts of corrections, accordingly, have been proposed for peristerav in ch. 16; e.g. ejp j ajristera'/ a sinistra, or periv; stevrna, or perivptera ai[mato" (scintillarum instar sanguinis), or peri; stuvraka (circa hastile, around the spike). Comp. Hefele: Patr. Ap. p. 288 (4^th ed.) note 4; and Funk (5^th ed) 299. Funk reads peri;stuvraka, which gives good sense. So also the ed. of Gebh. and Harn.

Keim (1873), and Lipsius (1876) reject the whole Martyrium. Steitz (1861), Zahn (1876), and Funk (Prol XCVII.) the last two chapters as later additions. Donaldson (p. 198 sqq.) assumes several interpolations which make it unreliable as a historical document, but admits that it is superior to the later martyria by its greater simplicity and the probability of the most part of the narrative, especially the circumstances of the flight and capture of Polycarp.

oujc wJ" didavskalo" , ajll j wJ" ei|" ejx uJmw'n, ch. 1; Comp. 4: polla;/ qevlwn gravfein, oujc wJ" didavskalo" .

The Cod. Sinaiticus omits ’Amen."and adds at the close: JEpistolh; Barnavba..

The last chapters are derived either from the Didache, or from a a still older work, Duae Viae vel Judicium Petri, which may have been the common source of both. See my work on the Didache, p. 227 sqq., 305, 309, 312 sq., 317.

Ch. 2:oJ kaino;" novmo" tou' Kurivou hJmw'n jI.C., a[vneu (a[ter)zugou' ajnavgkh" w[n

Ch. 4:sunetrivbh aujtw'n hJ diaqhvkh, i{na hJ tou' hjgaphmevnou jIhsou' ejgkatasfragisqh'_ eij" th;n kardivan hJmw'n ejn ejlpivdi th''" pivstew" aujtou'.

Cap. 4 at the close:prosevcwmen mhvpote, wJ" gevgraptai, polloiv klhtoi;, ojlivgoi de; ejklektoi; euJreqw'men. From Matt. 22:14. As long as the fourth chapter of this epistle existed only in Latin, the words: "sicut scriptum est" were suspected by Dr. Credner and other critics as an interpolation, Hilgenfeld (1853) suggested that the original had simply kaqwv" fhsin, and Dressel, in his first edition of the Apostolic Fathers (1857), remarked in loc: "Voces ’sicut scriptum est’ glossam olent." But the discovery of the Greek original in the Sinaitic MS. of the Bible has settled this point, and the Constantinopolitan MS. confirms it. The attempt of Strauss and other sceptics to refer the quotation to the apocryphal fourth Book of Esdras, which was probably written by a Jewish Christian after the destruction of Jerusalem, and contains the passage: ’Many are born, but few will be saved."is only worth mentioning as an instance of the stubbornness of preconceived prejudice.

Funk (I. 364-366) gives nine quotations from Genesis, thirteen from Exodus, six from Deuteronomy, fourteen from the Psalms, twenty-six from Isaiah, etc., also one from IV. Esdras, four from Enoch. Comp. the list in Anger’s Synopsis Evang. (1852), Gebh. and Harn., 217-230.

See Acts 1:23; 4:37; 9:26 sq.; 11:22, 30; 14:4, 14; 15:2, etc. Clement of Alex. quotes the Epistle seven times (four times under the name of Barnabas), in his Stromtata, Origen, his pupil, three or four times (Contra Cels. I. 63; De Princ. III. 2; Ad Rom. I. 24). Tertullian does not mention the epistle, but seems to have known it (Comp. Adv, Marc. III. 7; Adv. Jud. 14); he, however, ascribes the Ep, to the Hebrews to Barnabas )De Pudic. c. 20). Hefele and Funk find probable allusions to it in Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Hermas; but these are uncertain. On the life and labors of Barnabas see especially Hefele and Braunsberger (p. 1-135).

In H. E. III. 25, Eusebius counts it among the "spurious" books (ejn toi'" novqoi" ... hJ feromevnh Barnavba ejpistolhv),but immediately afterwards and in VI. 14, among the "doubtful" (ajntilegovmena), and Jerome (De Vir. ill. c. 6), "inter apocryphas scripturas."

Voss, Dupin, Gallandi, Cave, Pearson, Lardner, Henke, Rördam, Schneckenburger, Franke, Gieseler, Credner, Bleek (formerly), De Wette, Möhler, Alzog, Sprinzl ("genuine, but not inspired "), Sharpe. The interpolation hypothesis of Schenkel (1837) and Heydeke (1874) is untenable; the book must stand or fall as a whole.

So Ussher, Daillé, Cotelier, Tillemont, Mosheim, Neander, Ullmann, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Hefele, Döllinger, Kayser, Donaldson, Westcott, Müller, Wieseler, Weizsäcker, Braunsberger, Harnack, Funk. Hefele urges eight arguments against the genuineness; but five of them are entirely inconclusive. See Milligan, l. c., who examines them carefully and concludes that the authenticity of the Epistle is more probable than is now commonly supposed.

Or "sinners above all sin," uJpe;r pa'san aJmartivan ajnomwtevrou",homines omni peccato iniquiores, c. 5. Paul might call himself in genuine humility " the chief of sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15), with reference to his former conduct as a persecutor; but he certainly would not have used such a term of all the apostles nor would it be true of any of them but Judas.

He is also charged with several blunders concerning Jewish history and worship which can hardly be expected from Barnabas the Levite. Comp. chs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15. But this is disproved by Braunsberger (p. 253 sqq.), who shows that the epistle gives us interesting archaeological information in those chapters although he denies the genuineness.

He is twice called an apostle, Acts 14:4, 14, being included with Paul in ajpovstoloi.

So Neander, Möhler, Hefele (1840), Funk, GüdemAnn. On the other hand, Lardner, Donaldson, Hilgenfeld, Kayser, Riggenbach, Hefele (1868), Braunsberger, Harnack contend that Barnabas and his readers were Gentile Christians, because he distinguishes himself and his readers (hJmei'") from the Jews chs. 2, 3, 4, 8. 10, 14, 16. But the same distinction is uniformly made by John in the Gospel, and was quite natural after the final separation between the church and the synagogue. The mistakes in Jewish history are doubtful and less numerous than the proofs of the writer’s familiarity with it. The strongest passage is ch. 16: " Before we became believers in God, the house of our heart was ... full of idolatry and the house of demons, because we did what was contrary to God’s will."But even this, though more applicable to heathen, is not inapplicable to Jews; nor need we suppose that there were no Gentiles among the readers. Towards the close of the second century there were probably very few unmixed congregations. Lipsius and Volkmar seek the readers in Rome, Müller in Asia Minor, Schenkel, Hilgenfeld, Harnack, and Funk in Alexandria or Egypt. There is a similar difference of opinion concerning the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Ch. 16 compared with the explanation of Daniel’s prophecy of the little horn in ch. 4.

Hefele, Kayser, Baur, Müller, Lipsius, put the composition between 107 and 120 (before the building of Aelia Capitolina under Hadrian), and Braunsberger between 110 and 137; but Hilgenfeld, Reuss )Gesch. d. N. T, 4^th ed., 1864, p. 233), Ewald )Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, VII. 136), Weizsäcker (" in Jahrb. für Deutsch. Theol.," 1865, p. 391, and 1871, p. 569), Wieseler (Ibid. 1870, p. 603-614), and Funk (Prol. p. VI.), at the close of the first century, or even before 79. Wieseler argues from the author’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy concerning the ten kingdoms and the little horn (ch. 4 and 16), that the Ep. was written under Domitian, the eleventh Rom. emperor, and "the little horn" of Daniel. Weiszäcker and Cunningham refer the little hero to Vespasian (79-79), Hilgenfeld to Nerva; but even in the last case the Ep. would have been written before a.d. 98, when Nerva died. Milligan concludes that it was written very soon after the destruction of Jerusalem. But in fresh view of that terrible judgment, we can scarcely account for the danger of apostasy to Judaism. The author’s aim seems to presuppose a revival of Judaism and of Jewish tendencies within the Christian Church.

Pastor Hermae, JO Poimhvn. Comp. Vis. I. 1, 2, 4; II. 2.

This division, however, is made by later editors.

So v. Gebh. and Hilgenf. ed. II., with Cod. Sin. But the MSS. vary considerably. The Vatican MS. reads: vendidit quandam puellam Romae. The words, eijs JRwvmhn would indicate that the writer was not from Rome; but he often confounds eij" and ejn.

In the Visions andMandates the person of the Redeemer is mentioned only three times; in the Similitudes Hermas speaks repeatedly of the "Son of God." and seems to identify his pre-existent divine nature with the Holy Spirit. Sim. I X. 1 tov pneu'ma tov a{gion... oJ qeo;" tou' qeou' ejstivn. But a passage in a parable must not be pressed and it is differently explained. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Ap. Väter, 166 sq., Harnack’s notes on Sim. V. 5 and IX. 1; the different view of Zahn, 139 sqq. and 245 sqq., and especially Link’s monograph quoted above (p. 680).

This is the natural interpretation of the carious passage Simil. IX. 16: These apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached to those also who were asleep and gave to them the seal of preaching. They descended therefore into the water with them and again ascended (katevbhsan ou\n met j aujtw'n eij" to; u{dwr kai; pavlin ajnevbhsan). But these descended alive and again ascended alive; but those who had fallen asleep before descended dead (nekroiv) and ascended alive (xw'nte")."This imaginary post-mortem baptism is derived from the preaching of Christ in Hades, 1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6. Clement of Alex. quotes this passage with approbation, but supposed that Christ as well as the apostles baptized in Hades. Strom. II. 9. 44; VI. 6, 45, 46. Cotelier and Donaldson (p. 380) are wrong in interpreting Hermas as meaning merely a metaphorical and mystical baptism, or the divine blessings symbolized by it.

The last is expressly quoted in the Second Vision.

As is done by, the Tübingen School, but without unanimity. Schwegler, and, with qualifications, Hilgenfeld and Lipsius represent Hermas as an Ebionite, while Ritschl on the contrary assigns him to the school of Paul. There is no trace whatever in Hermas of the essential features of Ebionism circumcision, the sabbath, the antipathy to Paul;-nor on the other hand of an understanding of the specific doctrines of Paul. Uhlhorn his the point )l.c. p. 13): "Hermas ist ein Glied der damaligen orthodoxen Kirche, und seine Auffassung der christlichen Lehre die eines einfachen Gemeindegliedes one be stimmte Ausprägung irgend eines Parteicharakters."

See the list of Scripture allusions of Hermas in Gebhardt’s ed. p. 272-274; in Funk’s ed. I. 575-578; Hilgenfeld, Die Ap. Väter, 182-184; Zahn, Hermae Pastore N. T. illustratus, Gött. 1867; and D. Hirt d. H. 391-482. Zahn discovers considerable familiarity of H. with the N. T. writings. On the relation of Hermas to John see Holtzmann, in Hilgenfeld’s "Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol." 1875, p. 40 sqq.

So Origen (his opinion, puto enim, etc.), Eusebius, Jerome, probably also Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria; among recent writers Cotelier, Cave, Lardner, Gallandi, Lumper, Lachmann, Sprinzl.

Gaâb, Zahn, Caspari, Alzog, Salmon (in "Dict. of Chr. Biog. II. 912 sqq.).

"Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma (Hermas) conscripsit, sedente, [in] cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo, fratre ejus. Et ideo legi cum quidem opportet, se[d] publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum [read: completos] numero, neque inter apostolos, in finem temporum potest." The same view is set forth in a poem of pseudo-Tertullian against Marcion:

Post hunc [Hyginus] deinde Pius, Hermas, cui germine frater,

Angelicus Pastor, qui tradita verba locutus."

It is also contained in the Liberian Catalogue of Roman bishops (A. D. 354), and advocated by Mosheim, Schröckh, Credner, Hefele, Lipsius, Ritschl, Heyne, v. Gebhardt, Harnack, Brüll, Funk, Uhlhorn, Baumgärtner. Others assume that the brother of Pius was the author, but simulated an elder Hermas.

Hilgenfeld desIgnates these authors H. a= Hermas apocalypticus H. P. = Hermas pastoralis H. s. = Hermas secundarius. See Prol. p. XXI. sq. Thiersch, Count de Champagny (Les Antonins, ed. III 1875, T. I, p. 144) and Guéranger likewise assumed more than one author. But the book is a unit. Comp. Harnack versus Hilgenfeld in the "Theol." Literatur-Zeitung" for 1882, f. 249 sqq., Link, Baumgärtner, Lambros, quoted above.

In Vis. II. 4 Hermas receives the command to write "two books and to send one to Clement and one to Grapte; " and Clement was to send the books to foreign cities (eij" ta;" e[xw povlei"). This seems to imply that he was the well known bishop of Rome. Grapte was a deaconess, having charge of widows and orphans. The opinion of Origen that Clement and Grapte represent the spiritual and literal methods of interpretation is merely an allegorical fancy. Donaldson and Harnack assume that Clement is an unknown person, but this is inconsistent with the assumed authority of that person.

He is told in the Second Vision, ch. 2: "Your seed, 0 Hermas, has sinned against God, and they have blasphemed against the Lord, and in their great wickedness they, have betrayed their parents ... and their iniquities have been filled up. But make known these words to all your children, and to your wife who is to be your sister. For she does not restrain her tongue, with which she commits iniquity; but on hearing these words she will control herself, and will obtain mercy." The words "who is to be your sister" probably refer to future continence or separation. Tillemont and Hefele regard Hermas as a presbyter, but Fleury, Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Zahn, Uhlhorn and Salmon as a layman. He always speaks of presbyters as if he were not one of them, and severely censures the Roman clergy. Justin Martyr was also a lay-preacher, but with more culture.

Zahn infers from the Jewish Greek idiom of Hermas that he grew up in Jewish circles and was perhaps acquainted with the Hebrew language. On the other hand Harnack supposes (Notes on Vis. I. 1) that Hermas was descended from Christian parents, else he would not have omitted to inform us of his conversion in the house of Rhoda. Hilgenfeld (p. 138) makes Hermas a Jew, but his master, who sold him, a Gentile. Robinson conjectures that he was a Greek slave )Sim. IX.) and wrote reminiscences of his youth.

The church officers appear as a plurality of presbuvteroi, or seniores, or praesides, of equal rank, but Clement of Rome is supposed to have a certain supervision in relation to foreIgn churches. Vis. II., 2, 4; III, 9; Simil. IX., 31. In one passage )Vis. III., 5) Hermas mentions four officers "apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons." The "bishops" here include presbyters, and the "teachers " are either all preachers of the gospel or the presbyter-bishops in their teaching (as distinct from their ruling) capacity and function. In other passages be names only the ajpovstoloi and didavskaloi, Sim. IX., 15, 16, 25; comp. Paul’s poimevne" kaiv didavskaloi, Eph. 4:11. The statements of Hermas on church organization are rather loose and indefinite. They have been discussed by Hilgenfeld and Harnack in favor of presbyterianism, by Hefele and Rothe in favor of episcopacy. Lightfoot, who identifies Hermas with the brother of bishop Pius (140), says: " Were it not known that the writer’s own brother was bishop of Rome (?), we should be at a loss what to say about the constitution of the Roman church in his day."(Com. on Philipp., p. 218.)

Adv. Haer. IV. 20, § 2: ei\pen hJ grafh; hJ levgousa. Then follows a quotation from Mand. I. 1: "First of all believe that there is one God who created and prepared and made all things out of nothing." Possibly the wrong reference was a slip of memory in view of familiar passages, 2 Macc. 7:28 (pavnta ejx oujk o\ntwn ejpoivsen); Heb. 11:3; Mark 12:29 (oJ qeo;" ei\" ejstiv); James 2:18 Hilgenfeld thinks that the Hermas was known also to the author of the khvrugma Pevtrou and pseudo-Clement.

See the quotations from Clement of Alex. and Origen in G. and H. Prol., p. LIII.-LVI. Zahn says that "the history of the ecclesiastical authority of Hermas in the East begins with an unbounded recognition of the same as a book resting on divine revelation."

In private only, or in the church? The passage is obscure and disputed.

On account of this comparative mildness (Mand. IV., 1), Tertullian calls Hermas sarcastically "ille apocryphus Pastor maechorum."De Pud. c. 20; comp. c. 10.

Jerome calls the Shepherd "revera utilis liber." which was publicly read in certain churches of Greece, and quoted by many ancient writers as an authority, but "almost unknown among the Latins" (apud Latinos’ paene Ignotus). Op. II. 846. In another passage, Op. VI. 604, he condemns the view of the angelic supervision of animals (Vis. IV. 2).

See notes at the end of this section.

Eusebius, H. E. III. 39, says that he was sfovdra smikro;" to;n nou'n, " very, small-minded."and that this appears from his writings; but he was no doubt unfavorably influenced in his judgment by the strong millennarianism of Papias, which he mentions just before; and even if well founded, it would not invalidate his testimony as to mere facts. In another place (III. 36), Eusebius calls him a man of comprehensive learning and knowledge of the Scriptures (ajnh;r ta; pavnta o{ti mavlista logiwvtato" kai; th'" grafh'" eujdhvmwn, omni doctrinae genere instructissimus et in scriptura sacra versatus). Learning, piety, and good sense are not always combined. The passage, however, is wanting in some MSS. of Eusebius. See the note of Heinichen, vol. I. 141 sqq.

para; zwvsh" fwnh'" kai; menouvsh" Eus. III. 39 (Heinichen, 1. 148).

Logivwn kuriskw'n ejxhvghsi", Explanatio sermonum Domini. The word ejxhvghsi" here no doubt means interpretation of some already existing gospel record, since Anastasius of Sinai (d. 599) classes Papias among Biblical exegetes or interpreters. He probably took as his text the canonical Gospels, and gave his own comments on the Lord’s Discourses therein contained, together with additional sayings which he had derived, directly or indirectly, from personal disciples of Christ. Although this work has disappeared for several centuries, it may possibly yet be recovered either in the original, or in a Syriac or Armenian version. The work was still extant in 1218 in the MSS. collection of the church at Nismes, according to Gallandi and Pitra. It is also mentioned thrice in the Catalogue of the Library of the Benedictine Monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, contained in the Cottonian MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth centurvy. Donaldson, p. 402. On the meaning of lovgia see Vol. I. 622 sq.

See vol. I. p. 622, 633 sq.

The plural (ejpi; pollai'" aJmartivai", H. E. III. 39) is no argument against the conjecture. Cod. D reads aJmartiva// instead of moceiva//in John 8:3.

See above, §158, p. 616. Card. Pitra, in the first vol. of his Spicileg. Solesm., communicates a similar fragment, but this is, as the title and opening words intimate, a translation of Irenaeus, not of Papias. The authoress of "The Pupils of St. John." p. 203, remarks on that description of Papias: "Understood literally, this is of course utterly unlike anything we know of our blessed Lord’s unearthly teaching; yet it does sound like what a literal and narrow mind, listening to mere word of mouth narrative, might make of the parable of the Vine, and of the Sower, or of the Grain of Mustard-seed; and we also see how providential and how merciful it was that the real words of our Lord were so early recorded by two eye-witnesses, and by two scholarly men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, instead of being left to the versions that good but dull-minded believers might make of them."

A mediaeval tradition assigns to Papias an account of the origin, and even a part in the composition, of the Gospel of John as his amanuensis. So a note prefixed to John’s Gospel in a MS. of the ninth century, rediscovered by Pitra and Tischendorf in 1866 in the Vatican library. The note is, in Tischendorf’s opinion, older than Jerome, and is as follows: "Evangelium johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab johanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut papias nomine hierapolitanus discipulus johannis carus in exotericis [exegeticis], id est in extremis, quinque libras retulit. Discripsit vero evangeliumdictante johanne recte." etc. The last sentence is probably a mistaken translation of the Greek. See Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev. ." Oct. 1875, p. 854; Charteris, Canonicity, p. 168. Another testimony is found in a fragment of a Greek commentator Proaemium of the Catena Patrum Graecorum in S. Johannem, ed. by Corderius. Antwerp, 1630, according to which John dictated his Gospel to Papias of Hierapolis. See Papiae Frag. in Gebh. and Harn’s ed. p. 194. This tradition is discredited by the silence of Eusebius, but it shows that in the opinion of the mediaeval church Papias was closely connected with the Gospel of John.

Andreas of Caesarea, In Apoc. c. 34, Serm. 12. See v. G. and H. p. 189.

Not even Eusebius or Jerome or Photius make any mention of it. Möhler (Patrol. p. 170) refers to Photius, but Photius speaks of Justin Martyr, with whose writings he was well acquainted. See Hergenröther, Photius, III. 19 sq.

IOUSTINOU TOY filosovfou kai; mavrturos jEpistolh; pro;" Diovgnhton, kai; Lovgo" pro;s {Ellhna". lustini Philosophi et Martyris Ep. ad Diognetum, et Oratio ad Graecos, nunc primum luce et latinitate donatae ab Henrico Stephano. Eiusdem Henr. Stephani annotationibus additum est Io. lacobi Beureri de quorundam locorum partim interpretatione partim emendations iudicium. Tatiani, discipuli Iustini, quaedam. Excudebat Henricus Stephanus. Anno MDXCII. The copy of Stephens is still preserved in the University library at Leiden. The copy of Beurer is lost, but was probably made from the Strassburg Codex, with which it agrees in the readings published by Stephens in his appendix, and by Sylburg in his notes.

"Epistulae ad Diognetum unum tantummodo exemplar antiquius ad nostram usque pervenit memoriam: codicem dico loannis Reuchlini quondam, postea Argentoratensem, qui misero illo incendio die nono ante Calendas Septembres anni MDCCCLXX cum tot aliis libris pretiosis in ciner es dilapsus est." Von Gebhardt and Harnack, p. 205. They assert, p. 208, that the copies of Stephens and Beurer were taken from the Cod. of Strassburg. Otto (Prol. p. 3) speaks of tres codices, Argentoratensis, apographon Stephani, apoqraphon Beureri."

Comp. Ep. ad Diog., c. 1, with Marcus Aur. Medit., IX. 3 (his only allusion to Christianity, quoted p. 329). Marcus Aurelius gratefully remembers his teacher Diognetus Medit., I.6. Diognetus was not a rare name; but the one of our Epistle was a person of social prominence, as the term kravtisto", honorable, implies. Otto and Ewald identify the two. Keim and Dräseke (p. 141) admit that our Diognetus belonged to the imperial court, but put him later.

Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Bd. VII. p. 150) places it first among all the early Christian epistles which were not received into the N. T., and says that it combines perfectly "the fulness and art of Greek eloquence with the purest love of truth, and the ease and grace of words with the elevating seriousness of tlle Christian." Bunsen: "Indisputably, after Scripture, the finest monument of sound Christian feeling, noble courage, and manly eloquence." Semisch (in Herzog) calls it "ein Kleinod des christl. Alterthums, welchem in Geist und Fassung kaum ein zweites Schriftwerk der nachapostolishen Zeit gleichsteht." Keim (Rom und das Christenthum, p. 463 sq.) calIs it "das lieblichste, ja ein fast zauberhaftes Wort des zweiten Jahrhunders." and eloquently praises "die reine, klassische Sprache, den schönen, korrekten Satzbau, die rhetorische Frische, die schlagenden Antithesen, den geistreichen Ausdruck, die logische Abrundung ... die unmittelbare, liebswarme, begeisterte, wenn schon mit Bildung durchsättigte Frömmigkeit."

Quoted above, § 2, p. 9.

See above, § 153, p. 587.

"As if no less a person than Paul himself had returned to life for that age." Ewald, vii. 149.

jApostovlwn genovmeno" maqhthv" ch. 11.

The Justinian authorship is defended by Cave, Fabricius, and Otto, but refuted by Semisch, Hefele, Keim, and others.

Tillemont and Möhler to the first century, Hefele and Ewald to the reign of Hadrian (120-130). Westcott (Can. N. T. p. 76): Not before Trajan, and not much later; everything betokens an early age.

So Keim, who suggests the bloody year 177.

So Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Gass, Zahn, Dräseke (under Septimus Severus, between 193-211). Overbeck’s hypothesis of a post-Constantinian date is exploded.

Justin M. (the MS. tradition); Marcion before his secession from the church(Bunsen); Quadratus Dorner); Apelles, the Gnostic in his old age (Dräseke, p. 141). The writer of the art. in Smith and Wace, II. 162, identifies the author with one Ambrosius, "a chief man of Greece who became a Christian, and all his fellow councillors raised a clamor against him." and refers to Cureton’s Spicil. Syriacum, p. 61-69. The Stephanie hypothesis of and Cotterill is a literary and moral impossibility.

Irenaeus )Adv. Haer. 1.III.c. 3, § 3) mentions him as the Roman bishop after Clement, Evaristus, and Alexander. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 5) relates that he ruled the Roman church for ten years. Jaffé )Regesta Ponti cum Rom. p. 3) puts his pontificate beween 119 and 128. The second Pope of that name died a martyr a.d. 257 or 258. The two have been sometimes confounded as authors of the Enchiridion. Siber published it under the name of Sixtus II.

See specimens in the Notes.

See the references in the Biblioth. Max. III. 525; and in Fontanini and Fabricius, l. c.

Neander, Gieseler, Baur, Donaldson, and others do not even mention the book.

Geschichte Israels, vol. VII. p. 322. Compare his review of Lagardii Analecta Syriaca in the "Göttingen Gel. Anzeigen." 1859, p. 261-269. Both Ewald and P. de Lagarde, his successor, characteristically ignore all previous editions and discussions.

Hist. Eccl. IV. 3.

The discovery has called forth a considerable literature which is mentioned by Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, etc., I., p. 110, note 23. The first part is the most important. See a French translation by Gautier, in the "Revue de théol. et de philos., " 1879, p. 78-82; a German translation by Himpel in the "Tübing. Theol. Quartalschrift, " 1880, reprinted by Harnack, pp. 111 and 112. The art. Aristides in the first vol. of Smith and Wace (p. 160) is behind the times. Bücheler and Renan doubt the genuineness of the document; Gautier, Baunard, Himpel, Harnack defend it; but Harnack assumes some interpolation, as the term theotokos, of the Virgin Mary. The Armenian MS. is dated 981, and the translation seems to have been made from the Greek in the fifth century. At the time of Eusebius the work was still well known in the church. But the second piece, which the Mechitarists also ascribe to Aristides, is a homily of later date, apparently directed against Nestorianism.

The bracketed sentence sounds repetitious and like a post-Nicene interpolation.

See above, § 38, p. 107, and l.c. I. 115-130.

Tertullian (Adv. Valent. 5) first calls him philosophus et martyr, Hippolytus (Philos. VIII. 16), "Just. Martyr;" Eusebius (H. E. IV. 12), "a genuine lover of the true philosophy, " who "in the garb of a philosopher proclaimed the divine word and defended the faith by writings" (IV. 17).

Dial.c. Tryph. Jud. c. 2-8. The conversion occurred before the Bar-Cochba war, from which Tryphon was flying when Justin met him. Archbishop Trench has reproduced the story in thoughtful poetry (Poems, Lond. 1865, p. 1-10).

This city may be Flavia Neapolis, or more probably Ephesus, where the conversation with Trypho took place, according to Eusebius (IV. 18). Some have located the scene at Corinth, others at Alexandria. Mere conjectures.

Apol. II. 12, 13.

Tillemont and Maran (in Migne’s ed. Col. 114) infer from his mode of describing baptism (Apol. I. 65) that he baptized himself, and consequently was a priest. But Justin speaks in the name of the Christians in that passage ("We after we have thus washed him, " etc.) and throughout the Apology; besides baptism was no exclusively clerical act, and could be performed by laymen. Equally inconclusive is the inference of Maran from the question of the prefect to the associates of Justin (in the Acts of his martyrdom): "Christianos vos ferit Justinus?"

trivbwn, tribwvnion, pallium, a threadbare cloak, adopted by philosophers and afterwards by monks (the cowl) as an emblem of severe study or austere life, or both.

qilovsofe, Cai're !

I add the estimate of Pressensé (Martyrs and Apologists, p. 251): "The truth never had a witness more disinterested, more courageous, more worthy of the hatred of a godless age and of the approval of Heaven. The largeness of his heart and mind equalled the fervor of his zeal, and both were based on his Christian charity. Justin derived all his eloquence from his heart; his natural genius was not of rare order, but the experiences of his early life, illumined by revelation, became the source of much fruitful suggestion for himself, and gave to the Church a heritage of thought which, ripened and developed at Alexandria, was to become the basis of the great apology of Christianity. If we except the beautiful doctrine of the Word germinally present in every man, there was little originality in Justin’s theological ideas. In exegesis he is subtle, and sometimes puerile; in argument he flags, but where his heart speaks, he stands forth in all his moral greatness, and his earnest, generous words are ever quick and telling. Had he remained a pagan he would have lived unnoted in erudite mediocrity . Christianity fired and fertilized his genius, and it is the glowing soul which we chiefly love to trace in all his writings."

The year of composition cannot be fixed with absolute certainty. The First Apology is addressed "To the Emperor (aujtokravtori)Titus Aelius Adrianus Antoninus, Pius, Augustus Caesar; and to Verissimus, his son, philosopher [i.e. Marcus Aurelius]; and to Lucius, the philosopher [?]—son by nature of a Caesar [i.e. Caesar Aelius Verus] and of Pius by adoption and to the sacred Senate;-and to the whole Roman people, " etc. The address violates the curial style, and is perhaps (as Mommsen and Volkmar suspect) a later addition, but no one doubts its general correctness. From the title "Verissimus, " which Marcus Aurelius ceased to bear after his adoption by Antonine in 138, and from the absence of the title "Caesar" which he received in 139, the older critics have inferred that it must have been written shortly after the death of Hadrian (137), and Eusebius, in the Chronicon, assigns it to 141. The early date is strengthened by the fact that in the Dialogue, which was written after the Apologies, the Bar-Cochba war (132-135) is represented as still going on, or at all events as recent (fugw;n to;n nu'n genovmenon povlemon, ex bello nostra aetate profugus, ch. I; Comp. ch. 9). But, on the other hand, Marcus Aurelius was not really associated as co-regent with Antonine till 147, and in the book itself Tustin seems to imply two regents. Lucius Verus, moreover, was born 130, and could not well be addressed in his eighth year as "philosopher; " Eusebius, however, reads "Son of the philosopher Caesar; " and the term filovsofo" was used in a very wide sense. Of more weight is the fact that the first Apology was written after the Syntagma against Marcion, who flourished in Rome between 139-145, though this chronology, too, is not quite certain. Justin says that he was writing 150 years after the birth of the Saviour; if this is not simply a round number, it helps to fix the date. For these reasons modern critics decide for 147-150 (Volkmar, Baur, Von Engelhardt, Hort, Donaldson, Holland), or 150 (Lipsius and Renan), or 160 (Keim and Aubé). The smaller Apology was written likewise under Antoninus Pius (so Neander, Otto, Volkmar, Hort, contrary to Eusebius, iv. 15, 18, and the two rulers, but only one autocrat, while after his death there were two older view, which puts it in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; for it presupposes " Augusti" or autocrats. See on the chronology Volkmar, Die Zeit Just. des M., in the " Theol. Jahrb."of Tübingen, 1855 (Nos. 2 and 4); Hort On the Date of Justin M., in the " Journal of Classic and Sacred Philology, " June 1856; Donaldson, II. 73 sqq.; Engelhardt, l.c. 71-80; Keim, Rom. u. d. Christenth., p. 425; Renan, l.c. p. 367, note, and Harnack, Texte und Unters., etc. 1. 172 sq.

Hort puts the Dial. between 142 and 148; Volkmar in 155; Keim between 160-164; Englehardt in 148 or after.

On these anti-heretical works see Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus (1873), Lipsius, Die Quellen der ältesten Letzergeschichte (1875), and Hilgenfeld, D. Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums (1884, p. 21 sqq.).

Oratio ad Graecos lovgo" pro;s {Ellhna".

See above, § 170, p. 702.

Cohortatio ad Graecos, lovgo" parainetiko;" pro;s {Ellhna" . Based on Julius Africanus, as proved by Donaldson, and independently by Schürer in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch."Bd. II. p. 319.

On these doubtful and spurious writings see Maranus, Otto, Semisch, Donaldson, and Harnack (l. c. 190-193).

Comp, Otto De Justiniana dictione, in the Proleg. LXIII-LXXVI. Renan’s judgment is interesting, but hardly Just. He says (p. 365): "Justin n’était un grand esprit; il manquait à la, fois de philosophie et de critique; son exégèse surtout passerait aujour d’ hui pour très défectueuse; mais il fait preuve dun sens général assez droit; it avait cette espèce, de crédulité médiocre qui permet de raissonner sensément sur des prémisses puériles et de s’arrêter à temps de façon à n’être qu’à moitié absurde." On the next page he says: "Justin était un esprit faible; mais c’était un noble et bon coeur." Donaldson justly remarks (II. 15 sq.) that the faults of style and reasoning attributed to Justin and other Apologists may be paralleled in Plutarch and all other contemporaries, and that more learned and able writers could not have done better than present the same arguments in a more elaborate and polished form.

ajpomnhmoneuvmata tw'n ajpostovlwn, a designation peculiar to Justin, and occurring in the Apologies and the Dialogue, but nowhere else, borrowed, no doubt, from Xenophon’s Memorabilia of Socrates. Four times he calls them simply "Memoirs," four times "Memoirs of (or by) the Apostles;" once "Memoirs made by the Apostles, " which constitute the one Gospel (to; eujaggelion, Dial. c. 10), and which "are called Gospels" (a{ kalei'tai eujaggevlia, Apol. I.66, a decisive passage), once, quoting from Mark. "Peter’s Memoirs." After long and thorough discussion the identity of these Memoirs with our canonical Gospels is settled notwithstanding the doubts of the author of Supernatural Religion. It is possible, however, that Justin may have used also some kind of gospel harmony such as his pupil Tatian actually prepared.

One unquestionable quotation from John (3:3-5) is discussed in vol. I. 703 sq. If he did not cite the words of John, he evidently moved in his thoughts.

See the list of Justin’s Scripture quotations or allusions in Otto’s edition, 579-592. The most numerous are from the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke. Of profane authors he quotes Plato, Homer, Euripides, Xenophon, and Menander.

Donaldson (II. 148) infers from his Samaritan origin, and his attempts in one or two cases to give the etymology of Hebrew words (Apol. I. 33), that he, must have known a little Hebrew, but it must have been a very little indeed; at all events he never appeals to the Hebrew text.

He calls the Christian religion (Dial. c. 8) movnh filosofiva ajsfalhv" te kai; suvmforo",sola philosophia tuta atque utilis.

teleutai'o" novmo" kai; diaqhvkh kuriwtavth pasw'n, novissima lex et foedus omnium firmissimum. Dial. c. II.

Very different from the principle of Hegel: All that is rational is real, and all that is real is rational.

He calls them a[crhstoi(useless), Apol. I. 46; with reference to the frequent confusion of Cristov" with crhstov", good. Comp. Apol. I. 4: Cristianoi; ei|nai kathgorouvmeqa: to; de; crhsto;n misei'sqai ouj divkaion. Justin knew, however, the true derivation of Cristov"seeApol. II. 6.

On the general subject of the relation of Platonism to Christianity, see Ackermann, Das Christliche im Plato (1835, Engl. transl. by Asburv, with preface by Shedd, 1861) Baur, Socrates und Christus (1837, and again ed. by Zeller, 1876); Tayler Lewis, Plato against the Atheists (1845); Hampden, The Fathers of the Greek Philosophy (1862); Cocker, Christianity and Greek Philosophy (1870), Ueberweg’s History of Philosophy (Engl. transl. 1872), and an excellent art. of Prof. W. S. Tyler, of Amherst College in the third vol. of Schaff-Herzog’s Rel. Encycl. (1883, p. 1850-’53). On the relation of Justin to Platonism and heathenism, see von Engelbardt, l. c. 447-484.

Comp. Donaldson, III. 27 sqq.

He tells his conversion himself, Ad Gr. c. 29 and 30. The following passage (29) is striking: "While I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter [the discovery of the truth], I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors and I was led to put faith in these by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centred in one Being. And, my soul being taught of God, I discerned that the former class of writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had not before received, but what we had received, but were prevented by error from retaining."

Pro;s {Ellhna", Oratio ad Graecos. The best critical edition by Ed. Schwartz, Leipsig, 1888. On the MSS. see also Otto’s Proleg., and Harnack’s Texte, etc. Bd. I. Heft. I. p. 1-97. English translation by B. P. Pratten, in the "Ante-Nicene Library, " III. 1-48; Am. ed. II., 59 sqq. The specimens below are from this version, compared with the Greek.

To; dia; tessavrwn. Eusebius, H. E. IV. 29, and Theodoret, Fab. Haer. I. 20, notice the Diatessaron. Comp. Mösinger’s introduction to his ed. of Ephroem’s Com. (Venet. 1876), Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron (1881), and Ciasca’s edition of the Arabic version (1888) noticed p. 493.

The account of Philippus Sidetes, deacon of Chrysostom, as preserved by Nicephorus Callistus, is entirel y unreliable. It makes Athenagoras the first head of the school of Alexandria under Hadrian, and the teacher of Clement of Alex.—a palpable chronological blunder—and states that he addressed hisApology to Hadrian and Antoninus, which is contradicted by the inscription. But in a fragment of Methodius, De Resurrectione, there is a quotation from the Apology of Athenagoras (c. 24) with his name attached.

Presbeiva (embassy) peri; Cristianw'n, Legatio (also Supplicatio, Intercessio)pro Christianis. Some take the title in its usual sense, and assume that Athenagoras really went as a deputation to the emperor. The book was often copied in the fifteenth century, and there are seventeen MSS. extant; the three best contain also the treatise on the Resurrection. Both were edited by Henry Stephens, 1557, and often since. The objections against the genuineness are weak and have been refuted.

Eusebius H. E. IV. 20, and in his Chron. ad arm. IX. M. Aurelii. His supposed predecessors were Peter, Evodius, Ignatius, Heron, Cornelius, and Eros. Comp. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignat. und die Chronologie der Antiochen. Bischöfe bis Tyrannus (Leipz. 1878 p. 56). Jerome (De Vir. ill. 25; Ep. ad Algas., andPraef, in Com. Matth.), Lactantius (Inst. div. 1. 23), and Cennadius of Massila (De Vir. ill. 34) likewise mention Theophilus and his writings, but the later Greeks, even Photius, seem to have forgotten him. See Harnack, Texte, I. 282 sqq. Renan calls him "un docteur très fécond, un catechiste doné d’un grand talent d’exposition, un polémiste habile selon les idées du temps."

qeofivlou pro;" Aujtovlukon, Theophili ad Autolycum. We have three MSS. of his books Ad Autolycum, the best from the eleventh century, preserved in Venice. See Otto, and Donaldson, p. 105. The first printed edition appeared at Zürich, 1546. Three English translations, by J. Betty, Oxf. 1722, by W. B Flower, Lond. 1860, and Marcus Dods, Edinb. 1867 (in the " Ante-Nicene Libr."III. 49-133).

Ad Autol. II. 15 (in Migne VI. 1077), where the first three days of creation are called tuvpoi th'" triavdo" , tou' qeou', kai; tou' lovgou autou' kai; th'" sofiva" aujtou' . Comp. c. 18 (col. 1081), where the trinity is found in Gen. 1:26. In the Gospel Com. of Th. the word trinitas occurs five times (see Zahn, l. c. 143). Among Latin writers, Tertullian is the first who uses the term trinitas (Adv Prax. 4; De Pud. 21).

Ad Autol. II. 22: "The Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who were moved by the Spirit, among whom John says: ’In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God.’" He then quotes John 1:3.

This is the English spelling. The Germans and French spell Sardes (Gr. aiJ Sarvdei", but alsoSavrdi" in Herodotus).

Renan thinks of an act of self-mutilation (in L’église chrét. 436): "Comme plus tard Origène, il voulut que sa chasteté fût en quelque sorte matériellement constatée." But St. John, too, is called spado by Tertullian (De Monog. 17) and eunuchus by Jerome (In Es. c. 56). Athenagoras uses eujnouciva for male continence, Leg. c. 33:to; ejn parqeneiva/ kai; ejn eujnouciva/ mei'nai/, in virginitate et eunuchi statu manere.

Elegans et declamatorium ingenium, " in his lost book on Ecstasis, quoted by Jerome, De Vir. ill. 24. Harnack draws a comparison between Melito and Tertullian; they resembled each other in the variety of topics on which they wrote, and in eloquence, but not in elegance of style.

Eusebius (IV. 26) mentions first his Apology for the faith addressed to the emperor of the Romans, and then the following: "Two works On the Passover, and those On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets (to; peri; politeiva" kai; profhtw'n, perhaps two separate books, perhaps kaiv fortw'n),one On the Church, and another discourse On the Lord’s Day (peri; kuriakh'"), one also On the Nature (peri; fuvsew" , al. Faith, pivstew")of Man, and another On his Formation (peri; plavsew") a work On the Subjection of the Senses to Faith [ oJ peri; uJpakoh'" pivstew" aijsqhthrivwn, which Rufinus changes into two books ’de obedientia fidei; de sensibus,’ so also Nicephorus]. Besides these, a treatise On the Soul, the Body, and the Mind. A dissertation also, On Baptism; one also On Truth and Faith, and [probably another on] the Generation of Christ. His discourse On Prophecy, and that On Hospitality. A treatise called The Key (hJ kleiv"), his works On the, Devil, and The Revelation of John. The treatise On God Incarnate (peri; ejnswmavtou qeou', comp.ejnswmavtwsi" = incarnation), and last of all, the discourse (biblivdion) addressed to Antonine."He then add, ; still another book called jEklogaiv, and containing extracts from the Old Testament. Some of these titles may indicate two distinct books, as ta; peri; tou' diabovlou, kai; th'" ajpokaluvyews jIwavnnou.. So Rufinus and Jerome understood this title. See Heinichen’s notes. Other works were ascribed to him by later writers, as On the Incarnation of Christ (peri; sarkwvsew" Cristou' ), On the Cross, On Faith, and two decidedly spurious works, De Passione S. Joannis, and De Transitu b. Mariae.

Comp. Euseb. IV. 21, 25. Renan says (p. 192): "Jamais peut-être le christianisme n’a plus écrit que durant le II^esiécle en Asie. La culture littéraire était extrémement répandue dans cette province; l’art d’écrire y était fort commun, et le christianisme en profitait. La littérature des Pères d l’Église commencait. Les siécles suivants ne dépassèrent pas ces premiers essais de l’éloquence chrétienne; mais, au point de vue de l’orthodoxie, les livres de ces Pères du II^esiécle offraient plus d’une pierre el’achoppement. La lecture en devint suspecte; on les copia de moins en moins, et ainsi presque tons ces beaux écrits disparurent, pour faire place aux écrivains classiques, postérieurs au concile de Nicée, écrivains plus corrects comme doctrine, mais, en général, bien moins originaux que ceux du II^esiècle.

Under the heading, "The oration of Melito the Philosopher, held before Antonintus Caesar, and he spoke [?] to Caesar that he might know God, and he showed him the way of truth, and began to speak as follows." Ewald (in the "Gött. Gel. Anz." 1856, p. 655 sqq.) and Renan (M. Aur. 184, note) suggest that it is no apology, but Melito’s tract peri; ajlhqeiva" as this word very often occurs. Jacobi, Otto, and Harnack ascribe it to a different author, probably from Syria.

A Latin work under the title Melitonis Clavis Sanctae Scripturae was mentioned by Labbé in 1653 as preserved in the library of Clermont College, and was at last, after much trouble, recovered in Strassburg and elsewhere, and published by Cardinal Pitra in the Spicilegium Solesm. 1855 (Tom. II. and III.). But, unfortunately, it turned out to be no translation of Melito’s kleiv"at all, but a mediaeval glossary of mystic interpretation of the Scriptures compiled from Gregory I. and other Latin fathers. This was conclusively proven by Steitz in the " Studien und Kritiken "for 1857, p. 584-596. Renan assents (p. 181, note): "L’ouvrage latin que om Pitra a publié comme étant la Cle de Meliton, est une compilation de passages des Pères latins pouvant servir à l’explication allégorique des écritures qui figure pour la première fois dans la Bible de Théodulphe."

Spicileg. Solesm. T. II. p. LIX.

This is the spelling of the ancient Greek authors who refer to him. Latin writers usually spell his name Apollinaris or Apollinarius. There are several noted persons of this name: 1) the legendary St. Apollinaris, bishop of Ravenna (50-78?), who followed St. Peter from Antioch to Rome, was sent by him to Ravenna, performed miracles, died a martyr, and gave name to a magnificent basilica built in the sixth century. See Acta Sanct. Jul. V. 344. 2) Apollinarus the Elder, presbyter at Laodicea in Syria (not in Phrygia), an able classical scholar and poet, about the middle of the fourth century. 3) Apollinaris the Younger, son of the former, and bishop of Laodicea between 362 and 380, who with his father composed Christian classics to replace the heathen classics under the reign of Julian, and afterwards originated the christological heresy which is named after him. See my article in Smith and Wace I. 134 sq.

H. E. IV. 27; repeated by Jerome, De Viris ill. 26. Two extracts of a work not mentioned by Eusebius are preserved in the Chron. Pasch. Copies of three of his apologetic books, provs {Ellhna" peri; eujsebeiva", peri; ajlhqeiva" , are mentioned by Photius. The last two are probably identical, as they are connected by kaiv. See the fragments in Routh, I. 159-174. Comp. Donaldson III. 243; Harnack, Texte, I. 232-239, and Smith and Wace I. 132.

See above, p. 214 sq., and Chron. Pasch. 1. 13.

De Vir. ill. 18; Com. in Ezech. c. 36. In the latter place Jerome mentions Irenaeus as the first, and Apollinaris as the last, of the Greek Chiliasts (" ut Graecos nominem, et primum extremumque conjugam, Iren. et Ap."); but this is a palpable error, for Barnabas and Papias were Chiliasts before Irenaeus; Methodius and Nepos long after Apolinarius. Perhaps he meant Apollinaris of Laodicea, in Syria.

Acta Sanct. Febr. II. 4. See Wetzer and Welte² I. 1086.

H. E. V. 17. Jerome, De Vir. ill. 39. Comp. Harnack, Texte, I. 278-282, and Salmon, in Smith and Wace III. 916.

Adv. Valent. 5. Miltiades is here called "ecclesiarum sophista," either honorably = rhetor or philosophus (See Otto and Salmon), or with an implied censure ("mit einem üblen Nebegeschmack, " as Harnack thinks). The relation of Miltiades to Montanism is quite obscure, but probably he was an opponent.

Hase aptly calls it "eine oberflächlich witzige Belustigung über paradoxe Philosopheme."

Eusebius (iv. 22) expressly calls him "a convert from the Hebrews, " and this is confirmed by the strongly Jewish coloring of his account of James, quoted in full, vol. I. 276 sq. He was probably from Palestine.

JUpomnhvmata, or Suggavmmata, in five books.

In the library of the convent of St. John at Patmos. See Zahn, l. c.

Euseb. IV. 22.

Ibid. III. 32. This passage has been used by Baur and his school as an argument against the Pastoral and other apostolic epistles which warn against the Gnostic heresy, but it clearly teaches that its open manifestation under Trajan was preceded by its secret working as far back as Simon Magus. Hegesippus, therefore, only confirms the N. T. allusions, which likewise imply a distinction between present beginnings and future developments of error.

ejnqevou filoponiva", Euseb. IV. 23.

uJmw'n th;n ejpistolhvn. Euseb. II. 23.

Harvey derives from the alleged familiarity of Irenaeus with Hebrew and the Syriac Peshito the conclusion that he was a Syrian, but Ropes denies the premise and defends the usual view of his Greek nationality. See also Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymb III. 343 sq.

The change of Polycarp’s martyrdom from 166 to 155 necessitates a corresponding change in the chronology of Irenaeus, his pupil, who moreover says that the Apocalypse of John was written at the end of Domitian’s reign (d. 96), "almost within our age" (scedo;n ejpi; th'" hJmetevra" genea'", Adv. Haer. v. 30, 3). Zahn (in Herzog) decides for 115, Lipsius (in Smith and Wace) for 130 or 125, as the date of his birth. Dodwell favored the year 97 or 98; Grabe 108, Tillemont and Lightfoot 120, Leimbach, Hilgenfeld, and Ropes 126, Oscar von Gebhardt 126-130, Harvey 130, Massuet, Dupin, Böhringer, Kling 140 (quite too late), Ziegler 142-147 (impossible). The late date is derived from a mistaken understanding of the reference to the old age of Polycarp (pavnu ghralevo"but this, as Zahn and Lightfoot remark, refers to the time of his martyrdom, not the time of his acquaintance with Irenaeus), and from the assumption of the wrong date of his martyrdom (166 instead of 155 or 156). The term prwvth hJlikiva, "first age, " which Irenaeus uses of the time of his acquaintance with Polycarp (III. 3, § 4; comp. Euseb. H. E. IV. 14), admits of an extension from boyhood to youth and early manhood; for Irenaeus counts five ages of a man’s life (Adv. Haer I. 22, § 4; 24, § 4—infans, parvullus, puer, juvenis, senior), and includes the thirtieth year in the youth, by calling Christ a juvenis at the time of his baptism. Hence Zahn and Lipsius conclude that the prwvth hJlikivaof Irenaeus’s connection with Polycarp is not the age of childhood, but of early young-manhood."Als junger Mann, " says Zahn."etwa zwischen dem 18. und 35. Lebensjahre, will Ir. sich des Umqangs mit Pol erfreut haben." Another hint is given in the letter of Iren. to Florinus, in which be reminds him of their mutual acquaintance with Polycarp in lower Asia in their youth when Florinus was at "the royal court" (aujlh; basilikhv). Lightfoot conjectures that this means by anticipation the court of Antoninus Pius, when he was proconsul of Asia Minor, a.d. 136, two years before he ascended the imperial throne (Waddington, Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, p. 714). But Zahn reasserts the more natural explanation of Dodwell, that the court of Emperor Hadrian is meant, who twice visited Asia Minor as emperor between the years 122 and 130.

See above, § 20, p. 55 sq.

Either during, or after the persecution. Euseb. V. S.; Jerome, De Vir. ill c. 35.

"The story that his bones were dug up and thrown into the street by the Calvinists in 1562 has been abundantly refuted." Encycl. Brit., ninth ed XIII. 273.

This is evident from the very passage in which he makes that apology to his friend (Adv. Haer., Pref. § 3): "Thou wilt not require from me, who dwell among the Celts (ejn Keltoi'"), and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect (bavrbaron diavlekton)any skill in discourse which I have not learned, nor any power of composition which I have not practised, nor any beauty of style nor persuasiveness of which I know nothing. But thou wilt accept lovingly what I write lovingly to thee in simplicity, truthfully, and in my own way (aJplw'" kai; ajlhqw'" kai; ijdiwtikw'"); whilst thou thyself (as being more competent than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seeds and principles (spevrmata kai; ajrcav"); and in the comprehensiveness of thine understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness."Jerome praises the style of Irenaeus as "doctissmus et eloquentissimus," and Massuet (Diss. II. § 51) adds that his " Greek text as far as preserved, is elegant, polished, and grave."

Harvey claims for him also Hebrew and Syriac scholarship; but this is disputed.

Bishop Lightfoot ("Contemp. Rev." May, 1875, p. 827) says that Irenaeus If on all the most important points conforms to the standard which has satisfied the Christian church ever since."Renan (p. 341) calls him "le modèle de l’homme ecclésiastique accompli."

See the long list of his Scripture quotations in Stieren, I. 996-1005, and the works on the Canon of the N. T.

Comp. § 62, p. 217 sq.

[Elegco" kai; ajnatroph; th'" yeudwnuvmou gnwvsew" (1 Tim. 6:20), i.e.A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called; cited, since Jerome, under the simpler title: Adversus Haereses (pro;" aijrevsei").The Greek original of the work, together with the five books of Hegesippus, was still in existence in the sixteenth century, and may yet be recovered. See Zahn in Brieger’s " Zeitschrift für K. Gesch."1877, p. 288-291. But so far we only have fragments of it preserved in Hippolytus (Philosophumena), Eusebius, Theodoret, and especially in Epiphanius (Haer. XXXl.c. 9-33). We have, however, the entire work in a slavishly literal translation into barbarous Latin, crowded with Grecisms, but for this very reason very valuable. Three MSS. of the Latin version survive, the oldest is the Codex Claromontanus of the tenth or eleventh century. This and the Arundel MS. are now in England (see a description in Harvey’s Preface, i. viii. sqq. with facsimiles). Besides, we have now fragments of a Syrian version, derived from the Nitrian MSS. of the British Museum, and fragments of an Armenian translation, published by Pitra in his Spicilegium Solesmense vol. I. (1852), both incorporated in Harvey’s edition, vol. II. 431-469. They agree closely with the Latin Version. An attempt to restore the Greek text from the Latin, for the better understanding of it, has been made on the first four chapters of the third book by H. W. J. Thiersch (" Stud. u. Kritiken," 1842). Semler’s objections to the genuineness have been so thoroughly refuted by Chr. G. F. Walch (De authentia libiorum Irenaei, 1774), that Möhler and Stieren might have spared themselves the trouble.

Eleutherus is mentioned, III. 3, 3, as then occupying the see of Rome. Lipsius fixes the composition between a.d. 180 and 185, Harvey between 182 and 188 (L.CLVIII).

On the sources of the history, of heresies see especially the works of Lipsius, and Harnack, quoted on p. 443, and Harvey’s Preliminary Observations in vol. I.

Adv. Haer. III. 7, § 2.

Peri; monarciva" h} peri; tou' mh; ei|nai to;n Qeo;n poihth;n kakw'n. Euseb. H. E. V. 20, comp. ch. 15.

Leimbach and Lightfoot regard the letter as one of the earliest writings of Irenaeus, but Lipsius (p. 263) puts it down to about a.d. 190 or after, on the ground of the Syriac fragment, from a letter of Irenaeus to Victor of Rome (190-202) concerning "Florinus, a presbyter and partisan of the error of Valentinus, who published an abominable book." See the fragment in Harvey, II. 457. Eusebius makes no mention of such a letter, but there is no good reason to doubt its genuineness.

Peri; ojgdoavdo". Euseb. V. 20.

Peri; scivsmato". Also mentioned by Euseb. l. c. Comp. V. 14; Pseudo-Tertullian Adv. Haer. 22; and the Syriac fragment in Harvey II. 456; also the critical discussion of the subject and date by Lipsius, 264 sq.

H E. V. 26.

biblivon dialevxewn diafovrwn. Harvey and Lipsius make this out to have been a collection of homilies on various texts of scripture.

Eusebius H. E. V. I and 2; also in Routh’s Reliquiae S. 1. 295 sqq., with notes. It has often been translated. Comp. on this document the full discussion of Donaldson, III. 250-2S6, and the striking judgment of Renan (l.c. p. 340), who calls it "un des morceaux les plus extraordinaires que possède aucune litterature," and "la perle de la litterature chrétienne au II^esiecle." He attributes it to Irenaeus; Harvey denies it to him; Donaldson leaves the authorship in doubt.

Harvey (I. clxxii) accepts them all as "possessing good external authority, and far more convincing internal proof of genuineness, than can alway s be expected in such brief extracts."

gnw'si" ajlhqinhv perhaps the same treatise as the one mentioned by Eusebius under the title peri; th'" ejpisthvmh"

Discussed in § 69, p. 242.

This Lipsius (p. 266) considers to be the only one of the four fragments which is undoubtedly genuine.

See § 157, p. 609, and Stieren’s ed. I. 889.

Dr. Caspari (III. 351 note 153) thinks it probable that Hippolytus came from the East to Rome in very early youth, and grew up there as a member, and afterwards officer of the Greek part of the Roman congregation. Lipsius (p. 40 sqq.) supposes that Hippolytus was a native of Asia Minor, and a pupil there of Irenaeus in 170. But this is refuted by Harnack and Caspari (p. 409)

He calls it schisma Novati, instead of Novatiani. The two names are often confounded, especially by Greek writers including Eusebius.

Ultima vox autdita senis venerabilis haec est.

"Hi rapiant artus, tu rape, Christe, animam."

No. xi. of the Peristephanon Liber. Plummer, in Append. C. to Döllinger, p. 345-35l, gives the poem in full (246 lines) from Dressel’s text (1860). Baronius charged Prudentius with confounding three different Hippolytis and transferring the martyrdom of Hippolytus, the Roman officer, guard, and disciple of St. Lawrence, upon the bishop of that name. Döllinger severely analyses the legend of Prudentius, and derives it from a picture of a martyr torn to pieces by horses, which may have existed near the church of the martyr St. Lawrence (p. 58).

So first the Paschal Chronicle, and Anastasius.

Salmon says: ’Of the fragments collected in De Lagardes edition the majority are entitled merely of ’Hippolytus,’ or ’of Hippolytus, bishop and martyr,’ but about twenty describe him as ’bishop of Rome,’ and only three place him elsewhere. The earliest author who can be named as so describing him is Apollinaris in the fourth century .... Hippol. likewise appears as pope and bishop of Rome in the Greek menologies, and is also honored with the same title by the Syrian, Coptic, and Abyssinian churches."See the authorities in Döllinger.

The reasons for this early age are: (1) The artistic character of the statue, which ante-dates the decline of art, which began with Constantine. (2) The paschal cycle, which gives the list of the paschal full moons accurately for the years 217-223, but for the next eight years wrongly, so that the table after that date became useless, and hence must have been written soon after 222. (3) The Greek language of the inscription, which nearly died out in Rome in the fourth century, and gave way to the Latin as the language of the Roman church. Dr. Salmon fixes the date of the erection of the statue at 235, very shortly after the banishment of Hippolytus. A cast of the Hippolytus-statue is in the library of the Union Theol. Seminary in New York, procured from Berlin through Professor Piper.

Peri; tou' pantov". See the list of books in the notes.

On the chair of the statue, it is true, the Philosophumena is not mentioned, and cannot be concealed under the title Pro;s {Ellhna", which is connected by kaiv with the work against Plato. But this silence is easily accounted for, partly from the greater rarity of the book, partly from its offensive opposition to two Roman popes.

The authorship of Hippolytus is proved or conceded by Bunsen, Gieseler, Jacobi, Döllinger, Duncker, Schneidewin, Caspari, Milman, Robertson, Wordsworth, Plummer, Salmon. Cardinal Newman denies it on doctrinal grounds, but offers no solution. The only rival claimants are Origen (so the first editor, Miller, and Le Normant), and Cajus (so Baur and Cruice, the latter hesitating between Caius and Tertullian). Origen is out of the question, because of the difference of style and theology, and because he was no bishop and no resident at Rome, but only a transient visitor (under Zephyrinus, about 211). The only claim of Caius is the remark of Photius, based on a marginal note in his MS., but doubted by himself, that Caius wrote a work peri; tou' pantov" and an anti-heretical work called " The Labyrinth," and that he was " a presbyter of Rome," and also declared by some " a bishop of the heathen."But Caius was an anti-Chiliast, and an opponent of Montanism; while Hippolytus was probably a Chiliast, like Irenaeus, and accepted the Apocalypse as Johannean, and sympathized with the disciplinary rigorism of the Montanists, although he mildly opposed them. See Döllinger, l. c. p. 250 sqq. (Engl. translation), Volkmar, l. c. p. 60-71; and Wordsworth,l.c. p. 16-28. Two other writers have been proposed as authors of the Philosophumena, but without a shadow of possibility, namely Tertullian by the Abbé Cruice, and the schismatic Novatian by the Jesuit Torquati Armellini, in a dissertation De priscarefutatione haereseon Origenis nomine ac philosophumenon tituto recens vulgata, Rom.,1862 (quoted by Plummer, p. 354).

This idea is borrowed from Irenaeus.

The reading here is disputed.

The passage is obscure:oJ" th;n aJmartivan ejx ajnqrwvpwn ajpopluvnein prosevtaxe. Wordsworth translates: " who commanded us to wish away sin from man;" Macmahon: " He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings."Bunsen changes the reading thus: " For Christ is He whom the God of all has ordered to wash away the sins of mankind."Hippolytus probably refers to the command to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin.

biblidavrion. The more usual diminutive of bibliv"or bivblo" is biblivdion.

Lipsius, in his Quellenkrilik des Epiphanios, has made the extraordinary achievement of a partial reconstruction of this work from unacknowledged extracts in the anti-heretical writings of Epiphanius, Philaster, and Pseudo-Tertullian.

As suggested by Fabricius (T., 235), Neander (I. 682, Engl. ed.), and Lipsius. It bears in the MS. the title "Homily of Hippolytus against the Heresy of one Noëtus" oJmiliva JIppol. eij" ai{resin Nohvtou tino", and was first printed by Vossius in Latin, and then by Fabricius in Greek from a Vatican MS. (vol. II. 5-20, in Latin, vol. I. 235-244), and by P. de Lagarde in Greek (Hippol. Opera Gr. p. 43-57). Epiphanius made a mechanical use of it. It presupposes preceding sections by beginning: "Certain others are privily introducing another doctrine, having become disciple, ; of one Noëtus." The only objection to the identification is that Photius describes the entire work against thirty-two Heresies as a little book (biblidavrion). Hence Lipsius suggests that this was not the suvntagma itself, but only a summary of its contents, such as was frequently attached to anti-heretical works. Döllinger (p. 191 sqq.) shows the doctrinal agreement of the treatise against Noëtus with the corresponding section of the Philosophumena, and finds both heretical on the subject of the Trinity and the development of the Logos as a subordinate Divine personality called into existence before the world by an act of the Father’s will, which doctrine afterwards became a main prop of Arianism. Döllinger finds here the reason for the charge of partial Valentinianism raised against Hippolytus, as his doctrine of the origination of the Logos was confounded with the Gnostic emanation theory.

So Volkmar (l.c. p. 165: "Der Cod. Vatic. ’Contra Noëtum’ ist der Schluss nicht jener kürzeren Häreseologie, sondern einer anderen, von Epiphanius noch vorgefundenen Schrift desselben Hippolyt, wie es scheint, gegen alle Monarchianer." Caspari (III. 400 sq.) decides for the same view.

Peri; th'" tou' panto;" aijtiva" (or oujsiva", as Hippol. himself gives the title, Philos. X. 32 ed. D. and Schn.), or Peri; tou' pantov"(on the Hippolytus-statue). Greek and Latin in Fabricius I. 220-222. Greek in P. de Lagarde, p. 68-73. The book was a sort of Christian cosmogony and offset to Plato’s Timaeus.

Comp. Döllinger, p. 330 sqq. He connects the view of Hippolytus on the intermediate state with his chiliasm, which does not admit that the souls of the righteous ever can attain to the kingdom of heaven and the beatific vision before the resurrection. Wordsworth on the other hand denies that Hippol. believed in a millennium and "the Romish doctrine of Purgatory," and accepts his view of Hades as agreeing with the Burial Office of the Church of England, and the sermons of Bishop Bull on the state of departed souls. Hippol. p. 210-216. He also gives, in Appendix A, p. 306-308, an addition to the fragment of the book On the Universe, from a MS. in the Bodleian library.

Smikro;"Labuvrinqo"(Theodoret, Haer. Fa b. II. 5) or spouvdasma kata; th's jArtevmwno" aiJrevsew" (Euseb. H. E. V. 28).

Caspari, III. 404 sq., identifies the two books.

Peri; carismavtwn avpostolikh; paravdosi". On the Hippolytus-statue.

Peri; tou' swth'ro" hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou' kai; peri; avnticrivstou , in Fabricius I. 4-36 (Gr. and Lat.), and in P. de Lagarde, 1-36 (Greek only).

Included in Jerome’s list, and mentioned by Jacob of Edessa and by Syncellus. Fragments from an Arabic Catena on the Apocalypse in Lagarde’s Anal. Syr., Append. p. 24-27. See Salmon in Smith and Wace, III. 105.

See Döllinger, p. 330 sqq. (Engl. ed.)

We are indebted for this curious piece of information to Dr. Salmon, who refers to Benson, in the "Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, " I. 190.

The name, however, was common, and the New Testament mentions four Caii (Acts 19:29; 20:4; Rom. 16:24; 1 Cor. 1:14; 3 John 1), Eusebius five.

ajnh;r ejkklhsiastikov"and logiwvtato" (II. 25 and VT. 20). The former term does not necessarily imply an office, but is rendered by Valesius vir catholicus, by Heinichen (Euseb. Com. III. 64) ein rechtgläubiger Schriftsteller.

No doubt the same with the "Proculus noster" commended by Tertullian, Adv. Val. 5. Comp. Jerome (C. 59): "Proculum Montani sectatorem." His followers were Trinitarians; another party of the Montanists were Monarchians

See above § 183, p. 762 sq.

So Lightfoot in the "Journal of Philology," I. 98. and Salmon, l. c. p. 386.

See the document and the discussion about the authorship in Routh. I. 398 sqq., the article of Salmon in Smith and Wace III. 1000 sqq., and the different works on the Canon. Most of the writers on the subject, including Salmon, regard the fragment as a translation from a Greek original, since all other documents of the Roman Church down to Zephyrinus and Hippolytus are in Greek. Hilgenfeld and P. de Lagarde have attempted a re-translation. But Hesse (Das Murator. Fragment, Giessen, 1873, p. 25-39), and Caspari (Quellen, III. 410 sq.) confidently assert the originality of the Latin for the reason that the re-translation into the Greek does not clear up the obscurities. The Latin barbarisms occur also in other Roman writers. Caspari, however, thinks that it was composed by an African residing in Rome, on the basis of in older Greek document of the Roman church. He regards it as the oldest ecclesiastical document in the Latin language ("das älteste in lateinischer Sprache geschriebene originale kirchliche Schriftstück").

Eusebius (V. 10; VI. 3, 6) calls it to; th'" kathchvsew" didaskalei'on anddidaskalei' tw'n iJerw'n lovgwn". Sozomen (III. 15), to; iJero;n didaskalei'on tw'n iJerw'n maqhmavtwn; Jerome (Catal. 38), and Rufinus (H. E. II. 7), ecclesiastica schola.

Clemens calls him "the Sicilian bee" (sikelikh; mevlitta, perhaps with reference to his descent from Sicily). Jerome (Catal. 36) says of him: "Hujus multi quidem in S. Scripturam exstant commentarii sed magis viva voce ecclesiis profuit." Comp. on him Redepenning; Origenes I.63 sqq., and Möhler in Herzog² XI. 182. The two brief relies of Pantaenus are collected and accompanied with learned notes by Routh, Rel. S. I. 375-383.

Is. 7: 9, according to the LXX: e[an mh; pisteuvshte, oujde; mh; sunh'te.

453 Klhvmhn". It is strange that he, and not his distinguished Roman namesake, should be called Flavius. Perhaps he was descended from a freedman of Titus Flavius Clemens, the nephew of the Emperor Vespasian and Consul in 95, who with his wife Domitilla was suddenly arrested and condemned on the charge of " atheism," i.e. Christianity, by his cousin, the emperor Domitian.

The ajpokavqarsi", and the muvhsi", and the ejpovteia, i.e. purification, initiation, vision.

Lovgo" protreptikov" pro;s {Ellhna", Cohortatio ad Graecos, or ad Gentes.

Paidagwgov". This part contains the hymn to Christ at the close.

Strwmatei'", Stromata, or pieces of tapestry, which, when curiously woven, and in divers colors present an apt picture of such miscellaneous composition.

Tiv" oJ swzovmeno" plouvsio", Quis dives salvus orsalvetur? an excellent commentary on the words of the Lord in Mark 10:17 sqq. A most practical topic for a rich city like Alexandria, or any other city and age especially our own, which calls for the largest exercise of liberality for literary and benevolent objects. See the tract in Potter’s ed. II. 935-961 (with a Latin version). It ends with the beautiful story of St. John and the young robber, which Eusebius has inserted in his Church History (III. 23).

JUpotupwvsei", Adumbrationes, Outlines, or a condensed survey of the contents of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. See the analysis of the fragments by Westcott, in Smith and Wace, III. 563 sq., and Zahn l.c. 64-103.

u{mno" tou' swth'ro" Cristou', written in an anapaestic measure. See § 66, p. 230. The other hymn added to the "Tutor" written in trimeter iambics, and addressed to the paidagwgov" is of later date.

jWrigevnh", Origenes, probably derived from the name of the Egyptian divinity Or or Horus (as Phoebigena from Phœbus, Diogenes from Zeus). See Huetius I. 1, 2; Redepenning. I. 421 sq.

jAdamavntio" (also Calkevntero"). Jerome understood the epithet to indicate his unwearied industry, Photius the irrefragable strength of his arguments. See Redepenning, I. 430.

So Möller (l.c. 92) and others. But it is only an inference from Origen’s view. There is no record as far as I know of his baptism.

Lewnivdh" Eus. VI. 1. So Neander and Gieseler. Others spell the name Leonidas (Redepenning and Möller).

See Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, p. 236 sqq. (Plummer’s translation).

This fact rests on the testimony of Eusebius (vi. 8), who was very well informed respecting Origen; and it has been defended by Engelhardt, Redepenning, and Neander, against the unfounded doubts of Baur and Schnitzer. The comments of Origen on the passage in Matthew speak for rather than against the fact. See also Möller (p. 93).

Stephen Binet, a Jesuit, wrote a little book, De salute Origenis, Par. 1629, in which the reading writers on the subject debate the question of the salvation of Origen, and Baronius proposes a descent to the infernal regions to ascertain the truth at last the final revision of the heresy-trial is wisely left with the secret counsel of God. See an account of this book by Bayle, Diction. sub Origene."Tom. III. 541, note 1). Origen’s " gravest errors," says Westcott (l.c.)" are attempts to solve that which is insoluble."

Not at the fifth ecumenical council of 553, as has been often, through confusion, asserted. See Hefele, Conciliengesch. vol. II. 790 sqq. and 859 sqq, Möller, however, in Herzog² xi. 113, again defends the other view of Noris and Ballerini. See the 15 anathematisms in Mansi, Conc. ix. 534.

His exegetical method and merits are fully discussed by Huetius, and by Redepenning (I. 296-324), also by Diestel, Gesch. des A. T in der christl. Kirche, 1869, p. 36 sq. and 53 sq.

Ta; eJxapla', also in the singular form to; eJxaplou'n, Hexaplum (in later writers). Comp. Fritzsche in Herzog² I. 285.

Called Quinta (e’), Sexta ("’), and Septima (z’). This would make nine columns in all, but the name Enneapla never occurs. Octapla and Heptap!a are used occasionally, but very seldom. The following passage from Habakkuk 2:4 (quoted Rom. 1:17) is found complete in all the columns:

To; Ebraikovn

To; JEbraiko;n JEllhnikoi'"gravmmasin

!Akuvla"

Suvmmaco"

OiJ 'O (LXX)

qeodotivwn

'E’

S’.

Z’.

bamwntro wxDyq

ousadik bhmounaqw ieie.

kai; di;kaio" ejn pistei aujtou' zhvsetai.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eautou' pivstei zhvsei.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstew" mou' zhvsetai.

oJ de; divkaio" th;/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei.

oJ de; divkaio" th'/ eJautou' pivstei zhvsei.

ta; tetrapla', ortetraplou'n orto; tetrasevlidon, or, Tetrapla, Tetraplum.

Shmeiwvsei", scovlia, scholia.

Tovmoi, volumina, also commentarii.

JOmilivai.

Comp. § 32, p. 89 sqq. A special ed. by W. Selwyn: Origenis Contra Celsum libri I-IV. Lond. 1877. English version by Crombie, 1868. The work of Celsus restored from Origen by Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort, Zürich 1873.

Peri; ajrcw'n. The version of Rufinus with some fragments of a more exact rival version in Delarue I. 42-195. A special ed. by Redepenning, Origenes de Princip., Lips. 1836. Comp. also K. F. Schnitzer, Orig. über die Grundlehren des Christenthums, ein Wiederherstellungsversuch, Stuttgart 1836. Rufinus himself confesses that he altered or omitted several pages, pretending that it had been more corrupted by heretics than any other work of Origen. Tillemont well remarks that Rufinus might have spared himself the trouble of alteration, as we care much less about his views than those of the original.

Peri; eujch'" De Oratione. Delarue, I. 195-272. Separate ed. Oxf. 1635, with a Latin version. Origen omits (as do Tertullian and Cyprian) the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, not finding it in his MSS. This is one of the strongest negative proofs of its being a later interpolation from liturgical usage.

Eij" martuvpion protreptikov" lovgo" orPeri; marturivou, De Martyrio. First published by Wetstein, Basel, 1574; in Delarue, I. 273-310, with Latin version and notes.

First published in Latin by Genebrardus, Paris 1574, and in Greek and Latin by Delarue, who, however, omits those extracts, which are elsewhere given in their appropriate places.

The }Ekqesi" th'" pivstew" kata; ajpokavluyin is rejected as spurious by Gieseler and Baur, defended by Hahn, Caspari, and Ryssel. It is given in Mansi, Conc. I, 1030, in Hahn, Bibl. der Symbole der alten Kirche, second ed. p. 183, and by Caspari, p. 10-17, in Greek and in two Latin versions with notes.

The kata; mevro" pivsti"(i.e. the faith set forth piece for piece, or in detail, not in part only) was first published in the Greek original by Angelo Mai, Scriptorum Vet. Nova Collectio, VII. 170-176. A Syriac translation in the Analecta Syriaca, ed. by P. de Lagarde, pp. 31-42. See Caspari, l.c. pp. 65-116, who conclusively proves the Apollinarian origin of the document. A third trinitarian confession from Gregory, diavlexi" pro;" Aijlianovn, is lost.

Best separate edition by Bengel, Stuttgart, 1722. It is also published in the 4th vol. of Delarue’s ed . of Origen, and in Migne, Patr. Gr. X. Col. 1049-1104. English version in Ante-Nic. Lib., XX., 36-80.

In Migne, Tom. X. Col. 987-1018.

First by Eusebius in the Proœem. to Bk. VII: oJ mevgas jAlexandrevwn ejpivskopo" Dionuvsio". Athanasius (De Seut. Dion. 6) calls him " teacher of the Catholic church "(th'" kaqol. ejkklhsiva" didavskalo").

When invited in 265 to attend the Synod of Antioch, he declined on account of the infirmities of old age. Eus. VII. 27.

Preserved by Eusebius VII. 22.

In Euseb. VII. 25. Dionysius concludes the comparison with praising the pure Greek of the Gospel and contrasting with it "the barbarous idioms and solecisms" of the Apocalypse; yet the style of the Gospel is thoroughly Hebrew in the inspiring soul and mode of construction. He admits however, that the author of the Apocalypse "saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy," and disclaims the intention of depreciating the book only he cannot conceive that it is the product of the same pen as the fourth Gospel. He anticipated the theory of the Schleiermacher school of critics who defend the Johannean origin of the Gospel and surrender the Apocalypse; while the Tübingen critics and Renan reverse the case. See on this subject vol. I. 716 sq.

Suidas calls him Sextus Africanus. Eusebius calls him simply jAfrikanov".

Not the Emmaus known from Luke 24:16, which was only sixty stadia from Jerusalem, but another Emmaus, 176 stadia (22 Roman miles) from Jerusalem.

Two Syrian writers, Barsalibi and Ebedjesu, from the end of the twelfth century, call him bishop of Edessa; but earlier writers know nothing of this title, and Origen addresses him as "brother."

Der Brief des Jul. Africanus an Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt. Halle 1877.

Hist. Eccl. VI. 15, 26, 35; Chron. ad arm. Abr. 2250, 2265.

In Routh, Reliquiae Sacre III. 407-422. Cave puts Theognostus after Pierius, about a.d. 228, but Routh corrects him, (p. 408).

Euseb. VII. 32 towards the close; Hieron. D, Vir. ill. 76; Praef. in Hos. Photius, Cod. 118, 119. Eusebius knew Pierius personally, and says that he was greatly celebrated for his voluntary poverty, his philosophical knowledge, and his skill in expounding the Scriptures in public assemblies. Jerome calls him "Origenes junior." He mentions a long treatise of his on the prophecies of Hosea. Photius calls him Pamfivlou tou' mavrturo" uJfhghthv"See Routh, Rel. S. III. 425-431.

"Jerome says (De Vir. ill. 75): Pamphilus ... tanto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descrpserit, quae usque hodie in Caesriensi bibliotheca habentur. Sed et in duodecim prophetas viginti quinque ejxhghvsewnOrigenis volumina manu ejus exarata reperi, quae tanto amplector et servo gaudio, ut Craesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est, unam epistolam habere martyris, quanto magis tot millia versuum quae mihi videtur sui sanguinis signasse vestigiis."

See Routh’s Rel. S. vol. III. 491-512, and vol. IV. 339-392; also in Delarue’s Opera Orig. vol. IV., and in the editions of Lommatsch and Migne. Eusebius wrote a separate work on the life and martyrdom of his friend and the school which he founded, but it is lost. See H. E. VII. 32; comp. VI. 32; VIII. 13, and especially De Mart. Pal. c. 11, where he gives an account of his martyrdom and the twelve who suffered with him. The Acta Passionis Pamph. in the Act SS. Bolland. Junii I. 64.

H. E. VIII. 13; IX. 6. The fragments in Routh, IV. 23-82. Peter taught in a sermon on the soul, that soul and body were created together on the same day, and that the theory of pre-existence is derived from "the Hellenic philosophy, and is foreign to those who would lead a godly life in Christ" (Routh, p. 49 sq.).

0ur information about Hierax is almost wholly derived from Epiphanius, Haer. 67, who says that he lived during the Diocletian persecution. Eusebius knows nothing about him; for the Egyptian bishop Hierax whom he mentions in two places (VII. 21 and 30), was a contemporary of Dionysius of Alexandria, to whom he wrote a paschal letter about 262.

Jerome makes him bishop of Tyre ("Meth. Olympi Lyciae et postea Tyri episcopus"); but as all other authorities mention Patara as his second diocese, "Tyre" is probably the error of a transcriber for "Patara," or for "Myra, " which lies nearly midway between Olympus and Patara, and probably belonged to the one or the other diocese before it became an independent see. It is not likely that Tyre in Phoenicia should have called a bishop from so great a distance. Jerome locates the martyrdom of Methodius at "Chalcis in Greece" (in Eubœa). But Sophronius, the Greek translator, substitutes "in the East for " in Greece."Perhaps (as Salmon suggests, p. 909) Jerome confounded Methodius of Patara with a Methodius whose name tradition has preserved as a martyr, it Chalcis in the Decian persecution. This confusion is all the more probable as he did not know the time of the martyrdom, and says that some assign it to the Diocletian persecution ("ad extremum novissimae persecutionis") others to the persecution " sub Decio et Valeriano."

Sumpovsion tw'n devka parqevnwn, Symposium, or Convivium Decem Virginum.

aJgneuvw soi, kai; lampavda" faesfovrou" kratou'sa, Numfive, uJpantavsw soi.

Peri; tw'n genhtw'n, known to us only from extracts in Photius, Cod. 235. Salmon identifies this book with the Xeno mentioned by Socrates, H. E. VI. 13, as an attack upon Origen.

Peri; aujtexousivou, De libero arbitrio. Freedom of the will is strongly emphasized by Justin Martyr, Origen, and all the Greek fathers.

Prœp. Evang. VII. 22; Comp. H. E. V. 27; and Routh, Rel. S. II. 87. Möller and Salmon suppose that Methodius borrowed from Maximus, and merely furnished the rhetorical introduction.

See Baron. Annal. ad Ann. 311; De Broglie, L’église et l’empire, I. 375 Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, 414.

Hefele, Conciliengesch., vol. I., p. 258 sq. (2nd ed.), assumes to the same effect that Lucian first sympathized with his countryman, Paul of Samosta, in his humanitarian Christology, and hence was excommunicated for a while, but afterwards renounced this heresy, was restored, and acquired great fame by his improvement of the text of the Septuagint and by his martyrdom.

This Synod is recognized as legitimate and orthodox, and its twenty-five canons are accepted, although it confirmed the previous deposition of Athanasius for violating a canon. See a full acccount in Hefele, l.c. 1. 502-530.

to;n monogenh' qeovn. Comp. the Vatican and Sinaitic reading of John 1:18, monogenh;" qeov" (without the article), instead of oJ monogenh;" uiJov" . The phrase, monogenh;" Qeov"was widely used in the Nicene age, not only by the orthodox, but also by Arian writers in the sense of one who is both qeo;" (divine) and monogenhv". See Hort’s Two Dissertations on this subject, Cambr., 1876. In the usual punctuation of Lucian’s creed, to;n monogenh'is connected with the preceding to;n uiJo;n aujtou', and separated from qeo;n, so as to read "his Son the only begotten, God, " etc.

prwtovtokon (notprwtovktiston, first-created) pavsh" ktivsew", from Col. 1:17.

See the creed in full in Athanasius, Ep. de Synodis Arimini et Seleucidae celebratis, § 23 (Opera ed. Montf. I. ii. 735); Mansi, Conc. II. 1339-’42; Schaff,Creeds of Christendom, II. 25-28; and Hahn, Bibl. der Symb., ed. II., p. 1847-’87. Hefele, l. c., gives a German version. It is not given as a creed of Lucian by Athanasius or Socrates (H. E. II. 10), or Hilarius (in his Latin version, De Syn. sive de Fide Orient., § 29); but Sozomenus reports (H. E. III. 5) that the bishops of the Synod of Antioch ascribed it to him, and also that a Semi-Arian synod in Caria, 367, adopted it under his name (VI. 12). It is regarded as genuine by Cave, Bssnage, Bull, Hahn, Dorner, but questioned either in whole or in part by Routh (I. 16), Hefele, Keim, Harnack, and Caspari; but the last two acknowledge an authentic basis of Lucian which was enlarged by the Antiochian synod. The concluding anathema is no doubt a later addition.

On his labors in regard to the Sept., see Simeon Metaphrastes and Suidas, quoted in Routh IV. 3 sq.; Field’s ed. of the Hexapla of Origen; Nestle in the "Zeitschr. d. D. Morgenl. Gesellsch., " 1878, 465-508; and the prospectus to the proposed ed. of the Sept. by P. de Lagarde.

Dr. Hort, Introd. and Append. to Westcott and Hort’s Greek Test. (Lond. and N. York, 1881), p. 138, says of Lucian: "Of known names his has a better claim than any other to be associated with the early Syrian revision; and the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome . Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos adscrit perversa contentio, " etc. Dr. Scrivener, who denies such a Syrian recension as an ignis fatuus, barely alludes to Lucian in his Introduction to the Criticism of the N. Test., 3rd ed., Cambr., 1883, pp. 515, 517.

Euseb. H. E. VII. 32 (in the beginning) speaks of Dwrovqeo" as having known him personally. He calls him " a learned man (Lovgion a[ndra) who was honored with the rank of presbyter of Antioch" at the time of bishop Cyrillus, and " a man of fine taste in sacred literature, much devoted to the study of the Hebrew languages so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures with great facility."He adds that he " was of a very liberal mind and not unacquainted with the preparatory studies pursued among the Greeks, but in other respects a eunuch by nature, having been such from his birth."

H. E. II. 2. He adds that Tertullian was "particularly distinguished among the eminent men of Rome," and quotes a passage from his Apology, which is also translated into the Greek."

De Resurr. Carn. c. 59, he confesses: "Ego me scio neque alia carne adulteria commisisse, neque nunc alia carne ad continentiam eniti." Comp. also Apolog., c. 18 and 25; De Anima, c. 2; De Paenit., c. 4 and 12; Ad Scapul., c. 5.

This fact, however, rests only on the authority of Jerome, and does not appear from Tertullian’s own writings. Roman Catholic historians, with their dislike to married priests, have made him a layman on the insufficient ground of the passage: "Nonne et Laici sacerdotes sumus? "De Exhort. Cast., c. 7.

De Cultu Femin., c. 7. Comp. Euseb. II. 2.

De Vir. illustr., c. 53: "Hic [Tert.] cum usque ad mediam aetatem presbyter ecclesia epermansisset, invidia et contumeliis clericorum Romanae ecclesiae ad Montani dogma delapsus in multis libris novac prophetiae meminit."

Adv. Prax. c. 1.

B.C. 264-146,

Comp. his own painful confession in De Patient. c. 1: "Miserrimus ego semper aeger caloribus impatientiae."

In a similar manner Luther, though himself one of the most original and fruitful thinkers, sometimes unreasonably abuses reason as the devil’s mistress.

In this apparent contradiction Luther resembles Tertullian: he fought Romanism with private judgment, and Zwinlianism, Anabaptists, and all sectarians ("Schwarm - und Rottengeister" as he called them) with catholic authority; he denounced "the damned heathen Aristotle," as the father of Popish scholaisticism, and used scholastic distinctions in support of the ubiquity of Christ’s body against Zwingli.

According to Niebuhr, a most competent judge of Latin antiquities. Provinces and colonies often retain terms and phrases after they die out in the capital and in the mother country. Renan says with reference to Tertullian (Marc-Aurèle, p. 456) La ’lingua volgata’ d’Afrigue contribua ainsi dans une large part à la formation de la langue ecclésiastique de I’ Occident, et ainsi elle exerça une influence décisive sur nos langues modernes. Mais il résulta de là une autre conséquence; cest que les textes fondamentaux de la littérature latine chétienne furent écrits dans une langue que lettrés d’Italie trouvèrent barbare et corrompue, ce qui plus tard donna occasion de la part des rhéteurs à des objections et à des épigrammes sans fin."Comp. the works of Rönsch, Vercellone, Kaulen, Ranke, and Ziegler on the Itala and Vulgata.

Ruhnken calls Tertullian "Latinitatis pessimum auctorem" and Bishop Kaye the harshest and most obscure of writers," but Niebuhr, (Lectures on Ancient History, vol. II. p. 54), Oehler (Op. III. 720), and Holmes (the translator of Tert. against Marcion, p. ix.) judge more favorably of his style, which is mostly " the terse and vigorous expression of terse and vigorous thought."Renan (Marc Aurèle, p. 456) calls Tertullian the strangest literary phenomenon "un mélange inouï de talent, de fausseté d’esprit, d’éloquence et de mauvais goût grand écrivain, si l’on admet que sacrifier toute grammaire et toute correction à l’ effet sois bien écrire."Cardinal Newman calls him " the most powerful writer of the early centuries "(Tracts, Theol. and Eccles., p. 219).

On the chronological order see Notes.

Comp. H. A. Woodham: Tert. Liber Apologeticus with English Notes and an Introduction to the Study of Patristical and Ecclesiastical Latinity, Cambridge, 1850. Am. ed. of Select Works of Tert., by F. A. March, New York, 1876. p. 26-46.

Ebert, who was the first to assert the priority of Octavius, nevertheless admits (Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. I. 32) "Tertullian ist einer der genialsten, originallsten und fruchtbarstem unter den christlich-lateinischen Autoren."

Praescriptio, in legal terminology, means an exception made before the merits of a case are discussed, showing in limine that the plaintiff ought not to be heard. This book has been most admired by R. Catholics as a masterly vindication of the catholic rule of faith against heretical assailants; but its force is weakened by Tertullian’s Montanism.

English translation by Peter Holmes, in the "Ante-Nicene Libr., " vol. VII., 1868 (478 pages).

Jerome puts him after Tertullian (and Cyprian), Lactantius beforeTertullian.

We may, also refer to more recent analogies: the ablest champions of Romanism-as Hurter, Newman, Manning, Brown, owe their intellectual and moral equipment to Protestantism; while the Old Catholic leaders of the opposition to Vatican Romanism—as Döllinger, Friedrich, Reinkens, Reusch, Langen, von Schulte—were formerly eminent teachers in the Roman church.

Jerome decribes him as "in signis causidicis Romani fori," but he depended on Lactantius, who may have derived this simply from the introduction to the book, where the author speaks of taking advantage of the court holidays for an excursion to Ostia. The gens Minucia was famous in Rome, and an inscription (Gruter, p. 918) mentions one with the cognomen Felix

From Cirta (now Constantine). This we must infer from the fact that he call Corn. Fronto "Cirtensis noster, " Octav. c. 9; comp. c. 31, "tuus Fronto."

In 40 (al. 41) short chapters which, in Halm’s edition, cover 54 pages, oct. The book was written several years after the Dialogue and after the death of Octavius (c. 1: "discedens or decedens vir eximius et sanctus immensum sui deside rium nobis reliquit, " etc.).

"Post haec laeti hilaresque discessimus, Caecilius quod crediderit, Octavius gaudere [ad gaudendum] quod vicerit, ego [Minuc. Fel.] et quod hic crediderit et hie vicerit."

The only traces are in chs. 29 and 34, which perhaps allude to Jer. 17:5 and I Cor. 15:36, 42.

Keim supposes that he intended to refute Celsus (but he is nowhere mentioned); De Félice, that he aimed at Fronto (who is twice mentioned); Kühn better: public opinion, the ignorant prejudice of the higher classes against Christianity.

C. 40: "Etiam nunc tamen aliqua consubsidunt non obstrepentia veritati, sed perfectae institutioni necessaria, de quibus crastino, quod iam sol occasu declivis est, ut de toto (oret die toto)congruentius, promptius requiremus."

Renan (p. 402) takes a different view, namely that Minucius was a liberal Christian of the Deistic stamp, a man of the world "qui n’empêche ni la gaieté, ni le talent, ni le goût aimable de la vie, ni la recherche, de l’élégance du style. Que nous sommes loin de l’ébionite ou méme du juif de Galilée! Octavius, c’est Cicéron, ou mieux Fronton, devenu chrétien. En réalité, c’est par la culture intellectuelle qu’il arrive au déisme. Il aime la nature, il se plaît a la conversation des gens biens élevés. Des hommes faits sur ce modèle n’auraient créé ni l’Évangile ni l’Apocalypse; mais, réciproquement, sans de tels adhérents, l’Évangile, l’Apocalypse, les épItres de Paul fussent restés les éscrits secrets d’une secte ferméé, qui, comme les esséens ou les théapeutes, eut finlement disparu." Kühn, also, represents Minucius as a philosopher rather than a Christian, and seems to explain his silence on the specific doctrines of Christianity from ignorance. But no educated Christian could be ignorant of Christ and His work, nor of the prophets and apostles who were regularly read in public worship.

On the philosophy of Minucius, see the analysis of Kühn, p. 21 sqq.; 58 sqq.

Blondel (1641), Daillé (1660), Rösler (1777), Russwurm (1824), doubted the priority of Tertullian. See Kühn, l.c., p. v.

In his essay on the subject (1866), Ebert put Octavius between 160 and the close of the second century; in his more recent work on the History of Christ. Lat. Lit. (1874), vol. I., p. 25, be assigns it more definitely to between 179 and 185 (" Anfang oder Mitte der achtziger Jahre des 2. Jahrh."). He assumes that Minucius used Athenagoras who wrote 177.

Ueberweg (1866), Rönsch (Das n. T. Tertull. 1871), Keim (1873), Caspari (1875, III. 411), Herzog (1876), Hauck (1877), Bonwetsch (1878), Mangold (in Herzog² 1882), Kühn (1882), Renan (1882), Schwenke (1883). The last (pp. 292 and 294) puts the oral dialogue even so far back as Hadrian (before 137), and the composition before the death of Antoninus Pius (160).

Hartel (1869), Jeep (1869), Klussmann (1878), Schultze (1881), and Salmon (1883). Hartel, while denying that Tertullian borrowed from Minucius, leaves the way open for an independent use of an older book by both. Schultze puts Minucius down to the reign of Domitian (300-303), which is much too late.

Renan (p. 390) calls Minucius (although he puts him before Tertullian) a habitual plagiarist who often copies from Cicero without acknowledgment. Dombart (p. 135 sqq.), and Schwenke (p. 273 sqq.) prove his dependence on Seneca.

The crucial test of relative priority applied by Ebert is the relation of the two books to Cicero. Minucius wrote with Cicero open before him; Tertullian shows no fresh reading of Cicero; consequently if the parallel passages contain traces of Cicero, Tertullian must have borrowed them from Minucius. But these traces in Tertullian are very few, and the inference is disputable. The application of this test has led Hartel and Salmon (in Smith and Wace, III. 92) to the opposite conclusion. And Schultze proves 1) that Minucius used other works of Tertullian besides the Apologeticus, and 2) that Minucius, in copying from Cicero, makes the same kind of verbal changes in copying from Tertullian.

Chs. 29, 33, 37. I can find in these passages no proof of any particular violent persecution. Tortures are spoken of in ch. 37, but to these the Christians were always exposed. Upon the whole the situation of the church appears in the introductory chapters, and throughout the Dialogue, is a comparatively quiet one, such as we know it to have been at intervals between the imperial persecutions. This is also the impression of Schultze and Schwenke. Minucius is silent about the argument so current under Marcus Aurelius, that the Christians are responsible for all the public calamities.

Mommsen, Corp. Lat. Inscript. VIII. 6996 and 7094-7098; Recueil de Constantine, 1869, p. 695. See an article by Dessau in "Hermes, " 1880, t. xv., p. 471-74; Salmon, l.c., p. 924; and Renan, l.c., p.’090 sq. Renan admits the possible identity of this Caecilius with the friend of Minucius, but suggests in the interest of his hypothesis that he was the son.

V. Schultze denies Cyprian’s authorship; but the book is attester by Jerome and Augustin.

Catal. c. 67: "Cyprianus Afer primum gloriose rhetoricam docuit."

Pontius, in his Vita, a very unsatisfactory sketch, prefixed to the editions of the works of Cyprian, places this act of renunciation (MaTt. 19:21) before his baptism."inter fidei prima rudimenta." Cyprian’s gardens, however, together with a villa, were afterwards restored to him, "Dei indulgentia," that is, very probably, through the liberality of his Christian friends.

De Gratia Dei, ad Donatum, c. 3, 4.

"Undae genitalis auxilio," which refers of course to baptism.

"Da magistrum!" So Jerome relates in his notice on Tertullian, Cat. c. 53, on the testimony of an old man, who had heard it in his youth from the "notarius beati Cypriani." As to the time, Cyprian might have personally known Tertullian, who lived at least till the year 220 or 230.

The order of them varies in different editions occasioning frequent confusion in citation.

Novatiani, in the East also Kaqaroiv, which is equivalent to Puritans.

Jerome calls him and Tertullian eloquentissimi viri (Ad Dam. Ep. 36). Eusebius speaks unfavorably of him on account of bis severe discipline, which seemed to deny mercy to poor sinners.

On the subject of the official language of the Roman Church, see especially the learned and conclusive investigations of Caspari,l.c. III. 430 sqq., and the inscriptions in De Rossi, Rom. sotter. I. 277 sqq., 293, and II. 76 sqq. Also Harnack: D. Pseudo-Cyprian. Tractat D Aleatoribus, 1888. Cornelius was not buried officially by the Roman Church, but by private members of the same.

See the letter of Cornelius to Fabius, preserved by Euseb. VI. 33.

Ep. XXX. of Cyprian (Oxf. and Hartel’s edd.). English version in "Ante-Nic. Libr., " Cyprian’s works, I. 85-92. That this letter was written by Novatian, appears from Cyprian’s Ep. LV. (ad Antonianum) cap. 4, where Cyprian quotes a passage from the same, and then adds "Additum est etiam Novatiano tunc scribente," etc.

Ch. 2. Comp. also ch. 3, where he says: "Far be it from the Roman Church to slacken her vigor with so profane a facility, and to loosen the nerves of her severity by overthrowing the majesty of faith; so that when the wrecks of your ruined brethren are not only lying, but are falling around, remedies of a too hasty kind, and certainly not likely to avail, should be afforded for Communion; and by a false mercy, new wounds should be impressed on the old wounds of their transgression; so that even repentance should be snatched from there wretched beings, to their greater overthrow." And in ch. 7: "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father and before his angels. For God, as He is merciful, so He exacts obedience to his precepts, and indeed carefully exacts it; and as be invites to the banquet, so the man that hath not a wedding garment be binds hands and feet, and casts him out beyond the assembly of the saints. He has prepared heaven but he has also prepared hell. He has prepared places of refreshment, but he has also prepared eternal punishment. He has prepared the light that none can approach unto, but he has also prepared the vast and eternal gloom of perpetual night." At the close be favors an exception in case of impending death of the penitent lapsed, to whom cautious help should be administered, "that neither ungodly men should praise our smooth facility, nor truly penitent men accuse our severity as cruel." This letter relieves Novatian of the reproach of being chiefly influenced in his schism by personal motives, as Pope Cornelius (Euseb. VI. 43), and Roman historians maintain (also Harnack, in Herzog X. 661).

"Ex exigna et vilissima Italiae parte." See Jaffé Regesta Pontif. Rom. p. 7. Cornelius, in his letter to Fabian (Euseb. VI. 43), describes these three bishops as contemptible ignoramuses, who were intoxicated when they ordained Novatian "by a shadowy and empty imposition of hands."

De Instantia, probably in persecution, not in prayer. See Caspari, p. 428, note 284 versus Lardner and Lumper, who explain it of Perseverance in prayer: but this was no doubt treated in De Oratione, for which, however, the Vatican Cod. reads De Ordinatione.

In the MSS. of the second poem be is called a bishop. Commodian gives no indication of his clerical status, but it may be fairly inferred from his learning. In the last section of his second poem lie calls himself Gazaeus. Ebert understands this geographically, from the city of Gaza in Syria. But in this case he would have written in Greek or in Syriac. The older interpretation is preferable, from Gaza (gavza), treasure, or gazophylacium (gazofulavkion)treasury, which indicates either his possession of the treasure of saving truth or his dependence for support on the treasury of the church.

Ebert suggests that he was a Jewish proselyte; but in the introduction to the first poem he says that he formerly worshipped the gods (deos vanos), which he believed to be demons, like most of the patristic writers.

The author upbraids the Gentiles for persevering in unbelief after Christianity had existed for 200 years (VI. 2). Ebert dates the Instructions back as far as 239. Alzog puts it down much later.

See above p. 854. Note 1

The last five lines are (see Migne V. Col. 261, 262):

"ostenduntur illis, et legunt gesta de coelo

memoria prisca debito et merita digno.

merces in perpetuo secundum facta tyranno.

omnia non possum comprehendere parvo libello.

curiositas docti inveniet nomenin isto.

Inst. Div. VII. 16 sqq.

Adv. Nat. 1, 39, ed. Reifferscheid, p. 26.

In book V. 22 he details the crimes of Jupiter who robbed Ceres, Leda, Danae, Europa, Alcmena, Electra, Latona, Laodamia, and "a thousand other virgins and a thousand matrons, and with them the boy Catamitus of their honor and chastity," and who was made a collection of "all impurities of the stage."

He says that Christianity had then existed three hundred years (I. 13), and that the city of Rome was one thousand and fifty years old (II. 71). The last date leaves a choice between a.d. 296 or 303, according as we reckon by the Varronian or the Fabian era.

IV. 36; comp. I. 26; II. 77; III. 36, etc. Comp. Euseb. H. E. VIII. 2.

In the Nation. Libr. of Paris, No. 1661. The copy in Brussels is merely a transcript. The MS., though well written, is very corrupt, and leaves room for many conjectures. Reifferscheid has carefully compared it at Paris in 1867.

"Has that well-known word (illud vulgatum) never struck your ears, that the wisdom of man is foolishness with God?" II. 6; comp. 1 Cor. 3:19.

The strongest passages for the divinity of Christ are I. 37, 39, 42 and 53. In the last passage he says (Reifferscheid, p. 36): "Deus ille sublimis fuit [Christus], deus radice ab intima, deus ab incognitis regnis et ab omnium principe deo sospitator est missus"

"per purae speciem simplicitatis, " I.46. This passage speaks against the story, that Arnobius was converted by a dream.

I must differ from Ebert (p 69), who says that Christianity produced no moral change in His heart."In seinem Stil ist Arnobius durchaus Heide, und auch dies ist ein Zeugniss für die Art seines Christenthums, das eben eine innere Umwandlung nicht bewirkt hatte. Das Gemüth hat an seinem Ausdruck nirgends einen Antheil."

I. 9.

IV. 36.

Vict. Petavionensis orPetabionensis; notPictaviensis (from Poictiers), as in the Rom. Martyrologium and Baronius. John Launoy (d. 1678) is said to have first corrected this error.

Carmina de Jesu Christo Deo et homine; Lignum Vitae; also the hymns DeCruce or De Paschate, in Tertullian’s and Cyprian’s works. Routh, III. 483, denies the genuineness; so also Lumper in Migne V. 294.

Comp. Lüke, Einleitung in die Offen b. Joh, pp. 972-982 (2nd ed.); and Bleek, Vorlesungen über die Apok., p. 34 sq. Lücke and Bleek agree in regarding this commentary as a work of Victorinus, but with later interpolations. Bleek assumes that it was originally more pronounced in its chiliasm.

As Cassiodorus remarks: "Difficillima quaedam loca breviter tractavit.’;

This explanation of 17:10, 11 rests on the expectation of the return of Nero as Antichrist, and was afterwards justly abandoned by Andreas and Arethas, but has been revived again, though with a different counting of the emperors, by the modern champions of the Nero-hypothesis. See the discussion in vol. I, 864 sqq.

T=300; E=5; I=10; T=300: A=l; N=50; in all 666. Dropping the final n, we get Teita=616, which was the other reading in 13:18, mentioned by Irenaeus. Titus was the destroyer of Jerusalem, but in unconconsious fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy; he was no persecutor of the church, and was one of the best among the Roman emperors.

D=500; I=1; C=100; L=50; V=5; X=10; in all=666. "Id est quod Graece sonat teitavn id quod Latine dicitur diclux, quo nomine per antiphrasin expresso intelligimus antichrstum, qui cum a luce superna abscissus sit et ea privatus, transfigurat tamen se in angelum lucis audens sese dicere lucem. Item invenimus in quodom codice, Graeco a[ntemo" . " The last name is perhaps a corruption for [Anteimo", which occurs on coins of Moesia for a ruling dynasty, or may be meant for a designation of character: honori contrarius. See Migne, V. 339, and Lücke, p. 978.

"Nam regnum Christi nunc est sempiternum in sanctis, cum fuerit gloria post resurrectionem manifestata sanctorum." (Migne V. 344.)

Comp. § 188, p. 612 sqq.

¹⁵⁹³ Eusebius died a.d. 340; Lactantius between 320 and 330; Hosius between 357 and 360.

¹⁵⁹⁴ Hosius left no literary work. The only document we have from his pen is his letter to the Arian Emperor Constantius, preserved by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. 44). See Gains, l.c. II. 215 sqq. It begins with this noble sentence: "I was a confessor of the faith long before your grandfather Maximian persecuted the church. If you persecute me, I am ready to suffer all rather than to shed innocent blood and to betray the truth." Unfortunately, in his extreme old age he yielded under the infliction of physical violence, and subscribed an Arian creed, but bitterly repented before his death. Athanasius expressly says (l. c. 45), that "at the approach of death, as it were by his last testament, he abjured the Arian heresy, and gave strict charge that no one should receive it." It is a disputed point whether he died at Sirmium in 357, or was permitted to return to Spain, and died there about 359 or 360. We are only informed that he was over a hundred years old, and over sixty years a bishop. Athan. l.c.; Sulpicius Severus, Hist. II. 55.

↑ Back to top