Full text of "Dissertations on the apostolic age : reprinted from editions of St. Paul's Epistles"

DISSEETATIONS ON THE
APOSTOLIC AGE.

DISSERTATIONS ON THE
APOSTOLIC AGE

REPRINTED FROM EDITIONS OF ST PAUL'S EPISTLES.
BY THE LATE

J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,

LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.

PUBLISHED BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE LIGHTFOOT FUND.

Honfcon :
MACMILLAN AND CO.

AND NEW YORK.

1892

{All Eights reserved.]

Cambridge :

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

present volume consists of five dissertations reprinted
from Dr Lightfoot's published commentaries upon St Paul's
Epistles. The Trustees of the Lightfoot Fund feel that there
must be a large number of English readers who will be glad to
possess in a form separate from the Greek text and commentary
such of the late Bishop's valuable excursuses as from the
nature of the subjects treated admit of this severance without
loss of clearness. This necessary limitation appears to the
Trustees to point to the omission of the introductions to the
Epistles in question and of one dissertation ( Were the Galatians
Celts or Teutons?) appended to the commentary upon the
Epistle to the Galatians.

The dissertations are reprinted just as they stand in the
commentaries. No attempt has been made to enlarge the
footnotes or references. But at the close of the Essay on the
Christian Ministry two short appendices have been added, one
giving Dr Lightfoot's final opinion upon the genuineness of the
seven Greek Ignatian Epistles, the other consisting of a collec-
tion of extracts from his own writings, which was printed by
him a year or so before his death to illustrate his view of the
Christian Ministry over and above the particular scope of the
Essay.

VI INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

Through the kindness of Prof. J. E. B. Mayor, who placed at
the disposal of the Editor a list which he had himself drawn up,
the numerous references to the works of Seneca in the fourth
dissertation have been made more available to students by the
addition, in the Index of Passages, of the number of the section
to that of the chapter, thus rendering the quotation more pre-
cise. The Trustees take this opportunity of thanking Prof.
Mayor for his courtesy, and of expressing their regret that the
existence of the list was not known in time to admit of the
insertion of the sections in the text of the dissertation.

July, 1892.

EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE
JOSEPH BARBER LIGHTFOOT, LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.

" I bequeath all my personal Estate not hereinbefore other-
" wise disposed of unto [my Executors] upon trust to pay and
"transfer the same unto the Trustees appointed by me under
" and by virtue of a certain Indenture of Settlement creating a
" Trust to be known by the name of ' The Lightfoot Fund for
" the Diocese of Durham ' and bearing even date herewith but
"executed by me immediately before this my Will to be ad-
" ministered and dealt with by them upon the trusts for the
" purposes and in the manner prescribed by such Indenture of
" Settlement."

EXTRACT FROM THE INDENTURE OF SETTLEMENT OF ' THE
LIGHTFOOT FUND FOR THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM.'

"WHEREAS the Bishop is the Author of and is absolutely
" entitled to the Copyright in the several Works mentioned in
" the Schedule hereto, and for the purposes of these presents he
" has assigned or intends forthwith to assign the Copyright in
"all the said Works to the Trustees. Now the Bishop doth
"hereby declare and it is hereby agreed as follows:

"The Trustees (which term shall hereinafter be taken to
"include the Trustees for the time being of these presents)

viil EXTRACT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOT's WILL.

" shall stand possessed of the said Works and of the Copyright
" therein respectively upon the trusts following (that is to say)
" upon trust to receive all moneys to arise from sales or other-
" wise from the said Works, and at their discretion from time
" to time to bring out new editions of the same Works or any
" of them, or to sell the copyright in the same or any of them,
" or otherwise to deal with the same respectively, it being the
"intention of these presents that the Trustees shall have and
" may exercise all such rights and powers in respect of the said
" Works and the copyright therein respectively, as they could
" or might have or exercise in relation thereto if they were the
"absolute beneficial owners thereof....

" The Trustees shall from time to time, at such discretion as
" aforesaid, pay and apply the income of the Trust funds for or
"towards the erecting, rebuilding, repairing, purchasing, en-
"dowing, supporting, or providing for any Churches, Chapels,
" Schools, Parsonages, and Stipends for Clergy, and other Spiri-
tual Agents in connection with the Church of England and
" within the Diocese of Durham, and also for or towards such
" other purposes in connection with the said Church of England,
" and within the said Diocese, as the Trustees may in their ab-
" solute discretion think fit, provided always that any payment
" for erecting any building, or in relation to any other works in
" connection with real estate, shall be exercised with due regard
" to the Law of Mortmain ; it being declared that nothing here-
" in shall be construed as intended to authorise any act contrary
" to any Statute or other Law....

" In case the Bishop shall at any time assign to the Trustees
"any Works hereafter to be written or published by him, or
" any Copyrights, or any other property, such transfer shall be
"held to be made for the purposes of this Trust, and all the

EXTRACT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOT's WILL. ix

"provisions of this Deed shall apply to such property, subject
" nevertheless to any direction concerning the same which the
" Bishop may make in writing at the time of such transfer, and
" in case the Bishop shall at any time pay any money, or trans-
" fer any security, stock, or other like property to the Trustees,
" the same shall in like manner be held for the purposes of this
" Trust, subject to any such contemporaneous direction as afore-
" said, and any security, stock or property so transferred, being
" of a nature which can lawfully be held by the Trustees for the
" purposes of these presents, may be retained by the Trustees,
"although the same may not be one of the securities herein-
" after authorised.

" The Bishop of Durham and the Archdeacons of Durham
" and Auckland for the time being shall be ex-officio Trustees,
"and accordingly the Bishop and Archdeacons, parties hereto,
" and the succeeding Bishops and Archdeacons, shall cease to be
"Trustees on ceasing to hold their respective offices, and the
" number of the other Trustees may be increased, and the power
"of appointing Trustees in the place of Trustees other than
" Official Trustees, and of appointing extra Trustees, shall be
" exercised by Deed by the Trustees for the time being, pro-
"vided always that the number shall not at any time be less
"than five.

" The Trust premises shall be known by the name of ' The
" Lightfoot Fund for the Diocese of Durham.' "

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

I. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 145

II. ST PAUL AND THE THREE 46134

III. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 135238

ADDITIONAL NOTES 239246

IV. ST PAUL AND SENECA 247316

THE LETTERS OF PAUL AND SENECA . . . 317 322

V. THE ESSENES 323407

A. THE NAME ESSENE 325331

B. ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES . 332380

C. ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY .... 381407

INDICES.

I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 411 421

II. INDEX OF PASSAGES . 422435

ERRATA.

Page 52, n. 1,1. 21 read Strom, ii. p. 491.
75, n. 1 Haer. xxix. 9.

78, n. 1, 1. 3 Hippol. Haer. vii. 34.

151, n. 9 Clem. Rom. 42, 44.

176, n. 1 Tertull. de Praescr. 36.

177, n. 1, 1. 2 iv. p. 687, ed. Delarue.
182, n. 6 Iren. iii. 3. 3.

193, n. 5, 1. 12 Augustin. Op. in. P. 2, p. 92.

208, n. 1 De Unit. Eccl. 5.

THE BKETHKEN OF THE LOKD

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 1 .

IN the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions Two rival
were held regarding the relationship of those who in the
Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed ' the brethren of the

1 The interest in this subject, which
was so warmly discussed towards the
close of the fourth century, has been
revived in more recent times by the
publication of Herder's Briefe zweener
Briider Jesu in unserem Kanon (1775),
in which the Helvidian hypothesis is
put forward. Since then it has formed
the subject of numberless monographs,
dissertations, andincidental comments.
The most important later works, with
which I am acquainted, are those of
Blom, De ToisdSeX^otsetrats d5e\-
0cus rou KvpLov (Leyden, 1839); of
Schaf, Das Verhdltniss des Jakobus Bru-
ders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphdi (Ber-
lin, 1842) ; and of Mill, The accounts of
our Lord's Brethren in the New Testa-
ment vindicated etc. (Cambridge, 1843).
The two former adopt the Helvidian
view ; the last is written in support of
St Jerome's hypothesis. Blom gives
the most satisfactory statement which
I have seen of the patristic authorities,
and Schaf discusses the Scriptural argu-
ments most carefully. I am also largely
indebted to the ability and learning of
Mill's treatise, though he seems to me
to have mistaken the general tenor of
ecclesiastical tradition on this subject.
Besides these monographs I have also
consulted, with more or less advantage,
articles on the subject in works of re-

ference or periodicals, such as those in
Studien u. Kritiken by Wieseler; Die
Sohne Zebedai Vettern des Herrn (1840,
p. 648), and Ueber die Briider des Herrn,
etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for
the second edition I looked over the
careful investigation in Laurent's Neu-
test. Studien p. 155 sq (1866), where
the Helvidian hypothesis is maintain-
ed, but saw no reason to make any
change in consequence The works of
Arnaud, Recherches sur VEpitredeJude,
and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in
Bishop Ellicott's Galatiansi. 19, 1 have
not seen. My object in this disserta-
tion is mainly twofold; (1) To place the
Hieronymian hypothesis in its true
light, as an effort of pure criticism un-
supported by any traditional sanction ;
and (2) To say a word on behalf of the
Epiphanian solution, which seems, at
least of late years, to have met with the
fate reserved for T& /Afoa in literature
and theology, as well as in politics, vir'
a/uL<f>oTt pwv T] 8rt ov ^vvrjywvl^ovTO ?j
<f>66v({) TOV wepteivai dietfrdetpovro. I sup-
pose it was because he considered it idle
to discuss a theory which had no friends,
that Prof. Jowett (on Gal. i. 19), while
balancing the claims of the other two
solutions, does not even mention the
existence of this, though in the early
centuries it was the received account.

4 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Lord/ On the one hand it was maintained that no blood
relationship existed; that these brethren were in fact sons of
Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and
that they are therefore called the Lord's brethren only in the
same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no
claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional
use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miracu-
lous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued
that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning,
and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as
Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband
Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast
majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics ; the
latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there
to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language
of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and
individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of
the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom
therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy.
A third Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of

propound-
ed by the fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One

Helvidius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing
view of the superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing
so had laid great stress on the example of the Lord's mother
who had borne children to her husband. In or about the year
383 Jerome, then a young man, at the instigation of 'the
brethren' wrote a treatise in reply to Helvidius, in which he
put forward his own view 1 . He maintained that the Lord's
brethren were His cousins after the flesh, being sons of Mary
the wife of Alphseus and sister of the Virgin. Thus, as he
boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only but of
Joseph also.
Names These three accounts are all of sufficient importance either

. -, -IT

tcTthese from their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve
three.

1 Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae, n. p. 206 (ed. Vail.).
Comp. Comment, ad Gal. i. 19.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 5

consideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several
claims. As it will be convenient to have some short mode of
designation, I shall call them respectively the Epiphanian, the
Helvidian, and the Hieronymian theories, from the names of
their most zealous advocates in the controversies of the fourth
century when the question was most warmly debated.

But besides the solutions already mentioned not a few
others have been put forward. These however have been for
the most part built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable Arbitrary
combinations of known facts, and from their artificial character ^ons^
have failed to secure any wide acceptance. It is assumed for
instance, that two persons of the same name, James the son of
Alphaeus and James the Lord's brother, were leading members
of the Church of Jerusalem, though history points to one only 1 ;
or that James the Lord's brother mentioned in St Paul's
Epistles is not the same James whose name occurs among the
Lord's brethren in the Gospels, the relationship intended by
the term ' brother' being different in the two cases 2 ; or that
'brethren' stands for 'foster-brethren,' Joseph having under-
taken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after their
father's death 3 ; or that the Lord's brethren had a double
parentage, a legal as well as an actual father, Joseph having
raised seed to his deceased brother Clopas by his widow accord-
ing to the levirate law 4 ; or lastly, that the cousins of Jesus
were rewarded with the title of His brethren, because they
were His steadfast disciples, while His own brothers opposed
Him 5 .

All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. In to be set

aside.

1 e.g. Wieseler Ueber die Briider etc. , the son of Alphseus the successor of the

I.e., p. 80 sq. According to this writ- Lord's brother.

er the James of Gal. ii. 9 and of the 2 The writers mentioned in Schaf,

Acts is the son of Alphaeus, not the p. 11.

Lord's brother, and therefore different 3 Lange in Herzog's Real-Encycl. in

from the James of i. 19. See his notes the article ' Jakobus im N.T.'

on Gal. i. 19, ii. 9. An ancient writer, 4 Theophylact ; see below, p. 44.

the pseudo-Dorotheus (see below, p. 5 Renan Vie de J6sus p. 24. But in

40, note), had represented two of the Saint Paul p. 285 he inclines to the

name as bishops of Jerusalem, making Epiphanian view.

6 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

themselves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved.
But it is safer to aim at the most probable deduction from
known facts than to build up a theory on an imaginary
foundation. And, where the question is so intricate in itself,
there is little temptation to introduce fresh difficulties by
giving way to the license of conjecture.

Relation of To confine ourselves then to the three accounts which have
accounts, the greatest claim to a hearing. It will be seen that the
hypothesis which I have called the Epiphanian holds a middle
place between the remaining two. With the Helvidian it
assigns an intelligible sense to the term ' brethren' : with the
Hieronymian it preserves the perpetual virginity of the Lord's
mother. Whether or not, while uniting in itself the features
which have recommended each of these to acceptance, it unites
also their difficulties, will be considered in the sequel.

From a critical point of view however, apart from their
bearing on Christian doctrine and feeling, the Helvidian and
Epiphanian theories hang very closely together, while the
Hieronymian stands apart. As well on account of this isolation,
as also from the fact which I have hitherto assumed but which
I shall endeavour to prove hereafter, that it was the latest
born of the three, it will be convenient to consider the last-
mentioned theory first.
Jerome's St Jerome then states his view in the treatise against

>ntt Helvidius somewhat as follows:

The son of The list of the Twelve Apostles contains two of the name
the Lord's of James, the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphseus. But
brother; e i sew h ere we read of a James the Lord's brother. What
account are we to give of this last James ? Either he was an
Apostle or he was not. If an Apostle, he must be identified
with the son of Alphaeus, for the son of Zebedee was no longer
living: if not an Apostle, then there were three persons
bearing this name. But in this case how can a certain James
be called ' the less,' a term which implies only one besides ?
And how moreover can we account for St Paul's language
'Other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 7

brother' (Gal. i. 19)? Clearly therefore James the son of
Alphseus and James the Lord's brother are the same person.

And the Gospel narrative explains this identity. Among the^Vir-
the Lord's brethren occur the names of James and Joseph, being his
Now it is stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the m
less and of Joseph (or Joses) was present at the crucifixion
(Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40). This Mary therefore must have
been the wife of Alphseus, for Alphseus was the father of James.
But again in St John's narrative (xix. 25) the Virgin's sister
' Mary of Cleophas (Clopas)' is represented as standing by the
cross. This carries us a step in advance. The last-mentioned
Mary is to be identified with the wife of Alphseus and mother
of James. Thus James the Lord's brother was in reality the
Lord's cousin.

But, if His cousin, how is he called His brother ? The Meaning
following is the explanation. The term ' brethren' is used in Brethren.
four different senses in Holy Scripture : it denotes either (1)
actual brotherhood or (2) common nationality, or (3) kinsman-
ship, or (4) friendship and sympathy. These different senses
St Jerome expresses by the four words ' natura, gente, cogna-
tione, affectu.' In the case of the Lord's brethren the third of
these senses is to be adopted : brotherhood here denotes mere
relationship, just as Abraham calls his nephew Lot brother
(Gen. xiii. 8), and as Laban uses the same term of Jacob his
sister's son (Gen. xxix. 15).

So far St Jerome, who started the theory. But, as worked Jerome's
out by other writers and as generally stated, it involves two supple-
particulars besides. mented.

(i) The identity of A Iphceus and Clopas. These two words, Alphams
it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name with 8 Ck) 6 -

or q-tt (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to pas<
St John, the more completely grecized Alphseus taking its place
in the other Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Cheth, when
the name was reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted as
in Alphseus, or replaced by a AC (or %) as in Clopas. Just in the
same way Aloysius and Ludovicus are recognised Latin repre-

8 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

sentatives of the Frankish name Clovis (Clodovicus, Hludovicus,
Hlouis) 1 .

This identification however, though it materially strengthens
his theory, was unknown to Jerome himself. In the course of
his argument he confesses plainly that he does not know why
Mary is called Clopae, (or Cleophae, as he writes it): it may be, he
suggests, after her father or from her family surname ('gentilitate
familiae') or for some other reason 2 . In his treatise on Hebrew
names too he gives an account of the word Alphaeus which is
scarcely consistent with this identity 3 . Neither have I found
any traces of it in any of his other works, though he refers
several times to the subject. In Augustine again, who adopts
Jerome's hypothesis and his manner of stating it, it does not
anywhere appear, so far as I know. It occurs first, I believe, in
Chrysostom who incidentally speaks of James the Lord's brother
as 'son of Clopas,' and after him in Theodoret who is more
explicit (both on Gal. i. 19) 4 . To a Syrian Greek, who, even if
he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all events
have known that Chalphai was the Aramaean rendering or
rather the Aramaean original of 'AX^ato?, it might not un-
naturally occur to graft this identification on the original
theory of Jerome.

Jude the (ii) The identity of Judas the Apostle and Judas the Lords
ther one brother. In St Luke's catalogues of the Twelve (Luke vi. 16,

Acts i. 13) the name 'Judas of James'
occurs. Now we find a Judas also among the four brethren of
the Lord (Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3); and the writer of the
epistle, who was doubtless the Judas last mentioned, styles

1 This illustration is taken from ib. p. 98. Thus he deliberately rejects
Mill, p. 236. the derivation with a Cheth, which is

2 adv. Helvid. 15, n. p. 219. required in order to identify ' Alphaeus '

3 'Alphaus, fugitivus [5)^11 ; the witl1 'Clopas.' Indeed, as he incor-
Greek of Origen was doubtless ot'x^e- rectly wrote Cleopas (or Cleophas) for
vos, see p. 626], sed melius millesimus Clopas with the Latin version, this
p^K] vel doctus p^K]'; m. p. 89; identification was not likely to occur

and again, 'Alphceus, millesimus, sive m *

r-^L OT , , , 4 See below, p. 44.
super os [na?!^?] ab ore non ab osse ;

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 9

himself 'the brother of James' (Jude 1). This coincidence
suggests that the ellipsis in ' Judas of James 1 should be supplied
by brother as in the English version, not by son which would
be the more obvious word. Thus Judas the Lord's brother,
like James, is made one of the Twelve. I do not know when
the Hieronymian theory received this fresh accession, but,
though the gain is considerable in apparent strength at least, it
does not appear, so far as I have noticed, to have occurred to
Jerome himself.

And some have gone a step farther. We find not only a and per-
James and a Judas among the Lord's brethren, but also a j^ a ig
Symeon or Simon. Now it is remarkable that these three
names occur together in St Luke's list of the Twelve : James
(the son) of Alphseus, Simon called Zelotes, and Judas (the
brother) of James. In the lists of the other Evangelists too
these three persons are kept together, though the order is
different and Judas appears under another name, Lebbaeus or
Thaddaeus. Can this have been a mere accident ? Would the
name of a stranger have been inserted by St Luke between two
brothers ? Is it not therefore highly probable that this Simon
also was one of the Lord's brethren ? And thus three out of the
four are included among the Twelve 1 .

Without these additions the theory is incomplete; and
indeed they have been so generally regarded as part of it, that
advocates and opponents alike have forgotten or overlooked the
fact that Jerome himself nowhere advances them. I shall then
consider the theory as involving these two points ; for indeed it
would never have won its way to such general acceptance,
unless presented in this complete form, where its chief recom-
mendation is that it combines a great variety of facts and
brings out many striking coincidences.

But before criticizing the theory itself, let me prepare the Jerome

himself

1 It is found in Sophronius (?), who 958. Compare the pseudo-Hippolytus

however confuses him with Jude; 'Si- (i. App. p. 30, ed. Fabric.). Perhaps

mon Cananaeus cognomento Judas, fra- the earliest genuine writing in which it

ter Jacobi episcopi, qui et successit illi occurs is Isidor. Hispal. de Vit. et Ob.

in episcopatum etc. ' ; Hieron. Op. n.p. Sanct. c. 81. See Mill p. 248.

10 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

way by divesting it of all fictitious advantages and placing it in
its true light. The two points to which attention may be
directed, as having been generally overlooked, are these:

(i) claims (1) Jerome claims no traditional support for his theory.

Sonal * This is a remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius.

sanction jj e ar g ues the question solely on critical and theological

theory, grounds. His opponent had claimed the sanction of two older
writers, Tertullian and Victorinus of Pettaw. Jerome in reply
is obliged to concede him Tertullian, whose authority he
invalidates as ' not a member of the Church,' but denies him
Victorinus. Can it be doubted that if he could have produced
any names on his own side he would only too gladly have done
so ? When for instance he is maintaining the virginity of the
Lord's mother, a feature possessed by his theory in common
with the Epiphanian, he is at no loss for authorities : Ignatius,
Polycarp, Irenseus, Justin, and many other ' eloquent apostolic
men' occur to him at once 1 . But in support of his own account
of the relationship he cannot, or at least does not, name a
single writer ; he simply offers it as a critical deduction from
the statements of Scripture 2 . Again in his later writings, when
he refers to the subject, his tone is the same : ' Some suppose
them to have been sons of Joseph : it is my opinion, as / have
maintained in my book against Helvidius, that they were the
children of Mary the Virgin's sister 3 .' And the whole tenor of
patristic evidence, as I shall hope to show, is in accordance with
this tone. No decisive instance can be produced of a writer
holding Jerome's view, before it was propounded by Jerome
himself.

(ii) and (2) Jerome does not hold his theory staunchly and consis-

holditcon- tently. The references to the subject in his works taken in
sistently,

1 See however below, p. 31, note 1. tern mihi videtnr Mariae sororis matris

2 He sets aside the appeal to autho- Domini films'; Comment. in Matth.

rity thus: 'Verum nugas terimus, et xii. 49 (vn. p. 86) 'Quidam fratres

fonte veritatis omisso opinionum rivu- Domini de alia uxore Joseph filios

los consectamur,' adv. Helvid. 17. suspicantur...nos autem, sicut in libro

3 de Vir. Illustr. 2 ' ut nonnulli ex- quern contra Helvidium scripsimus
istimant, Joseph ex alia uxore; ut au- continetur etc.'

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 11

chronological order will speak for themselves. The theory is
first propounded, as we saw, in the treatise against Helvidius
written about 383, when he was a young man. Even here his
main point is the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother,
to which his own special solution is quite subordinate : he
speaks of himself as not caring to fight hard (' contentiosum
funem non traho') for the identity of Mary of Cleophas with
Mary the mother of James and Joses, though this is the pivot
of his theory. And, as time advances, he seems to hold to his
hypothesis more and more loosely. In his commentary on the
Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) written about 387 he speaks
very vaguely : he remembers, he says, having when at Rome
written a treatise on the subject, with which such as it is he
ought to be satisfied (' qualiacunque sunt ilia quae scripsimus
his contenti esse debemus'); after which he goes on inconsis-
tently enough, ' Suffice it now to say that James was called the but wavers

in Ills vifiw

Lord's brother on account of his high character, his incom-
parable faith, and extraordinary wisdom: the other Apostles
also are called brothers (John xx. 17 ; comp. Ps. xxii. 22), but
he preeminently so, to whom the Lord at His departure had
committed the sons of His mother (i.e. the members of the
Church of Jerusalem)' ; with more to the same effect : and he
concludes by showing that the term Apostle, so far from being
confined to the Twelve, has a very wide use, adding that it
was ' a monstrous error to identify this James with the Apostle
the brother of John 1 .' In his Catalogue of Illustrious Men
(A.D. 392) and in his Commentary on St Matthew (A.D. 398) he
adheres to his earlier opinion, referring in the passages already

1 ' Quod autem exceptis duodecim morum primus fuit cognomento Justus

quidamvocenturapostoli,illud in causa etc.' (vn. p. 396). These are just the

est, omnes qui Dominum viderant et arguments which would be brought

eum postea praedicabant fuisse aposto- by one maintaining the Epiphanian ac-

los appellatos ' ; and then after giving count. Altogether Jerome's language

instances (among others 1 Cor. xv. 7) here is that of a man who has commit-

he adds, 'Unde vehementer erravit qui ted himself to a theory of which he has

arbitratus est Jacobum hunc de evange- misgivings, and yet from which he is

lio esse apostolum fratrem Johannis ; . . . not bold enough to break loose,
hie autem Jacobus episcopusHierosoly-

12 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

quoted 1 to his treatise against Helvidius, and taunting those
who considered the Lord's brethren to be the sons of Joseph by
a former wife with ' following the ravings of the apocryphal
writings and inventing a wretched creature (mulierculam)
and seems Melcha or Eschaby name 2 .' Yet after all in a still later work,
to aban- the Epistle to Hedibia (about 406 or 407), enumerating the
lt ' Maries of the Gospels he mentions Mary of Cleophas the
maternal aunt of the Lord and Mary the mother of James and
Joses as distinct persons, adding ' although others contend that
the mother of James and Joses was His aunt 3 .' Yet this
identification, of which he here speaks with such indifference,
was the keystone of his own theory. Can it be that by his long
residence in Bethlehem, having the Palestinian tradition
brought more prominently before him, he first relaxed his hold
of and finally relinquished his own hypothesis ?

If these positions are correct, the Hieronymian view has no
claim to any traditional sanction in other words, there is no
reason to believe that time has obliterated any secondary
evidence in its favour and it must therefore be investigated
on its own merits.

Objections And compact and plausible as it may seem at first sight,
rome's the theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts,
(if Use of ("^ The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus
the word assigned to 'brethren' seems to be unsupported by biblical

Brethren.

usage. In an affectionate and earnest appeal intended to

move the sympathies of the hearer, a speaker might not un-

1 See p. 10, note 3. a very exact representation of

2 * Sequentes deliramenta apocry- (Ishah). On the other hand, making
phorum et quandam Melcham vel Es- allowance for the uncertain vocalisation
cham mulierculam confingentes.'Comm. of the Hebrew, the two daughters of
in Matth. 1. c. ' Nemo non videt,' says Haran (Gen. xi. 29) bear identically the
Blom, p. 116, 'illud nomen nt?N [wife, same names: 'the father of Milcah (LXX
woman] esse mere fictitium, nee minus Me\xd) and the father of Iscah (rOD*)
posterius [prius]rO7D [queen]. ' (Comp. (LXX 'leo^A).' Doubtless these names
Julius Africanus in Eouth's Rel. Sacr. were borrowed thence.

n. p. 233, 339.) If so, the work 8 Epist. cxx, i. p. 826. Comp.

must have been the production of some Tischendorf's Evang. Apocr. p. 104.
Jewish Christian. But Escha is not

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 13

naturally address a relation or a friend or even a fellow-
countryman as his ' brother.' And even when speaking of such
to a third person he might through warmth of feeling and
under certain aspects so designate him. But it is scarcely
conceivable that the cousins of any one should be commonly
and indeed exclusively styled his 'brothers' by indifferent
persons; still less, that one cousin in particular should be
singled out and described in this loose way, ' James the Lord's
brother/

(2) But again : the Hieronymian theory when completed (?) Ee j

supposes two, if not three, of the Lord's brethren to be in the Lord's
number of the Twelve. This is hardly reconcileable with the to t h e
place they hold in the Evangelical narratives, where they Twelve
appear sometimes as distinct from, sometimes as antagonistic
to the Twelve. Only a short time before the crucifixion they
are disbelievers in the Lord's divine mission (John vii. 5). Is
it likely that St John would have made this unqualified state-
ment, if it were true of one only or at most of two out of the
four ? Jerome sees the difficulty and meets it by saying that
James was 'not one of those that disbelieved.' But what if
Jude and Simon also belong to the Twelve ? After the Lord's
Ascension, it is true, His brethren appear in company with the
Apostles, and apparently by this time their unbelief has been
converted into faith. Yet even on this later occasion, though
with the Twelve, they are distinguished from the Twelve ; for
the latter are described as assembling in prayer 'with the
women and Mary the mother of Jesus and [with] His brethren'
(Acts i. 14).

And scarcely more consistent is this theory with what we especially
T j T i i T -i James and

know of James and Jade in particular. James, as the resident Jude.

bishop or presiding elder of the mother Church, held a position
hardly compatible with the world-wide duties which devolved
on the Twelve. It was the essential feature of his office that
he should be stationary ; of theirs, that they should move about
from place to place. If on the other hand he appears some-
times to be called an Apostle (though not one of the passages

14 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

alleged is free from ambiguity), this term is by no means
confined to the Twelve and might therefore be applied to him
in its wider sense, as it is to Barnabas 1 . Again, Jude on his
part seems to disclaim the title of an Apostle (ver. 17) ; and if
so, he cannot have been one of the Twelve.

(3) Their (3) But again : the Lord's brethren are mentioned in the
with Jo- Gospels in connexion with Joseph His reputed father and Mary

niother, never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife
of Alphaeus). It would surely have been otherwise, if the
latter Mary were really their mother.

(4) James (4) Jerome lays great stress on the epithet minor applied

to James, as if it implied two only, and even those who impugn
his theory seem generally to acquiesce in his rendering. But
the Greek gives not 'James the less' but 'James the little'
(6 fjurcpos). Is it not most natural then to explain this epithet
of his height 2 ? ' There were many of the name of James/ says
Hegesippus, and the short stature of one of these might well
serve as a distinguishing mark. This interpretation at all
events must be regarded as more probable than explaining it
either of his comparative youth or of inferior rank and influence.
It will be remembered that there is no Scriptural or early
sanction for speaking of the son of Zebedee as 'James the
Great.'

(5) The (5) The manner in which Jude is mentioned in the lists of
Jude in the the Twelve is on this hypothesis full of perplexities. In the

pl ace ^ i g necessary to translate 'Iaica>(3ov not 'the son 5
but 'the brother of James,' though the former is the obvious
rendering and is supported by two of the earliest versions, the
Peshito Syriac and the Thebaic, while two others, the Old
Latin and Memphitic, leave the ellipsis unsupplied and thus
preserve the ambiguity of the original. But again, if Judas
were the brother of James, would not the Evangelist's words
have run more naturally, ' James the son of Alphseus and Jude

1 See Galatians, p. 95. ring to stature, as appears from Plato,

2 As in Xen. Mem. i. 4. 2 'Apurr6- Symp. 173 B j and in Arist. Ran. 708

rbv fuKpbv ^Tri/caXozfytepoi', refer- KXay^s 6 /cu/cp6s.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 15

his brother/ or ' James and Jude the sons of Alphseus,' as in the
case of the other pairs of brothers? Then again, if Simon
Zelotes is not a brother of James, why is he inserted by St
Luke between the two ? If he also is a brother, why is the
designation of brotherhood ('Ia/cw(3ov) attached to the name of
Judas only ?

Moreover in the different lists of the three Evangelists the
Apostle in question is designated in three different ways. In
St Matthew (x. 3) he is called Lebbaeus (at least according to a
well-supported reading); in St Mark (iii. 18) Thaddseus; and
in St Luke 'Jude of James/ St John again having occasion
to mention him (xiv. 22) distinguishes him by a negative,
' Judas not Iscariot 1 .' Is it possible, if he were the Lord's
brother Judas, he would in all these places have escaped being
so designated, when this designation would have fixed the
person meant at once ?

(6) Lastly ; in order to maintain the Hieronymian theory (6) Punc-

* * ' 4-U 4-' f T u tuationof

it is necessary to retain the common punctuation of John xix. j h. xix.

25, thus making ' Mary of Clopas' the Virgin's sister. But it is 25 '
at least improbable that two sisters should have borne the same
name. The case of the Herodian family is scarcely parallel, for

1 The perplexity is increased by seems no reason for doubting this very
the Curetonian Syriac, which for 'lot- early tradition that he also was a Jude.

Sets ov X o 'IffKapulmis reads K'.iOCO* At the same time {i is hi g hlv impro-

. bable that St John should have called

rtoJGK'fc, 'Judas Thomas,' i.e. the game Apogtle elsewhere Thomag

Judas the Twin.' It seems therefore (Joh. xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24 etc.) and here

that the translator took the person in- Judas, and we may therefore conclude

tended by St John to be not the Judas that he is speaking of two different per-

Jacobi in the list of the Twelve, but sons. The name of the other brother

the Thomas Didymus, for Thomas was is supplied in Clem. Horn. ii. i Trpovtri

commonly called Judas in the Syrian dt Gw/ias Kal 'EXt^epos ol dtdvpoi.
Church ; e.g. Euseb. H. E. i. 13 'lotdas The Thebaic version again for ofy

6 Kal 0u>/Aas, and Acta Thomae 1 'lotfSp 6 'IffKapi&TVjs substitutes 6 Kavavirys.

Qw/jq T$ Kal AtStf/Ay (ed. Tisch. p. 190) ; Similarly in Matth. x. 3 for Qaddaios

see Assemani Bibl. Orient, i. pp. 100, some of the most important MSS of the

318, Cureton's Syriac Gospels p. li, Old Latin have 'Judas Zelotes'; and in

Anc. Syr. Documents p. 33. As the Canon of Gelasius Jude the writer

Thomas (A5v/ios), 'the Twin,' is pro- of the epistle is so designated. This

perly a surname, and this Apostle must points to some connexion or confusion

have had some other name, there with Simon Zelotes. See p. 9, note.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Jerome's
hypothe-
sis must
be aban-
doned

and re-
placed by
one of the
remaining
two.

Herod was a family name, and it is unlikely that a humble
Jewish household should have copied a practice which must
lead to so much confusion. Here it is not unlikely that a
tradition underlies the Peshito rendering which inserts a con-
junction: 'His mother and his mother's sister, and Mary of
Cleophas and Mary Magdalene 1 / The Greek at all events
admits, even if it does not favour, this interpretation, for the
arrangement of names in couples has a parallel in the lists of
the Apostles (e.g. Matt. x. 2 4).

I have shown then, if I mistake not, that St Jerome pleaded
no traditional authority for his theory, and that therefore the
evidence in its favour is to be sought in Scripture alone. I
have examined the Scriptural evidence, and the conclusion
seems to be, that though this hypothesis, supplemented as it
has been by subsequent writers, presents several striking coin-
cidences which attract attention, yet it involves on the other
hand a combination of difficulties many of these arising out of
the very elements in the hypothesis which produce the coinci-
dences which more than counterbalances these secondary
arguments in its favour, and in fact must lead to its rejection,
if any hypothesis less burdened with difficulties can be found.

Thus, as compared with the Hieronymian view, both the
Epiphanian and the Helvidian have higher claims to acceptance.

1 See Wieseler Die Sb'hne Zebeddi
etc. p. 672. This writer identifies the
sister of the Lord's mother (John xix.
25) with Salome (Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1),
who again is generally identified with
the mother of Zebedee's children (Matt.
xxvii. 56) ; and thus James and John,
the sons of Zebedee, are made cousins
of our Lord. Compare the pseudo-Pa-
pias, (below p. 25, note) ; and see the
various reading 'Iwdvvrjs for 'Iw<r7?0 in
the list of the Lord's brethren in Matt,
xiii. 55. But as we are told that there
were many other women present also
(Mark xv. 41, comp. Luke xxiv. 10),
one of whom, Joanna, is mentioned by

name both these identifications must
be considered precarious. It would be
strange that no hint should be given
in the Gospels of the relationship of
the sons of Zebedee to our Lord, if
it existed.

The Jerusalem Syriac lectionary
gives the passage John xix. 25 not less
than three times. In two of these
places (pp. 387, 541, the exception
being p. 445) a stop is put after 'His
mother's sister,' thus separating the
words from ' Mary of Cleophas ' and
suggesting by punctuation the same
interpretation which the Peshito fixes
by inserting a conjunction.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 17

They both assign to the word brethren its natural meaning;
they both recognise the main facts related of the Lord's
brethren in the Gospels their unbelief, their distinctness from
the Twelve, their connexion with Joseph and Mary and they
both avoid the other difficulties which the Hieronymian theory
creates.

And moreover they both exhibit a coincidence which de- A coin-
serves notice. A very short time before the Lord's death His common
brethren refuse to accept His mission : they are still unbelievers. to *
Immediately after His ascension we find them gathered to-
gether with the Apostles, evidently recognising Him as their
Master. Whence comes this change ? Surely the crucifixion
of one who professed to be the Messiah was not likely to bring
it about. He had claimed to be King of Israel and He had
been condemned as a malefactor : He had promised His follow-
ers a triumph and He had left them persecution. Would not
all this confirm rather than dissipate their former unbelief?
An incidental statement of St Paul explains all ; ' Then He was
seen of James.' At the time when St Paul wrote, there was
but one person eminent enough in the Church to be called
James simply without any distinguishing epithet the Lord's
brother, the bishop of Jerusalem. It might therefore reasonably
be concluded that this James is here meant. And this view is
confirmed by an extant fragment of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, the most important of all the apocryphal gospels,
which seems to have preserved more than one true tradition,
and which expressly relates the appearance of our Lord to His
brother James 1 after His resurrection.

This interposition, we may suppose, was the turning-point
in the religious life of the Lord's brethren ; the veil was
removed at once and for ever from their hearts. In this way
the antagonistic notices in the Gospels first the disbelief of
the Lord's brethren, and then their assembling together with
the Apostles are linked together; and harmony is produced
out of discord.

1 See below, p. 26.

18 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Objections Two objections however are brought against both these

theories, which the Hieronymian escapes.

(l) Bepeti- (1) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two
names. pairs of cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the
sons of Alphseus, and James and Joseph the Lord's brothers.
If moreover we accept the statement of Hegesippus 1 that
James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon
son of Clopas, and also admit the identification of Clopas with
Alphaeus, we get a third name Symeon or Simeon common to
the two families. Let us see what this objection really
amounts to.

Cousin- It will be seen that the cousinhood of these persons is

either represented as a cousinhood on the mothers' side, and that it
depends on three assumptions : (1) The identification of James
the son of Alphseus in the list of the Twelve with James the
Little the son of Mary : (2) The identification of ' Mary of
Clopas' in St John with Mary the mother of James and Joses
in the other Evangelists : (3) The correctness of the received
punctuation of John xix. 25, which makes ' Mary of Clopas' the
Virgin's sister. If any one of these be rejected, this cousinhood
falls to the ground. Yet of these three assumptions the second
alone can safely be pronounced more likely than not 2 (though
we are expressly told that 'many other women' were present),
for it avoids the unnecessary multiplication of Maries. The
first must be considered highly doubtful, seeing that James was
a very common name ; while the third is most improbable, for
it gives two sisters both called Mary a difficulty far surpassing
that of supposing two or even three cousins bearing the same
name. On the other hand, if, admitting the second identifica-
tion and supplying the ellipsis in 'Mary of Clopas' by 'wife 3 ,'

1 See below, p. 29 sq. the daughter or the wife or the mother

2 Eusebius however makes ' Mary of of Clopas, this expression has been com-
Clopas ' a different person from Mary bined with the statement of Hegesippus
the mother of James and Joses ; in various ways. See for instance the
Quaest. ad Marin. ii. 5 (Op. iv. p. 945, apocryphal gospels, Pseudo-Matth. Ev-
Migne). ang. 52 (ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evang. Inf.

3 As TJ TOV KXwTra may mean either Arab. 29 (ib. p. 186), and the marginal

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

we combine with it the statement of Hegesippus 1 that Clopas
the father of Symeon was brother of Joseph, we get three
cousins, James, Joses, and Symeon, on their fathers side. Yet or fathers'
this result again must be considered on the whole improbable, probable.
I see no reason indeed for doubting the testimony of Hege-
sippus, who was perhaps born during the lifetime of this
Symeon, and is likely to have been well informed. But the
chances are against the other hypotheses, on which it depends,
being both of them correct. The identification of Clopas and
AlphaBus will still remain an open question 2 .

note on the Philoxenian version, Joh.
xix. 25, besides other references which
will be given in the account of the
patristic authorities.

1 The statement of Hegesippus sug-
gests a solution which would remove the
difficulty. We might suppose the two
Maries to have been called sisters, as
having been married to two brothers ;
but is there any authority for ascribing
to the Jews an extension of the term
'sister' which modern usage scarcely
sanctions?

2 Of the three names Alphceus (the
father of Levi or Matthew, Mark ii. 14,
and the father of James, Matt. x. 3,
Mark iii. 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13),
Clopas (the husband or father or son of
Mary, Joh. xix. 25), and Cleopas (the
disciple journeying to Emmaus, Luke
xxiv. 18), it is considered that the two
former are probably identical, and the
two latter certainly distinct. Both po-
sitions may be disputed with some rea-
son. In forming a judgment, the fol-
lowing points deserve to be considered ;
(1) In the Greek text there is no varia-
tion of reading worth mentioning ; Clo-
pas is certainly the reading in St John,
and Cleopas in St Luke. (2) The ver-
sions however bring them together.
Cleopge (or Cleophae) is read in the Pe-
shito, Old Latin, Memphitic, Vulgate,
and Armenian text of St John. (3) Of
these the evidence of the Peshito is par-

ticularly important in a matter relating
to Aramaic names. While for 'AX^cuos
in all five places it restores what was
doubtless the original Aramaic form
, Chalphai; on the other hand,

it gives the same word
Kleopha (i. e. KXe6?ras) in Luke xxiv. 18
and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts
may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syria c
too renders KXwTras by

(Kleophas), and 'A \0cuos by ,*
(Chalphai). (4) The form
which St John's text gives, is confirmed
by Hegesippus (Euseb. H. Kiii. 11), and
there is every reason to believe that this
was a common mode of writing so me
proper name or other with those ac-
quainted with Aramaic ; but it is diffi-
cult to see why, if the word intended
to be represented were Chalphai, they
should not have reproduced it more
exactly in Greek. The name XaX0
in fact does occur in 1 Mace. xi. 70.
(5) It is true that KXe6?ras is strictly a
Greek name contracted from KXe6?ra-
rpos, like 'Avriiras from 'A^rtTrarpos, etc.
But it was a common practice with the
Jews to adopt the genuine Greek name
which bore the closest resemblance in
sound to their own Aram aic name , either
side by side with it or in place of it, as
Simon for Symeon, Jason for Jesus ;
and thus a man, whose real Aramaic

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

The name s
are com-
mon.

But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two
families having two or three names in common constitute any
real difficulty ? Is not this a frequent occurrence among
ourselves ? It must be remembered too that the Jewish
names in ordinary use at this time were very few, and that
these three, James, Joses, and Symeon, were among the most
common, being consecrated in the affections of the Jews from
patriarchal times. In the list of the Twelve the name of
James appears twice, Symeon twice. In the New Testament
no less than twelve persons bear the name of Symeon or
Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Joses 1 . In the

name was Clopas, might grecize the
word and call himself Cleopas. On
these grounds it appears to me that,
viewing the question as one of names
merely, it is quite as reasonable to
identify Clopas with Cleopas as with
Alphaeus. But the identification of
names does not carry with it the iden-
tification of persons. St Paul's Epa-
phras for instance is probably a dif-
ferent person from his Epaphroditus.

A Jewish name 'Alfius' occurs in
an inscription ALFIVS . IVDA . AKCON .
AECOSINAGOGVS (Inscr. Gudii, p. cclxiii.
5), and possibly this is the Latin sub-
stitute for Chalphai or Chalphi, as 'A\-
0a?os is the Greek ; Alfius being a not
uncommon Latin name. One would be
tempted to set down his namesake also,
the ' fenerator Alfius ' or ' Alphius ' of
Horace (Epod. ii. 67, see Columella i.
7. 2), for a fellow countryman, if his
talk were not so pagan.

1 I am arguing on the supposition
that Joses and Joseph are the same
name, but this is at least doubtful. In
St Matthew, according to the best au-
thorities, the Lord's brother (xiii. 55) is
, the son of Mary (xxvii. 56)
In St Mark on the other hand
the latter word is found (the geni-
tive being differently written Two^-ros
j, though probably Tregelles is

right in preferring the former in all

three passages), whether referring to
the Lord's brother (vi. 3) or to the son
of Mary (xv. 40, 47). Thus if existing
authorities in the text of St Mark are
to be trusted, there is no distinction be-
tween the names. Yet I am disposed
to think with Wieseler (die Sohne Zebe-
ddi etc. p. 678) that St Matthew's text
suggests the real difference, and that
the original reading in Mark vi. 3 was
'Iwo-^0 ; but if so, the corruption was
very ancient and very general, for 'Iw-
<ri]<t> is found in K alone of the uncial
manuscripts. A similar confusion of
these names appears in the case of Bar-
sabbas, Acts i. 23, and Barnabas, iv. 36;
in the former case we find a various
reading ' Joses ' for 'Joseph,' in thelatter
we should almost certainly read 'Joseph '
for 'Joses' of the received text. I am
disposed to think the identification of
the names Joses and Joseph improbable
for two reasons : (1) It seems unlikely
that the same name should be repre-
sented in Greek by two such divergent
forms as 'Iu<rijs, making a genitive
'IbxrfjTos, and 'Io><ri70 or'Ic&r^Tros, which
perhaps (replaced by a genuine Greek
name) became "H.yri<nirTros. (2) The
Peshito in the case of the commoner
Hebrew or Aramaic names restores the
original form in place of the somewhat
disfigured Greek equivalent, e.g. Ju-
chanon for 'ludwrjs, Zabdai for Zee-

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 21

index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and twenty-
five Simons 1 .

And moreover is not the difficulty, if difficulty there be,
diminished rather than increased on the supposition of the
cousinhood of these two families ? The name of a common
ancestor or a common relative naturally repeats itself in house-
holds connected with each other. And from this point of view
it is worthy of notice that the names in question actually occur
in the genealogies of our Lord. Joseph's father is Jacob or
James in St Matthew (i. 15, 16); and in St Luke's table,
exclusively of our Lord's reputed father, the name Joseph or
Joses occurs twice at least* in a list of thirty-four direct
ancestors.

(2) When a certain Mary is described as 'the mother of (2) 'Mary
James/ is it not highly probable that the person intended O f James.'
should be the most celebrated of the name James the Just,
the bishop of Jerusalem, the Lord's brother ? This objection to
both the Epiphanian and Helvidian theories is at first sight not
without force, but it will not bear examination. Why, we may
ask, if the best known of all the Jameses were intended here,
should it be necessary in some passages to add the name of a
brother Joses also, who was a person of no special mark in the
Church (Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40) ? Why again in others
should this Mary be designated 'the mother of Joses' alone
(Mark xv. 47), the name of his more famous brother being

Scabs. Following this rule, it ought, if 1 The popularity of this name is
the names were identical, to have re- probably due to Simon Maccabasus.
stored ^JCU (Joseph) for the Greek 2 ^d perhaps not more than twice

'Iwo-^0 (vv. 24, 30). In ver. 26 'Ia><r7?Y
I^^mplaceofwhichithasn^DCU 8eems to be the right reading> where

(Josi, Jausi, or JusI). In Matt, xxvii. the received text has 'Iw<nJ0; and in

56, Mark xv. 40, the Memphitic Ver- ver . 2 9 'fycroO, where it has 'lowri?.

sion separates Mapa [i} rou] 'IdK^pov Possibly 'Iwcrfa may be a corruption

[TOV [UKpov] and 'IwoTjjros] pfyrnp> for 'Iwtrr?0 through the confusion of f\

making them two different persons. and -|, which in their older forms resem-

On the other hand, similar instances ble each other closely . but if Bo> it ia a

of abbreviation, e.g. Ashe for Asher, corruption not of St Luke's text, but of

Jochana for Jochanan, Shabba for the Hebrew or Aramaic document from

Shabbath, are produced ; see Delitzsch which the genealogy was derived,
in Laurent Neutest. Stud. p. 168.

22 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

suppressed ? In only two passages is she called simply ' the

mother of James' ; in Mark xvi. 1, where it is explained by the

fuller description which has gone before ' the mother of James

and Joses' (xv. 40); and in Luke xxiv. 10, where no such

explanation can be given. It would seem then that this Mary

and this James, though not the most famous of their respective

names and therefore not at once distinguishable when men-

tioned alone, were yet sufficiently well known to be discriminated

from others, when their names appeared in conjunction.

The two The objections then which may be brought against both

compared, these theories in common are not very serious ; and up to this

point in the investigation they present equal claims to accept-

ance. The next step will be to compare them together, in

order to decide which of the two must yield to the other.

(l) Bela- 1. The Epiphanian view assumes that the Lord's brethren

brethren & na( ^ rea lly no relationship with Him ; and so far the Helvidian

t0 dM eph ^ as ^ e advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than
real. It is very natural that those who called Joseph His
father should call Joseph's sons His brethren. And it must be
remembered that this designation is given to Joseph not only
by strangers from whom at all events the mystery of the
Incarnation was veiled, but by the Lord's mother herself who
knew all (Luke ii. 48). Even the Evangelist himself, about
whose belief in the miraculous conception of Christ there can
be no doubt, allows himself to speak of Joseph and Mary as
' His father and mother' and ' His parents 1 .' Nor again is it
any argument in favour of the Helvidian account as compared
with the Epiphanian, that the Lord's brethren are found in
company of Mary rather than of Joseph. Joseph appears in
the evangelical history for the last time when Jesus is twelve
years old (Luke ii. 43) ; during the Lord's ministry he is never
once seen, though Mary comes forward again and again. There
can be little doubt therefore that he had died meanwhile.

1 Luke ii. 33 6 irar^p avrou KM i] have taken offence and substituted
fj^rjTTjp, ii. 41, 43 ol yovels adrov, the 'Joseph and Mary,' 'Joseph and His
correct reading. Later transcribers mother,' in all three places.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 23

2. Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are (2) Virgin-
said to imply that Mary bore other children besides the Lord, Mary,
and it is even asserted that no unprejudiced person could
interpret them otherwise. The justice of this charge may be
fairly questioned. The context in each case seems to suggest
another explanation of these expressions, which does not decide
anything one way or the other. St Matthew writes that
Joseph 'knew not' his wife 'till (eo>? ov) she brought forth a
son' (i. 25) 1 ; while St Luke speaks of her bringing forth 'her
firstborn son' (ii. 7). St Matthew's expression however, ' till
she brought forth,' as appears from the context, is intended
simply to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of
nature ; and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with
her husband, it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent
intercourse 2 . Again, the prominent idea conveyed by the term
'firstborn' to a Jew would be not the birth of other children,
but the special consecration of this one. The typical reference
in fact is foremost in the mind of St Luke, as he himself
explains it, ' Every male that openeth the womb shall be called
holy to the Lord' (ii. 23). Thus 'firstborn' does not necessarily
suggest ' later-born,' any more than ' son' suggests ' daughter,'
The two words together describe the condition under which in
obedience to the law a child was consecrated to God. The
'firstborn son' is in fact the Evangelist's equivalent for the
'male that openeth the womb.'

It may indeed be fairly urged that, if the Evangelists had
considered the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother a
matter of such paramount importance as it was held to be in
the fourth and following centuries, they would have avoided
expressions which are at least ambiguous and might be taken
to imply the contrary ; but these expressions are not in them-
selves fatal to such a belief.

Whether in itself the sentiment on which this belief was

1 rbv TTpwroTOKov ought to be reject- 2 For parallel instances see Mill,
ed from St Matthew's text, having p. 304 sq.
been interpolated from Luke ii. 7.

24 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

founded be true or false, is a fit subject of enquiry ; nor can the
present question be considered altogether without reference to
it. If it be true, then the Epiphanian theory has an advantage
over the Helvidian, as respecting or at least not disregarding
it ; if false, then it may be thought to have suggested that
theory, as it certainly did the Hieronymian, and to this extent
the theory itself must lie under suspicion. Into this enquiry
however it will not be necessary to enter. Only let me say
that it is not altogether correct to represent this belief as
suggested solely by the false asceticism of the early Church
which exalted virginity at the expense of married life. It
appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment
which the fathers fantastically expressed by a comparison
between the conception and the burial of our Lord. As after
death His body was placed in a sepulchre ' wherein never man
before was laid,' so it seemed fitting that the womb consecrated
by His presence should not thenceforth have borne any offspring
of man. It may be added also, that the Epiphanian view
prevailed especially in Palestine where there was less disposition
than elsewhere to depreciate married life, and prevailed too at
a time when extreme ascetic views had not yet mastered the
Church at large.

(3) Our 3. But one objection has been hurled at the Helvidian

.i. ' ,, , j

ing words, theory with great force, and as it seems to me with fatal effect,
which is powerless against the Epiphanian 1 . Our Lord in His
dying moments commended His mother to the keeping of
St John ; ' Woman, behold thy son.' The injunction was
forthwith obeyed, and 'from that hour that disciple took her
unto his own home* (John xix. 26, 27). Yet according to the
Helvidian view she had no less than four sons besides daughters
living at the time. Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus
have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection ?
The difficulty is not met by the fact that her own sons were

1 This argument is brought forward who all held the view which I have ,
not only by Jerome, but also by Hilary designated by the name of the last of
of Poitiers, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, the three.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

still unbelievers. This fact would scarcely have been allowed
to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even
when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to
believe ? Though within a few days a special appearance is
vouchsafed to one of these brethren, who is destined to rule
the mother Church of Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to
the faith of Christ; yet she, their mother, living in the same
city and joining with them in a common worship (Acts i. 14), is
consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes
henceforth the inmate.

Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices Conclu-
alone, the Hieronymian account must be abandoned ; while of
the remaining two the balance of the argument is against the
Helvidian and in favour of the Epiphanian. To what extent
the last-mentioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition,
will be seen from the following catena of references to the
fathers and other early Christian writings 1 .

1 The testimony of Papias is fre-
quently quoted at the head of the pa-
tristic authorities, as favouring the view
of Jerome. The passage in question is
an extract, to which the name of this
very ancient writer is prefixed, in a
Bodleian MS, no. 2397, of the date
1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe's
Spicil. n. p. 34, Bouth's Eel. Sacr. i.
p. 16, and runs as follows: 'Maria
mater Domini : Maria Cleophae, sive
Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi
episcopi et apostoli et Symonis et
Thadei et cujusdam Joseph : Maria Sa-
lome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evan-
gelistae et Jacobi : Maria Magdalene :
istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur.
Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii erant
materterae Domini ; Jacobus quoque et
Joannes alterius materterae Domini fu-
erunt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et
Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit
Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae
Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gen-
tilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria

Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hanc
eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod
duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur
illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit
enim lumen mundi ; sermone autem
Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit
Dominum.' Grabe's description 'ad
marginem expresse adscriptum lego
Papia ' is incorrect ; the name is not in
the margin but over the passage as a
title to it. The authenticity of this
fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and
by Dean Alford on Matth. xiii. 55. Two
writers also in Smith's Biblical Diction-
ary (s. vv. 'Brother' and ' James '), re-
spectively impugning and maintaining
the Hieronymian view, refer to it with-
out suspicion. It is strange that able
and intelligent critics should not have
seen through a fabrication which is so
manifestly spurious. Not to mention
the difficulties in which we are involved
by some of the statements, the following
reasons seem conclusive : (1) The last
sentence ' Maria dicitur etc.' is evidently

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Hebrew
Gospel.

1. The GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS, one of the
earliest and most respectable of the apocryphal narratives,
related that the Lord after His resurrection 'went to James
and appeared to him ; for James had sworn that he would not
eat bread from that hour in which the Lord had drunk the cup
(biberat calicem Dominus), till he saw Him risen from the
dead.' Jesus therefore ' took bread and blessed it and brake it
and gave it to James the Just and said to him, My brother, eat
thy bread, for the Son of Man has risen from the dead ' (Hieron.
de Vir. Illustr. 2). I have adopted the reading ' Dominus,' as
the Greek translation has Kvpios, and it also suits the context
better ; for the point of time which we should naturally expect
is not the institution of the eucharist but the Lord's death 1 .
Our Lord had more than once spoken of His sufferings under

very late, and is, as Dr Mill says, ' justly
rejected by Grabe.' Grabe says, *ad-
didit is qui descripsit ex suo ' ; but the
passage is continuous in the MS, and
there is neither more nor less authority
for assigning this to Papias than the
remainder of the extract. (2) The state-
ment about ' Maria uxor Alphei ' is taken
from Jerome (adv. Helvid.) almost word
for word, as Dr Mill has seen ; and it is
purely arbitrary to reject this as spuri-
ous and accept the rest as genuine.
(3) The writings of Papias were in Je-
rome's hands, and eager as he was
to claim the support of authority, he
could not have failed to refer to testi-
mony which was so important and
which so entirely confirms his view
in the most minute points. Nor is it
conceivable that a passage like this,
coming from so early a writer, should
not have impressed itself very strongly
on the ecclesiastical tradition of the
early centuries, whereas in fact we dis-
cover no traces of it.

For these reasons the extract seemed
to be manifestly spurious ; but I might
have saved myself the trouble of ex-
amining the Bodleian MS and writing
these remarks, if I had known at the

time, that the passage was written by a
mediaeval namesake of the Bishop of
Hierapolis, Papias the author of the
' Elementarium,' who lived in the llth
century. This seems to have been a
standard work in its day, and was
printed four times in the loth century
under the name of the Lexicon or
Vocabulist. I have not had access to
a printed copy, but there is a MS of
the work (marked Kk. 4. 1) in the
Cambridge University Library, the
knowledge of which I owe to Mr Brad-
shaw, the librarian. The variations
from the Bodleian extract are unim-
portant. It is strange that though
Grabe actually mentions the later Pa-
pias the author of the Dictionary, and
Routh copies his note, neither the one
nor the other got on the right track.
I made the discovery while the first
edition of this work was passing through
the press [1865].

1 There might possibly have been
an ambiguity in the Hebrew original
owing to the absence of case-endings,
as Blom suggests (p. 83) : but it is more
probable that a transcriber of Jerome
carelessly wrote down the familiar
phrase ' the cup of the Lord.'

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 27

the image of draining the cup (Matt. xx. 22, 23, xxvi. 39, 42,
Mark x. 38, 39, xiv. 36, Luke xxii. 42) 1 ; and He is represented
as using this metaphor here. If however we retain ' Domini,' it
must be allowed that the writer represented James the Lord's
brother as present at the last supper, but it does not follow
that he regarded him as one of the Twelve. He may have
assigned to him a sort of exceptional position such as he holds
in the Clementines, apart from and in some respects superior
to the Twelve, and thus his presence at this critical time would
be accounted for. At all events this passage confirms the
tradition that the James mentioned by St Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7)
was the Lord's brother ; while at the same time it is character-
istic of a Judaic writer whose aim it would be to glorify the
head of his Church at all hazards, that an appearance, which
seems in reality to have been vouchsafed to this James to win
him over from his unbelief, should be represented as a reward
for his devotion.

2. The GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER was highly esteemed Gospel of
by the Docetse of the second century. Towards the close of
that century, Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it in circulation
at Rhossus a Cilician town, and at first tolerated it: but
finding on examination that, though it had much in common
with the Gospels recognised by the Catholic Church, there were
sentiments in it favourable to the heretical views that were
secretly gaining ground there, he forbad its use. In the
fragment of Serapion preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 12) 2 ,
from which our information is derived, he speaks of this apo-
cryphal work as if it had been long in circulation, so that its
date must be about the middle of the second century at the
latest, and probably somewhat earlier. To this gospel Origen
refers, as stating that the Lord's brethren were Joseph's sons
by a former wife and thus maintaining the virginity of the
Lord's mother 3 .

1 Comp. Mart. Polyc. 14 tv T $ iro- Sacr. i. p. 452, and Westcott History
iply TOV Xpto-rou ffov. of the Canon, p. 385.

2 For this fragment see Routh's Eel. 3 See below, p. 35.

28 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Protevan- 3. PEOTEVANGELIUM JACOBI, a purely fictitious but very
another early narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of
apocry- ^ Q second century, represents Joseph as an old man when the
gospels. Virgin was espoused to him, having sons of his own ( 9, ed.
Tisch. p. 18) but no daughters ( 17, p. 31), and James the
writer of the account apparently as grown up at the time of
Herod's death ( 25, p. 48). Following in this track, subsequent
apocryphal narratives give a similar account with various
modifications, in some cases naming Joseph's daughters or his
wife. Such are the Pseudo-Matthcei Evany. ( 32, ed. Tisch.
p. 104), Evang. de Nativ. Mar. ( 8, ib. p. Ill), Historia Joseph.
( 2, ib. p. 116), Evang. Thomce ( 16, p. 147), Evang. Infant.
Arab. ( 35, p. 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned
by Jerome (Comm. in Matth. T. vil. p. 86) which were different
from any now extant 1 . Doubtless these accounts, so far as they
step beyond the incidents narrated in the Canonical Gospels,
are pure fabrications, but the fabrications would scarcely have
taken this form, if the Hieronymian view of the Lord's brethren
had been received or even known when they were written. It
is to these sources that Jerome refers when he taunts the
holders of the Epiphanian view with following 'deliramenta
apocryphorum.'

Older 4. The EARLIEST VERSIONS, with the exception of the Old

' Latin and Memphitic which translate the Greek literally and
preserve the same ambiguities, give renderings of certain
passages bearing on the subject, which are opposed to the
Hieronymian view. The CuRETONiAN SYRIAC translates Mapia
'la/ccoySou (Luke xxiv. 10) ' Mary the daughter of James/ The
PESHITO in John xix. 25 has, 'His mother and His mother's
sister and Mary of Cleopha and Mary Magdalene'; and in
Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13, it renders 'Judas son of James.' One
of the old Egyptian versions again, the THEBAIC, in John xix.
25 gives ' Mary daughter of Clopas,' and in Luke vi. 16, Acts
i. 13 ' Judas son of James.'

1 As appears from the fact mentioned by Jerome ; see above, p. 12, note 2.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 29

5. The CLEMENTINE HOMILIES, written, it would appear, ciemen-
not late in the second century to support a peculiar phase of wr it m gs.
Ebionism, speak of James as being ' called the brother of the
Lord' (o Xe%#et9 aSeX<o9 TOV Kvplov, xi. 35), an expression
which has been variously interpreted as favouring all three
hypotheses (see Blom, p. 88: Schliemann Clement, pp. 8, 213),

and is indecisive in itself 1 . It is more important to observe
that in the Epistle of Clement prefixed to this work and
belonging to the same cycle of writings James is styled not
Apostle, but Bishop of Bishops, and seems to be distinguished
from and in some respects exalted above the Twelve.

6. In the portion of the Clementine Recognitions, which
seems to have been founded on the ASCENTS OF JAMES, another
very early Ebionite writing 2 , the distinction thus implied in
the Homilies is explicitly stated. The Twelve Apostles after
disputing severally with Caiaphas give an account of their
conference to James the chief of Bishops ; while James the son
of Alphseus is distinctly mentioned among the Twelve as one
of the disputants (i. 59).

7. HEGESIPPUS (about 160), a Hebrew Christian of Pales- Hegesip
tine, writes as follows : 'After the martyrdom of James the pm
Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle's child
Symeon the son of Clopas is next made bishop, who was put
forward by all as the second in succession, being cousin of the
Lord' (fjiera TO /jiapTVpfjcrai, 'ld/ca)/3ov TOV Sl/caiov 9 /cal 6
Kup09 e?rt ro3 avTto \6yo), TraXw 6 etc TOV deiov avTOv Sfftecoy

o TOV KXo)7ra KaQiGTCiTai eTrio-KOTros, ov irpokOevTo irdvTes OVTO,
dvetyiov TOV Kvpiov SevTepov 3 , Euseb. H. E. iv. 22). If the
passage be correctly rendered thus (and this rendering alone
seems intelligible 4 ), Hegesippus distinguishes between the re-

1 The word Aex#eis is most naturally 3 For devrepov comp. Euseb. H. E.

taken, I think, to refer to the reputed iii. 14.

brotherhood of James, as a consequence 4 A different meaning however has

of the reputed fatherhood of Joseph, been assigned to the words : irdXiv and

and thus to favour the Epiphanian view. devrepov being taken to signify ' another

See the expressions of Hegesippus, and child of his uncle, another cousin, ' and

of Eusebius, pp. 277, 278. thus the passage has been represented

' J See the next dissertation. as favouring the Hieronymian view. So

30 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

lationships of James the Lord's brother and Symeon His cousin.
So again, referring apparently to this passage, he in another
fragment (Euseb. H. E. iii. 32) speaks of 'the child of the
Lord's paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon son of Clopas' (6 etc
Oeiov rov Kvpiov 6 Trpoeipij/jLevos ^v/JLewv vlos KXwTra), to which
Eusebius adds, 'for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the
brother of Joseph/ Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once
called the Lord's brother, while James is always so designated.
And this argument powerful in itself is materially strengthened
by the fact that, where Hegesippus has occasion to mention
Jude, he too like James is styled ' the Lord's brother' ; ' There
still survived members of the Lord's family (ol OLTTO yevovs rov
Kvplov) grandsons of Judas who was called His brother accord-
ing to the flesh' (roO Kara ardp/ca Xeyopevov avrov d$e\(f)ov) ;
Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. In this passage the word ' called' seems
to me to point to the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian
view, the brotherhood of these brethren, like the fatherhood
of Joseph, being reputed but not real. In yet another passage
(Euseb. H. E. ii. 23) Hegesippus relates that ' the Church was
committed in conjunction with the Apostles 1 to the charge of
(Sto-Se^era*. rrjv eKK^aiav fjuera TCDV aTrocrToXwz/) the Lord's
brother James, who has been entitled Just by all from the
Lord's time to our own day ; for many bore the name of James.'
From this last passage however no inference can be safely
drawn; for, supposing the term 'Apostles' to be here restricted

for instance Mill p. 253, Schaf p. 64. Eusebius (I.e.) and Epiphanius (Haer.

On the other hand see Credner Eiril. pp. 636, 1039, 1046, ed. Petav.) must

p. 575, .Neander Pflanz. p. 559 (4te have interpreted the words as I have

aufl.). To this rendering the presence done.

of the definite article alone seems fatal Whether avrov should be referred to

(o IK rov delov not Zrepos ruv K rov Odov) ; 'IOLKW^OV or to Kuptos is doubtful. If

but indeed the whole passage appears to to the former, this alone decides the

be framed so as to distinguish the rela- meaning of the passage. This seems

tionships of the two persons ; whereas, the more natural reference of the two,

had the author's object been to repre- but the form of expression will admit

sent Symeon as a brother of James, no either.

more circuitous mode could well have * Jerome (de Vir. III. 2) renders it

been devised for the purpose of stating 'post apostolos,' as if /xerd TOVS airoarb-

so very simple a fact. Let me add that \ovs ; Eufinus correctly ' cum apostolis.'

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 31

to the Twelve, the expression perd rwv airoaroXtov may dis-
tinguish St James not from but among the Apostles; as in
Acts v. 29, ' Peter and the Apostles answered.'

Thus the testimony of Hegesippus seems distinctly opposed
to the Hieronymian view, while of the other two it favours the
Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian. If any doubt still
remains, the fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who
derived their information mainly from Hegesippus, gave this
account of the Lord's brethren materially strengthens the
position. The testimony of an early Palestinian writer who
made it his business to collect such traditions is of the utmost
importance.

8. TERTULLIAN'S authority was appealed to by Helvidius, Tertul-
and Jerome is content to reply that he was not a member of
the Church (' de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico quam ecclesiae
hominem non fuisse,' adv. Helvid. 17). It is generally
assumed in consequence that Tertullian held the Lord's brethren
to be sons of Joseph and Mary. This assumption, though
probable, is not absolutely certain. The point at issue in this
passage is not the particular opinion of Helvidius respecting
the Lord's brethren, but the virginity of the Lord's mother.
Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side the
authority of others 1 , whose testimony certainly did not go

1 ' Numquid non possum tibi totam subsequent writers, he speaks of the

veterum scriptorum seriem commove- virginity of Mary as a mystery, but

re : Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, this refers distinctly to the time before

Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios the birth of our Lord. To this passage

apostolicos et eloquentes viros ? ' (adv. which he elsewhere quotes (Comment.

Helvid. 17). I have elsewhere (Ga- in Matth. T. vn. p. 12), Jerome is

latians p. 130, note 3) mentioned an doubtless referring here,
instance of the unfair way in which In Cowper's Syriac Miscell. p. 61,

Jerome piles together his authorities. I find an extract, 'Justin one of the

In the present case we are in a posi- authors who were in the days of Augus-

tion to test him. Jerome did not tus and Tiberius and Gams wrote in the

possess any writings of Ignatius which third discourse : That Mary the Gali-

are not extant now ; and in no place lean, who was the mother of Christ who

does this apostolic father maintain the was crucified in Jerusalem, had not

perpetual virginity of St Mary. In been with a husband. And Joseph did

one remarkable passage indeed (Ephes. not repudiate her, but Joseph continued

19), which is several times quoted by in holiness without a wife, he and his

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

beyond this one point and had no reference to the relationship
of the Lord's brethren. Thus too the more distinct passages in
the extant writings of Tertullian relate to the virginity only
(de Cam. Christ, c. 23 and passim, de Monog. c. 8). Elsewhere
however, though he does not directly state it, his argument
seems to imply that the Lord's brethren were His brothers in
the same sense in which Mary was His mother (adv. Marc. iv.
19, de Cam. Christ. 7). It is therefore highly probable that he
held the Helvidian view. Such an admission from one who
was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice.

9. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (about A.D. 200) in a passage
of the Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by Cassio-
dorus (the authorship has been questioned but without sufficient
reason 1 ) puts forward the Epiphanian solution ; ' Jude, who
wrote the Catholic Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph
and [the Lord's] brother, a man of deep piety, though he was
aware of his relationship to the Lord, nevertheless did not say
he was His brother; but what said he? Jude the servant of

Clement
of Alex-
andria.

Latin

five sons by a former wife : and Mary
continued without a husband.' The
editor assigns this passage to Justin
Martyr ; but not to mention the ana-
chronism, the whole tenor of the pas-
sage and the immediate neighbourhood
of similar extracts shows that it was
intended for the testimony (unques-
tionably spurious) of some contempo-
rary heathen writer to the facts of the
Gospel.

1 We read in Cassiodorus (de Inst.
Div. Lit. 8), 'In epistolas autem cano-
nicas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter,
qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in
epistola (-am?) S. Petri prima (-am?)
S. Johannis prima (-am?) et secunda
(-am?) et Jacobi quaedam Attico ser-
mone declaravit. Ubi multa quidem
subtiliter sed aliqua incaute loquutus
est, quae nos ita transferri fecimus in
Latinum, ut exclusis quibusdam offen-
diculis purificata doctrina ejus securior

possit hauriri.' If 'Jude' be substi-
tuted for ' James,' this description ex-
actly applies to the Latin notes extant
under the title Adumbrationes. This
was a very easy slip of the pen, and I
can scarcely doubt that these notes are
the same to which Cassiodorus refers
as taken from the Hypotyposeis of
Clement. Dr Westcott (Canon, p. 401)
has pointed out in confirmation of
this, that while Clement elsewhere
directly quotes the Epistle of St Jude,
he never refers to the Epistle of St
James. Bunsen has included these
notes in his collection of fragments of
the Hypotyposeis, Anal. Anten. i. p.
325. It should be added that the
statement about the relationship of
Jude must be Clement's own and can-
not have been inserted by Cassiodorus,
since Cassiodorus in common with the
Latin Church would naturally hold the
Hieronymian hypothesis.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but brother of James ;
for this is true ; he was his brother, being Joseph's [son]' 1 (ed.
Potter, p. 1007). This statement is explicit. On the other
hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his authority
is generally claimed for the Hieronymian view ; ' Clement,' says
Eusebius, 'in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the Quota-
following account : Peter and James and John, he tells us, after Eusebius.
the resurrection of the Saviour were not ambitious of honour,
though the preference shown them by the Lord might have entitled
them to it, but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. The
same writer too in the seventh book of the same treatise gives
this account also of him (James the Lord's brother) ; The Lord
after the resurrection delivered the gnosis to James the Just 2 and

1 ' Frater erat ejus [films] Joseph.'
The insertion of ' filius ' (with Bunsen)
is necessary for the sense, whether
Cassiodorus had it or not. Perhaps
the Greek words were d5e\06s O.VTOV
TWV 'Iwcr77$, which would account for
the omission.

2 Credner, Einl. p. 585, condemns
the words r$ dcKaiy as spurious.
Though it might be inferred from the
previous extract given by Eusebius
that the son of Zebedee is meant here,
I believe nevertheless that they are
genuine. For (1) They seem to be
required as the motive for the explan-
ation which is given afterwards of the
different persons bearing the name
James. (2) It is natural that a special
prominence should be given to the
same three Apostles of the Circum-
cision who are mentioned in Gal. ii. 9
as the pillars of Jewish Christendom.
(3) Eusebius introduces the quotation
as relating to James the Just (trepl
avrov), which would not be a very good
description if the other James were the
prominent person in the passage. (4) I
find from Hippolytus that the Ophite
account singled out James the Lord's
brother as a possessor of the esoteric

gnosis, ravrd tariv dirk Tro\\wv irdvv
\6y<av TCI, K<f>d\aia a <f>rjcnv irapadeSw-
K&at M.a,pidfju>r] rbv 'Idicwfiov rov Kvplov
rbv d5e\<j>6v, Haer. x. 6, p. 95. Clement
seems to have derived his information
from some work of a Jewish Gnostic
complexion, perhaps from the Gospel
of the Egyptians with which he was
well acquainted (Strom, iii. pp. 529 sq,
553, ed. Potter) ; and as Hippolytus
tells us that the Ophites made use of
this Gospel (T&S 5e eaXXayds ratfras
T<is TroiKtXaj cV re? Trtypa<j>o fj.fr (p KO.T'
Aiyvirrlovs evayyeXiy iteipfras fyovviv,
ib. v. 7, p. 98), it is probable that the
account of Clement coincided with
that of the Ophites. The words ry
ducaty are represented in the Syriac
translation of Eusebius of which the
existing MS (Brit. Mus. add. 14,639)
belongs to the 6th century.

I hold r< diKalw therefore to be the
genuine words of Clement, but I do not
feel so sure that the closing explanation
660 de yeyovacrtv 'IdKwfioi /c.r.X. is not
an addition of Eusebius. This I sup-
pose to be Bunsen's opinion, for he
ends his fragment with the preceding
words i. p. 321.

34 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

John and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the Apostles ;
and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas
was one. Now there are two Jameses, one the Just who was
thrown down from the pinnacle (of the temple) and beaten to
death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded '
(H. E. ii. 1). This passage however proves nothing. Clement
says that there were two of the name of James, but he neither
states nor implies that there were two only. His sole object
was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord's brother ;
and the son of Alphseus, of whom he knew nothing and could
tell nothing, did not occur to his mind when he penned this
sentence. There is in this passage nothing which contradicts
the Latin extract; though indeed in a writer so uncritical in
his historical notices 1 such a contradiction would not be sur-
prising 2 .

10. ORIGEN (f A.D. 253) declares himself very distinctly in
favour of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were
sons of Joseph by a deceased wife 3 . Elsewhere 4 indeed he says
that St Paul ' calls this James the Lord's brother, not so much
on account of his kinsmanship or their companionship together,
as on account of his character and language/ but this is not
inconsistent with the explicit statement already referred to.

1 For instance he distinguished p. 75) d5e\0oi)s /J,v OVK ei^e 0&rei, otfre
Cephas of Gal. ii. 9 from Peter (see TTJS -jrapdtvov re/co^s Zrepov oi>8t atfrds
Galatians, p. 129), and represented e* rou 'Iu<rr)<f> rvyx&vw vb^ roiyapovv
St Paul as a married man (Euseb. expw&Tiffav avrov dde\<f>oi, viol 'Iwo-fy^
H. E. iii. 30). oVres e/c TrpoTedvyKvlas yvvaii<6s : Horn.

2 On the supposition that Clement in Luc. 7 (in. p. 940, ed. Delarue) 'Hi
held the Hieronymian theory, as he is enim filii qui Joseph dicebantur non
represented even by those who them- erant orti de Maria, neque est ulla
selves reject it, the silence of Origen, scriptura quae ista commemoret.' In
who seems never to have heard of this this latter passage either the translator
theory, is quite inexplicable. Epipha- has been confused by the order in the
nius moreover, who appears equally original or the words in the translation
ignorant of it, refers to Clement while itself have been displaced accidentally,
writing on this very subject (Haer. p. but the meaning is clear.

119, Petav.). Indeed Clement would 4 c. Cels. i. 47 (i. p. 363) ov roc--
then stand quite alone before the age OVTOV 5ia rb Trpbs afytaros <rvyyevts ^ TTJV
of Jerome. KOIVTJV avr&v dvacrTptHfity offov did rb

3 In Joann. ii. 12 (Catena C order. fidos nal rbv \byov.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

In one passage he writes at some length on the subject ; ' Some
persons, on the ground of a tradition in the Gospel according
to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James (i.e. the Prot-
evangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's sons
by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those
who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in
virginity throughout... And I think it reasonable that as Jesus
was the first-fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary
was among women : for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit
of virginity to any other woman but her' (in Matt. xiii. 55, III.
p. 462) 1 . This passage shows not only that Origen himself
favoured the Epiphanian view which elsewhere he has directly
maintained, but that he was wholly unaware of the Hierony-
mian, the only alternative which presented itself being the
denial of the perpetual virginity 2 .

1 Op. m. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261,
273, has strangely misunderstood the
purport of this passage. He speaks of
Origen here as ' teaching the opinion of
his (James the Just) being the son of
Joseph, both as the sentiment of a
minority among right-minded Chris-
tians and as founded on apocryphal
traditions ' ; and so considers the note
on John ii. 12, already referred to,
as ' standing strangely contrasted ' to
Origen' s statement here. If Dr Mill's
attention however had been directed
to the last sentence, nal ofytcu \6yov
%X eiv K.T.X., which, though most im-
portant, he has himself omitted in
quoting the passage, he could scarcely
have failed to see Origen's real mean-
ing.

2 The authority of Hippolytus of
Portus, a contemporary of Origen, has
sometimes been alleged in favour of
Jerome's hypothesis. In the treatise
De XII Apostolis ascribed to this au-
thor (ed. Fabric, i. app. p. 30) it is
said of James the son of Alphaeus,

ev 'lepovcraXTjju. virb '

KaraXevcrdels cLvaipeirai Kal OdirreTai e/ce?
Trapa T$ va<$. He is thus confused
or identified with James the Lord's
brother. But this blundering treatise
was certainly not written by the bishop
of Portus : see Le Moyne in Fabricius
i. p. 84, and Bunsen's HippoL i. p. 456
(ed. 2). On the other hand in the
work De LXX Apostolis (Fabricius i.
app. p. 41), also ascribed to this writer,
we find among the 70 the name of
6 d8e\(f)6dos Tri<TKOTros 'lepoffo-
, who is thus distinguished from
the Twelve. This treatise also is mani-
festly spurious. Again Nicephorus
Callistus, H. E. ii. 3, cites as from
Hippolytus of Portus an elaborate
account of our Lord's brethren follow-
ing the Epiphanian view (Hippol. Op.
i. app. 43, ed. Fabric.); but this ac-
count seems to be drawn either from
Hippolytus the Theban, unless as
Bunsen (I c.) supposes this Theban
Hippolytus be a mythical personage,
or from some forged writings which
bore the name of the older Hippolytus.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

Victor-
inus of
Pettaw.

Aposto- 11. The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, the main part of

stitutions. which may perhaps be regarded as a work of the third century,
though they received considerable additions in later ages, distin-
guish James the Lord's brother from James the son of Alphaeus,
making him, like St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus
counting fourteen in all (vi. 12, 13, 14 ; compare ii. 55, vii. 46,
viii. 4).

12. VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS (about 300) was claimed
by Helvidius as a witness in his own favour. Jerome denied
this and put in a counter claim. It may perhaps be inferred
from this circumstance that Victorinus did little more than
repeat the statements of the evangelists respecting the Lord's
brethren (adv. Helvid. 17).

13. EUSEBIUS OF CJESAREA (f about 340) distinguished
James the Lord's brother from the Twelve, representing him
as a supernumerary apostle like St Paul (Comm. in Isai. in
Montfaucon's Coll. Nov. Pair. II. p. 422 ; Hist. Eccl. i. 12 ; comp.
vii. 19). Accordingly in another passage he explains that this
James ' was called the Lord's brother, because Joseph was His
reputed father' (Hist. Eccl. ii. I) 1 .

Eusebius

rea.

rbv rov Kvpiov
6rt 5rj Kcd ovros rov
&v6f*a<rTO Trots rov 8k Xptorou
6 'J.b)0"r)<p t y /j.vrjo'revdeio'a 77 Tr
K.T.X. On the whole this passage seems
to be best explained by referring ovros
to Ktf/Hos. But this is not necessary ;
for 6vofjuie<r6at (or /caAe?cr#cu) TTCUS rwbs
is a good Greek phrase to denote real
as well as reputed sonship : as 2Esch.
Fragm. 285 ai'5' TTT' "ArXavros TrcuSes
Soph. Track. 1105 6 rrjs
fjnrjrpbs uvo/jiaff/dvos, Eur. Elect.
935: comp. Ephes. iii. 15 rbv irartpa.
e| ov Trcura irarpia. ovofjuiferat. The word
(bv6fj.a<7To cannot at all events, as Mill
(p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply
any doubt on the part of Eusebius about
the parentage of James, for the whole
drift of the passage is plainly against
this. The other reading, STL 5^ KCU

OTOJ rov Iojo"fj0 rov vo/j.i.op.vov olovel
irarpbs rov Xpurrov, found in some MSS
and in the Syriac version, and pre-
ferred by Blom p. 98, and Credner
Einl. p. 585, I cannot but regard as
an obvious alteration of some early
transcriber for the sake of clearness.
Compare the expressions in i. 12 eh
5 Kal ovros rdv (frepofjt.tj'wv d5eX0cSj' TIV,
and iii. 1 rov Kvpiov xprifj-ari^v ct5e\-
06s. He was a reputed brother of the
Lord, because Joseph was His reputed
father. See also Eusebius On the Star,
* Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with
them and the five sons of Hannah
(Anna) the first wife of Joseph' (p. 17,
Wright's Transl.). The account from
which this passage is taken professes
to be founded on a document dating
A.D. 119.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 37

] 4. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (f 386) comments on the sue- Cyril of
cessive appearances of our Lord related by St Paul, first to sa i e m.
Peter, then to the Twelve, then to the five hundred, then to
James His own brother, then to Paul His enemy; and his
language implies that each appearance was a step in advance
of the testimony afforded by the former (Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216,
ed. Touttee). It may be gathered thence that he distinguished
this James from the Twelve. As this however is only an
inference from his language, and not a direct statement of his
own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage
also (Catech. iv. 28, p. 65, KOI rot? aTroo-roXot? KOL 'Ia/eco/3co rep
Tavrr)s T?}? e/cK\rjo-ia^ eVtoveoTrw) Cyril seems to make the same
distinction, but here again the inference is doubtful.

15. HILARY OF POITIERS (f 368) denounces those who Hilary of

* claim authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the
Lord's mother) from the fact of its being recorded that our
Lord had several brothers'; and adds, 'yet if these had been
sons of Mary and not rather sons of Joseph, the offspring of a
former marriage, she would never at the time of the passion
have been transferred to the Apostle John to be his mother'
(Comm. in Matth. i. 1, p. 671, ed. Bened.). Thus he not only
adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself entirely
ignorant of the Hieronymian.

16. VlCTORINUS THE PHILOSOPHER (about 360) takes el fjirj Victor-

.. .A i . *** i , i i nus *h e

in Gal. i. 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and Phiio-
distinctly states that James was not an Apostle : ' Cum autem s P her -
fratrem dixit, apostolum negavit.'

17. The AMBROSIAN HILARY (about 375) comments onAmbrosi-
Gal. i. 19 as follows ; ' The Lord is called the brother of James

and the rest in the same way in which He is also designated
the son of Joseph. For some in a fit of madness impiously
assert and contend that these were true brothers of the Lord,
being sons of Mary, allowing at the same time that Joseph,
though not His true father, was so-called nevertheless. For if
these were His true brothers, then Joseph will be His true
father ; for he who called Joseph His father also called James

38 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

and the rest His brothers.' Thus his testimony entirely coin-
cides with that of his greater namesake. He sees only the
alternative of denying the perpetual virginity as Helvidius did,
or accepting the solution of the Protevangelium ; and he un-
hesitatingly adopts the latter.

Basil. 18. BASIL THE GREAT (f 379), while allowing that the

perpetual virginity is not a necessary article of belief, yet
adheres to it himself ' since the lovers of Christ cannot endure
to hear that the mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin*
(Horn, in Sanct. Christ. Gen. 11. p. 600, ed. Garn.) 1 . As im-
mediately afterwards he refers, in support of his view, to some
apocryphal work which related that Zacharias was slain by the
Jews for testifying to the virginity of the mother of Jesus (a
story which closely resembles the narrative of his death in the
Protevang. 23, 24), it may perhaps be inferred that he
accepted that account of the Lord's brethren which ran through
these apocryphal gospels.

Gregory 19. His brother GREGORY NYSSEN (f after 394) certainly

adopted the Epiphanian account. At the same time he takes
up the very untenable position that the ' Mary who is designated
in the other Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James
and Joses is the mother of God and none else 2 ,' being so called
because she undertook the education of these her stepsons ; and
he supposes also that this James is called 'the little' by
St Mark to distinguish him from James the son of Alphceus who

1 This very moderate expression of p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it.
opinion is marked by the editors with a from some such source. It was also
caute legendum in the margin ; and in part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where
Garnier's edition the treatise is con- it was less out of place, and gave Jerome
signed to an appendix as of doubtful au- an easy triumph over his adversary
thenticity. The main argument urged (adv. Helvid. 12 etc.). It is adopted
against it is the passage here referred moreover by Cave (Life of St James the
to. (See Gamier, n. prsef. p. xv.) Less, 2), who holds that the Lord's

2 Similarly Chrysostom, see below, brethren were sons of Joseph, and yet
p. 43, note 1. This identification of makes James the Lord's brother one
the Lord's mother with the mother of of the Twelve, identifying Joseph with
James and Joses is adopted and simi- Alphasus. Fritzsche also identifies
larly explained also in one of the apo- these two Maries (Matth. p. 822, Marc.
cryphal gospels : Hist. Joseph. 4 (Tisch. p. 697).

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 39

was 'great/ because he was in the number of the Twelve
Apostles, which the Lord's brother was not (in Christ. Resurr.
ii. Op. m. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris, 1638).

20. The ANTIDICOMARIANITES, an obscure Arabian sect in Antidico-
the latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord's ites.
mother bore children to her husband Joseph. These opinions

seem to have produced a reaction, or to have been themselves
reactionary, for we read about the same time of a sect called
Collyridians, likewise in Arabia, who going to the opposite
extreme paid divine honours to the Virgin (Epiphan. Haeres.
Ixxviii, Ixxix) 1 .

21. EPIPHANIUS a native of Palestine became bishop of Epipha-
Constantia in Cyprus in the year 367. Not very long before
Jerome wrote in defence of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's
mother against the Helvidians at Rome, Epiphanius came
forward as the champion of the same cause against the Anti-
dicomarianites. He denounced them in an elaborate pastoral
letter, in which he explains his views at length, and which he

has thought fit to incorporate in his subsequently written treatise
against Heresies (pp. 1034 1057, ed. Petav.). He moreover
discusses the subject incidentally in other parts of his great
work (pp. 115, 119, 432, 636), and it is clear that he had
devoted much time and attention to it. His account coincides
with that of the apocryphal gospels. Joseph, he states, was
eighty years old or more when the Virgin was espoused to him ;
by his former wife he had six children, four sons and two
daughters, the names of the daughters were Mary and Salome,

1 The names are plainly terms of identification.

ridicule invented by their enemies. Au- Epiphanius had heard that these

gustine supposes the ' Antidicoma- opinions, which he held to be deroga-

rianitse ' of Epiphanius (he writes the tory to the Lord's mother, had been

word 'Antidicomaritse') to be the same promulgated also by the elder Apol-

as the Helvidians of Jerome (adv. linaris or some of his disciples; but

Haer. 84, vm. p. 24). They held the he doubted about this (p. 1034). The

same tenets, it is true, but there report was probably circulated by their

seems to have been otherwise no con- opponents in order to bring discredit

nexion between the two. Considera- upon them,
tions of time and place alike resist this

40 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

for which names by the way he alleges the authority of
Scripture p. 1041); his sons, St James especially, were called
the Lord's brethren because they were brought up with Jesus ;
the mother of the Lord remained for ever a virgin ; as the
lioness is said to exhaust her fertility in the production of a
single offspring (see Herod, iii. 108), so she who bore the Lion
of Judah could not in the nature of things become a mother a
second time (pp. 1044, 1045). These particulars with many
other besides he gives, quoting as his authority ' the tradition
of the Jews' (p. 1039). It is to be observed moreover that,
though he thus treats of the subject several times and at great
length, he never once alludes to the Hieronymian account ;
and yet I can scarcely doubt that one who so highly extolled
celibacy would have hailed with delight a solution which, as
Jerome boasted, saved the virginity not of Mary only but of
Joseph also, for whose honour Epiphanius shows himself very
jealous (pp. 1040, 1046, 1047).

Helvidius, 22. Somewhere about the year 380 HELVIDIUS, who re-
and Jovi- sided in Rome, published a treatise in which he maintained

manus. fa&t tne L or( j' s brethren were sons of Joseph and Mary. He
seems to have succeeded in convincing a considerable number
of persons, for contemporary writers speak of the Helvidians
as a party. These views were moreover advocated by BONOSUS,
bishop of Sardica in Illyria, about the same time, and apparently
also by JOVINIANUS a monk probably of Milan. The former
was condemned by a synod assembled at Capua (A.D. 392), and
the latter by synods held at Rome and at Milan (about A.D. 390;
see Hefele Conciliengesch. 11. pp. 47, 48) *.

Motive of In earlier times this account of the Lord's brethren, so far as

theHelvi- .

dians. it was the badge of a party, seems to have been held in conjunc-

tion with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of

1 The work ascribed to Dorotheas the Lord's brother and James the son

Tyrius is obviously spurious (see Cave of Alphaeus, and makes them successive

Hist. Lit. i. p. 163) ; and I have there- bishops of Jerusalem. See Combefis

fore not included his testimony in this in Fabricius' Hippol. i. app. p. 36.
list. The writer distinguishes James

THE BKETHREN OF THE LORD. 41

Christ 1 . For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the
miraculous Incarnation, it was yet a natural accompaniment of
the denial thereof. The motive of these latter impugners of
the perpetual virginity was very different. They endeavoured
to stem the current which had set strongly in the direction of
celibacy ; and, if their theory was faulty, they still deserve the
sympathy due to men who in defiance of public opinion refused
to bow their necks to an extravagant and tyrannous super-
stition.

We have thus arrived at the point of time when Jerome's Evidence
answer to Helvidius created a new epoch in the history of this u p mE
controversy. And the following inferences are, if I mistake
not, fairly deducible from the evidence produced. First : there
is not the slightest indication that the Hieronymian solution
ever occurred to any individual or sect or church, until it was
put forward by Jerome himself. If it had been otherwise,
writers like Origen, the two Hilaries, and Epiphanius, who
discuss the question, could not have failed to notice it. Secondly:
the Epiphanian account has the highest claims to the sanction
of tradition, whether the value of this sanction be great or
small. Thirdly : this solution seems especially to represent the
Palestinian view.

In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise ; and Jerome's
the effect of it is visible at once.

AMBROSE in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutione Ambrose.
Virginia, in which he especially refutes the impugners of the
perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother. In a passage which
is perhaps intentionally obscure he speaks to this effect : ' The

1 [I fear the statement in the text 'This appellation ('brethren') was at
may leave a false impression. Previous first understood in the most obvious
writers had spoken of the Ebionites as sense, and it was supposed that the
holding the Helvidian view, and I was brothers of Jesus were the lawful issue
betrayed into using similar language. of Joseph and Mary. A devout respect
But there is, so far as I am aware, no for the virginity of the mother of God
evidence in favour of this assumption. suggested to the Gnostics, and after-
It would be still more difficult to sub- wards to the Orthodox Greeks, the ex-
stantiate the assertions in the following pedient of bestowing a second wife on
note of Gibbon, Decline and Fall c. xvi, Joseph, etc.'] 2nd ed. 1866.

42 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

term brothers has a wide application ; it is used of members
of the same family, the same race, the same country. Witness
the Lord's own words / will declare thy name to my brethren
(Ps. xxii. 22). St Paul too says : / could wish to be accursed
for my brethren (Rom. ix. 3). Doubtless they might be called
brothers as sons of Joseph, not of Mary. And if any one will
go into the question carefully, he will find this to be the true
account. For myself I do not intend to enter upon this ques-
tion : it is of no importance to decide what particular relation-
ship is implied ; it is sufficient for my purpose that the term
" brethren " is used in an extended sense (i.e. of others besides
sons of the same mother) 1 .' From this I infer that St Ambrose
had heard of, though possibly not read, Jerome's tract, in which
he discourses on the wide meaning of the term : that, if he had
read it, he did not feel inclined to abandon the view with which
he was familiar in favour of the novel hypothesis put forward
by Jerome : and lastly, that seeing the importance of coopera-
tion against a common enemy he was anxious not to raise
dissensions among the champions of the perpetual virginity by
the discussion of details.

Pelagius. PELAGIUS, who commented on St Paul a few years after
Jerome, adopts his theory and even his language, unless his
text has been tampered with here (Gal. i. 19).

Augustine. At the same time Jerome's hypothesis found a much more
weighty advocate in ST AUGUSTINE. In his commentary on
the Galatians indeed (i. 19), written about 394 while he was
still a presbyter, he offers the alternative of the Hieronymian
and Epiphanian accounts. But in his later works he con-
sistently maintains the view put forward by Jerome in the

1 The passage, which I have thus Quod quidem si quis diligentius prose-
paraphrased, is ' Fratres autem gentis, quatur inveniet. Nos ea prosequenda
et generis, populi quoque consortium non putavimus, quoniam fraternum no-
nuncuparidocetDominusipsequidicit: men liquet pluribus esse commune'
Narrabo nomen tuum fratribus meis ; (n. p. 260, ed. Ben.). St Ambrose
in medio ecclesiae laudabo te. Paulus seems to accept so much of Jerome's
quoque ait: Optabam ego anathema esse argument as relates to the wide use
pro fratribus meis. Potuerunt autem of the term ' brothers ' and nothing
fratres esse ex Joseph, non ex Maria. more.

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 43

treatise against Helvidius (In Joh. Evang. x, III. 2. p. 368, ib.
xxviii, in. 2. p. 508 ; Enarr. in Ps. cxxvii, IV. 2. p. 1443 ; Contr.
Faust, xxii. 35, vm. p. 383 ; comp. Quaest. X VII in Matth., in.
2. p. 285).

Thus supported, it won its way to general acceptance in Western
the Latin Church ; and the WESTERN SERVICES recognise only
one James besides the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the
Lord's brother with the son of Alpha3us.

In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, Chryso-
but this was only temporary. CHRYSOSTOM wrote both before
and after Jerome's treatise had become generally known, and
his expositions of the New Testament mark a period of transi-
tion. In his Homilies on the earlier books he takes the
Epiphanian view: St James, he says, was at one time an
unbeliever with the rest of the Lord's brethren (on Matth. i. 25,
vii. p. 77 ; John vii. 5, vm. p. 284; see also on 1 Cor. ix. 4, x.
p. 181 E); the resurrection was the turning-point in their career;
they were called the Lord's brethren, as Joseph himself was
reputed the husband of Mary (on Matth. i. 25, 1. c.) 1 . Hitherto

1 A comment attributed to Chryso- show clearly what was Chrysostom's

stom in Cramer's Catena on 1 Cor. ix. earlier view. To these may be added

4 7, but not found in the Homilies, is the comments on 1 Cor. xv. 7 (x.

still more explicit ; 'A5e\0oi>s rov Ku- 355 D), where he evidently regards

ptov Xyei TOJ)S vo/jLHrdfrras elvai avrov James as not one of the Twelve; on

d$e\<pofc' tTreidT) yap OUTOS 6 xpnvaTlfrav Matth. x. 2 (vii. pp. 368, 9), where he

Kal avrbs Kara ryv Koivty 86ai> direv makes James the son of Alphaeus a tax-

auTotfs* rods 8t viovs 'Iw0-r?0 Xfyei, ot gatherer like Matthew, clearly taking

dde\(pol rov KvpLov fypwuiruraj' 8ia rty them to be brothers; and on Matth.

Trpbs TT]v 6eoroKov /j.vrjo'Telav rov 'I&o"f]<p. xxvii. 55 (vii. p. 827 A), where, like

Xyet dt'IdKwfiov eiriffKOTrov'IepoffoXviJuav Gregory Nyssen, he identifies ~M.apla

Kal 'Iwo-770 6fj.(i)vv(j.ov rq> trar^pi Kal 2i- 'Ia/cc6j8ou with the Lord's mother. The

nuva Kal 'lotfSa. I give the passage accounts of Chrysostom's opinion on

without attempting to correct the text. this subject given by Blom p. Ill sq,

This note reappears almost word for and Mill p. 284 note, are unsatis-

word in the (Ecumenian catena and in factory.

Theophylact. If Chrysostom be not the The Homilies on the Acts also take

author, then we gain the testimony of the same view (ix. pp. 23 B, 26 A),

some other ancient writer on the same but though these are generally ascribed

side. Compare also the pseudo-Chry- to Chrysostom, their genuineness is

sostom, Op. ii. p. 797. very questionable. In another spurious

The passages referred to in the text work, Opus imp. in Matth., vi. p.

44 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

he betrays no knowledge of the Hieronymian account. But in
his exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) he not only
speaks of James the Lord's brother as if he were an apostle
(which proves nothing), but also calls him the son of Clopas 1 .
Thus he would appear meanwhile to have accepted the hypo-
thesis of Jerome and to have completed it by the identification of

Theodo- Clopas with Alphaeus. And THEODORET, who for the most part
closely follows Chrysostom, distinctly repudiates the older view:
' He was not, as some have supposed, a son of Joseph, the
offspring of a former marriage, but was son of Clopas and cousin
of the Lord ; for his mother was the sister of the Lord's mother/

Cyril of But with these exceptions the Epiphanian view maintained

dn? an its ground in the East. It is found again in CYRIL OF
ALEXANDRIA for instance (Glaphyr. in Gen. lib. vii. p. 221),
and seems to have been held by later Greek writers almost,

Theophy- if not quite, universally. In THEOPHYLACT indeed (on Matth.
xiii. 55, Gal. i. 19) we find an attempt to unite the two accounts.
James, argues the writer, was the Lord's reputed brother as
the son of Joseph and the Lord's cousin as the son of Clopas ;
the one was his natural, and the other his legal father ; Clopas
having died childless, Joseph had raised up seed to his brother

Eastern by his widow according to the law of the levirate 2 . This novel
suggestion however found but little favour, and the Eastern
Churches continued to distinguish between James the Lord's
brother and James the son of Alphaeus. The GREEK, SYRIAN,
and COPTIC CALENDARS assign a separate day to each.

The table on the next page gives a conspectus of the
patristic and early authorities.

clxxiv E, the Hieronymian view ap- mention James the son of Alphceus.

pears; 'Jacobum Alphaei lapidantes: See above, p. 19. This portion of his

propter quae omnia Jerusalem de- exposition however is somewhat con-

structa est a Romanis.' fused, and it is difficult to resist the

1 TOV TOV KXwTra, oirep Kal 6 evayyc- suspicion that it has been interpolated.

Xicrrf/j foeycv. He is referring, I sup- 2 See the remarks of Mill, p. 228.
pose, to the lists of the Apostles which

THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.

1 Sons of the
Virgin's sister.

^TERTULLIAN,
HELVIDIUS,
BONOSUS,
JOVINIANUS (1),
ANTIDICOMARIANITES.

^GOSPEL OF PETER, ^

PROTEVANGELIUM etc.,

CLEMENT OF ALEX.,

ORIGEN,

EUSEBIUS,

HILARY OF POITIERS,

AMBROSIASTER,

GREGORY OF NYSSA,

EPIPHANIUS,

AMBROSE,

[CHRYSOSTOM],

CYRIL OF ALEX.,

EASTERN SERVICES

(Greek, Syrian, and

Coptic),
LATER GREEK

WRITERS.

'JEROME,

PELAGIUS,
AUGUSTINE,
[CHRYSOSTOM],
THEODORET,
WESTERN SERVICES,
LATER LATIN

WRITERS.

A. orB. 'Brethren*
in a strict sense.
James the Just not
one of the Twelve.

'EARLY VERSIONS,
CLEMENTINE HO-
MILIES (?),
ASCENTS OF
JAMES,
HEGESIPPUS,
APOST. CONSTIT.,
CYRIL OF JERU-
SALEM (?),
VICTORINUS THE
PHILOSOPHER.

B.orC. Perpetual | CATHOIIC WRI .
virginity of Mary. \ TEES GENE .

RALLY.

Uncertain. HEBREW GOSPEL, VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS.
Levirate. THEOPHYLACT.

II.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Three HHHREE and three only of the personal disciples and imme-
diate followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in
Apostolic recoi> ds James, Peter, and John; the first the

promi- Lord's brother, the two latter the foremost members of the
Twelve. Apart from an incidental reference to the death of
James the son of Zebedee, which is dismissed in a single
sentence, the rest of the Twelve are mentioned by name for the
last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. Thenceforward
they disappear wholly from the canonical writings.

And this silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding
ages. We read indeed of St Thomas in India, of St Andrew in
Scythia; but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as
trustworthy, show only the more plainly how little the Church
could tell of her earliest teachers. Doubtless they laboured
zealously and effectively in the spread of the Gospel ; but, so
far as we know, they have left no impress of their individual
mind and character on the Church at large. Occupying the
foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of early
ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St Paul and the
three Apostles of the Circumcision.

The four Once and, it would appear, not more than once, these four

getherat g rea ^ } teachers met together face to face. It was the one great
a great crisis in the history of the Church, on the issue of which was

crisis. *

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 47

staked her future progress and triumph. Was she to open her
doors wide and receive all comers, to declare her legitimate
boundaries coextensive with the limits of the human race ? Or
was she to remain for ever narrow and sectarian, a national
institution at best, but most probably a suspected minority even
in her own nation ?

Not less important, so far as we can see, was the question at
issue, when Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem to confer
with the Apostles of the Circumcision on the subject of the
Mosaic ritual which then distracted the youthful Church. It
must therefore be an intensely interesting study to watch the
attitude of the four great leaders of the Church at this crisis,
merely as a historical lesson. But the importance of the subject

does not rest here. Questions of much wider interest are Questions

suggested
suggested by the accounts of this conference : What degree of by this

coincidence or antagonism between Jewish and Gentile converts
may be discerned in the Church ? What were the relations
existing between St Paul and the Apostles of the Circumcision ?
How far do the later sects of Ebionites on the one hand and
Marcionites on the other, as they appear in direct antagonism
in the second century, represent opposing principles cherished
side by side within the bosom of the Church and sheltering
themselves under the names, or (as some have ventured to say)
sanctioned by the authority, of the leading Apostles ? What in
fact is the secret history if there be any secret history of the
origin of Catholic Christianity ?

On this battle-field the most important of recent theological Import-
controversies has been waged : and it is felt by both sides that the
the Epistle to the Galatians is the true key to the position. In
the first place, it is one of the very few documents of the
Apostolic ages, whose genuineness has not been seriously
challenged by the opponents of revelation. Moreover, as the
immediate utterance of one who himself took the chief part
in the incidents recorded, it cannot be discredited as having
passed through a coloured medium or gathered accretions by
lapse of time. And lastly, the very form in which the informa-

48 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

tion is conveyed by partial and broken allusions rather than
by direct and continuous statement raises it beyond the reach
of suspicion, even where suspicion is most active. Here at
least both combatants can take their stand on common ground.
Nor need the defenders of the Christian faith hesitate to
accept the challenge of their opponents and try the question on
this issue. If it be only interpreted aright, the Epistle to the
Galatians ought to present us with a true, if only a partial,
solution of the problem.

Apology Thus the attempt to decipher the relations between Jewish

essay. an( ^ Gentile Christianity in the first ages of the Church is
directly suggested by this epistle ; and indeed any commentary
would be incomplete which refused to entertain the problem.
This must be my excuse for entering upon a subject, about
which so much has been written and which involves so many
subsidiary questions. It will be impossible within my limits to
discuss all these questions in detail. The objections, for instance,
which have been urged against the genuineness of a large
number of the canonical and other early Christian writings, can
only be met indirectly. Reasonable men will hardly be attracted
towards a theory which can only be built on an area prepared
by this wide clearance of received documents. At all events
there is, I think, no unfairness in stating the case thus ; that,
though they are supported by arguments drawn from other
sources, the general starting-point of such objections is the
theory itself. If then a fair and reasonable account can be
given both of the origin and progress of the Church generally,
and of the mutual relations of its more prominent teachers,
based on these documents assumed as authentic, a general
answer will be supplied to all objections of this class.
Proposed I purpose therefore to sketch in outline the progressive
thfrela * history f the relations between the Jewish and Gentile

tions of converts in the early ages of the Church, as gathered from

Jewish . J c

and the Apostolic writings, aided by such scanty information as can

ChrisV b e gt together from other sources. This will be a fit and
indeed a necessary introduction to the subject with which the

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 49

Epistle to the Galatians is more directly concerned, the
positions occupied by St Paul and the three Apostles of the
Circumcision respectively.

This history falls into three periods which mark three Three
distinct stages in its progress : (1) The Extension of the Church divisions
to the Gentiles ; (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty ; (3) rf*!.
The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches 1 .

1. The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles.

It appears from the Apostolic history that the believers in The early

. , -r - i i . Church of

the earliest days conformed strictly to Jewish customs in their jerusa-

religious life, retaining the fixed hours of prayer, attending the em>
temple worship and sacrifices, observing the sacred festivals.
The Church was still confined to one nation and had not yet
broken loose from the national rites and usages. But these
swathing bands, which were perhaps needed to support its
infancy, would only cripple its later growth, and must be thrown
off, if it was ever to attain to a healthy maturity. This emanci-
pation then was the great problem which the Apostles had to
work out. The Master Himself had left no express instructions. Our Lord's
He had charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel to all
nations, but how this injunction was to be carried out, by what
changes a national Church must expand into an universal
Church, they had not been told. He had indeed asserted the
sovereignty of the spirit over the letter ; He had enunciated
the great principle as wide in its application as the law itself

1 Important works treating of the re- truth he has abandoned many of his

lation between the Jewish and Gentile former positions, and placed himself in

Christians are Lechler's Apostolisches more direct antagonism to the Tiibin-

und Nachapostolisches Zeitalter (2te gen school in which he was educated,

aufl. 1857), and Ritschl'aEntstehungder The historical speculations of that

Altkatholischen Kirche (2te aufl. 1857). school are developed in Baur's Paulus

I am indebted to both these works, but and Christenthum und die Christliche

to the latter especially, which is very Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte,

able and suggestive. Bitschl should be and in Schwegler's Nachapostolisches

read in his second edition, in which Zeitalter.
with a noble sacrifice of consistency to

L. 4

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Jews of
the Dis-
persion.

First day
of Pente-
cost.

that ' Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for
man' ; He had pointed to the fulfilment of the law in the
Gospel. So far He had discredited the law, but He had not
deposed or abolished it. It was left to the Apostles themselves
under the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by circumstances and
moulding them in turn, to work out this great change.

And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt.
The dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of
Palestine with the outer world. Led captive by the power
of Greek philosophy at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria,
attracted by the fascinations of Oriental mysticism in Asia,
swept along with the busy whirl of social life in the city and
court of the Caesars, these outlying members of the chosen race
had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted wider interests than
their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of insensible
gradations proselytes of the covenant proselytes of the gate 1
superstitious devotees who observed the rites without accept-
ing the faith of the Mosaic dispensation curious lookers-on
who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as they would in
the worship of Isis or of Astarte the most stubborn zealot of
the law was linked to the idolatrous heathen whom he abhorred
and who despised him in turn. Thus the train was uncon-
sciously laid, when the spark fell from heaven and fired it.

The very baptism of the Christian Church opened the path
for its extension to the Gentile world. On the first day of
Pentecost were gathered together Hellenist Jews from all the
principal centres of the dispersion. With them were assembled
also numbers of incorporated Israelites, proselytes of the
covenant. The former of these by contact with Gentile thought

1 The distinction between proselytes
of the covenant or of righteousness and
proselytes of the gate is found in the
Gemara : the former were circumcised,
and observed the whole law ; the latter
acknowledged the God of Israel and
conformed to Jewish worship in some
respects, but stood without the cove-
nant, not having been incorporated by

the initiatory rite. The former alone,
it would appear, are called Trpoo-^Xi/rot
in the New Testament ; the latter, who
hardly form a distinct class, are ol <re-
fidfjievoi TOV 6e6i>, ol eu<re/Jets etc. In
speaking therefore of ' proselytes of the
gate ' I am using a convenient anachro-
nism.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 51

and life, the latter by the force of early habits and associations 1 ,
Avould accept and interpret the new revelation in a less rigorous
spirit than the Hebrew zealot of Jerusalem. Each successive
festival must have been followed by similar though less striking
results. The stream of Hellenists and proselytes, constantly
ebbing and flowing, must have swept away fragments at least
of the new truth, purging it of some local encumbrances which
would gather about it in the mother country, and carrying it
thus purged to far distant shores.

Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years passed away before the
barrier of Judaism was assailed. The Apostles still observed
the Mosaic ritual ; they still confined their preaching to Jews
by birth, or Jews by adoption, the proselytes of the covenant.
At length a breach was made, and the assailants as might be
expected were Hellenists. The first step towards the creation Appoint-
of an organised ministry was also the first step towards the Hellenist
emancipation of the Church. The Jews of Judaea, ' Hebrews of officers -
the Hebrews,' had ever regarded their Hellenist brethren with
suspicion and distrust ; and this estrangement reproduced itself
in the Christian Church. The interests of the Hellenist
widows had been neglected in the daily distribution of alms.
Hence 'arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the
Hebrews ' (Acts vi. 1), which was met by the appointment of
seven persons specially charged with providing for the wants
of these neglected poor. If the selection was made, as St
Luke's language seems to imply, not by the Hellenists them-
selves but by the Church at large (vi. 2), the concession when
granted was carried out in a liberal spirit. All the names
of the seven are Greek, pointing to a Hellenist rather than a
Hebrew extraction, and one is especially described as a proselyte,
being doubtless chosen to represent a hitherto small but grow-
ing section of the community.

By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained a Effects

1 'Trust not a proselyte,' said one (Shimoni) onKuthi. 11, 12, 601. See
of the rabbis, 'till twenty- four genera- also the passages given by Danz in
tions; for he holds his leaven.' Yalkut Meuschen Test. Illustr. p. 651.

of this
measure.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

testimony.

status in the Church ; and the effects of this measure soon
became visible. Two out of the seven stand prominently
forward as the champions of emancipation, Stephen the preacher
and martyr of liberty, and Philip the practical worker 1 .
Stephen's STEPHEN is the acknowledged forerunner of the Apostle of
the Gentiles. He was the first to ' look steadfastly to the end
of that which is abolished/ to sound the death-knell of the
Mosaic ordinances and the temple worship, and to claim for the
Gospel unfettered liberty and universal rights. 'This man/
said his accusers, ' ceaseth not to speak words against the holy
place and the law ; for we have heard him say that this Jesus
of Nazareth shall destroy this place and shall change the
customs which Moses delivered us' (vi. 13, 14). The charge
was only false as misrepresenting the spirit which animated his
teaching. The accused attempts no denial, but pleads justifica-
tion. To seal this testimony the first blood of the noble army
of martyrs is shed.

1 In Nicolas, the only one of the
remaining five whose name reappears in
history, liberty. is degraded into licence.
I see no valid reason for doubting the
very early tradition that the Nicolaitans
(Apoc. ii. 6, 15) derived their name from
him. If there was a traitor among the
Twelve, there might well be a heresi-
arch among the Seven. Nor is it likely
that an account so discreditable to one
who in the New Testament is named only
in connexion with his appointment to an
honourable office would have been circu-
lated unless there were some foundation
in fact. At the same time the Nicolai-
tans may have exaggerated and per-
verted the teaching of Nicolas. Iren-
seus (i. 26, 3) and Hippolytus (Haer.
vii. 36) believe him to have been the
founder of the sect; while Clement of
Alexandria (Strom, ii. p. 411, iii. p. 522,
Potter) attributes to him an ambiguous
saying that 'the flesh must be abused
(deiv TrapaxpTJo-6ai TTJ <rapK/),' of which
these Nicolaitans perverted the mean-

ing ; and in attempting to clear his
reputation relates a highly improbable
story, which, if true, would be far from
creditable. In another passage of Hip-
polytus, a fragment preserved in Syriac
(Lagarde's Anec. Syr. p. 87, Cowper's
Syr. Miscell. p. 55) and taken from the
'Discourse on the Resurrection' ad-
dressed to Mammaea, this writer again
represents Nicolas as the founder of the
sect, speaking of him as 'stirred by a
strange spirit' and teaching that the
resurrection is past (2 Tim. ii. 18), but
not attributing to him any directly
immoral doctrines. A common in-
terpretation, which makes Nicolaus
a Greek rendering of Balaam, is not
very happy; for Nt/c6\aos does not al-
together correspond with any possible
derivation of Balaam, least of all with
DV 5JTQ 'the destroyer of the people,'
generally adopted by those who so ex-
plain Ni/c6Xaos. See below, p. 64, with
the notes.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 53

The indirect consequences of his martyrdom extend far Indirect
beyond the immediate effect of his dying words. A persecution quences.
'arose about Stephen.' The disciples of the mother Church
'were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and
Samaria ' (viii. 1). Some of the refugees even ' travelled as far
as Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch ' (xi. 19). This dispersion
was, as we shall see, the parent of the first Gentile congregation.
The Church of the Gentiles, it may be truly said, was baptized
in the blood of Stephen.

The doctrine, which Stephen preached and for which he Philip
died, was carried into practice by PHILIP. The sacred narra- cc
tive mentions two incidents in his career, each marking an
onward stride in the free development of the Church. It is
therefore not without significance that years afterwards we find
him styled 'the Evangelist' (xxi. 8), as if he had earned this
honourable title by some signal service rendered to the Gospel.

1. The Samaritan occupied the border land between the (l) The
Jew and the Gentile. Theologically, as geographically, he was the
connecting link between the one and the other. Half Hebrew
by race, half Israelite in his acceptance of a portion of the
sacred canon, he held an anomalous position, shunning and
shunned by the Jew, yet clinging to the same promises and
looking forward to the same hopes. With a bold venture of
faith Philip offers the Gospel to this mongrel people. His
overtures are welcomed with joy, and 'Samaria receives the
word of God.' The sacred historian relates moreover, that his
labours were sanctioned by the presence of the chief Apostles
Peter and John, and confirmed by an outpouring of the Holy
Spirit (viii. 14 17). ' He who eats the bread of a Samaritan,'
said the Jewish doctor, 'is as one who eats swine's flesh 1 .' 'No
Samaritan shall ever be made a proselyte. They have no share
in the resurrection of the dead 2 .' In opening her treasures to

1 Mis hnah Shebiith viii. 10. EzraandZerubbabelthesonof Shealtiel

3 Pirke Rabbi Elieser 38. The pas- and Jehoshua the son of Jehozadak ?

sage so well illustrates the statement in (They went) and they gathered together

the text, that I give it in full : ' What did all the congregation into the temple of

54 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

this hated race, the Church had surmounted the first barrier of
prejudice behind which the exclusiveness of the nation had
entrenched itself. To be a Samaritan was to have a devil, in
the eyes of a rigid Jew (John viii. 48, comp. iv. 9).

(2) The 2. Nor was it long before Philip broke through a second

Ethiopian

eunuch, and more formidable line of defence. The blood of the

patriarchs, though diluted, still flowed in the veins of the
Samaritans. His next convert had no such claim to respect.
A descendant of the accursed race of Ham 1 , shut out from
the congregation by his physical defect (Deut. xxiii. 1), the
Ethiopian chamberlain laboured under a twofold disability.
This double line is assailed by the Hellenist preacher and taken
by storm. The desire of the Ethiopian to know and to do God's
will is held by Philip to be a sufficient claim. He acts boldly
and without hesitation. He accosts him, instructs him, baptizes
him then and there.

Conver- The venture of the subordinate minister however still

Cornelius, wanted the sanction of the leaders of the Church. At length

this sanction was given in a signal way. The Apostles of the

Circumcision, even St Peter himself, had failed hitherto to

comprehend the wide purpose of God. With their fellow-

the Lord, and they brought 300 priests our God, (that is) neither in this world

and 300 children and 300 trumpets and nor in the future. And that they

300 scrolls of the law in their hands, should have neither portion nor inhe-

and they blew, and the Levites sang ritance in Jerusalem, as it is said (Neh.

and played, and they banned the Cuth- ii. 20), But ye had no portion nor right

seans (Samaritans) by the mystery of nor memorial in Jerusalem. And they

the ineffable name and by the writing communicated the anathema to Israel

which is written on the tables and by which is in Babylon. And they put

the anathema of the upper (heavenly) upon them anathema upon anathema,

court of justice and by the anathema of And king Cyrus also decreed upon them

the nether (earthly) court of justice, an everlasting anathema, as it is said

that no one of Israel should eat the (Ezra vi. 12), And the God that has

bread of a Cuthaean for ever. Hence caused His name to dwell there etc.'

they (the elders) said: Whosoever eats Several passages bearing on this subject

the bread of a Cuthaean is as if he ate are collected in the article ' Samaritan

swine's flesh; and no Cuthsean shall ever Pentateuch,' by Mr E. Deutsch, in

be made a proselyte : and they have no Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.
share in the resurrection of the dead ; * Amos ix. 7, 'Are ye not as the

foicttissa,id(E>zreiiv. 3), Ye have nothing children of the Ethiopians unto me ?

to do with us to build an house unto children of Israel?'

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 55

countrymen they still ' held it unlawful for a Jew to keep com-
pany with or to come near an alien' (Acts x. 28). The time
when the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles seemed not
yet to have arrived : the manner in which it should be preached
was still hidden from them. At length a divine vision scatters
the dark scruples of Peter, teaching him to call no man
'common or unclean.' He goes himself and seeks out the
devout Roman centurion Cornelius, whose household he instructs
in the faith. The Gentile Church, thus founded on the same
'rock' with the Jewish, receives also the same divine confirma-
tion. As Peter began to speak, ' the Holy Ghost fell on them,
as it did' on the Jewish disciples on the first day of Pentecost
(xi. 15). As if the approval of God could not be too prompt or
too manifest, the usual sequence is reversed and the outpouring
of the Spirit precedes the rite of baptism (x. 44 48).

The case of Cornelius does not, I think, differ essentially Signifi-
from the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. There is no ground t hi s event,
for assuming that the latter was a proselyte of the covenant.
His mutilation excluded him from the congregation by a
Mosaic ordinance, and it is an arbitrary conjecture that the
definite enactment of the law was overruled by the spiritual
promise of the prophet (Is. Ivi. 3 5). This liberal interpreta-
tion at all events accords little with the narrow and formal
spirit of the age. Both converts alike had the inward qualifi-
cation of 'fearing God and working righteousness' (x. 35);
both alike were disabled by external circumstances, and the
disabilities of the Ethiopian eunuch were even greater than
those of the Roman centurion. If so, the significance of the
conversion of the latter consists in this, that now in the case of
the Gentile, as before in the case of the Samaritan, the principle
asserted by the Hellenist Philip is confirmed by the Apostles of
the Circumcision in the person of their chief and sealed by the
outpouring of the Spirit.

Meanwhile others were asserting the universality of the Preaching
Church elsewhere, if not with the same sanction of authority, at tU
all events with a larger measure of success. With the dying

56 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

words of Stephen, the martyr of Christian liberty, still ringing
in their ears, the persecuted brethren had fled from Jerusalem
and carried the tidings of the Gospel to distant lands. At first
they 'preached the word to none but to the Jews only' (xi. 19).
At length others bolder than the rest, ' when they were come to
Antioch, spake unto the Gentiles 1 , preaching the Lord Jesus/
Probably this was an advance even on the conversion of the
Ethiopian eunuch and of Cornelius. These two converts at all
events recognised the God of the old covenant. Now for the
first time, it would seem, the Gospel was offered to heathen
idolaters. Here, as before, the innovators were not Hebrews
but Hellenists, 'men of Cyprus and Cyrene' (xi. 20). Their
success was signal : crowds flocked to hear them ; and at

The name Antioch first the brethren were called by a new name a term
Christ-
ians, of ridicule and contempt then, now the pride and glory of the

civilized world. Hitherto the believers had been known as
' Galileans' or 'Nazarenes'; now they were called 'Christians.'
The transition from a Jewish to a heathen term marks the
point of time when the Church of the Gentiles first threatens
to supersede the Church of the Circumcision.

The first Thus the first stage in the emancipation of the Church was
gamed. gained. The principle was broadly asserted that the Gospel
received all comers, asking no questions, allowing no impedi-
ments, insisting on no preliminary conditions, if only it were
found that the petitioner 'feared God and worked righteousness/

2. The Recognition of Gentile Liberty.

It is plain that the principle, which had thus been asserted,
involved consequences very much wider than were hitherto
clearly foreseen and acknowledged. But between asserting a
principle and carrying it out to its legitimate results a long
interval must necessarily elapse, for many misgivings have to
be dissipated and many impediments to be overcome.

1 xi. 20. I cannot doubt thaf'EXX^as requires it ; but external authority pre-
is correct, as the preceding 'louSatovs ponderates in favour of '

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 57

So it was with the growth of Gentile Christendom. The Questions
Gentiles were no longer refused admission into the Church tied,
unless first incorporated with Israel by the initiatory rite. But
many questions remained still unsettled. What was their
exact position, when thus received ? What submission, if any,
must they yield to the Mosaic law ? Should they be treated as
in all respects on an equality with the true Israelite ? Was it
right for the Jewish Christian so far to lay aside the traditions
of his race, as to associate freely with his Gentile brother?
These must necessarily in time become practical questions, and
press for a solution.

At this point in the history of the Church a new character Saul of
appears on the scene. The mantle of Stephen has fallen 011
the persecutor of Stephen. SAUL has been called to bear the
name of Christ to the Gentiles. Descended of pure Hebrew
ancestry and schooled in the law by the most famous of living
teachers, born and residing in a great university town second
to none in its reputation for Greek wisdom and learning,
inheriting the privileges and the bearing of a Roman citizen,
he seemed to combine in himself all those varied qualifications
which would best fit him for this work. These wide ex-
periences, which had lain dormant before, were quickened
into thought and life by the lightning flash on the way to
Damascus; and stubborn zeal was melted and fused into
large-hearted and comprehensive charity. From his conversion
to the present time we read only of his preaching in the
synagogues at Damascus (ix. 20, 22) and to the Hellenists at
Jerusalem (ix. 29). But now the moment was ripe, when he
must enter upon that wider sphere of action for which he had
been specially designed. The Gentile Church, founded on the
'rock/ must be handed over to the 'wise master-builder' to
enlarge and complete. So at the bidding of the Apostles,
Barnabas seeks out Saul in his retirement at Tarsus and brings
him to Antioch. Doubtless he seemed to all to be the fittest goes to

Antioch.
instrument for carrying out the work so auspiciously begun.

Meanwhile events at Jerusalem were clearing the way for Circum-

58 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

stances his great work. The star of Jewish Christendom was already
t b e ] on the wane, while the independence of the Gentiles was
Ch tlie h gradually asserting itself. Two circumstances especially were

instrumental in reversing the positions hitherto held by these

two branches of the Church.

(1) With- i. it has been seen that the martyrdom of Stephen
theApo- marked an epoch in the emancipation of the Church. The

martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee is scarcely less im-
portant in its influence on her progressive career. The former
persecution had sown the disciples broad-cast over heathen
lands; the latter seems to have been the signal for the
withdrawal of the Apostles themselves from Jerusalem. The
twelve years, which according to an old tradition our Lord had
assigned as the limit of their fixed residence there, had drawn
to a close 1 . So, consigning the direction of the mother Church
to James the Lord's brother and the presbytery, they depart
thence to enter upon a wider field of action. Their withdrawal
must have deprived the Church of Jerusalem of half her
prestige and more than half her influence. Henceforth she
remained indeed the mother Church of the nation, but she was
no longer the mother Church of the world.

(2) Famine 2. About the same time another incident also contributed
Gentile ^ to l essen ner influence. A severe famine devastated Palestine
alms. an( j reduced the Christian population to extreme want. Collec-
tions were made at Antioch, and relief was sent to the brethren
in Judaea. By this exercise of liberality the Gentile Churches
were made to feel their own importance : while the recipients,
thus practically confessing their dependence, were deposed
from the level of proud isolation which many of them would
gladly have maintained. This famine seems to have ranged
over many years, or at all events its attacks were several times
repeated. Again and again the alms of the Gentile Christians
were conveyed by the hands of the Gentile Apostles, and the
Churches of Judaea laid themselves under fresh obligations to
the heathen converts.

1 See Galatians, p. 127, n. 1.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 59

Events being thus ripe, Saul still residing at Antioch is set New stage
apart by the Spirit for the Apostleship of the Gentiles to which Gospel,
he had been called years before.

The Gospel thus enters upon a new career of triumph.
The primacy of the Church passes from Peter to Paul from
the Apostle of the Circumcision to the Apostle of the Gentiles.
The centre of evangelical work is transferred from Jerusalem to
Antioch. Paul and Barnabas set forth on their first missionary
tour.

Though they give precedence everywhere to the Jews, their St Paul's
mission is emphatically to the Gentiles. In Cyprus, the first sionary
country visited, its character is signally manifested in the 3 u
conversion of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. And soon
it becomes evident that the younger Church must supplant the
elder. At Antioch in Pisidia matters are brought to a crisis :
the Jews reject the offer of the Gospel : the Gentiles entreat to
hear the message. Thereupon the doom is pronounced: 'It
was necessary that the word of God should first have been
spoken to you ; but seeing ye put it from you and judge your-
selves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn to the Gentiles'
(xiii. 46). The incidents at Pisidian Antioch foreshadow the
destiny which awaits the Gospel throughout the world. Every-
where the Apostles deliver their message to the Jews first, and
everywhere the offer rejected by them is welcomed by the
heathen. The mission of Paul and Barnabas is successful, but
its success is confined almost wholly to the Gentiles. They
return to Antioch.

Hitherto no attempt had been made to define the mutual The ques-
relations of Jewish and Gentile converts. All such questions, it cmncision
would seem, had been tacitly passed over, neither side perhaps raised -
being desirous of provoking discussion. But the inevitable
crisis at length arrives. Certain converts, who had imported
into the Church of Christ the rigid and exclusive spirit of
Pharisaism, stir up the slumbering feud at Antioch, starting
the question in its most trenchant form. They desire to
impose circumcision on the Gentiles, not only as a condition

60 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

of equality, but as necessary to salvation (xv. 1). The imposi-
tion of this burden is resisted by Paul and Barnabas, who go
on a mission to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles and
elders.

Accounts I have given elsewhere what seems to me the probable
ference. account of the part taken by the leading Apostles in these
controversies 1 , and shall have to return to the subject later.
Our difficulty in reading 'this page of history arises not so
much from the absence of light as from the perplexity of cross
lights. The narratives of St Luke and St Paul only then
cease to conflict, when we take into account the different
positions of the writers and the different objects they had
in view.

Twofold At present we are concerned only with the results of this

conference. These are twofold : First, the settlement of the
points of dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts :
Secondly, the recognition of the authority and commission of
Paul and Barnabas by the Apostles of the Circumcision. It
will be necessary, as briefly as possible, to point out the signifi-
cance of these two conclusions and to examine how far they
were recognised and acted upon subsequently.

The decree ]_ e The arrangement of the disputed points was effected
a compro-
mise, by a mutual compromise. On the one hand it was decided

once and for ever that the rite of circumcision should not be
imposed on the Gentiles. On the other, concessions were
demanded of them in turn ; they were asked to c abstain from
meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,
and from fornication.'

Emanci- The first of these decisions was a question of principle. If

clause. the initiatory rite of the old dispensation were imposed on all
members of the Christian Church, this would be in effect to
deny that the Gospel was a new covenant ; in other words to
deny its essential character 2 . It was thus the vital point on
which the whole controversy turned. And the liberal decision

1 See Galatians, p. 126 sq, and the notes on Gal. ii. 1 10.

2 See Bitschl, p. 127.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 61

of the council was not only the charter of Gentile freedom but
the assertion of the supremacy of the Gospel.

On the other hand it is not so easy to understand the Bestrict-
bearing of the restrictions imposed on the Gentile converts. c i au ses.
Their significance in fact seems to be relative rather than
absolute. There were certain practices into which, though
most abhorrent to the feelings of their Jewish brethren, the
Gentile Christians from early habit and constant association
would easily be betrayed. These were of different kinds : some
were grave moral offences, others only violations of time-
honoured observances, inwrought in the conscience of the
Israelite. After the large concession of principle made to the
Gentiles in the matter of circumcision, it was not unreasonable
that they should be required in turn to abstain from practices
which gave so much offence to the Jews. Hence the prohibi-
tions in question. It is strange indeed that offences so hetero-
geneous should be thrown together and brought under one
prohibition ; but this is perhaps sufficiently explained by sup-
posing the decree framed to meet some definite complaint of
the Jewish brethren. If, in the course of the hot dispute
which preceded the speeches of the leading Apostles, attention
had been specially called by the Pharisaic party to these
detested practices, St James would not unnaturally take up
the subject and propose to satisfy them by a direct condemna-
tion of the offences in question 1 .

It would betray great ignorance of human nature to suppose The decree
that a decision thus authoritatively pronounced must have e d by
silenced all opposition. If therefore we should find its pro- some '
visions constantly disregarded hereafter, it is no argument
against the genuineness of the decree itself. The bigoted

1 This seems to- me much simpler kindred (Levit. xviii. 18), as it is inter -

than explaining the clauses as enforc- preted by Eitschl p. 129 sq, who ably

ing the conditions under which prose- maintains this view. These difficulties

lytes of the gate were received by the of interpretation are to my mind a

Jews. In this latter case iropvda will very strong evidence of the genuine-

perhaps refer to unlawful marriage, ness of the decree,
e.g. within the prohibited degrees of

62 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

minority was little likely to make an absolute surrender of
its most stubborn prejudices to any external influence. Many
even of those, who at the time were persuaded by the leading
Apostles into acquiescence, would find their misgivings return,
when they saw that the effect of the decree was to wrest the
sceptre from their grasp and place it in the hands of the
Gentile Church.

Circumci- Even the question of circumcision, on which an absolute
insisted decision had been pronounced, was revived again and again.
Long after, the Judaizing antagonists of St Paul in Galatia
attempted to force this rite on his Gentile converts. Perhaps
however they rather evaded than defied the decree. They may
for instance have no longer insisted upon it as a condition of
salvation, but urged it as a title to preference. But however
this may be, there is nothing startling in the fact itself.
There- But while the emancipating clause of the decree, though

express and definite, was thus parried or resisted, the restrictive

?mi m " c l auses were with much greater reason interpreted with latitude.

enforced. The miscellaneous character of these prohibitions showed that,

taken as a whole, they had no binding force independently

of the circumstances which dictated them. They were a

temporary expedient framed to meet a temporary emergency.

Their object was the avoidance of offence in mixed communities

of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this recognised aim and

the general understanding implied therein the limits of their

application were not defined. Hence there was room for much

St James, latitude in individual cases. St James, as the head of the

mother Church where the difficulties which it was framed to

meet were most felt, naturally refers to the decree seven years

after as still regulating the intercourse between Jewish and

Antioch Gentile converts (xxi. 25). At Antioch too and in the neigh-

neigh- 6 bouring Churches of Syria and Cilicia, to which alone the

churches Apostolic letter was addressed and on which alone therefore

the enactments were directly binding (xv. 23), it was doubtless

long observed. The close communication between these churches

and Jerusalem would at once justify and secure its strict

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 63

observance. We read also of its being delivered to the brother-
hoods of Lycaonia and Pisidia, already founded when the council
was held, and near enough to Palestine to feel the pressure
of Jewish feelings (xvi. 4). But as the circle widens, its influ-
ence becomes feebler. In strictly Gentile churches it seems
never to have been enforced. St Paul, writing to the Corin- St Paul
thians, discusses two of the four practices which it prohibits rinthians.
without any reference to its enactments. Fornication he con-
demns absolutely as defiling the body which is the temple
of God (1 Cor. v. 113, vi. 1820). Of eating meats sacri-
ficed to idols he speaks as a thing indifferent in itself, only to
be avoided in so far as it implies participation in idol worship
or is offensive to the consciences of others. His rule therefore
is this : ' Do not sit down to a banquet celebrated in an idol's
temple. You may say that in itself an idol is nothing, that
neither the abstaining from meat nor the partaking of meat
commends us to God. All this I grant is true : but such
knowledge is dangerous. You are running the risk of falling
into idolatry yourself, you are certainly by your example
leading others astray; you are in fact committing an overt
act of treason to God, you are a partaker of the tables of devils.
On the other hand do not officiously inquire when you make a
purchase at the shambles or when you dine in a private house :
but if in such cases you are plainly told that the meat has been
offered in sacrifice, then abstain at all hazards. Lay down this
rule, to give no offence either to Jews or Gentiles or to the
churches of God' (1 Cor. viii. 113, x. 1422). This wise
counsel, if it disregards the letter, preserves the spirit of the
decree, which was framed for the avoidance of offence. But
St Paul's language shows that the decree itself was not held
binding, perhaps was unknown at Corinth: otherwise the
discussion would have been foreclosed. Once again we come gt John
across the same topics in the apocalyptic message to the ^si^lc
Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira. The same irregularities churches,
prevailed here as at Corinth : there was the temptation on the
one hand to impure living, on the other to acts of conformity

64 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

with heathen worship which compromised their allegiance to
the one true God. Our Lord in St John's vision denounces
them through the symbolism of the Old Testament history. In
the Church of Pergamos were certain Nicolaitans ' holding the
doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock
before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols
and to commit fornication ' (ii. 14). At Thyatira the evil had
struck its roots deeper. The angel of that Church is rebuked
because he 'suffers his wife Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess,
and she teacheth and seduceth God's servants to commit forni-
cation and to eat things sacrificed to idols.' I see no reason
for assuming a reference here to the Apostolic decree. The
two offences singled out are those to which Gentile churches
would be most liable, and which at the same time are illustrated
by the Old Testament parallels. If St Paul denounces them
independently of the decree, St John may have done so like-
wise 1 . In the matter of sacrificial meats indeed the condemna-
tion of the latter is more absolute and uncompromising. But
this is owing partly to the epigrammatic terseness and symbolic
reference of the passage, partly, also, we may suppose, to the
more definite form which the evil itself had assumed 8 . In both
cases the practice was justified by a vaunted knowledge which
held itself superior to any such restrictions 3 . But at Corinth

1 Yet the expression ov /SdXXw l<(> (ffKdvSa\ov) before the children of Is-

aXXo fidpos (ii. 24) looks like a rael,' the whole purport of St Paul's

reference to the decree. warning is ' to give no offence ' (^

2 The coincidence of the two Apostles aKav5a\teiv, viii. 13, a-rrp^KOTroi yiv<r~
extends also to their language. (1) If 0cu, x. 32). With all these coinci-
St John denounces the offence as a fol- dences of matter and language, it is
lowing of Balaam, St Paul uses the a strange phenomenon that any critic
same Old Testament illustration, 1 Cor. should maintain, as Baur, Zeller, and
x. 7, 8, ' Neither be ye idolaters, as were Schwegler have done, that the denun-
some of them ; as it is written, The ciations in the Apocalypse are directed
people sat down to eat and drink, and against St Paul himself.

rose up to play : neither let us commit 3 Comp. Apoc. ii. 24 #<roi OVK ^x ovffiv
fornication, as some of them com- ryv 5i5a%V rcujryv, otnves ofa 7 per-
mitted, and fell in one day three and aav T& paQta TOV Sarai/a, ws X^-
twenty thousand.' (2) If St John yovviv. The false teachers boasted a
speaks of 'casting a stumblingblock knowledge of the deep things of God;

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

this temper was still immature and under restraint : while in
the Asiatic churches it had outgrown shame and broken out
into the wildest excesses 1 .

Thus then the decree was neither permanently nor uni- Object of
versally binding. But there was also another point which ments not
admitted much latitude of interpretation. What was under- d(
stood to be the design of these enactments ? They were articles
of peace indeed, but of what nature was this peace to be ?
Was it to effect an entire union between the Jewish and Gentile
churches, a complete identity of interest ; or only to secure a
strict neutrality, a condition of mutual toleration ? Were the
Gentiles to be welcomed as brothers and admitted at once
to all the privileges of sons of Israel: or was the Church
hereafter to be composed of two separate nationalities, as it
were, equal and independent; or lastly, were the heathen
converts to be recognised indeed, but only as holding a sub-
ordinate position like proselytes under the old covenant ? The
first interpretation is alone consistent with the spirit of the
Gospel: but either of the others might honestly be maintained
without any direct violation of the letter of the decree. The
Church of Antioch, influenced doubtless by St Paul, took the

they possessed only a knowledge of the
deep things of Satan. St John's mean-
ing is illustrated by a passage in Hip-
polytus (Haer. v. 6, p. 94) relating to
the Ophites, who offer other striking
resemblances to the heretics of the
Apostolic age ; eTre/cdXecrav eai/roi)s yvia-
<TTiKo6s, <})dcrKovTs /J.6voi rot, fiadfj 7 iv ti-
er K iv : see also Iren. ii. 28. 9. St
Paul's rebuke is very different in form,
but the same in effect. He begins
each time in a strain of noble irony.
'We all have knowledge'; 'I speak as
to wise men ' : he appears to concede,
to defer, to sympathize, even to en-
courage : and then he turns round up-
on the laxity of this vaunted wisdom
and condemns and crushes it : ' I will
eat no flesh while the world standeth,
lest I make my brother to offend';

'I would not that ye should have fel-
lowship with devils.'

1 The subject of et5ui\6dvTa does not
disappear with the Apostolic age: it
turns up again for instance in the
middle of the second century, in Agrip-
pa Castor (Euseb. H. E. iv. 7) writing
against Basilides, and in Justin (Dial.
35, p. 253 D) who mentions the Basili-
deans among other Gnostic sects as
'participating in lawless and godless
rites': comp. Orac. Sib. ii. 96. Both
these writers condemn the practice, the
latter with great severity. When the
persecution began, and the Christians
were required to deny their faith by
participating in the sacrifices, it be-
came a matter of extreme importance
to avoid any act of conformity, how-
ever slight.

66 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

larger and truer view ; Jewish and Gentile converts lived freely
together as members of one brotherhood. A portion at least
of the Church of Jerusalem, 'certain who came from James,'
adopted a narrower interpretation and still clung to the old
distinctions, regarding their Gentile brethren as unclean and
refusing to eat with them. This was not the Truth of the
Gospel, it was not the Spirit of Christ ; but neither was it a
direct breach of compact.

St Paul's 2. Scarcely less important than the settlement of the
recog- disputed points was the other result of these conferences, the
recognition of St Paul's office and mission by the Apostles
of the Circumcision. This recognition is recorded in similar
language in the narrative of the Acts and in the Epistle to the
Galatians. In the Apostolic circular inserted in the former
Paul and Barnabas are commended as ' men who have hazarded
their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ' (xv. 26). In
the conferences, as related in the latter, the three Apostles,
James, Peter, and John, seeing that ' the Gospel of the un-
circumcision was committed unto him/ and 'perceiving the
grace that was given unto him, gave to him and Barnabas the
right hand of fellowship, that they should go unto the heathen '
(ii. 710).

Continued This ample recognition would doubtless carry weight with a
large number of Jewish converts : but no sanction of authority
could overcome in others the deep repugnance felt to one who,
himself a ' Hebrew of the Hebrews,' had systematically opposed
the law of Moses and triumphed in his opposition. Henceforth
St Paul's career was one life-long conflict with Judaizing an-
tagonists. Setting aside the Epistles to the Thessalonians,
which were written too early to be affected by this struggle,
all his letters addressed to churches, with but one exception 1 ,
refer more or less directly to such opposition. It assumed
different forms in different places: in Galatia it was purely

1 This exception, the Epistle to the Asiatic churches, in which special re-
Ephesians, may be explained by its ferences would be out of place,
character as a circular letter to the

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 67

Pharisaic ; in Phrygia and Asia it was strongly tinged with
speculative mysticism ; but everywhere and under all circum-
stances zeal for the law was its ruling passion. The systematic
hatred of St Paul is an important fact, which we are too apt
to overlook, but without which the whole history of the Apo-
stolic ages will be misread and misunderstood.

3. The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches.

We have seen hitherto no signs of waning affection for the Zeal for

the law
law in the Jewish converts to Christianity as a body. On the

contrary the danger which threatened it from a quarter so
unexpected seems to have fanned their zeal to a red heat.
Even in the churches of St Paul's own founding his name and
authority were not powerful enough to check the encroach-
ments of the Judaizing party. Only here and there, in mixed
communities, the softening influences of daily intercourse must
have been felt, and the true spirit of the Gospel insensibly
diffused, inculcating the truth that ' in Christ was neither Jew
nor Greek.'

But the mother Church of Jerusalem, being composed Reasons
entirely of Jewish converts, lacked these valuable lessons of se rvance
daily experience. Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew ^fl^
of Palestine wholly independent of his religious obligations. Church.
To him it was a national institution, as well as a divine cove-
nant. Under the Gospel he might consider his relations to it
in this latter character altered, but as embodying the decrees
and usages of his country it still demanded his allegiance. To
be a good Christian he was not required to be a bad citizen.
On these grounds the more enlightened members of the mother
church would justify their continued adhesion to the law. Nor
is there any reason to suppose that St Paul himself took a
different view of their obligations. The Apostles of the Cir-
cumcision meanwhile, if conscious themselves that the law was
fulfilled in the Gospel they strove nevertheless by strict con-
formity to conciliate the zealots both within and without the

68 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Church, were only acting upon St Paul's own maxim, who
'became to the Jews a Jew that he might gain the Jews.'
Meanwhile they felt that a catastrophe was impending, that a
deliverance was at hand. Though they were left in uncertainty
as to the time and manner of this divine event, the mysterious
warnings of the Lord had placed the fact itself beyond a doubt.
They might well therefore leave all perplexing questions to the
solution of time, devoting themselves meanwhile to the practical
work which lay at their doors.

Fall of Je- And soon the catastrophe came which solved the difficult
problem. The storm which had long been gathering burst over

A.D. 70. the devoted city. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the
Temple-worship ceased, never again to be revived. The Chris-
tians foreseeing the calamity had fled before the tempest ; and
at Pella, a city of the Decapolis, in the midst of a population
chiefly Gentile the Church of the Circumcision was recon-
stituted. They were warned to flee, said the story, by an
oracle 1 : but no special message from heaven was needed at this
juncture ; the signs of the times, in themselves full of warning,
interpreted by the light of the Master's prophecies plainly
foretold the approaching doom. Before the crisis came, they
had been deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading
Apostles. Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome ; John had
retired to Asia Minor ; James the Lord's brother was slain not
long before the great catastrophe ; and some thought that the
horrors of the Flavian war were the just vengeance of an
offended God for the murder of so holy a man 2 . He was
succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas and nephew
of Joseph.

The Under these circumstances the Church was reformed at

at Pella. Pella. Its history in the ages following is a hopeless blank 3 ;

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 5 /card nvo. xpr)- there, raura 5

fffJ&v rots airrbdi. doid/J.ois Si diroKaXij- /car' eK5Licr)<riv 'la/ftfySou rov 8i.KO.Lov K.T.\.

t/'ews e/c5o0ej/ra /c.r.X. 3 The Church of Pella however con-

2 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23 tributed one author at least to the
teal evdfis Oi>e(nra<nav6s iroXiopKei auroi/j, ranks of early Christian literature in
and the pseudo-Josephus also quoted Ariston, the writer of an apology in

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 69

and it would be vain to attempt to fill in the picture from
conjecture. We cannot doubt however that the consequences
of the fall of Jerusalem, direct or indirect, were very great. In
two points especially its effects would be powerfully felt, in the Effects
change of opinion produced within the Church itself and in the change,
altered relations between the converted and unconverted Jews.

(1) The loss of their great leader at this critical moment (1) The
was compensated to the Church of the Circumcision by the it
stern teaching of facts. In the obliteration of the Temple
services they were brought at length to see that all other
sacrifices were transitory shadows, faint emblems of the one
Paschal Lamb, slain once and for ever for the sins of the world.

In the impossibility of observing the Mosaic ordinances except
in part, they must have been led to question the efficacy of the
whole. And besides all this, those who had hitherto maintained
their allegiance to the law purely as a national institution were
by the overthrow of the nation set free henceforth from any
such obligation. We need not suppose that these inferences
were drawn at once or drawn by all alike; but slowly and
surely the fall of the city must have produced this effect.

(2) At the same time it wholly changed their relations (2) Jews

and

the form of a dialogue between Jason Westcott's Canon, p. 93, Donaldson's
a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an Christian Literature etc. n. p. 58. If
Alexandrian Jew : see Eouth i. p. 93. I am right in conjecturing that the
One of his works however was written reference to the banishment of the
after the Bar-cochba rebellion, to which Jews was taken from this dialogue,
it alludes (Euseb. H. E. iv. 6); and Eusebius himself directly attributes it
from the purport of the allusion we to Ariston. The name of the author
may infer that it was this very dia- however is of little consequence, for the
logue. The expulsion of the Jews by work was clearly written by a Hebrew
Hadrian was a powerful common-place Christian not later than the middle of
in the treatises of the Apologists ; see the second century. Whoever he may
e.g. Justin Martyr Apol. i. 47. On have been, the writer was no Ebionite,
the other hand it cannot have been for he explained Gen. i. 1,' In. filio fecit
written long after, for it was quoted Deus caelum et terrain' (Hieron. Quaest.
by Celsus (Orig. c. Gels. iv. 52, p. 544, Hebr. in Gen., in. p. 305, ed. Vail.) ;
Delarue). The shade of doubt which and the fact is important, as this is the
rests on the authorship of this dia- earliest known expression of Hebrew
logue is very slight. Undue weight Christian doctrine after the canonical
seems to be attributed to the fact of writings, except perhaps the Testa-
its being quoted anonymously; e.g. in ments of the Twelve Patriarchs.

70 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Christians with their unconverted countrymen. Hitherto they had main-

in anta-
gonism.

tained such close intercourse that in the eyes of the Roman

the Christians were as one of the many Jewish sects. Hence-
forth they stood in a position of direct antagonism. The sayings
ascribed to the Jewish rabbis of this period are charged with
the bitterest reproaches of the Christians, who are denounced
as more dangerous than the heathen, and anathemas against
the hated sect were introduced into their daily prayers 1 . The
probable cause of this change is not far to seek. While the
catastrophe was still impending, the Christians seem to have
stood forward and denounced the national sins which had
brought down the chastisement of God on their country. In
the traditional notices at least this feature may be discerned.
Nor could they fail to connect together as cause and effect the
stubborn rejection of Messiah and the coming doom which He
Himself had foretold. And when at length the blow fell, by
withdrawing from the city and refusing to share the fate of
their countrymen they declared by an overt act that henceforth
they were strangers, that now at length their hopes and inte-
rests were separate.

Difficulties These altered relations both to the Mosaic law and to the
sensions. Jewish people must have worked as leaven in the minds of the
Christians of the Circumcision. Questions were asked now,
which from their nature could not have been asked before.
Difficulties hitherto unfelt seemed to start up on all sides. The
relations of the Church to the synagogue, of the Gospel to the
law, must now be settled in some way or other. Thus diver-
sities of opinion, which had hitherto been lulled in a broken
and fitful slumber, suddenly woke up into dangerous activity.
The Apostles, who at an earlier date had moderated extreme
tendencies and to whom all would have looked instinctively
for counsel and instruction, had passed away from the scene.

1 See especially Graetz Geschichte by this writer, whose account is the

der Juden iv. p. 112 sq. The antago- more striking as given from & Jewish

nism between the Jews and Christians point of view,
at this period is strongly insisted upon

ST PAUL AND THE THKEE. 71

One personal follower of the Lord however still remained, Syineon
Symeon the aged bishop, who had succeeded James 1 . At ciopas.
length he too was removed. After a long tenure of office he A.D. 106.
was martyred at a very advanced age in the ninth year of
Trajan. His death, according to Hegesippus, was the signal
for a shameless outbreak of multitudinous heresies which had
hitherto worked underground, the Church having as yet pre-
served her virgin purity undefiled 2 . Though this early his-
torian has interwoven many fabulous details in his account,
there seems no reason to doubt the truth of the broad state-
ment, confirmed as it is from another source 3 , that this epoch
was the birth-time of many forms of dissent in the Church of
the Circumcision.

How far these dissensions and diversities of opinion had
ripened meanwhile into open schism, to what extent the
majority still conformed to the Mosaic ordinances (as for
instance in the practice of circumcision and the observance
of the sabbath), we have no data to determine. But the work
begun by the fall of Jerusalem was only at length completed
by the advent of another crisis. By this second catastrophe
the Church and the law were finally divorced ; and the mal-
contents who had hitherto remained within the pale of the
Church became declared separatists.

A revolution of the Jews broke out in all the principal Rebellion
centres of the dispersion. The flame thus kindled in the G ochba.
dependencies spread later to the mother country. In Palestine ^ 1{
a leader started up, professing himself to be the long promised
Messiah, and in reference to the prophecy of Balaam styling
himself ' Bar-cochba/ ' the son of the Star.' We have the
testimony of one who wrote while these scenes of bloodshed
were still fresh in men's memories, that the Christians were the

1 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. apa fj.expt " T ore Xpt> vuv irap0vos KCL-
This writer also mentions grandsons 6apa /cat adidtpdopos tpewev i] eKK\ij<ria,
of Jude the Lord's brother as ruling ev dSriX^ irov <r/f6rei <f>u>\evt>vT<ai> elfferi
over the Churches and surviving till rdre T&V, el Kai rives virijpxov, irapcupdet-
the time of Trajan ; H . E. iii. 32. pew eirix^po^vruv K.T.\. : comp. iv. 22.

2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 32 eiriXtyei ws 3 See below, p. 82, note 3.

72 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

chief sufferers from this rebel chieftain 1 . Even without such
testimony this might have been safely inferred. Their very
existence was a protest against his claims : they must be de-
nounced and extirpated, if his pretensions were to be made
good. The cause of Bar-cochba was taken up as the cause of
the whole Jewish nation, and thus the antagonism between
Judaism and Christianity was brought to a head. After a
desperate struggle the rebellion was trampled out and the
severest vengeance taken on the insurgents. The practice of
circumcision and the observance of the sabbath indeed all the
distinguishing marks of Judaism were visited with the severest
penalties. On the other hand the Christians, as the avowed
enemies of the rebel chief, seem to have been favourably
a- received. On the ruins of Jerusalem Hadrian had built his
new city ^Elia Capitolina. Though no Jew was admitted within
sight of its walls, the Christians were allowed to settle there
freely 2 . Now for the first time a Gentile bishop was appointed,
and the Church of Jerusalem ceased to be the Church of the
Circumcision 8 .

The The account of Eusebius seems to imply that long before

reconsti- * n * s disastrous outbreak of the Jews the main part of the

tuted. Christians had left their retirement in Pella and returned to

their original home. At all events he traces the succession

of bishops of Jerusalem in an unbroken line from James the

Lord's brother until the foundation of the new city 4 . If so, we

must imagine the Church once more scattered by this second

1 Justin Apol. i. 31, p. 72 E, tv T$ ' Quod quidem Christianas fidei pro-
vvv yeyev-rjfjLevip 'louScu/cy TroX^uy Bap^w- ficiebat, quia turn pene omnes Chris-

6 TTJS 'lovSaiwv aTroo-rcurews dp- turn Deum sub legis observatione cre-

piffTiavotis fj,6vovs els n^wp/as debant ; nimirum id Domino ordinante

Setvds, el M dpvotvro 'lyeovv rbv Xpurrbv dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate

Kai(3\a.(r<t>r)/j.oiev, eiceXevev aTrdyeadai. fidei atque ecclesiae tolleretur.'

2 Justin Apol. i. 47, p. 84 B, Dial. 4 H. E. iii. 32, 35, iv. 5. Eusebius
110, p. 337 D ; Ariston of Pella in seems to narrate all the incidents af-
Euseb. H. E. iv. 6; Celsus in Orig. c. fecting the Church of the Circumcision
Gels. viii. 69. during this period, as taking place not

3 Sulpicius Severus (H. S. ii. 31) at Pella but at Jerusalem,
speaking of Hadrian's decree says,

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

catastrophe, and once more reformed when the terror was
passed. But the Church of ^Elia Capitolina was very differently
constituted from the Church of Pella or the Church of Jeru-
salem; a large proportion of its members at least were Gentiles 1 .
Of the Christians of the Circumcision not a few doubtless
accepted the conqueror's terms, content to live henceforth as
Gentiles, and settled down in the new city of Hadrian. But Judaizing
there were others who clung to the law of their forefathers
with a stubborn grasp which no force of circumstances could
loosen: and henceforward we read of two distinct sects of
Judaizing Christians, observing the law with equal rigour but
observing it on different grounds 2 .

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 6 TTJS

tic-

2 As early as the middle of the
second century Justin Martyr distin-
guishes two classes of Judaizers ; those
who retaining the Mosaic law them-
selves did not wish to impose it on
their Gentile brethren, and those who
.insisted upon conformity in all Chris-
tians alike as a condition of commu-
nion and a means of salvation (Dial. c.
Tryph. 47 ; see Schliemann Clement.
p. 553 sq). In the next chapter Justin
alludes with disapprobation to some
Jewish converts who held that our
Lord was a mere man; and it seems
not unreasonable to connect this opi-
nion with the second of the two classes
before mentioned. We thus obtain a
tolerably clear view of their distinctive
tenets. But the first direct and defi-
nite account of both sects is given
by the fathers of the fourth century,
especially Epiphanius and Jerome,
who distinguish them by the respec-
tive names of ' Nazarenes ' and ' Ebion-
ites.' Irenaeus (i. 26. 2), Tertullian
(dePraescr. 33), and Hippolytus (Haer.
vii. 34, p. 257), contemplate only the
second, whom they call Ebionites.
The Nazarenes in fact, being for the
most part orthodox in their creed

and holding communion with Catholic
Christians, would not generally be in-
cluded in the category of heretics : and
moreover, being few in number and
living in an obscure region, they would
easily escape notice. Origen (c. Cels. v.
61) mentions two classes of Christians
who observe the Mosaic law, the one
holding with the Catholics that Jesus
was born of a Virgin, the other that
He was conceived like other men ; and
both these he calls Ebionites. In an-
other passage he says that both classes
of Ebionites ("Rj3iwvcuoi d^repoi) re-
ject St Paul's Epistles (v. 65). If these
two classes correspond to the ' Naza-
renes ' and ' Ebionites ' of Jerome, Ori-
gen's information would seem to be
incorrect. On the other hand it is very
possible that he entirely overlooks the
Nazarenes and alludes to some differ-
ences of opinion among the Ebionites
properly so called ; but in this case it is
not easy to identify his two classes with
the Pharisaic and Essene Ebionites of
whom I shall have to speak later. Euse-
bius, who also describes two classes of
Ebionites (H. E. iii. 27), seems to have
taken his account wholly from Irenaeus
and Origen. If, as appears probable,
both names 'Nazarenes' and 'Ebion-
ites' were originally applied to the

74 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Naza- i. The NAZARENES appear at the close of the fourth

renes.

century as a small and insignificant sect dwelling beyond the

Jordan in Pella and the neighbouring places 1 . Indications of
their existence however occur in Justin two centuries and a
half earlier ; and both their locality and their name carry us
back to the primitive ages of Jewish Christianity. Can we
doubt that they were the remnant of the fugitive Church, which
refused to return from their exile with the majority to the now
Gentile city, some because they were too indolent or too satisfied
to move, others because the abandonment of the law seemed too
heavy a price to pay for Roman forbearance ?
Their The account of their tenets is at all events favourable to

tenets.

this inference 2 . They held themselves bound to the Mosaic
ordinances, rejecting however all Pharisaic interpretations and
additions. Nevertheless they did not consider the Gentile
Christians under the same obligations or refuse to hold com-
munion with them ; and in the like spirit, in this distinguished
from all other Judaizing sectarians, they fully recognised the
work and mission of St Paul 3 . It is stated moreover that they
mourned over the unbelief of their fellow-countrymen, praying
for and looking forward to the time when they too should be
brought to confess Christ. Their doctrine of the person of

whole body of Jewish Christians indis- Hieron. de Vir. III. 3.
criminately, the confusion of Origen 2 See the account in Schliemann,

and others is easily explained. In re- p. 445 sq, with the authorities there

cent times, since Gieseler published his given and compare Eitschl p. 152 sq.
treatise Ueber die Nazarder und Ebioni- s Hieron. in Is. ix. 1 (iv. p. 130),

ten (Staudlin u. Tzschirner Archiv fur 'Nazaraei...hunc locum ita explanare

Kirchengesch. iv. p. 279 sq, 1819), the conantur : Adveniente Christo et prae-

distinction has been generally recog- dicatione illius coruscante prima terra

nised. A succinct and good account of Zabulon et terra Nephthali scribarum

these sects of Judaizers will be found in et Pharisaeorum est erroribus liberata

Schliemann Clement, p. 449 sq, where et gravissimum traditionum Judaica-

the authorities are given ; but the dis- rum jugum excussit de cervicibus suis.

covery of the work of Hippolytus has Postea autem per evangelium apostoli

since thrown fresh light on the Essene Pauli, qui novissimus apostolorum

Ebionites. The portion of Eitschl's omnium fuit, ingravata est, id est,

work (p. 152 sq) relating to these sects multiplicata praedicatio ; et in termi-

should be consulted. nos gentium et viam universi maris

1 Epiphan. Haer. xxix. 7 ; comp. Christi evangelium splenduit.'

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 75

Christ has been variously represented ; but this seems at all
events clear that, if it fell short of the Catholic standard, it rose
above the level of other Judaic sects. The fierce and indis-
criminate verdict of Epiphanius indeed pronounces these Naza-
renes 'Jews and nothing else 1 ': but his contemporary Jerome,
himself no lenient judge of heresy, whose opinion was founded
on personal intercourse, regards them more favourably. In his
eyes they seem to be separated from the creeds and usages of
Catholic Christendom chiefly by their retention of the Mosaic law.

Thus they were distinguished from other Judaizing sects Their rela-
by a loftier conception of the person of Christ and by a frank Twelve,
recognition of the liberty of the Gentile Churches and the
commission of the Gentile Apostle. These distinguishing
features may be traced to the lingering influence of the teaching
of the Apostles of the Circumcision. To the example of these
same Apostles also they might have appealed in defending their
rigid observance of the Mosaic law. But herein, while copying
the letter, they did not copy the spirit of their model ; for they
took no account of altered circumstances.

Of this type of belief, if not of this very Nazarene sect, an Testa-
early document still extant furnishes an example. The book the Twelve
called the 'Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs' 2 ' was certainly

1 Haer. xxx. 9. xii. Patr. (Boterod. 1857), and defend-

2 It is printed in Grabe's Spicil. SS. ed against Kayser. The whole tone
Patr. i. p. 145 sq (ed. 2, 1700), and in and colouring of the book however
Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. seem to show very plainly that the
p. 519 sq (ed. 2, 1722), and has re- writer was a Jewish Christian, and the
cently been edited with an introduc- opposite view would probably never
tory essay by Sinker (Cambridge, 1869). have been entertained but for the pre-
Kitschl in his first edition had assigned conceived theory that a believer of the
this work to a writer of the Pauline Circumcision could not have written
school. His opinion was controverted so liberally of the Gentile Christians
by Kayser in the Strasslurg. Beitr. z. and so honourably of St Paul. Some
denTheol. Wissensch. in. p. 107(1851), writers again who have maintained
and with characteristic honesty he the Judaic authorship (Kayser for in-
withdrew it in his second edition, at- stance, whose treatise I only know at
tributing the work to a Nazarene au- second hand) have got over this as-
thor (p. 172 sq). Meanwhile Ritschl's sumed difficulty by rejecting certain
first view had been adopted in a mo- passages as interpolations. On the
nograph by Vorstman Disquis. de Test. other hand Ewald pronounces it 'mere

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Hebrew
sympa-
thies

written after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus and probably
before the rebellion of Bar-cochba, but may be later 1 . With
some alien features, perhaps stamped upon it by the individual
writer, it exhibits generally the characteristics of this Nazarene
sect. In this respect at least it offers a remarkable parallel,
that to a strong Israelite feeling it unites the fullest recognition
of the Gentile Churches. Our Lord is represented as the re-
novator of the law 2 : the imagery and illustrations are all
Hebrew : certain virtues are strongly commended and certain
vices strongly denounced by a Hebrew standard : many incidents
in the lives of the patriarchs are derived from some unknown
legendary Hebrew source 3 . Nay more ; the sympathies of the
writer are not only Judaic but Levitical. The Messiah is
represented as a descendant not of Judah only but of Levi also ;
thus he is high priest as well as king 4 ; but his priestly office

folly to assert that Benj. c. 11 (the
prophecy about St Paul) was a later
addition to the work' (Gesch. d. Volks
Isr. vn. p. 329), and certainly such
arbitrary assumptions would render
criticism hopeless.

Whether Eitschl is right or not in
supposing that the author was actually
a Nazarene, it is difficult and not very
important to decide. The really im-
portant feature in the work is the com-
plexion of the opinions. I do not think
however that the mere fact of its having
been written in Greek proves the au-
thor to have been a Hellenist (Ewald
ib. p. 333).

1 The following dates have been
assigned to it by recent critics ; A.D.
100-135 (Dorner), 100-120 (Wieseler),
133-163 (Kayser), 100-153 (Nitzsch,
Liicke), 117-193 (Gieseler), 100-200
(Hase), about 150 (Eeuss), 90-110 (E-
wald). These dates except the last are
taken from Vorstman p. 19 sq, who
himself places it soon after the fall of
Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The frequent re-
ferences to this event fix the earliest
possible date, while the absence of any

allusion to the rebellion of Bar-cochba
seems to show that it was written
before that time. It is directly named
by Origen (Horn, in Jos. xv. 6), and
probably was known to Tertullian (c.
Marc. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I be-
lieve) even earlier to Irenaeus (Fragm.
17, p. 836 sq Stieren).

2 Levi 10, dvaKaLvoTrotovvTo. rbv VO/ULOV
ev dvvdfjiei f>\l/iffTov. ' The law of God,
the law of the Lord,' are constant
phrases with this writer ; Levi 13, 19,
Judas 18, 26, Issach. 5, Zdbul. 10, Dan
6, Gad 3, Aser 2, 6, 7, Joseph 11, Benj.
10: see also Nepht. 8. His language in
this respect is formed on the model of
the Epistle of St James, as Ewald re-
marks (p. 329). Thus the Law of God
with him ' is one with the revealed will
of God, and he never therefore under-
stands it in the narrow sense of a Jew
or even of an Ebionite.'

3 See Ewald Gesch. i. p. 490.

4 Simeon 5, 7, Issach. 5, Dan 5,
Nepht. 6, 8, Gad 8, Joseph 19, besides
the passages referred to in the next
note. *

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 77

is higher than his kingly, as Levi is greater than Judah 1 : the
dying patriarchs one after another enjoin obedience to Levi:
to the Testament of Levi are consigned the most important
prophecies of all : the character of Levi is justified and partially
cleansed of the stain which in the Old Testament narrative
attaches to it 2 . Yet notwithstanding all this, the admission of
the Gentiles into the privileges of the covenant is a constant united
theme of thanksgiving with the writer, who mourns over the liberal
falling away of the Jews but looks forward to their final restitu- pni
tion. And into the mouth of the dying Benjamin he puts
a prophecy foretelling an illustrious descendant who is to * arise
in after days, beloved of the Lord, listening to His voice, en-
lightening all the Gentiles with new knowledge'; who is to be
' in the synagogues of the Gentiles until the completion of the
ages, and among their rulers as a musical strain in the mouth
of all'; who shall 'be written in the holy books, he and his
work and his word, and shall be the elect of God for ever 3 .'

2. But besides these Nazarenes, there were other Judaizing Ebionites.
sects, narrow and uncompromising, to whose principles or pre-
judices language such as I have just quoted would be most
abhorrent.

The EBIONITES were a much larger and more important body Their
than the Nazarenes. They were not confined to the neighbour-
hood of Pella or even to Palestine and the surrounding coun-
tries, but were found in Rome and probably also in all the
great centres of the dispersion 4 . Not content with observing

1 Reuben 6 Trpos TOV Aeufr eyyia-are . . . the work presents several coincidences
afirbs yap efaoyfoei rbv 'I<rpaij\ Kal rov of language with St Paul (see Vorst-

, Judas 21 Kal vvv rtuva pov dya- man p. 115 sq), and at least one quo-

rov Aevt...e/uol yap 5a>/ce Ktf/nos tation, Levi 6 00acre 5 i) 6pyi) Kvplov

KaKetvtp rty lepardav Kal eir auroi)s ets rAos, from 1 Thess. ii. 16.

e rty jSao-tXetaz/ rrj iepdxrtivri tyol On the whole however the language in

TO, irl rrjs yrjs KaKdvq ra iv the moral and didactic portions takes

ovpavois, ib. 25 Aeut" Trpwros, Setfrepos its colour from the Epistle of St James,

^yct>, Nepht. 5 Aeut eKparrja-e rbv rj\tov and in the prophetic and apocalyptic

Kal 'lotfSas <p6d<ras Trla<re rty (reXrivyv. from the Kevelation of St John.

2 Levi 6, 7. 4 Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 18.

3 Benj. 11. Besides this prophecy

78 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

the Mosaic ordinances themselves, they maintained that the
law was binding on all Christians alike, and regarded Gentile
believers as impure because they refused to conform. As a
necessary consequence they rejected the authority and the
writings of St Paul, branding him as an apostate and pursuing
his memory with bitter reproaches. In their theology also
they were far removed from the Catholic Church, holding our
Lord to be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, who was
justified, as any of themselves might be justified, by his rigorous
performance of the law 1 .

Kelation If the Nazarenes might have claimed some affinity to the

Judaizers Apostles of the Circumcision, the Ebionites were the direct

of the spiritual descendants of those false brethren, the Judaizers of

Apostolic A

age. the Apostolic age, who first disturbed the peace of the Antio-

chene Church and then dogged St Paul's footsteps from city to
city, everywhere thwarting his efforts and undermining his
authority. If Ebionism was not primitive Christianity, neither
was it a creation of the second century. As an organization,
a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we may suppose, in
the reign of Trajan : but as a sentiment, it had been harboured
within the Church from the very earliest days. Moderated by
the personal influence of the Apostles, soothed by the general
practice of their church, not yet forced into declaring themselves
by the turn of events, though scarcely tolerant of others these
Judaizers were tolerated for a time themselves. The beginning
of the second century was a winnowing season in the Church of
the Circumcision.
Another The form of Ebionism 2 , which is most prominent in early

type of

3m ' ! For the opinions of these Ebion- by all Ebionites alike: (1) The recog-

ites see the references in Schliemann nition of Jesus as Messiah; (2) The

p. 481 sq, and add Hippol. Haer. vii. denial of His divinity; (3) The uni-

3 ei yap Kal Zrepbs res TrewoirjKei TO. ev versal obligation of the law; (4) The

v6fjt,(p TT poo-Terayfji.fr a, yv av tKeivos 6 rejection and hatred of St Paul. Their

X/Hffros' dvvao-dai 6e /cat eavrofis 6/iows differences consisted in (1) Their view

Troiyo-avTas Xpicrroi)? yeveo-Qat' Kal yap of what constituted the law, and (2)

Kal aurbv 6/totws avdpwirov elj>cu iraviv Their conception of the Person of

\tyov<riv. Christ; e.g. whether He was born of

2 The following opinions were shared a Virgin or in the course of nature;

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 79

writers and which I have hitherto had in view, is purely
Pharisaic ; but we meet also with another type, agreeing with
the former up to a certain point but introducing at the same
time a new element, half ascetic, half mystical.

This foreign element was probably due to Essene influences, derived
The doctrines of the Christian school bear so close a resemblance Essenes
to the characteristic features of the Jewish sect as to place their
parentage almost beyond a doubt 1 : and moreover the head-
quarters of these heretics the countries bordering on the Dead
Sea coincide roughly with the head-quarters of their proto-
type. This view however does not exclude the working of
other influences more directly Gnostic or Oriental : and as this
type of Ebionism seems to have passed through different phases
at different times, and indeed to have comprehended several
species at the same time, such modifications ought probably to
be attributed to forces external to Judaism. Having regard
then to its probable origin as well as to its typical character, we
can hardly do wrong in adopting the name Essene or Gnostic
Ebionism to distinguish it from the common type, Pharisaic
Ebionism or Ebionism proper.

If Pharisaic Ebionism was a disease inherent in the Church
of the Circumcision from the first, Essene Ebionism seems to Its later
have been a later infection caught by external contact. In the ongm '
Palestinian Church at all events we see no symptoms of it
during the Apostolic age. It is a probable conjecture, that
after the destruction of Jerusalem the fugitive Christians,
living in their retirement in the neighbourhood of the Essene
settlements, received large accessions to their numbers from
this sect, which thus inoculated the Church with its peculiar
views 2 . It is at least worthy of notice, that in a religious work

what supernatural endowments He nius are strongly Essene.
had and at what time they were be- * See especially the careful investi-

stowed on Him, whether at His birth gation of Eitschl p. 204 sq.
or at His baptism, etc. 2 Eitschl (p. 223), who adopts this

The Ebionites of earlier writers, as view, suggests that this sect, which had

Irenaeus and Hippolytus, belong to the stood aloof from the temple- worship

Pharisaic type ; while those of Epipha- and abhorred sacrifices, would be led to

80 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

emanating from this school of Ebionites the 'true Gospel' is
reported to have been first propagated 'after the destruction
of the holy place Y

This younger form of Judaic Christianity seems soon to
have eclipsed the elder. In the account of Ebionism given by
Epiphanius the Pharisaic characteristics are almost entirely
but absorbed in the Essene. This prominence is probably due in

Kterary some measure to their greater literary capacity, a remarkable
activity, feature doubtless derived from the speculative tendencies and
studious habits of the Jewish sect 2 to which they traced their
parentage. Besides the Clementine writings which we possess
whole, and the book of Elchasai of which a few fragmentary
notices are preserved, a vast number of works which, though
no longer extant, have yet moulded the traditions of the early
Church, emanated from these Christian Essenes. Hence doubt-
less are derived the ascetic portraits of James the Lord's
brother in Hegesippus and of Matthew the Apostle in Clement
of Alexandria 8 , to which the account of St Peter in the extant
Clementines presents a close parallel 4 .

and zeal- And with greater literary activity they seem also to have
U tLm S " un ited greater missionary zeal. To this spirit of proselytism
we owe much important information relating to the tenets of
the sect.

One of their missionaries early in the third century brought

to Rome a sacred book bearing the name of Elchasai or Elxai,

Book of whence also the sect were called Elchasaites. This book fell

Elchasai. j n ^ fa e h anc i s o f Hippolytus the writer on heresies 5 , from

welcome Christ as the true prophet, i. 37, 64, iii. 61 (in the Syriac, as be-

when they saw the fulfilment of His low, p. 86, note 5). See also Epiphan.

predictions against the temple. In Haer. xxx. 2.

Clem. Horn. iii. 15 great stress is laid 2 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6.

on the fulfilment of these prophecies : 3 Paedag. ii. 1 (p. 174 Potter), where

comp. also Clem. Eecogn. i. 37 (especi- St Matthew is said to have lived on

ally in the Syriac). seeds, berries, and herbs, abstaining

1 Clem. Horn. ii. 17 /xera Ka9alpe<riv from animal food. See Eitschl p. 224.

rov ayiov rbirov evayytXiov a\-r)6ts /c/>i/0a 4 Clem. Horn. xii. 6, comp. viii. 15,

diaTre/J.<f>Qijvai eis eiravdpOwaiv TUV eao- XV. 7.

aiptfffwv: comp. Clem. Eecogn. 5 Haer. ix. 13. See a valuable

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

whom our knowledge of it is chiefly derived. It professed to
have been obtained from the Seres, a Parthian tribe, and to
contain a revelation which had been first made in the third
year of Trajan (A.D. 100). These Seres hold the same place in
the fictions of Essene Ebionism, as the Hyperboreans in
Greek legend : they are a mythical race, perfectly pure and
therefore perfectly happy, long-lived and free from pain,
scrupulous in the performance of all ceremonial rites and
thus exempt from the penalties attaching to their neglect 1 .
Elchasai, an Aramaic word signifying the 'hidden power 2 /
seems to be the name of the divine messenger who communi-
cated the revelation, and probably the title of the book itself:
Hippolytus understands it of the person who received the
revelation, the founder of the sect. ' Elchasai,' adds this father,
' delivered it to a certain person called Sobiai.' Here again he
was led astray by his ignorance of Aramaic : Sobiai is not the
name of an individual but signifies ' the sworn members Y to
whom alone the revelation was to be communicated and who,

paper on the Elchasaites by Bitschl in
Niedner's Zeitschrift iv. p. 573 sq
(1853), the substance of which is given
also in the second edition of his Alt-
katholische Kirche. Hilgenfeld has
edited the fragments of the book of
Elxai in his Novum Testamentum extra
Canonem Receptum, fasc. in. p. 153 sq
(1866). The use made of it by Epi-
phanius is investigated by Lipsius,
Quellenkritik des Epiphan. p. 143 sq.

1 Clem. Eecogn. viii. 48, ix. 19.
Even in classical writers the Seres or
Chinese are invested with something
of an ideal character: e.g. Plin. vi. 24,
Strabo xv. p. 701, Mela iii. 7. But in
the passage which most strikingly il-
lustrates this fact (Geogr. Graec. Min.
n. p. 514, ed. Miiller), the name dis-
appears when the text is correctly read
('se regentes,' and not 'Serae gentes').

2 *D3 /TI. Epiphanius correctly ex-

plains it dtivafjus KeKaXv/j.fdvr), Haer.
xix. 2. See Bitschl 1. c. p. 581, and
Altkath. Kirche p. 245. Other ex-
planations of the word, given in Hil-
genfeld 1. c. p. 156, in M. Nicolas Evan-
giles Apocryphes p. 108 (1866), and by
Geiger Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl.
Gesellsch. xvm. p. 824 (1864), do not
recommend themselves. The name is
differently written in Greek, H.\xa<rcu,
E\Ktrai and HXcu. The first, which
is most correct, is found in Hippolytus,
who had seen the book.

3 From JDK>. Accordingly Hippo-
lytus (ix. 17) relates that the Elcha-
saite missionary Alcibiades made a
mystery of his teaching, forbidding it
to be divulged except to the faithful;
see Bitschl 1. c. p. 589. Ewald however
(Gesch. vii. p. 159) derives Sobiai from
^-* - i.e. pairTHTTat. See also

Chwolson die Ssabier etc. i. p. 111.

82 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

perhaps, like their Essene prototypes *, took an oath to divulge
it only to the brotherhood. I need not follow this strange but
instructive notice farther. Whether this was the sacred book
of the whole sect or of a part only, whether the name Elcha-
saism is coextensive with Essene Ebionism or not, it is
Its pre- unimportant for my purpose to enquire. The pretended era
date. of this revelation is of more consequence. Whether the book
itself was really as early as the reign of Trajan or whether the
date was part of the dramatic fiction, it is impossible to decide 2 .
Even in the latter case, it will still show that according to their
own tradition this epoch marked some striking development in
the opinions or history of the sect ; and the date given corre-
sponds, it will be remembered, very nearly with the epoch
mentioned by Hegesippus as the birthtime of a numerous
brood of heresies 3 .

Without attempting to discriminate the different forms of

doctrine which this Essene Ebionism comprised in itself to

point out for instance the distinctive features of the book of

Essene Elchasai, of the Homilies, and of the Recognitions respectively

distin- it w iU ^ e sufficient to observe the broad line of demarcation

separates the Essene from the Pharisaic type 4 . Laying
risaic, almost equal stress with the others on the observance of the
law as an essential part of Christianity, the Essene Ebionites
undertook to settle by arbitrary criticism what the law was 5 .

1 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7. nions which had thus been progressing

2 Hilgenfeld (p. xxi) maintains the stealthily now showed a bold front;
early date very positively against but whether the actual organization
Eitschl. Lipsius (1. c.) will not pro- of the sect or sects took place now or
nounce an opinion. at a still later date (after the rebellion

3 See above, p. 71 sq. In the pas- of Bar-cochba), it is impossible to
sage there quoted Hegesippus speaks of say.

these heresies 'as living underground, 4 The chief authorities for the Es-

burrowing (QuiXevbvTwv) ' until the reign sene Ebionites are Epiphanius (Haer.

of Trajan. This agrees with the state- xix, xxx); Hippolytus (Haer. ix. 13

ment in the Homilies (ii. 17) already 17) and Origen (Euseb. H. E. vi. 38),

referred to (p. 80, note 1) that the whose accounts refer especially to the

true Gospel (i.e. Essene Ebionism) was book of Elchasai; and the Clementine

first ' secretly propagated' after the writings.
destruction of the temple. The opi- 5 See Colossians p. 372.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 83

By this capricious process they eliminated from the Old
Testament all elements distasteful to them the doctrine of
sacrifices especially, which was abhorrent to Essene principles
cutting down the law to their own standard and rejecting the
prophets wholly. As a compensation, they introduced certain
ritual observances of their own, on which they laid great stress ;
more especially lustral washings and abstinence from wine and
from animal food. In their Christology also they differed
widely from the Pharisaic Ebionites, maintaining that the
Word or Wisdom of God had been incarnate more than once,
and that thus there had been more Christs than one, of whom
Adam was the first and Jesus the last. Christianity in fact
was regarded by them merely as the restoration of the primeval
religion : in other words, of pure Mosaism before it had been
corrupted by foreign accretions. Thus equally with the Phari-
saic Ebionites they denied the Gospel the character of a new
covenant; and, as a natural consequence, equally with them
they rejected the authority and reviled the name of St Paul 1 .

If the Pharisaic Ebionites are the direct lineal descendants and allied
of the ' false brethren ' who seduced St Paul's Galatian converts colossiaa
from their allegiance, the Essene Ebionites bear a striking beretics -
family likeness to those other Judaizers against whom he raises
his voice as endangering the safety of the Church at Colossae 2 .

Of the hostility of these Christian Essenes to St Paul, as of
their other typical features, a striking example is extant in the
fictitious writings attributed to the Roman bishop Clement.
These are preserved in two forms : the Homilies, extant in the Clemen-
Greek, apparently an uniform work, which perhaps may be writings,
assigned to the middle or latter half of the second century;
and the Recognitions, a composite production probably later
than the Homilies, founded, it would appear, partly on them or
some earlier work which was the common basis of both and
partly on other documents, and known to us through the Latin

1 See Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 16, 25, the Clementine writings quoted in the
Orig. ap. Euseb. 1. c. rbv air6<TTo\oi> rt- text.
Xeov aderei ; besides the passages in 2 See Colossians p. 73 sq.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

translation of Rufinus, who avowedly altered his original with
great freedom 1 .

Attack on j n the Homilies Simon Magus is the impersonation of
the Homi- manifold heresy, and as such is refuted and condemned by
St Peter. Among other false teachers, who are covertly
denounced in his person, we cannot fail to recognise the linea-
ments of St Paul 2 . Thus St Peter charges his hearers, * Shun
any apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who does not first compare
his preaching with James called the brother of my Lord and
entrusted with the care of the Church of the Hebrews in
Jerusalem, and has not come to you with witnesses 3 ; lest the
wickedness, which contended with the Lord forty days and
prevailed not, should afterwards fall upon the earth as lightning

1 The only complete editions of the
Homilies are those of Dressel, demen-
tis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae
Viginti (1853), and of Lagarde, Cle-
mentina (1865); the end of the 19th
and the whole of the 20th homily
having been published for the first
time by Dressel. The Eecognitions,
which have been printed several times,
may be read most conveniently in
Gersdorf's edition (Lips. 1838). A
Syriac Version lately published by
Lagarde (dementis Romani Recogniti-
ones Syriace, Lips, et Lond. 1861) is
made up partly of the Kecognitions (i,
ii, iii, iv), and partly of the Homilies
(x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, the xth book being
imperfect). The older of the two ex-
tant MSS of this version was actually
written A.D. 411, the year after the
death of Eufinus; but the errors of
transcription, which it exhibits, show
that it was taken from an earlier MS.
We are thus carried back to a very re-
mote date. The first part, containing
the early books of the Kecognitions, is
extremely valuable, for it enables us to
measure the liberties which Kufinus
took with his original. An important
instance of his arbitrary treatment will

be given below, p. 86, note 5. Two
abridgments of the Homilies are ex-
tant. These have been edited by Dres-
sel, ClementinorumEpitomaeduae (Lips.
1859), one of them for the first time.
Of those monographs which I have read
on the relations between the different
Clementine writings, the treatise of
Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recogni-
tionen etc. (Gottingen, 1854), seems
to me on the whole the most satis-
factory. It is dangerous to express an
opinion where able critics are so di-
vided; and the remarks in the text are
not hazarded without some hesitation.
Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and
Uhlhorn, give the priority to the
Homilies, Hilgenfeld and Kitschl to
the Kecognitions, Lehmann partly to
the one and partly to the other, while
Reuss and others decline to pronounce
a decided opinion.

2 See on this subject Schliemann
dement, pp. 96 sq, 534 sq : comp.
Stanley's Corinthians, p. 366 sq.

3 KO.I /ACTO, fj.apTijpu)!' TrpocreXT/Xv^ra.
It is needless to insert /J.T] with Schlie-
mann and Schwegler : the negative is
carried on from the former clause pi)
irporepov

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 85

from heaven and send forth a preacher against you, just as he
suborned Simon against us, preaching in the name of our Lord
and sowing error under the pretence of truth; wherefore He
that sent us said, Many shall come to me in sheep's clothing, but
within they are ravening wolves (xi. 35).' The allusions here to
St Paul's rejection of 'commendatory letters' (2 Cor. iii. 1) and
to the scene on the way to Damascus (Acts ix. 3) are clear. In
another passage St Peter, after explaining that Christ must be
preceded by Antichrist, the true prophet by the false, and
applying this law to the preaching of Simon and himself, adds :
' If he had been known (el eyivaxy/cero) he would not have been
believed, but now being not known (ayvoovfjuevo?) he is wrongly
believed... being death, he has been desired as if he were a
saviour... and being a deceiver he is heard as if he spake the
truth (ii. 17, 18).' The writer seems to be playing with St
Paul's own words, ' as deceivers and yet true, as unknown and
yet well known, as dying and behold we live (2 Cor. vi. 8, 9).'
In a third passage there is a very distinct allusion to the
Apostle's account of the conflict at Antioch in the Galatian
Epistle: 'If then,' says St Peter to Simon, 'our Jesus was
made known to thee also and conversed with thee being seen
in a vision, He was angry with thee as an adversary, and
therefore He spake with thee by visions and dreams, or even
by outward revelations. Can any one be made wise unto
doctrine by visions ? If thou sayest he can, then why did the
Teacher abide and converse with us a whole year when we were
awake ? And how shall we ever believe thee in this, that He
was seen of thee ? Nay, how could He have been seen of thee,
when thy thoughts are contrary to His teaching? If having
been seen and instructed of Him for a single hour thou wast
made an Apostle, then preach His words, expound His teaching,
love His Apostles, do not fight against me His companion.
For thou hast withstood and opposed me (evavrio? dvOe&Trjtcds
pot,), the firm rock, the foundation of the Church. If thou
hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldest not have calumniated
and reviled my preaching, that I might not be believed when I

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

in the
Letter of
Peter,

in the

Eecogni-

tions,

told what I had heard myself in person from the Lord, as though
forsooth I were condemned (KarayvwaOevro^) and thou wert
highly regarded 1 . Nay, if thou callest me condemned (/tare-
yvcocrfAevov), thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me and
assailest Him that called me blessed in my revelation 2 (xviL
19).' In this same bitter spirit the writer would rob him of all
his missionary triumphs and transfer them to his supposed
rival : the Apostleship of the Gentiles, according to the Homi-
lies, belongs not to St Paul but to St Peter: Barnabas is no
more the companion nor Clement the disciple of St Paul but of
St Peter 3 .

Again, in the letter of Peter to James prefixed to the
Homilies, emanating from the same school though perhaps not
part of the work itself, and if so, furnishing another example of
this bitterness of feeling, St Peter is made to denounce those
Gentile converts who repudiate his lawful preaching, welcoming
a certain lawless and foolish doctrine of the enemy (You e%0pov
av6po)7rov avofAov TWO, KOI <f)\vapa)&rj SiSacncaXiav), complaining
also that 'certain persons attempted by crafty interpretations
to wrest his words to the abolishing of the law, pretending that
this was his opinion, but that he did not openly preach it,' with
more to the same effect ( 2).

In the Recognitions, probably a later patch- work 4 , the
harsher features of the Essene-Ebionite doctrine, as it appears
in the Homilies, are softened down, and these bitter though
indirect attacks on St Paul omitted ; whether by the original
redactor or by his translator Rufinus, it is not easy to say 5 .

1 The existing text has /cat
eiidoKifjiovvTos, for which some have pro-
posed to read /cai ^ eu5o/a / uoCi'Tos. It
is better perhaps to substitute <rou or
ovdafjiov for e[j.ov, though neither is a
neat emendation. Some change how-
ever is absolutely needed.

2 rov 6irl aTTO/caXi/i/'et ftaicapitravTOS /ue.
The allusion is to Matt. xvi. 17, /*a/cc-
pios et K.r.X.

3 See also other references to St

Paul noted elsewhere, Galatians,p. 61.

4 Not much earlier than the middle
of the third century; for a portion of
the treatise de Fato, written probably
by a disciple of Bardesanes, is worked
up in the later books ; unless indeed this
is itself borrowed from theEecognitions.

5 In one instance at least the change
is due to Eufinus himself. His trans-
lation of Clem. Eecogn. iii. 61 contains
a distinct recognition of St Paul's

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 87

Thus in the portions corresponding to and probably taken from
the Homilies no traces of this hostility remain. But in one
passage adapted from another work, probably the ' Ascents of
James 1 / it can still be discerned, the allusion having either
escaped notice or been spared because it was too covert to give
offence. It is there related that a certain enemy (homo quidam
inimicus) raised a tumult against the Apostles and with his
own hands assaulted James and threw him down from the steps
of the temple, ceasing then to maltreat him, only because he
believed him to be dead ; and that after this the Apostles
received secret information from Gamaliel, that this enemy
(inimicus ille homo) had been sent by Caiaphas on a mission to
Damascus to persecute and slay the disciples, and more especi-
ally to take Peter, who was supposed to have fled thither
(i. 70, 7 1) 2 . The original work, from which this portion of the
Recognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much more and in the
violent and unscrupulous in its attacks on St Paul ; for in the james^ 8 '
' Ascents of James ' Epiphanius read the story, that he was of
Gentile parentage, but coming to Jerusalem and wishing to
marry the high-priest's daughter he became a proselyte and
was circumcised: then, being disappointed of his hope, he
turned round and furiously attacked the Mosaic ordinances
(Haer. xxx. 16).

Apostleship, 'Nonum (par) omnium ings, disappears,
gentium et illius qui mittetur seminare * Uhlhorn, p. 366. Epiphanius men-
verbum inter gentes.' (On these <rvfv- lions this book, dra/3a0/xot 'Ia/r dfiov, as
yi'cu of the false and the true see above, being in circulation among the Ebion-
p. 85.) But the corresponding pas- ites (xxx. 16). It was so called doubt-
sage in the Syriac version (p. 115, 1. 20, less as describing the ascents of James
Lagarde) is wholly different, and trans- up the temple- stairs, whence he ha-
lated back into Greek will run thus : -rj rangued the people. The name and the
<5 evvdrrj (<rvfvyia) TOV <rirt pharos TWV description of its contents in Epi-
frfavluv Kai TOV evayyeXiov TOV irefjuro- phanius alike favour the view that it
fjL^vov et's liri<TTpo<J>'r)j', OTO.V eKpifady rb was the original of this portion of the
ayiov Kal eis TT)V ^p^fj-Uffiv avrov d-rjffovffi Eecognitions. But if so, the redactor
TO pdt\vyiJ.a : see Dan. ix. 27, and com- of the Kecognitions must have taken
pare Clem. Horn. ii. 17 (quoted above, the same liberties with it as he has
p. 80, note 1). Thus the commenda- done with the Homilies,
tion of St Paul, which is wholly alien 2 This passage is substantially the
to the spirit of these Clementine writ- same in the Syriac.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Activity of
the sect

at Rome,

A.D.
219223,

and Csesa-
rea,
A.D. 247?

The

Churches
of Pales-
tine not
Ebionite.

Paschal
contro-
versy.

In the earlier part of the third century these Gnostic
Ebionites seem to have made some futile efforts to propagate
their views. An emissary of the sect, one Alcibiades of Apamea
in Syria, appeared in Rome with the pretended revelation of
Elchasai, and (thinking himself the better juggler of the two,
says Hippolytus) half succeeded in cajoling the pope Callistus,
but was exposed and defeated by the zealous bishop of Portus
who tells the story (Haer. ix. 13 17). Not many years after
another emissary, if it was not this same Alcibiades, appears to
have visited Caesarea, where he was confronted and denounced
by Origen 1 .

This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated
estimate of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not
probable that they left any wide or lasting impression west of
Syria. In Palestine itself they would appear to have been
confined to certain localities lying for the most part about the
Jordan and the Dead Sea. After the reconstitution of the
mother Church at Mlia, Capitolina the Christianity of Palestine
seems to have been for the most part neither Ebionite nor
Nazarene. It is a significant fact, implying more than appears
at first sight, that in the Paschal controversy which raged in
the middle and later half of the second century the bishops of
Csesarea and Jerusalem, of Tyre and Ptolemais, ranged them-
selves, not with the Churches of Asia Minor which regulated
their Easter festival by the Jewish passover without regard to
the day of the week, but with those of Rome and Alexandria
and Gaul which observed another rule ; thus avoiding even the
semblance of Judaism 2 . But we have more direct testimony to
the main features of Palestinian doctrine about the middle of
the second century in the known opinions of two writers who
lived at the time Justin as representative of the Samaritan,
and Hegesippus of the Hebrew Christianity of their day. The

1 Euseb. H. E. vi. 38. This extract
is taken from Origen's Homily on the
82nd Psalm, which appears to have
been delivered in Caesarea about A.D.

247. See Redepenning Origenes n.
p. 72.

2 Euseb. H. E. v. 23, 24. See below,
p. 101, note 2.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 89

former of these declares himself distinctly against the two
characteristic tenets of Ebionism. Against their humanitarian Justin,
views he expressly argues, maintaining the divinity of Christ 1 .
On the universal obligation of the law he declares, not only
that those who maintain this opinion are wrong, but that he
himself will hold no communion with them, for he doubts
whether they can be saved 2 . If, as an apologist for the Gospel
against Gentile and Jew, he is precluded by the nature of his
writings from quoting St Paul 3 , whose name would be received
by the one with indifference and by the other with hatred, he
still shows by his manner of citing and applying the Old
Testament that he is not unfamiliar with this Apostle's
writings 4 . The testimony of Hegesippus is still more im- Hegesip-
portant, for his extant fragments prove him to have been a pl
thorough Hebrew in all his thoughts and feelings. This writer
made a journey to Rome, calling on the way at Corinth among
other places; he expresses himself entirely satisfied with the
teaching of the Churches which he thus visited ; ' Under each
successive bishop/ he says, ' and in each city it is so as the law
and the prophets and the Lord preach 5 .' Was the doctrine of

1 Dial. cc. 48, 127. Hegesippus would seem to be referring

2 Dial. cc. 47, 48. to some earlier work or earlier portion

3 See Westcott's argument (Canon of this work, which he now supple-
p. 117 sq) drawn from the usage of ments. Possibly however the conjee-
other apologists, Tertullian for in- tural reading diarpiffiv e-jroi-rjffdfji.'riv, 'I
stance, who does not quote even the continued to reside,' maybe correct:
Gospels in his Apology. but the translation of Eufinus, 'per-

4 See Galatians, p. 60, and the notes mansi inibi (i.e. Eomae) donee Aniceto
on Gal. iii. 28, iv. 27. Soter et Soteri successit Eleutherus,'

5 In Euseb. H . E. iv. 22. The ex- is of little or no weight on this side ;
tract ends, yev6nevos 5 ev 'PcVfl Stado- for he constantly uses his fluency in
XV eiroi-riffdfjLrjv fj-txpu 'Aj/i/oyrov ou did- Latin to gloze over his imperfect
KOVOS iji/'EXeutfepos- *<" /m 'Awcr/rov knowledge of Greek, and the evasion
5ia5^x erctt 2wr?7/3, /j,e0' 6f 'EXeivflepos ev of a real difficulty is with him the rule
cKdffTy de 8La8oxH KO.I ev eKdcrrri ir6\ei rather than the exception. If we re-
ourws e"xe<- ws 6 v6fj,os K-rjptjTTet Kal ol tain SiaSoxfiv, the words of Hegesippus
Trpo<pr)Tai Kal 6 Ktfptos. If the text be would still seem to imply that he left
correct, Siadoxyv eTroirjadfj.rjv must mean Rome during the episcopate of Anice-
' I drew up a list or an account of the tus. Eusebius indeed (H. E. iv. 11)
successive bishops' (see Pearson in infers, apparently from this passage,
Rout h i. p. 268 sq) ; and in this case that he remained there till Eleutherus

90 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

the whole Christian world at this time (A.D. 150) Ebionite, or
was the doctrine of Hegesippus Catholic ? There is no other
alternative. We happen to possess information which leaves

not an no doubt as to the true answer. Eusebius speaks of Hegesippus
Ebionite.

as ' having recorded the unerring tradition of the apostolic

preaching ' (H. E. iv. 8) ; and classes him with Dionysius of
Corinth, Melito, Irenaeus, and others, as one of those in whose
writings ' the orthodoxy of sound faith derived from the apostolic
tradition had been handed down 1 .' In this Eusebius could not
have been mistaken, for he himself states that Hegesippus
'left the fullest record of his own opinions in five books of
memoirs ' which were in his hands (H. E. iv. 22). It is surely
a bold effort of recent criticism in the face of these plain facts
to set down Hegesippus as an Ebionite and to infer thence that
a great part of Christendom was Ebionite also. True, this
writer gives a traditional account of St James which represents
him as a severe and rigorous ascetic' 2 ; but between this stern
view of life and Ebionite doctrine the interval may be wide
enough ; and on this showing how many fathers of the Church,
Jerome and Basil for instance in the fourth century, Bernard
and Dominic and Francis of Assisi in later ages, must plead
guilty of Ebionism. True, he used the Hebrew Gospel ; but
what authority he attributed to it, or whether it was otherwise
than orthodox, does not appear. True also, he appeals in a
passage already quoted to the authority of ' the law and the

became bishop ; and Jerome (de Vir. Zephyrinus 198 or 199, Callistus 217,

III. 22), as usual, repeats Eusebius. Urbanus 222 ; Chron. der Rom. Bisch.

This inference, though intelligible, p. 263. But there is considerable

seems hardly correct; but it shows variation in the authorities, the ac-

almost conclusively that Eusebius did cession of Anicetus being placed by

not read diaTptffiv. The early Syriac some as early as A.D. 150; see the

translator of Eusebius (see above, p. lists in Clinton's Fasti Romani n. p.

33, note 2) certainly read diadoxfy. 534 S( l-

The dates of the accession of the sue- 1 H. E. iv. 21 wv KO.L tis was rrjs

cessive bishops as determined by Lip- diroo-ToXiKTJs irapaSda-eias TJ TTJS vyiovs

sius are, Pius 141 (at the latest), Tr&rrews Zyypcupos KarrfKOev 6pdodota.

Anicetus 154156, Soter 166 or 167, 2 Euseb. H. E. ii. 23. See the ac-

Eleutherus 174 or 175, Victor 189, count of St James below.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

prophets and the Lord 1 '; but this is a natural equivalent for
'the Old and New Testament/ and corresponding expressions
would not appear out of place even in our own age. True
lastly, he condemns the use made of the text, 'Eye hath not
seen nor ear heard' etc. 2 , as contradicting our Lord's words,

1 See the passage quoted above, p.
89, note 5. For the inferences of the
Tubingen school see Schwegler Nacha-
post. Zeitalter i. p. 355, Baur Christen-
thum etc. p. 78. A parallel instance
will serve the purpose better than much
argument. In a poem by the late
Prof. Selwyn ( Win/rid, afterwards call-
ed Boniface, Camb. 1864) the hero is
spoken of as ' Printing heaven's mes-
sage deeper in his soul, By reading
holy writ, Prophet and Law, And four-
fold Gospel.' Here, as in Hegesippus,
the law is mentioned and 'the Apo-
stle ' is not. Yet who would say that
this passage savours of Ebionism?
Comp. Irenaeus Haer. ii. 30. 6 ' Eelin-
quentes eloquia Domini et Moysen et
reliquos prophetas, ' and again in Spicil.
Solesm. i. p. 3, and the Clementine
Epistles to Virgins i. 12 Sicut ex lege
ac prophetis et a Domino nostro Jesu
Christo didicimus' (Westcott Canon p.
187, 6th ed.). So too Apost. Const, ii.
39 aerd TT]V dvdyvwcrLV rov vdaov Kal r&v
TrpocfrrjT&v Kal TOV evayyeXiov, Hippol.
Haer. viii. 19 ir\el6v TL dt, avr<j}v...ue~
fj.adr]K^vai rj K voaov Kal irpo(f>'r)rG)v Kal
evayyeXiwv.

2 The fragment to which I refer is
preserved in an extract from Stepha-
nus Gobarus given in Photius Bibl.
232. After quoting the words rd TJTOI-
uaafjifra rots dtKalois dyadd oirre 6<pda\ub$
eWev oijre o5s TJKov<rev o$re eirl Kap-
diav dvdpuirov dvtprj, Stephanus pro-
ceeds, "Kyfjatinros utvroi, dpx<u6s re
dvyp Kal d-JTovroXiKos, ev T$ Tre/iTrry rCov
viroav-rj/JidTUv, OVK old' o n Kal iradui>,
/j.drr)v utv elprjadat ravra \eyei Kal Kara-
}f/eij5e<r6ai roi>s ravra (fiaufrovs TUV re
dduv ypa<pC)v Kal rou Kvpiov \tyovros

Ma/cdptot ol 6<f>da\uol vuwv K.r.X. It is
not surprising that this writer, who
lived when Gnosticism had passed out
of memory, should be puzzled to
'know what had come to Hegesip-
pus ' : but modern critics ought not to
have gone astray. Hegesippus can
hardly be objecting to the passage
itself, which is probably a quotation
from Is. Ixiv. 4. His objection there-
fore must be to some application of
it. But whose application? Even
had there been no direct evidence, it
might have been gathered from the
argument which follows that he re-
ferred to the esoteric teaching of the
Gnostics; but the lately discovered
treatise of Hippolytus establishes the
fact that it was a favourite text of
these heretics, being introduced into
the form of initiation : see v. 24, 26,
27 (of Justin the Gnostic), vi. 24 (of
Valentinus). This is the opinion of
Lechler p. 463, Eitschl p. 267, West-
cott Canon pp. 208, 284, Bunsen Hip-
polytus i. p. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgen-
feld Apost. Vater p. 102, but otherwise
Zeitschr.f. Wiss. Theol. 1876, p. 203 sq.
Yet Baur (Christenthum p. 77, Paulus
p.221), and Schwegler (i. p. 352), forcing
an unnatural meaning on the words,
contend that Hegesippus is directly
denying St Paul's claim to a revelation
and asserting that this privilege belongs
only to those who have seen and
heard Christ in the flesh. It is worth
noticing that the same quotation, ' eye
hath not seen etc.,' is found in the
Epistle of Clement (c. 34) [where see
note] ; and this epistle was referred to
by Hegesippus, as the notice of Euse-
bius seems to imply (H. E. iv. 22),

92 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

' Blessed are your eyes for ye see, etc/; but he is here protesting
against its perverted application by the Gnostics, who em-
ployed it of the initiated few, and whom elsewhere he severely
denounces; and it is a mere accident that the words are
quoted also by St Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9). Many of the facts
mentioned point him out as a Hebrew, but not one brands him
as an Ebionite. The decisive evidence on the other side is
fatal to this inference. If Hegesippus may be taken as a
type of the Hebrew Church in his day, then the doctrine of
that Church was Catholic.

Ebionism And if the Palestinian Churches of the second century held
lent in Catholic doctrine, we shall see little or no reason to fix the
Churches cnar g e f Ebionism on other communities farther removed from
the focus of Judaic influences. Here and there indeed Judaism
seems to have made a desperate struggle, but only to sustain a
signal defeat. At Antioch this conflict began earlier and
probably continued longer than elsewhere ; yet the names of
her bishops Ignatius, Theophilus, and Serapion vouch for the
doctrine and practice of the Antiochene Church in the second
century. In Asia Minor the influence first of St Paul and then
of St John must have been fatal to the ascendancy of Ebionism.
A disproportionate share indeed of the faint light which
glimmers over the Church of the second century is concen-
trated on this region : and the notices, though occasional and
fragmentary, are sufficient to establish this general fact. The
same is true with regard to Greece : similar influences were at
work and with similar results. The Churches of Gaul took
their colour from Asia Minor, which furnished their greatest
teachers: Irenaeus bears witness to the Catholicity of their
faith. In Alexandria, when at length the curtain rises,
Christianity is seen enthroned between Greek philosophy and
Gnostic speculation, while Judaism is far in the background.
The infancy of the African Church is wrapt in hopeless dark-
ness : but when she too emerges from her obscurity, she comes

with approval. This very mention of evidence that Hegesippus recognised
Clement's epistle is in itself a secondary the authority of St Paul.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 93

forward in no uncertain attitude, with no deep scars as of a
recent conflict, offering neither a mutilated canon nor a dwarfed
theology. The African Bible, as it appears in the old Latin
version, contains all the books which were received without
dispute for two centuries after. The African theology, as
represented by Tertullian, in no way falls short of the standard
of Catholic doctrine maintained in other parts of Christendom.

But the Church of the metropolis demands special attention. The
At Rome, if anywhere, we should expect to see very distinct Rome,
traces of these successive phenomena, which are supposed to
have extended throughout or almost throughout the Christian
Church first, the supremacy of Ebionism then the conflict of
the Judaic with the Pauline Gospel lastly, towards the close
of the second century, the triumph of a modified Paulinism and
the consequent birth of Catholic Christianity 1 . Yet, even if
this were the history of Catholicity at Rome, it would still
be an unfounded assumption to extend the phenomenon to
other parts of Christendom. Rome had not yet learnt to
dictate to the Church at large. At this early period she
appears for the most part unstable and pliant, the easy prey of
designing or enthusiastic adventurers in theology, not the
originator of a policy and a creed of her own. The prerogative
of Christian doctrine and practice rests hitherto with the
Churches of Antioch and Asia Minor.

But the evidence lends no countenance to the idea that the
tendencies of the Roman Church during this period were
towards Ebionism. Her early history indeed is wrapt in Heretics
obscurity. If the veil were raised, the spectacle would probably there! 68
not be very edifying, but there is no reason to imagine that
Judaism was her characteristic taint. As late heathen Rome

1 The episcopate of Victor (about for his approval of this Church extends

A.D. 190 200) is fixed by the Tiibin- to the episcopate of Eleutherus, the

gen critics (see Schwegler 11. p. 206 sq) immediate predecessor of Victor ; see

as the epoch of the antijudaic revolu- above, p. 89, note 5. They suppose

tion in the Koman Church. This date however that the current had been

follows necessarily from their assump- setting in this direction some time

tion that Hegesippus was an Ebionite ; before.

94 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

had been the sink of all Pagan superstitions, so early Christian
Rome was the meeting-point of all heretical creeds and philo-
sophies. If the presence of Simon Magus in the metropolis be
not a historical fact, it is still a carrying out of the typical
character with which he is invested in early tradition, as the
father of heresy. Most of the great heresiarchs among others
Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, Theodotus, Sabellius taught in
Rome. Ebionism alone would not be idle, where all other
heresies were active. But the great battle with this form of
error seerns to have been fought out at an early date, in the
lifetime of the Apostles themselves and in the age immediately
following.

Secession The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic
of Juda- . . . . . T ..

izers. writings seems to point to two separate communities, a Juda-

izing Church and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the
Gentile Apostle in the metropolis, it would appear, was the
signal for the separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto
associated with their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully.
The presence of St Paul must have vastly strengthened the
numbers and influence of the more liberal and Catholic party ;
while the Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts,
that in making converts to the Gospel they might also gain
proselytes to the law 1 . Thus 'in every way Christ was
preached/

St Peter If St Peter ever visited Rome, it must have been at a later

' date than these notices. Of this visit, far from improbable in
itself, there is fair if not conclusive evidence ; and once
admitted, we may reasonably assume that important conse-
quences flowed from it. Where all is obscurity, conjecture on
one side is fairly answered by conjecture on the other. We
may venture therefore to suggest this, as a not unlikely result
of the presence of both Apostles in Rome. As they had done
before in the world at large, so they would agree to do now in

1 The inferences in the text are the circumcision) are my fellow-work-
drawn from Phil. i. 15 18, compared ers etc.'
with Col. iv. 11 'These only (i.e. of

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 95

the metropolis : they would exchange the right hand of fellow-
ship, devoting themselves the one more especially to the Jewish,
the other to the Gentile converts. Christian Rome was large A twofold
enough to admit two communities or two sections in one
community, until the time was ripe for their more complete
amalgamation. Thus either as separate bodies with separate
governments, or as a confederation of distinct interests repre-
sented each by their own officers in a common presbytery, we
may suppose that the Jewish and Gentile brotherhoods at Rome
were organized by the combined action of the two Apostles.
This fact possibly underlies the tradition that St Peter and
St Paul were joint founders of the Roman Church : and it
may explain the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops,
which perhaps point to a double succession. At all events, the
presence of the two Apostles must have tended to tone down
antipathies and to draw parties closer together. The Judaizers
seeing that the Apostle of the Circumcision, whose name they
had venerated at a distance but whose principles they had
hitherto imperfectly understood, was associating on terms of
equality with the ' hated one/ the subverter of the law, would
be led to follow his example slowly and suspiciously: and
advances on the one side would be met eagerly by advances
on the other. Hence at the close of the first century we see no united
more traces of a twofold Church. The work of the Apostles, clement.
now withdrawn from the scene, has passed into the hands of no
unworthy disciple. The liberal and catholic spirit of Clement
eminently fitted him for the task of conciliation; and he appears
as the first bishop or presiding elder of the one Roman Church.
This amalgamation however could not be effected without some
opposition ; the extreme Judaizers must necessarily have been
embittered and alienated : and, if a little later we discern traces
of Ebionite sectarianism in Rome, this is not only no surprise,
but the most natural consequence of a severe but short-lived
struggle.

The Epistle to the Corinthians written by Clement in the Clement's
name of the Roman Church cannot well be placed after the

96 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

A.D. 95? close of the first century and may possibly date some years
earlier. It is not unreasonable to regard this as a typical
document, reflecting the comprehensive principles and large
sympathies which had been impressed upon the united
Church of Rome, in great measure perhaps by the influence
of the distinguished writer. Thfere is no early Christian
writing which combines more fully than this the distinctive
features of all the Apostolic Epistles, now asserting the su-
premacy of faith with St Paul, now urging the necessity of
works with St James, at one time echoing the language of
St Peter, at another repeating the very words of the Epistle
to the Hebrews 1 . Not without some show of truth, the au-
thority of Clement was claimed in after generations for writings
of very different tendencies. Belonging to no party, he
seemed to belong to all.

Testi- Not many years after this Epistle was written, Ignatius

Ignatius. n( >w on his way to martyrdom addresses a letter to the Roman
A.D. 110? brethren. It contains no indications of any division in the
Church of the metropolis or of the prevalence of Ebionite views
among his readers. On the contrary, he lavishes epithets of
praise on them in the opening salutation ; and throughout the
letter there is not the faintest shadow of blame. His only fear
is that they may be too kind to him and deprive him of the
honour of martyrdom by their intercessions. To the Ephesians,
and even to Polycarp, he offers words of advice and warning ;
but to the Romans he utters only the language of joyful
satisfaction 2 .

But in a Church thus formed we might expect to meet with

1 See Westcott History of the Canon and spirit with every commandment
p. 24 sq. of Christ, filled with the grace of God

2 This is the case, even though we inseparably, and strained clear of
should accept only the parts preserved every foreign colour (aTrodiv\i<rfdvois
in the Syriac as genuine; but the airb iravrbs d\\OTptov xp^aros).' At
Greek (Vossian) Epistles are still more the same time the writer appears in
explicit. They distinctly acquit the other passages as a stubborn opponent
Romans of any participation in heresy ; of Judaism, Magn. 8, 10, Philad. 6.
speaking of them as 'united in flesh

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 97

other and narrower types of doctrine than the Epistle of Clement
exhibits. Traditional principles and habits of thought would
still linger on, modified indeed but not wholly transformed by
the predominance of a Catholicity which comprehended all
elements in due proportion. One such type is represented by
an extant work which emanated from the Roman Church during
the first half of the second century 1 .

In its general tone the Shepherd of Hermas confessedly Shepherd
differs from the Epistle of Clement ; but on the other hand the notEbion-
writer was certainly no Ebionite, as he has been sometimes lte '
represented. If he dwells almost exclusively on works, he yet
states that the 'elect of God will be saved through faith 2 ': if C.A.D. 145.
he rarely quotes the New Testament, his references to the Old
Testament are still fainter and scantier: if he speaks seldom
of our Lord and never mentions Him by name, he yet asserts
that the Son of God was present with His Father in counsel
at the founding of creation 3 , and holds that the world is ' sus-
tained by Him 4 .' Such expressions no Ebionite could have
used. Of all the New Testament writings the Shepherd most
resembles in tone the Epistle of St James, whose language it
sometimes reflects : but the teaching of St James appears here
in an exaggerated and perverted form. The author lays great
stress on works, and so far he copies his model : but his inter-
pretation of works is often formal and ritualistic, and in one
passage he even states the doctrine of supererogation 5 . Whether
the tone of this writing is to be ascribed to the traditional

1 On the date of the Shepherd see rr/trewj O.VTOV did. TOVTO ica.1 7raXcu6s e<r-
Galatians, p. 99, note 3. nv. ' H 5t irvXrj 8ia rt Kwf), fopi, K vpie ;

2 Vis. iii. 8 : comp. Mand. viii. "On, <J>rj<rlv t eir e<rx&TW r&v i)u.p&v TTJS

3 Sim. ix. 12. The whole passage <rwreXe/as (pavepbs tyevero, 5td TOVTO
is striking: Hpto-rov, tpTj/jd, irdvTwv, KV- KO.LVT} eyevero i) TrtfXr?, iva ol fj^\\ovTes
pie, TOVTO /iot drjXucrov ' i) ireTpa. KO.I rj crwfccr0ai Si' avTijs els TTJV (3a(ri\ela,v et<r-
7riJ\77 rt's ecrTiv ; 'H Trtrpa, (prfffLv, atiTrj e\dw<ri TOV 9eou.

Ko.1 r) Trt\T) b vibs TOV 6eoO fort. IIcDs, 4 Sim. ix. 14 r6 foo/xa TOV viov TOV

<pT}fii, Kvpie, i] ireTpa TraXata &TIV, i] de Qeov (dya e<rrl K0.1 or^p^TQv Kal Tbv

KO.IV/I; "A-xove, <f>r)<ri, /cat <rvvie, K6cr/J.ov 8\ov /Sacrrdfei. Oil the whole

. 6 IMGV vibs TOV Qeov Trdvrjs TTJS subject see Dorner Lehre etc. i. p. 186

avTov Trpoyev^ffTep6s e<?Tiv, alore sq, Westcott Canon p. 202 sq.

<rvfj,j3ov\oj> avTbv yevteffai r$ iraTpl TTJS 8 Sim. v. 3 : comp. Mand. iv. 4.

L. 7

98 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

feelings of Judaism yet lingering in the Church, or to the
influence of a Judaic section still tolerated, or to the constitu-
tion of the author's own mind, it is impossible to say. The
view of Christian ethics here presented deviates considerably,
it is true, from St Paul's teaching; but the deviation is the
same in kind and not greater in degree than marks a vast
number of mediaeval writings, and may in fact be said to cha-
racterize more or less distinctly the whole mediaeval Church.
Thus it affords no ground for the charge of Ebionism. Hernias
speaks of law indeed, as St James speaks of it; yet by law
he means not the Mosaic ordinances but the rule introduced
by Christ. On the other hand his very silence is eloquent.
There is not a word in favour of Judaic observances properly so
called, not a word of denunciation direct or indirect against
either the doctrine or the person of St Paul or his disciples.
In this respect the Shepherd presents a marked contrast to the
truly Ebionite work, which must be taken next in order.
Roman The Clementine writings have been assigned with great

the Cle- confidence by most recent critics of ability to a Roman author-
ship 1 . Of the truth of this view I am very far from convinced.
The great argument indeed almost the only argument in its
favour is the fact that the plot of the romance turns upon the
wanderings of this illustrious bishop of Rome, who is at once
the narrator and the hero of the story. But the fame of
Clement reached far beyond the limits of his own jurisdiction.
To him, we are specially told by a contemporary writer, was
assigned the task of corresponding with foreign churches 2 . His
rank and position, his acknowledged wisdom and piety, would
point him out as the best typical representative of the Gentile
converts : and an Ebionite writer, designing by a religious
fiction to impress his views on Gentile Christendom, would

1 So for instance Baur, Schliemann, Clementina.' Uhlhorn is almost alone

Eitschl, Hilgenfeld : and this view is among recent critics in raising his voice

adopted by Dean Milman Latin Chris- against this general verdict : p. 370 cq.

tianity i. p. 81, who speaks of it as 'the 2 Hermas Vis. ii. 4 Tr^u^ei otiv KXiJ-

unanimous opinion of those who in /J.TJS els ras w TroXets tKeiv<p y&p eVt-
later days have critically examined the

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 99

naturally single out Clement for his hero, and by his example
enforce the duty of obedience to the Church of the Circum-
cision, as the prerogative Church and the true standard of
orthodoxy. At all events it is to be noticed that, beyond the
use made of Clement's name, these writings do not betray any
familiarity with or make any reference to the Roman Church
in particular 1 . On the contrary, the scenes are all laid in the
East ; and the supreme arbiter, the ultimate referee in all that
relates to Christian doctrine and practice, is not Peter, the
Clementine Apostle of the Gentiles, the reputed founder of the
Roman Church, but James the Lord's brother, the bishop of
bishops, the ruler of the mother Church of the Circumcision.

If the Roman origin of these works is more than doubtful,
the time of writing also is open to much question. The dates
assigned to the Homilies by the ablest critics range over the
whole of the second century, and some place them even later.
If the Roman authorship be abandoned, many reasons for a
very early date will fall to the ground also. Whenever they Their im-
were written, the Homilies are among the most interesting and Dagger- 6
important of early Christian writings ; but they have no right ated -
to the place assigned them in the system of a modern critical
school, as the missing link between the Judaism of the Christian
era and the Catholicism of the close of the second century, as
representing in fact the phase of Christianity taught at Rome
and generally throughout the Church during the early ages.
The very complexion of the writer's opinions is such, that they
can hardly have been maintained by any large and important
community, at least in the West. Had they presented a purer They can-
form of Judaism, founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a ^n^the 6 "

doctrine

1 The Epistle of Clement to James, If the Homilies had really been writ-
prefixed to the work, is an exception ; ten by a Eoman Christian, the slight
for it gives an elaborate account of the and incidental mention of St Peter's so-
writer's appointment by St Peter as journinRome (i. 16,comp. Recogn.i.74)
his successor. The purpose of this let- would have thrown considerable doubt
ter, which is to glorify the see of Eome, on the fact. But if they emanated from
shows that it was no part of and proba- the East, from Syria for instance, no
bly is later than the Homilies them- explanation of this silence is needed,
selves.

100 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

of the more plausible case might have been made out. But the theology
Church. f the Clementines does not lie in a direct line between the Old
Testament and Catholic Christianity : it deviates equally from
the one and the other. In its rejection of half the Mosaic law
and much more than half of the Old Testament, and in its
doctrine of successive avatars of the Christ, it must have been
as repugnant to the religious sentiments of a Jew trained in the
school of Hillel, as it could possibly be to a disciple of St Paul
in the first century or to a Catholic Christian in the third.
Moreover the tone of the writer is not at all the tone of one
who addresses a sympathetic audience. His attacks on St Paul
are covert and indirect; he makes St Peter complain that he
has been misrepresented and libelled. Altogether there is an
air of deprecation and apology in the Homilies. If they were
really written by a Roman Christian, they cannot represent the
main body of the Church, but must have emanated from one of
the many heresies with which the metropolis swarmed in the
second century, when all promulgators of new doctrine gathered
there, as the largest and therefore the most favourable market
for their spiritual wares.

Notice in There is another reason also for thinking that this Gnostic
tus PP Ebionism cannot have obtained any wide or lasting influence in
the Church of Rome. During the episcopate of Callistus (A.D.
219 223) a heretical teacher appears in the metropolis, pro-
mulgating Elchasaite doctrines substantially, though not identi-
cally, the same with the creed of the Clementines, and at first
seems likely to attain some measure of success, but is denounced
and foiled by Hippolytus. It is clear that this learned writer
on heresies regarded the Elchasaite doctrine as a novelty,
against which therefore it was the more necessary to warn the
faithful Christian . If the Ebionism of the Clementines had
ever prevailed at Rome, it had passed into oblivion when
Hippolytus wrote.

No Ebion- The few notices of the Roman Church in the second century
ings in the point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical
Church ordinances the Romans seem anxious to separate themselves as

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 101

widely as possible from Jewish practices. Thus they extended
the Friday's fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked
disregard of the sabbatical festival 1 . Thus again they observed
Easter on a different day from the Jewish passover; and so
zealous were they in favour of their own traditional usage in

this respect, that in the Paschal controversy their bishop Victor Evidence
,, i -ji of the Pas-

resorted to the extreme measure ot renouncing communion with c h a i con-

those churches which differed from it 2 . This controversy affords troversv -
a valuable testimony to the Catholicity of Christianity at Rome
in another way. It is clear that the churches ranged on diffe-
rent sides on this question of ritual are nevertheless substan-
tially agreed on all important points of doctrine and practice.
This fact appears when Anicetus of Rome permits Polycarp of
Smyrna, who had visited the metropolis in order to settle some
disputed points and had failed in arranging the Paschal question,
to celebrate the eucharist in his stead. It is distinctly stated
by Irenseus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing
the peace of the Church by insisting on non-essentials 3 . In its
creed the Roman Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic
Churches ; and that this creed was not Ebionite, the names of
Polycarp and Irenasus are guarantees. Nor is it only in the
Paschal controversy that the Catholicity of the Romans may be
inferred from their intercourse with other Christian communities.

1 Tertull. de Jejun. 14 ; see Neander index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings:
Ch. Hist. i. p. 410 (Bohn). but when once attention was called to

2 On the Paschal controversy see its existence, and it became a matter of
Euseb. H . E. v. 23 25. Polycrates on controversy, the observance of the
behalf of the Asiatic Churches claimed Christian anniversary on the same day
the sanction of St John ; and there with the Jewish festival would afford a
seems no reason to doubt the validity handle for the charge of Judaism ; and
of this claim. On the other hand a where it was a matter of policy or of
different rule had been observed in the principle to stand clear of any sym-
Eoman Church at least as far back as pathy with Jewish customs (as for in-
the episcopate of Xystus (about 120 stance in Palestine after the collision
129) and perhaps earlier. It seems of the Jews with the Eomans), the
probable then that the Easter festival Eoman usage would be adopted in
had been established independently by preference to the Asiatic.

the Bomans and those who followed 3 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24 77 6ia<j>uvla

the Eoman practice. Thus in the first rrjs viicrrda.^ TTJV b^bvoiav r^s
instance the difference of usage was no (n^o-r^criv, and the whole extract.

102

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Other
communi-
cations
with
foreign
churches.

Internal
condition
of the
Boman
Church.

The remains of ecclesiastical literature, though sparse and frag-
mentary, are yet sufficient to reveal a wide network of inter-
communication between the churches of the second century;
and herein Rome naturally holds a central position. The visit
of Hegesippus to the metropolis has been mentioned already.
Not very long after we find Dionysius bishop of Corinth, whose
'orthodoxy' is praised by Eusebius, among other letters addressed
to foreign churches, writing also to the Romans in terms of
cordial sympathy and respect 1 . On the Catholicity of the
African Church I have already remarked : and the African
Church was a daughter of the Roman, from whom therefore it
may be assumed she derived her doctrine 2 .

The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history
of the Roman Church at the close of the second and beginning
of the third century exhibit her assailed by rival heresies, com-
promised by the weakness and worldliness of her rulers, altogether
distracted and unsteady, but in no way Ebionite. One bishop,
whose name is not given, first dallies with the fanatical spiritual-
ism of Montanus; then suddenly turning round, surrenders
himself to the patripassian speculations of Praxeas 3 . Later
than this two successive bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus,
are stated, by no friendly critic indeed but yet a contemporary
writer, the one from stupidity and avarice, the other from
craft and ambition, to have listened favourably to the heresies
of Noetus and Sabellius 4 . It was at this point in her history
that the Church of Rome was surprised by the novel doctrines
of the Elchasaite teacher, whom I have already mentioned
more than once. But no one would maintain that at this

i In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23.

8 Tertull. de Praescr. 36. Cyprian
Epist. 48 (ed. Fell) writing to Cornelius
speaks of Borne as 'Ecclesiae catholicae
radicem et matricem,' in reference to
the African Churches.

3 Tertull. adv. Prax. 1. Tertullian,
now a Montanist, writes of Praxeas
who had persuaded this nameless bishop

of Borne to revoke his concessions to
Montanism, * Ita duo negotia diaboli
Praxeas Bomae procuravit, prophetiam
expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum
fugavit et patrem crucifixit.' For spe-
culations as to the name of this bishop
see Wordsworth's Hippolytus pp. 131,
132.
4 Hippol. Haer. ix. 7 sq.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 103

late date Ebionism predominated either at Rome or in Christen-
dom generally.

Ebionites indeed there were at this time and very much
later. Even at the close of the fourth century, they seem to
have mustered in considerable numbers in the east of Palestine,
and were scattered through the great cities of the empire. But Ebionism
their existence was not prolonged much later. About the
middle of the fifth century they had almost disappeared 1 . They
would gradually be absorbed either into the Catholic Church or
into the Jewish synagogue : into the latter probably, for their
attachment to the law seems all along to have been stronger
than their attachment to Christ.

Thus then a comprehensive survey of the Church in the
second century seems to reveal a substantial unity of doctrine
and a general recognition of Jewish and Gentile Apostles alike
throughout the greater part of Christendom. At the same time
it could hardly happen, that the influence of both should be
equally felt or the authority of both estimated alike in all
branches of the Church. St Paul and the Twelve had by
mutual consent occupied distinct spheres of labour; and this
distribution of provinces must necessarily have produced some
effect on the subsequent history of the Church 2 . The com-
munities founded by St Paul would collect and preserve the
letters of their founder with special care ; while the brotherhoods
evangelized by the Apostles of the Circumcision would attribute
a superior, if not an exclusive, value to the writings of these
c pillars ' of the Church. It would therefore be no great surprise
if we should find that in individual writers of the second century
and in different parts of the early Church, the Epistles of St
Paul on the one hand, the Apocalypse of St John or the letter
of St James on the other, were seldom or never appealed to
as authorities 3 . The equable circulation of all the apostolic
writings was necessarily the work of time.

1 Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 11, men- 2 Gal. ii. 9 ; see Westcott's History

tions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites of the Canon p. 78 sq.

among those of whom ou5e j8pax> 8it- 3 Many false inferences however,

\d\l/a.vov. affecting the history of the Canonical

104

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Use of the

foregoing

account.

ST PAUL.

His por-
trait in the
Acts.

Its truth
question-
ed,

r MHE foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with
-*- Judaism has been necessarily imperfect, and in some points
conjectural; but it will prepare the way for a more correct
estimate of the relations between St Paul and the leading
Apostles of the Circumcision. We shall be in a position to
view these relations no longer as an isolated chapter in history,
but in connexion with events before and after : and we shall be
furnished also with means of estimating the value of later
traditional accounts of these first preachers of the Gospel.

ST PAUL himself is so clearly reflected in his own writings,
that a distorted image of his life and doctrine would seem to be
due only to defective vision. Yet our first impressions require
to be corrected or rather supplemented by an after considera-
tion. Seeing him chiefly as the champion of Gentile liberty,
the constant antagonist of Jew and Judaizer, we are apt to
forget that his character has another side also. By birth and
education he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews : and the traditions
and feelings of his race held hirn in honourable captivity to tjie
very last.

Of this fact the narrative of the Acts affords many striking
examples. It exhibits him associating with the Apostles of the
Circumcision on terms of mutual respect and love, celebrating
the festivals and observing the rites of his countrymen, every-
where giving the precedence to the Jew over the Gentile.

But the character of the witness has been called in question.
This narrative, it is said, is neither contemporary nor trust-
worthy. It was written long after the events recorded, with

writings, have been drawn from the
silence of Eusebius, which has been
entirely misapprehended: see Con-
temporary Review, January, 1875, p.
169 sq, Colossians p. 52 sq.

The phenomenon exhibited in the
Ancient Syriac Documents (edited by
Cureton, 1864) is remarkable. Though
they refer more than once to the Acts
of the Apostles (pp. 15, 27, 35) as the
work of St Luke and as possessing

canonical authority, and though they
allude incidentally to St Paul's labours
(pp. 35, 61, 62), there is yet no refer-
ence to the epistles of this Apostle,
where the omission cannot have been
accidental (p. 32), and the most im-
portant churches founded by him,
as Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth,
etc. , are stated to have received ' the
Apostles' Hand of Priesthood from
John the Evangelist' (p. 34).

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 105

the definite purpose of uniting the two parties in the Church.
Thus the incidents are forged or wrested to subserve the
purpose of the writer. It was part of his plan to represent
St Peter and St Paul as living on friendly terms, in order to
reconcile the Petrine and Pauline factions.

The Acts of the Apostles in the multiplicity and variety of
its details probably affords greater means of testing its general
character for truth than any other ancient narrative in existence ;
and in my opinion it satisfies the tests fully. But this is not the
place for such an investigation. Neither shall I start from the
assumption that it has any historical value. Taking common
ground with those whose views I am considering, I shall draw
my proofs from St Paul's Epistles alone in the first instance,
nor from all of these, but from such only as are allowed even by
the extreme critics of the Tubingen school to be genuine, the but esta-
Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians 1 . It so his own
happens that they are the most important for my purpose. If Wntm 8 s -
they contain the severest denunciations of the Judaizers, if they
display the most uncompromising antagonism to Judaism, they
also exhibit more strongly than any others St Paul's sympathies
with his fellow-countrymen.

These then are the facts for which we have St Paul's direct
personal testimony in the epistles allowed by all to be genuine.
(1) The position of the Jews. He assigns to them the prerogative (i) Posi-
over the Gentiles ; a prior right to the privileges of the Gospel, jews,
involving a prior reward if they are accepted and, according to
an universal rule in things spiritual, a prior retribution if they
are spurned (Rom. i. 16, ii. 9, 10), In the same spirit he
declares that the advantage is on the side of the Jew, and that

this advantage is ' much every way ' (Rom. iii. 1, 2). (2) His ( 2 ) His

affection
for them.

1 These four epistles alone were master.' He accepts as genuine 1 Thes-
accepted as genuine by Baur and salonians, Philippians, and Philemon :
Schwegler. Hilgenfeld, who may now thus substituting, as he expresses
be regarded as the chief of the Tii- it, the sacred number Seven for the
bingen school, has in this, as in many heathen Tetractys of his master: see
other points, deserted the extreme po- Ze.itsch. fur wissensch. Theol. v. p. 226
sition of Baur whom he calls the 'great (1862).

106 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

affection for his countrymen. His earnestness and depth of
feeling are nowhere more striking than when he is speaking of
the Jews : c Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for
Israel is, that they might be saved : for I bear them record that
they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge ' (Rom.
x. 1, 2). Thus in spite of their present stubborn apostasy he
will not allow that they have been cast away (xi. 1), but looks
forward to the time when 'all Israel shall be saved' (xi. 26).
So strong indeed is his language in one passage, that commen-
tators regarding the letter rather than the spirit of the Apostle's
prayer, have striven to explain it away by feeble apologies and
unnatural interpretations : ' I say the truth in Christ, I lie not,
my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that
I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart : for I
could wish that myself were accursed from Christ (avdOe^a elvai
70) CLTTO rov XpicrTov) for my brethren, my kinsmen

(3) His according to the flesh ' (Rom. ix. 1 3). (3) His practical care
care for for his countrymen. The collection of alms for the poor brethren

of Judaea occupies much of his attention and suggests messages
to various churches (Rom. xv. 25, 26 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 6 ; 2 Cor.
viii, ix; Gal. ii. 10). It is clear not only that he is very
solicitous himself on behalf of the Christians of the Circumcision,
but that he is anxious also to inspire his Gentile converts with

(4) His the same interest. (4) His conformity to Jewish habits and usages.
ity to their St Paul lays down this rule, to ' become all things to all men

usages. na j ie mav by a ji means save some ' (1 Cor. ix. 22). This is
the key to all seeming inconsistencies in different representations
of his conduct. In his epistles we see him chiefly as a Gentile
among Gentiles; but this powerful moral weapon has another
edge. Applying this maxim, he himself tells us emphatically
that ' unto the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the
Jews ; unto them that are under the law as under the law, that
he might gain them that are under the law ' (1 Cor. ix. 20). The
charges of his Judaizing opponents are a witness that he did carry
out his maxim in this direction, as in the other. With a semblance
of truth they taunt him with inconsistency, urging that in his

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 107

own practice he had virtually admitted their principles, that in
fact he had himself preached circumcision 1 . (5) His reverence (5) His use
for the Old Testament Scriptures. This is a strongly marked Testa-
feature in the four epistles which I am considering. They teem ment -
with quotations, while there are comparatively few in his
remaining letters. For metaphor, allegory, example, argument,
confirmation, he draws upon this inexhaustible store. However
widely he may have differed from his rabbinical teachers in
other respects, he at least did not yield to them in reverence for
' the law and the prophets and the psalms/

These facts being borne in mind (and they are indisputable)
the portrait of St Paul in the Acts ought not to present any
difficulties. It records no one fact of the Apostle, it attributes
no sentiment to him, which is not either covered by some
comprehensive maxim or supported by some practical instance
in his acknowledged letters. On the other hand the tone of the Difference
history confessedly differs somewhat from the tone of the tween the
epistles. Nor could it possibly have been otherwise. Written
in the heat of the conflict, written to confute unscrupulous
antagonists and to guard against dangerous errors, St Paul's
language could not give a complete picture of his relations with
the Apostles and the Church of the Circumcision. Arguments
directed against men, who disparaged his authority by undue
exaltation of the Twelve, offered the least favourable opportunity
of expressing his sympathy with the Twelve. Denunciations of
Judaizing teachers, who would force their national rites on the
Gentile Churches, were no fit vehicle for acknowledging his
respect for and conformity with those rites. The fairness of
this line of argument will be seen by comparing the differences
observable in his own epistles. His tone may be said to be
graduated according to the temper and character of his hearers.
The opposition of the Galatian letter to the Mosaic ritual is
stern and uncompromising. It was written to correct a virulent
form of Judaism. On the other hand the remonstrances in the
Epistle to the Romans are much more moderate, guarded by

1 See Galatians p. 28 sq, and notes on Gal. i. 10, ii. 3, v. 2, 11.

108 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

constant explanations and counterpoised by expressions of deep
sympathy. Here he was writing 'to a mixed church of Jews
and Gentiles, where there had been no direct opposition to his
authority, no violent outbreak of Judaism. If then we picture
him in his intercourse with his own countrymen at Jerusalem,
where the claims of his nation were paramount and where the
cause of Gentile liberty could not be compromised, it seems
most natural that he should have spoken and acted as he is
represented in the Acts. Luther denouncing the pope for
idolatry and Luther rebuking Carlstadt for iconoclasm writes
like two different persons. He bids the timid and gentle
Melanchthon ' sin and sin boldly ' : he would have cut his right
hand off sooner than pen such words to the antinomian rioters
of Munster. It is not that the man or his principles were
changed : bat the same words addressed to persons of opposite
tempers would have conveyed a directly opposite meaning.
St Paul's St Paul's language then, when in this epistle he describes
with The his relations with the Three, must be interpreted with this
described cau ti n > tnat ^ necessarily exhibits those relations in a partial
in this aspect. The purport of this language, as I understand it, is
explained in the notes : and I shall content myself here with
gathering up the results.

(1) There is a general recognition of the position and
authority of the elder Apostles, both in the earlier visit to
Jerusalem when he seeks Peter apparently for the purpose of
obtaining instruction ID the facts of the Gospel, staying with
him a fortnight, and in the later visit which is undertaken for
the purpose, if I may use the phrase, of comparing notes with
the other Apostles and obtaining their sanction for the freedom
of the Gentile Churches. (2) On the other hand there is an
uncompromising resistance to the extravagant and exclusive
claims set up on their behalf by the Judaizers. (3) In contrast
to these claims, St Paul's language leaves the impression
(though the inference cannot be regarded as certain), that they
had not offered a prompt resistance to the Judaizers in the first
instance, hoping perhaps to conciliate them, and that the brunt

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 109

of the contest had been borne by himself and Barnabas. (4)
At the same time they are distinctly separated from the policy
and principles of the Judaizers, who are termed false brethren,
spies in the Christian camp. (5) The Apostles of the Circum-
cision find no fault with St Paul's Gospel, and have nothing to
add to it. (6) Their recognition of his office is most complete.
The language is decisive in two respects : it represents this
recognition first as thoroughly mutual, and secondly as admitting
a perfect equality and independent position. (7) At the same
time a separate sphere of labour is assigned to each : the one
are to preach to the heathen, the other to the Circumcision.
There is no implication, as some have represented, that the
Gospel preached to the Gentile would differ from the Gospel
preached to the Jew. Such an idea is alien to the whole spirit
of the passage. Lastly, (8) Notwithstanding their distinct
spheres of work, St Paul is requested by the Apostles of the
Circumcision to collect the alms of the Gentiles for the poor
brethren of Judaea, and to this request he responds cordially.

With the exception of the incident at Antioch, which will Eeferences
. -11 111-1-1 I/-NI- .to them in

be considered presently, the Jbpistle to the Ualatians contains other epi-

nothing more bearing directly on the relations between St st
Paul and the Apostles of the Circumcision. Other special
references are found in the Epistles to the Corinthians, but
none elsewhere. These notices, slight though they are, accord
with the view presented by the Galatian letter. St Paul indeed
says more than once that he is 'not a whit behind the very
chiefest Apostles' (r&v virep\iav dTroo-rohcov, 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11),
and there is in the original a slight touch of irony which
disappears in the translation : but the irony loses its point unless
the exclusive preference of the elder Apostles is regarded as an
exaggeration of substantial claims. Elsewhere St Paul speaks
of Cephas and the Lord's brethren as exercising an apostolic
privilege which belonged also to himself and Barnabas (1 Cor.
ix. 5), of Cephas and James as witnesses of the Lord's resurrec-
tion like himself (1 Cor. xv. 5, 7). In the last passage he calls
himself (with evident reference to the elder Apostles who are

110 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

mentioned immediately before) ' the least of the Apostles, who
is not worthy to be called an Apostle.' In rebuking the
dissensions at Corinth, he treats the name of Cephas with a
delicate courtesy and respect which has almost escaped notice.
When he comes to argue the question, he at once drops the
name of St Peter ; ' While one saith, I am of Paul, and another,
I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal ? What then is Apollos, and
what is Paul ? ' Apollos was so closely connected with him
(1 Cor. xvi. 12), that he could use his name without fear of
misapprehension. But in speaking of Cephas he had to observe
more caution : certain persons persisted in regarding St Peter
as the head of a rival party, and therefore he is careful to avoid
any seeming depreciation of his brother Apostle.

No an- In all this there is nothing inconsistent with the character

of St Paul as drawn in the Acts, nothing certainly which
re P res ents him as he was represented by extreme partisans in

Apostles, ancient times, by Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites on
the other, and as he has been represented of late by a certain
school of critics, in a position of antagonism to the chief
Apostles of the Circumcision. I shall next examine the
scriptural notices and traditional representations of these
three.

ST PETER 1. The author of the Clementine Homilies makes ST PETER

Ebionites y the niouth -piece of his own Ebionite views. In the prefatory
letter of Peter to James which, though possibly the work of
another author, represents the same sentiments, the Apostle
complains that he has been misrepresented as holding that the
law was abolished but fearing to preach this doctrine openly.
' Far be it/ he adds, ' for to act so is to oppose the law of God
which was spoken by Moses and to which our Lord bare witness
that it should abide for ever. For thus He said, Heaven and
earth shall pass away : one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
away from the law. And this He said that all things might be
fulfilled. Yet these persons professing to give my sentiments
(rbv e/jubv vovv 67rayye\\6/jL6voi,) I know not how, attempt to
interpret the words that they have heard from me more

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. Ill

cleverly (^povi^repov) than myself who spoke them, telling
their pupils that this is my meaning (^pov^fia), though it
never once entered into my mind (o eya) ovSe eveBvfjL^Orjv).
But if they dare to tell such falsehoods of me while I am still
alive, how much more will those who come after me venture to
do it when I am gone ( 2).' It has been held by some modern
critics that the words thus put into the Apostle's mouth are
quite in character ; that St Peter did maintain the perpetuity
of the law ; and that therefore the traditional account which
has pervaded Catholic Christendom from the writing of the
Acts to the present day gives an essentially false view of the
Apostle.

I think the words quoted will strike most readers as betraying
a consciousness on the part of the writer that he is treading on
hollow and dangerous ground. But without insisting on this, it
is important to observe that the sanction of this venerated nd als
name was claimed by other sectarians of opposite opinions, site sects.
Basilides (about A.D. 180), the famous Gnostic teacher, announced
that he had been instructed by one Glaucias an ' interpreter ' of
St Peter 1 . An early apocryphal writing moreover, which
should probably be assigned to the beginning of the second
century arid which expressed strong antijudaic views 2 , was

1 Clem.Alex.Srora.vii.p.898,Potter. The identity of this work with the

2 On this work, the ic/ipvyfAa Ht- Praedicatio Pauli quoted in the trea-
rpov, see Schwegler Nachap. Zeit. n. tise De Baptismo Haeretico'rum printed
p. 30 sq. Its opposition to Judaism among Cyprian's works (App. p. 30,
appears in an extant fragment preserved Fell) seems to me very doubtful, though
in Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. p. 760, pydt maintained by several able critics.
Kara 'lovdaiovs ff{j3e<r6e...<t><rTe /ecu fyxets The passage there quoted is strangely
ocrtas KCU Sticcu'ws (j.av6dvovTes a irapadi- misinterpreted by Baur (Christenthum
5o/j.v vfuv <pv\d<rcre<Tde y KCUVUS rbv Qebi> p. 53). I give his words, lest I should
5tct TOV XptcrroD cr6j8o^tevor evpopev yap have misunderstood him: 'Auch die
v TCUJ ypa<f>cus icadus 6 Ktpios \eyei ' kirchliche Sage, welche die Apostel
'I5ot> diarldefj. ifyuv Kaivty diae^v wieder zusammenbrachte, lasst erst
KT.T.X. The fragments of this work am Ende nach einer langen Zeit
are collected by Grabe, Spicil. i. p. 62 der Trennung die gegenseitige Aner-
sq. It was made use of by Heracleon kennung zu Stande kommen. Post
the Valentinian, and is quoted more tanta tempora, hiess es in der Prae-
than once, apparently as genuine, by dicatio Pauli in der Stelle, welche sich
Clement of Alexandria. in der Cyprian's Werken angehangten

112 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

entitled the ' Preaching of Peter.' I do not see why these
assertions have not as great a claim to a hearing as the opposite
statement of the Ebionite writer. They are probably earlier;
and in one case at least we have more tangible evidence than
the irresponsible venture of an anonymous romance writer.
The probable inference however from such conflicting state-
ments would be, that St Peter's true position was somewhere
between the two extremes.

But we are not to look for trustworthy information from
such sources as these. If we wish to learn the Apostle's real
attitude in the conflict between Jewish and Gentile converts,
St Paul's the one fragmentary notice in the Epistle to the Galatians will
the occur- reveal more than all the distorted and interested accounts of
Antioch later a g es : ' But when Cephas came to Antioch I withstood
him to the face, for he was condemned (his conduct condemned
itself). For before that certain came from James, he did eat
with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew and
separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision : and the
rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even
Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation (o-vva r n-r) r xO'n
avTcov rfj vTrotcpia-ei). But when I saw that they walked not
straight according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto
Cephas before all, If thou, being born a Jew ('lovSalos inrdp'^wv),
livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not after the

Schrift de rebaptismate erhalten hat among other instances he alleges the

(Cypr. Opp. ed. Baluz. s. 365 f.),Petrum fact that it makes St Peter and St Paul

et Paulum post conlationem evangelii meet in Rome as if for the first time,

in Jerusalem et mutuam cogitationem forgetting all about the congress at Je-

[?]etaltercationemetrerumagendarum rusalem, the collision at Antioch, and

dispositionem postremo in urbe, quasi so forth. Schwegler takes the correct

tune primum, invicem sibi esse cogni- view of the passage, n. p. 32.

tos.' Baur thus treats the comment of Other early apocryphal works attri-

the writer as if it were part of the buted to the chief Apostle of the Cir-

quotation. In this treatise the writer cumcision are the Gospel, the Acts,

denounces the Praedicatio Pauli as and the Apocalypse of Peter ; but our

maintaining 'adulterinum,imo interne- information respecting these is too

cinum baptisma ' ; in order to invalidate scanty to throw much light on the pre-

its authority, he proceeds to show its sent question : on the Gospel of Peter

thoroughly unhistorical character; and see above, p. 27.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 113

manner of the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live
like the Jews ? etc.' (ii. 11 14).

Now the point of St Paul's rebuke is plainly this : that in
sanctioning the Jewish feeling which regarded eating with the
Gentiles as an unclean thing, St Peter was untrue to his
principles, was acting hypocritically and from fear. In the
argument which follows he assumes that it was the normal
practice of Peter to live as a Gentile (eOvt,K&<s 775 and not
eOvifcwf; ejfys), in other words, to mix freely with the Gentiles, to
eat with them, and therefore to disregard the distinction of
things clean and unclean: and he argues on the glaring
inconsistency and unfairness that Cephas should claim this
liberty himself though not born to it, and yet by hypocritical
compliance with the Jews should practically force the ritual
law on the Gentiles and deprive them of a freedom which was
their natural right 1 .

How St Peter came to hold these liberal principles, so It accords
entirely opposed to the narrow traditions of his age and country, incident
is explained by an incident narrated in the Acts. He was
at one time as rigid and as scrupulous as the most bigoted
of his countrymen : ' nothing common or unclean had at
any time entered into his mouth ' (x. 14, xi. 8). Suddenly a
light bursts in upon the darkness of his religious convictions.
He is taught by a vision ' not to call any man common or un-
clean ' (x. 28). His sudden change scandalizes the Jewish

1 I do not see how this conclusion and severing it from the context ; but
can be resisted. According to the Tii- even then he is obliged to acquit the
bingen view of St Peter's position, his other Jewish Christians at Antioch of
hypocrisy or dissimulation must have Ebionism. Hilgenfeld (Galater p. 61
consisted not in withdrawing from, but sq) discards Schwegler's interpretation
in holding intercourse with the Gen- and explains UT^KJOKTIS of the self-con-
tiles ; but this is not the view of St Paul tradiction, the unconscious inconsist-
on any natural interpretation of his ency of Jewish Christian or Ebionite
words ; and certainly the Ebionite wri- principles : but inconsistency is not dis-
ter already quoted (p. 110) did not so simulation or hypocrisy, and this inter-
understand his meaning. Schwegler (i. pretation, like the former, loses sight of
p. 129) explains o-vvv-n-eKpid^av aury the context which denounces St Peter
' were hypocritical enough to side with for abandoning a certain line of con-
him,' thus forcing the expression itself duct from timidity.

L. 8

114 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

brethren: but he explains and for the moment at least con-

vinces (xi. 18).

and with And if his normal principles are explained by the narrative
racter as of the Acts, his exceptional departure from them is illustrated

by his character as it appears in the Gospels. The occasional
P els - timidity and weakness of St Peter will be judged most harshly
by those who have never themselves felt the agony of a great
moral crisis, when not their own ease and comfort only, which
is a small thing, but the spiritual welfare of others seems to
clamour for a surrender of their principles. His true nobleness
his fiery zeal and overflowing love and abandoned self-devotion
will be appreciated most fully by spirits which can claim
some kindred however remote with his spirit.

Thus the fragmentary notices in the Gospels, the Acts, and
the Epistles of St Paul, combine to form a harmonious portrait
of a character, not consistent indeed, but to use Aristotle's sig-
nificant phrase consistently inconsistent (o/xo-Xw?

The First and this is a much safer criterion of truth. But there is yet
St Peter another source of information to be considered his own letters.
If the deficiency of external evidence forbids the use of the
Second Epistle in controversy, the First labours under no such
disabilities ; for very few of the apostolical writings are better
attested.

To this epistle indeed it has been objected that it bears too
shows the manifest traces of Pauline influence to be the genuine writing
f ^ ^ e ^ er - The objection however seems to overlook two
important considerations. First. If we consider the prominent
part borne by St Paul as the chief preacher of Christianity in
countries Hellenic by race or by adoption; if we remember
further that his writings were probably the first which clothed
the truths of the Gospel and the aspirations of the Church in
the language of Greece ; we shall hardly hesitate to allow that
he ' had a great influence in moulding this language for Christian
purposes, and that those who afterwards trod in his footsteps
could hardly depart much from the idiom thus moulded 1 /

1 Schleiermacher, Einl. ins N. T. p. 402 sq.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 115

Secondly. It is begging the whole question to assume that
St Peter derived nothing from the influence of the Apostle of
the Gentiles. The one was essentially a character to impress,
the other to be impressed. His superior in intellectual culture,
in breadth of sympathy, and in knowledge of men, his equal in
love and zeal for Christ, St Paul must have made his influence
felt on the frank and enthusiastic temperament of the elder
Apostle. The weighty spiritual maxims thrown out during the
dispute at Antioch for instance would sink deep into his heart 1 ;
and taking into account the many occasions when either by his
writings or by personal intercourse St Paul's influence would be
communicated, we can hardly doubt that the whole effect was
great.

But after all the epistle bears the stamp of an individual but bears
mind quite independent of this foreign element. The sub- vidual
stratum of the thoughts is the writer's own. Its individuality stam P
indeed appears more in the contemplation of the life and suffer-
ings of Christ, in the view taken of the relations between the
believer and the world around, in the realisation of the promises
made to the chosen people of old, in the pervading sense of a
regenerate life and the reiterated hope of a glorious advent,
than in any special development of doctrine : but it would be
difficult to give any reason why, prior to experience, we should
have expected it to be otherwise.

Altogether the epistle is anything but Ebionite. Not only of a mind
is the ' law ' never once named, but there is no allusion to but not
formal ordinances of any kind. The writer indeed is essentially E
an Israelite, but he is an Israelite after a Christian type. When
he speaks of the truths of the Gospel, he speaks of them through
the forms of the older dispensation : he alludes again and again
to the ransom of Christ's death, but the image present to his

1 See 1 Pet. ii. 24 T&S a/Aaprias T)fj,wi> doctrinal teaching (though there are

atrros dvrjveyKev kv T< o^/ian atfrou e?ri occasionally strong resemblances of

TO &\oj>, 'iva TCUJ ci/xa/m'cus airoyevo^voi language). With it compare Gal. ii. 20

TT; diKaioo-fori -f)<rufj.ev. This is the X/jtcrryo-ui'eo-ratfpWyUcu' f<2 8 oi/Ktri ey<t>,

most striking instance which the epistle fry 5t ev e/j.ol Xpterrds /c.r.X.
exhibits of coincidence with St Paul's

116 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

mind is the paschal lamb without spot or blemish ; he addresses
himself to Gentile converts, but he transfers to them the
cherished titles of the covenant race ; they are the true ' disper-
sion ' (i. 1) ; they are ' a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a
holy nation, a peculiar people ' (ii. 9). The believer in Christ is
the Israelite; the unbeliever the Gentile (ii. 12).

its rela- Corresponding to the position of St Peter as he appears in

Paul and the Apostolic history, this epistle in its language and tone
St James. OCCU pj es a pl ace midway between the writings of St James and
St Paul. With St James it dwells earnestly on the old : with
St Paul it expands to the comprehension of the new. In its
denunciation of luxurious wealth, in its commendation of the
simple and homely virtues, in its fond reference to past examples
in Jewish history for imitation or warning, it recalls the tone
of the head of the Hebrew Church : in its conception of the
grace of God, of the ransom of Christ's death, of the wide
purpose of the Gospel, it approaches to the language of the
Apostle of the Gentiles.

Mark and With St Paul too the writer links himself by the mention

of two names, both Christians of the Circumcision, and both

companions of the Gentile Apostle ; Mark who, having accom-

panied him on his first missionary tour, after some years of

alienation is found by his side once more (Col. iv. 10), and

Silvanus who shared with him the labours and perils of planting

the Gospel in Europe. Silvanus is the bearer or the amanuensis

of St Peter's letter; Mark joins in the salutations (v. 12, 13).

St Peter Thus the Churches of the next generation, which were

Paul asso- likely to be well informed, delighted to unite the names of the

two l eac ^ n g Apostles as the greatest teachers of the Gospel,
dition. the brightest examples of Christian life. At Rome probably, at

Antioch certainly, both these Apostles were personally known.

We have the witness of the one Church in Clement ; of the
Rome. other in Ignatius. The former classes them together as the

two ' noble ensamples of his own generation,' ' the greatest and

most righteous pillars ' of the Church, who ' for hatred and envy
Antioch. were persecuted even unto death ' ( 5). The latter will not

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 117

venture to command the Christians of Rome, 'as Peter and
Paul did; they were Apostles, he a convict; they were free,
he a slave to that very hour 1 .' Clement wrote before the close
of the first century, Ignatius at the beginning of the second.
It seems probable that both these fathers had conversed with
one or other of the two Apostles. Besides Antioch and Rome,
the names of St Peter and St Paul appear together also in
connexion with the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 22). This Corinth.
church again has not withheld her voice, though here the later
date of her testimony detracts somewhat from its value 2 ,
Dionysius bishop of Corinth, writing to the Romans during the
episcopate of Soter (c. 166 174), claims kindred with them on
the ground that both churches alike had profited by the joint
instruction of St Peter and St Paul 3 .

But though the essential unity of these two Apostles is thus Misrepre-
recognised by different branches of the Catholic Church, a O f extreme
disposition to sever them seems early to have manifested itself P arties -
in some quarters. Even during their own lifetime the religious
agitators at Corinth would have placed them in spite of them-
selves at the head of rival parties. And when death had
removed all fear of contradiction, extreme partisans boldly
claimed the sanction of the one or the other for their own
views. The precursors of the Ebionites misrepresented the
Israelite sympathies of St Peter, as if he had himself striven
to put a yoke upon the neck of the Gentiles which neither their

1 Bom. 4. The words ot>% ws 11^- Kal yap a/i0w Kal els rrjv rj/j-erepav K6-
rpos Kal IlaOXos Stardo'O'o/Acu vfuv gain pivdov 0otT?JcravTes fyuas oftoLus e8ida%av,
force, as addressed to the Eomans, 6/Wws 8e Kal els rrjv 'IraXlav d/i6<re
if we suppose both Apostles to have didd^avres efj-apTtip-rjaait Kara rbv avrbv
preached hi Borne. Kaipov. All the MSS and the Syriac

2 The language of Clement however version here have ^>urei5aa^res ; but
implicitly contains the testimony of this <poiTr)<rai>Tes is read by Georgius Syn-
church at an earlier date : for he assumes cellus, and Rufinus has ' adventantes ' ;
the acquiescence of the Corinthians the sense too seems to require it. In
when he mentions both Apostles as of any case it is hardly a safe inference
equal authority ( 5, 47). that Dionysius erroneously supposed

3 In Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 r^v dirb the Churches of Home and Corinth to
Ktrpov Kal Ha6\ov <f>vreLav yevrjdeieav have been founded by both Apostles

re Kal Kopivdiw ffvveKtpdcraTe. jointly.

118

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Concilia-
tory aim
of the
Acts.

ST JOHN
not claim-
ed by
Ebionites.

His posi-
tion in the
apostolic
history.

fathers nor they were able to bear. The precursors of Marcion-
ism exaggerated the antagonism of St Paul to the Mosaic ritual,
as if he had indeed held the law to be sin and the command-
ment neither holy nor just nor good. It seems to have been a
subsidiary aim of St Luke's narrative, which must have been
written not many years after the martyrdom of both Apostles,
to show that this growing tendency was false, and that in their
life, as in their death, they were not divided. A rough parallel-
ism between the career of the two reveals itself in the narrative
when carefully examined. Recent criticism has laid much stress
on this f conciliatory ' purpose of the Acts, as if it were fatal to
the credit of the narrative. But denying the inference we may
concede the fact, and the very concession draws its sting. Such
a purpose is at least as likely to have been entertained by a
writer, if the two Apostles were essentially united, as if they
were not. The truth or falsehood of the account must be
determined on other grounds.

2. While St Peter was claimed as their leader by the
Judaizers, no such liberty seems to have been taken with the
name of ST JOHN 1 . Long settled in an important Gentile city,
surrounded by a numerous school of disciples, still living at the
dawn of the second century, he must have secured for his
teaching such notoriety as protected it from gross misrepresen-
tation.

His last act recorded in St Luke's narrative is a visit to the
newly founded Churches of Samaria, in company with St Peter
(viii. 14). He thus stamps with his approval the first move-

1 In the portion of the first book of
the Recognitions, which seems to have
been taken from the ' Ascents of James,'
the sons of Zebedee are introduced with
the rest of the Twelve confuting here-
sies, but the sentiments attributed to
them are in no way Ebionite (i. 57).
It is this work perhaps to which Epi-
phanius refers (xxx. 23), for his notice
does not imply anything more than a
casual introduction of St John's name

in their writings. In another passage
Epiphanius attributes to the sons of Ze-
bedee the same ascetic practices which
distinguished James the Lord's brother
(Haer. Ixxviii. 13); and this account
he perhaps derived from some Essene
Ebionite source. But I do not know
that they ever claimed St John in the
same way as they claimed St Peter and
St James.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 119

ment of the Church in its liberal progress. From the silence
of both St Paul and St Luke it may be inferred that he took
no very prominent part in the disputes about the Mosaic law.
Only at the close of the conferences we find him together with
St Peter and St James recognising the authority and work of
St Paul, and thus giving another guarantee of his desire to
advance the liberties of the Church. This is the only passage
where he is mentioned in St Paul's Epistles. Yet it seems
probable that though he did not actually participate in the
public discussions, his unseen influence was exerted to promote
the result. As in the earliest days of the Church, so now we
may imagine him ever at St Peter's side, his faithful colleague
and wise counsellor, not forward and demonstrative, but most
powerful in private, pouring into the receptive heart of the
elder Apostle the lessons of his own inward experience, drawn
from close personal intercourse and constant spiritual com-
munion with his Lord.

At length the hidden fires of his nature burst out into flame. His life in
When St Peter and St Paul have ended their labours, the more his writ-
active career of St John is just beginning. If it had been their mg8 '
task to organize and extend the Church, to remove her barriers
and to advance her liberties, it is his special province to build
up and complete her theology. The most probable chronology
makes his withdrawal from Palestine to Asia Minor coincide
very nearly with the martyrdom of these two Apostles, who
have guided the Church through her first storms and led her
to her earliest victories. This epoch divides his life into two
distinct periods : hitherto he has lived as a Jew among Jews ;
henceforth he will be as a Gentile among Gentiles. The
writings of St John in the Canon probably mark the close
of each period. The Apocalypse winds up his career in the
Church of the Circumcision; the Gospel and the Epistles are
the crowning result of a long residence in the heart of Gentile
Christendom.

Both the one and the other contrast strongly with the
leading features of Ebionite doctrine ; and this fact alone would

120 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

deter the Judaizers from claiming the sanction of a name so
revered.
The Apo- of a u t i ie wr itings of the New Testament the APOCALYPSE

calypse

Hebrew in is most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery. The

gery, whole book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testa-
ment. It speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and
Ezekiel and Daniel. Its tone may be well described by an
expression borrowed from the book itself; c the testimony of
Jesus is the spirit of prophecy' (xix. 10). The doctrine of
Balaam, the whoredoms of Jezebel, the song of Moses, the lion
of Judah, the key of David, the great river Euphrates, the great
city Babylon, Sodom and Egypt, Gog and Magog, these and
similar expressions are but the more striking instances of an
imagery with which the Apocalypse teems. Nor are the
symbols derived solely from the canonical Scriptures; in the
picture of the New Jerusalem the inspired Apostle has borrowed
many touches from the creations of rabbinical fancy. Up to
this point the Apocalypse is completely Jewish and might have

but not been Ebionite. But the same framing serves only to bring out

in doc- more strongly the contrast between the pictures themselves.
The two distinctive features of Ebionism, its mean estimate of
the person of Christ and its extravagant exaltation of the
Mosaic law, are opposed alike to the spirit and language of St

The John. It might have been expected that the beloved disciple,

who had leaned on his Master's bosom, would have dwelt with
fond preference on the humanity of our Lord : yet in none of
the New Testament writings, not even in the Epistles of St
Paul, do we find a more express recognition of His divine power
and majesty. He is ' the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning (the source) of the creation of God' (iii. 14).
' Blessing, honour, glory, and power ' are ascribed not ' to Him
that sitteth on the throne ' only, but ' to the Lamb for ever and
ever ' (v. 13). His name is ' the Word of God ' (xix. 13). There-
fore He claims the titles and attributes of Deity. He declares
Himself ' the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning
and the end ' (xxii. 13 ; comp. i. 8). He is ' the Lord of lords

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

121

and the King of kings' (xvii. 14, xix. 16). And so too the
Ebionite reverence for the law as still binding has no place in
the Apocalypse. The word does not occur from beginning to The law.
end, nor is there a single allusion to its ceremonial as an
abiding ordinance. The Paschal Lamb indeed is ever present
to St John's thought ; but with him it signifies not the sacrifice
offered in every Jewish home year by year, but the Christ who
once ' was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His blood out
of every kindred and tongue and people and nation' (v. 9).
All this is very remarkable, since there is every reason to believe
that up to this time St John had in practice observed the
Jewish law 1 . To him however it was only a national custom

1 Certain traditions of St John's
residence at Ephesus, illustrating his
relation to the Mosaic law, deserve no-
tice here. They are given by Polycrates
who was himself bishop of Ephesus
(Euseb. H. E. v. 24). Writing to pope
Victor, probably in the last decade of
the second century, he mentions that
he 'numbers (fyuv) sixty-five years in
the Lord' (whether he refers to the
date of his birth or of his conversion, is
uncertain, but the former seems more
probable), and that he has had seven
relations bishops, whose tradition he
follows. We are thus carried back to
a very early date. The two statements
with which we are concerned are these.
(1) St John celebrated the Paschal day
on the 14th of the month, coinciding
with the Jewish passover. It seems to
me, as I have said already (see p. 101),
that there is no good ground for ques-
tioning this tradition. The institution
of such an annual celebration by this
Apostle derives light from the many
references to the Paschal Lamb in the
Apocalypse ; and in the first instance
it would seem most natural to celebrate
it on the exact anniversary of the Pass-
over. It is more questionable whether
the Koman and other Churches, whose
usage has passed into the law of Chris-

tendom, had really the apostolic sanc-
tion which they vaguely asserted for
celebrating it always on the Friday.
This usage, if not quite so obvious as
the other, was not unnatural and pro-
bably was found much more convenient.
(2) Polycrates says incidentally of St
John that he was ' a priest wearing the
mitre and a martyr and teacher (8s
fyev-fjOf] iepebs rb irtraXov 7re0o/>eKcbs KO.I
fjidprvs Kai Si5dcr/caXos).' The reference
in the TT^TO.\OV is doubtless to the metal
plate on the high-priest's mitre, cf.
Exod. xxviii. 36 irfraXov xpwovv KaQa-
p6v, comp. Protevang. c. 5 rb irtraXov
TOV lepfas ; but the meaning of Poly-
crates is far from clear. He has perhaps
mistaken metaphor for matter of fact
(see Stanley Apostolical Age p. 285) ;
in like manner as the name Theophorus
assumed by Ignatius gave rise to the
later story that he was the child whom
our Lord took in His arms and blessed.
I think it probable however that the
words as they stand in Polycrates are
intended for a metaphor, since the short
fragment which contains them has seve-
ral figurative expressions almost, if not
quite, as violent ; e.g. peydXa oroi^eta
KCKoi/j.rjTai (where o-roixct means ' lu-
minaries,' being used of the heavenly
bodies) ; MeMrwva rbv evvovxov (proba-

122

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

and not an universal obligation, only one of the many garbs in
which religious worship might clothe itself, and not the essence
of religious life. In itself circumcision is nothing, as uncircum-
cision also is nothing ; and therefore he passes it over as if it
were not. The distinction between Jew and Gentile has
ceased ; the middle wall of partition is broken down in Christ.
If preserving the Jewish imagery which pervades the book, he
records the sealing of twelve thousand from each tribe of Israel,
his range of vision expands at once, and he sees before the
throne ' a great multitude, which no man could number, of all
nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues ' (vii. 9). If he
denounces the errors of heathen speculation, taking up their
own watchword 'knowledge (yvwo-is)' and retorting upon them
that they know only ' the depths of Satan ' (ii. 24) 1 , on the other
hand he condemns in similar language the bigotry of Jewish
prejudice, denouncing the blasphemy of those 'who say they
are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan ' (ii. 9 ;
comp. iii. 9).

bly a metaphor, as Bufinus translates
it, * propter regnum dei eunuchum ' ; see
Matt. xix. 12 and comp. Athenag. Suppl.
33, 34, Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 4, p. 269,
Strom, iii. 1. p. 509 sq) ; rbv juKpov pov
avBpwTrov (' my insignificance ' ; comp.
Horn. vi. 6 6 iraXatbs iji^dv dVflpwTros,
2 Cor. iv. 16 6 f i^uwv avQpuiros, 1 Pet.
iii. 4 6 KpvTTTbs rrjs Kapdias avOpuTros).
The whole passage is a very rude speci-
men of the florid 'Asiatic' style, which
even in its higher forms Cicero con-
demns as suited only to the ears of a
people wanting in polish and good taste
(' minime politaeminimeque elegantes, '
Orator, 25) and which is described by
another writer as KO^TT^S Kal {ppvaypa-
Ticts Kal KCVOV ya.vpidfjia.Tos Kal <pi\OTifj,las
dvu/j.d\ov jueo-Tos, Plut. Vit. Anton. 2 ;
see Bernhardy Griech. Litt. i. p. 465.
On the other hand it is possible I think
not probable that St John did wear
this decoration as an emblem of his
Christian privileges; nor ought this view

to cause any offence, as inconsistent
with the spirituality of his character.
If in Christ the use of external symbols
is nothing, the avoidance of them is no-
thing also. But whether the statement
of Polycrates be metaphor or matter of
fact, its significance, as in the case of
the Paschal celebration, is to be learnt
from the Apostle's own language in the
Apocalypse, where not only is great
stress laid on the priesthood of the be-
lievers generally (i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6), but
even the special privileges of the high-
priest are bestowed on the victorious
Christian (Bev. ii. 17, as explained by
Ziillig, Trench, and others : see Stanley
1. c. p. 285 ; comp. Justin Dial. 116
dpxLfpo.Ti.Kbv Tb aXydivbv ytvos efffifr
TOV 0eoO, and see below, p. 218). The
expression is a striking example of the
lingering power not of Ebionite tenets
but of Hebrew imagery.
1 See above, p. 64, note 3.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 123

A lapse of more than thirty years spent in the midst of a The Gos-
Gentile population will explain the contrasts of language and Epistles
imagery between the Apocalypse and the later writings of St c ntrasted
John, due allowance being made for the difference of subject 1 , pared with
The language and colouring of the Gospel and Epistles are no iy pse .
longer Hebrew ; but so far as a Hebrew mind was capable of the
transformation, Greek or rather Greco- Asiatic. The teaching
of these latter writings it will be unnecessary to examine ; for
all, I believe, will allow their general agreement with the
theology of St Paul ; and it were a bold criticism which should
discover in them any Ebionite tendencies. Only it seems to be
often overlooked that the leading doctrinal ideas which they
contain are anticipated in the Apocalypse. The passages which
I have quoted from the latter relating to the divinity of Christ
are a case in point : not only do they ascribe to our Lord the
same majesty and power; but the very title 'the Word,' with
which both the Gospel and the first Epistle open, is found here,
though it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. On the
other hand, if the Apocalypse seems to assign a certain preroga-
tive to the Jews, this is expressed equally in the sayings of the
Gospel that Christ 'came to his own' (i. 11), and that 'Salvation
is of the Jews ' (iv. 22), as it is involved also in St Paul's maxim
' to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.' It is indeed rather
a historical fact than a theological dogma. The difference
between the earlier and the later writings of St John is not in
the fundamental conception of the Gospel, but in the subject
and treatment and language. The Apocalypse is not Ebionite,
unless the Gospel and Epistles are Ebionite also.

3. ST JAMES occupies a position very different from St ST JAMES

holds a

local office.

1 Owing to the difference of style, the Apocalypse. Writers of the Tii-

many critics have seen only the alterna- bingen school reject the Gospel and

tive of denying the apostolic authorship Epistles but accept the Apocalypse,

either of the Apocalypse or of the Gos- This book alone, if its apostolical au-

pel and Epistles. The considerations thorship is conceded, seems to me to

urged in the text seem sufficient to furnish an ample refutation of their

meet the difficulties, which are greatly peculiar views,
increased if a late date is assigned to

124 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Peter or St John. If his importance to the brotherhood of
Jerusalem was greater than theirs, it was far less to the world
at large. In a foregoing essay I have attempted to show that
he was not one of the Twelve. This result seems to me to have
much more than a critical interest. Only when we have learnt
to regard his office as purely local, shall we appreciate the
traditional notices of his life or estimate truly his position in
the conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Eeasons A disbeliever in the Lord's mission to the very close of His

appoint- earthly life, he was convinced, it would seem, by the appearance
of the risen Jesus 1 . This interposition marked him out for
some special work. Among a people who set a high value on
advantages of race and blood, the Lord's brother would be more
likely to win his way than a teacher who would claim no such
connexion. In a state of religious feeling where scrupulous
attention to outward forms was held to be a condition of favour
with God, one who was a strict observer of the law, if not a
rigid ascetic, might hope to obtain a hearing which would be
denied to men of less austere lives and wider experiences.
These considerations would lead to his selection as the ruler of
the mother Church. The persecution of Herod which obliged
the Twelve to seek safety in flight would naturally be the
signal for the appointment of a resident head. At all events it
is at this crisis that James appears for the first time with his
presbytery in a position though not identical with, yet so far
resembling, the ' bishop ' of later times, that we may without
much violence to language give him this title (Acts xii. 17,
xxi. 18).

His allegi- As the local representative then of the Church of the
l aw> Circumcision we must consider him. To one holding this

position the law must have worn a very different aspect from
that which it wore to St Peter or St John or St Paul. While
they were required to become 'all things to all men,' he was
required only to be 'a Jew to the Jews.' No troublesome
questions of conflicting duties, such as entangled St Peter at

1 See above, p. 17.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 125

Antioch, need perplex him. Under the law he must live and
die. His surname of the Just 1 is a witness to his rigid
observance of the Mosaic ritual. A remarkable notice in the
Acts shows how he identified himself in all external usages with
those 'many thousands of Jews which believed and were all
zealous of the law ' (xxi. 20). And a later tradition, somewhat
distorted indeed but perhaps in this one point substantially
true, related how by his rigid life and strict integrity he had
won the respect of the whole Jewish people 2 .

A strict observer of the law he doubtless was ; but whether The ac-
to this he added a rigorous asceticism, may fairly be questioned. Hegesip-
The account to which I have just referred, the tradition pus
preserved in Hegesippus, represents him as observing many
formalities not enjoined in the Mosaic ritual. 'He was holy,'
says the writer, ' from his mother's womb. He drank no wine
nor strong drink, neither did he eat flesh. No razor ever
touched his head ; he did not anoint himself with oil ; he did
not use the bath. He alone was allowed to enter into the holy
place (et9 TO, ayia). For he wore no wool, but only fine linen.
And he would enter into the temple (vaov) alone, and be found
there kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness for the
people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's knees,
because he was ever upon them worshipping God and asking
forgiveness for the people.' There is much in this account not trust-
which cannot be true : the assigning to him a privilege which w
was confined to the high-priest alone, while it is entangled with
the rest of the narrative, is plainly false, and can only have been
started when a new generation had grown up which knew
nothing of the temple services 3 . Moreover the account of his

1 In the account of Hegesippus, re- rigid lives : compare also Acts i. 23,

ferred to in the following note, d dtnaios xviii. 7, Col. iv. 11 (with the note).

'Justus' is used almost as a proper 2 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii.

name. Two later bishops of Jerusalem 23.

in the early part of the second century 3 It is perhaps to be explained like
also bear the name 'Justus' (Euseb. the similar account of St John: see
H. E. iv. 5), either in memory of their above, p. 121, note 1. Compare Stan-
predecessor or in token of their own ley Apostolical Age p. 324. Epiphanius

126

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

testimony and death, which follows, not only contradicts the
brief contemporary notice of Josephus 1 , but is in itself so
melodramatic and so full of high improbabilities, that it must
throw discredit on the whole context 2 .

(Haer. Ixxviii. 14) makes the same state-
ment of St James which Polycrates
does of St John, TrtraXov eirl TTJS Ke<pa-

1 Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9. 1) relates
that in the interregnum between the
death of Festus and the arrival of Albi-
nus , the high-priest Ananus the younger,
who belonged to the sect of the Saddu-
cees (notorious for their severity in
judicial matters), considering this a fa-
vourable opportunity Ka8Lei o-vvtdpiov
Kal Trapayayuv els avrb rbv
'lyvov rov Xeyo/JLtvov Xptorou,
OVO/JLO. curry, Kal rivas ertpovs,

\ev<r6r]ffo/j.t>ovs. This
notice is wholly irreconcilable with the
account of Hegesippus. Yet it is pro-
bable in itself (which the account of
Hegesippus is not), and is such as Jo-
sephus might be expected to write if he
alluded to the matter at all. His stolid
silence about Christianity elsewhere
cannot be owing to ignorance, for a sect
which had been singled out years before
he wrote as a mark for imperial ven-
geance at Home must have been only
too well known in Judasa. On the other
hand, if the passage had been a Chris-
tian interpolation, the notice of James
would have been more laudatory, as is
actually the case in the spurious passage
of Josephus read by Origen and Eu-
sebius (H. E. ii. 23, see above, p. 68,
note 2), but not found in existing copies.
On these grounds I do not hesitate to
prefer the account in Josephus to that
of Hegesippus. This is the opinion of
Neander (Planting i. p. 367, Eng.

and of some few writers besides (so
recently Gerlach Romische Statthalter

etc. p. 81, 1865) : but the majority take
the opposite view.

2 The account is briefly this. Cer-
tain of the seven sects being brought by
the preaching of James toconfess Christ,
the whole Jewish people are alarmed.
To counteract the spread of the new
doctrine, the scribes and Pharisees re-
quest James, as a man of acknowledged
probity, to ' persuade the multitude not
to go astray concerning Jesus. ' In order
that he may do this to more effect, on
the day of the Passover they place him
on the pinnacle (Trreptyiov) of the tem-
ple. Instead of denouncing Jesus how-
ever, he preaches Him. Finding their
mistake, the scribes and Pharisees throw
him down from the height ; and as he
is not killed by the fall, they stone him.
Finally he is despatched by a fuller's
club, praying meanwhile for his mur-
derers. The improbability of the nar-
rative will appear in this outline, but it
is much increased by the details. The
points of resemblance with the portion
of the Eecognitions conjectured to be
taken from the ' Ascents of James ' (see
above, p. 87) are striking, and recent
writers have called attention to these as
showing that the narrative of Hegesip-
pus was derived from a similar source
(Uhlhorn Clement, p. 367, Eitschl p. 226
sq). May we not go a step farther and
hazard the conjecture that the story of
the martyrdom, to which Hegesippus is
indebted, was the grand finale of these
'Ascents,' of which the earlier portions
are preserved in the Eecognitions ? The
Eecognitions record how James with
the Twelve refuted the Jewish sects:
the account of Hegesippus makes the
conversion of certain of these sects the
starting-point of the persecution which

ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

127

We are not therefore justified in laying much stress on this He was
tradition. It is interesting as a phenomenon, but not trust-
worthy as a history. Still it is possible that James may have
been a Nazarite, may have been a strict ascetic. Such a repre-
sentation perhaps some will view with impatience, as unworthy
an Apostle of Christ. But this is unreasonable. Christian
devotion does not assume the same outward garb in all persons,
and at all times ; not the same in James as in Paul ; not the
same in mediaeval as in protestant Christianity. In James, the
Lord's brother, if this account be true, we have the prototype of
those later saints, whose rigid life and formal devotion elicits, it
may be, only the contempt of the world, but of whom neverthe-
less the world was not and is not worthy.

But to retrace our steps from this slippery path of tradition to St James
firmer ground. The difference of position between St James par t f ro a m
and the other Apostles appears plainly in the narrative of the
so-called Apostolic council in the Acts. It is Peter who Acts
proposes the emancipation of the Gentile converts from the law ;
James who suggests the restrictive clauses of the decree. It is

led to his martyrdom. In the Becog-
nitions James is represented ascending
the stairs which led up to the temple
and addressing the people from these :
in Hegesippus he is placed on the pin-
nacle of the temple whence he delivers
his testimony. In the Kecognitions he
is thrown down the flight of steps and
left as dead by his persecutors, but is
taken up alive by the brethren; in
Hegesippus he is hurled from the still
loftier station, and this time his death
is made sure. Thus the narrative of
Hegesippus seems to preserve the con-
summation of his testimony and his
sufferings, as treated in this romance,
the last of a series of 'Ascents,' the
first of these being embodied in the
Kecognitions.

If Hegesippus, himself no Ebionite,
has borrowed these incidents (whether
directly or indirectly, we cannot say)

from an Ebionite source, he has done
no more than Clement of Alexandria
did after him (see above, p. 80), than
Epiphanius, the scourge of heretics,
does repeatedly. The religious romance
seems to have been a favourite style of
composition with the Essene Ebionites :
and in the lack of authentic informa-
tion relating to the Apostles, Catholic
writers eagerly and unsuspiciously ga-
thered incidents from writings of which
they repudiated the doctrines. It is
worthy of notice that though the Essenes
are named among the sects in Hege-
sippus, they are not mentioned in the
Eecognitions ; and that, while the Re-
cognitions lay much stress on baptisms
and washings (a cardinal doctrine of
Essene Ebionism), this feature entirely
disappears in the account of James
given by Hegesippus.

128 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

Peter who echoes St Paul's sentiment that Jew and Gentile
alike can hope to be saved only 'by the grace of the Lord
Jesus ' ; James who speaks of Moses having them that preach
him and being read in the synagogue every sabbath day. I
cannot but regard this appropriateness of sentiment as a
subsidiary proof of the authenticity of these speeches recorded
by St Luke.

and in the And the same distinction extends also to their own writings.

Epistles. St Peter and St John, with a larger sphere of action and wider
obligations, necessarily took up a neutral position with regard
to the law, now carefully observing it at Jerusalem, now
relaxing their observance among the Gentile converts. To St
James on the other hand, mixing only with those to whom the
Mosaic ordinances were the rule of life, the word and the thing
have a higher importance. The neutrality of the former is
reflected in the silence which pervades their writings, where
' law ' is not once mentioned 1 . The respect of the latter appears
in his differential use of the term, which he employs almost as a
synonyme for ' Gospel 2 .'

The But while so using the term ' law,' he nowhere implies that

higher & ^ ne Mosaic ritual is identical with or even a necessary part of
Christianity. On the contrary he distinguishes the new dis-
pensation as the perfect law, the law of liberty (i. 25, ii. 12),
thus tacitly implying imperfection and bondage in the old. He
assumes indeed that his readers pay allegiance to the Mosaic
law (ii. 9, 10, iv. 11), and he accepts this condition without
commenting upon it. But the mere ritual has no value in his
eyes. When he refers to the Mosaic law, he refers to its moral,
not to its ceremonial ordinances (ii. 8 11). The external
service of the religionist who puts no moral restraint on
himself, who will not exert himself for others, is pronounced
deceitful and vain. The external service, the outward garb,

1 As regards St John this is true -f] a/j-aprla Iffrlv 7} avofnia. In St Peter

only of the Epistles and the Apoca- neither i/6/ios nor dvo/j.La occurs,

lypse: in the Gospel the law is neces- 2 The words 6^77^X10^,

sarily mentioned by way of narrative. adai, do not occur in St James.
In 1 Joh. iii. 4 it is said significantly

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 129

the very ritual, of Christianity is a life of purity and love and
self-devotion 1 . What its true essence, its inmost spirit, may be,
the writer does not say, but leaves this to be inferred.

Thus, though with St Paul the new dispensation is the St James
negation of law, with St James the perfection of law, the ideas p au i.
underlying these contradictory forms of expression need not be
essentially different. And this leads to the consideration of the
language held by both Apostles on the subject of faith and
works.

The real significance of St James's language, its true relation Faith and
to the doctrine of St Paul, is determined by the view taken of
the persons to whom the epistle is addressed. If it is intended
to counteract any modification or perversion of St Paul's teach-
ing, then there is, though not a plain contradiction, yet at all
events a considerable divergency in the mode of dealing with
the question by the two Apostles. I say the mode of dealing
with the question, for antinomian inferences from his teaching
are rebuked with even greater severity by St Paul himself than
they are by St James 2 . If on the other hand the epistle is
directed against an arrogant and barren orthodoxy, a Pharisaic
self-satisfaction, to which the Churches of the Circumcision
would be most exposed, then the case is considerably altered.
The language of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians
at once suggests the former as the true account. But further
consideration leads us to question our first rapid inference.
Justification and faith seem to have been common terms,
Abraham's faith a common example, in the Jewish schools 8 .
This fact, if allowed, counteracts the prima facie evidence on
the other side, and leaves us free to judge from the tenour of
the epistle itself. Now, since in this very passage St James
mentions as the object of their vaunted faith, not the funda-

1 James i. 26, 27. Coleridge directs New Testament and elsewhere, as the

attention to the meaning of BpipKeia, * cultus exterior,' see Trench Synon.

and the consequent bearing of the text, xlviii.

in a well-known passage in Aids to 2 e.g. Horn. vi. 15 23, 1 Cor. vi.

Reflection, Introd. Aphor. 23. For the 920, Gal. v. 13 sq.

signification of 6pr)(TKela both in the * See Galatians, p. 164.

L. 9

130 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

mental fact of the Gospel ' Thou believest that God raised
Christ from the dead 1 / but the fundamental axiom of the law
' Thou believest that God is one 2 ' ; since moreover he elsewhere
denounces the mere ritualist, telling him that his ritualism is
nothing worth ; since lastly the whole tone of the epistle recalls
our Lord's denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and seems
directed against a kindred spirit; it is reasonable to conclude
that St James is denouncing not the moral aberrations of the
professed disciple of St Paul (for with such he was not likely to
be brought into close contact), but the self-complacent orthodoxy
of the Pharisaic Christian, who, satisfied with the possession of
a pure monotheism and vaunting his descent from Abraham,
needed to be reminded not to neglect the still 'weightier
matters' of a self-denying love. If this view be correct, the
expressions of the two Apostles can hardly be compared, for
they are speaking, as it were, a different language. But in
either case we may acquiesce in the verdict of a recent able
writer, more free than most men both from traditional and from
reactionary prejudices, that in the teaching of the two Apostles
' there exists certainly a striking difference in the whole bent of
mind, but no opposition of doctrine 3 .'

Ebionite Thus the representation of St James in the canonical Scrip-
sentations tures differs from its Ebionite counterpart as the true portrait
James from the caricature. The James of the Clementines could not
explained, have acquiesced in the apostolic decree, nor could he have held
out the right hand of fellowship to St Paul. On the other hand,
the Ebionite picture was not drawn entirely from imagination.
A scrupulous observer of the law, perhaps a rigid ascetic, partly
from temper and habit, partly from the requirements of his
position, he might, without any very direct or conscious falsifi-
cation, appear to interested partisans of a later age to represent
their own tenets, from which he differed less in the external
forms of worship than in the vital principles of religion. More-

1 Eom. x. 9. who however considers that St James

2 ii. 19. Comp. Clem. Horn. Hi. 6 sq. is writing against perversions of St

3 Bleek (Eiril. in das N. T. p. 550), Paul's teaching.

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 131

over during his lifetime he was compromised by those with
whom his office associated him. In all revolutionary periods,
whether of political or religious history, the leaders of the
movement have found themselves unable to control the extra-
vagances of their bigoted and short-sighted followers : and this
great crisis of all was certainly not exempt from the common
rule. St Paul is constantly checking and rebuking the excesses
of those who professed to honour his name and to adopt his
teaching : if we cannot state this of St James with equal confi-
dence, it is because the sources of information are scantier.

Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St Paul's Epistles His rela
this much is certain ; that they exalted the authority of the th
Apostles of the Circumcision : and that in some instances at zers -
least, as members of the mother Church, they had direct rela-
tions with James the Lord's brother. But when we attempt to
define these relations, we are lost in a maze of conjecture.

The Hebrew Christians whose arrival at Antioch caused the Antioch
rupture between the Jewish and Gentile converts are related to
have ' come from James ' (Gal. ii. 12). Did they bear any
commission from him ? If so, did it relate to independent
matters, or to this very question of eating with the Gentiles ?
It seems most natural to interpret this notice by the parallel
case of the Pharisaic brethren, who had before troubled this
same Antiochene Church, ' going forth ' from the Apostles and
insisting on circumcision and the observance of the law, though
they ( gave them no orders ' (Acts xv. 24). But on the least
favourable supposition it amounts to this, that St James, though
he had sanctioned the emancipation of the Gentiles from the
law, was not prepared to welcome them as Israelites and admit
them as such to full communion : that in fact he had not yet
overcome scruples which even St Peter had only relinquished
after many years and by a special revelation ; in this, as in his
recognition of Jesus as the Christ, moving more slowly than the
Twelve.

Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic Galatia.
teachers who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts and,

132 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

as the best means of weakening the authority of St Paul,
asserted for the Apostles of the Circumcision the exclusive right
of dictating to the Church. How great an abuse was thus
made of the names of the Three, I trust the foregoing account
has shown : yet here again the observance of the law by the
Apostles of the Circumcision, especially by St James, would
furnish a plausible argument to men who were unscrupulous
enough to turn the occasional concessions of St Paul himself to
the same account. But we are led to ask, Did these false
teachers belong to the mother Church ? had they any relation
with James ? is it possible that they had ever been personal
disciples of the Lord Himself ? There are some faint indications
that such was the case ; and, remembering that there was a
Judas among the Twelve, we cannot set aside this supposition
as impossible.

Corinth. In Corinth again we meet with false teachers of a similar

stamp ; whose opinions are less marked indeed than those of
St Paul's Galatian antagonists, but whose connexion with the
mother Church is more clearly indicated. It is doubtless among
those who said ' I am of Peter, and I of Christ/ among the latter
especially, that we are to seek the counterpart of the Galatian
Judaizers 1 . To the latter class St Paul alludes again in the
Second Epistle : these must have been the men who ' trusted to
The two themselves that they were of Christ ' (x. 7), who invaded
parties" 38 an ther's sphere of labour and boasted of work which was ready
to hand (x. 13 16), who were 'false apostles, crafty workers,

1 Several writers representing dif- interpreted. (2) The remonstrance im-

ferent schools have agreed in denying mediately following (/j.e/j.{pi<rTai 6 Xpi-

the existence of a ' Christ party.' Pos- ore's) shows that the name of Christ,

sibly the word ' party ' may be too which ought to be common to all, had

strong to describe what was rather a been made the badge of a party. (3)

sentiment than an organization. But In 2 Cor. x. 7 the words rf TIS ir^iroiOev

if admissible at all, I cannot see how, ^aur< Xpto-roG elvai and the description

allowing that there were three parties, which follows gain force and definite-

the existence of the fourth can be ques- ness on this supposition. There is in

tioned. For (1) the four watchwords fact more evidence for the existence of

are co-ordinated, and there is no indi- a party of Christ than there is of a

cation that eyu 8 Xpurrov is to be party of Peter,
isolated from the others and differently

ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 133

transforming themselves into apostles of Christ' (xi. 13), who
'commended themselves' (x. 12, 18), who vaunted their pure
Israelite descent (xi. 21 23). It is noteworthy that this party
of extreme Judaizers call themselves by the name not of James,
but of Christ. This may perhaps be taken as a token that his
concessions to Gentile liberty had shaken their confidence in
his fidelity to the law. The leaders of this extreme party would
appear to have seen Christ in the flesh : hence their watchword
' I am of Christ ' ; hence also St Paul's counter-claim that ' he
was of Christ ' also, and his unwilling boast that he had himself
had visions and revelations of the Lord in abundance (xii. 1 sq).
On the other hand, of the party of Cephas no distinct features
are preserved ; but the passage itself implies that they differed
from the extreme Judaizers, and we may therefore conjecture
that they took up a middle position with regard to the law,
similar to that which was occupied later by the Nazarenes. In
claiming Cephas as the head of their party they had probably
neither more nor less ground than their rivals who sheltered
themselves under the names of Apollos and of Paul.

Is it to these extreme Judaizers that St Paul alludes when Letters of
he mentions ' certain persons ' as ' needing letters of recommen- daSo^ n
dation to the Corinthians and of recommendation from them '
(2 Cor. iii. 1) ? If so, by whom were these letters to Corinth
given ? By some half-Judaic, half-Christian brotherhood of the
.dispersion ? By the mother Church of Jerusalem ? By any of
the primitive disciples ? By James the Lord's brother himself ?
It is wisest to confess plainly that the facts are too scanty
to supply an answer. We may well be content to rest on the
broad and direct statements in the Acts and Epistles, which
declare the relations between St James and St Paul. A habit
of suspicious interpretation, which neglects plain facts and dwells
on doubtful allusions, is as unhealthy in theological criticism as
in social life, and not more conducive to truth.

Such incidental notices then, though they throw much light Inferences
on the practical difficulties and entanglements of his position, notices,
reveal nothing or next to nothing of the true principles of

134 ST PAUL AND THE THREE.

St James. Only so long as we picture to ourselves an ideal
standard of obedience, where the will of the ruler is the law
of the subject, will such notices cause us perplexity. But,
whether this be a healthy condition for any society or not,
it is very far from representing the state of Christendom in the
apostolic ages. If the Church had been a religious machine,
if the Apostles had possessed absolute control over its working,
if the manifold passions of men had been for once annihilated,
if there had been no place for misgiving, prejudice, treachery,
hatred, superstition, then the picture would have been very
different. But then also the history of the first ages of the
Gospel would have had no lessons for us. As it is, we may well
take courage from the study. However great may be the theo-
logical differences and religious animosities of our own time,
they are far surpassed in magnitude by the distractions of an
age which, closing our eyes to facts, we are apt to invest with
an ideal excellence. In the early Church was fulfilled, in its
inward dissensions no less than in its outward sufferings, the
Master's sad warning that He came 'not to send peace on
earth, but a sword/

III.

THE CHEISTIAN MINISTRY.

III.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

THE kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this world, is Healofthe
not limited by the restrictions which fetter other societies, church,
political or religious. It is in the fullest sense free, comprehen-
sive, universal. It displays this character, not only in the
acceptance of all comers who seek admission, irrespective of
race or caste or sex, but also in the instruction and treat-
ment of those who are already its members. It has no sacred
days or seasons, no special sanctuaries, because every time and
every place alike are holy. Above all it has no sacerdotal
system. It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between God
and man, by whose intervention alone God is reconciled and
man forgiven. Each individual member holds personal com-
munion with the Divine Head. To Him immediately he is
responsible, and from Him directly he obtains pardon and
draws strength.

It is most important that we should keep this ideal Necessary
definitely in view, and I have therefore stated it as broadly tion.
as possible. Yet the broad statement, if allowed to stand
alone, would suggest a false impression, or at least would
convey only a half truth. It must be evident that no society
of men could hold together without officers, without rules,
without institutions of any kind ; and the Church of Christ is
not exempt from this universal law. The conception in short
is strictly an ideal, which we must ever hold before our eyes,

138 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

The idea which should inspire and interpret ecclesiastical polity, but
realiza- which nevertheless cannot supersede the necessary wants of
human society, and, if crudely and hastily applied, will lead
only to signal failure. As appointed days and set places are
indispensable to her efficiency, so also the Church could not
fulfil the purposes for which she exists, without rulers and
teachers, without a ministry of reconciliation, in short, without
an order of men who may in some sense be designated a
priesthood. In this respect the ethics of Christianity present
an analogy to the politics. Here also the ideal conception and
the actual realization are incommensurate and in a manner
contradictory. The Gospel is contrasted with the Law, as the
spirit with the letter. Its ethical principle is not a code of
positive ordinances, but conformity to a perfect exemplar,
incorporation into a divine life. The distinction is most im-
portant and eminently fertile in practical results. Yet no man
would dare to live without laying down more or less definite
rules for his own guidance, without yielding obedience to law in
some sense ; and those who discard or attempt to discard all
such aids are often farthest from the attainment of Christian
perfection.

This qualification is introduced here to deprecate any

misunderstanding to which the opening statement, if left

without compensation, would fairly be exposed. It will be

time to enquire hereafter in what sense the Christian ministry

Special may or may not be called a priesthood. But in attempting to

istio^f 6r investigate the historical development of this divine institution,

Christian- no better starting-point suggested itself than the characteristic

distinction of Christianity, as declared occasionally by the

direct language but more frequently by the eloquent silence of

the apostolic writings.

For in this respect Christianity stands apart from all the
older religions of the world. So far at least, the Mosaic dis-
pensation did not differ from the religions of Egypt or Asia or
The Jew- Greece. Yet the sacerdotal system of the Old Testament
hood" possessed one important characteristic, which separated it from

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 139

heathen priesthoods and which deserves especial notice. The
priestly tribe held this peculiar relation to God only as the
representatives of the whole nation. As delegates of the people,
they offered sacrifice and made atonement. The whole com-
munity is regarded as ' a kingdom of priests/ ' a holy nation.'
When the sons of Levi are set apart, their consecration is
distinctly stated to be due under the divine guidance not to
any inherent sanctity or to any caste privilege, but to an act of
delegation on the part of the entire people. The Levites are,
so to speak, ordained by the whole congregation. ' The children
of Israel,' it is said, 'shall put their hands upon the Levites 1 .'
The nation thus deputes to a single tribe the priestly functions
which belong properly to itself as a whole.

The Christian idea therefore was the restitution of this Its rela-
immediate and direct relation with God, which was partly Christian

suspended but not abolished by the appointment of a sacerdotal
tribe. The Levitical priesthood, like the Mosaic law, had
served its temporary purpose. The period of childhood had
passed, and the Church of God was now arrived at mature age.
The covenant people resumed their sacerdotal functions. But
the privileges of the covenant were no longer confined to the
limits of a single nation. Every member of the human family
was potentially a member of the Church, and, as such, a priest
of God.

The influence of this idea on the moral and spiritual growth Influence
of the individual believer is too plain to require any comment ; Christian
but its social effects may call for a passing remark. It will ldeal -
hardly be denied, I think, by those who have studied the
history of modern civilization with attention, that this concep-
tion of the Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in
the emancipation of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal
of artificial barriers between class and class, and in the diffusion
of a general philanthropy untrammelled by the fetters of party
or race ; in short, that to it mainly must be attributed the
most important advantages which constitute the superiority of

1 Num. viii. 10.

140 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

modern societies over ancient. Consciously or unconsciously,
the idea of an universal priesthood, of the religious equality of
all men, which, though not untaught before, was first embodied
in the Church of Christ, has worked and is working untold
blessings in political institutions and in social life. But the
careful student will also observe that this idea has hitherto
been very imperfectly apprehended ; that throughout the his-
tory of the Church it has been struggling for recognition, at
most times discerned in some of its aspects but at all times
wholly ignored in others ; and that therefore the actual results
are a very inadequate measure of its efficacy, if only it could
assume due prominence and were allowed free scope in action.

This then is the Christian ideal ; a holy season extending
the whole year round a temple confined only by the limits of
the habitable world a priesthood coextensive with the human
race.

Practical Strict loyalty to this conception was not held incompatible

tion. vfiih practical measures of organization. As the Church grew

in numbers, as new and heterogeneous elements were added, as

the early fervour of devotion cooled and strange forms of

disorder sprang up, it became necessary to provide for the

emergency by fixed rules and definite officers. The community

of goods, by which the infant Church had attempted to give

effect to the idea of an universal brotherhood, must very soon

have been abandoned under the pressure of circumstances. The

Fixed days celebration of the first day in the week at once, the institution

and places

of worship; of annual festivals afterwards, were seen to be necessary to
stimulate and direct the devotion of the believers. The appoint-
ment of definite places of meeting in the earliest days, the
erection of special buildings for worship at a later date, were
found indispensable to the working of the Church. But the

but the Apostles never lost sight of the idea in their teaching. They
proclaimed loudly that c God dwelleth not in temples made by
hands.' They indignantly denounced those who, 'observed days
and months and seasons and years.' This language is not
satisfied by supposing that they condemned only the temple-

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 141

worship in the one case, that they reprobated only Jewish
sabbaths and new moons in the other. It was against the false
principle that they waged war ; the principle which exalted the
means into an end, and gave an absolute intrinsic value to
subordinate aids and expedients. These aids and expedients,
for his own sake and for the good of the society to which he
belonged, a Christian could not afford to hold lightly or neglect.
But they were no part of the essence of God's message to man
in the Gospel : they must not be allowed to obscure the idea of
Christian worship.

So it was also with the Christian priesthood. For communi- Appoint-
cating instruction and for preserving public order, for conducting ministry.
religious worship and for dispensing social charities, it became
necessary to appoint special officers. But the priestly functions
and privileges of the Christian people are never regarded as
transferred or even delegated to these officers. They are called
stewards or messengers of God, servants or ministers of the
Church, and the like : but the sacerdotal title is never once
conferred upon them. The only priests under the Gospel,
designated as such in the New Testament, are the saints, the
members of the Christian brotherhood 1 .

As individuals, all Christians are priests alike. As members TWO pas-

of a corporation, they have their several and distinct offices,

The similitude of the human body, where each limb or organ J? tin ?
performs its own functions, and the health and growth of the
whole frame are promoted by the harmonious but separate
working of every part, was chosen by St Paul to represent the
progress and operation of the Church. In two passages,
written at two different stages in his apostolic career, he briefly
sums up the offices in the Church with reference to this image.

1 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9, Apoc. i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6. et sacerdotale etc.' (Ambrosiast. on

The commentator Hilary has express- Ephes. iv. 12). The whole passage,

ed this truth with much distinctness : to which I shall have occasion to refer

'In lege nascebantur sacerdotes ex ge- again, contains a singularly apprecia-

nere Aaron Levitae : nunc autem omnes tive account of the relation of the mi-

ex genere sunt sacerdotali, dicente nistry to the congregation.
Petro Apostolo, Quia estis genus regale

142 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

In the earlier 1 he enumerates ' first apostles, secondly prophets,
thirdly teachers, then powers, then gifts of healing, helps,
governments, kinds of tongues.' In the second passage 2 the
list is briefer ; c some apostles, and some prophets, and some
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.' The earlier
enumeration differs chiefly from the later in specifying dis-
tinctly certain miraculous powers, this being required by the
Apostle's argument which is directed against an exaggerated
estimate and abuse of such gifts. Neither list can have been
They refer intended to be exhaustive. In both alike the work of convert-
the tempo- i n g unbelievers and founding congregations holds the foremost
1st? m " pl ace > while the permanent government and instruction of the
several churches is kept in the background. This prominence
was necessary in the earliest age of the Gospel. The apostles,
prophets, evangelists, all range under the former head; But
the permanent ministry, though lightly touched upon, is not
forgotten ; for under the designation of ' teachers, helps, govern-
ments' in the one passage, of 'pastors and teachers' in the
other, these officers must be intended. Again in both passages
alike it will be seen that great stress is laid on the work of the
Spirit. The faculty of governing not less than the utterance of
prophecy, the gift of healing not less than the gift of tongues,
is an inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But on the other hand in
both alike there is an entire silence about priestly functions :
for the most exalted office in the Church, the highest gift of the
Spirit, conveyed no sacerdotal right which was not enjoyed by
the humblest member of the Christian community.

Growing From the subordinate place, which it thus occupies in the

anceof the notices of St Paul, the permanent ministry gradually emerged,
permanent ag fa Q Church assumed a more settled form, and the higher but

ministry.

temporary offices, such as the apostolate, fell away. This
progressive growth and development of the ministry, until it
arrived at its mature and normal state, it will be the object of
the following pages to trace.

Definition But before proceeding further, some definition of terms is

of terms

necessary. 1 1 Cor. xii. 28. 2 Ephes. iv. 11.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 143

necessary. On no subject has more serious error arisen from
the confusion of language. The word ' priest ' has two different
senses. In the one it is a synonyme for presbyter or elder, and
designates the minister who presides over and instructs a
Christian congregation : in the other it is equivalent to the
Latin sacerdos, the Greek lepevs, or the Hebrew }J"O, the
offerer of sacrifices, who also performs other mediatorial offices
between God and man. How the confusion between these two
meanings has affected the history and theology of the Church,
it will be instructive to consider in the sequel. At present it 'Priest'
is sufficient to say that the word will be used throughout this byter.'
essay, as it has been used hitherto, in the latter sense only, so
that priestly will be equivalent to 'sacerdotal' or 'hieratic/
Etymologically indeed the other meaning is alone correct (for
the words priest and presbyter are the same) ; but convenience
will justify its restriction to this secondary and imported sense,
since the English language supplies no other rendering of
sacerdos or lepevs. On the other hand, when the Christian
elder is meant, the longer form ' presbyter ' will be employed
throughout.

History seems to show decisively that before the middle of Different
the second century each church or organized Christian commu- t ^ e or igi n
nity had its three orders of ministers, its bishop, its presbyters, * th< j ,
and its deacons. On this point there cannot reasonably be two ministry,
opinions. But at what time and under what circumstances
this organization was matured, and to what extent our allegiance
is due to it as an authoritative ordinance, are more difficult
questions. Some have recognized in episcopacy an institution
of divine origin, absolute and indispensable ; others have
represented it as destitute of all apostolic sanction and
authority. Some again have sought for the archetype of the
threefold ministry in the Aaronic priesthood ; others in the
arrangements of synagogue worship. In this clamour of
antagonistic opinions history is obviously the sole upright,
impartial referee ; and the historical mode of treatment will

144 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

therefore be strictly adhered to in the following investigation.
The doctrine in this instance at all events is involved in the
history 1 .

Ministry St Luke's narrative represents the Twelve Apostles in the
to relieve earliest days as the sole directors and administrators of the
sties' Church. For the financial business of the infant community,
not less than for its spiritual guidance, they alone are
responsible. This state of things could not last long. By
the rapid accession of numbers, and still more by the admission
of heterogeneous classes into the Church, the work became too
vast and too various for them to discharge unaided. To relieve
them from the increasing pressure, the inferior and less impor-
tant functions passed successively into other hands : and thus
each grade of the ministry, beginning from the lowest, was
created in order.

1. DBA- 1. The establishment of the diaconate came first. Corn-

Appoint- plaints had reached the ears of the Apostles from an outlying
P or ^ on ^ ^ e community. The Hellenist widows had been
overlooked in the daily distribution of food and alms. To
remedy this neglect a new office was created. Seven men were
appointed whose duty it was to superintend the public messes 2 ,
and, as we may suppose, to provide in other ways for the bodily
wants of the helpless poor. Thus relieved, the Twelve were
enabled to devote themselves without interruption 'to prayer
and to the ministry of the word.' The Apostles suggested the
creation of this new office, but the persons were chosen by
popular election and afterwards ordained by the Twelve with
imposition of hands. Though the complaint came from the
Hellenists, it must not be supposed that the ministrations of
the Seven were confined to this class 3 . The object in creating

1 The origin of the Christian minis- which I am acquainted, and to both of

try is ably investigated in Bothe's them I wish to acknowledge my obliga-

Anfdnge der Christlichen Kirche etc. tions, though in many respects I have

(1837), and Bitschl's Entstehung der arrived at results different from either.

Altkatkolischen Kirche (2nd ed. 1857). 2 Acts vi. 2 5ta/coj/eu> roaW^ats.

These are the most important of the 9 So for instance Vitringa de Synag.

more recent works on the subject with in. 2. 5, p. 928 sq, and Mosheim de

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 145

this new office is stated to be not the partial but the entire
relief of the Apostles from the serving of tables. This being
the case, the appointment of Hellenists (for such they would
appear to have been from their names 1 ) is a token of the
liberal and loving spirit which prompted the Hebrew members
of the Church in the selection of persons to fill the office.

I have assumed that the office thus established represents The Seven
the later diaconate ; for though this point has been much C ons.
disputed, I do not see how the identity of the two can
reasonably be called in question 2 . If the word 'deacon'
does not occur in the passage, yet the corresponding verb
and substantive, Sia/covelv and Siarcovla, are repeated more
than once. The functions moreover are substantially those
which devolved on the deacons of the earliest ages, and
which still in theory, though not altogether in practice,
form the primary duties of the office. Again, it seems
clear from the emphasis with which St Luke dwells on
the new institution, that he looks on the establishment
of this office, not as an isolated incident, but as the initiation
of a new order of things in the Church. It is in short one of
those representative facts,- of which the earlier part of his
narrative is almost wholly made up. Lastly, the tradition of
the identity of the two offices has been unanimous from the
earliest times. Irenseus, the first writer who alludes to the
appointment of the Seven, distinctly holds them to have been
deacons 8 . The Roman Church some centuries later, though

Reb. Christ, p. 119, followed by many (comp. p. 146, note 2) as favouring his

later writers. view. With strange perversity Bohmer

1 This inference however is far from (Diss. Jur. Eccl. p. 349 sq.) supposes
certain, since many Hebrews bore them to be presbyters, and this account
Greek names, e.g. the Apostles An- has been adopted even by Eitschl, p.
drew and Philip. 355 sq . According to another view the

2 It is maintained by Vitringa in. 2. office of the Seven branched out into
5, p, 920 sq., that the office of the the two later orders of the diaconate
Seven was different from the later and the presbyterate, Lange Apost.
diaconate. He quotes Chrysost. Horn. Zeit. n. i. p. 75.

14 in Act. (ix. p. 115, ed. Montf.) and * Iren. i. 26. 3, iii. 12. 10, iv. 15. 1.
Can. 10 of the Quinisextine Council

L - 10

146 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the presbytery had largely increased meanwhile, still restricted
the number of deacons to seven, thus preserving the memory of
the first institution of this office 1 . And in like manner a canon
of the Council of Neocsesarea (A.D. 315) enacted that there
should be no more than seven deacons in any city however
great 2 , alleging the apostolic model. This rule, it is true, was
only partially observed ; but the tradition was at all events so
far respected, that the creation of an order of subdeacons was
found necessary in order to remedy the inconvenience arising
from the limitation 3 .

The office The narrative in the Acts, if I mistake not, implies that the
institution ffi ce thus created was entirely new. Some writers however
have explained the incident as an extension to the Hellenists
of an institution which already existed among the Hebrew
Christians and is implied in the 'younger men' mentioned in
an earlier part of St Luke's history 4 . This view seems not
only to be groundless in itself, but also to contradict the
general tenour of the narrative. It would appear moreover,
that the institution was not merely new within the Christian
Church, but novel absolutely. There is no reason for connecting
it with any prototype existing in the Jewish community. The
narrative offers no hint that it was either a continuation of
the order of Levites or an adaptation of an office in the syna-
gogue. The philanthropic purpose for which it was established
presents no direct point of contact with the known duties of
no t either. The Levite, whose function it was to keep the beasts

fromth<f * r s l au g nter > to cleanse away the blood arid offal of the
Levitical

1 In the middle of the third century, dpt6/j.6s.

when Cornelius writes to Fabius, Eome 2 Concil. Neocaes. c. 14 (Routh Eel.

has 46 presbyters but only 7 deacons, Sacr. iv. p. 185) : see Bingham's Antiq.

Euseb. H. E. vi. 43; see Routh's Eel. n. 20. 19. At the Quinisextine or 2nd

Sacr. in. p. 23, with his note p. 61. Trullan council (A.D. 692) this Neoca-

Even in the fourth and fifth centuries sarean canon was refuted and rejected:

the number of Roman deacons still see Hefele Consiliengesch. in. p. 304,

remained constant : see Ambrosiast. on and Vitringa p. 922.

I Tim. iii. 13, Sozom. vii. 19 didKovoi t 3 See Bingham HI. 1. 3.

Trapa 'Pwyuatots etWn vvi> elaiv eTrrd... 4 Acts v. 6, 10. This is the view of

irapa. 5e TCKS aXXots ddtd^opos 6 TOIJTUI> Mosheim de Reb. Christ, p. 114.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 147

sacrifices, to serve as porter at the temple gates, and to swell

the chorus of sacred psalmody, bears no strong resemblance

to the Christian deacon, whose ministrations lay among the

widows and orphans, and whose time was almost wholly spent

in works of charity. And again, the Chazan or attendant in nor from

the synagogue, whose duties were confined to the care of the g0 gue.

building and the preparation for service, has more in common

with the modern parish clerk than with the deacon in the

infant Church of Christ 1 . It is therefore a baseless, though

a very common, assumption that the Christian diaconate was

copied from the arrangements of the synagogue. The Hebrew

Chazan is not rendered by ' deacon ' in the Greek Testament ;

but a different word is used instead 2 . We may fairly presume

that St Luke dwells at such length on the establishment of

the diaconate, because he regards it as a novel creation.

Thus the work primarily assigned to the deacons was the Teaching
relief of the poor. Their office was essentially a 'serving of J^n^Ho
tables,' as distinguished from the higher function of preaching tlae omce>
and instruction. But partly from the circumstances of their
position, partly from the personal character of those first
appointed, the deacons at once assumed a prominence which is
not indicated in the original creation of the office. Moving
about freely among the poorer brethren and charged with the
relief of their material wants, they would find opportunities
of influence which were denied to the higher officers of the
Church who necessarily kept themselves more aloof. The
devout zeal of a Stephen or a Philip would turn these oppor-
tunities to the best account ; and thus, without ceasing to be
dispensers of alms, they became also ministers of the Word.
The Apostles themselves had directed that the persons chosen
should be not only ' men of honest report,' but also ' full of the
Holy Ghost and wisdom' : and this careful foresight, to which

1 Vitringa (in. 2. 4, p. 914 sq., in. view, the fact that as a rule there was

2. 22, p. 1130 sq.) derives the Christian only one Chazan to each synagogue

deacon from the Chazan of the syna- must not be overlooked,

gogue. Among other objections to this 2 inrqp&ms, Luke iv. 20.

102

148 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the extended influence of the diaconate may be ascribed, proved
also the security against its abuse. But still the work of
teaching must be traced rather to the capacity of the individual
officer than to the direct functions of the office. St Paul,
writing thirty years later, and stating the requirements of the
diaconate, lays the stress mainly on those qualifications which
would be most important in persons moving about from house
to house and entrusted with the distribution of alms. While
he requires that they shall ' hold the mystery of the faith in a
pure conscience,' in other words, that they shall be sincere
believers, he is not anxious, as in the case of the presbyters, to
secure 'aptness to teach,' but demands especially that they
shall be free from certain vicious habits, such as a love of
gossiping, and a greed of paltry gain, into which they might

easily fall from the nature of their duties 1 .

Spread of From the mother Church of Jerusalem the institution
nate to spread to Gentile Christian brotherhoods. By the ' helps 2 ' in
churches the First E P istle to tne Corinthians (A.D. 57), and by the
'ministration 3 ' in the Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58), the
diaconate solely or chiefly seems to be intended ; but besides
these incidental allusions, the latter epistle bears more sig-
nificant testimony to the general extension of the office.
The strict seclusion of the female sex in Greece and in some
Oriental countries necessarily debarred them from the ministra-
tions of men : and to meet the want thus felt, it was found
necessary at an early date to admit women to the diaconate.
A woman-deacon belonging to the Church of Cenchreae is
mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans 4 . As time advances,
the diaconate becomes still more prominent. In the Philippian
Church a few years later (about A.D. 62) the deacons take their
rank after the presbyters, the two orders together constituting
the recognised ministry of the Christian society there 5 . Again,
passing over another interval of some years, we find St Paul in

1 1 Tim. iii. 8 sq. 4 Rom. xvi. 1.

2 1 Cor. xii. 28. 5 Phil. i. 1.

3 Horn. xii. 7.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 149

the First Epistle to Timothy (about A.D. 66) giving express
directions as to the qualifications of men-deacons and women-
deacons alike 1 . From the tenour of his language it seems clear
that in the Christian communities of proconsular Asia at all
events the institution was so common that ministerial organiza-
tion would be considered incomplete without it. On the other
hand we may perhaps infer from the instructions which he
sends about the same time to Titus in Crete, that he did not
consider it indispensable ; for while he mentions having given
direct orders to his delegate to appoint presbyters in every city,
he is silent about a diaconate 2 .

2. While the diaconate was thus an entirely new creation, 2. PBES-
called forth by a special emergency and developed by the B1
progress of events, the early history of the presbyterate was
different. If the sacred historian dwells at length on the
institution of the lower office but is silent about the first
beginnings of the higher, the explanation seems to be, that
the latter had not the claim of novelty like the former. The not a new
Christian Church in its earliest stage was regarded by the body
of the Jewish people as nothing more than a new sect springing
up by the side of the old. This was not unnatural : for the
first disciples conformed to the religion of their fathers in all
essential points, practising circumcision, observing the sabbaths,
and attending the temple-worship. The sects in the Jewish
commonwealth were not, properly speaking, nonconformists.
They only superadded their own special organization to the
established religion of their country, which for the most part
they were careful to observe. The institution of synagogues but adopt-
was flexible enough to allow free scope for wide divergences of syn a-
creed and practice. Different races as the Cyrenians and gogue *
Alexandrians, different classes of society as the freedmen 3 ,
perhaps also different sects as the Sadducees or the Essenes,
each had or could have their own special synagogue 4 , where

1 1 Tim. iii. 8 sq. 4 It is stated, that there were no less

2 Tit. i. 5 sq. than 480 synagogues in Jerusalem.

3 Acts vi. 9. The number is doubtless greatly ex-

150 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

they might indulge their peculiarities without hindrance. As
soon as the expansion of the Church rendered some organiza-
tion necessary, it would form a 'synagogue' of its own. The
Christian congregations in Palestine long continued to be
designated by this name 1 , though the term ' ecclesia' took its
place from the very first in heathen countries. With the
synagogue itself they would naturally, if not necessarily, adopt
the normal government of a synagogue, and a body of elders
or presbyters would be chosen to direct the religious worship
and partly also to watch over the temporal well-being of the
society.

Hence the silence of St Luke. When he first mentions
the presbyters, he introduces them without preface, as though
Occasion the institution were a matter of course. But the moment of
adoption, their introduction is significant. I have pointed out elsewhere 2
that the two persecutions, of which St Stephen and St James
were respectively the chief victims, mark two important stages
in the diffusion of the Gospel. Their connexion with the
internal organization of the Church is not less remarkable.
The first results directly from the establishment of the lowest
order in the ministry, the diaconate. To the second may
probably be ascribed the adoption of the next higher grade, the
presbytery. This later persecution was the signal for the
dispersion of the Twelve on a wider mission. Since Jerusalem
would no longer be their home as hitherto, it became necessary
to provide for the permanent direction of the Church there;
and for this purpose the usual government of the synagogue
would be adopted. Now at all events for the first time we
read of ' presbyters' in connexion with the Christian brother-
hood at Jerusalem 3 .

aggerated, but must have been very Epist. cxii. 13 (i. p. 746, ed. Vail.)

considerable : see Vitringa prol. 4, 'per totas orientis synagogas,' speaking

p. 28, and i. 1. 14, p. 253. of the Nazarseans ; though his meaning

1 James ii. 2. Epiphanius (xxx. 18, is not altogether clear. Cornp. Test.

p. 142) says of the Ebionites o-vvayw- xii Pair. Benj. 11.

yijv o5roi KaAoucrt rty eavT&v eKK\r)(riav, 2 See above, pp. 53, 58.

Kal oi>xl KK\r)<?iav. See also Hieron. a Acts xi. 30. On the sequence of

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 151

From this time forward all official communications with the Presbytery
mother Church are carried on through their intervention. To i em .
the presbyters Barnabas and Saul bear the alms contributed by
the Gentile Churches 1 . The presbyters are persistently asso-
ciated with the Apostles, in convening the congress, in the
superscription of the decree, and in the general settlement of
the dispute between the Jewish and Gentile Christians 2 . By
the presbyters St Paul is received many years later on his last
visit to Jerusalem, and to them he gives an account of his
missionary labours and triumphs 3 .

But the office was not confined to the mother Church alone. Extension
Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal cities of office to
the dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would early occupy Churches
a not less wide area. On their very first missionary journey
the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are described as appointing
presbyters in every church 4 . The same rule was doubtless
carried out in all the brotherhoods founded later; but it is
mentioned here and here only, because the mode of procedure
on this occasion would suffice as a type of the Apostles' dealings
elsewhere under similar circumstances.

The name of the presbyter then presents no difficulty. But Presbyters
what must be said of the term 'bishop'? It has been shown bishops,
that in the apostolic writings the two are only different desig-
nations of one and the same office 5 . How and where was this
second name originated ?

To the officers of Gentile Churches alone is the term applied, but only in
as a synonyme for presbyter. At Philippi 6 , in Asia Minor 7 , in churches.
Crete 8 , the presbyter is so called. In the next generation the
title is employed in a letter written by the Greek Church of
Rome to the Greek Church of Corinth 9 . Thus the word would
seem to be especially Hellenic. Beyond this we are left to Possible

origin of

events at this time see Galatians p. 5 See Philippians p. 96 sq. the term -

124. e Phil. i. i.

1 Acts xi. 30. 7 Acts xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2; corap.

2 Acts xv. 2; 4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 4. 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 2.

3 Acts xxi. 18. s Tit. i. 7.

4 Acts xiv. 23. 9 Clem. Kom. 42, 44.

152 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

conjecture. But if we may assume that the directors of
religious and social clubs among the heathen were commonly
so called 1 , it would naturally occur, if not to the Gentile
Christians themselves, at all events to their heathen associates,
as a fit designation for the presiding members of the new
society. The infant Church of Christ, which appeared to the
Jew as a synagogue, would be regarded by the heathen as a
confraternity 2 . But whatever may have been the origin of
the term, it did not altogether dispossess the earlier name
'presbyter,' which still held its place as a synonyme even in
Gentile congregations 3 . And, when at length the term bishop
was appropriated to a higher office in the Church, the latter
became again, as it had been at first, the sole designation of
the Christian elder 4 .

Twofold The duties of the presbyters were twofold. They were both

o? the rulers and instructors of the congregation. This double function
presbyter, appears in St Paul's expression ' pastors and teachers 5 ,' where,
as the form of the original seems to show, the two words
describe the same office under different aspects. Though
government was probably the first conception of the office, yet
the work of teaching must have fallen to the presbyters from
the very first and have assumed greater prominence as time
went on. With the growth of the Church, the visits of the
apostles and evangelists to any individual community must
The func- have become less and less frequent, so that the burden of in-
teaching, struction would be gradually transferred from these missionary

1 The evidence however is slight : 4 Other more general designations in
see Philippians p. 95, note 2. Some the New Testament are ol 7rpoi<rTd/j,evoi
light is thrown on this subject by the (1 Thess. v. 12, Kom. xii. 8: comp.
fact that the Roman government seems 1 Tim. v. 17), or ol yyotifAevoi (Hebr.
first to have recognised the Christian xiii. 7, 17, 24). For the former comp.
brotherhoods in their corporate capa- Hermas Vis. ii. 4, Justin. Apol. i. 67
city, as burial clubs : see de Rossi Rom. (6 7rpoe<m6s) ; for the latter, Clem. Rom.
Sotterr. i. p. 371. 1, 21, Hermas Vis. ii. 2, iii. 9 (ol irpoy-

2 On these clubs or confraternities yoti^evot).

see Renan Les Apotres p. 351 sq.; 5 Ephes. iv. 11 rote 5e Troi^&as Kal

comp. Saint Paul p. 239. 5t5a<r/cd\ous. For Troifj-alveiv applied to

3 Acts xx. 17, 1 Tim. v. 17, Tit. i. 5, the 7rr/co7ros or irpeo-fBiJTepos see Acts
1 Pet. v. 1, Clem. Rom. 21, 44. xx. 28, 1 Pet. v. 2; cornp. 1 Pet. ii. 25.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 153

preachers to the local officers of the congregation. Hence
St Paul in two passages, where he gives directions relating
to bishops or presbyters, insists specially on the faculty of
teaching as a qualification for the position 1 . Yet even here
this work seems to be regarded rather as incidental to than as
inherent in the office. In the one epistle he directs that
double honour shall be paid to those presbyters who have ruled
well, but especially to such as 'labour in word and doctrine 2 /
as though one holding this office might decline the work of
instruction. In the other, he closes the list of qualifications
with the requirement that the bishop (or presbyter) hold fast
the faithful word in accordance with the apostolic teaching,
' that he may be able both to exhort in the healthy doctrine and
to confute gainsayers,' alleging as a reason the pernicious
activity and growing numbers of the false teachers. Neverthe-
less there is no ground for supposing that the work of teaching
and the work of governing pertained to separate members of
the presbyteral college 3 . As each had his special gift, so would
he devote himself more or less exclusively to the one or the
other of these sacred functions.

3. It is clear then that at the close of the apostolic age, the 3. BISHOPS.
two lower orders of the threefold ministry were firmly and
widely established ; but traces of the third and highest order,
the episcopate properly so called, are few and indistinct.

For the opinion hazarded by Theodoret and adopted by The office
many later writers 4 , that the same officers in the Church who tinuation"

1 1 Tim. iii. 2, Tit. i. 9. elders, was laid down by Calvin and

2 1 Tim. v. 17 fjiaXio-Ta ol KOTTIUVTCS has been adopted as the constitution of
ev \6-yy Kai didacKaXlg.. At a much several presbyterian Churches. This
later date we read of 'presbyteri doc- interpretation of St Paul's language is
tores,' whence it may perhaps be in- refuted by Eothe p. 224, Eitschl p. 352
ferred that even then the work of sq., and Schaff Hist, of Apost. Ch. n.
teaching was not absolutely indispens- p. 312, besides older writers such as
able to the presbyteral office; Act. Vitringa and Mosheim.

Perp. et Fel. 13, Cyprian. Epist. 29 : 4 On 1 Tim. iii. 1, rots dt vvv KO\OV~

see Eitschl p. 352. n^vovs iirurKbirovs airoo-rdXovs <l>v6[j.aov

3 The distinction of lay or ruling TOV de xp^ov irpol'6vTos rb ptv rijs airo-
elders, and ministers proper or teaching crroX^j oVo/ua rots

154 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

of the apo- were first called apostles came afterwards to be designated
bishops, is baseless. If the two offices had been identical, the
substitution of the one name for the other would have required
some explanation. But in fact the functions of the Apostle and
the bishop differed widely. The Apostle, like the prophet or the
evangelist, held no local office. He was essentially, as his name
denotes, a missionary, moving about from place to place, founding
and confirming new brotherhoods. The only ground on which
Theodoret builds his theory is a false interpretation of a
passage in St Paul. At the opening of the Epistle to Philippi
the presbyters (here called bishops) and deacons are saluted,
while in the body of the letter one Epaphroditus is mentioned

Phil. ii. 25 as an 'apostle' of the Philippians. If 'apostle' here had the
. meaning which is thus assigned to it, all the three orders of the
ministry would be found at Philippi. But this interpretation
will not stand. The true Apostle, like St Peter or St John,
bears this title as the messenger, the delegate, of Christ
Himself : while Epaphroditus is only so styled as the messenger
of the Philippian brotherhood ; and in the very next clause the
expression is explained by the statement that he carried their
alms to St Paul 1 . The use of the word here has a parallel in
another passage 2 , where messengers (or apostles) of the churches
are mentioned. It is not therefore to the apostle that we must
look for the prototype of the bishop. How far indeed and in
what sense the bishop may be called a successor of the
Apostles, will be a proper subject for consideration : but the
succession at least does not consist in an identity of office.

, rb d TTJS e-mffKoirijs rots ird\ai nuncupationem ; diviserunt ergo ipsa

d7ro<rr6Xois tirtdeffav. See nomina etc.' (Eaban. Maur. vi. p.

also his note on Phil. i. 1. Comp. 604 D, ed. Migne). Theodore however

Wordsworth Theoph. Angl. c. x, Blunt makes a distinction between the two

First Three Centuries p. 81. Theodoret, offices: nor does he, like Theodoret,

as usual, has borrowed from Theodore misinterpret Phil. ii. 25. The com-

of Mopsuestia on 1 Tim. iii. 1, 'Qui mentator Hilary also, on Ephes. iv.

vero nunc episcopi nominantur, illi 11, says 'apostoli episcopi sunt.'

tune apostoli dicebantur...Beatis vero 1 Phil. ii. 25, see Philippians p. 123.

apostolis decedentibus, illi qui post 2 2 Cor. viii. 23, see Galatians p. 95,

illos ordinati sunt... grave existima- note 3.
verunt apostolorum sibi vindicare

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 155

The history of the name itself suggests a different account The epis-
of the origin of the episcopate. If bishop was at first used as a veloped
synonyme for presbyter and afterwards came to designate the
higher officer under whom the presbyters served, the episcopate ter .>'-
properly so called would seem to have been developed from the
subordinate office. In other words, the episcopate was formed
not out of the apostolic order by localisation but out of the
presbyteral by elevation: and the title, which originally was
common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the
chief among them 1 .

If this account be true, we might expect to find in the St James
mother Church of Jerusalem, which as the earliest founded earliest
would soonest ripen into maturity, the first traces of this blsh P'
developed form of the ministry. Nor is this expectation
disappointed. James the Lord's brother alone, within the
period compassed by the apostolic writings, can claim to be
regarded as a bishop in the later and more special sense of the
term. In the language of St Paul he takes precedence even of
the earliest and greatest preachers of the Gospel, St Peter and
St John 2 , where the affairs of the Jewish Church specially are
concerned. In St Luke's narrative he appears as the local
representative of the brotherhood in Jerusalem, presiding at
the congress, whose decision he suggests and whose decree he
appears to have framed 3 , receiving the missionary preachers as
they revisit the mother Church 4 , acting generally as the referee
in communications with foreign brotherhoods. The place
assigned to him in the spurious Clementines, where he is

1 A parallel instance from Athenian 2 Gal. ii. 9 ; see the note,
institutions will illustrate this usage. * Acts xv. 13 sq. St James speaks
The eirHTTdrw was chairman of a body last and apparently with some degree
of ten trp6edpoi, who themselves were of authority (<fyd> Kpivu ver. 19). The
appointed in turn by lot to serve from decree is clearly framed on his recom-
a larger body of fifty irpvTdveLs. Yet we mendations, and some indecisive coin-
find the ^TriffTdTtjs not only designated cidences of style with his epistle have
TTpuravis par excellence (Demosth. Ti- been pointed out.
mocr. 157), but even addressed by 4 Acts xxi. 18; comp. xii. 17. See
this name in the presence of the other also Gal. i. 19, ii. 12.
(Thuc. vi. 14).

156 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

represented as supreme arbiter over the Church universal in
matters of doctrine, must be treated as a gross exaggeration.
This kind of authority is nowhere conferred upon him in the
apostolic writings : but his social and ecclesiastical position, as
it appears in St Luke and St Paul, explains how the exaggera-
tion was possible. And this position is the more remarkable if,
as seems to have been the case, he was not one of the Twelve 1 .
but yet On the other hand, though especially prominent, he appears

lated from m the Acts as a member of a body. When St Peter, after his

ter escape from prison, is about to leave Jerusalem, he desires that

his deliverance shall be reported to ' James and the brethren 2 .'
When again St Paul on his last visit to the Holy City goes to
see James, we are told that all the presbyters were present 3 .
If in some passages St James is named by himself, in others he
is omitted and the presbyters alone are mentioned 4 . From this
it may be inferred that though holding a position superior to
the rest, he was still considered as a member of the presbytery ;
that he was in fact the head or president of the college. What
power this presidency conferred, how far it was recognised as an
independent official position, and to what degree it was due to
the ascendancy of his personal gifts, are questions, which
in the absence of direct information can only be answered
by conjecture. But his close relationship with the Lord, his
rare energy of character, and his rigid sanctity of life which
won the respect even of the unconverted Jews 5 , would react
upon his office, and may perhaps have elevated it to a level
which was not definitely contemplated in its origin.
No bishops But while the episcopal office thus existed in the mother
theGentile Church of Jerusalem from very early days, at least in a rudi-
Churches. men t ai y form, the New Testament presents no distinct traces
of such organization in the Gentile congregations. The govern-
Two stages ment of the Gentile churches, as there represented, exhibits two
ment : successive stages of development tending in this direction ; but

1 See above, p. 1 sq. 4 Acts xi. 30; comp. xv. 4, 23, xvi. 4.

2 Acts xii. 17. 5 See above, p. 12 sq.

3 Acts xxi. 18.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 15

the third stage, in which episcopacy definitely appears, still lies
beyond the horizon.

(1) We have first of all the Apostles themselves exercising (1) Occa-
the superintendence of the churches under their care, sometimes pervision
in person and on the spot, sometimes at a distance by letter or Apostles
by message. The imaginary picture drawn by St Paul, when them -
he directs the punishment of the Corinthian offender, vividly
represents his position in this respect. The members of the
church are gathered together, the elders, we may suppose,
being seated apart on a dais or tribune ; he himself, as presi-

dent, directs their deliberations, collects their votes, pronounces
sentence on the guilty man 1 . How the absence of the apostolic
president was actually supplied in this instance, we do not
know. But a council was held ; he did direct their verdict ' in
spirit though not in person' ; and ' the majority' condemned the
offender 2 . In the same way St Peter, giving directions to the
elders, claims a place among them. The title ' fellow-presbyter/
which he applies to himself 3 , would doubtless recal to the
memory of his readers the occasions when he himself had
presided with the elders and guided their deliberations.

(2) As the first stage then, the Apostles themselves were (2) Kesi-
the superintendents of each individual church. But the wider apostolic
spread of the Gospel would diminish the frequency of their dele 8 ates -
visits and impair the efficiency of such supervision. In the
second stage therefore we find them, at critical seasons and in
important congregations, delegating some trustworthy disciple

who should fix his abode in a given place for a time and direct
the affairs of the church there. The Pastoral Epistles present
this second stage to our view. It is the conception of a later
age which represents Timothy as bishop of Ephesus and Titus
as bishop of Crete 4 . St Paul's own language implies that the
position which they held was temporary. In both cases their

1 1 Cor. v. 3 sq. 3 i p et . v . i t

2 2 Cor. ii. 6 ij eiriTi/u.ia avr-rj TJ VTTO 4 Const. Apost. vii. 46, Euseb. H. E.
TU>V irXeiovuv. iii. 4, and later writers.

158 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

term of office is drawing to a close, when the Apostle writes 1 .
But the conception is not altogether without foundation. With
less permanence but perhaps greater authority, the position
occupied by these apostolic delegates nevertheless fairly repre-
sents the functions of the bishop early in the second century.
They were in fact the link between the Apostle whose super-
intendence was occasional and general and the bishop who
exercised a permanent supervision over an individual con-
gregation.

The angels Beyond this second stage the notices in the apostolic
calypsenot writings do not carry us. The angels of the seven churches
ishops. i n( j eec [ are frequently alleged as an exception 2 . But neither
does the name ' angel' itself suggest such an explanation 3 , nor
is this view in keeping with the highly figurative style of this
wonderful book. Its sublime imagery seems to be seriously
impaired by this interpretation. On the other hand St John's
own language gives the true key to the symbolism. 'The
seven stars,' so it is explained, 'are the seven angels of the
seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven
churches 4 .' This contrast between the heavenly and the
earthly fires the star shining steadily by its own inherent

1 See 1 Tim. i. 3, iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. * s * ar too indefinite to encourage such
9, 21, Tit. i. 5, iii. 12. an inference.

2 See for instance among recent 3 It is conceivable indeed that a
writers Thiersch Gesch. der Apost. bishop or chief pastor should be called
Kirche p. 278, Trench Epistles to the an angel or messenger of God or of Christ
Seven Churches p. 47 sq., with others. (comp. Hag. i. 13, Mai. ii. 7), but he
This explanation is as old as the earliest would hardly be styled an angel of the
commentators. Eothe supposes that church over which he presides. Seethe
the word anticipates the establishment parallel case of dir6<TTo\os above, p. 154.
of episcopacy, being a kind of prophetic Vitringa (n. 9, p. 550) , and others after
symbol, p. 423 sq. Others again take him, explain (SfyyeXos in the Apocalypse
the angel to designate the collective by the rV^KN the messenger or deputy
ministry, i.e. the whole body of priests of the synagogue. These however were
and deacons. For various explanations only inferior officers, and could not be
see Schaff Hist, of Apost. Ch. n. p. 223. compared to stars or made responsible

Eothe (p. 426) supposes that Dio- for the well-being of the churches ; see

trephes 6 0iXo7r/>wrei5wi> avruv (3 Joh. 9) Eothe p. 504.

was a bishop. This cannot be pro- 4 Eev. i. 20
nounced impossible, but the language

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 159

eternal light, and the lamp flickering and uncertain, requiring
to be fed with fuel and tended with care cannot be devoid
of meaning. The star is the suprasensual counterpart, the True ex-
heavenly representative ; the lamp, the earthly realisation, the P
outward embodiment. Whether the angel is here conceived as
an actual person, the celestial guardian, or only as a personifi-
cation, the idea or spirit of the church, it is unnecessary for my
present purpose to consider. But whatever may be the exact
conception, he is identified with and made responsible for it to
a degree wholly unsuited to any human officer. Nothing is
predicated of him, which may not be predicated of it. To him
are imputed all its hopes, its fears, its graces, its shortcomings.
He is punished with it, and he is rewarded with it. In one
passage especially the language applied to the angel seems
to exclude the common interpretation. In the message to
Thyatira the angel is blamed, because he suffers himself to be
led astray by 'his wife Jezebel 1 .' In this image of Ahab's
idolatrous queen some dangerous and immoral teaching must
be personified ; for it does violence alike to the general tenour
and to the individual expressions in the passage to suppose that
an actual woman is meant. Thus the symbolism of the passage
is entirely in keeping. Nor again is this mode of representation
new. The 'princes' in the prophecy of Daniel 2 present a very
near if not an exact parallel to the angels of the Revelation.
Here, as elsewhere, St John seems to adapt the imagery of this
earliest apocalyptic book.

Indeed, if with most recent writers we adopt the early date
of the Apocalypse of St John, it is scarcely possible that the
episcopal organization should have been so mature when it was
written. In this case probably not more than two or three
years have elapsed from the date of the Pastoral Epistles 3 , and

1 Kev. ii. 20 rrjv yvvaiKd <rov'Iedpe\. 3 The date of the Pastoral Epistles
The word <rou should probably be re- may be and probably is as late as A.D.
tained in the text: or at least, if not 66 or 67; while the Apocalypse on
a correct reading, it seems to be a cor- this hypothesis was written not later
rect gloss. than A.D. 70.

2 Dan. x. 13, 20, 21.

160 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

this interval seems quite insufficient to account for so great a

change in the administration of the Asiatic churches.

Episco- As late therefore as the year 70 no distinct signs of episcopal

Wished in government have hitherto appeared in Gentile Christendom.

churches ^ e ^ un ^ ess we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of

before the received documents, it seems vain to deny that early in the

century, second century the episcopal office was firmly and widely

established. Thus during the last three decades of the first

century, and consequently during the lifetime of the latest

surviving Apostle, this change must have been brought about.

But the circumstances under which it was effected are shrouded

in darkness ; and various attempts have been made to read the

obscure enigma. Of several solutions offered one at least

Bothe's deserves special notice. If Rothe's view cannot be accepted as

final, its examination will at least serve to bring out the

conditions of the problem : and for this reason I shall state and

discuss it as briefly as possible 1 . For the words in which the

theory is stated I am myself responsible.

Import- ' The epoch to which we last adverted marks an important

crisis! ie crisis i n the history of Christianity. The Church was distracted
and dismayed by the growing dissensions between the Jewish
and Gentile brethren and by the menacing apparition of
Gnostic heresy. So long as its three most prominent leaders
were living, there had been some security against the ex-
travagance of parties, some guarantee of harmonious combina-
tion among diverse churches. But St Peter, St Paul, and St
James, were carried away by death almost at the same time
and in the face of this great emergency. Another blow too
had fallen: the long-delayed judgment of God on the once
Holy City was delayed no more. With the overthrow of
Jerusalem the visible centre of the Church was removed. The
keystone of the fabric was withdrawn, and the whole edifice

1 See Bothe's Anfdnge etc. pp. 354 which I have urged) by Baur Ursprung

392. Bothe's account of the origin of des Episcopats p. 39 sq., and Bitschl

episcopacy is assailed (on grounds in p. 410 sq.
many respects differing from those

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 161

threatened with ruin. There was a crying need for some
organization which should cement together the diverse elements
of Christian society and preserve it from disintegration.'

' Out of this need the Catholic Church arose. Christendom Origin of

the Catho-
had hitherto existed as a number of distinct isolated congrega- He Church.

tions, drawn in the same direction by a common faith and
common sympathies, accidentally linked one with another by
the personal influence and apostolic authority of their common
teachers, but not bound together in a harmonious whole by any
permanent external organization. Now at length this great
result was brought about. The magnitude of the change
effected during this period may be measured by the difference
in the constitution and conception of the Christian Church
as presented in the Pastoral Epistles of St Paul and the letters
of St Ignatius respectively/

c By whom then was the new constitution organized ? To Agency of

the surviv-

this question only one answer can be given. This great work ing Apo-

must be ascribed to the surviving Apostles. St John especially, s
who built up the speculative theology of the Church, was
mainly instrumental in completing its external constitution
also ; for Asia Minor was the centre from which the new
movement spread. St John however was not the only Apostle
or early disciple who lived in this province. St Philip is
known to have settled in Hierapolis 1 . St Andrew also seems
to have dwelt in these parts 2 . The silence of history clearly
proclaims the fact which the voice of history but faintly
suggests. If we hear nothing more of the Apostles' missionary
labours, it is because they had organized an united Church, to
which they had transferred the work of evangelization.'

' Of such a combined effort on the part of the Apostles, Evidence
resulting in a definite ecclesiastical polity, in an united con a Apo-
Catholic Church, no direct account is preserved : but incidental
notices are not wanting ; and in the general paucity of informa-

1 Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 ; 2 Muratorian Canon (circ. 170 A.D.)

Polycrates and Caius in Euseb. H. E. Routh Rel. Sacr. i. p. 394.
iii. 31.

L. 11

162

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Hegesip-
pus.

Irenseus.

Clement
of Borne.

tion respecting the whole period more than this was not to be
expected 1 /

1 (1) Eusebius relates that after the martyrdom of St
James and the fall of Jerusalem, the remaining Apostles and
personal disciples of the Lord, with his surviving relations, met
together and after consultation unanimously appointed Symeon
the son of Clopas to the vacant see 2 . It can hardly be doubted,
that Eusebius in this passage quotes from the earlier historian
Hegesippus, from whom he has derived the other incidents in
the lives of James and Symeon : and we may well believe that
this council discussed larger questions than the appointment of
a single bishop, and that the constitution and prospects of the
Church generally came under deliberation. It may have been
on this occasion that the surviving Apostles partitioned out
the world among them, and 'Asia was assigned to John 3 .'

' (2) A fragment of Irenseus points in the same direction.
Writing of the holy eucharist he says, ' They who have paid
attention to the second ordinances of the Apostles know that
the Lord appointed a new offering in the new covenant 4 / By
these ' second ordinances' must be understood some later
decrees or injunctions than those contained in the apostolic
epistles : and these would naturally be framed and promulgated
by such a council as the notice of Eusebius suggests/

' (3) To the same effect St Clement of Rome writes, that
the Apostles, having appointed elders in every church and
foreseeing the disputes which would arise, ' afterwards added a
codicil (supplementary direction) that if they should fall asleep,

1 Besides the evidence which I have
stated and discussed in the text, Eothe
also brings forward a fragment of the
Praedicatio Pauli (preserved in the tract
de Baptismo Haereticomm, which is
included among Cyprian's works, app.
p. 30, ed. Fell; see above, p. Ill,
note 2), where the writer mentions a
meeting of St Peter and St Paul in
Borne. The main question however is

so slightly affected thereby, that I have
not thought it necessary to investigate
the value and bearing of this fragment.

2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 11.

3 According to the tradition reported
by Origen as quoted in Euseb. H. E.
iii. 1.

4 One of the Pfaffian fragments, no.
xxxviii, p. 854 in Stieren's edition of
Irenseus (vol. i.).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 163

other approved men should succeed to their office 1 .' Here the
pronouns ' they,' 'their/ must refer, not to the first appointed
presbyters, but to the Apostles themselves. Thus interpreted,
the passage contains a distinct notice of the institution of
bishops as successors of the Apostles; while in the word
' afterwards' is involved an allusion to the later council to which
the ' second ordinances' of Irenasus also refer 2 .'

'These notices seem to justify the conclusion that imme-
diately after the fall of Jerusalem a council of the apostles and
first teachers of the Gospel was held to deliberate on the crisis,

and to frame measures for the well-being of the Church. The Results of

, . , the Coun-
centre of the system then organized was episcopacy, which at c ii.

once secured the compact and harmonious working of each
individual congregation, and as the link of communication
between separate brotherhoods formed the whole into one
undivided Catholic Church. Recommended by this high
authority, the new constitution was immediately and generally
adopted.'

This theory, which is maintained with much ability and Value of
vigour, attracted considerable notice, as being a new defence of theory,
episcopacy advanced by a member of a presbyterian Church.
On the other hand, its intrinsic value seems to have been
unduly depreciated; for, if it fails to give a satisfactory solution,
it has at least the merit of stating the conditions of the
problem with great distinctness, and of pointing out the
direction to be followed. On this account it seemed worthy of
attention.

1 Clem. Rom. 44 Ka.riarf\<r^v roi>s Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes. iv. 12,
irpoeipy/jLevovs (sc. Trpefffivrtpovs) KCU ywera- speaking of the change from the pres-

/AVtSeStiKcwu', OTTWS, eav KOI/J-T]- byteral to the episcopal form of govern-

, diadtt-tavTai ere/so: dedoKi/Aao-fjievoi ment, says 'immutata est ratio, pro-

rr]i> \eLTovpyiav avr&v. The in- spiciente concilia, ut non ordo etc.' If

terpretation of the passage depends on the reading be correct, I suppose he

the persons intended in Kowijduffiv and was thinking of the Apostolic Constitu-

O.VT&V (see the notes on the passage). tions. See also the expression of St

2 A much more explicit though Jerome on Tit. i. 5 (quoted below, p.
somewhat later authority may be 166) 'in toto orbe decretum est.'
quoted in favour of his view. The

112

164 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

The evi- It must indeed be confessed that the historical notices will

amined." n t bear ^ ne weight of the inference built upon them. (1) The
Hegesip- account of Hegesippus (for to Hegesippus the statement in
Eusebius may fairly be ascribed) confines the object of this
gathering to the appointment of a successor to 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. (2) The genuineness of the Pfaffian fragments of
Irenseus. Irenaeus must always remain doubtful 1 . Independently of the
mystery which hangs over their publication, the very passage
quoted throws great suspicion on their authorship ; for the ex-
pression in question 2 seems naturally to refer to the so-called
Apostolic Constitutions, which have been swelled to their present
size by the accretions of successive generations, but can hardly
have existed even in a rudimentary form in the age of Irenaeus,
or if existing have been regarded by him as genuine. If he
had been acquainted with such later ordinances issued by the
authority of an apostolic council, is it conceivable that in his
great work on heresies he should have omitted to quote a
sanction so unquestionable, where his main object is to show
that the doctrine of the Catholic Church in his day represented
the true teaching of the Apostles, and his main argument the
fact that the Catholic bishops of his time derived their office
Clement, by direct succession from the Apostles ? (3) The passage
in the epistle of St Clement cannot be correctly interpreted by
Rothe: for his explanation, though elaborately defended, dis-
regards the purpose of the letter. The Corinthian Church is
disturbed by a spirit of insubordination. Presbyters, who have

1 The controversial treatises on either means of testing the accuracy of the

side are printed in Stieren's Irenaeus transcriber or ascertaining the charac-

ii. p. 381 sq. It is sufficient here to ter of the MS.

state that shortly after the transcrip- 2 The expression at 5etfre/>cu TWV auc-
tion of these fragments by Pfaff, the a-roXajv 5tardets closely resembles the
Turin MS from which they were taken language of these Constitutions ; see
disappeared; so that there was no Hippol. p. 74, 82 (Lagarde).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 165

faithfully discharged their duties, have nevertheless been ruth-
lessly expelled from office. St Clement writes in the name of
the Roman Church to correct these irregularities. He reminds
the Corinthians that the presbyteral office was established by
the Apostles, who not only themselves appointed elders, but also
gave directions that the vacancies caused from time to time by
death should be filled up by other men of character, thus pro-
viding for a succession in the ministry. Consequently in these
unworthy feuds they were setting themselves in opposition to
officers of repute either actually nominated by Apostles, or
appointed by those so nominated in accordance with the apo-
stolic injunctions. There is no mention of episcopacy, properly
so called, throughout the epistle; for in the language of St
Clement, ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' are still synonymous terms \
Thus the pronouns 'they/ 'their,' refer naturally to the presbyters
first appointed by the Apostles themselves. Whether (supposing
the reading to be correct 2 ) Rothe has rightly translated eirtvofi^v
* a codicil/ it is unnecessary to enquire, as the rendering does
not materially affect the question.

Nor again does it appear that the rise of episcopacy was so Episco-
sudden and so immediate, that an authoritative order issuing a sudden
from an apostolic council alone can explain the phenomenon. creatlon
In the mysterious period which comprises the last thirty years
of the first century, and on which history is almost wholly silent,
episcopacy must, it is true, have been mainly developed. But
before this period its beginnings may be traced, and after the
close it is not yet fully matured. It seems vain to deny with
Rothe 3 that the position of St James in the mother Church
furnished the precedent and the pattern of the later episcopate.
It appears equally mistaken to maintain, as this theory requires,
that at the close of the first and the beginning of the second
century the organization of all churches alike had arrived at
the same stage of development and exhibited the episcopate in
an equally perfect form.

1 See Philippians pp. 97, 98. pov-fiv ; see the notes on the passage.

3 The right reading is probably em- 3 p. 264 sq.

166 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

but ma- On the other hand, the emergency which consolidated the

a critical episcopal form of government is correctly and forcibly stated.

emergency j t wag remar k e( j i on g a g O by Jerome, that ' before factions were
introduced into religion by the prompting of the devil,' the
churches were governed by a council of elders, ' but as soon as
each man began to consider those whom he had baptized to
belong to himself and not to Christ, it was decided throughout
the world that one elected from among the elders should be
placed over the rest, so that the care of the church should
devolve on him, and the seeds of schism be removed 1 .' And
again in another passage he writes to the same effect ; ' When
afterwards one presbyter was elected that he might be placed
over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism, that
each man might not drag to himself and thus break up the
Church of Christ 2 .' To the dissensions of Jew and Gentile
converts, and to the disputes of Gnostic false teachers, the
development of episcopacy may be mainly ascribed.

AsiaMinor ^ or a ^ n ^ s R fcne probably wrong as to the authority

under the mainly instrumental in effecting the change. Asia Minor was
of St John, the adopted home of more than one Apostle after the fall of
Jerusalem. Asia Minor too was the nurse, if not the mother,
of episcopacy in the Gentile Churches. So important an insti-
tution, developed in a Christian community of which St John
was the living centre and guide, could hardly have grown up
without his sanction : and, as will be seen presently, early tradi-
tion very distinctly connects his name with the appointment
of bishops in these parts.

Manner of But to the question how this change was brought about, a
lopment. somewhat different answer must be given. We have seen that
the needs of the Church and the ascendancy of his personal
character placed St James at the head of the Christian brother-
hood in Jerusalem. Though remaining a member of the
presbyteral council, he was singled out from the rest and placed
in a position of superior responsibility. His exact power it

1 On Tit. i. 5 (vn. p. 694, ed. Vail.).

2 Epist. cxlvi ad Evang. (i. p. 1082).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 167

would be impossible, and it is unnecessary, to define. When
therefore after the fall of the city St John with other surviving
Apostles removed to Asia Minor and found there manifold ir-
regularities and threatening symptoms of disruption, he would
not unnaturally encourage an approach in these Gentile Churches
to the same organization, which had been signally blessed, and
proved effectual in holding together the mother Church amid
dangers not less serious. The existence of a council or college
necessarily supposes a presidency of some kind, whether this
presidency be assumed by each member in turn, or lodged in
the hands of a single person 1 . It was only necessary therefore
for him to give permanence, definiteness, stability, to an office
which already existed in germ. There is no reason however for
supposing that any direct ordinance was issued to the churches.
The evident utility and even pressing need of such an office,
sanctioned by the most venerated name in Christendom, would
be sufficient to secure its wide though gradual reception. Such
a reception, it is true, supposes a substantial harmony and
freedom of intercourse among the churches, which remained un-
disturbed by the troubles of the times ; but the silence of history
is not at all unfavourable to this f supposition. In this way,
during the historical blank which extends over half a century
after the fall of Jerusalem, episcopacy was matured and the
Catholic Church consolidated 2 .

1 The Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes. council of elders : see Vitringa n. 2. p.
iv. 12 seems to say that the senior 586 sq., in. 1. p. 610 sq. The opinions
member was president ; but this may of Vitringa must be received with cau-
be mere conjecture. The constitution tion, as his tendency to press the re-
of the synagogue does not aid mate- semblance between the government of
rially in settling this question. In the the Jewish synagogue and the Chris-
New Testament at all events dpxiffwd- tian Church is strong. The real like-
7W7os is only another name for an elder ness consists in the council of presby-
of the synagogue (Mark v. 22, Acts ters; but the threefold order of the
xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17 ; comp. Justin Dial. Christian ministry as a whole seems to
c. Tryph. 137), and therefore corre- have no counterpart in the synagogue,
sponds not to the bishop but to the 2 The expression ' Catholic Church '
presbyter of the Christian Church. is found first in the Ignatian letter to
Sometimes however dpx^wdytayos ap- the Smyrnaeans 8. In the Martyr-
pears to denote the president of the dom of Polycarp it occurs several

168

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

This view
supported
by the no-
tices of in-
dividual
churches.

JERUSA-
LEM.

St James.

Symeon.

Later
bishops.

At all events, when we come to trace the early history of the
office in the principal churches of Christendom in succession, we
shall find all the facts consistent with the account adopted here,
while some of them are hardly reconcileable with any other.
In this review it will be convenient to commence with the
mother Church, and to take the others in order, as they are
connected either by neighbourhood or by political or religious
sympathy.

1. The Church of JERUSALEM, as I have already pointed
out, presents the earliest instance of a bishop. A certain
official prominence is assigned to James the Lord's brother,
both in the Epistles of St Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles.
And the inference drawn from the notices in the canonical
Scriptures is borne out by the tradition of the next ages. As
early as the middle of the second century all parties concur in
representing him as a bishop in the strict sense of the term 1 .
In this respect Catholic Christians and Ebionite Christians
hold the same language : the testimony of Hegesippus on the
one hand is matched by the testimony of the Clementine
writings on the other. On his death, which is recorded as
taking place immediately before the war of Vespasian, Symeon
was appointed in his place 2 . Hegesippus, who is our authority
for this statement, distinctly regards Symeon as holding the
same office with James, and no less distinctly calls him a bishop.
This same historian also mentions the circumstance that one
Thebuthis (apparently on this occasion), being disappointed of
the bishopric, raised a schism and attempted to corrupt the
virgin purity of the Church with false doctrine. As Symeon
died in the reign of Trajan at an advanced age, it is not im-
probable that Hegesippus was born during his lifetime. Of the
successors of Symeon a complete list is preserved by Eusebius 3 .

times, inscr. and 8, 16, 19. On its
meaning see Westcott Canon p. 28,
note (4th ed.).

1 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23,
iv. 22; Clem. Horn. xi. 35, Ep. Petr.

Recogn. i. 43, 68, 73; Clem. Alex,
in Euseb. ii. 1 ; Const. Apost. v. 8, vi.
14, viii. 35, 46.

2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22.

3 H. E. iv. 5. The episcopate of

init., and Ep. Clem. init. ; Clem. Justus the successor of Symeon

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 169

The fact however that it comprises thirteen names within a
period of less than thirty years must throw suspicion on its
accuracy. A succession so rapid is hardly consistent with the
known tenure of life offices in ordinary cases : and if the list be
correct, the frequent changes must be attributed to the troubles
and uncertainties of the times 1 . If Eusebius here also had
derived his information from Hegesippus, it must at least have
had some solid foundation in fact ; but even then the alterna-
tion between Jerusalem and Pella, and the possible confusion
of the bishops with other prominent members of the presbytery,
might introduce much error. It appears however that in this
instance he was indebted to less trustworthy sources of infor-
mation 2 . The statement that after the foundation of Aelia
Capitolina (A.D. 136) Marcus presided over the mother Church,
as its first Gentile bishop, need not be questioned ; and beyond
this point it is unnecessary to carry the investigation 3 .

Of other bishops in PALESTINE and the neighbourhood, other sees
before the latter half of the second century, no trustworthy tine and"

notice is preserved, so far as I know. During the Roman
episcopate of Victor however (about A.D. 190), we find three countries.
bishops, Theophilus of Csesarea, Cassius of Tyre, and Clarus of
Ptolemais, in conjunction with Narcissus of Jerusalem, writing
an encyclical letter in favour of the western view in the Paschal

msnces about A.D. 108: that of Marcus 2 This may be inferred from a com-

the first Gentile bishop, A.D. 136. Thus parison of H. E. iv. 5 TO<TOVTOV e eyypd-

thirteen bishops occupy only about 0u*> irape^-rj^a with H. E. v. 12 at ru>v

twenty-eight years. Even after the afo-601 diadoxal irepitxovffi. His infor-

foundation of ^Elia Capitolina the sue- mation was probably taken from a list

cession is very rapid. In the period kept at Jerusalem ; but the case of the

from Marcus (A.D. 136) to Narcissus spurious correspondence with Abgarus

(A.D. 190) we count fifteen bishops. preserved in the archives of Edessa

The repetition of the same names (H. E. i. 13) shows how treacherous

however suggests that some conflict such sources of information were.

was going on during this interval. a Narcissus, who became bishop of

1 Parallels nevertheless maybe found Jerusalem in 190 A.D., might well have

in the annals of the papacy. Thus from preserved the memory of much earlier

A.D. 882 to A.D. 904 there were thirteen times. His successor Alexander, in

popes: and in other times of trouble whose favour he resigned A.D. 214,

the succession has been almost as speaks of him as still living at the ad-

ra P id - vanced age of 116 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 11).

170 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

controversy 1 . If indeed any reliance could be placed on the
Clementine writings, the episcopate of Palestine was matured
at a very early date : for St Peter is there represented as
appointing bishops in every city which he visits, in Csesarea,
Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Tripolis, and Laodicea 2 . And though the
fictions of this theological romance have no direct historical
value, it is hardly probable that the writer would have indulged
in such statements, unless an early development of the epis-
copate in these parts had invested his narrative with an air
of probability. The institution would naturally spread from
the Church of Jerusalem to the more important communities
in the neighbourhood, even without the direct intervention of
the Apostles.

ANTIOCH. 2. From the mother Church of the Hebrews we pass
naturally to the metropolis of Gentile Christendom. ANTIOCH
is traditionally reported to have received its first bishop

Evodius. Evodius from St Peter 3 . The story may perhaps rest on some
basis of truth, though no confidence can be placed in this class
of statements, unless they are known to have been derived from

Ignatius, some early authority. But of Ignatius, who stands second in
the traditional catalogue of Antiochene bishops, we can speak
with more confidence. He is designated a bishop by very early
authors, and he himself speaks as such. He writes to one
bishop, Polycarp ; and he mentions several others. Again and
again he urges the duty of obedience to their bishops on his
correspondents. And, lest it should be supposed that he uses
the term in its earlier sense as a synonyme for presbyter, he
names in conjunction the three orders of the ministry, the
bishop, the presbyter, and the deacons 4 . Altogether it is plain
that he looks upon the episcopal system as the one recognised
and authoritative form of government in all those churches

1 Euseb. H. E. v. 25. 3 Const. Apost. vii. 46, Euseb. H. E.

2 Clem. Horn. iii. 68 sq. (Caesarea), iii. 22.

vii. 5 (Tyre), vii. 8 (Sidon), vii. 12 4 e.g. Polyc. 6. I single out this

(Berytus), xi. 36 (Tripolis), xx. 23 passage from several which might be

(Laodicea): comp. Clem. Recogn. iii. 65, alleged, because it is found in the

66, 74, vi. 15, x. 68. Syriac. See below, p. 198.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 171

with which he is most directly concerned. It may be suggested
indeed that he would hardly have enforced the claims of
episcopacy, unless it were an object of attack, and its compara-
tively recent origin might therefore be inferred : but still some
years would be required before it could have assumed that
mature and definite form which it has in his letters. It seems
impossible to decide, and it is needless to investigate, the
exact date of the epistles of St Ignatius : but we cannot do
wrong in placing them during the earliest years of the second
century. The immediate successor of Ignatius is reported to Later
have been Hero 1 : and from his time onward the list of
Antiochene bishops is complete 2 . If the authenticity of the
lisb, as a whole, is questionable, two bishops of Antioch at least
during the second century, Theophilus and Serapion, are known
as historical persons.

If the Clementine writings emanated, as seems probable, Clemen-
from Syria or Palestine 3 , this will be the proper place to state ings,
their attitude with regard to episcopacy. Whether the opinions
there advanced exhibit the recognised tenets of a sect or
congregation, or the private views of the individual writer or
writers, will probably never be ascertained ; but, whatever may
be said on this point, these heretical books outstrip the most
rigid orthodoxy in their reverence for the episcopal office.
Monarchy is represented as necessary to the peace of the
Church 4 . The bishop occupies the seat of Christ and must be
honoured as the image of God 5 . And hence St Peter, as he
moves from place to place, ordains bishops everywhere, as
though this were the crowning act of his missionary labours 6 .
The divergence of the Clementine doctrine from the tenets of
Catholic Christianity only renders this phenomenon more
remarkable, when we remember the very early date of these
writings ; for the Homilies cannot well be placed later than the

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 36. * Clem. Horn. iii. 62, 66, 70. See

2 Euseb. H. E, iv. 20. below, p. 202.

3 See above, pp. 98 sq. e See the references given above, p.

4 Clem. Horn. iii. 62. 170, note 2.

172 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

end, and should perhaps be placed before the middle of the
second century.
SYRIAN 3. We have hitherto been concerned only with the Greek

C^HTTRPH

Church of Syria. Of the early history of the SYRIAN CHURCH,
strictly so called, no trustworthy account is preserved. The
documents which profess to give information respecting it are
comparatively late : and while their violent anachronisms
discredit them as a whole, it is impossible to separate the
fabulous from the historic 1 . It should be remarked however,
that they exhibit a high sacerdotal view of the episcopate as
prevailing in these churches from the earliest times of which
any record is preserved 2 .

ASIA Mi- 4. ASIA MINOR follows next in order ; and here we find the

widest and most unequivocal traces of episcopacy at an early

date. Clement of Alexandria distinctly states that St John

went about from city to city, his purpose being ' in some places

Activity of to establish bishops, in others to consolidate whole churches, in

proconsu- n otners again to appoint to the clerical office some one of those

larAsia. w h o nac [ b een signified by the Spirit 3 .' ' The sequence of

bishops,' writes Tertullian in like manner of Asia Minor,

' traced back to its origin will be found to rest on the authority

of John 4 .' And a writer earlier than either speaks of St John's

' fellow-disciples and bishops 5 ' as gathered about him. The con-

clusiveness even of such testimony might perhaps be doubted,

if it were not supported by other more direct evidence. At the

1 Ancient Syriac Documents (ed. episcopate is conferred by the 'Hand
Cureton). The Doctrine ofAddaihas of Priesthood' through the Apostles,
recently been published complete by who received it from our Lord, and is
Dr Phillips, London 1876. This work derived ultimately from Moses and
at all events must be old, for it was Aaron (p. 24).

found by Eusebius in the archives of 3 Quis Div. Salv. 42 (p. 959).

Edessa (H. E. i. 13) ; but it abounds 4 Adv. Marc. iv. 5.

in gross anachronisms and probably 5 Muratorian Fragment, Bouth Rel.

is not earlier than the middle of the Sacr. i. p. 394. Irenasus too, whose

3rd century : see Zahn Gott. Gel. Anz. experience was drawn chiefly from

1877, p. 161 sq. Asia Minor, more than once speaks of

2 See for instance pp. 13, 16, 18, 21, bishops appointed by the Apostles, iii.
23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 42, 71 3. 1, v. 20. 1.

(Cureton). The succession to the

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 173

beginning of the second century the letters of Ignatius, even if
we accept as genuine only the part contained in the Syriac,
mention by name two bishops in these parts, Onesimus ofOnesimus.
Ephesus and Poly carp of Smyrna 1 . Of the former nothing
more is known : the latter evidently writes as a bishop, for he
distinguishes himself from his presbyters 2 , and is expressly so
called by other writers besides Ignatius. His pupil Irenaeus
says of him, that he had ' not only been instructed by Apostles
and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but had also
been established by Apostles in Asia as bishop in the Church
at Smyrna 3 / Polycrates also, a younger contemporary of
Polycarp and himself bishop of Ephesus, designates him by this
title 4 ; and again in the letter written by his own church and
giving an account of his martyrdom he is styled ' bishop of the
Church in Smyrna 5 .' As Polycarp survived the middle of the
second century, dying at a very advanced age (A.D. 155 or 156),
the possibility of error on this point seems to be excluded :
and indeed all historical evidence must be thrown aside as
worthless, if testimony so strong can be disregarded.

It is probable however, that we should receive as genuine Ignatian
not only those portions of the Ignatian letters which are e
represented in the Syriac, but also the Greek text in its shorter
form. Under any circumstances, this text can hardly have
been made later than the middle of the second century 6 , and
its witness would still be highly valuable, even if it were a
forgery. The staunch advocacy of the episcopate which
distinguishes these writings is well known and will be con-
sidered hereafter. At present we are only concerned with the
historical testimony which they bear to the wide extension and
authoritative claims of the episcopal office. Besides Polycarp
and Onesimus, mentioned in the Syriac, the writer names also

1 Polyc. inscr., Ephes. 1. 5 Mart. Polyc. 16. Polycarp is call-

2 Polyc. Phil. init. ed ' bishop of Smyrna ' also in Mart.

3 Iren. iii. 3. 4. Comp. Tertull. de Ignat. Ant. 3.

Praescr. 32. 6 g ee below, p. 198, note.

4 In Euseb. v. 24.

174 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Damas bishop of Magnesia 1 and Polybius bishop of Tralles 2 ;
and he urges on the Philadelphians also the duty of obedience
to their bishop 3 , though the name is not given. Under any
circumstances it seems probable that these were not fictitious
personages, for, even if he were a forger, he would be anxious
to give an air of reality to his writings : but whether or not we
regard his testimony as indirectly affecting the age of Ignatius,
for his own time at least it must be regarded as valid.

But the evidence is not confined to the persons and the

Bishops of churches already mentioned. Papias, who was a friend of

lis* Polycarp and had conversed with personal disciples of the

Lord, is commonly designated bishop of Hierapolis 4 ; and we

learn from a younger contemporary Serapion 5 , that Claudius

Apollinaris, known as a writer against the Montanists, also

Sagaris. ne ici this see in the reign of M. Aurelius. Again Sagaris the

martyr, who seems to have perished in the early years of

M. Aurelius, about A.D. 165 6 , is designated bishop of Laodicea

by an author writing towards the close of the same century,

Melito. w ho also alludes to Melito the contemporary of Sagaris as

Polycrates holding the see of Sardis 7 . The authority just quoted,

lations. Polycrates of Ephesus, who flourished in the last decade of the

century, says moreover that he had had seven relations bishops

before him, himself being the eighth, and that he followed

their tradition 8 . When he wrote he had been ' sixty-five years

in the Lord ' ; so that even if this period date from the time of

his birth and not of his conversion or baptism, he must have

been born scarcely a quarter of a century after the death of the

last surviving Apostle, whose latest years were spent in the

very Church over which Polycrates himself presided. It

1 Magn. 2. see Colossians p. 63.

2 Trail. 1. 7 Polycrates in Euseb. H. E. v. 24.

3 Philad. 1. Melito's office may be inferred from the

4 Euseb. H. E. iii. 36. contrast implied in vepi/jitvuv rty dtrb

5 In Euseb. H. E. v. 19. ruv ovpavwv firiaKOTT^v.

6 On the authority of his contempo- 8 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24. See above,
rary Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 : p. 121, note.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 175

appears moreover from his language that none of these relations
to whom he refers were surviving when he wrote.

Thus the evidence for the early and wide extension of
episcopacy throughout proconsular Asia, the scene of St John's
latest labours, may be considered irrefragable. And when we Bishops in
pass to other districts of Asia Minor, examples are not wanting O f ^ a
though these are neither so early nor so frequent. Marcion a Mmor -
native of Sinope is related to have been the son of a Christian
bishop 1 : and Marcion himself had elaborated his theological
system before the middle of the second century. Again, a
bishop of Eumenia, Thraseas by name, is stated by Polycrates
to have been martyred and buried at Smyrna-; and, as he is
mentioned in connexion with Polycarp, it may fairly be sup-
posed that the two suffered in the same persecution. Dionysius
of Corinth moreover, writing to Amastris and the other churches
of Pontus (about A.D. 170), mentions Palmas the bishop of this
city 3 : and when the Paschal controversy breaks out afresh
under Victor of Rome, we find this same Palmas putting his
signature first to a circular letter, as the senior of the bishops
of Pontus 4 . An anonymous writer also, who took part in the
Montanist controversy, speaks of two bishops of repute, Zoticus
of Comana and Julianus of Apamea, as having resisted the
impostures of the false prophetesses 5 . But indeed the frequent Episcopal
notices of encyclical letters written and synods held towards syn<
the close of the second century are a much more powerful
testimony to the wide extension of episcopacy throughout the
provinces of Asia Minor than the incidental mention of indi-
vidual names. On one such occasion Polycrates speaks of the
' crowds' of bishops whom he had summoned to confer with him
on the Paschal question 6 .

5. As we turn from Asia Minor to MACEDONIA and MACEDO-
NIA and
GREECE.

1 [Tertull.] adv. omn. haeres. 6. mea on the Maeander is mentioned at

2 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24. the end of the chapter, probably this

3 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. is the place meant.

4 Euseb. H. E. v. 23. 6 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24

5 In Euseb. H. E. v. 16. As Apa-

176 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

GREECE, the evidence becomes fainter and scantier. This
circumstance is no doubt due partly to the fact that these
churches were much less active and important during the
second century than the Christian communities of Asia Minor,
but the phenomena cannot perhaps be wholly explained by this
Later de- consideration. When Tertullian in one of his rhetorical flights
of episco ni challenges the heretical teachers to consult the apostolic
pacy. churches, where 'the very sees of the Apostles still preside/
adding, ' If Achaia is nearest to you. then you have Corinth ; if
you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have
the Thessalonians ; if you can reach Asia, you have Ephesus l> :
his main argument was doubtless just, and even the language
would commend itself to its own age, for episcopacy was the
only form of government known or remembered in the church
when he wrote : but a careful investigation scarcely allows, and
certainly does not encourage us, to place Corinth and Philippi
and Thessalonica in the same category with Ephesus as regards
episcopacy. The term 'apostolic see' was appropriate to the
latter ; but so far as we know, it cannot be strictly applied to
the former. During the early years of the second century,
when episcopacy was firmly established in the principal churches
Philippi. of Asia Minor, Polycarp sends a letter to the Philippians. He
writes in the name of himself and his presbyters ; he gives
advice to the Philippians respecting the obligations and the
authority of presbyters and deacons ; he is minute in his
instructions respecting one individual presbyter, Valens by
name, who had been guilty of some crime: but throughout the
letter he never once refers to their bishop ; and indeed its whole
tone is hardly consistent with the supposition that they had
any chief officer holding the same prominent position at
Philippi which he himself held at Smyrna. We are thus led fco
the inference that episcopacy did not exist at all among the
Philippians at this time, or existed only in an elementary form,
so that the bishop was a mere president of the presbyteral

Thessalo- council. At Thessalonica indeed, according to a tradition
nica

1 Tertull. de Praescr. 37.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 177

mentioned by Origen 1 , the same Caius whom St Paul describes
as his host at Corinth was afterwards appointed bishop ; but
with so common a name the possibilities of error are great, even
if the testimony were earlier in date and expressed in more
distinct terms. When from Macedonia we pass to Achaia, the
same phenomena present themselves. At the close of the first
century Clement writes to Corinth, as at the beginning of the Corinth,
second century Polycarp writes to Philippi. As in the latter
epistle, so in the former, there is no allusion to the episcopal
office : yet the main subject of Clement's letter is the expulsion
and ill-treatment of certain presbyters, whose authority he
maintains as holding an office instituted by and handed down
from the Apostles themselves. If Corinth however was without
a bishop in the strict sense at the close of the first century, she
cannot long have remained so. When some fifty years later
Hegesippus stayed here on his way to Rome, Primus was
bishop of this Church ; and it is clear moreover from this
writer's language that Primus had been, preceded by several
occupants of the see 2 . Indeed the order of his narrative, so far
as we can piece it together from the broken fragments preserved
in Eusebius, might suggest the inference, not at all improbable
in itself, that episcopacy had been established at Corinth as a
corrective of the dissensions and feuds which had called forth
Clement's letter 3 . Again Dionysius, one of the immediate
successors of Primus, was the writer of several letters of which
fragments are extant 4 ; and at the close of the century we meet

1 On Rom. xvi. 23; 'Fertur sane and then after some account of Cle-
traditione majorum' (iv. p. 86, ed. De- ment's epistle (perd riva Trepl r?}s KXi;-
larue). /iepros ?rp6s Koptvdlovs eTricrroX^s afcy

2 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22, Kal tirtiu-vev elpqpfra, H. E. iv. 22) he continued in
-TI KK\^ffLcL i] KopLvdiuv ev r$ 6pd$ Myy the words which are quoted in the last
/uexpi npf/wu eTTio-KoiretfcH'Tos ev Koptvdy note (eiriXeyovros ravra, Kal eire^evev
K.T.X. A little later he speaks of e/ccum; 7) ttcKKyvia /c.r.X.). On the probable
SiaSoxi?, referring apparently to Corinth tenor of Hegesippus ' work see below,
among other churches. p. 182.

3 Hegesippus mentioned the feuds in 4 The fragments of Dionysius are
the Church of Corinth during the reign found in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. See
of Domitian, which had occasioned the also Routh Eel. Sacr. i. p. 177 sq.
writing of this letter (H. E. iii. 16);

L. 12

178 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

with a later bishop of Corinth, Bacchyllus, who takes an active
Athens. part in the Paschal controversy 1 . When from Corinth we pass
on to Athens, a very early instance of a bishop confronts us, on
authority which seems at first sight good. Eusebius represents
Dionysius of Corinth, who wrote apparently about the year 170,
as stating that his namesake the Areopagite, ' having been
brought to the faith by the Apostle Paul according to the
account in the Acts, was the first to be entrusted with the
bishopric (or supervision) of the diocese (in the language of
those times, the parish) of the Athenians 2 / Now, if we could
be sure that Eusebius was here reporting the exact words of
Dionysius, the testimony though not conclusive would be
entitled to great deference. In this case the easiest solution
would be, that this ancient writer had not unnaturally con-
founded the earlier and later usage of the word bishop. But it
seems not improbable that Eusebius (for he does not profess to
be giving a direct quotation) has unintentionally paraphrased
and interpreted the statement of Dionysius by the light of
later ecclesiastical usages. However Athens, like Corinth, did
not long remain without a bishop. The same Dionysius, writing
to the Athenians, reminds them how, after the martyrdom of
Publius their ruler (TOV Tr/ooecrrwra), Quadratus becoming
bishop sustained the courage and stimulated the faith of the
Athenian brotherhood 3 . If, as seems more probable than not,
this was the famous Quadratus who presented his apology to
Hadrian during that emperor's visit to Athens, the existence of
episcopacy in this city is thrown back early in the century ;
even though Quadratus were not already bishop when Hadrian
paid his visit.

CRETE. 6. The same writer, from whom we learn these particulars

about episcopacy at Athens, also furnishes information on the
Church in CRETE. He writes letters to two different com-
munities in this island, the one to Gortyna commending Philip
who held this see, the other to the Cnossians offering words of
advice to their bishop Pinytus 3 . The first was author of a
1 Euseb. H. E. v. 22, 23. 2 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. 3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 179

treatise against Marcion 1 ; the latter wrote a reply to Dionysius,
of which Eusebius has preserved a brief notice 2 .

7. Of episcopacy in THRACE, and indeed of the Thracian THKACE.
Ohurch generally, we read nothing till the close of the second
century, when one ^Elius Publius Julius bishop of Debeltum, a
colony in this province, signs an encyclical letter 2 . The exist-
ence of a see at a place so unimportant implies the wide spread

of episcopacy in these regions.

8. As we turn to ROME, we are confronted by a far more HOME.
perplexing problem than any encountered hitherto. The attempt

to decipher the early history of episcopacy here seems almost
hopeless, where the evidence is at once scanty and conflicting.
It has been often assumed that in the metropolis of the world, The pre-
the seat of imperial rule, the spirit which dominated in the spirit not
State must by natural predisposition and sympathy have infused ^i narC
itself into the Church also, so that a monarchical form of govern-
ment would be developed more rapidly here than in other parts
of Christendom. This supposition seems to overlook the fact
that the influences which prevailed in the early church of the
metropolis were more Greek than Roman 3 , and that therefore
the tendency would be rather towards individual liberty than
towards compact and rigorous government. But indeed such
presumptions, however attractive and specious, are valueless
against the slightest evidence of facts. And the most trust-
worthy sources of information which we possess do not counte-
nance the idea. The earliest authentic document bearing on Bearing of
the subject is the Epistle from the Romans to the Corinthians, Epistle.
probably written in the last decade of the first century. I have
already considered the bearing of this letter on episcopacy in
the Church of Corinth, and it is now time to ask what light

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 25. that the signatures of three distinct

2 Euseb. H. E. v. 19. The combina- persons have got confused. The error
tion of three gentile names in ' ^Elius however, if error it be, does not affect
Publius Julius ' is possible at this late the inference in the text.

epoch ; but, being a gross violation of 3 See Philippians, p. 20 sq.
Koman usage, suggests the suspicion

122

180 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

it throws on the same institution at Rome. Now we cannot
hesitate to accept the universal testimony of antiquity that it
was written by Clement, the reputed bishop of Rome : and it
is therefore the more surprising that, if he held this high office,
the writer should not only not distinguish himself in any way
from the rest of the church (as Polycarp does for instance), but
that even his name should be suppressed 1 . It is still more
important to observe that, though he has occasion to speak of
the ministry as an institution of the Apostles, he mentions only
two orders and is silent about the episcopal office. Moreover
he still uses the word ' bishop ' in the older sense in which it
occurs in the apostolic writings, as a synonyme for presbyter 2 ,
and it may be argued that the recognition of the episcopate
as a higher and distinct office would oblige the adoption of a
special name and therefore must have synchronized roughly
with the separation of meaning between 'bishop' and 'presbyter/
Testimony Again, not many years after the date of Clement's letter, St
tius Ignatius on his way to martyrdom writes to the Romans.

Though this saint is the recognised champion of episcopacy,
though the remaining six of the Ignatian letters all contain
direct injunctions of obedience to bishops, in this epistle alone
there is no allusion to the episcopal office as existing among his
correspondents. The lapse of a few years carries us from the
and letters of Ignatius to the Shepherd of Hernias. And here the

indications are equivocal. Hermas receives directions in a
vision to impart the revelation to the presbyters and also to
make two copies, the one for Clement who shall communicate
with the foreign churches (such being his duty), the other for
Grapte who shall instruct the widows. Hermas himself is
charged to ' read it to this city with the elders who preside over
the church 3 .' Elsewhere mention is made of the ' rulers ' of the

1 See S. Clement of Rome p. 252 sq. irtfjiif/ei ovv KX^^s ei's rds 0; 7r6\eiS'
Appendix [and Apostolic Fathers, Part <?/cefrv y&p eTrtr^rpaTrrcu r/oaTrr?? 5e
1, S. Clement of Rome, I. p. 69 sq.]. vovder-fiffei. ras x^pas /ecu rote 6p<j>avo6s'

2 See Philippians p. 96 sq. <rb 5e ditayvda-ets ets ToujTyv rijv

3 Vis. ii. 4 ypd\f/ets ovv 5tio /3ij8XtSapia /J-era T&V
/cat Tr^/Ai/'ets v K\T7jU'Ti KCU v Tpcnrrrj. T

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 181

church 1 . And again, in an enumeration of the faithful officers
of the churches past and present, he speaks of the ' apostles and
bishops and teachers and deacons 2 .' Here most probably the
word ' bishop ' is used in its later sense, and the presbyters are
designated by the term 'teachers.' Yet this interpretation
cannot be regarded as certain, for the ' bishops and teachers ' in
Hernias, like the 'pastors and teachers' in St Paul, might
possibly refer to the one presbyteral office in its twofold aspect.
Other passages in which Hennas uses the same terms are in-
decisive. Thus he speaks of 'apostles and teachers who preached
to the whole world and taught with reverence and purity the
word of the Lord 3 '; of 'deacons who exercised their diaconate
ill and plundered the life (rrjv ^corjv) of widows and orphans 4 ' ;
of ' hospitable bishops who at all times received the servants of
God into their homes cheerfully and without hypocrisy,' 'who
protected the bereaved and the widows in their ministrations
without ceasing 5 .' From these passages it seems impossible
to arrive at a safe conclusion respecting the ministry at the
time when Hernias wrote. In other places he condemns the
false prophet ' who, seeming to have the Spirit, exalts himself
and would fain have the first seat 6 '; or he warns 'those who
rule over the church and those who hold the chief-seat,' bidding
them give up their dissensions and live at peace among them-
selves 7 ; or he denounces those who have ' emulation one with
another for the first place or for some honour 8 .' If we could Unwar
accept the suggestion that in this last class of passages the
writer condemns the ambition which aimed at transforming the
presbyterian into the episcopal form of government 9 , we should
have arrived at a solution of the difficulty : but the rebukes are
couched in the most general terms and apply at least as well

Vis. li. 2, iii. 9. fj,tvois r^j ^c/cXT/cri'as /tat rots 7r/>wro/ca0e-

opt'rats, K.r.X. For the form 7r/>u;ro/ca-

Sim " 1X> 25> BedpiTvis see the note on (r

4 Sim - ix - 26 rats, Ignat. Ephes. 3.

5 Sim. ix. 27. 8 Simt viiip 7>

Mand.ri. 9 So Bitschl pp. 403, 535.

-' Vis. iii. 9 \>iuv \tyia rots Trpoyyov-

182 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

to the ambitious pursuit of existing offices as to the arrogant
assertion of a hitherto unrecognized power 1 . This clue failing
us, the notices in the Shepherd are in themselves too vague
to lead to any result. Were it not known that the writer's own
brother was bishop of Rome, we should be at a loss what to say
about the constitution of the Roman Church in his day 2 .

But while the testimony of these early writers appears at
first sight and on the whole unfavourable to the existence of
episcopacy in Rome when they wrote, the impression needs to-
be corrected by important considerations on the other side.

Testimony Hegesippus, who visited Rome about the middle of the second

sippuf 3 " century during the papacy of Anicetus, has left it on record
that he drew up a list of the Roman bishops to his own time 3 .
As the list is not preserved 4 , we can only conjecture its contents:
but if we may judge from the sentence immediately following,
in which he praises the orthodoxy of this and other churches
under each succession, his object was probably to show that
the teachings of the Apostles had been carefully preserved and
handed down, and he would therefore trace the episcopal suc-

andoflre- cession back to apostolic times 5 . Such at all events is the aim
and method of Irenaeus, who, writing somewhat later than
Hegesippus and combating Gnostic heresies, appeals especially
to the bishops of Rome, as depositaries of the apostolic tradition 6 .

Lists of The list of Irenseus commences with Linus, whom he identifies

Roman <

bishops. l Comp. Matt, xxiii. 6, etc. When 5 The words of Hegesippus iv e/cdorr?

Irenseus wrote, episcopacy was cer- dcadoxv Kal iv eKda-rr/ TroXei K.T. X. have a

tainly a venerable institution : yet parallel in those of Irenseus (iii. 3. 3) rfj

his language closely resembles the avrfj rdei Kal -TQ atr-r] didaxy (Lat.

reproachful expressions of Hermas : ' hac ordinatione et successione ') 17 re

'Contumeliis agunt reliquos et princi- dwo TUV airoffroXuv iv r-fi eKKXrjffig. ira-

palis consessionis (MSS concessionis) pddoo-is Kal rb TTJS dXrjdeias Krjpvyfj.a

tumore elati sunt' (iv. 26. 3). Kar-f)vrijKv ds ^uas. May not Irenseus

2 See Philippians p. 168, note 9, and have derived his information from the
S. Clement of Rome p. 316, Appendix diadoxv of Roman bishops which Hege-
[Apostolic Fathers, P&rt i. S. Clement of sippus drew up? See below, p. 204
Rome i. p. 359 sq.] [and Apostolic Fathers, Part i. S. Cle-

3 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. ment of Rome i. pp. 63 sq., 204 sq.,

4 [It is probably preserved in Epi- 327 sq.].
phanius, see Apostolic Fathers, Part i. 6 Iren. iii. 33.
S. Clement of Rome i. p. 327 sq.l

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 183

with the person of this name mentioned by St Paul, and whom
he states to have been ' entrusted with the office of the bishopric'
by the Apostles. The second in succession is Anencletus of
whom he relates nothing, the third Clemens whom he describes
as a hearer of the Apostles and as writer of the letter to the
Corinthians. The others in order are Evarestus, Alexander,
Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleu-
therus during whose episcopacy Irenseus writes. Eusebius in
different works gives two lists, both agreeing in the order with
Irenseus, though not according with each other in the dates.
Catalogues are also found in writers later than Irenseus, trans-
posing the sequence of the earliest bishops, and adding the name
Cletus or substituting it for Anencletus 1 . These discrepancies
may be explained by assuming two distinct churches in Rome
a Jewish and a Gentile community in the first age ; or they
may have arisen from a confusion of the earlier and later senses
of 67rtcr/co7ro9 ; or the names may have been transposed in the
later lists owing to the influence of the Clementine Homilies, in
which romance Clement is represented as the immediate disciple
and successor of St Peter 2 . With the many possibilities of Linus,
error, no more can safely be assumed of LINUS and ANENCLETUS

than that they held some prominent position in the Roman tus
Church. But the reason for supposing CLEMENT to have been clement,
a bishop is as strong as the universal tradition of the next ages A ' D '
can make it. Yet, while calling him a bishop, we need not
suppose him to have attained the same distinct isolated position

1 On this subject see Pearson's Dis- the fact that the names Cletus, Cle-

sertationes duae de serie et successione mens, begin with the same letters. In

primorum Romae episcoporum in his the margin I have for convenience

Minor Theological Works n. p. 296 sq. given the dates of the Roman bishops

(ed. Churton), and especially the recent from the Ecclesiastical History of Eu-

work of Lipsius, Chronologic der romi- sebius, without however attaching any

schen Bischdfe, Kiel 1869. The earliest weight to them in the case of the

list which places Clement's name first earlier names. See Philippians p.

belongs to the age of Hippolytus. The 169 [and Apostolic Fathers, Part i. S.

omission of his name in a recently Clement of Rome i. p. 201 sq.].

discovered Syriac list (Ancient Syriac 2 See above, p. 99.
Documents p. 71) is doubtless due to

184 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

of authority which was occupied by his successors Eleutherus
and Victor for instance at the close of the second century, or
even by his contemporaries Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of
Smyrna. He was rather the chief of the presbyters than the
chief over the presbyters. Only when thus limited, can the
episcopacy of St Clement be reconciled with the language of
his own epistle or with the notice in his younger contemporary
Hermas. At the same time the allusion in the Shepherd,
though inconsistent with any exalted conception of his office,
does assign to him as his special province the duty of com-
municating with foreign churches 1 , which in the early ages was
essentially the bishop's function, as may be seen by the instances
of Polycarp, of Dionysius, of Irenaeus, and of Poly crates. Of the
Evarestus, two succeeding bishops, EVARESTUS and ALEXANDER, no au-

A* D J.vHJ

Alexander, thentic notices are preserved. XYSTUS, who follows, is the

A. D. 109. reputed author of a collection of proverbs, which a recent dis-

A^D U 119. tinguished critic has not hesitated to accept as genuine 2 . He

is also the earliest of those Roman prelates whom Irenseus,

writing to Victor in the name of the Gallican Churches, mentions

as having observed Easter after the western reckoning and yet

maintained peace with those who kept it otherwise 3 . The

Telespho- nex t two, TELESPHORUS and HYGINUS, are described in the
rus,

A. D. 128. same terms. The former is likewise distinguished as the sole
Hygi ^oo martyr among the early bishops of the metropolis 4 ; the latter

A. D. ID".

is mentioned as being in office when the peace of the Roman
Church was disturbed by the presence of the heretics Valentinus
Pius, an d Cerdon 5 . With Pius, the next in order, the office, if not
the man, emerges into daylight. An anonymous writer, treat-
ing on the canon of Scripture, says that the Shepherd was
written by Hermas ' quite lately while his brother Pius held the

1 See above, p. 180, note 3. tics, 1873.

2 Ewald, Gesch. des V. I. vii. p. 321 3 Iren. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24.

sq. On the other hand see Zeller 4 Iren. iii. 3. 3. At least Irenseus

Philos. der Griechen in. 1, p. 601 note, mentions him alone as a martyr. Later

and Sanger in the Jildische Zeitschrift stories confer the glory of martyrdom

(1867) p. 29 sq. It has recently been on others also,

edited by Gildemeister, Sexti Senten- 5 Iren. in. 4. 3.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 185

see of the Church of Rome 1 .' This passage, written by a con-
temporary, besides the testimony which it bears to the date
and authorship of the Shepherd (with which we are not -here
concerned), is valuable in its bearing on this investigation ; for
the use of the 'chair' or 'see' as a recognised phrase points to a
more or less prolonged existence of episcopacy in Rome, when
this writer lived. To Pius succeeds ANICETUS. And now Anicetus,
Rome becomes for the moment the centre of interest and
activity in the Christian world 2 . During this episcopate
Hegesippus, visiting the metropolis for the purpose of ascer-
taining and recording the doctrines of the Roman Church, is
welcomed by the bishop 3 . About the same time also another
more illustrious visitor, Polycarp the venerable bishop of Smyrna,
arrives in Rome to confer with the head of the Roman Church
on the Paschal dispute 4 and there falls in with and denounces
the heretic Marcion 5 . These facts are stated on contemporary
authority. Of SOTER also, the next in succession, a contemporary Soter,
record is preserved. Dionysius of Corinth, writing to the A ' D '
Romans, praises the zeal of their bishop, who in his fatherly
care for the suffering poor and for the prisoners working in the
mines had maintained and extended the hereditary fame of
his church for zeal in all charitable and good works 6 . In ELEU- Eleuthe-
THERUS, who succeeds Soter, we have the earliest recorded '^ 177
instance of an archdeacon. When Hegesippus paid his visit to
the metropolis, he found Eleutherus standing in this relation
to the bishop Anicetus, and seems to have made his acquaint-
ance while acting in this capacity 7 . Eleutherus however was a
contemporary, not only of Hegesippus, but also of the great
writers Irenseus and Tertullian 8 , who speak of the episcopal
succession in the churches generally, and in Rome especially, as

1 See Philippians p. 168, note 9, 7 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22
where the passage is quoted. K-ffrov ov didxovos fr 'EXerf0e/>os.

2 See Westcott Canon p. 191, ed. 4. 8 He is mentioned by Irenaeus iii. 3.

3 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. 3 vvv 5a>5e/rdry TOTT^ TOV TTJS

4 Iren. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24. dirb T&V dircxrToXwv KCLT^X" K

5 Iren. iii. 3. 4 ; comp. iii. 4. 4. Bepos, and by Tertullian, Praescr. 30
In Euseb. H . E. iv. 23. sub episcopatu Eleutheri benedicti.

186 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the best safeguard for the transmission of the true faith from
Victor, apostolic times 1 . With VICTOK, the successor of Eleutherus, a
new era begins. Apparently the first Latin prelate who held
the metropolitan see of Latin Christendom 2 , he was moreover
the first Roman bishop who is known to have had intimate
relations with the imperial court 3 , and the first also who
advanced those claims to universal dominion which his successors
in later ages have always consistently and often successfully
maintained 4 . 'I hear,' writes Tertullian scornfully, 'that an
edict has gone forth, aye and that a peremptory edict ; the chief
pontiff, forsooth, I mean the bishop of bishops, has issued his
commands 5 .' At the end of the first century the Roman Church
was swayed by the mild and peaceful counsels of the presbyter-
bishop Clement ; the close of the second witnessed the auto-
cratic pretensions of the haughty pope Victor, the prototype
of a Hildebrand or an Innocent.

GAUL. 9. The Churches of GAUL were closely connected with and

probably descended from the Churches of Asia Minor. If so,
the episcopal form of government would probably be coeval with

1 Iren. iii. 3. 2, Tertull. de Praescr. of Victor, Zephyrinus (202219) and
32, 36, adv. Marc. iv. 5. Callistus (219 223), bear Greek names,

2 All the predecessors of Victor bear and it may be inferred from the ac-
Greek names with two exceptions, Cle- count in Hippolytus that they were
mens and Pius ; and even these appear Greeks ; but from this time forward
not to have been Latin. Clement the Roman bishops, with scarcely an
writes in Greek, and his style is wholly exception, seem to have been Latins,
unlike what might be expected from a 3 Hippol. Haer. ix. 12, pp. 287, 288.
Roman. Hermas, the brother of Pius, 4 See the account of his attitude in
not only employs the Greek language the Paschal controversy, Euseb. H. E.
in writing, but bears a Greek name also. v. 24.

It is worth observing also that Tertul- 5 Tertull. de Pudic. i. The bishop

lian (de Praescr. 30), speaking of the here mentioned will be either Victor or

episcopate of Eleutherus, designates Zephyrinus; and the passage points to

the church of the metropolis not *ec- the assumption of extraordinary titles

clesia Romana/ but 'ecclesia Roma- by the Roman bishops about this time,

nensis,' i.e. not the Church of Rome, See also Cyprian in the opening of the

but the Church in Rome. The trans- Condi. Garth, p. 158 (ed. Fell) ' neque

ition from a Greek to a Latin Church enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se

was of course gradual ; but, if a defi- episcoporum constituit etc.,' doubtless

nite epoch must be named, the episco- in allusion to the arrogance of the

pate of Victor serves better than any Roman prelates,
other. The two immediate successors

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 187

the foundation of Christian brotherhoods in this country. It is
true we do not meet with any earlier bishop than the immediate
predecessor of Irenseus at Lyons, the aged Pothinus, of whose
martyrdom an account is given in the letter of the Gallican
Churches 1 . But this is also the first distinct historical notice
of any kind relating to Christianity in Gaul.

10. AFRICA again was evangelized from Rome at a compa- AFRICA.
ratively late date. Of the African Church before the close of

the second century, when a flood of light is suddenly thrown
upon it by the writings of Tertullian, we know absolutely nothing.
But we need not doubt that this father represents the traditions
and sentiments of his church, when he lays stress on episcopacy
as an apostolic institution and on the episcopate as the depositary
of pure Christian doctrine. If we may judge by the large
number of prelates assembled in the African councils of a later
generation, it would appear that the extension of the episcopate
was far more rapid here than in most parts of Christendom 2 .

11. The Church of ALEXANDRIA, on the other hand, was ALEXAN-
probably founded in apostolic times 3 . Nor is there any reason

to doubt the tradition which connects it with the name of St
Mark, though the authorities for the statement are compara-
tively recent. Nevertheless of its early history we have no

1 The Epistle of the Gallican Churches Victor Vitensis p. 117 sq., with the
in Euseb. H. E. v. 1. notes p. 215 sq. These last references

2 At the African council convoked I owe to Gibbon, c. xxxvii. and c. xli.
by Cyprian about 50 years later, the 3 Independently of the tradition re
opinions of as many as 87 bishops are lating to St Mark, this may be inferred
recorded ; and allusion is made in one from extant canonical and uncanonical
of his letters (Epist. 59) to a council writings which appear to ha veemanated
held before his time, when 90 bishops from Alexandria. The Epistle to the
assembled. For a list of the African Hebrews, even if we may not ascribe
bishoprics at this time see Miinter it to the learned Alexandrian Apollos
Primord. Eccl. Afric. p. 31 sq. The (Acts xviii. 24), at least bears obvious
enormous number of African bishops a marks of Alexandrian culture. The so-
few centuries later would seem incredi- called Epistle of Barnabas again, which
ble, were it not reported on the best may have been written as early as the
authority. Dupin (Optat. Milev. p. lix) reign of Vespasian and can hardly date
counts up as many as 690 African sees : later than Nerva, must be referred to
compare also the Notitia in Euinart's the Alexandrian school of theology.

188 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

authentic record. Eusebius indeed gives a list of bishops
beginning with St Mark, which here, as in the case of the
Roman see, is accompanied by dates 1 ; but from what source
he derived his information is unknown. The first contem-
porary notice of church officers in Alexandria is found in a
Hadrian's heathen writer. The emperor Hadrian, writing to the consul
Servianus, thus describes the state of religion in this city:
'I have become perfectly familiar with Egypt, which you
praised to me; it is fickle, uncertain, blown about by every
gust of rumour. Those who worship Serapis are Christians,
and those are devoted to Serapis who call themselves bishops
of Christ. There is no ruler of a synagogue there, no
Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer,
a soothsayer, a quack. The patriarch himself whenever he
comes to Egypt is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by
others to worship Christ 2 .' In this letter, which seems to have
been written in the year 134, Hadrian shows more knowledge
of Jewish ecclesiastical polity than of Christian: but, appa-
rently without knowing the exact value of terms, he seems to

] Euseb. H. E. ii. 24, iii. 14, etc. difficulty. Hadrian paid his visit to

See Clinton's Fasti Romani n. p. 544. Egypt in the autumn of 130, but the

a Preserved in Vopiscus Vit. Saturn. letter is not stated to have been written
8. The Jewish patriarch (who resided there. The date of the third consul-
at Tiberias) is doubtless intended; for ship of Servianus is A.D. 134, and the
it would be no hardship to the Christian account of Spartianus (Ver. 3) easily
bishop of Alexandria to be 'compelled admits of the adoption of Verus before
to worship Christ.' Otherwise the ana- or during this year, though Clinton
chronism involved in such a title would (Fast. Rom. i. p. 124) places it as late
alone have sufficed to condemn the let- as A.D. 135. Gregorovius (Kaiser Ha-
ter as spurious. Yet Salmasius, Casau- drian p. 71) suggests that ' filium meum '
bon, and the older commentators gene- may have been added by Phlegon or by
rally, agree in the supposition that the some one else. The prominence of the
bishop of Alexandria is styled patriarch Christians in this letter is not surprising,
here. The manner in which the docu- when we remember how Hadrian inter-
ment is stated by- Vopiscus to have ested himself in their tenets on another
been preserved ('Hadriani epistolam ex occasion (at Athens). This document
libris Phlegontis liberti ejus proditam ') is considered genuine by such opposite
is favourable to its genuineness; nor authorities as Tillemont (Hist. desEmp.
does the mention of Verus as the em- n. p. 265) and Gregorovius (1. c. p. 41),
peror's 'son' in another part of the and may be accepted without hesita-
letter present any real chronological tion.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 189

distinguish the bishop and the presbyter in the Christian
community 1 . From the age of Hadrian to the age of Clement
no contemporary or nearly contemporary notices are found,
bearing on the government of the Alexandrian Church. The Clement'of
language of Clement is significant; he speaks sometimes offlrU.
two orders of the ministry, the presbyters and deacons *; some-
times of three, the bishops, presbyters, and deacons 3 . Thus
it would appear that even as late as the close of the second
century the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as distinct and
yet not distinct from the presbytery 4 . And the language of
Clement is further illustrated by the fact, which will have to be
considered at length presently, that at Alexandria the bishop
was nominated and apparently ordained by the twelve pres-
byters out of their own number 5 . The episcopal office in this
Church during the second century gives no presage of the
world-wide influence to which under the prouder name of
patriarchate it was destined in later ages to attain. The
Alexandrian succession, in which history is hitherto most in-
terested, is not the succession of the bishops but of the heads
of the catechetical school. The first bishop of Alexandria, of
whom any distinct incident is recorded on trustworthy autho-
rity, was a contemporary of Origen.

The notices thus collected 6 present a large body of evidence Inferences

1 At this time there appears to have dyyeXtKrjs do^rjs, Strom, iii. 12 (p. 552),
been only one bishop in Egypt (see Paed. iii. 12 (see the next note) : see
below,p. 196). ButHadrian, whowould Kaye's Clement of Alexandria p. 463 sq.
have heard of numerous bishops else- 4 Yet in one passage he, like Irenseus
where, and perhaps had no very precise (see Philippians p. 98), betrays his ig-
knowledge of the Egyptian Church, norance that in the language of the
might well indulge in this rhetorical New Testament bishop and presbyter
flourish. At all events he seems to are synonyrnes; see Paed. iii. 12 (p.
mean different offices, when speaking 309) /j.vpicu oercu virodiJKai els Trptxywira
of the bishop and the presbyter. e/cXe/crA faardvovcai eyyeypd^arai rcus

2 Strom, vii. I (p. 830, Potter) 6/uotws fitpXois rats ayiais, at fdvTrpe<rpvTe~pois

Kara r^v KK\r)fflav, TTJV pv /3e\- ai d eiriffKbTrots ai de diaKovots, a\\at

ot 7rpe<r/3i5Tepot a&^ovffiv elKbva, j^pcus /c.r.X.

de oi SiaKovoc. 5 See below, p. 194.

3 Strom, vi. 13 (p. 793) ai evravda 6 In this sketch of the episcopate in
Kara TT}V eKK\rjaiav irpoKo-jrai, eTriovcoTrwj', thedifferent churches I have not thought

OI/ACU it necessary to carry the lists later than

190 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

The gene- establishing the fact of the early and extensive adoption of
lence of episcopacy in the Christian Church. The investigation how-
pacy~ ever wou ld not be complete, unless attention were called to
such indirect testimony as is furnished by the tacit assump-
tions of writers living towards and at the close of the second
century. Episcopacy is so inseparably interwoven with all the
traditions and beliefs of men like Irenseus and Tertullian, that
they betray no knowledge of a time when it was not. Even
Irenaeus, the earlier of these, who was certainly born and prob-
ably grown up before the middle of the century, seems to be
wholly ignorant that the word bishop had passed from a lower
to a higher value since the apostolic times 1 . Nor is it impor-
tant only to observe the positive though indirect testimony
which they afford. Their silence suggests a strong negative
presumption, that while every other point of doctrine or prac-
tice was eagerly canvassed, the form of Church government
alone scarcely came under discussion.

Gradual But these notices, besides establishing the general preva-

even U de~ve- l ence f episcopacy, also throw considerable light on its origin.
They indicate that the solution suggested by the history of the
word 'bishop' and its transference from the lower to the higher
office is the true solution, and that the episcopate was created
out of the presbytery. They shew that this creation was not
so much an isolated act as a progressive development, not
advancing everywhere at an uniform rate but exhibiting at
one and the same time different stages of growth in different
churches. They seem to hint also that, so far as this develop-
ment was affected at all by national temper and characteristics,
it was slower where the prevailing influences were more purely
Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome, and more rapid
where an oriental spirit predominated, as at Jerusalem and

the second century. Nor (except in a dence is not trustworthy, though in

very few cases) has any testimony been many cases the statements doubtless

accepted, unless the writer himself flou- rested on some traditional basis,

rished before the close of this century. l See Philippians p. 98. The same

The Apostolic Constitutions would add is true of Clement of Alexandria : see

several names to the list; but this evi- above, p. 189, note 4.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 191

Antioch and Ephesus. Above all, they establish this result
clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in those regions
where the latest surviving Apostles (more especially St John)
fixed their abode, and at a time when its prevalence cannot be
dissociated from their influence or their sanction.

The original relation of the bishop to the presbyter, which Original
this investigation reveals, was not forgotten even after the the two
lapse of centuries. Though set over the presbyters, he was still
regarded as in some sense one of them. Irenaeus indicates
this position of the episcopate very clearly. In his language
a presbyter is never designated a bishop, while on the other
hand he very frequently speaks of a bishop as a presbyter.
In other words, though he views the episcopate as a distinct A bishop
office from the presbytery, he does not regard it as a distinct a presby-
order in the same sense in which the diaconate is a distinct Jfl^J Ire "

naBus

order. Thus, arguing against the heretics he says, ' But when
again we appeal against them to that tradition which is de-
rived from the Apostles, which is preserved in the churches
by successions of presbyters, they place themselves in opposition
to it, saying that they, being wiser not only than the presbyters
but even than the Apostles, have discovered the genuine truth V
Yet just below, after again mentioning the apostolic tradition,
he adds, ' We are able to enumerate those who have been ap-
pointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches and their
successors down to our own time 2 '; and still further, after
saying that it would take up too much space if he were to
trace the succession in all the churches, he declares that
he will confound his opponents by singling out the ancient
and renowned Church of Rome founded by the Apostles Peter
and Paul and will point out the tradition handed down to his
own time 'by the succession of bishops,' after which he gives
a list from Linus to Eleutherus 3 . So again in another passage
he writes, 'Therefore obedience ought to be rendered to the
presbyters who are in the churches, who have the succession
from the Apostles as we have shown, who with the succession
1 Iren. iii. 2. 2. 2 Iren. iii. 3. 1. 3 i ren< j^. 3. 2, 3.

192 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

of the episcopate have also received the sure grace of truth
according to the pleasure of the Father' ; after which he men-
tions some 'who are believed by many to be presbyter -s, but
serve their own lusts and are elated with the pomp of the
chief seat,' and bids his readers shun these and seek such as
1 together with the rank of the presbytery show their speech
sound and their conversation void of offence/ adding of these
latter, 'Such presbyters the Church nurtures and rears, con-
cerning whom also the prophet saith, "I will give thy rulers in
peace and thy bishops in righteousness 1 " '. Thus also writing
to Victor of Rome in the name of the Gallican churches, he
says, 'It was not so observed by the presbyters before Soter,
who ruled the Church which thou now guidest, we mean
Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus and XystusV
and Cle- And the same estimate of the office appears in Clement of
Alexan- Alexandria : for, while he speaks elsewhere of the three offices
in the ministry, mentioning them by name, he in one passage
puts forward a twofold division, the presbyters whose duty it
is to improve, and the deacons whose duty it is to serve, the
Church 3 . The functions of the bishop and presbyter are thus
regarded as substantially the same in kind, though different
in degree, while the functions of the diaconate are separate
Testimony from both. More than a century and a half later, this view
siaster/ is P ut forward with the greatest distinctness by the most
learned and most illustrious of the Latin fathers. 'There is

1 Iren. iv. 26. 2, 3, 4, 5. assumes, p. 414 sq.) why the usage

2 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24. In other of Irenasus should throughout be uni-
places Irenaeus apparently uses irpeept- form in this matter.

repot to denote antiquity and not office, 3 See the passage quoted above, p.

as in the letter to Florinus, Euseb. 189, note 2. So also in the anecdote of

H. E. v. 20 01 717)6 TIH&V irpea-pvTepoi St John (Quis div. salv. 42, p. 959) we

01 KO.I rois dTroo'ToXois o r u/A</>oir?7<raj'Tes read ry Kadearwrt Trpo<rf3\\J/as e?ri-

(comp. ii. 22. 5); in which sense the O-KOTTV, but immediately afterwards 6

word occurs also in Papias (Euseb. H.E. 5 7rpeo-/3i/repos dvaXa^djv /c.r.X., and

iii. 39; see Contemporary Review, Aug. then again dye 5^, ^0^, w eiriffKoire,

1875, p. 379 sq. [Essays on Supernatu- of the same person. Thus he too, like

ral Religion p. 143 sq.]) ; but the pas- Irenaeus, regards the bishop as a pres-

sages quoted in the text are decisive, byter, though the converse would not

nor is there any reason (as Bothe be true.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 193

one ordination,' writes the commentator Hilary, 'of the bishop
and the presbyter; for either is a priest, but the bishop is
first. Every bishop is a presbyter, but every presbyter is not
a bishop : for he is bishop who is first among the presbyters 1 .'
The language of St Jerome to the same effect' has been quoted Jerome,
elsewhere 2 . To the passages there given may be added the fol-
lowing: 'This has been said to show that with the ancients
presbyters were the same as bishops : but gradually all the
responsibility was deferred to a single person, that the thickets
of heresies might be rooted out. Therefore, as presbyters
know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him
who shall have been set over them, so let bishops also be
aware that they are superior to presbyters more owing to
custom than to any actual ordinance of the Lord, etc. : Let us
see therefore what sort of person ought to be ordained pres-
byter or bishop 3 .' In the same spirit too the great Augustine and Au-
writing to Jerome says, 'Although according to titles of honour
which the practice of the Church has now made valid, the epis-
copate is greater than the presbytery, yet in many things
Augustine is less than Jerome 4 / To these fathers this view
seemed to be an obvious deduction from the identity of the
terms 'bishop' and 'presbyter' in the apostolic writings; nor
indeed, when they wrote, had usage entirely effaced the original
connexion between the two offices. Even in the fourth and Bishops
fifth centuries, when the independence and power of the epis- them-

copate had reached its maximum, it was still customary for a ioJ.
bishop in writing to a presbyter to address him as ' fellow- b y ters -
presbyter 5 ,' thus bearing testimony to a substantial identity of

1 Ambrosiast. on 1 Tim. iii. 10. presbyteris tecum considentibus scripta

2 See Phili'ppians p. 98. venissent.' Compare also Epist. 44, 45,

3 On Tit. i. 5 (vn. p. 696). 71, 76. Augustine writes to Jerome in

4 J5pist.lxxxii.33 (n.p.202,ed.Ben.). the same terms, and in fact this seems

5 So for instance Cyprian, Epist. 14, to have been the recognised form of ad-
writes 'compresbyteri nostri Donatus dress. See the Quaest.Vet.etNov. Test.
et Fortunatus ' ; and addressing Corne- ci. (in Augustin. Op. in. P. 2, p. 93)
lius bishop of Eome (Epist. 45) he 'Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus
says ' cum ad me talia de te et com- presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos ?

L. 13

194 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

order. Nor does it appear that this view was ever questioned
until the era of the Reformation. In the western Church at
all events it carried the sanction of the highest ecclesiastical
authorities and was maintained even by popes and councils 1 .
Nor was it only in the language of the later Church that
the memory of this fact was preserved. Even in her practice
indications might here and there be traced, which pointed
to a time when the bishop was still only the chief member
The ^ of the presbytery. The case of the Alexandrian Church, which
Alexan- has already been mentioned casually, deserves special notice.
sen and ^ Jerome, after denouncing the audacity of certain persons
created by W h < WO uld give to deacons the precedence over presbyters,
bytery. that is over bishops/ and alleging scriptural proofs of the
identity of the two, gives the following fact in illustration :
'At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist down to the times
of the bishops Heraclas (A.D. 233 249) and Dionysius (A.D.
249 265), the presbyters always nominated as bishop one
chosen out of their own body and placed in a higher grade :
just as if an army were to appoint a general, or deacons were
to choose from their own body one whom they knew to be dili-
gent and call him archdeacon 2 .' Though the direct statement
of this father refers only to the appointment of the bishop, still
it may be inferred that the function of the presbyters extended
also to the consecration. And this inference is borne out by
other evidence. 'In Egypt,' writes an older contemporary of
St Jerome, the commentator Hilary, 'the presbyters seal (i.e.
ordain or consecrate), if the bishop be not present 3 .' This how-
ever might refer only to the ordination of presbyters, and not

Denique non aliter quam compresbyte- 2 Epist. cxlvi. ad Evang. (i. p. 1082).

ros hie vocat et consacerdotes sues. 3 Ambrosiast. on Ephes. iv. 12. So

Numquid et ministros condiaconos suos too in the Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. ci.

dicit episcopus?', where the writer is (falsely ascribed to St Augustine), Au-

arguing against the arrogance of the gust. Op. in. P. 2, p. 93, 'Nam in

Roman deacons. See Philippians p. Alexandria et per totam ^Egyptum,

96. si desit episcopus, consecrat (v. 1. con-

1 See the references collected by signat) presbyter.'
Gieseler, i. p. 105 sq.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 195

to the consecration of a bishop. But even the latter is sup-
ported by direct evidence, which though comparatively late
deserves consideration, inasmuch as it comes from one who

was himself a patriarch of Alexandria. Eutychius, who held Testimony

of liiuty-
the patriarchal see from A.D. 933 to A.D. 940, writes as follows : chius.

'The Evangelist Mark appointed along with the patriarch
Hananias twelve presbyters who should remain with the pa-
triarch, to the end that, when the patriarchate was vacant,
they might choose one of the twelve presbyters, on whose
head the remaining eleven laying their hands should bless
him and create him patriarch/ The vacant place in the pres-
bytery was then to be filled up, that the number twelve might
be constant 1 . ' This custom,' adds this writer, 'did not cease till
the time of Alexander (A.D. 313 326), patriarch of Alexandria.
He however forbad that henceforth the presbyters should create
the patriarch, and decreed that on the death of the patriarch
the bishops should meet to ordain the (new) patriarch, etc. 2 ' It
is clear from this passage that Eutychius considered the func-
tions of nomination and ordination to rest with the same
persons.

If this view however be correct, the practice of the

1 Eutychii Pair. Alexandr. Annales i. tween the accounts of Jerome and Eu-
p. 331 (Pococke, Oxon. 1656). The in- tychius as to the time when the change
ferences in the text are resisted by Abra- was effected. But we may reasonably
ham Ecchellensis Eutychius vindicatus conjecture (with Eitschl, p. 432) that the
p. 22 sq. (in answer to Selden the trans- transition from the old state of things
lator of Eutychius), and by Le Quien to the new would be the result of a pro-
Oriens Christianus n. p. 342, who urge longed conflict bet ween the Alexandrian
all that can be said on the opposite presbytery who had hitherto held these
side. The authority of a writer so in- functions, and the bishops of the re-
accurate as Eutychius, if it had been un- cently created Egyptian sees to whom
supported, would have had no weight ; it was proposed to transfer them,
but, as we have seen, this is not the Somewhat later one Ischyras was
case. deprived of his orders by an Alexan-

2 Between Dionysius and Alexander drian synod, because he had been or-
four bishops of Alexandria intervene, dained by a presbyter only: Athan.
Maximus(A.D. 265), Theonas(A.D. 283), Apol. c. Arian. 75 (i. p. 152). From
Peter I. (A.D. 301), and Achillas (A.D. this time at all events the Alexandrian
312). It will therefore be seen that Church insisted as strictly as any other
there is a considerable discrepancy be- on episcopal ordination.

132

196

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Increase
of the
Egyptian
episco-
pate.

Decree of
the Coun-
cil of An-
cyra.

Alexandrian Church was exceptional ; for at this time the
formal act of the bishop was considered generally necessary to
give validity to ordination. Nor is the exception difficult to
account for. At the close of the second century, when every
considerable church in Europe and Asia appears to have had
its bishop, the only representative of the episcopal order in
Egypt was the bishop of Alexandria. It was Demetrius first
(A.D. 190 233), as Eutychius informs us 1 , who appointed three
other bishops, to which number his successor Heraclas (A.D.
233 249) added twenty more. This extension of episcopacy
to the provincial towns of Egypt paved the way for a change
in the mode of appointing and ordaining the patriarch of
Alexandria. But before this time it was a matter of con-
venience and almost of necessity that the Alexandrian pres-
byters should themselves ordain their chief.

Nor is it only in Alexandria that we meet with this
peculiarity. Where the same urgent reason existed, the same
exceptional practice seems to have been tolerated. A decree
of the Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314) ordains that 'it be not
allowed to country-bishops (^wpeTr^cr/coTrot?) to ordain pres-
byters or deacons, nor even to city-presbyters, except permission
be given in each parish by the bishop in writing 2 .' Thus while

1 Eutych. Ann. 1. c. p. 332. Hera-
clas, we are informed on the same
authority (p. 335), was the first Alex-
andrian prelate who bore the title of
patriarch ; this designation being equi-
valent to metropolitan or bishop of
bishops.

2 Condi. Ancyr. can. 13 (Routh Eel.
Sacr. IV. p. 121) xwpeTrto-AcoTrois 7*77 ee?-
j/cu Trpefffivrtpovs r? diamvovs x ft P OTOJ/e "'j

TOU TriTpa.Tr7)vai UTTO rov
TTOV /xerot ypafjLfj.dr<jjv v e/cdor?; TrapoiKiq..
The various readings and interpreta-
tions of this canon will be found in
Routh's note, p. 144 sq. Routh him-
self reads d\\ci pr\v fjiydt Trpevfivrepovs
TrdXews, making Trpecrfivrtpovs TroXews

the object of x i P OTOV ^ t/ > but to this
there is a twofold objection: (1) he
necessarily understands the former
Trpe(r(3vTfpovs to mean Trpefffivrepovs x^~
pas, though this is not expressed: (2)
he interprets dXXa ^v ^k 'much
less,' a sense which ^ dt seems to ex-
clude and which is not borne out by
his examples.

The name and office of the xwpeTri-
<r/f07ros appear to be reliques of the time
when eTriffKoiros and 7rpe<rj3ijTepos were
synonymes. While the large cities had
their college of presbyters, for the vil-
lages a single trpecrpiJTepos (or eirlaK OTTOS)
would suffice; but from his isolated
position he would be tempted, even if
he were not obliged, to perform on his

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

197

restraining the existing license, the framers of the decree still
allow very considerable latitude. And it is especially import-
ant to observe that they lay more stress on episcopal sanction
than on episcopal ordination. Provided that the former is
secured, they are content to dispense with the latter.

As a general rule however, even those writers who maintain Ordina-
a substantial identity in the offices of the bishop and presbyter fine(l to "
reserve the power of ordaining to the former 1 . This distinction * ho
in fact may be regarded as a settled maxim of Church polity
in the fourth and later centuries. And when Aerius maintained
the equality of the bishop and presbyter and denied the neces-
sity of episcopal ordination, his opinion was condemned as
heretical, and is stigmatized as 'frantic' by Epiphanius 2 .

It has been seen that the institution of an episcopate
must be placed as far back as the closing years of the first

own responsibility certain acts which
in the city would only be performed by
the bishop properly so called, or at least
would not be performed without his
consent. Out of this position the office
of the later x w P f7r ^ ffK07ros would gra-
dually be developed ; but the rate of
progression would not be uniform, and
the regulations affecting it would be
determined by the circumstances of the
particular locality. Hence, at a later
date, it seems in some places to have
been presbyteral, in others episcopal.
In the Ancyran canon just quoted a
chorepiscopus is evidently placed below
the city presbytery ; but in other notices
he occupies a higher position. For the
conflicting accounts of the xwpeTrt'crKOTros
see Bingham n. xiv.

Baur's account of the origin of the
episcopate supposes that each Christian
congregation was presided over, not
by a college of presbyters, but by a
single 7jy>e<r/3i/Tepos or eTrtV/coTros, i.e.
that the constitution of the Church
was from the first monarchical: see
Pastoralbriefe p. 81 sq., Ursprung des
Episcopats p. 84 sq. This view is

inconsistent alike with the analogy of
the synagogue and with the notices in
the apostolic and early ecclesiastical
writings. But the practice which he
considers to have been the general rule
would probably hold in small country
congregations, where a college of pres-
byters would be unnecessary as well as
impossible.

1 St Jerome himself (Epist. cxlvi.),
in the context of the passage in which
he maintains the identity of the two
orders and alleges the tradition of the
Alexandrian Church (see above, p. 194),
adds, ' Quid enim facit excepta ordina-
tione episcopus quod presbyter non
faciat ? ' So also Const. Apost. viii. 28

repos xeipo(>Ti ov xetporovet, Chrysost.
Horn. xi. on 1 Tim. iii. 8 T$ xv-poToviq.
TrepfiefirjKao'i Kal Toting [Jibvov do-
ir\oveKTii> TTpefffiurtpovs. See
Bingham n. iii. 5, 6, 7, for other re-
ferences.

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

198 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

century, and that it cannot, without violence to historical
testimony, be dissevered from the name of St John. But it
has been seen also that the earliest bishops did not hold the
same independent position of supremacy which was and is
Causes of occupied by their later representatives. It will therefore be
lopment instructive to trace the successive stages by which the power
pacy 1S< ^ *ke office was developed during the second and third centu-
ries. Though something must be attributed to the frailty of
human pride arid love of power, it will nevertheless appear
that the pressing needs of the Church were mainly instru-
mental in bringing about the result, and that this development
of the episcopal office was a providential safeguard amid the
confusion of speculative opinion, the distracting effects of perse-
cution, and the growing anarchy of social life, which threatened
not only the extension but the very existence of the Church of
Christ. Ambition of office in a society where prominence of
rank involved prominence of risk was at least no vulgar and
selfish passion.

Three This development will be conveniently connected with three

connected S rea ^ names, each separated from the other by an interval of

with its more than half a century, and each marking a distinct stage in

progress. t .

its progress. Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, represent three

successive advances towards the supremacy which was ulti-

mately attained.
l. IGNA- 1. IGNATIUS of Antioch is commonly recognized as the

staunchest advocate of episcopacy in the early ages. Even,
The Syriac though we should refuse to accept as genuine any portions

Version. . _. _. r

which are not contained in the Syriac Version , this view
would nevertheless be amply justified. Confining our attention
for the moment to the Syriac letters we find that to this father
the chief value of episcopacy lies in the fact that it constitutes

1 In the earlier editions of this work shorter Greek form is genuine ; but

I assumed that the Syriac Version for the sake of argument I have kept

published by Cureton represented the the two apart in the text. I hope be-

Epistles of Ignatius in their original fore long to give reasons for this change

form. I am now convinced that this of opinion in my edition of this father.

is only an abridgment and that the [See p. 239 sq., Additional Note A.]

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 199

a visible centre of unity in the congregation. He seems in the The bishop
development of the office to keep in view the same purpose
which we may suppose to have influenced the last surviving of unit
Apostles in its institution. The withdrawal of the authori-
tative preachers of the Gospel, the personal disciples of the
Lord, had severed one bond of union. The destruction of the
original abode of Christendom, the scene of the life and passion
of the Saviour and of the earliest triumphs of the Church,
had removed another. Thus deprived at once of the personal
and the local ties which had hitherto bound individual to
individual and church to church, the Christian brotherhood was
threatened with schism, disunion, dissolution. 'Vindicate thine
office with all diligence,' writes Ignatius to the bishop of Smyrna,
' in things temporal as well as spiritual. Have a care of unity,
than which nothing is better 1 .' ' The crisis requires thee, as the
pilot requires the winds or the storm-tossed mariner a haven,
so as to attain unto God 2 .' 'Let not those who seem to be
plausible and teach falsehoods dismay thee ; but stand thou
firm as an anvil under the hammer: 'tis the part of a great
athlete to be bruised and to conquer 3 .' ' Let nothing be done
without thy consent, and do thou nothing without the consent
of God 4 .' He adds directions also, that those who decide on a
life of virginity shall disclose their intention to the bishop only,
and those who marry shall obtain his consent to their union,
that 'their marriage may be according to the Lord and not
according to lust 5 .' And turning from the bishop to the people
he adds, 'Give heed to your bishop, that God also may give heed
to you. I give my life for those who are obedient to the
bishop, to presbyters, to deacons. With them may I have my
portion in the presence of God 6 .' Writing to the Ephesians
also he says that in receiving their bishop Onesimus he is
receiving their whole body, and he charges them to love him,
and one and all to be in his likeness 7 , adding, 'Since love does

1 Polyc. 1. s p iy c , 5.

2 Polyc. 2. e p iy c , 6.

3 Polyc. 3. 7 Ephes . L

4 Polyc. 4.

200 THE CHKISTIAN MINISTRY.

not permit me to be silent, therefore I have been forward in
exhorting you to conform to the will of God 1 /

From these passages it will be seen that St Ignatius values
the episcopate chiefly as a security for good discipline and

The Greek harmonious working in the Church. And, when we pass from

letters

the Syriac letters to the Short Greek, the standing ground is

still unchanged. At the same time, though the point of view

is unaltered, the Greek letters contain far stronger expressions

than are found in the Syriac. Throughout the whole range of

Christian literature, no more uncompromising advocacy of the

episcopate can be found than appears in these writings. This

championship indeed is extended to the two lower orders of the

Their ex- ministry 2 , more especially to the presbyters 3 . But it is when

eStation asserting the claims of the episcopal office to obedience and

respect, that the language is strained to the utmost. 'The
episco-
pate, bishops established in the farthest parts of the world are in the

counsels of Jesus Christ 4 .' ' Every one whom the Master of the
house sendeth to govern His own household we ought to receive,
as Him that sent him ; clearly therefore we ought to regard the
bishop as the Lord Himself 5 .' Those 'live a life after Christ,'
who ' obey the bishop as Jesus Christ 6 .' ' It is good to know
God and the bishop ; he that honoureth the bishop is honoured
of God ; he that doeth anything without the knowledge of the
bishop serveth the devil 7 .' He that obeys his bishop, obeys
'not him, but the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of all.'
On the other hand, he that practises hypocrisy towards his
bishop, 'not only deceiveth the visible one, but cheateth the
Unseen 8 .' 'As many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, are
with the bishop 9 .' Those are approved who are 'inseparate
[from God], from Jesus Christ, and from the bishop, and from
the ordinances of the Apostles 10 .' ' Do ye all,' says this writer

1 Ephes. 3. 6 Trail. 2.

2 Magn. 13, Trail. 3, 7, Philad. 4, 7, 7 Smyrn. 9.
Smyrn. 8, 12. 8 Magn. 3.

3 Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. 2, 6, Trail. 13. Philad. 3.

4 Ephes. 3. 10 Trail. 7.

5 EpJies. 6.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 201

again, ' follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father 1 /
The Ephesians are commended accordingly, because they are so
vinited with their bishop ' as the Church with Jesus Christ and
as Jesus Christ with the Father/ ' If/ it is added, ' the prayer
of one or two hath so much power, how much more the prayer
of the bishop and of the whole Church 2 .' ' Wherever the bishop
may appear, there let the multitude be, just as where Jesus
Christ may be, there is the universal Church 3 .' Therefore ' let
no man do anything pertaining to the Church without the
bishop 4 .' 'It is not allowable either to baptize or to hold a
love-feast without the bishop : but whatsoever he may approve,
this also is well pleasing to God, that everything which is done
may be safe and valid 5 .' 'Unity of God/ according to this
writer, consists in harmonious co-operation with the bishop 6 .

And yet with all this extravagant exaltation of the epis- The pres-
copal office, the presbyters are not put out of sight. They form however
a council 7 , a ' worthy spiritual coronal 8 ' round the bishop. It is
the duty of every individual, but especially of them, ' to refresh
the bishop unto the honour of the Father and of Jesus Christ
and of the Apostles 9 .' They stand in the same relation to him,
"as the chords to the lyre 10 .' If the bishop occupies the place
of God or of Jesus Christ, the presbyters are as the Apostles, as
the council of God 11 . If obedience is due to the bishop as the
grace of God, it is due to the presbytery as the law of Jesus
Christ 12 .

It need hardly be remarked how subversive of the true Considera-
spirit of Christianity, in the negation of individual freedom and g^ld^y
the consequent suppression of direct responsibility to God in *^ ]f n ~
Christ, is the crushing despotism with which this language, if

1 Smyrn. 8, comp. Magn. 7. curs 1 Tim. iv. 14, is very frequent in

2 Ephes. 5. the Ignatian Epistles.

3 Smyrn. 8. 8 ^agn. 13>

4 ib. ; comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 7. 9 Trail. 12.

8 Smyrn. 8. 10 Ephes. 4 ; comp. the metaphor in

6 Polyc. 8 iv et>6rr)Ti 9eou xai eiriffKb- Philad. 1.

TTOV (v. 1. eirtffKoiry) : comp. Philad. 3, 8. n Trail. 2, 3, Magn. 6, Smyrn. 8.

7 The word Trpetrpvrtpiov, which oc- 12 Magn. 2.

202 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

taken literally, would invest the episcopal office. It is more
important to bear in mind the extenuating fact, that the needs
and distractions of the age seemed to call for a greater concen-
tration of authority in the episcopate; and we might well be
surprised, if at a great crisis the defence of an all-important
institution were expressed in words carefully weighed and
guarded.

The same Strangely enough, not many years after Ignatius thus
vanced in asserted the claims of the episcopate as a safeguard of ortho-

the inter- d ox v another writer used the same instrument to advance a
ests oi Hi-

bionism. very different form of Christianity. The organization, which is
thus employed to consolidate and advance the Catholic Church,
might serve equally well to establish a compact Ebionite com-
munity. I have already mentioned the author of the Clementine
Homilies as a staunch advocate of episcopacy 1 . His view of the
sanctions and privileges of the office does not differ materially
from that of Ignatius. ' The multitude of the faithful,' he says,
' must obey a single person, that so it may be able to continue
in harmony/ Monarchy is a necessary condition of peace ; this
may be seen from the aspect of the world around : at present
there are many kings, and the result is discord and war ; in the
world to come God has appointed one King only, that 'by
reason of monarchy an indestructible peace may be established :
therefore all ought to follow some one person as guide, prefer-
ring him in honour as the image of God ; and this guide must
show the way that leadeth to the Holy City 2 .' Accordingly he
delights to speak of the bishop as occupying the place or the
seat of Christ 3 . Every insult, he says, and every honour offered
to a bishop is carried to Christ and from Christ is taken up to
the presence of the Father ; and thus it is requited manifold 4 .
Similarly another writer of the Clementine cycle, if he be not
the same, compares Christ to the captain, the bishop to the
mate, and the presbyters to the sailors, while the lower orders

1 See above, p. 171. ib. iii. 60, 66, 70.

2 Clem. Horn. iii. 61, 62. 4 ib. iii. 66, 70.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 203

and the laity have each their proper place in the ship of the
Church 1 .

It is no surprise that such extravagant claims should not Monta-
have been allowed to pass unchallenged. In opposition to the faction
lofty hierarchical pretensions thus advanced on the one hand in
the Ignatian letters on behalf of Catholicism and on the other vagance.
by the Clementine writer in the interests of Ebionism, a strong
spiritualist reaction set in. If in its mental aspect the heresy of
Montanus must be regarded as a protest against the speculative
subtleties of Gnosticism, on its practical side it was equally a
rebound from the aggressive tyranny of hierarchical assumption.
Montanus taught that the true succession of the Spirit, the au-
thorized channel of Divine grace, must be sought not in the hier-
archical but in the prophetic order. For a rigid outward system
he substituted the free inward impulse. Wildly fanatical as were
its manifestations, this reaction nevertheless issued from a true
instinct which rebelled against the oppressive yoke of external
tradition and did battle for the freedom of the individual spirit.
Montanus was excommunicated and Montanism died out ; but
though dead, it yet spake ; for a portion of its better spirit was
infused into the Catholic Church, which it leavened and re-
freshed and invigorated.

2. IREN^EUS followed Ignatius after an interval of about 2. IRE-
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 specu-
lations 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 the dis-
putants. To this question Irenseus supplies an answer. 'If The bishop
you wish/ he argues, ' to ascertain the doctrine of the Apostles, S ifary P of
apply to the Church of the Apostles. In the succession of bishops %% tive
tracing their descent from the primitive age and appointed by
the Apostles themselves, you have a guarantee for the trans-

1 Clem. Horn. Ep. Clem. 15.

204 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

mission 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 1 .' Thus the episcopate is regarded now not so much
as the centre of ecclesiastical unity but rather as the depositary
of apostolic tradition.

The same This view is not peculiar to Irenseus. It seems to have been
by Hege- advanced earlier by Hegesippus, for in a detached fragment he

s ^ ress on the succession of the bishops at Rome and at
lian. Corinth, adding that in each church and in each succession the
pure faith was preserved 2 ; so that he seems here to be contro-
verting that 'gnosis falsely so called' which elsewhere he
denounces 3 . It is distinctly maintained by Tertullian, the
younger contemporary of Irenseus, who refers, if not with the
same frequency, at least with equal emphasis, to the tradition
of the apostolic churches as preserved by the succession of the
episcopate 4 .

3. CY- 3. As two generations intervened between Ignatius and

Irenaeus, so the same period roughly speaking separates Irenaeus

from CYPRIAN. If with Ignatius the bishop is the centre of

Christian unity, if with Irenseus he is the depositary of the

The apostolic tradition, with Cyprian he is the absolute vicegerent of

vicegerent ^ ir ^t in things spiritual. In mere strength of language indeed

of Christ, ft wou i(j "be difficult to surpass Ignatius, who lived about a

century and a half earlier. With the single exception of the

sacerdotal view of the ministry which had grown up meanwhile,

Cyprian puts forward no assumption which this father had not

advanced either literally or substantially long before. This one

exception however is all important, for it raised the sanctions

of the episcopate to a higher level and put new force into old

1 See especially iii. cc. 2, 3, 4, iv. 26. p. 182.

2 sq., iv. 32, 1, v. prsef., v. 20, 1, 2. 3 Euseb. H. E. iii. 32.

2 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. See above, 4 Tertull. de Praescr. 32.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 205

titles of respect. Theoretically therefore it may be said that
Cyprian took his stand on the combination of the ecclesiastical
authority as asserted by Ignatius with the sacerdotal claim
which had been developed in the half century just past. But Influence
the real influence which he exercised in the elevation of the ntheepi-
episcopate consisted not in the novelty of his theoretical views, sc P ate -
but in his practical energy and success. The absolute supremacy
of the bishop had remained hitherto a lofty title or at least a
vague ill-defined assumption : it became through his exertions
a substantial and patent and world-wide fact. The first prelate
whose force of character vibrated throughout the whole of
Christendom, he was driven not less by the circumstances of
his position than by his own temperament and conviction to
throw all his energy into this scale. And the permanent result
was much vaster than he could have anticipated beforehand or
realized after the fact. Forced into the episcopate against his
will, he raised it to a position of absolute independence, from
which it has never since been deposed. The two great contro-
versies in which Cyprian engaged, though immediately arising
out of questions of discipline, combined from opposite sides to
consolidate and enhance the power of the bishops 1 .

The first question of dispute concerned the treatment of First con-
such as had lapsed during the recent persecution under Decius.
Cyprian found himself on this occasion doing battle for the Treatment
episcopate against a twofold opposition, against the confessors lapsed,
who claimed the right of absolving and restoring these fallen
brethren, and against his own presbyters who in the absence of
their bishop supported the claims of the confessors. From his
retirement he launched his shafts against this combined arraj^,
where an aristocracy of moral influence was leagued with an
aristocracy of official position. With signal determination and

1 The influence of Cyprian on the sq. (1857). See also Eettberg Thascius

episcopate is ably stated in two vigor- Cdcilius Cyprianus p. 367 sq. , Huther

ous articles by Kayser^entitled Cyprien Cyprian's Lehre von der Kirche p. 59

ou I'Autonomie de VEpiscopat in the sq. For Cyprian's work generally see

Revue de Theologie xv. pp. 138 sq., 242 Smith's Diet, of Christ. Biogr. s. v.

206 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

courage in pursuing his aim, and with not less sagacity and
address in discerning the means for carrying it out, Cyprian had
on this occasion the further advantage, that he was defending
the cause of order and right. He succeeded moreover in enlist-
ing in his cause the rulers of the most powerful church in
Christendom. The Roman clergy declared for the bishop and
against the presbyters of Carthage. Of Cyprian's sincerity no
reasonable question can be entertained. In maintaining the
authority of his office he believed himself to be fighting his
Master's battle, and he sought success as the only safeguard of
the integrity of the Church of Christ. In this lofty and dis-
interested spirit, and with these advantages of position, he
entered upon the contest.

It is unnecessary for my purpose to follow out the conflict
in detail : to show how ultimately the positions of the two
combatants were shifted, so that from maintaining discipline
against the champions of too great laxity Cyprian found himself
protecting the fallen against the advocates of too great severity;
to trace the progress of the schism and the attempt to establish
a rival episcopate ; or to unravel the entanglements of the
Novatian controversy and lay open the intricate relations
Power of between Eome and Carthage 1 . It is sufficient to say that
in Ids own Cyprian's victory was complete. He triumphed over the con-
church de- f essors ^ triumphed over his own presbyters, triumphed over the
schismatic bishop and his party. It was the most signal
success hitherto achieved for the episcopate, because the battle
had been fought and the victory won on this definite issue.
The absolute supremacy of the episcopal office was thus estab-
lished against the two antagonists from which it had most to
fear, against a recognised aristocracy of ecclesiastical office and
an irregular but not less powerful aristocracy of moral weight.

1 The intricacy of the whole proceed- nists, varying and even interchanged

ing is a strong evidence of the genuine- with the change of circumstances, are

ness of the letters and other documents very natural, but very unlike the in-

which contain the account of the con- vention of a forger who has a distinct

troversy. The situations of the antago- side to maintain.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 207

The position of the bishop with respect to the individual
church over which he ruled was thus defined by the first
contest in which Cyprian engaged. The second conflict resulted Second
in determining his relation to the Church universal. The V ersy~Re-
schism which had grown up during the first conflict created the j^J^ of
difficulty which gave occasion to the second. A question arose
whether baptism by heretics and schismatics should be held
valid or not. Stephen the Roman bishop, pleading the im-
memorial custom of his church, recognised its validity. Cyprian
insisted on rebaptism in such cases. Hitherto the bishop of
Carthage had acted in cordial harmony with Rome : but now
there was a collision. Stephen, inheriting the haughty temper
and aggressive policy of his earlier predecessor Victor, excom-
municated those who differed from the Roman usage in this
matter. These arrogant assumptions were directly met by
Cyprian. He summoned first one and then another synod of
African bishops, who declared in his favour. He had on his
side also the churches of Asia Minor, which had been included
in Stephen's edict of excommunication. Thus the bolt hurled
by Stephen fell innocuous, and the churches of Africa and Asia
retained their practice. The principle asserted in the struggle
was not unimportant. As in the former conflict Cyprian had Relations
maintained the independent supremacy of the bishop over the bishops to
officers and members of his own congregation, so now he con- y^^ 111 '
tended successfully for his immunity from any interference from Cimrcl1
without. At a later period indeed Rome carried the victory,
but the immediate result of this controversy was to establish
the independence and enhance the power of the episcopate.
Moreover this struggle had the further and not less important
consequence of defining and exhibiting the relations of the
episcopate to the Church in another way. As the individual
bishop had been pronounced indispensable to the existence
of the individual community, so the episcopal order was now
put forward as the absolute indefeasible representative of the
universal Church. Synods of bishops indeed had been held
frequently before ; but under Cyprian's guidance they assumed

208 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

a prominence which threw all existing precedents into the
shade. A ' one undivided episcopate ' was his watchword. The
unity of the Church, he maintained, consists in the unanimity
of the bishops 1 . In this controversy, as in the former, he acted
throughout on the principle, distinctly asserted, that the exist-
ence of the episcopal office was not a matter of practical
advantage or ecclesiastical rule or even of apostolic sanction,
but an absolute incontrovertible decree of God. The triumph
of Cyprian therefore was the triumph of this principle.
Cyprian's The greatness of Cyprian's influence on the episcopate is
episco- indeed due to this fact, that with him the statement of the
pate. principle precedes and necessitates the practical measures. Of
the sharpness and distinctness of his sacerdotal views it will be
time to speak presently ; but of his conception of the episcopal
office generally thus much may be said here, that he regards
the bishop as exclusively the representative of God to the con-
gregation and hardly, if at all, as the representative of the
congregation before God. The bishop is the indispensable
channel of divine grace, the indispensable bond of Christian
brotherhood. The episcopate is not so much the roof as the
foundation-stone of the ecclesiastical edifice ; not so much the
legitimate development as the primary condition of a church 2 .
The bishop is appointed directly by God, is responsible directly

1 De Unit. Eccl. 2 ' Quam unitatem et si quis cum episcopo non sit, in eccle-
firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus sia non esse'; Epist. 33 ' Ut ecclesia
maxime episcopi qui in ecclesia praesi- super episcopos constituatur et omnis
demus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos
unum atque indivisum probemus'; and gubernetur.' Hence the expression 'nee
again ' Episcopatus unus est, cujus a episcopum nee ecclesiam cogitans,'
singulis in solidum pars tenetur : ec- Epist. 41 ; hence also ' honor episcopi '
clesia quoque una est etc.' So again he is associated not only with * ecclesiae
argues (Epist. 43) that, as there is one ratio ' (Epist. 33) but even with 'timor
Church, there must be only ' unum al- Dei ' (Epist. 15). Compare also the
tare et unum sacerdotium (i.e. one language (Epist. 59) ' Nee ecclesia istic
episcopate).' Comp. also Epist. 46, cuiquam clauditur nee episcopus alicui
55, 67. denegatur,' and again (Epist. 43)

2 Epist. 66 ' Scire debes episcopum ' Soli cum episcopis non sint, qui con-
in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo, tra episcopos rebellarunt.'

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 209

to God, is inspired directly from God 1 . This last point deserves
especial notice. Though in words he frequently defers to the
established usage of consulting the presbyters and even the
laity in the appointment of officers and in other matters affect-
ing the well-being of the community, yet he only makes the
concession to nullify it immediately. He pleads a direct official
inspiration 2 which enables him to dispense with ecclesiastical
custom and to act on his own responsibility. Though the
presbyters may still have retained the shadow of a controlling
power over the acts of the bishop, though the courtesy of
language by which they were recognised as fellow-presbyters 3
was not laid aside, yet for all practical ends the independent
supremacy of the episcopate was completely established by the
principles and the measures of Cyprian.

In the investigation just concluded I have endeavoured to The power

of tlip

trace the changes in the relative position of the first and bishops a
second orders of the ministry, by which the power was gradually ^^Ical^
concentrated in the hands of the former. Such a development conveni-
involves no new principle and must be regarded chiefly in its
practical bearings. It is plainly competent for the Church at
any given time to entrust a particular office with larger powers,
as the emergency may require. And, though the grounds on
which the independent authority of the episcopate was at times
defended may have been false or exaggerated, no reasonable
objection can be taken to later forms of ecclesiastical polity
because the measure of power accorded to the bishop does not
remain exactly the same as in the Church of the subapostolic
ages. Nay, to many thoughtful and dispassionate minds even
the gigantic power wielded by the popes during the middle
ages will appear justifiable in itself (though they will repudiate

1 See esp. Epist. 3, 43, 55, 59, 73, tione conjunctum ' ; Epist. 40 <Ad-
and above all 66 (Ad Pupianum). monitos nos et instructos sciatis digna-

2 Epist. 38 'Expectanda non sunt tione divina lit Numidicus presbyter
testimonia hnmana, cum praecedunt adscribatur presbyterorum etc.'
divina suffragia ' ; Epist. 39 Non hu- 3 See above, p. 193, note 5.

mana suffragatione sed divina digna-

L. 14

210 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the false pretensions on which it was founded, and the false
opinions which were associated with it), since only by such a
providential concentration of authority could the Church,
humanly speaking, have braved the storms of those ages of
and un- anarchy and violence. Now however it is my purpose to
wi-thsacer- investigate the origin and growth of a new principle, which is
dotahsm. nO where enunciated in the New Testament, but which notwith-
standing has worked its way into general recognition and
seriously modified the character of later Christianity. The
progress of the sacerdotal view of the ministry is one of the
most striking and important phenomena in the history of the
Church.

No sacer- It has been pointed out already that the sacerdotal functions
in th^New an( ^ privileges, which alone are mentioned in the apostolic
writings, pertain to all believers alike and do not refer solely
or specially to the ministerial office. If to this statement it be
objected that the inference is built upon the silence of the
Apostles and Evangelists, and that such reasoning is always
precarious, the reply is that an exclusive sacerdotalism (as the
word is commonly understood) 1 contradicts the general tenour
of the Gospel. But indeed the strength or weakness of an
argument drawn from silence depends wholly on the circum-
stance under which the silence is maintained. And in this
case it cannot be considered devoid of weight. In the Pastoral
Epistles for instance, which are largely occupied with questions
relating to the Christian ministry, it seems scarcely possible
that this aspect should have been overlooked, if it had any
place in St Paul's teaching. The Apostle discusses at length
the requirements, the responsibilities, the sanctions, of the

1 In speaking of sacerdotalism, I as- applied to the Christian ministry, may

sume the term to have essentially the have borne this innocent meaning. But

same force as when applied to the Jew- at a later date it was certainly so used

ish priesthood. In a certain sense (to as to imply a substantial identity of

be considered hereafter) all officers ap- character with the Jewish priesthood,

pointed to minister 'for men in things i.e. to designate the Christian minister

pertaining to God 'may be calledpriests; as one who offers sacrifices and makes

and sacerdotal phraseology, when first atonement for the sins of others.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

211

ministerial office : he regards the presbyter as an example, as a
teacher, as a philanthropist, as a ruler. How then, it may well
be asked, are the sacerdotal functions, the sacerdotal privileges,
of the office wholly set aside ? If these claims were recognised
by him at all, they must necessarily have taken a foremost place.
The same argument again applies with not less force to those
passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians, where St Paul
asserts his apostolic authority against his detractors. Neverthe- Its ra | id
less, so entirely had the primitive conception of the Christian a later
Church been supplanted by this sacerdotal view of the ministry,
before the northern races were converted to the Gospel, and
the dialects derived from the Latin took the place of the
ancient tongue, that the languages of modern Europe very
generally supply only one word to represent alike the priest of
the Jewish or heathen ceremonial and the presbyter of the
Christian ministry 1 .

For, though no distinct traces of sacerdotalism are visible in
the ages immediately after the Apostles, yet having once taken
root in the Church it shot up rapidly into maturity. Towards

1 It is a significant fact that in those
languages which have only one word to
express the two ideas, this word etymolo-
gically represents ' presbyterus ' and not
'sacerdos,' e.g. the French pretre, the
Geimanpriester, and the English priest;
thus showing that the sacerdotal idea
was imported and not original. In the
Italian, where two words prete and
sacerdote exist side by side, there is no
marked difference in usage, except that
prete is the more common. If the lat-
ter brings out the sacerdotal idea more
prominently, the former is also applied
to Jewish and Heathen priests and
therefore distinctly involves this idea.
Wiclifs version of the New Testament
naturally conforms to the Vulgate, in
which it seems to be the rule to translate
TrpefffitTepoi by 'presbyteri' (in Wiclif
' preestes ') where it obviously denotes

the second order in the ministry (e.g.
Acts xiv. 23, 1 Tim. v. 17, 19, Tit. i. 5,
James v. 14), and by ' seniores ' (in
Wiclif 'eldres' or 'elder men') mother
passages: but if so, this rule is not
always successfully applied (e.g. Acts
xi. 30, xxi. 18, 1 Pet. v. 1). A doubt
about the meaning may explain the
anomaly that the word is translated
' presbyteri,' ' preestes,' Acts xv. 2, and
' seniores,' * elder men,' Acts xv. 4, 6,
22, xvi. 4 ; though the persons intended
are the same. In Acts xx. 17, it is
rendered in Wiclifs version ' the gret-
tist men of birthe,' a misunderstanding
of the Vulgate 'majores natu.' The
English versions of the reformers and
the reformed Church from Tyndale
downward translate Trpeo-pfoepoi uni-
formly by ' elders.'

142

212 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the close of the second century we discern the first germs
appearing above the surface : yet, shortly after the middle of
the third, the plant has all but attained its full growth. The
origin of this idea, the progress of its development, and the
conditions favourable to its spread, will be considered in the
present section of this essay.

Distinc- A separation of orders, it is true, appeared at a much earlier

clergy date, and was in some sense involved in the appointment of a
lait* 1 ttie s P ec ^ a ^ ministry. This, and not more than this, was originally
contained in the distinction of clergy and laity. If the sacer-
dotal view of the ministry engrafted itself on this distinction,
it nevertheless was not necessarily implied or even indirectly
suggested thereby. The term ' clerus,' as a designation of the
ministerial office, did not owing to any existing associations
not de- convey the idea of sacerdotal functions. The word is not used
thTlje* 001 f ^ ne Aaronic priesthood in any special sense which would

vitical explain its transference to the Christian ministry. It is indeed
priest-
hood, said of the Levites, that they have no ' clerus ' in the land, the

Lord Himself being their ' clerus' 1 . But the Jewish priesthood
is never described conversely as the special 'clerus' of Jehovah :
while on the other hand the metaphor thus inverted is more
than once applied to the whole Israelite people' 2 . Up to this
point therefore the analogy of Old Testament usage would
have suggested ' clerus ' as a name rather for the entire body of
the faithful than for the ministry specially or exclusively. Nor
do other references to the clerus or lot in connexion with the
Levitical priesthood countenance its special application. The
tithes, it is true, were assigned to the sons of Levi as their
'clerus' 3 ; but in this there is nothing distinctive, and in fact
the word is employed much more prominently in describing the

1 Deut. x. 9, xviii. 1, 2; comp. Num. reasonable, if it were supported by the

xxvi. 62, Deut. xii. 12, xiv. 27, 29, Josh. language of the Old Testament : the

xiv. 3. Jerome (Epist. Hi. 5, i. p. 258) latter is plainly inadequate,

says, ' Propterea vocantur clerici, vel 2 Deut. iv. 20 etvcu avri^ Xabv 7^X77-

quia de sorte sunt Domini, velquiaipse pov : comp. ix. 29 OVTOI Xaos vov /ecu

Dominus sors, id est pars, clericorum K\ijpos crov.

est.' The former explanation would be 3 Num. xviii. 21, 24, 26.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 213

lands allotted to the whole people. Again the courses of
priests and Levites selected to conduct the temple-service were
appointed by lot 1 ; but the mode adopted in distributing a
particular set of duties is far too special to have supplied a
distinctive name for the whole order. If indeed it were an
established fact that the Aaronic priesthood at the time of the
Christian era commonly bore the name of 'clergy/ we might
be driven to explain the designation in this or in some similar
way ; but apparently no evidence of any such usage exists 2 , and
it is therefore needless to cast about for an explanation of a
fact which itself is only conjectural. The origin of the term
clergy, as applied to the Christian ministry, must be sought
elsewhere.

And the record of the earliest appointment made by the Origin of
Christian Church after the Ascension of the Lord seems to a ^me for
supply the clue. Exhorting the assembled brethren to elect a ^ e n Chris "
successor in place of Judas, St Peter tells them that the traitor ministry.
* had been numbered among them and had received the lot
(fcXfjpov) of the ministry': while in the account of the subsequent
proceedings it is recorded that the Apostles 'distributed lots'
to the brethren, and that ' the lot fell on Matthias and he was
added to the eleven Apostles 3 .' The following therefore seems
to be the sequence of meanings, by which the word /c\f}po<?
arrived at this peculiar sense: (1) the lot by which the office
was assigned ; (2) the office thus assigned by lot ; (3) the body
of persons holding the office. The first two senses are illustrated
by the passages quoted from the Acts ; and from the second to
the third the transition is easy and natural. It must not be

1 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, 7, 31, xxv. 8, 9. Xcu/c6o>, Deut. xx. 6, xxviii. 30, Kuth i.

2 On the other hand Xaos is used of 12, Ezek. vii. 22) ; comp. Clem. Eom.
the people, as contrasted either with 40.

the rulers or with the priests. From 3 Acts i. 17 Z\ax ev rbv K\TJpov, 26

this latter contrast comes Xeufcos, 'laic' tfuKw /cX^pous ai)ro?s Kai frreo-ei/ 6 K\TJ-

or ' profane,' and XCUKOW to profane ' ; pos fai Ma00/av. In ver. 25 K\7)pov is

which, though not found in the LXX, a false reading. The use of the word

occur frequently in the versions of in 1 Pet. v. 3 KaraKvpietovTes T&V K\-/J-

Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion pwv (i.e. the flocks assigned to them)

(Xai/cds, 1 Sam. xxi. 4, Ezek. xlviii. 15 ; does not illustrate this meaning.

214 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

supposed however that the mode of appointing officers by lot
prevailed generally in the early Church. Besides the case of
Matthias no other instance is recorded in the New Testament ;
nor is this procedure likely to have been commonly adopted.
But just as in the passage quoted the word is used to describe
the office of Judas, though Judas was certainly not selected by
lot, so generally from signifying one special mode of appointment
to office it got to signify office in the Church generally 1 . If
this account of the application of 'clerus' to the Christian
ministry be correct, we should expect to find it illustrated by a
corresponding progress in the actual usage of the word. And
this is in fact the case. The sense 'clerical appointment or
office ' chronologically precedes the sense ' clergy.' The former
meaning occurs several times in Irenseus. He speaks of Hyginus
as 'holding the ninth clerus of the episcopal succession from
the Apostles 2 ' ; and of Eleutherus in like manner he says, ' He
now occupies the clerus of the episcopate in the tenth place
from the Apostles 3 .' On the other hand the earliest instance
of ' clerus/ meaning clergy, seems to occur in Tertullian 4 , who
belongs to the next generation.

No sacer- It will thus be seen that the use of ' clerus ' to denote the
conveyed 1 m inistry cannot be traced to the Jewish priesthood, and is there-
by the f ore wholly unconnected with any sacerdotal views. The term
term.

1 See Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, pous, it is used absolutely of ' clerical
where K\-rjpo\jv is ' to appoint to the offices. ' The Epistle of the Gallican
ministry'; and Iren. iii. 3.3 KXypovvdai Churches (Euseb. H. E. v. 1) speaks
TT)i> eTTLffKoir-riv. A similar extension of more than once of the xX^oos T&V pap-
meaning is seen in this same word /cX?}- Ttipuv, i.e. the order or rank of mar-
pos applied to land. Signifying origi- tyrs : comp. Test, xii Patr. Levi 8. See
nallyapiece of ground assigned by lot, Ritschl p. 390 sq., to whom I am in-
it gets to mean landed property gene- debted for several of the passages which
rally, whether obtained by assignment are quoted in this investigation.

or by inheritance or in any other way. 4 e.g. de Monog. 12 ' Unde enim

2 Iren. i. 27. 1. episcopi et clerus?' and again 'Extolli-

3 Iren. iii. 3. 3. In this passage how- mur et inflamur adversus clerum.' Per-
ever, as in the preceding, the word is hapshoweverearlierinstancesmayhave
explained by a qualifying genitive. In escaped notice. In Clem. Alex. Quis
Hippol. Haer. ix. 12 (p. 290), rjpfcvTo div. salv. 42 the word seems not to be
firiffKoiroi Kai Trpeff^vrepot, Kai 8taKOVOi used in this sense.

5i~ya.fJt.oi Kai Tpiya.fji.oi KO.diffTQ.o'dai. eis K\r)-

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 215

does indeed recognise the clergy as an order distinct from the
laity ; but this is a mere question of ecclesiastical rule or polity,
and involves no doctrinal bearings. The origin of sacerdotal
phraseology and ideas must be sought elsewhere.

Attention has been already directed to the absence of any Silence of
appeal to sacerdotal claims in the Pastoral Epistles. The silence S t ii c
of the apostolic fathers deserves also to be noticed. Though ^ers on
the genuine letters of all three may be truly said to hinge on dotalism.
questions relating to the ministry, no distinct traces of this
influence are visible. St Clement, as the representative of the Clement.
Roman Church, writes to the Christian brotherhood at Corinth,
offering friendly counsel in their disputes and rebuking their
factious and unworthy conduct towards certain presbyters whom,
though blameless, they had ejected from office. He appeals to
motives of Christian love, to principles of Christian order. He
adduces a large number of examples from biblical history con-
demnatory of jealousy and insubordination. He urges that
men, who had been appointed directly by the Apostles or by
persons themselves so appointed, ought to have received better
treatment. Dwelling at great length on the subject, he never-
theless advances no sacerdotal claims or immunities on behalf
of the ejected ministers. He does, it is true, adduce the Aaronic import of
priesthood and the Temple service as showing that God has r^^^rth
appointed set persons and set places and will have all things the Aaron-
done in order. He had before illustrated this lesson by the hood,
subordination of ranks in an army, and by the relation of the
different members of the human body : he had insisted on the
duties of the strong towards the weak, of the rich towards the
poor, of the wise towards the ignorant, and so forth : he had
enforced the appeal by reminding his readers of the utter
feebleness and insignificance of man in the sight of God, as
represented in the Scriptures of the Old Testament ; and then
follows the passage which contains the allusion in question :
' He hath not commanded (the offerings and ministrations) to
be performed at random or in disorder, but at fixed times and
seasons ; and where and through whom He willeth them to be

216 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

performed, He hath ordained by His supreme will. They there-
fore who make their offerings at the appointed seasons are
acceptable and blessed, since following the ordinances of the
Master they do not go wrong. For to the high priest peculiar
services are entrusted, and the priests have their peculiar office
assigned to them, and on Levites peculiar ministrations are
imposed : the layman is bound by lay ordinances. Let each of
you, brethren, in his own rank give thanks to God, retaining a
good conscience, not transgressing the appointed rule of his
service (\eirovpyLas) etc. 1 ' Here it is clear that in St Clement's
conception the sanction possessed in common by the Aaronic
priesthood and the Christian ministry is not the sacerdotal
consecration, but the divinely appointed order. He passes over
in silence the numerous passages in the Old Testament which
enjoin obedience to the priests ; while the only sentence ( 42)
which he puts forward as anticipating and enforcing the au-
thority of the Christian ministry is a misquoted and misinter-
preted verse from Isaiah; 'I will establish their overseers
(bishops) in righteousness and their ministers (deacons) in
faith 2 .' Again a little later he mentions in illustration the
murmuring of the Israelites which was rebuked by the budding
of Aaron's rod 3 . But here too he makes it clear how far he
considers the analogy to extend. He calls the sedition in the
one case 'jealousy concerning the priesthood,' in the other 'strife
concerning the honour of the episcopate 4 .' He keeps the names

1 Clem.Rom.40,41.Neander(C/mrc/i garded as decisive on this point.
History, i. p. 272 note, Bonn's transla- 2 Is. Ix. 17, where the A. V. cor-
tion) conjectures that this passage is rectly renders the original, ' I will also
an 'interpolation from a hierarchical make thy officers (lit. magistrates) peace
interest,' and Dean Milman (Hist, of and thine exactors (i.e. task-masters)
Christianity, in. p. 259) says that it is righteousness'; i.e. there shall be no
' rejected by all judicious and impartial tyranny or oppression. The LXX de-
scholars.' At the risk of forfeiting all parts from the original, and Clement
claim to judiciousness and impartiality has altered the LXX. By this double
one may venture to demur to this arbi- divergence a reference to the two orders
trary criticism. Indeed the recent of the ministry is obtained,
discovery of a second independent MS 3 Clem. Rorn. 43.
and of a Syriac Version, both contain- 4 Contrast 43 f^Xov fnirecr&vTos
ing the suspected passage, may be re- irepi TTJS iepwo-tvr)! with 44 fyis &rreu

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 217

and the offices distinct. The significance of this fact will be
felt at once by comparing his language with the expressions
used by any later writer, such as Cyprian, who was penetrated
with the spirit of sacerdotalism 1 .

Of St Ignatius, as the champion of episcopacy, much has Ignatius,
been said already. It is sufficient to add here, that he never
regards the ministry as a sacerdotal office. This is equally true,
whether we accept as genuine the whole of the seven letters in
the short Greek, or only those portions contained in the Syriac
version. While these letters teem with passages enjoining the
strictest obedience to bishops, while their language is frequently
so strong as to sound almost profane, this father never once
appeals to sacerdotal claims 2 , though such an appeal would have
made his case more than doubly strong. If it be ever safe to
take the sentiments of an individual writer as expressing the
belief of his age, we may infer from the silence which pervades
these letters, that the sacerdotal view of the ministry had not
yet found its way into the Christian Church.

When we pass on to the third apostolic father, the same
phenomenon is repeated. Poly carp, like Clement and Ignatius, Polycarp.
occupies much space in discussing the duties and the claims of
Christian ministers. He takes occasion especially to give his
correspondents advice as to a certain presbyter who had dis-
graced his office by a grave offence 3 . Yet he again knows
nothing, or at least says nothing, of any sacerdotal privileges

*TTI TOV oj/6/iaros rf)s tirto-KOTrrjs. The new covenant, as represented by the

common feature which connects the two great High-Priest (dpxtepffa) in and

offices together is stated in the words, through whom the whole Church has

43 IW fj-Tj aKaraaTaffla yfrijTai. access to God, over the old dispensa-

1 See below, p. 226 sq. tion of the Levitical priesthood (iepcTs).

2 Some passages are quoted in Green- If this interpretation be correct, the
wood CatJiedra Petri i. p. 73 as tending passage echoes the teaching of the Epi-
in this direction, e.g. Philad. 9 /caXoi stle to the Hebrews, and is opposed
Ktd ol iepeis, Kptffftrov 5e 6 dpxiepets to exclusive sacerdotalism. On the
K.T.X. But rightly interpreted they do meaning of Bwiaffrripiov in the Ignatian
not favour this view. In the passage Epistles see below, p. 234, note 1.
quoted for instance, the writer seems 3 See Philippians p. 63 sq.

to be maintaining the superiority of the

218 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

which claimed respect, or of any sacerdotal sanctity which has
been violated.

Justin Justin Martyr writes about a generation later. He speaks

at length and with emphasis on the eucharistic offerings. Here
at least we might expect to find sacerdotal views of the Christian
ministry propounded. Yet this is far from being the case. He
does indeed lay stress on sacerdotal functions, but these belong
to the whole body of the Church, and are not in any way the

maintains exclusive right of the clergy. ' So we,' he writes, when arguing

sal priest- against Trypho the Jew, ' who through the name of Jesus have
believed as one man in God the maker of the universe, having
divested ourselves of our filthy garments, that is our sins, through
the name of His first-born Son, and having been refined
(TrvpwOevTes) by the word of His calling, are the true high-
priestly race of God, as God Himself also beareth witness, saying
that in every place among the Gentiles are men offering
sacrifices well-pleasing unto Him and pure (Mai. i. 11). Yet
God doth not receive sacrifices from any one, except through
His priests. Therefore God anticipating all sacrifices through
this name, which Jesus Christ ordained to be offered, I mean
those offered by the Christians in every region of the earth with
(eVt) the thanksgiving (the eucharist) of the bread and of the
cup, beareth witness that they are well-pleasing to Him ; but
the sacrifices offered by you and through those your priests He
rejecteth, saying, "And your sacrifices I will not accept from
your hands etc. (Mai. i. 10)" 1 .' The whole Christian people
therefore (such is Justin's conception) have not only taken the
place of the Aaronic priesthood, but have become a nation of
high-priests, being made one with the great High-Priest of the
new covenant and presenting their eucharistic offerings in His
name.

Irenaeus Another generation leads us from Justin Martyr to Irenaeus.

When Irenseus writes, the second century is very far advanced.
Yet still the silence which has accompanied us hitherto remains

1 Dial. c. Tnjpli. c. 116, 117, p. 344.

THE CHBISTIAN MINISTRY. 219

unbroken. And here again it is important to observe that
Irenaeus, if he held the sacerdotal view, had every motive for
urging it, since the importance and authority of the episcopate
occupy a large space in his teaching. Nevertheless he not only
withholds this title as a special designation of the Christian
ministry, but advances an entirely different view of the priestly
office. He recognises only the priesthood of moral holiness, acknow-
the priesthood of apostolic self-denial. Thus commenting on O e nly e j;[

the reference made by our Lord to the incident in David's life
where the king and his followers eat the shew-bread, ' which it hood.
is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone/ Irenzeus remarks 1 ;
' He excuseth His disciples by the words of the law, and
signifieth that it is lawful for priests to act freely. For David
had been called to be a priest in the sight of God, although
Saul carried on a persecution against him ; for all just men
belong to the sacerdotal order 2 . Now all apostles of the Lord
are priests, for they inherit neither lands nor houses here, but
ever attend on the altar and on God' : ' Who are they,' he goes
on, ' that have left father and mother and have renounced all
their kindred for the sake of the word of God and His covenant,
but the disciples of the Lord ? Of these Moses saith again,
"But they shall have no inheritance; for the Lord Himself
shall be their inheritance"; and again, "The priests, the Levites,
in the whole tribe of Levi shall have no part nor inheritance
with Israel: the first-fruits (fructificationes) of the Lord are their
inheritance ; they shall eat them." For this reason also Paul
saith, "I require not the gift, but I require the fruit." The
disciples of the Lord, he would say, were allowed when hungry
to take food of the seeds (they had sown) : for " The labourer is
worthy of his food."' Again, striking upon the same topic in a

1 Haer. iv. 8. 3. represented in the Latin and does not

2 This sentence is cited by John Da- suit the context. The close conformity
mascene and Antonius TTCIJ /Ja<n\ei)s of their quotations from the Ignatian
Swccuos lepa.rLK'Yjv x et T&tv ; but the letters is a sufficient proof that these
words were quoted doubtless from me- two writers are not independent au-
mory by the one writer and borrowed thorities; seethe passages in Cureton's
by the other from him. 0a<nXei>s is not Corp. Ignat. p. 180 sq.

220 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

later passage 1 and commenting on the words of Jeremiah
(xxxi. 14), " I will intoxicate the soul of the priests the sons of
Levi, and my people shall be filled with my good things," he
adds, ' we have shown in a former book, that all disciples of the
Lord are priests and Levites: who also profaned the Sabbath in
the temple and are blameless.' Thus Irenseus too recognises
the whole body of the faithful under the new dispensation as
the counterparts of the sons of Levi under the old. The position
of the Apostles and Evangelists has not yet been abandoned.
Explana- A few years later, but still before the close of the century,
passaged Polycrates of Ephesus writes to Victor of Rome. Incidentally
he speaks of St John as ' having been made a priest ' and
' wearing the mitre' 2 ; and this might seem to be a distinct
expression of sacerdotal views, for the 'mitre' to which he
alludes is doubtless the tiara of the Jewish high-priest. But
it may very reasonably be questioned if this is the correct
meaning of the passage. Whether St John did actually wear
this decoration of the high-priestly office, or whether Polycrates
has mistaken a symbolical expression in some earlier writer for
an actual fact, or whether lastly his language itself should be
treated as a violent metaphor, I have had occasion to discuss
above 3 . But in any case the notice is explained by the
language of St John himself, who regards the whole body of
believers as high-priests of the new covenant 4 ; and it is certain
that the contemporaries of Polycrates still continued to hold
similar language 5 . As a figurative expression or as a literal
fact, the notice points to St John as the veteran teacher, the

1 Haer. v. 34. 3. sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus in-

2 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24 6s eyevrjd-rj fulas.'

iepefc TO TT^TO\OV 7re0ope/ccs. Comp. 3 See above, p. 121 note.

Tertull. adv. Jud. 14 'exornatus podere 4 Rev. ii. 17; see the commentators,

et mitra,' Test, xii Patr. Levi 8 ct^a- 5 So Justin in the words already

ffTas ?v5v<rai TTJV <TTO\T]f> T^s iepareias. . . quoted (p. 218), Dial. c. Tryph. 116

rbv irodripr] TTJS dXyddas Kal TO wtraXov apxiepariKov TO aXijOivov ytvos <Tfjt.h TOV

TTJS TrtVrewj K.T.X. See also, asanillus- 0eoO. See also the passage of Origen

tration of the metaphor, Tertull. Monog. quoted below, p. 224.
12 ' Cum ad peraequationem disciplinae

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 221

chief representative, of a pontifical race. On the other hand, it
is possible that this was not the sense which Polycrates him-
self attached to the figure or the fact : and if so, we have here
perhaps the earliest passage in any extant Christian writing
where the sacerdotal view of the ministry is distinctly put
forward.

Clement of Alexandria was a contemporary of Polycrates. Clement
Though his extant writings are considerable in extent and ^ ria e
though they are largely occupied with questions of Christian
ethics and social life, the ministry does not hold a prominent
place in them. In the few passages where he mentions it, he
does not betray any tendency to sacerdotal or even to hier-
archical views. The bias of his mind indeed lay in an opposite
direction. He would be much more inclined to maintain an
aristocracy of intellectual contemplation than of sacerdotal
office. And in Alexandria generally, as we have seen, the
development of the hierarchy was slower than in other churches.
How far he is from maintaining a sacerdotal view of the
ministry and how substantially he coincides with Irenaeus in
this respect, will appear from the following passage. 'It is His 'gnos-
possible for men even now, by exercising themselves in the hoof 1
commandments of the Lord and by living a perfect gnostic life
in obedience to the Gospel, to be inscribed in the roll of the
Apostles. Such men are genuine presbyters of the Church
and true deacons of the will of God, if they practise and teach
the things of the Lord, being not indeed ordained by men nor
considered righteous because they are presbyters, but enrolled
in the presbytery because they are righteous : and though here
on earth they may not be honoured with a chief seat, yet shall
they sit on the four and twenty thrones judging the people 1 /
It is quite consistent with this truly spiritual view, that he
should elsewhere recognise the presbyter, the deacon, and the
layman, as distinct orders 2 . But on the other hand he never
uses the words ' priest,' ' priestly/ ' priesthood/ of the Christian

1 Strom, vi. 13, p. 793. 2 Strom, iii. 90, p. 552.

222 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

ministry. In one passage indeed he contrasts laity and priest-
hood, but without any such reference. Speaking of the veil
of the temple and assigning to it a symbolical meaning, he
describes it as 'a barrier against laic unbelief,' behind which
' the priestly ministration is hidden 1 .' Here the laymen and
the priests are respectively those who reject and those who
appropriate the spiritual mysteries of the Gospel. Accordingly
in the context St Clement, following up the hint thrown out in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, gives a spiritual meaning to all
the furniture of the holy place.

Tertullian His younger contemporary Tertullian is the first to assert
sacerdotal direct sacerdotal claims on behalf of the Christian ministry.

^ ^e heretics he complains that they impose sacerdotal
functions on laymen 2 . ' The right of giving baptism,' he says
elsewhere, ' belongs to the chief priest (summus sacerdos), that
is, the bishop 3 .' ' No woman,' he asserts, ' ought to teach,
baptize, celebrate the eucharist, or arrogate to herself the
performance of any duty pertaining to males, much less of the
sacerdotal office 4 .' And generally he uses the words sacerdos,
sacerdotium, sacerdotalis, of the Christian ministry. It seems
plain moreover from his mode of speaking, that such language
was not peculiar to himself but passed current in the churches
among which he moved. Yet he himself supplies the true
counterpoise to this special sacerdotalism in his strong asser-
yet quali- tion of the universal priesthood of all true believers. ' We
Sasser- snou ld be foolish,' so he writes when arguing against second
tion of an marriages, ' to suppose that a latitude is allowed to laymen
priest- which is denied to priests. Are not we laymen also priests ?
It is written, " He hath also made us a kingdom and priests to
God and His Father." It is the authority of the Church which
makes a difference between the order (the clergy) and the

1 Strom, v. 33 sq., p. 665 sq. Bp. 2 de Praescr. Haer. 41 ' Nam et laicis

Kaye (Clement of Alexandria p. 464) sacerdotalia munera injungunt.'

incorrectly adduces this passage as an 3 de Baptismo 17.

express mention of 'the distinction be- 4 de Virg. vel. 9.
tween the clergy and laity.'

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 223

people this authority and the consecration of their rank by
the assignment of special benches to the clergy. Thus where
there is no bench of clergy, you present the eucharistic offerings
and baptize and are your own sole priest. For where three are
gathered together, there is a church, even though they be
laymen. Therefore if you exercise the rights of a priest in
cases of necessity, it is your duty also to observe the discipline
enjoined on a priest, where of necessity you exercise the rights
of a priest 1 .' And in another treatise he writes in bitter irony,
' When we begin to exalt and inflame ourselves against the
clergy, then we are all one; then we are all priests, because
"He made us priests to God and His Father": but when we
are required to submit ourselves equally to the priestly
discipline, we throw off our fillets and are no longer equal 2 .'
These passages, it is true, occur in treatises probably written
after Tertullian had become wholly or in part a Montanist : but
this consideration is of little consequence, for they bear witness
to the fact that the scriptural doctrine of an universal priest-
hood was common ground to himself and his opponents, and
had not yet been obscured by the sacerdotal view of the
Christian ministry 3 .

An incidental expression in Hippolytus serves to show that Sacerdotal
a few years later than Tertullian sacerdotal terms were
commonly used to designate the different orders of the clergy.
' We/ says the zealous bishop of Portus, ' being successors of
the Apostles and partaking of the same grace both of high-
priesthood and of teaching and accounted guardians of the

1 de Exh. Cast. 7. See Kaye's Tertul- ' Show thyself to the priest ' ; adv. Marc,
lian p. 211, whose interpretation of iv. 9, adv. Jud. 14. Again, he uses
' honor per ordinis consessuna sanctifi- sacerdos ' in a moral sense, de Spectac.
catus' I have adopted. 16 sacerdotes pacis,' de Cult. Fern. ii.

2 de Monog. 12. I have taken the 12 ' sacerdotes pudicitiae,' ad Uxor. i.
reading 'impares' for 'pares,' as re- 6 (comp. 7) ' virginitatis et viduitatis
quired by the context. sacerdotia.' On the other hand in de

3 Tertullian regards Christ, our great Pall. 4 he seems to compare the Chris-
High-Priest, as the counterpart under tian minister with the heathen priests,
the new dispensation of the priest under but too much stress must not be laid
the old, and so interprets the text on a rhetorical image.

224 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Church, do not close our eyes drowsily or tacitly suppress the
true word, etc 1 .'

Origen in- The march of sacerdotal ideas was probably slower at
the priest- Alexandria than at Carthage or Rome. Though belonging to
tually Spin " the next generation, Origen's views are hardly so advanced
as those of Tertullian. In the temple of the Church, he says,
there are two sanctuaries: the heavenly, accessible only to
Jesus Christ, our great High-Priest ; the earthly, open to all
priests of the new covenant, that is, to all faithful believers.
For Christians are a sacerdotal race and therefore have access
to the outer sanctuary. There they must present their offerings,
their holocausts of love and self-denial. From this outer
sanctuary our High-Priest takes the fire, as He enters the
Holy of Holies to offer incense to the Father (see Lev. xvi. 12) 2 .
Very many professed Christians, he writes elsewhere (I am
here abridging his words), occupied chiefly with the concerns of
this world and dedicating few of their actions to God, are
represented by the tribes, who merely present their tithes and
first-fruits. On the other hand ' those who are devoted to the
divine word, and are dedicated sincerely to the sole worship of
God, may not unreasonably be called priests and Levites
according to the difference in this respect of their impulses
tending thereto.' Lastly ' those who excel the men of their
own generation perchance will be high-priests.' They are only
high-priests however after the order of Aaron, our Lord Himself
being High-Priest after the order of Melchisedek 3 . Again in a
third place he says, ' The Apostles and they that are made like
unto the Apostles, being priests after the order of the great
High-Priest, having received the knowledge of the worship of
God and being instructed by the Spirit, know for what sins
they ought to offer sacrifices, etc. 4 .' In all these passages
Origen has taken spiritual enlightenment and not sacerdotal
office to be the Christian counterpart to the Aaronic priesthood.

1 Haer. procem. p. 3. s In Joann. i. 3 (iv. p. 3).

2 Horn, ix in Lev. 9, 10 (n. p. 243 4 de Orat. 28 (i. p. 255). See also
Delarue). Horn, iv in Num. 3 (n. p. 283).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 225

Elsewhere however he makes use of sacerdotal terms to describe but applies
the ministry of the Church 1 ; and in one place distinguishes the terms to
priests and the Levites as representing the presbyters and ^ e mmi
deacons respectively 2 .

Hitherto the sacerdotal view of the Christian ministry has
not been held apart from a distinct recognition of the sacer-
dotal functions of the whole Christian body. The minister is Theprieat-
thus regarded as a priest, because he is the mouthpiece, the ministry
representative, of a priestly race. Such appears to be the

conception of Tertullian, who speaks of the clergy as separate priesthood
from the laity only because the Church in the exercise of her gregation.
prerogative has for convenience entrusted to them the perform-
ance of certain sacerdotal functions belonging properly to the
whole congregation, and of Origen, who, giving a moral and
spiritual interpretation to the sacerdotal office, considers the
priesthood of the clergy to differ from the priesthood of the
laity only in degree, in so far as the former devote their time
and their thoughts more entirely to God than the latter. So
long as this important aspect is kept in view, so long as the
priesthood of the ministry is regarded as springing from the
priesthood of the whole body, the teaching of the Apostles has
not been directly violated. But still it was not a safe nomen-
clature which assigned the terms sacerdos, iepevs, and the like,
to the ministry, as a special designation. The appearance of
this phenomenon marks the period of transition from the
universal sacerdotalism of the New Testament to the particular
sacerdotalism of a later age.

1 Horn, v in Lev. 4 (n. p. 208 sq.) in Origen's opinion the confessor to

1 Discant sacerdotes Domini qui eccle- the penitent need not be an ordained

siis praesunt,' and also ib. Horn. ii. 4 minister. The passages in Rede-

(n.p. 191)'Cumnonerubescitsacerdoti penning's Origenes bearing on this

Domini indicare peccatum suum et subject are i. p. 357, n. pp. 250, 417,

quaerere medicinam ' (he quotes James 436 sq.

v. 14 in illustration). But Horn, x in 2 Horn, xii in Jerem. 3 (m. p. 196)

Num. 1, 2 (n. p. 302), quoted by Kede- 'If any one therefore among these

penning (Origenes n. p. 417), hardly priests (I mean us the presbyters) or

bears this sense, for the 'pontifex' ap- among these Levites who stand about

plies to our Lord; and it is clear from the people (I mean the deacons) etc.'
Horn, in Ps. xxxvii. 6 (n. p. 688) that

L. 15

226 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Cyprian If Tertullian and Origen are still hovering on the border,

pion of un- Cyprian has boldly transferred himself into the new domain.

tnat ^ e uses ^ terms sacer dos, sacerdotium,
talism. sacerdotalis, of the ministry with a frequency hitherto without
parallel. But he treats all the passages in the Old Testament
which refer to the privileges, the sanctions, the duties, and the
responsibilities of the Aaronic priesthood, as applying to the
officers of the Christian Church. His opponents are profane
and sacrilegious ; they have passed sentence of death on them-
selves by disobeying the command of the Lord in Deuteronomy
to 'hear the priest 1 '; they have forgotten the injunction of
Solomon to honour and reverence God's priests 2 ; they have
despised the example of St Paul who regretted that he 'did
not know it was the high priest 3 '; they have been guilty of the
sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram 4 . These passages are urged
again and again. They are urged moreover, as applying not
by parity of reasoning, not by analogy of circumstance, but as
absolute and immediate and unquestionable. As Cyprian
crowned the edifice of episcopal power, so also was he the first
to put forward without relief or disguise the sacerdotal assump-
tions ; 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 5 .

After thus tracing the gradual departure from the Apostolic

teaching in the encroachment of the sacerdotal on the pastoral

and ministerial view of the clergy, it will be instructive to

investigate the causes to which this divergence from primitive

Were truth may be ascribed. To the question whether the change

view^due was ^ ue ^ J ew i g h or Gentile influences, opposite answers have

to Jewish been given. To some it has appeared as a reproduction of the

1 Deut. xvii. 12; see Epist. 3, 4, 43, 4 De Unit. Eccl. p. 83 (Fell), Epist.
59, 66. 3, 67, 69, 73.

2 Though the words are ascribed to 5 The sacerdotal language in the
Solomon, the quotation comes from Apostolical Constitutions is hardly less
Ecclus. vii. 29, 31 ; see Epist. 3. strong, while it is more systematic ;

3 Acts xxiii. 4 ; see Epist. 3, 59, but their date is uncertain and cannot
66. well be placed earlier than Cyprian.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 227

Aaronic priesthood, due to Pharisaic tendencies, such as we find or Gen-
among St Paul's converts in Galatia and at Corinth, still fluences?
lingering in the Church : to others, as imported into Christi-
anity by the ever-increasing mass of heathen converts who
were incapable of shaking off their sacerdotal prejudices and
appreciating the free spirit of the Gospel. The latter view
seems correct in the main, but requires some modification.

At all events so far as the evidence of extant writings goes, The
there is no reason for supposing that sacerdotalism was especi- j ew ish

ally rife among the Jewish converts. The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs may be taken to represent one phase of contain no
Judaic Christianity ; the Clementine writings exhibit another, sacerdotal-
In both alike there is an entire absence of sacerdotal views of lsm *
the ministry. The former work indeed dwells at length on our
Lord's office, as the descendant and heir of Levi 1 , and alludes
more than once to His institution of a new priesthood ; but this
priesthood is spiritual and comprehensive. Christ Himself is
the High-Priest 2 , and the sacerdotal office is described as being
" after the type of the Gentiles, extending to all the Gentiles 3 .'
On the Christian ministry the writer is silent. In the Clemen-
tine Homilies the case is somewhat different, but the inference
is still more obvious. Though the episcopate is regarded as
the backbone of the Church, though the claims of the ministry
are urged with great distinctness, no appeal is ever made to
priestly sanctity as the ground of this exalted estimate 4 .
Indeed the hold of the Levitical priesthood on the mind of the
pious Jew must have been materially weakened at the Christian
era by the development of the synagogue organization on the
one hand, and by the ever-growing influence of the learned and
literary classes, the scribes and rabbis, on the other. The
points on which the Judaizers of the apostolic age insist are the
rite of circumcision, the distinction of meats, the observance of
sabbaths, and the like. The necessity of the priesthood was
not, or at least is not known to have been, part of their

1 See above, p. 76. 3 Levi 8.

2 Euben 6, Symeon 7, Levi 18. 4 See the next note.

152

228 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

programme. Among the Essene Jews especially, who went so
far as to repudiate the temple sacrifices, no great importance
could have been attached to the Aaronic priesthood 1 : and after
the Apostolic age at all events, the most active Judaizers of
the Dispersion seem to have belonged to the Essene type.
But indeed the overwhelming argument against ascribing the
growth of sacerdotal views to Jewish influence lies in the fact,
that there is a singular absence of distinct sacerdotalism during
the first century and a half, when alone on any showing
Judaism was powerful enough to impress itself on the belief of
the Church at large.

Sacerdo- It is therefore to Gentile feeling that this development

dueto WaS m ust be ascribed. For the heathen, familiar with auguries,
Gentile in- l us trations, sacrifices, and depending on the intervention of
some priest for all the manifold religious rites of the state, the
club, and the family, the sacerdotal functions must have
occupied a far larger space in the affairs of every-day life, than
for the Jew of the Dispersion who of necessity dispensed, and
had no scruple at dispensing, with priestly ministrations from
one year's end to the other. With this presumption drawn
from probability the evidence of fact accords. In Latin
Christendom, as represented by the Church of Carthage, the
germs of the sacerdotal idea appear first and soonest ripen to
maturity. If we could satisfy ourselves of the early date of the
Ancient Syriac Documents lately published, we should have
discovered another centre from which this idea was propagated.
And so far their testimony may perhaps be accepted. Syria
was at least a soil where such a plant would thrive and
luxuriate. In no country of the civilized world was sacerdotal
authority among the heathen greater. The most important

1 See above, pp. 79, 82 sq. ; below, Abel, Ishmael to Isaac, etc. In the

p. 350 ; Colossians p. 89. In the syzy- Eecognitions the estimate of the high-

gies of the Clementine Homilies (ii. 16, priest's position is still unfavourable

33) Aaron is opposed to Moses, the high- (i. 46, 48). Compare the statement

priest to the lawgiver, as the bad to the in Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 117.
good, the false to the true, like Cain to

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 229

centres of Syrian Christianity, Antioch and Emesa, were also
the cradles of strongly-marked sacerdotal religions which at
different times made their influence felt throughout the Roman
empire 1 . This being so, it is a significant fact that the first
instance of the term ' priest/ applied to a Christian minister,
occurs in a heathen writer. At least I have not found any
example of this application earlier than Lucian 2 .

But though the spirit, which imported the idea into the but sought
Church of Christ and sustained it there, was chiefly due to
Gentile education, yet its form was almost as certainly derived
from the Old Testament. And this is the modification which
needs to be made in the statement, in itself substantially true,
that sacerdotalism must be traced to the influence of Heathen
rather than of Jewish converts.

In the Apostolic writings we find the terms ' offering,' (1) Meta-

' sacrifice,' applied to certain conditions and actions of the
Christian life. These sacrifices or offerings are described as
spiritual 3 ; they consist of praise 4 , of faith 5 , of almsgiving 6 , of
the devotion of the body 7 , of the conversion of unbelievers 8 , and
the like. Thus whatever is dedicated to God's service may be
included under this metaphor. In one passage also the image
is so far extended, that the Apostolic writer speaks of an altar 9
pertaining to the spiritual service of the Christian Church. If
on this noble Scriptural language a false superstructure has
been reared, we have here only one instance out of many, where
the truth has been impaired by transferring statements from
the region of metaphor to the region of fact.

1 The worship of the Syrian goddess 3 1 Pet. ii. 5.
of Antioch was among the most popu- 4 Heb. xiii. 15.
lar of oriental superstitions under the 5 Phil. ii. 17.

earlier Cassars; the rites of the Sun- Acts xxiv. 17, Phil. iv. 18; comp.

god of Emesa became fashionable un- Heb. xiii. 16.

der Elagabalus. 7 R om4 ^ii. i.

2 de Mort. Peregr. 11 TTJV BavfjiacrT^v 8 Bom. xv. 16.

votpiav TUV XpiffTiav&v efaaOe irepi rty s Heb. xiii. 10. See below, p. 234,

Ha\cuffTivr)i> ro?s iepevvi /ecu ypa/j.fj.a.Ttv- note 1.

230 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

These ' sacrifices ' were very frequently the acts not of the
individual Christian, but of the whole congregation. Such for
instance were the offerings of public prayer and thanksgiving,
or the collection of alms on the first day of the week, or the
Offerings contribution of food for the agape, and the like. In such cases
bythe eC ^ ne congregation was represented by its minister, who thus
ministers. ac t e d as its mouthpiece and was said to ' present the offerings '
to God. So the expression is used in the Epistle of St Clement
of Rome 1 . But in itself it involves no sacerdotal view. This
ancient father regards the sacrifice or offering as the act of the
whole Church performed through its presbyters. The minister
is a priest in the same sense only in which each individual
member of the congregation is a priest. When St Clement
denounces those who usurp the functions of the presbyters, he
reprobates their conduct not as an act of sacrilege but as a
violation of order. He views the presbytery as an Apostolic
ordinance, not as a sacerdotal caste.

Thus when this father speaks of the presbytery as ' present-
ing the offerings/ he uses an expression which, if not directly
scriptural, is at least accordant with the tenour of Scripture.
But from such language the transition to sacerdotal views was
easy, where the sacerdotal spirit was rife. From being the act
of the whole congregation, the sacrifice came to be regarded as
the act of the minister who officiated on its behalf.
Special And this transition was moreover facilitated by the growing

1 Clem. Rom. 44 TOI)S d/xe/uTrrws /cat r^s \eirovpyias avrov Kav6va. Compare

6<n'ws irpo<reveyKovTas ra 5wpa. What especially Heb. xiii. 10, 15, 16 fyo/jier

sort of offerings are meant, may be BvcnaffT-ripiov o5 <pay.tv OVK ?x ovffLlf

gathered from other passages in Cle- [&-ov<rlav] oi ry ffK^vrj \aTpetiovTs... AC

ment's Epistle ; e.g. 35 Owla cuW<rews avrov avv dvacp^pia^ev 6v<rLav cuWtrews

dod(rei yue, 52 dvffov r$ 0e< 6vcrtav dia wavrbs ry Oey> TOVT{<TTU>, Kapirbv

cuWo-eus Kal d?r65os ry votary ras eu^ds x^^" 6/AoXo-ycrtWwv r 6i>6fj.aTi avrov'

<rov, 36 evpoftev rb ffur^piov T7/ia;v 7-775 5e euTrouas Kal Koivuvias /J.TJ firi\at>-

'I-riffovv XpLffrbv rbv apx^ep^a T&V Trpoff- QdveffQe, roiaiJraij yap 6v<riais evapeff-

^Civ rbv TrpoffrdTtjv Kal fioijdbv reirai 6 0e6s.

d<r0ei>das w&v, and 41 ^Karros The doctrine of the early Church re-

wv, a8e\<poi, ev ry Idiy ray^art. fv^a- specting 'sacrifice' is investigated by

T$ Gey ev dya6fj avveid^trei. Hofling die Lehre der altesten Kirclie

, ^ iraptKfiaivuv rbv upurfifrov vom Opfer (Erlangen 1851).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 231

tendency to apply the terms 'sacrifice' and 'offering' exclusively reference
or chiefly to the eucharistic service. It may be doubted whether, taphor to
even as used by St Clement, the expression may not have a ^ eu<
special reference to this chief act of Christian dedication 1 . It
is quite certain that writers belonging to the generations next
following, Justin Martyr and Irenseus for instance*, employ the
terms very frequently with this reference. We may here reserve
the question in what sense the celebration of the Lord's supper
may or may not be truly called a sacrifice. The point to be
noticed at present is this; that the offering of the eucharist,
being regarded as the one special act of sacrifice and appearing
externally to the eye as the act of the officiating minister,
might well lead to the minister being called a priest and then
being thought a priest in some exclusive sense, where the
religious bias was in this direction and as soon as the true
position of the minister as the representative of the congregation
was lost sight of.

But besides the metaphor or the analogy of the sacrifice, (2) Ana-
there was another point of resemblance also between the Jewish the three
priesthood and the Christian ministry, which favoured the he LeviU-
sacerdotal view of the latter. As soon as the episcopate and jl priest-
presbytery ceased to be regarded as sub-orders and were looked

1 On the whole however the passage <f>epeiv u>s dpx tf P" K.T.X., 34 roi)s

from the Epistle to the Hebrews alluded /ca/>7roi)s vftCov Kal TO, Zpya rCov

to in the last note seems to be the best i>p.Cov e/s etiXoyiav v/j.&v

exponent of St Clement's meaning, as avr$ (so. r e7rtcr/co7rv)...rd d&pa

he very frequently follows this Apos- diSovres aury ws iepeT Geou, 53 dupov 5e

tolic writer. If evxapLffrdrta has any eort 0e^7? e/cd0Tov Trpovfvxh Kal e&xa-

special reference to the holy eucharist, purrLa : comp. also 35. These passages

as it may have, 3<Spa will nevertheless are quoted in Honing, p. 27 sq.

be the alms and prayers and thanks- 2 The chief passages in these fa-

givings which accompanied the cele- thers relating to Christian oblations

bration of it. Compare Const. Apost. are, Justin. Apol. i. 13 (p. 60), i. 65,

ii. 25 at rare dvffiat vvv evxal Kal defoeis 66, 67 (p. 97 sq.), Dial. 28, 29 (p. 246),

/ecu euxaptcm'cu, at r6re d-rrapxal KO.I 41 (p. 259 sq.), 116, 117 (p. 344 sq.),

deKarai Kal d^at/o^ara /cat SCopa. vvv Iren. Haer. iv. cc. 17, 18, 19, v. 2. 3

irpoff(popal at Stct r&v cxriuv etriffKo- Fragm. 38 (Stieren). The place occu-

irwv irpo<r(pp6fj.evai'Kvpi< i ) K.r.X., 27 pied by the eucharistic elements in their

7rpoo-7?/cei ofo Kal u/*as, d5e\<poi, ras 0u<7t'a? view of sacrifice will only be appreciated

17701 7r/)ocr0o/)ds T e'Trto-KOTry irpoff- by reading the passages continuously.

232 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

upon as distinct orders, the correspondence of the threefold
ministry with the three ranks of the Levitical priesthood could
not fail to suggest itself. The solitary bishop represented the
solitary high-priest; the principal acts of Christian sacrifice
were performed by the presbyters, as the principal acts of Jewish
sacrifice by the priests; and the attendant ministrations were
assigned in the one case to the deacon, as in the other to the
Levite. Thus the analogy seemed complete. To this corre-
spondence however there was one grave impediment. The only
High-Priest under the Gospel recognised by the apostolic
writings, is our Lord Himself. Accordingly in the Christian
remains of the ages next succeeding this title is reserved as by
right to Him 1 ; and though belonging to various schools, all
writers alike abstain from applying it to the bishop. Yet the
scruple was at length set aside. When it had become usual to
speak of the presbyters as * sacerdotes,' the designation of
' pontifex ' or ' summus sacerdos ' for the bishop was far too
convenient and too appropriate to be neglected.

Thus the analogy of the sacrifices and the correspondence of
the threefold order supplied the material on which the sacerdotal
feeling worked. And in this way, by the union of Gentile
sentiment with the ordinances of the Old Dispensation, the
doctrine of an exclusive priesthood found its way into the Church
of Christ.

Question How far is the language of the later Church justifiable ?

e ' Can the Christian ministry be called a priesthood in any sense ?

and if so, in what sense ? The historical investigation, which

has suggested this question as its proper corollary, has also

supplied the means of answering it.

Silence of Though different interpretations may be put upon the fact
r ~ T {. that the sacred writers throughout refrain from applying sacer-
dotal terms to the Christian ministry, I think it must be taken

ters.

1 See Clem. Rom. 36, 58, Polyc. Patr. Rub. 6, Sym. 7, etc., Clem.
Phil. 12, Ignat. Philad. 9, Test, xii Recogn. i. 48.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 233

to signify this much at least, that this ministry, if a priesthood
at all, is a priesthood of a type essentially different from the
Jewish. Otherwise we shall be perplexed to explain why the
earliest Christian teachers should have abstained from using
those terms which alone would adequately express to their
hearers the one most important aspect of the ministerial office.
It is often said in reply, that we have here a question not of
words, but of things. This is undeniable : but words express
things ; and the silence of the Apostles still requires an expla-
nation.

However the interpretation of this fact is not far to seek. Epistle to
The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks at great length on priests brews ;"
and sacrifices in their Jewish and their Christian bearing. It
is plain from this epistle, as it may be gathered also from other
notices Jewish and Heathen, that the one prominent idea of its doctri-
the priestly office at this time was the function of offering ing,
sacrifice and thereby making atonement. Now this Apostolic
writer teaches that all sacrifices had been consummated in the
one Sacrifice, all priesthoods absorbed in the one Priest. The
offering had been made once for all: and, as there were no more
victims, there could be no more priests 1 . All former priest-
hoods had borne witness to the necessity of a human mediator,
and this sentiment had its satisfaction in the Person and Office
of the Son of Man. All past sacrifices had proclaimed the need
of an atoning death, and had their antitype, their realisation,
their annulment, in the Cross of Christ. This explicit state-
ment supplements and interprets the silence elsewhere noticed
in the Apostolic writings.

1 The epistle deals mainly with the every priest standeth daily (icad' -rj

office of Christ as the antitype of the ministering and offering the same sacri-

Higli-Priest offering the annual sacri- fices, etc.'; where the v. 1. dpxiepefts for

tice of atonement: and it has been tepei>s seems to have arisen from the

urged that there is still room for a desire to bring the verse into more exact

sacrificial priesthood under the High- conformity with what has gone before.

Priest. The whole argument however This passage, it should be remembered,

is equally applicable to the inferior is the summing-up and generalisation

priests : and in one passage at least it of the previous argument.
is directly so applied (x. 11, 12), 'And

234

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

gies.

Strictl y accordant too with the general tenour of his argu-
ment is the language used throughout by the writer of this
epistle. He speaks of Christian sacrifices, of a Christian altar ;
but the sacrifices are praise and thanksgiving and well-doing,
the altar is apparently the Cross of Christ 1 . If the Christian

1 It is surprising that some should
have interpreted dvffiaffr-^pLov in Heb.
xiii. 10 of the Lord's table. There
may be a doubt as to the exact signifi-
cance of the term in this passage, but
an actual altar is plainly not intended.
This is shown by the context both be-
fore and after : e.g. ver. 9 the opposi-
tion of xci/ais and /3/>i6/Aara, ver. 15 the
contrast implied in the mention of
Ovffla alveffeus and Kapirbs x i ^uv, and
ver. 16 the naming eviroita KOL Kowuvla
as the kind of sacrifice with which God
is well pleased. In my former editions
I interpreted the duaiavTripiov of the
congregation assembled for worship,
having been led to this interpretation
by the Christian phraseology of suc-
ceeding ages. So Clem. Alex. Strom.
vii. 6, p. 848, 2<m 700^ rb Trap rffuv
fvravda. rb fTriyetov TO a-
T&V rat? fi>")(jous avaKeifjt^vuv.
The use of the word in Ignatius also,
though less obvious, appears to be sub-
stantially the same, Ephes. 5, Trail.
7, Philad. 4 (but in Magn. 7 it seems
to be a metaphor for our Lord Him-
self) ; see Hofling Opfer etc. p. 32 sq.
Similarly too Polycarp ( 4) speaks
of the body of widows as evaiaffr^piov
GeoO. [See notes on these passages in
Apostolic Fathers Part II., S. Ignatius,
S. Polycarp.] But I have since been con-
vinced that the context points to the
Cross of Christ spiritually regarded,
as the true interpretation.

Since my first edition appeared, a
wholly different interpretation of the
passage has been advocated by more
than one writer. It is maintained
that Zxww 6v<naffTrip<.ov should be

understood 'we Jews have an altar,'
and that the writer of the epistle is
here bringing an example from the
Old Dispensation itself (the sin-offering
on the day of atonement) in which the
sacrifices were not eaten. This inter-
pretation is attractive, but it seems to
me inadequate to explain the whole
context (though it suits parts well
enough), and is ill adapted to indi-
vidual expressions (e.g. dva-iaffTripiov
where 6v<ria would be expected, and
01 TYJ ffKrjvfi \aTpeuovres which thus
becomes needlessly emphatic), not to
mention that the first person plural
and the present tense ^x^ v seem
unnatural where the author and his
readers are spoken of, not as actual
Christians, but as former Jews. In
fact the analogy of the sacrifice on
the day of atonement appears not to
be introduced till the next verse, &v
yap eifffaperat fwwj' K.T.\.

Some interpreters again, from a com-
parison of 1 Cor. ix. 13 with 1 Cor. x.
18, have inferred that St Paul recog-
nises the designation of the Lord's
table as an altar. On the contrary it
is a speaking fact, that in both pas-
sages he avoids using this term of the
Lord's table, though the language of
the context might readily have sug-
gested it to him, if he had considered
it appropriate. Nor does the argu-
ment in either case require or en-
courage such an inference. In 1 Cor.
ix. 13, 14, the Apostle writes ' Know
ye not that they which wait at the
altar are partakers with the altar?
Even so hath the Lord ordained that
they which preach the gospel should

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 235

ministry were a sacerdotal office, if the holy eucharist were a
sacerdotal act, in the same sense in which the Jewish priesthood
and the Jewish sacrifice were sacerdotal, then his argument is
faulty and his language misleading. Though dwelling at great
length on the Christian counterparts to the Jewish priest, the
Jewish altar, the Jewish sacrifice, he omits to mention the one
office, the one place, the one act, which on this showing would
be their truest and liveliest counterparts in the every-day
worship of the Church of Christ. He has rejected these, and
he has chosen instead moral and spiritual analogies for all these
sacred types 1 . Thus in what he has said and in what he has
left unsaid alike, his language points to one and the same
result.

If therefore the sacerdotal office be understood to imply the Christian
offering of sacrifices, then the Epistle to the Hebrews leaves no are priests
place for a Christian priesthood. If on the other hand the word
be taken in a wider and looser acceptation, it cannot well be
withheld from the ministry of the Church of Christ. Only in
this case the meaning of the term should be clearly apprehended;
and it might have been better if the later Christian vocabulary
had conformed to the silence of the Apostolic writers, so that
the possibility of confusion would have been avoided.

According to this broader meaning, the priest may be
defined as one who represents God to man and man to God. It
is moreover indispensable that he should be called by God, for
no man 'taketh this honour to himself.' The Christian ministry
satisfies both these conditions.

Of the fulfilment of the latter the only evidence within our as having
cognisance is the fact that the minister is called according to a
divinely appointed order. If the preceding investigation be ment >

live of the gospel. ' The point of resem- common to Christians and Heathens ;

blance in the two cases is the holding i.e. the holy eucharist is a banquet

a sacred office; but the ministering on but it is not a sacrifice (in the Jewish

the altar is predicated only of the or Heathen sense of sacrifice),

former. So also in 1 Cor. x. 18 sq., l For the passages see above, pp.

the altar is named as common to Jews 229, 230.
and Heathens, but the table only as

236 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

substantially correct, the three-fold ministry can be traced to
Apostolic direction ; and short of an express statement we can
possess no better assurance of a Divine appointment or at least
a Divine sanction. If the facts do not allow us to unchurch
other Christian communities differently organized, they may at
least justify our jealous adhesion to a polity derived from this
source.

And while the mode of appointment satisfies the one con-
dition, the nature of the office itself satisfies the other ; for it
exhibits the doubly representative character which is there laid
down.

as repre- The Christian minister is God's ambassador to men : he is
GodTo charged with the ministry of reconciliation ; he unfolds the will
man ' of heaven ; he declares in God's name the terms on which pardon
is offered ; and he pronounces in God's name the absolution of
the penitent. This last mentioned function has been thought
to invest the ministry with a distinctly sacerdotal character.
Yet it is very closely connected with the magisterial and pastoral
duties of the office, and is only priestly in the same sense in
which they are priestly. As empowered to declare the conditions
of God's grace, he is empowered also to proclaim the consequences
of their acceptance. But throughout his office is representative
and not vicarial 1 . He does not interpose between God and man
in such a way that direct communion with God is superseded
on the one hand, or that his own mediation becomes indispensable
on the other.

and as re- Again, the Christian minister is the representative of man
man to* to God of the congregation primarily, of the individual in-
directly as a member of the congregation. The alms, the
prayers, the thanksgivings of the community are offered through
him. Some representation is as necessary in the Church as it
is in a popular government : and the nature of the representa-
tion is not affected by the fact that the form of the ministry
has been handed down from Apostolic times and may well be

1 The distinction is made in Maurice's Kingdom of Christ n. p. 216.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 237

presumed to have a Divine sanction. For here again it must
be borne in mind that the minister's function is representative
without being vicarial. He is a priest, as the mouthpiece, the
delegate, of a priestly race. His acts are not his own, but the
acts of the congregation. Hence too it will follow that, viewed
on this side as on the other, his function cannot be absolute
and indispensable. It may be a general rule, it may be under
ordinary circumstances a practically universal law, that the
highest acts of congregational worship shall be performed
through the principal officers of the congregation. But an
emergency may arise when the spirit and not the letter must
decide. The Christian ideal will then interpose and interpret
our duty. The higher ordinance of the universal priesthood
will overrule all special limitations. The layman will assume
functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained
minister 1 .

Yet it would be vain to deny that a very different concep- The preva-
lence of
tion prevailed for many centuries in the Church of Christ, sacerdotal

The Apostolic ideal was set forth, and within a few generations
forgotten. The vision was only for a time and then vanished.
A strictly sacerdotal view of the ministry superseded the broader
and more spiritual conception of their priestly functions. From
being the representatives, the ambassadors, of God, they came
to be regarded His vicars. Nor is this the only instance where
a false conception has seemed to maintain a long-lived domina-
tion over the Church. For some centuries the idea of the
Holy Roman Empire enthralled the minds of men. For a still
longer period the idea of the Holy Roman See held undisturbed
sway over Western Christendom. To those who take a compre-
hensive view of the progress of Christianity, even these more
lasting obscurations of the truth will present no serious difficulty.
They will not suffer themselves to be blinded thereby to the
true nobility of Ecclesiastical History : they will not fail to see

1 For the opinion of the early Church passage of Tertullian quoted above,
on this subject see especially the p. 223.

238 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

that, even in the seasons of her deepest degradation, the Church
was still the regenerator of society, the upholder of right
principle against selfish interest, the visible witness of the
Invisible God; they will thankfully confess that, notwithstanding
the pride and selfishness and dishonour of individual rulers,
notwithstanding the imperfections and errors of special institu-
tions and developments, yet in her continuous history the
Divine promise has been signally realised, ' Lo I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world.'

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE DISSERTATION UPON THE
CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

In the following passage in his later work, The Apostolic
Fathers Part n., S. Ignatius, S. Poly carp I. p. 407 sq. (1st edit.
1885), I. p. 422 sq. (2nd edit. 1889), Dr Lightfoot sums up his
reasons for the change of opinion upon the Ignatian question
announced above, p. 198, note 1.

The facts then are these :

(1) No Christian writings of the second century, and very few
writings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well authen-
ticated as the Epistles of Ignatius. If the Epistle of Polycarp be
accepted as genuine, the authentication is perfect 1 .

(2) The main ground of objection against the genuineness of
the Epistle of Polycarp is its authentication of the Ignatian Epistles.
Otherwise there is every reason to believe that it would have passed
unquestioned.

(3) The Epistle of Polycarp itself is exceptionally well authenti-
cated by the testimony of his disciple Irenseus.

(4) All attempts to explain the phenomena of the Epistle of
Polycarp, as forged or interpolated to give colour to the Ignatian
Epistles, have signally failed.

(5) The external testimony to the Ignatian Epistles being so
strong, only the most decisive marks of spuriousness in the epistles
themselves, as for instance proved anachronisms, would justify us in
suspecting them as interpolated or rejecting them as spurious.

(6) But so far is this from being the case that one after another

1 'If the Epistle of Polycarp be accepted as genuine ' (2nd edit.).

240 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the anachronisms urged against these letters have vanished in the
light of further knowledge. Thus the alleged refutation of the
Valentinian doctrine of aeons in Magn. 8 depends on a false reading
which recently discovered materials for the text have corrected.
The supposed anachronism of 'the leopards' (Rom. 5) has been
refuted by the production of passages overlooked by the objector.
The argument from the mention of the 'Catholic Church' (Smyrn. 8)
has been shown to rest on a false interpretation which disregards
the context.

(7) As regards the argument which Daille calls 'palmary' the
prevalence of episcopacy as a recognized institution we may say
boldly that all the facts point the other way. If the writer of these
letters had represented the Churches of Asia Minor as under presby-
teral government, he would have contradicted all the evidence, which
without one dissentient voice points to episcopacy as the established
form of Church government in these districts from the close of the
first century.

(8) The circumstances of the condemnation, captivity, and
journey of Ignatius, which have been a stumbling-block to some
modern critics, did not present any difficulty to those who lived near
the time and therefore knew best what might be expected under the
circumstances; and they are sufficiently borne out by examples, more
or less analogous, to establish their credibility.

(9) The objections to the style and language of the epistles are
beside the purpose. In some cases they arise from a misunder-
standing of the writer's meaning. Generally they may be said to
rest on the assumption that an apostolic father could not use exag-
gerated expressions, overstrained images, and the like certainly a
sandy foundation on which to build an argument.

(10) A like answer holds with regard to any extravagances in
sentiment or opinion or character. Why should Ignatius not have
exceeded the bounds of sober reason or correct taste 1 Other men in
his own and immediately succeeding ages did both. As an apostolic
father he was not exempt from the failings, if failings they were, of
his age and position.

(11) While the investigation of the contents of these epistles
has yielded this negative result, in dissipating the objections, it has
at the same time had a high positive value, as revealing indications
of a very early date, and therefore presumably of genuineness, in the
surrounding circumstances, more especially in the types of false
doctrine which it combats, in the ecclesiastical status which it

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 241

presents, and in the manner in which it deals with the evangelical
and apostolic documents.

(12) Moreover we discover in the personal environments of the
assumed writer, and more especially in the notices of his route, many
subtle coincidences which we are constrained to regard as unde-
signed, and which seem altogether beyond the reach of a forger.

(13) So likewise the peculiarities in style and diction of the
epistles, as also in the representation of the writer's character, are
much more capable of explanation in a genuine writing than in a
forgery.

(14) While external and internal evidence thus combine to
assert the genuineness of these writings, no satisfactory account has
been or apparently can be given of them as a forgery of a later date
than Ignatius. They would be quite purposeless as such ; for they
entirely omit all topics which would especially interest any subse-
quent age.

On these grounds we are constrained to accept the Seven Epistles
of the Middle Form as the genuine work of Ignatius.

The following extracts from Bishop Lightfoot's works illustrate
Ms view of the Christian Ministry over and above the particular
scope of the Essay in his Commentary on the Philippians. He
felt that unfair use had been made of that special line of thought
which he there pursued, and soon after the close of the Lambeth
Conference of 1888 he had this collection of passages printed.

It is felt by those who have the best means of knowing that he
would himself have wished the collection to stand together simply
as his reply to the constant imputation to him of opinions for
which writers wished to claim his support without any justifica-
tion.

1. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (Essay
on the Christian Ministry, 1868).

(i) p. 199, ed. i; p. 201, later edd. (See above, p. 160.)
' Unless we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of received
documents, it seems vain to deny that early in the second century
the episcopal office was firmly and widely established. Thus during
the last three decades of the first century, and consequently during
L. 16

242 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the lifetime of the latest surviving Apostle, this change must have
been brought about.'

(ii) p. 212, ed. I ; p. 214, later edd. (See above, p. 175.)
'The evidence for the early and wide extension of episcopacy
throughout proconsular Asia, the scene of St John's latest labours,
may be considered irrefragable.'

(iii) p. 225, ed. i; p. 227, later edd. (See above, pp. 190, 191.)
' But these notices, besides establishing the general prevalence of
episcopacy, also throw considerable light on its origin... Above all,
they establish this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen
first in those regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more
especially St John) fixed their abode, and at a time when its preva-
lence cannot be dissociated from their influence or their sanction.'
(iv) p. 232, ed. I ; p. 234, later edd. (See above, pp. 197, 198.)
1 It has been seen that the institution of an episcopate must be
placed as far back as the closing years of the first century, and that
it cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissociated
from the name of St John.'

(v) p. 265, ed. i ; p. 267, later edd. (See above, pp. 235, 236.)
'If the preceding investigation be substantially correct, the
threefold ministry can be traced to Apostolic direction ; and short
of an express statement we can possess no better assurance of a
Divine appointment or at least a Divine sanction. If the facts do
not allow us to unchurch other Christian communities differently
organized, they may at least justify our jealous adhesion to a polity
derived from this source.'

2. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (Preface
to the Sixth Edition), 1881.

'The present edition is an exact reprint of the preceding one.
This statement applies as well to the Essay on the Threefold
Ministry as to the rest of the work. I should not have thought it
necessary to be thus explicit, had I not been informed of a rumour
that I had found reason to abandon the main opinions expressed in
that Essay. There is no foundation for any such report. The only
point of importance on which I have modified my views, since the
Essay was first written, is the authentic form of the letters of
St Ignatius. Whereas in the earlier editions of this work I had
accepted the three Curetonian letters, I have since been convinced
(as stated in later editions) that the seven letters of the Short Greek

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 243

are genuine. This divergence however does not materially affect the
main point at issue, since even the Curetonian letters afford abundant
evidence of the spread of episcopacy in the earliest years of the
second century.

But on the other hand, while disclaiming any change in my
opinions, I desire equally to disclaim the representations of those
opinions which have been put forward in some quarters. The object
of the Essay was an investigation into the origin of the Christian
Ministry. The result has been a confirmation of the statement in
the English Ordinal, "It is evident unto all men diligently reading
the Holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles' time
there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons." But I was scrupulously anxious not to over-
state the evidence in any case ; and it would seem that partial and
qualifying statements, prompted by this anxiety, have assumed
undue proportions in the minds of some readers, who have empha-
sized them to the neglect of the general drift of the Essay.'

3. Sermon preached before the Representative Council of
the Scottish Episcopal Church in St Mary's Church at Glasgow,
October 10, 1882. (' Sermons preached on Special Occasions ',
p. 182 sq.)

'When I spoke of unity as St Paul's charge to the Church of
Corinth, the thoughts of all present must, I imagine, have fastened
on one application of the Apostolic rule which closely concerns your-
selves. Episcopal communities in Scotland outside the organization
of the Scottish Episcopal Church this is a spectacle which no one,
I imagine, would view with satisfaction in itself, and which only a
very urgent necessity could justify. Can such a necessity be pleaded?
" One body " as well as " one Spirit," this is the Apostolic rule. No
natural interpretation can be put on these words which does not
recognize the obligation of external, corporate union. Circumstances
may prevent the realisation of the Apostle's conception, but the ideal
must be ever present to our aspirations and our prayers. I have
reason to believe that this matter lies very near to the hearts of all
Scottish Episcopalians. May GOD grant you a speedy accomplish-
ment of your desire. You have the same doctrinal formularies : you
acknowledge the same episcopal polity : you respect the same litur-
gical forms. " Sirs, ye are brethren." Do not strain the conditions
of reunion too tightly. I cannot say, for I do not know, what faults

162

244 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

or what misunderstandings there may have been on either side in
the past. If there have been any faults, forget them. If there
exist any misunderstandings, clear them up. "Let the dead past
bury its dead."

********

While you seek unity among yourselves, you will pray likewise
that unity may be restored to your Presbyterian brothers. Not in-
sensible to the special blessings which you yourselves enjoy, clinging
tenaciously to the threefold ministry as the completeness of the
Apostolic ordinance and the historical backbone of the Church,
valuing highly all those sanctities of liturgical office and ecclesiastical
season, which, modified from age to age, you have inherited from an
almost immemorial past, thanking GOD, but not thanking Him in
any Pharisaic spirit, that these so many and great privileges are
continued to you which others have lost, you will nevertheless shrink,
as from the venom of a serpent's fang, from any mean desire that
their divisions may be perpetuated in the hope of profiting by their
troubles. Divide et impera may be a shrewd worldly motto ; but
coming in contact with spiritual things, it defiles them like pitch.
Pacifica et impera is the true watchword of the Christian and the
Churchman.'

4. The Apostolic Fathers, Part u., St Ignatius: St Polycarp,
Vol. I. pp. 376, 377, 1885 (pp. 390, 391, 1889).

' The whole subject has been investigated by me in an Essay on
" The Christian Ministry"; and to this I venture to refer my readers
for fuller information. It is there shown, if I mistake not, that
though the New Testament itself contains as yet no direct and in-
disputable notices of a localized episcopate in the Gentile Churches,
as distinguished from the moveable episcopate exercised by Timothy
in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete, yet there is satisfactory evidence
of its development in the later years of the Apostolic age ; that this
development was not simultaneous and equal in all parts of Christen-
dom ; that it is more especially connected with the name of St John;
and that in the early years of the second century the episcopate was
widely spread and had taken firm root, more especially in Asia Minor
and in Syria. If the evidence on which its extension in the regions
east of the ^gean at this epoch be resisted, I am at a loss to under-
stand what single fact relating to the history of the Christian
Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 245

as established; for the testimony in favour of this spread of the
episcopate is more abundant and more varied than for any other
institution or event during this period, so far as I recollect.'

5. Sermon preached before the Church Congress at Wol-
verhampton, October 3, 1887. ('Sermons preached on Special
Occasions ', p. 259 sq.)

' But if this charge fails, what shall we say of her isolation 1 Is
not this isolation, so far as it is true, much more her misfortune
than her fault 1 Is she to be blamed because she retained a form of
Church government which had been handed down in unbroken con-
tinuity from the Apostolic times, and thus a line was drawn between
her and the reformed Churches of other countries ? Is it a reproach
to her that she asserted her liberty to cast off the accretions which
had gathered about the Apostolic doctrine and practice through long
ages, and for this act was repudiated by the Roman Church 1 But
this very position, call it isolation if you will which was her
reproach in the past, is her hope for the future. She was isolated
because she could not consort with either extreme. She was isolated
because she stood midway between the two. This central position
is her vantage ground, which fits her to be a mediator, wheresoever
an occasion of mediation may arise.

But this charge of isolation, if it had any appearance of truth
seventy years ago, has lost its force now.'

6. Durham Diocesan Conference. Inaugural Address,
October, 1887.

4 When I speak of her religious position I refer alike to polity
and to doctrine. In both respects the negative, as well as the
positive, bearing of her position has to be considered. She has
retained the form of Church government inherited from the Apostolic
times, while she has shaken off a yoke, which even in medieval times
our fathers found too heavy to bear, and which subsequent develop-
ments have rendered tenfold more oppressive. She has remained
stedfast in the faith of Nicaea, but she has never compromised her-
self by any declaration which may entangle her in the meshes of
science. The doctrinal inheritance of the past is hers, and the
scientific hopes of the future are hers. She is intermediate and she
may become mediatorial, when the opportunity occurs. It was this

246 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

twofold inheritance of doctrine and polity which I had in view,
when I spoke of the essentials which could under no circumstances
be abandoned. Beyond this, it seems to me that large concessions

might be made. Unity is not uniformity On the other hand it

would be very short-sighted policy even if it were not traitorous to
the truth to tamper with essentials and thus to imperil our media-
torial vantage ground, for the sake of snatching an immediate
increase of numbers.'

7. Address on the Reopening of the Chapel, Auckland
Castle, August 1st, 1888. (' Leaders in the Northern Church/
p. 145.)

* But, while we " lengthen our cords," we must " strengthen our
stakes" likewise. Indeed this strengthening of our stakes will alone
enable us to lengthen our cords with safety, when the storms are
howling around us. "VVe cannot afford to sacrifice any portion of
the faith once delivered to the saints ; we cannot surrender for any
immediate advantages the threefold ministry which we have inherited
from Apostolic times, and which is the historic backbone of the
Church. But neither can we on the other hand return to the fables
of medievalism or submit to a yoke which our fathers found too
grievous to be borne a yoke now rendered a hundredfold more
oppressive to the mind and conscience, weighted as it is by recent
and unwarranted impositions of doctrine.'

IV.

ST PAUL AND SENECA

IV.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

THE earliest of the Latin fathers, Tertullian, writing about a Seneca tra-
century and a half after the death of Seneca, speaks of this accounted
philosopher as ' often our own 1 .' Some two hundred years later
St Jerome, having occasion to quote him, omits the qualifying
adverb and calls him broadly 'our own Seneca 2 .' Living
midway between these two writers, Lactantius points out
several coincidences with the teaching of the Gospel in the
writings of Seneca, whom nevertheless he styles 'the most
determined of the Roman Stoics 3 .' From the age of St Jerome,
Seneca was commonly regarded as standing on the very thres-
hold of the Christian Church, even if he had not actually passed
within its portals. In one Ecclesiastical Council at least, held
at Tours in the year 567, his authority is quoted with a defer-
ence generally accorded only to fathers of the Church 4 . And
even to the present day in the marionette plays of his native
Spain St Seneca takes his place by the side of St Peter and
St Paul in the representations of our Lord's passion 5 .

Comparing the language of Tertullian and Jerome, we are

1 Tertull. de Anim. 20 ' Seneca saepe fuit ' : comp. ii. 9, vi. 24, etc.
noster.' 4 Labbaei Concilia v. p. 856 (Paris,

2 Adv. Jovin. i. 49 (n. p. 318) 'Scrip- 1671) 'Sicut ait Seneca pessimum in
serunt Aristoteles et Plutarchus et nos- eo vitium esse qui in id quo insanit
ter Seneca de matrimonio libros etc.' caeteros putat furere.' See Fleury

3 Div. Inst. i. 5 ' Annaeus Seneca Saint Paul et Seneque I. p. 14.
qui ex Komanis vel acerrimus Stoicus 5 So Fleury states, i. p. 289.

250 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

able to measure the growth of this idea in the interval of time
which separates the two. One important impulse however,
which it received meanwhile, must not be overlooked. When

The forged St Jerome wrote, the Christianity of Seneca seemed to be

correspon- . ,. . . . .

dence of established on a sounder basis than mere critical inference. A

Seneca!^ correspondence, purporting to have passed between the heathen
philosopher and the Apostle of the Gentiles, was then in general
circulation; and, without either affirming or denying its genuine-
ness, this father was thereby induced to give a place to Seneca
in his catalogue of Christian writers 1 . If the letters of Paul
and Seneca, which have come down to us, are the same with
those read by him (and there is no sufficient reason for doubt-
ing the identity 2 ), it is strange that he could for a moment have
entertained the question of their authenticity. The poverty of
thought and style, the errors in chronology and history, and the
whole conception of the relative positions of the Stoic philosopher
and the Christian Apostle, betray clearly the hand of a forger.
Yet this correspondence has without doubt been mainly instru-
mental in fixing the belief on the mind of the later Church, as
it was even sufficient to induce some hesitation in St Jerome
himself. How far the known history and the extant writings
of either favour this idea, it will be the object of the present
essay to examine. The enquiry into the historical connexion
between these two great contemporaries will naturally expand
into an investigation of the relations, whether of coincidence or
of contrast, between the systems of which they were the re-
spective exponents. And, as Stoicism was the only philosophy
which could even pretend to rival Christianity in the earlier
ages of the Church, such an investigation ought not to be un-
instructive 3 .

1 Vir. Illustr. 12 ' Quern non ponerem 3 In the sketch, which I have given,
in catalogo sanctorum, nisi me illae epi- of the relation of Stoicism to the cir-
stolae provocarent quae leguntur a plu- cumstances of the time and to other
rimis, Pauli ad Senecam et Senecae ad earlier and contemporary systems of
Paulum.' philosophy, I am greatly indebted to

2 See the note at the end of this dis- the account in Zeller's Philosophic der
sertation. Griechen Th. in. Abth. 1 Die nach-

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 251

Like all the later systems of Greek philosophy, Stoicism was Later phi-
the offspring of despair. Of despair in religion : for the old thechflU S

mythologies had ceased to command the belief or influence the
conduct of men. Of despair in politics : for the Macedonian
conquest had broken the independence of the Hellenic states
and stamped out the last sparks of corporate life. Of despair
even in philosophy itself: for the older thinkers, though they
devoted their lives to forging a golden chain which should link
earth to heaven, appeared now to have spent their strength in
weaving ropes of sand. The sublime intuitions of Plato had
been found too vague and unsubstantial, and the subtle analyses
of Aristotle too hard and cold, to satisfy the natural craving of
man for some guidance which should teach him how to live and
to die.

Thus the soil of Greece had been prepared by the uprootal Greece
of past interests and associations for fresh developments offomew
religious and philosophic thought. When political life became ^1, f
impossible, the moral faculties of man were turned inward upon P n y-
himself and concentrated on the discipline of the individual soul.
When speculation had been cast aside as barren and unprofitable,
the search was directed towards some practical rule or rules
which might take its place. When the gods of Hellas had been
deposed and dishonoured, some new powers must be created or
discovered to occupy their vacant throne.

Stimulated by the same need, Epicurus and Zeno strove Coinci-
in different ways to solve the problem which the perplexities of contrasts
their age presented. Both alike, avoiding philosophy in the cureanlnd

proper sense of the term, concentrated their energies on ethics : stoic P hi -

losophies.
but the one took happiness, the other virtue, as his supreme

good, and made it the starting-point of his ethical teaching.
Both alike contrasted with the older masters in building their
systems on the needs of the individual and not of the state : but
the one strove to satisfy the cravings of man, as a being intended

aristotelische Philosophic (2nd ed. 1865), of Sir A. Grant on ' The Ancient Stoics'
which it is impossible to praise too in his edition of Aristotle's Ethics I.
highly. See also the instructive essay p. 243 sq. (2nd ed.).

252 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

by nature for social life, by laying stress on the claims and
privileges of friendship, the other by expanding his sphere of
duty and representing him as a citizen of the world or even of
the universe. Both alike paid a certain respect to the waning
beliefs of their day : but the one without denying the existence
of the gods banished them from all concern in the affairs of men,
while the other, transforming and utilising the creations of
Hellenic mythology, identified them with the powers of the
physical world. Both alike took conformity to nature as their
guiding maxim : but nature with the one was interpreted to
mean the equable balance of all the impulses and faculties of
man, with the other the absolute supremacy of the reason, as
the ruling principle of his being. And lastly; both alike sought
refuge from the turmoil and confusion of the age in the inward
calm and composure of the soul. If Serenity (drapagia) was
the supreme virtue of the one, her twin sister Passionlessness
(ciTraOia) was the sovereign principle of the other.

Oriental These two later developments of Greek philosophy both

Stoicism. to k root an d g r ew to maturity in Greek soil. But, while the
seed of the one was strictly Hellenic, the other was derived
from an Oriental stock. Epicurus was a Greek of the Greeks, a
child of Athenian parents. Zeno on the other hand, a native of
Citium, a Phoenician colony in Crete, was probably of Shemitic
race, for he is commonly styled ' the Phoenician 1 .' Babylon,
Tyre, Sidon, Carthage, reared some of his most illustrious
successors. Cilicia, Phrygia, Rhodes, were the homes of others.
Not a single Stoic of any name was a native of Greece proper 2 .
To Eastern affinities Stoicism was without doubt largely
indebted for the features which distinguished it from other
schools of Greek philosophy. To this fact may be ascribed the
intense moral earnestness which was its most honourable
characteristic. If the later philosophers generally, as distin-

1 See Diog. Laert. vii. 3, where 6 <f>d6vos ; We are told also 7 avre-

Crates addresses him rl Qetyets, w <oi- iro(.ovvro 5' atfrou Ktd ol ev Ztduvi Kirtets.

vuddiov ; comp. 15 &oiviff<rav ; 25 So again ii. 114 Zrivwva rbv $oit>iKa.

&OIVIKI.KUS; 30 el te Trdrpa Qoivurffa, ris 2 See below, pp. 282, 288.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 253

guished from the earlier, busied themselves with ethics rather
than metaphysics, with the Stoics this was the one absorbing
passion. The contrast between the light, reckless gaiety of the
Hellenic spirit and the stern, unbending, almost fanatical moral-
ism of the followers of Zeno is as complete as could well be
imagined. The ever-active conscience which is the glory, and
the proud self-consciousness which is the reproach, of the Stoic
school are alike alien to the temper of ancient Greece. Stoicism
breathes rather the religious atmosphere of the East, which
fostered on the one hand the inspired devotion of a David or an
Isaiah, and on the other the self- mortification and self-righteous-
ness of an Egyptian therapeute or an Indian fakir. A recent
writer, to whom we are indebted for a highly appreciative
account of the Stoic school, describes this new phase of Greek
philosophy, which we have been reviewing and of which Stoic-
ism was the truest exponent, as ' the transition to modernism 1 .'
It might with greater truth be described as the contact of
Oriental influences with the world of classical thought. Stoic- Union of
ism was in fact the earliest offspring of the union between the ^h c } as .

religious consciousness of the East and the intellectual culture f* cal ,

thought.

of the West. The recognition of the claims of the individual
soul, the sense of personal responsibility, the habit of judicial
introspection, in short the subjective view of ethics, were in no
sense new, for they are known to have held sway over the mind
of the chosen people from the earliest dawn of their history as a
nation. But now for the first time they presented themselves
at the doors of Western civilization and demanded admission.
The occasion was eminently favourable. The conquests of
Alexander, which rendered the fusion of the East and West
for the first time possible, also evoked the moral need which
they had thus supplied the means of satisfying. By the over-
throw of the state the importance of the individual was en-
hanced. In the failure of political relations, men were thrown

1 Grant, 1. c. p. 243. Sir A. Grant element in Stoicism (p. 246).
however fully recognises the Eastern

254 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

back on their inward resources and led to examine their moral
wants and to educate their moral faculties.

Exclusive It was in this way that the Eastern origin of Stoicism

attention , . , ,

to ethics, combined with the circumstances and requirements of the age

to give it an exclusively ethical character. The Stoics did, it is
true, pay some little attention to physical questions: and one or
two leading representatives of the school also contributed
towards the systematic treatment of logic. But consciously
and expressly they held these branches of study to be valueless
except in their bearing on moral questions. Representing
philosophy under the image of a field, they compared physics
to the trees, ethics to the fruit for which the trees exist, and
logic to the wall or fence which protects the enclosure 1 . Or
again, adopting another comparison, they likened logic to the
shell of an egg, physics to the white, and ethics to the yolk 2 .
Practical As the fundamental maxim of Stoical ethics was conformity to
physics nature, and as therefore it was of signal importance to ascertain
man's relation to the world around, it might have been supposed
that the study of physics would have made great progress in
the hands of Zeno's disciples. But, pursuing it for the most
part without any love for the study itself and pursuing it
moreover only to support certain foregone ethical conclusions,
they instituted few independent researches and discovered no

and depre- hidden truths. To logic they assigned a still meaner part. The

ciation of

logic. place which it occupies in the images already mentioned clearly

points to their conception of its functions. It was not so much
a means of arriving at truth, as an expedient for protecting

1 Diog. Laert. vii. 40, Philo de Phil. 396. But this is a matter of
Agric. 3, p. 302 M. See also de, Hut. little moment ; for, whichever form of
Nom. 10, p. 589 M, where Philo after the metaphor be adopted, the ethical
giving this comparison says otfrws ovv bearing of physics is put prominently
2<f>a<rav Kai ev 0iXo<ro<ip detv TT\V re </>u- forward. Indeed as ancient naturalists
ffiKTjv KO.I \oyiKT)v TTpay/jLaTeiav e?ri rty were not agreed about the respective
Wucty dva<t>tpff8ai /c.r.X. functions of the yolk and the white, the

2 Sext. Enip. vii. 17. On the other application of the metaphor must have
hand Diog. Laert. I.e. makes ethics the been influenced by this uncertainty,
white and physics the yolk. See Zeller The inferiority of logic appears in all
I.e. p. 57, and Bitter and Preller Hist. the comparisons.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 255

truth already attained from external assaults. An extreme
representative of the school went so far as to say that 'Of
subjects of philosophical investigation some pertain to us, some
have no relation to us, and some are beyond us : ethical ques-
tions belong to the first class ; dialectics to the second, for they
contribute nothing towards the amendment of life ; and physics
to the third, for they are beyond the reach of knowledge and
are profitless withal 1 .' This was the genuine spirit of the
school 2 , though other adherents were more guarded in their
statements. Physical science is conversant in experiment;
logical science in argumentation. But the Stoic was impatient
alike of the one and the other ; for he was essentially a philo-
sopher of intuitions.

And here again the Oriental spirit manifested itself. The Prophetic
Greek moralist was a reasoner : the Oriental for the most part, the school,
whether inspired or uninspired, a prophet. Though they might
clothe their systems of morality in a dialectical garb, the Stoic
teachers belonged essentially to this latter class. Even Chry-
sippus, the great logician and controversialist of the sect, is
reported to have told his master Cleanthes, that 'he only
wanted the doctrines, and would himself find out the proofs 3 .'
This saying has been condemned as 'betraying a want of
earnestness as to the truth 4 '; but I can hardly think that it
ought to be regarded in this light. Flippant though it would
appear at first sight, it may well express the intense faith in
intuition, or what I have called the prophetic 5 spirit, which
distinguishes the school. Like the other Stoics, Chrysippus

1 Ariston in Diog. Laert. vii. 160, some apology; but I could not find

Stob. Flor. Ixxx. 7. See Zeller I.e. a better. I meant to express by it

p. 50. the characteristic of enunciating moral

8 ' Quicquid legeris ad mores statim truths as authoritative, independently

referas,' says Seneca Ep. Mor. Ixxxix. of processes of reasoning. The Stoic,

See the whole of the preceding epistle. being a pantheist and having no dis-

3 Diog. Laert. vii. 179 TroXXcim Xe-ye tinct belief in a personal God, was not
/j.6vr]s TT)S TUV Soyfj-druv SiSctcr/caAiaj XPV~ a prophet in the ordinary sense, but
fav ras 5' d7ro5etetj auros evpfoetv. only as being the exponent of his own

4 Grant I.e. p. 253. inner consciousness, which was his su-

5 Perhaps the use of this term needs preme authority.

256 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

had no belief in argumentation, but welcomed the highest truths
as intuitively apprehended. Logic was to him, as to them, only
the egg-shell which protected the germ of future life, the fence
which guarded the fruitful garden. As a useful weapon of
defence against assailants, and nothing more, it was regarded by
the most perfect master of the science which the school pro-
duced. The doctrines did not derive their validity from logical
reasoning : they were absolute and self-contained. Once stated,
they must commend themselves to the innate faculty, when not
clouded by ignoble prejudices of education or degrading habits
of life.

Parallel to But though the germ of Stoicism was derived from the East,
ity in the its systematic development and its practical successes were

westward ^ attained by transplantation into a western soil. In this respect
progress 01 J

Stoicism, its career, as it travelled westward, presents a rough but instruc-
tive parallel to the progress of the Christian Church. The
fundamental ideas, derived from Oriental parentage, were reduced
to a system and placed on an intellectual basis by the instru-

Influence mentality of Greek thought. The schools of Athens and of
Tarsus did for Stoicism the same work which was accomplished
for the doctrines of the Gospel by the controversial writings
of the Greek fathers and the authoritative decrees of the Greek
councils. Zeno and Chrysippus and Pansetius are the counter-
parts of an Origen, an Athanasius, or a Basil. But, while the
systematic expositions of the Stoic tenets were directly or
indirectly the products of Hellenic thought and were matured
on Greek soil, the scene of its greatest practical manifestations

and of was elsewhere. It must be allowed that the Roman represen-
tatives of the school were very inadequate exponents of the
Stoic philosophy regarded as a speculative system : but just as
Latin Christianity adopted from her Greek sister the creeds
which she herself was incapable of framing, and built thereupon
an edifice of moral influence and social organization far more
stately and enduring, so also when naturalised in its Latin home
Stoicism became a motive power in the world, and exhibited
those practical results to which its renown is chiefly due. This

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 257

comparison is instituted between movements hardly comparable
in their character or their effects ; and it necessarily stops short
of the incorporation of the Teutonic nations. But the distinc-
tive feature of Christianity as a Divine revelation and of the
Church as a Divine institution does not exempt them from the
ordinary laws of progress : and the contrasts between the
doctrines of the Porch and the Gospel, to which I shall have
to call attention later, are rendered only the more instructive
by observing this parallelism in their outward career.

It is this latest or Roman period of Stoic philosophy which Attention
has chiefly attracted attention, not only because its practical the Roman
influence then became most manifest, but also because this per
stage of its history alone is adequately illustrated by extant
writings of the school. On the Christian student moreover it
has a special claim; for he will learn an instructive lesson in
the conflicts or coincidences of Stoicism with the doctrines
of the Gospel and the progress of the Church. And of this
stage in its history Seneca is without doubt the most striking
representative.

Seneca was strictly a contemporary of St Paul. Born Seneca
probably within a few years of each other, the Christian Apostle
and the Stoic philosopher both died about the same time and
both fell victims of the same tyrant's rage. Here, it would
have seemed, the parallelism must end. One might indeed
indulge in an interesting speculation whether Seneca, like so
many other Stoics, had not Shemitic blood in his veins. The
whole district from which he came was thickly populated with
Phoenician settlers either from the mother country or from her
great African colony. The name of his native province Baetica,
the name of his native city Corduba, are both said to be
Phoenician. Even his own name, though commonly derived
from the Latin, may perhaps have a Shemitic origin ; for it
is borne by a Jew of Palestine early in the second century 1 .

1 The name Sewe/cas or Seve/cas word is usually connected with ' senex. '
occurs in the list of the early bishops Curtius Griech. Etym. 428.
of Jerusalem, Euseb. H. E. iv. 5. The

L. 17

258

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

contrasted
Paul."

Coinci-

and Ian-

This however is thrown out merely as a conjecture. Otherwise
the Stoic philosopher from the extreme West and the Christian
Apostle from the extreme East of the Roman dominions would
seem very unlikely to present any features in common. The
one a wealthy courtier and statesman settled in the metropolis,
the other a poor and homeless preacher wandering in distant
provinces, they were separated not less by the manifold in-
fluences of daily life than by the circumstances of their birth
an d early education. Yet the coincidences of thought and even
^ l an g ua g e between the two are at first sight so striking, that
many writers have been at a loss to account for them, except
on the supposition of personal intercourse, if not of direct
plagiarism 1 . The inference indeed appears unnecessary : but

1 The connexion of St Paul and Se-
neca has been a favourite subject with
French writers. The most elaborate of
recent works is A. Fleury's Saint Paul
et Seneque (Paris 1853), in which the
author attempts to show that Seneca
was a disciple of St Paul. It is inter-
esting and full of materials, but extra-
vagant and unsatisfactory. Far more
critical is C. Aubertin's Etude Critique
sur les rapports supposes entre Seneque et
Saint Paul (Paris 1857), which appears
intended as an answer to Fleury. Au-
bertin shows that many of the parallels
are fallacious, and that many others
prove nothing, since the same senti-
ments occur in earlier writers. At the
same time he fails to account for other
more striking coincidences. It must be
added also that he is sometimes very
careless in his statements. For instance
(p. 186) he fixes an epoch by coupling
together the names of Celsus and Julian,
though they are separated by nearly
two centuries. Fleury's opinion is com-
bated also in Baur's articles Seneca und
Paulus, republished in Drei Abhand-
lungen etc. p. 377 sq. (ed. Zeller, 1876).
Among other recent French works in

which Seneca's obligations to Christian-
ity are maintained, may be named those
of Troplong, De Vinftuence du Chris-
tianisme sur le droit civil des Eomains
p. 76 (Paris 1843), and C. Schmidt
Essai historique sur la societe civile dans
le monde Eomainetsursa transformation
par le Christianisme (Paris 1853). The
opposite view is taken by C. Martha
Les Moralistes sous V Empire Romain
(2 me ed. Paris 1866). Le Stoicisme a
Rome, by P. Montee (Paris 1865), is a
readable little book, but does not throw
any fresh light on the subject. Seekers
after God, a popular and instructive
work by the Bev. F. W. Farrar, ap-
peared about the same time as my first
edition. Still later are the discussions
of G. Boissier La Religion Romaine u.
p. 52 sq. (Paris 1874) and K. Franke
Stoicismus u. Ghristenthurn (Breslau
1876). The older literature of the sub-
ject will be found in Fleury i. p. 2 sq.
In reading through Seneca I have been
able to add some striking coincidences
to those collected by Fleury and others,
while at the same time I have rejected
a vast number as insufficient or illu-
sory.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

259

the facts are remarkable enough to challenge investigation, and
I propose now to consider their bearing.

Though general resemblances of sentiment and teaching will
carry less weight, as compared with the more special coincidences
of language and illustration, yet the data would be incomplete
without taking the former into account 1 . Thus we might
imagine ourselves listening to a Christian divine, whe-n we read
in the pages of Seneca that ' God made the world because He Goodness
is good,' and that 'as the good never grudges anything good,
He therefore made everything the best possible 2 .' Yet if we
are tempted to draw a hasty inference from this parallel, we are
checked by remembering that it is a quotation from Plato.
Again Seneca maintains that ' in worshipping the gods, the first Belation
thing is to believe in the gods,' and that ' he who has copied G O( J.
them has worshipped them adequately 3 ' ; and on this duty of
imitating the gods he insists frequently and emphatically 4 .
But here too his sentiment is common to Plato and many other

1 No account is here taken of cer-
tain direct reproductions of Christian
teaching which some writer shave found
in Seneca. Thus the doctrine of the
Trinity is supposed to be enunciated by
these words 'Quisquisformatoruniversi
fuit, sive ille Dem est potens omnium,
sive incorporalis ratio ingentium ope-
rum artifex, sive divinus spiritus per
omnia maxima ac minima aequali in-
tentione diffusus, sive fatum et inmuta-
bilis causarum inter se cohaerentium
series' (ad Helv. matr. 8). Fleury (i.
p. 97), who holds this view, significantly
ends his quotation with ' diffusus,' omit-
ting the clause 'sive fatum, etc.' Thus
again some writers have found an allu-
sion to the Christian sacraments in
Seneca's language, 'Ad hoc sacramen-
tum adactisumus ferremortalia,' de Vit.
beat. 15 (comp. Ep. Mor. Ixv). Such
criticisms are mere plays on words and
do not even deserve credit for ingenuity.
On the other hand Seneca does mention

the doctrine of guardian angels or de-
mons ; ' Sepone in praesentia quae qui-
busdam placent, unicuique nostrum
paedagogum dari deum,' Ep. Mor. ex;
but, as Aubertin shows (p. 284 sq.), this
was a tenet common to many earlier
philosophers ; and in the very passage
quoted Seneca himself adds, 'Ita tamen
hoc seponas volo, ut memineris majores
nostros, qui crediderunt, Stoicos fuisse,
singulis enim et Genium et Junonem
dederunt.' See Zeller p. 297 sq.

2 Ep. Mor. Ixv. 10.

3 Ep. Mor. xcv. 50.

4 de Vit. beat. 15 'Habebit illud
in animo vetus praeceptum : deum se-
quere ' ; de Benef. iv. 25 ' Propositum
est nobis secundum rerum naturam
vivere et deorum exemplum sequi ' ; ib.
i. 1 ' Hos sequamur duces quantum
humana imbecillitaspatitur ' ; Ep. Mor.
cxxiv. 23 'Animus emendatus acpurus,
aemulator dei. '

172

260 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

of the older philosophers. ' No man/ he says elsewhere, ' is good
without God 1 .' * Between good men and the gods there exists a
friendship a friendship do I say? nay, rather a relationship
and a resemblance 2 '; and using still stronger language he
speaks of men as the children of God 3 . But here again he is
treading in the footsteps of the older Stoic teachers, and his
very language is anticipated in the words quoted by St Paul
from Cleanthes or Aratus, ' We too His offspring are 4 .'
Fatherly From the recognition of God's fatherly relation to man
ment of important consequences flow. In almost Apostolic language
Seneca describes the trials and sufferings of good men as the
chastisements of a wise and beneficent parent: 'God has a
fatherly mind towards good men and loves them stoutly ; and,
saith He, Let them be harassed with toils, with pains, with
losses, that they may gather true strength 5 .' 'Those therefore
whom God approves, whom He loves, them He hardens, He
chastises, He disciplines 6 .' Hence the 'sweet uses of adversity'
find in him an eloquent exponent. ' Nothing/ he says, quoting
his friend Demetrius, ' seems to me more unhappy than the man
whom no adversity has ever befallen 7 .' ' The life free from care
and from any buffetings of fortune is a dead sea 8 .' Hence too
it follows that resignation under adversity becomes a plain duty.
'It is best to endure what you cannot mend, and without
murmuring to attend upon God, by whose ordering all things
come to pass. He is a bad soldier who follows his captain
complaining 9 .'

The in- Still more strikingly Christian is his language, when he

slri^of 8 P ea ks f God, who ' is near us, is with us, is within/ of ' a holy

God. spirit residing in us, the guardian and observer of our good and

evil deeds 10 .' ' By what other name/ he asks, ' can we call an

1 Ep. Mor. xli ; comp. Ixxiii. 6 de Prov. 4 ; comp. ib. 1.

2 de Prov. 1 ; comp. Nat. Quaest. prol., I de Prov. 3.

etc. 8 Ep. Mor. Ixvii. This again is a

3 de Prov. 1, de Benef. ii. 29. saying of Demetrius.

4 Acts xvii. 28. 9 Ep. Mor. cvii ; comp. ib. Ixxvi.
s de Prov. 2. 10 Ep. Mor. xli ; comp. ib. Ixxiii.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 261

upright and good and great mind except (a) god lodging in a
human body 1 ?' The spark of a heavenly flame has alighted on
the hearts of men 2 . They are associates with, are members of
God. The mind came from God and yearns towards God 3 .

From this doctrine of the abiding presence of a divine spirit
the practical inferences are not less weighty. 'So live with
men, as if God saw you ; so speak with God, as if men heard
you 4 .' ' What profits it, if any matter is kept secret from men?
nothing is hidden from God 5 .' ' The gods are witnesses of
everything 6 .'

But even more remarkable perhaps, than this devoutness of Universal

dominion
tone in which the duties of man to God arising out of his filial O f sin.

relation are set forth, is the energy of Seneca's language, when
he paints the internal struggle of the human soul and prescribes
the discipline needed for its release. The soul is bound in a
prison-house, is weighed down by a heavy burden 7 . Life is a
continual warfare 8 . From the terrors of this struggle none
escape unscathed. The Apostolic doctrine that all have sinned
has an apparent counterpart in the teaching of Seneca; 'We
shall ever be obliged to pronounce the same sentence upon
ourselves, that we are evil, that we have been evil, and (I will
add it unwillingly) that we shall be evil 9 .' ' Every vice exists
in every man, though every vice is not prominent in each 10 .'
* If we would be upright judges of all things, let us first persuade
ourselves of this, that not one of us is without fault 11 .' ' These
are vices of mankind and not of the times. No age has been
free from fault 12 .' ' Capital punishment is appointed for all, and

1 Ep. Mor. xxxi. The want of the 5 Ep. Mor. Ixxxiii; comp. Fragm. 14

definite article in Latin leaves the exact (in Lactant. vi. 24).
meaning uncertain ; but this uncertain- 6 Ep. Mor. cii.

ty is suited to the vagueness of Stoic 7 adHelv. matr. 11, Ep. Mor. lxv,cii.
theology. In Ep.Mor.xli Seneca quotes 8 See below, p. 269, note 5.
the words ' Quis deus, incertum est ; 9 de Benef. i. 10.
habitat Deus' (Virg. JEn. viii. 352), and 10 de Benef. iv. 27.

applies them to this inward monitor. n de Ira ii. 28; comp. ad Polyb. 11,

a de Otio 5. Ep. Mar. xlii.

3 Ep. Mor. xcii. Ep. Mor. xcvii.

4 Ep. Mor. x.

262

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

this by a most righteous ordinance 1 .' ' No one will be found
who can acquit himself; and any man calling himself innocent
has regard to the witness, not to his own conscience-.' 'Every
day, every hour/ he exclaims, 'shows us our nothingness, and
reminds us by some new token, when we forget our frailty 3 /
Office of Thus Seneca, in common with the Stoic school generally, lays
science, great stress on the office of the conscience, as ' making cowards
of us all/ ' It reproaches them/ he says, ' and shows them to
themselves 4 / ' The first and greatest punishment of sinners is
the fact of having sinned 5 / ' The beginning of safety is the
knowledge of sin/ 'I think this/ he adds, 'an admirable saying
of Epicurus 6 /

Hence also follows the duty of strict self-examination. ' As
^ ar as ^ 1OU canst > accuse thyself, try thyself: discharge the
office, first of a prosecutor, then of a judge, lastly of an inter-
cessor 7 / Accordingly he relates at some length how, on lying
down to rest every night, he follows the example of Sextius and
reviews his shortcomings during the day : ' When the light is
removed out of sight, and my wife, who is by this time aware of
my practice, is now silent, I pass the whole of my day under
examination, and I review my deeds and words. I hide nothing
from myself, I pass over nothing 8 / Similarly he describes the
good man as one who 'has opened out his conscience to the
gods, and always lives as if in public, fearing himself more than
others 9 / In the same spirit too he enlarges on the advantage
of having a faithful friend, ' a ready heart into which your every

Self-exa-

anTcon?
fession.

1 Qu. Nat. ii. 59.

2 de Ira i. 14.

3 Ep.Mor. ci.

4 Ep. Mor. xcvii. 15.

5 ib. 14.

6 Ep. Mor. xxviii. 9 'Initium est
salutis notitia peccati.' For conve-
nience I have translated peccatum here
as elsewhere by ' ein ' ; but it will be
evident at once that in a saying of Epi-
curus, whose gods were indifferent to
the doings of men, the associations con-

nected with the word must be very dif-
ferent. See the remarks below, p. 279.
Fleury (i. p. Ill) is eloquent on this
coincidence, but omits to mention that
it occurs in a saying of Epicurus. His
argument crumbles into dust before
our eyes, when the light of this fact is
admitted.

7 ib. 10.

8 de Ira iii. 36.

9 de Benef. vii. 1.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 263

secret can be safely deposited, whose privity you need fear less
than your own 1 ' ; and urges again and again the duty of medi-
tation and self-converse 2 , quoting on this head the saying of
Epicurus, ' Then retire within thyself most, when thou art forced
to be in a crowd 3 .'

Nor, when we pass from the duty of individual self-discipline Duties
to the social relations of man, does the Stoic philosophy, as others,
represented by Seneca, hold a less lofty tone. He acknowledges
in almost Scriptural language the obligation of breaking bread
with the hungry 4 . ' You must live for another,' he writes, c if
you would live for yourself 5 .' ' For what purpose do I get
myself a friend?' he exclaims with all the extravagance of Stoic
self-renunciation, * That I may have one for whom I can die, one
whom I can follow into exile, one whom I can shield from death
at the cost of my own life 6 .' ' I will so live,' he says elsewhere,
' as if I knew that I was born for others, and will give thanks to
nature on this score 7 .'

Moreover these duties of humanity extend to all classes and
ranks in the social scale. The slave has claims equally with
the freeman, the base-born equally with the noble. ' They are
slaves, you urge ; nay, they are men. They are slaves ; nay,
they are comrades. They are slaves; nay, they are humble
friends. They are slaves: nay, they are fellow-slaves, if you
reflect that fortune has the same power over both.' ' Let some
of them,' he adds, ' dine with you, because they are worthy ;
others, that they may become worthy.' 'He is a slave, you say.
Yet perchance he is free in spirit. He is a slave. Will this
harm him ? Show me who is not. One is a slave to lust,
another to avarice, a third to ambition, all alike to fear 8 .'

1 de Tranq. Anim. 7. Comp. Ep. nem suum dividat ' : comp. Is. Iviii. 7
Mor . xi. ("Vulg.) ' Frange esurient! panem tuum,

2 Ep. Mor. vii ' Recede in teipsum Ezek. xviii. 7, 16.
quantum potes,' de Otio 28 (1) ' Prode- 5 Ep. Mor. xlviii.
rit tamen per se ipsum secedere ; me- 6 Ep. Mor. ix.

liores erimus singuli ' : comp. ad Marc. 7 ^e Vit. beat. 20 : comp. de Otio

23. 30 (3).

3 Ep. Mor. xxv. 8 Ep. Mor. xlvii. 15, 17.

4 Ep. Mor. xcv ' Cum esurieate pa-

264 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

Parallels But the moral teaching of Seneca will be brought out more

monon 61 c l ear ly> while at the same time the conditions of the problem
the Mount, before us will be better understood, by collecting the parallels,

which are scattered up and down his writings, to the sentiments

and images in the Sermon on the Mount.
Matt. v. 8. < The mind, unless it is pure and holy, comprehends not

God 1 .'
v. 21 sq. ' A man is a robber even before he stains his hands ; for he

is already armed to slay, and has the desire to spoil and to

kill 2 / 'The deed will not be upright, unless the will be

upright 3 .'
v. 29. ' Cast out whatsoever things rend thy heart : nay, if they

could not be extracted otherwise, thou shouldst have plucked

out thy heart itself with them 4 .'
v. 39. ' What will the wise man do when he is buffeted (colaphis

percussus) ? He will do as Cato did when he was smitten on

the mouth. He did not burst into a passion, did not avenge

himself, did not even forgive it, but denied its having been

done 5 .'
v. 44. ' I will be agreeable to friends, gentle and yielding to

enemies 6 .' ' Give aid even to enemies 7 .'
v. 45. ' Let us follow the gods as leaders, so far as human weakness

allows: let us give our good services and not lend them on

usury... How many are unworthy of the light: and yet the day

arises... This is characteristic of a great and good mind, to

1 Ep. Mor. Ixxxvii. 21. gulos, opem ferre etiam inimicis miti

3 de Benef. v. 14. So also de Const. (v.l. senili)manu ': comp. also de Benef.

Sap. 1 he teaches that the sin consists v. 1 (fin.), vii. 31, de Ira i. 14. Such

in the intent, not the act, and instances however is not always Seneca's tone

adultery, theft, and murder. with regard to enemies : comp. Ep. MOT.

3 Ep. Mor. xcv ' Actio recta non erit, Ixxxi ' Hoc certe, inquis, justitiae con-
nisi recta fuerit voluntas,' de Benef. v. venit, suum cuique reddere, beneficio
19 ' Mens spectanda est dantis.' gratiam, injuriae talionem aut certe

4 Ep. Mor. li. 13. rnalam gratiam. Verum erit istud,

5 de Const. Sap. 14. cum alms injuriam fecerit, alius bene-

6 de Vit. beat. 20 ' Ero amicis ju- ficiumdederitetc.' This passage shows
cundus, inimicis mitis et facilis. ' that Seneca's doctrine was a very feeble

7 de Otio 28 (1) ' Non desinemus com- and imperfect recognition of the Chris-
muni bono operam dare, adjuvare sin- tian maxim 'Love your enemies.'

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 265

pursue not the fruits of a kind deed but the deeds themselves 1 /
'We propose to ourselves... to follow the example of the gods...
See what great things they bring to pass daily, what great gifts
they bestow, with what abundant fruits they fill the earth. . .with
what suddenly falling showers they soften the ground... All
these things they do without reward, without any advantage
accruing to themselves... Let us be ashamed to hold out any [Luke vi.
benefit for sale : we find the gods giving gratuitously. If you '*
imitate the gods, confer benefits even on the unthankful : for
the sun rises even on the wicked, and the seas are open to
pirates 2 .'

' One ought so to give that another may receive. It is not Matt. vi. 3
giving or receiving to transfer to the right hand from the left 3 .'
4 This is the law of a good deed between two : the one ought at
once to forget that it was conferred, the other never to forget
that it was received 4 .'

' Let whatsoever has been pleasing to God, be pleasing to vi. 10.
man 5 .'

' Do not, like those whose desire is not to make progress but vi. 16.
to be seen, do anything to attract notice in your demeanour or
mode of life. Avoid a rough exterior and unshorn hair and a
carelessly kept beard and professed hatred of money and a bed
laid on the ground and whatever else affects ambitious display
by a perverse path... Let everything within us be unlike, but
let our outward appearance (frons) resemble the common
people 6 .'

1 de Benef. i. 1. See the whole con- p. 281. Of the villain P. Egnatius
text. Tacitus writes (Ann. xvi. 32), ' Auctori-

2 de Benef. iv. 25, 26. See the con- tatem Stoicae sectae praeferebat habitu
text. Compare also de Benef. vii. 31. et ore ad exprimendam imaginem ho-

3 de Benef. v. 8. nesti exercitus.' Egnatius, like so many

4 de Benef. ii. 10. other Stoics, was an Oriental, a native

5 Ep. Mor. Ixxiv. 20. of Beyrout (Juv. iii. 116). If the phil-

6 Ep. Mor. v. 1, 2. Other writers osopher's busts may be trusted, the
are equally severe on the insincere pro- language of Tacitus would well describe
fessors of Stoic principles. 'Like their Seneca's own appearance: but proba-
Jewish counterpart, the Pharisees, they bly with him this austerity was not
were formal, austere, pretentious, and affected.

not unfrequently hypocritical ' ; Grant

266 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

vi- 19- ' Apply thyself rather to the true riches. It is shameful to

depend for a happy life on silver and gold 1 .' ' Let thy good
deeds be invested like a treasure deep-buried in the ground,
which thou canst not bring to light, except it be necessary 2 .'

vii. 3 sq. ' Do ye mark the pimples of others, being covered with
countless ulcers ? This is as if a man should mock at the moles
or warts on the most beautiful persons, when he himself is
devoured by a fierce scab 3 .'

vii. 12. ' Expect from others what you have done to another 4 .' ' Let

us so give as we would wish to receive 5 .'

vii. 16, 17. 'Therefore good things cannot spring of evil... good does not
grow of evil, any more than a fig of an olive tree. The fruits
correspond to the seed 6 .'

vii. 26. ' Not otherwise than some rock standing alone in a shallow

sea, which the waves cease not from whichever side they are
driven to beat upon, and yet do not either stir it from t its place,
etc.... Seek some soft and yielding material in which to fix your
darts 7 .'

Other co- Nor are these coincidences of thought and imagery confined
to tne Sermon on the Mount. If our Lord compares the

Lord's Ian- hypocritical Pharisees to whited walls, and contrasts the scru-
guage.

pulously clean outside of the cup and platter with the inward
corruption, Seneca also adopts the same images : ' Within is no
good : if thou shouldest see them, not where they are exposed
to view but where they are concealed, they are miserable, filthy,
vile, adorned without like their own walls... Then it appears
how much real foulness beneath the surface this borrowed
glitter has concealed 8 .' If our Lord declares that the branches
must perish unless they abide in the vine, the language of
Seneca presents an eminently instructive parallel : c As the
leaves cannot flourish by themselves, but want a branch

1 Ep. Mor. ex. 18. de Benef. ii. 1.

2 de Vit. beat. 24. 6 Ep. Mor. Ixxxvii. 24, 25.

3 de Vit. beat. 27. 7 de Vit. beat. 27.

4 Ep. Mor. xciv. 43. This is a quo- 8 de Provid. 6.
tation.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 267

wherein they may grow and whence they may draw sap, so
those precepts wither if they are alone : they need to be
grafted in a sect 1 .' Again the parables of the sower, of the
mustard-seed, of the debtor forgiven, of the talents placed out
at usury, of the rich fool, have all their echoes in the writings
of the Roman Stoic : ' Words must be sown like seed which,
though it be small, yet when it has found a suitable place
unfolds its strength and from being the least spreads into the
largest growth... They are few things which are spoken: yet if
the mind has received them well, they gain strength and grow.
The same, I say, is the case with precepts as with seeds. They
produce much and yet they are scanty 2 .' 'Divine seeds are
sown in human bodies. If a good husbandman receives them,
they spring up like their origin... ; if a bad one, they are killed
as by barren and marshy ground, and then weeds are produced
in place of grain 3 .' 'We have received our good things as a
loan. The use and advantage are ours, and the duration
thereof the Divine disposer of his own bounty regulates. We
ought to have in readiness what He has given us for an
uncertain period, and to restore it, when summoned to do so,
without complaint. He is the worst debtor, who reproaches his
creditor 4 .' 'As the money-lender does not summon some
creditors whom he knows to be bankrupt... so I will openly
and persistently pass over some ungrateful persons nor demand
any benefit from them in turn 5 .' ' O how great is the madness
of those who embark on distant hopes : I will buy, I will build,
I will lend out, I will demand payment, I will bear honours :
then at length I will resign my old age wearied and sated to
rest. Believe me, all things are uncertain even to the pros-
perous. No man ought to promise himself anything out of the
future. Even what we hold slips through our hands, and
fortune assails the very hour on which we are pressing 6 .' If

1 Ep. Mor. xcv. 59. See the remarks 4 ad Marc. 10.
below, p. 313, on this parallel. 5 de Benef. v. 21.

2 Ep. Mor. xxxviii. 2. Ep. Mor. ci. 4.

3 Ep. Mor. Ixxiii. 16.

268 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

our Master declares that 'it is more blessed to give than to
receive/ the Stoic philosopher tells his readers that he ' would
rather not receive benefits, than not confer them 1 / and that ' it
is more wretched to the good man to do an injury than to
receive one 2 .' If our Lord reminds His hearers of the Scriptural
warning ' I will have mercy and not sacrifice/ if He commends
the poor widow's mite thrown into the treasury as a richer gift
than the most lavish offerings of the wealthy, if His whole life
is a comment on the prophet's declaration to the Jews that God
' cannot away with their sabbaths and new moons/ so also
Seneca writes: 'Not even in victims, though they be fat and
their brows glitter with gold, is honour paid to the gods, but in
the pious and upright intent of the worshippers 3 .' The gods
are * worshipped not by the wholesale slaughter of fat carcasses
of bulls nor by votive offerings of gold or silver, nor by money
poured into their treasuries, but by the pious and upright
intent 4 .' 'Let us forbid any one to light lamps on sabbath-
days, since the gods do not want light, and even men take no
pleasure in smoke... he worships God, who knows Him 5 .' And
lastly, if the dying prayer of the Redeemer is ' Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do/ some have discovered a
striking counterpart (I can only see a mean caricature) of this
expression of triumphant self-sacrifice in the language of Seneca :
( There is no reason why thou shouldest be angry : pardon them ;
they are all mad 6 .'

Coinci- Nor are the coincidences confined to the Gospel narratives.

wltlTthe r -^ e writings of Seneca present several points of resemblance

Apostolic also to the Apostolic Epistles. The declaration of St John that

' perfect love casteth out fear 7 ' has its echo in the philosopher's

words, ' Love cannot be mingled with fear 8 .' The metaphor of

St Peter, also, ' Girding up the loins of your mind be watchful

1 de Benef. i. 1. 5 Ep. Mor. xcv. 47.

2 Ep. Mor. xcv. 52 : comp. de Benef. 6 de Benef. v. 17. See the remarks
iv. 12, vii. 31, 32. below, p. 280.

3 de Benef. i. 6. 7 1 Job. iv. 18.

4 Ep. Mor. cxv. 5. 8 Ep. Mor. xlvii. 18.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

269

and hope 1 ,' reappears in the same connexion in Seneca, 'Let the
mind stand ready-girt, and let it never fear what is necessary
but ever expect what is uncertain 2 .' And again, if St James
rebukes the presumption of those who say, 'To-day or to-morrow
we will go into such a city, when they ought to say, If the Lord
will, we shall live and do this or that 3 / Seneca in a similar
spirit says that the wise man will 'never promise himself
anything on the security of fortune, but will say, I will sail
unless anything happen, and, I will become praetor unless
anything happen, and, My business will turn out well for me
unless anything happen 4 .'

The coincidences with St Paul are even more numerous and andespeci-
not less striking. It is not only that Seneca, like the Apostle St'Paul.
of the Gentiles, compares life to a warfare 5 , or describes the
struggle after good as a 'contest with the flesh 6 / or speaks of
this present existence as a pilgrimage in a strange land and of
our mortal bodies as tabernacles of the soul 7 . Though some of
these metaphors are more Oriental than Greek or Roman, they
are too common to suggest any immediate historical connexion.
It is more to the purpose to note special coincidences of thought
and diction. The hateful flattery, first of Claudius and then of

1 1 Pet. i. 13.

2 ad Polyb. 11 'In procinctu stet
animus etc.'

3 James iv. 13.

4 de Tranq. Anlm. 13.

5 Ep. Mor. xcvi ' Vivere, Lucili,
militare est ' ; ib. li ' Nobis quoque mi-
litandum est et quidem genere militiae
quo numquam quies, numquam otium,
datur ' ; ib. Ixv ' Hoc quod vivit stipen-
dium putat' ; ib. cxx. 12 ' Civem se esse
universi et militem credens.' The com-
parison is at least as old as the Book of
Job, vii. 1.

6 ad Marc. 24 'Omne illi cum hac
carne grave certamen est.' The flesh
is not unfrequently used for the carnal
desires and repulsions, e.g. Ep. Mor.
Ixxiv' Non est summa felicitatis nostrae

in carne ponenda.' This use of ffap
has been traced to Epicurus.

7 Ep. Mor. cxx 'Nee domum esse
hoc corpus sed hospitium et quidem
breve hospitium,' and again 'Magnus
animus... nihil horum quae circa sunt
suum judicat, sed ut commodatis utitur
peregrinus et properans.' So also Ep.
Mor. cii. 24 ' Quicquid circa te jacet
rerum tamquam hospitalis loci sarcinas
specta.' In this last letter ( 23) he
speaks of advancing age as a ' ripening
to another birth (in alium maturesci-
mus partum),' and designates death by
the term since consecrated in the lan-
guage of the Christian Church, as the
birth-day of eternity : ' Dies iste, quern
tamquam supremum reformidas, aeter-
ni natalis est ' ( 28).

270 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

Nero, to which the expressions are prostituted by Seneca, does
not conceal the resemblance of the following passages to the
language of St Paul where they occur in a truer and nobler
application. Of the former emperor he writes to a friend at
court, ' In him are all things and he is instead of all things to
thee 1 ' : to the latter he says, ' The gentleness of thy spirit will
spread by degrees through the whole body of the empire, and
all things will be formed after thy likeness : health passes from
the head to all the members 2 / Nor are still closer parallels

2 Cor. xii. wanting. Thus, while St Paul professes that he will ' gladly
spend and be spent ' for his Corinthian converts, Seneca repeats
the same striking expression, ' Good men toil, they spend and

Tit. i. 15. are spent 3 .' While the Apostle declares that 'unto the pure all
things are pure, but unto the defiled and unbelieving nothing
is pure,' it is the Roman philosopher's dictum that 'the evil
man turns all things to evil 4 .' While St Paul in a well-
remembered passage compares and contrasts the training for

1 Cor. ix. the mortal and the immortal crown, a strikingly similar use is
made of the same comparison in the following words of Seneca ;
'What blows do athletes receive in their face, what blows all
over their body. Yet they bear all the torture from thirst of
glory. Let us also overcome all things, for our reward is not a
crown or a palm branch or the trumpeter proclaiming silence
for the announcement of our name, but virtue and strength of
mind and peace acquired ever after 5 .'

The coincidence will be further illustrated by the following
passages of Seneca, to which the corresponding references in St
Paul are given in the margin.

Kom. i. 23. ' They consecrate the holy and immortal and inviolable gods
in motionless matter of the vilest kind : they clothe them with
the forms of men, and beasts, and fishes 6 .'

Eom. i. 28, ' They are even enamoured of their own ill deeds, which is

32.

1 ad Polyb. 7. 5 Ep. Mor. Ixxviii. 16.

2 de Clem, ii, 2. 6 de Superst. (Fragm. 31) in August.

3 de Provid. 5. .Civ. Dei vi. 10.

4 Ep. Mor. xcviii. 3.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 271

the last ill of all : and then is their wretchedness complete,
when shameful things not only delight them but are even
approved by them 1 .'

' The tyrant is angry with the homicide, and the sacrilegious Kom.ii.2i,
man punishes thefts 2 /

' Hope is the name for an uncertain good 3 .' ** om - viii -

' Pertinacious goodness overcomes evil men 4 .' Rom. xii.

' I have a better and a surer light whereby I can discern the i cor. ii.
true from the false. The mind discovers the good of the mind 5 .'

' Let us use them, let us not boast of them : and let us use l Cor. vii.
them sparingly, as a loan deposited with us, which will soon
depart 6 .'

' To obey God is liberty 7 .' 2 Cor. iii.

' Not only corrected but transfigured 8 .' 2 Cor. iii.

' A man is not yet wise, unless his mind is transfigured into 18 -
those things which he has learnt 9 .'

'What is man? A cracked vessel which will break at the 2Cor.iv. 7.
least fall 10 .'

' This is salutary ; not to associate with those unlike our- 2 Cor. vi.
selves and having different desires 11 /

' That gift is far more welcome which is given with a ready 2 Cor. ix. 7
than that which is given with a full hand 12 / (Prov.xxn.

' Gather up and preserve the time 13 / E P h - v - 16

' I confess that love of our own body is natural to us 14 / Eph. v. 28,

* Which comes or passes away very quickly, destined to cJl. ii. 22.
perish in the very using (in ipso usu sui periturum) 15 /

Ep. Mor. xxxix. 6. Ep. Mor. vi. 1.

de Ira ii. 28. Ep. M&r. xciv. 48.

Ep. Mor. x. 2. w ad Marc. 11. So Ps. xxxi. 12 I

de Benef. vii. 31. am become like a broken vessel.'

de Vit. beat. 2. " Ep. Mor. xxxii. 2.

Ep. Mor. Ixxiv. 18. 12 de Benef. i. 7.

7 de Vit. beat. 15. Compare the 13 Ep. Mor. i. 1. So also he speaks

language of our Liturgy, ' Whose ser- elsewhere (de Brev. Vit. 1) of ' invest-

vice is perfect freedom.' Elsewhere ing' time (conlocaretur).

(Ep. Mor. viii) he quotes a saying of 14 Ep. Mor. xiv. 1. The word used

Epicurus, ' Thou must be the slave of for love is ' caritas. '

philosophy, that true liberty may fall de Vit. beat. 7.
to thy lot.'

272 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

lTim.ii.9. ' Neither jewels nor pearls turned thee aside 1 /

1 Tim. iv. < I reflect how many exercise their bodies, how few their

minds 2 .' c It is a foolish occupation to exercise the muscles of
the arms... Return quickly from the body to the mind : exercise
this, night and day 3 .'

lTim.v.6. ' Do these men fear death, into which while living they have
buried themselves 4 ?' 'He is sick: nay, he is dead 5 .'

2 Tim. Hi. ' They live ill, who are always learning to live 6 .' ' How long

wilt thou learn ? begin to teach 7 .'

In the opening sentences of our Burial Service two passages

1 Tim. vi. of Scripture are combined : * We brought nothing into this

Job i 21 world and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord

gave and the Lord hath taken away: blessed be the name of

the Lord.' Both passages have parallels in Seneca : ' Non licet

plus efferre quam intuleris 8 ;' ' Abstulit (fortuna) sed dedit 9 .'

In the speech on the Areopagus again, which was addressed

partly to a Stoic audience, we should naturally expect to find

parallels. The following passages justify this expectation.

Acts xvii. 'The whole world is the temple of the immortal gods 10 /

24 sq. < Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high :

He must be consecrated in the heart of each man 11 /
xvii 25 ' ^ o< ^ wan ^ s no * ministers. How so ? He Himself minis-

tereth to the human race. He is at hand everywhere and to
all men 12 /

xvii. 27. ' God is near thee : He is with thee ; He is within 13 /

xvii. 29. ' Thou shalt not form Him of silver and gold : a true like-

ness of God cannot be moulded of this material 14 /
The first The first impression made by this series of parallels is

str ^ing. They seem to show a general coincidence in the

1 ad Helv. matr. 16. 9 Ep. Mor. Ixiii. 7.

2 Ep. Mor. Ixxx. 2. 10 de Benef. vii. 7.

3 Ep. Mor. xv. 2, 5. u Fragm. 123, in Lactant. Div.

4 Ep. Mor. cxxii. 3. Inst. vi. 25.

5 de Brev. Vit. 12. 12 Ep. Mor. xcv. 47.

6 Ep. Mor. xxiii. 9. ls Ep. Mor. xli. 1.

7 Ep. Mor. xxxiii. 9. 14 Ep. Mor. xxxi. 11.

8 Ep. Mor. cii. 25.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 273

fundamental principles of theology and the leading maxims in par ^ llels be
ethics : they exhibit moreover special resemblances in imagery modified.
and expression, which, it would seem, cannot be explained as
the result of accident, but must point to some historical
connexion.

Nevertheless a nearer examination very materially dimin-
ishes the force of this impression. In many cases, where the
parallels are most close, the theory of a direct historical
connexion is impossible ; in many others it can be shown to be
quite unnecessary; while in not a few instances the resem-
blance, however striking, must be condemned as illusory and
fallacious. After deductions made on all these heads, we shall
still have to consider whether the remaining coincidences are
such as to require or to suggest this mode of solution.

1. In investigating the reasonableness of explaining coinci- Difficulty
dences between two different authors by direct obligation on blishing
the one hand or the other, the dates of the several writings are tiv^Thro-
obviously a most important element in the decision. In the nol gy-
present instance the relative chronology is involved in con-
siderable difficulty. It is roughly true that the literary
activity of Seneca comprises about the same period over
which (with such exceptions as the Gospel and Epistles of
St John) the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists extend.
But in some cases of parallelism it is difficult, and in others
wholly impossible, to say which writing can claim priority of
time. If the Epistles of St Paul may for the most part be
dated within narrow limits, this is not the case with the
Gospels: and on the other hand the chronology of Seneca's
writings is with some few exceptions vague and uncertain. In The prior-
many cases however it seems impossible that the Stoic philo- ti
sopher can have derived his thoughts or his language from the
New Testament. Though the most numerous and most striking
parallels are found in his latest writings, yet some coincidences
occur in works which must be assigned to his earlier years, and
these were composed certainly before the first Gospels could
have been circulated in Rome, and perhaps before they were
L. 18

274 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

even written. Again, several strong resemblances occur in
Seneca to those books of the New Testament which were
written after his death. Thus the passage which dwells on
the fatherly chastisement of God 1 presents a coincidence, as
remarkable as any, to the language of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Thus again in tracing the portrait of the perfect
man (which has been thought to reflect many features of the
life of Christ, delineated in the Gospels) he describes him as
'shining like a light in the darkness 2 '; an expression which at
once recalls the language applied to the Divine Word in the
prologue of St John's Gospel. And again in the series of
parallels given above many resemblances will have been
noticed to the Pastoral Epistles, which can hardly have been
written before Seneca's death. These facts, if they do not
prove much, are at least so far valid as to show that the simple
theory of direct borrowing from the Apostolic writings will not
meet all the facts of the case.

Seneca's 2. Again ; it is not sufficient to examine Seneca's writings

tiomfto by themselves, but we must enquire how far he was antici-

y the older philosophers in those brilliant flashes of
theological truth or of ethical sentiment, which from time to
time dazzle us in his writings. If after all they should prove
to be only lights reflected from the noblest thoughts and
sayings of former days, or at best old fires rekindled and fanned
into a brighter flame, we have found a solution more simple
and natural, than if we were to ascribe them to direct inter-
course with Christian teachers or immediate acquaintance with
Christian writings. We shall not cease in this case to regard
them as true promptings of the Word of God which was from
the beginning, bright rays of the Divine Light which ' was in
the world ' though ' the world knew it not,' which * shineth in
the darkness' though 'the darkness comprehended it not': but
we shall no longer confound them with the direct effulgence of

1 See above, p. 260 sq. Compare 2 Ep. Mor. cxx. 13'Non aliterquam
Hebrews xii. 5 sq., and see Prov. iii. in tenebris lumen effulsit.'
11, 12, which is quoted there.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 275

the same Word made flesh, the Shechinah at length taber-
nacled among men, ' whose glory we beheld, the glory as of the
only-begotten of the Father.'

And this is manifestly the solution of many coincidences
which have been adduced above. Though Seneca was essenti-
ally a Stoic, yet he read widely and borrowed freely from all
-existing schools of philosophy 1 . To the Pythagoreans and the
Platonists he is largely indebted; and even of Epicurus, the
founder of the rival school, he speaks with the deepest respect 2 .
It will have been noticed that several of the most striking
passages cited above are direct quotations from earlier writers,
and therefore can have no immediate connexion with Christian
ethics. The sentiment for instance, which approaches most
nearly to the Christian maxim 'Love your enemies/ is avowedly
based on the teaching of his Stoic predecessors 3 . And where Parallels
this is not the case, recent research has shown that (with some found in
exceptions) passages not only as profound in feeling and truth-
ful in sentiment, but often very similar in expression and not
less striking in their resemblance to the Apostolic writings, can
be produced from the older philosophers and poets of Greece
and Rome 4 . One instance will suffice. Seneca's picture of the
perfect man has been already mentioned as reflecting some
features of the ' Son of Man ' delineated in the Gospels. Yet
the earlier portrait drawn by Plato in its minute touches
reproduces the likeness with a fidelity so striking, that the
-chronological impossibility alone has rescued him from the
charge of plagiarism : ' Though doing no wrong,' Socrates is
represented saying, ' he will have the greatest reputation for

1 See what he says of himself, de Vit. liche Kldnge aus den Griechischen und
beat. 3, de Otio 2 (29). Romisclien Klassikem (Gotha, 1865),

2 de Vit. beat. 13 ' In ea quidem ipsa p. 327 sq.

sententia sum, invitis hoc nostris popu- 4 Such parallels are produced from

laribus dicam, sanctaEpicurumet recta older writers by Aubertin (Seneque et

praecipere et, si propius accesseris, tris- Saint Paul), who has worked out this

tia': comp. Ep. Mor. ii. 5, vi. 6, viii. line of argument. See also the large

8, xx. 9. collection of passages in K. Schneider

3 de Otio 1 (28). See above, p. 264, Christliche Kldnge.
note 7. See also E. Schneider Christ-

182

276 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

wrong-doing,' 'he will go forward immovable even to death,
appearing to be unjust throughout life but being just/ ' he will
be scourged/ ' last of all after suffering every kind of evil he
will be crucified (avao"%i,vSv\ev0ricr6Tcu) 1 .' Not unnaturally
Clement of Alexandria, quoting this passage, describes Plato
as 'all but foretelling the dispensation of salvation 2 .'

Many co- 3 t Lastly: the proverbial suspicion which attaches to

incidences * i

arefalla- statistics ought to be extended to coincidences of language,

for they may be, and often are, equally fallacious. An ex-
pression or a maxim, which detached from its context offers a
striking resemblance to the theology or the ethics of the
Gospel, is found to have a wholly different bearing when
considered in its proper relations.

Stoicism This consideration is especially important in the case before

and Chris- J

tianity are us. Stoicism and Christianity are founded on widely different

theological conceptions ; and the ethical teaching of the two in
many respects presents a direct contrast. St Jerome was led
astray either by his ignorance of philosophy or by his partiality
for a stern asceticism, when he said that ' the Stoic dogmas in
very many points coincide with our own 3 / It is in the
doctrines of the Platonist and the Pythagorean that the truer
resemblances to the teaching of the Bible are to be sought. It
was not the Porch but the Academy that so many famous
teachers, like Justin Martyr and Augustine, found to be the
vestibule to the Church of Christ. Again and again the
Platonic philosophy comes in contact with the Gospel; but
Stoicism moves in another line, running parallel indeed and
impressive by its parallelism, but for this very reason precluded
from any approximation. Only when he deserts the Stoic
platform, does Seneca really approach the level of Christianity.
Struck by their beauty, he adopts and embodies the maxims of
other schools : but they betray their foreign origin, and refuse
to be incorporated into his system.

1 Plato Eesp. ii. pp. 361, 362. See * Hieron. Comm. in Isai. iv. c. 11

Aubertin p. 254 sq. * Stoici qui nostro dogmati in pleris-

3 Strom, v. 14 povovovxt Trpo<f>rjTiJo}i> que concordant' (Op. iv. p. 159, Val-

TQV ffwrripiov olKovofj.lav. larsi).

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 277

For on the whole Lactantius was right, when he called Seneca
Seneca a most determined follower of the Stoics 1 . It can only stoic.
excite our marvel that any one, after reading a few pages of
this writer, should entertain a suspicion of his having been in
any sense a Christian. If the superficial colouring is not
seldom deceptive, we cannot penetrate skindeep without en-
countering some rigid and inflexible dogma of the Stoic school.
In his fundamental principles he is a disciple of Zeno; and,
being a disciple of Zeno, he could not possibly be a disciple of
Christ.

Interpreted by this fact, those passages which at first sight His pan-
strike us by their resemblance to the language of the Apostles material-
and Evangelists assume a wholly different meaning. The basis 18m>
of Stoic theology is gross materialism, though it is more or less
relieved and compensated in different writers of the school by
a vague mysticism. The supreme God of the Stoic had no
existence distinct from external nature. Seneca himself identi-
fies Him with fate, with necessity, with nature, with the world
as a living whole 2 . The different elements of the universe,
such as the planetary bodies, were inferior gods, members of
the Universal Being 3 . With a bold consistency the Stoic
assigned a corporeal existence even to moral abstractions.
Here also Seneca manifests his adherence to the tenets of
his school. Courage, prudence, reverence, cheerfulness, wisdom,
he says, are all bodily substances, for otherwise they could not
affect bodies, as they manifestly do 4 .

Viewed by the light of this material pantheism, the injunc- His lan-
tion to be ' followers of God ' cannot mean the same to him as

1 See above, p. 249. nam, omnia ejusdem dei nomina sunt

- See especially de Benef. iv. 7, 8 varie utentis sua potestate' ; de Vit.

'Natura, inquit, hoc mihi praestat. beat. 8 'Mundus cuncta complectens

Non intellegis te, cum hoc dicis, mutare rectorque universi deus.' Occasionally

nomeu deo ? quid enim aliud est natura a more personal conception of deity

quam deus et divina ratio toti mundo appears : e.g. ad Helv. Matr. 8.

partibusque ejus inserta ?...Hunc eun- 3 de Clem. i. 8.

dem et fatum si dixeris, non mentieris 4 Ep. Mor. cvi : comp. Ep. Mor. cxvii.
... Sic nunc naturani voca, fatum, f ortu-

278

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

terpreted
by his
tenets.

Consistent
blasphe-
mies in
speaking
of God.

He has no
conscious-
ness of
sin.

it does even to the Platonic philosopher, still less to the
Christian Apostle. In Stoic phraseology 'imitation of God*
signifies nothing deeper than a due recognition of physical laws
on the part of man, and a conformity thereto in his own actions.
It is merely a synonyme for the favourite Stoic formula of
{ accordance with nature.' This may be a useful precept ; but
so interpreted the expression is emptied of its religious signifi-
cance. In fact to follow the world and to follow God are
equivalent phrases with Seneca 1 . Again, in like manner, the
lesson drawn from the rain and the sunshine freely bestowed
upon all 2 , though in form it coincides so nearly with the
language of the Gospel, loses its theological meaning and
becomes merely an appeal to a physical fact, when interpreted
by Stoic doctrine.

Hence also language, which must strike the ear of a
Christian as shocking blasphemy, was consistent and natural
on the lips of a Stoic. Seneca quotes with approbation the
saying of his revered Sextius, that Jupiter is not better than
a good man ; he is richer, but riches do not constitute superior
goodness; he is longer-lived, but greater longevity does not
ensure greater happiness 3 . ' The good man,' he says elsewhere,
' differs from God only in length of time 4 .' ' He is like God,
excepting his mortality 5 .' In the same spirit an earlier Stoic,
Chrysippus, had boldly argued that the wise man is as useful
to Zeus, as Zeus is to the wise man 6 . Such language is the
legitimate consequence of Stoic pantheism.

Hence also the Stoic, so long as he was true to the tenets
of his school, could have no real consciousness of sin. Only
where there is a distinct belief in a personal God, can this

1 de Ira ii. 16 ' Quid est autem cur
hominem ad tarn infelicia exempla re-
voces, cum habeas mundum deumque,
quern ex omnibus animalibus ut solus
imitetur, solus intellegit.'

2 See the passages quoted above, p.
264 sq.

3 Ep. Mor. Ixxiii. 12, 13.

4 de Prov. 1.

5 de Const. Sap. 8 : comp. Ep. Mor.
xxxi. ' Par deo surges.' Nay, in one
respect good men excel God, 'Ille extra
patientiam malorum est, vos supra
patientiam,' de Prov. 6.

6 Plut. adv. Stoic. 33 (Op. Mor. p.
1078).

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 279

consciousness find a resting-place. Seneca and Tertullian might
use the same word peccatum, but its value and significance to
the two writers cannot be compared. The Christian Apostle
and the Stoic philosopher alike can say, and do say, that ' All
men have erred 1 ' ; but the moral key in which the saying is
pitched is wholly different. With Seneca error or sin is nothing
more than the failure in attaining to the ideal of the perfect
man which he sets before him, the running counter to the law
of the universe in which he finds himself placed. He does not
view it as an offence done to the will of an all-holy all-righteous
Being, an unfilial act of defiance towards a loving and gracious
Father. The Stoic conception of error or sin is not referred at
all to the idea of God 2 . His pantheism had so obscured the
personality of the Divine Being, that such reference was, if not
impossible, at least unnatural.

And the influence of this pantheism necessarily pervades the Meaning
Stoic vocabulary. The ' sacer spiritus ' of Seneca may be spirit^ y
translated literally by the Holy Spirit, the Trvevpa ayiov, of Seneca -
Scriptural language ; but it signifies something quite different.
His declaration, that we are 'members of God,' is in words
almost identical with certain expressions of the Apostle; but
its meaning has nothing in common. Both the one and the
other are modes of stating the Stoic dogma, that the Universe
is one great animal pervaded by one soul or principle of life,
and that into men, as fractions of this whole, as limbs of this
body, is transfused a portion of the universal spirit 3 . It is
almost purely a physical conception, and has no strictly theo-
logical value.

Again, though the sterner colours of Stoic morality are fre- His moral
quently toned down in Seneca, still the foundation of his ethical h^alHke
system betrays the repulsive features of his school. His funda- repulsive
mental maxim is not to guide and train nature, but to overcome Stoicism.

1 See the passages quoted above, 3 Compare the well-known passage in
p. 261 sq. Virgil, Mn. vi. 726 sq. ' Spiritus intus alit

2 See the remarks of Baur I. c. p. 190 totamque infusa per artus mens agitat
sq., on this subject. molem et magno se corpore miscet.'

280 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

it 1 . The passions and affections are not to be directed, but to
be crushed. The wise man, he says, will be clement and gentle,
but he will not feel pity, for only old women and girls will be
moved by tears ; he will not pardon, for pardon is the remission
of a deserved penalty ; he will be strictly and inexorably just 2 .

It is obvious that this tone leaves no place for repentance,
for forgiveness, for restitution, on which the theological ethics
of the Gospel are built. The very passage 3 , which has often
been quoted as a parallel to the Saviour's dying words, ' Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do/ really stands
in direct contrast to the spirit of those words : for it is not
dictated by tenderness and love, but expresses a contemptuous
pity, if not a withering scorn.

In the same spirit Seneca commits himself to the impassive

calm which forms the moral ideal of his school 4 . He has no

sympathy with a righteous indignation, which Aristotle called

'the spur of virtue'; for it would disturb the serenity of the

Itsimpas- mind 5 . He could only have regarded with a lofty disdain

contrasts ( un ^ ess f r the moment the man triumphed over the philo-

with the gopher) the grand outburst of passionate sympathy which in the

the Gos- Apostle of the Gentiles has wrung a tribute of admiration even

Tipl

from unbelievers, ' Who is weak, and I am not weak ? Who is
offended, and I burn not 6 ?' He would neither have appreciated
nor respected the spirit which dictated those touching words,
'I say the truth... I lie not... I have great heaviness and con-
tinual sorrow of heart... for my brethren, my kinsmen according
to the flesh 7 .' He must have spurned the precept which bids
the Christian 'rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with

1 deBrev. Vit. 14 ' Hominis naturam mortem quo suam exspectat. Non
cum Stoicis vincere.' magis hanc timet quam illam dolet...

2 de Clem. ii. 57, where he makes Inhonesta est omnis trepidatio et solli-
a curious attempt to vindicate the citudo.' And see especially Ep. Mor.
Stoics. cxvi.

3 It is quoted above, p. 268. 8 de Ira iii. 3.

4 Ep. Mor. Ixxiv. 30 'Non adfligitur 6 2 Cor. xi. 29.
sapiens liberorum amissione, non ami- 7 Rom. ix. 1, 2, 3.
corum : eodem enim animo fert illorum

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 281

them that weep 1 / as giving the direct lie to a sovereign maxim
of Stoic philosophy. To the consistent disciple of Zeno the
agony of Gethsemane could not have appeared, as to the
Christian it ever will appear, the most sublime spectacle of
moral sympathy, the proper consummation of a Divine life : for
insensibility to the sorrows and sufferings of others was the
only passport to perfection, as conceived in the Stoic ideal.

These considerations will have shown that many even of
the most obvious parallels in Seneca's language are really no
parallels at all. They will have served moreover to reveal Inconsist-
the wide gulf which separates him from Christianity. It must geneca
be added however, that his humanity frequently triumphs over *^ f sto
his philosophy; that he often writes with a kindliness and a
sympathy which, if little creditable to his consistency, is highly
honourable to his heart. In this respect however he does not
stand alone. Stoicism is in fact the most incongruous, the
most self-contradictory, of all philosophic systems. With a
gross and material pantheism it unites the most vivid expres
sions of the fatherly love and providence of God: with the
sheerest fatalism it combines the most exaggerated statements
of the independence and self-sufficiency of the human soul:
with the hardest and most uncompromising isolation of the
individual it proclaims the most expansive view of his relations
to all around. The inconsistencies of Stoicism were a favourite
taunt with the teachers of rival schools 2 . The human heart
in fact refused to be silenced by the dictation of a rigorous and
artificial system, and was constantly bursting its philosophical
fetters.

But after all allowance made for the considerations just Coinci-
urged, some facts remain which still require explanation. It s tin re-
appears that the Christian parallels in Seneca's writings become
more frequent as he advances in life 3 . It is not less' true that

1 Horn. xii. 15. 3 Among his more Christian works

2 See for instance the treatise of Pin- are the de Providentia, de Otio, de Vita
tarch de Repugnantiis Stoicorum (Op. beata, de Beneficiis, and the Epistolae
Mor. p. 1033 sq.). Morales ; among his less Christian, the

282 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

they are much more striking and more numerous than in the
other great Stoics of the Roman period, Epictetus and M.
Aurelius ; for though in character these later writers approached
much nearer to the Christian ideal than the minister of Nero,
though their fundamental doctrines are as little inconsistent
with Christian theology and ethics as his, yet the closer resem-
blances of sentiment and expression, which alone would suggest
any direct obligations to Christianity, are, I believe, decidedly
more frequent in Seneca 1 . Lastly : after all deductions made, a
class of coincidences still remains, of which the expression
'spend and be spent* may be taken as a type 2 , and which can
hardly be considered accidental. If any historical connexion
(direct or indirect) can be traced with a fair degree of proba-
bility, we may reasonably look to this for the solution of such

Historical coincidences. I shall content myself here with stating the
connexion, -i. -, . , , . ., ,

different ways in which such a connexion was possible or pro-
bable, without venturing to affirm what was actually the case,
for the data are not sufficient to justify any definite theory,
(i) The 1. The fact already mentioned is not unimportant, that the

ori'kn'of P r i nc ip a l Stoic teachers all came from the East, and that
Stoicism, therefore their language and thought must in a greater or less
degree have borne the stamp of their Oriental origin. We
advance a step further towards the object of our search, if we
remember that the most famous of them were not only Oriental
but Shemitic. Babylonia, Phoenicia, Syria, Palestine, are their
homes. One comes from Scythopolis, a second from Apamea,
a third from Ascalon, a fourth from Ptolemais, two others from

de Constantia Sapientis and de Ira. In the belief that he was acquainted with

some cases the date is uncertain ; but the language of the Gospel,

what I have said in the text will, I 3 See above, p. 270. Aubertin has at-

think, be found substantially true. tacked this very instance (p. 360 sq.),

1 I have read Epictetus and M. Au- but without success. He only shows

relius through with a view to such coin- (what did not need showing) that ' im-

cidences, and believe the statement in pendere* is used elsewhere in this same

the text to be correct. Several of the sense. The important feature in the

more remarkable parallels in the former coincidence is the combination of the

writer occur in the passages quoted be- active and passive voices,
low, p. 299 sq., and seem to warrant

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 283

Hierapolis, besides several from Tyre and Sidon or their
colonies, such as Citium and Carthage 1 . What religious
systems they had the opportunity of studying, and how far
they were indebted to any of these, it is impossible to say.
But it would indeed be strange if, living on the confines and Its possi-
even within the borders of the home of Judaism, the Stoic ti o n to ga ~
teachers escaped all influence from the One religion which, Judaism -
it would seem, must have attracted the attention of the
thoughtful and earnest mind, which even then was making
rapid progress through the Roman Empire, and which after-
wards through the Gospel has made itself far more widely felt
than any other throughout the civilised world. I have already-
ventured to ascribe the intense moral earnestness of the Stoics
to their Eastern origin. It would be no extravagant assumption
that they also owed some ethical maxims and some theological
terms (though certainly not their main doctrines) directly
or indirectly to the flourishing Jewish schools of their age,
founded on the teaching of the Old Testament. The exaggera-
tions of the early Christian fathers, who set down all the
loftier sentiments of the Greek philosophers as plagiarisms from
the lawgiver or the prophets, have cast suspicion on any such
affiliation : but we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by
reactionary prejudices to the possibilities or rather the proba-
bilities in the case before us.

2. The consideration which I have just advanced will (2) Sene-
ca's possi-
ble know-

1 I have noted down the following Gyrene, Eratosthenes (p. 39). The Cili-

homes of more or less distinguished cian Stoics are enumerated below p. 288.

Stoic teachers from the East ; Seleucia, Of the other famous teachers belong -

Diogenes (p. 41); Epiphania, Euphrates ing to the School, Cleanthes came from

(p. 613) ; Scytlwpolis, Basilides (p. 614) ; Assos (p. 31) , Ariston from Chios (p. 32),

Ascalon, Antibius, Eubius (p. 615) ; Dionysius from Heraclea (p. 35), Sphas-

Hierapolis in Syria(?),Sei-a>pio (p. 612), rus from Bosporus (p. 35), Paneetius

Publius (p. 615); Tyre, Antipater, Apol- from Ehodes (p. 500), Epictetus from

lonius (p. 520) ; Sidoji, Zeno (p. 36), Hierapolis in Phrygia (p. 660). The

Boethus ? (p. 40) ; Ptolemais, Diogenes references are to the pages of Zeller's

(p. 43) ; Apamea in Syria, Posidonius work, where the authorities for the

(p. 509) ; Citium, Zeno (p. 27), Persaeus statements will be found.
(p. 34) ; Carthage, Herillus (p. 33) ;

284 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

ledge of explain many coincidences : but we may proceed a step further.
ity. Is it impossible, or rather is it improbable, that Seneca was

acquainted with the teaching of the Gospel in some rudimentary
form ? His silence about Christianity proves nothing, because
it proves too much. If an appreciable part of the lower
population of Rome had become Christians some few years
before Seneca's death 1 , if the Gospel claimed converts within
the very palace walls 2 , if a few (probably not more than a few)
even in the higher grades of society, like Pomponia GraBcina 3 ,
had adopted the new faith, his acquaintance with its main facts
is at least a very tenable supposition. If his own account may
be trusted, he made a practice of dining with his slaves and
engaging them in familiar conversation 4 ; so that the avenues
of information open to him were manifold 5 . His acquaintance
with any written documents of Christianity is less probable ;
but of the oral Gospel, as repeated from the lips of slaves and
others, he might at least have had an accidental and fragmen-
tary knowledge. This supposition would explain the coinci-
dences with the Sermon on the Mount and with the parables of
our Lord, if they are clear and numerous enough to demand an
explanation.

(3) His 3. But the legend goes beyond this, and connects Seneca

connexion directly with St Paul. The Stoic philosopher is supposed to be
with St included among the ' members of Caesar's household' mentioned
in one of the Apostle's letters from Rome. The legend itself
however has no value as independent evidence. The coinci-
dences noted above would suggest it, and the forged corre-
spondence would fix and substantiate it. We are therefore
thrown back on the probabilities of the case ; and it must be
confessed that, when we examine the Apostle's history with a

1 See Philippians pp. 17 sq., 25 sq. Rossi Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1867, p

2 Phil. iv. 22 ; see Philippians p. 6, quoted by Friedlander, in. p. 535)
171 sq. mentions one M. Anneus Paulus Pe-

3 See Philippians p. 21. trus, obviously a Christian. Was he

4 Ep. Mor. xlvii. descended from some freedman of Se-

5 An early inscription at Ostia (de neca's house?

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 285

view to tracing a historical connexion, the result is not very
encouraging. St Paul, it is true, when at Corinth, was brought
before Seneca's brother Gallio, to whom the philosopher Gallic,
dedicates more than one work and of whom he speaks in
tenderly affectionate language 1 ; but Gallio, who 'cared for
none of these things,' to whom the questions at issue between
St Paul and his accusers were merely idle and frivolous disputes
about obscure national customs 2 , would be little likely to
bestow a serious thought upon a case apparently so unimportant,
still less likely to communicate his experiences to his brother
in Rome. Again, it may be urged that as St Paul on his
arrival in Rome was delivered to Burrus the prefect of the Burrus.
praetorian guards 3 , the intimate friend of Seneca, it might be
expected that some communication between the Apostle and
the philosopher would be established in this way. Yet, if we
reflect that the pnetorian prefect must yearly have been
receiving hundreds of prisoners from the different provinces,
that St Paul himself was only one of several committed to his
guardianship at the same time, that the interview of this
supreme magistrate with any individual prisoner must have
been purely formal, that from his position and character
Burrus was little likely to discriminate between St Paul's case
and any other, and finally that he appears to have died not
very long after the Apostle's arrival in Rome 4 , we shall see
very little cause to lay stress on such a supposition. Lastly ; it
is said that, when St Paul was brought before Nero for trial, Nero.
Seneca must have been present as the emperor's adviser, and
being present must have interested himself in the religious
opinions of so remarkable a prisoner. But here again we have
only a series of assumptions more or less probable. It is
not known under what circumstances and in whose presence

1 Nat. Qu. iv. praef. 10 ' Gallionem comp. Ep. Mor. civ. ' domini mei Gal-

fratrem meum quern nemo non parum lionis.'
amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest,' 2 Acts xviii. 14 sq.
and again 11 'Nemo mortalium tini See Philippians p. 7 sq.
tarn dulcis est, quam hie omnibus': 4 See Philippians pp. 5, 8, 39.

286 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

such a trial would take place ; it is very far from certain that
St Paul's case came on before Seneca had retired from the
court; and it is questionable whether amid the formalities of
the trial there would have been the opportunity, even if there
were the will, to enter into questions of religious or philosophi-
cal interest. On the whole therefore it must be confessed that
no great stress can be laid on the direct historical links which
might connect Seneca with the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Summary I have hitherto investigated the historical circumstances
which might explain any coincidences of language or thought as
arising out of obligations on the part of Seneca or of his Stoic
predecessors. It has been seen that the teachers of this school
generally were in all likelihood indebted to Oriental, if not to
Jewish, sources for their religious vocabulary; that Seneca
himself not improbably had a vague and partial acquaintance
with Christianity, though he was certainly anything but a
Christian himself; and that his personal intercourse with the
Apostle of the Gentiles, though not substantiated, is at least
not an impossibility. How far the coincidences may be ascribed
to one or other of these causes, I shall not attempt to discrimi-
nate : but there is also another aspect of the question which
must not be put out of sight. In some instances at least, if
any obligation exist at all, it cannot be on the side of the
philosopher, for the chronology resists this inference: and for
these cases some other solution must be found.

Stoicism, As the speculations of Alexandrian Judaism had elaborated
andrian*" a new an d important theological vocabulary, so also to the
a^e^ara l an g ua g e f Stoicism, which itself likewise had sprung from the

tion for the un ion of the religious sentiment of the East with the philo-
Gospel.

sophical thought of the West, was due an equally remarkable

development of moral terms and images. To the Gospel, which
was announced to the world in ' the fulness of time/ both the
one and the other paid their tribute. As St John (nor St John
alone) adopted the terms of Alexandrian theosophy as the least

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 287

inadequate to express the highest doctrines of Christianity, so
St Paul (nor St Paul alone) found in the ethical language of
the Stoics expressions more fit than he could find elsewhere
to describe in certain aspects the duties and privileges, the
struggles and the triumphs, of the Christian life. But though
the words and symbols remained substantially the same, yet in
their application they became instinct with new force and
meaning. This change in either case they owed to their being
placed in relation to the central fact of Christianity, the Incar-
nation of the Son. The Alexandrian terms, expressing the
attributes and operations of the Divine Word, which in their
origin had a purely metaphysical bearing, were translated into
the sphere of practical theology, when God had descended
among men to lift up men to God. The Stoic expressions,
describing the independence of the individual spirit, the
subjugation of the unruly passions, the universal empire of a
triumphant self-control, the cosmopolitan relations of the wise
man, were quickened into new life, when an unfailing source of
strength and a boundless hope of victory had been revealed in
the Gospel, when all men were proclaimed to be brothers, and
each and every man united with God in Christ.

It is difficult to estimate, and perhaps not very easy to Wide in-
overrate, the extent to which Stoic philosophy had leavened
the moral vocabulary of the civilised world at the time of the
Christian era. To take a single instance ; the most important ici
of moral terms, the crowning triumph of ethical nomenclature,
avvei'r)o-is ) conscientia, the internal, absolute, supreme judge of
individual action, if not struck in the mint of the Stoics, at all
events became current coin through their influence. To a
great extent therefore the general diffusion of Stoic language
would lead to its adoption by the first teachers of Christianity ;
while at the same time in St Paul's own case personal circum-
stances might have led to a closer acquaintance with the
diction of this school.

Tarsus, the birth-place and constant home of St Paul, was Stoicism
at this time a most important, if not the foremost, seat of

288 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

Greek learning. Of all the philosophical schools, the Stoic
was the most numerously and ably represented at this
great centre. Its geographical position, as a half-way house,
had doubtless some influence in recommending it to a
philosophy which had its birth-place in the East and grew
into maturity in the West. At all events we may count up
six or more 1 well-known Stoic teachers whose home was at
Tarsus, besides Chrysippus and Aratus who came from the
neighbouring Soli 2 , and three others who resided at Mallos, also
a Cilician town 3 . If St Paul's early education was Jewish, he
was at least instructed by the most liberal teacher of the day,
who, unlike his stricter countrymen and contemporaries, had
no dread of Greek learning; and during his repeated and
lengthened sojourns in Tarsus, he must have come in contact
with Stoic maxims and dogmas. But indeed it is not mere
conjecture, that Sfc Paul had some acquaintance with the
St Paul's teachers or the writings of this school. The speech on the
ance'with Areopagus, addressed partly to Stoics, shows a clear apprecia-

Stoic i on o f the elements of truth contained in their philosophy, and
teaching.

a studied coincidence with their modes of expression 4 . Its one

quotation moreover is taken from a Stoic writing, the hymn of
Cleanthes, the noblest expression of heathen devotion which
Greek literature has preserved to us 5 .

1 Strabo (xiv. 13, 14. p. 673 sq.) men appear to have migrated from
mentions five by name, Antipater, Ar- Tarsus. For Chrysippus see Strabo xiv.
chedemus, Nestor, Athenodorus sur- 8, p. 671 ; of Aratus we are told that
named Cordylion, and Athenodorus son Asclepiades Tapcrta (prjo-iv avrbv yeyovt-
of Sandou. To these may be added VO.L dXA' ov SoX^a (Arati Opera n. p. 429
Zeno (Zeller, p. 40: Diog. Laert. vii. ed. Buhle).

35 enumerates eight of the name), and 3 Crates (Zeller, p. 42), the two Pro-

Heracleides (Zeller, p. 43). Of Atheno- cluses (ib. p. 615).

dorus son of Sandon, Strabo adds 4 See above, p. 272.

$v KCLI Kavavlryv <j>a(riv dirb K^fj.-rjs TWOS. 5 Acts xvii. 28. The words in Clean-

If Strabo's explanation of KavavLr^ be thes are e/c <rov yap yfros foptv. The

correct, the coincidence with a surname quotation of St Paul agrees exactly

of one of the Twelve Apostles is acci- with a half-line in Aratus another Stoic

dental. But one is tempted to suspect poet, connected with his native Tarsus,

that the word had a Shemitic origin. rov yap Kal ytvos ecrfdv. Since the

2 The fathers of both these famous Apostle introduces the words as quoted

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 289

And I think we may find occasionally also in St Paul's
epistles sufficiently distinct traces of the influence of Stoic
diction. A few instances are set down in my notes to this
epistle. Many more might be gathered from his other letters,
especially the Pastoral Epistles. But I will content myself with Two in-
giving two broad examples, where the characteristic common- g i ve n.
places of Stoic morality seem to be adopted and transfigured
in the language of the Christian Apostle.

1. The portrait of the wise man, the ideal of Stoic aspira- 1. The

portrait of
tion, has very distinct and peculiar features so peculiar that the wise

they presented an easy butt for the ridicule of antagonists. It m
is his prominent characteristic that he is sufficient in himself,
that he wants nothing, that he possesses everything. This
topic is expanded with a fervour and energy which often
oversteps the proper bounds of Stoic calm. The wise man
alone is free: he alone is happy: he alone is beautiful. He
and he only possesses absolute wealth. He is the true king
and the true priest 1 .

Now may we not say that this image has suggested many
expressions to the Apostle of the Gentiles ? 'Even now are ye lCor.iv.8.
full,' he exclaims in impassioned irony to the Corinthians, ' even
now are ye rich, even now are ye made kings without us' : ' we 1 Cor. iv.
are fools for Christ, but ye are wise in Christ: we are weak,
but ye are strong: ye are glorious, but we are dishonoured.'
' All things are yours,' he says elsewhere, c all things are yours, 1 Cor. in.

22 23

and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's.' So too he describes
himself and the other Apostles, ' As being grieved, yet always 2 Cor. vi.
rejoicing; as beggars, yet making many rich; as having '
nothing, and yet possessing all things.' ' In every thing at 2 Cor. ix.

Q -| -|

every time having every self-sufficiency (avTdp/ceiav)...m every '
thing being enriched.' ' I have learnt,' he says again, ' in Phil. iv.

11, 13, 18.

from some of their own poets, he would 6, 10, Ep. Mor. ix. Compare Zeller

seem to have both passages in view. p. 231. The ridicule of Horace (Sat. i.

By ol KO.Q' vfj.as vonrrtd he probably 3. 124 sq.) will be remembered. See

means the poets belonging to the same also the passages from Plutarch quoted

school as his Stoic audience. in Orelli's Excursus (n. p. 67).
1 See esp. Seneca de Benef. vii. 3, 4,

L. 19

290 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

whatsoever circumstances I am, to be self-sufficing. I have all
strength in Him that giveth me power. I have all things to
the full and to overflowing.'

Coinci- If the coincidence of imagery in these passages is remark-

contrast able, the contrast of sentiment is not less striking. This
^ 1 igmin g t universal dominion, this boundless inheritance, is promised
Paul's con- a jik e by the Stoic philosopher to the wise man and by the
Christian Apostle to the believer. But the one must attain it
by self-isolation, the other by incorporation. The essential
requisite in the former case is a proud independence; in the
latter an entire reliance on, and intimate union with, an unseen
power. It is ev TO> evSwa/jbovvri, that the faithful becomes
all-sufficient, all-powerful ; it is ev X/MO-TO> that he is crowned
a king and consecrated a priest. All things are his, but they
are only his, in so far as he is Christ's and because Christ is
God's. Here and here only the Apostle found the realisation
of the proud ideal which the chief philosophers of his native
Tarsus had sketched in such bold outline and painted in these
brilliant colours.

2. Thecos- 2. The instance just given relates to the development of

teaching the individual man. The example which I shall next take

Stoics expresses his widest relations to others. The cosmopolitan

tenets of the Stoics have been already mentioned. They grew

out of the history of one age and were interpreted by the

history of another. Negatively they were suggested by the

hopeless state of politics under the successors of Alexander.

Positively they were realised, or rather represented, by the

condition of the world under the Roman Empire 1 . In the age

1 Plutarch (Op. Mor. p. 329 B) says but his actual work was only the be-
that Alexander himself realised this ginning of the end, and the realisation
ideal of a world- wide polity, which Zeno of the idea (so far as it was destined to
only 'delineated as a dream or a phan- be realised) was reserved for the Bo-
tom (w<rwep ovap -rj et5w\ov waTvirwaa- mans. ' Fecisti patriam diversis gen-
/uepos).' If Plutarch's statement be cor- tibus unam,' 'Urbem fecisti quod prius
rect that Alexander looked upon him- orbis erat,' says a later poet addressing
self as entrusted with a divine mission the emperor of his day ; Eutil. de Bed.
to ' reconcile the whole world,' he cer- i. 63, 66.
tainly had the conception in his mind ;

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 291

of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, when the old national barriers
had been overthrown, and petty states with all their interests
and ambitions had crumbled into the dust, the longing eye of
the Greek philosopher wandered over the ruinous waste, until
his range of view expanded to the ideal of a world-wide state,
which for the first time became a possibility to his intellectual
vision, when it became also a want to his social instincts. A
few generations passed, and the wide extension of the Roman
Empire, the far-reaching protectorate of the Roman franchise 1 ,
seemed to give a definite meaning, a concrete form, in some
sense a local habitation, to this idea which the Stoic philosopher
of Greece had meanwhile transmitted to the Stoic moralist
of Rome.

The language of Seneca well illustrates the nature of this illustrated
cosmopolitan ideal. 'All this, which thou seest, in which are language
comprised things human and divine, is one. We are members J
of a vast body. Nature made us kin, when she produced us
from the same things and to the same ends 2 .' 'I will look
upon all lands as belonging to me, and my own lands as belong-
ing to all. I will so live as if I knew that I am born for others,
and on this account I will give thanks to nature... She gave me
alone to all men and all men to me alone 3 .' * I well know that
the world is my country and the gods its rulers; that they
stand above me and about me, the censors of my deeds and
words 4 .' ' Seeing that we assigned to the wise man a common-
wealth worthy of him, I mean the world, he is not beyond the
borders of his commonwealth, even though he has gone into
retirement. Nay, perhaps he has left one corner of it and
passed into a larger and ampler region; and raised above the
heavens he understands (at length) how lowly he was seated
when he mounted the chair of state or the bench of justice 5 .'
' Let us embrace in our thoughts two commonwealths, the one

1 See Cicero pro Balb. 13, Verr. v. 3 de Vit. beat. 20.
57, 65. 4 iudt

2 Ep. Mor. xcv. 52. 5 Ep. Mor. Ixviii.

192

292 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

vast and truly named common, in which are comprised gods
and men, in which we look not to this corner or to that, but we
measure the boundaries of our state with the sun ; the other,
to which the circumstances of our birth have assigned us 1 .'
' Virtue is barred to none : she is open to all, she receives all,
she invites all, gentlefolk, freedmen, slaves, kings, exiles alike 2 .'
' Nature bids me assist men ; and whether they be bond or free,
whether gentlefolk or freedmen, whether they enjoy liberty as a
right or as a friendly gift, what matter ? Wherever a man is,
there is room for doing good 3 .' ' This mind may belong as well
to a Roman knight, as to a freedman, as to slave : for what is a
Roman knight or a freedman or a slave ? Names which had
their origin in ambition or injustice 4 .'

Its Chris- Did St Paul speak quite independently of this Stoic
terparTin" imagery, when the vision of a nobler polity rose before him, the

the hea- revelation of a ' city not made with hands, eternal in the heavens ? '
venly citi- J

zenship of Is there not a strange coincidence in his language a coincidence
only the more striking because it clothes an idea in many
Phil.iii.20. respects very different ? 'Our citizenship is in heaven.' ' God
6t p es ' "' raised us with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly
Ephes. ii. places in Christ Jesus.' ' Therefore ye are no more strangers
and sojourners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and members
Phil. i. 27- of God's household.' ' Fulfil your duties as citizens worthily of
Rom. xii. the Gospel of Christ.' ' We being many are one body in Christ,
l Cor. xii. an d members one of another/ ' For as the body is one and hath
12, 13, 27. m any members, and all the members of the body being many

[Ephes. iv. are one body, so also is Christ : for we all are baptized in one
25, v. 30.]

one body^ whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or
free. Ye are the body of Christ and members in particular.'

Gal. iii. 28. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor
free ; there is no male and female : for ye all are one in Christ

Col. iii. 11. Jesus.' ' Not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision,

1 de Otio 4 (31). ' Glaubt man hier 2 de Benef. iii. 18.
nicht,' asks Zeller (p. 275), ' fast An- 3 de Vit. beat. 24.
gustin De Civitate Dei zu horen ?' 4 Ep. Mor. xxxi. 11.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 293

barbarian, Scythian, bond, free: but Christ is all things and
in all 1 .'

Here again, though the images- are the same, the idea is
transfigured and glorified. At length the bond of coherence,
the missing principle of universal brotherhood, has been found.
As in the former case, so here the magic words ev X/3<7ra5 have
produced the change and realised the conception. A living soul
has been breathed into the marble statue by Christianity ; and
thus from the 'much admired polity of Zeno 2 ' arises the Ci vitas
Dei of St Augustine.

It has been the aim of the investigation just concluded to Summary,
point out how far the coincidences between Seneca and St Paul
are real, and how far fallacious ; to show that these coincidences
may in some cases be explained by the natural and independent
development of religious thought, while in others a historical
connexion seems to be required ; and to indicate generally the
different ways in which this historical connexion was probable
or possible, without however attempting to decide by which of
several channels the resemblance in each individual instance
was derived.

In conclusion it may be useful to pass from the special Christia-
connexion between St Paul and Seneca to the more general stoicism
relation between Christianity and Stoicism, and to compare com P ared -

1 Ecce Homo p. 136 ' The city of God, gladiator born beside the Danube. In
of which the Stoics doubtfully and brotherhood they met, the natural birth
feebly spoke, was now set up before the and kindred of each forgotten, the bap-
eyes of men. It was no unsubstantial tism alone remembered in which they
city such as we fancy in the clouds, no have been born again to God and to
invisible pattern such as Plato thought each other.' See the whole context,
might be laid up in heaven, but a visible 2 Plut. Op. Mor. p. 329 T) iro\i> 6av-
<}orporation whose members met toge- fj.ao/j.tvr) TroXtreia rov rrjv SrwiVcV al'pe-
ther to eat bread and drink wine, and in- aiv Ka.Tapa\ofj.tvov Zrivuvos. It is re-
to which they were initiated by bodily markable that this ideal is described in
immersion in water. Here the Gentile the context under a Scriptural image,
met the Jew whom he had been accus- efs 5 filos y nai K6a/j.os, uxrirep dytX-rjs <rvv-
tomed to regard as an enemy of the v6/j.ov vo{j.$ KOI.V$ owrpe^o/x^s : comp.
human race : the Koman met the lying Joh. x. 16 KCU yev^a-ovrai pla Troifj-vrj, e?s
Greek sophist, the Syrian slave, the

294 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

them very briefly in their principles, their operations, and their
results. Stoicism has died out, having produced during its short
lifetime only very transient and partial effects; Christianity
has become the dominant religion of the civilised world, and
leavened society through its whole mass. The very coincidences,
on which we have been dwelling so long, throw into relief the
contrast between the failure of the one and the triumph of the
other, and stimulate enquiry into the causes of this difference.
The ques- To some it may seem sufficient to reply that the one is a
sue stated, mere human philosophy, the other a Divine revelation. But
this answer shelves without solving the problem ; for it is equi-
valent to saying that the one is partial, defective, and fallacious,
while the other is absolutely true. The question, therefore, to-
which an answer is sought, may be stated thus : What are those
theological and ethical principles, ignored or denied by Stoicism^
and enforced by the Gospel, in which the Divine power of the
latter lies, and to which it owes its empire over the hearts and
actions of men ? This is a very wide subject of discussion ; and
I shall only attempt to indicate a few more striking points of
contrast. Yet even when treated thus imperfectly, such an
investigation ought not to be useless. In an age when th&
distinctive characteristics of Christianity are regarded as a
stumblingblock by a few, and more or less consciously ignored
as of little moment by others, it is a matter of vast importance
to enquire whether the secret of its strength does or does not
lie in these ; and the points at issue cannot be better suggested,
than by comparing it with an abstract system of philosophy so
imposing as the Stoic.

Meagre re- Indeed our first wonder is, that from a system so rigorous
Stoicism, and unflinching in its principles and so heroic in its proportions
the direct results should have been marvellously little. It
produced, or at least attracted, a few isolated great men : but
on the life of the masses, and on the policy of states, it was-
almost wholly powerless.

The older Of the founder and his immediate successors not very much
is known ; but we are warranted in believing that they were

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 295

men of earnest aspirations, of rare self-denial, and for the most
part (though the grossness of their language seems hardly
reconcilable with this view 1 ) of moral and upright lives. Zeno
himself indeed cannot be set down to the credit of the school.
He made the philosophy and was not made by it. But Cleanthes
was directly moulded by the influence of his master's teaching :
and for calm perseverance, for rigorous self-discipline, and for
unwavering devotion to a noble ideal, few characters in the
history of Greek philosophy are comparable to him. Yet
Cleanthes, like Zeno, died a suicide. The example, not less
than the precept, of the first teachers of the sect created a fatal
passion for self-murder, which was the most indelible, if not the
darkest, blot on Stoic morality.

It was not however among the Greeks, to whose national Stoicism
temper the genius of Stoicism was alien, that this school
achieved its proudest triumphs. The stern and practical spirit
of the Romans offered a more congenial sphere for its influence.
And here again it is worth observing, that their principal
instructors were almost all Easterns. Posidonius for instance,
the familiar friend of many famous Romans and the most its obli-
influential missionary of Stoic doctrine in Rome, was a native o
the Syrian Apamea. From this time forward it became a
common custom for the Roman noble to maintain in his house
some eminent philosopher, as the instructor of his children and
the religious director of himself and his family 2 ; and in this

1 It is impossible to speak with any extravagances of language, illustrating

confidence on this point. The language the Stoic doctrine that externals are

held by Zeno andChrysippus was gross- indifferent (see Zeller, p. 261 sq. ). Yet

ly licentious, and might be taken to this mode of speaking must have been

show that they viewed with indifference highly dangerous to morals; and the

and even complacency the most hateful danger would only be increased by the

forms of heathen impurity (see Plu- fact that such language was held by

tarch Op. Mor. p. 1044, Clem. Horn. v. men whose characters were justly ad-

18, Sext. Emp. Pyrrli. iii. 200 sq.). mired in other respects.

But it is due to the known character 2 Seneca ad Marc. 4 'Consol[atori se]

and teaching of these men, that we AreophilosophovirisuipT&ebmtetmnl-

should put the most favourable con- turn earn rem profuisse sibi confessa

struction on such expressions ; and they est,' where he is speaking of Livia after

may perhaps be regarded as theoretical the death of her son Drusus. This philo-

296 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

capacity we meet with several Oriental Stoics. Thus Cato the
younger had at different times two professors of this sect
domesticated in his household, both of Eastern origin, Antipater
Cato the of Tyre and Athenodorus of Tarsus 1 . In Cato himself, whom his
contemporaries regarded as the 'most perfect Stoic 2 / and in
whom the sect at large would probably have recognised its most
illustrious representative, we have a signal example alike of the
His excel- virtues and of the defects of the school. Honest, earnest, and
defects. courageous even to death, but hard, stolid, impracticable, and
almost inhuman, he paralysed the higher qualities of his nature
by his unamiable philosophy, so that they were rendered
almost useless to his generation and country. A recent Roman
historian has described him as 'one of the most melancholy
phenomena in an age so abounding in political caricatures.'
'There was more nobility,' he writes bitterly, 'and above all
more judgment in the death of Cato than there had been in his
life.' ' It only elevates the tragic significance of his death that
he was himself a fool 3 .' Exaggerated as this language may be,
it is yet not wholly without truth ; and, were the direct social
and political results of Cato's life alone to be regarded, his career
must be pronounced a failure. But in fact his importance lies,
not in what he did, but in what he was. It was a vast gain to
humanity, that in an age of worldly self-seeking, of crooked and
fraudulent policy, of scepticism and infidelity to all right
principle, one man held his ground, stern, unbending, upright
to the last. Such a man may fail, as Cato failed, in all the
practical aims of life : but he has left a valuable legacy to after
ages in the staunch assertion of principle ; he has bequeathed
to them a fructifying estate, not the less productive because its
richest harvests must be reaped by generations yet unborn.

soplier is represented as using the fol- dom seede Tranq. Anim. 14 'Proseque-

lowing words in his reply to her : 'Ego batur ilium philosophies suus.'

adsiduus viri tui comes, cui non tantum 1 Plutarch Vit. Cat. 4, 10, 16.

quae in publicum emittuntur nota, sed 2 Cicero Brut, xxxi, Parad.procem.2.

omnes sunt secretiores animorum ves- 3 Mommsen's History of Rome, iv.

trorum motus.' For another allusion pp. 156, 448 sq. (Eng. trans.),
to these domestic chaplains of heathen-

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 297

Cato was the true type of Stoicism in its striking excellence, as

in its hopeless weakness. The later Roman Stoics are feeble kater R o-

i r n A T -i i, - AT. man Sto *

copies, more or less conscious, 01 Uato. Like mm, they were ics.
hard, impracticable, perverse, studiously antagonistic to the
prevailing spirit or the dominant power of their age : but, like
him also, they were living protests, when protests were most
needed, against the dishonesty and corruption of the times ; and
their fearless demeanour was felt as a standing reproach alike
to the profligate despotism of the ruler and to the mean and
cringing flattery of the subject. Yet it is mournful to reflect
how much greater might have been the influence of men like
Thrasea Psetus and Helvidius Priscus on their generation, if
their strict integrity had been allied to a more sympathetic
creed.

In these men however there was an earnest singleness of
purpose, which may condone many faults. Unhappily the same
cannot be said of Seneca. We may reject as calumnies the Seneca,
grosser charges with which the malignity of his enemies had
laden his memory ; but enough remains in the admissions of his
admirers, and more than enough in the testimony of his own
writings, to forfeit his character as a high-minded and sincere
man. No words are too strong to condemn the baseness of one His faults,
who could overwhelm the emperor Claudius, while living, with
the most fulsome and slavish flattery, and then, when his ashes
were scarcely cold, turn upon him and poison his memory with
the venom of malicious satire *. From this charge there is no
escape; for his extant writings convict him. We may well
refuse to believe, as his enemies asserted, that he counselled the
murder of Agrippina ; but it seems that he was in some way
implicated with the matricide, and it is quite certain that he
connived at other iniquities of his imperial pupil. We may
indignantly repudiate, as we are probably justified in doing, the

1 The treatise ad Polybium de Gonso- complete his shame, he was the author

latione would be disgraceful, if it stood of the extravagant panegyric pronounc-

alone ; but contrasted with the Ludus ed by Nero over his predecessor (Tac.

de Morte Claudii it becomes odious. To Ann. xiii. 3).

298 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

grave charges of moral profligacy which were brought against
him in his lifetime and after his death ; but the man who, while
condemning, can describe at length the grossest forms of im-
purity (as Seneca does occasionally) had surely no very sensitive
shrinking from sins ' of which it is a shame even to speak.' We
may demur to accepting the account of his enemies, that his
wealth was amassed by fraud and violence ; but there is no
doubt that, while preaching a lofty indifference to worldly
advantages, he consented to be enriched by a profligate and
unscrupulous tyrant, and that the enormous property thus accu-
mulated exposed him to the reproaches of his contemporaries.
A portrait which combines all these features will command no
great respect. Yet, notwithstanding a somewhat obtrusive
rhetoric, there is in Seneca's writings an earnestness of purpose,
a yearning after moral perfection, and a constant reference to
an ideal standard, which cannot be mere affectation. He seems
to have been a rigorous ascetic in early life, and to the last to
have maintained a severe self-discipline. Such at least is his
own statement ; nor is it unsupported by less partial testimony 1 .
For all this inconsistency however we must blame not the
creed but the man. He would probably have been much worse,
His own if his philosophy had not held up to him a stern ideal for
sions of imitation. Is it genuine or affected humility a palliative or
weakness. an aggravation of his offence that he himself confesses how
far he falls short of this ideal ? To those taunting enemies of
philosophy, who pointing to his luxury and wealth ask, 'Why do
you speak more bravely than you live ? ', he replies, ' I will add
to your reproaches just now, and I will bring more charges
against myself than you think. For the present I give you
this answer : I am not wise, and (to feed your malevolence) I
shall not be wise. Therefore require of me, not that I should
equal the best men, but that I should be better than the bad.
It is enough for me daily to diminish my vices in some degree
and to chide my errors/ ' These things,' he adds, c I say not in

1 See Ep. Mor. Ixxxvii. 2, cviii. 14 ; comp. Tac. Ann. xiv. 53, xv. 45, 63.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 299

my own defence, for I am sunk deep in all vices, but in defence
of him who has made some progress 1 .' ' The wise man,' he
writes apologetically, ' does not think himself unworthy of any
advantages of fortune. He does not love riches but he prefers
them. He receives them not into his soul but into his house.
Nor does he spurn them when he has them in his possession,
but retains them and desires ampler material for his virtue to
be furnished thereby 2 .' 'I am not now speaking to you of
myself/ he writes to Lucilius, ' for I fall far short of a moderate,
not to say a perfect man, but of one over whom fortune has lost
her power 3 .' Seneca, more than any man, must have felt the
truth of the saying, 'How hardly shall they that have riches
enter into the kingdom of God 4 .'

From Seneca it is refreshing to turn to Epictetus. The Epictetus.
lame slave of Epaphroditus is a far nobler type of Stoic disci-
pline than the wealthy courtier of Epaphroditus' master. Here
at all events, we feel instinctively that we have to do with
genuine earnestness. His motto 'bear and forbear 5 ' inspires
his discourses throughout, as it appears also to have been the
guide of his life. But more striking still is the spirit of piety
which pervades his thoughts. ' When ye have shut the doors,'
he says, 'and have made all dark within, remember never to
say that ye are alone, for ye are not ; but God is within and so Expres-
is your angel (Salpwv) ; and what need of light have these to pietyinhis
see what ye do ? To this God ye also ought to swear allegiance, wntm g 8 -
as soldiers do to CsBsarV 'If we had sense, ought we to do
anything else both in public and in private but praise and
honour the divine being (TO Oelov) and recount his favours?...
...What then? Since ye, the many, are blinded, should there

1 de Vit. beat. 17 ; comp. ad Helv. exaggerated. I wish I could take as
Matr. 5. favourable a view of Seneca's character

2 de Vit. beat. 21. as this writer does.

3 Ep. Mor. Ivii. 3. avtyov Kal d^ov, Aul. GeU. xvii.

4 The account of Seneca in Martha's 19, where the words are explained.
Moralistes p. 1 sq. is well worth reading, 6 Dm. i. 14. 13 sq. ; comp. Matt.
though the idea of the spiritual direc- xxii. 21.

tion in the letters to Lucilius seems

300 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

not be some one to fill this station and to sing for all men the
hymn to God ? For what else can I, a lame old man, do but
sing hymns to God ? Nay, if I were a nightingale, I had done
the work of a nightingale ; if a swan, the work of a swan. So
being what I am, a rational creature, I must sing hymns to
God. This is my task, and I perform it ; nor will I ever desert
this post, so far as it is vouchsafed me : and you I exhort to
join in this same song 1 .' ' How then dost thou appear ? As a
witness called by God: Come thou and bear witness to me...
What witness dost thou bear to God ? / am in wretched plight,
Lord, and I am miserable ; no one cares for me, no one gives
me anything ; all men blame me } all men speak ill of me. Wilt
thou bear this witness, and disgrace the calling wherewith He
hath called thee, for that He honoured thee and held thee
worthy to be brought forward as a witness in this great cause 2 ?'
'When thou goest to visit any great person, remember that
Another also above seeth what is done, and that thou oughtest
to please Him rather than this one 3 .' 'Thou art an offshoot
(a7r6(77racrfj,a) of God ; thou hast some part of Him in thyself.
Why therefore dost thou not perceive thy noble birth ? Why
dost thou not know whence thou art come ? Thou bearest God
about with thee, wretched man, and thou dost not perceive it.
Thinkest thou that I mean some god of silver or gold, without
thee ? Within thyself thou bearest Him, and thou dost not
feel that thou art defiling Him with thy impure thoughts and
thy filthy deeds. If an image of God were present, thou
wouldest not dare to do any of these things which thou doest :
but, God Himself being present within thee, and overlooking

1 Diss. i. 16. 15 sq. aware) in any heathen writing before

2 Diss. i. 29. 46 sq. The words rty the Apostolic times. Sometimes we
K\TJffiv TJV KtK\T)Kev appear from the find Ktfpie 6 9e6s, and once he writes
context to refer to citing witnesses, but Ktipie eX^croj/ (ii. 7. 12). It is worth
they recall a familiar expression of St noting that all the three cities where
Paul ;1 Cor. vii. 20, Ephes. iv. 1, comp. Epictetus is known to have lived
2 Tim. i. 9. The address Ktfpie, used Hierapolis, Eome, Nicopolis occur in
in prayer to God, is frequent in Epic- the history of St Paul.

tetus, but does not occur (so far as I am 3 Diss. i. 30. 1.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 301

and overhearing all, thou art not ashamed to think and to do
these things, O man, insensible of thine own nature, and visited
with the wrath of God 1 / 'Remember that thou art a son.
What profession is due to this character ? To consider all that
belongs to Him as belonging to a father, to obey Him in all
things, never to complain of Him to any one, nor to say or do
anything hurtful to Him, to yield and give way to Him in all
things, working with Him to the utmost of thy power 2 / ' Dare
to look up to God and say, Use me henceforth whereunto thou
wilt, I consent unto Thee, I am Thine. I shrink from nothing
that seemeth good to Thee. Lead me where Thou wilt : clothe
me with what garments Thou wilt. Wouldest Thou that I
should be in office or out of office, should live at home or in
exile, should be rich or poor ? I will defend Thee for all these
things before men 3 / 'These (vices) thou canst not cast out
otherwise than by looking to God alone, by setting thine
affections (Trpoo-TreirovOora) on Him alone, by being consecrated
to His commands 4 / 'When thou hast heard these words,
young man, go thy way and say to thyself, It is not Epictetus
who has told me these things (for whence did he come by
them ?), but some kind God speaking through him. For it
would never have entered into the heart of Epictetus to say
these things, seeing it is not his wont to speak (so) to any man.
Come then, let us obey God, lest God's wrath fall upon us (iva
fjbrj 6eo-)(o\wTOL wpev*)' ' Thus much I can tell thee now, that
he, who setteth his hand to so great a matter without God, calls
down God's wrath and does but desire to behave himself un-
seemly in public. For neither in a well-ordered household
does any one come forward and say to himself I must be steward.
Else the master, observing him and seeing him giving his orders
insolently, drags him off to be scourged. So it happens also in
this great city (of the world) ; for here too there is a house-

Diss. ii. 8. 11 sq. We are reminded 2 Diss. ii. 10. 7.

of the surname 6eo<f>6pos, borne by a 3 Diss. ii. 16. 42.

Christian contemporary of Epictetus ; 4 Diss. ii. 16. 46.

see the notes on Ignat. Ephes. inscr., 9. 5 Diss. iii. 1. 36 sq.

302 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

holder, who ordereth everything 1 .' ' The cynic (i. e. the true
philosopher) ought to know that he is sent a messenger from
God to men, to show them concerning good and evil 2 .' 'He
must be wholly given without distraction to the service of God,
free to converse with mankind, not tied down by private duties,
nor entangled in relations, which if he transgresses, he will no
longer keep the character of a noble and good man, and if he
observes, he will fail in his part as the messenger and watchman
and herald of the gods 3 /

Improved The genuine piety of these passages is a remarkable contrast
Stoic theo- to the arrogance and blasphemy in which the older Stoics some-
times indulged and which even Seneca repeats with approval 4 .
Stoic theology, as represented by Epictetus, is fast wiping away
its reproach ; but in so doing it has almost ceased to be Stoic.
The pantheistic creed, which identifies God with the world, is
kept in the background ; and by this subordination greater
room is left for the expansion of true reverence. On the other
hand (to pass over graver defects in his system) he has not yet
emancipated himself from the austerity arid isolation of Stoical

1 Diss. iii. 22. 2 sq. The passage a Diss. iii. 22, 23.

bears a strong resemblance to our 3 Diss. iii. 22. 69. I have only been

Lord's parable in Matt. xxiv. 45 sq., able to give short extracts, but the

Luke xii. 41 sq. The expressions, 6 whole passage should be read. Epicte-

otVoj/6/ios, 6 Ktpios, 6 otKo5e<T7r6r?7s, occur tus appears throughout to be treading

in both the philosopher and the Evan- in the footsteps of St Paul. His words,

gelists. Moreover the word fre/ie? in dTrepfo-Traoroj' elvcu del o\ov irpbs T-Q 5ta-

Epictetus corresponds to &xoro/M}(rct Kovla rov 6eoO, correspond to the Apo-

in the Gospels, and in both words the stle's expression, evirdpedpov T$ Kvply

difficulty of interpretation is the same. aTrepiffirdffTws (1 Cor. vii. 35), and the

I can hardly believe that so strange a reason given for remaining unmarried

coincidence is quite accidental. Com- is the same. Another close coincidence

bined with the numerous parallels in with St Paul is 6 fj.fr 0Aei ov iroiei (ii.

Seneca's writings collected above (p. 26. 1). Again, such phrases as vo/jiifjLws

281 sq.), it favours the supposition that a6\?ii> (iii. 10. 8), ypd^ara ffvaraTiKd

our Lord's discourses in some form or (ii. 3. 1), ravra /teX^ra (iv. 1. 170), ou/c

other were early known to heathen et'/u c\e60epos m t (iii. 22. 48), recall the

writers. For other coincidences more Apostle's language. Other Scriptural

or less close see i. 9. 19, i. 25. 10, i. 29. expressions also occur, such as Qeov

31, iii. 21. 16, iii. 22. 35, iv. 1. 79 (&v ftXwrfc (ii- 14. 13), rpo^

5' ayyapela y K.T.X., comp. Matt. (ii. 16, 39), etc.

v. 41), iv. 8. 36. 4 See above, p. 278.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 303

ethics. There still remains a hardness and want of sympathy
about his moral teaching, which betrays its parentage. But
enough has been said to account for the fact that the remains of
Epictetus have found a place in the library of the Church, and
that the most pious and thoughtful Christian divines have
listened with admiration to his devout utterances 1 .

As Epictetus gives a higher tone to the theology of the M. Aure-
school, so the writings of M. Aurelius manifest an improvement
in its ethical teaching. The manifold opportunities of his
position would cherish in an emperor naturally humane and
sensitive wider sympathies, than were possible to a lame old
man born and bred a slave, whom cruel treatment had estranged Improved
from his kind and who was still further isolated by his bodily stoic
infirmity. At all events it is in this point, and perhaps in this moraht y-
alone, that the meditations of M. Aurelius impress us more
favourably than the discourses of Epictetus. As a conscious
witness of God and a stern preacher of righteousness, the
Phrygian slave holds a higher place: but as a kindly philan-
thropist, conscientiously alive to the claims of all men far and
near, the Roman emperor commands deeper respect. In him,
for the first and last time in the history of the school, the
cosmopolitan sympathies, with which the Stoic invested his
wise man, become more than a mere empty form of rhetoric.
His natural disposition softened the harsher features of Stoical
ethics. The brooding melancholy and the almost feminine
tenderness, which appear in his meditations, are a marked
contrast to the hard outlines in the portraiture of the older
Stoics. Cato was the most perfect type of the school : but

1 * Epictetus seems as if he had come men appreciate elevated thought, in

after or before his time ; too late for direct and genuine language, about

philosophy, too early for religion. We human duties and human improvement,

are tempted continually to apply to his Epictetus will have much to teach those

system the hackneyed phrase : It is all who know more than he did both of

very magnificent, but it is not philoso- philosophy and religion. It is no won-

phy it is too one-sided and careless of der that he kindled the enthusiasm of

knowledge for its own sake ; and it is Pascal or fed the thought of Butler,

not religion it is inadequate and wants Saturday Review, Vol. xxn. p. 580.
a basis. Yet for all this, as long as

304 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

M. Aurelius was the better man, because he was the worse
Stoic. Altogether there is a true beauty and nobleness of
character in this emperor, which the accidents of his position
throw into stronger relief. Beset by all the temptations which
unlimited power could create, and sorely tried in the most
intimate and sacred relations of life with a profligate wife and
an inhuman son he neither sullied nor hardened his heart, but
remained pure and upright and amiable to the end, the model
of a conscientious if not a wise ruler, and the best type which
Persecu- heathendom could give of a high-minded gentleman. With all
Chris- this it is a more than ' tragical fact,' that his justice and his
tians. humanity alike broke down in one essential point, and that by
his bigotry or through his connivance the Christians suffered
more widely and cruelly during his reign than at any other
epoch in the first century and a half of their existence 1 . More-
over the inherent and vital defects of the school, after all the
modifications it had undergone and despite the amiable character
of its latest representative, are still patent. * The Stoicism of
M. Aurelius gives many of the moral precepts of the Gospel,
but without their foundation, which can find no place in his
system. It is impossible to read his reflections without emotion,
but they have no creative energy. They are the last strain of a
dying creed 2 .'

Beferences It is interesting to note the language in which these two
anity in " latest and noblest representatives of Stoicism refer to the

Christians. Once and once only is the now numerous and
relius. rapidly growing sect mentioned by either philosopher, and in
each case dismissed curtly with an expression of contempt.

1 Martha, Moralistes p. 212, attempts a Jewish rabbi, as has been recently

to defend M. Aurelius against this maintained (M. Aurelius Antoninus als

charge ; but the evidence of a wide Freund u. Zeitgenosse des Rabbi Jehuda

persecution is irresistible. For the mo- ha-Nasi by A. Bodek, Leipzig 1868),

tives which might lead M. Aurelius, he would have an additional motive

both as a ruler and as a philosopher, to for his treatment of the Christians ;

sanction these cruelties, see Zeller Mar- but, to say the least, the identification

cus Aurelius Antoninus in his Vortrdge of the emperor is very uncertain.

p. 101 sq. If it were established that 2 Westcott in Smith's Dictionary of

this emperor hadintimate relations with the Bible n. p. 857, s. v. Philosophy.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 305

1 Is it possible,' asks Epictetus, ' that a man may be so disposed
under these circumstances from madness, or from habit like the
Galileans, and can no one learn by reason and demonstration
that God has made all things which are in the world 1 ?' 'This
readiness to die,' writes M. Aurelius, ' should follow from indi-
vidual judgment, not from sheer obstinacy as with the Christians,
but after due consideration and with dignity and without scenic
display (dTpaywSws), so as to convince others also 2 .' The justice
of such contemptuous allusions may be tested by the simple
and touching narrative of the deaths of this very emperor's
victims, of the Gallic martyrs at Vienne and Lyons : and the
appeal may confidently be made to the impartial judgment of
mankind to decide whether there was more scenic display or
more genuine obstinacy in their last moments, than in the
much vaunted suicide of Cato and Cato's imitators.

I have spoken of Epictetus and M. Aurelius as Stoics, for so Eclecti-
they regarded themselves; nor indeed could they be assigned to thTlater
any other school of philosophy. But their teaching belongs to stoics -
a type, which in many respects would hardly have been recog-
nised by Zeno or Chrysippus. Stoicism during the Roman
period had been first attaching to itself, and then assimilating,
diverse foreign elements, Platonic, Pythagorean, even Jewish
and Christian. In Seneca these appear side by side, but
distinct; in Epictetus and M. Aurelius they are more or less
fused and blended. Roman Stoicism in fact presents to us not
a picture with clear and definite outlines, but a dissolving view.
It becomes more and more eclectic. The materialism of its
earlier theology gradually recedes; and the mystical element
appears in the foreground 3 . At length Stoicism fades away ; Stoicism
and a new eclectic system, in which mysticism has still greater by^eopl
predominance, emerges and takes its place. Stoicism has fought tonism -
the battle of heathen philosophy against the Gospel, and been
vanquished. Under the banner of Neoplatonism, and with

1 Diss. iv. 7. 6. Stoics, and more especially of M. Aure-

2 M. Anton, xi. 3. lius, to Neoplatonism, see ZelleT'sNach-

3 On the approximation of the later aristotelische Philosophic n. p. 201 sq.

L. 20

306 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

weapons forged in the armoury of Christianity itself, the contest
is renewed. But the day of heathendom is past. This new
champion also retires from the conflict in confusion, and the
Gospel remains in possession of the field.

The In this attempt to sketch the progress and results of this

unaffected school, I have not travelled beyond a few great names. Nor

ism St01C ~ nas an y i n J us ti ce b een done to it ty this course, for Stoicism

has no other history, except the history of its leaders. It

consisted of isolated individuals, but it never attracted the

masses or formed a community. It was a staff of professors

Causes of without classes. This sterility must have been due to some

m l Gt ' inherent vicious principles : and I propose now to consider its

chief defects, drawing out the contrast with Christianity at the

same time.

1. Its pan- 1. The fundamental and invincible error of Stoic philosophy
was its theological creed. Though frequently disguised in
devout language which the most sincere believer in a personal
God might have welcomed as expressing his loftiest aspirations,
its theology was nevertheless, as dogmatically expounded by its
ablest teachers, nothing better than a pantheistic materialism.
This inconsistency between the philosophic doctrine and the
religious phraseology of the Stoics is a remarkable feature,
which perhaps may be best explained by its mixed origin. The
theological language would be derived in great measure from
Eastern (I venture to think from Jewish) affinities, while the
philosophical dogma was the product of Hellenized thought.
Heathen devotion seldom or never soars higher than in the
Hymn of sublime hymn of Cleanthes. ' Thine offspring are we/ so he
' addresses the Supreme Being, ' therefore will I hymn Thy
praises and sing Thy might for ever. Thee all this universe
which rolls about the earth obeys, wheresoever Thou dost guide
it, and gladly owns Thy sway.' ' No work on earth is wrought
apart from Thee, nor through the vast heavenly sphere, nor in
the sea, save only the deeds which bad men in their folly do.'
' Unhappy they, who ever craving the possession of good things,
yet have no eyes or ears for the universal law of God, by wise

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 307

obedience whereunto they might lead a noble life.' ' Do Thou,
Father, banish fell ignorance from our soul, and grant us
wisdom, whereon relying Thou rulest all things with justice,
that being honoured, we with honour may requite Thee, as
beseemeth mortal man: since neither men nor gods have any
nobler task than duly to praise the universal law for aye V If Contradic-
these words might be accepted in their first and obvious tween sto-
meaning, we could hardly wish for any more sublime and devout andStoic
expression of the relations of the creature to his Creator and hymnolo-
Father. But a reference to the doctrinal teaching of the school
dispels the splendid illusion. Stoic dogma empties Stoic hymno-
logy of half its sublimity and more than half its devoutness.
This Father in heaven, we learn, is no personal Being, all
righteous and all holy, of whose loving care the purest love of
an earthly parent is but a shadowy counterfeit. He or It is
only another name for nature, for necessity, for fate, for the
universe. Just in proportion as the theological doctrine of the
school is realised, does its liturgical language appear forced and
unnatural. Terms derived from human relationships are con-
fessedly very feeble and inadequate at best to express the
person and attributes of God ; but only a mind prepared by an
artificial training could use such language as I have quoted
with the meaning which it is intended to bear. To simple
people it would be impossible to address fate or necessity or
universal nature, as a Father, or to express towards it feelings
of filial obedience and love.

And with the belief in a Personal Being, as has been already No con-
rernarked, the sense of sin also will stand or fall 2 . Where this O f sin.
belief is absent, error or wrong-doing may be condemned from
two points of view, irrespective of its consequences and on
grounds of independent morality. It may be regarded as a
defiance of the law of our being, or it may be deprecated as a
violation of the principles of beauty and propriety implanted in

1 Fragm. Philos. Grace, i. p. 151 (ed. 2 See above, p. 278 sq.
Mullach).

202

308 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

the mind. In other words it may be condemned either from
physical or from cesthetic considerations. The former aspect is
especially common with the Stoics, for indeed conformity with
nature is the groundwork of Stoical ethics. The latter appears
occasionally, though this point of view is characteristic rather
of the Academy than of the Porch. These are important sub-
sidiary aids to ethical teaching, and should not be neglected :
but the consciousness of sin, as sin, is distinct from both. It is
only possible where there is a clear sense of a personal relation
to a Personal Being, whom we are bound to love and obey,
whose will must be the law of our lives and should be the joy
of our hearts. Here again the Stoic's language is treacherous.
He can talk of sin, just as he can talk of God his Father. But
. so long as he is true to his dogma, he uses terms here, as before,
in a non-natural sense. Only so far as he deserts the theo-
logical standing-ground of his school (and there is much of this
happy inconsistency in the great Stoic teachers), does he attain
to such an apprehension of the ' exceeding sinfulness of sin ' as
enables him to probe the depths of the human conscience.
2. Defects 2. When we turn from the theology to the ethics of the
ethics? Stoical school, we find defects not less vital in its teaching.
Here again Stoicism presents in itself a startling and irre-
concilable contradiction. The fundamental Stoic maxim of
conformity to nature, though involving great difficulties in its
practical application, might at all events have afforded a
starting-point for a reasonable ethical code. Yet it is hardly
too much to say that no system of morals, which the wit of man
has ever devised, assumes an attitude so fiercely defiant of
Defiance nature as this. It is mere folly to maintain that pain and
r nature, privation are no evils. The paradox must defeat its own ends.
True religion, like true philosophy, concedes the point, and sets
itself to counteract, to reduce, to minimise them. Our Lord
1 divides himself at once from the ascetic and the Stoic. They
had said, Make yourselves independent of bodily comforts : he
says, Ye have need of these things 1 .' Christianity itself also
1 Ecce Homo p. 116.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 309

preaches an avrdp/ceia, a moral independence, but its preaching
starts from a due recognition of the facts of human life.

And, while Stoicism is thus paradoxical towards the indi- Want of

sympathy.
vidual, its view of the mutual relations between man and man

is a still greater outrage on humanity. ' In every age the
Christian temper has shivered at the touch of Stoic apathy 1 .'
Pity, anger, love all the most powerful social impulses of our
nature are ignored by the Stoic, or at least recognised only to
be crushed. There is no attempt to chasten or to guide these
affections : they must simply be rooted out. The Stoic ideal is
stern, impassive, immovable. As a natural consequence, the
genuine Stoic is isolated and selfish : he feels no sympathy with
others, and therefore he excites 110 sympathy in others. Any
wide extension of Stoicism was thus rendered impossible by its
inherent repulsiveness. It took a firm hold on a few solitary
spirits, but it was wholly powerless with the masses.

Nor indeed can it be said in this respect to have failed in Stoicism
its aim. The true Stoic was too self-contained, too indifferent and not
to the condition of others, to concern himself whether the tenets fng f 8elyhz "
of his school made many proselytes or few. He wrapped him-
self up in his self-conceit, declared the world to be mad, and
gave himself no more trouble about the matter. His avowal of
cosmopolitan principles, his tenet of religious equality, became
inoperative, because the springs of sympathy, which alone could
make them effective, had been frozen at their source. Where
enthusiasm is a weakness and love a delusion, such professions
must necessarily be empty verbiage. The temper of Stoicism
was essentially aristocratic and exclusive in religion, as it was
in politics. While professing the largest comprehension, it was
practically the narrowest of all philosophical castes.

3. Though older philosophers had speculated on the im- 3 ; No dis-
mortality of the soul, and though the belief had been encouraged in man's
by some schools of moralists as supplying a most powerful
motive for well-doing, yet still it remained for the heathen a

1 Ecce Homo p. 119.

310 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

vague theory, unascertained and unascertainable. To the
Christian alone, when he accepted the fact of Christ's resur-
rection, did it become an established and incontrovertible truth.
Stoicism does not escape the vagueness which overclouds all
mere philosophical speculation on this subject. On one point
alone were the professors of this school agreed. An eternal
existence of the human soul was out of the question. At the
great periodic conflagration, when the universe should be fused
and the manifold organizations dissolved into chaos, the souls of
men must necessarily be involved in the common destruction 1 .
But within this limit much diversity of opinion prevailed.
Diversity Some maintained a longer, some a shorter, duration of the soul,
among ^ Cleanthes said that all men would continue to exist till the
Stoics. conflagration; Chrysippus confined even this limited immor-
tality to the wise 2 . The language of Seneca on this point is
Seneca's both timid and capricious. 'If there be any sense or feeling
ency and after death ' is his cautious hypothesis, frequently repeated 3 .
?ss - ' I was pleasantly engaged/ he writes to his friend Lucilius, ' in
enquiring about the eternity of souls, or rather, I should say, in
trusting. For I was ready to trust myself to the opinions of
great men, who avow rather than prove so very acceptable a
thing. I was surrendering myself to this great hope, I was
beginning to be weary of myself, to despise the remaining
fragments of a broken life, as though I were destined to pass
away into that illimitable time, arid into the possession of
eternity ; when I was suddenly aroused by the receipt of your
letter, and this beautiful dream vanished 4 .' When again he
would console the bereaved mourner, he has no better words of
comfort to offer than these : ' Why do I waste away with fond
regret for one who either is happy or does not exist at all ? It

1 See e. g. Seneca ad Marc. 26, ad post mortem finiri, etiam ipsam.'
Polyb. i. (20). 4 Ep. Mor. cii. 2; comp. Ep. Mor.

2 Diog. Laert. vii. 157. cxvii. 6 * Cum animarum aeternitatem

3 De Brev. Vit. 18, ad Polyb. 5, 9. disserimus, non leve momentum apud
Ep. Mor. xxiv. 18, Ixv. 24, Ixxi. 16. nos habet consensus hominum aut ti-
Tertullian (de Resurr. Cam. i, de Anim. mentium inferos aut colentium.'

42) quotes Seneca as saying 'Omnia

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 311

is envy to bewail him if he is happy, and madness if he does not
exist 1 .' ' Bear in mind that no evils affect the dead ; that the
circumstances which make the lower world terrible to us are an
idle story.' ' Death is the release and end of all pains.' ' Death
is neither a good nor an evil : for that only can be good or evil
which is something.' 'Fortune can retain no hold, where
nature has given a release : nor can one be wretched, who does
not exist at all 2 / Afterwards indeed he speaks in a more
cheerful strain: 'Eternal rest awaits him leaving this murky
and troubled (earth) and migrating to the pure and liquid
(sky) 3 ' : but such expressions must be qualified by what has
gone before. Again in this same treatise, as in other places 4 ,
he promises after death an enlarged sphere of knowledge and a
limitless field of calm and pure contemplation. But the promise
which he gives in one sentence is often modified or retracted in
the next ; and even where the prospects held out are the
brightest, it is not always clear whether he contemplates a
continuance of conscious individual existence, or merely the
absorption into Universal Being and the impersonal partici-
pation in its beauty and order 5 . The views of Epictetus and
M. Aurelius are even more cloudy and cheerless than those of
Seneca. Immortality, properly so called, has no place in their
philosophies.

Gibbon, in his well-known chapter on the origin and growth Import-

anceof the

of Christianity, singles out the promise of eternal life as among doctrine to
the chief causes which promoted its diffusion. Overlooking ity ns
much that is offensive in the tone of his remarks, we need not
hesitate to accept the statement as substantially true. It is

1 Ad Polyb. 9. Seneca n. p. 58 sq. (1859) endeavours

2 Ad Marc. 19; comp. Ep. Mor. to show that Seneca is throughout con -
xxxvi. 10 ' Mors nullum habet incom- sistent with himself and follows the
modum : esse enim debet aliquis, cujus Platonists rather than the Stoics in his
sit incommodum,' with the context. doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

3 Ad Marc. 24. I do not see how it is possible, after

4 Comp. e.g. Ep. Mor. Ixxix. 12, reading the treatise ad Marciam, to ac-
Ixxxvi. i, cii. 22, 28 sq. quit him of inconsistency.

5 Holzherr Der Philosoph L. Annceus

312

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

indeed more than questionable whether (as Gibbon implies) the
growth of the Church was directly due to the inducements of
the offer ; for (looking only to self-interest) it has a repulsive as
well as an attractive side : but without doubt it added enor-
mously to the moral power of the Gospel in commending it to
the hearts and consciences of men. Deterring, stimulating,
reassuring, purifying and exalting the inward and outward life,
1 the power of Christ's resurrection ' extends over the whole
domain of Christian ethics.

Its indif- On the other hand it was a matter of indifference to the
Stoicism. Stoic whether he doubted or believed or denied the immortality
of man ; for the doctrine was wholly external to his creed, and
nothing could be lost or gained by the decision. Not life but
death was the constant subject of his meditations. His religious
director was summoned to his side, not to prepare him for
eternity, but to teach him how to die 1 . This defect alone
would have rendered Stoicism utterly powerless with the masses
of men : for the enormous demands which it made on the faith
and self-denial of its adherents could not be sustained without
Conse- the sanction and support of such a belief. The Epicurean
motto, 'Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die/ base
though it was, had at least this recommendation, that the
toicism, conclusion did seem to follow from the premisses: but the
moral teaching of the Stoic was practically summed up in the
paralogism, f Let us neither eat nor drink, for to-morrow we
die,' where no wit of man could bridge over the gulf between
the premisses and the conclusion. A belief in man's immor-
tality might have saved the Stoic from many intellectual
paradoxes and much practical perplexity : but then it would
have made him other than a Stoic. He had a profound sense
of the reign of moral order in the universe. Herein he was
right. But the postulate of man's immortality alone reconciles

1 Socrates (or Plato) said that with
true philosophers o5j> &\\o atfrol em-
T-rjdGJOVffiv 'fj airo6vT)<TKeiv re Kal rcOvdvat
(Phado 64 A). The Stoic, by accept-

ing the 6.irodvfiffKfiv and forgetting the
r^dvAvat, robbed the saying of its vir-
tue.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 313

this belief with many facts of actual experience ; and, refusing
to extend his views beyond the present life, he was obliged to
misstate or deny these facts in order to save his thesis 1 . He
staunchly maintained the inherent quality of actions as good or
bad (irrespective of their consequences), and he has deserved
the gratitude of mankind as the champion of a morality of
principles. But he falsely supposed himself bound in conse-
quence to deny any force to the utilitarian aspect of ethics, as
though it were irrreconcilable with his own doctrine ; and so he
was led into the wildest paradoxes, calling good evil and evil
good. The meeting-point of these two distinct lines of view is
beyond the grave, and he refused to carry his range of vision so
far. It was inconsistent with his tenets to hold out the hope of
a future life as an incentive to well-doing and a dissuasive from
sin ; for he wholly ignored the idea of retribution. So far, there
was more substantial truth and greater moral power in the
crude and gross conceptions of an afterworld embodied in the
popular mythology which was held up to scorn by him, than in
the imposing philosophy which he himself had devised to sup-
plant them.

4. Attention was directed above to an instructive parallel 4. Absence
which Seneca's language presents to our Lord's image of the torical
vine and the branches 2 . Precepts, writes the philosopher, basis *
wither unless they are grafted in a sect. By this confession
Seneca virtually abandons the position of self-isolation and
self-sufficiency, which the Stoic assumes. He felt vaguely the
want of some historical basis, some bond of social union, in
short some principle of cohesion, which should give force and
vitality to his ethical teaching. No mere abstract philosophy
has influenced or can influence permanently large masses of

men. A Bible and a Church a sacred record and a religious A sacred

record and
a religious

1 Butler argues from the fact that The Stoic denied what the Christian

'the divine government which we ex- philosopher assumes, and contradicted

perience ourselves under in the present experience by maintaining that it s

state, taken alone, is allowed not to be perfect, taken alone,

the perfection of moral government.' 2 See above, p. 267.

314 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

commu- community are primary conditions of extensive and abiding

sary. success. An isolated spirit here and there may have dispensed

with such aids ; but, as a social power, as a continuous agency,

mere doctrine, however imposing, will for the most part be in-

effective without such a support.

So far we have been speaking of conditions of success which

were wanting indeed to Stoicism, but which nevertheless are

not peculiar to Christianity. All creeds, which have secured

any wide and lasting allegiance, have had their sacred books

Christian- and their religious organization. But our Lord's language, of

in a Per- which Seneca's image is a partial though unconscious echo,

points to the one distinguishing feature of Christianity. It is

not a record nor a community, but a Person, whence the sap

spreads to the branches and ripens into the rich clusters. I

have already alluded to Gibbon's account of the causes which

combined to promote the spread of the Church. It will seem

strange to any one who has at all felt the spirit of the Gospel,

that a writer, enumerating the forces to which the dissemi-

nation and predominance of Christianity were due, should omit

Christ the all mention of the Christ. One might have thought it im-

source of . .

the moral possible to study with common attention the records of the
Christian- Apostles and martyrs of the first ages or of the saints and
i*y- heroes of the later Church, without seeing that the consciousness

of personal union with Him, the belief in His abiding presence,
was the mainspring of their actions and the fountain of all their
strength. This is not a preconceived theory of what should
have happened, but a bare statement of what stands recorded
on the pages of history. In all ages and under all circum-
stances, the Christian life has ever radiated from this central
fire. Whether we take St Peter or St Paul, St Francis of
Assisi or John Wesley, whether Athanasius or Augustine,
Anselm or Luther, whether Boniface or Francis Xavier, here
has been the impulse of their activity and the secret of their
moral power. Their lives have illustrated the parable of the
vine and the branches.

Distinc- j t j s ^is which differentiates Christianity from all other

tive fea-

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 315

religions, and still more from all abstract systems of philosophy, ture of
Those who assume the entire aim and substance of the Gospel ity
to have been the inculcation of moral precepts, and who there- Not amor-
fore rest its claims solely or chiefly on the purity of its ethical
code, often find themselves sorely perplexed, when they stumble
upon some noble and true utterance of Jewish or Heathen
antiquity before the coming of Christ. A maxim of a Stoic
philosopher or a Rabbinical schoolman, a saying of Plato or
Confucius, startles them by its resemblance to the teaching of
the Gospel. Such perplexity is founded on a twofold error.
On the one hand they have not realised the truth that the same
Divine Power was teaching mankind before He was made flesh :
while on the other they have failed to see what is involved in
this incarnation and its sequel. To those who have felt how
much is implied in St John's description of the pre-incarnate
Word as the life and light of men; to those who allow the
force of Tertullian's appeal to the ' witness of a soul naturally
Christian ' ; to those who have sounded the depths of Augus-
tine's bold saying, that what we now call the Christian religion
existed from the dawn of the human race, though it only began
to be named Christian when Christ came in the flesh 1 ; to
those who can respond to the sentiment of the old English

poem,

'Many man for Cristes love
Was martired in Bomayne,
Er any Cristendom was knowe there
Or any cros honoured';

it cannot be a surprise to find such flashes of divine truth in
men who lived before the coming of our Lord or were placed
beyond the reach of the Gospel. The significance of Christ's
moral precepts does not lose but gain by the admission: for
we learn to view Him no longer as one wholly apart from our
race, but recognising in His teaching old truths which ' in man-
hood darkly join/ we shall only be the more prompt to
' Yield all blessing to the name
Of Him that made them current coin.'

1 Retract, i. 13.

316 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

butaprin- But the mere ethical teaching, however important, is the

cipleofhfe ...

centred in least important, because the least distinctive part of Christi-

on * anity. If there be any meaning in the saying that Christ
appeared to ' bring life and immortality to light,' if the stedfast
convictions of St Peter and St Paul and St John were not a
delusion, and their lives not built upon a lie, then obviously
a deeper principle is involved. The moral teaching and the
moral example of our Lord will ever have the highest value in
their own province; but the core of the Gospel does not lie
here. Its distinctive character is, that in revealing a Person it
reveals also a principle of life the union with God in Christ,
apprehended by faith in the present and assured to us here-
after by the Resurrection. This Stoicism could not give ; and
therefore its dogmas and precepts were barren. Its noblest
branches bore neither flowers nor fruit, because there was
no parent stem from which they could draw fresh sap.

The Letters of Paul and Seneca.

fTlHE spurious correspondence between the Apostle and the The corre-

, . , . i . ,1 T spondence

J- philosopher to which reference is made in the preceding essay, described.

consists of fourteen letters, the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, llth, 12th,
and 13th written in the name of Seneca, and the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th,
10th, and 14th of St Paul. In the address of the 6th the name of
Lucilius is added to that of Seneca, and in the same way in the
address of the 7th Theophilus is named along with St Paul.

I have not thought it worth while to reprint these letters, as Editions
they may be read conveniently in the recent edition of Seneca's i et t ers
works by F. Haase (in. p. 476 sq.) included in Teubner's series, and
are to be found likewise in several older editions of this author.
They have been printed lately also in Fleury's St Paul et Seneque
(n. p. 300 sq.) and in Aubertin's Seneque et St Paul (p. 409 sq.), and
still more recently in an article by Kraus, entitled Der Briefwechsel
fault mit Seneca, in the Theologische Quartalschrift XLIX. p. 601
(1867).

The great popularity of this correspondence in the ages before The MSS
the Reformation is shown by the large number of extant MSS.
Fleury, making use of the common catalogues, has enumerated
about sixty; and probably a careful search would largely increase
the number. The majority, as is usual in such cases, belong to the
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, but two at least are
as early as the ninth. Haase used some fresh collations, from which
however he complains that little was to be got (p. xxii.) ; and Fleury
also collated three MSS from Paris and one from Toulouse. Haase
directed attention to the two most ancient, Ambrosianus C. 90 and
Argentoratensis C. vi. 5, both belonging to the ninth century (which
had not yet been examined), but had no opportunity of collating
them himself. Collations from these (together with another later
Strassburg MS, Argentoratensis C. vi. 7) were afterwards used by
Kraus for his text, which is thus constructed of better materials

318 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

than any other. But after all, it remains in an unsatisfactory
state, which the worthlessness of the letters themselves may well
excuse.
Probable This correspondence was probably forged in the fourth century,

motive of e jther to recommend Seneca to Christian readers or to recommend

tne tor-

gery. Christianity to students of Seneca. In favour of this view may be

urged the fact that in several MSS these spurious letters precede the
genuine works of Seneca 1 . Nor does any other motive seem consist-
ent with the letters themselves ; for they have no doctrinal bearing
at all, and no historical interest of sufficient importance to account
for the forgery. They are made up chiefly of an interchange of
compliments between the Apostle and the philosopher; and the
only historical thread which can be said to run through them is the
endeavour of Seneca to gain the ear of Nero for the writings of
St Paul.

Reference It is commonly said that St Jerome, who first mentions these
ters^b let l etters > na d no suspicion that they were spurious. This statement
Jerome, however is exaggerated, for he does not commit himself to any
opinion at all about their genuineness. He merely says, that he
* should not have given a place to Seneca in a catalogue of saints,
unless challenged to do so by those letters of Paul to Seneca and
from Seneca to Paul which are read by very many persons' (de Vir.
111. 12 'nisi me illae epistolae provocarent quae leguntur a plurimis').
When it is remembered how slight an excuse serves to bring other
names into his list, such as Philo, Josephus, and Justus Tiberiensis,
we cannot lay any stress on the vague language which he uses in
this case. The more probable inference is that he did not delibe-
rately accept them as genuine. Indeed, if he had so accepted
them, his profound silence about them elsewhere would be wholly
Augnstine, inexplicable. St Augustine, as generally happens in questions of
historical criticism, repeats the language of Jerome and perhaps
had not seen the letters (Epist. cliii. 14 'Seneca cujus quaedam ad
Paulum apostolum leguntur epistolae 2 '). Throughout the middle

1 As for instance Argent. C. vi. 5 is not uncommon to find them imine-

described by Kraus. So in Burn. 251 diately before the genuine epistles.
(British Museum), which I have ex- 2 Another passage quoted Philip-

amined, they are included in a collec- plans , p. 29, note 2, in which Augus-

tion of genuine and spurious works of tine remarks on Seneca's silence about

Seneca, being themselves preceded by the Christians, is inconsistent with a

the notice of Jerome and followed by conviction of the genuineness of these

the first of the epistles to Lucilius. It letters.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 319

ages they are mentioned or quoted, most frequently as genuine, but and later
occasionally with an expression of doubt, until the revival of learning, w
when the light of criticism rapidly dispelled the illusion 1 .

As they are now universally allowed to be spurious, it will be These let-
unnecessary to state at length the grounds of their condemnation, manifest
It is sufficient to say that the letters are inane and unworthy forgery,
throughout; that the style of either correspondent is unlike his
genuine writings ; that the relations between the two, as there
represented, are highly improbable ; and lastly, that the chronological
notices (which however are absent in some important MSS) are wrong
in almost every instance. Thus, independently of the unbroken
silence of three centuries and a half about this correspondence,
internal evidence alone is sufficient to condemn them hopelessly.

Yet the writer is not an ignorant man. He has read part of Yet the
Seneca and is aware of the philosopher's relations with Lucilius ; he J^ jJLJjj.
is acquainted with the story of Castor and Pollux appearing to one rant nor
Vatinius (or Vatienus) ; he can talk glibly of the gardens of Sallust ; Jarele'ss.
he is acquainted with the character of Caligula whom he properly
calls Gaius Csesar ; he is even aware of the Jewish sympathies of the
empress Poppsea and makes her regard St Paul as a renegade 2 ; and
lastly, he seems to have had before him some account of the Neronian
fire and persecution 3 which is no longer extant, for he speaks of
'Christians and Jews' being punished as the authors of the con-
flagration and mentions that ' a hundred and thirty-two houses and
six insulsB were burnt in six days.'

Moreover I believe he attempts, though he succeeds ill in the
attempt, to make a difference in the styles of Seneca and St Paul,
the writing of the latter being more ponderous. Unfortunately he
betrays himself by representing Seneca as referring more than once
to St Paul's bad style ; and in one letter the philosopher mentions
sending the Apostle a book de Copia Verborum, obviously for the
purpose of improving his Latin.

I mention these facts, because they bear upon a theory main- Theory of

tained by some modern critics 4 , that these letters are not the same ^ ome m ."

dern cri-

1 See Fleury i. p. 269 sq. for a in the numbers, which appear too
catena of references. small.

2 Ep. 5 'Indignatio dominae, quod * An account of these views will be
a ritu et secta veteri recesseris et [te] found in Fleury n. p. 225 sq. He
aliorsum converters ' ; comp. Ep. 8, himself holds that the letters read by
where however the reading is doubt- these fathers were not the same with
fal. our correspondence, but questions whe-

3 Yet there must be some mistake ther those letters were genuine.

320

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

The argu-
ments for
this view
stated

and an-
swered.

Martinus
Bragensis.

Account of
de Copia
Verboniw.

with those to which Jerome and Augustine refer ; that they had
before them a genuine correspondence between St Paul and Seneca,
which has since perished ; and that the extant epistles were forged
later (say about the ninth century), being suggested by the notices
in these fathers and invented in consequence to supply their place.
The only specious arguments advanced in favour of this view, so far
as I know, are these: (1) A man like Jerome could not possibly
have believed the extant correspondence to be genuine, for the
forgery is transparent ; (2) The de Copia Verborum is a third title
to a work otherwise known as de Formula ffonestae Vitae or de
Quatuor Virtutibus, written by Martinus Bragensis or Dumiensis
(t circ. A. D. 580), but ascribed in many MSS to Seneca. Sufficient
time therefore must have elapsed since this date to allow the false
title and false ascription to take the place of the true and to be
generally circulated and recognised 1 .

To both these arguments a ready answer may be given : (1) There
is no reason to suppose that Jerome did believe the correspondence
to be genuine, as I have already shown. He would hardly have
spoken so vaguely, if he had accepted the letters as genuine or even
inclined to this belief. (2) A much better account can be given of
the false title and ascription of Martin's treatise, if we suppose that
they arose out of the allusion in the letters, than on the converse
hypothesis that they were prior to and suggested this allusion.
This Martin, whose works appear to have had a very large cir-
culation in the middle ages, wrote on kindred subjects and seems
occasionally to have abridged and adapted Seneca's writings. For
this reason his works were commonly bound up with those of Seneca,
and in some instances came to be ascribed to the Stoic philosopher.
This is the case at all events with the de Moribus, as well as the de
Quatuor Virtutibus, and perhaps other spurious treatises bearing the
name of Seneca may be assigned to the same author. A copy of
the de Quatuor Virtutibus, either designedly abridged or accidentally
mutilated, and on this account wanting the title, was bound up so
as to precede or follow the correspondence of Paul and Seneca 2 ;

1 This argument is urged by Fleury
ii. p. 267 sq. The de Formula Hones-
tae Vitae is printed in Haase's edition
of Seneca (m. p. 468) together with
other spurious works.

2 It is found in some extant MSS
(e.g. Flor. PI. xlv. Cod. iv) immediately

before the letters, and it may perhaps
occur in some others immediately after
them. [Since the first edition appeared,
in which this conjecture was hazarded,
I have found the treatise immediately
after the letters, Bodl. Laud. Misc. 383,
fol. 77 a, where it is anonymous, 1869.]

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

321

and, as Seneca in one of these letters mentions sending the de Copia
Verborum^ a later transcriber assumed that the neighbouring treatise
must be the work in question, and without reflecting gave it this
title 1 . Whether the forger of the correspondence invented an
imaginary title, or whether a standard work bearing this name,
either by Seneca himself or by some one else, was in general circula-
tion when he wrote, we have no means of deciding ; but the motive
in the allusion is clearly the improvement of St Paul's Latin, of
which Seneca more than once complains. On the other hand the
de Qiuituor Virtutibus is, as its name implies, a treatise on the
cardinal virtues. An allusion to this treatise therefore would be
meaningless ; nor indeed has any reasonable explanation been given,
how it got the title de Copia Verborum, on the supposition that this
title was prior to the allusion in the correspondence and was not

1 The work, when complete, consists
of (1) A dedication in Martin's name
to Miro king of Gallicia, in which he
mentions the title of the book Formula
Vitae Honestae; (2) A short paragraph
enumerating the four cardinal virtues ;
(3) A discussion of these several virtues
and the measure to be observed in each.
In the MSS, so far as I have learnt
from personal inspection and from no-
tices in other writers, it is found in
three different forms; (1) Complete
(e.g. Cambridge Univ. Libr. Dd. xv.
21; Bodl. Laud. Misc. 444, fol. 146),
in which case there is no possibili-
ty of mistaking its authorship; (2)
Without the dedicatory preface, so that
it begins Quatuor virtutum species etc.
In this form it is generally entitled
de Quatuor Virtutibus and ascribed to
Seneca. So it is for instance in three
British Museum MSS, Burn. 251
fol. 33 a (xmth cent.; the treatise
being mutilated at the end and con-
cluding ' In has ergo maculas pruden-
tia immensurata perducet'), Burn. 360,
fol. 35 a (xivth cent.?), and Harl. 233
(xnrth or xivth cent.?; where how-
ever the general title is wanting and
the treatise has the special heading
Seneca de prudentia). The transcriber

of Arund. 249 (xvth cent.) also gives
it in this form, but is aware of the true
author, for the heading is Incipit trac-
tatus libri honeste vite editus a Martina
episcopo Qui a multis intitulatur de
quatuor virtutibus et attribuitur Senece;
but he ends it Explicit tractatus de
quatuor virtutibus Annei Senece Cordu-
bensis, as he doubtless found it in the
copy which he transcribed. In Bodl.
Laud. Lat. 86, fol. 58 a, where it
occurs in this form, it is ascribed to its
right author ; while again in Bodl. Laud.
Misc. 280, fol. 117 a, it is anonymous.
These MSS I have examined. (3) It occurs
without either the dedicatory preface or
the general paragraph on the four vir-
tues, and some extraneous matter is
added at the end. Only in this form, so
far as I can discover, does it bear the
strange title de Verborum Gopia. So in
one of the Gale MSS at Trinity College
Cambridge ( . 3 . 31 ) it begins ' Senece de
quatuor virtutibus primo (?) de prudentia.
Quisquis prudentiam...' and ends '...
jactura que per negligentiam fit. Ex-
plicit liber Senece de verborum copia ' ;
and the MS described by Haase (in. p.
xxii) belongs to the same type. These
facts accord with the account of the title
which I have suggested in the text.

322 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

itself suggested thereby, for it is wholly alien to the subject of the
treatise.

Direct But other strong and (as it seems to me) convincing arguments

^inTth" ma y k Bought against this theory: (1) Extant MSS of the corre-
theory. spondence date from the ninth century, and in these the text is
already in a corrupt state. (2) The historical knowledge which the
letters show could hardly have been possessed, or turned to such
account, by a writer later than the fourth or fifth century.
(3) Jerome quotes obliquely a passage from the letters, and this
passage is found in the extant correspondence. To this it is replied,
that the forger, taking the notice of Jerome as his starting-point,
would necessarily insert the quotation to give colour to his forgery.
But I think it may be assumed in this case that the pseudo-Seneca
would have preserved the words of Jerome accurately or nearly so ;
whereas, though the sense is the same, the difference in form is
considerable 1 . It may be added also that the sentiment is in entire
keeping with the pervading tone of the letters, and has no appear-
ance of being introduced for a distinct purpose. (4) It is wholly
inconceivable that a genuine correspondence of the Apostle could
have escaped notice for three centuries and a half; and not less
inconceivable that, having once been brought to light at the end of
the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, it should again have
fallen into oblivion and been suffered to disappear. This theory
therefore may be confidently rejected.

1 The reference in St Jerome is tianos. ' The words stand in the letters
(Seneca) optare se dicit ejus esse loci (no. ll^tUti] nam qui meus,tuus apud
apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Chris- te locus, qui tuus, velini ut meus.'

THE ESSENES.

212

On some points connected with the Essenes.

THE NAME ESSENE.

ORIGIN AND AFFINITY OF THE ESSENES.

C.
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

THE NAME ESSENE.

The name is variously written in Greek : Various

forms of
,_, , T ... -in / i/\" the name

1. Eio-arjvos: Joseph. Ant. xin. o. 9, xm. 10. 6, xv. 10. o, i n Greek.

xviii. 1. 2, 5, R J. ii. 8. 2, 13, Vit. 2 ; Plin. JV. #. v. 15. 17
(Essenus) ; Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3 ; Hippol. Haer.
ix. 18, 28 (MS 60-7/^09); Epiphan. Haer. p. 28 sq., 127
(ed. Pet.).

2. 'Eo-o-ato?: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.) ;
Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22 ; Porphyr. deAbstin. iv.
11. So too Joseph. B. J. ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1 ; 4rrt.
xv. 10. 4 ; though in the immediate context of this last
passage he writes 'Eo-er^o?, if the common texts may be
trusted.

3. 'CWaio?: Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The
common texts very frequently make him write 'O&a'rjvos,
but see Dindorfs notes, Epiphan. Op. I. pp. 380, 425.
With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the
Ossaeans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his in-
formation from two distinct sources, and does not see
that the same persons are intended.

4. 'leercrato?, Epiphan. Haer. p. 117. From the connexion
the same sect again seems to be meant : but owing to the
form Epiphanius conjectures (o*/*at) that the name is
derived from Jesse, the father of David.

326 THE ESSENES.

All etymo- If any certain example could be produced where the name
be rejected occurs in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of

^ s derivation would probably be settled ; but in the absence of
name a single decisive instance a wide field is opened for conjecture,

and critics have not been backward in availing themselves of

the license. In discussing the claims of the different etymologies

proposed we may reject :

(i) From First : derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects

the Greek ; the wQrd ^ ih ^^ < ho ly': Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457

to. . .Sia\KTOv e\\rjvi,/cf]$ Trapcovvfjuoi OO^OTT/TO?, 13, p.
459 roov 'Eo-0-atW rj oalcov, Fragm. p. 632 tcahovvrcu
irapa rrjv ocnoTTjra, poi 8o/ec3 [8oet ?], r

It is not quite clear whether Philo is here playing
with words after the manner of his master Plato, or whether he
holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different
languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or
whether lastly he seriously means that the name was directly
derived from the Greek word ocnos. The last supposition is the
least probable ; but he certainly does not reject this derivation
'as incorrect' (Ginsburg Essenes p. 27), nor can nraptovvpoi
oo-tor^To? be rendered 'from an incorrect derivation from the
Greek homonym hosiotes' (ib. p. 32), since the word Trapcovv/jios
never involves the notion of false etymology. The amount of
truth which probably underlies Philo's statement will be con-
sidered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is 10-09, 'companion,
associate,' suggested by Rapoport, Erech Millin p. 41. Several
others again are suggested by Lowy, s. v. Essaer, e.g. e'crw from
their esoteric doctrine, or alaa from their fatalism. All such
may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they
deserve to be called ingenious.

(ii) From Secondly : derivations from proper names whether of persons

^rsons'or or ^ P^ aces - Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the

places; father of David (Epiphan. 1. c.), or from one *B Isai, the disciple

of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of

Alexander Jannseus (Low in Ben Chananja I. p. 352). Again it

has been referred to the town Essa (a doubtful reading in

THE ESSENES. 327

Joseph. Ant. xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan. And other similar
derivations have been suggested.

Thirdly : etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which (Hi) From
do not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in roots not
the right order. Under this head several must be rejected ; the^Sf

*)DK dsar ' to bind/ Adler Volkslehrer vi. p. 50, referred to cons -

nants,

by Ginsburg Essenes p. 29.

TDPI chasid 'pious,' which is represented by 'A<r$a?o9
(1 Mace. ii. 42 (v. 1.), vii. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and could not
possibly assume the form 'Eo-crato? or '0-0-771/09. Yet this de-
rivation appears in Josippon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 24, pp. 274,
278, 451), who substitutes Chasidim in narratives where the
Essenes are mentioned in the original of Josephus ; and it has
been adopted by many more recent writers.

tf riD schci ' to bathe/ from which with an Aleph prefixed we
might get ^KnDN as'chai ' bathers ' (a word however which does
not occur) : Gratz Gesch. der Juden ill. pp. 82, 468.

y}2X tsanuat 'retired, modest/ adopted by Frankel (Z&it-
schrift 1846, p. 449, Monatsschrift II. p. 32) after a suggestion
by Low.

To this category must be assigned those etymologies which such as
contain a } as the third consonant of the root ; since the com- which

parison of the parallel forms 'EercraZo? and 'Eercr^i/o? shows that

in the latter word the v is only formative. On this ground we the root-

must reject :

TDn chdsln ; see below under

j^n chotsen ' a fold ' of a garment, and so supposed to signify
the Trepi^wfjLa or 'apron/ which was given to every neophyte
among the Essenes (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 5, 7) : suggested by
Jellinek Ben Chananja IV. p. 374.

r&y tdshm ' strong ' : see Cohn in Frankel's Monatsschrift
vii. p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius
Haer. p. 40 TOUTO Se TO 761/05 TU>V 'Qcrafjvwv ep/juyveveTai Sid
7-779 e'/c8oo-eft>9 TOV oi>o/iaro5 crri/Bapbi' 76^09 (* a sturdy race '),
The name ' Essene ' is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de Sacy,
Chrestom. Arab. I. pp. 114, 306); but, as he himself writes it

328 THE ESSENES.

with Elif&ud not Ain, it is plain that he got this interpretation
from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The correct
reading however in Epiphanius is 'OaeraiW, not 'Oo-crrjvGov ;
and it would therefore appear that this father or his informant
derived the word from the Hebrew root tty rather than from the 1
Aramaic \wy. The ^Qo-aaloL would then be the Dny, and this is
so far a possible derivation, that the n does not enter into the
root. Another word suggested to explain the etymology of
Epiphanius is the Hebrew and Aramaic j^on chasm ' powerful,
strong' (from pn); but this is open to the same objections as

To-
other de- When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or
consider- improbable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and
3rd radicals might be any of the gutturals tf, n, n, y ; and the
Greek <r, as the 2nd radical, might represent any one of several
Shemitic sibilants.

Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which
have found more or less favour.

(l)&ODK'a (1) NDK &sa 'to heal/ whence N>DK asya, 'a physician.'
' The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus
states (B. J. ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the
qualities of herbs and minerals ' with a view to the healing of
diseases (TT/JO? Oepaireiav TraO&v)! This etymology is supported
likewise by an appeal to the name OepaTrevral, which Philo
gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit. Cont. 1, n. p. 471).
It seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of
the Essenes should have been derived from a pursuit which was
merely secondary and incidental ; while the supposed analogy of
the Therapeutae rests on a wrong interpretation of the word.
Philo indeed (1. c.), bent upon extracting from it as much moral
significance as possible, says, OepaTrevral /cal
Ka\ovvTai, rjroi Trap' o<rov larpi/crjv eTrayyeXXovrai,
r?79 Kara TroXet? ($ pey yap <ra> para Oepa-jrevei povov, e/celwr)
real "tyv)(a<; /c.r.X.) rj Trap QGQV ex Qvcrews KCU rwv lepwv
7rai,Sev0r]<Tav Oepaireveiv TO bv K.T.\. : but the latter meaning
alone accords with the usage of the word ; for depcnrevTrjs, used

THE ESSENES. 329

absolutely, signifies 'a worshipper, devotee/ not 'a physician,
healer.' This etymology of 'Eo-erato? is ascribed, though
wrongly, to Philo by Asaria de' Rossi (Meor Enayim .3, fol. 33 a)
and has been very widely received. Among more recent writers,
who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann ( Ueber Essder
u. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrorer (Philo II. p. 341), Dahne (Ersch. u.
Gruber, s. v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 20),
Herzfeld (Gesch. des Judenthums n. p. 371, 395, 397 sq.), Geiger
( Urschrift p. 1 26), Derenbourg (L'Histoire et la Geographic de
la Palestine pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara i.
p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (Real-Encyclopddie fur Bibel u.
Talmud, s. v.). Several of these writers identify the Essenes
with the Baithusians (pDirvn) of the Talmud, though in the
Talmud the Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees.
This identification was suggested by Asaria de' Rossi (1. c. fol.
33 6), who interprets 'Baithusians' as 'the school of the Essenes'
(K'D'K JTQ) : while subsequent writers, going a step further, have
explained it ' the school of the physicians ' (tODK JV3).

(2) XTPI ch&zd ( to see,' whence Nnn chazya ' a seer/ in re- (2)
ference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as
the result of ascetic contemplation : Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 12 elal
8e v avrois ot Kal TO, fjLe\\ovra TrpoyivcocrKew vTriarxyovvrai
K.T.\. For instances of such Essene prophets see Ant. xiii. 11.
2, xv. 10. 5, B. J. i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3. Suidas, s. v. 'Eo-amot, says :
0(opla ra iro\\a "Trapapevovcrw, evOev KOI 'Ra-aaioi tca\ovvTai,
TOVTO Srj\ovvros rov ovo/jLdTOS, TovTearTi,, OewprjTLKoL For this
derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann
p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jud. Apocal p. 278), there
is something to be said : but Km is rather opav than 6eu>pelv ;
and thus it must denote the result rather than the process, the
vision which was the privilege of the few rather than the
contemplation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later
paper (Zeitschr. XI. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself
doubtfully about this derivation, feeling the difficulty of
explaining the or from the t. This is a real objection. In the
transliteration of the LXX the T is persistently represented by f ,

330 THE ESSENES.

and the by cr. The exceptions to this rule, where the
manuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and
in every case they seem capable of explanation by peculiar
circumstances.
(3) wy (3) H&^y t&sah ' to do/ so that 'Ecromot would signify ' the

doers, the observers of the law/ thus referring to the strictness
of Essen e practices : see Oppenheim in Frankel's Monatsschrift
vii. p. 272 sq. It has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees
were especially designated the teachers, the Essenes were
called the ' doers ' by a sort of antithesis : see an article in Jost's
Annalen 1839, p. 145. Thus the Talmudic phrase nfcJtyD WK,
interpreted 'men of practice, of good deeds/ is supposed to refer
to the Essenes (see Frankel's Zeitschrift in. p. 458, Monatsschrift
ir. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis Mishna III.
p. 313) it may possibly mean 'workers of miracles' (as epyov
Joh. v. 20, vii. 21, x. 25, etc.) ; but in this sense also it might be
explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the Essenes.
(See below, p. 340.) On the use which has been made of a
passage in the Aboth of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this
derivation, I shall have to speak hereafter. Altogether this
etymology has little or nothing to recommend it.

I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem
to deserve most consideration.

(4) chasyo (4) t tfrm chasi (r^Jtojj ch'se) or KLjJtaM chasyo, 'pious/ in
8 ' Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy
(Chrestom. Arab. I. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V.
Isr. iv. p. 484, ed. 3, 1864, vii. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who
abandons in its favour another etymology (|tn chazzan ' watcher,
worshipper ' = OepaTrevrr^) which he had suggested in an earlier
edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is recommended by
the fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in meaning,
the Greek ocnos, of which it is a common rendering in the
Peshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8). Thus it explains the
derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 326), and it also accounts
for the tendency to write 'O<7<rato9 for 'Ecnrato? in Greek.
Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem

THE ESSENES. 331

(Orac. Sib. iv ; see Colossians, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equi-
valents, eva-eflfa ev<re@l>r}, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 sq., 148 sq., 162, 165
sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the
writer: see Gesch. vn. p. 154, Sibyll. Bucher p. 46. Lipsius
(Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, s. v.) also considers this the most
probable etymology.

(5) XTl chdsha (also nBTi) Heb. ' to be silent ' ; whence (5)
DWn chashshaim ' the silent ones,' who meditate on mysteries.
Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth. I. p. 207) believes that this was the
derivation accepted by Josephus, since he elsewhere (Ant. iii. 7.
5, iii. 8. 9) writes out j&?n, choshen ' the high-priest's breast-plate'
(Exod. xxviii. 15 sq.), ecrcnjv or eVcn;^? in Greek, and explains
it crrjfjLalvei TOVTO Kara rrjv 'EXA^i/ow y\a)TTav \oryeiov (i.e. the
' place of oracles ' or ' of reason ' : comp. Philo de Mon. ii. 5, n.
p. 226, Ka\elrai \oyeloi> eVi///,&>9, eVetS?) ra ev ovpavco Trdvra
\o7ot? KOL ava\oyuus ^e^fj^ovp^rai K.T.\.\ as it is translated
in the LXX. Even though modern critics should be right in
connecting JBTI with the Arab. J^/AO- ' pulcher fuit, ornavit ' (see
Gesen. Thes. p. 535, s. v.), the other derivation may have
prevailed in Josephus' time. We may illustrate this derivation
by Josephus' description of the Essenes, B. J. ii. 8. 5 TO?? e^wQev
o>9 fivo-rrjpiov TI (frpifcrbv ^ Twv GvSov cTiddTTi) Kara^>aLvTai ; and
perhaps this will also explain the Greek equivalent OecoprjritcoL,
which Suidas gives for 'Eero-atot. The use of the Hebrew word
D*NBTl in Mishna Shekalim v. 6, though we need not suppose
that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show how it
might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see
Levy Chalddisches Worterbuch p. 287. On the whole this seems
the most probable etymology of any, though it has not found so
much favour as the last. At all events the rules of transliteration
are entirely satisfied, and this can hardly be said of the other
derivations which come into competition with it.

B.
ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.

The prin- FT! HE ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the
theresto- isolation of the Jewish people from all influences of the

ration. surrounding nations. Only by the rigorous application of this
principle was it possible to guard the nationality of the Hebrews,
and thus to preserve the sacred deposit of religious truth of
which this nationality was the husk. Hence the strictest
attention was paid to the Levitical ordinances, and more
especially to those which aimed at ceremonial purity. The
principle, which was thus distinctly asserted at the period of
the national revival, gained force and concentration at a later
date from the active antagonism to which the patriotic Jews
were driven by the religious and political aggressions of the
Kise of Syrian kings. During the Maccabaean wars we read of a party or
daang. sec ^ ca ll e d the Chasidim or Asidceans (*A(riSaioi), the ' pious* or
' devout,' who zealous in their observance of the ceremonial law
stoutly resisted any concession to the practices of Hellenism,
and took their place in the van of the struggle with their
national enemies, the Antiochene monarchs (1 Mace. ii. 42, vii.
13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6). But, though their names appear now for
the first time, they are not mentioned as a newly formed party ;
and it is probable that they had their origin at a much earlier
date.

The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and
Phari- isolation is wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later
saism and ^ Q ^ ^ exhibited in the Pharisees and the Essenes ; but

THE ESSENES. 333

whether these were historically connected with the Chasidim as Essenism
divergent offshoots of the original sect, or whether they represent the same
independent developments of the same principle, we are without P nncl P l0
the proper data for deciding. The principle itself appears in the
name of the Pharisees, which, as denoting ' separation,' points to
the avoidance of all foreign and contaminating influences. On
the other hand the meaning of the name Essene is uncertain,
for the attempt to derive it directly from Chasidim must be
abandoned ; but the tendency of the sect is unmistakable. If
with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a principal aim, with
the Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was enforced and
guarded moreover by a special organization. While the Pharisees
were a sect, the Essenes were an order. Like the Pythagoreans
in Magna Grsecia and the Buddhists in India before them, like
the Christian monks of the Egyptian and Syrian deserts after
them, they were formed into a religious brotherhood, fenced
about by minute and rigid rules, and carefully guarded from
any contamination with the outer world.

Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. Foreign
The idea of ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But i n Esse-
still, when we turn to the representations of Philo and Josephus, msm>
it is impossible to overlook other traits which betoken foreign
affinities. Whatever the Essenes may have been in their
origin, at the Christian era at least and in the Apostolic age
they no longer represented the current type of religious thought
and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has been
derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the
Syrians or Persians or even from the farther East ; but,
whether Greek or Oriental, its existence has until lately been
almost universally allowed.

The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his Frankel's
Zeitschrift, and continued in 1853 in his Monatsschrift, have we ii re-
given a different direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains ceived '
that Essenism was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only
Pharisaism in an exaggerated form, and that it has nothing
distinctive and owes nothing, or next to nothing, to foreign

334 THE ESSENES.

influences. To establish this point, he disparages the repre-
sentations of Philo and Josephus as coloured to suit the tastes
of their heathen readers, while in their place he brings forward
as authorities a number of passages from talmudical and
rabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to this sect.
In this view he is followed implicitly by some later writers, and
has largely influenced the opinions of others ; while nearly all
speak of his investigations as throwing great light on the
subject.

but It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has

less and found so much favour ; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess

my belief that, whatever value Frankel's investigations may
have as contributions to our knowledge of Jewish religious
thought and practice, they throw little or no light on the
Essenes specially ; and that the blind acceptance of his results
by later writers has greatly obscured the distinctive features of
this sect. I cannot but think that any one, who will investigate
Frankel's references and test his results step by step, will arrive
at the conclusion to which I myself have been led, that his
talmudical researches have left our knowledge of this sect where
it was before, and that we must still refer to Josephus and
Philo for any precise information respecting them.
His double Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He

derivation J f J

of the supposes that 'Eo-orato?, Eo-0-??i>o9, represent two different

Hebrew words, the former Ton chasld, the latter y^ tsanuat,

both clothed in suitable Greek dresses 1 . Wherever therefore
either of these words occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct
reference to the Essenes.

Fatal ob- j^ i s no t too m uch to say that these etymologies are

it. impossible; and this for several reasons. (1) The two words

'Ecro-ato9, 'Eo-o-??i/o9, are plainly duplicate forms of the same

Hebrew or Aramaic original, like Sa/^aio? and

1 Zeitschrift p. 449 'Fur Esscier liegt, Low im Orient, das Hebr. yiJ nahe' ;

wie schon von anderen Seiten bemerkt see also pp. 454, 455 ; Monatsschrift

\vurde, das Hebr. TOPI, fiir Essener, p. 32.
nach einer Bemerkung des Herrn L.

THE ESSENES. 335

(Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40, 47, 127, and even ^a^ir^ p. 46),
Nafcopato? and Na&pTjvos, TiTralos and TiTryvos (Steph. Byz.
s. v., Hippol. Haer. vi. 7), with which we may compare ~Bo<rTpaios
and BoaTprjvos, MeXmuo? and MeTur^z^and numberless other
examples. (2) Again ; when we consider either word singly, the
derivation offered is attended with the most serious difficulties.
There is no reason why in 'Eacrcuo? the d should have dis-
appeared from chasid, while it is hardly possible to conceive
that tsanuat should have taken such an incongruous form as
5 Ecre7?7z/o9. (3) And lastly; the more important of the two
words, chasid, had already a recognised Greek equivalent in
'Ac-i&wos; and it seems highly improbable that a form so
divergent as 'Eo-crato? should have taken its place.

Indeed Frankel's derivations are generally, if not universally, Depend-
abandoned by later writers ; and yet these same writers repeat the theory
his quotations and accept his results, as if the references were j^-
equally valid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. tion -
They seem to be satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even
when the foundation is undermined. Thus for instance Gratz
not only maintains after Frankel that the Essenes ' were
properly nothing more than stationary or, more strictly speaking,
logically consistent (consequente) Chasidim! and * that therefore
they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that they can
be regarded as a separate sect,' and 'accepts entirely these
results ' which, as he says, ' rest on critical investigation ' (in.
p. 463), but even boldly translates chasiduth ' the Essene mode
of life ' (ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly different
derivation of the word ' Essene,' making it signify ' washers ' or
' baptists ' (see above, p. 327). And even those who do not go
to this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the
passages where chasid occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes,
while distinctly repudiating the etymology 1 .

But, although 'Eo-crao? or 'E<ro-7?i>o9 is not a Greek form of The term

chasid

1 e.g. Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg Essene from &ODN ' a physician.'
pp. 166, 461 sq.), who both derive

336 THE ESSENES.

not ap- chasid, it might still happen that this word was applied to them
specially as an epithet, though not as a proper name. Only in this case
Essenes. ^ e reference ought to be unmistakeable, before any conclusions
are based upon it. But in fact, after going through all the
passages, which Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied
that in a single instance there is a direct allusion to the
Essenes. Sometimes the word seems to refer to the old sect of
the Chasidim or Asidwans, as for instance when Jose ben Joezer,
who lived during the Maccabsean war, is called a chasid 1 . At
all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man,
for he is stated to have disinherited his children (Baba Bathra
133 b) ; and therefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter
order of Essenes. Sometimes it is employed quite generally to
denote pious observers of the ceremonial law, as for instance
when it is said that with the death of certain famous teachers
the Chasidim ceased 2 . In this latter sense the expression
D^ltP&on DH'DPI, ' the ancient or primitive Chasidim ' (Monatsschr.
pp. 31, 62), is perhaps used; for these primitive Chasidim again
are mentioned as having wives and children 3 , and it appears also
that they were scrupulously exact in bringing their sacrificial
offerings 4 . Thus it is impossible to identify them with the
Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. Even in those
passages of which most has been made, the reference is more
than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of
R. Joshua ben Chananiah in Mishna Sotah iii. 4, ' The foolish
chasid and the clever villain (any jflm nmp TDn), etc., are the
ruin of the world.' But the connexion points to a much more
general meaning of chasid, and the rendering in Surenhuis,
'Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,' gives the
correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more

1 Mishna Chagigah ii. 7 ; Zeitsclir. sq. ; see below, p. 340.

p. 454, Monatsschr. pp. 33, 62. See 3 Niddah 38 a; see Lowy s.v. Es-

Frankel's own account of this E. Jose saer.

in an earlier volume, Monatsschr. i. 4 Mishna Kerithuth vi. 3, Nedarim

p. 405 sq. 10 a ; see Monatsschr. p. 65.

2 Zeitschr. p. 457, Monatsschr. p. 69

THE ESSENES. 337

mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is
true that the Gemaras illustrate the expression by examples of
those who allow an over-punctilious regard for external forms to
stand in the way of deeds of mercy. And perhaps rightly. But
there is no reference to any distinctive Essene practices in the
illustrations given. Again ; the saying in Mishna Pirke Aboth
v. 10, 'He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a]
chasid (Ton i?V -j^l $& 'bv)! is quoted by several writers as
though it referred to the Essene community of goods 1 . But in
the first place the idea of community of goods would require,
' Mine is thine and thine is mine ' : and in the second place, the
whole context, and especially the clause which immediately
follows (and which these writers do not give), 'He who says
Thine is mine and mine is mine is wicked (yen)/ show plainly
that TDn must be taken in its general sense 'pious/ and the
whole expression implies not reciprocal interchange but in-
dividual self-denial.

It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel's plea, Possible
that supposing the true etymology of the word 'Eo-omos, of
'E0-en?z/o5, to be the Syriac reLaoj*, reLjdtojj, ctise, chasyo (a
possible derivation), chasid might have been its Hebrew
equivalent as being similar in sound and meaning, and perhaps
ultimately connected in derivation, the exactly corresponding

i Thus Gratz (in. p. 81) speaking of clause ' ' The Chassid must have no

the community of goods among the P**^ of his own ' but must tr * at

Essenes writes, 'From this view springs & as belonging to the Society (TO

the proverb; Every Chassid says; Mine TDP1 *hw *(& 1^).' At least, as he

and thine belong to thee (not me) ' thus gives no reference, I suppose that he

giving a turn to the expression which refers to the same passage. This very

in its original connexion it does not expression 'mine is thine and thine is

at all justify. Of the existence of such mine ' does indeed occur previously in

a proverb I have found no traces. It the same section, but it is applied as a

certainly is not suggested in the pas- formula of disparagement to the .am

sage of Pirke Aboth. Later in the haarets (see below, p. 345), who expect

volume (p. 467) Gratz tacitly alters to receive again as much as they give,

the words to make them express, as he In this loose way Gratz treats the

supposes, reciprocation or community whole subject. Keim (p. 294) quotes

of goods, substituting ' Thine is mine ' the passage correctly, but refers it

for 'Thine is thine' in the second nevertheless to Essene communism.

L. 22

338 THE ESSENES.

triliteral root KDn (comp. Din) not being in use in Hebrew 1 .
But before we accept this explanation we have a right to
demand some evidence which, if not demonstrative, is at least
circumstantial, that chasid is used of the Essenes : and this we
have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had
thus inherited the name of the Chasidim, we should have
expected that its old Greek equivalent 'Ao-t8a<M, which is
still used later than the Maccabsean era, would also have gone
with it; rather than that a new Greek word 'Eo-omo? (or
'Eo-o-^o'?) should have been invented to take its place. But
indeed the Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an
argument against this convertibility of the Hebrew chasid and
the Syriac chasyo, which must be regarded as almost decisive.
Usage is The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the expressions
abl^to 111 'My ckasidim,' 'His chasidim* occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24, xxxvii.
this view. 28, Hi. 11, Ixxix. 2, Ixxxv. 9, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 15, cxxxii. 9, cxlix. 9 :
comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5), seem to have suggested the assump-
tion of the name to the original Asidseans. But in such passages
Ton is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshitc-
not by Kite**, r^L*&u>, but by a wholly different word jau.i\
zadlk. And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac
rendering for the name 'AcriSaloi,, Chasidim, is a word derived
from another quite distinct root. These facts show that the
Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo were not practically
equivalents, so that the one would suggest the other; and
thus all presumption in favour of a connexion between 'AcriSaio?
and 'E<7<raM><? is removed.

Frankel's Frankel's other derivation ym, tsanuat, suggested as an
derivation equivalent to '0-0-771/09, has found no favour with later writers,
tsanua t an( j j n( j ee( j j s too f ar re moved from the Greek form to be

consider- .

ed. tenable. Nor do the passages quoted by him 2 require or

suggest any allusion to this sect. Thus in Mishna Demai, vi. 6,

1 This is Hitzig's view (Geschichte Essenes means exactly the same as

des Volkes Israel p. 427). He main- 'Hasidim.'"

tains that "they were called 'Hasidim* 2 Zeitschr. pp. 455, 457; Monatsschr.

by the later Jews because the Syrian p. 32.

THE ESSENES. 339

we are told that the school of Hillel permits a certain license in
a particular matter, but it is added, ' The >yu* of the school of
Hillel followed the precept of the school of Shammai.' Here,
as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem Talmud knows
nothing about Essenes, but explains the word by >-R$o, i.e.
'upright, worthy 1 '; while elsewhere, as he allows 2 , it must
have this general sense. Indeed the mention of the 'school
of Hillel' here seems to exclude the Essenes. In its compre-
hensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the
other passage quoted by Frankel, Kiddushin 71 a, where it is
stated that the pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly
was known to all, is now only to be divulged to the DW, i.e.
the discreet, among the priests ; and in fact it occurs in refer-
ence to the communication of the same mystery in the
immediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated
as a proper name ; VD* 'ni TD1JN 1 W yw8?, ' who is discreet
and meek and has reached middle age,' etc.

Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, and Other sup-
through which it might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned
by name in the Talmud, &ODK asya, ' a physician,' is the one ^ a
which has found most favour. For the reasons given above (1)
(p. 328) this derivation seems highly improbable, and the C ian/ S1
passages quoted are quite insufficient to overcome the objections.
Of these the strongest is in the Talm. Jerus. Yoma iii. 7, where
we are told that a certain physician (*DK) offered to communicate
the sacred name to R. Pinchas the son of Chama, and the not sup-
latter refused on the ground that he ate of the tithes this the pas- y
being regarded as a disqualification, apparently because it was 8 ^Jj^ d in
inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial purity 3 . its behalf.
The same story is told with some modifications in Midrash
Qoheleth iii. II 4 . Here Frankel, though himself (as we have
seen) adopting a different derivation of the word ' Essene,' yet
supposes that this particular physician belonged to the sect,

1 Monatsschr. p. 32. Derenbourg p. 170 sq.

2 Zeitschr. p. 455. 4 g ee L5 wy Krit.-Talm. Lex. s. v.

3 Frankel Monatsschr. p. 71 : comp. Essaer.

222

340 THE ESSENES.

on the sole ground that ceremonial purity is represented as a
qualification for the initiation into the mystery of the Sacred
Name. Lowy (1. c.) denies that the allusion to the tithes is
rightly interpreted : but even supposing it to be correct, the
passage is quite an inadequate basis either for Frankel's con-
clusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or for the
derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again,
in the statement of Talm. Jerus. Kethuboth ii. 3, that correct
manuscripts were called books of ^DK 1 , the word Asi is generally
taken as a proper name. But even if this interpretation be
false, there is absolutely nothing in the context which suggests
any allusion to the Essenes 2 . In like manner the passage from
Sanhedrin 99 6, where a physician is mentioned 3 , supports no
such inference. Indeed, as this last passage relates to the
family of the Asi, he obviously can have had no connexion
with the celibate Essenes.

(2) tasah Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been
unsuccessful. One possibility however still remains. The
talmudical writers speak of certain nKTO *BOK 'men of deeds';
and if (as some suppose) the name Essene is derived from nc7
have we not here the mention which we are seeking ? Frankel
rejects the etymology, but presses the identification 4 . The
expression, he urges, is often used in connexion with chasidim.
It signifies ' miracle workers/ and therefore aptly describes the
supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the Essenes 5 .
Thus we are informed in Mishna Sotah ix. 15, that ' When
R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased ; when

1 Urged in favour of this derivation Polyb. xxxi. 6. 5 owe e&<j>aive rty eavrrjs
by Herzfeld n. p. 398. yv^^v dXXo, ewerr/pei Trap' eavr-rj), is

2 The oath taken by the Essenes also the meaning suggested here by
(Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7) ffvvrrip^ffeiv... the context.

ra TT)S alptffcws avr&v ptp\ia can have 3 The passage is adduced in support

nothing to do with accuracy in tran- of this derivation by Derenbourg p.

scribing copies, as Herzfeld (n. pp. 175.

398, 407) seems to think. The natural 4 See Zeitschr. p. 438, Monatsschr.

meaning of ffvvTrjpelv, 'to keep safe or pp. 68 70.

close ' and so ' not to divulge ' (e.g. 5 See above, p. 330.

THE ESSENES. 341

R. Jose Ketinta died, the chasidim ceased/ In the Jerusalem
Talmud however this mishna is read, 'With the death of
R. Chaninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the chasidim
ceased'; while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to
have been one of the n^yo B>:K- Thus, Frankel concludes, 'the
identity of these with D^TDn becomes still more plain.' Now it
seems clear that this expression nKtyD W2X in some places cannot
refer to miraculous powers, but must mean ' men of practical
goodness,' as for instance in Succah 51 a, 53 a ; and being a
general term expressive of moral excellence, it is naturally
connected with chasidim, which is likewise a general term
expressive of piety and goodness. Nor is there any reason
why it should not always be taken in this sense. It is true
that stories are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which
ascribe miraculous powers to him 1 , and hence there is a
temptation to translate it ' wonder-worker,' as applied to him.
But the reason is quite insufficient. Moreover it must be
observed that R. Chaninah's wife is a prominent person in the
legends of his miracles reported in Taanith 24 b ; and thus we
need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of newo 'SWK,
since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at the
outset by this fact 2 .

It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one
very ancient Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation,
and as distinctly states that the Essenes were a class of
Pharisees 3 . If this were the case, Frankel's theory, though
not his etymology, would receive a striking confirmation: and
it is therefore important to enquire on what foundation the
assertion rests.

Dr Ginsburg's authority for this statement is a passage The au-
thority

1 Taanith 24 b, Yoma 53 b; see Su- who married (see Colossians p. 83): be-
renhuis Mishna in. p. 313. cause the identification is meaningless

2 In this and similar cases it is un- unless the strict order were intended,
necessary to consider whether the per- 3 Ginsburg in Kitto's Cyclopedia
sons mentioned might have belonged s.v., i. p. 829: comp. Essenes pp. 22,
to those looser disciples of Essenism, 28.

342 THE ESSENES.

for this from the A loth of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives

derivation ., . .

traced to ^ appears conclusive; 'There are eight kinds of Pharisees...

" or- and those Pharisees who live in celibacy are Essenes.' But
what are the facts of the case ? First ; This book was cer-
tainly not written by its reputed author, the R. Nathan who
was vice-president under the younger Gamaliel about A.D. 140.
It may possibly have been founded on an earlier treatise by
that famous teacher, though even this is very doubtful: but
in its present form it is a comparatively modern work. On
this point all or almost all recent writers on Hebrew literature
are agreed 1 . Secondly ; Dr Ginsburg has taken the reading
"ox^y inainiD, without even mentioning any alternative. Whe-
ther the words so read are capable of the meaning which he has
assigned to them, may be highly questionable ; but at all events
this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel
passages, Babl. Sotah fol. 22 6, Jerus. Sotah v. 5, Jerus. Bera-
khoth, ix. 5, (quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. {pna), distinctly
prove. In Babl. Sotah 1. c., the corresponding expression is
fttB>yjo VUin nD 'What is my duty, and I will do it,' and the
passage in Jerus. Berakhoth 1. c. is to the same effect. These
parallels show that the reading n:cwi *roin n& must be taken
also in Aboth c. 37, so that the passage will be rendered, 'The
Pharisee who says, What is my duty, and I will do it.' Thus
the Essenes and celibacy disappear together. Lastly; Inas-
much as Dr Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of
the name Essene, connecting it either with fn 'an apron,' or
with fcODn ' pious 2 ,' it is difficult to see how he could translate
rDNK>y 'Essene' (from NK>y 'to do') in this passage, except on
the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely ignorant of the
orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such
ignorance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his authority
on this question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed

1 e.g. Geiger Zeitschrift f. JiidiscJie col. 2032 sq. These two last references

Theologie vi. p. 20 sq. ; Zunz Gottes- are given by Dr Ginsburg himself.
diewtliche Vortrage p. 108 sq. : comp. 2 Essenes p. 30 ; comp. Kitto's Cy-

Stein Schneider Catal. Heb. Bibl. Bodl. clopcedia, s.v. Essenes.

THE ESSENES. 343

Dr Ginsburg would appear to have adopted this reference to
K. Nathan, with the reading of the passage and the interpre-
tation of the name, from some other writer 1 . At all events
it is quite inconsistent with his own opinion as expressed pre-
viously.

But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct A the
mention of this sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identi- alluded to,
iications of the word Essene with diverse expressions occurring
there have failed us on examination, it might still happen that
allusions to them were so frequent as to leave no doubt about
the persons meant. Their organisation or their practices or
their tenets might be precisely described, though their name
was suppressed. Such allusions Frankel finds scattered up and
down the Talmud in great profusion.

(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the aonn ch&bura ( l ) The

chaber

or ' Society,' which is mentioned several times in talmudical or Asso-
writers 2 . The chaber ("inn) or ' Associate ' is, he supposes, a C1<
member of this brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the
word cannot always have this sense, but still he considers this
to be a common designation of the Essenes. The chaber was
bound to observe certain rules of ceremonial purity, and a period
of probation was imposed upon him before he was admitted.
With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna Chagigah
ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of ceremonial purity are specified.
Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of
the statement in Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes
were divided into four different grades or orders according to
the time of their continuance in the ascetic practices demanded
by the sect.

But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect A passage
to the chaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the gigah con
passage of Chagigah. It simply contemplates different degrees S1

1 It is given by Landsberg in the out to me by a friend.
Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums 2 Zeitschr. p. 450 sq., Monatsschr.
1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed pp. 31, 70.

344

THE ESSENES.

of purification as qualifying for the performance of certain
Levitical rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication
that these lustrations are more than temporary and immediate
in their application ; and not the faintest hint is given of dis-
tinct orders of men, each separated from the other by formal
barriers and each demanding a period of probation before
admission from the order below, as was the case with the
grades of the Essene brotherhood described by Josephus.
Moreover the orders in Josephus are four in number 1 , while
the degrees of ceremonial purity in Ghagigah are five. Frankel
indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are in-
tended in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to
the plain sense of the passage. But, even if he should be
obliged to grant that the number of degrees is five 2 , he will
not surrender the allusion to the Essenes, but meets the
difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there
was a fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes, to

1 As the notices in Josephns (B. J.
ii. 8) relating to this point have been
frequently misunderstood, it may be
well once for all to explain his mean-
ing. The grades of the Essene order
are mentioned in two separate notices,
apparently, though not really, discord-
ant. (1) In 10 he says that they are
'divided into four sections according
to the duration of their discipline '
(dLripyvTai Kara XP^ VOV T W ciffK^ffeus
els fj.oipas T&r<rapas), adding that the
older members are considered to be
denied by contact with the younger,
i. e. each superior grade by contact
with the inferior. So far his meaning
is clear. (2) In 7 he states that one
who is anxious to become a member of
the sect undergoes a year's probation,
submitting to discipline but 'remain-
ing outside.' Then, 'after he has given
evidence of his perseverance (/xerd TT?J>
rfjs Kaprepias tiri8eitv), his character
is tested for two years more ; and, if
found worthy, he is accordingly ad-

mitted into the society.' A comparison
with the other passage shows that
these two years comprise the period
spent in the second and third grades,
each extending over a year. After
passing through these three stages in
three successive years, he enters upon
the fourth and highest grade, thus
becoming a perfect member.

It is stated by Dr Ginsburg (Essenes
p. 12 sq., comp. Kitto's Cyclopcsdia
s.v. p. 828) that the Essenes passed
through eight stages ' from the begin-
ning of the noviciate to the achieve-
ment of the highest spiritual state/
this last stage qualifying them, like
Elias, to be forerunners of the Mes-
siah. But it is a pure hypothesis that
the Talmudical notices thus combined
have anything to do with the Essenes ;
and, as I shall have occasion to point
out afterwards, there is no ground for
ascribing to this sect any Messianic
expectations whatever.

2 Zeitschr. p. 452, note.

THE ESSENES. 345

which very few attained, and which, as I understand him, is
not mentioned by Josephus on this account. But enough has
already been said to show, that this passage in Chagigah can
have no connexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance
to Frankel's views.

As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled Difference

between
to fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask the chaber

whether these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essene.
Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this
question in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a
connexion, but they are wholly irreconcilable with the account
in the Jewish historian. This association or confraternity (if
indeed the term is applicable to an organisation so loose and so
comprehensive) was maintained for the sake of securing a more
accurate study and a better observance of the ceremonial law.
Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it,
designated by different names and presenting some difficulties 1 ,
into which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would
appear, was one who had entered upon the second or higher
stage. For this a period of a year's probation was necessary.
The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three others
who were already members of the association. This apparently
was all the formality necessary : and in the case of a teacher
even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted
with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as ex
officio a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from
ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the
haarets or common people 2 ; but he was under no external

1 The entrance into the lower grade the language of the Pharisees, Joh. vii.
was described as 'taking D*M3 ' or 49 6 6'x\os ofrros 6 ^ yivwffKwv rbv
'wings.' The meaning of this expres- v6pov eir6.pa.roi chrtv. Again in Acts
sion has been the subject of much iv. 13, where the Apostles are de-
discussion ; see e.g. Herzfeld n. p. scribed as t'StcDrcu, the expression is
390 sq., Frankel Monatsschr. p. 33 sq. equivalent to tflm haarets. See the

2 The contempt with which a chaber passages quoted in Buxtorf Lex. p.
would look down upon the vulgar herd, 1626.

the .aw haarets, finds expression in

346 THE ESSENES.

surveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity. More-
over he was, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed
whether the wives and children of an associate were not them-
selves to be regarded as associates 1 . In one passage, Sanhedrin
41 a, it is even assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman
may be an associate (man). In another (Niddah 33 6) 2 there
is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as a chaber.
An organisation so flexible as this has obviously only the most
superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of the Essene order ;
and in many points it presents a direct contrast to the charac-
teristic tenets of that sect.

(2) The (2) Having discussed Frankel's hypothesis respecting the
keneseth.' chaber, I need hardly follow his speculations on the B$ne-

hakkZneseth, nwan J3, 'sons of the congregation' (Zdbim iii. 2),
in which expression probably few would discover the reference,
which he finds, to the lowest of the Essene orders 8 .

(3) The (3) But mention is also made of a ' holy congregation ' or
gregation 1 ' assem bly ' (&*B>Hp ^np, ns?np my) ' in Jerusalem ' ; and, follow-
at Jerusa- j n g Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to

the Essenes 4 . The grounds for this identification are, that in
one passage (Berakhoth 9 6) they are mentioned in connexion
with prayer at daybreak, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth ix.
9) two persons are stated to belong to this ' holy congregation/
because they divided their day into three parts, devoting one-
third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The
first notice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice
mentioned was not so distinctively Essene as to afford any safe
ground for this hypothesis. Of the second it should be observed,
that no such division of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and
indeed both Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) and Philo (Fragm. p. 633)
describe them as working from morning till night with the

1 All these particulars and others 2 See Herzfeld u. p. 386.

may be gathered from Bekhoroth 30 6, 3 Monatsschr. p. 35.

Mishna Demai ii. 2. 3, Jems. Demai 4 Zeitschr. pp. 458, 461, Monatsschr.

ii. 3, v. 1, Tosifta Demai 2, Aboth E. pp. 32, 34.
Nathan c. 41.

THE ESSENES. 347

single interruption of their mid-day meal 1 . But in fact the
identification is beset with other and more serious difficulties.
For this 'holy congregation' at Jerusalem is mentioned long
after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian 2 , when not an
on Frankel's own showing 3 the Essene society had in all pro- confmu-
bability ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, mi J'
e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth iii. 3, vi. 1), are
represented as uttering precepts respecting animals fit for
sacrifice, though we have it on the authority of Josephus
and Philo that the Essen es avoided the temple sacrifices
altogether. The probability therefore seems to be that this
' holy congregation ' was an assemblage of devout Jews who
were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the
destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded
with peculiar reverence by the later Jews 4 .

(4) Neither can we with Frankel 5 discern any reference to (4) The
the Essenes in those ppm Vathikin, ' pious ' or ' learned ' men
(whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are
mentioned in Berakhoth 9 b as praying before sunrise ; be-
cause the word itself seems quite general, and the practice,
though enforced among the Essenes, as we know from Josephus

(B. J. ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and earnest
Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these pp'm were
not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that
they were.

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the D^pt (5) The
D^lBtOn or 'primitive elders 6 .' It may readily be granted that e
this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with Dn'DPi
D^^Nin 'the primitive chasidim'; but, as we failed to see
anything more than a general expression in the one, so we are
naturally led to take the other in the same sense. The passages

1 It is added however in Midrash 2 Monatsschr. p. 32.

Qoheleth ix. 9 ' Some say that they 3 Ib. p. 70.

(the holy congregation) devoted the 4 See Derenbourg p. 175.

whole of the winter to studying the 8 Monatsschr. p. 32.

Scriptures and the summer to work.' 6 16. pp. 32, 68.

348 THE ESSENES.

where the expression occurs (e.g. Shabbath 64 b) simply refer to
the stricter observances of early times, and do not indicate any
reference to a particular society or body of men.

(6) The (6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in
bathers.' the JVTiK> ^3B Toble-shach&rith, or 'morning-bathers/ mentioned

in Tosifta Yadayim c. 2 1 . The identity of these with the
rjfjLepofiaTTTicrTal of Greek writers seems highly probable. The
latter however, though they may have had some affinities with
Essene practices and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from
this sect wherever they are mentioned 2 . But the point to be
observed is that, even though we should identify these Toble-
shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta Yadayim, so
far from favouring, is distinctly adverse to Frankel's view which
regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees : for the two
are here represented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-
shacharith say, ' We grieve over you, Pharisees, because you
pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without having
bathed.' The Pharisees retort, ' We grieve over you, Toble-
shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in
which is impurity.'

(7) The (7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may con-

sider another name, Banalm (own), in which also Frankel
discovers an allusion to the Essenes 3 . In Mishna Mikvaoth
ix. 6 the word is opposed to in bor, 'an ignorant or stupid
person'; and this points to its proper meaning 'the builders/ i.e.
the edifiers or teachers, according to the common metaphor in
Biblical language. The word is discussed in Shabbath 114 and
explained to mean 'learned.' But, because in Mikvaoth it is
mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in
Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an 'axe and
shovel' (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and because moreover the Jewish
historian in another place (Vit. 2) mentions having spent some
time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on

1 Monatsschr. p. 67. 3 Zeitschr. p. 455.

2 See below, p. 391.

THE ESSENES. 349

vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night for the
sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been an
Essene ; therefore Frank el holds these Banaim to have been
Essenes. This is a specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which
distinguishes Frankel's learned speculations on the Essenes.
Josephus does not mention an ' axe and shovel,' but an axe Josephus
only ( 7 afyvapiov), which he afterwards defines more accu- pre ted.
rately as a spade ( 9 r$ a-Ka\li, TOLOVTOV yap ean TO Si86/J,6vov
VTT avrcov dfyviSiov rot? veoavararoi^) and which, as he dis-
tinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying
impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii. 12 14). Thus it
has no connexion whatever with any 'building' implement.
And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded
as an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this sup-
position. On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life
seems to exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter 1 .
I should add that Sachs interprets Banaim ' the bathers,' re- Another
garding the explanation in Shabbath 1. c. as a ' later accom-

modation 2 .' This seems to me very improbable ; but, if it im -
were conceded, the Banaim would then apparently be con-
nected not with the Essenes, but with the Hemerobaptists.

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how Kesults of
little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ' the
talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make
mention of them constantly 8 .' We have seen not only that no
instance of the name Essene has been produced, but that all
those passages which are supposed to refer to them under other
designations, or to describe their practices or tenets, fail us on
closer examination. In no case can we feel sure that there is
any direct reference to this sect, while in most cases such
reference seems to be excluded by the language or the atten-
dant circumstances 4 . Thus we are obliged to fall back upon the

1 See below, p. 385. 3 Monatsschr. p. 31.

2 Beitrdge n. p. 199. In this deri- 4 'The attempt to point out the Es-
vation he is followed by Gratz (in. senes in our patristic (i.e. rabbinical)
p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166). literature,' says Herzfeld truly (n.

350 THE ESSENES.

Philo and representations of Philo and Josephus. Their accounts are
ourmaki penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and explicit, if
authon- not so p rec j se or so f u \\ as we cou \& have wished. The writers
obviously consider that they are describing a distinct and ex-
ceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all
established rules of historical criticism to desert the solid
standing-ground of contemporary history for the artificial
combinations and shadowy hypotheses which Frankel would
substitute in its place.

Frankel's But here we are confronted with Frankel's depreciation of
tio^of 8 "" these ancient writers, which has been echoed by several later
them is critics. They were interested, it is argued, in making their

unreason- J t '

able, and accounts attractive to their heathen contemporaries, and they
nothing, coloured them highly for this purpose 1 . We may readily allow
that they would not be uninfluenced by such a motive, but the
concession does not touch the main points at issue. This aim
might have led Josephus, for example, to throw into bold relief
the coincidences between the Essenes and Pythagoreans ; it
might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan tinge
to the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B. J.
ii. 8. 11). But it entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of
the sect which marked them off by a sharp line from orthodox
Judaism, and which fully justify the term 'separatists' as applied
to them by a recent writer. In three main features especially
the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive character
unaffected by this consideration,
(i) The (i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation

AVOlflfLnCG

of sacri- have led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on

accounted their divergence from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of

for - sacrifices ? Yet this is perhaps the most crucial note of heresy

which is recorded of the Essenes. What was the law to the

orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the temple-worship,

the hierarchy ? Yet the Essene declined to take any part in

p. 397), 'has led to a splendid hypo- thesenjagd).'
thesis-hunt (einer stattlichen Hypo- * Monatsschr. p. 31.

THE ESSENES. 351

the sacrifices ; he had priests of his own independently of the

Levitical priesthood. On Frankel's hypothesis that Essenism

is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of

this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed

attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the

red heifer 1 , which are so obviously inadequate that they have

not been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over

in silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus The no-

is not quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though j os ephus

they send offerings (avaOrjpaTa) to the temple, they perform no
sacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater strictness sidered
as regards ceremonial purity (Bia(f)oporrjTi ayveiwv a? vopl%ot,ev\
adding that ' for this reason being excluded from the common
sanctuary (repevLcr^aTo^) they perform their sacrifices by them-
selves (e<f> avTtov ra? dvaia^ eVireXoiJcrt).' Frankel therefore
supposes that their only reason for abstaining from the temple
sacrifices was that according to their severe notions the temple
itself was profaned and therefore unfit for sacrificial worship.
But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, as well as the
sacrifices, and make them also unlawful ? And indeed, where
Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (n. p. 457) distinctly
states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the
worship of God (eV rofc /j,d\icrTa OepaTrevral <S)eo) do not
sacrifice animals (ov &>a /caraQvovres), but hold it right to
dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (aXA, 1 lepoTrpeTreis
r9 eavTwv Siavoias /caraa-fceva^etv afyovvres). Thus the
greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in
the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in itself.
And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices, his
own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be
taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their
refectory is their sanctuary ; their president is their priest 2 . It
should be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene

1 Monatsschr. 64. see also the passages quoted Colossians

2 .B. J. ii. 8. 5 Kaddirep eis dyiov TL p. 89, note 3.

Trapayivovrai ri>

352

THE ESSENES.

Their
state-
ments con-
firmed by
the doc-
trine of
Christian
Essenes.

The Cle-
mentine
Homilies
justify
this doc-
trine by
arbitrary
excision
of the
Scriptures.

apparently within the temple precincts (B. J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xiii.
11. 2) 1 , no mention is ever made of one offering sacrifices.
Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the sacrifices
which polluted the temple, and not the temple which polluted
the sacrifices. And this view is further recommended by
the fact that it alone will explain the position of their
descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the
slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those
alleged in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have
been superseded by the Atonement, but because they are in
their very nature repulsive to God; not because they have
ceased to be right, but because they never were right from the
beginning.

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be main-
tained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing
the integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial
system is so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be
rejected by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process
however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been
adopted by the Essenes 2 . As a matter of fact, it did recommend
itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of
the Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically
may be regarded as the lineal descendants of this Judaic sect 3 .
Thus in the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work which
exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is
represented as laying great stress on the duty of distinguishing
the true and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38,
51, iii. 4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying
traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ' Show yourselves approved
money-changers' (<yive<r6e rpaire^irai SOKI/JLOI), is more than

1 See below, p. 360.

2 Herzfeld (n. p. 403) is unable to
reconcile any rejection of the Old Tes-
tament Scriptures with the reverence
paid to Moses by the Essenes (B. J. ii.
8. 9, 10). The Christian Essenes how-
ever did combine both these incongru-

ous tenets by the expedient which is
explained in the text. Herzfeld him-
self suggests that allegorical interpre-
tation may have been employed to
justify this abstention from the temple
sacrifices.
3 See Galatians p. 322 sq.

THE ESSENES. 353

once quoted by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (ii. 51, iii 50,
xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all those
passages which represent God as enjoining sacrifices (iii. 45,
xviii 19). It is plain, so he argues, that God did not desire
sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the taste of
flesh in the wilderness ? and, if the slaughter of animals was
thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded
victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45) ? It is equally clear
from other considerations that this was no part of God's
genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came to
fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices
(iii. 51). And again, the saying 'I will have mercy and not
sacrifice 5 is a condemnation of this practice (iii 56). The true
prophet ' hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations' ; he ' extinguishes
the fire of altars' (iiL 26). The frenzy of the lying soothsayer
is a mere intoxication produced by the reeking fumes of
sacrifice (iii 13). When in the immediate context of these
denunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achieve-
ments of man 'to know the names of angels, to drive away
demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms ((frap/jLa/ciaw),
and to find incantations (eVaotSa?) against venomous serpents'
(iii 36) ; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false Essene
those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set
against them Christ's command ' Let your yea be yea* (iii 55) ;
we feel how thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite
Christianity is saturated with Essene ideas \

1 Epiphanins (Haer. xviii. 1, p. 38) rt> icpcwv AteraXa/i/Scb'eu' rj 6v<rideiv av-

again describes, as the account was TOVS. tycuricov yap ireirXd<r0cu raOra

handed down to him (w$ 6 efc 7)/ias cXduv TO- /Ji/3Xa Kal fjitjd^v rot/raw viro rCov

Tepi^x" X6-yos), the tenets of a Jewish -rartpuv 'yeyevTJffdat. Here we have in

sect which he calls the Nasareans avrty combination all the features which we

6t ov 7rape5<?xero TT\V Trevrdrevxov, dXXi are seeking. The cradle of this sect

<l>fjLo\6yti fxv rbv MwivAi, Kal on e5e- is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan

faro vo/Modeaiav irlffrcvcv, ot TCII/TTJV 5<* and 'the regions beyond the Jordan.'

^o-tv, dXX' trtpav. odev TO. wv TTO.VTO. He uses similar language also (xxx. 18,

TWV 'lovdcuuv 'lovSaTot 6res, p. 142) in describing the Ebionites,

ot OVK tdvov oflre ^/tt^t/xw whom he places in much the same

Xd d^e/uTov ^ rap' atfrots localities (naming Moab also), and

L. 23

354 THE ESSENES.

(ii) The (ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the

worship Essene prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices 1 . Following

of the Rapoport, he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the

not be ex- beautiful hymn of praise for the creation of light and the return

away? f day, which forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to

the present time 2 , and which seems to be enjoined in the

Mishna itself 3 ; and this view has been adopted by many

subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not

satisfied by this explanation. For he says plainly (B. J. ii. 8. 5)

that they addressed prayers to the sun 4 , and it is difficult to

suppose that he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism

into his picture ; nor indeed was there any adequate motive for

his doing so. Similarly Philo relates of the Therapeutes (Vit.

Cont. 11, II. p. 485), that they 'stand with their faces and their

whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun

is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a

happy day (evirj^epiav) and for truth and for keen vision of

reason (oj~vc07riav \oyia-fjLov).' And here again it is impossible

to overlook the confirmation which these accounts receive from

the history of certain Christian heretics deriving their descent

The Samp- from this Judaic sect. Epiphanius (Haer. xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40

saBans are

an Essene sq., 47) speaks of a sect called the Sampsseans or ' Sun-
worshippers 5 ,' as existing in his own time in Pera3a on the
borders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He
describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes (i.e. Essenes), who
have accepted a spurious form of Christianity and are neither
Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity which they
adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended revelation of
the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of Trajan 6 .
Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms Sampssean,

whose Essene features are unmistake- 2 See Ginsburg Essenes p. 69 sq.

able : otfre y&p 5^x" rat T V mrf&w&0 3 Berakhoth i. 4 ; see Derenbourg,

MwuWws 6\f]V d\\d TWO. pi^uara airo- p. 169 sq.

pd\\ov<nv. tirav dt atfrots efrr^s irepi 4 See Colossians p. 87, note 1.

faWxuv pptivew K.T.X. These parallels 6 See Colossians p. 88.

will speak for themselves. 6 See above, p. 80 sq., and below,

i Zeitschr. p. 458. p. 392.

THE ESSENES. 355

Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (napa rot?
Kal 'Q<T(77}voi<i KOI 'EX/te<7<7cu'o9 Ka\ovfj,evoi<$). Now we happen
to know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from
Epiphanius himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq., xxx. 17, p. 141), but
also from Hippolytus (Haer. ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at

considerable length. From these accounts it appears that the as appears

from their
principal feature in the book was the injunction of frequent sacred

bathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. Haer. ix. 13, 15 sq.).

We are likewise told that it 'anathematizes immolations and
sacrifices (Overlap Kal lepovpyias) as being alien to God and
certainly not offered to God by tradition from (e/e) the fathers
and the law/ while at the same time it ' says that men ought to
pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices
(were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists
among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar
and the fire, as being alien to God' (Epiph. Haer. xix. 3, p. 42).
Notwithstanding, we are informed that the sect retained the Its Essene
rite of circumcision, the observance of the sabbath, and other ties. *
practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp. Haer. ix. 14 ; Epiph. Haer.
xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency is
explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (1. c.) that they
treated the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasarseans 1 ;
that is, they submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision,
as recommended in the Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected
as falsifications all statements which did not square with their
own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites as
studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and
incantations on the sick and the demoniacs ( 14). Moreover
in two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification,
which this father has extracted from the book, invocation is
made to 'the holy spirits and the angels of prayer' ( 15, comp.
Epiph. Haer. xix. 1). It should be added that the word
Elchasai probably signifies the 'hidden power' 2 ; while the book

1 See above, p. 352, note 2.

3 See above, p. 81, note 2. For another derivation see below, p. 393, note 1.

232

356 THE ESSENES.

itself directed that its mysteries should be guarded as precious
pearls, and should not be communicated to the world at large,
but only to the faithful few (Hipp. Haer. ix. 15, 17). It is
hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene
features which are here combined 1 . I would only remark that
the value of the notice is not at all diminished, but rather
enhanced, by the uncritical character of Epiphanius' work ; for
this very fact prevents us from ascribing the coincidences, which
here reveal themselves, to this father's own invention.

In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which

has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the

admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the

Doubtful Essenes to be called Sampsseans ? What was the original

bearing of

this Sun- meaning of this outward reverence which they paid to the sun ?

ap * Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine illumination,

just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the centre

of all light (e. g. de Somn. i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even calls

the heavenly bodies ' visible and sensible gods ' (de Mund. Op. 7,

I. p. 6) 2 ? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal

element in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a

The suggestion of a recent writer 8 ? Whatever may have been the

repugnant m tive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to the spirit

to Jewish o f orthodox Judaism. In Ezek. viii. 16 it is denounced as an

abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship

the sun ; and accordingly in Berakhoih 7 a a saying of K. Meir

is reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun appears

and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves

before this luminary 4 . We cannot fail therefore to recognise

1 Celibacy however is not one of milies.

these : comp. Epiphan. Haer. xix. i (p. 2 The important place which the

40) dTrexfldvercu S ry irapdevlq., fuvei heavenly bodies held in the system

5 TT]j> eyKpdreiav, dvayKdfa St yd/wv. of Philo, who regarded them as ani-

In this respect they departed from the mated beings, may be seen from

original principles of Essenism, alleg- Gfrorer's Philo i. p. 349 sq.

ing, as it would appear, a special reve- 3 Keim i. p. 289.

lation (cbs 5fj8ev dTOKaXi^ews) in Justin- 4 See Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl.

cation. In like manner marriage is Talm. i. pp. 18, 20.
commended in the Clementine Ho-

THE ESSENES. 357

the action of some foreign influence in this Essene practice
whether Greek or Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider
hereafter.

(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and (iii) The
rabbinical notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the tion of
practices of this sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity JJJj*|^ e

between the Essenes and the Pharisees. The nearest resem- counted

for.
blance, which Frankel can produce, to any approximation in

this respect is an injunction in Mishna Kethuboth v. 8 respect-
ing the duties of the husband in providing for the wife in case
of his separating from her, and this he ascribes to Essene
influences 1 ; but this mishna does not express any approval of
such a separation. The direction seems to be framed entirely
in the interests of the wife : nor can I see that it is at all in-
consistent, as Frankel urges, with Mishna Kethuboih vii. 1 which
allows her to claim a divorce under such circumstances. But
however this may be, Essene and Pharisaic opinion stand gene-
rally in the sharpest contrast to each other with respect to
marriage. The talmudic writings teem with passages implying
not only the superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty, of
marriage. The words 'Be fruitful and multiply* (Gen. i. 28)
were regarded not merely as a promise, but as a command which
was binding on all. It is a maxim of the Talmud that ' Any
Jew who has not a wife is no man ' (DIX WN), Tebamoth 63 a.
The fact indeed is so patent, that any accumulation of examples
would be superfluous, and I shall content myself with referring
to Pesachim 113 a, 6, as fairly illustrating the doctrine of ortho-
dox Judaism on this point 2 . As this question affects the whole
framework not only of religious, but also of social life, the

1 Monatsschr. p. 37. tbv etf/*o/>0oj> ru I8&v bnOvivfyry afrrrjs

2 Justin Martyr more than once K.T.X., ib. 141, p. 371 A, B, birolov
taunts the Jewish rabbis with their irpdrrova-uf ol airb rov ytvovs v/u.uv &v-
reckless encouragement of polygamy. epuiroi, /caret Trurav yyv tvda &v tiridTj-
See Dial. 134, p. 363 D ; rots dtrw^rois iid\awnv % Trpoa-irefJuftdSjaiv &y6fivot 6v6-
KCU rv0Xoij 5i5a07C<Xots vfj,wv, ofr-tpes /cat /iart y&fjutv yvvatKas /c.r.X., with Otto's

v v Kal rfoffapas Kal irtvre $x flv note on the first passage.
yvvaiKas ^Kaffrov <rvyx<>pov<ri' Kal

358 THE ESSENES.

antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter

so vital could not be overlooked.

(iv) The (iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and

practice incantations which are so prominent in the practice of the

Essenes would, as a rule, have been received with any favour
difficulty, by the Pharisaic Jew. In Mishna Pesachim iv. 9 (comp.
Berakhoth 10 b) it is mentioned with approval that Hezekiah
put away a ' book of healings ' ; where doubtless the author of
the tradition had in view some volume of charms ascribed to
Solomon, like those which apparently formed part of the
esoteric literature of the Essenes 1 . In the same spirit in
Mishna Sanhedrin xi. 1 B. Akiba shuts out from the hope of
eternal life any 'who read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps,
apocryphal) books, and who mutter over a wound' the words
of Exod. xv. 26. On this point of difference however no great
stress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the
orthodox Jews set themselves steadfastly against the introduc-
tion of magic, they were unable to resist the inpouring tide
of superstition. In the middle of the second century Justin
Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among the Jews, as
though they were neither few nor obscure 2 . Whether these
were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices
had by this time spread throughout the whole body, it is
impossible to say ; but the fact of their existence prevents us
from founding an argument on the use of magic, as an abso-
lutely distinctive feature of Essenism.

General Other divergences also have been enumerated 3 ; but, as

these do not for the most part involve any great principles,
and refer only to practical details in which much fluctuation
was possible, they cannot under any circumstances be taken as
crucial tests, and I have not thought it worth while to discuss
them. But the antagonisms on which I have dwelt will tell
their own tale. Jn three respects more especially, in the avoid-

1 See Colossians p. 91, note 2. %0rn, xp&pw 01 tfrpKlfovffi nal

2 Dial. 85, p. 311 c, -fidy IMVTOL ol t Kal Ka.radtfffji.ois xpuvrai.

eiropKiffTol ry r^x v Vt uffirep ical rd 3 Herzfeld n. p. 392 sq.

THE ESSENES. 359

ance of marriage, in the abstention from the temple sacrifices,
and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in the
outward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is
an impassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees. No
known influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will
serve to account for the position of the Essenes in these respects ;
and we are obliged to look elsewhere for an explanation.

It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and Frankel
others failed to discover in the talmudical writings a single i n esta-

reference to the Essenes, which is at once direct and indis-
putable. It has now appeared that they have also failed (and
this is the really important point) in showing that the ideas
and practices generally considered characteristic of the Essenes
are recognised and incorporated in these representative books
of Jewish orthodoxy; and thus the hypothesis that Essenism
was merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of pure Judaism
falls to the ground.

Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and Affinities

between
by those who have anticipated or followed him. But these are Essenes

exactly such as we might have expected. Two distinct features g^g C0 n"

combine to make up the portrait of the Essene. The Judaic J* 16 ^ * .

the Judaic

element is quite as prominent in this sect as the non-Judaic, side.
It could not be more strongly emphasized than in the descrip-
tion given by Josephus himself. In everything therefore which
relates to the strictly Judaic side of their tenets and practices,
we should expect to discover not only affinities, but even close
affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic authorities. And this is
exactly what, as a matter of fact, we do find. The Essene
rules respecting the observance of the sabbath, the rites of
lustration, and the like, have often very exact parallels in the
writings of more orthodox Judaism. But I have not thought
it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because they may
well be taken for granted, and my immediate purpose did not
require me to emphasize them.

And again; it must be remembered that the separation

360 THE ESSENES.

The di- between Pharisee and Essene cannot always have been so great
of the"* as it appears in the Apostolic age. Both sects apparently arose
out of one great movement, of which the motive was the avoid-

Pharisees ance of pollution 1 . The divergence therefore must have been
gradual. At the same time, it does not seem a very profitable
task to write a hypothetical history of the growth of Essenism,
where the data are wanting; and I shall therefore abstain from
the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been deterred by this
difficulty; but he has been obliged to assume his data by
postulating that such and such a person, of whom notices
are preserved, was an Essene, and thence inferring the character
of Essenism at the period in question from his recorded sayings
or doings. But without attempting any such reconstruction
of history, we may fairly allow that there must have been a
gradual development; and consequently in the earlier stages
of its growth we should not expect to find that sharp antagonism
between the two sects, which the principles of the Essenes when
Hence the fully matured would involve. If therefore it should be shown
of their 1 * 7 that tne talmudical and rabbinical writings here and there
m^hele 8 P reserve w ^h a PP r( >val the sayings of certain Essenes, this fact
cords of would present no difficulty. At present however no decisive
Judaism! example has been produced; and the discoveries of Jellinek
for instance 2 , who traces the influence of this sect in almost
every page of Pirke Aboth, can only be regarded as another
illustration of the extravagance with which the whole subject
has been treated by a large section of modern Jewish writers.
More to the point is a notice of an earlier Essene preserved in
Josephus himself. We learn from this historian that one
Judas, a member of the sect, who had prophesied the death
of Antigonus, saw this prince ' passing by through the temple 8 ,'

1 See Colossians p. 91 sq. but the less precise notice must be

2 Orient 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553. interpreted by the more precise. Even
8 B. J. i. 3. 5 Trapibvra did. TOV iepov. then however it is not directly stated

In the parallel narrative, Ant. xii. that Judas himself was within the

11. 2, the expression is irapidvra rb temple
iepbv, which does not imply so much ;

THE ESSENES. 361

when his prophecy was on the point of fulfilment (about B.C. 110).
At this moment Judas is represented as sitting in the midst
of his disciples, instructing them in the science of prediction.
The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was
actually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would
appear not only as mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews,
but also as frequenting the national sanctuary. But even
supposing this to be the right explanation of the passage,
it will not present any serious difficulty. Even at a later date,
when (as we may suppose) the principles of the sect had
stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were directed, if I have
rightly interpreted the account of Josephus, rather against
the sacrifices than against the locality 1 . The temple itself,
independently of its accompaniments, would not suggest any
offence to his conscience.

Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here The appro-
maintained, that the Essenes are regarded with so much j ilo an( j
sympathy by Philo and Josephus themselves. Even though fg 08 ^^ 8
the purity of Judaism might have been somewhat sullied in dence of
this sect by the admixture of foreign elements, this fact would doxy,
attract rather than repel an eclectic like Philo, and a latitudi-
narian like Josephus. The former, as an Alexandrian, absorbed
into his system many and diverse elements of heathen philo-
sophy, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though
professedly a Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating
himself with his heathen conquerors, and would not be un-
willing to gratify their curiosity respecting a society with whose
fame, as we infer from the notice of Pliny, they were already
acquainted.

But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it What was
from Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were elemenUn
these foreign influences derived? From the philosophers f Essenism?
Greece or from the religious mystics of the East? On this
point recent writers are divided.

1 See Colossians p. 89, and above, p. 350 sq.

362 THE ESSENES.

Theory of Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect
gorean in- t Greece, regard it as an offshoot of the Neopythagorean
fluence. School grafted on the stem of Judaism. This solution is
suggested by the statement of Josephus, that 'they practise
the mode of life which among the Greeks was introduced
(KaTaSeSeiy/jLevy) by Pythagoras 1 .' It is thought to be con-
firmed by the strong resemblances which as a matter of fact
are found to exist between the institutions and practices of the
two.

Statement This theory, which is maintained also by other writers, as
theory by for instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and
er * most persistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels
with great force and precision. ' The Essenes,' he writes, ' like
the Pythagoreans, desire to attain a higher sanctity by an
ascetic life ; and the abstentions, which they impose on them-
selves for this end, are the same with both. They reject animal
food and bloody sacrifices; they avoid wine, warm baths, and
oil for anointing ; they set a high value on celibate life : or, so
far as they allow marriage, they require that it be restricted
to the one object of procreating children. Both wear only
white garments and consider linen purer than wool. Washings
and purifications are prescribed by both, though for the Essenes
they have a yet higher significance as religious acts. Both
prohibit oaths and (what is more) on the same grounds. Both
find their social ideal in those institutions, which indeed the
Essenes alone set themselves to realise in a corporate life
with entire community of goods, in sharply defined orders of
rank, in the unconditional submission of all the members to
their superiors, in a society carefully barred from without,
into which new members are received only after a severe
probation of several years, and from which the unworthy are
inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation, both
desire to maintain a traditional doctrine inviolable; both pay
the highest respect to the men from whom it was derived, as

1 Ant. xv. 10. 4.

THE ESSENES. 363

instruments of the deity : yet both also love figurative clothing
for their doctrines, and treat the old traditions as symbols of
deeper truths, which they must extract from them by means
of allegorical explanation. In order to prove the later form
of teaching original, newly-composed writings were unhesi-
tatingly forged by the one as by the other, and fathered upon
illustrious names of the past. Both parties pay honour to
divine powers in the elements, both invoke the rising sun,
both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and
with this view give special directions, in which they agree as
well with each other as with older Greek superstition, in a
remarkable way. For both the belief in intermediate beings
between God and the world has an importance which is higher
in proportion as their own conception of God is purer; both
appear not to have disdained magic ; yet both regard the gift
of prophecy as the highest fruit of wisdom and piety, which
they pique themselves on possessing in their most distinguished
members. Finally, both agree (along with the dualistic charac-
ter of their whole conception of the world...) in their tenets
respecting the origin of the soul, its relation to the body, and
the life after death 1 ...'

This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully Absence of
marshalled might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer pythago-
examination detracts from its value. In the first place the two ^el/in"
distinctive characteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are the
wanting to the Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in
the transmigration of souls ; and the doctrine of numbers, at
least so far as our information goes, had no place in their
system. Yet these constitute the very essence of the Pytha-
gorean teaching. In the next place several of the coincidences
are more apparent than real. Thus for instance the demons The coin-
who in the Pythagorean system held an intermediate place arg 6 ^ 668
between the Supreme God and man, and were the result of a some cases
compromise between polytheism and philosophy, have no near parent,

1 Zeller Philosophic der Griechen Th. m. Abth. 2, p. 281.

364 THE ESSENES.

relation to the angelology of the Essenes, which arose out of a
wholly different motive. Nor again can we find distinct traces
among the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun as
is ascribed to the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced
having no prominence whatever in its own context, and referring
to a rule which would be dictated by natural decency and
certainly was not peculiar to the Pythagoreans 1 . When these
imperfect and (for the purpose) valueless resemblances have
been subtracted, the only basis on which the theory of a direct
affiliation can rest is withdrawn. All the remaining coinci-
dences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to founders
is not confined to any one sect or any one age. The reverence
of the Essenes for Moses, and the reverence of the Pythagoreans
for Pythagoras, are indications of a common humanity, but not
of a common philosophy. And again the forgery of suppo-
sititious documents is unhappily not the badge of any one
school. The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can
judge from the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts
ascribed to Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythago-
reans as two such forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that
remains in common to the Greek school and the Jewish sect
after these deductions is a certain similarity in the type of life,
and in But granted that two bodies of men each held an esoteric
not sug- teaching of their own, they would secure it independently in a
historical s i m il ar wa y> by a recognised process of initiation, by a solemn
connex- f orm o f oa th, by a rigid distinction of orders. Granted also,
that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic life,
their asceticism would naturally take the same form ; they
would avoid wine and flesh ; they would abstain from anoint-
ing themselves with oil; they would depreciate, and perhaps

1 Diog. Laert. viii. 17; see Zeller vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on

1. c. p. 282, note 5. The precept in the worship of the sun (Zeller 1. c. p.

question occurs among a number of 137, note 6) ; but the syncretism of

insignificant details, and has no spe- this late work detracts from its value as

cial prominence given to it. In the representing Pythagorean doctrine.
Life of Apollonius by Philostratus (e.g.

THE ESSENES. 365

altogether prohibit, marriage. Unless therefore the historical
conditions are themselves favourable to a direct and immediate
connexion between the Pythagoreans and the Essenes, this
theory of affiliation has little to recommend it.

And a closer examination must pronounce them to be most Twofold
unfavourable. Chronology and geography alike present serious to this
obstacles to any solution which derives the peculiarities of the tlieor y-
Essenes from the Pythagoreans.

(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, (i) Chro-
must be urged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans facts are
as a philosophical school entirely disappear from history before adverse -
the middle of the fourth century before Christ. The last
Pythagoreans were scholars of Philolaus and Eurytus, the con-
temporaries of Socrates and Plato 1 . For nearly two centuries
after their extinction we hear nothing of them. Here and Disappear-
there persons like Diodorus of Aspendus are satirised by the the Pytha-
Attic poets of the middle comedy as ' pythagorizers,' in other goreans -
words, as total abstainers and vegetarians 2 ; but the philosophy
had wholly died or was fast dying out. This is the universal
testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first century
before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces of a revival.
In Alexander Polyhistor 3 , a younger contemporary of Sulla, for
the first time we find references to certain writings, which
would seem to have emanated from this incipient Neopythago-
reanism, rather than from the elder school of Pythagoreans.
And a little later Cicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus
as one specially raised up to revive the extinct philosophy 4 .

1 Zeller 1. c. p. 68 (comp. i. p. 242). The words commonly used by these
While disputing Zeller's position, I satirists are Trvffayoplfriv, irv0ayopiffr^,
have freely made use of his references. TrvdayopurfjAs. The persons so satirised
It is impossible not to admire the were probably in many cases not more
mastery of detail and clearness of ex- Pythagoreans than modern teetotallers
position in this work, even when the are Eechabites.

conclusions seem questionable. 3 Diog. Laert. viii. 24 sq. ; see Zeller

2 Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. 1. c. p. 7478.

viii. 37. See the index to Meineke 4 Cic. Tim. i ' sic judico, post illos

Fragm. Com. B. w. Trvdayopwds, etc. nobiles Pythagoreos quorum disci-

366 THE ESSENES.

But so slow or so chequered was its progress, that a whole
century after Seneca can still speak of the school as practically

Priority of defunct 1 . Yet long before this the Essenes formed a compact,

Essenism

toNeopy- well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar system of

isnf ] Q " doctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that Pliny
the elder speaks of this celibate society as having existed
'through thousands of ages 2 .' This is a gross exaggeration,
but it must at least be taken to imply that in Pliny's time
the origin of the Essenes was lost in the obscurity of the past,
or at least seemed so to those who had not access to special
sources of information. If, as I have given reasons for sup-
posing 3 , Pliny's authority in this passage is the same Alexander
Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular
statement, however exaggerated in expression, is derived from
him, the fact becomes still more significant. But on any show-
ing the priority in time is distinctly in favour of the Essenes
as against the Neopythagoreans.

TheEs- And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in

developed the Neopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle
an( * a definite ru ^ e f ^^ e - Such f r instance is the case with

thagorean. celibacy, of which Pliny says that it has existed as an insti-
tution among the Essenes per saeculorum millia, and which
is a chief corner-stone of their practical system. The Pytha-
gorean notices (whether truly or not, it is unimportant for my
purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as having a wife and a
daughter 4 . Only at a late date do we find the attempt to
represent their founder in another light; and if virginity is
ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the

plina extincta est quodammodo, cum time, at which Josephus thinks it ne-

aliquot saecula in Italia Siciliaque vi- cessary to insert an account of the

guisset, hunc exstitisse qui illam reno- Essenes as already nourishing (Ant.

varet.' xiii. 5. 9), is prior to the revival of the

1 Sen. N. Q. vii. 32 'Pythagorica Neopythagorean school. How much

ilia invidiosa turbae schola praecep- earlier the Jewish sect arose, we are

torem non invenit.' without data for determining.

3 N. H. v. 15. The passage is quoted 3 See Colossians p. 83, note 1.

Colostians p. 85, note 3. The point of 4 Diog. Laert. viii. 42.

THE ESSENES. 367

first Christian century, in the fictitious biography of Philo-
stratus 1 , this representation is plainly due to the general plan
of the novelist, whose hero is perhaps intended to rival the
Founder of Christianity, and whose work is saturated with
Christian ideas. In fact virginity can never be said to have
been a Pythagorean principle, though it may have been an
exalted ideal of some not very early adherents of the school.
And the same remark applies to other resemblances between
the Essene and Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of
conception and the definiteness of practice are in almost every
instance on the side of the Essenes; so that, looking at the
comparative chronology of the two, it will appear almost in-
conceivable that they can have derived their principles from
the Neopythagoreans.

(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory (ii) Geo-
of affiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The difficulties
home of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been
on the eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea,
a region least of all exposed to the influences of Greek philo-
sophy. It is true that we find near Alexandria a closely allied
school of Jewish recluses, the Therapeutes ; and, as Alexandria
may have been the home of Neopythagoreanism, a possible
link of connexion is here disclosed. But, as Zeller himself has
pointed out, it is not among the Therapeutes, but among the
Essenes, that the principles in question appear fully developed
and consistently carried out 2 ; and therefore, if there be a
relation of paternity between Essene and Therapeute, the
latter must be derived from the former and not conversely.
How then can we suppose this influence of Neopythagoreanism
brought to bear on a Jewish community in the south-eastern
border of Palestine ? Zeller 's answer is as follows 3 . Judaea
was for more than a hundred and fifty years before the Macca-

1 Vit. Apol. i. 15 sq. At the same others,

time Philostratus informs us that the 2 1. c. p. 288 sq.

conduct of his hero in this respect 3 1. c. p. 290 sq.
had been differently represented by

368 THE ESSENES.

bean period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian and
then of the Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time
Hellenizing influences did infuse themselves largely into Juda-
ism : and what more natural than that among these the
Pythagorean philosophy and discipline should have recom-
mended itself to a section of the Jewish people ? It may
be said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the
Essenes is the least favourable to such a solution : but, without
pressing this fact, Zeller's hypothesis is open to two serious
objections which combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it
is by any historical notice. First, this influence of Pytha-
goreanism is assumed to have taken place at the very time
when the Pythagorean school was practically extinct : and
secondly, it is supposed to have acted upon that very section
of the Jewish community, which was the most vigorous
advocate of national exclusiveness and the most averse to
Hellenizing influences.

The fo- It is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that

ment of 6 " considerations of time and place, as well as of internal character,

Bssemsm } ea( j ug ^ o \ oo ^ f or an explanation of the alien elements in

sought in Essene Judaism. And have we not here also the account

of any real coincidences which may exist between Essenism

and Neopythagoreanism ? We should perhaps be hardly more

justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism directly to Essenism

than conversely (though, if we had no other alternative, this

would appear to be the more probable solution of the two):

but were not both alike due to substantially the same influences

acting in different degrees ? I think it will hardly be denied

to which that the characteristic features of Pythagoreanism, and especially

tha o^ f Neopythagoreanism, which distinguish it from other schools

reanism o f Greek philosophy, are much more Oriental in type, than

may have . . "

been in- Hellenic. The asceticism, the magic, the mysticism, of the

sect all point in the same direction. And history moreover
contains indications that such was the case. There seems to
be sufficient ground for the statement that Pythagoras himself
was indebted to intercourse with the Egyptians, if not with

THE ESSENES. 369

more strictly Oriental nations, for some leading ideas of his
system. But, however this may be, the fact that in the
legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans invented to
do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as
taking lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and
others, may be taken as an evidence that their own phi-
losophy at all events was partially derived from eastern
sources 1 .

But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so
much from Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to
what nation or what religion was it chiefly indebted ? To this
question it is difficult, with our very imperfect knowledge of
the East at the Christian era, to reply with any confidence.
Yet there is one system to which we naturally look, as furnish- Eesem-
ing the most probable answer. The Medo-Persian religion Pars?8m.
supplies just those elements which distinguish the tenets and
practices of the Essenes from the normal type of Judaism.
(1) First ; we have here a very definite form of dualism, which (i) Dual-
exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic sects,
and of which Manicheism, the most matured development of
dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was the
ultimate fruit. For though dualism may not represent the
oldest theology of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form,
yet long before the era of which we are speaking it had become
the fundamental principle of the Persian religion. (2) Again ; (u) Sun-
the Zoroastrian symbolism of light, and consequent worship of wor
the sun as the fountain of light, will explain those anomalous
notices of the Essenes in which they are represented as paying

reverence to this luminary 2 . (3) Moreover; the ' worship of ("i) Angel-

olatry.

1 See the references in Zeller i. p. practice. The commentators on Ta-
218 sq. ; comp. m. 2, p. 67. citus quote a similar notice of the

2 Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara Parthians in Herodian iv. 15 apa 8t
I. p. 303) refers to Tac. Hist. iii. 24 ^Xf v dvlrxovn tydvy 'Aprdpavos yftv
'Undique clamor; et orientem solem /j-eylffrif) TrXi^ei ffTparov' dcriraffdnevot
(ita in Syria mos est) tertiani salu- dt rbv ij\iot>, us ?dosavrois, oi pdppapot
tavere,' as illustrating this Essene K.T.\.

L. 24

370

THE ESSENES.

angels* in the Essene system has a striking parallel in the
invocations of spirits, which form a very prominent feature in
the ritual of the Zend-Avesta. And altogether their angelo-
logy is illustrated, and not improbably was suggested, by the
doctine of intermediate beings concerned in the government of
nature and of man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an
(iv) Magic, integral part of the Zoroastrian system 1 . (4) And once more;
the magic, which was so attractive to the Essene, may have
received its impulse from the priestly caste of Persia, to whose
world-wide fame this form of superstition is indebted for its
(v) Striv- name. (5) If to these parallels I venture also to add the
purity. 6 intense striving after purity, which is the noblest feature in the
Persian religion, I do so, not because the Essenes might not
have derived this impulse from a higher source, but because
this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian
system to their favourable notice, and because also the par-
ticular form which the zeal for purity took among them
was at all events congenial to the teaching of the Zend-
Avesta, and may not have been altogether free from its in-
fluences.

Other I have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances,

coinci- & .

dences ac- because they are much more significant than any mere coinci-
dence of details, which may or may not have been accidental.
Thus for instance the magi, like the Essenes, wore white
garments, and eschewed gold and ornaments; they practised
frequent lustrations ; they avoided flesh, living on bread and
cheese or on herbs and fruits ; they had different orders in
their society; and the like 2 . All these, as I have already

1 See e.g. Vendidad Farg. xix; and
the liturgical portions of the book are
largely taken up with invocations of
these intermediate beings. Some ex-
tracts are given in Davies' Golossians
p. 146 sq.

2 Hilgenfeld (Zeitschnft x. p. 99 sq.)
finds coincidences even more special
than these. He is answered by Zeller

(in. 2, p. 276), but defends his posi-
tion again (Zeitschrift xi. p. 347 sq.),
though with no great success. Among
other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld
remarks on the axe (Jos. B. J. ii. 8.
7) which was given to the novices
among the Essenes, and connects it
with the divo(jLavTla. (Plin. N. H.
xxxvi. 19) of the magi. Zeller con-

THE ESSENES. 371

remarked, may be the independent out-growth of the same
temper and direction of conduct, and need not imply any direct
historical connexion. Nor is there any temptation to press
such resemblances; for even without their aid the general
connexion seems to be sufficiently established 1 .

But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the The de -

struction
hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. The of the

destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller 2 , empire 1
and the subsequent erection of the Parthian domination on its *j^~
ruins, must have been fatal to the spread of Zoroastrianism.
From the middle of the third century before Christ, when the
Parthian empire was established, till towards the middle of the
third century of our era, when the Persian monarchy and reli-
gion were once more restored 3 , its influence must have been
reduced within the narrowest limits. But does analogy really but favour-
suggest such an inference ? Does not the history of the Jews spread of
themselves show that the religious influence of a people on the Parsism '
world at large may begin just where its national life ends ?
The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on the fall of
the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide ; and
the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted
in alien soils. For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I
have not wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously

tents himself with replying that the Oriental element in Essenism most

use of the axe among the Essenes for commonly ascribe it to Persia: e.g.

purposes of divination is a pure con- among the more recent writers, Hil-

jecture, not resting on any known genfeld (1. c.), and Lipsius Schenkel's

fact. He might have answered with Bibel-Lexikon s. v. Essaer p. 189.

much more effect that Josephus else- 2 1. c. p. 275.

where ( 9) defines it as a spade or 3 See Gibbon Decline and Fall

shovel, and assigns to it a very dif- c. viii, Milman History of Christianity

ferent use. Hilgenfeld has damaged n. p. 247 sq. The latter speaks of

his cause by laying stress on these this restoration of Zoroastrianism, as

accidental resemblances. So far as 'perhaps the only instance of the

regards minor coincidences, Zeller vigorous revival of a Pagan religion.'

makes out as good a case for his It was far purer and less Pagan than

Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his the system which it superseded; and

magians. this may account for its renewed life.
1 Those who allow any foreign

242

372 THE ESSENES.

incorporated the Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as such,
but only that Zoroastrian ideas were infused into its system by
more or less direct contact. And, as a matter of fact, it seems
quite certain that Persian ideas were widely spread during this
Indica- very interval, when the Persian nationality was eclipsed. It
influence was then that Hermippus gave to the Greeks the most detailed
Period thlS account f tn ^ s religion which had ever been laid before them 1 .
It was then that its tenets suggested or moulded the specula-
tions of the various Gnostic sects. It was then that the
worship of the Persian Mithras spread throughout the Roman
Empire. It was then, if not earlier, that the magian system
took root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second
home in Cappadocia 2 . It was then, if not earlier, that the
Zoroastrian demonology stamped itself so deeply on the apo-
cryphal literature of the Jews themselves, which borrowed even
the names of evil spirits 3 from the Persians. There are indeed
abundant indications that Palestine was surrounded by Persian
influences during this period, when the Persian empire was in
abeyance.

Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that

certain alien features in Essene Judaism were derived from the

Are Bud- Zoroastrian religion. But are we justified in going a step

fluences" further, and attributing other elements in this eclectic system

ce 8 ible? to *ke more distant East ? The monasticism of the Buddhist

will naturally occur to our minds, as a precursor of the ceno-

bitic life among the Essenes; and Hilgenfeld accordingly has

not hesitated to ascribe this characteristic of Essenism directly

to Buddhist influences 4 . But at the outset we are obliged to

1 See Miiller Fragm. Hist. Graec. K.T.\.

m. p. 53 sq. for this work of Hermip- 3 At least in one instance, Asmo-

pus irfpl M-dywv. He flourished about deus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. Miiller

B.C. 200. See Max Miiller Lectures on Chips from a German Workshop i.

the Science of Language 1st ser. p. 86. p. 148 sq. For the different dates as-

2 Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) 'E> ft ry signed to the book of Tobit see Dr
'Kairiradoidq. (iro\i> ybp tKi TO r&v Md- Westcott's article Tobit in Smith's
yuv 0uXoj>, ot Ka.1 irtipaiOoi KaXovvrai. Dictionary of the Bible p. 1525.

6t Kai T&V HepffiK&v de&v lepd) 4 Zeitschrift x. p. 103 sq.; comp.

THE ESSENES. 373

ask whether history gives any such indication of the presence
of Buddhism in the West as this hypothesis requires. Hilgen-
feld answers this question in the affirmative. He points con- Supposed
fidently to the fact that as early as the middle of the second establish-
century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of their faith ^tan-
as flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of Yavana. dna -
The place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the
great Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing
the name 1 . In this opinion however he stands quite alone, T]ie au _
Neither Koppen 2 , who is his authority for this statement, nor jJ^Yer
any other Indian scholar 3 , so far as I am aware, for a moment preted
contemplates this identification. Yavana, or Yona, was the
common Indian name for the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom and its
dependencies 4 ; and to this region we naturally turn. The
Alasanda or Alasadda therefore, which is here mentioned, will
be one of several Eastern cities bearing the name of the great
conqueror, most probably Alexandria ad Caucasum. But in-
deed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld had referred to the
original authority for the statement, the great Buddhist history
Mahawanso, he would have ventured to lay any stress at all on

xi. p. 351. M. Kenan also (Langues f. Wissensch. u. Literatur, Braun-

Smitiques in. iv. 1, Vie de Jesus schweig 1853; Lassen Indische Alter-

p. 98) suggests that Buddhist influences thumskunde n. p. 236 ; Hardy Manual

operated in Palestine. of Budhism p. 516.

1 x. p. 105 ' was schon an sich, 4 For its geographical meaning in
zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich Alex- older Indian writers see Koppen 1. c.
andria ad Caucasum, sondern nur Since then it has entirely departed
Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten from its original signification, and
kann.' Comp. xi. p. 351, where he Yavana is now a common term used
repeats the same argument in reply to by the Hindoos to designate the Mo-
Zeller. This is a very natural in- hammedans. Thus the Greek name
ference from a Western point of view; has come to be applied to a people
but, when we place ourselves in the which of all others is most unlike the
position of a Buddhist writer to whom Greeks. This change of meaning ad-
Bactria was Greece, the relative pro- mirably illustrates the use of "EXX^
portions of things are wholly changed. among the Jews, which in like man-

2 Die Religion des Buddha i. p. 193. ner, from being the name of an alien

3 Comp. e.g. Weber Die Verbin- nation, became the name of an alien
dungen Indiens mit den Landern im religion, irrespective of nationality;
Westen p. 675miheAllgem. Monatsschr. see the note on Gal. ii.-3.

374 THE ESSENES.

and wholly this notice, as supporting his theory. The historian, or rather
worthy in fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is
relating the foundation of the Maha thtipo, or great tope, at
Ruanwelli by the king Dutthagamini in the year B.C. 157.
Beyond the fact that this tope was erected by this king the
rest is plainly legendary. All the materials for the construc-
tion of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by
miracle the bricks, the metals, the precious stones. The
dewos, or demons, lent their aid in the erection. In fact

the fabric huge
Rose like an exhalation.

Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great
Buddhist monasteries to do honour to the festival of the
foundation. One place alone sent not less than 96,000. Among
the rest it is mentioned that ' Maha Dhammarakkito, thero
(i.e. senior priest) of Yona, accompanied by 30,000 priests from
the vicinity of Alasadda, the capital of the Yona country,
attended 1 / It is obvious that no weight can be attached to a
statement occurring as part of a story of which the other
details are so manifestly false. An establishment of 30,000
Buddhist priests at Alexandria would indeed be a phenomenon
of which historians have shown a strange neglect.

General Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on

o?Bud nCe a mucn smaller scale in this important centre of western

dhism in civilisation at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion,

which the Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date 2 .

For some centuries after the Christian era we find that the

information possessed by western writers was most shadowy

and confused; and in almost every instance we are able to

trace it to some other cause than the actual presence of

Strabo. Buddhists in the Roman Empire 3 . Thus Strabo, who wrote

1 Mahawanso p. 171, Tumour's the language which is quoted in the
translation. next note?

2 How for instance, if any such 3 Consistently with this view, we
establishment had ever existed at may allow that single Indians would
Alexandria, could Strabo have used visit Alexandria from time to time for

THE ESSENES.

375

under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the Bud-
dhist priests, the sramanas, under the designation sarmance
but he avowedly obtains his information from

purposes of trade or for other reasons,
and not more than this is required by
the rhetorical passage in Dion Chry-
sost. Or. xxxii (p. 373) opfo yap tywye
oft fdvov "EXX^pas Trap v/uv ...... dXXci,

Kal Ba/cr/o/ous Kal 2/cu#as Kal TLtpaas
Kal 'Ivduv rivds. The qualifying rivds
shows how very slight was the com-
munication between India and Alex-
andria. The mission of Pantsenus
may have been suggested by the pre-
sence of such stray visitors. Jerome
(Vir. Ill 36) says that he went roga-
tus ab illius gentis legatis.' It must
remain doubtful however, whether
some other region than Hindostan,
such as ^Ethiopia for instance, is not
meant, when Pantsenus is said to have
gone to India : see Cave's Lives of the
Primitive Fathers p. 188 sq.

How very slight the communication
was between India and the West in
the early years of the Christian era,
appears from this passage of Strabo
(xv. i. 4, p. 686) ; Kal ol vvv 5t t Alytv-
TOV TrX^oj/res tfiiroputol ry Ne^Xy Kal rf

vioi fi.fr Kal 7re/H7re7rXeika<ri
Tdyyov, Kal odroi d' idiwrai Kal ovdev
irpbs IffTOpiav T&V rbiruv %/3?7<ri/iot, after
which he goes on to say that the only
instance of Indian travellers in the
West was the embassy sent to Augus-
tus (see below p. 378), which came d(j>
cvfc rbirov Kal Trap ev&s jSatriX^ws.

The communications between India
and the West are investigated by two
recent writers, Keinaud Relations Poli-
tiques et Commerciales de V Empire
Romain avec VAsie Centrale, Paris
1863, and Priaulx The Indian Travels
of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian
Embassies to Rome, 1873. The latter
work, which is very thorough and

satisfactory, would have saved me
much labour of independent investiga-
tion, if I had seen it in time.

1 Strabo xv. r. 59, p. 712. In the
MSS it is written Tappdvas, but this
must be an error either introduced by
Strabo's transcribers or found in the
copy of Megasthenes which this author
used. This is plain not only from the
Indian word itself, but also from the
parallel passage in Clement of Alexan-
dria (Strom, i. 15). From the coin-
cidences of language it is clear that
Clement also derived his information
from Megasthenes, whose name he
mentions just below. The fragments
of Megasthenes relating to the Indian
philosophers will be found in Muller
Fragm. Hist. Graec. n. p. 437. They
were previously edited by Schwanbeck,
Megasthenis Indica (Bonnae 1846).

For Salavat we also find the form
2a/Ac'cuoi in other writers; e.g. Clem.
Alex. 1. c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. de
Abatin. iv. 17, Orig. c. Gels. i. 24 (i.
p. 342). This divergence is explained
by the fact that the Pali word sammana
corresponds to the Sanskrit sramana.
See Schwanbeck, 1. c. p. 17, quoted by
Muller, p. 437.

It should be borne in mind however,
that several eminent Indian scholars
believe Megasthenes to have meant
not Buddhists but Brahmins by his
Sa/)Aia>as. So for instance Lassen
Rhein. Mus. 1833, p. 180 sq., Ind.
Alterth. n. p. 700: and Prof. Max
Muller (Pref. to Eogers's Translation
of Buddhaghosha's Parables, London
1870, p. lii) says; 'That Lassen is
right in taking the Sap/taj/cu, men-
tioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanic,
not for Buddhist ascetics, might be
proved also by their dress. Dresses

376

THE ESSENES.

Barde-
sanes.

Clement
of Alexan-
dria.

Megasthenes, who travelled in India somewhere . about the
year 300 B.C. and wrote a book on Indian affairs. Thus too
Bardesanes at a much later date gives an account of these
Buddhist ascetics, without however naming the founder of the
religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge of them to
conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited
Syria on their way westward in the reign of one of the
Antonines 1 . Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest
years of the second century or the earliest of the third, for

made of the bark of trees are not
Buddhistic.' If this opinion be correct,
the earlier notices of Buddhism in
Greek writers entirely disappear, and
my position is strengthened. But for
the following reasons the other view
appears to me more probable: (1) The
term sramana is the common term
for the Buddhist ascetic, whereas it
is very seldom used of the Brahmin.

(2) The ZdpfjLavos (another form of
sramana), mentioned below, p. 378,
note 1, appears to have been a
Buddhist. This view is taken even
by Lassen, Ind. Alterth. in. p. 60.

(3) The distinction of Bpaxv-aves and
*2iapljJoLva.(. in Megasthenes or the writers
following him corresponds to the dis-
tinction of Epaxf^aves and Sa^aj/cwoi
in Bardesanes, Origen, and others;
and, as Schwanbeck has shown (1. c.),
the account of the Zap/Aco/ai in Mega-
sthenes for the most part is a close
parallel to the account of the Sa^aycuoi
in Bardesanes (or at least in Por-
phyry's report of Bardesanes). It
seems more probable therefore that
Megasthenes has been guilty of con-
fusion in describing the dress of the
Sa/tyia'cu, than that Brahmins are in-
tended by the term.

The Pali form, Zapavaioi, as a de-
signation of the Buddhists, first occurs
in Clement of Alexandria or Barde-
sanes, whichever may be the earlier

writer. It is generally ascribed to
Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished
B.C. 8060, because his authority is
quoted by Cyril of Alexandria (c.
Julian, iv. p. 133) in the same context
in which the Za/iapcuot are mentioned.
This inference is drawn by Schwan-
beck, Max Miiller, Lassen, and others.
An examination of Cyril's language
however shows that the statement for
which he quotes the authority of Alex-
ander Polyhistor does not extend to
the mention of the Samaneei. Indeed
all the facts given in this passage of
Cyril (including the reference to Poly-
histor) are taken from Clement of Alex-
andria (Strom, i. 15 ; see below, p. 378
n. 1), whose account Cyril has abridged.
It is possible indeed that Clement
himself derived the statement from
Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement's
own language points to this.

1 The narrative of Bardesanes is
given by Porphyry de Abst. iv. 17.
The Buddhist ascetics are there called
Za/Aamtoi (see the last note). The
work of Bardesanes, recounting his
conversations with these Indian am-
bassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry
in a fragment preserved by StobaBus
Eel. iii. 66 (p. 141). In this last pas-
sage the embassy is said to have arrived
iri rijs Ba<ri\elas rijs 'AvTwlvov rod e
'E(ju<rui>, by which, if the words be
correct, must be meant Elagabalus

THE ESSENES.

377

the first 1 time mentions Buddha by name ; and even he betrays
a strange ignorance of this Eastern religion 2 .

Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly Hippoly-
intelligent, though brief, account of the Brahmins 3 , says not a
word about the Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted
with their teaching, he would assuredly have seen in them a
fresh support to his theory of the affinity between Christian

(A.D. 218222), the spurious Antonine
(see Hilgenfeld Bardesanes p. 12 sq.).
Other ancient authorities however place
Bardesanes in the reign of one of the
older Anton ines ; and, as the context
is somewhat corrupt, we cannot feel
quite certain about the date. Barde-
sanes gives by far the most accurate
account of the Buddhists to be found
in any ancient Greek writer; but even
here the monstrous stories, which the
Indian ambassadors related to him,
show how little trustworthy such
sources of information were.

1 Except possibly Arrian, Ind. viii.
1, who mentions an ancient Indian
king, Budyas (BouStfas) by name ; but
what he relates of him is quite incon-
sistent with the history of Buddha,
and probably some one else is intended.

2 In this passage (Strom, i. 15, p.
359) Clement apparently mentions
these same persons three times, sup-
posing that he is describing three dif-
ferent schools of Oriental philosophers.
(1) He speaks of 'Zafj.avcuot Bd/crpwy
(comp. Cyrill. Alex. 1. c.) ; (2) He dis-
tinguishes two classes of Indian gymno-
sophists, whom he calls Sap/taj/cu and
BpaxAtopcu. These are Buddhists and
Brahmins respectively (see p. 375, note
1); (3) He says afterwards etVi S

TUIV 'ivd&V Ol TOtS BOUTTO, TTl66fJI-VOl

els [ws?] debv
Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Cle-
ment here intends to describe the same
persons whom he has just mentioned

as 2,apfj,avai ; but this is not the natural
interpretation of his language, which
must mean 'There are also among
the Indians those who obey the pre-
cepts of Buddha.' Probably Schwan-
beck is right in identifying the Sa/s/wi-
vai with the Buddhist ascetics, but
Clement appears not to have known
this. In fact he has obtained his in-
formation from different sources, and
so repeated himself without being aware
of it. Where he got the first fact it is
impossible to say. The second, as we
saw, was derived from Megasthenes.
The third, relating to Buddha, came,
as we may conjecture, either from
Pantaenus (if indeed Hindostan is
really meant by the India of his mis-
sionary labours) or from some chance
Indian visitor at Alexandria.

In another passage (Strom, iii. 7,
p. 539) Clement speaks of certain In-
dian celibates and ascetics, who are
called Se/wo. As he distinguishes
them from the gymnosophists, and
mentions the pyramid as a sacred
building with them, the identification
with the Buddhists can hardly be
doubted. Here therefore 'Zepvoi is a
Grecized form of Sa/Aa^atot; and this
modification of the word would occur
naturally to Clement, because <re/u.voL,
o-efuieiov, were already used of the ascetic
life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p.
475 M.) lepbv 6 xoXemu ff/j,veiov Kai
ev $ fj-ovov/mevoi ri TOO
fiiov

3 Haer. i. 24.

378

THE ESSENES.

A Bud- heresies and pre-existing heathen philosophies. With one

Athens, doubtful exception an Indian fanatic attached to an embassy

sent by king Porus to Augustus, who astonished the Greeks

and Romans by burning himself alive at Athens 1 there is

1 The chief authority is Nicolaus of
Damascus in Strabo xv. i. 73 (p. 720).
The incident is mentioned also in Dion
Cass. liv. 9. Nicolaus had met these
ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an
interesting account of the motley com-
pany and their strange presents. This
fanatic, who was one of the number,
immolated himself in the presence of
an astonished crowd, and perhaps of
the emperor himself, at Athens. He
anointed himself and then leapt smil-
ing on the pyre. The inscription on
his tomb was Zap/mavoxnyds 'I^Sos airb
BapydffTjs Kara ra Trdrpia 'Ivd&v 6?)
cavrbv dTradavariffas Keirai. The tomb
was visible at least as late as the age
of Plutarch, who recording the self-
immolation of Calanus before Alexan-
der (Vit. Alex. 69) says, TOVTO iro\\ois
Zreffiv varepov aXXos 'L/56s kv 'Aflijrais
Kalffa.pt ffvv&i> tiroiyfff, Kal de'iKwrat
^XP 1 v *>v T& fj.vr)iJ,LOV 'Ivdov irpoffayo-
pev6fji,evov. Strabo also places the two
incidents in conjunction in another
passage in which he refers to this
person, xv. i. 4 (p. 686) 6 KaraKa&ras
eavTOv'Adifjvgffi ffO(t>i<TTT]s'Iv86s, Kaddirep
Kal 6 KdXavos K.r.X.

The reasons for supposing this per-
son to have been a Buddhist, rather
than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name
Zap/jLavoxvyds (which appears with
some variations in the MSS of Strabo)
being apparently the Indian sramana-
karja, i.e. 'teacher of the ascetics,'
in other words, a Buddhist priest;
(2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza,
where Buddhism flourished in that
age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion
Cassius it is written Zdpftapo*.

And have we not here an explana-
tion of 1 Cor. xiii. 3, i

be the right reading? The passage,
being written before the fires of the
Neronian persecution, requires expla-
nation. Now it is clear from Plutarch
that the 'Tomb of the Indian' was
one of the sights shown to strangers
at Athens: and the Apostle, who ob-
served the altar APNCOCTCOI 6ecoi,
was not likely to overlook the sepul-
chre with the strange inscription
<\YTON ATTA6<MM<ync<\c KeiTAi. In-
deed the incident would probably be
pressed on his notice in his discussions
with Stoics and Epicureans, and he
would be forced to declare himself as
to the value of these Indian self-im-
molations, when he preached the doc-
trine of self-sacrifice. We may well
imagine therefore that the fate of this
poor Buddhist fanatic was present to
his mind when. he penned the words
Kal av irapadu rb ffCo/j-d fjt,ov...dyaTn]v de
^ xw, ovdev u>0eXoG/icu. Indeed it would
furnish an almost equally good illus-
tration of the text, whether we read 'iva
KavOrjffofJLai or 'iva /caux^o'w/ucu. Dion
Cassius (1. c.) suggests that the deed
was done virb ^iXort/^as or et's iri8eij-iv.
How much attention these religious
suicides of the Indians attracted in the
Apostolic age (doubtless because the
act of this Buddhist priest had brought
the subject vividly before men's minds
in the West), we may infer from the
speech which Josephus puts in the
mouth of Eleazar (B. J. vii. 8. 7), /3X^-
et's 'Iv8otis roi)s <ro<piav dffKeiv UTT-

... 01 d...7TVpi TO ff<j}/J.a

7rapa56//res, oVus 6*77 Kal KadapwrdTyv
dTroKplvwfft TOV crc6/Aaros ryv ^vxn^, v/u.-
vov/j.evoi. Te\evr(2ffi...ap'

(ppovcvvres ;

THE ESSENES. 379

apparently no notice in either heathen or Christian writers,
which points to the presence of a Buddhist within the limits of
the Roman Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to
exist 1 .

And if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we The al-
are justified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to cidences

Buddhist influences. This however is far from being the case,
They both exhibit a well-organized monastic society : but the
monasticism of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized Monasti-
mendicancy, has little in common with the monasticism of the
Essene recluse, whose life was largely spent in manual labour.
They both enjoin celibacy, both prohibit the use of flesh and of Asceti-
wine, both abstain from the slaughter of animals. But, as we
have already seen, such resemblances prove nothing, for they
may be explained by the independent development of the same
religious principles. One coincidence, and one only, is noticed
by Hilgenfeld, which at first sight seems more striking and
might suggest a historical connexion. He observes that the Four or-
four orders of the Essene community are derived from the four four steps.
steps of Buddhism. Against this it might fairly be argued that
such coincidences of numbers are often purely accidental, and
that in the present instance there is no more reason for
connecting the four steps of Buddhism with the four orders of
Essenism than there would be for connecting the ten precepts
of Buddha with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But indeed
a nearer examination will show that the two have nothing
whatever in common except the number. The four steps or
paths of Buddhism are not four grades of an external order, but
four degrees of spiritual progress on the way to nirvana or
annihilation, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist's religious aspira-

1 In the reign of Claudius an em- bably Eama is meant (Priaulx p. 116).

bassy arrived from Taprobane( Ceylon); From this and other statements it

and from these ambassadors Pliny de- appears that they were Tamils and

rived his information regarding the not Singalese, and thus belonged to

island, N. H. vi. 24. Kespecting their the non-Buddhist part of the island j

religion however he says only two see Priaulx p. 91 sq.
words 'coli Herculem,' by whom pro-

380 THE ESSENES.

tions. They are wholly unconnected with the Buddhist
monastic system, as an organization. A reference to the
Buddhist notices collected in Hardy's Eastern Monachism
(p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a resemblance.
A man may attain to the highest of these four stages of
Buddhist illumination instantaneously. He does not need to
have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a
layman at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state
of existence may raise him per saltum to the elevation of a
rahat, when all earthly desires are crushed and no future birth
stands between him and nirvana. There remains therefore no
coincidence which would suggest any historical connexion
Buddhist between Essenism and Buddhism. Indeed it is not till some
seen firs? centuries later, when Manicheism 1 starts into being, that we

in Mam- fi nc f f or ^ ne fi rs t time any traces of the influence of Buddhism
cneism.

on the religions of the West 2 .

1 Even its influence on Manicheism cessorsof Alexander, by which religious
however is disputed in a learned article freedom was secured for the Buddhists
in the Home and Foreign Review in. throughout their dominions. If this
p. 143 sq. (1863), by Mr P. Le Page interpretation had been correct, we
Eenouf (see Academy 1873, p. 399). must have supposed that, so far as

2 An extant inscription, containing regards Egypt and Western Asia, the
an edict of the great Buddhist king treaty remained a dead letter. But
Asoka and dating about the middle of later critics have rejected this interpre-
the 3rd century B.C., was explained by tation of its purport : see Thomas's
Prinsep as recording a treaty of this edition of Prinsep's Essays on Indian
monarch with Ptolemy and other sue- Antiquities n. p. 18 sq.

ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

IT has become a common practice with a certain class ofThetheory
writers to call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any plains
distinctive features of Christianity, which they are unable to

explain in any other way. Wherever some external power is outgrowth
needed to solve a perplexity, here is the deus ex machina whose ism
aid they most readily invoke. Constant repetition is sure to
produce its effect, and probably not a few persons, who want
either the leisure or the opportunity to investigate the subject
for themselves, have a lurking suspicion that the Founder of
Christianity may have been an Essene, or at all events that
Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its doctrinal
and ethical teaching 1 . Indeed, when very confident and sweep-
ing assertions are made, it is natural to presume that they rest
on a substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by
one writer that Christianity is ' Essenism alloyed with foreign
elements' 2 : while another, who however approaches the
subject in a different spirit, says ; ' It will hardly be doubted
that our Saviour Himself belonged to this holy brotherhood.
This will especially be apparent, when we remember that the
whole Jewish community at the advent of Christ was divided

1 De Quincey's attempt to prove ceived in a wholly different spirit from

that the Essenes were actually Chris- the theories of the writers mentioned

tians (Works vi. p. 270 sq., ix. p. 253 in the text; but it is even more un-

sq.), who used the machinery of an tenable and does not deserve serious

esoteric society to inculcate their doc- refutation.

trines 'for fear of the Jews,' is con- 2 Gratz in. p. 217.

382 THE ESSENES.

into three parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the
Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong to one of these sects.
Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish law, and who
was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would
therefore naturally associate Himself with that order of Judaism
tested by which was most congenial to His nature 1 .' I purpose testing

these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.

Our Lord For the statements involved in those words of the last
have be- extract which I have italicized, no authority is given by the
any g sect? wr ^ er himself; nor have I been able to find confirmation of
them in any quarter. On the contrary the frequent allusions
which we find to the vulgar herd, the iBtwTai, the t^ra haarets,
who are distinguished from the disciples of the schools 2 , suggest
that a large proportion of the people was unattached to any
sect. If it had been otherwise, we might reasonably presume
that our Lord, as one who 'in all things conformed to the
Jewish law,' would have preferred attaching Himself to the
Pharisees who 'sat in Moses' seat' and whose precepts He
recommended His disciples to obey 3 , rather than to the Essenes
who in one important respect at least the repudiation of the
temple sacrifices acted in flagrant violation of the Mosaic
ordinances.

The argu- This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to

the silence investigate the evidence for their presumed connexion. And

of tie New fare we are me j. g rg ^ w ith a negative argument, which

ment an- obviously has great weight with many persons. Why, it is

asked, does Jesus, who so unsparingly denounces the vices and

the falsehoods of Pharisees and Sadducees, never once mention

the Essenes by way of condemnation, or indeed mention them

by name at all ? Why, except that He Himself belonged to

this sect and looked favourably on their teaching ? This

question is best answered by another. How can we explain

the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of talmudical and

1 Ginsburg Essenes p. 24. 3 Matt, xxiii. 2, 3.

2 See above, p. 345.

THE ESSENES. 383

early rabbinical literature this sect is not once mentioned by
name, and that even the supposed allusions to them, which
have been discovered for the first time in the present century,
turn out on investigation to be hypothetical and illusory ? The
difficulty is much greater in this latter instance; but the
answer is the same in both cases. The silence is explained by
the comparative insignificance of the sect, their small numbers
and their retired habits. Their settlements were far removed
from the great centres of political and religious life. Their
recluse habits, as a rule, prevented them from interfering in
the common business of the world. Philo and Josephus have
given prominence to them, because their ascetic practices
invested them with the character of philosophers and interested
the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in the national
life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant part 1 . If the
Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are
only mentioned, directly on three occasions in the Gospels 2 , it
can be no surprise that the Essenes are not named at all.

As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument from The posi
silence, any hypothesis of connexion between Essenism and
Christianity must make good its claims by establishing one or
both of these two points ; first, that there is direct historical twofold
evidence of close intercourse between the two; and secondly,
that the resemblances of doctrine and practice are so striking as
to oblige, or at least to warrant, the belief in such a connexion.

1 This fact is fully recognised by is so imperfect and has no chance of
several recent writers, who will not be being extended, the greatest prudence
suspected of any undue bias towards is required of science, if she prefers to
traditional views of Christian history. be true rather than adventurous, if she
Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), 'In the has at heart rather to enlighten than to
general development of Jewish life surprise' (p. 461). Even Gratz in one
Essenism occupies a far more sub- passage can write soberly on this sub-
ordinate place than is commonly ject : ' The Essenes had throughout
ascribed to it.' And Keim expresses no influence on political movements,
himself to the same effect (i. p. 305). from which they held aloof as far as
Derenbourg also, after using similar possible' (in. p. 86).
language, adds this wise caution, 'In 2 These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2)
any case, in the present state of our Matt. xvi. 1 sq.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23 sq.,
acquaintance with the Essenes, which Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27.

384 THE ESSENES.

If both these lines of argument fail, the case must be considered
to have broken down,
l. Absence 1. On the former point it must be premised that the

of direct

historical Gospel narrative does not suggest any hint of a connexion.

of a con- Indeed its general tenor is directly adverse to such a supposi-

nexion. tion. From first to last Jesus and His disciples move about

freely, taking part in the common business, even in the common

recreations, of Jewish life. The recluse ascetic brotherhood,

which was gathered about the shores of the Dead Sea, does not

once appear above the Evangelists' horizon. Of this close

Two indi- society, as such, there is not the faintest indication. But two

cases al- individuals have been singled out, as holding an important

place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic

Church, who, it is contended, form direct and personal links of

communication with this sect. These are John the Baptist and

James the Lord's brother. The one is the forerunner of the

Gospel, the first herald of the Kingdom ; the other is the most

prominent figure in the early Church of Jerusalem.

(i) John (i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the

tist BaP desert 5 his clothing was rough ; his food was spare ; he baptized

his penitents. Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene.

Between the premisses and the conclusion however there is a

broad gulf, which cannot very easily be bridged over. The

not an Es- solitary independent life, which John led, presents a type wholly

different from the cenobitic establishments of the Essenes, who

had common property, common meals, common hours of labour

and of prayer. It may even be questioned whether his food of

locusts would have been permitted by the Essenes, if they

really ate nothing which had life (e/njri/^oz/ 1 ). And again ; his

baptism as narrated by the Evangelists, and their illustrations

as described by Josephus, have nothing in common except the

use of water for a religious purpose. When therefore we are

told confidently that ' his manner of life was altogether after the

Essene pattern 2 ,' and that 'he without doubt baptized his

i See Colossians p. 86. 2 Gratz m. p. 100.

THE ESSENES. 385

converts into the Essene order/ we know what value to attach
to this bold assertion. If positive statements are allowable, it
would be more true to fact to say that he could not possibly
have been an Essene. The rule of his life was isolation ; the
principle of theirs, community*.

In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear External
that not a few devout Jews at this time retired from the world biances to
and buried themselves in the wilderness, that they might devote 3^ *
themselves unmolested to ascetic discipline and religious medita-
tion. One such instance at all events we have in Banus the
master of Josephus, with whom the Jewish historian, when a
youth, spent three years in the desert. This anchorite was clothed
in garments made of bark or of leaves ; his food was the natural
produce of the earth ; he bathed day and night in cold water
for purposes of purification. To the careless observer doubtless
John and Banus would appear to be men of the same stamp.
In their outward mode of life there was perhaps not very much
difference 2 . The consciousness of a divine mission, the gift of
a prophetic insight, in John was the real and all-important
distinction between the two. But here also the same mistake who was
is made ; and we not uncommonly find Banus described as an
Essene. It is not too much to say however, that the whole
tenor of Josephus' narrative is opposed to this supposition 3 . He

1 rb KoivuvrjTiKOV, Joseph. B. J. ii. ourws yap q>6fj.-rjv alp^ireffdai. ryv dpiffrrjv,
8. 3. See also Philo Fragm. 632 virtp d irdiras KOLra^ddot^i. <TK\-r)payuy^<Tas
TOV Kou>(*)<pe\ovs, and the context. yovi> efiavrbv Kal wo\\a -jrov^deh rds rpets

2 Ewald (vi. p. 649) regards this 8i.ij\6ov. /cat fj.rjS rr\v tvrevQev
Banus as representing an extravagant pLav IKOLV^V efjt-avr^ t>op.i<ras elvcu,
development of the school of John, ^6? nva Eavovv 6Vo,ua /card rr?i>
and thus supplying a link between the SiaTpLf3eii>, tffdrjn fj^v dirk tevSp
real teaching of the Baptist and the pevov, rpofty 8t rr)v avron
doctrine of the Hemerobaptists pro- Trpo<r<t>ep6fjLevov, \J/VXP$ dt CSart TT\V
fessing to be derived from him. pa .v /cat rrjv vikra TroXXam

3 The passage is so important that irpbs ayvdav, ^Xwrijs tyevo/j.r}i> O.VTOV.
I give it in full; Joseph. Vit. 2 irepl K al 3tarpt'fas trap' avr tviavrois rpris
eKKaidcKa dt try yevofju-vos ^ovK^v r&v K al T^V 4-a-iBvfjdav reXeiwcras els ryv iro\iv
Trap jjfuv aipttreuv ffj-Tretptav Xa^etj/. i>irtffTp<f>Qv. evveaKalStKa 8' try ^\w
rp.ets 5' cifflv aSraf Qapiffaluv ju.i> i] rjp^d/LL-rjv re 7roXiTi/c<r^at TTJ <bapura.l<j)i>

i, /cat ZaSSovKaiuv 17 Sevrepa, rp/rr; alpecrei KaraKoXovduv /c.r.X.

Kadus ?roXXd/cts fiTra.fj.ev.

L. 25

386 THE ESSENES.

says that when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a know-
ledge of the three sects of the Jews before making his choice of
one ; that accordingly he went through (Sirj\0ov) all the three
at the cost of much rough discipline and toil ; that he was not
satisfied with the experience thus gained, and hearing of this
Banus he attached himself to him as his zealous disciple
(f^Xwr?;? eyevo/jirjv avrov)\ that having remained three years
with him he returned to Jerusalem ; and that then, being
nineteen years old, he gave in his adhesion to the sect of the
Pharisees. Thus there is no more reason for connecting this
Banus with the Essenes than with the Pharisees. The only
natural interpretation of the narrative is that he did not belong
to any of the three sects, but represented a distinct type of
religious life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain experience.
And his hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the
sequence of the narrative suggests.

General Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down which

suggest that he was a member of the Essene community. He
was an ascetic, and the Essenes were ascetics; but this is
plainly an inadequate basis for any such inference. Nor indeed
is the relation of his asceticism to theirs a question of much
moment for the matter in hand ; since this was the very point
in which Christ's mode of life was so essentially different from
John's as to provoke criticism and to point a contrast 1 . But
the later history of his real or supposed disciples has, or may
seem to have, some bearing on this investigation. Towards the
TheHeme c ^ ose ^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^ beginning of the second century we
robaptists. meet with a body of sectarians called in Greek Hemerobaptists 2 ,

1 Matt. ix. 14 sq., xi. 17 sq., Mark ev (tfart. But, if the word is intended
ii. 18 sq., Luke v. 33, vii. 31 sq. as a translation of Toble-shacharith

2 The word ^uepojSaTmo-Tai is gene- 'morning-bathers,' as it seems to be,
rally taken to mean 'daily bathers,' it must signify rather 'day-bathers';
and this meaning is suggested by Apost. and this is more in accordance with
Const, vi. 6 ol'rij/es, Ka.0' fKdffrtjv rjfdpav the analogy of other compounds from
tkv yen) /Sairr&rwvTeu, otic cvrlfamr, ib. 23 "h^tpo-, as ^epo/3tos, ^ue/>o5/oo/uos, i)/j.epo-
dvrl Kadt)fJipu>ov & fJLovov 5oi)s jSdTTTioyia, (T/COTTOS, etc.

Epiphan. Haer. xvii. 1 (p. 37) el /J n Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) represents
apa Ko.0' KdffTf}v ij^pav paTrrifrtTo rts the Essenes as bathing, not at dawn,

THE ESSENES. 387

in Hebrew Toble-shacharith 1 , 'day' or 'morning bathers.' What
were their relations to John the Baptist on the one hand,
and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to the scantiness
of our information the whole subject is wrapped in obscurity,
and any restoration of their history must be more or less
hypothetical ; but it will be possible at all events to suggest
an account which is not improbable in itself, and which does
no violence to the extant notices of the sect.

(a) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with ( a ) Their

J relation to

certain persons at Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are John the
described as ' knowing only the baptism of John/ or as having aptl!
been ' baptized unto John's baptism 2 ,' that we have here some
early representatives of the Hemerobaptist sect. These were John's dis-
Christians, though imperfectly informed Christians. Of Apollos, Ephesus.
who was more fully instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, this is
stated in the most explicit terms 3 . Of the rest, who owed
their fuller knowledge of the Gospel to St Paul, the same
appears to be implied, though the language is not free from
ambiguity 4 . But these notices have an important bearing on
our subject ; for they show how profoundly the effect of John's
preaching was felt in districts as remote as proconsular Asia,
even after a lapse of a quarter of a century. With these
disciples it was the initial impulse towards Christianity; but
to others it represented a widely different form of belief and
practice. The Gospel of St John was written, according to all Professed
tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of the first century. a

date.

but at the fifth hour, just before their rative, but is distinctly stated in ver.

meal. This is hardly consistent either 25, as correctly read, edldaffKev d/cpi/Sws

with the name of the Toble-shacharith, TO, irepl TOV ITJO-OU, not TOV Kvplov as in

or with the Talmudical anecdote of the received text.

them quoted above, p. 348. Of Banus 4 The 7n<rrei5<raj>Tej in xix. 1 is slightly

he reports (Vit. 2) that he ' bathed ambiguous, and some expressions in

often day and night in cold water.' the passage might suggest the oppo-

1 See above, p. 348 sq. site : but /xa^^ras seems decisive, for

2 The former expression is used of the word would not be used absolutely
Apollos, Acts xviii. 24 ; the latter of except of Christian disciples ; comp.
* certain disciples,' Acts xix. 1. vi. 1, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and fre-

3 This appears from the whole nar- quently.

252

388 THE ESSENES.

Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his readers, either
directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course of the
narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John's
ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but came
to bear witness of the light 1 . He was not the sun in the
heavens: he was only the waning lamp, which shines when
kindled from without and burns itself away in shining. His
light might well gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was
only 'for a season 2 .' John himself lost no opportunity of
bearing his testimony to the loftier claims of Jesus 3 . From
such notices it is plain that in the interval between the preach-
ing of St Paul and the Gospel of St John the memory of the
Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards
Christianity. His name is no longer the sign of imperfect
appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism. John
had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other words,
this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles, if
not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular
Asia, when it was written. In two respects these Hemerobaptists
The facts distorted the facts of history. They perverted John's teaching,

of history . /v.

distorted and they misrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a
' m ' single rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of

1 John i. 8. together, where the second describes a

2 John v. 35 cKelvos rjv 6 Xtfx"os 6 result conditional upon the first, see
Kat6fj.ei>os Ka.1 <f>alvuv K.T.\. The word 1 Pet. ii. 20 et d/xa/wctj/ovres KOI Ko\a-
Kaleiv is not only 'to burn,' but not ^t^tevot vTrofjt.vetT...i dyado-n-oLovvTes
unfrequently also ' to kindle, to set on /cat irda-xovres vironevelre, 1 Thess. iv. 1
fire,' as e.g. Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 12 ol TTWS del TrepiTrare??' /cai dp^ovcetj/ 0ey.
d\\oi dvaffravres irvp &ccuoz>; so that 6 3 See John i. 15 34, iii. 2330,
Kcu6/j.ei>os may mean either 'which v. 33 sq.: comp. x. 41, 42. This
burns away' or 'which is lighted.' aspect of St John's Gospel has been
With the former meaning it would de- brought out by Ewald Jahrb. der BibL
note the transitoriness, with the latter Wissensch. in. p. 156 sq.; see also
the derivative character, of John's Geschichte vn. p. 152 sq.; die Johan-
miuistry. There seems no reason for neischen Schriften p. 13. There is
excluding either idea here. Thus the perhaps an allusion to these * disciples
whole expression would mean ' the of John ' in 1 Joh. v. 6 otf/r ev ry vdan
lamp which is kindled and burns away, fj.6vov, dXX' ev T< #5an /cat v rtp afytari *
and (only so) gives light.' For an ex- /cat TO Trvev^a. /c.r.X.j comp. Acts i. 5,
ample of two verbs or participles joined xi. 16, xix. 4.

THE ESSENES. 389

life ; it was a daily recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying
the person 1 . He himself was no longer the forerunner of the
Messiah ; he was the very Messiah 2 . In the latter half of the
first century, it would seem, there was a great movement among Spread of
large numbers of the Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the baptist
one purificatory rite essential to salvation. Of this superstition pn
we have had an instance already in the anchorite Banus to
whom Josephus attached himself as a disciple. Its presence in
the western districts of Asia Minor is shown by a Sibylline
poem, dating about A.D. 80, which I have already had occasion
to quote 3 . Some years earlier these sectarians are mentioned
by name as opposing James the Lord's brother and the Twelve
at Jerusalem 4 . Nor is there any reason for questioning their
existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the
Apostolic age, though the source from which our information
comes is legendary, and the story itself a fabrication. But
when or how they first connected themselves with the name of
John the Baptist, and whether this assumption was made by all
alike or only by one section of them, we do not know. Such a
connexion, however false to history, was obvious and natural;
nor would it be difficult to accumulate parallels to this false
appropriation of an honoured name. Baptism was the funda- A wrong
mental article of their creed; and John was the Baptist of O f John's
world-wide fame. Nothing more than this was needed for the name -
choice of an eponym. From St John's Gospel it seems clear

1 Apost. Const, vi. 6; comp. 23. of the Clementine Kecognitions is ap-
See p. 386, note 2. parently taken from an older Judaizing

2 Clem. Recogn. i. 54 ' ex discipulis romance, the Ascents of James (see
Johannis, qui...magistrumsuum veluti above, pp. 87, 126). Hegesippus also
Christum praedicarunt,' ib. 60 ' Ecce (in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22) mentions the
unus ex discipulis Johannis adfirma- Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish
bat Christum Johannem fuisse, et non sects; and it is not improbable that
Jesum ; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse this list was given as an introduction
Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis to his account of the labours and mar-
majorem esse pronuntiaverit Johan- tyrdom of St James (see Euseb. H. E.
nem etc.': see also 63. ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived

3 See Colossians, p. 96. from the same source as the notice in

4 Clem. Recogn. I.e. This portion the Eecognitions.

390

THE ESSENES.

that this appropriation was already contemplated, if not
completed, at Ephesus before the first century had drawn to a
close. In the second century the assumption is recognised as a
characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or Baptists, as they are
once called 1 , alike by those who allow and those who deny its
justice 2 . Even in our age the name of ' John's disciples' has
been given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in
Babylonia, the Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have
some affinities to the older sect, and of whom perhaps they are
the collateral, if not the direct, descendants 3 .

1 They are called Baptists by Justin
Mart. Dial. 10, p. 307 A. He mentions
them among other Jewish sects, with-
out however alluding to John.

2 By the author of the Recognitions
(1. c.) who denies the claim; and by
the author of the Homilies (see below,
p. 391, note 3), who allows it.

3 These Mandeans are a rapidly di-
minishing sect living in the region
about the Tigris and the Euphrates,
south of Bagdad. Our most exact
knowledge of them is derived from
Petermann (Herzog's Real-Encyklopd-
die s. vv. Mendaer, Zabier, and Deutsche
Zeitschrift 1854 p. 181 sq., 1856 p.
331 sq., 342 sq., 363 sq., 386 sq.) who
has had personal intercourse with them ;
and from Chwolson (die Ssabier u. der
Ssabismus i. p. 100 sq.) who has in-
vestigated the Arabic authorities for
their earlier history. The names by
which they are known are (1) Mendeans,
or more properly Mandeans,
Mandaye, contracted from

Manda dechdye 'the word of life.'
This is their own name among them-
selves, and points to their Gnostic
pretentions. (2) Sabeans, Tsabiyun,
possibly from the root JJ1V ' to dip ' on
account of their frequent lustrations
(Chwolson i. p. 110 ; but see above, p.
81, note 3), though this is not the deri-
vation of the word which they them-

selves adopt, and other etymologies have
found favour with some recent writers
(see Petermann Herzog's Real-Encykl.
Suppl. xvm. p. 342 s.v. Zabier). This
is the name by which they are known
in the Koran and in Arabic writers,
and by which they call themselves
when speaking to others. (3) Naso-
reans, &0m3 Natsordye. This term
is at present confined to those among
them who are distinguished in know-
ledge or in business. (4) 'Christians
of St John, or Disciples of St John '
(i.e. the Baptist). This name is not
known among themselves, and was
incorrectly given to them by European
travellers and missionaries. At the
same time John the Baptist has a very
prominent place in their theological
system, as the one true prophet. On
the other hand they are not Christians
in any sense.

These Mandeans, the true Sabeans,
must not be confused with the false
Sabeans, polytheists and star-wor-
shippers, whose locality is Northern
Mesopotamia. Chwolson (i. p. 139 sq.)
has shown that these last adopted the
name in the 9th century to escape
persecution from the Mohammedans,
because in the Koran the Sabeans, as
monotheists, are ranged with the Jews
and Christians, and viewed in a more
favourable light than polytheists. The

THE ESSENES. 391

(b) Of the connexion between this sect and John the (6) Their
Baptist we have been able to give a probable, though to t he
necessarily hypothetical account. But when we attempt to Essenes -
determine its relation to the Essenes, we find ourselves en-
tangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. The notices are so
confused, the affinities so subtle, the ramifications so numerous,
that it becomes a desperate task to distinguish and classify
these abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. One fact how-
ever seems clear that, whatever affinities they may have had
originally, and whatever relations they may have contracted They were
afterwards with one another, the Hemerobaptists, properly distinct,
speaking, were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem which may be
regarded as in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto contains
on examination many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism 1 .
In two several accounts, the memoirs of Hegesippus and the
Apostolic Constitutions, the Hemerobaptists are expressly
distinguished from the Essenes 2 . In an early production of
Judaic Christianity, whose Judaism has a strong Essene tinge,
the Clementine Homilies, they and their eponym are condemned
in the strongest language. The system of syzygies, or pairs of
opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work, and in these John
stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon Peter, as
the false to the true ; for according to this author's philosophy
of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the
manifestation of the true 3 . And again, Epiphanius speaks of

name however has generally been ap- as Christ had twelve leading disciples,

plied in modern times to the false so John had thirty. This, it is argued,

rather than to the true Sabeans. was a providential dispensation the

1 See Colossians p. 96 sq. one number represents the solar, the

2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22, other the lunar period; and so they
Apost. Const, vi. 6. So also the illustrate another point in this writer's
Pseudo-Hieronymus in the Indiculus theory, that in the syzygies the true
de Haeresibus (Corp. Haeres. i. p. 283, and the false are the male and fe-
ed. Oehler). male principle respectively. Among

3 Clem. Horn. ii. 23 'Iwditvys ns these 30 disciples he places Simon
eytvero Tj/xepo/SaTTTttTTTjs, 5s /cai TOU Kvpiov Magus. With this the doctrine of the
i)fj,wv 'Irjffov Kara rbv rrjs <rv{vyias \6yov Mandeans stands in direct opposi-
eyfrero Trp6odos. It is then stated that, tion. They too have their syzygies,

392 THE ESSENES.

them as agreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the
Essenes, but with the Scribes and Pharisees 1 . His authority
on such a point may be worth very little ; but connected with
other notices, it should not be passed over in silence. Yet,
whatever may have been their differences, the Hemerobaptists
and the Essenes had one point of direct contact, their belief in
But after the moral efficacy of lustrations. When the temple and polity
struction were destroyed, the shock vibrated through the whole fabric of
Temple Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing societies, and
preparing the way for new combinations. More especially the
cessation of the sacrificial rites must have produced a profound
effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had condemned
them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case with
the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox
ritual. One grave obstacle to friendly overtures was thus
removed ; and a fusion, more or less complete, may have been
there may the consequence. At all events the relations of the Jewish
a fusion, sects must have been materially affected by this great national
crisis, as indeed we know to have been the case. In the
confusion which follows, it is impossible to attain any clear view
of their history. At the beginning of the second century
however this pseudo-baptist movement received a fresh impulse
from the pretended revelation of Elchasai, which came from
the farther East 2 . Henceforth Elchasai is the prominent name
in the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose
proper home is east of the Jordan 3 , and who appear to have
reproduced, with various modifications derived from Christian
and Heathen sources, the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-
baptist ritual of their Essene predecessors. It is still preserved
in the records of the only extant people who have any claim

but John with them represents the resurrection of the dead, but also

true principle. in their unbelief and in the other

1 Haer. xvii. 1 (p. 37) Iff a. r&v ypajj.- points.'

/j-ar^ujv /ecu $api(rata)v Qpovovffa. But 2 See above, p. 80 sq., on this Book

he adds that they resemble the Sad- of Elchasai.
ducees ' not only in the matter of the 3 See above, p. 354 sq.

THE ESSENES. 393

to be regarded as the religious heirs of the Essenes. Elchasai
is regarded as the founder of the sect of Mandeans 1 .

(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed (ii) James

T- 1 1 Tl 1 ^ e IjO^' 8

connexion of John the Baptist with the Essenes, the case Brother
of James the Lord's brother has been alleged with still more
confidence. Here, it is said, we have an indisputable Essene
connected by the closest family ties with the Founder of
Christianity. James is reported to have been holy from his invested
birth ; to have drunk no wine nor strong drink ; to have eaten sene cna _
no flesh ; to have allowed no razor to touch his head, no oil to c c s tens ~
anoint his body ; to have abstained from using the bath ; and
lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine linen 2 . Here we have
a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must it not be
granted ?) of Essene tendencies also.

But what is our authority for this description ? The writer
from whom the account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-
Christian historian Hegesippus, who flourished about A.D. 170.
He cannot therefore have been an eye-witness of the facts
which he relates. And his whole narrative betrays its legendary But the
character. Thus his account of James's death, which follows '

immediately on this description, is highly improbable and from
melodramatic in itself, and directly contradicts the contem- worthy
porary notice of Josephus in its main facts 3 . From whatever
source therefore Hegesippus may have derived his information,
it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we doubt that he was
indebted to one of those romances with which the Judaizing
Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural
curiosity of their disciples respecting the first founders of the

1 See Chwolson i. p. 112 sq., n. account of Elchasai or Elxai in Hip-

p.543sq. The Arabic writerEn-Nedim, polytus (Haer. ix. 13 sq.) and Epipha-

who lived towards the close of the nius (Haer. xix. 1 sq.). But the deri-

tenth century, says that the founder vation of the name Elchasai given by

of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was Epiphanius (Haer. xix. 2) d6va.fj.is KCKO.-

El-chasaich ( / ^WA^\J!) who taught \vpptvn (*D3 T^H) is different and pro-

- bably correct (see above, p. 81).

the doctrine of two coordinate princi- 2 R { ^ ^^ R ^ u 2g

pies, the maraud female. This no- , ^ ^ m

tice, as far as it goes, agrees with the

394

THE ESSENES.

or of the

earliest

disciple

Church 1 . In like manner Essene portraits are elsewhere
preserved of the Apostles Peter 2 and Matthew 3 which represent
them as living on a spare diet of herbs and berries. I believe
also that I have pointed out already the true source of this
description in Hegesippus, and that it is taken from the
'Ascents of James 4 / a Judseo-Christian work stamped, as we
happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene features 5 .
But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic Christianity
to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information to the
No Essene Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul we fail to
the true discover the faintest traces of Essenism in James. ' The his-
of James tor i ca l James/ says a recent writer, 'shows Pharisaic but not
Essene sympathies 6 .' This is true of James, as it is true of the
early disciples in the mother Church of Jerusalem generally.
The temple-ritual, the daily sacrifices, suggested no scruples to
them. The only distinction of meats, which they recognised,
was the distinction of animals clean and unclean as laid down
by the Mosaic law. The only sacrificial victims, which they
abhorred, were victims offered to idols. They took their part
in the religious offices, and mixed freely in the common life, of
their fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in this,
that to their Hebrew inheritance they superadded the know-
ledge of a higher truth and the joy of a better hope. It was
altogether within the sphere of orthodox Judaism that the
Jewish element in the Christian brotherhood found its scope.
Essene peculiarities are the objects neither of sympathy nor of
antipathy. In the history of the infant Church for the first
quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were not.

1 See above, p. 80.

2 Clem. Horn. xii. 6, where St Peter
is made to say apry fjAvip icai eXcu'cus
XpcD/ucu, Kol ffTravtus Xaxdwis; comp. xv.
17 CSaros /u6?ov /cat dprov.

3 Clem. Alex. Paedag. ii. 1 (p. 174)

4 See above, p. 126, note.

5 Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 16) men-

tions two points especially, in which
the character of this work is shown :
(1) It represented James as condemn-
ing the sacrifices and the fire on the
altar (see above, pp. 350353) : (2) It
published the most unfounded calum-
nies against St Paul.

6 Lipsius, SchenkeVs Bibel-Lexicon,
p. 191.

THE ESSENES. 395

But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early Essene
as the year 58, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect v i s ibi e be-
practices in the Christian community of the metropolis, which j^^of
may possibly have been due to Essene influences 1 . Five or six the Apo-
years later, the heretical teaching which threatened the integrity
of the Gospel at Colossae shows that this type of Judaism was
already strong enough within the Church to exert a dangerous
influence on its doctrinal purity. Then came the great convul-
sion the overthrow of the Jewish polity and nation. This was
the turning-point in the relations between Essenism and Christi-
anity, at least in Palestine. The Essenes were extreme sufferers Conse-

i -r ^ quences of

in the Roman war of extermination. It seems probable that the Jewish

their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast adrift, w
they were free to enter into other combinations, while the
shock of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their
thoughts into new channels. At the same time the nearer
proximity of the Christians, who had migrated to Persea during
the war, would bring them into close contact with the new
faith and subject them to its influences, as they had never been
subjected before 2 . But, whatever may be the explanation, the
fact seems certain, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the
Christian body was largely reinforced from their ranks. The
Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which
hitherto had been wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely
Essene.

2. If then history fails to reveal any such external con- 2. Do the
nexion with Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify biances
the opinion that Essene influences contributed largely to the 6

characteristic features of the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at a con -

nexion?

all, must find its support in some striking coincidence between
the doctrines and practices of the Essenes and those which its
Founder stamped upon Christianity. This indeed is the really
important point ; for without it the external connexion, even if
proved, would be valueless. The question is not whether

1 Eom. xiv. 2, 21. 2 See above, p. 77 sq.

396

THE ESSENES.

Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, but how
far it was created and moulded by those circumstances,
(i) Observ- (i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish
sabbath, historian's account of the Essenes, is their strict observance of
certain points in the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially
the ultra-Pharisaic rigour with which they kept the sabbath.
How far their conduct in this respect was consistent with the
teaching and practice of Christ may be seen from the passages
quoted in the parallel columns which follow :

1 Jesus went on the sabbath-day
through the corn fields; and his
disciples began to pluck the ears of
corn and to eat 1 . ...But when the
Pharisees saw it, they said unto him,
Behold, thy disciples do that which
it is not lawful to do upon the sab-
bath-day. But he said unto them,
Have ye not read what David did. . . ?
The sabbath was made for man, and
not man for the sabbath. Therefore
the Son of Man is Lord even of the
sabbath-day...'

' It is lawful to do well on the sab-
bath-days' (Matt.xii. 112; Markii.
23 iii. 6; Luke vi. 1 11, xiv. 1 6.

1 Gratz (in. p. 233) considers this
narrative an interpolation made from
a Pauline point of view (' eine pau-
linistische Tendenz - interpolation ').
This theory of interpolation, inter-
posing wherever the evidence is unfa-
vourable, cuts up all argument by the
roots. In this instance however Gratz
is consistently carrying out a princi-
ple which he broadly lays down else-
where. He regards it as the great
merit of Baur and his school, that
they explained the origin of the Gos-
pels by the conflict of two opposing
camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline.
'By this master-key/ he adds, 'criti-
cism was first put in a position to test
what is historical in the Gospels, and

' And they avoid. ..touching any work
(e<t>d7TT(T0ai epycDi/) on the sabbath-
day more scrupulously than any of
the Jews (SicKpopwrara 'lovdauw carav-

what bears the stamp of a polemical
tendency (was einen tendentiosen pole-
mischen Charakter hat). Indeed by
this means the element of trustworthy
history in the Gospels melts down to
a minimum' (in. p. 224). In other
words the judgment is not to be pro-
nounced upon the evidence, but the
evidence must be mutilated to suit the
judgment. The method is not new.
The sectarians of the second century,
whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had
severally their ' master-key.' The
master-key of Marcion was a conflict
also the antagonism of the Old and
New Testaments. Under his hands
the historical element in the New Tes-
tament dissolved rapidly. The mas-

THE ESSENES.

397

See also a similar incident in Luke ro>i/) ; for they do not venture so
xiii. 10 17). much as to move a vessel 1 , nor to

' The Jews therefore said unto him perform the most necessary offices
that was cured ; It is the sabbath- of life ' (B. J. ii. 8. 9).
day; it is not lawful for thee to
carry thy bed. But he answered
them, He that made me whole, the
same said unto me, Take up thy bed
and walk.... Therefore the Jews did
persecute Jesus and sought to slay
him, because he did these things on
the sabbath-day. But Jesus answer-
ed them, My Father worketh hither-
to, and I work, etc.' (John v. 10 18;
comp. vii. 22, 23).

1 And it was the sabbath-day when
Jesus made the clay, and opened his

eyes Therefore said some of the

Pharisees, This man is not of God,
because he keepeth not the sabbath-
day ' (John ix. 14, 16).

(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in (ii) Lus-
which the Essenes superadded to the law. Of these the most and other
remarkable was their practice of constant lustrations. In this n ^ib-
respect the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in servances.

ter-key of the anti-Marcionite writer
of the Clementine Homilies was like-
wise a conflict, though of another
kind the conflict of fire and water, of
the sacrificial and the baptismal sys-
tems. Wherever sacrifice was men-
tioned with approval, there was a
' Tendenz -interpolation' (see above,
p. 352 sq.). In this manner again the
genuine element in the Old Testament
melted down to a minimum.

1 Gratz however (in. p. 228) sees a
coincidence between Christ's teaching
and Essenism in this notice. Not to
do him injustice, I will translate his
own words (correcting however several
misprints in the Greek): 'For the con-
nexion of Jesus with the Essenes com-
pare moreover Mark xi. 16 KCU OVK fifaev

6 'Irjcrovs tVct rts dievtyKrj <7/ceuos dia TOV
iepov with Josephus B. J. ii. 8. 9 d\V
ovd (T/ceu6s rt /Ji.eTaKivT]<ra.i dappovfftv (ol
5 E<T(rcuoi).' He does not explain what
this notice, which refers solely to the
scrupulous observance of the sabbath,
has to do with the profanation of the
temple, with which the passage in the
Gospel is alone concerned. I have
seen Gratz's history described as a
' masterly ' work. The first requisites
in a historian are accuracy in stating
facts and sobriety in drawing infer-
ences. Without these, it is difficult to
see what claims a history can have to
this honourable epithet : and in those
portions of his work, which I have
consulted, I have not found either.

398

THE ESSENES.

Avoid-
strangers.

his observances ; but with the Essene these ablutions were the
predominant feature of his religious ritual. Here again it will
be instructive to compare the practice of Christ and His
disciples with the practice of the Essenes.

* And when they saw some of his
disciples eat bread with denied (that
is to say, unwashen) hands ; for the
Pharisees and all the Jews, except
they wash their hands oft (nvypr]},
eat not.... The Pharisees and scribes
asked him, Why walk not thy disci-
ciples according to the tradition of
the elders?... But he answered... Ye
hypocrites, laying aside the com-
mandment of God, ye hold the
tradition of men....'

'Not that which goeth into the
mouth defileth the man; but that
which cometh out of the mouth, this

defileth the man Let them alone,

they be blind leaders of the blind...'

' To eat with unwashen hands de-
fileth not the man' (Matt. xv. 120,
Mark vii. 123).

'And when the Pharisee saw it,
he marvelled that he had not first
washed before dinner (roC dpia-Tov).
And the Lord said unto him : Now
do ye Pharisees make clean the out-
side of the cup and the platter... Ye
fools... behold all things are clean
unto you' (Luke xi. 38 41).

1 So they wash their whole body
(aTToXovovrai TO oxa/ia) in cold water;
and after this purification (ayveiav}...
being clean (KaQapoi) they come to

the refectory (to dine) And when

they have returned (from their day's
work) they sup in like manner' (B. J.
ii. 8. 5).

'After a year's probation (the
novice) is admitted to closer inter-
course (irpoo-eKriv Zyyiov rrj Stairy),
and the lustral waters in which he
participates have a higher degree of
purity (KOI KaOaptorepav T&V irpbs
ayvciav v8aTO)v /xeraXa/Li/3ai>ei, 7). 3

' It is a custom to wash after it,
as if polluted by it '( 9).

' Racked and dislocated, burnt and
crushed, and subjected to every in-
strument of torture... to make them
eat strange food ( ro>i> d<rvvq0a>v)...
they were not induced to submit'
( 10).

' Exercising themselves in. . .divers
lustrations (dtacfropois ayviais...f}jL-
7r<uorpi/3ov/zfi>oi, 12).'

Connected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance
of contact with strangers, as persons who would communicate
ceremonial defilement. And here too the Essene went much
beyond the Pharisee. The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens,
or those whose profession or character placed them in the
category of 'sinners'; but the Essene shrunk even from the
probationers and inferior grades of his own exclusive com-

THE ESSENES.

399

munity. Here again we may profitably compare the sayings
and doings of Christ with the principles of this sect.

' And when the scribes and Phari-
sees saw him eat with the publicans
and sinners they said unto the dis-
ciples, Why eateth your Master
with the publicans and the sinners. . .
(Mark ii. 15 sq., Matth. ix. 10 sq.,
Luke v. 30 sq.).

'They say... a friend of publicans
and sinners ' (Matth. xi. 19).

'The Pharisees and the scribes
murmured, saying, This man receiv-
eth sinners and eateth with them'
(Luke xv. 2).

' They all murmured saying that
he was gone to be a guest with a
man that is a sinner' (Luke xix. 7).

1 Behold, a woman in the city that
was a sinner... began to wash his feet
with her tears, and did wipe them
with the hairs of her head and

kissed his feet Now when the

Pharisee which had bidden him saw
it, he spake within himself, saying,
This man, if he had been a prophet,
would have known who and what
manner of woman this is that touch-
eth him ; for she is a sinner' (Luke
vii. 37 sq.).

In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial ob-
servances, the denunciations which are hurled against the
Pharisees in the Gospels would apply with tenfold force to the
Essenes.

(iii) If the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the (iii) As-
enactments of the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I C
have elsewhere given reasons for believing that this asceticism
was founded on a false principle, which postulates the malignity
of matter and is wholly inconsistent with the teaching of the
Gospel 1 . But without pressing this point, of which no abso-

'And after this purification they
assemble in a private room, where
no person of a different belief (r<5i
eVfpo8oo>i/, i.e. not an Essene) is
permitted to enter ; and (so) being
by themselves and clean (avrot <a6a-
poi) they present themselves at the
refectory (de iirvrjTrjptov), as if it were
a sacred precinct ' ( 5).

'And they are divided into four
grades according to the time passed
under the discipline : and the juniors
are regarded as so far inferior to the
seniors, that, if they touch them, the
latter wash their bodies clean (d-rro-
XoiWdat), as if they had come in
contact with a foreigner
aXXo<puXo> (rv/i<pvpti/rar, 10).'

1 See Colossians p. 87.

400 THE ESSENES.

lately demonstrative proof can be given, it will be sufficient
to call attention to the trenchant contrast in practice which
Essene habits present to the life of Christ. He who 'came
Eating eating and drinking ' and was denounced in consequence as ' a
ing. glutton and a wine-bibber 1 / He whose first exercise of power

is recorded to have been the multiplication of wine at a festive
entertainment, and whose last meal was attended with the
drinking of wine and the eating of flesh, could only have excited
the pity, if not the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And
again, attention should be directed to another kind of abs-
tinence, where the contrast is all the more speaking, because
the matter is so trivial and the scruple so minute.

' My head with oil thou didst not ' And they consider oil a pollution

anoint ' (Luke vii. 46). (KrjXlda), and though one is smeared

' Thou, when thou fastest, anoint involuntarily, he rubs his body clean

thy head ; (Matt. vi. 17). (oyujxercu TO a-apa, 3).'

Celibacy. And yet it has been stated that ' the Saviour of the world
...... showed what is required for a holy life in the Sermon

on the Mount by a description of the EssenesV

But much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the
Essenes; and our Lord's saying in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to
establish an identity of doctrine. Yet there is nothing special
in the language there used. Nor is there any close affinity
between the stern invectives against marriage which Josephus
and Philo attribute to the Essene, and the gentle concession
1 He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.' The best
comment on our Lord's meaning here is the advice of St Paul 3 ,
who was educated not in the Essene, but in the Pharisaic
school. Moreover this saying must be balanced by the general
tenour of the Gospel narrative. When we find Christ discuss-
ing the relations of man and wife, gracing the marriage festival
by His presence, again and again employing wedding banquets
and wedded life as apt symbols of the highest theological truths,

1 Matt. xi. 19 ; Luke vii. 34. 3 1 Cor. vii. 2631.

2 Ginsburg Essenes p. 14.

THE ESSENES. 401

without a word of disparagement or rebuke, we see plainly that
we are confronted with a spirit very different from the narrow
rigour of the Essenes.

(iv) But not only where the Essenes superadded to the ( iv )

, , . . ,. anceofthe

ceremonial law, does their teaching present a direct contrast Temple

to the phenomena of the Gospel narrative. The same is true
also of those points in which they fell short of the Mosaic
enactments. I have already discussed at some length the
Essene abstention from the temple sacrifices 1 . There can, I
think, be little doubt that they objected to the slaughter of
sacrificial victims altogether. But for my present purpose it
matters nothing whether they avoided the temple on account
of the sacrifices, or the sacrifices on account of the temple.
Christ did neither. Certainly He could not have regarded the
temple as unholy ; for His whole time during His sojourns at
Jerusalem was spent within its precincts. It was the scene of
His miracles, of His ministrations, of His daily teaching 2 . And
in like manner it is the common rendezvous of His disciples
after Him 3 . Nor again does He evince any abhorrence of the
sacrifices. On the contrary He says that the altar consecrates
the gifts 4 ; He charges the cleansed lepers to go and fulfil the
Mosaic ordinance and offer the sacrificial offerings to the
priests 5 . And His practice also is conformable to His teaching.
He comes to Jerusalem regularly to attend the great festivals, Practice
where sacrifices formed the most striking part of the ceremonial, and His
and He himself enjoins preparation to be made for the sacrifice dlscl P les -
of the Paschal lamb. If He repeats the inspired warning of the
older prophets, that mercy is better than sacrifice 6 , this very
qualification shows approval of the practice in itself. Nor is
His silence less eloquent than His utterances or His actions.

1 See p. 350 sq. 20, 59, x. 23, xi. 56, xviii. 20.

2 Matt. xxi. 12 sq., 23 sq., xxiv. 1 sq., 3 Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii. 1 sq.,
xxvi. 55, Mark xi. 11, 15 sq., 27, xii. v. 20 sq., 42.

35, xiii. 1 sq., xiv. 49, Luke ii. 46, xix. 4 Matt, xxiii. 18 sq.: comp. v. 23, 24.

45, xx. 1 sq., xxi. 37 sq., xxii. 53, 5 Matt. viii. 4, Mark i. 44, Luke v. 14.

John ii. 14 sq., v. 14, vii. 14, viii. 2, 6 Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7.

L. 26

402 THE ESSENES.

Throughout the Gospels there is not one word which can be
construed as condemning the sacrificial system or as implying a
desire for its cessation until everything is fulfilled.

(v) Denial (v) This last contrast refers to the ceremonial law. But

of the re- , . -, . , , n .

surrection not less W1 de is the divergence on an important point of

body 6 doctrine. The resurrection of the body is a fundamental
article in the belief of the early disciples. This was distinctly
denied by the Essenes 1 . However gross and sensuous may
have been the conceptions of the Pharisees on this point, still
they so far agreed with the teaching of Christianity, as against
the Essenes, in that the risen man could not, as they held, be
pure soul or spirit, but must necessarily be body and soul
conjoint.

Some sup- Thus at whatever point we test the teaching and practice

posed co- . .

incidences of our Lord by the characteristic tenets of Essenism, the theory

sidered. ^ am>n ity fails. There are indeed several coincidences on
which much stress has been laid, but they cannot be placed in
the category of distinctive features. They are either exempli-
fications of a higher morality, which may indeed have been
honourably illustrated in the Essenes, but is in no sense
confined to them, being the natural outgrowth of the moral
sense of mankind whenever circumstances are favourable. Or
they are more special, but still independent developments,
which owe their similarity to the same influences of climate
and soil, though they do not spring from the same root. To
this latter class belong such manifestations as are due to the
social conditions of the age or nation, whether they result from
sympathy with, or from repulsion to, those conditions.
Simplicity Thus, for instance, much stress has been laid on the aver-
therly sion to war and warlike pursuits, on the simplicity of living,
and on the feeling of brotherhood which distinguished Christians
and Essenes alike. But what is gained by all this? It is
quite plain that Christ would have approved whatever was
pure and lovely in the morality of the Essenes, just as He

1 See Colossians p. 88.

THE ESSENES. 403

approved whatever was true in the doctrine of the Pharisees, if
any occasion had presented itself when His approval was called
for. But it is the merest assumption to postulate direct
obligation on such grounds. It is said however, that the moral
resemblances are more particular than this. There is for
instance Christ's precept 'Swear not at all... but let your com- Prohi-
munication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.' Have we not here, it is O aths!
urged, the very counterpart to the Essene prohibition of oaths 1 ?
Yet it would surely be quite as reasonable to say that both
alike enforce that simplicity and truthfulness in conversation
which is its own credential and does not require the support of
adjuration, both having the same reason for laying stress on
this duty, because the leaders of religious opinion made arti-
ficial distinctions between oath and oath, as regards their
binding force, and thus sapped the foundations of public and
private honesty 2 . And indeed this avoidance of oaths is any-
thing but a special badge of the Essenes. It was inculcated by
Pythagoreans, by Stoics, by philosophers and moralists of all
schools 3 . When Josephus and Philo called the attention of
Greeks and Romans to this feature in the Essenes, they were
simply asking them to admire in these practical philosophers
among the 'barbarians' the realisation of an ideal which their
own great men had laid down. Even within the circles of

1 Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 6 irav rb p-riOh VTT' oaths (SpKovs 0pt/cc65eis) to fulfil certain

O.VT&V iffxvp6repov 8pi<ov ' rb d dfivfatv conditions ; and he twice again in the

avrois TrejoucmtTat, x^P^ r <- T fy emopKias same passage mentions oaths (oftvijovffi,

vTro\a/j.^dvovTes' rj8fj yap KareyvuKrdcd TOIOIJTOI.S 6'p/cois) in this connexion.

0a<rt TOV airi<rToijfjLi>ov 5i%a OeoO, Philo 2 On the distinctions which the

Omn. prob. lib. 12 (n. p. 458) TOV 0t- Jewish doctors made between the va-

\odeov deiy/jLCLTa Trap4xoi>Tai fjivpLa...Tb lidity of different kinds of oaths, see

&VUIJ.OTOV K.r.X. Accordingly Josephus the passages quoted in Lightfoot and

relates (Ant. xv. 10. 4) that Herod the Schottgen on Matt. v. 33 sq. The Tal-

Great excused the Essenes from taking mudical tract Shebhuoth tells its own

the oath of allegiance to him. Yet tale, and is the best comment on the

they were not altogether true to their precepts in the Sermon on the Mount,

principles; for Josephus says (B. J. ii. 3 See e.g. the passages in Wetstein

8. 7), that on initiation into the sect on Matt. v. 37.
the members were bound by fearful

262

404 THE ESSENES.

Pharisaism language is occasionally heard, which meets the
Essene principle half- way 1 .

Cpmmu- And again ; attention has been called to the community of

goods. goods in the infant Church of Christ, as though this were a
legacy of Essenism. But here too the reasonable explanation
is, that we have an independent attempt to realise the idea of
brotherhood an attempt which naturally suggested itself with-
out any direct imitation, but which was soon abandoned under
the pressure of circumstances. Indeed the communism of the
Christians was from the first wholly unlike the communism of
the Essenes. The surrender of property with the Christians
was not a necessary condition of entrance into an order ; it was
a purely voluntary act, which might be withheld without
foregoing the privileges of the brotherhood 2 . And the com-
mon life too was obviously different in kind, at once more free
and more sociable, unfettered by rigid ordinances, respecting
individual liberty, and altogether unlike a monastic rule.
Prohi- Not less irrelevant is the stress, which has been laid on

slavery, another point of supposed coincidence in the social doctrines of
the two communities. The prohibition of slavery was indeed a
highly honourable feature in the Essene order 3 , but it affords
no indication of a direct connexion with Christianity. It is
true that this social institution of antiquity was not less
antagonistic to the spirit of the Gospel, than it was abhorrent
to the feelings of the Essene ; and ultimately the influence of
Christianity has triumphed over it. But the immediate treat-
ment of the question was altogether different in the two cases.
The Essene brothers proscribed slavery wholly ; they produced
no appreciable results by the proscription. The Christian
Apostles, without attempting an immediate and violent revolu-
tion in society, proclaimed the great principle that all men are
equal in Christ, and left it to work. It did work, like leaven,

1 Bdba Metsia 49 a. See also Light- 458) 5oO\6s re irap avrois ov8 els
foot on Matt. v. 34. dXX' e\ei50epot Trdvres K.T.\., Fragm. n.

2 Acts v. 4. p. 632 OVK dvdpdTrodov, Jos. Ant. xviii.

3 Philo Omn. prob. lib. 12 (u. p. 1, 5 otfre doti\ui> tTrt.T'rjdeiJovffi

THE ESSENES. 405

silently but surely, till the whole lump was leavened. In the
matter of slavery the resemblance to the Stoic is much closer
than to the Essene 1 . The Stoic however began and ended in
barren declamation, and no practical fruits were reaped from
his doctrine.

Moreover prominence has been given to the fact that riches Kespect
are decried, and a preference is given to the poor, in the poverty,
teaching of our Lord and His Apostles. Here again, it is
urged, we have a distinctly Essene feature. We need not stop
to enquire with what limitations this prerogative of poverty,
which appears in the Gospels, must be interpreted ; but, quite
independently of this question, we may fairly decline to lay any
stress on such a coincidence, where all other indications of a
direct connexion have failed. The Essenes, pursuing a simple
and ascetic life, made it their chief aim to reduce their material
wants as far as possible, and in doing so they necessarily exalted
poverty. Ascetic philosophers in Greece and Rome had done
the same. Christianity was entrusted with the mission of
proclaiming the equal rights of all men before God, of setting a
truer standard of human worth than the outward conventions
of the world, of protesting against the tyranny of the strong
and the luxury of the rich, of redressing social inequalities, if
not always by a present compensation, at least by a future
hope. The needy and oppressed were the special charge of its
preachers. It was the characteristic feature of the 'Kingdom
of Heaven/ as described by the prophet whose words gave the
keynote to the Messianic hopes of the nation, that the glad
tidings should be preached to the poor 2 . The exaltation of
poverty therefore was an absolute condition of the Gospel.

The mention of the kingdom of heaven leads to the last The

point on which it will be necessary to touch before leaving this of 6 the "

Kingdom

1 See for instance the passages from prophecy again in Matt. xi. 5, Luke
Seneca quoted in Philippians p. 307. vii. 22, and probably also in the beati-

2 Is. Ixi. 1, evayyeXtffacrdat TrrwxoTs, tude ^cc/cd/not oi TTWXOC /c.r.X., Matt. v.
quoted in Luke iv. 18. There are 3, Luke vi. 20.

references to this particular part of the

406 THE ESSENES.

wrongly subject. 'The whole ascetic life of the Essenes,' it has been
to the s&id, 'aimed only at furthering the Kingdom of Heaven and the
Essenes. Q om { n g Age! Thus John the Baptist was the proper represen-
tative of this sect. 'From the Essenes went forth the first call
that the Messiah must shortly appear, The kingdom of heaven
is at hand' 1 . 'The announcement of the kingdom of heaven
unquestionably went forth from the Essenes' 2 . For this confi-
dent assertion there is absolutely no foundation in fact ; and,
as a conjectural hypothesis, the assumption is highly im-
probable.

The Es- As fortune-tellers or soothsayers, the Essenes might be

prophets, called prophets; but as preachers of righteousness, as heralds
tune-tell- ^ ^ ne kingdom, they had no claim to the title. Throughout
the notices in Josephus and Philo we cannot trace the faintest
indication of Messianic hopes. Nor indeed was their position
at all likely to foster such hopes 3 . The Messianic idea was
built on a belief in the resurrection of the body. The Essenes
entirely denied this doctrine. The Messianic idea was inti-
mately bound up with the national hopes and sufferings, with
the national life, of the Jews. The Essenes had no interest in
They had the Jewish polity; they separated themselves almost entirely
Messianic from public affairs. The deliverance of the individual in the
snr P wrec k of the whole, it has been well said, was the plain
watchword of Essenism 4 . How entirely the conception of a
Messiah might be obliterated, where Judaism was regarded
only from the side of a mystic philosophy, we see from the case
of Philo. Throughout the works of this voluminous writer
only one or two faint and doubtful allusions to a personal
Messiah are found 5 . The philosophical tenets of the Essenes

1 Gratz Gesch. in. p. 219. Lipsius, 'has absolutely nothing to do

2 ib. p. 470. with the Messianic prophecy.' ' Of all

3 Lipsius Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon this,' says Keim, 'there is no trace.'
s. v. Essaer p. 190, Keim Jesus von 4 Keim, I. c.

Nazarai.p.3Q5. Both these writers ex- 5 How little can be made out of

press themselves very decidedly against Philo's Messianic utterances by one

the view maintained by Gratz. 'The who is anxious to make the most pos-

Essene art of soothsaying,' writes sible out of them, may be seen from

THE ESSENES. 407

no doubt differed widely from those of Philo; but in the
substitution of the individual and contemplative aspect of
religion for the national and practical they were united; and
the effect in obscuring the Messianic idea would be the same.
When therefore it is said that the prominence given to the
proclamation of the Messiah's kingdom is a main link which
connects Essenism and Christianity, we may dismiss the state-
ment as a mere hypothesis, unsupported by evidence and
improbable in itself.

Gfrorer's treatment of the subject, the de Execrationibus (i. p. 429). They

Philo i. p. 486 sq. The treatises which deserve to be read, if only for the nega-

bear on this topic are the de Praemiis tive results which they yield.
et Poenis (i. p. 408, ed. Mangey) and

INDICES.

/. INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
II. INDEX OF PASSAGES.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Aaronic priesthood ; see priesthood

Acts of the Apostles; its scope and
character, 104 sq, 117 sq ; its rela-
tion to St Paul's Epistles, 59 sq,
104 sq, 117 sq

Addai, the Doctrine of, 172

Aelia Capitolina, foundation of, 72 ;
church of, 73, 169

Aelius Publius Julius, 179

Aerius, 197

Africa, the Church of, catholicity of
the, 92, 102 ; episcopacy in, 187 ;
numerous sees in, 187 ; synods of,
187, 207 ; sacerdotalism in, 228

Alasanda or Alasadda, 373

Alcibiades of Apamea, 88

Alexander (the Great) ; his view of his
mission, 290; effects of his conquests,
253, 290 sq

Alexander of Alexandria, 195

Alexander of Borne, 183 sq

Alexander Polyhistor, 376

Alexandria, a supposed Buddhist es-
tablishment at, 373

Alexandria, the Church of ; early
foundation of, 92, 187 sq ; ortho-
doxy of, 92 ; state of religion in,
187 sq; mode of election of the
bishop of, 194 sq

Alexandrian Judaism and the Gospel,
286

Alfius, the name, 20

Alphaeus, to be identified with Clopas ?
8, 19, 44; with Alfius? 20

altar, use of the word, 217, 229, 234

Ambrose (St), on the Lord's brethren,
24, 41

Ambrosiaster ; see Hilary

Ancient Syriac Documents (Cureton),
104, 172, 183, 228

Ancyra, Council of, 196

Andrew (St) in Asia Minor, 161

Anencletus, 183

angels, of a synagogue, 158; in the
Apocalypse, 158 sq

Anicetus, 182, 185

Antidicomarianites, 39

Antioch ; foundation of the Church at,
55, sq ; the new metropolis of Chris-
tendom, 59; bishops of, 170 sq;
catholicity of, 92 sq, 131 ; Judaizers
at, 131 ; see Paul (St)

Antioch in Pisidia, St Paul preaches
at, 59

Antonius Melissa, 219

Apocalypse ; Hebrew in its imagery,
120, 159 ; but not Ebionite in
doctrine, 120 ; its relation to Christ,
and the Law, 120 sq ; compared with
St John's Gospel and Epistles, 123 ;
angels in the, 158 sq ; date of, 159

Apocryphal Gospels, on the Lord's
brethren, 12, 26 sq

Apostles ; the title not limited to the
twelve, 11 ; not bishops, 153 sq ;
supervision of churches by, 157 ;
first Council of, 59 sq (passim);
evidence for a second Council of,
161

Apostolic congress and decree, 59 sq
(passim), 108

Apostolic Constitutions; on the
Jameses, 36 ; sacerdotal language
of, 226 ; untrustworthy, 190

412

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Apostolic delegates, 157 sq

Aratus, 288

Areopagus ; see Paul (St)

Ariston of Pella, 68 sq

asah, a supposed derivation of Essene,
330, 340

Ascents of James, 29, 87, 118, 126 sq,
389, 393 sq

asceticism, of the Essenes, 393 sq

Asia Minor ; apostles settled in, 161 ;
episcopacy in, 172 sq ; probably
matured there, 161, 166 sq, 172 sq,
190 sq, 244 ; catholicity of the
Church of, 92 ; sides with Cyprian,
207

Asidaeans, 332

asya, a supposed derivation of Essene,
328

Athens ; episcopacy at, 178 ; a Buddhist
burnt alive at, 378

Aubertin's (C.) Seneque et St Paul, 258,
275, 282, 317

Augustine (St) ; on the Lord's brethren,
8, 42 sq ; on episcopacy, 193 ; on
pre-Christian Christianity, 315

Augustus, Indian embassy to, 375,
378

Aurelius (M. Antoninus) ; his charac-
ter, 282, 303 sq; his modified
Stoicism, 303 sq ; defects of his
teaching, 304 ; persecution of the
Christians by, 304 ; supposed rela-
tions with rabbi Jehuda, 304 ; notice
of Christianity by, 305 ; on immor-
tality, 311

Bacchyllus, 178

Balaam and Nicolas, 52, 64

Banaim, 348 sq

Banus, 348 sq, 385

Barcochba, rebellion of, 69, 71 sq

Bardesanes ; on Buddhists, 376 ; his

date, 377 ; the de Fato by a disciple

of, 86

Barnabas, Joseph, not Joses, 20
Barnabas, Epistle of, date and place of

writing of, 187

Barsabas, Joseph or Joses, 20
Basil (St), on the Lord's brethren, 38

Basilides ; and idol-sacrifices, 65 ; and
Glaucus, 112

Baur (C. F.), 49, 64, 91, 98, 105, 111,
197, 258, 279, 362

Bene-hakkeneseth, 346

bishops ; see episcopate

Bonosus, 40

Bradshaw, 26

Brahminism, 375 sq

brethren of the Lord, 3 sq (passim)

' brother,' wide use of the term, 7, 12
sq,42

Buddhism ; its assumed influence on
Essenism, 372 sq; supposed es-
tablishment of, at Alexandria, 373 ;
unknown in the West, 374 sq ; four
steps of, 379

Buddhist at Athens, 378

Bunsen, 32, 33, 35

burial clubs, Christian brotherhoods
first recognized by Roman govern-
ment as, 152

Burrus and St Paul, 285

Butler (Bp.), 313

Caius or Gams (St Paul's host), 177

Callistus, 102, 186

Calvin's distinction of lay and teaching

elders, 153

Carthage ; see Africa
Cassiodorus; his translation of Clement

of Alexandria, 32
Cassius of Tyre, 169
Catholic Church, 163, 167 sq
Cato the younger, his character, 296
celibacy, 357, 400 sq
chaber, 343 sq
Chagigah, on ceremonial purity, 343

sq
chasha, chashaim, a derivation of

Essene, 331
chasid, chasyo, a derivation of Essene,

327, 330
Chasidim, 332, 335 sq ; not a proper

name for Essene, 327
chasin, chosin, a derivation of Essene,

327
chaza, chazya, a derivation of Essene,

329

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

413

chazan, his duties, 147

chorepiscopi, 196

Christ; high priesthood of, 217; the
Word, 274, 287, 315 ; the true vine,
314, 316 ; membership in, 291 sq ;
His teaching and practice notEssene,
395 sq; see Christianity, Church,
Resurrection etc.

Christian, the name, 56

Christian ministry, priesthood etc. ;
see ministry, priesthood etc.

Christianity; distinguishing feature of,
313 sq ; its true character, 314 sq ;
not an outgrowth of Essenism, 381
sq

Christianized Essenes, 352

Christians of St John, 390

Chrysippus, 255 sq, 278, 288, 310

Chrysostom(St),ontheLord'sbrethren,
8, 38, 43 sq

Church of Christ ; ideal of, 137 ; its
practical limitations, 137 sq ; in-
fluence of this ideal, 139 sq ; false
ideas prevailing in, 237 sq

circumcision, the question of, 59 sq

citizenship ; St Paul's metaphor of the
heavenly, 292 ; rights of Eoman,
290 sq

Clarus of Ptolemais, 169

Claudius, embassy from Ceylon in the
reign of, 379

Claudius Apollinaris, 174

Cleanthes ; character of, 295 ; hymn
of, 288, 306 ; on immortality, 310 ;
committed suicide, 295

Clement of Alexandria ; on the Lord's
brethren, 32 sq; on the Nicolaitans,
52 ; his commentary on the Catholic
Epistles, 32; on the ministry, 172,
189, 192, 221 sq ; no sacerdotalism in,
221 ; on Indian philosophers, 375 ;
on Plato, 276 ; on St Matthew, 80 ;
quotes the ' Preaching of Peter,' 111

Clement of Eome ; a Greek, 186 ; his
position in the Church, 95 sq, 99,
179, 183 sq ; his Epistle, 95 sq, 116
sq, 164 sq, 177, 215 ; passages dis-
cussed, 162 sq, 164 sq, 215 sq ; no
sacerdotalism in, 215 sq ; use of term

' offerings ' in, 230 ; bishops and
presbyters identified in, 165, 179 sq

Clementine Homilies ; their scope and
complexion, 83 sq, 98 sq ; editions
and epitomes of, 84 ; their Eoman
origin doubtful, 98 sq; their represen-
tation of St James, 27, 29, 130, 155
sq, 168 ; attacks on St Paul, 83 sq ;
letter of Peter prefixed to, 86 ; letter
of Clement prefixed to, 99 ; not
sacerdotal, 227 ; on episcopacy, 170,
171, 202; Essene features in, 352
sq; recommend excision of the
scriptures, 352 sq, 355 ; on the
Hemerobaptists, 391

Clementine Eecognitions ; composition
of, 36 sq ; editions and collations of,
84 ; ' Ascents of James ' incorporated
in, 29, 87, 118, 126 sq, 389 ; arbitrary
alteration of Eufinus in, 86 sq ; on
episcopacy, 170, 171

Cleopas, the name, 19

clergy; distinguished from the laity,
212 sq ; origin of the term, 212

Cletus, 183

Clopas, 7 sq, 19 sq, 29 sq ; to be identi-
fied with Alphseus ? 7 sq, 19, 44

clubs, 152

Collyridians, 39

community of goods, 404

compresbyterus, 193

confraternities, 152

congregation, the holy, at Jerusalem,
346

eonscientia, 303

Corinth, the Church of ; associated
with St Peter and St Paul, 117 ; its
catholicity, 117; parties in, 117 sq,
132 sq, 177 ; Judaizers in, 132 sq ;
St Paul's dealings with, 157; episco-
pacy in, 177 ; see Clement of Eome

Corinthians, the Epistles to the ; no
sacerdotalism in, 211

Cornelius, conversion of, 54 sq

Cornelius, bishop of Eome, 146

Crete, episcopacy in, 178

Cyprian ; his mode of addressing pres-
byters, 193 ; his view of the episco-
pate, 204 sq, 208 sq ; controversies

414

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

of, 205 sq ; his character and work,
204 sq; genuineness of his letters,
206 ; sacerdotalism of, 226

Cyril of Alexandria ; on the Lord's
brethren, 44 ; source of his account
of the Buddhists, 376

Cyril of Jerusalem, on the Lord's
brethren, 37

Damascene, John, 219

De Quincey, 381

diaconate ; its establishment, 144 sq ;
its novelty, 146 sq; limitation to
seven, 145 sq ; its functions, 146 sq ;
teaching incidental to, 147 ; exten-
sion to gentile churches, 148 sq

deaconesses, 148

deacons ; see diaconate

Demetrius of Alexandria, 196

Dion Chrysostom, 375

Dionysius of Alexandria, 194

Dionysius the Areopagite, 178

Dionysius of Corinth, 102 ; his testi-
mony to episcopacy, 175, 177, 185;
couples St Peter and St Paul, 117

dispersion, the, 50

Dorotheus Tyrius, the pseudo-, 5, 40

dualism, in Essenism, 369

Eastern Churches, testimony respect-
ing the Jameses from, 44

Ebionites; different classes of, 73 sq,
77 sq (passim); the churches of
Palestine not Ebionite, 88 sq; nor
other churches, 92 sq ; the sect dies
out, 103

Ecce Homo quoted, 293, 308, 309

Egnatius the Stoic, 265

Egypt, episcopacy in, 194 sq

Egyptians, Gospel of the; tradition
respecting gnosis in, 33 sq

Elchasai, founder of the Mandeans,
393

Elchasai or Elxai, book of, 80 sq, 102,
354 sq, 392 sq

elders, primitive, 347 sq

Eleutherus, 185

Elieser (Eabbi), on the Samaritans, 53
sq

Emesa, 229

Epaphroditus, Nero's freedman, 299

Epictetus ; his earnestness and piety,
299 sq ; his theology and ethics, 302 ;
modified stoicism of, 305 ; his places
of abode, 300 ; coincidences with the
N. T. in, 281 sq, 299 sq ; especially
with St Paul, 299 sq, 302 ; his notice
of Christianity, 305 ; his views on
immortality, 311

Epicurus; sayings of, 262, 269, 271;
admired by Seneca, 275 ; his system,
251 sq ; its Greek origin, 252 ; Epi-
curean ethics basely consistent, 312

Epiphanius ; on the Lord's brethren,
4 sq (passim), 39 sq ; on the Naza-
renes, 75 ; on the Nasareans, 353

episcopate ; bishops not the same as
Apostles, 153 sq ; episcopate develop-
ed from presbytery, 154 sq, 166, 189
sq; preparatory steps towards, 156
sq ; causes of development, 160, 165
sq, 198 ; gradual progress of, 165 sq,
190, 197 sq; first matured in Asia
Minor, 161, 166 sq, 172 sq, 190 sq,
244 ; episcopate of Jerusalem, 155.
168 sq ; of other churches, 160, 169
sq ; prevalence of episcopacy, 190 ;
ordination confined to bishops, 197 ;
foreign correspondence entrusted to
them, 184 ; their mode of addressing
presbyters, 193 ; they represent the
universal Church, 207 ; their in-
creased power involves no principle,
209 sq ; see synods etc.

Escha, 12

Essene; meaning of the name, 325 sq;
Frankel's theory, 333 sq

Essene Ebionism, 79 sq, 127, 322
(passim)

Essenes ; Josephus and Philo chief
authorities upon, 350; oath taken
by, 340 ; their grades, 343 ; origin
and affinities, 332 sq ; relation to
Christianity, 381 sq ; to Pharisaism,
333; to Neopythagoreanism, 362 sq;
to Hemerobaptists, 386 sq ; to Par-
sism, 369 sq ; to Buddhism, 372 sq ;
avoidance of oaths, 403; fortune-

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

415

tellers,406; silence of New Test, about,
382 sq ; relation to John the Baptist,
384 sq ; to James, the Lord's brother,
393 sq; Christianized Essenes, 352 ;
not sacerdotal, 228

Essenism; compared with Christianity,
395 sq ; the sabbath, 396 sq ; lustra-
tions, 397 sq ; avoidance of strangers,
398 sq ; asceticism, celibacy, 399 sq ;
avoidance of the temple, 401 ; denial
of the resurrection of the body, 402 ;
certain supposed coincidences with
Christianity, 402

Ethiopian Eunuch, conversion of, 54

Euarestus, 183, 184

Euodius, 170

Eusebiusof Cassarea ; Syriac translation
of, 33, 36, 90, 117; a passage of
Clement of Alexandria preserved in,
33 sq ; on the Lord's brethren, 36 ;
his silence misinterpreted, 103 sq ;
on the second apostolic council,
162 ; his list of bishops of Jerusalem,
168 sq; of Borne, 183; of Alexandria,
188

Eutychius, on the mode of appointment
of the patriarch of Alexandria, 195

Fleury's St Paul et Seneque, 258, 262,

317, 319 sq
Frankel, on the Essenes, 333 sq

Gaius ; see Gains

Gallic ; St Paul before, 285 ; Seneca's
account of, 285

Gaul, episcopacy in, 186

Gentiles; the Gospel preached to, 49
sq (passim) ; emancipation and pro-
gress of, 56 sq (passim)

Gibbon ; on the Lord's brethren, 41 ;
on the spread of Christianity, 311,
314

Ginsburg (Dr), 341 sq, 344, 382, 400

Glaucias, 111

Gnosticism serves to develope episco-
pacy, 160

Gratz, 70, 327, 337, 381, 383, 396, 397

Gregory Nyssen, on the Lord's brethren,
38

Hadrian ; his treatment of Jews and
Christians, 72 ; authenticity of his
letter to Servianus, 188 ; his visit to
Egypt, 188

Hananias, 195

Hebrews, Epistle to the ; its Alexan-
drian origin, 187 ; absence of sacer-
dotalism in and general argument of,
233 sq

Hebrews, Gospel of the ; account of
our Lord appearing to James in, 26
sq

Hegesippus ; not an Ebionite, 90 sq ;
on the Lord's brethren, 18 sq, 29 sq;
on James the Lord's brother, 80,
125, 168 ; on heresies in the Church
of Jerusalem, 71, 82 ; on Symeon,
19, 30, 162, 168 ; on the Corinthian
Church, 177 ; his sojourn in Home,
89 sq, 102, 182 sq ; on the Eoman
Church and bishops, 182 sq ; his
acquaintance with Eleutherus, 185 ;
aim of his work, 182, 204

Hellenists, their influence in the early
Church, 51 sq, 144 sq

Helvidius, on the Lord's brethren,
4 sq (passim), 40

Helvidius Priscus, 297

Hemerobaptists, 386 sq

Heraclas of Alexandria, 194, 196

heretics, rebaptism of, 207

Hermas, the Shepherd of; its author,
184 ; his language, 186 ; its charac-
ter and teaching, 97; on Church
officers, etc. 180 sq ; on Clement,
180, 184

Hermippus, 372

Hero of Antioch, 171

Hierapolis, its bishops, 174

high-priests ; mitre of, 220 ; Christians
so called, 217 sq, 220, 223 sq ; see
Christ

Hilary (Ambrosiaster) ; on the Lord's
brethren, 37 ; on the priesthood,
141 ; on episcopacy, 163, 167, 192 ;
on the Alexandrian episcopate, 194

Hilary of Poitiers, on the Lord's
brethren, 24, 37

Hilgenfeld, on the Essenes, 372 sq

416

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Hippolytus ; on James the Lord's
brother, 33; on the Nicolaitans, 52;
on the book of Elchasai, 80 sq, 88,
100; St John illustrated from, 65;
use of KAROOS in, 214; sacerdotal
terms in, 223; the pseudo-, on the
Lord's brethren, 9, 35

Holzherr, 311

Hyginus, 184

idols, things sacrificed to, 63 sq

Ignatian letters (short Greek ); their
genuineness, 198, 239 sq, 242 sq; on
episcopacy, 173 sq, 200 sq ; on pres-
byters, 201 ; the language considered,
201 sq; not sacerdotal, 217; use of
'altar' in, 234; a passage misinter-
preted (Philad. 9), 217

Ignatian letters (Syriac Version); an
abridgment, 198, 242; their testi-
mony to episcopacy, 173, 198 sq, 243

Ignatius ; his testimony to the Eoman
Church, 96, 180; on St Peter and
St Paul, 116; see Ignatian letters

immortality of man, 309 sq

India, communications between the
West and, 372 sq, 375 sq

Irenaeus ; his use of terms ' bishop '
and 'presbyter,' 189, 190, 191 sq ;
of 'oblations,' 231; of /cA^>os, 214;
list of Eoman bishops in, 182 sq;
on episcopacy, 172, 190, 203 sq; on
priesthood, 218 sq; on a second
Apostolic Council, 162; on the
Paschal controversy, 101; Pfaffian
fragments of, 164; his relation to
Hegesippus, 182

Ischyras, 195

James, the Lord's brother ; was he one
of the Twelve ? 12 sq (passim) ; our
Lord's appearance to him, 17, 26,
124; his position, 123 sq; a bishop,
155, 168; but one of the presbytery,
155 sq; his asceticism, 124 sq, 394;
but not an Essene, 393 sq; his
relation to the Judaizers, 61, 124 sq,
129 sq (passim) ; to St Peter and St
John, 127 sq; to St Paul (faith and

works), 129 sq; his death, 68, 126;
account of him in the Hebrew
Gospel, 26 sq ; in the Clementines,
29; among the Ophites, 33; see
also Ascents of James

James, the son of Alphseus, 5 sq
(passim)

James, the son of Mary, 7 sq (passim)

James, the son of Zebedee, martyrdom
of, 58 ; was he a cousin of our Lord?
15 sq

Jason and Papiscus, 69

Jehuda ha-Nasi, 304

Jerome ; his disingenuousness, 31 ; on
the Lord's brethren, 4 sq (passim),
41 ; on the Nazarenes, 73 ; on the
origin of episcopacy, 166, 193 ; on
Church policy in Alexandria, 194 ;
on episcopal ordination, 197; on
Seneca, 249 sq, 276, 318; dates of
some of his works, 11

Jerusalem ; the fall of, 68 sq ; the
early Church of, 49 sq ; its waning
influence, 58 sq (passim) ; the
Council of, 59 sq ; outbreak of
heresies in, 70 sq; reconstitution of,
72 sq, 88 ; bishops of, 155, 168 sq ;
presbytery of, 156; its attitude in
the Paschal controversy, 88

Jewish names ; exchanged for heathen,
19 sq ; abbreviated, 20 sq

Jewish priesthood ; see priesthood

John (St) ; was he the Lord's cousin ?
15 sq; in Asia Minor, 161, 167; his
position in the Church, 118 sq ;
matures episcopacy, 160, 167, 172
sq, 244 ; traditions relating to, 121 ;
not claimed by the Ebionites, 118;
on idol -sacrifices, 64 ; Gospel and
Epistles of, 123, 387 sq ; Apocalypse
of, 120 sq

John Damascene, 219

John the Baptist; not an Essene, 384
sq; disciples of, at Ephesus, 387;
claimed by the Hemerobaptists, 387

John (St), Christians of, 390

Joseph, a common name, 20; occur-
rence in our Lord's genealogy, 21 ;
the same as Joses? 20

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

417

Joseph, the Virgin's husband, early

death of, 22
Josephus; on the death of St James,

126; on Essenism, 325 sq, 344 sq ;

thepseudo-, 68
Joses, the son of Mary, 20
Jovinianus, 40
Judaizers, 59 sq (passim), 66, 73 sq

(passim), 107 sq (passim), 131 sq

(passim) ; not sacerdotal, 227
Judas the Apostle and the Lord's

brother the same? 8 sq (passim)
Judas, a name of Thomas, 15
Julianus of Apamea, 175
Justin Martyr ; not an Ebionite, 88, 89

sq ; a fragment wrongly ascribed to,

31 sq; use of 'oblations' in, 231;

not sacerdotal, 218
Justus, bishop of Jerusalem, 168
Justus, the name, 125

laity, 212 sq
Lactantius, 277

lapsed, controversy about the, 205 sq
law, our Lord's teaching as regards,
49; zeal for arid decline of, 67 sq
(passim) ; relation of St Peter to,
110 sq; of St John to, 121 sq, 128;
of St James to, 124 sq, 127 sq; see
St Paul
Linus, 183
lots, the use of, 213
Lucian, sacerdotal language of, 229
lustrations of the Essenes, 397 sq
Luther uses different language at
different times, 108

M. Anneus Paulus Petrus, 284
Macedonia, the church of, episcopacy

in, 175 sq

magic among the Essenes, 358
Mandeans, 390
Marcion, parentage of, 175
Marcus, bishop of Jerusalem, 169
Marcus Aurelius; see Aurelius
Mark (St) ; his connexion with Alexan-
dria, 187, 194; a link between St
Peter and St Paul, 116
Martinus Bragensis; his relation to

Seneca, 320; works of, 320; recen-
sions, titles and MSS. of the Formula
Honestae Vitae of, 320 sq

Mary, different persons bearing the
name, 7 sq, 11 sq, 13 sq, 21 sq, 38, 43

Mary, the Lord's mother ; her virginity,
23 sq; commended to the keeping
of St John, 24

Matthew (St), his alleged asceticism, 80

Matthias (St), appointment of, 213

Megasthenes, 375 sq

Melcha, 12

Melito, 121, 174

Mill, 3, 26, 35, 36

Milman (Dean), 98, 216, 371

ministry (the Christian), three orders
of, 143 sq, 235 sq; not sacerdotal, 141
sq; St Paul on, 141 sq ; the temporary
and the permanent, 142 sq; views as
to the origin of, 143 sq; how far a
priesthood, 232 sq; representative,
not vicarial, 235 sq; see sacerdota-
lism, priesthood, episcopate etc

Mithras-worship, 372

Mom m sen, on Cato, 296

monasticism of the Essenes and Budd-
hists, 379

Montanism, a reaction, 203

morning- bathers, 348, 386 sq

Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, 169

Nasareans, 353

Nazarenes (Nasoreans), 74 sq, 352, 355,
390

Neander, criticism on, 216

Neoplatonism, its conflict with Chris-
tianity, 305

Neopythagoreanism and Essenism, 362
sq

Neronian persecution mentioned in
the correspondence of St Paul and
Seneca, 319

Nicolas and the Nicolaitans, 52

Nicolaus of Damascus, 378

Novatian schism, 206

oblation, offering ; see sacrifice

Onesimus of Ephesus, 173

Ophites; perhaps referred to in the

418

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Apocalypse, 65 ; used the Gospel of

the Egyptians, 33
ordination ; at Alexandria, 194 sq ;

generally restricted to bishops, 195 sq
Oriental characteristics of Stoicism,

252 sq
Origen ; on the Lord's brethren, 34 sq ;

on the Ebionites, 73, 88 ; on Gaius,

177 ; on the priesthood, 224

Palestine, churches of : not Ebionite,
88 sq ; sees and bishops of, 169 sq

Palmas, 175

Panaetius, 256

Pantaenus in India, 375, 377

Pantheism admits no consciousness of
sin, 278 sq, 307 sq

papacy, power of the, 209 sq

Papias ; bishop of Hierapolis, 174 ; his
use of the word 'presbyter', 192;
passage wrongly ascribed to, 25 sq

Papias (the medieval), his Elemen-
tarium, 25 sq

Parsism; resemblances to, in Essen-
ism, 369 sq ; spread by the destruc-
tion of the Persian Empire, 371 ;
influence of, 372

Paschal controversy, 88, 101

Pastoral Epistles; date of, 159; no
sacerdotalism in, 210 sq

patriarchs ; Jewish, 188 ; Alexandrian,
189, 194 sq

Paul (St); his portrait in the Acts,
104; his qualifications and con-
version, 57 ; his first missionary
journey, 59 sq ; at the council of
Jerusalem, 60 sq; conflict with St
Peter at Antioch, 112; his speech
on Areopagus, 272, 288; his supposed
connexion with Seneca, 284 ; his
trial at Borne, 285 ; his acquaintance
with Stoic diction, etc. 288 sq; on
idol-sacrifices, 63 ; his relation to
the Apostles of the circumcision, 46
sq (passim), 108 sq (passim), see
James, Peter, John; relations to his
countrymen, 105 sq ; attacks of
Judaizers on, see Judaizers, Clemen-
tine Homilies ; on the law, see law ;

recognised in the Test, xii Patr.
75 sq, 77

Paul (St), Epistles of; their partial
reception in the early Church, 345 ;
questioned by modern critics, 105

Pauli Praedicatio, 111 sq, 162

peccatum, 278 sq, 307 sq

Pelagius, on the Lord's brethren, 42

Pella, Church of, 68 sq, 72 sq

Peter (St) ; his vision and its effects,
113; at Antioch, 112 sq, 115; at
Rome, 94; his character, 114; his
position, 59 ; how regarded by St
Paul, 109 sq; how represented in
the Clementines, 80, 83 sq, 110 sq ;
by Basilides etc., Ill ; coupled with
St Paul in early writers, 116 sq;
writings ascribed to, 111 sq ; bishops
traditionally appointed by, 170;
styled himself a 'fellow-presbyter,'
157

Peter (St), First Epistle of; its charac-
ter etc. 114 sq ; its resemblance to St
Paul, 114 sq

Peter, Gospel of ; its docetism, 27 ; on
the Lord's brethren, 27

Peter, Preaching of, not Ebionite, 111
sq

Pfaff, 164

Pharisees, their relation to Essenes,
333 sq, 357, 359

Philip the Apostle, settled at Hiera-
polis, 161

Philip the deacon, his work, 53

Philip of Gortyna, 178

Philo, on the Essenes, 326, 361

philosophy, later Greek, 251 sq

Piers Ploughman, 315

Pinytus, 178

Pius (I) of Borne, 184, 186

Plato; his portrait of the just man,
275 ; on preparation for death, 312

Polycarp; a bishop, 170, 173; visits
Borne, 101, 185 ; mentions no bishop
of Philippi, 176 ; has no sacerdotal
views, 217

Polycrates of Ephesus ; his date and
style, 121 sq; his relatives, 174;
his testimony to Polycarp, 173 ;

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

419

traditions preserved by, 101, 121 sq;
other quotations from bis writings,
173, 175 ; notice of St John in, 121
sq, 220 ; is he sacerdotal ? 220

Poppaea ; her relations with the Jews,
319 ; her supposed antagonism to
St Paul, 319

Posidonius the Stoic, 295

Pothinus, 187

poverty, respect paid to, by Essenes
and by Christ, 405

Praedicatio Pauli, 111 sq, 162

presbyter (elder) among the Jews, 149
sq; 'bishop' a synonyme of, 151
sq ; Christian presbyters derived
from the synagogue, 149 sq ; in the
mother Church, 150 sq ; in Gentile
Churches, 151 ; their duties, 152 sq ;
their designations, 152; bishops so
called, 191 sq; how addressed by
bishops, 193 ; see ministry, priests,
priesthood etc

priest; distinguished from presbyter,
143 ; the two confused in many
languages, 143, 212 sq

priesthood ; idea common to Jewish
and heathen, 138, 233 ; the Christian,
139 sq, 232 sq ; universal, 237 ; the
Jewish, 138 sq; not called /cX^pos,
212 sq ; analogous with Christian
ministry, 231 sq ; see ministry,
priest, sacerdotalism etc

Primus of Corinth, 177

proselytes, grades of Jewish, 50 sq

Protevangelium, on the Lord's breth-
ren, 28, 35

Publius of Athens, 178

Pythagoreanism ; and Essenism, 361
sq; disappearance of, 365

Quadratus, 178

Quinisextine Council, 145, 146

rebaptism of heretics, 207

Kenan, 5, 152, 373

Kesurrection, power of the, 310 sq,

401 sq

Kevelation ; see Apocalypse
Kitschl; on the early Church, 49, 61,

74, 75, 79 ; on the Christian ministry,
144, 145

Eoman Empire, cosmopolitan idea
realised in, 290 sq

Eomans, Epistle to the, contrasted
with Galatians, 107 sq

Eome, the Church of; its early history,
93 sq; at first Greek, not Latin,
186; transition to a Latin Church,
186; deacons limited to seven in,
145 sq; episcopacy and church
government in, 179 sq; succession
of bishops, 89 sq, 182 sq; recogni-
tion of St Peter and St Paul by,
116 sq; communications with Cy-
prian, 207 sq; see Clement of Rome,
Hegesippus

Bothe; on the origin of episcopacy,
144, 160 sq; on the angels of the
Apocalypse, 158; on Diotrephes,
158

Eufinus; his translation of Eusebius,
89; of the Clementine Eecognitions,
84,86

Sabbath, observance of, by Essenes,
396

Sabeans, 390

sacerdotalism ; the term defined, 210 ;
its absence in the N.T., 137, 139 sq,
210, 232 sq; rapid growth, 211 sq;
progress of development, 220 sq;
how far innocent, 225; whether due
to Jewish or Gentile influences, 226
sq; see priesthood

sacrifices, prohibited by the Essenes,
350 sq

Sagaris, 174

Salome, 16

Samansei, 375 sq

Samaritans ; how regarded by the Jews,
53; their conversion, 53

Sampsaeans, 354

Sarmanae, 375 sq

Schliemann, 73 sq, 78

Seneca ; possibly of Shemetic race, 257 ;
his personal appearance, 265; re-
lations with Nero, 297 sq; chrono-
logy of his writings, 273, 281;

272

420

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

spurious work ascribed to, 317 sq;
Haase's edition of, 317, 320; his
character, 296 sq; his own confes-
sions of weakness, 298; accounted
a Christian, 249; supposed con-
nexion with St Paul, 249, 283 sq;
literature on the subject, 258 ; com-
pared and contrasted with St Paul,
258 sq ; coincidence of thought and
language with the Bible, 258 sq;
nature of God, 259 ; relation of man
to God, 259 sq; guardian angels,
260 ; an indwelling spirit, 260 ; uni-
versality of sin, 261; the conscience,
262; self-examination, 262; duties
towards others, 263 ; parallels to the
Sermon on the Mount and to the
Gospels, 264 sq; to the Apostolic
Epistles, 268 ; to St Paul, 269 sq ;
fallacious inferences therefrom, 272
sq; his obligations to earlier writers,
274 ; portrait of the wise man, 275 ;
a true Stoic in his theology and
ethics, 277 sq ; his possible knowledge
of Christianity, 283 sq ; his cosmo-
politanism, 290 sq ; his vague ideas
on immortality, 310 sq ; his sense of
the need of a historic basis, 313 sq ;
see Stoicism

Seneca and Paul, the letters of; de-
scribed, 250, 317 sq; MSS and
editions of, 317; motive of the
forgery, 318; opinion of St Jerome
about them, 250, 318, 320; men-
tioned by St Augustine and later
writers, 318; their spuriousness,
250, 319; a theory respecting them
discussed, 319 sq; de Copia Ver-
borwn mentioned in them, 320

Serapion of Antioch, 171, 174; on the
Gospel of Peter, 27

Seres, mythical character of, 81

Servianus, Hadrian's letter to, 188

Seven, appointment of the, 51 sq, 144
sq; they were deacons, 145

Simon, Symeon, different persons
called, 9, 18 ; a common name, 20

sin; see peccatum

slavery, prohibited by the Essenes, 404

Socrates, on preparation for death,
312

Sophronius, 9

Soter, 185

Stephanus Gobarus, on Hegesippus,
91

Stephen (St), influence and work of,
52, 56, 58

Stephen of Eome, 207

Stoicism; rise of, 251 sq; Oriental
origin and character of, 252 sq,
255, 282 sq, 295, 305 sq; exclusive
attention to ethics in, 254; neglect
of physics and logic, 254 sq; its
prophetic character, 255 sq; its
westward progress, 256; the older
Stoics, 294 sq ; Stoicism at Tarsus,
287 sq; in Kome, 256, 295; native
places of its great teachers, 282,
288; its obligations to Judaism, 283;
a preparation for the Gospel, 286 sq ;
wide influence of its vocabulary,
287; contrast to Christianity, 276,
293 sq ; its materialistic pantheism,

277, 306 sq ; consistent blasphemies,

278, 306 sq ; no consciousness of sin,
278 sq, 307 sq; ' sacer spiritus,' 260,
279; faulty ethics of, 278 sq, 308
sq ; apathy of, 280, 309 ; defiance of
nature in, 308; inconsistencies of,
281, 307 sq; paradoxes and para-
logisms of, 312 sq; its cosmopolitan-
ism, 290 sq; the wise man, 289;
diverse and vague ideas about man's
immortality, 309 sq; no idea of
retribution, 312 ; want of a historic
basis, 313 sq; religious directors,
295 ; improved theology in Epictetus,
302; improved ethics in M. Aurelius,
303; modifications and decline of,
305 sq; hymnology of, 306; ex-
clusiveness of, 309; meagre results
of, 294, 306; causes of failure, 306
sq; see Epictetus, M. Aurelius,
Seneca, Zeno etc

Strabo, on Buddhism, 374 sq
subdeacons, 145 sq
sun-worship, 229, 354, 364, 369
Symeon, son of Clopas, 18 sq, 29 sq,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

421

68, 162, 168; his martyrdom, 71,
168 ; see Simon

synagogues; character and number of,
149 sq; adopted by the Christians,
167; angels of, 158'; rulers of, 149;
chazan of, 147

synods (episcopal), 175, 187, 207

Syriac translations; of Clement, 216;
of the Clementines, 84, 87 ; of Igna-
tius, 96, 198, 242; of Eusebius, 33,
36, 90, 117; see Ancient Syriac
Documents

Syrian Church, 172; sacerdotalism in,
228 sq

Talmud; supposed etymologies of
Essene in, 329 sq, 334 sq ; supposed
allusions to the Essenes in, 343 sq

Tarsus, Stoicism at, 287 sq

Telesphorus, 183, 184

Tertullian; on the Lord's brethren, 4,
10, 31 sq; on episcopacy, 172, 176,
190,204; on the Church and bishops
of Eome, 185 sq; on Praxeas, 102;
on Seneca, 249 ; on natural Christi-
anity, 315 ; use of ' clerus ' in, 214 ;
sacerdotal views of, 222 sq

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
75 sq; no sacerdotalism in, 227

Thebuthis, 168

Theodoret; on the Lord's brethren, 8,
44; on bishops and Apostles, 153
sq

Theophilus of Antioch, 171

Theophilus of Cgesarea, 169

Theophylact, on the Lord's brethren,
5,44

Therapeutes, 354

Thomas (St), his name Judas, 15

Thrace, episcopacy in, 179

Thrasea Psetus, 297

Thraseas of Eumenia, 175

Timothy, his position at Ephesus,
157 sq

Titus, his position in Crete, 157 sq

Tours, Council of, 249

Tubingen School, 47 sq, 91, 93, 104 sq,
113, 123, 133 ; see Baur

Tyndale and other versions, render-
ing of Trpecrptrepos in, 211

Valens, the Philippian, his crime, 176

vathikin, 347

Versions; their testimony respecting

the Lord's brethren, 8, 14, 15, 18 sq,

21,28
Victor of Home, 90, 93 sq, 101, 175,

186, 192, 207
Victorinus Petavionensis, on the Lord's

brethren, 10, 36
Victorinus Philosophus, on the Lord's

brethren, 37

vine, parable of the, 314, 316
Vitringa, criticisms on, 145, 147, 158,

167

Vopiscus, 188
Vulgate, rendering of Trpeff^repos in,

211

Western Services, their testimony re-
specting the Jameses, 43

Wiclif, rendering of Trpeffptrepos by,
211

Wieseler, 16, 20

Word of God, the; see Christ

Xystus, 183, 184; proverbs ascribed
to, 184

Yavana or Yona, 373

Zeller on Essenism, 362 sq

Zend Avesta, 369

Zeno ; his system compared with that
of Epicurus, 251 sq; a Phoenician,
253; his character, 295; his ad-
mired polity, 290, 295 ; see Stoicism

Zephyrinus, 102, 186

Zoroastrianism and Essenism, 369 sq

Zoticus, 175

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

PAGE

Genesis

i28

357

Ezekiel viii 16

356

xi29

xviii 7, 16

263

xiii 8

Daniel ix 27

xxix 15

x 13, 20, 21

159

Exodus

xv 26

358

Haggai i 13

158

xxviii 15 sq

331

Malachi i 10, 11

218

xxviii 36

121

ii7

158

Leviticus

xviii 18

Tobit iii 17

372

Numbers

viii 10

139

Ecclus. vii 29, 31

226

xxvi 62

212

1 Maccabees ii 42

327, 332

Deuteronomy

212

vii 13

327, 332

xii 12, xiv 27

212

2 Maccabees xiv 6

327, 332

xvii 12

226

St Matthew i 15, 16

xviii 1, 2

212

xx 6

212

iii 7

383

xxiii 1

405

xxiii 12 sq

349

v 8, 21 sq, 29

264

xxviii 30

212

v 23, 24

401

Joshua

xiv 3

212

v 33, 34

403

Euth

i 12

212

v 39, 44, 45

264

1 Chronicles

xxiv 5, 7, 31

213

v41

302

xxv 8, 9

213

vi 3 sq, 10, 16

265

Job

i21

272

vi!7

400

vii 1

269

vi!9

266

Psalms

xxii 22

vii 3 sq, 12, 16,

26 266

xxx 5

338

vii 15

xxxi 12

271

viii 4

401

xxxi 24

338

ix 10 sq

399

Proverbs

iii 11, 12

274

ix!3

268, 401

xxii 9

271

ix 14 sq

386

Isaiah

Ivi 3 sq

x 2 sq, 15 sq

Iviii 7

263

x 18

110

1x17

216

xi5

405

Ixil

405

xi 17 sq

386

Ezekiel

vii 22

212

xi!9

399, 400

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

423

St Matthew

St Mark

St Luke

PAGE

xii 1 sq 396 St Luke

xii 7 401

xiii 3 sq, 31 sq 267

xiii 55 8 sq, 20

xv 1 sq 398

xvi 1 sq 383

xvi 17 86

xviii 23 sq 267

xix 12 400

xx 22, 23 27

xxi 12 sq, 23 sq 401

xxii 21 299

xxii 23 sq 383

xxiii 2, 3 382

xxiii 18 sq 401

xxiii 26, 27 266

xxiv 1 sq 401

xxiv 45 sq 302

xxv 14 sq 267

xxvi 55 401

xxvii 56 7, 16, 21

i 44 401

ii 15 sq 399

ii 18 sq 386

ii 23 sq 396

iii 18 15, 19

v 22 167

vi 3 8 sq, 20

vii 1 sq 398

x 38, 39 27

xi 11, 15 sq 401 St John

xi 27 401

xii 18 383

xii 35 401

xiii 1 sq 401

xiv 36 27

xiv 49 401

xv 40 7, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22

xv 41

xv 47

xvi 1

ii 7, 23

ii 33, 41, 43, 48

ii46

iii 24, 26, 29, 30

iv!8

iv20

v!4

20, 21

16, 22

401

405

147

401

PAGE

v30 sq

399

v33

386

vi 1 sq

396

vi!5

vi 16

8 sq, 28

vi20

405

vi35

265

vii 22

405

vii 31 sq

386

vii 34

400

vii 37 sq

399

vii 46

400

xi 38 sq

398

xii 16 sq

267

xii 41 sq

302

xiii 10 sq

396

xiv 1 sq

396

xv 2

399

xix 7

399

xix 45

401

xx 1 sq

401

xx 27

383

xxi 3, 4

268

xxi 37 sq

401

xxii 42

xxii 53

401

xxiii 34

268

xxiv 10

16, 22, 28

xxiv 18

xxiv 53

401

388

ill

123

i!5sq

388

ii 14 sq

401

iii 23 sq

388

iv 9

iv22

123

v 10 sq

396

v 14

401

v20

330

v35

388

vii 5

vii 14

401

vii 21

330

vii 22, 23

396

vii 49

345

viii 2, 20

401

viii 48

424

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

St John

Acts

viii 59
ix 14, 16
x!6
x23
x25
x 41, 42
xi!6
xi56
xiv 5
xiv 22
xv 4
xviii 20
xix 25

PAGE

401

396

293

401

330

388

401

266

401

7, 10 sq, 16, 18,
19,28

Acts

xix 26, 27
xx 17
xx 24

15,8

24
11
15

388

i 13, 14 8 sq, 13, 19, 28
213

20, 125
50 sq
330

401, 403
345
20
404
146
31
388

51 sq, 144 sq
387
149

53 sq
118

54
85
387
57

54 sq
113 sq

388
53
56

i 17, 25, 26

123

iilsq

ii27

ii 42, 46

iv 13

iv36

v6, 10

v29

v35

vi 1 sq

vi 1, 2, 7

vi9

viii 5 sq

viii 14

viii 26 sq

ix3

ix 10, 19, 26, 38

ix 20, 22, 26, 29

x Isq

x9sq

xi!6

xi!9

xi20

xi30
xii 17
xiii 1 sq
xiii 15

151, 156, 211

124, 155, 156

167

Romans

xiii 35
xiv 23
xv 1 sq
xv 2, 4, 6,
xv 4
xv 13 sq
xv 23
xv 24
xv 26
xvi4

PAGE

330

151, 211
59 sq, 127
151, 211
156
155

62, 151, 156
131
66
63, 151, 156, 211

xvii 23
xvii 24 sq
xvii 28
xviii 7
xviii 8
xviii 12 sq
xviii 17
xviii 24
xix 1
xix 4
xx 17
xx 28
xx 35
xxi 18

xxi 25
xxii 3
xxiii 4
xxiv 17
xxviii 16
i 16

i 23, 28, 32
ii 9, 10
ii 21, 22
iii 1, 2
vi6
vi 15 sq
viii 19
viii 24
ix 1 sq
xl, 2
xi 1, 26
xiii
xii 5
xii 7
xii 8
xii 21
xiv 2, 21

378
272

260, 288, 306
125
167
285
167

187, 387
387
388

152, 211

151, 152

268

124, 125, 155,

156, 211
62
302
226
229
285
105
270

105, 123
271
105
122
129
302
271
106
106
106
229
292
148
152
271
395

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

425

PAGE

Romans xv 16

229

2 Corinthians x 7, 13 sq

132

xv 25, 26

106

xi5

109

xvi 1

148

xi 13, 21 sq 133

1 Corinthians i 12 sq

132

xii 1 sq

133

ii9

91 sq

xii 11

109

ii 11

271

xii 15

270, 282

iii 4 sq

110

Galatians i 18

108

iii 22, 23

117, 289

i!9

5, 7, 13, 155

iv 8, 10

289

ii 1 sq

60 sq, 66, 108,

v Isq

63, 157

112

vi9sq

129

ii9

5, 33, 103, 155

vi 18 sq

iilO

106

vii 20

300

ii 11 sq

85 sq, 112 sq,

vii 26 sq

400

119

vii 31

271

ii!2

131, 155

vii 35

302

ii20

115

viii 1 sq

63, 65

iii 28

292

viii 13

v!3sq

129

ixl

302

Ephesians ii 6, 19

292

ix5

109

iii 15

ix 13, 14

234

ivl

300

ix 20, 22

106

ivll

142, 152

ix25

270

iv25

292

x7,8, 14 sq

63, 64

v 16, 28,

29 271

x!8

234

v30

292

x 20, 32

64,65

Philippians i 1

148, 151

xii 12, 13, 27

292

i27

292

xii 28

142

ii!7

229

xiii 3

378

ii25

154

xv 5, 7 17, 27,

109, 124

iii 20

292

xv 9

110

iv 11, 13

289

xv 32

312

iv!8

229, 289

xvi Isq

106

iv22

284

xvi 12

110

Colossians ii 22

271

2 Corinthians ii 6

157

iii 11

292

iii 1 85,

133, 302

iv 10, 11

116, 125

iii 13

1 Thessalonians iv 1

388

iii 17, 18

271

v!2

152

iv7

271

1 Timothy i 3

158

iv!6

122

ii9

272

vi8, 9

iii 1,2

151, 153

vilO

289

iii 8 sq

148, 149

vi!4

271

iii 12, 14

158

viii 23

154

iv8

272

viii 1 sq

106

iv!4

201

ix Isq

106

iv!5

302

ix7

271

v 6

272

ix 8, 11

289

v!7

152, 153, 211

426

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

PAGE

1 Timothy

vi7

272

2 Timothy

300

ii5

302

iil8

in 7

272

iv 9, 21

158

Titus

i 5 sq 149,

152, 158, 211

151

330

153

i 15

270

Hebrews

v!2

302

x 11, 12

233

xii 5sq

274

xiii 7, 17

152

xiii 10 229, 230, 234 sq

xiii 15, 16

229, 230

xiii 24

152

James

i Isq

128 sq

i 25 sq

128, 129

ii2

150

ii 9sq

128

ii!9

130

ii26

129

ivll

128

iv!3

269

v 1 sq

116

v!4

211

1 Peter

i Isq

114sq

i!3

269

ii 9, 12

116

ii20

388 sq

ii 24, 25

115, 151, 152

iii 4

122

vl, 2

152, 157

v 12, 13

116

1 John

388

3 John

158

Jude

Bevelation

i Isq

120 sq

i 6

122, 141

120

ii6, 15

ii9

122

ii!4

ii!7

122, 220

ii20

64, 159

Kevelation

PAGE

ii24

64, 122

iii 14

120

v 1 sq

116

121

vlO

122, 141

v!3

120

vii 9

122

xvii!4

121

xix 10

120

xix 13

120, 123

xix 16

121

xx 6

122, 141

xxii 13

120

Acta Perp. et Fel. 13 153

Acta Thomae I 15

JEschylus Fragm. 285 36

Aristophanes Ranae 708 14

Arrianus Ind. viii. 1 377
Ascents of James i. 59

29, 87, 118, 126, 389
Athanasius c. Arianos 75 (i. p.

152 ed. Ben.) 195

Athenagoras Suppl. 33, 34 122
Ambrose de Inst. Virg. (n. p. 260

ed. Ben.) 42

Ambrosiaster in Gal. i. 19 37

in Eph. iv. 11 154

in Eph. iv. 12 141, 163, 167, 194

in 1 Tim. iii. 10 193

Augustinus

Retract, i. 13 3 (i. p. 18 ed.

Ben.) 315

Epist. Ixxxii. 33 (n. p. 202) 193

Epist. cliii. 14 (n. p. 329) 318
Quaest. xvn. in Matth. No.

17 (m. 2. p. 285) 43

in Joh. x. (m. 2, p. 368) 43

in Joh. xxviii. (in. 2, p. 507) 43

in Gal. i. 19 (in. 2, p. 944) 42
Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test.

ci. (in. 2 App. p. 92) 193, 194
Enarr. in Ps. cxxvii. (iv. 2,

p. 1443) 43
de Civ. Dei vi. 10 (vn. p.

158) 270

adv. Haer. 53 (vm. p. 18) 197

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

427

Augustinus PAGE

adv. Haer. 84 (vm. p. 24) 39

Aulus Gellius xvii. 19 299

Basilius

Horn, in Sanct. Christ. Gen.

ii. p. 600 (ed. Gamier) 38

Cassiodorus de Inst. Div. Lit. 8 32

Chrysostomus

in Matth. i. 25, x. 2, xxvii. 55 43
in Jon. vii. 5 43

in 1 Cor. ix. 4, xv. 7 43

Horn. xiv. in Act. 145

Horn. xi. in 1 Tim. iii. 8 197

Cicero

pro Balbo 13 291

Brutus xxxi. 296

Orator 25 122

Parad. prooem. 2 296

Tim. 1 365

Verr. v. 57, 65 291

Clemens Eom. i. 152

5 116, 117

21 152, 153

34 91

35 230

36 230, 232

40 sq 216

41 230

42 151
44 151, 152, 163 sq, 230
47 117
52 230
61, 64 232

Clemens Alexandrinus

Paedag. ii. 1 (p. 174 ed.

Potter) 80, 127, 394

iii. 4 (p. 269) 122

iii. 12 (p. 309) 189, 190

/Strom, i. 15 (p. 359) 375 sq

ii. 20 (p. 491) 52

iii. 1 (p. 509 sq) 122

iii. 4 (p. 522) 52

iii. 5 (p. 529 sq) 33

iii. 7 (p. 539) 377

iii. 12 (p. 552) 189

iii. 12 90 (p. 552) 221

iii. 13 (p. 553) 33

v. 5 33 sq (p. 665 sq) 222

v. 14 (p. 714) 276

Clemens Alexandrinus PAGE

Strom, vi. 5 (p. 760) 111

vi. 13 (p. 793) 189, 221

vii. 1 (p. 830) 189, 192

vii. 6 (p. 848) 234

vii. 17 (p. 898) 111

Quis div. salv. 42 (p. 959)

172, 192, 214
Clementine Homilies

Epistle of Peter to James

1, 2 86, 110 sq, 168

Epistle of Clement to James

1 sq, 15 99, 168, 203

i. 16 99

ii. 1 15

ii. 16 228

ii. 17, 18 80, 82, 85, 87

ii. 23 390, 391

ii. 33 228

ii. 38, 51 352, 353

iii. 4, 5 352

iii. 6 sq 130

iii. 10 352

iii. 13 353

iii. 15 80

iii. 26 353

iii. 36 353

iii. 47, 49 sq, 55 sq 352, 353

iii. 60 sq 202

iii. 62, 66, 68 sq 170, 171, 202

v. 18 295

vii. 5, 8, 12 170, 171

viii. 15 80

xi. 35 29, 84, 168

xi. 36 170, 171

xii. 6 80, 394

xv. 7 80

xv. 17 394

xvii. 19 86

xviii. 19, 20 352, 353

xx. 23 170, 171

Clementine Recognitions

i. 37 80

i. 43 168

i. 46 228

i. 48 228, 232

i. 54, 60, 63 389, 390

i. 57 118, 126

i. 64 80

428

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

Clementine Recognitions PAGE

i. 68 168

i. 70, 71 87

i. 73 168

i. 74 99

iii. 61 80, 86

iii. 65, 66, 74 170, 171

vi. 15 170, 171

viii. 48 81

ix. 19 81

x. 68 170, 171

Constit. Apost. ii. 25, 27, 34, 35 231

ii. 39 91

ii. 53 231

v. 8 168

vi. 6, 23 386, 389, 391

vi. 14 168

vii. 46 157, 170

viii. 28 197

viii. 35, 46 168

Cypriamis Epist.

3 209, 226

4 226
15 1, 33 1, 41 2, 46 208
29 153
38 1, 39 1, 40 209
43 208, 209, 226
44, 45, 71, 76 193, 209
55 208, 209
59 187, 208, 209, 226

66 esp. 8 208, 209, 226

67 208, 226
69 226
73 209, 226

de unit, eccles. 5 208

18 226
Cyrillus Alexandrinus

Glaphyr. in Gen. vii. (p.

221 ed. Auberti) 44

c. Julian, iv. (p. 133) 376 sq
Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus

Catech. iv. 28, xiv. 21 (pp.

65, 216 ed. Touttee) 37

Demosthenes Timocr. 157 155
Diog. Laertius

ii. 114 252

vii. 3, 7, 15, 25, 30 252

vii 40 254

vii. 160, 179 255

Diog. Laertius PAGE

vii. 157 310

viii. 17 364

viii. 24 sq, 37 365

viii. 42 366

Dion Cassius liv. 9 378

Dion Chrysostom

Or. xxxii. (p. 373) 375

Epictetus Diss. i. 9. 19, 14. 13 sq,
16. 15 sq, 25. 10, 29. 31, 29. 46
sq, 30. 1 ; ii. 3. 1, 7. 12, 8. 11
sq, 10. 7, 14. 13, 16. 39, 42, 46,
26. 1; iii. 1. 36 sq, 10. 8, 21.
16,22. 2 sq, 23, 35, 48, 69; iv.
1. 79, 170 299302

Diss. iv. 7. 6 305

Epiphanius Haer.

x. (p. 28 sq ed. Petav.) 325

xvii. 1 (p. 37) 386, 392

xviii. 1 (p. 38) 353

xix. 1 sq (p. 40 sq.) 81, 82

325, 327, 335, 354, 355, 356,

393

xix. 3, 5 (pp. 42, 43) 355

xx. 3 (pp. 46, 47) 335, 354

xxviii. 7 (p. 115) 39

xxix. 1 (p. 117) 325, 326

xxix. 4 (p. 119) 34, 39

xxix. 9 (p. 124) 75

xxx. 1 (p. 125) 325

xxx. 2 (p. 126) 80

xxx. 3 (p. 127) 325, 335, 354

xxx. 16 (p. 140) 82, 83, 87, 394
xxx. 17 (p. 141) 355

xxx. 18 (p. 142) 77, 150, 353

xxx. 23 (p. 147) 118

xxx. 25 (p. 149) 82, 83

Ii. 10 (p. 432) 39

liii. 1 (p. 462) 325

Ixvi. 19 (p. 636) 39

Ixxv. 3 (p. 906) 197

Ixxviii. (p. 1034 sq) 39 sq

Ixxviii. 13 (p. 1045) 118

Ixxviii. 14 (p. 1046) 126

Euripides Electro, 935 36

Eusebius Hist. Eccl.

i. 12 4 36

i. 13 10 15, 169, 172

ii. 1 2, 3 36, 168

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

429

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. PAGE
ii. 23 4 sq, 18 30, 68, 90
125 sq, 168, 389, 393
ii. 24 188

ii. 25 8 117

iii. 1 162

iii. 4 6 157

iii. 5 3 68

iii. 7 9 36

iii. 11 19, 162

iii. 14 29, 188

iii. 16 177

iii. 20 1 30

iii. 27 73

iii. 30 1 34

iii. 31 3, 4 161

iii. 32 30, 71, 72, 82, 204
iii. 35 72

iii. 36 2, 15 171, 174
iii. 39 3, 4, 9 161, 192
iv. 5 72, 125, 168, 169, 257
iv. 6 4 69, 72, 73

iv. 11 7 89

iv. 20 171

iv. 21 90

iv. 22 29, 71, 89, 90 sq, 168
177, 182, 185, 204, 389, 391
iv. 23 102, 175, 177, 178, 185
iv. 25 179

iv. 26 3 174

v. 1 10, 26 187, 214
v. 12 2 169

v. 16 17, 22 175

v. 19 174, 179

v. 20 7 192

v. 22 178

v. 23 88, 101, 175, 178
v. 24 88, 101, 121, 173 sq
184 sq, 192, 220

v. 25 170

vi. 11 3 169

vi. 12 2 27

vi. 38 82, 83, 88

vi. 43 11 146

Quaest. ad Marin. ii. 5 18

Comm. in Isai. 36

on the star 36

Eutychius Annales

(i. pp. 331, 2 ed. Pococke) 195, 196

Evangelia Apocrypha PAGE

Protevangelium Jacobi
9, 17, 25 (pp. 18, 31, 48
ed. Tisch.). 28, 121

Ps-Matthaei Ev. 32 (p.

104) 18, 28

Evang. de Nativ. Mar. 8

(p. Ill) 28

Historia Joseph. 2 (p. 116) 28
Evang. Thomae 16 (p. 147) 28
Evang. Inf. Arab. 35 (p.

191) 18, 28

Gregorius Nyssenus

in Christ. Eesurr. ii. (in.

p. 412 ed. Paris) 39

Hieronymus

Epist. cxii. 13 (i. p. 740 ed.

Vallarsi) 150

Epist. cxx. (i. p. 826) 12

ad evang. (i. p. 1076) 166, 189, 194
de vir. illustr. 2 (ii. p. 815)

10 sq, 26, 30
3 (ii. p. 819) 74

12 (ii. p. 835) 250, 318
22 (n. p. 849) 90

36 (n. p. 861) 375

adv. Helvidium 1 sq (n.
p. 206 sq) 4

13 (n. p. 219) 8

17 (ii. p. 225)

10, 31, 36

(n. p. 958) 9

de nomin. Heir. (in. pp. 89, 98) 8
Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. (in.

p. 305) 69

in Isai. ix. 1 (iv. p. 130) 74

in Matth. xii. 49 (vn. p. 86)

10, 11, 28
Hilarius Pictaviensis

in Matth. i. 1 (p. 671 ed. Ben.) 37
Hennas Pastor

Vis. ii. 2 6 152, 181

ii. 4 3 98, 152, 180

iii. 5 1 181

iii. 8 3 97

iii. 9 7 152, 181

Hand. iv. 4 2 97

viii. 9 97

xi. 12 181

430

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

Hermas Pastor

PAGE

Ignatius

PAGE

Sim. v. 3 3 sq

Smyrn. 9, 12

200

viii. 7 4

181

Polyc. inscr.

173

ix. 12 13, 14 5

Isq

199

ix. 25 sq

181

170, 199

Herodianus iv. 15

369

201

Hippolytus

Irenaeus

Haer. i. 24 (p. 28 ed. Miller) 377

adv. omnes Haer.

v. 6 (p. 64)

i. 26. 2

v. 7 (p. 95)

i. 26. 3

52, 145

v. 24, 26, 27 (pp. 149, 153, 158)

i. 27. 1

214

ii. 22. 5

192

vi. 7 (p. 161)

335

ii. 28. 9

vi. 24 (p. 180)

ii. 30. 6

vii. 34 (p. 257)

73,78

iii. 2. 2

191

vii. 36 (p. 258)

iii. 3. 1

172, 191

viii. 19 (p. 275)

iii. 3. 2, 3

ix. 7 sq (p. 279)

102

182, 184, 185, 191,

204, 214

ix. 12 (pp. 287, 288)

186, 214

iii. 3. 4

173, 185

ix. 13 sq 81, 82, 88,

355, 393

iii. 4. 3

184

ix. 18 (p. 297)

325

iii. 4. 4

185

ix. 28 (p. 305)

325

iii. 12. 10

145

pp. 74, 82 (ed. Lagarde)

164

iv. 8. 3

219

Horatius Epod. 2. 67

iv. 15. 1

145

Satir. i. 3. 124 sq

289

iv. 17 sq

312

Ignatius

iv. 26. 2 sq 182,

192, 204

Ephes. 1

173, 199

iv. 32. 1

204

2, 3, 6, 20

200

v. praef.

204

201

v. 2. 3

231

201, 234

v. 20. 1, 2

172, 204

Magn. 2 174,

200, 201

v. 34. 3

220

200

Fragm. 17 (p. 836 sq, ed.

201

Stieren)

6, 13

200, 201

Fragm. 38 (p. 854) 162,

164, 231

201, 234

Isidorus Hispalensis

8, 10

de vit. et obit, sanct. 81

Trail. 1

174

Josephus

2,3

200, 201

Ant. iii. 7. 5

331

200, 234

iii. 8. 9

331

201

xii. 11. 2

360

200

xiii. 5. 9

325, 366

Eom. inscr.

xiii. 10. 6

325

117

xiii. 11. 2 329,

352, 360

Philad. 1

174, 201

xiii. 15. 3

327

3,7,8

200, 201

xv. 10. 4 325,

362, 403

200, 234

xv. 10. 5

325, 329

xviii. 1. 2, 5 325,

351, 404

217, 232

xx. 9. 1

126

Smyrn. 8 167,

200, 201

B. J. i. 3. 5 329,

352, 360

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

431

Josephus

B. J. ii. 7. 3
ii. 8. 2
ii. 8. 3
ii. 8. 5

PAGE

325, 329

325

385, 400, 401

327, 331, 346 sq,
351, 354, 386, 398 sq
ii. 8. 6 80, 328, 403
ii. 8. 7 327, 340, 343 sq,
348 sq, 370, 398, 403
ii. 8. 9 348 sq, 352, 371, 396 sq
ii. 8. 10 343 sq, 352, 398, 399
ii. 8. 11 350

ii. 8. 12 329, 398

ii. 8. 13 325

ii. 20. 4 325

iii. 2. 1 325

vii. 8. 7 378

Vita 2 325, 348, 385, 387
Justinus Martyr

Apol. i. 13 231

i. 31 72

i. 47 69, 72

i. 657 231

i. 67 152

Dial. c. Tryph.

10 390

28, 29 231

35 65

41 231

47, 8 73, 89

85 358

110 72

116, 117 218, 220, 228, 231
127 89

134 357

137 167

141 357

Juvenalis Satir. iii. 116 265
Lactantius Div. Inst.

i. 5, ii. 9, vi. 24 249

vi. 25 272

Lucianus de morte Peregrini 11 229

Mart. Ignat. Ant. 3 173

Mart. Polyc. inscr. 8, 19 168 sq

14 27

16 168 sq, 173

Marcus Antonius xi. 3 305

Mela iii. 7 81

Muratorian Canon 161, 172

Nicephorus Callistus PAGE

H. E. ii. 3 35

Oracula Sibyllina

ii. 96 65

iv. 26, 35, 42 sq, etc. 331

Origen

de Oral. 28 (i. p. 225 ed.

Delarue) 224

c. Gels. i. 24 (i. p. 342) 375, 376

i. 47 (i. p. 363) 34

iv. 52 (i. p. 544) 69

v. 61, 65 (i. pp. 625, 628) 73

viii. 69 (i. p. 794) 72

Horn. v. in Lev. 4 (n. p. 208 sq)

225

Horn. ix. in Lev. 9, 10 (n. p.
243) 220, 224

Horn. iv. in Num. 3 (n. p. 283)

224

Horn. x. in Num. 1, 2 (n. p. 302)
225

Horn. xv. in Josh. 6 (n. p. 435)

Horn, in Ps. xxxvii. 6 (n. p. 688)
225

Horn. xii. in Jerem. 3 (p. 196)
225

Horn, in Matth. xiii. 55 (in. p. 462
sq.) 35

Horn. vii. in Luc. (in. p. 940) 34
Horn, in Joh. 3 (iv. p. 3)

220, 224

Horn, in Joh. ii. 12 (Cat. Corder.

p. 75) 34

Horn, in Rom. xvi. 23 (iv. p. 687)

177

Pelagius in Gal. i. 19 42

Philo

de mundi op. 1 (i. p. 6 ed. Man-
gey) 356
de agricult. 3 (i. p. 302) 254
de mutat. nomin. 10 (i. p. 589) 254
de somn. i. 13 sq (i. p. 631 sq) 356
de monarch, ii. 5 (n. p. 226) 331
quod omn. prob. 12, 13 (ii. pp.

457, 459) 325, 326, 330, 351, 403
de vit. contempt. 1 (n. p. 471)

325, 328
3 (n. p. 475) 377

432

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

Philo PAGE

Seneca

PAGE

de vit. contempt. 11 (n. p. 485) 354

de Beneficiis i. 6 3, 4

268

Fragm. (n. p. 632)

i. 72

271

325, 326, 330, 385

i. 10 3

260

(n. p. 633) 346

ii. 1 1

266

Philostratus vita Apollonii i. 15 sq 367

ii. 10 4

265

vi. 10 364

ii. 29 4

259

Photius Bibliotheca 232 91

iii. 18 2

292

Plato Phaedo 64 A 312

iv. 7 1, 2

277

Sympos. 173 B 14

iv. 8 3

277

Plinius N. H. v. 15 325, 366

iv. 12 2

268

v. 17 325

iv. 25, 26

265

vi. 24 81, 379

iv. 27 3

261

xxxvi. 19 370

v. 15

264

Plutarchus vit. Anton. 2 122

v.8l

265

vit. Alexandr. 69 378

v. 14 2

264

vit. Gat. 4, 10, 16 296

v. 17 3

268

Op. Mor. p. 329 290, 293

vii. 1 7

262

Op. Mor. p. 1044 295

vii. 3, 4, 6, 10

305

Polybius xxxi. 6. 5 340

vii. 7 3

273

Polycarpus ad Phil, inscr. 173

vii. 31 1, 2

265, 271

4 234

vii. 31 4, 5

264, 265

12 232

vii. 31, 32

268

Porphyrius de abstin. iv. 11 325

de Brevitate Vitae 1 3

271

iv. 17 375 sq

12 9

272

Praedicatio Pauli 111 sq, 162

14 2

280

Eutilius de Red. i. 63, 66 290

18 5

310

Seneca

de Clem. i. 8 3

277

ad Helv. Matrem 5 2 299

ii. 2 1

270

8 259

ii. 57

280

8 3 277

de Const. Sap. 8 2

278

11 6, 7 261

14 3

264

16 3 272

de Ira i. 14 13

262, 264

ad Marciam 4 2 310

ii. 16 2

278

10 2 267

ii. 28 1 sq

261

11 3 271

ii. 28 8

271

19 4, 5 311

iii. 3 passim

280

24 5 269, 311

iii. 36 3

263

26 7 310

de Otio 5. 5

261

ad PolyMum 1 (20) 2 310

28 (1) 1

263

5 1, 2 310

28 (1) 4

264, 275

7 4 270

29 (2) 1

275

9 2 310

30 (3) 5

263

9 3 310, 311

31 (4) 1

292

11 1 261

de Tranq. Anim. 7 3

263

11 3 269

269

de Beneficiis i. 1 265

14 9

296

i. 1 9 259

de Vita beata 2 2

271

i. 1 13 268

275

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

433

Seneca

PAGE

Seneca

PAGE

de Vita beata 7 4

271

Ep. Mor. xli. 2

260, 261

277

xlii. 3

261

13 1

275

xlvii. 2, 4, 8

284

15 5

259

xlvii. 15

263, 384

15 7

271

xlvii. 17

263

15 17

259

xlvii. 18

268

299

xlviii. 2

263

20 3

263, 291

li. 6

269

20 5

264

Ivii. 3

299

21 4

299

Ixiii. 7

272

24 2

266

Ixv. 10

259

24 3

292

Ixv. 17

261

27 3, 4

266

Ixv. 18 259

, 261, 269

de Providentia 1 5

260, 278

Ixv. 24

310

260

Ixvii. 14

260

Ixviii. 2

291

4 1, 7

260

Ixxi. 16

310

270

Ixxiii. 12, 13

278

266

Ixxiii. 16

260, 267

278

Ixxiv. 16

269

Ep. Mor. i. 1

271

Ixxiv. 18

271

ii. 5

275

Ixxiv. 20

265

v. 1,2

265

Ixxvi. 23

260

vi. 1

271

Ixxviii. 16

270

vi. 6

275

Ixxix. 22

311

vii. 8

263

Ixxx. 2

272

viii. 7

271

Ixxxi.

264

viii. 8

275

Ixxxiii. 1

261

ix.

289

Ixxxvi. 1

311

ix. 10

263

Ixxxvii. 2

298

x. 2

271

Ixxxvii. 21

264

x. 5

261

Ixxxvii. 24, 25

266

xi. 9

263

xcii. 30

261

xiv. 1

271

xciv. 43

266

xv. 2, 5

272

xciv. 48

271

xx. 9

275

xcv. 47

268, 272

xxiii. 9

272

xcv. 50

259

xxiv. 18

310

xcv. 51

263

xxv. 6 sq

263

xcv. 52

268, 291

xxviii. 9, 10

262

xcv. 59

267

xxxi. 9

278

xcvi. 5

269

xxxi. 11 261,

272, 292

xcvii. 1

261

xxxii. 2

271

xcvii. 14, 15

262

xxxiii. 9

272

xcviii. 3

270

xxxvi. 10

311

ci. 1

262

xxx viii. 2

267

ci. 4, 5

267

xxxix. 6

271

cii. 2

310

xli. 1

272

cii. 22

261, 311

434

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

Seneca

PAGE

Tertullianus

PAGE

Ep. Mor. cii. 23, 24

269

de spectaculis 16

223

cii. 25

272

Scorpiace 13

cii. 26

261, 269

de baptismo 17

222

cii. 28 sq

261, 311

ad uxorem i. 6, 7

223

civ. 1

285

de cultufemin. ii. 12

223

cvi. 7 sq

277

de exhort, castit. 7

223, 237

cvii. 9

260

de monogamia 8

cviii. 14

298

12 214,

220, 223

ex. 1

259

depudicit. I

186

ex. 18

266

dejejun. 14

101

cxv. 5

268

de virgin, v eland. 9

222

cxvii. 2

277

de pallio 4

223

cxvii. 6

310

de praescript. haeret.

cxx. 12

269

185, 186

cxx. 13

274

173, 186

cxx. 14, 18

269

cxxii. 3

272

36 102,

176, 186

cxxiv. 23

259

222

Fragm. 14

261

adv. Mar don. iv. 5

172, 186

270

iv. 9

223

123

272

iv. 19

Nat. Quaest. pro. 12

260

v. 1

ii. 59 8

262

de came Christi 7, 23

iv. praef.

10 285

de resurrect, carnis 1

310

Sextus Empiricus

de anima 20

249

Pyrrh. iii. 200 sq

295

310

vii. 17

254

adv. Praxean 1

102

Sophocles Trachin. 1105

adv. Judaeos 14

220, 223

Sozomen H. E. vii. 19

146

Testamenta xn. Patriarch.

Spartianus Ver. 3

188

Reuben 6 76,

227, 232

Stobseus

Simeon 5

Flor. Ixxx. 7

255

7 76,

227, 232

Eel. iii. 56 (p. 141)

376

Levi 6, 7

Strabo

8 214,

220, 227

xiv. 8 (p. 671 ed. Gas.)

I 288

xiv. 13, 14 (p. 673 sq)

288

227

xv. 1, 4 (p. 686)

375, 378

xv. (p. 701)

Judas 18, 26

xv. 1, 59 (p. 712)

375

Dan 5, 6

xv. 1, 73 (p. 720)

378

Nephth. 6, 8

xv. 3, 15 (p. 733)

372

Gad 3, 8

Sulpicius Severus H. S. ii.

31 72

Aser 2, 6, 7

Tacitus

Issach. 5

Hist. iii. 24

369

Zabul. 10

Ann. xiii. 3

297

Joseph 11, 19

xiv. 53

298

Benj. 10, 11 76

, 77, 150

xv. 45, 63

298

Theodor. Mopsuest. in 1 Tim.

iii. 1

xvi. 32

365

154

INDEX OF PASSAGES. 435

PAGE PAGE

Theodoretus in Gal. i. 19 8, 44 Vergilius JEn. viii. 352 261

in 1 Tim. iii. 1 153 sq Victorious Philosophus in Gal.

Haer. Fab. ii. 11 103 i. 19 37

Theophylactus in Matth. xiii. 55, Vopiscus Vit. Saturn. 8 188

Gal i. .19 5, 44 Xenophon Anab. iv. 4, 12 388

Thucydides vi. 14 155 Memor. i. 4, 2 14

Vergilius Mn. vi. 726 sq 279

amfcrtogc:

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & .SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.