Appendix G: Lightfoot in Retrospect

Appendix G: Lightfoot in Retrospect

Notes

Foreword

C. K. Barrett, “Joseph Barber Lightfoot,” Durham University Journal 64 (1972): 193–204.

Professor Dunn edited this special edition of the journal, which includes articles by David M. Thompson on Lightfoot as a churchman, Martin Hengel on Lightfoot’s interaction with the Tübingen school on the Gospel of John and the second century, C. K. Barrett on Lightfoot as a biblical commentator, and James D. G. Dunn on the contributions of Lightfoot to church and academy.

G. R. Treloar, Lightfoot the Historian: The Nature and Role of History in the Life and Thought of J. B. Lightfoot, Wissenschafthche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.103 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998).

B. N. Kaye and G. R. Treloar, “J. B. Lightfoot and New Testament Interpretation: An Unpublished Manuscript of 1855,” Durham University Journal 82 (1990): 160-75 (on 171-75).

There are a few other exceptions to this remark: (1) Three articles on Acts, which appear in the appendices to volume one of this series (Acts of the Apostles: A Newly Discovered Commentary), were previously published in periodicals and dictionaries but have long since been out of print and are in the public domain, and (2) Lightfoot’s essays on the authenticity of the Gospel of John, examining both the external and internal evidence, were published, but not his exegesis of John. These essays were first published posthumously by Macmillan in 1893. Baker republished them in 1979 with a fresh introduction by Philip Edgecumbe Hughes under the title Biblical Essays. (BW3)

Todd Still joined this ambitious project at the invitation of BW3 in early June 2013. (TDS)

Lightfoot’s comments on these Pauline letters were published posthumously as Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan, 1895).

This volume was published by Macmillan in 1895. A very different volume of other materials, essays and articles was put together as well. See most recently the reprint of some of these key essays, mostly on Pauline Epistles, in J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

C. K. Barrett, “J. B. Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator,” Durham University Journal (1992): 53-70, here p. 69.

G. R. Treloar and B. N. Kaye, “J. B. Lightfoot on Strauss and Christian Origins: An Unpublished Manuscript,” Durham University Journal 79 (1987): 165-200.

Editors’ Introduction

William Sanday, “Bishop Lightfoot,” The Expositor 4 (1886): 13-29 (on 13). Sanday was also a Durhamite, most well known for producing the International Critical Commentary on Romans with Arthur Headlam.

Lightfoot’s successor (with one in between) as bishop of Durham.

He made this remark to J. R. Harmer. See G. R. Eden and F. C. Macdonald, Lightfoot of Durham: Memorials and Appreciations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), 118-19. Apparently, Lightfoot also knew Arabic. It is a great pity that no proper biography has ever been written on Lightfoot. What we have in Lightfoot of Durham is some fond remembrances of the man by a few of the people who knew him. Only a portion of the volume discusses his academic work, and even then only very cursorily. Do see, however, pp. 105-22 and the brief discussions by H. E. Savage and Bishop J. R. Harmer (Lightfoot’s chaplain, secretary and proofreader for some years, before becoming a bishop himself). Note also the essays by the dean of Wells and the bishop of Gloucester (pp. 123–41). Notice that there are no scholars writing essays in this volume. This speaks volumes about Lightfoot’s work for and impact on the church. There is a nice anecdote in appendix D below about how as a boy at school, when someone asked how he was coming along with his German, the reply given from the school was: “Oh he’s mastered German, he’s moved on to Anglo-Saxon!” (BW3)

If one wonders why someone like Lightfoot agreed to take a post like the episcopal seat in Durham after a thriving academic life in Cambridge and after having turned down becoming bishop of Litchfield, the answer in part is family connections. He had a great love for the “north” of England, as his mother was from Newcastle and his family on his father’s side was from Yorkshire. He saw it, in one sense, as returning to his ancestral home. (BW3)

A tripos is an exam taken for the BA degree with honors at Cambridge University. (TDS)

C. K. Barrett, “J. B. Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator,” Durham University Journal (1992): 53-70 (on 54).

F. J. A. Hort, “Lightfoot, Joseph Barber,” Dictionary of National Biography, 1885–1900 (London: Smith, Elder), 33:232-40, on p. 233.

At an earlier point in time, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were meant to write commentaries for the Smith’s Commentary series. Although this plan did not pan out, it is of present import to note that Lightfoot was supposed to have commented on Acts for this series. (TDS)

It was Alexander Macmillan who suggested to Westcott the possibility of a Cambridge commentary on the entire New Testament. Westcott in turn enlisted Lightfoot and Hort for the project, to be based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text.

Until beginning this work on Lightfoot, I had not realized that the original attempt to have a Cambridge Bible Commentary on the whole New Testament had begun with this agreement, although it never came to full fruition. In the 1960s and ’70s, C. F. D. Moule, the relative of the successor of Lightfoot in the Durham episcopacy (H. G. C. Moule), revived the attempt to have a Cambridge Bible Commentary on the Greek New Testament, but it too was destined not to be completed. Indeed, it produced only a couple of notable volumes, C. E. B. Cranfield’s volume on Mark and Moule’s on Colossians and Philemon. This brings us to the turn of the twenty-first century when I, another Durham man, was named editor of the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series, along with my Asbury colleague Bill Arnold, who is the Old Testament editor. This third attempt has now produced volumes on both Old and New Testament books, but there is still much to be done, and more volumes are forthcoming. (BW3)

For example, he became absorbed in training ordinands for the Anglican ministry, in setting up the diocese of Newcastle and in paying for churches to be built.

Hort, “Lightfoot,” pp. 237-38.

John A. T. Robinson, “Joseph Barber Lightfoot” (Durham Cathedral Lecture, 1981), p. 13.

Stephen C. Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 57.

Hort, “Lightfoot,” p. 234.

Hort (“Lightfoot,” p. 237) says that Lightfoot’s library was divided between the divinity school at Cambridge and the University of Durham. What he does not tell us is what happened to his papers, letters and unpublished manuscripts. We now know that they stayed in Durham in a cupboard in the Monk’s Dormitory in the cathedral close.

Barrett (“Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator,” p. 55) observes, “Three commentaries [i.e. Galatians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon] were published in Lightfoot’s lifetime. He left lecture notes, and other notes, on other epistles which doubtless he would have used in published work had he lived, and had his interest not become absorbed in what must be regarded as his greatest work, that on the text of 1 Clement and the Epistles of Ignatius (with 2 Clement and Polycarp thrown in for full measure)—not to mention his conscientious, time-consuming work as bishop of Durham.”

Robinson, “Lightfoot,” p. 13.

Ibid., p. 16.

Hort, “Lightfoot,” p. 239.

The only New Testament scholar I have ever met, studied with or talked to who was even close to Lightfoot in these skills was Bruce Metzger, with whom I studied the apostolic fathers in a summer course at Princeton. He too had a vast panoply of languages at his command as well as an encyclopedic knowledge of Greek and early Christian literature. It appears he had a photographic memory, and one wonders whether Lightfoot did as well. Savage (Lightfoot of Durham, p. 110) seems to confirm this conjecture when he speaks of Lightfoot’s “remarkable accuracy of memory which enabled him to apply it readily. Page after page was written currente calamo with few or no books of reference at hand, and with only a ‘ver.’ here and there in the margin, where future verification was required.” (BW3)

Barrett, “Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator,” p. 57.

James D. G. Dunn, “Lightfoot in Retrospect,” Durham University Journal (1992): 71-94 (here 75-76), italics added for emphasis.

It is possible that he might be a bit miffed to see all this material published since it is incomplete. Lightfoot was nothing if not a perfectionist when it came to fully completing tasks to the best of his ability. The numerous little parenthetical notes to himself to verify a reference or the check marks in the manuscript indicating a reference verified testify to this scholarly habit. Nevertheless, this material, even though incomplete, is extremely valuable, as even a casual reading of what follows should demonstrate. (BW3)

C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, rev. ed. (New York: Scribner’s, 1961), p. 5.

Part One: Pauline Prolegomena

Wieseler [?], Chronologie, p. 72sq. [Bracketed question marks that appear in the text are editorial. They indicate uncertainty arising from the difficulty in deciphering Lightfoot’s handwriting.]

The penciled notes in the facing page are where the comment from Meyer comes in, and clearly Lightfoot is entertaining this earlier chronology, but the full page of chronological reflections continues with the assumption that the conversion was in 38. (BW3)

44 is underlined twice in pencil here. So, this must be his final verdict. (BW3)

He is following Tischendorf here with νῦνὶ instead of νῦν.

On the spurious Armenian Epistle, see Stanley p. 609.

Probably before the letter, but evidently expressing at least the probability that the letter would arrive before or without Timothy—see Paley, Hora. Paul.

The view here taken of Sosthenes I find is the same as that of Paley, Hora. Paul. c. iii, v. viii, note.

See my [i.e., Lightfoot’s] paper in the Journal of Philology, ii, p. 194. [See now appendix A. (BW3)]

The best account of the parties is found in Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church I, p. 334.

Here, Lightfoot gives a further illustration that he later marked out in pencil, thinking better of it. He said, “So far as their negativism is concerned we may compare the Quakers with their absence of creed, but beyond this the comparison to the modern sect of Quakers would be unfair.”

He adds the illustration—“Thus we see that the Society of Friends is fast dying away, its ranks being deserted on the one hand to Unitarianism and on the other for orthodox Christianity. And it is only the positive moral excellence of the sect which has kept it alive so long and rescued it from the consequences of its negative doctrinal views.”

The Salutation and the Supplication (2 Corinthians 1:1-14)

All the italicized words are underlined in the handwritten original of Lightfoot.

Excursus: On the Use of the First Person Plural in St. Paul’s Epistles

Since this is the clear thrust and implication of what Lightfoot says throughout about careless exegesis, I have concluded the excursus this way so one will feel the full force of his complaint against those who are sloppy or inexact (Conybeare et al.). (BW3)

The Ministry of Death, and the Ministry of Life (2 Corinthians 3)

There is no necessity for referring the καρδίαις here to anything different from the καρδίαις in vs. 2.

Of Temporary Tents and Eternal Houses (2 Corinthians 5)

B.M.T. is the Byzantine Majority Text, and as is the case with the Textus Receptus, Lightfoot is convinced it often has the wrong readings, with an especial tendency to add words to make sentences smoother or more complete. (BW3)

Part Three: Introduction to the Commentary on 1 Peter

See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 194; and John Lightfoot, I, p. 78.

By way of editorial comment, the attempt to make Galilee a linguistic or cultural backwater where Greek was not prevalent was utterly rejected by Lightfoot, and on good grounds. See for example the statement of Rabbi Simeon, the son of Rabbi Gamaliel (B.T. Sotah 49b) that his father at the very beginning of the second century had a thousand students, five hundred of whom studied Torah, and five hundred of whom studied Greek wisdom. This might help account for the some fifteen hundred Greek loan words in the Talmud, and the prevalence of Greek inscriptions on Jewish tombs in Galilee and Judea, not to mention references like Mishnah, Shek. 5.1, which tells us Rabbi Mordecai knew seventy languages. Even allowing for classic hyperbole in these examples, they make clear the multilingual nature of the region. (BW3)

By “rabbinical” Lightfoot seems to mean early Jewish Torah-centric culture, not the later rabbinical culture. (BW3)

This material is provided in the second volume in the Lightfoot Legacy series. (BW3)

I have taken the basic template for this section from Lightfoot’s Acts notes and then added all the additional material from his 1 Peter notes, where the discussion is more thorough. There are no signs, however, of development or change on this matter from one set of notes to the other. (BW3)

It is actually Eph 2:20.

See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 341.

This is Lightfoot’s own translation of the Greek at this point. (BW3)

On ‘Petrus siculus’ see Migne, Patrolog. Graec. CIV (Phot. Op.) p. 1256; Herzog, xi, p.228 s.v. Peter.

This is a note from Lightfoot to himself. (BW3)

Another note of Lightfoot to himself in pencil—“investigate Zahn more carefully.” (BW3)

A Living Hope, a Call to Holy Living (1Peter 1)

This is Lightfoot’s own translation. (BW3)

Again, Lightfoot’s own translation. (BW3)

The Lightfoot translation of 1 Clement. (BW3)

Appendix A: The Mission of Titus to the Corinthians

The Journal of Sacred and Classical Philology (a journal Lightfoot helped get started) originally published this piece as an article in 1855, vol. 2, pp. 194-205. It was then reprinted in the posthumous Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1904), then again as a reprint in the Baker 1979 redo of Biblical Essays, and finally it became available as an item in the public domain on the Project Canterbury website. We are pleased to offer it here. (BW3)

This paper had been partly written and the substance of the whole collected before Mr. Stanley’s book appeared. It was no slight satisfaction to me that with regard to one main point, the identification of the mission of Titus to Corinth with that of the brethren mentioned in the First Epistle, the distinguished editor supports the view here maintained. Though so far anticipated, I have ventured to send this paper to the press because the results were obtained independently and where they agree with those of Mr. Stanley, are worked out more fully than his plan admitted. I have alluded several times to Mr. Stanley’s book in my notes, chiefly where I have had occasion to differ from him; but I would not be thought to disparage so valuable a contribution to the history of the apostolic times. I would wish the same remark to apply to the mention of other distinguished names.

I cannot think, for instance, that Mr. Stanley’s explanation of the context of 2 Cor 12:14 τρίτον τοῦτο ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς on the ground of the designed visit, is at all satisfactory. And yet he calls attention to the opposition between the tenses κατεναρκήσα and καταναρκήσω which leads to the true solution, ‘I have not been burdensome to you . . . I am on the eve of paying you a third visit, and I will not be burdensome,’ i.e. I will observe the same practices as on the two former occasions. But the appeal to his projected visit as a proof of his affection (for this is Mr. Stanley’s explanation) is quite out of place in this connexion, to say nothing of the ambiguity of expression. His interpretation of 2 Cor 13:1 in relation to its context is scarcely less objectionable. At all events, admitting Mr. Stanley’s explanation as possible, it must seem strange that the Apostle should twice have veiled his mention of his designed visit under the language which applies at least as well (in 2 Cor 13:1 Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, far better) to an actual visit, and in both cases have introduced it in a manner which so rudely interrupts the obvious train of thought. On the other hand 1 Cor 16:7 has been unjustly pressed into the service. The words οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἄρτι ἐν παρόδῳ ἰδεῖν have been interpreted ‘I will not now pay you a passing visit’; implying that he had done so before, and, as St Paul on his first visit to Achaia stayed eighteen months (Acts 18:11) necessarily alluding to a second and shorter visit. Against this, Meyer alleges the order of the words, and de Wette repeats this argument. So far as I can see, the order would admit this interpretation well enough and Wieseler (Chronologie p. 240) has a right to make a use of the passage despite this protest. The real objection seems to be that the natural, if not necessary antithesis to ἄρτι ‘just now’ (when used of the present time) is the future, and not the past. On this ground I should object to Mr. Stanley’s explanation ‘now according to my present as distinguished from my late intention.’

1 Cor 5:9—Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις, but as undue weight has been assigned to these words, as showing that a previous letter had been written, it will be as well to see how far they favor such a view: (1) No such conclusion can be drawn from the aorist Ἔγραψα. That this word is frequently used in reference to the letter in which it occurs, any concordance will show; I must also confess myself unable to discern the latent ‘philosophical’ objections to its being so employed, even at the commencement of a letter (Davidson, Introd. p. 140, ed. l); the grammar, at all events, seems unexceptionable. Cf. Martyr. Polyc. c. 1: Ἔγραψαμεν ὑμῖν where the words occur immediately after the salutation. (2) It is unnecessary to accumulate instances to show that τῇ ἐπιστολῇ may refer to the letter itself. (3) It has been found difficult to explain the allusion by anything which has preceded. This difficulty must be allowed: verses 2, 6, 8, do not supply what is wanted: but is it necessary to seek any reference beyond the passage itself? Would it not be quite in accordance with this epistolary usage of the aorist to look for the explanation in the same sentence, so that the corresponding English to the phrase in 1 Cor 5:9 would be ‘I write to you not to keep company.’ The only substantial argument in favour of a previous letter seems to be contained in the words ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ which are quite superfluous in reference to the First Epistle itself, and the comparison with 2 Cor 7:8 makes the allusion to a previous letter even more evident. This argument appears to be insuperable. I suppose that the Chev. Bunsen’s ‘Restoration,’ of the ‘Former Epistle of Peter’ will carry conviction to few German and still fewer English minds (Hippol. i. p. 24, ed. 2, in Anal. Anten. I. p. 35sq.) but perhaps it is worthwhile observing how completely his argument, founded on 1 Pet 5:12 δι’ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, where he finds it necessary to refer to a former and shorter letter, is met by such passages as Heb 13:22 βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν and Ignatius ad Polyc. c. vii (shorter Greek). For not only is the aorist used in both these passages in a way in which M. Bunsen seems to think inadvisable, but the writers have also ventured to characterize their epistles as brief, though they considerably exceeded in length that to which he considers such a term inappropriate.

I am at a loss to discover why Mr. Stanley says, ‘This mission was composed of Titus and two other brethren’ (on 1 Cor 16:12). The Syriac version indeed in 2 Cor 12:18 reads the plural ‘the brethren’ (I assume this to be the case on Mr. Stanley’s authority, though I have found no confirmation) but this has evidently arisen on the basis of a confusion with the subsequent mission mentioned in 2 Cor 8:16. Mr. Stanley does not give his reasons elsewhere (2 Cor 8:16; 12:18).

The movements of St Paul in the following spring throw some light on this point. He had intended to sail direct from Corinth to Syria. His departure was however hastened by the discovery of a conspiracy against him and he went by way of Macedonia, apparently on account of the early season of the year. He left Philippi μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἀζύμων (Acts 20:6). Cf. Conybeare and Howson, II p. 206.

Wieseler considers it necessary to bring Timothy back from Macedonia to Ephesus, because the plural in 2 Cor 1:8 seems to show that he shared the danger with St. Paul on the occasion of the outbreak. The question of the use of the plural is beset with difficulties; but, waiving this, the language of St. Paul (ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν τῆς γενομένης ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, ὅτι καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἐβαρήθημεν, ὥστε ἐξαπορηθῆναι ἡμᾶς καὶ τοῦ ζῆν—2 Cor 1:8) must refer to something more than the mere momentary danger arising from the uproar. St. Paul seems to have been subjected to a continuous persecution at Ephesus, which must have begun before the departure of Timothy, and may have been shared by him. St. Paul speaks in the First Epistle of his many adversaries (1 Cor 16:9), and compares his struggles at Ephesus to a contest with wild beasts (1 Cor 15:32). It is strange that ἐθηριομάχησα should ever have been understood literally, when the same image is used in 1 Cor 5:9—ὡς ἐπιθανατίους, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν.

Appendix B: St. Paul’s Preparation for Ministry

This essay was in Lightfoot’s lecture notes from 1863 at Cambridge. Posthumously they were put with other essays into a volume titled Biblical Essays, published by Macmillan last in 1904. Subsequent to this, Baker Books in 1979 reprinted the original lecture notes in its own edition of Biblical Essays. Finally, the whole volume has been made available in the public domain at the Project Canterbury website, which includes many previously published Lightfoot works. The essay now is both out of print and out of copyright. We are happy to offer it again here. (BW3)

Cicero, pro Balb. 13; Becker, Handbuch der romischen Alterthumer ii, (1), p. 91.

Cicero, Verr. v. 67; Becker, II (1), p. 98.

Tertullian, Scorpiace no. 15, de Praescr. Heret. 36, etc. See Wieseler, Chron., p. 542.

As Becker ii. (1), p. 93, notes.

Plautus, Rudens, Prol. v.2.

Strabo, xiv, p. 673.

See Pauly, Real-Encyl. der class. Alterthumer, s.v. Tarsus.

Stramm, De Stupenda Eruditione Paul (1710).

See Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul, I, p. 352 sq. (1859).

The chief passages relating to St. Paul’s Jewish experiences are Gal 1:13, 14; Phil 3:5, 6; Acts 22:3 and Acts 26:4, 5; 2 Cor 11:22.

Cf. Acts 20:16. If the words quoted above are to be rejected as an interpolation this does not affect the fact of his visit to Jerusalem at this crisis (Acts 18:22).

Appendix C: ‘The Letter Killeth, but the Spirit Giveth Life’

In the 1870s Lightfoot was given the post of preacher in St. Paul’s Cathedral (while still at Cambridge). He preached a series of sermons, mostly on the Gospels, Acts and Paul. The following is the only one in the published collection on 2 Corinthians, in this case on 2 Corinthians 3:6, and is labeled the fifteenth sermon. These sermons were published posthumously by Macmillan of London in 1893 under the title Sermons Preached in St. Paul’s. This sermon helps us better understand Lightfoot’s exegesis of that critical passage in 2 Corinthians 3. (BW3)

Appendix D: Lessons of History from the Cradle of Christianity

The original essay of Lightfoot, and indeed its later revision (see the introduction to this volume for the source history), had no title; so I have given it one based on its content. Again, credit must be given to Treloar and Kaye for finding this interesting essay in two forms, and publishing in the 1980s the later revised form in the Durham University Journal. This is the original and fuller form of the essay, complete with the original abrupt ending as Lightfoot ran out of time. I am happy to report that Professor Treloar is also convinced that we are presenting here the earlier, more original form of this essay. Here is what he has said to me in correspondence on August 16, 2014: “You are undoubtedly correct. There are clearly significant differences between the two versions, and just as clearly ‘mine’ is later than ‘yours.’ You will see that the edition published in the DUJ interpolates matter from the earlier version.” So it does, but we are presenting the whole original essay here. Treloar thinks Lightfoot revised the essay before he submitted it for the prize. To my mind this does not make sense of the ending of this first draft. If he was not submitting it “as is,” there was no need for the final apology at the end of this document. The apology clearly implies an official reader of the document. It is not a note to himself. (BW3)

See for example, Lyalls, Principles of Geology, Vol. I p. 75 of Voltaire.

See Strauss, Leben Jesu, sec. 9 (Eng. Transl).

Strauss, sec. 12.

Gfrörer, Jahrbuch des Heils, ii, p. 431, cited by Dorner, Lehre, p. 3.

See the catalogue of writers given by Giesler, Eccl. Hist. I, p. 56, (Engl. Trans.).

‘It could produce immeasurable testimonies to prove that the ancient Jews did believe these great doctrines of Christianity, the Trinity, the Incarnation of the Messiah, or son of God, and the atonement he was to make for our sins, as surely as we do at this time, and that they were instructed in them by traditions.’ Stehelin’s Rabbincal Literature, p. 11, and this sort of exaggerated language was used by many.

See Norden, Phil. 4, Series 2, Lecture XV.

The pantheistic beliefs of the Cabbalists (if they are justly charged with it), is a plant of later growth. At all events it cannot be identified with the religious beliefs of the people. See Dr. Mill, On the Pantheistic Theory, Appendix B.

See Dorner, Lehre von der Person, p. 8.

Here as so often with Lightfoot, peculiar does not mean “strange” but rather “distinctive.” (BW3)

Cf. Giesler, Vol. I, p. 39 (Eng. Trans.).

See Giesler, Eccles. Hist. Vol. I p. 37. This writer inadvertently applies to the nation at large what is said only of their leaders in two other passages which he cites—Bell. Jud. v.10.5; v.13.6.

Cited in Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. iii, Part 2, p. 313.

The conjectural reading ‘does not see’ for ‘does not interfere’ is unsupported.

Ant. xviii.1.4; Mt 22:23; Ant. xxiii.8.

See Neander, Ch. Hist. Vol. I, p. 56 (Eng. Trans.)

See Origen, as cited by Neander, p. 58 on angels etc.

See Acts 4:1; 5:7; 13:7, 8. They probably acted not without the connivance of the Pharisees—see Ant. xviii.1.4—προσχωροῦσι δ᾽ οὖν οἷς ὁ Φαρισαῖος λέγει διὰ τὸ μὴ ἄλλως ἀνεκτοὺς γενέσθαι τοῖς πλήθεσιν. The conduct of St. Paul is related. Acts 23:7, 8 has been severely censured, perhaps somewhat hastily, for as regards the Sadducees, his cause was one with the Pharisees. He had much in common with the latter, but Sadduceeanism was directly antagonistic to both.

N.B. Neander adopts the account of Josephus.

See Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Vol. iii, Part ii, p. 342.

Strauss no. 43, himself rejects the notion of any connection of Christianity with either the Sadducees or the Pharisees. How he speaks of the Essenes we shall see below.

Cited by Neander, Ch. Hist, I, p 59 (Eng. Trans).

Philo’s account of their observance of the Sabbath suppresses the disagreeable features (p. 45D M). Of the Essenes’ observance of Easter see Wiesner, Chronologie.

There are scattered notions in Josephus of the Essenes making predictions e.g., xvii.12.3; xiii.2.2; cf. Bell. Jud. i.3.4.

Strauss, Life of Jesus, no. 43. After a merciless exposure of those who had found in Essenism a key to all the peculiarities of the Gospel, and discussing other supposed influences he sums up by saying ‘for the reformation of the world, these elements were all too little, and the leaven necessary for this he must obtain “from the depths of his own mind.”’

See de Cant. f. 699, cited by Neander, Ch. Hist. I, p.72.

Ewald, Gesch. des. V., iii, pt. 2, p. 297.

See Neander, Ch. Hist. I p. 82sqq. We are only speaking here of the more earnest-minded of the Alexandrian Jews.

For the passages of Philo cited herein I am indebted chiefly to Ritter and Preller, Hist: Phil. Graeco-Rom, para. 477sqq.; Keil’s Op. p. 572sqq.; Casar Morgan on Tim. of Plato, but especially Dorner, Lehre von der Person, p.21sqq.

R+P [Ritter and Preller], p. 552. I have translated λόγος throughout as ‘word’ as the ordinary though inadequate translation.

Elsewhere he makes several subdivisions of the λόγος e.g. the creative, the regal, mercy, legislative etc. (de Prob. Vol. I, p. 560; III, p. 130 Lipsius).

cf. Plato Tim. par. 28, cf. Morgan, p. 71-72.

It is said that if you deny the personality of the Logos, then you must of angels as well, for similar language is used of them. The answer is obvious. If the Logos is a distinct person, the angels or inferior powers cannot be so, for the Logos is the synthesis of these. Perhaps Philo considered the angels not as persons but as emanations.

A passage of Pindar (Pylt.[??] (or Parth.??) iii.50) will perhaps show how readily language approaches to a personification when nothing even so concrete as an emanation is intended.

There are good remarks on the Logos doctrine and its connection with the Incarnation in Bunsen, Hippolyt. I, p. 355sq.

Neander, Hist. of Pla. Vol. ii, pp. 13-14. Cf. Heb 4:12 with Philo, Quis rerum divinarum par. 26.

On which see the detailed discussion of the Logos in volume two of the Lightfoot Legacy series, which contains Lightfoot’s John commentary. (BW3)

See Neander, Ch. Hist. I, p. 77. This was also the tendency of the Christian Fathers of Alexandria, especially Origen, Comm. on John I par. 4, and other passages collected by Strauss Life of Jesus, par. 4.

Here and below see Maurice, Moral and Metaphysical Phil. p. 236.

See passages in Gfrörer, Jahrhundert des Heils xxiv. I, p. 29sq.

Gfrörer, ibid., p. 307.

Gfrörer, ibid., p. 304.

Gfrörer, ibid., p. 318.

See B. T. Berakoth, in Gfrörer, Jahrhundert des Heils, ii, p. 219 where other passages are cited.

Gfrörer, Jahrh. des Heils, vol. ii, c. x has the fourfold classification: 1) the common prophetic type; 2) the Danielic type; 3) the Mosaic type; 4) the Mystico-Mosaic type, but these classes do not seem to exclude each other.

See Gfrörer, ii, pp. 219, 220.

Gfrörer, ii, p. 224 sqq.

See Gfrörer, ii. p. 238 sqq. a passage from the Zohar, including reflections on Behemoth and Leviathan.

They ascertained this from the letters in the name אָדָם—i.e. Adam, David, Messiah. There is a curious story witnessed in some of the Apocryphal Gospels for the sake of giving importance to the Cabbalistic letters. See Evang. Thomas. c.vi.xiv (and Philo in loc.).

See Schliemann, Die Clementines p. 500sqq.

There can be no reasonable doubt that Justin fairly represents his Jewish adversary. It would be suicidal not to do so. Cf. B. L. Kays, on Justin Martyr p. 25sqq.

Neander, Life of Christ, p. 15 (Eng. Trans.) and the note. We may add that the fact of the existence of the narrative of the miraculous conception in one recension of the Gospel of the Hebrews proves its genuineness, while its omission in another testifies to its repugnance to Jewish notions.

παρθένος (LXX), the Jewish translators Theodotion and Aquila have νεανίς, so also Symmachus, an Ebionite. See Schliemann p. 477, Dialogue with Trypho p. 266C sq., p. 310C sqq., p. 291A sq.

See Dial. with Trypho p. 226B, cf. Berthold, Christologie, no. 15. The language of Justin in combatting the Jew and Gentile respectively is an instructive commentary on St. Paul’s words ‘to the Jews a stumbling block, to the Gentiles foolishness.’

Berthold, Christologie, no. 17.

Berthold no. 32 attempts to show the opposite.

See Strauss, sec. 148.

i.e. ‘God wishes both Jews and Christians to be neither Jews nor Christians.’

We may add the denial of the Apostleship of St. Paul. See Epiphanius loc. Cit. and Eusebius, Hist Eccl. iii.26.

As Eusebius l.c., and Origen, contra Celsum v.61. I must once for all acknowledge my obligation to Schliemann, Die Clement. from whom most of my information about the Ebionites is taken.

After Neander, Vol. I, p. 493. No historical connection is necessarily implied by the use of these terms.

The reference is taken from Bunsen.

On the doctrines of Hermas as opposed to the Ebionites, see Dorner, Lehre, pp. 195sqq. The passages from Hermas in the text are taken directly from Schliemann.

See Coleridge, Aids and Reflections.

There can be little doubt that: 1) James, the bishop of Jerusalem, was the Lord’s brother. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii.23 in addition to the passages of the New Testament; and 2) that James the writer of this Epistle is the bishop of Jerusalem, for he evidently writes as one in authority. The question of his apostleship and of the meaning of the expression ‘brother of the Lord’ are ulterior to this.

The view here taken is that of Neander, Plant. I, p.358; Ch. Hist. I, p. 47; cf. Davidson Intro.

Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii.23.

So Neander, Plant. i. p. 354; Giesler, p. 73; cf. Baumgarten on Acts, I, pp. 176-77, and the authorities he cites.

We could not demand a more distinct affirmation of the Logos doctrine of St. John. See also Mt 10:32.

Thiersch has carried out the idea in Versuch zur Herstellung.

See Wilson, New Testament, p. 144.

See Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv.22, and then Eusebius iv.5 for his own comment.

See Schliemann, p. 553.

Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii.32 with Hegesippus in Eusebius iv.22. The statement in the text appears to reconcile the chronological difficulties.

E.g., Gfrörer. Strauss sec. 43, on the other hand gives the silence as an argument against the connection.

The Ebionite recension of the Hebrew Gospel read ἐγκρίδος for ἀκρίδος. See Gardner [?] Beiträge, Vol. i.

On the relation of the Essenes to the orthodox Jews see Josephus, Ant. xviii.1.5.

Appendix E: The Christian Ministry

What began as a modest-sized but helpful essay on the Christian ministry in Lightfoot’s commentary on Philippians turned into a major treatise as again and again Lightfoot was asked to explain his views on the ministry, including (1) the episcopacy especially and (2) the priesthood of all believers, with some even accusing him of taking an “un-Anglican” view on such matters. Lightfoot, however, was a meticulously careful historian, honest to a fault about the varied evidences on most any given subject that come to us from “hoary antiquity.” Since 2 Corinthians and 1 Peter are documents in which the questions of the apostolic office, of who are “apostles of churches,” of what it means to be a true ambassador for Christ, and most especially of what is the priesthood of all believers are raised again and again (though without being given full answers in those sacred texts), it seemed appropriate to reprint here the very final form that the essay on Christian ministry took, including the later qualifications Lightfoot made to it. This essay with additions was published separately in 1901 by Macmillan of London and has since gone out of print and into the public domain. The following is taken from that publication and that edition. It is interesting that the very last scholarly activity B. F. Westcott, Lightfoot’s mentor and longtime friend (and fellow bishop of Durham), undertook before he died was to work carefully through this essay, checking, editing and pronouncing it fit for publication. He saw it as one of Lightfoot’s most important pieces of work. (BW3)

1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6. The commentator Hilary has expressed this with much distinctness ‘in lege nascebantur sacerdotes et generes Aaron Levitate: nunc autem omnes ex genere sunt sacerdotali, dicente Petro Apostolo, Quia estis genus regale et lege nascebantur sacerdotes ex sacerdotale etc’ (Ambrosiaster on Eph 4:12). The whole passage, to which I shall have occasion to refer again, contains a singularly appreciative account of the relation of the ministry to the congregation.

The origin of the Christian ministry is ably investigated in Rothe’s Anfange der Christhchen Kirche etc. (1837), and Ritschl’s Entstehung der Alt-katholischen Kirche (2nd ed. 1857). These are the most important of the more recent works on the subject with which I am acquainted, and to both of them I wish to acknowledge my obligations, though in many respects I have arrived at results different from either.

So for instance Vitringa de Synag. iii. 2. 5, p. 928 sq., and Mosheim de Reb. Christ, p. 119, followed by many later writers.

This inference is far from certain however, since many Hebrews bore Greek names, e.g. the Apostles Andrews and Philip.

It is maintained by Vitringa, iii.2.5 p. 920sq. that the office of the Seven was different from the later diaconate. He quotes Chrysostom Hom. xiv (ix. p. 115, ed. Montf.) and Can. 10 of the Quinisextine Council (comp. p. 146 note 2) as favoring his view. With strange perversity Böhner (Diss. Jur. Eccl. p. 349 sq.) supposes them to be presbyters, and this account has been adopted even by Ritschl, p. 355sq. According to another view, the office of the Seven branched out into the two later orders of the diaconate and the presebyterate, Lange, Apost. Zeit. II.i, p. 75.

In the middle of the third century, when Cornelius writes to Fabius, Rome has 46 presbyters but only seven deacons (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi.43). See Routh’s Rel. Sacr. iii. p. 23 with his note p. 61. Even in the fourth and fifth centuries, the number of Roman deacons remained constant. See Ambrosiaster on 1 Tim 3:13, Sozom. viii.19.

Concil. Neocaes. c. 14 (Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. p. 185). See Bingham, Antiq. ii. 20. 19. At the Quinisextine or 2nd Trullan council (A.D. 692) this Neocaesarean canon was refuted and rejected. See Hefele, Consiliengesch. III, p. 304 and Vitringa, p. 922.

See Bingham, iii.1.3.

Acts 5:6, 10; Mosheim, de Reb. Christ. p. 114.

Vitringa (iii. 2. 4, p. 914 sq., iii. 2. 22, p. 1130 sq.) derives the Christian deacon from the Chazan of the synagogue. Among other objections to this view, the fact that as a rule there was only one Chazan to each synagogue must not be overlooked.

ὑπηρέτῃς—Luke 4:20

It is stated that there was not less than 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. The number is doubtless greatly exaggerated but it must have been very considerable. See Vitringa, prol. 4, p. 28 and i.1.14, p. 253.

James 2:2; Epiphanius xxx.18, p. 142; See also Jerome, Epist. cxii. 13—‘per tota orientis synagogus’ speaking of the Nazaraens, though his meaning is not altogether clear. Cf. Test. XII Patr. Benj. 11.

See Lightfoot Legacy volume one on Stephen in Acts 7. (BW3)

See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 124 on the sequence of events at this time.

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 96sq.

The evidence however is slight; see Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 95, note 2. Some light is shown on this subject by the fact that the Roman government seems first to have recognized the Christian brotherhoods in their corporate capacity as burial clubs. See de Rossi, Sotterr. I, p. 371.

On these clubs and fraternities see Renan, Les Apotres, p. 351sq. comp. Saint Paul, p. 239.

Other more general designations in the New Testament are οἱ προϊσταμένοι (1 Thess 5:12; Rom 12:8 com. 1 Tim 5:17); or οἱ ἡγουμένοι (Heb 13:7, 17, 24). For the former comp. Hermas, Vis. ii.4, Justin, Apol. i.67; for the latter Clement, Rom. 1, 21 Hermas, Vis. ii.2, iii.9.

Eph 4:11—τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους. For the former term applied to the ἐπισκόπος or πρεσβυτέρος see Acts 15:28; 1 Pet 5:2; comp. 1 Pet 2:25.

1 Tim 5:17—μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. At a much later date we read of ‘presbyteri doctors,’ whence it may perhaps be inferred that even then the work of teaching was not absolutely indispensable to the presbyteral office. See Act. Perpet. et Felic. 13; Cyprian, Epistl. 29. see Ritschl p. 352.

The principle of lay or ruling elders, and ministers proper or teaching elders, was laid down by Calvin and has been adopted as the constitution of several Presbyterian Churches. This interpretation of St Paul’s language is refuted by Rothe p. 224, Ritschl p. 352sq., and Schaff, Hist, of Apost. Ch. II. p. 312, besides older writers such as Vitringa and Mosheim.

Making the claim based on 1 Tim 3:1, but it says οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν. See also his note on Phil 1:1. See Wordsworth, Theop. Angl. C. x; Blunt, First Three Centuries, p. 81; Theodoret, as usual, has borrowed from Theodore of Mopsuestia on 1 Tim 3:1 (Raban Maur. vi. p.604D, ed. Migne). Theodore however makes a distinction between the two offices. Nor does he, like Theodoret misinterpret Phil 2:25. The commentator Hilary, also on Eph 4:11 says ‘apostoli episcopi sunt.’

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 123.

See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 95, note 3.

A parallel instance from Athenian institutions will illustrate this usage. The ἐπίστατης was chairman of a body of ten (πρόενδροι, Thuc. vi. 14) who themselves were appointed in turn by lot from a larger body of fifty (πρυτάνις). Yet we find the ἐπίστατης not only designated πρυτανις par excellence, (Demosth. Timocr. par. 157) but even addressed by this name in the presence of the other πρόενδροι (Thucy. vi.4).

Acts 15:13 sq. St. James speaks last and apparently with some degree of authority (ἐγὼ κρίνω—Acts 15:19). The decree is clearly framed on his recommendations, and some indecisive coincidences of style with his Epistle have been pointed out.

Apostl. Constitut. vii.46; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii.4.

See for instance among recent writers Thiersch, Gesch. der Apost. Kirche, p. 278, Trench, Epistles to the Seven Churches, p. 47 sq. with others. This explanation is as old as the earliest commentators. Rothe supposes that the word ‘angel’ anticipates the establishment of episcopacy, being a kind of prophetic symbol, p. 423 sq. Others again take the angel to designate the collective ministry, i.e. the whole body of priests and deacons. For various explanations see Schaff, Hist. of Apost. Ch. II. p. 223.

Rothe (p. 426) supposes that Diotrephes (3 John 9) was a bishop. This cannot be pronounced impossible, but the language is far too indefinite to encourage such an inference. It is conceivable indeed that a bishop or chief pastor should be called an angel or messenger of God or of Christ (comp. Hag 1:13; Mal 2:7), but he would hardly be styled an angel of the church over which he presides. See the parallel case of ἀπόστολος above. Vitringa (ii. 9, p. 550), and others after him, explain ἄγγελος in the Apocalypse by the ‘shaliach’ (שלח), the messenger or deputy of the synagogue. These however were only inferior officers, and could not be compared to stars or made responsible for the well-being of the churches; see Rothe p. 504.

Rev 2:20. τὴν γυναῖκά σου Ἰεζάβελ. The word σου should probably be retained or at least, if not a correct reading, it seems to be a correct gloss.

The date of the Pastoral Epistles may be as late as A.D. 66 or 67, while the Apocalypse, on this hypothesis, was written not later than A.D. 70.

See Rothe’s Anfange etc. pp. 354-392. Rothe’s account of the origin of episcopacy is assailed (on grounds in many respects differing from those I have urged) by Baur, Ursprung des Episcopats p. 39sq., and Ritschl p. 410 sq.

Papias in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii.39. Polycrates and Caius in Hist. Eccles. iii.31.

Muratorian Canon (circ. 170 A.D.), Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. p. 394.

Besides the evidence that I have stated and discussed in the text, Rothe also brings forward a fragment of the Praedicatio Pauli (preserved in the tract de Baptismo Haereticorum, which is included among Cyprian’s works, app. p. 30, ed. Fell; see p. 111), where the writer mentions a meeting of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. The main question however is so little affected thereby, that I have not thought it necessary to investigate the value and bearing of this fragment.

Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 1.

According to the tradition reported by Origen in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii.1.

One of the Pfaffian fragments no. 38, p. 854 in Stieren’s edition of Irenaeus.

Clement of Rome para. 44. The interpretation of the passage depends on the interpretation of the ‘they’ in the phrase ‘after they fall asleep.’ See my notes on the passage.

A much more explicit though somewhat later authority may be quoted in favour of his view. The Ambrosian Hilary on Eph 4:12, speaking of the change from the presbyteral to the episcopal form of government, says ‘immutata est ratio, prospiciente concilio ut non ordo etc.’ If the read be correct, I suppose he was thinking of the Apostolic Constitutions. See also the expression of St. Jerome on Tit 1:5—‘in toto orbe decretum est.’

The controversial treatise on either side are printed in Stieren’s Irenaeus ii. p. 381 sq. the ms. It is sufficient here to state that shortly after the transcription by Pfafif, the Turin ms. from which they were taken disappeared; so that there was no means of testing the accuracy of the transcriber or ascertaining the character of the ms.

The expression αἱ δευτέραι τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεις closely resembles the language of these Constitutions. See Hippolytus p. 74, 82 (Laguarde).

See Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 97-98.

The right reading is probably ἐπιμόνην. See the notes on the passage.

On Titus 1:5 (vii, p. 694 ed. Vall.).

Epistl. cxlvi ad Evang. (i. p. 1080).

The Ambrosian Hilary on Eph 4:12 seems to say that the senior member was president; but this may be mere conjecture. The constitution of the synagogue does not aid materially in setthng this question. In the New Testament at all events ἀρχισυνάγωγος is only another name for an elder of the synagogue (Mark 5:22; Acts 13:15, 18:8, 17; comp. Justin Dial. c. Tryph. § 137), and therefore corresponds not to the bishop but to the presbyter of the Christian Church. Sometimes however ἀρχισυνάγωγος appears to denote the president of the council of elders. See Vitringa, II, p. 586sq. III, 1.p. 610 sq. The opinions of Vitringa however must be received with caution, as his tendency to press the resemblance between the government of the Jewish synagogue and the Christian Church is strong. The real likeness consists in the council of presbyters. But the threefold order of the Christian ministry seems to have no counterpart in the synagogue.

The expression ‘Catholic Church’ is found first in the Ignatian letter to the Smyrneans par. 8. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp it occurs several times par. 8, 16, 19. On its meaning see Westcott, Canon, p. 28 note (4th edition).

Hegesipp. in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. ii. 23, iv. 22; Clem. Hom. xi.35, Ep. Petr. init., and Ep. Clem. init.; Clem. Recogn. i. 43, 68, 73; Clem. Alex, in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. ii. 1; Const. Apost. v. 8, vi. 14.

Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv.22.

Hist. Eccles. iv.5. suggests. The episcopate of Justus, the successor of Symeon, commences about A.D. 108: that of Marcus, the first Gentile bishop, A.D. 136. Thus thirteen bishops occupy only about twenty-eight years. Even after the foundation of Aelia Capitolina the succession is very rapid. In the period from Marcus (A.D. 136) to Narcissus (A.D. 190) we count fifteen bishops. The repetition of the same names however suggests that some conflict was going on during this interval.

Parallels nevertheless can be found in the annals of the papacy. Thus from A.D. 882 to A.D. 904 there were thirteen popes, and in other times of trouble the succession has been almost as rapid.

This may be inferred from a comparison of Hist. Eccles. iv. 5 to v.12. His information was probably taken from a list kept at Jerusalem; but the case of the spurious correspondence with Abgarus preserved in the archives of Edessa (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 11) shows how treacherous such sources of information were.

Narcissus who became bishop in A.D. 190, might well have preserved the memory of much earlier times. His successor Alexander, in whose favor he resigned in A.D. 214, speaks of him as still living as the advanced age of 116 (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi.11).

Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v.25.

Clem. Hom. iii. 68 sq. (Caesarea) vii. 5 (Tyre), vii. 12 (Berytus), xi. 36 (Tripolis), xx.23 (Laodicea), comp. Clem. Recogn. iii.65, 66, vii. 8 74, vi.15, x.68.

Const. Apost. vii.46, Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii.22.

E.g. Polycarp 6. I single out this passage from several that might be alleged because it is found in Syriac.

Hist. Eccles. iii.36.

Hist. Eccles. iv.20.

Clem. Hom. iii.62.

Clem. Hom. iii.62, 66, 70.

Ancient Syriac Documents (ed. Cureton), The Doctrine of Addai has recently been published complete by Dr Phillips, London, 1876. This document at all events must be old for it was found by Eusebius in the archives of Edessa (Hist. Eccles. i.13); but it abounds in gross anachronisms and probably is not earlier than the middle of the third century; see Zahn, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1877, p. 161sq.

See for instance pp. 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 35, 42, 71 (Cureton). The succession to the priesthood is conferred by ‘the Hand of the Priesthood’ through the Apostles who received it from our Lord, and is derived ultimately from Moses and Aaron (p. 24).

Muratorian Fragment, Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. p. 394. Irenaeus too, whose experience was drawn chiefly from Asia Minor, more than once speaks of bishops appointed by the Apostles, iii.3.1 and v. 20.1.

Polyc. inscr. Ephes. 1.

Polyc. Phil. init.

Irenaeus, iii.3.4; cf. Tertullian, de Praescr. 32.

In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v.24.

Martyr. Polyc. 16. Polycarp is called ‘bishop of Smyrna’ also in Martyr. Ignat. Ant. 3.

Magnes. 2.

Trall. 1.

Phil. 1.

On the authority of his contemporary Melito in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv.26; See Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 63.

Polycrates in Eusebius Hist. Eccles. v.24. Melito’s office may be inferred in the contrast implied by Eusebius calling him ‘Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate (ἐπίσκοπην) from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?’

[Tertullian] ad omnes. haers. 6.

Hist. Eccles. v.16. As Apamea on the Meander is mentioned at the end of the chapter, probably this is the place meant.

Tertullian, de praescens. 37

On Rom 16:23—‘fertur sane traditione majoram’ (iv. p. 86, ed. Delarue).

At little further down he speaks of ἕκαστη διαδοχή, referring apparently to Corinth among the churches.

Hegesippus mentioned the feuds in the Church of Corinth during the reign of Domitian, that had occasioned the writing of this letter (Hist. Eccles. iii. 16), and then after some account of Clement’s epistle (in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 22). On the probable tenor of Hegesippus’ work, see below.

The fragments of Dionysius are found in Hist. Eccles. iv.23, see also Routh, Rel Sacr. I, p. 177sq.

The combination of three Gentile names in ‘Aelius Publius Julius’ is possible at this late epoch, but, being a gross violation of Roman usage, suggests the suspicion that the signatures of three distinct persons have got confused. The error, if error it be, does not affect the inference in the text.

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 20sq.

See St. Clement of Rome, p. 252 sq. Appendix (and Apostolic Fathers, Part i. S. Clement of Rome I, p. 69sq).

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p.26sq.

For the forms of the titles here see my note on Ignatius, Ephes. iii.

So Ritschl, p. 403, 535.

Comp. Matt 23:6 etc. When Irenaeus wrote, episcopacy was certainly a venerable institution, yet his language closely resembles the reproachful expressions of Hermas. ‘Contumelis agunt reliquos et principalis consessionis tumore elate sunt.’ (iv.26.3).

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 168, note 9 and St. Clement of Rome p. 316, Appendix [Apostolic Fathers Part I, St. Clement of Rome I, p. 359sq.].

[It is probably preserved in Epiphanius, see Apostolic Fathers Part I. St. Clement of Rome, I, p.327sq.] N.B. It is difficult to tell whether the square bracket notes are from Lightfoot correcting some of his earlier views as here, or later notices from Westcott, the final editor of this edition of ‘The Christian Ministry.’ It would appear to be the latter. (BW3)

On this subject see Pearson’s Dissertationes duae de serie et successione primoriim Romae episcoporum in his Minor Theological Works II, p. 296 sq. (ed. Churton), and especially the recent work of Lipsius, Chronologie der romischen Bischofe, Kiel 1869. The earliest list which places Clement’s name first belongs to the age of Hippolytus. The omission of his name in a recently discovered Syriac list (Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 71) is doubtless due to the fact that the names Cletus and Clemens begin with the same letters. I have for convenience given the dates of the Roman bishops from the Hist. Eccles. of Eusebius without however attaching any weight to them in the case of the earlier names. See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 169 [and Apostolic Fathers, I, Part I, Clement of Rome, I, p. 201sq].

Ewald, Gesch. des V. I. vii, p. 321 sq. On the other hand, see Zeller, Philos. der Griechen III. 1, p. 601 note, and Sanger in the Judische Zeitschrift (1867), p. 29 sq. It has recently been edited by Gildemeister, Sextus Sententiae, 1873.

Irenaeus iii.3.3. At least Irenaeus mentions him alone as a martyr. Later stories convey the glory of martyrdom on others also.

Irenaeus iii.4.3.

See Lightfoot, Philippians p. 168, note 9, where the passage is quoted.

See Westcott, Canon p. 191.

Hegesippus in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv.23.

See Irenaeus, in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v.24.

Irenaeus iii. 3.4; comp. iii.4.4.

In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv.23.

He is mentioned by both Irenaeus iii.3.3 and Tertullian, de Praescens. 30 ‘sub episcopate Eleutheri benedicti.’

Irenaeus iii.3.2; Tertullian, de Praescens. 32, 36; adv. Marc. iv.5.

All the predecessors of Victor bear Greek names with two exceptions, Clemens and Pius; and even these appear not to have been Latin. Clement writes in Greek, and his style is wholly unlike what might be expected from a Roman. Hermas, the brother of Pius, not only employs the Greek language in writing, but bears a Greek name also. It is worth observing also that Tertullian (de Praescr. 30), speaking of the episcopate of Eleutherus, designates the church of the metropolis not ‘ecclesia Romana,’ but ‘ecclesia Romanensis,’ i.e. not the Church of Rome, but the Church in Rome. The transition from a Greek to a Latin Church was of course gradual; but, if a definite epoch must be named, the episcopate of Victor serves better than any other. The two immediate successors of Victor, Zephyrinus (202–219) and Callistus (219–223), bear Greek names, and it may be inferred from the account in Hippolytus that they were Greeks; but from this time forward the Roman bishops, with scarcely an exception, seem to have been Latins.

Hippolytus, Haer. ix. 12, pp. 287, 288.

See the account of his attitude in the Paschal controversy in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v.24.

Tertullian, de Pudic. i. The bishop here mentioned will be either Victor or Zephyrinus; the passage points to the assumption of extraordinary titles by the Roman bishops about this time. See also Cyprian in the opening of the Council of Carthage (Counc. Carth, p. 158, ed. Fell) ‘neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit’ etc. doubtless in allusion to the arrogance of the Roman prelates.

Cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v.1.

At the African council convoked by Cyprian about 50 years later, the opinions of as many as 87 bishops are recorded; and allusion is made in one of his letters (Epist. 59) to a council held before his time, when 90 bishops assembled. For a list canonical and uncanonical of the African bishoprics at this time see Munter, Primord. Eccl. Afric. p. 31 sq. The enormous number of African bishops a few centuries later would seem incredible, were it not reported on the best authority. Dupin (Optat. Milev. p. lix) counts up as many as 690 African sees; compare also the Notitia in Runart’s Victor Vitensis, p. 117sq. These last references I owe to Gibbon, c. xxxvii and c.xli.

Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii.24; iii.14, etc. See Clinton’s Fasti Romani, II, p. 544.

Independently of the tradition relating to St. Mark, this may be inferred from canonical and uncanonical writings that appear to have emanated from Alexandria. The Epistle to the Hebrews, even if we may not ascribe it to that learned Alexandrian Apollos (Acts 23:24) at least bears obvious marks of Alexandrian culture. The so-called Epistle to Barnabas again, which may have been written as early as the reign of Vespasian, and can hardly date later than Nerva, must be referred to the Alexandrian school of theology.

Preserved in Vopiscus, Vit. Saturn. 8. The Jewish patriarch (who resided at Tiberias) is doubtless intended; for it would be no hardship to the Christian bishop of Alexandria to be ‘compelled to worship Christ.’ Otherwise, the anachronism involved in such a title would alone have sufficed to condemn the letter as spurious. Yet Salamacius Casabon and the older commentators generally, agree in the supposition that the bishop of Alexandria is styled patriarch here. The manner in which the document is stated by Vopiscus to have been preserved (‘Hadriani epistolam ex libriis Phlegontis liberti ejus proditam’) is favorable to its genuineness; nor does the mention of Verus as the Emperor’s ‘son’ in another part of this letter present any real chronological difficulty. Hadrian paid his visit to Egypt in the autumn of 130, but the letter is not stated to have been written there. The date of the third consulship of Servianus is A.D. 134, and the account of Spartianus (Ver. 3) easily admits of the adoption of Verus before or during this year, though Clinton (Fast. Rom. i. p. 124) places it as late as A.D. 135. Gregorovius (Kaiser Hadrian p. 71) suggests that ‘filium meum’ may have been added by Phlegon or by someone else. The prominence of the Christians in this letter is not surprising when we remember how Hadrian interested himself in their tenets on another occasion (at Athens). This document is considered genuine by such opposite authorities as Tillemont (Hist. des Emp. ii. p. 265) and Gregorovius (i.e. p. 41), and may be accepted without hesitation.

At this time there appears to have been only one bishop in Egypt (see below). But Hadrian, who would have heard of numerous bishops elsewhere, and perhaps had no very precise knowledge of the Egyptian Church, might well indulge in this rhetorical flourish. At all events he seems to mean different offices when speaking of the bishop and the presbyter.

Strom. vii.i (p. 830, Potter).

Strom. vi.13 (p. 793) cf. Strom. iii.12, Paed. iii.12 (see the next note); see Kaye’s Clement of Alexandria p. 463 sq.

Yet in one passage he, like Irenaeus (see Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 98), betrays his ignorance that in the language of the New Testament, bishop and presbyter are synonyms. See Paed. Iii.12.

In this sketch of the episcopate, in the different churches, I have not thought it necessary to carry the list later than the second century, nor (except in a very few cases), has any testimony been accepted, unless the writer flourished before the close of this century. The Apostolic Constitutions would add several names to the list; but this evidence is not trustworthy, though in many cases, the statements doubtless rested on some traditional basis.

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 98. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria.

Irenaeus iii.2.2.

Irenaeus iii.3.1.

Irenaeus iii.3.2-3.

Irenaeus iv. 26.2-5.

In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 24. In other places Irenaeus apparently uses πρεσβύτεροι to denote antiquity and not office, as in the letter to Florinus, Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 20 (comp. ii. 22. 5); in which sense the word occurs also in Papias (Euseb. Hist Eccles. iii.39; see Contemporary Review, Aug. 1875, p. 379sq. [Essays on Supernatural Religion p. 143 sq.]); but the passages quoted in the text decisive, nor is there any reason (as Rothe assumes, p. 414 sq.) why the usage of Irenaeus should throughout be uniform.

See the anecdote of St. John in Quis div. salv. 42 p. 959 which shows that he too, like Irenaeus, regards the bishop as a presbyter, though the converse would not be true.

Ambrosiaster on 1 Tim 3:10.

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 98.

On Titus 1:5 (vii, p. 696).

So for instance Cyprian, Epistle 14 writes ‘compresbyteri nostri Donatus et Fortunatus,’ and addressing Cornelius bishop of Rome (Epist. 45) he says, ‘cum ad me talia de te et compresbyteris tecum considentibus scripta venissent.’ Compare also Epist. 44, 45, 71, 76. Augustine writes to Jerome in the same terms, and in fact this seems to have been the recognized form of address. See the Quaest. Vet. Et Novi Test. ci (in Augustine Op. iii P.2, p. 93). ‘Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos? Denique non aliter quam compresbyteros hic vocat et consacerdotes suos. Numquid et ministros condiaconos suos dicit episcopus’ where the writer is arguing against the arrogance of the Roman deacons. See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 96.

See the references collected by Giesler, i. p. 105.

Epist. cxlvi. ad Evangel. (i. p. 1082).

Ambrosiast. on Eph 4:12. So too in the Quaest. Vet. Et Novo Test. ci (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine), August. Op. III, P. 2, p. 93 ‘Nam in Alexandria et per totam Aegyptum si desit episcopus consecrate (v.1 consignat) presbyter.’

Eutychii Patr. Alexandr. Annales i. p. 331 (Pococke, Oxon. 1656). The inferences in the text are resisted by Abraham Ecchellensis Eutychius vindicatus p. 22 sq. (in answer to Selden the translator of Eutychius), and by Le Quien, Oriens Christianus ii. p. 342, who urge all that can be said on the opposite side. The authority of a writer so inaccurate as Eutychius, if it had been unsupported, would have had no weight; but, as we have seen, this is not the case.

Between Dionysius and Alexander four bishops of Alexandria intervene, Maximus (A.D. 265), Theonas (A.D. 283), Peter I. (A.D. 301), and Achillas (A.D. 312). It will therefore be seen that there is a considerable discrepancy between the accounts of Jerome and Eutychius as to the time when the change was effected. But we may reasonably conjecture (with Ritschl, p. 432) that the transition from the old state of things to the new would be the result of a prolonged conflict between the Alexandrian presbytery who had hitherto held these functions, and the bishops of the recently created Egyptian sees to whom it was proposed to transfer them. Somewhat later one Ischyras was deprived of his orders by an Alexandrian synod, because he had been ordained by a presbyter only: Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 75 (i. p. 152). From this time, at all events, the Alexandrian Church insisted as strictly as any other on episcopal ordination.

Eutych. Ann. 1. c. p. 332. Heraclas, we are informed on the same authority (p. 335), was the first Alexandrian prelate who bore the title of patriarch, this designation being equivalent to metropolitan or bishop of bishops.

Council Ancrya. can. l3 (See Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. p. 121). The various readings and interpretations of this canon will be found in Routh’s note. On the former p. 144 sq. Routh himself reads ‘but on the one hand much less city elders’ making the πρεσβύτερος πόλεως object of χειρότονειν, but to this there is a twofold objection: (1) he necessarily understands the former πρεσβύτερους to mean πρεσβύτερους χώρας though this is not expressed: (2) he interprets ‘much less,’ in a sense which seems to exclude and which is not borne out by his examples. The name and office of the ‘country-bishop’ appear to be a relic of the time when ‘bishop’ and ‘presebyter’ were synonyms. While the large cities had their college of presbyters, for the villages a single πρεσβύτερος would suffice; but from his isolated position he would be tempted, even if he were not obliged, to perform on his own responsibility certain acta which in the city would only be performed by the bishop properly so called, or at least would not be performed without his consent. Out of this position the office of the latter would gradually be developed; but the rate of progression would not be uniform, and the regulations affecting it would be determined by the circumstances of the particular locality. Hence, at a later date, it seems in some places to have been presbyteral, in others episcopal. In the Ancyran canon just cited a ‘chorepiscopus’ is evidently placed below the city presbytery; but in other notices he occupies a higher position. For the conflicting accounts of the ‘country-bishop’ see Bingham ii. xiv. Baur’s account of the origin of the episcopate supposes that each Christian congregation was presided over, not by a college of presbyters, but by a single πρεσβύτερος or ἐπίσκοπος, i.e. that the constitution of the Church was from the first monarchical: see Pastoralbriefe p. 81 sq., Ursprung des Episcopats p. 84 sq. This view is inconsistent alike with the analogy of the synagogue and with the notices in the apostolic and early ecclesiastical writings. But the practice which he considers to have been the general rule would probably hold in small country congregations, where a college of presbyters would be unnecessary as well as impossible.

St Jerome himself (Epist. cxlvi.), in the context of the passage in which he maintains the identity of the two orders and alleges the tradition of the Alexandrian Church (see above), adds, ‘Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus quod presbyter non faciat?’ So also Const. Apost. viii. 28; Chrysost. Hom. xi. on 1 Tim 3:8. See Bingham ii. iii. 5, 6, 7, for other references.

Haer. Ixxv.3; comp. Augustine, Haer. § 53. See Wordsworth, Theoph. Angl. c.x.

In the earlier editions of this work, I assumed that the Syriac Version published by Cureton represented the Epistles of Ignatius in their original form. I am now convinced that this is only an abridgment and that the shorter Greek form is genuine; but for the sake of argument, I have kept the two apart in the text. I hope before long to give reasons for this change of opinion in my edition of this father [see Additional Note C, below].

Polyc. 5.5, Magn. 13, Trall. 3, 7, Philad. 4, 7, Smyrn. 8, 12.

Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. 2, 6, Trall. 13.

The word πρεσβύτεριον which occurs in 1 Tim 4:14, is very frequent in the Ignatian Epistles.

In Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv.22.

The influence of Cyprian on the episcopate is ably stated in two vigorous articles by Kayser entitled Cyprien ou l’Autonomie de l’Episcopat in Revue de Theologie xv. pp. 138 sq., 242 sq. (1857). See also Rettberg, Thascius Cacilius Cyprianus p. 367 sq., Huther, Cyprian’s Lehre von der Kirche p. 59 sq. For Cyprian’s work generally see Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biogr. s.v.

The intricacy of the whole proceeding is a strong evidence of the genuineness of the letters and other documents that contain the account of the controversy. The situations of antagonists, varying and even interchanged with the change of circumstances, are very natural, but very unlike the invention of a forger who has a distinct side to maintain.

De Unit. Eccl. 2: ‘Quam unitatem firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus maxime episcopi qui in ecclesia praesidemus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus’ and again ‘Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, ecclesia quoque una est etc.’ So again he argues (Epist. 43) that, as there is one Church, there must be only ‘unum altare et unum sacerdotium (i.e. one episcopate).’ Comp. also Epist. 46, 55, 67.

Epist. 66: ‘Scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo, et si quis cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse’; Epist. 33: ‘Ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur.’ Hence the expression ‘nec episcopum nec ecclesiam cogitans,’ (Epist. 41); hence also ‘honor episcopi’ is associated not only with ‘ecclesiae ratio’ (Epist. 33) even with ‘timor Dei’ (Epist. 15). Compare also the language (Epist. 59): ‘Nec ecclesia istic cuiquam clauditur nec episcopus alicui denegatur,’ and again (Epist. 43), ‘Soli cum episcopis non sint, qui contra episcopos rebellarunt.’

See especially Epist. 3, 43, 55, 59, 73 and above all 66 (ad Pupianum).

In speaking of sacerdotalism, I assume the term to have essentially the same force as when at a later date it was certainly applied to the Jewish priesthood. In a certain sense (to be considered hereafter) all officers appointed to minister ‘for men in things pertaining to God’ may be called priests; and sacerdotal phraseology when first applied to the Christian ministry, may have borne this innocent meaning. But at a later date, it was certainly so used to imply a substantial identity of character with the Jewish priesthood, i.e. to designate the Christian minister as one who offers sacrifices; and makes atonement for the, sins of others.

It is a significant fact that in those languages which have only one word to express the two ideas, this word etymologically represents ‘presbyterus’ and not ‘sacerdos,’ e.g. the French pretre, the German priester, and the English priest; thus showing that the sacerdotal idea was imported and not original. In the Italian, where two words prete and sacerdote exist side by side, there is no marked difference in usage, except that prete is the more common. If the latter brings out the sacerdotal idea more prominently, the former is also applied to Jewish and Heathen priests and therefore distinctly involves this idea. Wiclif version of the New Testament naturally conforms to the Vulgate, in which it seems to be the rule to translate πρεσβύτεροι by ‘presbyteri’ (in Wiclif ‘preestes’) where it obviously denotes the second order in the ministry (e.g. Acts 24:23; 1 Tim 5:17, 19; Tit 1:5; James 5:14), and by ‘seniores’ (in Wiclif ‘eldres’ or ‘elder men’) in other passages, but if so, this rule is not always successfully applied (e.g. Acts 11:30; 21:18; 1 Pet 5:1). A doubt about the meaning may explain the anomaly that the word is translated ‘presbyteri,’ ‘preestes,’ Acts 15:2, and ‘seniores,’ ‘elder men,’ Acts 15:4, 6, 22; 16:4; though the persons intended are the same. In Acts 20:17, it is rendered in Wiclif’s version ‘the grettist men of birthe,’ a misunderstanding of the Vulgate ‘majores natu.’ The English versions of the Reformers and the reformed church from Tyndale downwards translate πρεσβύτεροι uniformly by ‘elders.’

Deut 10:9; 18:1, 2; comp. Num 26:62; Deut 12:12; 14:27, 29; Josh 14:3. Jerome (Epist. lii. 5, i. p. 258) says, ‘Propterea vocantur clerici, vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors, id est pars, clericorum est.’ The former explanation would be reasonable, if it were supported by the language of the Old Testament. The latter is plainly inadequate.

Deut 4:20. Comp. Deut 9:29 LXX.

Num 18:22, 24, 26.

1 Chron 24:5, 7, 21; 25:8, 9.

On the other hand, λαός is used of the people as contrasted either with the rulers or with the priests. From this latter contrast comes λαικός ‘laic’ or ‘profane,’ and λαικόω ‘profane’ which, though not found in the LXX, occur frequently in the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (λαικός, 1 Sam 21:4; 5:3; Ezek 48:15; λαικόω, Deut 20:6; 38:30; Ruth 1:12; Ezek 7:22) comp. Glem. Rome 40.

Acts 1:17—κατηριθμημένος ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης. The use of the word in 1 Pet 5:3—ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων (i.e. the flocks assigned to them), does not illustrate this meaning.

See Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, where κλῆρον is ‘to appoint to the ministry’; and comp. Iren. iii. 3. 3. A similar extension of meaning is seen in this same word κλῆρος applied to land. Signifying originally a piece ground assigned by lot, it gets to mean landed property generally, whether obtained by assignment or by inheritance or in any other way.

In this passage, however, as in the preceding one, the word is explained by a qualifying genitive. In Hippolytus Haers. ix.12 it is used absolutely of ‘clerical offices.’ The Epistle of the Gallican Churches (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v.1) speaks more of the κλῆρος ‘of the martyrs’ i.e. the order or rank of the martyrs, Comp. Test. Xii Patriarchs Levi 8. See Ritschl, p. 390sq. to whom I am indebted for several of the passages quoted.

E.g de Monog. 12 ‘Unde enim episcopi et clerus?’ and again ‘Extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum.’ Perhaps however earlier instances may have escaped notice. In Clem. Quis div. salv. 42 the word seems not to be used in this sense.

Clem. Rom. 40, 41. Neander, Church History, i. p. 272 note, Bohn’s translation conjectures that this passage is an ‘interpolation from a hierarchical interest,’ and Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, III. p. 259) says that it is ‘rejected by all judicious and impartial scholars.’ At the risk of forfeiting all claim to judiciousness and impartiality one may venture to demur from this arbitrary criticism. Indeed the recent discovery of a second independent ms. and of a Syriac Version, both containing the suspected passage may be regarded as decisive on this point.

Isaiah 60:7 where the A.V. correctly renders the original ‘I will also make thy officers (literally magistrates) peace and thine exactors (i.e. task-masters) righteousness’; i.e. there shall be no tyranny or oppression. The LXX departs from the original and Clement has altered the LXX. By this double divergence, a reference to the two orders of ministry is obtained.

Contrast § 43 to § 44. The common feature which connects the two offices together is stated in the words, in §43—‘in order that there not be ἀκαταστάσια.’

Some passages are quoted in Greenwood, Cathedra Petri I. p. 73 as tending in this direction, e.g. Philad. 9. But rightly interpreted they do not favor this view. In the passage quoted for instance, the writer seems to be maintaining the superiority of the new covenant, as represented by the great High-Priest (ἀρχιερεύς) in and through whom the whole Church has access to God, over the old dispensation of the Levitical priesthood (ἱερωσύνη). If this interpretation be correct, the passage echoes the teaching of of the Epistle to the Hebrews and is opposed to exclusive sacerdotalism. On the meaning of θυσιαστήριον in the Ignatian Epistles, see below.

See Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 63sq.

Dialogue with Trypho, c.116, 117, p. 344.

This sentence is cited by John Damascene and Antonius . . . but the words were quoted doubtless from memory by the one writer and and borrowed by the other from him. βασιλεύς is not represented in the Latin and does not suit the context. The close conformity of their quotations from the Ignatian letters is a sufficient proof that these two writers are not independent authorities; see the passages in Cureton’s Corp. Ignat. p. 180sq.

In Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 24, Comp. Tertullian, adv. Jud. 14 ‘exornatus podere et mitra’; Test. xii. Patr. Levi 8. See also, as an illustration of the metaphor, Tertull. Monog. 12 ‘Cum ad peraequationem disciplinae sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas.’

Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, p. 121, note.

Rev 2:17, see the commentators.

So Justin in Dialog. w. Tryph. § 116. See also the passage of Origen quoted below.

Kaye (Clement of Alexandria p. 464) incorrectly adduces this passage as an express mention of ‘the distinction between the clergy and laity.’

De Praescr. Haer. 41 ‘Nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt.’

De Exh. Cast. 7. See Kaye’s Tertullian p. 211 whose interpretation of ‘honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus’ I have adopted.

De Monog. 12. I have taken the reading ‘impares’ for ‘pares,’ as required by the context.

Tertullian regards Christ our great High-Priest, as the counterpart under the new dispensation of the priest under the old, and so interprets the text ‘Show thyself to the priest’; adv. Marc. iv. 9, adv. Jud. 14. Again, he uses ‘sacerdos’ in a moral sense, de Spectac. 16 ‘sacerdotes pacis,’ de Cult. Fem. ii.12 ‘sacerdotes pudicitiae,’ ad Uxor. i. 6 (comp. 7) ‘virginitatis et viduitatis sacerdotia.’ On the other hand in de Pall. 4 he seems to compare the Christian minister with the heathen priests but too much stress must not be placed on a rhetorical image.

Hom. ix. in Lev. 9, 10 (II. p. 243 Delarue).

In Joann. i. § 3 (iv. p. 3).

De Orat. 28 (i. p. 255). See also Hom. iv. in Num 3 (ii. p. 283).

Hom. v. in Lev 4 (ii. p. 208 sq.) ‘Discant sacerdotes Domini qui ecclesiis praesunt,’ and also ib. Hom. ii. 4 (ii. p. 191) ‘Cum non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indicare peccatum suum et quaerere medicinam’ (he quotes James 5:14 in illustration). But Hom. x in Num 1, 2 (II, p. 302) quoted by Redepenning (Origenes II, p.417) hardly this sense, for the ‘pontifex’ applies to our Lord, and it is clear from Hom. in Ps. xxxvii. § 6 (ii. p. 688) that in Origen’s opinion the confessor to the penitent need not be an ordained minister. The passages in Redepenning’s Origenes bearing on this subject are i, p. 357, ii. pp. 250, 417, 436 sq.

Hom. xii. in Jerem. 3 (iii. (ii. p. 196) ‘If any one therefore, among these priests (I mean us, the presbyters) or among these Levites who stand about the people (I mean the deacons)’ etc.

Deut 17:12; see Epist. 3, 4, 43, 59, 66.

Though the words are ascribed to Solomon, the quotation comes from Ecclus. vii. 29, 31; see Epist. 3.

Acts 23:4; see Epist. 3, 59, 66.

De Unit. Eccl p. 83 (Fell), Epist. 3, 67, 69, 73.

The sacerdotal language in the Apostolical Constitutions is hardly less strong, while it is more systematic; but their date, is uncertain and cannot well be placed earlier than Cyprian.

Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, pp, 79, 82sq. 350; Colossians p. 89. In the syzygies of the Clementine Homilies (ii. 16, 33) Aaron is opposed to Moses, the high-priest to the lawgiver as the bad to the good, the false to the true, like Cain to Abel, Ishmael, to Isaac, etc. In the Recognitions the estimate of the High-Priest’s position is still unfavourable (i. 46, 48). Compare the statement in Justin, Dial. c. Tryph, 117.

The worship of the Syrian goddess of Antioch was among the most popular of oriental superstitions under the earlier Caesars; the rites of the Sun-god of Emesa became fashionable under Elagabalus.

Clem. Rom. 44. What sort of offerings are meant, may be gathered from other passages in Clement’s Epistle; e.g. § 35,§ 52 § 41 Comp. Heb 13:10, 15, 16—Ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες . . . δι’ αὐτοῦ οὖν ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως διὰ παντὸς τῷ Θεῷ, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. τῆς δὲ εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε· τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ Θεός. The doctrine of the early Church respecting ‘sacrifice’ is investigated by Hofling, die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer (Erlangen 1851).

On the whole however the passage from the Epistle Hebrews alluded to in the last note seems to be the best exponent of St. Clement’s meaning, as he very frequently follows this Apostolic writer. If it has any special reference to the holy eucharist, as it may have, δωρά will nevertheless be the alms and prayers and thanksgivings that accompanied the celebration of it. Comp. Const. Apostl. ii.25 §27, §34.

The chief passages in these fathers related to Christian oblations are Justin Apol. I 13 (p. 60), 65-67 (p. 97sq.), Dial. 28, 29 (p. 246), 41 (p. 259sq.), 116, 117 (p. 344 sq.), Iren. Haer. iv. cc. 17, 18, 19, v.2.3, Fragm. 38 (Stieren). The place occupied by the eucharistic elements in their view of sacrifice will only be appreciated by reading the passages continuously.

See Clem. Rom. 36, 58, Polyc. Phil. 129, Ignat. Philad. 7, Test. xii. Patr. Rub. 6, Sym. 7 etc., Clem. Recogn. i.48.

The epistle deals mainly with the office of Christ as antitype of the High-Priest, offering the annual sacrifice of atonement: and it has been urged that there is still room for a sacrificial priesthood under the High-Priest. The whole argument however is equally applicable to the inferior priests, and in one passage at least it is directly so applied (Heb 10:11, 12), ‘And every priest stands daily (καθ’ ἡμέραν) ministering and offering the same sacrifices, etc.’; where the Heb 10:1. ἀρχιερεύς for ἱερεύς seems to have arisen from the desire to bring the verse into more exact conformity with what has gone before. This passage, it should be remembered, is the summing-up and generalization of the previous argument.

It is surprising that some should have interpreted θυσιαστήριον in Heb 13:10 of the Lord’s table. There may be a doubt as to the actual significance of the term in this passage, but an actual altar is plainly not intended. This is shown by the context both before and after, e.g. Heb 13:9 the opposition of χάριτι and βρώμασιν, Heb 13:15 the contrast implied in the mention of θυσίαν αἰνέσεως and καρπὸν χειλέων and Heb 13:16 the naming of εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας as the kind of sacrifice with which God is well pleased. In my former editions I interpreted the θυσιαστήριον of the congregation assembled for worship, having been led to this interpretation by the Christian phraseology of succeeding ages. So Clem. Alex. Strom. vii.6, p. 848. The use of the word in Ignatius also, though less obvious, appears to be substantially the same, Ephes. 5, Trall. 7, Philad. 4 (but in Magn. 7 it seems to be a metaphor for our Lord Himself); see Hofling, Opfer etc. p. 32 sq. Similarly too Polycarp (§ 4) speaks of the body of widows as θυσιαστήριον θεοῦ. [See notes on these passages in Apostolic Fathers, Part ii. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp.] But I have since been convinced that the context points to the Cross of Christ spiritually regarded, as the true interpretation. Since my first edition appeared, a wholly different interpretation of the passage has been advocated by more than one writer. It is maintained that ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον should be understood as ‘we Jews have an altar,’ and that the writer of the epistle is here bringing an example from the Old Dispensation itself (the sin-offering on the day of atonement) in which the sacrifices were not eaten. This interpretation is attractive, but it seems to me inadequate to explain the whole context (though it suits parts well enough), and is ill adapted to individual expressions (e.g. θυσιαστήριον where θυσία would be expected, and τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες which thus becomes needlessly emphatic), not to mention that the first person plural and the present tense ἔχομεν seem unnatural where the author and his readers are spoken of, not as actual Christians, but as former Jews. In fact the analogy of the sacrifice on the day of atonement appears not to be introduced till the next verse, ὧν γὰρ εἰσφέρεται ζῴων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, τούτων τὰ σώματα κατακαίεται ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς. Some interpreters again, from a comparison of 1 Cor 9:13 with 1 Cor 10:18, have inferred that St. Paul recognises the designation of the Lord’s table as an altar. On the contrary, it is a fact, that in both passages he avoids using this term of the Lord’s table, though the language of the context might readily have suggested it to him, if he had considered it appropriate. Nor does the argument in either case require or encourage such an inference. In 1 Cor 9:13, 14, the Apostle writes ‘Know ye not that they who wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.’ The point of resemblance in the two cases is the holding of a sacred office; but the ministering on the altar is predicated only of the former. So also in 1 Cor 10:18 sq., the altar is named as common to Jews and Heathens, but the table only as common to Christians and Heathens; i.e. the holy eucharist is a banquet, but it is not a sacrifice (in the Jewish or heathen sense of the word).

The distinction is made in Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ ii. p. 216.

For the opinion of the early church, see especially the passage of Tertullian quoted above.

Appendix F: J. B. Lightfoot as Biblical Commentator

This essay first appeared in the special issue of the Durham University Journal in 1992. It was given at the conference at Durham celebrating the centenary of Lightfoot’s death in 1889. This special issue of the journal no longer exists, and we are happy to make it available here. [(BW3)] This essay and the one by J. D. G. Dunn that follows in the next appendix are reprinted by kind permission of the University of Durham.

Durham University Journal 64, no 33 (1972): 193-204.

I gladly take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Roger Norris of the University and Chapter Libraries, who helped me in every possible way.

See especially the identification by G. R. Treloar and B. N. Kaye of Lightfoot’s Norrisian Prize Essay, Durham University Journal 79 (1987): 165-200.

See also the late J. A. T. Robinson’s 1981 Durham Cathedral lecture, “Joseph Barber Lightfoot.”

Notably, the great essay on Eusebius of Caesarea, in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines, 2:308-48.

J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1875), p. 210.

Ibid., pp. 210-12.

J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1868), p. 187.

J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865), pp. 227-36.

Ibid., pp. 84f.

Ibid., p.127.

I have drawn attention to this in New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 314.

As an example of historical knowledge that goes beyond the New Testament, see, e.g., the discussion of the meaning of πραιτώριον (Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 99-104).

Durham University Journal 64, ns 33 (1972): 199-203.

It is given less fully in ibid., p. 197.

Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 142-43.

Printed with suitable omissions in The Cambridge Review 68, no. 1661 (February 1, 1947): 269-71.

I borrow the apt title of the journal that Lightfoot helped to found and, through its short life, to edit.

Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by his son, A. F. Hort, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1896).

The running dots are in the Life and Letters, presumably indicating an omission made by the editor. Of what? Of something too uncomplimentary to repeat?

2.306, a letter of November 17, 1883.

C. K. Barrett, ‘Quomodo historia conscribenda sit,’ New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 303-20.

J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (London: Macmillan, 1889), 180.

B. N. Kaye, ‘Lightfoot and Baur on Early Christianity,’ Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 193-224; the quotation is on p. 223.

Cf. the references in New Testament Studies 28, page 317, to J. W. Rogerson’s phrase ‘a Lockian sort of supernaturalism.’

Lightfoot quotes Hooker perhaps less frequently than this suggests; in rereading for this lecture, I have noticed only one example, though doubtless there are more.

From page 311 from the dissertation on ‘St. Paul and the Three.’ There is more to this effect in Durham University Journal 64: 199-203.

Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 181-269.

Durham University Journal 64: 203f.

Lightfoot, Philippians, 6th ed., p. x. The dissertation was reprinted separately (London: Macmillan, 1910) [see appendix above, [146-92] in this volume]. In the reprint the quotation is on p. 138.

Durham Chapter Library manuscripts. Since my lecture was written and delivered, Lightfoot’s lecture has been published, with introductions by B. N. Kaye and G. R. Treloar, in Durham University Journal (1990): 161-75.

In Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 3 (1857; repr., 1970): 81-121.

Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 1:315.

F. J. A. Hort, The Record, supplement, Wednesday evening, April 27, 1884, p. 4.

I do not know who hides behind this pseudonym.

Benjamin Jowett, Frederick Temple and Mark Pattison, Essays and Reviews (London: Parker, 1860), p. 391.

Ibid., p. 398.

Perhaps Westcott was.

E.g., by J. A. T. Robinson in Lightfoot of Durham, ed. G. R. Eden and F. C. MacDonald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), p. 126.

J. B. Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 4 (1859): 107-8.

Jowett, Essays and Reviews, p. 415.

F. F. Bruce, in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. H. Marshall (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1977), p. 45.

See appendix C in this volume, which has this sermon in full. (BW3)

J. B. Lightfoot, Sermons Preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral (London: Macmillan, 1891), pp. 206-17, quote on p. 214.

R. Morgan with S. Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 181.

Appendix G: Lightfoot in Retrospect

This was the last of the lectures given at the Lightfoot centenary conference in Durham in 1989, published as part of a special issue of the Durham University Journal in 1992. I have omitted the opening paragraph that refers to the conference itself and the order of the papers presented. Again, it is reprinted by permission of Durham University and the author himself, who requested it be included here. (BW3)

See George R. Eden and F. C. MacDonald, eds., Lightfoot of Durham: Memories and Appreciations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), p. 5.

J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (London: Macmillan, 1889, 1893), p. 5.

Ibid., p. 19.

Ibid., p. 128.

Eden and MacDonald, Lightfoot of Durham, pp. 118-19. [Not to mention Armenian, which he picked up in later life. (BW3)]

Among most recent materials see in particular C. K. Barrett, ‘Joseph Barber Lightfoot,’ Durham University Journal (1972): 193-204; J. A. T. Robinson, ‘Joseph Barber Lightfoot,’ Durham Cathedral Lecture, 1981; H. E. Savage, ‘Bishop Lightfoot’s Influence: His Trust in Young Men,’ Durham University Journal 76 (1984): 1-6; G. R. Treloar, ‘J.B. Lightfoot and St. Paul: 1854-65,’ Lucas 7 (1989): 5-34.

G. R. Treloar and B. N. Kaye, ‘J. B. Lightfoot on Strauss and Christian Origins: An Unpublished Manuscript,’ Durham University Journal 79 (1987): 165-200. [While this essay is undoubtedly important, it is probably a later recension of the original essay, which is presented in the appendix above. (BW3)]

Ibid., p. 176.

D. F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, trans. George Eliot (1846; reprint).

Treloar and Kaye, ‘J.B. Lightfoot on Strauss and Christian Origins,’ p. 176.

Cited by B. N. Kaye, ‘Lightfoot and Baur on Early Christianity,’ Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 219.

’The Christian Ministry,’ in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1868), p. 187.

J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers Part II, St. Ignatius, S. Polycarp (London: Macmillan, 1885), pp. 127-221.

Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, chap. 3.

Ibid., p. 9.

Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 127-33.

Barrett, ‘Joseph Barber Lightfoot,’ p. 197.

J. B. Lightfoot, Epistle to the Colossians (London: Macmillan, 1875), pp. 255-71.

J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan, 1895), pp. 286-87.

J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865), pp. 349-50.

Eden and MacDonald, Lightfoot of Durham, pp. 124-25, 177.

Lightfoot, Ignatius, pp. 2ff.

J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan,1893), p. 24.

Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, chap. 2.

Ibid., pp. 74-78; also Lightfoot, Ignatius, pp. 342-47.

Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, p. 36.

Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 313.

Eden and MacDonald, Lightfoot of Durham, pp. 35-36.

Ibid., p. 133.

Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 174-77; Ignatius, e.g., 1:477-85.

Kaye, ‘Lightfoot and Baur,’ however, cautions against the common assumption that rebuttal of the Tübingen school was the all-important aim of Lightfoot’s scholarly work (p. 223). But see also the article by Hengel [reprinted in an appendix in volume two of The Lightfoot Legacy (BW3)].

Treloar and Kaye, ‘J. B. Lightfoot on Strauss and Christian Origins,’ p. 170.

Ibid., p. 177.

F. C. Baur, ‘Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der altesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom,’ Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831): 61-206.

See particularly the Introduction to Baur’s Paul, The Apostle of Jesus Christ (1845; Eng. trans., London: Williams and Norgate, 1873).

F. C. Baur, The Church History of the First Three Centuries (1853; Eng. trans., London: Willams and Norgate, 1878–1879).

See ibid., pp. 5-6, 27-29, 33, 38-39, 43, 49-50, etc.

Kaye, ‘Lightfoot and Baur,’ p. 201.

See particularly C. K. Barrett, ‘Quomodo historia conscribenda sit,’ New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 303-20, particularly p. 318.

Cf. particularly S. Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 56-59.

Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, p. 64; also Ignatius, 1:270.

Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 341.

Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, p. 96; Ignatius, 1:407.

Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 363n2.

Ibid., p. 293.

So particularly Kaye, ‘Lightfoot and Baur,’ pp. 215-16.

Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 105-6; similarly, p. 350: ‘St. Paul’s language leaves the impression (though the inference cannot be regarded as certain), that they, (the pillar apostles), had not offered a prompt resistance to the Judaizers in the first instance, hoping perhaps to conciliate them.’

Ibid., p. 311.

Ibid., pp. 322-23.

Ibid., p. 374.

Barrett, ‘Quomodo,’ pp. 310, 313-14. In his earlier essay Barrett had noted that the frank picture in the immediately preceding quotation from Lightfoot is not easy to parallel in English writers of the period, and sums up: ‘It might not be too inaccurate to say that Baur asked the right questions and that Lightfoot set them in the right historical context.’

Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 336.

Baur, Paul, p. 3.

Baur, Church History, p. 37.

Lightfoot, Galatians, p. xi; see also p. 293.

See further my The Parting of the Ways (London: SCM Press, 1991), chap. 1.

The phrase has been given wide currency by N. T. Wright in his revision of Neill’s Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 379-403. See those listed in my Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1990), p. xxxiii n. 9.

See, e.g., my review of and contribution to the debate in Jesus, Paul and the Law (London: SPCK, 1990).

Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, pp. 34, 79.

[See the preceding appendix in this volume and the Hengel article in the appendix in volume two. (BW3)]

Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 295.

H. G. Link, ed., Apostolic Faith Today, Faith and Order Paper no. 124 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1985), pp. 259-60.

Eden and MacDonald, Lightfoot of Durham, p. 107.

J. B. Lightfoot, Leaders of the Northern Church (London: Macmillan, 1890).

J. B. Lightfoot, Historical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1895), pp. 182-210.

Dunn is referring to an essay by David Thompson on ‘Lightfoot as a Victorian Churchman,’ which, although it was included in the original centenary of Lightfoot Durham University Journal special issue in 1992, is not included here, since its focus is beyond the parameters of these three volumes. (BW3)

Details from Eden and MacDonald, Lightfoot of Durham, passim; another summary in Robinson, ‘Joseph Barber Lightfoot,’ pp. 14-15.

Treloar and Kaye, ‘J. B. Lightfoot on Strauss and Christian Origins,’ p. 198. [I must note that this presents a text-critical problem. The actual Norissian Prize essay ends as follows—‘For there is a testimony which it is not in the power of historical criticism to grasp; the testimony of the heart which finds in Christianity its deepest aspirations realized and its fondest hopes fulfilled—the testimony of the conscience smitten and pierced as by a sharp two-edged sword, by the record of His words “who spake as no man spake,” the testimony of experience which reminds the Christian that in proportion as he has cultivated his best faculties and highest feelings of his nature, the clouds of doubt and difficulty have been dispersed before the “light of the Spirit which bears witness to his spirit,” and have only gathered again when he has been betrayed into spiritual carelessness or moral ambiguity.’ This is followed by several extraneous and out-of-place paragraphs on Philo and an apology. I suspect that Treloar and Kaye found an adapation of Lightfoot’s original essay for a later purpose—namely as a response to the essayists referred to in Hengel’s article in volume two of this series. The original essay did not end as cited above. (BW3)]

Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, p. 82.

Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. xi-xii.

Robinson, ‘Joseph Barber Lightfoot,’ p. 16.

Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 181-269.

Ibid., pp. 181-82.

Ibid., p. 234.

Ibid., pp. 236-37.

Ibid., pp. 238-39.

Ibid., p. 267.

Ibid., pp. 183-86.

Ibid., pp. 258-64.

Ibid., pp. 257-58.

Ibid., p. 268.

Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 2:86 (a letter to Lightfoot, dated October 26, 1867).

J. O. Johnston, Life and Letters of Henry Parry Liddon (London: Longmans, Green, 1904), pp. 369-70.

Lumen Gentium 10 (emphasis mine).

Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, The Final Report (CTS/SPC, 1982), p. 36.

Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 262.

Edward Schillebeeckx, Ministry: A Case for Change (London: SCM Press, 1981), chap. 2.

A. E. Harvey, Priest or President (London: SPCK, 1975).

Eden and MacDonald, Lightfoot of Durham, pp. 63-68.

Robinson, ‘Joseph Barber Lightfoot,’ p. 14.

See particularly Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982), ‘Ministry’ sections 1-6.

J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1977).

J. B. Lightfoot, Sermons Preached on Special Occasions (London: Macmillan, 1891), pp. 8-9.

Eden and MacDonald, Lightfoot of Durham, p. 135.

A. C. Benson, The Life of Edward White Benson, Sometime Archbishop of Canterbury (London: Macmillan, 1899), 2:291. See also the description by another of his long-term friends, F. J. A. Hort, in Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, pp. 409-10.

↑ Back to top