__________________________________________________________________

   Title: History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene
   Christianity. A.D. 100-325.
   Creator(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)
   Print Basis: Third edition, revised
   Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All; History; Proofed;
   LC Call no: BR145.S3
   LC Subjects:

   Christianity

   History
     __________________________________________________________________

   HISTORY

   of the

   CHRISTIAN CHURCH [1]

   by

   PHILIP SCHAFF

   Christianus sum.                   Christiani nihil a me alienum puto

   VOLUME II

   ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAINITY

   a.d. 100-325.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA:
   Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully
   compared, corrected, and emended (according to the 1910 edition of
   Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX,
   1998.
     __________________________________________________________________

   PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION REVISED

   A few months after the appearance of the revised edition of this
   volume, Dr. Bryennios, the learned Metropolitan of Nicomedia, surprised
   the world by the publication of the now famous Didache, which he had
   discovered in the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre at
   Constantinople. This led me, in justice to myself and to my readers, to
   write an independent supplement under the title: The Oldest Church
   Manual, called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, etc., which is now
   passing through the press.

   At the same time I have taken advantage of a new issue of this History,
   without increasing the size and the price, to make in the plates all
   the necessary references to the Didache where it sheds new light on the
   post-apostolic age (especially on pages 140, 184, 185, 202, 226, 236,
   239, 241, 247, 249, 379, 640).

   I have also brought the literature up to date, and corrected a few
   printing errors, so that this issue may be called a revised edition. A
   learned and fastidious German critic and professional church historian
   has pronounced this work to be far in advance of any German work in the
   fullness of its digest of the discoveries and researches of the last
   thirty years. ("Theolog. Literatur-Zeitung," for March 22, 1884.) But
   the Bryennios discovery, and the extensive literature which it has
   called forth, remind me of the imperfect character of historical books
   in an age of such rapid progress as ours.

   The Author.

   New York, April 22, 1885.
     __________________________________________________________________

   FIFTH EDITION

   The fourth edition (1886) was a reprint of the third, with a few slight
   improvements. In this fifth edition I have made numerous additions to
   the literature, and adapted the text throughout to the present stage of
   research, which continues to be very active and fruitful in the
   Ante-Nicene period.

   Several topics connected with the catechetical instruction,
   organization, and ritual (baptism and eucharist) of the early Church
   are more fully treated in my supplementary monograph, The Teaching of
   the Twelve Apostles, or The Oldest Church Manual, which first appeared
   in June, 1885, and in a third edition, revised and enlarged, January,
   1889, (325 pages).

   P. S.

   New York, July, 1889.
     __________________________________________________________________

   PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

   This second volume contains the history of Christianity from the end of
   the Apostolic age to the beginning of the Nicene.

   The first edict of Toleration, A. D. 311, made an end of persecution;
   the second Edict of Toleration, 311 (there is no third), prepared the
   way for legal recognition and protection; the Nicene Council, 325,
   marks the solemn inauguration of the imperial state-church.
   Constantine, like Eusebius, the theologian, and Hosius, the statesman,
   of his reign, belongs to both periods and must be considered in both,
   though more fully in the next.

   We live in an age of discovery and research, similar to that which
   preceded the Reformation. The beginnings of Christianity are now
   absorbing the attention of scholars.

   During the present generation early church history has been vastly
   enriched by new sources of information, and almost revolutionized by
   independent criticism. Among the recent literary discoveries and
   publications the following deserve special mention:

   The Syriac Ignatius (by Cureton 1845 and 1849), which opened a new
   chapter in the Ignatian controversy so closely connected with the rise
   of Episcopacy and Catholicism; the Philosophumena of Hippolytus (by
   Miller 1851, and by Duncker and Schneidewin, 1859), which have shed a
   flood of light on the ancient heresies and systems of thought, as well
   as on the doctrinal and disciplinary commotions in the Roman church in
   the early part of third century; the Tenth Book of The
   Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (by Dressel, 1853), which supplements our
   knowledge of a curious type of distorted Christianity in the
   post-apostolic age, and furnishes, by an undoubted quotation, a
   valuable contribution to the solution of the Johannean problem; the
   Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos (the Codex Lipsiensis, published by Anger
   and Tischendorf, 1856); a new and complete Greek MS. of the First
   Epistle of the Roman Clement with several important new chapters and
   the oldestwritten Christian prayer (about one tenth of the whole),
   found in a Convent Library at Constantinople (by Bryennios, 1875); and
   in the same Codex the Second (so called) Epistle of Clement, or
   post-Clementine Homily rather, in its complete form (20 chs. instead of
   12), giving us the first post-apostolic sermon, besides a new Greek
   text of the Epistle of Barnabus; a Syriac Version of Clement in the
   library of Jules Mohl, now at Cambridge (1876); fragments of Tatian's
   Diatessaron with Ephraem's Commentary on it, in an Armenian version
   (Latin by Moesinger 1878); fragments of the apologies of Melito (1858),
   and Aristides (1878); the complete Greek text of the Acts of Thomas (by
   Max Bonnet, 1883); and the crowning discovery of all, the Codex
   Sinaiticus, the only complete uncial MS. of the Greek Testament,
   together with the Greek Barnabus and the Greek Hermas (by Tischendorf,
   1862), which, with the facsimile edition of the Vatican Codex
   (1868-1881, 6 vols.), marks an epoch in the science of textual
   criticism of the Greek Testament and of those two Apostolic Fathers,
   and establishes the fact of the ecclesiastical use of all our canonical
   books in the age of Eusebius.

   In view of these discoveries we would not be surprised if the
   Exposition of the Lord's Oracles by Papias, which was still in
   existence at Nismes in 1215, the Memorials of Hegesippus, and the whole
   Greek original of Irenaeus, which were recorded by a librarian as
   extant in the sixteenth century, should turn up in some old convent.

   In connection with these fresh sources there has been a corresponding
   activity on the part of scholars. The Germans have done and are doing
   an astonishing amount of Quellenforschung and Quellenkritik in numerous
   monographs and periodicals, and have given us the newest and best
   critical editions of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists. The English
   with their strong common sense, judicial calmness, and conservative
   tact are fast wheeling into the line of progress, as is evident from
   the collective works on Christian Antiquities, and the Christian
   Biography, and from Bp. Lightfoot's Clementine Epistles, which are soon
   to be followed by his edition of the Ignatian Epistles. To the
   brilliant French genius and learning of Mr. Renan we owe a graphic
   picture of the secular surroundings of early Christianity down to the
   time of Marcus Aurelius, with sharp glances into the literature and
   life of the church. His Historie des Origines du Christianisme, now
   completed in seven volumes, after twenty year's labor, is well worthy
   to rank with Gibbon's immortal work. The Rise and Triumph of
   Christianity is a grander theme than the contemporary Decline and Fall
   of the Roman Empire, but no historian can do justice to it without
   faith in the divine character and mission of that peaceful Conqueror of
   immortal souls, whose kingdom shall have no end.

   The importance of these literary discoveries and investigations should
   not blind us to the almost equally important monumental discoveries and
   researches of Cavalier de Rossi, Garrucci, and other Italian scholars
   who have illuminated the subterranean mysteries of the church of Rome
   and of Christian art. Neander, Gieseler, and Baur, the greatest church
   historians of the nineteenth century, are as silent about the catacombs
   as Mosheim and Gibbon were in the eighteenth. But who could now write a
   history of the first three centuries without recording the lessons of
   those rude yet expressive pictures, sculptures, and epitaphs from the
   homes of confessors and martyrs? Nor should we overlook the gain which
   has come to us from the study of monumental inscriptions, as for
   instance in rectifying the date of Polycarp's martyrdom who is now
   brought ten years nearer to the age of St. John.

   Before long there will be great need of an historic architect who will
   construct a beautiful and comfortable building out of the vast material
   thus brought to light. The Germans are historic miners, the French and
   English are skilled manufacturers; the former understand and cultivate
   the science of history, the latter excel in the art of historiography.
   A master of both would be the ideal historian. But God has wisely
   distributed his gifts, and made individuals and nations depend upon and
   supplement each other.

   The present volume is an entire reconstruction of the corresponding
   part of the first edition (vol. I p. 144-528), which appeared
   twenty-five years ago. It is more than double in size. Some chapters
   (e.g. VI. VII. IX.) and several sections (e.g. 90-93, 103, 155-157,
   168, 171, 184, 189, 190, 193, 198-204, etc.) are new, and the rest has
   been improved and enlarged, especially the last chapter on the
   literature of the church. My endeavor has been to bring the book up to
   the present advanced state of knowledge, to record every important work
   (German, French, English, and American) which has come under my notice,
   and to make the results of the best scholarship of the age available
   and useful to the rising generation.

   In conclusion, I may be permitted to express my thanks for the kind
   reception which has been accorded to this revised edition of the work
   of my youth. It will stimulate me to new energy in carrying it forward
   as far as God may give time and strength. The third volume needs no
   reconstruction, and a new edition of the same with a few improvements
   will be issued without delay.

   Philip Schaff.

   Union Theological Seminary,

   October, 1883.

   Illustrations from the Catacombs.

   Alphabetical Index.

   SECOND PERIOD

   ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY

   or,

   THE AGE OF PERSECUTION AND MARTYRDOM

   from the

   DEATH OF JOHN TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

   a.d. 100-325.

   "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church"
     __________________________________________________________________

   SECOND PERIOD

   ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY

   or,

   THE AGE OF PERSECUTION AND MARTYRDOM

   from the

   DEATH OF JOHN TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

   a.d. 100-325.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 1. Literature on the Ante-Nicene Age

   I. Sources

   1. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists, and all the
   ecclesiastical authors of the 2nd and 3rd, and to some extent of the
   4th and 5th centuries; particularly Clement of Rome, Ignatius,
   Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian,
   Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and
   Theodoret.

   2. The writings of the numerous heretics, mostly extant only in
   fragments.

   3. The works of the pagan opponents of Christianity, as Celsus, Lucian,
   Porphyry, Julian the Apostate.

   4. The occasional notices of Christianity, in the contemporary
   classical authors, Tacitus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, Dion Cassius.

   II. Collections of Sources, (besides those included in the
   comprehensive Patristic Libraries):

   Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn: Patrum Apostolicorum Opera. Lips., 1876;
   second ed. 1878 sqq.

   Fr. Xav. Funk (R.C.): Opera Patrum Apost. Tuebing., 1878, 1881, 1887, 2
   vols. The last edition includes the Didache.

   I. C. Th. Otto: Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi.
   Jenae, 1841 sqq., in 9 vols.; 2nd ed. 1847-1861; 3rd ed. 1876 sqq.
   ("plurimum aucta et emendata").

   Roberts And Donaldson: Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Edinburgh (T.& T.
   Clark), 1868-'72, 25 volumes. American edition, chronologically
   arranged and enlarged by Bishop A. C. Coxe, D. D., with a valuable
   Bibliographical Synopsis by E. C. Richardson. New York (Christian
   Literature Company), 1885-'87, 9 large vols.

   The fragments of the earliest Christian writers, whose works are lost,
   may be found collected in Grabe: Spicilegium Patrum ut et Haereticorum
   Saeculi I. II. et III. (Oxon. 1700; new ed. Oxf. 1714, 3 vols.); in
   Routh: Reliquiae Sacrae, sive auctorum fere jam perditorum secundi,
   tertiique saeculi fragmenta quae supersunt (Oxon. 1814 sqq. 4 vols.;
   2nd ed. enlarged, 5 vols. Oxf. 1846-48); and in Dom. I. B. Pitra (O. S.
   B., a French Cardinal since 1863): Spicilegium Solesmense, complectens
   sanctorum patrum scriptorumque eccles. anecdota hactenus opera, selecta
   e Graecis, Orientialibus et Latinis codicibus (Paris, 1852-'60, 5
   vols.). Comp. also Bunsen: Christianity and Mankind, etc. Lond. 1854,
   vols. V., VI. and VII., which contain the Analecta Ante-Nicaena
   (reliquicae literariae, canonicae, liturgicae).

   The haereseological writings of Epiphanius, Philastrius,
   Pseudo-Tertullian, etc. are collected in Franc. Oehler: Corpus
   haereseologicum. Berol. 1856-61, 3 vols. They belong more to the next
   period.

   The Jewish and Heathen Testimonies are collected by N. Lardner, 1764,
   new ed. by Kippis, Lond. 1838.

   III. Histories.

   1. Ancient Historians.

   Hegesippus (a Jewish Christian of the middle of the second century):
   Hupomnemata ton ekklesiastikon praxeon (quoted under the title pente
   hupomnemata and pente sungrammata). These ecclesiastical Memorials are
   only preserved in fragments (on the martyrdom of James of Jerusalem,
   the rise of heresies, etc.) in Eusebius H. Eccl., collected by Grabe
   (Spicileg. II. 203-214), Routh (Reliqu. Sacrae, vol. I. 209-219), and
   Hilgenfeld ("Zeitschrift fuer wissenschaftliche Theol." 1876, pp. 179
   sqq.). See art. of Weizsaecker in Herzog, 2nd ed., V. 695; and of
   Milligan in Smith & Wace, II. 875. The work was still extant in the
   16th century, and may be discovered yet; see Hilgenfeld's "Zeitschrift"
   for 1880, p. 127. It is strongly Jewish-Christian, yet not Ebionite,
   but Catholic.

   *Eusebius (bishop of Caesarea in Palestine since 315, died 340, "the
   father of Church History," "the Christian Herodotus," confidential
   friend, adviser, and eulogist of Constantine the Great): Ekklesiastike
   historia, from the incarnation to the defeat and death of Licinius 324.
   Chief edd. by Stephens, Paris 1544 (ed. princeps); Valesius (with the
   other Greek church historians), Par. 1659; Reading, Cambr. 1720;
   Zimmermann, Francof. 1822; Burton, Oxon. 1838 and 1845 (2 vols.);
   Schwegler, Tueb. 1852; Laemmer, Scaphus. 1862 (important for the text);
   F. A. Heinichen, Lips. 1827, second ed. improved 1868-'70, 3 vols. (the
   most complete and useful edition of all the Scripta Historica of Eus.);
   G. Dindorf, Lips., 1871. Several versions(German, French, and English);
   one by Hanmer (Cambridge; 1683, etc.); another by C. F. Cruse (an Am.
   Episc., London, 1842, Phil., 1860, included in Bagster's edition of the
   Greek Eccles. Historians, London, 1847, and in Bohn's Eccles. Library);
   the best with commentary by A. C. McGiffert (to be published by "The
   Christian Lit. Comp.," New York, 1890).

   The other historical writings of Eusebius, including his Chronicle, his
   Life of Constantine, and his Martyrs of Palestine, are found in
   Heinichen's ed., and also in the ed. of his Opera omnia, by Migne,
   "Patrol. Graeca," Par. 1857, 5 vols. Best ed. of his Chronicle, by
   Alfred Schoene, Berlin, 1866 and 1875, 2 vols.

   Whatever may be said of the defects of Eusebius as an historical critic
   and writer, his learning and industry are unquestionable, and his
   Church History and Chronicle will always remain an invaluable
   collection of information not attainable in any other ancient author.
   The sarcastic contempt of Gibbon and charge of willful suppression of
   truth are not justified, except against his laudatory over-estimate of
   Constantine, whose splendid services to the church blinded his vision.
   For a just estimate of Eusebius see the exhaustive article of Bishop
   Lightfoot in Smith & Wace, II. 308-348.

   2. Modern Historians.

   William Cave, (died 1713): Primitive Christianity. Lond. 4th ed. 1682,
   in 3 parts. The same: Lives of the most eminent Fathers of the Church
   that flourished in the first four centuries, 1677-'83, 2 vols.; revised
   by ed. H. Carey, Oxford, 1840, in 3 vols. Comp. also Cave's Scriptorum
   ecclesiasticorum historia literaria, a Christo nato usque ad saeculum
   XIV; best ed. Oxford 1740-'43, 2 vols. fol.

   *J. L. Mosheim: Commentarii de rebus Christianis ante Constantinum M.
   Helmst. 1753. The same in English by Vidal, 1813 sqq., 3 vols., and by
   Murdock, New Haven, 1852, 2 vols.

   *Edward Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
   Empire. London, 1776-'88, 6 vols.; best edd. by Milman, with his own,
   Guizot's and Wenck's notes, and by William Smith, including the notes
   of Milman, etc. Reprinted, London, 1872, 8 vols., New York, Harpers,
   1880, in 6 vols. In Chs. 15 and 16, and throughout his great work,
   Gibbon dwells on the outside, and on the defects rather than the
   virtues of ecclesiastical Christianity, without entering into the heart
   of spiritual Christianity which continued beating through all ages; but
   for fullness and general accuracy of information and artistic
   representation his work is still unsurpassed.

   H. G. Tzschirner: Der Fall des Heidenthums. Leipz. 1829.

   Edw. Burton: Lectures upon the Ecclesiastical History of the first
   three Centuries. Oxf. 1833, in 3 parts (in 1 vol. 1845). He made also
   collections of the ante-Nicene testimonies to the Divinity of Christ,
   and the Holy Spirit.

   Henry H. Milman: The History of Christianity from the Birth of Christ
   to the Abolition of Paganism in the Roman Empire. Lond. 1840. 3 vols.;
   2nd ed. 1866. Comp. also the first book of his History of Latin
   Christianity, 2d ed. London and New York, 1860, in 8 vols.

   John Kaye (Bishop of Lincoln, d. 1853). Ecclesiastical History of the
   Second and Third Centuries, illustrated from the writinqs of
   Tertullian. Lond. 1845. Comp. also his books on Justin Martyr, Clement
   of Alex., and the Council of Nicaea (1853).

   F. D. Maurice: Lectures on the Eccles. Hist. of the First and Second
   Cent. Cambr. 1854.

   *A. Ritschl: Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche. Bonn, 1850;
   2nd ed. 1857. The second edition is partly reconstructed and more
   positive.

   *E. de Pressense (French Protestant): Histoire de trois premiers
   siecles de l'eglise chretienne. Par. 1858 sqq. The same in German
   trans. by E. Fabarius. Leipz. 1862-'63, 4 vols. English transl. by
   Annie Harwood Holmden, under the title: The Early Years of
   Christianity. A Comprehensive History of the First Three Centuries of
   the Christian Church, 4 vols. Vol. I. The Apost. Age; vol. II. Martyrs
   and Apologists; vol. III. Heresy and Christian Doctrine; vol. IV.
   Christian Life and Practice. London (Hodder & Stoughton), 1870 sqq.,
   cheaper ed., 1879. Revised edition of the original, Paris, 1887 sqq.

   W. D. Killen (Presbyterian): The Ancient Church traced for the first
   three centuries. Edinb. and New York, 1859. New ed. N. Y., 1883.

   Ambrose Manahan (R. Cath.): Triumph of the Catholic Church in the Early
   Ages. New York, 1859.

   Alvan Lamson (Unitarian): The Church of the First Three Centuries, with
   special reference to the doctrine of the Trinity; illustrating its late
   origin and gradual formation. Boston, 1860.

   Milo Mahan (Episcopalian): A Church History of the First Three
   centuries. N. York, 1860. Second ed., 1878 (enlarged).

   J. J. Blunt: History of the Christian Church during the first three
   centuries. London, 1861.

   Jos. Schwane (R.C.): Dogmengeschichte der vornicaenischen Zeit.
   Muenster, 1862.

   Th. W. Mossman: History of the Cath. Church of J. Christ from the death
   of John to the middle of the second century. Lond. 1873.

   *Ernest Renan: L' Histoire des origines du Christianisme. Paris,
   1863-1882, 7 vols. The last two vols., I' eglise Chretienne, 1879, and
   Marc Aurele, 1882, belong to this period. Learned, critical, and
   brilliant, but thoroughly secular, and skeptical.

   *Gerhard Uhlhorn: Der Kampf des Christenthums mit dem Heidenthum. 3d
   improved ed. Stuttgart, 1879. English transl. by Profs. Egbert C. Smyth
   and C. J. H. Ropes: The Conflict of Christianity, etc. N. York, 1879.
   An admirable translation of a graphic and inspiring, account of the
   heroic conflict of Christianity with heathen Rome.

   *Theod. Keim, (d. 1879): Rom und das Christenthum. Ed. from the
   author's MSS. by H. Ziegler. Berlin, 1881. (667 pages).

   Chr. Wordsworth (Bishop of Lincoln): A Church History to the Council of
   Nicea, a.d. 325. Lond. and N. York, 1881. Anglo-Catholic.

   A. Plummer: The Church of the Early Fathers, London, 1887.

   Of the general works on Church History, those of Baronius, Tillemont
   (R.C.), Schroeckh, Gieseler, Neander, and Baur. (the third revised ed.
   of vol. 1st, Tueb. 1853, pp. 175-527; the same also transl. into
   English) should be noticed throughout on this period; but all these
   books are partly superseded by more recent discoveries and discussions
   of special points, which will be noticed in the respective sections.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 2. General Character of Ante-Nicene Christianity.

   We now descend from the primitive apostolic church to the Graeco-Roman;
   from the scene of creation to the work of preservation; from the
   fountain of divine revelation to the stream of human development; from
   the inspirations of the apostles and prophets to the productions of
   enlightened but fallible teachers. The hand of God has drawn a bold
   line of demarcation between the century of miracles and the succeeding
   ages, to show, by the abrupt transition and the striking contrast, the
   difference between the work of God and the work of man, and to impress
   us the more deeply with the supernatural origin of Christianity and the
   incomparable value of the New Testament. There is no other transition
   in history so radical and sudden, and yet so silent and secret. The
   stream of divine life in its passage from the mountain of inspiration
   to the valley of tradition is for a short time lost to our view, and
   seems to run under ground. Hence the close of the first and the
   beginning of the second centuries, or the age of the Apostolic Fathers
   is often regarded as a period for critical conjecture and doctrinal and
   ecclesiastical controversy rather than for historical narration.

   Still, notwithstanding the striking difference, the church of the
   second and third centuries is a legitimate continuation of that of the
   primitive age. While far inferior in originality, purity, energy, and
   freshness, it is distinguished for conscientious fidelity in preserving
   and propagating the sacred writings and traditions of the apostles, and
   for untiring zeal in imitating their holy lives amidst the greatest
   difficulties and dangers, when the religion of Christ was prohibited by
   law and the profession of it punished as a political crime.

   The second period, from the death of the apostle John to the end of the
   persecutions, or to the accession of Constantine, the first Christian
   emperor, is the classic age of the ecclesia pressa, of heathen
   persecution, and of Christian martyrdom and heroism, of cheerful
   sacrifice of possessions and life itself for the inheritance of heaven.
   It furnishes a continuous commentary on the Saviour's words: "Behold, I
   send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; I came not to send
   peace on earth, but a sword." [2] To merely human religion could have
   stood such an ordeal of fire for three hundred years. The final victory
   of Christianity over Judaism and heathenism, and the mightiest empire
   of the ancient world, a victory gained without physical force, but by
   the moral power of patience and perseverance, of faith and love, is one
   of the sublimest spectacles in history, and one of the strongest
   evidences of the divinity and indestructible life of our religion.

   But equally sublime and significant are the intellectual and spiritual
   victories of the church in this period over the science and art of
   heathenism, and over the assaults of Gnostic and Ebionitic heresy, with
   the copious vindication and development of the Christian truth, which
   the great mental conflict with those open and secret enemies called
   forth.

   The church of this period appears poor in earthly possessions and
   honors, but rich in heavenly grace, in world-conquering faith, love,
   and hope; unpopular, even outlawed, hated, and persecuted, yet far more
   vigorous and expansive than the philosophies of Greece or the empire of
   Rome; composed chiefly of persons of the lower social ranks, yet
   attracting the noblest and deepest minds of the age, and bearing, in
   her bosom the hope of the world; "as unknown, yet well-known, as dying,
   and behold it lives;" conquering by apparent defeat, and growing on the
   blood of her martyrs; great in deeds, greater in sufferings, greatest
   in death for the honor of Christ and the benefit of generations to
   come. [3]

   The condition and manners of the Christians in this age are most
   beautifully described by the unknown author of the "Epistola ad
   Diognetum" in the early part of the second century. [4] "The
   Christians," he says, "are not distinguished from other men by country,
   by language, nor by civil institutions. For they neither dwell in
   cities by themselves, nor use a peculiar tongue, nor lead a singular
   mode of life. They dwell in the Grecian or barbarian cities, as the
   case may be; they follow the usage of the country in dress, food, and
   the other affairs of life. Yet they present a wonderful and confessedly
   paradoxical conduct. They dwell in their own native lands, but as
   strangers. They take part in all things as citizens; and they suffer
   all things, as foreigners. Every foreign country is a fatherland to
   them, and every native land is a foreign. They marry, like all others;
   they have children; but they do not cast away their offspring. They
   have the table in common, but not wives. They are in the flesh, but do
   not live after the flesh. They live upon the earth, but are citizens of
   heaven. They obey the existing laws, and excel the laws by their lives.
   They love all, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown, and yet
   they are condemned. They are killed and are made alive. They are poor
   and make many rich. They lack all things, and in all things abound.
   They are reproached, and glory in their reproaches. They are
   calumniated, and are justified. They are cursed, and they bless. They
   receive scorn, and they give honor. They do good, and are punished as
   evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice, as being made alive. By the
   Jews they are attacked as aliens, and by the Greeks persecuted; and the
   cause of the enmity their enemies cannot tell. In short, what the soul
   is in the body, the Christians are in the world. The soul is diffused
   through all the members of the body, and the Christians are spread
   through the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, but it is
   not of the body; so the Christians dwell in the world, but are not of
   the world. The soul, invisible, keeps watch in the visible body; so
   also the Christians are seen to live in the world, but their piety is
   invisible. The flesh hates and wars against the soul, suffering no
   wrong from it, but because it resists fleshly pleasures; and the world
   hates the Christians with no reason, but that they resist its
   pleasures. The soul loves the flesh and members, by which it is hated;
   so the Christians love their haters. The soul is inclosed in the body,
   but holds the body together; so the Christians are detained in the
   world as in a prison; but they contain the world. Immortal, the soul
   dwells in the mortal body; so the Christians dwell in the corruptible,
   but look for incorruption in heaven. The soul is the better for
   restriction in food and drink; and the Christians increase, though
   daily punished. This lot God has assigned to the Christians in the
   world; and it cannot be taken from them."

   The community of Christians thus from the first felt itself, in
   distinction from Judaism and from heathenism, the salt of the earth,
   the light of the world, the city of God set on a hill, the immortal
   soul in a dying body; and this its impression respecting itself was no
   proud conceit, but truth and reality, acting in life and in death, and
   opening the way through hatred and persecution even to an outward
   victory over the world.

   The ante-Nicene age has been ever since the Reformation a battle-field
   between Catholic and Evangelical historians and polemics, and is
   claimed by both for their respective creeds. But it is a sectarian
   abuse of history to identify the Christianity of this martyr period
   either with Catholicism, or with Protestantism. It is rather the common
   root out of which both have sprung, Catholicism (Greek and Roman)
   first, and Protestantism afterwards. It is the natural transition from
   the apostolic age to the Nicene age, yet leaving behind many important
   truths of the former (especially the Pauline doctrines) which were to
   be derived and explored in future ages. We can trace in it the
   elementary forms of the Catholic creed, organization and worship, and
   also the germs of nearly all the corruptions of Greek and Roman
   Christianity.

   In its relation to the secular power, the ante-Nicene church is simply
   the continuation of the apostolic period, and has nothing in common
   either with the hierarchical, or with the Erastian systems. It was not
   opposed to the secular government in its proper sphere, but the secular
   heathenism of the government was opposed to Christianity. The church
   was altogether based upon the voluntary principle, as a self-supporting
   and self-governing body. In this respect it may be compared to the
   church in the United States, but with this essential difference that in
   America the secular government, instead of persecuting Christianity,
   recognizes and protects it by law, and secures to it full freedom of
   public worship and in all its activities at home and abroad.

   The theology of the second and third centuries was mainly apologetic
   against the paganism of Greece and Rome, and polemic against the
   various forms of the Gnostic heresy. In this conflict it brings out,
   with great force and freshness, the principal arguments for the divine
   origin and character of the Christian religion and the outlines of the
   true doctrine of Christ and the holy trinity, as afterwards more fully
   developed in the Nicene and post-Nicene ages.

   The organization of this period may be termed primitive episcopacy, as
   distinct from the apostolic order which preceded, and the metropolitan
   and patriarchal hierarchy which succeeded it. In worship it forms
   likewise the transition from apostolic simplicity to the liturgical and
   ceremonial splendor of full-grown Catholicism.

   The first half of the second century is comparatively veiled in
   obscurity, although considerable light has been shed over it by recent
   discoveries and investigations. After the death of John only a few
   witnesses remain to testify of the wonders of the apostolic days, and
   their writings are few in number, short in compass and partly of
   doubtful origin: a volume of letters and historical fragments, accounts
   of martyrdom, the pleadings of two or three apologists; to which must
   be added the rude epitaphs, faded pictures, and broken sculptures of
   the subterranean church in the catacombs. The men of that generation
   were more skilled in acting out Christianity in life and death, than in
   its literary defence. After the intense commotion of the apostolic age
   there was a breathing spell, a season of unpretending but fruitful
   preparation for a new productive epoch. But the soil of heathenism had
   been broken up, and the new seed planted by the hands of the apostles
   gradually took root.

   Then came the great literary conflict of the apologists and doctrinal
   polemics in the second half of the same century; and towards the middle
   of the third the theological schools of Alexandria, and northern
   Africa, laying the foundation the one for the theology of the Greek,
   the other for that of the Latin church. At the beginning of the fourth
   century the church east and west was already so well consolidated in
   doctrine and discipline that it easily survived the shock of the last
   and most terrible persecution, and could enter upon the fruits of its
   long-continued sufferings and take the reins of government in the old
   Roman empire.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2] r. 4:10; Rom. 8:36; Phil. 3:10 sq. Col. 1:24 sq.; 1 Pet. 2:21

   [3] ect, as well as affection; for theirs was the fervor of a steady
   faith in things unseen and eternal; theirs, often, a meek patience
   under the most grievous wrongs; theirs the courage to maintain a good
   profession before the frowning face of philosophy, of secular tyranny,
   and of splendid superstition; theirs was abstractedness from the world
   and a painful self-denial; theirs the most arduous and costly labors of
   love; theirs a munificence in charity, altogether without example;
   theirs was a reverent and scrupulous care of the sacred writings; and
   this one merit, if they had no other, is of a superlative degree, and
   should entitle them to the veneration and grateful regards of the
   modern church. How little do many readers of the Bible, nowadays, think
   of what it cost the Christians of the second and third centuries,
   merely to rescue and hide the sacred treasures from the rage of the
   heathen!"

   [4]
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER I:

   SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 3. Literature.

   I. Sources.

   No statistics or accurate statements, but only scattered hints in

   Pliny (107): Ep. x. 96 sq. (the letter to Trajan). Ignatius (about
   110): Ad Magnes. c. 10. Ep. ad Diogn. (about 120) c. 6.

   Justin Martyr (about 140): Dial. 117; Apol. I. 53.

   Irenaeus (about 170): Adv. Haer. I. 10; III. 3, 4; v. 20, etc.

   Tertullian (about 200): Apol. I. 21, 37, 41, 42; Ad Nat. I. 7; Ad Scap.
   c. 2, 5; Adv. Jud. 7, 12, 13.

   Origen (d. 254): Contr. Cels. I, 7, 27; II. 13, 46; III. 10, 30; De
   Princ. l. IV. c. 1, S: 2; Com. in Matth. p. 857, ed. Delarue.

   Eusebius (d. 340): Hist. Eccl III. 1; v. 1; vii, 1; viii. 1, also books
   ix. and x. RUFINUS: Hist. Eccles. ix. 6.

   Augustin (d. 430): De Civitate Dei. Eng. translation by M. Dods,
   Edinburgh, 1871; new ed. (in Schaff's "Nicene and Post-Nicene
   Library"), N. York, 1887.

   II. Works.

   Mich. Le Quien (a learned Dominican, d. 1733): Oriens Christianus. Par.
   1740. 3 vols. fol. A complete ecclesiastical geography of the East,
   divided into the four patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria,
   Antioch, and Jerusalem.

   Mosheim: Historical Commentaries, etc. (ed. Murdock) I. 259-290.

   Gibbon: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Chap. xv.

   A. Beugnot: Histoire de la destruction du paganisme en Occident. Paris
   1835, 2 vols. Crowned by the Academie des inscriptions et
   belles-letters.

   Etienne Chastel: Histoire de la destruction du paganisme dans I' empire
   d' Orient. Paris 1850. Prize essay of the Academie.

   Neander: History of the Christian Relig. and Church (trans. of Torrey),
   I. 68-79

   Wiltsch: Handbuch der kirchl. Geographie u. Statistik. Berlin 1846. I.
   p. 32 sqq.

   Chs. Merivale: Conversion of the Roman Empire (Boyle Lectures for
   1864), republ. N. York 1865. Comp. also his History of the Romans under
   the Empire, which goes from Julius Caesar to Marcus Aurelius, Lond. &
   N. York, 7 vols.

   Edward A. Freeman: The Historical Geography of Europe. Lond. & N. York
   1881. 2 vols. (vol. I. chs. II. & III. pp. 18-71.)

   Comp. Friedlaender, Sittengesch. Roms. III. 517 sqq.; and Renan:
   Marc-Aurele. Paris 1882, ch. xxv. pp. 447-464 (Statistique et extension
   geographique du Christianisme).

   V. Schultze: Geschichte des Untergangs des griech-roemischen.
   Heidenthums. Jena, 1887.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 4. Hindrances and Helps.

   For the first three centuries Christianity was placed in the most
   unfavorable circumstances, that it might display its moral power, and
   gain its victory over the world by spiritual weapons alone. Until the
   reign of Constantine it had not even a legal existence in the Roman
   empire, but was first ignored as a Jewish sect, then slandered,
   proscribed, and persecuted, as a treasonable innovation, and the
   adoption of it made punishable with confiscation and death. Besides, it
   offered not the slightest favor, as Mohammedanism afterwards did, to
   the corrupt inclinations of the heart, but against the current ideas of
   Jews and heathen it so presented its inexorable demand of repentance
   and conversion, renunciation of self and the world, that more,
   according to Tertullian, were kept out of the new sect by love of
   pleasure than by love of life. The Jewish origin of Christianity also,
   and the poverty and obscurity of a majority of its professors
   particularly offended the pride of the Greeks, and Romans. Celsus,
   exaggerating this fact, and ignoring the many exceptions, scoffingly
   remarked, that "weavers, cobblers, and fullers, the most illiterate
   persons" preached the "irrational faith," and knew how to commend it
   especially "to women and children."

   But in spite of these extraordinary difficulties Christianity made a
   progress which furnished striking evidence of its divine origin and
   adaptation to the deeper wants of man, and was employed as such by
   Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, and other fathers of that day. Nay, the
   very hindrances became, in the hands of Providence, means of promotion.
   Persecution led to martyrdom, and martyrdom had not terrors alone, but
   also attractions, and stimulated the noblest and most unselfish form of
   ambition. Every genuine martyr was a living proof of the truth and
   holiness of the Christian religion. Tertullian could exclaim to the
   heathen: "All your ingenious cruelties can accomplish nothing; they are
   only a lure to this sect. Our number increases the more you destroy us.
   The blood of the Christians is their seed." The moral earnestness of
   the Christians contrasted powerfully with the prevailing corruption of
   the age, and while it repelled the frivolous and voluptuous, it could
   not fail to impress most strongly the deepest and noblest minds. The
   predilection of the poor and oppressed for the gospel attested its
   comforting and redeeming power. But others also, though not many, from
   the higher and educated classes, were from the first attracted to the
   new religion; such men as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathaea, the apostle
   Paul, the proconsul Sergius Paulus, Dionysius of Athens, Erastus of
   Corinth, and some members of the imperial household. Among the
   sufferers in Domitian's persecution were his own near kinswoman Flavia
   Domitilla and her husband Flavius Clemens. In the oldest part of the
   Catacomb of Callistus, which is named after St. Lucina, members of the
   illustrious gens Pomponia, and perhaps also of the Flavian house, are
   interred. The senatorial and equestrian orders furnished several
   converts open or concealed. Pliny laments, that in Asia Minor men of
   every rank (omnis ordinis) go over to the Christians. Tertullian
   asserts that the tenth part of Carthage, and among them senators and
   ladies of the noblest descent and the nearest relatives of the
   proconsul of Africa professed Christianity. The numerous church fathers
   from the middle of the second century, a Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
   Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, excelled, or at least
   equalled in talent and culture, their most eminent heathen
   contemporaries.

   Nor was this progress confined to any particular localities. It
   extended alike over all parts of the empire. "We are a people of
   yesterday," says Tertullian in his Apology, "and yet we have filled
   every place belonging to you--cities, islands, castles, towns,
   assemblies, your very camp, your tribes, companies, palace, senate,
   forum! We leave you your temples only. We can count your armies; our
   numbers in a single province will be greater." All these facts expose
   the injustice of the odious charge of Celsus, repeated by a modern
   sceptic, that the new sect was almost entirely composed of the dregs of
   the populace--of peasants and mechanics, of boys and women, of beggars
   and slaves.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 5. Causes of the Success of Christianity.

   The chief positive cause of the rapid spread and ultimate triumph of
   Christianity is to be found in its own absolute intrinsic worth, as the
   universal religion of salvation, and in the perfect teaching and
   example of its divine-human Founder, who proves himself to every
   believing heart a Saviour from sin and a giver of eternal life.
   Christianity is adapted to all classes, conditions, and relations among
   men, to all nationalities and races, to all grades of culture, to every
   soul that longs for redemption from sin, and for holiness of life. Its
   value could be seen in the truth and self-evidencing power of its
   doctrines; in the purity and sublimity of its precepts; in its
   regenerating and sanctifying effects on heart and life; in the
   elevation of woman and of home life over which she presides; in the
   amelioration of the condition of the poor and suffering; in the faith,
   the brotherly love, the beneficence, and the triumphant death of its
   confessors.

   To this internal moral and spiritual testimony were added the powerful
   outward proof of its divine origin in the prophecies and types of the
   Old Testament, so strikingly fulfilled in the New; and finally, the
   testimony of the miracles, which, according to the express statements
   of Quadratus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and others,
   continued in this period to accompany the preaching of missionaries
   from time to time, for the conversion of the heathen.

   Particularly favorable outward circumstances were the extent, order,
   and unity of the Roman empire, and the prevalence of the Greek language
   and culture.

   In addition to these positive causes, Christianity had a powerful
   negative advantage in the hopeless condition of the Jewish and heathen
   world. Since the fearful judgment of the destruction of Jerusalem,
   Judaism wandered restless and accursed, without national existence.
   Heathenism outwardly held sway, but was inwardly rotten and in process
   of inevitable decay. The popular religion and public morality were
   undermined by a sceptical and materialistic philosophy; Grecian science
   and art had lost their creative energy; the Roman empire rested only on
   the power of the sword and of temporal interests; the moral bonds of
   society were sundered; unbounded avarice and vice of every kind, even
   by the confession of a Seneca and a Tacitus, reigned in Rome and in the
   provinces, from the throne to the hovel. Virtuous emperors, like
   Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, were the exception, not the rule,
   and could not prevent the progress of moral decay. Nothing, that
   classic antiquity in its fairest days had produced, could heal the
   fatal wounds of the age, or even give transient relief. The only star
   of hope in the gathering night was the young, the fresh, the dauntless
   religion of Jesus, fearless of death, strong in faith, glowing with
   love, and destined to commend itself more and more to all reflecting
   minds as the only living religion of the present and the future. While
   the world was continually agitated by wars, and revolutions, and public
   calamities, while systems of philosophy, and dynasties were rising and
   passing away, the new religion, in spite of fearful opposition from
   without and danger from within, was silently and steadily progressing
   with the irresistible force of truth, and worked itself gradually into
   the very bone and blood of the race.

   "Christ appeared," says the great Augustin, "to the men of the
   decrepit, decaying world, that while all around them was withering
   away, they might through Him receive new, youthful life."

   Notes.

   Gibbon, in his famous fifteenth chapter, traces the rapid progress of
   Christianity in the Roman empire to five causes: the zeal of the early
   Christians, the belief in future rewards and punishment, the power of
   miracles, the austere (pure) morals of the Christian, and the compact
   church organization. But these causes are themselves the effects of a
   cause which Gibbon ignores, namely, the divine truth of Christianity,
   the perfection of Christ's teaching and Christ's example. See the
   strictures of Dr. John Henry Newman, Grammar of Assent, 445 sq., and
   Dr. George P. Fisher, The Beginnings of Christianity, p. 543 sqq. "The
   zeal" [of the early Christians], says Fisher, "was zeal for a person,
   and for a cause identified with Him; the belief in the future life
   sprang out of faith in Him who had died and risen again, and ascended
   to Heaven; the miraculous powers of the early disciples were
   consciously connected with the same source; the purification of morals,
   and the fraternal unity, which lay at the basis of ecclesiastical
   association among the early Christians, were likewise the fruit of
   their relation to Christ, and their common love to Him. The victory of
   Christianity in the Roman world was the victory of Christ, who was
   lifted up that He might draw all men unto Him."

   Lecky (Hist. of Europ. Morals, I. 412) goes deeper than Gibbon, and
   accounts for the success of early Christianity by its intrinsic
   excellency and remarkable adaptation to the wants of the times in the
   old Roman empire. "In the midst of this movement," he says,
   "Christianity gained its ascendancy, and we can be at no loss to
   discover the cause of its triumph. No other religion, under such
   circumstances, had ever combined so many distinct elements of power and
   attraction. Unlike the Jewish religion, it was bound by no local ties,
   and was equally adapted for every nation and for every class. Unlike
   Stoicism, it appealed in the strongest manner to the affections, and
   offered all the charm of a sympathetic worship. Unlike the Egyptian
   religion, it united with its distinctive teaching a pure and noble
   system of ethics, and proved itself capable of realizing it in action.
   It proclaimed, amid a vast movement of social and national
   amalgamation, the universal brotherhood of mankind. Amid the softening
   influence of philosophy and civilization, it taught the supreme
   sanctity of love. To the slave, who had never before exercised so large
   an influence over Roman religious life, it was the religion of the
   suffering and the oppressed. To the philosopher it was at once the echo
   of the highest ethics of the later Stoics, and the expansion of the
   best teaching of the school of Plato. To a world thirsting for prodigy,
   it offered a history replete with wonders more strange than those of
   Apollonius; while the Jew and the Chaldean could scarcely rival its
   exorcists, and the legends of continual miracles circulated among its
   followers. To a world deeply conscious of political dissolution, and
   prying eagerly and anxiously into the future, it proclaimed with a
   thrilling power the immediate destruction of the globe--the glory of
   all its friends, and the damnation of all its foes. To a world that had
   grown very weary gazing on the cold passionless grandeur which Cato
   realized, and which Lucan sung, it presented an ideal of compassion and
   of love--an ideal destined for centuries to draw around it all that was
   greatest, as well as all that was noblest upon earth--a Teacher who
   could weep by the sepulchre of His friend, who was touched with the
   feeling of our infirmities. To a world, in fine, distracted by hostile
   creeds and colliding philosophies, it taught its doctrines, not as a
   human speculation, but as a Divine revelation, authenticated much less
   by reason than by faith. 'With the heart man believeth unto
   righteousness;' 'He that doeth the will of my Father will know the
   doctrine, whether it be of God;' 'Unless you believe you cannot
   understand;' 'A heart naturally Christian;' 'The heart makes the
   theologian,' are the phrases which best express the first action of
   Christianity upon the world. Like all great religions, it was more
   concerned with modes of feeling than with modes of thought. The chief
   cause of its success was the congruity of its teaching with the
   spiritual nature of mankind. It was because it was true of the moral
   sentiments of the age, because it represented faithfully the supreme
   type of excellence to which men were then tending, because it
   corresponded with their religious wants, aims, and emotions, because
   the whole spiritual being could then expand and expatiate under its
   influence that it planted its roots so deeply in the hearts of men."

   Merivale (Convers. of the Rom. Emp., Preface) traces the conversion of
   the Roman empire chiefly to four causes: 1) the external evidence of
   the apparent fulfilment of recorded prophecy and miracles to the truth
   of Christianity; 2) the internal evidence of satisfying the
   acknowledged need of a redeemer and sanctifier; 3) the goodness and
   holiness manifested in the lives and deaths of the primitive believers;
   4) the temporal success of Christianity under Constantine, which
   "turned the mass of mankind, as with a sweeping revolution, to the
   rising sun of revealed truth in Christ Jesus."

   Renan discusses the reasons for the victory of Christianity in the 31st
   chapter of his Marc-Aurele (Paris 1882), pp. 561-588. He attributes it
   chiefly "to the new discipline of life," and "the moral reform," which
   the world required, which neither philosophy nor any of the established
   religions could give. The Jews indeed rose high above the corruptions
   of the times. "Glorie eternelle et unique, qui doit faire oublier bien
   des folies et des violence! Les Juifs sont les revolutionnaires du 1er
   et du 2e siecle de notre ere " They gave to the world Christianity.
   "Les populations se precipiterent, par une sorte du mouvement
   instinctif, dans une secte qui satisfaisait leur aspirations les plus
   intimes et ouvrait des esperances infinies." Renan makes much account
   of the belief in immortality and the offer of complete pardon to every
   sinner, as allurements to Christianity; and, like Gibbon, he ignores
   its real power as a religion of salvation. This accounts for its
   success not only in the old Roman empire, but in every country and
   nation where it has found a home.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 6. Means of Propagation.

   It is a remarkable fact that after the days of the Apostles no names of
   great missionaries are mentioned till the opening of the middle ages,
   when the conversion of nations was effected or introduced by a few
   individuals as St. Patrick in Ireland, St. Columba in Scotland, St.
   Augustine in England, St. Boniface in Germany, St. Ansgar in
   Scandinavia, St. Cyril and Methodius among the Slavonic races. There
   were no missionary societies, no missionary institutions, no organized
   efforts in the ante-Nicene age; and yet in less than 300 years from the
   death of St. John the whole population of the Roman empire which then
   represented the civilized world was nominally Christianized.

   To understand this astonishing fact, we must remember that the
   foundation was laid strong and deep by the apostles themselves. The
   seed scattered by them from Jerusalem to Rome, and fertilized by their
   blood, sprung up as a bountiful harvest. The word of our Lord was again
   fulfilled on a larger scale: "One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent
   you to reap that whereon ye have not labored: others have labored, and
   ye are entered into their labor" (John 4:38).

   Christianity once established was its own best missionary. It grew
   naturally from within. It attracted people by its very presence. It was
   a light shining in darkness and illuminating the darkness. And while
   there were no professional missionaries devoting their whole life to
   this specific work, every congregation was a missionary society, and
   every Christian believer a missionary, inflamed by the love of Christ
   to convert his fellow-men. The example had been set by Jerusalem and
   Antioch, and by those brethren who, after the martyrdom of Stephen,
   "were scattered abroad and went about preaching the Word." [5] Justin
   Martyr was converted by a venerable old man whom he met "walking on the
   shore of the sea." Every Christian laborer, says Tertullian, "both
   finds out God and manifests him, though Plato affirms that it is not
   easy to discover the Creator, and difficult when he is found to make
   him known to all." Celsus scoffingly remarks that fuller, and workers
   in wool and leather, rustic and ignorant persons, were the most zealous
   propagators of Christianity, and brought it first to women and
   children. Women and slaves introduced it into the home-circle, it is
   the glory of the gospel that it is preached to the poor and by the poor
   to make them rich. Origen informs us that the city churches sent their
   missionaries to the villages. The seed grew up while men slept, and
   brought forth fruit, first the blade, then the ear, after that the full
   corn in the ear. Every Christian told his neighbor, the laborer to his
   fellow-laborer, the slave to his fellow-slave, the servant to his
   master and mistress, the story of his conversion, as a mariner tells
   the story of the rescue from shipwreck.

   The gospel was propagated chiefly by living preaching and by personal
   intercourse; to a considerable extent also through the sacred
   Scriptures, which were early propagated and translated into various
   tongues, the Latin (North African and Italian), the Syriac (the
   Curetonian and the Peshito), and the Egyptian (in three dialects, the
   Memphitic, the Thebaic, and the Bashmuric). Communication among the
   different parts of the Roman empire from Damascus to Britain was
   comparatively easy and safe. The highways built for commerce and for
   the Roman legions, served also the messengers of peace and the silent
   conquests of the cross. Commerce itself at that time, as well as now,
   was a powerful agency in carrying the gospel and the seeds of Christian
   civilization to the remotest parts of the Roman empire.

   The particular mode, as well as the precise time, of the introduction
   of Christianity into the several countries during this period is for
   the most part uncertain, and we know not much more than the fact
   itself. No doubt much more was done by the apostles and their immediate
   disciples, than the New Testament informs us of. But on the other hand
   the mediaeval tradition assigns an apostolic origin to many national
   and local churches which cannot have arisen before the second or third
   century. Even Joseph of Arimathaea, Nicodemus, Dionysius the
   Areopagite, Lazarus, Martha and Mary were turned by the legend into
   missionaries to foreign lands.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [5] 11:19.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 7. Extent of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

   Justin Martyr says, about the middle of the second century: "There is
   no people, Greek or barbarian, or of any other race, by whatsoever
   appellation or manners they may be distinguished, however ignorant of
   arts or agriculture, whether they dwell in tents or wander about in
   covered wagons--among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered in
   the name of the crucified Jesus to the Father and Creator of all
   things." Half a century later, Tertullian addresses the heathen
   defiantly: "We are but of yesterday, and yet we already fill your
   cities, islands, camps, your palace, senate and forum; we have left to
   you only your temples." [6] These, and similar passages of Irenaeus and
   Arnobius, are evidently rhetorical exaggerations. Origen is more
   cautious and moderate in his statements. But it may be fairly asserted,
   that about the end of the third century the name of Christ was known,
   revered, and persecuted in every province and every city of the empire.
   Maximian, in one of his edicts, says that "almost all" had abandoned
   the worship of their ancestors for the new sect.

   In the absence of statistics, the number of the Christians must be
   purely a matter of conjecture. In all probability it amounted at the
   close of the third and the beginning of the fourth century to nearly
   one-tenth or one-twelfth of the subjects of Rome, that is to about ten
   millions of souls.

   But the fact, that the Christians were a closely united body, fresh,
   vigorous, hopeful, and daily increasing, while the heathen were for the
   most part a loose aggregation, daily diminishing, made the true
   prospective strength of the church much greater.

   The propagation of Christianity among the barbarians in the provinces
   of Asia and the north-west of Europe beyond the Roman empire, was at
   first, of course, too remote from the current of history to be of any
   great immediate importance. But it prepared the way for the
   civilization of those regions, and their subsequent position in the
   world.

   Notes.

   Gibbon and Friedlaender (III. 531) estimate the number of Christians at
   the accession of Constantine (306) probably too low at one-twentieth;
   Matter and Robertson too high at one-fifth of his subjects. Some older
   writers, misled by the hyperbolical statements of the early Apologists,
   even represent the Christians as having at least equalled if not
   exceeded the number of the heathen worshippers in the empire. In this
   case common prudence would have dictated a policy of toleration long
   before Constantine. Mosheim, in his Hist. Commentaries, etc. (Murdock's
   translation I. p. 274 sqq.) discusses at length the number of
   Christians in the second century without arriving at definite
   conclusions. Chastel estimates the number at the time of Constantine at
   1/15 in the West, 1/10 in the East, 1/12 on an average (Hist. de la
   destruct. du paganisme, p. 36). According to Chrysostom, the Christian
   population of Antioch in his day (380) was about 100,000, or one-half
   of the whole.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [6] sola vobis relinquimus templa."Apol.c. 37. Long before Tertullian
   the heathen Pliny, in his famous letter to Trajan (Epp. x. 97) had
   spoken of "desolata templa" and "sacra solemnia diu intermissa, " in
   consequence of the spread of the Christian superstition throughout the
   cities and villages of Asia Minor.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 8. Christianity in Asia.

   Asia was the cradle of Christianity, as it was of humanity and
   civilization. The apostles themselves had spread the new religion over
   Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. According to the younger Pliny, under
   Trajan, the temples of the gods in Asia Minor were almost forsaken, and
   animals of sacrifice found hardly any purchasers. In the second century
   Christianity penetrated to Edessa in Mesopotamia, and some distance
   into Persia, Media, Bactria, and Parthia; and in the third, into
   Armenia and Arabia. Paul himself had, indeed, spent three years in
   Arabia, but probably in contemplative retirement preparing for his
   apostolic ministry. There is a legend, that the apostles Thomas and
   Bartholomew carried the gospel to India. But a more credible statement
   is, that the Christian teacher Pantaeus of Alexandria journeyed to that
   country about 190, and that in the fourth century churches were found
   there.

   The transfer of the seat of power from Rome to Constantinople, and the
   founding of the East Roman empire under Constantine I. gave to Asia
   Minor, and especially to Constantinople, a commanding importance in the
   history of the Church for several centuries. The seven oecumenical
   Councils from 325 to 787 were all held in that city or its
   neighborhood, and the doctrinal controversies on the Trinity and the
   person of Christ were carried on chiefly in Asia Minor, Syria, and
   Egypt.

   In the mysterious providence of God those lands of the Bible and the
   early church have been conquered by the prophet of Mecca, the Bible
   replaced by the Koran, and the Greek church reduced to a condition of
   bondage and stagnation; but the time is not far distant when the East
   will be regenerated by the undying spirit of Christianity. A peaceful
   crusade of devoted missionaries preaching the pure gospel and leading
   holy lives will reconquer the holy land and settle the Eastern
   question.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 9. Christianity in Egypt.

   In Africa Christianity gained firm foothold first in Egypt, and there
   probably as early as the apostolic age. The land of the Pharaohs, of
   the pyramids and sphinxes, of temples and tombs, of hieroglyphics and
   mummies, of sacred bulls and crocodiles, of despotism and slavery, is
   closely interwoven with sacred history from the patriarchal times, and
   even imbedded in the Decalogue as "the house of bondage." It was the
   home of Joseph and his brethren, and the cradle of Israel. In Egypt the
   Jewish Scriptures were translated more than two hundred years before
   our era, and this Greek version used even by Christ and the apostles,
   spread Hebrew ideas throughout the Roman world, and is the mother of
   the peculiar idiom of the New Testament. Alexandria was full of Jews,
   the literary as well as commercial centre of the East, and the
   connecting link between the East and the West. There the largest
   libraries were collected; there the Jewish mind came into close contact
   with the Greek, and the religion of Moses with the philosophy of Plato
   and Aristotle. There Philo wrote, while Christ taught in Jerusalem and
   Galilee, and his works were destined to exert a great influence on
   Christian exegesis through the Alexandrian fathers.

   Mark, the evangelist, according to ancient tradition, laid the
   foundation of the church of Alexandria. The Copts in old Cairo, the
   Babylon of Egypt, claim this to be the place from which Peter wrote his
   first epistle (1 Pet. 5:13); but he must mean either the Babylon on the
   Euphrates, or the mystic Babylon of Rome. Eusebius names, as the first
   bishops of Alexandria, Annianos (a.d. 62-85), Abilios (to 98), and
   Kerdon (to 110). This see naturally grew up to metropolitan and
   patriarchal importance and dignity. As early as the second century a
   theological school flourished in Alexandria, in which Clement and
   Origen taught as pioneers in biblical learning and Christian
   philosophy. From Lower Egypt the gospel spread to Middle and Upper
   Egypt and the adjacent provinces, perhaps (in the fourth century) as
   far as Nubia, Ethiopia, and Abyssinia. At a council of Alexandria in
   the year 235, twenty bishops were present from the different parts of
   the land of the Nile.

   During the fourth century Egypt gave to the church the Arian heresy,
   the Athanasian orthodoxy, and the monastic piety of St. Antony and St.
   Pachomius, which spread with irresistible force over Christendom.

   The theological literature of Egypt was chiefly Greek. Most of the
   early manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures--including probably the
   invaluable Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.--were written in Alexandria. But
   already in the second century the Scriptures were translated into the
   vernacular language, in three different dialects. What remains of these
   versions is of considerable weight in ascertaining the earliest text of
   the Greek Testament.

   The Christian Egyptians are the descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians,
   but largely mixed with negro and Arab blood. Christianity never fully
   penetrated the nation, and was almost swept away by the Mohammedan
   conquest under the Caliph Omar (640), who burned the magnificent
   libraries of Alexandria under the plea that if the books agreed with
   the Koran, they were useless, if not, they were pernicious and fit for
   destruction. Since that time Egypt almost disappears from church
   history, and is still groaning, a house of bondage under new masters.
   The great mass of the people are Moslems, but the Copts--about half a
   million of five and a half millions--perpetuate the nominal
   Christianity of their ancestors, and form a mission field for the more
   active churches of the West.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 10. Christianity in North Africa.

   Boettiger: Geschichte der Carthager. Berlin, 1827.

   Movers: Die Phoenizier. 1840-56, 4 vols. (A standard work.)

   Th. Mommsen: Roem. Geschichte, I. 489 sqq. (Book III. chs. 1-7, 5th
   ed.)

   N. Davis: Carthage and her Remains. London & N. York, 1861.

   R. Bosworth Smith: Carthage and the Carthaginians. Lond. 2nd ed. 1879.
   By the same: Rome and Carthage. N. York, 1880.

   Otto Meltzer: Geschichte der Karthager. Berlin, vol. I. 1879.

   These books treat of the secular history of the ancient Carthaginians,
   but help to understand the situation and antecedents.

   Julius Lloyd; The North African Church. London, 1880. Comes down to the
   Moslem Conquest.

   The inhabitants of the provinces of Northern Africa were of Semitic
   origin, with a language similar to the Hebrew, but became Latinized in
   customs, laws, and language under the Roman rule. The church in that
   region therefore belongs to Latin Christianity, and plays a leading
   part in its early history.

   The Phoenicians, a remnant of the Canaanites, were the English of
   ancient history. They carried on the commerce of the world; while the
   Israelites prepared the religion, and the Greeks the civilization of
   the world. Three small nations, in small countries, accomplished a more
   important work than the colossal empires of Assyria, Babylon, and
   Persia, or even Rome. Occupying a narrow strip of territory on the
   Syrian coast, between Mount Lebanon and the sea, the Phoenicians sent
   their merchant vessels from Tyre and Sidon to all parts of the old
   world from India to the Baltic, rounded the Cape of Good Hope two
   thousand years before Vasco de Gama, and brought back sandal wood from
   Malabar, spices from Arabia, ostrich plumes from Nubia, silver from
   Spain, gold from the Niger, iron from Elba, tin from England, and amber
   from the Baltic. They furnished Solomon with cedars from Lebanon, and
   helped him to build his palace and the temple. They founded on the
   northernmost coast of Africa, more than eight hundred years before
   Christ, the colony of Carthage. [7] From that favorable position they
   acquired the control over the northern coast of Africa from the pillars
   of Hercules to the Great Syrtes, over Southern Spain, the islands of
   Sardinia and Sicily, and the whole Mediterranean sea. Hence the
   inevitable rivalry between Rome and Carthage, divided only by three
   days' sail; hence the three Punic wars which, in spite of the brilliant
   military genius of Hannibal, ended in the utter destruction of the
   capital of North Africa (b.c. 146). [8] "Delenda est Carthago," was the
   narrow and cruel policy of the elder Cato. But under Augustus, who
   carried out the wiser plan of Julius Caesar, there arose a new Carthage
   on the ruins of the old, and became a rich and prosperous city, first
   heathen, then Christian, until it was captured by the barbarous Vandals
   (a.d. 439), and finally destroyed by a race cognate to its original
   founders, the Mohammedan Arabs (647). Since that time "a mournful and
   solitary silence" once more brooded over its ruins. [9]

   Christianity reached proconsular Africa in the second, perhaps already
   at the close of the first century, we do not know when and how. There
   was constant intercourse with Italy. It spread very rapidly over the
   fertile fields and burning sands of Mauritania and Numidia. Cyprian
   could assemble in 258 a synod of eighty-seven bishops, and in 308 the
   schismatical Donatists held a council of two hundred and seventy
   bishops at Carthage. The dioceses, of course, were small in those days.

   The oldest Latin translation of the Bible, miscalled "Itala" (the basis
   of Jerome's "Vulgata"), was made probably in Africa and for Africa, not
   in Rome and for Rome, where at that time the Greek language prevailed
   among Christians. Latin theology, too, was not born in Rome, but in
   Carthage. Tertullian is its father. Minutius Felix, Arnobius, and
   Cyprian bear witness to the activity and prosperity of African
   Christianity and theology in the third century. It reached its highest
   perfection during the first quarter of the fifth century in the sublime
   intellect and burning heart of St. Augustin, the greatest among the
   fathers, but soon after his death (430) it was buried first beneath the
   Vandal barbarism, and in the seventh century by the Mohammedan
   conquest. Yet his writings led Christian thought in the Latin church
   throughout the dark ages, stimulated the Reformers, and are a vital
   force to this day.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [7] Karchedon), the Latin Carthago. It means New City (Neapolis). The
   word Kereth or Carth enters also into the names of other cities of
   Phoenician origin, as Cirta in Numidia.

   [8]

   [9] ions of N. Davis and B. Smith (Rome and Carthage, ch. xx. 263-291).
   The recent conquest of Tunis by France (1881) gives new interest to the
   past of that country, and opens a new chapter for its future. Smith
   describes Tunis as the most Oriental of Oriental towns, with a gorgeous
   mixture of races--Arabs, Turks, Moors, and Negroes--held together by
   the religion of Islam.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 11. Christianity in Europe.

   "Westward the course of Empire takes its way."

   This law of history is also the law of Christianity. From Jerusalem to
   Rome was the march of the apostolic church. Further and further West
   has been the progress of missions ever since.

   The church of Rome was by far the most important one for all the West.
   According to Eusebius, it had in the middle of the third century one
   bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven deacons with as many sub-deacons,
   forty-two acolyths, fifty readers, exorcists, and door-keepers, and
   fifteen hundred widows and poor persons under its care. From this we
   might estimate the number of members at some fifty or sixty thousand,
   i.e. about one-twentieth of the population of the city, which cannot be
   accurately determined indeed, but must have exceeded one million during
   the reign of the Antonines. [10] The strength of Christianity in Rome
   is also confirmed by the enormous extent of the catacombs where the
   Christians were buried.

   From Rome the church spread to all the cities of Italy. The first Roman
   provincial synod, of which we have information, numbered twelve bishops
   under the presidency of Telesphorus (142-154). In the middle of the
   third century (255) Cornelius of Rome held a council of sixty bishops.

   The persecution of the year 177 shows the church already planted in the
   south of Gaul in the second century. Christianity came hither probably
   from the East; for the churches of Lyons and Vienne were intimately
   connected with those of Asia Minor, to which they sent a report of the
   persecution, and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, was a disciple of Polycarp
   of Smyrna. Gregory of Tours states, that in the middle of the third
   century seven missionaries were sent from Rome to Gaul. One of these,
   Dionysius, founded the first church of Paris, died a martyr at
   Montmartre, and became the patron saint of France. Popular superstition
   afterwards confounded him with Dionysius the Areopagite, who was
   converted by Paul at Athens.

   Spain probably became acquainted with Christianity likewise in the
   second century, though no clear traces of churches and bishops there
   meet us till the middle of the third. The council of Elvira in 306
   numbered nineteen bishops. The apostle Paul once formed the plan of a
   missionary journey to Spain, and according to Clement of Rome he
   preached there, if we understand that country to be meant by "the limit
   of the West," to which he says that Paul carried the gospel. [11] 0 But
   there is no trace of his labors in Spain on record. The legend, in
   defiance of all chronology, derives Christianity in that country from
   James the Elder, who was executed in Jerusalem in 44, and is said to be
   buried at Campostella, the famous place of pilgrimage, where his bones
   were first discovered under Alphonse II, towards the close of the
   eighth century [12]

   When Irenaeus speaks of the preaching of the gospel among the Germans
   and other barbarians, who, "without paper and ink, have salvation
   written in their hearts by the Holy Spirit," he can refer only to the
   parts of Germany belonging to the Roman empire (Germania cisrhenana).

   According to Tertullian Britain also was brought under the power of the
   cross towards the end of the second century. The Celtic church existed
   in England, Ireland, and Scotland, independently of Rome, long before
   the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons by the Roman mission of Augustine;
   it continued for some time after that event and sent offshoots to
   Germany, France, and the Low Countries, but was ultimately at different
   dates incorporated with the Roman church. It took its origin probably
   from Gaul, and afterwards from Italy also. The legend traces it to St.
   Paul and other apostolic founders. The venerable Bede (735) says, that
   the British king Lucius (about 167) applied to the Roman bishop
   Eleutherus for missionaries. At the council of Arles, in Gaul
   (Arelate), in 314, three British bishops, of Eboracum (York), Londinum
   (London), and Colonia Londinensium (i.e. either Lincoln or more
   probably Colchester), were present.

   The conversion of the barbarians of Northern and Western Europe did not
   begin in earnest before the fifth and sixth centuries, and will claim
   our attention in the history of the Middle Ages.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [10] is; thirty-first chapter, and Milman estimate the population of
   Rome at 1,200,000; Hoeck (on the basis of the Monumentum Ancyranum),
   Zumpt and Howson at two millions; Bunsen somewhat lower; while Dureau
   de la Malle tries to reduce it to half a million, on the ground that
   the walls of Servius Tullius occupied an area only one-fifth of that of
   Paris. But these walls no longer marked the limits of the city since
   its reconstruction after the conflagration under Nero, and the suburbs
   stretched to an unlimited extent into the country. Comp. vol. I. p. 359

   [11] Rom. 15:24; Clem. R. Ad Cor. c. 5 (to terma tes duseos)

   [12] See J. B. Gams (R.C.): Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien,
   Regensburg, 1862-1879, 5 vols. The first vol. (422 pages) is taken up
   with the legendary history of the first three centuries. 75 pages are
   given to the discussion of Paul's journey to Spain. Gams traces
   Christianity in that country to Paul and to seven disciples of the
   Apostles sent to Rome, namely, Torquatus, Ctesiphon, Secundus,
   Indaletius, Caecilius, Hesychius, and Euphrasius (according to the
   Roman Martyrologium, edited by Baronius, 1586).
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER II:

   PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANITY AND CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM.

"Semen est sanguis Christianorum."--Tertullian.

   -----
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 12. Literature.

   I. Sources:

   Eusebius: H. E., particularly Lib. viii. and ix.

   Lactantius: De Mortibus persecutorum.

   The Apologies of Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Origen,
   and the Epistles of Cyprian.

   Theod. Ruinart: Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta. Par. 1689;
   2nd ed. Amstel. 1713 (covering the first four cent.).

   Several biographies in the Acta Sanctorum. Antw. 1643 sqq.

   Les Acts des martyrs depuis l'origine de l'eglise Chretienne jusqu'`a
   nos temps. Traduits et publies par les R. R. P. P benedictins de la
   congreg. de France. Par. 1857 sqq.

   The Martyrol. Hieronymianum (ed. Florentini, Luc. 1668, and in Migne's
   Patrol. Lat. Opp. Hieron. xi. 434 sqq.); the Martyrol. Romanum (ed.
   Baron. 1586), the Menolog. Graec. (ed. Urbini, 1727); De Rossi, Roller,
   and other works on the Roman Catacombs.

   II. Works.

   John Foxe (or Fox, d. 1587): Acts and Monuments of the Church (commonly
   called Book of Martyrs), first pub. at Strasburg 1554, and Basle 1559;
   first complete ed. fol. London 1563; 9th ed. fol. 1684, 3 vols. fol.;
   best ed. by G. Townsend, Lond. 1843, 8 vols. 8o.; also many abridged
   editions. Foxe exhibits the entire history of Christian martyrdom,
   including the Protestant martyrs of the middle age and the sixteenth
   century, with polemical reference to the church of Rome as the
   successor of heathen Rome in the work of blood persecution. "The Ten
   Roman persecutions" are related in the first volume.

   Kortholdt: De persecutionibus eccl. primcevae. Kiel, 1629.

   Gibbon: chap. xvi.

   Muenter: Die Christen im heidnischen Hause vor Constantin. Copenh.
   1828.

   Schumann Von Mansegg (R.C.): Die Verfolgungen der ersten christlichen
   Kirche. Vienna, 1821.

   W. Ad. Schmidt: Geschichte der Denk u. Glaubensfreiheit im ersten
   Jahrhundert der Kaiserherrschaft und des Christenthums. Berl. 1847.

   Kritzler: Die Heldenzeiten des Christenthums. Vol. i. Der Kampf mit dem
   Heidthum. Leipz. 1856.

   Fr. W. Gass: Das christl. Maertyrerthum in den ersten Jahrhunderten.
   1859-60 (in Niedner's "Zeitschrift fuer Hist. Theol." for 1859, pp.
   323-392, and 1860, pp. 315-381).

   F. Overbeck: Gesetze der roem. Kaiser gegen die Christen, in his
   Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. Chemn. 1875.

   B. Aube: Histoire des persecutions de l'eglise jusqu' `a la fin des
   Antonins. 2nd ed. Paris 1875 (Crowned by the Academie franc,aise). By
   the same: Histoire des persecutions de l'eglise, La polemique payenne
   `a la fin du II. siecle, 1878. Les Chrestiens dans l'empire romain, de
   la fin des Antonins au milieu du IIIe siecle (180-249), 1881. L'eglise
   et L'etat dans la seconde moitie du III^e siecle, 1886.

   K. Wieseler: Die Christenverfolgungen der Caesaren, Hist. und chronol.
   untersucht. Guetersloh, 1878.

   Gerh. Uhlhorn: Der Kampf des Christenthums mit dem Heidenthum. 3d ed.
   Stuttgart, 1879. Engl. transl. by Smyth & Ropes, 1879.

   Theod. Keim: Rom und das Christenthum. Berlin, 1881.

   E. Renan: Marc-Aurele. Paris, 1882, pp. 53-69.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 13. General Survey.

   The persecutions of Christianity during the first three centuries
   appear like a long tragedy: first, foreboding signs; then a succession
   of bloody assaults of heathenism upon the religion of the cross; amidst
   the dark scenes of fiendish hatred and cruelty the bright exhibitions
   of suffering virtue; now and then a short pause; at last a fearful and
   desperate struggle of the old pagan empire for life and death, ending
   in the abiding victory of the Christian religion. Thus this bloody
   baptism of the church resulted in the birth of a Christian world. It
   was a repetition and prolongation of the crucifixion, but followed by a
   resurrection.

   Our Lord had predicted this conflict, and prepared His disciples for
   it. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. They
   will deliver you up to councils, and in their synagogues they will
   scourge you; yea and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for
   My sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. And brother shall
   deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: and children
   shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. And
   ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake: but he that endureth
   to the end, the same shall be saved." These, and similar words, as well
   as the recollection of the crucifixion and resurrection, fortified and
   cheered many a confessor and martyr in the dungeon and at the stake.

   The persecutions proceeded first from the Jews, afterwards from the
   Gentiles, and continued, with interruptions, for nearly three hundred
   years. History reports no mightier, longer and deadlier conflict than
   this war of extermination waged by heathen Rome against defenseless
   Christianity. It was a most unequal struggle, a struggle of the sword
   and of the cross; carnal power all on one side, moral power all on the
   other. It was a struggle for life and death. One or the other of the
   combatants must succumb. A compromise was impossible. The future of the
   world's history depended on the downfall of heathenism and the triumph
   of Christianity. Behind the scene were the powers of the invisible
   world, God and the prince of darkness. Justin, Tertullian, and other
   confessors traced the persecutions to Satan and the demons, though they
   did not ignore the human and moral aspects; they viewed them also as a
   punishment for past sins, and a school of Christian virtue. Some denied
   that martyrdom was an evil, since it only brought Christians the sooner
   to God and the glory of heaven. As war brings out the heroic qualities
   of men, so did the persecutions develop the patience, the gentleness,
   the endurance of the Christians, and prove the world-conquering power
   of faith.

   Number of Persecutions.

   From the fifth century it has been customary to reckon ten great
   persecutions: under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius
   Severus, Maximinus, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian, and Diocletian. [13] 2
   This number was suggested by the ten plagues of Egypt taken as types
   (which, however, befell the enemies of Israel, and present a contrast
   rather than a parallel), and by the ten horns of the Roman beast making
   war with the Lamb, taken for so many emperors [14] But the number is
   too great for the general persecutions, and too small for the
   provincial and local. Only two imperial persecutions--those, of Decius
   and Diocletian--extended over the empire; but Christianity was always
   an illegal religion from Trajan to Constantine, and subject to
   annoyance and violence everywhere [15] Some persecuting emperors--Nero,
   Domitian, Galerius, were monstrous tyrants, but others--Trajan, Marcus
   Aurelius, Decius, Diocletian--were among the best and most energetic
   emperors, and were prompted not so much by hatred of Christianity as by
   zeal for the maintenance of the laws and the power of the government.
   On the other hand, some of the most worthless emperors--Commodus,
   Caracalla, and Heliogabalus--were rather favorable to the Christians
   from sheer caprice. All were equally ignorant of the true character of
   the new religion.

   The Result.

   The long and bloody war of heathen Rome against the church, which is
   built upon a rock, utterly failed. It began in Rome under Nero, it
   ended near Rome at the Milvian bridge, under Constantine. Aiming to
   exterminate, it purified. It called forth the virtues of Christian
   heroism, and resulted in the consolidation and triumph of the new
   religion. The philosophy of persecution is best expressed by the terse
   word of Tertullian, who lived in the midst of them, but did not see the
   end: "The blood of the Christians is the seed of the Church."

   Religious Freedom.

   The blood of persecution is also the seed of civil and religious
   liberty. All sects, schools, and parties, whether religious or
   political, when persecuted, complain of injustice and plead for
   toleration; but few practise it when in power. The reason of this
   inconsistency lies in the selfishness of human nature, and in mistaken
   zeal for what it believes to be true and right. Liberty is of very
   slow, but sure growth.

   The ancient world of Greece and Rome generally was based upon the
   absolutism of the state, which mercilessly trampled under foot the
   individual rights of men. It is Christianity which taught and
   acknowledged them.

   The Christian apologists first proclaimed, however imperfectly, the
   principle of freedom of religion, and the sacred rights of conscience.
   Tertullian, in prophetic anticipation as it were of the modern
   Protestant theory, boldly tells the heathen that everybody has a
   natural and inalienable right to worship God according to his
   conviction, that all compulsion in matters of conscience is contrary to
   the very nature of religion, and that no form of worship has any value
   whatever except as far as it is a free voluntary homage of the heart.
   [16] 5

   Similar views in favor of religious liberty were expressed by Justin
   Martyr, [17] 6 and at the close of our period by Lactantius, who says:
   "Religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by
   words rather than by blows, that the will may be affected. Torture and
   piety are widely different; nor is it possible for truth to be united
   with violence, or justice with cruelty. Nothing is so much a matter of
   free will as religion." [18] 7

   The Church, after its triumph over paganism, forgot this lesson, and
   for many centuries treated all Christian heretics, as well as Jews and
   Gentiles, just as the old Romans had treated the Christians, without
   distinction of creed or sect. Every state-church from the times of the
   Christian emperors of Constantinople to the times of the Russian Czars
   and the South American Republics, has more or less persecuted the
   dissenters, in direct violation of the principles and practice of
   Christ and the apostles, and in carnal misunderstanding of the
   spiritual nature of the kingdom of heaven.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [13] So Augustin, De Civit. Dei, xviii. 52, but he mentions Antoninus
   for Marcus Aurelius. Lactantius counts six, Sulpitius Severus nine
   persecutions.

   [14] Ex. chs. 5-10; Rev. 17:12 sqq. Augustin felt the impropriety of
   referring to the Egyptian plagues, and calls this a mere conjecture of
   the human mind which "sometimes hits the truth and sometimes is
   deceived." He also rectifies the number by referring to the
   persecutions before Nero, mentioned in the N. T., and to the
   persecutions after Diocletian, as that of Julian, and the Arian
   emperors. "When I think of these and the like things," he says, "it
   does not seem to me that the number of persecutions with which the
   church is to be tried can be definitely stated."

   [15] On the relation of Christianity to the laws of the Roman empire,
   see Aube, De la legatite du Christianisme dans l'empire Romain au Ier
   siecle. Paris 1866.

   [16] See the remarkable passageAd Scapulam, c. 2: "Tamen humani juris
   et naturalis potestatis est unicuique quod putaverit colere, nec alii
   obest, aut prodest alterius religio. Sed religionis est cogere
   religionem, quae sponte suscipi debeat non vi, cum et hostiae ab animo
   libenti expostulentur. Ita etsi nos compuleritis ad sacrificandum,
   nihil praestabitis diis vestris. Ab invitis enim sacrificia non
   desiderabunt, nisi si contentiosi sunt; contentiosus autem deus non
   est." Comp. the similar passage in Tertullian, Apolog. c. 24, where
   after enumerating the various forms of idolatry which enjoyed free
   toleration in the empire he continues: "Videte enim ne et hoc ad
   irreliqiositatis elogium concurrat, adimere libertatem reliqionis et
   interdicere optionem divinitatis, ut non liceat mihi colere quem velim
   sed cogar colere quem nolim. Nemo se ab invito coli volet, ne homo
   quidem."

   [17] Apol. I. c. 2, 4, 12

   [18] Instit. div. V. 20.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 14. Jewish Persecution.

   Sources.

   I. Dio Cassius: Hist. Rom. LXVIII. 32; LXIX. 12-14; Justin M.: Apol. I.
   31, 47; Eusebius: H. Eccl. IV. 2. and 6. Rabbinical traditions in
   Derenbourg: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu'`a Adrien
   (Paris 1867), pp. 402-438.

   II. Fr. Muenter.: Der Judische Krieg unter Trajan u. Hadrian. Altona
   and Leipz. 1821.

   Deyling: Aeliae Capitol. origines et historiae. Lips. 1743.

   Ewald: Gesch. des Volkes Israel, VII. 373-432.

   Milman: History of the Jews, Books 18 and 20.

   Graetz: Gesch. der Juden. Vol. IV. (Leipz. 1866).

   Schuerer: Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte (1874), pp. 350-367.

   The Jews had displayed their obstinate unbelief and bitter hatred of
   the gospel in the crucifixion of Christ, the stoning of Stephen, the
   execution of James the Elder, the repeated incarceration as of Peter
   and John, the wild rage against Paul, and the murder of James the Just.
   No wonder that the fearful judgment of God at last visited this
   ingratitude upon them in the destruction of the holy city and the
   temple, from which the Christians found refuge in Pella.

   But this tragical fate could break only the national power of the Jews,
   not their hatred of Christianity. They caused the death of Symeon,
   bishop of Jerusalem (107); they were particularly active in the burning
   of Polycarp of Smyrna; and they inflamed the violence of the Gentiles
   by eliminating the sect of the Nazarenes.

   The Rebellion under Bar-Cochba. Jerusalem again Destroyed.

   By severe oppression under Trajan and Hadrian, the prohibition of
   circumcision, and the desecration of Jerusalem by the idolatry of the
   pagans, the Jews were provoked to a new and powerful insurrection (a.d.
   132-135). A pseudo-Messiah, Bar-Cochba (son of the stars, Num. 24:17),
   afterwards called Bar-Cosiba (son of falsehood), put himself at the
   head of the rebels, and caused all the Christians who would not join
   him to be most cruelly murdered. But the false prophet was defeated by
   Hadrian's general in 135, more than half a million of Jews were
   slaughtered after a desperate resistance, immense numbers sold into
   slavery, 985 villages and 50 fortresses levelled to the ground, nearly
   all Palestine laid waste, Jerusalem again destroyed, and a Roman
   colony, Aelia Capitolina, erected on its ruins, with an image of
   Jupiter and a temple of Venus. The coins of Aelia Capitolina bear the
   images of Jupiter Capitolinus, Bacchus, Serapis, Astarte.

   Thus the native soil of the venerable religion of the Old Testament was
   ploughed up, and idolatry planted on it. The Jews were forbidden to
   visit the holy spot of their former metropolis upon pain of death. [19]
   8 Only on the anniversary of the destruction were they allowed to
   behold and bewail it from a distance. The prohibition was continued
   under Christian emperors to their disgrace. Julian the Apostate, from
   hatred of the Christians, allowed and encouraged them to rebuild the
   temple, but in vain. Jerome, who spent the rest of his life in monastic
   retirement at Bethlehem (d. 419), informs us in pathetic words that in
   his day old Jewish men and women, "in corporibus et in habitu suo iram
   a Domini demonstrantes," had to buy from the Roman watch the privilege
   of weeping and lamenting over the ruins from mount Olivet in sight of
   the cross, "ut qui quondam emerant sanguinem Christi, emant lacrymas
   suas, et ne fletus quidem i eis gratuitus sit." [20] 9 The same sad
   privilege the Jews now enjoy under Turkish rule, not only once a year,
   but every Friday beneath the very walls of the Temple, now replaced by
   the Mosque of Omar. [21] 0

   The Talmud.

   After this the Jews had no opportunity for any further independent
   persecution of the Christians. Yet they continued to circulate horrible
   calumnies on Jesus and his followers. Their learned schools at Tiberias
   and Babylon nourished this bitter hostility. The Talmud, i.e. Doctrine,
   of which the first part (the Mishna, i.e. Repetition) was composed
   towards the end of the second century, and the second part (the Gemara,
   i.e. Completion) in the fourth century, well represents the Judaism of
   its day, stiff, traditional, stagnant, and anti-Christian. Subsequently
   the Jerusalem Talmud was eclipsed by the Babylonian (430-521), which is
   four times larger, and a still more distinct expression of Rabbinism.
   The terrible imprecation on apostates (pratio haereticorum), designed
   to deter Jews from going over to the Christian faith, comes from the
   second century, and is stated by the Talmud to have been composed at
   Jafna, where the Sanhedrin at that time had its seat, by the younger
   Rabbi Gamaliel.

   The Talmud is the slow growth of several centuries. It is a chaos of
   Jewish learning, wisdom, and folly, a continent of rubbish, with hidden
   pearls of true maxims and poetic parables. Delitzsch calls it "a vast
   debating club, in which there hum confusedly the myriad voices of at
   least five centuries, a unique code of laws, in comparison with which
   the law-books of all other nations are but lilliputian." It is the Old
   Testament misinterpreted and turned against the New, in fact, though
   not in form. It is a rabbinical Bible without inspiration, without the
   Messiah, without hope. It shares the tenacity of the Jewish race, and,
   like it, continues involuntarily to bear testimony to the truth of
   Christianity. A distinguished historian, on being asked what is the
   best argument for Christianity, promptly replied: the Jews. [22] 1

   Unfortunately this people, still remarkable even in its tragical end,
   was in many ways cruelly oppressed and persecuted by the Christians
   after Constantine, and thereby only confirmed in its fanatical hatred
   of them. The hostile legislation began with the prohibition of the
   circumcision of Christian slaves, and the intermarriage between Jews
   and Christians, and proceeded already in the fifth century to the
   exclusion of the Jews from all civil and political rights in Christian
   states. Even our enlightened age has witnessed the humiliating
   spectacle of a cruel Judenhetzein Germany and still more in Russia
   (1881). But through all changes of fortune God has preserved this
   ancient race as a living monument of his justice and his mercy; and he
   will undoubtedly assign it an important part in the consummation of his
   kingdom at the second coming of Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [19] As reported by Justin M., a native of Palestine and a contemporary
   of this destruction of Jerusalem. Apol. l.c. 47. Tertullian also says
   (Adv. Jud. c. 13), that, "an interdict was issued forbidding any one of
   the Jews to linger in the confines of the district."

   [20] Ad Zephan. 1:15 sqq. Schuerer quotes the passage, p. 363.

   [21] "The Wailing Place of the Jews" at the cyclopean foundation wall
   is just outside of the Mosque El Aska, and near "Robinson's Arch."
   There I saw on Good Friday, 1877, a large number of Jews, old and
   young, men and women, venerable rabbis with patriarchal beards, others
   dirty and repulsive, kissing the stone wall and watering it with their
   tears, while repeating from Hebrew Bibles and prayer-books the
   Lamentations of Jeremiah, Psalms 76th and 79th, and various litanies.
   Comp. Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem I. 629.

   [22] On the literature of the Talmud see the articles in Herzog, and in
   McClintock & Strong, and especially Schuerer, Neutestamentl.
   Zeitgeschichte (Leipz. 1874), pp. 45-49, to which I add Schuerer's
   essay: Die Predigt Jesu Christi in ihrem Verhaeltniss zum Altem
   Testament und zum Judenthum, Darmstadt, 1882. The relation of the
   Talmud to the Sermon on the Mount and the few resemblances is discussed
   by Pick in McClintock & Strong, vol. ix. 571.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 15. Causes of Roman Persecution.

   The policy of the Roman government, the fanaticism of the superstitious
   people, and the self-interest of the pagan priests conspired for the
   persecution of a religion which threatened to demolish the tottering
   fabric of idolatry; and they left no expedients of legislation, of
   violence, of craft, and of wickedness untried, to blot it from the
   earth.

   To glance first at the relation of the Roman state to the Christian
   religion.

   Roman Toleration.

   The policy of imperial Rome was in a measure tolerant. It was
   repressive, but not preventive. Freedom of thought was not checked by a
   censorship, education was left untrammelled to be arranged between the
   teacher and the learner. The armies were quartered on the frontiers as
   a protection of the empire, not employed at home as instruments of
   oppression, and the people were diverted from public affairs and
   political discontent by public amusements. The ancient religions of the
   conquered races were tolerated as far as they did not interfere with
   the interests of the state. The Jews enjoyed special protection since
   the time of Julius Caesar.

   Now so long as Christianity was regarded by the Romans as a mere sect
   of Judaism, it shared the hatred and contempt, indeed, but also the
   legal protection bestowed on that ancient national religion. Providence
   had so ordered it that Christianity had already taken root in the
   leading cities of the empire before, its true character was understood.
   Paul had carried it, under the protection of his Roman citizenship, to
   the ends of the empire, and the Roman proconsul at Corinth refused to
   interfere with his activity on the ground that it was an internal
   question of the Jews, which did not belong to his tribunal. The heathen
   statesmen and authors, even down to the age of Trajan, including the
   historian Tacitus and the younger Pliny, considered the Christian
   religion as a vulgar superstition, hardly worthy of their notice.

   But it was far too important a phenomenon, and made far too rapid
   progress to be long thus ignored or despised. So soon as it was
   understood as a new religion, and as, in fact, claiming universal
   validity and acceptance, it was set down as unlawful and treasonable, a
   religio illicita; and it was the constant reproach of the Christians:
   "You have no right to exist." [23] 2

   Roman Intolerance.

   We need not be surprised at this position. For with all its professed
   and actual tolerance the Roman state was thoroughly interwoven with
   heathen idolatry, and made religion a tool of itspolicy. Ancient
   history furnishes no example of a state without some religion and form
   of worship. Rome makes no exception to the general rule. "The
   Romano-Hellenic state religion" (says Mommsen), "and the Stoic
   state-philosophy inseparably combined with it were not merely a
   convenient instrument for every government--oligarchy, democracy, or
   monarchy--but altogether indispensable, because it was just as
   impossible to construct the state wholly without religious elements as
   to discover any new state religion adapted to form a substitute for the
   old." [24] 3

   The piety of Romulus and Numa was believed to have laid the foundation
   of the power of Rome. To the favor of the deities of the republic, the
   brilliant success of the Roman arms was attributed. The priests and
   Vestal virgins were supported out of the public treasury. The emperor
   was ex-officio the pontifex maximus, and even an object of divine
   worship. The gods were national; and the eagle of Jupiter Capitolinus
   moved as a good genius before the world-conquering legions. Cicero lays
   down as a principle of legislation, that no one should be allowed to
   worship foreign gods, unless they were recognized by public statute.
   [25] 4 Maecenas counselled Augustus: "Honor the gods according to the
   custom of our ancestors, and compel [26] 5 others to worship them. Hate
   and punish those who bring in strange gods."

   It is true, indeed, that individuals in Greece and Rome enjoyed an
   almost unlimited liberty for expressing sceptical and even impious
   sentiments in conversation, in books and on the stage. We need only
   refer to the works of Aristophanes, Lucian, Lucretius, Plautus,
   Terence. But a sharp distinction was made then, as often since by
   Christian governments, between liberty of private thought and
   conscience, which is inalienable and beyond the reach of legislation,
   and between the liberty of public worship, although the latter is only
   the legitimate consequence of the former. Besides, wherever religion is
   a matter of state-legislation and compulsion, there is almost
   invariably a great deal of hypocrisy and infidelity among the educated
   classes, however often it may conform outwardly, from policy, interest
   or habit, to the forms and legal acquirements of the established creed.

   The senate and emperor, by special edicts, usually allowed conquered
   nations the free practice of their worship even in Rome; not, however,
   from regard for the sacred rights of conscience, but merely from
   policy, and with the express prohibition of making proselytes from the
   state religion; hence severe laws were published from time to time
   against transition to Judaism.

   Obstacles to the Toleration of Christianity.

   To Christianity, appearing not as a national religion, but claiming to
   be the only true universal one making its converts among every people
   and every sect, attracting Greeks and Romans in much larger numbers
   than Jews, refusing to compromise with any form of idolatry, and
   threatening in fact the very existence of the Roman state religion,
   even this limited toleration could not be granted. The same
   all-absorbing political interest of Rome dictated here the opposite
   course, and Tertullian is hardly just in changing the Romans with
   inconsistency for tolerating the worship of all false gods, from whom
   they had nothing to fear, and yet prohibiting the worship of the only
   true God who is Lord over all. [27] 6 Born under Augustus, and
   crucified under Tiberius at the sentence of the Roman magistrate,
   Christ stood as the founder of a spiritual universal empire at the head
   of the most important epoch of the Roman power, a rival not to be
   endured. The reign of Constantine subsequently showed that the free
   toleration of Christianity was the death-blow to the Roman state
   religion.

   Then, too, the conscientious refusal of the Christians to pay divine
   honors to the emperor and his statue, and to take part in any
   idolatrous ceremonies at public festivities, their aversion to the
   imperial military service, their disregard for politics and
   depreciation of all civil and temporal affairs as compared with the
   spiritual and eternal interests of man, their close brotherly union and
   frequent meetings, drew upon them the suspicion of hostility to the
   Caesars and the Roman people, and the unpardonable crime of conspiracy
   against the state. [28] 7

   The common people also, with their polytheistic ideas, abhorred the
   believers in the one God as atheists and enemies of the gods. They
   readily gave credit to the slanderous rumors of all sorts of
   abominations, even incest and cannibalism, practised by the Christians
   at their religious assemblies and love-feasts, and regarded the
   frequent public calamities of that age as punishments justly inflicted
   by the angry gods for the disregard of their worship. In North Africa
   arose the proverb: "If God does not send rain, lay it to the
   Christians." At every inundation, or drought, or famine, or pestilence,
   the fanatical populace cried: "Away with the atheists! To the lions
   with the Christians!"

   Finally, persecutions were sometimes started by priests, jugglers,
   artificers, merchants, and others, who derived their support from the
   idolatrous worship. These, like Demetrius at Ephesus, and the masters
   of the sorceress at Philippi, kindled the fanaticism and indignation of
   the mob against the new religion for its interference with their gains.
   [29] 8
     __________________________________________________________________

   [23] "Non licet esse vos." Tertullian, Apol. 4

   [24] The History of Rome, translated by Dickson, vol. IV. P. II. p.
   559.

   [25] "Nisi publice adscitos."

   [26] anankaze, according to Dion Cassius.

   [27] Apolog. c. 24 at the close: "Apud vos quod vis coler ejus est
   praeter Deum verum, quasi non hic magis omnium sit Deus, cuius omnes
   sumus."

   [28] Hence the reproachful designation "Hostes Caesarum et populi
   Romani."

   [29] Comp. Arts. 19:24; 16:16.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 16. Condition of the Church before the Reign of Trajan.

   The imperial persecutions before Trajan belong to the Apostolic age,
   and have been already described in the first volume. We allude to them
   here only for the sake of the connection. Christ was born under the
   first, and crucified under the second Roman emperor. Tiberius (a.d.
   14-37) is reported to have been frightened by Pilate's account of the
   crucifixion and resurrection, and to have proposed to the senate,
   without success, the enrollment of Christ among the Roman deities; but
   this rests only on the questionable authority of Tertullian. The edict
   of Claudius (42-54) in the year 53, which banished the Jews from Rome,
   fell also upon the Christians, but as Jews with whom they were
   confounded. The fiendish persecution of Nero (54-68) was intended as a
   punishment, not for Christianity, but for alleged incendiarism (64). It
   showed, however, the popular temper, and was a declaration of war
   against the new religion. It became a common saying among Christians
   that Nero would reappear as Antichrist.

   During the rapidly succeeding reigns of Galba, Otho, Vitellius,
   Vespacian, and Titus, the church, so far as we know, suffered no very
   serious persecution.

   But Domitian (81-96), a suspicious and blasphemous tyrant, accustomed
   to call himself and to be called "Lord and God," treated the embracing
   of Christianity a crime against the state, and condemned to death many
   Christians, even his own cousin, the consul Flavius Clemens, on the
   charge of atheism; or confiscated their property, and sent them, as in
   the case of Domitilia, the wife of the Clemens just mentioned, into
   exile. His jealousy also led him to destroy the surviving descendants
   of David; and he brought from Palestine to Rome two kinsmen of Jesus,
   grandsons of Judas, the "brother of the Lord," but seeing their poverty
   and rustic simplicity, and hearing their explanation of the kingdom of
   Christ as not earthly, but heavenly, to be established by the Lord at
   the end of the world, when He should come to judge the quick and the
   dead, he let them go. Tradition (in Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome) assigns
   to the reign of Domitian the banishment of John to Patmos (which,
   however, must be assigned to the reign of Nero), together with his
   miraculous preservation from death in Rome (attested by Tertullian),
   and the martyrdom of Andrew, Mark, Onesimus, and Dionysius the
   Areopagite. The Martyrium of Ignatius speaks of "many persecutions
   under Domitian."

   His humane and justice-loving successor, Nerva (96-98), recalled the
   banished, and refused to treat the confession of Christianity as a
   political crime, though he did not recognise the new religion as a
   religio licita.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 17. Trajan. a.d. 98-117--Christianity Forbidden--Martyrdom of Symeon
   of Jerusalem, and Ignatius of Antioch.

   I. Sources.

   Plinius, jun.: Epist. x. 96 and 97 (al. 97 sq.). Tertullian: Apol. c.
   2; Eusebius: H. E. III. 11, 32, 33, 36. Chron. pasch. p. 470 (ed.
   Bonn.).

   Acta Martyrii Ignatii, in Ruinart, p. 8 sqq.; recent edd. by Theod.
   Zahn, in Patrum Apost. Opera (Lips. 1876), vol. II. pp. 301 sqq.; FUNK,
   Opera Patr. Apost., vol. I. 254-265; II. 218-275; and Lightfoot: S.
   Ignatius and S. Polyc., II. 1, 473-570.

   II. Works.

   On Trajan's reign in general see Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs;
   Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire.

   On Ignatius: Theod. Zahn: Ignatius von Antiochien. Gotha 1873 (631
   pages). Lightfoot: S. Ignatius and S. Polyc., London 1885, 2 vols.

   On the chronology: Adolph Harnack: Die Zeit des Ignatius. Leipzig, 1878
   (90 pages); Comp. Keim, l.c. 510-562; but especially Lighfoot, l.c. II.
   1, 390 sqq.

   The Epistles of Ignatius will be discussed in chapter XIII. on
   ecclesiastical literature, S:164 and 165.

   Trajan, one of the best and most praiseworthy emperors, honored as the
   "father of his country," but, like his friends, Tacitus and Pliny,
   wholly ignorant of the nature of Christianity, was the first to
   pronounce it in form a proscribed religion, as it had been all along in
   fact. He revived the rigid laws against all secret societies, [30] 9
   and the provincial officers applied them to the Christians, on account
   of their frequent meetings for worship. His decision regulated the
   governmental treatment of the Christians for more than a century . It
   is embodied in his correspondence with the younger Pliny, who was
   governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor from 109 to 111.

   Pliny came in official contact with the Christians. He himself saw in
   that religion only a "depraved and immoderate superstition," and could
   hardly account for its popularity. He reported to the emperor that this
   superstition was constantly spreading, not only in the cities, but also
   in the villages of Asia Minor, and captivated people of every age,
   rank, and sex, so that the temples were almost forsaken, and the
   sacrificial victims found no sale. To stop this progress, he condemned
   many Christians to death, and sent others, who were Roman citizens, to
   the imperial tribunal. But he requested of the emperor further
   instructions, whether, in these efforts, he should have respect to age;
   whether he should treat the mere bearing of the Christian name as a
   crime, if there were no other offence.

   To these inquiries Trajan replied: "You have adopted the right course,
   my friend, with regard to the Christians; for no universal rule, to be
   applied to all cases, can be laid down in this matter. They should not
   be searched for; but when accused and convicted, they should be
   punished; yet if any one denies that be has been a Christian, and
   proves it by action, namely, by worshipping our gods, he is to be
   pardoned upon his repentance, even though suspicion may still cleave to
   him from his antecedents. But anonymous accusations must not be
   admitted in any criminal process; it sets a bad example, and is
   contrary to our age" (i.e. to the spirit of Trajan's government).

   This decision was much milder than might have been expected from a
   heathen emperor of the old Roman stamp. Tertullian charges it with
   self-contradiction, as both cruel and lenient, forbidding the search
   for Christians and yet commanding their punishment, thus declaring them
   innocent and guilty at the same time. But the emperor evidently
   proceeded on political principles, and thought that a transient and
   contagious enthusiasm, as Christianity in his judgment was, could be
   suppressed sooner by leaving it unnoticed, than by openly assailing it.
   He wished to ignore it as much as possible. But every day it forced
   itself more and more upon public attention, as it spread with the
   irresistible power of truth.

   This rescript might give occasion, according to the sentiment of
   governors, for extreme severity towards Christianity as a secret union
   and a religio illicita. Even the humane Pliny tells us that he applied
   the rack to tender women. Syria and Palestine suffered heavy
   persecutions in this reign.

   Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, and, like his predecessor James, a kinsman
   of Jesus, was accused by fanatical Jews, and crucified a.d. 107, at the
   age of a hundred and twenty years.

   In the same year (or probably between 110 and 116) the distinguished
   bishop Ignatius of Antioch was condemned to death, transported to Rome,
   and thrown before wild beasts in the Colosseum. The story of his
   martyrdom has no doubt been much embellished, but it must have some
   foundation in fact, and is characteristic of the legendary martyrology
   of the ancient church.

   Our knowledge of Ignatius is derived from his disputed epistles, [31] 0
   and a few short notices by Irenaeus and Origen. While his existence,
   his position in the early Church, and his martyrdom are admitted,
   everything else about him is called in question. How many epistles he
   wrote, and when he wrote them, how much truth there is in the account
   of his martyrdom, and when it took place, when it was written up, and
   by whom--all are undecided, and the subject of protracted controversy.
   He was, according to tradition, a pupil of the Apostle John, and by his
   piety so commended himself to the Christians in Antioch that he was
   chosen bishop, the second after Peter, Euodius being, the first. But
   although he was a man of apostolic character and governed the church
   with great care, he was personally not satisfied, until he should be
   counted worthy of sealing his testimony with his blood, and thereby
   attaining to the highest seat of honor. The coveted crown came to him
   at last and his eager and morbid desire for martyrdom was gratified.
   The emperor Trajan, in 107, came to Antioch, and there threatened with
   persecution all who refused to sacrifice to the gods. Ignatius was
   tried for this offence, and proudly confessed himself a "Theophorus"
   ("bearer of God") because, as he said, he had Christ within his breast.
   Trajan condemned him to be thrown to the lions at Rome. The sentence
   was executed with all haste. Ignatius was immediately bound in chains,
   and taken over land and sea, accompanied by ten soldiers, whom he
   denominated his "leopards," from Antioch to Seleucia, to Smyrna, where
   he met Polycarp, and whence be wrote to the churches, particularly to
   that in Rome; to Troas, to Neapolis, through Macedonia to Epirus, and
   so over the Adriatic to Rome. He was received by the Christians there
   with every manifestation of respect, but would not allow them to avert
   or even to delay his martyrdom. It was on the 20th day of December,
   107, that he was thrown into the amphitheater: immediately the wild
   beasts fell upon him, and soon naught remained of his body but a few
   bones, which were carefully conveyed to Antioch as an inestimable
   treasure. The faithful friends who had accompanied him from home
   dreamed that night that they saw him; some that he was standing by
   Christ, dropping with sweat as if he had just come from his great
   labor. Comforted by these dreams they returned with the relics to
   Antioch.

   Note on the Date of the Martyrdom of Ignatius.

   The date a.d.107 has in its favor the common reading of the best of the
   martyrologies of Ignatius (Colbertium)ennato etei, in the ninth year,
   i.e. from Trajan's accession, a.d. 98. From this there is no good
   reason to depart in favor of another reading tetarton etos, the
   nineteenth year, i.e. a.d. 116. Jerome makes the date a.d. 109. The
   fact that the names of the Roman consuls are correctly given in the
   Martyrium Colbertinum, is proof of the correctness of the date, which
   is accepted by such critics as Ussher, Tillemont, Moehler, Hefele, and
   Wieseler. The latter, in his work Die Christenverfolgungen der
   Caesaren, 1878, pp. 125 sqq., finds confirmation of this date in
   Eusebius's statement that the martyrdom took place before Trajan came
   to Antioch, which was in his 10th year; in the short interval between
   the martyrdom of Ignatius and Symeon, son of Klopas (Hist. Ecc. III.
   32); and finally, in the letter of Tiberian to Trajan, relating how
   many pressed forward to martyrdom--an effect, as Wieseler thinks, of
   the example of Ignatius. If 107 be accepted, then another supposition
   of Wieseler is probable. It is well known that in that year Trajan held
   an extraordinary triumph on account of his Dacian victories: may it not
   have been that the blood of Ignatius reddened the sand of the
   amphitheatre at that time?

   But 107 a.d. is by no means universally accepted. Keim (Rom und das
   Christenthum, p. 540) finds the Martyrium Colbertinum wrong in stating
   that the death took place under the first consulate of Sura and the
   second of Senecio, because in 107 Sura was consul for the third and
   Senecio for the fourth time. He also objects that Trajan was not in
   Antioch in 107, but in 115, on his way to attack the Armenians and
   Parthians. But this latter objection falls to the ground if Ignatius
   was not tried by Trajan personally in Antioch. Harnack concludes that
   it is only barely possible that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan.
   Lightfoot assigns the martyrdom to between 110 and 118.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [30] Or prohibited clubs. This is the meaning of hetaeria (hetaireia or
   hetairia), collegium, sodalitas, sodalitium, company, brotherhood,
   especially a private political club or union for party purposes. The
   Roman sodalities were festive clubs or lodges, and easily available for
   political and revolutionary ends. Trajan refused to sanction a company
   of firemen in Nicomedia (Pliny, Ep. X. 34, al. 43). Comp. Buettner,
   Geschichte der politischen Hetaerien in Athen (1840). and Mommsen, De
   collegiis et sodali us Romanorum (Kiel, 1843).

   [31] In three recensions, two in Greek, and one in Syriac. The seven
   shorter Greek Ep. are genuine. See below S: 165.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 18. Hadrian. a.d. 117-138.

   See Gregorovius: Gesch. Hadrians und seiner Zeit (1851); Renan:
   L'E'glise, chretienne (1879), 1-44, and Wagenmann in Herzog, vol. v.
   501-506.

   Hadrian, of Spanish descent, a relative of Trajan, and adopted by him
   on his death-bed, was a man of brilliant talents and careful education,
   a scholar an artist, a legislator and administrator, and altogether one
   of the ablest among the Roman emperors, but of very doubtful morality,
   governed by changing moods, attracted in opposite directions, and at
   last lost in self-contradictions and utter disgust of life. His
   mausoleum (Moles Hadriani) still adorns, as the castle of Sant' Angelo,
   the bridge of the Tiber in Rome. He is represented both as a friend and
   foe of the church. He was devoted to the religion of the state,
   bitterly opposed to Judaism, indifferent to Christianity, from
   ignorance of it. He insulted the Jews and the Christians alike by
   erecting temples of Jupiter and Venus over the site of the temple and
   the supposed spot of the crucifixion. He is said to have directed the
   Asiatic proconsul to check the popular fury against the Christians, and
   to punish only those who should be, by an orderly judicial process,
   convicted of transgression of the laws. [32] 1 But no doubt he
   regarded, like Trajan, the mere profession of Christianity itself such
   a transgression.

   The Christian apologies, which took their rise under this emperor,
   indicate a very bitter public sentiment against the Christians, and a
   critical condition of the church. The least encouragement from Hadrian
   would have brought on a bloody persecution. Quadratus and Aristides
   addressed their pleas for their fellow-Christians to him, we do not
   know with what effect.

   Later tradition assigns to his reign the martyrdom of St. Eustachius,
   St. Symphorosa and her seven sons, of the Roman bishops Alexander and
   Telesphorus, and others whose names are scarcely known, and whose
   chronology is more than doubtful.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [32] The rescript of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus (124 or 128),
   preserved by Eusebius in a Greek translation, (H. H. E., IV. V. 8, 9),
   is almost an edict of toleration, and hence doubted by Baur, Keim,
   Aube, but defended as genuine by Neander (I. 101, Engl. ed.), Wieseler,
   Funk, Renan (l.c. p. 32 sqq). Renan represents Hadrian as a rieur
   spirituel, un Lucian couronne prenat le monde comme un jeu frivole (p.
   6), and therefore more favorable to religious liberty than the serious
   Trajan and the pious Antoninius and Marcus Aurelius. But Friedlaender
   (III. 492) accepts the report of Pausanias that Hadrian was zealously
   devoted to the worship of the gods. Keim regards him as a visionary and
   hostile to Christianity as well as to Judaism.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 19 Antoninus Pius. a.d. 137-161. The Martyrdom of Polycarp.

   Comte de Champagny (R.C.): Les Antonins. (a.d. 69-180), Paris, 1863; 3d
   ed. 1874. 3 vols., 8 vo. Merivale's History.

   Martyrium Polycarp (the oldest, simplest, and least objectionable of
   the martyr-acts), in a letter of the church of Smyrna to the Christians
   in Pontus or Phrygia, preserved by Eusebius, H. Eccl. IV. 15, and
   separately edited from various MSS. by Ussher (1647) and in nearly all
   the editions of the Apostolic Fathers, especially by O. v. Gebhardt,
   Harnack, and Zahn, II. 132-168, and Prolog. L-LVI. The recension of the
   text is by Zahn, and departs from the text of the Bollandists in 98
   places. Best edition by Lightfoot, S. Ign. and S. Polycarp, I. 417
   sqq., and II. 1005-1047. Comp. the Greek Vita Polycarpi, in Funk, II.
   315 sqq.

   Ignatius: Ad. Polycarpum. Best ed., by Lightfoot, l.c.

   Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. III. 3. 4. His letter to Florinus in Euseb. v. 20.

   Polycrates of Ephesus (c. 190), in Euseb. v. 24.

   On the date of Polycarp's death:

   Waddington: Memoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aelius
   Aristide (in "Mem. de l' Acad: des inscript. et belles letters," Tom.
   XXVI. Part II. 1867, pp. 232 sqq.), and in Fastes des provinces
   Asiatiques, 1872, 219 sqq.

   Wieseler: Das Martyrium Polykarp's und dessen Chronologie, in his
   Christenverfolgungen, etc. (1878), 3 87.

   Keim: Die Zwoelf Maertyrer von Smyrna und der Tod des Bishops Polykarp,
   in his Aus dem Urchristenthum (1878), 92-133.

   E. Egli: Das Martyrium des Polyk., in Hilgenfeld's "Zeitschrift fuer
   wissensch. Theol." for 1882, pp. 227 sqq.

   Antoninus Pius protected the Christians from the tumultuous violence
   which broke out against them on account of the frequent public
   calamities. But the edict ascribed to him, addressed to the deputies of
   the Asiatic cities, testifying to the innocence of the Christians, and
   holding them up to the heathen as models of fidelity and zeal in the
   worship of God, could hardly have come from an emperor, who bore the
   honorable title of Pius for his conscientious adherence to the religion
   of his fathers; [33] 2 and in any case he could not have controlled the
   conduct of the provincial governors and the fury of the people against
   an illegal religion.

   The persecution of the church at Smyrna and the martyrdom of its
   venerable bishop, which was formerly assigned to the year 167, under
   the reign of Marcus Aurelius, took place, according to more recent
   research, under Antoninus in 155, when Statius Quadratus was proconsul
   in Asia Minor. [34] 3 Polycarp was a personal friend and pupil of the
   Apostle John, and chief presbyter of the church at Smyrna, where a
   plain stone monument still marks his grave. He was the teacher of
   Irenaeus of Lyons, and thus the connecting link between the apostolic
   and post-apostolic ages. As he died 155 at an age of eighty-six years
   or more, he must have been born a.d. 69, a year before the destruction
   of Jerusalem, and may have enjoyed the friendship of St. John for
   twenty years or more. This gives additional weight to his testimony
   concerning apostolic traditions and writings. We have from him a
   beautiful epistle which echoes the apostolic teaching, and will be
   noticed in another chapter.

   Polycarp steadfastly refused before the proconsul to deny his King and
   Saviour, whom he had served six and eighty years, and from whom he had
   experienced nothing but love and mercy. He joyfully went up to the
   stake, and amidst the flames praised God for having deemed him worthy
   "to be numbered among his martyrs, to drink the cup of Christ's
   sufferings, unto the eternal resurrection of the soul and the body in
   the incorruption of the Holy Spirit." The slightly legendary account in
   the letter of the church of Smyrna states, that the flames avoided the
   body of the saint, leaving it unharmed, like gold tried in the fire;
   also the Christian bystanders insisted, that they perceived a sweet
   odor, as of incense. Then the executioner thrust his sword into the
   body, and the stream of blood at once extinguished the flame. The
   corpse was burned after the Roman custom, but the bones were preserved
   by the church, and held more precious than gold and diamonds. The death
   of this last witness of the apostolic age checked the fury of the
   populace, and the proconsul suspended the persecution.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [33] He always offered sacrifice himself as high-priest. Friedlaender
   III. 492.

   [34] So Waddington, who has made it almost certain that Quadratus was
   Roman consul a.d. 142, and proconsul in Asia from 154 to 155, and that
   Polycarp died Feb. 23, 155. He is followed by Renan (1873), Ewald
   (1873), Aube (1875), Hilgenfeld (1874), Lightfoot (1875), Lipsius
   (1874), 0. v. Gebhardt (1875), Zahn, Harnack (1876), Egli (1882), and
   again by Lightfoot (1885, l.c. I. 647 sqq). Wieseler and Keim learnedly
   defend the old date (166-167), which rests on the authority of Eusebius
   and Jerome, and was held by Masson and Clinton. But Lightfoot refutes
   their objections (I. 647, sqq.), and sustains Waddington.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 20. Persecutions under Marcus Aurelius. a.d. 161-180.

   Marcus Aurelius Antoninus: (b. 121, d. 180):;Ton eis heauton Biblia ib
   ', or Meditations. It is a sort of diary or common place book, in which
   the emperor wrote down, towards the close of his life, partly amid the
   turmoil of war "in the land of the Quadi" (on the Danube in Hungary),
   for his self-improvement, his own moral reflections) together with
   striking maxims of wise and virtuous men. Ed. princeps by Xylander
   Zurich 1558, and Basle 1568; best ed with a new Latin trans. and very
   full notes by Gataker, Lond. 1643, Cambr. 1652, and with additional
   notes from the French by Dacier, Lond. 1697 and 1704. New ed. of the
   Greek text by J. M. Schultz, 1802 (and 1821); another by Adamantius
   Corais, Par. 1816. English translation by George Long, Lond. 1863,
   republ. Boston, revised edition, London, 1880. There are translations
   into most European languages, one in Italian by the Cardinal Francis
   Barberini (nephew of Pope Urban VIII), who dedicated his translation to
   his own soul, "to make it redder than his purple at the sight of the
   virtues of this Gentile." Comp. also the letters of the famous
   rhetorician M. Corn. Fronto, the teacher of M. Aurelius, discovered and
   published by Angelo Mai, Milan 1815 and Rome 1823 (Epistolarum ad
   Marcum Caesarem Lib. V., etc.) They are, however, very unimportant,
   except so far as they show the life-long congenial friendship between
   the amiable teacher and his imperial pupil.

   Arnold Bodek: Marcus AureliusAntoninus als Freund und Zeitgenosse les
   Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi. Leipz. 1868. (Traces the connection of this
   emperor with the Jewish monotheism and ethics.)

   E. Renan: Marc-Aurele et la fin du monde antique. Paris 1882. This is
   the seventh and the last vol. of his work of twenty years' labor on the
   "Histoire des Origines du Christianisme." It is as full of genius,
   learning and eloquence, and as empty of positive faith as the former
   volumes. He closes the period of the definite formation of Christianity
   in the middle of the second century, but proposes in a future work to
   trace it back to Isaiah (or the "Great Unknown") as its proper founder.

   Eusebius: H. E. V. 1-3. The Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne
   to the Christians of Asia Minor. Die Akten, des Karpus, des Papylus und
   der Agathonike, untersucht von AD. Harnack. Leipz., 1888.

   On the legend of the Legio fulminatrix see Tertullian: Apol. 5; Euseb.:
   H. E V. 5.; and Dion Cass.: Hist. LXXI. 8, 9.

   Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher on the throne, was a well-educated,
   just, kind, and amiable emperor, and reached the old Roman ideal of
   self-reliant Stoic virtue, but for this very reason he had no sympathy
   with Christianity, and probably regarded it as an absurd and fanatical
   superstition. He had no room in his cosmopolitan philanthropy for the
   purest and most innocent of his subjects, many of whom served in his
   own army. He was flooded with apologies of Melito, Miltiades,
   Athenagoras in behalf of the persecuted Christians, but turned a deaf
   ear to them. Only once, in his Meditations, does he allude to them, and
   then with scorn, tracing their noble enthusiasm for martyrdom to "sheer
   obstinacy" and love for theatrical display. [35] 4 His excuse is
   ignorance. He probably never read a line of the New Testament, nor of
   the apologies addressed to him. [36] 5

   Belonging to the later Stoical school, which believed in an immediate
   absorption after death into the Divine essence, he considered the
   Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul, with its moral
   consequences, as vicious and dangerous to the welfare of the state. A
   law was passed under his reign, punishing every one with exile who
   should endeavor to influence people's mind by fear of the Divinity, and
   this law was, no doubt, aimed at the Christians. [37] 6 At all events
   his reign was a stormy time for the church, although the persecutions
   cannot be directly traced to him. The law of Trajan was sufficient to
   justify the severest measures against the followers of the "forbidden"
   religion.

   About the year 170 the apologist Melito wrote: "The race of the
   worshippers of God in Asia is now persecuted by new edicts as it never
   has been heretofore; shameless, greedy sycophants, finding occasion in
   the edicts, now plunder the innocent day and night." The empire was
   visited at that time by a number of conflagrations, a destructive flood
   of the Tiber, an earthquake, insurrections, and particularly a
   pestilence, which spread from Ethiopia to Gaul. This gave rise to
   bloody persecutions, in which government and people united against the
   enemies of the gods and the supposed authors of these misfortunes.
   Celsus expressed his joy that "the demon" [of the Christians] was "not
   only reviled, but banished from every land and sea," and saw in this
   judgment the fulfilment of the oracle: "the mills of the gods grind
   late." But at the same time these persecutions, and the simultaneous
   literary assaults on Christianity by Celsus and Lucian, show that the
   new religion was constantly gaining importance in the empire.

   In 177, the churches of Lyons and Vienne, in the South of France,
   underwent a severe trial. Heathen slaves were forced by the rack to
   declare, that their Christian masters practised all the unnatural vices
   which rumor charged them with; and this was made to justify the
   exquisite tortures to which the Christians were subjected. But the
   sufferers, "strengthened by the fountain of living water from the heart
   of Christ," displayed extraordinary faith and steadfastness, and felt,
   that "nothing can be fearful, where the love of the Father is, nothing
   painful, where shines the glory of Christ."

   The most distinguished victims of this Gallic persecution were the
   bishop Pothinus, who, at the age of ninety years, and just recovered
   from a sickness, was subjected to all sorts of abuse, and then thrown
   into a dismal dungeon, where he died in two days; the virgin Blandina,
   a slave, who showed almost superhuman strength and constancy under the
   most cruel tortures, and was at last thrown to a wild beast in a net;
   Ponticus, a boy of fifteen years, who could be deterred by no sort of
   cruelty from confessing his Saviour. The corpses of the martyrs, which
   covered the streets, were shamefully mutilated, then burned, and the
   ashes cast into the Rhone, lest any remnants of the enemies of the gods
   might desecrate the soil. At last the people grew weary of slaughter,
   and a considerable number of Christians survived. The martyrs of Lyons
   distinguished themselves by true humility, disclaiming in their prison
   that title of honor, as due only, they said, to the faithful and true
   witness, the Firstborn from the dead, the Prince of life (Rev. 1:5),
   and to those of his followers who had already sealed their fidelity to
   Christ with their blood.

   About the same time a persecution of less extent appears to have
   visited Autun (Augustodunum) near Lyons. Symphorinus, a young man of
   good family, having refused to fall down before the image of Cybele,
   was condemned to be beheaded. On his way to the place of execution his
   own mother called to him: "My son, be firm and fear not that death,
   which so surely leads to life. Look to Him who reigns in heaven. To-day
   is thy earthly life not taken from thee, but transferred by a blessed
   exchange into the life of heaven."

   The story of the "thundering legion" [38] 7 rests on the fact of a
   remarkable deliverance of the Roman army in Hungary by a sudden shower,
   which quenched their burning thirst and frightened their barbarian
   enemies, a.d. 174. The heathens, however, attributed this not to the
   prayers of the Christian soldiers, but to their own gods. The emperor
   himself prayed to Jupiter: "This hand, which has never yet shed human
   blood, I raise to thee." That this event did not alter his views
   respecting the Christians, is proved by the persecution in South Gaul,
   which broke out three years later.

   Of isolated cases of martyrdom in this reign, we notice that of Justin
   Martyr, at Rome, in the year 166. His death is traced to the
   machinations of Crescens, a Cynic philosopher.

   Marcus Aurelius was succeeded by his cruel and contemptible son,
   Commodus (180-192), who wallowed in the mire of every sensual
   debauchery, and displayed at the same time like Nero the most
   ridiculous vanity as dancer and singer, and in the character of
   buffoon; but he was accidentally made to favor the Christians by the
   influence of a concubine, [39] 8 Marcia, and accordingly did not
   disturb them. Yet under his reign a Roman senator, Apollonius, was put
   to death for his faith.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [35] Med. xi. 3: Me kata psilen parataxin, hos hoi Christianoi, halla
   lelogismenos kai semnos kai, hoste kai allon p eisai atragodos

   [36] Bodek (l.c. p. 82 sqq.) maintains, contrary to the common view,
   that Marcus Aurelius was personally indifferent to heathenism and
   Christianity, that his acts of respect for the worship of the gods,
   related by Capitolinus and others, were simply official tributes, and
   that the persecutions of the Christians did probably not originate with
   him. "Er wareben so wenig ein Feind des Christenthums, als er ein Feind
   des Heidenthums war: was wie religioeser Fanatismus aussah,war in
   Wahrheit nur politischer Conservatismus" (p. 87). On the other hand,
   Bodek claims for him a friendly sympathy with Judaism in its
   monotheistic and ethical features, and assumes that he had intimate
   relations with a Jewish rabbi. But there is nothing in his twelve books
   "Do seipso et ad seipsum," which is inconsistent with an enlightened
   heathen piety under the unconscious influence of Christianity, yet
   hostile to it partly from ignorance of its true nature, partly from a
   conscientious regard to his duty as the pontifex maximus of the state
   religion. The same was the case with Trajan and Decius. Renan (p. 262
   sqq.) calls the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius "le livre le plus
   purement humain qu'il y ait. Il ne tranche aucune question
   controversee. En theologie, Marc Aurele flotte entre le deisme pur, le
   polytheisme enterprete dans un sens physique, `a la fac,on des
   stoiciens, et une sorte de pantheisme cosmique."

   [37] "Si quis aliquid fecerit, quo leves hominum animi superstitio
   numinis terrerentur, Divus Marcus hujusmodi homines in insulam relegari
   rescripsit."Dig. XLVIII. tit. 19. 1. 13, quoted by Lecky in Hist. of
   Europ. Morals, I. 448. 9

   [38] Legio fulminatrix, keraunophoros. The twelfth legion bore the name
   Fulminata as far back as the time of Trajan; and hence it cannot be
   derived from this event.

   [39] philotheos pallake
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 21. Condition of the Church from Septimius Severus to Philip the
   Arabian. a.d. 193-249.

   Clemens Alex.: Strom. II. 414. Tertull.: Ad Scapulam, c. 4, 5; Apol.
   (a.d. 198), c. 7, 12, 30, 37, 49.

   Respecting the Alexandrian martyrs comp. Euseb.: VI. 1 and 5.

   The Acts of the Carthaginian martyrs, which contain their ipsissima
   verba from their diaries in the prisons, but bear a somewhat
   Montanistic stamp, see in Ruinart, p 90 sqq.

   Lampridius: Vita Alex. Severi, c. 22, 29, 49.

   On Philip the Arabian see Euseb.:VI. 34, 36. Hieron.: Chron. ad ann.
   246.

   J. J. Mueller: Staat und Kirche unter Alex. Severus. Zuerich 1874.

   F. Goerres: Kaiser Alex. Severus und das Christenthum. Leipz., 1877.

   Jean Reville: La religion `a Rome sous les Severes. Paris, 1886 (vii
   and 302 pp.); Germ. transl. by Krueger, 1888.

   With Septimius Severus (193-211), who was of Punic descent and had a
   Syrian wife, a line of emperors (Caracalla, Heliogabalus, Alexander
   Severus) came to the throne, who were rather Oriental than Roman in
   their spirit, and were therefore far less concerned than the Antonines
   to maintain the old state religion. Yet towards the close of the second
   century there was no lack of local persecutions; and Clement of
   Alexandria wrote of those times: "Many martyrs are daily burned,
   confined, or beheaded, before our eyes."

   In the beginning of the third century (202) Septimius Severus, turned
   perhaps by Montanistic excesses, enacted a rigid law against the
   further spread both of Christianity and of Judaism. This occasioned
   violent persecutions in Egypt and in North Africa, and produced some of
   the fairest flowers of martyrdom.

   In Alexandria, in consequence of this law, Leonides, father of the
   renowned Origen, was beheaded. Potamiaena, a virgin of rare beauty of
   body and spirit, was threatened by beastly passion with treatment worse
   than death, and, after cruel tortures, slowly burned with her mother in
   boiling pitch. One of the executioners, Basilides, smitten with
   sympathy, shielded them somewhat from abuse, and soon after their death
   embraced Christianity, and was beheaded. He declared that Potamiaena
   had appeared to him in the night, interceded with Christ for him, and
   set upon his head the martyr's crown.

   In Carthage some catechumens, three young men and two young women,
   probably of the sect of the Montanists, showed remarkable steadfastness
   and fidelity in the dungeon and at the place of execution. Perpetua, a
   young woman of noble birth, resisting, not without a violent struggle,
   both the entreaties of her aged heathen father and the appeal of her
   helpless babe upon her breast, sacrificed the deep and tender feelings
   of a daughter and a mother to the Lord who died for her. Felicitas, a
   slave, when delivered of a child in the same dungeon, answered the
   jailor, who reminded her of the still keener pains of martyrdom: "Now I
   suffer, what I suffer; but then another will suffer for me, because I
   shall suffer for him." All remaining firm, they were cast to wild
   beasts at the next public festival, having first interchanged the
   parting kiss in hope of a speedy reunion in heaven.

   The same state of things continued through the first years of Caracalla
   (211-217), though this gloomy misanthrope passed no laws against the
   Christians.

   The abandoned youth, El-Gabal, or Heliogabalus (218-222), who polluted
   the throne by the blackest vices and follies, tolerated all the
   religions in the hope of at last merging them in his favorite Syrian
   worship of the sun with its abominable excesses. He himself was a
   priest of the god of the sun, and thence took his name. [40] 9

   His far more worthy cousin and successor, Alexander Severus (222-235),
   was addicted to a higher kind of religious eclecticism and syncretism,
   a pantheistic hero-worship. He placed the busts of Abraham and Christ
   in his domestic chapel with those of Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, and
   the better Roman emperors, and had the gospel rule, "As ye would that
   men should do to you, do ye even so to them," engraven on the walls of
   his palace, and on public monuments [41] 0. His mother, Julia Mammaea,
   was a patroness of Origen.

   His assassin, Maximinus the Thracian (235-238), first a herdsman,
   afterwards a soldier, resorted again to persecution out of mere
   opposition to his predecessor, and gave free course to the popular fury
   against the enemies of the gods, which was at that time excited anew by
   an earthquake. It is uncertain whether he ordered the entire clergy or
   only the bishops to be killed. He was a rude barbarian who plundered
   also heathen temples.

   The legendary poesy of the tenth century assigns to his reign the
   fabulous martyrdom of St. Ursula, a British princess, and her company
   of eleven thousand (according to others, ten thousand) virgins, who, on
   their return from a pilgrimage to Rome, were murdered by heathens in
   the neighborhood of Cologne. This incredible number has probably arisen
   from the misinterpretation of an inscription, like "Ursula et
   Undecimilla" (which occurs in an old missal of the Sorbonne), or
   "Ursula et XI M. V.," i.e. Martyres Virgines, which, by substituting
   milia for martyres, was increased from eleven martyrs to eleven
   thousand virgins. Some historians place the fact, which seems to form
   the basis of this legend, in connexion with the retreat of the Huns
   after the battle of Chalons, 451. The abridgment of Mil., which may
   mean soldiers (milites) as well as thousands (milia), was another
   fruitful source of mistakes in a credulous and superstitious age.

   Gordianus (208-244) left the church undisturbed. Philip the Arabian
   (244-249) was even supposed by some to be a Christian, and was termed
   by Jerome "primus omnium ex Romanis imperatoribus Christianus." It is
   certain that Origen wrote letters to him and to his wife, Severa.

   This season of repose, however, cooled the moral zeal and brotherly
   love of the Christians; and the mighty storm under the following reign
   served well to restore the purity of the church.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [40] Unless we should prefer to derive it from 'l and gvl

   [41] Yet he meant no more than toleration, as Lampridius says, 22 (21):
   Judaeis privilegia reservavit, Christianos esse passus est.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 22. Persecutions under Decius, and Valerian. a.d. 249-260. Martyrdom
   of Cyprian.

   Dionysius Alex., in Euseb. VI. 40-42; VII. 10, 11.

   Cyprian: De Lapsis, and particularly his Epistles of this period. On
   Cyprian's martyrdom see the Proconsular Acts, and Pontius: Vita
   Cypriani.

   Franz Goerres: Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus, in the
   "Jahrbuecher fuer protest. Theol.," 1877, pp. 606-630. By the same: Die
   angebliche Christenverfolgung zur Zeit der Kaiser Numerianus und
   Carinus, in Hilgenfeld's "Zeitschrift fuer wissenschaftl. Theologie."
   1880 pp. 31-64.

   Decius Trajan (249-251), an earnest and energetic emperor, in whom the
   old Roman spirit once more awoke, resolved to root out the church as an
   atheistic and seditious sect, and in the year 250 published an edict to
   all the governors of the provinces, enjoining return to the pagan state
   religion under the heaviest penalties. This was the signal for a
   persecution which, in extent, consistency, and cruelty, exceeded all
   before it. In truth it was properly the first which covered the whole
   empire, and accordingly produced a far greater number of martyrs than
   any former persecution. In the execution of the imperial decree
   confiscation, exile, torture, promises and threats of all kinds, were
   employed to move the Christians to apostasy. Multitudes of nominal
   Christians, [42] 1 especially at the beginning, sacrificed to the gods
   (sacrificati, thurificati), or procured from the, magistrate a false
   certificate that they had done so (libellatici), and were then
   excommunicated as apostates (lapsi); while hundreds rushed with
   impetuous zeal to the prisons and the tribunals, to obtain the
   confessor's or martyr's crown. The confessors of Rome wrote from prison
   to their brethren of Africa: "What more glorious and blessed lot can
   fall to man by the grace of God, than to confess God the Lord amidst
   tortures and in the face of death itself; to confess Christ the Son of
   God with lacerated body and with a spirit departing, yet free; and to
   become fellow-sufferers with Christ in the name of Christ? Though we
   have not yet shed our blood, we are ready to do so. Pray for us, then,
   dear Cyprian, that the Lord, the best captain, would daily strengthen
   each one of us more and more, and at last lead us to the field as
   faithful soldiers, armed with those divine weapons (Eph. 6:2) which can
   never be conquered."

   The authorities were specially severe with the bishops and officers of
   the churches. Fabianus of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of
   Jerusalem, perished in this persecution. Others withdrew to places of
   concealment; some from cowardice; some from Christian prudence, in hope
   of allaying by their absence the fury of the pagans against their
   flocks, and of saving their own lives for the good of the church in
   better times.

   Among the latter was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who incurred much
   censure by his course, but fully vindicated himself by his pastoral
   industry during his absence, and by his subsequent martyrdom. He says
   concerning the matter: "Our Lord commanded us in times of persecution
   to yield and to fly. He taught this, and he practised it himself. For
   since the martyr's crown comes by the grace of God, and cannot be
   gained before the appointed hour, he who retires for a time, and
   remains true to Christ, does not deny his faith, but only abides his
   time."

   The poetical legend of the seven brothers at Ephesus, who fell asleep
   in a cave, whither they had fled, and awoke two hundred years
   afterwards, under Theodosius II. (447), astonished to see the once
   despised and hated cross now ruling over city and country, dates itself
   internally from the time of Decius, but is not mentioned before Gregory
   of Tours in the sixth century.

   Under Gallus (251-253) the persecution received a fresh impulse
   thorough the incursions of the Goths, and the prevalence of a
   pestilence, drought, and famine. Under this reign the Roman bishops
   Cornelius and Lucius were banished, and then condemned to death.

   Valerian (253-260) was at first mild towards the Christians; but in 257
   he changed his course, and made an effort to check the progress of
   their religion without bloodshed, by the banishment of ministers and
   prominent laymen, the confiscation of their property, and the
   prohibition of religious assemblies. These measures, however, proving
   fruitless, he brought the death penalty again into play.

   The most distinguished martyrs of this persecution under Valerian are
   the bishops Sixtus II. of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage.

   When Cyprian received his sentence of death, representing him as an
   enemy of the Roman gods and laws, he calmly answered: "Deo gratias!"
   Then, attended by a vast multitude to the scaffold, he proved once
   more, undressed himself, covered his eyes, requested a presbyter to
   bind his hands, and to pay the executioner, who tremblingly drew the
   sword, twenty-five pieces of gold, and won the incorruptible crown
   (Sept. 14, 258). His faithful friends caught the blood in
   handkerchiefs, and buried the body of their sainted pastor with great
   solemnity.

   Gibbon describes the martyrdom of Cyprian with circumstantial
   minuteness, and dwells with evident satisfaction on the small decorum
   which attended his execution. But this is no fair average specimen of
   the style in which Christians were executed throughout the empire. For
   Cyprian was a man of the highest social standing and connection from
   his former eminence, as a rhetorician and statesman. His deacon,
   Pontius relates that "numbers of eminent and illustrious persons, men
   of mark family and secular distinction, often urged him, for the sake
   of their old friendship with him, to retire." We shall return to
   Cyprian again in the history of church government, where he figures as
   a typical, ante-Nicene high-churchman, advocating both the visible
   unity of the church and episcopal independence of Rome.

   The much lauded martyrdom of the deacon St. Laurentius of Rome, who
   pointed the avaricious magistrates to the poor and sick of the
   congregation as the richest treasure of the church, and is said to have
   been slowly roasted to death (Aug. 10, 258) is scarcely reliable in its
   details, being first mentioned by Ambrose a century later, and then
   glorified by the poet Prudentius. A Basilica on the Via Tiburtina
   celebrates the memory of this saint, who occupies the same position
   among the martyrs of the church of Rome as Stephen among those of
   Jerusalem.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [42] "Maximus fratrum numerus," says Cyprian.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 23. Temporary Repose. a.d. 260-303.

   Gallienus (260-268) gave peace to the church once more, and even
   acknowledged Christianity as a religio licita. And this calm continued
   forty years; for the edict of persecution, issued by the energetic and
   warlike Aurelian (270-275), was rendered void by his assassination; and
   the six emperors who rapidly followed, from 275 to 284, let the
   Christians alone.

   The persecutions under Carus, Numerianus and Carinus from 284 to 285
   are not historical, but legendary. [43] 2

   During this long season of peace the church rose rapidly in numbers and
   outward prosperity. Large and even splendid houses of worship were
   erected in the chief cities, and provided with collections of sacred
   books and vessels of gold and silver for the administration of the
   sacraments. But in the same proportion discipline relaxed, quarrels,
   intrigues, and factions increased, and worldliness poured in like a
   flood.

   Hence a new trial was a necessary and wholesome process of
   purification. [44] 3
     __________________________________________________________________

   [43] See Franz Goerres, l.c.

   [44] Eusebius, H. E. VIII. 1.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 24. The Diocletian Persecution, a.d. 303-311.

   I. Sources.

   Eusebius: H. E. Lib. VIII. - X; De Martyr. Palaest. (ed. Cureton, Lond,
   1861); Vita Const. (ed. Heinichen, Lips. 1870).

   Lactantius: De Mortibus Persec. c. 7 sqq. Of uncertain authorship.

   Basilius M.: Oratio in Gordium mart.; Oratio in Barlaham mart.

   II. Works.

   Baronius: Annal. ad ann. 302-305.

   Gibbon: Chrs. XIII., XIV. and XVI.

   Jak. Burckhardt: Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. Basel, 1853, p. 325.

   Th. Keim: Der Uebertritt Constantins des Gr. zum Christenthum. Zuerich
   1852. The same: Die roemischen Toleranzedicte fuer das Christenthum
   (311-313), in the "Tueb. Theol. Jahrb." 1852. (His. Rom und das
   Christenthum only comes down to a.d. 192.)

   Alb. Vogel: Der Kaiser Diocletian. Gotha 1857.

   Bernhardt: Diokletian in s. Verhaeltnisse zu den Christen. Bonn, 1862.

   Hunziker: Regierung und Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Diocletianus und
   seiner Nachfolger. Leipz. 1868.

   Theod. Preuss: Kaiser Diocletian und seine Zeit. Leipz. 1869.

   A. J. Mason: The Persecution of Diocletian. Cambridge, 1876. Pages 370.
   (Comp. a review by Ad. Harnack in the "Theol. Literaturzeitung" for
   1877. No. 7. f. 169.)

   Theod. Zahn: Constantin der Grosse und die Kirche. Hannover, 1876.

   Brieger.: Constantin der Gr. als Religionspolitiker. Gotha, 1880. Comp.
   the Lit. on Constantine, in vol. III., 10, 11.

   The forty years' repose was followed by, the last and most violent
   persecution, a struggle for life and death.

   "The accession of the Emperor Diocletian is the era from which the
   Coptic Churches of Egypt and Abyssinia still date, under the name of
   the 'Era of Martyrs.' All former persecutions of the faith were
   forgotten in the horror with which men looked back upon the last and
   greatest: the tenth wave (as men delighted to count it) of that great
   storm obliterated all the traces that had been left by others. The
   fiendish cruelty of Nero, the jealous fears of Domitian, the
   unimpassioned dislike of Marcus, the sweeping purpose of Decius, the
   clever devices of Valerian, fell into obscurity when compared with the
   concentrated terrors of that final grapple, which resulted in the
   destruction of the old Roman Empire and the establishment of the Cross
   as the symbol of the world's hope." [45] 4

   Diocletian (284-305) was one of the most judicious and able emperors
   who, in a trying period, preserved the sinking state from dissolution.
   He was the son of a slave or of obscure parentage, and worked himself
   up to supreme power. He converted the Roman republican empire into an
   Oriental despotism, and prepared the way for Constantine and
   Constantinople. He associated with himself three subordinate
   co-regents, Maximian (who committed suicide, 310), Galerius (d. 311),
   and Constantius Chlorus (d. 306, the father of Constantine the Great),
   and divided with them the government of the immense empire; thereby
   quadrupling the personality of the sovereign, and imparting vigor to
   provincial administration, but also sowing the seed of discord and
   civil war [46] 5. Gibbon calls him a second Augustus, the founder of a
   new empire, rather than the restorer of the old. He also compares him
   to Charles V., whom he somewhat resembled in his talents, temporary
   success and ultimate failure, and voluntary retirement from the cares
   of government.

   In the first twenty years of his reign Diocletian respected the
   toleration edict of Gallienus. His own wife Prisca his daughter
   Valeria, and most of his eunuchs and court officers, besides many of
   the most prominent public functionaries, were Christians, or at least
   favorable to the Christian religion. He himself was a superstitious
   heathen and an oriental despot. Like Aurelian and Domitian before him,
   he claimed divine honors, as the vicar of Jupiter Capitolinus. He was
   called, as the Lord and Master of the world, Sacratissimus Dominus
   Noster; he guarded his Sacred Majesty with many circles of soldiers and
   eunuchs, and allowed no one to approach him except on bended knees, and
   with the forehead touching the ground, while he was seated on the
   throne in rich vestments from the far East. "Ostentation," says Gibbon,
   "was the first principle of the new system instituted by Diocletian."
   As a practical statesman, he must have seen that his work of the
   political restoration and consolidation of the empire would lack a firm
   and permanent basis without the restoration of the old religion of the
   state. Although he long postponed the religious question, he had to
   meet it at last. It could not be expected, in the nature of the case,
   that paganism should surrender to its dangerous rival without a last
   desperate effort to save itself.

   But the chief instigator of the renewal of hostility, according to the
   account of Lactantius, was Diocletian's co-regent and son-in-law,
   Galerius, a cruel and fanatical heathen. [47] 6 He prevailed at last on
   Diocletian in his old age to authorize the persecution which gave to
   his glorious reign a disgraceful end.

   In 303 Diocletian issued in rapid succession three edicts, each more
   severe than its predecessor. Maximian issued the fourth, the worst of
   all, April 30, 304. Christian churches were to be destroyed; all copies
   of the Bible were to be burned; all Christians were to be deprived of
   public office and civil rights; and at last all, without exception,
   were to sacrifice to the gods upon pain of death. Pretext for this
   severity was afforded by the occurrence of fire twice in the palace of
   Nicomedia in Bithynia, where Diocletian resided [48] 7. It was
   strengthened by the tearing down of the first edict by an imprudent
   Christian (celebrated in the Greek church under the name of John), who
   vented in that way his abhorrence of such "godless and tyrannical
   rulers," and was gradually roasted to death with every species of
   cruelty. But the conjecture that the edicts were occasioned by a
   conspiracy of the Christians who, feeling their rising power, were for
   putting the government at once into Christian hands, by a stroke of
   state, is without any foundation in history. It is inconsistent with
   the political passivity of the church during the first three centuries,
   which furnish no example of rebellion and revolution. At best such a
   conspiracy could only have been the work of a few fanatics; and they,
   like the one who tore down the first edict, would have gloried in the
   deed and sought the crown of martyrdom. [49] 8

   The persecution began on the twenty-third day of February, 303, the
   feast of the Terminalia (as if to make an end of the Christian sect),
   with the destruction of the magnificent church in Nicomedia, and soon
   spread over the whole Roman empire, except Gaul, Britain, and Spain,
   where the co-regent Constantius Chlorus, and especially his son,
   Constantine the Great (from 306), were disposed, as far as possible, to
   spare the Christians. But even here the churches were destroyed, and
   many martyrs of Spain (St. Vincentius, Eulalia, and others celebrated
   by Prudentins), and of Britain (St. Alban) are assigned by later
   tradition to this age.

   The persecution raged longest and most fiercely in the East under the
   rule of Galerius and his barbarous nephew Maximin Daza, who was
   intrusted by Diocletian before his retirement with the dignity of
   Caesar and the extreme command of Egypt and Syria [50] 9. He issued in
   autumn, 308, a fifth edict of persecution, which commanded that all
   males with their wives and servants, and even their children, should
   sacrifice and actually taste the accursed offerings, and that all
   provisions in the markets should be sprinkled with sacrificial wine.
   This monstrous law introduced a reign of terror for two years, and left
   [51] 0 the Christians no alternative but apostasy or starvation. All
   the pains, which iron and steel, fire and sword, rack and cross, wild
   beasts and beastly men could inflict, were employed to gain the useless
   end.

   Eusebius was a witness of this persecution in Caesura, Tyre, and Egypt,
   and saw, with his own eyes, as he tells us, the houses of prayer razed
   to the ground, the Holy Scriptures committed to the flames on the
   market places, the pastors hunted, tortured, and torn to pieces in the
   amphitheatre. Even the wild beasts, he says, not without rhetorical
   exaggeration, at last refused to attack the Christians, as if they had
   assumed the part of men in place of the heathen Romans; the bloody
   swords became dull and shattered; the executioners grew weary, and had
   to relieve each other; but the Christians sang hymns of praise and
   thanksgiving in honor of Almighty God, even to their latest breath. He
   describes the heroic sufferings and death of several martyrs, including
   his friend, "the holy and blessed Pamphilus," who after two years of
   imprisonment won the crown of life (309), with eleven others--a typical
   company that seemed to him to be "a perfect representation of the
   church."

   Eusebius himself was imprisoned, but released. The charge of having
   escaped martyrdom by offering sacrifice is without foundation. [52] 1

   In this, as in former persecutions, the number of apostates who
   preferred the earthly life to the heavenly, was very great. To these
   was now added also the new class of the traditores, who delivered the
   holy Scriptures to the heathen authorities, to be burned. But as the
   persecution raged, the zeal and fidelity of the Christians increased,
   and martyrdom spread as by contagion. Even boys and girls showed
   amazing firmness. In many the heroism of faith degenerated to a
   fanatical courting of death; confessors were almost worshipped, while
   yet alive; and the hatred towards apostates distracted many
   congregations, and produced the Meletian and Donatist schisms.

   The number of martyrs cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty.
   The seven episcopal and the ninety-two Palestinian martyrs of Eusebius
   are only a select list bearing a similar relation to the whole number
   of victims as the military lists its of distinguished fallen officers
   to the large mass of common soldiers, and form therefore no fair basis
   for the calculation of Gibbon, who would reduce the whole number to
   less than two thousand. During the eight years [53] 2 of this
   persecution the number of victims, without including the many
   confessors who were barbarously mutilated and condemned to a lingering
   death in the prisons and mines, must have been much larger. But there
   is no truth in the tradition (which figures in older church histories)
   that the tyrants erected trophies in Spain and elsewhere with such
   inscriptions as announce the suppression of the Christian sect. [54] 3

   The martyrologies date from this period several legends, the germs of
   which, however, cannot now be clearly sifted from the additions of
   later poesy. The story of the destruction of the legio Thebaica is
   probably an exaggeration of the martyrdom of St. Mauritius, who was
   executed in Syria, as tribunus militum, with seventy soldiers, at the
   order of Maximin. The martyrdom of Barlaam, a plain, rustic Christian
   of remarkable constancy, and of Gordius, a centurion (who, however, was
   tortured and executed a few years later under Licinius, 314) has been
   eulogized by St. Basil. A maiden of thirteen years, St. Agnes, whose
   memory the Latin church has celebrated ever since the fourth century,
   was, according to tradition, brought in chains before the judgment-seat
   in Rome; was publicly exposed, and upon her steadfast confession put to
   the sword; but afterwards appeared to her grieving parents at her grave
   with a white lamb and a host of shining virgins from heaven, and said:
   "Mourn me no longer as dead, for ye see that I live. Rejoice with me,
   that I am forever united in heaven with the Saviour, whom on earth I
   loved with all my heart." Hence the lamb in the paintings of this
   saint; and hence the consecration of lambs in her church at Rome at her
   festival (Jan. 21), from whose wool the pallium of the archbishop is
   made. Agricola and Vitalis at Bologna, Gervasius and Protasius at
   Milan, whose bones were discovered in the time of Ambrose Janurius,
   bishop of Benevent, who became the patron saint of Naples, and
   astonishes the faithful by the annual miracle of the liquefaction of
   his blood, and the British St. Alban, who delivered himself to the
   authorities in the place of the priest he had concealed in his house,
   and converted his executioner, are said to have attained martyrdom
   under Diocletian. [55] 4
     __________________________________________________________________

   [45] So Arthur James Mason begins his book on thePersecution of
   Diocletian.

   [46] Maximian (surnamed Herculius) ruled in Italy and Africa, Galerius
   (Armentarius) on the banks of the Danube, and afterwards in the East,
   Constantius (Chlorus) in Gaul, Spain, and Britain; while Diocletian
   reserved to himself Asia, Egypt, and Thrace, and resided in Nicomedia.
   Galerius married a daughter of Diocletian (the unfortunate Valeria),
   Constantius a (nominal) daughter of Maximian (Theodora), after
   repudiating their former wives. Constantine, the son of the divorced
   Helena, married Fausta, the daughter of Maximian as his second wife
   (father and son being married to two sisters). He was raised to the
   dignity of Caesar, July 25, 306. See Gibbon, chs. XIII and XIV.

   [47] Lactantius (De Morte. Persec. c. 9), calls him "a wild beast, " in
   whom dwelt "a native barbarity and a savageness foreign to Roman
   blood." He died at last of a terrible disease, of which Lacantius gives
   a minute account (ch. 33).

   [48] Lactantius charges the incendiarism on Galerius who, as a second
   Nero, endangered the residence for the purpose of punishing the
   innocent Christians. Constantine, who then resided at the Court, on a
   solemn occasion at a later period, attributes the fire to lightning
   (Orat. ad Sanct. c. 25), but the repetition of the occurrence
   strengthens the suspicion of Lactantius.

   [49] Gibbon, ch. XVI., intimates the probability of a political plot.
   In speaking of the fire in the imperial palace of Nicomedia, he says:
   "The suspicion naturally fell on the Christians; and it was suggested,
   with some degree of probability, that those desperate fanatics,
   provoked by their present sufferings, and apprehensive of impending
   calamities, had entered into a conspiracy with their faithful brethren,
   the eunuchs of the palace, against the lives of two emperors, whom they
   detested as the irreconcilable enemies of the Church of God." The
   conjecture of Gibbon was renewed by Burkhardt in his work on
   Constantine, pp. 332 ff, but without any evidence. Baur rejects it as
   artificial and very improbable. (Kirchengesch. I. 452, note). Mason (p.
   97 sq.) refutes it.

   [50] See Lactant., De Morte Persec. ch. 18 and 19, 32, and Gibbon, ch.
   XIV. V. (vol. II. 16 in Smith's edition). The original name of Maximin
   was Daza. He must not be confounded with Maximian (who was older and
   died three years before him). He was a rude, ignorant and superstitious
   tyrant, equal to Galerius in cruelty and surpassing him in incredible
   debauchery (See Lact. l.c. ch. 37 sqq.). He died of poison after being
   defeated by Licinius in 313.

   [51] See on this edict of Maximin, Euseb. Mart. Pal. IX. 2; the Acts of
   Martyrs in Boll., May 8, p. 291, and Oct. 19, p. 428; Mason, l.c. 284
   sqq.

   [52] Lightfoot vindicates him in his learned art. Euseb. in Smith and
   Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biogr. II. 311.

   [53] Or ten years, if we include the local persecutions of Maximin and
   Licinius after the first edict of toleration (311-313).

   [54] As "Nomine Christianorum deleto; superstitione Christiana ubique
   deleta, et cultu Deorum propagato." See the inscriptions in full in
   Baronius (ad. ann. 304, no. 8, 9; but they are inconsistent with the
   confession of the failure in the edict of toleration, and acknowledged
   to be worthless even by Gams (K. Gesch. v. Spanien, I. 387).

   [55] For details see the Martyrologies, the "Lives of Saints, " also
   Baronius Annal. This historian is so fully convinced of the "insigne et
   perpetuum miraculum sanguinis S. Januarii," that he thinks; it
   unnecessary to produce; my witness, since "tota Italia, et totus
   Christianus orbis testis est locupletissimus!"Ad ann. 305 no. 6.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 25. The Edicts of Toleration. a.d. 311-313.

   See Lit. in S: 24, especially Keim, and Mason (Persecution of
   Diocletian, pp. 299 and 326 sqq.)

   This persecution was the last desperate struggle of Roman heathenism
   for its life. It was the crisis of utter extinction or absolute
   supremacy for each of the two religions. At the close of the contest
   the old Roman state religion was exhausted. Diocletian retired into
   private life in 305, under the curse of the Christians; he found
   greater pleasure in planting cabbages at Salona in his native Dalmatia,
   than in governing a vast empire, but his peace was disturbed by the
   tragical misfortunes of his wife and daughter, and in 313, when all the
   achievements of his reign were destroyed, he destroyed himself.

   Galerius, the real author of the persecution, brought to reflection by
   a terrible disease, put an end to the slaughter shortly before his
   death, by a remarkable edict of toleration, which he issued from
   Nicomedia in 311, in connexion with Constantine and Licinius. In that
   document he declared, that the purpose of reclaiming the Christians
   from their wilful innovation and the multitude of their sects to the
   laws and discipline of the, Roman state, was not accomplished; and that
   he would now grant them permission to hold their religious assemblies
   provided they disturbed not the order of the state. To this he added in
   conclusion the significant instruction that the Christians, "after this
   manifestation of grace, should pray to their God for the welfare of the
   emperors, of the state, and of themselves, that the state might prosper
   in every respect, and that they might live quietly in their homes."
   [56] 5

   This edict virtually closes the period of persecution in the Roman
   empire.

   For a short time Maximin, whom Eusebius calls "the chief of tyrants,"
   continued in every way to oppress and vex the church in the East, and
   the cruel pagan Maxentius (a son of Maximian and son-in-law of
   Galerius) did the same in Italy.

   But the young Constantine, who hailed from the far West, had already,
   in 306, become emperor of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. He had been brought
   up at the court of Diocletian at Nicomedia (like Moses at the court of
   Pharaoh) and destined for his successor, but fled from the intrigues of
   Galerius to Britain, and was appointed by his father and proclaimed by
   the army as his successor. He crossed the Alps, and under the banner of
   the cross, he conquered Maxentius at the Milvian bridge near Rome, and
   the heathen tyrant perished with his army of veterans in the waters of
   the Tiber, Oct. 27, 312. A few months afterwards Constantine met at
   Milan with his co-regent and brother-in-law, Licinius, and issued a new
   edict of toleration (313), to which Maximin also, shortly before his
   suicide (313), was compelled to give his consent at Nicomedia. [57] 6
   The second edict went beyond the first of 311; it was a decisive step
   from hostile neutrality to friendly neutrality and protection, and
   prepared the way for the legal recognition of Christianity, as the
   religion of the empire. It ordered the full restoration of all
   confiscated church property to the Corpus Christianorum, at the expense
   of the imperial treasury, and directed the provincial magistrates to
   execute this order at once with all energy, so that peace may be fully
   established and the continuance of the Divine favor secured to the
   emperors and their subjects.

   This was the first proclamation of the great principle that every man
   had a right to choose his religion according to the dictates of his own
   conscience and honest conviction, without compulsion and interference
   from the government. [58] 7 Religion is worth nothing except as an act
   of freedom. A forced religion is no religion at all. Unfortunately, the
   successors of Constantine from the time of Theodosius the Great
   (383-395) enforced the Christian religion to the exclusion of every
   other; and not only so, but they enforced orthodoxy to the exclusion of
   every form of dissent, which was punished as a crime against the state.

   Paganism made another spasmodic effort. Licinius fell out with
   Constantine and renewed the persecution for a short time in the East,
   but he was defeated in 323, and Constantine became sole ruler of the
   empire. He openly protected and favored the church, without forbidding
   idolatry, and upon the whole remained true to his policy of protective
   toleration till his death (337). This was enough for the success of the
   church, which had all the vitality and energy of a victorious power;
   while heathenism was fast decaying at its root.

   With Constantine, therefore, the last of the heathen, the first of the
   Christian, emperors, a new period begins. The church ascends the throne
   of the Caesars under the banner of the once despised, now honored and
   triumphant cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of
   Rome. This sudden political and social revolution seems marvellous; and
   yet it was only the legitimate result of the intellectual and moral
   revolution which Christianity, since the second century, had silently
   and imperceptibly wrought in public opinion. The very violence of the
   Diocletian persecution betrayed the inner weakness of heathenism. The
   Christian minority with its ideas already controlled the deeper current
   of history. Constantine, as a sagacious statesman, saw the signs of the
   times and followed them. The motto of his policy is well symbolized in
   his military standard with the inscription: "Hoc signo vinces." [59] 8

   What a contrast between Nero, the first imperial persecutor, riding in
   a chariot among Christian martyrs as burning torches in his gardens,
   and Constantine, seated in the Council of Nicaea among three hundred
   and eighteen bishops (some of whom--as the blinded Confessor
   Paphnutius, Paul of Neocaesarea, and the ascetics from Upper Egypt
   clothed in wild raiment--wore the insignia of torture on their maimed
   and crippled bodies), and giving the highest sanction of civil
   authority to the decree of the eternal deity of the once crucified
   Jesus of Nazareth! Such a revolution the world has never seen before or
   since, except the silent, spiritual, and moral reformation wrought by
   Christianity itself at its introduction in the first, and at its
   revival in the sixteenth century.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [56] M. de Broglie (L'Eglise et l'Empire, I. 182) well characterizes
   this manifesto: "Singulier document, moitie insolent, moitie suppliant,
   qui commence par insulter chretiens et finit par leur demander de prier
   leur maI tre pour lui." Mason (1. c. p. 299): "The dying emperor shows
   no penitence, makes no confession, except his impotence. He wishes to
   dupe and outwit the angry Christ, by pretending to be not a persecutor
   but a reformer. With a curse, he dashes his edict of toleration in the
   church's face, and hopes superstitiously that it will win him
   indemnity."

   [57] It is usually stated (also by Keim, l.c., Gieseler, Baur, vol. I..
   454 sqq.), that Constantine and Licinius issued two edicts of
   toleration, one in the year 312, and one from Milan in 313, since the
   last refers to a previous edict, but the reference seems to be to
   directions now lost for officials which accompanied the edict of
   Galerius (311), of which Constantine was a co-signatory. There is no
   edict of 312. See Zahn and especially Mason (p. 328 sq.), also Uhlhorn
   (Conflict, etc., p. 497, Engl. translation).

   [58] "Ut daremus et Christianis et omnibus liberam potestatem sequendi
   religionem, quam quiscunque voluisset." See Euseb. H. X. 5; Lactant. De
   Mort. Pers. c. 48. Mason (p. 327) says of the Edict of Milan: "It is
   the very first announcement of that doctrine which is now regarded as
   the mark and principle of civilization, the foundation of solid
   liberty, the characteristic of modern politics. In vigorous and
   trenchant sentences it sets forth perfect freedom of conscience, the
   unfettered choice of religion."

   [59] For a fuller account of Constantine and his relation to the
   Church. see the next volume.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 26. Christian Martyrdom.

   I. Sources.

   Ignatius: Epistolae. Martyrum Polycarpi. Tertullian: Ad Martyres.
   Origenes: Exhortatio ad martyrium (protreptiko's Logos heis martupion.)
   Cyprian: Ep. 11 ad mart. Prudentius: Peri' stephaon'hymni XIV. Comp.
   Lit. S: 12.

   II. Works.

   Sagittarius: De mart. cruciatibus, 1696.

   H. Dodwell: De paucitate martyrum, in his Dissertationes Cyprianiae.
   Lond. 1684.

   Ruinart (R.C.): Praefatio generalis in Acta Martyrum.

   P. W. Gass: Das christl. Maertyrerthum in den ersten Jahrhunderten, in
   Niedner's "Zeitschrift f. Hist. Theol." 1859 and '60.

   E. de Pressense: The Martyrs and Apologists. Translated from the
   French. London and N. Y. 1871. (Ch. II. p. 67 sqq.).

   Chateaubriand: Les martyrs ou le triomphe de la rel. chret. 2 vols.
   Paris 1809 and often (best Engl. trsl. by O W. Wight, N. York, 1859.)
   Has no critical or historical value, but merely poetical.

   Comp. in part Mrs. Jameson: Sacred and Legendary Art. Lond. 1848. 2
   vols.

   To these protracted and cruel persecutions the church opposed no
   revolutionary violence, no carnal resistance, but the moral heroism of
   suffering and dying for the truth. But this very heroism was her
   fairest ornament and staunchest weapon. In this very heroism she proved
   herself worthy of her divine founder, who submitted to the death of the
   cross for the salvation of the world, and even prayed that his
   murderers might be forgiven. The patriotic virtues of Greek and Roman
   antiquity reproduced themselves here in exalted form, in self-denial
   for the sake of a heavenly country, and for a crown that fadeth not
   away. Even boys and girls became heroes, and rushed with a holy
   enthusiasm to death. In those hard times men had to make earnest of the
   words of the Lord: "Whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after
   me, cannot be my disciple." "He, that loveth father and mother more
   than me, is not worthy of me." But then also the promise daily proved
   itself true: "Blessed are they, who are persecuted for righteousness'
   sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." "He, that loseth his life
   for my sake, shall find it." And it applied not only to the martyrs
   themselves, who exchanged the troubled life of earth for the
   blessedness of heaven, but also to the church as a whole, which came
   forth purer and stronger from every persecution, and thus attested her
   indestructible vitality.

   These suffering virtues are among the sweetest and noblest fruits of
   the Christian religion. It is not so much the amount of suffering which
   challenges our admiration, although it was terrible enough, as the
   spirit with which the early Christians bore it. Men and women of all
   classes, noble senators and learned bishops, illiterate artisans and
   poor slaves, loving mothers and delicate virgins, hoary-headed pastors
   and innocent children approached their tortures in no temper of
   unfeeling indifference and obstinate defiance, but, like their divine
   Master, with calm self-possession, humble resignation, gentle meekness,
   cheerful faith, triumphant hope, and forgiving charity. Such spectacles
   must have often overcome even the inhuman murderer. "Go on," says
   Tertullian tauntingly to the heathen governors, "rack, torture, grind
   us to powder: our numbers increase in proportion as ye mow us down. The
   blood of Christians is their harvest seed. Your very obstinacy is a
   teacher. For who is not incited by the contemplation of it to inquire
   what there is in the core of the matter? And who, after having joined
   us, does not long to suffer?" [60] 9

   Unquestionably there were also during this period, especially after
   considerable seasons of quiet, many superficial or hypocritical
   Christians, who, the moment the storm of persecution broke forth, flew
   like chaff from the wheat, and either offered incense to the gods
   (thurificati, sacrificati), or procured false witness of their return
   to paganism (libellatici, from libellum), or gave up the sacred books
   (traditores). Tertullian relates with righteous indignation that whole
   congregations, with the clergy at the head, would at times resort to
   dishonorable bribes in order to avert the persecution of heathen
   magistrates. [61] 0 But these were certainly cases of rare exception.
   Generally speaking the three sorts of apostates (lapsi) were at once
   excommunicated, and in many churches, through excessive rigor, were
   even refused restoration.

   Those who cheerfully confessed Christ before the heathen magistrate at
   the peril of life, but were not executed, were honored as confessors.
   [62] 1 Those who suffered abuse of all kind and death itself, for their
   faith, were called martyrs or bloodwitnesses. [63] 2

   Among these confessors and martyrs were not wanting those in whom the
   pure, quiet flame of enthusiasm rose into the wild fire of fanaticism,
   and whose zeal was corrupted with impatient haste, heaven-tempting
   presumption, and pious ambition; to whom that word could be applied:
   "Though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me
   nothing." They delivered themselves up to the heathen officers, and in
   every way sought the martyr's crown, that they might merit heaven and
   be venerated on earth as saints. Thus Tertullian tells of a company of
   Christians in Ephesus, who begged martyrdom from the heathen governor,
   but after a few had been executed, the rest were sent away by him with
   the words: "Miserable creatures, if you really wish to die, you have
   precipices and halters enough." Though this error was far less
   discreditable than the opposite extreme of the cowardly fear of man,
   yet it was contrary to the instruction and the example of Christ and
   the apostles, [64] 3 and to the spirit of true martyrdom, which
   consists in the union of sincere humility and power, and possesses
   divine strength in the very consciousness of human weakness. And
   accordingly intelligent church teachers censured this stormy, morbid
   zeal. The church of Smyrna speaks thus: "We do not commend those who
   expose themselves; for the gospel teaches not so." Clement of
   Alexandria says: "The Lord himself has commanded us to flee to another
   city when we are persecuted; not as if the persecution were an evil;
   not as if we feared death; but that we may not lead or help any to evil
   doing." In Tertullian's view martyrdom perfects itself in divine
   patience; and with Cyprian it is a gift of divine grace, which one
   cannot hastily grasp, but must patiently wait for.

   But after all due allowance for such adulteration and degeneracy, the
   martyrdom of the first three centuries still remains one of the
   grandest phenomena of history, and an evidence of the indestructible
   divine nature of Christianity.

   No other religion could have stood for so long a period the combined
   opposition of Jewish bigotry, Greek philosophy, and Roman policy and
   power; no other could have triumphed at last over so many foes by
   purely moral and spiritual force, without calling any carnal weapons to
   its aid. This comprehensive and long-continued martyrdom is the
   peculiar crown and glory of the early church; it pervaded its entire
   literature and gave it a predominantly apologetic character; it entered
   deeply into its organization and discipline and the development of
   Christian doctrine; it affected the public worship and private
   devotions; it produced a legendary poetry; but it gave rise also,
   innocently, to a great deal of superstition, and undue exaltation of
   human merit; and it lies at the foundation of the Catholic worship of
   saints and relics.

   Sceptical writers have endeavored to diminish its moral effect by
   pointing to the fiendish and hellish scenes of the papal crusades
   against the Albigenses and Waldenses, the Parisian massacre of the
   Huguenots, the Spanish Inquisition, and other persecutions of more
   recent date. Dodwell expressed the opinion, which has been recently
   confirmed by the high authority of the learned and impartial Niebuhr,
   that the Diocletian persecution was a mere shadow as compared with the
   persecution of the Protestants in the Netherlands by the Duke of Alva
   in the service of Spanish bigotry and despotism. Gibbon goes even
   further, and boldly asserts that "the number of Protestants who were
   executed by the Spaniards in a single province and a single reign, far
   exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries
   and of the Roman empire." The victims of the Spanish Inquisition also
   are said to outnumber those of the Roman emperors. [65] 4

   Admitting these sad facts, they do not justify any sceptical
   conclusion. For Christianity is no more responsible for the crimes and
   cruelties perpetrated in its name by unworthy professors and under the
   sanction of an unholy alliance of politics and religion, than the Bible
   for all the nonsense men have put into it, or God for the abuse daily
   and hourly practised with his best gifts. But the number of martyrs
   must be judged by the total number of Christians who were a minority of
   the population. The want of particular statements by contemporary
   writers leaves it impossible to ascertain, even approximately, the
   number of martyrs. Dodwell and Gibbon have certainly underrated it, as
   far as Eusebius, the popular tradition since Constantine, and the
   legendary poesy of the middle age, have erred the other way. This is
   the result of recent discovery and investigation, and fully admitted by
   such writers as Renan. Origen, it is true, wrote in the middle of the
   third century, that the number of Christian martyrs was small and easy
   to be counted; God not permitting that all this class of men should be
   exterminated. [66] 5 But this language must be understood as referring
   chiefly to the reigns of Caracalla, Heliogabalus, Alexander Severus and
   Philippus Arabs, who did not persecute the Christians. Soon afterwards
   the fearful persecution of Decius broke out, in which Origen himself
   was thrown into prison and cruelly treated. Concerning the preceding
   ages, his statement must be qualified by the equally valid testimonies
   of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria (Origen's teacher), and the still
   older Irenaeus, who says expressly, that the church, for her love to
   God, "sends in all places and at all times a multitude of martyrs to
   the Father." [67] 6 Even the heathen Tacitus speaks of an "immense
   multitude" (ingens multitudo) of Christians, who were murdered in the
   city of Rome alone during the Neronian persecution in 64. To this must
   be added the silent, yet most eloquent testimony of the Roman
   catacombs, which, according to the calculation of Marchi and Northcote,
   extended over nine hundred English miles, and are said to contain
   nearly seven millions of graves, a large proportion of these including
   the relics of martyrs, as the innumerable inscriptions and instruments
   of death testify. The sufferings, moreover, of the church during this
   period are of course not to be measured merely by the number of actual
   executions, but by the far more numerous insults, slanders, vexatious,
   and tortures, which the cruelty of heartless heathens and barbarians
   could devise, or any sort of instrument could inflict on the human
   body, and which were in a thousand cases worse than death.

   Finally, while the Christian religion has at all times suffered more or
   less persecution, bloody or unbloody, from the ungodly world, and
   always had its witnesses ready for any sacrifice; yet at no period
   since the first three centuries was the whole church denied the right
   of a peaceful legal existence, and the profession of Christianity
   itself universally declared and punished as a political crime. Before
   Constantine the Christians were a helpless and proscribed minority in
   an essentially heathen world, and under a heathen government. Then they
   died not simply for particular doctrines, but for the facts of
   Christianity. Then it was a conflict, not for a denomination or sect,
   but for Christianity itself. The importance of ancient martyrdom does
   not rest so much on the number of victims and the cruelty of their
   sufferings as on the great antithesis and the ultimate result in saving
   the Christian religion for all time to come. Hence the first three
   centuries are the classical period of heathen persecution and of
   Christian martyrdom. The martyrs and confessors of the ante-Nicene age
   suffered for the common cause of all Christian denominations and sects,
   and hence are justly held in reverence and gratitude by all.

   Notes.

   Dr. Thomas Arnold, who had no leaning to superstitious and idolatrous
   saint-worship, in speaking of a visit to the church of San Stefano at
   Rome, remarks: "No doubt many of the particular stories thus painted
   will bear no critical examination; it is likely enough, too, that
   Gibbon has truly accused the general statements of exaggeration. But
   this is a thankless labor. Divide the sum total of the reported martyrs
   by twenty--by fifty, if you will; after all you have a number of
   persons of all ages and sexes suffering cruel torment and death for
   conscience' sake, and for Christ's; and by their sufferings manifestly
   with God's blessing ensuring the triumph of Christ's gospel. Neither do
   I think that we consider the excellence of this martyr spirit half
   enough. I do not think that pleasure is a sin; but though pleasure is
   not a sin, yet surely the contemplation of suffering for Christ's sake
   is a thing most needful for us in our days, from whom in our daily life
   suffering seems so far removed. And as God's grace enabled rich and
   delicate persons, women and even children, to endure all extremities of
   pain and reproach, in times past; so there is the same grace no less
   mighty now; and if we do not close ourselves against it, it might be in
   us no less glorious in a time of trial."

   Lecky, a very able and impartial historian, justly censures the
   unfeeling chapter of Gibbon on persecution. "The complete absence," he
   says (History of European Morals, I. 494 sqq.), "of all sympathy with
   the heroic courage manifested by the martyrs, and the frigid, and in
   truth most unphilosophical severity with which the historian has
   weighed the words and actions of men engaged in the agonies of a
   deadly, struggle, must repel every generous nature, while the
   persistence with which he estimates persecutions by the number of
   deaths rather than the amount of suffering, diverts the mind from the
   really distinctive atrocities of the Pagan persecutions .... It is true
   that in one Catholic country they introduced the atrocious custom of
   making the spectacle of men burnt alive for their religious opinions an
   element in the public festivities. It is true, too, that the immense
   majority of the acts of the martyrs are the transparent forgeries of
   lying monks; but it is also true that among the authentic records of
   Pagan persecutions there are histories, which display, perhaps more
   vividly than any other, both the depth of cruelty to which human nature
   may sink, and the heroism of resistance it may attain. There was a time
   when it was the just boast of the Romans, that no refinement of
   cruelty, no prolongations of torture, were admitted in their stern but
   simple penal code. But all this was changed. Those hateful games, which
   made the spectacle of human suffering and death the delight of all
   classes, had spread their brutalising influence wherever the Roman name
   was known, had rendered millions absolutely indifferent to the sight of
   human suffering, had produced in many, in the very centre of an
   advanced civilisation, a relish and a passion for torture, a rapture
   and an exultation in watching the spasms of extreme agony, such as an
   African or an American savage alone can equal. The most horrible
   recorded instances of torture were usually inflicted, either by the
   populace, or in their presence, in the arena. We read of Christians
   bound in chains of red-hot iron, while the stench of their
   half-consumed flesh rose in a suffocating cloud to heaven; of others
   who were torn to the very bone by, shells or hooks of iron; of holy
   virgins given over to the lust of the gladiator or to the mercies of
   the pander; of two hundred and twenty-seven converts sent on one
   occasion to the mines, each with the sinews of one leg severed by a
   red-hot iron, and with an eye scooped from its socket; of fires so slow
   that the victims writhed for hours in their agonies; of bodies torn
   limb from limb, or sprinkled with burning lead; of mingled salt and
   vinegar poured over the flesh that was bleeding from the rack; of
   tortures prolonged and varied through entire days. For the love of
   their Divine Master, for the cause they believed to be true, men, and
   even weak girls, endured these things without flinching, when one word
   would have freed them from their sufferings, No opinion we may form of
   the proceedings of priests in a later age should impair the reverence
   with which we bend before the martyr's tomb.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [60] Comp. a similar passage in the anonymous Ep. ad Diognetum, c. 6
   and 7 at the close, and in Justin M., Dial .c. Tryph. Jud. c. 110.

   [61] De fuga in persec. c. 13: "Massaliter totae ecclesiae tributum
   sibi irrogaverunt."

   [62] Homologetai, confessores, Matt. 10:32; 1 Tim. 6:12.

   [63] Martures, Acts 22:20; Heb. 12:1; 1 Pet. 5:1; Rev. 17:6.

   [64] Comp. Matt. 10:23; 24:15-20; Phil. 1:20-25; 2 Tim. 4:6-8.

   [65] The number of Dutch martyrs under the Duke of Alva amounted,
   according to Grotius, to over 100,000; according to P. Sarpi, the R.
   Cath. historian, to 50,000. Motley, in his History of the Rim of the
   Dutch Republic, vol. II. 504, says of the terrible reign of Alva: "The
   barbarities committed amid the sack and ruin of those blazing and
   starving cities are almost beyond belief; unborn infants were torn from
   the living bodies of their mothers; women and children were violated by
   the thousands; and whole populations burned and hacked to pieces by
   soldiers in every mode which cruelty, in its wanton ingenuity, could
   devise." Buckle and Friedlaender (III. 586) assert that during the
   eighteen years of office of Torquemada, the Spanish Inquisition
   punished, according to the lowest estimate, 105,000 persons, among whom
   8,800 were burnt. In Andalusia 2000 Jews were executed, and 17,000
   punished in a single year.

   [66] Oligoi kata kairous kai sphodra euarithmetoi tethnekasi.. Adv.
   Cels. III. 8 The older testimony of Melito of Sardis, in the well-known
   fragment from his Apology, preserved by Eusebius IV. 26, refers merely
   to the small number of imperial persecutors before Marcus Aurelius.

   [67] Adv. Haer. IV. c. 33, S: 9: Ecclesia omni in loco ob eam, quam
   habet erga Deum dilectionem, multitudinem martyrum in omni tempore
   praemittit ad Patrem.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 27. Rise of the Worship of Martyrs and Relics.

   I. Sources.

   In addition to the works quoted in S:S: 12 and 26, comp. Euseb. H. E.
   IV. 15; De Mart. Palaest. c. 7. Clem. Alex.: Strom. IV. p. 596. Orig.:
   Exhort. ad mart. c. 30 and 50. In Num. Kom. X. 2. Tertull.: De cor.
   mil. c. 3; De Resurr. carn. c. 43. Cypr.: De lapsis, c. 17; Epist. 34
   and 57. Const. Apost.: l. 8.

   II. Works.

   C. Sagittarius: De natalitiis mart. Jen. 1696.

   Schwabe: De insigni veneratione, quae obtinuit erga martyres in primit.
   eccl. Altd. 1748.

   In thankful remembrance of the fidelity of this "noble army of
   martyrs," in recognition of the unbroken communion of saints, and in
   prospect of the resurrection of the body, the church paid to the
   martyrs, and even to their mortal remains, a veneration, which was in
   itself well-deserved and altogether natural, but which early exceeded
   the scriptural limit, and afterwards degenerated into the worship of
   saints and relics. The heathen hero-worship silently continued in the
   church and was baptized with Christian names.

   In the church of Smyrna, according to its letter of the year 155, we
   find this veneration still in its innocent, childlike form: "They [the
   Jews] know not, that we can neither ever forsake Christ, who has
   suffered for the salvation of the whole world of the redeemed, nor
   worship another. Him indeed we adore (proskunoumen) as the Son of God;
   but the martyrs we love as they deserve (agapomen axios) for their
   surpassing love to their King and Master, as we wish also to be their
   companions and fellow-disciples." [68] 7 The day of the death of a
   martyr was called his heavenly birth-day, [69] 8 and was celebrated
   annually at his grave (mostly in a cave or catacomb), by prayer,
   reading of a history of his suffering and victory, oblations, and
   celebration of the holy supper.

   But the early church did not stop with this. Martyrdom was taken, after
   the end of the second century, not only as a higher grade of Christian
   virtue, but at the same time as a baptism of fire and blood, [70] 9 an
   ample substitution for the baptism of water, as purifying from sin, and
   as securing an entrance into heaven. Origen even went so far as to
   ascribe to the sufferings of the martyrs an atoning virtue for others,
   an efficacy like that of the sufferings of Christ, on the authority of
   such passages as 2 Cor. 12:15; Col. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:6. According to
   Tertullian, the martyrs entered immediately into the blessedness of
   heaven, and were not required, like ordinary Christians, to pass
   through the intermediate state. Thus was applied the benediction on
   those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, Matt. 5:10-12. Hence,
   according to Origen and Cyprian, their prayers before the throne of God
   came to be thought peculiarly efficacious for the church militant on
   earth, and, according to an example related by Eusebius, their future
   intercessions were bespoken shortly before their death.

   In the Roman Catacombs we find inscriptions where the departed are
   requested to pray for their living relatives and friends.

   The veneration thus shown for the persons of the martyrs was
   transferred in smaller measure to their remains. The church of Smyrna
   counted the bones of Polycarp more precious than gold or diamonds. [71]
   0 The remains of Ignatius were held in equal veneration by the
   Christians at Antioch. The friends of Cyprian gathered his blood in
   handkerchiefs, and built a chapel over his tomb.

   A veneration frequently excessive was paid, not only to the deceased
   martyrs, but also the surviving confessors. It was made the special
   duty of the deacons to visit and minister to them in prison. The
   heathen Lucian in his satire, "De morte Peregrini," describes the
   unwearied care of the Christians for their imprisoned brethren; the
   heaps of presents brought to them; and the testimonies of sympathy even
   by messengers from great distances; but all, of course, in Lucian's
   view, out of mere good-natured enthusiasm. Tertullian the Montanist
   censures the excessive attention of the Catholics to their confessors.
   The libelli pacis, as they were called--intercessions of the confessors
   for the fallen--commonly procured restoration to the fellowship of the
   church. Their voice had peculiar weight in the choice of bishops, and
   their sanction not rarely overbalanced the authority of the clergy.
   Cyprian is nowhere more eloquent than in the praise of their heroism.
   His letters to the imprisoned confessors in Carthage are full of
   glorification, in a style somewhat offensive to our evangelical ideas.
   Yet after all, he protests against the abuse of their privileges, from
   which he had himself to suffer, and earnestly exhorts them to a holy
   walk; that the honor they have gained may not prove a snare to them,
   and through pride and carelessness be lost. He always represents the
   crown of the confessor and the martyr as a free gift of the grace of
   God, and sees the real essence of it rather in the inward disposition
   than in the outward act. Commodian conceived the whole idea of
   martyrdom in its true breadth, when he extended it to all those who,
   without shedding their blood, endured to the end in love, humility, and
   patience, and in all Christian virtue.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [68] Martyrium Polycarpi, cap. 17; Comp. Eusebius, H. E. IV. 15.

   [69] Hemera genethlios, genethlia, natales, natalitia martyrum.

   [70] Lavacrum sanguinis, baptisma dia puros, comp. Matt. 20:22; Luke
   12:50; Mark 10:39.

   [71] It is worthy of note, however, that some of the startling
   phenomena related in the Martyrium Polycarpi by the congregation of
   Smyrna are omitted in the narrative of Eusebius (IV. 15), and may be a
   later interpolation.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER III.

   LITERARY CONTEST OF CHRISTIANITY WITH JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 28. Literature.

   I. Sources.

   Tacitus (Consul 97, d. about 117): Annal. xv. 44. Comp. his picture of
   the Jews, Hist. v. 1-5.

   Plinius (d. about 114): Ep. x. 96, 97.

   Celsus (flourished about 150): Alethes logos. Preserved in fragments in
   Origen's Refutation (8 books Kata Kelsou); reconstructed, translated
   and explained by Theodor Keim: Celsus' Wahres Wort, Aelteste
   wissenschaftliche Streitschrift, antiker Weltanschauung gegen das
   Christenthum, Zuerich 1873 (293 pages).

   Lucian (d. about 180): Peri tes Peregrinou teleutes c. 11-16; and
   Halethes historia I. 30; II. 4, 11.

   Porphyrius (about 300): Kata Christianon logoi. Only fragments
   preserved, and collected by Holstein, Rom. 1630. His most important
   works are lost. Those that remain are ed. by A. Nauck, 1860.

   II. Works.

   Nath. Lardner: Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies to
   the Truth of the Christian Religion (Lond. 1727-'57) in the VI. and
   VII. vols. of his Works, ed. by Kippis, London, 1838. Very valuable.

   Mosheim: introduction to his Germ. translation of Origen against
   Celsus. Hamb. 1745.

   Bindemann: Celsus und seine Schriften gegen die Christen, in Illgen's
   "Zeitschr. fuer hist. Theol." Leipz. 1842. N. 2, p. 58-146.

   Ad. Planck: Lukian u. das Christenthum, in the "Studien u. Kritiken,"
   1851. N. 4; translated in the "Bibliotheca Sacra," Andover, 1852.

   F. Chr. Baur: Das Christenthum der 3 ersten Jahrh. Tueb. secd. ed. 1860
   (and 1863) pp. 370-430.

   Neander: General History of the Christian Religion and Church; Engl.
   trans. by Torrey, vol. I., 157-178. (12th Boston ed.)

   Richard von der Alm: Die Urtheile heidnischer und juedischer
   Schriftsteller der vier ersten Jahrh. ueber Jesus und die ersten
   Christen. Leipz. 1865. (An infidel book.)

   H. Kellner (R.C.): Hellenismus und Christenthum oder die geistige
   Reaction des antiken Heidenthums gegen das Christenthum. Koeln 1866
   (454 pp.)

   B. Aube: De l' Apologetique chretienne au II^e siecle. St. Justin,
   philosophe et martyr, 2nd ed. Paris 1875. By the same: Histoire des
   Persecutions de l'eglise. The second part, also under the titleLa
   polemique paienne `a la fin du II^e siecle. Paris 1878.

   E. Renan: Marc-Aurele (Paris 1882), pp. 345 (Celse et Lucien), 379 sqq.
   (Nouvelles apologies).

   J. W. Farrar: Seekers after God. London, 1869, new ed. 1877. (Essays on
   Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, compared with Christianity.)

   Comp. the Lit. quoted in S: 12, especially Uhlhorn and Keim (1881), and
   the monographs on Justin M., Tertullian, Origen, and other Apologists,
   which are noticed in sections treating of these writers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 29. Literary Opposition to Christianity.

   Besides the external conflict, which we have considered in the second
   chapter, Christianity was called to pass through an equally important
   intellectual and literary struggle with the ancient world; and from
   this also it came forth victorious, and conscious of being the perfect
   religion for man. We shall see in this chapter, that most of the
   objections of modern infidelity against Christianity were anticipated
   by its earliest literary opponents, and ably and successfully refuted
   by the ancient apologists for the wants of the church in that age. Both
   unbelief and faith, like human nature and divine grace, are essentially
   the same in all ages and among all nations, but vary in form, and hence
   every age, as it produces its own phase of opposition, must frame its
   own mode of defense.

   The Christian religion found at first as little favor with the
   representatives of literature and art as with princes and statesmen. In
   the secular literature of the latter part of the first century and the
   beginning of the second, we find little more than ignorant, careless
   and hostile allusions to Christianity as a new form of superstition
   which then began to attract the attention of the Roman government. In
   this point of view also Christ's kingdom was not of the world, and was
   compelled to force its way through the greatest difficulties; yet it
   proved at last the mother of an intellectual and moral culture far in
   advance of the Graeco-Roman, capable of endless progress, and full of
   the vigor of perpetual youth.

   The pious barbarism of the Byzantine emperors Theodosius II. and
   Valentinian III. ordered the destruction of the works of Porphyrius and
   all other opponents of Christianity, to avert the wrath of God, but
   considerable fragments have been preserved in the refutations of the
   Christian Fathers, especially Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria
   (against Julian), and scattered notices of Jerome and Augustin.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 30. Jewish Opposition. Josephus and the Talmud.

   The hostility of the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees to the gospel is
   familiar from the New Testament. Josephus mentions Jesus once in his
   archaeology, but in terms so favorable as to agree ill with his Jewish
   position, and to subject the passage to the suspicion of interpolation
   or corruption. [72] 1 His writings, however, contain much valuable
   testimony to the truth of the gospel history. His "Archaeology"
   throughout is a sort of fifth Gospel in illustration of the social and
   political environments of the life of Christ. [73] 2 His "History of
   the Jewish War," in particular, is undesignedly a striking commentary
   on the Saviour's predictions concerning the destruction of the city and
   temple of Jerusalem, the great distress and affliction of the Jewish
   people at that time, the famine, pestilence, and earthquake, the rise
   of false prophets and impostors, and the flight of his disciples at the
   approach of these calamities. [74] 3

   The attacks of the later Jews upon Christianity are essentially mere
   repetitions of those recorded in the Gospels--denial of the Messiahship
   of Jesus, and horrible vituperation of his confessors. We learn their
   character best from the dialogue of Justin with the Jew Trypho. The
   fictitious disputation on Christ by Jason and Papiscus, first mentioned
   by Celsus, was lost since the seventh century. [75] 4 It seems to have
   been a rather poor apology of Christianity against Jewish objections by
   a Jewish Christian, perhaps by Aristo of Pella.

   The Talmud is the Bible of Judaism separated from, and hostile to,
   Christianity, but it barely notices it except indirectly. It completed
   the isolation of the Jews from all other people.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [72] Joseph. Antiqu. l. XVIII.c. 3, sect. 3. Comp. on this much
   disputed passage, vol. I., p. 92.

   [73] It is the special merit of Keim to have thoroughly utilized
   Josephus for the biography of Jesus.

   [74] These coincidences have been traced out in full by Lardner, Works,
   ed. Kippis, vol. VI. p. 406 ff.

   [75] Hiasonos kai Papiskou antilogia peri Christou. D. Origenes Contra
   Cels. IV. 51. Celsus says, that he read the book which defends the
   allegorical interpretation, with pity and hatred. Comp. Harnack,
   Altchristl. Literatur, vol. 1. (1882). p. 115 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 31. Pagan Opposition. Tacitus and Pliny.

   The Greek and Roman writers of the first century, and some of the
   second, as Seneca, the elder Pliny, and even the mild and noble
   Plutarch, either from ignorance or contempt, never allude to
   Christianity at all.

   Tacitus and the younger Pliny, contemporaries and friends of the
   emperor Trajan, are the first to notice it; and they speak of it only
   incidentally and with stoical disdain and antipathy, as an "exitiabilis
   superstition" "prava et immodica superstitio," "inflexibilis
   obstinatio." These celebrated and in their way altogether estimable
   Roman authors thus, from manifest ignorance, saw in the Christians
   nothing but superstitious fanatics, and put them on a level with the
   hated Jews; Tacitus, in fact, reproaching them also with the "odium
   generis humani." This will afford some idea of the immense obstacles
   which the new religion encountered in public opinion, especially in the
   cultivated circles of the Roman empire. The Christian apologies of the
   second century also show, that the most malicious and gratuitous
   slanders against the Christians were circulated among the common
   people, even charges of incest and cannibalism, [76] 5 which may have
   arisen in part from a misapprehension of the intimate brotherly love of
   the Christians, and their nightly celebration of the holy supper and
   love-feasts.

   Their Indirect Testimony to Christianity.

   On the other hand, however, the scanty and contemptuous allusions of
   Tacitus and Pliny to Christianity bear testimony to a number of facts
   in the Gospel History. Tacitus, in giving an account of the Neronian
   persecution, incidentally attests, that Christ was put to death as a
   malefactor by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; that he was the
   founder of the Christian sect, that the latter took its rise in Judaea
   and spread in spite of the ignominious death of Christ and the hatred
   and contempt it encountered throughout the empire, so that a "vast
   multitude" (multitudo ingens) of them were most cruelly put to death in
   the city of Rome alone as early as the year 64. He also bears valuable
   testimony, in the fifth book of his History, together with Josephus,
   from whom he mainly, though not exclusively takes his account, to the
   fulfilment of Christ's prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem
   and the overthrow of the Jewish theocracy.

   As to Pliny's famous letter to Trajan, written about 107, it proves the
   rapid spread of Christianity in Asia Minor at that time among all ranks
   of society, the general moral purity and steadfastness of its
   professors amid cruel persecution, their mode and time of worship,
   their adoration of Christ as God, their observance of a "stated day,"
   which is undoubtedly Sunday, and other facts of importance in the early
   history of the Church. Trajan's rescript in reply to Pliny's inquiry,
   furnishes evidence of the innocence of the Christians; he notices no
   charge against them except their disregard of the worship of the gods,
   and forbids them to be sought for. Marcus Aurelius testifies, in one
   brief and unfriendly allusion, to their eagerness for the crown of
   martyrdom.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [76] Oidipodeioi mixeis, incesti concubitus; and thuesteia deipna,
   Thyesteae epulae
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 32. Direct Assaults. Celsus.

   The direct assault upon Christianity, by works devoted to the purpose,
   began about the middle of the second century, and was very ably
   conducted by a Grecian philosopher, Celsus, otherwise unknown;
   according to Origen, an Epicurean with many Platonic ideas, and a
   friend of Lucian. He wrote during the persecuting reign of Marcus
   Aurelius. [77] 6

   Celsus, with all his affected or real contempt for the new religion,
   considered it important enough to be opposed by an extended work
   entitled "A True Discourse," of which Origen, in his Refutation, has
   faithfully preserved considerable fragments. [78] 7 These represent
   their author as an eclectic philosopher of varied culture, skilled in
   dialectics, and familiar with the Gospels, Epistles, and even the
   writings of the Old Testament. He speaks now in the frivolous style of
   an Epicurean, now in the earnest and dignified tone of a Platonist. At
   one time he advocates the popular heathen religion, as, for instance,
   its doctrine of demons; at another time he rises above the polytheistic
   notions to a pantheistic or sceptical view. He employs all the aids
   which the culture of his age afforded, all the weapons of learning,
   common sense, wit, sarcasm, and dramatic animation of style, to
   disprove Christianity; and he anticipates most of the arguments and
   sophisms of the deists and infidels of later times. Still his book is,
   on the whole, a very superficial, loose, and light-minded work, and
   gives striking proof of the inability of the natural reason to
   understand the Christian truth. It has no savor of humility, no sense
   of the corruption of human nature, and man's need of redemption; it is
   full of heathen passion and prejudice, utterly blind to any spiritual
   realities, and could therefore not in the slightest degree appreciate
   the glory of the Redeemer and of his work. It needs no refutation, it
   refutes itself.

   Celsus first introduces a Jew, who accuses the mother of Jesus of
   adultery with a soldier named Panthera; [79] 8 adduces the denial of
   Peter, the treachery of Judas, and the death of Jesus as contradictions
   of his pretended divinity; and makes the resurrection an imposture.
   Then Celsus himself begins the attack, and begins it by combating the
   whole idea of the supernatural, which forms the common foundation of
   Judaism and Christianity. The controversy between Jews and Christians
   appears to him as foolish as the strife about the shadow of an ass. The
   Jews believed, as well as the Christians, in the prophecies of a
   Redeemer of the world, and thus differed from them only in that they
   still expected the Messiah's coming. But then, to what purpose should
   God come down to earth at all, or send another down? He knows
   beforehand what is going on among men. And such a descent involves a
   change, a transition from the good to the evil, from the lovely to the
   hateful, from the happy to the miserable; which is undesirable, and
   indeed impossible, for the divine nature. In another place he says, God
   troubles himself no more about men than about monkeys and flies. Celsus
   thus denies the whole idea of revelation, now in pantheistic style, now
   in the levity of Epicurean deism; and thereby at the same time abandons
   the ground of the popular heathen religion. In his view Christianity
   has no rational foundation at all, but is supported by the imaginary
   terrors of future punishment. Particularly offensive to him are the
   promises of the gospel to the poor and miserable, and the doctrines of
   forgiveness of sins and regeneration, and of the resurrection of the
   body. This last he scoffingly calls a hope of worms, but not of
   rational souls. The appeal to the omnipotence of God, he thinks, does
   not help the matter, because God can do nothing improper and unnatural.
   He reproaches the Christians with ignorance, credulity, obstinacy,
   innovation, division, and sectarianism, which they inherited mostly
   from their fathers, the Jews. They are all uncultivated, mean,
   superstitious people, mechanics, slaves, women, and children. The great
   mass of them he regarded as unquestionably deceived. But where there
   are deceived, there must be also deceivers; and this leads us to the
   last result of this polemical sophistry. Celsus declared the first
   disciples of Jesus to be deceivers of the worst kind; a band of
   sorcerers, who fabricated and circulated the miraculous stories of the
   Gospels, particularly that of the resurrection of Jesus; but betrayed
   themselves by contradictions. The originator of the imposture, however,
   is Jesus himself, who learned that magical art in Egypt, and afterwards
   made a great noise with it in his native country.

   But here, this philosophical and critical sophistry virtually,
   acknowledges its bankruptcy. The hypothesis of deception is the very
   last one to offer in explanation of a phenomenon so important as
   Christianity was even in that day. The greater and more permanent the
   deception, the more mysterious and unaccountable it must appear to
   reason.

   Chrysostom made the truthful remark, that Celsus bears witness to the
   antiquity of the apostolic writings. This heathen assailant, who lived
   almost within hailing distance of St. John, incidentally gives us an
   abridgement of the history of Christ as related by the Gospels, and
   this furnishes strong weapons against modern infidels, who would
   represent this history as a later invention. "I know everything" he
   says; "we have had it all from your own books, and need no other
   testimony; ye slay yourselves with your own sword." He refers to the
   Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, and makes upon the whole about
   eighty allusions to, or quotations from, the New Testament. He takes
   notice of Christ's birth from a virgin in a small village of Judaea,
   the adoration of the wise men from the East, the slaughter of the
   infants by order of Herod, the flight to Egypt, where he supposed
   Christ learned the charms of magicians, his residence in Nazareth, his
   baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove and
   the voice from heaven, the election of disciples, his friendship with
   publicans and other low people, his supposed cures of the lame and the
   blind, and raising of the dead, the betrayal of Judas, the denial of
   Peter, the principal circumstances in the history of the passion and
   crucifixion, also the resurrection of Christ. [80] 9

   It is true he perverts or abuses most of these facts; but according to
   his own showing they were then generally and had always been believed
   by the Christians. He alludes to some of the principal doctrines of the
   Christians, to their private assemblies for worship, to the office of
   presbyters. He omits the grosser charges of immorality, which he
   probably disowned as absurd and incredible.

   In view of all these admissions we may here, with Lardner, apply
   Samson's riddle: "Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the
   strong came forth sweetness." [81] 0
     __________________________________________________________________

   [77] Origen (I. 8) indefinitely assigns him to the reign of Hadrian and
   the Antonines; most historians (Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, Friedlaender)
   to a.d. 150 or later; others (Tillemont, Neander, Zeller) to about 160
   or 170; Keim (1. c. p. 267) to a.d. 178. As the place of composition
   Keim (p. 274) suggests Rome, others Alexandria. He ably defends his
   identity with the friend of Lucian (p. 291), but makes him out a
   Platonist rather than an Epicurean (p. 203 sqq.).

   [78] See the restoration of Celsus from these fragments by Dr. Keim,
   quoted above.

   [79] Panther, panthera, here, and in the Talmud, where Jesus is
   likewise called yshy vn pndyr' is used, like the Latin lupa, as a type
   of ravenous lust hence as a symbolical name for moicheir. So Nitzsch
   and Baur. But Keim (p. 12) takes it as a designation of the wild
   rapacious (pan theron) Roman soldier. The mother of Jesus was,
   according to the Jewish informant of Celsus, a poor seamstress, and
   engaged to a carpenter, who plunged her into disgrace and misery when
   he found out her infidelity.

   [80] Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, I. 22) says of Celsus: "Von der
   Jungfraugeburt bis zum Jammer des Todes bei Essig und Galle, bis zu den
   Wundern des Todes und der Auferstehung hat er unsere Evangelien
   verfolgt, und anderen Quellen,welche zum Theil heute noch fliessen, hat
   er den Glauben an die Hasslichkeit Jesu und an die Suendhaftigkeit
   seiner Juenger abgewonnen." Comp. Keim's monograph on Celsus, pp.
   219-231. On the bearing of his testimony on the genuineness of the
   Gospel of John, see vol. 1. p. 708.

   [81] Judges xiv. 14. Comp. Lardner's Works, vol. VII. pp. 210-270. Dr.
   Doddridge and Dr. Leland made good use of Celsus against the Deists of
   the last century. He may with still greater effect be turned against
   the more radical theories of Strauss and Renan. For Keim's estimate,
   see his Celsus, 253-261.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 33. Lucian.

   Edd. of Lucian's works by Hemsterhuis and Reiz (1743 sqq.), Jacobitz
   (1836-39), Dindorf (1840 and 1858), Bekker (1853), Franc. Fritzsche
   (1860-'69). The pseudo-Lucianic dialogue Philopatris (philopatris,
   loving one's country, patriot) in which the Christians are ridiculed
   and condemned as enemies of the Roman empire, is of a much later date,
   probably from the reign of Julian the Apostate (363). See Gesner: De
   aetate et auctore Philopatridis, Jen. 1714.

   Jacob:Charakteristik Lucians. Hamburg 1822.

   G. G. Bernays: Lucian und die Cyniker. Berlin. 1879.

   Comp. Keim: Celsus, 143-151; Ed. D. Zeller:Alexander und Peregrinus ,
   in the "Deutsche Rundschau," for Jan. 1877; Henry Cotterill: Peregrinus
   Proteus (Edinb. 1879); Ad. Harnack in Herzog (ed. II.), VIII. 772-779;
   and the Lit. quoted in S: 28.

   In the same period the rhetorician Lucian (born at Samosata in Syria
   about 120, died in Egypt or Greece before 200), the Voltaire of Grecian
   literature, attacked the Christian religion with the same light weapons
   of wit and ridicule, with which, in his numerous elegantly written
   works, he assailed the old popular faith and worship, the mystic
   fanaticism imported from the East, the vulgar life of the Stoics and
   Cynics of that day, and most of the existing manners and customs of the
   distracted period of the empire. An Epicurean, worldling, and infidel,
   as he was, could see in Christianity only one of the many vagaries and
   follies of mankind; in the miracles, only jugglery; in the belief of
   immortality, an empty dream; and in the contempt of death and the
   brotherly love of the Christians, to which he was constrained to
   testify, a silly enthusiasm.

   Thus he represents the matter in an historical romance on the life and
   death of Peregrinus Proteus, a contemporary Cynic philosopher, whom he
   make the basis of a satire upon Christianity, and especially upon
   Cynicism. Peregrinus is here presented as a perfectly contemptible man,
   who, after the meanest and grossest crimes, adultery, sodomy, and
   parricide, joins the credulous Christians in Palestine, cunningly
   imposes on them, soon rises to the highest repute among them, and,
   becoming one of the confessors in prison, is loaded with presents by
   them, in fact almost worshipped as a god, but is afterwards
   excommunicated for eating some forbidden food (probably meat of the
   idolatrous sacrifices); then casts himself into the arms of the Cynics,
   travels about everywhere, in the filthiest style of that sect; and at
   last about the year 165, in frantic thirst for fame, plunges into the
   flames of a funeral pile before the assembled populace of the town of
   Olympia, for the triumph of philosophy. This fiction of the
   self-burning was no doubt meant for a parody on the Christian
   martyrdom, perhaps with special reference to Polycarp, who a few years
   before had suffered death by fire at Smyrna (155). [82] 1

   Lucian treated the Christians rather with a compassionate smile, than
   with hatred. He nowhere urges persecution. He never calls Christ an
   impostor, as Celsus does, but a "crucified sophist;" a term which he
   uses as often in a good sense as in the bad. But then, in the end, both
   the Christian and the heathen religions amount, in his view, to
   imposture; only, in his Epicurean indifferentism, he considers it not
   worth the trouble to trace such phenomena to their ultimate ground, and
   attempt a philosophical explanation. [83] 2

   The merely negative position of this clever mocker of all religions
   injured heathenism more than Christianity, but could not be long
   maintained against either; the religious element is far too deeply
   seated in the essence of human nature. Epicureanism and scepticism made
   way, in their turns, for Platonism, and for faith or superstition.
   Heathenism made a vigorous effort to regenerate itself, in order to
   hold its ground against the steady advance of Christianity. But the old
   religion itself could not help feeling more and more the silent
   influence of the new.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [82] Harnack, l.c. denies a reference to Polycarp.

   [83] Berneys (l.c. p. 43) characterizes Lucian very unfavorably: "ein
   anscheinend nicht sehr gluecklicher Advocat, ist er ohne ernste Studien
   ins Literatenthum uebergegangen; unwissend und leichtfertig traegt er
   lediglich eine nihilistische Oede in Bezuq auf alle religioesen und
   metaphysischen Fraqen zur Schau und reisst alle als verkehrt und
   laecherlich herunter." Berneys thinks that the Peregrinus Proteus is
   not directed against the Christians, but against the Cynic philosophers
   and more particularly against the then still living Theagenes.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 34. Neo-Platonism.

   I. Sources.

   Plotinus: Opera Omnia, ed. Oxf 1835, 3 vols.; ed. Kirchhoff, Lips.
   1856; ed. Didot, Par. 1856; H. F. Mueller, Berlin 1878-80.

   Porphyrius: Kata Christianon logoi (fragments collected in Holstein:
   Dissert. de vita et scriptis Porphyr. Rom. 1630). His biographies of
   Pythagoras, Plotinus, and other works were ed. by A. A. Nauck, 1860.

   Hierocles: Logoi philaletheis pros Christianous (fragments in Euse b.:
   Contra Hierocl. lib., and probably also in Macarius Magnes: Apokritikos
   e Monogenes Par. 1876).

   Philostratus: De Vita Apollonii Tyanensis libri octo (Greek and Latin),
   Venet. 1501; ed. Westerman, Par. 1840; ed. Kayser, Zuerich, 1853, 1870.
   Also in German, French and English translations.

   II. Works.

   Vogt: Neuplatonismus u. Christenthum. Berl. 1836.

   Ritter:Gesch. der Philos. vol. 4th, 1834 (in English by Morrison, Oxf.
   1838).

   Neander: Ueber das neunte Buch in der zweiten Enneade des Plotinus.
   1843. (vid. Neander's Wissenschaftl. Abhandlungen, published by Jacobi,
   Berl. 1851, p. 22 sqq.)

   Ullmann: Einflusz des Christentums auf Porphyrius, in "Stud. u. Krit."
   1832.

   Kirchner:Die Philosophie des Plotin. Halle, 1854.

   F. Chr. Baur: Apollonius von Tyana u. Christus. Tueb. 1832, republ. by
   Ed. Zeller, in Drei Abhandlungen zur Gesch. der alten Philosophie U.
   ihres Verh. zum Christenthum. Leipzig, 1876, pp. 1-227.

   John H. Newman: Apollonius Tyanaeus. Lond. 1849 (Encycl. Metropol. Vol.
   X., pp. 619-644).

   A. Chassang: Ap. de T., sa vie, ses voyages, ses prodiges, etc. Paris,
   1862. Translation from the Greek, with explanatory notes.

   H. Kellner: Porphyrius und sein Verhueltniss zum Christenthum, in the
   Tuebingen "Theol. Quartalschrift," 1865. No. I.

   Albert Reville: Apollonius of Tyana, the Pagan Christ of the third
   century, translated from the French. Lond. 1866.

   K. Moenkeberg: Apollonius v. Tyana. Hamb. 1877.

   Fr. Ueberweg: History of Philosophy (Eng. transl. N. York, 1871), vol.
   I. 232-259.

   Ed. Zeller: Philosophie der Griechen, III. 419 sqq.

   More earnest and dignified, but for this very reason more lasting and
   dangerous, was the opposition which proceeded directly and indirectly
   from Neo-Platonism. This system presents the last phase, the evening
   red, so to speak, of the Grecian philosophy; a fruitless effort of
   dying heathenism to revive itself against the irresistible progress of
   Christianity in its freshness and vigor. It was a pantheistic
   eclecticism and a philosophico-religious syncretism, which sought to
   reconcile Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy with Oriental religion
   and theosophy, polytheism with monotheism, superstition with culture,
   and to hold, as with convulsive grasp, the old popular religion in a
   refined and idealized form. Some scattered Christian ideas also were
   unconsciously let in; Christianity already filled the atmosphere of the
   age too much, to be wholly shut out. As might be expected, this
   compound of philosophy and religion was an extravagant, fantastic,
   heterogeneous affair, like its contemporary, Gnosticism, which differed
   from it by formally recognising Christianity in its syncretism. Most of
   the NeoPlatonists, Jamblichus in particular, were as much hierophants
   and theurgists as philosophers, devoted themselves to divination and
   magic, and boasted of divine inspirations and visions. Their literature
   is not an original, healthy natural product, but an abnormal
   after-growth.

   In a time of inward distraction and dissolution the human mind hunts up
   old and obsolete systems and notions, or resorts to magical and
   theurgic arts. Superstition follows on the heels of unbelief, and
   atheism often stands closely connected with the fear of ghosts and the
   worship of demons. The enlightened emperor Augustus was troubled, if he
   put on his left shoe first in the morning, instead of the right; and
   the accomplished elder Pliny wore amulets as protection from thunder
   and lightning. In their day the long-forgotten Pythagoreanism was
   conjured from the grave and idealized. Sorcerers like Simon Magus,
   Elymas, Alexander of Abonoteichos, and Apollonius of Tyana (d. a.d.
   96), found great favor even with the higher classes, who laughed at the
   fables of the gods. Men turned wishfully to the past, especially to the
   mysterious East, the land of primitive wisdom and religion. The Syrian
   cultus was sought out; and all sorts of religions, all the sense and
   all the nonsense of antiquity found a rendezvous in Rome. Even a
   succession of Roman emperors, from Septimius Severus, at the close of
   the second century, to Alexander Severus, embraced this religious
   syncretism, which, instead of supporting the old Roman state religion,
   helped to undermine it. [84] 3

   After the beginning of the third century this tendency found
   philosophical expression and took a reformatory turn in Neo-Platonism.
   The magic power, which was thought able to reanimate all these various
   elements and reduce them to harmony, and to put deep meaning into the
   old mythology, was the philosophy of the divine Plato; which in truth
   possessed essentially a mystical character, and was used also by
   learned Jews, like Philo, and by Christians, like Origen, in their
   idealizing efforts and their arbitrary allegorical expositions of
   offensive passages of the Bible. In this view we may find among heathen
   writers a sort of forerunner of the NeoPlatonists in the pious and
   noble-minded Platonist, Plutarch, of Boeotia (d. 120), who likewise saw
   a deeper sense in the myths of the popular polytheistic faith, and in
   general, in his comparative biographies and his admirable moral
   treatises, looks at the fairest and noblest side of the Graeco-Roman
   antiquity, but often wanders off into the trackless regions of fancy.

   The proper founder of Neo-Platonism was Ammonius Saccas, of Alexandria,
   who was born of Christian parents, but apostatized, and died in the
   year 243. His more distinguished pupil, Plotinus, also an Egyptian
   (204-269), developed the NeoPlatonic ideas in systematic form, and gave
   them firm foothold and wide currency, particularly in Rome, where he
   taught philosophy. The system was propagated by his pupil Porphyry of
   Tyre (d. 304), who likewise taught in Rome, by Jamblichus of Chalcis in
   Coelo-Syria (d. 333), and by Proclus of Constantinople (d. 485). It
   supplanted the popular religion among in the educated classes of later
   heathendom, and held its ground until the end of the fifth century,
   when it perished of its own internal falsehood and contradictions.

   From its love for the ideal, the supernatural, and the mystical, this
   system, like the original Platonism, might become for many
   philosophical minds a bridge to faith; and so it was even to St.
   Augustin, whom it delivered from the bondage of scepticism, and filled
   with a burning thirst for truth and wisdom. But it could also work
   against Christianity. Neo-Platonism was, in fact, a direct attempt of
   the more intelligent and earnest heathenism to rally all its nobler
   energies, especially the forces of Hellenic philosophy and Oriental
   mysticism, and to found a universal religion, a pagan counterpart to
   the Christian. Plotinus, in his opposition to Gnosticism, assailed
   also, though not expressly, the Christian element it contained. On
   their syncretistic principles the Neo-Platonists could indeed reverence
   Christ as a great sage and a hero of virtue, but not as the Son of God.
   They ranked the wise men of heathendom with him. The emperor Alexander
   Severus (d. 235) gave Orpheus and Apollonius of Tyana a place in his
   lararium by the side of the bust of Jesus.

   The rhetorician Philostratus, the elder, about the year 220, at the
   request of Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus, and a zealous
   patron of the reform of paganism, idealized the life of the pagan
   magician and soothsayer Apollonius, of the Pythagorean school, and made
   him out an ascetic saint, a divinely inspired philosopher, a religious
   reformer and worker of miracles, with the purpose, as is generally
   assumed, though without direct evidence, of holding him up as a rival
   of Christ with equal claims to the worship of men. [85] 4

   The points of resemblance are chiefly these: Jesus was the Son of God,
   Apollonius the son of Jupiter; the birth of Christ was celebrated by
   the appearance of angels, that of Apollonius by a flash of lightning;
   Christ raised the daughter of Jairus, Apollonius a young Roman maiden,
   from the dead; Christ cast out demons, Apollonius did the same; Christ
   rose from the dead, Apollonius appeared after his death. Apollonius is
   made to combine also several characteristics of the apostles, as the
   miraculous gift of tongues, for he understood all the languages of the
   world. Like St. Paul, he received his earlier education at Tarsus,
   labored at Antioch, Ephesus, and other cities, and was persecuted by
   Nero. Like the early Christians, he was falsely accused of sacrificing
   children with certain mysterious ceremonies. [86] 5 With the same
   secret polemical aim Porphyry and Jamblichus embellished the life of
   Pythagoras, and set him forth as the highest model of wisdom, even a
   divine being incarnate, a Christ of heathenism.

   These various attempts to Christianize paganism were of course as
   abortive as so many attempts to galvanize a corpse. They made no
   impression upon their age, much less upon ages following. They were
   indirect arguments in favor of Christianity: they proved the internal
   decay of the false, and the irresistible progress of the true religion,
   which began to mould the spirit of the age and to affect public opinion
   outside of the church. By inventing false characters in imitation of
   Christ they indirectly conceded to the historical Christ his claim to
   the admiration and praise of mankind.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [84] The oldest apostle of this strange medley of Hellenic, Persian,
   Chaldean and Egyptian mysteries in Rome was Nigidius Figulus, who
   belonged to the strictest section of the aristocracy, and filled the
   praetorship in 696 a.u.c. (58 b.c.) He foretold the father of the
   subsequent emperor Augustus on the very day of his birth his future
   greatness. The system was consecrated by the name of Pythagoras, the
   primeval sage of Italian birth, the miracleworker and necromancer. The
   new and old wisdom made a profound impression on men of the highest
   rank and greatest learning, who took part in the citation of spirits,
   as in the nineteenth century, spirit-rapping and tablemoving exercised
   for a while a similar charm. "These last attempts to save the Roman
   theology, like the similar efforts of Cato in the field of politics,
   produce at once a comical and a melancholy impression. We may smile at
   the creed and its propagators, but still it is a grave matter when all
   men begin to addict themselves to absurdity." Th. Mommsen, History of
   Rome, vol. IV. p. 563 (Dickson's translation. Lond. 1867.)

   [85] Philostratus himself gives no intimation of such design on his
   part, and simply states that he was requested by the empress Julia
   Domna (a.d. 217), to draw up a biography of Apollonius from certain
   memoranda of Damis, one of his friends and followers. The name of
   Christ is never mentioned by him; nor does he allude to the Gospels,
   except in one instance, where he uses the same phrase as the daemon in
   St. Luke (viii. 28): "I beseech thee, torment me not (me me basanises
   .). Vita Apoll. IV. 25. Bishop Samuel Parker, in a work on the Divine
   Authority of the Christian Religion (1681), Lardner, Neander (K G. I.
   298), and J. S. Watson (in a review of Re'ville's Apoll. of T., in the
   "Contemporary Review" for 1867, p. 199 ff.), deny the commonly received
   opinion, first maintained by Bishop Daniel Hust, and defended by Baur,
   Newman, and Re'ville, that Philostratus intended to draw a parallel
   between his hero and Christ. The resemblance is studied and fictitious,
   and it is certain that at a later date Hierocles vainly endeavored to
   lower the dignity of Christ by raising this Pythagorean adventurer as
   portrayed by Philostratus, to a level with the eternal Son of God.

   [86] Comp. the account of the resemblance by Baur, l.c. pp. 138 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 35. Porphyry and Hierocles

   See the Lit. in S: 34.

   One of the leading Neo-Platonists made a direct attack upon
   Christianity, and was, in the eyes of the church fathers, its bitterest
   and most dangerous enemy. Towards the end of the third century Porphyry
   wrote an extended work against the Christians, in fifteen books, which
   called forth numerous refutations from the most eminent church teachers
   of the time, particularly from Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea,
   and Apollinaris of Laodicea. In 448 all the copies were burned by order
   of the emperors Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., and we know the
   work now only from fragments in the fathers.

   Porphyry attacked especially the sacred books of the Christians, with
   more knowledge than Celsus. He endeavored, with keen criticism, to
   point out the contradictions between the Old Testament and the New, and
   among the apostles themselves; and thus to refute the divinity of their
   writings. He represented the prophecies of Daniel as vaticinia post
   eventum, and censured the allegorical interpretation of Origen, by
   which transcendental mysteries were foisted into the writings of Moses,
   contrary to their clear sense. He took advantage, above all, of the
   collision between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11), to reproach
   the former with a contentious spirit, the latter with error, and to
   infer from the whole, that the doctrine of such apostles must rest on
   lies and frauds. Even Jesus himself he charged with equivocation and
   inconsistency, on account of his conduct in John 7:8 compared with
   verse 14.

   Still Porphyry would not wholly reject Christianity. Like many
   rationalists of more recent times, he distinguished the original pure
   doctrine of Jesus from the second-handed, adulterated doctrine of the
   apostles. In another work [87] 6 on the "Philosophy of Oracles," often
   quoted by Eusebius, and also by Augustin, [88] 7 he says, we must not
   calumniate Christ, who was most eminent for piety, but only pity those
   who worship him as God. "That pious soul, exalted to heaven, is become,
   by a sort of fate, an occasion of delusion to those souls from whom
   fortune withholds the gifts of the gods and the knowledge of the
   immortal Zeus." Still more remarkable in this view is a letter to his
   wife Marcella, which A. Mai published at Milan in 1816, in the
   unfounded opinion that Marcella was a Christian. In the course of this
   letter Porphyry remarks, that what is born of the flesh is flesh; that
   by faith, love, and hope we raise ourselves to the Deity; that evil is
   the fault of man; that God is holy; that the most acceptable sacrifice
   to him is a pure heart; that the wise man is at once a temple of God
   and a priest in that temple. For these and other such evidently
   Christian ideas and phrases he no doubt had a sense of his own, which
   materially differed from their proper scriptural meaning. But such
   things show how Christianity in that day exerted, even upon its
   opponents, a power, to which heathenism was forced to yield an
   unwilling assent.

   The last literary antagonist of Christianity in our period is
   Hierocles, who, while governor of Bythynia, and afterwards of
   Alexandria under Diocletian, persecuted that religion also with the
   sword, and exposed Christian maidens to a worse fate than death. His
   "Truth-loving Words to the Christians" has been destroyed, like
   Porphyry's work, by the mistaken zeal of Christian emperors, and is
   known to us only through the answer of Eusebius of Caesarea. [89] 8 He
   appears to have merely repeated the objections of Celsus and Porphyry,
   and to have drawn a comparison between Christ and Apollonius of Tyana,
   which resulted in favor of the latter. The Christians says he, consider
   Jesus a God, on account of some insignificant miracles falsely colored
   up by his apostles; but the heathens far more justly declare the
   greater wonder-worker Apollonius, as well as an Aristeas and a
   Pythagoras, simply a favorite of the gods and a benefactor of men.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [87] Peri tes ek logion philosophias. Fabricius, Mosheim, Neander, and
   others, treat the work as genuine, but Lardner denies it to Porphyry.

   [88] De Civit. Dei, l. XIX. c. 22, 23; Comp. also Eusebius,Demonstr.
   Evang. III. 6.

   [89] To this may be added the extracts from an unnamed heathen
   philosopher (probably Hierocles or Porphyrius) in the apologetic work
   of Macarius Magnes (about 400), which was discovered at Athens in 1867,
   and published by Blondel;, Paris 1876. See L. Duchesne, De Marcario
   Magnete et scriptis ejus, Par. 1877, and Zoeckler in Herzog, ed. II.
   vol. IX. 160.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 36. Summary of the Objections to Christianity.

   In general the leading arguments of the Judaism and heathenism of this
   period against the new religion are the following:

   1. Against Christ: his illegitimate birth; his association with poor,
   unlettered fishermen, and rude publicans: his form of a servant, and
   his ignominious death. But the opposition to him gradually ceased.
   While Celsus called him a downright impostor, the Syncretists and
   Neo-Platonists were disposed to regard him as at least a distinguished
   sage.

   2. Against Christianity: its novelty; its barbarian origin; its want of
   a national basis; the alleged absurdity of some of its facts and
   doctrines, particularly of regeneration and the resurrection;
   contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, among the Gospels,
   and between Paul and Peter; the demand for a blind, irrational faith.

   3. Against the Christians: atheism, or hatred of the gods; the worship
   of a crucified malefactor; poverty, and want of culture and standing;
   desire of innovation; division and sectarianism; want of patriotism;
   gloomy seriousness; credulity; superstition, and fanaticism. Sometimes
   they were charged even with unnatural crimes, like those related in the
   pagan mythology of Oedipus and his mother Jocaste (concubitus
   Oedipodei), and of Thyestes and Atreus (epulae Thyesteae). Perhaps some
   Gnostic sects ran into scandalous excesses; but as against the
   Christians in general this charge was so clearly unfounded, that it is
   not noticed even by Celsus and Lucian. The senseless accusation, that
   they worshipped an ass's head, may have arisen, as Tertullian already
   intimates, [90] 9 from a story of Tacitus, respecting some Jews, who
   were once directed by a wild ass to fresh water, and thus relieved from
   the torture of thirst; and it is worth mentioning, only to show how
   passionate and blind was the opposition with which Christianity in this
   period of persecution had to contend.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [90] Apol.c. 16:"Somniastis caput asininun esse deum nostrum. Hanc
   Cornelius Tacitus suspicionem ejusmodi dei inseruit,"etc.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 37. The Apologetic Literature of Christianity.

   Comp. Lit. in S: 1 and 12.

   I. The sources are all the writings of the Apologists of the second and
   third centuries; particularly Justin M.: Apologia I. and II.; Tertull.:
   Apologeticus; Minucius Felix: Octavius; Origen: Contra Celsum (kata
   Kelsou) libr. VIII. Aristidis, Philosophi Atheniensis, Sermones duo,
   Venetiis 1878. (From an Armenian translation). Complete editions of the
   Apologists: Apologg. Christ. Opp. ed. Prud. Maranus, Par. 1742; Corpus
   Apologetarum Christianorum seculi secundi, ed. Th. Otto, Jenae, 1847
   sqq. ed. III. 1876 sqq. A new ed. by O. v. Gebhardt and E. Schwartz,
   begun 1888.

   II. Fabricius:Dilectus argumentorum et Syllabus scriptorum, qui
   veritatem Rel. Christ. asseruerunt. Hamb. 1725.

   Tzschirner: Geschichte der Apologetik. Lpz. 1805 (unfinished).

   G. H. Van Sanden: Gesch. der Apol. translated from Dutch into German by
   Quack and Binder. Stuttg. 1846. 2 vols.

   Semisch: Justin der Muert. Bresl. 1840. II. 56-225.

   W. B. Colton: The Evidences of Christianity as exhibited in the
   writings of its Apologists down to Augustine (Hulsean Prize Essay,
   1852), republ. in Boston, 1854.

   Karl Werner (R.C.): Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen
   Literatur der christl. Theologie. Schaffhausen, 1861-'65. 5 vols. (vol.
   I. belongs here).

   James Donaldson: A Critical History of Christian Literature and
   Doctrine from, the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council. London,
   1864-66. 3 vols.

   Adolf Harnack: Die Ueberlieferung der Griechischen Apologeten des
   zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter. Band I.
   Heft 1 and 2. Leipz. 1882.

   These assaults of argument and calumny called forth in the second
   century the Christian apologetic literature, the vindication of
   Christianity by the pen, against the Jewish zealot, the Grecian
   philosopher, and the Roman statesman. The Christians were indeed from
   the first "ready always to give an answer to every man that asked them
   a reason of the hope that was in them." But when heathenism took the
   field against them not only with fire and sword, but with argument and
   slander besides, they had to add to their simple practical testimony a
   theoretical self-defence. The Christian apology against non-Christian
   opponents, and the controversial efforts against Christian errorists,
   are the two oldest branches of theological science.

   The apologetic literature began to appear under the reign of Hadrian,
   and continued to grow till the end of our period. Most of the church
   teachers took part in this labor of their day. The first apologies, by
   Quadratus, bishop of Athens, Aristides, philosopher of Athens, and
   Aristo of Pella, which were addressed to the emperor Hadrian, and the
   later works of Melito of Sardis, Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis,
   and Miltiades, who lived under Marcus Aurelius, were either entirely
   lost, or preserved only in scattered notices of Eusebius. But some
   interesting fragments of Melito and Aristides have been recently
   discovered. [91] 0 More valuable are the apologetical works of the
   Greek philosopher and martyr, Justin (d. 166), which we possess in
   full. After him come, in the Greek church, Tatian, Athenagoras,
   Theophilus of Antioch, and Hermias in the last half of the second
   century, and Origen, the ablest of all, in the first half of the third.

   The most important Latin apologists are Tertullian (d. about 220),
   Minucius Felix (d. between 220 and 230; according to some, between 161
   and 200), the later Arnobius and Lactantius, all of North Africa.

   Here at once appears the characteristic difference between the Greek
   and the Latin minds. The Greek apologies are more learned and
   philosophical, the Latin more practical and juridical in their matter
   and style. The former labor to prove the truth of Christianity and its
   adaptedness to the intellectual wants of man; the latter plead for its
   legal right to exist, and exhibit mainly its moral excellency and
   salutary effect upon society. The Latin also are in general more
   rigidly opposed to heathenism, while the Greek recognize in the Grecian
   philosophy a certain affinity to the Christian religion.

   The apologies were addressed in some cases to the emperors (Hadrian,
   Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius) or the provincial governors; in
   others, to the intelligent public. Their first object was to soften the
   temper of the authorities and people towards Christianity and its
   professors by refuting the false charges against them. It may be
   doubtful whether they ever reached the hands of the emperors; at all
   events the persecution continued. [92] 1 Conversion commonly proceeds
   from the heart and will, not from the understanding and from knowledge.
   No doubt, however, these writings contributed to dissipate prejudice
   among honest and susceptible heathens, to spread more favorable views
   of the new religion, and to infuse a spirit of humanity into the spirit
   of the age, the systems of moral philosophy and the legislation of the
   Antonines.

   Yet the chief service of this literature was to strengthen believers
   and to advance theological knowledge. It brought the church to a deeper
   and clearer sense of the peculiar nature of the Christian religion, and
   prepared her thenceforth to vindicate it before the tribunal of reason
   and philosophy; whilst Judaism and heathenism proved themselves
   powerless in the combat, and were driven to the weapons of falsehood
   and vituperation. The sophisms and mockeries of a Celsus and a Lucian
   have none but a historical interest; the Apologies of Justin and the
   Apologeticus of Tertullian, rich with indestructible truth and glowing
   piety, are read with pleasure and edification to this day.

   The apologists do not confine themselves to the defensive, but carry
   the war aggressively into the territory of Judaism and heathenism. They
   complete their work by positively demonstrating that Christianity is
   the divine religion, and the only true religion for all mankind.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [91] See on the works of these Apologists, lost and partly recovered,
   Harnack, l.c. pp. 100 sqq.; 240 sqq.; and Renan, L'egl. chret. p. 40
   sqq. We shall refer to them in the chapter on Christian literature.

   [92] Orosius, however, relates in big Hist. vii. 14, that Justin M., by
   his Apology, made the emperor Antoninus Pius "benignum erqa
   Christianos."
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 38. The Argument against Judaism.

   In regard to the controversy with Judaism, we have two principal
   sources: the Dialogue of Justin Martyr with the Jew Trypho, [93] 2
   based, it appears, on real interviews of Justin with Trypho; and
   Tertullian's work against the Jews. [94] 3 Another work from the first
   half of the second century by Aristo of Pella, entitled "A Disputation
   of Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ," is lost. [95] 4 It was known
   to Celsus who speaks contemptuously of it on account of its allegorical
   interpretation. Origen deems it useful for ordinary readers, though not
   calculated to make much impression on scholars. It was intended to show
   the fulfillment of the old prophecies in Christ, and ends with the
   conviction of the Jew Papiscus and his baptism by Jason. The author was
   a Jewish Christian of Pella, the city of refuge for the Christians of
   Jerusalem before the destruction.

   I. The defensive apology answered the Jewish objections thus:

   (1) Against the charge, that Christianity is an apostasy from the
   Jewish religion, it was held, that the Mosaic law, as far as it relates
   to outward rites and ceremonies was only a temporary institution for
   the Jewish nation foreshadowing the substance of Christianity, while
   its moral precepts as contained in the Decalogue were kept in their
   deepest spiritual sense only by Christians; that the Old Testament
   itself points to its own dissolution and the establishment of a new
   covenant; [96] 5 that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised,
   and women, who could not be circumcised, were yet saved.

   (2) Against the assertion, that the servant-form of Jesus of Nazareth,
   and his death by the cross, contradicted the Old Testament idea of the
   Messiah, it was urged, that the appearance of the Messiah is to be
   regarded as twofold, first, in the form of a servant, afterwards in
   glory; and that the brazen serpent in the wilderness, and the
   prophecies of David in Psalm 22, of Isaiah 53, and Zech. 13, themselves
   point to the sufferings of Christ as his way to glory.

   (3) To the objection, that the divinity of Jesus contradicts the unity
   of God and is blasphemy, it was replied, that the Christians believe
   likewise in only one God; that the Old Testament itself makes a
   distinction in the divine nature; that the plural expression: "Let us
   make man," [97] 6 the appearance of the three men at Mamre [98] 7 of
   whom one was confessedly God, [99] 8 yet distinct from the Creator,
   [100] 9 indicate this; and that all theophanies (which in Justin's view
   are as many christophanies), and the Messianic Psalms, [101] 00 which
   ascribe divine dignity to the Messiah, show the same.

   II. The aggressive apology or polemic theology urges as evidence
   against Judaism:

   (1) First and mainly that the prophecies and types of the Old Testament
   are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and his church. Justin finds all the
   outlines of the gospel history predicted in the Old Testament: the
   Davidic descent of Jesus, for example, in Isa. 11:1; the birth from a
   virgin in 7:14]; the birth at Bethlehem in Micah 5:1; the flight into
   Egypt in Hosea 11:1 (rather than Ps. 22:10?); the appearance of the
   Baptist in Is. 40:1-17; Mal. 4:5; the heavenly voice at the baptism of
   Jesus in Ps. 2:7; the temptation in the wilderness under the type of
   Jacob's wrestling in Gen. 32:24 sqq.; the miracles of our Lord in Is.
   35:5; his sufferings and the several circumstances of his crucifixion
   in Is. 53 and Ps. 22. In this effort, however, Justin wanders also,
   according to the taste of his uncritical age, into arbitrary fancies
   and allegorical conceits; as when he makes the two goats, of which one
   carried away the sins into the wilderness, and the other was
   sacrificed, types of the first and second advents of Christ; and sees
   in the twelve bells on the robe of the high priest a type of the twelve
   apostles, whose sound goes forth into all the world. [102] 01

   (2) The destruction of Jerusalem, in which Judaism, according to the
   express prediction of Jesus, was condemned by God himself, and
   Christianity was gloriously vindicated. Here the Jewish priest and
   historian Josephus, who wrote from personal observation a graphic
   description of this tragedy, had to furnish a powerful historical
   argument against his own religion and for the truth of Christianity.
   Tertullian sums up the prophetic predictions of the calamities which
   have befallen the Jews for rejecting Christ, "the sense of the
   Scriptures harmonizing with the events." [103] 02
     __________________________________________________________________

   [93] Dialogos pros Truphona Ioudaion. .

   [94] Adverus Judaeos. Also Cyprian's Testimoni adv. Judaeos.

   [95] Iasonos kai Papiskou antilogia peri Ch ristou. Comp. the
   discussion of Harnack, l.c. pp. 115-130. He assigns the book to a.d.
   135 or soon after. It disappeared in the seventh century.

   [96] Is. 51:4 sqq.; 55r> sqq.; Jer. 31:31 sqq.

   [97] Gen. 1:26; Comp. 3:21

   [98] Gen. 18:1 sqq.

   [99] Gen. 21:12.

   [100] Gen. 19:24.

   [101] Ps. 110:1 sqq.; 45:7 sqq.; 72:2-19, and others

   [102] Ps. 19:4; Comp. Rom. 10:18..

   [103] Adv.Jud. c. 13
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 39. The Defense against Heathenism.

   I. The various Objections and Accusations of the heathens, which we
   have collected in S:

   (1) The attack upon the miraculous in the evangelical history the
   apologists could meet by pointing to the similar element in the heathen
   mythology; of course proposing this merely in the way of argumentum ad
   hominem, to deprive the opposition of the right to object. For the
   credibility of the miraculous accounts in the Gospels, particularly
   that of the resurrection of Jesus, Origen appealed to the integrity and
   piety of the narrators, to the publicity of the death of Jesus, and to
   the effects of that event.

   (2) The novelty and late appearance of Christianity were justified by
   the need of historical preparation in which the human race should be
   divinely trained for Christ; but more frequently it was urged also,
   that Christianity existed in the counsel of God from eternity, and had
   its unconscious votaries, especially among the pious Jews, long before
   the advent of Christ. By claiming the Mosaic records, the apologists
   had greatly the advantage as regards antiquity over any form of
   paganism, and could carry their religion, in its preparatory state,
   even beyond the flood and up to the very gates of paradise. Justin and
   Tatian make great account of the fact that Moses is much older than the
   Greek philosophers, poets, and legislators. Athenagoras turns the
   tables, and shows that the very names of the heathen gods are modern,
   and their statues creations of yesterday. Clement of Alexandria calls
   the Greek philosophers thieves and robbers, because they stole certain
   portions of truth from the Hebrew prophets and adulterated them.
   Tertullian, Minucius Felix and others raise the same charge of
   plagiarism.

   (3) The doctrine of the resurrection of the body, so peculiarly
   offensive to the heathen and Gnostic understanding, was supported, as
   to its possibility, by reference to the omnipotence of God, and to the
   creation of the world and of man; and its propriety and reasonableness
   were argued from the divine image in man, from the high destiny of the
   body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit, and from its intimate
   connection with the soul, as well as from the righteousness and
   goodness of God. The argument from analogy was also very generally
   used, but often without proper discrimination. Thus, Theophilus alludes
   to the decline and return of the seasons, the alternations of day and
   night, the renewal of the waning and waxing moon, the growth of seeds
   and fruits. Tertullian expresses his surprise that anybody should deny
   the possibility and probability of the resurrection in view of the
   mystery of our birth and the daily occurrences of surrounding nature.
   "All things," he says, "are preserved by dissolution, renewed by
   perishing; and shall man ... the lord of all this universe of
   creatures, which die and rise again, himself die only to perish
   forever?" [104] 03

   (4) The charge of immoral conduct and secret vice the apologists might
   repel with just indignation, since the New Testament contains the
   purest and noblest morality, and the general conduct of the Christians
   compared most favorably with that of the heathens. "Shame! shame!" they
   justly cried; "to roll upon the innocent what you are openly guilty of,
   and what belongs to you and your gods!" Origen says in the preface to
   the first book against Celsus: "When false witness was brought against
   our blessed Saviour, the spotless Jesus, he held his peace, and when he
   was accused, returned no answer, being fully persuaded that the tenor
   of his life and conduct among the Jews was the best apology that could
   possibly be made in his behalf .... And even now he preserves the same
   silence, and makes no other answer than the unblemished lives of his
   sincere followers; they are his most cheerful and successful advocates,
   and have so loud a voice that they drown the clamors of the most
   zealous and bigoted adversaries."

   II. To their defence the Christians, with the rising consciousness of
   victory, added direct arguments against heathenism, which were
   practically sustained by, its dissolution in the following period.

   (1) The popular religion of the heathens, particularly the doctrine of
   the gods, is unworthy, contradictory, absurd, immoral, and pernicious.
   The apologists and most of the early church teachers looked upon the
   heathen gods not as mere imaginations or personified powers of nature
   or deifications of distinguished men, but as demons or fallen angels.
   They took this view from the Septuagint version of Ps. 96:5, [105] 04
   and from the immorality of those deities, which was charged to demons
   (even sexual intercourse with fair daughters of men, according to Gen.
   6:2).

   "What sad fates," says Minucius Felix, "what lies, ridiculous things,
   and weaknesses we read of the pretended gods! Even their form, how
   pitiable it is! Vulcan limps; Mercury has wings to his feet; Pan is
   hoofed; Saturn in fetters; and Janus has two faces, as if he walked
   backwards .... Sometimes Hercules is a hostler, Apollo a cow-herd, and
   Neptune, Laomedon's mason, cheated of his wages. There we have the
   thunder of Jove and the arms of Aeneas forged on the same anvil (as if
   the heavens and the thunder and lightning did not exist before Jove was
   born in Crete); the adultery of Mars and Venus; the lewdness of Jupiter
   with Ganymede, all of which were invented for the gods to authorize men
   in their wickedness." "Which of the poets," asks Tertullian, "does not
   calumniate your gods? One sets Apollo to keep sheep; another hires out
   Neptune to build a wall; Pindar declares Esculapius was deservedly
   scathed for his avarice in exercising the art of medicine to a bad
   purpose; whilst the writers of tragedy and comedy alike, take for their
   subjects the crimes or the miseries of the deities. Nor are the
   philosophers behindhand in this respect. Out of pure contempt, they
   would swear by an oak, a goat, a dog. Diogenes turned Hercules into
   ridicule; and the Roman Cynic Varro introduces three hundred Joves
   without heads." From the stage abuser the sarcastic African father
   selects, partly from his own former observation, those of Diana being
   flogged, the reading of Jupiter's will after his decease, and the three
   half-starved Herculesses! Justin brings up the infanticide of Saturn,
   the parricide, the anger, and the adultery of Jupiter, the drunkenness
   of Bacchus, the voluptuousness of Venus, and he appeals to the judgment
   of the better heathens, who were ashamed of these scandalous histories
   of the gods; to Plato, for example, who for this reason banishes Homer
   from his ideal State. Those myths, which had some resemblance to the
   Old Testament prophecies or the gospel history, Justin regards as
   caricatures of the truth, framed by demons by abuse of Scripture. The
   story of Bacchus, for instance rests in his fanciful view, on Gen.
   49:11 sq.; the myth of the birth of Perseus from a virgin, on Is. 7:14;
   that of the wandering of Hercules, on Ps. 19:6; the fiction of the
   miracles of Esculapius on Is. 35:1 sqq.

   Origen asks Celsus, why it is that he can discover profound mysteries
   in those strange and senseless accidents, which have befallen his gods
   and goddesses, showing them to be polluted with crimes and doing many
   shameful things; whilst Moses, who says nothing derogatory to the
   character of God, angel, or man, is treated as an impostor. He
   challenges any one to compare Moses and his laws with the best Greek
   writers; and yet Moses was as far inferior to Christ, as he was
   superior to the greatest of heathen sages and legislators.

   (2) The Greek philosophy, which rises above the popular belief, is not
   suited to the masses, cannot meet the religious wants, and confutes
   itself by its manifold contradictions. Socrates, the wisest of all the
   philosophers, himself acknowledged that he knew nothing. On divine and
   human things Justin finds the philosophers at variance among
   themselves; with Thales water is the ultimate principle of all things;
   with Anaximander, air; with Heraclitus, fire; with Pythagoras, number.
   Even Plato not seldom contradicts himself; now supposing three
   fundamental causes (God, matter, and ideas), now four (adding the
   world-soul); now he considers matter is unbegotten, now as begotten; at
   one time he ascribes substantiality to ideas, at another makes them
   mere forms of thought, etc. Who, then, he concludes, would intrust to
   the philosophers the salvation of his soul?

   (3) But, on the other hand, the Greek apologists recognized also
   elements of truth in the Hellenic literature, especially in the
   Platonic and Stoic philosophy, and saw in them, as in the law and the
   prophecies of Judaism, a preparation of the way for Christianity.
   Justin attributes all the good in heathenism to the divine Logos, who,
   even before his incarnation, scattered the seeds of truth (hence the
   name "Logos spermaticos"), and incited susceptible spirits to a holy
   walk. Thus there were Christians before Christianity; and among these
   he expressly reckons Socrates and Heraclitus. [106] 05 Besides, he
   supposed that Pythagoras, Plato, and other educated Greeks, in their
   journeys to the East, became acquainted with the Old Testament
   writings, and drew from them the doctrine of the unity of God, and
   other like truths, though they in various ways misunderstood them, and
   adulterated them with pagan errors. This view of a certain affinity
   between the Grecian philosophy and Christianity, as an argument in
   favor of the new religion, was afterwards further developed by the
   Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen. [107] 06

   The Latin fathers speak less favorably of the Greek philosophy; yet
   even Augustin acknowledges that the Platonists approach so nearly to
   Christian truth that with a change of some expressions and sentences
   they would be true Christians (in theory). [108] 07
     __________________________________________________________________

   [104] Apolog. c. 43. Comp. his special tract De resurrectione Carnis,
   c. 12, where he defends the doctrine more fully against the Gnostics
   and their radical misconception of the nature and import of the body.

   [105] Pantes hoi theoi ton ethnon daimonia. Comp. 1 Cor. 10:20.

   [106] Also the Stoics and some of the poets as far as their moral
   teaching went, Comp. Just. Apol. II.c. 8, and 13.

   [107] See the introduction of E. Spiess to his Logos spermatikos,
   Leipz. 1871.

   [108] De Vera Religione IV. 7: "Proxime Platonici a veritate Christiana
   absunt vel veri Christiani sunt paucis mutatis verbis atque
   sententiis." Retract. I. 13: "Res ipsa quae nunc religio Christiana
   nuncupatur, erat apud antiquos, nec defuit ab initio generis humani.,
   quousque Christus veniret in carnem, unde vera religio, quae jam erat,
   coepit appellari Christiana." Comp. Lactantius, De Falsa Religione, I.
   5; De Vita Beata, VII. 7; Minucius Fel., Octav. 20
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 40. The Positive Apology.

   The Christian apology completed itself in the positive demonstration of
   the divinity of the new religion; which was at the same time the best
   refutation of both the old ones. As early as this period the strongest
   historical and philosophical arguments for Christianity were brought
   forward, or at least indicated, though in connection with many
   untenable adjunct.

   1. The great argument, not only with Jews, but with heathens also, was
   the prophecies; since the knowledge of future events can come only from
   God. The first appeal of the apologists was, of course, to the
   prophetic writings of the Old Testament, in which they found, by a very
   liberal interpretation, every event of the gospel history and every
   lineament of our Saviour's character and work. In addition to the
   Scriptures, even such fathers as Clement of Alexandria, and, with more
   caution, Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustin, employed also,
   without hesitation, apocryphal prophecies, especially the Sibylline
   oracles, a medley of ancient heathen, Jewish, and in part Christian
   fictions, about a golden age, the coining of Christ, the fortunes of
   Rome, and the end of the world. [109] 08 And indeed, this was not all
   error and pious fraud. Through all heathenism there runs, in truth, a
   dim, unconscious presenti-ment and longing hope of Christianity. Think
   of the fourth Eclogue of Virgil, with its predictions of the "virgo"
   and "nova progenies" from heaven, and the "puer," with whom, after the
   blotting out of sin and the killing of the serpent, a golden age of
   peace was to begin. For this reason Virgil was the favorite poet of the
   Latin church during the middle ages, and figures prominently in Dante's
   Divina Comedia as his guide through the dreary regions of the Inferno
   and Purgatorio to the very gates of Paradise. Another pseudo-prophetic
   book used by the fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and apparently Jerome) is
   "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, "written by a Jewish
   Christian between a.d. 100 and 120. It puts into the mouth of the
   twelve sons of Jacob farewell addresses and predictions of the coming
   of Christ, his death and resurrection, of baptism and the Lord's
   Supper, the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, and the preaching of
   Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, the destruction of Jerusalem
   and the end of the world. [110] 09

   2. The types. These, too, were found not only in the Old Testament, but
   in the whole range of nature. Justin saw everywhere, in the tree of
   life in Eden, in Jacob's ladder, in the rods of Moses and Aaron, nay,
   in every sailing ship, in the wave-cutting oar, in the plough, in the
   human countenance, in the human form with outstretched arms, in banners
   and trophies--the sacred form of the cross, and thus a prefiguration of
   the mystery of redemption through the crucifixion of the Lord. [111] 10

   3. The miracles of Jesus and the apostles, with those which continued
   to be wrought in the name of Jesus, according to the express testimony
   of the fathers, by their contemporaries. But as the heathens also
   appealed to miraculous deeds and appearances in favor of their
   religion, Justin, Arnobius, and particularly Origen, fixed certain
   criteria, such as the moral purity of the worker, and his intention to
   glorify God and benefit man, for distinguishing the true miracles from
   Satanic juggleries. "There might have been some ground," says Origen,
   "for the comparison which Celsus makes between Jesus and certain
   wandering magicians, if there had appeared in the latter the slightest
   tendency to beget in persons a true fear of God, and so to regulate
   their actions in prospect of the day of judgment. But they attempt
   nothing of the sort. Yea, they themselves are guilty of the most
   grievous crimes; whereas the Saviour would have his hearers to be
   convinced by the native beauty of religion and the holy lives of its
   teachers, rather than by even the miracles they wrought."

   The subject of post-apostolic miracles is surrounded by much greater
   difficulties in the absence of inspired testimony, and in most cases
   even of ordinary immediate witnesses. There is an antecedent
   probability that the power of working miracles was not suddenly and
   abruptly, but gradually withdrawn, as the necessity of such outward and
   extraordinary attestation of the divine origin of Christianity
   diminished and gave way to the natural operation of truth and moral
   suasion. Hence St. Augustin, in the fourth century, says: "Since the
   establishment of the church God does not wish to perpetuate miracles
   even to our day, lest the mind should put its trust in visible signs,
   or grow cold at the sight of common marvels." [112] 11 But it is
   impossible to fix the precise termination, either at the death of the
   apostles, or their immediate disciples, or the conversion of the Roman
   empire, or the extinction of the Arian heresy, or any subsequent era,
   and to sift carefully in each particular case the truth from legendary
   fiction.

   It is remarkable that the genuine writings of the ante-Nicene church
   are more free from miraculous and superstitious elements than the
   annals of the Nicene age and the middle ages. The history of
   monasticism teems with miracles even greater than those of the New
   Testament. Most of the statements of the apologists are couched in
   general terms, and refer to extraordinary cures from demoniacal
   possession (which probably includes, in the language of that age, cases
   of madness, deep melancholy, and epilepsy) and other diseases, by the
   invocation of the name of Jesus. [113] 12 Justin Martyr speaks of such
   cures as a frequent occurrence in Rome and all over the world, and
   Origen appeals to his own personal observation, but speaks in another
   place of the growing scarcity of miracles, so as to suggest the gradual
   cessation theory as held by Dr. Neander, Bishop Kaye, and others.
   Tertullian attributes many if not most of the conversions of his day to
   supernatural dreams and visions, as does also Origen, although with
   more caution. But in such psychological phenomena it is exceedingly
   difficult to draw the line of demarcation between natural and
   supernatural causes, and between providential interpositions and
   miracles proper. The strongest passage on this subject is found in
   Irenaeus, who, in contending against the heretics, mentions, besides
   prophecies and miraculous cures of demoniacs, even the raising of the
   dead among contemporary events taking place in the Catholic church;
   [114] 13 but he specifies no particular case or name; and it should be
   remembered also, that his youth still bordered almost on the Johannean
   age.

   4. The moral effect of Christianity upon the heart and life of its
   professors. The Christian religion has not only taught the purest and
   sublimest code of morals ever known among men, but actually exhibited
   it in the life sufferings, and death of its founder and true followers.
   All the apologists, from the author of the Epistle to Diognetus down to
   Origen, Cyprian, and Augustin, bring out in strong colors the infinite
   superiority of Christian ethics over the heathen, and their testimony
   is fully corroborated by the practical fruits of the church, as we
   shall have occasion more fully to show in another chapter. "They think
   us senseless," says Justin, "because we worship this Christ, who was
   crucified under Pontius Pilate, as God next to the Father. But they
   would not say so, if they knew the mystery of the cross. By its fruits
   they may know it. We, who once lived in debauchery, now study chastity;
   we, who dealt in sorceries, have consecrated ourselves to the good, the
   increate God; we, who loved money and possessions above all things
   else, now devote our property freely to the general good, and give to
   every needy one; we, who fought and killed each other, now pray for our
   enemies; those who persecute us in hatred, we kindly try to appease, in
   the hope that they may share the same blessings which we enjoy." [115]
   14

   5. The rapid spread of Christianity by purely moral means, and in spite
   of the greatest external obstacles, yea, the bitter persecution of Jews
   and Gentiles. The anonymous apologetic Epistle to Diognetus which
   belongs to the literature of the Apostolic Fathers, already thus urges
   this point: "Do you not see the Christians exposed to wild beasts, that
   they may be persuaded to deny the Lord, and yet not overcome? Do you
   not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the
   number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is
   the power of God; these are the evidences of his manifestation." [116]
   15 Justin Martyr and Tertullian frequently go on in a similar strain.
   Origen makes good use of this argument against Celsus, and thinks that
   so great a success as Christianity met among Greeks and barbarians,
   learned and unlearned persons in so short a time, without any force or
   other worldly means, and in view of the united opposition of emperors,
   senate, governors, generals, priests, and people, can only be
   rationally accounted for on the ground of an extraordinary providence
   of God and the divine nature of Christ.

   6. The reasonableness of Christianity, and its agreement with all the
   true and the beautiful in the Greek philosophy and poesy. All who had
   lived rationally before Christ were really, though unconsciously,
   already Christians. Thus all that is Christian is rational, and all
   that is truly rational is Christian. Yet, on the other hand, of course,
   Christianity is supra-rational (not irrational).

   7. The adaptation of Christianity to the deepest needs of human nature,
   which it alone can meet. Here belongs Tertullian's appeal to the
   "testimonia animae naturaliter Christianae;" his profound thought, that
   the human soul is, in its inmost essence and instinct, predestined for
   Christianity, and can find rest and peace in that alone. "The soul,"
   says he, "though confined in the prison of the body, though perverted
   by bad training, though weakened by lusts and passions, though given to
   the service of false gods, still no sooner awakes from its intoxication
   and its dreams, and recovers its health, than it calls upon God by the
   one name due to him: 'Great God! good God!'--and then looks, not to the
   capitol, but to heaven; for it knows the abode of the living God, from
   whom it proceeds." [117] 16

   This deep longing of the human soul for the living God in Christ,
   Augustin, in whom Tertullian's spirit returned purified and enriched,
   afterwards expressed in the grand sentence: "Thou, O God, hast made us
   for thee, and our heart is restless, till it rests in thee." [118] 17
     __________________________________________________________________

   [109] Comp. Dr. Friedlieb:Die Sibyllinischen Weissagungen vollstaendig
   gesammelt, mitkritischem Commentare und metrischer Uebersetzung. Leipz.
   1852. Another edition with a Latin version by C. Alexandre, Paris 1841,
   second ed. 1869, 2 tom. We have at present twelve books of chresmoi
   sibulliakoiin Greek hexameter, and some fragments. They have been
   critically discussed by Blondel (1649), Bleek (1819), Volkmann (1853),
   Ewald (1858), Tuebigen (1875), Reuss, and Schuerer (see Lit. in his N.
   T. Zeitgesch. p. 513). The Sibyl figures in the Dies Irae alongside
   with King David (teste David cum Sibylla), as prophesying the day of
   judgment.

   [110] Best edition by Robert Sinker from the Cambridge MS., Cambridge,
   1869, and an Appendix, 1879; an English translation by Sinker, in the
   "Ante-Nicene Library," vol. XXII. ( Edinb. 1871). Discussions by
   Nitzsch (1810), Ritschl (1850 and 1857), Vorstmann (1857), Kayser
   (1851), Luecke (1852), Dillmann (in Herzog, first ed. XII. 315),
   Lightfoot (1875), and Warfield (in "Presbyt. Review," York, January,
   1880, on the apologetical value of the work for its allusions to
   various books of the N. T.).

   [111] Apol. l.c, 55; Dial. c. Tryph. c. 91.

   [112] On the other hand, however, St. Augustin lent the authority of
   his name to some of the most incredible miracles of his age, wrought by
   the bones of St. Stephen, and even of Gervasius and Protasius. Comp.
   the treatise of Fr. Nitzsch (jun.) on Augustin's Doctrine of Miracles,
   Berlin 1865; and on the general subject J. H. Newman's Two Essays on
   Biblical and Ecclesiastical Miracles, third ed. London 1873; and J. B.
   Mozley's Bampton Lectures On Miracles. Oxford and Lond. (1865), fifth
   ed. 1880, Lect. VIII. which treats of false miracles.

   [113] They are analogous to the "faith-cures, " real or pretended, of
   our own age.

   [114] Adv. Haer. II. 31, (S) 4: Ede de kai nekroi egerthsan kai
   paremeinon sun hemin hikanois hetesi. These two passages can hardly be
   explained, with Heumann and Neander, as referring merely to cases of
   apparent death.

   [115] Apol. l.c. 13 and 14.

   [116] Ad Diogn. c. 7.

   [117] Tert. Apolog. c. 17. Comp. the beautiful passage in De Testim
   Animae, c. 2: "Si enim anima aut divina aut a Deo data est, sine dubio
   datorem num novit, et si novit, utique et timet .... O testimonium
   veritatis, quae apud ipsa daemonia testem efficit Christianorum."

   [118] Aug. Confess. I. 1: "Fecisti nos ad Te, et inquietum est cor
   nostrum, donec requiescat in Te."
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER IV:

   ORGANIZATION AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH.

   I. The chief sources for this chapter are the Epistles of Ignatius, the
   works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and especially Cyprian, and the
   so-called Constitutiones Apostolicae,

   II. See the Literature in vol. I. S: 58 (p. 481 sqq. ), particularly
   the works of Rothe, Ritchsl, Lightfoot, and Hatch.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 41. Progress in Consolidation.

   In the external organization of the church, several important changes
   appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity,
   and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed;
   subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the
   beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the
   Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and
   schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now
   gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system; and this, in its
   turn, passes into the metropolitan, and after the fourth century into
   the patriarchal. Here the Greek church stopped, and is governed to this
   day by a hierarchical oligarchy of patriarchs equal in rank and
   jurisdiction; while the Latin church went a step further, and produced
   in the middle ages the papal monarchy. The germs of this papacy
   likewise betray themselves even in our present period, particularly in
   Cyprian, together with a protest against it. Cyprian himself is as much
   a witness for consolidated primacy, as for independent episcopacy, and
   hence often used and abused alike by Romanists and Anglicans for
   sectarian purposes.

   The characteristics, however, of the pre-Constantinian hierarchy, in
   distinction from the post-Constantinian, both Greek and Roman, are,
   first, its grand simplicity, and secondly, its spirituality, or freedom
   from all connection with political power and worldly splendor. Whatever
   influence the church acquired and exercised, she owed nothing to the
   secular government, which continued indifferent or positively hostile
   till the protective toleration edict of Constantine (313). Tertullian
   thought it impossible for an emperor to be a Christian, or a Christian
   to be an emperor; and even after Constantine, the Donatists persisted
   in this view, and cast up to the Catholics the memory of the former
   age: "What have Christians to do with kings? or what have bishops to do
   in the palace?" [119] 18 The ante-Nicene fathers expected the ultimate
   triumph of Christianity over the world from a supernatural
   interposition at the second Advent. Origen seems to have been the only
   one in that age of violent persecution who expected that Christianity,
   by continual growth, would gain the dominion over the world. [120] 19

   The consolidation of the church and its compact organization implied a
   restriction of individual liberty, in the interest of order, and a
   temptation to the abuse of authority. But it was demanded by the
   diminution of spiritual gifts, which were poured out in such
   extraordinary abundance in the apostolic age. It made the church a
   powerful republic within the Roman empire, and contributed much to its
   ultimate success. "In union is strength," especially in times of danger
   and persecution such as the church had to pass through in the
   ante-Nicene age. While we must deny a divine right and perpetual
   obligation to any peculiar form of government as far as it departs from
   the simple principles of the New Testament, we may concede a historical
   necessity and great relative importance to the ante-Nicene and
   subsequent organizations of the church. Even the papacy was by no means
   an unmixed evil, but a training school for the barbarian nations during
   the middle ages. Those who condemn, in principle, all hierarchy,
   sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism, should remember that God himself
   appointed the priesthood and ceremonies in the Mosaic dispensation, and
   that Christ submitted to the requirements of the law in the days of his
   humiliation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [119] "Quid Christianis cum regibus ? aut quid episcopis cum palatio?"

   [120] Contra Cels. VIII. 68. Comp. the remarks of Neander, I. 129
   (Boston ed.).
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 42. Clergy and Laity.

   The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the
   body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and
   altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish and heathen reminiscences and
   analogies into the Christian church. The majority of Jewish converts
   adhered tenaciously to the Mosaic institutions and rites, and a
   considerable part never fully attained to the height of spiritual
   freedom proclaimed by Paul, or soon fell away from it. He opposed
   legalistic and ceremonial tendencies in Galatia and Corinth; and
   although sacerdotalism does not appear among the errors of his
   Judaizing opponents, the Levitical priesthood, with its three ranks of
   high-priest, priest, and Levite, naturally furnished an analogy for the
   threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, and came to be
   regarded as typical of it. Still less could the Gentile Christians, as
   a body, at once emancipate themselves from their traditional notions of
   priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, on which their former religion was
   based. Whether we regard the change as an apostasy from a higher
   position attained, or as a reaction of old ideas never fully abandoned,
   the change is undeniable, and can be traced to the second century. The
   church could not long occupy the ideal height of the apostolic age, and
   as the Pentecostal illumination passed away with the death of the
   apostles, the old reminiscences began to reassert themselves. [121] 20

   In the apostolic church preaching and teaching were not confined to a
   particular class, but every convert could proclaim the gospel to
   unbelievers, and every Christian who had the gift could pray and teach
   and exhort in the congregation. [122] 21 The New Testament knows no
   spiritual aristocracy or nobility, but calls all believers "saints"
   though many fell far short of their vocation. Nor does it recognize a
   special priesthood in distinction from the people, as mediating between
   God and the laity. It knows only one high-priest, Jesus Christ, and
   clearly teaches the universal priesthood, as well as universal
   kingship, of believers. [123] 22 It does this in a far deeper and
   larger sense than the Old; [124] 23 in a sense, too, which even to this
   day is not yet fully realized. The entire body of Christians are called
   "clergy" (kleroi a peculiar people, the heritage of God. [125] 24

   On the other hand it is equally clear that there was in the apostolic
   church a ministerial office, instituted by Christ, for the very purpose
   of raising the mass of believers from infancy and pupilage to
   independent and immediate intercourse with God, to that prophetic,
   priestly, and kingly position, which in principle and destination
   belongs to them all. [126] 25 This work is the gradual process of
   church history itself, and will not be fully accomplished till the
   kingdom of glory shall come. But these ministers are nowhere
   represented as priests in any other sense than Christians generally are
   priests, with the privilege of a direct access to the throne of grace
   in the name of their one and eternal high-priest in heaven. Even in the
   Pastoral Epistles which present the most advanced stage of
   ecclesiastical organization in the apostolic period, while the
   teaching, ruling, and pastoral functions of the presbyter-bishops are
   fully discussed, nothing is said about a sacerdotal function. The
   Apocalypse, which was written still later, emphatically teaches the
   universal priesthood and kingship of believers. The apostles themselves
   never claim or exercise a special priesthood. The sacrifice which all
   Christians are exhorted to offer is the sacrifice of their person and
   property to the Lord, and the spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving and
   praise. [127] 26 In one passage a Christian "altar" is spoken of, in
   distinction from the Jewish altar of literal and daily sacrifices, but
   this altar is the cross on which Christ offered himself once and
   forever for the sins of the world. [128] 27

   After the gradual abatement of the extraordinary spiritual elevation of
   the apostolic age, which anticipated in its way the ideal condition of
   the church, the distinction of a regular class of teachers from the
   laity became more fixed and prominent. This appears first in Ignatius,
   who, in his high episcopalian spirit, considers the clergy the
   necessary medium of access for the people to God. "Whoever is within
   the sanctuary (or altar), is pure; but he who is outside of the
   sanctuary is not pure; that is, he who does anything without bishop and
   presbytery and deacon, is not pure in conscience." [129] 28 Yet he
   nowhere represents the ministry as a sacerdotal office. The Didache
   calls "the prophets" high-priests, but probably in a spiritual sense.
   [130] 29 Clement of Rome, in writing to the congregation at Corinth,
   draws a significant and fruitful parallel between the Christian
   presiding office and the Levitical priesthood, and uses the expression
   "layman" (laikos anthropos) as antithetic to high-priest, priests, and
   Levites. [131] 30 This parallel contains the germ of the whole system
   of sacerdotalism. But it is at best only an argument by analogy.
   Tertullian was the first who expressly and directly asserts sacerdotal
   claims on behalf of the Christian ministry, and calls it "sacerdotium,"
   although he also strongly affirms the universal priesthood of all
   believers. Cyprian (d. 258) goes still further, and applies all the
   privileges, duties, and responsibilities of the Aaronic priesthood to
   the officers of the Christian church, and constantly calls them
   sacerdotes and sacerdotium. He may therefore be called the proper
   father of the sacerdotal conception of the Christian ministry as a
   mediating agency between God and the people. During the third century
   it became customary to apply the term "priest" directly and exclusively
   to the Christian ministers especially the bishops. [132] 31 In the same
   manner the whole ministry, and it alone, was called "clergy," with a
   double reference to its presidency and its peculiar relation to God.
   [133] 32 It was distinguished by this name from the Christian people or
   "laity." [134] 33 Thus the term "clergy," which first signified the lot
   by which office was assigned (Acts 1:17, 25), then the office itself,
   then the persons holding that office, was transferred from the
   Christians generally to the ministers exclusively.

   Solemn "ordination" or consecration by the laying on of hands was the
   form of admission into the "ordo ecclesiasticus" or "sacerdotalis." In
   this order itself there were again three degrees, "ordines majores," as
   they were called: the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the
   episcopate--held to be of divine institution. Under these were the
   "ordines minores," of later date, from sub-deacon to ostiary, which
   formed the stepping-stone between the clergy proper and the people.
   [135] 34

   Thus we find, so early as the third century, the foundations of a
   complete hierarchy; though a hierarchy of only moral power, and holding
   no sort of outward control over the conscience. The body of the laity
   consisted of two classes: the faithful, or the baptized and
   communicating members, and the catechumens, who were preparing for
   baptism. Those church members who lived together in one place, [136] 35
   formed a church in the narrower sense. [137] 36

   With the exaltation of the clergy appeared the tendency to separate
   them from secular business, and even from social relations--from
   marriage, for example--and to represent them, even outwardly, as a
   caste independent of the people, and devoted exclusively to the service
   of the sanctuary. They drew their support from the church treasury,
   which was supplied by voluntary contributions and weekly collections on
   the Lord's Day. After the third century they were forbidden to engage
   in any secular business, or even to accept any trusteeship. Celibacy
   was not yet in this period enforced, but left optional. Tertullian,
   Gregory of Nyssa, and other distinguished church teachers, lived in
   wedlock, though theoretically preferring the unmarried state. Of an
   official clerical costume no certain trace appears before the fourth
   century; and if it came earlier into use, as may have been the ease,
   after the example of the Jewish church, it must have been confined,
   during the times of persecution, to the actual exercises of worship.

   With the growth of this distinction of clergy and laity, however, the
   idea of the universal priesthood continued from time to time to assert
   itself: in Irenaeus, [138] 37 for example, and in an eccentric form in
   the Montanists, who even allowed women to teach publicly in the church.
   So Tertullian, with whom clerus and laici were at one time familiar
   expressions, inquires, as the champion of the Montanistic reaction
   against the Catholic hierarchy: "Are not we laymen priests also?" [139]
   38 It is written, he continues: "He hath made us kings and priests
   (Rev. 1:6). It is the authority of the church alone which has made a
   distinction between clergy and laity. Where there is no college of
   ministers, you administer the sacrament, you baptize, you are a priest
   for yourself alone. And where there are three of you, there is a
   church, though you be only laymen. For each one lives by his own faith,
   and there is no respect of persons with God." [140] 39 All, therefore,
   which the clergy considered peculiar to them, he claimed for the laity
   as the common sacerdotal privilege of all Christians.

   Even in the Catholic church an acknowledgment of the general priesthood
   showed itself in the custom of requiring the baptized to say the Lord's
   Prayer before the assembled congregation. With reference to this,
   Jerome says: "Sacerdotium laici, id est, baptisma." The congregation
   also, at least in the West, retained for a long time the right of
   approval and rejection in the choice of its ministers, even of the
   bishop. Clement of Rome expressly requires the assent of the whole
   congregation for a valid election; [141] 40 and Cyprian terms this an
   apostolic and almost universal regulation. [142] 41 According to his
   testimony it obtained also in Rome, and was observed in the case of his
   contemporary, Cornelius. [143] 42 Sometimes in the filling of a vacant
   bishopric the "suffragium" of the people preceded the "judicium" of the
   clergy of the diocese. Cyprian, and afterwards Athanasius, Ambrose,
   Augustin, and other eminent prelates, were in a manner pressed into the
   bishopric in this democratic way. Cyprian, with all his high-church
   proclivities, declares it his principle to do nothing as bishop without
   the advice of the presbyters and deacons, and the consent of the
   people. [144] 43 A peculiar influence, which even the clergy could not
   withstand, attached to the "confessors," and it was sometimes abused by
   them, as in their advocacy of the lapsed, who denied Christ in the
   Decian persecution.

   Finally, we notice cases where the function of teaching was actually
   exercised by laymen. The bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea allowed the
   learned Origen to expound the Bible to their congregations before his
   ordination, and appealed to the example of several bishops in the East.
   [145] 44 Even in the Apostolical Constitutions there occurs, under the
   name of the Apostle Paul, the direction: "Though a man be a layman, if
   experienced in the delivery of instruction, and reverent in habit, he
   may teach; for the Scripture says: 'They shall be all taught of God.' "
   [146] 45 The fourth general council at Carthage (398) prohibited laymen
   from teaching in the presence of clergymen and without their consent;
   implying at the same time, that with such permission the thing might be
   done. [147] 46

   It is worthy of notice that a number of the most eminent church
   teachers of this period, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of
   Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, were either
   laymen, or at most only presbyters. Hermas, who wrote one of the most
   popular and authoritative books in the early church, was probably a
   layman; perhaps also the author of the homily which goes under the name
   of the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome, and has recently been
   discovered in full both in the original Greek and in a Syriac
   translation; for he seems to distinguish himself and his hearers from
   the presbyters. [148] 47
     __________________________________________________________________

   [121] Renan, looking at the gradual development of the hierarchy out of
   the primitive democracy, from his secular point of view, calls it, the
   most profound transformation "in history, and a triple abdication:
   first the club (the congregation) committing its power to the bureau or
   the committee (the college of presbyters), then the bureau to its
   president (the bishop) who could say: "Je suis le club,"and finally the
   presidents to the pope as the universal and infallible bishop; the last
   process being completed in the Vatican Council of 1870. See his E'glise
   chretienne, p. 88, and his English Conferences (Hibbert Lectures,
   1880), p 90.

   [122] Comp. Acts 8:4; 9:27; 13:15; 18:26, 28; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10,
   28; 14:1-6, 31. Even in the Jewish Synagogue the liberty of teaching
   was enjoyed, and the elder could ask any member of repute, even a
   stranger, to deliver a discourse on the Scripture lesson (Luke 4:17;
   Acts 17:2).

   [123] 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; 5:3; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6. See Neander, Lightfoot,
   Stanley, etc., and vol. I. 486 sqq. I add a passage from Hatch's;
   Bampton Lectures on The Organization of the Early Christian Churches
   (1881), p. 139: "In earlier times there was a grander faith. For the
   kingdom of God was a kingdom of priests. Not only the 'four and twenty
   elders' before the throne, but the innumerable souls of the sanctified
   upon whom 'the second death had no power,' were 'kings and priests unto
   God.' Only in that high sense was priesthood predicable of Christian
   men. For the shadow had passed: the reality had come: the one High
   Priest of Christianity was Christ."

   [124] Exod. 19:6.

   [125] 1 Pet. 5:3. Here Peter warns his fellow-presbyters not to lord it
   (kurieuein)over the kleroi or the kleronomia, i.e., the lot or
   inheritance of the Lord, the charge allotted to them. Comp. Deut. 4:20;
   9:29 (LXX),

   [126] Comp. Eph. 4:11-13

   [127] Rom. 12:1; Phil. 2:17; 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 13:16.

   [128] Heb. 13:10. So thusiasterion is understood by Thomas Aquinas,
   Bengel, Bleek, Luenemann, Riehm, etc. Others explain it of the Lord's
   table, Lightfoot (p. 263) of the congregation assembled for common
   worship.

   [129] Ad Trall.c. 7: ho entos thusiasteion on katharos estin ho de
   ektos thusiasteriou on ou katharos estin; toutestin, ho choris
   episkopou kai presbuteriou kai diakonou prasson ti, outos ou katharos
   estin te suneidesei.Funk's ed. I. 208. Some MSS. omit the second
   clause, perhaps from homoeoteleuton. Von Gebhardt and Harnack also omit
   it in the Greek text, but retain it in the Latin (qui extra attare est,
   non mundus est). The toutestin evidently requires the clause.

   [130] Cf. ch. 13. See note in Schaff's edition, p. 206

   [131] Ad Cor. 40: "Unto the high-priest his proper services have been
   intrusted, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and
   upon the levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is
   bound by the layman's ordinances (ho laikos anthropos tois laikois
   prostagmasin dedetai)." The passage occurs in the text of Bryennios as
   well as in the older editions, and there is no good reason to suspect
   it of being an interpolation in the hierarchical interest, as Neander
   and Milman have done. Bishop Lightfoot, in his St. Clement of Rome, p.
   128 sq., puts a mild construction upon it, and says that the analogy
   does not extend to the three orders, because Clement only knows two
   (bishops and deacons), and that the high priesthood of Christ is wholly
   different in kind from the Mosaic high priesthood, and exempt from
   those very limitations on which Clement dwells in that chapter.

   [132] Sacerdos, also summus sacerdos (Tertullian, De Bapt. 7), and
   oncepontifex maximus (De Pudic. 1, with ironical reference, it seems,
   to the Roman bishop); ordo sacerdotalis (De Exhort. Cast. 7); hiereus
   and sometimes archiereus (Apost. Const. II. 34, 35, 36, 57; III. 9; vi.
   15, 18, etc.). Hippolytus calls his office an archierateia and
   didaskalia (Ref. Haer. I. prooem.). Cyprian generally applies the term
   sacerdos to the bishop, and calls his colleagues consacerdotales.

   [133] Kleros,clerus, taxisordo, ordosacerdotalis (Tertulli, De Ehort.
   Cast. 7), ordo eccelesiasticus orecclesiae (De Monog. 11; De Idolol.
   7); klerikoi, clerici. The first instance perhaps of the use of clerus
   in the sense of clergy is in Tertullian,De Monog. c. 12: "Unde enim
   episcopi et clerus ?" and: "Extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum."
   Jerome (Ad Nepotian.) explains this exclusive application of clerus to
   ministers, "vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors,
   id est, pars clericorum est." The distinction between the regular
   clergy, who were also monks, and the secular clergy or parish priests,
   is of much later date (seventh or eighth century).

   [134] Laos, laikoi, plebs. In Tertullian, Cyprian, and in the Apostolic
   Constitutions the term " layman" occurs very often. Cyprian speaks
   (250) of a " conference held with bishops, presbyters, deacons,
   confessors, and also with laymen who stood firm"(in persecution), Ep.
   30, ad Rom

   [135] .Occasionally, however we find a somewhat wider terminology.
   Tertullian mentions, De Monog c. 12, the ordo viduarum among the
   ordines ecclesiastici, and even the much later Jerome (see In Jesaiam,
   l. v.c. 19, 18), enumerates quinque ecclesiae ordines, episcopos,
   presbyteros, diaconos, fideles, catechumenos.

   [136] Paroikoi, parepidemoi, Eph. 2:19; 1 Pet. 2:11.

   [137] or parish, paroikia.

   [138] Adv. Haer. iv. 8, S:.

   [139] Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus?

   [140] De Exhort. Cast. c. 7. Comp. also De Monog. 7, 12; De Bapt. 17;
   De Orat. 18

   [141] . Ad Cor. 44: Sueudokases tes ekklesias pases , consentiente
   universa ecclesia.

   [142] Ep. lx. 3-4 (ed. Goldhorn).

   [143] Ep. lv. 7:"Factus est Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus
   judicio, de clericorum paene omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tum
   adfuit suffragio, et de sacerdotum antiquorum et bonorum virorum
   collegio."

   [144] Sine consensu plebis.

   [145] Euseb., H. E. VI. 19: "There [in Caesarea] he [Origen] was also
   requested by the bishops to expound the sacred Scriptures publicly in
   the church, although he had not yet obtained the priesthood by the
   imposition of hands." It is true this was made the ground of a charge
   against him by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria; but the charge was that
   Origen had preached "in the presence of bishops," not that he had
   preached as a layman. And the bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea adduced
   several examples of holy bishops inviting capable laymen to preach to
   the people. Prudentius and Aedesius, while laymen, founded the church
   in Abyssinia, Socrates, Hist. Eccl. I. 19.

   [146] Const. Apost. VIII. 31. Ambrosiaster, or Hilary the Deacon, in
   his Com. Ad Eph. 4:11, 12, says that in early times "omnes docebant et
   omnes baptizabant."

   [147] Can. 98: "Laicus praesentibus clericis nisi ipsis jubentibus,
   docere non audeat." The 99th canon forbids women, no matter how
   "learned or holy," to "presume to teach men in a meeting." Pope Leo I.
   (Ep 92 and 93) forbids lay preaching in the interest of ecclesiastical
   order. Charlemagne enacted a law that "a layman ought not to recite a
   lesson in church, nor to say the Hallelujah but only the Psalm or
   responses without the Hallelujah."

   [148] The Greek text (of which only a fragment was known before) was
   found and published by Bryennios, 1875, the Syriac version by Bensley,
   1876. See Harnack's ed. in the Patres Apost. vol. I., and Lightfoot, S.
   Clement of Rome, Appendix (1877). Harnack, Hilgenfeld, and Hatch (l.c.
   114; note) suppose that the homily was delivered by a layman, but
   Lightfoot (p. 304) explains the language above alluded to as a common
   rhetorical figure by which the speaker places himself on a level with
   his audience.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 43. New Church Officers.

   The expansion of the church, the development of her cultus, and the
   tendency towards hierarchical pomp, led to the multiplication of
   offices below the diaconate, which formed the ordines minores. About
   the middle of the third century the following new officers are
   mentioned:

   1. Sub-deacons, or under-helpers; [149] 48 assistants and deputies of
   the deacons; the only one of these subordinate offices for which a
   formal ordination was required. Opinions differ as to its value.

   2. Readers, [150] 49 who read the Scriptures in the assembly and had
   charge of the church books.

   3. Acolyths, [151] 50 attendants of the bishops in their official
   duties and processions.

   4. Exorcists, [152] 51 who, by prayer and the laying on of hands, cast
   out the evil spirit from the possessed, [153] 52 and from catechumens,
   and frequently assisted in baptism. This power had been formerly
   considered a free gift of the Holy Spirit.

   5. Precentors, [154] 53 for the musical parts of the liturgy, psalms,
   benedictions, responses, etc.

   6. Janitors or sextons, [155] 54 who took care of the religious
   meeting-rooms, and at a later period also of the church-yards.

   7. Besides these there were in the larger churches catechists, and,
   where the church language in the worship was not understood,
   interpreters; but the interpreting was commonly done by presbyters,
   deacons, or readers.

   The bishop Cornelius of Rome (d. 252), in a letter on the Novatian
   schism, [156] 55 gives the number of officers in his church as follows:
   Forty-six presbyters, probably corresponding to the number of the
   meeting-houses of the Christians in the city; seven deacons, after the
   model of the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi); seven sub-deacons;
   forty-two acolyths, and fifty-two exorcists, readers, and janitors.

   As to the ordines majores, the deacons during this period rose in
   importance. In addition to their original duties of caring for the poor
   and sick, they baptized, distributed the sacramental cup, said the
   church prayers, not seldom preached, and were confidential advisers,
   sometimes even delegates and vicars of the bishops. This last is true
   especially of the "archdeacon," who does not appear, however, till the
   fourth century. The presbyters, on the contrary, though above the
   deacons, were now overtopped by the new office of bishop, in which the
   entire government of the church became centred.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [149] Hupodiakonoi,subdiaconi, perhaps the same as the huperetai of the
   New Testament and the earlier fathers.

   [150] Anagnostai, lectores, mentioned by Tertullian.

   [151] Akoluthoi, acolythi.

   [152] Exorkistai,exorcistae

   [153] Daimonizomenoi, energoumenoi

   [154] Psaltai, psalmistae cantores

   [155] thuroroi, puloroi, ostiarii janitores.

   [156] In Euseb. vi. 43.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 44. Origin of the Episcopate.

   Besides the works already cited, compare the special works and essays
   on the Ignatian controversy, published since 1837, by Rothe (close of
   his Anfaenge, etc.), Hefele (R.C.), Baur, Hilgenfeld, Bunsen,
   Petermann, Cureton, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, Zahn, Lightfoot (I. 376 sqq).
   Also R. D. Hitchcock on the Origin of Episcopacy, N. Y. 1867 (in the
   "Am. Presbyt. & Theol. Review" for Jan. 1867, pp. 133-169); Lightfoot
   on the Christian Ministry (1873); Hatch on the Organization of the
   Early Christian Church (1881); Renan, L'Eglise chretienne (1879), ch.
   VI.Progres de l'episcopat; and Gore, The Ministry of the Church (1889).

   The most important and also the most difficult phenomenon of our period
   in the department of church organization is the rise and development of
   the episcopate as distinct from the presbyterate. This institution
   comes to view in the second century as the supreme spiritual office,
   and is retained to this day by all Roman and Greek Christendom, and by
   a large part of the Evangelical church, especially the Anglican
   communion. A form of government so ancient and so widely adopted, can
   be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a religious
   need, namely, the need of a tangible outward representation and
   centralization, to illustrate and embody to the people their relation
   to Christ and to God, and the visible unity of the church. It is
   therefore inseparable from the catholic principle of authority and
   mediation; while the protestant principle of freedom and direct
   intercourse of the believer with Christ, consistently carried out,
   infringes the strict episcopal constitution, and tends to ministerial
   equality. Episcopacy in the full sense of the term requires for its
   base the idea of a real priesthood and real sacrifice, and an essential
   distinction between clergy and laity. Divested of these associations,
   it resolves itself into a mere superintendency. [157] 56

   During the lifetime of the apostles, those eye- and ear-witnesses of
   the divine-human life of Jesus, and the inspired organs of the Holy
   Spirit, there was no room for proper bishops; and those who were so
   called, must have held only a subordinate place. The church, too, in
   the first century was as yet a strictly supernatural organization, a
   stranger in this world, standing with one foot in eternity, and longing
   for the second coming of her heavenly bridegroom. But in the episcopal
   constitution the church provided an extremely simple but compact and
   freely expansible organization, planted foot firmly upon earth, became
   an institution for the education of her infant people, and, as
   chiliastic hopes receded, fell into the path of quiet historical
   development; yet unquestionably she thus incurred also the danger of a
   secularization which reached its height just when the hierarchy became
   complete in the Roman church, and which finally necessitated a
   reformation on the basis of apostolical Christianity. That this
   secularization began with the growing power of the bishops even before
   Constantine and the Byzantine court orthodoxy, we perceive, for
   instance, in the lax penitential discipline, the avarice, and the
   corruption with which Hippolytus, in the ninth book of his
   Philosophumena, reproaches Zephyrinus and Callistus, the Roman bishops
   of his time (202-223); also in the example of the bishop Paul of
   Samosata, who was deposed in 269 on almost incredible charges, not only
   against his doctrine, but still more against his moral character. [158]
   57 Origen complains that there are, especially in the larger cities,
   overseers of the people of God, who seek to outdo the pomp of heathen
   potentates, would surround themselves, like the emperors, with a
   body-guard, and make themselves terrible and inaccessible to the poor.
   [159] 58

   We consider, first, the origin of the episcopate. The unreliable
   character of our documents and traditions from the transition period
   between the close of the apostolic church and the beginning of the
   post-apostolic, leaves large room here for critical research and
   combination. First of all comes the question: Was the episcopate
   directly or indirectly of apostolic (Johannean) origin? [160] 59 Or did
   it arise after the death of the apostles, and develope itself from the
   presidency of the congregational presbytery? [161] 60 In other words,
   was the episcopate a continuation and contraction of, and substitute
   for, the apostolate, or was it an expansion and elevation of the
   presbyterate? [162] 61 The later view is more natural and better
   sustained by facts. Most of its advocates date the change from the time
   of Ignatius in the first quarter of the second century, while a few
   carry it further back to the close of the first, when St. John still
   lived in Ephesus.

   I. For the apostolic origin of episcopacy the following points may be
   made:

   (1) The position of James, who evidently stood at the head of the
   church at Jerusalem, [163] 62 and is called bishop, at least in the
   pseudo-Clementine literature, and in fact supreme bishop of the whole
   church. [164] 63 This instance, however, stands quite alone, and does
   not warrant an inference in regard to the entire church.

   (2) The office of the assistants and delegates of the apostles, like
   Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphroditus, Luke, Mark, who had a sort of
   supervision of several churches and congregational officers, and in a
   measure represented the apostles in special missions. But, in any case,
   these were not limited, at least during the life of the apostles, each
   to a particular diocese; they were itinerant evangelists and legates of
   the apostles; only the doubtful tradition of a later day assigns them
   distinct bishoprics. If bishops at all, they were missionary bishops.

   (3) The angels of the seven churches of Asia, [165] 64 who, if regarded
   as individuals, look very like the later bishops, and indicate a
   monarchical shaping of the church government in the days of John. But,
   apart from the various interpretations of the Apocalyptic angeloi, that
   office appears not co-ordinate with the apostolate of John, but
   subordinate to it, and was no more than a congregational
   superintendency.

   (4) The testimony of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, in his
   seven (or three) epistles from the beginning of the second century
   (even according to the shorter Syriac version), presupposes the
   episcopate, in distinction from the presbyterate, as already existing,
   though as a new institution, yet in its growth.

   (5) The statement of Clement of Alexandria, [166] 65 that John
   instituted bishops after his return from Patmos; and the accounts of
   Irenaeus, [167] 66 Tertullian, [168] 67 Eusebius, [169] 68 and Jerome,
   [170] 69 that the same apostle nominated and ordained Polycarp (with
   whom Irenaeus was personally acquainted) bishop of Smyrna.

   (6) The uncertain tradition in Eusebius, who derived it probably from
   Hegesippus, that the surviving apostles and disciples of the apostles,
   soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, elected Symeon, the son of
   Klopas and a cousin of Jesus, bishop of that city and successor of
   James. But this arrangement at best was merely local, and not general.
   [171] 70

   (7) The tradition of the churches of Antioch and Rome, which trace
   their line of bishops back to apostolic institution, and kept the
   record of an unbroken succession.

   (8) A passage in the second of the Pfaff Fragments of Irenaeus, which
   speaks of "second ordinances of the apostles" (deuterai ton apostolon
   diataxeis). Rothe understands by these the institution of the
   episcopate. But aside from the doubtful genuineness of the Fragments,
   these words are at all events of unsettled interpretation, and,
   according to the connection, relate not to the government of the church
   at all, but to the celebration of the eucharist.

   (9) Equally uncertain is the conclusion drawn from an obscure passage
   in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, which admits of
   different interpretations. [172] 71 The apostles, it is said,
   foreseeing the future controversy about the name of the episcopal
   office, appointed bishops and deacons, and afterwards made the
   disposition, [173] 72 that when they should fall asleep, other approved
   men should follow them in office. Rothe refers "they" and "them" to the
   apostles as the main subject. But these words naturally refer to the
   congregational officers just before mentioned, and in this case the
   "other approved men" are not successors of the apostles, but of the
   presbyter-bishops and deacons. [174] 73 This view is sustained by the
   connection. The difficulty in the Corinthian congregation was a
   rebellion, not against a single bishop, but against a number of
   presbyter-bishops, and Clement reminds them that the apostles
   instituted this office not only for the first generation, but provided
   for a permanent succession, and that the officers were appointed for
   life, and could therefore not be deposed so long as they discharged
   their duties. Hence he goes on to say, immediately after the disputed
   passage in chapter 44: "Wherefore we think that those cannot justly be
   thrown out of their ministry who were appointed either by them (the
   apostles), or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the
   whole congregation; and who have with all lowliness and innocency
   ministered to the flock of Christ, in peace, and without self-interest,
   and were for a long time commended by all."

   (10) Finally, the philosophical consideration, that the universal and
   uncontested spread of the episcopate in the second century cannot be
   satisfactorily explained without the presumption of at least the
   indirect sanction of the apostles. By the same argument the observance
   of Sunday and infant baptism are usually traced to apostolic origin.
   But it is not quite conclusive, since most of the apostles died before
   the destruction of Jerusalem. It could only apply to John, who was the
   living centre of the church in Asia Minor to the close of the first
   century. [175] 74

   II. The theory of the post-apostolic origin of the episcopate as a
   separate office or order, and its rise out of the presidency of the
   original congregational presbyterate, by way of human, though natural
   and necessary, development, is supported by the following facts:

   (1) The undeniable identity of presbyters and bishops in the New
   Testament, [176] 75 conceded even by the best interpreters among the
   church fathers, by Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, and by the best
   scholars of recent times.

   (2) Later, at the close of the first and even in the second century,
   the two terms are still used in like manner for the same office. The
   Roman bishop Clement, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians says,
   that the apostles, in the newly-founded churches, appointed the first
   fruits of the faith, i.e., the first converts, "bishops and deacons."
   [177] 76 He here omits the presbuteroi, as Paul does in Phil. 1:1, for
   the simple reason that they are in his view identical with episkopoi;
   while conversely, in c. 57, he enjoins subjection to presbyters,
   without mentioning bishops. [178] 77 The Didache mentions bishops and
   deacons, but no presbyters. [179] 78 Clement of Alexandria
   distinguishes, it is true, the deaconate, the presbyterate, and the
   episcopate; but he supposes only a two-fold official character, that of
   presbyters, and that of deacons--a view which found advocates so late
   as the middle ages, even in pope Urban II., a.d. 1091. Lastly,
   Irenaeus, towards the close of the second century, though himself a
   bishop, makes only a relative difference between episcopi and
   presbyteri; speaks of successions of the one in the same sense as of
   the other; terms the office of the latter episcopatus; and calls the
   bishops of Rome "presbyters". [180] 79 Sometimes, it is true, he
   appears to use the term "presbyters" in a more general sense, for the
   old men, the fathers. [181] 80 But in any case his language shows that
   the distinction between the two offices was at that time still relative
   and indefinite.

   (3) The express testimony of the learned Jerome, that the churches
   originally, before divisions arose through the instigation of Satan,
   were governed by the common council of the presbyters, and not till a
   later period was one of the pres-byters placed at the head, to watch
   over the church and suppress schisms. [182] 81 He traces the difference
   of the office simply to "ecclesiastical" custom as distinct from divine
   institution. [183] 82

   (4) The custom of the church of Alexandria, where, from the evangelist
   Mark down to the middle of the third century, the twelve presbyters
   elected one of their number president, and called him bishop. This fact
   rests on the authority of Jerome, [184] 83 and is confirmed
   independently by the Annals of the Alexandrian patriarch, Eutychius, of
   the tenth century. [185] 84 The latter states that Mark instituted in
   that city a patriarch (this is an anachronism) and twelve presbyters,
   who should fill the vacant patriarchate by electing and ordaining to
   that office one of their number and then electing a new presbyter, so
   as always to retain the number twelve. He relates, moreover, that down
   to the time of Demetrius, at the end of the second century, there was
   no bishop in Egypt besides the one at Alexandria; consequently there
   could have been no episcopal ordination except by going out of the
   province.

   III. Conclusion. The only satisfactory conclusion from these various
   facts and traditions seems to be, that the episcopate proceeded, both
   in the descending and ascending scale, from the apostolate and the
   original presbyterate conjointly, as a contraction of the former and an
   expansion of the latter, without either express concert or general
   regulation of the apostles, neither of which, at least, can be
   historically proved. It arose, instinctively, as it were, in that
   obscure and critical transition period between the end of the first and
   the middle of the second century. It was not a sudden creation, much
   less the invention of a single mind. It grew, in part, out of the
   general demand for a continuation of, or substitute for, the apostolic
   church government, and this, so far as it was transmissible at all,
   very naturally passed first to the most eminent disciples and
   fellow-laborers of the apostles, to Mark, Luke, Timothy, Clement,
   Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, which accounts for the fact that tradition
   makes them all bishops in the prominent sense of the term. It was
   further occasioned by the need of a unity in the presbyterial
   government of congregations, which, in the nature of the case and
   according to the analogy of the Jewish archisunagogos, [186] 85
   required a head or president. This president was called bishop, at
   first only by eminence, as primus inter pares; afterwards in the
   exclusive sense. In the smaller churches there was, perhaps, from the
   beginning, only one presbyter, who of himself formed this centre, like
   the chorepiscopi or country-bishops in the fourth century. The dioceses
   of the bishops in Asia Minor and North Africa, owing to their large
   number, in the second and third centuries, can hardly have exceeded the
   extent of respectable pastoral charges. James of Jerusalem, on the
   other hand, and his immediate successors, whose positions in many
   respects were altogether peculiar, seem to have been the only bishops
   in Palestine. Somewhat similar was the state of things in Egypt, where,
   down to Demetrius (a.d. 190-232), we find only the one bishop of
   Alexandria.

   We cannot therefore assume any strict uniformity. But the whole church
   spirit of the age tended towards centralization; it everywhere felt a
   demand for compact, solid unity; and this inward bent, amidst the
   surrounding dangers of persecution and heresy, carried the church
   irresistibly towards the episcopate. In so critical and stormy a time,
   the principle, union is strength, division is weakness, prevailed over
   all. In fact, the existence of the church at that period may be said to
   have depended in a great measure on the preservation and promotion of
   unity, and that in an outward, tangible form, suited to the existing
   grade of culture. Such a unity was offered in the bishop, who held a
   monarchical, or more properly a patriarchal relation to the
   congregation. In the bishop was found the visible representative of
   Christ, the great Head of the whole church. In the bishop, therefore,
   all sentiments of piety found a centre. In the bishop the whole
   religious posture of the people towards God and towards Christ had its
   outward support and guide. And in proportion as every church pressed
   towards a single centre, this central personage must acquire a peculiar
   importance and subordinate the other presbyters to itself; though, at
   the same time, as the language of Clement and Irenaeus, the state of
   things in Egypt, and even in North Africa, and the testimony of Jerome
   and other fathers, clearly prove, the remembrance of the original
   equality could not be entirely blotted out, but continued to show
   itself in various ways.

   Besides this there was also a powerful practical reason for elevating
   the powers of the bishop. Every Christian congregation was a charitable
   society, regarding the care of the widow and orphan, the poor and the
   stranger as a sacred trust; and hence the great importance of the
   bishop as the administrative officer by whom the charitable funds were
   received and the alms disbursed. In Greek communities the title bishop
   (episkopos, epimelites), was in wide use for financial officers. Their
   administrative functions brought them in close relation to the deacons,
   as their executive aids in the care of the poor and sick. The
   archdeacon became the right arm, the "eye" and "heart" of the bishop.
   In primitive times every case of poverty or suffering was separately
   brought to the notice of the bishop and personally relieved by a
   deacon. Afterwards institutions were founded for widows and orphans,
   poor and infirm, and generally placed under the superintendence of the
   bishop; but personal responsibility was diminished by this organized
   charity, and the deacons lost their original significance and became
   subordinate officers of public worship. [187] 86

   Whatever may be thought, therefore, of the origin and the divine right
   of the episcopate, no impartial historian can deny its adaptation to
   the wants of the church at the time, and its historical necessity.

   But then, this primitive catholic episcopal system must by no means be
   confounded with the later hierarchy. The dioceses, excepting those of
   Jerusalem, Ephesus, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, must have long
   remained very small, if we look at the number of professing Christians.
   In the Apocalypse seven such centres of unity are mentioned within a
   comparatively small compass in Asia Minor, and at a time when the
   number of Christians was insignificant. In the year 258, Cyprian
   assembled a council of eighty-seven bishops of North Africa. The
   functions of the bishops were not yet strictly separated from those of
   the presbyters, and it was only by degrees that ordination, and, in the
   Western church, confirmation also, came to be intrusted exclusively to
   the bishops.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [157] Such is the Swedish and Danish Lutheran, the American Methodist,
   and the Moravian episcopate, which recognizes the validity of
   non-episcopal orders. The Anglican church harbors a high-church and a
   low-church theory of episcopacy, the one derived from the mediaeval
   hierarchy, the other from the Reformation, but repudiates the primacy
   as an antichristian usurpation, although it must be confessed to be
   almost as old as episcopacy, its roots going back to Clement of Rome,
   or at all events to the age of Irenaeus.

   [158] Comp. Euseb. vii. 27-30

   [159] See the passages quoted by Gieseler, vol. I. 282 sq. (Harpers'
   ed. of New York.)

   [160] This is the Greek, the Roman Catholic, and the high Anglican
   theory. It is advocated by a very few Continental Protestants as
   Chevalier Bunsen, Rothe and Thiersch (an Irvingite), who trace
   episcopacy to John in Ephesus.

   [161] So the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and some eminent Episcopal
   writers. We mention Mosheim, Neander, Lightfoot, Stanley, Hatch. Also
   Baur and Renan, who judge as mere critics.

   [162] Bishop Lightfoot (l.c. p. 194) thus states the question with his
   own answer: "The episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order
   by localization, but out of the presbyterial by elevation; and the
   title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be
   appropriated to the chief among them."

   [163] Acts 15:13; 21:18. Comp. vol. I. 264 sqq.

   [164] Episkopos episkopon.

   [165] Rev. 1:20. For the different views see vol. I. 497

   [166] Quis dives salvus, c. 42.

   [167] Adv.Haer. III. 3

   [168] De PraescR.C. 32

   [169] H. E.III. 36

   [170] Catal. sub Polyc

   [171] H. E. III. 11. Comp. the fragment of Hegesippus, in IV. 22.
   Lightfoot (Philippians p. 202) remarks against Rothe's inference: "The
   account of Hegesippus confines the object of this gathering to the
   appointment of a successor of St. James. If its deliberations had
   exerted that vast and permanent influence on the future of the church
   which Rothe's theory supposes, it is scarcely possible that this early
   historian should have been ignorant of the fact, or knowing it should
   have passed it over in silence."

   [172] Ad Corinth. c. 44: Hoi apostoloi hemon egnosan dia tou
   kuriouhemon Iesou Christou hoti eris estai epi tou onomatos tes
   episkopes . Dia tauten ou'n ten aitian prognosin eilephotes teleian
   katestesan tous proeiremenous kai metaxu epinomen (or epimonen) edokan,
   hopos , ean koimethosin, diadexontai heteroi dedokimasmenoi andres ten
   leitourgian auton. " Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ
   that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office [i.e.,
   the office of the ministry, in general; Comp. Acts 1:20; Sept. Num.
   4:16; Ps. 109:8; 2 Chr. 23:18]. For this cause, therefore, having
   complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons [i.e.,
   presbyter-bishops and deacons; Comp. c. 42 and 57], and afterwards they
   made the disposition [or provided a continuance, if we read with
   Lightfoot epimonen.], that if these should fall asleep, other approved
   men should succeed to their ministration."

   [173] The reading is obscure and disputed. The Alexandrian MS. reads:
   epinomen, the Constantinopolitan: epidomen (both have EPI-OMHN). The
   former word is rare (from or from nemo or fromnomos) is not found in
   the dictionaries; and hence various emendations have been proposed, as
   aponomen (Junius), epidochen (Bryennios), epibolen (von Gebhardt and
   Harnack), epimonen (Bunsen, Lightfoot), epitropen (Hilgenfeld),
   epilogen, epinomian, epistolen, epitagen, eti nomon. Rothe (Anfaenge,
   p. 374) ingeniously translates epinomen " testamentary disposition"
   (testamentarische Verfuegung =epinomis ,an after-enactment, a codicil),
   and identifies it with the deuterai diataxeis of the fragment of
   Irenaeus. But this is rejected by the latest editors as untenable.
   Lightfoot (with Bunsen) reads epimonen, permanence (not "life-tenure,"
   as Bunsen rendered it). The drift of the passage, however, does not so
   much depend upon the meaning of this word as upon the question whether
   the apostles, or the congregational officers are the grammatical
   subjects of the following verb, koimethosin.

   [174] See also Gebhardt and Harnack (presbyteri et diaconi illi, quos
   apostoli ipsi constituerunt), the Roman Catholic editor Funk
   ("koimethosin, sc. episcopi et diaconi de quorum successione Clemens
   agit"), and Bishop Lightfoot ("the first generation of presbyters
   appointed by the apostles themselves"). (Comp. also on this whole
   passage Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 203, where he refutes Rothe's
   interpretation; Baur Ursprung des Episcopats, p. 53; Ewald, Gesch. des
   Volkes Israel, VII. 300; Ritschl, Altkath. K. 358 and 413, and
   Ilgenfeld, Apost. Vaeter, 70.

   [175] Hence Rothe traces the institution to John. And Bishop Lightfoot
   (Philippians, p. 204) is inclined to this view: "Asia Minor was the
   nurse, if not the mother of episcopacy in the Gentile churches. So
   important an institution, developed in a Christian community, of which
   St. John was the living centre and guide, could hardly, have grown up
   without his sanction: and early tradition very distinctly connects his
   name with the appointment of bishops in these parts." He repeats the
   same view more confidently in his Ignat. and Polyc., I. 377.

   [176] Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5; 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 8-13; 1 Pet.
   5:1, 2. Comp. the author's Hist. of the Apost. Ch. S:S: 132, 133, pp.
   522-531 (N. York ed.); and vol. I. p. 492 sqq.

   [177] C. 42. Comp. the Commentary of Lightfoot. "It is impossible that
   he should have omitted the presbyters, more especially as his one
   object is to defend their authority, which had been assailed. The words
   episkopos and presbuteros therefore are synonymes in Clement, as they
   are in the apostolic writers. In Ignatius and Polycarp they first
   appear as distinct titles."

   [178] The hegoumenoi, c. 1, also, and the proegoumenoi, c. 21, are not
   bishops, but congregational officers collectively, as in Heb. 13:7, 17,
   24.

   [179] Ch. 15: Cheirotonesate heautois episkopous kai diakonous. See
   Schaff's monograph on the Didache, p. 211 sq

   [180] Adv. Haer. iii. 2, S:5. Comp. also the letter of Irenaeus to the
   Roman bishop Victor in Euseb., v. 24.

   [181] Comp. 2 Jno. 1. and 1.

   [182] Ad Titum i. 7. Comp. Epist. 83 and 85.

   [183] Ad Tit. i. 7: "Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt, see ex ecclesiae
   consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita
   episcopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae
   veritate presbyteris esse majores et in commune debere ecclesiam
   regere." The Roman deacon Hilary (Ambrosiaster) says, ad 1 Tim.
   3:10:"Hic enim episcopus est, qui inter presbyteros primus est." Comp.
   also Chrysostom Hom. xi. in Epist, 1 ad Tim. 38.

   [184] Epist. ad Evangelum (Opp. iv. p. 802, ed. Martinay): Alexandriae
   a Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos presbyteri
   semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum
   nominabant, quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi
   elegant de se, quem industrium noverint et archidiaconum vocent.

   [185] Ed. Oxon. 1658, p. 331: "Constituit evangelista Marcus una cum
   Hakania patriarcha duodecim presbyteros, qui nempe cum patriarcha
   manerent, adeo ut cum vacaret patriachatus, unum e duodecim presbyteris
   eligerent, cnius capiti reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi
   benedicerent et patriarcham crearent, deinde virum aliquem insignem
   eligerent, quem secum presbyterum constituerent,loco ejus, qui factus
   est patriarcha, ut ita semper exstarent duodecim. Neque desiit
   Alexandriae institutum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilcet patriarchas
   crearent ex presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempera Alexandri
   patriarchae Alexandriae. Is autem vetuit, ne deinceps patriarcham
   presbyteri crearent. Et decrervit, ut mortuo patriarcha convenient
   episcopi, qui patriarcham ordinarent."

   [186] Mark 5:35, 36, 38; Luke 8:41-49; Acts 18:8-17.

   [187] The philanthropic and financial aspect of episcopacy has been
   brought out very fully by Hatch, in his Bampton Lectures on The
   Organization of the Early Christian Churches, Lect. II.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 45. Development of the Episcopate. Ignatius.

   It is matter of fact that the episcopal form of government was
   universally established in the Eastern and Western church as early as
   the middle of the second century. Even the heretical sects, at least
   the Ebionites, as we must infer from the commendation of the episcopacy
   in the pseudo-Clementine literature, were organized on this plan, as
   well as the later schismatic parties of Novatians, Donatists, etc. But
   it is equally undeniable, that the episcopate reached its complete form
   only step by step. In the period before us we must note three stages in
   this development connected with the name of Ignatius in Syria (d. 107
   or 115), Irenaeus in Gaul (d. 202), and Cyprian in North Africa (d.
   258).

   The episcopate first appears, as distinct from the presbyterate, but as
   a congregational office only (in distinction from the diocesan idea),
   and as yet a young institution, greatly needing commendation, in the
   famous seven (or three) Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch a disciple of
   the apostles, and the second bishop of that see (Evodius being the
   first, and Hero the third). He is also the first who uses the term
   "catholic church," as if episcopacy and catholicity sprung up
   simultaneously. The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than
   real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent
   interpolation. We have three different versions of the Ignatian
   Epistles, but only one of them can be genuine; either the smaller Greek
   version, or the lately discovered Syriac. [188] 87 In the latter, which
   contains only three epistles, most of the passages on the episcopate
   are wanting, indeed; yet the leading features of the institution appear
   even here, and we can recognise ex ungue leonem. [189] 88 In any case
   they reflect the public sentiment before the middle of the second
   century.

   The substance of these epistles (with the exception of that to the
   Romans, in which, singularly enough, not a word is said about bishops
   [190] 89), consists of earnest exhortations to obey the bishop and
   maintain the unity of the church against the Judaistic and docetic
   heresies. With the near prospect and the most ardent desire for
   martyrdom, the author has no more fervent wish than the perfect inward
   and outward unity of the faithful; and to this the episcopate seems to
   him indispensable. In his view Christ is the invisible supreme head,
   the one great universal bishop of all the churches scattered over the
   earth. The human bishop is the centre of unity for the single
   congregation, and stands in it as the vicar of Christ and even of God.
   [191] 90 The people, therefore, should unconditionally obey him, and do
   nothing without his will. Blessed are they who are one with the bishop,
   as the church is with Christ, and Christ with the Father, so that all
   harmonizes in unity. Apostasy from the bishop is apostasy from Christ,
   who acts in and through the bishops as his organs.

   We shall give passages from the shorter Greek text (as edited by Zahn):

   If any one is able to continue in purity (en hagneia i.e., in the state
   of celibacy), to the honor of the flesh of our Lord, let him continue
   so without boasting; if he boasts, he is lost (apoleto) if he become
   known more than the bishop, [192] 91 he is corrupt (ephthartai). It is
   becoming, therefore, to men and women who marry, that they marry by the
   counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in the Lord, and not in
   lust. Let ever thing be done for the honor of God. Look to the bishop,
   that God also [may look] upon you. I will be in harmony with those who
   are subject to the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons; with
   them may I have a portion near God!" This passage is one of the
   strongest, and occurs in the Syriac Epistle to Polycarp as well as in
   the shorter Greek recension. [193] 92 It characteristically connected
   episcopacy with celibacy: the ascetic system of Catholicism starts in
   celibacy, as the hierarchical organization of Catholicism takes its
   rise in episcopacy. "It becomes you to be in harmony with the mind (or
   sentence, gnome) of the bishop, as also ye do. For your most estimable
   presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted to the bishop as the strings are
   to the harp." [194] 93 "It is evident that we should look upon the
   bishop as we do upon the Lord himself." [195] 94 "I exhort you that ye
   study to do all things with a divine concord: the bishop presiding in
   the place of God (eis topon theou), and presbyters in the place of the
   college of the apostles, (eis topon sunedriou ton apostolon), and the
   deacons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the ministry (diakonian)
   of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before all ages, and in the
   end appeared to us." [196] 95 "Be subject to the bishop, and to one
   another, as Christ [was subject] to the Father according to the flesh,
   and the apostles to Christ and to the Father and to the Spirit, in
   order that the union be carnal (sarkike), as well as spiritual." [197]
   96 "It is necessary, as is your habit, to do nothing without the
   bishop, and that ye should be subject also to the presbytery (to
   presbuterio), as to the apostles of Jesus Christ." [198] 97 "As many as
   are of God and of Jesus Christ, are also with their bishop." [199] 98
   "Let all of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ [follows] the
   Father; and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the
   deacons as the ordinance of God. Without the bishop let no one do
   anything connected with the church. Let that eucharist be accounted
   valid which is [offered] under the bishop or by one he has appointed.
   Wherever the bishop is found, there let the people be; as wherever
   Christ is, there is the catholic church. Without the bishop it is not
   lawful either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast." [200] 99

   This is the first time that the term "catholic" is applied to the
   church, and that episcopacy is made a condition of catholicity.

   "He that honors the bishop, shall be honored by God; he that does
   anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves the devil." [201]
   00

   This is making salvation pretty much depend upon obedience to the
   bishop; just as Leo I., three centuries later, in the controversy with
   Hilary of Arles, made salvation depend upon obedience to the pope by
   declaring every rebel against the pope to be a servant of the devil!
   Such daring superabundance of episcopalianism clearly betrays some
   special design and raises the suspicion of forgery or large
   interpolations. But it may also be explained as a special pleading for
   a novelty which to the mind of the writer was essential to the very
   existence of the church.

   The peculiarity in this Ignatian view is that the bishop appears in it
   as the head and centre of a single congregation, and not as equally the
   representative of the whole church; also, that (as in the
   pseudo-Clementine Homilies) he is the vicar of Christ, and not, as in
   the later view, merely the successor of the apostles,--the presbyters
   and deacons around him being represented as those successors; and
   finally, that there are no distinctions of order among the bishops, no
   trace of a primacy; all are fully coordinate vicars of Christ, who
   provides for himself in them, as it were, a sensible, perceptible
   omnipresence in the church. The Ignatian episcopacy, in short, is
   congregational, not diocesan; a new and growing institution, not a
   settled policy of apostolic origin.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [188] The question of the genuineness will be discussed in S:165.
   Cureton (1845) Bunsen, Lipsius, and others accept the Syriac version as
   the original form of the Ignatian epistles, and regard even the short
   Greek text as corrupt, but yet as dating from the middle of the second
   century. Rothe, Hefele, Schaff (first ed.), Duesterdieck, Uhlhorn,
   Zahn, Harnack, defend the genuineness of the shorter Greek recension.
   The larger Greek recension is universally given up as spurious. The
   origin of the hierarchical system is obscured by pious frauds. See
   below, S:164 and 165.

   [189] In the Syriac Ep. to Polycarp, the word bishop occurs four times;
   in the Syriac Ep. to the Ephesians, God is blessed for having given
   them such a bishop as Onesimus. In the shorter Greek Ep. to Polycarp
   episcopacy is mentioned in the salutation, and in three of the eight
   chapters (ch. 5 twice, ch. 6 twice, ch. 8 once). In the 21 chapters of
   the Greek Ep. to the Ephesians, the word bishop occurs thirteen times,
   presbyter three times, and deacon once (in the first six chapters, and
   ch. 21). In the Greek Trallians, the bishop appears nine times; in the
   Magnesians, eleven times; in the Philadelphians, eight times; in the
   Smynaeans, nine times. Thus in the three Syriac Epistles the bishop is
   mentioned but six times; in the seven shorter Greek Epistles about
   fifty times; but one of the strongest passages is found in the Syriac
   Epistle to Polycarp (ch. 5. and 6.).

   [190] Except that Ignatius speaks of himself as "the bishop of Syria,"
   who "has found favor with God, being sent from the East to the West"
   (ch. 2). The verb episkopeo is also used, but of Christ (ch. 9).

   [191] Episkopos eis topon theou prokathemenos, each bisbop being thus a
   sort of pope.

   [192] Zahn reads, Ad Polyc. cap. 5: ean gnosthe pleon tou episkopou,i.e
   . if he be better known or more esteemed than the bishop. The other
   reading is, plen, beyond, or apart from.

   [193] Ad Polyc. cap. 5 and 6. The Greek text varies but little from the
   Syriac.

   [194] Ad Ephes. c. 4: Houtos sunermostai to episkopo. hos chordai
   kithara.

   [195] Ad Ephes c. 6: Ton oun episkopon delon hoti hos auton ton kurion
   dei problepein.

   [196] Ad Magnes. c. 6.

   [197] Ibid. c. 13. The desire for "carnal" unity is significant,

   [198] Ad Trallian. c. 2: Anankaion estin, hosper poieite, aneu tou
   episkopou meden prassein humas ktl.

   [199] Ad Philad. c. 3.

   [200] Ad. Smyrn. c. 8: Opou an phane ho episkopos, ekei to plethos
   esto, hosper a?`n e Christos Iesous , ekei he katholike ekklesia.

   [201] Ad Smyrn. c. 9: Ho timon episkopon hupo theou tetimetai; ho
   lathra episkopou ti prasson to diabolo latreuei..
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 46. Episcopacy at the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

   In all these points the idea of the episcopate in Irenaeus, the great
   opponent of Gnosticism (about 180), is either lower or higher. This
   father represents the institution as a diocesan office, and as the
   continuation of the apostolate, the vehicle of the catholic tradition,
   and the support of doctrinal unity in opposition to heretical vagaries.
   He exalts the bishops of the original apostolic churches, above all the
   church of Rome, and speaks with great emphasis of an unbroken episcopal
   succession as a test of apostolic teaching and a bulwark against
   heresy. [202] 01

   At the same time the wavering terminology of Irenaeus in the
   interchangeable use of the words "bishop" and "presbyter" reminds us of
   Clement of Rome, and shows that the distinction of the two orders was
   not yet fully fixed. [203] 02

   The same view of the episcopal succession as the preserver of apostolic
   tradition and guardian of orthodox doctrine, we find also, though less
   frequently, in the earlier writings of Tertullian, with this difference
   that he uniformly and clearly distinguishes bishops and presbyters, and
   thus proves a more advanced state of the episcopal polity at his time
   (about 200). [204] 03 But afterwards, in the chiliastic and democratic
   cause of Montanism, he broke with the episcopal hierarchy, and
   presented against it the antithesis that the church does not consist of
   bishops, and that the laity are also priests. [205] 04
     __________________________________________________________________

   [202] Comp. Adv. Haer. III. 3, S:1, 2; 4, 1; IV. 33, S:8. I remember
   what great stress the late Dr. Posey, when I saw him at Oxford in 1844,
   laid on the testimony of Irenaeus for the doctrine of an unbroken
   episcopal succession, as the indispensable mark of a genuine Catholic
   church; while he ignored the simultaneous growth of the primacy, which
   a year afterwards carried his friend, J. H. Newman, over to the church
   of Rome. The New Testament is the only safe guide and ultimate standard
   in all matters of faith and discipline. The teaching of Irenaeus on
   episcopacy is well set forth by Lightfoot (l.c. p. 237): Irenaeus
   followed Ignatius after an interval of about two generations. With the
   altered circumstances of the Church, the aspect of the episcopal office
   has also undergone a change. The religious atmosphere is now charged
   with heretical speculations of all kinds. Amidst the competition of
   rival teachers. all eagerly bidding for support, the perplexed believer
   asks for some decisive test by which he may try the claims of
   disputants. To this question Irenaeeus supplies an answer. 'If you
   wish,' he argues, 'to ascertain the doctrine of the Apostles, apply to
   the Church of the Apostles.' In the succession of bishops tracing their
   descent from the primitive age and appointed by the Apostles
   themselves, you have a guarantee for the transmission of the pure
   faith, which no isolated, upstart, self-constituted teacher can
   furnish. There is the Church of Rome for instance, whose episcopal
   pedigree is perfect in all its links, and whose earliest bishops, Linus
   and Clement, associated with the Apostles themselves: there is the
   Church of Smyrna again, whose bishop Polycarp, the disciple of St.
   John, died only the other day. Thus the episcopate is regarded now not
   so much as the centre of ecclesiastical unity, but rather as the
   depositary of apostolic tradition."

   [203] Comp. Adv. Haer.III. 2, S:2; IV. 26; V. 20; and his letter to
   Victor of Rome in Eusebius, H E. V. 24.

   [204] De Praescr. HaeR.C. 32, 36

   [205] . Non ecclesia numerus episcoporum. De Pudic. c. 21. Comp. S: 42,
   p. 128.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 47. Cyprianic Episcopacy.

   The old catholic episcopalianism reached its maturity in the middle of
   the third century in the teaching and example of Cyprian, bishop and
   martyr of the church in North Africa. He represents the claims of
   episcopacy in close connection with the idea of a special priesthood
   and sacrifice. [206] 05 He is the typical high-churchman of the
   ante-Nicene age. He vigorously put into practice what he honestly
   believed. He had a good opportunity to assert his authority in the
   controversy about the lapsed during the Decian persecution, in the
   schism of Felicissimus, and in the controversy on heretical baptism.

   Cyprian considers the bishops as the bearers of the Holy Spirit, who
   passed from Christ to the apostles, from them by ordination to the
   bishops, propagates himself in an unbroken line of succession, and
   gives efficacy to all religious exercises. Hence they are also the
   pillars of the unity of the church; nay, in a certain sense they are
   the church itself. "The bishop," says he, "is in the church, and the
   church in the bishop, and if any one is not with the bishop he is not
   in the church." [207] 06 And this is the same with him as to say, he is
   no Christian. Cyprian is thoroughly imbued with the idea of the
   solidary unity of the episcopate,--the many bishops exercising only one
   office in solidum, each within his diocese, and each at the same time
   representing in himself the whole office. [208] 07

   But with all this, the bishop still appears in Cyprian in the closest
   connexion with the presbyters. He undertook no important matter without
   their advice. The fourth general council, at Carthage, a.d. 398, even
   declared the sentence of a bishop, without the concurrence of the lower
   clergy, void, and decreed that in the ordination of a presbyter, all
   the presbyters, with the bishop, should lay their hands on the
   candidate. [209] 08

   The ordination of a bishop was performed by the neighboring bishops,
   requiring at least three in number. In Egypt, however, so long as there
   was but one bishop there, presbyters must have performed the
   consecration, which Eutychius [210] 09 and Hilary the Deacon [211] 10
   expressly assert was the case.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [206] "As Cyprian crowned the edifice of episcopal power, so also was
   he the first to put forward without relief or disguise the sacerdotal
   assumptions; and so uncompromising was the tone in which he asserted
   them, that nothing was left to his successors but to enforce his
   principles and reiterate his language." Lightfoot l. c. p. 257. "If
   with Ignatius the bishop is the centre of Christian unity, if with
   Irenaeus he is the depository of apostolic tradition, with Cyprian he
   is the absolute viceregerent of Christ in thing spiritual."Ibid. p.
   238.

   [207] Epist. lxvi. 3. Comp. Ep. lv. 20: Christianus non est, qui in
   Christi ecclesia non est

   [208] De Unit. Eccl. c. 5:Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in
   solidum pars tenetur. Comp.Ep. lv. 20: Quum sit a Christo una ecclesia
   per totum mundum in multa membra divisa, item episcopatus unus
   episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus.

   [209] Can. 3:Presbyter quum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et
   manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui praesentes
   sunt, manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant.

   [210] Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandr. Annal. interpr. Pocockio (Oxon.
   1658, I. p. 331). See the passage quoted, p. 141.

   [211] Or Ambrosiaster, Ad Eph. iv. 11.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 48. The Pseudo-Clementine Episcopacy.

   Besides this orthodox or catholic formation of the episcopate, the
   kindred monarchical hierarchy of the Ebionitic sect deserves attention,
   as it meets us in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies. Chronologically this
   falls in the middle of the second century, between Ignatius and
   Irenaeus, and forms a sort of transition from the former to the latter;
   though it cannot exactly be said to have influenced the Catholic
   church. It is rather a heretical counterpart of the orthodox
   episcopate. The organization which consolidated the Catholic church
   answered the same purpose for a sect. The author of the
   pseudo-Clementine, like Ignatius, represents the bishop as the vicar of
   Christ, [212] 11 and at the same time, according to the view of
   Irenaeus, as the vicar and successor of the apostles; [213] 12 but
   outstrips both in his high hierarchical expressions, such as kathedra
   thronos tou episkopou, and in his idea of the primacy, or of a
   universal church monarchy, which he finds, however, not as Irenaeus
   suggests and Cyprian more distinctly states, in Peter and the Roman
   see, but, agreeably to his Judaistic turn, in James of, Jerusalem, the
   "bishop of bishops." [214] 13

   The Manichaeans had likewise a hierarchical organization (as the
   Mormons in modern times).

   Montanism, on the other hand, was a democratic reaction against the
   episcopal hierarchy in favor of the general priesthood, and the liberty
   of teaching and prophesying, but it was excommunicated and died out,
   till it reappeared under a different form in Quakerism.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [212] Hom. iii. 60, 62, 66, 70. Ep. Clem. ad Jac. 17. Comp. Recogn.
   iii. 66.

   [213] Hom. xi. 36; Recogn. iii. 66; vi. 15.

   [214] Episkopos episkopon , Hom. xi. 35; Recogn. iv. 35.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 49. Beginnings of the Metropolitan and Patriarchal Systems

   Though the bishops were equal in their dignity and powers as successors
   of the apostles, they gradually fell into different ranks, according to
   the ecclesiastical and political importance of their several districts.

   1. On the lowest level stood the bishops of the country churches, the
   chorepiscopi who, though not mentioned before the beginning of the
   fourth century, probably originated at an earlier period. [215] 14 They
   stood between the presbyters and the city bishops, and met the wants of
   episcopal supervision in the villages of large dioceses in Asia Minor
   and Syria, also in Gaul.

   2. Among the city bishops the metropolitans rose above the rest, that
   is, the bishops of the capital cities of the provinces. [216] 15 They
   presided in the provincial synods, and, as primi inter pares, ordained
   the bishops of the province. The metropolitan system appears, from the
   Council of Nicaea in 325, to have been already in operation at the time
   of Constantine and Eusebius, and was afterwards more fully carried out
   in the East. In North Africa the oldest bishop, hence called senex,
   stood as primas, at the head of his province; but the bishop of
   Carthage enjoyed the highest consideration, and could summon general
   councils.

   3. Still older and more important is the distinction of apostolic
   mother-churches, [217] 16 such as those at Jerusalem, Antioch)
   Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. In the time of Irenaeus and
   Tertullian they were held in the highest regard, as the chief bearers
   of the pure church tradition. Among these Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome
   were most prominent, because they were the capitals respectively of the
   three divisions (eparchiae) of the Roman empire, and centres of trade
   and intercourse, combining with their apostolic origin the greatest
   political weight. To the bishop of Antioch fell all Syria as his
   metropolitan district; to the bishop of Alexandria, all Egypt; to the
   bishop of Rome, central and lower Italy, without definite boundaries.

   4. Here we have the germs of the eparchal or patriarchal system, to
   which the Greek church to this day adheres. The name patriarch was at
   first, particularly in the East, an honorary title for all bishops, and
   was not till the fourth century exclusively appropriated to the bishops
   of the three ecclesiastical and political capitals of the Roman empire,
   Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, and also to the bishop of Jerusalem
   honoris causa, and the bishop of Constantinople or New Rome. So in the
   West the term papa afterwards appropriated by the Roman bishop, as
   summus pontifex, vicarius Christi, was current for a long time in a
   more general application.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [215] The country bishops (chorepiskopoi) appear first in the councils
   of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea, 314, and again in the Council of Nicaea.
   They continued to exist in the East till the 9th century, when they
   were superseded by the exarchs (exarchoi) In the West, the chorepiscopi
   performed regular episcopal functions, without proper subordination to
   the diocesans, and hence excited jealousy and hostility till the office
   was abolished under Charlemagne, and continued only as a title of
   various cathedral dignitaries. See Haddan in Smith & Cheetham Dict.
   Chr. Ant. I. 354, and the authorities quoted there

   [216] metropoleis, Hence metropolitai.

   [217] Sedes apostolicae, matrices ecclesiae.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 50. Germs of the Papacy.

   Comp. the Lit. in vol. I. S:25 (p. 245).

   Blondel: Traite historique de la primaute en l'eglise. Geneve, 1641.

   Salmasius: De Primatu Papae. Lugd. Bat. 1645.

   Is. Barrow: The Pope's Supremacy. Lond. 1680 (new ed. Oxf. 1836. N.
   York, 1845).

   Rothensee (R.C.): Der Primal Des Papstes in allen Christlichen
   Jahrhunderten, 3 vols. Mainz, 1836-38 (I. 1-98).

   Kenrick (R.C., archbishop of Baltimore, d. 1853): The Primacy of the
   Apostolic See vindicated. N. York, 4th ed. 1855.

   R. I. Wilberforce (formerly archdeacon in the Anglican church; died in
   the Roman church, 1857): An Inquiry into the Principles of Church
   Authority; or Reasons for Recalling my subscriptions to the Royal
   Supremacy. Lond. 1854 (ch. vi.-x.).

   J. E. Riddle: The History of the Papacy to the Period of the
   Reformation. Lond. 1856. 2 vols. (Chapter 1, p. 2-113; chiefly taken
   from Schroeckh and Planck).

   Thomas Greenwood: Cathedra Petri. A Political History of the great
   Latin Patriarchate. Lond. 1856-1872. 6 vols. Vol. I. ch. I.-VI. (A work
   of independent and reliable learning.)

   Joh. Friedrich (Old Cath.): Zur aeltesten Geschichte des Primates in
   der Kirche. Bonn, 1879.

   E Renan: Conferences d'Angleterre. Rome et le christianisme. Paris
   1880. The Hibbert Lectures delivered in Lond. 1880. English translation
   by Charles Beard, London (Williams & Norgate) 1880, another by Erskine
   Clement (Boston, 1880). Consists mostly of extracts from his books on
   the Origin of Christianity, skillfully put together.

   H. Formby (R.C.): Ancient Rome and its connection with the Christian
   Religion. London 1880.

   Jos. Langen (Old Cath.): Geschichte der roemischen Kirche bis zum
   Pontificate Leo's I. Bonn, 1881.

   R. F. Littledale (Anglo-Cath.): The Petrine Claims, A Critical Inquiry
   London 1880. Controversial.

   Among the great bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, the Roman
   bishop combined all the conditions for a primacy, which, from a purely
   honorary distinction, gradually became the basis of a supremacy of
   jurisdiction. The same propension to monarchical unity, which created
   out of the episcopate a centre, first for each congregation, then for
   each diocese, pressed on towards a visible centre for the whole church.
   Primacy and episcopacy grew together. In the present period we already
   find the faint beginnings of the papacy, in both its good and its evil
   features; and with them, too, the first examples of earnest protest
   against the abuse of its power. In the Nicene age the bishop of
   Jerusalem was made an honorary patriarch in view of the antiquity of
   that church, though his diocese was limited; and from the middle of the
   fourth century the new patriarch of Constantinople or New Rome, arose
   to the primacy among the eastern patriarchs, and became a formidable
   rival of the bishop of old Rome.

   The Roman church claims not only human but divine right for the papacy,
   and traces its institution directly to Christ, when he assigned to
   Peter an eminent position in the work of founding his church, against
   which even the gates of hades shall never prevail. This claim implies
   several assumptions, viz. (1) that Peter by our Lord's appointment had
   not simply a primacy of personal excellency, or of honor and dignity
   (which must be conceded to him), but also a supremacy of jurisdiction
   over the other apostles (which is contradicted by the fact that Peter
   himself never claimed it, and that Paul maintained a position of
   perfect independence, and even openly rebuked him at Antioch, Gal.
   2:11); (2) that the privileges of this primacy and supremacy are not
   personal only (as the peculiar gifts of Paul or John undoubtedly were),
   but official, hereditary and transferable; (3) that they were actually
   transferred by Peter, not upon the bishop of Jerusalem, or Antioch
   (where Peter certainly was), but upon the bishop of Rome; (4) that
   Peter was not only at Rome (which is very probable after 63, though not
   as certain as Paul's presence and martyrdom in Rome), but acted there
   as bishop till his martyrdom, and appointed a successor (of which there
   is not the slightest historical evidence); and (5) that the bishops of
   Rome, as successors of Peter, have always enjoyed and exercised an
   universal jurisdiction over the Christian church (which is not the case
   as a matter of fact, and still less as a matter of conceded right).

   Leaving a full discussion of most of these points to polemical
   theology, we are here concerned with the papacy as a growth of history,
   and have to examine the causes which have gradually raised it to its
   towering eminence among the governing institutions of the world.

   The historical influences which favored the ascendency of the Roman see
   were:

   (1) The high antiquity of the Roman church, which had been honored even
   by Paul with the most important doctrinal epistle of the New Testament.
   It was properly the only apostolic mother-church in the West, and was
   thus looked upon from the first by the churches of Italy, Gaul, and
   Spain, with peculiar reverence.

   (2) The labors, martyrdom, and burial at Rome of Peter and Paul, the
   two leading apostles. The whole Roman congregation passed through the
   fearful ordeal of martyrdom during the Neronian persecution, but must
   soon afterwards have been reorganized, with a halo of glory arising
   from the graves of the victims.

   (3) The political pre-eminence of that metropolis of the world, which
   was destined to rule the European races with the sceptre of the cross,
   as she had formerly ruled them with the sword.

   (4) The executive wisdom and the catholic orthodox instinct of the
   Roman church, which made themselves felt in this period in the three
   controversies on the time of Easter, the penitential discipline, and
   the validity of heretical baptism.

   To these may be added, as secondary causes, her firmness under
   persecutions, and her benevolent care for suffering brethren even in
   distant places, as celebrated by Dionysius of Corinth (180), and by
   Eusebius.

   From the time of St. Paul's Epistle (58), when he bestowed high praise
   on the earlier Roman converts, to the episcopate of Victor at the close
   of the second century, and the unfavorable account by Hippolytus of
   Pope Zephyrinus and Pope Callistus, we have no express and direct
   information about the internal state of the Roman church. But
   incidentally it is more frequently mentioned than any other. Owing to
   its metropolitan position, it naturally grew in importance and
   influence with the spread of the Christian religion in the empire. Rome
   was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects
   and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false
   in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of
   suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired
   hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr
   presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid
   down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to
   that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally
   sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as
   Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No
   wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked
   upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an
   air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese.

   Clement of Rome.

   The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found
   towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman
   bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of
   Corinth. This epistle, full of beautiful exhortations to harmony, love,
   and humility, was sent, as the very address shows, [218] 17 not in the
   bishop's own name, which is not mentioned at all, but in that of the
   Roman congregation, which speaks always in the first person plural. It
   was a service of love, proffered by one church to another in time of
   need. Similar letters of instruction, warning and comfort were written
   to other congregations by Ignatius, Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth,
   Irenaeus. Nevertheless it can hardly be denied that the document
   reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary
   congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as
   appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an
   important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts
   her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the
   organ of God and the Holy Spirit. [219] 18 This is all the more
   surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in
   Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome. The hierarchical spirit
   arose from the domineering spirit of the Roman church, rather than the
   Roman bishop or the presbyters who were simply the organs of the
   people. [220] 19 But a century later the bishop of Rome was substituted
   for the church of Rome, when Victor in his own name excommunicated the
   churches of Asia Minor for a trifling difference of ritual. From this
   hierarchical assumption there was only one step towards the papal
   absolutism of a Leo and Hildebrand, and this found its ultimate
   doctrinal climax in the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility.

   Ignatius.

   Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Romans (even in the Syriac recension),
   applies to that congregation a number of high-sounding titles, and
   describes her as "presiding in the place of the region of the Romans,"
   and as "taking the lead in charity." [221] 20 This is meant as a
   commendation of her practical benevolence for which she was famous.
   Dionysius of Corinth in his letter to Soter of Rome testifies to it as
   saying: "This practice has prevailed with you from the very beginning,
   to do good to all the brethren in every way, and to send contributions
   to many churches in every city." [222] 21 The Roman church was no doubt
   more wealthy than any other, and the liberal use of her means must have
   greatly increased her influence. Beyond this, Ignatius cannot be quoted
   as a witness for papal claims. He says not a word of the primacy, nor
   does he even mention Clement or any other bishop of Rome. The church
   alone is addressed throughout. He still had a lively sense of the
   difference between a bishop and an apostle. "I do not command you," he
   writes to the Romans, "as if I were Peter or Paul; they were apostles."

   Irenaeus.

   Irenaeus calls Rome the greatest, the oldest(?) church, acknowledged by
   all, founded by the two most illustrious apostles, Peter and Paul, the
   church, with which, on account of her more important precedence, all
   Christendom must agree, or (according to another interpretation) to
   which (as the metropolis of the world) all other churches must resort.
   [223] 22 The "more important precedence" places her above the other
   apostolic churches, to which likewise a precedence is allowed.

   This is surely to be understood, however, as a precedence only of
   honor, not of jurisdiction. For when Pope Victor, about the year 190,
   in hierarchical arrogance and intolerance, broke fellowship with the
   churches of Asia Minor, for no other reason but because they adhered to
   their tradition concerning the celebration of Easter, the same
   Irenaeus, though agreeing with him on the disputed point itself,
   rebuked him very emphatically as a troubler of the peace of the church,
   and declared himself against a forced uniformity in such unessential
   matters. Nor did the Asiatic churches allow themselves to be
   intimidated by the dictation of Victor. They answered the Roman
   tradition with that of their own sedes apostolicae. The difference
   continued until the council at Nicaea at last settled the controversy
   in favor of the Roman practice, but even long afterwards the old
   British churches differed from the Roman practice in the Easter
   observance to the time of Gregory I.

   Hippolytus.

   The celebrated Hippolytus, in the beginning of the third century, was a
   decided antagonist of the Roman bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus, both
   for doctrinal and disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless we learn from his
   work called Philosophumena, that at that time the Roman bishop already
   claimed an absolute power within his own jurisdiction; and that
   Callistus, to the great grief of part of the presbytery, laid down the
   principle, that a bishop can never be deposed or compelled to resign by
   the presbytery, even though he have committed a mortal sin.

   Tertullian.

   Tertullian points the heretics to the apostolic mother churches, as the
   chief repositories of pure doctrine; and among these gives especial
   prominence to that of Rome, where Peter was crucified, Paul beheaded,
   and John immersed unhurt in boiling oil(?) and then banished to the
   island. Yet the same father became afterwards an opponent of Rome. He
   attacked its loose penitential discipline, and called the Roman bishop
   (probably Zephyrinus), in irony and mockery, "pontifex maximus" and
   "episcopus episcoporum."

   Cyprian.

   Cyprian is clearest, both in his advocacy of the fundamental idea of
   the papacy, and in his protest against the mode of its application in a
   given case. Starting from the superiority of Peter, upon whom the Lord
   built his church, and to whom he intrusted the feeding of his sheep, in
   order to represent thereby the unity in the college of the apostles,
   Cyprian transferred the same superiority to the Bishop of Rome, as the
   successor of Peter, and accordingly called the Roman church the chair
   of Peter, and the fountain of priestly unity, [224] 23 the root, also,
   and mother of the catholic church. [225] 24 But on the other side, he
   asserts with equal energy the equality and relative independence of the
   bishops, as successors of the apostles, who had all an equally direct
   appointment from Christ. In his correspondence he uniformly addresses
   the Roman bishop as "brother" and "colleague," conscious of his own
   equal dignity and authority. And in the controversy about heretical
   baptism, he opposes Pope Stephen with almost Protestant independence,
   accusing him of error and abuse of his power, and calling a tradition
   without truth an old error. Of this protest he never retracted a word.

   Firmilian.

   Still more sharp and unsparing was the Cappadocian bishop, Firmilian, a
   disciple of Origen, on the bishop of Rome, while likewise implying a
   certain acknowledgment of his primacy. Firmilian charges him with
   folly, and with acting unworthily of his position; because, as the
   successor of Peter, he ought rather to further the unity of the church
   than to destroy it, and ought to abide on the rock foundation instead
   of laying a new one by recognizing heretical baptism. Perhaps the
   bitterness of Firmilian was due partly to his friendship and veneration
   for Origen, who had been condemned by a council at Rome.

   Nevertheless, on this question of baptism, also, as on those of Easter,
   and of penance, the Roman church came out victorious in the end.

   Comparative Insignificance of the first Popes.

   From these testimonies it is clear, that the growing influence of the
   Roman see was rooted in public opinion and in the need of unity in the
   ancient church. It is not to be explained at all by the talents and the
   ambition of the incumbents. On the contrary, the personality of the
   thirty popes of the first three centuries falls quite remarkably into
   the background; though they are all canonized saints and, according to
   a later but extremely doubtful tradition, were also, with two
   exceptions, martyrs. [226] 25 Among them, and it may be said down to
   Leo the Great, about the middle of the fifth century, there was hardly
   one, perhaps Clement, who could compare, as a church leader, with an
   Ignatius, a Cyprian, and an Ambrose; or, as a theologian, with an
   Irenaeus, a Tertullian, an Athanasius, and an Augustin. [227] 26
   Jerome, among his hundred and thirty-six church celebrities, of the
   first four centuries, brings in only four Roman bishops, Clement,
   Victor, Cornelius, and Damasus, and even these wrote only a few
   epistles. Hippolytus, in his Philosophumena, written about 225, even
   presents two contemporaneous popes, St. Zephyrinus (202-218) and
   Callistus (St. Calixtus I., 218-223), from his own observation, though
   not without partisan feeling, in a most unfavorable light; charging the
   first with ignorance and avarice, [228] 27 the second with scandalous
   conduct (he is said to have been once a swindler and a fugitive slave
   rescued from suicide), and both of them with the Patripassian heresy.
   Such charges could not have been mere fabrications with so honorable an
   author as Hippolytus, even though he was a schismatic rival bishop to
   Callistus; they must have had at least some basis of fact.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [218] He ekklesia tou theou, he paroikousa Rhomen te ekklesia tou
   theou, te paroikouse Korinthon. "The church of God which sojourns at
   Rome to the church of God which mourns at Corinth!"Paroikos is a
   temporary, katoikos a permanent, resident. The Christians appear here
   as strangers and pilgrims in this world, who have their home in heaven;
   comp. 1 Pet. 1:17; 2:11; Heb. 11:13

   [219] This is very evident towards the close from the newly discovered
   portions, chs. 59, 62 and 63 edition of Bryennios, Const. 1875). The
   chapters should new light on the origin of the papal domination. Comp.
   the judicious remarks of Lightfoot in his Appendix to S. Clement of
   Rome (Lond. 1877), p. 252 sqq.

   [220] It is quite evident from the Epistle itself that at that time the
   Roman congregation was still governed by a college of presbyters
   (collegialisch, nicht monarchisch, as Langen, l.c. p. 81, expresses
   it).

   [221] Prokathemene tes agapes , praesidens in caritate. Inscription.
   Zahn in his ed., p. 75, says: "In caritatis operibus semper primum
   locum sibi vindicavit ecclesia Romana." Some Roman Catholic writers (as
   Moehler, Patrol. I. 144) explain the phrase very artificially and
   hierarchically: "head of the love-union of Christendom (Vorsteherin des
   Liebesbundes)."Agape never means church, but either love, or
   love-feast. See Langen, l.c. p. 94.

   [222] Euseb., Hist. Eccl. IV. 23, 10: ex arches humin ethos esti touto,
   pantas men adelphous poikilos euergetein, ekklesiais te pollais tais
   mata pasan polin ephodia pempein

   [223] The famous Passage, Adv. Haer. iii. S:2, is only extant in Latin,
   and of disputed interpretation: "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter
   potentiorem (according to Massuet's conjecture: potiorem)
   principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesia, hoc est, eos qui
   sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique,
   conservata est ab apostolis traditio." In the original Greek it
   probably read: Pros tauten gar ten ekklesian dia ten hikanoteran
   proteian sumbainein (or, in the local sense, sunerchesthai) dei
   (according to others: ananke, natural necessity) pasan ten ekklesian,
   etc. The stress lies on principalitas, which stands probably for
   proteia (so Thiersch and Gieseler). Comp. Iren. IV. 38, 3, where
   proteuei is rendered principatitatem habet. Stieren and Ziegler
   (Irenaeus, 1871, p. 152), however, translate propter potentiorem
   principalitatem: hoia ten hikanoteran archaioteta, " on account of the
   higher antiquity."Comp. on the whole passage an essay by Thiersch in
   the " Studien und Kritiken" 1842, 512 sqq.; Gieseler I. 1. p. 214 (S:
   51); Schneemann: Sancti Irenaei de ecclesia Romanae principatu
   testimonium commentatum et defensum, Freiburg i. B. 1870, and Langen,
   l.c. p. 170 sqq. Langen (who is an Old Catholic of the Doellinger
   school) explains: " Die potior principalitas bezeichnet den Vorrang,
   welchen die Kirche der Hauptptstadt als solche vor alten uebrigen
   Kirchen besass ... die Hauptstadt war das Centrum des damaligen
   Weltverkehrs, und in Folge dessen der Sammelplats von Christen aller
   Art."He defends the local sense of convenire by parallel passages from
   Herveus of Bordeaux and Hugo Eterianus (p. 172 sq.). But the moral
   sense (to agree)seems more natural.

   [224] Petri cathedram atque ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas
   sacerdotalis exorta est. Epist. lv. c. 19 (ed. Bal.) Ad Cornelium
   episc. Rom. In Goldhorn's ed., Ep. lix. 19.

   [225] Ecclesiae catholicae radicem et matricem. Ep. xl. 2 ed. Bal.
   (xlviii. ed. Goldh.). Other passages in Cyrian favorable to the Roman
   see are either interpolations or corruptions in the interest of the
   papacy.

   [226] Irenaeus recognizes among the Roman bishops from Clement to
   Eleutherus (177), all of whom he mentions by name, only one martyr, to
   wit, Telesphorus, of whom he says: hos kai endoxos emarturese, P, Adv.
   Haer. III., c. 3, S:3. So Eusebius, H. E. V. 6. From this we must judge
   of the value of the Roman Catholic tradition on this point. It is so
   remote from the time in question as to be utterly unworthy of credit.

   [227] Cardinal Newman says (Apologia, p. 407): "The see of Rome
   possessed no great mind in the whole period of persecution. Afterwards
   for a long time it had not a single doctor to show. The great luminary
   of the western world is St. Augustin; he, no infallible teacher, has
   formed the intellect of Europe." Dean Stanley remarks (Christian
   Institutions, p. 241): "There have been occupants of the sees of
   Constantinople, Alexandria, and Canterbury who have produced more
   effect on the mind of Christendom by their utterances than any of the
   popes."

   [228] He calls him in the ninth book of the Philosophumenon, an aner
   idiotes kai aischrokerdes .
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 51. Chronology of the Popes.

   I. Sources.

   The principal sources for the obscure chronology of the early bishops
   of Rome are the catalogues of popes. These are divided into two
   classes, the oriental or Greek, and the occidental or Latin. To the
   first belong the lists of Hegesippus and Irenaeus, from the second
   century, that of Eusebius (in his Chronicle, and his Church History),
   and his successors from the fourth century and later. This class is
   followed by Lipsius and Harnack. The second class embraces the
   catalogues of Augustin (Ep. 55, al. 165), Optatus of Mileve (De schism.
   Donat. II. 3), the "Catalogus Liberianus" (coming down to Liberius,
   354), the "Catalogus Felicianus" (to 530), the "Catalogus Cononianus,"
   based perhaps on the "Catalogus Leoninus" (to 440), the "Liber
   Pontificalis" (formerly supposed to be based on the preceding
   catalogues, but according to the Abbe Duchesne and Waitz, older than
   the "Liber Felicianus"). The "Liber Pontif." itself exists in different
   MSS., and has undergone many changes. It is variously dated from the
   fifth or seventh century.

   To these may be added the "Martyrologia" and "Calendaria" of the Roman
   Church, especially the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum," and the
   "Martyrologium Romanum parvum" (both of the seventh or eighth century).

   The inscriptions on the papal tombs discovered in Rome since 1850,
   contain names and titles, but no dates.

   On the "Catalogus Liberianus," see especially the critical essay of
   Mommsen "Ueber de Chronographen des Jahres 354," in the "Transactions
   of the Royal Saxon Society of Sciences," Philos. histor. Section, vol.
   I. (1850), p. 631 sqq. The text of the Catalogue is given, p. 634-'37,
   and by Lipsius, Chronologie der roem. Bischoefe, Append. p. 265-268.
   The oldest MSS. of the "Liber Pontificalis" date from the seventh and
   eighth centuries, and present a text of a.d. 641, but with many
   variations. "Mit wahrer Sicherheit," says Waitz, "gelangen wir in der
   Geschichte des Papsthums nicht ueber das 7te Jahrhundert hinauf."

   II. Works.

   Phil. Jaffe: Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad Ann.
   1198. Berolini 1851, ed. secunda correcta et aucta auspiciis Gul.
   Wattenbach. Lips. 1881 sqq. Continued by Potthast from 1198-1304, and
   supplemented by Harttung (Bd. I. a.d. 748-1198, Gotha 1880).

   R A. Lipsius: Chronologie der Roem. Bischoefe bis zur Mitte des 4ten
   Jahrh. Kiel, 1869. Comp. Hort's review of this book in the "Academy"
   for Sept. 15, 1871. Lipsius: Neue Studien zur Papstchronologie, in the
   "Jahrbuecher fuer Protest. Theol." Leipz. 1880 (pp. 78-126 and
   233-307). Lipsius denies that Peter ever was at Rome.

   Abbe L. Duchesne: Etude sur le Liber Pontificalis. Paris, 1887. La date
   et les recensions du Liber Pontificalis. 1879. Le Liber Pontificalis.
   Texte, introduction et commentaire. Paris, 1884 and 1889, 2 vols. 4DEG
   (with facsimiles).

   Adolf Harnack: Die Zeit des Ignatiusund die Chronologie der
   antiochenischen Bischoefe bis Tyrannus, Leipz. 1878 (p. 73).

   G. Waitz: UEber die verschiedenen Texte des Liber Pontificalis, in the
   "Archiv der Gesellschaft fuer aeltere deutsche Geschichtskunde," IV;
   and his review of Duchesne, and Lipsius, in H. v. Sybel's "Histor.
   Zeitschrift" for 1880, p. 135 sqq.

   The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in
   impenetrable darkness. Tertullian and most of the Latins (and the
   pseudo-Clementina), make Clement (Phil. 4:3), the first successor of
   Peter; [229] 28 but Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other Greeks, also Jerome
   and the Roman Catalogue, give him the third place, and put Linus (2
   Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus (or Anincletus), between him and Peter. [230]
   29 In some lists Cletus is substituted for Anacletus, in others the two
   are distinguished. Perhaps Linus and Anacletus acted during the life
   time of Paul and Peter as assistants or presided only over one part of
   the church, while Clement may have had charge of another branch; for at
   that early day, the government of the congregation composed of Jewish
   and Gentile Christian elements was not so centralized as it afterwards
   became. Furthermore, the earliest fathers, with a true sense of the
   distinction between the apostolic and episcopal offices, do not reckon
   Peter among the bishops of Rome at all; and the Roman Catalogue in
   placing Peter in the line of bishops, is strangely regardless of Paul,
   whose independent labors in Rome are attested not only by tradition,
   but by the clear witness of his own epistles and the book of Acts.

   Lipsius, after a laborious critical comparison of the different
   catalogues of popes, arrives at the conclusion that Linus, Anacletus,
   and Clement were Roman presbyters (or presbyter-bishops in the N. T.
   sense of the term), at the close of the first century, Evaristus and
   Alexander presbyters at the beginning of the second, Xystus I.
   (Latinized: Sixtus), presbyter for ten years till about 128,
   Telesphorus for eleven years, till about 139, and next successors
   diocesan bishops. [231] 30

   It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops
   has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of
   succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar
   catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and
   Constantinople; and this must carry great weight with those who ground
   their views chiefly on external testimonies, without being able to rise
   to the free Protestant conception of Christianity and its history of
   development on earth.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [229] Or at least the first appointed by Peter. Tertullian De Praescr.
   HaeR.C. 32 "Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum." The Apost. Const.
   VII. 6 make Linus (Comp. 2 Tim. 4:21) the first bishop, appointed by
   Paul, Clement the next, appointed by Peter. According to Epiphanius
   (Haer. XXVII. 6) Clement was ordained by Peter, but did not enter upon
   his office till after the death of Linus and Anacletus.

   [230] The Catalogue of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 3, 3) down to his own
   time (a.d. 177) is this: The apostles Peter and Paul, Linos, Anacletos,
   Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystos, Telesphoros, who died gloriously
   as a martyr, Hyginos, Pios, Aniketos, Soter, Eleutheros, who then held
   "the inheritance of the episcopate in the twelfth place from the
   apostles." Irenaeus adds: "In this order and by this succession, the
   ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the
   truth have come down to us."

   [231] Langen (l. c .p. 100 sqq.) carries the line of Roman
   presbyter-bishops down to Alexander, and dates the monarchical
   constitution of the Roman church (i.e. the diocesan episcopacy) from
   the age of Trajan or Hadrian. Irenaeus (in Euseb. V. 27) calls the
   Roman bishops down to Anicetus (154) presbuteroi.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 52. List of the Roman Bishops and Roman Emperors during the First
   Three Centuries.

   From the lists of Eusebius (till Silvester), Jaffe (Regesta), Potthast
   (Bibliotheca Hist. Medii Aevi), Lipsius and others compared. See a
   continuation of the list in my History of Mediaeval Christianity, p.
   205 sqq.

   Date

   Popes

   Emperors

   Date

   Augustus

   27 b.c.

   Tiberius

   a.d. 14-37

   Caligula

   67-41

   Claudius

   41-54

   ? 42-67

   Petrus-Apostolus

   (63-64)

   Nero

   54-68

   ? 67-79

   Linus-Presbyter

   Galba

   68

   Otho

   68-69

   Vitellius

   69 -69

   ? 79-91

   Cletus or Anacletus

   Titus

   79-81

   Domitian

   81-96

   ? 91-100

   Clemens I

   Nerva

   96-98

   Trajan

   98-117

   ? 100-109

   Evaristus

   ? 109-119

   Alexander I

   Hadrian

   117-138

   ? 119-128

   Xystus or Sixtus I

   ? 128-139

   Telesphorus (Martyr)

   Antoninus Pius

   138-161

   ? 139-142

   Hyginus

   ? 142-154

   Pius I

   ? 154-168

   Anicetus

   Marcus Aurelius

   161-180

   ? 168-176

   Soter

   ? 177- 190

   Eleutherus

   Commodus

   180-190

   ? 190-202

   Victor I

   Pertinax

   190-191

   Didius Julianus

   191-192

   Niger

   192-193

   Septimius Severus

   193-211

   202-218

   Zephyrinus

   Caracalla

   211-217

   Geta (d. 212)

   211-217

   M.Opilius Macrinus

   217-218

   218-223

   Callistus, or Calixtus I

   Heliogabalus

   218-222

   (Hippolytus,Antipope)

   ? 223-230

   Urbanus I

   Alexander Severus

   222-235

   ? 230-235

   Pontianus (resigned in exile)

   235-236

   Anterus

   Maximin I (the Thracian)

   235-237

   236-250

   Fabianus, Martyr

   The two Gordians:
   Maximus Pupienus,
   Balbinus

   237-238

   Gordian, the Younger

   238-244

   Philip

   244-249

   250-251

   The See vacant till March, 251

   Decius

   249-251

   ? 251-252

   Cornelius (in exile)

   Gallus

   251-252

   ? 251

   (Novatianus, Antipope)

   252-253

   Lucius I

   Volusian

   252-253

   ? 253-257

   Stephanus I

   Aemilian

   253-268

   Valerian

   256-259

   Gallienus

   259-268

   ? 257-258

   Xystus (Sixtus) II

   Till July 21, 259

   The See vacant

   259-269

   Dionysius

   Claudius II

   268-270

   269-274

   Felix I

   Aurelian

   270-275

   275-283

   Eutychianus

   Tacitus

   275-276

   Probus

   276-282

   283-296

   Gajus (Caius)

   Carus

   282-284

   Carinus

   284-286

   Numerian

   Diocletian (d. 313 )

   284-305

   Maximian joint Emp. with Diocletian

   286-305

   296-304

   Marcellinus

   Constantius (d. 306)

   304 or 307

   304-307

   The See vacant

   Galerius (d. 311)

   Licinius (d. 323)

   Maximin II (Daza)

   308-309

   Constantine the Great,

   309-323

   Galerius (d. 311),

   308-309

   Marcellus

   Licinius (d.323),

   309-310

   Eusebius, d. Sept. 26 (?) 309

   Maximin (d. 313),

   Maxentius (d. 312),

   309-310

   The See Vacant

     reigning jointly.

   311-314

   Miltiades (Melchiades)

   314-335 Silvester I.

   Constantine the Great,

   323-337

   sole ruler.

   The whole number of popes, from the Apostle Peter to Leo XIII. (1878)
   is two hundred and sixty-three. This would allow about seven years on
   an average to each papal reign. The traditional twenty-five years of
   Peter were considered the maximum which none of his successors was
   permitted to reach, except Pius IX., the first infallible pope, who
   reigned twenty-seven years (1846-1878). The average term of office of
   the archbishops of Canterbury is fourteen years.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 53. The Catholic Unity.

   J. A. Moehler (R.C.): Die Einheit der Kirche oder das Princip des
   Katholicismus. Tuebingen 1825. Full of Catholic enthusiasm for the
   unity of the church.

   R. Rothe: Die Anfaenge der christl. Kirche. Wittenb. 1837 (pp.
   553-711). A Protestant counterpart of Moehler's book.

   Huther.: Cyprian's Lehre von der Einheit der Kirche. Hamb. 1839.

   J. W. Nevin: Cyprian; four articles in the "Mercersburg Review," 1852.
   Comp. Varien's strictures on these articles in the same "Review" for
   1853, p. 555 sqq.

   Joh. Peters (Ultramontane): Die Lehre des heil. Cyprianvon der Einheit
   der Kirche gegenueber den beiden Schismen in Carthago und Rom. Luxemb.
   1870.

   Jos. H. Reinkens (Old Cath. Bishop): Die Lehre des heil. Cyprianvon der
   Einheit er Kirche. Wuerzburg, 1873.

   Comp. also Hartel's ed. of Cyprian's Opera (3 Parts, Vienna, 1868-'71),
   and the monographs on Cyprian by Rettberg (1831), Peters (1877),
   Fechtrup (1878), and O. Ritschl (1883).

   On the basis of Paul's idea of the unity, holiness, and universality of
   the church, as the mystical body of Christ; hand in hand with the
   episcopal system of government; in the form of fact rather than of
   dogma; and in perpetual conflict with heathen persecution from without,
   and heretical and schismatic tendencies within--arose the idea and the
   institution of: "the Holy Catholic Church," as the Apostles' Creed has
   it; [232] 32 or, in the fuller language of the
   Nicene-Constantinopolitan, "the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church." In
   both the oecumenical symbols, as even in the more indefinite creeds of
   the second and third centuries, on which those symbols are based, the
   church appears as an article of faith, [233] 33 presupposing and
   necessarily, following faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy
   Spirit; and as a holy fellowship, [234] 34 within which the various
   benefits of grace, from the forgiveness of sins to the life
   everlasting, are enjoyed.

   Nor is any distinction made here between a visible and an invisible
   church. All catholic antiquity thought of none but the actual,
   historical church, and without hesitation applied to this, while yet in
   the eyes of the world a small persecuted sect, those four predicates of
   unity, holiness, universality, and apostolicity, to which were
   afterwards added exclusiveness infallibility and indestructibility.
   There sometimes occur, indeed, particularly in the Novatian schism,
   hints of the incongruity between the empirical reality and the ideal
   conception of the church; and this incongruity became still more
   palpable, in regard to the predicate of holiness, after the abatement
   of the spiritual elevation of the apostolic age, the cessation of
   persecution, and the decay of discipline. But the unworthiness of
   individual members and the external servant-form of the church were not
   allowed to mislead as to the general objective character, which
   belonged to her in virtue of her union with her glorious heavenly Head.

   The fathers of our period all saw in the church, though with different
   degrees of clearness, a divine, supernatural order of things, in a
   certain sense the continuation of the life of Christ on earth, the
   temple of the Holy Spirit, the sole repository of the powers of divine
   life, the possessor and interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, the mother
   of all the faithful. She is holy because she is separated from the
   service of the profane world, is animated by the Holy Spirit, forms her
   members to holiness, and exercises strict discipline. She is catholic,
   that is (according to the precise sense of holos, which denotes not so
   much numerical totality as wholeness), complete, and alone true, in
   distinction from all parties and sects. Catholicity, strictly taken,
   includes the three marks of universality, unity, and exclusiveness, and
   is an essential property of the church as the body and organ of Christ,
   who is, in fact, the only Redeemer for all men. Equally inseparable
   from her is the predicate of apostolicity, that is, the historical
   continuity or unbroken succession, which reaches back through the
   bishops to the apostles, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ
   to God. In the view of the fathers, every theoretical departure from
   this empirical, tangible, catholic church is heresy, that is,
   arbitrary, subjective, ever changing human opinion; every practical
   departure, all disobedience to her rulers is schism, or dismemberment
   of the body of Christ; either is rebellion against divine authority,
   and a heinous, if not the most heinous, sin. No heresy can reach the
   conception of the church, or rightly claim any one of her predicates;
   it forms at best a sect or party, and consequently falls within the
   province and the fate of human and perishing things, while the church
   is divine and indestructible.

   This is without doubt the view of the ante-Nicene fathers, even of the
   speculative and spiritualistic Alexandrians. The most important
   personages in the development of the doctrine concerning the church
   are, again, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian. Their whole doctrine of
   the episcopate is intimately connected with their doctrine of the
   catholic unity, and determined by it. For the episcopate is of value in
   their eyes only, is the indispensable means of maintaining and
   promoting this unity: while they are compelled to regard the bishops of
   heretics and schismatics as rebels and antichrists.

   1. In the Epistles of Ignatius the unity of the church, in the form and
   through the medium of the episcopate, is the fundamental thought and
   the leading topic of exhortation. The author calls himself a man
   prepared for union. [235] 35 He also is the first to use the term
   "catholic" in the ecclesiastical sense, when he says: [236] 36 "Where
   Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church;" that is, the closely
   united and full totality of his people. Only in her, according to his
   view, can we eat the bread of God; he, who follows a schismatic,
   inherits not the kingdom of God. [237] 37

   We meet similar views, although not so clearly and strongly stated, in
   the Roman Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, in the letter of
   the church of Smyrna on the martyrdom of Polycarp, and in the Shepherd
   of Hermas.

   2 Irenaeus speaks much more at large respecting the church. He calls
   her the haven of rescue, the way of salvation, the entrance to life,
   the paradise in this world, of whose trees, to wit, the holy
   Scriptures, we may eat, excepting the tree of knowledge of good and
   evil, which he takes as a type of heresy. The church is inseparable
   from the Holy Spirit; it is his home, and indeed his only
   dwelling-place on earth. "Where the church is," says he, putting the
   church first, in the genuine catholic spirit, "there is the Spirit of
   God, and where the Spirit of God is there is all grace." [238] 38 Only
   on the bosom of the church, continues he, can we be nursed to life. To
   her must we flee, to be made partakers of the Holy Spirit; separation
   from her is separation from the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
   Heretics, in his view, are enemies of the truth and sons of Satan, and
   will be swallowed up by hell, like the company of Korah, Dathan, and
   Abiram. Characteristic in this respect is the well-known legend, which
   he relates, about the meeting of the apostle John with the Gnostic
   Cerinthus, and of Polycarp with Marcion, the "first-born of Satan."

   3. Tertullian is the first to make that comparison of the church with
   Noah's ark, which has since become classical in Roman catholic
   theology; and he likewise attributes heresies to the devil, without any
   qualification. But as to schism, he was himself guilty of it since he
   joined the Montanists and bitterly opposed the Catholics in questions
   of discipline. He has therefore no place in the Roman Catholic list of
   the patres, but simply of the scriptores ecclesiae.

   4. Even Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, with all their
   spiritualistic and idealizing turn of mind, are no exception here. The
   latter, in the words: "Out of the church no man can be saved," [239] 39
   brings out the principle of the catholic exclusiveness as unequivocally
   as Cyprian. Yet we find in him, together with very severe judgments of
   heretics, mild and tolerant expressions also; and he even supposes, on
   the ground of Rom. 2:6 sqq., that in the future life honest Jews and
   heathens will attain a suitable reward, a low grade of blessedness,
   though not the "life everlasting" in the proper sense. In a later age
   he was himself condemned as a heretic.

   Of other Greek divines of the third century, Methodius in particular,
   an opponent of Origen, takes high views of the church, and in his
   Symposion poetically describes it as "the garden of God in the beauty
   of eternal spring, shining in the richest splendor of immortalizing
   fruits and flowers;" as the virginal, unspotted, ever young and
   beautiful royal bride of the divine Logos.

   5. Finally, Cyprian, in his Epistles, and most of all in his classical
   tract: De Unitate Eccelesiae, written in the year 251, amidst the
   distractions of the Novatian schism, and not without an intermixture of
   hierarchical pride and party spirit, has most distinctly and most
   forcibly developed the old catholic doctrine of the church, her unity,
   universality, and exclusiveness. He is the typical champion of visible,
   tangible church unity, and would have made a better pope than any pope
   before Leo I.; yet after all he was anti-papal and anti-Roman when he
   differed from the pope. Augustin felt this inconsistency, and thought
   that he had wiped it out by the blood of his martyrdom. But he never
   gave any sign of repentance. His views are briefly as follows:

   The Catholic church was founded from the first by Christ on St. Peter
   alone, that, with all the equality of power among the apostles, unity
   might still be kept prominent as essential to her being. She has ever
   since remained one, in unbroken episcopal succession; as there is only
   one sun, though his rays are everywhere diffused. Try once to separate
   the ray from the sun; the unity of the light allows no division. Break
   the branch from the tree; it can produce no fruit. Cut off the brook
   from the fountain; it dries up. Out of this empirical orthodox church,
   episcopally organized and centralized in Rome, Cyprian can imagine no
   Christianity at all; [240] 40 not only among the Gnostics and other
   radical heretics, but even among the Novatians, who varied from the
   Catholics in no essential point of doctrine, and only elected an
   opposition bishop in the interest of their rigorous penitential
   discipline. Whoever separates himself from the catholic church is a
   foreigner, a profane person, an enemy, condemns himself, and must be
   shunned. No one can have God for his father, who has not the church for
   his mother. [241] 41 As well might one out of the ark of Noah have
   escaped the flood, as one out of the church be saved; [242] 42 because
   she alone is the bearer of the Holy Spirit and of all grace.

   In the controversy on heretical baptism, Cyprian carried out the
   principle of exclusiveness even more consistently than the Roman
   church. For he entirely rejected such baptism, while Stephen held it
   valid, and thus had to concede, in strict consistency, the possibility
   of regeneration, and hence of salvation, outside the Catholic church.
   Here is a point where even the Roman system, generally so consistent,
   has a loophole of liberality, and practically gives up her theoretical
   principle of exclusiveness. But in carrying out this principle, even in
   persistent opposition to the pope, in whom he saw the successor of
   Peter and the visible centre of unity, Cyprian plainly denied the
   supremacy of Roman jurisdiction and the existence of an infallible
   tribunal for the settlement of doctrinal controversies and protested
   against identifying the church in general with the church of Rome. And
   if he had the right of such protest in favor of strict exclusiveness,
   should not the Greek church, and above all the Evangelical, much rather
   have the right of protest against the Roman exclusiveness, and in favor
   of a more free and comprehensive conception of the church?

   We may freely acknowledge the profound and beautiful truth at the
   bottom of this old catholic doctrine of the church, and the historical
   importance of it for that period of persecution, as well as for the
   great missionary work among the barbarians of the middle ages; but we
   cannot ignore the fact that the doctrine rested in part on a fallacy,
   which, in course of time, after the union of the church with the state,
   or, in other words, with the world, became more and more glaring, and
   provoked an internal protest of ever-growing force. It blindly
   identified the spiritual unity of the church with unity of
   organization, insisted on outward uniformity at the expense of free
   development, and confounded the faulty empirical church, or a temporary
   phase of the development of Christianity, with the ideal and eternal
   kingdom of Christ, which will not be perfect in its manifestation until
   the glorious second coming of its Head. The Scriptural principle "Out
   of Christ there is no salvation," was contracted and restricted to the
   Cyprianic principle: "Out of the (visible) church there is no
   salvation;" and from this there was only one step to the fundamental
   error of Romanism: "Out of the Roman Church there is no salvation."

   No effort after outward unity could prevent the distinction of all
   Oriental and Occidental church from showing itself at this early
   period, in language, customs, and theology;--a distinction which
   afterwards led to a schism to this day unhealed.

   It may well be questioned whether our Lord intended an outward visible
   unity of the church in the present order of things. He promised that
   there should be "one flock one shepherd," but not "one fold." [243] 43
   There may be one flock, and yet many folds or church organizations. In
   the sacerdotal prayer, our Lord says not one word about church, bishops
   or popes, but dwells upon that spiritual unity which reflects the
   harmony between the eternal Father and the eternal Son. "The true
   communion of Christian men--'the communion of saints' upon which all
   churches are built--is not the common performance of external acts, but
   a communion of soul with soul and of the soul with Christ. It is a
   consequence of the nature which God has given us that an external
   organization should help our communion with one another: it is a
   consequence both of our twofold nature, and of Christ's appointment
   that external acts should help our communion with Him. But subtler,
   deeper, diviner than anything of which external things can be either
   the symbol or the bond is that inner reality and essence of union--that
   interpenetrating community of thought and character--which St. Paul
   speaks of as the 'unity of the Spirit,' and which in the sublimest of
   sublime books, in the most sacred words, is likened to the oneness of
   the Son with the Father and of the Father with the Son." [244] 44
     __________________________________________________________________

   [232] The Church of England retained the term "catholic" in the Creed,
   and the, ante-papal and anti-papal use of this; term (=general,
   universal); while Luther in his Catechism, and the Moravian church (in
   her liturgy) substituted the word "Christian," and surrendered the use
   of "catholic" to the Roman Catholics. "Roman" is a sectarian term (in
   opposition to Greek Catholic and Evangelical Catholic).

   [233] Credo ecclesiam; yet not in (eis) ecclesiam, as in the case of
   the Divine persons

   [234] Communio sanctorum. This clause, however, is not found in the
   original Creed of the Roman church before the fifth century.

   [235] athropon eis enosin katertismenon.

   [236] Ad Smyrn. c. 8.

   [237] .Ad Ephes. c. 5. Ad Trall. c.7. Ad Philad. c. 3, etc

   [238] Adv. Haer. iii. 24."Ubi ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi
   Spiritus Dei, illic et omnis gratia." Protestantism would say,
   conversely, putting the Spirit first: "Ubi Spiritus Dei, ibi ecclesia
   et omnis gratia."

   [239] Hom. 3 in Josuam, c. 5. "Extra hanc domum, id est extra
   ecclesiam, nemo salvatur."

   [240] "Christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est."

   [241] "Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem."

   [242] "Extra ecclesia nulla salus." Yet he nowhere says "extra Romanam
   nulla salus."

   [243] John 10:16. It was a characteristic, we may say, an ominous
   mistake of the Latin Vulgate to render poimne by ovile (confounding it
   with aule). The Authorized Version has copied the mischievous blunder
   ("one fold"), but the Revision of 1881 has corrected it.

   [244] Hatch, l.c. p. 187 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 54. Councils.

   Best Collections of Acts of Councils by Harduin (1715, 12 vols.), and
   Mansi (1759, 31 vols.).

   C. J. Hefele (R.C. Bishop of Rottenburg, and member of the Vatican
   Council of 1870): Conciliengeschichte, Freiburg 1855; second ed. 1873
   sqq., 7 vols. down to the Council of Florence, a.d. 1447 (See vol. I.,
   pp. 83-242). English translation by W. R. Clark and H. R. Oxenham (
   Edinb. 1871, 2d vol. 1876, 3d vol. 1883).

   E. B. Pusey (d. 1882): The Councils of the Church, from the Council of
   Jerusalem, a.d. 51, to the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381; chiefly
   as to their constitution, but also as to their object and history.
   Lond. 1857.

   A. W. Dale: The Synod of Elvira [a.d. 306] and Christian Life in the
   Fourth Century. Lond. 1882.

   Comp. the article Council in Smith and Cheetham and Lect. VII. in
   Hatch, Bampton Lect. on the Organization of the Early Christian Church.
   Lond. 1881, pp. 165 sqq.

   Councils or Synods were an important means of maintaining and promoting
   ecclesiastical unity, and deciding questions of faith and discipline.
   [245] 45 They had a precedent and sanction in the apostolic Conference
   of Jerusalem for the settlement of the circumcision controversy. [246]
   46 They were suggested moreover by the deliberative political
   assemblies of the provinces of the Roman empire, which met every year
   in the chief towns. [247] 47 But we have no distinct trace of Councils
   before the middle of the second century (between 50 and 170), when they
   first appear, in the disputes concerning Montanism and Easter.

   There are several kinds of Synods according to their size, diocesan,
   provincial (or metropolitan), national, patriarchal, and oecumenical
   (or universal). [248] 48 Our period knows only the first three.
   Diocesan synods consist of the bishop and his presbyters and deacons
   with the people assisting, and were probably held from the beginning,
   but are not mentioned before the third century. Provincial synods
   appear first in Greece, where the spirit of association had continued
   strong since the days of the Achaean league, and then in Asia Minor,
   North Africa, Gaul, and Spain. They were held, so far as the stormy
   times of persecution allowed, once or twice a year, in the metropolis,
   under the presidency of the metropolitan, who thus gradually acquired a
   supervision over the other bishops of the province. Special emergencies
   called out extraordinary sessions, and they, it seems, preceded the
   regular meetings. They were found to be useful, and hence became
   institutions.

   The synodical meetings were public, and the people of the community
   around sometimes made their influence felt. In the time of Cyprian
   presbyters, confessors, and laymen took an active part, a custom which
   seems to have the sanction of apostolic practice. [249] 49 At the Synod
   which met about 256, in the controversy on heretical baptism, there
   were present eighty-seven bishops, very many priests and deacons, and
   "maxima pars plebis;" [250] 50 and in the synods concerning the
   restoration of the Lapsi, Cyprian convened besides the bishops, his
   clergy, the "confessores," and "laicos stantes" (i.e. in good
   standing). [251] 51 Nor was this practice confined to North Africa. We
   meet it in Syria, at the synods convened on account of Paul of Samosata
   (264-269), and in Spain at the council of Elvira. Origen, who was
   merely a presbyter, was the leading spirit of two Arabian synods, and
   convinced their bishop Beryllus of his Christological error. Even the
   Roman clergy, in their letter to Cyprian, [252] 52 speak of a common
   synodical consultation of the bishops with the priests, deacons,
   confessors, and laymen in good standing.

   But with the advance of the hierarchical spirit, this republican
   feature gradually vanished. After the council of Nicaea (325) bishops
   alone had seat and voice, and the priests appear hereafter merely as
   secretaries, or advisers, or representatives of their bishops. The
   bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches,
   nor in the name of the body of the believers, as formerly, but in their
   own right as successors of the apostles. They did not as yet, however,
   in this period, claim infallibility for their decisions, unless we
   choose to find a slight approach to such a claim in the formula:
   "Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente," as used, for example, by
   the council of Carthage, in 252. [253] 53 At all events, their decrees
   at that time had only moral power, and could lay no claim to universal
   validity. Even Cyprian emphatically asserts absolute independence for
   each bishop in his own diocese. "To each shepherd," he says, "a portion
   of the Lord's flock has been assigned, and his account must be rendered
   to his Master."

   The more important acts, such as electing bishops, excommunication,
   decision of controversies, were communicated to other provinces by
   epistolae synodicae. In the intercourse and the translation of
   individual members of churches, letters of recommendation [254] 54 from
   the bishop were commonly employed or required as terms of admission.
   Expulsion from one church was virtually an expulsion from all
   associated churches.

   The effect of the synodical system tended to consolidation. The
   Christian churches from independent communities held together by a
   spiritual fellowship of faith, became a powerful confederation, a
   compact moral commonwealth within the political organization of the
   Roman empire.

   As the episcopate culminated in the primacy, so the synodical system
   rose into the oecumenical councils, which represented the whole church
   of the Roman empire. But these could not be held till persecution
   ceased, and the emperor became the patron of Christianity. The first
   was the celebrated council of Nicaea, in the year 325. The state gave
   legal validity to the decrees of councils, and enforced them if
   necessary by all its means of coercion. But the Roman government
   protected only the Catholic or orthodox church, except during the
   progress of the Arian and other controversies, before the final result
   was reached by the decision of an oecumenical Synod convened by the
   emperor. [255] 55
     __________________________________________________________________

   [245] Concilium, first used in the ecclesiastical sense by Tertullian,
   De Iejun. c. 13, De Pudic. c. 10; sunodos , assembly, meeting for
   deliberation (Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Demosthenes, etc.), first
   used of Christian assemblies in the pseudo-Apostolical Constit. V. 20,
   and the Canons, c. 36 or 38. It may designate a diocesan, or
   provincial, or general Christian convention for either elective, or
   judicial, or legislative, or doctrinal purposes

   [246] a.d. 50. Acts 15 and Gal. 2. Comp. also the Lord's promise to be
   present where even the smallest number are assembled in his name, Matt.
   18:19, 20. See vol. I. S:64, p. 503 sqq

   [247] On the provincial councils of the Roman empire see
   Marquardt,Roemische Staatsverwaltung, I. 365-377, and Hatch, l.c. p.
   164 sqq. The deliberations were preceded by a sacrifice, and the
   president was called highpriest.

   [248] That is, within the limits of the old Roman empire, as the orbis
   terrarum. There never was an absolutely universal council. Even the
   seven oecumenical Councils from 325 to 787 were confined to the empire,
   and poorly attended by Western bishops. The Roman Councils held after
   that time (down to the Vatican Council in 1870) claim to be
   oecumenical, but exclude the Greek and all evangelical churches.

   [249] Comp. Acts 15:6, 7, 12, 13, 23, where the "brethren" are
   mentioned expressly, besides the apostles and elders, as members of the
   council, even at the final decision and in the pastoral letter. On the
   difference of reading, see vol. I. 505.

   [250] Cyprian, Opera, p. 329, ed. Baluz. In the acts of this council,
   however (pp. 330-338), only the bishops appear as voters, from which
   some writers infer that the laity, and even the presbyters, had no
   votum decisium. But in several old councils the presbyters and deacons
   subscribed their names after those of the bishops; see Harduin, Coll.
   Conc. I. 250 and 266; Hefele I. 19.

   [251] Epp.xi., xiii., lxvi., lxxi.

   [252] Ep. xxxi.

   [253] Cyprian, Ep. liv., on the ground of the edoxe to hagio pneumati
   kai hemin, visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis, Acts 15:28. So also, the
   council of Arles, a.d. 314: Placuit ergo, presente Spiritu Sancto et
   angelis ejus (Harduin, Coll. Concil. I. 262).

   [254] Epistolae formatae, grammata tetupomena.

   [255] This policy was inaugurated by Constantine I. a.d. 326 (Cod.
   Theod. 16, 5, 1). He confined the privileges and immunities which, in
   313, he had granted to Christians in his later enactments to
   "Catholicae legis observatoribus." He ratified the Nicene creed and
   exiled Arius (325), although he afterwards wavered and was baptized by
   a semi-Arian bishop (337). His immediate successors wavered likewise.
   But as a rule the Byzantine emperors recognized the decisions of
   councils in dogma and discipline, and discouraged and ultimately
   prohibited the formation of dissenting sects. The state can, of course,
   not prevent dissent as an individual opinion; it can only prohibit and
   punish the open profession. Full religious liberty requires separation
   of church and state.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 55. The Councils of Elvira, Arles, and Ancyra.

   Among the ante-Nicene Synods some were occasioned by the Montanist
   controversy in Asia Minor, some by the Paschal controversies, some by
   the affairs of Origen, some by the Novatian schism and the treatment of
   the Lapsi in Carthage and Rome, some by the controversies on heretical
   baptism (255, 256), three were held against Paul of Samosata in Antioch
   (264-269).

   In the beginning of the fourth century three Synods, held at Elvira,
   Arles, and Ancyra, deserve special mention, as they approach the
   character of general councils and prepared the way for the first
   oecumenical council. They decided no doctrinal question, but passed
   important canons on church polity and Christian morals. They were
   convened for the purpose of restoring order and discipline after the
   ravages of the Diocletian persecution. They deal chiefly with the large
   class of the Lapsed, and reflect the transition state from the
   ante-Nicene to the Nicene age. They are alike pervaded by the spirit of
   clericalism and a moderate asceticism.

   1. The Synod of Elvira (Illiberis, or Eliberis, probably on the site of
   the modern Granada) was held in 306, [256] 56 and attended by nineteen
   bishops, and twenty-six presbyters, mostly from the Southern districts
   of Spain. Deacons and laymen were also present. The Diocletian
   persecution ceased in Spain after the abdication of Diocletian and
   Maximian Herculeus in 305; while it continued to rage for several years
   longer in the East under Galerius and Maximin. The Synod passed
   eighty-one Latin canons against various forms of heathen immorality
   then still abounding, and in favor of church discipline and austere
   morals. The Lapsed were forbidden the holy communion even in articulo
   mortis (can. 1). This is more severe than the action of the Nicene
   Synod. The thirty-sixth canon prohibits the admission of sacred
   pictures on the walls of the church buildings, [257] 57 and has often
   been quoted by Protestants as an argument against image worship as
   idolatrous; while Roman Catholic writers explain it either as a
   prohibition of representations of the deity only, or as a prudential
   measure against heathen desecration of holy things. [258] 58 Otherwise
   the Synod is thoroughly catholic in spirit and tone. Another
   characteristic feature is the severity against the Jews who were
   numerous in Spain. Christians are forbidden to marry Jews. [259] 59

   The leading genius of the Elvira Synod and the second in the list was
   Hosius, bishop of Corduba (Cordova), who also attended the Council of
   Nicaea as the chief representative of the West. He was native of
   Cordova, the birth-place of Lucan and Seneca, and more than sixty years
   in the episcopate. Athanasius calls him a man holy in fact as well as
   in name, and speaks of his wisdom in guiding synods. As a far-seeing
   statesman, he seems to have conceived the idea of reconciling the
   empire with the church and influenced the mind of Constantine in that
   direction. He is one of the most prominent links between the age of
   persecution and the age of imperial Christianity. He was a strong
   defender of the Nicene faith, but in his extreme old age he wavered and
   signed an Arian formula. Soon afterwards he died, a hundred years old
   (358).

   2. The first Council of Arles in the South of France [260] 60 was held
   a.d. 314, in consequence of an appeal of the Donatists to Constantine
   the Great, against the decision of a Roman Council of 313, consisting
   of three Gallican and fifteen Italian bishops under the lead of Pope
   Melchiades. This is the first instance of an appeal of a Christian
   party to the secular power, and it turned out unfavorably to the
   Donatists who afterwards became enemies of the government. The Council
   of Arles was the first called by Constantine and the forerunner of the
   Council of Nicaea. Augustin calls it even universal, but it was only
   Western at best. It consisted of thirty-three bishops [261] 61 from
   Gaul, Sicily, Italy (exclusive of the Pope Sylvester, who, however, was
   represented by two presbyters and two deacons), North Africa, and
   Britain (three, from York, London, and probably from Caerleon on Usk),
   besides thirteen presbyters and twenty-three deacons. It excommunicated
   Donatus and passed twenty-two canons concerning Easter (which should be
   held on one and the same day), against the non-residence of clergy,
   against participation in races and gladiatorial fights (to be punished
   by excommunication), against the rebaptism of heretics, and on other
   matters of discipline. Clergymen who could be proven to have delivered
   sacred books or utensils in persecution (the traditores) should be
   deposed, but their official acts were to be held valid. The assistance
   of at least three bishops was required at ordination. [262] 62

   3. The Council of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia in Asia Minor, was
   held soon after the death of the persecutor Maximin (3l3), probably in
   the year 314, and represented Asia Minor and Syria. It numbered from
   twelve to eighteen bishops (the lists vary), several of whom eleven
   years afterwards attended the Council of Nicaea. Marcellus of Ancyra
   who acquired celebrity in the Arian controversies, presided, according
   to others Vitalis of Antioch. Its object was to heal the wounds of the
   Diocletian persecution, and it passed twenty-five canons relating
   chiefly to the treatment of those who had betrayed their faith or
   delivered the sacred books in those years of terror. Priests who had
   offered sacrifice to the gods, but afterwards repented, were prohibited
   from preaching and all sacerdotal functions, but allowed to retain
   their clerical dignity. Those who had sacrificed before baptism may be
   admitted to orders. Adultery is to be punished by seven years' penance,
   murder by life-long penance. [263] 63

   A similar Council was held soon afterwards at, Neo-Caesarea in
   Cappadocia (between 314-325), mostly by the same bishops who attended
   that of Ancyra, and passed fifteen disciplinary canons. [264] 64
     __________________________________________________________________

   [256] Hefele, Gams, and Dale decide in favor of this date against the
   superscription which puts it down to the period of the Council of
   Nicaea (324). The chief reason is that Hosius, bishop of Cordova, could
   not be, present in 324 when he was in the Orient, nor at any time after
   307, when he joined the company of Constantine as one of his private
   councillors.

   [257] "Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et
   adoratur in parietibus depingatur.""There shall be no pictures in the
   church, lest what is worshipped [saints] and adored [God and Christ]
   should be depicted on the walls."

   [258] The last is the interpretation of the canon by DeRossi, in Roma
   sotteranea, Tom. I., p. 97, and Hefele, I. 170. But Dale (p. 292 sqq.)
   thinks that it was aimed against the idolatry of Christians.

   [259] The best accounts of the Synod of Elvira are given by Ferdinand
   de Mendoza, De confirmando Concilio IIIiberitano ad Clementem VIII.,
   1593 (reprinted in Mansi II. 57-397); Fr. Ant. Gonzalez, Collect. Can.
   Ecclesiae Hispaniae, Madrid, 1808, new ed. with Spanish version, 1849
   (reprinted in Bruns, Bibl. Eccl. Tom. I. Pars II. 1 sqq.); Hefele,
   Conciliengesch. I. 148-192 (second ed., 1873; or 122 sqq., first ed.);
   Gams, Kirchengesch. von Spanien (1864), vol. II. 1-136; and Dale in his
   monograph on the Synod of Elvira, London, 1882.

   [260] Concilium Arelatense, from Arelate or Arelatum Sextanorum, one of
   the chief Roman cities in South-Eastern Gaul, where Constantine at one
   time resided, and afterwards the West Gothic King Eurich. It was
   perhaps the seat of the first bishopric of Gaul, or second only to that
   of Lyons and Vienne. Several councils were held in that city, the
   second in 353 during the Arian controversy.

   [261] Not 633, as McClintock & Strong's "Cyclop" has it sub Arles.

   [262] See Eus. H. E. x. 5; Mansi, II. 463-468; Muenchen, Das ersten
   Concil von Arles (in the "Bonner Zeitschrift fuer Philos. und kath.
   Theol.," No. 9, 26, 27), and Hefele I. 201-219 (2nd ed.).

   [263] Hefele, vol. I. 222 sqq., gives the canons in Greek and German
   with explanation. He calls it a Synodus plenaria, i.e., a general
   council for the churches of Asia Minor and Syria. See also Mansi II.
   514 sqq. Two Arian Synods were held at Ancyra in 358 and 375.

   [264] See Hefele I. 242-251.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 56. Collections of Ecclesiastical Law. The Apostolical Constitutions
   and Canons.

   Sources.

   I. Diatagai ton hagion Apostolon dia Klemnetos, etc., Constitutiones
   Apostolicae, first edited by Fr Turrianus, Ven. 1563, then in
   Cotelier's ed. of the Patres Apostolici (I. 199 sqq.), in Mansi
   (Collect. Concil. I.), and Harduin (Coll. Conc. I.); newly edited by
   Ueltzen, Rost. 1853, and P. A. de Lagarde, Lips. and Lond. 1854 and
   1862. Ueltzen gives the textus receptus improved. Lagarde aims at the
   oldest text, which he edited in Syriac (Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace,
   1854), and in Greek (Constit. Apostolorum Graece, 1862). Hilgenfels:
   Nov. Test. extra Canonem rec., Lips. (1866), ed. II. (1884), Fasc. IV.
   110-121. He gives the Ap. Church Order under the title Duae Viae vel
   Judicium Petri.

   Thos. Pell Platt: The AEthiopic Didascalia; or the AEthiopic Version of
   the Apostolical Constitutions, received in the Church of Abyssinia,
   with an Engl Transl, , Lond. 1834.

   Henry Tattam: The Apostolical Constitutions, or Canons of the Apostles
   in Coptic. With an Engl. translation. Lond. 1848 (214 pages).

   II. Kanones ekklesiastikoi ton hag. Apostolon, Canones, qui dicuntur
   Apostolorum, in most collections of church law, and in Cotel. (I. 437
   sqq.), Mansi, and Harduin (tom. I.), and in the editions of the Ap.
   Constitutions at the close. Separate edd. by Paul De Lagarde in Greek
   and Syriac: Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimae Syriace, Lips.
   1856; and Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici Graece, 1856 (both to be had at
   Truebner's, Strassburg). An Ethiopic translation of the Canons, ed. by
   Winand Fell, Leipz. 1871.

   W. G. Beveridge, (Bishop of St. Asaph, d. 1708): Sunodikon, s.
   Pandectae Canonum S. G. Apostolorum et Conciliorum, ab Ecclesia Gr.
   reliquit. Oxon. 1672-82, 2 vols. fol.

   John Fulton: Index Canonum. In Greek and English. With a Complete
   Digest of the entire code of canon law in the undivided Primitive
   Church. N. York 1872; revised ed. with Preface by P. Schaff, 1883.

   Critical Discussions.

   Krabbe: Ueber den Ursprung u. den Inhalt der Apost. Constitutionen des
   Clemens Romanus. Hamb. 1829.

   S. v. Drey (R.C.): Neue Untesuchungen ueber die Constitut. u. Kanones
   der Ap. Tueb. 1832.

   J. W. Bickell (d. 1848): Gesch. des Kirchenrechts. Giess. 1843 (I. 1,
   pp. 52-255). The second part appeared, Frankf., 1849.

   Chase: Constitations of the Holy Apostles, including the Canons;
   Whiston's version revised from the Greek; with a prize essay(of Krabbe)
   upon their origin and contents. New York, 1848.

   Bunsen: Hippolytusu. seine Zeit., Leipz. 1852 (I. pp. 418-523, and II.
   pp. 1126); and in the 2d Engl. ed. Hippolytus and his Age, or
   Christianity and Mankind, Lond. 1854 (vols. V - VII).

   Hefele (R.C.): Conciliengeschichte I. p. 792 sqq. (second ed. 1873).
   The Didache Literature (fully noticed in Schaff's monograph

   Philoth. Bryennios: Didache ton dodeka apostolon. Constantinople, 1833.

   Ad. Harnack: Die Lehre der Zwoelf Apostel. Leipz., 1884. Die
   Apostellehre und die juedischen beiden Wege, 1886.

   Ph. Schaff: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or the Oldest Church
   Manual. N. York, 1885. 3d ed. revised and enlarged, 1889.

   Several church manuals or directories of public worship, and discipline
   have come down to us from the first centuries in different languages.
   They claim directly or indirectly apostolic origin and authority, but
   are post-apostolic and justly excluded from the canon. They give us
   important information on the ecclesiastical laws, morals, and customs
   of the ante-Nicene age.

   1. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is the oldest and simplest
   church manual, of Jewish Christian (Palestinian or Syrian) origin, from
   the end of the first century, known to the Greek fathers, but only
   recently discovered and published by Bryennios (1883). It contains in
   16 chapters (1) a summary of moral instruction based on the Decalogue
   and the royal commandment of love to God and man, in the parabolic form
   of two ways, the way of life and the way of death; (2) directions on
   the celebration of baptism and the eucharist with the agape; (3)
   directions on discipline and the offices of apostles (i.e. travelling
   evangelists), prophets, teachers, bishops (i.e. presbysters), and
   deacons; (4) an exhortation to watchfulness in view of the coming of
   the Lord and the resurrection of the saints. A very remarkable book.
   Its substance survived in the seventh book of the Apostolical
   Constitutions.

   2. The Ecclesiastical Canons of the holy apostles or Apostolical Church
   Order, of Egyptian origin, probably of the third century. An expansion
   of the former in the shape of a fictitious dialogue of the apostles,
   first published in Greek by Bickell (1843), and then also in Coptic and
   Syriac. It contains ordinances of the apostles on morals, worship, and
   discipline.

   3. The Apostolical Constitutions, the most complete and important
   Church Manual. It is, in form, a literary fiction, professing to be a
   bequest of all the apostles, handed down through the Roman bishop
   Clement, or dictated to him. It begins with the words: "The apostles
   and elders, to all who among the nations have believed in the Lord
   Jesus Christ. Grace be with you, and peace." It contains, in eight
   books, a collection of moral exhortations, church laws and usages, and
   liturgical formularies which had gradually arisen in the various
   churches from the close of the first century, the time of the Roman
   Clement, downward, particularly in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and
   Rome, partly on the authority of apostolic practice. These were at
   first orally transmitted; then committed to writing in different
   versions, like the creeds; and finally brought, by some unknown hand,
   into their present form. The first six books, which have a strongly
   Jewish-Christian tone, were composed, with the exception of some later
   interpolations, at the end of the third century, in Syria. The seventh
   book is an expansion of the Didache of the Twelve Apostles. The eighth
   book contains a liturgy, and, in an appendix, the apostolical canons.
   The collection of the three parts into one whole may be the work of the
   compiler of the eighth book. It is no doubt of Eastern authorship, for
   the church of Rome nowhere occupies a position of priority or
   supremacy. [265] 65 The design was, to set forth the ecclesiastical
   life for laity and clergy, and to establish the episcopal theocracy.
   These constitutions were more used and consulted in the East than any
   work of the fathers, and were taken as the rule in matters of
   discipline, like the Holy Scriptures in matters of doctrine. Still the
   collection, as such, did not rise to formal legal authority, and the
   second Trullan council of 692 (known as quinisextum), rejected it for
   its heretical interpolations, while the same council acknowledged the
   Apostolical Canons. [266] 66

   The "Apostolical Canons" consist of brief church rules or
   prescriptions, in some copies eighty-five in number, in others fifty,
   and pretend to be of apostolic origin, being drawn up by Clement of
   Rome from the directions of the apostles, who in several places speak
   in the first person. They are incorporated in the "Constitutions" as an
   appendix to the eighth book, but are found also by themselves, in
   Greek, Syriac, Aethiopic, and Arabic manuscripts. Their contents are
   borrowed partly from the Scriptures, especially the Pastoral Epistles,
   partly from tradition, and partly from the decrees of early councils at
   Antioch, Neo-Caesarea, Nicaea, Laodicea, &c. (but probably not
   Chalcedon, 451). They are, therefore, evidently of gradual growth, and
   were collected either after the middle of the fourth century, [267] 67
   or not till the latter part of the fifth, [268] 68 by some unknown
   hand, probably also in Syria. They are designed to furnish a complete
   system of discipline for the clergy. Of the laity they say scarcely a
   word. The eighty-fifth and last canon settles the canon of the
   Scripture, but reckons among the New Testament books two epistles of
   Clement and the genuine books of the pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions.

   The Greek church, at the Trullan council of 692, adopted the whole
   collection of eighty-five canons as authentic and binding, and John of
   Damascus placed it even on a parallel with the epistles of the apostle
   Paul, thus showing that he had no sense of the infinite superiority of
   the inspired writings. The Latin church rejected it at first, but
   subsequently decided for the smaller collection of fifty canons, which
   Dionysus Exiguus about the year 500 translated from a Greek manuscript.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [265] Harnack (l.c. 266-268) identifies Pseudo-Clement with
   Pseudo-Ignatius and assigns him to the middle of the fourth century.

   [266] Turrianus Bovius; and the eccentric Whiston regarded these
   pseudoapostolic Constitutions as a genuine work of the apostles;
   containing Christ's teaching during the forty days between the
   Resurrection and Ascension. But Baronius, Bellarmin, and Petavius
   attached little weight to them, and the Protestant scholars, Daille and
   Blondel, attacked and overthrew their genuineness and authority. The
   work is a gradual growth, with many repetitions, interpolations, and
   contradictions and anachronisms. James, who was beheaded (a.d. 44), is
   made to sit in council with Paul (VI. 14), but elsewhere is represented
   as dead (V. 7). The apostles condemn post-apostolic heresies and
   heretics (VI. 8), and appoint days of commemoration of their death
   (VIII. 33). Episcopacy is extravagantly extolled. P. de Lagarde says:
   (Rel juris Eccles. ant., Preface, p. IV.): "Communis vivorum doctorum
   fere omnium nunc invaluit opinio eas [constitutiones] saeculo tertio
   clam succrevisse et quum sex aliquando libris septimo et octavo auctas
   esse postea."

   [267] As Bickell supposes. Beveridge put the collection in the third
   century.

   [268] According to Daille, Dr. von Drey, and Mejer.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 57. Church Discipline.

   I. Several Tracts of Tertullian (especially De Poenitentia). The
   Philosophumena of Hippolytus (l. IX.). The Epistles of Cyprian, and his
   work De Lapsis. The Epistolae Canonicae of Dionysius of Alex., Gregory
   Thaumaturgus (about 260), and Peter of Alex. (about 306), collected in
   Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, tom. III., 2nd ed. The Constit. Apost. II.
   16, 21-24. The Canons of the councils of Elvira, Arelate, Ancyra,
   Neo-Caesarea, and Nicaea, between 306 and 325 (in the Collections of
   Councils, and in Routh's Reliq. Sacr. tom. IV.).

   II. Morinus: De Disciplina in administratione sacram poenitentiae, Par.
   1651 (Venet. 1702).

   Marshall: Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church. Lond. 1714
   (new ed. 1844).

   Fr. Frank: Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche bis zum 7 Jahrh. Mainz. 1868.

   On the discipline of the Montanists, see Bonwetsch: Die Geschichte des
   Montanismus (1881), pp. 108-118.

   The ancient church was distinguished for strict discipline. Previous to
   Constantine the Great, this discipline rested on purely moral
   sanctions, and had nothing to do with civil constraints and
   punishments. A person might be expelled from one congregation without
   the least social injury. But the more powerful the church became, the
   more serious were the consequences of her censures, and when she was
   united with the state, ecclesiastical offenses were punished as
   offenses against the state, in extreme cases even with death. The
   church always abhorred blood ("ecclesia non sitit sanguiem"), but she
   handed the offender over to the civil government to be dealt with
   according to law. The worst offenders for many centuries were heretics
   or teachers of false doctrine.

   The object of discipline was, on the one hand, the dignity and purity
   of the church, on the other, the spiritual welfare of the offender;
   punishment being designed to be also correction. The extreme penalty
   was excommunication, or exclusion from all the rights and privileges of
   the faithful. This was inflicted for heresy and schism, and all gross
   crimes, such as, theft, murder, adultery, blasphemy, and the denial of
   Christ in persecution. After Tertullian, these and like offences
   incompatible with the regenerate state, were classed as mortal sins,
   [269] 69 in distinction from venial sins or sins of weakness. [270] 70

   Persons thus excluded passed into the class of penitents, [271] 71 and
   could attend only the catechumen worship. Before they could be
   re-admitted to the fellowship of the church, they were required to pass
   through a process like that of the catechumens, only still more severe,
   and to prove the sincerity of their penitence by the absence from all
   pleasures, from ornament in dress, and from nuptial intercourse, by
   confession, frequent prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and other good works.
   Under pain of a troubled conscience and of separation from the only
   saving church, they readily submitted to the severest penances. The
   church teachers did not neglect, indeed, to inculcate the penitent
   spirit and the contrition of the heart is the main thing. Yet many of
   them laid too great stress on certain outward exercises. Tertullian
   conceived the entire church penance as a "satisfaction" paid to God.
   This view could easily obscure to a dangerous degree the all-sufficient
   merit of Christ, and lead to that self-righteousness against which the
   Reformation raised so loud a voice.

   The time and the particular form of the penances, in the second
   century, was left as yet to the discretion of the several ministers and
   churches. Not till the end of the third century was a rigorous and
   fixed system of penitential discipline established, and then this could
   hardly maintain itself a century. Though originating in deep moral
   earnestness, and designed only for good, it was not fitted to promote
   the genuine spirit of repentance. Too much formality and legal
   constraint always deadens the spirit, instead of supporting and
   regulating it. This disciplinary formalism first appears, as already
   familiar, in the council of Ancyra, about the year 314. [272] 72

   Classes of Penitents.

   The penitents were distributed into four classes:--

   (1) The weepers, [273] 73 who prostrated themselves at the church doors
   in mourning garments and implored restoration from the clergy and the
   people.

   (2) The hearers, [274] 74 who, like the catechumens called by the same
   name, were allowed to hear the Scripture lessons and the sermon.

   (3) The kneelers, [275] 75 who attended the public prayers, but only in
   the kneeling posture.

   (4) The standers, [276] 76 who could take part in the whole worship
   standing, but were still excluded from the communion.

   Those classes answer to the four stages of penance. [277] 77 The course
   of penance was usually three or four years long, but, like the
   catechetical preparation, could be shortened according to
   circumstances, or extended to the day of death. In the East there were
   special penitential presbyters, [278] 78 intrusted with the oversight
   of the penitential discipline.

   Restoration.

   After the fulfilment of this probation came the act of reconciliation.
   [279] 79 The penitent made a public confession of sin, received
   absolution by the laying on of hands of the minister, and precatory or
   optative benediction, [280] 80 was again greeted by the congregation
   with the brotherly kiss, and admitted to the celebration of the
   communion. For the ministry alone was he for ever disqualified. Cyprian
   and Firmilian, however, guard against the view, that the priestly
   absolution of hypocritical penitents is unconditional and infallible,
   and can forestall the judgment of God. [281] 81

   Two Parties.

   In reference to the propriety of any restoration in certain cases,
   there was an important difference of sentiment, which gave rise to
   several schisms. All agreed that the church punishment could not
   forestall the judgment of God at the last day, but was merely temporal,
   and looked to the repentance and conversion of the subject. But it was
   a question whether the church should restore even the grossest offender
   on his confession of sorrow, or should, under certain circumstances
   leave him to the judgment of God. The strict, puritanic party, to which
   the Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists belonged, and, for a
   time, the whole African and Spanish Church, took ground against the
   restoration of those who had forfeited the grace of baptism by a mortal
   sin, especially by denial of Christ; since, otherwise, the church would
   lose her characteristic holiness, and encourage loose morality. The
   moderate party, which prevailed in the East, in Egypt, and especially
   in Rome, and was so far the catholic party, held the principle that the
   church should refuse absolution and communion, at least on the
   death-bed, to no penitent sinner. Paul himself restored the Corinthian
   offender. [282] 82

   The point here in question was of great practical moment in the times
   of persecution, when hundreds and thousands renounced their faith
   through weakness, but as soon as the danger was passed, pleaded for
   readmission into the church, and were very often supported in their
   plea by the potent intercessions of the martyrs and confessors, and
   their libelli pacis. The principle was: necessity knows no law. A
   mitigation of the penitential discipline seemed in such cases justified
   by every consideration of charity and policy. So great was the number
   of the lapsed in the Decian persecution, that even Cyprian found
   himself compelled to relinquish his former rigoristic views, all the
   more because he held that out of the visible church there was no
   salvation.

   The strict party were zealous for the holiness of God; the moderate,
   for his grace. The former would not go beyond the revealed forgiveness
   of sins by baptism, and were content with urging the lapsed to
   repentance, without offering them hope of absolution in this life. The
   latter refused to limit the mercy of God and expose the sinner to
   despair. The former were carried away with an ideal of the church which
   cannot be realized till the second coming of Christ; and while impelled
   to a fanatical separatism, they proved, in their own sects, the
   impossibility of an absolutely pure communion on earth. The others not
   rarely ran to the opposite extreme of a dangerous looseness, were quite
   too lenient, even towards mortal sins, and sapped the earnestness of
   the Christian morality.

   It is remarkable that the lax penitential discipline had its chief
   support from the end of the second century, in the Roman church.
   Tertullian assails that church for this with bitter mockery.
   Hippolytus, soon after him, does the same; for, though no Montanist, he
   was zealous for strict discipline. According to his statement (in the
   ninth book of his Philosophumena), evidently made from fact, the pope
   Callistus, whom a later age stamped a saint because it knew little of
   him, admitted bigami and trigami to ordination, maintained that a
   bishop could not be deposed, even though he had committed a mortal sin,
   and appealed for his view to Rom. 14:4, to the parable of the tares and
   the wheat, Matt. 13:30, and, above all, to the ark of Noah, which was a
   symbol of the church, and which contained both clean and unclean
   animals, even dogs and wolves. In short, he considered no sin too great
   to be loosed by the power of the keys in the church. And this continued
   to be the view of his successors.

   But here we perceive, also, how the looser practice in regard to
   penance was connected with the interest of the hierarchy. It favored
   the power of the priesthood, which claimed for itself the right of
   absolution; it was at the same time matter of worldly policy; it
   promoted the external spread of the church, though at the expense of
   the moral integrity of her membership, and facilitated both her
   subsequent union with the state and her hopeless confusion with the
   world. No wonder the church of Rome, in this point, as in others,
   triumphed at last over all opposition.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [269] Peccata mortalia, or, ad mortem; after a rather arbitrary
   interpretation of 1 John 5:16. Tertullian gives seven mortal sins:
   Homocidium idololatria, fraus, negatio blasphemia. utique et moechia
   et. fornicatio et si qua alia violatio templi Dei. De pudic. c. 19,
   These he declares irremissibilia,horum ultra exoratur non erit
   Christus; that is, if thev be committed after baptism; for baptism
   washes, away all former guilt. Hence he counselled delay of baptism.

   [270] Peccata, venialia.

   [271] Poenitentes.

   [272] Can. 4 sqq. See Hefele, Conciliengesch (second ed.) I. 225 sqq.
   Comp. also the fifth canon of Neocaesarea, and Hefele, p. 246.

   [273] Prosklaiontes, flentes; also called cheimazontes, hiemantes

   [274] Akroomenoi, audientes, or auditores. The fourteenth canon of
   Nicaea (Hefele I. 418) directs that "Catechumens who had fallen, should
   for three years be only hearers, but afterwards pray with the
   Catechumens."

   [275] Gonuklinontes, genuflectentes: also hupopiptontes , Substrati.
   The terra gonu klinonas designating a class of penitents occurs only in
   the 5th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, held after 314 and before
   325.

   [276] Sunistamenoi, consistentes.

   [277] Prosklausis, fletus; akroasis auditus; hupoptosis, prostratio,
   humiliatio; sustasis, consistentia. The last three classes are supposed
   to correspond to three classes of catechumens, but without good reason.
   There was only one class of catechumens, or at most two classes. See
   below, S: 72.

   [278] Presbuteroi epi tes metanoias, presbyteri poenitentiarii

   [279] Reconciliatio.

   [280] The declarative, and especially the direct indicative or judicial
   form of absolution seems to be of later origin.

   [281] Cypr. Epist. LV., c. 15: "Neque enim prejudicamus Domino
   judicaturo, quominus si penitentiam plenam et justam peccatoris
   invenerit tunc ratum faciat, quod a nobis fuerit hic statutum. Si vero
   nos aliquis poenitentiae simulatione deluserit, Deus, cui non
   deridetur, et qui cor hominis intuetur, de his, quae nos minus
   perspeximus, judicet et servorum suorum sententiam Dominus mendet."
   Comp. the similar passages in Epist. LXXV. 4, and De Lapsi, c. 17. But
   if the church can err in imparting absolution to the unworthy, as
   Cyprian concedes, she can err also in withholding absolution and in
   passing sentence of excommunication.

   [282] 1 Cor. 5:1 sqq. Comp. 2 Cor. 2:5 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 58. Church Schisms.

   I. On the Schism of Hippolytus-. The Philosophumena of Hippol. lib. IX.
   (ed. Miller, Oxf. 1851, better by Duncker and Schneidewin, Goett.
   1859), and the monographs on Hippolytus, by Bunsen, Doellinger,
   Wordsworth, Jacobi, and others (which will be noticed in chapter XIII.
   S: 183).

   II. On the Schism of Felicissimus: Cyprian: Epist. 38-40, 42, 55.

   III. On the Novatian Schism: Hippol.: Philosoph. 1 IX. Cypr.: Epist.
   41-52; and the Epistles of Cornelius of Rome, and Dionys. of Alex., in
   Euseb. H. E., VI. 43-45; VII. 8. Comp. Lit. in S: 200.

   IV. On the Meletian Schism: Documents in Latin translation in Maffei:
   Osservationi Letterarie, Verona, 1738, tom. III p. 11 sqq., and the
   Greek fragments from the Liber de poenitentia of Peter of Alexandria in
   Routh: Reliquicae Sacr. vol. II. pp. 21-51. Epiphan.: Haer. 68
   (favorable to Meletius); Athanas.: Apol. contra Arianos, S: 59; and
   after him, Socr, Sozom., and Theod. (very unfavorable to Meletius).

   Out of this controversy on the restoration of the lapsed, proceeded
   four schisms during the third century; two in Rome, one in North
   Africa, and one in Egypt. Montanism, too, was in a measure connected
   with the question of penitential discipline, but extended also to
   several other points of Christian life, and will be discussed in a
   separate chapter.

   I. The Roman schism of Hippolytus. This has recently been brought to
   the light by the discovery of his Philosophumena (1851). Hippolytus was
   a worthy disciple of Irenaeus, and the most learned and zealous divine
   in Rome, during the pontificates of Zephyrinus (202-217), and Callistus
   (217-222). He died a martyr in 235 or 236. He was an advocate of strict
   views on discipline in opposition to the latitudinarian practice which
   we have described in the previous section. He gives a most unfavorable
   account of the antecedents of Callistus, and charges him and his
   predecessor with the patripassian heresy. The difference, therefore,
   was doctrinal as well as disciplinarian. It seems to have led to mutual
   excommunication and a temporary schism, which lasted till a.d. 235.
   Hippolytus ranks himself with the successors of the apostles, and seems
   to have been bishop of Portus, the port of Rome (according to later
   Latin tradition), or bishop of Rome (according to Greek writers). If
   bishop of Rome, he was the first schismatic pope, and forerunner of
   Novatianus, who was ordained anti pope in 251. [283] 83 But the Roman
   Church must have forgotten or forgiven his schism, for she numbers him
   among her saints and martyrs, and celebrates his memory on the
   twenty-second of August. Prudentius, the spanish poet, represents him
   as a Roman presbyter, who first took part in the Novatian schism, then
   returned to the Catholic church, and was torn to pieces by wild horses
   at Ostia on account of his faith. The remembrance of the schism was
   lost in the glory of his supposed or real martyrdom. According to the
   chronological catalogue of Popes from a.d. 354, a "presbyter"
   Hippolytus, together with the Roman bishop Pontianus, the successor of
   Callistus, was banished from Rome in the reign of Alexander Severus
   (235), to the mines of Sardinia. [284] 84

   II. The schism of Felicississimus, at Carthage, about the year 250,
   originated in the personal dissatisfaction of five presbyters with the
   hasty and irregular election of Cyprian to the bishopric, by the voice
   of the congregation, very soon after his baptism, a.d. 248. At the head
   of this opposition party stood the presbyter Novatus, an unprincipled
   ecclesiastical demagogue, of restless, insubordinate spirit and
   notorious character, [285] 85 and the deacon Felicissimus, whom Novatus
   ordained, without the permission or knowledge of Cyprian, therefore
   illegally, whether with his own hands or through those of foreign
   bishops. The controversy cannot, however, from this circumstance, be
   construed, as it is by Neander and others, into a presbyterial reaction
   against episcopal autocracy. For the opponents themselves afterwards
   chose a bishop in the person of Fortunatus. The Novatians and the
   Meletians likewise had the episcopal form of organization, though
   doubtless with many irregularities in the ordination.

   After the outbreak of the Decian persecution this personal rivalry
   received fresh nourishment and new importance from the question of
   discipline. Cyprian originally held Tertullian's principles, and
   utterly opposed the restoration of the lapsed, till further examination
   changed his views. Yet, so great was the multitude of the fallen, that
   he allowed an exception in periculo mortis. His opponents still saw
   even in this position an unchristian severity, least of all becoming
   him, who, as they misrepresented him, fled from his post for fear of
   death. They gained the powerful voice of the confessors, who in the
   face of their own martyrdom freely gave their peace-bills to the
   lapsed. A regular trade was carried on in these indulgences. An
   arrogant confessor, Lucian, wrote to Cyprian in the name of the rest,
   that he granted restoration to all apostates, and begged him to make
   this known to the other bishops. We can easily understand how this
   lenity from those who stood in the fire, might take more with the
   people than the strictness of the bishop, who had secured himself. The
   church of Novatus and Felicissimus was a resort of all the careless
   lapsi. Felicissimus set himself also against a visitation of churches
   and a collection for the poor, which Cyprian ordered during his exile.

   When the bishop returned, after Easter, 251, he held a council at
   Carthage, which, though it condemned the party of Felicissimus, took a
   middle course on the point in dispute. It sought to preserve the
   integrity of discipline, yet at the same time to secure the fallen
   against despair. It therefore decided for the restoration of those who
   proved themselves truly penitent, but against restoring the careless,
   who asked the communion merely from fear of death. Cyprian afterwards,
   when the persecution was renewed, under Gallus, abolished even this
   limitation. He was thus, of course, not entirely consistent, but
   gradually accommodated his principles to circumstances and to the
   practice of the Roman church. [286] 86 His antagonists elected their
   bishop, indeed, but were shortly compelled to yield to the united force
   of the African and Roman churches, especially as they had no moral
   earnestness at the bottom of their cause.

   His conflict with this schismatical movement strengthened Cyprian's
   episcopal authority, and led him in his doctrine of the unity of the
   church to the principle of absolute exclusiveness.

   III. The Novatian schism in Rome was prepared by the controversy
   already alluded to between Hippolytus and Callistus. It broke out soon
   after the African schism, and, like it, in consequence of an election
   of bishop. But in this case the opposition advocated the strict
   discipline against the lenient practice of the dominant church. The
   Novatianists [287] 87 considered themselves the only pure communion,
   [288] 88 and unchurched all churches which defiled themselves by
   re-admitting the lapsed, or any other gross offenders. They went much
   farther than Cyprian, even as far as the later Donatists. They admitted
   the possibility of mercy for a mortal sinner, but denied the power and
   the right of the church to decide upon it, and to prevent, by
   absolution, the judgment of God upon such offenders. They also, like
   Cyprian, rejected heretical baptism, and baptized all who came over to
   them from other communions not just so rigid as themselves.

   At the head of this party stood the Roman presbyter Novatian, [289] 89
   an earnest, learned, but gloomy man, who had come to faith through
   severe demoniacal disease and inward struggles. He fell out with
   Cornelius, who, after the Decian persecution in 251, was nominated
   bishop of Rome, and at once, to the grief of many, showed great
   indulgence towards the lapsed. Among his adherents the above-named
   Novatus of Carthage was particularly busy, either from a mere spirit of
   opposition to existing authority, or from having changed his former lax
   principles on his removal to Rome. Novatian, against his will, was
   chosen bishop by the opposition. Cornelius excommunicated him. Both
   parties courted the recognition of the churches abroad. Fabian, bishop
   of Antioch, sympathized with the rigorists. Dionysius of Alexandria, on
   the contrary, accused them of blaspheming the most gracious Lord Jesus
   Christ, by calling him unmerciful. And especially Cyprian, from his
   zeal for ecclesiastical unity and his aversion to Novatus, took sides
   with Cornelius, whom he regarded the legitimate bishop of Rome.

   In spite of this strong opposition the Novatian sect, by virtue of its
   moral earnestness, propagated itself in various provinces of the West
   and the East down to the sixth century. In Phrygia it combined with the
   remnants of the Montanists. The council of Nicaea recognized its
   ordination, and endeavored, without success, to reconcile it with the
   Catholic church. Constantine, at first dealt mildly with the Novatians,
   but afterwards prohibited them to worship in public and ordered their
   books to be burnt.

   IV. The Meletian schism in Egypt arose in the Diocletian persecution,
   about 305, and lasted more than a century, but, owing to the
   contradictory character of our accounts, it is not so well understood.
   It was occasioned by Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who,
   according to one statement, from zeal for strict discipline, according
   to another, from sheer arrogance, rebelled against his metropolitan,
   Peter of Alexandria (martyred in 311), and during his absence
   encroached upon his diocese with ordinations, excommunications, and the
   like. Peter warned his people against him, and, on returning from his
   flight, deposed him as a disturber of the peace of the church. But the
   controversy continued, and spread over all Egypt. The council of Nicaea
   endeavored, by recognizing the ordination of the twenty-nine Meletian
   bishops, and by other compromise measures, to heal the division; but to
   no purpose. The Meletians afterwards made common cause with the Arians.

   The Donatist schism, which was more formidable than any of those
   mentioned, likewise grew out of the Diocletian persecution, but belongs
   more to the next period.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [283] See the particulars in S: 183, and in Doellinger's Hippol. and
   Call., Engl. transl. by A. Plummer (1876), p. 92 sqq.

   [284] See Mommsen, Ueber den Chronographen vom Jahr 354 (1850),
   Lipsius, Chronologie der Roem. Bischoefe, p. 40 sqq.; Doellinger, I.c.
   p. 332 sqq.; Jacobi in Herzog2 VI. 142 sqq.

   [285] Cyprian charges him with terrible cruelties, such as robbing
   widows and orphans, gross abuse of his father, and of his wife even
   during her pregnancy; and says, that he was about to be arraigned for
   this and similar misconduct when the Decian persecution broke out. Ep.
   49.

   [286] In Ep. 52, Ad Antonianum, he tried to justify himself in regard
   to this change in his views.

   [287] Novatiani, Novatianenses.

   [288] Katharoi.

   [289] Eusebius and the Greeks call him Noouatos, and confound him with
   Novatus of Carthage. Dionysius of Alex., however, calls him
   Noouatianos.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER V:

   CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.

   I. The richest sources here are the works of Justin M., Tertullian,
   Cyprian, Eusebius, and the so-called Constitutiones Apostolicae; also
   Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 59-61), and the Homily falsely ascribed to him
   (fully publ. 1875).

   II. See the books quoted in vol. I. 455, and the relevant sections in
   the archaeological works of Bingham (Antiquities of the Christian
   Church, Lond. 1708-22. 10 vols.; new ed. Lond. 1852, in 2 vols.),
   Augusti (whose larger work fills 12 vols., Leipz. 1817-31, and his
   Handbuch der Christl. Archaeol. 3 vols. Leipz. 1836), Binterim (R.C.),
   Siegel, Smith & Cheetham (Dict. of Chr. Ant., Lond. 1875, 2 vols.), and
   Garrucci (Storia della arte crist., 1872-80, 6 vols.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 59. Places of Common Worship.

   R. Hospinianus: De Templis, etc. Tig. 1603. And in his Opera, Genev.
   1681.

   Fabricius: De Templis vett. Christ. Helmst. 1704.

   Muratori (R.C.): De primis Christianorum Ecclesiis. Arezzo, 1770.

   Huebsch: Altchristliche Kirchen. Karlsruh, 1860.

   Jos. Mullooly: St. Clement and his Basilica in Rome. Rome, 2nd ed.
   1873.

   De Voguee: Architecture civile et relig. du Ie au Vlle siecle. Paris,
   1877, 2 vols.

   The numerous works on church architecture (by Fergusson, Brown, Bunsen,
   Kugler, Kinkel, Kreuser, Schnaase, Luebke, Voillet-le-Duc, De Voguee
   etc.) usually begin with the basilicas of the Constantinian age, which
   are described in vol. III. 541 sqq.

   The Christian worship, as might be expected from the humble condition
   of the church in this period of persecution, was very simple, strongly
   contrasting with the pomp of the Greek and Roman communion; yet by no
   means puritanic. We perceive here, as well as in organization and
   doctrine, the gradual and sure approach of the Nicene age, especially
   in the ritualistic solemnity of the baptismal service, and the mystical
   character of the eucharistic sacrifice.

   Let us glance first at the places of public worship. Until about the
   close of the second century the Christians held their worship mostly in
   private houses, or in desert places, at the graves of martyrs, and in
   the crypts of the catacombs. This arose from their poverty, their
   oppressed and outlawed condition, their love of silence and solitude,
   and their aversion to all heathen art. The apologists frequently
   assert, that their brethren had neither temples nor altars (in the
   pagan sense of these words), and that their worship was spiritual and
   independent of place and ritual. Heathens, like Celsus, cast this up to
   them as a reproach; but Origen admirably replied: The humanity of
   Christ is the highest temple and the most beautiful image of God, and
   true Christians are living statues of the Holy Spirit, with which no
   Jupiter of Phidias can compare. Justin Martyr said to the Roman
   prefect: The Christians assemble wherever it is convenient, because
   their God is not, like the gods of the heathen, inclosed in space, but
   is invisibly present everywhere. Clement of Alexandria refutes the
   superstition, that religion is bound to any building.

   In private houses the room best suited for worship and for the
   love-feast was the oblong dining-hall, the triclinium, which was never
   wanting in a convenient Greek or Roman dwelling, and which often had a
   semicircular niche, like the choir [290] 90 in the later churches. An
   elevated seat [291] 91 was used for reading the Scriptures and
   preaching, and a simple tables [292] 92 for the holy communion. Similar
   arrangements were made also in the catacombs, which sometimes have the
   form of a subterranean church.

   The first traces of special houses of worship [293] 93 occur in
   Tertullian, who speaks of going to church, [294] 94 and in his
   contemporary, Clement of Alexandria, who mentions the double meaning of
   the word ekklesia. [295] 95 About the year 230, Alexander Severus
   granted the Christians the right to a place in Rome against the protest
   of the tavern-keepers, because the worship of God in any form was
   better than tavern-keeping. After the middle of the third century the
   building of churches began in great earnest, as the Christians enjoyed
   over forty years of repose (260-303), and multiplied so fast that,
   according to Eusebius, more spacious places of devotion became
   everywhere necessary. The Diocletian persecution began (in 303,) with
   the destruction of the magnificent church at Nicomedia, which,
   according to Lactantius, even towered above the neighboring imperial
   palace. [296] 96 Rome is supposed to have had, as early as the
   beginning of the fourth century, more than forty churches. But of the
   form and arrangement of them we have no account. With Constantine the
   Great begins the era of church architecture, and its first style is the
   Basilica. The emperor himself set the example, and built magnificent
   churches in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Constantinople, which, however,
   have undergone many changes. His contemporary, the historian Eusebius,
   gives us the first account of a church edifice which Paulinus built in
   Tyre between a.d. 313 and 322. [297] 97 It included a large portico
   (propulon) a quadrangular atrium (aithrion) surrounded by ranges of
   columns; a fountain in the centre of the atrium for the customary
   washing of hands and feet before entering the church; interior
   porticoes; the nave or central space (basileios oikos) with galleries
   above the aisles, and covered by a roof of cedar of Lebanon; and the
   most holy altar (hagion hagion thusiasterion). Eusebius mentions also
   the thrones (thronoi) for the bishops and presbyters, and benches or
   seats. The church was surrounded by halls and inclosed by a wall, which
   can still be traced. Fragments of five granite columns of this building
   are among the ruins of Tyre.

   The description of a church in the Apostolic Constitutions, [298] 98
   implies that the clergy occupy the space at the cast end of the church
   (in the choir), and the people the nave, but mentions no barrier
   between them. Such a barrier, however, existed as early as the fourth
   century, when the laity were forbidden to enter the enclosure of the
   altar.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [290] Chorus, bema. The two are sometimes identified, sometimes
   distinguished, the bema being the sanctuary proper for the celebration
   of the holy mysteries, the choir the remaining part of the chancel for
   the clergy; while the nave was for the laity.

   [291] Ambon, suggestus, pulpitum.

   [292] Trapeza, mensa sacra; also ara, altare.

   [293] Ekklesia, ekklesiasterion, kuriaka, oikos theou,, ecclesia,
   dominica, domus Dei, templum. The names for a church building in the
   Teutonic and Slavonic languages (Kirche, Church, Kerk, Kyrka, Tserkoff,
   etc.) are derived from the Greek kuriake, kuriakon, (belonging to the
   Lord, the Lord's house), through the medium of the Gothic; the names in
   the Romanic languages (Chiesa, Igreja, Eglise, etc.) from the Latin
   ecclesia, although this is also from the Greek, and meant originally
   assembly (either a local congregation, or the whole body of
   Christians). Churches erected specially in honor of martyrs were called
   martyria, memoriae, tropaea, tituli.

   [294] In ecclcsima, in domum Dei venire

   [295] Topos,andathroisma ton eklekton

   [296] De Mort. Persec. c. 12. The Chronicle of Edessa (in Assem. Bibl
   Orient. XI. 397) mentions the destruction of Christian temples a.d.
   292.

   [297] Hist. Ecel. X. 4. Eusebius also describes, in rhetorical
   exaggeration and looseness, the churches built by Constantine in
   Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople (Vita Const. 1. III. 50; IV. 58,
   59). See De Voguee, Eglises de la terre-sainte, Huebsch, l.c., , -tnd
   Smith & Cheetliam, I. 368 sqq.

   [298] II. 57, ed. Ueltzen, p. 66 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 60. The Lord's Day.

   See Lit. in vol. I. 476.

   The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of
   Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. [299] 99 Nothing short
   of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious
   observance in the churches of the second century. There is no
   dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the
   earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, [300] 00 Ignatius, [301]
   01 and Justin Martyr. [302] 02 It is also confirmed by the younger
   Pliny. [303] 03 The Didache calls the first day "the Lord's Day of the
   Lord." [304] 04

   Considering that the church was struggling into existence, and that a
   large number of Christians were slaves of heathen masters, we cannot
   expect an unbroken regularity of worship and a universal cessation of
   labor on Sunday until the civil government in the time of Constantine
   came to the help of the church and legalized (and in part even
   enforced) the observance of the Lord's Day. This may be the reason why
   the religious observance of it was not expressly enjoined by Christ and
   the apostles; as for similar reasons there is no prohibition of
   polygamy and slavery by the letter of the New Testament, although its
   spirit condemns these abuses, and led to their abolition. We may go
   further and say that coercive Sunday laws are against the genius and
   spirit of the Christian religion which appeals to the free will of man,
   and uses only moral means for its ends. A Christian government may and
   ought to protect the Christian Sabbath against open desecration, but
   its positive observance by attending public worship, must be left to
   the conscientious conviction of individuals. Religion cannot be forced
   by law. It looses its value when it ceases to be voluntary.

   The fathers did not regard the Christian Sunday as a continuation of,
   but as a substitute for, the Jewish Sabbath, and based it not so much
   on the fourth commandment, and the primitive rest of God in creation,
   to which the commandment expressly refers, as upon the resurrection of
   Christ and the apostolic tradition. There was a disposition to
   disparage the Jewish law in the zeal to prove the independent
   originality of Christian institutions. The same polemic interest
   against Judaism ruled in the paschal controversies, and made Christian
   Easter a moveable feast. Nevertheless, Sunday was always regarded in
   the ancient church as a divine institution, at least in the secondary
   sense, as distinct from divine ordinances in the primary sense, which
   were directly and positively commanded by Christ, as baptism and the
   Lord's Supper. Regular public worship absolutely requires a stated day
   of worship.

   Ignatius was the first who contrasted Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath as
   something done away with. [305] 05 So did the author of the so-called
   Epistle of Barnabas. [306] 06 Justin Martyr, in controversy with a Jew,
   says that the pious before Moses pleased God without circumcision and
   the Sabbath, [307] 07 and that Christianity requires not one particular
   Sabbath, but a perpetual Sabbath. [308] 08 He assigns as a reason for
   the selection of the first day for the purposes of Christian worship,
   because on that day God dispelled the darkness and the chaos, and
   because Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his assembled
   disciples, but makes no allusion to the fourth commandment. [309] 09 He
   uses the term "to sabbathize" (sabbatizein), only of the Jews, except
   in the passage just quoted, where he spiritualizes the Jewish law.
   Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the
   church of Rome, a.d., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord's Day holy, in
   which we read your letter." [310] 10 Melito of Sardis wrote a treatise
   on the Lord's Day, which is lost. [311] 11 Irenaeus of Lyons, about
   170, bears testimony to the celebration of the Lord's Day, [312] 12 but
   likewise regards the Jewish Sabbath merely as a symbolical and typical
   ordinance, and says that "Abraham without circumcision and without
   observance of Sabbaths believed in God," which proves "the symbolical
   and temporary character of those ordinances, and their inability to
   make perfect." [313] 13 Tertullian, at the close of the second and
   beginning of the third century, views the Lord's Day as figurative of
   rest from sin and typical of man's final rest, and says: "We have
   nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much
   less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord's
   Day, for instance, and Pentecost. As the heathen confine themselves to
   their festivals and do not observe ours, let us confine ourselves to
   ours, and not meddle with those belonging to them." He thought it wrong
   to fast on the Lord's Day, or to pray kneeling during its continuance.
   "Sunday we give to joy." But he also considered it Christian duty to
   abstain from secular care and labor, lest we give place to the devil.
   [314] 14 This is the first express evidence of cessation from labor on
   Sunday among Christians. The habit of standing in prayer on Sunday,
   which Tertullian regarded as essential to the festive character of the
   day, and which was sanctioned by an ecumenical council, was afterwards
   abandoned by the western church.

   The Alexandrian fathers have essentially the same view, with some
   fancies of their own concerning the allegorical meaning of the Jewish
   Sabbath.

   We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the
   Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent
   Christian ground. She did not fully appreciate the perpetual obligation
   of the fourth commandment in its substance as a weekly day of rest,
   rooted in the physical and moral necessities of man. This is
   independent of those ceremonial enactments which were intended only for
   the Jews and abolished by the gospel. But, on the other hand, the
   church took no secular liberties with the day. On the question of
   theatrical and other amusements she was decidedly puritanic and
   ascetic, and denounced them as being inconsistent on any day with the
   profession of a soldier of the cross. She regarded Sunday as a sacred
   day, as the Day of the Lord, as the weekly commemoration of his
   resurrection and the pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, and therefore
   as a day of holy joy and thanksgiving to be celebrated even before the
   rising sun by prayer, praise, and communion with the risen Lord and
   Saviour.

   Sunday legislation began with Constantine, and belongs to the next
   period.

   The observance of the Sabbath among the Jewish Christians gradually
   ceased. Yet the Eastern church to this day marks the seventh day of the
   week (excepting only the Easter Sabbath) by omitting fasting, and by
   standing in prayer; while the Latin church, in direct opposition to
   Judaism, made Saturday a fast day. The controversy on this point began
   as early as the, end of the second century

   Wednesday, [315] 15 and especially Friday, [316] 16 were devoted to the
   weekly commemoration of the sufferings and death of the Lord, and
   observed as days of penance, or watch-days, [317] 17 and half-fasting
   (which lasted till three o'clock in the afternoon). [318] 18
     __________________________________________________________________

   [299] The original designations of the Christian Sabbath or weekly
   rest-day are: he mia ormia sabbaton, the first day of the week (Matt.
   28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 21:1; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2), and he
   hemera kuriake, the Lord's Day, which first occurs in Rev. 1:10, then
   in Ignatius and the fathers. The Latins render it Dominicus or Dominica
   dies. Barnabas calls it the eighth day, in contrast to the Jewish
   Sabbath. After Constantine the Jewish term Sabbath and the heathen term
   Sunday (hemera tou heliou, dies Solis)were used also. In the edict of
   Gratian, a.d. 386, two are combined: "Solis die, quem Dominicum rite`
   dixere majores." On the Continent of Europe Sunday has ruled out
   Sabbath completely; while in England, Scotland, and the United States
   Sabbath is used as often as the other or oftener in religious
   literature. The difference is characteristic of the difference in the
   Continental and the Anglo-American observance of the Lord's Day.

   [300] Ep., c. 15: "We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which Jesus
   rose from the dead, and, after having appeared [to his disciple, ;],
   ascended to heaven." It does not follow from this that Barnabas put the
   ascension of Christ likewise on Sunday.

   [301] Ep. ad Magnes. c. 8, 9.

   [302] Apol. I. 67.

   [303] "Stato die, ' in his letter to Trajan, Ep. X. 97. This " stated
   day, "on which the Christian, in Bithynia assembled before day-light to
   sing hymns to Christ as a God, and to bind themselves by a sacramentum,
   must be the Lord's Day.

   [304] Ch. 14: Kuriake kuriou, pleonastic. The adjective in Rev. 1:10.

   [305] Ep. ad Magna. c. 8, 9 in the shorter Greek recension (wanting in
   the Syriac edition).

   [306] Cap. 15. This Epistle is altogether too fierce in its polemics
   against Judaism to be the production of the apostolic Barnabas.

   [307] Dial c. TryPh. M. 19, 27 (Tom. I. P. II. p. 68, 90, in the third
   ed. of Otto).

   [308] Dial. 12 (II, p. 46):sabbatizein humas (so Otto reads, but hemas
   would be better) ho kainos nomos dia pantos (belong to
   sabbatizein)ethelei. Comp. Tertullian, Contra Jud. c. 4: "Unde nos
   intelligimis magis, sabbatizare nos ab omni opere servili semper
   debere, et non tantum septimo quoque die, sed per omne tempus."

   [309] Apol. I. 67 (I. p. 161):Ten de tou heliou hemeran koine pantes
   ten suneleusin poioumetha, epeide prote estin hemera, en he ho theos to
   skotos kai ten hulen trepsas , kosmon epoiese, kai Iesous Christos ho
   hemeteros soter te aute hemera ek nekron aneste. k.t.l.

   [310] Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23.

   [311] Peri kuriakes logos. Euseb. IV. 26.

   [312] In one of his fragments peri tou pascha, and by his part in the
   Quartadecimanian controversy, which turned on the yearly celebration of
   the Christian Passover, but implied universal agreement as to the
   weekly celebration of the Resurrection. Comp. Hessey, Bampton Lectures
   on Sunday. London, 1860, p. 373.

   [313] Adv. Haer. IV. 16.

   [314] De Orat. c. 23: "Nos vero sicut accepimus, solo die Dominicae
   Resurrectionis non ab isto tantum [the bowing of the knee], sed omni
   anxietatis habitu et officio cavere debemus, differentes etiam negotia,
   ne quem diabolo locum demus." Other passages of Tertullian, Cyprian,
   Clement of Alex., and Origen see in Hessey, l.c., pp. 375 ff.

   [315] Feria quarta.

   [316] Feria sexta, he paraskeue

   [317] Dies stationum of the milites Christi.

   [318] Semijejunia.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 61. The Christian Passover. (Easter).

   R. Hospinianus: Festa Christ., h.e. de origine, progressu, ceremonies
   el ritibusfestorum dierum Christ. Tig. 1593, and often.

   A. G. Pillwitz: Gesch. der heil. Zeiten in der abendlaend. Kirche.
   Dresden, 1842.

   M. A. Nickel (R.C.): Die heil. Zeiten u. Feste nach ihrer Gesch. u.
   Feier in der kath. Kirche. Mainz, 1825-1838. 6 vols.

   P. Piper: Gesch. des Osterfestes. Berl. 1845.

   Lisco: Das christl. Kirchenjahr. Berlin, 1840, 4th ed. 1850.

   Strauss (court-chaplain of the King of Prussia, d. 1863): Das evangel.
   Kirchenjahr. Berlin, 1850.

   Boberstag: Das evangel. Kirchenjahr. Breslau 1857.

   H. Alt: Der Christliche Cultus, IInd Part: Das Kirchenjahr, 2nd ed.
   Berlin 1860.

   L. Hensley: Art. Easter in Smith and Cheetham (1875), I. 586-595.

   F. X. Kraus (R.C.): Art. Feste in "R. Encykl. der Christl.
   Alterthuemer," vol. I. (1881), pp. 486-502, and the Lit. quoted there.
   The article is written by several authors, the section on Easter and
   Pentecost by Dr. Funk of Tuebingen.

   The yearly festivals of this period were Easter, Pentecost, and
   Epiphany. They form the rudiments of the church year, and keep within
   the limits of the facts of the New Testament.

   Strictly speaking the ante-Nicene church had two annual festive
   seasons, the Passover in commemoration of the suffering of Christ, and
   the Pentecoste in commemoration of the resurrection and exaltation of
   Christ, beginning with Easter and ending with Pentecost proper. But
   Passover and Easter were connected in a continuous celebration,
   combining the deepest sadness with the highest joy, and hence the term
   pascha (in Greek and Latin) is often used in a wider sense for the
   Easter season, as is the case with the French paqueor paques, and the
   Italian pasqua. The Jewish passover also lasted a whole week, and after
   it began their Pentecost or feast of weeks. The death of Christ became
   fruitful in the resurrection, and has no redemptive power without it.
   The commemoration of the death of Christ was called the pascha
   staurosimon or the Passover proper. [319] 19 The commemoration of the
   resurrection was called the pascha anastasimon, and afterwards Easter.
   [320] 20 The former corresponds to the gloomy Friday, the other to the
   cheerful Sunday, the sacred days of the week in commemoration of those
   great events.

   The Christian Passover naturally grew out of the Jewish Passover as the
   Lord's Day grew out of the Sabbath; the paschal lamb being regarded as
   a prophetic type of Christ, the Lamb of God slain for our sins (1 Cor.
   5:7, 8), and the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt as a type of the
   redemption from sin. It is certainly the oldest and most important
   annual festival of the church, and can be traced back to the first
   century, or at all events to the middle of the second, when it was
   universally observed, though with a difference as to the day, and the
   extent of the fast connected with it. It is based on the view that
   Christ crucified and risen is the centre of faith. The Jewish
   Christians would very naturally from the beginning continue to
   celebrate the legal passover, but in the light of its fulfillment by
   the sacrifice of Christ, and would dwell chiefly on the aspect of the
   crucifixion. The Gentile Christians, for whom the Jewish passover had
   no meaning except through reflection from the cross, would chiefly
   celebrate the Lord's resurrection as they did on every Sunday of the
   week. Easter formed at first the beginning of the Christian year, as
   the month of Nisan, which contained the vernal equinox (corresponding
   to our March or April.), began the sacred year of the Jews. Between the
   celebration of the death and the resurrection of Christ lay "the great
   Sabbath," [321] 21 on which also the Greek church fasted by way of
   exception; and "the Easter vigils," [322] 22 which were kept, with
   special devotion, by the whole congregation till the break of day, and
   kept the more scrupulously, as it was generally believed that the
   Lord's glorious return would occur on this night. The feast of the
   resurrection, which completed the whole work of redemption, became
   gradually the most prominent part of the Christian Passover, and
   identical with Easter. But the crucifixion continued to be celebrated
   on what is called "Good Friday." [323] 23

   The paschal feast was preceded by a season of penitence and fasting,
   which culminated in "the holy week." [324] 24 This fasting varied in
   length, in different countries, from one day or forty hours to six
   weeks; [325] 25 but after the fifth century, through the influence of
   Rome, it was universally fixed at forty days, [326] 26 with reference
   to the forty days' fasting of Christ in the wilderness and the Old
   Testament types of that event (the fasting of Moses and Elijah). [327]
   27
     __________________________________________________________________

   [319] Pascha, pascha, is not from the verb paschein, to, suffer (though
   often confounded with it and with the Latin passio by the Father, who
   were ignorant of Hebrew), but from the Hebrew chsk the Chaldee 'hsk ,
   (Comp. the verb chsk to pass over, to spare). See Ex. chg. 12 and 13;
   Lev. 23:4-9; Num. ch. 9. It has three meanings in the Sept. and the N.
   T. 1) the paschal festival, called "the feast of unleavened bread," and
   lasting from the fourteenth to the twentieth of Nisan, in commemoration
   of the sparing of the first-born and the deliverance of Israel from
   Egypt; 2) the paschal lamb which was slain between the two evenings.
   (3-5 p. m.) on the 14^th of Nisan; 3) the paschal supper on the
   evening- of the same day, which marked the beginning of the 15th of
   Nisan, or the first day of the festival. In the first sense it
   corresponds to the Christian Easter-festival, as the type corresponds
   to the substance. Nevertheless the translation Easter for Passover in
   the English version, Acts 12:4, is a strange anachronism (corrected in
   the Revision).

   [320] Easter is the resurrection festival which follow., ; the Passover
   proper, but is included in the same festive week. The English Easter
   (Anglo-Saxon easter, eastran, German Ostern) is connected with East and
   sunrise, and is akin to eos, oriens, aurora (comp. Jac. Grimm's
   Deutsche Mythol. 1835, p. 181 and 349, and Skeat's Etym. Dict. E. Lang.
   sub Easter). The comparison of sunrise and the natural spring with the
   new moral creation in the resurrection of Christ, and the transfer of
   the celebration of Ostara, the old German divinity of the rising,
   health-bringing light, to the Christian Easter festival, was easy and
   natural, because all nature is a symbol of spirit, and the heathen
   myths are dim presentiments and carnal anticipations of Christian
   truths.

   [321] To mega sabbaton, to hagion sabbaton , Sabbatum magnum.

   [322] Pannuchides,vigiae paschae, Easter Eve. Good Friday and Easter
   Eve were a continuous fast, which was prolonged till midnight or
   cock-crow. See Tertull. Ad uxoR. II. 4; Euseb. H. E. VI. 34; Apost.
   ConSt. V. 18; VII. 23.

   [323] Various names: pascha staurosimou (as distinct from p.
   anastasimou).hemera staurou, paraskeue megale or agia, parasceue, feria
   sexta major, Good Friday, Charfreitag (fromcharis or from carus, dear).
   But the celebration seems not to, have been universal; for Augustin
   says in his letter Ad Januar., that he did not consider this day holy.
   See Siegel, Handbuch der christl. Kirchl. Alterthuemer, I. 374 sqq.

   [324] From Palm Sunday to Easter Eve. Hebdomas megale, or tou pascha,
   hebdomas magna, hebdomas nigra (in opposition to dominica in albis),
   hebdomas crux, Chaiwoche.

   [325] Irenaeus, in his letter to Victor of Rome (Euseb. V. 24): "Not
   only is the dispute respecting the day, but also respecting the manner
   of fasting. For some think that the v ought to fast only one day, some
   two, some more days; some compute their day as consisting of forty
   hours night and day; and this diversity existing among those that
   observe it, is not a matter that has just sprung up in our times, but
   long ago among those before us, who perhaps not having ruled with
   sufficient strictness, established the practice that arose from their
   simplicity and ignorance."

   [326] quadragesima.

   [327] Matt. 4:2; comp. Ex. 34:28; 1 Kings 19:8.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 62. The Paschal Controversies.

   I. The sources for the paschal controversies:

   Fragments from Melito, Apollinarius, Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria,
   Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, preserved in Euseb. H. E. IV. 3, 26; V.
   23-25; VI. 13; The Chronicon Pasch. I. 12 sqq., a passage in the
   Philosophumena of Hippolytus, Lib. VIII. cap. 18 (p. 435, ed. Duncker &
   Schneidewin, 1859), a fragment from Eusebius in Angelo Mai's Nova P. P.
   Bibl. T. IV. 2O9-216, and the Haeresies of Epiphanius, Haer. LXX. 1-3;
   LXX. 9.

   II. Recent works, occasioned mostly by the Johannean controversy:

   Weitzel: Die Christl. Passafeier der drei ersten Jahrh. Pforzheim, 1848
   (and in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1848, No. 4, against Baur).

   Baur: Das Christenthum der 3 ersten Jahrh. (1853). Tueb. 3rd ed. 1863,
   pp. 156-169. And several controversial essays against Steitz.

   Hilgenfeld: Der Paschastreit und das Evang. Johannis (in "Theol.
   Jahrbuecher" for 1849);Noch ein Wort ueber den Passahstreit (ibid.
   1858); and Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche nach seiner Bedeutung fuer
   die Kirchengesch. und fuer die Evangelienforschung urkundlich
   dargestellt. Halle 1860 (410 pages).

   Steitz: Several essays on the subject, mostly against Baur, in the
   "Studien u. Kritiken, "1856, 1857, and 1859; in the "Theol.
   Jahrbuecher, "1857, and art. Passah in "Herzog's Encycl." vol. XII.
   (1859), p. 149 sqq., revised in the new ed., by Wagenmann, XI. 270 sqq.

   William Milligan: The Easter Controversies of the second century in
   their relation to the Gospel of St. John, in the "Contemporary Review"
   for Sept. 1867 (p. 101-118).

   Emil Schuerer: De Controversiis paschalibus sec. post Chr. soc.
   exortis, Lips. 1869. By the same: Die Paschastreitigkeiten des 2^ten
   Jahrh., in Kahnis' "Zeitschrift fuer Hist. Theol." 1870, pp. 182-284.
   Very full and able.

   C. Jos. von Hefele (R.C.): Conciliengeschichte, I. 86-101 (second ed.
   Freib. 1873; with some important changes).

   Abbe Duchesne: La question de la Paque, in "Revue des questions
   historiques," July 1880.

   Renan: L'eglise chret. 445-451; and M. Aurele, 194-206 (la question de
   la Paque.

   Respecting the time of the Christian Passover and of the fast connected
   with it, there was a difference of observance which created violent
   controversies in the ancient church, and almost as violent
   controversies in the modern schools of theology in connection with the
   questions of the primacy of Rome, and the genuineness of John's Gospel.
   [328] 28

   The paschal controversies of the ante-Nicene age are a very complicated
   chapter in ancient church-history, and are not yet sufficiently cleared
   up. They were purely ritualistic and disciplinary, and involved no
   dogma; and yet they threatened to split the churches; both parties
   laying too much stress on external uniformity. Indirectly, however,
   they involved the question of the independence of Christianity on
   Judaism. [329] 29

   Let us first consider the difference of observance or the subject of
   controversy.

   The Christians of Asia Minor, following the Jewish chronology, and
   appealing to the authority of the apostles John and Philip, celebrated
   the Christian Passover uniformly on the fourteenth of Nisan (which
   might fall on any of the seven days of the week) by a solemn fast; they
   fixed the close of the fast accordingly, and seem to have partaken on
   the evening of this day, as the close of the fast, but indeed of the
   Jewish paschal lamb, as has sometimes been supposed, [330] 30 but of
   the communion and love-feast, as the Christian passover and the
   festival of the redemption completed by the death of Christ. [331] 31
   The communion on the evening of the 14th (or, according to the Jewish
   mode of reckoning, the day from sunset to sunset, on the beginning of
   the 15th) of Nisan was in memory of the last pascha supper of Christ.
   This observance did not exclude the idea that Christ died as the true
   paschal Lamb. For we find among the fathers both this idea and the
   other that Christ ate the regular Jewish passover with his disciples,
   which took place on the14th. [332] 32 From the day of observance the
   Asiatic Christians were afterwards called Quartadecimanians. [333] 33
   Hippolytus of Rome speaks of them contemptuously as a sect of
   contentious and ignorant persons, who maintain that "the pascha should
   be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month according to the
   law, no matter on what day of the week it might fall." [334] 34
   Nevertheless the Quartadecimanian observance was probably the oldest
   and in accordance with the Synoptic tradition of the last Passover of
   our Lord, which it commemorated. [335] 35

   The Roman church, on the contrary, likewise appealing to early custom,
   celebrated the death of Jesus always on a Friday, the day of the week
   on which it actually occurred, and his resurrection always on a Sunday
   after the March full moon, and extended the paschal fast to the latter
   day; considering it improper to terminate the fast at an earlier date,
   and to celebrate the communion before the festival of the resurrection.
   Nearly all the other churches agreed with the Roman in this observance,
   and laid the main stress on the resurrection-festival on Sunday. This
   Roman practice created an entire holy week of solemn fasting and
   commemoration of the Lord's passion, while the Asiatic practice ended
   the fast on the 14^th of Nisan, which may fall sometimes several days
   before Sunday.

   Hence a spectacle shocking to the catholic sense of ritualistic
   propriety and uniformity was frequently presented to the world, that
   one part of Christendom was fasting and mourning over the death of our
   Saviour, while the other part rejoiced in the glory of the
   resurrection. We cannot be surprised that controversy arose, and
   earnest efforts were made to harmonize the opposing sections of
   Christendom in the public celebration of the fundamental facts of the
   Christian salvation and of the most sacred season of the church-year.

   The gist of the paschal controversy was, whether the Jewish paschal-day
   (be it a Friday or not), or the Christian Sunday, should control the
   idea and time of the entire festival. The Johannean practice of Asia
   represented here the spirit of adhesion to historical precedent, and
   had the advantage of an immovable Easter, without being Judaizing in
   anything but the observance of a fixed day of the month. The Roman
   custom represented the principle of freedom and discretionary change,
   and the independence of the Christian festival system. Dogmatically
   stated, the difference would be, that in the former case the chief
   stress was laid on the Lord's death; in the latter, on his
   resurrection. But the leading interest of the question for the early
   Church was not the astronomical, nor the dogmatical, but the
   ritualistic. The main object was to secure uniformity of observance,
   and to assert the originality of the Christian festive cycle, and its
   independence of Judaism; for both reasons the Roman usage at last
   triumphed even in the East. Hence Easter became a movable festival
   whose date varies from the end of March to the latter part of April.

   The history of the controversy divides itself into three acts.

   1. The difference came into discussion first on a visit of Polycarp,
   bishop of Smyrna, to Anicetus, bishop of Rome, between a.d. 150 and
   155. [336] 36 It was not settled; yet the two bishops parted in peace,
   after the latter had charged his venerable guest to celebrate the holy
   communion in his church. We have a brief, but interesting account of
   this dispute by Irenaeus, a pupil of Polycarp, which is as follows:
   [337] 37

   "When the blessed Polycarp sojourned at Rome in the days of Anicetus,
   and they had some little difference of opinion likewise with regard to
   other points, [338] 38 they forthwith came to a peaceable understanding
   on this head [the observance of Easter], having no love for mutual
   disputes. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe
   [339] 39 inasmuch as he [Pol.] had always observed with John, the
   disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles, with whom he had
   associated; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe Gr. (threi'n)
   who said that he was bound to maintain the custom of the presbyters
   (=bishops) before him. These things being so, they communed together;
   and in the church Anicetus yielded to Polycarp, out of respect no
   doubt, the celebration of the eucharist Gr. (thVn eujcaristivan), and
   they separated from each other in peace, all the church being at peace,
   both those that observed and those that did not observe [the fourteenth
   of Nisan], maintaining peace."

   This letter proves that the Christians of the days of Polycarp knew how
   to keep the unity of the Spirit without uniformity of rites and
   ceremonies. "The very difference in our fasting," says Irenaeus in the
   same letter, "establishes the unanimity in our faith."

   2. A few years afterwards, about a.d. 170, the controversy broke out in
   Laodicea, but was confined to Asia, where a difference had arisen
   either among the Quartadecimanians themselves, or rather among these
   and the adherents of the Western observance. The accounts on this
   interimistic sectional dispute are incomplete and obscure. Eusebius
   merely mentions that at that time Melito of Sardis wrote two works on
   the Passover. [340] 40 But these are lost, as also that of Clement of
   Alexandria on the same topic. [341] 41 Our chief source of information
   is Claudius Apolinarius (Apollinaris), [342] 42 bishop of Hierapolis,
   in Phrygia, in two fragments of his writings upon the subject, which
   have been preserved in the Chronicon Paschale. [343] 43 These are as
   follows:

   "There are some now who, from ignorance, love to raise strife about
   these things, being guilty in this of a pardonable offence; for
   ignorance does not so much deserve blame as need instruction. And they
   say that on the fourteenth [of Nisan] the Lord ate the paschal lamb (to
   probaton ephage) with his disciples, but that He himself suffered on
   the great day of unleavened bread [344] 44 [i.e. the fifteenth of
   Nisan]; and they interpret Matthew as favoring their view from which it
   appears that their view does not agree with the law, [345] 45 and that
   the Gospels seem, according to them, to be at variance. [346] 46

   The Fourteenth is the true Passover of the Lord, the great sacrifice,
   the. Son of God [347] 47 in the place of the lamb ... who was lifted up
   upon the horns of the unicorn ... and who was buried on the day of the
   Passover, the stone having been placed upon his tomb."

   Here Apolinarius evidently protests against the Quartadecimanian
   practice, yet simply as one arising from ignorance, and not as a
   blameworthy heresy. He opposes it as a chronological and exegetical
   mistake, and seems to hold that the fourteenth, and not the fifteenth,
   is the great day of the death of Christ as the true Lamb of God, on the
   false assumption that this truth depends upon the chronological
   coincidence of the crucifixion and the Jewish passover. But the
   question arises: Did he protest from the Western and Roman standpoint
   which had many advocates in the East, [348] 48 or as a
   Quartadecimanian? [349] 49 In the latter case we would be obliged to
   distinguish two parties of Quartadecimanians, the orthodox or catholic
   Quartadecimanians, who simply observed the 14th Nisan by fasting and
   the evening communion, and a smaller faction of heretical and
   schismatic Quartadecimanians, who adopted the Jewish practice of eating
   a paschal lamb on that day in commemoration of the Saviour's last
   passover. But there is no evidence for this distinction in the above or
   other passages. Such a grossly Judaizing party would have been treated
   with more severity by a catholic bishop. Even the Jews could no more
   eat of the paschal lamb after the destruction of the temple in which it
   had to be slain. There is no trace of such a party in Irenaeus,
   Hippolytus [350] 50 and Eusebius who speak only of one class of
   Quartadecimanians. [351] 51

   Hence we conclude that Apolinarius protests against the whole
   Quartadecimanian practice, although very mildly and charitably. The
   Laodicean controversy was a stage in the same controversy which was
   previously discussed by Polycarp and Anicetus in Christian charity, and
   was soon agitated again by Polycrates and Victor with hierarchical and
   intolerant violence.

   3. Much more important and vehement was the third stage of the
   controversy between 190 and 194, which extended over the whole church,
   and occasioned many synods and synodical letters. [352] 52 The Roman
   bishop Victor, a very different man from his predecessor Anicetus,
   required the Asiatics, in an imperious tone, to abandon their
   Quartadecimanian practice. Against this Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus,
   solemnly protested in the name of a synod held by him, and appealed to
   an imposing array of authorities for their primitive custom. Eusebius
   has preserved his letter, which is quite characteristic.

   "We," wrote the Ephesian bishop to the Roman pope and his church, "We
   observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom.
   For in Asia great lights [353] 53 have fallen asleep, which shall rise
   again in the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he will come with
   glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints: Philip, one of the
   twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin
   daughters; his other daughter, also, who having lived under the
   influence of the Holy Spirit, now likewise rests in Ephesus; moreover,
   John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord, [354] 54 who was also a
   priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate, [355] 55 both a martyr and
   teacher; he is buried in Ephesus. Also Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop
   and martyr, and Thraseas, both bishop and martyr of Eumenia, who sleeps
   in Smyrna. Why should I mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who sleeps
   in Laodicea; moreover, the blessed Papirius, and Melito, the eunuch
   [celibate], who lived altogether under the influence of the Holy
   Spirit, who now rests in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven,
   in which he shall rise from the dead. All these observed the fourteenth
   day of the passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect,
   but following the rule of faith.

   "Moreover, I, Polycrates, who am the least of you, according to the
   tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have followed. For seven of
   my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth; and my relatives always
   observed the day when the people of the Jews threw away the leaven. I,
   therefore, brethren, am now sixty-five years in the Lord, who having
   conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and having studied
   the whole of the Sacred Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at those
   things with which I am threatened, to intimidate me. For they who are
   greater than I have said, 'we ought to obey God rather than men.' ... I
   could also mention the bishops that were present, whom you requested me
   to summon, and whom I did call; whose names would present a great
   number, but who seeing my slender body consented to my epistle, well
   knowing that I did not wear my gray hairs for nought, but that I did at
   all times regulate my life in the Lord Jesus." [356] 56

   Victor turned a deaf ear to this remonstrance, branded the Asiatics as
   heretics, and threatened to excommunicate them. [357] 57

   But many of the Eastern bishops, and even Irenaeus, in the name of the
   Gallic Christians, though he agreed with Victor on the disputed point,
   earnestly reproved him for such arrogance, and reminded him of the more
   Christian and brotherly conduct of his predecessors Anicetus, Pius,
   Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus, who sent the eucharist to their
   dissenting brethren. He dwelt especially on the fraternal conduct of
   Anicetus to Polycarp. Irenaeus proved himself on this occasion, as
   Eusebius remarks, a true peacemaker, and his vigorous protest seems to
   have prevented the schism.

   We have from the same Irenaeus another utterance on this controversy,
   [358] 58 saying: "The apostles have ordered that we should 'judge no
   one in meat or in drink, or in respect to a feast-day or a new moon or
   a sabbath day' (Col. 2:16). Whence then these wars? Whence these
   schisms? We keep the feasts, but in the leaven of malice by tearing the
   church of God and observing what is outward, in order to reject what is
   better, faith and charity. That such feasts and fasts are displeasing
   to the Lord, we have heard from the Prophets." A truly evangelical
   sentiment from one who echoes the reaching of St. John and his last
   words: "Children, love one another."

   4. In the course of the third century the Roman practice gained ground
   everywhere in the East, and, to anticipate the result, was established
   by the council of Nicaea in 325 as the law of the whole church. This
   council considered it unbecoming, in Christians to follow the usage of
   the unbelieving, hostile Jews, and ordained that Easter should always
   be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon succeeding
   the vernal equinox (March 21), and always after the Jewish passover.
   [359] 59 If the full moon occurs on a Sunday, Easter-day is the Sunday
   after. By this arrangement Easter may take place as early as March 22,
   or as late as April 25.

   Henceforth the Quartadecimanians were universally regarded as heretics,
   and were punished as such. The Synod of Antioch, 341, excommunicated
   them. The Montanists and Novatians were also cleared with the
   Quartadecimanian observance. The last traces of it disappeared in the
   sixth century.

   But the desired uniformity in the observance of Easter was still
   hindered by differences in reckoning the Easter Sunday according to the
   course of the moon and the vernal equinox, which the Alexandrians fixed
   on the 21^st of March, and the Romans on the 18^th; so that in the year
   387, for example, the Romans kept Easter on the 21^st of March, and the
   Alexandrians not till the 25^th of April. In the West also the
   computation changed and caused a renewal of the Easter controversy in
   the sixth and seventh centuries. The old British, Irish and Scotch
   Christians, and the Irish missionaries on the Continent adhered to the
   older cycle of eighty-four years in opposition to the later Dionysian
   or Roman cycle of ninety-five years, and hence were styled
   "Quartadecimanians "by their Anglo-Saxon and Roman opponents, though
   unjustly; for they celebrated Easter always on a Sunday between the
   14^th and the 20^th of the mouth (the Romans between the 15^th and
   21^st). The Roman practice triumphed. But Rome again changed the
   calendar under Gregory XIII. (a.d. 1583). Hence even to this day the
   Oriental churches who hold to the Julian and reject the Gregorian
   calendar, differ from the Occiden