Skip to main content

Full text of "Journal of theological studies"

See other formats 


This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  that  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 
to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  domain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 
to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vary  country  to  country.  Public  domain  books 
are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficult  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  marginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 
publisher  to  a  library  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  this  resource,  we  have  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  querying. 

We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Make  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-commercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  from  automated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attribution  The  Google  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  informing  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use,  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  liability  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful.  Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 

at  http  :  //books  .  google  .  com/l 


The  yournal 


of 


Theological  Studies 


VOLUME  V 


Honbon 
MACMILLAN    AND    CO.,   Limited 

NEW  YORK:  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1904 


769468 


COMMITTEE  OF  DIRECTION: 

Rev.  Dr.  Ince,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swete,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Driver,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Bigg,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Barnes,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge, 

F.  C.  BuRxm,  Lecturer  in  Palaeography,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Headlam,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

Rev.  Dr.  Kirkpatrick,  The  Lady  Margaret's  Reader  in  Divinity,  Cam- 
bridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lock,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  Master  of  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  Dean  of  Westminster ;  late  Norrisian 

Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  Dr.  Sanday,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 
Rev.  Dr.  Stanton,  Ely  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 
Very  Rev.  Dr.  Strong,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 
C.  H.  Turner,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 

EDITORS: 

Rev.  J.  F.  Bethune-Baker,  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  F.  E.  Brightman,  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


OXFORD  :  HORACE  HART 
PRINTER  TO  THE  XJNIVXILSnY 


I 

INDEX  OF  WRITERS 


PACK 

BANNISTER,  Rev.  H.  M. 

Some  recently  discovered  Fragments  of  Irish  Sacra- 

mentaries 49 

BARNES,  Rev.  W.  E.,  D.D. 

JACHIN  AND  BOAZ 447 

(and  JOHNS,  Rev,  C.  H.  W.)  Chronicle  of  Old  Testament    305 
BEVAN,  A.  A. 

A  Text-Book  of  North-Semitic  Inscriptions  (G.  A.  Cooke)    281 
BEVERIDGE,  Rev.  J.,  RD. 

•Against  the  Stream' i 

BIGG,  Rev.  C,  D.D. 

The  Doctrines  of  the  Fall  and  Original  Sin  (Tennant 

The  Sources  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Fall  and  Original  Sin)    466 

Notes  on  the  Didache 579 

BRADSHAW,  H.  (the  late) 

On  the  use  of  the  Quicunque  vult  in  the  Book  of 

Common  Prayer 458 

BRAITHWAITE,  W.  C. 

The  Lection-System  of  the  Codex  Macedonianus       .    265 
BROOKS,  E.  W. 

The   Life  of  Severus  by  Zacharias  the  Scholastic 

(Kugener) 469 

BURBRIDGE,  Rev.  A.  T. 

The  Justification  of  Wisdom 455 

BURKITT,  F.  C. 

Further  Notes  on  Codex  k 100 

The  Early  Church  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels     .       .    330 

On  Rom.  ix  5  and  Mark  xiv  61 451 

St  Mark  and  Divorce  . 628 

BUTLER,  Dom  E.  C. 

Readings  seemingly  conflate    in  the   MSS   of  the 

Lausiac  History 630 

Chronicle  of  Hagiographica 147 

CHAPMAN,  Dom  J. 

The  Historical  Setting  of  the  Second  and  Third 

Epistles  of  St  John 357»  S'? 

The  Interpolations  in  St  Cyprian's  De  Unitate  Ecclesiae    634 


VI 


INDEX    OF   WRITERS 


PACE 

GLADDER,  Rev.  H.  J. 

Strophical  Structure  in  St  Jude's  Epistle  .       .       .    589 
CODRINGTON,  H.  W. 

The  Syrian  Liturgies  or  the  Presanctified  II,  III    369,  535 
CRUM,  W.  E. 

A  Study  in  the  History  of  Egyptian  Monasticism 
(J.  Leipoldt  Schenute  von  Airipe  und  die  Entsiehung  des 
national-dgypHschtn  Christentums) 1 29 

Inscriptions  from  Shenoute's  Monastery      .       .       •    55^ 
CUNNINGHAM,  Rev.  W.,  CD. 

The   Reaction    of    Modern    Scientific    Thought    on 

Theological  Study 16 1 

DERMER,  Rev.  E.  C  (Bodington  Books  &f  Devotion)     .        ,        *    472 
DOWDEN,  Right  Rev.  J.  (Bishop  of  Edinburgh) 

Notes  on  the  Succession  of  the  Bishops  of  St  Andrews 

II  and  111,  Addenda  et  Corrig^enda      -        .         .      115,  253,  462 
ERMONI,  Rev.  V. 

The  Christology  of  Clement  of  Alexandria        .       .133 
FRYER,  Rev.  A.  T. 

The  Purpose  of  the  Transfiguration      .       .       .       .214 
GAYFORD,    Rev.    S.    C.    (Stephenson    The    chief   Truths   of  the 

Christian  Faith) 473 

GRANGER,  F. 

The  Poemandres  of  Hermes  Trismegistus      .       .       .    395 
HAYMAN,  Rev.  H.,  D,D.  (the  late). 

The  Position  of  the  Laity  in  the  Church     .       .       .    499 
HOLMES,  Rev.  T.  S. 

The  Austin  Canons  in  England  in  the  Twelfth  Century    345 
JAMES,  M.  R.,  LitLD, 

Some  Apocryphal  Acts  of  Apostles 292 

The  Scribe  of  the  Leicester  Codex         .       .       .       -    445 
JOHNS,  Rev.  C  H.  W, 

Chronicle  of  Assyriology  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi    310 
See  Barnes,  W.  E. 
JONES,  Rev.  A.  S.  D. 

A  Homily  of  St  Ephrem 546 

KIDD,  Rev,  B.  J,,  B.D, 

Miscellanea  (Trevelyan  Pr^y^r:  and  other  works)         .       ♦    470 
KING,  Rev.  E.  G.,  D.D. 

The  Influence  of  the  Triennial  Cycle  on  the  Psalter    203 
LAKE,  Rev.  K. 

The  Greek  Monasteries  in  South  Italy,   III,  IV  ,      22,  189 

Some  Further  Notes  on  the  MSS  of  the  Writings  of 
St  Athanasius  ..,.....*    108 
LYTTELTON,  Rev.  the  Hon.  E, 

The  Teaching  of  Christ  about  Divorce  .       .       .       .621 


INDEX  OF  WRITERS  vii 

PAGE 

MARSHALL,  Rev.  J.  T. 

Rebiarkable    Readings    in    the    Palestinian    Syriac 
Lectionary 437 

MASON,  Rev.  A.  J^  D.D. 

The  First  Latin  Christian  Poet 413 

A  Modern  Theory  op  the  Fall 481 

The  Text  of  the  Hymns  of  Hilary 636 

MILNE,  Rev.  T. 

St  Matthews  Parallel  Narratives 602 

NESTLE,  E.,  D.D. 

Clarendon  Press  Greek  Testaments       .       .       .    374, 461 

OESTERLEY,  Rev.  W.  O.  E.,  B.D. 

The  Old  Latin  Texts  of  the  Minor  Prophets.    I-IV. 

76,  24a,  378,  570 

OTTLEY,  Rev.  R.  L.,  D.D. 

The  Bible  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  (J.  E.  Carpenter)     284 

POOLE,  R.  L. 

The  Earuest  Index  of  the  Inquisition  at  Venice  .       .    127 
A  Monastic  Chartulary  (Dowden  Chartulary  of  the  Abbey 

of  Undores  1 195-1479) 397 

POPE,  Rev.  J.  O'F. 

A  Plea  for  Scholastic  Theology 174 

SANDAY,  Rev.  W.,  D.D. 

The  Site  of  Capernaum 42 

The  Injunctions  of  Silence  in  the  Gospels     .       .       .321 
The  Present  Greek  Testaments  of  the  Clarendon 
Press 279 

SHEBBEARE,  Rev.  C.  J. 

Indiyiduausm  and  Authority  (Strong  Cod  and  the  Indi- 
vidual ^  and  Authority  in  the  Church)         ....    399 

SOUTER,  Rev.  A. 

Reasons  for  regarding  Hilarius  (Ambrosiaster)  as  the 
Author  of  the  Mercati-Turner  Anecdoton     .       .    608 

TENNANT,  Rev.  F.  R.,  B.D. 

The  Philosophy  of  Reugion  (Doraer  Grundprobleme  der 

Reiigionsphilosophie) 464 

TURNER,  C.  H. 

A  RefCOLlation  of  Codex  k  of  the  Old  Latin  Gospels    .      88 

Chronicle  of  Patristica 134 

An  Exegetical  Fragment  of  the  Third  Century    .       .218 

WATSON,  Rev.  E.  W. 

The  Expansion  of  Christianity  (A.  Hamack  Die  Mission 
und  Ausbreiiung  des   Christentums  in  den  ersten  drei 

Jahrhunderten) 289 

The  Interpolations  in  St  Cyprian's  De  Unitate  Ecclesiae    432 

WILSON,  Rev.  H.  A. 

A  Rhythmical  Prayer  in  the  Book  of  Cerne  ...    263 
The  Metrical  Endings  of  the  Leonine  Sacramentary  .    386 


The  yournal 


of 


Theological  Studies 


VOLUME  V 


Honhon 
MACMILLAN    AND    CO.,   Limited 

NEW  YORK:  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1904 


INDEX    OF   ARTICLES 


PACl 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES   (wntinued)-, 

Quicunque  VuH,  On  THE  USE  OF  THE,   IN   THE  BOOK  OF  COM- 
MON Prayer.     By  ihe  late  Henry  Bradshaw     ,        .        .         .458 
Romans  ix  5  aad  Mark  xjv  61^  On.     By  F.  C.  Burkitt     ,        .451 
Sacramentary,  The  Metrical  Endings  of  the  Leonine. 

By  the  Rev.  H.  A.  Wilson ,        .     386 

Testaments,  Clarendon  Press  Greek.    By  E.  Nestle,  D.D. 

274i  461 
Psalter,  The  Influence  of  the  Triennial  Cycle  on  the.    By 

the  Rev.  E.  a  King,  D,D ,        .    203 

REVIEWS: 

C.  Bodington.     Books  0/ Devotion.    By  the  Rev.  E.  C.  Dernier    472 
M.   Bonnet,    Ada  Philippi  et  Acta   Ikomae:   accedunt  Acta 

Bamabae,     By  M.  R.  James,  Litt  D 292 

J,  E.  Carpenter.    The  BibU  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,     By  the 

Rev.  R.  L.  Ottley,  D.D ,         .384 

G.   A.   Cooke.      A    Text- Book  of  North-Semitic  Inscriptions^ 

Moabite^  Hebrew^  Phoenician^  Aramaic,  Nabataean^  Palmyrene, 

Jewish,     By  A,  A.  Bevan  ,         ,         , aSl 

A,  Dorner.     Grundprobleme  der  Religionsphilosophie,     By  the 

Rev,  F.  R.  Tennant,  B.D 464 

J.  Dowden.     Chartulary  of  the  Abbey  of  Lindores  II95'I479- 

By  R.  L.  Poole         .        .        , 297 

A^  Harnack.    Die  Mission  und  Ausbreitung  des  Christentums  in 

den  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderten,     By  the  Rev.  E.  W.  Watson       .     289 
M.  A.  Kugener.     Vie  de  Severe  par  Zackarie  le  Schoiastique ; 

texte  Syriaque  .  .  .  traduit  et  cmnot^*     By  E.  W.  Brooks    .        .    469 
J.   Leipoldt.     Schenute   von  Atripe   und  die  Entstehung  des 

national  agypiischen  Christentums,     By  W.  E.  Crum         .        -.129 
W.  L,  ROBBINS.    A   Christian  Apologetic.    By  the  Rev.  B.  J. 

Kidd,  B.D 471 

A.  W.  Robinson.     The  Personal  Life  of  the  Clergy,    By  the  Rev. 

B.  J.  Kidd,  B.D 471 

G.   Schmidt.     Die  alien  Petrusakten  im  Zusamntenhang  der 

apokryphen  Apostellilteraiur,  nebst  einem  neuentdeckten  Frag- 
ment,    By  M.  R,  James,  LitLD -     293 

J.  Stepkenson^     The  Chief  Truths  of  the  Christian  Faith.     By 

the  Rev.  S.  C.  Gayford         ,..,,...    475 
T.  B.  Strong.     God  and  the  Individual  and  Authority  in  the 

Church,     By  the  Rev.  C.  J.  Shebbeare 299 

F.  R,  Tennant.     The  Sources  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Fall  and 

Original  Sin.     By  the  Rev.  C,  Bigg,  D.D 466 

W.  B.  Trevelyan.     Sunday,     By  the  Rev.  B,  J,  Kidd,  B.D.      ,     470 
Scholastic  Theology,  A  Plea  for.    By  the  Rev,  J,  O'F.  Pope,  S,].    174 
Scientific  Thought,  The   Reaction  of  Modern,  on  Theo- 
logical Study.     By  the  Rev.  W.  Cmimngham,  D.D,     .        *     161 
Transfiguration,  The  Purpose  of  the.    By  the  Rev.  A.  T.  Fryer    214 


Ill 

INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 
REVIEWED,    NOTICED,    OR    DISCUSSED 

PAGS 

Ada  Apoaiohntm  Apocrypha  II  u 148 

AtUtBarMobeu :  set  Bonnet  (M.). 

Ada  Mmiyrum  :  set  Knopf,  R.,  and  Gxbharot,  O.  von. 

AdaPauUtt  Thedtu  :  sh  Gebhardt,  O.  von. 

Ada  Petri :  see  Schji mr,  C. 

Ada  PkiHppi :  see  Bonnit,  M. 

Ada  SanctoTMtn  :  see  Symucarium. 

Ada  Thomae :  see  Bonnet,  M. 

Ahbrosiastxr (S08  sqq. 

AtuUda  BoOandiana 148,  151 

Aneahta  Oxomensia 437 

Bali,J.    IfuUx  BrUatmiae  Scriptorum 138 

Baedimhewer.     Geschkhte  ekr  alichristlichen  LiUeraiur  .        .         150,529 

Barrxbrasits,  Greg.    Nomocanon     ........         569 

Baudissin.    In  Hauck  ReaUtuydopddie 305 

In  CuRTiss  Ursemitische  Religion 309 

Bidjan.    Nomocanon  of  Barhebraens 369 

BnrziNGER,  I.     Temple  in  Encyclopaedia  BibUca  IV 308 

BiVAN,  A.  A.:  see  Smith,  W.  R. 

Writing  in  En<ycki>a€diaBiblicalV 308 

BoDiNGiON,  C.    Books  of  Devotion 473 

Bonnet,  M.    Ada  PhUippi et  Ada  Thomae:  accedunt  Ada Bamabae  .        148,  393 

Box,  G.  H.     Temple  in  Encyclopaedia  BibUca  IV 308 

Brochmanh,  J.  H.  H.    Ltnf  og  Naade 4  sqq. 

BxutTN,  C.     For  Uberal-minded  Christianity 3 

For  Kirbe  og  Kultur 3 

Budge,  E.  W.     Contendings  of  the  Apostles 149 

Buhl,  F.     Moab  in  Hauck  Realencydopddie         ......        305 

Burkitt,  F.  C.     Texts  and  Versions  in  Encyclopaedia  BibUca  IV    .        .  308 

Butler,  £.  C.    Historia  Lausiaca 630 

Capella,  Martianus.     De  nuptOs  Philologiae  et  MercurH  .        .         .  388  sqq. 

Carpenter,  J.  £.     The  Bible  in  the  Nineteenth  Century        ....        384 

Casaubon,  I.    ExerdtaHones  Baronianae 395 

Casparl     Quellen  sur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols 533 

Cavalori,  F.  DE.    Passio  SS.  Mariam  et  Jacobi  &c. 150 

Chxtne,T.  K.    Critica  Biblica  IV 3o7)  45< 

Ettcydopaedia  Biblica 308}  448 

Oarmdon  Press  Greek  Testaments ^74*  4^' 

Oemeni  of  Alexandria.  ^ 133, 138  sqq.,  538 


xii                     INDEX   OF   AUTHORS    AND    BOOKS  ~ 

PAGI 

CitmentiH*  RecogniHons  :  sec  Hoht,  F.  J.  A, 

C  LUG  NET,  L,     Bibliothrque  Hagiogmphiqui  Oruntalt 154 

CoiiN,  G.      Die  Gesftsi  ifammurtibis S^S 

CoMP£Ri4AS5.     Ac(a  S,  CartiH*  Cappadocis 151 

CONOER.     Tertt  Work  in  Ptiltstine 46 

Conftitatio  dogntatutn  Arisioltlis    .          .         .          ......  1 44 

Convocation  of  Canterbury.     Rtport  cm  th*  Positton  ofiki  Laity     .        .  499 

CooKjS,  A,     Th€  Laws  0/ Moses  and  the  Code  0/ NammHrabt      .                  .  3,15 

In  Thf  Guardian          ,         .         .         ,         .         .         *         -         >         •  2t^Z 

Cooke,  G.  A.     A  Text-Boob  of  Narih'Simitk  Inscnpiions     .        .         .        *  aSi 

Corn  ILL.     Ele*ki€lin  Jamsh  Emydopaedia  V         .,..♦.  3*^5 

CoRS&EN,     Die  Urgtstah  der  Paulusakttn               .         ,         *         »         .          -  '5** 

Couture,  L,     la  Revug  d^s  Questions  Historiques  iB^i         .         .         *         .  3^7 

CuRTiss,  S.  I.     Primitixjn  Semitic  Religion  To-day 3^ 

Cyprian,  St.    D*  UnitaU  EccUstae        . 43't  ^34 

Epistolae 6^5  *<IQ* 

Daiches^  S,     Altbabylonische  Rfchtsurkundm 31 1 

Dareste,  R.  :  see  (famnturatn 

Delehaye.     Vita  Melaniae  JumoHs 1 54 

Dictionary  0/ Christian  AniiquHies •  581 

DoRNER,  A.     Grundprobieftu  der  Religionsphiiosopkii 464 

DOWOEN,  J.     Chartulary  0/ the  AUtey  of  Lindons 397 

Drcvis.     Id  Zeilschr.  fUr  katkolische  Theotogie  18Q8     .         .         .         .         .  414 

DmvxR,  S.  R.     Exodus  in  Jewish  Encyclopaedia  V 305 

DucHEs?*E,  L.     Note  sur  VorigXHe  du  cursus 3^7 

In  BuUetiH  critique  \  I 4'7 

Emruarjd,  a.     Die  altchrisUitJut  LiOeratur  und  ihrt  Erforschung  wtn  18^4- 

1900 135 

Encyclopaedia  Biblica     ...*,.*..•>  3^^ 

FiERDEN,  M,  J,     The  Old  Tesiament  in  the  Ltght  of  Modem  Bihlical  Ristarch  3 

Farrar,  F.  W.      The  Bible-,  its  Meaning  and  Suprematy      .         .          ,         .  47* 

Foakes-Jackson,  F.  J.     A  Biblical  Nistoty  of  the  Hebrews   .         .        »         .  307 

Funk,  F.  X.     Patres  Aposiolid ,  » .  editio  it  adaucta  et  emendata    .         .         -  135 

Gamurrini 4^4 

Gaul,  W.     Die  AbfassungsverheUtnisse  der  pseudofusHnischen  '  Cohortatioad 

Grtucos*      ....                  143 

Gebhardt,  O.  von.     Au^etvdhlte  Mdrfyrerakten  und  andere  UrkundeH         .  150 

Die  tatfinischen  UebersetMUHg§H  dtr  Ada  Pauii *t  Theciae       .         ,         .  149 
Gibson,  M.  D,  :  see  Lewis,  A,  S. 

Glover,  T<  R.     Life  and  Letters  in  the  Fourth  Centuty  .         .         .  Hit  4^1 

GoLDZiHER,  I. :  see  Smitk^  W.  R. 

GoREf  C.     The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 6ai,  625 

Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians 409 

Gray,  G.  B.     Numbers  [Interiiationa!  Critical  Commentary]       .        ,         .  306 

Gregory,  C.  R.      Textkritik  des  Neuen  Testaments         ,          ,         ,         .          ♦  265 

Grimme,  H.     Das  Gesels  {famnturabis  und  Moses         .         .         ,         .         .  313 

Grospellier,  A,     In  Revue  du  Chant  Grigorien  i^^'j  .         ,         .         .         .  3'^? 

GRtrrzMACHER.    Hieronymus 151 

Monchtum  in  Hauck  Rtalentychpddi*         ......  154 

GmDi^  I.  :  see  Clugnet,  L. 

Guthe.    Negtb  in  Hauck  ReaUMeytlopadie 305 


nn>£X   OF  AUTHORS  AND   BOOKS  xiii 

PACK 

I^mmmmmhi,  Codtcf.    BAHogmpky 313 

HABWATg.  A.    Dm  Wtam  da  Ckrislgmhtms 13 

DiodoT  vim   Tmnms:  vier  ^stmkjmsimisehe  Sekriftem  ah  Eigmhum 

ZKpdbr*  MMd^^nnam  (Teste  a.  Unten.  N.F.  Ti  4] .        ...  144 

Dit  Misakm  mmdAuabniimmg  da  Ckrnitmhtmg  m  dim  irstm  dtnjakr- 

kamdtrltm 289 

Pamdop^immstha  in  ZnisA.  fibr  dk  N.  T.  WUamsek,        ...  530 

Haukb,  J.  R.     Thg  Dio$€mi  in  llu  Ckrisium  L^tmds 155 

Furtktr  Rgstardus  itdo  the  History  ofikg  Fmrmr-Gnmp  39,  445 

TheOrigmcftkeLeiasUrCodtx 445 

Haccx.    Rakmeydopidk 305 

Havkt,  L.     La  pwnst  mAriftu  de  Symmaqmg  tt  la  migims  wtAriqua  dat 

*air3us* 387 

HxH3i,J.   SiimU  undErJasmng  muk  bibtiaektr  mmd  b§iykmisdttr  Aitsrhmmung  31a 

Hymmn  und  G^beU  am  Marimk 31a 

Hkoch,  J.  C     ModSirSmmem i  sqq. 

Star 149  19 

HiLAKT  or  PoicnxKS,  St.    Hymm 413,  636 

HnfiKKTELD,  A     Die  aposiotiackm  VMar 136 

Igmmiu  Anikxkmi  ti  Pofymrpi  Smyrimti  Epishdmi  d  Martyria  136 

HnmxcHT.  H,  V. 308 

HocARTH.  D.  G.    Syria  in  Etuydopatdia  BibUem  TV 308 

HoRT,  F.  J.  A    Noia  Jnhvdwtdory  to  the  Shtdy  of  the  CUmeHiim  Recogni- 

Htms        . 141 

and  J.  B.  Mator.     CUmeni  cf  Alexandria,  MiaceUania.Bcob  yni  140 

HsojKzrfi-y  F.    Stameriseh-iabybmiache  Mythen  von  dem  GoUe  Ntnrag    .  31a 
Hcscxs,  J.     BedurmahrsaguHg  bei  den  Babylomem  nock  atoei  KeHinsehri/Un 

ans  der  ffamwiurab%zeH 31a 

HunoBy  W.  H.     The  Influena  of  CknsiBamty  upon  NoHonal   Character 
iUnstraUd  by  the  leva  of  the  English  Sainta  (Bampton    Lectures 

1903^ »55 

Jacob,  B.    Exodns  in  Jneish  Encyclopaedia  V 3^5 

JotxxiAS,  A    Nebo  Nergal  in  Hacck  Reaiencydopddie         ....  305 

Jbbchias,  J.     Moaa  and  ffamnuirabi 313 

Jewish  Encyclopaedia 305 

JoHXS,  C  H.  W.     Sargon,  Sennacherib,  Shalmaneser  in   Encydopaedia 

BOdkaVJ 3^8 

Jcsm  Makttb,  St.  :  «r  Gaul,  W.,  Habback,  A 

KzBBZDT,  A  R.  a    SaH,  Weaoing'm  Encydopaedia  BSbUea  IV  ...  308 

Kkitt,  C  F.  :  s«r  ffammurabi, 

KmacH  :  see  Chrmdde  cf  Hagiographiea. 

KukTKBESS,  T.    For  Kirhe  og  Knitwr 3 

JDagmsSirid 18 

EoangeUetforkyndtfor  Nntiden 18 

KuosTZBBAJiB,  A    Nehenda  in  Haucx  Reakmydopddie     ....  305 

Kbopt,  R.    AnsgewSMU  Martyrerakten 150 

K0RI.XB,  J.  :  see  ffamnmrabi. 

Kbusch,  B.    Passiona  Vitaeqne  Sandorum  Aevi  Merovingid     •  147 

KucKKEB,M.A  Vie  de  Severe  par  ZaduurieUScholasiiqne\yatt.Oiieat.iLi\  469 
SseCucemrr,  L. 

KuBZK.     MarcMs  EremOa I5> 

KuTPXBSyAB.    BookcfCerm 263 


XIV 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 


PAGS 

Lacrang£,  M.  J.     La  nttihodi  hktorique 307 

Etudes  sur  its  rtitgioMs  semifiquis        ,,..*.,  307 
5W  J/atumurabt, 
Leipoldt,  J,     Schenutt  von  Atripe  und  dit  EntsUftung  dgs  nationai'dgypH' 

schm  ChrisUnhtms  [Texte  und  Unters.  N  F,  x  i]  .         ,         .         129^  15a 
Lewis,  A.  S.,  E.  NiaTLE,  and  M.   D,   GiBaoN.     A   PtUtstiman  Syrian  Ltc- 

iionary 437 

LtPSlUS.     Acta  Apostolorum  Apocrypha I48 

Little,     In  EttgitsA  Htstoncal  Rrview  Oct,  1^03 156 

LutJttt^k  Kirketidendg 8 

Mai.     Scriptorum  viterum  nova  colUctio  X  [Nomocanon  of  Barhebracus]      .  369 

Marcoliouth,  D.  S.     EtcUsiasUs  in  Jtmsh  Eneydopatdia  V        ,        .         .  305 
MAKt,  F.  :  s(e  Ifawmuntbi. 

Margoliouth,  G.     Tht  Liturgy  of  the  NfU  *         ......  437 

Mayor,  J.  B.  :  sti  HorTj  F.  J,  A. 

Mmamn 147 

MENARD.     Hermes  Tn'smegiste     , ,  397 

MENi>HABt,  J.     An  Index  o/pttblished  Books           ♦ 137 

Mercati,  G,     Varia  Sacra,  fasacolo  1 :  1 .  Anonymi  Chiliasta*  in  MatthaeMm, 
a.  PictoU  suppUmtnti  agii  scritti dei dotiori  Cappadod  #  di  S.  CirsUo 

AlesjsandriHo 318,608 

Mever,  W.     In  Gottingische  getehrie  An0iig*n  \%^i 387 

MiCHiLET,  S.     The  Old  Ttsiament  View  of  Sin 3 

The  Old  Testament  View  of  Righteottsrtess 3 

Ancient  Sanctuaries  in  Modem  Light  .*.....  3 
Monumenta  Germaniae  Htstorica  :  see  Krusch^  B. 

MocQUEREAU,  A     III  Pafeographit  MusicaU          .....          ^  387 

Moore,  G.  F.     Saaijke  in  Emyctopaedia  BibUca  IV 308 

Morgenbiadet        ....,« 8 

MtJLLER,  D.  H.     Die  Geseta*  ffammurabis  und  die  mosatscJu  Gesetmgebung  .  314 

Die  Prophittn  in  ihrer  ursprHngh'chen  Form         .         .         .         .         .  589 

MuLi.ER»  W.  Max.     Rameses,  Shishak^  Tirhahah  in  Encyeloptrdia  Biblica  IV  308 

Mydserg.      The  Biblical  Enquirer 5 

Nao.     Le   texte  grec  original  de  la    Vie  de  St.  Paul  de  Thebes  [Analect 

Boll.  XXJ 151 

Hisioire  de  Thais  [Ann ales  da  Musde  Guimct  XXX]          .         .         *  153 

See  Clugnet,  L. 
Nestik,  E.  t  see  Lewis,  A.  S, 

NoRDEN,  E.     Die  antike  Kunstpro^a 387 

Oreixi^  von.     Mose  in  Hauck  Reaiencychpadie  .         .         1         .         .         .  305 

Patres  apo&toHci:  see  Funk,  F.  X,  Hilgenfeld^  A. 

Peiser^  F.  E,  :  see  ^amnturabt. 

Pinches,  T.  G.      Tiglaih  Pileser  in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica  IV          .         .         .  308 

pREUSCHEK,  E.     Antihgomena:  die  Reste  der  ausserictnonischen  Evangelic 

und  urchristliciuH  Ueberlieferungen 138 

Manchtum  und  Serapiskult .         .  154 

Quaestiones  et  rrsponsiones  ad  orthodoxos       .         ......  144 

Quatsttones  chrislianoruM*  ad  gentiles 144 

Quaestiones  gentiliuwt  ad  Christianas       .         .          .          .          .          .          .          .  144 

Ramsat^  W,  M •.  44 

Reusch,  F.  H.     Der  Index  der  verbotenen  Biicher 117 

Rob  BINS,  W.  L,     A  Christian  Apologetic 471 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS  xv 

PAOX 

RouHSON,  A  W.    Ptraonai  Li/»o/ihiCkrgy     .        .        .        .        .  471 

Rosn,  dc    Roma  SotUrranta 581 

Saiidat,  W.     Sacred  SiUs  of  ifuGospils 42 

Tht  Prtsmt  Grttk  Tuianunis  €^tiu  Clartndon  Pros  .  379,  461 

Schul:  ste  ffammMtabu 

Schmidt,  C.    Die  alien  Petrusakten  [Texte  iind  Unters.  ix  i]  150,  393 

Suboxnx,  RouNDELL  Earl  ot     Andeni  Facts  and  FUHons ,  514 
Severus  of  Antioch  in  the  Nomocarum  of  Barhebraeus         .                          371,  375 

SsmxY,  A  £.     Syria  in  Encydopoidia  Bibiica  IV 308 

Smith,  G.  A     Trade  and  Commerce  in  Encyclopaedia  Bibiica  IV.         .  308 

SnTH,  W.  R.     Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia        ....  305 

Salt  in  Encyclopaedia  Bibiica  IV 308 

SoDn,  H.  von.     Die  Cyprianisdte  Brie/sammlung 635 

Stadi,  B.    Satnuel,  Books  0/ Samuel  in  Entyclopaedia  Bibhca  IV        .        .  308 
SriBLiN,  O.     Zur  handsckrifiUchen  Ueberiieferung  des  Clemens  Alexandrinus 

[Texte  und  Untcre.  N.  F.  v  4] 138 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  und  die  Septuaginta 139 

SnrriNS,  F.     LaieitUsdie  Paldograpkie 106 

SnPHEXSON,  J.     The  Chief  Truths  of  the  Christian  Faith      •        •        .        .  473 

SiooSjC    Das  babylonische  StrafrKht  ffammurabis 313 

Strong,  T.  B.     God  and  the  Individual 399 

Authority  in  the  Church 399 

ShuHtTesti 151,608 

Swm,H.  B.     Patristic  Study 134 

Symuarium  Ecdesiae  Constantinopolitanae 147 

TwHAKT,  F.  R.     The  Origin  and  Propagation  of  Sin 481 

The  Sources  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Fall  and  Original  Sin    .  466,  481 

TnmjLUAN:  ««Wait2. 

TexUundUntersuchungen 139*  138)  I49>  150,  152 

Toy,  C.  H.    Sirachy  Wisdom,  Wisdom  Literature  in  Entyclopaedia  Bibiica  IV  308 

TaivELYAif ,  W.  B.     Sunday 470 

TdhtoNjW.  H.     The  Truth  of  Christianity 473 

Vacandard.     Vie  de  saint  Ouen 148 

ValoiSjN.    £tude  sur  le  rhythms  des  bulles  pontificales         ....  386 

▼andenVeii.    St.Jerdmeetlavie  dumoineMakhusleCaptif              .         .  152 

La  Vie  grecque  de  St,  Jean  U  Psichaite 153 

yOsAnkmU 151 

^Htiarionts 151 

^Pauli 151 

VoLCK.    Micahf  Nahum  in  Hauck  Realencyclopddie 305 

^AiTz,H.    Das  pseudotertullianische  Gedicht  Adversus  Marcionem      •        .  143 
^AiD,  H. :  ue  Ifammurabi. 

^ttssBACH,  F.  H.    Babylonische  Miscellen 3*0 

ViLPERT.     Die  Malereien  der  Katabomben  Poms 581 

Wilson,  C     Recovery  of  Jerusalem 46 

WiHCKiER,  H.     Abraham  als  BcAylonier,  Joseph  als  Aegypter      .         .        .  308 

Sinai  and  Horeb^  Syria  in  Entyclopaedia  Bibiica  IV         .         .         .  308 
See  ffammurabi 

Wordsworth,  J.     Old  Latin  Biblical  Texts 88 

WxiDE,  W.     Das  Messiasgeheimnis  in  den  Evangelien 331 

Zachariah  the  Scholastic.     Life  of  Severus 4^9 

ZtMKER,  F.  K.    Die  Chorgesdnge  im  Buche  der  Psalmen       ....  589 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological   Studies 


OOTOBBB,    1908 


'AGAINST  THE  STREAM/ 

A  FRIEND  of  the  writer  once  entered  into  conversation  with 
a  tramp  who  was  reclining  at  hb  ease  by  the  side  of  the  turnpike 
road.  The  traveller  was  fairly  communicative,  gave  some  of  his 
experiences,  and  told  where  he  had  spent  the  past  night.  Our 
friend  enquired,  *And  where  are  you  going  now?*  *I  don't 
know,'  replied  the  tramp,  *  the  wind  has  gone  down  and  I  never 
go  an3rwhere  unless  I've  the  wind  at  my  back.'  It  is  not  merely 
on  the  king's  highway  that  we  find  people  who  like  to  have  the 
wind  at  their  backs  and  who  have  no  inclination  for  battling 
against  the  storm  and  the  stream. 

Under  the  title  'Against  the  Stream '  a  theological  controversy 
has  been  running  its  course  in  Norway  for  a  considerable  period ; 
and  the  time  seems  to  have  come  when  it  is  possible  to  give 
some  indication  of  its  nature,  even  if  it  is  yet  too  early  to  sum  up 
all  the  results.  The  name  Mod  Strommen  (*  Against  the  Stream ') 
was  the  title  of  a  book  issued  by  Bishop  Heuch  of  Christiansand 
early  in  1902,  calling  attention  to  the  rationalistic  tendencies 
which  he  attributed  to  much  of  the  popular  theology  and 
preaching  of  the  Norwegian  Church.  The  name  was  at  once 
recognized  as  an  appropriate  one  for  the  book,  and  for  the 
attitude  its  author  was  taking  up;  and  articles  pro  and  con 
appeared  under  this  title  in  issue  after  issue  of  every  newspaper 
and  magazine  in  the  land.  In  order  to  understand  the  points 
at  stake  it  is  necessary  to  go  back  a  little  beyond  the  year 
of  publication  of  the  Bishop's  book,  and  to  make  acquaintance 
with  some  of  the  leadii^  figures  in  Norwegian  theology  and 
reUgious  life. 

VOL.  V.  B 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


In  the  early  part  of  the  last  quarter  of  last  century  through< 
Scandinavia  the  Positivist  philosophy,  as  represented  by  Brandos 
in  Denmark,  and  in  Norway  by  a  host  of  poets,  litterateurs,  and 
young  scientists,  was  asserting  itself  in  a  wonderful  degree.  The 
unrest  occasioned  thereby  was  possibly  felt  more  in  the  theo- 
logical world  than  anywhere  else*  The  need  of  recasting  the  old 
dogmas  and  of  modernizing  the  preaching  of  the  Norwegian 
Church  in  order  to  make  its  theology  more  biblical  and  less 
scholastic,  and  to  make  its  preaching  more  practical  and  less 
fruitlessly  theoretic,  was  emphasized  by  several  able  men.  The 
first  pioneer  in  this  crusade  was  Dn  E.  F.  B.  Horn  of  the  Garrison 
Church  in  Christiania,  whose  death  a  few  years  ago  left  a  blank 
in  the  Norwegian  Church  which  no  one  yet  has  been  quite  able 
to  fill.  The  graphic  and  genial  biography  of  Dr.  Horn,  written 
by  the  incumbent  of  Roldal,  Johannes  Brochmann,  is  a  model  of 
what  such  a  book  should  be,  and  gives  us  an  admirable  idea 
of  the  man  and  his  gifts,  Horn  was  a  thinker  endowed  with 
a  sparklingly  original  mind,  and  he  let  loose  a  perfect  torrent 
of  articles,  pamphlets,  and  books  that  set  men  a-thinking.  He 
might  have  said  with  Fr.  V,  Baader,  *  I  am  a  seed  merchant,' 
His  church  in  the  old  fortress  of  the  metropolis  was  crowded 
to  the  door  when  it  was  known  that  Horn  was  to  preach,  and  his 
influence  on  the  students  and  rising  clergy  was  incalculable. 
Amongst  other  pioneers  of  progress  were  Chr.  Bruun,  also  a 
Christiania  clergyman,  the  originator  and  editor  of  the  thoughtful 
magazine  For  liberal-minded  Christianity^  and  for  the  last  ten 
years  joint -editor  of  For  Kirke  og  Kullur  (*  For  Church  and 
Culture '),  a  name  which  very  adequately  explains  itself.  Prof. 
Fredrik  Petersen,  whose  lamented  death  early  this  year  has  left 
another  very  great  blank,  had  one  of  the  keenest  minds  in  the 
Lutheran  Church,  and  rendered  yeoman  service  in  driving  back 
the  assaults  of  scepticism  and  unbelief,  and  in  pointing  out 
desirable  reforms.  Another  champion  of  progress  was  the  present 
Dean  of  Christiania,  Gustav  Jensen,  who  is  probably  the  most 
highly  esteemed  clergyman  in  Norway,  and  has  refused  the  oifer 
of  a  bishopric  at  least  half  a  dozen  times.  To  him  those  in 
authority  always  apply  for  information  and  guidance  w-heii 
important  questions  arise.  Jensen  is  the  St.  Bernard  of  the 
Norwegian  Church,  and  it  may  be  said  that  his  influence  exceeds 


'AGAINST   THE   STREAM*  ^ 

that  of  all  professors  and  bishops  and  ministers  of  state.  Another 
eloquent  preacher  was  J.  J.  Jansen,  formerly  of  Roken,  whose 
influence,  until  his  health  gave  way,  was  immense.  Then  we 
must  mention  Thv.  Klaveness,  another  of  the  foremost  preachers 
of  Christiania  and  of  Norway,  founder  and  joint-editor  with 
Bruun  of  For  Kirke  eg  Kultur^  a  man  of  indomitable  energy, 
of  marvellous  dialectic  skill,  and  of  dauntless  courage,  whose 
equal  could  not  easily  be  found.  Before  others  get  their  thoughts 
in  order  he  is  on  the  field  of  fight  with  weapons  that  are  keen  of 
edge  and  wielded  with  a  master  hand.  Some  other  leaders 
of  thought  have  recently  come  to  the  front  and  must  be  mentioned 
in  a  word.  Dr.  S.  Michelet,  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Ex^esis, 
has  written  valuable  works  on  The  Old  Testament  View  of  Sin, 
The  Old  Testament  View  of  Righteousness ;  and  a  few  months 
since  he  sent  forth  Ancient  Sanctuaries  in  Modern  Lights  a  series 
of  lectures  giving  a  clear  and  popular  account  of  the  acknowledged 
results  of  Old  Testament  criticism.  Dean  M.  J.  Faerden,  of 
Norderhov,  has  published  a  volume  on  the  same  subject  as 
Prod  Michelet's,  entitled  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of 
Modem  Biblical  Research.  Faerden's  book  is  much  more  radical 
than  Michelet's.  Probably  many  will  view  it  with  disfavour 
on  account  of  its  unqualified  acceptance  of  some  of  the  extreme 
conclusions  of  modem  criticism;  but  the  book  gives  evidence 
of  most  extensive  reading  and  expert  knowledge,  and  the  author's 
style  is  the  most  fluent  and  charming  we  have  had  experience  of 
among  Scandinavian  theological  writers. 

The  great  apostle  of  orthodoxy  in  Norway  has  for  a  long 
period  been  Bishop  J.  C.  Heuch  of  Christiansand.  He  is  not  so 
much  a  theol(^ian  as  a  witness  for  Christ,  deserving  in  many 
respects  of  honour  and  regard.  In  days  gone  by  he  was  an 
extraordinary  power  in  the  Norw^an  Church;  but  his  ultra- 
conservatism  of  mind  has  prevented  him  from  advancing  with 
the  age.  The  interesting  thing  is  that  Heuch  was  the  very  first 
vigorous  assailant  of  the  Positivist  tendency,  and  he  gained  great 
laurels  in  Denmark  for  his  valiant  onslaught  on  Brandes.  When 
Heuch  was  a  priest  in  Christiania  he  had  all  the  intelligence  of 
the  metropolis  assembled  around  him,  appreciating  his  realistic, 
practical  teaching.  No  one  suspected  that  behind  those  sermons 
of  his,  sparkling  with  the  reality  of  life,  lay  hidden  the  Old 

B  2 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Lutheran  dogmatic  system.  But  eventualjy  it  was  discovered 
that  his  preaching  was  altogether  based  on  the  theological 
paradox-system  of  his  former  teacher  Prof.  Gisle  Johnson. 
Heuch  never  saw  its  defects  or  the  untenability  of  the  old 
scholasticism  in  the  face  of  the  exegesis  and  biblical  theology 
of  modem  times.  This  was  very  likely  due  to  the  fact  that  he 
never  was  a  theologian  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  but  onlyj 
a  very  practical  pastor  and  preacher.  In  most  ecclesiastical 
gatherings  he  was  the  doughty  champion  of  the  Old  Lutheran 
confession,  which  In  his  early  days  corresponded  with  the  general 
spirit  in  the  Norse  Church  and  prevailed  until  Prof.  Petersen, 
succeeding  to  the  chair  of  Systematic  Theology  in  1876,  showed 
the  absolute  necessity  for  a  reconstruction  of  the  old  system. 
But  Heuch*s  fundamentally  conservative  theological  position  and 
tendencies  were  forgotten  under  the  charm,  the  vigour  and  the 
appositeness  of  his  practical  teaching,  until  what  has  been  called 
the  *  Christ iansand  Polemic  '  broke  out  in  1^95. 

The  cause  of  this  controversy  w^as  the  publication  by  the 
Rev.  J.  H.  H.  Brochmann,  of  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Christian- 
sand,  a  brother  of  Dr.  Horn's  biographer,  of  a  book  entitled 
Lov  og  Naade  ^  (i.  e,  *  Law  and  Grace/  an  abbreviation  for  *  The 
place  of  the  Law  in  the  Kingdom  of  Grace  *).  Recognizing,  as 
Brochmann  says,  with  sorrow,  the  impotence  of  the  Norse  State 
Church  and  the  dissolution  going  on  within  ft,  he  aimed  at 
restoring  harmony  and  power  by  setting  law  and  duty  in  their 
proper  and  recognized  place  within  the  Kingdom  of  Grace.  Thol 
question  the  book  sought  to  answer  was— Has  the  Norwegian 
State  Church  managed  to  preserve  its  heritage  inviolate,  and  are 
its  priests  worthy  preachers  of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  ?  or  has 
the  Law  been  practically  set  aside,  to  the  injury  of  the  preaching, 
as  the  result  of  an  original  obliquity  of  vision,  thus  distorting,  or. 
falsifying,  or  minimizing  the  Church's  teaching  about  the  LawH 
Brochmann's  conclusion  is  that,  from  the  very  first,  the  theory 
of  the  Law  held  by  the  Norse  Church  has  not  accurately 
corresponded  with  what  was  intended  by  Luther  and  the  Re- 
formers ;  that  the  Church  cannot  attain  its  purpose  without 
revising  its  standards  of  doctrine,  *  returning  to  the  forsaken 
paths  of  our  fathers ' ;   ahd  that  the  restoration  of  the  old  will 

*  Chriatianjii,  1694. 


'AGAINST   THE   STREAM  '  3 

demand,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  that  some  portions  must  be 
rebuilt.  Brochmann  acknowledged  that  in  Norway  from  many 
pulpits  the  Gospel  had  been  preached  from  full  hearts  and  the 
Saviour's  love  bad  been  pictured  with  earnestness  and  power^  but 
the  result  had  been  disappointing.  '  The  Word  of  God  is 
preached  one-sidedly.  Christ  is  preached,  but  the  people  arc 
taught  more  to  contemplate  and  listen  to  Him  than  to  do  what 
He  has  commanded.'  He  holds  that  in  a  sermon  '  the  humbling 
words,  the  words  that  go  home,  are  the  best  and  most  precious.* 
Brochmann  does  not  deny  that  the  preacher  will  find  a  difRculty 
in  preaching  the  Law  so  as  to  lead  to  Christ,  and  preaching 
Christ  so  as  to  secure  fidelity;  in  preaching  the  Law  so  that 
it  does  not  interfere  with  Grace,  and  preaching  Grace  so  that  it 
does  not  hinder  the  effect  of  the  Law.  There  is  an  apparent 
chasm  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel;  and  if  the  dualism 
is  to  be  removed  the  doctrinal  definition  of  the  Law  must  be 
recast  The  book  enters  most  thoroughly  and  carefully  into 
all  the  questions  involved  in  prosecuting  the  question  to  be 
elucidated,  and  it  specially  asks  for  a  new  statement  or  definition 
of  the  Atonement  One  would  have  thought  that  such  a  de- 
liverance, wisely  weighed,  calmly  reasoned  and  clearly  put, 
could  hardly  fail  to  lead  to  searching  of  heart  in  the  Norse 
Church,  and  to  proposals  for  remedying  the  defects  indicated. 
The  book,  of  course,  is  not  free  from  defects,  and  the  author 
makes  a  quite  uncalled-for  and  gratuitous  charge  against  the 
Free  Lutherans  and  other  Norw^ian  dissenters,  who  in  some 
respects  seem  by  their  freedom  from  State  control  to  have  been 
able  to  modify  their  standards  in  the  directions  desired. 

Law  and  Grace  was  received  at  first  with  almost  universal 
favour  by  the  secular  press  and  also  by  the  Church  ms^azines. 
But  ere  long  the  book  was  made  the  object  of  a  vehement  attack 
by  the  author's  own  superior.  Bishop  Heuch,  who  thereby 
originated  the  *  Christiansand  Polemic,'  which  evoked  interest  in 
every  comer  of  the  land.  Klaveness,  in  For  Kirke  og  Ktdtur, 
ranged  himself  unreservedly  on  the  side  of  Brochmann.  Prof. 
Mydberg,  of  Upsala,  championed  his  cause  most  powerfully,  and 
his  journal  Ths  Biblical  Enquirer  carried  on  the  fight  in  Sweden. 
In  Denmark  and  all  through  Scandinavian  America  the  con- 
troversy was  followed  wiUi  interest  and  suspense;  but  Brochmann, 


6  THE  JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STTJDIES 

omflHng  to  dispute  with  his  Bishop,  left  his  book  to  speak 
teeiil  One  has  difficulty  in  understanding  the  Bishop  s  vehemence, 
fib  inconsistency  and  his  lack  of  charity.  Underneath  the 
controversy  lay  a  great  question — Is  a  Xonvegian  priest  entitled 
fieety  to  think  about  and  discuss  doctrinal  problems,  or  must  he 
have  the  bishop's  pennisston  to  think  and  speak  and  wdte  about 
the  detuls  of  the  Creed?  FteMliy  that  was  the  issue  that 
roused  the  Norse  clergy,  for  imdbqbtedly  them  were  many  who 
did  not  sympathize  with  Brochmann's  reasons,  although  they  had 
arrived  at  hi^  »oni  other  premises,  and  they  rebelled 

agutnst  the  U.  ..^t.  v...,,arrajitcd  reading  of  lessons  to  abetter 
scholar  and  abler  disccraer  of  the  times  tiian  himself. 

Bishop  Heuch  stamped  Brochmann  as  a  rationalist  and  hereticv 
cieskring  that  he  turned  Christ  into  a  lay  figure  to  be  used  only 
htesusc  He  was  there  and  could  not  decently  be  passed  by.  His 
^IfciOf  y  of  justification '  is  'as  old  as  rationalism  itself  ;  it  ia  '  m 
slUrp  contrast  to  the  Churches  doctrine/  'The  God  and  the 
children  of  God  whom  Brochmann  represents  are  the  old  progeny 
of  rationalism,  to  whom  he  has  given  new  clothes  that  he  may 
daeiKdy  praMiit  thetn  'ildi-en.      He  'converts 

6EMl'teOJi:geiddold    -  c  had  never  been  bom 

it  would  not  have  mattered  much.'  He  holds  that  Brochmanits 
preacfaiiig  is  quite  silent  about  what  we  call '  Christ  in  us/  and 
that  this  stleiice  has  gone  oft  '  Sunday  alter  Sunday  for  yeais.' 
'  To  Brochmann  grace  in  Christ  is  not  ail/  and  in  his  preaching  we 
do  not  learn '  that  we  in  Jesus  Christ,  our  God  and  brother,  have  a 
real  Saviour  who  does  and  sulfersfor  us  all  that  we  cannot  ourselves 
accomplish.'   Consequently  Brochmann's  teaching  is  non^hristianL 

This  was  a  terrible  onslaught  by  the  Bishop  on  the  priest  of 
his  Cathedral  Church,  and  one  is  inclined  to  fancy  that  there 
must  be  more  than  the  book  behind  the  charges*  But  it  was  the 
book  that  was  challenged,  and  the  Bishop  had  to  justify  himsdf 
from  the  book.  He  ingenuously  disarms  criticism  by  saying, 
'  I  am  no  scholar  and  am  unable  to  quarrel  with  Mr.  Brochmann 
for  his  escegeticai  interpretations^  or  to  examine  the  whole 
apparatus  he  has  employed  to  set  up  his  system/  But  this  is 
just  a  confession  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  criticijse,  nor  able  to 
appreciate  the  proofs  produced,  partly  from  Scriptuie,  partly  from 
die  nature  and  essence  of  the  Christian  faiths  which  had  ted 


I 
I 


1 


'AGAINST   THE   STREAM*  7 

Brochmann  to  the  conclusions  arrived  at.  The  only  justification 
attempted  by  the  Bishop  is  quite  inadequate  to  convict  Broch- 
mann of  being  a  rationalist,  or  of  heterodoxy ;  and  the  two  or 
three  passages  Heuch  quotes  are  severed  from  the  context^  and 
are  incapable  of  bearing  the  interpretation  placed  upon  them. 

The  Bishop  writes,*  Some  may  deny  me  the  right  to  hold  that 
Law  and  Grace  contains  pernicious  heresy,  but  since  I  hold  that 
opinion  I  have  not  been  able  to  act  otherwise  than  I  have  done.' 
What  is  expected  of  a  bishop  who  detects  '  pernicious  heresy '  in 
one  of  the  clergy  in  his  diocese,  especially  in  the  Cathedral  Church? 
Is  it  sufficient  that  he  write  a  few  newspaper  and  magazine 
articles?  If  he  is  watching  over  the  interests  of  his  diocese  he 
ought  to  warn  the  congr^ation  gainst  the  heretical  teaching  of 
the  priest,  and  to  report  the  matter  to  the  Church  authorities  and 
demand  the  removal  of  the  heretic  As  a  matter  of  fact.  Law 
and  Grace  gave  no  warrant  for  the  Bishop's  vehemence. 
Brochmann's  book  shows  that  he  is  no  rationalist.  He  believes 
in  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  miraculous  conception,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Lord,  salvation  of  grace  through  Christ,  the  second 
advent,  the  authority  of  scripture,  and  so  on.  The  Bishop  would 
never  have  succeeded  in  convicting  Brochmann  of  heresy  ;  and 
he  seems  at  length  to  have  recognized  the  fact,  for  he  neither 
denounced  him  in  the  Cathedral,  nor  reported  him  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  for  the  Church.  Heuch  gave  out  that  he  was 
writing  a  book  fully  setting  forth  his  charges  against  Brochmann 
and  others  who  held  views  of  a  similar  nature  or  tendency  that 
were  deserving  of  vituperation  and  condemnation.  But  Jie  wisely 
let  the  matter  drop ;  the  book  did  not  appear,  and  Brochmann 
remained  in  possession  of  the  field.  Bishop  Heuch  now  takes  up 
quite  a  gracious  and  friendly  attitude  to  the  author  of  Law  and 
GracCy  since  he  has  come  to  understand  what  Brochmann  from 
the  very  first  had  told  him,  that  if  he  knew  him,  if  he  would  take 
the  trouble  to  understand  him,  he  would  find  in  him  an  ally 
rather  than  a  foe.  The  Bishop,  however,  was  to  learn  that 
although  Brochmann  was  unwilling  to  do  more  in  the  prosecution 
of  his  crusade,  yet  other  men  were  ready  to  take  up  the  parable 
against  the  Norwegian  Church  and  its  theology;  and  these  went 
further  far  than  Brochmann,  and  their  views  were  worthy  of 
much  more  scathing  denunciation. 


s 


THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Some  two  years  ago  Klaveness  set  the  whole  of  Norway  in 
commotion  by  a  lecture  in  which  he  attacked  the  Christiania 
public  for  their  homage  to  the  Danish  poet  Drachmann  and  the 
singer  Miss  B,  Lassen,  who  had  openly  transgressed  all  the  ordinary 
conceptions  of  permissible  intercourse  between  a  married  man 
and  an  lanmarried  woman.  Morgenbiadet,  one  of  the  leading 
journals  of  Norway,  and  many  other  newspapers,  repeatedly 
attacked  him.  Even  the  Luther sk  Kirketidende  kept  him  at 
a  respectful  distance ;  and  the  Bishop  of  Christiania  was  induced 
by  Miss  Lassen  s  relatives  to  give  Klaveness  a  public  rebuke. 
But  other  ministers,  among  them  Brochmann,  took  the  side  of 
Klaveness  ;  and  in  the  end  he  and  his  co-editor  of  For  Kirke  og 
Kulttir  won  the  day*  But  Klaveness  was  so  exhausted  by  the 
numerous  blows  and  attacks  directed  against  him  that  he  had 
to  obtain  a  long  leave  of  absence  in  order  to  recover  strength. 

He  had  scarcely  returned  from  abroad  before  he  appeared  at 
the  Conference  of  Lutheran  Clergy,  at  Lund  in  Sweden,  in  1901, 
and  delivered  a  lecture  on  '  Modem  Indifferent  ism  and  the 
Church/  which  gave  rise  to  a  most  heated  discussion  both  at  the 
meeting  and  following  it. 

Klaveness  began  his  lecture  by  proposing  the  questions  ;  Why 
do  not  our  men  go  to  church  ?  And  what  must  be  done  to  draw 
them  ?  Men,  he  says,  do  not  despise  religion  or  deny  faith  in 
God  or  Christ ;  they  do  not  attack  the  Church  or  its  doctrines, 
or  its  service,  or  its  priests ;  they  let  these  go  for  what  they  are 
worth.  But  they  reserve  to  themselves  the  right  to  do  as  tliey 
please  •,  and  as  they  think  they  have  no  need  for  the  Church  they 
choose  to  be  indifferent.  These  are  men  with  modern  culture  ; 
and  this  modern  culture  has  a  wonderful  faculty  for  spreading  far 
and  wide.  This  religious  indifference  of  men  is  at  least  in  part 
a  heritage  from  the  free-thinking  propaganda  of  the  last  genera- 
tion. 

One  great  stone  of  stumbling  to  which  Klaveness  directs 
attention  is,  that  Church  leaders  and  priests  are  often  afraid  of 
free  enquiry  and  scientific  examination  of  the  Bible  and  its 
dogmas,  a  fact  of  which  Bishop  Heuch's  action  in  the  '  Christian- 
sand  Polemic '  supplies  an  instance.  Yet  it  is  liberty  that  has 
brought  to  Europe  and  to  particular  countries  such  immeasurable 
progress  in  moral  as  well  as  in  material  respects.     Norwegian 


'AGAINST  THE   STREAM*  g 

preachers^  in  many  cases,  are  not  only  afraid  of  progress,  but  they 
oppose  it ;  and  the  most  vehement  resistance  of  the  truths  which 
science  has  discovered  and  of  the  political  and  social  reforms 
which  the  age  demanded  has  come  from  the  Church. 

These  and  other  causes  have  exercised  an  influence  ;  but  the 
main  cause  of  the  desertion  of  the  Church  by  the  modern  man  is 
the  preaching.  The  '  whine  and  pulpit  jargon  *  (Klaveness  never 
minces  words),  which  preachers  have  inherited  from  former  days, 
will  not  be  tolerated  now.  And  the  matter  of  the  preaching  is 
not  much  better ;  although  the  Gospel  itself  contains  all  that  is 
needed  to  attract  and  charm,  the  attractive  notes  are  drowned  by 
notes  that  repel. 

Now  what  are  these  ?  Among  others  he  specifies  the  Trinitarian 
and  Christok>gical  dogmas  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  standards,  dc^mas  which  nowadays  no  man  without 
special  theological  training  is  able  to  understand  or  accept.  To 
modern  thought  they  are  unintelligible^  and  the  modern  man  is 
a  thinker.  The  modern  man  has  even  more  difficulty  in  accepting 
that  which  occupies  most  space  in  sermons,  viz.  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement  in  connexion  with  the  order  of  salvation.  The 
modem  man,  he  says,  cannot  reconcile  the  old  dogma  of  satis^ 
f actio  vicaria  with  his  conceptions  of  law  and  justice.  That  is 
bad  enough;  but  it  is  worse  when  one  minute  men  hear  that 
Christ  has  d(xie  and  suffered  all  in  their  stead,  so  that  they  need 
not  do  an3rthing  except  only  to  believe  themselves  saved  through 
Christ ;  and  next  minute  they  are  warned  not  to  deceive  themselves, 
for  salvation  is  not  so  very  simple :  in  order  to  be  saved  one  must 
go  through  a  succession  of  stages  linked  together — awakening, 
conversion,  justification,  regeneration,  sanctification.  Is  it  strange 
if  many  prefer  in  the  circumstances  to  keep  away  from  the  church 
where  such  conflicting  doctrines  are  taught  ? 

Practically  there  is  a  great  gulf  between  Culture  and  the 
Church.  Culture  has  gone  steadily  forward,  but  the  Church  has 
lingered  behind  in  the  orthodox  dogmatism  of  the  seventeenth 
century  and  the  pietbtic  ideas  of  the  eighteenth.  The  Church 
lies  stranded  in  a  by-past  age,  and  the  modern  man  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  what  is  wrecked  or  absolutely  out  of  date. 

Klaveness  instances  the  Inspiration  dogma.  No  scientific 
theologian  now  holds  the  old  mechanical  Inspiration  theory. 


THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL 

SckncepOcnseqiiefiUyciiltiBi^  has  qiiite  given  it  lip.  But  Theology 
has  not  yiet  muDged  to  fotnwiHr  m  new  theory  of  Inspiration 
wfakb  has  met  with  general  acc^vtance.  Theology  gropes  and 
fambies ;  and  so  the  eaepioded  theory  of  Insfiiration,  discarded  by 
Tbcology»  is  taught  in  the  schoois>  and  is  preached  from  the 
pulpits,  inevitably  draving  apoo  the  Church  the  diaige  that  it 
teaches  what  it  no  longer  brieves. 

Klaveoess  points  oat  that  the  ancient  Church  appropriated 
ancient  ctikure,and  obtained  firoQi  it  method  and  form  and  a  fullness 
of  thought  which  it  combined  with  the  GospeL  Then  tt  gave 
the  age  its  culture  back  as  a  Christian  view  of  the  world  which 
conquered  the  age.  The  Church  of  the  Refonnation  did  some- 
thii^  the  ^me  with  the  Humanism  which  was  the  culture  of  its 
day.  The  Church  of  the  present  day  has  not  risen  to  the  occasion. 
It  has  made  attempts,  such  as  ratioiialism,  speculative  theology, 
and  the  Ritschlian  theology ;  but  only  rationalism  ever  looked 
like  succeeding.  The  Church  life  of  the  ntneteeoth  century  has 
been  a  reaction ;  and  the  reacticHi  was  wananted  and  brought  its 
blessing,  fiut  we  cannot  live  on  leactioa  without  sufieni^« 
Life  demands  progress.  Culture  has  progressed ;  but  the  Church 
has  not,  and  so  an  increasing  indifferentism  has  taken  possessioo 
of  the  cultured  throng. 

Now  what  must  the  Church  do  to  meet  this  lodifTerentism 
Klaveness  answers  that  the  natural  conclusion  from  hb  premises 
is»  that  the  Church  should  appropnate  the  culture  of  the  present 
day  and  give  it  back  to  the  age  as  a  Christian  view  of  the  world 
suited  for  present  needs.  But  for  that  a  religious  genius  like 
Augustine  or  Luther  would  be  required ;  and  such  a  genius  does 
not  come  at  calL 

He  therefore  sa>'s:  Let  the  clerg>*  preach  the  Gospel  and 
thereby,  if  possible,  change  the  indifferentism  into  love  for 
Christ.  That  is  a  matter  of  course ;  but  what  else  must  be  done  ? 
Modem  men  will  not  come  to  hear.  Can  we  compel  them  ?  It 
will  not  do  to  use  compulsion*  The  Church  has  tried  that  often 
enough^  and  it  partly  does  so  stills-compulsory  confirmation, 
first  commtmion,  forced  catcchization,  to  some  extent  (e  g.  in  the 
case  of  soldiers)  even  compulsory  church  attendance.  But  it  is 
not  seemly  that  the  Church  should  rely  on  the  State  ;  and  the 
Church  must  do  without  the  aid  of  the  State. 


I 


-1 


'AGAINST  THE   STREAM*  II 

How  is  it  to  be  done  ?  Let  the  Gospel  be  preached  so  that  by 
its  own  inherent  power  the  message  will  draw  the  indifferent  so 
that  they  must  hear,  and  then  they  will  be  convinced  of  its  truth. 
But  it  is  of  no  use  trying,  as  so  many  do,  to  terrify  men  with  the 
pangs  of  hell.  A  sensible  man  will  not  be  forced  or  terrified  into 
believing.  He  only  believes  what  his  conscience  has  testified  to 
be  the  truth.  And  he  cannot  believe  anything  else,  even  with 
hell  before  his  eyes.  Consequently  the  whole  style  and  character 
of  preaching  must  be  changed. 

Preachers  must  place  themselves  with  brotherly  sympathy  by 
men's  sides  and  enter  into  their  thoughts  and  feelings.  In  this 
way  they  may  form  some  idea  of  what  amount  of  religious  truth 
their  hearers  can  receive,  and  learn  how  to  preach  that  it  may  be 
received.  That  was  how  Jesus  and  the  apostles  acted.  They 
gave  the  religious  truth  which  their  hearers  could  bear.  If  the 
pulpit  is  to  win  the  educated  men  of  the  present  day  it  is  necessary 
to  find  their  hearts.  The  modern  man  feels  himself  under  a 
supreme  power,  which  never  fails  to  return  a  crop  not  only  of  what 
an  individual  sows  but  also  of  what  his  ancestors  throi^h  genera- 
tions and  the  society  round  about  have  sowed.  Life  becomes 
a  burden,  and  men  are  ever  sighing,  in  secret,  for  a  Father  s  heart 
on  which  they  can  lean  and  to  which  they  can  bring  their  pains 
and  griefs. 

Now  what  must  be  preached  to  such  a  generation  ?  Will  it 
do  to  refer  to  Adam's  guilt  and  sin,  and  to  explain  that  God 
reckoned  Adam's  guilt  to  Christ,  and  Christ  accepted  it  and  paid 
the  penalty ;  and  that  we  receive  the  benefit  of  Christ's  sacrifice 
by  faith  so  that  God  imputes  it  to  us  for  righteousness  ?  Such 
a  system  of  imputing  and  reckoning  and  appropriating  is  far  too 
involved,  to  say  the  least.  Christianity  must  be  simple  in  order 
that  men  may  grasp  it  and  believe.  Preaching  must  be  simple 
like  that  of  Christ.    The  preacher's  message  should  be  like  this : 

*  The  Father-heart  you  sigh  for,  you  children  of  the  twentieth 
century,  may  be  found.  The  Power  which  rules  the  world,  and 
whose  adamantine  consistency  you  feel,  has  such  a  Father-heart. 
However  much  it  may  seem  so,  that  power  is  no  blind  fate ;  it  is 
a  Father,  a  holy  Father,  who  wishes  His  children  to  become 
perfect  ahd  who  therefore  punishes  their  sins  and  trains  them 
strictly;    but  yet  a  Father  who  forgives  the  penitent  child, 


s£  iiciaac.  cr 


'.^  rmr^  SIT  I  mac  se  icocsz  ic  '^ic.  xcoi.  jc  ^siiis 

fiJEjiaMxi  -misr  be  sit:  ir  zsi^r:  ^aa  3k  311  ssLmcuo:. 
3V-  ise  Zjbm  rrsET  ine   koiwieq^   if  sir    mms.     T 
-msn-  iz  TFCrx  x  ixcwieoije  ^  sa  25  31  p  ~ 

JEW  Tf  -nry  Sid  snecz.  x  jcsscil  jt-'iamL-^ay  txxsl  -wSL  ace 
zr  ivic:xinc;. 

2tiL  X  js  TT  3ir  Tsc  :ir  irvrr  Jtsi  rnic  3cc  ^  Zjcw  g  gg  ' 
jiriiusir^i  3Si:r=Ls  lamxcc  iuiiL  i.    Exer  rae  Saxdes  ii?  351- 

me.  TPz  3iake  "±k  l-rv  if  icixe  ifc:^     «~!ie!t  ?3ai  srxs 
rieLxir  is  ±fi  'jcn:w*jri§e  rr  sii»  ie  sxisbis  act  ±ac  sairt ' 
lames  miy  by  nmui^  but  :35t:  :fle  Icwwie*^  rjma  by  a 
ddn^  vbsBL  '3e  7  jv  ^s^tnrs;.    Course  >tiu.  "  rjis  in 
msLL  ijc   lad  H*;  jEt  KIs  kxtcts  ^  inc  iUE  3*r 
CiuntuuBxzLy  5?3iii  rie  Tulnit  ?riffg   aw&e.  3^   jcarri  x 
T^CKs  2f  tie  3xL  inc^rvdeas  ^^  ssns  iw  lil  t^xic  ia  Gc»i  s  w2I 

SEBTi  "  ^oine  ixt  "^asas  Tsime  '•itfi  ^jf^^tir  irrcK  .mi  sxiscLkss  xad 
iff-  sn^nnsi-ss  xnii  v-m.  'wtii  :^5c:av^  -r^ricn;  imi  -^^yhr.K 

Sn^pfeates  if  3ns  ami  rie  j:ss»rsaci  ^*f  sukici.^  .  jinx  pr^K^iii^ 
anK  ^Eve  ::&at  jSBinaKS.    Aait  i  cia  *>c  ^war  J  :m  otti^ifc  w^ 


'AGAINST   THE  STREAM*  13 

let  Christ's  person  and  life  and  death  and  resurrection  explain  the 
holy,  merdfiily  Father-love  of  God. 

A  priest  need  not  confine  himself  wholly  to  such  preaching  as 
has  been  indicated.  If  he  has  more  which  is  his  own  personal 
experience,  and  if  he  is  certain  his  hearers  have  the  power  to 
receive  more,  then  he  can  give  more.  But  the  preacher  must 
confine  himself,  if  he  is  to  gather  round  him  those  who  are 
indifieient,  to  such  simple  subjects  as  have  been  indicated,  for 
comparatively  few  have  the  qualifications  for  receiving  more. 
And  even  faithful  church  attenders  are  not  able  to  take  in  much 
more.  Our  artificial  exegesis  and  complicated  dogmatics  fiy  over 
their  heads.  They  secretly  sigh  for  what  is  simpler  and  more 
practical. 

In  fine,  preachers  must  get  away  from  the  preaching  '  whine 
and  jargon,'  and  begin  to  speak  of  God  calmly,  naturally,  and 
directly,  as  ordinary  cultured  people  usually  speak  to  each  other. 
And  there  must  be  shown  consideration  for  the  modem  man  of 
culture,  who  has  his  very  good  sides.  If  he  is  to  be  won  for  Christ 
it  will  be  by  setting  forth  a  fuller  and  simpler  Christianity  than 
the  old.  The  modem  man  is  here,  and  the  Lord  gives  the  pulpit 
the  task  to  win  him  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  To  win  him, 
preachers  must  love  him,  love  him  with  all  his  faults  and  weak- 
nesses and  sufferings  and  fermenting  unrest  and  doubts.  The 
modem  man  has  often  been  unjustly  condemned ;  he  has  often 
been  unwarrantably  wounded.  He  must  be  loved.  Preachers 
need  a  new  baptbm  of  the  Spirit.  They  should  pray  for  the 
fiillness  of  the  Spirit  that  they  may  be  able  to  understand  the  age, 
and  feel  for  it,  and  find  their  way  to  its  heart  *  Oh,  for  a  clergy 
anointed  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the 
diildren  of  our  SLgeJ 

When  Klaveness  delivered  his  lecture  at  Lund,  and  when 
Jansen  reviewed  Hamack's  Essence  of  Christianity  in  a  way 
whidi  even  his  friends  disapproved.  Bishop  Heuch  again  took  up 
his  pen,  considering  that  now  he  had  something  more  dangerous 
still  than  Law  and  Grace  to  battle  with,  and  his  book  was  issued 
under  the  title  Against  the  Stream  ^.  No  religious  or  theological 
book  has  caused  such  a  sensation  in  Norway.     It  went  through 

^  Mad  SirS$tumM,  Chnstiania,  190a. 


14 


THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


six  editions  in  a  single  year,  and  that  in  a  country  with  only  half* 
the  population  of  Scotland ;  and  it  has  called  forth  support  and 
opposition  in  every  dale  and  hamlet  of  the  land.  It  has  been 
followed  by  Svar  (*  Rejoinder ')  from  the  Bishop's  hand,  in  answer 
to  the  attacks  nnade  on  him  and  his  position  ;  and  the  controversy 
is  only  now  beginning  to  subside.  Not  merely  the  theological 
and  religious  press  but  the  daily  newspapers  and  weekly  journals 
teemed  with  articles,  reviewing  the  various  phases  of  the  con- 
troversy. Laymen  held  great  gatherings  and  passed  votes  of 
thanks  to  the  Bishop  for  his  book ;  and  even  from  America  such 
a  congratulatory  address  has  recently  come.  Last  year  Heuch  was 
invited  to  Stockholm  to  a  clerical  congress,  where  he  was  fdted  in 
an  extraordinary  fashion ;  and  King  Oscar  took  the  opportunity  of 
decorating  him  with  the  Grand  Cross  of  the  Order  of  the  North  Star. 

Bishop  Heuch's  book  is  uncompromisingly  conservative.  It 
was  called  forthj  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  lecture  of  Klaveness 
at  Lund,  and  it  deals  both  with  that  lecture  and  with  certain 
related  modern  tendencies.  The  Bishop  skilfully  avoids  attacking 
Gustav  Jensen  (the  only  person  he  seems  to  be  afraid  of),  not  so 
much  because  of  the  views  he  holds,  since  Jensen  is  distinctly 
progressive  and  outspoken,  and  his  theology  is  very  liberal  in 
expression  and  tendency^  as  because  of  the  universal  popularity 
and  authority  of  the  man.  But  he  hales  before  his  tribunal 
Profs.  S.  Michelet  and  Lydcr  Brun,  with  Chr.  Bruun,  Jens 
Gleditsch,  and  others.  It  is  even  said  that,  when  his  former 
friend  and  colleague  Dean  Faerden  sent  Heuch  his  book  on 
T/te  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Biblical  Research ^ 
the  Bishop  returned  it  unread.  One  interesting  fact  is  that  in 
Against  the  Stream  Heuch  most  significantly  avoids  Brochmann 
and  Law  and  Grace ;  partly,  doubtless,  because  he  had  burnt 
himself  severely  in  the  former  controversy,  partly  because  he  had 
come  to  see  that  Brochmann  was  after  all  not  so  radical  and 
certainly  not  nearly  so  extreme  as  Klaveness  and  the  others, 
whose  opinions  were,  as  he  believed,  so  flagrantly  unorthodox, 
rationalistic,  and  heretical. 

Heuch  is  a  fearless  warrior  wielding  his  sword  with  a  skill  and   ] 
vigour  that  many  a  younger  man  might  envy.     However  much    ' 
we  disagree  with  his  treatment  of  his  opponents  and  his  mode  of 
setting  forth  his  views,  we   must  admire  his  evident   honesty 


'AGAINST  THE   STREAM*  15 

of  pufpose^  his  v^our  of  language  and  his  clearness  of  expression* 
But  when  he  blames  his  adversaries  for  want  of  clearness  the 
chaiige  returns  upon  himself;  for  the  lack  of  understanding  is  not 
due  so  much  to  the  obscurity  of  the  writers  as  to  the  Bishop's 
inability  to  look  at  the  questions  from  their  point  of  view. 
Perhaps,  also,  he  is  incapable  of  grasping  the  fact  that  they  are 
trying  to  meet  new  conditions  of  life  and  tendencies  of  the  age 
which  he  either  does  not  see  or  does  not  appreciate,  conditions 
and  tendencies  with  which  he  certainly  does  not  sympathize. 

Against  the  Stream  is  controversial  from  first  to  last.  It  is 
directed  against  the  attempts  of  certain  Norwegian  theologians, 
some  named,  others  unnamed,  to  throw  a  bridge  over  the  diasm 
between  the  modem  consciousness  and  the  Christian  faith,  between 
culture  and  Christianity ;  attempts  which  Bishop  Heuch  thinks 
will  only  lead  to  rationalism  and  freethoi^ht,  and  are  merely 
an  echo  from  extreme  German  theology. 

In  his  introduction  Heuch  tries  to  show  that  during  the  last 
decade  the  word  Christian  has  gradually  gone  out  and  been 
replaced  by  religious  \  that  the  Norwegian  clei^  are  seeking 
more  and  more  to  '  convert  their  sermons  into  religious  lectures, 
so  stripped  of  ever3rthing  definitely  Christian  that  the  preacher 
might  just  as  weU  be  a  Jew  or  a  Unitarian.'  This  method  of 
procedure  will  make  religion  more  palatable  and  marketable, 
they  seem  to  think,  and  '  it  is  better  to  get  a  little  sold,  than  to 
be  left  with  the  whole  stock  on  hand.'  But  this  stinting  of  the 
Christian  preaching,  until  it  contains  merely  universal  religious 
truths,  is  a  treason  against  Christianity.  Christianity  is  the 
perscmal  relation  to  God  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  What 
God  demands  is  not  that  we  shall  attempt  to  do  as  much  good 
as  possible,  but  that  we  shall  confess  the  evil  of  our  utterly 
depraved  hearts.  Morality,  he  holds,  in  multitudes  of  cases,  leads 
only  to  self-righteousness,  and  thereby  becomes  a  hindrance  to  the 
salvation  of  the  soul.  '  The  full-toned  preaching  of  the  Gospel  is 
to  these  moralists  a  nauseous  drink  composed  of  unsalted  silliness^ 
unsettled  extravagance  and  mawkish  sentimentality,  which  they 
cannot  swallow.'  It  may  be  '  very  difficult  to  say  what  relaxes 
and  deadens  consciences  more,  whether  a  life  in  vice  or  the 
ordinary  self-righteousness  of  respectability  which  satisfies  itself 
with  always  fulfilling  something  of  the  law.' 


HP         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

The  *  new  preaching '  which  is  demanded  by  Norwegiaa  *  theo* 
logical  authorities'  consists  m  the  attenipt,  out  of  respect  to  tJat 
great  majority  in  our  age  who  have  a  weakly  developed  religious 
sense,  to  show  them  a  way  to  heaven  '  meantifhik^  without  their 
having  anything  at  all  to  do  with  Christ,  by  merely  praying  th& 
good-natured  Universal  Father  to  forgive  them  their  sin  because^ 
they  are  sorry  and  have  good  intentions/     These  preachers  will^ 
according  to  the  Bishop,  'meanwhile*  first  make  the  godless  ration-^ 
alistsj  and  thereafter  Christians ;   although  German  rational isticr; 
theologians,  from  whom  Norwegian  *  scientific  theologians  *  have 
derived  their  novelties,  only  try  to  make  people  rationalists.    And 
then  they  clothe  their  preaching  with  some  rags  of  Christian 
precept  which  conceal  what  is  underneath.    The  Bishop  says  that, 
of  course,  none  of  the  new  men  deny  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  but 
all  the  same  they  reduce  Him  to  a  religious  genius,  pj-actically 
saying  that  God  has  come  into  the  world  without  serious  purpose. 
What  really  faces  us  is  this :  '  Rationalism  preached  by  Christian 
men  who  know  not  what  they  do/ 

In  the  section  on  -The  Words  of  the  Cross,*  the  Bishop 
attacks  the  scientific  theologians  who  try  to  explain  the  con- 
nexion and  reasonableness  of  the  thoughts  which  are  realized 
in  the  work  of  salvation  ;  but  they  only  manage  '  to  illuminate 
Mont  Blanc  with  a  night- light'  Their  many  theories  of  the 
Atonement  merely  serve  to  make  the  Christian  faith  ridiculous. 
Heuch  says  that  according  to  Klaveness  Christ's  death  on  the 
Cross  was  necessary  as  a  *  seal '  of  His  preaching  of  God's  love. 
Thereby  the  crucifixion  becomes  nothing  but  an  ordinary  martyr- 
death.  If  it  was  nothing  more,  there  was  no  necessity  for  God 
to  send  His  Son  into  the  world  at  all. 

Another  characteristic  of  modern  preaching,  in  the  Bishop's 
eyes,  is  the  increasing  use  of  the  name  '  Jesus  of  Nazareth/ 
That  name  was  used  in  the  Bible  by  those  who  did  not  believe  on 
Him,  'That  the  German  rationalists  who  deny  Christ*s  Divinity 
represent  Jesus  as  a  mere  man  is  only  natural ;  to  them  He  is 
but  the  prophet  from  Nazareth.  But  that  our  transition  theo- 
logiansj  who  assert  that  they  believe  on  Christ  as  God  and  Man, 
and  do  believe  so,  can  fancy  that  they  may  follow  the  Germans 
here  is  to  me  inconceivable/ 

Heuch  also  discusses  the  danger  which  threatens  the  faith 


d 


'AGAINST   THE   STREAM*  XJ 

from  Biblical  Critidsin,  if  it  is  not  properly  met.  It  is  not 
through  erudite  studies  we  come  to  certainty  about  the  truth 
of  God's  word,  but  through  the  power  of  the  word  itself.  It 
would  not  be  a  good  thing  if  it  should  be  said,  'This  man  is 
clever  enough  to  be  saved,  but  that  man  is  not  sufficiently 
endowed  to  attain  to  a  scientific  knowlec]^  of  the  truth.'  The 
Church  would  then  be  dependent  on  the  shifting  views  of  science. 
*  If  we  are  to  be  the  slaves  of  men,  then  it  would  be  better  to 
believe  the  Pope  than  the  theologians.  For  the  Pope  is  only 
one,  and  his  teaching  is  ever  the  same ;  but  the  theologians  are 
as  numerous  as  the  flies  in  summer  and  so  are  their  scientific 
results.' 

The  Bishop  attacks  all  who  wish  progress  in  theology  and 
preaching ;  '  not  only  the  new  theology,  but,  in  a  certain  sense, 
all  theology  even  the  most  orthodox,  since  I  deny  its  right  and 
power  to  prepare  more  or  less  logical  theories  in  defence  of  God*s 
great  works,'  Theology  has  at  all  times  injured  the  faith,  there- 
fore *Away  with  all  theology'  is  the  burden  of  the  Bishop's 
book.  Theology,  of  course,  has  always  had  a  desperate  incli- 
nation to  think.  The  only  theolc^;y  that  Heuch  will  have  is 
a  theology  that  must  not  think.  Immediately  there  is  a  conflict 
between  faith  and  thought,  the  door  is  slammed  in  the  face  of 
thought,  and  the  Bishop  cries  Cre<io  quia  absurdunt.  The 
theology  of  every  age  has  been  based  on  reason ;  but  it  is  very 
s^nificant  that  Heuch  closes  his  book  by  telling  us  that  ratioiud 
is  synonymous  with  raiionaiisHc. 

The  Bishop  expects  opposition  to  his  book,  but  he  does  not 
fear  the  opposition ;  nor  does  he  fear  defeat.  Only,  he  is  afiaid 
that  the  conflict  will  challenge  the  personal  relation  to  God  of 
the  various  individuals  mentioned,  and  he  does  not  wish  that ; 
he  has  only  aimed  at  what  they  teach,  not  at  what  they  are. 

Against  the  Stream  is  really  an  assault  on  theology,  and  it 
passes  sentence  on  theologians.  The  assault  is  vehement,  and 
the  sentence  is  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law.  The  Chiu-ch  is 
called  to  arms  to  rise  and  defend  its  sanctuaries.  The  Bishop's 
strong  words  are  the  words  of  a  man  with  intense  convictions ; 
and  such  a  man's  words  are  seldom  without  effect.  But  unfor- 
tunately Heuch  has  laid  himself  open  to  charges  of  unfidmess, 
lack  of  charity,  and  even  dishonesty ;  and  as  these  have  been 

VOL.  V.  C 


l8     THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

broi^ht  home  to  him  the  case  he  tried  to  make  out  has  in  many 
respects  sofiered  if  not  failed. 

Klaveness  has  defended  himself  by  dedarii^  that  the  Biidiop 
has  misinterpreted  his  teaching,  and  he  has  published  TAe  Cam^ 
JUct  of  To-day'^^  a  volume  of  sermons  bearii^  on  the  points 
^)ecially  aimed  at  by  the  Bi^iop.     In  this  volume,  and  in  \a^ 
larger  and  very  popular  The  Gospel  far  To-day\  he  has  set:^ 
forth  his  views  plainly  and  clearly.    He  wishes  all  to  knov^ 
exactly  what  he  does  preach  and  teach,  and  why.    In  manjr 
cases  the  Bishop  has  undoubtedly  misinterpreted  or  misunder- 
stood Klaveness,  but  there  are  striking  blanks  blowing  diat 
Klaveness  does  not  preach  'the  whole  GospeL'    Yet  absence 
of  mention  does  not  warrant  the  charge  of  denial  of  the  truths ; 
and  the  burning  eloquence  and  human  sympathy  manifested 
show  the  preacher's  love  for  souls  and  his  love  for  die  nxxlem 
man,  and  quite  explain  his  immense  popularity. 

Then  again,  four  of  the  leading  writers  and  theologians  chal- 
lenged by  name  in  Against  the  Stream  subscribed  a  disclaimer, 
categorically  den3rii^  that  they  held  certain  of  the  views  attri- 
buted to  them,  and  they  maintained  that  no  fidr-minded  reader 
could  place  on  the  language  they  had  used  the  construction 
Heuch  had  given  it.  In  various  instances,  to  make  his  case 
strong,  the  Bishop  has  taken  clauses  or  sentences  from  dieir  con- 
texts, and  at  least  in  one  important  passage  he  charged  a  word 
so  as  completely  to  pervert  the  sense  and  meaning  of  the  author. 
And  by  his  silence,  as  well  as  by  repeating  in  subsequent  editions 
of  his  book  instead  of  withdrawing  the  assertions  or  misinter- 
pretations complained  of,  the  Bishop  has  alienated  the  sympathy 
and  lost  the  support  of  many  who  sided  iK-ith  him  in  his  main 
contention.  In  Norway,  as  in  other  lands,  there  is  a  tendency 
to  side  with  the  weak  and  with  those  unfairly  treated  whatever 
the  r^hts  of  the  case  may  be. 

The  Bishop  himself  is  excessively  sensitive  to  criticism  and 
opposition.  One  is  unconsciously  led  to  fancy  that  his  vanity 
has  been  touched  by  the  opposition  he  has  met.  He  seems  to 
have  been  popular  at  school  and  college  and  as  a  minister  in  his 
pre-episcopal  da3rs.     But  he  seems  to  be  afraid  of  his  reputation 

'  I  D^lims  Stride  Christttnia,  1903. 

s  E»mmgdktfitrkjmdifi»rNw6inL,  ^  eiL,  Cbristania,  190a. 


] 


'AGAINST  THE   STREAM*  19 

now  that  so  many,  whom  he  expected  to  support  him,  have 
upbraided  him  for  his  unchristian  mode  of  fighting  and  for  his 
lack  of  charity. 

His  health  broke  down  under  the  strain  of  the  controversy, 
and  it  was  only  with  difficulty  and  with  the  aid  of  his  secretary, 
to  whom  he  dictated  his  Rejoinder ',  that  he  got  ready  the  book. 
It  summed  up  what  he  had  to  say  in  meeting  arguments  he 
could  not  overlook,  and  it  repeated  practically  without  discount 
all  he  had  said  about  the '  transition  theologians '  and  the  ten- 
dency of  the  *  new  preaching '  in  Against  the  Stream^ 

Heuch's  main  charge  against  his  opponents,  then,  is  that  they 
are  secret  rationalists  and  are  prepared  to  convert  the  Gospel 
into  nothing  but  morality.  They  most  indignantly  and  unani- 
mously deny  the  charge.  Klaveness  goes  further  than  any 
other  and  further  than  most  are  prepared  to  go.  But  he  is  no 
rationalist,  if  his  sermons  are  any  criterion  of  his  creed.  He 
distinctly  maintains  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  miraculous  Con- 
ception, the  genuineness  of  the  miracles,  the  Resurrection,  &c., 
although  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  he  makes  less  of  the 
Atonement  than  is  desirable,  and  his  doctrine  concerning  it  is 
not  cast  in  the  usual  mould.  So  far  as  the  evidence  goes, 
although  there  are  some  indications  that  the  waves  of  rationalism 
from  Germany  are  lapping  the  Norwegian  strand,  not  one  priest 
or  theolc^cal  professor  in  Norway  is  to-day  a  complete 
rationalist. 

The  impression  as  to  the  main  results  of  the  controversy 
which  remains,  afler  perusing  carefully  newspaper  columns, 
magazine  articles,  pertinent  pamphlets,  and  the  controversial 
books,  is  that  there  was  some  reason  for  the  Bishop's  protest 
against  the  neglect  of  certain  fundamental  truths,  and  against 
the  emphasis  laid  on  less  essential  points  of  the  Christian  faith 
and  life.  In  Norway,  the  essence  of  Christianity,  the  Atone* 
ment  of  Christ,  may  have  been  in  danger  of  being  forgotten 
or  lost  sight  of,  and  possibly  in  some  quarters  there  may  have 
been  a  desire  to  replace  Christianity  with  a  universal  religion 
based  on  the  first  article  of  the  Apostles*  Creed.  But  the 
Bishop's  book  would  leave  on  one  the  impression  that  the  preach- 
ing in  Norway  is  far  worse  than  it  reaJly  is^  at  any  rate,  the 

^  Sfwr,  3rd  ed,  Christiania,  1903. 

ca 


'AGAINST   THE   STREAM*  21 

Bethlehem.  The  weakness  in  Heuch  is  that  his  theology,  with- 
out his  knowing  it,  is  scholastic  rather  than  biblical;  when  it 
comes  to  the  point,  it  is  even  rationalistic  in  so  far  as  it  is  a 
product  of  human  reason,  of  human  thinking,  but  not  faithful  to 
revelation,  biblical. 

Along  with  Gustav  Jensen  and  the  recently  deceased  Prof. 
Fr.  Petersen,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Thv.  Klaveness  and  Bishop 
Heuch  have  been  the  best  men  of  the  Norwegian  Church  for 
many  years.  Norway  may  well  thank  God  for  them.  The 
two  opponents,  Heuch  and  Klaveness,  have  both  in  a  high  degree 
•  the  failings  of  their  virtues ' ;  and  the  one  has  no  right  to  say 
to  the  other  *  I  have  no  need  of  thee.'  Against  the  Stream  and 
the  subsequent  controversy  have  led  the  Norse  in  every  comer 
of  the  country  to  think  and  speak  about  religious  and  theological 
questions  with  results  that  can  only  be  for  the  good  of  the 
Chiu-ch  and  the  benefit  of  true  religion.  Klaveness  and  those 
who  support  him  will  doubtless  see  that  Heuch  and  his  comrades 
neither  lead  Norway  back  to  a  cast-iron  orthodoxy  nor  bring 
about  a  paralysis  of  theological  thought.  And  Heuch  and  his 
host  will  be  able  to  give  the  opposite  tendency,  the  *  transition 
theologians '  and  the  champions  of  the  '  new  preaching,'  a  forcible 
lecture  on  reverence  for  the  old  doctrines,  a  lecture  which  it  will 
probably  do  them  no  harm  to  hear.  Bishop  Heuch  will  thus 
by  his  vehement  appearance  Against  the  Stream  have  helped 
to  turn  the  stream  into  a  better  channel. 

J,  Beveridge. 


22  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


THE  GREEK  MONASTERIES  IN  SOUTH 
ITALY.     III. 

THE   POLICY  OF  THE  NORMANS  TOWARDS  THE  GREEK 
MONASTERIES. 

The  eleventh  century  was  until  its  closing  years  a  period 
decadence  in  the  Greek  monasteries  of  South  Italy.  They  in- 
creased in  numbers  during  this  periodj  but  their  character  was 
lowered  Probably  the  older  monasteries  sent  out  on  every  side 
colonies  of  monks  who  left  the  parent  house,  not  from  any  desire 
to  propagate  their  faith,  or  to  lead  a  more  religious  life,  but 
from  the  wish  to  leave  companions  whom  they  disliked.  There 
was  not  much  to  prevent  this*  The  monasteries  were  not  rich, 
there  was  no  tradition  of  splendid  buildings  ;  anyone  who  wished 
could  easily  start  a  new  monastery. 

Even  in  the  older  monasteries  the  standard  of  life  was  going- 
down,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  scanty  evidence  which  we 
possess. 

This  is  to  be  found  in  the  Life  of  S.  Philaretus*  already 
mentioned,  which  presents  a  very  different  picture  to  that  given 
by  the  earlier  Lives.  There  is  no  mention  of  any  especial  know- 
ledgCj  or  of  intellectual  pursuits ;  no  mention  of  the  production 
of  manuscripts ;  manual  labour  and  useless  asceticism  are  the 
features  which  are  prominent. 

Philaretus  was  first  a  herdsman,  afterwards  a  gardener  in  the 
monastery  of  AuHnas ;  he  was  energetic  in  these  occupations 
and  he  was  renowned  for  those  austerities  of  asceticism  which  were 
as  fashionable  in  ancient  monasteries  as  athletics  are  in  a  modern 
college.  Hence  he  became  famous.  He  and  all  the  other  monks 
of  the  first  half  of  the  eleventh  century  seem  to  have  lost  the  energy 

*  A.  SS.  Apr.  i  p.  605  C 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES    IN   SOUTH    ITALY        23 

and  spirituality  of  their  predecessors,  and  retained  only  the  un- 
essential element  of  extreme  asceticism. 

Monasticism  therefore  was  in  need  of  new  life  at  the  dawn  of 
the  Norman  period,  and  it  was  to  a  curiously  mixed  and  confused 
country  that  the  Normans  came.  There  were  to  be  found  in 
the  South  of  Italy  three  distinct  races — Lombards,  Greeks,  and 
Arabs.  The  former  predominated  in  the  North,  the  two  latter 
in  the  South  of  the  district  Each  had  its  own  customs  and 
language,  and — the  point  which  is  important  for  our  present  pur- 
pose— ^there  were  scattered  about  over  the  whole  country  a  great 
number  of  monasteries  of  the  Basilian  order,  which,  with  the  rest 
of  the  Greek  world,  was  strongly  opposed  to  Rome,  and  looked 
to  Constantinople  for  inspiration. 

There  was  little  order  to  be  found  in  any  sj^ere  of  life ;  there 
was  no  organization,  no  real  system  of  responsibility;  and  to 
introduce  order  was  the  first  task  of  the  Normans,  when  once  the 
conquest  was  complete. 

They  allowed  the  customs  and  titles  which  they  found  in  use 
to  remain.  Even  so  late  as  the  thirteenth  century  we  find 
references  to  *  exarchs,'  *  strategi/  and  *  themes.' 

But  in  spite  of  this  superficial  preservation  of  the  old  order 
they  produced  a  profound  difference,  by  the  introduction  of  the 
feudal  system.  It  is  only  necessary  here  to  notice  the  effect 
of  this  change  on  the  ecclesiastical  side.  It  may  be  summed  up 
as  producing  two  great  alterations :  (i)  the  Latinization  of  many 
churches  and  monasteries;  (2)  the  establishment  of  certain  Basilian 
monasteries  to  control  in  a  new  manner  the  Greek  monastic  life 
of  the  districts  in  which  they  were  planted. 

(i)  The  Latinization  of  Greek  churches  and  monasteries. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  process  was  justified  in  two 
ways:  there  came  with  the  Norman  conquest  a  g^reat  increase 
in  the  number  of  Latin-speaking  inhabitants,  who  looked  on  the 
Pope  of  Rome  rather  than  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  as  the 
head  of  their  Church ;  and  also  there  was,  no  doubt,  even  before 
the  Norman  conquest,  an  unnecessary  number  of  Basilian  monas- 
teries and  Greek  churches  in  a  country  which,  in  the  Basilicata 
at  least,  was  by  no  means  purely  Greek. 

The  Latinization  of  the  churches  was  swiftly  accomplished: 


24 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


by  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century,  the  four  metropolitan 
sees,  Reggio,  Tarentum,  Otranto,  and  Santa  Severina,  and  many 
of  the  suffragan  sees,  were  in  Latin  hands. 

But  the  process  was  not  pushed  beyond  the  limits  of  justice* 
In  1096,  in  appointing  a  Latin  bishop  to  SquiUace,  Roger  ex- 
pressly gives  as  his  reason  that  the  bulk  of  the  population  i^ 
Latin.    *Ego  Rogerius/  he  says  in  his  charter',  *  Siciliae  corned 
et  Calabriae  coepi  condolere  casui  et  ruinae  , ,  .  ubi  tanta  vigebat 
Nonnandorum   copia,    pontificalis   et   Latina    nondum    extiterat 
ecclesia^  etc/;  and  so  we  find  that  in  the  Aspromonte,  where  the 
Christian  population  must  have  been  almost  purely  Greek,  the 
Greek  bishoprics  remain.     It  is  not  until   long  afterwards  that 
Rossano,  Bova,  Stiio,  Oppido,  etc.,  become  Latin. 

As  it  was  with  the  sees  so  it  was  with  the  monasteries.  Many 
of  these  became  Latinized,  and  passed  under  the  Benedictine 
instead  of  the  Basilian  rule.  But  the  policy  of  the  Normans 
effected  in  their  case  a  further  change.  Before  their  time  each 
monastery  J  with  but  few  exceptions,  was  a  separate  community. 
It  managed  its  own  affairs,  subject  to  the  nominal  control  of  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese,  and  there  was  no  cohesion  betw^een  the 
different  houses.  This  was  abhorrent  to  the  Normans^  and  there- 
fore many  of  the  Basilian  monasteries  %vere  given  to  the  great 
Benedictine  houses  of  La  Cava  and  Monte  Cassino, 

Such  was  the  fate  of  many  small  foundations,  which  seem  to 
have  sprung  up  only  in  the  eleventh  century;  e.g.  Kur*zosimo, 
which  was  given  to  La  Cava,  and  is  mentioned  more  than  once 
in  the  Codex  Diphnnatiais  Cavensis  ^,  though  I  cannot  find  the 
original  deed  of  gift. 

(2)  The  establishment  of  new  Basilian  Greek  monasieriis.  It 
would  at  first  seem  as  though  this  process  were  the  exact  opposite 
of  the  former.  But  it  is  not  really  so.  The  Normans  were  not 
so  much  concerned  to  banish  Greek  ecclesiastical  life  as  to  take 
away  from  it  its  unfair  preponderance  in  districts  where  the 
majority  of  the  population  was  Latin,  and  to  introduce  in  districts 
which  were  truly  Greek  a  spirit  of  order  which  was  lacking. 
Obviously  in  the  latter  case  Latinization  would  have  been  both 
unfair  and  useless.     But  it  was  possible  to  adapt  the  principles 

*  Ughetli,  liaHa  Sacra^  IX,  p,  591  ». 

•  e.g.  vol.  vlii,  p«  206,  II  Gccck  chflrter. 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN    SOUTH    ITALY        25 

of  the  feudal  system  to  Greek  life,  as  well  as  to  bring  Greek 
life  under  the  operations  of  the  feudal  system,  already  estab- 
lished among  the  Latins. 

To  establish,  then,  the  feudal  system  in  those  Greek  monas- 
teries which  were  really  necessary,  when  the  unnecessary  ones 
had  been  Latinized,  was  the  object  of  their  policy.  It  required 
a  considerable  modification  of  the  existing  condition  of  the 
Basilian  monasteries. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  state  exactly  what  was  the  rule  of  the 
Greek  Church  about  monastic  property.  It  is  fortunately  not 
necessary  for  the  present  purpose  to  attempt  to  do  so,  for  it  is 
at  least  certain  that  the  Basilian  rules  never  contemplated  the 
existence  of  an  abbot  who  was  a  kind  of  territorial  lord,  such  as 
the  Norman  feudal  system  made  him. 

To  modify  the  existing  monasteries  in  this  way  seems  to 
have  been  generally  beyond  the  power  of  the  Normans,  and  they 
therefore  established  Greek  houses  in  various  districts,  endowed 
them  richly,  and  put  the  smaller  and  older  houses  into  their 
control. 

The  chief  monasteries  which  were  founded  in  the  pursuit,  of 
this  policy  are  S.  Elias  at  Carbo,  which  may  be  an  exception 
to  the  general  rule,  and  really  be  an  old  monastery ;  S.  John  the 
Reaper,  at  Stilo ;  S.  Mary  of  Patira,  at  Rossano ;  and  S.  Nicholas 
of  Casola  near  Otranto. 

I  propose  to  bring  together  some  of  the  more  important  facts 
in  the  history  of  three  of  these  monasteries  ^  separately,  but  at 
this  point  it  may  be  well  to  show  their  general  importance. 

It  will  be  noticed  at  once  that  they  seem  intended  to  manage 
the  different  districts  of  the  country. 

The  Greek  part  of  the  Norman  kingdom  may  be  roughly  said 
to  have  consisted  of  fotu-  districts:  (x)  the  Aspromonte ;  (2)  the 
Sila ;  (3)  the  district  to  the  north  and  west  of  the  Sila,  which 
runs  up  into  the  Basilicata ;  (4)  the  heel  of  Italy. 

To  each  of  these  districts  a  great  convent  is  allotted.    S.  John 

>  I  would  have  added  the  story  of  the  fourth,  S.  John  the  Reaper,  but  for  the 
fact  that,  except  for  a  late  and  untrustworthy  life  in  the  ^.  55.  and  four  deeds 
referring  to  lawsuits  in  Montfaucon*s  PaUuog.  Gratca^  there  seems  to  be  no  material 
for  its  histoiy.  RodoU  dismisses  it  in  a  few  lines,  though  he  says  that  it  was 
acknovdedged  as  the  chief  of  the  Basilian  monasteries  in  Calabria. 


26 


THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


the  Reaper  dominates  the  Aspromonte,  though  it  must  be  noted 
that  the  little  monasteries  in  the  south  of  the  Aspromonte  *  are 
placed  under  the  great  Sicilian  monastery  of  S.  Sal  vat  or,  at 
Messina,  which  was  so  much  nearer  to  them*  S.  Mary  of  Patira 
dominates  the  Sila  and  the  adjacent  valley.  S.  Elias  dominates 
the  Basilicata  and,  roughly  speaking,  the  land  north  of  the  SQa, 
a  huge  district  stretching  away  to  the  East  as  far  as  Ban. 
S.  Nicholas  of  Casola  dominates  the  heel  of  Italy. 

One  is  therefore  justified  in  regarding  these  four  monasteries 
as  the  great  Basilian  houses  of  the  Norman  period,  and  in  seeing 
in  their  position  the  result  of  the  Norman  policy. 

It  is  also  possible  to  some  extent  to  see  who,  among  the 
monks,  were  the  instruments  of  the  Norman  policy,  though 
the  sources  of  information  often  fail  us. 

The  most  important  was  Bartholomew  of  Simeri,  At  least  it 
is  of  him  tliat  we  have  the  fullest  knowledge,  so  that  we  must  be 
content  to  take  him  as  a  specimen  of  the  little  group  of  Greek 
monks  who  carried  out  the  Norman  policy. 

Bartholomew*  was  a  Caiabrian,  who  came  from  Simeri',  a 
small  town  near  Catanzaro,  and  lived  on  the  banks  of  a  torrent 
called  Melitinum,  which  has  not  been  identified,  though,  if  one 
may  judge  from  the  census  list  of  Rossano  *  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, there  was  a  monastery  *  there  down  to  a  comparatively  late 
date.  After  a  time  he  moved,  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Ellas  Junior, 
to  a  more  desolate  district,  in  pursuit  of  quiet,  but  attracted  other 
monks  to  him  by  the  fame  of  his  virtue.  He  wished  to  leave 
them*^,  as  Cosmas  and  Vitalb  left  Melicucca,  but  a  vision  of 
S.  Mary  changed  his  purpose,  and  he  determined  to  found  a 
monastery.  This  was  the  turning-point  of  his  career.  In  order 
to  raise  an  endowTnent  for  his  foundation  he  went  in  i  ioa-3  to 
Christodulos ",  an  official  of  the  court  of  Queen  Adelaide  and 
her  young  sons.  It  w^as  a  critical  moment  in  the  history  of  the 
Normans,  whose  power  was  weakened  by  tlic  death  of  Roger  I. 
They  probably  felt  the  need  of  conciliating  the  large  Greek 
population,  and  so  Christodulus  introduced  Bartholomew  to  the 

'  e,g.  S.  Fuundtts  of  SciU«  and  S.  PhiUrctus  of  Auliiuie. 

*  His  life  b  published  la  the  A.  SS.  Sept.  viii  p.  794  fil 

*  A.  SS.  torn.  ctt.  p„  All  B.  *  L'Aihmym  Jt  RossamtK  p.  Itj  £. 
s  Sometiines  also  caHeil  Trigona.  *  A,  SS.  torn.  tsL  p.  8174. 
^  A.  SS,  tan.  ciL  pw  S17C. 


< 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY        27 

court  The  Royal  family  received  him  warmly,  endowed  him 
liberally,  and  insisted  that  he  should  be  made  the  abbot  of  the 
monastery.  He  was  ordained  by  the  Bishop  of  Gunaecopolis  \ 
which  is  said  to  be  Belcastro,  and  the  King  (or  rather,  I  suppose, 
Queen  Adelaide)  obtained  a  bull  from  the  Pope  ^  granting  *  im- 
mediacy '  to  the  monastery  \ 

In  this  way,  Bartholomew  was  the  agent  of  the  Norman  policy 
in  founding  S.  Mary's  of  Patira,  but  according  to  his  Life  this 
does  not  exhaust  the  record  of  his  work. 

About  the  year  iia6,  Bartholomew  was  accused  by  the  Bene- 
dictine monks  of  heresy*.  He  was  acquitted,  and  Roger,  in 
order  to  show  his  confidence,  or  perhaps  because  his  attention 
had  again  been  drawn  to  the  capable  character  of  the  monk,  at 
once  invited  him  to  foimd  a  monastery  at  Messina  ",  to  dominate 
Sicily,  just  as  S.  Mary's  at  Rossano  dominated  the  Sila.  Bar- 
tholomew of  course  assented,  and  dedicated  his  new  monastery 
to  S.  Salvator;  but  it  is  remarkable  that  in  order  to  fill  his 
monastery  he  did  not  draw  upon  Sicily,  but  brought  a  dozen 
monks  from  Rossano,  one  of  whom,  Luke  by  name,  he  appointed 
abbot.  He  obtained  from  Roger  a  charter,  which  gave  him  not 
merely  the  supremacy  over  all  the  Greek  houses  in  Sicily  then 
existing,  but  also  over  all  which  should  be  founded  at  any  future 
time. 

These  two  foundations,  S.  Mary's  of  Patira  and  S.  Salvator  of 
Messina,  are  the  only  two  monasteries  which  Mgr.  Batiffol  will 
allow  to  be  Bartholomew's  foundations;  but  his  Life  tells  the 
story  of  his  reorganization  of  another  on  Mount  Athos  ^,  which 
was  given  him  by  a  rich  Byzantine  named  Kalimeris,  and  was 
known  in  consequence  of  his  work  as  'the  monastery  of  the 
Calabrian.'  Mgr.  Batiffol  rejects  this  story  as  apocryphal,  chiefly 
on  the  ground  that  no  such  monastery  is  now  to  be  found  on 
Mount  Athos.  *  Aucune  trace,'  he  says,  *  de  Saint-Barth^lemy, 
ni  de  B.  Kalimeris,  ni  du  convent  de  Saint-Basile  dans  I'histoire 
de  I'Athos ''.'    But  Mgr.  Batiffol  has  been  misled  by  Langlois,  for 

*  A.  SS,  torn,  cit  p.  818  s.  *  A.  SS,  torn,  cit  p.  819  c. 

'  I  shall  presently  give  the  outlines  of  the  stoiy  of  this  foundation.  Here  it  is 
enough  to  notice  that  this  privilege  of  immediacy  shows  that  the  Normans  were 
working  on  the  Benedictine  model,  which  they  knew  best 

*  A,  SS,  torn,  cit  833  c.  *  A,  SS.  torn,  dt  p^  834  f. 

*  A,  SS.  op.  dt  p.  831  c.  '  VAhbay  dt  Roaaano,  p.  7i  '<• 


THE   GREER   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY        29 

just  as  his  did ;  and  this  fact  alone  is  enough  to  suggest  that  they 
would  prove,  if  the  evidence  could  be  found,  to  belong  to  the 
same  class  as  Bartholomew — the  class  of  wise  statesmanlike 
monks  who  carried  out  the  policy  of  the  Norman  Court 


THE  OUTLINES  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THREE 
TYPICAL  MONASTERIES. 

(i)  S.  Elias  of  Carho  *.  The  history  of  this  great  monastery, 
which  was  first  called  S.  Anastasius  and  afterwards  S.  Elias 
of  Carbo,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Historia  Monasterii  Carbonensis 
of  Paulus  Aemilius  Sanctorius  ^  a  book  full  of  information,  but 
quite  uncritical.  To  produce  an  adequate  history  Sanctorius's 
work  must  be  compared  with  the  Chronicon  Carbonense  in  the 
Vatican  archives,  and  the  papers  in  the  Dossier  Basiliani^  in 
the  same  place. 

The  foundation  of  the  monastery  is  obscure.  Sanctorius, 
following  tradition,  attributes  it  to  Lucas  of  Demena.  There 
is  no  evidence  for  this  in  the  Life  of  Lucas,  and  I  think  that  it  is 
a  purely  mythical  story.  Lucas  was  the  great  monastic  hero 
of  the  Basilicata,  and  Carbo  was,  in  the  twelfth  century  and 
later,  the  great  monastery  of  the  district,  therefore  it  was  natural 
that  tradition  should  join  Lucas  and  Carbo  together.  Further 
investigations  tend  to  confirm  this  view.  Sanctorius  gives  the 
following  list  of  abbots,  down  to  Nilus  the  second  founder  of  the 
monastery : — 

Lucas  I.  Lucas  III. 

Blasius  I.  Clemens. 

Menas.  Nilus  (of  Grotta  Ferrata). 

Stephanus  Theodulus.  Bartholomaeus  (of  Grotta  Ferrata). 

Lucas  11.  Climius. 

Blasius  II.  Nilus  of  Rossano. 

This  list  is  very  suspicious.  Nilus  and  Bartholomaeus  are 
clearly  insertions :  we  can  show  an  cdibi  for  both  of  them.  They 
were  either  at  Tusculum  or  already  dead  *,  at  the  time  when 

*  I  believe  that  Carbo  is  the  correct  form,  but  on  modem  maps  it  is  Carbone. 
'  All  the  deeds  quoted  in  this  section  are  taken  from  this  book. 

*  If  tiie  deed  referred  to  below  be  genuine  Blasius  II  lived  in  1077,  when  Nilus 
had  been  dead  more  than  seventy  years! 


30  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


i 


they  are  supposed  to  have  been  at  Carbo.  Further  evidence, 
which  does  not  support  the  list,  is  to  be  found  in  a  deed,  the 
earliest  of  those  which  refer  to  the  monastery,  given  in  1077 
to  the  venerable  Blasius  by  Ugo  de  Claromonte.  According 
to  this,  Blasius  was  abbot  in  1077,  which  is  hardly  conceivable 
if  the  list  is  right  Lucas  of  Demena  probably  died  in  993,  and 
there  are  only  five  names  between  him  and  Blasius  II ;  Nilus  of  ■ 
Rossano  was  abbot  at  least  before  iioo,  if  the  deed  of  Richard 
the  Seneschal  be  genuine  \  and  the  list  gives  five  (including  the 
two  inserted)  abbots  (and  Sanctorius  hints  at  two  more)  for  this  ■ 
period.  I  should  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  Blasius  II  is  the  true 
founder  of  the  monastery,  and  that  the  names  preceding  him  are 
apocryphal.  ■ 

Mgr.  BatifTol  goes  even  further,  and  regards  Nilus  of  Rossano 
as  the  first  abbot.   He  thinks  that  Nilus  was  a  monk  of  S.  Mary's 
of  Patira,  who  was  sent  to  Carbo  by  Bartholomew  in  pursuance  I 
of  the  Norman  policy.     I  have  no  doubt  that  Nilus  was  imbued 
with  the  Norman  spirit,  but  I  can  see  no  reason  for  making  him 
a  kind  of  agent  of  Bartholomew ;   his  life  is  not  extant,  but  he 
seems  to  have  been  Abbot  of  Carbo  by  the  year  1100,  unless  the 
deed  of  Richard  the  Seneschal  be  a  forgery,  and  this  is  too  early 
to  allow  us  to  regard  him  as  an  emissary  of  Bartholomew.    More- 
over, was  not  the  Norman  policy  in  action  at  Carbo  at  J  077?    i 
Unless  Mgr,  Batiffbl  rejects  the   deed  of  Ugo  de  Claromonte     ' 
as  a  forgery  (I  admit  that  the  indict  ion  is  wrong)^  I  do  not  under- 
stand how  he  can  refuse  to  recognize  Blasius  II  as  a  genuine 
Abbot  of  Carbo. 

Leaving  the  uncertain  subject  of  the  foundation  of  the  convent 
and  coming  to  the  documentary  evidence  of  its  history,  it  would  1 
seem  that  the  monastery  began  to  flourish  under  the  patronage 
of  the  family  of  de  Claromonte  ^t  and  other  Norman  families  who 
lived  in  the  Basilicata.  Their  donations  soon  made  the  monastery 
the  most  important  in  the  district,  and  gave  it  large  estates  and 
many  churches. 

The  first  estate  which  was  given  to  it  seems  to  be  the  one 
mentioned  in  the  deed  of  Ugo  in  1077.     This  makes  no  reference 

*  See  p.  31  infra, 

'  Who  gave  their  name  lo  the  little  town,  close  to  Carbo,  of  Claromonte,  or,  as 
it  is  DOW  spelt,  Chiaromonte. 


THE  GREEK  MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY        31 

to  any  previoos  benefactors ;  it  allows  the  claim  of  Blasius  to  the 
'  tenimentnm '  of  the  monastery,  and  adds  to  it  another  <  tenimen- 
turn '  in  order  that  the  house  may  be  adequately  endowed. 

It  is  difficult  to  trace  accurately  the  boundary  of  this  district, 
but  it  seems  to  mean,  roi^ily  speaking,  the  valley  of  the  river 
Sirmi  from  Calavra  (or  Calabra)  in  the  east  up  to  its  source  in  the 
west,  with  the  high  ground  on  each  side  to  the  north  and  south. 

The  next  great  donation  to  the  monastery  was  made  in  iioo 
by  Richard  the  Seneschal,  who  gave  Nilus  the  fields  of  Scanzana. 
Thb  is  the  district  which  lies  between  the  valle3rs  of  the  Sirmi 
and  the  Capone,  and  includes  part  of  the  coast ;  it  is  the  second 
great  estate  of  the  monastery  of  Carbo. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  thus  left  an  intervening  district 
between  diese  two  great  estates,  and  in  11 35  this  district  was 
also  acquired  by  the  monastery,  not  however  as  a  free  gift,  but 
as  a  purchase  which  Nflus  made  for  500  ducats  from  Richard  de 
Claromonte,  and  Alexander  de  Claromonte  confirmed. 

This  purchase  completed  the  great  estates  of  Carbo,  which  now 
stretched  r^ht  across  the  Basilicata,  from  the  mountains  in  the 
west  to  the  sea  on  the  east ;  but  besides  them  Nilus  had  been 
busy  in  amassing  property  far  and  near.  The  following  is  the 
list  of  his  chief  acquisitions :  I  suspect  that  it  is  derived  from 
the  Chromcan  Carbonense^  which  awaits  investigation  and  publica- 
tion in  the  Archives  of  the  Vatican. 

(1)  In  109a,  the  Church  of  S.  Zacharias,  in  the  Castrum 
Silicense,  given  to  S.  Anastasius  of  Carbo  by  Gulielmus  Mar- 
chesius,  the  lord  of  the  place,  and  Cecilia  his  wife. 

(2)  In  1 105,  the  Church  of  S.  Lawrence,  at  Cracum,  given  by 
Amoldus,  son  of  IsebanL 

(3)  In  1 105,  the  Church  of  S.  Elias,  at  Bari,  by  Elias  and 
Regnaldus,  archbishop. 

(4)  In  1 105,  the  Church  of  S.  Barbara,  in  the  town  of  Mons 
Albanus,  by  Robert  Fortemannus,  the  lord  of  the  place. 

(5)  In  1 1 12,  the  Church  of  S.  Peter,  at  Castrum  Pollicori, 
and  of  S.  Nicholas  of  Pestusa,  by  Alureda,  the  lady  of  the  place. 

(6)  In  1125,  the  Church  of  S.  Stephen  of  Azupa,  by  Luke, 
Abbot  of  Rapora. 

(7)  In  1 129,  the  fields  of  Scanzana,  with  the  Church  of 
S.  Mary. 


THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


(8)  In  1129,  S,  Nicholas  of  Tiypa,  given  by  Trotta,  the 
daughter  of  Alureda  (the  same  as  the  lady  in  (5)  ?),  the  lady 
of  the  town  of  Myramanna  (?). 

{9)  In  1134,  a  church  at  •  Castro  Novo  seu  Battabarani.' 

I  have  not  been  able  to  identify  all  these  places,  but  it  is 
obvious  that  some  of  them  are  far  outside  the  limits  of  the  great 
estates  of  the  monastery.  Bari,  for  instance,  is  a  little  to  the 
north  of  Brindisi,  and  Castro  Novo  ^  is  in  Sicily,  These  acqui- 
sitions in  distant  parts  are  not  to  be  traced  to  mere  love  of  pro- 
perty. The  custom  of  the  monasteries  was  then  probably  much 
what  it  is  now  on  Mount  Athos,  and  one  object  of  having  these 
Hitie  dependencies  is  to  provide  hospitality  for  those  travelling  to 
and  from  the  monastery,  and  also  to  use  them  as  collecting-places 
for  letters  or  presents.  It  was  then,  as  it  is  still  in  Turkey,  neces- 
sary to  have  some  such  helps  to  communication  ;  so  that  any  one 
who  wished  to  send  a  present  to  Carbo  from, for  instance,  S.  Nicolas 
of  Casola  would  have  taken  it  to  Bari,  just  as  now  the  only  safe 
way  of  communicating  with  Mount  Athos  is  through  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  various  convents  in  Constantinople. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  the  list  of  possessions  set  out  above 
mention  is  made  of  the  gift  of  the  fields  of  Scanzana  in  1 1 29. 
I  think  the  date  is  probably  WTong  \  and  that  this  is  a  reference 
to  the  deed  given  by  Boemund  II  in  the  third  indiction  (i,e.  iiio 
or  1 1 25),  confirming  this  estate  and  adding  to  it  The  fields 
of  Scanzana  themselves  were  the  gift  of  Richard  the  Seneschal, 
which  was  confirmed  by  the  Claromonti,  also  in  1125. 

In  this  way  the  monastery  became  rich.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
reproduce  all  the  facts  given  by  Sanctorius  ;  they  are  of  the  same 
character  as  those  given  above ;  but  there  are  certain  points 
which  are  worth  noticing.  The  monastery  was  not  merely 
helped  by  the  local  Lords  of  Claromonte  and  their  like,  it  also 
was  patronized  by  the  Royal  house  itself.  Boemund  11,  as 
mentioned  above,  enriched  and  protected  it  ;  Roger  II  gave 
Nflus  a  charter  in  115a,  confirming  the  privileges  given  by 
Robert  Guiscard  and  Boemund  I  (what  were  these?),  by  Richard 
the  Seneschal,  and  by  Boemund  IL 


i 


\ 


*  Unless  k  be  Castro  Novo  di  S.  Andreas*  which  is  dose  to  Carbo. 

*  Unless  the  iodiction  is  wron^.    This  seem^  a  very  cominoa  error  in  the  luliaa 
Chuteta. 


THE   GREEK  MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY         33 

This  deed  was  confirmed  by  William  II,  and  it  is  important 
to  notice  that  this  monarch  appointed  the  Abbot  of  Carbo  the 
chief  of  all  the  Basilian  monasteries  in  the  district.  It  was  also 
confirmed  by  Tancred  in  ii9iyand  was  apparently  the  great 
charter  of  the  monastery. 

All  through  the  twelfth  century  the  house  flourished,  and 
in  the  thirteenth  century  it  does  not  visibly  lose  ground,  but 
there  is  an  absence  of  any  further  great  bequests,  and  a  period 
of  litigation  and  expensive  compromise  begins. 

Sanctorius  gives  many  stories  of  this  period ;  but  the  fact  which 
seems  to  dominate  everything  is  the  enmity  of  the  family  of  San 
Severina  of  Besignano,who  coveted  especially  the  fields  of  Scanzana. 

Ultimately  in  1477  they  were  successful.  The  monastery  lost 
its  suit,  its  abbot  was  imprisoned  as  '  litigious  and  possessed  of  a 
devil/  and  one  of  the  San  Severina  family  became  the  first  comf 
mendatory.  Sanctorius  continues  its  history  further;  but  as  Mgr. 
Batiffol  says,  from  this  point  it  is  the  history  of  a  farm,  rather 
than  a  monastery.  Some  of  the  commendatories  n^lected  their 
property,  others  took  care  of  it  and  developed  it,  but  it  is  quite 
unimportant  for  our  purpose  which  they  did.  The  sole  point  of 
interest  is  now  the  history  of  the  library,  to  which  I  shall  return 
later. 

(ii)  S.  Nicolas  of  Casola.  Although  this  monastery  in  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  was  the  most  important  home 
of  Greek  monks  in  the  land  of  Otranto,  very  much  less  is  known 
about  its  history  than  about  S.  Elias  of  Carbo.  It  was,  of  course, 
always  subject  to  Rome ;  but  its  affections  were  nevertheless  fixed 
on  the  Church  of  the  East,  and  (if  Rodota  may  be  trusted)  at 
least  down  to  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century  it  received  fresh 
immigrations  of  monks  from  the  East. 

The  scanty  evidence  which  we  have  of  its  foundation  and 
history  comes  from  a  MS  at  Turin  (ai7  b,  iii  a7),  of  which  an 
account  was  published  by  M.  Ch.  Diehl  in  the  Milanges  d^ArMor 
kgie  et  d'Histaire  of  the  French  school  at  Rome,  in  April,  1886, 

The  contents  of  this  manuscript  are  as  follows : — 

(i)  ff.  1-5,  a  summaiy  of  the  chief  events  which  concern  the 
history  of  the  monastery  from  J 125  to  ^267.  There  are  also 
various  fragments  of  accounts. 

VOL.  V.  D 


^M.^.^jm.MT2 


»**7* 


nr 


%0 


glfi^a^^immmm^^i 


THE  GREEK  MONASTERIES   IN    SOUTH   ITALY        35 


Aooofding  to  the  Turin  MS  he  was  an  abbot  from 
ii53-9^biit  Rodolasaysthathefloarishedin  i2oi\  He  wrote 
works  00  the  qnestfons  at  issoe  between  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Chnrdies^  such  as  ihe  use  of  az3anes  in  the  Eucharist,  and  the 
doid»k  prooeasioo,  tile  Sabbath  £ist,  and  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy, 
always  takmg  the  nde  of  die  Greeks ;  and  to  these  must  be  added 
die  nnpoWslied  Ty^con  and  Hypotypasis  in  the  Turin  MS. 

According  to  De  Ferrariis  *  (Galatens)  he  founded  the  great 
filnary  of  Casola,  sparing  no  expense,  and  collecting  MSS  from 
every  part  of  Greece.  I  shall  return  to  the  history  of  this  library 
later. 

In  1179  Pope  Alexander  III  convened  the  Lateran  Councfl, 
and  Nectarios  (the  future  abbot?)  attended  it  from  S.  Nkholas 
id  Casola.  He  made  himself  the  diampion  of  the  Greek  Church, 
and  v^;orously  supported  their  customs  and  doctrines.  The 
Gredcs  were  dd^ted,  and  George  of  Corfu  wrote  him  a  con- 
gratulatory letter  * 

Nicholas  was  succeeded  in  1190  by  Callinicos,  who  only  ruled 
kx  five  years ;  he  was  followed  by  Hilarion,  of  whom  nothing 
is  known,  except  that  he  was  canonised.  Hilarion  died  in  laoi, 
and  then  for  nineteen  years  Nicodemos  ruled  the  convent  His 
sDcreyasor  Nectarios  seems  to  have  been  a  learned  man  and  a 
poet,  but  except  lor  some  verses  which  he  wrote  about  Nicholas 
nodiiDg  is  known  of  him.  The  remaining  abbots  are  unknown 
to  fiune.  Their  names  are  given  by  M.  Diehl  in  the  M/iofiges 
^ArcMflogie  et  dHisiaire,  sixth  year  (1886),  p.  180. 

The  nxnastery,  like  all  the  Greek  foundations,  began  to  decline 
in  the  thirteenth  century.  In  the  days  of  Nectarios  (i220>35) 
it  became  dq)endent  on  the  Archbishop  of  Otranto,  Tancred 
(▼.  Ughelli,  Italia  Sacra  IX,  ooL  77  B),  and  paid  to  Rome  a  fixed 
tribute.  In  1267  Charles  of  Anjon  increased  the  r^^our  of  the 
dependent  state ;  he  evicted  BasO  (1259-^7)  and  sent  him  to  the 
monastery  of  San  Vito  del  Pizzo  near  Tarentum,  appointing  the 
monk  James  to  S.  Nicholas  of  Casola  in  the  name  of  the  Pope, 
and  increasii^  the  tribute  to  fsw.  ounces  of  gold  and  five  tars 
yeaily.    It  is  noticeable  that  it  seems  to  have  been  only  in  the 

■  Pnhakfy  Rodote  has  confined  lua  with  anodier  awnk  wboae  name  reallj  is 
HicetaaL 
«  /V  j«te  Ufsgi^,  p.  45.  "  Labbe,  ComOm,  x  1527  (Fun,  1671). 

D  2 


# 


1H£  JODKKAl.    OF  THEQLOGIC^I. 


ilK.  "WiruMTc 

of 

w  sfafum  fa^  de 
Toxin  MS. 

-fllMilW    ''^^^    uK 

fact  I  cap  ttad  no  isniksuBt  o£  tite  &CL    It 
lijr  -file  TitrkE  m  14&1,  asd  jOfliaq^  ft  was  tAoSi  it 
any  iiiijKii  ima  r 


(Hi)  ^.  Mmry  WMf^ff^ix,  m-  PaHra,  at  Jtanmn.  Ths:  oilt 
Inatwioitby  acoMmt  wbidi  wc  Ittve  of  the  fonnrigtiim  of  ihs 
jg  ronaineg  in  ^ic  Ufe  of  BiuilidiaHiwr  qf  Snneal 
Uie  is  pnfalislTnd  in  the  jcS^At  Sgwcftnw  lor  Sqneniber, 
««Liiffi,3L79cC»£roiii  Cod.  Ger.  a^BlHcasma^ivludh -wns-vatlBB 
JB  sjA  Smr  much  ^axSex  Ac  X&  hylf  w^  coo^uBod  h 
^SSgcxSlt  iD  fi^r.    K^  Bidfflbl  si^sgeste  ibe  end  of  t^  tivcffii 

An  ahBimrtiwc  ^-'"■■^  Is  ^nen  bv  Ugbelli  ^^  ndiidi 
^K  JbtuArtJim  te  m  aauoB  Sihis^  wlio  is  odienrae 
about  liK  fCBT  3iiAb.    Bdfii  liie  BhThwtos  and 
si^ect  ^ib  as  iwyr^Vw     The  fortner  think  -duct  li  is  m  liBd  of 

Tf  thir  hr  Twuf  Tlhtiriifl  1w-  rtii(|M«ii1  m  tmrnipwr  if 
cf  ^le  fluc  of  liHkiB  flf 
aiit  4tf  ihe  fllihnln  rf  Elbs  cT 

iflfatendencirtDtapf  and  dnm  aoDie  land  fll 


< 


THE   GREEK  MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY        37 

been  in  Greek,  but  Ughelli  only  gives  Latin  \  It  is  such  remark- 
ably bad  Latin  that  it  is  worth  transcribing  a  few  sentences : — 

'  Bonum  et  optimum  ante  Deum  est  omnes  benefacientes  et 
quoniam  ipse  mediabimini,  quae  midiam  habuerunt  nos  autem 
victantem  vir  religiosi  et  sancto  pronominato  Bartholomaeus 
venerabili  abbati  desideravimus  partem  habere  in  bencficiis  Eccle- 
siae  Sanctae  Dei  Genitrix  Mariae  novam  odigitriam,  etc.* ! 

It  is  quite  impossible  to  construe  this  deed,  but  the  general 
meaning  is  plain.  A  certain  Framundus  had  given  Roger  an 
estate  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Rossano,  and  Roger  gives  this 
to  Bartholomew.  This  estate  includes  the  land  of  S.  Peter's  at 
Corigliano  and  S.  Maur  of  Rossano. 

I  doubt  the  authenticity  of  this  deed.  The  Roger  referred  to 
must  be  Roger  II,  as  Roger  I  died  ifi  iioi.  He  was  in  1103 
quite  a  child,  and  one  would  have  expected  in  the  deed  some 
reference  either  to  Queen  Adelaide  or  to  his  brother,  who  was 
associated  with  him.  I  suppose,  however,  that  the  gift  of  Fra- 
mundus, or  rather  of  Gulielmus  de  Losdum,  was  to  Roger  per- 
sonally. 

Deeds  adding  to  this  estate  were  given  to  Bartholomew  in 
II 1 1 '  by  Bertlia  of  Loritdlo  through  Christodulus ;  and  in  11 22  ^ 
by  Mabilia,  the  daughter  of  Robert  Guiscard,  and  her  husband 
William  de  Grantmeuil,  who  granted  a  rich  estate  between  the 
rivers  Crati  and  Coscili ;  and  there  are  several  other  deeds,  a  list 
of  which  is  printed  by  Batiffol*:  the  general  result  of  them  was 
to  give  the  monastery  control  over  the  valleys  of  the  Crati  and 
Coscili,  and  much  property  on  the  other  side  of  the  Sila,  especially 
in  the  valley  of  the  Neto,  and  even  as  far  south  as  Isola. 

(a)  TAe  Period  of  Litigation  b^^n  seriously  in  1222,  when  there 
was  a  lawsuit  *  between  the  monastery  of  Patira,  as  S.  Mary's  had 
been  called  since  1130,  by  a  corruption,  it  is  said,  of  Trar/x^s,  and 
the  monastery  of  S.  Julian  at  Isola,  who  quarrelled  about  the 
possession  of  an  estate  at  Isola.  It  was  tried  before  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Cosenza,  who  could  not  decide,  and  referred  the  litigants 
to  Rome  or  Messina. 

It  is  significant  that  Isola  is  one  of  the  outlying  parts  of  the 

I  ItdUa  Sacrtty  IX,  p.  385  a.  '  Montfaucon,  Paiatograpkia  Gnuea,  p.  396. 

>  liaUa  Sacra,  IX,  p.  387  D.  *  VAbbayt  dt  Rosaano,  pp.  15-35. 

*  Halia  Saem,  IX,  p.  507. 


38  THX  JOURKAl-   OF  THfX^LOGICAL   STUDIES 

dbtakt  domiaated  by  the  immiftrfy  of 
tkat  to  ipokness  should  begin  at  that  potaL 

I  do  aat  koov  the  rcsoU  of  the  kwsojt. 

la  1245  a  k»g  atiiiggie '  began  betveen  the  Ba^itiam  c£  Ros- 
sno  and  monks  of  the  order  of  Floras,  whose  head  qnaitm  wese 
at  S  Giovanni  di  Fiocc;,  in  the  hcait  of  the  SOa,  and  was  oi^ 
ffi^lfd  by  oompramiae  twenty  yeais  later.  The  same  kind  of 
stoty  is  rqyeated,  in  deed  after  deed  ;  either  some  piece  of  pn>- 
pcity  is  ceded,  or  a  oompromise  of  aneai^ensivenatDreis  made- 

(3)  In  this  way  the  poiod  of  litigation  passed  gndnally  into 
dK  period  of  decay.  The  resources  of  the  mooastqy  girv 
somBcr,  its  estates  were  sold  or  leased,  and  the  nnmhrr  of  the 

At  what  date  it  passed  into  '  oommeoda '  I  do  not  kaow,  hot 
Rodola  '  con^ilains  that  it  does  not  yield  the  commendatory  ia 
than  0,500  crowns. 


THE  DECADENCE  OF  THf  BASILXAK   MONASTERIES. 


The  GfcelcL  mooasteries  began  to  decline  m  the 
oeotnry.  It  would  be  a  needless  and  uunteresting  ta^  to  tnct 
die  histofy  of  thdr  decadence  in  any  detail,  but  certain  chid^ 
poiMs  ID  the  process  may  be  pointed  out 

The  pfhnaiy  cause  of  tibeir  decay  was  the  £ict  that  the  geneial 
ciHiitf  of  hiiloiy  neoesfiitated  the  Latinizing  or  ItallaniziDg  of  tfi^ 
sooth  of  Italy  and  of  Sidly.  As  I  have  tried  to  point  oat,  the 
Hdkpiring  of  South  Italy  was  due  to  special  circumstances  whkk 
irteiiupted  the  Latin  life  of  the  locality.  When  the  Normans 
had  finally  drivea  out  the  anny  of  the  Byzantines^  the  natmal 
fmdrncy  was  a^un  in  the  direction  of  Latinization^  in  ^teech, 
in  OHlomiy  and  in  religion.  As  has  been  already  shown,  the 
weie  qoite  cooscioas  of  this  fact,  althoogh  they  did  not 
tile  process  nnnatnralfy.  Indeed  the  htSbory 
with  the  Greek  population,  and  c^sectally  with 
and  monks,  is  an  excellent  ob}ect*les80O  in 
of  a  oooqoered  nation  to  loyalty.  Consciousiy 
ihcy  proceeded  on  the  theory,  paradoadcalj 


ftmiia  Smewm,  IX.  p.  ^90. 


Graov  II.  ^  tfS. 


THE  GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY        39 

often  pfofooadly  true,  that  it  is  easier  to  diange  essentials  than 
af^xaiaDoes.  Tbey  made  no  attempt  to  alter  the  things  which 
appealed  to  the  senses — lai^^uage,  ritual,  and  names  <^  officials ; 
but  diey  introdiiced  their  own  system  o[  organization  under  the 
names  of  familiar  Gfeek  officials. 

For  a  time  this  added  new  v^ur  to  the  Gredcs,  but  gradually 
it  had  the  inevitable  ^ect  of  making  them  less  and  less  like 
other  Gredca.  They  still  used  the  Greek  service  and  language, 
and  a  Gredc  coming  from  Greece  would  at  first  feel  that  he  was 
amoi^  fellow  countrymen,  but  before  loi^  he  would  find  that 
be  was  really  fivii^  under  conditions  which  were  new.  The 
^ipeamnce  was  Greek,  but  the  reality  had  become  Latin«  An 
almost  exact  paralld  would,  I  believe,  be  the  experience  of  a 
Frenchman  of  to-day  gc€ng  to  live  in  the  French  part  of  Canada. 

Inevitably,  then,  the  Gredc  monasteries  declined.  The  process 
of  their  decay  was  somewhat  hastened  by  the  constant  and 
expenave  litigation  which  went  on  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
catnries.  We  have  seen  how  this  process  gradually  sapped  the 
vitality  of  S.  Mary's  of  Patira  and  S.  Elias  of  Carbo,  and  their 
cases  are  no  doubt  only  typicaL  The  only  instance  of  any 
friction  between  the  Greeks  and  Romans  in  which  the  Romans 
began  the  quarrel  is  the  accusation  of  heresy  brought  against 
Bartholomew  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  this  was  at  once  quashed 
by  Roger.  Of  the  opposite  case,  in  which  the  Greeks  definitely 
set  themsdves  against  the  Romans,  and  did  not  suffer  for  it,  two 
instances  are  especially  striking. 

(i)  Nectarios  of  Casola,  at  the  Lateran  Council  of  1179,  ^P~ 
ported  the  Greeks  00  every  point,  and  was  regarded  as  their 
diampioo.  That  he  was  allowed  to  take  this  course  without 
harm  to  himself  or  to  his  omvent  is  a  remarkable  testimony  to 
the  latitude  given  to  the  Greeks  of  South  Italy  by  the  Roman 
Chnrch  of  the  twelfth  century. 

(a)  An  interesting  little  tract  on  the  order  and  limits  of  the 
Patriarchates,  which  is  bound  up  with  three^  MSS  of  the  'Ferrar 
groi^ '  (all  of  which  beloi^  to  the  twdfth  century,  and  come  from 
Sooth  Italy),  places  the  Patriardiates  as  follows:   (i)  Jerusalem, 

*  Codd,  Emm.  ^  54J,  788 ;  also  in  Cod.  ail  and  Mt  leaM  one  otber,  both  of 
fhtm  South  Italian  MSS.  The  tract  is  poblisfaed  in  fiMsinule  trom  Cod.  346  in 
Dr.  Harris's  fkrtktr  lUmtnkgg  mio  the  Origm  cfihe  Fvrmr  Gmm^ 


40 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


founded  by  James  the  Lord's  brother.  (2)  Rome,  'the  Apostolic 
throne.'  (3)  Constantinople,  founded  by  Andrew,  the  'first-called.' 
(4)  Alexandria,  founded  by  Mark  the  Evangelist,  the  son  of  Peter 
the  Apostle,  who  became  a  Noripio?.  (5)  Antioch,  founded  by 
the  Kopv4>alo9  Peter.  It  is  obvious  that  there  is  no  desire  in  this 
list  to  exalt  the  see  of  Rome.  Moreover,  in  the  list  of  countries 
which  are  placed  under  the  control  of  Rome,  only  parts  of  Sicily 
and  Calabria  are  included.  The  meaning  of  this  limitation,  which 
is  clearly  not  geographical,  becomes  plain  when  one  notices  that 
this  tract  was  written  by  Nilus  Doxapatrius*  about  1143  ^^^  ^^ 
Use  of  Roger  IL  Clearly  what  Nilus  meant  was  to  admit  the 
control  of  the  Pope  over  the  Latin  churches  and  monasteries,  but 
not  over  the  Greek.  One  can  imagine  what  an  inquisitor  would 
have  thought  of  this  in  the  fourteenth  century,  and  of  the  treat- 
ment which  Nilus  would  have  received;  but  in  the  twelfth  century 
it  passed  unnoticed,  or  at  least  unresented  by  the  Papal  and 
Latin  authorities. 

But  at  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century,  under  the  Angevio 
rule,  all  this  was  changed.  The  Royal  house  was  devoted  to  the 
Papacy,  and  exerted  all  their  power  to  force  the  Greeks  into 
closer  conformity. 

In  1 270  Charles  of  Anjou  '  gave  authority  to  a  Dominican  monk 
named  Matteo  di  Castellamare,  'Inquisitori  haeretice  pravitatis 
in  justitiariatu  Calabriae  . . .  a  S.  R*  E.  constituto' ;  and  the  Greeks 
had  (as  Mgr.  BatifTol  puts  it)  the  choice  of  becoming  a  sect  or 
passing  over  to  Romanism. 

This  process  of  vigorous  treatment  went  on  throughout  the 
fourteenth  century,  but  in  the  fifteenth  century  a  change  of  policy 
was  made  by  the  Papacy.  It  was  the  time  when  there  was  much 
intercourse  with  the  Eastern  Church,  and  the  reunion  of  the  East 
and  West  was  greatly  hoped  for.  For  this  purpose  it  was  clearly 
advantageous  to  have  a  living  testimony  to  the  catholic  and 
extra-occidental  character  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  What  was 
more  fitted  for  the  purpose  than  the  Basilian  monasteries  ? 

Policy,  therefore,  suggested  a  reorganization  of  the  Greek  monks 
of  South  Italy,  and  the  preservation  of  all  their  distinctive  features, 

•  V.  Harris,  op.  dL  It  has  been  altribolcd  by  others  to  heo  tbe  Wise,  but 
Dr.  Harris  has  shown  that  this  is  probably  wrong. 

*  VjiblnByr  dt  Ro$aa$tOf  p.  xxxvj. 


1 


I 
I 


I 


THE  CREEK  MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH    ITALY        4I 

ivhOe  the  dictates  of  policy  were  supported  by  the  genuine  love 
of  Hellenism  which  animated  Cardinal  Bessarion. 

The  result  was  that  in  1446  a  General  Council  of  the  Order  of 
S.  Ba^l  was  convoked,  Bessarion  was  appointed  General  of  the 
Order,  and  a  school  of  Greek  learning  was  established  in  Messina. 

By  this  means  the  Greek  monasteries,  and  Greek  life  generally 
in  South  Italy,  were  resuscitated  for  a  short  time. 

It  was  only  just  in  time :  *  The  Greek  monks/  said  Bessarion ', 
'  are  as  ignorant  of  Greek  as  Italians  are.  Most  of  them  do  not 
know  the  Greek  letters ;  a  few  can  read,  but  without  understanding; 
a  mere  handful  can  make  out  the  sense  with  difficulty.' 

For  a  time  the  revival  was  vigorous.  Lascaris,  whom  Bessarion 
brought  to  Messina,  controlled  for  thirty  3rears  a  popular  and 
successful  school.  But  there  was  no  real  life  in  the  movement. 
South  Italy  was  Italian  and  not  Greek,  and  the  revival  of  its 
Hellenism  was  artificial.  The  monasteries  rapidly  degenerated, 
and  when  in  1551  Julius  III  ordered  Marcellus  Terracina*  to 
report  on  the  Basilian  monasteries  of  Calabria,  the  latter  had  a 
miserable  tale  to  relate.  Only  S.  John  the  Reaper  was  in  any 
state  approaching  to  prosperity,  and  even  there  the  library  had 
been  n^lected  ;  most  of  the  convents  were  nearly  empty ;  some 
of  them  were  the  head  quarters  of  bandits. 

For  all  serious  purposes  this  is  the  end  of  the  history  of  the 
Basilian  monasteries  of  South  Italy,  except  so  far  as  their  libraries 
are  concerned.  With  this  part  of  the  subject  I  hope  to  deal  in 
the  concluding  portion  of  these  articles. 

K.  Lake. 

^  In  a  letter  to  Eugenius  IV,  quoted  by  Mgr.  Batiflfol,  VAbbayt  dt  Rosatmo^ 
p.  xzxviiL 

*  VAbbaye  di  RossottOf  p.  109  £ 


(To  be  continued.) 


T9E  JOUR^TAI,  OF  THEDUXIICAI.  STUDIES 


THE  SITE   OF  CAPERNAUiL 


It  appeals  riglkt  that  I  abonld  take  aa  euiy  ogpotlmutf  tH 
make  pabfic  a  c&aage  of  mod  oa  a  point  ili^w'iwwnl  at  some 
length  in  taj  reccatly  pnhfahaJ  book — Saend  Sites  of  ike 
G^sfHu    I  bad  hesftatni  a  good  deal  betweeit  Ifae  two  cocnpeting 

n  the  wlKile  ftmnd  the  greater  y***^"«^  of  fxtoas  with 
topogiapfaers ;  but  ik  seemed  as  tfaoogb  of  tate  optnioo  had 
fs^er  been  veering  rocmd  Id  KUm  MimytJL  I  was  partkuIaHy 
nnptggtd  hf  the  ^ct  diat  Father  Bfever,  who  is  in  charge  of  the 
Gorman  Hosf^ce  on  the  spot  and  has  been  settled  there  for  some 
ycsusi  not  ooljr  htaaseif  tnc^nes  to  tlhe  Kk^  Mmjtk  site  but 
had  made  a  ifetingnisbed  axnrert  in  Fro£  voo  Soden.  I  went 
to  Palestine  with  the  hope  of  verifying  this  opudoo ;  but  a  brief 
▼isit  to  the  site  left  me  still  wA«ciiu[^  and  daring  the  months  in 
which  my  book  was  wittten  and  printed  I  remamcd  mnch  of  the 
same  mind,  slightly  leaning  to  Khdn  Minyek^  but  by  no  means 
confident  that  I  was  r%ht  in  doing  so. 

It  was  not  ontil  the  proofii  had  finally  left  my  hand  that 
a  point  ocuuied  to  me  which  I  shonki  no  doubt  have  thought  of 
before^  bnt  which,  when  ooce  it  was  apprdiended»  aheied  the 
whole  balance  of  the  argument. 

I  had  from  the  first  attached  the  greatest  weight  to  the 
evid^ce  of  Josephus.  It  was  contemporary,  and  it  related  to  fl 
a  district  that  Josephus  himself  knew  and  had  foii^ht  over. 
I  read  the  evidence  of  Josephus  in  the  tight  of  the  topographical 
features  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  point  with  some  deamess 
tovards  Kkdn  Mimytk. 

I  ^laU  explain  myself  best  by  tnseftmg  a  roogh  sketch  of  the 
kscality. 

Josephus  ^  says  expressly  that  there  was  a  fountain  at  Caper- 
naum which  watered  the  plain  of  Gennesaret ;  and  it  is  agreed 
DO  almost  an  hands  that  this  fountain  is  to  be  identified  with  the 
copious  springs  of  Mwi  et-Tdkigka.  Now  these  springs  are  a  full 
mOe  and  a  half  from  Tell  Hitm  and  without  any  apparent  con- 


I 


THE   SITE   OF   CAPERNAUM 


43 


nexion  with  ft,  whereas  they  are  barely  three-quarters  of  a  mile 
from  Kkdn  Minyeh^  with  what  appears  to  be  an  aqueduct 
carrying  the  water  to  the  back  of  Khdn  Minyeh  in  a  position 
Irom  which  it  could  be  easily  distributed  over  the  plain. 


\ 

{_ 

TeUHunt\  ^ 

EhbnWxyeho. 

1 

> 

i.etj&biffha. 

'AJjieO^ 

r 

^"^    '^  Jm 

J 

\ 

A?  If 

*     i^ 

S 

£  A 

0  F 

^  /r 

""^"^sf 

C    A 

L    I 

LEE 

zi 

^==^Moydalau 

■ 

Darbishirm  S  Stanfbrd,  Ltd^  The  Oxfbfx/  Ctc^  tnstitatB, 

It  seemed  to  me  that  this  argument  was  primary,  and  other 
arguments  secondary ;  though  I  came  to  think  more  and  more 
that  the  balance  of  those  other  arguments  was  rather  the  other 
way. 

Now  the  point  that  I  had  overlooked  was  that  these  cities 
or  large  villages  round  the  Sea  of  Galilee  were  not  bounded  by 
a  ring  fence,  but  had  each  its  territory,  extending  for  some  miles 
round  the  place  itself.  There  are  data  enough  to  generalize  in 
this  sense.    For  instance,  Josephus  has  linnjvii  for  the  district  of 


44 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Hippos  {B.  J.  \\\  3.  i) ;   aod  there  is  the  familiar  case  of 
Gerasene  (or  Gadarene)  demoniac  in  the  Gospels,     In  the  face* 
this  I  saw  at  once  that  there  need  not  be  the  slightest  scruple 
making  the  territory  [of  Capernaum]  include  V^?«  et-Tdbigkai^ 
ancient  times  Heptapegon) ;   and  not  only  so,  but  the  foimtait^ 
would  naturally  be  described  as  the  *  fountain  of  Capernaum.* 

If  I  had  needed  confirmation  on  this  head  I  had  it  abundai 
a  few  weeks  later  in  a  letter  from  my  friend  Prof.  W.  M,  RarasaJ 
on  my  sending  him  a  copy  of  my  book.    This  letter  is  so  63 
pertinent  and   contains  such   an   excellent    lesson    in   scientifit 
topography  that  I  have  asked  and  obtained  permission  to  print 
it.     Dr.  Ramsay  writes  as  follows : — 

'  From  the  words   in   your  preface  about  Capernaum  I  am 
wondering  whether  you  are  going  through  the  same  process  as 
I  did  :  viz.  a  first  impression  in  favour  of  Khdn  Minyeh  gradually 
giving  way  to   the   arguments  for    Tell  H^m.     One  argument 
seems  to  me  at  present,  with  available  knowledge,  supremely 
strong.     Theodosius  came  to  Heptapegon  and,  moving  on  to  the 
north,  reached  Capernaum  \     That  class  of  argument  is  in  my 
experience  the    most    unshakable   and   safe   to    rest   on.      The 
arguments  for  KMn  Minyeh  are  all  of  the  class  that   assume 
a  different  aspect  with  a  slight  change  in  the  point  of  view  or  an 
increase  of  knowledge,     I  have  known  some  startling  examples 
of  such  change  in  the  aspect  of  those  general  vague  arguments. 

•  The  argument  from  Josephus  seems  to  me  in  favour  of  Tell 
H^m.  You  say  "at  Tell  HAm  there  is  no  fount  of  any  sorL** 
But  surely  Heptapegon  is  in  the  land  of  Tell  Hilm  ;  and  there  are 
numberless  examples  of  the  use  of  the  town  name  for  the  entire 
territory  subject  to  it  I  have  frequently  pointed  out  in  my 
Historical  Geography  0/  Asia  Minor  exdimples  of  error  caused  by 
our  assuming  that  a  name  means  the  actual  town,  when  the 
ancient  writer  means  the  whole  territory  of  the  town.  As  to  the 
connexion  of  Heptapegon  with  Gennesaret,  you  point  out  that  its 
water  was  carried  by  an  aqueduct  to  KMn  Miityeh^^nA  so,  as 
Josephus  says,  the  Capernaum  fountain  fertilized  the  plain  of 
Gennesaret.' 

That,  I  may  say,  seems  to  me  quite  decisive;  and  as  I  had 

»  [Theodosius,  Di  situ  Ttrm*  Sanctatj  2  {CSEL.  vol.  xxxbi,  p.  138 :  or  PaUstitu 
Pilgrim  Texis^  voL  ii,  p,  8),— Edd.] 


THE  SITE  OF   CAPERNAUM  45 

hitherto  rested  my  support  of  the  KhAn  Minyeh  site  mainly  upon 
this  argument  which  I  now  see  to  be  fallacious,  I  definitely 
transfer  my  vote  to  the  other  side,  which  has  throughout  claimed 
such  h^  authorities  as  Sir  Charles  Wilson  and  Professors  Socin, 
Schiirer,  Buhl,  and  Guthe. 

As  I  am  upon  the  subject  of  Khdn  Minyeh  and  its  surround- 
ings, I  may  take  the  opportunity  to  touch  upon  another  point 
that  has  had  some  further  light  thrown  upon  it. 

I  had  the  good  fortune  to  meet  in  the  early  summer  the 
Rev.  John  Kelman,  who  like  myself  has  recently  written  about 
Palestine.  I  communicated  to  him  my  change  of  opinion  in 
r^ard  to  Capernaum,  and  we  compared  notes  upon  that  and 
other  matters  connected  with  it — ^among  them  the  curious  rock- 
cutting  represented  in  PL  xxxiv  of  my  book. 

Some  days  after  our  meeting  Mr.  Kelman  wrote  to  me  from 
Edinbui^h :  *  Dr.  Torrance  of  Tiberias  was  with  me  the  other 
day,  and  I  spoke  to  him  about  the  rock-cuttings  at  the  Sea  of 
Galilee.  He  is  not  an  expert  in  these  matters,  and  I  am  in  no 
sense  qualified  for  giving  an  opinion,  but  two  facts  he  mentioned 
appeared  to  me  to  be  likely  to  interest  you. 

(i)  He  says  there  is  an  aqueduct  which  is  certainly  of  the 
Roman-Greek  period  cut  through  the  rock  at  ^bilene  in 
Hauran. 

(2)  That  a  Roman  road  runs  through  W&dy  Fejjas  to  Tiberias, 
and  that  whenever  rock  comes  in  the  way,  it  is  cut  through. 
This  cutting  is  now  definable  only  on  one  side  of  the  road.' 

A  little  later  Mr.  Kelman  wrote  again : — 

•I  lunched  on  Tuesday  with  Colonel  Conder  of  Palestine 
Exploration  fame,  and  propounded  to  him  the  question  of  the 
aqueduct.  He  at  once  replied  that  there  was  a  Roman  rock-cut 
aqueduct  at  Abila  (the  one  I  mentioned  to  you),  and  that  it  bore 
the  inscription  of  Julius  Verus.  He  further  stated  that  the  sup- 
posed Roman  aqueduct  at  Minyeh  is  in  his  opinion  certainly 
Roman,  but  not  an  aqueduct.  There  is  no  trace  of  cement  in  it, 
and  it  is  larger  than  any  demand  there  could  ever  have  been  for 
water.  He  belkves  it  to  have  been  a  road,  and  he  favours  the 
Minyeh  site  of  Capernaum.  On  the  other  hand  he  declares  the 
present  Wasserthurm  [i.e.  the  masses  of  masonry  visible  in  my 
PL  xxxiii]  there  a  quite  modem  structure.' 


THE  JOURXAL  OF  THEXMjOGICAL  STUDIES 


Tins  opimoa  had  been  alicad^  cxptemtd  bf  Cblooel  Caokt\ 
m  Tnu  Ifsri  sm  PrnksHm  (LoBdoa.  1895X  p>  29^  >— 

*Revisidi^  tliespot  m  i»x,  ft  seemed  to  me  that  tiie 
Ticv  as  to  an  aqvodDct  from  '  tftf^r^li^itf  to  JVn^ 

tiK  plain  of  Genoesaret  from  the  spei^BS  in  k,  fSbam.  to  hM 
bffcoglit  water  from  it^Ti^k^giMJ 

If  jT  own  first  imr"*^:  vlien  ve  stmdc  ioto  tke  nidcH,i<tiigi 
was  to  regud  ft  as  a  road:  bat  I  qmikly  gawe  vp  tfaisideiiic 
that  of  an  aq[DedQct.  I  can  onhr  speak  from  memofy;  fad^ 
by  the  photograph,  bm  I  shonid  sa j  that  the  cattmg  was  nol 
wide  enough  far  wheried  tiafic  and  ft  does 
other  porpose  ft  ccold  have  served :  n  patfawx 

made  ■khum  cnrtiag  so  deepL  If  thcic  was  to  he  wbj 
iiiigjijuB  I  shodki  noc  have  thonght  Ac  acak 
TIk  coRcnt  momber  .Jidr.  1903^  of  dK  Qfmrmfy 
descrtbes  and  iOnstiates  aa  analngom 
case  in  the  YI'Arr  Kmwtrim^  oeir  the  wvthem  cwd  of  tike  Dead 
Sea.  Tbe  nc^oedDct  there  is  abcct  ha!f  a 
a  smaCer  scale:  there  is  a  tonnex  in  ft  three 
feet  wide,  bd  ft  ^ceacs  to  bav«  been  «mSr  nsed  to  £11  a  dstcn^  or 
cJcmr^  whh  the  wis%r  ns^SL     It  shccjd 

Xo  dodbc  ft  wvcjd  be  weL  r^  hive  the  poooc  xs  to 
3BSIB  Aqwecact  ooce  more  TeHSed  careOKaSr  ca  the 
ibe  pet~=g  I  3bx£c  be  —jds  iudawdto 
aad  Ary-^ed  statesxat  of  Scr  On:^  Wuscm.  whkh  far  the 
bcBieit  of  tbe  rsKkr  I  wd  ^mgjie  to  traaBcrflbfc. 

"  Westward  uag:  the  siicve  of  ifiK^  itte.  a  oEJe  aad  a  half  firom 
TnE  ^JHB.  is  the  chutac^  cstje  bav  of  ^^ri(7i^r4iLaml  4k  great 
whad!  is  wtthcnc  a  dcdbc  t2ie  acwnfiasa  of 
by  losechie  .is  ws&era^  ^le  p^aa  of 
b&y  s  xbccc  h£f  JL  s£je  ktciss.  jai  cw  fts  wc&tetn  side 
KC  sa  by  t^  dadf  oc  A'ftM  JCsntiL  ^le  coiy  p^ane  at  wlwii 
oct^itkeca8aiX^ix.cwe«L     IVre  ss  x  sonall  tnct 
we  oxiid  ui  m.'  roas  eoaoesc  t^Kisc 


.«■?' 


THE    SITE   OF    CAPERNAUM 


Xbe  mills  or  waterworks.  There  arc  five  fountains,  all  more 
less  brackish,  and  varying  in  temperature  from  73 i**  to  86 i*  ; 
are  small«  but  the  one  mentioned  above  is  by  far  the  largest 
ing  in  Galilee,  and  was  estimated  to  be  more  than  half  the 
of  the  celebrated  source  of  the  Jordan  at  BdniyiU,  It 
to  the  surface  with  great  force,  at  a  temperature  of  86 J"*, 
can  hardly  be  considered  warm  in  such  a  climate  as 
tt  of  the  lake  district.  Most  of  the  water  now  runs  to 
te,  producing  a  quantity  of  rank  luxuriant  vegetation; 
some  of  it  is  collected  in  a  small  reservoir,  and  is  thence 
off  by  an  aqueduct  to  a  mill  owned  by  a  man  of  Safed^ 
only  one  in  working  order  of  five  that  were  built  by  the 
Lt  chieftain  Dhahr  el-'Amr  [early  in  the  last  century],  .  .  . 
sonected  with  this  fountain  are  the  remains  of  some  remark- 
jible  works  which  at  one  time  raised  its  waters  to  a  higher  level, 
conveyed  them  bodily  into  the  plain  of  Gennesaret  for  the 
purposes  of  irrigation.  The  source  is  inclosed  in  an  octagonal 
Ttxrvoir  of  great  strength,  by  means  of  which  the  water  was 
raised  about  twenty  feet  to  the  level  of  an  aqueduct  that  ran 
along  the  side  of  the  hilL  Strong  as  the  reservoir  was,  the  water 
bs  at  last  broken  through  it,  and  there  is  now  little  more  than 
two  feet  left  at  the  bottom,  in  which  a  number  of  small  fish  may 
be  seen  playing  about.  After  leaving  the  reservoir  the  aqueduct 
can  be  traced  at  intervals  following  the  contour  of  the  ground 
to  the  point  where  it  crossed  the  beds  of  two  water-courses  on 
arches,  of  which  the  piers  may  still  be  seen  ;  it  then  turns  down 
towards  the  lake,  and  runs  along  the  hillside  on  the  top  of 
a  massive  retaining  wall,  of  which  fifty  or  sixty  yards  remain, 
aod  lastly  passes  round  the  Khdn  Minyeh  cliff  by  a  remarkable 
excavation  in  the  solid  rock,  which  has  been  noticed  by  all 
travellers.  The  elevation  of  the  aqueduct  at  this  point  is  suf- 
ficient to  have  enabled  the  water  brought  by  it  to  irrigate  the 
^^ole  plain  of  Gennesaret ;  and  though  we  could  only  trace 
^t  for  a  few  hundred  yards  inland,  it  was  not  improbably  carried 
'"ifht  round  the  head  of  tlie  plain :  the  same  causes  which  have 
almost  obliterated  it  in  the  small  plain  of  et-Tdbigha  would  fully 
account  for  its  disappearance  in  Gennesaret '  {Recovery  of  Jeru- 
iakm,  1871,  pp.  348-550). 
Among  the  many  excellent  descriptions  of  the  Sea  of  GalilcCj 


THE  JOUSXAL  OF  THECXJCXaCAL  STUUltS 


I  tsrs  vidi  fioffrii^  puessczc  S3  Sor  Oaries  Wilaoa's  in  dui 
poocsK.  Ii  2»  ai'iTrff  t^  tbe  expeneice  of  at  txaaed  obaaver, 
K  '^juaf  jf,l>  E2  hs  scznezKXSs.  sad  i'-:5»?wgh  si  imMthrrir  for 
the  vtiSzfi  grrss  t3  tbe  r^is  £s  ynrri'iir  5acerest,is  finee  600 


Tbers  s  fssc  ooc  ccer  decsfl  ca  w^dc!l  a.  v^srd  nwr  be  sud. 
Joeepcs?  3cces  ex  :i  gas^y  t^ar  zaie  accccsa  of  Cj^wnmiim  001- 
ufaec  ibe  Ccrarrr  isc:  Trrvr-  5?  ajsc  incod  ±.  :be  JaSt    This  fed   j 

jr^f^.*^  crcncQs  5cia£=z=x  .ucizc  rvo  sad  x  h&If  laSes  sooth  of 
KiJx  JTrrwi  wi5ci  Ernprs  lie  irw^r  pcctsoK  of  the  pfaui 


bizc  3CC  5=  'AzM  iS^r'^JGfi^  '±sc  m,k  ,-*  !>  of  wbiA  aic  sud  not 
t:?  be  jci-:2tf  i:r  i.  I  5r  3cc  :intk  ±511  tiss  cscnpaacf  h 
snfTirirTC  :^  sr.i,Vr  cor  x'.Trf  tl  Z3e  I'fic  cj  c£'Asm  it-f^^B^ 
wft^  szs^cj^-rj^^  v^jch  s  arv  reasxlT  ii,:r^iiinl  I  sfaonld 
praer  rj  icrcose  rr.t'  Jrseccas.  -^oc  hid  sxisr  to  do  with 
Tlbclks  £3>i  TinrSry  i2iKx  -vic^  lie  313^  cc  :2k  kfce  aid 

W«  Sjlsdat. 


49 


DOCUMENTS 

SOME   RECENTLY  DISCOVERED  FRAGMENTS  OF 
IRISH  SACRAMENTARIES. 

Early  Irish  UturgUa  are  so  few  and  so  valuable  that  the  discovery 
of  any  fragment,  however  small,  of  an  Irish  sacramentaiy  or  other  prayer 
book  deserves  careful  attention  and  publication.  The  article  by 
Dr.  W.  Meyer  in  Nachrichten  der  Kg.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften 
(Gdttingen)^  shows  how  much  can  be  got  out  of  the  few  pages  of  one 
of  the  Bobbio  MSS  now  at  Turin,  and  it  may  be  hoped  that  the  notice 
€i  this  and  similar  recent  discoveries  may  induce  librarians  to  examine 
the  fly-leaves  or  any  stray  pages  of  their  MSS  with  the  possibility  of 
coming  across  early  Irish  liturgica.  We  owe  the  preservation  of  the 
fragments  here  published  to  such  careful  collection  by  two  librarians : 
the  first  two  were  discovered  by  Dr.  A.  Holder  in  the  binding  of  one 
of  the  Reichenau  MSS  at  Karlsruhe ;  the  Irish  words  which  occur  on  one 
of  their  pages  have  been  published,  from  a  photograph,  by  Mr.  Whitley 
Stokes  ',  but  it  had  not  been  hitherto  noticed  that  the  Latin  text  is  that 
of  an  Irish  sacramentary ;  the  third  fragment  I  came  across  in  April 
last  when  looking  through  two  packets  of  stray  sheets  collected  by 
Monsignore  Tononi  in  the  Archivio  of  S.  Antonino  at  Piacenza. 

The  Reichenau  fragments  (now  Karlsruhe,  App.  Aug.  clxvii)  are 
two  sheets  of  parchment,  here  distinguished  as  A  and  B,  which  probably 
belonged  to  different  MSS,  as  they  do  not  agree  either  in  size  or  script 
Sheet  A,  at  present  from  235  to  240  mm.  long  and  from  277  to  282  mm. 
broad,  formed  two  pages  of  a  MS,  but,  as  about  four  lines  of  text 
have  been  cut  off  the  top,  and  more  than  half  the  width  of  one  page 
is  missing,  the  pages  of  the  original  MS  must  have  been  about  30  by 
20  cm.  The  right-hand  side  of  A  r<>  (i.e.  fol.  i  ro),  the  left-hand 
side  of  A  vo  (i.  e.  foL  i  v®),  and  the  first  seventeen  lines  of  the  right- 
hand  side  of  A  vo  (i.  e.  fol.  2  r®)  are  occupied  by  parts  of  a  sacra- 
mentary written  by  an  Irish  scribe,  who  apparently  began  the  first 

^  CC  Mr.  Warren's  notice  of  this  in  the  previous  number  of  this  Journal  (July, 
i^oSt  p.  610). 

*  Zeitackrifi  far  vtrgUicheruU  Spraeh/orsckung  auf  dem  Gibittt  der  imlogtrmam- 
tdtm  SpraduH^  Band  zxxi,  Neue  Folge,  Band  zi,  erstes  Heft  (Gatersloh,  1889), 
p.  346,  and  in  the  second  volume  of  the  ThnaHfua  palaeokibermcuSf  p.  356,  now 
being  published  by  the  Cambridge  Press. 

VOL.  V.  E 


50  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

collect  cjf  each  office  OB  die  top  of  afresh  piigevtet»^I^e»  i  ^""^ 

1  v«  cad  with  tbe  *fv  /rafir'  of  die  Canoo,  vfatbt  i  i*  has  nnder 
this  60  mxBL  of  pvchmeiit  wuchouL  asr  text.  FoL  i  i*  contafm  viat 
is  probttblr  >  maas  for  pfnitrnf\,  foL  1 1«  &  mass  for  the  dettd ;  kLif 
did  DOC  foOov  rmrnff^aftfy  afcer  fisL  i  i«  as  its  fiot  voids  aie  the 
middle  of  a  pccibce.  The  lower  hilf  of  iaL  a  i*  and  the  whole  of 
foL  1  v«.  left  vacant  br  dke  first  sczibe,  were  sdbscqKBt^  filled  op  bf 
an  Indt-ccadneacil  writer^  who  issezted  d&e  ggrstfe.  gradnal,  and  ffxgA 
and  the  i/wJif  wbssk  fpv  ^j^taiu  five  coQects  and  &  prefine  wfaidL 
esteoded  over  anod&er  pofe  w^Sch  has  nx  been  Jauuvcied. 

Sheet  R  whxh  sxnied  two  poxes  of  aaod&er  MS^  is  at  pnaa^ 
252  msL  Ico^  and  27$  mm.  broai±  bcc  was  caossdeEzblf  ledirrd  vfaen 
cot  np  for  issertioa  into  the  bcad£=^:   we  have,  huwcvci,  fiartnoit^ 

2  sBBall  ^tfyp  of  parccment  B*  •  X2c  th"^  ^.^qc  *^^  partly  50  wbl,  puU|f 
12  mm,  brand'  w^xh  fonaedpart  of  ooeof  d:e  ocfinde  edges  of  By  Ix^ 
dK  paxr  put  of  tbe  cccnectn^  portaon  3  lose  so  that  after  dK  fiot 
three  Iizaes  of  me  eiL^niy  3efi  asd  esiresne  r^^rc-hmd  nAnmH  of  dus 
sheet  we  bare  o^w  oc!f  focr  cr  ive  lieoers  on  B  and  tfaiee  or'  iov 
lectets  CD  B\  sepBza%d  bv  a  cesscbc  zteml  cc  aboot  55  nan.  bread. 
It  has  thereobre  ooc  been  pcssibiie  =?  i:e!.tjiac:'.ii:t  wih  inlUMJ/tf  die 
who&e  cf  th2s  Ligaieuc  X3d  a  rzdier  dii&cmCT  has  been  ctnsed  by 
a  hr^  pcctxc  ^,25  x  jc  cm.  cf  ccse  safe  of  ic  being  for 
blank;  rcsstbiy  jt  mstr  hare  Seen  occipied  bv 
czased  cr  lei:  tree  9oc  one  wcjci  was  sever  inaered. 

The  nchc-baad  saie  of  B  r»  Le.  ficL  5  r*  J=d  the  whole  of  B  »• 
<L e.  C  5T^.  4  ^*^  ccrcirn  parts  cc  i  zsssl  rrrcubir  st  .ammamfmiime 
samOanM^  xs  Br  js  ±!e  Ftst  scksi^-  is  in  ±e  rrerocis  fiagmeotX  but 
with  ±e  jocifcc  cf  i  boSraj:  rraver  wtaci  scras  ract  of  the  Oaoa 
in  the  Scrwe  ^Trssxl :  rre  sttre  cc  ±e  MS  rcMsis  ±  anpossSbie  to  say 
wherfsc  ±is  rnver  was  liz.'scec  cc  ±is  pBce.  bet  the  feft-hand  side 
cf  B  v»  L  e>  3cL  4.  T*  s  uissi  rp  wich  V  ±e  wcks  *ia3fci"ar  ^im'iktfit 
et  ssars  ,j"jmu9L  jls:  ji^mttirm '  wtiich  cot^ttt  rie  wcsSie  tceadth  of  the 
pave,  sad  wt:±.  JTi  as  Irsh  rtxver  cr  rrmsrs  in  rwc  ctrcnmss  peimed 
bdow. 

TIte  ragmenc  6  s  xscz^bed  bf  Mr.  W^itEev  Sbckes  oo  dae  inndi 
cencnrr:  A  bas  seme  paJKC^rarcccal  sops  w^iich  ieeni  ft>  make  it 
aQsnswrsic  earjis-.  bet  ±e  cacing  cf  Ir^  MS^  s  scH  a  tek  of  sach 
(SificsitT  rsic  cce  beigteire^  even  »:•  baari  rt  ccimcG..  rscoigh 
caDpeoenc  Tnt^es.  whe  have  seen  i  pfeccxpx^  -  c  rse  isgqzecCr 
it  m  the  ffgnri  or  ni'iicrr  ceaciry.  Dt.  L.  T^xib^  rr^ei.liig  the  liter 


DOCUMENTS  5T 

date.  The  connexion,  however,  between  these  fragments  and  the  MS 
(Karlsruhe,  Aug.  MS  dxvii),  into  the  binding  of  which  they  were 
inserted,  should  be  taken  inta  account  for  evidence  as  to  date  and 
place  of  writing.  When  two  sheets  of  different  sacramentaries  are  tfius 
found  cut  up  for  binding  purposes,  one  of  them  with  the  scribblings 
of  an  Irishman  trying  to  write  a  continental  han^  and  the  other 
with  rough  specimens  of  neums,  the  prima  facie  conclusion  is  that 
when  the  book  was  bound,  the  fragments  then  used  in  lieu  of  boards 
between  the  vellum  sheets  which  formed  its  binding',  were  so  out 
of  date  as  to  be  of  no  practical  value.  It  only  remains  to  be  seen 
when  and  where  the  MS  was  written  and  whether  there  are  any  traces 
of  its  having  remained  unbound  for  some  time.  The  MS  is  a  well- 
known  one,  usually  cited  as  'The  Karlsruhe  Bede*';  a  photographic  repro- 
duction of  one  of  its  pages  will  appear  in  a  future  number  of  the  new 
Palaeographical  Society's  publications.  All  writers  who  have  referred 
to  it  ascribe  it  to  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century,  but  the  occurrenee 
of  the  feast  of  All  Saints  in  the  Kalendar  on  Nov.  i  suggests  some  date 
after  c.  835,  whilst  from  a  mark .,  against  one  of  the  Kalendarial  tables  on 
foL  13  ro  I  venture  to  assign  it  to  some  date  within  the  nineteen  years' 
cycle,  A.D.  836-855,  and  more  definitely  from  a  peculiar  b  for  bissextilis 
in  another  table  on  fol.  15  ro,  as  well  as  from  the  entry  on  fol.  18  r<> 
noting  that  the  year  848  was  6048  after  the  creation  of  the  world, 
I  think  there  is  little  doubt  that  that  was  the  actual  year  of  its  trans- 
cription '.  The  MS  was  the  work  of  two  apparently  contemporary 
scribes ;  the  one  who  wrote  the  Kalendarial  tables,  referred  to  above, 
also  inserted  a  lunar  table  on  the  inner  side  of  the  front  binding,  and 
as  on  three  visits  to  Karlsruhe  I  have  failed  to  discover  any  evidence 
that  the  outer  sheet  of  binding  is  a  later  addition  ^  I  see  no  reason  for 

>  The  parchment  binding  of  this  MS,  with  flap,  buttons  and  string,  is  a  well-known 
Irish  £uhion. 

'  Cooper's  (proposed)  Report  on  ih*  Ftmirra,  App.  A,  p.  59 ;  Silvestre-Madden, 
Umvtrsai  Palaeography  (Lond.  1850),  p.  610;  Zinuner,  Glossat  Hibenticae  (8vo, 
Berolin,  1881),  pp.  xxiv-zxix;  Whitley  Stokes,  The  Old  Irish  glosses  (8vo, 
Hertford,  1887),  p;  aio ;  Stokes  and  Strachan,  Thesaurus  palaeohtbemicus  (8vo, 
Cambridge,  1903),  voL  ii,  p.  356. 

*  It  is  a  strange  coincidence  that  the  same  year  should  be  assigned  as  the  date  of 
another  copy  of  Bede*s  De  temporum  raHone,  also  written  in  France,  now  B.  M. 
Vespasian,  B.  vL 

*  It  is  true  that  MSS  were  not  always  bound  immediately  after  they  were 
written ;  one  of  the  ninth-century  Irish  MSS  from  Reichenau,  now  at  Karlsruhe,  is 
still  unbound ;  but  in  the  case  before  us,  the  writing  on  the  inside  sheet  of  the  cover 
has  every  appearance  of  being  subsequent  to  the  sewing  up  of  the  two  sheets  of 
parchment  which  form  the  cover,  and  it  is  also  noticeable  that,  like  the  Stowe 
Missal,  neariy  all  the  pages  of  the  MS  were  made  square  by  slips  of  parchment 
being  attached  and  fastened  with  thin  thongs  of  the  same  material,  in  exactly  the 
same  way  as  our  fragments  were  stitched  into  the  binding. 

£4 


THE  JOCWtHftT,   C^  THBOmCJCAL  STUDIES 

(  Ae  Beie  «b  cnpiBi  m  lAoa  an  cnNd 

oTsBaaBCiiiMei^CKCMlapiBr  ili  H«*4irTg 

taep  M  Ifwiifi— ,  but  die 

K  il  KKted  llMfc  Abbe^  (the 

b|r  s.  ■Mbt  ImbcQi^  sftd  points 

hboBv  ■idil.  tlic  cjMi| 


ftLav^'jM'^ 


hid  k»t  soBie  of  Aev  bRShitsi  bf  ^e  V&B^  aidi  (eg. 

BMIMHt  to  be  llftM,tlBd.      t/MdmBItt^  f^**^  CS|XCKMMS  QO  ttOt  IKim 

mtbeangniil  puts  of  tbe  MSSs  bat  bdne  bee*  added  bf  luer  bawk* 

oot  to  thor  fy%piMt  m^pUnia.  Tbe  io^pestiigttioB  of  &e  t«d:Tie  Inb 
aimi  m  the  IMcpdy  leads  to  ao  deiote  resnil,  md  the  tame  of 
*EqgvnOb'  abase  obit  is  added  oa  foL  41*  ti  too  cxnaion  to  be 
of  mj  bdlp.    TbeR  are  onlf  tao  places  uagajioned  bgr  Qmie  in  the 

mas  Mi  wbb  iBLf  ace  wamaai  ok,  as  repvB  tkc  mmm-itfom  shrs^  I  Mipe  aMM 

ttfj  Irak  or  CiKf  K^eaatts:  Fv.  &  3C  lit.  Kfl^;  Roat^  Oo«h^  ^; 

*  TW  i^  cHay:  *  I  XdL  Aml  S««*  Qf  i  1.  «mv  m^fmt fmf  LIT mmmt  mk 

^r  IftB  flMt  is  ^41.  bat  t^  cfltvy  fleov  •»  bMc  ten  c^M  fiv  iy  Iw  tlHi4  tflHl^ 

■MdMky  ^ba  Pero—L  lAfiMMi.  A  i  ■  JTiiaii  1     1.  war  Sl  QMstn.  aaar  h««e 


DOCUMENTS  53 

MS  which  can  afford  any  clue;  an  added  Irish  notice  on  fol.  17 yo  as 
to  the  death  of  Muirchuth,  son  of  Muirledun,  at  Clonmacnois  might 
seem  to  indicate  that  great  literary  centre  as  a  possible  mother-house 
of  our  MS  ^  (between  the  years  826  and  846  it  was  plundered  twice  by 
the  Danes  and  thrice  by  the  King  of  Cashel),  but,  as  Zimmer  points  out, 
the  notice  may  be  simply  due  to  some  friendship  between  the  deceased 
and  the  writer  of  the  gloss  in  the  Bede.  The  words  '  Sancte  Trinitatis 
et  sancU  cronani  filii  lugaedoHy  which  run  across  the  top  of  one  of  the 
fragments,  look  very  much  like  an  indication  of  the  church  or  monastery 
which  owned  the  sacramentary,  and  seem  to  point  to  Clondalkin  near 
Dublin.  This  Cronan,  son  of  Lugaed,  better  known  as  St  Mochua, 
was  specially  venerated  at  that  church,  which  seems  to  have  belonged 
to  his  £imily,  and  it  was  there  apparently  that  his  relics  were  translated 
in  790,  but  I  have  not  found  any  trace  of  a  previous  or  simultaneous 
dedication  to  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  must  be  content  to  point  to  Clon- 
dalkin as  the  possible  home  of  fragment  B. 

All  that  seems  fairly  proved  is  that  both  the  sacramentaries  were  in 
use  on  the  continent  at  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  that  when 
the  Carlovingian-Roman  superseded  the  Irish  use,  they  were  discarded, 
used  for  scribblings,  and  in  848  either  erased  and  rewritten,  or  cut  up 
for  binding  purposes ' ;  the  arrival  of  the  MS  at  the  Irish  foundation 
of  Keichenau  is  due  to  the  flight  of  Irish  monks  up  the  Rhine  in  the 
middle  of  the  century :  the  earliest  (eighth-century)  copy  of  Adamnan's 
life  of  St  Columba  (now  at  Schaffhausen),  was  similarly  written  in 
France  and  reached  Reichenau  at  the  same  time  as  our  MS. 

Fragment  C,  from  the  Archives  of  S.  Antonino,  Piacenza,  is  a  sheet 
of  parchment  c.  245  mm.  long  and  c.  355  mm.  broad,  with  from  27  to 
30  long  lines  on  a  page,  which  once  formed  two  non-consecutive  pages 
of  a  MS ;  the  fragment  is  in  a  very  bad  state  of  preservation,  being 
almost  in  two  halves,  and  as  it  has  evidently  been  used  for  a  long  time 
as  a  fly-sheet,  the  verso  is  so  completely  worn  away  that  it  is  practically 
illegible  \  a  few  disjointed  words  here  and  there  show  that  it  was  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  recto.  As  our  knowledge  and  experience  of  chemical 
reagents  becomes  more  advanced,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  whole  of 
this  fragment  may  be  successfully  restored. 

Piacenza  is  situated  where  the  mountain  road  to  Bobbio  leaves  the 
Via  Emilia^  and  the  church  of  St  Antonino,  one  of  its  oldest  eccle- 
siastical   foundations,   was    in   close   connexion  with  the  Abbey  of 

*  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Stowe  Missal  received  its  eleventh-century 
metal-work  cover  at  Clonmacnois. 

'  Apart  from  the  Stowe  Missal,  the  only  other  known  fragments  of  Irish  sacra- 
mentaries (St  Gall,  1394,  1395)  owe  their  preservation  to  having  been  enclosed  in 
book  covers. 


54  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

St  Columbanus  *  j  hence  it  would  seetn  not  unreasonable  to  assign 
to  Bobbio  an  Irish  MS  found  in  a  city  so  intimately  connected  with 
it,  (there  was  unfortunately  no  opportunity  at  Piacenza  of  seeing 
whether  the  library  of  SL  Antonino  still  possessed  the  book  from  which 
our  fragment  had  been  taken,  a  hurried  glance  at  the  few  MSS  now 
remaining  there  did  not  diselose  any  Irish  ones),  and  the  Bobbio 
provenance  of  the  fragment  seems  favoured  by  the  contents  of  the  two 
pages  here  published,  which  contain  two  prefaces  which  are  only  found 
elsewhere  in  the  seventh-century  so-called  Gallican  sacramentary  (now 
Paris,  B.  N.  lat.  13246)  which  was  discovered  by  Mabillon  at  Bobbio, 
and  is  now  so  generally  supposed  to  have  been  written  there  that  it  is 
cited  as  Codex  Bobiensis '.  If  our  fragment  does  not  hail  from  Bobbio, 
it  is  a  very  strange  coincidence  that  parts  of  another  Irish  missal  with 
Bobbian  prefaces  should  have  got  so  near  to  it '. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  unchangeableness  of  the  insular  hand  and  the 
remarkably  few  dated  early  Irish  ecclesiastical  documents,  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  fix  the  date  of  a  fragment  on  purely  palaeographicai 
grounds  (as  one  of  our  leading  palaeographists  writes  to  me,  ^  the  dating 
of  these  Irish  MSS  is  desperate  work').  The  script  h  Irish  minuscule 
with  several  continental  traits.  Majuscule  letters  ^and 5  occur  frequently, 
and  some  of  the  large  dotted  initials  are  quite  in  the  style  of  early  Irish 
MSS,  though  these  two  marks  may  be  due  to  the  scribe  having  before 
him  an  eighth-  or  ninth-century  MS  ;  several  good  judges  who  have  seen 
C  ascribe  it  roughly  to  the  ninth  or  tenth  century ;  on  the  other  hand 
Dr»  Traobe  calls  it  *  twelfth  century  at  earliest,*  and  Bodley's  Librarian 
*  late  thirteenth  or  early  fourteenth  ' ;  I  do  not  venture  to  give  a  verdict 
when  the  authorities  thus  differ  to  the  extent  of  three  or  four  centuries*, 

^  That  the  connexion  between  Bobbio  and  Piacenza  was  more  than  local  is  dear 
f«tora  the  way  in  which  the  latter  cathedral  copied  and  adapted  the  tropes  and 
sequences  of  the  abbey ;  a  lar^e  proportion  of  the  bishops  and  abbots  of  Bobbio, 
from  the  eleventh  century  onwards,  were  natives  of  Piacenza. 

*  Cf.  Mr.  Edmund  Bishop's  notes  on  '  The  prayer  book  of  Acdelwald  '  ^Cambridge, 
190a),  p*  339,  anii  Monsignor  L.  Duchesne  Origine  d*  la  Uturgu  gulUctw*  (Revue 
3'histoire  et  de  litt^raturc  religieuscs,  t^oo^  p.  38  sqq.) 

*  There  is  another  slight  difficulty  in  assuming  that  our  fragment  was  written  at 
Bobbio;  palaeographicai  reprints  furnish  us  with  examples  of  many  MSS  written 
(or  perhaps  only  kept)  there  in  uncial,  serai-undal  and  Lombardic  script,  but,  as  far 
as  I  have  ascertained,  they  do  not  give  us  any  MS  written  in  a  purely  Irish  hand. 

*  1  hope  in  some  future  number  to  be  able  to  publish  the  opinions  of  palaeo- 
graphicai experts  on  this  point.  It  would  have  been  desirable  to  have  collotype 
plates  of  the  fragments  in  the  present  volume,  that  palaeographicai  students  might 
judge  for  themselves  of  their  date^  but  as  the  Journal  was  not  in  a  position  to  do 
this,  photographs  have  been  sent  to  the  Vatican  Library,  iheBibliothdque 
of  Paris,  the  British  Museum,  Cambridge  University,  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
the  Bodleian  (the  press-mark  to  the  last  library  is  J5773  a.  16). 


uon  10  GO    ■ 
Nationale  ■ 

1 


DOCUMENTS  55 

though  it  seems  to  me  scarcely  possible  that  such  a  liturgy  as  this  could 
have  been  written  for  actual  use  anywhere  as  late  as  the  twelfth  century, 
and  highly  improbable  that  it  would  have  been  then  copied  as  a 
memorial  of  an  extinct  rite.  We  are,  at  present,  strangely  ignorant  of 
the  early  history  of  Bobbio,  and  cannot  say  how  long  the  composite  rite 
shown  in  the  Bobiens,  was  retained  there  or  when  Irish  ceased  to  be  its 
vernacular^  (both  questions  intimately  concern  the  present  fragment, 
with  its  most  marked  Gallican  type  of  service  and  its  Irish  rubrics) ;  but 
if  the  sacramentary  was  written  there,  it  would  seem  that  it  or  its  exemplar 
could  not  well  be  dated  later  than  the  ninth  century.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  for  our  purpose,  the  exact  date  of  the  actual  copy  before  us 
is  not  of  primary  importance,  just  as  the  liturgical  value  of  the  Stowe 
Missal  does  not  depend  upon  the  vexed  question  of  &e  date  of  the 
copy  now  at  Dublin.  Our  fragment,  if  not  part  of  an  early  Bobbio 
work,  may  be  a  late  copy  of  an  older  Bobbio  sacramentary.  It  is, 
of  course,  after  all  possible  that  the  MS  may  have  been  brought  there 
from  Ireland  or  some  continental  foundation,  in  which  case  we  can 
only  judge  its  date  on  palaeographical  grounds.  This  is  an  unsatis- 
&ctory  conclusion,  but  so  it  must  remain  for  the  present 

^  Professor  CipoUa,  who  is  now  eng^tged  on  the  history  of  Bobbio,  assures  me 
that  by  the  twelfth  century  there  were  no  Irish  monks  there,  and  that  he  has  found 
no  traces  of  the  Irish  tongue  or  script  there  as  }ate  as  that  date  :  the  fragment,  in 
his  opinion,  b  *■  much  older  than  the  twelfUi  century.' 

REICHENAU  FRAGMENT  A. 

FOL.  I,  RO. 


[?cina»»]  tribue  uulnerib«x  «-^  semi  tui  -N-  *>ut  pwxepta  rempsione] 
omnium  peccaton/m  in  sacramentfs  tuis  sincera  deuotioo[e]  0 
p^rueniat  ^  et  nullum*  redemptionis  aeteme  susteneat «  de[tri] 
mentum  e/  xeUqua 


Lines  5-8.  This  prayer  which  begins  Dtus  qm  omfitiHtum  tibi  ooarda  is  found  as 
a  Post-communion  collect  in  the  Stowe  Missal  (St.)  [ed.  Warren,  p.  247],  twice 
in  the  ordo  ad  rtconcUiandum  peniUtUtm  of  the  Gelasian  sacramentary  (GeL)  [ed. 
Wilson,  iq>.  65,  67],  and  in  an  .office  for  the  VisiUtion  of  the  Sick  reprinted 
in  Martene,  De  ant  tccL  rit,  vol.  i,  Ordo  xxii,  p.  335  (Mart)  -.—^  uulnenUis, 
St.  GeL  Mart  »»-*  omitted  in  St.  Gel.  Mart  •  dtinceps  dtuoHom,  GeL  Mart., 
dem€9ps  dtdiiiant^  St  ^  ptrmantantj  GeL'  Mart,  pvmummt^  St  *  austi$uant,  St. 
GeL*  Mart  The  writer  of  the  Introduction  to  the  PaliographU  MusicaU,  voL  v, 
supposes  (p.  141,  n.  i)  that  when  the  compiler  of  the  Stowe  Missal  or  its  prototype 
had  to  provide  a  Post-communion  collect  for  the  Missa  pro  ptnUiHiOnia  viviSf  as  he 


56  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


leo'p£eiio^  jy£US  qui 
torig  '  inawst[a] ' 

to     tern  tuajM  suppikiter  *  depivcenar s  at  ^idiiIilm  taum  -K-  de  to[a| 
misencordia  twmMtvUtM  .  cadeati  .  p^vtegas  b^nijsnm,  afinx 
Ba  et  tua  1^  pipfcctione  *  OMsenia  >  .  at  [t]ibi 
QuHis  tempiatiambut  a  te  sep«ret«ir  pgr 
aiip«r  oblfldft^  Soscipe  clrmrntragime 
r^      laudis  qoas  ego  ^  peccatoR 
tiin  *  oflerre  prcsimio  ad 

uicol[cEnn] 
tate  ^miili  tni  •  N  •  at  OMfnriMi  detgctncrm 
»  per  d^mnurm  oMaSrofli 

tomfli  pietaftem] 
toam  hnrmlf  pr«ce  depcscuBiB  tit*  frmdMi  tDnv* 
respicia^  et  pietatis  tax  ^  custodiam '  tmpendas  '  nt  ec  lolD  co[r| 
de  et  ex  tota  aieiite  tihi  dcscnuat  et  sib  toa  semper  p»tectio[tie] 
afmisui  *  ut  q^ioado  ei  Gcdema^  ncBent  dies  *  socicftfem 

per[d] 


*  Tbe  eltree  titles  of  the  prayera  are  by  a  Uter  band.  *  FEnt  haad  * 

■  t  o»er  i,  *  /  over/.  ■  First  hand  'iimfilcr/  •  IVbhiMy 

to  carrect  the  previooa  R-  '  a  over  /.  *  First  haad  eo.     SeCQOd 

fttccred  o  taio  »  aad  added  JtodKm  &c.,  as  &r  as  the  end  of  the  fine. 


aoc  set  one  from  the  Bobbio  saci^mentary  befbre  hini,  he  copied  tlas  prqnr 
frttB  Che  GmAmmmmjm.     If  this  is  so,  the  collect  here  may  be  the  P.  C.  to  son 
«f  fplndi  «e  hove  not  got  the  befinain^ :  bat  its  ponckm  here  >s  apfwrenffy  liie 
fcit  <f  feor pcayera  before  the  pre^^ce  looks  aore  IQae  Aat  oia.ft^^fiaib  mmmm^wsad 
it  may  hereafter  be  fbund  tfiat  it  is  by  on^in  Gaflinn  and  aoC  Grtawn  J 

Lilies  9-13.     ZVm  fitf  imai^fStms :    the  first  collect  of  a  mmam  oaan  ia  SmffL    f 
5«cn  G^igor.  ';KiKnton,  Lit  Ram.  vet.  (ed.  X74S)  coL  193)  (Gr.%  in  Sacr.  BttgaammM, 
(ed.  1900,  p.  Ijij  (Ber]^).  and  in  Smer.  R^mms,{e±Che^nh€r^BAL  LAtfg^  rtjL  'wu, 
f^  Sd6)  (Rem.).     CX  Saer,  G^bcmi,  (ed.  Mtnatori,  UL  Romt,  mi,  coL  ^06]  :— '  ftam- 
Ha —I,  Gr*  B«TS.  •  ifc/wniw»Btf,  Gr.  Ber^.  ^  tea  ajaa^iM,  Res.,  aasidbav 

Bcts-  '  aMawOf  Gr*  BefS.  J 


14-18.    Smwript  \l iiiMitfaawii:  Thta  appears  (aa  here)  as  the  St^tr 

far  a  firing  fiiead  in  5«m  Rtmuns.  (ed.  CJkMMStr,  p.  ^7) 
ia  tbe  2arieh  MS  Rheijaaii  30  (ed.  GtffAert  Moa.  aet. 


DOCUMENTS  57 

piat  [et]  X  inensmbilem  glorias  sine  fine  possideat  *  •  per  damintim 
Vor  digtmrn  dtus  giatias  agre  i/r  cuius  amspectu  sanc/us  raphiel  35 
glorio[sus] 
adsistit  pmta  qfi^ssumwf  ut  tibi  pro  famulo  tuo  •  N  •  exorar[e] 
dignetjtfr  ut  gratiam  tuam  •  semp^  mereaUr  habere  p/vsentem  [?ex] 
empXwn^^  et  in  ^vnspectu  tuo  semp^decantare"  •  sanchis  et  leUqua . . 
jyEUS  qui  culpa  •  ofif[en]deris  penitentia  placaris  da  nobis  dominie] 
flere  nia[la]  que  fecimiix  ut  tuae  r^^nsulationis  gratiam  constq[u3i]  30 

mur  Qui  pridle  .*." 

*  First  hMndposstdeai.  >*  There  remain  traces  of  the  first  letter.  ?  R  f  S.  ?  P.— 
*€xitmpl$tm '  ia  the  only  suggestion  I  can  ofier,  but  it  is  not  satisfactory.  Mr.  Ed. 
Bishop  notes  that  ^templum'  is  a  word  frequently  found  in  Bob.^  but  the  scribe  of  the 
fragment  never  divides  a  word  in  this  way ;  Mr.  H.  A.  Wilson  suggests  '  rttUmpius  * 
as  giving  a  possible  sense,  but  the  contraction  over  the  final  vowel  cannot,  I  feel 
snre,  represent  s.  ^  re  over  a.  ''  The  rest  of  the  fol.  is  blank :  a  later 

hand  has  inserted  '  D«ms  universita[  ]  ^ '  dna  in  adiutorium  meum  *  '  dcMS  in 

adiiitoriu«M  *  '  Riuos  mellis  Riuus  lactis '  with  peculiar  initial  /?  (?  a  reference  to 
Bede's  description  of  Ireland  as  '  Dioes  lactis  ac  nuUis  ittsttia,*  Hist.  ecd.  lib.  i.  c  i) 
and  the  letters  M,  A  or  A  and  A  (?  aitatfipi^  Ai&ur«aXor). 


'  cum  qmbtts,  Rem.  Berg. 

Lines  29  sqq.  Deus  qui  culpa,  as  far  as  the  word  'placaris  *  is  one  of  the  oraHones 
prop€ccatis  in  Gng.  (ed.  Murat.  coL  249),  whence  it  was  borrowed  by  the  compiler 
of  the  new  Mass  for  the  first  Thursday  in  Lent  (col.  a8),  where  it  figures  as  the  first 
collect ;  the  rest  of  the  prayer  runs  'prtcts  popuK  hd  si^Ucantis  propiHus  respice  tt 
fiageUa  huu  iraamSae  quat  pro  peccatis  nostris  mtrcmur  averte.*  Cod.  Bobiens  (ed. 
Murat.  col.  776)  and  Stowe  (ed.  McCarthy  p.  197.  n.b)  give  it  in  another  form 
*  affiidorutn  gnmtus  respiu  et  mala  quae  iuste  irrogas  misericorditer  averte '  as  the 
second  collect  of  the  Mista  Rowunsis  cotidianaj  whilst  Miss.  Gothic  (ed.  Murat. 
col.  658)  gives  it  in  this  Irish  form  as  the  first  (and  probably  only)  collect  of  that 
mass.  Our  collect,  which  by  its  position  here  is  clearly  intended  as  a  Post- 
sanctus,  is  on  diflerent  lines,  and  looks  as  if  it  were  made  up  of  two  prayers,  the 
second  commencing  '  Da  nobis  domiiu ' ;  yet  it  b  curious  that  it  has  the  words  mala 
quae  of  Bob,  St.  and  Got/uc. 

FoL.  I,  VO. 


iesum  chm/vm  Mum  suum  :  — 
Sascipe  d^wime  pr^es '  nostras  quas  pro  dispossitione  *  famulorum '  5 

tuonuv  tuoruMi  et  famulanifw  tuarum  •  N  •  deferimjyj 
orantes  ut  sacrificii  p/^fsentis  obladone  *  ad  refrigerium  anime  suae 
rum  suanun  te  misreante  p^ruenient  * ;  per  dominum  GUium  tuum  . .  . 


*■  es  over  c  '  First  band  '  depositione.'  '  Above  this  word  is  written 

the  ahematiFe  text  U,  N,  *  The  second  n  is  9 ;  tread  obhtio .  •  .  proveniaL 


58  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

SacraU  d^  i>fv  s6  suTsqti«  defferentibus '  dona  samJoruMtque  mardiUiiM^ 

inuocantibus  *  sufira 
gia  adsit  uirtus^  imnensa  iugisqw^  dementia  .  p«r  d^mminn  iesum  cfarr^ 

sfum  filiuiw  suum  qui  secum 
10  Suscipe  dtmine  h6c  sacrificiuivi  ab  offeiandbMj .  qui  t6  ipsoM  sacri[fici]uff^^ 

obtulisti 
Yne  [dig]nuM  et  iustum  aequuM  et  iustiwi  est  nds  tibi  hie  et  ubiqv^^ 

semprr  gratias 
[agere]  damine  stutctt  piXer  ontnipotens  eteme  dtus  coins  ' 
f  pronus]siones  *  *  plenas  aetemonui    bononuii  in  ipso  ezspectaMus 

manifes 
tandas  iw  quo  scimus  ^  absconditas  dMoho  nostro  ksu  chruto  filio  tuo 

qui  ueia  *•  est 
i^iiita  cwdentiifjit  ct<?  resurrectio  <*mortuoniJw  per  qae«i  tibi  ptv  ani- 

mabus  -^  "<  £unulo 
nwtuoni«i«et£unubnriMitaani»^  IL^«f  sacrifido*  Jstud^offenmvj 

ohsecran 
l«*  ut  K^tnentioQts  fonte  puigatos^^K  s  te*rptatioiuTMis  cACJiptos«" 

beiitonifv 
^Q\anexv^d^^:iien$i«sief^Kieetqix]s^  ^6ecisti*adobbKiQiieOT^paitidpes 

iuSefts  be 
[t]«d(tiKs  UsK  essie^  «vi«scct<s ^  ^  :e  enai  oicupoccos  das  .cictiinnu« 

»»  ^(^^»i>  A  t«ttisEKcabiu<$  i=^$!e£cc»s  cbcci  sioe  cessttsooe  .  prvdbinant 


Mki^ )«»  -^^  4Kt  .^»4lt^(  ^  *  .^M«<5.  hm  i^tk:  A~  «  stsokk.    :ix  <!4 
«kK  ^^  -f^mnai^  «LX«Ki^«.  ^(w».«i^f^  ^^i»t?t  «^  siMtt  ^ac!!!«2:  w 


DOCUMENTS 


59 


soDcfiiS  sanc/MS  sancfys  domnus  deus  ^*  sabaoth  &c ; 

Adsistat  huic**  sonc/ificationi  ilia  braedicdo  qua  dtmiaus  nos/^  iesus 

chrisfus  sacrifidum  tale  uistituit  aique  b^mdint 
[OJssanna  **  in  altissimis  t6  pro  refrigerio  spt'ntus  defunctotum  omni- 

po^iens  etem^  dots 
[hum]iliter  exomnus  .  precipue  pro  anima^vs  famolonim  tUQrum*' .  et 

famularvm  tixantm  .  N  .  usrlessa 
[     jmemoradone  .  ut  ab  infernali  **  maim  libeiatas  **  in  sinu  patris  requi-  as 

escant 
[patrijarchas  per  difmiaum  nostrum  iesum  chm/vm  q»i  tecum  uiuit 

dominatjtfr  ac  regnot  simul  cum 
spirit]u  sonc/o  iff  secula  saeculoTum  qui  pridie  quaxv'" 

'*  after  dens  L  **  kmc  above  the  line,  originaDy  after  soMti^kaiiom  but  erased. 
**  M  over  M.  **  ahemative  mafmmHli  tuL  **  First  hand  mfemela.  **  First 
hand  libtraims,  *■  at  foot  of  page  I  a  oiv— original  mannscript 


FOL.  2.  RO. 


» in  cuius  uel  in  quorum  ho[norem  hec  oblatio  hodie  offertur 

ut  cunctis  proficiat  ad  sa[lutem  ^ 

conta[c]t!s  terrene  feces  sfc[ 

XSs  nostris  pre/imXHs  pfrsent[ibus 

et  qjvm  misisti  illis  r^ni  ae[temi  parti 

cipes  sancH  spirifus  coeredes  re[  I  lo 

te  enim  omnipotens  d^vs  lau[ 

^egius  apostolorum  et[ 

immo  p^rpetuo  et  ixdefessis  [laudibus  cum  quatuor  animalibus  venti- 

quatuor] 
senioribtff  condnnant  [dicentes  ] 

«Vere  b^n^ictus  uer[e  mirabilis  in  Sanctis  suis  deus  noster  ihesus  15 

christus] 
ipse  dabit  uirtute[m  et  fortitudinem  plebis  suae,  benedic] 

*  Lacunae  supplied,  where  possible,  from  the  Stowe  MissaL 


*...««  emits  vd  m  quomm.  In  Stowe  Missal  (ed.  Warren,  p.  345)  beginning 
OmmbuM  Jklms  vUat  noshrat^  bat  omitting  *  m  emus  veL  ^The  Stowe  Missal  differs 
entirely  after  sabUem. 

•  Vert  hnudktns  occnrs  in  the  Stowe  Missal  (ed.  Warren,  p.  246)  as  Ven  stuictus 
vert  bentdidHSf  &c 


6o 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


tos   diSKS  quern  benedidniiis  in  a^pottiiiis  ct  in 

qui  pla] 
cacnffn  ^  ab  initio  saecoli 
Vere  elogios  bassilios  [ 
tor  apostulomm  om[niiim 
saitc/ts  suts  S2lviticat  * 

Uiicitlcwfiii  m(\ 
'Paulus  apostolus  iesu  dnkti . 


e[mplifigiiui?]* 

ppv  yMs  8cie[ntes] 


The  rest  of  this  p«^  and  the  whole  of  the  next  page  «ne  fay  a 


*  The  Stowt  Mtssa]  inserts  ti  alter  /itoiwi— f. 

*  The  texi  of  the  lections  is  not  printed  in  fnU,  hnt  any 
Volute  are  noticed. 

'  2  Cor.  i  i-n  :  tbchuntna  on  the  ninth  hneofthe  MS  is  too 
f-vr.  vatwv  ftmsolmttomt^  sime  txkmimwmr pf\}  wmlm  axkoftmhame  ati 
the  claiwe  mw  tjrhortmmttr  f9o  mstm  txhtrntrntmrnty  was  prahafaly 
has  MtoAnwwite   verse  6'  ?  ««r 


£raai  tiie 


The  MS 


FOL.    2,    VO. 


r  OS  e 


cnii 


inquaTT.  sT^eramus  qw/wuzm 
.  adiovantibos'  c:  ^t>his  m  oraliane  pnc  nobis  .'. 

D/mcinifs  de  ode  i«;  tmaw  aa>erpi:  ut  audi 
re:  ^anitas  coropeditorum «    u:  adnantta:^^  \r.  sioc  noat^  d^vMuhi  &: 
iaudeir  cwv  ic  ierusalem : — 


*  Itrrrogavit  disdpnlo?  suo?  dicens 

~  c:  XT.  ce:h<  . *.         ordk>  misisie  prr  c«ptiiii&  ifi6i|iil. 
lanf  rorde  r-rwtntc  fl^hil:  uone  lacnmahile  - 

iT/wBgTKai:  ba:  -  sic  df:  no  rmunnorvipf  -  manibk.' 


*  A  CT«sse  xt.  the  mTrhtnm:  nunr  h«rr  kc  to  the  midun|: 
of  somt  of  th<;  letters  :  «L  thai  i<  Tia&)«  nc^  is  arKr  mmrntmnm..  with  raom 
ior  aboQ!  twc-  tetters  o.  the  f*n  Po5S!i^^•  the  Ti»ine  was  intentioxialiT  nor  written 
hereiKinll 


•   :  Cor.  .  iz.     Tut  KS  -nhices:  mfmu  helr.Tr  wk 
'The  MS  pmbablT  t\t  nrc  mntair  hrrr  tht  wor»J*  "  i 
whirr  ocxn-  n:  a  colirr  «  ir«-  Ime*  dmrii  *  Vol««r 

ttSi.  Mattt;  XT.  i.:^-it,  hii:  tht  MS.  it  mniMurr  vitt  the  oidese 
hemn XL  v.  it  nnr  €i  beiorc  ik  «»*?  u.  v.  lo.  •  n«T.  v.  3C 


ao 


DOCUMENTS  6l 

...  1  ducat  speciality  auUm  fratrem  nostrum,  H.  festina 
. . . .  ]cia.t  p^r  dommum  nostrum  [filium]  suum  qui*  secum  regnantem ' 

. .  ]e  redempta  ad  cf  los  ^^scendisti  de  c^lis 

•  •  ]  filios  interemptOTUM  cunctosqt#«  iff  captiuitate 

■  •  1  geneiib«f  dignare  p^ucere       qui  cum  patre 

post  nomijna  reoitata 

. .  domt^ni  deprvcemur  uti  uniuersos  babtizatos 

]  .  .  partidpes  efficiat .  *  at  ui  •  omnes  25 

]  domino  eripiat  per  suum  unigenittun 

]  qui  tecum 

]  per  ista/»  tui  corporis  • 

]  alligatos  et  fratrem  nostrum 

reduce]re  digneris  qui  regnas : —  30 

omni]potentis  mise[ri]cordiam 

captiui]tatib»x  .  elongatis  carceribvf  detentis 

conlsulator  ads[i]stat  neqw^  deejje  sibi 

domi]nian  nostrum  s\x\im 
V.D.         gia]tias  agere  dominc  sancte  omnipotens  ^teme  deus,  35 

qui  po]pulu/7i  tuis  pr^eptis  o^fftradicentem  duro  seruitio 
?subiectuma]d  pristina/w  lib^rtatem  reducebas  .  respice 
^e  dicant]  gentes  ubi  est  deus  eorum  quiquamvis  Xibinon  bene  seruiant 
?rup]tis  uinculis  carcere  reserato  t^rre  motu 

]  .  um  *  reddidisti  sic  domine  cunctos  ch/irtianos  40 

]  normanicis  ^  ferreis  funib«f  Bique 

*^  sic !  *-*  1  read  at  ui,  •  read  Paulum  or  afiosfolum,  *  The  first  three 
I^^rB  are  ahnost  illegible  in  the  MS,  but  Uie  photographic  negative  reveals  f$oi 
or  nor  before  tpiaruds. 


REICHENAU  FRAGMENTS  B  &  B*. 
11)6  dotted  line  represents  fragment  B* 

FoL.  I  Ro.,  Col.  i. 

magnus  facis  mirabilia 

deus  ueri '  latittia  sanctorum  .  quam  tu 
pr^miBisti  omn/potenti  in  fide  ere 


*  fi 


62  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


FoL.  I  Ro.,  Col.  2. 

•  Dws  qui  sanc/am  [huius  diei  sollem] 
pnitatetn  in  oi '  [ 
^N  •  *  rf?/rse[crasti  adesto  faniili 


10 


>5 


10 


e  tu§ 

:  precihus  et  dona 

j 

?u]t?ho 

i  die  fiesta  celeb 

\  [ranti] 

}husconme 

■ M 

i  xilio       i  [coram] 

]  mun 

[iamur  per] 

:  iesum    \  [christura] 

S]ancforum 

[intercessi] 

\  onibus  I 

]  nme 

\ deuo     I 

?ti  red 

:i  num    ] 

sensi 

\  i  sancfi  \ 

cmtin 

jtuk      j 

:piU» 

i?  i«      j 

:  tion  • 

1  ut        j 

?ad^h 

iefa      \ 

?atu : 

\  suppli '  1 

qui  in 

jpos        \ 

t  me 

\  diem      \ 

diosa 

jtis          j 

colim 

\ sacer     \  [do] 

talis 

jneu:      i 

ob  ?  s  ?  0 

i  ?  upi       : 

'  Lacuiiae  supplied  from  the  MissaU  Goikkum,  *  There  is  no  sign  of  any 

contraction,  hence  the  word  is  probabl}'  not  omni,  the  second  letter  is  possibly  the 
first  half  of  M.  *  f  0  t^,  reading  very  uncertain.  *  ?5  ill,  *  The  letter 

before  Hon  is  either  a  or  m,  ^  \  iiu  '  ipopuH. 


*  Thia  collect  might  be  reconstructed  :  D,  f.  s,  k,  d.  s,  in  [Ajoiiorr  b*alorum  ./V. 
cOHSecrasti  a./.  L  p.  ti  dona  nobis  hodie/gsia  ctlebrantibus  ut  auxHio  eorum  ftmniamHr^ 
&c,  Cf.  the  first  collect  for  the  Mass  of  many  mariyrs  in  the  Gothicum  *  Ditus 
fni  sanctam  huitts  dm  soliffttpftitafeMt  pro  cotntnemoraiionem  btatisstpnonnn  marty- 
rkim  tuorum  ill.  et  ilL  passtamm  Jvristit  Ad€Sto  familie  tm  prtcibus  ei  da  ut  quorum 
hodie  ffsta  cflebramus  ecrum  meritis  et  inffrcessionibus  adiuvemur^  &c.  [Text  as 
collated  from  the  MS  of  the  Gothicum.^  The  Sacranttntarium  iripltx  at  Zurich^  foL 
338"  gives  it  for  the  Mass  of  one  martyr,  evidently  taken  from  some  Ambrosian 
Sacramentary.  FL  iiy^^-i^t^'^  in  that  MS  contain  the  Ambrosian  Commum 
sandorum,  and  agree  exactly  viath  the  Bergamo  sacramentary  (ed,  1900,  pp,  135- 
143).  Gerbert  printed  this  in  his  snialleat  type  on  pp.  313-220  col.  I  and  aaa-Jag, 
but  he  did  not  realize  that  what  he  printed  on  his  p.  316  (including  Ihe  present 
collect)  was  one  Ambrosian  Mass. 


lO 


ao 


DOCUMENTS  63 

FoL.  I  vo.,  Col.  i. 

ritatem  obte 
suit  se/  mota 

€st  u    :  :      ;    iiostr  \  urn  iesum  chnsfum  fi 

hum  svLum : — 

Deus  ad  cuius  c  i  rescit  glori 
3M  quicquid  sanctorum  sal  j  utis  contu 


tu*     i 

exemplum  tuae 
uoluisti  e 

nim 

uHs  per  dommum 

nostrum] 

D 1  [ignum  et  iust] 
:  [stum  est  n] 
que  s  j  [emper  grafias  a] 
nit  j  [ati .  . .] 

um  equum  et  iu 
OS  hfc  et  ubi 
gere  tri 
ut  te  auc 

tor  i  em  omni] 

s  creatu 

raj 

iff  laudem 

sanctor  \  [um  . .  .] 

?  in  tuam  loc 

at«r    j 

atum  die! 

hui !  [us  .  . .] 

?  tis  in  hon 

ore»i 

N  consecs 

ast     i[i...] 
it?c    i 

gratias 
tetr: 

ist     1 

ma  est : 

FoL.  I  vo 

.,  Col.  2. 

hostia  i/inocens  uita  suscipisti 
enim  dominer  hodiema  die  anima»» 
sacerdotis  tui  •  N  *  camis  i/itig 
re  conuersationis  ifilesse  crucis 
5    uixillum  calcato  seculo  prrferenti 
s.  qutm  ad  et^mam  uitam '  et  ad  glo 
nam  regni  celestis  quam  pr^ioso 
exitu  ta^  felici  petere  iubes 
iffgressu  qui  et  celestiuw  secre 
10     torux9  ifft^rpres  et  diuinoru/Ti  consi 
liorum  capax  iam  in  hoc  mundo  esse 
priOTneruit  angeloru»?  comes  conso 
rs  apostolice  dignitatis  qui 


'  Before  *  tn'tam '  sa  but  deleted.    !  -*  aaluttnu 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

dum  per  iffextipgibilem  tui  amoris  ar 
15    dorem  carnis  ^uleos  contriuit 

mtioTum  i/rcendiua  pfvstanit  dia 

bull  uirus  extingfAt  *  ante  moritu 

nis  in  s^cula  quai»  natura  ista  ey/ 

mors  p/rtiosa  sanctorum  qui  gloriattf r  in  re 
ao    quie  sua  diem  beate  ressurrec 

tionis  expectans  in  quo  erit  et  ius 

titiae  merces  et  corona  uirtutis 

et  palma  uictoriae  per  dommum  nostrum 


n 


FOL.  2  RO.,  COL.  I. 

Angeli  ymnu««  debitum  sine 

cessatione  prvclamant  dicen 

tes  sanctus  sanctus  sanctus  dominus  deus  sabao 

th  pllni  sunt 

5     Domine  deus  nost^  n6s  quoqt^  hodi 

emam  dieiw  in  honored  tui  sancti  no 

minis  et  iff  *  commemoratione  b 

eatissimorum  martiniM  am  *  cete 

ris  Sanctis  annua  festiuitate 
10    peycolimjtfj  alteribMX  tu^  pieta 

tes  adsistimus  tibi  emm  damme 

laudes  et  gratias  referamos 

in  homine*  et  honore  sojic/issimi 

filii  tui  dn  ac  domini  nastri  iesM  chmti  ip 
15     se  emm  qui  pridie  quaM  pro  nostra  o 

mniuJM  salute  patiretur  cepit  pawMt  ^ 

+  Oremus  d^jwmi  missercordiaMi 
*prv  animbaci-  omniuM  episooponmi  nos 
trorujRi  et  presbit^roniM  ^  nostroruM  et  di 
K>    aconoruM  nostroruM  -  et  caroniw  nostxoniM 
et  caraniM  nostrarujM*  et  pueroruflt  nostronui 
et  pveUaruii  *  nostnunuv  et  penetentiuM  nostr 


*  M  above  the  Ubc^  •  c.  •  fer 

cfmoaJtj,  *r(yrer«.  •■overc 


DOCUMENTS  65 

onm  *  et  o  iM  ommioni  <i  stratu  ^^ «  senioriMi  f  &  s  miaif 
trorum  omnium  s  .*.  Pfv  iiitigritate  uirginiMi  . 
as     et  ^vifdnentia  •  uiduarum  */  Frv^  aeris  •  temp 
[crie  et  fructum  *  feomditate  terrarum  ^  pro 
pads  redetu  et  ^  fine  discriminum  '*] 


"  First  hand  siaiu.  "  Lacuna  supplied  from  the  Stowe  Minal. 


*  From  here  as  far  as  d^gtuhir,  coL  a.  lin.  17,  is  found  in  the  Stowe  Missal  (ed. 

^vren,  p.  234) -5^,  and  in  Witzers  extract  from  an  Irish  MS  at  Fulda  (Vicelius, 

EanikutmUa  sittcttae  ptitaHg,  Mogunt  1555,  P.  ii)->^. ;   both  sources  give  the 

frit  sentence  as  '  Pro  st(r)aiu  *  (vide  infra,  p.  7a)  and  insert  the  whole  dause  in 

tke  Canon  between  *pn>  ndtmpHom  am'marum  auarum  *  and  '  p90  apt  aaluHa,^  &k, 

*  omitted  Si.  1V»  *  steHw  JV.  '  stntdrum  suorum,  Si.  "^  mmisinmtm 
*ii»imm^riiait,St  puriiaUrnhnsiromm^W.  ^  W.MA^Bbona.  ^  atgiinmW. 
*ooBttedinW^.        ^aeW. 


¥gl.  2  Ro.,  Col.  2. 

Pr^  iiicolmitate^  [regum  et  pace*  popa] 

loruM  ac  red[itu  ^  captiuoram  pro  uo] 

t!s  adstan[tium  «  pro  memoria  mar] 

tinim^  /.  Pf»«  re[mi8ioDe  pecatorum] 
J    nostrorum  .  e[t  actuum  emendatione  [r]eonim]  * 

''et  pw^  requie  d[efunctorum  et«  prosperitate] 

iteneris  nostn^  &  [pro  domino  papa  episoopo  et^  omnibus *] 

episcoplsi  e[t  prespeterfs^  et  omni  (cdesi] 

astico  ordi[ne  pro  imperio  romano  ^'] 
'°      ct  omnibus  regib[us  ^  christiants  ™  pro  fi:atribus  in  uia] 

directis  .  &  pro  [fratribus  quos  de  cali] 

ginosis  n  huius  [mundi »  tenebrts  dominus  ar] 

cessire  dig[natus  est  ut  eos  in  o  etema  lu] 

ce  et  q»iete  <>Pdi[uina  pietisP  suscipiat] 
'S        Tro  {latribus  qui  ua[ri$  dolorum] 

gemitibifso  ut[i  eos*  diuina  pietlis*  cur] 

are  dignet[ur  *  petri] 

^  ^-^cunae  supplied  from  Stowe  Missal  '  The  MS  fHt(y  have  room  for  all 

*>»^>«)rds. 


'  ^*^nqmmtat$  W.        ^  lOnmiiotu  W.        «  W.  adds  exanditndis.        «  W.  adds 
^^^*^»»tda.  *~*  mmiitttdis  aiqut  nmndandis  peccoHs  nosiris  W.  *^  ae  St. 

>w>V  '/roW.  ^^  proRo.ponHJkiac^.  ^-^  presbyUrisqm^, 

^.  omits  romano.  *  prindpidut  W.  ■  Here  St.  inserts  proJraMbHS  H 

'^'O'AiM  ttoairis^  W.  has  p./.  aororibusftu  n.  but  places  *pro  /ratribut . . .  mudpmi* 
'^ *profratr%bus in  via  dirigmdU*  ■^  m%mdi kmus St  •^ 9ttma SHmmas 
^ptirttSt,    atierHamsummamqustMetmrtfuieinH'VJ.  9^  pittas  dmma  Si. 

^iniribuM  ad/KguniHr  St.  W.  '  W.  adds  m  atttmum.  *  bonilaa  W. 

*  Here  St  proceeds  with  pro  tpt  saluiitt  &c.,  i.  e.  part  of  the  Canon. 
VOL.  V.  F 


•c 


>•£ 


•«< 


tecs 


?»i 


•  ^  "t, 


»^ 


cnaczsKZA.  ^ 


« >"   I    > 


^m«B*tf«> 


^^ 


►CUMENTS 


67 


'*^tLshabeamwj  a.damtmm  \'  landiuiiacb  *,     imwola  (ko 
B   'VimnoU  difo  sacrificiu/w  laudis  et  redde  altissimo  uota  tua  ^  5 

In  conspectu  oranis  popuVi  eius^^  in  medio  tui  hiemsalem^  immola  dtfO. 
^mmolamus  Xibi  d^ww/ne  hostiam  gratulationis  nosir^  .  exaudi  nos 
^t   pfTsta  unicuiqtt^  nostrum  pr^priu/w  petitionem  .  affectumque  tribue* 

m\serere  nobis  d<?iwriie  qui  xegnas  * 
'eirenis  cogitationibv^r  seperatis "    sola  c^lestia  ac  sp/ritalia  cogitemus  ro 

'*Ma  et  deus  &  dominus  domintts  nosfcr* 
'ratres  carissimi  sicut  simul  orauimos  ita  ^  simul  et  ofTeramwj 
sacriiicium  deo  nostro  sussuwi  corda  habeamus  2L^ominum  *  .  . 
Offeramus  d^wno  d<fo  nostio''  sacrosa/ic/i  munera  sp/ritalia.    Dignum"^ 

.  . .  Btfu^rdictio 
dd  pfl/ris  &  f/lil  &  spiritus  .  r<flfV«^a  .  .  B :  SBnd  eanatair  nadignumma  15 

f«>r  tormach  rendignum  na  triwdote  %*  ** 
Deua  &  d«rws  et  df^^iinws  n&stei  dommuE  noster* 

•  Dignura  et  justum  ?quum  et  iustum  est  nos.  tih"'  hie  et  ubiqw^  sezraper 
gradas  agere:  di?»i/ne  s<7/ic/e  p^j^rr  o^^nipatens  ^tfme  d^^s  .  fqui  fecisti* 
c^ltim  et  trrram  mare  et  o;7i«ia  que  in  eis  sunt .  m/tiura  tuom  dc^mmQ 

nemo* 
ftobit^* .  et  magnitudinis  tu^  mm  es(  finis  ^ .  una  diuinitas  b  et  una^  mai  »o 
etttt  ,  natir/a  insep^rabilis  ,  persona  dividoa  ^  dw^s  unus  et  nan  *  soJ[us] 

*  «A  full  washing. 

**  ■  Here  are  sung  the  Dignttttts  on  an  augmtntum  before  the  Dignunt  of  the 

Trinity. 

'  In  the  margin  here  \^coim.  *  Dtus  tt  deus^  &c,,  as  below,  but  erased. 

r»  wilh  one  mark  of  contraction  over  the  two  letters.  '  A  second  hand  inserts 
■^<»vcr  er;  this  scribe's  final  long  s  is  always  very  like/(cf.  graiulaiianis^  /mtres]^ 
^  it  is  a  distinct/.  '  The  fii^t  two  and  ihc  last  two  words  of  this  sentence 

We  la  red.  *  Above  the  line.  *  A  later  hand  has  inserted  in  red  a  short 

'over  the  long  &  ^  In  the  margin.  '*  i.e,  woviV. 

*^  Ps.  xJix  14.  Cf.  the  Lcabar  Breac ;  M'^Carthy  on  Stowe  Missal,  p.  262. 
*^  Pwt  of  Ps.  cxv   18.  ^^    Part  of  Pa.  cxv  19.  •   This  preface  is 

'o^nd  in  Cod,  Bobmt.  (Par.  B,N.  tat.  13246)  here  quoted  as  Boh,^  and  in  the 
*our«bjc  Missal  (cd.  1755,  p.  S4),  here  quoted  as  Mos,  It  occurs  in  one  of  the 
S«n6j  Masses  in  Bob.  and  for  the  eighth  Sunday  after  the  Epiphany  in  Jfcfar. 
onitted  in  Moa.^  in  Bob,  '  t>ms  Abrahafn^  dtus  Isaac^  dews  /acob,  cuius  utrbunt 
*"*»m$a  nvata  stint  cuius  spiritu  omnia  nunciantur,*  Mr.  Edmund  Bishop  points  out 
i^ook  0/  Cfrnt,  ed.  1903,  p.  148)  that  this  adaptation  of  Acts  iv  34  in  liturgical 
^yci^  is  ilniost  entirely  confined  to  books  that  can  be  connected  with  Irdand. 
•^  titrina.  Bob.,  trina,  Moz.  *»  indimdua,  Bob.  Mor.  '  Cf.  the  7th- 

^UiTy  Irish  prayer  in  MS  Turin.  F.  iv  1  (ed.  Meyer,  loc.  at.  p.  303)  ^  D*us  omm^ 
A**""*  ^  «s  MH$4S  H*c  soitiSj  Itrqui  unus  tt  in  fribus  unus.*  Cf.  also  Book  c/  C*me 
(d  190},  pv  ii^j  11.  9  and  10)  *  Dms  unus  it  noH  solus^  umlas  IripUx,^  Bob.  omits 
"^  either  because  liable  to  misconception  or  from  a  recollection  of  Pi.  Izxxv  10 

*^  a  dtus  aoius^^ 

F  a 


£B  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

unttas  triplex  ^  et  trinitas  sc^plcn  ttpientia  multiplex  1^ .  iM(^fffu[sa  ^] 
coniiinctio  .  imliuidua°>  distinctio  «  qucm^  mmm  substantiality  <)  p^va- 

fite[mur] 
etP  triniim  personalitfr  nommam«5  <i  .  quia  'tu  es  *6iU9  solus  ^  et 

n^wi  **«/ 
alius  preter  te  .  nec«  «f/"»  uoindum^  opera,  tua  yqui  fecisti  c^los**** 

ifftellectuy  et« 
futidasti  t/fTEM  si(/Vr  aquas* .  ^pa/lrr  et  CrVvs  et  spm/vs  sanc/vs^ .  qoi  U 

uno^  trinus" 
apares  .  et '  in  tribus  *  unus  agnosceris  ^  .  t  quippe  distiuctis  p^rsoois 
singulatim  d^us .  patct  d(us  filiWs  dfus  spirits  sanc/us .  non  idem  poiSer 

qifi  fifliiis  efst]  W"  ide[m 
credit»r  pa/tT  esse  ^  quod  f/l/«s  »  ,  pa/CT  ifigenitvj  •  qi«*  a  se  «/•  »  fiii»s 

*autem  genitw*"  . .  ." 
spirtfus  saftc/us  « a  ptf/re «  p/YTcedens  ptf M  et  Clio  codemus  una  *  in  je 

tribus  et  uoluntas^ 


'*  The  MS  has  the  usital  con  traction  for  est,  a  a  found  written  in  foQ  (reodered 
«9#  by  Moratori)  in  the  coirespondin^  passa^  of  Cod.  Bobitn.  ;  the  {^inse  m 
probably  taken  from  Ps.  Ixxxv  8  Non  tsi  simtlis  tm  in  d»s  domint,  H  noH  at 
wteundum  opera  tua.  "  The  MS  has  a  long  s  with  a  transverse  line  under  it, 

■  rare  but  not  unique  contraction  for  s*ntndutn.  '*  /  ibove  the  line.  "  m 

over  «.  ^  The  MS  has  i  single  s  with  the  contraction  line  over  it,  a  capital  5 

has  been  erased  before  it  "  Above  the  line.         »■"*'  The  reading  here  is  rery 

uncertain ;  I  believe  the  original  words  to  have  been  anU  aecula  m/indta^  but  the  6iul 
letter  of  uMir  appears  to  have  been  erased  for  the  si^  for  fuam  and  the  «  of  a§€mk 
has  been  changed  into  ko. 


^  Moz,  omits  f/  *^  omitted  in  Bob.  ^  inconpmsa  (i,e»  ituompmkm»\ 

Bob.  ■  tmtmsa,  Bob,,  ft  indiuisa,  Moz.  ■  pti^  Bob.  •  insuh- 

Mtapi<iali/fr,  Bob.  •*">  omitted.  Bob.  '  mimcmppikj,  Moz.,  ffoww* 

Hdmac«  rrn^SrmMs  mM^^wmr,  Bob.  ^'^  omitted  in  Moz.  '  omitted,  B<^. 

*  «s  fmm  deus.  Bob.  ;  Moz.  (ed.  I755t  p.  304)  has  an  *aJia  eraHo*  with  expressions 
like  thb  and  a  phrase  which  occurs  a  few  tines  further  on  In  the  fragment,  Tm  m 
dots  et  in  if  est  dius  gt  noH  est  almsprrter  te  ;  ah  on  igttssum  uerhum,  nan  rt^  t  idjlmt, 
fma  Htique  nalus  JUius^  non  ipse  qui  pater  eM  cretHhtr^  dum  tamen  ipgum  tsse  qwod 
pater  est faittur.'  «  omitted,  Bob.  ■"*  omitted,  Bob.  *  «s,  BoU 

'^  omitted,  Bob.  ■  Tu,  Bob.  ■  aquam,  Bob.  ^^  painm  et  JUium 

et  spirilum  sandum^  Moz.,  tu  legem  creatoris  omnibus  posuisO^  Bob.  1  MMiim, 

Bob.  ^  omitted,  Bob.  ■  trino^  Moz,  i  Here  Moz.  concludes  with 

Qfuein  eon/aMdant  angeii,  Ac,  t^  omitted,  Bob.  *^  omitted,  BoU 

•-«  mttis  est  gentratur^  Bob.  ■-«  unus  est  expaSre^  Bob.  A.-A 

Ih&KJ  uniias  et  d^itas  potestas,  4r.,  Bob. 


I 


DOCUMENTS 


69 


FOL.  2,  RO. 

*  *  Cuius  *»  propitiationem  [sacerdotum  preparjatio  declarauit 
Catm  [lon]gan[imitatem 0  iudicum  eqjtiitas  pr^uHt  .  Cutus^  sapien- 

f«gnum*«  uita  desseniit  Cums  spiWrt*ni  p[rophet]ar«z«  u«?ntas  adpro- 

bauit 
CiffW  b  aduentum  zacharias  castigatus  ostendit  .  Cujus  introitum 
lohannis  pr^cajsor  '  adraonuit  .  Cuius  ^  natiuitatem  oirgo  pr^tulit  s 

stdia  prfccssit  angelorjyw  f  sacra  uox  '  cicinit  pastorvw  p^fniigel  sol 
lidtudo  pnniidit*  magorw;«  tnperthi'^  oblatio  muneris  honorauit 
Orftfs  possionem  *  mundus  non  s«Jtenuit  *  '  tremuit  terra  *  *  .  sol  fug[it]  ^ 
Cm'its  resurrectionem  adsistentes  ostentauertf/Jt  1  angeli  ^Cuius*^ .  .  . 
gentes  "»  glorificau<Ttt^  sa«c/i  *»  explorantes  apostoli  prf dicauerunt  ^  i© 

Cwjus  ascensum  disciputi  porrectis  in  c^lum  oculis  prosecuti  sunt'*^ 
Ckwc  regnum  <»  cum  uniu^rso  ^  c^lesrium  et  terrestrium  p  et  infernorum 
preconio  p  animaliura  et  *i  senloium  signatorww  f£j«ceiitus  '  incessabili 
noce    pf»claraant    dicentes    sancfus    sanc/us    sancfus    dominus    d^/^s 

sabaoth  • 
Haec  til*!  laudes  in  excelsis  omfus  cansona,  uoce  resonant  ac  .  . . 
COS  u/ftf  ex  humili  ■  sede  supplices  maiestati  tu?  fundimus  pr^es 
cbsccrantes  ut  ad  h^c  pura  libamina  respicere  digneris  ♦  .  , 
P^ogeniti  fiT/l  tui  ac  domini  nastii  iesu  chWjti  Qui  pridie  quam  . .  . 
amen  dicitur*  ordo  miBsae  Bancte  majri^  ^^ 

*  Concede  quessumus  omnipotens  deus  ad  beat?  sanc/c  mari<^ 
^fginis  gaudia  ^Urna  p^ninguere  de  cuius  nos  ueneranda  as 
'amptione  tribuas  annua  sollerapnitate  gaudere  per 
"  Int/rcessio  d^w/he  mari^  beat^  raunera  iwstm  commend^t  no "  .  .  . 

^  The  first  thr^  lines  arc  much  nibbed  and  could  not  luive  been  deciphered 
^"ilbout  the  help  of  the  correspoodins  passage  m  Bob.,  from  which  the  words 
WlHliiii  brackets  have  been  supplied.  '  The  sense  demands  rg^m.  *  The 

B^DnlnicUon   for  $ts  b  the  one  which  usually  signifies  us  at  the  end  of  a  word, 
^^K  i.e.  ^as&ioHtm,  '  t  over  the  first  r>  *  Reading  doubtful.  \  Ditms,  T  Ornnes. 

^^r  Scarcely  legible^  doubtful  reading.  '  n  over  m.  *  These  words  are 

^B*dded  by  a  later  scribe  who  uses  a  jGLnal  r  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  fragment. 
'  This  title  is  by  the  original  hand,  and  enclosed  in  a  single  red  line.  *^  Ap- 

parently mqut. .  ,  . 

•  This  preface  occurs  in  Cod.  Bobiens.  in  one  of  the  Missa*  dominicaUs.  It  begins 
*  Cuius  vocera  Adam  audivit'  (cf.  Muratori,  Lit.  Rom.  Vd,  voU  ii,  col,  924),  and  has 


IS 


* 


30 


'IfiStMS, 


thtc  following  variants  r 
~*  itaae  sacra,  «  ptruidit. 

mtttntautrtmt,  ^"^  cmn  resurgntttm. 


loHgamimtaU  (sic).       °  sapitttcia. 


regum. 
treptrtiia,  ^-*  ©mittcd.  ^  rtfugit, 

"~"  omitted.  «*"*  umutrsum, 

'^^  m/irmorHw^ptt  loncmtum.  "^  omitted.  *  omitted.  '  Here  the 

prciice  ends  in  Bob.  *^  This  collect  and  secret  appear  in  the  Assump- 

tioo  mass  of  the  Tnpltx  as  G(elasiaii)  and  A(aibrosian) ,  with  nobis  after  conctde  and 


Triples 

A  mmAj  of  tbe  Trifdez  i 
{ma  afCame,  p.  si^m.  J}  as  to  tihe 
^w  rcil  piie-GresvriBi 


of^  i*«d  Gdttin  in  the 
P^  3£3}  «s  <l>c  Vatican 
B^  flf  fro,  tJie  accKft  a  4Mljr  that 
«rtbe  BwV.fbr  SLFafaiaBaad 

r.  Bislwp's 
MS  as  aa  index  to 


The  dbject  of  die  present  Dotkse  bemg  the  pnblicttioB  of  the  text  of 
the  ft^gmenti  and  not  m  dtsqoisitioQ  on  the  knotty  qoestioiis  which 
coDcera  the  aodeot  Gallican  rite,  it  will  sn^ce  to  caB  xttentroo  to  the 
new  erideoce  which  these  firagmcnts  lerea].  Mad  to  s^baw  their  points  of 
simHanty  and  ooatiast  with  the  Sinwe  and  Bobhio  missals  :  these  two 
redly  fall  under  one  category ;  a  glance  at  the  AAgr^fikde  musuaU^  vol. 
V,  pp*  13S  and  129,  win  show  their  intimate  connexion  with  each  other'. 

The  general  similarity  between  oar  fragments  and  these  t#o  missals 
if  evident  at  first  sight ;  the  vernacular  robfics  and  prayers  which  arc 
a  special  feature  of  Irish  liturgim  occur  not  only  in  fragment  B,  which 
if  moulded  after  the  type  of  the  Stowe  trussal,  but  in  die  (presumably) 
Bobbio  sheet,  though  the  Cod,  Bobiens.  is  entirely  in  Latin « 

I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  ^Vhiiley  Stokes  and  Professor  Rhys  for  help 
in  translating  the  rubrics,  which  at  once  recall  somewhat  similar  ones  in 
the  Stowe  missal,  though  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  one  Dignum  could  be 
tung  belbre  another,  and  the  liturgical  meaning  of  Idndtunach  (*a  full 
washingf'  a  ^complete  washing  out'),  apparently  at  the  offertory  and 

Our  frafments  will  bear  out  Mr.  £.  Bishop's  belief^  expressed  in  the  last  number 
of  the  JotraaAL  (J»ljj  1903*  p.  S^Ot  n),  that  the  Irish  were  concerned  in  the  manipu- 
lation to  which  tiie  Roman  books  were  subjected  in  Gaul  and  in  Northern  Italy  in 
tba  Acventh  century. 


I 


DOCUMENTS 


71 


cenamJy  before  the  preface,  is  at  present  unknown :    it  cannot  be  the 

same  ceremony  as  the  Stowe  Uthdirech  and  Idndtrech  (the  half  and  the 

fiill  uncovering  of  the  chalice);   one  hesitates  to  suggest  a   hitherto 

rded  ceremonial  cleansing  of  the  chalice  at  this  part  of  the  mass  ; 

if  O'Reilly's  Irish- English  Dictionary  (1864)  is  correct  {diunach-=- 

'bathing,'  'washing'),  the  ceremony  will   be  the  customary  washing 

the  celebrant's  hands. 

Putting  on  one  side  the  phraseology  of  the  prayers,  which,  as  regards 
fragments  A  and  B,  is  distinctly  Roman,  it  will  be  at  once  noticed  that 
their  whole  system  is  a  GalHcan  one,  for  whilst  Gregor.  and  Gelas.  for 
.ach  mass  only  supply  as  a  rule  one  or  two  collects,  a  secret  and  a  post- 
communion  prayer,  ^e?^,,  Gothic,,  Fraruor,^  and  Galiican.  vetus  agree  in 
providing  four  separate  prayers  before  the  preface,  which  in  its  turn  is 
followed  by  the  post-sanctus  and  the  canon  '  Qui  pridie'  \    after  which 
^ob.  provides  nothing  else,  as  the  Missa  Romtnsis  cottdiana  at  the 
t>cgirming  of  that  missal,  with  its  fixed  post-communion,  had  apparently 
I     to  serve  for  all  masses.     Now  tliis  arrangement  is  precisely  the  one 
"^tnessed  to  by  fragments  A  and  B,  whilst  C.  foL  i  r«  provides  some^ 
what  elaborate  initials  for  four  only  of  the  items  which  precede  the  pre- 
face    It  is  far  from  being  suggested  that  we  have  here  a  pure  Galiican 
,      lite;  the  fragments  are  a  product  of  a  time  when  Roman  influence  had 
I      «iibrtitiited  short  pithy  collects  in  the  place  of  the  lengthy  Galiican 
■fdnes^  and  the  Roman  canon,  or  part  of  it,  had  been  introduced,  but  the 
^^distinctive  prefaces  are  left  untouched  and  the  old  framework  remains, 
thediptychs  are  still  read  and  the/ojc  is  given  before  the  consecration  ; 
though  the  actual   title  *post  namina  rtcitaia^  only  occurs  once,  the 
^rd  rtcUa  .  .  .  appears  in  one  of  the  prayers,  whilst  another  begins  with 
^Biunsitis  nominibus*     It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  titles  on  the 
fint  sheet  of  A  are  a  later  addition  by  a  Romanizing  corrector,  who 
xdng  three  nameless  coUects  prefixed  to  them  the  three  titles  common 
in  Roman  sacramentaries,  without  stopping  to  think  whether  they  were 
applicable  to  the  prayers,  and  without  seeing  the  impossibility  of  the 
Homan  •  Super  populum  '  coming  before  the  preface  *.     The  very  position 
of  the  Epistle  and  Gospel,  so  rarely  found  in  early  sacramentaries,  but 
here  placed  by  themselves  as  *  lectioms  ad  missam '  and  followed  by  the 
'  Ordo  missaCy  is  exactly  the  arrangement  of  the  Bobbio  Missal. 

But  it  is  not  only  in  the  arrangement  of  the  office  that  our  fragments 
agree  with  the  Stowe  and  Bobbio  MSS ;  it  may  be  only  a  strange  co- 
JOcidencc,  but  just  as  the  Stowe  Missal  has  three  masses  only,  viz.  for 
tltt common  of  saints,  for  penitents,  and  for  the  dead,  fragments  A  and  B 

*  This  procedure  is  the  reverse  of  what  wc  find  in  Cod,  JBobmts.^f  where  the  Roman 
pnjrtn  of  the  Mista  Rommsts  cotidinna  appear  under  utterly  unsuitable  GalHcan 


72  THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

reveal  three  masses  which,  though  they  bear  no  title,  correspofid  exact^^ 
with  these  three.     In  the  few  pages  before  us  we  meet  with  typic^x/ 
Hiberno-Gallican  expressions  which  rarely  if  ever  occur  in  the  Grt^^.  c?r 
Geias. ;    c.  g.  the  elders  of  the  church  are  termed  *  senwrts  '  whilst  the 
faithful  laity  departed  are  the  ^  cari  nostri' \    ^  stratus ym.  the  sense  </ 
body  or  congregation,  which  occurs  only  in  the  Stowe  Missal,  is  found 
here  with  the  epithet  '  communis  ^ ' ;   ihe  solemn  Amen  at  the  giving  of 
thanks  (i  Cor,  xiv  16)  is  ordered  by  the  special  rubric  'Amen  diatur*; 
but  perhaps  the  most  striking  similarity  with  the  Stowe  Missal  is  the 
omission  of  ih^  fiHoque ;  though  it  was  added  to  that  MS  by  Moelcaith, 
the  text  of  the  Piacenza  fragment  remains  unchanged,  *  Spirifus  sancius 
a  patrt  proadtns^  a  fact  which  seems  to  go  some  way  in  justifying  the 
early  date  assigned  to  this  sheet  or  its  exemplar ;  the  fact  that  the  words 
occur  in  a  preface  here  instead  of  in  the  creed  does  not  weaken  the 
argument 

It  will  be  observed  from  the  notes  that  whilst  the  first  mass  in  the 
Reichenau  sheet  is  more  or  less  the  common  property  of  Roman  and 
Gallican  missals,  our  fragments,  with  the  exception  of  three  Ambrosian 
collects,  give  us  texts  which  are  only  found  elsewhere,  if  at  all,  in  Stowe, 
Bobbio,  Rheims  and  the  Mozarabic,  and  that  the  variants  are  instructive, 
as  providing  what  in  some  cases  looks  like  a  purer  and  more  primitive 
reading.  If  the  number  of  known  liturgical  forms  is  not  greatly  increased 
by  the  present  publication,  it  brings  out  a  few  new  points  as  to  text  and 
arrangement,  as  well  as  some  apparent  difficulties  which  await  solution. 
The  phrases  *  rtfrigerio  spirifus  dtfunctorum  '  *  Deus  ,  ,  .  da  nobis  dcmim ' 
may  be  due  to  errors  in  copying,  but  the  frequent  reiteration  of  tnim 
in  the  middle  of  prayers  is  peculiar,  nor  do  I  remember  having  seen 
elsewhere  sursum  corda  habeamus  in  a  collect,  or  cepit  pamm '  for 
aatpit  panem  at  the  commencement  of  the  Canon ;  the  sequence  Petri 
et  Pauli  lohannis^  to  the  exclusion  of  Andrew,  in  what  appears  to  be  an 
extract  from  the  Canon,  is  a  distinguishing  mark  of  the  Mozarabic 
Missal,  though  the  three  names  do  occur  in  this  order  in  one  of  the 
Stowe  collects;  the  *  Ven  elogius  bassilius'  (unfortunately  defective)  on 
A.  fol.  a  ro  is  presumably  a  half  Greek  version  {elogius^EvXoyrjiTAs  ^) 
similar  to  '  Ven  bentdictus '  which  precedes  it,  but  it  seems  to  break  off 
into  the  Latin  of  another  prayer ;  at  any  rate,  it  is  interesting  to  note 


*  Wiud*s  priM  of  the  Fddai  MS  has  'statu,'  Of  course  it  is  impossible  to  rely 
on  bis  text  as  rendering  the  reading  of  the  MS  here,  but  still  it  now  appears  his 
statu  is  countenanced  by  the  first  hand  of  the  new  fragment.  The  correction  to 
stratu  however,  as  in  S/.,  seems  highly  interesting  [Ed-  B,], 

*  I  do  not  know  of  any  other  suitable  eitpansion  of  the  cpa  which  foUowi  after 
patifwtur  in  the  MS ;  it  might  he  a  scnbe*s  error  for  c  tijtHfuis),  but  the  reading  of 
the  text  ts  clear. 


I 


DOCUMENTS 


73 


this  survival  of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  tongue  where  it  was  saircely 

tepected 

In  the  almost  total  absence  of  headings  to  the  collects  it  is  impossible 

arrange  with  certainty  the  masses  in  the  Piacenza  fragment ;  some  of 

sentences  were  sung  by  the  choir  and  not  said  by  the  priest ;   e.  g* 

}la  Dto  sacrtficium  laudW* '  was  ordered,  according  to  the  Leabar 

:,  to  be  chanted  after  the  full  uncovering  of  the  chalice  and  paten 

after  the  gospel,  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  Deus  et  dens  et  domtnus 

imim^s  nailer^  which  occurs  three  times  in  one  mass  on  fragment  C, 

must  have  been  one  of  those  antiphons  which  we  learn  from  Stowe 

were  interspersed  in  the  service,  though  these  or  similar  words  have  not 

been  met  with  before.     But  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  this  explanation 

can  accotint  for  the  two  prayers,  which  look  like  benedictions^  which  are 

fouBd  on  A,  fol.  I  vo  between  the  preface  and  the  postsanctus,  ^ ad- 

sis/at . .  .  ben^dLxii  *  and  on  C,  fol.  i  v«  immediately  before  the  preface 

*  BmtdUHo  .  ,  .  spiriius  et  reliqua ' ;    the  former  of  these  is  apparently 

unfinished  and  perhaps  has  b^en  copied  into  a  wrong  place,  but  the 

alMence  of  any  similar   examples   of  any   liturgical   interpolation  im- 

iswdiately  before  the  preface  makes  it  necessary  to  call  special  attention 

t<»  these  anomalies. 

The  first  question  naturally  asked  as  to  any  newly  discovered 
Callican  sacramentary  is  as  to  the  existence  of  a  non-Roman  canon,  for  up 
to  the  present  no  such  has  been  found.  Our  fragments  merely  give  the 
first  words  of  a  formula  which  either*  as  in  Bab.,  agree  with  the  so-called 
Gdasian  canon:  (i)  *  Qui  pridie^  (ii)  *  Qui  pridie  quam^  or  (iii)  with 
the  Ambrosian  *  Qui  pridie  quam  pro  nostra  omnium  salute  paterttur* 
»nd  in  all  three  cases  this  apparently  invariable  formula  follows  imme- 
<iiitdy  on  the  post-sanctus,  whether  the  latter  is  addressed  to  the  first 
Ct  to  the  second  person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ;  there  is  no  trace  of  any 
reference  to  the  night  of  the  betrayal  instead  of  the  eve  of  the  passion. 
Of  to  our  Lord's  standing  in  the  midst  of  the  apostles,  such  as  might 
bve  been  expected  in  a  purely  Gallican  liturg}'.  But  there  is  a  certain 
confusion  and  irregularity  in  B,  fol  2,  col  i  which  deserve  notice ; 
»fter  ((pit  panem  (?)  there  is  a  short  space,  and  on  another  line  the 
*inje  scribe  proceeds  to  write  +  Oremus  domini^  6^r.,  which  begins 
Biuch  like  a  bidding  yn^ytx post  namina  (defundoruni)  redtatai  but  sud- 
'lenly,  in  its  eighth  h'ne  (after  the  punctuation  mark  .-.  instead  of .),  it 
liecomes  a  prayer  for  the  living,  ^pro  intigritate,  ^c!  Of  this  text 
Stcme  has  as  far  as  *p€nitentium  nostrorum '  as  the  ^nA  of  an-  added 
^ftr  oblata  {ed.  Warren,  p»  233),  whilst  it  provides  the  rest  of  it  in 

*  These  «re  pfob»bly  the  words  erased  on  fol.  19  of  the  Stowe  Missal  see 
^'  Htlaitby'a  mrttclc,  Traasactions  of  the  Royal  Imh  Academj  (PoUtc  Literature 
*^  Ajitlquitics),  vol  Z3Lvli|  pt  1,  p.  ao^,  n.  b. 


Ill   ifcB  '  lUi 


«■# 


'«-#> 


i^I» 


I4»Mfti 


£H. 


Xvk: 


MiriLsi««fJ 


iiBM«K.iri 


milm^m^iL  {ILA.W,] 


DOCUMENTS  75 

and  that  Boh,  here  is  pure  Gelasian,  the  suspicion  crops  up  that  possibly 

"^c  may  have  here  the  relics  of  a  part  of  the  Gallican  canon ;  this  is  a 

'moe  surmise  with  but  little  to  uphold  it,  but  at  least  it  may  be  thrown 

^^  if  only  to  be  destroyed  by  the  criticism  of  more  experienced  judges. 

Considering  how  few  are  the  extant  documents  of  the  Irish  rite  \  and 

^H>w  little  we  know  at  present  of  its  origin  and  development,  the  present 

^'igments,  though  apparently  insignificant,  may  be  of  real  value  to 

%iie  liturgical  students,  and  if  their  assumed  date  and  provenance,  as 

^^tte  tentatively  set  forth,  are  accepted,  they  may  prove  to  be  portions 

of  sacramentaries  which  are  older  than  the  Stowe*  and  which  preserve 

^  ii^ore  perfect  text  than  the  Bobbio  Missal ;  at  any  rate  they  will  show 

^t  neither  one  nor  the  other  of  these  can  retain  its  claim  to  be 

^  '^matm  or  a  mere  personal  production,  and  their  publication  may  lead 

^  the  search  for  and  the  discovery  of  other  fragments  and  to  the  elud- 

^^^tion  of  an  important  question '. 

Henry  Marriott  Bannister. 

^  Mr.  WaiTeii*s  nUquiae  of  Irish  Ktnrisies  are  taken  from  about  a  dozen  sources, 
^t  ^vduch  only  three  are  really  aacnunentaries. 

*  The  oonsensua  of  opinion  seems  to  place  the  tnmscription  of  this  MS  to  the 
'^'Uith  century,  but  see  TM4  Academy,  Oct.  ao,  1894,  and  PaUogr.  Music,  v,  p.  14a. 
^  photographic  reproduction  of  the  whole  MS  is  a  great  desideratum  which  the 
Henry  firadahaw  Society  would  do  well  to  consider. 

'  I  must  acknowledge  with  much  gratitude  the  veiy  valuable  suggestions  sent 
<i>e  by  Mr.  H.  A.  Wilson  and  Mr.  Edmund  Bishop. 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 

THE  OLD  LATIN  TEXTS  OF  THE  MINOR  PROPHETS, 

Prefatory  Note,  ' 

The  following  texts  have  been  compiled  from  almost  all  the  Old  Latin 
sources  at  present  available.  There  are  some  omissions  which  will  be 
briefly  referred  to  below.  Care  has  been  taken  to  use  the  best  editions  of 
those  writings  from  which  the  compilation  has  been  naade^  though  some 
of  the  older  ones  have  also  been  used  for  the  purposes  of  comparison; 
these  will  be  enumerated  below. 

From  the  nature  of  the  case  a  text  of  the  kind  here  presented  is  of 
varying  authority  ;  as  a  rule,  the  value  of  a  passage,  for  present  purpKises, 
can  be  approximately  determined  by  knowing  its  source ;  for  example, 
Cyprian  may  be  regarded  as  olTering  a  text  as  near  as  possible  to  the 
earliest  form  of  the  Old  Latin  ;  the  authority  of  Tyconius^  too,  is  very  high* 
On  the  other  hand,  TtrtulUan  is  an  extremely  unreliable  authority,  and 
must  be  used  with  great  care ;  a  very  cursory  examination  of  his  quotations 
will  make  this  apparent  at  once ;  indeed,  in  a  few  cases  it  has  been  found 
advisable  to  omit  quotations  from  him,  on  account  of  their  being  rather 
of  the  nature  of  paraphrase  ;  but  this  is  not  always  the  case ;  at  any  rate, 
he  could  not  well  be  neglected,  owing  to  his  early  date.  It  happens  not 
infrequently  that  the  value  of  a  particular  quotation  cannot  be  settled 
off-hand ;  in  the  case  of  the  Speculum  as  well  as  Spec.  (Aug.),  for  instance, 
there  are  early  elements  as  well  as  late  ;  while  Lucifer  Caiaritanus  som^ 
times  quotes  from  Cyprian's  Testimonia^  at  other  times  from  a  late  text. 
Therefore  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  indicate  clearly  the  source  of 
every  verse  or  part  of  a  verse  by  inserting  the  name  of  the  authority  in  the 
margin. 

It  is  hoped,  therefore,  that  the  compilation  may  be  found  useful  as 
giving  a  text  founded  on  varying  authorities ;  k  will  not  for  a  moment  be 
supposed  that  the  intention  is  to  offer  the  genuine  text  of  the  Old  Latin 
Version. 

The  following  are  the  authorities  cited  in  the  text,  together  with  the 
editions  that  have  been  used  \- — 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 


77 


ColWeh^lBrtemsis 

MWirceburgenns 

Qs^»»r (including:  Auct,  Dt Pascha 
Cmfmtus,  Dt  Duobus  MonHbus, 
AiD.Naoatianum  in  the  Af^ndix 
to  Cyprian) 

lucifir  Cahrit 
lertuIUan 


COoHo  Cartkaginiensis  (Habetdeus) 
[Donatist  quotations] 


£.  Ranke  Fragmenta  .  .  .  1856, 
1858,  1868,  1888. 

E.  Ranke  Par  paUmps.  Wirceb,, 
1871. 

W.  V.  Hartel  in  CSEL,  vol  iii 
1866  (for  quotations  from  the 
treatises  and  epistles,  Hartel's 
text ;  for  those  from  the  Testi- 
monia  the  MS  called  L  by 
HarteP). 

F.  C  Burkitt  Rules  ofTyconius, 
1894,  in  Texts  and  Studies, 
vol.  iii 

F.  Weihrich  in  CSEl^  vol.  zii 

1886. 
Mai  Nov,  Patr.  BibL,  1852. 
W.  V.  Hartel  in  CSJSL,  vol.  xiv 

1886. 
F.  Oehler  Tert.  Omnia   Opera, 

1854. 
P.  Sabatier  BibL  Sacr.  Lat.  Vers. 

.  . .  1743- 
Dupin  Optatus  (App,\  1700. 


C.  Ziwsa  in  CSEL,  vol.  xxvi. 
P.  Sabatier  ^. «'/. 
Migne  PL,  xUu  U//.). 


C9iiim  FulgenHum  Donat. 
[Donatist  quotations] 
Quotations  from  S.  Augustine  have  been  omitted ',  as  they  are  probably 
not  of  much  help  in  determining  the  text  of  the  Old  Latin ;  it  is  true 
(tt  I  am  informed  by  Mr.  Burkitt,  in  a  private  communication)  that  all 
Kadiogs  which  he  stigmatises  as  '  African/  or  as  found '  in  some  codices,' 
have  a  good  chance  of  being  genuine  Old  Latin ;  but,  as  a  rule,  he  uses 
*  revised  text,  and  at  the  end  of  his  life,  he  sometimes  uses  the  Vulgate 
jtidf.  Lactantius,  Firmicus  Matemus,  and  Commodian  (here  I  am  again 
indebted  to  Mr.  Burkitt)  always  quote  from  the  Testimoma,  and  thus 
V^  no  independent  evidence ;  their  quotations  have  therefore  also  been 
omitted. 

Wherever  the  Codd.  Weing,  and  Wirceb.  are  available  they  form  tbe 
^  and  whenever  a  verse  is  found  in  any  other  authority  it  is  noted  in 

'  Notes  kindly  supplied  to  me  by  Mr.  C.  H.  Turner  have  furnished  some  correc- 
ts of  Hartd's  account  of  the  readingB  of  L. 

'  A  few  ezeepUona  to  this  will  be  found  in  some  quotations  from  ^ee,  (Aug.), 
wkicli  sppear  to  contain  early  elements. 


f8 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


the  AppanUus  Critkui^  unkss  the  quotation  is  word  for  word  the  saflJf 
as  the  Vulgate,  in  which  case  it  is  omitted  Where  the  Codices  fail,  the 
text  is  compiled^  as  far  as  possible,  from  the  various  quotations,  in  the 
order:  Cyprian,  Tyconius,  Speculom,  Lucifer,  ColL  Cartb,,  Fulgentios, 
Tertutlian.  The  sources  from  which  the  text  is  drawn  are  indicated,  is 
already  pointed  out.  in  the  margin ;  references  to  the  patristic  quotations 
employed  for  text  or  App,  Crit.  wOl  be  found  below  the  text. 

The  Apparatus  Criticus.  Besides  giving  the  variations  among  the 
Latin  authors,  the  App*  Crii,  also  gives  the  readings  of  the  Alexandrian 
Greek  Version  (G),  together  with  those  of  the  LMdamk  and  HesycMan 
recensions.  These  rccensons  are  indicalfid  respectively  by  l  and  K, 
which  stand  for  two  groups  of  MSS;  btxt  it  frequently  happens  that 
a  group  is  not  united,  and  that  therefore  the  MSS  have  to  be  indicated 
separately.  Generally  speakings  and  when  not  otherwise  signified,  % 
or  K  denote  the  whole,  or  the  decided  majority,  of  the  MSS  of  their 
group ;  where  one  or  two  of  the  MSS  differ  from  the  rest  of  the  group, 
the  witness  of  the  latter  is  not  r^arded  as  having  been  impaired. 

A  void  most  be  said  r^gvding  these  two^groaps  of  MSS*.  The 
fwfmmk  (li)  indtides  the  MSS  numbered  (Hoimes  and  Parsons)  aa,  36, 
[4»1  5*.  62,  95,  r47.  153,  185,  233;  of  these  22,  36,  51,  153,  [233] 
agree  very  dosely ;  4S,  233  are  to  some  extent  Hesychian,  and  r53  shows 
ft  good  number  of  individoal  readings  in  some  books,  but  this  applies 
also,  to  some  extent,  to  22,  which  is  uniretsaliy  recognized  as  genuinely 
Ludanic.  When  a  reading  is  supported  by  this  sub-group,  or  by  a  dis- 
tinct majority,  it  is  set  down  as  the  witness  of  the  Ludanic  recension. 
This  witness  'v&  frequently  supplemented  by  that  of  die  second  sub-group 
62,  147  *;  the  individual  character  of  these  two,  but  especially  of  62,  is 
strongly  marked,  but  both  very  oCten  support  the  first  subgroup.  A  third 
Lnciaruc  sub-group  consiste  of  the  MSS  95,  1S5  ;  these  two  also  show 
a  certain  amount  of  independeoce,  though  this  is  not  nearly  so  strongly 
marked  as  in  the  sub-grocp  62,  r47. 

The  MtsyMoM  recension  (K)  tnchides  die  fi)Ik]nrag  MSS : — Q  tSy 
49,  6S,  87^  9t|  106.  Here  there  is  greater  unanimity  among  the  MSS, 
thoQgb  subgroups  nia^  be  disttngntsfaed.  Q  26  osualiy  agree  i  6S,  87, 
91  iam  a  distxnci  sobgiroop ;  to6  shows  the  gr^test  individQaHty  of  the 
gronp,  while  49  abo  stands  a  httle  apart ;  this  Utter  is  in  close  agre^ 
ment  with  a  MS  regarfed  by  some  as  Hesychian  [yii,  23S  [=  97]]^  but 
wliidi,  fiior  reasons  given  cbewhere  *,  is  not  included  among  the  genuine 
MSS ;  it  is  only  with  hesttadon  that  49  has  been  induded 


I 


F«rMM  <^«r  tea*  ^At 
•  ForH 

•CXlfcewiitef^ 


of  these,  Ke  the  wnter^  5iiffw  at  tkt  Cnak  mad 

of  t&eae  two  IISSp  sec  Simdits^  pp.  9^15. 
pp.  9,  Ji-14, 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  79 

in  the  following  App.  Crit^  its  support  in  the  group  ^  is  often 
vantiDg. 

It  win  be  seen  from  the  above  that  the  signs  E  and  W,  when 
oocurring  in  App.  Critf  do  not  necessarily  include  all  the  MSB  of  the 
leoension,  though  this  is  of  course  generally  the  case.  To  give  the  indivi- 
dual evidence  of  each  member  of  the  groups  would  very  much  increase 
the  balk  of  the  App.  Crit,\  and  for  the  present  purpose  it  does  not  seem 
oeoessary  to  do  so,  because  what  is  here  aimed  at  is  to  give  the  general 
mdaia  of  each  recension  for  or  against  the  Old  Latin  texts. 

Finally,  readings  of  some  other  MSB  have  been  added  when  they  have 
nppoited  the  text ;  instances  of  this  ^lay  be  seen  in  e.g.  Mic.  iii  7,  10, 
Zq)h.  i  II,  13,  Hag.  ii  21,  &C. ;  other  authorities  quoted  under  similar 
drcamstances  are  the  Armenian  and  Slavonic  Versions  (H.  and  P.),  and 
the  Complutensian  and  Aldine  texts. 
The  following  is  the  notation  used : — 

OL  =  The  Old  Latin  Version. 
Cod.  tVeing,  =  Codex  Weingartensis. 
Cod.  Weing,  (F)  =  The  Fulda  fragment. 
Cod.  Weing,  (St)  =  The  Stuttgart  fragment. 
Cod,  Wirceb,  f»  Codex  Wirceburgensis. 
C  =  Cypriap. 
7*=  Tyconius. 

S  =  Speculum  (Pseudo-Aug.). 
5  (Aug.)  =  The  Speculum  of  S.  Augustine. 
L  —  Lucifer  Calaritanus. 
Tert,  —  TertuUian. 
Cc  =  Collatio  Carthaginiensis. 
F—  Contra  Fulgent.  Donat. 
®  =  The  Alexandrian  Greek  Version. 
®B  =  Codex  Vaticanus  (Swete's  edition). 
1.  =  The  Lucianic  recension. 
??  =  The  Hesychian  recension. 
Q  =  Codex  Marchalianus. 

(19  includes  Q  unless  otherwise  stated.) 
A  =  Codex  Alexandrinus. 
K  =  Codex  Sinaiticus. 
r  =  Codex  Cryptoferratensis. 
Arm.  =  The  Armenian  Version. 
Slav.  =  The  Slavonic  Version. 
Compl.  =  The  Complutensian  text  of  the  LXX. 
Aid.  =  The  Aldine  text  of  the  LXX. 
Vulg.  =  The  Vulgate  (ed.  Vercellone,  Romae  1861). 
The  order  of  the  books  follows  that  of  B. 


lanfad 

ct  erit  ubi 
qw  fill  dl  viTl,  "  CI 
et  paoct  stbl  toitiiiA 

dOectt^ 
qnn  haec  non 
fbmicationeni 

'Sic 


L  I.  la  dUbm .  . .]  >r  A«7m  Kapiwr  m  tfofif  iqpat  (Wf«  vwr  rm  Bt^^  S  lift 
a.  et  dixk  dai  ad  Omc]  ««•  »  «7  91  te]  cm  6  E 1^  h   Gook)]  Foj^^ 

61]^  4.  Isrmhcl  i*]  l«0^fX  fi  Iw^mX  St  Im^irvM.  (j«^  ^6«0  49  U9§faA 

(me  mfm)  92  147  U{fiO>t\  153  I<CS^(uA  M  96  4«  SI  «8  87  91  95  104  285  9^ 
Unlie]  a*]  k^MX  S  1 1^  etaTCrt»n]Mi«E3^C«<r49)  5.  didt  daa] 

»m  S  1.  ^  sacttum  arcta]  ro  T^«r  S  1*  H  Isndiel  i*]  l«v^a«A  S  1,  i| 

«.  dixit:  ^  awrm  fi  1. 19         dms]  <mm  S  86  48  95  18S  ttt  Ife  7-  filus]  filios  5 

todAe]  ludM  5  OfN  S^  1,  H  CA«6  ^  coram]  ipsoffum  S  bello]  ^  ov8f  cf 

ofi^fftM  88  ^7  91  Q*  (o«8«  tr  9^tf>m  Q^  cwt  mt t  «r  ap/minv  28  36  49  106  8.  oon 

dflcctun]  njr  ovk  jjXtijugwipr  G  l  (tit  15$)  J^  CODC  *pit]  •«•  «ft  S  1 1^  9*  dms] 
o«M  6  36  48  95  185  233  ^  ipsi]  am  0  I  H  la    ncquc  mettri] 

Au  err  IN  om/  et  erit]  erit  eoim  C  ofai]  qao  loco  C  dictum  ruerit] 

dJcetur  C  vos]  om  C  S  32  86  48  S93  !(  vocabantur]  ^  OJo  loco  C  /r 

«Mi  32  ^6  /r  avTM  »«  61  ^  cm  ovroi  106  ipst]  o»n  CE  It.   ludfte] 

J^  «  mo$  IE  1. 3^  ponet}  tfi^^orro*  6r  1^  1^  ascendet]  ara/S^fforra*  G  1,  || 

Iirahel  a*:  K/ncX  6  iL  )^   l«ff/«fA  Q  62  87  1471 

II.  1.  non  est  uxor  mem]  17  fnrnjp  fiov  (cotr.  ah  at  m.  ut  m  Ed,)  106  4-  Mn  117 
fum]  om  fi  E  (MX-  51)  |E}         eltis  a  Ukdt  mem^  ct  adaltcnuo]  om  %%         «diiltenuD] 


^^^^^^^■^        NOTES   AND    STUDIES  8i  ^H 

m     MX  dispoliem  earn  nudam  et  constituam  sicut  dies  nativitatis  eius,  Corf.  t¥infk 
I      et  ponam  sicut  desertam,  et  statuam  earn  sicut  terrain  sine  aquam  et 
4  ocddam  earn  et  sitim  tilei.     *  Filiis  eius  noa  miserebor  quia  filii 
L   i  fomicaiionis  sunt,  '  quia  fomicata  est  mater  ipsorum,  confusa  est 
I     quae  peperit  eos»  quia  dixit,  ibo  post  amatores  nieos  qui  dant  mihi 

■  pane  et  aquam  meam,  vestimenta  mea  et  linteamina  mea,  vinculum 

■  6  meum  et  oleum  et  omnia  quecuiiique  mihi  necessaria  sunt.  •  Propter 
I  hoc   ecce  ego   saepio  viam   eius   in  sudibus  et  ei  aedificabo  vias 

■  7  eius  et  semitam  suam  non  inveniet.  ^Et  persequetur  amatores 
H  suos,  et  non  conpraehendet  eos»  et  queret  et  non  inveniel  eos,  et 

■  dicet,  ibo  et  revertar  ad  virum  meum  priorem,  quia  bene  mihi  tunc 
I  t  erat  quam  modo,     '  Et  ipsa  non  cognovit  quia  ego  dedi  ei  triticum 

■  et  irinum  et  oleum,  et  pecunias  multiplicavi  et,  ipsa  autem  argentea  et 
I  9  aurea  fecit  huic  bahal,     •  Propter  hoc  convcrtam  et  auferam  triticum 

■  meum  in  tempore  suo  et  vinum  meum  et  oleum  meum  in  tempore 
I  luo,  et  auferam  vestimenta  mea  et  lintiamina  mea  ut  non  cooperiat 
I  to  turpttudinem  suam.     ^^  Et  nunc  denudabo  spurcitiam  eius  in  con- 

■  11  spectu  amatorum  eius  et  nemo  enpiet  earn  de  manu  mea,  *'  et  avertam 

■  omnes  iucunditates  eius  dies  festos  et  numenias  et  sabbata  eius  et 
I  11  omnes  mercatus  eius^  "et  exterminabo  vineara  eius  et  ficeta  eius, 
P       quoniam  dixit  raerces  hae  meae  sunt  quas  dederunt  mihi  amatores 

mei,  et  ponam  earn  in  testimonium  et  comedent  earn  bestiae  agri  et 
'3  volatilia  caeli  et  repentia  terme»  "  et  ulciscar  super  earn  dies  bahalim 

■  in  quib.  sacrificavit  ei  et  inponebat  sibi  inaures  suas  et  ornamenta  sua 

p    18  '*  Et  disponam  illis  in  ilia  die  testamentom  cum  bestiis  agri^  et  cum  Spicuhtm 

voUtiUbus  caeli,  et  cum  serpentibus  terrae 

33**         .         .         •         Vocabo  non  populum  meum  populum  meum  CypHan, 

■  el  non  diJcctum  dilectum.        ....... 

m      II  M.  Tcrt.  Adv.  Marc.  120,  V4         II  18.  Spec,  caiv         11  23.  Cjpr.  Testim.  i  19 

^avn;«61,|^  3.  constituam] +atfn7v  ®  1,  J|}  dies]  fv  i^^ffMi  51  $2  147 

^^5  <v  f^frt^t  *.>5  ISA  ponam]  ^  avrriv  ^1L^  ct  &it!m  mei]  9¥  S(^«i  €&  E  H 

-«^    Filiisl  pr  mm  ^  E  ^  5.    ibo]  ottaKovOr^oto  26  iW  lOti  233  {A)  pane] 

""^P^^  C&  H  |l(  aquam  ineam]  +  irai  top  <hvov  fAov  jrai  ro  tktuov  ^ov  Sd  40         ct 

^oteamina  in«a]  iww  0  otvof  ftov  OS^hnrat  rov  ot¥ov  >ww  87  106  +  *ai  rov  oifc*-  Q*  ("w> 

"^incttluni  meum]  om  Ct  E  JQ         6.  ei]  om  S  E  )t2  7*  queret]  +  aurovr  ®  E  1^ 

^L   et  pecunias]  +itm  xpvoiof  E  (*xc  48  238)  Q^  "^  huic  bahal]  tt;  Ban\  ffi  E  |^ 

^Tir  fi.  22  51)  9,  ci  oleum  meum]  om  <!5  E  jl^  {ixc  4^)         1 1.  dies  festos]  ^  eius 

Ttrl  avTi7f  G  E  91  ^y*  «««  iracras  Trts  &5  185         numenias]  neomcrtias  TVit+aimyj 

^  E  Bl         eius  i**]  om  Ttrt        mcrcatun]  caeremonias  Ttrt  12,  quoniam]  wf<x 

<IS  E  1^        et  ponam  cam]  mxi  Bfjffofuu  avra  61  E  |^  i*xc  26)        earn  a°]  nvra  fS  E  |^ 

(mv  86)  13'  ei]  avrms  B  E  (fv  ovTOir  62  147)  ft  23.  VocalK*  .  .  .]  «a* 

«>««i|a«  (tAfifffw  E  J^)  rip  Ov«  TiyawijfMt^v  mxt  tpai  rw  0«  Aoai  /40v  Aaot  /to*  «(  ffv 

•m 

VOL.  V.  C 


rufHim 
4  j»x)gU4n.  buperuktiioent.    '  Ifican»  ttna  logdaxt  cam  nntversis  tnn^bs 

feui^  cuic  beslMS  a^  citiD  scrpcotibos  tenae,  cum 
4  el  <idident  pisoes  msm.     *  Vt  nemo  mdioet  nemo 


sanguinffi 


cadi 


'3 


poio  etflub.« 


i»<^^'<ai«r«liz. 


i4  ''El  oon  iiinfiiiriiiffiimrr  fiUu fettta^ exan  k 
nurus  yeftns  cmpmiitgit  quia  ipBi  cmn  iamtcsriB 
et  cuiu  pro«tiuiUs  aacrifiaifaant,  et  imfiiilBE  qni  -non 
i£  C'  rijiatur  cum  fomicaiia.     ^Tu  aniSBk  Iwnrtifl  DaiE 

c  ah  lutratre  iii  Galgaia,  ct  oolite  jmijimIiih.  in  donmiD  Og  et 

j6  ooii  luiaic  per  vivum  dtJm  dm.     **  Quia  stent  vacca 
1 1  Iftialiel  nunc  pasctn  eos  dins  tamqoam  agnos  id  ktioaa 
1%  suaulacruf  uw   EphreiD  posuit  sibi   scandaK   *  de^ 

firopior  quod  tawcati  autt  ^^'*-«'""*  %noiiiia^  ex  frenuBi  sua 


ly  '*  Haec  cooveisio  ips  tu  cs  in  innnis  dam  a  cunfurtdeuir  ex 


altuAji^^ 


V.  t  Aud^u;  ua/ec,  aaiceraotet^  ci  aotpndai  dcmiis  iandid :  et 
i€^  pngb^m  aueea  qmn^am  MwiiMU  ^poi  ok  wwliiium 
■ripwPMm  lacti  Mlia  ipciciocae  in  Tiotatiooe  et  sicut  retia  extensa  in 
t  ttatum  in  se,  *qtiam  qui  venaotuf  con&tenint  bestiam,  ego  autem 
I  cruditQr  venter  »um.  '  Ego  cooovi  Ephrem  et  Israhel  recessit  a  me 
|irupUfr  4uod  nunc  fomicalui  est  Ephre  et  contaminatus  est  Israhel 

IV  1-4*   Cy(ir.  Tutim.  Ifl  47}  Ad  Dtmti,  U  V  1.  Luctf.  CaL  Dt 

A4kmn.  i  15 

IV.  «.  f^tiMTiliu]  am  0  a  P) 
M  Mifttt  IM)  <ifu«|pw«9tf « ra*  Q 


3.  lugcbit]  <f  wu  /;iiKpi;»^<rfT«i  C&  H  |^  i^crii 

cum  J*  4*]  ^'^  «v  ^  1L  1^  14-  ««^ 

(F)  qui   non   inlcUeg^Mitur]  o  giwy 

Q"^  15-  Og]  nr  a  «i  4«  a 

M.)  iM  sn  f^  vft 


I 


It  «^  )il  Ifti  rf»  aliMi  (^  i«  8fi  60  07  (91  wUb't  0*'  1 
4»  ««i   Ml  iMiJ  w  AEII  16.   Qtt 

(  WI1HPX**'''*  •*!  li  Jiir,  MM 

«  E  1        »w»'  wMi*  {^  v«*^^  ;;-  «>  n  M  ^  4f  $1  lOi  l»  S» 

V.  ^  AiKaaBkaBCi>.:cif»^i«a<4    in  toi  j ■liiiit^t 


m 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


83 

f^Non  dederunt  cogitationes  suas  uti  oovertantur  ad  dom,  quoniam  Cod.  Wintb, 
$sp5  fomicationis  in  eis  est,  dom  autem  non  cognovemnt.  ^Sed 
humiliabitur  iniuria  Israhel  in  faciem  eius ;  Israhel  et  Ephraera 
infirmabuntur  in  iniustitiis  suis  et  infirmabuntur  et  lydas  cum  eis. 
6 'Cum  ovibus  et  vitulis  ibunt  exquirere  dom  el  non  invenient  eym, 
)deveitit  enim  ab  eis;  "'quia  dom  dereliquemnt  quia  fili  aliidiati  sunt 
8  ab  eis  nunc  comedet  eos  erisybe  et  iluctus  earom.  *  Canite  de  tuba 
super  colles,  dnio  resonate  in  excelsis  domo  Og  et  expavit  Veniamin, 
5*Ephrem  in  exterminium  factus  est  in  diebus  arguitionis  in  tribubus 

10  Israhel  ibi  asiendil  credibilia :    ^^  Facti  sunt  principes  luda  trans- 
ferentes   terminos  super  eos  effundam  ut  aquam  impeluw  meum, 

ii"/nvaluit  Ephrem  in  adversarium  suum  co«culca%"it  iudiciuw  quia 

11  coepit  ire  post  vana.     *'  Et  ego  ero  sicut  conturbatio  Ephrem  sicut 
13 stimulus  domui  luda;  "et  vidit  Ephrew  infirmitatem  suam  et  ludas 

dolores  suos,  et  abiit  Ephrem  ad  Assyrios  et  misit  legates  ad  regem 
larim,  et  ipse  non  potius  liberare  eos  et  non  cessavit  ex  vobis  dolor. 
14** Quia  ego  ut  panthera  huic  Ephrem,  et  sicut  leo  domo  ludae  :  et 
Is  ego  rapiam  et  ibo  et  accipia(t)m  et  non  erit  qui  eruat.  ^Ibo 
et  convertam  in  locum  meum  /riorem  donee  exterrainentur  et 
querant  faciem  meam. 

VI.  1  In  tribulatione  sua  diluculo  vigilabunt  ad  me  dicentes,  eamus  et 

convertamur  ad  dom  diii  nostrum,  quia  ipse  laesit  et  salvaviV  nos, 

I'pOfit  viduum  et  in  tertia  die  resurgemus  et  vivtmus  in  conspectu 


V 15,  VI  I.  Tcrt.  yfrft/.  Marc,  iv  43 
6.  Tert.  Adv.  Jud.  xiil 


VI  I.  Cypr.  Ttsitm.  H  35 


VI  I,  a, 


rtctsait]  fir  ovtc  6r  H  )^         et  a'*]  orrt  QEr  H  j!^  4.  non  dedenint]  non  dabunt  S 

«i  convertmntur]  om  S         ad  dom  qiio(niam)]  «=  Cod.  Wting.  (F)  ad  doin  i**] 

tdeujD  suum  S  wpot  ror  6fov  avro^  ^  li  ]^  quoniam]  quia  5  in  eis  est]  Jn 

at^io  cCTum  S  {ttTTiv  tv  fxtffot  ttvran^  Com/fl)  5.  Sed]  urcu  IS  iL  $}  6.  dcvertit] 
/roTi  ^  1^  cnini]  omSf^  (hablL)  7.  dereliquerunt]  —  Cod.  IVfing.  [F)  sunt] 
•Vtryriitjaa^  ffi  «'  *'  Q'*"  22  86  46  49  61  68  87  91  238  tyfirtfijffat^  Q*  26  62  95  106  147 
15J  U5  ab  eis]  om  ab  G  IL  J^  («»  ovrcw*'  Georg)  et  iluctus  coram]  mou  rovs 

'^n^tm  ovTMr  G  I  (avTovs  238)  ^  {koi  tow  ttapvovi  atnaiv  26)  8.  super  collea]  bis 
Vfmtod  <Mo]omGl.)^  domo] /r  *7^i;£aT«  ©  U  J^ /r  «v  ©  E  ]5  (f vc  TOfr  w/r*uK 
W)         Of]  nir  «5  H  1^  {om  26)  ct]  om^lLfEt,  Veniamin]  Btv.  ©  E  J| 

9*  ibi]  oiM  15  U  J^  (f#«i  4d)  ro.  lyda]  +  w  ffi  iL  1^  la.  sicut  a**]  /^  wi  (K  IL  J^ 
(orBfi  1»5)  13.  dolores  sues]  tijk  c^mr^v  axnov  ©  H  |^  larim]  ^  H  J!^  {}cLpu0 
(?■  ^pifi  158)  non  potius]  ot/«  ijSvraatfij  G  48  49  68  106  liberare  eos]  ^MotKiBai 
^»^m  S2  Se  61  fwmff^  v^mt  01  t»  Q^  62  hi  {mg  aynmvi)  E»l  ^5  147  153  iKS  f^aaoQai 
V^MMvioi  v^ff  ^L  26  48  40  106  233  14.  ego]  ^  *m^lL'%  15.  pnorcm] 

**»€il|(  donee  externiinentur]  +  *oi  tfno-r ^%^o\yQi  22  86  51  95  (-«w*  147)  186  et 
V»«r*m]  ut  q.  Twrt 

Vi.  I.  diluculo]  ante  luceni  TiH  vigilabunt]  surgent  Ttrt         convertamur] 

''trtainur  C  salvavit]  vivificabil  Ccurabit  (a/sanabit)  Jrr/  nos]  +  jraraf« 

**<  mmu  ij^t  6  E  {ixc  62)  ^  2.  post]  pr  vfioau  tjt^as  ^JLJtt 


CM  mnt^ 


84  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

3  cius  *  et  cognoscemus  persequemur  ut  sciamus  dom  sicut  diluailfflB 
paratum  inveniemus  eum  et  veniet  nobis  sicut  pluvia  matutina  et 

4  serotina  terrae.     *  Quid  tibi  (aciam  Epbrem,  quid  tibi  faciam  luda, 
misericordia  autem  vestram  sicut  lux  matutina  et  sicut  ros  afft^ 

5  lucanum  eris.     '  Propter  hoc  dimensus  sum  propbetas  vestros  occidi 

6  eos  in  verbo  oris  raei  et  iudicium  meum  sicJrt  Aix  rriet     *  Quoniam 
misericordiam  volo  quam  sacrificium  et  agnttionem  dei  quam  bok>- 

7  cauUi.    ^  Ipsi   autem   sunt  ut  homo  /rasgrediens  testamentum  ibi 
8k  9  contempsit  me  *Galaad  civitas  operans  vana  turbans  aquam,  *eK 

fortitudo  tua  firi  piratae  absco/rdenim  sacerdotes  viam  ocdderui^t 
t9  Sidmam  quia  peccatum  fecerunt  *  in  doroo  IsrahcL   Vidi  horrendafli      1 
11  fomicationem  buius  Ef^rem  co^quinatus  est  Israbd  "et  lodas  inci(^ 
^ndemiare  tibi  ipsi  in  co  cum  conTertam  capdTiatan  popub  m^** 
VII.  I  et  in  eo  cum  saneai  lanbel  et  tefMbkm  iniiKtitisi  Ephrem  ^M 
SMJiua  S«mahae  quia  opemi  ant  mfndTJiMtt  et  lor  ad  *1 

l»4* .         .        «        pmdiKi  *adiiltei^ 

conbnst^ 
rotnoMe        «        .        .        ^        .        .        .        ct%DiiooBe^'t 

ct  oca  fiik  in  cis  qtii  iovocar^*^ 

n^yaeWd^qaoammmawBtLmmci  maiufesti  soot,  quia  peccaTexnnr 
i^oiHK  ^ct  naaduHivenm  jdraccocdibiissuis 

•«* iDlcnaA^TptL 

VIIL  I  In  SOM  MM  akM  imm  vdm  aqrih  m  dono  dS;   eo 
qpMxl  pcKTaricwciumt   mtHMMMn  aw  mm  *  ec  idvctsus  le^ciB 

9«QlM . 

w^ c tiiifiiiifc  s if «««ik  ^ •* "1     III  s m n (I        ■   K  1^ 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  85 

per  me,  priocipatum  egenint  et  nescierunt  me;  argentum  suum  et  C9d,Wik 
aimini    simm    feoeroiit  tibi    simulacra;   quemadmodum  ad  nihil 
I mdiganhir.    'Coniri  vitulum  tuum  Samaria:  exacervatus  est  furor 
-(mens  in  eos:  quo  usque  non  poterunt  mundari  *in  Istrabd:  et 
ipsom  hbo  fiedt ;  et  non  est  da ;  prop 

13 "  .        .        .  eorum ;  et  ulciscetur  peccata 

eorum;  ipsi  in  Aegyptum  redierunt,  et  inter  Assjrrios  immunda 

14  manducabunt    ^  Et  oblitus  est  Istrahel  qui  fedt  eum ;  et  aedifica- 
Terunt  templa,  et  ludas  replevit  civitates  muria  circumdatas,  et 
inmittam  ignem  in  civitates  ipsius,  et  comedet  iundamenta  eorum. 
IX.  I  Noli   gaudere  Istrabel,  neque  aepulari   sicut  populi  terrae; 
quoniam  fomicatus  es  a  do  tuo^  dilezisti  munera  in  omnem  messem 

1  tritid  '  et  area,  et  torcular  ignoravit  illos,  et  vinum  fefellit  eos. 

3 '  Non  inhabitaverunt  in  terra  dmi,  inhabitabit  Ephrem  in  A^;ypto 

4  et  inter  Assyrios,  inmunda  manducabunt  *  Non  libaverunt  d^ 
yinum  et  non  placuerunt  ei  victimae  eorum ;  sicut  panis  luctus  eius 
omnes  qui  manducaverunt  ea  coinquinabuntur ;  propter  quod  panes 

I  eorum  in  animas  eorum,  non  intrabunt  in  domum  dmL    '  Quid 

6  £udeti8  in  die  mercatus,  et  in  die  soUemne  d^  ?  *  Propter  hoc  ecce 
ibunt  ex  infdidtate  Aegypti,  et  suscipiet  eos  Memphis  et  sepelivit 
eos  Machmas ;  argentum.  eorum  interitus  possidebit,  et  spinae  in 

7  tabemaculis  eorum.  ^  Venerunt  dies  ultionis  tuae,  venerunt  dies 
perditionis  tuae  et  male  tractabitur  Istrahel,  sicut  profetes  qui 
eztitit  homo  spiritalis,  a  multitudine  iniquitatum  tuarum  repletus 

$  insaniae.    '  Inspectus  Efrem  cum  deo  profetes,  laqueus  pravus  in 

9  omnibus,  viis  ipsius.    Insaniam  in  domo  dei:  confixerunt  *corrupti 

sunt :  secundum  dies  collis  memor  erit,  dabitur  iniustitia  eorum  et 

10  ulciscetur  peccata  eorum.    ^  Sicut  uvam  in  deserto  inveni  Istrahel 

et  sicut  speculam  in  arborem  ficus ;  mane  vidi  patres  ipsorum,  ipsi 

introierunt  ad  Beelph^or,  et  alienati  sunt  in  confusionem  et  facti 

IX  4.  Cypr.  EpitL  facviis ;  Sp§e.  xlvi ;  ColL  Carth.  Gmia  cdviU 

ngem  coasdtiientiit  C  13.  et  inter  Asqrrios  immunda  Bumducabunt]  am  f{ 

14.  eomai]  cvrev  ^A 

IJL  X.  terrae]  mm  flr  1#  |Q  (Aa6  Arm.)  a  dO  tiio]  avo  Kvpiov  rov  9tm  tfov  1, 

fl,  eC  1*3  (MM  ft        4.  vicdmae]  aacrificia  CS  Ce       eios]  ovrocf  6r  1#  fi(        omnes] 
omnia  Ce  mandocavenint]  manducant  C  5  tetigerit  Cc         ea]  ex  eis  Gr  airr«r 

%  (cjor  36  4A  15S  3SS)  eoiaquinabuntur]  contaminabontur  C  5  inqoinabitur  Ce 

fukm>0iftri0nu  62  147  61.  poesidebit]  -i-  ovro  ft  %  {exc  51 153  233)        et  spinae] 

CM  I K  (A#»  ft  Compl)  eormn  a*]  om  ft  1.  IQ  {habBf^  Q)  7.  tuae  i«] 

OMft9)         ioaaiiiae]^««»ft||{(Mv91)Kacc36  95  153)  8.  del]  cvpunr 0 

26  49  106-l-aimw  36  51  62  05  147  135-^«wr«r  153  npm  233  9.  dabitur]  om 

ft  1,  IK  eorum  1*]  wnm  ^  ct  nldaceturj  mm  26  om  et  ft  1^  ||(car  106) 

eonim  a*]  cnrrmr  f|{ 


86  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

fd^  W«ittg.{f)  tt  sunt  qui  cranl  dilecti  sicut  abominandl     "Efrem  sicut  avis  eTokbft 
gloria  eorum  :  ex  usuris  et  ex  iniquitatibus :  et  ex  conceptlonibus ; 
11  ^' propter  quod  si  enutrierint  filios  suos,  sine  filis  erunt,  ab  hominibiis, 

13  propter  quod  \*ae  illis  est  caro  mea  ex  ipsis.  ^  Efrem  quemadmoduoi 
vidi  in  bestiam  adstiterunt  filios  suos,  et  Efrem  ut  produceret  in  con- 

14  fixionem  filios  suos;  **da  Illis  dme,  quid  dabis  illis  ;   da  illis  volvam 

15  quae  nalos  noo  procreel  et  mamillas  ahdas;  '*et  omnes  malitiae 
illorum  in  Galgala,  quia  ibi  illos  odivi  propter  magnas  adinventiones 
ipaorom,  de  domo  mea  eiciam  eos>  non  adictam  ut  diligam  eos, 

16  omnes  principes  eorum  incredibiles.  "  Doluit  Efrem,  radices  ei^^ 
ftiefactae  sunt,  et  fiuctum  non  adferet,  propter  quod  etsi  generaverint 

1 7  occidam  desideria  ventrium  eorum.  ^  Abiciet  illos  ds  quoniam  no^ 
obaudierunt  eum  »  et  erunt  errantes  inter 

^todmm     X.  I  Vinea  in  maceria  bona  Israhel,  fiuctus  eius  uberrimus  secunduoc* 
multitudinem  fructuum  suorum.     .         .         .         *. 
4  et  orietur  sicut  gram  en  iudidum  in  incultum.  ...         * 
DiiteMM    ^  •  et  vinctum  eum  ducent  xenium  regi 

O]^**^  XL  0  Non   fiieiaixi  iuxta  iram  tndignattonis  meae,  noo  sinam  deleri 

Efrem»  quoniam  Deus   ego  stiiD»  et   non   homo  in  te   samctus,  et 

to  non  introibo  in  dvitatem,  '*po6t  Deum  ibo  .... 

XIL  J  Iudidum  Domini  ad  ludam  ut  vindicet  in  lacob  secundum 

3  vias  dus,  .  .  .  secundum  studia  dos  retiibuet  ei     ' ...   In  utero 

4  supplantaTit  fiatrem  suum  et  in  Idioribiis  suis  iBTilmt  ad  Deum,  ^  et 
invaluit  cum  angdo  et  poteos  foctoi  est  ...  in  temple 
meo  me  inTenemnt,  et  iUic  dispcitatim  ctt  ad  eos.      .... 

X  T.  S^.  cadi        X  4.  Sftc.  exhr       Z  4  Tert.  Adm,  Mmw.  iw  ^         XI  9^  iol 
Cypr.  r«i«»t.ii6  XU  s^  TycoiL  Jilir,  S|^  XII  4.  Tett^^  Jtor; 

tv39 


fi#««l|^  in  jroiitets«odniei«««]>lb>t* n  .,„E  14.^ 

OKs  j^  a«  M  a  147  tSt  15.   et]  «.  Sl.]|  ki   GdMal   <r 

tstss  L    J     * 


aaoj  mvmm^DM  ^mttr  mmm  fm  A  m  ym  m»  fir  m»  E  C»  Or  ^ 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  87 

^   ^  Chanaan .CotLWtimg.^ 

^    ^        .        .        .        *    .        .        .        tabemaculis 

'•    *        .        .        .        "•        •        •        vjt  Istrahel  in      . 

^CIII.  I bahalim  et  mor 

^    <•        •        .        .        ' .        .        .        sicut  pulvis    .... 

"^    .        .  *ego  autem  Dominus  Deus  tuus  qui  firmo  caelum  et  SptaUum 

creo  terrain  cuius  manus  creaverunt  omnem  militiam  caeli  et  non 

ostendi  tibi  ut  ires  post  ilia        .        .        .        saluet  non  est  praeter  Cod,  Wtmg, 

^  ^  me.    'Ego  pavi  te  in  deserto  in  terra  inhabitabilis,  'secundum  pascuas 

illorum ;  et  repled  sunt  in  abundantia,  et  exaltata  sunt  corda  eorum, 

>  propter  hoc  obliti  sunt  mei.    ^£t  ero  illis  sicut  panthera  et  sicut 

^  pardus  secundum  viam  Assyriorum ;  '  occurram  eis         ... 

clusionem  cordis  eorum,  et  edent  illos  ibi  catuli 

S  silvae,  et  bestiae  agri  disrumpent  eos.    *  Corrupdonis  tuae  Istrahel 

^o  quis  erit  adiutor  ?    ^  Vbi  est  rex  tuus  hie  ipse  salvum  te  faciat,  et  in 

omnibus  dvitatibus  tuis  iudicet  te,  quem  dixisti  da  mihi  regem  et 

^i  principem.    *'£t  dedi  tibi  regem  et  .        .        ne  mea, 

^a  et  habuisti  in  impetu  tuo.    "  Collectionem  iVulvstitiae  "Ephrem  tf^scon- 

13  ditum  peccatum  eius ;  *'  dolores  parturientis  venient  ei,  hie  filius 
tuus  sapiens,  propter  quod  nunc  non  restabit  in  contribulatione 

14  filiorum  tuorum.  '*  De  manu  inferorum  eruam  eum  et  a  morte 
liberabo        .        .        .     ubi  est  stimulus  tuus  infeme  ?    Consolatio 

15  absc^fisa  est  a3  oculis  meis:  "propter  quod  hie  inter  fratres  sepa- 
ravit  Inducet  dms  ventum  candentem  a  deserto  super  eum,  et  exsic- 
cavit  venas  eius,  desertos  fadet  fontes  dus,  ipse  perexsiccabit  terram 

XIV.  I  dus,  et  omnia  vasa         .        .        .        ^ 

quia  restitit  dmo  suo;  in  gladio  deddent  et  sugentes  mamillas 

2  illorum  defodientur,  et  pregnates  eorum  disrumpentur.    '  Revertere 

Istrahd  ad  dom   dm  tuum,  propter  quod  infirmatus  es  iniqui- 

XIII  4.  Spte.  zliv  XIV  a,  3.  5/«c  xziii 

XIII.  X.  bftfaalim]  ny  BaoX  ft  ^  (ixe  i9  rw  B.)  rw  B.  1,  (mw  158  88S  ny  B.) 
8.  et  bestiae]  OfM  et  ft  JQ  9.  quis  erit  adiutor]  -t-  <roi  02  91  (aupm  Im  ab  al  m) 
95  147158  185  10.  ipse]  cbi  l]^  eti«]om]«i|  iudicet] /r «m  1, 
II.  et  babnisti]  aai  w^mxo^  Q^  22  (86^  ab  al  m  ut  m  Ed)  51  62  68  (87  scrw^x'o^) 
95  147  158  185  SOI  wyw  &  26  48  49  91 106  288  in  impetu  tuo]  «r  rw  Bvpim  futv 
ft  I  |l{  («r  Tw  0.  vow  180  811)  la.  collectionem]  avorpofif  %  ffvoTpo^ijr  ft  |^ 
(cxr  49  87)  peccatum]  oSuna  20  86  49  51  95  106  185  attaprta  ft  0  22  48  62  68  87 
91 147  158  288  13.  parturientis]  /r  m  ft  E  ft  sapiens]  cv  <pf(mt/im  Q* 
nunc]  om  ft  f|  C  tuorum]  om  ft  |Q  14.  eum]  ovrovf  M,  {txe  158  ovrov) 
om  ft  it  (exe  Q  26  ovrovf)  et]  om  26  49  106  288  15.  super  eum]  cv 
avTovt(^91 

XIV.  I.  deddent]  ■¥  wna  ftj^  (om  Q^)  %  a.  propter  quod]  quia  5 
iniqnitatibas  tuis]  per  iniquitates  tnas  5  <y  tois  a8ur.  tfov  ft  1,  ]^ 


68  THE  JOURNAL    OP   THEOLX>GICAL   STUDIES 

Otd.  Wtmg.    3  talibas  tttis.    '  Adgmntle  mtjauiui  moltos^  et  cotnrertiiiiini  ad  dom 

tere  peccata,  ita  ut   non  accipiatis 
^^^^  iniqiiitateiii,  sed  nt  Mcipiatk  bom,  et  retriboemus  fructum  laborim 

^^^H         4  neMtrorom  et  aepniabitiir  in  boms  oor  fMCftmni.    *  Assur  non  salvabit 
^^^H  nos,  in  equos  ooq  amcHdwitt,  iam  noa  dicemus  dE  nostri  estis 

■5?^^  c^eribus  mantunn  

Sptcuhtm    6  .        .        *.        Florici  ot  HUmn,  ct  mittet  radices  suas  sicut  thus. 
7  ^  extendeottir  Tami  fllras,  et  eiit  vdat  oUra  fmctifera,  et  odor  eios 

ficut  ihuris 

9  • ct  ego  confinnabo  eum  sicut  iunipemm 

niatiirescens :  ez  me  inventus  est  (hictus  tuus. 

XIV  6-^.  Sfmc  OUT 

3.  Somite  Tobiseam  mulios  et  eoBveitisiUii  ftd  Dominam  Deum  veatriiai.  Didte 
Uli :  poieos  es  dimitlere  peccala,  ut  acdputis  booa  S  muttos]  X«7ovf  6f  !« 
(62  147  Aoytvi  voAAot^}  ]^  sed  ut  accipiatit]  Km  KafiifT§  ft  H  et  &epaI|U>itur 

in  bonis  cor  vestruta]  0m  ft  2,  ;esr  icoi  trrpaf^u  cw  aya#oif  ij  (fv^^  "tf""  6^  cadeffl 
oiisi  17  ca^&a  w>iftrr  147^  |Q  (W  —  Cod,  mai  17/aMr  /ro  trjMir)  9.  ego]  Orti  ft  Q^ 

(hat  Q**"^}  ^  {*xcU  49  IW)        5iciit]/re^  ft  (?^  l2 


A  RE-COLLATION   OF  CODEX  k  OF  THE  OLD 
LATIN   GOSPELS  (TURIN   G  VII  15), 


The  following  notes  are  the  fruit  of  some  da3rs'  study  which  I  devoted 
in  the  spring  of  1902  to  the  liny  volume  which  alone  preserves  to  us  the 
primitive  form  of  any  considerable  portion  of  the  original  Latin  version  of 
the  Gospels,  It  is  this  unique  importance  which  must  be  my  justification 
for  going  back  upon  work  which  has  already  been  thoroughly,  if  not 
quite  exhaustively,  done  by  Tischendorf  and  Bishop  Wordsworth :  the 
edition  with  which  I  worked,  and  to  which  these  notes  refer,  is,  of  course, 
that  in  Old  Latin  Biblical  Ttxh  ii  (Oxford  1886),  pp.  3-53.  The  list 
which  now  follows  represents,  with  one  considerable  exception,  the 
whole  of  the  notes  which  I  made ;  but  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary 
to  swell  this  list  with  details  about  the  abbreviations  of  the  *  nomina 
«acra'  (which  would  not  always  be  quite  easy  to  represent  in  type), 
seeing  that  they  will  be  sufficiently  discussed  in  Dr.  Traube's  forth- 
coming treatise  on  that  subject. 

Since  these  notes  were  first  put  into  type,  I  have  had  the  opportunity 
of  seeing  the  notes  which  my  friend  Mr.  F.  C.  Burkitt  has  made  of  the 
same  MS :  and  in  order  to  save  the  space  of  the  Journal,  the  agree^ 


A 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


of  Mr.  Burkitt  and  myself  in  making  the  same  correction  is  signified 

ithe  following  notes  by  the  initial  B.    In  all  such  cases  the  result  of  our 

iependent  labour  raay  I  hope  be  taken  as  definitive. 

i.  la:  the  heading  is  cata  matth  [not  cata  marc,  as  Wordsworth, 
pp.  vii,  xi]. 
I  7  the  space  appears  to  require  farisaei,  which  is  the  regular 
spelling  of  the  scribe  elsewhere,  Marc,  viii  15,  xii  13, 
Matt.  V  20,  vii  39,  Ix  11,  14,  xii  2,  14,  34,  38,  [not,  as 
Tischendorf,  farisei],  B. 
2a L  7  bestaida  m.  i,  bedsaida  m.  3  [not  m.  3]:  cf,  on  fol.  790 
1.  10  bessalda.  It  is  extraordinary  to  notice  how  often 
the  first  hand  raiswrites  a  familiar  proper  name  of  the 
Gospel  story  :  cf.  e.  g.  in  these  notes  foil  18  a  I  6  scribae 
(feribat),  37^  1.  8  caluariae  (galliariae),  44(1  1,  7  mariam 
(maxriam  ?),  48  ^  I  2  sadduceis,  73  a  1.  i  lebbaeus 
(iebbacus),  74a  1,  6  sodome  (sodocie?),  77^  L  10 
iohane  :  the  most  natural  explanation  would  almost  seem 
to  be  that  the  scribe  was  a  pagan  \  His  worst  errors 
are  as  a  role  corrected  by  the  contemporary  m.  2,  who 
acts  throughout  as  a  diorthota. 
a  H  3  iterum :  the  -um  is  in  ligature,  though  not  at  the  end  of 
the  line.  B. 
L  12  aule  .  .  .  erunt  illi  .  .  .  es,  is  all  that  is  absolutely  clear 
in  this  line.  Fleck's  autem  responderunt  is  too  long  for 
the  first  lacuna;  Wordsworth's  illi  omnes  is  too  short 
for  the  second.  The  indications  had  already  led  me  to 
suspect  the  true  reading  to  be  autem  dixerunt  illi 
dicentes  when  I  noticed  that  the  Greek  too  has  ol  8* 
furac  aifT^  XcyonTf  r.  B. 
1.  14  quida  .  .  .  elian  alii  vere,  is  all  I  could  make  out  in  this 
line :  but  the  space  seemed  quite  sufiicieni  for  quidam 
autem  helian,  and  our  scribe  writes  helias  elsewhere, 
Marc,  ix  4,  5,  11,  12,  13;  xv  35,  36;  Matt,  xi  14. 
[Wordsworth  quidam  autem  eliam  alii  uere.]  It  is  true 
that  scribes  are  not  always  consistent  with  themselves  in 
such  matters :  e.  g.  the  fifth-century  fragment  of  Cyprian 
de  op€re  et  clemosynis^  Turin  G  v  37,  uses  both  helias 
and  elias. 

3^1  5     eis  dicere  m.   1,  eos  docere  m.  2.     The  correction  may 
possibly   be  prima  manu\    it   is  not  always  easy  to 

•I  b  perhaps  worth  noting  in  this  connexion  that  in  Marc,  xv  35  be  writes 
uocAt  for  belinn  uocat.     Sec  Mr.  Burkitt's  paper  in  the  Expositor^  Feb.  f  B^, 


JOCKXAL  or  THEOUMaCAI.  STUDIES 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  91 

a  corruption  of  et  introibit  ad  mulierem  rather  than  et 
haerebit  ad,  as  given  by  Dr.  Sanday  on  pp.  cxxix,  cxliii : 
the  true  text  (KB  syr-sin)  omits  the  words  altogether, 
and  the  addition  in  k  appears  to  be  independent  of  the 
addition  in  the  majority  of  our  witnesses. 
IbLioH  I     doxerit  (Le.  duxerit)  is  ro.  3 :  B.    The  spelling  would  be 
enough  to  show  this. 
L  4    m.  I  certainly  super  illos.    B. 
L  9    poeros  m.  i,  pueros  m.  3,  I  think, 
fol  iiaL  5    optume  ut  uid,  m.  i ;  opteme  [not  optome]  m.  3.    B. 
L  9    dom"  m.  i :  des  [not  deus]  m.  3. 
1.  14  iele  {sc  ille)  m.  3. 

an!  m.  i,  corrected  to  eni  in  scribendo. 
foLi3aL8    the  line  is  very  difficult  to  decipher,  but  instead  of  quae 
uen|tura  I  read  quae  illi  fujtura:   there  are  sufficient 
indications  of  illi  (cf.  Gr.  ovrf ),  and  what  may  be  the 
tail  of  f  is  visible,  while  uen|tura  would  (after  illi)  take  up 
too  much  room,  and  there  are  no  traces  of  any  super- 
scribed line  for  uejtura. 
foL  13H  7    apparently  et  annus  a  sinistra  [not  et  unus  a  sinistra] :  B. 
Cf.  foL  22  a  \,  12  quiannus  est  dom,  for  quia  unus  est 
IL  13, 14  ilis  is  supplied  by  m.  3  at  the  end  of  1.  13  solely, 
I  believe,  because  the  illis  of  L  14  was  already  too  much 
rubbed  to  be  legible, 
fol- 14^1 6    illi  dignare  (for  indignare)  m.  i :  B.    See  above  on  foL 

foL  15a  L  2    animo**sta :  there  is  room  for  either  one  or  two  letters. 
L  6    ante  me  dixit  m.  i :  m.  2  wrote  u  over  n,  but  omitted  to 

erase  the  second  e. 
foL  15^  1. 2    apparently  puUon  [not  pullum]. 

I  14  aui  autem  ut  uid.  [not  alii  autem]  m.  i :  B.     Perhaps  he 

meant  a  uia.    Alii  m.  3. 
foL  i6flL  14  m.  I  had  written  neither  f  (in  fici)  nor  b  (in  arborem),  but 

apparently  sicarhorem.     Burkitt  reads  it  scaphorem  or 

scaf  horem ;  this  suggests  (rvKo^pav^  but  the  resemblance 

is  I  suppose  a  mere  accident. 
loL  16^].  II  m.  I  cum  menses  (sc  cum  mensis).    B. 
^^i%a\,6    scribae  is  not  the  original  writing,  but  apparently  feribat 

[Burkitt's  ferebat  is  I  expect  right] 
wL  19^1.  8    in  factums :  probably  a  corruption  of  ille  factus,  see  above 

on  fol.  9^1.  3. 
loLaoai.  9    in  ueritatem  is  not  m.  i  but  m.  2 :  m.  i  wrote  honestatem 

(without  in).    B. 


THE    JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


1.  14  the  superposed  mark  is  not  over  a,  but  over  s,  andisfJC 
doubt  meant  as  a  mark  of  erasure.     B. 
;  1 1  ^  1. 1     resurrexcrint  is  not  the  original  writings  which  was  apparently 
recsrcxerint :  Burkitt  makes  it  re[']spcxerint  a  mortem, 
U  15  cum  [not  cum]  m,  i :  cum  m,  5,     B. 
IbL  i3tf  U.  91,  to  maius  his  a|hu$  [not  a^alius,  as  Wordswoitb]. 

L  14  omntb  m.  2,  not  m.  i :  m.  i  does  not  (I  think)  use  th^ 
abbreviation  b^bos,  except  at  the  end  of  a  line,  anJ- 
appaicntly  wrote  either  onoih  or  omnil  [Burkitt  read^ 
il  omms,  which  is  probably  i^g^]. 
Iblta^i  to  addexteramea^  [not  a  deciefa  mea].     B. 

L  14  et  ande  est  [not  et  ande  et]. 
lbLi3«L5    et  sesskmeni  [Dot  et  sessMaon} 

I  it  qMNDodo  [not  qwMBoda]. 

idl  a^^  1 1^  nott  nax  be  ceased  (•oWardswoctfa)  or  may  be  only  rubbed : 

in  this  MS  it  ts  oIm  very  dttolt  to  ditti^ganii  accidental 

iaLa4iilj  ctpiMtnnlMM  •iiBa>Mt(arafcq<«attbitigsipeiiianibus: 
Ihii  fPiiiii^  aoKes  a  dKoii^  ia  C^pdaa  Tb/L  i  15 
(HmmI  49. 1 7)— llie  niaiiiai  AcR  ^Qold  nm  on  with 
file  fHQoediig  Saa,  wmd  1^  whoie  of  lines  15-1 7  should 
be  ufaaed  to  Maac  am  a»  and  so^  as  by  UarteL  to 

L5    to  toaaieto  [aot  aa  toaaaaa^  c£  llatc  ix  ji  tm  manoa, 
tan^ia    bdkito.t    3»/Lt«y:mt: 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  93 

fol  266  L  9    m.  3  adds  in  mat^'n  sues  {sc  electos  suos)  t  avrou  is  read 
within  brackets  in  Westcott-Hort.     B. 
L  14  soli  adgnoBci  (»/  uid.)  m.  x.    B. 
foL  27^11  a,  3  cuiusque  o|pus  suum  [not  o|opus].    B« 

L  6    uerum :  doubtless  a  corruption  of  an  ancestral  utrum. 
foL  28a  L  I     cum  is  unquestionably  the  reading  of  m.  i.     B. 

I  4    bethaniam  [not  belhaniam] :  Burkitt  adds  that  m.  2  deletes 
the  final  m. 
fiisS^L  2    taedium  m.  3  [not  m.  2]. 

foL  29^11 5^  6  m.  I  wrote  firstly  subpedaneum  {sc  a  stool),  then  corrected 

this  to  subterranaeum :   the  marks  round  'pedaneum' 

are  meant  to  bracket  the  word  (compare  below  on  fol. 

86  d  1.  4),  and  the  s  of  Wordsworth's  sterranaeum  is  not 

a  fully-formed  letter,  but  a  similar  mark  dividing  the 

cancelled  pedaneum  from  its  substitute  terraneum.   The 

true  word  I  imagine  to  have  been  superaneum  (perhaps 

miswritten  subperaneum  in  the  exemplar),  which  accounts 

for  both  subpedaneum  and  subterraneum.     I  have  not 

been  able  to  find  that  this  word  occurs  elsewhere :  but 

the  word  dvayawv  here  and  in  Luc.  xxii  12  proved  a  great 

stumbling-block  to  the  old  Latin  translators)  and  it  is 

not  I  think  over  rash  to  conjecture  that  the  ancestor 

of  k  represented  it  by  some  such  bold  expedient  as 

superaneum. 

foL  30111.  7    ill  est  {sc  ille  est)  m»  3  I  think  [not  ipsest} 

fol.  30^  1. 6    ilis  is  the  reading  of  m.  3  I  imagine  [not  illis] ;  there  are 

only  four  letters. 

L  10  cQ  [not  cu]. 

I  1 1  the  last  two  letters  under  the  erasure  were  apparently  -ae : 

possibly  the  word  was  regulae. 
1.  12  hominum  m.  i  [not  heminumj. 
fol.  3 1  tf  L  3    posttea  [not  postea]. 
1.  7    standaliziati  m.  i. 

1.  10  tertio  was  perhaps  the  reading  of  m.  i  under  ter  me. 
L  14  dixer-  [not  dixCr-] :  correct  therefore  Dr.  Sanday's  reference 
to  this  passage  on  p.  clviii. 
foL  3 1  ^  L  I    cui  [not  qui]. 

fol.  32  a  1. 4    autem  m.  i,  possibly  corrected  manu  prima  into  quidem. 
foL  33^  1. 14  I  cannot  see  in  the  MS  the  dots  which  Wordsworth  prints 

over  the  u  of  surgentes.    B« 
fol  34^  1. 10  ex  familiis  [not  ex  famulis].     B. 

foL  35  a  1.5    et  gallus  is  a  correaion:  the  original  reading  was  set 
gallus.    B. 


t 


THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

i.  13  the  i  of  iurare  is  in  rasura:   the  original   reading  wai 
apparently  furare.     B 
foL  37^  1 6    of  the  letters  printed  by  Wordsworth  in  small  type  as  due 
to  the  corrector,  ce  and  ul  seem  to  be  only  a  retracing  <ii 
the  same  letters  :  ul  was  apparently  preceded  by  b :  the 
lost  word   was  something  like  ceauibularei    Burkitt'i 
cnace  ambulare  is  doubtless  right. 
1,  8    galliariae  [not  galuariae] :  Burkitt  gives  galliarie. 
I  9     bibcrc  uinum  [as  Fleck:    not  uinum  bibere,  as  Words- 
worth ],     B. 
fol.  38fil3     unum  [not  unun] :  the  -urn  is  in  ligature  at  the  end  of 

the  line.     B. 
fol,  38 A 11  a,  3  tenclbrc  [not  lenebrae], 

l.  3     tota  .  .  .  usque :  the  m  of  totam  is  part  of  the  correction : 
the  letters  erased  were  either  three  or  four:   Burkitt 
tU^lgttts  ora. 
I.  9    locus  appears  to  be  the  lost  word :   the  -us  at  least  is 

certain.     B.  h 

I.  10  the  t  of  et  is  not  in  rasura^  but  m.  i.     B.  I| 

fol  39#l  7    dc  [not  ds]. 
fill  40A 1 1     the  reading  of  the  MS  is  perhaps  a  corruption  of  surgente 

in  claritate  filio  dei.  ■ 

It  18, 13  ihn  ilium  cruciflxum  ilium  naxoraeum  was  the  reading 
of  m.  i»  corresponding  to  the  Greek  *l9<n>w  rir  N<ifap^ w  nir 
iwTmvfm^%w¥,  B.  The  representation  of  the  Greek  article 
by  tile  in  the  primitive  Latin  version  was  often  a  stumbling- 
Mock  to  later  scribes :  I  hope  10  a  future  number  of  the 
JOOItltAt  to  coUect  some  instmnces  from  St.  C}rpnan's 
ntlkmm  in  lllttititim  of  tlus  point :  meanwiiile  I  may 
tt^  to  Isa.  14—  l>sL  i  3  (Hand  4»-  «) ;  Mic  ▼  i  = 
fh$L  it  ia  (71^  4);  Gen.  ixi  i  =  Ttst  m  15  (laj*  to); 
t  Ttek  iv  S  8  TksL  rai  x6  (iji.  aoV 

tofi^oriRlMMnsdw  im  w  e»ite  aeaiodlor  t;, 
iIm  tlMlf^te  Ibwili  e:  e  todo  ocxamd  10  me^  boc 


M   4iM 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  95 

L  9    aute  [not  aute].    B. 
L  13  inple|retur  [not  iniple|retur].     B. 
foL44H  12  magis,  I  think,  rather  than  magiL     B. 
foL45aL  I     m.  I  wrote,  I  think,  stellam  cum  audis|set  autem.     B. 

L  7  iudaeae  is  all  by  m.  i,  I  think :  e  is  the  letter  in  which  the 
writing  of  ro.  i  and  m.  2  is  most  easily  distinguishable — 
the  latter  tends  more  to  make  the  top  part  of  the  e  in 
a  separate  stroke,  and  also  slopes  the  letter  more — ^and 
here  it  seems  to  be  the  e  of  m.  i. 
foL46aL  12  ei  iure  et  gadiume  m.  i :  ei  surge  et  ad«ume  m.  2 :  ei 
suxge  et  adsume  m.  3.  B. 
L  13  in  is  not  m.  2  but  m.  i. 

L  14  esto  illic  m.  2 :  ethillio  ut  uid  m.  i :  Burkitt  reads  it 
ephillis. 
foL46^L8  a  domino  profetam :  the  last  five  letters  of  domino  are  in 
rasura,  though  the  correction  is  apparently  made  by  m.  i 
himself:  probabfy  he  first  wrote  adimpler  for  a  dom  per 
of  his  exemplar,  and  when  he  corrected  it  forgot  to  write 
in  the  per. 
fol  47^  L  7    secesit  [not  secessit]  :  B.    The  whole  word  is  perhaps  in 

reuura, 
foL48aL  9    fiiit  lucus  is  all  by  m.  2,  but  -us  projects  beyond  the  space 
occupied  by  the  erased  letters. 
L  10  siluestre  m.  2 :  perhaps  silue  fere  m.  i :  Burkitt  suggests 

dilu*ter«*,  but  somewhat  doubtfully. 
L  14  ab  eo  [not  et  eo]. 
fol  4^^1*3    sad|duceis:  the  last  six  letters  are  in  rasura  of  something 
rather  longer  :  it  is  another  instance  of  a  proper  name 
misread  by  the  original  scribe. 
foL  50a  11.  7, 10  nepthalim  in  each  case  [not  nephthalim]. 
foL5iaL  II  inbecillita|tem  [not  imbecillita|tem].     B. 
fol-SiH  II  m.  I  bae*ati  (the  lost  letter  apparently  e  or  c),  corrected 
to  beati.     B. 
I.  14  bae^tl 
^^I2b\,  I     m.  I  apparently  wrote  plange|tis. 

1.  13  b^eati  ut  uid, 
^oL53aL  12  etterra  is  no  doubt  only  by  error  printed  as  one  word  in 
Wordsworth :  the  MS  of  course  does  not  separate  words 
at  all  in  the  ordinary  way. 
IL  13, 14  trans|sibit :  the  s  at  the  end  of  1.  13  is,  I  think,  intended 
to  be  deleted,  no  doubt  in  order  that  the  division  of  the 
word  may  comply  with  the  rule  that  the  new  line  should 
if  possible  begin  with  a  consonant 


96  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

fol.  $$3 1. 9    iietra  [not  uestra]  m.  3. 

fol.  54  a  1.  a    reuf :  -ut  if  in  ligature  and  over  an  erasure  (appaientlj 
of  -a), 
eri  I  not  eri',  as  Wordsworth] :  the  t  has  simply  disappeared 
by  the  trimming  of  the  page.    B. 
1.  4    raca :   the  space  su3  rasura  seems  to  be  too  much  for 
p,  and  would  suit  r  better :  with  diffidence  I  suggest  that 
m.  I  wrote  raca  after  all,  for  the  curious  hieroglyphic  of 
m.  3  seems  to  me  more  like  s  than  r. 
1.  IS  tu  [not  tu-,  as  Wordsworth] :  again,  as  in  1.  2  of  this  page» 
the  final  letter  is  simply  cut  away  with  the  maigia    B. 
fol.  54^1. 10  did  not  m.  i  write  cau|sam  rather  than  ean|sam?   The 

third  letter  is  certainly  u,  not  n.     B. 
hi  55 II I  7     totum  (rather  totuum)  is,  I  think,  in  imitative  uncial  of  m.  J» 
not  m.  a :  m.  I  had  meum.     B. 
I  13  uxo|rem  [not  uxorjrem]. 

I,  14  Audis :  the  rest  of  the  word  is  cut  off  with  the  trimming  9^ 
the  maigin.    B. 
M.  55>  I  i     iurahis  Wordsworth :  but  the  first  letter  is  hardly  like  an  i^ 
rtddcs  m.  t  [not  m.  3]. 
I  ^    eius  m«  a  :  est  apparently  m.  i. 
I  10  ^uia  (m^t  quoniam  as  Wordswocth]. 
l^^lx  j(^>  K  0    mx  I  h4id  be^^n  loqu^  but  changed  1  to  b  and  dotted  qu, 
l»i^  a$  to  make  bonos. 
\.  :    »\^><^u$  <\>j^  ratbier  than  super  kneos  as  Wordsworth. 
1^4v  ,\>4  \  ^    ix\  UK^  <<  in  $TtMi$ic^  [not  in  okas  eft  symgogb]. 

I  u  tW  $^q>|>k«iiK«t  at  the  ^^ot  ^die  page  I  take  to  be  m.  a, 
«K>t  m.  ix 
(^4.5^^4V  x,^  ^>«v«     tSr  Ust  rav>  Wacn  an  «a  mcwv^  a^fwrently  (^ 

wwtv     1^ 
I^^V  w  «^i»a    vW  Wc^m  <«atil^i  ace  j^^brmK  ii<  wliid&  was  the 
■^^^^^v  ^^  ^^.  ^-^^  .^-1^  -^  ^  ■iiiflM^  rirnirrtrilTij  tMnirtf 

«Ati^<*\^^    »»^wi^  ^  tk  S<ft  imak^b^  1  :tejk  ^ikx  jiiilBHii},  m.  i. 
V  ^    ;M^i»^K  ^4»Y:4^>m<c!^».Hber;teuskCKr:  -Mtiiaot 

1^  '^^riv^>iN;iHs^iis^.r«a:s3de;ditlaie:  i^r  wf^Mal! I 

^^^^iNihtN^  ^«y<9t  1^ .  ^  <<t  v^adk  ;£ke  JCSiBr  Aer  s 

V^^^  >^  V  «i^  ;die  lut  ^w  :ite  «L    Oand  lie  luvc 

If^^c^^ai^  ^i^H*t^  «teai«K^  JMn  <»k  Iol  ^ 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  97 

reading  in  St  Cyprian  {Tesf.  iii  6,  Hartel  119.  18),  so 
that  the  reading  might  almost  be  transferred  from  the 
column  for  disagreements  between  k  and  Cyprian  to  that 
for  agreements  in  Dr,  Sanday's  list,  p.  lis. 

foL62^L  II  fedet;:  m.  2  may  have  meant  and  probably  did  mean  to 
correct  facet  to  facit  rather  than,  as  Wordsworth,  £aciet. 
L  13  m,  I  wrote  potest  arbor  malos  fructus  face|re. 

foL63aL  8    quo  m.  z,  qui  m.  2 :  Wordsworth's  note  might  mislead. 

foL633L  2     m.  I  speramini|quitatem :  m.  2  peramini  inin|quitatem. 

I.  4    uerba  mea :  the  original  reading  was  apparency  uerbum  ea. 
foL6331L4, 5  fajcit  [not  fejcit,  as  Wordsworth]. 

foL64al.  6     CQn|sunmiasset  [not  con|sumasset]. 

fol65^  1. 2     in  regno  caelorum  [not  in  regnum  caelorum]. 

L  5     m.  I  was  perhaps  writing  stridentium  for^ridor  dentium  : 
if  so,  he  made  the  correction  himself. 
foL66aL  i     optulerunt  [not  opluterunt]. 

daemoniacos  [not  demoniacos]. 

II.  8,  9    turbae  multae  is  a  correction,  apparently  from  tturbas 

multas. 
IL  13, 14  hab|bent :  the  first  b  is  dotted  for  erasure  by  m.  i,  since 
babjent  would  divide  the  word  wrongly. 
foL66H  13  the  letters  under  erasure  were  something  like  cacis. 
fol.  67a  1. 3     estis  [not  haestis]. 

fidai  apparently  m.  i. 
U.  12,  13  exeu|tes  [not  exeu|tes]. 
foL  67 H  2     fill  di  ends  the  line :  the  ii  which  Wordsworth  prints  is  only 
a  take-off  from  ti-  of  fol  68  a  L  2.     B. 
I  3     the  final  writing — perhaps  m.  2,  perhaps  a  correction  by 
m.  I — is  hoc  [not  hue] :  m.  i  may  have  written  first 
i , .  ic  (??  istic  or  illic). 
L  13  aquis  is  m.  2 :  m.  i  wrote  aques  or  aquos. 
foL68flL  7     cum  [not  eum]. 

IL  9,  10  op|tuleriunt  m.  i. 
L  13  bono  animo  [not  bone  animo]. 
fcl-  69^  1. 1     audisset  [not  audissit]. 

1.  14  uenient  in  this  line  is  not  erased  as  Wordsworth's  note 
seems  to  imply  :  but  on  fol.  70  a  1.  i  m.  i  wrote  autem 
uenient  dies,  and  it  is  this  second  uenient  which  is 
erased. 
foL  70^  Li     m.  I  wrote  uenit,  but  himself  corrected  to  ueniens. 
I  12  m.  I  wrote  apparently  saluabitur. 
1.  14  fidest  m.  2 :  m.  I  apparently  wrote  ex  hoc 
foL  72fl  L  7    inbecillitate  [not  imbecillitatS], 
VOL.  V.  H 


fol.  730 1.  I 
1-5 


(01.74^1.6 
fot.  760 1.4 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


m.  I  wrote  apparently  abiejei :  m.  2  abiecti  (aU  in  1. 
and  erased  ei* 
icbbsicus  apparently  m,  i. 
ieritis  item  aut  fartio|nes  [not  icritis  ite  magis  actiolnes,  ^^ 


1 


Wordsworth's  notes]  m.  i :  the  words  item  .  .  .  are  ^ 

coiime  a  corruption  of  ite  magis  ad  oues,  the  s  of  magi  ^ 

becoming   the   f  of  factiones,  according   to  the  rno^ 

common  of  all  the  confusions  to  which  our  scribe  ii 

liable, 
sodocie?  m.  i. 
in  ipso  m.  1 1  the  in  is  deleted.    In  line  2,  in  me,  the  in  is 

BO  rubbed  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  whether  it  is  deleted 

or  no. 
coram  fratre  meo  m.  t, 
■equitur:  loquitur  m.  i. 
profetc  [not  profctae], 
aut6  is  in  the  margin,  and  must  have  been  added  seai 

atris, 
surdci  [not  surdij. 
iohane:  the  letters  o  and  h  are  im  rasura.    Again  a  curious 

instance  of  bungling  over  the  Gospel  proper  names, 
qui  dixistis  [not  quid  existis]. 
choroian,  as  Fleck  [not  choraxan]^ 
bessalda  ts  certain  and  should  be  in  the  text. 
not  syryan,  but  perhaps  syrymm,  m.  i. 
the  q  in  quomodo  is  m.  i :  perhaps  he  wrote  q-  —  quae  (or 

Vitx^  s  neqyeV 
under  tlie  cnsuna  is  nisi  filim  el :  it  was  ju^  an  omission 

by  kmmmitimim^  after  agnoadt. 
Ok  1  ivfolc  fiint  |Mll«a^  dotted  the  m  aod  added  s  to  make 

it  HMO  BtMii  mt  u  00  foi  S3«  L  4  be 


scribe's  first  reading  of  j 


if    tl» 
MMEi^ti  nni|li[»ii|m|iiii)> 
M.tselt    mmiifgmm^m^thpmMiw, 

mk^wek  (^  s  gK»k  si  s 
ain  leaaie^  aed 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


99 


foL86*U 


Ibl  87^1 1,5 


type :  it  (or  ralher  at  eus  =  ad  eos)  is  a  correction  by 
m.  3.  I  make  the  reading  of  m.  t  to  be  at  lr(ip)la— 
whatever  tt  was  it  was  presumably  a  corruption  of  at 
turba(s),  Gr.  toU  5;fXotr. 

I.  8     est :  the  s  is  by  m.  2  in  rasura  :  m.  i  apparently  eit. 

1 12  Wordsworth's  note  might  mislead:  m.  i  wrote  fratris  for 
patris  of  verse  50  (f.  1 2),  not  for  the  fratres  of  verse  49 

(1. 11). 

what  Wordsworth  represents  here  by  square  brackets  are 
the  same  signs  that  on  fol.  29^  L  5  (Marc,  xiv  15)  he 
had  represented  by  quotation  marks :  they  are  not  unlike 
our  round  brackets,  and  are  obviously  intended  to  cancel 
the  words  enclosed.  Erasure  in  the  strict  sense  is  hardly, 
if  at  all,  employed  by  m.  i. 

t«  1,  ^     The  mark  in  the  text  calling  attention  to  the  supplement  at 
the  foot  of  the  page  is  here  hd  [not  ha]. 
ttdcak.pag.  spineae:  the  last  letter  but  one  hardly  resembles 
a  at  all     I  should  not  like  to  say  what  letter  it  is  meant 
for:   yet  all  the  other  letters  in  the  supplement  are 
formed  quite  regularly  and  normally. 
folS3R  \i  seminatur  hoc  est :  m,  i  wrote  femina  turba  est :  add  this 
H  instance  of  b  —  h  to  Dr,  Sanday's  list  of  confusions  on 

p.  cxxxvii,  and  cf.  fol.  86  a  L  2,  Sanday,  p,  cccxxxviii. 
there  is  no  line  over  Ix. 
i  of  dicens  is  in  rasura^  presumably  of  docens. 

tfoLQo^lL  7,  8  me|um  m.  2 :  me|uiam  perhaps  [me|usm,  as  Wordsworth, 
is  not  long  enough]  m.  i. 
foL9iflL  13  eius  m.  2  :  ilJis  ut  tttd.  m.  i. 

I  14  facmnt  in  m.  2  :  factae  sunt  m.  i. 
'oL  91 M.  7     absconsum  sacro  [not  absconsum  *^»  sacro^  as  Wordsworth]  : 

ki.  e.  m,  2  wrote  in  over  s,  to  make  it  read  absconsum  in 
acra 
1.  8     quod  :  d  is  by  m.  2  in  rasura, 
I.  9     m.  3  prefixes  pero  [not  pro]  to  gaudio* 
^^aal.  14  ignis  is  by  m.  2  in  rasura  [not,  I  think,  simply  retraced, 

as  Wordsworth]. 
lw«9»H4    caelof-  [not  caelor]. 

»D.6,  7  de  thensauros  suos :  m.  2  apparently  marks  the  final  s  In 
each  case  for  cancel 
L  9     m.  3  superscribes  -ess-  over  the  latter  part  of  transtulit, 
perhaps  meaning  transessit  ==  transisset. 
eum  is  m.  3  :  m.  i  wrote  cum. 

sub  .  .  .  .  ta :  four  letters  apparently  have  disappeared. 
H  2 


folgofll.  2 


lOO 


THE   JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 
t  9 


dedit  DL  3:  m.  I  had  vritten  a  longer  word  beginning 
with  p  (?pofUait  or  porrent  or  pertulit). 
foL  94^  II.  10^  1 1  demit|te  [00c  denutjet*  as  WOTdswocth]. 
fol.  95  <i  L  5     ftnenis,  I  thtnk  [not  fimenis],  m.  5. 

I  8     dauit  [not  dauid].     B, 
fol  96aL  i  1  dodis  [not  dodos].     B. 
fol  96/'  1 9    illi  ID.  I :  illis  nu  3. 

C  H.  Turner. 


FURTHER   NOTES   ON   CODEX   k, 

Wlttl*  passing  through  Turfn  in  April  of  this  year  I  was  able  to  s 
a  couple  of  days  in  examining  Codex  Bobiensis  (A)  with  the  aid  of  the 
Oiford  edition,  and  though  the  total  result  was  not  very  large;  yet 
the  great  importance  of  Jk  for  textual  critidsm  seemed  to  justify  tHie 
publication  of  my  notes.  After  I  had  written  what  I  had  to  say,  1  found 
ifial  my  friend  Mr.  C,  H.  Turner  had  also  re-collated  k  about  a  jm 
before  my  pausing  visit.  Our  results,  I  am  glad  to  say,  very  greatif 
roindde.  It  would  be  absurd  to  print  the  same  collation  twice  <ym. 
Mr  Turner  has  therefore  marked  the  readings  of  his  collatioo  wijkii 
were  also  in  mine  with  the  letter  B,  and  so  I  only  give  here  the  readio^ 
which  it  was  not  in  his  plan  to  notice,  together  with  the  very  few  places 
where  we  are  at  variance. 

1*  Jhtm-htafi^H,  There  are  two  systems  of  punctuation  in  k^ 
of  which  is  consistently  represented  in  the  printed  edition.  The 
divide<l  sentences  by  blank  spaces  and  also  by  a  point  opposite  lAe 
middle  of  the  letters.  Sometimes  we  have  the  space  wxthoct  the  pamtU 
aometimes  the  point  without  the  space,  sometimes  both  togedier.  The 
photographed  page  (fol  4 1  <t\  which  contsuns  Mark  xvi  6-eBd  w9 
Olltttmte  ttxh  of  these  methods.  After  dixt  and  exfrnturmmf  there  ane 
ipMei  M  hknk  without  a  dot ;  after/i^rrwi«/tsasiiuiIls{MK3ewidia40l; 
Ubt/t  ^anjNwAjt^  MhMdBtr»  ami  {i^\  tremor^  pomm-^  aipmrmt,  msfm  {t% 
aBN,  Jiwiiw,  w«pm»atat,>Dd  befote  ifr,  there  «e  dots  widaMi ^ml 
I  lam  It  10  te  ttftder  whether  theie  be  a  space  left  bOwULa  mnmmm' 
wAmmt  Of  ttiese  two  systefDs«  the  space  and  die  point,  llieipaae»  If 
fcr  the  ■aoi<einq)cwta»t,becatise  it  lepresents  the  latent^ 

added  Uler ;  in  the  case  of  the  16 
ladPBteadf  .    It  appealed  to  m 

I  (cw  115  iMg  to  reBa)i  the  next  wuid  n  has 
ofiaedocsat  the  endi  of  won 


I 


I 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  lOl 

t^elonged  to  any  S3rstem  of  rational  punctuation,  but  are  mere  word- 
ciividers,  placed  semi-consciously.  The  difference  between  these  dots 
^.nd  the  conscious  work  of  the  scribe  is  well  seen  in  Matt  v  47,  48, 
'^here^  has 

PUBLICANISICFACIUNT-   ERITIS 
ITAQ»UOS'PERFECri 

Xlere  the  space  after  faciunt  marks  the  end  of  the  sentence  and  the 
xather  thick  dot  after  q  marks  the  regular  contraction  for  -que*  But 
tihe  dot  after  uos  is  higher  up  and  much  fainter:  the  pen  simply  rested 
on  the  vellum  in  making  it  and  did  not  move,  and  I  doubt  if  the  scribe 
'was  aware  that  he  was  marking  the  surface  at  all.  Most  of  the  dots 
enumerated  above  from  fol.  41a  are  of  this  character,  as  the  reader  may 
see  for  himself  from  the  facsimile. 

This  result  is  of  some  importance  when  we  are  considering  textual 
theories  which  deal  with  systems  of  colometry.  In  such  matters  I  doubt 
if  any  secure  argument  can  be  founded  on  the  points  of  ^,  though  the 
spaces  left  by  the  scribe  and  his  paragraphs  may  be  significant.  In 
the  Oxford  edition  the  paragraphs  are  carefully  marked  by  indentation, 
but  the  blank  spaces  in  the  lines  themselves  are  most  capriciously 
represented,  e.  g.  the  MS  has  a  space  between  superfuerunt  and  dicunt 
in  Mc.  viii  19,  and  also  before  Mc.  viii  24,  28,  but  no  space  after 
colludit  in  Mc.  ix  18.  In  Mc.  viii  27  the  small  point  comes  immediately 
after  uia^  leaving  a  blank  before  et  \  but  in  Mc.  x  9  f.  coniuncxithomo  and 
separet'Ct  barely  enough  space  is  left  for  the  dot  itself.  It  would  take  up 
too  much  room,  and  be  wearisome  besides,  to  give  a  list  of  all  the  spacings 
which  I  observed  and  to  correct  the  dots  in  the  printed  edition :  in  this 
respect  the  Oxford  text,  otherwise  so  excellent  a  representation  of  the 
MS,  cannot  always  be  trusted.  Of'  course,  where  there  is  a  dot  in 
the  printed  book  there  is  almost  always  a  dot  in  the  MS,  but  there 
are  dots  in  the  MS  which  are  not  inserted  in  the  edition,  and  there  is  no 
distinction  made  between  dots  evidently  intended  by  the  scribe,  dots 
which  are  very  likely  accidental,  and  dots  placed  by  a  later  hand  where 
no  stop  was  intended  by  the  original  writer. 

2.  7%e  Text,  As  explained  above,  the  following  collation  only  contains 
a  few  points  of  difference  with  Mr.  Turner,  together  with  some  readings 
which  he  did  not  bring  forward.  As  it  now  has  no  claim  to  complete- 
ness I  have  divided  it  into  two  parts,  the  first  containing,  miscellaneous 
readings  and  the  second  some  notes  on  the  spelling  of  the  compendia 
for '  Jesus.*  I  use  k*  for  the  original  work  of  the  scribe,  k^  for  corrections 
either  by  the  original  scribe  or  by  the  corrector  called  m.  2  by  the 
Oxford  editors.  These  corrections  are  all  contemporary  with  k*^  and  it 
seems  to  me  not  unlikely  that  they  are  all  the  work  of  the  same  person, 
who  was  possibly  the  original  scribe  himself.    The  characters  we  use  in 


I03         THE   JOURXAL   OF   THEOLOGICilL  STUDIES 


to  think  it  an^ 
oftfaevorkofthe^ 
recCDtlf  wished  il 
over  sndi 
wbenvetif 
orHie 
ttto 


=^1 

tB^ffli  tfas^.   ti*!^^^  ' 


llc«fiii(i>Li^L7)ei 


M*— [< 


fc4SfM.U>LM)wiii    yfil> 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  103 

xii  19  (foL  21  a,  L  2)  tuo  k*  (vid),  suo  k^ 

xii  36  (foL  22  ^,  L  9)  dicit  •  dom*  dom^  k  {sic) 

jm  2  (foL  23^,  L  13)  illi  non  k*,  illis  non  k^ 

adii  18  (fol.  25  d,  1.  13)  hie  me  k\  hieme  k^ 

idn  33  (fol.  27  <!,  11.  II,  13)  a  s^ce  is  left  between  tjv.  32  and  33,  but 
none  between  33  and  34 

xiv  I  (foL  27^,  1.  14)  infidus  k 

xiv  6-47  was  not  collated  by  mCy  except  that  I  verified  amphoram 
quae  {p,  13),  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  addition 
^suis  after  discentibus  and  the  correction  ^quae  into 
aquae  were  by  m,  ^ 

xiv  49  (fol.  33  a,  1.  6)  quotidie  h  (sic) 

X?  21  (foL  37^,  11.  5,  6)  I  think  h*  wrote  factione  eum  cru{ce 
ambulare,  but '  factione '  is  perhaps  not  quite  certain 

xvi  4  (fol.  40  ^,  1.  i)  uiui  di  k  (sH) ;  the  extra  stroke  thctt  makes  the 
last  word  look  like  di*  ^r  taken  off  from  the  opposite  side  ^ 
^tt.  i  17  (fol.  43^,  1.  9)  generationis  {misprint)\  generationes  k 

\  21  (foL  44  a,  1.  11)  sic  ^*  (vid),  hie  hfi 

i  22,  23,  fol.  44^  be^ns  at  per  prophetam  (misprint) 

ii  2,  3  (fol.  45  a,  1.  i)  stellam  eum  audisjset  k*  (so  also  C.  H.  T.) : 
then  (i)  eius  was  added  above  the  line,  (2)  k^  erased  every- 
thing between  stellam  and  -set,  and  added  the  missing 
words  at  the  foot  of  the  page 

ii  13  (foL  46  ^,  1.  2)  eum  k*^  eum  m,  3 

ii  15  (fol.  46  by  1.  7)  M  ky  not  *»» 

iv  21  (fol.  51  a,  1.  2)  ^f^  capital  to  zebdei  in  k 

V  30  (fol.  55  <i,  11.  4,  5)  abi|ice  (misprint)']  abi|ee  k 

vi  25-xiv  17  was  not  collated,  except  that  in  Matt,  viii  29  (fol.  67  ^^ 
L  2)  I  agree  with  C.  H.  T.  that  ii  is  merely  a  set-off, 

XV  30  (fol.  96  a,  IL  7,  8)  ie|eerunt  k  (Gr,  ?p<^i^),  pro|eerunt  m.  3 

(B).     Compendia  for  ^Jesus' 


Mc.  viii  27 

for 

IS 

read^ 

ix    2 

II 

Hi 

1,    Ki- 

4 

II 

m 

„    Bs(=/Vw) 

8 

II 

Ki 

„     Ks  (=!«««) 

»5 

II 

m 

II    El* 

27 

II 

Gs 

1,    Ki« 

Illis  refers  of  course  to  the  actual  reading  of  the  MS  :  Mr.  Turner's  coqjecture 
^  to  what  underlies  it  is  very  attractive.  At  the  same  time  I  am  not  quite 
^^'^ced  that  'the  glory  of  the  Living  God'  is  wrong:  comp.  e.g.  Lk.  ii  9, 
"^^  xxi  33.  As  I  pointed  out  in  T*xU  und  Shtdka  iv  3,  p.  94, '  surgent#  • . .  simul 
""^^demnt  cum  eo '  might  be  a  rendering  of  iytf$irr9S  a^ov . . .  ovrori/Siytfar  oir^, 
^  the  analogy  of  Matt  viii  i  A. 


I04         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Mc      X  23        for    Bi 


read  hi' 


27. 

29 

)* 

tllS 

(^/V) 

»j 

Kii  (/5i>) 

^>^53 

*i 

m= 

fi 

ITI»  (=  iesuffC) 

60 

1) 

Ks 

j» 

Hs" 

67 

n 

Hi" 

n 

Ei'*(  =  i>^) 

XV  43 

It 

ih"! 

*> 

Ihd 

xvi    6 

1) 

ihn 

11 

Ihti 

Only  a  small  proportion  of  the  corrections  made  by  Mr.  Turner  and 
myself  aflect  the  critical  value  of  the  text  of  ^,  except  so  far  as  they  serve 
still  further  to  illustrate  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  scribe.  In  a  few  cases 
monstrosities  put  down  to  him  do  not  exist  (e.  g,  Mark  x  10,  xii  39,  41, 
xiii  34,  xiv  I,  3,  32,  XV  27,  40;  Matt,  i  17,  iii  6,  v  30,  32,  viii  29).  It  is 
especially  pleasant  to  be  able  to  read  iemptanUs  in  Mark  x  2  instead 
of  tenptant€S  \  and  to  know  that  in  Matt,  viii  29  quid  hue  uenisfi  is  not 
preceded  by  //.  In  Mark  xv  23  F,  F.  Fleck  (the  first  editor  of  ^,  whose 
inaccuracy  is  bewailed  by  all  who  have  written  on  the  MS)  was  right  in 
reading  bibere  uinum  and  not  uinum  hibere  \  and  in  Mark  viii  28,  where 
k  really  has  dixerunt  ilH  dianies  in  agreement  with  ^BC*LA  and  the 
Bohairic,  Fleck's  '  responderunt  illi  dicentes'is  no  further  off  the  true 
reading  than  the  *dixerunt  ilii  omnes'  of  Tischendorf  and  the  Oxford 
editors. 

The  point  of  most  general  interest  brought  out  by  the  re-examinations 
of  k  has  been  perhaps  the  reading  makdixisH  in  Mark  xv  34,  where  the 
late  cursive  band  here  called  m.  3  has  substituted  dereliquisii^  as  in 
the  Vulgate.  A  full  note  on  this  reading  will  be  found  iny.  J!  S.  \  278. 
I  only  wish  to  add  here  that  the  use  of  dereliquisti  does  not  prove  that 
m.  3  was  correcting  k  by  means  of  another  MS.  The  scrawl  used  by 
m.  3  can  hardly  be  dated  earlier  than  the  seventh  century,  if  so  early, 
and  doubtless  the  Vulgate  occupied  by  that  time  a  dominant  position 
in  most  parts  of  Western  Europe.  Nearly  alt  the  emendations  made  by 
m.  3  look  like  the  work  of  a  reader  who  was  trying  to  make  out  an 
incorrectly  written  text  as  best  he  could.  In  Mark  ix  26  m,  3  turns 
ueiuemortuus  into  uelui  mortuus^  though  the  Vulgate  has  sicut  mortuus ; 
and  in  Mark  ix  9,  where  k  has  descendetttibuSy  m,  3  adds  eis  to  eke  out 
the  sense,  though  the  Vulgate  has  Hits.  Similarly  in  Matt,  v  43  ubi 
is  rightly  changed  by  m.  3  into  tibi  where  the  Vulgate  has  tuum^  and 
in  Mark  xiv  ^^  facta  is  changed  by  m,  3  mio  fa  ha  where  the  Vulgate 
omits.  At  the  beginning  of  Mark  ix  5  ??».  3  supplies  ei  ait  Fetrus^  in 
agreement  with  the  Llandaff  Gospels  (Wordsworth's  L),  where  the 
Vulgate  has  et  respondem  Peirus  ait  lesu,  but  this  may   be  only  a 

*  The  error  was  caused  by  misreading  the  ligature  np.  This  may  be  a  convenient 
place  to  mention  that  the  rotlowing  ligatures  occur  in  Jfr,  mostly  at  the  ends  of  lines  : 
a,  /fj  hIj  untf  uHf  mft^  or  ur^  is  ns  $*Sf  ct  ni  unt  uty  eu. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  I05 

imdence.     The  nationality  of  m.  3  is  a  point  of  some  historical 
terest,  for  if  it  be  a  true  tradition  that  makes  S.  Columban  a  former 
of  k^  then  m,  3  is  the  only  hand  that  can  be  identified  as  the 
Saint's  (Wordsworth,  p.  x).     But  does  not  pesces  {(qt  pisces  Matt,  xv  36) 
point  to  an  Italian  ? 

In  Mark  xii  36  it  is  satisfactory  to   find   that  k  has  ad  dexUra^ 

i  e.  it  supports    Mr,    Turner's    theory   that    the    earlier    I^tin    texts 

represented  <«  ht^\iiv  by  the  neuter  plural  of  'dexter'  (/.  T,  S.  ii  610). 

[  In  Mark  xiv  62,  xv  27,  k  has  a  dextra  and  in  x  37  fl  dextram^  no 

doubt  under  the  infltjence  of  the  classical  training  of  the  scribe  in  the 

skTX  of  writing.     In  Mark  xvi  5  therefore,  when  we  find  in  dsxtra  (for  •* 

■ri»5f  ^f««t),  it  is  probable  that  the  final  a  is  long  and  that  the  word  is  in 

,  't^t  ablative  singular. 

In  the  matter  of  spelling  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  editors  have 
c^orrectly  reported  k  to  read  quottdie  in  Mark  xiv  49,  a  spelling  otherwise 
^Llmost  unknown  in  Christian  MSS  earher  than  the  eighth  century  ^  In 
^^datL  vj  1 1  >^  has  cotttdtanum. 

With  regard  to  the  compendia  for  lesus  (or  rather  Hiesus\  it  is  worth 

Boting  that  the  common  Greek  abbreviation  it  does  not  occur,  as  the 
IShas  5i"  in  Mark  viii  27.    In  the  two  places  where  ^  was  reported  to 
jv€  the  common  Latin  compendium  (i/f  Mark  xv  43,  ih"*  Mark  xvi  6), 
«iiic  first  letter  is  in  each  case  majuscule  and  I  incline  to  think  the 
templar  may  have  had  a  sign  beginning  with  H,  for  there  is  very 
XattJe  difference  between  IB«  and  Hi«-     Certainly  the  authority  of  k 
^zannot  be  safely  invoked  for  the  spelling  ihesus. 

3-  The  persanali'ty  of  the  scribe  of  k.     This  is  a  really  important 

<]uestion,   for  k  contains  by  far  the   most   valuable   text  for   critical 

pufposes  of  all  our  Old  Latin  authorities,  and  it  would  be  well  if  we 

«oi»ld  find  out  when  and  where  it  was  written,  and  what  qualifications 

^he  scribe    had    for    his  work.      The    tradition    connecting  k  with 

S.  Cdumban  does  not  give  us  much  help.     If  true,  it  might  mean 

Jhtt  k  belonged  to   the  earliest  stratum    of  the   Library  at  Bobbio, 

*  thing  not  very  probable  in  itself.     Bobbio  was  on!y  founded  about 

^—^13  A.D.     By   that   time  k   must    have    been   at   least   200  years   in 

^■toistcnce  and  its  text  was  out  of  date.      It  was  not  in  the  least  the 

^■^^  of  book  that  would   be   used  in    the   seventh   century,  and  it 

^l»obabIy  did   not   come    to  Bobbio  until  S.  Columban's  foundation 

^  become  a  famous  centre  of  books.     The  analogy  of  Codex  n  is 

J^  instructive.     Most  of  the  surviving  fragments  of  n  are  now  at 

S.  Gallen,  but  two  leaves  (those  formerly  called  a,)  are  still  at  Chur, 

*nd  it  is  highly   probable  that  the  whole  MS  once  formed   part  of 

^  Chapter   Library  there.     We  know  of  at   least  two   MSS   (the 

Id  Cyp.  308",  cod.  S  is  said  to  have  quottidU, 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Sacramentary  and  the  Capitula  of  Remedius)  that  have  been  taken 
from  Chur  to  S.  Gallen  ^,  but  we  know  of  none  that  have  made  the 
return  journey-  In  any  case  it  is  more  likely  that  ancient  MSS  should 
migrate  to  centres  of  learning  and  books,  such  as  the  great  Benedictine 
House  at  S.  Gallen  became,  than  that  they  should  go  from  S.  Gallen 
to  Chur,  a  place  that  once  had  been  the  centre  of  Roman  culture  and 
government^  but  was  so  no  longer.  1  may  add  that  the  ancient  con- 
nexion of  Chur  and  Milan  explains  the  presence  in  Switzerland  of  a 
North  Italian  text  like  n.  It  seems  probable  that  n  came  to  S.  Gallen 
in  a  fragmentary  state  and  only  got  there  because  S.  Gallen  had  already 
become  a  famous  repository  for  old  books.  For  similar  reasons  and  in 
a  similar  state  k  may  have  been  brought  to  Bobbio.  There  is  no 
trace  in  k  of  Irish  influence;  the  band  is  not  an  Irish  hand,  the 
spelling  is  not  Irish  spelling,  and  the  text  is  not  the  Irish  text  of  the 
time  of  S.  Patrick  *. 

The  extraordinary  blunders  in  the  text  of  k  have  often  been  used 
to  demonstrate  the  ignorance  of  the  scribe.  It  is  true  that  he  seems 
to  have  been  quite  unfamiliar  with  Christian  phraseology :  a  scribe 
who  writes  ueni  ad  rtgnum  tuum  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  (Matt,  vi  lo) 
could  not  have  known  his  Paternoster  very  well.  But  be  was  not 
ignorant  of  Latin,  for  his  mistakes  generally  make  well-spelt  Latin 
words.  Too  much,  I  venture  to  think,  has  been  made  of  his  confusions 
of  one  letter  with  another ;  he  seems  rather  to  guess  the  wrong  words 
than  to  misread  the  several  letters.  No  doubt  his  exemplar  had  a  fonn 
of  long  f»  whereby  '  s  *  is  confused  with  '  i  *  and  with  '  f/  but  this  long  f 
can  be  illustrated  from  written  Pompeian  tablets  (FaL  Sac,  I,  voL  iii, 
plate  159),  so  that  it  affords  no  evidence  for  date  or  place*.  But  the 
spellings  found  in  k  are  quite  inconsistent  with  any  theory  that  makes 
the  scribe  an  uneducated  man.  His  spelling,  in  fact,  is  what  we  might 
expect  from  his  beautiful  handwriting,  I  have  elsewhere  compiled* 
a  list  of  spellings  which  agree  with  those  in  the  best  MSS  of  Plautus, 
but  are  hardly  to  be  found  in  any  Christian  document  except  k.  They 
include  ^rdua/us^  deMotson'ay  inhitis  mamims^  noum^  optxima^  optxufu^ 
panxoiis^po^  nos^  sinmlarc^  uoHmui^,  also  ctuitVAt^  simiieHt,  /m  marr^Kfic 

*  See  Wilson's  Gtlastan  Sacramentary,  p.  jJii ;  PlanU,  Da$  alt*  Rdtien^  p,  509. 

*  See  Bernard  and  Atkinson  {Libtr  HymnorHm^  ti  100)  on  the  Hyam  of 
S.  Sechnall  Auditi  omnts^  and  J.  T,  S,  tit  95. 

*  Another  good  instance  ts  to  be  found  in  the  tombstone  of  Gaudentia  (a.  d.  338) 
in  the  Capitoline  Mtiseutn  at  Rome,  of  which  a  good  facsimile  is  given  in  F.  Stefleia, 
Lutttnisch*  Paldographit  i  1  a.  I  am  glad  to  have  an  opportunity  of  calling  atteflUon 
Co  this  useful  publication. 

*  Cat$d>ridgt  University  Rtpcrter  tor  March  5,  1 901, 

»  yoUmus  IS  also  found  in  cod.  W  of  Cyprian's  De  Mortatitait  (Hartel  308 '•, 
3fo»»  »<). 


I 


I 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


to? 


But  it  may  be  said  that  these  ancient  spellings  are  due  to  the  stupid 
fiutbfalness  of  the  scribe  who  only  copied  what  he  saw.  From  this 
point  of  view  the  misreadings  of  ^*  are  of  some  interest,  for  they 
ibewus  the  kind  of  words  that  naturally  flowed  from  the  scribe's  i>en. 
Thas  in  Mark  xii  14  the  puzzling  official  word  capitularium  is  given 
without  mistake,  but  in  the  lines  preceding  instead  of  in  ueritatem  uiam 
Demini  doces  we  find  that  k*  wrote  honesiatem  uiam  Domini  dices^ 
it  'you  say  that  the  Lord's  way  means  wealth.'  This  is  a  fine  per- 
remoD  of  the  text,  but  nevertheless  hones tas  is  a  good  Latin  word* 
In  Mark  xiii  12  the  prophecy  of  persecutions  makes  the  scribe  think 
of  the  law-courts,  and  ^o  frater  is  miswrilten /rfft'/c?r.  In  Matt,  v  28 
i^e  strange-looking  tan  sam  is  really  causam.  In  Mark  xiii  28  the 
*cribe  did  not  try  to  begin  a  Latin  word  with  *  dg '  as  the  edition  makes 
«itn,  but  instead  oi folia  adgnoscitis  he  wrote  soli  adgnoscitis  'ye  alone 
know/  Of  course  these  misreadings  do  not  make  true  sense,  e.  g* 
^»/ramvs  in  the  preceding  line  is  ridiculous,  but  yet  the  misreadings 
generally  make  up  something  which  looks  like  Latin.  To  crown  all, 
^He  scribe,  who  stumbles  over  the  names  of  Peter  (Mark  xvi  8/)  and 
^C  Mary  (Matt,  i  20),  turns  *  how  much  doth  a  man  differ  from  a  sheep ' 
V^hfatL  xii  12)  into  Quart  to  ergo  differ t  homo  Ioue\  I  cannot  help 
S:vspecting  that  Paganism  was  still  alive  when  k  was  being  written, 
^^nd  that  the  scribe  was  a  professional  copier  of  books,  perhaps  a 
l^^eathen  still  or  only  a  recent  convert.  Such  a  man  would  have 
^hat  might  be  called  a  compositor's  knowledge  of  literature,  admirable 
90  &r  as  it  went,  but  stopping  short  of  syntax.  It  should  however 
lie  noticed  that  in  Mark  x  24^*  seems  to  have  written  soimnonem  instead 
^  sermonem,  thereby  indicating  some  knowledge  of  Jewish  history*. 
The  difference  in  general  appearance  between  k  and  other  Christian 
^^  MSS,  the  beautiful  handwriting,  the  traces  of  Classical  culture  in  the 
^B  9cribe*s  work,  coupled  with  his  surprising  unfamiliarity  with  the  Gospel 
^n  phraseology — all  these  considerations  point  to  a  very  early  date.  The 
7  text  of  k  is  practically  identical  with  that  used  by  S.  Cyprian,  and  such 
a  text  was  not  used,  so  far  as  we  know,  in  any  part  of  the  Christian 
irortd  after,  say,  the  death  of  S.  Augustine.  Thus  textual  criticism  and 
palaeography  unite  in  suggesting  that  k  is  one  of  our  oldest  MSS. 
I  I  venture  to  think  that  we  may  consider  it  to  have  been  written  in 
^^  the  fourth  century. 

^H      No  direct  indication  of  the  place  of  writing  survives.     There  is  no 

^Vtesison  why  we  should  doubt  that  it  was  written  in  Africa,  the  only 

B  place  where  a  text  like  k  seems  likely  to  have  been  in  actual  use, 

but   how   the   MS   eventually  reached  Bobbio   must  remain  for  the 

present  an  unsolved  problem. 

F.    C.    BuitKITT, 
^  In  Matt,  the  name  b  spelt  Salomon  and  salamoHn 


lo8         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

SOME   FURTHER  NOTES    ON    THE   MSS    OF  THT 
WRITINGS   OF  ST.  ATHANASIUS. 

In  the  course  of  a  visit  to  Mount  Adios  and  a  few  hours  spen 
in  passing  at  Basd  and  Paris,  Mr.  W.  £.  Moss*  and  I  had  in  thi 
summer  of  1902  the  good  fortune  to  see  sevend  manuscripts  o 
Athanasius ;  two,  B  and  R,  whidi  have  been  recently  discussed  in  the 
/.  7!  5.  by  Dr.  Wallis  and  Mr.  C  H.  Turner*,  and  five  others  whid 
have  not  previously  been  noticed.    These  I  shall  call  A  K  X  Y  Z. 

I  propose  first  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  B  and  R. 

Cod.  B  (Basd  A  iii  4).  Described  by  Dr.  Walh's  in  the/.  7:5:  voL  £ 
pp.  245  ff.  On  p.  246  n.  he  says:  'There  is  a  phenomenon  in  oonnexio 
with  the  numbering  of  the  quaternions  which  I  caimot  interpret  .  - 
I  have  traced  a  tampering  with  the  s^natures  of  the  quaternions  to  tl^ 
end  of  f.  412^  [from  C  117^];  the  corrector  has  desired  to  move  tl: 
quaternions  five  places  bac^'  te.  The  explanation  of  diis  phenomenci 
is  diat  the  gatherings  are  not  quaternions^  as  can  be  seen  by  looking  < 
die  'strings'  instead  of  the  s^naiture&  As  I  was  only  stoppii^  ^ 
Basd  between  two  trains  I  had  not  time  to  take  foil  notes  of  ti= 
gatherings,  but  I  satisfied  myself  that  d»e  history  of  the  tampering 
this: — 

(«)  The  senator  of  the  MS  began  his  work  00  the  assumption,  i 
which  Dr.  WaOis  has  followed  hrm,  that  the  gatherings  are  quatemions 

(3)  After  inserting  fifteen  s^natures  on  this  mist^en  plan  he  saw  hi 
error  and  hence^Mth  ibilowed  the  gatherings,  but  wtdioot  correcting  hi 
nnmexation. 

f7)  Later,  the  s%naturcs  were  altered  to  correct  this  mistake^  ead 
being  moved  back. 

Cod.  R  (Paris  Xat.Grec.4r4X  Described  by  Dt.  Wallis  in  the/.  7:5 
voLcLpp.97C  On  p^  9$  he  gives  an  accocnt  of  the  various  notes  whid 
are  written  on  the  first  and  hst  leaves^  To  his  tcaisscripciQiB  I  am  not 
abtetomakeafewadditiocxs': — 

V«)  The  note  on  L  A»  siboaki  be 

Tw  v«  ^«^Xa)  i^.  TL  e^  rim  ^«XU,  w^l 

(3)  The  note  (i)  on  £1  t  is  in  red.  I  jtisjged  it  to  be  of  die  thirteend 
oe  fixEcteenth  centurv. 

(>)  The  note  i,ii)  seesKd  to  be  of  the  same  age  or  a  feie  titer. 
1  n  SBC^  iadebfeed  b»  Mr.  Hues  Sir  ma^j  vtbtaMe 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  109 

(i)  The  note  (iii)  seemed  still  later,  possibly  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

(()  The  note  (iv)  is  fit(PKiov)  doy/iar(ue6y)  ay{iov)  (?)  d^aMi(<ruiv)  6fi<rmp6{f) 

h  the  same  hand,  I  think,  as  note  (ii). 
(f)  The  note  on  f.  458  runs  thus : — 

+ovrovf  ovro  t^s  Kvpi^ov  did  tv  ^v  ryfytro-f-Mff 
KJijfimif  ^ay)  trrapBot*    viroXijr  fioim)(o(t)  cnro  r 

I  cannot  quite  rewrite  this :  it  is  obviously  somewhat  corrupt  both  ia 
gelling  and  grammar.     The  best  I  can  offer  is : — 

ownff  rovro  rijs  KvpiCov  dih  'lijcoC  xP^arou  tytvtro  nSXt»s^  icn/firnjr'  tSrop 
^^^pA^  i  wokgs  lunHxxhs  anh  t^v  '  dymv  So^toy  ri^v  tTiixija-tv  dtxov  rav  t(6lkȴ. 

I  cannot  construe  this,  but  I  take  the  meaning  /to  be  that  the  MS 
•as  taken  at  the  fall  of  Constantinople  from  St.  Sophia  to  the 
Monastery  of  Kyrizos  and  used  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  monk 
^Ik)  brought  it. 

The  impression  formed  on  my  mind  by  the  character  of  the  writing 
^  that  it  {M-obably  referred  to  the  fell  of  the  city  in  1204  rather  than 
^  145O)  though  the  spelling  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  favouring  the 
^ter  date. 

I  must  now  turn  to  the  more  speculative  question  of  the  history  of 

Dr.  Wallis  has  suggested  two  identifications.  He  takes  the  monastery 
""^  Kupov  ^onHTunt  to  be  the  ^monastery  of  rod  &yiw  Aiowaiov  on  Mount 
•Athos.  This  seems  certainly  right:  I  would  only  add  that  the  title 
**po»  rather  than  dyiov  seems  to  point  to  a  time  probably  before  and 
<*rtainly  not  long  after  the  death  of  Dionysius  (i.  e.  about  1400). 

He  also  takes  xvplCov  to  be  Caryes  on  Mount  Athos.    This,  I  think,  is 

^possible.     Caryes  is  probably  KapvdU,  a  dative  plural  which  has 

Quired  the  force  of  a  nominative  from  tlie  fact  that  it  was  most  often 

^sed  in  the  phrase  iv  Kapvais,     By  no  possibility  could  it  be  corrupted 

•tito  Kvpifov.     Moreover,  there  never  has  been  a  /*ov^  Kapv&v^  though 

^Viat  is  now  called  npw6Tav  was  once  known  as  4  Xovpo  eV  Kapvms, 

But  if  we  abandon  this  identification,  what  suggestion  can  be  made  ? 

As  the  MS  seems  to  have  probably  been  at  Dionysiou  in  the  founder's 

lifetime,  his  history  may  be  expected  to  give  us  the  clue. 

I  therefore  give  an  extract  from  a  report  made  in  1706  by  P.  Bra- 
oonnier*. 

'Ce  nom  (Dionysiou)  luy  vient  d'un  solitaire  nommd  Denys,  n6  dans 
^^5  montagnes  de  Castoria  au  lieu  nommd  Kyrissos.  .  .  .* 

^  I  do  not  think  that  this  is  right,  I  do  not  understand  it. 
'  I  do  not  know  what  this  can  be. 

*  dw6  takes  an  accusative  in  modern  Greek. 

*  H.  Omont,  Missions  ankeoiogiqtus/roMfaises  en  OrinU,  p.  looi. 


IM         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Surely  it  is  quite  probable  Ihat  Kyrissos  (now  Goritza  in  the  vilayet 
of  Monastir)  is  the  place  referred  to  in  the  note,  and  the  history  of  R  is 
that  it  belonged  (i)  to  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople,  (2)  to  a  monastery 
at  Goritza,  which  bought  it  from  a  fugitive  monk  from  Constantinople 
after  the  capture  of  the  Crusaders  in  1204,  (3)  to  the  monastery  of 
Dionysiou,  which  acquired  it  through  the  founder,  who  came  from 
Goritza,  (4)  to  Colbert,  who  obtained  it  through  one  of  his  many  agents 
in  the  East ;  it  would  probably  not  be  very  difficult  by  a  few  days* 
research  in  Paris  to  trace  the  exact  channel  by  which  it  reached  him. 

Cod.  A,  fV^atopedi  7).     Vellum  (34-9 x 21-8  cm.)',  twelfth  century.      ™ 

In  the  comer  of  f.  101  there  is  a  sponged  out  note  which  may  be 
a  date,  if  so  it  is  perhaps  ,<f^i%  but  I  have  no  confidence  either  that  this 
is  right  or  that,  if  it  is,  it  has  any  bearing  on  the  date  of  the  MS.  I  thought 
that  it  probably  belongs  to  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  but  it 
is  a  difficult  MS  to  date.  It  is  written  by  probably  ten  hands,  some 
good,  some  quite  bad. 

The  original  MS  was  identical  in  contents  with  L  (see  /.  T.  S.  voL  ii, 
p.  105),  and  is  therefore  probably  connected  with  BL  and,  as  will  be  ^ 
shown,  with  K  ;  it  is  the  earliest  of  this  group.  ■ 

Bound  up  with  it  is  another  collection  of  Athanasian  tracts,  written  at 
the  same  time  and  probably  never  separate.     These  are  ;— 

1.  f.    I.      rw    «V    dytotr    ir/»f    ^^v   *A&avtuTiov    apxif^rnincAfrov    dXi^mrfytint 

Arranged  in  twelve  chapters. 

2.  f.  24.   atpokoyui  ntpl  T^f  ava\tttprffTf^£  ffviica  ^^i»x$rj  vrrh  (rrvrfpuivov  rtyv  iovtedf* 

3.  f.  32^.      Kara  aptim,&¥  mt  itarh  cra^cXXiava>v  icat  aTr<^ayia  virip  iiovwriev  ^ 

4.  f.  42.      iTpor  rour  tw  *A<f>pu(^  ciruririjinn/r. 

5.  r  47^.  iffp\  irtWeoic  op$oii6^  (cari  aa^XKtavStv.  This  is  a  long  dialc^gue 
between  Macedonius  and  Onhodoxus. 

6.  f.  62^,  duiXfcToc  6p6M^  mai  avo/iotov,  apxirrui,  diro  r^c  hFitnokifS  to5 
Offt^m  drrlav, 

7.  f.  69.      fi>t>ofitov  Koi  6p6*Ji6^v  iripa  dtaX(«cTOff. 

8.  f.  73-      ^MiXf^*  mroKXtvapiov  Kai  o^^odo^ov. 

9.  f.  80.      Tov  mrrms  [in  mg.  m.  p.  rot!  iytow  *A^awunw]   *ls  rh  ptfT^ 
rvoyyrXiov  ntp\  rov  €1$  t6p  Kvptoi"  ffivmyftov  tXBdvrtt  tts  roif  Xryo/ArHiir  Kpanam 
T6rrt»  K.  T.  X- 

Cod  K.  (Vatopedt,  5, 6>.  Vellum  (27-9  x  24-1  cm.),  fourteenth  century. 
This  manuscript  contains  a  note  at  the  b^inning,  partially  erased, 
which  states  that  it  was 

'  These  measurements,  as  those  of  K,  are  calculated  from  pbotognphs,  they  are 
tliCT^ore  pn>btti>ly  ooc  quite 


m 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  III 

fiiPKlow  fiatnkuAw  rov  jea\  *IaMii>ir  .   .   .  rrowoftao 
&fwros  Utii  rov  BtUv  m\  ayytXttcov  vx^ftaros  'luaaaxj*  .  .  . 
Gompuing  this  with  the  note  in  MS  Paris  Nat.  Grec.   1275,  '^*^^ 

^9^iaT&rcv  fiaaikius  KVf^ov  ^leaamnv  KavrtiKovCijiPoO,  rov  .   .   .  furovoixatrBivTos 

Wid^  ^loMixov  .  .  .  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  emperor  who  is 
implied  in  the  word  /3aar(Xun$y  is  John  Cantacuzene  who  was  associated  in 
tbeimperial  office  with  John  V  from  1345  to  1355,  ^^^  ^^^"  retired,  under 
coopdsion,  to  end  his  discreditable  career  as  a  monk.    He  lived  for 

i  Ottoy  years  and  founded  a  school  of  calligraphy  which  lasted  for  several 

I   jeoentions.     Its  work  is  easily  recognizable  by  the  charming  whiteness 

0^  the  vellum,  the  beauty  of  the  writing,  a  peculiar  sepia  ink  of  a  yellowish 

tin^  and  a  tendency  to  flourish  marginal  letters,  especially  those  in  the 

hA  line  of  a  page,  while  in  biblical  MSS  the  rule  seems  to  have  been 

to  give  liturgical  notes  and  mark  the  oMiyvttcrfumi,  but  not  the  Ammonian 

sections  or  Eusebian  canons. 

I  hope  that  some  day  the  Palaeographical  Society  may  see  its  way 

to  publishing  a  little  fasciculus  of  MSS  which  belong  to  the  Joasaph 

school, — cod.  Evan.  568  (Bumey  18)  is  a  good  specimen,  but  there  are 

several  more. 

The  contents  of  K  can  best  be  given  by  reference  to  the  table  of 

contents  in  B  given  in  the/.  T.  S.  vol.  ii,  pp.  246-8. 

1.  B  1-25  =  K  1-24,  except  that  the  Disputatio  contra  Arium  (B  3) 
is  omitted  in  K  in  its  proper  place  and  is  K  27. 

2.  B  45-88  =  K  37-76  with  the  following  exceptions; — 
(a)  The  De  sententia  Dionysii^  B  48,  is  K  47. 

(3)  The  Encyclica  epistola  Alexandria  B  50,  is  omitted  in  K. 
(y)  The  Epistola  Constantini^  B  66,  is  omitted  in  K. 
(8)  The  Explication  B  69,  is  omitted  in  K. 

(«)  The  Epistola  ad  Serapionem,  B  76,  the  Historia  Arianorum^  B  77, 
and  the  De  synodis^  B  78,  are  K  66,  K  65,  K  64  respectively. 

3.  B  26-44  and  K  25-36  are  arranged  so  differently,  although 
loughly  corresponding,  that  I  must  give  the  table  of  correspondences 
ttfiiU:— 

B  26  =  K  32  B  35  = 

B27  = B36  = 

B  28  =  K  36  B  37  =  K  28 

B  29  = B  38  =  K  26 

B  30  =  K  34  B  39  =  K  29 

B  31  =  K  35  B  40  =  K  25 

B  32  =  K  30  B  41  = 

B  33  =  K  31  B  43  = 

B  34  =  K  33  B  43  = 

B44  = 


Iia  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

4.  K  77-81  are  not  in  B.    They  are 

77.  Epistola  praefaHofds  loco  scripta, 

78.  Dialogus  cum  Macedomiano. 

79.  Contra  Anomoeum. 

80.  DiaUgus  alter  cum  Macedomano. 

81.  Vita  S.  AniomiK 

5.  K  has  ^^ludktum  PhotUzhsx  the  ma^^  B  has  it  before  the  «wc 
as  have  also  A  L. 

From  these  facts  taken  in  connexion  with  what  is  already  known 
the  MSB  of  Athanasius  it  is  possible  to  draw  several  conclusions,  wi 
varying  d^rees  of  probability. 

I.  In  speaking  of  the  MS  A  Ihave  shown  that  it  probably  bdongs 
the  group  hitherto  represented  by  L  and  B  1-21.    It  is  possible  tb 
R  1-20,  87  must  be  added  to  this  group, — it  would  be  almost  certai 
were  it  not  that  the  coincidence  between  LB  A  and  K  is  broken  by  tJ 
displacement  of  the  £>isfmtatio  cmira  Arium^  and  as  between  B  and 
extends  beyond  the  twenty-first  tract. 

It  is  probable  that  the  displacement  of  the  Disfmimiio  is  an  acddei 
but  the  other  &ct  seems  to  point  to  the  possibility  that  ahlioqgfa  L^ 
B  i-2i«  and  K  1-10^  27  repcesent  a  common  archetype^  ^B  1-25  ai 
K  i-i4«  27  represent  it  not  directly  but  throii^^  an  intcnnediate  MS,  m 
whiiL^i  had  added  K«ir  tracts  at  the  end  of  the  twenty-one  wfaidi  we 
ft>uiidin.<l.    Tbe  rehtioiis  therefore  of  the  MSS  may  be  put  thDS^— 


A 


\ 


\ 


R       B  A  L 

It  )»  f<t)Mi^  jcu<>e^  3Kc«ssaav  ^>  Mi  riac  :^  onhr  a;;pSies  t 
:ihe  ^'«^3«  cf  Af  :nk"ts^  h  oc*»  3joc  ixjc^  Ssccxse  a  scrT^e  adopu 
^»e  ceiiet  x^"^  ra^-t!?  «  4  v«tta  >r:>  rsuc  i»i  jOsc  skcttc  tie  ts 

tV-^itocktoAikl^^iljSptst  ;J^  ^  :a:  u^wv-^iy  5jr»t  iaot  ^k  suae  1 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  II3 

(i)  This  is  shown  from  two  notes  in  R,  quoted  by  Dr.  Wallisy.  T.  S, 
vol.  fi,  pp.  99  and  249.  The  first  note  shows  that  the  De  synodis 
preceded  the  Historia  Arianorum  in  R  and  that  R  inverted  the  order. 
K  has  the  order  of  i?,  and,  as  was  mentioned  above,  also  places  the 
Epistola  adSerapionem  after  instead  of  before  both  these  tracts,  showing 
that  besides  the  alteration  in  order  made  by  the  scribe  of  R  and  noted 
by  bim,  there  was  a  further  change  which  he  did  not  record.  The 
second  note  shows  that  the  scribe  of  R  wished  the  De  sententia 
^^ionysii  to  be  placed  next  to  the  Eusebii  symboium ;  B  has  observed 
this  change,  therefore,  says  Dr.  Wallis,  it  is  a  copy  of  R  rather  than  i? ; 
but  K^  has  got  the  old  order,  which  supports  the  suggestion  made 
above  that  it  is  a  copy  of  R  rather  than  R. 

(2)  That  B  is  indirectly  a  copy  of  R  and  not  of  R  is  shown  by  the 
notes  attached  to  the  Sardican  epistles  in  R  B  K  (see  /.  T,  S.  vol.  ii, 
P>  250).  R  has  a  full  and  accurate  note,  B  has  a  shorter  and  less 
accurate  one,  therefore  Dr.  Wallis  concluded  that  B  had  abbreviated 
^'s  note.  But  K  has  B's  note  and  K  has  been  shown  to  be  a  copy  of  ^ 
nther  than  R,  therefore  either  B  and  K  have  independently  made  the 
s^e  inaccurate  abbreviation  of  the  longer  note,  or  R's  note  is  really  an 
cj^sion  of  B's  note  made  because  the  latter  was  perceived  to  be 
"^accurate.  The  latter  hypothesis  is  far  preferable.  The  only  theory 
I  can  see  which  will  account  for  all  the  facts  is  that  there  was  an 
mtennediate  archetype  between  R  and  BR  which  I  will  call  5;  this 
contained  most  of  the  notes  found  in  R,  which  was  acted  upon  by  the 
scribe  of  B  and  copied  by  the  scribe  of  R,  but  it  did  not  contain 
tbe  longer  note  on  the  Sardican  epistles,  which  is  due  to  the  scribe 
of  R,  and  probably  did  not  contain  the  note  on  the  Deposiiio.  The 
^tions  between  BKR  may  therefore  be  represented  thus: — 

R 


B       R       K 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  theory  reinstates  B  as  potentially  equal  in 
value  to  R,  so  that  the  study  of  K  has  not  merely  given  us  a  new 
authority  for  the  text  of  R  but  has  restored  us  one  which  Dr.  Wallis's 
researches  seemed  to  have  taken  away. 

'  K  throws  no  further  light  on  the  position  of  the  Dtposiiio :  it  agrees  with  R  B 
and  has  no  note.  I  therefore  incline  to  the  belief  that  the  note  in  R  is  really 
intended  for  the  guidance  of  future  copyists,  and  is  not  an  indication  of  any 
difference  of  order  in  /?. 

VOL.  V.  I 


114         T^^   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Cod.  X.  (Laura  B  28),    VelJum  (18*5  x  14*6  cm.),  eleventh  century. 
This  contained  originally : — 
(i)  Contra  Gentes. 
(a)  De  incarnatione. 
(3)  Disputatio  contra  Arium. 

but  it  is  now  mutilated  at   the  beginning,     inc,  ««  -ya^  «ai  ro  aarpa 
iarttala^Qv  je.r.X. 

Cod.  Y.  (Laura  B  58).    Vellum  (23.7  x  19-2  cm.),  tenth  century. 
This  contains : — 

1.  Contra  Gentes  (the  beginning  is  missing). 

2.  De  incarnatione. 

3.  Disputatio  contra  Arium  (incomplete). 
Cod.  Z.  (Laura  r  106).    Vellum  (24-7  x  19*6  cm.),  tenth  century. 

This  contains  :— 

1.  Contra  Gentes. 

2.  De  incarnatione. 

3.  Disputatio  contra  Arium,  at  the  end  of  which  is  written  cVXiipw^ 

avv  $t^  7  rc^i;  Aylov  d&avaalov  tcttra  ap*iov  dpiarticu 

The  beginning  of  this  MS  has  been  preserved  by  the  fortunate 
accident  of  some  leaves  of  a  Chrysostora  being  bound  up  with  it     ■ 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  three  MSS  are  practically  identical  in 
contents.  Mr.  Moss  and  I  compared  them  for  several  hours  to  see 
if  the  texts  were  also  identical,  and  found  that  there  are  a  few  accidental 
variants  in  X,  though  none  of  the  smallest  importance,  but  that  Y  and  Z 
are  either  copies  one  of  the  other  or  sister  copies  of  the  same  original ; 
they  agree  consistently  in  the  smallest  details.  It  is  impossible  to  sayi 
which  is  the  eariier ;  Z  is  slightly  better  written,  but  both  are  admirablel 
specimens  of  late  tenth  or  possibly  very  early  eleventh-century  writing. 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  add  that  the  monks  at  Vatopedi  and  the 
Laura  were  so  kind  as  to  allow  us  to  photograph  the  whole  of  the  I>e 
incarnaiione  in  K  A  Z.  It  seemed  unnecessary  to  photograph  X  Y  in 
view  of  their  textual  identity  with  Z.  I  have  since  developed  these  photo- 
graphs; there  are  a  few  negatives  which  will  be  incomplete  owing  to 
defects  in  the  film,  but  even  if  I  am  unable  to  go  back  to  Mount  Athos 
again,  I  hope  that  when  I  have  time  to  collate  the  prints  I  shall  be  able 
to  give  a  fair  representation  of  the  text  of  A  based  on  the  readings  of 
L  B  A  K  S,  as  well  as  of  Z,  which  is  of  course  far  the  oldest  MS  accessible 
for  the  text  of  the  De  incarnatione,  though  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is 
best ;  so  far  as  I  can  see  at  present  it  seems  to  be  independent  both 
of  Bands. 

K.  Lake. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  II5 

NOTES  ON  THE  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  BISHOPS 
OF  ST.  ANDREWS  FROM  A.D.  1093  TO  A.D.  1571  \ 

II. 

CAHELINE,  chancellor  of  the  king  and  papal  chaplain  (Feb.  13, 
*a54— T.  no.  i6i),  was  postulated  on  the  first  Sunday  in  Lent,  1254 
(Sc  vi  43),  which  works  omt  as  Feb.  14,  1 254-5.  M.  (j.  <i.  1 254)  says  he 
■^^as  dected  by  the  prior  and  convent  of  St.  Andrews,  presumably 
•■^erring  to  the  Keledei  being  refused  a  voice  in  the  election. 

Gameline  is  confirmed  by  Pope  Alexander  IV  on  July  i,  1255  ;  and 

tlic  letter  of  confirmation  (T.  no.  176)  explains  why  the  word  *postu- 

^ted'  was  used  by  Sc    He  suffered  from  defect  of  birth,  being  ex  solute 

,g^tus  et  soluta.    The  letter  recites  that  on  the  death  of  Abel,  the 

prior  and  chapter  convened,  and  proceeded  per  viam  compramissi, 

Appointing  nine  of  their  number  to  make  choice  of  a  bishop  either  by 

election  or  postulation.     The  choice  fell  on  Gameline,  papal  chaplain 

auul  chancellor  of  Alexander,  king  of  Scotland.     Four  persons,  Robert 

<3e  Prebenda,  dean  of  Dunblane,  Simon  of  Kynros,.  clerk,  and  brothers 

Hdyas  and  Alan,  canons  of  St.  Andrews,  were  sent  by  the  prior  and 

chapter  to  the  Pope  with  the  postulation.     The  Pope  dispenses  for 

deto  of  birth,  and  confirms.    A  letter  of  the  same  date  (T.  no.  176 

tdjlnem)  was  addressed  by  the  Pope  to  the  bishop  of  Glasgow  com- 

naoding  him,  in  the  usual  terms,  to  associate  with  him  two  other 

bishops,  chosen  by  the  bishop  elect,  and  to  confer  on  Gameline  the  gift 

of  consecration.     He  is  still  'elect'  on  Sept.  20,  1255  (Bain's  Calendar ^ 

ino.  2013),  at  which  date  he  had  been  removed  from  the  council  of  the 

king  for  offences  against  the  king  of  England. 

The  consecration  by  William,  bishop  of  Glasgow,  was  on  secundo  die 
futtaUs  Domini  J  quo  dominica  habebatur^  1255  (Sc.  vi  43).  Dec,  26, 
fid  fall  on  Sunday  in  1255.  The  delay  between  the  papal  confirmation 
ind  the  consecration  may  be  accounted  for  by  opposition  on  the 
put  of  the  king  and  the  members  of  his  council.  Gameline's  banish- 
ment in  the  following  year  is  attributed  by  M.  (5.  a.  1256)  partly  to  his 
opposing  the  designs  of  the  king's  councillors,  and  partly  because  he 
refused  to  give  them  money,  quasi  pro  emptione  sui  episcopaius*, 

Gameline  died  on  the  morrow  of  St.  Vitalis,  Martyr  (which  feast  is 
cd^Mrtted  on  April  28),  1 271,  at  Inchmurdauch,  and  was  buried  in  the 

*  The  writer  will  be  grateful  for  corrections  or  additions  to  these  notes. 

*  On  July  31,  1355,  Pope  Alexander  IV  gives  leave  to  Master  Gameline,  bishop 
^^of  St  Andrews,  to  retain  for  two  years  from  his  consecration  the  benefices 
^*^  he  had  before  his  postulation.  This  is  granted  because  of  the  debts  on  his 
chuth  and  the  repairs  which  it  and  other  buildings  needed  (T.  no.  178). 

I  2 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  II7 

WILLIAM  ERASER,  chancellor  of  the  kingdom,  dean  of  Glasgow. 

On  the  day  of  St  Nicholas  (Dec  6)  1279,  William  Fraser,  dean  of 

^^lasgow  (he  does  not  style  himself  elect  of  St.  Andrews),  obliges  him- 

^>df  for  a  debt  of  2oolb.  sterling  incurred  by  the  chapter  of  Glasgow 

^  pro  ardais  nostris  negociis  in  Curia  Romana  promovendis.'     His 

V^rothers,  Sir  Symon  Fraser,  knight,  and  Andrew  Fraser,  are  his  *  fide- 

Jiissores'  (R.G.  i.  193-5).    We  cannot  but  conjecture  that  this  money 

^^ns  for  expediting  his  bulls. 

Elected  August  4,  1279  (Sc.  vi  44).  The  letter  of  confirmation  from 
I'ope  Nicholas  III,  dated  May  21,  1280,  relates  that  the  election  was 
,/cr  viam  compranUssi.  The  *  compromissarii '  were  the  prior,  the  sub- 
prior  (the  text  reads  probably  in  error  *  superiori  *),  six  canons,  and  the 
archdeacon  of  St.  Andrews,  all  named.  They  unanimously  chose 
William,  then  dean  of  Glasgow.  Proctors  were  sent  to  Rome,  and, 
according  to  custom,  the  decree  of  the  election  was  examined  by  three 
cardinals.     The  election  was  confirmed  by  the  Pope  (T.  no.  276). 

According  to  Sc  (vi  4)  Fraser  was  consecrated  at  the  Roman  court 
by  Pope  Nicholas  on  May  19,  1280. 

The  letter  of  confirmation  already  referred  to,  dated  May  21,  contains 
the  expression  '  tibique  munus  consecrationis  nostris  manibus  duximus 
impendendum.'  This  is  worth  noticing ;  for  sometimes  the  expression 
that  a  consecration  was  by  the  Pope  means  no  more  than  that  it  was  by 
his  command  or  commission '. 

Fraser  died  Aug.  20,  1297,  at  Artuyl  (in  France),  and  was  buried 
at  Paris  in  the  church  of  the  Preaching  Friars  (Sc.  vi  44).  His  heart 
was  brought  to  Scotland,  and  by  his  successor,  Lamberton,  was  deposited 
in  the  wall  of  the  church  of  St.  Andrews  near  the  tomb  of  bishop 
Gameline  {ibid,y, 

WILLIAM  D£  LAMBERTON  (Lambirton,  Lambyrton),  then 
chancellor  of  Glasgow. 

Elected  Nov.  5,  1297,  *exclusis  penitus  Keldeis  tunc,  sicut  et  in 
daabus  electionibus  praecedentibus '  (Sc.  vi  44).  The  election  was 
per  viam  eompromissi,  the  'compromissarii'  being  the  prior,  the  sub- 
prior,  the  archdeacon,  and  four  others,  being,  canons,  all  named.     The 

'  He  had  served  as  envoy  to  England  July  10,  1277  ;  and  again  Feb.  20,  1278 ; 
and  again  April  10,  1279  (B.C.  ii  pp.  23,  24,  48).  Oct  3, 1289,  he  and  others  were 
accredited  to  treat  with  the  ambassadors  of  the  king  of  Norway  (iMe/.  ii  96).  At  the 
end  of  1290  the  seven  earls  of  Scotland  and  the  community  of  the  realm  complain 
of  W.  bishop  of  St  Andrews  and  John  Comyn  as  guardians  (I'Mi/.  ii  109).  He  had 
a  brother  Simon  {ihid,  ii  103). 

*  On  March  23,  1277,  Master  ^^^lliam  Fraser,  dean  of  Glasgow,  chancellor  of 
Alexander,  king  of  Scotland,  receives  from  Nicholas  III  a  dispensation  to  hold 
one  benefice  with  core  of  souls  in  addition  to  the  deanery  and  the  church  of  Ar. 
(Ajr).C.P.R.i454. 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  II9 

(Bene,  Bane).-— In  one  of  the  MSS  kA  Scolkhromam 
(▼i  45)  the  beadmg  of  the  chapter  gives  the  name  as '  Jacobus  BenedictL' 
Keith  (Cmimiogm^  Rnsad's  edition,  p.  23)  suggests,  with  probability, 
that '  Jaoobos  Bene  dictos'  in  a  contracted  form  ('Jacobus  Bene  diet ') 
maj  have  given  rise  to  the  reading)  \  archdeacon  of  St  Andrews 
(Sc;  W.ii  375),  canon  of  Aberdeen  and  prdxndaiy  of  Cruden  (CP.R« 
ii386). 

Twelve  days  after  the  burial  of  Lamberton  the  chapter  proceeded 
(June  19,  133S)  to  an  election.  By  calculation  we  find  that  the  day 
was  a  Sunday.  Some  of  the  votes  were  given  for  James  Ben,  archdeacon 
of  St  Andrews  [and  papal  chaplain,  T.  na  473] ;  and  some  were  given 
fcr  Alexander  Kininmonth,  archdeacon  of  Lothian.  As  usual,  the 
immber  of  votes  for  each  is  not  recorded.  Ben  was  at  the  time  at 
tbe  papal  oooit,  and  before  the  news  of  the  dection  reached  him,  he  had 
been  advanced  to  the  see  by  John  XXII.  Alexander  Kyninmonth  went 
^  Avignon  to  prosecute  his  claim ;  he  found  St  Andrews  already  fiUed 
<>|>,  but  the  Pope  provided  him  to  the  see  of  Aberdeen  (Sc  vi  45). 

In  a  letter  of  J(^m  XXII  to  'James  bishop  of  St  Andrews' 
^'^.  no.  472)  dated  Avignon,  Aug.  i,  1328,  the  Pope  states  that 
during  the  life  of  William  de  Lamberton  be  had  resolved  to  icscivc 
'^^lie  see  of  St  Andrews  to  his  own  provisioiL  Tliere  is  no  reference 
^^  an  dection  by  the  chapter.  James  is  appointed,  and  the  Pope  had 
^^^ansed  him  to  be  consecrated  by  Bertrand,  bishop  of  Tusculum*. 
-A  letter  of  the  Pope  to  King  Robert  I,  dated  Oct  15,  132S,  com- 
^nrTKJing  Ben,  is  printed  by  T.  (no.  473). 

After  the  battle  of  Dupplyn  (Aug.  12,  1332)  in  fear  of  the  En^ish 
he  bade  friewdl  to  the  prior  and  canons  of  St  Aiuhews,  and  sailed 
for  Flanders.  He  arrived  shortly  afterwards  at  Bruges,  and  died 
SqA.  22,  Z332  (Sc.  L  r.).  The  date  of  his  death  is  confirmed  by  the 
inscription  on  his  monument  in  the  church  of  the  canons  regular  of 
Eckcfaot  (Akewod.  Sc).  He  is  styled  in  the  ^ti^  '  lacobus,  dominus 
de  Biurt  (xar),  episoopus  S.  Andreae  in  Scoda,  nostiae  religionis.'  Keith 
(from  a  memoir  bd<mging  to  the  Scots  College  in  Paris). 

His  death  was  known  to  the  Pope  before  Nov.  3,  1332  (CP.R. 
n  3«4)'. 

90  Bore  of  this.  Puticnlara  as  to  the  cacrowmnniration  of  die  bisho|i8  of 
St  Aadrewa,  Moray,  Dank^  and  Aberdeen  by  the  Pope  will  be  found  in  CP.R. 
S  191,  19a,  199. 

*  Some  late  writers,  thns  miried,  call  him  '  James  Bennet' 

'  This  cardinal  was  a  French  Fianciacan,  of  great  repate  for  learning,  and  known 
as  Doektr  famomu.  He  died  in  1330,  or,  according  to  Lake  Wadding,  in  1334. 
Ciacwnius,  is  415. 

'  A  few  other  particnlars  as  to  Ben  from  sources  unknown  to  Keith  may  here  be 
added.    On  Nov.  J^  1329,  the  Pbpe  appropriated  to  James  and  his  soccessora  in 


120         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

After  the  death  of  Ben  the  see  was  long  vacant;  according  to 
(vi  45)  for  nine  years,  five  months  and  eight  days'.     It  would  sce"JT 
that  the  farewell  taken  by  Ben  of  the  prior  and  canons  must  ha^^c 
been  a  resignation,  or,  at  least,  understood  as  such ;  for  on  August  i  ^S» 
133a,   WILLIAM  BELL,  dean  of  Dunkeld*,  was  elected  by  tfc»« 
canons  of  St  Andrews,  the  Keledei  being  excluded,  and  now  maldi^^8 
no  claim  to  a  voice.     He  resorted  to  the  papal  court  at  Avignon ;  b — ^ 
'through  the  opposition  of  many'  he  £auled  to  obtain  confirmatiocr:^' 
At  length,  depressed  by  age  and  afflicted  by  blindness,  he  surrendere**^^ 
any  right  he  had  obtained  by  reason  of  his  election.    He  eventually-! 
returned  from  the  papal  court  in  the  train  of  Landells,  after  the  con^^ 
secraticm  of  the  latter  to  the  bishopric,  entered  the  Priory  of  St  Andrews^^ 
and  died  Feb.  7,  1342  (Sc.  flMdl). 

During  the  wars  several  efiforts  were  made  by  the  Engii^  crown^:^ 
to  secure  an  English  partisan  for  the  see.  Edward  III  first  suggested^ 
to  the  Pope  Master  Robert  de  Ayleston  (or  Ii^eston),  archdeacon.^ 
of  Berkshire,  but  the  Pope  dedined  him.  Again  on  July  24,  1333,  « 
Master  Robert  de  Tanton  was  recommended   to   the  Pope  (B.C    - 

WILLIAM  DE  LANDAIXIS  (Landd,  Landdls,  Launddys), 
rector  of  Kinkd  in  the  diocese  of  Aberdeen. 

Feb.  iS»  1343,  Benedict  XII  appoints  WiDiam,  rector  of  tlie  ciiorch  of 
Kinkel,  in  the  diocese  of  Aberdeen.  The  Pope  s  letter  of  tliis  date 
lecoonts  diat  on  the  vacancy  of  the  see  by  the  deadi  of  James,  the  prior 
and  chapter  elected  WOlam  Bell  dean  of  Dankeld,  cmmtmdiitr^  per 
Jkmmmm  Mvm/»ifmtssx :  that  the  ekct  had  gone  to  the  papal  oomt  to 
se^  confiimation :  txit  had  emtoaDy  for  varioos  causes,  imm  immum 
ptwsumt  sme  Hih^^  spootaneonslT  res^ned  all  rtgiit  arising  out  of  the 
election  into  the  hands  ot  die  Pope.  Before  the  resignation  die  Pope 
deckits  that  be  had  juid^^ed  diat  in  aSsnfa  cases  of  lesignatkn  of  an 
election  the  apfK^immem  sbocki  be  tesvared  to  himseit  He  acccwdingly 
a|>fpoints  WittuuBX  bot  he  Aids  dot  be  tool:  ixtto  Macoimt  the  straqg 

li»  ««  9f  ^  A»drrM»  ^»t  piurs^  c^nsxAi  oe 

IMM^.  :>«%«<•»  $.K«(^.  Ifk  t$.  hV    C^  JKttir  rx  '.^^3:5.  Jcte  XXE 
illfc  %wr  ttfe  fc.  <ait  >Ma  ><r  >i4m  4e  Uy».  «■>«  « <SkM!ttw;> «» 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  121 


W    iecommendations  of  William  that  had  been  sent  to  him  by  the  prior 
f    Ukd  chapter  (T.  no.  550)  \ 

Bower  (Sc  vi  45)  gives  the  date  of  William's  appointment  as  Feb.  18, 
thus  exactly  corresponding  with  the  date  of  the  papal  letter.  The  letter 
is  addressed  to  William  as  *  elect '  (i.  e.  as  chosen  by  the  Pope)  which 
shows  that  he  was  not  then  consecrated.  Sc.  {idid,)  gives  the  date 
of  his  consecration  as  March  17.  And  this  falls  in  well  with  the  Pope's 
mandate  to  William,  dated  March  18,  to  betake  himself  to  his  diocese, 
liafing  been  consecrated  by  Peter,  bishop  of  Palestrina  (C.P.R.  ii  557)  *. 
He  died  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Andrew's,  1385,  Sept.  23  (in  festo 
Sancte  Tecle,  virginis),  Sc.  vi  46  ■;  and  was  buried  in  the  floor  of  the 
great  church  before  the  door  of  the  vestibule  (that  is,  the  vestry  or 
sacristy),  t'M,  * 

STEPHEN  DE  PA  (Pai,  Pay,  W.  iii  26),  prior  of  St.  Andrews, 

"^as  elected  by  the  chapter  after  the  death  of  Landells,  presumably 

iu  October,    1385.     Carrying  the  decree  of  his  election  and  letters 

commendatory  from  the  king  of  Scots,  he  was  taken  prisoner  at  sea 

*  by  pirates,'  and  carried  captive  to  England.   Shrinking  from  burdening 

the  monastery  with  the  cost  of  his  ransom,  more  particularly  because  of 

tbe  expenses  involved  through  the  burning  of  the  church  of  St.  Andrews 

seven  years  previously,  he  preferred  to  remain  in  England.     He  was 

soon  after  taken  ill  at  Alnwick,  and  there  died  (Scvi  46)  on  March  2, 

»385(»-e.  1385-6).  Sc.  vi53. 

WALTER  TRAIL  (Trayl,  Treyle).  In  1378  he  was  official  of 
Glasgow,  M.A.,  and  a  licentiate  in  canon  and  civil  law  (C.P.R.  Pet, 
^  i  540)-  In  1380  he  was  a  doctor  of  canon  and  civil  law,  papal 
chaplain  and  auditor  (ibid.  555).  In  1382  he  was  treasurer  of  Glasgow 
(ftW.  564).  His  petition  for  the  deanery  of  Dunkeld  was  granted  by 
Clement  VII  (anti-Pope)  in  November,  1380  {ibid.  555). 

^  Bower  (Sc.  vi  45)  mentions  that  he  had  been  strongly  recommended  to  the 
I^>pe  by  the  kings  of  Scotland  and  France,  as  well  as  by  the  chapter  of  St. 
Andrews. 

'  Peter  de  Prato,  a  Frenchman,  created  cardinal  bishop  of  Praeneste  (Palestrina) 
1)7  John  XXII.     He  died  in  1361.     Ciaconius,  ii  416. 

'  Keith,  in  error,  makes  S.  Thecla*s  day  to  be  Oct  15.  But  there  can  be  no 
doobl  what  day  is  intended,  for  the  Cupar  MS.  of  Sc  reads  *  in  festo  S.  Tecle  sive 
Adamnoli.*  In  Scotland  the  feast  of  S.  Adamnan  rather  overshadowed  the  com- 
memoration of  S.  Thecla  on  Sept.  23.  See  the  Kalendar  of  MissaU  <U  Atbuthnott 
(cxi),  and  Bmn'arium  Aberdomnse  (pars  estiv.  Propr.  Sanct  foL  cxiiii  verso). 

*  Keith  gives  many  references  to  evidence  from  charters.  There  are  many  notes 
o'ptpal  writs  to  this  bishop  in  C.P.R.  vols,  iii,  iv.  They  chiefly  relate  to  adminis- 
tntion  and  discipline.  In  1381  (June  3)  he  is  described  as  feeble  and  broken  with 
H^  and  is  granted  an  indult  by  Clement  VII  (anti-Pope)  to  use  ovis  tt  qmbuslibet 
^^t*id$tii$  twice  or  thrice  daily  in  Lent  and  other  fasts.  His  confessor  is  also 
allowed  to  commute  his  life-long  vow  to  fast  on  Wednesdays  into  other  works  of 
I»«»y.  C.PJL  iv  343. 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


There  Is  a  lacuna  here  in  the  papal  registers.  Bower  says  his 
appointment  was  of  the  spontaneous  provision  of  Clement  VII  (anti- 
Pope),  adding  that  Trail  was  grattose  builis  txpeditvs  {Sc.  vi  46).  But 
we  do  not  possess  any  decisive  statement  as  to  the  date  of  his  appoint- 
ment. Dr.  Maitland  Thomson  has  pointed  out  to  the  editor  that 
'  I'Yom  the  account  of  the  custumers  of  St.  Andrews  for  the  period, 
March  t6,  1384-5,  to  March  31,  1386  {Exch,  Rolls,  iii  137-8),  it 
appears  that  the  see  had  become  vacant  during  that  period/  This  falls 
in  well  with  the  date  assigned  above  to  the  death  of  Pay.  We  find 
Trail  bishop  of  St.  Andrews  Feb.  15,  1386,  when  he  was  granted 
a  faculty  to  hear  and  decide  first  appeals  to  Rome  (C.P.R.  iv  252). 
This  shows  that  Pay  must  have  resigned  his  claim,  or  that  his  claim  was 
disregarded  by  the  Pope.  But  Bower  {Sc.  vi  46)  assigning  Trail's  death 
to  the  year  1401,  tells  us  he  sat  as  bishop  sixteen  years.  The  election 
by  the  chapter  after  Trail's  death  was,  according  to  Wyntoun  (iii  79), 
July  I,  1 40 1.  Supposing  that  Trail  died  early  in  June,  this  would  give 
US  Trail's  appointment  as  in  June,  1385.  This  is  obviously  too  early 
by  some  months,  at  least. 

We  find  Walter  as  conservator  of  the  privileges  and  rights  of  the 
Scottish  Church  on  July  18,  1388  (R.M.  p.  350). 

An  inquisition  about  the  *  scolartandis '  of  Ellon  made  before  Walter 
in  1387  (neither  month  nor  day  is  recorded)  leaves  no  doubt  that 
Waller  had  been  bishop  for  a  year  before  the  inquisition  was  made 
(R.A.  i  177-8V 

Trail  died  in  the  castle  of  St.  Andrews,  which  he  had  built  &t>in  the 
foundation,  1401  (Sc  vi  46;  Pluscarden  a  17;  W*yntoun  iii  79),  and 
tcnne  time  before  Juty  i,  when  the  dectioa  (by  the  chapter)  of  his 
WiCCiBSor  was  held  (Wyntoun  /.  i\).  He  was  buried  in  the  cathedral 
dose  10  the  great  allar  to  the  north  nt^v  (?  imfrmypm^iimm  (Sc  vi  46)'. 

On  the  de*th  of  TtaU,  THOMAS  STEWAUT,  archdeacon  of 
St  Andrews^  an  illegitinuite  son  of  Robert  II,  was  elected  on  Jnly  i, 
1401  *be  concord  ekctionne *  (W.  iii  So) ;  but  though  the  ekction  was 
*admitted*  (i.e.  ptobably  by  the  king),  when  the  decree  oi  the  decdon 
WIS  about  to  be  tnawaMtted  to  the  Pope,  he  lenoonoed  his  r^gta 
(Sc  Yi  47)\  The  ./V^  iMOmif  (to  vol.  i)  have  some  nockes  of 
Thooiat  SleiMfft  la  i^So  the  Fope^  Oettcnt  VII.  provids  Thooaa 
Sle««n«  Mtual  SOQ  of  the  kingV  Scothiid,  to  the  aicfadeaconiy  of 

«  Dw^tftM  S<y»>  1 1»»  KPt  iPli  ty  Iht  MiayiM  coaiii— toriif  the  Uw« 
gf  thv  •wMwIi.HP*  i»f  \<f*^  Kfltmm  ft  4HX  V^^w  VI  MuhKi  to  St. 

a  iliailh  \1^  Hw  ^j»<V  mn^A  «s  a 
*  W.  t>ii  M  H|fJiali  li*  «b9*«ar«  Waiiiai  2(oii^,  as 


I 


I 


«f  th»  iliviaia  i»  A«%iMa^ 


f 


/ 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  I23 

St  Andrews  and  to  the  canonry  and  prebend  of  Stobo  in  Glasgow 

cathedral  (p.  551).     In   1389  the  king  petitions  for  the  deanery  of 

Elimkeld  for  his  son  Thomas,  and  for  a  dispensation  to  hold  it  together 

"vrith  the  archdeaconry.    This  petition  was  granted  (p.  574).     In  1393 

Thomas  petitions  that  he  may  hold  a  canonry  of  Brechin  with  his  other 

preferments.     Granted  (p.  577).      In  1395  Thomas  Stewart,  natural 

scm  of  the  late  Robert,  king  of  Scotland,  bachelor  of  canon  law  at 

Puis,  and  archdeacon  of  St.  Andrews,  petitions  that  while  he  is  at  the 

nnirersity  he  may  visit  his  archdeaconry  by  deputy,  and  receive  money 

procorations  for  five  years  (p.  592).     Wyntoun  (iii  80)  also  speaks  of 

him  as  a  bachelor  of  canon  law. 

John  Dowden. 

{To  ^  continued.) 

THE   CHRISTOLOGY  OF  CLEMENT  OF 
ALEXANDRIA. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (c.  150-215)  was  no  doubt  one  of  the 
g^test  writers  and  theologians  of  the  early  Church ;  the  place  which 
be  holds  among  the  divines  of  the  first  centunes  is  at  once  eminent 
and  peculiar.    The  aim  of  his  studies  .was  not  only  to  explain  the 
Christian  doctrine,  but  also  to  reconcile  it  with  the  tenets  of  philosophy. 
He  endeavoured  therefore  to  link  together  faith  and  science,  revelation 
ind  reason,  theology  and  philosophy.     Faith,  in  his  judgement,  ought 
to  be  scientific,  and  science,  in  its  turn,  ought  to  be  faithful.     It  is  of 
course  well  known  that  he  maintains,  with  both  acuteness  and  earnest- 
ness, the  view  that  philosophy  leads  the  human  mind  to  the  Christian 
L  religion,  and  that  the  believer  alone  is  the  true  scholar,  or  yvtoariKSt. 
In  the  present  note  I  do  not  of  course  aim  at  a  complete  exposition 
of  Clement's  Christology,  but  merely  at  such  an  outline  as  may  exhibit 
its  fundamental  principles  and  its  main  positions.    From  this  point 
of  view  his  Christology  may  be  considered  in  certain  divisions  which 
form,  so  to  say,  the  heads  of  the  subject. 

I.  Matter  is  good.  Clement  starts  upon  his  course  by  showing  that 
matter^  and  bodies  as  well  as  souls,  were  created  by  God :  they  are 
God's  work  and  therefore  good.  In  this  way  he  sets  aside  at  once 
an  antecedent  objection  to  the  possibility  of  the  Incarnation.  The 
objection  may  be  stated  thus :  *  Matter  is  evil :  but  God  cannot  unite 
Himself  to  any  evil  thing,  since  evil  and  good  are  incompatible ;  there- 
fore the  Incarnation  of  the  Word  is  impossible.*  This  argument  Clement 
overthrows  by  maintaining  that  matter,  as  a  work  of  God,  is  good ;  for 
God  cannot  do  evil.  The  human  body,  in  particular,  is  the  crown  and 
highest  perfection  of  the  corporeal  world :  it  is  in  truth  a  masterpiece  of 


124         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

the  power  and  wisdom  of  God,  because  it  was  the  work  of  his 
hands ' :  soul  is,  indeed,  the  most  excellent  element  of  man,  but  bo^=:^ 
is  itself  quite  perfect  in  its  kind.  God  has  granted  to  it  a  wonderC^^ 
organization,  and  an  upright  form,  fitting  it  to  look  towards  heaven*-^  • 
Its  nature,  then,  places  no  impossibility  in  the  way  of  the  Incamaticr:^^ 
of  the  eternal  Word. 

a.  Tke  Ward  took  human  flesK  Human  flesh  not  being  evil,  tlrr^ 
Word  could  assume  it.  This  is  a  leading  principle.  But  the  Wo^^^ 
took  human  flesh  in  order  to  purify  and  sanctify  it  Thus  huma^^ 
flesh  became  the  abode  of  the  Divine  Word.  To  speak  precisely-* 
our  Lord,  the  incarnate  Word,  was  God  in  the  form  of  man  *.  Th^^ 
Word  bore  a  visible  body*.  He  took  our  passible  flesh*  and  oi*:-^ 
actual  nature,  to  the  end  that  we  may  imitate  His  examples  and  kee^'^ 
His  precepts*.  He  took  a  humUe  and  lowly  form,  lest  His  disdple^ 
might  be  led  by  their  contemplation  of  &imess  and  beauty  set  beforp**^ 
their  sight  to  forget  His  teaching  and  the  things  that  are  not  seen'^' 
Thus  Clement  stoutly  defends  the  reality  of  our  Lord's  body  againsira 
the  Docetists.  Some  scholars  have  indeed  maintained  that  ClemenPE^^ 
was  in  a  measure  aUied  with  the  Docctists*  since  he  says  at  times  tha^C 
our  Lord  took  human  shape  in  order  to  fulfil  the  drama  of  Redemption* — 
But  such  an  objectioQ  has  no  sohdity^  for  od  the  one  hand  Docedsm  vs 
ranked  in  Qemefits  teaching  as  a  mere  heresy*;  and  oo  die  odier 

'  lMi#«j<nirvr.     /WC  i  3    .PUL  bML  xuL  c«^  2^7.     t>  ji^wbm  i^m,  Ir  mmti^m^  4 

*  i>9«w«»  WXryacB  4t  «tr«v^M\«rrffir  rf»K\apta(r  cask  aattv^vrvc  ri>«S|Hr  mA  JwiyMi  ■» 

«twr  j^rfm^mitt/lm  iptf«  >«wrw»  ino'^-itMMNwr.  •«  t«  j*^  «i^  am^  apis  va  amAaa^  a»  afit 
♦^^  *4^!»^     C^!M«n^  iv  **  ^rK  tcoft.  T3fc.  cwL  i?*»-73.\ 

I    *  fNMK  ;»  .ih^iMWiHI  If  X^lHtt^      i^Wfc.  i  *  , Ai.  KOL  ^m.  coL  25-r\ 

^  T^n^iM  i>iw«r>Mmw  «sjqr«^ii.  vW  IIk^k  i  TSuc  iri^ia  —   ■■■  im>^  aaifaa^ifaa   fui 

* ^  w^«»  H»  ^^■■■<K  •«nwii  'i  m  iiwn  i»    ii  iiiimfMi  «.t;Jl    SBmhk.  Wl  a  ;^PG, 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  1 25 

liand  the  phrase  r6  Mp&mv  irpofrmrthv  is  opposed,  in  the  passage 

crited  in  the  note,  not  to  reality  of  body  but  to  the  eternal  existence 

of  the  Word  in  heaven.    Clement,  however,  though  holding,  as  against 

the  Docettsts,  the  reality  and  materiality  of  Christ's  body,  does  not 

Ciilly  preserve  the  orthodox  belief  on  the  subject  of  that  body.    He 

^UTs  as  to  its  nature  and  needs.    He  teaches  that  it  did  not  by  reason 

of  its  nature  need  sleep  or  nourishment.    Christ  did,  it  is  true,  sleep, 

«at  and  drink :  but  this  was  not  the  result  of  need,  but  because  He 

<lesired  to  preserve  those  of  His  own  time  from  the  Docetist  error  ^ 

Probably,  though  the  point  is  not  clear,  Clement  also  teaches  that  the 

passible  flesh  assumed  by  the  Word  afterwards  became  impassible  by 

its  union  with  Divinity '. 

3.  2^  Word  of  God  took  complete  human  nature.  This  is  closely 
connected  with  the  actual  purpose  of  the  Incarnation,  which  was  the 
redemption  of  the  whole  of  mankind.  The  Word  of  God  became  man 
to  redeem  and  to  deliver  the  posterity  of  Adam.  Clement  affirms,  as 
against  false  theories,  that  the  Word  took  not  only  human  body  but 
human  soul.  He  was  therefore  perfect  man,  compound  at  once  of 
body  and  souL  Clement  several  times  distinctly  speaks  of  the  Saviour, 
as  God  and  Man ' ;  he  refers  to  His  human  soul  * ;  and  the  existence 
of  this  human  soul  he  supposes  in  speaking  of  our  Lord's  descent  into 
hell  •.  He  draws,  moreover,  the  consequence  that  the  body  is  not  evil 
irom  the  position  that  otherwise  our  Saviour,  in  healing  as  He  did 
both  body  and  soul,  would  have  increased  the  opposition  between 
the  two*. 

4.  The  Atonement.    Jesus  Christ  was  the  Redeemer  of  mankind. 

^  'AAX'  {vi  fUr  rw  Xenijpot  r6  e&fia  dvcurciV  tin  a&fia  rds  dfaytcalas  innjptoiat  tit 
Stafcoi^,  yiken  hw  ttri.  iipaytw  fap  ci  Sect  r6  ff&fuif  JSwd/ui  awtx^iuwov  ^rpqr  &Kk* 
in  /t^  robs  ffw6rras  SWatt  vtpt  adroG  ^poritw  ivtiffiKBoi'  Sxnnp  Afiik§t  6<rTtpov  Hok^ou 
Tivh  abrbv  Mf^aiftpSia9ai  iwiXa^ov,     Strom,  vi  9  {PG,  torn,  ix,  col.  292). 

*  OA*i  /fljr  if96  Ttros  ^j5oyrjs  wtpun^fifvos,  KaraktlwM  nor  &y  rilP  6M9pinniy  /njSc/iorfay* 
Sff  7«  «a2  rj^  aifmt  rifv  Ifivo^  ^<^«t  y«roft4yrjv  duaXaB^  th  t^iv  dwaOuas  IvcuScvacr. 
Strom,  vii  2  (JPG.  torn,  ix,  col.  41 2).  [I  again  follow  the  correction  accepted  by  Hort 
and  Mayor.] 

'  For  instance :  6  /i6pot  dftpat  Bt6t  re  leai  drOpenroSf  dwivrcaif  ^/uv  afriot  dfoBSfv, 
Coh,  adgmi,  1  {PG,  torn,  viii,  col.  61)  :  see  also  Paid,  iii  i  cited  below. 

*  "EoiMtv  Si  6  Tbulkiyorfdt  fliujv,  &  «m3«s  it/ittfj  r^  Uarfii  airov  r^  6C9),  o^ip  lariv 
tlAs  dmfidprrjTos,  dycrtXi/vror,  Koi  dvo^r  t^  ^h'X^*'*  0«^  ^  difOpinrov  ax^futri 
dxpcanotf  tarpuc^  0*k^tmTi  Ikdieovos,  ASyot  6<ds  6  h  r^  Uarplt  6  l/v  Ht^iSiy  rov  UarpSt, 
ffirir  ttal  r^  <rx^fiort  St6s.  OSros  ^fuv  tbci/y  ^  dteijXiJicrrof  rovr^  worrl  a$iv»  wtipariov 
i^ofioimjw  rijir  tfwxfyv.    Patd,  i  a  {PG.  torn,  viii,  col.  25a). 

»  Cf.  Strom,  vi  6  {PG.  torn,  ix,  col.  265-76). 

*  T£  8<;  ofixi  b  larriip^  &<rw«p  ripf  ^ftoch^^t  o0t«  8i  «a2  t6  a&fia  loro  rSof  wa$w;  oitc  &v 

Strom,  iii  17  {PG.  torn,  viii,  col.  iao8).    [I  foUow  Dindorf's  correction.] 


ia6         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

He  offered  to  His  Father  a  true  sacrifice  for  our  sIds  and  otir  laui'i 
He  paid  to  God  an  adequate  satisfaction  for  our  debts.  Among  C-] 
many  passages  of  Clement  which  maintain  this  point  and  dedaie  tl 
satisfactory  character  of  our  Lord*s  Redemption,  it  may  perhaps  sufl&< 
to  indicate  by  examples  the  chief  features  of  his  treatment  of  tl 
subject.  Clement  calls  our  Lord  the  Mediator  (/m^inn)  between  GC 
and  man\  Our  Lord  was  the  founder  of  a  new  covcsant,  tl 
Reconciler,  and  Saviour '  («nropAo^<i,jor,  doiXXamfc;  v^nifi).  He  was  all 
the  great  High  Priest  Otcyar  a^ttptvt)  of  God ';  the  sacrifice  (oXocay>r«|« 
SCiaA)  oflered  to  God  for  us  * ;  He  it  was  Who  ofiereid  Himself  for  oi 


work  consists  in  His  death  on  the  Cross;  whkh  was  an  atonement  i 
the  sins  of  mankind  ~.  He  is  Saviour  and  Lord,  because  He  is  Loi 
and  Saviour  of  all.  men :  in  a  word.  He  died  for  aJl  •, 

V,  Eriioni. 

$ik^^  rm  Bmwf^  i  |W>fiy  LnrtXat*  /u^trfs  jA^  I  A^tot,  4  mmrit  Vjii''  ^«^  ^ 
Yl^t,  %mwif  U  iM§^m  •  aoi  fw  ^>  fci III  iii,  »Jr  If,  «uifcy|4a.  fimd,  m  t  (B 
ton.  viii,  ooL  557). 

m2  ImAAmt^  «t  «ivvV  <i^  A^Too,  v^y^  C«a«M<  4fW^'  ^  v"" 

CUL  «rf««i>'.  10  {PC,  tarn  viil  coL  JsSX 

*  'AIImv  atrAc,  Ifvafr  ^  4  phf*  Vx^P"*  ft*<»  ^^  ^^t  n£  a4««»  aal  llwr^i^  ii 

•  ■QLiw^PM^  tV  *«^  V"^  i"i»ti   i6»i>  4  l^iTpk.    S(»«m.  VII  (J^.  lgM.j 
coLtofi). 

>  A^  v«vf«  a^  flir^f  «Bf^lLiir  fciT^»T*  li^Biii   ifihr^   Ibft  vwr«  t^  A»4^m 

iii|ipmiU^»^x»>    gbn  4k.  adk  37  (/^  l>»a.  is*  c»L  ^i>. 

•dB.  ^vK  coL  atS-a9% 

CFGL  bA  ix,  cdL  4ta>    [I  Uknr  DiadorTs  cocrecfeia^J 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  127 

THE  EARLIEST  INDEX  OF  THE   INQUISITION 
AT  VENICE. 

Ths  action  of  the  Inquisition  at  Venice  in  issuing  a  catalogue  of 
iieredcal  books  in  1554  was  important  not  only  in  its  effects  on  the 
iustary  of  pdnting  in  the  Republic^,  but  also  as  a  step  towards  the 
compilation  of  the  famous  series  of  Roman  Indices  beginning  in  1557 '. 
The  catalogue  itself  was  little  more  than  an  amended  copy  of  one  put 
out  at  Milan  in  the  same  year.  Both  are  generally  supposed  to  have 
shared  the  fate  of  two  earlier  Italian  lists,  those  issued  at  Venice 
in  1549  and  at  Florence  in  15521  and  to  have  totally  disappeared ;  for 
no  ttace  of  any  one  of  them  has  been  found  by  the  bibliographers '. 
But  all  excepting  the  Florentine  catalogue  were  soon  reprinted  by 
Piero  Paolo  Vergerio,  and  from  his  texts  have  been  published  anew 
byReusch*.  The  Venetian  list  of  1554  had  been  previously  reprinted 
by  Joseph  Mendham*  from  what  he  believed  to  be  the  original,  but 
what  was  in  fact  Vergerio's  text. 

The  following  note  is  concerned  only  with  the  Venetian  book  of 
1554,  the  first  that  claims  the  authority  of  the  Inquisition.  Vergerio's 
edition  was  produced  some  time  between  1554  and  1556,  apparently 
from  a  German  press ;  but  it  bears  the  imprint  of  the  original,  Venetiis 
apud  GabrieUm  lulitum  de  Ferraris  et  fratres,  15 54*-  He  issued 
a  second  edition,  likewise  in  Germany  but  with  a  Venetian  imprint, 
b  1556,  in  which  he  distinguished  such  additions  as  he  made  by  the 
use  of  italic  type :  Reusch  places  these  within  parentheses.  Reusch  also 
detected  certain  words  in  Vergerio's  first  edition  which  he  believed  to  be 
his  own  insertions,  and  printed  them  within  square  brackets.  Now  there 
exists  in  the  Bodleian  Library  a  volume  which  appears  to  be  a  copy  of 
the  hitherto  undiscovered  original  edition  of  1554.  It  was  purchased 
by  the  curators  in  1858  for  £2  is.  Without  venturing  to  express  an 
opinion  on  the  typography,  I  may  notice  that  on  one  leaf  there  is 
discernible  a  portion  of  the  well-known  Venetian  water-mark  of  an 
anchor  within  an  oval.  That  it  is  not  Vergerio's  first  edition  is  evident 
from  a  comparison  with  Mendham's  reproduction  ^paginatim^  Uneatim, 

^  Horatio  F.  Brown,  The  Venttian  Priniing  Press^  ch.  xiv,  London,  1891. 

*  F.  H.  Reusch,  Der  Indtx  der  verbotttun  BOcher,  i  258,  a68,  Bonn,  1883. 

'  Reusch,  i  204 ;  S.  Bongi,  Annali  di  GabrUl  GiolUo  dg'  Ferrari^  i  445  f.,  Rome, 
1890. 

*  Dk  Indicts  Librorum  prohUniorum  dis  stchjuhnien  JahrhundirlSj  pp.  148-175, 
Tubingen,  1886. 

*  An  Index  cf  prohibited  Books,  pp.  68  ff.,  London,  1840. 

*  Reusch,  Der  Index,  i  209  n.  i ;  Die  Indices,  p.  143. 


128        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

and  later  for  ktter^  vcLfacsiwdk^  of  the  ktter.  The  arrangement 
title-page  differs  entirely ;  the  pages  are  numbered ;  Frandscus  Gri 
ImstiMopolUatms  is  omitted  at  the  bottom  of  p.  1 1,  and  Theodarui 
at  the  end  of  p.  25;  and,  most  important,  the  words  ex  exet 
Vemetiis  excuse  are  absent  after  the  finis.  In  other  respects  th 
books  agree  in  substance,  though  the  spelling  and  the  misprints  d 
many  differences.  But  there  is  one  interesting  divergence.  E 
notices  that  the  Milan  catalogue  of  1554,  but  not  Ae  Venice 
of  the  same  date  (meaning  of  course  in  each  case  Veigerio's  re 
contains  repeated  citations  of  the  Louvain  Index  \  Now  all  thes4 
two  others  in  addition,  appear  in  the  Bodleian  volume,  whei 
reference  Lotsa^  or  lumaiu  is  placed  after  the  names  lamus  Cor, 
wudicus^  Joannes  SartoriuSy  Justus  Meuius^  Ottko  Brunfessius  A 
tinus,  Paulus  J%igius^  Paulus  Constantinus  Pktjgius^  Petrus  Ar 
Sebastianus  Meyer,  Stepkani  J)oleti  Cato  Ckristianus  et  earmi,^  7 
Venatorius,  Vincentius  Ohsopoeius ;  and  also  after  Pkilotetus  1 
and  Tkeobaldus  Billicanus,  where  no  such  reference  occurs  i 
Milan  list  It  should  seem  therefore  that  the  original  Ve 
catalogue  stood  nearer  to  that  of  Milan  than  Vezgerio's  edition 
lead  one  to  suppose.  That  Vergerio  should  have  omitted  refe 
which  were  non-essential  to  the  purpose  of  the  list  need  can 
surprise :  Reuscb,  however,  took  it  for  probable  *,  or  evoi  certain 
they  were  insotions  in  the  Milan  list  due  to  Veigeria 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  add,  in  order  to  save  unprofitable  en 
that  the  extracts  Ex  Catkalogo  Ubrorum  Jkprtiafrum  inquis 
Venetiarum  contained  in  John  Bales  noce-bocdc  in  the  Bo 
Library,  but  not  printed  in  the  recent  edition  of  that  manus 
are  not  taken  from  the  Venice  book  of  1554,  but  merely  selecte 
abridged  from  Vergerio's  second  edition  of  1556. 

Reginald  L.  Poc 

>  Act  /aAr,  t  aio. 

'  Ibid,  i  aai.  *  Dit  ImAn,  p.  i 

*  Imdtx  Bn^mmmmt  Sarsfianum^  Oxibrd,  190^    See  tbe  pve&ce,  p.  xv  n.  1. 


129 


REVIEWS 

A  STUDY  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  EGYPTIAN 
MONASTICISM. 

^damte  van  Atripe  und  die  Entstehung  des  nationeU  dgypHschen  Christen- 
/urns,  von  Joh.  Leipoldt  (=  Texte  u,  Untersuchungen,  N.  F.,  x,  i.  Heft). 

To-day  is  a  great  pillar  fallen  in  the  land  of  Egypt.'  Thus  did  the 
'lying  Cyrus  (Kvpoc),  the  reputed  brother  of  Theodosius  I  and  for  sixty- 
^t  years  a  hermit  in  the  Scetic  desert,  refer  to  *  our  father,  the  prophet, 
•Apa  Shenoute,'  of  whose  decease,  immediately  preceding  his  own,  he 
bd  had  miraculous  intimation  *.  The  introduction  of  this  irrelevant 
incident  into  a  legend  not  without  interesting  features  of  its  own,  may 
be  due  simply  to  the  proximity  of  the  two  festivals  in  the  calendar'; 
it  adds  however  one  more  to  the  many  evidences  of  the  popular  venera- 
tion paid  to  Shenoute  by  the  Coptic  church.  The  churches  of  the 
west  know  nothing  of  him ;  indeed  the  fact  that  the  Syrian  mono- 
physites  are  the  sole  body,  outside  Egypt  (and  Ethiopia)  where  even  his 
name  is  recorded,  if  not  a  sufficient  argument  for  the  part  he  had  played 
in  the  theological  strifes  of  his  day,  is  at  any  rate  significant  of  the 
party  with  which  he  was  subsequently  identified. 

Since  Quatrembre  made  us  first  acquainted  with  this  great  figure  in 
Egyptian  monastidsm,  the  number  of  documents  for  his  history  has 
much  increased.  This  has  been  due  primarily  to  the  rescue  of  the 
remains  of  Shenoute's  own  monastic  library — the  library,  that  is,  of  the 
great  institution  of  which  he  seems  to  have  been  the  second  founder :  the 
White  Monastery,  near  Achmim.  From  the  time  when,  on  b^alf  of 
Cardinal  S.  Borgia,  Italian  missionaries  acquired  the  leaves  which  served 
eventually  for  the  epoch-making  Catalogus  of  Zoega,  till  the  present  day, 
the  market  has  seldom  been  without  some  fragments  of  what  must  once 
have  been  a  vast  collection.  It  would  seem  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
volumes  whence  these  disiecta  membra  had  been  torn,  was  written  in  the 
toith  to  twelfth  centuries ;   a  smaller  number  in  the  seventh  to  ninth ; 

'  Tonief,  Kopto^Mop,  akoM.  o  pnpod.  Kir  (Zap.  Imp.  Ruaa.  Archeol.  Obfthtch. 
^  p.  08).    Fragments  of  the  Coptic  original  in  Paris,  129*',  a6  ;  131',  36,  37. 
*7thaiid8thofEplphL 
VOL.  V.  K 


igo         THE  JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


still  fewer  in  perhaps  the  sixth.     In  quite  recent  years  stray  leav< 
a  still  earlier  date  have  appeared^  likewise,  it  was  said,  from  Achml 
But  here  a  connexion  with  Shenoute's  monastery  is  at  least  undemon— 
strated.     Among  the  remnanis,  biblical^  liturgical  and  patristic,  of  thi^ 
rich  Coptic  library,  now  scattered  through  the  museums  of  Europe^  s^ 
large  number  show  titles  attributing  the  contents  to  Shenoutc  himselfp^ 
while  others  are  fragments  of  the  biographies  ^  whence  the  better  pre--^ 
served  Bohairic,  Arabic  and  Syriac  Litcs  were  subsequently  adapted  *.  ■ 

It  is  upon  these  materials,  and  primarily  upon  the  former  group,  that 
Dr.  Leipoldt  has  based  his  study :  hence  its  importance.  Hitherto 
writers  had  relied,  he  holds,  too  much  upon  the  popular  biography, 
attributed  (in  the  main  probably  rightly)  to  Shenoute's  disciple,  B^sa  *. 
The  facts  are  rather  to  be  sought  in  the  extant  writings  of  Shenoute  himself, 
since,  with  him  alone  among  Coptic  authors^  chance,  in  preserving  to  us 
his  library,  has  rendered  such  direct  communication  still  p>os$ible. 
Moreover,  althou^  the  number  of  works  actually  baring  SheiK>utc*s 
name  is  considerable,  very  many  fragmettfs  besides,  where  no  b'tle  is 
preserved,  can  be  with  practical  cataioty  attributed  to  hira  ;  for  raxely 
has  a  writers  style  been  more  marked  or  vocabolaij  more  unmi^takahle. 
And  yet  it  may  be  doubted  whether  in  this  the  crUma  by  whkh 
Leipoldt  has  been  guided  will  always  prove  sufficient  teste.  How 
deticate  are  the  indices  to  be  kwked  for  and  liow  deceptive  the 
asMimed  cfaaracteri^ics  we  may  judge  from  the  Epts^  riinsialfd  by 
T^ripnlrtt  on  pp.  90,  91.  He  has  htmsdf  recpgrnzed  the  difficaldes  of 
its  attnbdtioQ  to  his  aiidior»  and,  in  £Kt,  the  tetter  ts  one  by  Sevcras  of 
Antiodv  addressed  to  Anastssias^  in  reference  to  the  a£l^  of  Mace- 


Shenoute  died  in  451  or  451,  after  atiainanfe  it  is  said,  theageof  ii8w 
His  \on%  life  wss  apparently  oneventiful ;  the  yoitroey  to  £pbesas»  as 
C^nTk  heodunaa,  in  431,  is  the  ooly  ooc«atd  ODcunencje  of  inponanoe 
hj  his  hiogtapheis.  All  his  eoeigfees  vere  ocoipied  in  the 
of  the  great  Oock  of  aionks  and  nans  iriM  ^Ihered  to 


I 


A09  of  SMt  (V.  AjBie'BaeiB^  Gmgt.  401, 
Atf.  F^.  1^. 

to  Ifaa^  iMtiaria  of  >Gwdk 


REVIEWS 


131 


^  monastery  which  his  uncle  Pgol  seems  to  have  founded,  but  which 

<^wed  its  fame  to  bis  own  reputation  and,  in  Dr.  Leipoldt's  view,  to  its 

being  a  genuinely  Coptic  rival  of  the  somewhat  hellenizing  monasteries 

of  Pach6m*s  foundation.     The   monastery,  after  an  excellent   sketch 

of  its  political,  economic  and  religious  environment,  forms  the  sybject 

of  a  detailed  description  (5§  19-33)1  wherein  the  author  shows  how 

much  can  be  extracted  from  sources  the  most  valuable  of  which  are 

cither  fragmentary  or  obscure*    Among  the  interesting  features  of  the 

monastic  life  described  is  the  novitiate— an  innovation,  it  would  seem, 

of  Shenoute's— with  the  preliminary  undertaking  or  covenant  {SiaB^xrf)^  of 

vhkh  Leipoldt  has  recognized  a  fragment  (p,  109).     In  this  connexion 

an  incident  in  B^'s  Life  might  have  been  cited,  where,  on  the  occasion 

of  a  monk's  expulsion,  this  covenant  is  prominent  \     Community  of 

goods  was  enjoined  upon  all.     To  the  illustrative  passages  here  cited 

(p.  107)  we  may  add  one  from  a  letter  addressed  by  BSsa,  to  'those 

that  have  renounced  {dpvtafuii)  their  constancy  (im-o^oj^)  and  departed 

from  us,'     Our  fathers,  he  writes,  since  the  foundation  cf  these  tojtoi,  hav€ 

mmxtrained  none  to  be  a  monk  ^'  force.     But  they  did  ordain  that  such 

as  ttfouid  be  monks  should  give  up  (an&Taxrati»)  all  their  goods  and  inscribe 

than  for  the  community  (<eoi*'<Mvw)  of  God  and  the  service  {hmKovla)  of  the 

poor;  neither  should  any  be  able  to  return  and  take  aught^  according  as 

ea^h  hath  made  agreement  (6^oXoy#«i^)  with  his  word '.     For  those  who 

definitely  joined  his  order  Shenoule  prescribed  a  life  of  constant  labour. 

Work  for  work's  sake,  as  a  salutary  occupation  for  head  and  hands, 

Leipoldt  shows  to  have  been  his  ideal.     Of  asceticism,  as  Greeks  or 

Syrians  understood  it,  he  showed  little  appreciation.     Yet  he  governed 

with  an  iron  hand,  taking  delight  in  the  prescription  of  the  minutest 

rules,  whereby  the  smallest  details  of  daily  life  were  regulated.    The 

eptsttes  *  wherein  these  regulations  are  embodied  ^re  the  most  curious  of 

Shenoute's  works  and  philologically  the  most  valuable,  full  as  they  are 

of  strange  words  and  unusual  phrases.    A  *  rule,'  in  the  precise  monastic 

•etise»  does  not  appear  to  have  been  formulated :  at  any  rate  not  by 

Shenoute,  nor,  I  believe,  by  his  predecessor.    Dr.  Leipoldt's  identification 

of  the  often  cited  *  books '  or  '  letters  that  have  been  laid  down  for  us ' 

wilh  canonical  works  of  Pgol  seems  to  me  to  require  further  demon- 

stntion.    Indeed,  Shenoute's  relationship  to  the  earlier  monks  of  Egypt 


^ 


*  Mumom  fran^  iv  54,  406.     The  Sa'idic  version  is  in  Naplcn  (2ocgtt  ccxciii,  last 
).     It  miy  here  be  suggested  that  '  the  kingdom  of  heaven  *  (pp.  109,  1 10)  is  not 
c  laoABStery  ;  for  a  very  similar  phrase  is  familiar  in  legal  documents,  where  a 
ffiflcrent  sexise  is  required  (v.  Reviltout,  AcUs  87,  Brit.  Mus.  pap.  buux  K,  pap. 
IxxxivV 
"  MS  Cui^on,  to8,  p.  inrtf. 

'  Or,  AS  tbe  MSS  call  them,  the' canons.*  The  word  is  used  of  other  disciptinary 
Irtlen,  eg.  those  of  Moses  of  Abydos  (Paris  la^^*,  14). 

K  2 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


is  still  obscure,  and  likely,  unless  new  documents  appear,  to  remain  si^^^- 
Among  these  the  figure  of  his  elder  contemporary,  Pshoi  or  Peter  \  fc^^r 
instancy  traditional  founder  of  the  neighbouring  Red  Monastery,  ^3J 
interesting*  The  Synaxarium,  which  appears  to  have  forgotten  Pgol  » 
commemorates  Pshoi  as  follows.  A  native  of  Achmim,  his  life  in  yout:^^^^ 
was  evil,  til!,  falling  ill,  he  had  a  vision  of  hell,  where  he  beheld  thiev^^ 
(or  extortioners  ?)  cut  in  four  by  angels.  In  terror  he  vows  to  reperr::^^ 
and,  if  God  heal  him,  never  again  to  behold  a  woman.  Recoverin^^3 
he  goes  to  the  monastery  of  BanwaU*^  is  received  by  the  monks,  an^*^ 
there  for  many  years  fights  the  spiritual  fight^  till  his  fame  is  spread:^ 
abroad  and  he  is  made  head  '  over  many  saints.'  He  composed  manjjt^ 
admonitions  and  instructions  for  monks  and  laity,  and,  after  thirty-fiv^^" 
years  of  rigorous  asceticism,  died.  If  this  story  embodies  a  genuin^^ 
tradition,  one  might  speculate  upon  the  fate  of  Pshoi's  writings  and  see  at^ 
least  a  reference  to  them  in  some  of  Shenoute's  allusions  to  older  works.— 
Lcipoldt  has  some  suggestive  remarks  (p.  39)  upon  the  causes  which 
led  to  the  apparently  speedy  lapse  into  obscurity  of  Pshoi's  monastery. 
He  shows  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  Red  Monastery  may  have  been 
a  last  stronghold  of  the  archaic  Achmim  dialect,  which  the  Sa'idic, 
cultivated  at  the  White  Monaster)*,  was  destined  to  supersede. 

For  the  subsequent  history  of  Shenoute's  monastery  we  have  prac- 
tically no  materials.  His  immediate  follower  appears  to  have  been  his 
biographer,  Besa,  many  of  whose  writings  likewise  exist.  To  him  pro- 
bably succeeded  Shenoute's  secretary  (roraptof),  Zenobios ;  for  he  has  the 
title  of  archimandrite  and  his  name  follows  Shenoute's  *.  Colophons 
of  books  presented  to  the  library  bear  dates  of  the  tenth  to  thirteenth 
centuries,  among  the  latest  being  a.  d.  1248*.  The  sainfs  coffin  was 
still  in  Situ  in  the  twelfth  century  • ;  but  in  the  fifteenth,  the  place  was 
in  ruins  \  To-day  merely  the  shell  of  the  vast  building  remains ;  the 
skeleton  is  filled  in  with  the  squalid  huts  of  a  modem  village.  But  the 
name  of  Shenoute  had  early  spread  beyond  his  native  district  He  ob- 
tairted  a  place  of  honour  among  the  saints  of  the  Egyptian  church',  and 
CTCn  to-day  his  homilies^ — alone  among  Coptic  works — are  prescribed  as 

'  So  in  P»ris  i»9'*,  13,6.  and  io  th«  Symrnxmrimtm^  ts  bdow. 

'  At  any  rate  the  araiiaUe  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  copies  The  f>ro^rmm  of  the 
Wbite  Mooastery  naturally  commemorated  him  ;  a^th  Meclur»  Lejnd.  MSS  3z6% 
Tbc  kUkmu^  is  (tt>m  the  Eth.  ^Or.  667,  f.  175  a,  Or  $6a  t  14S) ;  ia  Ar.  Psfaoi  i» 
mmnij  aaaed  (5U1  Mechirt  as  head  of '  the  mooastefy  of  Adimla,* 

*  So  abo  in  Armbic  (Br.  Uaa^  Or.  47*5*  ^  »j\  -Copt  Ammi»  (Pkm  139",  76X 
cC  Ab^  Om^.  359.  Was  Pilioi  received  ia  a  PadMaaui  rn—wify  ?  Baawmlt 
Hestw«lv«  aules  oorth  oTthe  Red  Mooaa^ery. 

•  IWIs  ii9«  i3fi;  tM^.^L^f^  MSS  197.  •  PtoB  ij»»,  Sj. 

'  Xa^rtii.  JTmsMc^  m.  57, 

»cnM  by  Q...«»ite  ( J2«iMk«a,  19S), 


I 


REVIEWS 

sons  in  Holy  Week,  beside  those  of  Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  Severian 
and  Sevenis\  From  Egypt  his  fame  was  naturally  transmitted  to 
Etfaiapia ;  but  whether  his  monastic  institutions  were  ever  introduced 
then  seems  uncertain '.  One  line  of  Ethiopian  monks  appears  to  have 
included  him  among  its  worthies ',  and  Ethiopian  pilgrims  visited  his 
Tuonastery  *. 

Space  forbids  more  than  an  allusion  here  to  perhaps  the  most  impor- 

result  of  Shenoute*s  energies :  the  influence  of  his  personality  and 

itutions  upon  Coptic  hterature.     To  him  we  owe,  as  Leipoldt  points 

,  the  development  of  the  vernacular  of  the  Thebaid  into  the  rich 

flexible  idiom  of  which  his  own  writings  remain  the  most  charac- 

ic  monument  *.    Dr.  Leipoldt *s  book  is  however  but  the  preliminary 

to  that  chief  disidtratum  of  Coptic  studies  :  an  edition  of  all  that  now 

remains  of  Shenoute's  works.     The  undertaking  is  a  heavy  one,  entailing 

copying    or    collation   of    manuscripts    scattered   from   Cairo  to 

Petersburg.     In  the  great  Paris  collection  alone,  many  a  leaf  of  the 

inuthian  writings  has   strayed   into  other  volumes  beyond   the   five 

laily  labelled  Shemudi,  whence  Dn  Leipoldt  has  already  extracted 

10  much  that  is  new  and  valuable.     But  the  present  work  is  a  sufficient 

goinintee  that  he  is  excellently  equipped  for  the  task,  and  it  is  only  to 

be  hoped  that  he  will  obtain  access  to  all  the  extant  material  and  so 

oiake  his  edition  really  exhaustive.     Nor  will  historians  and  philologists 

be  alone  to  benefit  by  the  promised  edition.     Students  of  the  New 

Testament  will  find  in  Shenoute's  endless  quotations  a  highly  valuable 

witness,  as  yet  wholly  unexplored,  to  the  text  of  the  most  important 

I      of  the  Egyptian  versions. 

^  W.  E.  Crum. 

honour :  *■  the  feast  of  the  desert  of  Apa  S.',  held  on  Monday  of  the  second  week 
ita  Lent — which,  by  the  way,  explains  the  passage  cited  by  Leipoldt,  p.  105,  n,  4. 

1  F.  YOstif  Habashl,  Daiil  as-Smaksdr  (Cairo,  i»94),  p.  50;  also  Codd.  Vatic» 
CopL  louu,  TOLxly,  and  the  Boh,  text  of  these,  Rtmeil  vji  89. 

'  My  statement  in  PRE*,  xii  813,  was  based  on  Turaicf,  laslitd,  agiolog.  isiotck, 
iatof.  Ethiop.  (,1903),  63.  I  see  however  that  his  authority  (John  of  Aksum  on  Isaac- 
Garima,  *d,  C.  Rossini,  nth  Orient  Congr,  iv  170,  L  637)  has  merely:  'they  re- 
QCfflbcred  what  he  (Garima)  bad  bidden  them  conceramg  the  rule  {lerfai)  of  Abba 
Sinoda,  "  no  secular  (cleric)  shall  make  the  oflTering  nor  shall  any  but  he  that  is  chosen 
fron  among  the  monks  celebrate.*' '  This  may  well  be  an  addition  by  the  Egyptian 
•athor,  John.     It  is  not  in  the  other  MS  (Brit.  Mus,,  Or,  702)  of  the  text. 

»  K  the  monastic  genealogy  in  Basset,  Apocryphes  dthiop.  viii  16.  The  name  there 
preceding  Shcnoute  might  be  Pg6l  / 1-^  for  J^.)i  an*!  ^at  following  Besa  (though 
peHups  Wisa  would  be  here  required).  This  list  seems  unique;  none  of  the 
genraJogics  in  Brit.  Mus.  MSS  has  it. 

'  W.  dc  Bockf  Maiiriaux,  p.  54. 

*  It  will  l>e  remembered  that  the  old  Sa'id.  papyri  from  Abydos  and  Thebes 
(TuriA|  London,  &c.)  are  almost  all  translations. 


1^1        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


CHRONICLE 


PATRISnCA. 

iIk  JocuuL  pdnied  its 


CHRONICLE 


135 


*^^t  were  published  within  the  years  1 884-1 900,  which  we  owe  to 

^*--^T,  A.   Ehrhard',  Professor  originally  at  Wiirzburg,  then  at  Vienna, 

^-*:»d  now  the  first  tenant  of  the  chair  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the 

*^^2wly  erected  Faculty  of  Theology  at  Strassburg.     It  is  a  work  of  course 

I  meant  for  beginners  :   but  for  more  advanced  students  it  will  be 

d  to  be  quite  indispensable  as  a  book  of  reference,  while  yet  it 

iffers  from  other  bibliographies  in  that  it  can  be  read  straight  through 

^^Dm  end  to  end  with  enjoyment  as  well  as  with  profit.     Dr.  Ehrhard  is 

^perhaps  best  known  in  England  as  the  author  of  a  brilliant  and  (so  far 

31^  circulation  goes)  successful  plea  for  liberal  Catholicism,  Der  Katho- 

^lismus  und  dat  swanzigsk  Jahrhundtrt :    the  book  now  under  notice 

shews  that  be  is  as  thorough  and  erudite  as  he  is  brilliant.     And  it  fills 

a  real  gap :  nowhere  else  can  workers  in  the  patristic  field  find  so  clear 

ban  outline  of  the  problems  which  this  generation  has  had  to  face,  or  so 
exhaustive  an  account  of  the  attempts  which  it  has  made  to  solve  them. 
"With  characteristic  German  patience  Dr.  Ehrhard  has  calculated  that 
the  notes  in  the  present  volume,  which  treats  of  ante-Nicene  literature 
only,  amount  to  2710:  and  to  nearly  every  note  corresponds  *some 
writing,  treatise,  or  other  contribution  to  the  subject  of  greater  or  less 
dimension/    VVe  expect  anxiously  the  appearance  of  ihe  companion 

P volume  on  the  post-Nicene  literature :  for  here  the  field  becomes  so 
test  that  only  with  the  help  of  some  such  guide  can  the  individual 
scholar  hope  to  become  acquainted  with  the  labours  of  his  con- 
temporaries. The  faculty  of  Catholic  Theology  at  Strassburg  is  fortunate 
indeed  in  being  able  to  draw  directly  on  the  stores  of  Dr,  Ehrhard's 
leaioing.  It  is  a  venial  fault  if  we  find  him  somewhat  too  much  inclined 
to  register  as  conclusive  the  numerous  pronouncements  on  critical 
questions  of  some  of  the  more  eminent  of  his  countrymen :  and  it  is 
only  right  to  point  out  that  English  writers,  and  even  specifically  Anglican 
books  like  Abp*  Benson's  Cyprian^  find  unexceptionable  treatment  at 
the  hands  of  the  German  Roman  Catholic, 

(3)  If  Dr.  Ehrhard  is  the  most  prominent  patristic  scholar  of  the 
younger  Roman  Catholic  school  in  Germany,  Dr.  F.  X,  Funk  of 
Tubingen  is  certainly  the  best  known  of  the  veterans.  The  two  volumes 
of  the  new  edition  of  his  Patres  Aposioiici,  published  in  1901  *,  are 
divided  by  twenty  and  twenty-three  years  respectively  from  the  volumes 
of  the  original  edition  of  1878  and  1881,  just  as  that  edition  was 
'     separated  by  a  similar  interval  from  the  last  edition  of  Hefele's  work,  on 


»  Dig  ttUchnstlkhi  Litirraiur  und  ihrt  Efforschung  von  i8fi4>]900 :  EnU  Abttilung, 
Iht  vormcdniacht  LitUratHr,    Von  Albert  Ehrhard.     Freiburg  im  Breisgmu,  1900. 

*  Pairn  Apostolici :  Uxtum  nansm'i,  adnoiationibus  aifia's  exfgfficis  hisiorids 
tBrntrmniy  vrtsiontnt  laHnam  prohgomena  indicts  addidit,  Franciscus  XavcriusFunk. 
Editio  II  adaucia  t1  anatdata.    Two  volumes,  Tabingen,  1901. 


136         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


I 


which,  as  regartls  the  first  volume,  it  was  based.  In  the  way  of  new 
iBHIeha]  the  quarter  of  a  century  just  elapsed  can  p^haps  hardly  daim 
equal  importance  with  the  period  which  saw  the  discovery  of  the  original 
text  of  Barnabas  and  part  of  Hennas  and  the  completion  of  that 
of  Oaaenl,  betides  the  second  Latin  and  Ethiopic  ver^'on  of  Hennas 
Mid  the  Syriac  version  of  OemenL  Yet  even  in  this  sphere  the 
Didache  and  the  LaUo  Oement  are  no  incoosidefable  addltioiis  to 
our  ktKiwlcdgc :  while  on  the  sooce  of  new  editiom  the  five  vohimes  of 
Bp.  Lightfoot'S  Aptsii^  i^hbrr  (1SS5,  1890)  mark  the  last  period  as 
efiod^^makin^  m  tbe  histoiy  of  patristic  criticism.  But  if  Dr.  Funk's 
fii«t  cditKHi  ins  thevebf  aatiqintcd.  it  was  not  wfadDy  si^ierseded. 
Time  is  still  toom  for  a  text  of  the  Apostolic  Fatbeis  ]e»  aamfciiioBf 
dMftl4g{hilfeoi^$bmiiioieexteB8i^i&aoope:  ODeiiliicliwillsiimBaiBe 
rather  than  produce  tfaem«  but  one  irindi  or  die  otber 
wOl  inctode  aU  tbe  Apofitaik  Fathen^  attd  Kit  ibe  gcHii^viU 
imif  but  (ao  fitf  IS  ^Moe  penote)  die  iparioBs  as  wdL  Ont  fand|f 
for  imtaaoe,  where  else  to  turn  than  to  Dr.  Fonk  for  tbe 

Clashes  00  Virpaxy,     Dr*  Fabk^  phs  too  cf 

A  (nodem) 

eacbofdiefeomiedocnMttls.    It  is  a  pleasore,  tboefon^  to 
a  aewediwm  iSbM 

oaie^  wi  oie  aaat  wmnae  ■wcufai  me 

its  as  nocessarf « ie<:asl  woA  ve^RiKoB^sid  we  ooaUd  viiii  iIhS  De. 

cmieold 

<£  ibe  paKmi»^§utdMk§BKgBxj  {\ 

10  40re^  baa  to  be  aomdft  fat 


CHRONICLE  137 

^^4/ the  changes  have  left  him  rather  lonely.    In  1853  learned  opinion 
^►^  more  or  less  divided  between  the  view  that  Cureton's  new  Syriac 
^iiscoveiy  represented  the  genuine  Ignatius  and  the  view,  supported  by 
^^ilgenfeld  and  bis  great  leader   F.  C.   Baur,  that  there  were  no 
S^uine  Ignatian  documents  at  all.     Nowadays,  however^  the  Seven 
Epistles  unquestionably  hold  the  field.    That  Catholics  and  Anglicans, 
like  Funk  and  Lightfoot,  should  have  hillied  to  the  champion  of  epis- 
copacy, or  Orthodox  Lutherans,  like  Zahn,  to  the  champion  of  the 
<5octrine  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ,  is  intelligible  enough  to  Dr.  Hilgen- 
feld :  that  the  disciples  of  Ritschl,  himself  an  opponent  of  the  genuineness, 
should  become  converts,  is  a  misforttine  only  to  be  accounted  for  by 
the  fstct  that  they  read  Ritschlianism  into  Ignatius.    Dr.  Hilgenfeld 
does  his  best  to  sfem  the  flowing  tide.    To  him  the  seven  epistles  are 
still  a  Gnostic  forgery :   the  epistle  of  Polycarp  only  genuine  when  all 
references  to  Ignatius  and  his  letters  have  been  erased :  the  Antiochene 
Acts  of  Martyrdom  and  the  chronicle  of  Malalas,  which  make  Trajan 
present  at  Antioch,  the  most  trustworthy  witnesses  to  the  history  of  the 
martyr.     Even  if  critical  opinion  were  to  incline  in  this  direction  in 
England,  it  would  not,  we  are  sure,  adopt  the  system  elaborated  by 
Dr.  Hilgenfeld.    The  original  second-century  forjger  is  followed  by 
another  (in  Hilgenfeld's  notation,  Ignatius  I  ^)  who  in  the  third  century 
composed  the  five  letters,  Mary  to  Ignatius,  Ignatius  to  Mary,  to  the 
Tarsians,  to  Hero,  to  the  Antiochenes.     Between  the  councils  of  Nicaea 
and  Constantinople  a  third  forger,  Ignatius  I^  added  the  letter  to 
the  Phiiippians :  while  yet  a  fourth,  Ignatius  II,  contemporary  with  the 
last,  is  responsible  for  the  enlarged  and  corrected  edition  of  the  original 
seven.    In  correspondence  with  this  theory  Dr.  Hilgenfeld  prints  the 
seven  letters  in  Greek  (with  the  Roman  letter  imbedded  in  the  martyrdom), 
the  epistle  of  Polycarp,  the  same  in  its  *  genuine '  form,  the  martyrdom 
of  Polycarp^  the  same  as  given  by  Eusebius,  the  Latin  versions  of  the 
letters  of  both  saints ;  from  the  Syriac  (but  in  Latin  translations)  the 
fragments  of  the  seven  letters,  and  the  three  *  Curetonian '  letters ;   the 
five  additional  Ignatian  letters ;   the  sixth  additional  letter  (that  to  the 
Phiiippians)  in  Greek  and  Latin ;  and  lastly  the  fourth-century  form  of 
the  seven  letters.    A  hundred  pages  of  notes  conclude  the  book,  and 
are  perhaps  not  the  least  permanently  valuable  part  of  it.    Another 
feature  in  this  edition  which  will  specially  commend  itself  is  the  very 
convenient  list  of  patristic  quotations  from  the  seven  epistles,  pp.  134- 
162,  arranged  in  the  order  of  the  epistles  themselves.    Dr.  Hilgenfeld 
(like  Dr.  Funk)  writes  in  Latin :  we  are  sometimes  tempted  to  think 
he  would  be  easier  to  follow  in  his  native  tongue. 

(5)  Dr.  E.   Preuschen  is  another  of  the  Germans  whose  literary 
industry  and  activity  are,  judged  by  our  more  sluggish  standards,  incredibly 


138  THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


astonishing.  He  edits  one  of  the  best  of  the  newer  theological  rev 
in  Germany  ;  he  is,  we  believe^  engaged  in  the  practical  work  of  school 
leaching ;  and  yet  he  finds  lime  to  write  books,  two  of  which  lie  before 
us  at  this  moment.  Perhaps  this  fertihty  would  be  inconsistent  with 
work  of  the  most  permanent  SLnd  enduring  kind :  but  his  collection  of 
AmUU^g^mena  ^  is  both  handy  and  useful — more  useful  indeed  than  the 
title  would  quite  suggest,  for  it  includes  not  only  the  scanty  remains  of 
the  apocryphal  Gospels  and  eitta-canonical  sayings  of  our  Lord  (these 
occupy  no  more  than  twenty- fi\*e  pages)  but  all  the  Gospel-citations 
in  i  Clement,  in  Justin  Martyr,  in  the  Gementine  Homilies  and  ia 
Origen^s  report  of  Olsus.  The  ficagments  of  Ptapias  and  of  the  elders 
IQ  Iieoaeus  are  perhaps  properly  added  as  gennane  to  the  subject, 
tboHgb  they  can  be  found  in  any  o^  the  ediiiocis  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers :  it  is  a  little  more  diflknlt  to  see  on  vliat  grcwiids  the  inclusion 
of  the  fragments  of  Hqgeappos  ooold  be  logkaDy  deieoded,  though  as 
these  are  less  easy  to  find  collected  dsewbetc  one  vocdd  not  wish  to 
pnss  the  claims  of  logic  «sutttt  those  of  coofenknce.    The  texts 


to  hare  been  caiefU^  ediled,  and  the  EifirhSan  extnM^ts  are 
earidhed  with  tsk  afspantua  criticits — nowlwre  more  aeoessary  than  in 
thee  extncts— by  the  hefy  of  Dr.  Sdi«iftt*s  coliiions.  The  only 
diJiwbxA  that  we  have  nolked  to  the  use  of  the  book  is  a  certain  lack 
of  dBUMSB  in  anmgcBMBt;  ilie  diftsrem  (foucatioos  uiidei  the  tif^tiiig 
01  oca  UMinor  are  ^iminguiSDCo.  uf  mmoeRt  ok  w/bk  are  cues  in 
mbidi  the  imcrtal  of  a  line  could  have  been  left  with  grcM  nd«inla§e 
to  the  eye  of  the  leadcf.  The  Gerottn  truwhrioBs  wiD  be  useful  10 
those  to  wtiom  the  bngoage  of  the  ordinals  is  less  &iiishar,  and  the 
pcioe  IS  moocine  enoiign  m  mniie  a  ■wwh  doqk  wncfly  aHOcsHDie. 

of  gttnt  writets  of  a.  ix  iSo-a5t\  we  ind  CkiaeBl  of  Alesandiia 
bgraoksthMitlaeeofteboolEsonanriiL.    Twoindeed 
of  telle  ire  hmf,  bit  m  ifaej  preoeed  fcont  die  pen  of  Dr.  Ouo 

nihe 
it  cocs  wMmi  ayi^  tel  tef  M  tepomoL    la 
lo  a  aamfciujn    1  iiliw  1  of 

r;ilt«^    mril  awnd  t»  Ifae  kMBK.  he 


CHRONICLE  139 

'Qementioa'  of  two  of  the  MSS,  suppL  gr.  270  and  421,  are  collations 
bf  Montfiuicon  and  notes  by  Le  Nourry  respectively,  while  the  third 
IIS^  soppL  gr.  1000,  is  only  connected  with  Clement  at  all  by  an  error 
in  the  catalogue.  For  the  Protrepticus  and  Paedagogus  he  agrees  with 
Btmard  that  the  codex  of  Rodulphus  Pius,  bishop  of  Carpi,  employed 
as  a  teoondary  authority  in  the  editio  princeps,  is  the  present  Muti- 
nensis  (lil)i  But  what  was  the  other  and  primary  MS,  on  whose 
mthority  the  text  in  that  edition  was  mainly  based?  Stahlin  proves 
that  the  MS  used  for  the  Paedagogus  was  Laurentianus  v  24,  our  F, 
and  for  the  Protrepticus  a  MS  hitherto  overlooked,  Munich  gr.  97. 
This  Munich  MS  is  shewn  to  be  a  copy  of  M,  and  as  M  is  itself  a  copy 
of  Aiethas's  great  MS  of  the  Greek  apologists,  Paris  gr.  451,  the 
htter  is  kft  as  the  ultimate  source  of  all  knowledge  of  the  Protrepticus 
in  the  sixteenth  century  as  well  as  in  the  twentieth. 

(7)  Dr.  Stahlin's  other  contribution  is  a  pamphlet  on  Clement's  quo- 
tations from  the  LXX  ^.  The  Biblical  quotations  of  an  early  Christian 
writer  may  be  used  for  the  textual  criticism  either  of  his  own  writings 
or  of  the  Biblical  books  themselves :  but  in  the  case  of  Clement  so 
little  of  his  extant  writings  rests  on  the  authority  of  more  than  a  single 
MS  that  there  is  practically  no  field  for  the  first  of  these  purposes,  and 
te  interest  of  the  quotations  will  therefore  lie  in  their  bearing  on 
LXX  problems.  And  from  this  point  of  view  Clement's  antiquity  and 
the  very  considerable  bulk  of  his  writings  make  him  an  important 
witness,  though  we  must  not  forget  to  put  aside  all  such  quotations  as 
ue  drawn  not  directly  from  the  LXX  but  mediately  for  instance  through 
Philo.  In  identifying  Clement's  quotations  earlier  scholars — Hervetus, 
Sylbufg,  Le  Nourry,  Potter— all  did  yeoman's  service :  later  editors  have 
done  little  else  than  multiply  misprints.  But  if  Dr.  Stahlin's  work  owes 
nothing  to  Klotz  or  Dindorf,  he  acknowledges  in  the  fullest  way  his 
obligations  to  Dr.  Swete's  Introduction  and  to  his  manual  edition  of 
the  LXX :  indeed  it  appears  to  be  implied  with  regard  at  least  to  the 
Psalms  (p.  25)  that  for  pmposes  of  comparison  with  Clement  little  would 
be  gained  from  any  more  elaborate  apparatus  such  as  we  look  for  in  the 
biger  Cambridge  edition.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  for 
&e  Psalter  Dr.  Swete  used  more  manuscripts  than  elsewhere :  and  in 
particular  the  agreement  of  Clement  with  the  fragments  of  the  London 
papyrus  Psalter  (Swete's  U)  against  all  other  MSS,  when  taken  into 
account  with  the  similar  agreement — first  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Brightman 
in/.  T,  S.  ii  275,  as  Dr.  Nestle  duly  notes  in  the  addenda  to  Stahlin's 
pamphlet — of  U  with  Mr.  Budge's  Sahidic  Psalter,  seems  to  point  to 
an  early  Egyptian  text  distinct  from  any  of  the  great  uncials.     In  the 

*  GEmwns  AUxandrmus  uttd  dU  Siptuaginta,  Von  Dr.  Otto  StAhlin.  NOrnberg, 
1901. 


CHRONICLE  141 

leason  at  all  why  the  name  of  the  one  should  share  either  the  credit  or 
the  responsibility  for  the  work  of  the  other.  This  is  not  the  occasion 
to  enter  into  a  detailed  review  (though  we  could  wish  that  such  a  one 
m^t  still  appear  in  the  pages  of  the  Journal)  of  a  book  which  cer- 
tainly marks  a  distinct  step  forward  in  the  criticism  of  a  difficult  and 
confbsed  author :  but  we  signal  with  gratitude  the  attempt,  too  rare  in 
these  days,  to  assist  in  the  elucidation  of  the  author's  meaning  as  well 
as  in  the  restoration  of  his  words.  Dr.  Mayor  is  sometimes  scrappy, 
bat  always  vigorous:  stronger  perhaps  in  matters  of  grammar  than 
of  text,  in  the  knowledge  of  Clement's  heathen  predecessors  than  of  his 
Christian  contemporaries:  never  so  happy  as  when  breaking  a  lance 
against  Hatch  and  Hamack  in  favour  of  Clement's  right  to  create  a 
philosophy  for  the  Church.  The  commentary  is  replete  with  good 
matter.  But  why  have  we  to  turn  to  a  footnote  on  p.  Ixviii  of  the 
Introduction,  in  order  to  find  the  meaning  of  the  symbols  employed  in 
the  apparatus  to  the  text?  And  is  it  not  rather  pedantic  to  divide  up, 
as  is  done  on  pp.  385-386,  Clement's  quotations  from  the  books  of  his 
Greek  Bible  into  the  two  classes  '  Bible '  and  '  Apocryphal  writings '  ? 

(9)  The  remainder  of  the  books  catalogued  in  the  present  instalment 
of  Patristic  chronicle  are  ail  concerned  with  the  pseudonymous  literature 
of  the  early  Church,  with  works,  that  is,  which  either  the  original 
writers  or  later  scribes  placed  under  the  protection  of  illustrious  names 
such  as  Clement,  Justin  or  Tertullian.  In  all  this  vast  field  no  group 
of  writings  has  in  modem  times  attracted  so  much  attention  as  the 
pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions.  To  the  school  of 
Tubingen  they  seemed,  with  the  Apocalypse  and  the  four  great  Pauline 
epistles,  to  take  us  back,  as  no  other  writings  did,  into  the  heart  of  the 
controversies  of  the  apostolic  age ;  and  a  very  great  antiquity  was  con- 
sequently attributed  to  them.  Neither  their  authority  nor  Aeir  antiquity 
is  now  rated  so  highly :  and  among  the  books  which  will  do  most  for 
the  spread  of  saner  views  about  them  must  indubitably  be  ranked  the 
newly  published  lectures  of  Dr.  Hort  \  As  we  have  just  had  occasion 
to  say,  there  are  drawbacks  to  posthumous  publication:  but  in  this 
case  the  lectures  were  intended  to  be  printed,  a  preface  had  even  been 
written,  and  Mr.  Murray  has  restrained  his  editorial  hand  within  the 
narrowest  limits.  It  would  have  been  a  real  loss  to  criticism  if  these 
lectures  had  never  seen  the  light.  The  style  is,  what  the  style  of 
Dr.  Hort's  writings  too  often  was  not,  straightforward  and  intelligible : 
the  learning  and  the  independence  of  thought  which  we  associate  with 
all  Dr.  Hort's  work  are  more  than  ever  illustrated  here.  He  makes 
good  a  special  title  to  be  listened  to  on  the  questions  of  date  and  origin 

'  NoUs  iMiroductory  to  the  Study  of  tk€  CUmhUws  Rttogmtums :    a  Courst  of 
luctuftt,  by  F.  J.  A.  Hort,  D,D,    Maanillans,  1901. 


143         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


of  lhi»  literature,  becnuse  he  shews  a  singularly  respectful  attitude 
tow»rdt  Its  thought  and  theology.  Its  'nameless  authors'  set  them- 
Mlvtt  to  face  •  some  of  the  most  indestructible  problems/  which  were 
dealt  with  in  much  early  Christian  theology  *in  a  perfunctory  and 
manifestly  inadequate  way*:  and  they  have  therefore  'with  all  their 
fauU««  a  right  to  be  remembered  with  something  of  the  same  sympathy 
«nd  care  *  with  which  we  study  the  Gnostics  or  Irenaeos  or  Qement 
tad  Oi%«ii  (|k  t4aV  StUl  the  literature  is  nol  necessarily  primitive 
iMCiilM  it  »  iatertttiiig.  Dr.  Kort  fuUy  admits  thai  the  mutual 
relationship  of  its  extant  representatiTes*  the  Homilks  and  the  Recog* 
can  only  be  sarislMorilf  eiphtned  by  posrubting  an  etzticr 
which  was  the  90ince  of  bodi.  But  be 
with  tt  down  the  ear)y  ceotmiei^aiMi 
thaittbere  b  no  evktaoe  «t  al  for 
Om  tm^i  «ibI«T;  dMi  Oi%e&  is  d»e  QBiy  witiies  to  it  ID  dM  lUril 
iftd GMbte teHit im MToT ttetartli;  and ite so6r tbe 
d»  «Qt  ptte  to  tbft  fsvteMe  of  tltfttrlte  BoBaes  or  tbe 
weha^HiCHk   IWot^MMlioniwandpediapatheoaiy 

350  4.  m  iiPMMir  boie  ibe  title 

hyil 


CHRONICLE  143 

^  lesanectionei  eiusdem  libri  V  adversus  Marcionem/  Critics  have 
^^^berto  been  content  to  cite  the  poem  as  pseudo-Tertullian :  for  since 
tlie  dates  assigned  to  it  have  varied  from  the  third  century  to  the  sixth, 
^  was  superfluous  to  fix  its  authorship.  But  the  present  generation  of 
C^cnnan  scholars  are  possessed  with  a  passion  for  abolishing  the  anony- 
xxKMis :  and  it  is  quite  true  that  writings  which  remain  anonymous  or 
pseadkmymous  are  apt  to  be  neglected,  and  true  also  that  the  con- 
oentiation  of  the  evidence  into  a  definite  ascription  of  name  may,  even 
though  the  ascription  turn  out  to  be  erroneous,  prepare  the  material 
from  which  truth  may  ultimately  be  extracted.  The  merit  of  an  excellent 
and  painstaking  collection  of  facts,  the  value  of  which  extends  far 
beyond  the  thesis  they  are  called  in  to  prove,  will  be  put  to  the  credit 
of  Herr  Hans  Waitz  by  many  whom  he  will  certainly  not  succeed  in 
persuiuling  that  the  true  author  of  the  pseudo-Tertullianic  carmen  is 
the  Afirican  Christian  poet  of  the  third  century,  Commodian^  For 
the  carmen^  though  it  does  not  keep  to  all  the  classical  rules  of  prosody, 
has  a  good  metrical  swing  of  its  own :  while  Commodian  is  of  all  early 
Latin  Christians  the  furthest  firom  classical  models,  and  his  hexameters 
have  to  be  read  over  two  or  three  times  before  it  can  be  seen  how 
they  scan.  No  amount  of  Quellenkritik  will  prove  that  tolerable  and 
intolerable  Latin  verses  were  products  of  the  same  pen.  And  Waitz's 
QueUenkriHk  is  successful  rather  in  shewing  that  the  author  lived  in  the 
third  century  than  that  be  was  the  particular  third-century  writer,  Com- 
modian. The  most  solid  point  established  is  the  contact  between  the 
carmen  and  Victorinus  of  Pettau :  dependence  on  Hippolytus  is  pos- 
sible for  the  order  of  popes,  Linus,  Cletus,  Anacletus,  Clement :  the  use 
of  Theophilus  of  Antioch  xorA  MapK/«vof  is  neither  h'kely  in  itself  nor 
made  more  likely  by  Waitz's  far-fetched  arguments.  But  if  the  carmen 
is  ante-Nicene  at  all,  it  merits  a  good  deal  more  attention  than  scholars 
have  hitherto  bestowed  on  it :  and  should  Waitz's  proof  on  this  head 
stand  finn,  the  worthlessness  of  his  Commodian  theory  will  be  a  small 
matter  in  comparison. 

(11)  Justin  Martyr  was  par  excellence  the  Apologist  of  the  early 
Church,  and  more  than  one  anonymous  Apology  sought  the  protection 
and  shelter  of  his  name.  The  reader  who  follows  the  enumeration 
given  by  Herr  Gaul  ^  of  the  literature  which  has  been  devoted  to  the 
criticism  of  a  single  one  of  these  writings,  the  Cohortatio  ad  GraecoSy 
will  probably  be  inclined  to  complain  that  of  the  writing  of  books, 

*  Das^aeudottriuUiamsclu  Gedickt  ^Adversus  Marciontm  *:  tin  Biitrag Mur Gisckichtt 
ier  aUthristUchtn  LittenUur  sotvu  Mur  QuelUnkritik  dts  MardonUismus,  Von  Hans 
Waitz.    Dannstadt,  1901. 

'  Dit  AtfoMaungmtrhaUnisat  d*r  pstudojustinisch*n  ' Cohortatio  ad  Gnucos*  Von 
WUly  Gftol.    Berlin,  190a. 


144  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


especially  of  German  books,  there  is  no  end.  He  will  learn  that  the 
most  recent  opinions  are  divided  on  the  question  whether  or  no  the 
Cohortatio  is  prior  to  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  whether  or  no  it  is  really 
a  work  of  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea,  whether  it  is  earlier  or  later  than 
Porphyry^  earlier  or  later  than  Julius  Africanus,  earlier  or  later  than 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  whether  it  is  a  work  of  Apollinaris  of  Hierapoiis, 
or  whether  finally  it  was  not  after  all  written  by  Justin  himself  If 
he  has  stiU  the  courage  to  pursue  further  enquiry  under  Kerr  Gaul*s 
guidance,  he  will  find  that  the  difficulty  in  dating  the  book  arises  out 
of  the  fact  that  it  is  a  ix)lemic  against  Greek  paganism  shewing  few  or 
no  points  of  contact  with  external  history  or  with  the  development  of 
Christian  doctrine;  and  that  the  argument  must  proceed  therefore 
almost  cntirdy  on  comparison  with  similar  apologetic  writings,  and 
especially  with  any  of  them  with  which  it  is  found  to  stand  in  the 
relation  cither  of  exemplar  or  of  copy.  Of  the  two  works  which  shew 
the  closest  identity  of  language  with  it,  critics  are  nearly  unanimous 
that  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  his  Adversta  luMammm  was  indebted  to  the 
Cohoitatio  and  not  vict  versa,  but  on  the  question  of  priority  as  between 
the  Cohortatio  and  the  Chronographies  of  Julius  Africanus  they  are 
inofe  evenly  divided.  Herr  Gaul  has  convinced  himself  that  the  Cohor- 
tatio IS  bier  than  Qement,  earlier  than  Africanus ;  and  no  doubt  the 
neoplatonic  and  svncretistic  movements  of  the  opening  years  of  the  third 
century — in  which  period  he  places  abo  the  A  MMMndiia  of  pseudo- 
Justin  and  ^bt  Apolpgy  of  p8eiido>Melilo — woold  have  created  a 
suilahle  atmoqibere  for  the  prodoctioii  of  sncfa  apofagetk  literature. 
But  to  sacujed  in  diewing  iliat  the  Othottatio  may  very  wcU  have 
beenmtten  at  that  paitioukr  tone  is  not  the  SHiie  thing  as  provii^ 
that  it  fxxild  not  have  been  vtitten  at  any  ottwr  time :  the  wMe  evidence 
that  is  available  te  the  criticism  of  tins  and  wndar  writiags  is  of  a 
within  the  Inits  of  the  more  cv  iess  probable 
tlMB  the  WMe  or  less  cseitaiB. 
(ia)  With  even  less  cjuai  than  the  OohortMio  to  be  laidLed  as 
Jmtm  s,  the  gnittp  of  km  pseado  jiMtawaii  docMets  of  wfakh  Dr, 
Haimck  treats  ^^-tbe  Qmmsfmmtt  ti  jftjjwiaiwmj  ^  Qt  nhrfaraj,  Qmme- 


I 


I 


I 


Fnr  of  al  ibe  mk  m  tbe 
ind  hi^gottf  have  bromlia 

-^    «--/     ij    ■      I 


l=^%eb^4. 


CHRONICLE  145 

than  the  almost  total  disappearance  of  the  numerous  writings 
^VDiodoie  of  Antioch,  the  '  second  founder  ^  of  the  Antiochene  school, 
^1^  teacher  of  Chiysostom  and  Theodore,  bishop  of  Tarsus  from  378 
his  death  in  392.  And  whether  or  no  we  are  in  the  result  con- 
by  Dr.  Hamack*s  arguments,  his  great  gifts  have  never  been 
displayed  to  more  advantage  than  in  the  present  treatise.  An  admirable 
of  style,  an  erudition  which  never  fails  to  astonish,  persuasive 
in  marshalling  arguments,  the  prospect  at  once  of  solving  one 
of  the  problems  of  early  Christian  literature  and  of  rediscovering 
one  of  its  lost  writers — this  is  a  combination  which  it  is  difficult  indeed 
to  resist  If  on  the  second  reading  one  misses  some  of  the  glamour  of 
the  first,  and  feels  more  conscious  of  flaws  in  the  argument  or  of  alter- 
native possibilities ;  if  one  cannot  help  remembering  that  Dr.  Hamack, 
certain  of  his  results  as  he  is  on  this  occasion^  has  been  equally  certain 
on  too  many  occasions  and  with  too  sh'ght  proof  before ;  if  one  would 
like  to  suspend  judgement  for  awhile  rather  than  give  an  immediate 
assent;  even  if  some  features  seem  to  suit  better  a  later  date  than 
Diodore's— it  still  remains  true  that  this  is  a  book  which  should  be  not 
only  read  but  mastered  by  all  who  are  interested  in  patristic  study: 
and  at  the  risk  of  overstepping  the  limits  of  a  chronicle^  some  attempt 
must  here  be  made  to  give  an  insight  into  its  contents.  The  four 
tracts,  then,  are  all  found,  under  the  name  of  Justin,  in  a  Paris  MS, 
graec  450,  of  the  fourteenth  century,  on  which  all  the  older  editions 
depend:  but  a  better  and  fuller  text  of  the  most  important  of  the  four, 
the  Qu^ustiofus  et  Responsiones  ad  Orthodoxos^  is  found  under  the  name 
of  Theodoret  in  a  tenth-century  MS  of  the  'Jerusalem'  library  at 
Constantinople,  from  which  a  Greek  scholar,  Papadopulos  Kerameus, 
published  a  new  edition  of  it  in  1895.  Of  the  two  suggested  names, 
Justin  is  on  all  grounds  impossible,  and  has  never  been  defended: 
Theodoret  is  at  least  so  far  possible  that  the  writings  certainly  emanate 
from  the  school  of  Antioch.  The  author's  favourite  title  for  the 
Incarnate  Christ  is  6  d«(nrdn7ff  Xpurrof :  he  distinguishes  the  v\ht  6€r6g 
and  the  vl^  SBtrot,  he  uses  '  indwelling '  as  a  synonym  for  the  Incar- 
nation, he  contrasts  the  two  Natures  as  t6  cV  ra^t  and  r&  rd^aw.  On 
the  other  hand  he  holds  language  of  absolute  clearness  on  the  unity 
of  the  Person :  Scripture  Karii  tAi»  \6yo¥  rfis  arrM^tns — the  phrase  gives 
lome  trouble  to  Hamack  (p.  30),  but  is  obviously  equivalent  to  the  more 
usual <2sT(Bterir,  cotnmumcaiio  idiomatum — 'records  inseparably  of  one  and 
the  same  Person  the  things  that  fit  separately  to  each  nature,'  ntpX  iiAt 

ni  r*v  «urov  wpwrAwov  iroui  dduuprr^f  rfiP  Htfjyrio'W  rStv  iKcurrji  <f>va'€i  dtjjfnuuvmt 

ipfmrAm-w,     It  is  characteristic  of  Hamack's  centrifugal  tendency  that 
be  reserves  all  his  emphasis  (e.g.  on  p.  67)  for  the  Nestorianizing  side 
of  our  author's  phraseology :  but  if  Nestorius  had  been  willing  to  use 
VOL.  V.  L 


X46         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


language  such  as  that  just  quoted^  there  need  have  been  no  Nestorian 
controversy.  In  any  case  the  Christobgical  standpoint  of  the  author 
is  Antiochene :  while  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity — so  Dr.  Harnack  pro- 
ceeds to  develop  his  argument— gives  not  only  similar  evidence  of 
place,  but  still  more  cogent  evidence  of  time.  Although  a  convinced 
opponent  of  Arianism>  he  prefers  the  term  ^ortfioc  to  the  term  oftooCtnos  i 
although  he  believes  that  as  with  the  Son  so  with  the  Holy  Spirit  there 
is  *no  sort  of  distinction  or  differentiation  in  essence'  from  the  Father, 
it  is  yet  clear  that  while  he  can  assume  the  co-essentiality  of  the  Son 
he  has  to  slate  and  argue  the  co-essentiality  of  the  Spirit  If  the 
doctrinal  ailment  thus  throws  us  back  on  the  days  of  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions  and  of  St  Basil,  the  chronology  of  the  political  situation 
is  exactly  the  same  :  pagans  are  still  hopeful  of  a  restoration,  '  error/ 
that  is  to  say  heresy,  is  actually  in  power.  Everything  therefore  points 
to  Diodore,  the  only  writer  of  the  Antiochene  school  whom  we  knew 
to  have  been  active  in  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  fall  of 
Arianism  in  378.  This  theory  of  the  authorship  was  first  propounded 
by  an  almost  forgotten  scholar  of  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  Lacrozc :  and  it  would  no  doubt  offer  a  sufficient  reason  for 
the  attributions  to  Justin  and  Theodoret,  since  Diodore  in  the  course 
of  the  Nestorian  controversy  fell  into  some  disrepute  in  orthodox 
circles — Cyril  wrote  against  him  in  438»  after  the  Reunion,  and  even 
the  Nestorians  when  they  circulated  his  books  suppressed  their  author- 
ship. Lacroze's  statement  of  his  case  was  brief,  and  bad  quite  fallen 
into  oblivion  till  it  was  brought  to  light  by  Dr.  Hamack,  who  has 
developed  the  theory  with  amazing  fertility  of  resource  and  illustration, 
Wliere  such  wealth  of  argument  is  displayed,  not  every  statement  will 
be  of  equal  cogency :  it  is  difficult  to  understand  the  ground  for  the 
assertion— made  on  p.  31  ».  2,  and  repeated  on  p.  44— that,  as  the 
author  read  the  Syriac  bible,  he  must  also  have  been  able  to  read  the 
Hebrew.  If  Dr.  Hamack  fulfils  the  hope  he  expresses  on  p.  68,  and 
gives  us  a  tprfits  operum  DMori  with  the  Greek  text— for  the  present 
he  has  confined  himself  to  a  German  translation — he  must  justify  his 
preference  of  the  Paris  MS  in  the  biblical  quotations  on  pp.  61-63* 
where  the  earlier  MS  is  distinguished  by  marked  agreements  with  KB. 
On  pp.  6if,,  19  IT.,  r>HKrnFc^<ar  must  be  corrected  into  irpoirorycnc.  On 
pp.  14,  40,  tt^  passage  quoted  from  St  Basil's  letter  to  Diodore  (^ 
135)  is  quite  ungrammatiod  as  its  stands,  and  must  be  completed  firom 
the  Latin  version  of  Facitndus  of  Hermiane  given  on  p  15  :  9^  piw 
hnn^  im^fi^im  w  diA  r^  /i^^vrinv  #-<(»«»  ,  ,  ,  HX  in  no«*  n  £^  i^ni 


I 


CHRONICLE  147 

Books  dealing  .with  Hippolytus,  Novatian,  Cyprian,  Peter  of 
Alexandria,  Eusebius,  Gr^ory  of  Nyssa,  and  other  writers,  are  awaiting 
discussion,  but  must  be  reserved  for  a  later  number  of  the  Journal. 
The  present  notice  has  already  almost  exceeded  the  reasonable  limits 
of  a  chronicle^ 

C.  H.  Turner. 


HAGIOGRAPHICA. 

(i)  In  the  departnlent  of  hagiography  the  chief  event  must  always  be 
the  appearance  of  a  volume  of  the  Bollandist  Acta  SS, ;  and  during 
the  two  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the  previous  Chronicle  ib  these 
pages,  a  volume  has  been  published,  not  indeed  a  part  of  the  great 
•cries  of  Acta,  but  one  of  those  welcome  supplementary  volumes  that 
from  dme  to  time  appear  in  the  same  stately  dimensions  and  print  as 
the  regular  series.    It  is  a  critical  edition  of  the  Synaxarium  of  the 
Gteek  Church  ^    The  Synaxarium  is  one  df  the  liturgical  books  Which 
gives  in  quite  a  short  form  day  by  day  the  lives  of  the  saints  celebrated 
thtoughout  the  year — much  as  the  later  Latin  Martyrologies  of  Beda- 
FkMrus  or  Ado.     The  edition  is  the  work  of  Pbre  Ddehaye.    The  Pro- 
logue discusses  the  character  of  the  Synaxaria  and  their  relations  to 
other  similar  Office  Books,  as  the  Menaea,  &c.;   it  investigates  the 
sources  fix>m  which  the  h'ves  were  compiled,  and  describes  the  MSS  and 
their  groupings.    The  text  is  a  reprint  of  the  Sirmond  MS  of  the  twelfth 
or  thirteenth  century,  once  among  the  Phillipps  Collection,  and  now 
at  Berlin ;  but  fully  half  of  each  page  is  taken  up  with  additions  and 
selected  readings  from  some  sixty  MSS.    As  in  the  case  of  the  Martyr- 
ologies, the  historical  value  of  such  a  collection  is  very  difficult  to 
estimate ;  no  doubt  a  number  of  authentic  traditions  are  to  be  found 
therein,  mixed  up  with  a  vast  amount  of  rubbish.    But  a  good  edition 
of  the  Synaxarium  is  a  great  aCqtiisition  for  the  hagiographer,  the 
litugist,  and  the  Church  historian. 

The  sixth  and  last  volume  of  the  Greek  Menaeon^  or  longer  Lives, 
edited  by  the  Basilian  monks  of  Grotta  Ferrata,  has  recently  issued  from 
the  Vatican  Press ;  it  can,  however,  hardly  claim  to  be  a  critical  edition. 
(2)  Of  hardly  less  importance  is  the  appearance  of  one  of  the  volumes 
of  the  Monumenta  Germaniae  Htstorica  devoted  to  saints'  lives.  The 
fourth  volume  of  Merovingian  writers  consists,  like  the  third,  wholly 
of  hagiographical  materials  edited  by  Dr.  Bruno  Krusch  *.    The  first 

*  PropyUuum  ad  Acta  SS.  Novtmbris  :  Synaxarium  EccUsia*  ConstanUnopoUUmat 
(Bn^saels:  pp.  Ixxv,  1179). 
'  PasMottts  Vitatqut  Sanctorum  Attn  Merovingici  (^Hannover  :  Hahn,  pp.  817). 

L  2 


148         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


half  is  taken  up  with  the  Irish  monks,  SS.  Colurobanus,  Gall,  and  their 
fellows;  the  most  important  document,  the  Vifa  Coiumbani  discipu- 
li/rumque  eius  by  Jonas,  is  accepted  as  authentic  and  historical,  the 
author  having  known  well  some  of  Sl  Colurabanus's  personal  friends ; 
less  authentic  is  even  the  earliest  Life  of  St.  Gall,  written  a  century  and 
a  half  after  the  saint's  death.  The  second  half  of  the  volume  contains 
the  lives  of  a  number  of  purely  Merovingian  bishops  and  saints,  of 
whom  the  most  important  probably  is  St.  Eligius  or  Eloi,  the  friend 
of  Dagobert  I,  though  the  Vita  in  its  present  form  is,  in  the  editor's 
judgement^  of  much  later  date.  The  volume  of  800  pages  contains 
eighteen  documents  edited  with  infinite  labour  and  scrupulous  care. 
Of  course  they  had  already  been  printed,  many  by  the  Bollandists, 
many  by  Mabillon ;  but  for  serious  historical  work  all  previous  editions 
are  now  definitely  superseded.  The  historical  and  critical  Introductions, 
notably  that  on  St.  ColumbanuSj  are  of  extraordinary  value,  as  also  are 
the  elaborate  Index  and  Lexica  et  Grammatical  or  list  of  notable  words 
and  forms. 

An  instmciive  episode  in  connexion  with  this  volume  is  worth  re- 
cording, as  showing  how  necessary  it  is  that  an  editor  should  see  every 
known  MS  of  his  text.  The  Life  of  St.  Richarius,  or  Riquier,  printed 
by  Krusch,  is  Alcuin's  literary  revision  of  an  earlier  life.  All  the  MSS 
which  he  examined  contained  this  form  ;  but  he  mentions  one  MS  which 
be  could  not  see.  Ptre  Poncelet  the  Bollandist  has  since  had  an 
opportunity  of  examining  this  MS,  and  he  finds  that  it  preserves  the 
missing  earlier  form,  and  that  there  is  every  reason  for  believing  that 
it  was  really  written  by  a  contemporary  of  the  saint.  The  text  is  printed 
in  Anakcia  BoUandiana  XX I L  Thus  in  spite  of  all  Krusch 's  care,  his 
collection  is  already  defective. 

(3)  While  speaking  of  the  Merovingian  saints  it  will  be  proj>er  to 
mention  Abb^  Vacandard's  Life  of  St.Ouen,  bishop  of  Rouen  (641-684)' ; 
those  who  know  the  author's  other  works  will  not  be  surprised  at  the 
statement  of  the  Bollandist  reviewer  that  it  is  a  solid  contribution  to 
historical  hagiography,  and  deser\'es  *  des  eloges  sans  reserve,'  Krusch, 
too,  in  the  Addenda  to  the  volume  just  noticed,  praises  it  as  one  of  the 
best  studies  on  Merovingian  history  that  has  appeared  for  many  years. 

{4)  The  present  year  witnessed  the  completion  of  the  edition  of 
the  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles  begun  by  Lipsius  and  carried 
out  by  Max  Bonnet*.  The  concluding  part  contains  the  Acts  of 
Philip,  of  Thomas,  and  of  Barnabas.  We  congratulate  the  surviving 
editor  on  the  completion  of  the  undertakings  which  has  been  throughout 
a  model  of  good  editing.    Readers  of  the  Journal  will  remember  that 

*  Vk  dt  Smnt  Chttn  (Piris :  Lecoflfre,  pp,  xxi,  394). 

»  Ada  jipostolomm  Apoctypka,  II,  iJ  (Leipzig;  Mendelssohn,  pp.  xlii,  395), 


I 


CHRONICLE  149 


'  ■     oa  two  OGcasions  Mr.  Burkitt  has  maintained  that  the  Acts  of  Thomas 

§     are  an  or^nal  Syriac  work,  the  Greek  being   a  translation;    and 

'      JUb;  Rendel  Harris  in  his  Dioscuri  (to  be  noticed  just  now)  says  that 

lie  had  independently  arrived  at  the  same  result ;  so  did  Dr.  Raabe  ^ 

Dr.  Max  Bonnet  tells  us  that  he  too  had  begun  (reluctantly)  to  suspect 

the  ame,  when  Mr.  Burkitfs  articles  came  and  quite  convinced  him : — 

and,  indeed,  seeing  that  the  '  Hymn  of  the  Soul '  has  now  been  found, 

and  in  prose^  in  the  Greek  Acta^  whereas  it  is  in  metre  in  the  Sjrriac,  it 

y&  difficult  to  see  how  any  other  conclusion  can  be  possible.     Bonnet, 

however,  still  holds  tentatively  that  the  original  may  have  been  a  Greek 

text,  now  lost  except  in  one  passage,  so  that  the  present  Greek  Acta 

would  be  a  retranslation  back  into  Greek.    The  independent  Greek 

Acts  of  Thomas,  first  printed  by  Dr.  James  in  his  second  series  of 

Anedota  Apocrypha^  are  not  included  in  this  edition. 

(5)  Although  already  reviewed  in  these  pages  by  Dr.  James,  the 
second  volume  of  Dr.  Wallis  Budge's  Ethiopic  Contendings  of  the 
Apostles,  containing  the  English  translation,  should  be  mentioned 
here. 

(6)  Two  recent  substantial  numbers  of  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  have 
dealt  with  Apocryphal  Acts.  In  one  Prof,  von  Gebhardt  edits  the 
Latin  versions  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  *.  He  shows  that  there 
are  three  quite  independent  Latin  translations,  one  of  which  exists  in 
three  variant  forms,  another  in  four,  so  distinct  that  the  attempt  to 
form  resultant  texts  would  be  impracticable.  Thus  there  are  in  effect 
etg^t  Latin  texts,  all  here  printed  in  full,  each  with  its  apparatus; 
besides  these  there  are  fragments  of  a  fourth  independent  Latin  version, 
and  seven  epitomes.  The  Introduction  will  be  of  interest  to  textual 
critics  as  a  model  of  method  in  investigating  a  difficult  problem.  The 
relationships  of  the  Latin  versions  to  each  other  and  to  the  Greek  are 
highly  complex  and  confusing.  Gebhardt's  conclusion  is  that  the 
extant  Greek  MSS  do  not  faithfully  preserve  the  original  work  but 
a  revised  redaction.  Here  again  we  encounter  the  phenomenon,  so 
familiar  in  N.  T.  criticism,  of  frequent  agreements  between  the  Latin 
and  Syriac  against  the  Greek :  in  such  cases  von  Gebhardt  holds  that 
the  united  witness  of  the  two  versions  must  prevail.  We  pity  the  next 
editor  of  the  Greek  Acta  who  will  have  to  face  the  problems  raised 
by  this  mass  of  new  material.  G^bhardt's  admirable  study  only  empha- 
sizes the  pessimistic  conclusion  that  in  textual  criticism  the  more 
thorough  the  work  the  less  certain  the  text. 

Dr.  Corssen  has  maintained  the  thesis  that  in  the  fragments  of  the 

'  TheoL  Literaturzeitung,  1903,  400. 

*  Dit  latti$tisektH  UtbtrMtjnmgen  dtr  Ada  Pauk  ti  Thtdoi :   T.  und  U.  vii  a 
(Ldpiig :  Hinrichs,  pp.  cxviii,  188). 


igo         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


fourth  I  ill  in  version  mentioned  above,  we  have  a  translation  of  portioos 
of  Ihe  j>ririiitivc  form  of  the  Acta,  not  known  to  exist  in  Greek  \ 

(7)  Prof.  Carl  Schmidt  takes  occasion  from  some  Coptic  fragments  ■ 
of  the  Acta  Petri  to  investigate  anew  the  character  of  these  Acts  *,     He    " 
arrives  at  the  conclusion  thai  not  only  the  Acts  of  Peter  but  also  the 
othertp  even  the  highly  docetic  Acts  of  John,  as  well  as  the  Acts  of 
Thomas,   including   even   the  '  Hymn   of  the  Soul/  are   not  Gnostic 

in  origin  and  character,  but  Catholic,  and  represent  phases  of  thought 
to  be  found  in  'the  Great  Church'  during  the  second  century.  If  such 
A  view  finds  acceptance  —and  coming  from  a  specialist  in  Gnostic  matters 
it  must  carry  great  weight — it  will  work  little  short  of  a  revolution  in  sotne 
dcpartnients  of  early  Christian  history. 

(8)  The  fifty  pages  devoted  to  the  Apocryphal  Acts  in  Dr.  Barden- 
hcwcr's  great  History  of  Early  Church  Literature*,  supply  copious 
information  fortified  by  on  exhaustive  bibliography  in  regard  to  this 
wholo  cycle  of  literature.  The  work  is  planned  so  as  to  occupy  six 
Urge  volumes^  whereof  the  first  (reaching  to  the  end  of  the  second 
rcnluryv  but  not  including  the  New  Testament),  has  been  published. 
This  history  is  an  enlargement  of  the  author's  excellent  Patrologie. 

(9,  10)  Two  small  volumes  of  selected  Greek  and  Latin  Ada  Mar- 
fyrum  have  been  prepared  by  Knopf  and  von  Gebhardt  *.  The  Acta 
of  Ihe  foUowiog  ten  MArtyrdoms  are  included  in  both  collections: 
Folyourp ;  .Karpuv  rapylus.  and  Agathontke ;  Justin  ;  Scilliun  martyrs  ; 
l.yot\s  maityn;  Apollonius  the  Apologist;  Perpetua  and  Felicitas  ^ 
Pioiiitts ;  Cyprkn ;  Testamefkt  of  the  Forty  Martyrs  of  Sebaste.  Each 
fdilor  includes  m  down  other  documents  vbereof  the  genuineness  will 
not  be  comeatedL  exotfit  in  icgud  to  the  Greek  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Theda,  primed  by  Ton  Gdilnjidt  Needless  to  say.  the  cyde  of  Roman 
*  Gecta  *  is  wholly  unrepreicnlod.  Tbe  documents  in  tiiese  two  mlnnies 
vill  Aflkuda  vMyndeqonle  Imniy  oitenon  for  distingoishiqg  between 

geontuM  Acts  and  lomuioet ;  and  ilier  ^i^  >B^ 
inienat  tt  telks  of  the  eaitiest  Ckftsdan  tioies.    As  both 
imendidto  be  innctknl  wmoal  ones,  the  best  ptimed  tests  bive 
teiwoAmdl  von  Qebtedu  bo«vw.  h»  hnd 
tiMumieKttpiaL 
(tx)Oi 

de'  CtediEft  IM  c^M^  the  ftesb  SS.  Mariai^ 


I 


CHRONICLE  151 

Jaoobi,  and  the  Maityrium  of  St  Theodotus  of  Ancyra^  and  that  of 
St  Ar^uln^  all  in  the  Vatican  Shtdi  e  Testi,  In  the  Anakcta  BoUcm- 
ima  have  appeared  the  Acts  of  SS.  Dasius,  Gains,  and  Zoticus ;  of 
SSl  Fiddis,  Alexander,  and  Carpophonis ;  and  of  St  Barlaam  of  Antioch. 
Br.  Compernass  has  edited  the  Acfa  S,  Carterii  Cqfpadocis  (Bonn). 
Dr.  Kizsch  has  produced  various  preliminary  studies  for  the  compre- 
bensive  edition  of  the  Legenda  of  St  Agnes  which  he  has  in  hand. 
Finally,  owing  to  the  number  of  martyrdoms  for  which  it  is  our  ultimate 
authority,  it  is  perhaps  right  to  mention  Schwartz's  edition  of  Eusebius's 
Eedesiastical  History  (I-V)  in  the  Berlin  series. 

(12)  In  the  previous  Chronicle  mention  was  made  of  M.  Bidez's 
edition  of  two  previously  inedited  Greek  forms  of  the  Life  of  Paul  the 
Hermit,  and  his  conclusion,  viz.  that  St.  Jerome's  Latin  is  the  original, 
was  acquiesced  in ;  but  a  subsequent  study  by  Abb^  Nau  necessitates 
a  reconsideration  of  the  whole  question*.  The  main  focts  are  as 
fi^ows :  of  the  two  Greek  forms  of  the  Vita^  one  (called  a  by  Bidez 
and  Nan)  is  manifestly  a  literal  translation  of  the  Latin ;  the  controva:sy 
turns  on  the  second  (b\  a  somewhat  shorter  and  simpler  form  of  the 
story;  from  b  come  three  versions,  a  Syriac  (in  MSS  of  the  sixth 
century),  a  Coptic,  and  an  Arabic.  Although  a  and  b  differ  greatly,  so 
that  probably  in  five-sixths  of  the  subject-matter  they  might  well  be 
independent  translations  of  the  Latin,  still  here  and  there  there  are 
resemblances  and  identities  of  vocabulary  and  phraseology  such  as 
demonstrate  a  literary  connexion,  and  preclude  the  hypothesis  of 
complete  independence.  Bidez  holds  that  ^  is  a  very  free  rewriting  of 
a ;  Nau  that  ^  is  the  original  of  St  Jerome's  Latin,  while  a  is  a  revision 
of  b  made  with  the  object  of  assimilating  it  to  the  Latin.  One  would 
gladly  see  Nau's  view  prevail,  for  the  historical  basis  of  the  story  of 
Paul  the  hermit  would  thus  be  placed  on  a  somewhat  better  footing'. 
But  after  a  careful  study  of  the  question  I  find  myself  unable  to  arrive 
at  a  decision.  Nau  shows  that  b  presents  a  number  of  coincidences  of 
vocabulary  with  the  Vita  Antomi,  which  are  not  in  a,  and  claims  this  as 
a  palmary  proof  of  the  priority  of  b ;  but  the  force  of  this  argument  is 
neutralized  by  Abb6  van  den  Yen,  who  (at  p.  132  of  the  monograph 
next  to  be  noticed)  shows  that  the  Greek  of  the  Vita  Hilarianis  contains 
citations,  even  more  striking,  from  the  Vita  Antanii :  in  this  case  there 
can  I  think  be  no  doubt  of  the  priority  of  the  Latin.    Nor  does  Nau's 

'  The  Acts  of  St.  Theodotus  were  omitted  by  an  oversight  in  the  list  of  genuine 
Acta  in  Harnack's  AUckritiUcht  LUerahtr  (see  TheoL  Literatuneitong,  190a,  358). 

'  U  Uxiegrte  origmald*  laVitdeS.  Potd  «U  Thibes  (AnalecU  BoUandiana  XX). 

'  The  attitade  adopted  by  Prot  Grtitzmacher  in  his  Hinv$iymus  in  regard  to  the 
VHa  Pa$tU  is  much  the  same  as  the  present  chronicler's  in  the  Latuiac  History  of 
PalladhiM  (p.  330).  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  concluding  part  of  Dr.  GrOtzmacher's 
monograph  will  be  published  in  time  for  the  next  chronicle.  • 


152         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


explanation  of  the  difficulty  to  his  theory  that  arises  from  the  presen< 
in  b  (as  in  a  and  the  Latin)  of  the  postscript  wherein  *  Jerome  th< 
Sinner '  begs  for  prayers  as  the  author,  appear  quite  satisfactory  :    fc 
ahhough,  as  he  says,  the  postscript  is  in  a  different  form  in  the  differeni 
copies,  still  in  every  known  representative  of  b  (even  the  Arabic)  th< 
postscript  is  there  in  some  shape,  and  it  is  difficult  to  beHeve  that  it 
should  have  been  introduced  independently  in  all  five  copies  of  ^  (two 
Greek  MSS  and  three  versions). 

One  consideration  that   might   decide   the  question  has  not  been 
noticed  on  either  side.     St.  Jerome*s  Latin  contains  three  verses  from 
Virgil ;  if  ^  reflects  any  of  these  Virgihan  pieces  it  may  be  recognized  ^^ 
•  translation  of  the  Latin.     In  the  Latin  we  find  :  ^| 

Taha  perstabat  memorans  fixusque  mancbat 
h  ^ves  for  this  :  ^^t4»«iyrDf  ^  durou  «V  rotf  X^yoif  ruvrxnu  The  question 
is,  Did  the  Greek  suggest  the  line  of  Virgil  to  St.  Jerome,  or  does  it 
translate  it  ?  a,  which  is  confessedly  a  translation  of  the  Latin,  has  simply 
rmvrm  Jmfitfimmtiupw.  This  makes  me  inclined  to  see  in  ^  a  translation 
of  the  Virgil,  for  it  is  more  like  the  Latin  than  is  a.  H 

(15)  A  controversy  like  the  last  has  been  raised  also  in  regard  to^ 
St  Jerome's  Life  of  Malchus.  which  Dr.  Kunze  in  his  Marcus  Eremifa 
maintained  to  be  translated  from  the  Greek-Syriac  form  of  the  life. 
Abbe  N'an  den  Ven  defends  St.  Jerome's  authorship,  and  in  my  judge- 
ment convincingly  ^  He  prints  for  the  first  time  tbe  Greek  and  port 
of  the  Syrnc.  His  treatment  bespeaks  care^  aicitineiiv  kDowk4KC  of  the 
liteniture»  and  understanding  of  critical  methods ;  and  as  io  addkioit  he 
k  able  to  work  in  Syriac  and  Copdc,  valuable  contiihntioos  in  the 
domain  of  early  monastic  literature  may  be  kx>ked  for  from  hin:u  We 
owe  to  him  abo  Lm  Vm  prnfmi  it  S^/mm  k  /*skkaiie  (c  820),  printed 
for  the  first  tioAC  in  the  Loimm  Mmkm  of  190a. 

(14)  Another  dabofiieconlnbitioii  to  the  tecnnfe  of  eaxlymofH^^ 
is  Ahb^Kae'^  study  of  the  legCMi  of  Thais  the  Hatiot*.    Reinvestigates 
the  sources  of  Ihtaloiyaiidshovs  tfaetlhehera  is  Senpion 

I.    HelhenpriMssMfebysMle 
Greek  wrMes  of  the  iex%  and  as  meaj  vadriebea  of 
along  with  a  tmosktion  of  the  Sfsiac    The  laftodMciion  is  of  coo- 
;  but  it  is  ihyappni—mg  to  fad  in  so  scientific  a  piece 

as 
(i$>  The  Imtat  aumher  of  fktm  larfRia  n    li  i^n'  is  a  study  by 


A 


CHRONICLE  153 

Dr.  Leipoldt  00  Schenute  or  Schenoudi  (Senuti  in  Diet,  Christ  Biog). 
He  was  archimandrite  of  the  great  White  Monastery  at  Atripe  or  Athribis, 
and  was  next  to  Pachomius  the  chief  organizer  of  the  cenobidcal  life  in 
Upper  Egypt    He  lived  during  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  and  the 
fint  half  of  the  fifth  century.    Leipoldt  begins  with  a  list  of  the  numerous 
Copdc  fragments  that  may  with  reasonable  probability  be  ascribed  to 
Schenoudi;  they  are  for  the  most  part  letters  and  sermons,  and  he 
rdies  on  them  rather  than  on  the  Life  by  Besa,  Schenoudi's  disciple. 
He  rejects  Nau's  surmise  that  the  Life  was  originally  written,  not  in 
Coptic^  but  in  Greek ;  and  he  sides  with  Abb^  Ladeuze  in  maintaining 
against  M.  Amdineau  the  superiority  of  the  Coptic  over  the  Arabic 
form  of  the  Life.    The  Schenoudi  documents  possess  a  special  philo- 
logical importance  as  forming  a  considerable  portion  of  the  body  of  original 
Coptic  literature  that  has  come  down  to  us.    Dr.  Leipoldt  next  sketches 
the  political  and  religious  state  of  the  Copts  of  Upper  Egypt  about  the 
yw  400 ;  there  follow  an  account  of  Schenoudi's  life  and  an  appreciation 
of  his  character  and  ways  of  thought,  and  then  an  elaborate  description 
of  the  monastic  system  that  prevailed  in  his  monastery.    In  short  the 
book  is  excellent  and  of  extraordinary  value  not  only  for  the  life  of 
the  hero^  a  truly  notable  personage,  but  also  for  the  history  of  Egyptian 
monachism  and  of  native  Coptic  Christianity.    Not  the  least  remarkable 
dicumstance  concerning  Schenoudi  is  the  fact  that  he  was  discovered  only 
in  our  own  day.    His  memory  was  indeed  preserved  among  the  Copts ; 
bat  though  he  was  a  prominent  Churchman  in  the  early  fiflh  century, 
and  apparently  took  part  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus  as  an  adherent  of 
St  Cyril  (there  is  no  evidence  that  he  supported  Dioscorus  after 
Chaloedon,  indeed  he  died  in  451),  his  name  nowhere  occurs  in  the 
Greek  or  Latin  writers  of  the  time;   so  that  he  was  unknown  out- 
side of  Egypt  until  the  publication  of  the  Coptic  Catalogues  of  Min- 
garelli  and  Zoega,  and  the  writings  of  Quatrem^re  and  Revillout.    Yet 
Rufinos,  Jerome,  Palladius  and  Cassian  all  were  in  Egypt  at  the  heyday 
of  Schenoudi's  influence ;  and  Palladius  actually  visited  and  describes 
a  Tebennesiot  monastery  at  Panopolis  (Akhmim)  only  a  few  miles  from 
Athribis,  and  relates  a  story  concerning  a  convent  of  nuns  in  Athribis 
itself.    It  is  indeed  a  striking  reminder  of  the  limitations  and  dangers  of 
arguments  from  silence. 

(16)  Mr.  T.  R.  Glover's  Life  and  Letters  in  the  Fourth  Century  has 
already  been  noticed  in  these  pages ;  but  I  may  be  allowed  to  revert  to 
a  current  and  important  hagiographical  problem  once  again  raised  here. 
He  brings  forward  in  the  very  last  pages  of  his  book  the  Vita  Antonii 
as  an  example  of  an  early  Christian  novel,  rejecting  of  course  the 

T.  und  U.  z  I  (Leipzig :  Hinricbs,  pp.  213).    [A  further  notice  of  this  work  will  be 
loiiBd  OB  p.  129  of  this  volume  of  y.r.5.] 


«eoo 
know 

IMpfMlt  Grmm»am',  to  cImw  flUfM  be  added  Ntn  and  the  BoQ- 
§mmi  inifMdUd  lad  Zddklcr  l»«e  ml«a^  hdd  dds  Tiew.  Here 
^Mf  ttit  BIM  fiCMl  proiKMIiiomCDi  will  be  cited,  that  of  Grutzmacher 
dl  Ikii  Aft, '  Mdnrhltim  '  in  Hcnag-Hauck'i  RtaUntykhpddU ;  he  says : 
^  '1  Imt  /^/Ai  wtchotil  any  doubt  ^oct  tMck  to  Athanasius ' ;  and  adds  :  '  As 
In  ttMP  bifU^kfll  V  •  •  ^iiirte  tKere  can  be  no  doubt,  as  Athanasius 

9^xml^  In  t|i>«  rcl..  ,   with  Anihony/ 

(\f\  Hr  IVruM  lipri  ha«  recently  rephnced his  Darmstadt  'Programme'/ 
whi^Nln  lit*  •  i»t  the  ground  from  under  the  theory,  threatening  to  become 
(hit  vt»Hiitt  iltrtt  iM'fon*  hit  conversion  to  Christianity  St.  Pachomius  had 
t»f>i'<  •  1  ihiihk ,  and  derived  thence  the  ideas  on  which  he  organised 

hu  I:  .  I  MiM.  I'tcUii  lien  ihows  that  the  Koro^oi  in  the  temples  of 
Hvmpd  did  not  form  i)UARi>mon«»tic  communities,  and  were  not  monks 
ih  Any  •91^110  whatever.  Hy  ex|K)sing  this  '  unfounded  myth '  he  dbdms 
Hi  K*v^  glv«»w  jti  fnif/Urf  tn  the  la^t  surviving  of  Weingarten*s  theocies^ 
nmn«nth'  i\\i%\\\% 

\\t\  The  rtnt  thrtt^  isin>  ka  M.  lxk>n  Clugnet*s^i 
|f<lfAi<Hi#  <  VviiM^  *  c\>nuin  the  I W  r/  rA?^  i^  r«W  Dmmklk 
iHf  ^  it^  bf  ChlglMl,  Syiiiic  bj  Naiv  «nd  Qipt^ 

!^^  A  h^m  fUw  JAkimm  by  Km  ;  aSyriK  lext  faf  Ki 

N      .^«  the  Soklicr  l^ 
^    a  tbe 

^  ^  firm  U  d  a»et  yoMts  %^  ly 

^^Mik  i^i^rt  I  dtai  9mm  Aifc  il 


ones«^^ 

^1 


V 


CHRONICLE  155 

(ao)  So  far  we  have  dealt  with  texts  and  textual  problems;  two 
Ei^lish  books  remain  dealing  with  wider  questions  of  hagiography. 
Mr.  Rendel  Harris  has  printed  two  lectures  on  certain  twin  saints  in 
the  ecclesiastical  calendar  \    The  argument  is  developed  by  a  series  of 
eztxaordinarily  ingenious  inductions,  so  that  even  while  resisting  them 
one  by  one  as  they  appeared,  the  present  writer  felt  as  though  a  sort 
of  web  were  being  gradually  wound  around  him.    The  thesis  is  that 
a  number  of  the  twin  saints  really  represent  the  Dioscuri.     The  author 
shows  how  widespread  was  the  cult  of  the  Twins  not  only  among 
Greeks  and  Romans,  under  the  names  of  Castor  and  Pollux  or  of 
Amphion  and  Zethus,  but  generally  among  the  Indo-Germanic  races. 
The  cult  appears  to  have  been  religious  and  moral  in  character;  and  it 
would  be  in  full  harmony  with  well-known  facts  to  suppose  that  features 
of  this  popular  and  harmless  cult  should  have  been  transferred  from 
the  mythological  Twins  to  Christian  twin  martyrs.     In  regard  to  the 
first  case  examined,  that  of  the  eastern  martyrs  Florus  and  Laurus, 
I  think  Mr.  Rendel  Harris  has  shown  good  ground  for  supposing 
that  features  of  their  cult  were  derived  from  that  of  the  Twins ;   when 
he  goes  further  and  suggests  that  the  Martyrs  are  the  Twins,  he  is  on 
less  secure  ground.    Similarly  I  think  he  has  shown  that  the  writer  of 
the  apocryphal  acts  of  Thomas   '  the  Twin  *  moulded  his  story  on 
current  notions  connected  with  the  cult  of  the  Twins.    The  other 
cases  appear  less  valid ;   one  of  them  is  the  case  of  SS.  Protasius  and 
Gervasius,  and  here  an  issue  of  far  deeper  and  wider  import  is  raised. 
The  author  hardly  disguises  his  belief  that  the  question  involved  is  the 
veracity  of  St.  Ambrose  and  St  Augustine,  and  that  the  whole  affair  was 
a  fraud  and  a  hoax  wilfully  perpetrated  by  St.  Ambrose,  who  'knew 
that  he  was  parading  the  Dioscuri  in  a  Christian  dress.'    Less  brutal 
methods  of  facing  the  ever-recurring  problem  of  miracles  recorded  by 
eye-witnesses  have  for  some  time  prevailed.     Concerning  the  eye- 
witnesses who  relate  St.  Bernard's  miracles  the  late  Cotter  Morison, 
while  rejecting  their  evidence,  was  still  prepared  to  say  that  they  *  had 
probably  as  great  a  horror  of  mendacity  as  any  who  have  lived  before 
or  after  them '.'    That  Ambrose  and  Augustipe  should  have  conspired 
to  lie ;  that  Ambrose  should  have  lied  hypocritically  and  unctuously  in 
a  private  letter  to  his  sister ;  that  Augustine,  that  *  religious  genius  of 
extraordinary  depth  and  power '  (Harnack),  who  was  at  Milan  at  the 
time  of  the  occurrences,  should  in  later  years  have  four  or  five  times 
with  wilful  and  wanton  mendacity  reverted  to  the  story,  will  to  some 
minds  appear  of  all  hypotheses  the  most  difficult. 

(21)  Mr.  W.  H.  Hutton,  the  Bampton  Lecturer  for  the  current  year, 

*■  Tk*  Dioseufim  the  Chnstian  Legends  (Cambridge  :  University  Press,  pp.  64). 
*  Life  and  Times  o/St.  Bernard^  p.  374. 


156         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

has  chosen  for  his  subject  the  English  Saints  \  The  opening  lecture 
explains  the  motive :  the  subject  is  regarded  as  a  branch  of  Christian 
apologetics,  the  embodiments  of  Christianity  found  in  the  saints  being 
taken  as  a  voucher  of  the  character  of  the  religion — '  by  their  fruits 
shall  ye  know  them.'  Succeeding  lectures  deal  with  the  great  Engli^ 
saints  under  various  groupings :  first  come  the  Saints  of  the  Conversion 
both  Roman  and  Irish  (and  here  it  is  to  be  noted  that  there  is  no 
disposition  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  the  Irish  missions  as  con- 
trasted with  the  Roman);  then  follow  Royal  Saints,  Monks,  Statesmen, 
and  finally  Women  and  Children.  The  book  is  in  efiect  a  series  of 
pictures  in  which  the  chief  saints  of  England  are  presented  one  by  one, 
and  their  character,  life's  work,  and  influence  are  delineated  with  much 
skill  and  charm.  Naturally  every  reader  will  demur  to  some  or  other 
of  the  lecturer's  positions ;  for  instance,  those  who  have  read  the  Aseeni 
cf Mount  CarmelzxiA  the  Obscure  Night  of  the  Sou/ and  the  other  works  of 
St  John  of  the  Cross,  will  be  bewildered  on  being  told  that  'his  sfuritual 
struggles  read  like  the  ravings  of  one  possessed '  (p.  74).  But  the  book 
is  written  with  sympathy  and  appreciation  and  even  a  sober  enthusiasm, 
so  that  it  is  pleasing  reading.  There  are  two  appendices,  one  printing 
for  the  first  time  a  Life  of  St.  Edward  the  Martyr  firom  MS  96  of 
St  John's  College,  Oxford ;  the  other  containing  notes  on  the  question 
of  mediaeval  mirades.  The  numerous  bibliographical  references  in  the 
footnotes  will  be  of  great  service. 

(22)  Any  treatment  of  recent '  Frandscana '  would  demand  more  space 
than  is  here  available,  but  the  subject  has  been  weU  dealt  widi  by 
Professor  Little  in  the  Engiish  Historical  Review^  Oct  1902.  With 
most  of  his  judgements  I  can  agree,  especially  that  on  the  Speculum 
Perfectionis  \  but  concerning  the  document  put  forward  by  Friars  da 
Civezza  and  Domenichelli  as  the  Legemda  Trium  Sodorum  my  judgement 
would  be  more  un&vourable  than  his,  for  I  doubt  that  any  homogeneous 
Latin  text,  properly  so  called,  stands  behind  the  Italian. 

E-CBUTLKR. 

>  Tim  m/bmtct  t^Ckrisiimtufy  i^om  NmHomml  Ompmin'  Obair^td  ty  ike  Lams  mmd 
Ltg0i^i^tke£j^isk  Smmts  (Londou  I  WeDs  Gardner,  Dttrton  ft  Co.,  pp.  385). 


157 


RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

(i)  English. 

Church  Quarterfy  Review^  July  1903  (Vol.  Ivi,  No.  112:  Spottis- 
woode  &  Co.).  Religion  in  London — Gairdner^s  English  Church  His- 
tory—The Age  of  the  Fathers— The  History  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
of  Cyprus— Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson's  Sermons— The  Letters  of  two  Mystics 
—Jane  Austen  and  her  Biographers — Prayers  for  the  Dead— Truro 
Cathedral — Church  Autonomy  and  a  National  Council — Leo  XHI — 
Short  notices. 

The  Hibberi  Journal^  July  1903  (Vol.  i,  No.  4 :  Williams  and 
Noigate).  F.  G.  Peabody  The  Character  of  Jesus  Christ— W.  Miller 
Are  Indian  Missions  a  Failure? — W.  Ward  The  Philosophy  of  Authority 
in  Religion — W.  F.  Cobb  Do  we  believe  in  the  Reformation  ? — P.  Sidney 
The  Liberal  Catholic  Movement  in  England — P.  S.  Burrell  The 
growing  Reluctance  of  able  Men  to  take  Orders — ^J.  H.  Poynting 
Physical  Law  and  Life — T.  K.  Cheyne  Pressing  Needs  of  the  Old 
Testament  Study — J.  Moffatt  Zoroastrianism  and  Primitive  Christianity 
— W.  R.  Cassels  The  Purpose  of  Eusebius— Discussions — Reviews. 

The  Jewish  Quarterly  Review^  July  1903  (Vol.  xv,  No.  60 :  Macmillan 
4  Co.).  A.  H.  Keane  Ea ;  Yahveh :  Dyaus ;  ZEY2 ;  Jupiter — S.  Levy 
Is  there  a  Jewish  Literature?— C.  Taylor  The  Wisdom  of  Ben  Sira — 
J.  H.  A.  Hart  Primitive  Exegesis  as  a  Factor  in  the  Corruption  of  Texts 
of  Scripture  illustrated  from  the  Versions  of  Ben  Sira — G.  Margoliouth 
An  early  Copy  of  the  Samaritan-Hebrew  Pentateuch. — H.  Hirschfeld 
The  Arabic  Portion  of  the  Cairo  Genizah  at  Cambridge — A.  S.  Yahuda 
Hapax  Legomena  im  Alten  Testament — E.  N.  Adler  Professor  Blau 
On  the  Bible  as  a  Book. 

The  Expositor,  July  1903  (Sixth  Series,  No.  43 :  Hodder  & 
Stoughton).  T.  H.  Stokoe  The  Edition  of  the  Revised  Version  with 
marginal  References,  1898 — S.  R.  Driver  Translations  from  the  Pro- 
phets: Jeremiah  xxii,  xxiii — G.  S.  Streatfield  The  Fatherhood  of 
God :  a  Study  in  Spiritual  Evolution— T.  Barns  The  Catholic  Epistles 
of  Themison— H.  Black  The  Gospel  of  Work — Th.  Zahn  Missionary 
Methods  in  the  Times  of  the  Apostles. 


158         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


August  1903  {Sixth  Series»  No,  44),  J.  Denney  The  Atone- 
ment and  the  Modern  Mind— W.  H.  Beknett  The  Life  of  Christ 
according  to  St  Mark— H»  B.  Swete  The  Teaching  of  Christ  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Luke^E.  J.  Goodspeed  Did  Alexandria  influence  the 
nautical  Language  of  St.  Luke?  A  Study  of  Acts  xxviii  11  in  the  light 
of  Greek  Papyri — A,  E.  Garvie  The  Value-Judgements  of  Religion — 
J.  MoFFATT  Some  recent  Foreign  Literature  on  the  New  Testament. 

September  1903  (Sixth  Series,  No.  45).  J.  Dexney  The  Atone- 
ment and  the  Modem  Mind — A.  E.  Garvie  Otto  Ritschl,  Reischle, 
and  Scheibe,  on  Value-Judgements  in  Religion— J.  H.  Bernard  God 
as  Spirit^ — J.  Hoatson  James  Martineau  and  Frederic  Robertson : 
a  Study  of  Influence— A.  Carr  A  Note  on  St.  John  vii  52  :  A  Prophet 
or  The  Prophet— Th.  Zahn  Missionary  Methods  in  the  Times  of  the 
Apostles, 

(a)  American. 

2TU  Ameriaui  Journal  of  Theology  July  1903  (Vol.  vii,  No.  5 : 
Chicago  University  Press).  C.  A,  Briggs  Catholic— the  Name  and 
the  Thing— A-  H,  Wilde  Decadence  of  Learning  in  Gaul  in  the 
seventh  and  eighth  Centuries,  as  viewed  especially  in  the  Li\'es  of  the 
Saints— W,  B.  Smith  The  Pauline  Manuscripts  F  and  G :  a  Text- 
Critical  Study — Recent  Theological  Literature, 

The  Princeton  Tkeologtcal  Review,  July  1903  (VoL  i,  No,  3  :  Phila- 
delphia, MacCalla  &  Co.).  A.  T.  Ormond  James  M^Tosh  as  Thinker 
and  Educator — W.  M.  M^Pheeters  The  Question  of  the  Authorship 
of  the  Books  of  Scripture :  a  Criticism  of  Current  Views — J.  F.  RioGS 
Missionary  Policy  in  the  Levant— W.  H.  Johnson  Evolution  and 
Theology  to-day^ A.  C.  Zenos  Revelation  or  Discovery — G.  G. 
Cameron  The  Laws  peculiar  to  Deuteronomy— B,  B.  Warfield  Sanc- 
tifying the  Pelagians— H.  C,  Minton  'The  Varieties  of  Religious 
Experience ' — Recent  Literature 

(3)  French  anb  Belgian. 

Revue  Biblique^  July  1903  (Vol.  xii.  No.  3  :  Paris,  V.  LecofiTre). 
V.  Rose  Etudes  sur  la  theologie  de  saint  Paul — ^I-J.  Lagrange  El 
ct  Jahve— Melanges  :  N.  Schloegl  Le  chapitre  v  du  Livre  des  Juges — 
E,  Duval  Le  texte  grec  de  J^r^mie,  d'apr^  une  ^tude  recente — S. 
Ronzevalle  Quelques  monuments  de  Gebeil-Byblos  et  de  ses  environs 
— M-J.  Lagrange  Nouvellc  note  sur  les  inscriptions  du  temple 
d'Echmoun — A.  Condamin  Transpositions  accidentelles — M.  van  Ber- 
CHEM  Epigraphie  palestinienne :  Inscription  arabe  de  Binias — M.  Abel 
Inscriptions  grecques  de  Bersabee— Chronique :  M-R.  Savignac  Un 
tombeau  romain  i  Beit-Nettif ;  Une  eglise  byzantine  k  Yadoudeh ; 
Fouilles  anglaises — ^Recensions — Bulletin. 


I 


1 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES     ^59 

Anaieda  Bottandianay  July  1903  (Vol.  xxii,  No.  3  :  Brussels,  14,  Rue 
des  Unulines).  H.  Thurston  Visio  monachi  de  Eynsham — H. 
DiLSHATE  La  passion  de  S.  Th^odote  d'Ancyre — Bulletin  des  publi- 
OKtions  hagiographiques — U.  Chevalier  Supplementum  ad  Reper- 
toriom  Hymnologicum  (Salveie^  natae  regiae — Soli  Deo  quos  integra)— 
Index  generalls  in  torn,  i-xx  Analectorum  (pp.  1-16). 

Reotu  BMduHfUy  July  1903  (Vol.  xx,  No.  3:  Abbaye  de  Mared- 
loiis).  G.  MORIN  Hieronymus  de  Monogrammate — U.  Berli^re  Les 
iviqnes  auxiliaires  de  Cambrai  aux  xiii«  et  xiv«  sidles  [suite) — J.  Chap- 
XAN  A  propos  des  Martyrologes — Analyses  et  Comptes-rendus. 

Revue  d*Histoire  et  de  Litterature  ReHgieuses^  July- August  1903  (Vol. 
viii,  No.  4 :  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Saint-Germain).  P.  Lejay  Le  sabbat 
joif  et  les  po^es  latins — Ai  Loisv  Le  discours  sur  la  montagne :  (5) 
Les  bonnes  oeuvlres ;  (6)  Le  d^tachement — J.  Turmel  Le  dogme  du 
p^^  originel  dans  I'Eglise  latine  aprbs  saint  Augustin ;  Propagation 
du  p^h^  originel-^A.  Loisv  Chronique  bibliqu^:  (6)  Histoire  et 
thdologie  bibliques — J.  Dalbret  Litterature  religieuse  modeme. 

Scpt-Oct.  1903  (Vol.  viii,  No.  5).  F.  Cumont  La  pol^mique 
de  TAmbrosiaster  contre  les  paiens — A.  Loisv  Le  discours  sur  la 
montagne:  (7)  Lemons  diverses;  Conclusion — H.  Hemmer  Chronique 
dliistoiie  eccl^iastique — P.  Lejay  Ancienne  philologie  chr^tienne: 
(17)  Lituigie  (suite), 

(4)  German. 

Theologiscke  Quartaischrift,  1903  (Vol.  Ixxxv,  No.  4 :  Tiibingen, 
H.  Laupp).  Belser  Der  Prolog  des  Johannesevangeliums — ^Vetter 
Die  litterarkritische  Bedeutung  der  alttestam.  Gottesnamen — Schwei- 
tzer Glaube  und  Werke  des  Klemens  Romanus — ^Wawra  Ein  Brief 
des  Bischofs  Cyprian  von  Toulon  an  den  Bischof  Maximus  von  Genf — 
Reviews — Analecta. 

Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie  und  Kirche,  July  1903  (Vol.  xiii,  No.  4 : 
Tubingen  and  Leipzig,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr).  E.  Billing  Ethische  Grund- 
fragen  des  evangelischen  Christentums.  Einige  Betrachtungen  beim 
Studium  von  Hermann's  Ethik— C.  Stuckert  Gott  und  die  Natur. 

September  1903  (Vol.  xiii,  No.  5).  J.  Gottschick  Die  Heils- 
gewissheit  des  evangelischen  Christen  im  Anschluss  an  Luther  dar- 
gestellt 

Zeitschrift  fiir  die  neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft  und  die  Kunde  des 
Urchristentums,  August  1903  (Vol.  iv,  No.  3 :  Giessen,  J.  Ricker). 
A.  Deissmann  'ikaxrrfipioi  und  IKaarripiov — M.  L.  Strack  Die  Miiller- 
innung  in  Alexandrien — H.  Hauschildt  np«<r^ur<po»  in  Agypten  im 
I-III  Jahrhundert  n.  Chr. — E.  Rodenbusch  Die  Komposition  von 
Lucas  xvi — E.  Nestle  Neue  Lesarten  zu  den  Evangelien — Miscellanea; 


riiidLiJ 


ilSsr  MnkSdk  Zahdknfk  ]^  1905  (VoL  xnr,  Nql  7 : 
A.Dc>cbef^    >L  PRSKS  Zv  Fi^e 

n— C  St 

R.  KfTTCL  DieBobel-Bibel  Fi^e  (iMdkiM). 

1905  (VoL  xi¥,  No.  S'x    WissisGsm  Uba-  C^nibe 
;<-W.  ScHMmr  Ethisdse  FEagen  (IX>>-E.  Koittc  Polp^ 
so  Isad-^Lk  COGAJto  AlKlaiilikJbe  Siigen  ober 
4w  Lebea  dtf  AposuL 

Sepcoiber  1903  (VoL  xiv.  No.  9).  G.  Witzxl  Die  gwifhirhtHdbe 
Gtmbvordigkeii  der  im  EiugdiDB  ] 
JcH-*A.  KumutMAWM  Bdtiige  nir 
tcncfi*— G.  HosrsricKS  MkxeUen  zor  GeschHur  der  Ethik  der  lotbe- 
Kocfae — !•  CofJASD  AlimiiiBliiriiie  Smco  iber  dK  Leben  der 


■J 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological  Studies 

JANTTABY,    1804 

THE  REACTION   OF   MODERN   SCIENTIFIC 
THOUGHT   ON  THEOLOGICAL   STUDY  ^ 

I.  The  reaction  of  intellectual  progress  on  sacred  studies.  There 
have  been  many  periods  of  the  past  when  the  tone  and  character 
of  theological  discussion  have  been  directly  influenced  by  the 
intellectual  conditions  of  the  day.  The  impulse  which  was  given 
to  philosophic  thought  in  the  West  by  Averroes  had  its  effect 
at  Christian  seats  of  learning,  and  called  forth  the  theology  of 
St  Thomas  Aquinas.  The  new  enthusiasm  for  literature  at  the 
Renaissance  was  closely  connected  with  that  critical  study  of  the 
Greek  Testament  which  was  associated  with  the  Reformation. 
It  is  almost  inevitable  that  the  remarkable  progress  in  physical 
science,  which  occurred  during  the  nineteenth  century,  and  which 
has  taken  such  hold  upon  the  popular  mind,  should  react  in  some 
feshion  upon  the  study  of  Theology.  The  history  of  intellectual 
developement  seems  to  shew  that  some  force  and  freshness  may 
be  secured  in  presenting  Christian  truth,  if  theologians  can  in  any 
Way  adopt  the  current  habit  of  mind.  The  new  movement  may 
at  least  indicate  a  mode  of  approaching  sacred  studies  which  is 
likely  to  be  invigcrating  and  fruitful. 

It  is,  of  course,  obvious  that  the  new  developements  of  science 
may  suggest  modifications  in  the  form  in  which  Christian  truth 
is  expressed.  Science  has  afforded  phraseology  and  illustrations 
which  some  writers,  like  the  late  Professor  Drummond,  have  used 
with  effect,  though  not  always  wisely.     But  the  scientific  move- 

'  A  paper  read  (in  part)  before  the  Ely  Diocesan  Branch  of  the  Society  for  Sacred 
Studies,  April  30,  1903. 
VOL.  V.  M 


l6a         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

meiit  touches  more  than  modes  of  expression,  and  its  influence 
must  go  deeper.  Christianity  is  a  literary  religion^  which 
tj-easurcs  sacred  books,  and  the  application  of  critical  methods  to 
sacred  literature  gave  rise  to  a  new  learning  among  sixteenth- 
century  theologians.  But  Christianity  is  not  only  a  literary 
religion ;  it  is  also  a  historical  religion ,  introduced  into  the 
world  at  a  definite  time  and  place,  and  embodied  in  certain 
events*  The  habits  of  minds  which  are  formed  in  connexion  uith 
the  study  of  other  occurrences  in  time,  are  necessarily  employed 
in  the  modern  effort  to  appreciate  aright  the  phenomena  of  the 
life  of  our  Lord  and  of  the  growth  and  dififusion  of  the  religion 
He  revealed. 

There  is,  in  many  minds,  a  good  deal  of  suspicion  of  this 
tendency — a  suspicion  that  is  by  no  means  unnatural.  Those 
who  believe  that  it  opens  up  a  real  step  in  progress,  may  yet  be 
ready  to  admit  that  in  this,  as  in  all  progress,  there  is  loss  as  well 
as  gain.  The  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  marked  by 
the  fall,  as  well  as  by  the  rise,  of  many  in  Israel.  At  every  other 
step  in  advance  there  are  double  results.  Both  the  good  and 
the  evil  of  progress  were  manifested  at  the  Reformation.  The 
changes  which  then  occurred  in  habits  of  thought  tended  to  the 
disintegrating  of  religious  institutions,  and  the  loss  of  the  old  ideal 
of  the  religious  life,  but  they  also  made  for  the  consecration  of 
secular  life  and  the  stimulating  of  religious  activity.  Both  the 
good  and  the  evil  of  progress  have  been  exhibited  in  the  past, 
and  both  arc  doubtless  involved  in  the  movement  of  the  present 
day.  It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  assess  the  loss  and  gain  of  any 
contemporary  change  :  but  we  may  at  least  attempt  to  consider 
where  the  gain  is  to  be  sought  for,  so  that  we  maya\*ail  ourselves 
of  it  to  the  fullest  extent, 

2,  Tk^  m&dim  scientific  sfiriL  The  great  scientific  movdnent 
of  the  last  t\\*o  hundred  >*cars,  and  especially  of  last  century,  has 
shewn  itself  in  the  direction  of  accumulating  and  co-ordinatiDg 
experience.  Empirical  science  takes  facts  as  ultimate— the  par- 
ticular observations  of  particular  minds^and  sets  itself  to  check 
and  oonfinn  their  accuracy  by  reference  to  the  particular  obaer- 
vatioas  of  other  particular  minds.  The  multiplying  of  Iatx>ra* 
tones  has  been  due  to  the  desire  to  train  the  rLing  generation  of 
students  in  habits  of  careful  obserMitioti  and  experiment,  and  to 


A 


THE  REACTION   OF   MODERN   SCIENTIFIC   THOUGHT     163 

the  feeling  that,  even  for  purposes  of  learning,  we  need  actual 
demonstration  and  manipulation — personal  experience — where  it 
may  be  had ;  not  mere  book  knowledge  of  opinions  and  theories, 
but  actual  contact  with  observed  fact — so  that  the  student  may 
be  in  a  position  to  interpret  other  phenomena  in  the  light  of  his 
own  experience. 

This  is  the  positive  aspect  of  the  scientific  movement,  but  it 
has  also  a  negative  side.  In  order  to  attain  its  object,  as  com- 
pletely as  possible,  each  empirical  science  is  compelled  to  con- 
centrate, and  to  discard  lines  of  enquiry  that  have  no  direct 
bearing  on  the  matter  in  hand.  For  the  purpose  of  progress  in 
physical  investigation,  it  is  unnecessary  to  raise  any  of  the  deeper 
philosophical  questions  as  to  the  nature  of  the  universe  or  the 
validity  of  human  knowledge.  Science  takes  for  granted  that 
apprehension,  by  the  individual  mind  through  the  senses,  is  a 
sufficiently  reliable  instrument  for  attaining  knowledge  as  to  the 
relations  between  different  physical  phenomena.  We  can  assume, 
too,  that  the  conditions  necessary  for  such  investigation  remain 
similar  throughout  the  whole  period  of  human  life  upon  the 
globe.  We  may  take  for  granted  that  the  data  observable 
within  that  time  enable  us  to  penetrate,  with  a  high  deg^ree  of 
probability,  to  eras  when  no  direct  human  observation  or  ex- 
perience was  possible.  The  range  of  enquiry  thus  opened  up  is 
large  enough  to  absorb  the  energies  and  kindle  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  most  eager  and  active  minds.  They  do  not  feel  that  it  is 
their  business  to  go  into  philosophical  speculations  about  the 
matters  Jhat  lie  to  hand,  or  that  such  speculations  can  advance 
their  enquiries.  It  may  be  admitted  that  one  solution  of  the 
ultimate  problems  is  better  than  another,  but  to  attain  a  solution 
at  all  seems  to  be  one  of  the  luxuries  of  thought,  and  does  not 
assist  in  the  prosecution  of  particular  research.  Hence  it  comes 
about,  that  science  as  science — what  we  may  call  the  scientific 
spirit — is,  in  its  negative  side,  indifferent  to  philosophy  and  to 
religion,  as  lying  outside  its  sphere;  it  is,  properly  speaking, 
agnostic.  That  many  scientific  students  are,  as  men,  intensely 
interested  in  philosophical  and  religious  questions  is  another 
matter.  I  am  speaking  of  the  characteristics  and  limitations  of 
the  habit  of  thought  which  has  been  increasingly  dominant 
among  educated  people  during  the  last  half  century. 

M  2 


164         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


3.  Biblical  science  as  closely  analogous  to  otiter  sciences.  It  is 
natural  that  men  of  our  generation,  who  have  formed  this  habit 
of  thought,  should  retain  it  when  they  turn  attention  to  such 
fields  of  interest  as  the  phenomena  of  reh*gious  history  in  general 
and  of  the  beginnings  of  Christianity  in  particular.  There  y^ 
a  tendency  to  treat  theological  study  as  a  department  of  science 
which  deals  with  the  phenomena  of  sacred  literature  and  religious 
institutions,  so  that  it  may  be  pursued  on  the  same  lines  as  any 
other  branch  of  science.  When  we  press  the  analogy,  we  may 
feel  that  we  can,  and  perhaps  that  we  ought,  to  lay  aside  all  the 
opinions  and  feelings  which  might  bias  our  investigations,  and 
view  the  records  of  the  life  of  our  Lord  and  the  beginnings  of  the 
Church  as  so  many  literary  and  historical  phenomena  to  be  inter- 
preted in  accordance  with  literaiy  and  historical  experience. 
The  pursuit  of  Biblical  Science  on  these  lines  yields  many  inter- 
esting results  as  to  the  composition  of  the  sacred  books.  The 
date  w*hen  any  author,  sacred  or  profane,  wrote  is  a  literary 
problem,  to  be  settled  by  critical  methods  which  do  not  neces- 
sarily involve  a  special  sympathy  with  the  matter  of  the  books, 
or  much  interest  in  the  subject  of  which  they  treat.  Similarly, 
we  may  feel  that  skilled  analysis  is  needed  to  detect  the  precise 
form  of  any  teaching  that  made  a  stir  in  bygone  days,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  other  doctrines  that  were  then  current,  and  to 
trace  the  influences  which  favoured  its  genesis  and  diffusion.  It 
seems  as  if  skill  in  handh'ng  literary  and  historical  evidence  were 
the  only  equipment  which  is  needed  in  order  to  pursue  sacred 
studies  on  the  lines  which  are  proving  fruitful  in  other  branches 
of  empirical  research,  and  that  in  order  to  reap  the  results  of  the 
modern  intellectual  impulse,  we  have  only  to  set  ourselves  to 
apply  ordinary  methods  of  investigation  in  a  new  field.  This 
appears  to  me  to  be  the  position  taken  by  Canon  Henson,  and 
others  of  my  friends ;  but  it  does  not  satisfy  rae.  There  is 
a  danger  of  merely  imbibing  the  scientific  spirit  in  its  negative 
aspect  and  accepting  its  self-imposed  limitations,  and  of  missing 
the  stimulus  of  its  positive  example. 

4.  The  importance  of  labor  atoty  work.  We  shall  miss  in  sacred 
studies  the  full  benefit  of  the  impulse  which  has  come  from 
scientific  progress,  unless  we  are  encouraged  to  take  a  further 
step.      Empirical   scic-nce    is    not   content   with   discussing  the 


I 


THE  REACTION   OF   MODERN   SCIENTIFIC   THOUGHT     165 

experience  of  other  people ;  its  power  and  vigour  lie  in  the  stress 

it  lays  on  actual  personal  experience — on  the  constant  checking 

of  accepted  results,  and  the  testing  of  principles  in  different  con- 

dttfons.     It  is  not  mere  book  knowledge  that  is  valued,  but 

Imowledge  that  has  moulded  the  personal  faculties  of  the  student, 

and  taught  him  what  to  look  for  and  how  to  observe ;  he  has  to 

do  with  knowledge  that  is  verified  and  tested  as  a  practical  thing 

under  his  own  eyes. 

Personal  experience  gives  a   sense  of  the  actuality  of  the 
objects  of  study  that  can  never  be  obtained  from  books.    For  the 
sake  of  convenience  of  study  it  is  necessary  to  isolate  particular 
aspects  of  phenomena,  and    to  study  them   apart ;    empirical 
science,  that  is  merely  a  thing  of  books,  necessarily  retains  this 
division   into  subjects ;   but  the  fields  of  the  various  sciences 
cannot  be  really  marked  out  by  hard  and  fast  lines.     Chemical 
phenomena  do  not  exist  by  themselves,  nor  do  physical  phe- 
nomena ;  all  natural  phenomena  are  to  be  investigated  in  their 
chemical  and  in  their  physical  aspects.     In  books  these  topics 
remain  apart  and  isolated  ;  it  is  in  the  laboratory  that  the  inter- 
dependence of  various  factors,  which  we  find  it  convenient  to 
study  separately,  is  seen,  and  that  the  actual  character  of  the 
object  of  study,  in  all  its  complexity,  and  divested  of  false 
simplicity^  comes  out. 

Actual  investigation  in  a  laboratory  has  also  an  educative 
effect  on  the  student  himself;  it  quickens  his  insight  and  intelli- 
gence. It  enables  him  to  use  the  records  of  the  observations 
made  by  others  more  intelligently,  to  see  perhaps  the  importance 
of  a  point  to  which  the  observer  has  given  little  attention.  The 
great  vigour  of  the  empirical  sciences  lies  in  the  fact  that 
students  are  consciously  and  constantly  engaged  in  co-ordinating 
personal  and  recorded  experience.  This  is  the  characteristic 
mark  of  the  *live'  studies  of  our  time.  The  increased  interest 
in  History  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  so  easy  to 
co-ordinate  current  observation  of  human  conduct  with  the 
recorded  experience  of  human  life.  History,  as  Seeley  used  to 
say,  is  past  politics,  and  politics  is  present-day  history.  The 
depreciation  of  the  study  of  dead  languages,  of  which  we  hear 
so  much  in  current  talk,  is  due  to  a  common  failure  to  see  that 
the  classics  serve  for  the  formation  of  literary  excellence  in 


r66        THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


modem  authorship ;  Latin  and  Greek,  to  many  minds,  have  no 
relation  with  ordinary  life,  as  we  live  iL  Theological  study  b 
also  liable  to  be  treated  as  stagnant,  and  it  will  not  gain  the 
full  benefit  of  the  intellectual  impulse  of  the  present  day, 
unless  it  is  consciously  pursued  with  the  aim  and  object  of  oo* 
ordinating  recorded  religious  experience  in  the  past  with  actual 
and  personal  religious  experience  as  it  exists  to  day. 

5,  Religiotis  experience^  as  recorded.  Actual  experience  gives 
us  knowledge  of  the  relations  between  different  physical  phe- 
Oiomena,  and  actual  experience  has  also  brought  into  light  a 
lowledge  of  other  relations  which  concern  us.  Experience 
affords  the  subject-matter  of  religion  as  well  as  of  science.  There 
are  two  great  realities  in  the  Universe,  as  each  of  us  knows  it — 
the  thought  and  will  of  which  we  are  each  conscious  within,  and 
the  Thought  and  Will  which  expresses  itself  in  all  that  is.  There 
are  relations  between  each  human  personality  and  the  Eternal 
Thought  and  Will,  from  which  all  come,  to  which  all  go»  *  in 
whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being  \  It  is  the  part  of 
the  Christian  religion  to  bring  these  complex  relations  into  con- 
sciousness, and  thus  to  render  personal  religious  experience  full 
and  deep.  There  is  a  sense  of  sin — ^the  knowledge  of  human 
frailty,  as  it  stands  out  against  a  background  of  infinite  righteous* 
ness.  There  may  be,  too,  a  sense  of  pardon,  of  changed  relations 
with  the  Eternal  Will,  a  participation  in  the  blessedness  of  the 
man  to  whom  the  Lord  does  not  impute  his  sin.  And  the  indi- 
vidual apprehension  of  these  relations,  and  of  changes  of  relation- 
ship between  the  individual  and  the  Eternal  Will,  constitutes 
a  body  of  personal  religious  experience. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  the  Bible,  and  especially  the 
Gospels,  do  not  claim  to  be  a  mere  chronicle  of  events  by  dis- 
passionate observers  ;  they  are  rather  records  of  personal  religious 
experience — of  the  occasions  and  events  through  which  certain 
men  attained  to  new  conceptions  of  the  relations  between  God 
and  man.  This  fact  comes  out  in  regard  both  to  the  writers' 
qualification  for  their  task  and  to  the  object  they  set  before  them- 
selves in  undertaking  it.  Men  who  had  personal  experience  of 
divine  things— of  the  power  of  Christ's  words,  and  the  import  of 
the  signs  He  shewed,  put  it  on  record  that  after  generations  might 
try  to  cultivate  religious  experience,  substantially  similar  to  that 


THE  REACTION   OF   MODERN   SCIENTIFIC   THOUGHT     167 

which  the  Apostles  enjoyed.     These  are  written^  as  we  read  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christy 
the  Son  of  Gad,  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  through  His 
name.    This  is  the  purpose  these  writers  had  in  view,  not  merely 
to  put  certain  interesting  discourses  and  marvellous  events  on 
wcord  to  satisfy  the  curiosity  and  rouse  the  admiration  of  future 
ages,  but  to  diffuse  a  knowledgje  of  the  relations  between  God 
and  man,  so  that  all  men,  who  read  their  writings,  may  enter  into 
the  same  conscious  and  close  relations  with  the  eternal  God,  as 
they  had  themselves  attained  by  means  of  their  companionship 
with  Jesus  Christ.   They  had  come  to  believe  in  God,  not  merely 
as  the  patron  of  their  race,  and  the  God  of  their  battles,  but  as 
the  Father  of  each  and  every  one  of  His  children.     They  had 
taken  Jesus  Christ,  as  not  only  their  Master,  but  their  Lord  and 
their  God,  and  they  relied  on  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for 
guidance  and  comfort.     We  of  this  generation  cannot  see  what 
they  saw  with  their  eyes,  or  hear  the  gracious  words  that  pro- 
ceeded from  the  mouth  of  the  Lord.     The  tones  of  His  voice 
and  the  expression  of  His  countenance— that  which  gives  most 
meaning  to  our  intercourse  with  friends — are  lost  to  us  for  ever. 
But  for  all  that,  it  was  the  conviction  of  the  sacred  writers  that 
after  generations  might  share  in  the  same  spiritual  experience 
which  they  themselves  enjoyed.    The  same  consciousness  of  an 
intimate,  complex  relationship  with  God  Himself,  the  same  hope 
for  this  life  and  the  next,  which  they  cherished,  is  possible  for  all 
mankind. 

6.  The  validity  of  religious  experience.  It  is  true  that  religious 
experience,  like  other  experience,  has  an  intuitive  force,  which 
carries  conviction  with  it  at  the  moment,  and  makes  doubt  of  the 
truth  conveyed  impossible.  But  this  prevailing  conviction  may 
not  always  be  maintained  in  the  minds  of  those  who  reflect  on 
the  feelings  and  impressions  of  past  years,  and  it  cannot  be  trans- 
ferred directly  to  the  recorded  experience  of  others.  We  have  all 
need  to  reassure  ourselves  as  to  the  validity  of  religious  exper- 
ience. The  question  must  arise — May  it  not,  after  all,  be  a  sub- 
jective feeling  of  remorse,  or  a  subjective  feeling  of  peace  ?  What 
reason  is  there  to  believe  that  such  states  of  consciousness  testify 
to  real  relationships  between  God  and  man,  and  are  not  mere 
feelings  and  fancies  of  ecstatic  individuals  ? 


l68         THE    JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


It  is  obvious  that  the  difficulty  which  arises,  as  to  the  validity 
of  any  experience,  must  be  felt  in  regard  to  religious  experience. 
But  it  is  noticeable  that  Christian  experience  has  always  claimed 
to  be  tried  by  the  very  tests  which  we  apply  to  all  experience. 
We  ask,  in  regard  to  other  conscious  states,  whether  the  results 
reached  are  true  for  all  intelligences  alike?  Now  this  is  pre- 
cisely the  test  to  which  Christian  experience  makes  its  appeal. 
0  taste  afid  see  tliat  God  is  good^  is  the  confident  invitation  it 
echoes.  It  holds  that  for  all  human  minds  and  wills  there  is 
a  possibility  of  the  consciousness  of  sin,  in  its  guilt  and  shame, 
and  that  for  all,  too,  there  is  a  possibility  of  pardon  and  conscious 
union  with  God.  The  very  claim  of  Christianity  to  be  a  uni- 
versal religion,  appealing  to  all  men^ — of  all  races  and  all  tem- 
peraments alike— is  another  way  of  stating  the  case  for  the 
validity  of  the  Christian  experience  of  each* 

Another  indication  of  the  character  of  Christian  experience — 
as  no  mere  subjective  impression — is  to  be  found  in  its  practical 
working  in  the  world.  The  convictions  which  are  rooted  in 
religious  experience — and  I  am  not  speaking  of  Christianity  only 
— have  an  active  influence.  The  moulding  of  human  character, 
the  creation  of  human  institutions,  which  has  gone  on  under  the 
stimulus  and  guidance  of  religious  conviction,  is  at  least  a  tesd* 
mony  to  potency  from  generation  to  generation,  which  is  not 
easily  compatible  with  the  opinion  that  religious  experience  is 
merely  a  subjective  illusion.  Religious  experience  is  valid, 
because  it  is  creative  in  the  realm  of  morality,  and  iinds  expres- 
sion in  human  institutions  of  many  kinds. 

7*  Tki  difftrtnus  betwum  religwus  and  ctkar  exferUnce,  Even 
if  religious  experience  be  approved  as  valid,  when  tried  by  the 
tests  to  which  all  personal  impressions  are  subjected,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  it  is  fundamentally  different  in  many  ways  from 
other  experience.  The  data  on  which  the  theologian  builds  are 
different  in  kind  from  those  which  are  co-ordinated  in  science — 
and  this  difference  renders  the  methods  of  investigation,  which  we 
apply  in  one  case,  unsuitable  in  others 

Natural  science  in  all  its  branches  has  to  do  with  phenomena 
Ibat  aue  observable  by  the  senses — sight,  touch,  hearing,  and  so 
lbffth«    Theology  has  to  do  with  experiences  whiich  belong  to  the 

HGr  Hie  of  thought  azui  will    In  the  physical  sckxices»  himian 


\ 


THE  REACTION   OF   MODERN   SCIENTIFIC   THOUGHT      169 

infe%ence  is,  from  the  common-sense  standpoint,  a  mere  observer 

and  reporter,  looking  on  at  movements  which  occur  beyond  it. 

But  so  far  as  religious  experience  goes,  human  consciousness  is 

the  field  as  well  as  the  instrument  of  observation.     And  not  only 

so;  the  Individual  mind  serves  to  co-ordinate  sense  impressions 

and  the  relations  of  external  phenomena  to  each  other,  to  the 

satisfaction  of  the  observer.  But  no  human  mind  is  able  to  attain 

to  more  than  a  very  partial  and  imperfect  apprehension  of  the 

relations  of  the  individual  human  will  and  the  Eternal  Will. 

Face  to  face  with  Perfect  Goodness,  and  Perfect  Knowledge,  and 

Eternal  Being,  the  human  mind  is  conscious  of  its  own  limitations, 

its  inability  to  grasp  or  express  the  truth  about  such  Being,  and 

the  mystery  of  His  dealings  with  the  changing,  imperfect  natures 

that  we  know.     The  field  of  religious  experience  is  different  from 

that  of  ordinary  experience,  and  the  limitation  and  weakness  of 

human  intelligence  must  be  borne  in  mind  all  the  time. 

From  this  it  obviously  follows  that  the  methods  of  investigation 
which  are  appropriate  in  regard  to  scientific  enquiry  will  not  serve 
in  the  new  sphere.     Religious  experience  takes  us  to  the  very 
heart  of  things,  and  places  us  in  direct  relation  with  the  power 
that  moves  in  all  that  is.   It  gives  us  a  standpoint  from  which  we 
no  longer  look  on  the  world  merely  from  outside.   It  brings  a  man 
into  closest  intercourse  with  the  very  meaning  of  things :  he  may 
find  there  within  himself  the  working  of  spiritual  powers  accom- 
plishing the  impossible,  breaking  the  bands  of  those  sins  which 
he  had  by  his  frailty  committed,  controlling  the  sequence  of  cause 
and  effect  as  we  find  it  in  the  world  of  mere  phenomena.    And 
in  the  light  of  that  experience  he  will  see  the  world  of  phenomena 
in  a  new  light   He  will  recognize  the  creative  power  of  the  Spirit 
of  Life  in  quickening  human  aspiration  and  raising  men  to  newness 
of  life;  he  will  recognize  the  power  of  the  Divine  Ideal,  that  has 
appealed  to  him  from  the  cross  of  Calvary;  he  will  trace  a  Fatherly 
hand  presiding  over  all,  disciplining  individual  lives,  shaping  the 
destinies  of  principalities  and  powers,  and  giving  a  worthy  mean- 
ing and  object  to  all  the  ages  that  went  to  the  preparation  of  an 
earth  that  furnishes  a  stage  for  the  drama  of  human  existence. 

From  this  point  of  view,  the  personal  religious  experience  of 
the  Christian  man — in  all  its  complexity — is  the  type  in  the  light 
of  which  the  worth  of  all  the  simpler  and  tentative  forms  can  be 


THE  JOCnUtAL  OF  THEOLOGICAI. 


As  Christiass  we  hanre  tke 
;  the  iccorded  phmomcaa  oC 
udcoB&nttnsoftki 

thefaaskoBwiik^oarlmovkdeeBbaiM.  Tbe 
of  iodncdve  irsrjuth,  bjr  vliidi  tlie  hypulBcKs  of  the  physicist 
are  proired  ordinMO^cJ,aieiaaptJyahte  io  the  sphere  of  rel%iooi 
cxpcxioice.  The  iqrpolhrm  of  a  sopcmatigal  life  is  ■otooettgt 
cm  be  pnwcd  or  diaprowad  fay  fipiiiral  methods;  it  may  be 
tDoBtxated  and  cocfimed,  bat  not  establisifeedL 

Thoogfa  the  methods  of  invesl^gaiicm  aie  iKcessarily  so  diflmM« 
tbe  pfoocsB  by  wfaidi  progress  may  be  lecnrcd  is  the  saoKL  Adraooe 
is  to  be  hoped  for  by  the  caseiitl  efibct  to  co-ordssate  adsal  and 
peisuoalrehgionscaqKneooewithieli^gioiB  ejipciieiiceasrecofdBd 
ibthepast.  We  mo^  go  oo&om  the  mental  attitude  of  the  stndeat 
tothatoftheinvcst^aloriBalabofatocy.  Theological 
will  do  well  to  cnktvate  prrOTnl  leiigioiis  experience  as 
to^  and  oonreiative  with,  the  stody  of  the  experience  that 
is  recorded  tn  literatUTe  and  histocy.  It  is  in  tbe  cmjoictSao  of  the 
two  sides  that  the  smdent  may  attain  to  greater  iai^^  in  the  mtcr- 
ptetaiioo  of  leconicd  cxpaicBce^aod  gwatg-  power  of  appi^ir  nsina 
Emptrica]  science  wkh  its  t^nd  advaDce^and  its  C30IK 
to  actual  ohservatioci  and  experiment,  is  a 
against  any  cfivofce  between  these  two  ades.  If  we 
oootem  to  analyse  religions  experience  in  tbe  past,  by  itself 
apart  from  actual  rel^^ioos  experience  now,  we  may  be 
but  tbere  is  at  lea^  a  dai^er  that  our  amdnsiQOs  will  be 
SBperncxaL 

&  Tke  grpwth  0/  experience  emd  tke  mmts  pf  sacred  simdj^ 
The  oiore  we  look  npon  sacred  study  as  the  invest^gatiaB  of 
a  living  body  of  rel^ous  experknce,  and  the  co-oidination  of 
present-day  with  recorded  experience;  the  more  easily  shall 
we  giasp  the  trtith  that  theotogkal  study  is  oot  only  altwc;  bat 
growing.  This  coovkttoo  will  safeguard  tis  against  the  danger 
of  SMppOMDg  that  cor  studies  are  exhaustive,  or  that  ve  ha^^ 
reached  a  statement  of  knowledge  that  is  at  all  final.  The  mani- 
frstation  of  the  Eternal  in  time,  is  not  and  cannot  be,  complete  and 
exhanstive.  The  data  furnished  to  us  are  not  complete,  God's 
Spirit  is  working  in  the  world,  and  leading  with  a  deeper  know- 
led^  of  God. 


1 


THE  REACTION   OF   MODERN   SCIENTIFIC   THOUGHT      171 

We  dare  not,  therefore,  limit  the  field  of  religious  experience  to 
any  particular  era  in  the  past.  Unless  we  keep  this  clearly  before 
0^  we  are  in  danger  of  turning  to  the  Bible,  as  if  we  could  find  in 
it  exhaustive  knowledge  of  God's  dealings  with  men.  There  are 
seven}  distinct  aims  we  may  keep  before  us  in  the  study  of  the 
BMe,  and  though  all  the  ways  of  reading  it  may  be  good,  they 
are  not  all  equally  good. 
There  may  be  the  careful  study  of  the  letter,  so  as  to  get  the 
/  precise  shade  of  meaning  which  any  sentence  conveys ;  the  first 
impression  as  to  what  the  words  mean  may  be  quite  true  so  far  as 
it  goes,  but  there  is  a  depth  of  thought  and  a  delicacy  of  expres- 
sion in  every  part  of  the  Bible,  that  makes  it  well  worth  pondering 
so  that  we  may  appreciate  the  precise  significance  and  full  force 
of  every  phrase. 

Or,  we  may  read  the  volume  for  the  sake  of  getting  at  the 
I  personality  of  the  author,  and  noting  what  were  the  special 
features  in  our  Lord's  ministry  which  interested  one  or  another 
of  the  evangelists.  It  may  be  our  aim  to  get  at  the  man  through 
his  writing,  and  this  sort  of  enquiry  is  especially  interesting  in 
the  case  of  the  divine  library. 

All  such  study  of  the  Bible  is  good ;  but  we  do  not  get  the  best 

.  out  of  it,  unless  we  are  eager  not  only  to  enter  into  the  thoughts 

I  and  feelings  of  the  writers,  but  to  make  them  our  own,  and  live 

I  them  over  again  ourselves.     We   must  not  merely  admire  the 

beauty  of  Christian  teaching,  but  take  it  as  a  principle  which 

reproduces  itself  in  our  own  words  and  deeds.     It  is  best  to  study 

Christian  truth  with  the  hope  and  aim  of  trying  to  verify  it  for 

ourselves. 

Since  religious  experience  is  still  growing  and  the  data  are 
still  incomplete,  we  cannot  suppose  that  any  interpretation  of 
them,  or  expression  of  the  truth  about  God  and  His  relations 
to  man,  is  complete  and  final.  We  must  recognize  the  possi- 
bility of  continued  progress  in  Theology,  the  possibility  of 
attaining  to  a  fuller  apprehension  and  clearer  statement  of  truth. 
The  terms  we  employ  change  their  significance  as  human  thought 
advances.  There  is  a  danger  in  treating  any  expression  of  the 
relations  between  God  and  man  as  at  all  complete.  St  Thomas 
Aquinas  worked  out  the  Summa  under  the  influence  of  revived 
legal  study^  and  settled  each  point  as  he  raised  it,  by  references 


17a  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


to  autboritaiivr  opinions ;  and  thus  he  built  up  a  self-consistent 
system  cnunciAting  the  Voice  of  the  Church.  But  St  Thomas  did 
not  s*y  the  last  word ;  religious  experience  has  been  growing ; 
some  of  his  phraseology  is  out  of  date,  some  of  his  conceptioos 
have  been  outlived,  for  the  life  of  the  Church  has  not  stood  stilL 
There  is  room  to  discriminate  between  the  aspects  of  his  doctrine 
vrKicfa  ^"ere  characteristic  of  his  tiine»  and  the  truths  wtuch  bold 
good  for  all  time;.  He  has  not  given  ns  an  atterance  whidi 
final 

If  there  ts  no  cooiplelenesB  in  the  systematic  collection  of 
authoritative  nttttmnces  and  the  tatctpretatioo  thus  given  of 
datu  of  experience^  their  is  certainly  none  in  the  joc^cmeBt  €if 
liqf  MivkttMd  coosckNiSBiess.     This  camiol  he 
complete,  finnL    There  are  those  vho  hold  tfaemsdvcs 
reject  any  Gmstlui  fcnrhiag  lfa«l  has  aoc  awakened  a 
c<iio  in  their  onm  901^    There  are  diieiMties  of 
the  same  Spn^;  U>e  experience  of  the 
fatf^gcr  and  oMre  complete  than  any 

hopeioacqiire.  Noaeof asdares^thatweliaveattaimsdto 
■CMMrtenlp^  OP  to  n  perfect 
ve  cnB  OBiy  Hif^Kie  ic  ovr  oonsoHK  shd  ao 
a  Mkr  iqiprehcBsiaa  oT  ife  Uh  of  the 
ithetteoTlke 

TlfefacftllM 

IT  m  ase  mcNned  to 


I  m 

the    1 


THE   REACTION   OF   MODERN   SCIENTIFIC   THOUGHT      173 

sciousness,  or  of  the  universe; — and  hence,  theology,  as  the 
schoolmen  would  have  it,  is  the  scientia  scientiarum. 

Nor  are  we  even  justified  in  limiting  the  field  and  working 
of  spiritual  activity  by  reference  to  the  principles  which  may  be 
safely  assumed  in  regard  to  other  human  experience.  Habitual 
reference  to  personal  religious  experience  affords  a  new  criterion 
of  the  possible  and  the  probable.  There  is  no  forgiveness  in 
Nature,  there  is  no  intelligible  place  for  a  doctrine  of  forgiveness 
in  mere  Theism.  But  those  who  have  experience  of  it  as  a  fact 
that  has  made  a  difference  in  their  own  lives,  will  feel  that  the 
creative  power  of  the  living  God  must  manifest  itself— if  it  be 
manifested  at  all — in  a  fashion  which  is  at  variance  with  mechanical 
routine.  The  record  of  the  miraculous  birth  and  rising  from  the 
dead  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  becomes  intelligible  to  them,  just 
because  it  fits  in  with  their  own  conscious  life.  Credo,  such  a  man 
may  say,  credo  quia  impossible. 

The  late  bishop  of  London  used  to  insist  that  the  distinctive 
feature  of  the  English  Church,  as  apart  from  the  other  branches 
of  the  Church  in  the  West  and  the  East,  was  that  she  cherished 
sound  learning ;  that  the  love  of  learning  and  the  determination 
to  test  her  teaching  in  the  light  of  learning  was  a  feature  which 
had  been  marked  since  at  least  the  Reformation  era.  But  I  think 
it  is  equally  noticeable  that  she  has  preserved  the  tradition,  which 
,  has  been  lost  in  so  many  protestant  bodies,  of  insisting  that  her 
clergy  shall  habitually  cultivate  personal  religious  experience. 
The  daily  offices  which  are  incumbent  upon  her  clergy,  the  weekly 
celebrations  which  were  insisted  on  in  colleges,  testify  to  the  mind 
of  the  Church  in  this  matter.  Divine  learning  is  to  be  fostered, 
but  not  in  a  merely  secular  spirit ;  it  is  to  be  sought  for,  partly 
^  study,  and  partly  through  the  clear  light  of  personal  conscious- 
ness of  God's  truth. 

W.  Cunningham. 


m  to  tnat  of  God 
Godts 


cAciij&c     It  mav"  gxaming  GoJts 


-iMpL     Foraqri 
witidt  tbeolo^ 

^  ^tmmSgmma^  •*«■»■&«#  ffVSrtl^*^    SIM  Jl-g>£rlhl«.    tfJP  |£  •|||  1^    ■■b*^ 

tll£9C   JUtUUCS  sue   CXffltf*^*^^"   it>  toC  ^CfHliBfc        I  T^mc  ir 

tftafc  iCEOR&i^  tD  Holy  i>crtpciifc  God  is  ooti  OBttm 
ffltanoBs;  God  the  Stnt  became  man  ;  wdteqt  Bfc|>tam  ft  Is 
to  gnter  beaveii ;  £uth  ts  occeaeary  unto  ^vataoo.  It 
troths  bafioie  as  aod  proves  ttaa  to  be  Scz^ptmaL 
sach  a  fitac^oB  is  called  Pbsitiae.  and 


1 


A   PLEA   FOR    SCHOLASTIC  THEOLOGY  1 75 

admirable  specimens  of  it  are  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  who  excelled  as  Positive  theologians. 

Positive  theology  is  undoubtedly  most  important  since  it  is 
fundamentaL     It  holds  a  foremost  and  necessary  position  in  the 
theological    domain.      Yet   it  performs  only  one    function  of 
theology^  and  that  an  initial  one.     It  occupies  the  first  and 
preliminary  st<^e  in  the  presentment  of  revealed  truth.     Conse- 
quently of  itself  it  is  incomplete,  since  there  remains  a  further 
work  to  be  accomplished.    It  brings  forth  from  the  deposit  of 
hith  and  proposes  to  us  revealed  truths,  and  here  its  function 
ceases.    There  is  consequently  another  function  of  theology  we 
may  consider.  It  is  possible  to  collect,  co-ordinate,  and  systematize 
revealed  truths.     It  is  possible  to  investigate  them,  to  analyse 
them,  to  try  to  penetrate  them,  to  increase  our  understanding  of 
them.     We  may  shew  the  relation  of  one  to  the  other,  their 
mutual  dependence^  their  harmony.     By  arguments  of  analogy 
and  congruity  we  may  confirm  them,  and  we  may  shew  how 
conformable  they  are  to  reason  and  to  natural  truths.     From  the 
truths  supplied  us  by  Positive  theology  we  may  deduce  others,  and 
we  may  resolve  them  into  their  various  consequences.     This  is 
the  function  of  the  theology  we  call  Scholastic.     It  begins  where 
the  Positive  leaves  off,  and  its  first  principles  are  the  truths  which 
the  Positive  supplies  to  it. 

The  human  mind  is  so  constituted  by  God  that  it  is  ever  eager 
to  attain  to  its  proper  object,  and  it  seeks  to  grasp  it  as  fully  and 
as  completely  as  its  capacity  will  allow.  It  endeavours  to  view 
truth  in  all  its  aspects,  to  illustrate  it,  to  make  it  more  acceptable 
by  removing  difficulties  and  by  solving  objections  brought 
against  it.  As  the  instrument  of  Scholastic  Theology  it  enables 
us  to  have  a  more  intelligent  appreciation  of  revealed  truth,  and 
its  exercise  imparts  an  especial  pleasure  in  making  acts  of  faith. 
Since  God  has  entrusted  to  man  a  body  of  revelation.  He  does 
not  mean  that  he  should  merely  passively  accept  it  and  lay  it  up 
in  a  napkin.  *  Therefore  the  apostle  Peter*  warns  us  that  we 
ought  to  be  ready  to  answer  every  one  who  asks  us  the  reason  of 
our  faith  and  hope,  because  if  an  unbeliever  ask  the  reason  of  my 
£iiith  and   hope  and  I  see  that  before  he  believes  he  cannot 

*  I  Pet.  iii  15. 


THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


comprehend,  I  give  him  as  a  reason  this  fact  itself,  that  therein  he 
may  see,  if  possible,  how  preposterously  he  asks>  before  he  believes, 
the  reason  of  those  things  which  he  cannot  comprehend.  But  if 
one  who  is  already  a  believer  asks  the  reason,  in  order  that  he 
may  understand  what  he  believes^  his  capacity  must  be  considered  ^ 
so  that  according  to  it,  when  the  reason  has  been  given,  he  may  ■ 
obtain  as  great  an  understanding  of  his  faith  as  possible,  a  greater 
if  he  comprehends  more,  a  less  understanding  if  he  comprehends 
less ;  provided,  however,  that  until  he  arrive  at  the  ftillness  and 
perfection  of  knowledge  he  depart  not  from  the  path  of  faith.'  ^ 
The  truths  of  revelation  are  not  to  be  preserved  as  mere  fossil 
remains.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  we  can  have  a  lively  and 
fervent  faith,  a  yearning  after  a  greater  knowledge  of  God  and 
after  a  more  intimate  union  with  Him,  and  not  embrace  readily 
His  sacred  word  and  reverently  exercise  our  intelligence  upon  it. 
*  But  perhaps  some  one  may  say :  Shall  there  then  be  no  growth 
of  religious  doctrine  in  the  Church  of  Christ  ?  By  all  means  let 
there  be  growth  and  that  to  the  utmost  For  who  Is  there  so 
hostile  to  men,  and  hateful  to  God  as  to  endeavour  to  prevent  it? 
But,  notmthstanding,  let  it  so  be  that  it  be  truly  a  growth  of  faith 
and  not  a  change.  Since  to  growth  it  belongs  that  each  thing 
be  expanded  to  the  full  measure  of  itself,  but  to  change  that 
something  be  altered  from  one  thing  to  another.  Let  there  then 
be  an  increase  and  growth,  a  strong  and  exuberant  growth,  of 
understanding,  knowledge,  and  wisdom,  as  well  in  individuals  as 
in  the  community,  as  well  in  one  man  as  in  the  whole  Church  by 
gradual  lapse  of  ages  and  centuries,  but  only  in  their  own  kind, 
namely  in  the  same  doctrine,  the  same  sense  and  same  meaning/* 
A  religious  body  of  men  should  not  be  an  inert,  lifeless  mass,  but 
a  living,  active,  energetic  organism.  But  Scholastic  Theolc^fy 
imports  activity  of  mind  upon  the  truths  entrusted  to  it.  It 
displays  revelation  in  all  its  beauty  and  splendour,  and  with 
a  marvellous  fecundity  unfolds  to  us.  so  far  as  the  limitation  of 
the  finite  human  intellect  permits,  the  infinite  depth  and  breadth 
of  the  Divine  word. 

There  are  some  revealed  truths  the  human  mind  can  under- 
stand, whilst  there  are  others  which  surpass  the  natural  cona- 
prehension  of  every  created  intellect.     Nevertheless  of  them  all, 

St  Aug.  £/,  130  I  4.  *  St  Viae  Lir.  Comumomi,  c  zxiti  §  55. 


A   PLEA   FOR   SCHOLASTIC  THEOLOGY  1 77 

each  according  to  its  measure,  the  mind  strives  to  have  a  deeper 
knowledge.  Hence  the  precursor  of  Scholastic  theologians 
exclaims  :  *  I  do  not  try,  O  Lord,  to  fathom  thy  depth  ;  because 
in  no  wise  do  I  compare  my  intellect  with  thine,  but  I  long  to 
muierstand  to  some  extent  thy  truth  which  my  heart  believes  and 
loves.  Nor  indeed  do  I  seek  to  understand  in  order  to  believe  ; 
but  I  believe  in  order  to  understand.  For  this  too  I  believe,  that 
unless  I  believe  I  shall  not  understand.*  ^  It  is  the  love  of  God  s 
truth  that  prompts  the  desire  to  apprehend  it  more  fully  and 
completely.  Scholastic  Theology  does  not  seek  to  rationalize 
faith  by  undermining  or  supplanting  its  formal  object  and  by 
explaining  its  material  object  away,  but  to  strengthen  faith  by 
indirectly  confirming  it,  by  shewing  how  compatible  it  is  with  our 
rational  nature,  and  by  enhancing  and  multiplying  the  induce- 
ments to  believe.  Of  it  may  be  said :  *  With  all  diligence  this 
one  thing  [the  Church  of  Christ]  strives  after,  that  by  treating 
faithfully  and  wisely  the  things  that  are  old  it  may  make  them 
exact  and  smooth,  if  in  any  way  they  are  previously  unformed 
and  inchoate  ;  may  confirm  and  strengthen  them  if  they  are 
already  clearly  expressed  and  developed.**  It  depends  upon 
Positive  theology  for  the  raw  material  which  it  humbly,  lovingly, 
and  reverently  accepts,  and  which  by  activity,  industry,  subtlety, 
power,  and  skill  it  weaves  into  a  vesture  of  marvellous  beauty, 
shape,  and  symmetry  for  Christ's  Mystical  Body  on  earth. 

So  far  I  have  spoken  of  the  function  of  Scholastic  Theology. 
Its  scope  is  noble  indeed  and  worthy  of  the  highest  faculty  of 
man.  But  there  is  also  the  form  to  be  considered.  If  we  turn 
to  the  works  of  those  who  are  generally  acknowledged  to  rank 
as  princes  of  Scholastic  theologians,  as  St  Thomas,  St  Bona- 
venture  and  Suarez,  we  shall  be  struck  by  certain  characteristics. 
There  is  an  entire  absence  of  verbiage.  No  appeal  is  made  to 
the  feelings  by  the  use  of  rhetoric.  The  language  is  perfectly 
simple  and  unadorned.  There  is  nothing  to  move  the  mind 
except  the  sheer  force  of  evidence  of  the  bare  truth.  Men  who 
are  in  search  of  truth  are  anxious  to  remove  any  hindrance 
whatever,  whether  it  be  beauty  of  language  or  exuberance  of 
expression.     Error  or  sophistry  more  easily  conceals  itself  beneath 

*  St  Anselm  Proahg.  c.  i.  *  St  Vine.  Lir.  Commomt.  c.  xxiii  §  60. 

VOL.  V.  N 


170         TB£  JOUEXAL  OF  THEOUOCIOU.  SIi.iJ^^ 


tfe 


tlie 


tlie  iBOfe  diScdt  k  if  to  extract  it.    ^liereu  d  the 
ii  ptft  before  as  in  a  jejqne  aunBCJ^thc  flUDC 
ijokkly  and  more  accanUdy,  aad  is  better  able  to 
kHaoUc  worth.     Heooe  cMXiirs  tiie  fieqgeni  sse  of  tbe 
whidi  employs  oo  svperflnoiis  or  reHnndant  word.  M 

Moreover  there  h  a  6xed  terminology.  Scholastic  theolo^ansfl 
wrre  oof  wont  to  excogitate  each  for  himself  a  nev  i-ccibiihryf 
or  Docnenclature  and  arbitrarily  determine  in  what  sense  tbe>* 
wotild  employ  it  Bat  tbey  accepted  the  tenninology  haiMied 
down  to  them,  which  had  been  consecrated  by  cootiBooas  use 
tLnd  by  time,  and  which  had  been  polished  aod  rendered  more 
definite  and  accurate  by  the  skilful  handling  and  treatment  of 
iticcca«iive  generations  o(  the  ablest  and  subtlest  inteUects.  Tbe 
Arittotelian  philosophy  no  doubt  enters  largely  into  Scholastic 
Theology ;  but  it  does  not  constitute  its  essence  and  scope.  It 
IS  used  as  a  vehicle  of  thought  and  expressioa,  and  is  adopted 
where  theologians  judge  it  to  be  true ;  for  Scholastic  Theology 
does  not  banish  reason  but  exercises  it  upon  the  articles  of  &ith. 


I 


I  may  be  asked  why  am  I  so  anxious  to  defend  Scholastic 
Theology .  It  -sccms  to  me  that  if  Anglican  theologians  would 
employ  it,  it  would  be  a  great  gain  for  them  as  well  as  for  others. 
The  earlier  Anglican  divines  spent  much  of  their  time  and 
labour  in  protesting  against,  and  in  trying  to  refute,  the  errors  of 
Papists*  Of  late  years  they  have  devoted  themselves  chiefly  to 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Fathers,  No  one  can  deny  that  they 
have  done  excellent  work  in  promoting  and  advancing  Scriptural 
and  Piitristic  studies.  They  deserve  all  praise  in  these  special 
lincH.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  they  have  not 
progressed  further  where  progress  is  possible.  They  will  not 
venture  into  the  domain  of  Scholastic  Theology  ;  but  they 
approach  its  confines  and  there  they  stop.  Why  should  they  not 
do  for  it  what  they  have  done  for  other  branches?  Why  should 
I  hey  not  endeavour  to  treat  the  articles  of  faith  in  a  scientific 
maimer,  and  to  attain  to  a  greater  understanding  of  their  full 
significiincc  ?  It  is  quite  true  that  at  the  present  day  Christian 
theologians  arc  greatly  absorbed  in  defending  the  fact  itself  of 


A    PLEA    FOR    SCHOLASTIC    THEOLOGY 


179 


revelation  against  unbelievers.  But  notwithstanding  the  necessity 
of  Christian  apologetics  at  this  crisis  of  doubt  and  infidelity,  sonie 
time  may  be  spared  for  other  duties,  nor  need  all  engage  in 
%hting  against  the  InfideL 

One  reason  which  may  prevent  the  cultivation  of  Scholastic 
Theolc^y  is  the  want  of  unanimity  in  the  articles  which  are  to 
serve  as  first  principles  of  Scholastic  Theological  science.  There 
must  first  be  agreement  in  these.  This  may  be  an  objection, 
but  only  a  partial  one,  nor  is  it  insuperable.  Combined  labour 
in  the  same  line  usually  supposes  a  common  starting-point 
Nev^ertheless  there  are  certain  revealed  doctrines  which  Angli- 
cans generally  hold,  and  from  these  they  may  commence.  If 
they  would  only  combine  and  carry  on  a  united  work  in  the 
developement,  evolution,  and  illustration  of  Christian  dogma,  the 
result  would  be  an  immense  gain. 

In  many  minds  there  is  a  dislike  of  the  Scholastic  system, 
which  they  identify  with  the  syllogism.  They  tell  us  that  faith 
docs  not  depend  upon  the  syllogism  and  no  one  is  convinced  by  it 
But  such  an  assertion  is  irrelevant  here;  for  f  am  not  speaking 
of  the  motives  of  credibility  nor  of  faith  and  its  ultimate  analysis* 
I  am  supposing  faith,  and  faith  in  truths  which  have  been  arrayed 
before  us  by  the  special  function  of  Positive  theology.  I  am 
speaking  of  the  exercise  of  reason  upon  what  the  deposit  of 
(kith  has  yielded  up  to  us.  Just  as  we  can  reason  from  the  first 
principles  of  a  purely  natural  science,  so  can  we  employ  ratio- 
cination upon  those  first  principles  which  in  Scholastic  Theology 
are  the  articles  of  faith.  If  a  person  take  exception  to  observing 
the  laws  of  logic  in  Scholastic  Theologyj  he  should  take  the 
same  exception,  if  he  is  consistent,  in  his  advancement  of  every 
natural  science*  With  such  a  one  it  would  be  idle  to  pursue 
the  discussion  further,  unless  he  divest  himself  of  such  a  miscon- 
ception. 

Then  there  are  many  who  do  not  wish  to  be  restricted  to 
modest  proportions  in  arguing  or  reasoning.  They  fill  page 
upon  page  with  excellent  English.  They  introduce  happy  and 
pleasing  illustrations.  They  display  a  vast  amount  of  erudition 
and  general  reading  and  culture.  But  if  all  that  really  consti- 
tuted the  argument  were  stripped  of  superfluities  and  were  stated 
in  its  strictly  essential  form,  pages  would  be  reduced  by  such 

N  a 


l8o         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


I 


condensation  to  a  few  lines  and  then  the  true  strength  or  weair 
ness  of  the  reasoning  would  be  made  manifest  in  its  bare  reality. 
Unfortunately  we  have  grown  so  accustomed  in  this  country  to 
the  diffuse  and  literary  style  that  it  would  inflict  quite  a  shock 
upon  our  taste  and  feelings  to  be  suddenly  confronted  with  such 
a  revolutionary  proceeding*  Under  the  present  circumstances 
I  doubt  if  theology  will  ever  make  much  progress  in  the  Une 
of  developement*  We  are  so  accustomed  to  a  loose  style  of 
argument  and  to  literary  effect,  that  we  often  fail  to  discover 
fallacies  and  ambiguities  and  also  waste  time  in  wading  through 
a  vast  amount  which  in  reality  is  not  to  the  point  or  is  unneces- 
sary. A  trained  Scholastic  theologian  would  first  propose  the 
question,  and  then  he  would  marshal  in  its  defence  various  argu- 
ments or  proofs  in  a  clear,  concise,  unadorned,  logical^  and  un- 
impassioned  form.  He  would  solve  the  principal  arguments 
brought  forward  in  support  of  the  contradictory  doctrine.  He 
would  use  the  terminology  which  other  theologians  would  accept 
and  employ  in  exactly  the  same  sense.  He  would  not  distract 
the  mind  by  idle  words  or  useless  matter.  When  arguments  are 
examined  by  theologian  after  theologian ^  a  consensus  will  finally 
arise  as  to  their  cogency  and  validity,  and  then  the  doctrine 
which  rests  upon  them,  if  they  are  recognized  as  valid,  will 
become  a  common  theological  opinion.  Thus  by  degrees  opinion 
after  opinion  is  firmly  established^  and  such  a  process  indicates 
advance. 

In  this  country  we  are  too  apt  to  confound  the  history  of 
theology  with  theology  itself.  No  one  should  underrate  the 
importance  of  the  history  of  dogma  or  of  theological  opinions. 
It  is  of  the  greatest  use  and  value  both  for  the  proper  equip- 
ment of  every  theologian  and  for  the  purposes  of  teaching. 
Nevertheless  it  has  its  own  special  sphere  and  should  never  be 
made  to  do  duty  for  theology.  A  serious  defect  in  philosophy 
at  the  present  day  is  that  we  have  men  giving  us  the  views  of 
others  and  holding  nothing  themselves.  They  will  propound  the 
different  opinions,  and  so  far  they  act  as  historians ;  but  they  m 
not  unfrequently  fail  to  do  the  real  and  critical  work  of  philo- 
sophy by  examining,  analysing,  and  weighing  the  arguments 
upon  which  these  opinions  are  based.  They  seem  afraid  to  com- 
mit themselves.     Moreover,  if  they  are  to  train  the  minds  of 


I 


PLEA  FOR  SCHOLASTIC  THEOLOGY 


l8l 


Others,  they  should  propose  something  definite  which  they  them- 
selves arc  prepared  to  maintain,  and  they  should  not  allow  their 
pupils  to  drift  over  a  sea  of  opinions  without  chart,  without 
compass,  and  towards  no  settled  port.  If  they  hold  no  definite 
body  of  doctrine  which  they  are  able  to  communicate,  they 
should  not  attempt  to  teach.  Let  us  then  duly  appreciate 
Positive  theology  and  the  history  of  theology,  but  let  us  also 
whilst  using  them  both  strive  to  advance  in  the  peculiar  sphere 
of  Scholastic  Theology. 

Sometimes  it  happens  that  an  Anglican  theologian  may  hold 
certain  articles  of  faith  which  Catholic  theologians  hold,  and  yet 
he  may  make  statements  which  Catholic  theologians  declare  to 
be  inconsistent  with  those  articles,     I  venture  to  assert  that  if 
be  had  cultivated  Scholastic  Theology^  he  would  have  refrained 
from  making  those  statements,  since  he  would  have  perceived 
their  inconsistency*    The  fact  is,  he  has  not  worked  out  the 
articles  of  faith  to  their  legitimate  conclusions.     Consequently 
he  has  not  that  definite,  consistent,  and  guiding  system  which 
such  a  developement  or  evolution  produces.    If  he  had  caused  the 
articles  of  faith  to  germinate,  to  produce  the  various  deductions 
which  natui-ally  follow  from  them,  and  to  put  forth  explicitly  by 
evolution  what  is  latent  or  implicitly  contained  in  them,  a  system 
would  be  evolved  with  its  ramifications  and  would  disclose  what 
a  theologian  could  consistently  aflBrm  or  deny.     Thus  he  would 
not  be  betrayed  through  lack  of  this  system  into  asserting  what, 
from  his  own  standpoint  or  position,  would  be  illogical  or  incon- 
sistent.    For  instance,  if  a  theologian  accepts  as  an  article  of 
faith  that  God  the  Son  has  become  incarnate  and  is  substantially 
man,  or  in  other  words  that  our  Blessed  Lord  is  God  the  Son 
made   man,  he   cannot  logically  allow  that  our  Blessed  Lord 
could   sin.     At  one  time   there  were  those  who  theoretically 
admitted  such  a  possibility;  but  by  degrees  truth  became  more 
manifest,  so  that  now  the  common  opinion  of  theologians  excludes 
this  possibility*     This  is  an  instance  of  progress  in  the  attain- 
ment  of  truth.     At   present  therefore   no  Catholic   theologian 
would  maintain  as  probable  that  Christ  whilst  on  earth  could 
have  committed  sin.     Also  some  Anglican  theologians  speak  of 
the  knowledge  of  Christ's  human  intellect  in  a  way  they  would 
avoid,  had  they,  after  the  method  of  the  schools,  analysed  the 


^ 


l82  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


nature  and  exigency  of  the  hypostatic  union  and  followed  this 
analysis  to  its  logical  and  legitimate  consequences. 

Likewise  in  discussions  on  free  will  in  man,  some  divines,  I  am 
told,  cnuntiate  opinions  which  are  at  variance  with  their  belief 
in  the  redemption  of  man  and  his  co-operating  in  it  by  satisfying 
and  meriting.  This  is  to  be  regretted  ;  for  it  is  to  build  up  and 
destroy  the  same  edifice.  A  logical  system  carefully  worked  out 
would  be  an  inestimable  gain  to  such  men.  They  may  have 
ail  the  qualities  to  fit  them  to  be  able  theologians;  but  they  lack 
that  very  instnjment  which  would  enable  them  to  use  those 
qualities  efficiently  and  successfully. 

There  is  another  point  I  submit  for  consideration.  The  culti- 
vation of  Scholastic  Theology,  besides  leading  Anglican  divines  to 
a  greater  unanimity  amongst  themselves  and  to  a  deeper  and  fuller 
appreciation  of  revealed  truth,  would  aid  them  to  understand 
better  the  dcvclopement  of  doctrine  tn  the  Catholic  Church* 
If  Peter  and  Paul  both  believed  as  a  revealed  truth  that  God 
the  Son  is  perfect  man,  Paul  might  well  be  astonished  if,  when 
he  asserted  God  the  Son  to  have  a  human  intellect  and  a  human 
will,  Peter  denied  it.  Had  Peter  analv-sed  the  predicate  perfect 
WHMy  he  would  have  »?cn  that  this  involved  the  ti^'o  essential 
fiicuhies  of  man.  In  a  similar  way  when  Catholic  theologians 
deduce  conclusions  with  all  the  rigidity  of  logic,  they  are  accused 
of  having  altered  revealed  Iniths  or  of  having  imported  new 
ones.  The  prindple  of  developeiikcnt  is  admirably  expressed  by 
Vincent  of  Lcrins :  ^  Let  the  religion  of  souls  imitate  the  manner 
of  bodies  u1kich«  although  in  pttpoess  of  yeans  they  unfoUl  and 
611  out  their  parts,  >*et  remam  the  same  as  before.  There  is  a 
freat  diflTefence  between  the  donxr  of  youth  and  the  maturity 
of  old  age;  but  acverthdca  the  very  same  beoocne  old  mea  who 
had  been  youths ;  so  thai  dkhoi^  the  state  and  ooodi  tkxi  of  oaie 
and  the  s«mc  man  be  changed,  still  there  abides  oae  and  the  same 
MHai^  QM  and  the  suae  peraoa.  * « .  Thm  also  it  is  toii^  that 
lii^  doctilne  of  ttie  Omiiatt  leligioft  fbl^ 
Maie^%  thit  it  he  ;nciHtHf.iirit  by  ycus^  iii^iiaii  J  by  time, 
MilatoltsMljMIMveh(ri«e,yet  ifttMlnifi^itaad  oum. 
lMyhi4,aAd  W  e^wyktc  wd  perfeei  ii  the  eiMtiie  proportioiis 
of  ^»  (wAm  aiHl.  Mio  s«y«ittall  its  om  aeiiAcR  ud  senses; 
MMl  ikM^  MMWsw;  k  Kteit  «f  M  dOBge,  «»deno  ao  loss  of  hs 


f 


A    PLEA    FOR    SCHOLASTIC   THEOLOGY  183 

own  special  character,  no  alteration  of  its  essential  nature.*  *    The 
recognition  of  this  principle  ought  to  make  those  hesitate  who 
are  inclined  to  reproach  Catholic  theologians  with  having  intro- 
duced novelties.     It  seems  strange  that  men  should  deny  to  the 
deposit  of  faith  what  they  are  obliged  to  admit  in  a  deposit  which 
is  merely  natural.     For  instance,  in  that  truly  admirable,  monu- 
mental, and  sympathetic  work,  TAe  American  Commonwealth^ 
Mr.  Bryce  informs  us  *  that  the  American  Constitution  has  de- 
veloped in  three  ways,  by  amendment,  by  interpretation,  and  by 
usage.    The  first  means  a  change  in  the  constitution ;  the  second, 
an  unfolding  of  the  meaning  implicitly  contained  in  it ;  and  the 
third,  an  addition  consistent  with  its  spirit.     With  the  first  and 
last  we  are  not  here  concerned.     The  second  way  is  parallel  to 
the  theological  developement  of  which  I  am  speaking.  We  might 
even  adapt  to  some  eminent  theologian,  to  De  Lugo  for  example^ 
Mr.  Bryce's  description  of  Chief-Justice  Marshall :  *  He  grasped 
with  extraordinary  force  and  clearness  the  cardinal  idea  that  the 
creation  of  a  national  government  implies  the  grant  of  all  such 
subsidiary  powers  as  are  requisite  to  the  effectuation  of  its  main 
powers  and  purposes,  but  he  developed  and  applied  this  idea 
with  so  much  prudence  and  sobriety,  never  treading  on  purely 
political  ground,  never  indulging  the  temptation  to  theorize,  but 
content  to  follow  out  as  a  lawyer  the  consequences  of  legal  prin- 
dples,  that  the  Constitution  seemed  not  so  much  to  rise  under 
his  hands  to  its  full  stature,  as  to  be  gradually  unveiled  by  him 
till  it  stood  revealed  in  the  harmonious  perfection  of  the  form 
which  its  framers  had  designed.'^ 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  Anglican  Church  is  not  congenial 
soil  for  Scholastic  Theology  or  its  method,  otherwise  they  would 
have  been  introduced  and  cultivated  long  before  now.  In  fact 
the  Anglican  temperament  is  utterly  antagonistic  to  them.  Many 
Anglicans  dislike  dogma,  or  at  any  rate  such  an  excessive  form 
of  it  as  is  presented  in  Scholastic  Theolc^.  They  prefer  to  be 
unhampered  and  untrammelled  by  the  hard  and  fast  cramping 
Scholastic  system.  That  the  soil  of  the  Anglican  Church  was 
formerly  not  congenial  is  beside  the  purpose.    That  it  is  not  con- 

'  Commonii,  c.  xxiii  §§56  and  57.  *  Vol.  i  p.  36a,  3rd  ed. 

•  Bnd.  p.  385. 


l84         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


I 


genial  now  is  the  ]>oint  in  question.  That  many  Anglicans  would 
find  no  sympathy  with  it  I  am  quite  willing  to  admit.  That  there 
are  at  least  some  who  would  excel  in  it  and  by  its  adoption  would  ■ 
promote  the  cause  of  revealed  truth  is  what  I  am  now  specially 
maintaining.  I  have  tried  to  explain  how  Scholastic  Theology 
would  be  a  fit  instrument  for  the  purpose,  and  from  my  acquaint-  ■ 
ance  with  Anglican  divines  I  am  persuaded  that  there  are  those 
amongst  them  who,  if  they  applied  their  talents  and  ability, 
sincerity,  earriestness,  and  energy  to  its  cultivation,  would  do  for 
it  what  others  have  done  so  well  for  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
Fathers. 

To  accept  revelation  and  to  reject  dogma  is  a  contradiction  in 
terms.  To  accept  or  believe  in  revelation  is  to  assent  to  a  truth 
or  body  of  truths  on  account  of  the  authority  of  God  revealing. 
This  means  to  embrace  dogma.  How  can  a  man  embrace  and 
reject  dogma  in  sensu  composito  ?  When  men  talk  about  being 
intellectually  unhampered  and  untrammelled,  if  they  logically 
mean  anything,  they  mean  they  do  not  wish  to  know  the  truth ; 
for  so  long  as  they  remain  in  ignorance  they  are  at  liberty  to 
affirm  or  to  deny  as  they  please,  and  are  not  constrained  by  the 
evidence  or  manifestation  of  truth.  What  happens  in  natural 
sciences,  happens  likewise  in  the  sphere  of  revelation.  In  natural 
sciences  a  man's  intellect  is  determined  by  a  natural  truth  made 
clear  to  it  or  by  the  evidence  of  truth.  He  is  no  longer  free  with 
regard  to  it.  In  this  sense  he  may  be  said  to  be  hampered  or  tied  ■ 
down.  But  he  would  be  unreasonable  to  folly  who  would  object 
to  such  a  curtailment  of  liberty.  If  God  besides  speaking  through 
nature  should  speak  to  us  by  revelation  and  present  to  us  a  truth 
to  be  accepted  upon  His  authority,  would  not  that  man  be  equally 
unreasonable  who,  although  he  saw  it  was  evidently  his  duty  to 
yield  assent  to  it,  would  yet  refuse  on  the  plea  that  he  wished  his 
intellect  to  remain  untrammelled?  Such  a  liberty  is  like  that 
which  can  be  seen  inscribed  upon  the  public  monuments  of 
France.  It  is  licence,  not  liberty.  In  reality  natural  physical 
sciences  do  not  of  themselves  give  any  scope  for  the  exercise  of 
liberty ;  since  a  scientific  man  is  forced  to  accept  that  which  is  - 
intrinsically  evident  or  demonstrated.  He  deals  not  with  super-  I 
natural  faith  but  with  natural  knowledge.  But  the  theologian 
^ercises  both  reason  and  liberty  when  he  assents  to  those  first 


A  PLEA  FOR  SCHOLASTIC  THEOLOGY     185 

theological  principles  from  which  Scholastic  Theology  begins  to 
proceed  by  reasoning.  He  exercises  his  reason  in  so  far  as  he 
demonstrates  to  himself  as  evident  not  the  truth  to  be  believed, 
but  his  duty  to  believe  it  '  Let  no  one  suppose,  I  say,  that  we 
believe  so  that  we  may  not  receive  or  seek  a  reason,  since  we  could 
not  even  believe  unless  we  had  reasonable  souls.*  ^  Since,  however, 
the  intellect  cannot  determine  itself,  and  since  it  is  not  determined 
by  the  evidence  of  the  revealed  truth,  the  will  comes  to  the  rescue, 
and  compels  the  intellect  to  assent  to  the  truth  to  which  it  sees  it 
is  its  evident  duty  to  assent  Thus  he  who  believes  in  revelation 
is  eminently  rational  and  eminently  a  man  of  duty,  and  he  offers 
to  God  that  whereby  he  is  specifically  distinguished  as  a  rational 
animal  enjoying  free  will ;  he  offers  the  submission  and  homage 
of  his  intellect  and  of  his  will. 

Nevertheless,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  men  who  inveigh 
against  dogma  must  not  be  understood  as  using  dogma  in  the 
strictly  theological  sense.    What  they  object  to  is  not  the  obliga- 
tion to  accept  what  they  believe  God  wishes  to  impose  upon  them. 
They  know  quite  well  that  even  in  daily  life  they  are  required  to 
exercise  human  faith  just  as  a  child  accepts  its  food  from  its 
mother,  believing  it  on  her  authority  to  be  good  and  wholesome. 
Also  they  know  quite  well  that  God,  being  truth  itself  and  omni- 
scient, possesses  the  requisite  authority  to  be  believed.  Were  they 
convinced  that  He  was  speaking  to  them,  they  would  admit  on 
His  authority  to  be  true  what  He  spoke.      Hence  St  Thomas 
takes  for  granted  in  the  third  difficulty  (quaestiuncula  2)  that 
'nullus  est  ita  infidelis  quin  credat  quod  Deus  non  loquitur  nisi 
verum '  (3.  dist.  23.  q.  a.  a.  a.).   But  they  repudiate  the  obligation 
to  accept  as  revealed  truth  what  they  regard  as  merely  human 
opinion  proposed  to  their  assent  by  a  merely  fallible  institution. 
If  a  Church  does  not  profess  to  be  divine  and  infallible  any  man 
may  reasonably  object  to  being  called  upon  to  assent  to  whatever 
she  may  propose  merely  on  her  own  authority.     Such  an  imposi- 
tion would  be  intellectual  tyranny.     In  this  sense  they  are  averse 
to  what  they  call  dogma.  Yet  before  reprehending  Catholics  they 
should  strive  to  understand  the  Catholic  positioa     The  Catholic 
does  not  assent  to  a  truth  upon  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Church  as  if  that  authority  were  the  formal  object  of  divine  faith ; 
»  St  Aug.  £>.  120  §3. 


l86         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


but  he  assents  to  the  truth  on  the  authority  of  God,  and  he 
k  when  proposed  to  him  by  the  Church  because  he  believes  the 
Church  to  be  the  infallible  custodian  and  interpreter  of  the  deposit 
of  faith.  At  least  the  Catholic  acts  consistently  with  his  position, 
whether  that  position  be  right  or  wrong. 

Also  I  maintain  that  the  cultivation  of  Scholastic  Theolo^by 
Anglican  divines  would  cause  them  to  tend  to  greater  union  with 
those  from  whom  they  are  now  separated.  It  is  obvious  that 
Scholastic  theologians  differ  among  themseK^es  ;  but  it  is  only  in 
matters  in  which  the  revealed  doctrine  has  not  been  explicitly 
proposed  by  the  authentic  teaching  body  or  magisterium  of  the 
Church  or  in  which  they  are  allowed  to  differ.  Yet  even  in  such 
matters  by  degrees  they  may  arrive  at  imanimity.  How  fre- 
quently it  has  happened  that  opinions  of  theologians  were  divided 
on  some  question  about  which  in  course  of  time  a  consensus  has 
at  last  arisen !  For  instance,  some  theologians  used  to  hold  that 
the  priest  was  the  minister  of  the  Sacrament  of  Christian  Marriage. 
Gradually  theologians,  by  discussing  the  various  arguments  for 
and  against  this  view,  arrived  at  a  common  consent  that  the  con- 
tracting parties  themselves  and  not  the  priest  administered  the 
sacrament.  Another  example  is  the  case  of  original  sin.  It  is 
now  generally  held  that  its  essence  consists  in  a  twofold  element, 
the  first  being  the  privation  of  sanctifying  grace  caused  by  Adam's 
actual  sin,  the  second  being  the  imputation  of  that  sin  until  it  be 
forgiven,  De  Lugo  \  in  treating  the  more  general  question  of 
habitual  sin,  maintained  the  essence  of  habitual  sin  to  be  the 
actual  sin  morally  persevering  and  being  imputed  until  forgiven. 
But  in  spite  of  De  Lugo's  subtle  arguments  the  common  opinion 
has  triumphed  and  prevails.  Such  cases  may  be  multiplied  inde- 
finitely. Yet  there  are  many  new  questions  arising  and  many  old 
ones  remaining  unsettled*  There  are  some  that%vill  most  probably 
never  be  conclusively  answered  in  this  life  ;  because  we  lack  suffi- 
cient data  to  enable  us  to  form  conclusive  arguments.  For  instance 
it  is  doubtful  whether  the  habit  of  the  theological  virtue  of  charity 
is  the  same  as  sanctifying  grace.  Some  theologians  deny  that  it  is. 
Others  affirm  that  one  and  the  same  infused  habit  of  charity  is  both 
a  kabiius  operativus  and  a  habitus  entifatnms.  As  the  former 
it  is  the  virtue,  as  the  latter  it  is  the  quality  or  accident 
*  Df  Poenit,  disp.  Fii,  sect,  v,  n.  48* 


mt  which  is   J 


A   PLEA   FOR   SCHOLASTIC   THEOLOGY  187 

called  habitual  or  sanctifying  grace.  How  shall  we  ever  be  able 
to  determine  with  certainty  that  even  if  Adam  had  not  prevari- 
cated, God  the  Son,  on  account  of  the  excellence  of  the  Incarnation 
itself,  would  have  assumed  human  nature  although  not  in  its 
present  passible  state  ?  So  far  as  we  can  judge  there  is  no  like- 
lihood that  a  genius  will  arise  who  will  be  able  to  excogitate  some 
conclusive  argument  which  has  hitherto  escaped  the  ingenuity  or 
wisdom  of  all  preceding  theologians  respecting  either  of  these  two 
questions. 

The  differences  which  divide  Christendom  are  far  greater  and 
niore  radical  than  these.      Nevertheless,  I  think  that  if  we  all 
Pursued  the  same  system  and  method,  there  would  be  a  greater 
approximation  to  union  and  certainly  we  should  understand  each 
other  better.   Surely  it  is  good  and  pleasant  for  brethren  to  dwell 
together  in  unity.     In  His  last  address  on  earth  to  His  apostles 
^^iir  Blessed  Lord  ^  exhorted  them  to  union,  and  He  prayed  that 
"^liey  might  be  one  as  He  and  His  heavenly  Father  were  one. 
^X'here  may  be  union  of  hearts  where  there  is  divergence  of  minds; 
l^ut  the  bond  of  perfection  is  strengthened,  drawn  together  more 
^^losely  and  made  more  secure  where  there  is  not  only  one  heart 
VDut  also  one  mind.     No  theologian  worthy  of  the  name  in  its 
truest  and  fullest  sense  can  go  his  own  way  through  life  little 
^•ecking  whether  he  agrees  with  others  or  not  in  matters  of  serious 
^noment.    Our  Lord's  prayer  must  have  been  efficacious  not  inas- 
much as  His  heavenly  Father  would  do  violence  to  the  wills  and 
intellects  of  men  and  force  them  to  be  one,  but  in  so  far  as  He 
would  obtain  those  graces  which  would  enable  men  to  be  one 
if  they  chose  to  co-operate  with  them.     Consequently  each  theo- 
logian should  have  at  heart  an  earnest  desire  to  lessen  the  gulf 
which  separates  men,  to  try  to  have  some  common  ground,  to  enter 
into  the  views  of  others,  and  to  see  as  they  see  and  thus  to  under- 
stand them.     I  do  not  entertain  so  idle  a  dream  as  to  fancy 
all  this  will  be  done  by  Scholastic  Theology.    Yet  I  do  think 
that  Scholastic  Theology  will  contribute  its  share  to  that  end,  and 
therefore  I  am  urging  this  plea.     Perhaps  few  indeed  may  have 
the  least  sympathy  with  my  idea,  or  perhaps  still  fewer  may  care 
to  put  it  into  execution.     Nevertheless,  when  we  imagine  we  see 

*  John  xvii  a  a. 


l88         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

a  remedy,  however  inadequate,  to  bring  men's  minds  together, 
we  should  not  refrain  from  pleading  its  cause  and  urging  its 
acceptance.  Unfortunately  the  disunion  of  Christendom  may 
continue  for  long  weary  yeairs.  Scandals  must  needs  come  ^ ; 
ravening  wolves  will  enter  in  among  us,  not  sparing  the  flock  * ; 
and  of  our  own  selves  shall  arise  men  speaking  perverse  things  to 
draw  away  disciples  after  them  ;  there  must  be  schisms  amongst 
us  and  there  must  be  heresies^.  But  each  man  who  has  the 
welfare  of  Christ's  Mystical  Body  at  heart  should  labour  strenu- 
ously, unceasingly,  and  courageously  to  heal  the  wounds  of 
Christendom  so  far  as  it  is  given  him  to  do.  He  must  sanctify 
himself  and  he  must  pray ;  but  also  he  must  act  so  as  to  affect 
directly  his  fellow  men.  Action  may  be  manifold,  and  I  humbly 
suggest  that  one  phase  of  it  may  be  the  cultivation  and  promotion 
of  Scholastic  Theology  by  men  of  intellectual  aptitude  and  apos- 
tolic zeal. 

J.  O'Fallon  Pope.  SJ. 

*  Matt  xviii  7.  *  Acts  xx  39.  *  x  Cor.  xi  19. 


i89 


THE  GREEK  MONASTERIES  IN  SOUTH 
ITALY.     IV. 

THE  LIBRARIES  OF  THE  BASILIAN   MONASTERIES. 

It  has  been  shewn  that  Nilus  of  Rossano  and  his  followers  were 
skilful  scribes  and  energetic  students,  though  it  is  doubtful  if  as 
much  can  be  said  of  the  other  Greek  monks  of  South  Italy  at 
that  period. 

In  the  Norman  period  this  literary  spirit  was  kept  up,  and 
considerable  libraries  were  founded  in  several  monasteries.     The 
chief  ones  were  of  course  in  those  monasteries  which  were  the 
largest  and  richest.     We  cannot  trace  the  fortunes  of  them  all, 
hut  we  can  piece  together  the  outlines  of  the  history  of  the 
libraries  of  S.  Nicholas  of  Casola,  and  of  S.  Mary's  of  Patira  from 
their  beginning  up  to  their  dispersal,  and  we  meet  with  other 
h*braries  at  later  points  in  their  history,  though  we  have  no  definite 
infomiation  as  to  the  way  in  which  they  were  collected. 
The  points,  then,  which  call  for  consideration  are : — 
(i)  The  History  of  the  Foundation  of  the  Libraries, 
(a)  The  Character  of  the  Handwriting  employed  in  the  various 
Scriptoria, 
(3)  The  History  of  the  Dispersal  of  the  Libraries. 
These  three  points  must  be  dealt  with  in  order, 
(i)  The  History  of  the  Foundation  of  the  Libraries.    As  was 
said  above,  we  have  no  knowledge  on  this  point  except  so  far 
as  the  libraries  of  S.  Nicholas  of  Casola  and  S.  Mary  of  Patira 
are  concerned. 

The  history  of  the  foundation  and  prosperous  period  of  the 
library  of  S.  Nicholas  of  Casola  is  as  follows. 

It  was  founded  by  Nicholas  of  Otranto,  the  third  abbot,  who 
ruled  the  convent  from  1153-J190.  De  Ferrariis  tells  us  that 
Nicholas  collected  MSS  from  every  part  of  Greece,  and  spared 


jgO  THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


no  cxpcrwc  to  obtain  a  fine  library.  He  also  encouraged  the 
monks  in  the  monastery  to  add  to  the  collection  which  he  formed. 
Thij  \a  shewn  from  his  Typk(m  in  the  Turin  MS  (217  b,  iii  27), 
which  iccms  to  have  been  especially  designed  to  encourage 
the  literary  spirit  and  the  careful  preservation  of  the  library*, 
I'coancc  is  enacted  for  any  one  who  borrowed  a  book  and  left 
it  open-  Severe  penalties  were  to  be  inflicted  on  a  careless 
scribe  who  did  not  copy  accurately,  who  dirtied  his  exemplar, 
or  broke  his  pen.  Gossiping  in  the  library  was  especially  for- 
bidden, and  when  at  the  close  of  the  day  the  monks  retired  to  _ 
their  cells,  they  were  bidden  to  read,  or  else  weep  for  their  sins.      I 

The  Turin  MS  also  gives  us  some  idea  of  the  contents  of  the 
librury,  though  not  a  complete  catalogue.  Gospels,  Psalters,  and 
liturgical  books  aitrthe  chief  works  mentioned,  but  there  were 
also  copies  of  Aristotle  and  Aristophanes*,  while  it  is  probable 
that  it  was  from  this  source  that  Bessarion  obtained  his  copy  of  ■ 
Quintus  Caiab^r^  and  of  the  Rape  of  HcUn,  \ 

The  library  so  richly  endowed  naturally  became  a  centre  of 
Greek  learning.  *  Whoever  ^ ',  says  De  Ferrariis,  *  wished  to  work 
It  Greek  literature,  was  given  teachers,  lodgings,  and  the  greater 
ptrt  of  his  board  without  any  payment/  More  than  this,  it  was 
a  lending  library  for  students  in  the  district.  The  Turin  MS  is 
ftiU  of  notes  which  mention  that  MSS  have  been  lent  to  vmrioi» 
strangers.  These  notes  have  been  collated  by  P.  Cooza  Lttti. 
who  gave  his  translatioQ  to  Mgr.  BatiffoL  It  is  to  be  knad  m 
the  latter's  LAUmft  tk  Rdssmnf,  p.  125*  Such  is  the  higHary  of 
tha  foundation  of  the  library  of  S.  Nicholas  of  Casob,  ux^  of  tbe 
days  of  its  (prosperity. 

TIm  history  of  the  library  of  S.  Mary  of  Patira  b  staSSar^hm, 
loempt  for  its  Ibwidatioa  less  well  pceserved.  It  was  fondod  h^ 
BaitlMloflMW^  lopsllier  with  the  mooastery,  for, 
Hm  omits  bad  MA  a  sMffidency  of  MSS  of  the 

to  CoBstandaofile  aod  aaade  a  ooQectios  oC  MSS 

It  »  pcfbaps  not  too  kazardoas  to  goess  thift  be 

Ibe  piwpfe  aad  sQ^cr  ihmhii  liiii  of  tbe  Goapds  k 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH    ITALY      191 

as  2,  one  of  a  group  of  MSS  of  the  sixth  century  which  includes 
also  N,  N„  *,  and  is  generally  held  to  come  from  Constantinople  *. 
This  is  all  that  is  known  of  the  foundation  of  this  monastery,  and 
we  have  no  knowledge  of  its  further  history  until  the  time  of  its 
dispersal  in  the  sixteenth  century.  It  may  have  been — probably 
it  was — a  centre  of  learning  for  the  r^ion  of  Sila,  as  S.  Nicholas 
of  Casola  was  for  the  district  of  Otranto  and  the  heel  of  Italy 
generally,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  fact,  nor  have  we  until 
a  late  period  any  knowledge  of  its  contents. 

This  information  about  the  foundation  of  the  Greek  libraries 
of  South  Italy  is  not  very  great  (and  it  only  concerns  two  monas- 
teries) ;  but  it  is  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  lay  down  the  general 
proposition  that  their  foundation  was  due  partly  to  the  multiplica- 
tion of  manuscripts  by  native  scribes,  and  partly  to  the  importa- 
tion of  MSS  from  other  parts  of  the  Levant,  especially  perhaps 
from  Constantinople. 

It  is  a  possible  conjecture  that  the  latter  cause  operated 
especially  in  the  case  of  the  monasteries  dealt  with  above,  and 
perhaps  this  is  supported  by  the  fact,  which  is  shewn  in  the  next 
section,  that  the  scribes  of  Rossano  and  Casola  used  to  copy  the 
style  of  the  Constantinopolitan  writers  rather  than  the  school  of 
calligraphy  already  existing  in  South  Italy. 

(a)  The  Handwriting  employed  in  the  various  Scriptoria, 
I  have  already  mentioned  that  Nilus  and  his  friends  adopted 
a  style  of  handwriting  which  was  influenced  by  the  Lombardic 
or  Beneventine  type  of  Latin  manuscripts.  It  would  be  natural 
to  expect  that  this  type  of  handwriting  should  be  found  in  the 
manuscripts  written  in  the  Basilian  monasteries  of  South  Italy 
in  the  following  centuries.  This  expectation  is  partly  fulfilled, 
partly  falsified. 

It  IS  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  MSS  which  come  from  monasteries 
which  were  not  under  the  direct  influence  of  Bartholomew  and 
his  friends ;  it  is  largely  falsified  in  the  case  of  MSS  which  come 
from  the  libraries  which  he  founded. 

Mgr.  Batiffol  ^  is  the  chief  source  of  information  on  this  point, 

'  See  Codex  Purpureas  Petropolitanus  by  A.  £.  Cronin  in  Ttxts  and  Siudita^ 
a  paper  on  Codex  Rossanensis  (Z)  in  Studia  BiblicOy  and  a  note  on  N,  (Par.  Gr. 
Su|^L  1386)  in  NoHcts  tt  Extraits  Tom.  xxxvi  by  M.  Omont 

*  VAbbaytde  Rossano  p.  93  ff. 


192         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


though  he  does  not  point  out  the  importance  of  the  facts  wl 
he  gives. 

He  quotes  twenty-three  MSS  of  the  Norman  period.  Of 
these  he  finds  the  Greco-Lombard  or,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  the 
hand  of  the  school  of  Nilus,  in  Cod.  Vat.  Gr.  5008,  and  in  Cod. 
NeapoL  II  c.  7,  which  were  written  at  S.  John  the  Reaper,  of 
Stilo,  in  1102  and  1159  respectively ;  also  in  Cod.  Vat.  Gr.  2029, 
which  was  written  at  S.  Elias  of  Carbo  in  1083  (and  there  are 
traces,  though  less  obvious,  of  the  same  type  in  Cod,  Crypt. 
A.  B.  10,  written  by  Euthymius  at  Carbo  in  1131);  also  La 
Cod.  Vat.  Gr.  1221,  which  was  written  in  1154  for  the  Abbot 
of  S.  Mary  de  Carra  (KepaTtav)  near  Stilo.  That  is  to  say,  at 
Carbo,  at  Stilo,  and  at  S.  Mary's  de  Carra  near  Stilo  we  have  the 
calligraphy  of  the  school  of  Nilus;  but  in  the  other  monasteries, 
S.  Mary's  of  Patira,  its  sister  foundation  S.  Salvator  of  Messina, 
at  S.  Nicolas  of  Casola,  and  at  S.  Peter's  of  Arena,  this  type 
of  handwriting  does  not  make  its  appearance.  Instead  of  it  we 
have  an  imitation  of  the  ordinary  Constant! nopolitan  hand  and 
style  of  ornamentation.  This  is  surely  to  be  attributed  to  the 
influence  of  the  importations  by  Bartholomew  and  probably 
Nicholas,  which  set  the  fashion  to  the  scribes. 

Such  a  theory  b,  of  course,  at  present  only  a  speculation  ;  but 
it  seems  to  be  that  which  is  naturally  suggested  by  the  facts. 
If  it  be  supported  by  future  investigation  it  is  not  without 
importance,  for  there  are  many  MSS  of  the  twelfth  century 
written  in  the  hand  of  the  school  of  Nilus  which  are  without 
any  notes  fixing  their  provenance.  If  we  could  say  with  certainty 
that  these  manuscripts  come  from  Carbo,  or  Stilo,  or  some  smaller 
house  dependent  on  them,  the  gain  to  our  knowledge  would  be 
considerable.  It  wouldj  for  instance,  be  a  most  valuable  factor 
in  determining  the  provenance  of  the  Ferrar  group,  all  of  which 
are  written  in  this  style  of  hand,  except  Cod.  69,  which  is  later 
than  the  others'. 

Whether  it  will  ever  be  possible  to  distingtjish  from  Byzantine 
copies  the  MSS  written  in  imitation  of  the  Constantinopolitan 
hand,  is  a  more  doubtful  question.  In  some  cases  probably  it 
will  be ;   for  the  scribe  is  clearly  copying  a  type  of  MS  which 

»  Codd.  Ev»n.  13,  134,  69,  346,  543,  788,  8a^,  828.  v.  L'Abb*  Martin  ^na^v 
ivtss.  imftorianiSt  and  Rendel  Hairis  Research^  into  tkt  Origm  o/tk*  Femr  Crotp, 


I 


I 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY      I93 

is  not  his  own,  and  writes  much  worse  than  the  true  Byzantine. 
For  instance,  no  one  could  possibly  mistake  Cod.  Laur.  Athous 
IQ4  for  a  B3rzantine  MS,  even  if  the  pictures  in  it  did  not  betray 
It  ^ ;  yet  it  would  be  hard  to  mention  any  single  detail  in  which  it 
difTers  from  a  MS  from  Constantinople.  On  the  other  hand, 
I  have  seen  many  MSS  at  Messina  and  in  the  Basilian  collection 
in  the  Vatican  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  surpass  for 
elegance  and  beauty.  Are  these  all  importations?  At  present 
it  is  impossible  to  say,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  the 
question  should  remain  permanently  unanswerable. 

(3)  Tke  History  of  the  Dispersal  of  the  Libraries,  There 
is  little  doubt  that  for  many  years  before  the  dispersal  of  the 
libraries  there  was  a  continual  small  waste  of  manuscripts, 
which  were  sold  to  collectors  for  inadequate  sums,  much  as 
manuscripts  on  Mount  Athos  or  Mount  Sinai  were  sold  (if  they 
were  even  sold!)  to  Curzon  and  Tischendorf;  but  this  is  a  pro- 
cess which  it  is  almost  impossible  to  trace,  except  by  some  lucky 
accident.  The  dispersals  of  MSS  which  are  important,  and  which 
one  ought  to  be  able  to  trace,  are  those  which  are  made  en  bloc^ 
or  in  considerable  numbers  at  a  time. 

The  first  person  who  seems  to  have  recognized  that  it  would 
be  well  to  acquire  and  remove  the  libraries  in  South  Italy  was 
Cardinal  Bessarion. 

According  to  Valentinelli,the  historian  of  the  BibliotecaMarciana 
at  Venice,  he  acquired  almost  the  whole  of  the  library  of 
S.  Nicholas  of  Casola  about  the  year  1460,  and  made  it  the 
nucleus  of  the  magnificent  collection  of  Greek  MSS  which  he 
left  to  S.  Mark's.  The  remainder  of  the  library  of  S.  Nicholas 
was  destroyed  by  the  Turks  in  1481,  when  they  sacked  the 
monastery.  The  whole  therefore  of  the  library  of  S.  Nicholas, 
80  far  as  it  exists  at  all,  is  still  to  be  found  at  S.  Mark's,  for 
the  Marciana  has  never  been  dispersed.  At  the  same  time  it 
must  be  remembered  that  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  library  of 
S.  Mark's  was  very  carelessly  managed,  and  many  of  Bessarion's 
MSS  disappeared.  A  threat  of  excommunication  obtained  the 
restitution  of  many  of  them,  but  some,  no  doubt,  of  the  volumes 
were  never  returned,  and  must  be  sought  for  in  other  libraries. 
An  account  of  the  matter  and  its  connexion  with  Mendoza  is 

'  Cod  Evmn.  1071,  v.  /.  T,  S,  vol.  i  no.  3.  Tht  Italian  origin  ofCodix  BeMU. 
VOL.  V.  O 


194         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


to  be  found  in  Ch,  Graux's  Essai  sur  les  origines  dufandsgr^ 

de  lEscuriai^,  p.  183. 

The  reconstruction  of  the  catalogue  of  the  library  of  S.  Nicholas 
has  never  been  seriously  attempted ;  but  I  see  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  made  with,  at  least,  the  same  degree  of  partial 
success  that  has  attended  Mgr.  Batiflfors  efforts  in  the  case  of 
the  library  of  S.  Mary  of  Patira  at  Rossano.  J 

It  would  be  necessary  first  to  make  a  list  '^  of  all  the  books  ■ 
mentioned  in  the  Turin  MS,  and  then  to  examine  Bcssarion's  MSS 
at  Venice.  I  cannot  believe  that  there  are  no  notes  in  any  of 
the  Casola  MSS  which  would  betray  their  origin.  A  library 
which  was  used  for  working  in  must  have  had  some  system 
of  numeration,  and  this  has  surely  left  some  traces  behind.  Even 
if  the  name  of  the  monastery  were  not  found,  the  task  would 
not  be  necessarily  hopeless.  For  instance,  there  is  only  one 
vellum  ^  MS  of  Aristophanes  in  the  Bessarion  collection.  It 
is  an  obvious  conjecture  to  suggest  that  this  is  the  Aristophanes 
which  was  at  S.  Nicholas  of  Casola.  Once  a  start  was  made  in 
this  way,  it  would  be  possible  to  do  more ;  identity  of  hand- 
writing, peculfarities  of  numbering  and  arrangement  of  quaternions, 
and  many  apparently  insignificant  details,  would  soon  begin  to 
assume  importance  and  intelligibility. 

Such  work  has  been  done  with  some  success  for  the  Laudian 
collection  of  Latin  MSS  in  the  Bodleian  Library  ;  why  could  it 
not  be  done  for  the  Bessarion  MSS  from  S.  Nicholas  of  Casola 
in  the  Biblioteca  Marciana? 

In  the  fifteenth  century,  then,  the  library  of  S.  Nicholas  of 
Casola  was  taken  to  Venice,  and  must  be  looked  for  in  the 
Biblioteca  Marciana. 

The  other  libraries  of  South  Italy  waited  until  the  seventeenth 
century  before  they  were  bodily  removed  to  more  cultivated 
surroundings ;  but  during  the  intervening  period,  they  were 
gradually  being  dissipated  and  absorbed  into  other  collections. 
It  was  the  time  when  various  great  libraries  were  being  founded. 
Lorenzo  the  Magnificent,  the  King  of  France,  Cardinal  Sirleto, 

*  Bihlioihiqiu  dt  VEcol*  da  Hauies  Eludts  fasc  46. 

'  I  am  not  sure  whether  the  list  given  in  UAbbayt  d*  RossaPto  p.  125  f  is 
exhaustive  ;  I  believe  that  it  is  not 

^  Recently  published  by  the  HcUeoic  Society,  with  an  introduction  by  Mr.  T.  W. 
Allen. 


THE  GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY      195 

toi^o  de  Mendoza,  Paez  de  Castro,  and  others,  were  collectii^ 
MSS.  The  last-named  has  left  an  interesting  account,  written 
a,bout  1560,  of  the  way  in  which  the  collections  were  made  ^ : — 

'Tres  pla9as  principales  ay  en  Italia,  de  donde  han  salida 
muchas  librerias,  assi  la  del  Rey  de  Francia  como  de  otros,  que 
son  Roma,  Venezia  y  Florencia.  De  Levante  se  traian  mui 
buenos  libros  mui  escogidos  en  poco  tiempo.  En  los  reynos 
de  Sicilia  y  Calabria  ay  muchas  abadias  y  monasterios  que 
traian  copia  grande  de  libros  griegos  y  no  se  aprovechan 
d'ellos,  antes  se  pierden  por  mal  tratamiento  y  se  roban  de 
personas  particulares.  Yo  vi,  estando  en  Roma,  que  los  mesmos 
-Abades  y  Archimandritas  traian  muchos  libros  a  presentar  a 
Cardenales  y  otros  a  vender/ 

It  is  impossible  to  do  more  than  collect  a  few  scattered  traces 

of  this  process  of  collection  from  the  South  Italian  libraries  ;  but 

these  few  are  enough  to  shew  to  what  an  extent  the  libraries 

of  Europe,  especially  of  Italy  and  Spain,  have  been  indebted  to 

Calabria  and  the  adjoining  districts. 

Perhaps  the  earliest  account  which  we  have  is  the  story  of 
Janos  Lascaris,  who  was  employed  by  Lorenzo  the  Magnificent 
to  collect  manuscripts  for  the  Medicean  library  at  Florence. 

Lascaris  was  a  follower  of  Bessarion  who  entered  the  service 
of  Lorenzo  at  the  Cardinal's  death  in  1472.  He  was  brought 
to  Rome  by  Leo  X  in  151 3,  and  in  151 8  went  to  Paris,  where 
he  assisted  in  the  organization  of  the  library  at  Fontainebleau, 
being  appointed  Maitre  de  la  Librairie.  In  1534  he  returned  to 
Rome,  to  the  service  of  Paul  III,  and  died  in  1535.  He  used 
to  make  journeys  to  Calabria,  Sicily,  and  Greece  in  search  of  MSS  ; 
and  by  great  good  fortune  a  partial  account  of  one  of  these 
journeys  is  preserved  in  Cod.  Vat.  Gr.  141a.  This  has  been 
published  in  1884  by  K.  K.  Miiller  in  the  Ceniralblatt  fur 
Bibliothekswesen  p.  '^'^i  ff.  It  gives  us  an  account  of  a  journey 
made  on  behalf  of  Lorenzo,  during  which  he  went  to  Corfu, 
Thessalonica,  Constantinople,  Mount  Athos,  and  South  Italy  * ; 
and  he  mentions  that  in  Apulia  he  obtained  MSS  of  Scholia 
on  the  division  of  the  Staseis  (long  lections  of  the  Psalms  and 
Gospels),  ancient  Scholia  on  certain  tragedies  of  Euripides^ 
on  Hermes  Trismegistos,  and  fourteen  others. 

'  Lt  funds  grte  dt  rEscurial  1^.  38.  '  Op,  cit,  p.  40a. 

O  2 


196         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


In  Congliano^  he  obtained  frofn  the  priest  George  copies  ol 
the  Mc^um  Etymologicum,  of  the  writings  of  Nicholas  of  Otranto, 
of  Coluthus's  Rape  of  Hikn,  of  Tniphi'dorus's  Sack  of  Trey,  and 
three  others ;  while  at  Monte  Sardo,  a  dependency  of  S,  Nicholas 
of  Casola,  which  was  no  doobt  impoverished  by  the  loss  of  the 
great  abbey,  recently  destroyed  by  the  Turks^  he  obtained  eight 
MSS,  including  copies  of  Aratus  and  Aristotle.  J 

This  collecting  work  of  Lascaris  for  Lorenzo  is  no  doubt 
t3^ical  of  many  other  journeys  by  himself  and  by  others ;  and 
Paez  de  Castro*,  in  the  memorial  quoted  above,  urges  Philip  II 
of  Spain  to  send  agents  to  Italy  to  exchange  Latin  printed  books 
for  Greek  MSS,  a  transaction,  he  says,  which  would  be  good  for 
all  parties,  and  a  great  saving  of  money.  He  does  not  say 
anything  about  exchanging  Latin  MSS ;  but  one  cannot  help 
thinking  that  it  was  in  this  way  that  Cod.  C  of  the  Vulgate, 
which  was  written  in  Spain,  came  to  La  Cava,  though  it  is  so 
beautiful  a  copy  that  one  is  afraid  to  press  the  suggestion  that 
any  collector  would  give  it  in  exchange. 

Probably  Paez  de  Castro  was  not  speaking  without  the  know*  I 
ledge  that  a  Spanish  collector  had  already  done  what  he  advised. 

The  earliest  source  of  the  Escurial  library  is  the  collectioa 
of  Gonzalo  Perez,  which  was  acquired  by  the  king.  Ajitonio 
Perez  °*  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  says  that  this  collection  was  partly 
inherited  from  the  Duke  of  Calabria  who  died  at  Valencia : .  . , 
'  Otra  parte  era  de  libros  de  mano  griegos  muy  antiguos  que  mi 
padre  fu^  recogiendo  en  su  vida  y  en  e!  curso  de  su  fortuna  de 
abadias  de  Sicilia  y  de  otras  partes  de  Grecia.'  ■ 

M.  Ch.  Graux  has  been  unable  to  reconstruct  the  library  of  1 
Gonzalo  Perez,  but  he  points  out  six  MSS  in  the  Escurial  which 
probably  belonged  to  it  *,  of  which  one  (11  III  4)  comes  from 
Messina,  and  was  written  by  a  native  of  KaorAXou,  which  is  more 
probably  a  Sicilian  or  Calabrian  village  than  Castile  (as  M.  Graux  I 
suggests),  and  another  (<I>  I  i)  at  least  came  to  Spain  from  a 
Calabrian  library-  It  is  a  MS  of  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century, 
and  has  a  note  in  Latin  of  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century 
which  mentions  an  abbot  *de  Calabra',  M.  Graux  thinks  that 
this  is  a  mistake  for  de  Calabria.     I  suggest  that  it  is  a  village 


»  Op,  cU.  p.  403. 
*  ibid,  p,  34,  note  1. 


*  Ltfondi  grtc  de  t Escurial  p.  i8, 

*  ibid.  p.  38. 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH    ITALY      197 


h 


named  Cakbra  in  the  Basilicata,  which  is  oflen  meationed  in  the 
charters  of  S.  Elias  of  Carbo. 

These  are  the  only  MSS  which  M.  Graux  notices  as  certainly 
drawn  from  the  libraries  of  South  Italy.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  an  examination  of  the  Escurial  with  attention  to 
palaeography,  and  especially  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  School 
of  Nilus,  would  add  to  the  number. 

The  work  of  collecting  MSS  from  South  Italy  also  went  on 
in  Venice.  The  great  collectors  here  were  the  Dandolos,  The 
X)andolos  were  the  hereditary  'proxeni  '^  of  the  French  ambas- 
sador, and  were  famous  for  their  wealth,  influence,  and  culture, 
Marco  appears  to  have  begun  the  foundation  of  a  library  of  Greek 
MSS,  and  Matteo  greatly  enriched  it.  One  would  have  expected 
this  library  to  contain  MSS  from  South  Italy;  and  although 
M,  Graux  does  not  mention  any,  it  is  almost  certain  that  this 
expectation  is  not  falsified  by  facts,  for  both  the  MSS  of  the 
Gospels,  which  were  numbered  79  and  89  (or  80)  in  his  catalogue, 
now  numbered  ^  m,  5  and  T  11,  8^  in  the  EscuriaJ,  contained 
the  curious  stichometrical  reckoning  known  as  pif^ara,  which  so 
far  as  is  known  is  not  found  except  in  South  Italian  MSS.  It 
is  found  in  twenty-three  MSS,  of  which  thirteen  are  in  the  hand 
of  the  School  of  Nilus,  while  the  rest,  so  far  as  they  have  been 
examined,  are  of  doubtful  type,  but  cannot  be  said  to  be  not 
South  Italian,  This  gives,  in  the  absence  of  more  definite  infor- 
mation, considerable  support  to  the  probability  that  the  Dandolos 
drew  on  the  libraries  of  South  Italy  for  their  collection  of  Greek 
MSS. 

One  would  have  expected  the  Dandolo  library  to  be  in  S.  Mark's* 
But  it  is  not.  At  some  unknown  date  it  was  purchased  for  the 
Escurial,  where  it  still  is.  M.  Graux  has  reconstructed  it,  on 
p.  109  of  his  book. 

In  this  way  MSS  from  South  Italy  were  taken  to  the  Escurial, 
to  Florence,  and  to  Venice.  As  one  would  naturally  expect, 
they  were  also   brought  to  Rome^.     Cardinal  Sirleto  in  1561 

*  Lt  fonda  grtc  dt  tEscuriai  p.  135, 

'  There  is  some  mystery  about  this  MS.  M.  Graux  says  it  is  Dan  dole's  89 
and  that  80  is  lost  ;  but  Moldenhauerj  who  collated  parts  of  it,  says  it  is  80.  Again, 
11.  Graux  says  that  it  is  thirteenth  ceotury  aad  contains  the  writings  of  Basil,  Is  it 
potsible  that  there  arc  two  MSS  Durabcrcd  V,  ji  8? 

«  BatiSbl  La  VaiicaH4  d*  Paul  III  tt  Paul  V^  and  LAbboy*  dt  RossaHO  p.  40. 


198         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

obtained  a  catalogue  of  the  MSS  at  S,  Mary's  of  Patira  (now  unfor- 
tunately lost)j  and  as  he  was  then  the  Protector  of  the  Basiliaoi 
monks  he  had  no  difficulty  in  bringing  or  taking  any  volunti^ 
which  he  wanted.  For  instance,  in  1583  he  mentions  that  there 
is  at  S.  Mary's  of  Patira  a  copy  of  Hippolytus's  tract  against 
Noetus  the  heretic  ^  Three  years  later  this  MS  was  in  SirIeto*« 
possession,  and  is  now  in  the  Vatican  (Cod.  143 1). 

Gradually  the  cardinal  obtained  a  fine  collection  *.  He  em- 
ployed agents  all  over  the  Levant,  and  even  supplied  them  with 
lists  of  MSS  which  he  desired  to  possess.  He  was  not  the  only 
collector  in  Rome  whose  collection  can  still  be  roughly  traced ; 
but  before  going  on  to  consider  another  eminent  bibliophile  it  will 
be  well  to  trace  the  outlines  of  the  history  of  Sirleto  s  collection  \ 

At  his  death  Philip  H  wished  to  boy  his  library  en  bioc  for 
the  Escurial,  just  as  he  bought  the  collection  of  Gonzalo  PereZj^ 
and  his  offer  (289  crowns  for  ninety-one  MSS)  is  preserved  m 
Cod.  Barber,  xxxiv,  107 ;  but  the  transaction  was  prevented  by 
the  Vatican  librarian  Cardinal  Carafa,  who  bought  thirty-five 
selected  MSS.  These  are  all  marked  '  Emptum  ex  Hbris  Car^ 
dtnalis  Sirleti*,  and  two  at  least  come  from  S.  Mary's  of  Patira*: 
(i)  Cod.  Vat.  Gr.  1451,  a  collection  of  canons,  made  according 
to  Mai  by  a  Monophysite^  and  containing  the  tract  of  Hippolytus 
against  Noetus.  This  is  a  MS  of  the  twelfth  century.  (2)  Cod. 
Vat.  Gr,  1456,  a  palimpsest  of  the  tenth  century,  containing  the 
Onomastkon  of  Eusebius.  \ 

The  rest  of  the  library  was  bought  in  1588  by  Cardinal  Colonna 
for  14,000  crowns.  At  his  death  a  lawsuit  led  to  the  sale  of  his 
library,  which  was  bought  by  Duke  Altemps  in  1611  for  13,000 
crowns,  but  lOO  MSS  were  given  by  him  to  Pope  Paul  V.  ■ 

Fifty  years  later  the  Altemps  family  began  to  sell  the  library, 
and  many  MSS  were  bought  by  Mabillon  for  the  library  of 
Louis  XIV.  I  do  not  know  whether  these  MSS  have  beeiij 
traced  ;  they  may  perhaps  be  identified,  among  other  things,  by 
the  binding,  boards  of  cypress  wood  stamped  with  the  arms  of 
the  Altemps,  a  golden  stag  on  a  red  field,  surmounted  by  a* 
crowned  helmet. 

In  1689  Pope  Alexander  VIII  purchased  the  remainder  of  the, 


La  Vuiicant  p.  54. 
*6*rf.  p.  5  a  fll 


»  U>id,  p.  38  f. 
*  ibid,  p,  53  f. 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN   SOUTH   ITALY        I99 

collection  and  placed  it  in  the  palace  of  the  Ottoboni,  where  it 
remained  until  1740^  when  Benedict  XIV  bought  the  whole  of 
the  Ottobonian  library. 

Thus,  after  so  many  changes  of  ownership,  the  Sirleto  MSS 
came  into  the  Vatican  library  and  joined  the  thirty-five  selected 
MSS  which  had  been  already  brought  there  by  Cardinal  Carafa. 
We  may  therefore  expect  to  find  a  considerable  number  of  South 
Italian  MSS  among  the  Ottobonian  MSS  *  in  the  Vatican. 

To  return  to  the  sixteenth  century:  when  Cardinal  Sirleto* 
was  the  General  of  the  Basilian  Order,  his  friend.  Cardinal  Alex- 
ander Farnese,  was  the  commendatory  abbot  of  Grotta  Ferrata. 
Like  Sirleto  he  was  an  ardent  Hellenist,  and  he  set  to  work  to 
replenish  the  library  of  his  monastery. 

It  is  probable  that  the  original  library  of  Grotta  Ferrata  had 
almost  disappeared  by  the  fifteenth  century.  In  1432  a  certain 
Ambrose  ^  says  that  he  visited  it  and  found  the  books  in  it  *  dis- 
sipata,  disrupta,  conscissa,  putrida,  ut  miserabilem  omnem  faciem 
praeferrent  *. 

Bessarion,  who  was  commendatory  abbot  in  1462,  seems  to 
have  improved  matters,  and  given  it  many  MSS  ;  and  according 
to  the  catalogue  of  that  year,  published  by  Mgr.  BatifTol  *,  the 
library  now  numbered  133  MSS,  of  which  twenty  probably 
belonged  to  the  original  collection  and  about  fifty  were  service- 
books.  Alexander  Farnese  still  further  added  to  the  library,  and 
had  a  new  catalogue  made.  It  was  practically  the  second  collec- 
tion of  Grotta  Ferrata.  But  we  must  not  look  for  it  now  in  its 
old  home.  Probably  in  the  days  of  Pius  V,  or  at  least  before 
1626,  the  whole  collection  of  literary  MSS,  together  with  the 
catalogue  made  in  1575,  was  moved  to  the  Vatican,  where  it 
forms  a  little  group  of  MSS  known  as  Codices  Cryptenses — not 
to  be  confounded  with  the  Codices  Cryptenses  of  Dom  Rocchi*s 
catalogue  of  the  present  library  of  Grotta  Ferrata.  Here,  then, 
is  another  source  from  which  we  may  pick  out  South  Italian 
MSS.  It  is  the  last  of  what  may  be  called  the  private  collections 
which  drew  upon  the  South  Italian  libraries. 

Bessarion,    Gonzalo    de    Perez,    Lascaris,    Dandolo,    Sirleto, 

^  Mgr.  Batiflbl  has  found  at  least  two,  Ottob.  178  and  Ottob.  210. 

'  VAbb€^  de  Rassano  p.  40.  *  La  VoHctmi  p.  105. 

*  LAbbayt  de  Rassano  p.  118. 


200         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Mabillon,  Alexander  Farnese,  these  are  the  chief  collectors  whose 
work  may  perhaps  be  retraced ;  but  there  were  doubtless  many 
others,  and  by  their  means  it  has  come  to  pass  that  South  Italian 
MSS  are  to  be  found  all  over  Europe- 

But  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  a  new  and  final  stage 
in  the  dispersal  of  the  libraries  was  reached,  and  the  whole  of  the 
remaining  MSS  were  overhauled  and  made  into  four  great  collec- 
tions. 

This  was  the  work  of  Pietro  Menniti  ^  He  was  elected  General 
of  the  Basilians  in  1796,  and  at  once  began  his  work. 

He  first  desired  to  form  a  Codex  Diplontaticus  of  the  Basilian 
Order,  and  though  he  did  not  succeed  in  doing  this  he  has  left 
a  mass  of  material  in  the  Dossier  Basiliani  in  the  archives  of  the 
Vatican,  which  is  unedited,  but  has  been  extensively  used  by 
Mgr.  Batiffol. 

In  pursuit  of  his  plan  he  collected  all  the  bulls  and  charters  of 
South  Italy  and  Sicily  into  the  libraries  of  S,  Basil  in  Urbe  (a 
foundation  of  the  seventeenth  century)  in  Rome,  and  S,  Salvator's 
at  Messina.  He  then  turned  to  MSS,  as  distinguished  from 
charters.  These  he  dealt  with  under  two  heads:  (i)  Liturgical 
books,  (2)  Literary  books.  Those,  of  both  classes,  which  he 
found  in  Sicily,  were  collected  into  the  libraries  of  S.  Salvator 
and  S,  Pietro  d'ltala.  Those  which  he  found  in  Italy  were  placed 
either  at  Grotta  Ferrata  or  in  S.  Basil  in  Urbe.  The  former 
library  received  the  liturgical  works,  the  latter  the  literary  ones. 

There  are  two  questions  which  are  important  with  regard  to 
these  collections  of  South  Italian  MSS  :— 

(1)  From  what  monasteries  are  they  drawn? 

(2)  Where  are  they  to  be  found  now  ? 

The  first  question  is  answered  by  Mgr.  Batiffol  in  his 
L'Abbaye  de  Rossano.  He  finds  that  the  bulk  of  the  MSS  come 
from  S.  Mary  of  Patira  and  S.  Elias  of  Carbo  ;  that  there  are  a 
few  taken  from  S.  John  the  Reaper  of  Stilo,  S.  Adrian,  S*  Pietro 
d'Arena,  and  S.  Bartholomew  of  Trigona ;  the  remaining  monas- 
teries probably  had  none  to  supply,  and  cannot  be  shewn  to  have 
supplied  any. 

The  second  question  may  be  answered  shortly.  The  MSS 
which  were  sent  to  Grotta  Ferrata  are  still  there — the  third 

^  UAbbayt  de  Rossano  p,  41  ^. 


THE   GREEK   MONASTERIES   IN    SOUTH    ITALY      201 

^il)rary  which  the  monastery  has  possessed ;  for  the  first  almost 

disappeared  and  the  second  was  taken  to  Rome  before  1623, 

^ind  is  now  the  Codices  Cryptenses  in  the  Vatican  library.    The 

AISS  taken  to  S.  Basil  in  Urbe  were  obtained  in  1780  (Mgr. 

'Batiffol  thinks  by  purchase)  by  Pope  Pius  VI,  and  placed  in  the 

Vatican,  where  they  are  catalogued  as  Codices  Basiliani. 

Such  are  the  outlines  of  the  history  of  the  libraries  of  the 
Basilian  monasteries  in  South  Italy. 

The  question  which  is  of  most  interest  to  scholars  is,  whether  it 
is  possible  to  do  anything  towards  reconstructing  the  old  libraries  ? 

I  cannot  believe  that  this  is  at  all  outside  the  bounds  of  possi- 
bilities. The  truth  is  that  our  knowledge  of  Greek  minuscule 
hands  is  not  great,  and  the  attention  which  has  been  given  to  the 
history  of  old  libraries  has  been  often  confined  to  Latin  MSS. 

Roughly  speaking,  there  are  two  criteria  in  attempting  to 
reconstruct  old  libraries,  which  may  be  employed  in  the  absence 
of  definite  information : — 

(i)  The  character  of  the  calligraphy. 

(a)  Indications  o( provenance  in  MSS. 

Much  is  to  be  hoped  from  the  study  of  characteristic  South 
Italian  hands.  It  is  extremely  easy  to  recognize  the  hand  of  the 
School  of  Nilus,  and  this  is  in  itself  enough  for  a  beginning. 

Mgr.  Batiffol  has  established  its  characteristic  nature,  though 
I  think  he  was  wrong  in  connecting  it  with  Capua ;  but  he  only 
noted  it  in  MSS  of  which  he  could  trace  th^  provenance  by  some 
other  means.  Considering  his  purpose,  that  was  both  right  and 
natural ;  but  the  process  can  now  be  reversed,  and  instead  of  using 
the  provenance  to  define  the  calligraphy  of  a  district,  we  can  use 
the  calligraphy  to  determine  t\ic  provenance.  In  this  way,  a  more 
or  less  complete  list  might  be  made  of  all  the  South  Italian  MSS 
in  European  libraries.  It  would  perhaps  be  especially  easy  in 
the  Escurial,  where  we  have  the  researches  of  M.  Graux  to  help  us. 

I  am  sanguine  enough  to  believe  that  the  mere  possession  of 
this  list  would  not  exhaust  the  gain  to  our  knowledge  of  Greek 
palaeography.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  two  Greek  minuscules 
of  the  same  age  are  far  more  like  each  other  than  two  Latin  MSS. 

There  is  some  truth  in  this,  but  to  a  great  extent  it  is  based 
on  ignorance.  It  is  as  easy  to  tell  a  Greek  MS  of  the  School  of 
Nilus  as  it  is  to  tell  a  Latin  MS  by  an  Irish  scribe ;  yet  twenty 


THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


years  ago  nobody  could  do  the  former,  while  there  must  hal 
been  hundreds  of  scholars  who  could  tell  Irish  MSS  when  they 
saw  them. 

Greek  palaeography  has  fallen  behind  Latin,  and  in  some 
respects  we  have  even  lost  knowledge  once  possessed. 

For  instance,  there  was,  it  is  said,  a  Greek  school  for  scribes 
at  Nardo,  in  the  heel  of  Italy,  whose  work,  known  as  literae 
NeritijiLU,  was  described  as  superior  to  print ' :  *  Sunt  enim  hae 
literae  perpulcrae  et  castigatae  et  iis  quibus  nunc  utuntur  impres- 
sores  Orientalibus  ad  Icgendum  aptiorcs,'  says  de  Ferrariis. 
I  have  tried  in  vain  to  find  any  one  who  knows  what  this  hand  is.  ■ 
A  well-known  German  scholar  recently  described  a  MS  as  written  \ 
in  literae  Neritinae ;  but  when  he  was  asked  to  give  his  reasons, 
it  appeared  that  he  had  conceived  literae  Neritinae  out  of  his 
inner  consciousness  of  what  de  Ferrariis  had  meant  I 

I  cannot  resist  the  belief  that  there  is  still  much  to  be  done  in 
the  identification  of  local  Greek  hands,  even  though  we  may  never 
be  able  to  attain  the  degree  of  certainty  which  is  possessed  by 
Latin  scholars ;  and  certainly  one  of  the  ways  by  which  this 
knowledge  may  be  attained  is  by  studying  the  MSS  which  come 
from  the  old  Basilian  foundations  of  South  Italy. 

The  criterion  furnished  by  signs  o{ provenance  h^s  been  already 
used  by  Mgr,  Batiflfol-  to  reconstruct  the  library  of  S*  Mary's 
of  Patira,  and  the  same  scholar  has  given  us  some  invaluable 
material  for  continuing  the  task  which  he  has  begun,  in  the  cata- 
logues %vhich  he  has  found  of  the  libraries  of  S.  Elias  of  Carbo 
and  S.  Peter's  of  Arena. 

It  ought  to  be  possible,  by  using  these  documents  and  the  facts 
which  are  given  above  as  to  the  history  of  the  collections  which 
drew  on  the  libraries  of  South  Italy,  both  to  reconstruct  several 
small  collections  which  are  now  merged  in  the  great  Euroj>can 
libraries,  and  to  find  in  them  the  remains  of  the  once  famous 
libraries  of  the  Basilian  houses*  As  I  said  before^  this  would 
be  a  task  which  would  grow  easier  as  it  advanced  ;  press  marks 
and  other  details  would  become  intelligible,  and  would  help  to  i 
write  what  would  surely  be  an  interesting  chapter  in  the  history 
of  Greek  libraries* 

K.  Lake. 


'  Di  Situ  lopygiae  p.  35. 


*  L^Abhay*  de  Rossatto, 


203 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  TRIENNIAL 
CYCLE  UPON  THE  PSALTER. 

In  Palestine,  in  early  times,  the  Pentateuch  was  read  through 
consecutively  in  a  cycle  of  three  years,  a  portion  {seder)  being 
appointed  for  each  Sabbath  {T,  B,  Meg.  29^  See  article  by 
Dr.  A.  Biichler  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Review  Ap.  1893).  This 
triennial  cycle  may  possibly  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  the 

Table  I. 


lunar  months  would  require  an  intercalated  month  once  every 
three  years  to  reconcile  them  with  the  solar  year. 

We  will  assume,  with  Dr.  Biichler,  that  the  cycle  commenced 
in  the  first  month  {Nisan) ;  it  may  then  be  indicated  by  three 
concentric  circles,  as  in  the  accompanying  diagram,  in  which 


204         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

a  sufficient  number  of  the  Sabbath-readings  are  given  to  shew 
the  arrangement  of  the  whole. 

Thus^ — the  first  year  read  Gen.  i-Ex.  xi. 

the  second  year  read  Ex.  xii-Num.  vi  21. 
the  third  year  read  Num.  vi  aa-Deut  xxxiv. 

The  way  in  which*  the  triennial  cycle  coincides  with  tradition 
is  most  suggestive.     A  few  instances  may  suffice.     Thus : — 

The  first  months  Nisan,  Here  the  first  year  opened  with  Gen.  i, 
the  Creation  of  the  World ;  accordingly  we  find  {Rosk  Hash,  lo**) 
that  the  world  was  created  on  the  Jst  of  Ntsan.  The  Sabbath 
nearest  to  the  Passover  read  the  Sacrifice  of  Cain  and  Abel 
(Gen.  iv),  which  in  Jewish  tradition  (Pirke  R,  Eliezer)  is  associated 
with  the  Passover. 

The  reading  for  Nisan  in  the  second  year  of  the  cycle  was  Ex. 
xii-xv,  i.e.  the  histitution  of  the  Passover  and  the  Song  of  Moses  \ 
accordingly  we  find,  in  the  Mechilta  on  Ex.  xiii,that  the  passage 
through  the  Red  Sea  took  place  on  7th  of  Nisan. 

The  third  year  of  the  triennial  cycle,  for  Nisan  read  Num.  vi 
22  fl",  i.e.  the  Priestly  Blessings  also  the  Offerings  of  the  Princes 
at  the  Dedication  of  the  Tabernacle  (Num.  vii),  and  a  second  Insti- 
tution of  the  Passover  in  the  Wilderness  (Num.  ix  1-14).  This 
last  reading  is  most  interesting,  especially  as  it  would  seem  to  be 
a  later  addition  to  the  Priest-code. 

If  we  study  the  context  we  shall  see  that  the  writer,  P',  goes 
back  to  X\iz  first  month.     Thus : — 

'And  YHVH  spake  unto  Moses  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  in 
the  first  month  of  the  second  year  after  they  were  come  out  from 
the  land  of  Egypt,  saying,  Moreover,  let  the  children  of  Israel 
keep  the  passover  in  its  appointed  season,'  &c.  Thus  he  inter- 
rupts his  story,  which  had  begun  with  the  second  month  (Num.  i 
with  vii  I ,  see  critical  commentaries),  in  order  to  insert  a  passage 
about  the  Passover  in  Nisan.  We  begin  to  suspect  that  the 
arrangement  of  the  documents  in  the  Pentateuch  was  not  alto- 
gether uninfluenced  by  the  Calendar. 

We  now  pass  to  the  second  month. 

The  second  tnonth,  lyar,  P.  tells  us  (Gen.  vii  11)  that,  'in  the 
second  month,  on  the  seventeenth  day  of  tlie  month,  on  this  same 
day  all  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up*  Whence 
did  P.  derive  this  precise  date? 


INFLUENCE  OF  TRIENNIAL  CYCLE  ON  THE  PSALTER    205 


^ 

h 


^ 


^ 


Is  it  a  mere  coincidence  that  Gen.  vll  1 1  is  read  in  the  triennial 
cycle  about  the  seventeenth  day  of  the  second  month  ?  As  on 
the  second  'day'  the  waters  were  divided  from  the  waters  for  man's 
^ood,  so  in  the  second  month  the  waters  are  mingled  with  the 
"waters  for  man's  destruction. 

TA€  third  month,  Sivan.  The  Feast  of  Pentecost  usually 
occurs  on  the  sixth  of  this  month*  In  the  first  year  of  the  cycle 
the  readings  from  Genesis  would  have  reached  chap,  xi,  i.e.  the 
Story  of  Babel  and  the  Confusitm  of  Tongttes^  at  the  season  of 
Pentecost,  Now  it  is  certain  that  the  writer  of  Acts  ii  associated 
the  Confusion  of  Tongues  with  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  tlie  Gift 
of  the  Spirit  being  a  reversal  of  the  curse  of  Babel*  Again^  we 
know  that  a  very  early  Jewish  tradition  connected  the  Giving  of 
the  Law  with  the  Feast  of  Pentecost.  The  origin  of  this  tradition 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  but,  if  we  turn  to  the 
triennial  cycle,  we  see  that  in  the  second  year  of  that  cycle 
the  Decalogue  (Ex.  xx)  was  the  Sabbath-reading  for  Pentecost 
According  to  the  present  arrangement  of  the  Pentateuch  the 
Decalogue  was  written  twice,  each  occasion  being  marked  by 
a  Theophany.  On  the  first  occasion  Moses  is  forty  days  in  the 
mount ;  then  comes  the  sin  of  the  Golden  Calf,  the  breaking 
of  the  Tables  followed  by  a  second  period  of  forty  days,  after 
which  Tables  are  rewritten  (Ex.  xxxiv).  Thus,  assuming  that 
the  Law  was  given  on  Pentecost  (6th  of  Sivan),  we  should  expect 
to  find  a  second  Giving  of  the  Law  eighty  days  later,  i.  e*  on 
29th  of  Ab,  This  expectation  is  fuily  borne  out.  Dr.  Buchler 
says:  *  We  are  able  to  assign  Ex,  xxxiv  as  the  reading  on  the  last 
Sabbath  of  the  month  Ab,  with  which  opinion  tradition  is  in 
accord  (Seder  Oiam  vi),  inasmuch  as  it  informs  us  that  Moses 
went  up  Mount  Sinai  with  the  tablets  of  stone  on  the  29th  of  Ab, 
which  occurrence  is  related  in  Ex.  xxxiv/  If  this  chapter  be 
studied  it  will  be  found  to  contain  the  elements  of  a  second 
Decalogue  by  J . ,  originally  independent  of  the  Decalogue  by  E.  in 
Ex,  XX,  Thus  the  agth  of  Ab  practically  marks  a  second  *  Giving 
of  the  Law',  and  we  may  note  the  fact  that,  in  the  third  year  of 
the  cycle,  Deuteronomy  began  on  this  day.  If  we  divide  the 
interval  between  Pentecost  and  29th  Ab  into  two  equal  periods 
of  forty  days  each  we  arrive  at  17th  Tammuz  as  the  date  for  the 
sin  of  the  Golden  Calf  (Ex.  xxxii).     Now  this  exactly  agrees 


206         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


with  Jewish  tradition.  *  The  fast  of  the  fourth  fmnth  took  plac5e 
on  the  17th  of  Tammuz.  ,  .  ,  To  this  tradition  adds,  that  it  was 
also  the  anniversary  of  making  the  golden  calf,  and  of  Moses  break- 
ing the  Tables  of  the  Law '  (Edcrsheim,  The  Temple,  p.  297). 

Every  Old  Testament  scholar  know^s  that  the  duplicate  stories 
of  the  Giving  of  the  Law  by  E.  and  J.  involve  a  great  critical 
difficulty.  I  suggest  that  the  Jehovist  records  originated  with 
a  race  that  began  its  year  at  the  Summer  Solstice,  while  the 
Elohist  records  dated  their  year  from  the  Vernal  Equinox. 
Thus  the  29th  Ab  would,  in  the  Jehovist  year,  have  been  two 
months  after  the  Solstice,  exactly  as  Pentecost  was,  in  the  Elohist 
year,  two  months  after  the  Vernal  Equinox,  In  other  words  each 
system  would  have  had  a  similar  Festival  at  the  end  of  its  second 
month.  When  P.  came  to  arrange  these  records  in  the  form  in 
which  they  have  come  down  to  us,  he  found  these  two  traditions 
located  in  their  respective  months,  and  was  therefore  obliged  to 
make  two  events  out  of  what  was  originally  one. 

I  merely  give  this  as  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  a  study  of 
the  Calendar  would  throw  light  upon  the  criticism  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. Perhaps  on  this  subject  I  may  be  allowed  to  refer  to 
my  Letter  to  Old  Testament  Critics  (Deighton,  Bcli  &  Co.), 

We  now  turn  to 

The  Sixth  Month,  EluL  The  ist  of  Elul  was,  for  some 
purposes,  reckoned  as  a  New  Year's  Day  (Mishna,  Rosk  Hash.  I  i). 
Thus  we  are  led  to  compare  it  with  the  ist  of  Tishri  (Rosh 
Hashana)  when,  as  we  shall  see,  the  Decalogue  was  again  read. 

In  Elul  in  the  second  year  of  the  cycle,  the  closing  chapters  of 
Exodus  were  read,  in  which  P.  describes  the  Dedication  of  the 
Tabernacle.    To  this  we  shall  have  occasion  to  return. 

The  Sei>enth  Months  Tishri,  This  month  opened  with  Rosh 
Hashana^  or  '  New  Year's  Day*.  The  Seder  for  this  day,  in  the 
first  year  of  the  cycle  {see  Biichler),  was  Gen.  xxx  %%  flfj  which  re- 
cords the  birth  o{  Joseph,  and  derives  the  name  from  the  root  Asaph 
(f|DK).  To  this  I  shall  again  have  occasion  to  return  when  I  speak  of 
the  position  oi\h^  Asaph  Psalms  in  the  triennial  cycle  of  the  Psalter. 

Dr.  Biichler  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  Mid  rash, 
the  1st  of  Tishri  is  given  as  the  birthday  of  Joseph.  The  tradition 
arose  from  the  reading  of  this  passage  in  the  triennial  cycle. 

The  second  year  of  the  cycle  read,  for  this  day,  Lev,  iv  with  the 


INFLUENCE  OF  TRIENNIAL  CYCLE  ON  THE  PSALTER    207 

thought  of  Atonement  for  Priests  and  People  (cf.  Ezek.  xlv  18,  ao 
Heb.),  while  the  third  year  read  Deut.  v,  containing  the  Deutero- 
nomic  version  of  the  Decalogue.  Biichler  tells  us  that  there  was 
a  practice  (assigned  to  Ezra,  T,  B.  Meg,  31  **)  of  reading  the  curses 
at  Pentecost  and  Rosh  Hashana  with  the  Decalogue.  So  too  we 
find  that  the  section  Deut.  v-xi,  which  is  complete  in  itself, 
begins  with  the  Decalogue  and  ends  with  the  Blessings  and  the 
Curses.  The  Samaritans  had  also  the  custom  of  reading  the 
Decalogue  on  Pentecost  and  Rosh  Hashana  (Petermann,  Reise 
im  Orienty  p.  390,  quoted  by  Biichler).  Thus  the  custom  dates 
from  very  early  times.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  return  to  this 
point  when  I  speak  of  the  triennial  cycle  of  the  Psalter  and  the 
Psalms  of  Imprecation.  We  now  return  to  the  study  of  Table  I. 
It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  ended  (with 
the  death  of  Jacob  and  Joseph)  on  the  first  Sabbath  in  Shebat 
^the  eleventh  month),  and  that  the  Book  of  Leviticus  also  ended 
on  this  same  Sabbath.  As  to  the  end  of  Deuteronomy  there  are 
two  traditions,  preserved  in  the  Mechilta  to  Exod.  xvi  35  ; 
R.  Joshua  asserts  that  Moses  died  on  the  7th  of  Adar^  while 
R.  Eliezer  places  the  death  of  Moses  on  the  7th  of  Shebat 
(Biichler).  In  other  words,  the  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  which 
records  the  death  of  Moses  was  read  either  on  the  first  Sabbath 
of  Adar^  or  on  the  first  Sabbath  of  Shebat.  I  have  no  doubt 
but  that  the  date  given  by  R.  Eliezer,  i.  e.  7th  of  Shebat,  is  the 
more  correct,  since  it  agrees  with  the  death  of  Jacob  and  Joseph. 
If  this  be  so  we  note  that  the  first,  third,  and  fifth  books  of  the 
Pentateuch  ended  on  the  same  day,  that  day  being  the  first 
Sabbath  of  the  eleventh  month  (Shebat).  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  P.,  or  the  editor  of  Deuteronomy,  agrees  with  this 
tradition,  for  he  assigns  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  to  the  first 
of  the  eleventh  months  ^  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fortieth  year^ 
in  tlie  eleventh  months  on  the  first  day  of  the  months  that  Moses 
spake  unto  the  children  of  Israel*  (Deut.  i  3).  The  Song  of 
Moses  and  Death  of  Moses  are  evidently  placed  on  the  same 
day  (cf.  Deut.  xxxi  22,  xxxii  48 ff.  (P.)):  indeed  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  is  but  the  episode  of  a  day  between  Num.  xxvii 
ia-15  and  Deut.  xxxii  48  ff.  The  Appendix  containing  the 
Song  of  Moses  and  the  Blessing  of  Moses  would  supply  Sabbath- 
readings  for  the  remaining  Sabbaths  in  Shebat  and  Adar, 


2o8         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


There  were  four  additional  Sabbath-readings  for  the  twelfth 
month,  consisting  of  special  lessons  which  were  not  in  the  order 
of  the  Sedarim,  These  were  (i)  S/ukalim  (see  Exod.  xxx  ii); 
(0)  Zakovy  \,  e.  '  Remember  Amalek "  (Deut.  xxv.  17),  chosen 
doubtless  because  of  the  season  of  Purim ;  (iii)  Para  {see  Num.  xiv) 
and  (iv)  Hachodesh  (Exod.  xii).  These  may  possibly  have 
served  the  purpose  of  an  intercalary  month.  We  have  seen  that 
precise  dates,  e.g.  for  the  Birth  of  Joseph,  the  Death  of  Moses, 
the  Giving  of  the  Law,  the  Sin  of  the  Golden  Calf,  &c.,  were 
evolved  by  the  Scribes  from  the  cycle  of  Sabbath-readings; 
may  we  go  back  still  further  and  suggest  that  the  precise  dates 
which  are  so  characteristic  of  the  Priest-code  were  evolved  in 
a  manner  not  wholly  unlike,  in  so  far  as  they  were  influenced 
by  the  Calendar?  We  cannot  now  discuss  this  question,  since 
our  object  is  to  determine  the  influence  of  the  Calendar  not  upon 
the  Pentateuch  but  upon  the  Psalter.  Before  we  leave  Table  I 
we  must  call  attention  to  a  fact  noted  by  Buchler,  viz.  'that 
the  first  Book  of  the  Pentateuch  commenced  on  the  ist  of  Nisan, 
the  fifth  on  the  ist  of  EIul,  the  third  on  the  ist  of  Tishri,  the 
second  and  fourth  on  the  15th  of  Shebat,  thus  corresponding 
to  the  four  dates  given  in  the  Mishna  {Rosh  Hash,  x  i),  as  first 
days  of  the  year  for  various  subordinate  purposes,  c.  g.  the  tithing 
of  animals  and  fruit,* 

We  now  proceed  to  arrange  the  Psalter  for  a  triennial  cycle  of 
147-50  Sabbaths  (Table  II). 

In  examining  this  plan  we  are  at  once  struck  by  the  fact  that 
the  first  and  third  Books  of  the  Psalter  end  in  Shedat.  exactly  as 
the  first  and  third  Books  of  the  Pentateuch  end  in  Shebat,  We 
also  note  that  the  secoftd  Book  of  the  Psalter  ends  (Ps.  Ixxii)  at 
the  close  of  EluL  exactly  as  the  second  Book  of  the  Pentateuch  ends 
at  the  close  of  EluL  The  benediction  at  the  end  of  this  second 
book  attains  a  new  meaning  if  we  read  it  in  connexion  with  the 
closing  words  of  Exodus  and  the  closing  year.  The  prayer 
^  May  the  whole  earth  be  filled  with  His  Glory'  (Ps.  Ixxii  19), 
should  be  compared  with  the  words  of  Exod.  xl  34,  T/iwrf  the 
Glory  of  YH  VH  filled  the  tabemack  * ;  we  may  also  compare 
the  words  '  The  Prayers  of  David ^  the  son  of  Jesse,  are  tnd€d\ 
with  '  So  Moses  ended  the  work'  (Exod.  xl  53), 

The  'Asaph'  Psalms  (Ixxiii-lxxxiii)  would  begin  in  the  seventh 


I 


INfLUENCE  OF  TRIENNIAL  CYCLE  ON  THE  PSALTER    209 

month,  1.  e.  at  the  Feast  of  Astph,  at  the  season  when,  in  the  first 
year  of  the  cycle,  Gen.  xxx  22  f  was  read,  which  tells  of  the  birth 
of  Joseph^  and  derives  the  name  from  the  root  Asaph.  I  have 
shewn  ^  on  independent  grounds  that  the  Asaph  Psalms  were 
connected  with  this  season  of  the  Asipk  and  with  the  house  of 
Joseph.  In  the  second  year  of  the  cycle  Leviticus  began  at  this 
season,  and  the  Asaph  Psalms  are  essentially  '  Levitical '  Psalms. 

Table  II. 


Again,  if  we  observe  the  position  of  Ps.  xc  in  the  triennial  cycle 
we  find  that  it  comes  at  the  very  time  which  tradition  associated    1^ 
with  the  Death  of  Moses,     I  venture  to  think  that  this  is  the 
origin  of  the  title  which  assigns  this  Psalm  to  Moses.      This 
title  is  as  follows : 

M  Prayer  of  Moses  the  man  of  God\  which  is  almost  identical    I 

>  *■  Tht  Psalms  in  Tknt  CoiUcHons*  Part  a  pp. 
VOL.  v.  P 


210         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


with  the  heading  of  the  Blessing  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxiii  i) 
was  read  at  this  time  in  the  order  of  the  Sedarim.  If  this  be 
correct,  Pss.  xc-c,  which  form  one  group,  ought  to  have  points  in 
common  with  the  Song  of  Moses  and  the  Bkssing  of  AloseSy  i.  e. 
with  Deut.  xxxii,  xxxiii,  which  were  read  at  the  same  season. 
This  is  abundantly  borne  out  by  the  facts  of  the  case.     Thus  : — 


xc 

Title 

Deut. 

,  xxxiii    I 

» 

also 

dwelling' place  \ 

used  of  God 
in  Ps.  xci  9 

»      ^7 

J 

xc 

13 

xxxii  ^i^                  ■ 

1» 

15 

.        7                  1 

xci 

4 

■ 

n 

6 

24                  ■ 

i» 

7 

.      30                  ■ 

9* 

xcii 

13 
10 

xxxiii  17                   S 

ft 

15  (a 

triple 

allusion) 

xxxii     4                      1 

XCIV 

xcv 
xcvii 

I 
8 

7 

,♦       33  ;  xxxiii  a     ^ 
xxxiii    8  (cf.  xxxii  51) 
xxxii  43  (Sept.  text). 

If  the  references  be  studied  they  will  abundantly  prove  that 
this  group  of  Psalms  has  been  influenced  by  Deut  xxxii,  xxxiii. 
We  may  also  add  that  the  mention  of '^  New  Song  '  (Pss.  xcvi  i, 
xcviii  i)  contains  an  allusion  to  the  Song  of  Moses  as  the  Old 
Song,  an  allusion  which  would  be  very  evident  when  they  werefl 
used  together  at  the  same  season  in  the  Temple  worship.  1 

Another  characteristic  of  the  group  of  Psalms  xc-c  is  the 
Kingship  of  God  on  earth,  * Ki^ F//  is  become  King*  (Pss.  xciii  i  ; 
xcvi  10 ;  xcix  i),  the  only  other  passage  which  is  exactly 
parallel  being  found  in  the  Korah  Psalm  xlvii  8,  This  Psalm 
has  many  other  parallels  with  the  group. 

Compare  Ps.  xlvii  2      with  xcvi  4 
„     8        „     xcvi  10 

„      I         „     xcviii  4 
„        „  •  6-8     „     xcviii  4'6 
„      10       „      xcvii  9. 
Indeed  the  Kingship  of  God  is  characteristic  of  the  Korah 


INFLUENCE  OF  TRIENNIAL  CYCLE  ON  THE  PSALTER    211 


Psalms  exactly  as  it  is  of  group  xc-c  But  if  we  turn  to  Table  II 
We  shall  see  that  the  Elohistic  Korah  Psalms  xlii-xlix  occupy 
exactly  the  same  place  in  the  first  year  of  the  cycle  that  the 
Psalms  xc-c  do  m  the  second  year,  while  Pss.  cxliv-cl^  which 
"Urere  sung  in  the  third  year  of  the  cycle^  also  speak  of  the  '  New 
Song''  (cxliv  I,  cxlix  i)  and  of  the  Kingship  of  God  (cxlv  i, 
cxlvi  lo) ;  and  this  too  at  a  time  when,  in  the  order  of  the 
Sedarim^  the  Song  of  Moses,  which  is  the  hats  classicus  for  the 
Kingship  of  God,  was  recited.     Can  this  al]  be  accident? 

Another  group  of  Psalms  (cxx-cxxxiv)  known  as  the  Songs 
4Df  Degrees^  or  the  Songs  of  the  Ascents,  is,  rightly  or  wrongly, 
associated  in  tradition  with  the  Pilgrimage  of  the  Station-men  who 
iDrought  up  the  firstfruits  [biccurim)  to  the  Temple.  These  first- 
fruits  could  not  be  brought  before  Pentecost,  while  the  last  day 
for  offering  them  in  the  Temple  was  25th  Kislev,  i.  e.  Hamuca. 

But,  if  we  turn  to  Table  II,  we  shall  see  that  these  Songs  of 
Degrees  occupy  the  fifteen  Sabbaths  from  1st  Ehd  to  Hanucca* 
Thus,  in  the  third  year  of  the  triennial  cycle,  these  Psalms  would 
be  the  Sabbath  Psalms  in  the  Temple  during  those  very  months 
in  which  the  constant  processions  of  pilgrims  were  bringing  the 
firstfruits. 

Again,  we  have  already  seen  that  the  '  Curses'  were,  according 
to  Jewish  tradition,  read  as  a  sort  of  Commination  Service  at  the 
seasons  of  the  Decalogue,  1.  e,  at  Pentecost  and  Rosh  Hashana. 
We  have  also  seen  that  the  ■29th  Ab  was,  practically,  a  second 
Pentecost ;  consequently,  if  the  Psalms  of  Imprecation  have  any 
connexion  with  the  *  Curses  *,  w^e  should  expect  to  find  them  at 
these  seasons.     If  we  turn  to  Table  II  what  do  we  find?    The 
two  Psalms  of  Imprecation  quoted  by  St  Peter  (Acts  i  ao) 
are  the  69lh  and  the  iC9th  ;  of  these  Ps,  Ixix  comes  immediately 
after  the  %'i)th  Ab^  while  Ps.  cix  comes  immediately  after  Pente- 
cost    We  also  note  that  Ps,  lix,  which  is  another  Psalm  of 
Imprecation,  comes  at  the  season  of  Pentecost,  in  the  second 
year  of  the  cycle ;    and  that  Pss.  Ixviii  and  cxix,  which  arc 
Psalms  of  the  Law,  both  come  on  the  Sabbath  nearest  to  the 
29th  Ab.     Many  other  illustrations  might  be  given  ;  but  we  will 
conclude  by  calling  attention  to  a  fact  which  all  commentators 
have  observed  but  which  none  have  explained,  viz,  the  striking 
similarity  between  the  closing  Psalms  of  Book  I  and  the  closing 

P  3 


212         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOUX;iCAL    STUDIES 


I 


Psalms  of  Book  II,  this  similarity  extending  at  times  to  practii 
Identity  of  several  verses,  e.g.  Ps,  xl  13-17  with  Ps.  Ixx  1-5; 
Ps.  xli  7  f  with  Ps.  Ixxi  10  f. 

If  we  study  Pss,  xxxv,  xxxviii-xli,  and  also  Pss.  Ixix-^lxxii, 
we  notice  that  they  are  not  only  closely  related  to  one  another 
but  also  that  they  are  penitential  in  character,  and,  like  Ps,  xxii, 
full  of  references  to  Jeremiah.  Now  if  we  turn  to  Table  II  we 
see  that  Ps.  xxii  and  abo  Pss.  Ixix-Ixxti  came  in  the  sixth 
month,  Elul,  which,  coming  as  it  did  before  New  Year,  was 
the  penitential  jnonth  of  preparation  (see  Dr.  Schiller-Szinessy  in 
The  Prayer  Book  Interleaved,  p.  257)*  We  also  see  that  Pss. 
xxxviii-xli,  which  close  Book  I,  came  in  the  tenth  month,  i.  e.  at 
the  close  of  the  cycle.  It  will  be  remembered  that,  even  in  the 
days  of  Zechariah,  there  was  a  *^fast  of  the  tenth  month '  even  as 
there  was  a  ^  fast  of  the  seventh  month  *  (Zeeh,  viii  19)*  Indeed,  as 
I  have  already  suggested,  if  the  Jehovist  traditions  were  derived 
through  a  race  which  b^an  its  year  at  the  Summer  Solstice, 
then  the  month  which  we  call  the  tenth  would  have  been  the 
seventh.  This  will  account  for  the  practical  identity  of  the  Feasts 
of  Tabernacles  (seventh  month)  and  Ifantuca  (tenth  month)*  It 
will  also  explain  the  similarity  between  the  *  Asaph '  Psalms 
(seventh  month)  and  the  '  Korah '  Psalms  (tenth  month). 

If  we  study  Table  II  we  see  that,  though  the  Jehovistic  Korah 
Psalms  are  in  their  proper  place  at  Hanucca^  the  Elohistic  Korah 
Psalms  are  removed  from  that  feast  by  six  (or  seven)  Sabbaths. 
Yet  these  Elohistic  Korah  Psalms  are  most  closely  related  to 
the  Jehovistic'^ ^  and  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  same  Feast. 
This  suggests  a  cycle  beginning,  not  as  the  triennial  cycle  did  in 
Nisan^  but  on  the  second  Sabbath  in  ShebaL  In  other  words,  we  I 
are  led  to  suspect  that,  just  as  in  the  triennial  cycle,  the  Second 
and  Third  Collections  of  the  Psalms  began  in  S/te^at,  so  at 
a  still  earlier  time  the  First  Collection  began  in  Shehat. 

If  the  reader  will  make  this  correction  in  pencil  on  Table  II 
he  will  see  that  the  forty-one  Psalms  of  the  First  Collection  exactly 
occupy  the  Sabbaths  from  the  second  Sabbath  in  Shehat  up  to 
the  Sabbath  before  HanuccUy  so  that  the  Elohistic  Korah  Psalms 
(xlii-xHx)  would  come  in  their  right  place  at  Hamtcca. 

According  to  this  arrangement  Ps.  xiv  comes  in  the  second 

*  '  Th§  Fsalms  in  Thru  CoiUtiions*  Part  a  pp.  x,ui,  173,  181  f,  190. 


I 


INFLUENCE  OF  TRIENNIAL  CYCLE  ON  THE  PSALTER   213 

nionth,  in  which  we  find  Ps.  liii,  with  which  it  is  identical  *.  Pss. 
Xx,  xxi,  which  are  Psalms  of  the  'King',  come  in  the  month 
tammuz,  in  which  we  have  already  found  Pss.  Ixi,  Ixiii,  which  are 
Psalms  of  the*  King*. 

Ps.  XXX,  which  has  the  singular  title  For  the  Dedication 
of  the  House,  would  come  on  the  3rd  Sabbath  in  Elul^  on 
which  day,  in  the  order  of  the  Sedarim  (see  Table  I),  Exod.  xl 
was  read,  recording  the  Dedication  of  the  Tabernacle*  We 
may  also  mention  the  fact  that  Ps.  xxvii,  which  was  recited 
morning  and  evening  throughout  the  month  of  Ehdy  would  come 
immediately  before  the  opening  of  that  month. 

Let  me  only  remark,  in  conclusion,  that  I  have  no  thought  of 
suggesting  that  the  Psalms  were  originally  written  for  consecu- 
tive Sabbaths,  but  I  do  maintain  that  certain  groups  of  Psalms 
belonged  to  certain  definite  points  of  the  Calendar,  that  the 
triennial  cycle  was  a  natural  developement  of  this  earlier  thought, 
and  that  this  triennial  cycle  was  known  to  the  editor  who 
arranged  the  Psalter  in  Five  Books. 

Edw.  G.  King. 

^  In  my  Commentary  on  Ps.  xiv,  before  I  had  any  suspicion  of  Uie  triennial 
cycle,  I  had  occasion  (p.  74)  to  point  out  the  striking  allusions  to  Gen.  vi  1-4 ;  it  is 
certainly  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  Gen.  vi  1-4  should  have  been  read  in  the 
order  of  the  Sidarim  at  this  season  (see  Table  I). 


214         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE   TRANS- 
FIGURATION. 


This  event  in  our  Lord's  incarnate  life  has  so  little 
in  the  consciousness  and  liturgical  system  of  the  Church  that 
all  who  have  realized  its  importance  cannot  but  welcome  any 
discussion  of  it  as  tending  to  win  for  it  due  prominence  in  our 
dogmatics. 

The  two  papers  which  have  appeared  in  the  y,T.S,  (Jan- 
and  July,  1903)  presented  but  one  aspect  of  the  event,  for  whilst 
differing  from  each  other  on  certain  points,  they  both  were  con- 
cerned with  the  efifect  of  the  Transfiguration  upon  the  minds 
of  the  three  selected  witnesses  and  ignored  the  probability  of 
purpose  in  relation  to  our  Lord  Himself,  and  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment saints  who  were  present.  Mr.  Holmes  professed  only  to 
treat  of '  one  of  its  purposes  \  and  we  may  assume  that  Dr.  Ken- 
nedy would  agree  that  neither  view,  if  established,  would  be  ■ 
exclusive  of  some  other  and,  possibly^  higher  purpose.  % 

In  order  that  the  theory  here  presented  may  be  put  briefly 
I  do  not  propose  to  traverse  the  arguments  so  far  adduced,  or 
to  repeat  at  length  what  the  former  writers  have  so  well  said  of 
the  'setting'  of  the  event  It  will  be  seen  that  if  the  theory 
here  given  is  acceptable,  it  not  only  does  not  evacuate  the 
purposes  already  described,  but  carries  their  force  and  effect 
still  deeper.  ■ 

Comparison  of  the  Transfiguration  with  other  events  in  the 
same  life  brings  out  its  unique  position  as  a  meeting-place  of 
old  and  new,  the  old  finding  its  fulfilment  in  the  new  departure. 
We  can  hardly  estimate  the  force  of  this  until  we  think  ourselves 
into  the  position  of  one  to  whom  the  Mosaic  system  was  the  only 
formulated  truth  with  undeniably  divine  authority  on  earth.  That 
the  older,  the  husk,  should  pass  away  without  some  other  sign 
than  the  ruin  of  Israel  is  incredible.  Certain  devout  souls,  as 
Simeon  and  Anna  and  the  Baptist >  had  had  their  faith  rewarded; 
was  there  no  such  reward   for  those  who  in  older  days  had 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  TRANSFIGURATION 


215 


P 


I 


laboured  for  the  preparation  of  His  coming?  In  the  two  who 
-%vere  manifested  all  the  past  in  respect  of  organized  spiritiial 
life  was  represented.  The  law  of  continuity  was  thus  observed 
as  in  no  other  event.  Living  priests  and  prophets  might  deny 
and  crucify,  other  living  authorities  should  testify  and  rejoice. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  Mount  itself.  The  persons  present  visibly 
were  our  Blessed  Lord,  Moses,  Elias,  and  the  three  principal 
disciples.  There  was  also  vocal,  sensible  evidence  of  the  presence 
of  the  Eternal  Father  as  the  principal  and  immediate  operator 
in  what  we  may  reasonably  consider  the  main  purpose  of  the 
Transfiguration. 

Of  our  Lord,  we  know  that,  as  has  been  shewn,  two  h'nes  of 

thought  had  just  been  presented  to  the  disciples,  His  Sonship, 

and  His  Passion  and  Death  ;  the  one  His  eternal  prerogative,  the 

other  His  own  willing  act  as  Son   of  Mao  giving  Himself  in 

sacrifice  for  the  sons  of  men.     At  the  Transfiguration  we  know 

also  (from  St  Luke)  that  the  subject  of  the  conversation  between 

Him  and  Moses  and  Elias  was  His  coming  death.    The  subsequent 

incidents  include  an  act  of  healing  (one  requiring  special  grace), 

preluded  by  reference  to  the  work  of  Elias ;   and  then  further 

discourse  on  the  Passion,  and  on  priority  in  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

Sonship,  sacrifice,  and  power  are  the  three  dominant  ideas  in 

the  narrative  as  a  whole, 

*  His  exodus*  being  what  it  is,  namely,  the  meatus  of  our  delivery 
from  the  bondage  of  sin,  the  presence  of  Moses  is  easily  under- 
stood ;  but  there  was  another  reason.  Moses  was  the  founder  of 
the  Aaronic  priesthood,  the  consccrator  of  the  first  high  priest  of 
that  order,  and  one  to  whom  it  had  been  said  that  to  the  same 
Aaron  he  should  be  *  as  God*.  (Aaron  was  the  mouth-power,  the 
word  of  Moses,) 

Elias  was  pre-eminently  the  Old  Testament  prophet,  the  one 
destroyer  of  false  prophets,  the  restorer  whose  name  symbolized 
the  work  of  the  Baptist,  whose  word  made  straight  the  way  by 
which  the  true  Prophet  of  humanity  should  come. 

So  far,  therefore,  the  functions  of  priesthood  and  prophecy 
seem  to  be  the  most  prominent  on  this  occasion. 

In  the  next  place»  passing  over  the  suggestion  of  three  taber- 
nacles, made,  to  what  intent  is  not  clear,  by  St  Peter,  we  have 
some  evidence  to  shew  the  impression  which  the  incident  pro- 


2l6         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


duced  on  the  minds  of  the  three  disciples.  As  to  St  Peter,  it  would 
be  acknowledged  by  all  that,  if  2  Pet.  was  his  composition, 
he  is  the  one  of  whose  impressions  we  know  the  most.  The 
'  tabernacle ',  the  *exodus*,  the  voice  of  the  Father,  and  the  power 
of  the  prophet  are  all  in  evidence.  But  there  is  proof  of  this 
also  from  i  Fct.  The  connexion  of  ideas  in  ch.  i  of  that  epistle 
is,  if  more  veiled,  still  to  be  traced  as  it  is  in  2  Pet.,  and  not  ac- 
cidental are  the  verbal  reminiscences  in  e,g,  ch.  v  9,  10  of  i  Pet. 
Is  it  then  a  mere  fancy  that  whereas  the  root  subject  in  1  Pet,  is 
priesthood,  ministerial  and  general,  and  in  2  Pet.  the  prophetic 
workj  we  should  conclude  that  St  Peter  saw  in  the  Trans- 
figuration nothing  less  than  the  assumption  before  selected 
witnesses  of  both  offices,  priest  and  prophet,  by  the  Son  of 
Man  ?  Assumed^  we  may  rightly  say ;  but  at  the  voice  of  the 
source  of  all  authority  and  power,  the  Father  Himself  (cf.  Heb, 
v  4*'6),  There  was  no  other  recorded  occasion  in  our  Lord's 
JJ  life  when  His  consecration  to  the  priesthood  can  be  without 
question  asserted  to  have  taken  place.  And  if  it  took  place 
then,  may  we  not  see  why  silence  was  imposed  upon  tlie  three 
witnesses  ?  The  Priesthood  must  be  established  by  the  Sacrifice : 
the  Prophetic  office  manifested  on  the  Cross  in  declaring  and  ful- 
filling the  mind  of  the  Father  towards  all  human  error :  when  these 
were  accomplished  the  investiture  might  be  announced,  not  until 
then.  Priestly  power  without  self-sacrifice  is  a  snare  to  man  :  pro- 
phetic power  without  personal  submission  entire  and  complete  to 
the  message-giver's  will  is  a  source  of  hypocrisy*  Our  Lord  would 
have  the  disciples  learn  by  His  Sacrifice  and  submission  the 
perfectncss  of  His  Priestly  and  Prophetic  character.  Suffering 
first— then  glory.  The  disciples  were  to  see  before  many  days  how 
both  functions  might  be  degraded  and  the  institutions  of  divine 
appointment  made  to  subserve  the  lowest  temporal  ends.  By 
contrast  they  were  to  learn  wherein  true  priesthood  and  prophetic 
power  differed  from  the  false.  How  but  for  the  Transfiguration 
could  they  have  known  Him  at  all  for  Priest  and  Prophet? 
Moses  and  Elias  were  there  for  the  teaching  of  the  three  as  well. 
Moses  saw  the  Priest  there  whose  office  he  had  been  instrumental 
in  prefiguring.  Then  he  knew  for  the  first  time  the  meaning  of  the 
glorious  vesture  with  which  his  hands  had  arrayed  his  mouthpiece, 
Uien  he  understood  all  that  the  bloodshedding  of  countless  lambs 


I 


I 


THE   PURPOSE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION         217 

had  symbolized.  At  such  a  consecration  who  of  all  the  great 
men  of  God  in  old  time  could  assist  with  more  befitting  presence? 
On  this  Mount  met  old  and  new,  symbol  and  reality,  the  temporal 
and  the  eternal.  Granted  that  some  help  was  intended  to 
disciples  whose  hearts  were  to  be  tried  by  desolation,  or  grant 
any  other  theory  of  the  kind,  the  heart  of  the  subject  has  not  been 
reached  until  the  Person  of  Christ  Himself  in  that  event  has  been 
studied  and  His  office  therein  defined. 

Elias,  too,  saw  the  Prophet  of  whom  his  own  wonderful  career 
had  been  but  a  faint  shadow,  saw  Him  whose  School  of  prophets 
of  a  new  Israel  should  outnumber  his  largest  dream,  saw  Him 
whose  still,  small  voice  should  strengthen  and  comfort  the  hearts 
of  the  wearied  with  conflict  of  evil>  saw  Him  whose  word  should 
be  recc^ized  as  The  Word  of  God  unerring,  impasaionate,,  swift 
as  lightning,  sure  as  death,  but  life-giving. 

Does  St  John  give  sign  of  the  impressions  received  on  the 
Mount  ?  We  see  it  in  his  later  vision  of  the  Son  of  Man  girded 
as  Priest  eternal :  we  have  also  to  help  us  his  thought  of  the 
two  witnesses  whose  dead  bodies  (he  had  seen  their  living  spirits) 
were  lying  in  the  streets  of  the  city  where  their  Lord  was  cru- 
cified, a  significant  description  of  an  effete  priesthood  and  a 
d^raded  prophetic  ministry  (see  Rev.  xi  1-13).  To  the  mind  of 
St  John  the  germ  of  all  is  the  Incarnation ;  granted  that,  all  else 
follows.  Herein  he  differed  in  apprehension  from  the  more  active, 
more  governing  mind  of  the  chief  of  the  apostolic  body.  The 
difference  in  mental  characteristic  explains  the  difference  in  attitude 
towards  the  Transfiguration.  The  Petrine  tabernacles  of  differ- 
entiated powers  become  one  to  the  vision  of  the  seer,  *  the 
Tabernacle  of  God  '  which  is  *  with  men  *. 

If  there  is  anything  in  the  theory  here  briefly  set  forth,  does  it 
not  provide  reason  for  desiring  a  fuller  recognition  of  the  scene  on 
the  Mount  in  our  worship  and  teaching?  We  own  Christ  as 
Priest  and  Prophet,  let  us  own  with  due  solemnities  the  day  of  His 
consecration. 

A.  T.  Fryer. 


2l8 


DOCUMENTS 


AN   EXEGETICAL  FRAGMENT   OF  THE 
THIRD   CENTURY. 

Thk  document  here  printed  was  discovered  and  copied  independently 
by  myself  in  1902  and  by  my  friend  Dr,  G.  Mercati,  then  of  the  Am- 
brosian  but  now  of  the  Vatican  library^  some  years  earlier.  The  right 
to  first  publication  belonged  indubitably  to  him,  and  his  edition  has  in 
fact  lately  appeared  (with  other  material)  as  No.  it  of  the  Vatican 
Siudi  t  Tesh'K  But  inasmuch  as  my  own  text  was  in  type  before 
I  knew  that  I  had  been  anticipated  in  the  discovery,  and  seeing  also 
that  the  document  is  one  which  from  its  age  and  character  deserves  all 
the  attention  which  students  can  bestow  upon  it,  1  have  ventured,  with 
Dr.  Mercati^s  full  consent,  to  publish  the  treatise,  although  no  longer 
an  anecdoton,  in  the  pages  of  the  Journal. 

Not  only  in  the  discovery  of  the  document,  but  in  the  edition  of  its 
text,  Dr.  Mercati  and  myself  have  been  wholly  independent  of  one 
another :  and  the  very  close  agreement  which  on  important  points 
exists  between  our  respective  results  is  I  hope  an  indication  of  their 
substantial  correctness.  In  order  to  emphasize  the  extent  of  our  inde- 
pendent agreement,  I  have  not  thought  it  proper  to  modify  in  any  way 
the  form  of  my  own  presentation  of  the  text ;  and  it  will  therefore 
be  convenient,  even  at  the  risk  of  anticipating  the  logical  arrangement, 
to  call  attention  at  once  to  the  principal  variations  between  our  two 
editions. 

In  the  arrangement  and  division  of  the  chapters,  which  are  of  course 
not  marked  as  such  in  the  MS,  Dr.  Mercati  and  I  agree,  I  think,  in 
every  case  except  that  he  begins  his  second  chapter  a  line  and  a  half 
later  than  I  do,  with  the  words  '  quia  humana  fragilitas '.  Of  the  few 
passages  which  1  have  been  able  neither  to  understand  nor  to  emend, 
and  have  therefore  marked  as  corrupt,  (i)  ch.  iii,  I.  17  is  beautifully 
restored  by  Mercati  through  a  simple  transposition  of  two  words  '  hoc 
enim  ilii  poenale  est,  si  quod  non  uult  perdidesse  et  ipse  se  perdidesse 
fateatur*;  (2)  ch,  vi,  1.  9  'patiatur',  he  notes  id  est ^  sustineat^  tokrei .  .  , 
uei  fort,  nonmdla  exciderunti   {3)  ch.  viii,  11.  17,   iS  he  prints  'quo 

"^  Varia  Sacm,  Fascieoh  I  :  1.  Anonytni  Chiliastae  in  Mafika>nitH  fntgmtttta,  3. 
Ptctoli supphmenti  agii  scrittidci  dottori  Cappadod  e  diS.  CiriUo  AUssandrino.  Roma, 
TipogTa£a  Vaticana,  1903. 


I 


I 


DOCUMENTS 


219 


raptii  Ipso  terrore  mortem  sicut  soporem  patientur,  et  comportati,  dum 
ad  Dommum  pemeniunt,  reumiscentes  resurgent*;  (4)  ch.  ix,  1.  17  he 
prints  the  MS  text,  and  notes  *  id  est  monstrabii  se  rtgem  esse  et  suos 
unius  Dei  konore  gloriosos^  i  (5)  in  ch.  x,  IL  42,  43  he  emends  'et 
Domino,  qui  uita  est,  in  maiestate  sua  praesente  magis  digfium^  quo</ 
concupiscenda  edwlium  esse  tion  potest*:  (6)  ch»  xix,  1.  4  he  follows 
ihc  MS,  but  doubts  whether  the  passage  may  not  contain  a  corniption  : 
(7)  ch.  xix,  1,  23  for  *  ut  meritum  conlocetur'  he  writes  *ut  merito 
conloqujtor ', 

Other  noteworthy  readings  introduced  by  Dr.  Mercati  into  his  text 
are — ch.  iii,  1.  21  '  dominari '  for  MS  'damnari';  ch,  iv,  1.  12  *  boni 
fnientur  uita,  mali  uero '  for  *  uitam  alii ',  a  simple  and  satisfactory 
emendation  that  ought  not  to  have  esc^^pedme;  ch.  vi,  1. 14  infirmatae' 
for  •  infirmitate ' ;  ch.  x,  L  44  *  all  ut  prius  cogatur '  for  *  aliut  conatur '  ] 
ch»  xi,  L  25  *  auidus  *  for  '  abitus  * ;  ch.  xiii,  1.  7  '  de  vii  diebus  vii  anae  * 
(1*  e.  septimanae)  for  *  de  vii  dies  vii  anni,'  which  is  at  least  very  in- 
genious ;  ch.  xiv,  1.  4  *  sic '  for  '  sed  * ;  ib.  I.  40  '  proumere  '  for  '  pro- 
uenire  *  (I  conjecture  *  non  inuenire');  ch.  xvi,  1.  3  *  fatus  '  for  'faus' 
{I  have  proposed  '  fraus') ;  ch.  xix,  1.  16  'adseruimus '  for  *  adseruemus  *; 
ib.  L  27  *  insperatum  '  for  *speratum\  and  'tutos'  for  'totos.' 

In  two  or  three  places  his  edition  has  enabled  me  to  correct  slips  or 
omissions  in  my  own :  ch.  ii,  1.  5  reference  to  Wisdom  iv  1 1  should  be 
given  in  the  margin,  and  ch.  xv,  U.  4,  5  reference  to  2  Cor.  v  7 ;  ch.  xiv, 
L  20  after  '  passi '  the  word  *  statim '  should  be  inserted ;  ch.  xviii, 
I.  I  *  ergo  '  should  of  course  have  been  *  erga '.  But  on  the  whole  our 
results  harmonize  in  a  rather  remarkable  degree. 

I  ought  to  add  that,  following  on  the  exposition  of  the  eschatological 
passage.  Matt,  xxiv  20-44,  the  MS  gives  two  short  pieces,  de  tribus 
mensuris  and  de  Petro  apostoio^  which  may  perhaps  be  drawn  from  the 
same  source.     Dr.  Mercati  has  printed  them  both. 


Many  interesting  problems  offer  themselves  for  solution  in  reading 
through  this  newly  recovered  document.  What  is  its  age  ?  is  the  Latin 
form  in  which  we  have  it  original^  or  a  version  from  the  Greek  ?  is  it  an 
independent  whole,  or  an  extract  from  a  complete  commentary  on 
St  Matthew's  Gospel  ?  And  lastly,  when  these  questions  have  been 
considered  and  as  far  as  possible  answered,  who  was  its  author  ? 

The  document  emanates  from  the  age  of  persecutions.  *  The  sign 
of  the  beast  on  the  forehead  or  on  the  hand'  is  interpreted  of  the 
wearing  of  the  laurel  crown  upon  the  head  and  of  the  casting  of  incense 
on  the  *  altar  of  abomination  '  (ch.  xix,  1.  8) :  the  former  is  familiar  to 
us  as  the  theme  of  TertuUian's  fierce  declamation  in  the  de  corona 
miiiiis^  the  latter  was  the  oilictal  test  of  apostasy  in  all  the  persecutions 


2ao         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

at  least  Trom  Decius  onwards.  Again  humanity  is  divided  into  tTie 
three  classes  of  *iusti  \  *  peccatores',  and  'impii '  (ch.  xiv  16-28,  xix  6), 
that  is  to  say,  good  Christians,  bad  Christians,  and  heathen,  a  distinc- 
tion being  drawn  between  the  *iropii\  who  perish,  and  the  'peccatoresV 
who  are  punished  in  proportion  to  their  sins:  and  this  prominence 
of  the  heathen  as  a  separate  class  in  the  eschatological  conception  of 
the  writer  p>oints  us  back  to  the  time  when  heathenism  was  still  dominant. 
Chiliasm,  too,  is  still  an  absorbing  topic  of  interest :  not  only  is  our 
writer  himself  a  Chiliast,  albeit  a  moderate  and  reasonable  one,  but  he 
has  to  take  serious  account  of  a  rampant  and  ofiensive  Chiliasm  which 
maintained  that  the  saints  during  the  thousand  years*  reign  would  eat 
the  good  things  of  the  earth  and  drink  at  the  Lord's  table  in  His  king- 
dom in  the  crudest  and  most  material  sense.  We  need  feel  no  hesitation 
in  attributing  our  fragment  to  the  third  century  or  at  latest  to  the  very 
earliest  years  of  the  fourth. 

If  the  writer  was  a  Greek  churchman,  it  would  be  natural  to  place 
him  somewhat  before  the  later  boundary  of  the  limits  just  laid  down, 
since  Chiliasm  was  extinct  in  the  Greek  much  earlier  than  in  the  Latin 
chufch:  but  the  question  of  the  original  language  of  the  treatise  is 
a  much  more  difficult  one  than  its  date.  We  have  not  here  to  deal 
with  an  artistic  and  literary  whole,  the  finish  and  setting  of  which 
would  Inevitably  be  tarnished  in  the  process  of  transference  from  one 
language  to  another;  in  such  cases  it  may  be  possible  to  say  with 
confidence  whether  a  writing  bears  the  impress  of  a  single  hand  or  no  : 
but  it  is  clear  that  this  sort  of  criterion  does  not  admit  of  easy  application 
to  exegetical  matter.  Another  and  perhaps  more  serious  ground  for 
hesitation  attaches  specially  to  llie  l^tin  Christian  writings  of  the  time 
when  ecclesiastical  Latin  was  still  in  process  of  making :  for  its  mode  of 
thought  and  its  technical  language  often  betray  such  obvious  marks  of 
their  ultimate  Greek  origin  that  the  decision  whether  any  particular 
document  is  a  translation  into  Latin,  or  an  original  Latin  production  of 
a  writer  imbued  with  Greek  ideas  and  Greek  training,  becomes  peculiarly 
difficult.  Tertullian  was  no  doubt  neither  the  only  nor  the  last  Latin 
Christian  who  composed  in  both  languages  :  and  in  writers  of  less 
individuality  than  Tertullian  this  bilingual  facility  would  result  in 
a  graecised  Latin  that  might  be  hard  to  distinguish  from  the  Latin 
rendering  of  a  Greek  original.  Therefore  if  I  suggest  that  our  document 
may  be  only  a  translation,  it  must  be  understood  that  the  suggestion 
is  propounded  tentatively  and  with  full  appreciation  of  the  reasons  that 
make  for  caution.  But  the  cumulative  effect  of  the  following  instances 
collected  from  my  apparatus  criticus  seems  to  me  sufficient  to  warrant 
the  claim  of  the  hypothesis  as  at  least  a  possible  alternative  : — ch.  viii, 
L  II  'rapiemur  in  nubibus,  id  est  a  ministris  nubibus',  ApnArHCDMeeA  cn 


DOCUMENTS  221 

nc^AaiC,  tovt*  itrriv  vno  Xttrovpy&v  [r&p]  iv^XAv — the  dative  With  h  can 

be  instrumental  in  Greek,  but  hardly  so  the  ablative  with  'in'  in 
Latin  :  ch.  xiii,  1.  7  '  de  vii  dies  *,  irtpi  rov  'Etrrh  rnUpai — Mercati  avoids 
this  by  writing  *de  vii  diebus':  ch.  xiv,  1.  5  *quia  Christo  resurgente', 
mi  Xpurrov  dvurratuvov :  ch.  xiv,  1. 34  *  menierunt  resurgere '  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  sinners,  ri^A$rf<rav :  ch.  xvii,  1.  11  *  de  eius  accipit,'  cVc  rov  [ii/ov] 
Xaf»fiav€t,  Jo.  xvi  15 :  ch.  xix,  1.  10  '  sed  qui  etiam  hi  qui  christiani  erant 
. . .  cesserunt,'  Saot  dc  km  xpurrtatmi  Svrtf .  . .,  where  Mercati  simplifies  the 
Latin  construction  by  writing  '  sed  quia  etiam  hi  qui  christiani  erant  ac 
.  . .  cesserunt  *. 

It  is  worthy  of  mention  in  this  connexion,  though  one  would  not  wish 
to  lay  undue  stress  on  the  fact,  that  the  Muratorian  Canon,  which  is 
found  in  the  same  MS  as  our  document  and  at  no  great  distance  from 
it,  is  also  according  to  all  probability  a  translation  from  the  Greek. 

If  then  we  have  to  face  the  possibility  that  the  Latin  as  we  have  it  is 
not  original,  the  limits  of  date  as  given  above  will  of  course  apply  only 
to  the  Greek  original,  not  to  the  Latin  translation.  Yet  the  translation 
itself  must  belong  at  latest  to  a  time  not  appreciably  removed  from  the 
inferior  limit,  that  is  to  say,  from  the  early  years  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  decisive  factor  in  this  case  is  the  character  of  the  Latin  biblical  text, 
which  has  striking  affinities  with  some  of  our  oldest  authorities.  In 
particular  we  are  fortunate  in  possessing  in  the  ad  Fariunatum  of  St 
Cyprian  (§  11,  Hartel  i  335)  a  continuous  quotation  of  Matt,  xxiv  4-31, 
—a  passage  which  for  its  last  twelve  or  thirteen  verses  runs  parallel  with 
the  opening  chapters  of  our  document :  and  a  summary  comparison  of 
these  verses  with  Cyprian  and  the  chief  Old  Latin  MSS  of  the  Gospels 
will  sufficiently  guarantee  the  early  character  of  the  text. 

[Verse  19]. 

I.  nutrientibus  with  Cyprian  codd.  TW 

nutricantibus  t  Tcrt.  1/3  Cypr.  codd.  RS 
lactantibus  a  d  Tert  3/3 
ubera  dantibus  b 
[Verse  ao]. 

a.  orate  autem  with  abdt 

adorate  (om.  autem)  Cypr. 

3.  ucl  with  a  b  Cjrpr.  cod.  T 

aut  t  Cypr,  cod.  R 
nee  d  Cypr. 
[Verse  31]. 

4.  pressurae  (pressura)  with  §  Cypr.  Iren.  x/a 

tribulatio  abd  Iren.  i/a 

5.  fuerunt  (fuit)  with  abd 

est  facta  *  Cypr.  Iren. 

6.  ab  initio  with  Iren.  9/3 

ab  initio  mundi  #  Cypr. 

ab  initio  saeculi  abd  Iren.  z/3 


222         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

[Verse  a  a]. 

7.  electorum  causa  with  HiL  i/a 

propter  electos  abd€  Cypr.  HiL  i/a 
[Verse  33]. 

8.  hie  est  with  t  (Tert  X) 

hie  a  bd  Cypr.  Auct  rebapt. 

9.  aut  illic  with  d 

aut  ecce  illic  a  Cjrpr. 

ecce  iUic  b  e 

aut  hie  Auct.  rebapt  Cypr.  cod.  V 

10.  ne  credatis 

nolite credere abde Cypr.  Auct.  rebapt. 
[Verse  34]. 

1 1.  portesta  with  Cypr.  Auct  rebapt 

prodigia  abde 
I  a.  ita  ut  in  errorem  inducant .  . .  electos  (with  a  X) 

ita  ut  in  errorem  inducantur  .  .  .  electi  b  (a  f) 

ita  ut  errent . .  .  electi  e  Auct  rebapt 

ut  seducantur  . . .  electos  d 

ad  errorem  faciendum  .  . .  electis  Cypr. 

ad  euertendos  .  . .  electos  Tert 

13.  etiam  with  a  b  Auct  rebapt  Cypr.  codd.  VW 

et  d  C3rpr.  cod.  S 
om,  t  Cypr.  cod.  R 
[Verse  as]. 

14.  (ecce)  praedizi  with  abde 

proem  uos  autem  cauete  Cypr. 
[Verse  36]. 

15.  deserto  with  abde 

solitudine  CypT, 

16.  cubiculo  d 

■  cubiculi^  (cf.  our  document,  ch.  iv,  1.  7)  Cypr. 
promtuariis  e 
penetralibus  a  b 
[Verse  37], 

17.  coniscatio  with  d  e  Cjrpr. 

fulgur  a  b 

18.  quae  exit  with  e  Cypr. 

exit  {om.  quae)  ab  d 

19.  paret  with  a  b 

apparet  e  Cypr. 
lucet  d 

30.  usque  in  with  a  d 

usque  ad  e  Cypr. 
usque  b 

31.  aduentus  with  a  d 

et  aduentus  b  e  Cypr. 
[Verse  38]. 

33.  ubi  with  e  Cypr. 

ubicumque  ab  d  Iren. 
33.  fuerit  with  a  d  Cypr. 

erit  b  e 

est  Iren. 


DOCUMENTS  223 

24.  corpus  with  a  b  t 

cadauer  d  Cypr.  Iren. 
35.  illuc  with  Cypr.  Iren. 

illic  abt  Cypr.  cod.  W 

ibi</ 
26.  congregabuntur  with  abde  Iren.  Cypr.  cod.  S 

colligentur  Cypr. 
[Verse  29]. 

37.  statim  with  a  b 

continuo  d  *  Cypr. 

28.  tribulationem  with  abde 

pressuram  Cypr. 

29.  contenebrabitur 

tenebricabit  Cjrpr. 
in  tenebris  conuertetur  « 
obscurabitur ab  d 
[Verse  30]. 

30.  parebit  with  ab  d 

apparebit  t  Cypr. 

31.  plangant  (-ent)  se  with  a  Tichonius 

plangebunt  d 
lamenubuntur  #  Cypr. 
concident  se  b 

32.  magna  with  d  e  Cypr. 

multa  a  b 

33.  claritate  with  #  Cypr. 

maiestate  a  b 
gloria  d 
[Verse  31]. 

34.  colligent  with  e  Cypr. 

concolligent  d 
congregabunt  a  b 

35.  a  summis  with  a  b  Cypr. 

ab  extremo  d  t 

36.  ultimum  with  a 

extremum  t 
summum  d 
summitates  Cypr. 
tenninum  b 

If  we  tabulate  the  results,  we  find  that  our  document  has  with  a 
eighteen  agreements,  and  with  each  of  the  other  four  continuous  texts 
thirteen  or  fourteen  agreements,  out  of  the  thirty-six  cases.  It  is^ 
perhaps,  more  really  instructive  to  note  the  cases  in  which  it  goes  with 
the  better  of  two  readings  where  these  five  ancient  authorities  are 
divided  against  each  other.  Thus  in  i  it  goes  with  Cyprian ;  in  4  with 
e  Cypr.  Iren.  1/2  ;  in  11  with  Cypr.  Auct.  rebapt. ;  in  16  with  </Cypr. ; 
in  17  with  d  e  Cypr. ;  in  18  with  e  Cypr. ;  in  25  with  Cypr.  Iren. ;  in  29 
it  is  closest  to  Cypr. ;  in  32  it  goes  with  d  e  Cypr. ;  in  33,  34,  with  e 
Cypr. ;  in  35  with  a  b  Cypr.     It  is  clear  that,  on  the  whole,  though  it  is 


224         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


not  an  *  African  *  text,  it  approaches  more  neaiXj  to  the  *  African  '  tc 
of  e  Cyprian  than  do  the  typical  fourth-century  texts  a  and  A. 

We  conclude  then,  so  far,  that  the  original  document  belongs  to  the 
third  century  or  at  latest  to  the  early  years  of  the  fourth,  and  that 
the  form  in  which  it  comes  to  us,  even  if  not  itself  original,  cannot 
be  much  later  than  this.  We  now  proceed  to  enquire  whether  the 
probabilities  point  to  its  being  complete  in  itself,  or  whether,  alter- 
natively, it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  selection  from  a  larger  whole,  such 
as  a  commentary  on  the  entire  Gospel  of  St  Matthew,  It  is  perhaps 
the  most  convenient  method  of  approaching  this  problem,  although 
it  wilt  involve  some  digression,  to  commence  by  asking  what  com- 
mentaries on  this  Gospel  are  known  to  have  been  written  in  the  ante- 
Nicene  period,  and  which  of  them  come  into  serious  consideration  as 
the  possible  source  of  our  fragment 

St  Jerome,  in  the  preface  to  his  own  commentary  on  St  Matthew 
(a-d.  387  ;  ed*  Vallarsi  vii  6),  gives  the  following  enumeration  of  those 
who  had  preceded  him  in  the  task  of  exposition :  '  legisse  me  fateor 
ante  annos  plurimos  in  Mattheuro  Origeais  viginti  quinque  volumina 
ct  totidem  eius  Homilias,  commaticumque  interpretation  is  genus;  ct 
Theophili  Antiochenae  urbis  episcopi  commentaries,  Hippolyii  quoque 
roartyris,  et  Theodori  Heracleotae,  ApoUinarisque  Laodiceni,  ac  Didymi 
Alexandrini ;  et  Latinorum  Hilarii,  Yictorini,  Fortunatiani  opuscula.' 
Of  these  nine  commentators,  Theodore  of  Heraclea,  Apollinaris  of 
Laodicea,  and  Didymus  of  Alexandria  among  the  Greeks,  Hilary 
of  Poitiers  and  Fortunatian  of  Aquiteia  among  the  Latins,  are  post- 
Nicene,  and  do  not  therefore  concern  us  on  this  occasioiL  There 
remain  of  the  Greeks  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Hippolytus,  and  Origen, 
of  the  Latins  Victorinus  of  Pettau :  and  to  one  of  these,  as  the  only 
known  anle-Nicene  expositors  of  St  Matthew,  our  fragment  must  be 
presumed  to  belong,  if  its  source  is  to  be  found  in  a  systematic  com- 
mentary. But  the  alternatives  open  can  be  reduced  within  narrower 
limits  still.  The  commentary  of  Origen  is  extant  for  the  whole  of  the 
latter  part  of  the  Gospel  in  an  old  Latin  translation  (ed.  de  la  Rue, 
iii  521-951),  and  cannot  possibly  represent  the  same  original  as  our 
fragment:  while  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  fragment,  if  it  is  part 
of  a  larger  whole  at  all,  must  come  from  a  commentary  and  not  from 
either  'homilies'  or  'scholia'.  And  in  any  case  the  Millenarianism 
of  our  document,  however  moderate  it  may  be,  would  put  out  of  court 
at  once  any  claim  on  the  part  of  Origen  to  be  regarded  as  its  author. 
The  case  for  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  again,  is  too  slight  to  be  taken 
into  serious  account.  Even  if  we  defer  to  Jerome's  authority  in 
admitting  the  existence  and  genuineness  of  a  work  about  which  Eusebius 
in  his  catalogue  of  Theophilus's  writings  (J5^  £.  iv  24)  is  wholly  silent, 


I 


I 


DOCUMENTS 


225 


we  could  not  bring  it  into  relation  with  our  fragment,  which  bears  all 
the  marks  of  the  more  developed  literature  of  the  third  century,  while 
the  episcopate  of  Theophilus  came  to  an  end  before  the  last  decade 
of  the  second.  If  we  have  to  choose  among  the  commentators,  the 
choice  reduces  itself  to  the  two  names  of  Hippolytus  and  Victorinus. 

That  Hippolytus  really  wrote  a  commentary  on  St  Matthew's  Gospel 
may  be  accepted  on  the  authority  of  Jerome's  preface  to  his  own  com- 
mentary as  indubitable,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  neither  of  the  two 
earliest  lists  of  his  works— that  inscribed  on  the  chair  of  his  statue  at 
Rome,   and   that   contained   in   Eusebius  H,E.  vi    22— contain  any 
mention  of  it.     The  Chair  is  silent  as  to  exegetical  works  altogether  *, 
though  we  know  that  Hippolytus  wrote  for  instance  on  the  book  of 
Daniel  and  on  the  Song  of  Songs  \  and  Eusebius  concludes  his  list 
with  the  caution  that  'very  many  other  works'  of  this  author  would 
be  found  on  research  to  be  extant,     That  Hippolytus  wrote  in  Greek 
vras  unfavourable  to  the  circulation  of  his  writings  in  the  West ;  that 
lie  wrote  in  or  near  Rome  was  equally  unfavourable  to  their  circulation 
in  the  East.     It  would  therefore  in  any  case  be  hardly  surprising  that 
tiie  commentary  should  have  soon  dropped  out  of  sight :  and  the  dis- 
appearance would  be  still  easier  to  explain  if  the  lost  writing  were  not 
a  commentary  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  if  it  were  not,  that  is, 
a  continuous  exposition  of  the  text  of  the  Gospel  from  beginning  to 
end.     More  than  one  consideration  may  be  thought  to  point  in  this 
direction.     The    parallel  enumeration   in    Jerome  of   expositions  of 
I  Corinthians—'  latissirae  banc  epistulam  ititerpretati  sunt,'  ep.  49  §  3 
(a.d.  593) — includes  several  writers  such  as  Dionysius,  Pierius,  and  Euse- 
bius^ who  certainly,  so  far  as  we  know,  never  composed  complete  com- 
mentaries on  the  epistle.     Moreover,  in  the  days  of  Hippolytus  the 
biblical  commentary  as  a  department  of  Christian  literature  was  still 
in  its  infancy :  and  even  a  writing  entitled  EtV  rhv  ^(SBmav  or  EiV  ri  «otij 
Ma^oioi*  need  not  have  meant  more  than  a  discussion  of  particular 
sections  or  aspects  of  the  Gospe!.     The  titles  of  other  works  of  Hip- 
polytus  sufficiently  shew  that   eschatology  was  a   specially  congenial 
theme :  and  it  is  significant  in  this  respect  that  all  the  fragments  of  any 
considerable  compass  which  can  be  referred  with  probability  to  the  lost 
commentary  on  St  Matthew  belong  without  exception  to  the  twenty- 
fourth  chapter,    (a)  In  Htrmathena  vii  1 3  7-1 50  (a.  t>.  1 890)  Dr*  J.  Gwynn 
pubhshed  with  English  translation  an  extract  from  the  Syriac   com- 
mentary of  Dionysius  Bar-Salibi   on   the  Apocalypse  (MS  Brit.  Mus. 
Rich  7185),  which  cites  Hippolytus^s  explanation  of  Matt,  xxiv  15-22, 
and  gives  in  the  margin  the  additional  reference  to  '  the  interpretation 

1  Uitle^  the  enigmatk  phrase  usually  printed  ^tai  A%  «daa»  tvls  ypa^s  conceals 
in  some  way  or  another  a  reference  to  them. 
VOL.  V.  Q 


226         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


of  the  Gospel ',  ;.  e.  to  a  definite  commentary :  Harnack  Altchr.  Lit- 
teratur  i  64 1 ,  appears  to  accept  this  attribution,  but  Gwynn^  while  not 
doubting  the  Hippolytean  authorship,  speaks  with  reserve  as  to  the 
actual  source  of  the  quotation,  and  Achelis  in  the  Berlin  edition  of 
Hippolylus  (I  ii  243-246;  a. d.  1897)  prints  it  among  the  fragments 
of  the  *  Capilula  against  Gaius  *.  {if)  From  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  and  Arabic 
catenae,  which  all  represent  a  single  (doubtless  Greek)  source,  Achelis 
op.  at.  197-207  prints  German  translations  of  interpretations  ascribed 
to  Hippolytus  covering  Matt,  xxiv  15-34*  The  Syriac  comment  over- 
laps slightly,  the  Egyptian  overlaps  largely,  the  passage  expounded  in 
our  Latin  document :  and  the  general  character  of  the  relationship 
is  that  of  similarity  of  thought  without  any  such  marked  contact  as  we 
should  expect  in  independent  versions  of  a  common  original.  If  there- 
fore the  Oriental  fragments  belong  to  the  commentary  on  the  Gospel, 
then,  unless  they  have  suffered  unusually  in  the  process  of  transmission, 
the  Latin  can  hardly  belong  to  it  as  well :  if  on  the  other  hand  they 
are  drawn  from  Hippolytus  indeed,  but  from  sources  other  than  the 
commentary,  then  the  attribution  of  the  Latin  to  the  commentary  would 
explain  at  once  its  similarity  to  them  in  general  thought  and  its  diver- 
gence in  expression  and  in  detail.  Here  the  matter  may  be  left,  while 
something  is  said  about  the  other  commentator  whose  claims  must 
be  compared  with  those  of  Hippolytus. 

Victorinus  of  Petavio  or  Pettau,  on  the  borders  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  speaking  worlds,  was  according  to  Jerome,  de  viris  illustribus  74, 
better  acquainted  with  Greek  than  with  Latin :  if  he  wrote  chiefly  or 
exclusively  in  the  latter  tongue,  this  was  the  necessary  consequence 
of  a  definite  aim  which  he  had  set  before  himself.  Victorinus  in  fact — 
and  the  aim  was  a  noble  one,  however  inadequate  its  execution— 
wished  to  familiarize  the  Latin  Christian  world,  which  down  to  that 
time  (he  was  martyred  in  the  persec  ution  of  Diocletian)  appears  to  have 
possessed  no  exegeticai  literature  of  its  own,  with  the  thoughts  and 
methods  of  Hippolytus  and  Origen.  So  much  we  learn  from  repeated 
statements  of  Jerome :  ep,  36  §  16  ad  Damasum  (a.  d.  384)  *  Hippolyti 
martyris  uerba  ...  a  quo  et  Victorinus  noster  non  plurimum  discrepat  '  r 
ep-  61  §  2  ad  Vigilantium  (a.  d.  396)  'taceo  de  Victorino  Petabionensi 
et  ceteris  qui  Origenera  in  explanatione  dumtaxat  scripturarum  secuti 
sunt  et  expresserunt ' :  ep.  84  §  7  ad  Pammachium  (a,  d,  400)  •  nee 
disertiores  sumus  Hiiario  nee  fideliores  Victorino,  qui  eius  \sc.  Origenis] 
tractatus  non  ut  interpretes  sed  ut  auctores  proprii  opens  transtu- 
lerunt'.  These  passages  do  not  apply  only  or  primarily  to  the  com- 
mentary on  St  Matthew,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  exclude  it  from  their 
purview.  And  if  either  Hippolytus  or  Origen  was  here  the  model  of 
Victorinus,  the  probabilities  are  distinctly  in  favour  of  Hippolytus. 


\ 


DOCUMENTS 


227 


> 


We  know  that  the  commentary  of  Origen  was  of  enormous  length  and 
prolixity :  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe  on  the  other  hand  that  the 
work  of  Hippolytus  may  have  been  no  more  than  a  partial  and  incom- 
plete exposition :  and  the  language  of  Cassiodorus,  de  insHtuiiom 
divinarum  iitUrarum  §  7,  '  Mattheum  .  ,  *  de  quo  et  Victorinus  ex 
oratore  episcopus  nonnulla  disseruit,*  suggests  that  the  same  was  the 
case  with  Victorinus* 

That  Victorinus  is  connected  in  some  way  or  other  with  our  docu- 
ment, eilher  as  actually  its  author  or,  if  it  is  drawn  from  a  Greek  source, 
as  its  translator,  appears  more  than  probable.  If  the  arguments  for 
regarding  the  I^tin  as  a  translation  are  sound,  then  no  name  can 
be  put  forward  for  the  authorship  of  the  original  so  likely  as  Hippolytus. 
Perhaps  the  indications  given  by  Jerome  suggest  that  the  truth  lies 
with  neither  of  these  alternatives  exclusively  but  midway  between  them, 
and  we  may  suppose  Victorinus  to  have  worked  partly  as  *  author  *  and 
partly  as  '  interpreter  *  in  the  composition  of  perhaps  the  earliest  piece 
of  Latin  exegesis  that  has  come  down  to  us. 

^m      L  Omte  autem  ne  flat  fuoa  uestra  hiema  uel  Babbato,  id  est  ne 

cum  fuca  fit  inpedimentum  patiamini.   oraire  autem  est  semper  sollicitum 

esse  et  auxilium  Dei  inplurare,  ne  impedimentis  constrictus  tempore  quo 

fugiendum  est  terrenis  nexibus  obligetur.     semper  autem  inpedimenta 

S  fugienda  sunt :  idcirco  sic  nos  constituere  debemus  ut  cum  fuge  dies 

>  *  uenerit  liberi  et  a^^  fucam  a/ti  inueniamur.  hieme  autem  |  et  sabbato 
cum  dicit,  quid  aliud  significat  quam  tempos  quo  fugire  non  potest,  id 
est  ne  cum  fuga  fit  inpedimenta  et  hiemrs  et  sabbati  in  nobis  inueniantur, 
quibus  inpediti  fugire  non  possumus?  hiems  autem  ad  fugiendum  uel 
*olatendum  intuta  et  minus  utilis  est:  sabbatttw  uero  ultra  iter  facere 
quam  lex  iubet  secondum  ludeos  non  sini't,  non  ergo  sabbati  lege  uti 
nos  praecipit,  quod  iam  solutum  est,  sed  ne  actus  nostri  cum  fuca  fit 
hiemi  et  sabbato  conparentur,  sicut  pri^antiuia  et  nutrientium. 

I.   2.  horarer^     3.  inplurare:  iVa  ^^rr (iw /) ^jc  inplurale     5.  fuge: 


Codex  iLmbroHianiis  I  loi  sup./?/.  19 «  (saec.  vii-viii) 

INCIPIT   DE   MATHEO   EVANGE 


Hfttt.  xxiv 
3o 


HAtt.  xxirj 
19 


fu«»e  (fugae?)  f«/' 
abti  cod     hime  c&d* 
Qm  cod*     hiemes  cod 
scripsi :  sabbato  cod 
tium  cod 


6.  uenenerit  cod      ad  fucam  scripsi:  a  fuca  cod 

7,  fugire  :  iia  corr  m  p  ex  fuge         8,  ne  m  2  : 

9.  quibu  inpedeti  fugere  cod*^        10,  sabbalum 

faceret  ^»^*  i\.i\xi€^cod         13.  prinnan- 


Q3 


Tll£  JUUWNAL   or   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


pfilful  et  nk  ifitflllealt  quia  'nouiivima  pcrsecutio  est*  in  hieme  uel 
Hibtmto  ftlgiiinrAlii  lil  r   wbbAikm  cnlin  nouissimus  dies  est  et  hiens  i> 

ttlli  ttit  IL  \^^  i^ulti  griiuo«  prftMura  ol  quAl^s  non  ftiorunt  ab  initio enint, 
^^*  ^^  tItilHtUmi  lie  A  ndtf  ditcixiAmus :  quia  humatu  fragilitas  diutinam  per- 
ltN'iUi«)Hilfti  r«rti»  non  potest,  ei  t^mput  ad  &im  pnefenitam  uiiionim 
nuuii^m  (ii)ilfri  t)|M>cttt»  tltetorum  luorum  oausa  breuiabiiBtiir  ait, 
m  i^mMtUiii  pi«MUf«  Ktnuad  inuid  €ed«r«Qt  uicti  torm^ntis,  ne  ma&cii  f 
iifkteUfitiii  iiiu  muum  iotillocittia  oonua,  qok  deoocits  atti  mfwmts 
MrtI  ptHril  <tti|liMlt)  lUffii  mim  praraa  a  mpinie  om  mmack 
^Qltl^  tiiriMli  triM  ilitlii.  iioilMiiiBioblemNatteiHMeMi 
ttiliii  #litMlllft  iokiiilQrilieittsadnliiteM;  |  kttk^tmmmwmmammjM 
\MJMdv>i«  «ok  iMhMif  iiMlur  irecc|M  persecutioiK  ttsqne  ad 


DOCUMENTS 


229 


est  uel  ad  momtntum  in  terra  uult  utt,  vr  in  templo  dei  id  est  in  iTh€sa.if 
ecclesia  sedeat  ostendens  se  qvasi  sit  devs.     iam  enim  periturus 
re  propter  quam  pent  uel  ad  tempus  uult  uti ;  mauult  enim  perire  quam 
rem  quam  adgiessus  est  non  inplere.     hic  furor  habet  et  iracondia  ut 

lio^  rem  quam  contrariara  scit  non  praetermittat,nec  uictuj  uideatur  |  quamuis 
t6  scia/  se  uinci,  sed  yincere  sibi  uidetur  dum  a  proposito  non  discedit : 
licet  et  conpressus  enim  in  eadem  tamen  uoluntate  perdurat.  thoc  enim 
illi  perdidesse  et  poenale  est  si  quod  non  uult  ipse  se  perdidesse  fateaturt. 
non  solum  enim  praessuras  Dei  seruis  excitat  ut  metu  et  dolore  cedant 
ao  ADORANTES  illum  quas!  Deum,  sicut  ausus  est  ad  Salbatorem  dicere,  Matt  iv  9 
addTrari  autem  se  uult  Deum  et  damnari,  ut  impleat  uoluntatis  suae 

I        malignae  proposituro ;  sed  et  per  diuersa  iactari  praecipit  christuw  esse 

aliquando  in  cobiculo,  aliquando  in  deserto  (facile  enim  quij  seducitur  Matt,  xjtiv 
si  illi  fingitur  quod  amare  scitur),  ut  hi  qui  tormentis  praessurarum  uinci  *^ 
35  non  possunt  dolo  capiantur^  credentes  christum  esse  qui  non  est,  aut 
hi  qui  in  latibuHs  degunt  exeant  putantes  christum  suum  ad  auxilium 
serborum  suorum   uenisse,  et  sic  antichristum   fatendo  filivm  per-  jTheia.ii3 

I        DTTiONis  perditioni  adquirentur,  aut  incident  in  poenas  per  quas  forte 

uincantur,  aut  crucientur.    accedunt  his  signa  et  prodigia  magna,  quae 

^  faciliora  sint  ad  persuadendum  etiam  Sanctis,     hinc  ergo  pugnat  dolus, 

illinc  persecutio  et  tormenta,  ex  alia  parte  signa  et  prodigia  j  ut  quo- 

modo  est  diabulus  non  esse  putetur,  et  h'cet  ab  inuilis  qui  uincuntur 

!tonnentis  adoretur, 
IV,  Sed  Salbator  ad  munimenia  seruorum  suorum  omnia  haec  futura 
ad  seducendum  praedixit  et  monuit  |  spe  praemii  toleranda ;  et  non  sic 
se  appariturum  ut  alicubi  esse  et  alicubi  non  esse  dicatur^  sed  manifestari 
aduentum  suum  omnimodo  et  ocukta  fide  una  hora  omnibus  apparere 
in.  II.  mumentum  «w/  14.  inplere:  m^i^  cad^  (corr  m p)  hic 
scripsi'.  hoc  cod  innit  cod*  15.  contrariam  cod:  addendum  forte  sibi  | 
nee  uictus  uideatur  scripsi:  om  cod*,  add  nee  uictur  uideatur  m  p} 
16.  sciat  se  uinci  scripsi  \  sciaseuinci  cod  disedit  cod'*'  1 8.  fatetur  cod^ 
19.  praessuris  f^*  %^m\%  scripsi  \  senius  rcf/  et :  om  cod*  21.  ad- 
urari  cod  22,  christum  scripsi:  xp  cod        23.  quis  scripsi t  qui  cod 

24,  illi:  illid  ^i?^*  amare  scitur  scripsi  (sed  forsitan  malis  adaroare): 
admarescitur  «?^  27.  sic:  sicut  fo^*  filium  perditionis  perditioni 
scripsi,  cf  1 10  supra :  filius  perditionis  (tantum)  cod* :  filius  perditioni  cod* 
a8.  incidant  jrrr/*j/:  incidunt  fft^ 

IV.  3,  non  m  2:  omcod*  4.  occulta  ^decod:  ocula.i^  Ede  coniea 

e  Cypriano  ad  Fortunatura  xiii  (Ilartel  346.  7)  Paulus  ...  qui  oculata 
(oculata  coddf  occulta  edd priores)  fide  lesum  Christum  uidisse  se  gloria- 
tlir :  uerbum  oculare  apud  Ttrtuliianum  aliquoHcs  inuemtur :  cf,  adv. 
Marc  ii  25,  poen.  12,  apoL  2,  pudic.  8  (Forceilini-de  Vit) 


f 

I 


230  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


»uv 


Matt,  xxiv 


Apoc.  xii 

i»3.  7-V 


ostendit  dicens  Sicnt  enim  comscatio  quae  exit  ab  oriente  et  paret 
uaque  in  ocoideutem,  ita  erit  aduentnis  fill  hominiE :  ut  per  hoc 
omnis  dolus  et  niuiUatio  diabuli  qui  christum  tingit  in  co/Acuhs  aut  in 
desertis  apparuisse  manifeste  uitetur.  non  enim  quasi  corporatus  homo, 
qui  in  loco  uno  uideatur  et  in  alio  non  sit,  apparebit  Saluatur,  sed  filius 
Dei,  ut  impleat  mondum  splendore  magistatis  suae :  quia  sicut  primo  i 
aduentu  in  homine  Deus  uisus  est,  ita  et  in  Deo  Dei  filio  homo  uidebi- 
tur  spiritali  uigore  praeclarus.  quo  uiso  boni  fruentur  uitam,  alii  uero 
formidrnem  passi  cum  cruiriatu  uita  prittentur. 

V.  Et  quia  sancti  qui  pressuras  et  angustias  antichrist!  perseuerantis 
Mei  uigore  uicerunt  cum  sanct/s  qui  cum  Domino  aduenient  rapientur, 
Ubi  faerit  corpus  iJliic  congre^btmtttr  aqmlae ;  ut  cum  Domino  et 
fratribus  suis  post  tempestates  et  angustias  requiescant,  corpus  tamen 
Domini  significauit  et  sanctos,  quia  membra  ait  svmvs  corpvris  eivs  :  5 
aquilas  autem  ideo  dixit  quia  regalis  generis  sunt  cristiani  ac  per  hoc 
aquilis  conparati  sunt,  dicente  Petro  apostolo  genvs  resale.  ■ 

VI.  Sed  quia  apparente  Domino  sol  et  lima  statim  ab  officio  desistunt  \J 
amissa  luminis  clarltate,  adiecit  Dominus  Statim  autem  poet  tiibu- 
latiooem  dierum  iHomm  aol  contenebrabitur  et  luna  non  dabit 
lumen  suum  et  etellae  cadent  de  caelo,  et  uirtutes  caelorum . 
mouebuntur :  e^  tunc  parent  filius  bominis  in  caelo.    apertum  estfl 
et  nulli  dubium  quia  de  caelestibus  et  spiritalibus  caelis  in  his  carna- 
libus  (ex  quibus  nouissimae  diabvlvs  proiectvs  est)  caelis  apparente 
Domino,  et  potentia  claritatis  suae  mundum  inluminante,  nulla  creatura 
tpatiaturt  nisi  cui  ipse  concesserit.    qui  enim  fieri  potest  ut  uero  lumine 
apparente  creatum  non  decidat,  et  Domino  praesente  serui  formidinira  i 
patiantur,  quippe  cum  sciant  officia  sua  lam  cessare  nee  posse  Domino 
praesente   serui?s   iudicare,  praesertim  qui  forte  administratiom's   suae 
non  ita  ut  a  Deo  decretum  est  egerint  tern  pus  ?  aliquae  ergo  potentiae 
conscientia  reatus  sui  infirmitale  decidunt,  aliquae  reue^ntia  agnitionis 
dominicae  prostrate  humiliantes  se  creatori.    interea  signum  domini  lesu  t 
in  oaelo  uide^iiur,  id  est  crux  eius  apparebit  quasi  tropeum  uictoriae 


IV.  7.  gauillatio  cod  couiculis  cod  8.  uetetur  c<?d  10.  magistati 
SMZQ  £iad*  {eorr  m  p)  11,  uidebatur  f^if  13.  passi  x^n/if':  pas- 
sim cod        crutiatu  cod  ^ 

V.  a.  Sanctis  :  scs  cod  3.  congrecabuntur  cod  4,  fratribus :  ff bus 
cod        5,  sanctos :  scs  cod        6.  aquila  cod*  {corr  m  p)      recale  cod 

VI.  3.    lunam  cod         5.    pareuit  cod         9,   qui  scrtpst:    quin  cod 
\  I  ^2A\2^nlw.  pracmittendum  for tcLsse  non         17 »  ^trrnxs  cod     fortae^zM 
administrationes  cod  13.  aliquae  .  .  .  aliquae  scrtpst:  alii  quae  .  . . 
alii  quae  cod          14.  reuerentia  scripsii  reuentiae  cod*  :  reuentia?  cod* 
16,  uideuitur  cod      appareuit  cod 


DOCUMENTS 


231 


quo  uicta  mors  est,  quae  none  perfid/s  stvltitia  et  dedecus  uidetur, 
32  a  dum  enim  aduentus  eius  totum  mundum  inbminat,  |  eignum  tamen  eius 
in  oaelo  uidebitur  yt  qui  sit  sciatur,    hinc  fiet  ut  omnes  plangant  se 

*C  QVI     NGN     CREDIDERVNT   VERITATI    CONSENSERVNT    AVTEM    INIQVITATI, 

sed   iam   in   poeniientiam   locom   non    habe^t   pr^terea  quod   inuid 
confiteri  coguntur:  si  quominus,  inanitur  fides,  si  hi  admittendi  sunt. 

vn,  Videbunt  ergo  uenientem  Dominum,  sicut  ipse  dicit,  in  nu^^bus 
caeli  ctun  tiirtuto  ma^a  et  olarit^td :  ut  cum  in  nu^biifl  uenire 
uidetur  Dominus  esse  credatur^cui  famulantur  caelorum  nubes  obsequium 
debitum  reddere  oidentur ;   ctim  uirtuto  autem  magna,  id  est  cum 

5  LEGION iBvs  innumeris  angelorvm  ;  et  claritate  autem  cum  dicit,  hoc 
signifirat  quia  omn/s  exercitus  eius  potentia  caelestis  naturae  fulgebit 
sicut  exercitus  potentissimi  regis,  ex  his  ergo  omnibus  supra  memuratis 
dinuscitur  esse  Deus,  qui  prius  ut  infirmis  homo  fuerat  derisus  et  con- 
temptus]  nee  ab  aliqua  creatura  usurpator  et  subreplor  regni  iudicabitur 

10  qui  in  nuiHbiis  oaeli  uenire  oum  uirtnte  magna  et  claritate  uide^tun 

non  enim  haec  omnia  illi  famularentur,  nisi  eum  cognuscerent  crealorem. 

VIII.  Tunc,  id  est  In  ipso  aduentu,  mittit  inquid  angeloe  auos  (ex 

^"*eorum  utique  numero  qui  secum  uenerant  in  exercitum),  |  ©t  ooUigent 

electee  eins  a  emnmis  eaelonim  uaque  ad  nltimnm  eorum,  id  est 

de  summis  caelis  ubi  animae  occisorvm  visae  svnt  usque  ad  ultimum 

5  quod  tn  mondo  est,  quod  superius  dixit  ubi  fuerit  corpus  illuo 
oongregabuntur  aqtdlae.  hoc  apostolus  t^tum  non  diu  fieri  docet, 
sed  cito  factum  diu  manere :  quamuis  humana  conscientia  sic  debeat 
uidere  aduentum  Domini  ut  intellegat  et  torqueatur  proprio  tortore  et 
sic  morti  gehennae  adiudicetur,  tamen  non  dio  fiet  nam  mortvi  ait  qvi 

10  IN  CHRISTO  SVNT  RESVRGENT  PRIMl,  DEINDE  NOS  QVI  VIVIMVS  SIMVL  CVM 

iLLis  RAFtEMVR  IN  NV.8iBVS|  id  est  a  ministris  nu^ibus,  obviam  christo 


I  Cor. 


3  Thcss,iii 

13 


MatL 
30  A 


Matt 
53 


Maitzaiv 

31 


Apoc.  vi  ^ 
i  5  supra 


I  Thcss. 
iv  16,  17 


^ 


VI,  17,  perfides  c^d  i8»  in!iminat  cod  19,  fit  c(fd^  {^corr  mf) 
20.  conssenserunt  cod  autem  m  21  om  cod*  21.  iam  :  om  cod* 
habent:  hohxX  cod*  i  hzbtt  cod*  propterea  ji^J^ji:  praeterea  ^it;^ 
3  2,  inanetur  cod* 

VII.  I.  nimihu^  cod  2,  nuuibus  f^  3.  gredatur  f<?if *  6.  signi- 
fig2X  cod  omnes  cod  potentia  5rri/>j/ :  potentiae  r«/  8.  infirmis: 
wi/tf  ^bffji-AItalaund  Vujgata/.  274  9,  usurpatur  ^f7<f  *  10.  nuibus 
cod       uideuitur  cod        1 1  cognuscerint  cod* 

viJi.  I.  ipsa  cod*  aduentus  cod*  3.  electus  cod  6.  apostulus 
cod*  toium  scrtpsi :  tntnm  cod  dock  cod*  g.  adiudicetur  : /or tassc 
scrBtndum  abiudicetur  1 1.  ilh's  ;  ipjillis  cod,  unde  fortasse  Ugendum 

ipsis  in  nobibus,  id  est  a  ministris  nubtbus:  haec  uerba  graecam  prae 
se/erre  mdentur  originem^  fV  , , ,  tovt'  iarlv  vn6 .  ,  ,  apud  iatinos  enim  in  nu- 
bibus  non  idtm  significai  atque  a  nubibus         nubibus  bts :  nuuibus  Ms  cod 


232  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Creed 
Apoc  XX  7 


Apoc,x6,7 


Matt  xxvii 


IN  A£RE«    hoc  angoli  XDlBsi  curabunt :  et  hoc  est  ivdicark  vivos  ac 
MORTVOS;  sed  adhuc   pars  malorum  superest  ad  aetemam  uindictam 
quae  fiet  post  mille  annos,  ideoque  iam  bonos  vivps  et  mortvos; 
quia  Qvi  in  christo  svnt  mortvi  in  aduentu  eius  resvrgent,  deinde  ij 
HI  QVI  vivi  inueniuntur  permansesse  in  Christo  rapientvr  obviam 
DOMINO,     qui  rapto  ipso  terrore  mortem  sicut  soporem  padentur,  tcum 
portati    dumt    ad    Dominum    perueniunt    reuiuiscentes    resurgentes. 
pseudoptofetae  autera  cum  principe  suo  antichristo  et  qui  sponte  adora- 
uerutit  eum  olim  perfidi  iussu  Domini  capli,  hoc  est  spiritforis  eivs,  |  f 
rui  se  putauerunt  posse  resistere,  vivi  missi  svnt  in  stagnvm  ignis  ai 
ardentis.     ceteri  uero,  qui  seducti  ab  eis  fuerant,  gladio  Domini  qvi 
EX  ORE  EIVS  PROCEDiT  confodientur,  id  est  uerbo  Domini  siue  uoluntate 
morientur  per  ignem,  animabus  eorum  receptis  in  tartarum*     iustus 
enira  Dominus  eos  qui  non  sunt  seducti  sed  olim  eiusdem  uoluntatis  J 
fuerunt,  uebimentius  poenas  perpeti  facit  % 

IX.  Illut  tamen  inter  cetera  contuendum  est  quia  atatim,  inquid,  post 
tribulatiooein  dierum  illoruni  boI  et  lima  soluentur  ab  officio  su0| 
amissa  luminis  clarttate,  quia  iam  tempus  cessat,  sicut  et  in  Apocalipsi 
legitur  quia  tempvs  iam   non   erit  cvm  septimvs  ancelvs  ceperit 
TVBA  canere  :  non  enim,  praesente  Domino  in  maiestate  sua,  sancti  5 
eius  sole  et  luna  egebunl.     quomodo  ergo  post  tiibulationem,  cum 
ipsa  tribulatione  Sanctis  ]X)sitis  Dominus  apparebit?   sed  qum  omnia 
bretfi  agentur,  cum  apparuerit  in  luce  maiestatis  suae  caelestibus  ac 
mundanis  tribulatio  cessat,  quia  omnium  uincula  soluentur.     et  eodem 
momento  uidebitur  BlpLtun  fii  homLms  in  oaelo :  si  enim  in  passione  u 
eius  monvmenta  aperta  svnt  petrae  fissae  svnt,  quanto  magis  cum 
uenit  in  maiestate  et  gloria  sua  sanctos  eniere  de  metu  praessurae  ac 
doloris?    soluta  ergo  |  tribulatione  statim  sol  et  luna  deficient  uelA 
cessabunt,  sublat^  sibi  actionis  potestate,  quia  dies  uerus  iam  lucet, 
quern  nox  non  sequetur  quia  mane/  totum  inluminans  mundum.    igitur  i« 
tempus  cessauit  iam,  quia  hie  Dominus  cum  suis  diu  futurus  propter 
errotes  mundanorum  regem  se  illis  tet  tinius  Dei  honore  esset  monstra^it 


12.  tiiuus  ^^       14.  bonus  ^<9£f*       muus  cod       16. 
17.  qui  scrtpsi:  quo  cod       cum:  com  cod*         18. 
reueuiscentes  cad  20.  spiritu  scripsii  sp  cad 

qui  cod        33.  ardentes  cod* 


viu, 
cod* 
cod* 
scripsi 

IX.  4,  ceperit  m  2 
cod*  :  solem  cod'^ 
9,  mondanis  cod* 
et  gloriae  suae  cod 
scri/si:  mbhtecad 
manet  totum  scrtpsti 


rapiuentur 

peruiniunt 

21.  cui 


om  cod*         5.  caneri  ^d?^*         6.  sole  nr^ji :  sol 

7.  apparebet  cod*       8.  brebi  cod     suae  :  sae  cod* 
12.  et  gloria  sua  jcnr)>ji*: 


I 


10.  mumento^i?^* 


nisi  ma/is  gloriae  suae  (om  et)  14.    sublata 

lucit  ^i?^*  15.  sequetur  r^*:  sequitur«?^* 

mane  totum  c&d        1 7.  monstrauit  cod 


DOCUMENTS 


233 


so 


xo 


>S 


20 
*^6 


iJlos  qui  crediderunt  gloriososv  ut  gloria  eoium  infidelium  poena  sit.  ideo 
MiLLE  ANNos  hic  regnOiSit  Christus  cum  suis,  ut  ipsa  regni  continuatio 
ostendat  nullam  swbreptionem  sed  uerum  esse  quod  geritur.  praeterea 
euro  tarn  claram  et  copiosum  militiae  caelestis  exercitvm  uideant, 
continuatio  regni  et  magna  uirtus  et  claritas  exercitus  et  regis  ipsiiis 
intollerabilis  splendor  aut  emendat  (quamuis  locum  praemii  non  habeat 
inoita  confessio,  sed  poenae)  aliqtios  ex  his  qui  contra  unius  Dei  fidem 
conspirauerant  cum  diabulo^  aut  inexcosabilcs  perdet.  Justus  enim  Dens 
quae  facit  ratione  facit  non  potestate. 

X.  Quid  ergo  est  ut  quibusdam  uideatur  sanctos  qui  cum  Domino 
hic  regnabiint  edituros,  qui  rexurrexerint,  qui  neqve  esvrient  neqve 
siTiENT  AMPLivs,  cum  constet  Moysew  adhuc  mortalem  praesente 
Domino  XL  DiEBVS  )  et  noctibvs  non  eswrisse?  quid  ergo  ut  sancti 
jam  nofi  morituri,  quos  scriptura  NEC  esvkire  iam  de  ^scis  manducare 
NEC  setire  adserit,  edituri  d/cantur,  cum  edere  famis  ac  sitis  necessitas 
facial  ?  absurda  ergo  et  inanis  adsertio  est  sed  Dominum  post  resurrec- 
tionem  iam  utiquae  inmortale  coq)us  ha^entem  iegisxe  se  adserunt  edisse. 
cuius  rei  causam  absolutae,  si  uelint,  adsequentur,  Dominum  non 
necessitate  edisse  coq>oris  sed  ut  rexurrectionis  suae  ueritatem  mani- 
festaret:  nam  si  adhuc  in  corpure  morti  obnoxio  ac  terreno  esvrisse 
legitur  non  tamen  edisse,  et  sitisse  ncc  tamen  btbisse— si  ergo  hoc 
mortal!  corpure  exibuit,  quanto  magis  inmortali?  sed  bona  terrae 
EDfTVROs  sanctos  promissum  est,  inquid,  et  Saluator  inter  cetera  et 
EGO  inquid  disponam  vobis  sicvt  disposvit  mihi  pater  mevs  regnvm 

FT  EDATIS  et  BIBATIS  IN  MENSA  MEA  IN  REGNO  MEO  :    si  CrgO,  inquiunt, 

mille  annos  hic  regnabit  Salbatc^r,  dubium  non  est  in  hoc  regnum  hoc  esse 
promissum,  quoniam  post  haec  redditurum  fiiium  regnum  deo  et  patri 
declarat  apostolus,  tanta  cura  ac  studio  hoc  defendunt,  ut  cupiditate 
edendi  corniptioni  corporeae  semper  uelint  subiecti  uideri.  porro 
autem  si  ratio  ipsa  in  examen  deducatur,  |  et  quid  Deo  magis  dignum 


Apoc 


the  Ml 


Apoc.vti  I 


Ex. 

3d 

Deut 
i3 


Matt,  xxi 

18,19 
Marc,  xi  1 

Jo.  XIX  3E 

Hfttt  XXV 

34  :  Mar* 
XV  33 
Is.  i  19 
Luc.  xxJi 

I  Cor. 
H 


IX.  18.  gloriosus  cod* 
sobreptionem   cad 

23.  intullerabilis  cod* 

X.  I.  uidetur  wd* 


19,  regnauit  cod         20.  ostendam  cod* 
21.    exercituum   cod  22.    exercitur  cod* 

15,  tnexcusabile  cod*        prodet  cod* 
3.  moysen  scripsi:  moyses  cod         4.  esorisse 


(0d        5.  non  morituri  scripsi:  morituri  cod       iam  2*  :  +  nec  sitire  m  a 
escis  scripsi',  scis= Sanctis  cod  6.  dicantur  scripsii  dacantur  cod 

8.  hauentem  i*^  legisse  se  jm^« :   legisesse  r^^  11.  ahuc 

cod^  obnoxium  cod*  14.  editurus  cod*  inquid 

cod*:  inquiant  «i  2  saluaturfo^*  16.  nX  scripsi:  tXcod\ 

biuatis  cod  1 7.  hic :  hoc  cod*  salbatur  cod  regnum  oc 

cod*  :  regno  hoc  cod*         20.  corporaee  cod        semper  cod^ :  sera  cod* 
31.  deducantur  «?4f 


234         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


I  Tim.  V  6 


Gal.  V  30, 


Dan.  ii  44 
Luci  33 
Apoc,xit5 


et  hominibus  consullum  sit  uideatur,  tone  quid  honim  defendi  debeat 
ahsolutae  monstra/itur.     sed  awidi  sunt  ad  bon/I  terrae  edenda,  unde 
magis  hoc  quasi  cupidi  drli«riarum  defendant ;   cum  apostolus  uiduam 
dicat  quae  in  deliciis  est  mortuam  esse  dum  uiuat^  isti  contra  ad   hoc  15 
resurgere  uolunt  ut  deliciis  perfmantur,  cum  deliciae  luxuriam  germinent, 
quae  ut  regnvm  cAEtORVM  coNQVtRr  possit  damnatur,   cum  Domino    J 
certe  futuri  sunt  eius  praesentia  inlustrati :  contumilia  eius  non  erit,  si    * 
sancti,  quos  secum  regnare  in  inmortale  regno  promisit,  cibo  terrestri 
egeant,  passi  cupiditatem  edendi  sicut  prius  cum  cumiptibile^  essent  ?  3o 
misenim  est   ut  post  resurrectionem  iam  incurruplubiles  passioni  et 
infirmiLiti  subiacere  dicantur^  cum  adhuc  mortaltbus  praesente  Domino 
infirmitas  baec  dominari  non  potuisset*     hoc  ergo  magis  dignum  Deo 
est  et  rationi  ipsi  congnium  et  hominibus  melius,  si,  quomodo  inmortales 
de  mortalibus  fecit,  sic  et  edendi  ah  eis  infirraitatew  abiecisse  dicatur :  35 
si  quominus,  mortales  uidebuntur  qui  uiuere  sine  cibo  non  possunt ;  si 
autem  possunt,  exclusa  est  edendi  ratio,  quia  non  est  qua  ex  causa 
consumatur.     quomodo  autem  |  incorrupt!  et  inmortales  resurgunt  s\f^ 
famen  patientur,  cum  famem  pati  nonnisi  mortalibus  debeatur,  fames 
autem  defectus  est  quidani  generans  mortem  ?   nam  et  hoc  melius  est  4° 
hominibus,  ut  iam  ab  hoc  officio  infirmilatis  humanae,  quod  subsequitur 
squalor,  alieni  sint;  et  Domino  qui  uita  est  in  maiestate  sua  praesente 
t  quo  t  concupiscentia  edwlium  esse  non  potest :  minus  de  eo  sentitur, 
si  illo  praesente  aliut  conatur. 

XI.  Salbatoris  regnum  aetemum  esse  scribturae  testantur  :  dicit  enim 
Danihel  profeta  inter  cetera  excita^it  dominvs  caeli  regnvm  alivt 
QVOD  NVMQVAM  coRRVMPETVR,  et  angelus  ad  Mariam  et  regnvm  eivs    < 

NON  ERIT  FINIS,  et  in  AfX>Cal}'psi  FACTVM  est  regnvm  ORBIS  terrarvm 
DOMINI  NOSTRI  ET  CHRISTI  EIVS  ET  REGNA^IT  IN  SAECVLA  SAECVLORVM.  5 

quomodo  ergo  mille  annos  cupiditatem  edendi  habebunt  quibus  regnant 
Saluator,  cum  constet  Salbatorem  semper  regnatunim  ?   aut  semper  ergo 


X.  22.  tunc  quid  horum  r«/*:  tun  qui  orum  cod*  23.  monstraui- 
i\ii  cod  ^ihxAicod  bone  ^^^  24.  dilitiarum  i*^  25.  quae 
in  deliciis  est  mortuam  esse  dum  uiuat  scripsi-.  tale  enim  aliquid 
excidisse  uidetur,  cf  i  Tim.  v  6  29.  regnum  cod*  30.  passim 
cod*  currupttbile  cod  31.  incumiptubiles  ex  incurruptum  cod 
{corrtnp)  32.  infirmitati  ^j;  infirmttas  f^{£wrr«f/)  34,  inmor- 
talis  ^£»^*  35.  infirmitate  r^^  37.  qn\2.smpsi:  quae  ^^  qua: 
quae  cod  ^Z.  autem  ;  +  q  cod*  39.  pati  cod* :  pattenlur  r<7rf* 
43.  aeuolium  cod*  :  aedoliura  cod*        potenst  cod 

XI.  I.  salbatori  cod*  scribilur  {sine  testantur)  cod*^  quod  forsitan 
in  textum  rtcipere  debui\  scribiturae  testantur  m%  2.  excitauit  cod 
5.  regnauit  cod           6.  regnauit  cod           7.  saluatur  cod* 


DOCUMENTS 


235 


1  z 


i 
I 

I 


* 


ediiuri  sint,  aut  iam,  quomodo  mors  et  curruplio  cessavit,  cessavit  et 
esoL,  quia  esca  curruptibilis  est  nam  Salbat^riN  regno  suo  edi'turos  in  Lucxj 
MENSA  sua  let^  et  sine  aliqua  sollicitutine  future  ostendit :  |  et  hoc  ill  is 
erit '  regnare '  null/us  egere,  et  *  bona  terrae  edere  *  spiritales  illius  terrae 
Iructus  capere  quam  sancti  hereditate  possidebant ;  fructus  auteni  illius 
tenae  qui  sunt  nisi  ^^audium  et  inmortatitas  ?  quia  enim  haec  uita 
terrenis  fructibos  sustentatur,  propterea  per  horum  nobis  imaginem  ilHc 
uita  promittitur :  quia  si  aliter  diceret,  non  intelkgercmus^  sed  per  haec 
quae  scimus  ilia  nobis  significantur  quae  nescimus,  tantum  ut  intelle- 
gamus  illic  nobis  laetara  uitam  aeternaOT  (uinram,  sed  obponilur  forte 
angelos,  incorruptibiles  utique,  edisse.  quod  constat  ideo  factum  ut  Gen.xviriS 
quod  uidebattir  uerum  esse  probaretur;  quia  possunt  aduersi  angeli 
apparere,  sed  edere  non  possunt,  quia  non  in  quo  apparent  ueritas  est 
sed  praestigium;  hii  autem  qui  a  Deo  missi  erant,  ut  uerum  esset  in 
quo  apparebant,  e^erunt,  quod  enim  Deus  fecit  uerum  est.  aliut  forte 
dicatur,  Adam  inmortalem  edisse.  Adam  inmortalis  factus  non  est^  sed 
incurni/tibilttatem  ilii  et  inmortalitatem  arbor  uitae  praestabat:  de  qua 
per  praeuaricationem  indignus  habitus  edere,  factus  est  morti  obnuxius ; 
sublato  enim  praesidio  hoc  coepit  esse  quod  erat  factus.  |  nam  resurre- 
ctionis  donum  naturam  ipsam  facit  inmortalem,  ac  per  hoc  cibus 
mmoUa/i  opus  iam  non  erit. 

XII.  Salbat(?r  ergo  inpleto  sexto  millesirao  anno  uenturus  est,  ut  septi- 
mum  millesimum  annum  hie  regnet.  cuius  sabbat//m  habet  fi^uram,  id 
est  requiei  imaginem,  ut  quantum  distat  umbra  a  ueritale  tantum  distort  et 
requies  a  requie  et  uita  a  uita,  quia  ilia  aeterna  erit  haec  tempiiralis  est, 
ideo  requies  ilia  totius  mundani  opens  cessatio  est.  nam  cumsiderandum 
quia  unus  dies  mille  annorum  fi^ura  est:  tantum  ergo  intererit  inter 
requiem  et  requiem,      haec   utique    requies  in  saeculo  data  est  ad 

XI.  8.  cessabit  cessabit :  cessauit  cessauit  c(?d  9.  esca  i" : 
sea  cod  salbatur  cod  editurus  cod*  10.  letus  cod 
futurus  cod  II*  nullius  egere  et  scripsii  nuUus  egerit  cod*  :  nullus 
egere  etfof*  13.  caudium  f(C»i/  14.  im^mto  cod*  15.  diceret 
cod : /artasse scrsdendum  diceretuT  16.  quae  2" :  queri?</  17.  aeterna 
futuraf^^  18.  angelus^£7</*  contat  <r<7^*  22.  apparebant :+ pro- 
bant  cod\  und€  foriass€  iegendum  ut  uerum  esse  in  quo  apparebant 
probarent  ederunt  scripsi-,  et  erunt  cod  34*  incurrutibilitatem  cod 
25  abitus  cod  36.  praesitio  f£wf*  28.  inmortali  opus  scripsi i 
inmor^opus  cod 

XII.  1.  salbatur  r<?</  2.  ?,3hhz%om  ut  uid  cod  ficuram  «w/ 
3,  ucritate  tantum  scripsi :  ueritateettantum  cod             distet :  dislat  cod 


4.  a  2° :  ad  cod 


5.  mundana  cod*  (corr  m p) 


cumsiderandum 

{sc  considerandum)  scripsi:  cum  desiderandum  cod  6.  ficura  cod 

7.  et  requiem  supplcui'.  om  {ut puto  ptr  homoeoteleuton)  cod 


Rom. 

viii 

ai 

Roro. 

viH 

191  »i 

f  92 

Apoc.itx  3 
3i  7-9 


Ps.  cxvii 

(civiii)  34 


236         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

momentum  uel  diem,  ilia  requies  in  regno  Christ/  aetemd  aetema.  in 
inmortali  ergo  regno  nihil  erit  cornjptionis,  et  ibi  uera  requies  ubi 
cumiptio  nulla  est.  si  autem  nascantur  quae  necesse  est  occidere,  non  10 
erit  regnum  inmortale  ubi  comiptio  opera^itur.  null!  dubium  puto 
LiBERATioNEM  FiLiORVM  DEI  in  resuTTectione  consistere,  et  gloriosos 
illos  fore  quando  cum  Salbatore  aetemo  regno  p^tientur.  quam 
liberalionem  creatvra  expectat  ut  a  servitvte  corrvptionis 
LiBERETVR  IN  LiBERTATEM  FILIORVM  DEI :  id  est,  omnium  sanctortim  JS 
in  came  et  anima  restauratio  requiem  da^it  omni  creatvrae  ne  seruiat 
curruptibilitati,  hinc  manifestum  est  regnante  hie  Christo  cum  suis 
etiara  creaturam  ab  officio  et  ministerio  eorum,  quae  usibus  humanis 
proficiunt  in  corruptelam,  pausam  accepere. 

XIII.  Pos/septimwm  millesimura  annum  |  remisso  diabulo  be  cakcere  Jot,  ^ 
t  in  quo  mille  annos  fuerat  CLVSvs,d  cum  suis  satelletibus  gog  et  magot, 
id  est  demonibus,  aduersus  castra  sanctorvm  se  conmouente,  igni 
CAELESTi  coNsvMPTO  cum  cis,  in  ocfeadem  omnia  meliorabontur  reuersa 
ad  Deum,  ut  unius  s^tentiae  sint,  partira  uicta^  quae  non  praemio  sed  s 
poena  digna  sunt,  partim  uoluntaria,  quae  gloriam  adepta  sunt,     nee 
enim  aliter  ratio  intellegi  permittit  de  *  vii  dies  vTT  anni.'    sex  entm  dies 
sex  milia  annorum  habent  fi^uram  quibus  agitur  mundus.     Septimus 
uero,  id  est  sabbatum,  septimi  millesimi  umbra  est,  qui  cessationem 
mundanis  operibus  futuram  septimo  millesimo  anno  incipiente  significaL  lo 
octauus  autem  dies,  qui  primus  post  sabbatum,  et  ante  sabbatum  est; 
ipse  enim  creatus  est  ut  forma  esse/  ceteris,    hie  ergo  typum  babet 
octoad/s,  qu^  omnia  redeunt  reformata  ad  Deum.    unde  circumcisio 
octaua  die  data  est,  et  Christus  octaua  die  resurrexit,  qui  (sicut  dixi) 
primus  est,  ut  omnia  ad  prislinum  statum  ipsi?  die  quo  et  facta  ab  inicio  15 
sunt  redderentur:   ideoque  in  exultatione  resurrection  is  canitur  haec 
DIES  QVAM  FECIT  DOMiNvs,  unum  enim  diem  fecit  Deus  ex  quo  ceteri 
curricula  sortirentur, 

xiu  8.  christi:  xps  cod  a^elemo  cad^ ;  aetema  a»^*  11.  inmor- 
tale:  inmortalem /-(jii  cumiptio  <^fl^/*  operauitur  f*?*/  12.  gloriosus 
cad*  13.  poiltntMT  scrtfst :  patientur  r^  14.  a:  sid  cod 

15.  scntonim  cod  16,  dauit«?^  19.  accepere:  acceperae 

cad*  :  accepturae  cod*^  undt  forsitan  scribcndum  accepturam  esse 

XIII.  I,  posseptimom  r£?^  diabolo  ^-i?^'  2.  annus  r<7^  ^\  scriptix. 
ut  cod  4,  caelestis  cod        octoadem  scripsi  cum  / 1 3  infra  i  ocdoa^' 

dem  cod        5.  sintentiae  cod      uicta  cod      7.  de  vii  dies :  fortasseegr 
ft§p\  ToO  *E?rTtt  Tiiiipni  \Xi  {sc  septem  milia)  anni  scripsi:  vii  anni  cod 

8.  ficurara  cod      9.  septimum  millesimi  cod      cessationis  cod*  (corrmp) 
10.  (uiUTum  cod*  11.  etante:  dis  cod        12,  esse  ^<3^         13.  oc- 

iozdcs  cod         quo  scripsi :  qui  cod  refurmata  ««f         15.  ipsu  ^^^ 


DOCUMENTS 


237 


p 
I 


XIV.  In  auentii  Domini  sanctos  solos  resurgere  documenta  legis  tes- 
tamur, dicit  enim  apostolus  Paulus  de  rexurfcctione  initivm  christvs, 

DEINDE  Hll  QVl  IN  AVENTV  EIVS  CREDIDERVNT  :  et  alibi  ET  MORTVI  QVl  IN 

CURiSTO  SVNT  PRiMi.  sed  tam  in  primo  aduentu  eius  quam  in  secundo, 
quia  Christo  resuigente,  mvlta  corpvra  sanctorvm  dormientivm 
kt  37  «i  svRiiEXERVNT,  non  omnium  sed  eorum  |  arbitror  qui  poss<;nt  agnusci 
et  per  eos  alii  resurrexesse  crederentur,  ut  resurrectionis  ueritas  non 
fantasia  uiderettir.  simili  modo  et  Apocalypsis  docet  quia  non  resurgent 
neque  uioent,  nisi  Qvi  non  accepervnt  signvm  bisteae  in  manv  avt 
xo  IN  fronte  sva:  et  a^tecit  ceteri  mortvorvm  non  vixervnt  donec 
coNSVMJtfENTVR  MiLLE  ANNK  SI  autcm  *  non  uiuerc'  non  esse  in  gloria  est, 
ergo  post  millae  annos  in  gloria  erunt,  quia  dixit  ceteri  mortvorvm 
NON  vixervnt  donec  consvmmentvr  millae  anni  ?  sed  non  ita  est : 
quia  post  mille  ann^  resurgent  quidem,  ut  ostendatur  illis  quia  uerum 

»  5  est  quod  non  crediderunt  aut  uerbis  nudis  credentes  opus  fidei  neglexe- 
runt,  non  tamen  uni?  in  loco  peccatores  et  impii  erunt  donec 
coNsvMifENTVR  MILLAE  ANNI.  nam  sicut  in  pomo  aduentu  sancti 
rexurrexerunt,  ita  et  in  secundo,  forma  enim  secundi  aduentus  in  prirao 
uisa  est :  sed  tunc  multi,  postea  omnes,  tunc  soli  mortui,  postea  et  uiui 

ao  et  mortuij  uiui  enim  quasi  soporem  mortem  passi  reuiuiscunt,  et  hoc 
erit  resurrexisse.  non  enim  potest  ut  peccatores  resvrcant  in 
coNSiLio  ivsTORVM,  quia  iusti  resurgent  ut  millae  annis  regnent  cum 
Saibatore:  ideo  in  hoc  consilio  peccatores  esse  non  possunt  aut  si 
iMPii  simul  resurgent  cum  Sanctis,  quanto  magis  pecca/^res  ?    sed  non 

as  resurgent,  quia  ceteri  mortvorvm  non  resvrgent  donec  consvm- 
j*entvr  mille  annl  ideo  nee  peccatores  resvrgent  cum  iustis^ 
quia  post  millae  annos  iudicium  erit  omnium  mortuorum,  ut  impii 
pereant,  peccatores  autem   pro   modo  delictoruwi  poenas  expendant. 

•76  post  mille  annos  finis  erit,  sicut  dicit]  deinde  finis  cvm  tradederit 

30  REGNVM  DEO  ET  PATRi,  CVM  OMNIA  ilU  subiecerit  quae  nunc  filium 

ilium  Dei  non  credunt,  id  est  cetera,  tamdiu  enim  recna^it  donec 

OMNIA  illl  subiciantur.     in  hoc  ergo  fine  mali  resurgent  qui  tN  prima 

XIV.  I.  scscad     solus  cod*        2.  apostulus  ^i/*        4.  ta,msmfisi: 
turn  cod  5.  quia  xpo  resurgente  cad^  fariasse  e  graeco  U  Xpitrrov 

atntrrafMtifOif  6.  possGUt  scnfisi  I  possiTil  cod  8.  quh  cod*  I  qui 

cod*  9«  qui:  quia  o?^  xo.  aiecit  ^0^  11.  consumentur  ^^</ 

13.  consumentur  i-f?*/        14.  annus  cod        16.  nn\x  cod        17.  consu- 
mentur  cod  30.   mortem  m  21  om  cod*  21,   resurcant  cod 

23.  ami  cod:  Ugendum  foriasse  dX  24.  peccares  ^^  25.  consu- 

mentur  ^^  27.  omnibus  ^i?^*  28.  modo:  mQ6.\xm  fortasse  cod 

d^McXQincod  30.  suiecerit  fWd/*  31.  cetera:  idem  sciUcet  cu 

ceteri  mortuorum  /  25  supra  regnauil  cod 


1  Cor 

33 

I  Theaa 
iv  16 

Matt 

5a 


Apoc. 
4*5 


Pi.  i  r 


Ps.  is 


I  Cor. 

34.35 


Apoc. 


238  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

RESVRRECTiONE  non  fuemnt  digni  resurgere  et  regnare  cvm  Christo, 

meruerunt  atitem  resurgere  in  fine,  quo  omnes  omnino  mali  resurgent 

Apoc  XX    ad  damnationem  ut  finiatur  malum  illorum  in  gehentia  quae  est  mors 

\^^  .         SECVNDA.     ideo  VAS  ELECTiONis  non  dixit  deinde  *  resurrectio/  sed 
Act.  IX  15  , 

finis;    resurrect! onem  illorum  nnem  esse  potius  uel  mortem   quam 

Jo.  xi  35     resurrection  em.     quomodo  credentes  in  christvm  acsi  mortvi  svnt       _ 

ET  vivENT,  ila  et  ilU  resurgentes  uiuere  uidebuntur  cum  sint  mortui :      ■ 

Apoc  ix  6  hoc  enim  peius  est,  uiuere  cum  poena  et  cvpere  mori  et  Noy  ixvEfiiRR.  40 

XV.  Quamquam  aliquibus  prima  resvrrectio  in  baptismate  facta  ui- 

CoL  iii  t     deatur,  quia  dicit  apostolus  si  consvrrexistis  cvm  christo  et  cetera  : 

I  Cor.  XV    in  baptismate  enim  terrenvs  homo  deponitur  et  caelestis  adsumitur. 

'*'  mori  enim  uidetur  in  baplismo  et  resurgere  cum  renascitur :  sed  per 

Phil,  iti  I J  fidem  non  per  speciem,  quia  hoc  in  spe  habet,  non  qvod  iam  acciperit*  5 

ilia  enim  resurrectio  iam  uera,  non  in  uerbo  sed  in  re,  non  quae  speretur       _ 

sed  qutie  iam  sit,  prima  et  in  dignitate  et  in  numero,  quia  congruum  est      ■ 

primum  sanctos  resurgere  et  regnare  cum  Christo,     tradere  autem 

est  regnvm   dec  et  patri  post  /Inem  sub  n^jmine  dei  et  patris 

regnare  filium,  ut  regnum  j  sub  Dei  nomine  sit  non  sub  Cristi,  quia  iam  /ot,  18 

cognitum  erit  de  Deo  Deum  esse  Christum^  ut  sub  uno  namine  regnet  11 

pater  et  filius  in  saecula  saeculorum. 


I 


e[x]pl[iCIt]   de  AVENTVM   DOMINI   CHRISTl 


I 


XVL  Quoniam  ergo  aduenlum  suum  Dominus  ad  ultionero  iustorura  et 

interitum  iniquorum  promiserat,  ne  ad  tempus  uenire  crederetur,  multa 

Matt,  xxiv  fraus  est  quae  signaculum  aduentus  eius  protestaretur ;  ideo  ait  A  flci 

3 a.  33         autem  arbore  draoite  parabulam :   cum  iam  ramus  eius  tenuis 

fuerit  et  Data  fueriut  folia,  BcitiB  quoniam  prope  est  est  as ;  ita  et  5 

uos  oum  uider/l^ls  omnia  haec,  cognusc/te  quoniam  prope  est  in 

ianuis.     et   ut   non  diffVrri  aut  excusari   generationi  homiiium  diem 

iudici  doceretf  neque  sicut  quibusdam  uidetur  timoris  causa  dictum, 

Matt,  xxiv  adiecit  Amen  dico  nobis  quia  non  transsibit  generatio  baeo,  id  est 

34t  35        non  d/ficiet  generatio  hominum,  donee  haec  omnia  flaat.    et  addedit  10 

XIV.  34.  meruerunt :  fortasse  e  graeco  ri$io»Brj(rap  resurgerer  a»/* 
ommnes  cad  35.  ad  damnatione  cod  40.  non  inuenire  scripsi 
ex  Apac.  ix  6  :  protienire  {sine  non)  cod 

XV.  2.  apostolus  cod*  5.  in  ccd"^:  am  cod*  accipereit  cod 
7.  quae:  <\\x^  cod        9.  mntxn  cod        numine  ^<?^        11.  numine  ^1^ 

XVI.  I.  altionem  ^<7^*  3.  itoxxs  scHpsti  iz\is  cod  4.  ar»bore 
cod  (arb  ut  uidetur  primis  curis  scripscrat^  sed  b  forma  quam  uocant 
minuscu/a)  descite  cod  6.  uideretis  cod  cognuscete  cod 
7.  diffirri  cod  8.  iudici  cod^  sc  iudicii  nequae  cod  10.  difidet 
cod         generatium  cod*  «''« 


I 


I 


DOCUMENTS 


239 


Caeltim  et  terra  traasibunt,  quod  quibusdam  inpossibile  uidetur, 
ttorba  autem  mea  non  tranBibunt,  quae  supra  memoratis  falsa 
uidentur :  ut  iUud  transeat  quod  transire  negatur,  et  hoc  quod  transire 
credilur  maneaL 

XVII-  Et  quoniam  dies  iudlcii  scientiae  humatide  praefmiri  non  debuit, 
continue  ait  Be  die  autem  ilia  et  hora  nemo  soit,  neque  angeli  in 
caelo,  neque  filius,  nisi  pater  solus,  quod  et  pa/ri  humiliando  se 
honorem  debitum  reddit,  et  quod  dicendum  non  erat  excusauit.     recte 

8  b  enim  dicitur  nescir/  |  quod  dici  non  deb^t.     res  enim  quae  /ident^r 

6  quidem  scitur,  praefmita  autem  non  est,  solHcit/TS  semper  e/  uigilantes 

facit  expectantes  examen  futurum :  si  quando  fiat  ignoretur,  formidine 

ipsa  continuae  suspicionis  homines  se  a  mahs  inhibn-e  conpellit.     pro 

utilitate  uero  hominum  factum  est^  ut  sciens  Salbator  diceret  se  nescire. 

10  nam  si  sanctus  Spiritus,  qui  aliquando  pa/ri's  aliquando  fili  dicitur,  et 

de  quo  ait  Salbator  quia  de  eius  accipit,  n^^ri  non  potest  scire  diem 

et  horara  iudicii^  propterea  quod  nemo  sciT  qvae  synt  in  dbo  nis/ 

SPIRITVS  DEI ;  qui  et  Christi  est,  quia  omnia  inquid  qvae  patris  SVNt 

MEA  svNT :  quanto  magis  ergo  filius  negari  scire  diem  et  horani  iudicii 

15  non  potest,  quippe  cum  ipse  sit  iudex?    numquid   non   mali   operis 

hominibus  dicturum  se  dixit  amen  dico  vobis  qvod  nescio  vos  ?  ex 

causa  ergo,  non  ex  ignorantia,  dicit  nescire  se.     quia  omnia  signa  per 

quae  dies  iudicii  inminet  scire  ostendit. 

x^'iii.  Nam  quoniam  neglegentes  homines  inueniet  dies  Domini,  et  ergo 
curam  animae  pigjos  et  segnes,  diligentes  autem  et  stJ/d)os^?s  circa  cor- 
poris coram,  luxuriae  dedit^s,  desideria  carn alia  sectantes,  qvae  obsunt 

I      el  obstup^«/em  circa  res  salutares  prestant  ANiMAif,  ut  obliuionem  sui 

^"     xvi.  13.  uidentur:   -^  non  pr^etenhunt  cad  (scilicet  Vui^atam /ecfionem 
pro  non  transibunt),  ud  tamquam  glossam  de  iexiu  eieci 

xvn.  I.  humane <:tf^  praefeniri rd?^/  A^^x\,cod*  3.  patri humilian- 
do ^scripsi\  padhumiliandoset  ^^d?  5.  nesciri  scrips i  i  nescire  ^^^ 
debit  cad  fidenter  scripsi :  uidentur  cod  6.  praefenita  cod  solli- 
citos  semper  et  uigilantes  scripsi  \  solUcitusessempereuigilantes  cod*  \ 
sollicitus  semper  euigilantes  cod ' :  malts  fortasse  sollicitos  et  semper 
cuigilantes  7.  expecctantes  cod*  8,  inbibire  cod  10.  patris 
scripsi  V  pars  cod  ii.de  eius  :  forlasse  e  graeco  U  rSiv  atroD  necari 
cod  12,  in  deo  nisi  (in  do  nisi)  scripsi:  in  donis  cod  13.  patris 
mz:  paris  ^^i/*  15,  numquidr<^*:  nonqnvd  cod*  17.  inorantia 
cod*  18.  inrainet  scire  scripsi:  inminelur  scire  cod*^  corrtxit  mp  in 
inminetur  sciatur  :  mails  fortasse  legere  inminere  sciatur 

xviii.  2.  curae  cod*  pigrus  cod*  signes  cod*  stodiosus  cod 
corporis  scripsi :  operis  cod  3,  luxurie  cod  deditus  cod  4.  ob- 
stupentem  x^i^ji :  ob  stuporem  ^tf^        anma,  cod        ut  scripsi:  dead 


MatL  xxi? 
36 


Jo,  xvi  15 
1  Cor.ii  ti 
Jo.  xvi  15 


Matt.  XXV 
12 


t  Pet.ii  11 


240         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Matt,  xxiv 
40 


xMAv  passa  cognoscendi  se  studium  mintme  consequatur,  dicit  Dominus  Sicsnt 
37-39  ftiit  in  diebua  Noe,  ita  erit  et  aduentus  flJi  hominis.  quomodo 
enim  faertmt  in  diebus  illis  ante  dUuuiiinit  edentea  et  bibentes^  | 
uzores  duoentes  et  niiptu  tradentes,  usque  ad  diem  quo  introiuit 
Hoe  in  arcam,  et  non  aognoaerunt  quoad  uenit  dilubium  et  tulit 
omnes,  ita  exit  aduentus  flJi  hominis.  huius  rei  causa  cottidie  con- 
monendi  et  fuUirarum  pressurarura  terrore  ad  prouidendum  sibi  excilandi 
sunt,  ut  suUiciti  semper  de  die  in  diem  iudicii  tempus  expectent,  nee  se 
inpedimends  et  mollitiis  saecularibus  obligent)  sic  mundo  fnientes  ut 
animo  in  caelo  sint. 

XIX,  Sed  tunc  omnea  tulit  dilubium,  excepta  domo  Noe ;  at  nunc  non 
ita,  quia  in  iudicio  Tunc  duo,  ait,  enint  in  agro,  unua  adsumetor 
et  alter  relinquetur.  Noe  tarn  en  in  bonorum  forma  Hberatus  est. 
propterea  in  iuditio  similiter  peribunt  fsedtmali.  tunc  enim  aut  ex 
antichristi  parte  quis  erit,  aut  ex  Christl  nunc  enim  tria  genera 
horainum  sunt,  impiorum,  peccatorum,  sanctorum;  /unc  non  ita,  sed 

ADORAVIT  QVIS    BESTIAM   ET   SIGNVM    EIVS  ACCEPIT  IN    FRONTE   AVT   IN 

MANY  SVA — ^hoc  est,  coronara  acc^it  in  caput  suum  lauream  et  tus 
in  aram  abuminationis  raisit^ — aut  in  caritate  Christi  permansit.  idcirco 
boni  adsumentur,  mati  relinquentur,  sed  qui,  etiam  bi  qui  chstiani 
erant,  terronbus  et  pressuds  cesserunt,  non  enint  adsumendi,  quia  Qvi 

PERSEVERAVERIT   VSQVE    AD    FINEM    HlC   SALVVS    ERIT.      ideO   hoC    dixit 

Salbatorj  de  duobus  enim  qui  unius  fuerant  professionis  unUB  ad- 
sumetur  et  alius  relinquetur ;  hoc  est  duos  esse  in  uno,  quia  et  ille 
qui  uictuj  est  non  apud  se  negat  quod  etiam  pu^lice  non  debuerat 
dene^re*  quoniam  ergo  hoc  |  ita  ut  adseruemus  dixit  Salbator,  statim 
Mattxalv  subiecit  dicens  Tigilate  itaque,  quia  nesoitis  qua  hora  uel  die 
<*  Dominufi  uester  ueutunis  est;  ne  quis  forte  putarel  nihil  sibi  obesse 

si  cederet,  propterea  quod  inuito  eliciatur  ut  neget,  de  animo  taraen  non 
auferri.  ut  nemo  ergo  sibi  de  hoc  blandiretur,  ostendtt  Dominus  nihil 
esse  si  apud  se,  sed  magis  obesse  nisi  et  apud  eos  qui  negare  conpeEunt, 


5 
M 

10 


^^pS* 


|x>c*xiv9 


Hitt.  xxiv 
13 


1 


M 


XVIII,  5,  cognuscendi  tW*  9*  tolit  ^  10,  cottitie^/w/*  | 
coraonendi  cod*  12,  de  die :  de  diem  a?d*  13.  saecuraribus 
cad*            mondo  cad* 

XIX.  I.  at  scripsi:  et  cod  2,  in  1"  jw  2  :  am  cad*  4,  sed  codi 
foruian  scribcndum  soli  5.  tria  genera:  cf^  cap  xiv  //.  16-28 
6.  scotorum  cad  (sed  sco  in  ras)  tunc  scripsi :  nunc  cod  7.  ad- 
horauit  cod  8.  accipit  cad  10.  sed  qui  etiam  hi  qui  crtstiani 
erant  cad\  fartasse  e  groica  Stroi  Ae  Koi  xptifruivo}  Qvnt  1 1.  qui :  qiui  cad 
13.  qui:  quiof^i/*  15.  uictu^roi/  pnplicecad  16,  denecarer^ 
20.  nihil;  -^dcad*  21.  si;  am  cod*  ^us  cod*  conpellunt: 
+dm  cod* 


DOCUMENTS  24I 

Christum  Deum  confiteatur.    qui  enim  pu^lice  confessus  non  fuerit,  in  Matt  x  3a 
parte  antichristi  inuenietur.    ideo  tiigilandum  est  tut  roeritum  conloce- 
ttfrt,et  semper  uigilandum  quia  temtation/s  tempus  nescitur,  ut  ipsa  deuo- 

as  tionis  sullicitutine,  cum  aduenerit,  adiuuari  ad  t^Uerandum  mereatur  et 
adueniente  Domino  adBtunatur.    et  ut  munimentis  firmioribus  propter 
speratum  diem  tot^  nos  praestaremus,  adiecit  Hint  autem  soitote  Matt,  xxiv 
quia  si  soir^  pater  familias  qua  hora  ftir  uenit,  uigilare/  utique  ^^*  ^ 
ea  hora  qua  uenturum  sciebat  et  non  siner^  perfodiri  doznoM 

30  auam.  idem  sensus  est  quo  nos  semper  soUicitos  aduentus  sui  causa 
uult  esse,  qui  enim  scit  fures  uenturos,  qua  hora  autem  ueniant  nesdt, 
peruigilat  et  non  potent  expilari.  sic  et  nos  nescimus  quando  uenit 
Dominus,  uenturum  autem  scimus:  semper  soUeciti  et  parati  esse 
debemus. 

AMEN 

e[x]pl[icit]  de  diae  et  hora 

zix.  22.  puplice  cod  23.  conlocetor  cod  24.  temtationes 

cod  25.  tuUerandum  cod  27.  totus  cod  28.  sdrit  cod\ 

uigilaret  scri/st:    uigilare  cod  29.  sinerit  cod  domu  cod 

30.  idem  sensus  est :  discod         soUicitus  r^*  31.  uenturus^»^* 

32.  peruigilateet  cod         expillari  cod         nos :  forsitan  suppkndum  qui 
ueni«t  cod  (uenis  ut  uid  cod* :  corr  mf)  33.  autemescimus  cod^  \ 

essem  cod* 


VOL.  V. 


242 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 

THE  OLD  LATIN  TEXTS  OF  THE  MINOR 
PROPHETS.    IL 


Amos.* 

Tfconius  I.  I  '  Sermones  Amos  quos  vidit  super  Hierusalem 

3  ♦        .        .        *  In  tribus  impietatibus  Damasci  et  in  quattuor  non 
aversabor  earn,  eo  quod  secabant  serds  ferreis  m  uiero  habentes 

II "In  tribus  impietatibus  Idumaeae 

et  in  quattuor  non  aversabor  earn,  propter  quod  persecutus  est  in 
gladio  fratrem  suum 

Spuuium  II.  9  *  Et  abstuli  Amoiraeum  a  facie  eorum,  cuius  erat  altitudo  ut 
altitudo  cedri,  et  fortitude  eius  sicut  ilex :  et  abstuli  fructus  eius 
a  summo,  et  radices  eius  ab  imo 

TfrtuiJian        i  a  "  Et  potum  dabatis  sanctilicatis  nieis  vinutn 

Cyprian  IV,  7  ^ ,        .        .        ,        et  pluam  super  unara  civitatem  et  super 

unam  non  pluam :    pars  una  compluetur  et  pars  super  quam  non 

8  pluero  arefiet*    *  Et  congregabuntur  duae  et  tres  civitates  in  unam 

civitatem  potandae  aquae  causa  nee  sic  saliabuntur;   et  non  con- 

vertimini  ad  me,  dicit  Dominus 


I  I,  3|  II.  Tycon.  Reg,  Quart, 
IV  7,  8.  Cypr.  Ad  Dtntti.  vi 


II  9.  5^.  ciii  II  12.  Tcrt.  Dt  I4un,  ix 


I,  I,  Amos]  +  ot  fytvorro  iv  AKitapHfi  #«  Bwoyt  ffi  IL  {nisi  Mafna0iap*tfi)  ^ 
3.   In  tribua  *fc]  pr  k<u  «tir«v  Kvpiot  ffi  earn]  aurov  GJ^  [<fxc  68  87  ovrovi)  {%^ 

text)  II,  In  tribua  etc]  pr  raSc  Kiyu  Kvpwi  (Sr  Idumaeae]  loi/Souas  A*  Uovpuuat 
A^  earn]  aurous  ©J^  (H^^text)  persecutus  cst]+ayrovj  G]^  (IL  — text) 

fratrem]  pr  tKaaros  A 

IL  9.  abstuli  !<*]  pr  tyw  (&  <£<7fipa  A  a  fade]  om  a  f|||  (vpo  Q*  t*  Q*) 

1 3.  sanctiftcatis]  al  Sanctis  TVrf         mcis]  om  G 

W.  7.  pluero]  +  tr  avTjjy  A  Q  8,  duae]  +ToXftj  A  et  non  convertimiiii] 

OV0  Off  cirftrrjpff^TC  A  Q*  {ovtc  twWTpa^ijr*  Q"^ 

*  It  has  been  thought  well,  for  the  sake  of  abbreviation^  to  use  the  sign  G  for 
the  LXX  version  mduding  the  Lucianic  and  Hesychian  recensions,  excepting 
wbere  theao  two  latter,  under  the  symbob  H  jEj,  are  speciaUy  mentioneii 


I 

I 

I 


^^^  NOTES   AND    STUDIES  243        ^M 

rz  '*  Qui  solidat  lonitruum,  et  condit  spiritum,  et  adnuntiat  in  homines  T*rtullktn 
Christum  suum.      ,..,.,,... 

V.  6  *  Quaerite  Detim  et  vivet  anima  vestra.     .        .        .        .        .  Cyprian 

7,8  'Qui  fecit  in  exce]so  iudicium,  et  iustitiam  in  terra  posuit.  •.  *  .  Luc.  Col. 
Qui  advocat  aquani  mans  et  eiTundit  earn  super  faciem  terract  Sptculum 
dominus  Deus  omnipotens  no  men  est  illi. 

lo^Odio  habuerunt  argueniem  in  portis,  et  verbum  aequissimura 
abominati  sunt.      .,...,..., 

18  "  Vae  qui  concupiscunt  diem  Domini ;  et  ut  quid  vobis  hunc  diem 

19  Domini?  Et  hie  est  dies  tenebrae  et  non  lux,  "Queraadmodura 
si  fugiat  homo  a  facte  leonts,  et  incidat  ei  ursus;  et  insiliat  in  domum 
suam  et  infulciat  manum  suam  in  panetem,  et  raordeat  eum  scorpio. 

30  *'Nonne  tenebrae  sunt  dies  ilia  Domini,  et  non  lux,  et  nebula  sine 

lumine  ? 
a  I  "  Odi,  reicci  cerimonias  vestras  :   et  non  odorabor  in  frequent  lis  Ti 

vestris 

34  ** vivus  sine  via  :  Cod,  W* 

J5"nuroquid  victimas  et  hostias  optuHsti  mihi  XL:  annis  domus 
a6  Istrahel :  **  et  suscepislis  tabernaculum  Moloch  et  sidus  del:  vestri 
ay  rempham :    figuras  eorum  quas  fecistis  vobis :  ^  et  trans/nram  vos 

in  ilia  Damascum  dicit  dmS:  ds:  omnipotens  nomen  est  ei. 

VL  f  ^Vat  illis  qui  sper^unt  Sion:  et  eonfid^ul  in  monism  Samaria e 

pervindemiaverunt  initia  gentium  et  superintraverunt  in  eis  domus 
a  Istrahel :  '  transite  omnes  et  videte  et  egredimini  inde  in  Samar- 

IV  1 3.  Tert,  Adv.  Pmx,  xxviii  V  6.  Cypr»  Ad  Dimtt.  xiiii ;  Spic.  (Ang.)  xiii 

V.  7.  Lucif»  Cal.  Di  sand.  A  than,  i  V  8.  Spec,  cxxxiv  V  10.  Sp^c.  xxxii 

V  18-ao.  Sprc,  xxvi        V  21.  Tert.  Adv.  Mart,  v  4        VI  i.  Tert.  Adv.  Mart,  iv  35 

IV.  13.  Qui]  810T1  B  Start  i&w  (yat  B^  ^^  AQ  tonitnium]  at  tonitrum  T§rt 
condit]  at  condidit  Ttrt        Christum]  d'  ko^ov  Q"*' 

V.  6.  Dcum]  Doraiuum  S  to*'  Kvptev  <5  et  vivei  anima  vestra]  ct  vivitc  S 
not  (rp-t  ©  M  C^^aT*  B'^  Q*  (ijctTt  A  Q^  (ijutffBt  %  7.  Qui  fecit]  pr  »vf»ot  % 
{txc 48  95  185)  |l^  [txc  68)  prUci  oTt  A  %.  advocat]  al evocat  5  dominus  Deus 
omnipotens]  Kvpiot  ©  48  (EH?  -  text)  18.  et  1"]  om  ^^  ^  (IL  =  text)  dies 
tenebrae]  axorot  €(  IL  ^t?  19.  si]  oroy  A  mimuin  suam]  al  matius  auas  S  ras 
X((;nf  avrov  (!^  ILJ^  in  J**]  vpoi  A  ttt  Q  (tin  (B)  31.  odorabor]  t  Bvtrtat  <5  22 
26  48  106  {om  Q)  35.  Istrahel]  +  Xt^ti  wypjoj  Q  26  49  106  mihi]  +  fy  t^  tptiim 
G  a^.  rempham]  ^fufpfiv  G  (P*<^v  Q)  %  {*x€  96  1 8&  Pt p^}  %  corum]  QmAQ 
{hah  Q^  68  87  91  E 

VI.  r.  ct  confident  in  monlcro  S.]  Vac  qui  confident  in  monte  S.  TeH  in  eia] 
avTQt  Ct  Q  (fovroif  Q*)  28  49  106  %  {*y  awraif  22  ^aurcHS  62  05  147  185  «k  avrw  233) 
3.  videte]  -(- fti  JiaKavnjv  E  {i-xc  36  48  51  158  233)  68  ^1  ct  egrcdJmint  inde  in 
S«narb«b«ni]  mm  litxear*  txtiOiv  tti  Efia9  Pa^^a  ^  |[}  (txc  Q  tit  fia$pQ0Ba  vcu 
&«AiaT«  (-^«r€  Q')  tittte*r)            Saiaarhabam]  Ai/ta9  rt^v  fityaKiiv  22  36  <ri;/Mi9  ri}V 

R  2 


I 


CW.  Wring, 


LucCol, 


Cod.  Wtmg. 


244         THE    JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

habaun :  et  descendite  in  Geth  alienigenamm  :  quae  sunt  optimae  ex 
omnibus  regnis  eorum  :  si  plures  sunt  fines  eorum  quam  vestri  sunt 

I  fines :  '  qi/i  optastis  in  diem  malum  qui  acceditis  et  tangitis  sabbatis 

4  (aJsis  :  *qui  dormitis  in  lectis  eburnels  et  luxuriamini  in  stragulis 
eorum :  qui  manducatis  haedos  de  gr^ibus :   el  vitulos  de  medio 

5  armento  lactantes  *  qui  plauditis  ad  vocem  organorum  :  sicut  per- 

6  manentia  aestimaverunt  et  non  sicut  fugientia  *  qui  bi^//is  liqua/»;» 
t'inum  et  primis  unguentis  unguemini :  et  passi  sunt  nihil  contribu- 

7  latione  loseph.    ^  Propter  hoc  nunc  captivi  erunt  ab  initio  potentium  : 

8  et  auferetur  hinnitus  equorum  ex  Efrem  :  *  quoniam  iuravii  dms:  per 
semetipsum  quoniam  eg<7  abominor  omnem  iniunam  lac^  et 
tegvones  eius  od/,  et  ai/feram 

VIL  10  Et  misit  Amasias  sacerdos  in  Bethel  ad  Hieroboam  r^em 
Israel  dicens :  conventum  facit  adversum  te  Amos  in  media  domo 

II  Israeli  non  poterit  terra  sufferre  verba  eius,  "propter  quod  haec 
dicit  Amos :  in  gladio  morietur  Hieroboam,  Israel  autem  captivus 

13  ducetur  a  terra  sua.    ''  Et  dixit  Amasias  ad  Amos  :  vade,  discede  in 

13  terram  luda  et  ibi  commorare  et  ibi  propheiabis  j  "in  Bethel  autem 
iam  non  adicies  prophetare,  quia  sanctificatio  regis  est,  [Cod.  Weing, 

14  (*S/.}]etdomusregni  erit:  ^*Etrespondit*Araos*et  dixit  ad  Amessiaro: 

VI  4-6.  Sptc.  ex  VI  4-6.  Tert.  Adv.  Man.  iv  15  VI  8.  Sf^c,  xxxin 

VII  10-17,  Cypr,  D§  Hon^ft.  vUi        VII  10.  CoILCarth.  Gtsta  cclviii 

fUyaKni>  t^  147  descendite]  +  *M*t9€v  (&  1,  {txe  153  238)  &m  g|^  («xe  36  49  106) 
eorum]  rowvif  tfS  3.    qui  optastis]  o*  npxofifvoi  ^^  %1^Q^  {^  tvxofuvoi 

QA)  4«  in  lectis]  ciri  $vpaiv  J^  itxc  Q  26)         liucunaimini]  deliciammi  S        in 

stra^lis]  super  thoros  S  qui  manducatis]  ttax  eadofrct  ^Q^Jl^  (tu  fc9QVTts  Q) 

oi  tttew^rn  E  medio]  om  A  S  arracnlo]  anaentis  S  Vae  qui  donniuiit  in 
lectis  eburnels^  ct  deltciis  Quunt  in  thorn  sub:  cjui  edunt  haedos  de  grreg^ibus 
caprarum  et  vitulos  de  gregtbus  boum  tactantes  Ttfi  5.   qui  plauditis]  qui 

plaudetis  S  comiplaudentes  Teti  o*  €vi>cpaTovifTts  "^  (exc  Q  26  -KpoTot/vT*%}  voccqb] 
sonum  5  Tcri  sicut  permanentia]  sicut  sempitcrna  S  tanquam  perseverantia 

7Vr/  Off  tarrfKOTa  {^S  ojt  taraira  ATLJ^  (txe  48  wr  «<7^n7«oTa)  aestimaverunt] 

dcputavcrunt  Ttrt  aestim.  ea  S  sicut  j°]  quasi  S  tanquam  Ttrl  6.  bibitis] 
bibuni  5  Terf  tlquatum]  saccatum  5  primis  unguentis]  optima  unguenta  S 

priraariis  unguentis  Ttri  unguemini]  unguunlur  5  T*rt  pa^i  sunt]  non 

dolebant  Son  A        contribulatione]  in  IntcHtum  5  7.  ex]  «ir  Q**^  («f  Q^  om 

Q]  233  8.  quoniam  i*  a*J  quia  SA  per  semetipsum]  +  A.<Tr<t  Kvptot  o  0<ot 

rw  ^vyafifotv %  {ixc  48  153  233)  63  87  fl  1  iniuriam]  superbiam  S  ( -  Vtdg)  eius] 
illius  5  awTw  A  49  106  153         odi]  odivi  5 

VIL  10.  in  Bethel]  o»«  in  ffi  IL  («sc  62  147  ««)  ^  conventum]  conglobationes 
Cc  cvarpofai  ^  in  media  domo]  in  medio  domus  Cc  tv  fit^ip  otxov  fl^  non  poterit] 
non  potest  Cc  ov  /i»j  fftniTai  A  suffcrc]  supportare  Cc  verba]  aermones  Ccfir 
wavrai  S  eiusj-^^et  ob  hoc  insupcr  expcUitur  Cc  13.   Amos] -ho  Qpo» 

G       discede]  +ffv  ®i  (om  A  Q)  13.    iam]  om  (&         et  domus  regni  erit]  -  L 

erit]  <crp(  ^  14.  Amessiam]  A  mas  iam  L  Kiuxoiav  ^%  (txc  62  147  Aftiatav)  H 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


245 


non  eram  profeta  neque  filius  profetae  sum  ego :  sed  pastor  erara 

15  capramm  1  bellicans  mora:  "  et  adsunipsit  me  dmsi  de  ovibus  et 

16  dixit  dmsi  ad  me :  vade  et  prophetare  in  plefaem  meam  Istrahel  "  Et 
mine  audi  verbum  difu:  lu  dicis  non  profetabis  in  Istrahel :  et  non 

17  congregabis  lurbas  in  domum  lacob.  ^"^  Propter  hoc  baec  dicit  dras: 
ds:  uxor  tua  in  civitate  prostabit :  et  filii  tui  et  filiae  tuae  gladio 
decident :  et  terra  tua  funiculo  metibitur :  et  tu  in  terram  immundam 
morieris  ;  Istrahel  autero  captivus  ducetur  a  terra  sua. 

VIII.  I  ^Sic  OBtendit  mihi  dms:  ds:  et  ecce  vas  aucupis  :  et  dixit  dins 

1  ad  me :  quid  tu  vides  *Amos*:  et  dixi  vas  aucupis :  *  et  dixit  dms:  ad 

me :  venit  consummatio  vere  super  populum  meum  Istrahel  i  iam  non 

5  adiciam  ut  praeteream  eura ;  ^  et  ululabunt  fundamenta  templi  in 
ilia  die  dicit  dms :  prostratorum  Humerus  inmensus  in  omni  loco 

4  proiciara  silentium.  *  Audite  itaque  haec  qui  contribulatis  in  mane 

6  pauperes:  et  dissoluitis  mediocres  a  terra:  "  dicentes  quando  transeat 
messis  ut  adquiramus  :  et  sabbata  et  aperiamus  thensauros  ut  faciamus 
raensuram  rainorera:  et  ut  ampliemus  pondus  et  faciamus  stateram 

6  iniquam  :  'ut  possideamus  pecunia  pauperes  et  humilem  pro  calcia- 

7  mentis :  et  ab  omni  negotio  mercabimur.    "^  Jurat  dras:  per  superbiam 

8  lacob  :  si  oblivfscetur  in  vincendo  omnia  opera  vestra :  *  et  in  his 
conturbabitur  terra:    et  lucebit  omnis  qui  commoratur  in  ea:    et 

Vlir  4-8.  SpK.  xxii 

profeta]  +  tyw  ffi  {exc  26)  sum  ego]  om  G%  {*xc  22  51  147)  ]^  belUcans 

mora]  vclUcans  mora  L  itat  KVi(an'  uvKop^tva  GJ^   £xc  Q  om  xai)  itat  cvttafuva  nvi(mv 
i.  («xc  48  153  238  =•  ©)  15.  ovibus]  wpo<pT}Tiuv  B  {Trpofftnojv  A  Q)  dms  a"] 

om  L  el  prophetarel  om  et  ffi  {fxc  22)  picbcra]  +  meam  L  +  ptou  G  {t-xe 

26  aov)        Istrahel]  Israel  L  sic  infra         16-  non  congregabis  turbaa]  noti  congre- 
gabitur  L         in  domum]  in  domo  L  17,  ds]  om  <!£  civitate  . .  .  terra  tua] 

om  Q  {^hab  Q™')  tu]  om  Q  {hab  Q^^)  in  terraro  immundam]  in  terra 

immunda  L  a  terra  sua]  in  terram  suam  L 

VIII.  I.  dms  ds]  xvfHot  Kvfum  B  48  68  87  Bl  233  dms  ad  me]  om^^  hab 

E  {exc  48  158  283)  a.  vere]  <?m  O  populum  mcum]  tok  oiKi>v  62  147 

153  238  3.  fundamcnta]  (paTvttifiaTa  ^  dms]  KVfxot  Kvpioi  ffi  J^  (Q  tcvptos 

Q^  V  ^)  prostralorum  numerus  immensus]  iroXvr  o  trtwra/fta/t  ^  4.  ita- 

que] igitur  S  qui  contribulatis]  oppriinHis  {at  oppremitis)  5  m  tKTpt0ovTtt 

^J^ci  f«dX//3oi^€i  i  {txc4%  61  163  233)  pauperes]  ai  pauperem  S  irrrrfra  ffi 

ct]  om  A  dissoluitis]  vioktis  (ajf  vigiolatis)  S  mediocres]  inopcs  S  nrtax^^ 

1L  {exc  43  158  283)  5.  transeat]  transict  5        adquiramus)  pr  veudcntes  S  mn 

fftwoXrjao^v  ffi  (Q  otu  *fiitXfjaofify  j^o  -  flS)         d  3*]  ut  S         thensauros]  0Tj<ravpof 
^B  1^  0^9(^0*  -ow)  &tioavpov^  %A  ut  a"]  et  S  pondus]  ^traBfua  A  Q*  '^ 

{'$fuov  Q*)  6.    pecunia]  pccuniam  (at  pecunia)  S  tv  apyvfum  ffi  pauperes] 

pr  Itat  €t  48  87  {%i^A»iexi)  humilem]  inopcs  S  ab  omni  ncgolio] 

awo   wayros  7iMjpttT0t  ©  Q  26  49  1D6  iraat}t  vpaiTftat  {tfii  rrpa^fatt)  %  {*xc  48  288 
m  O  7.  iurat]  iuravit  {at  iurabit)  5         per]  adversus  (a/  +  scmet  ipsum  quia 

abominor  omnem)  5  in  vincendo]  om  S  in  vntot  (w/  wtutot)  ffi  vestra] 

cius  S  B,    in  his]  pro  his  S         conturbabitur]  ov  rapax^riatTai  fli         lucebit] 


246         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

ascendet  sicut   flumen  consummatio :    et  descendet  sicut   flumen 

9  Aegypti ;  •  Et  erit  in  iOo  die,  dicit  dms:  occidet  sol  meridie  :  et  con- 

10  tenebrescet  super  terrara  dies  lucis ;  *•*  et  convertam  dies  solemnes 

vestros  in  luctum  :  et  omnia  cantica  vestra  in  planctum  :  et  iniciam  in 

omnem  lumbum  ciliciuni :  et  m  omne  caput  decalvationem :  et  ponam 

eum  sicut  luctum  dilecti :  et  eos  qui  cum  eo  [C&d.  Weing,  {F^  sunt  sicut 

I J  diem  doloris,   "  Ecce  dies  venient  dicit  dms:  et  inmittam  famem  super 

terram  noo  famem  panis  neque  sitim  aquae  sed  faraem  ad  audieodum 

I  a  verbum  drm :  '*et  movcbuntur  aquae  usque  ad  mare  et  ab  aquilone 

usque  ad  orientem  percurrent  quaerentes  verbum  dmi:  et  non  in- 

13  venient.    "  In  i!lo  die  deficient  virgines  bonae  et  iuvenes  electi  in 

14  sitim  I  '*  iurantcs  per  propitiationem  Samariae  et  dicentes  vivit  ds  tuus 
Dan  et  vivit  ds  tuus  Bersabee :  et  cadent  et  non  resurgent  uroquam. 

WeingJf)  IX.  i  '  Vidi  dom:  stantem  su[)er  altare  et  dixit  mihi  feri  super 
propitiatorium :  et  movebuntur  luminaria  et  concide  in  capita 
omnium :   et 

5  ■  et  lugebunt  omnes  comroorantes  in  ea  et  ascendet  sicut  flumen 

6  consummatio  eius  et  descendet  sicut  flumen  Aeg>'pti :  '  Qui  aedificat 
in  coelum  ascensionem  suam  :  et  repromissionem  suam  super  terram 
fundat  qui  advocat  aquam  maris  et  effundet  earn  super  faciem  terrae 

VIII.  9,  to.  Tert.  Adn^.  Mart,  iv  42  VIII  9.  Tycon-  Rtg.  StpL  VIII  9,  la 
Cypr.  TisHm,  ii  23  VIII  11,  13.  Spu.  cxxx  IX  6.  Teit.  Adv,  Marc,  iii  J41 
iv  a4»  V  10 

lugebunt   5  nfySrjnn   ffi  omnia]   omncs  S  qui  commoratur]  habi- 

tant S         consummatio]  i  mmyr  E  (fxe  48  95  163  185  2S8)  68  9*  dms]  Kvptof 

Kvfiios  ffi  48  68  87  91  Kvptm  a  fft  QA  36  153  233  Kvpwt  %  {«rc  36  48  153  233) 
occidet]  pr  KOI  a^^  meridie]  media  die  Ttrt  contenebrescet]  tenebricat  T 

obtenebrabitur  C  tenebrescet  («/  tcncbricavit)  Tfti  dies  lucis]  die  lucis  C  dies 

(u minis  T  Ttti  tv  iffupa  to  far  G5  %  {exc  22  63  147  fJ'  ly^f/w  ^ftwot)  J5  10,  dies 

solemnes]  vel  ui  ai.  Ug.  diesollemnes  dies  festos  C  omnia  cantica  vestra] 

cantica  eomm    {at »  Cod)   C  in   planctum]   in  lamentation  em    C  et 

iniciam  ad  fxn.  tx>m\  et  imponatn  super  (umbos  vestros  saccum  et  super  omne  caput 
calvitium  ct  ponam  eum  quasi  luctum  delicti  et  eos  qui  cum  eo  quasi  diem  moeroris 
Ttri  eum]  auiiiv  ^  28  62  147  11.  venient]  veniunt  S  dms]  irv/Mor  xtipit>%  ^ 
68  87  91 163  panis]  ttpnuv  (E  1^  {*xc  30  61"  62  147  lfi3)  Q^9l  aprov  A  ncquc] 
ncc  S        sitim]  oi  q'  Ui^ot  a'  ^  Rivtar  Q™'        dnu]  dei  {al  *  Cod)  S  t  a.  move* 

bunturj  dvcox^ija-oi^ai  Q  {Q^  aaktvQriaovrm)  86  61  (raA«w^«TCH  A  1L  (fjrc36  48  51  153 
238)  1^  {ixc  26  49  106)  usque  ad  mare]  T171  Qakaaojjt  ©b  t<uj  ^x.  A  Q  {Q^  tiwo 

0aA.)  OMQ  &aK.  tmi  BaX.  22  62  147  ad  orientem]  ad  austrum  S  percurrent]  cm 
S  13.  electi]  om  ^  14.  ds  i°]  +irv/MDE  A  26  49  106 

IX.  1.  mihi]  om  ©  super  propitiatorium]  #»(  to  9\tmtiaTfipiQy  AQ  {Q^  twt 
TO  iXaarrjptov)  48  106  147  233  luminaria]  to  wptumka  ©  E  {txc  22  62  l&S  to 
vpomrKtua)  J^  (fxr  fll)  6.  ascensionem  suam]  ascensum  suum  Terf  repro- 
missionem] promissionem  Trr/  super  terram]  in  terra  7Vr*  dms]  +  iw»To«poTo>p 
«S  48  95  186  ft  («c  Q  26   108)  +  0  ff7  o  wokt,  A  %  {txc  48  &fi  186)  Q  26  106 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


247 


~   7  dins:  nomen  est  ei*     "^  Nonne  sicut  fili  Aethiopura  vos  estis  mihi  fili 
Istrahel  dicit  dms  1  nonne  Istrahel  rediixi  ex  Aegypto  :  et  alienigenas 

8  ex  Cappadocia :  et  Syros  de  fovea :  '  ecce  oculi  dmt:  dei:  super 
regnum  peccatorum :  et  auferam  illud  a  facie  terrae :   adtamen  in 

9  consummationem  non  auferam  lacob  dicit  dms  :  *  propter  quod  ecce 
ego  praecipio  et  tritu       ......... 

^  MiCAH, 

■     I.    I .Corf. 

^^  5      .         4       ^ ^tiod  est  peccatum  domus 

6  /uda  nonne  JHerusalem. ;  *  etpona.m  Sawariam  in  specu/am  agn  et  in 
//aMB,t%onem  vineae,  ef  ^.?ducam  in  Ckaos  lapr^/^j  eius:  et  fQn</(fiwenta 

7  eius  (ienudaho :  '  et  omn\2.  scvXpiiiia  rius  concidtnt :  et  omnes  /oca- 
tiones  in  /gni  crewa^^untur :  et  emm^  idola  eius  ponam  in  f  j:/erminium  : 
quoniam  ex  conductionibus  fornicationis  congregavit :  et  ex  condu- 

(       8  ctionibus  fornicationis  evertit :  *  propter  hoc  planget  et  lugebit ;  ibit 

^^p     nudo  pede  et  nuda  facie:  faciens  planctum  sicot  draconum:  et  luctum 

^^  9  sicut  fiiiae  sirenum  :  *Obtinuit  autem  plaga  eius  quia  venit  usque  ad 

ludam:  et  tetigit  usque  ad  porlam  poputi  mei  usque  ad  Hierusalem: 

10  ^''qui  estis  in  Ged  noiite  magnificari:  qui  estis  in  Acim  noUte  reaedi- 
ficare:  de  domo  derisoriar  terram  vos  spargite  super  derisum  vestrum: 

11  "quae  inhabitas  bene  civitates  tuas:  non  est  profecta  quae  habitat 
in  aelam  t    plangite  domum  iuxta  earn :   accipiet  ex  vobis  plagam 

ladoloris:    *^quis  inchoavjt  in  bona  quae  commoramur  in  gemitu  : 

13  quia  descenderunt  mala  a  dmo:  super  portas  Hierusalem:  ''sonus 
quaddgarum  et  equitantium  quae  habitat  Lachis :  dux  peccati  eius 
haec  est  huic  domus  Istrahel :  quia  in  te  inventae  sunt  impietates 

14  huius  Istrahel.  **  Propter  hoc  dabit  qui  mittantur  usque  ad  heredi- 
tatem  Geth :  in  doraos  vanas  m  nihil  facti  sunt  regibus  Istrahel  r 

15  "usque   dum   heredes  adducant   inhabitantes  hereditates   Lachis: 
1(5  usque  Odollam  1  veniet  honor  filiae  Sion  ^*radere  et  tondere  super 

Alios  tuos  teneros :  dislata  viduitatem  tuam  sicut  aquila :  quia  oiptivi 
Wk    duett  sunt  a  te : 

™7.  fUi]  w/  M/  <i/.  Ug.  fili         Aegypto]  pr  yrjt  (5  H  (fxc  22)  J^  8.  lacob]  pr  tok 

wMotf  iSt  {Iffparjk  A  26  49  106)  9.  ecce]  otn  ^b  43  9^ 

I.  6.  in  i°]  on  A      7.  locatiODea]  +at/rf}T  i&  8>  facie]  om  <£      filiae]  9vyG,rtfmif 

^%  {txc  153)  1^         io»  in  Acini]  €*'  A#fft/*  ffi  J|J  Erauuft  %  Q^  Box"/*  terrain 

ifos]  om  vos  ®  {habA)       super]  om^%tt^Q^t>\  62  95  147  185  ii.  dvitatea 

tuas]  pr  itaBtXot  1L  (*«■  22  48  153  233)  in  aelam]  'Xtwaap  ffi  {Ztwnap  .  ,  ,  otno¥ 

}»pm  ras  B^)  htvav  H  (62  147  Itwav  48  153  233  «  C&)  JlJ  =  ©  («r  p*  Ttrvaar  68 
17  91  Joiyvay)  13,.  peccati  eius  haec  est]  a/jofirtar  cynj  fCTtv  (Q  ajU.  aimyf  fCfTi*' 
A  26  106  {Q*^  $'  avrq)         huic  domus  Istrahel]  tij  ^vyarpt  l,it<av^  14,  dabit] 

hoiOM  luj^i  {exc  87  91)  A  in  domos  vanaa]  om  in  (ffi  15.  hcredcs]  ^^  aov  22 

86  51  238      adducant]  ayayta  ffcw  %  (ay.  uov  95  185)         hereditates  Lachis]  Aax<'<^' 
Kkfipopotua  ^  it  Aaxct?  Mkrjpovofnay  J^  Sion]  ct  it  68  87  91  ItTjfMfjA  ffi  ^  {M€ 

[laparfk  Siov  49]  —  Cod)  16.  viduitatem  tuam]  rrjir  ^r^ptjeiv  cw%^  87  81  nji* 

IvfnTfhv  tfpw  JJ*"^  iTr\v  xtiptioar  ffov  J^) 


L 


248         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

IL  (  ^  facti  sunt  cogitantes  in  laboribus :  et  operant&r  mala,  in  cubf- 

/i^us  suis :  et  ss'mui  in  die  co^xwwmabunt  0a  quoniaw  non  levaverwn/ 

fl  ad  dom:  manus  suas:  *et  concuphctbsint  agros  et  dirip/V^fl«/ orphan^! 

et  domus  per  /(^tentiam  ifft^adebant  et  ///Wpiebant  virum  et  domi^m 

3  «lwj  vinim  et  A^rtlitatem  eius,     '  Propter  hoc  haec  dicit  difu  ecce  ego 
Wwf^.(/^       CQ|i/<7  ^i/per  plebf/w  ^a«r  [£7<^.  Weing,  (-F)]  mala  ex  quibus  non 

levabitis  cervices  vestras  et  non  ibitis  recti  subito :  quoniara  tempus 

4  malignum  est  •  *  in  ilia  die  sumetur  super  vos  f>arabola  et  flebitur 
flatus  in  parte  dicentium,  Miseria  laboravit  pars  populi  mei :  mensurata 
est  in  ftiniculo :  et  non  fuit  qui  prohiberet  eum  ut  reverterentur :  agri 

5  veslri  dispersi  sunt  *  propter  hoc  non  erit  tibi  qui  mittat  ftiniculum 

6  in  sorte :   in  ecclesia  drai :  *  nolite  lacrimari  lacrimis :  neque  lacri- 

7  mentur  in  hts:  non  enim  repellet  opprobrium:  "^omnis  qui  dicit  dms: 
lacob  intra  exasperaveruot  spiritum  dim :  quia  haec  sunt  adinventiones 

S  eius  nonne  verba  eius  bona  sunt  cum  eo :  et  recta  abienint  *  et 
palam  plebs  mea  inimicitiam  restitit  contra  pacem  suam  pellem  eius 

9  decoriaverunt :  ut  ne  auferrent  spem  tribulationis  belli.  'Propter  hoc 
duces  populi  mei :  proicientur  de  domibus  aepulationum  suarum 
propter  ma!as  adinventiones  suas :  repulsi  sunt.  Accedite  in  montibua 

10  aetemis  "  surgite  et  ite  quia  non  est  vobis  haec  requies :  propter 

11  inmunditiam  corrupti  estis  corr:uptionem:  "  persecutionem  passi  estis 
nullo  persequente:  sps:  stetit  in  te  mendax:  stillabit  tibi  in  vinura  et 

13  in  ebrietatem  :  et  erit  ex  stillicidio  plebis  huius  ^' congregatione  con* 
gregabiturlstrahel:  cum  omnibus  sustinens  sustinebo  residuoslstrahel: 
super  eundem  ponam  aversionero  eorum  sicut  oves  in  tribulatione : 

13  velut  greges  de  medio  cubili  suo:  exilient  ab  horainibus:  "propter 
incisionem  a  facie  eorum  interciderunt :   et  transierunt  portam  :  et 
exierunt  per  earn :  et  exivit  rex  eorum  ante  faciem  eorum :  dms: 
autem  rector  erit  eorum 
III.  I  Mn  tempore.    Audite  igitur:  haec  principes  lacob:  et  residui 


I 


II  1-3  Lucif.  Cal.  Z>tf  san€t,  Afhan,  i  35 


II  7  Sfiec,  lit 


II  9  Sp€C.  cxx 


II.  I.  dom]  0eum  L  Compi  Cyr,  AUx.  rov  $tov  ((K  «=  Cod)  3.  concupiscebant] 
concupicbant  L  ct  domus  per  potcntiam  invadebant  et  diripicbant  virum] 
om  L  virum  3*]  prnm  ©  Q"*^  3-  cogito]  cognosco  L  banc]  om  L 
4.  laboravit]  tToXmwwfn^cafi^v  ©  vestri]  t^tiuv  (25®  A  22  36  61  6.  Nolite 
lacrimari]  /a^  «Xa4«T«  S  3^  ^7  hoKpnnn  1^  in  his]  t »c  tovtoi  |^  Q  {Q^  tm  rmrrots) 
A  153  238 -t-M  <np$aXfioi  vtimv  22  86  51  7.  oirniis]  om  6i  dini]  domus 
S  wjrof  (5  intra  cxaspcmverunt]  inritavit  S  quia]  c i  (25  IL  J^  Q**^  {Q*  w) 
9.  Propter  hoc]  om  6^  A  accedite]  adpropitiquate  S"  10.  vobis]  cot  61 
11.  in  te]  om  ffi  12.  Istrahcl  i^]  IohoiB  ffi  Istrahel  a*]  tow  Aaov  toxttov  A 
eorum]  atnov  (Ef^  ('avranr  A  Q)  greges]  woifiytov  i&J^ilL  =  Cod)  1 3.  propter 
inciaionem]  aya07}9i  81a  rrjt  Komjs  I  |Q  {exc  26  49  106) 

III.  I.  in  tempore]  icoi  tptt  (E  haec]  cm  %  lacob]  fir  omoy  ffi  JQ  [E  *= 
Coc/(«x<22)] 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


249 


a  domus  Istrahei :  nonne  vobis  est  ut  cognoscatis  iudlcmm  :   '  odien-  I 

tibus  bona  et  quae renti bus  mala :   rapkntibus  pelles  eorum  ab  eis  :  I 

3  et  cames  eorum  ab  ossibus  eorum   '  quemadmodum  comedarunt  I 

cames  plebis  meae  et  pelles  eorum  ab  eis  detraxerunt :  et  ossa  eorum  I 

comminuerunt :  et  conciderunt I 

6  .         ,         .         .         .         ,       *  Propterea  nox  erit  vobis  de  visione,  7>i^wm#J 
et  lenebrae  vobis  erunt  ex  divinatione,  et  occidet  sol  super  prophetas, 

7  et  obscurabit  super  eos  dies  luminis.     ' .         .         .         .  quia  Specutum 

8  non  erit  qui  obaudiat :  *si  non  ego  implevero  virtutem  spiritu  meo 
sancto  et  iudicio  et  potestate,  ut  renuntiera  huic  iacob  iniquitates, 

9  et  huic  israhel  peccata  sua,  *  Audite  itaque  haec,  duces  domus 
iacob  et  reliqui  domus  Israhel,  qui  abominatis  aequitalem  et  omnia 

10  recta  evertentes,  ^''qui  aedificatis  sion  in  sanguinibus  et  hierusalem 

11  in  iniquitatibus,  ^*  duces  eorum  cum  muneribus  iudicabant,  et  sacer- 
dotes  eorum  cum  mercedibus  respondebant,  et  prophetae  eorum  cum 
pecuniis  divinabant,  et  in  dominum  requiescebant,  dicentes :  nonne 
dominus  est  in  nobis  ?     Non  venient  super  nos  mala, 

IV 

a  •   ,        ,        .        .        venite  ascendamus  ad  montem  Dei 

Quoniam  lex  de  Sion  proficiscetur  et  sermo  Domini  Cyprian 

3  ab  Hierusalem,  '  et  iudicabit  inter  plurimos  populos,  et  revincet  et 
deteget  valtdas  nationes       .......      quam  Cod.Wmtg, 

4  j/udebunt  M/igGTMe  :  *  c/  re-^wiescet  unus^i^que  sub  f /nea  sua :  et 
suhfxcu  sua:  ct  non  erit  qui  w<f/^ /remit  eos:  quia  os  dm  omnipoten/is 

J  ^utuni  est  Itaec :   *  quia  otnnes  popu//  ibuni  unus  quisque  viam  suam^ 

6  «os  ^wtem  r^/mus  in  nommo^  del:  nastn  m  d,tternum  et  dej'mr/i.  "  In 
ilia  die  /^cit  dns:  ^Twinipotens  \   congregabo  adflictam  et  expulsam 

7  suscipiam :  et  quos  reppuU  :  ^  et  ponam  contribulatara  in  reliquias  : 
et  proiectam  in  gentem  validam  :    et  regnuvit  dms:    super   eos   in 

8  montem  Sion :   a  modo  et  in  saecula  saeculorum.    '  Et  tu  turris 

III  6  Tycon,  Rig,  S*pi.  Ill  7,  8  Spec,  iii  III  9^11  Spec,  x;  Lucif.  Cal  De 

sand,  Aikatu  i  35  IV  3  Spec,  acx  IV  a  3  Cypr»  TesHm.  i  10 

3.  ab  eis]    airo   twv  oarttav  avrouv  A  Q    106   153   238  6.    luminis]  ow  (5 

7.   erit]    f«7Ttr  Q*""  obaudiat] +ouTaw   ©  8,    spiritu  mco  sancto]  §v 

wpevfuxrt  Kvptov  <Bi  H  (iT-w  62  li7  tv  mKvtiaTi  ajuot)  J^  iniquitates]  +  avrou  (gc 

9.  duces]  pracpositi  L  iacob]  lijX  A  reliqui]  residui  L  Istrahei] 

Zsinel  L  laxtsf0  A  abominatis  aequitatem]  abominamini  iudidum  Z.  ever- 

tentes] pervertills  L  10.  aediftcatis]  aedificastis  L  sion]  am  A  tn 

sao^iEtbus]  in  sanguinem  L  11.  duces]  iudiees  L  eorum  i"  a"]  etus  Lauri^t 
ffi  mercedibus]  nicrccde  L  fUffSov  ffi  eorum  3*]  om  L  Dominum] 

Domino  L  nonne  Dominus  ad  fin  com\  Dominus  in  nobis  est  ct  non  venient 
in  nos  mala  L  nobis]  w^f  Q*  {^po-v  J^*) 

IV.  a,  Dei]  Ki/^iov<S  3.  et  deteget]  ow  (ffir  studebunt] +  €Tt /f^  4»  sua  1*] 
ow  P*  •^  [hah  Q*  ("'tfJ)  5.  dei]  ft  Kyptov  (&  {om  A)  6.  In  ilia  die]  *v  rms 

tjfitptui  tiiuvais  %       omnipotens]  om  G  7*  reliquias]  +  iiafitvop  Q^ 


250         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES  1 

graegis  arida  filia  Sion  super  le  veniet :   et  intrabit  initium  regnom 

9  primum :   ex  Ba^^lonia  filiae  Hierusalem,     ^Et  tu   nunc  tit  qnifl 

cognovisti  mala :  numquid  rex  non  erat  tibi :  aut  cogitatio  tua  peril; 

10  quia  optinuenint  te  dolores  :  sicut  parturicntem  ?  "  Dole  et  Tinlitct 
age  filia  Sion  sicut  parturiens  :  propter  quod  nunc  prodies  ex  dritaie 
et  conmoraberis  in  campo :    et  venies  usque  in   Babylonia :   inde 

11  liberabit  te  dmsi  ds:  tuus  de  manii  inimicorum  tuonim  :  "  et  none 
congregatae  sunt  super  te  gentes  multae  dicentes  gaudebimus:  ei 

13  videbimus  super  Sion  oculis  nostris  "  ipsi  autem  non  sctenint 
cogitationem  dm\:  et  non  intellexerunt  consilium  ipsius:  quia  collegit 

13  COS  sicut  manipulos  per  messe  :  "  surge  et  tritura  eos  filia  Sion  :  quia 
cornua  lua  ponara  ferrca :  et  ungulas  tuas  aereas  :  et  tab^j<rere  facial 
m  eis  geotes:  £f  mtftulatim  fanes  pl^rb^  multas  e/  referes  dino:  mul/i^ 

V.  I  /udinem  eorum:  et  virtu  tern  eorum  dtiio:  universae  terrae.  ^Nunc 
concludelur  filia  in  condusione ;  obsidione  constituit  super  vos  m 
a  virga  percutient  super  maxj/his  irilfus  Is/rahe],  *  Et  tu  Btihktm 
domtu  habiia\}^\mms  E/raia  :  numquid  minima  es  ut  sis  in  mtVths 
luda  *.  ex  te  mi\\\  prodie^  qui  sit  pxxnceps  in  Istra^/  et  egres^Mt  ip«<£J 
lub  \rC\\\o  ex  diebus  saecu/i.  *  Propte/ifa  ^abit  eos  usque  ad  Xempus 
pariinxae  paxxtX  et  restdui  frtitrum  eius  xtsertentur  super ^/ios  ZrtTahel: 

4  *  et  stabunt  et  videbunt  et  pascent  gregem  suum  in  virtutem  dmi :  et 
in  gloria  noniinis  dmt:  di:  eorum  erunt.    Propter  quod  nunc  magni- 

5  ficabunlur  usque  ad  extrema  terrae:  "^et  erit  ei  haec  pax  cum  Assyrius 
venerit  super  terram  vestram:  et  cum  intraverit  in  regionem  vestraro: 
et  insur       *        .         .         .        pastores :  et  octo  morsus  hominum : 

6  ■  et  pascent  Assur  in  gladio :  et  terram  Nebroth  in  fossa  sua :  et 


V  1  a  Cypr.  Tfsiim.  ii  1  a  ;  TerL  Adv.  lud.  xiii 


8.  ex  Babylonia] /r  HamXua  S  (310  =  Cod)  9.  Et  tu]  om  tu  (ffir  tc]  etoo  S 
(<ri  A)  10.  age]  ain.  cdd. 97  "228  SIO  Km  tyyii*  (5» %  {txc  87  91  ^  A)  liberabit 
tc]  +  *c<xi  ^KtiBev  XitTpttitrtrm  at  B^  <"'W>  A  Q  13.  et  labcscere  faclam  in  eis  gentes] 
om  A  Q'^  {hah  49  87)  et  minutatim  ,  ,  ,  multas]  om  B 

V.  1 .  jElia}  +  "Btppm^ %'^A  vos]  ij^os Q^  tribus]  rat  trvAot  G'^  68  a.  domus 
habitationis  Efrata]  domus  ittius  ephratbii  C  ofn  Ttrt  oimts  W^p^a  (fSr  (rev  £^<^>a^ 
%AQ)  habitationis]    refcctionis,   F*   C,   Burkiii  (O.    L*  and    Itala,   p,  95) 

nuraquid  ad ^n  con%\  num  exigua  cat  ut  constttuaris  in  roiliibus  luda?  esL  te  mihi 
procedct  ut  sit  princeps  apud  Israel,  et  proccssioncs  eius  a  principio  drebus 
saeculi  C  numquid]  norj  Ttri  ^117  Er  o>ti  <^  P|  ut  sis]  ow  Ttrt  in  milibus]  in 
ducibua  Tcrt  *p  x**^'*^**'  GE  {fxc  36  233  «r  rots  rjytfwatv)  j^  [txe  49  tv  Toir  TiytfiMttv) 
ex  tc]  f^  01/  ©B  26  (i«  aov  &t^  A  Q)  mihi]  enira  Tert  predict]  +  ti-yovfitvm  A 
prodtet .  .  .  Istrabel]  exiet  duxqui  pascet  populum  metim  Israel  Ttrt  in  Istrahel] 
Toti  l^ptx^T^K  (5°  3.   fratruro  eius]  tojv  oScA^^qjv  omtwv  l?^  1L  [exc  51  95  [147  -ranf  (ti, 

ffou]  185)  fil  4.  stabunt,  videbunt,  pascent]  (TTi^aeToi,  o^trai^  woifxavu  fSi  {adnoi  ra 
«ti&t}a<fpit[ya\  «tf  rovi  ifvo  roitovt  ov  Kuvrat  i  r<a  cfa(rcA[iSiu]  Q""'^)  magni ficabunlur] 

ttty<iXvv0rjfffTcu  (It  fnyoXw&rjtfo^rrai  B^'^^  A  Q  5-  ei]  om  C5  6.  Nebroth] 

ntdpoil  <S  (N<^^  23  97  SIO  Atd)  et  ertptam  te]  ttiu  pvercroi  ®  |^  «a4  puctrm  a* 


^ 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


251 


^ 

^ 


eripiam  te  ab  Assur  cum  supervenerit  in  terranri  vestram  :  et  cum 
7  intraverit  super  fines  vestras :   ^  et  erit  residuum  lacob  in  gentibus  : 

in  medio  populorum  multorum  •.  sicut  ros  a  dmo  decidens :  et  sicut 
men  ita  ut  non  congregetur  quisquam  nequc 
'«  restet  in  filiis  hominum.    *  Et  erit  residuum  lacob  in  gentibus  in 

medio  populorum  multorum  :  sicut  leo  inter  pecora  in  saltu  et  sicut 

catulus  in  gregibus  ovium :  quemadmoduoi  cum  introit  et  segregans 
9  rapit :  et  non  est  qui  liberet :  '-^et  exaltabitur  manus  tua  super 

10  .         .         .        et  omnes  inimici  tui  inleribunt.     ^®  Et  erit  in  ilia  die 
dicit  dms  :  exterminabo  equos  tuos  de  medio  tui :  et  perdam  currus 

1  tuos:  "et  aoferam  civitates  terrae  tuae:  et  auferam  omnia  firmaraenta 

11  lua:  **et  disperdam  maleficia  tua  de  manibustuis:  et  qui  respondeant 
13  non  erunt  tibi :  *^et  exterminabo  sculptitia  tua  et  fanos  tuos     . 

'* et  disperdam  civitates  tuas 

5  "et  faciam  in  ira  et  furore  oltionem  in  gentibus  propter  quod  non 
oboedierint  mei. 

VI.  I  *  Audite  itaque  quae  dms:  dixit :  surge  adversus  montes  experire 
3  iudicium  et  audiant  colles  vocem  tuam,     ^  Audite  colles  tudicium 
dmj :  et  valles  fundamenta  tenae  quia  iudicium  dim  :  ad 

3  .         ,         .         et  cum  Istrahel  disputabit :  '  populus  meus.     Quid 
feci  libi  aut  quid  contristavi  te  -  aut  quid  molestus  tibi  fui  responde 

4  mihi :  *  quia  eduxi  te  ex  Aegypto  et  ex  domo  servitutis  liberavi  te : 

5  et  misi  ante  faciem  tuam  Moysen  et  Aaron  et  Mariam*     "Populus 
meus  recordare :  quae  cogitaverit  adversum  te  Bala^rm 

6  .         *      *  In  quo  adsequar  Dominum  et  adprehendam  Deum  meum   yptt^n 
Sublimem  ?    Si  adprehendam  ilium  in  sacrificiiSj  in  holocaustomatis, 

7  in  vitulis  anniculis?    "'Si  accepto  favet  Dominus  in  milibus  arietum 
aut  in  decern  milibus  caprarum  pinguiom  ?     Aut  dabo  primittva  mea 

8  impietatis,  fructum  ventris  mei  peccatum  animae  meae  ?   *  Renuntia- 

^  VI  6-9  Cypr.  Tesiim.  iii  ao ;  Ludf.  CaL  Dt  sanct,  AtMan,  i  35         VI  8  Sptc.  v 

%  {tcai  pvtxofuu  <7€  36)  9.  et  1^]  om  <Er  10.  tUa]  om  ©^  equos  tuos] 

om  tuos  <5  JH  (rxc  49  106)  1L  A  Q         1 1.  et  auferam]  ttai  §^o\«&ptt>att>  ffi  12.  ct 

disperdam]  itai  i{ok($ptvoiu  {^  %  {exc  153)  «m  t^apci  jP^  et  A         maJeficia]  pr  warra  A 
J  3.  fanos  tuos]  rai  <mjAat  ffov  (JEt  15.  mei]  0m  ^ILJtl  {exc  26  106)  [hai>  A) 

VI,   I.  Audite  *  ,  .  dixit]  Ajsovaar*  dtf  A070V.  Kvpnot  mifHot  ttvtv  ffi  quae  dms] 

A.o70j»  KvaolciAaolaQ  surge  .  .  .  iudicium]  AvQffTijBt  KptBrjrt  wpot  to  cfij  052/ 

sic  nisi  Ita*  «/>.  JlJ         2.  colles]  A^cioi  flS"  {AQ*  ^ovvai  Q^^  opij)  4.  ex  Acgyplo] 

ff«r  Y7t  AiTvirrov  G  Moyscn]  rov  Wa/arjtf  ©  (Q  rov  Mwvtfrfv)  6.  adsequar] 

coBprchendain  L  xaraXa^Qi  ffi  ct  adprehendam]  adsumsm  L  cm  ct  (E  (exc  91) 

Deum  meum  Sublimem?    Si  adprehendam]  om  Q*  hab  Q^'if      Sublimem]  excelsum  L 
adprehendam  2*^]  conprehendam  L  ilium]  eum  L  in  sacrificiis]  om  L  QEr 

holocaustomatis]  holocaustis  L        in  4*^]  pr  aut  L  prrf  49  7.  Si  accepto  favet] 

aut  sisuscipiet  L  <i  1^poaS*(tTa^  (JK  milibus  l"*  3"]  milia  L  caprarum]  hae- 

dorum  L  x*^i^Pf^^'^  ^  {apron'  A)        primitiva]  primogcnito  L       impietads]  -f/jov  1L 
peccatum]  pro  peccatis  L  pr  mtp  ®  8.  Renunitatum  est]  renuntiandum  L 


I 


I 


252  THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

turn  est  tibi  homo  quod  bonum  aut  quid  Dominus  exquirat  aliud 

nisi  ut  facias  iudicium  et  iustitiam,  et  diligas  misericordiam,  et  paratus 
9  sis  yt  eas  cum  Domino  Deo  tuo  ?     •  Vox  Domini  in  civitate  invoca- 

bitur,  et  timcntes  nomen  eius  salvabil     ...  .         .        « 

VIL  4  .         .         .     *Vae,  uUioncsenira  tuae  venerunt,  nunc  erunt  pro* 

5  bationes  eorum*     *  nolite  fidere  in  amids,  nequc  speretis  in  ducibuj 

8 *  Noli  gratulari  inimica  mea  mihi, 

qwoniam  si  cecidi  et  exsurgam,  et  si  in  tenebris  ambulavero  Dominus 
9  lumen  est  mi  hi.   *  I  ram  Domini  lolerabo,  quoniam  peccavi  illi,  usque 

dum  lustiticet  causam  meam,  et  faciat  iustitiam  et  iudiduin»  et  pro- 
10  ducat  me  ad  lucem,  \ndebo  iustitiam  illius.     "Et  videbit  me  inimica 

mea  et  cooperiet  se  confusione 

14  '*  Pasce  populum  tuum  in  virga  tua,  oves  haereditatis  tuae,  habitantes 

convalle  in  medio  Carmelo ;  parabunt  Basanitin  et  Gataditin  secun- 

ji  dum  dies  saeculi,  ^*et  secundum  dies  profectionis  eonim  a  ten^ 

16  Aegypli  oslendam  illis  mirabilia.    "Videbunt  genteset  confundentur 
ex  omni  fortitudine  sua,  et  soperponent  manus  in  os  suum,  aures 

17  eorum  exsurdabunlur,     "Et  lingeni  pulverem  quomodo  serpentes 
trahentes  terram ;  conturbabuntur  in  conclusione  sua,  ad  Dominum 

18  Deum  suum  expavescent,  et  timebunt  abs  te.   ^*  Quis  Deus  quomodo 
tu  elevans  iniustiliam  et  transgrediens  impietales  ?         .         .        , 

tis  suae:    non  continuit  in  testimonium  iram 

19  suam:  quia  vokns  misericordiam  est.     '*Ipse  revertetur  et  misere- 

VII  4,  5  Spec,  cvii  Vli  g-io  Cypr,  Ad.  Nov.  xii  VII  14-18  Cypr.  Tesitm. 

iii  30  VlI  18,  19  Tert.  Adv.  Marc,  iv  10 

Kinuntiaturo  est  5  (4  ayij-fytXii  fflr  IL  (om  «i)  ^  tibi]  +  est  Z-  quod]  quid  sit  S  L 
aut  <]uld]  KOt  Ti  %  Dominus]  om  S  cxqmT&l]  quaerat  a  tc  S  cJtquisivit  a  te  L  hh 
wapa  croi  G  aliud]  +  Dominus  S  om  ®  iudictum]  aequitatem  S  et  iustitiam] 
om  SS  IL  (/xc  PT}  J^  (exc  49)  misericordiam]  miserationtra  S         ut  eas]  ire  L 

Tov  nopivt(r$ai  i&  |1|  rov  woptvta&at  ot  IL  cum  Domino  Deo  tuo]  omo'af  Kvpiov  Bhmi 
aov  %  {fxc  48  153  233)  (BJ^  f^^ra  .  .  .) 

VII.  4.  Vac]  his  scr  ffi^  cnim]  om  ffi  8,  si  l**]  om  (ffir         ambulavero] 

ttaHnucii  ffi  ?^  Jtoptvio}  iL  Q™'  lumen  eat  mihi]  fpantu  ^oi  ©  '/otfS  ftcv  87  ^1  o*  0 

^a«  Q^  9.  facial]  airo^o^f I  ^  iustitiam  et]  om  (S  tudicium]  + /*«*  fi 

10.  me]  om  ^  14.  tua]/r<j|ivA,7f  IL  ^y^ij*' ^  j^  habitantes]  +  icotf  eourcwr 

^J^-i-  Kara  iwvax  %  g™'         convalle]  Ipvfir)  Q^  "^  {ipvtiw  Q*)  1 5.   coram]  aov 

€5  a  terra  Aegypti]  f^  Aitvwtou  6r  |^  f*  TU  hiyturrov  %  Q"^  ostcndara 

illis]  tu^oii  avrcis  IL  Q^^  ofptaBt  fi!&  |^  r6.  sua]  airraw  ©  manus]  x"/» 

A  17.  Et  i**]o»«  S  sua]  «vT<w»' S  suum]  Tj^iwj' (Sr  18.  elevans] 

eximens  Tttt  iniustitiam]  iniquitatcs  Ttrt  tofofum  ffi**  u^iitcai  %^A         trans- 

grediens]  praeteriens  Ttrt  impielates]  iniustiliaa  Tert  aac/Seias  ©IL  aBuriar  JtJ 
Cpr  *wi  0^9)  +  rcsiduis  haereditatiss  Tirt  non  continuit]  non  tcnuit  Ttrtov  trwtax'^ 
©  %  on*  fKparriatv  Q^O  Qg  87  91  volcns]  voluit  Teri  est]  om  Ttrt  19.  Ipse] 
om  Tert  ffi^         revertetur]  avertct  Ttrt 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  253 

bitur  nostri :  et  absolvet  omnes  iniquitates  nostras :  et  proicientur  in 
30  altitudinem   maris  omnia  peccata  nostra :    *^  dabis  veritatem  huic 
lacob :  misericordiam  huic  Habrahae :  sicut  iuravit  pa    .* 
dies  pristinos. 

19  et  absolvet]  demerget  Teri  om  et  ffilL  {txc  95  185)  ^  {exc  106)  omnes 

iniquitates  nostras]  delicta  nostra  Titi  om  omnes  (Sr  proicientur]  demerget  Tert 
a.90fpitffti  AQ^  in  altitudinem]  in  profunda  Ttrt  omnia]  om  Tni  30.  dabis] 
SoMTci  <Sr        veritatem]  pr  cif  (Sr]^  [S/-i-  (^ov]         Habrahae]  Kfipaafi  (Sr 


NOTES   ON   THE    SUCCESSION    OF    THE   BISHOPS 
OF  ST  ANDREWS  FROM  a.d.  1093  TO  A.D.  1571.^ 

III. 

After  Stewart's  renunciation  of  his  election,  WALTER  DE 
DANIELSTON  (Danyelston)  was,  according  to  Sc.  (vi  47),  postu- 
lated (in  1402  according  to  W.  iii  83)  to  this  see,  and  received  the 
fruits  of  it  until  his  death.  According  to  Wyntoun  ijbid\  the  election 
of  Walter,  which  was  *in  way  offcompromyssioune',  was  at  the  instance 
of  the  duke  of  Albany ;  the  election  was  '  agane  conscience  of  mony 
men';  and 

*Sone  efftyre  at  the  Yule  deit  he. 

Swa  litill  mare  than  a  halfif  yere 

Lestyt  he  in  his  powere.' 

Any  information  about  this  obscure  figure  is  of  interest. 

On  Feb.  i,  1392,  a  petition  was  granted  of  Walter  de  Danyelston, 
canon  of  Aberdeen^  licentiate  in  arts  and  student  of  civil  law  at 
Avignon,  for  a  canonry  at  Glasgow  with  expectation  of  a  prebend, 
notwithstanding  that  he  has  also  papal  provision  of  the  church  of  Suitte 
(itr)  in  the  diocese  of  Glasgow,  of  which  he  had  not  yet  got  possession. 
Granted  (C.P.R.;  Pet  \  575). 

In  1394  Danielston  held  the  hospide  for  the  poor  at  Poknade 
(?  Polmadie),  to  which  he  had  been  presented  ',by  the  earl  of  Lennox. 
The  earl's  right  of  presentation  was  disputed  by  Matthew,  bishop  of 
Glasgow  {jbid,  614).  At  a  later  date  he  was  appointed  a  papal  chaplain 
{jbid,  608). 

It  would  seem  from  Bower  and  Wyntoun  that  the  appointment  of 
Danielston  to  St.  Andrews  was  by  arrangement  between  him  and  the 
king  and  duke  of  Albany,  the  condition  being  that  Danielston,  who  was, 
or  claimed  to  be,  (hereditary)  castellan  of  the  castle  of  Dumbarton,  should 

^  The  writer  will  be  grateful  for  corrections  or  additions  to  these  notes. 


254         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

surrender  it  to  the  king  on  receiving  the  bishopric,  I  am  not  aware  of 
any  evidence  to  shew  that  Danielston  was  ever  confirmed  by  the  Pope. 

GILBERT  GREENLAW,  bishop  of  Aberdeen^  and  chancellor 
of  Scotland,  was  postulated  {?  1402  or  1403)  to  St.  Andrews,  and  Nory 
was  again  sent  to  the  papal  court  for  confirmation  of  the  f>ostulatioa. 
But  Benedict  XIII  refused  to  confirm  the  postulation  (Sc.  vi  47),  and 
provided  to  the  see — 

HENRY  WARDLAW,  precentor  of  Glasgow,  doctor  of  law,  and 
nephew  of  the  Cardinal  of  Glasgow  (Sc,  vi  47),  A  lacuna  in  the 
archives  at  Rome  prevents  us  from  affixing  a  precise  date  to  his  provision. 
But  Sc.  (/,f.)  says  that  three  years  and  a  half  intervened  between  the 
death  of  Trail  and  the  appointment  of  Wardlaw.  Wyntoun  (iii  85) 
seems  to  place  the  provision  of  Wardlaw  in  the  same  year  as  the  battle 
of  Homildon  (Sept.  14),  1402.  This  falls  in  with  a  petition  of  John  de 
Hawik,  priest  of  the  diocese  of  Glasgow,  for  confirmation  in  the  precen- 
torship  of  Glasgow,  void  by  the  promotion  of  Henry  Wardlaw  to  the 
see  of  St.  Andrews.  He  states  that  he  has  held  the  precentorship  for 
eight  years.  This  petition  is  dealt  with  by  the  Pope  on  March  i,  1410 
(CP.R. ;  Pet.  \  596).  To  this  has  to  be  added  a  charter  in  the 
Register  House  (cited  by  Dr.  J.  Maitland  Thomson) — the  charter  of 
Wester  Fudy,  dated  Sept.  14,  1437,  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  Wardlaw*s 
consecration,  which  shews  that  Wardlaw  was  consecrated  some  time  in 
the  year  ending  Sept,  13,  1403.  But  again,  April  5,  1425,  is  in  the 
twenty-second  year  of  his  consecration  (R.P.S.  A.  409),  which  shews  that 
his  consecration  was  after  April  5,  1405.  But  another  charter  (Cam- 
buskenneth  31)  is  dated  Way  20, 1409,  and  is  said  to  be  in  the  sixth  year 
of  his  consecration.  This  would  make  his  consecration  after  May  20, 
1403.  So  we  conclude  that  his  consecration  was  between  May  20,  1403, 
and  Sept  13,  1403. 

Henry  Wardlaw  died  'after  Easter  on  April  6,  1440,  in  the  castle  of 
St.  Andrews '  (Sc,  vi  47),     Easter  in  that  year  fell  on  March  27  *. 

JAMES  KENNEDY,  bishop  of  Dunkeld,  which  see  he  had  held  for 
two  years '. 

He  was  postulated  to  St.  Andrews,  April  22^  i^^o^perviam  Spiritus 
San€ti\  during  his  absence  at  the  court  of  Pope  Eugenius  IV,  then  at 
Florence.  Before  the  decree  of  the  election,  with  the  royal  letters 
commendatory,  reached  the  Pope,  Kennedy  had  been  by  him  already 
provided  to  St.  Andrews  (Sc*  vi  48). 

^  Greeotaw  was  appointed  lo  Aberdeen  betweeii  Sept  18,  1339,  and  Apr0  5, 
1390. 

'  Many  interesting^  notices  of  Wardlaw  hitherto  uokiiowii  wiU  be  found  in 
C.P.R.  ;  Pit,  i  pp.  549,  570,  573,  577,  584,  59a,  600. 

'  He  Wiia  the  son  of  Mary,  second  daughter  of  King  Robert  III,  who  had  married, 
first,  George  Douglas,  carl  of  Angus,  and,  secondly,  Sir  James  Kennedy. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


255 


On  June  8,  1440,  Jaraes,  formerly  bishop  of  Dunkeld,  translated  lo 
the  church  of  St.  Andrews  in  Scotland,  offered /re*  suo  communi  servitio^ 
by  reason  of  the  said  translation,  3,300  florins  of  gold  de  Camera^  at 
which  the  said  church  of  St.  Andrews  was  found  to  be  taxed,  together 
with  five  minuia  servUm.     ObUgazioni  ifi.  123)'. 

Kennedy  is  generally  said  to  have  died  in  1466.  And  for  that  year 
we  have  the  authority  of  Lesley  {De  oHgitie^  &c.,  p,  302,  edit.  Romae, 
1578)  J  who  is  followed  by  Spottiswoode  (i  114).  In  the  vernacular 
(and  probably  original)  form  of  Lesley's  work  (Bannatyne  Club  edit, 
p.  37)  the  date  is  *  x^t  daye  of  Maye,  1466  '  I  But  Dr.  Grub  {Ecd.  Hist. 
»  375)  pointed  out  that  in  the  Chartulary  of  Arbroath  {Registrum 
Nigrum^  p.  145)  we  find  David,  prior  of  St.  Andrews,  acting  as  vicar 
general  of  St.  Andrews,  seds  vacante  on  July  18,  1465.  Again  in  the 
Chronicle  of  John  Smyth,  monk  of  Kinloss  (HarL  MSS  2363),  we  find 
*  Anno  M.  Ixv  [which  must  be  merely  a  sHp  for  Mcccclxv]  obiit  lacobus 
Kennedy,  episcopus  Sancti  Andree '  *,  And  his  successor  was  appointed 
Nov.  10,  1465.  See  next  entry.  We  find  Edward  IV  of  England 
paying  his  annuity  to  the  bishop  of  St.  Andrews  for  the  year  ending 
April  14,  1465  (B.C.  iv  1360),  and  a  very  small  payment  for  the  year 
begun  at  Easter. 

Kennedy  witnessed  a  great  seal  charter  at  St,  Andrews  on  April  30, 
1465  (R,M.S,  ii  831),  I  am  disposed  to  place  his  death  between  that 
date  and  July  i8»  1465,  and  perhaps  on  May  10^  as  stated  by  Lesley. 
Principal  Donaldson  informs  me  that  the  records  of  the  University  of 
St.  Andrews  have  no  notice  of  the  death  or  funeral  of  Kennedy.  He 
was  buried  in  the  beautiful  tomb  which  he  had  erected  for  himself  in 
the  church  of  S.  Saivator,  which  he  had  built. 

PATRICK  GRAHAM,  bishop  of  Brechin  *. 

Appointed  by  a  Bull  of  Paul  III,  dated  Rome,  Nov.  4,  r465  (B.  i  123), 
On  Nov.  29,  1465,  the  proctor  of  Patrick,  lately  tian slated  from  the 

*  Bower  (Sc,  vi  48),  who  gives  the  day  of  his  postulation  A3  April  2J,  adds  '  in 
Quadragesima'*  This  is  wi  error,  for  Easter  fell  in  1440  on  March  27.  Kennedy 
was  consecrated  after  May  i6,  14^8,  for  May  16,  1448,  is  in  the  tenth  year  of  his 
consecration  (R.B.  1 18),  and  before  July  7,  1438  (see  Clackmamian  IVrits^  cited  t»y 
Keith  30).  It  should  be  noted  that  a  charter  in  Lib,  de  Scoh,  (187)  makes  April  10, 
1456,  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  his  consecrationt  which  does  not  tally  with  the 
dates  above  given.     The  anno  coMstcrationis  was  often  a  pitfall  to  the  scribes. 

■  This  date,  1  suspect,  Lesley  took  from  the  continuation  of  Boecc  by  Ferrcrius 
(Boethius  :  Parisiis  1574  fol.  387  itrso). 

*  Smyth's  Chronicle  is  printed  la  Dr.  J.  Stuart's  Rtcorda  of  ih*  Monastery  of 
Kinloss  (Appendix  lo  the  Pre£ace). 

*  Like  his  predecessor,  be  was  a  grandson  of  King  Robert  HI,  whose  daughter, 
Lady  Mary  Stewart,  married  William  Lord  Graham  after  the  death  of  Sir  James 
Kennedy.  Graham  was  thus  half-brother  of  his  predecessor  in  the  sec.  He  was 
appointed  to  Brechin  before  March  2%  1463  (T.  no.  3j8}. 


256 


THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


church  of  Brechin  to  the  church  of  St.  Andrews,  offered  3,300  gold 
florins.  His  proctor  was  Gaspar  de  Ricasolis,  merchant  of  Florence, 
*  institor  Banchi  de  Medicis'  Obligaz.  [ibid.  124).  On  Dec.  5,  1476, 
Sixtus  IV  commissioned  John  Huseman,  dean  of  the  church  of  St.  Patro- 
clus  in  Soest  (Suzaciencis)  in  the  diocese  of  Cologne,  to  inquire  into 
charges  made  against  Graham  (T.  no.  862).  Graham  was  deposed  and 
condemned  to  perpetual  confinement  in  a  monastery  'or  other  place'. 
The  date  of  the  deposition  is  Jan.  9,  147S  (T»  no.  863).  After  confine- 
ment first  at  Inchcolm,  then  at  Dunfermline,  and  lastly  at  the  castle  of 
Lochleven,  he  died  in  1478  (month  and  day  not  known),  and  was  buried 
in  St.  Serf's  Inche  in  Lochleven.     Lesley  {De  origine^  &c.,,  306). 

It  was  during  the  episcopate  of  Graham  that  St.  Andrews  was  erected 
into  an  archiepiscopal  and  metropolitan  see  by  a  Bull  of  Sixtus  IV 
dated  Rome,  Aug.  17,  1472  (T-  no.  852). 

WILLIAM  SCHEVES  (Schevez,  Shevez,  Sheves,  Schewess), 
archdeacon  of  St.  Andrews. 

'Records  of  provision  defective'  (B.  i  124);  appointed  probably  in 
1478.  Under  the  year  1478  Lesley  {De  origin,  p.  306)  says  that  Scheves 
received  the  pall  in  the  church  of  Holyrood  Abbey,  in  presence  of  the 
king  and  of  many  of  the  nobility.  On  Jan,  31^  1477-8,  he  was  arch- 
deacon, coadjutor  and  vicar-general  (Rymer's  Fadera^  xii  40),  He  had 
been  coadjutor  June  30,  1477  (R.B.  i  200).  He  had  formerly  been 
*clencus  regis'  and  master  of  the  hospital  at  Brechin  (R,M.S.  ii 
no.  1358).  In  the  vernacular  History  of  Scotland  from  1436  to  1 561,  by 
John  Lesley,  bishop  of  Ross  (Eannatyne  Club),  the  day  on  which  the 
pall  is  said  to  have  been  given  is  Passion  Sunday  '  in  lentrene '  (p.  43). 
Ferrerius  (Appendix  to  Boece,/a/.  393  verso)  gives  the  same  day,  but 
makes  the  year  1479.  June  2,  1479^  was  in  *  anno  consecrationis  nostrae 
primo'.  (Deed  printed  by  University  Commiss*,  St.  Andrews,  1837.) 
Passion  Sunday  in  1477-8  was  March  8.  Scheves  was  certainly  arch- 
bishop on  Feb.  2,  1478-9  {R.M.S.  ii  141 7  /«/.), 

Scheves  is  said  to  have  died  Jan.  28,  1496-7  V  The  see  was  vacant 
March  22,  1496-7  {Lib.  Nig,  de  Aberbrotk^  3^3) '• 

JAMES  STEWART,  second  son  of  King  James  III;  born  in 
March,  1475-6;  marquis  of  Ormonde,  1476;  duke  of  Ross,  1488*. 

On  Sept  20,  i497»  the  Pope  made  *the  most  illustrious  James  Stewart, 
clerk  of  the  diocese  of  St,  Andrews,  brother  of  the  most  illustrious  king 


^  So  Keith;  but  I  have  been  unable  to  find  a  verification  from  an  original 
authority,     The  jK^ar  at  least  may  be  accepted* 

'  The  archbishop  had  a  brathcr,  Henry  Sheve2  of  Gilquhus  (iS«),  to  whose  won 
and  heir,  John^  the  Archbishop  granted  the  fee-lkriii  of  certain  lands  in  the  regality 
of  St.  Andrews.   R.BI.S.  ii  a  410. 

*  See  Sir  A.  H.  Dunbar's  Scottish  Kittgs^  p.  a  to. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  257 

of  Scotland,  being  in  his  eighteenth  year  \  administrator  of  the  diocese 
up  to  the  lawful  age,  and  after  that  provided  him  to  the  church  of 
St.  Andrews  by  advancing  him  to  be  bishop  and  pastor '  ( Vatican,  B.  i 
124).  The  Obbiigazioni  record  that  on  Oct.  14,  1497,  James  Brown, 
dean  of  Aberdeen,  offered  in  the  name  of  the  Reverend  Father,  Lord 
James,  elect  of  St.  Andrews,  on  account  of  the  provision  by  the  Bull  of 
Alexander  VI  under  date  of  Sept.  20,  1497,  3,300  gold  florins  (B.  ibid). 
The  legitimate  age  according  to  the  canon  law  for  the  consecration  of 
a  bishop  was  the  age  of  thirty  years  complete  {Decretalia  Gregorii  IX, 
lib.  I,  tit.  vi,  cap.  7).  In  the  passage  cited  by  B.  (above)  there  is  no 
indication  of  the  Pope's  intending  to  dispense  with  the  law  on  this 
subject.  I  am  not  aware  that  there  is  any  evidence  to  shew  that 
James  Stewart  was  ever  consecrated.  He  was  administrator,  and  a  charter 
dated  St.  Andrews,  Feb.  7,  1502,  the  deed  is  said  to  be  in  the  fifth  year 
of  his  'administration '  (Keith). 

As  to  the  date  of  Stewart's  death  we  can  fix  it  tolerably  closely  from 
an  entry  in  the  Tlreasurer's  Accounts  (ii  415).  On  Jan.  13,  1503-4, 
a  payment  of  £26  13^.  was  made  '  for  the  expens  maid  on  the  tursing 
of  the  Beschop  of  Sanctandrois  to  Sanctandrois  to  be  beryit,  in  wax,  in 
fraucht,  and  all  other  expens  *.  He  was  present  in  the  sederunt  of  the 
Lords  of  Council  on  Dec.  22,  1503.  So  that  he  had  not  been  long 
seriously  ill*.  Indeed  he  witnessed  a  great  seal  charter  on  Jan.  4, 
1503-4  (R.M.S.  ii  2765). 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  notice  what  seems  a  discrepancy  between 
the  date  of  his  appointment  by  the  Pope  (as  given  above)  and  an  entry 
in  R.M.S.  (ii  2358),  where  James,  archbishop  of  St  Andrews,  duke 
of  Ross,  and  brother  of  the  king,  is  a  consenting  party  to,  and  witnesses, 
a  charter  on  May  22,  1497.  This  can  only  be  explained  by  supposing 
that  the  Pope's  concurrence  was  regarded  as  absolutely  assured. 

Beside  the  archbishopric  he  was  granted  in  cammendam  the  abbey  of 
Dunfermline  (June  3,  1500),  void  by  the  translation  of  George,  abbot ; 
and  on  Aug.  21,  1500,  the  sum  of  250  gold  florins  was  offered  in  his 
name(B.  178).  Again  he  was  provided  to  Arbroath  July  7,  i503(B.  164). 

The  see  was  vacant  for  some  years,  perhaps  kept  intentionally  vacant 
for  the  appointment  of 

ALEXANDER  STEWART,  illegitimate  son  of  James  IV  by 


*  There  is  probably  an  error  of  transcription  here,  for,  assuming  the  date  of  his 
birth  as  given  above  to  be  correct,  the  archbishop  would  be  in  his  twenty-seeond 
year  at  the  date  of  his  appointment.  As  Brady  transcribes  the  passage  it  runs 
'  constitutum  in  xviii  annos '.  Those  who  are  familiar  with  questions  of  this  kind 
will  know  how  easy  it  is  to  read  '  V '  for  *  X ' ;  but  even  this  emendation  would  give 
a  year  too  much  to  the  age  of  James  Stewart. 

■  I  owe  these  references  to  Dr.  J.  Maitland  Thomson. 

VOL.  V.  S 


258 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Marion  (by  some  called  Margaret,  by  others,  Mary)  Boyd,  daughter  of 
Archibald  Boyd  of  Bonshaw. 

His  birth  was  probably  about  1495.  ■ 

John  [Hepburn]  is  prior  of  St  Andrews  and  vicar-general  sede  va^cmHi 
July  20,  1504,  but  the  month  is  in  error  for  the  deed  is  confirmed  M^ 
31,  1504,     R.M.S.  ii  2789. 

His  appointment  to  the  archbishopric  is  assigned  by  Sir  A.  H,  Dunbar 
(Scottish  KingSy  220)  to  the  year  1505  in  or  before  July-  Sec  his 
authorities. 

Dr.  J.  Maitknd  Thomson  cites  a  precept  Feb.  24,  1506-7,  in  the 
third  year  of  Alexander's  administration  (original  in  the  Register  House), 
which  would  push  back  his  entrance  on  his  administration  to  1504  or 
early  in  1505. 

As  yet  there  has  not  appeared  (so  far  as  the  editor  is  aware)  any 
record  of  Alexander  Stewart's  provision  from  the  archives  at  Rome ; 
but  one  may  hope  that  future  research  may  reveal  some  information. 
James  IV  wrote  to  Julius  II  (the  date  is  not  given)  thanking  him  for 
acceding  to  his  request  in  appointing  Alexander  to  the  archbishopric, 
and  requesting  that  the  Pope  would  appoint  a  certain  Dominican 
(named  obviously  in  the  letter  sent,  but  blank  in  the  draft)  to  serve  as 
bishop,  who  would  have  his  title  from  one  of  the  ancient  vacant  sees 
(meaning,  no  doubt,  some  see  in  Africa  or  the  East,  in  partibus  infi- 
ddium)  who  would  superintend  the  tender  archbishop.  The  king  would 
provide  him  with  a  suitable  income  (Epistolae  Rfgum  Scatia^,  i  no.  2). 
This  draft  letter  is  given,  in  the  volume  cited,  a  place  after  a  letter  dated 
Oct,  I,  1505. 

Alexander  Stewart  was  slain  at  the  battle  of  Flodden,  Sept.  9,  1513. 
JOHN  HEPBURN^  prior  of  St.  Andrews,  was  nominated  by  the 
Regents  and  elected  by  the  chapter '.  Another  aspirant  to  the  see  was 
Gavin  DouglaSj  provost  of  the  collegiate  church  of  St.  Giles*,  Edin- 
burgh, who  shortly  afterwards  was  provided  by  the  Pope  to  Dunkeld. 
After  Forman's  provision  Hepburn  in  May,  15 15,  carried  his  appeal 
to  Rome.  Lesley  (Bannaiyne  Club  edit.),  p.  101.  He  probably 
desisted  in  his  appeal ;  at  any  rate  he  was  given  by  the  Governor  of 
Scotland  *  ane  thousand  merkis  pensione  .  .  .  for  his  contentacoune  * 
{ibid,  106). 

ANDREW  FORM  AN  (Foreman),  bishop  of  Moray,  to  which  he  had 
been   provided   by  Alexander  VI,  Nov.  26,  1501   {Vatican.  B.   135). 

'  The  Regent  had  intended  Elphinstone,  bishop  of  Aberdeen,  for  llie  Primacy. 
On  Aug.  5,  15J4,  a  letter  wms  addressed  in  the  name  of  the  king  to  Leo  X, 
begging  that  the  biflhop  of  Aberdeen,  *  nulricms  noster',  should  be  translated  to 
St.  Andrews  {Epis.  Rtg,  Scot,  i  199).  But  Elphinatonc  died  Oct.  i-.,  1514  (R.  A, 
ii  349  J  R,  G.  11616), 


i 


i 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  259 

He  was  also  commendator  of  Dryburgh,  Pittenweem,  and  Cottingham 
in  England  (R.M.  401),  and  archbishop  of  Bourges  in  France. 

He  is  said  to  have  been  translated  to  St.  Andrews  on  Dec.  25,  15 14. 
This  date  is  given  in  Major-General  Stewart  Allan's  list  of  the  bishops 
of  Moray,  printed  in  the  Charters  of  the  Priory  of  Beauly  (pp.  296-8). 
General  Allan  unfortunately  does  not  give  specific  references;  but 
researches  appear  to  have  been  made  by  him,  or  for  him,  in  the  Vatican 
records,  and,  while  awaiting  more  information,  it  seems  worth  recording. 
On  Jan.  8, 15 15,  John,  prior  of  St.  Andrews,  is  vicar-general,  sede  vacante 
(R.G.  ii  525).  The  date  given  by  Lesley  (Bannatyne  Club,  p.  loi)  for  the 
publishing  of  *the  bills  (?  bulls)  of  provisione*  at  Edinburgh  is  Jan.  15, 
1 5 14-5.  Whether  the  news  of  the  publication  of  the  bulls  had  reached 
Henry  VIII  of  England  or  not,  we  find  that  on  Jan.  28,  15 14-5,  he 
wrote  to  the  Pope  begging  him  to  appoint  Gavin  Douglas,  who  had  been 
commended  to  the  Pope  by  his  sister  Margaret,  queen  of  Scotland. 
He  says  that  he  understands  that  the  bishop  of  Moray  will  never  go  to 
St.  Andrews  (T.  no.  901).    But  Forman's  position  was  now  secure '. 

Forman  died,  probably,  on  March  12,  1521.  John  Smyth,  monk  of 
Kinloss,  in  his  Chronicle  (printed  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Preface  of 
Dr.  Stuart's  /Records  of  the  Monastery  of  Kinioss\  states  that  Forman 
died  in  Lent,  1522.  But  in  a  manuscript  of  John  Law,  canon  of 
St.  Andrews,  which  is  preserved  in  the  library  of  the  University  of 
Edinburgh,  we  find  a  note  (which  has  been  communicated  to  me  by 
Rev.  John  Anderson)  that  Forman  died  at  Dunfermline  on  March  1 2, 
1521 :  and  that  this  means  March  12,  1 520-1,  is  apparent  from  what 
follows,  unless  we  suppose  that  Forman  resigned  the  see  before  his 
death,  of  which  we  have  no  hint.  Mr.  Anderson  in  a  note  to  his  Laing 
Charters  (no.  327)  points  out  that  the  see  was  certainly  vacant  on 
April  10,  1521.     It  was  vacant  also  on  May  18,  1521  {Jibid,  no.  329). 

The  continued  vacancy  of  the  see  is  borne  witness  to  by  Laing 
Charters  (no.  zzi)^  which  show  that  it  was  vacant  on  March  28,  1522. 
There  is  a  letter  of  James  V  dated  at  Edinburgh  Feb.  21,  1531 
(i.e.  1 52 1-2),  which  refers  to  the  vicar-general  of  St.  Andrews,  'dicti 
Metropoli  Pastore  destitute '  i^Epist,  Reg.  Scot,  i  329). 

JAMES  BEATON  (Betoun),  archbishop  of  Glasgow.  (Postulated 
to  Glasgow  by  the  chapter,  Nov.  9,  1508.     Liber  Protocollorum,  ii  232.) 

Adrian  VI  translated  James  Beaton  to  St.  Andrews  on  Oct.  10, 1522. 
The  revenue  of  the  see  is  given  as  10,000  florins ;  and  the  Xsjol  as  3,300 
florins.     The  pall  was  granted  on  Dec.  10,  1522.    {Barberini  B.  125.) 

*■  Mas  Latrie  (Traor  de  Chron.  col.  1399)  gives  157a  as  the  date  of  Forman's 
appointment  to  Bourges,  and  15 13  for  his  translation  to  St  Andrews.  But  each  of 
these  dates  seem  to  be  a  year  too  early.  General  Stewart  Allan  (I  c.)  gives 
Sept  I  a,  15131  for  the  provision  to  Bourges. 

S  % 


a6o         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Henry  VIII  had  exerted  himsdf  to  have  Gavin  Douglas,  bishop 
of  Dunkeld,  appointed  to  the  primaqr*  But  the  regent  of  Scotland 
with  the  three  estates  of  the  realm  wrote  (Feb.  6,  1521-22)  to  the  Pope 
informing  him  that  Gavin  had  fled  to  their  enemy  the  king  of  England, 
and  beseeching  him  not  to  advance  Gavin  (Ef>ist.  Reg.  Scot  i  327)  *. 

We  find  David  Beaton  (successor  of  James) '  coadjutor  of  Sl  Andrews  *, 
Feb.  5,  1538-9  (R.M.S.  iii  2741),  just  before  the  death  of  his  uncle. 

James  Beaton  died  *die  Veneris,  Feb,  14,  1539'  {Liber  G.  Makesim^ 
in  the  Laing  collection  of  MSB  in  the  University  of  Exlinburgh).  The 
day  of  the  week  works  out  right  for  the  year  1538*9. 

DAVID  BEATON  (Betoun),  nephew  of  the  preceding. 

At  the  instance  of  Francis  I,  king  of  France,  he  was  provided 
by  the  Pope  to  the  see  of  Mirepoix  on  Dec  5,  1537.     (Finnte  B.  125,) 

The  date  of  his  appointment  in  succession  to  his  uncle  is  not  given 
by  B.  We  find  him,  however,  styled  archbishop  of  St  Andrews  on 
Feb.  25,  1538-9  (R.M.S.  iii  1916).  The  creation  of  Beaton  as 
cardinal  is  given  by  B.  (125)  as  Dec.  20,  1530,  which  is  certainly  an 
error  for  1538*.  His  title  was  presbyter  cardinal  of  St  Stephen 
on  the  Caelian.  A  letter  of  thanks  from  James  V  to  Pope  Paul  III 
is  dated  March  S,  1539  (T.  no.  1050). 

Possibly  French  records  may  have  preserved  the  date  of  Beaton^s 
consecration  to  Mirepoix*  From  Scottish  records  we  can  infer  it  only 
approximately  from  a  corajjarison  of  writs  dated  with  his  *  anno  conse- 
crationis '.  Out  of  seventeen  of  these  supplied  to  me  by  Dr.  MaitLand 
Thomson  I  select  two  which  perhaps  bring  us  as  near  the  date  as  we 
are  likely  to  come.  July  25,  1545,  was  in  the  seventh  year  of  his 
consecration  (R.M,S.  v  1104),  and  Aug.  12,  1544,  was  in  the  seventh 
year  of  his  consecration  {Antiquities  of  At^erditn  and  Banff ^  iii  251). 
If  these  writs  may  be  trusted,  the  date  of  Beaton's  consecration  would 
be  in  1538,  between  July  26  and  August  13. 

It  may  be  suspected  that  the  bulls  appointing  David  Beaton  as 
coadjutor  (see  last  entry)  granted  ius  suicessianis .  This  supposition 
falls  in  with  what  Lesley  says  when  writing  of  James  Beaton's  death : 
*befoir  his  deid  [he]  had  providit  successouris  to  all  his  benefices, 
quhilkis  were  Mr.  David  Betoun,  then  being  cardinall,  to  the  arch- 
bishoprik  of  St  Androis  and  the  Abbaye  of  Arbroith '  &c.  {Bannatyne 
edit  p.  158), 

He  was  assassinated  in  his  castle  of  St  Andrews  on  Saturday, 
May  29,  1546  •. 

*  This  ou^ht  to  suffice  to  show  that  Gavin  Douglas  did  not  die  in  1531  (thoagh 
po^bly'm  1531-3).  The  Black  Book  of  Taytnoitth  (p.  117}  is  prob&bly  correct  in 
writing  of  Gavin  Douglas,  bishop  of  Dunkeld,  *ob.  uli.  lulii,  151a  \ 

*  See  Raynald  {AnuaL  Ectlfs.  vol.  xiii  495)  who  gives  Dec.  ao,  1538. 

*  On  JuJy  16,    1540,  William   Gibsoli   was  provided   by  the   Pope   'ecclesiae 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  261 

JOHN  HAMILTON,  a  natural  son  of  James,  first  earl  of  Arran/ 
bishop  of  Dunkeld  (provided  Dec.  17,  1544). 

The  date  of  his  translation  to  St.  Andrews  is  (as  given  by  B.)  Nov.  28 
1547.  He  is  at  the  same  time  granted  a  dispensation  to  retain  the 
monastery  of  Paisley,  and  also  a  dispensation  for  the  defect  of  birth 
'quem  de  soluto  nobili  et  illustri  genere  procreato  genitus  et  soluta, 
aut  alias,  patitur '.  Fructus,  3,000  marks ;  taxa,  600  florins.  (Barberini 
B.  127.) 

But  this  provision  does  not  seem  to  have  been  effective  immediately. 
For  as  late  as  1549,  we  find  the  stee  vacant  on  April  15  and  June  2 
(R.S.S.  xxiii  4  and  16).  The  see  of  Dunkeld  is  described  as  void 
June  23,  1549  {ibid,  33),  and  *John,  archbishop  of  St  Andrews',  sits 
in  council  on  July  13,  1549  {Privy  Council  Register,  xiv  9)*.  And  the 
letter  convoking  the  Provincial  Council  of  1559  is  dated  Jan.  31, 1558-9, 
in  the  tenth  year  of  his  translation  {Siatuta  Ecclesiae  Scoticanae,  ii  143). 

John  Hamilton  had  been  consecrated  while  holding  Dunkeld,  to 
which  he  had  been  provided,  with  a  dispensation  for  defect  of  birth, 
Dec.  17,  1544  (B.  130-2).  He  must  have  been  consecrated  after  Jan. 
31,  1546,  for  Jan.  31,  1559,  is  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  his  consecration 
(S/af.  Ecd.  Scot  I.e.);  and  after  July  31,  1546,  when  he  was  still  only 
« postulatus  Dunkeldensis '  (R.  S.  S.  cited  in  R.  A.  i  lix). 

He  was  hanged  at  Stirling,  April  7,  1571. 

It  is  strange  that  an  event  of  such  importance  as  the  death  of 
archbishop  Hamilton  should  be  assigned  to  no  less  than  three  different 
dates  by  early  historians.  Spottiswoode  (ii  p.  155)  says  that  he  was 
banged  on  April  i ;  and  the  marginal  year-date  at  the  top  of  the  page, 
for  which  probably  Spottiswoode  was  not  responsible,  has  misled  Keith, 
and  even  the  ordinarily  most  accurate  Joseph  Robertson  (Statuta 
Ecclesiae  Scoticanae,  i  p.  clxxxii,  marginal  note)  to  adopt  April  i, 
1570.  The  year  was  certainly  157 1.  But  about  the  day  of  the  month 
there  is  more  reason  to  hesitate.  April  i  may  be  dismissed  as  untenable. 

Libarien.  in  partibus  infidelium  *,  with  a  faculty  for  exercising  the  episcopal  ofl&ce  in 
the  city  and  diocese  of  St.  Andrews,  with  the  consent  of  the  cardinal,  and  with 
a  pension  of  ;^JOo  Scots,  to  be  furnished  by  the  cardinal.  (BaHftrini  B.  ia6.) 
Beaton  was  appointed  chancellor  Jan.  10,  1543-3  (R.S.S.  xvii  l). 

^  On  Sept  4,  1 55 1,  Gavin  Hamilton,  clerk  of  the  diocese  of  Glasgow,  of  noble 
family,  procreated  and  born  in  lawful  matrimony,  now  in  his  thirtieth  year  or  thereby, 
is  appointed  by  the  Pope  as  coadjutor  to  John.  The  archbishop  was  to  provide 
him  with  a  pension  of  ;^oo  Scots.  It  was  also  declared  that  on  the  death  or 
resignation  of  John  Hamilton,  Gavin  was  to  succeed  him  with  a  dispensation  to 
retain  the  monastery  of  Kilwinning.  The  grounds  for  the  supply  of  a  coadjutor 
are  *  ob  malam  phthisis  valetudinem'  {Barbtrini  B.  127-8).  See  also  the  bull  of 
Pope  Julius  [III]  addressed  (4  Sept.  1551)  to  the  clergy  of  the  city  and  diocese 
of  St  Andrews  commanding  obedience  to  Gavin  Hamilton,  clerk  of  the  diocese 
of  Glasgow,  appointed  coadjutor  and  *  future  elect'  {Lai9tg  CharUn,  no.  584). 


262         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Dumbarton  castle  was  taken  on  April  2,  and  Hamilton  was  removed 
thence  to  Stirling.  But  we  find  Calderwood  (tii  pp.  58,  59)  giving 
April  6.  The  Diurnal  of  Occurtnts  gives  very  precisely  6  pjn,  on 
Saturday,  April  7,  157 1 ;  and  it  may  be  remarked  that  April  7  did  M 
on  Saturday  in  1571.  The  Chronicle  of  Aberdeen  gives  also  April  7  as 
the  date.  Sir  A.  H.  Dunbar,  who  refers  to  these  authorities,  and  for 
accuracy  in  chronology  stands  unrivalled^  gives  his  judgment  in  fiivour 
of  April  7  {Scottish  Kings^  p.  265). 

J.  Hill  Burton  (Hist,  of  Scotland^  v  36)  gives  April  7,  157 1  'at 
two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon'.  Where  does  the  *two  o'clock*  come 
from  ?  Hume  Brown  (Hist,  of  Scot,  ii  147)  says  April  7  (at  6  p.m.), 
1571 ;  Grub  (Ecci.  Hist,  ii  168)  April  6,  1571. 

GAVIN  HAMILTON,  appointed  coadjutor  of  the  last  (see  above). 
In  the  Ust  of  the  names  of  those  who  attended  the  Parliament  in 
Edinburgh,  June  13,  1571,  appears  'Gawan  Hamilton,  archbishop  of 
St  Andrews,  who  now  is  slain  [he  fell  in  a  skirmish  a  few  days  later], 
before  abbot  of  Kilwinning,  allowed  by  the  Pope  seventeen  (sic)  years 
by  past  to  succeed  the  bishop  that  last  was'  (Calendar  of  Scottish 
Papers,  iii  604). 

Dr.  Maitland  Thomson  has  been  so  good  as  to  search  the  Register  of 
the  Privy  Seal  (in  manuscript,  and  as  yet  unprinted)  for  any  notices  of 
the  admission  of  the  Archbishops  of  St.  Andrews  to  the  temporality  of 
the  see ;  and  he  has  found  none.  It  seems  curious  that,  while  records 
of  the  admission  to  the  temporality  of  other  bishoprics  appear  in  that 
Register  from  time  to  time,  there  is  none  of  admission  to  the  primatial 
see  of  St.  Andrews. 

Gavin  Hamilton  is  not  noticed  in  Keith. 

Through  the  kindness  of  Dr.  Kennedy,  Librarian  of  New  College, 
Edinburgh,  the  writer  has  been  allowed  to  make  use  of  a  copy  of  Keith 
elaborately  annotated  in  manuscript  by  Mr.  William  Rowand,  a  former 
Librarian  of  that  College,  and  to  Mr.  Rowand's  labours  two  or  three  of 
the  references  are  due.  But  Mr.  Rowand's  studies  in  this  subject  closed 
in  1854,  and  he  was  thus  confined  to  Scottish  sources  for  his  informa- 
tion. 

John  Dowden. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  263, 


ON  A  RHYTHMICAL  PRAYER  IN  THE  BOOK 
OF  CERNE. 

Among  the  pieces  contained  in  the  Book  of  Ceme  which  are  employed 
by  Dom  Kuypers,  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  MS,  to 
illustrate  the  difference  in  structure  and  style  between  th*e  prayers  which 
belong  to  what  may  be  called  the  Celtic  and  the  Roman  strata,  is  an 
Oratio  matuiinalis,  which  appears  also,  with  some  variations,  in  the 
Royal  MS  2  A  xx,  cited  by  Dom  Kuypers  as  A*.  This  prayer,  of  which 
the  first  words  are  *  Ambulemus  in  prosperis ',  is  very  justly  attributed  by 
Dom  Kuypers,  on  grounds  of  style,  to  a  Celtic  source.  But  it  may 
perhaps  be  worth  while  to  point  out  another  feature  of  the  piece  which 
bears  testimony  to  its  origin.  It  is  apparently  composed  on  a  system  of 
rhythm  resembling  that  of  the  hymn  *  Altus  prosator ',  described  in  the 
preface  to  that  hymn  in  the  Irish  Liber  Hymnorum  as  'vulgaris'  in 
opposition  to  the  system  of  strict  metrical  composition  described  as 

*  artificialis  * ;  a  system  depending  not  on  the  quantity  but  on  the 
number  of  syllables,  and  with  *  correspondence  of  syllables,  and  of 
quarter  verses  and  half  verses '.  The  *  Altus  prosator '  is  in  verses 
of  sixteen  syllables  each,  and  the  eighth  and  sixteenth  syllables— the 
last  of  each  half  verse — are  intended  to  rhyme :  sometimes  the  last  two 
or  three  syllables  of  one  half  rhyme  with  the  last  two  or  three  of  the 
other.  The  quantity  of  the  syllables  is  apparently  a  matter  of  indifference 
except  in  the  case  of  the  penultimate  syllable  of  the  half  verse,  which  is 
either  short  or  else  made  to  seem  short  by  the  stress  laid  upon  that 
which  precedes  or  that  which  follows  it.    The  verses  are  grouped  in 

*  capitula '  of  six  (or  seven)  verses  each :  but  this  is  apparently  not  an 
essential  feature  of  the  system ;  the  reason  for  its  presence  in  the  *  Altus 
prosator '  lies  in  the  acrostic  character  of  the  poem,  while  the  number  of 
verses  in  the  *  capitula  *  depends  upon  the  subject  of  the  composition  *. 

In  the  case  of  *  Ambulemus  in  prosperis '  there  are  some  instances,  in 
both  the  MSS  printed  by  Dom  Kuypers,  of  apparently  faulty  rhythm : 
and  an  attempt  to  arrange  either  text  in  lines  of  sixteen  syllables  leaves 
some  odd  half  verses.  But  each  text  contains  some  half  verses  which 
do  not  appear  in  the  other :  and  if  the  two  are  combined  the  product 

*  BookofCemtj  pp.  91,  211. 

*  The  poems  sent  by  '  Aedilwaldus'  (whom  Jaffd  identifies  with  Ethelbald  of 
Mercia)  to  St.  Aldhelm  while  abbot  of  Malmesbury  are  in  the  same  rhythm. 
See  Jaffi  Monumenta  Moguntina  pp.  38-48.  The  writer  seems  to  have  thought 
some  explanation  of  their  structure  necessary. 


264        THE  JOCR9AL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


gifcs  satecBfcncsoftfae  SBUBc  tvpe  jstboae  of 'AICBpnalar'.  Id 
the  feQcvraig  arnm^emcnt  the  hatf  vcoes  viadi  oocar  caitf  m  A  are 
princcd  m  italic  tjpc,  those  wfaicfa  cKcnr  oaif  in  tbe  Book  of  CecDe  bang 
tockmtdm  bnrkttt. 

Anbakmoi  m  pio>pei»  boios  <fid 

In  oirtnce  aiti««iiwi  da 

In  bcDcpboto  chfHti,  in 

In  fide  paUtmJmmm,  [in  mends  prophetmnn,] 
5  [In  pace  apostolonnn,]  in  gsodio  angekxnm, 

/«  Mta  ankamgUorumt  in  splendonbos^  sanctonmi. 

In  operibas  monachonnn,  [in  oirtiite  iiivnuim,] 

In  lusutjiio  naitjnnn,  in  casitiatc  anginnm, 

In  dei  tapienda,  in  maha  patv»wtia^ 
10  /)«  dcciontm  prudentia^  in  camis  absdnenda. 

In  linguae  coodnenda,  [in  psKss  habundanda,] 

In  trinitads  landibas,  in  acods  sensibas, 

In  semper  bonis  acdbas,  in  fonnis  ^)intalibiis» 

In  dininis  sennonibus,  in  benedicdonibos. 
15  In  his  est  iter  omnium  pro  christo  laborantimny 

Qui  dedadt  post  obitmn  sempitemom  in  gaudium. 

In  Terse  7  the  first  half  verse  has  nine  syllables,  the  second  half  verse 
i^pparendy  only  seven.  But  in  the  latter  case  it  may  be  diat  either 
'  tiirtttte '  or '  iustorom '  is  meant  to  be  treated  as  a  word  of  four  syllables. 
In  '  Altus  prosator '  an  initial  i  is  apparenUy  always  treated  as  a  con- 
sonant if  followed  by  a  vowel:  but  in  another  rbythmical  prayer 
contained  in  the  Book  of  Ceme  *Iesu',  'uerus*  and  *ueni*  are 
apparently  treated  as  trisyllables  *.  If  '  monachorum '  and  '  iustorum ' 
were  transposed,  the  rhythm  would  be  rendered  sufficiently  correct  with 
no  great  violence  to  the  sense.  In  verse  12,  where  the  second  half 
verse  is  of  seven  syllables  only,  Dom  Kuypers  notes  in  A  an  erasure, 
apparently  of  two  letters,  before  *  sensibus  \  Possibly  the  original  reading 
was  '  assensibus '  or  *■  consensibus ' :  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  either 
word,  though  capable  of  interpretation,  would  by  reason  of  its  obscurity 
be  corrected  to  '  sensibus ',  thus  obtaining  a  more  intelligible  reading  at 
the  expense  of  the  rhythm.  In  verse  13  the  text  of  the  Book  of  Ceme 
preserves  the  rhythm,  while  the  reading  of  A  ('  in  bonis  actibus  semper 
consdtuti')  forsakes  it  entirely:  and  in  the  last  verse  the  rhythm  is 
clearly  in  favour  of  *  Qui  deducit '  (the  reading  of  the  Book  of  Ceme) 
or  of  '  Quod  deducit ',  as  against  the  '  Quod  ducit '  of  A. 

The  fact  that  a  fairly  r^;ular  system  of  rhythm  results  from  the 
combination  of  the  two  texts  is  perhaps  a  ground  for  thinking  that  such 

'  qL  tanctiUte.  '  Book  ofCtmt  pp.  17a,  173. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  265 

a  combination  represents  the  original  form  of  the  verses  more  accurately 
than  either  text  singly.  But  it  seems  probable  that  the  original  order  of 
the  half  verses,  even  if  the  combination  preserves  the  whole  number,  was 
not  quite  the  same  as  in  the  arrangement  shewn  above.  It  might  be 
expected,  e.  g.  that  the  references  to  the  archangels  and  to  the  angels 
would  be  found  in  the  two  parts  of  one  verse ;  and  that  this  would  stand 
rather  earlier  in  the  series  than  either  of  the  verses  between  which  they 
are  here  divided. 

H.  A.  Wilson. 


THE  LECTION-SYSTEM   OF  THE 
CODEX  MACEDONIANUS. 

Codex  Macedonianus,  1  in  Gregory's  notation,  €073  ^^  ^^^  Soden's, 
is  a  ninth-century  uncial  of  the  Gospels,  procured  from  Macedonia  by 
Mr.  J.  Bevan  Braithwaite  of  London  in  1900*.  Its  lection-system  may 
be  collected  from  the  full  rubrical  notes  throughout  the  MS  which  are  in 
small  uncials  of  quite  similar  character  to  those  in  the  body  of  the  text 
and  are,  I  think,  of  nearly  the  same  date.  They  have  been  inserted  after 
the  corrections  made  by  the  diopOanris,  as  is  evident  from  Matt,  xxii  14 
where  r*.  comes  after  such  a  marginal  correction,  and  from  Luke  x.  38 
where  dpx*  precedes  one. 

The  lection-system  agrees  in  the  main  with  the  common  one  throughout 
the  earlier  sfraia  *  of  the  Byzantine  lectionary,  namely  the  Sunday  lessons 
throughout  the  year,  and  the  Saturday  lessons  throughout  the  year 
(including  all  six  week-days  during  the  weeks  from  Easter  Sunday  to 
Pentecost  when  St  John  was  read),  but  in  the  latest  settled  portion  of 
the  lectionary,  namely  the  lessons  for  the  first  five  week-days  in  the 
weeks  from  Pentecost  to  the  beginning  of  Lent,  it  gives  us  a  series 
of  lessons  differing  from,  though  closely  related  to,  that  in  common  use. 
We  find  the  same  Five-day  system  in  Evangelium  292  at  Carpentras, 
formerly  in  Cyprus,  a  tenth-century  uncial  whose  lessons,  as  also  those 
in  the  common  system,  I  cite  from  C.  R.  Gregory's  Texikritik  des 
Neuen   Testamentes  vol.  i  pp.  344-364,  and  it  may  exist  in  other 

^  For  description  see  A  new  uncial  of  the  Gospels  in  the  Expontory  Times  Dec. 
1 90 1,  and  Dr.  von  Soden's  Die  Schriften  des  Neiten  Testaments  vol.  i  p.  15a.  As 
Gregory  and  von  Soden  point  out,  it  is  evidently  the  MS  referred  to  in  Scrivener*8 
IntroduciioHy  4th  ed.  vol.  i  p.  377  as  at  KosiniUa,  *K-fla  Moi^,  375.  The  MS  is 
defective  for  Matt,  i  i-ix  11,  x  35-xi  4;  Luke  i  26-36,  xv  a5-xvi  5,  xxiii  aa-34; 
John  XX  a7-xxi  17. 

*  See  Rev.  F.  E.  Brightman  J.T^.  vol.  i  p.  447. 


266  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


I 


Evang€lia\  I  hope  to  shew  that  the  V292  Five-day  system  (for 
conciseness  I  refer  to  this  as  the  a-0  system  and  to  \  and  Evl.  292  as 
a  and  |3)  is  more  primitive  than  the  common  Byzantine  Five-day  system 
(which  I  refer  to  as  the  ^-system).  < 

The  Five-day  lessons,  or  uadtjfitptvtdi  begin  on  the  Monday  after  ■ 
Pentecost  and  are  taken  in  the  w-system  out  of  St  Matthew  for  eleven  * 
weeks  and  out  of  St  Mark  for  five  weeks,  a  seventeenth  week  being 
unprovided  for,  these  being  the  seventeen  weeks  whose  Saturday  and 
Sunday  lessons,  or  trti;iBnroKvpmKaf,  were  taken  from  St  Matthew.  Then 
with  the  New  Year  in  September  the  series  is  taken  from  St  Luke  for 
twelve  weeks,  from  St  Mark  for  six  weeks  and  finally  from  St  Luke 
for  three  days  of  a  nineteenth  week,  the  Saturday  and  Sunday  lessons 
during  this  period  being  taken  from  St  Luke.  lo  the  *f-system  there 
were  thus  in  all  173  Five-day  lessons,  arranged  55  from  Matthew, 
25  Mark,  60  Luke,  30  Mark,  3  Luke.  In  &  the  series  runs  more 
simply— St  Matthew  nine  weeks,  no  Five-day  lessons  for  the  remaining 
seven  Matthew-weeks,  St  Luke  eleven  weeks,  St  Mark  eight  weeks, 
making  140  Five-day  lessons  in  all.  In  a  the  lessons  agree  closely  with 
those  in  /3,  but  the  order  is  still  more  simple — namely  St  Matthew  nine 
weeks,  St  Mark  eight  weeks,  St  Luke  eleven  weeks,  leaving  the  last 
Luke-weeks  unprovided  for,  which  we  may  remember  are  those  adjoining 
the  six  weeks  of  Lent  when  the  Five-day  lessons  in  the  ^-system  were 
taken  from  the  Old  Testament.  There  is  no  tible  of  lessons  in  n,  but 
the  following  i>oints  shew  that  the  "'-system  was  thus  arranged:  (1)  a's 
notation  of  Mark-lessons  begins  with  ili^o^m  d  Mci^*c.  i--  t^  tf  rfft  i  tfiMt- 
fidHos  *,  which  is  in  sequence  after  the  nine  weeks  of  Matthew^  but  would 
be  i^f  »|S'  f^K  if  it  was  to  follow  on  after  the  eleven  weeks  of  Luke. 
(?)  The  ^-system  (derived  as  I  shall  shew  from  the  q-i^  system  by 
a  spreading  out  of  the  lessons)  takes  five  weeks  of  Marcan  lessons  after 
Matthew  and  the  other  six  weeks  after  Luke,  which  implies  a  Matthew- 
Mark-Luke  arrangement  of  the  a-jS  system.  (3)  At  the  close  of  the  last 
Five-day  lesson  from  Luke,  namely  Luke  xxi  37-xxii  8  which  was  read 

Tfj  wapatTKfvrj  TT}t  to  *^8o,«cii!Jof,  a's  rubric  runS  Tf  Xar  ttjs  na}virrKn'rfii  Km  rAof  tmw 

Ka&tjfxtpiv£)v^  the  natural  meaning  of  which  is  that  at  this  point  the  last  of 
the  daily  lessons  in  the  list  was  read. 

The  difference  in  arrangement  between  a  and  ^  might  be  accounted 
for  by  supposing  that  the  Mark-lessons  were  read  twice  in  the  year,  once 
after  Matthew  and  again  after  Luke,  but  the  careful  avoidance  of  over- 
lapping in  other  parts  of  the  list  makes  this  most  unlikely  and  the  MSS 
themselves  seem  to  contain  nothing  to  suggest  it. 

'  Evl,  55  S  (uncial  tcntli-centuury  fragment)  seems  from  Gregory's  description  to 
belong  to  the  same  group, 

'  The  words  l^fl.  a  MapKov  are  not  actually  in  a's  first  Marcan  rubric,  but  the  full 
formula  b  found  again  and  again  in  other  lessons  of  the  series. 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


267 


The  close  relation  of  the  Five-day  lessons  in  the  le-system  and  the  a-fi 
system  can  be  best  discussed  with  the  help  of  the  following  tables,  in 
which  the  lessons  in  the  two  systems  are  arranged  in  parallel  columns. 
In  each  column  the  numbers  shew  the  order  of  the  lessons,  so  that  the 
actual  day  of  the  ecclesiastical  year  upon  which  any  lesson  is  read  can  be 
obtained  by  dividing  the  reference  number  by  five  to  find  the  week  of 
Matthew,  Mark  or  Luke,  remembering  that  the  series  in  each  week  runs 
ff  y'  If  t  impaiTKtvfi,  Where  the  contents  of  a  lesson  arc  the  same  in  both 
systems,  they  are  only  stated  in  the  first  column.  —  a  or  — /3  means  that 
a  or  /3  is  defective  for  the  passage  in  question :  "  refers  to  the  notes  at  the 
end  of  the  tables. 


TABLES  OF  FIVE-DAY  LESSON& 

Matthew-lessons  read  in  the  ic-system  (first  column)  during  eleven 
weeks  from  Pentecost  and  in  the  a-^  system  (second  column)  during 
nine  weeks  from  Pentecost. 


1  zviii  lo-ao 

2  iv  25-v  13 

1  So  a*0 

2  -a    iv  35- 

30  xiii  44-54  1 

31  xiii  54-58  1 

22  xiu  44-58  afi 

v  13  3 

32  xiv  1-13 

23  Soa3 

3  V  ao-30 

3  -a    So^ 

33  xiv  35-xvii  J 

34  XV  13-31           1 

4  V  31-41 

4-0    So  ^ 

24  xiv35-xv3la/3 

5  vii9-i8 

5  -a    So  3 

35  XV  39-31 

25  Soo^ 

6  vi  31-34, 

36  xvi  1-6 

26  xvi  1-5  afi 

vii9-i4 

37  xvi  6-13 

Zr  So  afi 

7  vu  15-31 

38  xvi  30-24 

28  Soa^fi 

8  vii  ai-33 

6  -a  vii  19-33/8 

39  xvi  34-38 

29  Soafi 

9  viii  33-37 

7-0    So  ^ 

40  xvii  10-18 

30  xvii  10-13  *»^ 

10  ix  14-17 

8  So  a  ix  14-18^ 

41  xviii  i-ii 

31  xviii  4-11  afi 

11  ix  36-x  8 

9  Soa^ 

42  xviii  18-33, 

12  X  9-15 

10  So  0/3 

xixi,3,i3-i5 

13  X  i6-aa 

11  Soai9 

43  XX  1-16 

32  Soa^ 

14  X  33-31 

12  X  36-31  a0 

44  XX  17-38 

33  Soa^ 

15  X  33-36,  xi  I 

45  xxi  13-14, 

34  xxi  13-140^ 

16  xi  3-15 

13  So  a*0 

17-30 

17  xi  16-30  1 

18  xi  20-36  1 

46  xxi  18-33  j 

47  xxi  33-37  i 

14  xi  16-36  a$ 

35  xxi  18-37  ••^ 

19  xi  37-30 

15  Soo^ 

48  xxi  38-33 

36  So  afi 

20  xii  1-8    J 

21  xii  9-13  5 

,^  «i  9-13  « 
^^xiii-13^ 

49  xxi  43-46 

37  Soafi 

50  xxii  33-33 

38  xxii  33-34  ^ 

22  xii  14-16,33-30 

17  xii  33-39  a0 

51  xxiii  13-33 

Z9  So  afi 

23  xii  38-45 

18  xii  38-50  afi 

52  xxiii  33-38 

AOSoafi 

24  xU46-xiii3 

53  xxiii  39-39 

^1  So  afi 

25  xiii  3-13    1 

26  xiii  xo-33  { 

19  xiii  3-33, 

54  xxiv  13-38 

^2  So  afi 

xi  15  a»3 

55  xxiv  37-33,  I 

43  xxiv  38-33  0^ 

27  xiii  34-30 

20  xiii  34-33  afi 

44  xxiv  45-51  afi 

28  xiii  31-36  1 

29  xiii  36-43  i 

45  XXV  1-13  a*fi 

21  xiii  33-43  afi 

P^L. 

IE   JOURNAL   OF   T 

ph 

^H 

268          TI 

HEOLOGICAL   STUDIES         ^^ 

Mark-lessons  read  in  the  «-system  (first  column)  for  five  weeks  after 

the  series  of  Matthew  Five-day  lessons  and  for  the  other  six  weeks 

after  the  series  of  Luke-lessons,  read  in  the  0-^  system 

(second  column)  _ 

by  a  after  the  Matthew-lessons  and  by  ^  after  the  Luke-lessoQS.                H 

1  i  9-15 

1  Soa^ 

28  viii  30-34 

■ 

2   i  16-33 

2  Soo^ 

29  ix  10-16 

25  Soo^                ■ 

3  i  33-a8 

3  Soa3 

30  ix  33-41 

26  Soo^                ■ 

4  i  39-35 

4  139-340; 

31  ix  43-x  I 

27  So  a^                 ■ 

i  a^33  ^ 

32x3-11 

33  X  11^16 

28  X  3-16  a3          ^M 

5  U  18-23 

5  Soc^ 

6  iii  6-1 3 

6  So  a$ 

34  X  17-37 

29  So  afi                     ■ 

7  iii  13-ai  I 

8  iii  30-«7  1 

7  iii  13-37  a0 

35  X  i4-33 

36  X  46-53 

30  X  38-31  a0         ■ 

31  So  a&                  ■ 

9  iii  38^35 

BSoafi 

J7  xi  11-33 

32  xi  11-31  afi         ™ 

10  iv  1-9 

9  So  a/3 

38  xi  33*36 

33  So     a^B    with 

11  iv  10-33 

10  So  aj3 

Matt,  vii  7»  8  ^ 

12  iv  34  34 

11  So  off  [0  ends 

39  xi  37-33 

34  Soo^                  ■ 

iKaXfiavrMi] 

40  xii  1-13 

35  xii  t-ti  oB         1 

13  iv  J5-41 

12  So  a0 

41  xii  13-17 

36  Soo^                  ■ 

14  V  1-30 

13  So  a0  [a  ends  6 

42  xii  18-37 

37  Soa3                     ■ 

^Irjaovs*] 

43  xii  38-37 

38  Soa3                ■ 

15  va3-a4,35 

-vi !    IS  v  35-vi  I  fljS 

44  xii  38-44 

39  SoajS                 ■ 

16  V  33-34 

14  Soo^ 

45  xiii  1-9 

40  xiii  1-8  a ;  xiii  H 

17  vi  1-7    1 

18  vi  7-13  j 

16  vi  3-13  fl^ 

i-9  0       m 

46  xiii  9-13 

^^^H 

19  vi  30-45 

17  vi  34-45  q3 

47  xiii  14-33 

^^^H 

20  VI  45-53 

18  So  0/9  [a  ends 

48  xiii  34-31 

^^^H 

Ttvtrtjaapie] 

49  xiii  31-xiv  3 

^^^M 

21  vi  64-vii  8 

[          19  vi  54-vij  i6a^ 

50  xjv  3-9 

^M 

22  vii  5-16 

51  xi  I'll 

23  vii  14-34 

20  vii  1 7-34  a0  [a 

52  xiv  10-43 

^^^H 

endaStSvyor] 

53  XJV  43-xv  I 

^^^H 

24  vii  34-30 

21  Soa^ 

54  XV  I-J5 

^^^H 

25  viii  t-to 

22  Soo^ 

56  XV  10,  aSj  35, 

'^H 

26  viii  1 1-3 1 

23  So  0/9 

33-41 

27  viii  33-36 

24  Soo^ 

s 

Luke-lessons  read  in  the  K-sys 

tern  (first  column)  during  the  first 
as  to  the  last  three  lessons,  on  the  fl 
;k  T75  rvpo(pdyov  immediately  before 

twelve  weeks  of  the  New  Year,  and, 

2nd,  3rd,  and  sth  days  of  the  wet 

Lent:   and  read  in  the  a-/3  system 

(second  column) 

during   the  first 

eleven  weeks  of  the  New  Year, 

1 

1  iii  19-33 

1  SoajS 

5  iv  33-30 

5  IV  33-30  afi       ■ 

2  iii  33-iv  I 

2  So  ^  iii  33-iv  3 

6  iv  38-44 

6  Soo^                 ■ 

ittii»<u9*     a 

7  v  13-16 

7  Soa.   ^readaS 

3  iv  i-rs 

3  Soo^ 

here 

4  iv  t6-aa 

4  So  a#  [a  ends 

8  v  33-39 

8  Soa.  breads? 

aArw] 

here               ^^ 

B 

NOTES  AND  STUDIES 


269 


9  vi  ia-19 

10  vi  17-33 

11  vi  34-30 

12  vi  37-45 

13  vi  46-vii  I 

14  vii  17-30 

15  vii  31-35 

16  vii  36-50 

17  viii  1-3 

18  viii  aa-35 

19  ix  7-1 1 

20  ix  13-19 


21  ix  18-33 

22  ix  33-37 

23  ix  43-50 1 

24  ix  49-56  { 

25  X  1-15 

26  X  33-34 

27  xi  1-13 

28  xi9-i3 

29  xi  14-33 

30  xi  33-26 

31  xi  39-33 

32  xi  34-41 

33  xi  43-46     1 

34  xi  47-xii  I  S 

35  xii  3-13 


9  So  i5*vi  13-160 

10  So  a/3  [a  ends 

11  Soa/3 

12  Soa0 

13  vi  46-49  00 

14  vii  17-39  o^ 

15  Soa3 

16  So  0/3 

17  Soafi 
lBSoa0 

19  So  aiS 

20  So/3.  ix  13-18 

ItoBijrai     ab- 
ToO.    o* 

21  Soa3 

22  So  03 

23  ix  38-36  a0 

24  ix  43-56  o"/5 

25  So  0/3 

26  Soa0 

27  So/5*,  xii-ioa 

28  Soo^ 

29  So  0/3 

30  Soa/3 

31  Soa/3 

32  xi  34-43  a/3 

33  zi  43-xii  I  a0 

34  xii  3-7  a/3 


36  xii  13-15,  33-  35  xii  aa-31  o/3 
31 


37  xii  43-48  \ 

38  xii  48-59  1 

39  xiii  1-9 

40  xiii  31-35 

41  xiv  I,  ia-15 

42  xiv  35-35 

43  XV  i-io 

44  xvi  1-9 

45  xvi  15-18;  xvii 

46  xvii  30-35 

47  xvii  36-37; xviii  44  xvii  31-37  a/3 
.     8« 

48  xviii    15-17, 

36-30 

49  xviii  31-34 

50  xix  11-38 

51  xix  37-44  I 

52  xix  45-48  S 

53  XX  1-8 

54  XX  9-18 

55  XX  19-36 

56  XX  37-44 

57  xxi 13-19 


36  xii  43-59  a/3 

37  xiii  a-9  a/3 

38  Soa^ 

39  xiv  13-15  a/3 

40  xiv  36-35  **^ 

41  XV  3-10  a/9 

42  So  a"i9 


43  xvii  ao-30  a/3 


45  xviii  39-34  afi 

46  xix  ia-36  a/3 

47  xix  39-48  a/3 

48  Soa/3 

49  Soa/3 

50  XX  19-35  a/3 

51  XX  37-40  a/3 

52  Soa^ 


58  xxi  5-8, 10|  II,   53  xxi     ao-34    a 


30-34 

59  xxi  38-33 

60  xxi  37-xxii  8 

61  xix  39-40  ;xxii 

7»  8,  39 

62  xxii  39-xxiii  I 

63  xxiii  1-43,  44- 

56 


-/5 

54  xxi  38-33  a^ 

55  Soa/» 


Rubrical  notes  are  (accidentally)  omitted  in  a  at  end  of  lessons  I,  28  Matthew 
and  at  beginning  of  lesson  34  Luke,  a  is  defective  at  t>eginning  of  13  Matthew  and 
43  Luke,  and  0  at  end  of  53  Luke  and  at  beginning  of  54  Luke.  For  lessons  9,  37 
Luke  a  agrees  with  a  variant  form  of  the  ir-system  wtiich  is  noted  in  Gregory: 
Gregory  does  not  refer  to  /S's  reading,  which  must  be  taken  to  follow  the  iv-system. 
In  lesson  35  Matthew  Gregory  cites  0  as  ending  at  ver.  34,  but  has  probably  made 
a  mistake  owing  to  the  homoioUUuton  of  verses  24  and  37  ;  and  in  47  Luke  I  have 
corrected  his  citation  of  the  «lesson.  In  a  the  following  closing  words  of 
lessons  are  part  of  the  rubrics  and  not  of  the  text:— in  lesson  19  Matthew  the 
added  verse  Matt,  xi  15  ;  in  45  Matthew  (also  read  aa0,  iC  Matt)  the  T.  R.  conclusion 
of  Matt.  XXV  13  h  ff  6  vlbt  rw  dtf$p6nrcv  tpx^rtUf  which  suggests  that  this  various 
reading  is  a  rubrical  addition  to  round  off  a  lesson ;  in  lesson  33  Mark  the  addition 
kiyoi  8i  Vfuy  and  Matt,  vii  7,  8 ;  in  lesson  20  Luke  the  word  odrov  added  after 
fia0T}Tai  Luke  ix  18. 

The  tables  establish  the  general  identity  of  the  a-  and  iS-systems  \ 
They  also  shew  the  close  relation  between  the  a-/3  and  ^-systems  which 

^  Besides  cases  where  a  ends  a  lesson  in  the  middle  of  a  verse,  which  Gregory 


270         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

are  evidently  not  independent  of  each  other.  For  both  forms  of  the  Five- 
day  list  begin  in  each  Gospel  at  the  same  place  and  follow  the  same  general 
principles  of  taking  the  portions  of  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke  unappro- 
priated to  lessons  of  earlier  formation  (chiefly  the  two  series  of  Sunday 
and  Saturday  lessons)  and  of  taking  these  portions  in  regular  sequence, 
one  after  the  other.  Moreover  the  lessons  are  for  the  most  part  equivalent 
in  the  two  systems.  Close  relationship  being  thus  shewn,  the  question 
which  system  is  the  more  primitive  remains  for  examination  and  must, 
I  think,  be  answered  in  favour  of  the  a-fi  system  for  the  following 
reasons. 

1.  The  K-system  has  the  appearance  of  being  a  derived  system  in  its 
division  of  the  Mark-lessons  between  the  Matthew-weeks  and  the  Luke- 
weeks,  an  arrangement  that  would  naturally  result  from  spreading  out 
the  a-3  lessons  so  as  to  cover  more  days,  but  could  hardly  have  originated 
the  simpler  a-3  arrangement.  This  spreading  out  of  the  a-/3  lessons  is 
also  shewn  by  the  existence  in  fifteen  cases  of  a-/3  lessons  divided  into  two 
K-lessons  (there  is  only  one  case  43,  44  Matthew  where  two  a-/9  lessons  are 
formed  into  one  discontinuous  x-lesson,  the  last  Matthew-lesson  required 
according  to  the  x-system).  It  is  also  shewn  by  the  piecing  together  of 
bits  of  Gospel  to  eke  out  the  «>lessons,  see  42  Matt.,  55  Mark,  45,  48, 
58  Luke.  There  are  sixteen  cases  of  these  discontinuous  lessons  in  the 
«e-system  but  none  in  the  a-^  system,  except  the  refrains  added  to  19  Matt 
and  33  Mark. 

2.  With  the  exception  of  the  first  Matthew-lesson ',  the  a-/3  system 
adheres  strictly  to  the  principle  of  sequence  in  order  on  which  the  list 
was  based,  but,  besides  this  lesson,  the  >r-system  has  out  of  sequence 
lessons  5  Matthew,  16,  51  Mark,  and  parts  of  58,  61  Luke. 

3.  The  original  principle  of  avoiding  the  overlapping  of  lessons  is  also 
more  closely  maintained  in  the  a-/3  system.  Including  overlappings 
with  week-end  lessons,  I  have  noted  forty-three  cases  found  only  in  the 
«-system*,  fourteen  found  in  both,  one  found  only  in  the  a-3  system, 
where  lesson  45  Matthew  not  only  overlaps  but  is  identical  with  the 
lesson  o-a^S^ar^  iC  Matt. 

does  not  note  for  ^,  and  $*s  (accidental)  transposition  of  lessons  7,  8  Luke,  there  are 
only  eight  differences  in  the  Z40  lessons,  namely,  8,  16  Matt  4,  40  Mark  and 
a,  9,  20,  27  Luke.  In  8  Matt,  40  Mark,  ao  Luke  a  avoids  overlapping  other 
lections  and  is  the  better  form,  as  also  in  9,  27  Luke.  In  16  Matt.  /S  may  be  better, 
as  o  takes  out  Matt  zii  1-8  for  a  menological  lesson  for  Clement  of  Ancyra, 
January  23.  In  4  Mark  a  includes  an  interesting  verse  not  otherwise  read  in  the 
a-fi  system.     In  2  Luke  fi  may  be  better  as  overlapping  less  with  the  next  lesson. 

*  This  lesson  rp  litaifnw  rrfs  k*  [itwriiKoaTri^]  may  have  been  settled  earlier  than 
the  formation  of  the  Five-day  list,  in  connexion  with  the  Feast  of  Pentecost 

*  Ten  of  these  occur  in  dividing  a-/9  lessons  into  two  «-lessons,  another  indication 
that  these  divided  lessons  belong  to  the  derived  system. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  271 

We  may,  I  think,  conclude  that  the  a-0  system  gives  us  the  Five-day 
list  nearly,  if  not  quite,  in  its  primitive  form. 

When  we  turn  to  the  other  parts  of  the  year's  lessons  we  find  the 
variations  small  between  a  and  the  x-system  as  given  in  Gregory  \ 

John-weeks.  The  week-days  of  the  first  week  are  called  Trjs  iKuuvrf 
triucv  throughout ;  Kvp.  ^  is  called  nvp,  y  anh  rrii  dwuc. ;  jcvp.  y  is  called 
Kvp,  If  and  the  fourth  day  of  the  following  week  ^7  y  t^t  ^'o^ofrem/roar^c ; 
Kvp,  fS  is  jcvp.  r^(  /ica-ofrcvn^KooT^f ;  Kvp,  t  and  q'  become  $*'  and  C  &nd 
Pentecost  is  rp  *y»9  irnmyKoor^.  In  these  fifty  lessons  a  is  defective  for 
lesson  49  and  (accidentally)  has  no  rubrics  for  lesson  46  nor  has  it  a  lesson 
for  Pentecost  rov  SpBpov.  The  other  differences  are  4  Jno.  i  35-43  not 
35~52 ;  34  Jno.  x  17-38  not  17-30,  although  27-38  was  again  read  on 
the  next  day;  38  Jno.  xii  19-36  yttnjoB^;  45  Jno.  xvi  2-13  aKri$€ta»;  50. 
The  rubrics  for  the  Pentecost  lesson  Jno.  vii  37-52,  viii  12  include 
rubrics  at  end  of  t>.  52  and  at  beginning  of  v.  12,  although  the  text 
of  a  omits  the  intervening  verses  (Pericope  adulterae)  and  the  rubrics 
accordingly  come  together  on  the  same  line.  The  rubricator  must  have 
known  of  the  verses  and  indeed  puts  Xi^  in  the  maxgin,  that  is,  perhaps, 
»*/>l  TOW  \^B^i*w  or  some  similar  phrase.  Dr.  C.  R.  Gregory,  however, 
suggests  to  me  that  the  marginal  note  stands  for  Xi;^  *  an  omission ',  the 
rubricator  noting  in  this  way  the  discrepancy  between  the  text  which  he 
was  rubricating  and  the  copy  of  the  Gospels  out  of  which  the  rubrics 
were  taken,  which  must  have  contained  the  Fericope, 

Matthew  aaff.-Kvp,  Up  to  Kvp,  ^  a  is  defective  except  for  xvp.  a  t&» 
dyittp  iraur<op  and  crafi.  f'  and  Tafi.  q\  Gregory  notes  no  differences  in-/9. 
The  other  differences  are  Kvp.  rl  Matt,  xiv  14-21  not  14-22,  <ra/3.  t'  Matt. 

Xvii   24-Xviii  4  cf.  Evl.  32,  KVp,  I    Matt.  XVii  14-23  rytpftfo-fra*,  trafi,  \q 

Matt  xxiv  34-44  including  36-41  not  read  in  «c-system,  xvp.  %^'  Matt 

XXV  14—30  with  addition  rmna  Acyoiv  «<l>av*i  jcr«. 

Luke  tra&,-Kvp,  aafi,  ^  Luke  vi  i-io  omitting  tr.  6  as  &r  as  ^Mutmw, 
tfvp,  S  Luke  viii  5-15  with  addition  ravra  X«y«v  c^<»v(t  icri  (see  note  in 
Gregory)  j  Kvp. «'  Luke  xvi  19-31  not  9-31  ^ ;  wp.  ^'  Luke  viii  26-35,  38, 
39 ;  ira^,  rf  Luke  ix  37-48  Otov ;  trafi.  «'  unrubricated ;  xvp,  ta  Luke  xiv 
16-24  with  in  the  text  the  addition  iroXXol  yap  «t<n  KXip-ot,  oXtyoi  H  cxXcicrot ; 
levp.  »y  Luke  xviii  35-43  cf.  Evl.  32  not  xviii  10-14  •  ^^ere  a's  reading  is 
the  early  one,  for  the  Five-day  lessons  leave  a  gap  at  this  place  and  xviii 
10-14  was  read  again  in  both  systems  Kvp.  ig-' ;  <rafi,  iC,  called  in  a  (rafi, 

wpo  Trjt  mroKptio,  Luke  XX  45-Xxi  4  with  addition  ravra  \^v  «0wv«i  Kti ; 
Kvp.  iC  called  in  a  xvp.  rov  daarov  Luke  XV  1 1-32  cf.  Evl.  32 ;  aa^.  irf, 
Kvp,  nj  no  lessons  given,  <rafi.  lijs  rvpwpayov  and  Kvp.  r.  rvp.  a  defective. 

*  A  collation  with  Gregory^s  list  seems  sufficient.  I  n^lect  at  few  cases  where 
a  is  defective  at  the  beginning  or  end  of  a  lesson  or  a  rubric  is  (accidentally)  omitted. 
fi  is  defective  for  the  first  47  Johnlessoni. 

'  9-31  is  a  mistake  of  Gregory^a. 


272         THE  JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


I 


Remainder  of  lessons,    a  has  no  Uavyvxl^s  not  lessons  th  rhy  opSpvt 

for   the   fci'p,  T^if   tn^tTTftuf   except   for   icvp,  ^*  called   rav  ^atav.       cvp,    a  riv 

vri<rrnm¥  has  the  alternative  title  in  the  margin  tcvp,  t^c  op^odo^r.  €^fl^.  f 
called  Tf)v  Au0f)ov  has  Jno.  xi  1-46  not  1-45  (see  note  in  Gregory).  For 
the  first  four  week-days  in  Holy  Week  the  lessons  iimtpat  are  done  given; 
the  Thursday  lesson  comprises  Matt,  xxvi  1-20  with  word  Ma^T^i-  added 
as  part  of  rubric,  Jno.  xiii  3-17,  marked  ruayy+Xiov  roiJ  wirr^por,  with  a  fresh 
rubric  against  tr.  12  fwryyAwc  0  ;i#rA  r&  vi^^acBoi^  Matt,  xxvi  21-39,  Luke 
xxii  43,  44,  Matt,  xxvi  40-xxvii  2,  The  riayyfXui  T«ttv  fFa6av  are  marked, 
but  ^'  is  Mark  xv  16-41  not  16-32  and  i'  is  Mark  xv  43-47  (Gregory 
has  Matt,  by  mistake).  The  five  lessons  riv  ^pitv  agree  except  that 
none  is  given  for  Sipa  ff.  The  Holy  Saturday  irpw/  and  *<m4pas  lessons 
agree  with  the  t-lessons  and  the  <w^*i*u  agree  except  that  a  is  defective 
for  itn0.  I. 

Several  of  these  differences  probably  go  back  to  the  primitive  fomi  of 
the  list»  especially  those  which  agree  with  Evl.  32. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  entire  lists  of  a-a^.-Kvp.  and  a-3  Five-day 
lessons  are  comprised  in  the  following  parts  of  the  Gospels  : — Matt 
iv  18-XXV  46,  Mark  i  9-xiii  8,  Luke  iii  19-xxti  8;  those  parts  broadly 
speaking  which  relate  to  the  public  ministry  up  to  the  Passion  week. 
Within  these  limits,  besides  thirty-six  small  gaps  of  three  verses  or  less 
unappropriated  to  any  Five-day  or  cra,S.-irup.  lesson  \  there  are  twelve 
larger  gaps  in  the  o-^  system  : — (i)  Matt,  v  13-19,  a  defective;  (2)  xii 
1-8,  a  only;  (3)  xii  14-21 ;  (4)  xvi  13-19;  (5)  xvii  1-9;  (6)  Mark  vi 
14-33;  (7)  IX  2-9;  (8)  «  i-io;  (9)  Luke  x  38-42,  xi  27,  28;  (10)  xii 
8-15  ;  (1 1)  xix  37-38 ;  (12)  xx  41-44.  Gaps  corresponding  with  (1),  (4), 
(5)1  (^)»  (7),  (9),  also  occur  in  the  «-system,  the  others  are  filled,  or  nearly 
so,  by  K-Iessons,  which  in  cases  (8),  (11)  come  out  of  sequence  as  though 
newly-formed  lessons.  In  the  following  cases  menological  lessons  fill 
the  gaps  in  a :  (2)  Clement,  bishop  of  Ancyra  (Jan.  23rd);  (3)  xii  15-21 
aa&.  ficra  ri^i^  Xpi<rrov  yfWijtrti'  (Dec) ;  (4)  Peter  and  Paul  (June  29tb); 

(5)  j)  fitrapttptpmtTts  (Aug.  6lh) ;   (6)  Mark  vi  14-30  f)  anoropij  Tov  UpoBpopov  m 

(Aug.  29th);  (9)  TO  y(t^i<Tif\v  TTfs  Ayiai  BtfixoKov  (Sept.  8th);  (lo)  Luke  xii  ■ 
8-12  Paul  the  Confessor  (Nov,  6th).  As  it  is  evident  that  the  Five- 
day  lessons  were  accommodated  to  the  previously  formed  tra^.-fn/p.  list, 
accommodation  to  previously  settled  menological  lessons  is  also  probable, 
and  while  this  would  not  explain  all  the  gaps,  we  may  perhaps  infer  that 
the  lessons  filling  gaps  (3),  (4),  (5),  (6),  (9)  were  already  fixed.  This 
would  hardly  be  the  case  much  before  the  end  of  the  fifth  century ', 


'  Fourteen  between  two  caB^-m\tp.  lessons,  eight  between  two  Five-day  lessons, 
fourteen  between  a  ^a&.-Kvp,  and  a  Five-day  lesson.  In  twenty  cases  the  w-syatem 
tAcka  on  the  verses  to  other  lessons  or  uses  them  for  making  up  new  Jesatns. 

*  Sec  e.  g.  J.  C,  Robert3on*s  History  cf  the  Christian  Chttfc/i  (^1876  cd.)  vol.  ii, 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  273 

which  may  accordingly  be  tentatively  suggested  as  the  period  when  the 
Five-day  list  was  formed. 

For  the  sake  of  completeness  I  add  a  list  of  the  menological  lections 
in  o. 

Menologv*.  Sept.  ist  Simeon  (Stylites)  tLuke  iv  16-22:  2nd 
Mamas  *Jno.  xv  i  .  .  . :  4th  Babylas,  &c.,  fLuke  x  1-3,  8-12:  5th 
Zacharias  *Matt.  xxiii  29-39 :  8th  t6  ytptaiov  r^r  6yiat  0eoT6Kov  II  Luke  x 

38-42,  xi   27-28: — trafi,  npd  r^r  u^o-ca>«  fjno.  xii   25-36  yivijtrOt : — Kvp. 
npo  rrjs  v^tvxrtat  *Jno.  iii  13  .  .  .  — €is  Sp6pov  rijs  vylt»atws  *Jno.  xii  28  .  .  . 
14th  n  v^o-««ff*  Jno.  xix  6  .  .  .:  i6th  Euphemia  fLuke  vii  36-50 
17th  Pantaleon  fLuke  ix  23-27:  20th  Eustathius  tLuke  xxi  12-19 
30th  Gregory  of  Armenia  *Matt.  xxiv  42.  .  .  . 

Oct.  ist  Cosmas  and  Damian,  *Matt.  x  i,  5-8  (Nov.  ist  usually): 
3rd  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  *Matt.  xiii  45  ... :  nth  Zenais  II  Mark  xiii 
33-37,  xiv  3  .  .  . :  i8th  Luke,  *Luke  x  16-21 :  21st  Hilarion,  tLuke  vi 
17-23  :  25th  the  Notaries  tLuke  xii  2-7. 

Nov.  6th  Paul  the  Confessor  jj  Luke  xii  8-12  :  13th  John  Chrysostom, 
*Jno.  X  9-16 :  2  ist  rck  3yui  tS>¥  aytW  ||  Luke  i  39-49,  56  also  read  tls 

Dec.  4th  Barbara  'Mark  v  24-34 :  14th  Thyrsus  tLuke  viii  22-25 : 
(20th)  Ignatius  tMark  ix  33-41  :  24th  7  napofiovfj  rijs  Xpurrov  y*¥in\frwt 
11  Luke  ii  1-20— o-a/3.  fxtra  rriv  Xpurrov  ytinnfirtp,  IjMatt.  xii  1 5-2 1. 

January  ist  Basil,  ||  Luke  ii  20-21,  40  .  • ., — icup,  np6  t&p  (fwr^v  ||Mark 
i  1-8 — tls  ipBpov  Tuv  iP&Ttov  tMark  i  9-15  :  7th  t§  iiravpwv  t&v  ^rMf 
II  Jno.  i  29-34 :  (20th)  Euthymius  tMatt.  xi  27-30:  23rd  Clement  (of 
Ancyra)  II  Matt,  xii  1-8. 

February  2nd  fj  imanrainii  Tov  Kvpiov  ||  Luke  ii  22-40 :  3rd  Simeon  and 
Anna  QLuke  ii  25-40:  23rd  Tarasius  (Patriarch  a.d.  808)  *Jno.  xii 
24-36  y«vTj(T6t. 

March  9th  Martyrs  (of  Sebastia)  tMatt.  xx  1-16  :  25th  6  tvoyftkurpJ^ 
T^ff  ^tonJKov  Ii  Luke  i  24-38. 

April  (none);  May  8th  (John)  the  divine  Jno.  xix  25-27,  xxi  24,  25 
overlaps  Passion-week  lessons :  21st  Constantine  and  Helena  tMatt.  x 
16-22  *Jno.  X  1-9. 

pp.  56,  57,  and  authorities  there  cited.  Some  of  the  menological  lections  in  the 
early  parts  of  the  Gospels  may  also  be  of  earlier  formation  than  the  Five-day  list, 
e.  g.  I  think  accommodation  to  the  Epiphany  lessons  Mark  i.  1-8  icvp.  vpd  rSiv  ^tinoiv 
and  Luke  iii  1-18  r$  va/w/iOKp  rw  ^tdrrofv  is  probable.  If  it  had  not  been  for  these 
lessons  the  daily  list  would  accordingly  have  begun  with  Mark  i  i,  Luke  iii  i. 

^  Lections  overlapping  aaff.  -Kvp. ,  J  ohn  or  Five-day  lessons  in  a-system  are  marked  *, 
those  identical  with  or  part  of  such  lessons  t)  those  independent  of  such  lessons  Q : 
these  last,  as  already  pointed  out,  may  be  of  early  origin  in  most  cases. 

*  Overlaps  Passion-week  lessons : — has  the  introductory  words  given  by  Gregoiy, 
substituting  wws  for  6non  and  another  cravpnaw  for  cipar,  ipov, 
VOL.  V.  T 


274         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

June  (14th)  Elisha  *Luke  iv  22-30  :  24Ch  fl*  r^  ytwitnoit  m  Upo^pAim 

II  Luke  i  1-25,  57  .  ,  ,y  76,  80  i   2gth  Peter  and  Paul  II  Matt,  xvi  13-1^ 
July  20th  Elijah  Luke  iv  22-30 :  30th  *«  npoaKlv^trtw  toO  nixlov  ^uXm 

Matt,  xxvii  27-32  overlaps  Passion-week  lessons  (July  31st  usually). 
August  6th  n  fitTafi6p<t>t»(nt  tLuke  ix  2S-36  and  I  Matt,  xvii  1-9 :  29th  7 

inorofifi  rov  Tlpotlpuftov  ||  Mark  vi   1 4— 30. 

Miscellaneous  lessons,  tit  iy^alvKa  *Jno.  x  12-38 — ns  m^prnv  tLuke 
iv  23-30 — mU  rKwUia  ^fTikitAv  tMafk  xi  22-26  Matt  vii  7,  8.  M  ri*  ( 
irpfff/iJwTjpMi' tMark  vi  7-13,  *U  ttaprvpas  jj  Mark  xiii  9-13  and  t Jno.  iv 
i7-xvi  2, 

In  conclusion  I  may  note  a  few  cases  where  the  o-lessons  throw  light 
on  the  origin  of  various  readings*  For  Matt,  xxv  13  see  note  at  end  of 
tables  : — the  omission  in  some  authorities  of  »cai  fXvjnj^an  irtt>6dpa  in 
Matt,  xvii  23  and  of  «at  wpwratpfutr&Tfvnr  in  Mark  vi  53  is  explained 
by  «'s  omission  of  the  words  in  the  lesson  rvp.  i'  Matt,  and  the  13th 
Five-day  lesson  in  Mark.  In  Luke  x  22  the  added  words  kq\  crrpot^W 
irpot  Toifs  fiaBfiriif  *mi  found  in  the  mass  of  authorities  are  not  due  to 
lectionary  usage,  for  Luke  x  22-24  was  only  read  in  the  Five-day  series, 
and  n,  which  preserves  a  primitive  form  of  this,  contains  the  added  words 
in  the  text  but  rabricates  the  lection  tlmv  6  Kvpws  roJc  iavrov  pi^ijrair. 
In  Luke  vi  31,  on  the  other  hand»  a  omits  from  the  text  the  TR  additioa 
tim  di  6  Kvpeos,  but  the  Five-day  rubric  begins  cfirf*'  6  K.  which  no  doubtr 
originated  the  addition.  In  a  the  added  refrain  ravra  \*ytiiv  /i^wi  rrt  is 
rubricated  with  slight  variations  at  end  of  Five-day  lesson  Matt  xiii  23, 
nvp.  i^'  Matt  XXV  30  (in  ii  at  end  of  v.  29),  mip.  K  Luke  viii  15  (in  o's 
text),  icvp.  ff  Luke  xii  21,  tra^.  tC  Luke  xxi  4  (only  the  two  last  in 
•-system)  and  in  all  five  cases  some  authorities  under  lectionary  influence 
put  the  words  in  the  text  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  rubricated 
addition  to  the  Five-day  lesson  ending  Mark  xi  26  and  of  the  addition 
in  n's  text  at  end  of  Kvp,  ia  Luke  xiv  24  (neither  of  which  is  in  the 
t-systera). 

W.    C.    B  RAIT HW AIT K, 


THE  PRESENT  GREEK  TESTAMENTS  OF  THE 
CLARENDON  PRESS,  OXFORD. 

The  Clarendon  Press  announces  in  its  lists  under  the  heading  2^ 
Holy  Scriptures  in  Grtek^  6-^,  only  the  following  two  editions  of  the 
Greek  Testament:— 

Lloyd's  Greek  Testament,— '^^yys.m  Testamentum  Gracce.  Acccdunt 
parallela  S,  Scripturae  loca,  necnon  vetus  capitulomm  notatio  et 
canones  Eusebii.  Edidit  Carolus  Lloyd,  S.T.P.R.  i8mo.  y^ 
With  Appendices  by  W.  Sanday,  D.D,,  cioth^  6s. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  275 

Lloyd's  Greek  Tesfamentf  CriHcal  Appendices  (separately),  by 
W.  Sanday,  D.D.     i8mo.     51.  6d 

MUVs  Greek  Tes/amen/,^^oyum  Testamentum  Giaece  juxU  ex- 
emplar Millianum.    i8mo.    2j.  6d,,  or  on  writing-paper,  7^.  6d. 

No  account  is  taken  in  the  following  paper  of  special  editions  as 
Palmef's  Greek  Testament  with  the  Readings  adopted  by  the 
Revisers  of  the  Authorized  Version  or  CardweWs  New  Testament  in 
Greek  and  English.  When  we  wish  to  study  the  Greek  Testaments  of 
the  Clarendon  Press,  only  these  two  can  come  under  consideration. 
Now  it  seems  high  time  to  say  a  word  on  them : 

First  of  all,  both  titles  are  not  correctly  given.  The  title  of '  Lloyd's 
Testament '  as  it  is  published  at  present  runs 

H  KAINH 

AUQHKH 

NOVUM 

TESTAMENTUM 

accedunt 

Parailela  S,  Scriptural  loca 

vetus  capitulorum  notaiio 

Cemones  Eusebii 

Ozoitti 

e  typographeo  Clarendoniano 

MDCCCXCIV 

XX.  653  pages. 

The  *necnon*  and  *et'  in  the  Press-list  is  retained  from  earlier 
impressions,  as  1828,  1836.  The  title  of  'Mill's  Testament'  is  at 
present 

H  KAINH 

AIAeHKH 

NOVUM 

TESTAMENTUM 

®zontt 

e  typographeo  Clarendoniano 

MDCCCC 

562  pages. 

On  the  back  of  this  tide  is  stated : 

SECUNDUM  EXEMPLAR  OXONIENSE 
ANNO  M.DCCXUI.  EDITUM. 

Beside  this  remark  this  edition  contains  no  clue  whatever  about  its 
text.    Now  both  these  editions  have  a  strange  histoiy. 
Lloyd  has  a  Moniimm  signed 

CAR.  OXON. 
Dabamus  ex  iEde  Christi, 
2on»o  Dec'*'  1827. 

T  % 


276         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


I 


This  Monitum  begins  in  the  present  impressions : 
Damus  libi  in  manus,  L.B.,  Novum  Testamentum  idem  fere,  quod 
jd  textum  attinet  cum  editione  Milliana,  cum  divisione  Pericoparum  et 
Interpunctura  J.  A,  Bengelii. 

To  the  word  Milliana  in  square  brackets  a  footnote  is  added : 
[Millius,   quod    ipse   testatur,   textura   Stephanicum   anni    1550  in 
editione  sua  repraesentandum  curavit,] 

And  at  the  end  of  the  Monitum  a  similar  footnote  is  given  : 
[Textus    noster,    ut    supra    diximus,    Stephanicus    est.      Accentus 
spiritus    iota    subscriptum    inlerpuncturam    Millius    Car.    Oxon.   alii 
immutaverunl.] 

Now  if  we  compare  this  Monitum  with  that  of  the  original  edition  of 
Lloyd's,  which  has  the  year  mdcccxxviii  on  its  title,  and  *necrum' 
and  *e/'  as  above  mentioned,  we  find  in  the  very  first  sentence  one 
important  difference.  Instead  of  '  idem  /ere'  Lloyd  had  written  *  idem 
profedo\  No  doubt  fere  is  more  correct,  but  the  original  reading 
ought  to  have  been  retained  or  mentioned  in  the  margin  ;  when  Lloyd 
published  his  edition,  he  believed  that  he  was  repeating  the  text  of 
Mill,  but  it  was  not  his.  For  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  Lloyd  gave 
to  the  printer  the  Oxford  edition  of  1742  mentioned  above  from  the 
back  of  the  title  of  what  is  now  called  *  MilFs  Testament  \ 
Its  title  is 

H    KAINH 
A1A0HKH, 
NOVUM 
TESTAMENTUM 
GR^CUM, 
Textu  per  omnia  Milliano,  cum  Divi- 
sione Pericoparum  fit  luterpuncturA 
J.  A,  Bengelii. 
[Signet  of  the  Theatrum  Shddonianum] 
Oxonii 
E  Theatro  Sheldoniano 
Impensis  B,  Brought  on  Bibliop.     MDCCXLII. 
557  pages. 

Already  Eduard  Reuss  has  shown  in  his  BibUMeca  N<roi  Tesfamenfi 
Graeci  1872  that  the  Editor,  who  is  said  to  have  been  bishop  Gamboid 
of  the  Moravians,  did  not  follow  Mill,  but  an  edition  published  at 
Edinburgh  in  1740,  whose  text  difFered  in  not  a  i^w  particulars  from 
that  of  Mili.  These  variations  came  over  into  Lloyd,  This  must  have 
been  recognized  rather  early.  For  I  possess  an  edition  of  1836,  which 
is,  strange  to  say,  unknown  to  Reuss  and  his  followers  Sckaff-HaW^  and 
not  mentioned  in  the  Bible  Catalogue  of  the  British  Museum.  ■ 

*  Reuss  describes,  p,  155,  no.  73:  Oxonii  c  typographeo  acaderaico,  1836.  12. 
Editto  Milliana  puro  duci  suo  fidissima.    Textus  binis  columnis  expressus,  versiculis 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


277 


It  has  'Academico'  on  its  title  instead  of  •  Clarendoniano '  and 
MDccc  XXXVI,  and  712  pages  instead  of  696,  and  is  a  much  improved 
reprint  of  Lloyd's.  This  is  already  shewn  by  the  references  of  the  first 
page.  For  Lloyd  had  quoted  in  Matt,  i  2,  1828:  Gen.  xxv  24,  1836 
has  xxv  26,  v.  7.  1828  i  Reg.  xv  3,  1836  has  8,  &c. 

The  last  revision  of  Lloyd's  seems  to  have  taken  place  in  1888-9, 
for  the  ^Appendices  ad  Novum  Testamentum  Stephanicum^  iam  inde 
a  Millii  temporibus  Oxoniensium  manibus  tritum^  Curante  GUD^ 
SAND  A  y;  A,M,,  S.T,P,,  LL,I>:  MDCCC  LXXXIX  say  in  a  'Moni^ 
turn  Textui  Graeco  Navi  Testamenti  Praemissum '  (rather :  Praemitten- 
dum  t):  *  Visum  est  igitur  preU  academici  delegatis  texium  ilium  Millianum 
sive  Siephanicum^  qui  iamdiu  Oxoniensium  manibus  teritur,  ad  exemplar 
editionis  Stephanicae  anni  MDL  denuo  castigatum^  typis  iterum  mandare* 

Now  it  seems  worth  while  to  exhibit  these  several  stages  of  the  history 
of  this  Greek  Text  by  parallel  columns.  In  the  first  is  placed 
Stephanus  of  1550,  in  the  second  Mill  of  1707,  in  the  third  (Gambold) 
1742,  in  the  fourth  Lloyd  1828,  in  the  fifth  Lloyd  1836,  in  the  sixth 
Lloyd  1889  (from  a  copy,  which  has  mdcccxciv  on  its  title),  in  the 
last  *Miir  1900  (=1742). 


1.  Matt,  xxvi  9 

2.  Mark  i  3i 

3.  M      iv  18 


VI  29 
viii  3 
xi  22 
xvi  20 


8.  John  xviii  34 

9.  X  Cor.  XV  33 
ID.  1  Thess.  i  9 

11.  2  Tim.  i  5 

12.  Apoc  xi  2 


Stephanus 

Mill 
1707 

Gambold 
174a 

Oloyd'         1 

1550 

1828 

1836 

1889 

a 

m 

b 

nrwxois 

a 

TOIS  IFT, 

b 

b 

a 

els  rrfv  <r. 

a 

tit  <rw. 

b 

a 

a 

tnrtipofuvoi 
oirroi  eltriv 

a 

om.  ovroi 
*l<rip 

b 

a 

a 

Tt^iunjfi, 

a 

/ipritituif 

b 

a 

a 

rJKaai 

a 

rfKOWTi 

b 

a 

a 

'lri<rovf 

6  'li^aoOf 

m 

m 

m 

a 

afuip 

*A/i>5i» 

omitt. 

b 

m 

m 

on-cWciXay 

a 

d.  ovp 

b 

a 

a 

xpwff 

a 

Xptl^a 

b 

a 

xpn^ff 

ifXCfity 

a 

t^X^lup 

b 

a 

a 

EvvtiKjj 

a 

Eiyiicjf 

b 

a 

a 

H^^tu 

a 

tfMp 

b 

a 

a 

'Mill  = 
1900 

b 

a 

a 
a 
a 

m 
m 

a 
a 
a 
b 
b 


That  is  to  say :  in  all  passages  (eleven  out  of  twelve)  in  which  Gambold 
1742  deviated  from  Mill,  he  was  followed  by  Lloyd  1828;  in  all, 
except  the  first,  the  true  reading  of  Mill  has  been  restored  already  in 
1836;   in  the  twelfth  passage  (6= Mark  xi  22)  where  Mill  himself 

distinctis.    Praefatio  adest  nulla.     My  edition  has  no  columns  nor  verses,  and  has 
Lloyd's  preface. 


278         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


deviated  from  Stephanus^  Mill  was  followed  tip  to  the  last  revision 
1889 ;  while  that  edition,  which  is  now  called  '  Mill's ' '  secundum  1 742  ', 
sticks  to  1742  still  three  times  (1  and  u  and  12). 

Add 


IJ.  Acts  xxvii  3 

14.  2  Cor.  V  13 

15.  Eph.  13 


a 

np.Tovf<fi, 

b 

a 

b 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

B,yifii¥^ 

a 

a 

fV  Xp, 

b 

b 

a 

b 

But  this  is  the  least  point  which  is  to  be  urged  against  these  editions, 
that  the  impressions  were  no  accurate  repetitions  of  Mill.  When  the  last 
reprint  was  made  in  iBSg,  it  was  felt  that  it  was  not  quite  up  to  date  to 
repeat  a  text  of  1707  or  rather  1550,  Therefore  the  Monitum  goes  on : 
*Nolebant  lamen  (Delegati  preli  academici)  Textum  abhinc  annos 
trecentos  constitutum  ila  lectoribus  proponere  ut  receotiorum  omnium 
iudicia  dissimularent.  Itaque  libro  bene  noto  placuit  appendices  sub- 
iicere/     The  first  of  these  contains  therefore 

Collatio  Textus  Westcotiio-Horiiani  cum  Ttxtu  Stephanko  annt  MDL^ 
It  is  a  very  solid  piece  of  work,  of  ninety>two  pages,  done  for  the 
greatest  part  by  H.  J.  White  e  Societate  S.  Andreae  Sarisburiensi  and 
Fredericus  A.  Overton  e  Colt  Exon.  It  shews  already  by  its  extent 
to  what  degree  a  modern  text  differs  from  the  old;  but  I  wonder 
whether  it  is  much  used  ^     And  then  the  so-called  '  Mill '  has  no  such 

'  Ajnerc  EBispniit  of  1889  (appurently). 

*  The  present  writer  has  had  occasion  to  check  the  collation  from  the  end  of 
Luke  onward,  and  may  be  permitted  to  offer  here  some  corrections  and  additloos 
(minor  matters,  as  wrong  numbering  of  verses,  are  omitted). 


I 


I 


Matt.  V4,  5 


Luke  xix  31 

Acts  i  15 

XX  4 

xxiii  10 

XXV  10 

I  Cor,  xii  15, 

xiv  36 

Col  iv  15 

I  Thesa.  ii  la 

Hebr,  viii  6 

xii  17 

James  ii  aa 

I  John  ii  34 

Apoa  ii  34 

iii  5 

xviii  23 

The  transposition  of  these  verses^propcMsed  by  WH*  on  the  margiAr 

is  not  mentioBed. 
WH.  hri    'O  pro  'Ot*  h  (Mill). 
J,,     cififA^tkWK  pro  jMaffip-ttfi', 
„     ti^Mvloi  (different  accent). 
„     7iFDft^vijf  pro  7iK', 
„     iJSiin?**!  pro  iiUK^dtu 
16  different  punctuation.     Stephen,  Mill  and  iS36had  ;  at  the  end 
of  both  verses  :  i8a8  v.  15  ,-  v,  16  . :   WH.  both  verses 
Lloyd  1889  both  verses  a  full  stop. 
WH.  •^ivi^^n}  pro  7«i^-, 
„     Nt'^i^K  (  =  fem*)  pro  Kv/i^soy  («nmsc.), 

,,       ^djOTtrpji^C vol   pro  -poVfitPOt^ 

ff  T*Tttj(*r  pro  TiTivx*:, 

ff  AirtioKifi&aSi}^  :  different  punctuation  ;  avr^  in  this  esse 

ferring  to  cuAo^iW,  not  to  fttroyoiat. 

„  ,  at  the  end  of  verse,  not  ; , 

ff  Ota,  ovr. 

„  0a9ia  pro  0ae7i. 

„  tfwrlou  (no  difference  between  WH.  And  Millj, 

„  iparji  pro  fay^. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  279 

appendix.  And  now  think  that  the  text  of  Mill  or  Stephen  is  prin- 
cipally that  of  Erasmus's  first  edition  of  15 16,  containing  in  the 
Apocalypse  such  grammatical  and  lexical  monsters  as  xvii  5  dicadapn/ros, 
8  Kauir€p  coTiv,  and  at  the  end  of  the  book,  because  his  codex  was 
defective,  his  retranslation  from  the  Latin,  where  in  six  verses  he  missed 
the  original  thirty  times,  closing  the  Apocalypse  and  the  whole  Greek 
Testament  with  a  word,  which  has  no  attestation  at  all  in  any  Greek 
document,  nor  even  in  the  better  documents  of  the  Latin,  fiera  Trdvrutv 

C         M 

v/uav. 

It  must  be  asked,  Whether  it  is  worthy  of  a  University  Press  like 
that  of  Oxford  to  go  on  printing  such  a  text  merely  because  the  name 
of  Mill  is  attached  to  it.  Mill's  edition  was  indeed  a  splendid  piece  of 
work,  but  ift?/  /Vf  fext,  merely  its  apparatus.  The  fame  which  is  justly 
due  to  the  apparatus  has  been  attached  to  the  text  without  any  reason, 
as  every  one  agrees. 

The  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  has  resolved  no  longer  to 
circulate  the  texUis  receptus.  Surely  it  is  high  time  that  the  Delegates 
of  the  Clarendon  Press  should  follow  their  example.  Things  like 
oKaBaprrtfro^  Kaivep  imv  were  a  blot  in  the  time  of  Erasmus,  but  are 
a  disgrace  in  the  twentieth  century. 

Eb.  Nestle. 


[We  are  indebted  to  Dr.  Nestle  for  the  characteristically  minute  care 
which  he  has  bestowed  upon  the  examination  of  some  of  our  Oxford 
books.  I  believe  the  facts  are  in  the  main  as  he  has  stated  them.  It 
is  perhaps  just  worth  while  to  note  that  in  the  collation  of  MSS  where 
Dr.  Nestle  thinks  that  the  transposition  of  the  verses  St  Matt,  v  4,  5 
has  been  overlooked  by  us,  the  omission  was  really  deliberate.  The 
marks  attached  to  the  marginal  reading  indicate  that  it  is  not  a  true 
variant ;  on  this  ground  we  passed  it  over. 

While  recognizing  the  general  correctness  of  Dr.  Nestle's  facts, 
I  cannot  help  a  little  wondering  why,  under  the  heading  'Present  Greek 
Testaments  of  the  Clarendon  Press ',  he  begins  by  ruling  out  the  one 
book  which  has  some  real  connexion  with  the  Oxford  of  the  present 
day,  and  devotes  all  his  accounts  to  two  texts,  which  as  texts  were 
never  of  any  real  importance,  the  one  published  in  1828,  and  the  other 
in  1707  (or,  more  strictly,  1742). 

The  book  known  as  Palmet's  Greek  Testament  with  the  Reviser^  Read- 
ings^ is  prescribed  for  use  in  the  Examinations  of  the  University,  and 
either  it  or  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testament  is  usually  recom- 
mended by  tutors  to  their  pupils.    The  *Mill'  texts  (for  Bishop  Lloyd, 


28o         THE    JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


as  Dr.  Nestle  truly  says,  intended  to  reproduce  Mill)  are  just  the 
survival  of  an  old  book  which  is  only  still  issued  because  there  is  still 
some  demand  for  it  This  means  that  in  the  whole  of  the  area  covered 
by  English  scholarship  the  use  of  the  Textus  Receptus,  and  of  the  texts 
closely  allied  to  it,  has  not  as  yet  entirely  died  ouL  In  like  manner  the 
Cambridge  Press,  I  believe,  still  issues  the  text  of  Stephanas^  though 
the  text  most  in  favour  at  Cambridge  is  naturally  that  of  Westcott  and 
Hort. 

The  Clarendon  Press  has  the  special  right  of  printing  *The 
Greek  Testament  with  the  readings  adopted  by  the  Revisers  of  the 
Authorized  Version  \  This  was  edited  by  the  late  Archdeacon 
Palmer,  who  gave  the  readings  implied  in  the  Authorized  Version 
as  variants  at  the  foot  of  the  page.  Cambridge  prints  the  Ste- 
phanos text  of  1550  with  the  Revisers*  readings  as  variants.  It  is  of 
course  true  that  the  real  credit  for  the  text  belongs  neither  to  Oxford 
nor  to  Cambridge,  but  to  the  Revisers.  The  University  Presses  send 
out  their  books  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  supply  and  demand, 
as  trading  corporations.  They  do  not  propose  to  dictate  to  their  public ; 
if  they  did|  it  would  be  oseless^  as  the  public  would  go  elsewhere.  But 
in  the  end  there  is  sure  to  be  *a  survival  of  the  fittest';  scholarship 
tells  by  degrees  in  the  easiest  and  most  natural  way. 

For  these  reasons  I  rather  demur  to  the  title  Dr.  Nestle  has  given  to 
his  study,  which  might  seem  to  give  to  the  editions  criticized  an  import- 
ance they  do  not  possess.  But  all  facts  have  their  value,  and  the 
standard  of  accuracy  is  constantly  rising.  This  is  not  the  only  field  in 
which  Dr.  Nestle's  minute  investigations  have  done  real  service.  He 
treads  worthily  in  the  steps  of  the  American  scholar,  the  late  Dr.  Isaac 
H,  Hall ;  and  when  a  new  edition  is  brought  out  of  Reuss's  Bibliothcca 
he  will  be  one  of  those  who  l^ve  contributed  most  to  it. 

W.  S.] 


I 


I 


REVIEWS 


28t 


REVIEWS 


NORTH-SEMITIC   INSCRIPTIONS. 

A  Texl'Book  of  North- Semitic  Inscriptions^  Aloabite^  Hebrew^  Phoenician, 
Aramaic,  Nabataean,  Fa Imyrene,  Jewish,  By  the  Rev.  G.  A.  Ccx)RE, 
M,A,,  late  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford.  (Oxford,  at  the 
Clarendon  Press,  1903.} 


The 


been 


\  which  this  work  is  intended  to  satisfy  has  ' 
felt  not  only  by  students  of  the  Semitic  languages  bol  also  by  theologians 
and  historians  generally.  The  importance  of  the  North-Semitic  inscrip- 
tions, from  a  linguistic  and  historical  point  of  view,  is  now  universally 
recognized,  yet  no  attempt  has  hitherto  been  made,  either  in  England 
or  on  the  Continent,  to  bring  the  subject  as  a  whole  within  the  reach  of 
ordinary  readers.  The  monumental  Corpus  Jnscripiionum  Semiiicarum, 
and  even  Lidzbarski's  Handbuch  der  fwrdsemitischen  Epigraphik^  can  be 
used  only  by  a  few  specialists.  Thus  the  scheme  which  Mr,  Cooke  has 
set  before  himself  must  meet  with  unanimous  approval  In  a  volume 
of  moderate  compass  he  gives  us  a  most  judiciously  chosen  collection  of 
about  J 50  iniscriptions,  besides  facsimiles  of  coins^  seals,  and  gems; 
every  department  of  North-Semitic  epigraphy  is  adequately  represented, 
and  the  texts  are  accompanied  by  copious  explanations,  both  historical 
and  philological. 

No  reasonable  person  will  be  disposed  to  complain  because  the  author 
does  not  offer  much  that  is  new,  *  My  aim  throughout ',  he  says  in  the 
Preface  (p.  x),  *  has  been  not  to  propose  novel  interpretations  or  recon- 
structions of  my  own,  but  rather  to  give,  after  careful  study  of  the  various 
authorities  on  the  subject,  what  seemed  to  be  the  most  probable  verdict 
on  the  issues  raised,  and  also  to  bring  together  the  chief  matters  of 
importance  bearing  on  the  texts.  The  frequency  with  which  the 
words  "probably"  and  "possibly"  appear  may,  perhaps,  be  somewhat 
of  a  disappointment  to  the  reader,  as  indicating  an  attitude  of  caution 
rather  than  of  courage ;  but  it  is  w*ell  to  be  reminded  how  seldom  we 
can  speak  with  positiveness  on  questions  of  grammar  and  interpretation 
where  the  material  is  so  limited  and  where  there  is  no  contemporary 
literature  to  shed  light  upon  the  monuments,'  Mr.  Cooke  certainly  does 
not  overstate  the  difficulties  which  these  inscriptions  present.  It  may 
even  be  thought  that  a  still  more  frequent  use  of  *  probably'  and 


282         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


*  possibly*  would  have  increased  the  value  of  his  work.     In  g< 
it  must  be  said,  the  sobriety  of  his  judgement  and  the  accuracy  of  his 
scholarship  are  beyond  all  praise ;  but  occasionally  he  seems  to  me  to 
have  fallen,  through  inadvertence,  into  serious  errors,  which,  in  a  text- 
book intended  for  students,  are  especially  to  be  regretted. 

Thus  the  very  first  page  of  his  Introduction  is  a  terrible  chaos.     'The 
inscriptions',  he  tells  us,  'which  make  up  the  present  collection  are 
grouped  under  the  common  title  of  North-Semitic  to  distinguish  ihera 
from  the  South-Semitic,  or  Sabaean  and  Himyariiic,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
from  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  on  the  other.'     It  is  unfortunate  that 
Mr.  Cooke  has  adopted  from  the  Corpus  the  misleading  phrase  *  Sabaean 
and  Himyaritic  *  instead  of  '  Sabaean  or  Himyaritic  *.     This,  however,  is 
a  mere  trifle.    We  read  a  few  lines  further  on,  and  the  darkness  thickens. 
'The  languages  in  which  the  inscriptions  are  written  belong  to  what  may 
be  called  for  convenience  the  Central,  as  distinguished  from  the  Northern 
and  Southern,  division  of  the  Semitic  tongues.     This  Central  division  is 
subdivided  into  two  main  classes:  (i)  the  Canaanite,  which  includes 
the  Moabite»  Hebrew,  and  Phoenician  inscriptions,  ninth  century  B.C.  to 
third  century  a.d.  and  later;  (2)  the  Aramaic,  .  .  ,'     What  meaning 
does  Mr.  Cooke  here  attach  to  the  terms  ' Central' and  'Nonhern*? 
If  the  languages  in  which  the  North-Semitic  inscriptions  are  written  do  ■ 
not  belong  to  the  Northern  division,  of  what  does  the  Northern  division 
consist  ?    This  mysterious  passage  is  in  no  wise  elucidated  by  the  foot- 
note which  Mr.  Cooke  has  appended  to  it.    'The  Semitic  languages  are  J 
grouped  in  various  ways  j  thus  Wright,  Comp.  "Gr.  12  ff.,  divides  them  into    ■ 
Northern,  i.e.  Assyrian,  Central,  i.e.  Aramaic,  Western,  i.e.  Canaanite, 
Southern,  i.e.  Arabic  and  Ethiopic'     Now  if  we  turn  to  Wright^s  book 
we  find  that  he  divides  the  Semitic  languages  into  a  Northern  and 
a  Southern   section;    the  Northern  section  is  subdivided  into  three 
groups,  the  Eastern  {i,  e.  Babylonian  and  Assyrian),  the  Central  (i,  e, 
Aramaic),  and  the  IVes/em  (L  e.  Canaanite).    This  is  perfectly  intelligible, 
but  Mr.  Cooke,  by  omitting  the  word  'Eastern',  involves  the  whole 
classification  in  hopeless  perplexity,  since  he  makes  it  appear  as  if 
Wright's  term  *  Northern '  included  Assyrian  only,  whereas  in  reality  it 
includes  all  the  Semitic  languages  except  Arabic  and  Ethiopia 
A  few  remarks  on  individual  points  may  here  be  added. 
Page  II — The  word  nn  in  the   inscription  of  Mesha',  line  12,  is 
explained  by  Mr.  Cooke  as  equivalent  to  ri*Ki^  from  the  root  nwi  *to 
see,'    This  view   has  been  maintained  by  many  other  scholars^  but 
it  should  at  least  have  been  marked  as  doubtful,  since  the  omission 
of  the  radical  K  in  so  ancient  a  text  would  be  very  surprising.     The 
word  nrnni,  in  line  11,  is  not  an  analogous  case,  nor  yet  can  we  base 
any  argument  on   the  obscure  word  n^^  in  line  20.     Possibly  nn 


( 


I 


REVIEWS 


283 


N 


[pronounced  either  as  ri»i:=  ji'ii^  or  as  n*"!  =n*^"i)  may  come  from  nn 
*  to  be  moistened ',  *  to  slake  one's  thirst  \  hence  '  to  satisfy  a  desire ', 
This  metaphorical  use  of  the  root  occurs  in  Hebrew  (Pro?,  vii  18)  and 
is  especially  common  in  Arabic 

Page  34 — The  theory  that  the  Syr.  f  cia  is  derived  from  poo,  as 
Mr.  Cooke  states  without  any  qualification,  is  contrary  to  all  analogy. 

Page  65 — In  his  note  on  the  proper  name  ^n^*\D  Mr.  Cooke  apparently 
employs  the  term  'diminutive'  in  the  sense  of  a  familiar  abbreviation  \ 
This  usage  leads  to  confusion,  as  a  diminutive  does  not  properly  mean 
a  shorter  form  but  a  form  expressing  the  smallness  of  the  object 
referred  to. 

Page  256— The  Nabataean  name  73n33  is  here  transliterated  '  Ben- 
hobal',  but  on  the  next  page  we  are  told  that  it  should  be  pronounced 
either  ba'nJI  or  '^5^"3?.  Names  compounded  with  nn  'to  build' 
undoubtedly  occur,  but  Mr.  Cooke  scarcely  has  a  right  to  quote  the 
Biblical  lin'p  as  an  instance  in  point,  since  p  must  here  mean  *  son ', 
as  is  shewn  by  the  Syriac  ffo*  is  (e.g.  'the  blessed  Bar-hadad  the 
Bishop'  in  the  Chronicle  0/ Joshua  the  Sfyiiie^  ed.  Wright,  §§  LVIII 
and  C).  Whether  lin"p  is  an  exceptional,  but  genuine,  Aramaic  form, 
or  a  Hebrew  modification,  we  cannot  say. 

Page  284 — ^The  Palmyrene  name  K;rnn  is  here  explained  as  =  U.^,! 
'  enchantment ',  a  word  which,  by  the  way,  seems  to  occur  In  the  plural 
only.  It  is  much  more  probable  that  WK'in  means  'deaf,  as  Mr,  S.A.Cook 
has  suggested  in  his  Glossary  of  Aramaic  Inscriptions,  Compare  the 
Arabic  nickname  *^\  which  was  borne  by  a  poet  of  the  Umayyad 
period  and  by  various  other  persons. 

Page  333- — Why  does  Mr.  Cooke  repeatedly  adopt  the  vocalization 
fWB  (P^  333).  rS'ywiD  (p.  335),  nrupr?  (p.  338).  ^"^W^  (p.  339). 
with  a  long  vowel  in  the  first  syllable  ?  According  to  all  analogy  the 
vowel  ought  to  be  either  short  e  or  short  i, 

Page  334 — With  regard  to  the  Passives  formed  by  internal  vowel- 
change,  Mr.  Cooke  rejects  the  view  which  is  now  predominant.  He 
holds,  for  example,  that  the  Biblical  Aramaic  napnn  and  HBWn  *are 
artificially  modelled  upon  the  Hebrew,  and  probably  were  never  used  in 
actual  speech.*  But  he  seems  to  be  wholly  unconscious  of  the  difficulties 
which  this  hypothesis  involves.  If  HJ^nn  is  artificially  modelled  upon 
the  Hebrew,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  Passive  no^pn  '  was  raised ' 

(Dan.  vii  4),  where  the  vocalization  agrees  with  the  Arabic  cuI-Jl  in 
contradistinction  to  the  Hebrew  i*  Nor  is  it  correct  to  say,  as  Mr.  Cooke 
does,  that  *in  Bibl.  Aram,  these  forms  were  used  only  for  the  Perf, 
3  pers.*,  since  njpnn  in  Dan.  iv  33  is  undoubtedly  a  first  pers.  More- 
over, we  find  in  Biblical  Aramaic,  not  only  a  Passive  of  the  Causative 
Conjugation,  but  also  a  Passive  of  the  Simple  Conjugation,  as  in  Arabic 


THE  lOUSKAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

i^\»J,  C^,  ?6|*i,  ftcV  sad  m  ifiuiMlf  aniv  ionn,  vii.  Jinr2F 

mm  Medeba,  which 
(p.  247).  Tfaos  die  tbeocy 
bf  tntefBal  vowd-diaiige  is 
bftaks  damn  ako^etber.  Unfoctnmlei^  Mr,  Cooke 
hm  not  oDiy  adcipled  a  wvoeg  tfaeoiy  oo  dni  snbfctl  but  has  also  niis' 
Malcd  the  ixtsw  On  p.  535  be  c^iIubs  die  FakDjicne  «32  as  ==  '^, 
a  'Pea]  pCcfik  piH.',  and  rdai  at  to  'Bdd.  Amu.  ^|  Dm.  ii  30, 
*^?  Ezra  iv  iS/  If  be  bad  fcnfied  these  quotations,  he  voidd  have  seen 
that  the  Biblical  fonni  are  ^,  (abo  ^  OaiL  ii  19)  and  ^  which  most 
be  taken  as  Perfects,  not  Paitidpto;,  since  in  Bibfical  Arainaic  die 
PasNve  Paiticipie  of  sncfa  v«rhs  is  spelt  eidier  witli  final  it  (as  to  Syriac) 
or  with  fioal  n,  e.  g.  inf^,  7^,  nvi.  It  is  ontj  in  buer  Aramaic  dialects 
that  these  participial  forms  are  sp^  with  final  \  Accordiiig^y  there  can 
be  Httle  doobt  that  the  Pahnyrene  m  is  a  Perfect  Passive^  corrcspondi 
to  the  .\rabic  ^^^ 

In  the  note  on  the  Tariff  \  line  9  it  should  have  been  mentioned 
the  emendation  aro'  for  3fD1  is  due  to  Sachau  (Z  D^  M.  G,  for  1883, 
p.  563  footnote). 

Page  335— The  Palmyrene  V^rchv  'youths*  and  its  feminine  «nt3»^ 
are  diminutive  forms,  so  that  the  vowel  of  the  second  syllable  was 
probably  at  or  e^  not  /,  as  Mr.  Cooke  supposes  (pp.  335^  340).  This 
appears  from  the  Jewish  Aramaic  KD^tnp  and  the  Syriac  [^  "'^^ .  to 
which  Mr.  Cooke  himself  refers. 

A  work  tn  which  every  word,  and  almost  every  letter,  requires  careful 
verification  will  naturally  contain  some  mistakes.  Those  which  I  have 
ventured  to  point  out  may  appear  insignificant  to  most  readers^  but  in 
dealing  with  texts  of  this  kind  it  must  be  remembered  that  even  slight 
inaccuracies  are  liable  to  become  sources  of  confusion. 

A.  A.  Bevan. 


THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY. 

Tht  Bible  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,    Eight  lectures  by  J.  Estlin  Car- 
penter, M.A.     (London,  Longmans^  Green  &  Co.)     1903. 

In  these  able  and  interesting  lectures  Mr,  Estlin  Carpenter  gives 
a  concise  but  careful  sketch  of  the  progress  of  Biblical  Criticism  during 
the  last  two  centuries  ;  he  also  attempts  to  estimate  the  importance  of 
its  assured  results.  Considering  the  standpoint  from  which  he  writes, 
wc  have  nu  reason  for  surprise  that  Mr.  Estlin  Carpenter  regards  these 
results  as  adverse,  not  merely  to  current  ideas  about  inspiration,  but 
alao  to  the  catholic  conception  of  Christ's  Person  and  work. 


I 


REVIEWS 


285 


I  It  is,  however,  only  in  the  concluding  lecture  that  Mr.  Carpenter 
touches  upon  what  may  be  called  the  rehgious  consequences  of  the 
critical  movement.  The  greater  part  of  the  book  consists  of  a  full  and 
impartial  sketch  of  the  various  epochs  in  the  movement,  ihe  great 
names  which  have  at  various  times  been  connected  with  it,  and  the 
silent  revolution  in  thought  which  the  use  of  historical  methods  has 
brought  about.  The  first  lecture  deals  with  *  The  struggle  for  freedom 
of  enquiry'.  Mr.  Carpenter  looks  upon  the  Privy  Council  Judgement  of 
1863  (in  the  case  of  Essays  and  Rmtms)  as  *  the  charter  of  free  enquiry 
into  the  origin  and  composition  of  the  Scriptures  within  Ihe  Established 
Church  of  England*.  Unquestionably  the  settlement  of  this  struggle 
gave  an  impetus  to  the  movement  for  a  revision  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  and  to  the  agitation  for  the  abolition  of  University  tests. 
Mr  Carpenter  pleads  for  their  abolition  in  the  case  of  Divinity  pro- 
fessors, and  he  holds  that  '  Behind  the  ideal  of  free  teaching  in  theology 
lies  another  more  important  still— that  of  a  free  Church  where  pastor  and 
people  shall  be  alike  pledged  only  to  a  common  pursuit  of  truth  and 
a  common  recognition  of  veracity  as  the  first  requisite  of  worship'  (43). 
In  Lecture  II  Mr.  Carpenter  expresses  a  fairly  favourable  view  of  the 
Revised  Version.  One  of  his  criticisms  of  the  O.T.  version  seems 
both  just  and  suggestive.  *  It  is  *,  he  says,  *  perhaps  unfortunate  that  the 
Revisers  have  so  rarely  admitted  that  the  existing  Hebrew  is  no  longer 
iotelligible,  and  have  insisted  on  finding  a  meaning  where  grammar 
and  sense  both  fail '  (92).  He  duly  cautions  the  reader,  however,  that 
the  task  of  textual  emendation  is  often  of  extraordinary  diflBculty,  and 
that  another  century  of  toil  may  be  needed  before  it  is  found  practicable 
to  obtain  'a  sufficient  consensus^  of  schohrly  opinion  to  warrant  the 
construction  of  a  revised  text.  Lectures  III  and  IV  describe  those 
*  changed  views  '  of  the  Law  and  of  Prophecy  which  have  resulted  from 
a  more  historical  conception  of  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Some  readers  will  probably  feel  that  Mr.  Carpenter  too 
peremptorily  rejects  the  claims  of  'typology'.  It  may  fairly  be  argued 
on  the  other  side  that  any  system  of  interpretation  recognized  in 
Scripture  itself  must  rest  on  a  basis  of  reason  and  fact  It  is  surely 
incorrect  to  assert  that  'the  system  of  scriptural  typology  was  founded 
on  the  assumption  that  the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible  were  composed 
by  Moses'  (109).  The  system  of  'typology'  not  only  appeals  to  the 
practice  of  the  New  Testament  writers  themselves  (especially  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  but  finds  its  justification  in  the  organic 
connexion  that  exists  between  the  Jewish  religion  and  Christianity,  It 
assumes  also,  surely  not  without  warrant,  that  where  a  hving  Providence 
is  at  work  in  history,  the  earlier  stages  of  religion  will  inevitably  to 
some  extent  foreshadow  later  developements.     The  statement  of  the 


286         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


1» 


writer  of  Hebrews  that  in  the  Jewish  ordinances  the  Holy  Spini 
signified  truths  and  mysteries  yet  to  be  disclosed,  remains  unaffected* 
either  by  the  historical  question  at  what  precise  period  those  ordinances 
were  in  use,  or  by  the  fact  that  the  writer  adopted  ^tnetbods  of 
Christian  gnosis'  that  were  natural  to  his  age.  Mr.  Carpenter  also 
rejects  too  hastily  the  belief  that  in  the  Levitical  ritual  a  process  of 
selection  is  apparent — a  process  which  in  the  light  of  subsequent  history 
we  may  reasonably  believe  to  have  been  divinely  controlled.  Nothing 
that  Mr.  Carpenter  says  necessarily  excludes  such  a  view.  Nor  can  it 
be  supposed  that  Scriptural  typology  would  have  survived  the  admitted 
abuses  and  vagaries  of  'private  interpretation',  were  it  not  based  (as 
Dr.  Hatch  suggests  in  a  noteworthy  passage  of  his  Hibbcrt  Ltcturts) 
'  upon  an  element  in  human  nature  which  is  not  likely  to  pass  away  '. 

Apart  from  Mr.  Carpenter's  lucid  account  of  the  history  of  Penta- 
teuchal  criticism,  nothing  could  be  better  than  his  sketch  of  the  general 
course  of  religious  developemeot  in  Israel.  He  seizes  on  the  salient 
points  with  true  historical  insight  For  instance,  in  speaking  of  the 
main  principle  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code — the  principle  that  religion 
is  more  than  ritual,  demanding  spiritual  affections  as  well  as  compliance 
with  external  rules — Mr.  Carpenter  remarks  that  *this  transfer  of  the 
seat  of  religion  to  the  conscience  and  the  affections  really  prepared  the 
way  for  the  ultimate  severance  of  religion  from  the  national  cultus  *  (149). 
He  also  does  justice  to  post -exilic  legalism  in  the  statement  that  *  The 
Law  endeavoured  to  bring  the  principles  of  the  universal  Deity  of 
Vahweh,  his  spiritual  nature  and  his  righteous  rule,  into  direct  application 
to  the  circumstances  of  a  community  still  in  danger  of  frittering  away 
the  positive  gains  of  prophetic  thought '  (153).  The  lecture  on  Prophecy 
deals  with  a  theme  which  is  fairly  familiar  to  most  readers,  but  it  is  not 
the  less  fascinating.  Mr.  Carpenter  seems  to  overrate  the  extent  to 
which  the  influence  of  prophecy  moulded  or  *  reacted  upon '  the  primitive 
traditions  of  Israel.  It  is  perhaps  too  strong  to  assert  that  under  this 
influence  *a  scheme  of  patriarchal  relationships  was  slowly  framed  into 
which  other  and  later  material  could  be  incorporated'  (185).  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  doubtless  true  that  in  Deuteronomy  prophecy  'trans- 
lated its  ideal  aims  into  a  definite  code  of  individual  and  national  duty  * 
{193);  and  the  writer  gathers  up  in  a  striking  sentence  the  wonderful 
significance  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  surveyed  in  its  totality  :  '  As  VergUj 
reflecting  on  the  majesty  of  Rome,  told  the  tale  of  the  pious  Aeneas 
and  his  flight  from  Troy,  linking  the  far-off  anguish  of  the  burning 
city  in  one  chain  of  Providential  design  to  the  full  splendours  of 
Augustan  glory,  so  Hebrew  prophecy,  with  a  more  impassioned  sense 
of  the  ** tears  of  things",  a  more  splendid  conviction  of  the  divine 
righteousness,  saw  the  migration  of  Abraham's  clan,  the  conflicts  of 


I 


I 


REVIEWS 


287 


\ 


Wbes,  the  rise  and  fall  of  dynasties,  the  clash  of  empires,  all  pointing  to 
one  end, — the  union  of  the  nations  in  one  vast  fellowship  of  obedience 
and  trust '  (209). 

Four  lectures  are  devoted  to  different  aspects  of  the  serious  problems 
raised  by  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels.  In  Mr.  Carpenter's  account 
of  the  literary  problem,  what  strikes  us  chiefly  is  the  candour  of  the 
admission  that  *  no  Christian  can  approach  the  Gospels  for  the  first  time 
in  the  same  way  in  which  he  may  approach  the  records  of  other  historic 
religions'.  In  other  words,  the  idea  of  'a  presuppositionless  criticism' 
is  illusory  ^  It  seems,  therefore,  futile  to  dwell  upon  divergencies  of 
view  which  depend  on  a  difl*erence  of  fundamental  presuppositions. 
We  feel  inclined,  however,  to  ask,  particularly  in  regard  to  the  analogies 
suggested  by  the  phenomena  of  Buddhism  and  Babism,  whether  Mr.  Car- 
penter adequately  recognizes  the  immensity  of  the  mora/  revolution 
which  Christianity,  as  compared  ivith  other  systems,  has  introduced? 
-Is  it  not  true  of  Buddhism  and  Babism,  as  of  the  ancient  religious 
culture  of  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  that  the  literature  connected  with  them 
*  might  have  remained  for  ever  unread,  and  our  spiritual  life  to-day 
would  be  no  poorer*  {453)?  The  more  confidently  you  trace  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  circumstances  of  His  education  and 
environment,  the  more  urgent  becomes  the  pressure  of  the  question, 
What  will  account  for  the  moral  fruits  of  His  teaching  and  example,  and 
for  the  spiritual  experience  which  has  its  roots  in  them  ?  The  nature 
and  limits,  indeed,  of  Christ's  self-accommodation  to  the  conditions  and 
habits  of  thought  prevalent  in  His  age,  are  fair  matters  of  doubt  and 
controversy,  and  raise  problems  which  will  inevitably  be  solved  in  dif- 
ferent ways.  But  does  Mr.  Carpenter  recognize  the  full  significance 
of  his  admission  that  *  Jesus  is  the  ultimate  creator  of  the  Christian 
character,  the  primal  source  of  the  Christian  life*?  It  is  because 
Christianity  is  essentially  a  life  and  not  merely  a  creed  that  the  age-long 
movement  of  criticism  has  on  the  whole  produced  so  little  impression 
upon  faith. 

Lecture  VII^  on  the  Johannine  Problem,  is  singularly  temperate  and 
well-balanced  in  statement,  but  does  not  profess  to  do  more  than  give 
a  summary  of  the  present  position  of  the  questions  involved.  In  his 
concluding  lecture,  *  The  Bible  and  the  Church ',  the  writer  finds  himself 
forced  to  touch  upon  the  doctrine  of  authority  in  religion. 

It  would  be  out  of  place,  in  a  short  review,  to  discuss  at  length  the 
strong  and  the  weak  points  of  Mr,  Carpenter's  argument.  On  the  one 
hand,  he  pleads  effectively  for  a  much-needed  restatement  of  the  doctrine 
of  human  nature  '  on  the  broader  ground  of  anthropology  ',  and  he  recog- 
nizes the  candour  and  sincerity  of  the  attempts  which  have  already 

'  Cp.  Prot  Orr's  recent  Essays  on  Riischliantsm  p.  13. 


98B         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


been  made  in  this  direction  by  writers  Itlce  Archdeacon  Wilson  ind 
Mr.  Tennant.  On  the  other  hand,  he  misunderstands,  as  we  thinks  the 
relation  of  the  Church  to  Scripture*  *  A  single  instance  of  mis-ascription  \ 
he  says,  *  really  shatters  the  pretension  of  "  inspired  prudence "  raised 
on  its  behalf.  If  it  might  wrongly  attribute  a  letter  to  one  apostle,  it 
might  equally  blunder  in  assigning  a  gospel  to  another'  (472). 

It  might  be  replied  that  the  different  books  of  the  New  Testament 
gained  their  authority  and  their  place  in  the  canon,  not  primarily  because 
they  were  supposed  to  be  the  work  of  particular  authors,  but  because 
(as  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  has  said  in  reference  to  the  Old  Testament) 
•  they  commended  themselves  in  practice  to  the  experience  of  the  [O.  X] 
Church  and  the  spiritual  discernment  of  the  godly  in  Israel '  K  Just  as 
the  Apostles*  Creed  embodies  in  a  real  sense  the  organized  experience 
of  the  Christian  community,  so  the  New  Testament  Canon  comprises 
those  books  which  were,  in  matter  of  fact,  best  adapted  to  minister  to 
COtain  elements  in  the  Christian  life.  The  New  Testament  is  best 
rCfardcd,  in  fact,  as  a  record  explaining  and  justifying  the  spiritual 
oxperience  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Mr*  Carpenter  reserves  for  the  conclusion  of  his  lecture  a  discussion 
of  the  Virgin-birth  of  Christ,  He  has  no  difficulty  in  stating  forcibly 
the  ordinary  arguments  against  the  alleged  fact,  and  he  is  able  to  illustrate 
the  narrative  by  a  multitude  of  tales  culled  from  the  folklore  of  the 
world  *  from  China  to  Peru  '.  He  further  maintains  that  *  the  doctrine 
was  not  with  in  PauKs  view',  and  that  those  who  regard  Joseph  as  the 
father  of  Jesus  have  the  authority  of  the  Gospels  on  their  side  equally 
with  those  who  ascribe  His  birth  to  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
This  position  we  cannot  here  discuss.  As  regards  other  than  literary 
and  historical  considerations,  we  observe  that  the  repudiation  of  the 
Virgin-birth  is  allied  (in  Mr.  Carpenter's  case)  with  doubts  as  to  the 
sinlessness  of  Jesus  ^.  He  frankly  declares  that  this  latter  doctrine  is  to 
some  minds  *  a  hindrance  rather  than  a  help  *  ^  and  he  ends,  consistently 
enough,  by  denying  the  uniqueness  of  Christianity.  'Similar  results', 
he  says,  '  are  achieved  elsewhere  by  other  means  and  through  different 
formi'  (509).  At  the  same  time,  his  last  word  is  an  emphatic  testimony 
to  the  uniqueness  of  the  Bid/e^  and  a  vindication  of  the  right  of  private 
judgement.  Happily  it  is  not  within  the  province  of  a  reviewer  to  enter 
into  dogmatic  discussions.  Our  sense  of  the  great  gravity  of  the  topics 
di»cufi§ed  in  Mr.  Carpenter's  concluding  lecture  is  best  marked  by 
abitention  from  unprofitable  disputation.  On  the  whole,  he  is  to  be 
sincerely  thanked  for  a  remarkable  and  deeply  interesting  book, 

R.  L,  Ottley. 

'  Ofe/  Tejiinrntm/ in  JftvisM  Church  p.  162. 

*  Cp.  Prof.  Orr'a  Essay  on  'The  miraculous  conception  jmd  modern  thought*  in 
Riit^hliamvm  pp,  331  foil* 


REVIEWS  989 

THE  EXPANSION  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

I^  Mission  und  Ausbrtitung  des  Ckristenthums  in  den  ersien  drd 
Jahrkttnderien.    A.  Harnack.     (Leipzig,  Hinrichs,  1902.     9  m.) 

This  latest  of  Dr.  Harnack's  great  works  is  marvellous  in  its  com- 
pleteness and  admirable  in  the  skill  with  which  it  is  arranged.  Parts  of 
it  have  appeared  already  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Berlin  Academy, 
but  they  fall  into  their  due  place  in  the  connected  whole ;  Dr.  Harnack 
has  not  been  content,  as  scholars  too  often  are,  to  publish  an  ill- 
compacted  assortment  of  essays  under  the  name  of  a  history.  No  such 
statement  has  yet  appeared  of  the  causes  and  the  stages  of  the  expansion 
of  Christianity  up  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  The  author  is  equally 
happy  in  explaining  the  methods  of  the  preachers  and  the  motives  of 
the  converts ;  the  only  serious  criticism  that  can  be  passed  upon  him  is 
that  something  seems  wanting  rather  in  the  spirit  than  in  the  execution 
of  his  work.  The  explanation  is  almost  too  complete ;  the  Christian 
^th  seems  dwarfed  in  comparison  with  the  auxiliary  forces  which 
helped  it  to  victory.  Not  that  clear  and  fervid  language  is  wanting, 
but  that  the  picture  as  a  whole  presents  a  morally  smaller  and  less 
stable  organization  and  belief  than  the  author  in  his  own  more 
enthusiastic  moments  describes.  Dr.  Harnack  has  a  keen  vision,  and 
knows  how  to  surround  the  objects  of  his  inquiry  with  a  singularly 
clear  atmosphere;  but  we  have  learnt  that  such  transparency  is  itself 
deceptive.  It  is  symptomatic  of  a  spirit  which,  if  not  obtrusively  dis- 
played, is  manifestly  present  that  he  indulges  from  time  to  time  in 
language  which  is,  to  say  the  least,  unsympathetic.  For  instance,  on 
his  last  page  he  mentions  among  the  causes  for  the  success  of 
Christianity  its  capacity  from  the  third  century  onwards  of  'over- 
trumping attractive  superstitions'.  The  judgement  of  even  so  great 
a  scholar  as  Dr.  Harnack  must  be  unconsciously  warped  by  the  use 
of  such  a  simile. 

But  this  general  impression  does  not  lessen  the  reader's  gratitude  for 
each  chapter  taken  singly,  or  his  wonder  at  the  wealth  of  knowledge 
displayed  and  the  skill  with  which  facts  from  remote  parts  of  the  field 
are  brought  into  combination.  But  most  remarkable  of  all  is  the  way 
in  which  Dr.  Harnack  has  seized  upon  minor,  yet  not  unimportant, 
points  of  interest.  Most  students  must  have  made  their  collections 
upon  alms,  or  tertium  genus^  or  the  use  of  alternative  names  by  the 
Christians,  or  similar  matters.  They  will  find  that  Dr.  Harnack  has 
done  the  same,  and  with  astonishing  completeness.  They  will  some- 
times be  able  to  supplement  him — for  the  taunt  that  Christians  are 
a  tertium  genus  (Lampridius  Alex.  Sev.  23.  7)  should  surely  have  been 
cited  and  discussed — and  they  will  not  sJways  agree  with  his  interpre- 

VOL.  V.  U 


/ 


290  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

tations  or  with  his  obiter  dicta ;  what  evidence  can  be  all^c  for  (p.  341) 
a  *  collegiate  govcmraent  by  bishops  and  deacons '  ?  But  the  doubtful 
statements  are  as  rare  as  the  omissions,  and  hardly  weigh  in  the 
balance  against  the  abundance  of  instruction  which  we  gain.  To 
choose  at  random,  we  may  now  reeard  the  meaning  of  pg^amis  as 
equivalent  to  *ajlJjg£2  G-.^-  *^'"'  ^^^  ^^  ^^^  *  soldiejc.of  jCwist)  as 
finally  settled  by Ibe  joint  authority  of  Zahn  and  Haroack ;  and  we  are 
told  of  an  unpublished  fragment  which  speaks  of  Ximotwimm  rv  jcol  *iov6aiM.  ^ 

^purrov  6fio\oyovirr*t.  ^M 

A  large  and  perhaps  disproportionate  space  is  given  up  to  the  con-  1 
troversy  with  Duchesne  as  to  the  relative  priority  of  the  patriarchal  I 
and  urban  episcopate.     Dr  Hamaclc*s  ingenuity  and  zeal  have  led  him  " 
to  injure  his  own  case;   he  shews  himself  at  times  a  German  con- 
troversialist of  a  type  which  is  growing  obsolete.     The  suggestion  that 
the  famous  Sarclus,  the  deacon  mro  BwVfijc  (Euseb.  If.  E,  V  i.  17),  is  a 
deacon  of  Lyons  who  came  from  Vienne  is  surely  unworthy  of  a  serious 
scholar,  though  it  was  also  made  by  Valesius  ;  and  there  are  other  aigo- 
ments  which  are  hardly  stronger     It  is  strange  that  Cyprian  Ep.  67 
should  have  been  overlooked  in  this  debate,  where  the  words  AeJio  dia- 
€ono  tt  pUbi  Emtritae  consisientibus  and  the  whole  purport  of  the  letter 
seem  to  have  a  bearing  upon  the  question.     But  Dr.  Hamack  makes 
out  a  case  which  as  a  whole  is  much  stronger  than  that  of  his  adversary. 

Nothing  in  the  volume  is  more  interesting  or  important  than  the  last 
section,  which  fixes  so  far  as  they  are  known  the  dates  of  establishment 
of  the  sees  which  are  older  than  Nicaea,  and  so  traces  the  progressive 
expansion  of  Christianity.  The  work  is  done  most  completely  and 
judiciously.  The  fault,  if  there  is  one,  lies  in  Dr,  Hamack*s  caution 
in  accepting  evidence  and  drawing  inferences.  But  no  one  will  blame 
him  for  his  refusal  to  dogmatize  about  the  numbers  of  the  Christians  at 
different  dates,  or  doubt  the  reasonableness  of  his  estimates ;  though 
here  again  he  errs,  \i  at  all,  on  the  side  of  moderation.  He  puts  the 
Christians  of  Numidia  and  Proconsular  Africa  at  three  to  five  per  cent. 
of  the  population  in  the  time  of  St  Cyprian,  and  the  number  of  bishops 
at  130  to  150,  justly  observing  that  the  opposition  was  absent  from  the 
Council  of  A.  D.  2^,  the  Sententiae  of  which  we  possess.  But  he  is 
hardly  right  in  laying  stress  only  on  the  military  and  official  element  in 
the  African  Church.  Evidence  of  \*arious  kinds  points  to  a  large 
immigration  of  the  peasant  class  from  Southern  Italy,  and  the  personal 
relation  which  seems  to  have  existed  between  Cyprian  and  Capua  M 
points  to  a  special  connexion  between  the  two  regions.  May  not  the  I 
multiplication  of  bishoprics  in  A^ca  be  a  feature  of  Church  life  which 
the  immigrants  imported  from  their  old  home?  Dr.  Hamack  might 
well  have  mentioned  the  possibility. 


REVIEWS  291 

He  is  emphatic  in  reducing  to  a  minimum  the  number  of  Christians 
in  Northern  Italy  and  Gaul.  He  is  certainly  right  in  his  main  con- 
tention, but  one  of  his  arguments  can  hardly  be  sustained.  He  lays 
it  down  as  a  general  rule  that  where  bishops  were  few  Christians  also 
were  few.  It  is  notorious  that  the  dioceses  of  Northern  Italy  were  of 
large  extent,  and  Dr.  Hamack  draws  his  conclusion  that  Christians 
were  therefore  rare.  He  should  have  considered  the  history  of  the 
cities.  Roman  historians  of  to-day  trace  the  boundaries  of  the  great 
military  colonies  of  Cisalpine  Gaul  by  those  of  the  sees  of  Lombardy. 
For  obvious  reasons  of  strength  and  of  administrative  convenience, 
those  colonies  had  been  laid  out  on  the  largest  scale ;  and  we  cannot 
argue  that  because  the  unit  of  administration  was  large,  therefore  the 
number  of  Christians  was  small.  Perhaps  the  diocesan  system  of  Gaul 
was  imitated  from  that  of  Northern  Italy,  as  I  have  suggested  that  that 
of  Africa  was  from  Southern  Italy.  The  wish  to  keep  down  the  number 
of  Christians  has  led  Dr.  Harnack  into  a  strange  argument  as  regards 
Bologna.  The  bodies  of  the  martyrs  Vitalis  and  Agricola  were  found,  it 
is  said,  in  a  Jewish  burial-place,  and  therefore  there  were  so  few 
Christians  in  the  city  at  the  time  of  Diocletian's  persecution  that  they 
had  no  cemetery  of  their  own.  The  story  is  a  replica  of  that  of 
Gervasius  and  Protasius;  St.  Ambrose  is  concerned  with  both  cases, 
and  in  both  there  is  the  guidance  of  a  vision ;  the  doubtfulness  of  the 
matter  is  increased  by  there  being  another  St.  Vitalis  of  Ravenna,  the 
father  of  the  Milanese  brethren.  The  point  for  us  is  that  a  story  in  its 
successive  reproductions  always  becomes  more  marvellous^  as  Freeman 
has  shewn  in  many  entertaining  notes  to  his  Norman  Conquest. 
Discovery  in  a  Jewish  burial-ground  was  more  wonderful  than  discovery 
in  a  church.  But  an  unorthodox  interment,  if  such  there  were,  would 
prove  neither  the  paucity  of  Christians  nor  the  non-existence  of  a 
bishop.  We  know  an  instance  of  Christian  burial  in  a  pagan  cemetery 
in  St  Cyprian's  day;  the  offender,  Martialis,  was  himself  a  bishop, 
and  the  offence  had  apparently  been  committed  before  his  lapse. 
Perhaps,  indeed,  the  whole  story  is  false ;  it  is  that  of  a  dispossessed 
rival  in  a  day  when  the  standard  of  truthfulness  was  low,  and  Stephen 
of  Rome  had  disbelieved  the  allegations.  But  in  any  case  it  shews 
that  in  a  church  sufficiently  important  to  have  a  bishop  it  was  quite 
possible,  in  the  opinion  of  a  contemporary,  for  such  a  burial  to  be 
perpetrated. 

But  it  is  ungrateful  to  dwell  upon  minor  and  disputable  points 
rather  than  on  the  mass  of  accurate  information,  illuminated  by  the 
insight  of  a  true  historian,  with  which  this  most  interesting  volume  has 
enriched  us. 

E.  W.  Watson. 

U  2 


ags         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


SOME  APOCRYPHAL  ACTS  OF  APOSTLES. 

Affa  PhiUppi  tt  Acta  JTwfnae :  acctdunt  Acta  Bamabae,  edidit  Maxi- 
MtUANUs  BoKNET.     (Ldpag,  Mendelssohn,  1903.) 

Not  many  words,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  are  necessary  to  commend  this, 
the  concluding  part  of  the  great  Lipsius-Bonnet  re*cditfon  of  the  Greek 
Apocryphal  Acts»  to  the  readers  of  this  Journal.  All  will  be  glad  to 
have  at  last  an  authoritative  text  of  the  Greek  (shall  I  call  it  version?) 
of  the  famous  Acts  of  Thomas,  If  the  question  between  the  claims  of 
Greek  and  Syriac  to  be  the  original  language  of  these  Acts  are  not 
settled  by  the  appearance  of  this  volume,  we  at  least  have  an  invaluable 
slock  of  materials  for  settling  that  question.  M,  Bonnet  himself 
inclines  to  the  belief  (p.  xxii)  that  the  Acts  were  originally  written  in 
Greek ;  that  the  Greek,  with  the  exception  of  the  concluding  sections, 
was  lost  at  an  early  period ;  and  that  a  fresh  Greek  version  of  the  whole 
book  was  made  from  the  Syriac.  Certain  it  is  that  the  last  part  of  the 
book  has  come  to  us  in  two  distinct  Greek  texts. 

The  Acts  of  Philip  and  of  Barnabas  are  of  far  less  interest  than  those 
of  Thomas.  Philip  v&  now  placed  by  many  critics  as  late  as  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century,  and  is  a  Catholic  producrion,  chiefly  worth  reading 
for  the  sake  of  its  story^  which  is  sometimes  highly  sensational  It 
made  no  way  in  the  Western  Church  at  all ;  the  Latin  Acts  of  Philip  are 
brief  and  jejune,  and  are  only  coloured  at  most  by  a  distant  reflexion 
of  the  Greek.  The  Acts  of  Thomas^  by  the  way,  were  turned  into 
Anglo-Saxon  verse,  like  those  of  Andrew  and  Matthew :  this  we  learn 
from  a  note  of  the  Homilist  ^Jfcjr,  but  I  do  not  know  that  attentioa 
has  lately  been  called  to  his  statement. 

Barnabas  is  a  work  of  the  fifth  century,  and  should  be  studied  in 
connexion  with  other  Acts  of  early  Cypriote  saints.  A  clause  (p.  301, 
I.  12)  stating  that  Barnabas  was  buried  in  a  cave  *  where  the  nation  of 
the  Jebusites  formerly  dwelt '  is  noteworthy,  as  suggesting  a  reminiscence 
of  old  Phoenician  settlements  in  Cyprus, 

To  any  one  who  knows  M,  Bonnet*s  work  it  would  seem  almost 
impertinent  to  say  that  this  volume  is  edited  with  the  most  punctilious 
accuracy.  The  texts  with  which  he  has  dealt  have  been  transmitted  in 
a  most  puzzling  condition:  it  must  often  have  seemed  to  him  hardly 
worth  while  to  comb  out  and  set  in  order  the  broken  strands  of  such  a 
book  as  the  Acts  of  Philip.  But  the  task  has  been  done  and  weU 
done,  and  the  indefatigable  editor  well  deserves  all  the  gratitude  which 
a  growing  band  of  readers  is  ready  to  pay  him. 


REVIEWS  293 

Die  alien  Petrusakten  im  Zusatnmenhang  der  apokrypken  AposteU 
iitteratur,  nebst  einem  neuenideckten  Fragment^  untersucht  von  Carl 
Schmidt.    (Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  N.  F.,  IX.  i.    Leipzig,  1903.) 

In  this  exceedingly  interesting  little  volume,  Dr.  Schmidt  presents  us 
first  with  a  new  Coptic  fragment  of  the  ancient  Acts  of  St  Peter,  and 
then  proceeds  to  upset  all  our  views  as  to  the  character  of  the 
Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  two  parts  of  his  book  may  well 
be  considered  separately. 

The  fragment  which  he  publishes  for  the  first  time  is  found  filling  up 
a  few  spare  leaves  in  the  very  important  Coptic  manuscript,  acquired 
by  Berlin  some  few  years  ago,  which  contains  copies  of  two  or  three 
previously  imknown  Gnostic  books.  Dr.  Schmidt  is  engaged  in 
editing  the  whole  volume ;  and  this  fragment  of  the  Petrine  Acts  is  the 
first-fruits  of  his  work.  He  is  also,  it  may  be  remembered,  working  at 
the  unedited  Coptic  fragments  of  the  Acts  of  Paul  These  cannot  see 
the  light  too  soon. 

The  fragment  before  us  contains  a  well-defined  episode :  that  of  the 
paral;ged  daughter^pf  St_£fiter.  We  are  familiar  with  a  garbled  form 
of  her  story,  through  the  medium  of  the  Acts  of  Nereus  and  Achilleus, 
and  of  the  Legenda  Aurea,  In  the  Coptic  fragment  the  tale  is  as 
follows : — 

It  is  a  sabbath,  and  Peter  has  been  healing  the  sick  (as  Dr.  Schmidt 
holds,  at  Jerusalem).  One  of  those  present  asks  the  Apostle  why,  if  he 
possesses  the  power  to  heal  others,  he  allows  his  own  daughter  to  be 
paralysed  in  his  house.  Peter  replies  that  it  is  not  because  God  is 
powerless  to  heal  her :  and,  turning  to  her,  he  bids  her  rise  and  come 
to  him.  When  all  are  rejoicing  and  marvelling,  he  bids  her  return  to 
her  bed,  and  she  does  so,  and  becomes  helpless  as  before.  The  people 
all  beg  Peter  to  heal  her  permanently,  but  he  refuses  and  gives  the 
reason  for  his  refusal.  At  the  time  of  the  child's  birth,  the  Lord  had 
warned  him  that  she  would  be  a  stumbling-block  to  many  souls  if  she 
remained  in  health;  but  he,  Peter,  thought  the  vision  a  mocking 
delusion.  However,  when  the  girl  was  ten  years  old  a  rich  man  named 
Ptolemaeus  fell  in  love  with  her.  [At  this  point  a  leaf  is  gone,  but  we 
can  see  clearly  that  Ptolemaeus  must  have  tried  to  carry  the  girl  off, 
and  that  she  was  struck  with  palsy.]  Ptolemaeus  brought  her  home  to 
her  own  door,  where  her  parents  took  her  in,  and  then  himself  fell  into 
a  desperate  condition  of  grief,  and  wept  himself  blind.  He  was  con- 
templating suicide  when  a  vision  came  to  him  and  told  him  to  go  to 
Peter.  Peter  opened  the  eyes  alike  of  his  body  and  his  soul.  Shortly 
afterwards  he  died,  leaving  a  piece  of  land  to  Peter's  daughter :  this 
Peter  sold,  and  gave  the  price  to  the  poor. 


294         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

When  Peter  bad  finished  his  story,  and  had  further  addressed  the 
congregation,  he  distributed  the  bread  to  them,  and  when  he  had  dooe 
S0|  he  arose  and  returned  to  his  house. 


In  the  Acts  of  Nereus  and  Achilleus  the  daughter  (nameless  in  the 
new  fragment)  is  christened  Petronilla — probably  after  a  Roman  saint ; 
and  under  this  name  she  survives  in  Western  Kalendars.  The  lover  is 
called  Flaccus,  and  the  story  is  so  handled  that  Petronilla  is  cured  and 
then  dies,  while  Flaccus  apparently  lives  on.  Earlier  allusions  to  the 
episode  are  found  in  the  Acts  of  Philip,  which  assign  no  name  to  the 
daughter. 

The  fragment  is  chiefly  valuable  as  giving  us  the  first  form  of  a 
rather  famous  legend;  it  contains  no  specially  interesting  doctrinal 
teaching,  and  not  much  is  likely  to  be  added  to  what  Dr.  Schmidt  has 
said  about  it. 

He  devotes  only  twenty- five  pages  to  the  new  document.  The 
remaining  140  pages  are  occupied  with  a  most  important  and  interesting 
discussion  of  the  whole  question  of  the  '  Leucian  *  Acts.  I  can  pretend 
to  do  little  more  than  present  his  chief  conclusions. 

The  position  with  regard  to  the  Leucian  Acts  must  first  be  stated 
quite  briefly. 

We  possess,  in  whole  or  in  part,  five  specially  famous  books  (and 
circulated  in  a  corpus)  dealing  with  the  lives  of  Apostles ;  namely, 
the  Acts  of  Peterj  Paul,  John»  Thomas,  and  Andrew.  In  the  time  of 
Photius  the  name  of  Leucius  Charinus  was  associated  with  all  of  these 
books,  as  that  of  the  author. 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  Leucius  was  a  name  which  occurred  as 
that  of  an  eyewitness  and  narrator  in  the  Acts  of  John ;  but  it  has  also 
been  contended  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  John  was  also  the  author 
of  the  Acts  of  Petefj  and  very  probably  of  the  Acts  of  Andrew  as 
well. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  the  Acts  of  Paul  were  not  the  work  of 
this  same  writer ;  and  that  the  Acts  of  Thomas  cannot  be  regarded  as 
his  work.  Of  the  former  it  is  on  record  that  they  were  written  by  a 
presbyter  of  Asia  to  do  honour  to  St  Paul ;  of  the  latter  it  is  held  by 
many  that  they  were  originally  written  in  Syriac.  The  Acts  of  Peter,  of 
John,  and  of  Andrew,  therefore,  form  a  group  somewhat  distinct  from 
the  others.  Their  author  is  usually  described  as  a  person  of  Docetic 
views  and  a  Gnostic  of  some  ill-defined  sort 

To  several  of  these  positions  Dr.  Schmidt  brings  a  decided  negative. 
According  to  him,  the  only  Acts  which  ought  to  be  called  Leucian  are 
those  of  John.  The  Acts  of  Peter  are  by  a  different  hand.  Further, 
all  these  Acts  are  by  more  or  less  orthodox  Catholics :  certainly  none 


i 


REVIEWS  295 

of  them  are  Gnostic.  '  Der  gnostische  Apostelroman '  (he  says,  on 
p.  129)  *ist  fur  mich  ein  Phantom/ 

In  dealing  with  the  Acts  of  Peter,  Dr.  Schmidt  points  out  that  there 
are  traces  of  borrowing  from  the  Preaching  of  Peter  (as  Zahn  had  sug- 
gested), from  the  Acts  of  Paul  (here  agreeing  with  Hamack),  and  to  a 
very  large  extent  from  the  Acts  of  John.  The  intimate  resemblance 
between  Feter  2xsAJohn  is  demonstrated  by  me  in  Apocrypha  Anecdota^ 
II  xxiv  sqq.,  where  I  support  the  thesis  that  the  author  of  the  two  books 
was  one  and  the  same.  Dr.  Schmidt's  general  view  of  the  situation 
(p.  99)  is  as  follows :  the  analysis  of  the  sources  of  the  Acts  of  Peter 
shews  that  the  author  made  special  and  express  use  of  the  Acts  of 
John,  along  with  other  writings,  and  that  the  striking  resemblances  are 
not  to  be  referred  to  the  authorship  of  Leucius  or  of  a  like-minded 
disciple.  To  Leucius  belongs  the  honour  of  having  composed  the  first 
Apostle-romance:  beyond  his  own  expectations,  he  broke  ground 
thereby  for  a  new  form  of  Christian  literature:  for  his  example  was 
quickly  followed  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  Paul — himself  a  native  of 
Asia  Minor — and  the  pseudo-Peter  wrote  his  romance,  standing  on  the 
shoulders  of  both. 

As  to  the  date  of  Peter^  Dr.  Schmidt  would  place  the  book  at  latest 
in  the  first  decade  of  the  third  century:  herein  disagreeing  with 
Hamack,  who  prefers  the  middle  of  the  same  century  \ 

Whether  Dr.  Schmidt  is  right  or  wrong  in  his  contention,  it  is  quite 
certain  that  what  he  has  to  say  merits  most  careful  consideration.  It 
should  be  remembered  for  one  thing  that  he  has  made  a  special  study 
of  Gnosticism,  and  there  is  a  strong  probability  a  priori  ihsX  if  a  docu- 
ment is  pronounced  by  him  not  to  be  Gnostic,  Gnostic  it  is  not.  Yet 
I  cannot  profess  myself  a  complete  convert  at  the  moment.  I  feel 
difficulties  especially  with  regard  to  a  passage  in  the  Acts  of  John 
with  which  Dr.  Schmidt  has  dealt  (p.  127).  It  is  in  the  Hymn  of 
Christ 

oyboa^  Ilia  ^fiiv  (rv/i^dXXci.     o/a^k 
rh  hi  Skov  a\6pfvrov  vrrap^^tt,      cifi^v, 

I  had  conjectured  that  between  the  first  and  second  line  a  sentence 
was  missing  which  made  mention  of  a  Decad,  and  thus  filled  up  the 
ordinary  Gnostic  number  of  aeons,  namely,  thirty.     Dr.  Schmidt  thinks 

^  It  is  important,  in  estimating  the  Catholicity  of  the  Petrine  Acts,  to  remember 
that  the  integrity  of  our  chief  text  of  them  (the  Latin  version  called  Actus  Vtrctl- 
Unses)  has  been  challenged  of  late  with  good  show  of  reason  by  von  DobschQtz  and 
Ficker.  There  is  a  possibility  that  this  may  be  an  expurgated  text  The  new 
Coptic  fragment,  moreover,  as  von  DobschQtz  reminds  us,  whether  Gnostic  or  not, 
is  found  in  company  with  undoubtedly  Gnostic  writings. 


296         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

that  I  am  hunting  for  mysteries  where  none  exist.  The  Dodecad 
merely  the  Zodiacal  circle,  the  Ogdoad  the  seven  Planets,  with  the 
Kosmokrator,  i.e.  Satan,  at  their  head.  But,  I  would  ask,  is  it 
admissible  to  suppose  that  the  Kosmokrator  or  Satan  joined  in  the 
exultation  of  the  Redeemer  who  was  just  about  to  overthrow  his 
power?  And,  again,  was  it  (to  say  the  least)  prudent  in  the  more 
or  less  Catholic  Leucius  to  employ  terms  such  as  Ogdoad  and 
Dodecad,  which  he  must  have  knowTi  to  be  specially  characteristic  of 
Gnostic  systems? 

In  another  passage,  Leucius  speaks  of  f}  KarcanKTf  ^ifa,  d<fi'  ?}s  (^naaay  rwr 
yivofMumtf  TtpoiikBtv  (^t-rrtr.  Uoes  not  this  imply  an  essentially  dualistic 
view?  And,  yet  again,  is  not  there  a  very  close  correspondence 
between  the  Gnostic  teaching  reported  by  Irenaeus  (I  3.  5),  on  the 
function  of  the  u,}*>s  and  <jrrovp6i^  and  the  speech  of  Christ  to  John 
about  the  Cross,  Points  such  as  these  are  to  me  a  real  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  supposing  Leucius  not  to  have  been  under  the  influence 
of  what  is  called  'Gnostic'  thought  I  am  aware  that  the  certainly 
Gnostic  writings  we  possess,  such  as  the  Books  of  Jtu  and  the  Pistis 
Sophia^  are  far  more  overt  in  their  exposition  of  a  system  ;  and  also 
that  one  must  be  prepared  for  the  appearance  of  very  odd  doctrinal 
views  in  non-Gnostic  early  Christian  literature:  'archaic'  Dr.  Schmidt 
calls  them ;  '  erratic '  seems  at  least  as  fair  a  name.  But  I  cannot 
help  seeing  on  the  other  hand  that  the  Pistis  Sophia  and  its  congeners 
are»  regarded  as  literature,  absolutely  contemptible,  while  Leucius  is 
a  man  of  considerable  culture  and  literary  skill,  and  wishes  to  be  read- 
able. There  is  nothing,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  absurd  in  the  supposition 
that  he  was  a  'Gnostic ',  and  one  who  did  not  feel  it  his  function  to  set 
forth  a  system,  but  rather  presupposed  it,  and  let  it  occasionally  peep 
through  his  narratives  and  discourses. 

I  should  like  to  follow  Dr.  Schmidt  through  his  acute  analysis 
of  the  patristic  evidence  about  the  Ltucian  Acts :  but  this  is  more 
than  can  be  done  in  the  compass  of  a  short  notice.  In  what  I 
have  written,  not  nearly  all  of  the  points  made  by  our  author  have 
been  noticed  ^  I  only  hope  that  enough  has  been  said  to  draw 
attention  to  the  book  and  to  give  some  idea  how  well  worth  reading 
it  is. 

M.  R.  James. 


REVIEWS  297 


A  MONASTIC  CHARTULARY. 

Chartulary  of  the  Abbey  of  Lindores,  1 195-1479,  edited  from  the 
original  manuscript  at  Caprington  Castle,  Kilmarnock,  with  transla- 
tion and  abstracts  of  the  charters,  illustrative  notes,  and  appendices, 
by  the  Right  Rev.  John  Dowden,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Edinburgh. 
(Scottish  History  Society,  1903.     Pp.  xcv,  351.) 

Monastic  chartularies  have  usually  been  published  by  persons 
interested  primarily  in  the  local  history  which  they  illustrate.  It  is 
the  exception  when  the  editor  displays  more  than  antiquarian  know- 
ledge ;  most  commonly,  with  his  attention  fixed  on  names  of  places  and 
men,  he  would  be  quite  unable  to  describe  how  the  system  of  the 
monastery  worked  and  how  it  fitted  into  the  general  organization  of 
the  Church.  There  is  therefore  cause  for  thankfulness  when  so  well- 
equipped  an  ecclesiastical  scholar  as  the  Bishop  of  Edinburgh  takes 
a  task  of  this  sort  in  hand.  The  Abbey  of  Lindores  in  Fife  was  not  an 
important  one,  and  its  documents  have  few  specially  marked  features ; 
but  the  bishop  has  succeeded  in  making  his  materials  the  text  for  a 
singularly  illuminating  study  of  the  ecclesiastical  conditions  of  Scotland 
in  the  later  middle  ages.  The  subjects  dealt  with  in  his  introduction  are 
unfortunately  not  indicated  in  the  table  of  contents :  we  may  call  atten- 
tion to  the  sections  on  the  endowment  of  the  monastery  (pp.  xxviii-liii), 
on  *the  process  of  the  transfer  of  parish  churches  to  monasteries  in 
proprios  usus  \  on  *  second  tithes  *,  and  on  private  chapels  (pp.  Iviii- 
Ixxiii).  It  should  be  noted,  by  the  way,  that  on  p.  xliii  the  bishop 
seems  to  date  the  establishment  of  *  perpetual  vicarages ',  as  a  normal 
institution,  too  early. 

The  Abbey  of  Lindores  was  founded,  probably  before  1191,  by 
David  earl  of  Huntingdon,  brother  to  kings  Malcolm  and  William  the 
Lion,  by  means  of  a  colony  from  Kelso.  The  chartulary  was  compiled 
about  seventy  years  later,  but  considerable  additions  were  made  during 
the  two  following  centuries.  It  is  here  printed  in  full,  even  when  the 
same  document  has  been  entered  twice  over.  The  book  having  been 
wrongly  bound  and  paged,  it  has  been  necessary  to  rearrange  it,  but 
only  to  the  extent  of  placing  ff.  29-88  before  ff.  4-28.  The  text  is 
printed  without  change,  except  in  the  punctuation ;  even  proper  names, 
by  an  extreme  of  fidelity,  have  been  left  without  capitals  where  they  are 
so  written  in  the  original.  Mere  slips  in  the  manuscript  are  usually 
corrected  with  a  marginal  note ;  but  not  always  (e.  g.  maiores  persone 
conuentus  nostre^  p.  160).  Each  document  is  followed  by  an  abstract  or, 
in  a  few  cases,  by  a  translation,  in  English.  These  extracts  are  not  only 
excellendy  done,  but  often  serve  the  purpose  of  a  commentary.     It 


298        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

would,  howcfcr,  have  been  a  good  dixng  if  the  pbn  of  tnimbtfng 
proper  names  (as  astiarmSy  *  Dorwazd'  pp.  95-^7)  had  been  nnifonnly 
carried  out.    Thomas  de  Camoto  appears  as  *de  CamoC'  (pp.  173^ 
tbooghhea  r^tlj  identified  with  Sir  Tbomas  of  Chazteris  in  the  note 
(p.   277).      To  translate  cofuelitrtt  tdaem  ^gens  bj   *actii^    for  die 
diancellor'  (p^    iii\  at  a  time  when  Innocent  III  had    not  yet 
appointed  a  chancellor,  may  be  mtdeading.    Tbe  En^ish  student  will 
be  refreshed  by  seeing  the  ^miliar  terms  of  the  deeds  rendered  into 
the  peculiar  language  of  Scottish  law  (thus  'compearance',  'poinds', 
*wad',  'stangs  and  live-pools');   but  except  for  a  few  phrases  like 
*  cane' and 'conveth',  there  is  little  to  disdngoish  them  from  docmnents 
drawn  up  south  of  the  Tweed.    The  editor  has  taken  great  pains  in 
fixing  the  dates  of  the  charters ;  bat  it  woold  have  been  more  con- 
▼enient  if  he  had  always  noted  them  at  the  foot  of  the  page  rather  than 
at  the  end  of  the  volume,  or  indeed  (as  not  infrequently  occurs)  in  both 
places.    He  is  also  apt  to  be  too  elaborate  in  expounding  dironological 
details  which  the  reader  might  be  left  to  take  on  trust  or  to  explore  for 
himself  (see  the  notes  on  the  dates  of  Innocent  IV  on  pp.  iiS,  120, 
and  on  the  Sunday  known  as  Oatli  ma\  p.  255).    There  is  a  tendency 
to  repetition  (see  the  explanations  of  the  bishop's  official,  pp.  356,  268), 
which  sometimes  leads  to  discrepancies.    On  p.  246  Bishop  Abraham 
of  Dunblane  is  said  to  have  been  bishop  'before  1217',  on  p.  249 
•1214-1223',  on  p.  250  *c,  z2i4-<.  1324',  and  on  p.  258  *i2i6?- 
1224?';  but  if  John,  prior  of  May,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  same 
charter  with  Bishop  Abraham  (pp.  43  ff.),  was  'succeeded  before  12 14 
by  William '  (p.  249),  it  is  clear  that  the  bishop's  consecration  must 
have  taken  place  eariier.    We  have  noticed  but  few  oversights  (e.g. 
*Premonstratensian  monks 'p.  264;  *Gualo'  for  *Guido*  p.  303,  line 
3z).     For  Scottish  readers  it  may  have  been  unnecessary  to  ex^^tn 
CasteUum  (or  Castrum)  Puellarum  (pp.  i,  271).     Liturgical  students 
will  be  interested  in  the  appearance  in  the  chapel  of  Dunmore  in  1253 
of  umtm  missale  in  quo  continetur  pscdUrium^  ympnarium^  Ugendci^  et 
antiphanariumy  et  totum  pUnarium  seruicium  todus  anni  (pp.   71  f ). 
The  learned  skill  with  which  the  editor  has  everywhere  treated  the 
questions  of  Scottish  history  suggested  by  his  book  can  only  be  referred 
to  generally  in  this  Journal. 

Reginald  L.  Poole. 


REVIEWS  299 


INDIVIDUALISM  AND   AUTHORITY. 

God  and  the  Individual,  and  Authority  in  the  Church,   By  T.  B.  Strong, 
D.D.,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

In  order  to  understand  a  book,  it  has  been  said,  one  should  first 
observe  the  object  of  its  polemic.  The  object  against  which  the  Dean 
of  Christ  Church  directs  his  polemic  in  God  and  the  Individual  is,  in 
name  at  least,  quite  clear.  The  book  is  an  attack  upon  Individualism 
in  Religion.  This  term,  however,  is  used  in  a  sense  so  exceedingly 
comprehensive  as  considerably  to  impair  the  practical  usefulness  of 
these  addresses.  For  the  book  is  not  a  mere  historical  study ;  it  is  an 
essay  in  Pastoral  Theology.  What  we  are  told  about  the  origin  of  this 
volume  makes  it  clear  that  it  is  intended  to  serve  a  practical  end — to 
give  guidance  to  clergymen  in  the  actual  conflict  with  Individualism 
which  they  are  waging  in  their  parishes.  It  is  in  this  view  that  the 
book  will  be  read ;  and  it  is  this  consideration  which  gives  it  its  chief 
impKjrtance. 

Regarded,  then,  as  a  piece  of  Pastoral  Theology,  how  is  it  to  be 
judged  ?  As  an  example  to  the  clergy  of  industry  and  scholarly  method 
in  the  reading  of  Scripture  it  is  worthy  of  all  praise.  But  in  relation  to 
the  conflict  between  Individualism  and  the  *  Sacramental  System '  many 
of  those  who  have  been  able  to  observe  this  conflict  at  close  quarters 
will  see  reason  to  doubt  whether  Dr.  Strong  has  succeeded  in  speaking 
the  word  in  season.  The  clergy  are  too  much  disposed  already  to 
believe  that  the  Individualism  to  which  they  are  opposing  themselves 
flourishes  only  upon  ignorance  of  philosophy  and  history.  What  is  most 
needed  is  not  to  confirm  this  prejudice ;  but  to  lead  them  to  examine 
critically  their  own  position.  Looked  at  in  this  light  these  addresses 
make  a  disappointing  book. 

For  the  Dean  shews  no  sign  that  he  has  understood  where  the 
strength  of  Individualism — and  the  weakness  of  the  ordinary  clergyman 
in  dealing  with  it — really  lies.  It  has  been  admirably  said  by  the  late 
Dr.  Moberly  that  *  whether  God  forgives  a  man  or  not  depends  wholly 
and  only  upon  whether  the  man  is  or  is  not  forgivable.  He  who  can 
be  forgiven  by  Love  and  Truth,  is  forgiven  by  Love  and  Truth,  instantly, 
absolutely,  without  failure  or  doubt.  ...  In  God,  forgiveness  upon  the 
necessary  conditions  so  acts  as  if  it  were  self-acting  .  .  .  penitence,  so 
far  as  it  is  penitence,  never  by  any  possibility  failing  of  pardon'^.  Now 
these  words,  though  not  quite  the  sort  of  language  which  they  them- 
selves would  naturally  use,  express  with  great  force  the  central  con- 

^  Aiofununi  and  Ptrsonality  pp.  57,  60. 


( 


30O  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


viction  of  those  Individualists  with  whom  the  clergy  have  in  feet  to 
deal.  And  the  reason  why  these  people  suspect  and  resist  much  of  the 
sacramental  teaching  which  they  hear  b  just  because  it  appears  to  them 
to  assail  this  central  conviction,  li,  they  say,  the  penitent  man  can 
never  fail  of  pardon,  how  can  pardon  be  said  in  any  sense  to  depend 
upon  Sacraments?  And  the  clergyman  in  answering  them  often  fears 
to  admit  their  premiss  because  he  does  not  see  how  he  can  then  avoid 
their  conclusion.  Thus  he  speaks  with  uncertain  voice»  Using  some- 
times language  like  Dr.  Moberly's,  he  prefers  at  other  times  to  use  the 
language  of  teachers  who  speak  in  a  contrary  sense ;  the  language,  say, 
of  Dr.  Mason'  or  Mr.  Darwell  Stone*,  who— in  curious  contrast  with 
Dr.  Moberly's  'instantly,  absolutely,  without  failure  or  doubt' — teach 
expressly  that  St  Paul  was  uncleansed,  unforgiven,  and  under  God's 
wrath  during  the  time  which  intervened  between  his  conversion  and  his 
baptism.  And  in  thus  assailing  Individualism  where  it  is  strong,  the 
clergy  forfeit  the  confidence  of  many  who  might  be  disposed  to  agree 
with  their  attacks  upon  Indi\idualism  where  it  is  weak. 

Sttrely»  then,  what  we  most  need  to  shew  is  that  a  belief  in  the 
absolute  certainty  of  pardon  for  the  f>enitent  is  in  no  way  inconsistent 
with  a  high  view  of  Sacraments — with  the  belief  that  '  the  material 
vehicles  not  merely  symbolize  but  cowvty  spiritual  effects '  \  As  an 
open  proclamation  of  God's  love,  the  Sacraments  produce  and  maintain 
in  us  the  j)enitent  attitude,  and  so  bring  the  very  grace  which  they 
symbolize.  In  believing  in,  and  in  proclaiming,  God's  pardon,  the 
Church  finds  God  s  pardon.  And  therefore  *  the  material  side  of  the 
Sacrament  *  is  not  something  *  wholly  apart  *  *  from  the  spiritual  idea 
which  it  presents.  The  outward  act  is  essentially  an  element  in  that 
common  life  of  Christians  in  which  the  penitent  mind  naturally  lives 
and  grows.  But  the  maintenance  of  this  truth  does  not  require  us 
to  deny  that  when,  by  whatsoever  means,  a  man  has  actually  been 
brought  to  true  repentance,  then,  baptized  or  unbaptLzed,  shriven  or 
unshriven,  he  is  assuredly  pardoned.  In  other  words,  we  need  to  draw 
a  careful  distinction  between  the  assertion  that  the  Sacraments  are 
genuinely  means  of  grace,  and  the  assertion  that  the  individual  can 
never  count  upon  receiving  grace  without  them. 

But,  far  from  drawing  any  distinction  of  this  kind,  the  Dean,  by 
grouping  together  a  number  of  separate  propositions  under  the  one 
rarae  Individualism,  and  then  warning  us  against  Individualism  in 
general,  seems  rather  to  add  to  the  confusion.  When  be  argues  that 
the  Church  is  more  than  *an  accidental  combination  of  individuals, 
who  enter  into  partnership  for  purposes  of  mutual  encouragement  and 


>  FaUk  cftk%  Gospel,  edition  of  1893,  p.  289. 
'  p.  90- 


»  Holy  Ba^m  p.  35. 


REVIEWS  301 

convenience ' ' ;  when  he  condemns  the  view  which  treats  the  Sacra- 
ments as  'impediments  rather  than  helps'*;  when  he  maintains  that  the 
community  should  recognize  that  it  has  an  interest  in  the  whole  spiritual 
life  of  the  individual ',  his  position  is  a  very  strong  one.  But  these 
contentions  do  not  prove  that  the  individual  can  never  be  right  in 
refusing  Sacraments  or  claiming  a  position  for  himself  over  against  the 
body  *.  It  is  one  thing  to  say  that  *  the  normal  condition  of  Christian 
men  is  membership  of  the  one  Body '  •.  It  is  quite  another  thing  to 
say  that  it  is  *  only  by  entering  the  Body ' — if  by  this  word  we  mean,  as 
the  Dean  does,  the  outward  organization  of  the  Church— that  *  the  tiue 
relation  between  God  and  the  individual  soul  is  established '  *,  Yet  the 
Dean  passes  lightly  from  the  one  statement  to  the  other,  as  if  ther6 
were  no  difference  between  them.  That  a  *  triangular  relation '  should 
subsist  between  God,  the  Soul,  and  the  Church,  is  certainly  far  from 
realizing  the  full  Christian  ideal.  But  whenever  in  unhappy  times 
a  reformer  finds  the  organized  Church  opposed  to  reformation,  this 
triangular  relation  at  once  arises :  and  so  far  as  we  believe  the  reformer 
to  bear  a  message  from  God  we  must  admit  his  right  to  claim  a  position 
*  over  against '  the  community.  If  the  Church  then  cuts  him  off  from 
the  Sacraments,  associating  them  with  doctrines  or  practices  to  which 
he  cannot  assent,  we  cannot  hold  that  this  act  of  the  Church  disturbs 
his  relations  with  God. 

The  confused  treatment  of  this  subject  is  in  harmony  with  a  certain 
inconsequence  of  reasoning  which  runs  through  the  whole  book.  It  is 
specially  strange,  for  example,  that  Dr.  Strong  should  regard  his  approval 
of  the  plan  by  which,  in  the  matter  of  Sacramental  Confession,  the 
Church  of  England  leaves  every  one  to  do  as  he  likes  as  the  natural 
outcome  of  his  criticisms  upon  Individualism  ^. 

And  what  exactly  is  Dr.  Strong's  attitude  towards  intellectual  free- 
dom? Wherever,  he  says,  the  'negatively  individualistic'  point  of 
view  has  reigned,  *we  have  had  a  tendency  to  be  suspicious  of  any 
policy  which  seemed  to  curtail  the  untrammelled  freedom  of  individual 
action  and  thought '  ■.  In  what  circumstances,  then,  would  Dr.  Strong 
approve  a  *  policy '  which  aimed  at  curtailing  freedom  of  thought  ? 

This  book  is  worth  reading,  and  worth  keeping,  if  it  were  only  for 
the  vigorous  words  in  which  it  describes  how  the  Death  and  Resurrection 
of  Christ  become  *  part  and  parcel '  of  a  man's  life,  how  *  he  dates  back 
to  them ',  how  *  their  efficacy  spreads  itself  over  his  life,  instead  of  the 
facts  of  Adam's  fall  and  sinfulness ',  so  that  *  to  be  in  Christ  is  to  live  in 
a  new  moral  atmosphere'*.  Such  words  tend  to  quicken  the  experience 
which  they  pourtray.     It  is  all  the  more  to  be  regretted  that  these 

>  Holy  Baptism  p.  5.         •  p.  vi.        •  p.  48.         *  p.  44-        *  P-  39-         *  P«  41- 
'  p.  ix.  •  p.  51.  •  p.  40. 


3P2         THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


addresses  must  do  much  towards  perpetuating  a  confusion  of  thought 
which  has  long  done  grave  injury  to  the  work  of  realous  and  holy 
men. 

In  Authority  in  the  Church — a  book  in  many  ways  very  similar  in 
aim  to  God  and  the  Individual — Dr.  Strong  seeks  to  discuss,  in  the 
light  of  general  principles^  some  of  the  subjects  which  enter  into  current 
ecclesiastical  controversies.  We  ought  to  be  sincerely  grateful  to  any  one 
who  insists  on  stating  clearly  those  deeper  and  wider  interests  and 
principles  which,  at  every  phase  of  these  disputes,  all  good  men  have 
reiilly  at  heart ;  and  the  appearance  of  such  a  book  as  this  in  a  series  of 
*  Handbooks  for  the  Clergy '  is  for  various  reasons  a  hopeful  sign. 
Perhaps  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  defects  of  the  ordinary  sermon 
is  that  it  shews  so  little  trace  of  the  influence  of  modem  methods  of 
studying  history.  This  defect  Dr.  Strong's  handbook,  as  a  conscientious 
attempt  to  sum  up  in  small  compass  the  results  of  wide  reading,  may 
do  something  to  remedy.  We  owe  special  gratitude  for  the  guarded 
admission  on  p.  112  that  in  the  earliest  days  the  Threefold  Name  may 
not  have  been  included  in  the  doctrine  which  the  Apostles  taught. 
This  admission  will  be  of  use  if  it  merely  suggests  caution  with  regard 
to  matters  where  dogmatic  assertion  has  been  not  uncommon. 

The  Dean's  main  philosophical  contention  concerns  the  relation 
between  authority  and  conscience.  He  shews  how  the  authority  of 
the  State  may  rightly  be  regarded  as  resting  upon  conscience:  as  indeed 
a  'kind  of  embodied  conscience'*.  As  'men  cannot  fulfil  their  true 
functions  in  life  except  by  social  intercourse  and  combination '  *,  we 
ought  not  to  regard  organized  social  life  as  a  sort  of  necessary  evil. 
The  State  '  exists  in  order  to  the  evolution  of  a  moral  ideal ' ;  *  it  is 
a  moral  organism — the  form  in  which  man's  true  nature  is  clearly 
expressed  '  *.  Though  there  is  no  reason  to  regard  the  utterance  of  the 
State-conscience  at  any  stage  as  final*,  the  individual  is  but  rarely 
justified  in  opposing  it*. 

The  Dean  next  proceeds  to  shew  how  the  principle  of  authority  may 
enter  into  the  intellectual  sphere.  Just  as  the  foundation  of  the 
authority  of  the  State  is  to  be  traced  to  the  social  element  in  man's 
nature,  so  *a  similar  social  element  underiies  the  intellectual  acceptance 
of  historical  data :  we  believe  men's  evidence  because  we  recognize 
our  kinship  with  them'*.  And  then,  turning  to  the  specific  question 
of  the  authority  of  the  Church,  he  claims  for  the  Church  a  position 
similar  to  that  of  a  witness  whose  testimony  we  accept  without  positive 
proof.  In  believing  *  on  the  authority  of  the  Church  ^"^  the  fact  of  the 
Resurrection,  'there  must  always',  he  says,  *be  an  element  of  pure 

■  AtUiumty  in  tkt  Church  p.  lu  '  p.  94. 

*  p.  la.  "p.  55- 


I 


I 


I 


I 


REVIEWS  303 

acceptance  of  a  statement  only  paitially  demonstrable '  ^  And  thus 
he  professes  to  have  found  for  authority  a  sphere  in  which  it  is  inde- 
pendent of  reason  and  supplementary  to  it. 

But  here,  surely,  he  is  less  successful  than  in  his  analysis  of  what  is 
implied  in  the  authority  of  the  State.  It  is  quite  true  that  in  believing 
witnesses  we  are  believing  something  that  we  cannot  *  demonstrate '  in 
the  strictest  sense  of  that  word.  But  we  utterly  misrepresent  the  truth 
of  the  matter  if  we  say  that,  in  the  case  of  testimony,  rational  demon- 
stration carries  us  a  certain  distance,  and  then,  when  it  fails,  our  faith 
in  the  witness  comes  to  our  rescue  and  carries  us  further.  To  the  very 
end  our  certainty  is  something  quite  clearly  distinguishable  from  that 
which  depends  on  mathematical  proof,  but  so  far  as  we  have  certainty 
at  all— and  we  habitually  speak  of  historical  statements  as  'proved' — 
this  certainty  is  entirely  based  on  grounds  of  reason.  The  trust- 
worthiness of  our  witnesses  is  part  of  what  we  seek  to  demonstrate. 
We  believe  them  just  so  far  as  we  have  good  reason  to  think  that  they 
are  speaking  the  truth.  Would  Dr.  Strong  say  that  we  ought  to  trust 
them  even  further  than  this  ?  If  not,  his  attempt  to  claim  for  authority 
a  position  *  over  against '  reason  breaks  down  entirely. 

Thus  we  seem  to  find  here  a  somewhat  similar  defect  to  that  which 
marks  the  Dean's  smaller  volume.  His  central  principle  here  seems 
sound ;  his  opinions  on  current  questions  are  stated  with  clearness  and 
common  sense — they  are  in  fact  (except  where  in  the  field  of  historical 
research  he  has  felt  his  way  to  something  more  original)  the  views  of 
a  moderately  Conservative  Anglicanism — but  the  connexion  between 
the  central  principle  and  its  applications  is  by  no  means  easy  to  see. 

For  example,  he  protests  against  the  'relaxation  of  formularies  for 
the  benefit  of  Candidates  for  Holy  Orders '  •,  and  contends  that  *  there 
is  a  body  of  doctrine  to  which  the  Church  ought  to  require  assent  as 
a  condition  of  full  membership".  If,  he  argues,  the  authorities  of 
the  Church  had  adopted  certain  critical  theories  which  flourished  in 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  they  would  have  forfeited  their 
right  to  be  heard  on  any  question  of  theology  and  would  have  placed 
the  Church  in  a  very  foolish  position*.  And,  no  doubt,  if  we  had 
canonized  Strauss  or  beatified  Baur ;  if  we  had  proclaimed  as  dogmas 
of  the  Church  some  of  the  least  well-founded  of  their  conclusions ;  if 
for  the  forms  of  worship  which  embody  the  traditional  doctrines  we 
had  substituted  newer  forms  in  which  these  doctrines  were  not  men- 
tioned, our  position  by  this  time  would  have  been  sadly  open  to  criticism, 
and  it  is  conceivable  that  in  devotional  force  and  literary  charm  our 
public  services  would  have  gained  but  little  by  these  changes.  But 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  had  merely  done  what  perhaps  is  all  that 

*  Authority  in  the  Church  p.  114.  '  p.  172.  ■  p.  169.  •  p.  173, 


THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


we  were  ever  seriously  asked  to  do^if  we  had  made  it  nnniistakeably 
plain  that  an  open  mind  on  critical  questions  was  not  by  itself  a  dis- 
qualification for  a  place  in  the  Church  or  Ministry — it  is  not  clear  that 
we  should  have  been  so  much  in  fault.  In  any  case  the  Dean's  opinions 
on  this  point  can  hardly  be  said  to  follow  necessarily  from  his  general 
doctrine  of  authority  as  it  stands. 

The  authorities  of  the  State  do  not  seek  to  exclude  from  rights 
of  citizenship  every  one  whose  policy  they  believe  to  be  contrary  to 
the  State's  best  interests.  On  the  Dean's  own  principles,  there  seems 
no  reason  why  an  attachment  to  the  traditional  doctrines  of  the  Church 
should  lead  us  to  approve  any  such  method  of  excommunication  as 
his  remark  about '  full  membership '  seems  to  recommend  And,  agam, 
what  connexion  is  there  between  his  analysis  of  the  general  claim  of 
the  Church  to  authority,  and  his  doctrine  that  the  Church  is  within 
its  rights  in  making  use  of  philosophical  terms,  but  exceeds  its  rights 
if  it  attempts  to  give  lo  those  terms  any  particular  meaning  *  ?  When 
he  enlarges  upon  the  *  advantages'  of  this  manner  of  using  Language, 
one  might  almost  suppose  him  to  be  ironical- 
It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  Dean's  method  of  bringing  *  theoretical 
discussion'  to  bear  upon  ecclesiastical  controversies  exists  rather  in 
intention  than  in  execution.  And  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that 
in  both  these  books — though  they  possess  conspicuous  merits — he  gives 
encouragement  to  that  loose  throwing  about  of  philosophic  phrases 
which  has  become  so  .fatally  common  in  recent  years.  We  ought, 
surely,  to  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  conscientious  obligation  to  mark  care- 
fully into  what  hive  it  is  that  we  are  permitting  the  honey  of  Idealist 
Criticism  to  be  carried. 

Charles  J.  Shebbeare, 


I 
I 


*  Authority  in  tlu  CAunk  pp.  118-119. 


M 


305 


CHRONICLE 

OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Volume  XIII  of  Hauck*s  Realencyclopadie  contains  contributions 
:o  Old  Testament  learning  from  Baudissin,  Buhl,  Guthe,  A.  Jeremias, 
A..  Klostermann,  von  Orelli,  and  Volck.  Mose  (von  Orelli)  follows 
the  Biblical  account  closely;  the  author  thinks  that  some  ancient 
pieces  (e.  g.  Deut.  xxxiii  minus  vv.  1-5)  are  the  work  of  the  Lawgiver. 
The  articles  Moloch,  Mond  bei  den  Hebraern,  and  Nanaia 
[Baudissin)  give  a  full  discussion  of  their  subjects.  Moab,  an  article 
eleven  pages  long,  comes  from  the  capable  hand  of  Fr.  Buhl.  Volck 
writes  short  accounts  of  Micah  (four  to  five  pages)  and  Nahum 
[two  and  a  half  pages).  A.  Jeremias  (as  in  former  volumes)  takes 
the  '  Assyriological '  articles,  Nebo,  Nergal.  Guthe's  article,  Negeb, 
shews  little  or  no  sympathy  with  Dr.  Cheyne's  views  concerning  that 
district;  perhaps  he  comes  nearest  when  he  remarks:  *Auch  ismae- 
[itische  Stamme  miissen  nach  Gen.  xxi  21;  xxv  18  wenigstens  die 
siidlichen  Teile  des  N.  durchzogen  haben '.  Above  he  writes :  *  Die 
Geschichte  dieser  durch  ihre  Stiirme  bekannten  Landschaft  (vgl. 
fes.  xxi  i)  liegt  zum  grossten  Teil  im  Dunkeln'.  The  article  Nehemia 
is  by  A.  Klostermann. 

Vol.  V  of  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia  contains  several  articles  on  Old 
Testament  subjects.  Ecclesiastes  is  by  Prof.  D.  S.  Margoliouth, 
i^ho  believes  that  the  inconsistency  in  the  sentiments  uttered  in 
different  parts  of  the  book  is  due  to  the  varying  moods  of  the  author, 
rather  than  to  diversity  of  authorship.  Prof.  Driver  contributes  a 
section  to  the  article  Exodus  on  the  critical  view  of  the  book,  and 
is  followed  by  Rabbi  Benno  Jacob  of  Gottingen  who  writes  a  section 
igainst  the  critics.  Rabbi  Jacob  holds  that  'the  alleged  double 
tradition  of  the  revelation,  and  especially  Wellhausen*s  so-called  second 
Decalogue  in  ch.  xxxiv,  are  mere  figments  of  the  brain'.  Ezekiel 
[the  prophet  and  his  book)  is  briefly  treated  by  Prof.  Comill. 

The  new  edition  of  the  late  Dr.  Robertson  Smith's  Kinship  and 
Marriage  in  Early  Arabia  embodies  corrections  made  by  the  author 
tiimself  and  contains  notes  by  Professors  I.  Goldziher  and  A.  A.  Bevan 
ind  by  Mr.  Stanley  Cook,  the  editor.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
the  original  work  is  a  book  of  great  interest  for  the  study  of  early 

VOL.  V.  X 


306  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


and  of  the  test  of  the  Old  Testament  Incidentally  it  throws 
m  good  deal  of  light  on  the  change  in  the  position  of  the  Arab  wife 
brought  about  bj  Isinn,  but  its  main  subjects  are  the  reckoning  of 
kinship  throagUi  wocneo  wfaoch  laigeJj  prevafled  in  early  Arabia,  and 
the  nature  of  the  rmom  kinds  of  marriage  practised  in  ancient  days 
amocig  the  Arabs.  There  is  an  index  of  Scripture  passages;  over 
twenty  places  of  Genesis  alone  are  dted.  This  new  edition  is  very 
welcome. 

Dr.  G.  Buchanan  Gray  has  written  a  Ml  and  painstaking  Com- 
tnentary  on  Numbers  for  the  Iniermaiimfal  Commentary.  Very  careful 
attention  is  paid  to  Philology  arui  to  the  higher  criticism  of  the  book. 
Dr  Gray's  work  is  of  great  merit,  and  the  criticisms  which  follow  are 
not  intended  to  take  away  any  of  the  force  of  this  verdict.  The  reader 
may  find  the  commentary  somewhat  too  wordy.  The  tone  again 
is  sometimes  oflf-hand ;  e.  g.  on  chap,  xi  1 7  Dr.  Gray  remarks  :  *  Moses 
poasesaea  the  ^irit  in  large  measure,  so  that  he  can  spare  enough  to 
enable  seventy  others  to  prophesy  for  the  nonce*.  Again  the  Com- 
mentator seems  sc  mewhat  too  ready  to  find  discrepancies  between  one 
passage  of  the  book  and  another :  e,  g.  in  what  he  writes  on  chap,  xi, 
beginning.  There  is  surely  no  serious  difficulty  in  reconciling  the 
demand  of  the  Israelites  for  flesh  (chap,  xi  4)  with  the  fact  that  it  is 
implied  in  chap,  xiv  I'h  ^^**  ^^  possessed  flocks.  What  the  people 
wanted  was  a  supply  of  fish  {ibid.  ver.  5)  or  fowl,  which  would  enable 
them  to  indulge  their  taste  for  fl^h  without  the  necessity  of  drawing 
upon  the  flocks  and  herds  which  formed  their  chief  wealth.  A  pastoral 
people  does  not  eat  its  money,  except  on  the  rare  occasion  of  a  feast, 
Moses  in  ver.  22  speaks  like  a  true  nomad.  Again,  the  want  of 
corr«pondence  which  Dr.  Gray  finds  between  chap,  xi  17  b  and  w. 
11-15  will  not  be  felt  by  his  readers.  Moses  appeals  to  Jehovah 
for  help,  and  Jehovah  gives  it.     The  prayer  is  answered  fully. 

Dr.  Gray's  Introduction  contains  a  few  things  open  to  criticism. 
In  discussing  the  title  the  interesting  heading  of  the  Peshitta  might 
have  been  mentioned,  Menyand  (* Number',  sing.),  a  name  derived 
from  chap,  i  2  aL  Menyana  is  written  without  seyami^  the  points 
which  mark  the  plural,  in  the  Lee  and  Urmi  editions  and  in  the 
Ambrosian  MS  and  in  the  oldest  dated  Pentateuch  (Brit.  Mus.  Add 
14,425).  On  page  xlviii  the  Commentator  betrays  a  curiously  prosaic 
attitude  of  mind,  for  he  writes,  *A  particularly  antique  conception 
appears  in  10",  where  the  ark  moves  of  its  own  accord,  and  is  addressed 
as  Yahweh  \ 

There  are  a  few  misprints  in  the  book.  On  pages  76,  77  the  symbols 
for  the  Samaritan  Version  and  the  Peshitta  are  interchanged.  On 
r  too  *  petulantly '  is  misprinted,  and  on  109  a  hiih  stands  for  hi. 


CHRONICLE 


307 


I 


Biblical  History  of  the  Hebmvs  {Cambridge  and  London^  1903) 
s  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev,  F.  ].  Foakes-Jackson^  B,D.  The  higher 
crilicism  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  historica)  value  of  the  documents 
are  dealt  with  in  an  Introduction  of  thirty  pages.  The  History  proper 
begins  with  chapters  on  the  Ancient  Worldj  the  Patriarchs,  and  Israel 
in  Egypt,  and  ends  with  a  description  of  the  work  of  Nehemiah.  In 
the  text  Canon  Jackson  follows  the  Biblical  accounts  closely,  but  many 
useful  notes  are  added,  which  often  suggest  alternative  readings  of  the 
History,  A  few  misprints  might  be  corrected  in  a  second  edition : 
page  87,  read  *Waheb  in  Suphah';  page  362,  read  *  Schopfung*  and 
'Encyclopaedia';  page  564.  *  Dillmann's ' ;  page  374,  line  43,  read  'It 
was  lawful*  (omitting  the  negative;  cL  Jewish  Encyclopedia  page  95)  i 
page  391,  note,  read  *Yahweh'(?);  page  400,  note  7  (some  words 
omitted). 

Part  IV  of  Dr.  Cheyne's  Critica  Biblicay  pages  313-397  {on  I,  II  Kings) 
has  appeared.  The  notes  touch  every  chapter  and  usually  several 
different  verses  in  the  chapter.  The  trend  of  the  work  may  be  gathered 
from  the  fact  that  '  Jerahmeel '  ts  mentioned  on  every  page  with  four 
exceptions,  and  even  on  these  four  the  Jerahmeelite  theory  is  noticed. 

La  mitkode  historique  par  le  P^re  M.  J.  Lagrange  (Paris^  1903)  con- 
sists of  six  confirences  on  the  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
author  warns  us  that  these  lectures  *  ne  sont  pas  des  traitds,  mais  des 
causeries '.  He  deals  in  a  frank  way  with  such  questions  as  La  notion  de 
r inspiration^  Caractkre  historique  de  la  ligislation^  and  L*his{oire  primitive. 
With  regard  to  the  Legislation  Pfere  I^grange  concludes,  *  II  est  done 
certain  que  s'il  y  a  dans  le  Pentateuch  une  redaction  rt^cente,  elle  n'a 
fait  que  mettre  en  ceuvre  des  Elements  tr^s  anciens,  contemporains  de 
Molse,  ant^rieurs  k  Moise'  (page  182).  On  the  primitive  history  he 
writes,  *  Pourquoi  ne  pas  admettre  qu'il  y  a  aussi  dans  ces  ddbris  des 
noms  qui  repr^sentent  seulement  un  progrbs  impersonnel  de  Thumanit^, 
des  souvenirs  perdus  dont  personne  ne  peut  dire  exactement  Torigine, 
qui  sont  dans  Fhistoire  comme  cet  ^ther  que  nous  pla^ons  dans  Tespace, 
sans  hi  en  savoir  ce  qu'il  y  fait,  mais  parce  qu'il  faut  mettre  quelque 
chose  entre  les  spheres  .  ,  ,  ? ' 

Pfere  Lagrange  has  also  published  an  important  work  entitled  fjudes 
^Sur  les  religions  slmitiques  (Paris,  T903).  The  chapters  are  on  the  Gods 
fchap.  II),  the  Goddesses  (III),  Holiness  and  Impurity  (IV),  Sacred 
Things,  such  as  waters,  trees,  enclosures,  stones  (V),  Hallowed  persons 
(VI),  Sacrifice  (VII),  the  Dead  (VIII),  Babylonian  myths  (IX), 
Phoenician  Myths  (X).  An  appendix,  containing  the  text  of  the 
Sacrificial  Tarif  of  Marseilles  and  some  other  ancient  religious  docu- 
ments, is  added.  Only  a  brief  notice  is  possible  in  this  place,  but  the 
book  is  one  which  rather  deserves  a  full  and  careful  review- 

X  a 


I 


THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Dr.  H.  V.  Hilprecht  has  published  a  well  illustrated  lecture  giving  an 
account  of  the  excavations  carried  out  by  the  University  of  Peonsylvania 
on  the  temple  of  Bel  of  Nippur  (Nuffar),  Leipzig,  1903. 

The  Fourth  Volume  of  Encyclopaedia  Biblica  like  its  predecessors  is 
full  of  good  work,  and  the  smaller  articles  are  no  less  worthy  of  praise 
than  the  larger.  Dr.  Cheyne'S  own  contributions  are  again  large  and 
stimulating,  but  again  are  marred  by  the  prominence  given  to  the 
new  principles  of  textual  criticism.  Three  Egyptological  articles, 
Uameses,  Shishak,  and  Tirhakah  are  contributed  by  W.  Max  MixUer. 
Mr.  C.  H.  W.  Johns  writes  on  Sargon,  Sennacherib  S  and  Shal- 
MANESER.  Dr.  T.  G.  Pinches  deals  with  Tiglath-pileser.  Samitel 
and  Books  of  Samuel  are  by  the  veteran  German  scholar,  B.  Stade, 
Sacrifice  (an  exhaustive  article  of  fifty  columns)  is  by  G.  F.  Moore, 
Salt  is  by  the  late  Dr.  Robertson  Smith,  revised  and  completed 
by  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  who  also  contributes  an  article  on  Weaving,  fl 
H.  Winckler,  the  author  of  the  Muzri-theory,  writes  on  Sinai  and  " 
HoREB.  SiRACH  (Hebrew  text),  Wisdom,  and  Wisdom  Literature 
are  by  C.  H.  Toy,  Svria,  which  is  illustrated  with  good  maps,  is 
divided  between  D,  G.  Hogarth,  A.  E.  Shipley,  and  H.  W^inckler. 
Temple  is  by  L  Benzingcr  and  G.  H.  Box.  Trade  and  Commerce 
(fifty-five  columns)  is  from  the  pen  of  G.  Adam  Smith.  Mr.  Burkitt 
deals  with  the  Texts  and  Versions  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments.    The  article  on  Writing  is  by  Prof.  Bevan. 

W.  Emery  Barnbs." 


New 


Dr.  H.  Winckler'  has  much  improved  in  his  style.  He  has  evidendy 
mastered  his  own  method  and  is  less  hurried  in  his  wish  to  get  his 
ideas  off  his  mind  and  in  print.  This  is  the  most  readable  thing  he  has 
written  yet.  He  does  not  deny  the  personah'ty  of  Abraham  and  Joseph,  ■ 
rather  he  vindicates  their  historic  reality.  But  he  gives  a  fresh  and  inter- 
esting  view  of  what  they  do  mean  in  the  Old  Testament ;  which  is,  for 
the  prehistoric  times  before  the  kings  of  Israel,  a  histor)*^  of  religion  as 
much  as  of  a  people.  The  religion  is  monotheism.  It  had  its  roots  in 
the  two  great  centres  of  culture,  Babylonia  and  Egypt.  Monotheism 
was  expelled  from  Babylonia  under  Hammurabi,  in  the  person  of 
Abraham,  It  is  immaterial  what  was  the  name  the  one  God  bore  for 
him.  Monotheism  also  sprang  up  in  Eg>*pt  under  Kuenaien,  whose 
regent  in  Goshen  and  the  Nile  delta  was  Janljamu.     If  he  was  not 

>  In  coL  4,3,6a  the  expulsion  of  Merodadi-bftladan  from  Babylon  should  surely  be  ^ 
given  as  711  or  710  u.c,  not  '721  b.c*  M 

*  Abra,ha%n  ah  Battylonier^  Jostph  ah  Aegypttr;  der  wdtgtschkhtitckt  HtMUrgmnd  ™ 
dit  bibttsdttn   Vdtergtstjtichteu  auf  Grund  det  KtUinschnfttH,      Dr.  H.  WiocJder. 

Hinrichs,  Leipzig, 


CHRONICLE  309 

actually  Joseph,  he  was  the  type  which  suggested  him.  Thus  the 
monotheism  of  later  days  is  connected  with  Babylonia  and  Egypt  under 
whose  alternating  influence  Palestine  ever  stood.  For  Palestine  lay  in 
no  primitive  world  and  in  no  waste  far  from  the  bustle  of  world  history : 
it  stood  right  in  the  midst  of  it  Such  is  the  very  interesting  view 
which  Winckler  takes  of  the  fathers  of  Israel.  They  are  meant  by  the 
tradition  to  appear  much  as  the  new-found  history  would  estimate 
them,  as  members  of  the  culture  society  of  their  time,  not  as  meteors 
fallen  from  heaven.  Whatever  be  thought  of  the  historic  grounds  for 
such  a  view,  it  is  admirably  put ;  and  far  less  repulsive  than  solar  myths 
or  wandering  moon-gods.  But  how  does  this  suit  the  North  Arabian 
theory? 

Nowhere  can  a  neater  account  be  found  of  the  history  of  Babylonia 
and  Egypt  in  their  interplay  upon  Palestine.  The  chief  part  of  the 
tract  is  devoted  to  a  proof  that  Palestine  must  have  been  deeply 
influenced  by  both,  and  that  their  culture  was  in  essentials  one.  It 
abounds  with  happy  illustrations  from  the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
and  of  Greece  or  Rome. 

The  German  Edition  of  Dr.  S.  I.  Curtiss's  Primitive  Semitic  Religion 
To-day^  has  a  preface  by  Graf  Baudissin  which  explains  the  method 
and  scope  of  the  work.  Not  only  to  narrate  in  Arabic,  but  to  perceive 
what  is  told  in  the  Arabic  sense,  this  is  the  key  to  true  science.  The 
traces  of  old  religious  views  still  left  among  the  unspoilt  natives  of  Syria 
and  the  Holy  Land  are  most  valuable  if  they  can  be  understood. 
Explorations  and  excavations  may  tell  us  much,  even  all  but  how  to 
understand.  They  furnish  a  correct  standard  to  certify  what  is  old  and 
how  old  it  is.  But,  before  it  is  silent  for  ever,  the  living  voice  must  be 
heard.  Of  course,  the  ideas  of  these  peoples  must  have  been  influenced 
by  Christianity  and  Islam,  by  the  wars  and  expeditions,  by  the  con- 
quests from  East  and  West  which  have  passed  over  the  land.  But,  as 
amongst  ourselves,  pre-christian  ideas  have  survived  in  folk-lore  and 
local  customs,  so  in  a  far  more  extensive  way  the  very  ancient  religious 
thought  and  custom  underlies  the  modem  profession  in  the  East  It 
is  not  a  question  of  what  we  may  expect  in  this  way  so  much  as  a 
question  of  what  there  is.  Let  all  who  can  hasten  to  seek  it  out  and 
put  it  on  record  while  they  may.  They  may  leave  to  the  expert  the 
task  of  discerning  the  genuine  from  the  mock  antique. 

Graf  Baudissin,  an  unrivalled  expert,  has  doubts  whether  Ciutiss 
is  right  in  regarding  as  genuinely  old  all  the  ideas  of  God  and  divine 
things  which  he  has  rescued.     Here,  not  only  the  ancient  literature  but 

'  UrsemUiacht  RtUgion  im  VolksUhtn  des  htutigm  Oritnts.  S.  L  Curtiss. 
Vorwort  v.  Wolf  Wilh.  Grafen  Baadiasin.    Hinrichs,  Leipzig,  1903. 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


also  ihe  monumenls  must  be  scientifically  compared.  Thus  the  idea, 
10  which  Curtiss  was  led  from  his  conversations  with  the  modem  people, 
that  the  shedding  of  blood  in  a  sacrifice  was  not  only  its  most  important 
feature,  and  symbolized  the  absolution  from  blame,  but  that  it  was  also 
substitutionary,  the  blood  of  the  victim  taking  the  place  of  that  of  the 
offerer,  is  doubted  by  Baudissin,  He  further  takes  exception  to  the 
supposed  antiquity  of  the  idea  of  Demi-' gods'  or  *  deified  men*;  and 
to  the  conclusion  that  oriented  temples  necessarily  were  dedicated  to 
sun-worship.  Sundry  other  critical  cautions  enhance  the  value  of  this 
edition,  which  is  moreover  enlarged  by  the  author's  additions  from  his 
journeys  in  the  year  1905, 

Those  who  have  not  obtained  the  English  book  would  do  weD  to 
avail  themselves  of  this  chance  of  an  improved  edition.  The  book  in 
any  case  is  one  that  all  students  of  Old  T^tament  religious  ideas 
should  read,  and,  while  suspending  their  judgement  on  many  points, 
will  undoubtedly  enjoy  reading.  It  is  illiistrated  with  pictures,  diagratns, 
and  maps,  which  really  do  illustrate  the  subjects  to  which  they  refer, 
and  with  excellent  indices  which  render  reference  easy- 

C.  H.  W,  Johns. 


ASSYKIOLOGY. 

Dr.  Weissbach's  Babyhniscke  MhcelUn^  makes  known  to  as  some 
of  the  first-fruits  of  the  recent  German  excavations  at  Babylon.  It 
includes  several  new  texts  copied  on  the  spot  by  the  author.  A  new 
king  of  Isin,  Sin-m%ir,  who  reigned  somewhere  in  the  third  millennium 
B.  c,  is  added  to  the  four  already  known.  An  addition  is  made  to  the 
Kassite  Dynasty  of  Babylon,  which  places  a  Meli^ihu,  son  of  Kurigako, 
probably  father  of  a  Merodacb-baladan  already  known,  somewhere  in 
the  gap  between  u.  c.  1504  and  1440.  This  seems  to  involve  the 
existence  of  three  Kurigalzus,  the  first  successor  of  SagaraktiburiaS,  the 
second  successor  of  BurnaburiaS,  the  third  successor  of  Nazibugafi, 
the  usurper.  It  also  involves  two  Meli§ihus,  the  first  son  of  Kurigalzu  1, 
the  second  son  of  Adad-^um-usur,  Further  we  make  room  for  three 
Merodach'baladans ;  the  first,  son  of  McliSihu  I ;  the  second,  son  of 
Melisihu  II ;  the  third,  the  contemporary  of  Sargon  II,  who  sent  an 
embassy  to  Hezckiah.  Thus  the  Kassite  Dynasty  is  completely  known, 
though  there  is  still  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  order  of  the  kings. 
Next  we  have  a  new  king  of  the  Sealand,  UlaburariaS,  son  of  Buma- 
buraria§,  but  of  unknown  date,  unless  the  latter  be  identical  with 
a  BumaburiaS,  king  of  Babylon.     Then  we  have  a  long  and  deeply 

'  Babyionischt  MisuUtn  by  Dr.  F.  H.  Weissbach,  Leipzig,  1903* 


CHRONICLE  311 

interesting  monument  of  §amaS-rdS-usur,  governor  of  the  land  of  Sulji 
and  Maer,  possibly  of  the  eighth  century  b.  c,  which  raises  many 
important  geographical  questions.  Then  we  get  an  inscription  of  the 
Assyrian  king  Adadi-nirari  II,  duplicate  of  two  British  Museum  texts. 
Whether  this  king  was  a  builder  of  some  temple  in  Babylon,  or  whether 
the  monument  was  carried  thither  by  some  Babylonian  conqueror, 
cannot  be  decided.  A  very  important  inscription  of  Marduk-nidin- 
sum,  circa  B.C.  853,  follows,  with  a  fine  representation  of  the  god 
Marduk.  Next  we  have  a  little  inscription  of  Esarhaddon's,  with  a  fine 
portrait  of  the  god  Adad.  An  inscription  from  the  early  part  of 
ASurbinipars  reign  follows.  Then  we  have  a  new  text  of  Nabopolassar, 
probably  not  before  his  sixth  year,  but  yet  the  earliest  known  of  this 
king.  The  most  remarkable  passage  is,  'The  Assyrians,  who  from 
far  off  days  had  ruled  all  peoples,  and  had  oppressed  with  heavy  yoke 
the  people  of  the  land,  did  I,  the  weak,  the  humble,  who  feared  the 
lord  of  lords,  by  the  powerful  might  of  Nabii  and  Marduk,  my  lords, 
repulse  from  the  land  of  Akkad  (Babylonia)  their  foot,  and  put  off  their 
yoke.'  The  mention  of  Ner;^  and  the  god  of  j)estilence  leads 
Weissbach  to  think  that  this  result  was  assisted  by  sickness  in  the 
camp  of  the  Assyrians.  Part  of  a  duplicate  to  the  Behistun  inscription 
of  Darius  adds  some  interesting  details  to  the  copy  published  in  the 
third  volume  of  Rawlinson's  Inscriptions  of  Western  Asia.  Two 
fragments  of  syllabaries,  a  portion  of  a  ritual  text  for  the  restoration 
of  a  temple,  an  important  hymn  to  Marduk,  an  amulet  with  an  in- 
scription for  protection  from  the  demon  Labartu,  a  deed  of  sale  of  a 
plot  of  ground  dated  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  Nabopolassar  and  the 
twenty-fourth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  a  loan  of  meal  in  the  time  of 
Darius,  an  astronomical  tablet,  all  of  some  special  interest,  conclude 
the  volume.  The  texts  are  beautifully  autographed,  the  transcription 
and  translation  are  good,  and  the  full  comments  shew  great  learning. 
It  will  be  some  time  before  all  the  new  material  can  be  fitted  into 
its  proper  place,  and  we  are  deeply  indebted  to  Dr.  Weissbach  and 
the  German  Oriental  Society  for  letting  us  share  their  booty  so  soon. 

Dr.  S.  Daiches  ^  has  taken  six-and-twenty  of  the  contracts  published 
in  Cuneiform  Texts  from  Babylonian  Tablets  6r»c.  in  the  British 
Museum,  Vols.  II,  IV,  VI,  and  VIII,  and  given  them  in  transcription 
and  translation  with  comments.  All  these  texts  date  from  the  period 
of  the  first  dynasty  of  Babylon,  many  from  the  reign  of  Hammurabi. 
They  are  of  great  interest  as  illustrating  the  Code  of  QammurabL 
Dr.  Daiches  gives  an  excellent  account  of  the  nature  of  the  transactions 
recorded  and  their  contributions  to  the  history  of  customs  and  private 
life.  The  proper  names  often  give  rise  to  interesting  questions.  Readers 
^  Altbabylonistki  Rnhtsurkundm  by  Dr.  S.  Daiches,  Leipzig,  1903. 


312         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

of  B^the!  and  BibU  will  be  uxtotsted  in  the  apparent  Jahwe  names 
on  pp.  13,  14^ 

Dt,  J.  Hunger*  dcab  with  two  texts  of  the  Hammorabi  period 
published  in  Cund/arm  Texts  frvm  Bm^fhmam  Tai>iits,  &^c.  Vol.  Ill 
pp.  2—4,  Vol  V  pp.  4-7.  They  contain  dii«ctions  and  rules  for 
divination  by  the  behayiour  of  a  drop  of  oil  upon  water  in  a  en  p.  The 
divining  cup  of  Joseph  (Gen.  xliv)  wiU  at  once  occnr  to  the  reader. 
Dr.  Hunger  not  only  gives  a  transcription  and  translation  of  these  texts, 
but  also  a  very  interesting  account  of  what  is  known  of  lekanomantia  in 
classical  authors.  This  study  of  a  very  obscure  side  of  Babylonian 
magic  may  be  recommended  to  those  who  wish  to  know  what  auguiy 
really  meant 

Dr.  J.  Hehn*  collects  the  Babylonian  evidence  as  to  the  idea  of  sin 
and  forgiveness^  and  compares  it  with  Biblical  parallels.  It  is  an 
important  study  for  those  who  want  to  see  the  theological  meaning  of 
the  Creation  myths,  and  of  the  imagery  of  the  Dragon  as  the  opposer  of 
God*  The  parallels  between  Marduk  and  Christ  are  abo  worked  ouL 
In  his  Hymns  and Prayfrs  to  Marduk*  Dr.  Hehn  deals  very  thoroughly 
with  the  many  points  in  which  Marduk  was  a  type  of  Christ  While 
Professor  Zimmem  in  the  third  edition  of  Schrader's  Keilinschrifttn  und 
das  alfe  Testament  rather  seeks  the  Biblical  parallels  to  what  v^  so 
famUiar  to  him  in  the  Babylonian  religion,  here  we  have  collected  the 
actual  Babylonian  phrases  and  ideas,  less  familiar  to  us,  that  we  may 
compare  them  with  the  Bible.  The  texts  from  which  Dr.  Hehn 
chiefly  quotes  have  already  been  published,  but  are  scattered  in  different 
Journals.  He  proposes  to  collect  them  in  one  of  the  next  parts  of  the 
Beitrdge  %ur  Assyriohgie,  They  include  some  new  texts  of  his  own 
copying.  These  two  little  works  will  be  very  useful  to  those  who  use 
Zimmem^s  more  condensed  account  of  Babylonian  influence  on  the 
Bible. 

Dr.  F,  Hroxn^  *  has  examined  the  various  so-called  '  Hymns  to 
Ninib ',  which  he  shews  to  be  really  speeches  put  into  the  mouth  of 
that  god,  who  is  represented  as  pronouncing  the  fates>  or,  in  other 
words,  determining  the  essential  natures,  of  plants  and  stones.  These 
cuneiform  texts  he  has  collated,  transcribed,  and  translated.  He  has 
added  many  useful  comments  and  some  articles  on  the  mythology.  He 
maintains  that  the  true  reading  of  the  god's  name,  hitherto  read  Ninib, 

*  Btckerwakrsagmng  bti  tUn  Babylomem  mack  mewi  Ktilinxhri/Un  ams  dtr 
UammurabUtit  by  Dr.  J.  Hunger,  Lei  prig,  1905. 

'  SuH4ie  HHd  ErlosuHg  nock  bibltsdttr  tmd  bttbylamsdkty  A$tsckn»m$^  by  Dr. 
Hebn,  1 903. 

*  Hymnen  und  GtMt  an  Marduk  by  Dr.  J.  Hehn,  Leipzig,  1903- 

*  Sumetisch'babylopiUckt  MytAtn  von  dtm  Gottt  Ninrag  by  Dr.  F*  Hroznf,  Berlin, 
1903. 


4 


CHRONICLE  313 

Nindar,  or  Adar,  was  really  Ninrag,  identifying  this  with  the  Mandaean 
Nerig,  Arabic  Mirrih,  and  Nikralj.  He  further  suggests  that  this  was 
the  true  form  of  the  word  rendered  Nisroch  in  2  Kings  xix  37.  The 
discussion  of  Oannes,  Dagan  and  Dagon,  and  that  on  Labbu  are  of 
interest.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  arguments  are  very  weak.  The 
texts,  transcription,  and  vocabulary  will  be  of  some  use. 

C  H.  W.  Johns. 


THE  CODE  OF  HAMMURABI. 

The  recent  discovery  of  the  Code  of  laws  promulgated  about  2200  b.c. 
by  Hammurabi,  sixth  king  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon,  has  made 
a  great  impression  upon  students  of  comparative  religion  and  history. 
Found  at  the  end  of  1901,  at  Susa,  the  ancient  Persepolis,  engraven 
on  a  large  block  of  diorite,  it  was  published  in  October,  1902,  by 
Professor  V.  Scheil  in  the  fourth  volume  of  the  MSmoires  dt  la  Dkli- 
gation  en  Perse^  by  direction  of  the  French  Ministry  of  Instruction. 
It  was  translated  into  French  by  Scheil,  next  month  into  German 
by  Dr.  H.  Winckler,  into  English  in  America  by  Professor  C.  F.  Kent, 
and  Dr.  Hayes  Ward,  here  by  the  present  writer  in  February,  and  into 
Italian  by  Dr.  F.  Mari  in  August.  At  once  comparisons  were  suggested 
with  ancient  law  codes,  especially  the  Laws  of  Moses.  R.  Dareste 
in  the  Journal  des  Savants^  Oct.-Nov.  1902,  and  again  in  Nauvelk 
Revtu  historique  de  droit  franfais  ei  itranger^  xxvii  p.  5  f,  Pfere 
Lagrange  in  Revue  Biblique  for  Jan.  1903,  all  on  the  basis  of  Scheil's 
translation,  discussed  the  legislation  from  the  comparative  point  of  view. 
Dr.  John  Jeremias  in  his  book  Moses  und  Jfammurabi  treated  it  from  the 
view  of  the  jurist  and  Old  Testament  scholar;  Professor  G.  Cohn 
in  his  Rectorial  address  at  Zurich,  in  April,  1903,  entitled  Die  Gesetze 
JJammurabiSy  treated  its  legal  aspects,  especially  in  comparison  with 
ancient  German  Laws,  those  of  the  West  Goths  at  their  entrance  into 
Europe.  Dr.  H.  Grimme  published  in  August  at  Cologne  Dcu  Gesetz 
ffammurabis  und  Moses^  in  which  he  specially  compared  an  ancient 
code  of  laws  preserved  among  the  Bogos  near  Massowah^  retaining 
primitive  features  from  the  times  before  the  incursions  of  the  Amhara 
into  Ethiopia.  These  followed  Dr.  Winckler's  translation.  A  large 
number  of  reviews  in  many  journals  and  magazines  witness  to  the 
supreme  interest  of  the  subject  ^ 

One  of  the  latest   and  most  important  contributions  is  that  of 

^  Dr.  Carl  Stooss,  Dtis  habylonischt  Sirafncht  ffammurubiSf  in  the  SdtumMtnachi 
ZntschriftfurStrafrecht  vol.  xvi  p.  i  f,  and  Mr.  S.  A.  Cook  in  the  Guardian,  April  aa, 
1903,  are  well  worth  reading. 


314  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

Dr.  D*  H.  Miiller,  so  celebrated  for  his  work  apon  the  South  Arabian 
mscnptions^  who  gives  us  in  ihe  X.Jahrtsherkhi  der  hraelitisch-The^ 
hgischen  Lekranstalt  in  IVien  1902-3  a  very  full  discussion  under  the 
title  Die  Gtsetzt  ffammurahis  und  die  nuisaische  Gesetzgcbttng,  It  opens 
with  a  sufficient  notice  of  the  monument  itself,  references  to  previous 
discussions,  and  a  statement  in  brief  of  the  author's  conclusions* 
Prolonged  comparative  study  induces  him  to  decide  that  the  connexion 
of  the  two  codes  is  far  closer  than  has  hitherto  been  thought.  This 
result  is  due  to  his  method,  which  consists  in  comparing  not  only 
clauses  and  separate  enactments  but  also  the  form  in  which  they  are 
presented  and  the  sequences  of  thought  and  arrangement.  He  does 
not  consider^  however,  that  the  Mosaic  code  was  copied  from  Ham> 
murabi's,  but  that  both  embody  an  earlier  fixed  law»  preserving  not 
only  its  enactments  but  to  some  extent  its  form.  Further,  he  finds 
many  striking  parallels  with  the  Roman  XII  Tables,  which  warrant 
him  in  thinking  that  these  also  have  an  origin  in  Semitic  Law.  H^ 
views  on  this  point  are  further  set  out  in  the  Abendbiati  of  the  Ntm 
Freie  Presse  of  28  August,  1903. 

He  was  led  to  these  conclusions,  partly,  by  the  happy  idea  which 
struck  him  to  render  the  (Jammurabi  Code  into  Hebrew,  tising  the 
expressions  which  seemed  to  him  most  exactly  to  correspond.  To  give 
the  reader  an  idea  of  how  this  assists  comparison*  he  has  printed  on  the 
first  seventy  pages,  in  three  parallel  columns,  the  transcription  of  the 
Babylonian  laws,  his  Hebrew  version,  and  a  German  translation.  This 
is  a  most  valuable  feature  of  the  book.  Then  follow  a  hundred  pages 
of  discussion,  In  which  he  groups  the  Babylonian  laws,  compares  them 
with  Mosaic  laws,  the  XII  Tables  and  other  ancient  legislation,  and 
exhaustively  examines  the  knotty  points  of  meaning  and  language. 
A  few  pages  exhibit  most  valuable  comparative  tables  of  the  codes; 
a  discussion  of  Hammurabi's  systematic  follows ;  while  an  interesting 
section  on  the  XII  Tables,  a  theoretical  reconstruction  of  the  primitive 
code  and  its  relation  to  the  Mosaic,  a  discussion  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  ancient  Semitic  right,  and  a  judicial  summing  up  of  the 
whole  position,  close  this  portion  of  the  work.  The  whole  will  be  issued 
as  a  book  by  A.  Holder  of  Vienna,  with  important  additions  on  the 
grammar  and  etymology  of  the  Babylonian  code,  and  appendices  on  the 
fragments,  preserved  in  ASurbdnipal  s  Library,  on  the  Sumerian  Family 
Laws  and  the  important  Syrian  Law  Book  of  the  fifth  century, 
edited  by  Bruns  and  Sachau.  We  hope  that  a  good  index  vrill  be 
included. 

Dr.  Miiller  makes  some  ver)'  ingenious  suggestions  as  to  the  reasons 
why  a  particular  penalty  should  be  double,  while  another  is  five-fold,  or 
even  sLxty-foId.     But  these  suggestions  are  far  from  convincing.     In 


I 


CHRONICLE  315 

other  cases  his  knowledge  of  Jewish  Law  enables  him  to  make  important 
contributions  to  the  etymology  of  difficult  words.  The  great  value 
of  his  work  lies  chiefly  in  the  comparisons  made  with  the  Mosaic  Code, 
in  the  beautiful  Hebrew  version,  in  the  explanation  of  the  substance 
and  appreciation  of  the  form,  and  in  the  liberality  of  thought  which 
pervades  the  whole  treatise.  No  student  of  the  Code  can  afford  to  do 
without  it 

Considering  the  prominent  part  which  England  once  took  in  the 
Assyriological  Studies,  it  is  pleasant  to  record  signs  of  a  revival  of  that 
interest.  Mr.  S.  A.  Cook  in  his  work  The  Laws  o/Moses^  and  the  Code 
of  ffammurabi  (A.  &  C.  Black,  London)  has  done  the  English  reader 
a  great  service.  He  has  made  himself  acquainted  with  practically  all 
that  had  been  written  on  the  Code  up  to  the  date  of  publication ;  and, 
as  he  usually  notices  not  only  the  views  which  he  himself  adopts  but 
those  which  he  rejects,  his  work  is  a  convenient  textbook.  He  is  led 
to  a  rather  different  view  from  that  of  Dr.  Miiller.  He  regards  the 
Mosaic  legislation  as  practically  uninfluenced  by  Babylonia,  and  as  more 
primitive  in  form  and  ideas.  The  great  value  of  the  work  lies  in  the 
full  and  connected  view  which  it  gives  of  the  civilization  of  Babylonia 
and  its  contrasts  with  that  of  Israel  He  takes  account  of  most  of  the 
material  available  to  him  from  the  contracts  and  other  sources  for 
Babylonian  law.  He  compares  not  only  the  Mosaic  legislation  but  also 
the  Syrian  law-book  referred  to  above.  Indeed,  there  is  very  little 
material  available  to  the  student  which  is  not  here  put  in  a  convenient 
form.  Of  course,  ample  references  are  given  for  future  research. 
Mr.  Cook  holds  a  rightly  sceptical  attitude  towards  the  popular  theories 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon  and  its  connexion  with 
Abraham.  It  is  deplorable  that  Assyriology,  which  has  ample  difficulties 
of  its  own,  should  be  saddled  for  the  sake  of  sensation  with  all  sorts 
of  speculations  that  have  no  real  connexion  with  it  If  any  attentive 
reader  will  carefully  peruse  this  volume  he  will  have  a  far  better  idea 
of  what  Assyriology  has  to  say  than  he  can  get  elsewhere  in  English. 
When  he  is  told  that  such  and  such  a  view  is  held  by  some  Assyriologist 
he  will  not,  of  course,  confuse  that  view  with  Assyriology. 

This  book  is  further  of  great  value  to  ordinary  readers  because  it 
embodies  critical  views  as  to  the  sources  in  the  Pentateuch.  That  alone 
makes  it  a  useful  contract  to  Dr.  Miiller's  work. 

Professor  J.  Kohler  and  Dr.  F.  E.  Peiser  have  produced  the  first 
Band  of  their  great  work  on  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  containing  a  new 
translation,  exhaustive  discussions  of  its  enactments,  and  most  valuable 
estimates  of  its  relation  to  other  ancient  codes  and  its  contributions 
to  the  history  of  civilization  and  comparative  law.  Professor  Kohler*s 
unrivalled  position  as  a  comparative  jurist,  and  Dr.  Peiser's  intimate 


3l6  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

acquaintance  with  the  Babylonian  contracts  should  combine  to  render 
this  the  standard  work  upon  the  subject.  The  authors  have  collaborated 
before,  and  their  Aus  dem  babyloniscfun  Rechtsleben  is  a  classic.  They 
acknowledge  assistance  from  many  helpers  in  the  preparation  of  this 
part,  and  the  great  name  of  Delitzsch  is  quoted  as  authority  for  many 
improvements  in  the  translation.  The  second  part  is  to  contain  the 
Babylonian  part  of  the  work,  a  transcription  of  the  text,  and  full 
grammatical,  philological,  and  lexicographical  notes.  The  third  part 
will  contain  a  selection  of  contemporary  documents  such  as  contracts 
and  letters,  large  numbers  of  which  have  been  published.  The  careful 
consideration  of  these  sources  will  doubtless  lead  to  a  large  crop  of 
Nachtrdge,  A  perusal  of  Dr.  Daiches'  work,  small  as  it  is,  has  already 
led  to  some.  Mr.  Cook's  work  would  afford  more.  It  is  rather  a  pity 
that  this  illustrative  material,  a  contemporary  native  commentary  on  the 
code,  was  not  thoroughly  worked  over  before  the  first  part  was  printed. 
Let  us  hope  that  by  the  time  this  is  done  a  second  edition  of  the  first 
part  will  be  called  for  and  so  enable  the  authors  to  embody  their  results. 
We  hope  to  see  a  full  glossary  to  all  the  texts  used  attached,  and  may 
we  not  hope  for  an  index  too  ?  Professor  Kohler  inclines  to  the  view  of 
the  independence  of  the  Mosaic  Codes.  On  the  whole,  these  three 
works  may  be  regarded  as  complementary,  and  between  them  a  judicious 
student  will  get  a  very  full  idea  of  the  civilization  of  Babylonia,  its  laws 
and  customs.  The  Biblical  scholar  will  form  his  own  conclusions  as  to 
the  influence  of  Babylonia  on  Israelite  law,  but  will  find  the  views  set 
out  very  suggestive. 

C.  H.  W.  Johns, 


31? 


RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

(i)  English. 

Church  Quarterly  Review^  October  1903  (VoL  Ivii,  No.  113: 
Spottiswoode  &  Co.).  Church  Worship  and  Church  Order — The 
Golden  Legend — The  Holy  Eucharist :  an  historical  inquiry,  Part  viii 
— Welsh  Methodism  :  its  origin  and  growth — A  Puritan  Utopia — ^Joan 
of  Arc — Some  notes  on  the  Church  in  Australia — ^The  Imperialism  of 
Dante— Short  notices. 

The  Hibbert  Journal,  October  1903  (Vol.  ii,  No.  i:  Williams  and 
Norgate).  E,  Caird  St,  Paul  and  the  idea  of  Evolution — H.  James 
The  present  attitude  of  reflective  thought  towards  Religion,  II — G.  F. 
Stout  Mr.  F.  W.  Myers  on  'Human  Personality  and  its  survival  of 
bodily  death ' — T.  K.  Cheyne  Babylon  and  the  Bible — L.  Campbell 
Morality  in  ^schylus — B.  Bosanquet  Plato's  conception  of  death — 
C.  F.  Dole  From  Agnosticism  to  Theism — C.  E.  Beeby  Doctrinal 
significance  of  a  miraculous  birth — Discussions — Reviews. 

The  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  October  1903  (Vol.  xvi,  No.  61 : 
Macmillan  &  Co.).  A  Cowley  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  Papyri — L. 
Magnus  A  Conservative  View  of  Judaism — D.  Philipson  The  Reform 
Movement  in  Judaism — G.  Margoliouth  A  Florentine  Service-book 
at  the  British  Museum — H.  Hirschfeld  The  Arabic  portion  of  the 
Cairo  Genizah  at  Cambridge — E.  Schwarzfeld  The  Jews  of  Moldavia 
at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century — E.  N.  Adler  Auto  de  f6 
and  Jew — A.  BDchler  Die  Schauplatze  des  Barkochbakrieges  und  die 
auf  diesen  bezogenen  jiidischen  Nachrichten — M.  Simon  Some  poems 
of  Jehuda  Halevi. 

The  Expositor,  October  1903  (Sixth  Series,  No.  46 :  Hodder  & 
Stoughton).  J.  Denney  The  Atonement  and  the  Modem  Mind — 
H.  B.  Swete  The  Teaching  of  Christ  in  the  Fourth  Gospel— C.  H.  W. 
Johns  *The  Name  Jehovah  in  the  Abrahamic  Age' — A.  E.  Garvie 
Value- Judgements  of  Religion:  Critical  and  Constructive — W.  H. 
Bennett  The  Life  of  Christ  according  to  St  Mark — ^J.  Moffatt  Post- 
Exilic  Judaism. 


3l8         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

November  1903  (Sixth  Series,  No.  47),  G,  G.  Finblav  Studies 
in  the  First  Epistle  of  John  :  i.  The  Advocate  and  the  Propitiation— 
D.  Smith  The  Resurrection  of  our  Lord :  1.  The  Evangelic  Testimony 
— A,  E.  Garvie  The  Relation  of  Religious  Knowledge  to  Science  and 
Philosophy — J.  H.  Bernard  The^postolic  Benediction — V,  Bartlkt 
The  Epistle  to  Hebrews  as  the  WorlT  oif  Barnabas — W.  H.  Bennett 
The  Life  of  Christ  according  to  St.  Mark. 

December  1903  (Sixth  Series,  No.  48).     W.  M.  Ramsay  Travel 

and  Correspondence  among  Early  Christians— J.  H.  Moulton  Notes 
from  the  Papyri— H,  B,  Swete  The  Teaching  of  Christ— G.G.  Findlav 
Studies  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John :  2.  The  True  Knowledge  of  God — 
J.  Moffatt  Foreign  Literature  on  the  New  Testament, 


(2)  American. 

The  Ameman  Journal  of  Theology y  October  1903  (Vol.  vii,  No.  41 
Chicago  University  Press).  H.  Weinel  Richard  Wagner  and  Christi- 
anity— L.  M.  CoNARD  The  idea  of  God  held  by  North  American 
Indians— W,  R.  Betteridge  The  interpretation  of  the  prophecy  of 
Habakkuk^W,  B.  Smith  The  Pauline  Manuscripts  F  and  G  :  a  text- 
critical  study  II — Recent  Theological  Literature. 


(3}  French  and  Belgian. 

Revue  BibliquCy  October  1903  (Vol.  xii,  No.  4:  Paris,  V,  Lecolfre), 
Batiffol  L'Eucharistie  dans  le  Nouveau  Testament,  d'apr^s  des  criti- 
ques r^cents— Hyvernat  Petite  introduction  i  I'etude  de  la  Massore— 
Durand  La  divinity  de  J^sus-Christ  dans  S.  Paul^  Rom.  ix  5 — M^ 
langes :  Vincent  Les  ruines  d'  'Amwas :  Ronzevalle  Un  bas-rcHef 
babylonien— Chronique:  Vincent  Notes  d'^pigraphie  palesiinienne : 
Les  ruines  de  Beit  Cha'ar :  Fouilles  di verses  en  Palestine— Recensions 
— Bulletin^Table  des  mati^res  (ann^e  1903}. 

AnaUda  BoUandiana,  October  1903  (Vol  xxii.  No.  4:  Brussels,  14, 
Rue  des  Ursulines).  A.  Galante  De  vttae  ss.  Xenophontis  et  sociorum 
codicibus  Florentinis — H.  Deleheve  SS.  lonae  et  Barachisii  martyrum 
in  Perside  acta  graeca :  Un  fragment  de  m^nologe  trouv^  \  Jerusalem — 
L.  Celier  S.  Ldonce  honore  en  P^rigord^-A.  Poncelet  Sanctae 
Catharinae  virginis  et  martyris  translatio  et  miracula  Rotomagensia  saec 
xi — L  VAN  DEN  Gheyn  Translatio  sanctae  Reineldis  in  monasterium 
Laubiense — A,  Poncelet  Treverensia?— Bulletin  des  publications 
hagiographiques — U.  Chevalier  Repertorium  hymnologicum,  supple- 
mentum,  fol.  37 — Index  generalis. 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES     319 

Revue  BknidicHne^  October  1903  (Vol.  xx,  No.  4 :  Abbaye  de  Mared- 
sous).  L.  Jannsens  L^on  XIII  et  Pie  X~H.  Quentin  Le  martyro- 
loge  hi^ronymien  et  les  fttes  de  S.  Benott — G.  Morin  Un  systibme 
in^it  de  lectures  liturgiques — U.  Berlikre  Bulletin  d'histoire  b^n^ 
dictine — B.  Albers  Les  Consuetudines  Sigiberti  abbatis — Analyses  et 
Comptes-rendus. 

Revue  d^Histoire  et  de  Litterature  Religieuses,  Nov.-Dec  1903  (Vol. 
viii,  No.  6  :  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Saint-Germain).  A.  Loisy  Le  second 
fivangile — P.  Fournier  fitudes  sur  les  p^nitentiels  4 :  Le  livre  IV  du 
penitentiel  d'Halitgaire — H.  M.  Bannister  Un  tropaire-prosier  de 
Moissac — J.  Tixeront  Des  concepts  de  'nature'  et  de  *personne' 
dans  les  Pbres  et  les  dcrivains  eccMsiastiques  des  v«  et  vi«  sidles — 
P.  Lejay  Ancienne  philologie  chrdtienne:  17  Liturgie  {suite) — Index 
alphab^tique. 

(4)  German. 

Theologische  Quartalschrift,  1904  (Vol.  Ixxxvi,  No.  i  :  Tiibingen, 
H.  Laupp).  Grundl  Die  Christenverfolgung  unter  Nero  nach 
Tacitus — Sickenberger  Ueber  die  dem  Petrus  von  Laodicea  zuge- 
schriebenen  Evangelienkommentare — ^Wurm  Cerinth,  ein  Gnostiker 
oder  Judaist  ?  Bihlmeyer  Zu  den  sogenannten  Novatian-Homilien. — 
Funk  Die  Anfange  von  missa  =  Messe — A.  Koch  Zur  kasuistischen 
Behandlung  des  Fastengebotes — Schweitzer  Polycarp  v.  Smyrna 
iiber  Eriosung  u.  Rechtfertigung— Rezensionen — Analekten. 

Zeitsckrift  fur  Theologie  und  Kirche,  October  1903  (Vol.  xiii,  No.  6). 

E.  SchUrer  Das  messianische  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  Christi — 
J.  Kaftan  Zur  Dogmatik  III.  4.  Mogliche  Standpunkte,  5.  Schrift 
und  Bekenntnis. 

Zeitschrift  fiir  wissenschaftliche  Theologie ,  October  1903  (Vol.  xlvi, 
No.  4 :  Leipzig,  O.  R.  Reisland).  P.  Lechler  Ueber  die  Bedeutung 
der  Abendmahlsworte — W.  Webkr  Die  paulinische  Vorschrift  iiber  die 
Kopfbedeckung  der  Christen — A.  Hilgenfeld  Die  vertiefte  Erkenntnis 
des  Urchristentums  in  der  Ignatius-Frage — J.  Draseke  Ein  Testi- 
monium Ignatianum — F.  Gorres  Der  Primas  Julian  von  Toledo^ 

F.  Gorres  Die  angebliche  Prophezeiung  des  irischen  Erzbischofs  und 
Heiligen  Malachias  iiber  die  Papste — J.  Draseke  Zu  Johannes  Scotus 
Erigena — B.  Baentsch  Zum  Gedachtnis  Karl  Siegfried's — Anzeigen — 
A.  H.  Der  mondsiichtige  Knabe. 

Neue  kirchliche  Zeitschrift^  October  1903  (Vol.  xiv,  No.  10:  Erlangen 
and  Leipzig,  A.  Deichert).  P.  Tschakert  Die  Entstehung  des  Liedes 
Lutbers  Ein'  feste  Burg  ist  unser  Gott  — Th.  Zahn  Kleine  Beitrage  zur 


390  THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

evangelischen  Geschicbte — G.  Wetzbl  Die  gesduchtUche  Glaab- 
wurdigkeit  der  im  Evangelium  Johannis  enthaltenen  Reden  Jesu 
(Fortseftun^, 

November  1 903  (Vol.  xi v,  No.  11).  G.  Wetzel  Die  geschiditliche 
Glaubwurdigkeit  der  im  Evangelium  Johannis  enthaltenen  Reden  Jesa 
(ScA/uss) — J.  W.  ScHiEFER  Der  Christus  in  der  jiidischen  Dichtang — 
Schick  Etwas  iiber  die  Entstehung  und  Begriindmig  der  Sonntagsfder— 
G.  HoNNiCKE  Der  Todestag  des  Apostels  Paulus. 

December  1903  (Vol  xiv,  No.  12).  W.  Schmidt  Ethische 
Fragen — W.  Caspari  Die  Mission  in  der  Poesie  der  christlichen  Vblker 
des  Abendlandes — Schick  Etwas  iiber  die  Entstehung  und  Begriindung 
der  Sonntagsfeier — Couard  Altchristliche  Sagen  iiber  das  Leben  der 
Apostel. 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological  Studies 


APBUi,   1804 

THE  INJUNCTIONS   OF  SILENCE   IN 
THE   GOSPELS. 

It  is  now  some  two  years  since  there  appeared  one  of  those 
elaborate  monographs  ^  so  characteristic  of  German  theology, 
presenting  an  entirely  new  and  original  argument,  which  if  it  had 
held  good  would  have  had  far-reaching  consequences.  To 
understand  the  bearing  of  this  argument  it  is  necessary  briefly  to 
glance  at  a  point  in  the  criticism  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  which 
seems  to  have  won  very  general  acceptance. 

The  great  majority  of  those  who  have  studied  the  subject  are 
agreed  that  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark,  or  a  writing  extremely  like 
our  present  Gospel,  if  not  necessarily  the  oldest  of  such  writings 
that  have  come  down  to  us,  is  yet  the  common  basis  of  the  three 
Synoptic  Gospels.  The  other  writers,  whom  we  know  as 
St  Matthew  and  St  Luke,  made  use  of  this  Gospel,  and  derived 
from  it  the  large  element  which  is  common  to  all  three,  and 
which  is  the  more  important  because  it  gave  that  outline  of  our 
Lord's  public  ministry,  beginning  with  the  Baptism  and  ending 
with  the  Crucifixion  and  Resurrection,  with  which  we  are  most 
familiar. 

It  would  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  sequence  of  events  as 
they  are  given  in  this  Gospel  is  in  all  respects  strictly  chrono- 
logical. In  more  than  one  instance  it  would  seem  that  the 
smaller  sections  of  narration  are  grouped  together  not  in  order 
of  time,  but  because  of  a  certain  resemblance  in  their  subject- 
matter.     But  taken  as  a  whole,  the  order  of  the  narratives  in 

^  Das  Missiasgeheinmis  in  dtn  EvangeHiH,  by  W.  Wredey  GCttingeo^  1901. 
VOL.  V.  Y 


322  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

St  Mark's  Gospel,  which  in  this  troLj  be  identified  with  the 
common  foundation  of  the  three  Gospels,  is  excellent,  and  pfe> 
sents  an  evolution  of  the  history  which  is  both  bannoiiioiis  in 
itself  and  probably  represents  m  the  main  the  real  cottrse  of  the 
events. 

The  narrative,  as  I  have  said,  begins  with  the  Baptism  and 
ends  with  the  Crucifixion  and  Resurrection.  In  the  intervciUDg 
period  there  is  a  clearly-marked  climax  at  the  Transfigw^tioiL 
Up  to  that  point  there  is  a  steady  ascent  which  culminates  in  the 
confession  of  St  Peter;  down  from  it  there  is  in  like  manner 
a  descent  which  finds  characteristic  expression  in  the  predictions 
of  the  approaching  Passion,  Death,  and  Resurrection,  which 
b^in  from  the  same  point,  in  close  connexion  with  St  Peter's 
confession  and  the  Transfiguration. 

Another  special  feature  of  St  Mark's  Gospel,  which  has  also 
passed  from  it  to  some  extent  into  the  other  Gospels,  is  the 
peculiar  air  of  mystery  and  secrecy  which  is  thrown  over  certain 
aspects  of  our  Lord's  career — His  marked  reserve  in  putting 
forward  His  Messiamc  claims ;  the  double  character  of  His 
teaching,  and  more  particularly  of  His  parables,  at  once  so  simple 
in  outward  form  and  so  baffling  to  those  who  sought  really  to 
understand  them ;  and  a  like  strangely  double  character  in  the 
miracles,  which  on  the  one  hand  arc  wrought  in  rather  coostder* 
able  numbers,  and  on  the  other  hand,  we  might  say  almost 
frequently  are  accompanied  by  an  express  command  that  they 
are  not  to  be  made  known,  or  at  least  not  published  abroad 
And  lastly  there  is  a  similar  injunction  of  silence  in  regard  to 
predictions  of  suffering,  death,  and  rising  again. 

It  was  impossible  for  a  student  of  the  Gospels  to  avoid  noticing 
these  points,  which  clearly  hang  together,  though  the  connexion 
between  them  might  not  appear  on  the  surface.  Most  of  those 
who  have  made  the  attempt  to  write  a  Life  of  Christ  have  been 
content  to  take  them  as  they  stand,  and  indeed  to  accept  all  this 
part  of  the  outline  which  St  Mark  gives  of  our  Lord's  public 
ministry  as  strictly  historical. 

And  indeed  I  will  venture  to  say  that  all  these  features  in  the 
narrative  are  not  only  strictly  but  beautifully  historical.  Whether 
we  see  their  full  significance  or  not,  there  is  just  that  paradoxical 
touch  about  them  which  is  the  sure  guarantee  of  truth.     What 


I 


I 

»aa* 
ingW 

ion       m 


A 


INJUNCTIONS   OF  SILENCE   IN   THE   GOSPELS       323 

writer  of  fiction,  especially  of  the  naTfve  fiction  current  in  those 
days,  would  ever  have  thought  of  introducing  such  features,  with, 
just  that  kind  of  seeming  self-contradiction  ?  I  repeat :  even  if 
we  could  not  at  once  understand  all  that  is  meant  by  these  subtle 
oppositions,  I  think  we  should  not  fail  to  see  in  them  some- 
thing strikingly  lifelike  and  individual,  quite  beyond  the  reach 
of  invention. 

That,  I  cannot  but  think,  will  be  the  feeling  of  most  of  us.  But 
what  no  one  (to  the  best  of  my  belief)  has  ever  done  before,  that 
Professor  Wrede  of  Breslau,  in  the  monograph  to  which  I  began 
by  referring,  has  now  done.  He  has  called  in  question  the  truth 
of  all  this  delicate  portraiture.  I  will  not  prejudge  the  manner 
in  which  he  has  done  this ;  but  I  will  begin  with  a  brief  sketch 
of  the  argument  as  he  states  it. 

The  main  point  is  this.  If  Jesus  of  Nazareth  claimed  to  be  the 
Messiah,  He  would  not  have  gone  about  preventing  His  followers 
from  publishing  that  claim.  If  He  wrought  miracles  in  support 
of  it,  He  would  not  have  enjoined  secrecy  on  those  upon  whom 
they  had  been  wrought.  The  two  things  would  neutralize  each 
other.  It  would  be  futile  to  tell  some  few  individuals  to  keep 
silence  if  there  were  many  others  who  received  no  such  command 
of  silence. 

The  truth,  Wrede  maintains,  is  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  did  not 
during  His  lifetime  put  Himself  forward  as  the  Messiah  at  all. 
The  whole  structure  of  the  narrative  which  makes  Him  do  so  is 
built  not  on  a  basis  of  fact  but  on  the  belief  of  the  Early  Church, 
After  the  Resurrection  the  disciples  came  to  believe  that  Christ 
was  God,  and  they  read  back  this  belief  into  the  history  of  His 
life.  They  found  themselves  confronted  with  the  fact  that  He 
had  not  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  while  He  was  alive,  and  had 
consequently  not  given  proofs  of  His  Messiahship.  To  confess 
the  fact  would  have  been  fatal  to  the  dogma  which  they  had 
come  to  believe  ;  and  therefore  they  tried  to  conceal  it  by  in- 
venting these  injunctions  of  silence.  When  they  were  asked  by 
those  who  knew  what  the  course  of  the  life  of  Jesus  had  really 
been,  why  He  had  not  shewn  Himself  to  be  the  supernatural 
being  that  they  claimed,  their  reply  was  that  He  really  had 
shewn  it  in  a  number  of  ways,  but  that  He  had  prevented  these 
proofs  from  having  their  full  effect  by  repeatedly  commanding 

Y  2 


324        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


both  His  own  more  immediate  disciples  and  others  to  abstain 
from  publishing  what  He  W3.s  and  much  that  He  had  done. 

I  do  not  know  how  it  will  appear  to  others,  but  I  confess  that 
to  me  this  theory  seems  unreal  and  artifidal  in  the  extreme. 
That  any  ancient  should  seek  to  cover  the  non-existence  of 
certain  presumed  facts  by  asserting  that  they  did  exist,  but  that 
the  persons  affected  were  compelled  to  keep  silence  about  them, 
is  a  hypothesis  altogether  too  far-fetched  to  be  credible. 

We  observe,  by  the  way,  that  on  this  theory  an  enormous 
weight  is  thrown  upon  the  Resurrection.  It  was  the  Resurrec- 
tion which  gave  rise  to  that  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ  which 
then  coloured  the  conception  of  the  whole  of  the  preceding  history. 
And  yet,  on  the  hypothesis,  the  Resurrection  had  nothing  to  lead 
up  to  it.  It  had  never  been  predicted.  Before  it  occurred  the 
Lord  had  not  given  Himself  out  as  the  Messiah,  and  still  less  as 
the  Son  of  God.  Many,  at  leasts  of  the  mighty  works  attributed 
to  Him  were  pure  invention.  It  is  really  one  incredible  thing 
heaped  upon  another  The  founding  of  Christianity  was  in  any 
case  a  very  great  and  wonderful  event ;  and  yet  it  is  thought  that 
it  can  be  explained  by  reducing  the  cause  of  it  almost  to  nothing. 

Wrede's  book,  although  no  review  that  I  have  seen  accepts 
any  great  part  of  it,  has  yet  made  more  impression  upon  opinion 
in  Germany  than  I  believe  that  it  deserves.  My  chief  reason  for 
referring  to  it  is  that  it  calls  attention  to  an  aspect  of  our  Lord*s 
life  which  does  present  something  of  a  problem.  What  account 
are  we  to  give  of  these  paradoxical  injunctions  of  silence?  That 
they  are  true  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt.  That  they  are  an 
important  feature  in  the  picture  we  are  to  form  for  ourselves, 
I  have  also  no  doubt.  But  what  are  we  to  think  was  their  reason 
and  purpose? 

I  am  not  sure  that  I  am  altogether  able  to  say.  But  in  any 
case  I  conceive  that  this  feature  of  our  Lord's  ministry  must  be 
connected  with  that  side  of  it  which  was  a  fulfilment  of  the 
prophet's  words, '  My  Servant  shall  not  strive,  nor  cry,  nor  lift  up 
His  voice  in  the  streets '.  In  any  case  it  must  be  connected  with 
the  recasting  of  the  Messianic  idea  which  our  Lord  certainly 
carried  out,  divesting  it  of  its  associations  with  political  action 
and  transforming  it  from  a  kingdom  of  this  world  to  a  kingdom 
of  God  and  of  the  Spirit. 


I 


INJUNCTIONS    OF    SILENCE    IN    T!IE    GOSPELS       325 

We  must  try  to  realize  the  circumstances ;  for  we  may  be  very 
sure  that  the  state  of  things  with  which  we  are  treating  is  no 
embodiment  of  an  abstract  idea  as  Wrede  supposes,  but  intensely 
concrete,  arising  out  of  the  collision  of  different  and  conflicting 
motives  in  the  Teacher  and  the  taught. 

On  the  side  of  our  Lord  Himself  we  must  bear  in  mind  His 
deliberate  purpose  to  work  for  the  redemption  of  Israel,  but  not 
in  the  way  in  which  Israel  expected  to  be  redeemed.  There  was 
to  be  no  flash  of  swords,  no  raising  of  armies,  no  sudden  and 
furious  onset  with  the  Messiah  Himself  in  the  van*  It  was  be- 
ginning to  be  more  and  more  clear  that  the  end  of  His  ministry 
w^as  not  to  be  victory  in  the  sense  of  what  was  commonly 
accounted  victory.  The  Messiah  saw  opening  out  before  Him 
a  valley,  but  it  was  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death,  and  death 
itself  stood  at  the  end.  He  was  preparing  to  descend  into  this 
valley,  not  like  a  warrior,  with  garments  rolled  in  blood,  but  like 
a  lamb  led  to  the  slaughter,  with  a  supreme  effort  of  resignation, 
as  one  who  when  he  was  reviled  reviled  not  again. 
I  This  is  the  picture  that  we  have  on  the  Lord's  side  5  and  then 
on  the  side  of  those  for  whom  He  fought  and  for  whom  He  worked 
His  miracles  we  remember  that  there  was  a  spirit  the  very 
opposite  of  this ;  eager  young  men,  full  of  courage  and  enthusiasm, 
ready  to  take  the  sword,  ready  at  any  moment  to  rise  against  the 
Komans,  waiting  only  for  a  leaden  Ever  since  the  dethronement 
of  Archelaus  and  the  annexation  of  Judaea  by  Rome  in  a.d.  6 
there  had  been  this  temper  of  sullen  acquiescence  biding  its  time. 
The  memory  of  the  Maccabean  rising  still  lived  in  mens  minds, 
and  of  the  wonderful  feats  that  had  then  been  wrought  against 
desperate  odds.  What  then  might  not  be  done  with  a  prophet 
at  the  head — nay,  one  more  than  a  prophet,  who  was  assured  of 
the  alliance  and  succour  of  Heaven  ? 

There  is  a  significant  story  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  a  story  that 
bears  upon  its  face  the  stamp  of  verisimilitude,  much  as  such 
marks  are  overlooked  by  a  criticism  that  has  too  much  vogue 
at  the  present  time.  After  the  miracle  of  the  Feeding  of  the  Five 
Thousand,  Jesus,  *  perceiving  that  they  were  about  to  come  and 
take  Him  by  force,  to  make  Him  King,  withdrew  again  into 
the  mountain  Himself  alone'  (John  vi  15),  He  constantly  had 
to  avoid  this  kind  of  pressure.     It  was  in  full  keeping  with  this 


326         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

that  He  had  on  several  occasions  to  check  the  zeal  of  those 
who  would  have  hailed  Him  as  the  Messiah^  and  to  impose 
silence  upon  those  on  whom  His  miracles  had  been  wrought 
Enthusiasm  always  lay  ready  to  His  hand.  It  could  have  been 
fanned  into  flame  with  the  greatest  ease.  But  it  was  enthusiasm 
of  the  wrong  sort  j  it  needed  to  be  enlightened,  disciplmed, 
purified ;  and  therefore  it  was  that  the  Lord  refused  to  give 
it  the  encouragement  it  sought-  Hence  these  seeming  o^oss^ 
purposes,  this  alternate  stimulus  and  restraint* 

Unfortunately  we  have  few  details.  At  the  distance  of  time" 
at  which  our  Gospels  were  composed,  it  was  hardly  possible  that 
we  should  have  them»  If  we  had»  much  that  Is  now  obscure 
might  have  been  made  plain.  We  might  have  come  to  under- 
stand the  special  conditions  at  work  in  particular  scenes,  at  one 
time  favouring  publicity,  at  another  privacy.  We  may  be  sure 
that  our  Lord  diagnosed  with  perfect  insight  the  temper  of  those 
with  whom  He  had  to  deal,  and  adjusted  His  own  attitude  to  it, 
like  a  good  physician^  adapting  His  treatment  to  each  case  as 
it  arose. 

We  must  recognize  that  our  Gospels  speak  for  the  most  part 
in  very  general  terms.  Especially  the  accounts  of  wholesale 
miracle-working  are  subject  to  deductions  for  historical  perspec- 
tive. It  is  remarkable  that  the  Gospels  have  preserved  to  the 
extent  they  have  the  instances  in  which  the  finger  of  silence 
is  laid  upon  the  lips  of  those  who  were  eager  to  speak. 

But  I  am  quite  prepared  to  believe  that  these  instances  have 
a  yet  deeper  meaning  than  I  have  as  yet  suggested  for  them* 
I  always  desire  to  speak  with  great  reserve  of  the  human  con- 
sciousness of  our  Lord*  I  cannot  at  all  agree  with  those  writers 
who  would  treat  of  this  as  something  that  can  be  entirely  known 
and  freely  handled  ;  and  still  less  when  they  eke  out  the  limited 
data  supplied  by  the  Gospels  from  the  Messianic  expectations 
of  the  time.  But  where  the  Gospels  themselves  clearly  emphasize 
a  point,  we  also  shall  do  right  to  emphasize  it.  And  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  where  the  Gospels  speak  of  these  injunctions  of  silence 
their  language  is  constantly  emphatic :  *  Jesus  rebuked  (cTrcri/Liijo-cv) 
the  unclean  spirit,  saying,  Hold  thy  peace,  and  come  out  of  him  * 
(Mk.  i  25);  'And  He  charged  them  much  (iroAAa  ^ircW/Lta  alrxfU) 
they  should  not  make  Him  known  '  (Mk.  iii  12  ;  cf,  viii  39) ; 


INJUNCTIONS   OF   SILENCE    IN   THE   GOSPELS       327 

'And  He  charged  them  much  (ftieoretXaro  avroU  TiokXd)  that  no 
man  should  know  this'  (Mk.  v  43;   cf.  vii  ^6^  ix  9)* 

I  have  given  only  a  few  typical  passages ;  there  are  several 
others  similar.  In  all  of  these  the  language  is  the  same ;  it 
is  the  language  of  emotion — of  strong  emotion.  How  is  this  ? 
I  think  perhaps  we  shall  understand  it  best  if  we  take  these 
passages  along  with  yet  another,  which  naturally  goes  with  them, 
and  in  which  indeed  they  may  be  said  to  reach  a  climax.  In  the 
Gospel  it  follows  immediately  upon  St  Peter's  confession.  Then 
we  have  the  first  prediction  of  the  Passion  and  the  Crucifixion 
and  the  Resurrection.  We  are  told  that  our  Lord  'spake  the 
saying  openly.  And  Peter  took  Him,  and  began  to  rebuke  Him. 
But  He,  turning  about^  and  seeing  His  disciples,  rebuked  Peter, 
and  saith,  Get  thee  behind  Me,  Satan:  for  thou  mindest  not 
the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men '  (Mk.  viii  32  f.).  In 
St  Matthew  it  is  stronger  still,  though  the  added  clause  is 
probably  only  editorial :  *  Get  thee  behind  Me,  Satan  :  thou  art 
an  offence  [a  stumbling-block  or  scandal]  unto  Me:  for  thou 
mindest  not  the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men  * 
(Ml  xvi  25). 

Words  like  these  come  up  from  the  depths.  They  are  not 
the  calm  enunciation  of  a  policy,  or  the  didactic  imparting  of 
a  lesson.  Such  things  are  cold,  and  words  like  these  are  not 
cold.  They  are  spoken^ — if  I  may  speak  as  we  might  speak 
of  one  of  ourselves — with  heat.  It  is  really  the  reaction  against 
temptation,  felt — and  keenly  felt — as  temptation. 

Our  Lord  goes  so  far  as  to  identify  Peter  with  the  very  tempter 
himself.  The  apostle  spake  in  the  innocence  of  his  heart ; 
thoughtlessly,  and  with  the  vehemence  of  short-sighted  affection, 
but  with  no  evil  intent.  But  in  his  hasty  speech  a  poisoned  dart 
lay  concealed,  a  dart  cunningly  aimed  at  the  whole  purpose  of 
the  Lord's  mission. 

We  are  reminded  indeed  of  that  of  which  we  commonly  speak 
as  *the  Temptation'.  There  the  story  is  told  in  a  symbolical 
form,  which  perhaps  gathers  up  the  significance  of  more  than  one 
actual  incident  in  our  Lord's  life.  He  is  conscious  of  super- 
natural power — of  power  that  might  have  been  wielded  for  other 
ends  than  those  for  which  it  was  really  given.  When  the  Son  of 
Man  saw,  as  He  might  have  seen  from  a  lofty  mountain,  a  broad 


328         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


and  typical  expanse,  as  it  were  a  sample  of  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  and  the  gloty  of  them,  He  saw  what  was  entirely  within 
His  grasp  if  He  had  cared  to  take  it.  But  to  take  it  would  have 
meant  abandoning  the  whole  line  of  ministry  that  He  had  marked 
out  for  Himself  *  Whether  is  greater,  he  that  sitteth  at  meat, 
or  he  that  serveth  ?  is  not  he  that  sitteth  at  meat  ?  but  I  am 
in  the  midst  of  you  as  he  that  serveth  '  (Lk.  xxii  27).  It  was  no 
common  form  of  service  that  our  Lord  had  chosen.  *  He  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  Cross.*  It  was  the 
shadow  of  the  Cross  that  now  fell  upon  Him.  And  it  is  very 
clear  that  the  prospect  carried  with  it  a  temptation.  'O  My 
Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  away  from  Me  :  never- 
theless, not  as  I  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt  *  (Mt.  xxvi  39).  In  that 
prayer  tlie  temptation  was  finally  repelled  ;  but  we  may  be  sure 
that  it  had  been  felt  before.  It  was  especially  felt  at  the 
moment  when  St  Peter  made  his  unhappy  impulsive  speech,  doing, 
without  knowing  it,  the  devil's  work. 

We  speak  of  the  remodelling  of  the  Messianic  idea  ;  and  it  is 
absolutely  true  that  our  Lord  was  the  Messiah  in  a  very  different 
sense  from  that  in  which  the  name  was  understood  by  His  con- 
temporaries. But  this  again  was  no  change  worked  out,  as  it 
were,  on  paper  ;  it  was  no  product  of  philosophy,  speculative  or 
practical.  It  was  a  conflict — if  indeed  that  is  the  right  name, 
for  again  I  am  speaking  after  the  manner  of  men — fought  out 
deep  down,  at  the  lowest  depth  at  which  such  conflicts  are 
fought,  and  extending  all  the  way  from  the  first  moments  after 
the  Baptism  to  the  last  bitter  cry  upon  the  Cross.  Beneath 
what  seemed  at  times  the  quiet  unruffled  surface  of  that  life 
the  conflict  was  going  on,  and  such  scenes  as  those  which  we  have 
been  passing  in  rapid  review  are  times  when  the  fires  within 
break  forth  and  are  seen. 

These  scenes  were  not  merely  the  expression  of  what  we 
should  call  an  idiosyncrasy  of  character;  they  were  not  merely 
incidents  in  a  process  of  education,  either  of  the  inner  circle  of 
the  disciples  or  of  the  outer  circle  of  inquirers  and  sympathizers. 
They  were  in  some  degree,  I  conceive,  both  these  things ;  but 
their  origin  lay  deeper.  They  were  surface  indications  of  the 
only  inward  antithesis  of  which  we  have  any  trace  in  the  hTe  of 
our  Lord.     He  Himself  described  it  as  an  antithesis  between  *the 


I 


I 


INJUNCTIONS   OF   SILENCE   IN   THE   GOSPELS       329 

things  of  God '  and  '  the  things  of  men '.  That  tender  Humanity 
shrank — as  how  should  it  not? — from  the  terrible  end  that 
was  so  clearly  foreseen :  an  end  the  terrors  of  which  were 
enhanced  and  not  diminished  by  the  fact  that  He  who  foresaw 
them  was  the  Son  of  God.  The  human  mind  of  Jesus  shrank 
from  this ;  it  had  doubtless  dreams  and  imaginations  of  its  own, 
of  winning  the  whole  world  in  other  and  less  dreadful  ways. 
A  lifted  finger,  a  breathed  wish,  and  twelve  legions  of  angels 
would  have  been  at  His  side.  Only  one  thought  hindered — 
but  that  a  master-thought;  How  then  shall  the  Scriptures  be 
fulfilled  that  thus  it  must  be  ?  Behind  the  Scriptures  Isl}^  the  will 
of  Him  who  gave  them,  that  will  in  regard  to  which  Father  and 
Son  were  at  one. 

We  see  the  antithesis — the  conflict,  if  so  it  is  to  be  called. 
But,  the  Son  being  what  He  was,  it  could  have  but  one  issue. 
It  issued  in  an  agony  over  which  we  draw  a  veil.  We  draw 
a  veil  over  it,  and  we  turn  away ;  but,  as  we  turn,  we  say  to  our- 
selves *  So  much  it  cost  to  redeem  the  race  of  man '. 

W.  Sandav. 


330 


¥ 


THE    EARLY   CHURCH   AND   THE 
SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS ^ 

The  critical  study  of  the  Gospcb  falls  naturally  into  three 
stages,  which  should  be  kept  in  theory  distinct,  however  much  in 
practice  they  overlap.  There  is  (i)  the  literary  question,  the 
question  of  the  literary  sources  of  the  several  Gospels.  The 
three  Synoptic  Gospels  are  certainly  tiot  independent :  the  later 
Gospels  must  have  used  the  earlier,  or  they  all  three  drew  from 
a  common  source  -.  This  is  a  matter  of  literary  criticism,  and  it 
logically  necessary  that  we  should  begin  with  it,  for  otherwise 
may  treat  the  agreement  of,  say,  Matthew  and  Mark  as  that 
two  witnesses,  whereas  it  may  prove  that  one  is  merely  copying 
the  other.  But  when  we  have  separated  the  literary  sources  of 
our  Gospels  there  is  yet  another  process  to  be  gone  through, 
viz.  (a)  the  criticism  of  the  tradition.  What  I  mean  will  perhaps 
best  be  understood  if  we  go  on  at  once  to  the  third  stage,  which 
is  (3)  the  investigation  of  the  actual  events  of  the  ministry,  the 
writing  of  the  '  Life  of  Christ ',  VVe  cannot  scientifically  proceed 
at  once  to  this  third  stage,  before  we  have  considered  through 
what  stages  the  report  of  our  Lord's  words  and  deeds  passed  in 
the  interval  between  the  events  themselves  and  the  composition 
of  the  documents  w^e  possess  or  can  reconstruct. 

This  is  an  extremely  important  stage  and  yet  the  consideration 
of  it  is  often  slurred  over.  When  we  have  isolated  our  '  original  * 
authorities  we  cannot  simply  regard  them  as  just  so  many 
independent  witnesses  such  as  were  sought  for  by  eighteenth- 
century  apologists — at  least,  to  continue  the  metaphor,  we 
must  expect  to  find  them  agreed  upon  a  tale.    The  scenes  of 

*  The  following  pages  contain  the  greater  part  of  a  Lecture  deHvered  last 
Aug\i5t  to  the  members  of  the  Vacation  Term  for  Biblical  Studies  at  Newnhato 
College,  Cambridge.  Together  with  some  rather  more  general  remarks  on  the 
study  of  the  Gospeh,  here  omitted,  it  fortocd  the  Introduction  to  a  short  course  on 
St  Mark,  St  Matthew,  and  St  Luke. 

*  In  the  following  Lecture  I  tried  to  shew  that  Matthew  and  Luke  used  Mark, 
%nd  also  another  document  now  tost  which  docs  not  appear  io  Mark,  together  with 

'^tain  other  aubaidiiarj  sources. 


J 


K 


THE    EARLY    CHURCH   AND    THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS  331 


our  Lord's  life  on  earth  were  indeed  enacted  in  public  and 
the  multitudes  heard  His  words,  but  our  knowledge  of  them  is 
derived  from  the  disciples.  We  cannot  hope  to  know  more  than 
the  collective  memory  of  the  first  circle  of  the  disciples  at  Jeru- 
salem. Without  pressing  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  in  all  its 
details,  we  learn  from  the  Epistle  of  St  Paul  to  the  Galatians  that 
about  nine  years  after  the  Crucifixion  St  Peter  was  in  Jerusalem, 
and  it  is  there  and  not  in  Galilee  that  our  authorities  place  the 
home  of  the  infant  Church.  Moreover  we  are  told  that  'the 
multitude  of  them  that  believed  were  of  one  heart  and  sou],  and 
not  one  of  them  said  that  aught  of  the  things  which  he  possessed 
was  his  own  ;  but  they  had  all  things  common '.  This  may  be 
an  ideal  picture,  and  in  any  case  the  state  of  things  was  not 
permanent,  but  if  it  be  at  all  true  of  individuals  in  any  one 
particular  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  most  true  with  regard  to 
their  reminiscences  of  the  Lord.  The  memory  of  the  words  and 
deeds  of  Jesus  Christ  must  have  been  thrown  into  the  common  stock 
— *  when  He  was  raised  from  the  dead,  His  disciples  remembered 
that  he  spake  thus  ;  and  they  believed  the  scripture  and  the  word 
which  Jesus  had  said,'  Out  of  the  bare  reminiscences  of  the 
disciples  those  sayings  and  acts  which  in  the  light  of  later 
events  were  seen  to  be  of  significance  were  repeated  to  the 
younger  generation  that  gradually^  took  the  place  of  the  com- 
panions of  the  ministry.  The  object  of  the  Evangelists  was  not 
biography  but  edification. 

All  this  tended  to  make  the  evangelical  tradition  homogeneous. 
It  explains  to  some  extent  the  selection  of  events  and  the  method 
f  treatment.  Above  all  it  helps  us  to  realize  what  we  get  when 
we  come  to  the  final  results  of  our  purely  literary  criticism  of  the 
Gospels.  Our  second  Gospel  may  be  the  work  of  John  Mark, 
sometime  the  companion  of  St  Peter,  and  it  may  embody  some 
things  that  he  had  heard  from  St  Peter's  mouth.  But  even  in 
this  case  the  narrative  has  lost  much  of  the  personal  note :  it  is 
far  too  even  to  be  mere  personal  reminiscence.  The  tale  of 
St  Peter's  denial,  for  example,  may  be  substantially  true,  though 
personally  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  in  some  points  the  narra- 
tive of  St  Luke  is  here  more  accurate ;  but  be  that  as  it  may,  the 
narrative  of  Mark  does  not  read  like  St  Peter's  own  version  of 
the  story.  It  is  not  a  tale  told  for  the  first  time:  it  represents 
the  way  in  which  this  little  episode  of  the  great  Tragedy  came  to 


332  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

be  told  in  Jerusalem  among  the  disciples  tu^enty  or  thirty  years 
after  the  events  took  place.  I  am  not  suggesting  that  any  written 
document  in  Greek,  or  in  the  Aramaic  of  Palestine,  underlies 
St  Mark:  the  narrative  is  doubtless  written  down  for  the  first 
time  by  the  author,  but  some  of  the  things  which  he  is  putting  on 
paper  had  been  repeated  many  times  before  by  word  of  mouth. 

And  what  is  the  historic  effect  of  all  this  ?  It  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  it  lets  in  the  opportunity  for  errors  of  detail.  '  These 
things  understood  not  His  disciples  at  the  Brst\  says  the  fourth 
Evangelist :  *  but  when  Jesus  was  glorified,  then  remembered 
they  that  these  things  were  written  of  him,  and  that  they  had 
done  these  things  unto  Him  *.  The  Gospels  took  their  shape  in 
an  atmosphere  of  growing  and  unquestioning  faith ;  they  were 
compiled  by  men  writing  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events. 
Under  such  circumstances  it  is  hard  for  memories  to  be  drily 
accurate,  it  is  easy  to  feel  that  the  more  obviously  edifying  form 
of  a  story  or  a  saying  must  be  the  truer  version.  The  eye- 
witnesses of  the  Word,  of  whom  St  Luke  speaks,  had  known 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  for  a  friend,  but  they  had  learned  to  believe 
that  He  was  the  Only  Son  of  God  and  that  He  now  was  waiting 
until  the  fullness  of  the  times  at  the  right  hand  of  His  Father. 
He  had  lived  among  them  as  man  with  man,  as  a  master  with 
his  disciples,  and  at  the  time  they  had  not  thoroughly  realized 
the  experience  which  they  were  going  through.  Now  they  felt 
that  they  would  be  fools  and  blind  if  they  failed  to  see  the  deep 
significance  of  events  to  which  they  had  paid  so  little  attention 
and  words  of  which  tliey  had  only  half  understood  the  meaning. 

The  Gospel  record  had  passed  through  a  full  generation  of 
pious  reflexion  and  meditation,  before  it  began  to  be  written 
down  and  so  fixed  for  all  time.  The  trustworthiness  of  the 
record  depends  therefore  on  the  trustworthiness  of  the  first 
Christians.  How  far  were  they  qualified  for  their  great  task  ? 
I  propH3se  now  to  try  and  answer  some  part  of  this  question. 
My  remarks  must  be,  I  fear,  somewhat  vague  and  provisional, 
for  this  part  of  the  subject  is  not  so  advanced  as  the  literary 
criticism  of  the  sources  of  our  Gospels,  Many  writers  have 
been  content  with  demonstrating  the  good  faith  and  sincerity  of 
the  early  Christians  on  the  one  side,  or  on  the  other  laying  stress 
upon  their  ignorance  and  lack  of  the  critical  spirit.  It  seems  to 
me  that  we  need  a  more  detailed  verdict  than  this.     The  qualifi- 


THE    EARLY   CHURCH   AND    THE    SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  333 

cations  of  the  early  Christian  Church  as  the  channel  and  mould 
of  tradition  cannot  be  satisfactorily  dismissed  in  an  epigram. 
Perfect  witnesses  the  early  Christians  certainly  were  not.  The 
perfect  witness  is  himself  a  walking  miracle.  He  should  have 
the  memory  of  Lord  Macaulay,  the  justice  of  Dr  S»  R.  Gardiner, 
the  scrupulous  honesty  of  Tillemont,  the  enthusiasm  of  a  devotee, 
the  insight  of  a  prophet  The  hero  of  a  written  biography  is  at 
a  disadvantage.  The  written  word  does  not  reproduce  the  tone 
of  the  voice,  the  smile,  the  explanatory  gesture.  The  Christ  that 
we  know  is  a  biography,  the  Christ  that  we  want  to  know  is 
a  life.  And  yet  with  all  the  disadvantages  of  temperament,  of 
race,  and  of  historical  accident,  under  which  the  Christians 
laboured,  it  is  at  least  doubtful  whether  they  were  not  as  well 
quafified  for  their  task  as  was  possible  under  the  circumstances. 

I  wish  to  try  and  make  the  point  that  I  hope  to  establish  as 
clear  as  possible,  even  at  the  risk  of  prolixity.  The  question 
at  issue  is  the  qualifications  and  disadvantages  of  the  first  three 
generations  of  Christians — roughly  from  30  A.D.  to  120  a.d. — to 
be  the  guardians  and  transmitters  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  the 
Christ.     I  begin  with  their  disadvantages. 

The  disadvantages  of  the  early  Christians  as  the  transmitters 
of  tradition  were  disadvantages  of  temperament,  of  race,  and 
of  historical  accident.  Under  disadvantages  of  temperament  we 
may  reckon  that  generally  uncritical  attitude  to  historical  events 
which  they  shared  with  most  of  their  contemporaries.  It  was 
not  an  age  of  great  historians.  The  most  famous  writers  of 
history  were  not  great.  Suetonius  was  a  gossip,  Tacitus  a  pam- 
phleteer. St  Luke  is  by  far  the  most  '  cultured  *  of  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  he  is  no  more  accurate  than  the  others 
and  less  really  scientific*  It  does  not  help  us  to  accept  the  details 
of  the  story  of  Pentecost  when  the  gift  of  tongues  has  been 
described  by  him  in  terms  which  naturally  imply  a  sudden 
acquaintance  with  foreign  languages.  The  disadvantages  of  race 
are  familiar  to  us.  The  Romans  and  Greeks  despised  the  Jews 
because  they  did  not  understand  them.  The  whole  of  the  Jewish 
and  Palestinian  associations  of  the  Gospel  narrative  and  phrase- 
ology were  strange  to  Gentile  Christians,  and  much  of  it  was 
distasteful  Inevitably  much  was  misunderstood  ;  some  mis- 
understandings indeed  are  only  now  being  cleared  up  by  the  slow 
and  painful  investigations  of  modern  scholars  in  the  departments 


334         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

of  Rabbinic  theology  and  the  then  popular  Jewish  Apocalyptic 
literature.  The  matter  was  further  complicated  by  the  historical 
accident*  if  we  may  so  term  it,  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus  in  A.  D.  70,  and  the  consequent  breaking-up  of  the  Jewish- 
Christian  Churches,  the  only  Christian  communities  at  that  period 
which  spoke  an>'thing  but  Greek.  These  are  disadvantages  indeed* 
As  I  have  already  said,  it  is  a  wonder  that  so  much  of  what  is 
precious  to  us  has  been  saved  out  of  the  whirlpool. 

But  there  is  another  side  to  the  picture,  and  we  shall  carry 
away  a  very  wrong  impression  if  we  do  not  bear  it  well  in  mind. 
There  are  no  real  accidents  in  history.  If  we  have  in  the  Gospels 
an  incomparable  treasure,  in  which  is  preserved  a  not  inadequate 
presentation  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  this  must 
be  because  those  who  have  recorded  that  life  and  teaching  were 
in  some  way  eminently  fitted  for  their  work.  It  is  because  of 
the  positive  qualifications  of  the  Evangelists  and  their  pre- 
decessors, not  because  of  their  defects,  that  the  Gospels  are 
worthy  of  their  subject. 

And  what  were  the  qualifications  of  the  Evangelists?  Their 
chief  qualification,  but  it  w^as  one  of  the  *  few  things  needful ', 
is  etkicai  sensitiveness,  I  am  very  loth  to  use  the  vocabulary 
of  modem  literary  and  artistic  criticism  in  speaking  of  the  mental 
temper  of  early  Christianity,  It  savours  of  *  superiority '  where 
w^e  ought  to  be  humble ;  and  the  spectacle  is  not  edifying  of  the 
tvventieth-century  critic  sitting  in  judgement  from  his  safe 
vantage-ground,  fortified  by  archaeological  learning  and  historical 
experience,  upon  the  instincts  that  prompted  our  spiritual  fore- 
fathers to  leave  their  ancestral  traditions  for  a  kind  of  Jewish 
Nonconformity.  But  the  expression  I  have  used  serves  well 
enough  to  describe  one  of  the  most  striking  features  of  our 
Gospels.  There  are  stories  in  our  Gospels,  in  which  some  of  the 
features  must  be  unhistortcal.  There  are  plenty  of  people  who  J 
find  they  cannot  accept  this  or  that  narrative  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and  various  explanations  are  given  of  how  the  tale  may 
be  supposed  to  have  originated.  Some  things  are  said  to  be  an  I 
Imitation  of  Old  Testament  tales  or  to  have  been  composed 
to  shew  how  Old  Testament  prophecy  was  fulfilled.  Other 
things  are  said  to  illustrate  the  controversies  that  disturbed  the  I 
infant  Church.     But  if  this  be  the  case  to  any  extent,  is  it  not 

markable  how  little  fault  is  found  with  the  general  tone  and 


THE    EARLY   CHURCH   AND   THE   SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS   335 

atmosphere  of  the  Gospel  stories,  with  their  general  ethical  and 
moral  tendency  ?  Does  it  not  shew  how  well  fitted  by  temper 
and  instinct  were  those  who  handed  down  tlie  Gospel  tradition 
for  the  work  which  they  performed  ? 

Not  for  one  moment  would  I  suggest  that  the  Gospels  are 
works  of  ethical  art,  based  ultimately  on  an  idealizing  imagina- 
tion. The  fourth  Gospel  may  be  so  to  some  extent^  but  not 
the  others.  Where  St  Luke  attempts  to  idealize,  by  smoothing 
down  the  rugged  lines  of  St  Mark,  he  does  not  improve  the 
picture.  No:  Matthew  Arnold's  maxim,  yest4S  over  the  heads 
of  all  his  reporters  t  is  the  true  working  hypothesis  to  guide  the 
critic,  the  only  one  that  leads  to  a  reasonable  explanation  of 
what  ue  find  in  the  Gospel  literature.  With  few  exceptions 
the  early  Christians  were  ignorant  and  unlearned  men,  but  we 
take  knowledge  of  them  that  they  have  been  with  Jesus. 

At  the  same  time  we  shall  do  less  than  justice  to  the  Church, 
if  we  do  not  recognize  the  debt  we  owe  to  her.  If  we  praise  the 
Gospels  because  they  present  a  not  inadequate  picture  of  our 
Lord,  we  should  remember  that  we  receive  them  at  the  hands 
of  the  Church.  The  Gospels  are  not  the  discovery  of  modern 
critics  or  a  view  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  preserved  by 
some  obscure  heretical  sect-  On  the  contrary:  the  Gospels, 
by  whomsoever  drawn  up,  and  however  they  may  be  related  to 
one  another,  are  the  Memoirs,  the  memorabilia,  which  the  Church 
chose  out  to  be  the  official  records  of  the  life  of  Christ.  That 
the  Church  of  the  second  century  should  have  chosen  so  well 
is  an  irrefragable  proof  that  in  essentials  it  was  inspired  with  the 
spirit  of  Jesus.  The  note  of  true  culture  is  to  recognize  real 
merit,  and  by  choosing  our  Gospels  the  Church  shewed  an  ethical 
instinct  that  is  surprising  and  a  historical  instinct  that  is  only 
less  wonderful.  When  one  thinks  of  the  explanations  of 
Christianity  that  were  offered  by  second -century  theologians, 
both  those  who  were  accounted  orthodox  and  those  who  were 
accounted  heretics,  it  is,  I  repeat,  wonderful  that  the  Church, 
by  which  I  mean  the  main  body  of  Christians,  should  have 
chosen  with  such  happy  inspiration. 

I  must  now  illustrate  what  I  have  said  from  some  of  these  second- 
century  writers.  To  study  the  Gospels  critically  one  cannot  get 
too  much  saturated  with  the  spirit  of  the  second  century  A.D,,  so 
as  to  work  back  in  a  right  frame  of  mind  towards  the  successive 


33l6        THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


I 


periods  when  our  written  Gospels  were  ofHdally  rccogniziGd, 
piled,  conceived. 

I  take  Justin  Martyr,  chiefly,  of  course,  because  the 
remains  of  his  works  are  so  considerable  that  we  can  obtaa 
a  fair  idea  of  his  attitude  to  the  Gospel  record.  But  he  also 
represent!  very  well  the  close  of  the  period  during  which  our 
four  Gospels  gradually  won  their  way  to  their  positioa  of 
recognized  pre-eminence.  It  is  a  disputed  question  whether 
Justin,  who  wrote  about  150  a.d.^  used  our  four  Gospels.  Per- 
sonally I  have  no  doubt  that  he  did  use  them,  very  likely  to 
the  practical  exclusion  of  other  evangelical  documents*  For  the 
purpose  wc  have  in  hand*  however,  it  does  not  matter.  What 
wc  want  to  get  arc  the  points  in  the  sayings  and  deeds  of  Jesus 
which  attracted  Justin.  Out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the 
mouth  spcakcth,  and  by  considering  Justin's  references  to  the 
Gospels  wc  shall  gain  some  notion  of  what  he  considered  I 
the  more  important  parts  of  their  contents.  The  collection  has 
been  already  made  for  us,  and  it  has  been  digested  into  a  sort 
of  running  narrative  by  Dr  Sanday  in  his  well-known  work 
called  T/te  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century  (pp.  91-98), 

The  first  inference  you  would  probably  draw  from  Dr  Sanday's 
long  abstract  of  Justin  Martyr's  evangelical  references  is  that  he 
did  use  our  Canonical  Gospels,  in  any  case  that  he  used  our 
Gospels  according  to  Matthew  and  Luke.  But  leaving  that 
question  aside,  what  I  want  to  examine  is  something  rather 
diflTcrent.  I  want  to  examine  the  reason  that  leads  Justin  to 
refer  to  our  Lord's  life  and  teaching.  What  was  there  that 
attracted  him  in  the  Gospel  ?  What  did  he  think  worth  quoting 
from  it  ?  If  Justin  Martyr  be  a  fair  representative  of  the  Catholic 
Churchman  of  the  second  century^  and  I  think  he  was  a  fair 
representative,  we  shall  obtain  in  answering  this  question  the 
reasons  which  led  the  Catholic  Church  to  choose  out  our  four  1 
Gospels.  And,  seeing  that  the  Gospels  also  were  the  work  of 
Churchmen,  though  of  a  rather  earlier  period,  we  shall  also  gain 
some  knowledge  of  tendencies  of  thought  that  helped  to  shape 
the  Gospels  themselves. 

The  impression  left  on  my  own  mind  is  twofold.  On  the  one 
hand,  I  see  an  admirable  mora!  feeling,  the  '  ethical  sensitiveness* 
of  which  I  have  already  spoken.  On  the  other^  an  absence  of 
nical  and  scientific  criticism  which  invites  all  sorts  of  objective 


I 


J 


THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS     337 

errors  in  the  presentation  of  the  incidents  of  the  Gospel  narrative. 
It  is  significant  how  many  of  the  incidents  are  attested  by  Justin, 
which  modem  critics  find  a  difficulty  in  accepting.  The  details 
of  both  the  Nativity  stories  are  there.  As  in  oor  Matthew  we 
have  the  dream  of  Joseph,  the  prophecy  of  Micah,  the  Magi  and 
their  gifts,  the  slaughter  of  the  Innocents  by  Herod,  the  flight 
into  Egypt,  the  return  in  the  days  of  Archelaus.  As  in  our  Luke 
we  have  the  annunciation  by  Gabriel,  the  census  of  Quirinius,  the 
Journey  from  Nazareth  to  Bethlehem,  and  the  story  of  the  manger. 
AJl  this  is  just  that  part  of  the  Gospels  where '  advanced  '  modern 
criticism  feels  most  sure  that  the  historical  basis  is  exceedingly 
smallv  and  that  we  are  dealing  with  popular  legends,  incredible 
in  themselves  and  inconsistent  with  one  another,  But  Justin  is 
delighted  with  the  Nativity  stories.  He  sees  no  contradictions 
in  them,  and  he  appeals  to  their  details  as  offering  the  strongest 
confirmations  of  prophecy.  Again,  there  is  hardly  any  episode 
in  the  Christian  traditions  about  the  Resurrection  so  generally 
rejected  by  'advanced'  critics  as  the  story  of  the  guard  at  the 
tomb.  But  Justin  refers  to  Matt,  xxvii  63  fif,  an  integral  part  of 
this  episode  that  tells  us  how  and  why  the  guard  was  appointed*. 
No  doubt  Justin  would  have  regarded  our  historical  criticism  with 
grave  distrust.  He  declares  it  better  that  Christians  should 
believe  miracles  such  as  were  impossible  to  men  and  to  their 
own  nature,  than  that  they  should  disbelieve  with  the  outside 
world,  seeing  that  those  who  disbelieved  what  God  had  promised 
should  come  to  pass  through  Christ  will  be  punished  in  Gehenna 
together  with  those  who  had  lived  unrighteously  {A/>ol.  §  19). 

Thus  we  gather  from  Justin  that  a  story  which  seemed  to 
confirm  a  saying  of  prophecy  was  likely  to  be  popular  among 
the  Christians  of  his  day,  and  that  special  interest  was  being  paid 
to  those  traditions  which  related  the  miraculous  birth  of  their 
Messiah.  We  see  that  Gospels  akin  to  those  of  Matthe%v  and 
Luke  form  the  staple  of  Justin's  allusions,  even  if  he  be  not 
actually  using  these  very  writings.  From  this  point  of  view, 
therefore,  we  are  not  astonished  to  find  that  a  very  few  years 


r  *  Juslin  (DiaL  5  108)  declares  that  Ihc  Jews  ordained  anti •Christian  missionaries 
who  said  of  Jesus  the  Galilean  'Deceiver"  (Matt  xxvii  63)  that  after  Ihe  Crucifixion 
ol  tia$riTal  avrov  MKi\favrts  ahriv  dird  rov  fitrffftarof  yvKr6i  deceive  folit  XifQUfrtt 
iiyijjip$ai  abrdr  U  vtttpwv^    This  is  an  obvious  echo  of  Matt,  xxvii  54. 

VOL.  V*  Z 


338         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

after  Justin  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  and  the  Gospel 
according^  to  Luke  are  received  in  the  Church  as  authoritative. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  other  side  of  the  picture,  to  the  ethical 
side.  Here  we  are  in  a  different  atmosphere.  Justin  and  his 
fellow  Christians  aim  at  a  better  morality,  a  better  rule  of  life, 
than  their  pagan  contemporaries,  and  at  the  same  time  they  are 
conscious  of  a  fr^h  supply  of  power  to  walk  in  the  way  marked 
out  for  them.  We  Christians,  says  Justin,  are  not  to  be  accounted 
Atheists,  though  we  offer  no  sacrifices.  The  food  which  others 
would  waste  in  sacrifices  we  cat  ourselves^  or  give  to  those  who 
have  need.  But  for  every  kind  of  food  and  for  the  other  blessings 
of  life  we  give  praise  to  the  Creator  of  all,  which  is  the  only 
sacrifice  worthy  of  Hini,  mingled  with  prayers  that  we  may 
become  again  incorruptible  through  our  faith.  This,  he  says,  we 
have  been  taught  to  do  by  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  crucified  under 
Pontius  Pilate,  Jesus  whom  we  have  learnt  to  honour  as  truly  the 
Son  of  God,  together  with  the  Prophetic  Spirit.  This  is  why 
Christians  are  accused  of  madness,  in  that  after  prescribing  the 
worship  of  the  immutable  and  eternal  God  they  go  on  to  the 
worship  of  a  crucified  human  being  {ApoL  §  13).  Justin  feels 
that  there  may  be  a  natural  prejudice  on  this  account  against 
Christianity,  a  prejudice  fostered  by  the  evil  spirits.  He  begs  his 
hearers  therefore  to  free  themselves  from  their  dominion,  even 
as,  he  says,  we  Christians  have  freed  ourselves  that  we  might 
follow  the  only  unbegotten  God  through  His  Son  ;  so  that  some 
of  us  who  formerly  delighted  in  lasciviousness  now  embrace  self- 
control,  others  who  followed  magic  arts  now  consecrate  themselves 
to  a  God  who  is  good  and  kind,  others  who  devoted  their  energies 
to  amassing  wealth  now  share  their  possessions  for  the  common 
good,  others  of  us  who  hated  one  another,  and  would  have  neither 
common  intercourse  nor  worship  ^  with  aliens  now  after  Christ*s 
manifestation  associate  together,  praying  for  our  enemies,  and 
trying  to  persuade  those  who  are  unjustly  hating  us,  so  that  they 
also  ^  may  live  according  to  Christ's  salutary  counsels,  and  have 
a  good  hope  to  obtain  the  like  mercies  with  us  from  Almighty 
God.     And,  continues  Justin,  that  we  may  not  seem  to  be  giving 

^  The  occurrence  of  d/iod/oiTM  two  lines  below  {Otto,  vol,  i  p,  36*)  CDCouragcs 
mc  to  luggest  Stajrdf  re  tail  karias  for  Ad  rd  iSfti  m^  Ivrias. 
'•'Hnit  o2  with  Mmrauus. 


J 


THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS     339 


Du  a  sophisticated  account  of  our  religion,  I  have  thought  it 
worth  while  to  mention  some  few  of  Christ's  own  precepts,  and  you 
can  see  for  yourselves  whether  our  doctrines  harmonize  with  His. 
And  note  that  short  and  concise  was  His  manner  of  speech,  for  He 
was  no  sophist,  but  His  speech  was  the  power  of  God  (Afiol,  §  14). 

Justin  then  goes  on  to  quote  a  number  of  our  Lord's  sayings, 
mostly  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (ApoL  §§  15,  16),  ending 
with  a  protestation  of  the  willingness  of  Christians  to  pay  all 
lawful  tribute  to  Caesar,  for  whose  tnje  welfare  they  gladly  pray 
the  one  true  God,  remembering  that  Christ  has  said  To  whom  Gad 
hath  given  tlie  more,  the  more  tuill  be  required  of  him  {ApoL  §  17). 

These  extracts  give,  I  think,  a  fairly  adequate  view  of  Justin 
Martyr's  attitude  towards  the  contents  of  the  Gospel.  Side  by 
side  with  his  lack  of  historical  criticism,  as  we  understand  the 
term,,  goes  an  intelligent  and  thankful  appreciation  of  what  after 
all  is  the  essence  of  the  Gospel  message.  •  Lord,  to  whom  shall 
we  go  ?  Thou  hast  words  of  eternal  life/  This  is  the  keynote 
of  Justin's  attitude,  and  it  is  the  attitude  not  of  Justin  only,  but  of 
the  Church  of  his  age.  We  find  it  in  the  Didache,  and  in  the 
Epistle  to  Diognetus^  and  the  same  spirit  is  present  in  Clement  of 
Rome.  The  Church  put  the  Gospels  in  their  position  of  pre- 
eminence because  the  Gospels  satisfied  the  Church's  wants.  The 
Christians  were  conscious  from  the  experience  of  their  corporate 
life  that  He  who  had  been  crucified  in  Judaea  was  the  Son  of 
God,  sent  forth  at  the  fore-ordained  time,  and  the  Gospels 
preserved  for  them  the  commands  of  the  Son  of  God,  by  which 
they  could  order  their  lives.  They  gave  also  tlie  details  of  His 
ever-memorable  Passion  and  Death,  and  the  story  of  His  Resur- 
rection, which  was  the  pledge  of  their  own  eternal  life ;  and  some 
of  them  gave  also  what  seemed  to  the  second -century  Christian 
a  worthy  and  honourable  account  of  His  birth  into  this  world. 

But  there  is  one  feature  of  our  Synoptic  Gospels  which  seems 
to  have  aroused  very  little  interest  in  the  second  century.  It  is 
a  feature  which  shews  us  once  for  all  that  our  Gospels  themselves 
belong  in  their  main  contents  not  to  that  century  but  to  an 
earlier  age.  This  feature  is  the  frankly  biographical  clement, 
the  story  of  the  ministry.  Like  St  Paul,  the  early  Gentile 
Christians  do  not  seem  to  have  cared  to  know  Christ  after  the 
flesh.    The  cult  of  the  *  holy  places '  in  Palestine  belongs  to  a 


z  % 


340         THE   JOURN/X  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Ut^r  age.  And  here  Justin's  silence  is  s^nificanL  He  fijids 
occasion  to  mention  the  Nativity,  the  Baptism,  the  Cmd&doo, 
the  Resurrection,  the  iact  that  the  Christ  had  power  to  heal  the 
sick  and  raise  the  dead.  But  all  this  b,  so  to  speak,  part  of  the 
'scheme  of  salvation ' ;  all  these  things  are  events  and  ciromi- 
ttances  theologically  important.  How  different  is  the  point  of 
view  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  above  all  in  Mark  1  Not  that 
the  Evangelists  care  for  archaeology  or  *  local  coloftr ' ;  they 
wrote  that  their  hearers  might  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, 
and  that  believing  they  might  have  life  in  His  name.  But  the 
scenes  of  the  life  in  Galilee  are  nearer*  The  stories  of  our  Lord 
belong  in  our  Gospels  to  definite  localities,  to  Capemaum,  to  the 
Lake  of  Gcnnesarct,  to  Caesar ea  Philippi — names  which  second- 
century  writers  never  care  to  bring  before  their  readers.  As  I 
said  at  the  bcginnii^  of  this  Lecture,  we  are  still  in  the  regioa  of 
history  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  in  the  region  of  living  memory. 

It  would  be  a  curious  and  not  unprofitable  task  to  attempt  to 
put  together  what  we  could  learn  of  the  life  of  our  Lord  from 
Christian  writings  outside  the  Gospels  before  the  age  of  Irenaeus 
— about  J  80  A.D.  The  writings  would  include  the  Epistles  of 
St  Paul,  the  other  New  Testament  Epistles,  those  of  St  Qement 
of  Rome,  of  St  Ignatius,  and  of  the  various  Apostolic  Fathers, 
besides  what  we  have  gathered  from  Justin  Martyr  and  his 
contemporaries.  The  results,  however,  would  be  singularly 
disconnected.  We  should  learn  that  Jesus  Christ  was  crucified 
in  Judaea  under  Pontius  Pilate  through  the  malice  of  His  country- 
men and  that  lie  rose  again  from  the  dead.  We  should  be  told 
many  of  His  moral  sayings.  But  we  should  be  left  quite  in  the 
dark  as  to  how  He  spent  His  days  among  men.  Jesus  Christ 
would  be  practically  to  us  a  mere  Aoyo?,  a  word,  a  kind  of 
phonograph  uttering  counsels  of  perfection,  but  without  human 
shape  or  features.  It  is  the  human  shape  that  the  Gospels 
supply  for  us*  Let  us  never  forget  that  while  the  Gnostic 
philosophers  and  the  theologians  of  the  second  century  were 
trying  to  find  out  the  place  of  God  the  Son  in  the  cosmogony, 
the  Catholic  Church  was  occupied  in  canonizing  the  Gospels, 
By  so  doing  the  Church  kept  alive  for  future  generations  the 
memory  of  our  Lord  s  truly  human  life. 

But  the  most  remarkable  fact  of  alt  remains  to  be  noticed. 


THE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS     34! 

We  have  seen  that  Justin,  whom  we  have  taken  as  representing 
the  generation  that  chose  out  our  Gospels,  combined  the  Nativity 
story  of  Matthew  with  that  of  Luke,  and  that  this  is  hardly  to 
be  explained  except  on  the  hypothesis  that  he  used  these  two 
Gospels.  In  other  respects  also  these  Gospels  contain  much 
that  appealed  to  the  second-century  Christian,  to  whom  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  the  basis  of  ethics.  Let  us  suppose, 
therefore,  that  the  Church  chose  out  these  two  works  to  be  the 
official  account  of  Jesus  Christ's  life  and  teaching,  together  with 
the  Gospel  according  to  St  John,  of  the  use  of  which  there  are 
some  traces  in  Justin,  and  even  among  certain  heretics  before  his 
time.  The  total  amount  of  information  about  Jesus  which  we 
get  from  these  three  sources  comprises  most  of  what  is  known. 
But  if  we  were  to  try  and  analyse  the  statements  made  we  should 
be  met  by  many  curious  puzzles,  especially  with  regard  to  the 
literary  relation  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  We  should  see  they  had 
common  sources,  but  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  determine 
ivhat  use  each  had  made  of  the  sources  or  to  make  out  their 
respective  limits.  Suppose  then  that  we  were  to  hear  one  day 
that  Dr  Grenfell  and  Dr  Hunt  had  dug  up  in  Egypt  a  fresh 
'apocryphal'  Gospel,  not  unlike  our  Gospels  according  to 
Matthew  and  Luke,  but  shorter,  and  unfortunately  mutilated  at 
the  end  in  the  middle  of  the  story  of  the  Resurrection. 
Suppose,  finally,  that  when  this  new  Gospel  is  published  we  find 
that  most  of  the  points  in  the  narrative  which  appealed  to  Justin 
and  his  contemporaries  are  absent,  that  there  is  no  Nativity  Story 
at  all,  that  the  long  ethical  discourses  unconnected  with  the 
narrative  are  either  curtailed  or  omitted  altc^ether,  but  that  on 
the  other  hand  the  single  narratives  are  full  of  graphic  details 
and  of  expressions  which  have  fallen  out  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
though  they  shew  real  acquaintance  with  the  thought  and 
customs  of  Palestinian  Judaism.  How  interested  we  should  all 
be  in  this  discovery !  How  many  monographs  would  be  written 
on  this  newly-found  Gospel !  We  should  hear  that  at  last  we 
have  a  picture  of  primitive  Christianity,  of  the  likeness  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  as  He  appeared  to  His  first  disciples.  The  absence 
of  just  those  points  about  the  Gospel  which  most  attracted  the 
writers  of  the  second  century  would  explain  why  this  document 
had  dropped  out  of  circulation. 


34^         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

This  IS,  of  course,  all  supposition.  The  actual  fact,  I  repeat,  is 
more  surprising.  That  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark  should 
have  been  admitted  into  the  Canon  is  a  fact  that  I  cannot 
explain.  I  cannot  understand  what  attraction  it  offered  to  the 
Christians  of  the  second  century  which  the  Gospels  according  to 
Matthew  and  Luke  did  not  offer,  either  singly  or  taken  tc^ether, 
in  a  more  eminent  degree.  It  is,  we  find,  very  little  quoted 
before  it  became  part  of  the  official  fourfold  Canon,  that  is, 
before  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  and  it  is  certain  that  it  ran  a  very 
serious  risk  of  being  forgotten  altogether.  As  every  one  knows, 
the  genuine  text  ends  at  Mark  xvi  8,  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence 
describing  the  terrified  departure  of  the  women  from  the  empty 
tomb.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Gospel  went  on  to 
describe  some  of  the  appearances  of  Jesus  to  the  disciples  after 
the  Resurrection.  The  narrative  is  incomplete  as  it  stands,  and 
it  is  much  more  likely  that  the  mutilation  was  accidental  than 
intentionaL  Had  it  been  intentional,  the  break  would  never 
have  been  made  where  it  is,  at  itpo^ovvro  yap  ,  ,  . ;  even  the 
sentence  is  left  incomplete.  But  all  our  MSS  ultimately  go 
back  to  this  mutilated  text;  it  is  therefore  evident  that  at  one 
time  no  more  than  a  single  mutilated  copy  was  in  existence,  or 
at  least  available.  The  work  had  dropped  out  of  circulation,  it 
had  lost  its  public,  and  we  can  only  guess  vaguely  at  the  reasons 
which  led  to  its  resuscitation. 

The  fact,  however,  remains.  By  its  inclusion  in  the  Canon  we 
are  to-day  in  possession  of  a  document  in  warp  and  woof  far 
more  ancient  than  the  Churches  which  adopted  it.  The  fine 
instinct— may  we  not  say  inspiration'i — which  prompted  the 
inclusion  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St  Mark  among  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament^  shewed  the  Catholic  Church  to  have  been 
wiser  than  her  own  writers,  wiser  than  the  heretics,  wiser  finally 
than  most  Biblical  critics  from  St  Augustine  to  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur.  It  is  only  in  the  last  half-century  that  scholars 
have  come  to  recognize  the  pre-eminent  historical  value  of  that 
Gospel  which  once  survived  only  in  a  single  tattered  copy. 


F.  C.  BURKITT, 


343 


THE  AUSTIN   CANONS   IN   ENGLAND 
IN   THE    TWELFTH    CENTURY, 


The  settlement  of  the  English  Church  in  the  centuiy  after  the 
Norman  Conquest  demands  naore  attention  than  it  has  hitherto 
received.  Our  historians  are  engrossed  with  the  story  of  the 
archbishops  Lanfranc  and  Anselm  and  beyond  a  brief  record  of 
the  national  synods  which  assembled  during  this  period  their 
narrative  tells  us  little  or  nothing  of  the  real  settlement  that  was 
taking  place.  It  was  the  time  when  the  future  lines  of  diocesan 
and  parochial  organization  were  being  laid  dow^.  When  the 
extant  episcopal  registers  begin  in  the  thirteenth  century,  we  find 
that  the  diocesan  arrangement  was  nauch  as  we  find  it  now.  But 
there  are  many  problems  on  which  more  information  is  needed. 
The  territorial  spheres  of  work  for  the  archdeacons  have  been 
settled,  but  what  was  it  that  caused  the  exact  divisions  which 
existed  in  the  archdeaconries  down  to  1535?  We  iind  the  rural 
deaneries  of  varied  sizes,  and  to-day  containing  very  varied 
numbers  of  parishes.  The  earlier  episcopal  registers  shew  them 
as  most  important  areas  of  diocesan  organization.  The  clergy  of 
each  deanery  seem  to  be  responsible  for  the  well-doing  of  their 
brethren,  as  the  men  in  the  hundred  were  responsible  for  the 
peace  of  the  hundred.  Such  an  organization  suggests  an  English 
origin,  but  our  historians  tell  us  nothing  about  it.  Our  parochial 
system  also  bristles  with  points  of  which  no  serious  attempt 
has  as  yet  been  made  to  find  an  explanation.  We  do  not 
seem  to  realize  how  chaotic  diocesan  organization  must  have  been 
in  the  century  from  io66-ii66.  An  idea  seems  to  prevail  that 
a  fairly  perfect  organization  existed  in  early  English  times,  and 
that  all  went  on  smoothly  under  the  Normans,  except  for  those 
controversies  which  chiefly  concerned  the  bishops.  But  there  is 
no  evidence  to  support  such  an  idea.  The  little  we  do  know 
rSeems  to  suggest  the  contrary.     When  Lanfranc  in  1070  came  to 


344         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


England  there  were  Norman  bishops  at  Dorchester  (Rem^us 

1067),  Winchester  (Walkelin  1070),  and  London  (William  1051). 
Selsey  and  Elmham  received  new  bishops,  Stigand  and  Hcr&st, 
that  year.  Giso  of  Wells  and  Leofric  of  Crediton  were  foreigners, 
and  the  saintly  Wulfstan  of  Worcester  was  not  acceptable  to 
Lanfranc.  York  was  vacant  through  the  death  of  Ealdred  and 
Durham  through  the  death  of  Ethelwin.  Then  came  the  great 
change  of  the  bishops*  stools  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  century, 
Sherborne  and  Ramsey  to  old  Samm,  Selsey  to  Winchester,  ■ 
Lichfield  to  Chester  and  to  Coventry,  Elmham  to  Thetford  and 
then  to  Norwich,  Wells  to  Bath  and  Crediton  to  Exeter.  All 
these  changes  tended  to  inefficiency  and  certainly  disturbed  very 
seriously  whatever  diocesan  organization  had  prevailed.  The 
parochial  clergy  must  have  been  left  very  much  to  themselves.  No  _ 
strong  centres  made  their  influence  felt  throughout  the  diocese ;  I 
the  people  in  their  parishes^-huge  panshes  with  outlying  hamlets 
separated  by  dense  woods  and  dangerous  swamps — the  subject 
English  and  the  French  strangers,  must  have  been  much  in  need 
of  an  organized  ministry  and  the  instruction  which  such  a  ministry 
would  provide.  It  is  a  problem  therefore  of  very  great  interest  to 
enquire  whether  it  is  possible  to  discern  what  went  on  in  the 
country  places,  and  how  the  church  slowly  developed  into  definite 
order,  an  order  such  as  we  observe  to  exist  when  first  the  episcopal 
registers  come  to  our  assistance.  The  evidence  which  exists  calls 
for  very  cautious  usage,  but  evidence  certainly  exists  from  which  ■ 
we  can  look  back  and  perceive  what  must  have  been,  and  how  the 
Church  throve  even  in  those  early  years  of  the  reign  of  Henry 
the  first.  Naturally  the  evidence  which  the  Domesday  Survey  ■ 
offers  us  comes  first  in  the  order  of  our  records,  and  this  is  really 
very  considerable.  It  deserves  much  more  serious  attention  than 
as  yet  has  been  given  to  it.  Only  the  surface  of  it  has  been 
skimmed.  It  was  no  part  of  the  duty  of  the  Commissioners  to 
mention  the  churches  in  1084^  unless  the  Saint  to  whom  the 
church  was  dedicated  was  endowed  with  land.  A  resident  parish 
priest,  however,  would  almost  certainly  have  been  so  endowed, 
and  therefore  I  am  inclined  to  draw  some  conclusions  from  the 
silence  of  the  Survey.  I  think  it  shews  that  the  clergy  were  not 
nearly  so  numerous  as  the  churches.  The  three  terms  by  which 
the  clergy  are  mentioned^   sacerdos,  presbyter,  eapelianus,  the 


AUSTIN  CANONS  IN  ENGLAND  IN  TWELFTH  CENTURY    343 


^ 


status  in  the  diocese  of  royal  chaplains  who  were  parish  priests 
and  king's  legates,  the  differences  of  rank  of  the  churches  them- 
selves, when  carefully  explained,  will  also  help  on  this  enquiry. 
Whatever  had  been  the  order  and  the  organization  of  the  early 
English  Church,  it  must  have  suffered  during  the  second  half  of 
the  eleventh  century,  and  it  is  therefore  of  the  greatest  interest 
to  attempt  the  discovery  of  the  forces  which  brought  about  its 
restoration. 

Now  the  clergy  were  divided  into  two  rival  classes  of  the 
regular  and  the  secular,  and  this  division  was  further  complicated 
by  rival  nationalities.  The  regular  or  monastic  clergy  were 
Benedictines.  No  other  form  of  monasteries  as  yet  existed  in 
England*  and  the  number  of  Benedictine  monasteries  In  the 
country  at  this  time  is  well  known  and  the  list  is  not  long. 
They  were  about  fifty  in  all.  In  the  diocese  of  Worcester  there 
were  only  fivet  and  in  that  of  Bath  and  Wells  only  four.  Nor  did 
the  monastic  clergy  assist  in  the  spiritual  work  of  the  diocese.  In 
all  the  reforms  of  Lanfranc  not  a  single  hint  is  to  be  found  that 
any  duty  rested  on  the  monks  to  concern  themselves  with  the 
spiritual  welfare  of  the  lay  folk  who  lived  on  the  monastic  estates. 
Their  influenceSj  as  far  as  one  can  judge,  only  reached  but  a  short 
distance  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  monastery.  The  age  when 
they  acquired  the  advowsons  of  distant  churches  and  created 
vicarages  and  made  money  out  of  the  endowments  left  for  the 
parish  churches  had  not  yet  arrived. 

Nor  could  the  influence  of  the  cathedra!  churches^  the  mother 
churches  of  the  dioceses,  have  been  very  great.  Canterbury, 
Winchester,  Worcester,  Norwich,  and  Durham  were  in  the  hands 
of  the  Benedictines,  and  the  recent  changes  of  the  bishops'  seats 
had  largely  diminished  the  influence  which  the  clergy  of  these 
cathedral  churches  could  have  formerly  exercised.  In  the  diocese 
of  Bath  and  Wells  the  cathedral  church  had  lately  been  changed 
from  Wells  to  Bath,  from  a  church  of  secular  canons  to  a  church 
of  Benedictine  monks.  The  influence  of  the  latter  had  not  begun, 
the  influence  of  the  former,  such  as  it  may  have  been,  was 
seriously  diminished.  The  secular  clergy  were,  however,  in 
possession  of  most  of  the  cathedral  churches  and  of  nearly  all 
of  the  parish  churches.  To  a  great  extent  the  secular  clergy  were 
English,  and  certainly  English  in  their  sentiments,  and  certainly 


3|6  THE  JOURKAI.   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


thextior^  oat  in  93rmpaxfa|r«itli  the  acm  refanntng  Nomuui  bisiiops 
wboludooiDCtonikovvrtiiaiB.  NoroiQstwcbeledawayt^the 
term  M  joster,  aad  mugine  that  there  woe  anmerocis  small  tsoUted 
fHOQaistcries  in  the  kxagdooi.  In  the  time  of  Bcda  we  knoir  tint 
there  weie  settlements  of  a  vague  Idiid  of  mooastidsm,  bot  the 
head  of  these  houses  was  as  olten  as  not  married  and  the 
diitrcfaes  bad  been  handed  down  from  father  to  son,  and  they 
had  by  this  time  fallen  into  the  hands  of  those  who  weie  called 
secular  clergy  and  were  as  often  as  not  married  men.  The  term 
Ifinster,  as  we  have  it  in   Ilmmstar,  Charminster,  Axminster, 


Banwell  Minster,  Cheddar  Minster,  seems  to  denote  a  church  to 
which  a  resident  priest  was  attached.  The  sevend  Whitchurches 
in  the  south-west  of  England  aie  all  called  Album  Mooasterium 
and  as  often  as  not  Whytminster. 

But  the  secular  clergy  had  got  out  of  touch  with  the  authorities 
of  the  Church,  and  their  beneHces  had  in  many  cases  becoaie 
hereditary ;  and  this  fact  made  reform  all  the  more  difHcult.  At 
Wells  and  at  Crediton,  bishops  Giso  (1061 -87)  and  Leofric  (1046- 
72)  had  endeavoured  to  cope  with  the  worldliness  of  the  secular 
clergy  by  providing  the  clergy  of  the  cathedral  churches  with 
refectories  and  dormitories  and  imposing  upon  them  the  rule  of 
St  Chrodegang,  These  are  the  only  instances  in  England  of  Secular 
Canons  becoming  canons  of  any  recognized  order.  It  was  the  first 
practical  step  to  enforce  celibacy  on  the  parish  priest,  and,  though 
it  was  not  a  success,  it  led  the  way  for  the  introduction  of  those 
canons  whose  work  in  the  Church  is  the  subject  of  this  paper. 

The  Canons  Regular  of  St  Augustine  had  become  so  assimilated 
in  the  ordering  of  their  houses,  and  in  their  daily  lives,  to  the 
Benedictine  monks,  that  it  is  necessary  to  keep  our  minds  quite 
clear  as  to  their  exact  character  and  position.  They  were 
not  monks,  and  though  in  process  of  time  they  became  more 
and  more  like  to  monks,  yet  there  was  always  an  essential 
difierence.  In  a  house  of  Austin  Canons  the  majority  of  the 
members  were  in  Holy  Orders,  and  ail  were  supposed  to  be 
preparing  for  Holy  Orders,  This  we  must  keep  clearly  in  mind, 
because  it  was  quite  different  in  a  Benedictine  or  any  allied 
monastery.  The  question  always  demanded  in  reference  to 
the  admission  of  a  novice  into  a  house  of  Austin  Canons  is — 
'  si  sint  habiles  ad  suscipiendos  ordines/    They  were  to  bear  in 


AUSTIN  CANONS  IN  ENGLAND  IN  TWELFTH  CENTURY    347 

mind  that  the  canons  must — '  in  missis  celebrandis,  in  omnibus 
serviciis  r^ularibus  in  choro  . . .  ociositatem  devitarc'  During 
his  year  of  probation  enquiry  is  to  be  made — *  si  religioni  congruus, 
habilis  ad  suspiciendos  ordines  et  ad  ministrandum  in  ordinibus 
bene  dispositus '.  They  were  men  in  Holy  Orders  gathered  together 
for  a  community  life,  and  having  a  certain  recognized  discipline. 
But  they  were  not  monks.  Innocent  II  made  this  quite  clear  in 
1 131  when  at  the  Council  of  Rheims  he  said  the  regular  clergy 
consisted  of  Monks  of  the  Order  of  St  Benedict  and  Canons  of  the 
Order  of  St  Augustine.  Let  us  briefly  then  trace  the  growth  of 
this  Order. 

The  term  *  canon'  seems  to  have  been  given  originally  to 
those  clergy  who  were  the  famUiares  of  the  bishop,  and  who 
at  first  lived  in  the  same  house  with  him.  Such  clergy  would  be 
under  supervision,  and  therefore  they  were  men  who  would  live  a 
fairly  disciplined  life.  St  Augustine  of  Hippo  and  St  Eusebius  of 
Vercelli  were  conspicuous  for  the  zeal  they  shewed  in  the  training 
of  their  clergy,  and  St  Augustine  in  one  of  his  letters  to  some 
turbulent  and  worldly-minded  nuns  described  a  rule  of  life  which 
formed  the  basis  for  a  future  rule  for  the  clergy.  But  there  is  no 
evidence  that  St  Augustine  drew  up  a  rule  for  the  disciplined  life 
of  the  canonical  clergy.  His  Regula  ad  servos  Dei  in  the 
Benedictine  edition  of  his  works  is  prefaced  by  a  warning  that  it 
contained  sentiments  and  phrases  which  he  actually  used  and 
cherished,  and  had  on  that  account  only  been  added  to  the  com-^ 
plete  edition  for  what  it  was  worth.  The  Council  of  Aachen  816 
was  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  efforts  made  by  the  bishops  for 
the  reform  of  the  diocesan  clergy.  It  is  said  that  Unwan,  arch- 
bishop of  Hamburgh,  1013-39,  was  the  first  to  gather  congrega- 
tions of  clergy  under  the  rule  of  St  Romuald  the  hermit,  910-1027, 
who,  Damianus  tells  us,  was  the  first  who  taught  'plures  canonicos 
et  clericos  qui  laicorum  more  seculariter  habitabant  praepositis 
obedire  et  communiter  in  congregatione  vivere  *.  The  eleventh 
century  was  full  of  this  effort,  but  so  far  not  a  word  is  said  of  the 
rule  of  St  Augustine.  Among  the  most  active  of  the  bishops  of 
that  time  to  deepen  the  spiritual  life  among  the  clergy  was  Ivo, 
bishop  of  Chartres,  1090-1116,  the  pupil  of  Lanfranc  at  Caen. 
He  is  said  to  have  reformed  the  monastery  of  St  Quintin  at 
Beauvais  as  a  seminary  for  secular  canons,  and  to  have  restored 


348  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


the  order  of  St  Augustine,  and  the  historian  Sigeberht  records 
that  the  canonical  order  founded  by  the  Apostles,  and  afterwards 
by  the  blessed  Augustine,  began  to  flourish  again  under  bishop 
Ivo.  In  1085,  Philip,  bishop  of  Troyes,  founded  a  new  clergy- 
house,  and  from  bishop  Ivo  received  not  the  Order  of  St  Augus- 
tine, but  the  rule  of  tlie  house  which  he  had  founded  at  Beauvais. 
In  J 095  Lutosdus,  dean  of  Toul,  founded  an  Abbey  for  Canons 
Regular,  and  here,  for  the  first  time,  we  hear  of  the  rule  of 
St  Augustine.  That  it  had  but  lately  been  drawn  up  is  clear 
because  pope  Urban  II  confirmed  it  in  1096,  The  historian 
Ansel m  of  Havelberg,  11 29,  is  careful  to  say  that  the  Canons 
Regular  were  not  monks,  and  pope  Benedict  XII,  in  his  bull  1359, 
mentions  the  rules  and  constitutions  of  the  Canons  Regular,  but 
says  nothing  of  the  letter  of  St  Augustine.  It  seems  clear  that 
the  Canons  Regular  were  clergy  under  the  direct  superintendence 
of  the  bishops,  and  that  the  idea  that  St  Augustine  was  the  author 
of  their  rule  arose  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh,  or  beginning  of  the 
twelfth  century,  and  partly  from  a  desire  to  place  the  Canons 
Regular  in  a  similar  position  to  the  Benedictines,  whose  admiration 
for  the  Rule  of  St  Benedict  w^as  then  at  its  height. 

It  would  appear  therefore  that  Ivo  himself  drew  up  the  letter 
Regula  ad  servos  Dei.  No  one  of  that  age  was  so  versed  in  the 
writings  of  St  Augustine,  and  if  his  master,  Lan franc,  could 
improve  and  expand  St  Benedict's  rule  for  the  monks,  why  should 
not  he  expand  and  put  into  a  practical  form  the  teaching  and  the 
precepts  of  St  Augustine  for  the  clergy  who  worked  under  his 
direction  ? 

The  Canons  Regular  or  Austin  Canons  were  clergymen  gathered 
together  in  a  clergy-house  and  living  under  some  rule  in  order 
that  they  might  attain  to  a  loftier  ideal  of  Christian  life.  The 
example  of  Hugh,  bishop  of  Auxerre,  1136,  is  pathetic*  He  is 
said  to  have  given  his  canons  many  churches  and  their  tithes — 
*ea  conditione  ut  per  singulos  annos  tota  Quadragesima  in 
refectorio  communiter  comedant/  And  this  connexion  between 
the  bishop  and  the  Austin  Canons  continued  to  the  eve  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  Monasteries.  The  head  of  each  house  was 
a  prior,  and  the  abbot  of  all  the  houses  in  the  diocese  was  the 
bishop.  Not  till  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  when  they  had 
become  assimilated  in  almost  ^\'eTy  way  to  the  Benedictines,  6\6^ 


I 
i 
I 
I 

I 


I 


AUSTIN  CANONS  IN  ENGLAND  IN  TWELFTH  CENTURY    349 


the  priors  aspire  to  and  obtain,  as  at  Bruton,  the  dignity  and  title 
of  abbots  ;  though  indeed,  in  the  case  of  some  houses  that  followed 
the  example  of  the  Paris  house  of  Canons  under  Hugh  St  Victor, 
the  head,  in  addition  to  his  title  as  head  of  the  canons  of  his  priory, 
claimed  at  the  very  outset  and  for  other  reasons  the  title  of  abbot. 

Such  were  the  men  for  whom  is  claimed  in  the  present  article 
the  honour  of  having  done  more  than  any  other  organization  to 
establish  the  English  Church  in  the  country  districts.  They  were 
the  new  clergy,  clergy  who  were  celibates,  who  lived  a  community 
life  in  a  clergy-house,  and  whose  ministerial  work  in  England  in 
the  first  half  of  the  twelfth  century  is  entirely  ignored.  They 
were  in  sympathy  with  the  bishops,  they  were  in  sympathy  with 
the  new  Norman  lords,  many  of  whom  were  the  founders  of  their 
houses,  and  they  possessed  an  earnestness  and  intelligence  cer- 
tainly rare  at  that  time  among  the  parochial  clergy* 

Now  the  statements  made  above  call  for  corroborative  evidence, 
and  that  evidence  we  obtain  from  a  careful  examination  of  the 
charters  and  documents  that  record  the  foundation  of  these  houses. 
Let  us  see  what  was  the  story  of  their  establishment  in  England. 
It  is  uniform,  and  in  all  the  houses  of  Austin  Canons  established 
before  the  death  of  Henry  II  the  story  is  almost  identical.  It 
centres  in  a  desire  to  provide  for  the  spiritual  wants  of  the 
people,  and  the  steps  that  were  taken  to  carry  it  out. 

The  first  of  these  houses,  and  there  were  fifty- four  of  them 
founded  in  the  period  mentioned,  was  that  at  Colchester  founded 
in  1096  by  Emulf,  an  earnest  priest  who,  living  just  outside  the 
walls  of  the  city,  saw  how  great  was  the  need  for  missionary  effort 
among  the  people.     To  him  and  to  his  like-minded  brothers  in 

e  faith  J  canons  serving  God,  the  church  of  St  Julian  and  St 
Botolph  at  Colchester,  and  the  churches  of  Greenstead,  Fordham, 
and  Heathfield  were  given.  The  parishioners  shared  with  the 
canons  the  use  of  these  churches;  they  were  the  buildings  in  which 
the  canons  ministered  for  the  good  of  the  people.  To  induce 
some  of  these  canons^  ten  years  afterwards,  to  settle  in  London,  the 
church  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  St  Leonard  was  given  them,  and 
in  the  bull  of  pope  Pascal  II,  confirming  in  11 16  this  foundation, 
it  is  mentioned  as  the  first  house  of  Austin  Canons  in  England, 
and  we  have  in  the  bull  an  exact  description  of  the  work  these 
canons  had  to  do — ^to  them,  says  Pascal,  has  been  committed 


350         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


by  our  father  *  dispensatio  Verbi  Dei,  praedicationis  ofHcium» 
baptismum  et  recondliatio  paenitentium ' — in  other  woixls 
the  exact  work  of  all  missionary  priests  placed  in  charge  of 
districts  not  as  yet  fully  organized  by  the  Church.  Ernulf  is  said 
to  have  been  a  hermit  priest  at  Colchester^  and  this  tenn  Is 
remarkable,  because  in  several  other  instances  it  is  used,  and  it 
seems  to  be  almost  a  technical  term  for  a  solitary  priest  attached 
to  a  church  which  was  not  prebendal  and  collegiate. 

Colchester  was,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  in  the  circle  of  political 
order  and  civilization.  Let  us  now  go  across  to  the  wild 
districts  in  the  far  west,  where  the  dioceses  of  Hereford  and 
Lichfield,  between  the  dense  forests  and  dangerous  swamps,  looked 
down  the  valleys  and  across  the  open  wold  to  the  lands  of  the 
then  unconquered  Welsh.  Here,  in  Herefordshire  and  Shrop- 
shire, in  districts  thinly  populated,  wild  and  dangerous,  we  find 
contemporary  foundations  of  distinctly  missionary  character. 
The  revolts  of  Earl  Roger  and  Earl  Hugh  of  Shrewsbury  against 
the  stern  rule  of  William  the  Conqueror  and  the  hated  rule  of 
his  son,  the  Welsh  wars  of  William  II,  the  invasion  of  Welsh- 
men into  Worcestershire  in  1088,  burning  and  harrowing  and 
destroying  as  they  rushed  through  Herefordshire  and  crossed 
the  Severn,  makes  it  certain  that  the  Church  in  those  districts 
could  not  then  have  been  very  efficiently  organized.  It  w^as 
there,  amid  this  desolation  and  in  face  of  this  danger,  that 
Ralph  Mortimer  founded,  about  1100,  by  consent  of  Gerard, 
bishop  of  Hereford,  a  house  of  Canons  Regular  at  Wigmore. 
An  earlier  attempt  had  been  made  at  Shobdon,  and  Ralph  had 
endowed  a  church  there  with  three  prebends.  But  the  times 
were  too  dangerous,  and  the  district  needed  men  of  greater 
energy  and  discipline  than  were  found  generally  among  the 
secular  canons ;  and  so  the  Austin  Canons  began  at  Wigmore. 
Now  it  must  be  noticed  in  the  account  of  all  these  foundations 
that  the  endowments  were  churches.  Estates  are  sometimes 
mentioned,  and  especially  in  later  times,  but  they  are  the  excep- 
tion. Enough  land  was  given  for  their  support  and  what  was 
added  was  to  be  the  sphere  of  their  labour.  This  is  not  the 
case  in  the  story  of  monastic  foundations.  In  early  cartularies 
of  the  Benedictines  you  hardly  ever  find  such  items.  The  age 
when  the  monasteries  acquired  the  advowsons  of  distant  churches 


IaUSTIN  canons  in  ENGLAND  IN  TWELFTH  CENTURY    351 


N 


had  not  yet  arrived.  The  Austin  Canons  came  first,  and  churches 
were  given  them  not  as  means  of  enrichment  but  to  be  scenes 
of  ministerial  work.  It  will  be  noticed  also  that  these  churches 
are  either  in  the  vicinity  of  the  priory  or  grouped  round  some 
mother  church  where  one  of  the  canons  of  the  priory  had  been 
settled  for  the  purpose  of  work.  To  Wigmore  were  given  the 
churches  of  Wigmore,  Shobdon,  Cleobury,  Leintwardine,  Nene, 
Higley,  Burley,  North  Lydbury»  Presteigne,  Aymestrey,  Byton, 
Bredwardine,  Leinthal  Earls,  Kinsham  Ford,  More,  Rathling- 
hope,  Cardeston,  a  string  of  churches  almost  from  the  Wye  to 
the  Severn,  and  a  group  of  dependent  churches  including  Hopton 
Wafers  and  Marmie  round  the  mother  church  of  Cleobury 
Mortimer. 

When  again  we  cross  the  Severn  into  the  diocese  of  Coventry, 
we  find  another  house  of  Austin  Canons  settled  at  Haghmond. 
It  is  an  instance  of  the  northern  of  the  two  dioceses  pushing  through 
the  forests  that  divided  Staflfordshire  from  Shropshire  and  estab- 
lishing a  missionaiy  outpost  a  little  north  of  Watling  Street. 
Haghmond  was  founded,  it  is  said,  by  William  Fitzalan  of  Clun 
in  II 10,  though  the  Cartulary  of  Haghmond  gives  the  date  of 
the  foundation  as  1099.  The  Benedictines  and  the  Secular 
Canons  at  Shrewsbury  were  not  likely  to  do  much.  Greater  con- 
fidence was  placed  in  the  Austin  Canons.  The  churches 
attached  to  Haghmond  are  mostly  north  of  it,  Stanton,  G rim- 
shall,  Shawbury,  and  HadnalL  Shropshire  also  had  two  other 
houses  of  Austin  Canons  at  Wormbridge  and  Lilleshall.  They 
were  both  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Severn  and  in  districts 
remote,  on  account  of  the  forests,  from  the  centres  of  diocesan  life. 
Each  had  its  group  of  churches  given  it  as  essential  to  its 
foundation,  and  Wormbridge  was  founded  by  the  same  William 
Fitzalan  who  was  the  founder  of  Haghmond, 

Lilleshall,  though  only  founded  in  1145,  calls  for  special  atten- 
tion, because  it  was  founded  by  the  last  of  the  secular  canons 
of  St  Alkmund,  Shrewsbury,  He  yearned  for  better  thingSi 
and  Pope  Eugenius  allowed  him  to  use  his  prebend  of  Lilleshall 
for  that  purpose.  The  priory  was  founded  in  the  forest  of  Lilles- 
hall, and  the  churches  of  St  Michael  Lilleshall,  St  Alkmund 
Salop,  and  Atcham^  were  given  to  the  canons. 

If  now  we  travel  south-west  by  the  Roman  road  that  ran  from 


352         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Uriconium  to  Abei^avenny,  we  come  to  a  narrow  strip  of  Mon- 
mouthshire rUEning  north-west  between  Brecknockshire  and 
Herefordshire,  bounded  on  the  east  by  the  Black  Mountains  and 
on  the  west  by  the  hills  of  Brecknockshire.  Here,  at  a  place 
known  aa  Llanthony,  a  place  which  possibly  recalls  some  scenes 
of  former  activity  of  the  Celtic  church,  there  settled,  in  1103, 
William^  an  attendant  of  Hugh  de  Lacy,  and  Ernisius,  chaplain 
to  Queen  Maud.  It  was  on  the  land  which,  in  1084,  was  recorded 
as  belonging  to  Roger  de  Lacy.  It  was  debateable  land,  reckoned 
in  Domesday  as  part  of  the  land  of  Hereford  ;  and  as  yet  it  was 
unsettled  whetlier  it  formed  part  of  the  diocese  of  Hereford  or 
part  of  the  diocese  of  Llandaff,  The  two  proposed  to  live  the 
life  of  hermits,  which  I  take  to  mean  of  priests  living  alone, 
content  to  minister  to  those  who  came  to  them.  Archbishop 
Ansclm,  however,  persuaded  Ernisius  to  change  his  *  contu- 
bernium  duorum'  into  a  'coenobium  multorum'.  So  Ernisius 
became  the  first  prior  and  they  gathered  '  viri  religiosi '  from 
Merton,  London,  and  Colchester ;  and  the  church  they  built  was 
consecrated  in  1108  by  Urban  of  Llandaff  and  Rheinhelm  of 
Hereford, 

All  down  the  valley  toward  Abergavenny  they  laboured,  and 
their  churches  were  those  at  Llanthony,  St  Martins  Comyowte, 
St  Cleddoc'sj  Ewyas  Lacy,  St  Martinis  Trewyn,  and  as  far  as 
Kenderchurch  across  the  river  Dove.  Robert,  the  second  prior, 
became  bishop  of  Hereford,  and  is  described  as  *  vir  simplex 
et  rectusj  in  artibus  liberalibus  magister  emeritus,  et  in  divina 
pagina  ita  praedicator  catholicus  sicut  in  fidei  articulis  suflficienter 
eruditus ',  Fifteen  years  afterwards  the  foundation  was  removed 
to  the  second  Llanthony,  close  to  the  city  of  Gloucester,  because 
of  the  violence  of  the  Welshmen  of  Brecon.  But  in  both  places 
the  character  of  the  endowment  was  the  same— sufficient  land 
for  the  sustenance  of  the  canons,  and  groups  of  churches  in 
Gloucestershire,  where  they  might  minister  to  the  country  folk 
around. 

Let  us  take  another  instance  in  the  house  of  Austin  Canons 
established  by  Walter  Giffard,  bishop  of  Winchester,  on  his 
manor  of  Taunton  in  Somerset  There  had  been  for  aoo  years 
a  settlement  of  resident  priests  there.  In  904  Eadward  arranges 
with  Denewulf,  bishop  of  Winchester,  for  the  protection  of  the 


I 
I 


I 


I 


J 


AUSTIN  CANONS  IN  ENGLAND  IN  TWELFTH  CENTURY    353 

cltTgy  of  Taunton — *  pro  perpetua  libertate  ilHus  monasterii  *. 
In  the  time  of  Edmund  Ironside,  i.e,  1016,  there  was  said  to  have 
been  a  college  of  resident  priests  there.  In  1084  the  college 
consisted  of  two  priests  who  held  land  under  the  bishop  of 
Winchester,  The  foundation,  therefore,  of  bishop  Gyffard,  in 
II 31,  swallowed  up  the  college  of  secular  priests  and  became 
the  home  of  a  house  of  Austin  Canons,  Its  subsequent 
history  tells  us  a  good  deal  of  the  relationship  of  the  bishop 
to  these  houses  in  his  diocese-  To  the  Austin  Canons  of 
Taunton  were  given  all  the  churches  in  Taunton  and  the 
dependent  churches  of  Lydeard  St  Lawrence,  Kingston, 
Angersleigh,  Bishops  Hull,  Fitminster,  Ash  Priors  and  Trull, 
Wilton,  St  George's  in  the  Castle,  Stoke  St  Gregory,  St  James's 
Taunton,  Staplegrove,  and  Ruishton.  Over  these  the  bishop 
was  to  exercise  his  ordinary  jurisdiction,  and  the  archdeacon  had 
the  power  to  visit  them* 

Another  foundation  in  Somerset  is  of  special  interest,  because 
originally  it  was  a  royal  chapel  of  king  Ine  and  existed,  as  early 
as  704,  as  the  monastic  church  of  St  Aldhelm  at  Bruton.  Little 
work  was  being  done  by  the  Church  in  the  eastern  border  of 
Somerset  in  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  Bruton 
was  part  of  the  possessions  of  the  Mohun  family.  William,  the 
first  earl,  decided  to  found  there  a  house  of  Austin  Canons. 
This  he  did  in  1142,  and  to  enable  him  to  accomplish  his  wish, 
William,  the  king's  chaplain  at  Bruton,  surrendered  the  historic 
church  of  St  Mary  and  St  Aldhelm,  and  here  earl  William 
established  his  canons.  As  at  Colchester,  so  here,  the  church 
was  a  double  church,  the  parishioners  using  especially  the  north 
aisle.  The  equipment  of  the  house  was  similar  to  that  of  other 
foundations.  A  group  of  churches  near  to  Bruton  was  given  to 
the  house,  and  the  spiritual  work  of  the  district  was  carried  on  by 
the  canons  at  Pitcombct  Redlynch,  Wyke,  Witham,  Brewham, 
Shepton  Montagu,  Milton  Clevedon,  and  St  LauTcnce's  Crcech- 
HilL  There  were  also,  among  the  earlier  gifts  to  it,  three  other 
groups  of  churches,  in  Normandy  at  the  ancestral  home  of  the 
family,  at  South  Petherton,  and  also  at  the  extreme  west  of 
the  county  of  Somerset ;  and  the  annals  of  the  house  in  sub- 
sequent times  record  the  going  forth  of  canons  from  Bruton  lo 
serve  in  these  distant  churches,  and  the  danger  they  incurred 

VOL.  V.  A  a 


354         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


from  the  freer  contact  with  the  outer  world  to  which  their  duties 
exposed  them. 

Nor  is  this  missionary  and  ministerial  effort  of  the  Austin 
Canons  confined  to  two  or  three  localities  in  England  Far  to 
the  north  and  to  the  east  of  the  city  of  Carlisle,  and  a  short  time 
after  Henry  I  had  established  the  Austin  Canons  in  that  city,  ■ 
Robert  dc  Vallibus  settled,  in  the  wild  district  of  Lanercost  just 
within  the  Roman  wall,  a  small  house  of  these  earnest  clergy  and 
gave  them — *  canontcis  regularibus  Deo  ibidem  servientibus ' — the 
churches  of  Brampton^  Farlam,  Irthington,  Walton,  and 
Kencrman.  Carlisle  itself  is  worth  a  notice*  For  when  it  was 
rebuilt  in  the  days  of  William  11.  the  king  placed  in  charge  of 
the  spiritual  needs  of  the  city,  in  1093,  William  *  ecclesiastid 
ordinis  homo  locupletis  admodum'.  Here  Henry  I  founded  a 
bishopric  and  gave  to  Athelwaldj  the  prior  of  the  Austin  house 
at  Nostell,  whom  he  made  the  first  bishop,  the  church  of 
St  Mary  which  William  had  built,  and,  at  Athelwald's  request, 
founded  there  a  house  of  Austin  Canons  with  the  wealth  which 
William  had  left.  To  them  also  were  assigned  the  churches  of 
Newcastle,  Warkworth,  Robery,  Winchingham,  and  Corbridge. 

At  Barnwell  in  Cambridgeshire  the  original  grant  of  Picot 
would  have  settled  Austin  Canons  in  1092  at  St  Giles's  Church 
under  the  Castle.  Owing,  however,  to  political  troubles  Picot's 
full  intention  was  never  carried  out,  and  in  11 19  Feverel,  his 
heir,  settled  them  at  Barnwell  and  gave  them  the  churches  of 
Caldecot,  Comberton,  Bourn,  Rampton,  Madingley,  Guilden 
Morden,  Harston,  Hinxton,  and  others. 

At  Twynham  and  at  Plympton  we  have  instances  of  churches 
of  secular  canons  being  given  over  to  Austin  Canons,  William 
Warelwast,  bishop  of  Exeter,  turning  the  seculars  out  of  Plympton 
because  they  would  not  give  up  their  wives ;  and  to  the  canons 
regular  were  assigned  groups  of  churches  near  Plympton  and 
also  in  various  parts  of  Cornwall. 

At  Leedes,  in  11 19,  Robert  de  Crepito  Corde  founded  a  house 
and  gave  to  the  canons  '  omnes  ecclestae  baron iae  de  Crevequer*. 
At  Ixworth  the  parish  church  had  been  destroyed,  apparently  at 
the  Conquest,  and  had  not  been  repaired.  Here,  in  1087,  William 
Btunden  founded  a  house  of  this  order,  rebuilt  the  parish  church, 
and   assigned  it  to  the  canons  with  other  churches  and  their 


I 


AUSTIN  CANONS  IN  ENGLAND  IN  TWELFTH  CENTURY    355 


I 


^ 

P 
P 


^ 


dependent  chapels  in  the  neighbourhood.  Geoffrey  of  Clinton, 
Henry's  chamberlain,  founded  the  church  of  Kenilworth  and 
gave  it  to  these  canons  with  three  churches  in  the  vicinityp  and 
Simon  bishop  of  Worcester  witnesses  the  charter. 

The  same  facts  come  out  in  the  story  of  the  foundation  of 
the  Austin  Houses  at  Dunmow,  Thremhall,  St  Dionysius  at 
Southampton,  Giseburn,  Newnham  in  Hertfordshire,  Norton  in 
Cheshire,  and  Stone  in  Staffordshire,  In  some  cases  it  is  the 
desire  of  the  bishops  to  impose  a  stricter  discipline  on  the  clergy, 
and  so  the  secular  prebendaries  give  way  to  Austin  Canons. 
In  some  it  is  their  desire  to  repair  the  waste  places  and  to 
provide  for  the  spiritual  needs  of  the  district,  and  so  ruined 
churches  are  repaired  and  a  house  is  built  and  the  Austin 
Canons  are  introduced*  But  one  fact  comes  out  in  every 
foundation  deed  throughout  England  in  the  twelfth  century,  that 
where  a  house  of  Austin  Canons  is  established  there  have  been 
assigned  to  them  at  the  very  beginning  a  number  of  churches, 
generally  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  their  house  or  in 
groups,  as '  capellae  dependentes  '  centred  round  the  mother  church, 
as  spheres  for  ministerial  work  and  as  essential  to  the  fulfilment 
of  the  purposes  of  their  Order. 

The  men  then  were  priests,  or  men  training  and  suitable  for 
priest's  orders.  They  settled  down,  few  in  number  but  sufficient 
for  the  district  they  had  to  serve.  The  most  prominent  items  in 
their  early  charters  are  not  the  mills  and  the  manors,  so  much 
in  evidence  in  early  monastic  charters,  but  the  churches  where 
they  had  to  ser\''e.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  parochial 
interests  of  the  parish  do  not  come  into  prominence  in  the 
annats  of  these  houses.  This  is  certainly  true.  But  we  could 
not  expect  it  otherwise.  The  records  were  those  concerning  the 
house  and  the  men  that  lived  in  it,  and  naturally  such  records 
only  refer  to  the  fortunes  of  the  house  and  the  lives  of  the  men 
who  inhabited  it.  In  later  times,  as  at  Taunton  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  we  find  particular  canons  assigned  to  particular  churches, 
and  as  scattered  houses  attached  to  groups  of  parishes  were  built, 
the  prior  of  the  mother  house  became  known  as  the  prelate  of 
these  scattered  convents  or  monasteries.  Moreover  within  these 
houses  we  find  a  freedom  which  was  never  sanctioned  in 
Benedictine  monasteries.     A  canon  might  bring  in  a  strainer  to 

A  a  2 


3g6         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


if  the 


The  sick  of  the 


dinner  ii  the  prior  gave  nim  permission,     ine  sick  oi  tne  pansi 
had  not  to  wait   outside   for  food.    They  were  taken  in  and  _ 
nursed  in  the  priory.  I 

It  seems  clear,  then,  that  in  the  early  decades  of  the  twelfth 
century  the  Austin  Canons  did  a  great  work  for  the  English 
Church.  They  assisted  more  than  any  other  religious  organization 
to  reorganize  the  dioceses  and  to  provide  for  the  spiritual  need  of 
the  country  parishes.  However  closely  assimilated  they  became 
in  later  years  to  the  monastic  orders^  they  should  not  be  classed 
with  them.  Had  they  kept  their  first  estate  and  remained  in 
subjection  to  the  bishops,  who  were  originally  and  intentionally 
their  abbots,  they  would  not  have  suffered  at  the  Dissolution  of 
the  Monasteries.  They  were  not  monks.  In  the  twelfth  century 
they  were  as  much  the  disciplined  side  of  ecclesiasticism  as  in 
the  thirteenth  century  the  Friars  were  the  active  side  of 
monasticism.  They  were  not  confined  to  their  house.  They 
had  horses  on  which  they  could  visit  their  more  distant  cures. 
At  Brut  on  the  temptation  was  too  great.  They  got  themselves 
dogs  and  went  off  to  Selwood.  At  Carlisle  alone  did  Austin 
Canons  form  the  Chapter  of  the  bishop,  but  all  through  the 
centuries  of  their  later  existence,  the  bishop  not  only  was  recog- 
nized as  being  in  a  special  relation  to  the  houses  of  Canons 
Regular  in  his  diocese,  but  also  did  visit  and  reform  as  no 
monastic  house  would  have  allowed.  We  have  only  to  consider 
those  parishes,  scattered  as  they  are  all  over  England,  the 
churches  of  which  were  given  to  the  Austin  Canons,  to  perceive 
how  largely  they  helped  on  the  settlement  of  the  English 
Church.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  organization  in  earlier 
times,  to  a  very  great  extent  it  must  have  been  in  abeyance 
in  the  time  of  Henry  L  The  great  monasteries  and  the 
larger  prebendal  and  collegiate  churches  were  possibly  centres 
of  spiritual  effort  in  their  immediate  neighbourhood*  but  the 
restorers  of  the  remote  and  smaller  churches  were  undoubtedly 
those  earnest  and  energetic  clergymen,  the  Austin  Canons  of 
England* 

T.  Scott 


'  Holmes.     I 


357 


THE   HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  THE 

SECOND  AND   THIRD   EPISTLES 

OF  ST  JOHN. 

I. 

The  two  short  Epistles  of  St  John  will  gain  much  in  interest, 
if  we  can  discover  to  whom  they  were  addressed,  and  for  what 
purpose.  The  following  notes  are  not  intended  to  do  more  than 
suggest  partially  new  solutions  of  the  problems  involved,  and  the 
reader  should  mentally  insert  *  probably ',  *  possibly',  or  *  conceiv- 
ably '  in  many  places  where  the  writer  has  omitted  it  to  avoid 
tiresome  iteration.  It  will  be  best  to  commence  with  the  Third 
Epistle  \ 

§  I.  TA^  circumstances  of  the  Third  Epistle, 

St  John  has  heard  that  Gains  was  walking  in  the  truth;  in 
other  words,  that  he  had  been  practising  St  John's  favourite 
virtue  of  charity.    The  Apostle  congratulates  him  thereupon : 

*The  Presbyter  unto  the  beloved  Gains,  whom  I  love  in  truth. 
Beloved,  I  pray  that  in  all  things  thou  mayest  prosper  and  be  in  good 
health,  even  as  thy  soul  prospereth.  For  I  rejoiced  greatly  when  the 
brethren  came  and  bare  witness  to  thy  truth,  even  as  thou  walkest  in 
truth.  I  have  no  greater  grace  than  these  tidings,  that  I  may  hear  of 
mine  own  children  walking  in  the  truth'.' 

News  has  been  brought,  therefore,  to  St  John  of  what  Gains  has 

'  I  assume,  without  offering  any  proof,  that  *  the  Presbyter*  is  the  Apostle  John. 
I  find  it  easier  to  suppose  Eusebius,  and  not  Irenaeus,  to  have  been  mistaken  as  to 
the  meaning  of  Papias,  and  I  believe  there  are  cogent  reasons  against  the  existence 
of  a  second  John.  Nevertheless,  I  hold  that,  if  he  did  exist,  Hamack  is  right 
{ChroHol.  pp.  675-80)  in  concluding  that  he  must  have  been  the  author  of  the 
Johannine  Gospel,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse,  that  he  was  the  exile  of  Patmoa,  the 
overseer  of  Asia,  and  the  teacher  of  Polycarp  and  of  Papias.  Those  who  hold  this 
view  will  simply  understand  all  that  I  say,  not  of  the  AposUe,  but  of  the  Presbyter. 

'  I  find  it  convenient  to  use  Dr.  Westcott's  careful  translations. 


I 


358  THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES        ^H 

been  doing.  He  has  received  certain  brethren,  who  were  strangers 
in  the  city  where  he  lived,  and  has  given  them  hospitah*ty  and 
fellowship.  ■ 

*  Beloved,  thou  makest  sure  whatsoever  thou  doest  unto  the  brethren 
and  strangers  withal,  who  bore  witness  to  thy  love  before  the  Church ; 
whom  thou  wilt  do  well  to  help  forward  on  their  way  worthily  of  God ;  * 

Gaius  h  praised  for  having  received  the  strangers  once,  and  he  ■ 
is  invited  to  receive  them  again.  After  their  first  reception  by 
him,  they  had  come  to  St  John^  for  he  says  that  they  bore 
witness  *  before  the  Church  \  publicly,  in  the  presence  of  St  John 
and  the  Christians  of  Ephesus,  to  the  brotherly  love  which  Gains 
had  shewn  them.  They  now  return  to  Gaius,  bearing  this  letter, 
but  they  are  going  further,  and  he  is  asked  to  assist  them  on  their 
journey. 

•for  they  went  out  for  the  Name's  sake,  taking  nothing  of  the 
Gentiles.* 

*  They  went  out ',  from  some  city  that  is  not  named,  *  for  the 
Name's  sake  ',  that  is,  because  they  were  Christians  ^.  We  are  ■ 
not  told  that  they  were  expelled,  but  that  they  went  out,  evidently 
because  a  persecution  was  raging,  and  their  lives  were  in  danger. 
We  are  not  told  that  they  fled  or  escaped  with  difficulty.  It  ■ 
would  not  seem,  then,  to  be  a  case  of  sudden  riot  against  the 
Christians,  such  as  we  meet  with  in  St  Paul's  life  on  so  many 
occasions,  but  rather  of  a  definite  and  lawful  persecution  of  the 
Name,  which  did  not  expel  but  put  to  death,  and  which  was  not 
universal  but  local. 

The  Neronian  persecution  at  Rome  exactly  fits  this  description, 
and  I  know  of  no  other  place  or  occasion  \vhich  is  so  precisely 
suitable.  It  was  local  at  first,  and  it  was  legal.  It  did  not  exile» 
it  slew.  It  was  a  hasty  decree,  not  an  uprising  of  the  people,  and 
can  hardly  have  been  sudden  or  complete  enough  to  prevent  the 
withdrawal  from  the  city  of  teachers  who  were  not  marked  men. 

^  They  went  out  for  the  Name*s  sake.'  There  is  obviously  an 
intentional  vagueness  here  ;  St  John  will  not  name  the  place  or 
the  cause.    Why  is  he  so  wilfully  indefinite  ?    It  is  possible  to 

*  I  do  not  think  we  can  take  Jff  ijAeor  to  mean  *  they  went  forth  to  preach  \  since 
the  words  '  for  the  Nfutie's  nakc '  imply  some  hardship,  if  not  persecutloii,  and 
could  not  be  the  equivalent  of '  to  preach  the  Name  \ 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF    II    akd   IU    ST  JOHN        339 

give  a  satisfiactory  reply.  In  discussiog  the  Second  Epistle  I  hope 
to  shew  that  it  was  a  regular  oistom  from  the  lime  of  Nero  until 
the  rescript  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian  to  Minucius  Fundanus  not 
to  mention  the  Roman  Church  or  its  head,  so  great  was  the 
danger  of  the  Christiaiis  in  the  capital.  Yet  no  one  would  mis- 
take the  meaning  of  the  wonis  *  They  went  out  for  the  Name's 
sake  \  We  shall  see,  in  discussing  the  Second  Epistle,  that  the 
persecution  of  Domitian  had  not  yet  begun,  while  that  of  Nero 
was  written  in  letters  of  blood  and  fire  in  the  memories  of  the 
Asian  Christians.  Gaitis  knew,  of  course,  the  history  of  the 
strangers,  and  would  understand  the  vagueness  of  the  allusioiu 
It  was  an  honour  to  have  been  in  Rome  in  those  awful  days,  now 
many  years  ago. 

*  Taking  nothing  of  the  Gentiles,*  This  is  clearly  also  men- 
tioned as  a  title  to  honour,  Wcstcott  must  be  right  in  explaimng 
that  the  words  refer  to  the  Gentile  converts  to  whom  the  strangers 
had  preached.  It  was  the  custom  of  St  Paul  to  refuse  all  pay- 
ment or  even  gratuitous  hospitality  in  return  for  his  preaching, 
though  he  declares  that  he  had  the  right  to  receive  it.  He 
implies  that  this  prudent  avoidance  of  the  very  appearance  of 
self-interest  was  a  peculiarity  of  his  own.  He  and  his  fellow 
workers  supported  themselves  by  a  trade,  at  all  events  until 
St  Paul  reconciled  himself  with  his  family  (according  to  Professor 
Ramsay's  conjecture)^  and  had  money  of  his  own. 

St  John,  on  the  other  hand,  had  begun  his  apostolic  preaching 
without  shoes  or  scrip  or  purse,  and  had  lived  on  the  hospitality 
of  his  hearers.  He  had  wanted  for  nothing  (Luke  xxii  36),  We 
may  be  certain  that  the  eleven  commenced  their  preaching  at  the 
*  dispersion  of  the  Apostles  '  on  something  of  the  same  principle. 
They  may  not  have  kept  literally  to  our  Lord's  original  injunc- 
tions, but  they  had  probably  less  luggage  than  Paul,  who  had  not 
only  a  cloak,  but  books  and  parchments.  At  all  events  it  is 
evident  that  they  lived  either  on  the  hospitality  of  their  converts, 
or  on  the  means  supplied  by  rich  women  who  ministered  to  their 
wants  {^htk^al  yvvalK€^y  cp.  1  Cor.  ix  5),  as  the  women  from 
Galilee  had  once  ministered  to  their  Master  during  His  missionary 
journeys  in  Judaea.  But  this  life  had  no  doubt  become  less 
heroic  than  the  original  mission  of  the  twelve  in  Palestine,  and 
St  John  could  appreciate  the  converse  method  of  St  Paul,  who 


360  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES  ^1 

practised  the  virtue  of  poverty  by  hard  work,  instead  of  by  the 
refusal  to  possess.  He  knew  that  for  the  highly  educated  pupil 
of  Gannaliel  it  was  a  bitter  humiliation  to  work  as  a  tent-maker, 
and  that  for  the  invalid  it  was  a  cruel  penance.  He  is  writing 
probably  to  a  Pauline  Church,  and  it  would  seem  a  recommenda- 
tion that  the  strangers  had  *  taken  nothing  of  the  Gentiles  *  to 
whom  they  preached. 

I  think  we  must  necessarily  conclude  that  these  strangers  were 
well  known  to  be  disciples  of  St  Paul  This  is  the  natural 
explanation  of  the  fact  that  it  was  to  Gentiles  that  they  preached, 
and  that  they  adhered  to  the  Pauline  practice  of  *going  a  warfare 
at  their  own  cost'.  The  conclusion  forces  itself  upon  us  that  they 
had  been  companions  and  fellow  workers  of  St  Paul  at  Rome, 
and  that  they  had  been  obliged  to  leave  the  capital  owing  to  the 
persecution  of  Nero. 

*  I  wrote  a  few  words  to  the  Church  [reading  ^paxfra  n  for  hfpwf/a  ay] ; 
bot  he  that  loveih  to  have  the  pre-eminence  among  them,  Diotrephes, 
doth  not  receive  us.' 

*  I  wrote  a  few  words  to  the  Church '  might  be  understood,  as 
Zahn  understands  it,  *  I  have  just  written  another  short  letter  to 
the  Church,  which  I  shall  send  with  this'.  But  it  is  more  natural 
to  understand  a  former  letter  of  recommendation  given  to  the 
strangers  on  their  first  visit.  They  had  gone  on  that  occasion 
with  a  formal  introduction  to  the  hospitality  of  the  Church  from 
the  Apostle,  but  Diotrephes  did  not  *  receive'  the  Apostle's 
authority,  and  rejected  the  strangers.  He  does  not  appear  to 
have  had  pre-eminence  as  a  right  \  he  was  probably  only  one  of 
several  presbyters.  But  he  can  hardly  have  disregarded  St  John's 
recommendation  of  these  Christian  teachers  unless  he  had  some- 
thing against  them  personally.  We  naturally  infer  that  St  John 
had  written  to  the  Church  about  them,  to  introduce  them,  pre- 
cisely because  he  knew  there  was  a  chance  of  their  not  being  well 
received.  Why  should  they  be  looked  upon  askance  ?  May  we 
not  suppose  that  the  praise  given  to  them  by  the  Apostle  is 
intended  as  an  answer  to  the  objection  which  Diotrephes  had 
raised  against  them  ?  '  They  went  out  for  the  Name's  sake',  not 
from  mere  cowardice  ;  their  departure  from  Rome  was  an  exile, 
a  confessorship,  a  title  to  honour,  though  Diotrephes  had  chosen 


[STORICAL   SETTING   OF    II   and  "iflf   ST   JOHN        361 


I 


I 


to  regard  it  as  a  shameful  dereliction  of  duty.  It  is  of  no  use  to 
recommend  them  to  the  Church  a  second  time.  Now  they  arc 
only  to  pass  through,  and  Gaius  who  received  them  on  their  first 
visit,  will  entertain  them  once  more,  and  assist  them  on  their 
forward  journey. 

*For  this  cause,  if  I  come,  I  will  call  to  remembrance  his  works 
which  he  doeth,  prating  of  us  with  evil  words;  and  since  he  is  not 
content  therewith,  neither  doth  he  receive  the  brethren  himself,  and 
them  that  would  he  hindereth  and  casteth  out  of  the  Church.' 

Djotrephes  was  perhaps  an  elderly  roan  who  had  been  made 
a  presbyter  by  St  Paul,  and  was  inclined  to  be  jealous  of  the 
new  overseer  of  the  Asian  Churches.  He  first  found  fault  with 
St  John  for  being  deceived,  he  next  refused  to  receive  the 
strangers  recommended  by  the  Apostle,  he  then  tried  at  least 
to  prevent  Gaius  from  receiving  them.  When  he  failed  in  this,  he 
cast  Gaius  out  of  the  Church. 

Diotrephes  was  evidently  very  angry^and  we  shall  see  presently 
that  he  took  the  action  of  St  John  to  be  nothing  less  than  a  slight 
to  the  memory  of  St  Paul.  I  have  little  doubt  that  it  was  in 
reality  by  the  special  wish  of  St  Paul  that  St  John  had  come  to 
live  in  Asia  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
Asian  Churches  were  in  sore  want  of  a  Patriarch ;  Typtaf^vTipos 
they  said  in  those  days,  for  the  words  Trarpidpxm*  ft?/r/jo7roX(n7ff, 
ipXi'('fr(<TKo'JTos  had  yet  to  be  developed.  St  Paul  was  more  of  the 
thinker  than  of  the  administrator.  He  had  apparently  never 
Instituted  any  diocesan,  local,  'monarchical'  bishop.  In  the 
Church  of  Diotrephes  and  Gaius  there  was  no  head,  any  more 
than  at  Corinth.  The  Apostle  had  governed  all  his  foundations 
in  person,  sending  prefects  apostolic  with  full  faculties  from  time 
to  time,  to  act  in  his  place  when  he  was  unable  to  come  himself. 
The  unseemly  dispute  between  Diotrephes  and  Gaius  is  but 
a  faint  reflexion  of  the  disorders  of  the  Corinthian  Church  on  an 
earlier  and  more  famous  occasion,  to  be  repeated  again  in  that 
still  bishopless  Church  before  the  end  of  the  century.  Naturally 
Diotrephes  did  not  like  acknowledging  a  new  overlord  in  St  John. 
The  Apostle  of  love  was  also  the  son  of  Thunder,  and  a  vigorous 
organizer.  Before  his  exile  to  Patmos  seven  of  the  Asian 
Churches  had  a  complete  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  ^  though  he 
'  For  a  justification  of  this  statement  see  the  Expositor^  Apnlj  1904, 


362         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES  ■ 

was  not  yet  satisfied  with  them  all.  After  his  return  from  exile 
we  are  told  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  ^  that  he  went  about  even 
to  the  borders  of  the  barbarian  world,  setting  up  bishops,  putting 
the  Churches  to  rights  and  ordaining. 

There  is  now  no  difficulty  in  understanding  why  the  strangers 
had  come  back  to  St  John.  They  had  found  that  they  had 
become  unwilling  causes  of  dissensionj  and  their  generous  host 
had  suffered  on  their  account.  They  therefore  returned  to 
Ephcsus,  where  they  bore  testimony  '  before  the  Church '  to  the 
kindness  of  Gaius,  and  informed  St  John  of  the  'prating  words* 
of  the  disrespectful  Diotrephes.  St  John  now  sends  them  on 
other  w^ork,  and  as  they  must  pass  again  through  the  town  of 
Diotrephes  and  Gaius,  they  take  with  them  the  present  letter, 
to  act  both  as  a  renewed  passport  and  as  a  well-deserved  com- 
mendation of  Gaius. 

'Beloved,  imitate  not  that  which  is  evil,  but  that  which  is  good 
He  that  doeth  good  is  of  God ;  he  that  doeth  evil  bath  not  seen  God.' 

The  moral  of  these  words  is  to  be  applied  to  Gaius  and  to 
Diotrephes  respectively.  St  John  knew  human  nature  well 
enough  to  be  sure  that  Gaius  would  not  fail  to  let  Diotrephes 
know  the  contents  of  the  letter, 

'Demetrius  hath  witness  borne  to  him  by  all,  and  by  the  Truth 
itself;  yea,  we  also  bear  witness ;  and  thou  knowest  that  our  witness  is 
true.' 

It  does  not  seera  to  have  been  commonly  recognized  that  this 
emphatic  sentence  is  not  set  down  d  propos  de  boties,  but  is  in  the 
closest  connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  Epistle*  Demetrius  is  one 
of  the  strangers ;  he  is,  in  fact,  the  one  whose  character  has  been 
called  in  question  by  Diotrephes.  St  John  had  recommended 
him  once  before,  and  his  recommendation  had  been  disregarded. 
He  now  repeats  that  very  testimony  to  Demetrius^  against  which 
Diotrephes  had  prated,  and  with  extraordinary  emphasis:  'Dio- 
trephes does  not  accept  our  testimony  to  Demetrius ',  he  seems  to 
say,  'he  would  not  receive  him,  and  he  turned  Gaius  out  of  the 

'  Qv^is  dhts  41,  and  ap.  £us.  //.    E.  iii   33  ^irctS^  "^  rov  rvpaifvcv  TtKtvrii- 

iwl  ni  wkrjat6x'^po^  tov  i&ywVf  cmov  fil¥  iirtffM^wtxm  waracm^crarKj  &wov  Si  &kas  iKJcKijciat 
ApfL&ffwv,  &irw  Si  K\^ip^  fro  yi  taru  M\rip&<rȴ  rSiv  LvA  rov  nyivftarot  mittatvofUruv^ 


HISTORICAL   SETTING    OF   II    and    HI    ST  JOHN        363 

Church,  because  he  did  so  in  obedience  to  my  former  letter.  But 
I  repeat  my  approval  of  him  in  the  most  solemn  terms  that  I  can 
employ.  The  Truth,  the  Christian  religion,  bears  witness  to  him, 
for  he  went  out  from  Rome  for  the  Name  s  sake.  I  also  bear 
witness,  for  I  have  seen  enough  of  him  at  Ephesus  for  that.  And 
you,  Gaius,  can  bear  witness,  for  you  also  know  him/  ^ 

One  hardly  feels  that  the  hospitality  accorded  to  Demetrius  for 
a  few  days  at  most  would  be  sufficient  to  justify  this  appeal  to 
Gaius  for  his  testimony.  It  is  more  likely  tliat  he  had  been 
acquainted  with  Demetrius  on  some  previous  occasion  and  in 
another  place,  and  that  he  was  thus  able  to  bear  witness  to  his 
character.  Demetrius  was  well  kno^^ii  by  reputation  at  least — 
too  well  known — ^to  the  Church  of  Gaius  and  Diotrephes,  and  the 
word  ffVos  does  not,  like  *  strangers '  in  English,  imply  that  the 
visitors  were  unknown,  but  simply  that  they  stood  in  need  of 
the  hospitality  given  by  Gaius.  They  presumably  had  Uttle 
money,  for  it  was  their  custom  to  *  take  nothing  of  the  Gentiles  *. 
Hence  their  gratitude  to  Gaius,  and  hence  St  John's  anger  with 
Diotrephes. 

*  I  had  many  things  to  write  to  thee,  howbeit  I  will  not  write  to  thee 
with  ink  and  pen ;  but  1  hope  to  see  thee  shortly,  and  we  will  speak 
face  to  face.  Peace  be  to  thee  i  the  friends  salute  thee :  salute  the 
friends  by  name/ 

Gaius  has  many  friends  at  Ephesus,  and  St  John  has  friends  in 

'  *Tboa  knowwt  that  our  witness  is  true.'  This  might  mean  either  *Thou 
knowest  that  I  am  not  tn  the  habit  of  telling  lies',  or  else  *  Thou  thyself  knowest 
that  Demetrius  is  a  good  man  '.  The  latter  b  undoubtedly  the  right  meaning. 
St  John  used  the  same  expressions  elsewhere  on  two  very  solemn  occasions,  when 
he  saw  the  blood  and  water  issuing  from  the  side  of  Christy  and  when  at  the  end  of 
his  Gospel  he  made  a  solemn  protestation  of  its  accuracy  t  *  And  he  that  saw  it 
hath  given  testimony  ;  and  his  testimony  is  true.  And  he  knoweth  that  he  saith 
true  ;  that  you  also  mny  believe  *  (John  xix  35),  Here  *  he  knoweth  that  he  saith 
true '  does  not  mean  *  he  knoweth  that  he  is  not  a  tiar  *,  but '  he  knoweth  that  the  facts 
were  Just  as  he  has  written  them  '.  '  This  is  that  disciple  who  giveth  t^timony  of 
these  things  and  hath  written  these  things :  and  we  know  that  his  testimony  is 
true^  (xxi  24),  Lightfoot  is  no  doubt  right  {Essays  on  Supfntat.  Relig,  p,  1S7)  in 
calling  this  verse  '  the  endorsement  of  the  elders  *.  But  they  did  not  write  the 
words,  which  are  in  Si  John's  own  unmistakcablc  style  ;  he  wrote  them  in  their 
namei  to  express  the  assent  they  gave,  '  We  know  that  his  testimony  is  true  * 
means  '  we  know  the  facts  from  our  own  memory,  and  he  has  stated  them  accur- 
ately '.  Similarty  here  St  John  says  that  Gaius  could  himself  confirm  the  testimony 
by  his  own  knowledge  of  Demetrius. 


364         THE    JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


the  Church  where  Gaius  lives,  St  John  is  coming  shortly;  ne 
will  give  Diotrephes  a  piece  of  his  mind,  and  he  has  important  and 
secret  matters  to  communicate  to  Gaius.  Thus,  though  Diotrephes 
put  himself  forward  J  Gaius  is  yet  signalized  as  a  person  of  some 
importance. 

We  may  guc&s  what  it  was  that  St  John  would  not  write.  He 
meant  to  put  an  end  to  the  self-sought  pre-eminence  of  Diotrephes 
and  to  his  high-handed  proceedings.  He  would  appoint  a  bishop, 
and  perhaps  he  had  even  thought  of  Gains  as  the  person  best 
fitted  to  receive  the  charge.  But  he  would  probably  wait  for  the 
opinion  of  the  Church,  that  he  might  know  for  certain  whether 
Gaius  was  indeed  'designated  by  the  Spirit*.  The  matter  must 
not  be  mentioned  in  the  letter,  for  the  letter  was  intended  to  be 
shewn  to  Diotrephes. 


,j 


§  2.    Tke  sin  of  Detnetritis* 

St  John  has  done  all  he  can  to  make  his  'testimony'  to 
Demetrius  impressive.  He  had  used  the  same  words  on  two 
occasions  of  extraordinary  solemnity.  Why  does  he  again 
employ  this  imposing  formula? 

•  Demetrius '  is  the  full  name  of  the  stranger ;  a  long  name 
which  St  John  would  have  shortened  into  *  Demas  *,  had  he  been 
speaking  in  a  less  stately  manner. 

We  have  seen  that  the  stranger  was  apparently  a  Christian 
teacher,  a  disciple  of  St  Paul,  who  had  been  with  St  Paul  at  Rome 
during  the  Neronian  persecution,  and  who  had  been  accused  of 
cowardice  for  deserting  the  city  at  that  moment.  The  remark- 
able '  testimony '  given  by  St  John  seems  to  imply  that  a  stigma, 
more  difficult  of  removal  than  a  mere  dislike  or  misrepresentation 
on  the  part  of  Diotrephes^  had  been  laid  upon  Demetrius,  a  stigma 
which  the  word  of  an  Apostle  could  barely  suffice  to  erase,  when 
tendered  in  the  most  solemn  manner. 

If  it  were  no  less  a  person  than  St  Paul  himself  who  had  com- 
plained of  the  desertion  of  Demetrius,  the  whole  difficulty  is 
cleared  up.  We  understand  the  anger  of  Diotrephes^ — St  John 
is  sh'ghting  the  great  Doctor  of  the  nations.  We  understand 
also  the  necessity  on  St  John*s  part  for  speaking  in  the  gravest 
tones  when  he  is  consciously  contradicting  an  opinion  put  forth 
by  so  eminent  a  personage. 


I 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF    II    and    III   ST   JOHN        365 


I 


Now  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  we  find  St  Paul  writing 
in  the  expectation  of  approaching  martyrdom,  and  complaining 
that  he  is  left  alone  in  Rome  at  such  a  moment  All  his  disciples 
have  left  him  except  Luke.  One  only  is  blamed  for  this  deser- 
tion, and  his  name  is  Demas,  the  same  who  had  been  with  him  in 
his  former  Roman  imprisonment  (Col.  iv  14  and  Philem,  24)'. 

The  letter  found  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  where  he  was  acting  as 
Apostolic  delegate  to  put  the  Church  in  order  and  to  ordain 
priests  and  deacons,  just  as  Titus  had  for  a  time  superintended 
the  Churches  of  Crete.  He  is  to  come  to  Rome  at  once  before 
winter,  passing  through  Troas,  and  bringing  with  him  the  luggage 
which  St  Paul  had  left  there.  We  can  easily  Imagine  the  lamen- 
tations at  Ephesus  on  the  arrival  of  this  last  message  from  the 
beloved  Master^,  And  what  indignation  at  those  who  had 
deserted  him  in  the  hour  of  trial !  '  At  my  first  answer  no  man 
stood  with  me',  the  Apostle  complains*  And  it  is  Demetrius 
who  is  singled  out  for  special  blame^he  loved  this  world — ^he 
was  not  anxious  for  martyrdom,  nor  to  receive  the  'beautiful 
crown  from  the  Lord's  hand*  which  the  Scriptures  promise  to 
the  just,  and  to  which  St  Paul  so  confidently  looked  forward 
(Wisdom  v  17).  On  the  contrary,  he  conveniently  remembered 
the  saying  of  our  Lord  on  which  St  Athanasius  at  a  later  date 
rested  his  defence — '  When  they  persecute  you  in  one  city,  flee 
to  another ' ;  he  did  not  flee,  but  he  departed  (or,  as  St  John 
puts  it,  he  went  forth)  to  Thessalonica.  It  was  a  disappointment 
to  St  Paul,  and  he  felt  it,  though  perhaps  he  did  not  mean  his 
words  to  imply  any  grave  guilt  on  the  part  of  Demas.  St  Peter 
himself  had  fled  from  Rome  (so  says  a  legend  which  was  at 
least  not  invented  in  St  Peter's  honour),  and  turned  back  only 
in  obedience  to  a  vision/  The  story  has  become  famous  through 
a  clever  novel.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  its  origin,  unless 
it  contains  an  element  of  truth. 

'  *I  im  even  now  ready  to  be  sacrificed  :  and  the  time  of  my  dissolution  is  at 
hand.  I  have  foyght  a  good  fight,  I  have  finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the 
Faith.  As  to  the  rest,  there  is  laid  up  Tor  me  »  crown  of  justice,  which  the  Lord 
the  just  judge  witL  render  to  me  in  that  day  :  and  not  only  to  me  but  to  Lhena  also 
that  love  his  appearing.  Make  haste  to  come  to  me  quickly,  for  Demas  hath  left 
me,  loving  this  world,  and  is  gone  to  Thessalonica,  Crescena  into  Galatia,  Tiius 
into  Dalmatia.     Only  Luke  is  virith  me  *  (3  Tim.  iv  6^  7). 

'We  know  how  the  Ephesian  presbyters  wept  when  they  took  leave  of  St  Paul 
At  Miletus  (Acts  xx  57). 


366         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

But  in  Asia  the  Churches  of  Pauline  foundation  were  inclined 
to  take  a  harsh  view  of  Demetrius.  It  appears  that  they  inter- 
preted his  *  love  of  this  world '  in  the  worst  sense.  They  repre* 
sented  him  as  a  half-apostate,  a  lapsus,  just  as  St  Cyprian's 
enemies  decried  him  for  hiding  during  the  Dectan  persecution. 
The  recommendation  given  to  him  by  St  John  (and  a  good 
many  years  must  now  have  passed  since  St  Paul's  martyrdom) 
merely  embittered  Diotrephes  against  his  new  chief;  Dcmas  had 
deserted  their  Apostle,  and  this  doting  old  man,  John,  didn't 
care ;  perhaps  he  had  still  a  grudge  against  the  teacher  of  the 
Gentiles,  whom  he  had  been  obliged  to  recognize  as  an  equal  I        - 

The  identity  of  the  Demas  of  %  Timothy  with  the  Demas  of  \ 
3  John  seems  thus  to  be  established.    The  coincidence  of  cir- 
cumstances is  too  remarkable  to  be  put  down  to  chance. 


§  3.    The  H&spitaliiy  of  Gains* 


\  to  1 


When  St  Paul  wrote  from  Rome  to  the  Colosstans  and 
Philemonj  his  companions  were  {a)  Tychicus  and  Onesimus,  who 
took  his  letter  to  Asia,  {b)  three  brethren  *  of  the  circumcision ', 
Aristarchus,  Mark,  and  Jesus  Justus,  (^r)  Epaphras,  Demas,  and 
Luke,  who  arc  evidently  Gentiles,  and  whose  full  names  were 
Epaphroditus,  Demetrius,  and  Lucanus.  Of  these,  Aristarchus 
and  Luke  had  come  with  St  Paul,  sharing  his  shipwreck.  Mark 
he  had  probably  found  at  Rome.  Epaphroditus,  who  had  been 
a  teacher  of  the  Colossians,  and  seems  to  have  been  a  Colossian 
himself,  had  come  bringing  messages  from  Philippi.  Possibly 
Demas  had  come  with  him,  and  he  may  very  likely  have  been 
a  Macedonian,  for  when  he  left  Rome,  it  was  to  Thessalonica 
that  he  directed  his  steps. 

Who  then  was  Gaius  ?  He  seems  to  have  been  well  acquainted 
with  Demas  in  old  days,  and  we  are  therefore  inclined  to  identify 
him  with  one  or  other  of  St  Paul's  companions  of  that  name, 
Gaius  the  Macedonian  (Acts  xix  29)^  Gaius  the  Derbaean  (Acts 
XX  4)^  or  Gaius  the  Corinthian  (Rom,  xvi  33  ;  i  Cor.  i  14).  This 
last  was  St  Paul's  host  at  Corinth*  Is  it  possible  that  he  is  the 
same  kindly  individual  who  became  after  many  years  the  host 
of  Demetrius,  and  whose  hospitality  is  thus  commended  for  ever 
by  the  voice  of  two  Apostles  ? 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF   II    and    III    ST   JOHN        367 


¥ 


^ 


If  SO,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  he  was  still  living  at  Corinth, 
which  would  seem  too  far  from  Asia.  Now  Origcn^  tells  us 
that  this  same  Gaius  of  Corinth  became  the  first  bishop  of 
Thessalonica.  Corinth  must  have  received  a  bishop  soon  after 
the  letter  of  St  Clement,  so  that  Thessalonica  may  well  have 
had  one  a  few  years  earlier  *. 

We  thus  reach  a  consistent  history.  Demas  was  a  Thessa- 
Ionian.  He  perhaps  accompanied  Epaphroditus  from  Macedonia 
to  Rome ;  on  leaving  Rome  he  went  to  Thessalonica  because 
it  was  his  home.  He  must  have  found  that  city  too  hot  for  him 
as  soon  as  St  PauFs  second  letter  to  Timothy  became  known 
there.  This  will  have  been  almost  immediately,  as  Timothy  no 
doubt  went  at  once  to  Rome  by  Troas,  and  must  consequently 
have  passed  through  Thessalonica  on  his  way  to  Italy  by  the 
Egnatian  road.  Many  years  later  Demas,  now  an  elderly  man, 
desires  to  end  his  days  in  his  native  place.  He  obtains  a  letter 
of  recommendation  from  St  John  to  the  Church  of  Thessalonica 
(typa\|f(t  rt  177  ^/cicAwia}^  and  if  that  document  had  come  down 
to  us  it  would  have  thrown  some  light  on  the  life  of  Demas 
during  the  years  which  had  elapsed  since  the  Neronian  perse* 
cution,  and  it  must  have  contained  the  apology  for  Demas  to 
which  the  Apostle  obscurely  refers  in  the  words  *  they  went 
out    for   the   Name's   sake*.    The    hospitable  Gatus  accepted 

'  CompH,  $H  Ep.  ad  Rom,  I  x  41  '  Videtur  ergo  iedictre  de  eo  quod  uir  fuerifc 
hospitalis,  qui  non  solum  Paulum  ac  singulos  quosque  aduentantcs  Corinthum 
ho  spit  10  receperit  sed  ecclesiiie  uniuersae  in  do  mo  suaconuenticulum  ipse  pracbucrit. 
Fcrtur  sane  tradilione  maiorura,  quod  hie  Gaius  primus  episcopus  fuerit 
ThesstlonlccrLsis  ecclcsiae '.  The  information  is  early,  and  there  is  no  apparent 
reason  for  its  having  been  invented.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  (vii  47)  inform 
us  that  Gaius  was  the  first  bishop  of  Pcrgamuni,  Demetrius  of  Philadelphia.  It 
does  not  seem  very  probable  that  any  tradition  underlies  this  statemenL  The 
Roman  raartyrology  states  that  Arisiarchua  was  the  first  bishop  of  Thessalonica. 
This  is  a  mediaeval  figment,  unknown  to  Ado,  Usuard,  or  the  Hieronymian 
martyrology. 

*  Thessalonica  was  later  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  head  of  Achaia  and 
inyricum,  and  was  the  scat  of  a  Papal  vicar  from  Siricius  onwards.  The  case  of 
Perigenes  and  Rufus  well  illustrates  its  superiority  to  Corinth,  the  metropolis 
of  Greece.  At  Corinth  Hcgesippus  (ap.  Eus.  H.  E.  iv  a  2)  seems  to  imply  a  '  suc- 
cession '  before  Primus,  c.  160,  the  predecessor  of  Dionysius.  In  the  letter  nf 
Dionysius  to  the  Athenians  (c.  170,  ibid,  iv  23),  Dionysius  the  Arcopagite  was  said 
to  have  been  their  first  bishop.  If  so^  it  must  have  been  some  time  after  St.  Paul's 
di^ath.  The  first  bishop  of  a  see  at  the  end  of  the  first  centtiry  might  well  some* 
times  be  the  oldest  surviving  disciple  of  the  Apostles. 


2fA         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


h?fp 


St  John's  assurance^,  but  Diotrephes  prated  against  him,  in  the; 
belief  that  the  silver  streak  secured  him  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Apostle,  whose  attention  was  principally  given  to  Asia  *. 
But  he  was  mistaken.  St  John  came  to  Thessalonica  in  person, 
and  appointed  Gaius  bishop  over  the  head  of  the  ambitii 
Diotrephes. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Epistle  is  a  recommendation  to  help 
Demas  forward  on  his  journey.  Demas  would  certainly  not 
have  gone  again  to  the  same  city  immediately  after  having  been 
obliged  to  leave  it,  unless  it  were  unavoidable  to  pass  through  it 
on  his  way  to  a  new  destination.  Now  Thessalonica  is  precisely 
a  place  which  Demas  must  pass  through  if  he  were  going  cither 
to  Italy  or  to  Greece,  except  by  preferring  a  long  and  hazardous 
voyage  by  sea.  As  he  did  not  stop  with  St  John,  we  may  con- 
jecture that  he  intended  to  avoid  Pauline  foundations  for  the 
future.  Not  Greece,  therefore,  but  the  West  was  probably  his  J 
destination. 

It  is  noticeable  that  St  Paul  mentions  Demas  and  Luke  each 
thrice,  and  always  together.  We  might  find  in  this  a  confirm- 
ation of  Ramsay's  conjecture  that  St  Luke  was  a  Macedonian, 
although  tradition  makes  him  an  Antiochene  \ 


(T&  be  continued^ 


John  Chapman. 


'  Gaius  may  have  known  Demaa  at  Connth.  For  Demas  would  hardly 
joined  5l  Paul  at  Rome  if  he  had  not  formerly  been  his  companion.  He  had 
wtb  him  at  Colossae,  for  his  greeting  is  sent  to  that  Church  and  to  Philemon. 

'  St  John  tooJc  no  notice,  we  may  suppose^  of  the  contemporary  disorders  at 
Corinth. 

*  So  tU^  *'  MonarchiAn  ^  Prologue.    Luke  is  Erst  mentioned  at  Antioch  (Acts  zi  37) 
\sk  Co<I.  Bezae. 


369 


DOCUMENTS 

THE  SYRIAN  LITURGIES  OF  THE 
PRESANCTIFIED.     IL 

WEST  SYRIAN  {continued)^. 

In  the  former  article  reference  was  made  to  the  Nomocanon,  IaK^ 
U^oeit  or  *  Book  of  Directions  *  *  of  Gregory  Barhebraeus,  maphrian  of 
the  East  (+A.D.  1286).  Of  this  work,  chapter  iv  §  8,  dealing  with  the 
liturgy  of  the  Presanctified,  is  here  printed  from  a  manuscript  pre- 
served in  the  Syrian  seminary  of  Sharfeh  in  the  Lebanon,  which  differs 
from  other  forms  of  the  text  in  that  it  adds  a  preface,  giving  an  account 
of  the  institution  of  the  rite  ([I]).  The  original  part  of  section  8, 
according  to  the  plan  pursued  throughout  by  the  author,  consists  of 
comments  on  selections  from  ecclesiastical  writers,  of  which  the  most 
important  as  regards  the  history  of  the  rite  is  that  purporting  to  be  the 
work  of  Severus  of  Antioch  (v.  note  IV). 

A  Syriac  edition  of  the  Nomocanon  has  been  published  by  M.  Bedjan 
(Paris,  1898),  principally  from  MS  226  of  the  Bibliothbque  Nationale, 
dated  a.d.  1480.  The  British  Museum  MS  Or.  4081  is  modem,  and 
written  in  1887,  A  somewhat  imperfect  Latin  translation  is  to  be 
found  in  Mai  Scriptorum  veierum  nova  coliectio  tom.  x. 

'  See  Journal  of  Theological  Studies^  iv  (Oct.  190a),  69  sqq. 

*  This,  and  not  Huddoyo  (used  ibid.  pp.  70,  71),  is  the  correct  title  of  the  work: 
in  the  present  article,  it  is  referred  to  throughout  as  Nomocamm,  Further  corrections 
of  my  previous  article  are  :  p.  70,  for  *  *'^'»--  ^  we  received '  read  ■-^<»«^  *  they 
receive ' ;  p.  71,  for  '  Isho'yabh '  read  ^  Elias  bar  Shinaya*,  metropolitan  of  Niabis, 
A.O.  975-c.  1049,  ^^  whom  the  Liber  demonsiraiionis  is  attributed  by  Wright  and 
Duval ;  p.  73,  line  6,  omit  M ' ;  p.  79  )QmJ  should  be  rendered '  look  we ',  for  which 
^OAA«D03  vp&axotiuv  is  sometimes  substituted ;  p.  8a,  coL  x  and  a:  after '  O  ador- 
able and  all-wise  ...  *  add  <  [Severus] ' ;  ib»  col.  3:  'And /u proceeds  wUhtMt prayer* 
should  follow  *  Sedro ',  the  prayer  being  the  *  Prayer  of  the  Sedro  \  or  '  after  the 
incense  *, 

VOL.  V.  B  b 


370         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


•UftA    p*l  %^.^    W*JpI    lUoAd    [.f    .oUaa] 


Kayr  Ho   .U&±x  ^^.^  i^^jf  1^1  V  t  ^  >N  n .» 


|>«.tt/    OOiO     pyO^lo 


f 


.  o  n  ->  A  I   y(o 


OOI 


*i^^    ls^\t\  m.v.    ^t^?    OOI    ^ 

^    y^SL^^AiJ   tm^\    'tr^l^   ^b^^^If    i^oi    fimi>j  "^^l^f    W*^  ^/ 

]oei^  Idk^  l^jj^of    .loi^l  ]Lroi  imd  ^^    |««^  j|i*l^   ool  lio   .ut^o 

U«^j  I'll  Uj  vto  •^oil^  6/  >^Tft;flnt  Jl'a^j  ^  If-  i-»Ij|  i^  ylo 
♦  oii^  OOI   ^^\it.    .Lfi.^  i&ei^f    lln  a.Qifin   Iftft'S   fc^k^S^  (sic)  «uk;j 

^{b0  Ito)  ^oajo^f  t,\->?Sy>o  ^^^^If  )o*f'«^  ^^r  ^^^^'-^  ^/  .^eftd  ^f 
^  ^jD  ^^^-^-^i  Vn.viv  U^;::^  bot^t  b^j  '^^'i^  «/  .^o^a^ik^! 
tfti>^  ^.joo^  .3  1;^  *2f  Jo^  .W^  Ic^ajf  ^H  7^  Vo  .^f  ^*^oi 

I  (sic)  ilio^l  o?  Jlai  ^^ 


I 


I 

I 
I 


DOCUMENTS  37 1 

[Chapter  IV.]    Section  the  eighth:  on  the  Signing  of  the  Chalice, 

[I]  The  occasion  of  the  need  of  the  Signing  of  the  Chalice.  In  the 
Church  it  happened  on  this  wise :  that  since  the  canons  prescribe  that 
the  oblation  be  discontinued  in  the  Great  Fast,  the  faithful  asked  the 
blessed  mar  Severus  that  they  might  communicate :  and  he,  as  a  wise 
physician,  who  would  not  transgress  the  canons,  nor  deny  the  faithful 
their  requests,  arranged  that  they  should  leave  over  of  the  oblation  that 
had  been  perfected  on  the  Sunday,  and  therefrom  communicate.  And 
since  the  oblation,  without  the  chalice  accompanying  it,  is  void,  and 
if  they  were  to  leave  over  of  that  of  the  Sunday,  it  would  be  kept  with 
difficulty,  or  might  be  corrupted,  they  arranged  thus :  that,  when  they 
wished,  they  should  sign  the  chalice  with  the  oblation,  that  had  been 
perfected,  as  was  arranged  above :  and  that  the  oblation  that  remained 
should  be  signed  from  the  chalice  that  had  been  hallowed  on  the 
Sunday  \  but  that  this  chalice  *  should  be  signed  with  the  coal  there- 
from ',  and  that  the  Body  should  not  be  again  signed  from  this  chalice 
for  a  second  time. 

A  good  memorial  be  to  our  ghostly  fathers,  who  are  in  resplendent 
and  glorious  and  good  light,  by  whom  we  are  instructed  and  through 
whom  we  live  and  are. 

[II]  James  of  Edessa^.  If  an  anchoret  priest  be  alone,  and  there 
be  other  anchorets  near  him,  if  he  wish  to  sign  for  himself  or  for 
them,  when  the  faithful  people  are  not  present,  it  is  left  to  his  discretion 
to  do  so,  and  he  is  without  blame  in  both.  And  if  he  wish  to  say  one 
of  the  prayers,  that  are  set  down,  or  all,  or  if  he  wish  to  sign  without 
prayers  secretly  as  time  allows,  it  is  permitted  to  him. 

It  is  not  right  that  the  chalice  be  allowed  to  remain  over  night,  lest  it 
be  turned  and  he  who  allows  it  be  guilty.  For  the  penalty  of  death  was 
threatened  by  God  with  regard  to  the  goat  of  the  sin-offering  which  was  left 
over,  of  which  the  priests  did  not  eat  in  the  evening,  and  which  was  allowed 
to  remain  until  the  morning.  And  the  chalice  is  allowed  to  remain, 
either  for  the  sick  that  are  hard  pressed  and  ought  to  receive  the  viaticum 
before  they  die  or  for  fasters  that  fast  till  late  evening.  But  apart  from 
these  cases,  it  is  not  at  all  right  that  the  chalice  should  remain.  When 
the  holy  Body  is  present,  it  is  permitted  to  him  to  sign  the  chalice,  and 
if  a  man  wish,  thrice  in  one  week,  when  necessary  causes  require  it. 

The  deacon  is  not  allowed,  when  he  signs  the  chalice,  to  say  any 
prayer  or  even  to  say  anything  great  or  small. 

*  i.  e.  at  the  fraction  of  the  Sunday  Mass. 
'  The  chalice  used  at  the  Presanctified. 

>  From  the  host  hallowed  on  the  Sunday. 

•  A.D.  640-708. 

B  b  22 


372         THE    JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


.jp^  l^ifjOQd  ^i^njfcr/  P  Jt^  %^< 


Uo 


^fj^ipde    .)jo*lL  t,ma">   ]fc%*  i^i^ao    w^oi    woir    .|b^    ^f   Ul     .Ujoai 


lOp     OOI 


jU^r  ]lj 


QJft^   ^^P 


0|XA.3SLftJ£k^0 


JlfiidLoji. 


•diX  l^^^^  l^otd  Q^e  *]^Jk,  OQif  \mA  ^o  ^A 

.|U^^  ]V^lk>  l:>ci^):^  fhJ^Q  U'eCx^  ocImo  ^U  f4»  H^  ^  ,>|fl»Nk? 

\jn^^}  jl^^Jl^a^  ^ftNwa>o   Afr^JO  fMjf  U^«f    •j^ao/   fA  f**^-S  t   jis^bo 
^   .IbiA^d  I^Q^r  UoDQ^ii:^  yoii^/  ti>.aV*  .|Lao3  et^f  U^t   ic^  lift 

Ua^alP    ^   *R^^^    lootl-.;^    WvS     ]pbU»0    4^^*     ^    .bdLX  %Xf 


1 


I 


Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  226:  variant. 

*  Absent  in  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  226 :  Brit.  Mus.  Or.  4081. 

*  Absent  in  Brit,  Mus.  Or.  4081. 

*  }lnrfc#^V,->OuP  in  Paris,  Bibl  Nut  336. 


DOCUMENTS  373 

[III]  John  of  Telia.  Let  the  deacon  receive  the  pearl  \  with  which 
the  chalice  is  signed,  as  many  times  as  he  ministers  *  the  chalice :  and 
on  this  we  find  no  commandment. 

Direction.  My  opinion  is,  that  the  pearl  should  be  cast  into  the 
chalice,  and  that  at  the  time  of  the  communion  the  priest  should  receive 
it :  and  that  the  priest  should  communicate  his  deacon  from  the  coals 
that  are  in  the  paten:  for  it  is  not  fitting  that,  when  the  priest  is 
present,  the  deacon  should  receive  and  communicate  by  himself,  except 
the  chalice  which  he  drinks  and  which  is  not  given  him  to  drink  by 
the  priest. 

[IV]  Severus.  When  the  priest  has  said  the  sedro',  and  set  on 
incense,  let  the  people  say  *  We  believe  in  one  God  *.  TTien  he  prays, 
standing  upright,  and  gives  the  peace,  and  seals  the  people  with  three 
crosses,  saying :  '  And  may  the  mercies  of  the  [great]  God.'  Then  he 
takes  the  coal  and  signs  therewith  the  chalice  with  three  crosses,  saying : 
'  That  He  may  unite  and  hallow  and  change  the  mixtiu-e  that  is  in  this 
chalice  into  His  saving  Blood,  even  Christ  our  God,  for  the  pardon  of 
offences  *  and  the  rest.  Then  he  prays  the  Prayer  of  the  Our  Father 
who  art  in  heaven,  and  again  a  prayer ;  and  he  gives  the  peace.  Then 
the  Prayer  over  the  people.  Then  the  peace ;  and  he  seals  the  people 
with  '  May  the  grace '.  Then  the  deacon :  *  Look  we  in  trembling  *. 
The  priest :  '  The  presanctified  holies  to  the  holy ',  and  he  lifts  up  the 
mysteries.  The  people:  'One  is  the  [holy]  Father.'  Then  he  com- 
municates himself,  and  gives  communion :  and  he  returns  and  prays 
the  Prayer  of  Thanksgiving.  Then  the  Prayer  over  the  people.  Then 
he  seals  with  '  Bless  us  all '. 

Direction.  Know  that  in  the  ^urobho  he  makes  a  cross  with  the 
coal  over  the  chalice,  when  he  breaks :  and  here  he  touches  the  Blood 
by  means  of  the  coal,  making  the  crosses. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  226  :  variant. 

Direction.  Know  that  in  the  ^urobho,  he  makes  crosses  over  the 
chalice;  and  here,  when  he  breaks,  he  touches  the  Blood  by  means 
of  the  coal,  making  the  crosses. 

*  i.e.  the  particle,  or  'coal '. 

*  i.e.  purifies  at  the  ablutions. 

'  For  the  absolute  use  of  ^{XD  *  say  the  sedro  ^  v.  Nomoc  cap.  v.  $$  4,  5. 


374         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


L  In  the  thirteenth  century,  the  prohibition  of  mass  on  the  ferns 
of  Lent,  issued  by  the  Synod  of  Laodicea  (can,  49X  still  held  good, 
the  liturgy  being  celebrated  only  on  the  Annunciation,  and  the  Wednesday 
of  Midlent,  on  which  day,  if  the  Chrism  was  not  to  be  consecrated  on 
the  following  Maundy  Thursday,  the  Oil  of  the  Catechumens  was 
blessed  (Nomoc,  cap.  v  §  i).  The  principle  seems  to  have  been 
extended  to  other  fasts,  and  this  may  perhaps  account  for  the  use  of 
the  Presanctified  on  the  Vigil  of  the  Epiphany,  before  the  Blessing 
of  the  Water.  In  addition  to  the  occasions  mentioned  in  the  Journal 
of  T/uoiogtmi  SitidUsy  vol.  iv,  no.  13,  p.  70,  it  seems  to  have  been  used 
at  ordinations  (Denzinger  Rit.  Orient.  \\  gi). 

The  following  notes  may  be  added  on  the  practice  of  the  Jacobite 
Presanctified.  The  host  was  either  reserved  on  the  altar,  as  at  present, 
or  in  a  paten  (|b<4&0),  enclosed  in  the  paradiscus  (kxLov*?;^,  )l<iafcfi), 
a  cupboard  in  the  sanctuary  {Nomoc.  cap.  i  §  6).  As  late  as  the 
sixteenth  century,  Dandini  records  it  as  the  practice  of  the  Maronites  to 
keep  the  Blessed  Sacrament  in  a  wooden  box  in  a  recess,  without  lights. 
Philoxenus  of  Mabbogh(+r.  a.d.  523),  in  a  Carshunic  MS  preserved 
at  Sharfeh,  prescribes  the  reservation  of  the  host,  but  not  of  the  chalice, 
from  the  Sunday  to  the  following  Saturday.  The  only  mention  of  the 
piothesis  of  the  host  and  chalice  is  that  given  in  the  thirteenth-century 
MS  published  in  the  former  Article^;  but  as  the  entrance  of  the 
mysteries  in  the  ordinary  mass  had  by  that  time  disappeared,  it  is 
difficult  to  determine  whether  it  ever  existed  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Pre- 
sanctified. 

II.  This  extract  suggests  an  origin  of  the  liturgy  of  the  Presanctified 
in  the  method  of  communion  practised  by  the  hermits  (S.  Basil  J^.  xciii). 
Elsewhere  James  states  that  stylites  ought  not  to  offer  the  oblation 
on  their  pillars,  and  that  the  Body  is  not  to  be  left  thereon,  if  there 
be  any  one  present  to  give  them  communion.  He  forbids  the  cele- 
bration of  mass  to  anchorets,  except  in  cases  of  necessity  {Nomoc, 
cap.  vii  §  10),  but,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  he  makes 
provision  for  their  communion  by  means  of  the  Presanctified  liturgy. 

III.  The  extract,  the  tenth  of  the  'Answers  on  the  canons'  of  John 
bar  Kursus  bishop  of  Telia  {-f  a.  d.  53S),  refers  to  the  mass,  and  has 
been  misunderstood  by  Barhebraeus.  It  is  the  answer  of  John  to  the 
question  whether  the  *  pearl ',  or  particle,  with  which  the  chalice  has 
been  signed,  may  be  consumed  by  any  oncj  other  than  him  who  has 
performed  the  consignation.  The  ancient  practice  was  that  the  particles 
cast  into  the  chalices  were  left  therein  throughout  the  communion  of 
the  people,  and  consumed  after  their  return  to  the  altar  by  the  deacons 
who  '  ministered '  the  chalices,  i.  e.  took  the  ablutions.     This  custom 

1  y.  r.  5.  iv  73, 


DOCUMENTS 


^ 


was  still  retained  in  the  ninth  century  by  the  *  Chalcedonians '  or 
Orthodox,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Moses  bar  Kipha  (a.  d.  Si 3-903) 
in  his  *  Exposition  of  the  liturgy '.  The  modem  usage  is  for  the  priest 
to  consume  the  particle  in  the  chalice  at  his  own  communion  (v.  Bright* 
man  Liiurgies  Eastern  and  IVes/em,  pp,  102.  30:  103.  i). 

The  twentieth  *  Answer*  of  John  of  Telia,  unless  the  expression  *to 
sign  the  chalice'  is  merely  an  equivalent  of  'to  celebrate  the  liturgy', 
may  possibly  refer  to  the  mass  of  the  Presanctified : 

'The  disciple— If  any  one  has  received  the  oblation,  and  has  ministered  (i.e. 
purified)  the  chalice,  can  he,  under  stress  of  necessity^  afterwards  sign  the  chalice? 

The  master — If  he  has  only  ministered  the  chalice,  and  afterwards  it  is  necessary 
to  sign  the  chalice,  God  is  faithful  that  he  is  without  blame  :  but  let  not  this  be  made 
into  a  custom,' 

The  fourteenth  of  the  same  collection  also  permits,  if  it  be  necessary 
to  hallow  the  chalice,  the  *  signing '  to  take  place  without  an  altar, 
(Lamy  Dissert aiio  de  Syrorum  fide  et  disciplina), 

IV.  It  is  usual  to  place  the  institution  of  the  liturgy  of  the  Pre- 
sanctified towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  and  this  date  is 
confirmed  by  the  style  of  the  Byzantine  rite.  The  Jacobite  writers, 
however,  are  unanimous  in  attributing  its  introduction  into  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  Antioch  to  the  patriarch  Severus  (elected  a.  d.  511;  deposed 
518;  +538);  and  if  this  tradition  represents  the  truth,  we  must  refer 
the  institution  of  the  liturgy  to  the  earlier  years  of  the  century. 

The  existence  of  a  similar  rite  among  the  Orthodox  of  Syria  has 
been  already  referred  to  {J,  T,  S.  iv  69)^  and  a  closer  investigation 
shews  that  its  structure  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Jacobite  liturgy^ 
the  anaphoral  prayer  corresponding  to  the  Prayer  of  the  Veil.  It  is 
also  noticeable  that  in  Vat.  Syr.  xli  the  Byzantine  Presanctified  bears 
the    old    Syriac    title,    following   the   transliteration   of   the   Greek: 

Signing  of  the  chalice  of  the  holy  mar  Basil' 

In  discussing  the  correctness  of  the  Jacobite  tradition  as  to  the 
authorship  of  this  liturgy,  the  passage  in  the  Nomocanon,  purporting  to 
be  the  work  of  Severus  himself  {v.  supra  [IV]),  must  be  examined. 

(a)  A  difficulty  is  presented  at  the  outset  by  the  use  of  1^, 
which  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  was  used  absolutely,  *he 
said  the  sedro ',  but  which  has  no  Greek  equi\'alent.  In  the  Jacobite 
St  James,  the  sedro,  or  prayer  recited  aloud  before  the  altar  in  con- 
nexion with  the  incense,  followed  the  entrance  of  the  mysteries; 
but  such  a  prayer  does  not  exist  at  this  point  in  the  Maronite  mass, 
and  in  the  MSS  of  the  Greek  St  James,  the  position  of  the 
secret  tv^ii  rav  Bvfudfiarot  at  the  Great  Entrance  varies.  A  century 
after   Severus,    a   considerable    number   of   sedros    were    composed 


376  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


by  the  patriarch  John  I  ( +  a.  d,  648),  and  by  his  contemporary, 
Marutha  of  Tagrit  (4-a.d.  649),  some  of  which  were  certainly 
intended  for  the  censing  after  the  entrance  of  the  mysteries  ;  e.  g.  BriL 
Mus,  Add.  14520,  saec.  viii-ix,  f.  140a,  Uof^of  l^Nv^?  IbxA^t  ]♦•« 
'sedro  of  incense  of  the  entrance  of  the  altar';  but  though  Sevenis 
composed  a  sedro  for  baptism,  translated  by  James  of  Edessa,  there 
seems  to  be  no  evidence  for  the  use  of  such  a  prayer  at  the  censing 
after  the  entrance  in  the  Greek  liturgy  of  the  sixth  century,  the  sedro  in 
this  position  possibly  being  the  usage  of  the  Jacobite  monastic  strong- 
holds of  northern  Syria,  in  particular  of  Kenneshre  and  Gubba  bairaya. 

(S)  The  blessing  after  the  anaphora!  prayer  *  And  may  the  mercies  of 
our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you  all '  does  not  occur 
in  any  of  the  MSS  of  the  Greek  St  James,  nor  in  the  Jacobite  Pre- 
sanctified  as  given  in  Add.  14496,  14667,  17128, 14500:  it  is,  however, 
mentioned  by  James  of  Edessa  in  his  letter  on  the  liturgy  to  the 
presbyter  Thomas.  Elsewhere  it  occurs  only  in  the  Byzantine 
rite,  including  the  Armenian,  whence  it  was  probably  borrowed  by 
the  Syriac. 

(4  The  formula  of  consignation  is  found  in  none  of  the  MSS  of  the 
Presanctified.  It  closely  resembles  the  ending  of  the  Invocation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  tn  the  ordinary  liturgy,  save  that  in  the  present  case 
the  Son  is  the  operator :  but  as  it  stands  in  the  text,  it  has  no  connexion 
with  the  preceding  prayer.     The  wording  may  be  compared  with  the 

formula    in    the    Greek   St   James :    'Hwuto*    ku*    ^iafrrai    xal    rrrtXewrai 

(Brightman  £iU.  E.  &*  W,  p*  62.  18),  and  with  that  of  the  Greek  St 
Mark :  **Vh%t  tfylaarai  Kal  rrrcXfiWat  Jvat  ytyoycv  tts  ff&fui  nal  atpta  vov  Kvplov 

aal  9*ov  ml  Scor^por  ^^v  it.r.X.  {i3.  p.  139^  15).  Cf.  Persian  (r<5* 
p.  292*  6). 

(d)  The  response  of  the  people  at  the  Elevation  is  given  in  the 
Syrian  form  *One  is  the  holy  Father',  &c,  St  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
however,  the  Aposiolk  Constittithns^  and  all  the  Greek  texts  of  St 

James  give  Etr  ^ytor,  as  Kvpov  'Itjcreur  Xpt^rrtic-. 

{e)  The  concluding  blessing  '  Bless  us  all  *  (Brightman  Litt, 
E,  6*  IK  p.  105.  30)  is  not  mentioned  by  Moses  bar  Kipha,  nor 
by  the  author  of  the  treatise  jL^^olf  U^  *The  Breaking  of  the 
Eucharist ',  an  exposition  of  the  mass  contained  in  a  MS  at  Sharfeh, 
which  judging  from  the  order  of  the  liturgy  must  be  of  the  viii-x 
century.  The  first  part  of  this  blessing  is  paralleled  by  the  *ux7  ^^9  ■ 
Ttktvraia  of  the  Codcx  Rmsanensis  of  St  James :  'o  iLv^tos  ^^vfyiti  ical  I 

(lyuicrft  xat  <^i;Xdffi  wdiyrar  ^/xa$-  hik  rj\^  furakij^ms  rmv  axpdvmv  avrov  fiv<mf- 

pmv^  T§  avrou  xap*T-»  ir,TvX,,  and  possibly  by  the  prayers  following  the 
first  and  second  entrances  (Brightman  Litt,  E,  6*  W.  pp,  33.  37: 
42.  IS). 


DOCUMENTS  377 

A  consideration  of  the  points  above  mentioned  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  description  of  the  Presanctified  [IV]  is  not  a  translation 
of  the  Greek,  but  rather  presupposes  the  existence  of  the  fully  developed 
Syriac  liturgy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  formula  of  consignation,  in  its 
present  state  apparently  the  end  of  a  prayer,  and  having  no  connexion 
with  the  rest  of  the  description,  is  perhaps  a  fragment  of  the  original 
composition  of  Severus,  worked  over  by  a  later  Syrian  commentator, 
and  may  have  been  an  account  of  the  object  of  the  signing  of  the 
chalice  with  the  presanctified  host 

The  prayers  of  the  liturgy,  if  we  exclude  the  sedro,  present  no 
difficulty;  they  are  stated  by  Add.  14495  (saec.  x-xi)  to  have  been 
translated  from  the  Greek,  and  may  be  the  work  of  Severus.  It  is 
possible,  however,  in  view  of  the  statement  in  Add.  14496  (saec.  x) 
that  the  anaphoral  prayer  and  the  consignation  are  the  only  essential 
parts  of  the  rite,  that  these  alone  are  the  composition  of  that  patriarch. 
If  the  eremitic  origin  of  the  Presanctified  is  true,  and  the  fourteenth 
and  twentieth  'Answers*  of  John  of  Telia  refer  to  this  rite,  the 
prayers  of  this  liturgy  may  with  great  probability  be  included  in 
the  voluminous  works  of  the  founder  of  the  Jacobite  Church  of 
Syria. 

H.   W.  CODRINGTON. 


378 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 

THE  OLD  LATIN  TEXTS  OF  THE  MINOR 
PROPHETS,    HL 


Jonah. 
Cod.  IVeing.        L  14  **     .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        animam  hominis 

hums  t  et  ne  des  super  nos  sanguinem  eius  iustum :  quia  tu  dme.  quem- 

15  admodum  volisti  fecisti :  *®  Et  acceperunt  ionan  i  et  iniserunt  eum 

16  in  mare:   et  stetit  mare  a  violentia  suai  "et  timuemnt  viri  dmore 
magno  dom. :  et  immolavenint  hostias  dmo.  et  vota  voverunt : 

n.  1  ^Et  praecepit  dms.  ceto  magno  ut  gluttiret  ionan  1  et  erat  ionas 

3  in  ventre  ceti  tribus  noctibus ;    '  Et  oravit  ionas  de  ventre  ceti  ad 
Z  dom,  dm.  suum:    'et  dixit  Ctaraavi  ad  dom.  dm.  meum  in  tribula- 

tione  mea  :  et  exaudivit  me  de  ventre  infemi  clamoris  mei  exaudisti 

4  vocem  meam  :  *  proiecisd  me  in  altitudinem  cordis  maris  :  et  fiumina 
me  circumierunt :   omnia  turbulenta  tua  :   et  fluctos  tui :   super  me 

5  transtenint :   '  et  ego  dixi :    expulsus  sum  ab  oculis  tuis :    forsitam 

6  apponam   ut   respiciam  in  templum  sanctum  tuum  :    'perfusa  est 
aqua  mihi  usque  ad  animam :  abyssus  cvxanwix  me :  postremo  demersit 

7  caput  meum  in  fissuras  montium  :  ^et  descendi  in  terram  cuius 
vectes  sunt  continentes  aeternae  ;  et  ascendat  corruptio  vitae  meae : 

8  ad  te  dme,  ds,  meus :  *  in  hoc  quod  defecerit  anima  mea  a  me : 
dml,  raci  memoratus  sum ;   et  veniat  ad  te  oratio  mea  in  templum 

9  sanctum   /uum  ;    *  custo^fientes   vana  rt  falsa  misericordiam   suam 
10  dereliquerunt :  '"ego  autem  cum  voce  laudis  et  confesstonis  supplico 


I.  14.  aniroflm tuj  o#«  K*  {kab  «*•*)  eius]  om  ffi  15.  eum]  ri* 

leuycof  05  185  16.  hostias]  ffv<r*<iy  E  («c  51  62)  ^  Q*  {evmcL%  Q*)  om  95  186 

dmo*]  om.  K*  (superscr  Hat  W). 

II.  r,  tribus  noctibua]  pr  rpm  Tjftfpat  koj  ffi  2.  dc  ventre  ceti]  om  K* 
(/lab  «»<=--»  i^i  ^ ^)  3,  et  dixit .  . .  mea]  om  K*  {hob  H'"'-'*  ^''^^  "'  *)  in 
tribulatione  mea]  om  05  185  5.  ut  respiciam]  twicrrpttf^e  K*  (ciri^Xf^f  K*-^ 
K"'*"  *'  *)  templuTO]  Toi'  Xacv  G^**  {rov  vaov  B^  K  kow  A  Q)  6.  aninmm]  + 
ftov  E 1?  Q*  <"«  P«f  [om  fl&  Q*)  7,  et  i"]  om  ©  {hab  42)  vectes]  +avTiji  © 
SKint]  om  G  corruptio  ]  tK  ipiopas  &  J^  j4  vitae  ineac]  rj  {anj  iiov  %fl^A 
ad  tc]  om  & 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


379 


Ti  tibi :    quaecumque   vovi  reddam  tibi  salvatori  meo  domino    "EtCodL  Wc 
praeceptom  est  ceto  et  eiecit  ionan  in  arJdam 

III,  i»  a  *  Et  factum  est  verbom  dml.  ad  ionan  iterum  dicens  *  Surge  et 
vade  in  nineyfn  divitafef/t  magnam  :  et  praedica  in  earn  :  secundum 

3  praedicationem  priorem :  quam  ego  palam  locutus  sum  ad  te  ■  Et 
surrexit  ionas  et  abiit  in  nineven  civitatem  :  sicut  locutus  est  ad  eum 
dins,  nineven  autem  erat  civitas  magna  deo.  quasi  itinere  viae  dierum 

4  trium :  *  et  coepit  ionas  introire  in  civitatem  :  quasi  itinere  unius 
diei :  et  praedicavit  et  dixit :  adhuc  triduum  et  ninive  civitas  evertetur 

5  *  Et  crediderunt  viri  ninevitae  in  deo. :  et  praedicavenint  ieiuniam :  et 

6  induerunt  se  cilicium  a  maiore  usque  ad  minorem  eorum :  *  et 
pervenit  verbum  ad  regem  nineves :  et  exsurrexit  de  throno  suo  et 
posuit  vestem  suam  ab  se  :  et  operuit  se  cilicium  et  sedit  cinerem  : 

7  ''  et  praedicatum  est  in  nineve :  a  rege  et  a  maioribus  civitatis  eius 
dicens  :  homines  et  iumenta:  et  boves  et  oves  non  gustent  quicquam: 

8  neque  pascantur  neque  aquam  bibant    *et  coopemerunt  se  cilicia 


N 


n  II  Lucif.  Cat.  Dfsanct,  A  than,  ii 
A  than.  H  ill  ^  Tjcon.  Reg,  Quart. 

sand,  AihoH,  ii 


III  i-^  Lucir  CaL  Dt  sand. 
Ill  6-10  Lucif.  Cal  Ih 


lo.   tibi  salvatori   meo]   am  aamjptcv  B  ctr  tromjpiav  fwv   K**""^'*^  j4Q  sk 
sine  tiov  22  62  147  *it  ffturijfitav  fiov  H  {exe  22  62  91  147)  26  49  10«  ii.  prae- 

ceptum   est] +  a»o   Kvpiov   K«'^  (postca   rBs)  +  KupiJOf  23  51    62    147  eiecit] 

reiccit  L]  Ionan]  lonam  L  in  artdani]  super  terrain  L  twi  njv  {rjpaf  ffi  % 

(tJX  ea  147  ««  rr}v  iTjpav)  Jj^ 

III.  1.  Ionan]  lonam  L  a.  et  i"]  om  CS^  hah  K*-*  (postea  rasum)  A  Q 

Nineven]  Ninevi  L  ^tftvij  ©  Vonvrpf  H  earn]  ea  X  palam]  om  L  ^ 

3,  Nineven  1*  a']  Nineve  TL        dvitatcml  am  L  <5  sicut]  secundum  quae  L 

Moi&a  ©B  j^  (^j,f  22  36  51)  1^  (txc  26  49  106)  Q*  {Ha$m  Q*)  ad  euro]  ei  Lotn^i^ 
{hab  86)  )^  {httb  49)  deo.]  adeo  L  quasi  itinere  viae  dicrum  triura]  sicut 

iter  tridui  L  4.  quasi  itinere]  sicut  iter  L  4-  oSov  26  86  49  283  A  Q        unius 

diei]  tr  L  triduum]  triduo  L  (01  X*  ^toctpanovTa  Q*"')         civitas]  om  L  fiS 

evertetur]  subvertetur  L  5.  in]  o*«  £  CR      induerunt]  vestierunt  L      cilicium] 

cilicia  L  naK>to\^%  ©  maiore]  maximo  L^avrot^  i^  Q*"*  {on%  A  jj*)  /uxpov  26 

86  46  51  106  ^Kpov  tivnuv  22  62  147  mmorem]  minimum  L  /j«7aAoi»  22  26  36  49 
61  62  106  147  (*<!«  fuyaXov  avratv  K*-  ^  (postca  fity.  avr,  iwr  fuKp.  avr,  rcvoc.)  A  Q 
6.  verbum]  knot  H^^  (mox  Aoyos  rcvoc.)  ad]  usque  ad  L  Nineves]  Nineve  L 
Ntr«wi7  G^HI^  Ktvfinjs  H*  (j  improb.  N*-*  postea  ras)  exsurrexit]  surrexit  L 

throno  suo]  sede  sua  L  posuit]  abstulit  a  se  Z.  vestem]  stolam  L  ab  se] 
om  L      opcniil]  drcumdedit  £  7.  praedicatum  est] +  #01  ipptCTj  ^  (Comply 

Cod.   WfiMg.)  in]  om  L  Nineve]  pon.  post  a  rege  L  a  maioribus  civi- 

tatis eius  ]  a  magistrattbus  iliius  L  nat  mtipa  tm^  fi*yiarava>tr  avrov  (&  mvrvtf  fifyiaravvif 
ovtB  {<c-«,  «.6  dicens]  XfjotrrMi'  J^  Aid.  iumenta]  pecudes  L  non 

£^stcnt  quicquam]   nihil  gustent  L  neque  i*>]   aed   nee  L  pascantur] 

vescantur  L  neque  a**]  et  .  .  .  non  L  bibant]  wurwtrw  22  51  68  87  91 

153  Compl.  Aid.  wtvtTwray  86  49  62  147  2S3  8.  coopemerunt]  circumdederunt  L 


38o 


THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


*^^i' 


homines  :  et  proclamaverunt  homines  et  iumenta  ad  dm.  vehemeni 

ct  reversi  sont  unusquisque  de  via  sua  maligna :  et  iniusta  quae  erat  in 
9  manibus  eomm  :  et  dixenmt :  *  quis  scit  si  paenitebitur  ds.  et  avertil 
10  iram  furoris  sui :  et  non  peribimus  :  "  et  vidit  ds.  opera  illorum  quia 

reversi  sunt  unusquisque  a  viis  suis  malignis  :  et  paenituit  dm.  super 

mala  quae  locutus  est  ut  faceret  eis  et  non  fecit : 
IV.  I  *  Et  contri status  est  ionas  tristitia  magna :  et  maestus  factus  est : 
a  '  et  oravit  ad  dom.  et  dixit :  dme,  nonne  haec  sunt  verba  mea ;  cum 

adhuc  essem :    in  mea  terra :   propter  hoc  proposueram  fugere  in 

tharsis  :    quoniam  sciebam  quia  tu  misericors  es  :    et  indulgens  :   et 
3patiens:  et  nimium  misericors:  et  paenitens  in  malignitatibus     'Et 

nunc  dominator  dme.  accipe  an  imam  meam  a  me  :  quoniam  bonum 

4  est  mihi  mori  magis  quam  vivere     *  et  dixit  dms.  ad  ionan  :  si  valde 

5  contristalus  es  tu    *  Et  exiit  ionas  extra  civitatem :  et  sedit  contra 


III  JO  Tert.  Adv.  Mart.  iL  34 
Wircfb,  IV  1,  J   Ludf.  CaI. 

Marc,  ii  34. 


in  10  Cod.  Wirztb, 
Dg  sand.  AiJum.  ii 


IV 


IV  1-8  Cod. 
2   Tert.  Adv. 


homines  t*]  +  iint  ra  mp^  ®  homines  et  iumentA  om  ^  iumentfi]  pecudes  L 
ad]  apud  L  veheracntcr]  insUnter  L  de]  a  L  sua]  avra^v  ©»  22  maligna] 
mala  L  et  iniusta  ad  Jin,  com.^  et  ab  iniquitate  manuuin  suanim  diccntca  L  et 
dixenunt]  f^fjovm  <S[  9.  sett]  scibit  L       si  paenitebitur]  +  koi  irapaKXrj$Tj<r€rai  ^ 

(txc  91  163)  «  circffTpf^ei  68  87  91  et  avertil]  et  avertet  L  prxai  wapaxktf- 

0rj0«Tat  68  87  pr  tevfaos  Km  vapaxXtjBijatTtu  91  158  iram]  ab  tra  L  *£  opyrit  Gft 

a«o  opT^^f  %  10.  opera]  operam  L  unusquiaque]  om  4^^  a  viis  suis 

malignis]  a  via  sua  mala  L  dm.]  dominum  Tert  super  mala]  malitiam  Cod. 

Wtrceh.  de  malign  it  ate  L  de  maliCia  Tert  quae]  quam  Cod,  Wirceb^  Ttrt  qua  L 

locutus  est]  dixerat  Ttri  ut  faceret]  facerc  L  Tacturum  sc  Ttrt  eis]  o*h  Cod, 
Wttt^.  illis  Tfri        ct  non  fecitj  nee  fecit  Ttrt 

IV,  I.  contristatus  C3t]+<tri  tovtois   95  166  tristitia]  tristia  Cod.   Wirttb. 

maestus  factus  est]  confusus  Cod,  JVircfb.  confundebatur  L  a>  oravit]  orabit 

Cod.  I'Vintb,  ad  dom.]  apud  Deum  L         dixit]  dicens  L         dme.]/rO  Cod, 

JVintb.  L  /r  ctf  ©  f^  w  &J  E  /ro)  w  Bj7  ««•*  ****  J3«  haec  sunt]  tr  Cod   Wirrxb.  om 

sunt©  verba  mea]  + 170^0*'  51  62  95  147  185 +  ow  *AaA»?ffa  A  cum]  dum 

Cod.  fVircrb.  in  mea  terra}  in  tcrram  meajw  Cod.  Wirab.  in  terra  L  propter 
hoc]  propterea  Cod,  Wirceb.  Tert  ideo  L  proposueram]  prmeoccupaveram  L 

praeveni    Tert  npotfp$aaa  fi&  fugere]   profugcrc    Tert  in  Tharsis]   in 

Tarosos  Tiri  tts  Bofitrtts  G  quoniam]  quia  Tert  acicbam]  scivi  L  cogno- 

veram  Teri+tyw  H^^  (raox  improb.)  q"!'*]  o*'*  2Vrf  tu]  om  Tert ^  0s  Q 

&]  om  Cod.  Wirceb.  L  te  esse  Tett.  0m  (Si  1^  }^  ct  3**]  om  S  misericors 

I*  ad  Jin.  com.^  Cod.  Wirceb.  —  Cod*  Weing.  miserator  ct  bcncvolus  patjens  et 
misericors  et  paenitens  in  malignitatibus  L  misericordem  et  mlserescentem  p>atienteia 
et  plurimum  misericordiac  poenitcntem  malitiarum  Tert  3.  quoniam]  quiaCx^ 

Wirceb.  est]  om  (S  magis  quam  vivere]  om  magis  Cod.  Wirceb.  ij  jfiyi'  /ti 

©B  E  JlJ  itaXXov  1^  (ft  «•)  fijv  {u  K*^  <»  (^ioAAw  postea  ras)  7  fiyr  W^-^  AQ* '^  ij(ifr  /i^ 
Q^  4.  Ionan]  lonam  Cod.  Wirceb.  laamv  iSc  ad  Ionan  si]  om  68  87  91 

valde]  vehementer  Cod.  H'ittMb.  +  <rw  K*  (improb.  t***  *  postea  ras)  5.  sedit  contra 

civitatem]  om  Cod,  Wirctk 


I 
I 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


38r 


civitatem  :  et  fecit  ipse  sibi  tabernacuium ;  et  sedebat  sub  ipso  in  Cod. 

6  umbram  ;  donee  videret  quid  accideret  civitati :  "  Et  praecepit  dms, 
ds.  cucurbitae :  et  ascendit  super  caput  ionae  ut  esset  umbra  super 
caput  eius :  et  oburabraret  eum  a  mails  ems :  et  gavisus  est  ionas  super 

7  cucurbitam  gaudio  magno  :    ^  et  praecepit  dms.  vermi  antelucano  in 

8  crastinum  et  percussit  cucurbitam :   et  arefacta  est;  *et  factum  est 
con festim  one nte  sole :  et  praecepit  ds.  spin    »      .      .    [Cod.  Wineb.^  Cod.  Wi\ 

ustionis  comburenti     Et  percussit  sol  super  caput  ionae 
et  interestuabat  et  defieiebat  anima  eius  et  dixit  bonum  est  niihi 

9  mori  quam  vivere  *  Et  dixit  dim,  ad  lonam  si  valde  contri status  es 
tu   super   cucurbitam   et   dixit  valde  contristatus  sum  ego   usque 

iQ  ad  mortem  "Et  dixit  dins,  tu  pepercisti  super  cucurbitam  in  qua 
non  laborasli  in  cam  neque  nutristi  earn  que  sub  nocte  nata  est  et 

ji  sub  node  perit  "ego  autem  non  parcam  nunc  parcam  ninevem 
civitatem  magnam  in  qua  commorantur  plus  quam  cxx  milia 
hominum  quae  non  scierunt  dextram  aut  sinistram  et  pecora  multa 


^ 


Nahum. 
L  4  *  Comminans  mari  et  arefaciens  illud         ,        .        .        ,        .  TettulliaH. 

5  ■  Montes  commoti  sunt  ab  eo,  et  colles  contremuenint  et  denudata  Cyprian. 

6  est  terra  ante  faciem  eius,  et  omnes  qui  inhabitant  illam.     *  A  facie 


IV  9-1 1.    Ludt  Cal.  D*  santt.  A  than,  ii 
Nakum  I  4.  Tert  Adv.  Marc.  Sv  so        I  5  Spet 


cxxi        I  5-7  Cypr,  Tistim.  iii  10 
tabentaculum]   -am  Cod.  Wirceb. 


¥ 


ipse]  om  ffi  sibi]   awrw  €5^  87  233 

in  umbram]  om  Cod^  Wirctb.  ffi"  ttcu  36  48  accideret]  tdrrtu  (&  civitati] 

^rfvK  6.  super  l"  a**]  supra  Cod.  Wirceb.  ionae]  dus  Cod,  Wirceb. 

umbra]  pr  cif  K^-**  (mox  ras)  eius  l"]  ionae  Cod.  Wirceb,  et  oburabraret 

eum  a  malis  eius]  ut  a  malis  obunibrarct  ilium  Cod.  Wirxeb,  et  obumbrarct] 

tov  cicta(^u¥  (5  eius  a"]  aurai^  }<*  (-rou  K*-*!*^-*)  7,    dms,]  0  ©«of 

QS^iDlI  Kvpior  0  ecor  A  Q  ^%  t^  i^  62  106  147  238  ow  M*  antelucano] 

roatutino  Cod.  Wirceb.  8.  ds.]  prusAQ  2ffi  153         apiri .  .  .]  spu  Cod.  Wirceb, 

bonum  est]  om  est  Cc  mihi]  om  Q*  hab  Q*^         mori]  +^«  ©b  iLI^  (om  fit  K) 

vivere]  +  fu  K*^*  "j?         9.  dnis.]  0  e<o*  ?&»  dcus  L  Kipiot  o  ©loj  H  (wf  158  233  Kvpiot) 
J^  (#jr  68  87  91)  W'^^A  lonam]  Id^^ar  €r  et  dixit  a*]  om  L  ego]  om  L 

10.  super]  om  L  cucurbitam]  cucurbitae  L  in  earn]  om  L  6d  67  01  95  153 

185  «▼  avnjv  K**«  (^  us  at/njv  «'•  ^  Q*         neque]  «cu  m/K  ^  (oviSf  K"-  ^)       que]  quae 
Lr}(&      subnoctcnata  est]/r®B2,3^         sub  noctc  a"]pcrnoctcm  Z,  it.  nunc 

parcam]  om  L  G  Ninevem]  in  Nincve  L  wnp  Ntvcvij  ffi  magnatdi]  om  A 

commorantur]  habitant  L  +  <>•  outsj  p'**  plus  quam]  wAtiow  iS^E  J|  wXioo  K* 

(wXiow  K****)  +  ij  K*'**Q  cxx  milaa]  centum  vigtnti  milliaZ.  SvScMra  ^tr/MaS^f  <S 

quae]  qui  L  otrivti  4K         scierunt]  scivcrunt  L  «yvaiaa»  ^         dextram]  -f  auroiv  ^ 
sinistram]  +  avran^  ffi 

I.  5.  ab  eo]  ab  Ulo  S  mr  avrov  Q*  163  et  colics  contremuenint  et]  om  H*  {hob  M* '  •* 
partim  rcacr  partim  inst  K***)  contremucrunt]  tremuerunt  S  et  denudata 

est  ad  Jin .  com,^  et  formidavit  univcrsa  terra  et  petrae  confractae  sunt  ante  euro  S 
eius]  -I' 9  ov^voffa  4&         omnes]  om  22  51  Compt  6.  a  Ikcic]  ir^  wpooieww  % 


Spimhtm, 


Tycomus. 


Sptculum 


LucCaL 


Cypriem. 


382  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

irae  eius  quis  sustinebit  ?    Et  quis  resistit  in  ira  animi  ipsius  ?    Ani- 
matio  ipsius  fluere  facit  principatus,  et  petrae  dissolulae  sunt  ab  illcx 
7^  Bonus  Dominus  illis  qui  eum  sustinenl  in  die  pressurae,  et  co- 
gnosceos  illos  qui  eum  timent 

I  a  "Haec  dicit  Dominus,  princeps  aquartim  multamm 

14  " exterminabo  sculptilia 

15  tua,  et  fusilia  tua  in  sepuUuram      .        •        .      "  Quia  ecce  vcloces 
pedes  super  montes  evangelizantes  et  adnuntiantes  pacem 

IL  a  "        .         .         .         .         .         .  Considera  viam,  tene  lumbos^ 

viriliter  age  in  virtute  nimis.  M 

III.  a  '    .  .  non  erat  finis  gentilibus  illius     .    ^^1 

16  ^"Multiplicasti  mercatus  tuos  super  astra  caeli          .         ,         .        . 
19  " super  quern 

non  evenit  malitia  tua  semper  ?  M 

Habakkuk.  m 

L  5  '  Ut  quid  mihi  ostendisti  labores  et  dolores,  ut  viderem  niiseriain 

et  impietatem  ?    Adversus  me  ortum  est  iudicium  et  iudex  accepit. 

4  *  Propter  hoc  disiecta  est  lex  et  non  perducitur  in  finem  iudicium, 

quia  impius  per  potentiam  deprimit  iustura  ideoque  exiet  iudicium 

perversum 

ij  " cur  inspicis  super  conteraptores? 

Tacebis  ob  hoc  quod  devoret  impius  iustam  ?  .        .        .        .  ■ 

IL  2  ^  Super  custodiam  meam  stabo  et  gradum  figam  super  petram 

I  ia-15  S/«r.  caoc  I  15   Tcrt  Adv.  Marc.  iii.  16  11  1   ,5^.  cxix 

in  3,  16  Tycon.  Reg.  Quart,       III  16  Spec,  cxvi        III  19  Tycon.  R«g.  Quart 

Habakkuk   I    i^  4  Spec,   x  I   4.    13   Luc.  Cid.    De  sand.   Atkan,   \   35 

II  1  Cypr.  De  duplk,  martyr,  39  M 

irae]  om  Q'^  «^  {hah.  Q^  i^i)  et  quis  resistit]  ow  €2  14.  tua  i^]om&m 

(kab  A)         scpuJturam]  +  cov  U^  |L  (om  153)  ^  15.  Quia]  quonlam  7>Wom,I 

^%{ptoTt9SlBb)^  veloces]  om  <Er  pedes,"]  pr  a)t  25  super  monies]  in 

iDonte  Tert        cvangelbantes]  -tis  Tert  tvayye\t(ofitvov  ©  ct  adnuntiantes]  om 

IL  a.  in  virtute]  +  aov  26  49  lOS  158  A  f 

111,  i6.  Multiplicasti .  .  .  caeli]  om  H*  {kab  H^'")  merofttus]  negotiatores  S 

super]  sicut  Satt  *<''•'*  <u<nrtp  ti"-  ^         astra]  atelks  S 

I.  3.  miseriam]  pr  cwi  %  A         ortum  est]  ytyovtv  iJS  accepit]  +  ttptaut  63 

4.  per  potentiamjom©         dcpriniit]  oppressit  L  13.  Tacebis.*.  lustum] 

iruftaoi^WTjiTrf  fr  rat  Karampttv  afff^i;  to*'  ItKcuov  ©  devoret]  uarainfiv  H^'^  (rur5U3 

-rmi')  Q*  {-xivuv  Q*^)         lustum]  +  tm*^  auro^  90  41^  87  9l4wr<^  tutro  61  147 

IL   I.  et  gradum  figam]  om  Q*  (hab  Q"*^ 


I 


■^^^^^^         NOTES   AND   STUDIES  3B3         ^ 

4  * iustus  autem  ex  fide  mea  vivit,  Cyprian. 

5  *  Ille  vero  qui  praesumit  et  contumax  est,  vir  sui  iactanSj  nihil  omnino 
proliciet  \  qui  diktavit  tamquam  inferi  animam  suam 

9*0  qui  adquirit  avaritiam  malam  domui  suae  \Imc,  Cal,"]  ut  conlocet  Sptadum^ 

in  altum  nidum  suum ^**^'  ^^' 

10  *"  Cogitasti  confusionem  domui  tuae      .         *        .         .        peccavit  Speculum, 
laanimatua    .        *        ,         .    "[Zr/<r.  Ca/.]   Vae  qui  aedificant  civi- i.«c.  C«/. 
tatem  in  sanguinibus  et  praeparant  civita.tem  in  iniquitatibus 

16  ^* circumdedit  te  calix  dexterae  Sptodum* 

Domini  et  convenit  injuria  super  tuum 

IIL  2  *  Domine  audivi  auditum  tuum  et  extimui.     Consideravi  opera  TtrtulUan, 
tua  et  excidi  mente.     In  medio  duorum  animaliuni  cognosceris        .  _ 

S* lexit  caelos  virtus  eius  et  Cj^naw.    I 

4  laudis  eius  plena  est  terra.     *Et  splendor  eius  ut  lux  erit,  cornua  in  fl 
manibus  eius  erunt ;   et  illic  comtabilita  est  virtus  gloriae  eius,  et          ^^H 

5  constituet  dilectionein  validam.     ^Ante  faciem  suam  ibit  verbum,  et         ^^H 
praecedet  in  campos  secundum  greges  suos     .        .        -        ,        .         ^^™ 

6  •  .       .        .        defluxerunt  gentes,  quassati  sunt  raontes  vehementer,  speculum. 
liquefacti  sunt  coDes  aetemales       ....... 

9  * fluminibus  disnimpetur  terra,  Tirtultian. 

10  *"  videbunt  te,  et  parturient  populi ;   disperges  aquas  gressu  ;   dedit 

II  4  Cypr.  Testim,  15;  iit  4a  ;  Spec,  xxjdv,  cxxv  II  5  Cypr.  Epist.    \ix  j, 

Izirtii  4;  Spec,  xxxiv;  Luc.  Cal.  De  sand.  Aikan.  i  36  II  9  Luc.  Cal.  D* 

sand*  AthaH,  i  36  II  9,  10  Spec,  zxii,  xcviii  II  1 3  Luc.  Col.  Dt 

sand.  A  than,  i  36  II  16  Spec,  cxxxin.  Ill  3»  3,  4  Tert,  Adv.  Marc,  iv  aa 

111  3-5  Cypr.  Testim,  ii  ai  III  6  Spe&,  cxxi  III  S-13  Tert.  Ath. 

Marc,  iv  39 

4.  iuBtus]  +  flow  Jt(  A  roea]  om  j^  36  153  185  sua  S  (al  =  C)  5.  vero]  al 

autciD  C  praesumit  et]  al  om  C  sibi  placcns  autem  contemptor  et  vir 

superbus  nihi!  proficict  J?  placens  et  contemptor  vir  aupcrbus  nihil  proficiet  qui 
dil^tavit  sicut  inferus  animam  L  llle  vero  ,  .  .  est]  0  5t  Marowfitvot  icarat^/wmrrjf  Cr 
et]  om  B  kab  B«*  vir  sui  lactam]  om  (ZPiLl^  oyijp  aXa(ojv  B'*^"'9HAQ 

9,    adquirit  avaritiam]  fundat  fundationcm   L  altum]   otK&  K*   (v^otN *•**»'■*) 

I  a.  qui  acdificant]  0  oiKoipfjLov  ^        praeparant]  *roifta(tuv  16.  tc]pr«wt  (ffir  (om 

#r*  Compl)        convenit  .  ,  .  tuum]  om  K*  hab  K*-* 

III.  3.  extimui]  *fc$r}6Tfif  ©  1L  (<yrc  62  147  ev\a$rj6rjv'^  ^  consideravi]  )*r  «fu/>tf 
%  49  68  91  prM§  K  3.  texit]  opcruit  Tert  4.  Et  splendor  eius  ut  lux  erit] 

Teri^  C  ^av-faofta  iparra  ttrrxu  avriu  62  147  crunlj  om  Cfli  IL  {v^^^PX*^  avrai  86 

62  147)  f^  A  (cura  vwapx*i  in  charact.  minorc)  ct  iliic  .  .  .  eius]  mu  *^fTO  ayarniay 
Mparmav  ioxuirt  avrov  ©2^  {exc  62  147)  J^  *itu  4inffTfiputt<u  17  ^vtrafus  rijr  30^171  ai/row 
62  147  (23  288)  5.  praccedet]  §(t\tv<Torrm  Q^  (-otrai  Q)  49  153  233  in 

campos]  (If  ircikav  H^^  "  *v  irtitKois  A  Q26  '233  ut  watiMtav  %  (exc  i9  62  147  234}  ||| 
{exe  26  49)  secundum  greges  suos]  0/  sec  grcgus  suos  at  sec.  grcssus  suos  C 

ttara  iro3ar  aurov  B^  E  {exc  153  233)  J^  {exc  26  49)  04  woStf  avrou  A  Q  26  49  163  288 
9.  fluminibus]  woTafni/v  iB%  {exc  95  185)  jBt  ("f  26)  »aTa/*a/  K***  (postea-fiort')  26 
vorofUMX  95  185  to.  disperges]  aitopwk^'ur  (fi  {Ziaatt^ptit  Compl)  gressu] 


3B4        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


AiicL  €.  Fnlg. 

DOHOt. 


Cyprian, 


1 1  abyssus  sonum  suuin,  sublimitas  timoris  eius  data  est    "  Sol  et  lima 

constitit  in  suo  ordine,  in  lucem  coruscationes  tuae  ibunt,  in  fulgorem, 

13  fulgor  scutum  tuum.     "  In  comminatione  tua  diminues  terrain,  et  in 

15  indignatione  tua  depones  nationes.     "  Existi  in  salutem  i>opuli  tui 

ad  salvos  faciendos  Christos  tuos     .         .         .     [Atuf,  contra  Fulg. 

15  Donati\  "  Imposuisti  in  man  equos  tuos,  turbantes  aquas  multas 

17.         .         .         [0'/''*l  "  Ficus  non  adfcret  fhictum  et  non  erunt 

nascentia  in  vineis,     Mentietur  opus  olivae  et  campi  non  praestabunt 

cibum.     Deficient  a  pabulo  oves  et  non  erunt  in  praesepibus  boves. 

18  "Ego  autem  in  Domiiio  exultabo,  gaudebo  in  Deo  salutari  raeo. 


I 


Ami.  c,  Fulg. 

Spicnlunt, 
Luc,  Cat. 


Zephaniah, 
I.  3,3*  Defectione  deficiat  a  facie  terrae,  dicit  Dominus ;    •  deficiat 
homo  et  pecudes,  deficiant  volucres  caeli  et  pisces  maris :  et  auferara  _ 
iniquos  a  facie  terrae      *  ■ 

7 '  Metuite   a    facie    Domini    Dei :    quoniam    prope  est    dies   eius, 
quia  paravit  Dominus  sacrificium  suum,  sanctificavit  electos  suos 

8  ,         .         .         [Auct.  contra  Fulg.  Donai,'\    *  Erit  in  die  sacrificii 
Domini  et  vindicabo  in  principibus  et  in  omnes  vestitos  veste  aliena 

11  ''        .        ,       .       [Speculum,^  disperierunt   omnes   qui  exaltantnr 

13  in  argento  et  auro,     [Zw-r.   CaL^  '■  Et  erit  in  illo  die  scrutinabo 

Hierusalem  cum  lucema :    defcndam  super  viros,  qui  contemptores 

sunt  ne  custodiant  mandata 


Cyp 


n 


aediiicabunt  domos,  et  non  inhabitabunt :  et 


I 


III  15  And.  cmira  Fulg.  DoHai.  Ill  17,  18  CypT.  Ad  Dtmet,  xt. 

Ztpkaniah  I  J,  3  Cypr.  Tesiim.  iii  47  I  7  Cypr.  Testim.  ii  30  18  Auct. 

iOnUra  Fulg.  DonaL  I  11  Spfc.  ]adi  I  la  Luc.  Cal.  Dtsand,  Atftan,  i  36  ; 

Sp*c.  (Aug.)  xvi  I  »3i  14  Cypr.  Tesiim.  iii  6t  I 

woptiat  avrou  ^  Q  26  36  49   10(1  15&  233  e]aU  est]  ttnfp9ij  ^  (i/^^o^i;  Comp^ 

II.  in  lucem]  tit  tptat  (ffi  {*v  <pain  Compt)  la.  tua  i**]  om  6r  E  (*JW  95  185 

288)  H  (fxc  2fl  4&)  hab,  A  0"*fr  tua  i<»]  om^lL  (exc  283)  }^  {exc  49)  hab  A  Q^ 
depones]  Mrr^m  fl5  tt^raplui  Q  («»ra£.  P""^)  1 3.  ad  mJvos  faciendoa]  tov  a^ooi,  S 
Christos  tuos]  TOK  XP^*^'^<^  o^ou  ffis  (tovt  x/^o-Taus  E  ]^  tt"^-  *  f^^>  A  Q)  15.  Im- 

posuisti] />r  Km  G  firi^(paj  ©»  tm&t&aoax  %  {txc  62  147)  ^  H***  -4  Q  aquas 

multas]  yJwp  troXy  ^  (  vi^ara  irokKa  %  J^  K*-  *)  1 7.  Ficus]  priori  ffi  erunt] 

tfwapx^u^^v  ©  tnrapfowrt  %  {txc  48  61  62  147  238)  J^  {exci^  68)  in  praesepibus 
boves] +<f  iaiT*a«  avrwif  Q*  («f  iXaamn  avrnfv  (^)  +  t^iKaatvs  avrwv  A  26  153 
f^iXiKTiaiv  aim/f  233  18.  in  i"]  tm  AQ         in  a*J  <ff*  CR 

1.  J,  dcfidat]fKXi^t«Tiut**  (iKA*ir€Ta)jif<»TaN*-*)*jirXtTrfTMraKK<'-*  3,  deficiat] 

ti€Kf\piTiu  H*  {*K\iw.  K"-  «r  "^^ *)  fHKtiwtToi  A  Q  deficlaot]  ^JcXiiftrot  H*  (*MXtw,  K<* «,«• ») 
Q  tit\uw€Taxfa»  A  maris]  i- mu  aaStVTjaovcty  01  affffitis  {0«WiKut  H*  {aa  sup  ras  K') 
Ci  1L  ('-w  22  tctu  ra  OKavSaKa  rots  atrffft^t  hku  affBanjnoviTiy  ot  affifius)  J^  7.  eius] 

rov  Kvpiov  <S  8.  Erit]  pr  Km  <K         principibus]  +  moi  •«■!  toy  otttov  tov  BaaiKtwt  C 

1 1,  in  argento]  om  in  ©  (A<t6  311)  ct  auro]  ow  ffi  1 3.  5«=  Km/j'  (#jt 

Hierusalem  5  Jerusalem  Fwi^  lucemia  S  tn  luce  mis  Vu^)  ne  custodiant  mandata] 
«T(  ra  ^vXajfrnra  avr<Liy  (B  13»  loibabitabtrnt] -f  cv  {urroit  (S:  (om  CbfW/l) 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES  385 

1 4  instituent  vineas  et  non  bibent  vinum  eanim.  "  Quia  prope  est  dies 
Domini 

15  vox  diei  Domini  amara  et  dura,  constituta  dies  potens.    "  Dies  Spteulum. 
iracundiae  dies  ille,  dies  tribulationis  et  necessitatis,  dies  infelicitatis 

et  exterminii,  dies  tenebranim  et  tempestatis,  dies  nubis  et  caliginis, 

16  ^^  dies  tubae  et  clamoris  super  civitates  firmas,  et  super  angulos 

17  excelsos  " eflundam  sanguinem  eorum  sicut 

18  limum  et  cames  eorum  sicut  stercora  bourn,  "  et  argentum  et  aurum 
eorum  non  poterit  liberare  eos  in  die  irae  Domini    .... 

II.  I,  a^Convenite  et  congregamini  popuius  indisciplinatus ;  'prius 
quam  efficiamini  sicut  flos  praeteriens,  prius  quam  superveniat  super 
vos  dies  iracundiae  Domini,  antequam  veniat  super  vos  dies  furoris 

3  Domini.  •  Querite  Dominum  omnes  humiles  terrae,  aequitatem 
operamini  et  iustitiam  quaerite,  et  respondete  ea,  ut  protegamini  in 
die  iracundiae  Domini. 

II  *^  Praevalebit  Dominus  adversus  eos  et  disperdet  omnes  Deos  gentium  ColL  Carth. 
terrae,  et  adorabunt  eum  unusquisque  de  loco  suo  omnes  insulae 
gentium 

1 3  "  Et  extendet  manum  suam  in  Aquilonem  et  perdet  Assyrium,  et  Tycomus. 

14  (ponet)  illam  Nineve  exterminium  sine  aqua  in  desertum,  "et 
pascentur  in  medio  eius  greges,  omnes  bestiae  terrae,  et  chameleontes 
et  hericii  in  laquearibus  eius  cubabunt  et  bestiae  vocem  dabunt  in 
fossis  eius,  et  corvi  in  portis  eius,  quoniam  cedrus  altitudo  eius. 

I  14-18  Spec,  xxvi  II  1-3  spec,  v  II  3  Lucif.  Cal.  Desanct.  Aihan,  i  31 

II  II  Coa  Carth.  Gesfa.  Iv         II  13,  14  Tycon.  Reg.  Quaii, 

14.  dies]  om  ^  15.  dies  tribulationis  et  necessitatis]  om  A        infelicitatis] 

aojpias  ®  %  {excl5Z)  Q  26  106  TaAaiira>/Maf  68  87  91  K^'  ^  1 7.  effundam]  wx^ti  Cr 

J^  *Kx*oi  %        stercora  bourn]  fiokfitra  (S  18.  argentum]  -f  avrwi^  (&%  (exe  95 

185)  J^  non  poterit]  ov  foj  ^vi^^Trat  CEr^  1^  *>v  MV  ^vinjBrj  %  ov  foi  dvrwrrcu  K* 

(-viyTmS*-^) 

II.  I.  congregamini]  awSc^c  ®  E  (.*xc  62  05  147  185)  J^  awZtrfBrjir*  62  95  147 
185  K^'"  (rursus  awU9^  a.  praeteriens]  +  i7/<cpar  2^        prius  . . .  Domini  z**] 

om  K<'-^  dies  i"]  om  i&  {hob  180)  3.  et  iustitiam  quaerite]  mu  {ffTri<rar€ 

^Kaioavrqv  ^rjTrfaart  wpaoTrjra  %  koi  HiKcuoffwrpr  (rpyjaart  (ScJ^  ut  protegamini] 

sicut  tegamini  L  iracundiae]  irae  L  11.  praevalebit]  m^xunprtrat  <Sr^ 

tvupapTis  t<rrat  K*  {-<n*)  A  {-atrt  ^^'•  •  -ffCTOi  HP-  *  postea  term  nrvoc.)  49  62  95  106 
147  153  185         adorabunt]  vpoaicwriati  68  87  91  wpoatcvyrfaotfcip  (&%  13.  ex- 

tendet] ticT€yoj  ®  J^  K<^ ^  postea  .vi)  AQT  ticrwti  %  {exc  62  147  158  288)  suam] 
nov  ffi  15  N*-  ^  (postea  ovrov)  AQT  avrw  %  {exc  62  147  168  283)  perdet]  airoXw 
ffi  J5  (exc  26  49  106)  K'-^  (postea  -Xi)  Q  r  airoXci  %  (exe  158)  ponet]  Briaet  Ji^ 

iexc  68  87  91)  «*•  *  (postea  -ci)  T  (htatt  Qr  E  (*xc  168)  Ulam]  om  ffi  Nineve] 
Kivfwiv  H*        exterminium]  pr  «(r  &         in  desertum]  «r  cptj/ior  (&  14.  pas- 

centur] ytftriatrai  %  y*fjaj<roirrai  (Sc  J^  (ytfjajBrjaoyrai  T)  omnes]  prxtuiSi  hericii] 
cX'Skoi  Q*  «x'»'o»  ®  Q^  corvi  in  portis  eius]  om  H*  (Jtab  K^-*)  altitudo] 

ovrdKkayiuL  Q*  ayojanj/ia  G^ %  JH^  ayaartfia  Q*  AT* 

VOL.  V.  C  C 


386         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

IIL  I  *  Civit^s  contemneos  quae  habitat  in  spe,  quae  dicit  in  corde 
suo,  Ego  sum  et  non  est  post  me  adhuc !  qyomodo  facta  est  in 
exterminiiira  pascua  bestiarum  !  omnis  qui  transit  per  illam  sibilabit, 
a  et  movebit  manus  suas.  *0  inlustris  el  redempta  ci vitas,  columba 
quae  non  audit  vocenif  non  recepit  disciplinam,  in  Domino  non  est  con*  ■ 

3  fisa,  et  ad  Deum  suum  non  adpropinquavit.     *  Principes  eius  in  ea  ut 
leones  frumentes,  iudices  eius  ut  lupi  Arabiae  non  relinquebant  in 

4  mane,     *  Profetae  eius  spiritu  ekti  viri  contemptores,  sacerdotes  eius 

5  profanant  sacra  et  conseelerant  legem.     *  Dominus  autem  Justus  in   ^ 
medio  eius  non  faciet  iniustum .1 


Cypriatu  8  *  Exspecta  me,  dicit  Dominus^  in  die  resurrectionis  meae  in  testi- 

monium, quoniam  iudicium  meum  ad  congregationes  gentium,  ut 
excipiam  reges,  et  effundam  super  eos  iram  meam    ,         ,         .        , 

III  1-5  Tycon.  Rtg,  Quart.  \  Luc  CaL  De  sand.  Athan.  \  ^6         l\\   i,  a  Cypr. 
Ad  Novai.  V  III  4  Sptc  xlvi  111  8  Cypr.  Ttstim.  iii  106  ;  JO*  bono 

pat.  xxi. 

III.  I.  Ci vitas]  pratmj  ffi  in  spe]  fir  tXviih  ©  tv  *Air.  Q*  {sup*r$cr,  w  Q*  •**) 

3.  ColuiTiiba  non  cxaudit  voccm,  id  est  pracdara  et  redempta  civitas,   non  recepit 
doctrinam,  et  in  Dominuni  fidens  non  fuit  C  inlustris]  quae  erat  splendida  L 

quae]  lom  C£  vocem]  -f  ffou  ftS  87  diaciplinani]  ircuBiaT  K*  {-haif  t*^-*i**^) 

non  adpropinquftvit]  non  accessit  L  ovit  T^T-yucf  Q  15S  233  eivx  rjftic^v  (£  1  (<jw  153 
233)  1^  3.  in  ea]  om  L  hab  (Er  {om  Arm,)         nt  1°  a"]  sicut  L  frcmenles] 

fremunt  L  non  relinquebant]  non  subreliquienint  L  4,  spiritu  clati] 

spiritales  L  eius  a"]  aman' V  profanant  ad  Jin  com']  contaminant  se  et 

impie  agunt  L  contaminant  sancta  et  reprobaut  legem  5  sacra  ct  conseelerant] 

om  H*  {/tab  H^'  *)  legem]  pr  «it  rov  %  5.  iustus]  +  eat  L  non]  pr  et 

Z.  G        iniustum]  iniustc  L  aSmav  62  147  a^ittov  ^fu  {^xc  62  117)  ^  8.  Ex' 

specta]  pr  im  tqvto  ^  in  die]  cti  rffifpar  iQ  (cf  rj^tpa  42  240  CompT)  iram 

meam]  pr  Tacray  G  E  |!j  pr  ripr  opyjjv  juou  %  N*-  *  f***^  {posUa  ras) 

W.  0.  E.  Gesterley* 


THE  METRICAL  ENDINGS  OF  THE  LEONINE 
SACRAMENTARY. 

It  is  now  more  than  twenty  years  since  M.  Noel  Valois,  by  the 
publication  of  his  study  of  the  rhythmical  system  known  as  the  '  cursus 
Leoninus '  or  '  stylus  Gregorianus  \  as  it  appears  in  the  Papal  bulls  of 
the  middle  ages  \  awakened  interest  in  the  history  and  developeraent 

^  £ti4tU  sur  U  rhytkmt  des  bulks  pontijicaits  :  Bibl  dt  r£coU  dis  Char  Us  i88x. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


387 


I 


of  the  *cursus '.  Since  that  time  much  has  been  written  on  the  subject, 
especially  on  the  earlier  history  of  the  system  which  after  long  disuse 
was  'restored'  in  the  eleventh  century.  Its  use  has  been  traced  further 
and  further  back  by  successive  writers.  By  Mgr  Duchesne  it  was 
shewn  that  the  *cursus*  introduced  by  Gelasius  II  and  improved  by 
Gregory  VIII  was  professedly  a  revival  of  the  usage  of  the  time  of 
St  Leo'.  M.  Ldonce  Couture  traced  the  use  of  a  similar  system  in 
liturgical  formulae,  and  in  the  works  of  Christian  writers  from  the  third 
century  to  the  time  of  St  Gregory  ^  M.  Louis  Havet  shewed  that  the 
letters  of  Symmachus  are  permeated  by  a  *cursiis'  which  is  not  a  matter 
of  rhythm  and  accent,  but  of  metre  and  quantity '.  Prof.  W,  Meyer, 
in  a  notice  of  M.  Havet's  work,  advanced  a  theory  of  the  metrical 
principle  of  the  *cursus '  differing  from  that  of  M.  Havet*.  Prof.  E. 
Norden  has  traced  the  use  of  the  *cursus^  in  classical  writers,  Greek  as 
well  as  Latin,  and  brought  together  passages  from  various  authorities 
to  elucidate  its  principles,  following  and  supporting  the  general  theory 
of  Prof.  Meyer,  though  differing  from  him  on  points  of  detail*.  So  far 
as  I  am  aware  no  systematic  attempt  has  been  made,  save  in  certain 
papers  by  Dom  A.  Gros{>ellier',  to  shew  the  extent  to  which  the  *cursus' 
can  be  traced  in  the  early  sacramentariesj  or  the  precise  character  of 
the  *cursus'  which  they  exliibit. 

In  the  following  note  I  have  attempted  to  deal  with  a  part  of  this 
task  for  the  Leonine  saeramentary  (Lfan).  The  final  phrases  of  its 
prayers  and  prefaces  form  the  natural  starting-point  for  such  an  in- 
vestigation, and  to  these  I  have  for  the  present  limited  my  examination 
of  its  contents ',    I  have  followed  the  text  of  Mr.  Feltoe^s  edition,  but  in 


»  Notf  sur  Potigint  du  '  cursus ' ;  Bibt,  dt  r£coIe  dts  CkarUs  1 889. 
■  R*vut  dts  qtastions  kistoriquts  1893, 

'  La  prost  mttrigtu  dt  Symmaqui  H  i§s  origints  m^riquis  du  *  cur&us '  Paris 
189a. 

*  In  Goiimgiscke  gtlikrtt  AnatigeH  1893.  Prof.  Meyer  heldl  that  the  *  curstis'  docs 
not  depend  upon  the  form  of  the  last  word^  but  Is  made  up  by  combinations  in 
which  the  cretic  plays  a  speciat  part. 

*  Di*  attiike  Kunstprosa  Leipzig  1 898, 

'  Rfxmt  du  chant  GrigorifH  1S97.  The  discussion  of  the  'cursus'  in  its  relation 
to  the  Gregorian  plainsong  by  Dom  A.  Mocquercau,  In  vol  iv  of  PcUtographU 
Mus$cai*f  proceeds,  of  course,  on  different  lines. 

''  By  *  final  phrase'  I  mean,  of  course,  not  the  'common  form*  beginning  e.g. 
with  '  Per '  or  *  Et  idco  ',  but  the  phrase  immediately  preceding  this  *  common 
form  '  or  separated  from  it  by  words  which  serve  only  to  connect  the  '  common 
form  *  with  the  prayer  or  preface^  and  which  may  be  treated  as  belonging  rather  to 
the  •  common  form  *,  In  three  cases  it  seemed  uncertain  where  the  division  should 
be  made,  or  whether  any  '  final  phrase '  could  be  clearly  separated  from  the  rest  of 
the  prayer.  Tliese  I  have  left  out  of  the  reckoning.  Where  the  MS  seems  to 
indicate  alternative  forms  of  final  phrase  f  have  reckoned  both  :  where  «  prayer  is 

C  C  3 


388         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


ghnng  references  I  have  cited  not  the  pages  of  that  edition  but  the 
columns  of  Muratori's  Uturgia  Montana  Vitus  (1745),  since  that 
numeration  is  to  be  found  in  the  margins  of  Mr.  Feltoe's  volume,  and 
IS  therefore  equally  useful  for  either  text. 

In  classifying  and  tabulating  the  endings  of  Leon,  I  have  so  far 
followed  the  system  employed  by  M.  Louis  Havet  in  his  examination  of 
the  letters  of  Symmachus  {Sym)  as  to  make  my  arrangement  depend 
on  the  form  of  the  fmal  word  or  group  of  syllables.  It  is,  I  think,  not 
impossible  that  for  the  composer  or  composers  of  the  prayers  the  form 
of  the  last  word  did  actually  determine  that  of  the  word  preceding — that 
they  would,  for  instance,  have  described  the  ending  *esse  concede' 
{with  Martianus  Capetla)  as  formed  by  prefixing  a  trochee  to  a  find 
molossus,  rather  than  (with  Terentianus  Maurus)  as  composed  of  a 
cretic  fallowed  by  a  trochee:  and  in  any  case  the  relative  frequency 
of  particular  forms  in  the  final  word  seems  to  be  a  factor  of  which 
account  should  be  taken  in  estimating  the  character  of  the  *cursus' 
as  it  appears  in  a  particular  author  or  collection.  But  in  following 
M.  Havel's  plan  I  have  specially  had  in  view  the  convenience  of  ready 
conii>arison  with  his  record  of  the  results  of  his  observations  with  regard 
to  the  final  phrases  of  Symmachus :  the  method  does  not  imply  dis- 
regard of  the  theory  of  the  original  principle  of  the  '  cursus '  to  which 
the  investigations  of  Prof.  VV.  Meyer  and  Prof.  E.  Norden  would  seem 
to  lead. 

In  respect  of  the  form  of  the  final  word  or  group  of  syllables  there  is 
less  variety  in  Leon  than  in  Sym.  On  the  other  hand,  one  t}'pe  of  final 
which  is  hardly  found  at  all  in  Sym  is  not  infrequent  in  Leon,  The 
whole  number  of  endings  of  which  I  have  taken  account  is  1,340.  In 
four  of  these  the  last  word  is  a  monosyllable,  in  thirty-five  a  dissyllable, 
in  605  a  word  of  three,  in  695  a  word  of  four,  and  in  one  a  word  of  five 
syllables.  The  four  final  monosyllables  are  all  parts  of  a  larger  group — 
guae  iusia  sunt^  quae  recta  sunt^  txoria  esf,  qu&d  suum  est.  In  the 
following  table  these  are  classed  among  four-syllable  endings.  Of  the 
final  dissyllables  thirty-four  are  preceded  by  a  monosyllable  with  which 
they  are  closely  linked,  so  that  the  endings  in  which  they  occur  may  be 
classed  as  three-syllable  endings  :  and  in  the  same  way  154  of  the  605 
final  trisyllables  are  preceded  by  a  monosyllable,  forming  a  four-syllable 
group  ^ 

divided  into  paragraphs,  as  in  the  CoHStcratto  Eptscoporumj  I  have  reckoned  onlj 
the  last 

'  In  seven  out  of  the  154  cases  it  may  perhaps  be  said  that  the  monosyllable  is 
more  closely  connected  with  the  word  which  precedes  than  with  that  which  follows 
it,  or  is,  so  to  say,  disconnected  from  both.  For  convenience  of  tabulation,  however, 
I  have  reckoned  these  also  as  four ^sy liable  groups. 


I 


I 


I 


I 

I 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  389 

The  principal  types  of  final  word  or  group  represented  in  Sym  are  aH 
found  in  Leon :  their  relative  frequency  may  be  most  clearly  shewn  in 
tabular  form : — 

.Sym.  Lton, 


Type  of  final 

Single 

Groups  of 

Total 

Smgle 

Groups  of 

Tola 

words 

syllables 

syllables 

—  ^(A) 

207 

5 

213 

449 

34 

483 

ww-i«i(Bi) 

54 

I 

55 

71 

a 

73 

-w^^(B2) 

98 

8 

106 

196 

32 

228 

—  w^(B3) 

160 

31 

191 

89 

42 

131 

-w~^(C) 

199 

36 

235 

257 

58 

315 

Thus  the  whole  number  of  final  words  or  groups  which  belong  to  one 
or  other  of  these  five  types  is  in  Sym  799  out  of  about  940,  in  Leon 
1,230  out  of  1,340.    The  great  majority  of  the  remaining  finals  oi  Leon 

belong  to  one  of  two  types  :  these  are  sj ^  (D)  and ^  (E). 

The  type  D  is  represented  in  Sym  by  twenty-nine  instances,  all  but  one 
being  four-syllable  words :  in  Leon  it  appears  forty-six  times,  forty-one 
being  cases  of  a  four-syllable  word.  The  type  E  is  hardly  ever  employed 
by  Symmachus  as  the  last  word  of  a  letter :  in  Leon  it  appears  forty-nine 
times,  thirty-one  being  cases  of  a  four-syllable  word,  eighteen  of  a  three- 
syllable  word  with  preceding  monosyllable.  The  fifteen  remaining 
finals  of  Leon  are  divided  as  follows :  w  —  »-»  —  occurs  six  times,  five 
being  cases  of  a  single  word ;  this  is  hardly  to  be  found  as  a  final  in 
Sym  :  w  w  ^  w  is  an  apparent  final  in  five  cases  in  Leon,  but  is  not  used 

as  a  final  in  Sym :  —  (once  in  Sym\  o (thirteen  times  in  Sym\  —\j\j 

(twenty-eight  times  in  Sym\  and  —  w  —  c^  —  (once  in  Sym\  each  appear 
in  a  single  instance  in  Leon, 

According  to  M.  Havet's  observations  Sym  furnishes  207  cases  in 
which  the  last  word  of  a  letter  is  of  the  type  A.  In  204  of  these  the 
penultimate  word  or  group  supplies  a  trochee  before  the  final  word, 

producing  the  ending  — »-» ^,  the  parent  of  the  later  *  cursus  planus  *. 

Out  of  the  483  finals  of  this  type  in  Leon,  one  is  preceded  by  two 
monosyllables,  124  or  125  by  a  word  of  two  syllables,  the  remainder 
by  a  word  of  three  or  more.  The  foot  preceding  the  final  word  is  in 
472  cases  a  trochee.  In  one  case  the  text  is  apparently  faulty;  the 
most  probable  emendation  gives  the  form  *cuncta  succedant'*:  in 
*  proficiendo  sectemur '  it  is  likely  that  the  syllable  before  the  final  word 
should  be  regarded  as  short.  The  remaining  nine  cases'  substitute 
a  spondee  for  the  penultimate  trochee.    Leon  supplies  no  instance  of 

>  The  prayer  in  question  is  omitted  in  Muratori's  text,  where  it  should  appear  on 
col.  481.     Bianchini's  emendation  seems  better  than  that  suggested  by  Mr.  Feltoe. 
*  Including  '  possis  audire  *,  which  occurs  thrice. 


390  THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


a  tribrach  before  a  final  word  of  type  A,  a  combination  which  occurs 
three  times  in  Sym, 

This  variation  is  not  mentioned  by  Martianus  Capella,  who,  in  commoii 
with  other  authorities  cited  by  Prof.  Norden,  commends  the  ending 

—  ^^ which  he  describes  as  produced  by  combining  a  trochee  with 

final  molossus.  The  substitution  of  a  spondee  for  the  penultimate 
trochee  he  regards  as  bad ;  probably  the  few  cases  of  this  ending  in 
Leon  are  due  to  the  influence  of  accent. 

With  the  final  molossus  Martianus  Capella  connects  the  three  types 
of  fmal  which  appear  in  the  table  above  as  B  i,  B  2,  B3*  These  he 
treats  as  dcvelopements  or  variations  of  the  molossus,  formed  by 
resolution  of  its  first,  second,  or  third  syllable.  The  form  B  i,  which 
he  also  describes  as  *ionicus  minor',  may  be  combined  either  with 
a  trochee  or  with  a  tribrach,  the  other  two  forms  apparently  with  a 
trochee  only  \  All  three  types  occur  frequently  both  in  Sym  and  in 
Lton^  but  their  relative  frequency,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  table  above, 
is  by  no  means  the  same  in  the  two  collections.  In  Sym  B  3  is  more 
common  than  the  other  two  taken  together ;  in  Leon  the  instances  of 
B  2  outnumber  those  of  B  i  and  B  3.  In  both  collections  B  i  is  the 
least  common  of  the  three  types.  In  Sym  all  three  types  of  final  are 
regularly  combined  with  a  preceding  trochee,  thus  furnishing  the  endings 

—  w  *-r  ^  —  ^  (the  '  esse  videatur '  of  Cicero),  which  JuHus  Victor  describes 
as  composed  of  a  *  paeon  primus  *  followed  by  a  spondee  ;  —  w  —  w  w  ^, 
described  by  Terentianus  Maurus  as  a  cretic  followed  by  a  tribrach; 

and  —  v/ w  i«i,  which   Terentianus   Maurus   describes  as   a   cretic 

followed  by  a  dactyl,  Julius  Victor  as  a  doubled  cretic.  M.  Havet 
points  out  that  the  ending  *  esse  videatur  *  is  a  form  which  would  tend 
to  disappear  when  accent  rather  than  quantity  became  the  principal 
factor  in  determining  the  final  cadence.  Under  this  condition,  while 
the  distinction  between  the  final  B  2  and  B  3  would  be  obscured,  and 
the  one  type  would  be  confused  with  the  other,  neither  of  them  would 
be  confused  with  a  final  of  a  different  type :  they  would  both  be  com- 

'  Tdsyllabja  clausulam  terrninantibus  lex  eat,  si  modo  cam  velis  molliter  (luerc, 
ut  trochaeo  praecedcnte  paenultimo  molossus  subsequatur,  »iuc  longain  habeit 
nouissimam  sylUbajn  sitie  breuera  iurc  metrico,  ut  illud  est  Tullii  *  mare  nuctuantibus 
titus  eiectia '.  fit  autem  pessima  clausula  si  pro  trochaeo  paenultimo  spondeum 
praclocaueris  ut  si  dicas  '  mare  fluctuantibus  mpcs  eiectjs'.  . .  .  item  bona  clausula 
fit  si  pro  noujssimo  molosso  ionieus  minor  ponatur  post  trochacum^  ut  si  dicas  '  mare 
fluctuanfibus  litus  agitanti*,  .  ,  .  si  atilem  paenultitno  trochaeo  mediam  molossi 
solueds,  pukbrara  clauaulam  feceris,  ut  si  dicas  *litus  Acmiliae '.  item  trochaeo 
paenuUimopulchrc  etiam  tertia  niolossj  resoluitur  ut  si  dicas  *  litus  aequabilc'.  item 
si  trochaei  pacnukiml:  longam  sotuerimus  ct  primam  molossi  ultimi,  fit  elegaos 
clausula  ut  est  'curas  regcre  animorum'*  Mart.  Cap.  Dt  nuptiis  Phihhgiae  it 
MtrtHrii  v  (533).  The  passage  is  mentioned  by  Norden  Die  atUiki  Kunstprosa 
P'  939- 


I 


I 


I 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  391 

bined  with  a  trochee  or  with  its  rhythmical  equivalent,  and  both  pass 
into  the  later  'cursus  tardus*.  The  tjrpe  B  i,  on  the  other  hand,  would 
tend  to  be  confused  with  the  type  C,  a  tendency  which  would  be  assisted 
by  uncertainty  as  to  the  quantity  of  the  first  syllable.  It  would  therefore 
be  combined  with  such  preceding  words  as  would  be  suitable  in  the 
case  of  a  final  of  the  type  C,  and  pass,  like  that  type,  into  the  later 
*  cursus  velox '  \ 

It  might  therefore  be  expected  that  the  usage  with  regard  to  type  B  i 
would,  as  the  influence  of  quantity  declined  before  that  of  accent^  be  less 
stable  and  constant  than  that  which  is  observed  with  regard  to  B  2  and 
B  3.  That  this  is  actually  the  case  in  Zean  will  be  seen  from  the  follow- 
ing tabular  statement : — 

Bi  Ba  B3 

Preceded  by "- w       45  215  125 


}1 

www 

4 

0 

0 

l> 

—  WW 

18 

t 

2 

ii 

w  w  — 

4 

0 

0 

)i 

—  w  — 

2 

0 

0 

)) 

^ 

0 

12 

4 

Total     73  228  131 

The  number  of  exceptions  to  the  rule  shewn  in  this  table  should 
perhaps  be  somewhat  reduced.  I  have  classed  as  belonging  to  the 
type  B  I  six  cases  in  which  the  last  word  is  *  celebramus '  or  *  cele- 
bremus  \  These  ought  perhaps  rather  to  be  classed  as  D.  If  they  are 
deducted  the  total  of  instances  of  B  i  will  be  reduced  to  sixty-seven,  of 
which  forty-nine  will  be  regular  according  to  the  rules  of  Martianus 
Capella.  Two  cases  of  an  apparent  penultimate  spondee  under  B  2  are , 
perhaps  really  regular '.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  while  in  the  case  of 
B  2  and  B  3  the  few  departures  from  rule  are  of  the  same  kind  which  we 
have  seen  in  the  case  of  A,  the  more  frequent  irregularities  in  the  case 
of  B I  are  all  of  another  character:  they  substitute  for  the  trochee  a  foot 
with  short  penultimate,  thus  assimilating  the  ending  to  those  which  we 
find  in  the  case  of  type  C  or  D. 

The  type  C  is  more  frequent  in  Sym  and  Zeon  than  any  other  save 
A.    It  is,  of  course,  the  *  dichoreus  \  which  is  regarded  by  the  authorities 

^  See  Havet  La  prose  metrtqut  di  Symntaque  p.  9. 

'  These  are  '  renovando  vivificent'  and  '  luds  aeternae  efficeret\  In  the  latter 
of  these  (470)  '  aeternae '  is  an  alternative  reading  for  '  perpetuae '  and  should 
probably  stand  before,  not  after,  *  lucis'.  It  is  just  possible  that  in  the  phrase 
<  convertere  supplicibus '  '  convertere '  should  be  regarded  not  as  imperative  but  as 
future  indicative.  The  two  cases  of  a  dactyl  before  B  3  are  the  ending  of  a  preface 
which  occurs  twice. 


I 


392         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES  ^H 

cited  by  Prof.  Norden  as  a  final  cadence  complete  in  itself*.  But 
Terentianus  Maurus  rejects  the  ending  produced  by  adding  a  'bacchius* 
to  the  cretic,  i.  e,  an  ending  consisting  of  three  trochees.  This  com^ 
bination  is  avoided  in  the  case  of  a  final  of  the  type  C  by  the  common 
usage  of  Sym  and  Zeon^  which  place  before  this  type  of  final  word 
a  word  or  group  of  three  or  more  syllables  with  short  penultimate  word.  ■ 
In  Leon  this  usage  is  almost  invariable*  Of  the  315  finals  of  this  type  310 
are  preceded  by  a  cretic,  an  anapaest,  a  dactyl  or  a  tribrach  :  the  cretic 
is  the  most  frequent,  the  dactyl  next,  the  tribrach  the  least  common. 
In  more  than  half  the  cases  the  syllable  preceding  the  final  word  is  long. 
In  ^yw  this  is  still  more  general  '.  Of  the  five  apparent  exceptions  to  the 
rule  in  Leon,  one  has  before  the  final  the  words  '  ostensum  est ',  another 
'  gratae  sunt " :  the  remaining  three  have  a  trochee ;  but  in  two  of 
these  the  last  word  is  '  prosequaris  *  which  might  fairly,  in  view  of  the  ■ 
uncertainty  of  late  writers  as  to  the  quantity  of  '  pro '  in  composition, 
be  assigned  rather  to  the  type  B  i.  In  any  case  it  is  clear  tliat  in 
Leon  the  ending  of  three  consecutive  trochees  is  on  the  whole  carefully 
avoided  *. 

M.  Havet  treats  the  type  D  as  a  variant  of  the  type  C,  having  regard 
apparently  to  the  facts  that  the  usage  of  Sym,  in  respect  of  the  pen- 
ultimate word  or  group  of  the  phrase,  is  the  same  for  both,  and  that 
both  types,  so  treated,  would  pass  into  the  later  'cursus  velox  '*.  The 
same  usage  is  found  in  Leon^  where,  out  of  fortysix  instances  of  a  final 
of  type  D ",  fortyone  are  preceded  by  a  polysyllabic  word  or  group  of 
which  the  penullimale  syllable  is  short.  But  it  would  be  difficult  to 
suppose  that  the  type  D  was  originally  admitted  as  the  equivalent  of  the  _ 
* ditrocheus '  where  the  system  was  regulated  by  quantity*  It  maybe  ■ 
observed  that  in  Lean  the  syllable  immediately  preceding  a  final  of  this 
type  is  long  in  thirty  cases  or  more  out  of  the  forty-six.     It  may  be  said 

that  these  cases  yield  an  ending  of  the  form  —  w ^,  while  othen 

would  give  the  form  w  u  u ^,  and  that  it  seems  not  altogether 

unlikely  that  the  type  D,  at  first  treated  as  one  of  the  elements  in  these 
combinations,  was,  at  a  later  timCf  under  the  infiuence  of  accent,  or  in 
some  cases  through  uncertainty  as  to  the  quantity  of  its  first  two  syllables, 

'  M&rtianus  Capella  v  (531)  recogiiiizes  it  aa  g^ood  when  compoaed  of  two 
<]issyJ1al>tes.  A  lacuna  in  his  text  te&yes  it  imcertain  whether  he  gave  any  rule  as 
to  the  form  of  the  word  preceding  a  quadrisyllable  of  this  type, 

^  Sec  Havet  La  prosi  inetri<ju*  ds  Symmaqut  p.  37. 

'On  these  cases  see  below,  p.  394. 

*  Cassiodorus,  in  a  passage  quoted  by  Prof.  Norden  {Die  aniikt  Kunstprosa  p.  930% 
treats  this  ending  as  one  which  ought  to  be  discarded  ;  'trochaeum  tripliceai  lauda^ 
bills  neglectus  abscondat  *  {De  insL  dt'v.  hit,  15). 

*  La  prose  metrique  d«  Symmaqu*  pp,  8,  36,  37. 

*  I  include  *  patronorum',  •  sacraverunt^  '  sacramentum  \ 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  393 

assimilated  to  the  t3rpe  C  In  Lean  out  of  the  five  cases  in  which  it  is 
not  so  treated  it  is  preceded  by  a  trochee  in  four,  in  one  by  the  com- 
bination '  digni  sunt ' '. 

The  type  E  is  of  very  rare  occurrence  in  Sym,  Its  appearance  in 
Leon  is  nearly  as  frequent  as  that  of  D.  It  seems  to  be  treated  as 
a  variety  of  C,  having  before  it  in  all  cases  but  one  *  a  word  or  group 
with  a  short  penultimate  syllable.  The  syllable  before  the  final  word  or 
group  is  short  in  the  majority  of  cases.  The  admission  of  this  type 
is  probably  due  in  part  to  the  influence  of  accent,  in  part  to  uncertainty 
as  to  the  quantity  of  the  second  syllable,  as  in  the  cases  of  'et  pro- 
fectum",  '  suflragantur ',  '  suffragator ',  'suflragari'. 

The  final  ^^  —  o  —  is  preceded  in  one  case  by  a  spondee,  in  five  by 
a  trochee.  In  the  rare  cases  of  its  occurrence  in  Sym  the  preceding 
foot  is  always  a  spondee;  but  the  instances  are  too  few  to  warrant 
the  assertion  of  a  rule.  It  seems  most  likely  that  all  the  instances 
should  be  regarded  as  cases  of  faulty  endings.  The  five  cases  of  final 
v^  w  w  w,  a  type  not  found  in  Sym,  are  all  instances  of  the  same  phrase, 
'gratias  tibi  referimus'.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  these  words 
should  be  connected  rather  with  those  which  follow  than  with  those 
which  precede  them,  and  do  not  constitute  the  true  ending  of  the 
collects  in  which  they  occur.  The  words  preceding  'gratias'  furnish 
in  each  case  an  ending  of  a  more  regular  kind  *.  With  regard  to  the 
four  isolated  cases  it  may  be  observed  that  the  instance  of  yj — , 
*iustificando  capaces'  (358)  may  be  said  to  yield  a  'dichoreus',  that  of 

,  'conferant  vitam'  (405)  an  ending  of  the  form  —  v-» ;   the 

instance  of  --v-»w,  'elegere  super  omnia'  (446)  is  in  accordance  with 
the  usage  of  Sym,  The  single  case  of  a  five-syllable  final  is  *  sequatur 
universitas'  (333). 

M.  Havet  remarks  •  that  the  only  monosyllables  which  Symmachus 
allows  to  stand  at  the  end  of  a  phrase  are  those  which  belong  to  the 
conjugation  of  the  verb  'sum\  This  rule  holds  good  for  the  small 
number  of  final  monosyllables  which  appear  in  Leon»  Two  of  these 
are  '  est ',  two  '  sunt '.  At  the  end  of  a  group  of  syllables  preceding 
the  final  word  *  sunt  *  appears  five  times,  *  est '  twice,  *  sit  *  twice :  there 

*  See  below,  p.  394. 

'  The  ending  in  this  case  is  *  redemptionis  exercetur*  (304).  It  may  be  observed 
that  the  last  word  appears  in  the  MS  as  *  ezercitur*,  and  that  in  the  variation  of 
the  same  collect  which  appears  in  the  Gelasian  sacramentary  the  MS  has  *  ezer* 
citum  *. 

'  The  authority  of  Ausonius  Idyll,  iv  71  may  perhaps  favour  the  transference  of 
the  four  cases  of  this  final  to  the  type  C. 

*  These  are  <  dona  sumentes '  (346),  <  perceptione  satiati '  (348),  '  recordatione 
satiati '  (40a),  *dulcedine  vegetati '  (396),  and  *  dona  caelestia  *  (367). 

'  La  pros*  mitriqui  tU  Symmaqut  p.  66. 


394         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


are  no  instances  of  any  other  monosyllable  in  this  position,  M.  Havet 
remarks  further  that  in  Sym  the  monosyllabic  in  such  a  case  seems 
to  be  treated  as  non-existent  for  metrical  purposes,  so  that  on  the  one 
hand  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  the  syllable  preceding  it 
is  short,  long,  or  subject  to  elision,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  word 
preceding  the  group  of  which  a  final  monosyllable  forms  part  has  the 
same  form  as  if  the  monosyllable  were  not  there.  In  Leon^  except 
for  the  doubtful  *  lucis  aetcrnae  efficeret  *  mentioned  above  \  there  is  no 
case  of  elision  or  hiatus  in  a  final  phrase,  except  before  the  word  *  est  * : 

*  exorta  est  %  *  quod  suum  est '  are  the  only  instances  :  in  a  penultimate 
group  of  syllables  there  is  no  other  case  besides  '  ostensum  est ' '.  Bat 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  in  all  cases  in  Zeon  these  monosyllables 
have  the  full  value  as  syllables,  and  that  in  the  three  cases  specified  the 
hiatus  is  admitted.  It  may  be  that  M,  Havet's  view  that  a  long  vowel 
before  'sunt'  at  the  end  of  a  phrase  is  in  Sym  practically  regarded 
as  shorty  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the  cases  of  '  digni  sunt  *  and 

*  gratae  sunt '  before  finals  of  type  C  or  D.  The  other  cases  of  final 
'  est ',  '  sit ',  '  sunt '  are  regular  (apart  from  hiatus)  if  *  est  *,  *  sit ',  *  sunt ' 
have  their  full  value  :  most  of  them  would  not  be  so  if  the  monosyllable 
were  removed. 

The  conclusions  which  seem  to  result  from  this  examination  may  be 
briefly  stated  ;  they  are  these  : — 

1.  That  the  final  phrases  of  I^oft  are  regulated  by  a  metrical  system 
which  is  for  the  most  part  strictly  observed, 

2.  That  while  the  influence  of  accent  may  he  traced  in  the  assimilation 
of  endings  with  a  final  of  the  type  B  i  to  those  with  a  final  of  the  type  C, 
in  the  occasional  combination  of  finals  of  the  types  A,  B  2,  B  3  with 
a  preceding  spondee,  and  in  the  admission  of  finals  of  the  type  E,  this 
system  agrees  in  the  main  with  that  which  M.  Havet  has  traced  in  the 
letters  of  Symmachus  I 

3.  That  a  large  majority  of  the  final  phrases  are  instances  of  one  or 
other  of  the  three  principal  forms  of  the  early  '  cursus  *  *. 

*  Sec  p.  391,  above, 

>  Martiauus  Capelljt|  from  bis  instance  '  curas  regere  animonim^  would  sceio  not 
to  have  had  much  scruple  about  hiatus,    Bui  it  is  avoided  in  L/eon  as  a  general  rule, 

*  Perhaps  we  should  aJao  consider  as  due  in  part  at  least  to  the  influence  of 
accent  the  greater  relative  frequency  of  the  type  B  a. 

*  If  we  do  not  reckon  those  which  have  a  final  of  the  types  B  i,  B  2,  D  or  E,  the 
regular  endings  are  about  sixty-seven  per  cent,  of  the  whole.  About  thirty*fivc 
per  cent,  are  of  the  form  composed  of  crctic  and  trochee  or  spondee,  about  nine 
per  cent,  of  the  form  of  the  double  cretic  (or  crctic  and  dactyl),  about  twenty-three 
per  cent,  in  the  form  of  the  Michoreus'  (cretic  with  added  syllable),  (f  we  take 
into  accounti  as  metrically  regular,  the  endings  In  which  a  final  of  the  types  B  i, 
B  a  is  treated  according  io  the  rules  of  Martian  us  Capeila,  the  metrically  n^^ukr 
endings  will  number  more  than  eighty  seven  per  cent,  of  the  whole. 


I 


I 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  395 

On  two  questions  which  may  be  of  some  importance  in  their  bearing 
on  the  subject  of  the  formation  of  the  Leonine  sacramentary,  the 
question  whether  the  system  which  prevails  in  the  endings  of  the 
prayers  and  prefaces  is  traceable  through  their  whole  structure,  and 
the  question  whether  exceptions  to  its  rules  are  specially  frequent  in 
particular  sections  of  the  collection,  I  hope  to  say  something  in  a  future 
note. 

H.  A.  Wilson. 


THE  POEMANDRES  OF  HERMES  TRISMEGISTUS. 

Among  the  writings  which  pass  under  the  name  of  the  Egyptian 
Hermes  the  chief  place  is  taken  by  the  Poemandres,  It  consists  of 
fourteen  short  treatises  or  chapters  which  are  connected  by  their 
reference  to  a  common  subject.  They  deal  with  the  creation  of  the 
world  and  of  the  soul ;  the  nature  of  God ;  the  deification  of  mankind. 
The  character  of  the  book  was  recognized  by  Casaubon  who  devotes  to 
it  the  greater  part  of  a  section  in  his  Exercitationes  Baronianae  de 
Rebus  Sacris,  No  one,  however,  seems  to  have  followed  up  the  clue 
which  he  gives.  And  Zeller,  while  recognizing  the  Gnostic  character 
of  the  first  and  thirteenth  chapters,  treats  the  rest  of  the  book  as  an 
expression  of  paganism  in  its  decline.  It  seems  worth  while,  therefore, 
to  reconsider  the  Poemandres  in  the  light  of  some  of  the  knowledge 
which  has  been  added  since  the  time  of  Casaubon.  We  shall  have 
little  difficulty  in  shewing  as  against  Zeller  that  the  book  is  in  the  main 
homogeneous  and  of  a  Christian  origin.  Not  only  so,  our  discussion 
will  bring  us  into  contact  with  the  later  Greek  culture  as  it  developed 
amid  Egyptian  surroundings,  and  will  raise  several  problems  of  consider- 
able importance.  Among  other  things  we  shall  have  to  trace  the  way 
in  which  Hermes  passes  over  into  Christian  tradition,  and  how  the 
Greek  representations  of  Hermes  furnished  Christian  art  with  one  of  its 
earliest  motives.  We  shall  further  find  in  it  a  bridge  by  which  we  may 
pass  over  from  Greek  philosophy  and  science  to  modes  of  thought 
which  are  properly  Christian.  And  yet  the  writer  still  retains  so  much 
of  the  antique  spirit  that,  as  we  have  seen,  he  can  actually  be  mistaken 
for  an  apologist  of  paganism.  But  if,  on  the  one  hand,  we  are  enabled 
by  recent  discoveries  to  understand  the  Poemandres  better  than 
Casaubon  was  in  a  position  to  do,  on  the  other  hand  the  Poemandres 
throws  fresh  and  unsuspected  light  upon  these  very  discoveries. 


396         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


In  preparing  his  edition  of  the  Poemandres  Parthey  employed  two 
MSS,  one  of  the  fourteenth  century  in  the  I^urentian  library  at 
Florence,  plut.  Ixxi  33,  and  one  of  the  latter  part  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  Paris  1220.  Stobaeus,  in  the  Eciogae  Physicae^  furnishes  an 
independent  tradition  for  a  large  part  of  the  second,  fourth,  and  tenth 
chapters,  Stobaeus  gives  a  much  better  tradition  than  Farthey's  MSS, 
and  deserves  to  play  a  large  part  in  constituting  the  ultimate  text  of 
these  three  chapters.  The  differences  between  Stobaeus  and  the 
MSS  of  the  Poemandres^  however,  are  so  great  that  it  seenls  impos- 
sible to  explain  ihem  merely  by  the  corruption  of  the  MSS.  Not 
only  is  there  very  great  divergence  in  the  order  of  the  words,  but  con* 
structions  are  replaced  by  different  but  equivalent  constructions,  and 
particles  are  omitted  or  inserted  in  the  most  varied  manner,  Parthey, 
in  his  variant  readings,  includes  some,  but  by  no  means  all,  the 
important  instances  from  Stobaeus,  and  the  result  of  comparing  his 
edition  with  the  text  of  Stobaeus  is  to  inspire  a  feeling  of  distrust 
towards  his  work  as  an  editor. 

Even  before  Stobaeus  we  find  the  Poemandres  quoted :  for  example, 
by  Lactantius  (Epitome  Div.  Inst.  14)  :  *  Trismegistus  paucos  admodura 
fuisse  cum  diceret  perfectae  doctrinae  viros,  in  iis  cognatos  suos  enume- 
ravit  Uranum,  Salurnium,  Mercurium,'  cf.  Poem,  x  5  ^.  Also  the  same 
writer's  r)  y«P  tva-i/iua  yvilkri's  itrn  rov  Otov  {DtV.  Inst,  ii  t6)  may  fairly 
be  referred  to  Poem,  ix  4  tvaifitia  S^  icm  $€ov  yvuKn^,  The  slight 
variation  is  exactly  of  the  same  kind  as  the  variations  which  we  find  in 
Stobaeys.  The  writer  of  the  Co/tort,  in  Gtntihs  38  quotes  from  Hermes 
the  saying  iScov  vo^o-at  /xcv  l<m  ;^aX<woV,  fftpdnTaL  8i  aBvvarov  {>  kol  vo^m 
Bwarov.  Lactantius  translates  the  words  into  Latin,  and  says  that  they 
begin  a  book  which  is  addressed  by  Hermes  to  his  son  {Epitome  Div> 
Inst.  4).  They  are  not  found  in  the  Poemandres^  and  cannot  therefore 
furnish  any  evidence  about  its  date.  Parthey,  therefore,  makes  a  mis- 
take in  his  preface,  which  he  fathers  upon  Casaubon,  Casaubon  did 
not  argue  from  the  reference  in  the  Cohort*  in  Gent,  to  the  date  of  the 
Poemandres, 

Of  the  earlier  editors  Vergicius  supposes  the  author,  Thoth,  to  be  an 
Egyptian  king  who  lived  before  the  time  of  Moses,  a  view  repeated  by 
de  Foix  and  Patricius  (see  Parthey's  ed.  Pref.).  Casaubon  introduces 
a  more  scientific  standpoint  He  is  surprised  that  such  writings  should 
be  quoted  by  the  fathers  as  if  the  most  ancient  Mercury  were  their 
author".      He  devotes  a  whole  section  to  the  Poemandres  (De  Rebus 

'  References  to   the  Poemandrts  are   given   by  chapter  and   paragraph  fjrom 
Parthey. 
'See  Dt  Rtbits  Saeris  56  *  Ubrum  iDt^riun  ease  \l/tv9finypa/^v,  utpotc  qui  sit 


I 


I 


KOTES   AND   STUDIES 


397 


it 


uris  52  fr)»  and  one  wonders  how  he  could  have  been  misunderstood 
or  overlooked  by  the  more  recent  editors  and  historians,  Parthey, 
Menard,  Zeller,  and  Erdmann.  The  Christian  origin  of  some  of  the 
Hermetic  writings  did  not  escape  Gibbon,  who  classes  Hermes  with 
Orpheus  and  the  Sibyls  as  a  cloak  for  Christian  forgery  {vol.  ii  p.  69, 
Bury's  ed.). 

Menard's  Hermh  Trismigiste  has  probably  been  the  means  by  which 
most  students  have  approached  these  writings.  He  describes  his 
translation  as  complete,  but  this  is  a  misnomer.  In  addition  to  those 
works  which  Menard  translates,  Ideler  Fhysid  tt  Mtdici  Grata  prints 
a  medical  tract,  and  other  similar  writings  are  enumerated  (Christ 
Griedi.  Lit}  p.  697).  Moreover  any  list  of  the  Hermetic  books  must 
take  account  of  Ostanes,  about  whom  something  shall  be  said  later  on. 
Not  only  is  Menard's  translation  incomplete,  but  it  gives  a  most  mis- 
leading impression  by  presenting  its  varied  contents  in  four  books  as 
though  together  they  formed  a  system  ;  the  Poemandres  coming  first, 
the  Asdepius  second,  and  various  fragments  as  the  third  and  fourth 
books.  But  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  Hermetic  collection  so 
long  as  we  fail  to  distinguish  the  Christian  origin  of  the  Foemandres. 
Menard  makes  the  incorrect  remark  (pref.  ii)  that  Casaubon  attributes 
the  books  which  bear  the  name  of  Hermes  Trismegistus  to  a  Jew  or 
a  Christian.  Menard  cannot  have  seen  Casaubon's  De  Rebus  Saais, 
or  he  would  have  been  saved  from  such  mistakes. 

Menard  seems  to  have  misled  even  Zeller,  The  historian  of 
Greek  philosophy,  whom  it  seems  almost  ungrateful  to  criticize,  has 
overlooked  the  unity  of  intention,  which  may  be  traced  throughout  the 
Poemandres^  and,  like  Menard,  treats  it  as  homogeneous  with  the 
Asdepius.  He  distinguishes  indeed  between  the  authorship  of  various 
parts  of  the  Hermetic  collection,  and,  in  particular,  the  Gnostic  elements 
in  the  first  and  thirteenth  chapters  of  the  PoemandrtSy  but  he  overlooks 
the  indubitable  traces  of  Christian  teaching,  which  Casaubon  pointed 
out,  in  the  other  chapters. 

Erdmann  confines  his  main  exposition  to  the  Pocmandres  {Hist,  PhiL 
tr,  i  113,  2),  and  attributes  the  constituent  treatises  to  different  authors 
and  times.  Curiously  enough  the  thirteenth  chapter,  in  which  Zeller 
sees  Gnostic  elements,  appears  to  Erdmann  of  Neopythagorean  tendency, 
because  of  the  references  to  the  ogdoad,  decad,  and  dodecad,  in  which 
undoubtedly  we  are  dealing  with  Gnostic  ideas.     At  the  same  time 

Ctinstiani  alicuius  vel,  tit  dicam  melius,  scinichrifitiani  roeruoi  figmentum.  Neque 
vcro  dubitamus  id  cgissc  auctorein  til  muUa  piclatis  Christianae  dogmata  quae  ecu 
nova  et  prius  inaudita  reicicbantur,  probarct  ab  ultima  antiquitate  sapientibus 
fuissc  nota  et  ab  illo  ipso  Mercurio  in  lileras  fulsse  relata,  qucm  non  sohira  Acgyptii 
aed  etiam  Gracci  propter  yetusiatcm  et  doctnnae  opimonem  tnagnopere  suspicie* 
bant'  {D*  Rtbus  Sacris  55). 


398         THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Erdmann  comes  nearest  to  what  is  probably  the  truth  when  he  says,  in 
passings  'these  writings  .  .  ,  contain  also  points  of  correspondence  with 
gnosticj  neoplatonic,  patristic,  and  cabalistic  ideas  *  {op.  cit.  216),  M 

It  appears  worth  while,  therefore,  to  reconsider  the  authorship  and  " 
composition  of  the  Potmandres  in  order,  if  possible,  to  clear  up  some  of 
the  confusioHj  which,  as  we  have  seen,  prevails  throughout  nearly  aU 
that  has  been  written  about  it. 


II. 

A  considerable  part  of  this  confusion  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  reign- 
ing convention  of  Egyptian  literature  is  overlooked.  WTiat  does  it 
mean  when  a  treatise  or  a  saying  is  ascribed  to  Hermes  ?  In  answer- 
ing this  question  it  wil!  be  necessary  to  recapitulate  facts  which  are  now 
perfectly  familiar  even  to  the  tyro  in  Egyptian  studies,  but  were 
unknown  to  or  overlooked  by  most  of  the  writers  whom  we  have 
mentioned* 

The  Egyptians  lumped  all  their  literature  together  under  the  name 
of  Thoth.  In  the  main  he  personified  the  profession  of  a  scribe. 
Plato  {Phikbtis  18  b)  speaks  of  him  as  a  god  or  divine  person  quite  in 
the  Egyptian  way.  The  Egyptian  priest  and  historian  Manetho  regards 
him  as  the  remote  ancestor  by  whom  all  sacred  records  were  written 
{Synceiius  I  73,  Bonn).  Clement  of  Alexandria  groups  him  with 
Asclepius^'AXAA  ical  tiSv  Trap'  klyv7rriQi%  ayOfimiruiV  iroT€  yevofjLa'utv  Si 
^vBpitiwtvj}  80^77  $€it)Vt  'Epjtiijc  rt  0  ©lyjSoToc  Kat  *Aa'tcXypnoi  o  M^/i^tt;? 
(Strom.  I  xxi  134).  The  convention  by  which  all  literature  was 
attributed  to  him  was  recognized  as  such  at  any  rate  by  some  people. 
To  use  the  phrase  of  the  Pseudo-Iamblichus  (D^  Mysitriis  viii  i),  the 
Hermetic  books  are  '  the  writings  of  the  ancient  scribes'.  Hence  there 
is  no  necessary  exaggeration  when  Manetho  speaks  of  the  36,000  books 
of  Hermes,  or  Seleucus  of  20,000  (/i^.).  Clement  gives  an  interesting 
account  of  a  collection  of  forty-two  Hermetic  books,  which  were  used 
by  certain  Egyptian  priests  {Strom.  VI  iv  35  ff).  Now  there  is  very 
little  doubt  that  the  books  of  which  Clement  and  Seleucus  and  Manetho 
speak  were  written  in  the  Egyptian  bnguage.  Hence  the  presumption 
about  writings  referred  to  Hermes,  is  that  they  belong  to  the  national 
Eg>'ptian  literature,  and  are  written  in  the  native  tongue.  Of  course 
many  Egyptians  were  bilingual,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  greater  part 
of  the  extant  Hermetic  collection  was  composed  in  Greek  by  such 
persons,  or  by  Greek-speaking  foreigners.  But  in  face  of  the  facts 
there  is  nothing  farfetched  in  supposing  that  a  work  like  the  Poemandrts 
may  also  have  been  current  in  a  Coptic  version. 

But  Hermes  or  Thoth  is  not  the  only  legendary  Egyptian  author. 
Masp^ro,  following  Goodwin,  has  shewn  that  Ostanes  is  the  name  of 


I 


J 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


399 


I 


* 


a  deity  who  belongs  to  the  cycle  of  Thoth  {Proc,  Soc\  BibL  Arch,  xx  142)* 
His  name  Ysdnw  was  derived  by  the  Egyptians  themselves  from  a  verb 
meaning  *to  distinguish',  and  he  was  a  patron  of  intellectual  perception. 
As  time  went  on^  he  gained  in  importance.  Under  the  Ptolemies  he 
was  often  represented  upon  the  temple  walls  (/.  r.).  In  Pliny  he  appears 
as  an  early  writer  upon  medicine  {Nat,  Hist,  xxviii  6).  Some  of  the 
prescriptions  quoted  as  from  him  are  quite  in  the  Egyptian  style  {ib, 
256,  261).  Philo  Byblius,  on  whom  to  be  sure  not  much  reliance  can 
be  placed t  mentions  a  work  of  Ostanes— the  Octatetuh  (Eus.  Praep.  Ev. 
I  10,  52).  It  is  tempting  to  identify  this  with  some  such  collection  as 
the  six  medical  books  which  occupy  the  last  place  in  Clement's  list 
(Strom.  VI  iv  37).  Now  Pliny^  as  appears  from  his  list  of  authorities, 
does  not  quote  Ostanes  directly.  If  we  note  that  Democritus  is  men- 
tioned by  Pliny  in  the  same  context,  and  that  Ostanes  is  the  legendary 
teacher  of  Democritus  upon  his  visit  to  Egypt,  we  shall  consider  it  at 
least  probable  that  Pliny  depends  upon  Democritus  for  his  mention  of 
Ostanes.  The  philosopher,  whose  visit  to  Egypt  may  be  regarded  as 
a  historical  fact,  would  in  that  case  be  dealing  with  a  medical  collection 
which  passes  under  the  name  of  Ostanes.  Asclepius,  Avho  appears  in 
the  Potmandres^  will  be  the  Greek  equivalent  of  Ostanes.  Thus  the 
collocation  of  Hermes  and  Asclepius  is  analogous  to  the  kinship  of  the 
Egyptian  deities  Thoth  and  Ysdnw. 

We  shall  next  try  to  shew  that  the  Foemandrti  is  not  without  prece- 
dent in  the  later  Egyptian  literature.  Plutarch  had  access  to  good  sources 
for  the  narratives  which  he  gives  De  hide  tt  Osiride  (Maspero  Dawn 
0/  Civilization,  tr,  173).  In  the  legend  of  Osiris  (cc.  xii-xix)  Typhon 
charges  Horus  with  being  a  bastard  ;  but,  with  the  advocacy  of  Hermes, 
Horus  is  adjudged  by  the  gods  to  be  legitimate.  This  is  the  Greek 
form  of  a  legend  which  was  very  widely  spread  in  Egypt  In  the 
Egyptian  versions,  however,  Thoth  appears  as  the  judge  or  arbitrator 
rather  than  the  advocate  (Maspero,  ap.  cit,  177).  After  Plutarch  has 
given  the  popular  form  of  the  legend,  he  proceeds  to  make  a  fresh 
beginning, and  to  enumerate  the  interpretations  which  were  given  by  those 
who  seemed  ^iXoo-o^tfcwTcpoK  rt  Xiyuv  (c.  xxxii).  First,  he  deals  with 
those  opinions  which  identify  the  Egyptian  gods  with  natural  objects, 
Osiris  with  the  Nile,  Isis  with  the  land,  and  so  on.  Then  he  considers 
the  interpretations  of  those  who  identify  the  gods  with  the  sun  and 
moon,  &c.  (c.  xH),  These  speculations  summarize  for  us,  at  first  or 
second  hand,  some  of  the  Hermetic  books  which  were  current  in 
Plutarch's  time,  and  enable  us  to  trace  the  passage  from  the  tentative 
explanations  which  already  occur  in  the  Book  of  the  Dead  to  the  free 
speculation  of  Roman  times.  Now  Plutarch  gives  an  explanation  of 
the  lawsuit  between  Typhon  and  Horus  in  the  following  terms  :  Horus 


40O         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


ov  f)  *I<rif  tht-Qva  rov  vorftov  xaiTftov  altrBfjTov  ovra  ycvi^.  Aio  iral  Buapr 
<^€vy€w  Xiyrrai  voS^la^  vrro  Tv^^ko«,  b»c  ov<c  tiv  KaBapo^  ovli.  clXuc/xvitc  oiw 
6  Tra-n^p  Xoyo?  auro?  Kaff  iavrov  d^ity^  *f«w  awa^a^s,  dLXAA  vcvo^cv/wof  tj 
vAiy  Sttt  TO  <rw/MiTixoi^  (c.  liv).  Horus  wins  the  suit.  For  Hermes,  that 
IS  Q  Koyotf  bears  witness  ort  irpos  to  i^otjrov  17  ^»>o-t?  /uwTatrxT/fuiTt^o/jLeioy  rw 
Korr^i^  airo&tSuxriv  (il.).  Such  expressions  as  these  are  of  the  same 
philosophical  tendencies  as  the  extant  fragments  of  the  Hermetic 
literature,  and  render  Plutarch  an  important  source  of  information  for 
the  very  period  in  which  we  are  interested. 

Now  let  us  torn  to  the  title  of  the  book.  It  is  usually  derived  from 
v^otfirjv,  after  Casaubon  (<?/.  af.  57),  who  compares  the  phrase  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  (x  1 4).  Yet  it  is  difficult  to  admit  that  such  a  compound 
as  votfjuivSpr}^:  could  arise  in  this  way.  From  iroifiTJv  we  find  the  form 
TTot/mi'tup  (Aesch-  Pers,  241  )♦  and  by  a  similar  syncopation  we  might 
have  the  form  iro/^ai^pos,  of  which  Poemander  would  be  the  proper 
Latin  equivalent.  Aiav^pc^  furnishes  a  parallel  case  of  syncopation. 
But  we  have  not  yet  the  form  required.  I  speak  subject  to  correction, 
but  I  cannot  find  a  derivative  from  ^y^jp  which  ends  in  -av^pujfi.  There 
is  one  passage  which  seems  to  support  this  derivation  :  Xoyov  yap  tov  o-w 
fr&tpaiv€i  o  VOV5  (xiii  19).  But  this  expression  is  far  from  being 
equivalent  to  the  meaning  required  for  flot^i'Sp^,  if  it  is  derived  from 
notp-^v  and  avijp.  While,  however,  the  name  Poemandres  does  not 
answer  to  any  Greek  original,  it  is  a  close  transliteration  of  a  Coptic 
phrase.  In  the  dialect  of  upper  Egypt  itsliiTpe  means  *  the  witness '. 
That  the  Coptic  article  should  be  treated  as  part  of  the  name  itself  is 
not  unusual ;  compare  the  name  Pior  {Palladius  ^isf,  Laus.  8g).  Such 
a  title  corresponds  very  closely  in  style  with  the  titles  of  other  works  of 
the  same  period,  for  example  the  True  Word  of  Celsus,  or  the  Perfect 
Word^  which  is  an  alternative  title  of  the  Asclepius,  The  term 
Poemandres,  therefore,  on  this  supposition  contains  an  allusion  to  the 
widely  spread  legend  of  Hermes  as  the  witness,  a  legend  which  is 
verified  for  us  from  several  sources.  But  the  writer  has  adapted  the 
details  to  his  purpose.  Hermes  is  not  himself  the  witness,  but  the 
herald  of  the  witness.     There  is  probably  an  allusion  to  the  legend  in 

xiii  13  avTTi  Imlv  17  iraAiyyo'Ccrui,  w  tcickov,  to  prftcfTi  ^avra2[co-^cu  th 
rh  €r(i}pa  to  fp^X^  BtoAiraTOVt  Scot  tqv  Xoyov  tovtov  tov  irtpi  ttJs  TraXtyynfttrla^^ 
cis  ov  xrTrfptnjpuarurapTpfj  tva  /xt;  uip€V  StdjSoAot  tov  TraKTo?  <?«  rovi  iroXXov^^ 

€k  069  avros  ov  &i>^i  B(6^.  That  is  to  say,  the  new  birth  consists,  in  one 
of  its  aspects,  in  recognizing  the  spiritual  affinities  of  the  visible  world. 
And  those  who  deny  these  affinities  are  compared  to  slanderers,  to  the 
part  played  by  Typhon  in  the  legend.  This  passage  is  important  for 
the  writer's  attitude  to  Gnosticism.  As  we  shall  see,  he  recognizes  the 
goodness  of  the  creator  of  this  world  and  appeals  to  the  books  of  the 


I 


I 
I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  40I 

Old  Testament,  In  other  words  he  separates  himself  from  the  sects 
both  Christian  and  non-Christian  who  treated  the  visible  world  as  evil 

Man  was  created  cts  tpytnv  Bilmv  yvokny  koX  i^writa^  ivipyQvaav  fiaprvpiaVf 
Hal  TtktfSof  dv6p*inrisiv  ftt  TavTwv  rSy  wrr*  ovpavov  S*<nroruav  Kal  dynBiav 
hriyvtixrtv  (tii  3).  Thus  the  explanation  of  the  litle  which  I  venture 
to  suggest  is  entirely  consonant  with  the  purpose  of  the  book. 

If  this  is  so,  we  are  compelled  to  consider  the  possibility  that  the 
Poemandres  is  a  translation  from  a  Coptic  original  In  that  case  we 
shall  also  be  able  to  explain  the  striking  variations  which  we  find  in  the 
excerpts  of  Stobaeus  and  the  manuscripts.  At  the  same  time  we  must 
remember  that  the  Coptic  writers  took  over  bodily  from  the  Greek  the 
full  vocabulary  of  religious  and  philosophical  terms.  And  the  trans^ 
lator  of  the  presumed  Coptic  original  would  find  half  of  his  work 
already  done  \  The  Coptic  of  the  Fistk  Sophia  and  the  Books  of  Ie& 
borrows  nearly  all  unusual  terms  from  the  Greek, 

I  am  surprised  at  the  confidence  with  which  Schmidt  declares  the 
Pistis  Sophia  and  other  Gnostic  works  to  be  translations  from  Greek 
originals'.  There  seems  no  adequate  reason  why  such  works  may 
not  have  been  composed  in  Coptic.  The  Egyptian  Gnostic  writings 
of  the  third  century  exhibit  the  same  qualities  of  style  as  the 
Coptic  biographies  and  apocalypses  of  the  fourth  and  following  cen- 
turies. And  so  I  am  prepared  to  believe  that  the  Poemandns 
may  have  been  first  composed  in  Coptic,  Or  shall  we  say  that 
the  work  was  current  from  the  first  in  both  languages?  We  must 
not  forget  that  over  against  the  intellectual  life  of  Alexandria,  there 

'  There  is  a  curioua  variant  in  Stcbaeus  which  furnishes  an  incidental  proof  of 
the  existence  of  a  Coptic  version,  or  shall  we  put  the  argument  at  the  lowest  and 
aay  that  the  variant  seems  to  have  originated  in  a  Coptic  scribe  !  In  the  Potman- 
drts  wc  read  if  SrJ  \pvx^  ital  ain^  &fla  tjs  awa  ftaBiwfp  vtpt^oX^  r<^  wvuv^ari  XP^t'^^* 
%  16.  Here  Parthey's  manuscript  B  seems  to  have  preserved  the  correct  reading. 
Stobaeus,  however,  gives  the  striking  variant  xaMirtp  {nrrfplrtf  t^  irvfVftaTi  xp^«"j 
a  reading  which  Patricius  corrected  to  l-mfpi-rfj,  vinfp4nt  can  only  have  been  due  to 
ft  Christian  scribe  to  whom  wtrtvfia  suggested  the  Pauline  distinction  of  nv*vfMTHc6f 
and  ifrvxtMos.  Hence  he  would  stumble  at  the  phrase  which  seems  to  make  the 
Spirit  the  servant  of  the  soul,  and  by  a  change  of  termination  vTtrjpirtt  for  {rinjp^rp, 
arrives  at  the  quite  orthodox  sentiment  Ka$&n«p  (unjpirif  t^  wyvvpari  ^/j^ra*.  But 
since  in  the  Po*ma»dr*s  the  term  wyttifta  regularly  bears  the  physiological  meaning:^ 
the  alteration  to  iwfjpirtj  makes  nonsense,  and  this  Patricius  saw.  But  we  have 
itill  to  explain  the  passage  from  wtpt&ok^  to  {r^^r^.  I  am  afraid  the  explanation 
which  I  am  about  to  suggest  will  not  be  entirely  convincing,  but  it  inust  stand  ia 
default  of  a  better  one.  wffoXjf  is  perhaps  near  enough  to  the  Coptic  woAov,  the 
servant,  to  explain  how  to  a  Coptic  scribe  the  words  might  be  interchanged.  The 
ijinost  incredible  mistakes  which  were  made  in  transcribing  Greek  phrases  into 
Coptic  are  iUustrated  by  Junker  and  Schubart  in  their  article  *  Ein  greichisch  kop- 
llscbes  Kirchengebet '  {Z*iis^/iir  Afg.  vol.  xl  i  fl). 

•  Gnostisch*  Schriften  in  Koptischer  Spracht  1 1, 
VOL.  V.  D  d 


402         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES         H 

stood  in  contrast  the  native  Eg>*ptian  thought  of  the  upper  Nile 
Hermopolis  (Ashmunen)  and  Panopolis  (Akhmim)  were  the  centres  of 
religious  and  other  influences  which  reacted  even  upon  Alexandria. 
Plutarch  gained  part  of  his  information  from  Hermopolis,  de  Is.  et  Os, 
cc,  iii,  1.  And  the  legends  about  Thoth  were  most  Hkely  to  be  current 
near  the  seat  of  his  chief  shrine.  In  fact  Alexandria  was  regarded  as 
being  on  the  confines  of  Egypt  rather  than  as  an  Egyptian  city.  Thus 
Macarius  of  Alexandria  is  distinguished  from  Macarius  the  Egyptian, 
So  also  the  title  of  the  Gos^i  according  to  the  Egyptians  points  us 
away  from  Alexandria  for  its  origin.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  the 
Fotmandres^  which  as  we  shall  see  is  one  of  the  most  important  sources 
of  our  knowledge  of  that  Gospel,  stands  in  close  relation  with  native 
Egyptian  life* 

III. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  analysis  of  the  Poemandres.  But  in  order 
to  avoid  the  confusion  into  which  Menard  and  Zeller  have  fallen^  we 
will  note  the  real  character  of  the  other  chief  Hermetic  book,  the 
Asciepius^  in  order  that  we  may  leave  it  entirely  on  one  side.  The 
Aschpim  or,  to  give  it  its  Greek  title,  o  rtXeio?  Aoyo?,  The  Perfect  W&rd^ 
was  written  as  an  apology  for  the  moribund  religion  of  Egypt  at  a  time 
when  there  were  signs  of  the  approaching  victory  of  Christian  ideas. 
It  has  come  down  in  a  Latin  translation  wrongly  attributed  to  Apuleius. 
The  author  casts  his  indignation  and  fear  into  the  form  of  a  prophecy. 
'A  time  was  coming',  he  laments,  'when  the  national  religion  would 
have  passed  away  into  a  legend  no  longer  believed,  mere  records  upon 
Bione  *  (c.  9).  And,  in  a  passage  quoted  from  the  Greek  by  Lactantius 
{Div,  Inst,  vii  iS)^  he  proceeds  after  the  manner  of  a  Jewish  or 
Christian  apocalypse  to  threaten  the  apostate  world  with  a  deluge  or 
a  destruction  by  fire.  He  interprets  the  national  religion  in  the  usual 
Neopythagorean  manner.  Polytheism  and  the  worship  of  images  are 
justified;  they  are  approximations,  symbols  of  the  truth  (c  ij).  Thus 
the  temper  and  method  of  5^  Perfect  Wi^rd  present  very  close 
resemblances  to  T/te  IVus  Word  of  Celsus.  Celsus  was  far  from 
being  an  Epicurean  who  attacked  the  popular  religion  generally; 
he  was  rather  a  champion  of  the  national  religions  and  especially 
of  the  Egyptian  religion  against  Christian  cosmopolitanism.  And  both 
these  writers  seem  to  have  been  dealing  with  Christian  opponents 
of  the  Gnostic  type.  In  the  eyes  of  the  author  of  Th€  Perfect 
Word^  the  Christians  were  men  who»  in  their  weariness  of  soul,  dis- 
dained the  glorious  universe  and  preferred  darkness  to  light,  death 
rather  than  life.  This  criticism  made  from  the  side  of  pagan  religion 
was    repealed    by    Plotinus    from    the    side    of    Greek    philosophy 


1 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


403 


^ 


{Ennead  IT  ix  13  &c.).  As  we  have  already  seen,  it  was  one  of  the 
objects  of  the  Foemandres  to  meet  this  attack  by  vindicating  for 
Christian  thought  the  spiritual  affinities  of  the  visible  world. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  words  in  which  the  author  declares  his 
purpose :  imBilif  BiXu^  ra  mra  koi  vor^<Tai  rijv  rovrt^v  <ftwTtv  Koi  yvwyai  tqv 
BtGv  (i  3).  Here  we  have  three  leading  topics  indicated :  the  under- 
standing of  nature,  the  Divine  attributes,  the  process  by  which  man 

attains  yrtutr«. 

The  hierarchy  of  being  may  be  arranged  thus :— The  supreme  God  is 

o  vov^.  He  apptvd^T^Xv?  c5i/,  ^cu^  Kox  <^ais  viTap\wVt  an-iiorijGrc  Xoyo)  trtpov 
vovv  8i]rfU<n'jpyov,  os:  Bto^  tqv  rrvpoi  ^at  TrvrvfjiOrot  5»v  tS'TjfJMxvpyrjQ-t  BioiKrjrd^ 
riva^  cTTTdt,  ev  kvkXoi^  Trcpu^^oi^ra?  rov  alfrBTtjrov  koo-^ov  kqx  ^  SiotKijcrts;  avrOiv 
tlfmpfiivr}  KoXfirat  {I  9).  Hence  we  may  mark  off:  {a)  Divine  beings, 
o  voiky  0  Sij/iioupyd?,  01  tTrra  ^toiKrjTat ;  (^)  o  vorfro^  Koa-fun:  the  author, 
like  Philo,  describes  a  creation  before  the  material  creation,  f^ovkrf&tU 
Tov  oparov  Koa-fAXtv  ravrovl  ^rjfAiovpyrjfrm  7rpO€^(Tvtrov  rbv  vorp-ov  (Philo 
Optf  Mund.  4)  ;  (^)  o  aio-&Tp-oi  Koa-fio'!. 

The  seven  Eiouajrai  or  planetary  spirits  who  embrace  and  control  the 
sensible  world  in  i  10,  answer  to  the  alutv  in  xi  3  tov  Koa-fjuov  vir6  tov 
atujvof  ffiw€pi€)(ttfitvov.  Just  as  the  EtotKrjam  of  the  planetary  spirits  is 
called  fate  i  g,  so  xi  5  ovvix^i  Si  rovroj'  (sc.  rov  Kofifiov)  6  alwy, 
€tTt  Si*  dvdtyjojv  €*T*  Sict  TTpovotav  cire  S<a  ff>va-iv.  Thus  the  aeon 
is  treated  as  equivalent  to  the  seven  planetary  spirits,  a  fact  which 
throws  light  upon  the  number  of  the  aeons  in  other  systems. 

If  now  we  turn  to  the  third  chapter  of  the  Foemandres^  we  shall  find 
that  this  cosmogony,  for  all  its  Platonic  origin,  is  presented,  quite  in  the 
style  of  Philo,  as  a  commentary  upon  Genesis  i-iti.  The  planetary 
spirits  act  as  intermediaries  in  the  work  of  creation ;  avrim  8<  InauroK 
&to^  Sia  T^t  i^m?  ^uj'ttjLtfaj?  to  TrpoaraxBkv  avrta^  and  created  beasts  and 
creeping  things  and  birds  and  herbs  and  lastly  mankind.  There  is  also 
an  obvious  allusion  to  Gen,  i  4  ff  in  Foem,  in.  Hence  the  phrase 
avia.v€(T$€  iv  avfijo-it  koX  Tr\if\0vv€<r6€  iy  ttAij^ci  (Foem.  iii  3),  which  has 
generally  been  recognized  as  an  allusion  to  Gen.  i  28,  is  but  one 
instance  out  of  many  which  prove  the  writer's  familiarity  with  the  Old 
Testament. 

Let  us  pass  now  to  the  second  of  our  main  topics,  the  Divine 
attributes.  If  the  writer  sets  forth  his  cosmogony  as  a  commentary 
upon  Genesis,  he  has  Isaiah  xl  in  view  when  he  portrays  the  nature  of 
God.  He  adopts  from  the  Jewish  prophet  the  rhetorical  question  • 
•Who  is  it  that  set  the  boundaries  to  the  sea?  Who  is  it  that 
established  the  earth?*  But  it  is  especially  instructive  to  compare 
Isaiah  xl  19-22  with  the  following  passage:  kqX  avhpidvra  pxv  rj  ciVofo 
^ciiplc    dvS/Man-cwrotow   17   ^mypd^ov    ovSei^    •^iTtrt    yryofCKOi,    rotJro    Bk   tto 

D  d  3 


404 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


^fffuovprpjfAa  x*^^^  hrffu/avpyov  yfyoixv ;  where  the  Egyptian  writer 
to  have  understood  the  prophet  to  be  arguing  from  the  work  to  the 
workman^  instead  of  attacking  the  use  of  plastic  representations  of  God  _ 
{Paem,  c.  v).  ■ 

Since  the  writer  thus  starts  with  the  Jewish  conception  of  God  as  the 
creator,  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  should  devote  one  chapter, 
the  second,  to  refuting  the  Aristotelian  view  {a)  that  God  is  vw  kixvtim 
voiliv^  {b)  that  God  is  the  prime  mover,  Notttos  yap  irpCirov  o  <3cos  iarw 
i^fUV  ov^  cairpw  {J^ocm,  ii  5)  ^^^  V  o^  KtvrftTii  rov  Kocfiov  koI  travro^  ^uov 
vXiKOv  ov)(  viro  rittv  Karficros  rov  icocr/xoi/  (TVfAfiaivti  ylvitrBai  (l^.  8).  From 
ii  9  the  soul  seems  to  be  regarded  as  the  source  of  motion. 

God's  nature  is  most  full/  revealed  in  creation  :  6  dco?  oparat.  iv  rf 
irtn€tM  (xi  22;  cf.  v  9  Kxmv  Km  •n-otfii').  In  another  place  He  is  said  to 
be  pure  will,  17  yap  rovrov  ivipytux  rj  6ikrj<rt^  i<m  (x  2). 

God  is  not  only  the  creator,  He  is  also  the  father*  But  the  fiither- 
hood  of  God  is  to  be  understood  in  a  special  sense ;  and  here  we  arc 
brought  to  the  theory  of  yvwtni  and  Trakiyytvtcria.  Man  is  naturally 
a  child  of  this  aeon,  or  of  the  planetary  spirits.  It  is  only  so  far  as  he 
receives  w>v«  and  thus  becomes  capable  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  that 
he  can  be  called  *  perfect ',  or  *  the  son  of  God '.  ■ 

By  yvm(ri%  man  rises  from  the  purely  '  sensible '  view  of  the  world  to 
the  *  rational '  one.  He  '  bears  witness ',  lest  he  should  be  *  a  slanderer ' 
of  the  Divine  purpose.     But  this  knowledge  is  only  possible  by  the  gift 

of  God  :  yi'OKrts  St  i<mv  iTncrnip.rfi  to  rcAos,   ciricnnj/xiy  Si  B^pov  TOv  d<oi> 

(x  9),  And  this  gift  is  pictorially  represented  as  a  laver,  Kpan^p^  of 
reason,  vov^  (iv  4)  :  oaroi  /acv  oTry  truF^Kav  rov  KjjpvypjOToi  KoX  </?a3rTunwTO 
TOV  voo?,  oirroi  p.€T€(rxov  ttjs  yviixretas  »cai  r<Xeu>i  eytvovro  avOptuTroi  toy  vow 
Btidfjbfvoi  (tJ.).  It  follows  that  belief  is  identified  with  the  activity  of 
reason  :  to  yap  vorrftrcd  i<m  to  irurrcvcrat,  to  d^rtcrr^crat  ^  to  /i^  vo^cnu 
(ix  Xo)«  So,  roihro  fiovov  truynqpi<w  dv&piMjnrt^  i<mv  ^  yvwrt^  tov  Beoi 
(k  15),  The  whole  idea  of  the  laver  of  regeneration  in  the  Poemandru 
is  obviously  related  to  the  teaching  about  baptism  addnessed  to 
Nicodemus. 

This  process^  which  on  the  intellectual  side  is  represented  as 
a  change  from  a  *  sensible  *  to  a  '  rational  *  view  of  the  world,  is,  on  the 
moral  side,  a  change  from  the  immediate  impulses  of  the  senses,  to 
the  control  of  such  impulses :  ri  phf  ow  tov  icpctWoKos  arpca-tv  ov  pjww 

Tw  cAo/utcKu»  KoAXumy  Ti'"yj(aK€i,  TOV  avOpweifay  airo^cuxrat,  oAAa  «ccu  tt;v  wploi      1 

&*ov  €wr{^€tav  cirtSeticwcriv.     The  moral  change  which  the  new  birth  M 
involves  is  analysed  in  detail :  cyvtu^a?,  St  t<«vok,  t^?  7ra\iyy€V€a'ias  tw  ■ 
TpoiTOV,  Tijs  SeKaSo?  -rrapaytvofifvrfi  fnfvvriOrf  votpa  "yeVetrts  (xiii  lo).      The 
decad   consists   of  the  ten   virtues :    yvonxk    rov    Btovj   ynLtrK  x'H^* 
iyKparitaf     Kaprtpia^    ^ucouocfJvij,    KOivmvia,    aXqOtui,    ^ya66v^    t*^h    4^ 


« 


NOTES   AND  STUDIES 


405 


^ 


xidi  8ff).      This  list  presents  some  suggestive  resemblances  to  the 
corresponding  list   in   the  Shepherd   of    Hermas,   S.   ix    15:    irtWw, 

owfo-ty,  hfiovoia^  dyaTTfj.  And  yet  in  order  that  we  may  not  identify  this 
change  with  a  purely  moral  process,  it  is  referred  to  a  personal  agency ; 
regeneration  is  brought  about  by  6  rov  $€ov  irats,  dyBptajro^  tht  Btkr^^rk 
B€Q\)  (xiii  4),  a  statement  to  be  compared  with  St.  John  i  13. 

The  figure  used  by  the  writer  for  the  moral  change  varies  between 
the  new  birth  and  the  sowing  of  seed  (iii  3,  xiv  10),  He  is  still  at  that 
early  stage  in  the  developement  of  doctrine,  when  metaphors,  such  as 
that  of  the  new  birth  and  the  sower,  are  still  fluids  and  have  not  yet 
crystallized  into  rigid  and  impassive  forms  of  thought.  By  one  of 
those  curious  accidents  which  may  be  traced  in  the  history  of  ideas, 
a  third  kind  of  metaphor  which  found  great  favour  with  the  Christian 
writers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries  has  passed  away  into 
oblivion.  This  same  moral  change  is  represented  as  an  ascent  to  the 
highest  spheres,  and  as  a  kind  of  deification.  Although  this  metaphor, 
which  is  found  frequently  in  Stoic  writers,  failed  to  obtain  recognition, 
it  had  considerable  influence  upon  Christian  dogma  so  far  as  it 
involved  the  idea  of  apotheosis.  In  one  place  (i  24)  the  soul  is  said  to 
rise  through  the  planetary  circles,  laying  its  vices  down  in  order  until  at 
the  eighth  stage  it  '  chants  the  father  in  company  with  ra  oiTa  \  Now 
just  as  the  new  birth  is  a  metaphor,  just  as  the  farmer  sowing  seed  is 
a  metaphor,  so  is  this  rising  through  the  planetary  circles  a  metaphor: 
and  the  real  meaning  which  underlies  it  is  found  in  a  moral  change,  in 
the  discarding  of  vices  and  the  acquisition  of  the  virtues.  That  is  to 
say,  the  writer  does  not  treat  the  Gnostic  ogdoad,  or  decad,  or  dodecad, 
as  fixed  schemes  of  thought,  but  as  pictorial  statements  thrown  out  at 
certain  moral  facts.  Hence  we  have  to  face  this  possibility,  that  the 
orthodox  criticism  of  Gnosticism  is  largely  based  upon  a  misapprehen- 
sion, which  insisted  upon  taking  metaphor  for  doctrine. 

The  writer  of  the  Poemandrts  lets  it  be  seen  clearly  that  he  is 
consciously  using  figurative  modes  of  speech,  as  when  (x  15)  he  says 
that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  the  ascent  to  Olympus-  The  seventh 
chapter  contains  traces  of  an  interesting  attempt  to  incorporate  this 
notion  of  an  ascent  into  Christian  belief:  /x^  <rvyicareKcx^«  rotyo/jovv 
T«{i  TToAA^  pci^jtJtartt  dka^po/t^  h\  ^frrp-dftcvot  61  Suva/xcvot  Xa^ccr(9a4  rov  rijs^ 
trtiyn}piai  Xt^cvot,  ivopfua^npitvot  tovtw  ^rfn^art  )((tpayuyyov  rov  oSijryTjNTawra 
v/jLas  cVt  Tas  rrii  yvaicreiy?  $vpa^  ottqv  ccrrt  to  kafiwpov  <^<ji«,  to  Ka&a/MV 
VKOTov^f  Sirov  ov5e  c(9  fuBvtiy  dXXa.  wdyrf^  vtji^ovfFiVi  li^ptovrc^  T^  KapBuf. 

ft?  TO*'  opaOrjvai  Oikovra.  Now  this  whole  passage  receives  a  most 
suggestive  commentary  in  the  exposition  which  Hippolytus  quotes  from 
a  heretical  writer  of  the  sect  of  the  Naassenes  (J?e/uL  v  7  f ).   The  spiritual 


406         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


birth  is,  according  to  the  Naassenes,  o  /xcyas  lopSaviys,  Sv  ttdrm  piavra 
teal  KOikvovra  ii€k&€tv  tov«  vlov5  ^l<rpaij\  <k  y^s  AtyvnTov  ,  -  .  dveWctXir 
'Ii^o-ov?  Koi  iTTotTfa-tv  avui  pitiv.  The  same  writer  proceeds  to  explain  the 
meaning  of  the  door ;  Xcyet  o  ^Ityrovs;'  *Eyw  ct/w  tJ  t^Xtj  tj  aXrj6ivij.  In 
the  third  place  the  body  is  put  off  in  a  spiritual  resurrection.  It  is 
a  fair  inference  from  these  resemblances  that  the  writer  of  the 
Faemandres  and  the  Naasseoe  writer  are  occupied  with  the  same 
context— an  inference  which  will  lead  us  to  some  important  further 
consequences, 

IV, 


The  traditional  estimate  of  Gnosticism^  then,  requires  to  be  recon- 
sidered, in  the  light  of  the  Fotmandres.     It  belongs  to  a  time  when 
religious  definitions  were  still  in  the  making  ;  a  time  therefore  when  the    _ 
limits  of  free  discussion  were  not  yet  straitly  drawn.     Hence  the  varied    I 
presentations  of  religious  belief  which  we  find  in  Irenaeus,  Hippolytus, 
Tertullian,  would  not  be  admitted  by  their  exponents  to  be  in  conflict 
with  the  Christian  faith^  but  would  rather  be  regarded  as  exhibiting 
new  and  fruitful  applications  of  principles  common  to  alL     Ecclesias- 
tical opinion   ultimately  settled   down   in   one  direction   rather  than 
another.     But  until  this  process  was  complete,  each  living  system  of 
belief  might  count  upon  a  possible  victory^  and  so,  among  others,  the 
system  which  may  be  traced  in  the  Focmandres  *.     And  the  Foemaftdres  ■ 
is  so  far  from  being  a  merely  heretical  production,  that  its  relation  to 
orthodox  belief  may  fairly  be  indicated  by  saying  that  it  answers  to  the 
earlier  intellectual  position  of  Clement  of  Alexandria.  ■ 

And  perhaps  this  is  as  suitable  place  as  any  to  mark  the  date  ■ 
and  origin  of  the  Foemandrts.      It  will  be  found  that  the  relations 
which  we  have  traced  between  the  book  and  other  early  Christian 
literature,   agree  very   well   with    a    time    towards    the    end    of   the 
second    century.      Nor    does    this   date    preclude   us   from   finding 
occasional  traces  of  even   earlier  material      The  author  may   very 
well   have   combined,   with    material    of   his    own,   expositions    from 
other   sources   with   which   he   found   himself   in  agreement.      It   is  J 
perhaps  in  this  way  that  we  may  explain  the  occasional  variations   ■ 
in  detail  which  chequer   the  fairly  uniform   character  of  the  work. 
It  is   a  production   which   stands   halfway   between   the   Gnosticism 
of  the  Valentinian  type,  and  that  Gnosticism  of  Clement  and  Origen 
which  ultimately  became  the  official  theology  of  the  Church,     The 
FoemandreSy   in   fact,  carries   us   back    to   that   common    standpoint 


*  The  ordinary  use  of  the  term  *  Gnostic '  tends  to  obscure  the  claim  of  the 
Gnostic  sects  not  only  to  be  part  of  the  true  Cburch^  but  the  most  perfect  part  of  it; 
though  the  historiiuM  of  Doctrine^  of  course,  recognize  this  cLaim  as  characteristic. 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


407 


from  which  both  the  Valentinians  and,  later^  Origen,  took  their 
start.  The  thinkers  to  whom  Hippolytus  gives  the  name  Naassenes, 
styled  themselves  Gnostics  pure  and  simple.  And  their  system  is 
identical  in  all  main  respects  with  the  system  of  the  Poemandres, 
In  both  cases  we  find  the  free  use  of  Greek  mythology  to  embody 
Christian  ideas.  And  the  Hermes  of  the  Pmmandres  is  simply  the 
Hermes  of  the  Naassene  Gnostics  transplanted  to  Egyptian  soiL  More 
than  this,  we  find  the  common  use  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Egyptians^  and  by  comparing  the  Focmandres  with  the  exposition  given 
in  Hippolytus 'S  Refutations^  we  are  enabled  to  add  considerably  to  our 
knowledge  of  that  GospeL 

V. 

The  ftinctions  of  Hermes  in  Greek  religion,  and  of  Thoth  in 
Egyptian  religion,  offered  a  sufficiently  close  analogy  to  the  mission  of 
Jesus,  and  Christian  writers  hastened  to  make  use  of  this  analogy, 
*Just  as  the  Greek  philosophers  had  found  their  philosophy  in 
Homer,  so  Christian  writers  found  in  him  Christian  theology.'* 
Taking  Homer  Odyssey  xxiv  i  ff  as  a  text,  the  Gnostics  traced  the 
resemblances  which  held  between  Christ  and  the  Greek  Hermes. 
Hermes  charms  the  eyes  of  the  dead,  and  again  he  wakes  those  that  are 

asleep :  ittpi  toiVojv,  <^;jcrtV,  *)  yfKk^ri  Acyct*  *Eyctpat  o  HtiB€v^v  kqX 
i^tytpOrjiTLf  Kal  iin<liavtr€i  crot  o  Xpttrro?.  oCtos  €(mv  0  Xptorof,  a  iv  iroo't, 
4^Wh  TOts  y€vrjTot^  vti«  avSpwirov  Kt^apajcTripuTfjiivo^  afro  rov  d^^apQJcrrifKijTOV 

koyov  (Hipp-  Pe/ut.  v  7).  Now  since  the  Foenutndrei  belongs  to  the 
same  school  of  thought,  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  Jesus  is 
represented  under  the  figure  of  the  Eg>'ptian  Hermes.  Poemandres, 
who  is  6  T^^  ai'^evTias  vovs,  instructs  Hermes,  and  after  the  instruction  he 

asks :  Xowrov  ti  jtieAAei? ;  mxy^  ai?  Trdvra  TrofuAaji^uiK  ica^b-S'jyyo^  ytFjf  TOt? 
dftbts,  07rtt«  ro  ycvw  rij?  ayBpixmrn-qro^  Siot  troij  wo  6'coS  trtu^  ;  (i  26)  *. 
Hermes  then  proceeds  with  what  is  in  all  probability  a  paraphrase  of 
the  third  JLogton  lesu ;  flpy^t  jo^piWtiK  roit  av^p^irot^  rh  rijs  cvo-c^cuic 
icat  TO  riys  yvuKrcw?  koAAo^*  <S  Xao4  dv^pts  yTycvci?,  oi  p-(Oj^  kol  vjtv^ 
^avrotiTf  ckSc$(i>kotcc  teal  tq  ayytinri^  rov  0coil,  joji/^arc,  Trav<ra<T&f  tcpatjraXwvrt^f 
$fXyafi(voi  vTTvt^  SXoyt^  (i  27).     And  some  gave  themselves  up  to  '  the 


^  Hatch  Hibbert  Lid,  p.  69. 

'  This  turn  of  phrase  may  be  compared  with  t  CUm.  61  crol  iiopoXoyo^fitffa  i  A 
rov  4ipXi*pioj%  Hal  wpoffTarov  tSjv  rftvx'^  vftSn^  'iTjrcrot!  Xpiorov,  and  the  Didacht  10  {rttkp 
T^  yvutatati  Koi  viart^t  xal  ddayaaia§,  ^t  lyyiffntrat  ilffuv  9id  *lr}aov  rov  wm^t  aov. 
That  is  to  say,  the  position  which  is  assigned  to  Jesus  in  the  Potmandrea^  answers 
to  the  early  view  which  finds  its  most  character ist^c  expression  in  what  Hamack 
styles  the  adoptiomsm  of  the  Shepherd  {Sim,  v  and  ix  i,  13  ^  Hamack  Hiit, 
Dogm.  tr.  i  190). 


4o8         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

way  of  death ' '  i  ol  ^  waptKdkaw  $tSax^i7vai>  iavTovt  wp^  iFoSwiv  fMi 
^tf/avTii.  iyoi  Si  dlvatrnjira^  avrov%  KaOo^rjyo^  iyfvo^rjv  rov  y^vovi  nn 
Av&fHitvivoxii  TOLft  Xayov^  SiBa<rKti)Vf  irtit^  koI  tlvl  rp6Tn^  au^Oi^ovraL.  koI  lonrtipa 
o^i?  ToiJS  rrjt  o-o<^iat  Aoyov?  jcal  irpd^ijowf  {Patr.  hrpo^tfo-a)  ht  to4 
AfJ^Ppoaiov  vBaro^.  m/ria?  Bk  ytvofiivrj^  irai  r^^  rov  ^X/ov  avy^  apyofjuofffi 
hUtrBai  0X175  CKcAfvcro  avtovs  cv;(ttp*orT€tv  ty  ^ly  (i  29).  It  would  bc 
interesting,  but  superfluous  for  our  present  purpose,  to  trace  all  the 
connexions  between  this  passage  and  the  evangelical  narrative.  We 
may,  however,  note  the  conclusion  cvXoyrp-o^  cT  iranp'  6  cros  <lK^pwxw, 
a-wayioJ^tiv  troi  Povktrai^  HaBut^  ?rapcS<i)Ka$  avrcu  17/y  Tao-av  i$o\xriay  {i  32) 
with  its  reference  to  St,  John  xvii  2. 

Since  theti,  the  identification  of  Jesus  with  Hermes  took  place  ia 
circles  which  formed  part  of  the  Christian  community,  we  shall  not  be 
surprised  to  find  that  one  of  the  leading  types  of  Christian  art,  the  Good 
Shepherd,  was  immediately  adapted  from  a  current  representation  of  the 
Greek  Hermes  (see  Sitll  Klassiscke  Kunstarchdologit  777,  809,  819), 
As  we  see  from  Hippolytus  {Rt/tti,  v  7),  the  Gnostics  were  especially 
interested  in  Hermes  as  Hermes  Logins,  a  type  which  was  increasingly 
frequent  in  later  Greek  art.  And  this  epithet  was  connected  by  them 
with  the  conception  of  Jesus  as  the  Logos.  Now  another  type  of 
Hermes,  the  Kriophoros,  served  to  bring  together  Jesus  as  the  Logos, 
and  Jesus  as  the  Good  Shepherd.  These  representations  of  Jesus  begin 
in  the  second  century ;  and  so  they  correspond  in  order  of  time  with 
the  appearance  of  the  Gospei  according  (o  the  Egyptians,  and  of  these 
Gnostic  compositions  which  largely  depend  upon  it. 

Another  fact  leads  us  to  think  that  the  figure  of  the  Good  Shepherd 
had  its  roots  in  a  previous  tradition.  Mt  is  probable  that  there  were  no 
statues  before  the  age  of  Constantine,  except  the  Good  Shepherd.'  *  We 
must  therefore  add  Hermes  to  the  list  of  pagan  types  which  were  taken 
over  for  its  own  purposes  by  the  rising  Christian  art. 

Moreover,  we  are  enabled  to  advance  one  step  further  the  long-stand- 
ing controversy  as  to  the  portraits  of  Jesus,  Since  the  figure  of  the 
Good  Shepherd  is  borrowed  from  Greek  sculpture,  it  cannot  bc  used 
as  evidence  for  the  earliest  conceptions  about  the  appearance  of  Jesus. 
And  so  the  arguments  of  Farrar  and  others  fall  to  the  ground  in  so  far 
as  they  take  the  presence  of  this  type  to  shew  that  there  was  no  genuine 
tradition  of  Christ's  appearance. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  throw  a  little  further  light  upon  the 
famous  inscription  of  Abercius.  The  inscription  speaks  of  a  shep> 
herd— 

»  Ct  Didathe  5, 

'  Lowrie   Christian   Art   and  Archaeology  p.   ago.      This    is   one  of  the   few 

omj&sions  that  loay  be  noted  in  Mr.  Lowrie '&  valuable  Iwok. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


409 


Of  ^ocTJCct  trpopdrtav  aycXa?  6p€(nv  TreSibt?  T€ 

0&n>5  yap  /i*  cSiiSafc  .  <  .  ypd/ifiara  vurrd  ^. 

The  shepherd  whose  great  eyes  look  in  every  direction,  is  no  other  than 
Hermes  treated  as  a  symbol  of  Christ.  And  so  some  of  the  arguments 
which  may  be  directed  against  the  Christian  character  of  this  inscription, 
and  to  which  Harnack  {cf,  C/ass.  Rev,  ix  297)  attaches  an  exaggerated 
weight,  are  turned  aside.  It  is  very  likely  that  the  figure  upon  the 
lotnb  of  atsother  Abercius  *  is  also  adapted  from  the  figure  of  Hermes. 


» 


VL 


We  now  approach  what  is  perhaps  the  most  important  contribution 
which  the  Poemandres  makes  to  our  knowledge :  namely  the  light 
which  it  throws  upon  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egypiians  and  the 
Logia  Jcsu, 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians  was  much  better  known  than 
might  be  gathered  from  the  current  accounts  of  it.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  quotes  several  passages  from  it  (see  Strom,  iii  6  45  ^  g  63, 
64,  66 ;  1392).  It  was  used  by  the  Valentinians  {Fragm,  Theodot.  67), 
and  probably  by  the  author  of  the  Homily  ascribed  to  Clement  of 
Rome  (§  xii).  In  tendency  it  was  Sabellian,  and  it  was  used  by  persons 
of  that  way  of  thinking  in  the  third  century  (see  Epiph.  Haer.  62  2, 
who  quotes  the  saying  tov  avroi/  cTvai  xaT</>tt,  rhv  avrov  eTvat  vtoy,  tov 
fLinh¥  cTvat  aytoy  TTKcv/Lta).  But  we  are  fortunate  in  having  an  explicit 
indication  of  the  contents  of  this  Gospel,  an  indication  which  deserves 

^  The  Potmattdrts  would  suggest  that  the  kcuna  contained  some  such  phrase  at 
wotir  or  f  odr  : 

t^os  y&p  fi    ISfAo^v  vMiV  ital  jp&tJttiaTa  mffrd. 

Among  the  works  which  Trom  time  to  time  are  sttnbuted  lo  Hermes,  there 
occurs  the  name  r^  aJy.fi(vtxta)tA,  Casaubon,  in  one  of  his  less  happy  moments^ 
suggests  that  it  la  denvcd  from  Salamis  XakantHaxd  {Dt  Rebus  Sacns  55).  If^ 
however,  we  turn  to  Hippolytus  {Rf/nt.  v  7)^  we  find  that  the  Gnostic  writer  is 
occupied  with  the  question  who  was  the  first  man,  and  quotes  a  poem  which  has 
t>eeji  attributed  to  Pindar.     This  poem  begins — 

•fre  fioianrcMViv  ' AkakxoftfVtvt  ktfums  bvip  Ka^i<r(8oi 

*AXakMOfiitnof  was  the  name  of  the  first  month  in  the  Boeotian  year.  On  the  six- 
teenth  a  festival  was  held  to  commemorate  the  battle  of  Plataea,  and  at  this  festival 
the  Plalaean  priest  prayed  to  Zeus  and  Hermes  Chthonios.  The  name  itself  seems 
to  have  been  derived  from  a  cult-name  of  Athena,  Itiad  iv  8.  I  would  suggest  Uien 
that  a  Hermetic  writing  was  current  under  the  name  t^  ' AXoKmOfttrtiuta,  A  con- 
siderable discussion  is  devoted  by  the  Gnostic  writer  iit  Hippo!ytus  RtfuL  v  7  to  the 
nature  of  the  first  man,  a  topic  which  of  course  filled  the  mind  of  St  Paul.  And 
the  name  'Aka?<)cont¥taK6  would  suit  such  a  subjcct*matter  very  wclL 
'  See  Ramsay  CkMnM  in  ik«  Roman  Empirt  441. 


4IO         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

more  attention  than  it  has  received.     ETvcu  Sc  ^Mtrl  r^v  ^jruxyF  Suffcvperw 

iravTJ  teat  BvaKaravorjrov'     ov  yap  ^fvti  IttI  axT^fiaTOfi  ovtk  /uo/x^^f^  tt/s  avr^ 
'wavTOTt  ovSi  iraBov^  *vds,  iva  Tts  avrr/v  tj  tuttw  cijt^  ■^  ovcuf  KaTa\itj%fniTaJi. 
Ttt?  Si  j^oAAa^ac  ravra?  rttf  ?roixtXas  ^v  Toi  fTriypa(f>o fUvij^  kot   Alyw^navi    _ 
fiuayyfXAii  tcitfJiiva^  i)(Ovatv  (Hipp.  Refut.  V  7).  ■ 

Let  me  now  recall  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  dose  parallel 
which  we  traced  between  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Paemandres^  and 
a  considerable  portion  oF  Hipp.  R^ff4L  v.  It  is  intpossible  to  believe 
that  such  resemblances  could  be  fortuitous.  The  explanation  which, 
I  think,  will  cotnraend  itself  upon  a  careful  survey  of  the  facts,  is  that 
both  writers  had  before  them  the  Gospd  according  to  the  Egyptians, 
The  description  of  that  Gospel  which  we  have  just  quoted,  occurs  early 
in  the  description  of  the  Gnostic  (or  so-called  Naassene)  system  j  and  it 
may  be  said  of  the  Gnostic  system,  as  of  the  Gospel,  that  it  is  concerned 
with  the  changes  of  the  soul. 

But  the  author  of  the  P&emandres  also  belongs  to  the  same  school 
with  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  (compare  xiii  21  ^«c,  <rv  ira-rxp,  ov  6  Kvput^ 
{TV  Q  vow  with  the  Sabellian  tenet  already  quoted  from  Epiphanius). 
Not  only  so,  he  twice  (i  27,  vii  i)  paraphrases  the  third  Legion  Iesu\ 
and  there  is  considerable  reason  for  believing  that  the  Logia  lent  are 
extracts  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians.  For  in  the  Classical 
Review  (xii  35)  I  shewed  that  the  second  Logion  was  to  be  referred  to 
a  context  from  which  Clement  quotes  {Strom,  iii  15  99),  and  that  this 
context  is  probably  the  Gospel  in  question.  Hence  we  reach  this 
important  conclusion  that  the  Potmandres^  the  Naassene  writings  sum- 
marized by  Hippolytusj  and  the  Logia  lesu  are  all  based  upon  the 
heretical  Gospel 


VII. 

Not  only  so  ;  by  combining  the  scattered  hints  which  we  may  glean 
from  these  several  connected  sources  we  are  enabled  to  enter  more 
fully  into  the  Alexandrine  life  of  the  first  and  second  Christian 
centuries.  And  in  so  doing  we  find  ourselves  better  placed  for  under- 
standing the  composition  and  origin  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  I 

Let  us  begin  with  the  title  of  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  Poemandrts^  ■ 
hf  6p€i  Xoyo?.  *  The  sermon  on  the  mountain  *  would  suggest  to  the 
Gnostic  reader,  not  the  beginning  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  one  of 
His  discourses  delivered  after  the  resurrection,  Menard's  remarks  {op, 
at.  Ixiii)  lose  their  point  because  they  ignore  the  characteristic  distinc- 
tion between  the  public  discourses  of  Jesus,  and  the  mystical  discourses 
delivered  to  the  disciples  alone  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives. 

*  In  the  CJassicalHeviiw  xvii  251,  I  have  suggested  an  eroend&tion  io  the  ttiird 
Logion  witb  the  help  of  tbeae  paraphrases,  npf^ayra  for  Si^^to. 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


4" 


If  we  compare  Clem,  Alex.  Strom,  iii  13  92  Truv^avoju-evT^s  r>5s  %oXmfiy^ 
xoT€  yvui<rB^*i<T(Tai  to.  w€pl  «5k  7}perOf  With  the  quotation  in  '  2  Clem,'  xii 

introduced  by  the  words  ctrfpa/nj^eis  yap  avro^  6   #cvptos  VTTO  Ttvos  wm 

^f«  avTov  17  fifKriXtUi  we  are  led  to  think  of  the  passage  in  the  Acts  of  the 
jtpostits  i  6  ot  /jtcv  ovv  (ruvcAlSoKre?  i^jp^iroijv  avrov  Xcyovr*?  Kvpic,  ct  fv  T<fii 
Xpovf^  TotJrtp  d7ro*«:a<?<.<rrav€i«  Wjiy  y^acrtXeuiv  tw  *I<Tpa>5X  J  (cf,  i  4  kiy^av  ra 
ircpi  TTJs  ^acrtActa?  tov  ^€ov).  It  was  on  these  two  passages  that  the 
early  Christian  imagination  erected  an  enormous  structure  of  apocryphal 
literature,  all  professing  to  set  forth  the  revelations  of  the  risen  Lord  to 
His  disciples.  Thus  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  the  scene  of  the  conversa- 
tions recorded  in  the  J^'stis  Sophia,  It  is  remarkable  that  Salome 
herself  appears  in  the  Pistis  Sophia  as  one  of  the  women  who  accom- 
panied the  Apostles  on  these  occasions  (tr.  Schwartze,  p.  213).  Now  in 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians  Salome  puts  questions  to  Jesus, 
and  receives  answers  very  similar  to  the  conversations  which  make  up 
the  staple  of  the  Fistis  Sophia  (see  Clem.  Strom,  iii  9  63  f).  It  is  thus 
very  probable  that  the  Gospel  according  to  ike  Egyptians  consisted  in  con- 
versations which  took  place  after  the  resurrection  upon  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  and  that  the  title  of  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  Foemandres 
conveyed  an  allusion  to  the  same  locality. 

Now  it  is  instructive  to  note  that  Salome,  who  plays  so  prominent 
a  part  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians^  is  the  mother  of  St  John, 
and  that  the  same  Gnostic  circles  in  which  this  Gospel  was  current,  were 
also  those  in  which  we  hear  for  the  first  time  of  the  Fourth  GospeL 
That  is  to  say,  the  Fourth  Gospel  comes  to  us  from  the  hands  of  the 
Alexandrine  Gnostics.  The  system  of  Valentinus  is  really  a  somewhat 
fanciful  commentary  upon  the  opening  chapters  of  St  John^s  Gospel, 
Heracleon,  the  first  great  commentator  upon  St  John,  was  both  a  Gnostic 
and  at  the  same  time  was  really  the  master  of  Origen,  and  through  him 
helped  to  determine  the  developement  of  the  orthodox  theology.  Now 
the  key  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Gnostic  ideas  which  underlie  the  Foemandres^  ideas  to  which  Heracleon 
furnishes  a  clue.  But  the  commentators  have  refused  the  help  which 
the  Gnostics  could  give,  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  been  consistently 
misunderstood  owing  to  the  exaggerated  stress  which  has  been  laid 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Xdyo^.  A  few  considerations  upon  this  point 
shall  bring  this  paper  to  a  close. 

In  the  Foemandres  the  term  TrvrD/jta  is  still  used  in  the  traditional 
medical  sense  x  13  ro  8*  Trvet'/ia  .  .  Kwtl  to  {<Iiov.  Along  with  air  tnf^vpjo, 
fills  vacua  (ii  11),  The  soul  uses  the  irv<v/jca  as  a  vestment.  For  the 
vTcv^  pervades  the  living  creature.  The  whole  theory  of  the  irvcv^a  is 
not  very  clearly  expressed,  but  it  seems  to  be  borrowed  from  Galen 
(Sicb.  Geschichte  der  Fsychologie  I  ii  145).     If  this  is  the  case,  we  reach 


4ia         THE   JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOCICAX   STUDIES 

an  upward  limit  for  the  date  of  the  Poemandres,  which  catuiot  in  this 
case  be  earlier  than  the  end  of  the  second  century.  The  interesting 
enumeration  of  the  parts  of  the  body  (v  6),  shews  that  the  writer,  if  no( 
himself  a  physician,  was  at  any  rate  in  touch  with  the  medicine  of  his 
time.  The  spirit  of  Greek  science  has  not  yet  been  submerged  entirely 
under  the  rising  flood  of  mysticism. 

Now  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  connexion  of  the  N.T.  idea  of 
irfcTpi  with  Greek  ideas,  '  is  most  perceptible  in  the  Johannine  Gospel 
(which  stands  near  Alexandrine  culture)  with  its  analogies  of  Divine 
spirit  and  moved  air  of  breath  *  (Sieb.  op,  (it.  I  ti  157),    QL/ok,  xx  22 

itat  Toirro  tl^xiiv  ivf<^v<njcr€¥  #cal  Acy*c  avrot?  Aa^crc  urrDfia  ayiav.  Here 
undoubtedly  frnvfjua  is  used  in  a  partly  material  sense,  and  the  term  is 
ambiguous.  Hence  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  in  the  Poemandrts  ■ 
that  irvtvfia  is  con&ned  to  the  material  sense  and  is  replaced  by  another 
term,  namely  vov?,  in  order  to  denote  the  highest  or  spiritual  nature. 
The  author  thus  removes  the  ambiguity  which  attaches  to  the  Johannine 
conception  of  -rvtv^a.  by  analysing  it  into  the  material  itvcv/ao,  and  the 
immaterial  vov%.  Hence  throughout  the  Poemandm  foOs  replaces  irrcv^ 
in  the  sense  of  spirit.  Thus  God  is  addressed  as  Father,  Lord,  and  M 
vqI%  (xiii  3t).     The  laver  of  regeneration  is  filled  with  voO?  (iv  3),  ■ 

The  Xoyo9  is  subordinated  to  the  vov?.  All  men  have  Xoytw,  not  all 
men  have  kow,  tqv  ^tv  o'v  Xoyov  iv  irao-i  toI?  dv^pwo*?  ifUpiartf  tw  ^ 
yow  ovKtri  (iv  3).  The  presence  of  the  Xoyos  in  man  is  explained  as  to 
iv  (Tol  pkiirov  koI  Akovov  (i  6),  Now  a  careful  reading  of  the  opening 
chapters  of  *S/  John's  Gospel  will  shew  that  the  writer  introduces  the 
Xoya?  in  the  prologue,  as  a  transition  from  a  subject  in  which  he  is  only 
partially  interested,  to  his  proper  subject,  the  new  birth  which  is  brought 
about  by  the  imparting  of  the  spirit  by  Jesus.  Hence  the  phrase 
'  incarnation  of  the  A»yo9  *  does  not  render  to  us  the  leading  purpose  of 
the  writer,  and  the  theology  which  is  based  upon  that  phrase  is  an 
inadequate  criticism  of  his  thoughts,  Both  in  5/  John  and  the 
Poemandres^  man  is  imperfect  until  he  receives  the  Divine  Gnosis. 


VHL 

The  Potmandrts^  then^  is  a  very  striking  exponent  of  the  religious  and 
philosophical  ideas  amid  which  Alexandrine  theology  arose.  On  the 
one  hand  it  is  in  touch  with  Greek  mythology  and  science ;  on  the 
other  with  Jewish  and  Christian  literature.  The  author  is  more  sober 
than  most  of  his  Gnostic  contemporaries;  he  is  a  more  consistent 
reasoner  than  Ciement.  I  have  but  indicated  a  few  of  the  problems 
which  the  P^tmandres  raises  and  helps  to  solve,  and  should  like  to 
think  that  this  paper  may  lead  other  students  to  the  same 

Frank 


me  field.  ^ 

«K  Granger.        I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


413 


THE  FIRST  LATIN   CHRISTIAN   POET 


Isidore  of  Seville,  in  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  writes  that 
*the  first  composer  of  hymns' — that  is  to  say,  in  Latin^ — ^*was  Hilary 
the  Gaul,  Bishop  of  Poitiers*,'  That  Hilary  was  a  hymn-writer  is 
known  from  more  than  one  passage  of  Jerome,  who  was  twenty  or 
thirty  years  of  age  when  Hilary  died.  In  one  passage  he  mentions 
that  Hilary,  *  whose  Latin  eloquence  is  like  the  river  Rhone,  but  who 
was  himself  a  Gaul,  and  bom  at  Poitiers,  describes  the  Gauls  in  one  of 
his  hymns  as  difficult  to  teach '-'  And  in  the  account  of  Hilary  which 
he  gives  in  his  Notices  of  Remarkable  Men,  he  mentions  a  Book  of 
Hymns  and  of  Mysteries  written  by  him  *. 

The  Book  of  Hymns  and  MysUries  was  lost,  though  a  few  poems 
have  been  ascribed  to  Hilary  on  varying  degrees  of  authority,  A  letter, 
appended  to  the  biography  of  Hilary,  which  was  written  by  a  distinguished 
man  who  succeeded  him  in  the  bishopric  of  Poitiers  after  an  interval 
of  two  hundred  years,  mentions  two  hymns  as  sent  along  with  it,  a 
morning  and  an  evening  hymn,  which  the  writer  presents  to  his  little 
daughter  Abra,  or  Apra  \  The  general,  though  by  no  means  unanimous, 
verdict  of  scholars  has  been  that  the  letter  to  Abra  is  to  be  reckoned 
spurious.  But  even  if  it  is  genuine,  it  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  on  what 
grounds  the  Benedictine  editor  convinced  himself  that  the  hymn  Lucis 
iargitor  was  the  morning  hymn  referred  to,  or  on  what  grounds  Mai 
connected  the  penitential  verses  Adcaeliciara  non  sum  dignus  sidera  with 
the  evening  hymn.  A  hymn  beginning  Hymnum  dicai  turba  fratrum  is 
ascribed  to  Hilary  in  the  ancient  Irish  Uber  Hymnarum  •,  as  well  as  by 
Hincmar,  Archbishop  of  Rheims  in  the  ninth  century  j  but  in  the 
absence  of  further  evidence  little  heed  has  been  paid  to  thai  ascription, 
Mr.  Glover,  in  his  charming  Life  and  Letters  in  the  Fourth  Century^ 
knows  only  of '  some  dull  and  rather  halting  hexameters  on  Genesis  *  as 

^  A  paper  read  befare  a  College  Classical!  Society. 

"  Di  Off,  EccL  i  6- 

'  Prae/at.  i»  GalaL  II  *  in  hymnorum  carmine  Gallos  indociles  uocat '.  The  con- 
text, if  not  the  words  themselves,  makes  it  dear  ihat  he  does  not  mean,  ms  some 
have  supposed,  that  Hilary  said  that  it  was  haird  to  teach  the  Gauls  lo  siag  hjrmns. 

*  Dt  Vir,  Inlusir.  c  'et  liber  hymnorum  ct  mysteriorum  alius',  it  is  not  clear 
whether  Jerome  intends  to  speak  of  these  as  one  book  or  aa  two — *  and  another 
book  of  hymns  and  mysteries',  or  'and  a  book  of  hymns  and  another  of  mysteries*. 
1  incline  to  the  former  rendering. 

'  So  Mai  prefers  to  write  it  {N^va  Bibt.  Patmm  I  p.  475). 

*  Edited  for  the  Henry  Bradshaw  Society  by  the  present  Dean  of  St  Patrick's. 


414        THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


being  attributed  to  Hilary  of  Poitiers :   but,  as  he  justly  says, 
believed  that  they  are  not  his  work  *. 

In  recent  times,  however,  fresh  light  has  been  thrown  upon  the 
poetical  activity  of  Hilary.  Signor  Ganiurrini  discovered  in  the  beautiful 
library  of  the  Confraternity  of  Santa  Maria  della  Fieve  at  Arezzo 
a  MS,  written  in  Lombardic  character,  of  about  the  eleventh  century, 
which  contained  matter  of  extraordinary  interest.  A  great  part  of 
it  was  occupied  by  a  pious  lady's  account  of  her  pilgrimage  to  the 
Holy  Land  in  the  fourth  century '.  To  the  worid  of  letters  in  general 
this  was,  no  doubt,  the  most  important  part  of  the  treasure  trove. 
But  the  MS  contains  also  a  large  portion  of  the  long4ost  treatise  of 
Hilary  upon  the  Mysteries,  the  last  page  of  which,  after  a  gap  of  some 
thirty-two  pages,  fortunately  remains  to  tell  us  what  it  is — Hnit  tradatus 
mytteriarum  S.  Hylarii  episcopi ;  and  then  follows  the  heading  Incipiunt 
Hymni  eiusdem.  Garaurrini,  who  had  already  made  known  his  discovery 
in  a  learned  periodical  in  1884,  three  years  later  published  the  whole 
contents  of  his  MS  in  a  quarto  volume.  Unfortunately,  his  skill  in 
deciphering  his  MS  was  not  equal  to  his  merit  in  finding  it ;  and  in  the 
part  which  concerns  us  at  present,  the  facsimile  page  which  he  has  given 
us  enables  us  frequently  to  correct  his  published  text  of  the  first  hymn. 
Sometimes  he  has  made  intentional  corrections  of  the  MS  text  which 
are  not  required.  Truth  compels  us  to  add  that  the  volume  contains 
so  many  misprints  as  seriously  to  shake  our  confidence  in  Gamurrini*s 
printed  text.  I  subjoin  an  attempted  revision  of  the  text,  and  can  only 
wish  that  I  had  been  able  to  make  it  more  perfect  by  a  new  examination 
of  the  MS',  Gamurrini's  facsimile  only  carries  us  as  far  as  I  31. 
Where,  after  that  point,  my  critical  notes  say  *  MS  \  it  must  be  under- 
stood that  Garourrini's  reading  of  the  MS  is  meant 


I 


Felix  Prophita  David  primvs  organi 

In  carne  Ckristvm  hvmnis  mvndo  nvntians. 

I 

Ante  saecula  qui  manes, 

semperque  nate,  semper  ut  est  Pater, — 

nam  que  te  sine  quomodo 

dici,  ni  pater  est,  quod  pater  sit,  potest? — 

'  Lift  and  Letters  ^.  ag^  (Cmmbridge,  i^hoi). 

*  Subsequent  discoveries  shew  that  the  tady  was  a  Spania^rd  called  Etheria 
(Ferotin  Lt  veritable  auteur  d$  la  Peregrinatto  Silvieu  1903). 

*  A  somewhat  improved  text  was  published^  but  without  a  fresh  inspection  of 
the  MS,  by  the  learned  hymnologist,  Dreves,  in  the  Zeitschrip  far  KaiholisdH 
TkeoiogiefoT  1888  (vol,  xii),  together  with  an  interesting  paper  upon  the  hymns  ; 
but  hia  puLOCtuation  of  the  poem  makes  it  impossible  to  construe  in  parts. 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  415 

Bis  nobis  genite  Deus, 

Christe,  dum  innato  nasceris  a  Deo, 

uel  dum  corporeum  et  Deum 

mundo  te  genuit  uirgo  puerpera,  8 

Credens  te  populus  rogat, 

hymnorum  resonans  mitis  ut  audias 

uoces  quas  tibi  concinit 

aetas  omnigena,  sancte,  gregis  tui.  la 

Dum  te  fida  rogat,  sibi 

Clemens  ut  maneas,  plebs  tui  nominis, 

in  te  innascibilem  Deum 

orat,  quod  maneat  alter  in  altero.  t6 

Extra  quam  capere  potest 

mens  humana,  manet  Filius  in  Patre; 

nirsum,  quem  penes  sit  Pater, 

dignus,  qui  genitus  est  Filius  in  Deum.  ao 

Felix,  qui  potuit  iide 

res  tantas  penitus  credulus  assequi, 

ut  incorporeo  ex  Deo 

perfectus  fuerit  progenitus  Dei.  34 

Grande  loquimur  et  Deum 

uerum,  ut  genitor,  quicquid  inest  sibi 

aeternae  decus  gloriae, 

totum  in  unigenam  ediderit  Deum.  18 

Hinc  unus  merito  bonus 

ipsum,  quod  Deus  est,  extra  inuidiam  sui 

gigni  uellet  in  alterum, 

transformans  se,  ut  est,  uiuam  in  imaginemu  3a 

Istis  uera  patet  Dei 

uirtus:  cum  dederit  omnia,  non  tamen 

ipsis,  quae  dederit,  caret, 

cuncta,  quae  sua  sunt,  cum  dederit,  habens^  36 

Kara  progenies  Dei, 

cognatum  cui  sit  omne  decus  Patris, 

nil  natae  eguit  dari, 

sed  natum  simul  est  quicquid  erat  Dei.  40 

Lumen  fulsit  a  lumine, 
Deusque  uerus  substitit  ex  Deo 

33.  ms.— in  39.  ms.  nate  4a.  Gam.  subsistit  {foniian  per  iiiSHfiam) 


4X6         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

uero,  non  aliud  habens 

ortus  unigena  quam  innatcibflif  Pater.  44 

Minim  Dei  hoc  opus  est, 

aetemus  ut  incorruptibilis  Dens, 

ortu  qui  careat,— quia 

sit  sempiterna  uirtus,  quod  est  Deui,—  4S 

Non  natis  quibus  est  in  bonis 

ex  sese  placidus  gigneret  in  Deum ; 

ac  sic  unigena  in  Deo 

hoc  ipsud  ortu,  quod  genitum  est,  caret.  51 

O  felix  duum  unitas, 

alter  qui  cum  sit  mixtus  in  altero, 

imum  sic  faciunt  duo, 

sit  in  duobus  cum  quod  est  in  altero.  56 

Patri  sed  genitus  paret, 

omnemque  ad  nutum  attonitus  manet, 

et  scire  non  est  arduum, 

quid  uelit,  sese  qui  penes  est.  Pater.  60 

Quanta  est  genitus  in  bona; 

nam  constitutus  in  cunctorum  exordio, 

condens  qui  primum  saecula 

aetemum  in  motum  tempora  protulit,  64 

Rebus  anterior  Deus 

cunctis, — nam  per  cum  omnia  facta  sunt, 

esset  cum  nihilum  modo, — 

mundum  corporeo  condidit  in  statu.  68 

Sed  nos  littera  non  sinit, 

per  quam  te  genitum  concinimus  Deum, 

gesta,  quae  tua  sunt,  loqui 

carmenque  natum,  iam  qui  eras  Deus,  7a 

Te  cunctis  Dominum  modis 

caelorum  regem  et  caelestis  gloriae, 

ut  cuncta  per  te  condita 

•        *•*•• 

II 

Fefellit  saeuam  Verbum  foctum  et  caro; 
Deique  tota  uiui  in  corpus  imiis.  la 

51.  MM,  in  imigeu  61.  ma,  eacordU 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  417 

Gaudens  pendentem  cemis  ligno  cum  crucis, 
tibique  membra  fixa  clauis  uindicas. 

Hanc  sumis  ante  pompam  tanti  proelii 

sputus,  flagella,  ictus,  cassa  harundinis.  16 

Ibat  triumpho  morte  sumpto  a  mortua 
Deus  inferno  uinci  regno  nesciens. 

Kandens  frigescit  stagnum ;  pallida  est  iugis 

rigensque  nescit  Flegethon  se  feruere.  ao 

Lux  orta  uastae  noctis  splendet;  inferum 
tremit,  et  alti  custos  saeuus  Tartan. 

Mors,  te  peremptam  sentis  lege  cum  tua, 

Deum  cum  cernis  subdedisse  te  tibi.  34 

Non  est  caducum  corpus  istud,  quod  tenes, 
nullumque  in  illo.  ius  habet  corruptio. 

Omnis  te  uincit  camis  nostrae  infirmitas  > 

natura  camis  est  connata  cum  Deo.  a8 

Per  hanc  in  altos  scandam  laeta  cum  meo 
caelos  resurgens  glorioso  corpora. 

Quantis  fidelis  spebus  Christum  credidi, 

in  se  qui  natus  me  per  camem  suscipit.  3  a 

Renata  sum — o  uitae  laetae  exordia — 
nouisque  uiuo  Christiana  legibus. 

Sanctis  perenne  munus  praestat  hoc  Dei, 

conformi  secum  uiuant  post  haec  corpore.  36 

Terror  recedat  sortis  tandem,  mors,  tuae; 
sinu  me  lactam  patriarcha  suscipit. 

Viuam  locata  post  haec  in  caelestibus, 

Dei  sedere  carnem  certa  a  dexteris.  40 

Xriste,  reuersus  caelos  uictor  in  tuos, 
memento  camis,  in  qua  natus  es,  meae. 

Ymnos  perennes  angelomm  cum  choris 

in  hoc  resurgens  laeta  psallam  corpore.  44 

Zelauit  olim  me  in  morte  Satanas; 
regnantem  cernat  tecum  totis  saeculis. 

13.  ms.  gaudes  .  .  .  carnis       17.  ms.  mortem  sumpta  mortno       9 a.  ms,  tremet 
3a.  ms.  suscepit  34.  ms»  nouis  quae  36.  n$s,  corpora  37.  lortis 

ffts.  mortis 

VOL.  V.  EC 


4l8         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


III 

Adae  cernuata  gloria  et  caduci  corporis, 

in  cadesti  rursum  Adam  concinamus  proelia, 

per  quae  primom  Satanas  est  Adam  uictus  in  nouo. 

Hostis  fallax  saeculorum  et  dirae  mortis  artifex, 

iam  consiliis  toto  in  orbe  uiperinis  consitiS) 

nihil  ad  salutem  praestare  spei  huraanae  existimat- 

Gaudet  aris,  gaudet  templis^  gaudet  sanie  uictimaey 
gaudet  falsrs,  gaudel  stupris,  gaudet  belli  sanguine, 
gaudet  caeli  conditorera  ignorari  genlibus. 

Inter  tanta  dum  exultat  nostrae  cladis  funera, 

Deo  audit  in  excelsis  nuntiari  gloriam, 

et  in  terra  pacem  hominum  uoluntatis  optimae. 

Terret  coetus  angelorum  laetus  ista  praedicans, 
teiret  Christum  terris  natum  nuntians  pastoribus, 
magnum  populis  hinc  futurom  desperatis  gaudium, 

Errat  partes  in  diuersas  tantis  rebus  anxius ; 

quaerit  audax  et  quis  hie  sit  tali  dignus  nuntio, 

nihil  ultra  quam  commune  est  terris  ortum  contuens.  i8 

Cernit  tamen,  his  quod  lohannes  in  desertis  praedicet, 

aquis  mersans  in  lordanis,  cunctis  paenitentiam, 

quam  sequatur  confessorum  criminum  remiss  io.  ii 

Inter  turbas*  quae  frequenter  mergebantur,  acdpit 
uocem  e  caelo  praedicantem,  *  me  us  est  hie  filtus ; 
hunc  audite;  hie  dilectus,  in  quo  mihi  complacet.'  14 

Cernit  hominem,  cernit  corpus,  quod  Adae  perlex  erat; 

nihil  ultra  uox  honoris  afferebat  desuper; 

scit  terrenam  subiacere  mortis  legi  originem.  17 

Ad  temptandum  multas  artes  priscae  fraudis  commouet; 
quaerit  audax  tern  pus  quid  sit  .  .  . 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  Arezzo  MS  does  not  give  us  any  one 
hymn  of  Hilary  in  full.  It  contains  large  fragments  of  three  hymns. 
Between  the  first  and  second  fragments,  twelve  pages  of  the  MS  have 
been  lost.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  how  much  has  been  lost  after  the 
third  fragment.  How  Uirge  the  collection  originally  was,  we  cannot  say. 
The  missing  pages  may,  or  they  may  not,  have  contained  the  hymns 

f .  ms»  Adae  ceinis  gloriam  9.  nts.  ig:iiorare  24.  hie  ms.  hinc 

a8.  ms,  &audes 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


419 


w4</  caeli  clara^  Luch  largitor^  and  Hymnum  dicat  It  would  not  even 
be  quite  certain,  without  investigation  of  the  contents,  whether  the 
heading  Indpiunt  hymni  eiusdem  was  intended  to  apply  to  all  our  three 
fragments,  or  whether  the  hymns  of  Hilary  ended  somewhere  in  the  lost 
pages  and  a  new  heading  hegan.  These  questions  can  only  be  answered 
after  careful  investigation  of  the  second  and  third  of  the  fragments. 

That  the  first,  at  any  rate,  of  the  three  hymns  discovered  by  Gamurrini 
is  a  genuine  work  of  Hilary  can  hardly,  I  think,  be  doubled  ^  Its  close 
connexion  with  the  Tractatus  Myskriorttm  is  exactly  in  keeping  with 
the  way  in  which  Jerome  speaks  of  the  Book  of  Hymns  and  of  Mysteries. 
The  theology  of  the  hymn  is  precisely  the  theology  of  Hilary's  great 
work  on  the  Trinity.  The  style,  in  its  involutions  and  obscurities,  is  as 
much  like  that  of  Hilar/s  treatises  as  could  be  expected  in  comparing 
verse  with  prose.  There  are  constructions,  phrases,  and  favourite  words 
which  point  strongly,  when  taken  in  conjunction,  to  the  Bishop  of 
Poitiers,     I  will  call  attention  to  a  few  of  them. 

Among  constructions  may  be  mentioned  the  use  of  quod  with  the 
subjunctive  in  oratio  odiiqua^  instead  of  the  accusative  and  infinitive. 
Thus  vv.  3,  4  we  have  quomodo  did  .  ,  .  quod  pater  sit  potest^  '  how  can 
it  be  said  that  He  is  Father?'  The  same  construction  occurs  in  lit  19 
cernit ,  .  .  quod  Johannes  ,  .  .praedicef,  *he  sees  that  John  is  preaching.' 
Hilary  not  infrequently  uses  this  construction :  t.%,  de  Trin.  \  20  noH 
negare  quod  steterif  \  .  .  .  noli  nesdre  quod .  .  ,  Deus  natus  sit\  iv  42 
audit  Israel^  quod sibi  Deus  unus  sit;  v  16  memento  quod  .  .  .  sis  pro- 
fessMS ;  v  33  ignoras  quod  .  ,  .  uiderit;  vi  21  eredo  .  .  .  quod^  quae  tua 
sunty  tius  sint^  et  quae  eius  sunt^  tua  sint.  The  useful  particle  quod^  on 
its  way  to  become  the  ehe  and  que  of  the  Romance  languages,  is  of 
course  common  in  fourth -century  Latin ;  but  it  is  not,  I  think,  so 
common  in  other  authors  with  the  subjunctive  \  they  usually  put  the 
verb  in  the  indicative  *. 

A  remarkable  phrase  occurs  in  v,  20.  There  we  read  qui  genitus  est 
filius  in  Deum^  *  the  Son  who  is  born  God  *  (or  *  God  by  birth') ;  in  28, 
in  unigetiam  ediderit  Deum^  *that  the  Sire  should  have  reproduced 
undiminished  in  an  only  begotten  God  whatever  splendour  of  eternal 
glory  there  is  in  Himself*;  in  31  gigni  ueitet  in  aiterum^  'should  wish 
His  very  Godhead  to  pass  by  generation  into  another';  in  ^o gigneret 
in  Deum^  *that  the   eternal  and   incorruptible   God  should   without 


*  The  most  careful  examination  known  to  me  which  rejects  the  Hilarian  author- 
ship is  that  of  Mr.  E.  W.  Watson  in  the  Introduction  to  his  translation  of  Hilary 
in  the  Niun*  and  Post  Nictne  Fatktrs, 

•  Jerome  perhaps  uses  the  subjunctive  more  frequently  than  the  indicative ;  see 
ihc  instances  in  Goelzcr's  Latinitg  d*  S.  Jiromt  p.  375  foil.  The  instances  in 
Rcgnler's  Lah'ni/t  cUs  Strmons  d§  S.  AugusHn  p.  lia  foil,  are  about  half  and  half. 

E  c  a 


420         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


effort  beget  out  of  Himself  His  unoriginate  elements  of  bliss  into  one 
who  is  God '.    The  phrase  is  a  very  bold  and  striking  one»     Gamurriai, 
who  seems  to  have  felt  no  difficulty  over  the  three  earlier  cases,  thought 
to  simplify  the  foorth  by  omitting  the  in.     But  this  was  quite  unneces- 
sary.    The  expression  is  highly  Hilarian.     In  <^  Trin.  iv  35  we  read, 
idcirto  Deus  Hus  est^  quia  ex  eo  mttus  in  Dcum  est^  *God  is  Christ'ifl 
God,  because  to  Him  He  owes  His  birth  as  God*;    in  v  35  the  Arians 
say  that  Christ  is  non  ex  Deo  natus  in  Deum,  sed per  ereationem  susceptus 
infiUum  \    in  v  37  Hilary  writes  neque  abest  a  se^  quod  uiuus  genuifimM 
uiuum  ;   in  vi  i  r  quod  per  natiuitatis  ueritatem  ex  Deo  in  Deum  extiiit]  ■ 
in  vi  13  natiuitas  ,  . .  Dei^  quae  ex  Deo  in  Deum  extitit  j  in  vi  \%  U 
iaborans  ui  de  non  extantibus  nasceretur^  id  esty  non  a  Deo  Patre  in  Deum 
Fiiium  uera  et perfecta  natiuitate  nafusessef;  in  vii  11  quae  cum  in  Deum  _ 
filium  cum  substantia  uerae  natiuitatis  extiterint,  Deo  iamen^  ut  sua  propria^  ■ 
quamuis  ex  eo  in  Deum  sint  nata^  non  desunt.      Instances  might  be 
multiplied  from  Hilar)',  but  I  do  not  remember  the  use  of  this  turn  of 
expression  in  any  other  author.  ■ 

Such  phrases  as  w.  30  ipsum  quod  Deus  est,  48  quod  est  Deus^  to  " 
express  what  constitutes  Godhead,  have  a  very  Hilarian  sound.     I  quote 
rather  at  random  from  de  Trin.  iii  3  omne  quod  Deus  est .  ,  ,  natiuitati 
eius  imperii tn$ ;  iv  8  conantur  .  ,  .  fi/io  au/er re  quod  Deus  est ;  x  19  habern 
in  se  et  totum  uerumque  quod  homo  est,  et  totum  uerumque  quod  Deus  cf/ ;  ■ 
xi  4  cui  non  sit  ex  natiuitate  quod  Deus  est. 

Again,  the  Greek*! ike  phrase  v.  49  quibus  est  in  bofUs^  may  be 
paralleled  by  such  passages  in  Hilary  as  de  Trin.  xi  4,  where,  after 
recounting  the  attributes  of  Godhead,  Hilary  complains  that  according 
to  the  Arians  our  Lord  is  extra  hanc  beatitudinem^  manens  ipse  d 
mortalis  et  infirmuset  malus^  .  .  .  dum  in  his  Pater  solus  est  j  ix  31  Deum 
in  his  ostendit  intellegendum  esse  quae  sua  sunty  in  uirtute^  in  aetemitate 
cet, ;  ibid,  unigenitus  igitur  in  his  se  docens  substitisse  quae  Patris  sunt; 
ibid,  61  quod  in  his  quibus  ipse  est,  ei  qui  ex  se  est  Pater  totus  sit. 

The  little  phrase  ut  est  in  v.  32  is  a  favourite  phrase  of  Hilary's. 
Compare  de  Trin,  ii  7  Deumque  ut  est  quantusque  est  non  eioqu€tur\ 
8  est  Pater  ut  est^  et  ut  est  esse  credatur ;  vi  1 2  Deus^  ut  est  Deus^  qucd 
€st^  perffianet. 

When  we  come  to  special  words,  perhaps  unigena  and  innascibilis  are 
the  two  which  most  closely  link  the  hymn  to  the  prose  writings  of 
Hilary — especially  when  unigena  is  joined  to  Deus,  The  word  unigtnitus 
could  not  easily  be  got  into  the  metre  of  the  hymn,  although  Gamurrini, 
misreading  his  MS  and  misunderstanding  his  metre,  has  endeavoured 
to  cram  it  in.     Unigena  does  duty  for  it  (vv.  28,  44,  51).     I  may  say 


Cp.  Srawley's  Greg.  Nyss.  Or.  Cat.  pp.  9,  93. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


421 


h 


* 


in  passing  that  Hilary  does  not  appear  to  have  actually  read  unigenitus 
Deus  in  the  famous  text  of  St  John  (118);  when  he  formally  quotes  the 
text  he  gives  it  as  unigenitus  filius,  unless  the  printed  editions  mis- 
represent him.  But  the  phrase  Deus  umgenifiis  occurs  in  him  more 
frequently  than  in  any  other  author,  or  than  its  equivalent  Greek  either. 
It  comes  scores  and  scores  of  times  in  the  de  Trinitait.  It  comes  in 
the  Mysteriorum  Liber  on  the  same  page  of  Gamurrini  as  our  hymn 
itself.  So  does  innasdbUis^  which  represents  the  Greek  ayeM'^ro?. 
I  have  counted  nineteen  occurrences  of  tire  word,  together  with  the 
slill  more  unpromising  substantive  innascibilUas^  in  the  fourth  book 
of  the  de  Trimtaie  alone. 

Ma  Here  again,  in  the  sense  of  vwap^uy,  which  comes  in  the  first 
line  of  the  hymn,  and  which  in  14,  18,  20  is  almost  a  synonym  of 
esse^  is  a  thoroughly  Hilarian  word.  In  dealing  with  the  famous 
text  Phil,  it  6  he  again  and  again  interprets  the  word  iirapx^^ 
by  manere.  In  de  Trtn.  ix  14  we  have  ^ui  in  famta  Dei  manelfat, 
formam  semi  accepit ;  and  again  atmque  accipere  formam  serut  nisi  per 
euacuaiionem  suam  non  potuerit  qui  manebat  in  Dei  forma.  In  these 
and  similar  passages  Hilary  does  not  mean  by  manebat  that  the  Son 
remained  m  the  form  of  God  while  assuming  the  form  of  man.  It  is 
one  of  his  peculiarities  to  suppose  that  the  assumption  of  the  form  of 
the  servant  involved  the  abandonment  of  the  form  of  God — though  he 
understands  the  word  *  form  '  in  a  different  sense  from  most  theologians. 
His  manebat  there  refers  to  the  essential  existence  of  Christ  before  the 
Incarnation  ;  *  He  who  was  (at  the  moment  of  the  Incarnation)  abiding 
in  the  form  of  God  (abandoned  that  form  and)  took  the  form  of  a 
servant ',  The  use  corresponds  exactly  with  our  ante  sa^cula  qui  manes. 
So  again  in  de  Trin.  xi  1 4  we  read  manens  igitur  in  forma  seruiy  gut 
manebat  in  Dei  forma  \  ibid,  in  forma  Dei  manens  formam  semi 
assumpsit.  Or,  leaving  the  text  from  Philippians,  we  get  manere  = 
xmapx*^y  in  such  sentences  as  these:  de  Trin,  vi  12  natura  ilia  non  .  .  . 
ex  diuersis  constat  ut  maneat  \  13  non  enim  qui  manebat  DeuSy  sed 
ex  manente  Deo  Deus  nafus  est;  xii  25  nemini .  .  .  dubium  est  quin  .  ,  . 
natiuitas  manentem  doceat^  non  etiam  non  mane n tern ;  ibid,  cum  ex 
manente  natus  esty  non  est  natus  ex  nihilo  \  36  ne  forte  ante  Mariam 
fwn  manere  existimareiur  \ 

The  curious  use  of  the  word  penes  which  twice  over  in  this  hymn 
denotes  the  mutual  indwelling  of  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  (19,  6o)» 
occurs  in  Hilary's  Comm,  in  Malt,  xxxi  3  quod  is  ipse  est  penes  quern 
erat  antequam  nasceretur,     1  do  not  remember  this  use  elsewhere. 

The  more  this  hymn  is  examined  in  detail  *  the  more  abundantly 

'  ConstitHtus  (v.  6a)  is  another  representative  of  jfiv  or  im^i^X'^^* 

*  A  few  special  points  in  the  hyion  may  be  illustrated  thus  :  v.  20  dignus^  cp. 


422         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


dear  it  becomes  that  the  attribution  of  it  to  Hilary  of  Poitiers  is 

correct. 

The  results  which  this  conclusion  conveys  to  the  classical  and 
philological  student  are  not  without  importance.  We  cannot  but  be 
interested  to  see  how  a  bishop  of  one  of  the  most  cultured  parts  of  Gaul 
in  the  fourth  century  went  to  work  to  commend  his  doctrine  to  the 
people.  Hilary  was  himself  a  good  scholar,  both  in  Greek  and  in 
Latin.  He  had  been,  like  other  great  Latin  Fathers,  a  student  of 
philosophy^  and  had  found  the  study  a  bridge  to  Christianity.  During  his 
exile  in  the  East,  if  not  before,  he  became  acquainted  with  the  use  of 
religious  poetry  among  Greek-speaking  Christians.  He  probably  learned 
how  the  Arians  employed  verse  as  a  medium  for  disseminating  their 
heresy*  He  determined  to  make  a  similar  attempt  in  Latin  for  the 
propagation  of  the  Catholic  faith.  The  little  prologue  to  his  book  of 
hymns  shews  that  he  was  conscious  of  the  boldness  of  his  attempt. 
*  Happy  the  prophet  David,  who  was  the  first  to  announce  to  the  world 
in  hymns  Christ  in  the  flesh  of  service.'  Hilary  felt  that  he  was  putting 
himself,  like  a  new  David,  at  the  head  of  a  new  line  of  hymn-writers, 
to  proclaim  the  incarnate  Christ  to  the  western  world. 

The  first  thing  which  Hilary  had  to  do— at  any  rate  the  first  after 
selecting  his  special  theme— was  to  select  a  metre.  His  first  choice 
was  a  somewhat  strange  one.  He  took  the  asclepiadean  metre  of 
Horace's  third  ode  r— 

Sic  te  diua  potens  Cypri, 
sic  fratres  Helenae,  lucida  sidera. 

For  purposes  of  convenience  he  grouped  his  lines  in  stanzas  of  four. 
Horace,  in  many  cases,  did  the  same,  though  Munro  refused  to  say  that 
he  did  so  always.  Hikiry  does  not  always  mark  the  end  of  his  quatrain 
by  a  break  in  the  sense,  as  Ovid  marks  his  couplets  ;  but  he  marked 
the  beginnings  of  them  by  following  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  The 
Old  Testament  probably  gave  the  first  suggestion  of  this  arrangement, 
where,  besides  Psalm  cxix,  a  good  many  other  Psalms  and  Lamentations 
are  alphabetical  ^  Not  only  the  first  of  Hilary's  hymns  was  composed 
on  the  alphabetical  plan  :  the  second  of  Gamurrini's  fragments  was 
composed  on  the  same  plan,  and  it  is  so  Car  in  favour  of  the  Hilarian 


I 


I 


I 


dU  Trim  iv  lo^cum  jwtius , « .gloriosus  auctor  sit,  ex  quo  is  qui  tali  gloria  sit  dignus 
cjttiterit'.  v.  30  txtra  tMuidiam  :  cp.  c&  Trin.  ix  61  'qui  diljg^t,  non  tnuidet,  ct 
qui  pater  est,  non  etiam  non  pa,tcr  totus  est ',  Ibid,  uiuani  in  imagtMetn  :  cp. 
d*  Trin.  xj  5  '  Dcum  uiueatis  Dei  uiuam  imaginem '.  v.  38  cognatutni  cp.  d4 
Trin.  ix  31  *  iiaturalis  igttur  filio  Dei  ct  congenita  omnia  potestaa  est*. 

*  This  way  of  treating  verses  was  not  foreign,  however,  to  the  genius  of  Latin 
poetry,  Cicero  tells  us  {D*  Dimn,  ii  54)  that  some  of  the  poems  of  Ennius  were 
acrostichal  in  character. 


-   I 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


423 


authorship  of  Ad  caeli  dara  that  it  likewise  is  alphabetical.  The  device 
was  no  doubt  an  aid  to  memory.  It  approved  itself  to  bter  hyran- 
writers  within  the  patristic  period,  who  wrote  not  for  scholars  but  for 
the  people  ;  and  Augustine's  swinging  Hymnus  Abccedarius  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Sedulius's  fine  poem  beginning  A  salts  ortus  cardim  on  the 
otheij  shewed  what  could  be  done  in  that  way. 

Hilary  chose  an  elaborate  Horatian  metre  for  his  first  hymn,  but 
he  dealt  with  it  in  a  way  that  would  have  made  Horace— or  Quintilian 
— *  stare  and  gasp',  though  Priscian  or  Servius  would  have  regarded 
it  with  greater  equanimity.  According  to  the  Horatian  scheme,  the 
odd  lines  prefix  a  spondee,  the  e\^n  lines  a  spondee  and  a  choriambus, 
to  the  two  final  dactyls.  Hilary>,  knowing  that  metres  were  made  for 
men,  and  not  men  for  metresj  felt  free  to  alter  this  scheme  where  it 
suited  his  purpose.  Not  only  did  he  freely  put  a  trochee — or  less  often 
an  iambus — for  a  spondee  at  the  beginning  of  any  line — he  begins 
straight  away  with  Ante  saecula—hm.  he  freely  puts  a  spondee  or  quasi- 
spondee,  or  even  an  iambus  in  place  of  the  first  three  syllables  of 
the  choriamb  us  of  the  even  lines— ^nd  more  frequently  as  the  poem 
goes  on  :— 

»  semperque  natCj  |  semper  ut  est  Pater 
6  Christe,  dum  innato  |  nasceris  a  Deo 
38  cognatum  cui  sit  |  omne  decus  Patris 
42  Deusque  uerus  |  substitit  ex  Deo 
48  sit  sempiterna  |  uirtus  quod  est  Deus 
52  hoc  ipsud  ortu  |  quod  genitum  est  caret 
54  alter  qui  cum  sit  |  mixtus  in  altero 
56  sit  in  duobus  |  cum  quod  est  in  altero 
58  omnemque  ad  nutum  |  attonitus  manet 
60  quid  lie  lit  sese  |  qui  penes  est  Pater 
64  aetemum  in  motum  |  tempora  protulit 
72  carmenque  natum  |  iam  qui  eras  Deus 
74  caelorum  regem  et  |  caelestis  gloriae. 

These  rhythms  occur  thirteen  times  out  of  the  thirty *seven  possible 
opportunities.  But  Hilary  takes  an  even  wider  view  of  the  capacities 
of  his  metre.  In  at  least  one  formidable-looking  line,  he  resolves  the 
initial  spondee  into  a  dactyl — that  is,  a  dactyl  of  a  kind : — 

62  nim  cdnstitutiis  tn  cQnc|tdriim  ^xordKo. 

The  same  seems  to  be  the  only  possible  account  of  a  line  stil!  more 
formidable,  unless  the  copyists  have  done  it  an  injustice :  I  mean  the 
line— 

44  ortGs  (genitive)  Qnig^n^  qu{am)  in[nascib!lis  PStSr. 


424         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


In  other  words^  he  treats  the  first  half  of  the  long  asclepiad  line  as  the 
first  half  of  a  \^riable  pentameter,  or  of  an  alcaic,  or  of  a  sapphic,  just 
as  it  suits  him* 

But  the  liberties  which  Hilary  took  with  his  metre  were  of  a  far  more 
striking  kind  than  a  mere  alteration  of  the  feet  which  compose  it.  The 
feet  themselves^  spondee,  trochee,  iambus,  even  dactyl,  are  not  feet— or 
only  accidentally  so — which  Horace  would  have  rccogriized  as  such.  To 
all  intents  and  purposes  they  are  accentual,  and  not  quantitative  feet 
A  most  interesting  paper  by  the  great  Munro  *  takes  a  Latin  metrical 
inscription  at  Cirta  as  the  text  for  an  essay  on  the  substitution  of  accent 
for  quantity  in  the  making  of  Latin  verse.  In  that  inscription  the 
substitution  is  complete,  as  it  is  also  in  the  verses  of  Comroodian. 
As  Munro  shews,  the  worthy  banker,  whose  tomb  it  adorns,  had  never 
learned  prosody,  and  read  his  Virgil  by  accent  and  by  nothing  else. 
I  wish  that  Munro  could  have  threaded  for  us  the  intricacies  of  the 
metrical  laws  by  which  Hilary  was  governed.  They  were  not  quite 
so  simple  as  those  of  the  banker  of  Cirta.  Hilary  is  not  wholly  un- 
influenced by  quantity*  Probably,  if  he  had  chosen,  he  could  have 
written  as  good  quantitative  verses  as  his  contemporary  and  fellow 
countryman,  Ausonius.  There  is  indeed  one  false  quantity  in  his  first 
hymn,  which  no  ingenuity  can  explain  away :  it  is  in  the  sadly  scas&nHc 
line  57  Patri  sed  geniftis  pant  But  there  is  no  other  shortening  of 
a  naturally  long  syllable  which  can  be  quite  set  side  by  side  with  this*. 
Accent,  at  any  rate,  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  shortening,  for  the 
accent  in  any  case  would  be  upon  the  first  syllable  oi  pard.  The  line 
itself  may  be  taken  as  an  example  to  shew  that  Hilary  was  not  guided 
by  accent  alone.  To  Praecilius  of  Cirta  Ftiiri  std  genitus  paret  would 
have  been  two  dactyls  and  a  spondee  (or  trochee) ;  to  Hilary  it  is 
a  spondee  (or  trochee)  and  two  dactyls.     Quantity  with  him  still  counts 


I 


I 


1  '  On  »  metrical  Latin  Inscription  at  Ctrta,'  in  the  Tmftsactums  of  tkt  Camlmi^ 

PJnTosopfii'cal  Society  vol.  x  part  11  (Cam bridge,  i86[), 

'  Unless  it  be  (63)  *  condcni  qui  primum  saecula'.  It  will  be  observed  tbat  if 
this  line  be  read  accentually  it  would  nearly  agree  with  *  bis  nobis  genite  Deus*,  or 
ufl  dum  corportum  §t  Dtitm^  or  ft  scirt  noH  est  arduum^  or  indeed  with  almost  all  the 
short  lines  of  the  poem.  It  would  seem  from  such  lines  as  if  Hilary  read  his  nauU 
qua*  tibicridstutn  as  a  dimeter  iambic.  Even  quanta  «s/  genttus  in  bona  might  be 
reconciled  with  that  scheme,  by  leaving  the  a  unelidcd,  and  (as  is  frequent  in 
conversational  Latin)  ignoring  the  1  in  gtffitus.  But  there  are  at  any  rate  nine 
lines  which  would  not  lend  themselves  to  that  scansion.  Dura  U  fida  rvgat  slbi 
would  resist  it  as  obstinately  as  sic  U  diua  potens  Cypri.  Metrically^  perhaps,  the 
raost  difficult  line  in  the  piece  is  the  last  but  one, 

CaelOfTHm  ngim  et  caelestis  ghriai. 

The  accent  of  cadisHs  makes  it,  of  course,  as  unlike  a  dactyl  as  the  quantity. 
1  cannot  but  think  that  there  is  some  error  of  transcription. 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  425 

for  something.  But  it  counts  for  very  little.  He  had  not  the  horror 
of  the  profanum  uulgus^  which  Munro  shews  to  have  induced  Horace 
to  make  accent  and  quantity  so  often  clash.  His-^eat  desire  was  to 
popularize  his  thoughts.  Accentual  verses  were  what  the  people  liked, 
and  made,  and  sang.  So  long  as  the  people  in  general  had  an  ear  for 
quantity,  they  made  and  sang  verses  in  which  accent  and  quantity  went 
together ;  but  when  the  decay  of  quantity  took  place,  accent  had  things 
all  its  own  way. 

Unus  h6mo  mille  mille  mille  decollauimus ; 
tantum  uini  hdbet  nemo  quantum  fudit  sanguinis. 

So  sang  the  boys  of  Rome  to  salute  a  victorious  emperor  at  the  end  of 
the  third  century.     Hilary  took  the  side  of  the  people. 

Let  me  say  again  that  Hilary  was  an  explorer  and  a  pioneer. 
*He  was  the  first  who  ever  burst'  into  the  untried  region  of  Latin 
Christian  hymnody.  Other  writers  who  followed  him  seem  to  have 
felt  that  in  submitting  to  the  demands  of  accent  he  had  made  a 
mistake.  The  genuine  hymns  of  Ambrose,  the  poems  of  Prudentius, 
of  Sedulius,  and  of  Venantius,  are  far  more  classical  and  quanti- 
tative in  their  construction  than  those  of  Hilary.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  whether  their  greater  success  in  the  way  of  use  in  church 
is  in  any  degree  owing  to  this  cause,  or  whether  it  is  all  to  be 
traced  to  their  higher  poetical  genius  and  more  touching  devotional 
power.  But  Hilary,  at  any  rate,  had  no  experience  of  others  to  direct 
him.  He  had  to  make  the  venture  for  himself;  and  if  some  of  the 
great  fathers  of  Christian  poetry  shrank  from  following  him  in  this 
particular  respect,  there  were  others,  of  scarcely  less  merit,  who  flung 
the  scholastic  traditions  of  quantity  altogether  away,  and  wrote  hymns 
like  Ad  cenam  Agni  prouidiy  and  Urbs  beata  Jerusalem^  and  Sancti 
uenitCy  ChrisH  corpus  sumiie^  without  regard  to  anything  but  accent 

I  will  not,  however,  pursue  further  the  somewhat  intricate  question 
of  the  relation  of  accent  to  quantity,  but  will  call  attention  to  one 
or  two  other  features  in  Hilary's  first  hymn  which  illustrate  the  state  of 
the  Latin  language  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century. 

Observe  the  freedom  with  which  Hilary  uses  or  refuses  elision. 
Munro's  Numidian  banker  seems  to  have  known  nothing  of  elision. 
There  are  cases  in  Hilary's  poem  where  we  may  take  our  choice 
whether  to  elide  or  not.  In  ChristCy  dum  innato,  or  Totum  in  unigenam, 
the  first  foot  may  be  a  dactyl  or  a  trochee,  as  we  may  be  pleased  to 
read  it.     But  in  the  lines — 

7  uel  dum  corporeum  et  Deum 
23  ut  incorporeo  ex  Deo 


426         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


elision  is  necessary :  in  the  lines —  ^M 

26  yenim,  ut  genitor,  quicquid  inest  sibi  ^M 

I  52  iransformans  se,  ut  est  B| 

45  mirum  Dei  hoc  opus  est,  "" 

elision  is  impossible.  Classical  students  will  remember  how  casiif 
a  juxtaposition  like  se  ut  est  or  iam  ^ui  eras  (where  the  se  and  qui  are 
shortened  by  position),  could  be  paralleled  out  of  Plaulus  or  Terence. 

It  is  perhaps  more  interesting  to  observe  that  Hilary  uses,  when  he 
likes,  the  elision  of  the  final  s  with  a  fdlowjng  est — or  rather  perhaps 
I  should  say,  how  he  uses  the  shortened  esi^  which  is  so  familiaj  in  the 
older  Latin  poetry.     That  is  obviously  the  scansion  of — 

20  dignus,  qui  genitu(s  e)st  filius  in  Deum 
and  of^ 

30  ipsum,  quod  Dcu{s  e)st,  extra  inuidiara  sui 
and  of^ 

49  non  natis  quibu(s  e)st  in  bonis. 

It  seems  to  me  that  a  similar  account — that  is,  of  an  enclitic  and  abbre- 
viated «/— is  the  best  that  can  be  given  of  the  line — 

56  sit  in  duobus  cum  quod  (e)st  in  altero. 

1  need  hardly  say  that  the  treating  of  quodst  as  a  short  syllable  is 
not  at  all  beyond  what  the  Latin  playwrights  would  hav'e  thought  per- 
missible. 

The  only  other  thing  that  I  need  notice  in  the  first  hymn  is  the 
curious,  the  violent  use  which  the  poet  makes  of  hyperbaton.  It 
sometimes  seems  as  if  he  paid  no  regard  to  the  order  in  which  the 
words  should  stand,  like  an  English  schoolboy  making  Latin  verses 
for  the  first  time.  In  the  third  stanza,  resonuns  belongs  either  to 
pQpulus  in  the  line  before,  or  to  <utas  two  lines  below.  I  think  it  goes 
best  with  the  latter.  In  the  O  stanza  is  a  still  more  complicated 
arrangement.  The  ^wi*  which  is  the  subject  <y\  faciunt  is  intruded  into 
the  first  cum  clause.  This  would  not  be  so  bad  by  itself,  but  a  second 
cum  clause  follows^  in  which  the  cum  appears  at  the  very  end  of  the 
sentence,  except  for  the  phrase  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  verb. 
Written  in  straightforward  prose,  it  would  be  cum  quod  est  in  altero 
in  duobus  sit.  That  Hilary  liked  this  position  for  the  cum  is  shewn 
by  his  writing  a  little  below  esset  cum  nihilum  modo^  when,  for  all  that 
can  be  seen,  cum  esset  would  have  suited  his  prosody  quite  as  welL  So, 
for  that  matter,  would  cum  in  duohts  sit.  But  perhaps  the  most  difficult 
transposition  of  all  is  in  the  last  unfinished  sentence  which  closes  the 
fragment.  Hilary  seems  to  mean  that  the  point  of  the  alphabet  which 
he  has  reached  {Uttera)  will  not  admit  of  his  treating  of  the  wonders 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES  427 

of  creation,  in  which  the  Son  of  God  had  His  share,  nor  of  His  Incarna- 
tion. If  carmenque  natum  is  what  Hilary  wrote,  carmen  is  coupled 
to  littera^  and  we  have  to  supply  non  sinii  loqui  before  natumy  which 
agrees  with  the  U  of  the  following  stanza.  But  this  is  very  harsh,  and 
I  rather  suspect  that  carmenque  natum  is  a  mistake  for  camemque  natam, 
or  something  of  that  sort. 

Whether  Hilary  wrote  any  more  hymns  in  these  elaborate  metres 
we  cannot  tell ;  but  few  readers,  I  think,  will  be  inclined  to  doubt  that 
he  was  more  successful  with  the  iambic  and  trochaic  metres  of  the  other 
two  fragments  which  Gamurrini  has  given  us,  if  indeed  he  was  the  author 
of  them. 

I  must  admit  that  there  has  been  some  question,  even  among  those 
who  accept  Hilary's  authorship  of  Ante  saecula  qui  manes,  as  to  whether 
these  other  two  poems  are  to  be  ascribed  to  him.  The  speaker  in  the 
second  fragment  is  a  feminine  speaker : — 

29  per  banc  in  altos  scandam  laeta  cum  meo 

caelos  resurgens  glorioso  corpore; 
and  again — 

33  renata  sum — o  uitae  laetae  exordia — 

nouisque  uiuo  Christiana  legibus. 

(Compare  w.  38,  39,  40,  44.)  Gamurrini  therefore  supposes  it  to 
be  the  poem  of  some  lady  neophyte,  which  Hilary  has  incorporated 
into  his  collection.  He  thinks  that  he  has  discovered  the  lady. 
She  was  a  certain  Florentia,  whom,  according  to  Venantius,  Hilary 
met  and  baptized  in  his  exile,  and  who  followed  him  to  Poitiers  on 
his  return.  This  is  of  course  possible;  but  on  the  other  hand,  as 
Duchesne  has  pointed  out\  there  is  no  reason  why  Hilary  should 
not  have  composed  the  poem  for  the  use  of  Florentia  or  of  some  other 
lady.  If  there  is  any  historical  foundation  for  the  statement  that  he 
composed  a  morning  and  an  evening  hymn  for  his  daughter  Abra, 
nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  that  these  verses  should  have  been 
written  for  a  Christian  woman's  use.  We  might  even  suppose  that 
they  were  written  for  Abra  herself.  Dreves,  indeed,  thinks  that  as  she 
appears  to  have  been  baptized  at  the  same  time  as  her  father,  it  is 
unlikely  that  he  would  have  written  such  a  poem  at  such  a  moment 
It  need  not,  however,  have  been  written  at  the  time  of  their  baptism. 
The  language  would  be  appropriate  for  a  baptized  Christian  at  any 
period  after  baptism  —  especially  at  Eastertide,  to  which  the  hymn 
evidently  belongs.  I  would,  however,  venture  the  suggestion  that  the 
ten  lost  lines  at  the  beginning  may  have  contained  words  that  gave 

^  BMlUiin  Criiiqut,  1887,  No.  23. 


428         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

another  reason  for  the  feminine.     For  instance,  the  speaker  may  c< 
ceivably  be  the  Christian  soul. 

In  these  two  poems,  Hilary  whom  I  assume  for  the  moment  lo 
the  author,  shews  to  far  greater  advantage  than  in  the  first.  The 
subjects,  no  doubt,  are  easier  to  treat ;  but  the  verse  also  mo\'es  with 
greater  freedom  and  force.  The  accent  no  longer  struggles  for  mastery 
with  quantity ;  its  dominion  is  unchallenged.  The  only  places  where 
accent  and  ictus  do  not  always  agree  are  the  first  and  last  foot  of  the 
iambic.  It  gives  variety  lo  get  sometimes  a  rhythm  like  tifa/  triumphi>^ 
sputus  flagellar  in  the  first  foot,  instead  of  having  always  one  Xxk^/efUHt 
saeimnty  Deique  iota ;  and  in  the  last  foot  a  rhythm  like  et  caro^  cum 
crucis,  instead  of  a  constant  rhythm  like  irruis  and  uindicas.  Even  this 
closing  inversion  of  accent,  which  comes  thirteen  times  out  of  thirty-six 
in  the  iambic  hymn^  comes  only  twice  out  of  twenty-eight  in  the 
trochaic,  nidus  in  nouo^  quod  Adae  pcllcx  erat.  The  caesura,  on  which 
the  verse  turns,  is  always  well  managed :  in  the  only  place  where  it  is 
not  strictly  observed, 

renata  sura— o  uitae  laetae  exordia — 

the  break  in  the  sense,  to  my  ear  at  least,  makes  the  observance  un- 
necessary, and  the  effect  is  rhythmically  good. 

In  the  third  poem  Hilary  may  be  regarded  as  having  achieved  a  real 
success.  The  old  Greek  trochaic  metre  was  well  adapted  to  the  Latin 
accentual  system,  and  it  had  often  been  used  in  popular  songs.  But, 
unless  I  am  mistaken,  our  poem  is  the  first  in  which  the  trochaic 
lines  are  grouped  in  stanzas  of  three  \  and  any  one  familiar  with  Latin 
hymnSj  patristic  and  mediaeval,  rhymed  and  unrhymed,  will  know  what 
the  world  owes  to  the  inventor  of  this  stirring  form  of  verse,  Hilary's 
mutilated  Paradise  Regmned^iot  so  I  may  call  the  third  hynan — ^is 
metrically  the  direct  parent  of  Prudentius*s  magnificent  lines — 

Corde  natus  ex  parentis  ante  mundi  exordium, 
Alpha  et  O  cognominatus,  ipse  fons  et  clausula 
omnium  quae  sunt,  fuerunt,  quaeque  post  futura  sunt, 

and  indirectly,  through  Venantius,  of  Thomas's  great  sequence— 

Pange,  lingua,  gloriosi  corporis  mysterium 
sanguinisque  pretiosi,  quern  in  mundi  pretium 
fructus  uentris  generosi  rex  effudit  gentium. 

If,  as  I  believe  is  far  from  unlikely,  the  morning  hymn  Luds  iargifar 
opiime  is  really  Hilary's,  then  Hilary  has  the  almost  greater  glory  of 
having  invented  the  stanza  of  four  equal  iambic  lines  which  Ambrose 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  429 

made  his  own — the  Christian  remet  par  excellence — which  has  given 
us  such  poems  as — 

Veni,  redemptor  gentium, 

ostende  partum  uirginis; 

miretur  omne  saeculum; 

talis  decet  partus  Deum — 

and  a  hundred  other  noble  hymns. 

I  said  that  the  Pange^  lingua  of  Thomas  Aquinas  was  descended 
from  Hilary's  trochaic  poem  through  Venantius  Fortunatus.  That 
Thomas's  Pange^  lingua^  gloriosi  corporis  mysterium  was  modelled  after 
Venantius's  Pange,  lingua^  gloriosi  proelium  certaminis  will  be  disputed 
by  no  one.  But  that  Venantius  in  turn  was  influenced  by  Hilary,  can 
hardly  be  doubted  by  any  who  will  compare  his  Pange  lingua  with 
those  which  Gamurrini  has  recovered  for  us.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  Venantius  lived  at  Poitiers,  of  which  city  he  became  bishop.  He 
it  was  who,  while  still  a  presbyter,  wrote  the  life  of  Hilary  to  which 
I  have  already  referred. 

Not  only  is  the  metre  of  Venantius  the  same  as  that  of  the  third  of 
Hilary's  poems.  The  thoughts  are  in  great  measure  taken  over  from 
that  hymn  and  from  the  foregoing  one.  The  very  b^inning,  which 
lifts  the  story  of  the  Passion  into  a  paean,  is  almost  enough  to 
shew  it : — 

Pange,  lingua,  gloriosi  proelium  certaminis, 

et  super  crucis  tropaeum  die  triumphum  nobilem. 

It  is  the  very  spirit,  not  only  of  the  lines — 

III  2        in  caelesti  rursum  Adam  concinamus  proelia, 

per  quae  primum  Satanas  est  Adam  uictus  in  nouo, 

lines  which  so  curiously  anticipate  the  modem — 

A  second  Adam  to  the  fight 
And  to  the  rescue  came — 

but  the  same  spirit  rings  through  the  iambic  poem  also : — 

15  ante  pompam  tanti  proelii— - 

17  ibat  triumpho  morte  sumpto  a  mortua. 

The  thought  that  the  craft  of  Satan  was  foiled  by  a  higher  and  better 
craft — 

multiformis  proditoris  ars  ut  artem  fiilleret — 

was  a  fairly  common  one  in  ancient  days ;  but  it  lay  ready  to  Venantius's 
hand  to  combine  Hilary's — 

III  4       Hostis  fallax  saeculorum  et  dirae  mortis  artifex 


430         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES  ■ 

and —  " 

ad  temptandum  multas  artes  priscae  fraudis  commouet — 

wHh  his —  M 

II  II        Fefcllit  saeuam  Verbum  factum  et  caro  H 

and —  ^ 

HI  25      cemit  hominem,  cemit  corpus,  quod  Adae  pellex  erat. 

To  reckon  up  the  elements  and  instruments  of  the  Passion  must  always 
have  been  a  favourite  exercise  of  the  devout  Christian  j  but  when  we 
read  Venantius's —  ■ 

Hie  acetum^  fel,  harundo,  sputa;  clauis,  lancea  ■ 

mite  corpus  perforatur  " 

with  Gamurrini's  discovery  before  us,  we  cannot  but  see  its  source  in 
Hilary's— 

11  16        sputus,  iagella^  ictus,  cassa  hamndinis.  h 

Perhaps  I  may  add  that  Venantius's^ —  ■ 

Vagit  infans  inter  arta  conditus  praesepia,  ■ 

which  has  no  support  in  the  Gospels,  may  very  likely  have  been 
derived  from  Hilary's  strange  insistence  upon  the  same  point  in  his 
prose  works:  d€  Trin.  ii  24  per  coficeptionem^ parium^  uagitum^  cunCLS^ 
2$  ad  cuius  uocem   archangeli  tremunt^  .  .  uagitu   infantiae  auditur  \ 

26  cunaCy  uagitu s^  partus  atque  conceptio\  27  partum^  uagitum^  e/  cunas; 

27  sic  uagitus  per  angelorum  ,  ,  gaudia  honoratur\  ib.  infans  uagii^ 
iaudanks  ange/i  audiunfur.  It  is  indeed  possible  that  one  of  Hilary's 
lost  hymns  may  have  insisted  likewise  on  the  wailing.  It  is  not,  so  far 
as  I  am  aware»  a  common  feature  of  early  teaching.  Finally,  Hilar>'*s 
repeated  reference  to  the  *  law  of  death  * — 

II  33        Mors,  te  peremptam  senlis  lege  cum  tua — 

III  27       scit  terrenam  subiacere  mortis  legi  originem 

is  caught  up  with  vigour  in  another  poem  of  Venantius,  from  which 
various  centos  have  been  culled  for  church  processionals  under  the 
heading  of  Saluefesia  dies — • 

legibus  infemt  oppresses — 

tristia  cesserunt  inferni  uincula  legis. 

The  accumulation  of  these  coincidences  of  thought  and  expression 
forms  no  inconsiderable  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the  hymns 
attributed  to  Hilary  in  Gamurrini's  MS. 

It  may  seem  superfluous  to  go  on  illustrating  the  language  of  these 
hymns  from  the  recognized  works  of  Hilary ;  but  I  will  give  one 
example  which  may  suffice  for  many.  In  that  portion  of  his  Com- 
mentary  upon  St  Matthew  where  he  discusses  the  Temptation  of  our 


1 

:ne 

I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


431 


l^ord  {canon  3),  Hilary,  after  giving  a  somewhat  minute  and  detailed 
account  of  the  state  of  the  tempter's  knowledge  at  the  time,  proceeds  to 
say :  igitur  istius  temporis  metUy  in  temptando  eo  quern  hominem  contuebaiur^ 
sumpsit  temeritatetfh  Adam  enim  peUexerat^  et  in  mortem  fallendo 
traduxeraL  The  whole  passage  exactly  corresponds  with  our  hymn. 
Its  very  words,  coniuebatur^  pellexerat^  recall  our  contuens^  pellex  eraL 
It  and  it  alone  gives  the  explanation  of  the  enigmatical  enquiry  with 
which  the  fragment  ends — quaerit  auddx  tempus  quid  sit  The  poet 
no  doubt  went  on  to  say,  as  Hilary  says  in  his  Commentary,  that  Satan 
was  alarmed  at  the  fast  of  forty  days  {istius  temporis  metu)—^  period 
which  in  other  instances  already  had  portended  disaster  for  him  ;  yet 
the  very  fasting,  with  its  proof  that  our  Lord  was  truly  man,  emboldened 
him  to  essay  temptation  (sumpsit  temeritatem), 

I  will  end  with  calling  attention  to  a  few  particular  words  which  are 
worthy  of  a  moment's  notice  from  classical  students. 

II  16  Cassa  karundinis.  The  only  other  instance  of  the  word  cassum 
that  I  have  been  able  to  find  is  in  Julius  Solinus,  p.  215  of  Mommsen's 
edition.  Solinus  lived  about  the  same  time  as  Hilary,  and  wrote  a  kind 
of  abridgement  of  Pliny's  Natural  History,  mixed  with  passages  from 
other  authors.  Speaking  of  the  stone  iyckniteSy  he  says  that  it  aut 
palearum  cassa  aut  chartarum  fila  ad  se  rapit.  Pliny  XXXVII  vii  30, 
has  simply /a/(r« J  et  chartarum  fila.  The  dictionaries — Facciolati  and 
Ducange — say  that  it  means  fragmenta  j  and  I  do  not  doubt  that  they 
are  right,  though  I  think  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  word  is  simply  the 
neuter  plural  of  the  adjective  cassus.  Here  then  it  will  mean  '  the  splinters 
of  the  reed ' ;  and,  unlike  Venantius's  harundo^  it  refers,  not  to  the  reed 
on  which  the  vinegar  was  offered^  but  to  the  sceptre  with  which  '  the 
King  of  the  Jews '  was  mocked.  Its  place  is  ante  pompam  .  .  proelii. 
Hilary  imagines  its  splintering  as  they  struck  Htm  with  it  on  the  head* 

in  I.  This  line  is  evidently  corrupt  in  the  MS.  It  needs  two 
additional  syllables  to  complete  it.  It  was  in  reading  Solinus  that  the 
emendation  which  I  have  ventured  to  propose  occurred  to  me.  Solinus 
(p,  194,  Mommsen)  tells  the  story  from  Pliny,  how  Antiochus  s!ew 
a  chieftain  of  the  Asiatic  Gauls  and  triumphantly  mounted  his  charger. 
The  faithful  animal  adeo  spreuit  lupatos^  ut  de  industria  cemuatus  ruina 
pariter  et  se  et  equittm  affligeret'^.  The  verb  cemuare  is  one  of  those 
good  old  Latin  words  which  began  to  reappear  in  the  second  and  third 
centuries  after  a  period  of  obscurity.  It  is  quoted  from  Varro.  It  is 
found  again  in  Apuleius.  Prudentius  has  it  in  his  poem  against  Sym- 
machus  i  350 : 

post  trabeas  et  eburnam  aquilam  sellamque  curuletn 

cernuat  ora  senex. 

*  Pliny's  words  ar«  (viii  (54)  pratcipittfH  in  ahrupta  isst* 


432  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


The  word  was  rare,  and  the  copyists  of  Pnidentius,  like  those  of  Hilary, 
as  I  imagine,  were  puzzled  by  it  and  ofTered  substitutes  for  iL  But  tt  ii 
not  a  bad  word,  and  it  would  suit  this  passage  well  enough : — '  When 
the  glory  of  Adam  and  of  the  perishable  body  had  been  thrown  to  the 
ground/ 

III  25.  The  word  ptrhx^  or  pellex^  is  unknown  to  the  dictionaries. 
Dreves,  in  his  reprint  of  these  verses,  emends /fr/<?jic  trat  into  perUxerai^ 
which  is  very  simple.  Dreves  had  not  thought  of  comparing  with  this 
poem  the  passage  of  Hilary's  Commentary  on  St  Matthew  to  which 
I  have  referred  ;  the  comparison  makes  his  emendation  more  tempting 
But  Dreves  curiously  leaves  Ada^  in  the  genitive,  which  of  course  is 
impossible  with  pe//exfraf,  \i  peliexerai  had  been  the  right  reading  no 
scribe  would  have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  change  Adam  into  Adae.  Wc 
must  therefore  find  something  to  suit  Adae.  At  first  I  thought  of 
pellax^  a  word  which  in  itself  needs  no  recommendation.  But  the 
meaning  of  pellax  is  not  quite  what  we  want ;  and  I  have  no  doubt 
now  that  the  MS  is  perfectly  right,  and  that  perlcx  is  the  word,  Alkx 
and  Ulcx  are  well-recognized  Latin  words  connected  with  allido,  iUid&. 
PelUx  would  be  a  parallel  form  connected  with  pdlicio.  I  think, 
therefore,  that  we  may  add  it  to  our  dictionaries.  I  need  hardly 
say  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  word  paeltx^  a  concubine 
or  rival  wife,  though  that  is  sometimes  barbarously  spelt  pelicx  in  the 
printed  books,  to  make  it  ^ttxi't  to  be  connected  mthpeUtao, 


i 


( 


A.  J.  Mason, 


THE  INTERPOLATIONS  IN   ST  CYPRIAN'S 
DE   UN  IT  ATE  ECCLESIAE. 


DoM  John  Chapman  has  earned  the  admiration  and  gratitude  of 
who  are  interested  in  the  text  of  St  Cyprian  and  in  the  history  of  its 
transmission.  Since  Dr  von  Hartel  no  one  has  contributed  so  much 
as  he  to  our  knowledge  of  a  subject,  the  intricacy  of  which  only  those 
who  have  attempted  to  unravel  it  can  appreciate.  He  has  lately  added 
to  our  debt  by  three  articles  in  the  Revue  Benkdictine  (nos.  3  and  4, 
1902,  and  no.  t,  1903)  in  which,  whether  or  no  we  regard  him  as  some- 
what hasty  in  his  main  conclusion,  a  substantial  addition  is  made  to  our 
acquaintance  with  St  Cyprian. 

It  is  well  known  that  in  De  Unitate  §  4  a  \'ariation  of  the  text,  of 
no  great  theological  importance,  has  been  for  upwards  of  three  centuries 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


433 


the  cause  of  strife.  Was  it,  or  was  it  not,  an  interpohtton  made  in 
order  to  claim  the  authority  of  St  Cyprian  for  views  which  he  did  not 
hold?  And  in  after-limes  was  it  foisted  into  the  printed  text  with  the 
same  object  by  those  who  were  wetl  aware  of  its  spuriousness  ?  It  is 
impossible  not  to  regret  the  acrimony  with  which  the  attack  has  often 
been  urged*  Yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  but  one  point 
in  a  long  line  of  battle,  and  that  the  same  spirit  must  inevitably  pen^ade 
all  the  combatants  in  a  common  cause.  Again,  it  is  only  to-day  that 
we  know  the  extent  to  which  ancient  Christian  literature  was  infected 
with  a  habit  which  it  is  too  severe  to  name  forgery,  and  which  was  too 
prevalent  to  deserve  in  any  particular  case  an  extreme  censure.  Hermann 
Reuter  in  his  Avgusiinische  Studien  would  hardly  have  spoken  on  the 
subject  so  strongly  as  he  does  had  he  been  writing  now.  The  charge  if 
one  that  should  neither  be  made  nor  repelled  with  excessive  vigour. 

This  particular  literary  difficulty  is  well  stated  by  Dora  Chapman, 
There  is  the  accepted  text  of  the  passage,  so  well  attested  that  grave 
doubt  must  rest  upon  its  competitor;  and  there  is  the  competitor  in 
two  forms.  In  M  Q  and  some  other  MSS  it  takes  the  place  of  what 
may  be  called  the  authentic  text ;  in  T '  and  its  allies  and  in  well-known 
early  citations  it  appears  in  a  conflate  form,  the  two  texts  being 
somewhat  clumsily  combined.  It  is  curious  that  the  evidence  for  this 
impossible  combination  should  be  much  stronger  than  that  for  the 
alternative  text  in  the  pure  form ;  it  reaches  back  if  not  to  the  third 
century,  as  Dom  Chapman  holds^  at  least  well  towards  it. 

There  is  nothing  inconsistent  either  in  style  or  in  thought  in  the 
so-called  interpolation  with  Cyprianic  authorship,  and  Dom  Chapman 
bas  not  strengthened  his  case  by  a  n^inute  research  for  likenesses  to 
undoubted  passages  of  the  same  writer  and  by  still  more  minute 
discussion  of  the  probabiUty  of  a  forger  acting  exactly  as  the  author 
of  the  *  interpolation  *  has  done*.  But  the  few  clauses  in  question  give 
no  scope  for  an  exact  determination  of  the  authorship,  if  the  conclusions 
so  often  adventured  on  grounds  of  purely  internal  evidence  can  ever  bfe 
called  exact.     Dom  Chapman  passes  the  bounds  of  criticism  when  he 


'  It  IS  one  of  Dom  Chapman^s  merits  that  he  divined,  and  afterwards  verified 
the  correctness  of  his  conjecture,  that  this  important  MS  is  in  line  with  the  rest  of 
its  group. 

*  On  p.  4S,  vol.  1903,  is  a  singularly  unfortunate  argument  In  a  eognate  passage 
St  Cyprian  has  fundata  est  ttcUsia,  In  Uh.  4  the  words  are  in  the  order  fundaia 
Mceksia  *st  Dom  Chapman  reasons  that  a  forger  would  have  copied  exactly,  and 
that  therefore  the  *  interpolator'  was  no  forger.  But  the  words  form  part  of  the 
clause  qui  tathtdram  Petri  super  quam  (or  qutm)  fundata  eccUsia  rst  dtstrit,  which 
gives  a  proper  rhythmical  ending.  It  was  impossible  for  any  one  with  a  tinge  of 
rhetorical  culture  to  end  a  clause  with  a  double  dac^L  Dom  Chapman  should 
have  consulted  the  Abb6  Bayard. 

VOL,  V.  F  f 


434         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES  ^H 

claims  that  no  one  living  in  St  Cyprian's  day  but  St  Cyprian  himself 
could  be  the  author.  He  should  have  recalled  the  anonymous  writings 
which  pass  under  the  name  of  '  Pseudo- Cyprian ',  For  the  Cyprianic 
authorship  of  one  of  these  we  have  the  arguments  of  WolMin  himself, 
to  Yfhom  the  study  of  late  Latin  owes  as  much  as  that  of  the  Catacombs 
owes  to  de  Rossi,  and  he  has  stamped  with  his  approval  the  similar 
argument  of  Matzinger  on  behalf  of  another'.  If  their  conclusions 
concerning  the  jDe  SpectacuUs  and  De  Bono  Pudidtiae  have  not  been 
generally  accepted,  the  doubt  has  been  based  not  on  discrepancy  of 
style  but  on  wider  grounds  of  inadequate  evidence.  Other  writings 
in  the  same  group  have  strongly  marked  Cyprianic  characteristics,  or 
rather  characteristics  of  a  rhetorical  school  to  which  both  he  and  thdr 
authors  belonged  ;  notably  the  Dt  Laude  Martyrii^  which  is  more 
Cyprianic  than  Cyprian  himself,  though  its  Biblical  citations  shew  that 
it  cannot  be  his.  It  may  be  that  Dom  Chapman  accepts  as  St  Cyprian's 
everything  that  in  style  resembles  his  undoubted  writings,  and  in  that 
case  there  will  be  one  sole  writer  who  possesses  this  marked  style.  But 
at  least  he  should  have  told  us  of  this  belief  of  his ;  and  we  should 
still  have  had  to  decide  whether  these  scraps  of  '  interpolation  '  contain 
anything  definite  enough  to  compel  us  to  father  them  upon  St  Cyprian. 
Most  of  us  will  be  content  to  hold  that  there  is  nothing  in  them  to 
prejudice  us  in  advance  against  his  further  arguments. 

These  are  based  upon  history.  We  know  that  the  deacon  Felicissimus 
was  a  most  formidable  opponent  of  his  bishop,  and  the  Dt  Unitate^ 
with  the  text  in  the  accredited  forrn^  is  perfectly  suited  for  the  purposes 
of  being  read  at  Carthage  and  dispatched  to  Rome  as  an  indictment  of 
him  and  his  party*  It  presents  the  author  and  his  antagonist  as  he 
would  have  wished  them  to  be  seen  both  in  the  light  of  present  circum- 
stances and  of  permanent  principles.  Such  a  document  must  have 
been  preserved  and  circulated ;  and  in  fact  it  gained,  and  has  retained, 
a  circulation  and  an  authority  which  is  tmly  surprising  if  we  accept 
Dom  Chapman's  account  of  what  followed.  It  was  recited  at  the 
Council  held  soon  after  the  Easter  of  251,  and  had  been  prepared  with 
a  view  to  the  exigencies  of  the  moment;  a  consideration  which,  in 
combination  with  its  rhetorical  character,  might  have  warned  Dom 
Chapman  not  to  press  its  terms  as  though  it  were  a  leisurely  scholastic 
treatise.  But  at  the  very  time  when  the  Council  was  assembled  at  ■ 
Carthage,  in  April  and  probably  early  in  the  month,  came  the  conflicting 
messages  from  Cornelius  and  Novatian,  each  announcing  his  election 


Mt  is  true  that  WolMin  In  his  Archiv  ix  319  has  changed  his  mind,  and  now 
follows  a  common,  though  surely  ill  grounded,  opinion  that  these  two  treatises  are 
by  Novatian.  But  he  still  holds  that  their  style  is  in  the  main  that  of  Cyprian, 
which  is  the  point  with  which  we  are  concerned. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


435 


to  the  see  of  Rome^  A  contested  electioo  was  an  opportunity  for 
making  their  weight  felt  which  the  bishops  of  the  great  sees  never 
neglected,  and  Cornelius  had  to  suffer  anxiety  until  St  Cyprian  strength- 
ened his  position  by  a  public  recognition.  It  was  made  secure  by  the 
secession  from  Novatian  of  the  great  body  of  Roman  confessors,  to 
whom  Cyprian  wrote,  as  soon  as  he  heard  of  their  decision,  a  letter 
of  congratulation  (Ep,  54)  to  which  he  appended  copies  of  the  De 
Lapsis  and  the  Dc  Uniiate,  It  was  in  this  copy  that  Dom  Chapman 
holds  the  change  was  made  by  the  author;  a  change  which,  as  he 
rightly  says,  makes  the  immediate  context  more  suitable  to  the  new 
circumstances  than  the  vaguer  language  which  had  been  employed  in 
regard  to  the  schism  of  Felicissimus. 

This  startling  suggestion,  advanced  as  a  conjecture,  but  as  one  which 
'accords  perfectly  with  the  circumstances',  must  now  be  examined. 
The  first  point  to  strike  a  student  is  the  importance  and  the  publicity 
of  the  transaction.  It  was  to  the  credit  of  the  confessors  and  to  the 
obvious  advantage  of  Cornelius  that  ihis  budget  from  Carthage  should 
be  circulated  as  widely  as  possible.  Throughout  the  Empire,  and 
in  the  provinces  where  Latin  literature  was  read  as  well  as  in  those 
of  Greek  speech,  Novatian  communities  were  rising.  This  authori- 
tative antidote  would  surely  be  disseminated  by  all  the  means  which 
the  world-wide  connexions  of  the  Roman  Church  put  at  Cornelius's 
disposal.  And  we  should  expect,  if  the  earlier  version  remained  in 
existence,  to  find  that  it  had  escaped  oblivion  as  narrowly  as  the  African 
type  of  the  Old  Latin  Bible  has  done.  Just  as  the  Italian,  perhaps  the 
specifically  Roman,  type  of  the  Old  Latin  is  richly  represented  in 
comparison  with  the  few  and  fragmentary  witnesses  to  the  African  text, 
so  must  the  orthodox  reading  in  Dt  UnitaU  §  4  have  descended  to  us, 
if  at  all,  in  one  or  two  MSS,  and  have  laboured  under  the  inevitable 
suspicion  of  spuriousness.  Yet  Dom  Chapman  holds  that  the  revised 
text  which  St  Cyprian  sent  to  Rome  was  neglected  by  its  recipients  and 
lingered  in  obscurity  till  after  the  author's  death.  Then  the  first 
collection  of  his  writings  was  promptly  made,  and  in  one  of  the  copies 
which  reached  Rome  some  unknown  hand  made  a  marginal  insertion, 
over  against  the  place  where  the  first  version  was  written,  of  St  Cyprian's 
revision.  From  this  one  copy  by  substitution  or  conflation  the  later 
text  has  reached  us  through  a  few  channels^  while  the  main  stream 
of  tradition  has  carried  down  in  triumph  the  uncorrected  draft    Setting 


*  It  may  be  worth  while  incidentally  to  point  out  how  the  delay  of  a  month  in 
the  arrival  of  the  tidings  of  an  event  whkh,  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  bad  happened 
on  March  5,  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mediterraneaji 
was  opened  in  April.  This  may  induce  us  to  put  the  Council  a  little  ikter  in  that 
month  than  Archbishop  Benson  has  done. 

Ffa 


43^         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


aside  the  question  whether  St  Cyprian,  an  expert  literary  inan  amdS 
accustomed  to  circulate  his  own  writings,  would  have  allowed  one  of  B 
them  to  go  forth  in  a  double  shape,  is  it  probable  that  the  histoqr 
of  the   passage   should   have  shaped  itself  as   it  has  done    if  Dooi 
Chapman's  conjecture  is  right  ?     And  could  not  a  case  almost  as  strong 
be  made  out  for  the  *  interpolation '  as  the  original,  which  St  Cj'prian 
failed  to  supersede,  though  he  had  a  large  measure  of  success  in  the 
attempt,  by  the  corrected  version  with  which  we  are  familiar  in  Hartd's 
text?*     Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  acquiesce  in   the  old-fashioned 
view  that  there  has  really  been  an  interpolation,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  clear  our  minds  of  modem  notions  of  literary  propriety  and  of  an  ■ 
indignation  which  is  an  anachronism  ?  " 

It  was  perhaps  inevitable  that  a  large  part  of  Dora  Chapman *s  space 
should  be  occupied  with  well-worn  controversial  topics.  He  says  what 
we  should  expect  him  to  say,  and  says  it  well ;  and  he  delivers  some 
telling  strokes.  Father  Puller,  for  instance,  is  keenly  and  not  tinjustly 
criticized  for  his  explanation  of  the  word  principalis  \  in  illustration 
of  which,  however,  there  are  interesting  passages  to  be  cited  which 
have  escaped  the  notice  of  both  combatants.  In  fact,  Dom  Chapman 
more  than  holds  his  own  in  the  points  which  he  has  chosen  for  attack. 
But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  they  are  his  choice,  and  that  that 
are  weak  points  in  his  own  armour  which  become  very  conspicuous 
as  he  developes  his  argument.  And  it  is  one  of  the  merits  of  the 
Papacy  that  it  taught  Europe  that  the  more  skilful  duellist  has  not 
necessarily  the  better  cause*  But,  after  all,  no  one  has  anything  to 
gain  by  the  controversy.  The  one  side  may  rightly  make  the  most 
of  the  foundation  upon  St  Peter ;  the  other  has  an  equal  right  to  dwell 
upon  the  pari  consofHa  pratditi  et  honoris  tt  pottstatis^  which  is  the  one  . 
passage  where,  unconsciously  no  doubt,  Dom  Chapman  seems  a  litde  I 
to  fail  in  candour  in  his  explanation.  It  is  a  drawn  battle;  the  authority 
of  Si  Cyprian  can  be  equally  urged  on  both  sides,  even  though  his 
emphasis  be  on  that  which  is  the  less  acceptable  to  the  learned  Bene- 
dictine. But  is  there  one  of  the  Fathers^  down  to  and  including 
St  Bernard,  who  can  be  cited  by  any  school  as  a  constant  witness  io  its 
favour  ? 

E.  W,  Watsow. 

^  I  confess  that  on  first  reading  Dom  Cbapman  I  was  greatly  taken  with  tbU 
idea : — both  Cypnanic,  and  therefore  both  have  survived,  but  that  which  had 
final  sanction  with  the  greater  weight  of  attestation. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


437 


REMARKABLE   READINGS   IN  THE   EPISTLES 

FOUND  IN  THE 

PALESTINIAN  SYRIAC  LECTIONARY. 


In  1897,  Mrs.  Lewis  published  the  above  Lectionary,  with  *  critical 
notes '  by  Dr.  Nestle^  and  a  Glossary  by  Mrs,  Gibson.  It  contains 
lessons  from  the  Pentateuch,  Job,  Proverbs,  Prophets,  Acts  and  Epistles, 
As  to  its  dialect,  it  belongs  to  what  Noldelce,  Dalman  and  others  have 
called  Christian -Palestinian  Aramaic ;  and  it  is  indicated  in  critical 
editions  of  the  New  Testament  as  Syr-jer  or  Syr*^,  i.  e.  Jerusalem  Syriac. 
This  dialect  is  represented  in  the  following  works,  in  addition  to  the 
Lectionary  now  before  us  : — (i)  Fragments  edited  in  Land's  Anecdaia 
Syriaca,  vol.  iv.  (a)  The  Lectionary  of  the  Gospels^  first  edited  by 
Count  MiniscaJchi'Erizzo  in  186 1  and  then  by  Lagarde  in  1892  from 
a  unique  imperfect  MS.  In  1899  it  was  re-edited  by  Mrs.  Lewis, 
together  with  two  other  MSS,  which  she  had  had  the  good  fortune  to 
discover,  and  which  were  rather  more  complete — ^the  text  of  the  three 
MSS  being  exhibited  in  parallel  columns.  (3)  Anecdota  Oxomensia, 
edited  by  Gwilliam,  Burkitt,  and  Stenning,  (4)  The  Liturgy  oft/ie  NUe, 
edited  by  the  Rev.  George  MargoHouth.  For  a  complete  Bibliography, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  a  paper  by  Mr.  F.  C.  Burkitt  in  the  Journal 
OF  Theological  Studies  voL  ii  17401  In  that  paper  Mr,  Burkitt 
contends  that  the  designation  Jerusakm  Lectionary,  as  applied  to  the 
Lectionary  of  the  Gospels,  is  a  misnomer,  inasmuch  as  notes  at  the  end 
of  the  MS  indicate,  according  to  his  interpretation  of  them,  that  the  MS 
was  written  in  or  near  Antioch.  It  was  eventually  carried  off  to  Egypt 
by  Bibars  the  Mamluk  Sultan,  in  the  thirteenth  century  (/.  T,  S,  i\  183). 

There  is  no  clue  in  the  Lectionary  of  the.  Prophets  and  Epistles  as  to 
the  locality  in  which  it  was  written  or  used  ;  but  there  are  one  or  two 
indications  which  rather  incline  us  to  look  to  Egypt  as  the  birthplace  of 
the  work.  The  first  is,  that  the  *  Lesson'  containing  Genesis  ii  agrees 
almost  verbatim  with  that  found  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Nile,  as  published 
by  Margoliouth  :  and  the  other  is,  that  there  are  numerous  coincidences 
between  the  Lectionary  and  the  Bohairic  version.  This  version  was 
used  in  Lower  Egypt,  where  the  religious  services  to  pray  for  the  rising 
of  the  Nile  were  also  held.  I  have  computed  that  in  the  case  of  disputed 
readings,  such  as  are  quoted  in  critical  editions  of  the  N.  T,  the 
Lectionary  agrees  with  the  Bohairic  four  times  as  often  as  it  disagrees  j 
and  far  more  frequently  than  it  agrees  with  any  other  MS  or  Version. 
The  Lectionary  agrees  with  the  Bohairic  both  when  it  is  in  harmony  with 
the  first-class  Greek  MSS,  and  when  it  dissents  from  them.     I  venture 


438         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


to  think  that  the  evidence  which  will  be  here  adduced  deroc 
a  historical  connexion  between  the  Lectionary  and  the  Version* 

What  is  chiefly  remarkable,  however,  in  this  Lectionary  is  that  it 
contains  scores  of  readings  not  found  anywhere  else.  It  has  a  closer 
resemblance  to  a  Targum  than  any  other  N.  T.  MS  has.  The  translator 
often  felt  called  upon  to  assume  the  function  of  exegete,  and  not  only 
so,  he  often  deliberately  alters  the  text,  so  as  to  make  it  express  his  own 
theological  views.  Everywhere,  there  are  abundant  indications  of  strong 
theological  bias,  so  that  the  chief  interest  of  the  Lectionary  is  as  a  study 
in  Historical  Theology. 

A.     Disputed  readings  in  which  the  Lectionary  agrees  with  the 
Bohairic^  and  also  with  the  best  Greek  MSS. 

RooL  iii  2 a  'Unto  all  ♦ . ,  those  who  believe  [omitting  "and  upon  all'*]/ 

V  I  '  Let  us  haue  peace  from  with  God/ 

V  2  *  In  whom  we  have  an  entrance  by  faiths' 
\x  33  'They  stumbled  [om.  "  for'*]/ 
ix  33  *  He  that  believeth  on  Him  [om.  -rSs].' 
X    I   *  My  wish  .  .  >hon  their  behaifJ 

1  Cor.  i  23  '  Jews  ask  for  signs.* 

xi  24  'This  is  my  body  [om»  "Take,  eat"}.' 
2  Cor.  V  1 7  *  Behold  now  they  have  become  new.' 
Gal.  vi  15  *  For  neither  iV  circumcision  anything.* 
'  I  bow  my  knees  nnXo  the  Father' 
'  Glory  in  the  Church  and  in  Christ  Jesus." 
•Giving  thanks  to  the  Father  [om.  "God  and**].' 

*  In  stripping  off .  . .  the  flesh  in  the  body  [ora,  '*  sins  **].' 

*  Partakers  of  blood  and  flesh  (order).' 
ix  13  *The  blood  of  goats  and  bulls  (order).' 

I  Tim,  iii  16  *  Me  who  was  manifested  in  flesh.' 


£ph.  HI  14 

iii  21 

Col.  112 

ii  II 

Heb.  ii  14 


B.     Readings  in  which  the  Lectionary  agrees  with  the  Bohcuric^  in 
cases  where  it  is  not  generally  supported  by  the  best  Greek  MSS, 

Rom.  V    6  *  For  t/ Christ  when  we  were  weak,  stili  &lc*  Boh,  only 

vi    5  '  In  the  likeness  of  His  resurrection,'  F  Syr.  Boh. 

Ti  1 1  *  Alive  unto  God  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ'  K  C     „ 

viii    2  '  Hath  made  us  free.'  Aeth.  Arab.     „ 

vlu  II  *  Raised  up yifjtf  J  Christ.*  C  Vg     „ 

X    5  *  The  man  that  doeth  //  shall  live  by  it'  D'  lat 

X    8  '  But  what  doth  the  Scripture  say.'  D  F  G  Vg 

X    9  *  Confess  that  Jesus  is  Lord.*  Hil  Aug, 

Eph.  ill'  By  the  appointment  of  God  who  works.'  D  F 

120*  And  made  JUm  {avrov)  sit  down.'  (t  A 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


439 


Col  ii  13  'Who  forgave  us  all  our  trespasses.' 
Heb.  ix  14  *  Who  by  the  Ifofy  Spirit  offered  Himself.' 
X  32  •  Remember ^-^ttr  former  days.* 


D  Syr.  Boh. 


I 

1 


I  wish  now  to  bring  forward  from  our  Lectionary,  certain  readings 
of  a  iheoiogicai  character,  which  are  either  unique,  or  are  very  rare 
vndeed,  in  extant  MSS  and  Versions.  Some  are  intentional  alterations : 
others  may  yet  be  found  in  MSS  or  Versions  not  yet  collated  or  imper- 
fectly reported  in  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 


C.     Unique  or  rare  readings  as  to  God  the  Father, 

There  is  an  evident  tendency  in  the  Lectionary  to  emphasize  the 
distinction  between  the  relation  which  God,  as  Father,  sustains  to  the 
believer,  and  that  which  He  sustains  to  Jesus  Christ :  after  the  manner 
of  John  XX  1 7  '  I  ascend  unto  My  Father,  and  your  Father  \  This  is 
strongly  marked  in  Heb.  ii  1 1  *  He  that  sanctifieth  and  they  that  are 
sanctified  are  all  as  it  were  from  One  *.  The  translator,  or  editor,  here 
evidently  demurs  to  a  statement  which  might  seem  to  make  Christ's 
descent  from  the  Father  the  same  as  that  of  believere.  The  following 
passages  are  in  the  same  direction  : — 
Rom.  vi  4  '  Raised  ...  by  the  glory  of  His  Father/ 
Phil,  ii  1 1  '  To  the  glory  of  God  His  Father.' 

Gal.  iv  6  '  Crying,  Abba,  our  Father/ 

Heb.  i  2  '  Hath  spoken  to  us  in  His  Son,' 

These  four  are  also  found  in  the  Peshitta,  but  that  does  not  account 
for  their  occurrence  here.  There  is  a  connexion  between  the  Lectionary 
and  the  Peshitta,  but  it  is  one  of  antipathy.  We  are  disposed  to  believe 
that  the  translator  was  familiar  with  the  Peshitta,  because  we  think  that 

I  otherwise  he  could  scarcely  have  so  systematically  evaded  its  readings. 
Other  theological  readings  are  :■ — 
Gal.  iv  7  *  If  a  son,  then  an  heir  [om.  ^eoD]  through  Christ* 
I  Cor.  i  24  *  Christ  the  Power  of  God,  and  the  Wisdom  of  the  Father,' 
Heb.  i  3  *  The  effulgence  of  the  glory  of  the  Father* 
D,     Christoiogicai  readings. 
Even  a  cursory  glance  at  the  contents  of  the  Lectionary  shews  that 
whoever  selected  the  Lessons  was  anxious  that  the  congregation  should 
be  familiar  with  the  most  important  theological  passages  in  the  Bible. 
All  the  great  Christoiogicai  passages  in  the  N.  T.  are  here — four  of 
them  twice  over  ;  and  the  choice  of  readings  from  the  O.  T.  is  evidently 
guided  by  a  desire  to  give  prominence  to  Messianic  prophecies.     The 
O.  T,  passages  are  a  translation  from  the  I  AX,  but  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  in  Micah  v  2  the  reading  is: — 'And  thou  Bethlehem,  house  of 


440         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


Ephmtah,  and  nat  little  among  the  leaders  of  Judah,  for  from 
shall  go  forth  for  me  a  leader^  who  shall  be  archon  also  in  Israel ' 
assimilating  the  passage  to  Matt  \\  6. 

The  ChristologicaJ  passages  of  the  N.  T.  contain  so  many  poii 
interest  that  it  may  be  well  to  give  them  entire. 

Phil,  ii  6-1 1  '  He  who  was  also  [om.  "  in  "]  the  likeness  of  God, 
did  not  think  it  robbery  ^r  Him  that  he  was  eqiia.1  to  God  i  but  em 
Himself  and  took  the  likeness  of  a  slave,  and  in  the  likeness  of  mc 
was  a.\so/aund:  and  in  form  He  was  found  as  a  nianj  and  He  humbji 
Himself,  and  was  made  obedient  as  far  as  to  death ;   the  death, 
over,  of  the  cross '  [^cikitov  Si  rov  (rravpov  —  h\ 

Col.  i  12-20  '  Giving  thanks  unto  t/te  Father^  who  raade>'£?w  m 
the  portion,  which  is  the  allotment  of  the  saints  in  Light.  Wl 
delivered  >'tf«  from  the  domination  of  darkness,  and  led  (you)  throug 
into  the  kingdom  of  the  Son,  Who  is  in  His  love.  In  whom  we  hai 
Redemption  and  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins.  Who  is  the  image  ( 
God  who  is  not  seen  :  the  firstborn  of  every  creature.  In  whom 
whole  was  created :  what  is  in  heaven  and  what  is  on  earth  :  w 
seen  and  what  is  not  seen  \  whether  thrones  or  lordships  or  heads! 
or  dominions,  all  was  created  by-virtue-of  Him  [om.  "  and  for  Him 
And  He  is  first,  in  comparison  with  all,  and  m  Him  the  whole  stand 
And  He  is  the  head  of  ail  the  Church  [om.  '*  his  body  "].  Hew' 
the  beginning,  the  firstborn  from  among  (fa  p)  the  dead,  in  order 
He  may  be  first  in  everything,  in  wh^m  all  the  fullness  dwells  [i 
cvSoKipcv].  And  by-virtue-of  Him(self),  He  made-acceptable  all  thin] 
unto  Him,  and  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  His  cross  [or 
the  second  S/  auroi)]  :  whether  what  is  on  earth  or  what  is  in 
heavens.' 

Heb.  i  1-4  '  In  the  last  of  these  days  (God)  hath  spoken  to  us 
His  Son  [  =  Pesh]  whom  He  appointed  heir  over  all  things,  by-virtu 
whom  also  He  made  the  world  ;  who  was  the  effulgence  of  the  gl 
ike  Father ^  who  is  at  the  right  hand  sf  God  [a  bold  paraphrase  for 
impress  of  His  substance"]  and  providing-for  all  things  by  the  woi 
His  power,     And  He  made  [om,  "  through  Himself"]  the  purificati< 
of  our  [=  Pesh]  sins,  and  He  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of 
Majesty  in  the  Heights.* 

Other  interesting  readings  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ  are : — 

Heb.  ii  13  The  omission  of  the  words :  '  I  will  put  my  trust  in 
Thisj  if  intentional,  implies  an  ultra-orthodox  conception  of  the 
of  Christ, 

Heb.  i  8  'Thy  throne  (is)  the  God  of  the  ages.     Amen.'     This 
very  like  the  rendering  of  Grotius  (see  Alford  in  loco)  and  was  adoptt 
by  some  Socinians,  quite  in  ignorance  of  our  Lectionary 


imbli 

leeij 

roug 
I  hai 
ige  ( 

:J 

is^ 

m" 
md 


i 


rtue- 

I 

-orH 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


of  the  Lectionary  it  was  doubtless  interpreted  in  the  sense  of 
John  i   1 8  'the  Son  who  is  tn  /Me  bosom  of  the  Father'. 

Rom.  ill  25  '  Whom  God  pre-appointed,  a-means-of-acceptance,  by 
faith  in  the  blood  of  himsel/J  This  has  the  support  of  B,  who  gives 
€avTo\t  for  avTov  ;  and  of  Ongen,  who  gives  *  in  sanguine  ipsius  \  The 
preference  for  this  reading  in  our  Lexicon  possibly  indicates  a  Mono- 
physite  tendency.  Men  of  these  views  would  be  very  likely  to  catch  at 
the  expression  *  the  blood  of  God  *. 

Heb,  ii  18  *  He  suffered  awif  was  tempted/ 

Heb.  ii  14  'Because  the  children  participated  in  blood  and  flesh: 
He  also  thus  participated  with  them  in  sufferings.*  The  Greek  MSS 
have  *  in  the  same ' ;  except  D*,  which  reads  *  in  the  same  sufferings  \ 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  D*  gives  a  conflate  reading  of  Greek  MSS 
+  Lectionary.    This  reading  is  anti-docetic. 

Acts  ii  36  *  God  hath  appointed  to  be  Lord  and  Apostle  this  Jesus 
whom  ye  crucified.'  A  probable  reference  to  Heb,  iii  i .  The  Greek 
reading  is  '  Lord  and  Christ*  but  the  keen  theological  translator  seems 
to  have  raised  the  objection  that  Jesus  was  '  Christ  ^before  His  ascension  j 
and  therefore  judged  '  Apostle'  to  be  a  more  suitable  reading. 

E.     Sheadings  as  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Rom.  viii  i  r  *  He  that  raised  up  Jesus  Christ  from  among  the  dead 
shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  because  (/the  Spirit  0/  God  which 
dwelieth  in  you.'  There  is  a  well-known  disputed  reading  in  this  verse 
between  Sta  to  and  hik  rot,  *  Because  of  His  Spirit  \  or  *By  means  of  His 
Spirit  \  The  Lectionary  favours  the  former,  which  is  found  in  B  D  FKL 
but  is  not  adopted  by  the  English  Revisers,  In  dealing  with  the 
Macedonian  heresy,  which  denied  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
orthodox  attached  great  value  to  Sti  toij  as  expressing  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit.  The  Lectionary  gives  the  reading  which  was  the  favourite  of 
the  Macedonians  and  still  somewhat  nullifies  that  by  the  addition  of 
KH^tn,  •  because  of  the  Spirit  0/  God*.  There  is  not  a  trace  of  heresy 
on  this  subject  in  the  Lectionary  but  rather  the  opposite,  and  we  can 
only  conclude  that  at  the  time  it  was  written  the  controversy  as  to  htk 
TQ  and  &a  rov  was  forgotten.  Our  paraphrast  has  rather  a  habit  of 
adding  the  word  *  God '  where  the  pronoun  *  His  *  occurs  in  Greek,  in 
order  to  remove  all  possible  ambiguity. 

Rom,  xii  3  '  Through  the  grace  0/  God  that  was  given  me.' 

Eph.  ill  *  By  the  appoJnlment  of  God  who  worketh,  &c,* 

Rom.  r  4  *  Who  was  made  known  as  Son  of  God,  by  the  power  ^the 

Spirit  of  holiness.' 
Rom.  V  5  *  Because  the  love  of  God  is  poured  into  our  hearts  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.' 


442         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Heb.  ix  14  'Christ  who  by  the  Holy  Spirit  offered  Himself  to  God/ 
So  nD.     Other  MSS  reading  '  the  ettmal  Spirit ', 


F.     Miscellaneous  readings. 

Rom.  vi  S  'If  we  are  dying  with  Christ  we  believe  we  art  living  with 
Hira.* 

X  4  *  God*s  end  of  the  Law  is  Christ/ 

Eph*  iii  20  '  According  to  the  power  0/  Him  that  worketh  in  us.' 

Jas.  i  5  '  Let  him  ask  of  God  who  giveth  everything  to  bim  littli- 
by-little  and  does  not  put  to  shame.' 

Tit.  ii  1 1  *  That  in  fear  and  righteousness  and  the  love-of-God  we 
may  live  in  this  worid.' 

I  Th.  iv  14  *So  also  those  who  sleep  (?)  in  Jesus  Christ  God  will 
raise  and  bring  them  with  Him,' 
iv  16  *  With  the  sound  of  the  horn  of  God.* 

aTira.ii  10  'That  they  may  receive  salvation  in  Jesus  Christ  with 
His  glory  which  is  from  Heaven,^  R.  V.  *  with  eternal 
glory ',  so  all  MSS  and  Versions.  Ambrosiaster,  how- 
ever, has  *cum  gloria  caelesti ',  We  may  here  note  that 
the  text  which  stands  at  the  head  of  Ambrosiaster's 
expositions  agrees  with  our  text  more  frequently  than 
that  of  any  other  Church  Father,  I  find  no  one  else 
but  Ambrosiaster,  who,  with  the  Lectionary,  omits  the 
second  St*  auroi)  in  Col.  i  20, 

We  will  conclude  this  section  by  giving  the  account  of  the  Lord*$ 
Supper  as  it  is  given  in 

I  Cor.  xi  33  '  For  I  received  from  the  I^rd  what  also  I  delivered  to 
you,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in  which  He  was  betrayed,  took 
bread  ;  and  He  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it  off,  and  said  :  This  is  My  body 
[oxn.  *'  Take,  eat '"]  which  is  far  you  [om,  "  broken  "] :  this  do  ye  for 
My  memorial.  And  so  likewise  [om.  "  the  cup  "]  after  He  had  dined 
He  said :  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  My  blood.  This  do 
ye,  whenever  ye  drink  (it),  for  My  memorial  Whenever  ye  eat  from 
this  bread  and  drink  from  this  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  until 
He  come.  Every  one  who  eateth  this  bread  or  drinketh  the  cup  of  the 
Lord,  when  there  is  no  meetness  in  him,  he  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body 
and  of  the  blood  of  the  Lord,  Let  a  man  examine  himself  and  thus 
from  the  bread  let  him  eat,  and  from  the  cup  let  him  drink.  For  he 
who  eats  and  drinks^  and  has  no  meetness,  is  eating  and  drinking 
a  judgement  to  himself,  for  he  does  not  appreciate  (oKt:*)  His  body. 
Because  of  this,  many  among  you  are  sickly  and  afHicted,  and  many 
sleep.     For  if  we  judged  ourselves,  if  it  were  not  so  (i.  e,  if  after  self- 


1 
I 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


443 


w 


¥ 


I 


examination  we  found  ourselves  innocent)  we  should  not  be  judged  (by 
God's  visitations).  But  being  judged  by  the  Lord,  we  are  chastised, 
that  we  may  not  be  condemned  with  the  world.' 

We  come  now  to  what  is  in  some  respects  the  most  interesting  part  of 
our  task.  If  the  dialect  is  correctly  designated  Palestinian  Syriac,  we 
may  infer  that  the  Lectionary  was  meant  for  Jewish  Christians.  We 
know  well  that  many  of  the  Palestinian  churches  were  soundly 
orthodox ;  and  we  have  abundant  indications  of  Nicene  Christology  in 
the  paraphrastic  modifications  of  the  text  of  the  Lectionary.  But  there 
are  two  points  which  stand  out  conspicuously  in  some  phases  of 
Judaistic  Christianity  in  contrast  with  Paulinism.  One  is  a  disposition 
to  absorb  more  or  less  of  the  tenets  of  Gnosticism,  and  the  other  is  an 
antipathy  to  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  only.  Indica- 
tions of  both  these  tendencies  reveal  themselves  in  the  work  before  us. 

G.     Readings  which  imply  a  leaning  to  Gnosticism, 

The  indications  of  sympathy  with  Gnosticism  are  not  strong  or 
numerous ;  and  are  found  only  in  the  undue  importance  attacked  to 
knowledge.  The  fundamental  feature  of  Gnosticism  was  that  it  aspired 
to  possess  knowledge  ;  and  whatever  value  it  attached  to  Christianity, 
over  against  Judaism,  or  Heathendom,  was  that  it  enabled  men  to 
knmif  more  of  God.  Christianity,  to  the  Gnostic,  is  a  system  of  know- 
ledge, as  well  as  a  plan  of  salvation.  We  now  adduce  four  readings 
which  look  in  this  direction  :■ — 

Rom.  iii  25  *  All  have  sinned  and  lack  tlte  knowledge  oftht  glory  of  God.* 

Heb.  ii  i6  *  For  not  upon  angels  did  he  take  hold,  thai  He  might 
declare  God\  but  upon  the  seed  of  Abraham  He  took  hold,  that  He 
might  declare  {^\m)'  This  verse  seems  to  teach  that  the  great  purpose 
of  the  Incarnation  was  to  make  God  known. 

Eph.  iii  19  •  That  ye  may  know  the  knowledge  of  the  love  of  Christ** 
(This  is  not  a  Hebraism.     We  have  two  distinct  words  for  '  know '.) 

Eph.  iii  18  'What  is  the  breadth  and  length  and  depth  [om.  "and 
height"].'  (We  include  this,  because  Hippolytus  records  that  the 
Valentinians  omitted  rh  tji^o?  in  this  verse.) 

H.  Readings  which  attach  great  importance  to  Works ^  as  the 
ground  of  ScUvation, 
Our  first  passage  is  a  remarkable  one.  It  omits  altogether  the  word 
'  noty  and  thus,  of  course,  entirely  alters  the  meaning  of  the  text.  We 
might  regard  this  as  a  clerical  error,  if  it  were  not  that  the  paraphrast 
invariably  shews  himself  restive,  whenever  faith  is  said  to  justify,  and 
frequently  inserts  the  word  *  also '  when  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith  is  mentioned. 


444         THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Rom.  iy  4  'To  bim  that  worketh  [om.  " not "]  beUering  on  Him 
that  justifieth  the  unrighteous,  £iith  is  reckoQed  to  him  for  ngbteousoess.' 
(The  cursive  17  also  oraits  fnfj  in  this  verse,  but  this  is  apparently  the 
only  MS  or  Version  which  does  so,  besides  our  Lectionary.) 

Rom.  iii  2 1  *  Testimony  was  given  concerning  it  by  the  Law  and  by 
the  Prophets,  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  also  by  faith  on  Jesus 
Christ,  to  all  those  who  believe  on  Him.' 

Rom,  iii  26  '  In  order  that  He  may  be  just  and  may  justify  a/s&  by 
faith  on  Jesus  Christ/ 

Rom.  iii  28  'For  we  reckon  that  by  faith  a  man  is  a/so  justified  apart 
from  (his)  deeds  of  law.' 

Rom.  iv  3  *  Abraham  believed  God,  it  was  also  reckoned  to  him  for 
righteousness.* 

Rom.  iv  9  '  For  we  say  that  to  Abraham,  his  faith  also  was  reckoned 
for  righteousness.' 

Rom.  iv  1 1  *  He  received  the  sign,  circumcision,  the  seal  of  righteous- 
ness, ais&  his  faith,  which  he  had  in  uncircumcisioa' 

Eph,  ii  8  *  By  grace  are  ye  saved,  by*virtue~of  faith :  and  this  not 
from  yourselves,  but  from  the  gift  of  God ;  not  from  our  work  lest  man 
should  boast :  for  we  are  His  work,  &c,' 

Col  ii  la  '  Ye  were  buried  with  Him  aho  in  Baptism,  in  which  also 
ye  rose  with  Him,  by-the-influence-of  Faith  and  of  the  operation  of 
God.'  The  Greek  gives  *  faith  in  the  operation  of  God '.  There  is  the 
same  objection  shewn  by  the  translator  here,  as  in  Romans,  to  ascribe 
saving  efficacy  to  Faith  only. 

We  will  conclude  by  adducing  a  few  passages  which  are  not  of  special 
theological  value,  but  are  of  interest  in  the  indications  they  seem  to 
give  that  the  paraphrast  or  redactor  was  ajew^ 

Heb.  ix  1 2  *  Entered  into  the  house  [so  Pesh]  of  the  Holy  of 
Holies  ',  R,  V,  'the  holy  place  *.     The  paraphrast  wishes  to  be  quite  exact. 

Rom.  i  3  *  Born  of  the  seed  of  tkt  house  of  David.' 

Heb.  i  12  *But  Thou  art  He^  and  Thy  years  end  not.' 

Rom.  xii  1  *  Present  your  bodies  a  sacrifice,  living  and  holy,  acceptable 
to  God,  a  service  which  is  orderly'  We  are  reminded  of  the  second 
Palestinian  Targura  to  Gen.  iv  8  where  Abel  says  to  Cain :  '  Because 
my  service  was  more  orderly  than  thine,  ray  offering  was  acceptable/ 

Rom.  xii  18  *  If  it  be  possible  ,  ,  ,  be  ye  som  of  peace  towards  all/ 

James  i  i  '  To  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.^ 

Acts  i  I  a  *  Which  is  a  journey  of  tJt£  caravans  on  a  Sabbath.' 


I 
I 

1 


The  above  h'sts  by  no  means  exhaust  the  changes  introduced  into 
the  text  of  our  Lectionary,  but  they  give  the  most  important.    The 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


445 


theological  oddity  of  the  readings  would  seem  to  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  the  Editors^  and  the  readings  are  given  now  to  stimulate 
further  research.  We  have  not  before  us  a  work  which,  like  the 
Sinaitic  Syriac,  can  shed  any  light  on  the  &rigines  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  work  is  late,  and  is  of  interest  to  the  student  of  Historical  Theology 
more  than  to  one  of  Textual  Criticism.  Can  we  locate  it  ?  Can  we 
shew  from  other  evidence  the  existence  of  a  community  holding  the 
views  here  set  forth  ?  The  evidence  is  slender,  but  provisionally  we 
suggest  that  the  version  was  made  for  the  use  of  a  settlement  of 
Palestinian  Christians  in  the  Delta,  from  an  ancient  Greek  text,  which 
bore  strong  affinity  to  the  neighbouring  Bohairic  Version,  and  that 
the  community  who  used  the  Lectionary  were  Jews,  who  still  retained 
'        some  of  the  Theology  of  their  fathers  along  with  their  Christianity. 

^■l  J.  T.  Marshall. 

lb 

■        TH 


THE  SCRIBE  OF  THE   LEICESTER  CODEX. 


While  examining  some  manuscripts  at  the  University  Library  of 
Leiden  in  September  last,  I  was  fortunate  enough  to  stumble  upon  one 
which  reveals  beyond  a  doubt,  as  I  think,  the  identity  of  the  scribe 
of  the  well-known  Codex  Leicesfrensis  (69  of  the  Gospels).  Readers 
of  this  Journal  will  hardly  need  to  be  reminded  of  the  fact  that 
Dr,  J.  Rendel  Harris  in  his  two  books,  Tfte  Origin  of  the  Leicester 
Codex  (1887),  and  Further  Researches  into  the  History  of  the  FerroT" 
Group  (1900),  has  brought  together,  and  given  facsimiles  of,  a  not 
inconsiderable  group  of  books  written  by  the  scribe  of  the  Leicester 
Codex.    They  are : — 

1.  A  Psalter  at  Gonville  and  Caius  College,  Cambridge,  no.  348  in 
Smith's  Catalogue. 

2.  A  Psalter  at  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  O.  3,  14. 

3.  An  Aristotle  in  the  Library  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  DurbaiUj 
C  L  15. 

4*  A  Plato  in  the  same  Library,  C.  IV.  3. 

The  Leiden  MS  which  throws  light  on  the  writer  of  these  is 
marked  Voss.  Graec.  56,  It  is  a  paper  book  with  two  leaves  of  veUum 
at  the  beginning.  The  verso  of  the  second  serves  as  a  title-page,  and 
of  it  a  facsimile  is  given  here.  It  offers  a  rough  table  of  contents 
and  a  donatory  inscription.     1  subjoin  a  copy  in  ordinary  type : — 


446         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Sermones  iudiciales  Demosthenis 
Xoyoi  8t<avi*cot  Tov  AjifjuoaBivont^ 
Eschinis  oratoris  epistolc 
ai(Txtyov  p-qropo^  itrtoToXat 
Platonjs  cpistole 

nkartuvo^   iwitrroXai 

Chionis  epistole  discipuli  Platonis 
Xuuyo^  irruTToXai  fiaBiijrov  tov  ^Xdrmvo^ 
iyw  ifiavovlX  an-o  tt}?  nwvcrraiTtvoirjroXcciyt  8tSai|/n  TavTrjv  rrfV  fiifikow 
Tuj  alB€(TtfitaTtLTui  trarrpl  \  «at  icvpiu>,  KvpC(f>  ytotpyioi  apy^irtrwKo^ta  riji  j 
iPopdxov  ^xmi  tctti  Ttjn^  itat  S<Jf»;  ttt?  tiyyXMis*  |  iypd<t)uj  84  vjt*  ^/tov  Ira 
dv6  rij^  )^MTrov  KaTa/3dtre|w?,  xiXioarlo  TcrpaxocrioaTw  efiyitooTw  oy$^  | 
TputKooT^  yjfLtpa  TOV  Scxc^ptov  fltJVO';*  I 

I  bave  followed  the  peculiarities  of  the  accentuation,  which  appear 
in  the  other  MSS  of  the  group,  with  the  addition  in  some  places  of 
a  straight  circumflex. 

I  do  not  think  that  any  one  who  compares  the  facsimile  given  here 
with  those  of  the  Leicester  group  (if  I  may  so  style  the  books 
enumerated  above)  in  Dr.  Rendel  Harris's  two  publications,  can  doubt 
that  the  same  scribe  was  responsible  for  all  five  MSS.  We  now  know 
that  he  was  not  an  Italian,  as  Dr.  Rendel  Harris  was  inchned  to 
suppose,  but  a  Greek,  Emmanuel  of  Constantinople,  who  at  some  time 
late  in  the  fifteenth  century  was  residing  in  England,  and  who  occupied 
himself  in  the  transcription  of  classical  and  Biblical  texts.  One  of 
these  he  presented,  we  now  learn,  to  George  Archbishop  of  York-  This 
was  George  Neville.  Into  the  detail  of  Neville's  stormy  career  there  is 
no  need  to  enter :  let  it  be  remembered  only  that  he  was  a  student  at 
Balliol  College  at  a  time  when  humanistic  studies  were  actively  prose- 
cuted there,  that  he  became  Bishop  of  Exeter  in  145S,  Archbishop  of 
York  in  1465,  was  disgraced  and  imprisoned  in  1472,  and  died  (not 
very  long  after  his  release)  in  1476. 

The  MS  before  us  was  written  in  1468,  when  Neville  was  prosperous 
and  powerful.  The  troubles  of  1472  led,  as  we  leam  from  the  Paston 
Letters  (iii  391,  quoted  in  Z?/V/.  Nat,  Biog,\  to  the  dispersion  of  his 
household;  and  John  Paston  adds  an  interesting  sentence:  'some 
that  are  great  clerks  and  famous  doctors  of  his  go  now  again  to 
Cambridge  to  school '.  It  will  perhaps  be  remembered  that  Dr.  Rendel 
Harris  very  ingeniously  shewed  that  the  Caius  Psalter  was  bound  in 
the  Convent  of  the  Grey  Friars  at  Cambridge,  I  feel  inclined  to  go 
&  step  further,  and  guess  that  Emmanuel  of  Constantinople  was  a 
member  of  Neville's  household  at  the  time  of  his  disgrace,  that  he 
retired  to  Cambridge  with  the  other  'clerks  and  doctors',  and  there 
wrote  the  Psalter  now  at  Caius.     It  is  likely  enough  that  the  Durham 


( 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


447 


K 
fe 


Plato  and  Aristotle  were  produced  during  his  sojourn  in   the  north 
of  England,  for  Neville's  tastes  seem  to  have  run  more  in  the  direction 

f  secular  than  of  ecclesiastical  learning.  Conjectural  as  all  this  is,  it 
seems  to  me  worth  suggesting. 

There  is  one  curious  point  about  the  Leiden  MS.     The  title-page 

f  which  I  have  been  speaking  is  the  only  one  in  the  whole  volume 
•written  in  the  peculiar  *  Leicester '  hand  :  yet  Emmanuel  claims  to  have 
written  it  all  Is  his  claim  analogous  to  that  of  Constantine  Simonides 
with  regard  to  the  Codex  Sinaiiicus'^  I  was  at  first  doubtful  on  the 
point,  but  an  examination  of  the  writing  (of  which  I  have  a  photograph) 
has  led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  Emmanuel  really  did  write  the  whole, 
but  that  he  used  a  much  finer  pen  and  took  more  pains  with  his  work 
than  he  did  in  other  cases.  The  recumbent  epsilon^  so  marked  a  feature 
of  his  writing,  is  present  here :  the  other  letters,  notably  the  eptsemon 
and  xt\  are  formed  in  his  fashion  throughout ;  and  the  rubricated  initials 
are  just  such  as  appear  in  the  Trinity  Psalter,  Yet  the  writing  is  so 
much  finer,  closer,  and  prettier  than  Emmanuel's  ordinary  hand,  that 
a  casual  glance  would  never  have  suggested  that  it  came  from  his  pen. 

I  have  not  succeeded  in  identifying  Emmanuel  of  Constantinople 
with  any  of  the  scribes  of  whom  lists  are  accessible  to  me.  Perhaps 
some  reader  of  this  Journal  will  be  more  fortunate. 

M.  R.  James, 


JACHIN    AND  BOAZ. 


In  I  Kings  vii  21  (=2  Chron.  iii  17)  we  are  told  that  two  pillars  of 
'brass'  (bronze  or  copper)  were  set  up  at  the  entrance  of  Solomon's 
Temple.  They  were  cast  by  Hiram,  the  half-Tyrian  copper-worker, 
whom  Solomon  fetched  from  Tyre  to  do  foundry  work  for  him.  To 
these  two  pillars  the  names  'Jachin'  and  *Boaz'  were  attached. 
Whether  these  names  were  given  by  Hiram,  or  by  Solomon,  or  by 
popular  usage,  cannot  be  decided  from  the  vague  Hebrew  expression 
fcOp*^,  '  and  he  (some  one)  called '.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  reasonable 
(though  not  necessary)  to  suppose  that  the  two  names,  or  two  words 
closely  resembling  the  names,  were  inscribed  on  the  pillars. 

In  what  precise  form  the  two  names  appeared  on  the  pillars  (if  they 
so  appeared)  1  do  not  venture  to  enquire.  If  the  inscriptions  were 
due  to  Hiram,  whose  training  was  Tyrian,  they  may  have  been  copied 
iiteratim  from  some  Tyrian  Temple  in  which  they  bore  a  meaning 
which  is  unknown  to  us  at  the  present  stage  of  Phoenician  archaeO' 


ditors 


448         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

logical  research.  My  chief  object  in  the  present  paper  is  to  ask 
what  form  the  two  names  appeared  in  the  pre-Septuagintal  text  of 
Kings.  If  I  venture  to  add  a  word  about  their  signiiicance  it  is  with  all 
reserve. 

I  can  hardly  hope  to  say  much  that  is  new.  The  textual  facts  arc 
well  given  (on  the  whole)  in  Dr,  Cheyne's  Article  on  Jachin  and  Boai 
in  Encydopaedia  Biblica.  A  good  selection  of  theories  worthy  of  cod- 
sideration  also  appears  in  that  article.  The  two  readings  which  seem 
to  me  to  be  probably  right  are  found  there.  What  I  miss  tn  Dr.  Cheyne's 
work  is  a  sufficient  consideration  of  the  evidence  of  the  LXX.  I  am 
inclined  to  think  (i)  that  the  LXX  points  pretty  clearly  to  the  true 
reading;  (2)  that  it  gives  a  hint  of  the  road  by  which  scribes  or  editors 
arrived  at  our  present  text. 

In  Dr.  Swete's  UKX/achin  is  laxoiV  i^^-  A,  IL  P.  158,  247,  la; 
in  3  Regn.  vii  7  [21]  and  (by  translation)  KaTopBwTi^^  'Setting 
*  Establishing  \  in  2  Chron.  iii  17:  Boa%  is  BoAaf  (cod.  A,  Boof)  ill 
3  Regn.  vii  7  [21],  and  (by  translation)  'ItTxv?,  'Strength*,  in  2  Chroa 
iii  17.  Our  present  enquiry,  however,  is  concerned  only  with  the  text 
of  Kings  ;  it  seems  to  me  quite  probable  that  the  LXX  translators  did 
not  find  the  Hebrew  text  of  Chronicles  in  agreement  with  that  of  Kings, 
as  it  is  at  the  present  day.  I  refer  to  Chronicles  therefore  only  by  way 
of  illustration.  « 

(A)  Jachin.  ■ 

With  regard  to  the  first  name  we  may  say  that  while  at  first  sight  the 
question  between  the  !*?;  (Hiphil),  *He  shall  establish',  and  the  I^ 
or  p\  (Kal?)  which  lies  behind  the  text  of  the  LXX,  must  on  the 
external  testimony  be  left  undecided,  internal  evidence  inclines  the  scale 
in  favour  of  the  LXX.     The  evidence  may  be  presented  thus : — 

(a)  For  a  Hiphii  {Jachin)  M.  T. 

Vulgate,  Jachin. 

JosephuSj  ArcIiaeoL  viii  3.  4  [§  78],  td,  Niese,  'laxeiV  ** 

Peshitta  {LU=  A)  ^*a*  (exact  transcription  of  the  M.  T,). 

Targum  (Antw.  Polyg.  =  Lagarde)  T^^  (again  an  exact  transcription), 

(M.  T.»  Vulgate,  Peshitta,  and  Targum  have  the  same  reading  in 
2  Chron.  iii  1 7  *}, 

{b)  For  a  Kal  or  a  verbal  substantive  having  the  form  of  a  Kal 
imperfect  (or  voluntative). 

LXX  (cod,  B ;  Lucian)  la^ov/A. 
(cod.  A)  loxow. 

*  Cf,  Lagarde,  Onom.  p.  1 68  lax"'>  ^Jroi/iaff^Mii'ey,  Iroi^ior. 
'  The  Targiimic  gloss  however  suits  p3»  soinewbal  better  than  p».    T 
is»  in  M'n  MniaVD  njpn«i  urn  *ts  ]^d'. 


scale 

i 


\ 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


449 


I 


De  Norn,  ffebraicis  (Lagarde  Onomastica  p.  42)  has : 
Jachon,  Pratparatio^ 
which  is  probably  a  reproduction  of  a  Greek  gloss  ' 

{I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  Old  Latin  evidence  in  Sabatier,  or 
VercellonCj  or  in  the  Speculum^  or  in  Cyprian.) 

The  Ethiopic  (in  the  tnain,  I  suppose,  a  daughter-version  of  the 
LXX)  has  a  transcription  answering  to  la^ov^  (with  k\  a  reading  found 
in  H.  P.  44,  sSv  56,  64,  71.  93.  lo^t  i2o»  i23»  iJ4i  i44.  242,  243,  244, 
246^  Aid.  Cat,  Nic,  and  plainly  a  corruption  of  laxov^  I  think  on 
the  foregoing  testimony  that  we  may  say  with  confidence  that  the  original 
reading  of  the  LXX  was  laxovfi.  or  la^ow. 

The  decision  between  this  and  the  Massoretic  reading  is  to  be  given 
on  internal  grounds*  T?!  is  a  form  known  to  Mass,  Hebrew,  p3J  or  jbj 
(nncompounded)  is  not.  The  Massoretes  gave  a  meaning  to  an  obscure 
Hebrew  name  by  making  one  of  the  regular  Massoretic  changes.  Thus 
lax<^^  (laxow)  is  to  be  preferred  as  the  reading  which  gave  birth 
to  its  rival. 


(B)  BoAZ. 


The  evidence  for  the  reading  Boas^  a  name  identical  with  that  of 
Ruth's  second  husband,  is  as  follows  : — 

M.  T.  ty^,  written  plene  in  four  of  Kennicott's  MSS, 

LXX  {cod.  A,  Boos:  H.  P.  125,  Boa£;  H.  P.  347,  Boc^:  Arm.,  Boof 
orBowf*). 

[De  Nom.  ffebrmds.     Booz,  In  fortitudint^ 

Feshitta,  \^s>  or  \S^. 

Targum,  Tj?3  Lagarde ;  nni  Antw.  Polyg. 

Vulgate,  Boofi. 

(Targtim  on  2  Chron.  iii  171  'He  called  the  name  of  that  on  the 
left  '  Boaz  *  after  the  name  of  Boaz,  the  head  of  that  family  of  Judah 
whence  came  forth  all  the  kings  of  the  House  of  Judah.*) 

At  the  head  of  the  variants  to  the  received  reading  Boat  should  be 
placed  a  significant  variant  which  affects  the  vowels  only : 

LXX  (Luciano H.  P.  19,  93,  Baa{:  H.  P.  108,  Baa^t). 

Josephus  {li/  supra^  ed.  Niese),  *A/3at£,  Batf,  Bois;  Josephus  1**,  Bae%. 


The  remaining  variants  of  the  Septuagint  are  those  which  introduce 
a  X  as  middle  consonant  of  the  name.  They  may  be  said  to  follow  two 
forms ;  (i)  a  form  of  which  it  may  simply  be  said  that  X  is  introduced ; 


'  Lag.  Onom*  p.  167^  Ia«oy^,  [%%£)  which  13  the  reading  of  H.  P.  1 19  in  3  Regn. 
*  So  Mr.  N.  M*'Lemn  informs  me* 

VOL.  V.  G  g 


450    THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

(2)  an  elaborated  form  which  suggests  in  addition  a  disturbance  of 
vowels  of  the  word. 

First  Form. 
LXX  (cod.  B-Ethiopic),  BaXa^. 

Second  Form. 
LXX  (cod.  Basiliano-Valicanus,  IX  Century),  BaoXoof. 
„     (H,  P.  52,  [74?]*.  92,  121,  i34t  144,  236,  242,  243.  i»44. 

Nic),  BaoXoof. 
„     (H.  R  71,  245),  BooXoai. 
„     (H.  P.  44\  BoAoo^. 
„     (H.  P.  55).  BooW. 
,.    (H.  P.  64),  BoXot 

Naturally  the  first  question  to  ask  in  considering  these  variants  is, 
Can  any  explanation  be  given  of  the  origin  of  the  form  which  contains 
the  elements  B-A-t  and  is  supported  by  the  united  authority  (very  strongs 
Jt  seems  to  me)  of  cod.  B  and  the  Ethiopic  version  ?  I  think  it  can. 
Assume  for  a  moment  that  the  original  reading  here  was,  as  some 
scholars  suppose,  BAAL  (^y3).  The  reading  is  now  at  any  rate  BOAZ 
(Tpi).  The  intermediate  step  between  these  readings  is  afforded  by  the 
word  bv^  written  with  an  n^l^n  niK*,  i,e,  with  a  suspended  T  to  warn 
the  reader  that  the  offensive  word  BAAL  must  be  softened  into  BAAZ» 
Le.  into  the  reading  found  in  the  Lucianjc  LXX.  The  editors  or 
translators,  however,  to  whom  the  reading  of  cod.  B  is  due,  either 
hesitating  to  suppress  any  letter  of  Scripture,  or  misunderstanding  the 
purpose  of  the  suspended  letter,  'simply  added  the  I  and  so  gave  us 

The  second  question  to  be  answered  is»  Can  any  explanation  bfl 

given  of  the  forms  which  shew  a  marked  distorbance  of  vowel  sounds, 
t\  e,  of  the  form  BaoXaol  and  of  its  numerous  variants  which  appear  in 
the  cursives  ?  To  this,  I  believe,  an  affirmative  answer  may  be  given ; 
the  theory  of  a  suspended  letter,  if  it  be  accepted,  does  explain  these 
longer  forms  no  less  satisfactorily  than  the  form  BaXa^.  We  have  only 
to  suppose  that  in  some  Hebrew  MSS  the  correction  in  the  reading  was 
written  ^%a  instead  of  ^bv^.  M 

(The  reason  for  introducing  the  3?  in  addition  to  the  1  would  be  to" 
shew  more  clearly  that  the  t  was  a  suifstitute  for  the  i*  and  not  an 
addition  to  the  three  letters  b^2 ;  in  other  words  to  shew  that  the  T  was 
to  immediately  follow  y.) 


'  No.  74  is  quoted  also  for  the  reading  Bmf. 
■  The  four  instances  of  a  *  suspended  letter'  are  Jud.  xviii  30;  Ps«  hoot  14*  Job 
xxxviii  13,  15.     (Ct  L.  Blau  Masoritisch*  UntvrsuchungtHj  Strftssburg,  1S91,) 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  45I 

But  again  (so  I  suppose)  the  fear  of  omitting  something  prevailed. 
Some  early  transcriber  of  the  LXX  text  of  Kings  who  was  acquainted 
with  the  Hebrew  text  found  there  a  combination  of  letters  which  he 
(disregarding  the  suspension  of  the  last  two)  read  as  ry^yi.  Such  a 
form,  if  we  may  judge  by  analogy,  would  be  represented  in  the  LXX 
by  BooXoo^  ^  or  BaoXaoi  OT  by  one  of  the  many  intermediate  forms  cited 
above.  But  if  we  accept  either  of  the  above  forms  as  original,  the 
remaining  forms  given  in  the  cursives  may  easily  be  explained  as  cor- 
ruptions which  arose  in  the  course  of  the  transcription  of  the  Greek. 
(The  present  Heb.  reading  BOAZ  (=  LXX  A)  may  be  described  as 
one  remove  further  in  the  direction  of  euphemism  than  the  Lucianic 
BAAZ.) 

I  conclude  that  the  evidence  of  the  LXX  points  to  the  reading  p^ 
{resid ydcAun  or  ydchdti)  iorjachin^  and  to  ^y3  (read,  however,  as  Baaz^ 
by  way  of  euphemism  to  avoid  the  name  Baal)  for  Boat,  The  two 
words  thus  restored  may  be  Hebrew  (though  not  Massoretic  Hebrew), 
but  they  are  more  probably  Phoenician,  ^they  be  Hebrew,  it  is  con- 
ceivable that  p^  was  understood  by  the  writer  of  the  account  of  the 
Temple-building  in  a  sense  kindred  to  the  word  I^  (i  Kings  viii  13, 
'a  settled  place'  A.V. ;  *a  place'  R.V.;  oIkov  lintpmj  LXX  B;  oUw 
€virp€rnj  cod.  A).  Then  reading  the  two  names  in  the  order  given  in 
the  text  of  ver.  21  the  writer  may  have  understood  them  to  mean  'The 
Lord  dwelleth  *  or  *  The  Lord  hath  a  dwelling '.  But  the  words  may  be 
Phoenician,  they  may  have  to  be  read  in  the  order  Baa/  /acAun,  and 
they  may  both  be  names  or  epithets  of  a  Deity.  Until  we  know  more  of 
Phoenician  religion  and  Phoenician  worship,  it  seems  to  me  unsafe  to 
go  further. 

W.  Emery  Barnes. 

PS.  In  Critica  Bihlica  (Part  IV,  in  loco)  Prof.  Cheyne  proposes  to 
tezAJerahmeel  {ox  Jachin^  and  ^Jezebel,  i.e.  IshmaeV  for  Boaz. 


ON   ROMANS   IX  5  AND   MARK   XIV  61. 

The  punctuation  of  Rom.  ix  5  has  probably  been  more  discussed 
than  that  of  any  other  sentence  in  literature,  and  I  should  not  venture 
to  reopen  the  subject  were  it  not  that  the  interpretation  which  I 
wish  to  bring  forward  is  based  on  a  somewhat  different  view  of  the 

*  Cf.  Noo/i/MCK  -'p;^  (Ruth,  passim^  cod.  A);  Totf onijX  » ^^n;^  (Jud.  lii  9,  11, 
codd.  A  B) :  fofiop  -  'rdo  (Ezod.  zvi  36,  codd.  A  B) ;  'Kpfiwt  «  tv^  (Gen.  xziii  3, 
cod.  A ;  hiat  B). 

'  I  fancy  that  the  Lucianic  LXX  here  as  in  some  other  places  has  preserved  an 
ancient  Hebrew  tradition. 

Gga 


452         THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

whole  passage  from  what  is  usually  taken.    As  a  rule  the  discussiaii| 
is  confined  to  the  question  whether  the  doxology  (6  &v  crt  Trdyrtav  Mr' 
€v\oyTjToi  ci«  rovi  tutova^'  d/ii}v»)  IS  to  be  referred  to  the  preceding  wor<U 
5  Xpioro^i  TO  Kara  (rapxa,  or  to  God  the  Father,     But  the  question  still 
remains  why  any  doxology  at  all  occurs  in  this  context.     Why  docs 
St  Paul  suddenly  pause  in  his  argument  to  bless  God  ? 

For  the  passage  is  a  formal  Benediction,  followed  by  the  Amen^ 
not  a  statement  of  the  Glory  of  a  divine  Person.  Dr  Sanday  and 
Dt  Headlam  (p.  232)  speak  of  the  words  which  we  are  considering  as 
a  'description  of  the  supreme  dignity  of  Him  who  was  on  His  human 
side  of  Jewish  stock',  but  to  say  this  is  to  ignore  St  Paul's  Amen, 
Whatever  else  the  words  may  be,  they  are  not  a  description  but  an 
ascription. 

The  obvious  difficulty  in  refening  the  words  to  our  Lord  is  not  that 
the  Christology,  which  on  this  assumption  would  underlie  the  clause^ 
is  too  *  high  •  for  St  Paul,  but  that  the  words  are  used  in  a  parenthetical 
way»  How  different  is  Philippians  ii  5-1 1,  with  its  careful  choice  of 
theological  terms !  I  can  imagine  that  St  Paul  or  his  immediate 
hearers  might  have  been  willing  to  assert  that  Jesus  Christ  was  ^co? 
€vkoyTfTiki  but  I  cannot  believe  that  He  was  commonly  given  that  title. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  it  does  not  explain  the  Amen,  We  cannot  properly 
understand  the  passage  until  we  have  found  some  reason  why  St  Paul 
should  break  off  his  impassioned  rhetoric  to  utter  a  benediction. 

The  word  fvXoyr^tk  occurs  eight  times  in  the  New  Testament  and  is 
always  used  of  God,     In  four  places  (Lk,  i  68,  a  Cor.  i  3,  Eph.  i  3, 

1  Pet.  i  3)  it  occurs  in  its  natural  place  as  an  exordium,  like  the  *  Pmise 
be  to  God'  at  the  beginning  of  the  Qoran.  The  passage  ML  xiv6i 
we  shall  discuss  later.    The  remaining  passages  are  Rom.  i  25,  ix  5, 

2  Cor.  xi  31.  In  all  of  these  we  find  the  phrase  tvkayriTo^  %h  tow 
atwva?.  We  are  evidently  in  the  presence  of  a  standing  formula,  of 
fixed  meanings     On  what  occasions  does  St  Paul  use  it  ? 

The  question  almost  answers  itself,  if  we  compare  the  three  passages. 
In  all  three  St  Paul  breaks  off  what  he  is  saying  to  utter  an  interjection 
of  blessing  to  God,  after  having  deliberately  made  what  might  seem  to 
be  a  monstrous  statement.  In  Rom.  i  25  he  has  said  that  God  Him- 
self had  given  up  the  idolatrous  heathen  unto  uncleanness,  and  as 
a  pious  Jew  he  cannot  mention  the  blasphemous  pagan  worship  without 
cleansing  his  lips  by  blessing  the  Creator.  In  2  Cor.  xi  31,  in  the 
midst  of  St  Paul's  ii^pocruvij  of  'boasting'  he  pauses  to  say  'These 
things  are  serious  and  true,  wild  as  they  sound,  and  in  proof  of  my 
soberness  and  sincerity  I  do  not  shrink  from  taking  God's  Holy  Name 
on  my  lips '.  *  Here  in  Rom.  ix  we  find  the  same  state  of  things.  The 
Apostle  has  shewn  how  the  elect  of  God  without  distinction  of  Jew  or 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


453 


Greek  are  justified  by  faith.  He  might  seem  to  have  no  caie  for  the 
fate  of  his  fellow  countrymen,  but  he  passionately  affirms  the  contrary 
by  every  Christian  vow.  He  does  not  underrate  the  privileges  of  the 
chosen  people  of  whom  came  the  Messiah  {ix  4  f ) ;  he  swears  by  Christ 
that  he  is  truly  grieved  if  they  are  to  perish  (ix  1  f),  nay,  he  would  pray 
to  be  banned  from  Christ  for  his  fellow  countrymen's  sake  (ix  3).  And 
then  he  goes  on  to  explain  that  nothing  is  further  from  his  meaning 
than  to  imply  that  the  Word  of  God  can  have  failed  of  its  purpose 
(ix  6  ff).  St  Paul's  language  is  so  well  known  to  us  that  it  makes  little 
impression,  but  to  his  first  hearers  it  might  very  well  seem  either 
insincere  or  blasphemous,  hke  the  excited  statements  which  precede 
Rom.  i  25  and  2  Cor.  xi  31.  He  therefore  adds  here,  at  the  end  of 
his  enumeration  of  Israel's  privileges,  at  the  first  point  where  he  can 
stop  to  take  breath,  his  solemn  invocation  of  the  God  of  Israel, 

On  this  view  there  is  no  pause  at  the  end  of  Rom.  ix  5,  any  more 
than  there  is  a  pause  at  the  end  of  Rom,  i  25  or  3  Cor.  xi  31 :  whatever 
the  grammatical  structure  of  q  ^v  ,  . ,  afn^v  may  be,  it  is  in  the  argument 
a  parenthesis,  and  the  essential  meaning  is  '  I  know  well  what  I  am 
saying,  and  I  am  not  afraid  to  call  God  to  witness  my  words'. 

And  by  what  name  is  St  Paul  thus  calling  upon  God  ?  Of  course 
he  is  writing  in  Greek,  but  I  venture  to  think  that  what  he  has  in  his 
mind  is  the  sacred  Hebrew  Tetragrammaton.  It  has  been  objected  by 
those  who  refer  the  doxology  to  *  Christ  after  the  flesh '  that  no  parallel 
to  this  use  of  d  Zv  can  he  found.  But  apart  from  the  remarkable  use 
of  d  tav  in  the  Apocalypse  we  have  the  parallel  of  Exod,  iii  14,  15,  which 
might  very  well  liave  guided  the  phraseology  of  a  Greek-speaking  Jew. 
There  we  read  6  iw  direcrTaXKe  jite  .  .  .  towo  fiov  iiTTiv  ovofjua  aui>viOK.  The 
mention  of  the  Tetragrammaton  calls  forth  the  benediction  expressed  in 
cvXoyijTos,  for  the  Name  of  the  Holy  One,  Bksstd  ht  He  /  should  not 
be  uttered  without  a  benediction  ;  and  conversely^  the  occurrence  of  the 
word  ^vkoytjTos  is  enough  to  shew  that  the  Holy  Name  has  been 
explicitly  or  implickly  prantmnced. 

This  brings  me  to  ray  second  point,  the  meaning  of  Mk.  xiv  61  flt 
According  to  St  Mark,  our  Lord  after  one  indignant  exclamation  at 
the  moment  of  His  arrest  (w.  48,  49)  kept  a  resolute  silence.  He 
answers  nothing  at  all  to  the  charges  brought  against  Him.  Why  then 
does  He  at  once  reply  when  the  High  Priest  asks  Him  whether  He  be 
the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  One  ?  I  venture  to  suggest  that 
the  reason  lay  in  the  form  of  words  which  the  High  Priest  was  at  last 
driven  to  use.  It  would  be  hazardous  to  attempt  to  reconstruct  the 
probable  Aramaic  original  of  his  question,  but  I  feel  pretty  sure  that 
the  phrase  ovlo^rov  tvXoyrjrov  indicates  either  an  actual  use  of  the 
Tetragrammaton  itself,  or  one  of  the  recognized  substitutes  for  it.    In 


454  THE  JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL   blUUU^ 


oilier  wofdit  CaiapHu  abjured  his  pritoiier  bf  the  Hoi^ 

tbii  course  did  secure  lum  a  ticCicil  ▼ktonr*    It 

tpeik,  because  not  to  speak  after 

dioae  ftaodiog  by  that  He  was  afiaid  to  daim 

beanog,    Matt  xxvi  6  j  ('  I  adjtire  thee  by  the  Iniog  God  thodt 

OS,  whether  thou  be  the  Cbrist,  the  Soa  oC  God  *)  is 

puapbiaae  of  St  Mark's   more  disoeet  and  fee 

^hnMco\ogj,  but  the  langoage  used  to  Matt,  does  not  aflbtd  ifae 

with  St  Paul's  use  of  ruXoyTros. 


To  make  my  meaoing  dearer  I  ghre  a  pan^htase  of  wbai  I 
ventured  to  suggest  as  the  mganing  of  the  thiee  pawjgiti  in  St  Fanli 

Epistles. 

Rom.  i  25  Tor  ttrurarrot  of  lonnr  HXrpp^  cSc  ttn^  arMfi,  ^^i^ 
'God  Almighty,  whose  Name  all  creatiires  are  bound  to  I 
I  do  now.* 
(The  last  daose  conespoods  to  'A/t^r.) 

Rotn.  ix  I,  $^  ov  ^cvSo/ioi  ....  6  wr.  In  rarwr  ^m,  ciXoy^rk  «k 

'I  lie  not  ...  ,  The  Eternal  (Blessed  is  His  Name !),  I  call  Himio 
witness.' 


i 


4 


3  Cor.  xi  51  5  Mi  lau  inrrqp  tov  Kvpiow  'Lpo^  ^ZSo't  o  «p. 

'The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  knows^  eren  tbe  Etenisl 
Himself  (Blessed  is  His  Name !),  that  I  lie  noL' 

For  a  calling  on  the  Divine  Name,  with  the  Divine  AttriboliQ^  fNt 
without  a  verb,  it  is  sufficient  to  mention  Exod.  xixiv  6»  7,  Wi^ 
regard  to  the  use  of  the  Name  among  the  Jews  to  compd  an  onwiffiiig 
witness,  the  dedsive  passage  is  Mishna  ShebO*6th  iv  ad  Jim.  *  [If  a  nun 
say]  I  put  you  on  your  oath,  I  adjure  you,  [it  depends  on  tbe  fbna 
of  words  used  whether  you  are  bound  to  comply.  If  he  merelj  say] 
"By  Heaven  and  Earth!"  you  are  not  bound.  [But  if  he  say]  '*By 
Y&d^Her'  "By  Akph-DaUth t "^  "By  Shaddai  !  "  "By  Sabaodil* 
" By  Merciful  and  Compassionate  ! "  "By  Slow  to  anger  and  plentifal 
in  mercy ! "  or  by  any  of  the  recognized  Attributes  of  [the  true]  God, 
you  are  bound/ 

A  still  nearer  parallel  to  the  view  here  maintained  is  to  be  found  ni 
the  Syriac  Acts  of  Philip  CVVright,  p.  94  ;  E.  Tr.,  p.  87).  This  document 
is  certaiiUy  Syriac  in  origin,  so  that  it  has  some  authority  as  a  wrtness  to 
Oriental  customs.  A  Jew  named  Ananias  had  been  oooTerted  by 
St  Philip  and  then  murdered  by  his  countrymetu  The  Jews  having 
denied  the  murder,  St  Philip  says :  *  Swear  to  me,  for  as  the  Buacide 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


455 


vho  is  with  me  commands  me  will  we  do  unto  you.'  Then  the  Jews 
cried  out  and  said :  *  No,— /A<;  God  of  Abraham^  He  that  spake  with 
Moses  from  the  midst  of  the  Bushy — that  this  Ananias  has  not  been  seen 
by  us  and  we  do  not  know  what  has  befallen  him/  I  give  the  curious 
syntax  of  the  sentence  quite  Hterally :  there  is  no  preposition  before  the 
Name  of  God,  so  that  the  form  of  oath  exactly  corresponds  with  that 
used  by  St  Paul. 

I  take  this  opportunity  of  pointing  out  that  there  appears  to  be 
a  reminiscence  of  Rom.  ix  5  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome 
K  3i»  32.  The  reference  is  given  by  Hilgenfeld,  but  it  does  not 
appear  in  Tischendorf  s  apparatus,  and  it  is  barely  noticed  by  Light- 
foot,  St  Clement  is  speaking  of  the  honours  and  blessings  received 
by  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  not  through  their  own  merits  but 
through  the  will  of  God.  To  Jacob,  says  Clement,  were  given  the 
twelve  Tribes  of  Israel  How  great  was  the  free  gift  given  to  him  1 
'  For  from  him  were  Priests  and  Levites,  all  those  who  served  at  the 
altar  of  God,  from  him  was  the  Lord  Jesus  according  to  the  flesh 
(ff  avTQv  Q  Kvpio^  'lijtrovs  TO  Kara  crapKa),  from  him  were  kingfl  and  rulers 
and  governors  through  the  tribe  of  Judah  \  the  other  tribes  all  receiving 
great  honour,  not  for  their  merit  but  according  to  the  will  of  God; 
and  similarly  we  have  been  called  in  Christ  Jesus  and  justified  by 
faith,  *by  which  alone  all  the  saints  from  of  old  were  justified  by 
Almighty  God,  to  whom ',  adds  Clement,  '  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever, 
Amen  \ 

Surely  this  is  just  such  a  sentence  as  might  flow  from  the  pen  of  one 
to  whom  Rom.  ix  1-5  was  verbally  familiar*  But  if  so,  it  is  clear  that 
St  Clement  did  not  take  the  doxology  at  the  end  of  v,  5  to  be  addressed 
to  'Christ  after  the  flesh', 

F.    C.   BURKITT. 


THE  JUSTIFICATION  OF  WISDOM. 

'  And  wisdom  is  justified  by  her  works/— -Matt,  xi  19  (R.VO* 
'And  wisdom  Is  justified  of  all  her  children.'— Luke  vii  35  (R.V.). 

The  difficulties  of  text  and  of  interpretation  which  are  connected  with 
these  words  are  well  known  to  ail  readers  of  the  Journal,  None  of 
the  many  attempts  to  account  for  the  variations  in  the  form  of  the 
saying  seems  to  be  satisfactory.  So  there  is  room  for  a  fresh  sugges- 
tion.    By  a  combination  of  the  two  readings  we  can  reach,  I  believe, 


456         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


I 

LWi 


the  aphorism  in  its  original  form,  as  follows : — mu  ilucaiwSyi  17 

If  the  original  utterance  ran  thus  *And  wisdom  is  justified 
works  of  all  her  children ',  Matthew  and  Luke  have  each 
portions,  and  portions  only,  of  it.  Such  a  supposition  is  not  hist< 
impossible  or  unlikely  ;  for  in  the  oral  tradition,  which  lies  behti 
Gospels,  a  saying  like  this,  obscure,  disconnected,  difficult,  w< 
remembered  imperfectly.  The  tendency  in  the  oral  tradition 
compress  and  abbreviate,  and  compression  was  only  possible 
second  half  of  this  saying.  That  wisdom  is  to  be  justified  by 
such  would  be  the  imperfect  impression  left  on  the  nainds  of 
while  by  others  the  saying  would  be  remembered  in  the  form  in  wl 
we  find  it  in  Luke  vii  35^  *  Wisdom  is  justified  by  all  her  chiidrei 
the  same  time  it  should  be  noted  that  the  version  of  neither 
can  be  described  as  incorrect  or  inaccurate.  The  utterance  as  fo 
in  both  Matthew  and  Luke  has  been  so  abbreviated  as  to  bea 
indefinite  and  ambiguous,  but  let  the  original  saying  be  reconstruc 
and  both  versions,  it  is  perceived,  do  not  differ  from  but  agree  wifH 
Moreover,  certain  peculiarities  in  the  grammatical  structure  andT 
of  the  two  versions  of  the  saying,  warrant  us  in  believing  them  to 
severed  parts  of  one  original  whole.  And  careful  consideration 
immediate  context  favours  the  same  view. 

Expositors  have  been  often  puzzled  by  the  omission  of  wdt 
Matthew's  version.  Why  have  we  not  in  his  Gospel  *  And  wise 
justified  by  all  her  works '  or  '  by  all  her  children '  ?  That  tl 
evangelist  should  have  failed  to  include  so  important  a  word 
Mr.  Latham  an  indication  that  he  had  not  realized  the  exact  signii 
of  the  Master's  saying :  *  indeed^  as  St.  Matthew  in  his  version  ot 
the  important  word  all,  it  looks  as  if  he  had  himself  missed  the 
sense'  {Pastor  Fastomm  p.  267).  If  the  saying  recorded  in  M^ 
is  the  same  as  that  in  Luke,  or  the  same  with  a  slight  discrepancy  f| 
for  Te«v<ijv),  the  omission  is  certainly  inexplicable.  But  the  sugg^ 
which  I  am  advocating  supplies  an  adequate  explanation  of  the  ab^ 
of  T-avT<»)v  from  Matthew's  version.  It  is  not  there,  because  it 
in  that  part  of  the  original  saying  *  And  wisdom  is  justified  by  the 
of  all  her  children '  which  is  recorded  by  him.  Again,  there  is  in 
version  the  grammatically  irregular  expression  ihiKoxui^y)  .  . .  dirS" 
ri^vf&v  avrt}^.  We  have  sufficient  evidence  of  the  difficulty  of 
expression  in  the  divergency  of  opinion  with  respect  to  its  exact  mean 
The  R.V.  retains  as  the  rendering  of  diro  the  A.V.  *of*,  whicl 
ambiguous.  Some  translate  the  preposition  'on  the  part  of*;  oti 
treat  it  as  almost  equivalent  to  Wo  with  the  passive,  and  render 'wise 
is  justified  by  all  her  children ' ;  others  again  find  in  diro  the  'frc 


abse 

1 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


457 


jrigin  (the  confirmation  has  come  to  wisdom  from  those  de%'oted  to  her) 
>r  even  the  '  from '  of  separation  (wisdom  is  justified  apart  from  all  her 
lildren).  But  let  the  two  versions  be  combined  and  tliis  difficulty 
[isls  no  longer,  the  saying  being  then  perfectly  clear  and  unambiguous  : 

[«eat  i^LKaititBij  ij  <ro^ca  airo  Tmv  Hpyuiv  tu}v  T€Kvuiv  aui^^  "iravrtav.      For  the 
ise   of  dffo  with  iprfiov  is   then   comparatively  simple    and   regular, 
:pressing  the  efficient  cause.     One  of  the  most  awkward  expressions 
the  aphorism  is  thus  shewn  to  be  foreign  to  the  original  utterance, 

[End  may  be  regarded  as  a  consequence  of  the  broken  form  in  which  it 

fbas  come  down  to  us. 

Next  we  turn  to  the  context.  Let  the  aphorism  be  read  'And 
wisdom  is  justified  by  the  works  of  all  her  children ',,  and  it  supplies 
a  fitting  conclusion  to  our  Lord's  discourse  on  this  occasion.  Inler- 
polated  in  this  discourse  there  is  a  striking  passage  (Luke  vii  29,  30)* 
which  runs  as  follows :  *  And  all  the  people  when  they  heard,  and  the 
pubhcans,  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John.  But 
the  Pharisees  and  the  lawyers  rejected  for  themselves  the  counsel  of 
God»  being  not  baptized  of  him.'  Now  taking  into  account  the  exact 
form  of  this  statement  ('  and  all  the  people  wAhh  they  heard '\  and  the 
place  it  occupies  in  the  narrative,  we  cannot  but  conclude  that  Jt  was 
made  in  consequence  of  some  expression  of  approval,  probably  by 
acclamation  or  perhaps  in  some  less  noticeable  way,  of  our  Lord's 
appreciation  of  John  the  Baptist.  It  must  have  been  evident  to  an 
onlooker  that  what  he  said  pleased  the  people  and  displeased  the 
Pharisees.  This  situation  is  the  key  to  the  brief  discourse  that  follows 
{w.  30-35)  and  especially  to  the  aphorism  in  v,  35.  In  uttering  the 
parable  of  the  children  in  the  market  place  our  Lord  evidently  had  more 
particularly  in  mind  the  Pharisees ;  it  was  they  who  said  of  John  that 
he  was  devil-possessed  and  had  accused  our  Lord  of  being  a  gluttonous 
man  and  a  winebibber.  But  the  ai)horism  was  addressed  more 
especially  to  the  people,  to  those  who  had  just  shewn  their  approval  of 
our  Lord's  appreciation  of  the  Baptist.  Now  that  the  first  excitement 
caused  by  John's  preaching  was  past,  there  was  doubtless  a  danger  of 
the  people  according  to  him,  as  also  to  our  Lord,  an  empty  popularity, 
enthusiastic  in  its  applause,  but  deficient  in  its  practical  response. 
Our  Lord  would  have  them  remember  that  Wisdom  is  not  to  be  justified 
by  mere  acclamation,  that  all  those  who  are  really  the  children  of 
Wisdom,  who  truly  love  and  strive  after  her,  justify  her  not  by  their 
shouts  but  by  their  deeds.     Let  them  continue  to  bring  forth  fruits 

*  Though  aome  scholars  (e.  g.  Dr.  PJummer)  argue  ibat  these  verses  are  i>art  of 
our  LordV  address,  the  traditional  view,  represented  by  the  interpolation  *  And  the 
Lord  said  *  before  i/.  31,  that  they  are  the  Evangelist's  parentbelical  commeot,  may 
well  be  true. 


458         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

worthy  of  repentance,  to  be  like  the  man  who  built  his  house  upon 
a  rock,  following  up  hearing  by  doing.  This,  rather  than  wrangling 
and  disputing  or  mere  noisy  outcry,  will  be  the  best  answer  to  the 
adverse  criticism  of  those  who  were  His  enemies  and  John's.  So  they 
will  shew  the  Divine  Wisdom  to  be  in  the  right  in  sending  them  such 
teachers  as  John  and  Himself,  For  *  Wisdom  is  justified  by  the  works 
of  all  her  children '. 

A.  T,  BURBRtDC*. 


ON  THE  USE  OF  THE  QUICUNQUE  VULT  IN  THE 
BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER. 

[The  following  draft  of  a  letter  written  by  the  late  Henry  Bradshaw, 
apparently  intended  for  publication  but  never  published,  has  been  placed 
at  our  disposal  by  the  kindness  of  Mr  F.  Jenkinson,  Librarian  of  the 
University  of  Cambridge.  The  letter  is  undated ;  but  its  mention  of 
a  statement  made  by  *  the  Cambridge  Professors  *  on  the  subject  with 
which  it  deals  points  to  the  year  1S72  as  the  time  when  it  was  written. 
The  reference  is  no  doubt  to  the  last  paragraph  of  a  memorandum  on 
the  Quuunque  vult  drawn  up  at  the  request  of  Archbishop  Tait  by 
Dr  Westcott,  Dr  Swainson,  and  Dr  Lightfoot,  which  was  laid  before 
Convocation  early  in  that  year\  The  paragraph  in  question  is  as 
follows : — 

*  We  would  also  add  that  we  deplore  the  change  ratified  at  the  last 
revision  of  the  Prayer  Book,  by  which  this  Exposition  of  the  Faith  when 
used  was  substituted  for  the  Apostles'  Creed  ^  and  we  hope  that  the 
earlier  usage  of  our  Church  may  be  restored,  by  which  it  was  recited  on 
special  occasions  before  that  Creed  and  not  in  place  of  it.* 

The  statement  thus  put  forward  appears  to  have  been  challenged  by 
Mr  J.  W,  Burg  on  (afterwards  Dean  of  Chichester }»  and  by  another 
writer  who  used  the  signature  '  N.  P.*  ■  The  reply  to  their  criticism 
prepared  by  Mr  Bradshaw  seems  worth  preserving  as  a  clear  statement 
of  the  facts  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  Quicunque  vult, — ^H.  A.  W.J 

'  Sm, — I  shall  be  glad  if  you  can  find  space  for  a  few  words  concerning 
the  pedigree  of  the  use  of  the  Quicungue  vult,  a  point  to  which  your 
correspondent  N.  P.  justly  attaches  some  importance,  though  the 
"palpable  blunder"  which  he  and  Mr  Burgon  attribute  to  the  Cam- 


•  Ckronidt  0/ ConvoeatioHt  187 a,  p.  49. 

*  Th<  initieU  luggest  tbat  tbis  writer  may  have  been  Mr.  Nicholas  Pocock. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


459 


jridge  Professors  lies  in  the  writers'  own  want  of  sufficient  knowledge 
ither  than  in  the  careful  statement  with  which  they  find  fault. 

*  Facts  are  always  safer  ground  than  assumptions,  as  perhaps  even 

[f  Burgon  will  allow  some  day.  If  any  one  will  take  the  original 
^preface  to  the  Prayer  Book  *' Concerning  the  Service  of  the  Church  '*  as 
a  guide,  and  will  patiently  study  the  anatomy  of  the  old  services  of  the 
English  Church,  and  compare  them  with  the  Reformed  Prayer  Book,  he 
will  see  what  a  deep  knowledge  the  English  Reformers  had  of  the  old 
services,  and  how  closely  they  followed  the  old  lines,  even  while  they 
ruthlessly  cut  off  what  they  (rightly  or  wrongly)  considered  excre- 
scences. 

•At  Mattins  the  Vtnite  was  divested  of  its  varying  invitatory,  the 
Hymn  was  abolished,  the  Psalms  for  the  day  were  cleared  of  their 
anthems,  and  the  Lessons  for  the  day  of  their  responds,  while  the  Te 
Dtum  was  left,  to  be  used  daily  except  during  a  certain  portion  of  the 
year.  At  Lauds  immediately  following,  the  fixed  Psalms  (one  of  which 
was  the  Benedidte)  with  their  anthems  were  abolished,  the  BemdtdU 
alone  being  retained  for  use  at  such  times  as  the  Te  Dtum  was  omitted ; 
the  Capitulum  was  deprived  of  its  respond  and  was  expanded  into 
a  whole  chapter  from  the  New  Testament;  and  the  Btncdictus  was 
retained,  only  divested  of  its  varying  anthem.  At  this  point  followed, 
preceded  (on  week-days  only)  by  the  Freees  fcriaks^  the  Collect  for  the 
day  and  other  memoriae^  among  which  the  Collect  in  the  memoria  pro 
pace  [Collect  for  Peace]  was  one. 

*At  Prime,  which  followed  at  once,  the  Hymn  was  abolished,  the 
fixed  Psalms  (the  last  of  which  was  the  Quicunque  vuii)  with  their 
anthems  were  abolished,  the  Quicunque  vult  alone  being  retained  for 
use  on  certain  festivals  ;  the  Capitulum  and  its  respond  were  abolished ; 
but  the  Preces  in  prostrationc  (including  in  them  the  Credo  and 
Paternoster)  were  retained  in  a  modified  and  much  abridged  form, 
as  well  as  the  Collect  for  Grace  with  which  (on  Sundays,  &c.)  this 
service  concluded  To  this  last  were  prefixed  the  Collect  for  the  day 
and  the  memoria  pro  pace  which  had  formed  part  of  the  conclusion  of 
Lauds '. 

'  It  is  difficult  to  give  a  broad  view  of  these  changes  in  few  words,  so 
as  to  be  understood.  But  let  any  one  read  carefully  the  old  service  of 
Prime,  which  the  Reformers  had  been  in  the  habit  of  using  for  years 
past.  He  must  allow  that  in  aboUshing  the  Hymn,  in  cutting  down 
the  daily  use  of  the  long  series  of  fixed  Psalms  to  the  occasional  use  of 
one  of  them,  the  Quicunque  vult ;  in  reducing  the  long  Prects  in  pro- 
siraticne  (which  consisted  of  the  Kyrie  eleison^  Lord's  Prayer,  Creed, 

*  Here  follows  A  parognph  which  has  been  cancelled,  and  writteo  afresh  m 
another  form.^H.  A.  W« 


460  THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


rtol 


Confession  and  Absolution,  with  from  twenty  to  thirty  verses  and 
responds  interspersed)  to  the  simple  Prayers  to  be  said  all  devoullj 
kneeling,  A>nV,  Creed  *,  Lord's  Prayer  and  seven  verses  and  responds; 
the  Reformers  may  well  have  felt  that  curtailment  could  hardly  go 
further.  ■ 

*  It  will  be  seen  from  what  I  have  said,  and  it  must  always  be  borne  r 
mind,  that  in  the  old  service,  and  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1549.  the  Qiu- 
cunque  vuli  is  sung  as  an  ordinary  Psalm,  while  the  Credo  forms  part  of 
the  Preus  in  prostrationt  or  Prayers  to  be  said  all  devoutly  kneeling. 
1552  the  Revisers  seem  to  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
better  to  repeat  the  Credo  standing ;  at  any  rate,  from  whatever  cat 
we  find  the  Creed  now  removed  from  the  Prtas  in  prostratiom 
prefixed  to  them  with  a  rubric  ordering  that  it  shall  be  said  standing. 
If  they  had  meant  to  say  that  the  Creed  was  not  to  be  used  at  all  when 
the  Quicunque  vuii  was  sung,  surely  they  would  have  said  so.  Having 
been  accustomed  all  their  lives  to  use  the  two  in  the  same  service,  they 
might  at  least  have  added  a  direction  to  omit  one  of  them  if  they  had 
really  meant  us  to  do  so.  It  is  perhaps  difficult  for  us,  at  the  present 
day,  to  appreciate  the  enormous  reduction  which  the  Reformers  made 
in  the  length  of  the  services.  The  tendency,  as  we  all  know,  has  been 
gradually  to  shorten  even  these  abridged  services  more  and  more.  From 
this  point  of  view,  Mr  Burgon's  note  about  Cartwright  is  very  interesting, 
as  shewing  that  even  in  1572  the  practice  of  mutilating  the  service  had 
begun.  But  even  Cartwright's  words  hardly  authorize  us  to  speak  of  the 
practice  as  universal,  much  less  of  its  affording  the  only  rational  meanii 
of  the  rubric  in  question.  Otherwise  we  might  almost  be  told  that  t! 
modern  abuse  of  closing  the  common*  Sunday  service  with  the  sermoi 
was  sufficient  warrant  for  believing  that  the  offertory  rubrics  naturally 
supported  that  interpretation.  When  we  know  for  certain  what  th^ 
Reformers  had  been  accustomed  to  themselves,  it  is  only  fair  t^ 
interpret  their  words  by  this  rather  than  by  the  custom  which  grew  up 
even  in  the  very  next  generation. 

'The  Quignon  Breviary  *  afforded  our  Reformers  many  valuable  hints ; 
but  it  is  a  fancy  servicej  which  deserts  the  old  lines  of  the  Catholic 
service-books,  and  it  is  a  very  unsafe  guide  to  those  who  would  stu< 
the  genuine  history  of  the  English  services/ 


oiT 


\ 


^  la  the  draft  the  words  *  Kyritf  Creed  *  precede  the  words  •  Prayers,  all  de\'ou' 
koecling* ;  but  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1549  the  Kyru  and  Creed  are  part  of  tb 
prayers,  not  something'  prefixed  to  them  :  the  later  changes  are  discussed  in  Lhe 
ncit  para^aph, — H,  A.  W. 

*  This  word  is  doubtful.^H.  A.  W» 

*  The  Breviary  of  Quignon,  in  both  its  forms,  contemplates  the  omission 
Apostles*  Creed  ou  SuudayAi  when  the  Quiamqut  vuii  was  to  be  said.— H.  A.  W. 


STUDIES 


461 


CLARENDON 


TESTAMENTS. 


1.  In  a  note  added  to  my  unpretending  article'  Professor  Sanday 
expresses  a  little  surprise  that  I  ruled  out  the  one  book  which  has 
some  real  connexion  with  the  Oxford  of  the  present  day,  and  demurs 
to  the  title  I  have  given  to  my  study.  The  reason  of  the  first  fact  is 
very  simple  :  I  wished  to  treat  of  those  editions  alone  which  confine 
themselves  to  the  Text  of  the  Greek  Testament.  If  any  one  wishes  to 
buy  a  Greek  Testament  without  apparatus  published  by  the  Clarendon 
Press  he  can  get  no  other  than  *  Lloyd  *  for  3^.  and  *  Mill '  for  ts,  Sd. 
*  Palmer '  has  an  apparatus,  a  special  purpose,  and  costs  in  its  cheapest 
form  4J.  6d.  I  further  confined  my  words  strictly  to  the  *  Press ',  and 
1  did  not  speak  at  all  of  the  New  Testament  at  Oxford  at  the  present  day* 

2.  But  as  Professor  Sanday  insists  on  Palmer's  Greek  Testament,  as 
prescribed  for  use  in  the  Examinations  of  the  University,  a  word  on 
'  Palmer  *  will  be  allowed.  The  principle  was  to  introduce  into  the  text 
of  Stephanus  1550  (= Milt t=  Lloyd)  the  readings  adopted  by  the  Revisers, 
and  it  contains  on  its  margin s»  if  I  counted  correctly,  5,257  variants,  as 
proof  how  far  the  text  of  the  Revisers  deviated  from  that  of  1550. 
But  there  are  grave  doubts,  whether  this  principle  really  does  justice  to 
the  Revisers  and  whether  it  satisfies  the  wants  of  modern  students. 

The  Revisers  continue  in  their  Preface,  after  the  words  quoted  by 
Palmer  in  his  Preface  (that  it  did  not  fall  within  their  province  to  con- 
struct a  continuous  and  complete  Greek  text) — 'In  many  cases  the 
English  rendering  was  considered  to  represent  correctly  either  of  two 
competing  readings  in  the  Greek^  and  then  the  question  of  text  was 
usually  not  raised '.  Now  I  ask,  is  it  justifiable  in  the  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  these  cases  where  *S*  deviates  from  a  modem  text,  say  that 
of  Westcott-Hort,  to  exhibit  (just  and  only)  S  as  the  text  represented 
by  the  Revisers,  with  the  exclusion  of  the  competing  reading,  which  has, 
perhaps,  much  better  foundation  ? 

To  quote  the  examples  from  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew. 
Palmer  changed  S  in  ch.  i  seven  times,  in  ch.  ii  three  times  ;  Scrivener 
gives  in  his  editio  maior  in  the  same  chapters  19+7  and  15  +  3  deviations 
of  Westcott-Hort  from  5;  to  mention  but  the  spellings  AaWS,  *Axa9, 
SoXojuUiJi/a,  'Hp<p5T^? ;  the  transpositions  o  pao-iktitv  'Hptf&rf^f  i^rrdaaT* 
JLtcpiPSi^f  Kar  oi^ap  tftaivtrau  tt^rt  'Hp<^Sov  tow  irarpoif  ai/rov,  the  replacing 
of  irapaSciy/iarurai  by  the  simple  verb,  !(m}  by  itrrd&rf,  the  omission  of 
Itti  in  ii  22.  Surely  these  readings  are  all  much  better  attested  than 
those  of  St  may  just  as  well  claim  to  correspond  to  the  Revised  Version, 

^  See  Journal  cf  Thtolojgicat  StuduSf  January  1904,  p.  374. 


462         THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

and  have  better  claims  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  modem  students 
than  those  of  1550.  But  this  is  a  question  by  itself;  what  I  wished 
to  insist  upon  was,  that  the  Clarendon  Press  in  its  iext-^f^tions  ought 
no  longer  to  circulate  the  Textus  Receptus, 

3.  Finally^  Professor  Sanday  made  a  little  mistake  in  writing  :  *  Cam- 
bridge prints  the  Stephamis  text  of  1550  with  the  Revisers'  readings  as 
variants  *,  It  is  not  the  Stephanus  text  of  1550,  but  Beza's  fifth  and  last 
text  of  1598  (as  being  more  likely  than  any  other  to  be  in  the  hand^^f 
King  James's  revisers).  Whether  the  Cambridge  Press,  in  like  man^H 
as  the  Clarendon  does  with  Lloyd  and  Mill,  •  still  issues  the  text  of 
Stephanus '  is  unknown  to  me  *.  Scrivener's  reprints  of  Stephanus  are, 
as  far  as  I  am  aware,  private  undertakings,  and  his  edition  of  Beza  with 
the  reading,  of  the  Revisers,  published  for  the  University  Press,  ranks 
with  Palmer,  not  with  '  Lloyd  '  or  *  Mill '. 

£b.   NfiSTLB. 


NOTES  ON  THE  BISHOPS  OF  ST  ANDREWS. 


Addenda  et  Corrigenda, 

During  the  great  schism,  while  Scotland  up  to  141 7  adhered  to  the 
Anti-Popes,  the  Popes  continued  to  make  appointments  to  Scottish 
sees,  which  appointments  in  Scotland  were  wholly  unrecognized  and 
ineffective.  The  following  may  be  recorded,  (i)  As  already  noticed 
(see  p.  ifi2  note)  Alexander  de  Neville,  archbishop  of  York  (deposed 
1388),  was  translated  by  Urban  VI  to  the  bishopric  of  St  Andrews  fa 
Scotland  ( Walsingkam^  Rolls  Series,  it  1 79).  The  date  of  the  bull  ta 
given  as  April  30,  1388.  He  is  the  'Alexander  bishop  of  St  Andrews* 
of  subsequent  letters  of  Urban  Viand  Boniface  IX  (C./*.^,  iv  271, 
326,  343),  He  died  in  poverty  at  Louvain  in  May,  1392.  (2)  Thomas 
de  Arundel  {successor  of  Neville  at  York,  translated  to  Canterbury 
in  1396),  while  in  banishment  after  his  attainder,  was  translated  to 
St  Andrews  by  Boniface  IX,  Jan.  21,  139S.  He  was  restored  to  Can- 
terbury in  Oct.  1399  (see  Hardy's  Le  Nev^s  Fasti).    (3)  John  Trevor, 

*  The  Cambridge  University  Press  publishes  Beza*5  text  of  1598,  with  the 
variants  adopted  by  the  Revisers  at  the  foot  of  Ihc  page,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Nestle, 
For  this  edition  there  ts  a  good  demand.  It  also  still  prints  and  publishes  the 
Stephanus  text  of  1 556,  with  the  English  of  the  Authorized  Version  in  parallel 
columns  (first  edited  by  Scholefield  in  1836— some  small  changes,  e.  g.  of  ortho- 
graphyj  in  later  editions),  as  there  is  stHl  some  demand  for  this  edition.  Scnvcner*s 
reprint  of  the  Stephanus  text  of  1550,  with  the  variants  of  later  editors  and  the 
Revisers  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  is  published  by  Messrs  I>eightoa  &  Bell,  though 
printed  at  the  Cambridge  Press.— [Edd,] 


• 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  463 

"who  had  been  provided  bishop  of  St  Asaph  (Oct.  21,  1394 — C  P,  R, 
iv  481),  was  translated  to  St  Andrews  in  1408  (see  EubeFs  Hierarchia 
Catholica  i  88  note  5).  Trevor  died  April  10,  1410  (Stubbs's  Reg, 
Sand.  AngL  2nd  edit  82). 

Scheves  (p.  256).  His  provision  as  coadiutor  cum  iure  successionis 
was  as  early  as  Sep.  13,  1476  (Eubel  ii  99). 

Corrigendum  (p.  259  note)  :  for  1572  read  15 12. 

Corrigendum  (p.  260  note  i).  Delete  the  reference  to  the  Biack 
Book  of  Taymouthy  which,  however,  may  mark  that  Gavin  Douglas's 
obit  was  observed  on  that  day.  His  death  must  have  occurred  between 
Sep.  10,  1522,  when  his  will  was  executed,  and  Sept  19,  1522,  when 
probate  was  granted.  The  will  is  printed  in  the  introduction  to 
Smairs  edition  of  the  Poetical  Works  of  Gavin  Douglas  i  pp.  acvii  ff. 
I  owe  this  reference  to  the  Rev.  John  Anderson  of  H.  M.  General 
Register  House,  Edinburgh. 

J.  DOWDEN. 


464 


REVIEWS 
THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION. 


Grundprobleme  dtr  RdigitmipMksophie.     Von   D.   Dr    A.    Dorhtei. 
(Berlin,  C.  A.  Schwetschke  und  Sohn,  1905.) 

This  work  consista  of  eight  lectures  delivered  before  an  audience 
of  educated  men  and  women,  with  the  purpose,  so  their  author  tells 
us,  of  making  known  the  principal  questions  with  which  religious 
thought  is  at  present  busy.  The  work  is  therefore  semi-popular  in 
nature;  but  it  presupposes  a  considerable  acquaintance,  on  the  part 
of  its  readers,  with  several  departments  of  theological  science.  It  is 
a  book  which  may  be  commended  to  the  student  not  only  for  its 
concise  presentation  of  the  results  of  modern  enquirj',  but  also  for 
the  interesting  way  in  which  these  are  brought  into  relation  with  one 
another  in  the  light  of  one  or  two  general  principles  which  the  author 
especially  emphasizes.  Dr  Dorner  has  in  fact,  in  these  lectures^ 
supplied  a  useful  general  survey  of  a  complex  subject,  much  of  the 
work  in  connexion  with  which  has  been  done  in  his  own  country. 

The  eight  lectures  are  not  equal  in  interest  or  in  merit  The  first 
and  one  or  two  of  the  later  ones,  perhaps,  contain  much  that  is 
commonplace.  The  discussionj  for  instance,  of  the  temper  essential 
to  theological  investigation,  and  the  treatment,  at  the  end  of  the  book, 
of  the  relation  of  religion  to  science  and  art,  arc  of  this  nature.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  lectures  which  deal  with  '  Das  Wesen  der  Religion ', 
and  with  the  developement  of  the  religious  consciousness  and  of  religious 
riles,  abound  in  suggestive  remarks  and  treat  their  subjects  in  an  able 
and  somewhat  original  manner. 

The  enquiry,  in  Lecture  II,  into  the  psychological  basis  of  religion 
is  abundantly  illustrated  by  the  views  of  modern  writers,  or  rather 
of  modem  German  writers.  The  array  of  names  here  cited  enables 
one  to  realize  how  strong,  in  the  author's  country,  is  nowadays 
the  tendency  to  see  in  religion  no  addition  to  man's  knowledge,  but 
merely  a  practical  aid  to  moral  life.  Religion  is  identified,  as 
Dr  Dorner  points  out,  sometimes  with  the  feeling  of  reverence  or  of 
dependence,  sometimes  with  the  impulse  or  effort  to  obtain  a  unified 
view  of  the  world  or  victory  over  its  hindrances  to  the  higher  life ;  but 
religion  as  thus  conceived  does  not  even  presuppose  the  existence 
of  God.  After  enumerating  examples  of  this  kind  of  belief  as  to  the 
essential  nature  of  religion,  the  author  instances  views  of  the  opposite 


I 


I 


I 


REVIEWS 


465 


lass — those,  namely,  of  writers  who,  beginning  at  the  other  end,  set 
>ut  from  a  metaphysical  idea  of  God. 

In  the  third  lecture,  Dr  Dorner  states  his  own  conception  of  what 
subjective  religion  is.  He  takes  it  to  be  the  outcome,  in  the  main, 
of  the  Einkeitstritb^  of  the  search  for  a  unity  transcending  and  recon- 
ciling the  contrasts  between  the  individual  ego  and  the  world,  between 
good  and  evil,  &c.,  which  leads  the  mind  on  to  the  idea  of  a  unifying 
power  This,  supplemented  by  the  consciousness  of  dependence,  which 
figured  so  largely  in  Schleiermacher's  definition,  constitutes  religion  on 
its  subjective  side.  To  this  unifying  power  reality  is  ascribed,  and 
so  religion  becomes  metaphysical. 

We  are  obviously  introduced  here  to  the  problem  which  modem 
philosophical  thought  on  religion  is  endeavouring  afresh  to  solve :  how 
to  bridge  the  gulf  between  our  subjective  religious  experience  and 
the  objective  existence  of  God,  to  whose  activity  we  would  refer  the 
causation  of  our  religious  affections.  Neither  psychologists,  such  as 
William  James,  nor  theological  philosophers,  such  as  Sabatier,  have 
helped  the  religious  man  here  with  anything  like  a  demonstration  of 
the  real  existence  of  the  objects  of  our  religious  consciousness.  Nor 
does  Dr  Dorner  bring  us  any  assistance.  In  his  endeavour  to  do  so, 
he  would  seem  to  commit  a  very  old  fallacy*  He  argues  thus  ^ :  if  the 
unifying  power,  which  we  call  God,  is  a  necessity  to  our  subjective 
reason,  our  reason  cannot  call  that  Being  a  product  of  itself,  and 
therefore,  possibly,  an  illusion.  We  are  reminded  here  of  the  old 
*ontological  argument';  and  Dr  Domefs  reasoning  seems  no  more 
trustworthy  in  its  attempt  to  get  from  thought  to  existence,  from  idea 
to  thing,  than  that  so-called  'proof*.  Moreover  the  'unity'  which  we 
necessarily  postulate,  in  order  to  unify  our  knowledge,  may  not  exist 
in  the  world ;  necessity  for  thought  is  not,  in  this  instance,  necessity 
of  existence.  The  author,  then,  does  not  seem  to  make  good  his 
identification  of  religion,  as  a  psychological  condition  or  a  human 
experience,  with  the  activity  in  man's  spirit  of  an  existent  God.  There 
is  much,  however,  in  his  treatment  of  subjective  religion  which  is 
valuable. 

In  the  next  lecture,  the  author  traces  out  the  course  of  developement 
of  religion,  as  it  is  to  be  read  in  the  history  of  particular  religions* 

*  '  Wenn  sic  (die  cncJHchr  Vernunff)  dies  tut*  und  damtt  bekennt^  daw  sie  sich 
genOtigt  sche»  voe  sich  als  der  subjektiven  Vcrnunil  auf  ein  Wcsen  lurflckiugehcn, 
das  dber  Jhr  stche^  so  kann  sie  nicht  zuglcich  wiedcr  behauptcn,  dass  dieses  Wesen 
doch  nur  ihr  Produkt  sei  and  rnir  in  ihrer  VorstelluHg  vorhanden  aei.  Sie  wflrde 
sich  sonst  widcrsprcchen.  Kurz  :  wcnn  der  Einheitstrieb  notwcndig  in  einem 
transzendenten  .  ,  .  Wcsen  aoBtnandet,  so  wird  man  nicht  in  einem  Atem  sagen 
kOanei]j«ber  dieses  Wcseo  sei  doch  nur  unser  Produkt,  s«i  ^r  nicht  trAtiazendctit/ 

VOL.  V.  H  h 


466 


THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


This  he  does  under  the  guidance  of  the  principle  that,  religion  being 
primarily  the  satisfaction  of  our  longing  for  unity,  religious  developement 
must  be  a  process  of  unification.  Hence  the  appearance,  in  time, 
monotheism  in  place  of  polytheism  and  animism.  Such  is  the  fi 
law  of  developement  which  he  finds  in  the  history  of  religious  tho 
Another  such  general  law  at  which  he  arrives  is,  that  the  richn 
the  conception  of  God  in  the  religion  of  any  particular  people  at  a 
time  stands  in  direct  proportion  to  that  people's  width  and  complexity 
of  experience,  and  to  the  degree  of  energy  with  which  it  separates  the 
contrasting  elements,  such  as  good  and  evil,  finite  and  infinite,  which 
religion  endeavours  to  unify  or  transcend.  Further,  Dr  Domcr  di> 
cusses,  in  an  interesting  and  suggestive  manner,  the  evolution  of 
religion  and  the  progressiveness  of  revelation  in  the  light  of  the 
principles  which  he  sought  to  establish  in  a  previous  lecture:  that 
religion,  in  its  subjective  aspect,  is  the  activity  of  the  Einktitstri^ 
and,  on  its  objective  side,  the  revelation  of  an  immanent  God. 

Lecture  V  deals  with  subjective  faith  and  the  various  modes  in  which 
it  has  found  expression. 

We  could  wish  that  Dr  Domer  had  here  attempted  a  more  thorough 
and  clear  definition  of  faith  in  contrast  with  knowledge.  He  fails  to 
distinguish  between  objective  certainty  and  subjective  certitude,  a  dis- 
tinction which  is  essential  to  a  clear  definition  of  faith.  The  ^me 
lecture  contains  some  discussion  of  the  developement  of  faith  during 
the  course  of  religious  evolution,  and  as  to  the  point  at  which  the 
necessary  illusoriness  of  such  faith  as  was  possible  in  earlier  stages  was 
exchanged  for  possible  certainty. 

With  the  later  lectures  we  need  not  deal.  They  are  concerned  with 
the  specific  forms  in  which  religion  has  expressed  itself:  revelation, 
prayer,  symbols,  sacraments,  dogmas,  and  so  forth.  The  author  con- 
siders that  most  of  such  outward  adjuncts,  even  such  as  belong  to 
Christianity,  are  destined  to  pass  completely  away  as  religion  approach^ 
more  and  more  nearly  to  its  ideal.  But  on  these  matters  less  light 
is  thrown  by  the  lecturer  than  upon  the  topics  dealt  with  in  the  earlier 
portion  of  his  interesting  volume. 

F.  R.  Tennant. 

THE  FALL  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

The  Sources  of  the  Doctrines  of  the  Fail  and  Original  Sitt,  By 
F,  R.  Tennant,  M.A.,  RSc,  formerly  Student  of  Gonville  and 
Caius  ColL,  Cambridge.    (Cambridge,  at  the  University  Press,  1903,) 

In  this  volume  Mr  Tennant  presents  us  with  the  historical  investiga- 
tion which  preceded  his  recently  published  Hulsean  Lectures  on  TAe 


i 


REVIEWS 


467 


^Kprigin  and  Propagation  of  Sin,    The  book  forms  a  fairly  complete 
^ftitrodoctlon  to  the  study  of  the  most  remarkable,  though  by  no  means 
^Rhe  most   important,  of  the  doctrines   associated  with    the   name   of 
^Bt  Augustine.     Mr  Tennant  begins  with  the  story  of  the  Fall  as  given 
^^n  Genesis ;  its  exegesis,  ethnological  origin  and  relations ;  its  psycho- 
logical origin,  and  character,  and  the  use  made  of  it  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Subsequent  chapters  deal  with  the  teaching  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  of  the 
Alexandrian  Judaism,  of  the  later  Rabbis,  and  of  the  Jewish  pseud- 
I      cpigrapha.     This  elaborate  review  of  Jewish  opinion   occupies   about 
L^wo-thirds  of  the  volume,  perhaps  too  large  a  proportion  in  view  of  the 
Hsact  that  the  Rabbinical  speculations  are  post-Pauline  in  date  and  of 
^dubious  relevancy,     Perhaps  we  may  sum  up  the  result  by  saying  that 
on  the  subject  of  the  Fall  the  Jews  had  no  doctrine,  but  many  opinions. 
Some  held  that  Eve's  transgression  brought  universal  punishment  on 
the  human  racCj  that  of  physical  death;  but  this  view,  which  Mr  Tennant 
finds  for  the  first  time  in  Ecclesiasticus  (p.  119),  was  not  held  by  Philo. 
Others  held  that  the  result  of  the  Fall  was  a  permanent  and  general 
weakening  of  the  moral  nature  of  man ;  but  to  this  rule  exceptions  were 
admitted,  for  instance  in  Wisdom  viii  20  'Solomon  is  represented  as 
having  entered  into  a  "body  undefiled"  in  consequence  of  the  "good- 
ness*'  of  his  soul  in  its  previous  state  of  existence'  (p.  129).     But  no 
one,  except  possibly  Rabbi  Nathan  in  the  second  century,  spoke  of 
hereditary  guilt  (p«  171),    Mr  Tennant  says  (p.  258)  :  '  It  is  certainly  the 
case  that,  in  some  of  the  apocalyptic  books  approximately  contem- 
poraneous with  the  writings  of  St  Paul,  we  meet  with  the  assertion  that 
death  was  decreed  against  the  race  because  of  Adam's  sin»  and  side  by 
side  with  this  the  (apparently)  conflicting  statement  that  each  individual 
is  responsible  for  his  own  ruin,  or,  as  pseudo-Baruch  expresses  it,  that 
every  man  is  the  Adam  of  his  own  soul.' 

The  second,  and  much  shorter,  division  of  the  book  deals  with  the 
developement  of  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  from  St  Paul  down  to 
St  Augustine. 

Mr  Tennant  holds  (against  Sanday  and  Headlam)  that  in  Rom.  via 
St  Paul  must  be  regarded  as  meaning  that  all  men  sinned  in  Adam,  but 
follows  Mr  Stevens  in  explaining  this  statement  away  as  due  to  '  mystic 
realism  \  in  other  words  as  a  poetical  trope  (p.  262).  This  phrase  of 
Mr  Stevens  is  surely  ill-chosen.  Realism  is  certainly  mystical,  but  it  is 
as  certainly  real ;  the  realist  regarded  his  ideas  as  things.  Nor  is  it  easy 
to  follow  Mr  Tennant  when  he  says  that  *  St  Paul  identifies  the  race,  as 
sinners,  with  Adam  in  the  same  sense  that  he  identifies  the  believer  with 
Christ '.  Certainly  as  regards  the  latter  of  these  unions  it  would  be 
unjust  to  the  Apostle  to  suppose  that  he  is  employing  a  mere  figure  of 
speech.  But  we  all  know  how  difficult  it  is  to  explain  a  mystic^  if  we  do 
^  H  h  3 


i 


468         THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


not  happen  to  be  mystics  oursdves.  However,  the  result  seems  to  be  thii 
St  Paul  is  left  with  no  doctrine  at  all,  except  just  this  that  physical  dei£ib 
is  the  consequence  of  the  Fall.  From  this  it  follows  naturally  ihat  'ha 
doctrine  of  the  Fall  must  be  regarded  as  widely  different  frona  that  which 
was  destined  to  become  general  in  the  Christian  church '  (p.  267),  b 
other  words,  Augustinianism  rests  upon  a  serious  misunderstaodiiig  of 
St  PauL     This  is  the  most  disputable  point  in  Mr  Tennant's  book. 

From  this  point  onwards  little  or  no  difference  of  opinion  wiB  be 
evoked  by  Mr  Tennant's  clear  and  scholarly  account  of  the  progress 
of  speculation.  The  chief  pioneers  of  Augustinianism  be  discovers  ifi 
the  East  in  Origen  and  the  two  Gr^ories,  in  the  West  in  TertuIIijJi. 
The  last-named  doctor  is  by  far  the  roost  important  He  is  maried 
by  three  extraordinary  peculiarities ;  he  was  a  Stoic,  a  Traducianist,  and 
a  Montanist  Mr  Tcnnant  does  not  dwell  upon  this  last  feattu-e  whici 
is  probably  the  most  important  of  all,  and  has  never  been  pfoperlf 
worked  out.  From  Montantsm  Tertullian  received,  not  indeed  his 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  the  figures  by  which  be  illustrated  the 
doctrine.  It  has  often  been  noticed  that  these  figures  are  much  too 
concrete,  and  the  reason  is  that  they  come  from  visions.  We  may  gucsi 
that  much  of  his  teaching  is  derived  from  the  sister  who  used  to  fidi 
into  trances  during  service,  and  see  visions  which  she  afterwards 
described.  Montantsm  would  lend  itself  very  readily  to  a  pessimistic 
view  of  human  nature.  The  Stoics  again  were  at  many  points  Calrinists 
before  Calvin.  From  the  Stoics  Tertullian  borrowed  his  view  of  the 
animal  propagation  of  the  soul  Finally,  by  combining  tradaoanism 
with  the  Christian  belief  in  the  Fall,  he  reached  his  doctrine  of  an 
inherited  degradation  of  the  soul,  which  however,  though  grievoos  and 
ruinous,  was  not  absolute  (we  shall  remember  the  testtmoms4m  amimai 
naturaiiitr  Christtanae),  It  may  seem  strange  that  Augustine  should 
have  retained  and  darkened  Tertullian's  view  of  human  nature  wbilc 
rejecting,  though  not  quite  positively,  the  traducianism  on  which  thai 
view  reposed.  Perhaps,  however,  Mr  Tennant  (see  p»  335)  ratho 
exaggerates  this  apparent  inconsistency.  A  Platonist  Father,  thou^ 
he  believed  in  the  divine  origin  of  each  individual  soul,  would  still  hold 
that  at  the  Fall  the  donum  superaddiium  was  lost,  and  this  view,  though 
widely  different  in  its  logical  foundation  from  that  of  the  tradux,  comes 
really  to  much  the  same  conclusion. 

Finally,  it  may  be  said  that  the  essential  feature  of  St  Augustioe'i 
teaching  is  not  his  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  which  is  really  quite 
secondary,  but  his  doctrine  of  Grace,  which  he  identifies  with  LofC* 
It  is  this  that  makes  his  teaching  at  once  so  beautiful  and  so  terrible. 
Nothing  can  be  simpler  or  juster  than  the  precept  '  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God '.     Yet  nothing  is  more  appalling,  for  no  tnao  can  say 


I 


d 


REVIEWS 


46» 


will  love  anything  or  anybody.     This  is  the  tme  root   of  Augus- 

inianism,  both  in  its  sweetness  and  in  its  bitterness.     Mr  Tennant  has 

lone  his  work  very  well,  so  far  as  one  to  whom  the  Rabbinical  writers 

re  known  only  at  second  hand  can  judge  of  it.     But  the  scheme  which 

[he  planned  for  himself,  and  to  which  he  has  adhered  with  scholarly 

concentration  of  purpose^  obliged  him  to  deal  exclusively  with  the  less 

[important,  less  agreeable,  less  scriptural,  and  less  philosophical  of  the 

[sources  of  Augustinianism. 

C  Bigg. 


THE  LIFE  OF  SEVERUS. 

Vie  de  SkiWt  par  Zackarie  k  Scholasttque,  texte  $yriaque  publik^  traduit 

et  annoii  par  M.  A.  KuGENER  {Patroiogia  Orienialis  torn.  2  fasc.  i ). 

(Paris,  1903-) 

The  life  of  Sevems  was  published  by  Dr  Spanuth  in  1893,  and  has 
been  translated  into  French  from  his  text  by  M.  Nau  in  the  Re^me  de 
r Orient  Chretien^  '899,  1900  ;  but,  as  Spanuth's  text  is  so  printed  that 
one  can  hardly  read  it  without  injury  to  the  eyesight  or  find  any 
desired  passage  in  it,  the  editors  of  the  Patrologia  have  done  well  in 
publishing  M.  Kugener's  work,  which  he  intends  to  follow  up  by  an 
edition  of  the  unpublished  life  of  Severtis  by  John  the  archimandrite 
(parts  of  which  have  been  translated  by  M.  Nau*),  and  by  an  intro- 
duction and  commentary.  Moreover,  M.  Kugener  has  been  able  in 
several  places  to  correct  Spanuth's  text  from  the  MS,  and  has  done 
much  more  towards  removing  corruptions  than  was  attempted  by 
Spanuth.  At  37.  4  and  86.  12  however,  and  perhaps  also  at  106.  ii» 
his  corrections  are  unnecessary,  and  at  91.  6  the  emendation  spoils  the 
sentence,  where  we  should  supply  Ua-/  from  the  previous  clause,  and 
render  *  or  how  can  any  one  who  is  a  Christian  give  any  attention  to 
such  words  ?  '►  On  the  other  hand  at  66.  5  an  emendation  seems  to  be 
required,  for  the  extraordinary  statement  that  Leontius  the  law-student 
'was  at  that  time  ^yitrr/jo?'  cannot  be  right,  unless  M.  Kugener  has 
some  explanation  which  he  is  reserving  for  the  commentary.  Many 
passages  however  defy  emendation,  and  M.  Kugener  has  here  wisely 
given  the  text  as  it  stands  with  an  approximate  translation  instead  of 
making  wild  conjectures.  The  printing  is  clear  and  misprints  few 
(I  have  noted  such  at  18.  12  translation,  66.  3,  70.  note  6,  and  104.  16 
translation) ;  but  an  unfortunate  system  has  been  adopted  of  using 
vowel-points  in  place  of  diacritic  marks,  which,  being  unusual,  is  some- 
limes  puzzling. 

The  Syriac  is  a  literal  translation  from  the  Greek ;  and  M.  Kugener, 
»  Rtu,  dw  PO,C,v  J93. 


470  THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

who  has  made  a  special  study  of  Graeco-Syriac,  has  done  very  good 
service  by  giving  the  Greek  originals  of  words  and  phrases  in  notei 
This  he  has  done  with  great  thoroughness,  and  his  restorations  will 
command  general  acceptance;  but  at  33,  14  Krqropvi  should  be  giTen 
as  the  original  of  \*iOy  and  at  47.  6  I  cannot  think  that  \j*^9(  can 
represent  iynparua :  M.  Kugener  by  so  rendering  this  word  and  by 
apparently  taking  no  account  of  ^^)bo  has  made  shipwreck  of  this 
passage,  where  I  would  read  ^om-jq  for  ^Qy«jo  and  render  '  but  such 
things  as  excite  laughter  only  in  the  spectators,  and  display  temporaij 
power '  (so  M.  Nau)  *  over  those  at  whom  they  are  laughing  *.  There 
is  a  less  important  error  at  86.  13,  where  ^i^(v»  f-*^]'*-^'^  ajJW 
must  mean  *  John  should  be  set  apart  for  the  altar ',  not  *  de  resenrer 
I'autel  i  Jean'.  Again  at  41.  3  * les  soi-disant  dieux*  hardly  renders 
)o»:^?  ^i^t^m^t  ^«i^ei,  and  at  36.  17  and  39.  13,  14  the  rendenngs 
'  le  {rxf^^i^^i-fio^  \  *  5e  <ro^tonj« '  make  it  appear  as  if  there  could  only  be 
one  barrister  or  professor  in  a  town  or  district.  The  text  of  the  life  is 
however  very  difficult ;  and  M,  Kugener  has  been  able  not  only  to 
grapple  successfully  with  its  complications  and  obscurities,  but  to  produce 
a  clear  and  fluent  translation.  The  two  remaining  parts  of  his  work,  in 
which  new  matter  will  be  touched,  will  be  awaited  with  interest. 


E.  W.  Brooks. 


MISCELLANEA. 


In  the  Rev.  W,  B.  Trevelyan's  Sunday,  a  contribution  to  the  Oxford 
Library  of  Practical  Theology,  we  have  a  good  example  of  the  way  in 
which  one  standing  need  of  the  English  Church  should  be  met.  She 
has  no  standard  writer  in  the  field  of  mora!  theology,  who  covers,  in  his 
progress,  subject  by  subject  as  it  arises.  But  here  is  a  beginning  with 
the  observance  of  Sunday  ;  and  a  beginning  on  sound  lines.  After  an 
introductory  chapter  of  his  own,  the  author  entrusts  to  the  Rev,  G.  W. 
Hockley  two  chapters  on  the  history  of  Sunday,  which  trace  it,  in 
general,  down  to  the  Reformation  ;  and,  in  England,  to  the  Restoration. 
Their  drift  is  to  show  that  the  history  of  Sunday  observance  is  a  history 
of  reactions,  in  which  Old  Testament  analogy  was  pressed  into  service 
as  well  by  the  legalism  of  Councils  and  Canonists  from  the  sixth  century 
onwards  as  by  the  disciplinarianism  of  English  Puritans.  The  fourth 
chapter,  historical  also,  wisely  draws  upon  the  late  Canon  Overton's 
unique  knowledge  of  the  later  seventeenth  and  of  the  eighteenth  centtuy 
for  a  sketch  of  Sunday  in  that  age ;  and  for  the  nineteenth,  Mr  Trevelyan, 
if  he  naturally  has  at  his  disposal  the  records  of  the  Macaulay  family, 
is  as  fortunate  in  intimacy  with  the  friends  of  Mr  Gladstone.  For 
thus  he  is  able  to  reproduce  the  best  traditions,  in  regard  to  Sunday 


REVIEWS 


471 


^ 


observance,  both  of  the  Evangelical  and  of  the  Tractarian  movements 
in  the  generations  immediately  preceding  our  own.  But  for  a  slip  as 
to  the  date  of  the  Bishops'  Book,  which  should  be  1537,  the  historical 
side  of  the  study  seems  to  be  accurately  done.  It  is  clearly  arranged, 
and  has  vivid  touches  of  personal  interest  toward  the  end.  The  author 
then  proceeds  to  work  out  the  principles  which  emerge  from  the  history. 
They  are  three.  The  Lord's  Day,  as  His,  is  primarily  a  day  of  worship. 
Then  it  is  a  day  of  rest  iw,  and  not  merely  /(?r,  worship.  Finally,  a 
day  of  service.  It  is  a  day  for  God^  for  self,  for  others.  These  chapters 
are  marked  by  a  wisdom  and  a  sympathy  with  the  exacting  conditions  of 
modern  life  which  are  among  the  ripest  fruits  of  a  pastoral  experience 
that  must  in  many  ways  be  unique.  They  disarm  criticism  and  com- 
mend themselves  to  conscience,  as  one  reads>  by  force  of  that  within 
them,  which  'judgeth  all  things*  and  itself  'is  judged  of  none'. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Rev.  A.  W.  Robinson's  Personal  Life  of 
the  Ckrgy,  Bearingj  as  it  does,  the  mark  of  a  wise  spiritual  guide,  it  is 
eminently  suited  to  be  introductory  to  a  series  of  Handbooks  for  the 
Clergy,  intended  *to  promote  the  efficiency  of  clerical  work'.  The 
writer  first  recalls  the  three  needs  of  a  priest  in  his  inner  life;  penitence, 
prayer,  and  devotion  to  our  Lord,  He  then  proceeds  to  'single  out 
such  dangers  as  we  should  agree  to  consider  the  most  serious  and  wide- 
spread at  the  present  time '  \  and  finds  them  in  secularization,  over- 
occupation,  and  depression.  *  The  life  of  the  clergy  is  a  difficult  one ', 
he  concludes  j  '  but  *'  difficulty "  is  the  watchword  ...  in  the  Exhor- 
tation of  the  Ordinal  .  .  .  and  life  is  only  a  choice  of  difficulties.  The 
really  "  hard  "  thing  is  to  "  kick  against  the  pricks  'V  Such  handling  of 
a  great  subject  speaks  for  itself. 

Another  excellent  Handbook  for  the  Clergy  is  A  Christian  Apolo- 
getic^  by  Dean  Robbins,  late  of  Albany  and  now  of  the  Theological 
Seminary,  New  YorL  The  plan  of  this  little  work  is  modest  enough. 
After  an  introductory  chapter  which  is  an  apology  for  apologetics  based 
on  the  obligation  of  Christians,  and^  a  fortiori^  of  clergy  to  '  be  ready 
always  to  give  an  answer  to  every  man  that  asketh  you  a  reason  of  the 
hope  that  is  in  you  \  the  Dean  selects  as  the  type  of  inquirer  most  in 
mind  to-day  the  man  whose  *mood  is  not  that  of  dogmatic  denial  but 
rather  that  of  a  vague  . , .  agnosticism  *,  He  then  sets  out  *  not  to  demon- 
strate the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  merely  to  prove  the  reasonableness 
of  believing  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  supreme  revelation  of  God'.  At 
that  point  he  stops :  for  to  go  further  would  be  to  cross  the  frontier 
from  Apology  to  Theology.  Accepting  the  inductive  method  as 
applicable  to  the  things  of  faith,  and  asking  in  return  only  that  they 
shall  be  treated  as  real  things,  the  Dean  begins  with  the  facts  of  *  the 
moral  supremacy  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  answer  which  He  makes 


473         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES  ^ 

to  the  deepest  cravings  of  the  human  heart  \  Then,  in  cc.  iv-bc,  be 
travels  over  the  usual  course  of  the  argument  for  Christianity,  dealing 
in  turn  with  His  unique  moral  pre-eminence,  with  the  supreme  place 
which,  Jtai^e  Harnack^  His  Person  rather  than  His  teaching  has  ev» 
occupied  in  the  life  of  Christians,  and  with  the  evidence  afforded  by 
the  Resurreclion,  by  Prophecy,  and  by  the  Christian  Church.  The 
whole  argument  is  compact,  consecutive,  and  brightly  written.  There 
is  hard,  but  fair,  hitting ;  nor  does  the  author  make  the  mistake  of  con- 
fining Apology  to  the  defensive.  He  readily  owns  that  *  demonstration 
and  faith  are  incompatible  ^  and  is  frankly  content  with  just  *  the  sunnier 
side  of  doubt  \  If  anything  should  make  his  plea  convincing,  it  is  jost 
this  frank  strength  of  modesty  and  self-restraint. 

B.  J.   KiDD. 

We  have  also  received  reprints,  in  cheaper  editions,  of  two  well-known 
works  on  Apologetics  of  a  more  popular  kind  :  T/te  Truth  of  Christianity, 
by  Major  W.  H.  Turton  (Kegan  Paul,  35.);  and  The  Bible:  its  Mecming 
and  Supremacy ^  by  the  late  Dean  Farrar  {Longmans,  6s,), 

Books  of  Devotion.  By  the  Rev.  Charles  Bodington,  Canon  of 
Lichfield,  &c  {Oxford  Library  of  Practical  Theology).  (LongmanSi 
1903.) 

Justice  cannot  be  done  in  a  few  lines  to  the  industry  and  research 
shewn  in  this  book,  nor  to  the  spiritual  tone  which  all  who  know  Mr 
Bodington  will  expect  to  find  in  it.  In  the  main  it  is  a  review  of  nearly 
fifty  books  of  devotion,  from  the  Psalms  to  the  works  of  the  Wesleys 
at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  author  has  not  confined 
himself  to  English  writers.  Besides  Augustine  and  Thomas  a  Kempis, 
he  notices  Loyola,  Rodriguez,  Francis  of  Sales,  and  many  others. 
With  regard  to  books  in  our  own  language,  two  things  will  somewhat 
astonish  readers  who  have  not  made  a  special  study  of  the  subject 
In  the  most  lifeless  days  of  the  English  Church,  all  through  the 
eighteenth  century,  there  was  a  succession  of  these  books  of  devotion. 
And,  even  in  that  age,  the  doctrine  taught  and  assumed  on  such  questions 
as  the  Eucharist  and  Private  Confession  is  remarkably  '  high ',  and 
would  by  many  be  called  *  extreme'  in  our  own  day.  Real  students 
of  the  Prayer  Book  seem  always  to  have  read  it  in  one  way.  Mr 
Bodington  does  not  shrink  from  criticism  of  Roman  devotions,  nor 
from  the  present  day  question  of  Invocation  of  Saints.  He  almost 
passes  over  the  multitude  of  manuals  which  came  out  in  the  last  century, 
naming  only  some  of  the  earliest,  which  were  chiefly  translations  or 
adaptations  from  French  and  Italian  works  by  the  Tractarians.  Of  later 
books  his  judgement  is  concisely  given : 


mmk 


REVIEWS 


473 


f 

^ 


'Some  of  them,  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Catholic  Verity, 
contain  the  gold,  silver,  and  costly  stones  of  devotion,  and  these  are  a 
"  possession  for  ever  ".  Others  are  but  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  whose 
end  is  to  be  burned  *  (p.  297). 

But  he  thinks  that  'the  good  and  enduring  devotions  have  pre- 
ponderated ',  and  that  they  are,  on  the  whole,  a  precious  inheritance  of 
the  present  century.  One  rather  wishes  that  he  had  urged  a  revision 
of  some  of  these  in  the  light  of  the  experience  of  forty  years  or  more. 
A  ^Little  Treasury  of  Devotion',  for  instance,  with  large  omissions, 
might  be  a  really  valuable  book. 

E.  C.  Dermer. 

Th£  Chief  Truths  qf  the  Christian  Faith,    J,  Stephenson,    (Methuen, 
1902.) 

This  book  has  grown  out  of  a  series  of  instructions  to  the  Winchester 
Diocesan  Community  of  Deaconesses  and  other  Church  workers.  It  is 
now  published  with  the  hope  that  it  may  be  of  service  to  Church 
teachers  of  all  kinds.  From  this  point  of  view  it  is  heartily  to  be 
commended,  Mr  Stephenson  has  given  us  a  book  thoroughly  and 
worthily  representative  of  the  Catholic  school  of  thought  within  the 
English  Church  to  which  he  belongs.  He  has  thought  and  read 
deeply— very  deeply  indeed  for  a  hard  working  parish  Priest*  The 
reader  may  rely  on  finding  here  the  best  and  truest  exposition  of  this 
side  of  English  religious  feeling.  Mr  Stephenson  writes  from  the  heart 
as  well  as  from  the  head,  and  speaks  to  the  heart  as  well  as  to  the 
head  His  parochial  experience  has  given  him  a  practical  grasp  of  the 
meaning  of  dogma  and  its  vital  connexion  with  morality  and  the  spiritual 
life.  Added  to  these  he  shews  in  a  high  degree  the  qualities  of  clear- 
ness, caution,  and  reverence.  The  arrangement  of  the  Chapters  is 
a  little  puzzling.  The  subjects  are  treated  in  this  order:  God  — Man 
(origin,  nature,  and  fallj^the  Incarnation — ^the  Atonement — the  Sacra- 
ments—the Future  Life — ^the  Holy  Spirit — the  Church.  Would  it  not 
have  been  possible  to  arrange  the  matter  so  as  to  give  a  better  idea 
of  Christianity  as  a  system :  e.  g,  by  putting  the  chapters  on  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  the  Church  before  those  on  the  Sacraments  and  the  Future 
Life?  Mr  Stephenson  warns  us  that  we  shall  find  certain  subjects 
omitted  in  his  book  as  not  falling  within  the  scope  of  his  work.  Some 
of  these  omissions,  it  must  be  confessed,  seem  to  make  gaps  in  the 
book.  In  the  chapter  on  the  Atonement  we  look  for  some  statement 
of  the  Heavenly  Priesthood  of  our  Lord  and  His  Mediatorial  work 
as  the  Completion  of  the  Atonement  from  the  side  of  God.  So  also 
it  might  have  been  made  more  clear  in  section  3  of  '  the  Results  of  the 
Atonement',  that  man's  Communion  with  the  Atonement  through  union 


474         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

with  the  Hisen  Lord  is  the  consummation  on  the  side  of  man.  Was 
not  the  Sacrifice  of  our  Lord  vicarious  in  order  that  it  might  become 
not-vicarious,  but  make  possible  our  sacrifice  of  ourselves  ?  that  we, 
being  united  to  Him,  might  through  His  Sacrifice  be  able  to  offer 
our  own  sacrifice?  When  we  come  to  the  chapter  dealing  with  the 
sacrificial  aspect  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  there  is  the  same  gap.  The 
aspect  in  which  we  plead  the  merits  of  Christ's  SacriBce  is  brought 
before  us;  but  the  presenting  of  our  own  sacrifice  of  ourselves,  our 
souls  and  bodies,  is  not  mentioned.  Do  not  both — the  latter  resting 
upon  the  former^ — belong  to  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist? 
Nothing  is  said  of  the  angels :  but  this  perhaps  is  allowable  in  view  of 
the  scope  of  the  book.  But  in  the  chapter  on  the  Eternal  Future,  when 
Universalisra  has  been  met  and  answered,  should  we  not  expect  some 
statement  on  the  question  of  Conditional  Immortality?  Under  the 
heading  of  omissions  we  may  note  also  a  few  cases  in  which  those  for 
whom  the  book  is  written  would  probably  need  explanations  which 
are  not  given.  Mr  Stephenson's  readers  will  hardly  perhaps  understand 
the  (undefined)  terms  *  Nature'  and  'Person'  in  the  chapter  on  the 
Incarnation  (p.  8i),  or  *Sacrifice'  in  connexion  with  the  Holy  Eucharist 
(p.  154):  and  the  unexplained  allusions  to  the  *  ancient  expression 
"of  the  Father,  through  the  Son,  by  the  Holy  Ghost"'  (p.  48)  and  to  J 
the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  elements  in  the  Eucharistic 
Consecration  (p.  146).  A  good  index  would  add  very  materially  to  the 
usefulness  of  the  book.  There  are  a  few  passages  in  which  Mr  Stephen- 
son seems  to  tread  on  doubtful  ground.  On  p.  39,  the  sacred  Name 
of  God  (Ex.  iii  14)  is  translated  '  I  am  '  without  recognition  of  the  truer 
meaning  '  I  will  be ',  and  the  explanation  given  misses  in  consequence 
the  much  deeper  truth  of  the  Eternal  as  3.  personal  living  God,  which  is 
contained  in  the  Name.  On  p,  63,  the  heredity  of  acquired  properties 
is  said  to  have  'found  considerable  acceptance*.  Would  it  not  be  truer 
to  say  that  science  treats  the  question  as  non-proven?  Lastly,  is  it  not 
a  very  doubtful  statement  that  the  Jews  'regularly  used '  prayers  for  the 
dead  in  their  public  services  in  our  Lord's  time  (p.  165)  ?  These 
criticisms,  however,  even  if  they  are  just,  must  not  hinder  our  appreda< 
tion  of  the  solid  excellencies  of  the  book.  Mr  Stephenson  has  formidable 
competitors  among  the  many  other  books  of  the  same  kind  and  written 
with  the  same  purpose ;  but  his  book  will  compare  very  favourably 
with  the  best  of  them.  We  hope  a  second  edition  may  be  soon  called 
for,  and,  if  it  is  found  necessary,  that  Mr  Stephenson  may  find  room  for 
a  little  expansion  on  the  one  or  two  points  which  demand  recognition 
or  alteration. 

S.  C,  Gayford, 


475 


RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


(i)  English. 

Church  Quarterly  Remew,  January  1904  {Vol,  Ivii,  No.  114: 
Spottiswoode  &  Co.).  The  Church  in  South  Africa — A  Philosophy 
of  Phrases— The  Criticism  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels :  their.  Historical 
Value — Monotheism  in  Semitic  Religions— A  Jesuit  Philanthropist: 
Friedrich  von  Spee  and  the  Wurzburg  Witches^ — Charlotte  Mary  Yonge 
— The  Holy  Eucharist :  an  Historical  Inquiry,  Part  ix — The  Education 
Acts  and  After — The  University  of  London  — Short  notices. 

The  Hibberi  Journal^  January  1904  (Vol  ii,  No,  2:  Winiaras  & 
Norgate).  H.  C,  Corrance  Progressive  Catholicism  and  High  Church 
Absolutism — The  alleged  indifference  of  laymen  to  Religion.  I.  Sir 
Oliver  Lodge;  IL  Sir  Edward  Russell;  \\\.  Pnor.  J.  H.  Muir- 
HEAD ;  IV.  The  Editor — Edward  Carpenter  The  Gods  as  Embodi- 
ments of  the  Race-Memorj' — ^Wm.  Pepperrell  Montague  The 
Evidence  of  Design  in  the  Elements  and  Structure  of  the  Cosmos — 
J.  H.  Beibitz  The  New  Point  of  View  in  Theology— Lewis  R.  Farnell 
Sacrificial  Communion  in  Greek  Religion — James  Moffatt  Zoroas- 
trianism  and  Primitive  Christianity  II — Alice  Gardner  Some  Theo- 
logical Aspects  of  the  Iconoclastic  Controversy — Discussions— Reviews. 

The  Jewish  Quarterly  Revieiv^  January  1904  (Vol.  xvi.  No.  62  : 
Macmillan  &  Co.).  C  G.  Montefiore  Rabbinic  Conceptions  of 
Repentance- S,  A.  Cook  North-Semitic  Epigraphy— H.  Hirschfeld 
The  Arabic  Portion  of  the  Cairo  Genizah  at  Cambridge^W.  Bacher, 
A.  Wolf,  and  S.  Levy  What  is  'Jewish'  Literature ?—H.  S.  Q.  Hen- 
RIQUES  The  Jews  and  the  English  Law — F.  Perles  Proben  aus  dem 
Nachlass  von  Joseph  Perles — L,  Blau  Neue  masoretische  Studien — 
M.  Steinschneider  Allgemdoe  Einleitung  in  die  judische  Literatur 
dcs  Mittelakers— Critical  Notices. 

The  Expositor,  January  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  49  :  Redder  & 
Stoughton).  T.  K.  Cheyne  An  Appeal  for  a  Higher  Exegesis — W.  M. 
Ramsav  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia— G.  G.  Finblay 
Studies  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John  :  The  True  Knowledge  of  God — 
A.  S.  Peake  a  Reply  to  Dr.  Denny — J.  H.  Moulton  Characteristics 
of  New  Testament  Greek — W,  H.  Bennett  The  Life  of  Christ  according 
to  St.  Mark. 

February  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No»  50).     W.  M.  Ramsay  The 
Letters  to  the  Asian   Churches — J.   B.  Mayor  ^Qivmr^pivoi — S.  R. 


476         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES  ^ 

Driver  Translations  from  the  Prophets  :  Jeremiah  xvi  10— xx  iS— 
Arthur  Carr  The  Authorship  of  the  Emmaus  Incident — J.  C.  TooD 
On  the  '  Aristocratic  Character '  of  the  Old  Testament— Alex.  Souter 
Some  Thoughts  on  the  Study  of  the  Greek  New  Testament — ^Jaii£S 
Denney  Adam  and  Christ  in  St.  Paul 

March  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  51).  W.  M,  Rabcsay  The  Letters 
to  the  Seven  Churches — S.  R,  Driver  Translations  from  the  Prophets: 
Jeremiah  xxx-xxxi — M.  Kaufmann  Was  the  'Weeping  Prophet*  a 
Pessimist  ?— W.  H.  Bennett  The  Life  of  Christ  according  to  St.  Mark— 
J.  H,  MouLTON  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek— G.  G, 
FiNDLAY  Studies  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John;  3.  The  Old  and  New 
Commandment. 

(2)  American. 
T/te  American  Journal  of  Theology^  January  1904  (Vol.  viii,  Na  i: 
Chicago  University  Press).  A.  G.  B.  The  religious  situation  in  Para 
^F.  C.  Porter  Inquiries  concerning  the  Divinity  of  Christ— J.  E. 
McFadyen  Hellenism  and  Hebraism — G.  T.  Knight  The  new  Science 
in  relation  to  Theism— E,  Koenig  Critical  note:  the  Problera  of  the 
Poem  of  Job — Recent  Theological  Literature. 

Thi  Princeton  Theological  Review^  January  1904  (Vol.  \\  No.  $ 
Philadelphia,  MacCalla  &  Co.).  J.  P.  Sheraton  Our  Lord's  Teaching 
concerning  Himself— W.  P.  Armstrong  The  Witness  of  the  Gospels— 
B.  B.  Warfield  Spiritual  Culture  in  the  Theological  Seminary— 
J,  DeWitt  Jonathan  Edwards  :  a  Study— R  L.  Patton  Theological 
Encyclopaedia — G.  Vos  •  Die  Religion  des  Judentums  im  Neutestament- 
Itchen  Zeitaher ' — Recent  Literature. 

(3)  French  and  Belgian* 
Retme  BibHque^  January  1904  {Nouvelle  s^rie,  i«  ann^e,  no.  i :  Pai^ 
V.  LecofTre).  Communication  de  la  Commission  biblique — Condamih 
Les  chapitres  I  el  II  du  liwe  d'lsaie— Lagrange  La  religion  des 
Perses — Melanges  :  Vincent  Les  murs  de  Jerusalem  d'apr^s  Nehemie: 
GuiDi  Un  fragment  arabe  d'onomastique  biblique:  Ladeuze  Pas 
d'agape  dans  la  premiere  epttre  aux  Corinthiens — Chronique:  Savignac 
Notes  archeologiques :  Nouvelles  travailles  \  Bersaljee :  Fouilks 
anglaises:  Inscription  romaine  et  sepultures  au  nord  de  Jerusalem: 
Nouvelles  de  Palestine :  Vincent  Inauguration  de  ITnstitut  archeo- 
logique  allemand — Recensions^ — Bulletin. 

Anakda  BoUandtana,  January  1 904  (Vol.  xxiii,  fasc,  i  :  Brussels,  14, 
Rue  des  Ursulines).  H.  Delehaye  L'hagiographie  de  Salone  d'apr^ 
les  derni^res  decouvertes  archeologiques :  Catalogus  codicum  hagio- 
graphicorum  graecorum  monasterii  S.  Salvatoris,  nunc  bibltothecae 
Universitatis  Messanensis^A.  Poncelet  La  bibliotheque  de  Fabbayc 
de  IVlicy  au  ix**  et  au  x«  siecle^ Bulletin  des  publications  hagiographiques 
— U,  Chevalier  Fol.  38  (p.  593-608)  supplementi  ad  Repertorium 
Hymnologicum — ^Foll  6-9  (pp.  49-So)  Indicis  generalis  in  tomos  i-xx 
Analectorum. 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOCrCAL  STUDIES    477 


I 


Rfvm  Bhtidictine,  January  1904  (Vo!.  xici,  No.  i :  Abbaye  deMared- 
sous).  G.  MoRiN  Un  symbole  inddit  attribue  k  saint  Jerome — M.  Fes- 
TUGifeRE  Questions  de  philosophic  de  la  nature— U.  Berlikre  Les 
ev6ques  auxiliaires  de  Cambrai  aux  xiv«  et  xv«  siMes — G.  Morin  Un 
nouveau  fascicule  des  Anecdota  Maredsolana — ^J.  Chapman  La  re- 
stauration  de  Mont-Cassin  par  I'abbe  Petronax^U.  Berlikre  Bulletin 
d'histoire  monastique— Bulletin  bibliographique, 

Mevue  (Thistoirt  ecdhiasHquc^  January  1904  (Vol.  v,  No.  i :  Louvain, 
40,  Rue  de  Namur).  F.  X.  Funk  Tertullien  et  I'Agape — Melanges: 
A.  Cauche  et  R.  Maere  Les  instructions  generales  aux  Nonces  des 
Pays-Bas  espagnols  {i 596-1 635):  Ch.  Terlinden  Les  derni^res 
tentatives  de  Clement  IX  et  de  la  France  pour  secourir  Candie  centre 
les  Turcs  (1669)  d*apr^s  les  correspondances  des  nonces  de  Paris,  de 
Madrid  et  de  Venise— Comptes  rendus— Chronique^Bibliographie. 

Revue  d^Histoire  et  de  Litterature  Meligieusts^  Jan.- Feb.  1904  (Vol. 
ix.  No.  1  :  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Saint-Germain).  P.  Richard  Une 
correspondance  diplomatique  de  la  curie  romaine  k  la  ville  de  Marignan 
(151 5);  I'^r article:  Leon  X,  rhuraaniste  Bibbiena  et  la  Sainte  Ligue 
de  1 5 15-^ J.  TURMEL  Le  dogmedu  peche  originel  aprb  saint  Augustin  ; 
$^  article :  Consequences  du  p^ch^  originel  dans  la  vie  presente ;  la 
nature  pure— A.  LoiSY  Chronique  biblique — J.  Dalbret  Littdrature 
religieuse  moderne. 

March- Apr.  1904  (Vol.  ix,  No,  2).  P.  Fournier  fitudes  sur  les 
penitentiels ;  58  article :  Pdnitentiel  d' Arundel ;  Le  pdnitenliel  du  pseudo* 
Greg;oire  III ;  Le  p^nitentid  remain  d*Antoine  Augustin;  Conclusion 
g^nerale — P.  Richard  Une  correspondance  diplomatique  de  la  curie 
romaine  .\  la  ville  de  Marignan  (1515);  2^  articles  L'humaniste  diplo- 
mate  Bibbiena  contre  Francois  I^— J,  Turmel  Le  dogme  du  peche 
originel  dans  rfiglise  latine  aprbs  saint  Augustin j  6®  article:  Con- 
sequences du  pdche  originel  dans  la  vie  future — P.  Lejav  Ancienne 
philologie  chr^tienne — E.  Erugnon  Questions  de  m^thode — ^J.  Dalbret 
Litterature  religieuse  moderne. 

Revue  de  r Orient  Chritien,  April  1903  (Vol.  viii,  No.  2).  L.  Petit 
Vie  et  office  de  Saint  Euthyme  le  Jeune  (texte  grec)— Tournebize 
Histoire  pratique  et  religieuse  de  TArm^nie — J.  Pargoire  Mont  Saint- 
Auxence— S,  VAiLHi:  Le  Patriarcat  Maronite  d'Antioche— L.  Clugnet 
Vie  de  Sainte  Marine  vii :  lexte  fran^ais — Melanges  :  H.  Lammens 
Notes  de  geographic  ecclesiasfcique  syrienne — Bibliograpbie. 

July  1903  (Vol.  viii,  No.  3).  H.  Lam  mens  Un  poete  royal  i  la  cour 
des  Omiades  de  Damas— S.  Vailh6  Sophrone  le  Sophiste  et  Sophrone 
le  Patriarche— L.  Buffat  Lettre  de  Paul,  fiv^que  de  Saida,  Moine  d'An- 
tioche,  ^  un  Musulman  de  ses  amis  (texte  arabe)^J.  Pargoire  Mont 
Saint-Auxence — E.  Batareikh  I^  forme  consecratoire  de  TEucharistie 
d*apr^s  fjuelques  raanuscrits  grecs— Melanges:  i.  L.  Petit  Une  bagarre 
au  Saint-Sepulcre  en  1698;  2.  H.  Lammens  Uantiquite  de  la  formule 
'Omnia  ad  majorem  Dei  gloriara';  3.  H.  I-ammens  Anciens  couvents 
de  TAuranitide — Bibliographic. 


4^8         TH£  JOURKAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

October  1903  (VoL  viii.  No.  4),  X  Le  m^mofmndtiip  da  (how 
arche  grec  ortbcxloxe  de  Coosuntiiiople  an  Sultan  aar  les  affiufodt 
Mac^ocQc—I^  Petit  Vie  et  Office  de  Saint  Euthyme  le  Jetine :  ten 
(^rec — D.  M.  GntAKD  Kahadag-maityn :  rites  d  mages — ^J.  PARcooit 


MociC  Saiot-Aoxence — ^Toitricebize  Histoixe  politique  et  religieu«e  de 
rAiroenie— EsTEVES  Percira  Me  de  sainte  Marine  viii :  lexie  ctiiio- 
pien — Melanges:  i.  J.  Tixerokt  La  kttre  de  Philax^ne  de  Mabboif 
a  Abou-Niphir ;  2,  F.  Nau  Nole  tnddite  sur  FhOoa^zie  ^v#qoe  de 
Maboug ;  5.  H.  Laumeks  Coptes  asiatiques?;  4.  H.  Lajoiexs  Ua 
document  palestinien  ^  rctrouver— Bibbographie. 


(4)  German. 

77uologiuh€  Quartalschrift,  1904  (Vol  IxxrvH,  No.  2  :  Tubiegci. 
H.  Laupp).  Sagmuller  Das  philosophiscb-theologische  Stxidjuis 
innerhalb  der  Schwabischen  Benedilttinercongregation  im  t6.  and  17. 
Jahrh.— W.  Koch  Die  pseudo-ignatianischen  Scbrifien — FirxE  Die 
arabiBche  Didaskalia  und  die  Konstitutionen  der  Apostel — Gatt 
Bemerkungen  zu  Dr.  A-  Scbulz's  Aufsatz  iiber  die  Ston-Fiage— 
ZiSTERER  Hat  die  Eintetlung  der  Kirchengeschichte  in  aussere  mA 
innere  auch  jetzt  noch  ihre  Berechtigung? — H.  Koch  Die  abendJandischc 
Kirche  und  die  Bussstationen — Rezensionen — Analekten. 

Zeitschrift  fur  TTieoiogie  und  Kirche^  January  1904  (Vol.  xiv,  No.  i: 
Tiibingen  und  Leipzig,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr).  H.  Schultz  *  W'er  saget  denn 
ihr,  das  ich  sei?' — J.  Herzog  Jesus  als  Prediger 

February  1904  (Vol  xiv,  No.  2).    K.  W.  Feyerabend  Moderne 
Theologie — J*  Kafian  Zui  Dogmatik :  C,  Einzelne  Lehren. 

Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftliche  Theologie ^  January  1904  (V^oK  xlvii» 
N.  F.  xii,  No.  I  :  Leipzig,  O.  R.  Reisland).  M.  Nikolsky  Jakhtn  und 
Bo'az— A.  HiLGENFELD  Das  Johannes-Evangelium  und  seine  neuesten 
Kritiker — A.  KlOpper  Zur  Soteriologie  der  Pastoralbriefe — ^J.  Albawi 
Hebr.  v.  ii-vi.  8— J.  Draseke  Beitrage  zu  Hippolytos — M.  Pohlenz 
Zur  Schriftstellerei  des  ApoUinarius^J.  Draseke  Zu  Scotus  Erigena — 

F.  NiPPOLD  Herder  und  der  Katholicismus^ — Anzeige :  F,  LiPSttJS 
Grundriss  der  Religionsphiiosophie  (A*  Dorner). 

Zeitschrift  fUr  die  mutestameniliche  lllssenschafi  und  die  Kunde  des 
Urchristentums,  December  1903  (Vol  iv^  No.  4:    Giessen,  J,  Ricker). 

G.  HoFFMANNZwei  Hymnen  derThomasaklen— W. ERNSxDie Blass*sche 
Hypolhese  und  die  Textgeschichte— A.  F.  Di  Pauli  Zum  sog.  2. 
Korintherbrief  des  Clemens  Romanus— F.  C.  Conybeare  The  Author- 
ship of  tbe  *  Contra  Marcellum' — H.  Waitz  Eine  Parallele  z,  d- 
SeUgpreisungen  aus  einem  ausserkanonischen  Evang. — ^Miscellanea: 
P.  FiEBin  Kappores  I — G.  Klein  Kappores  II — E.  Nestle  (1)  Zum 
Zitat  in  Eph.  iv.  8:  {2)  Eine  kleme  InterpunktJonsverschiedenheil  im 
Martyrium  des  Polykarp :  (3)  Zu  Mt.  xxviii.  18:  (4)  Marcus  colobodactilus: 
(5:  Zum  Namen  der  Essaer:  (6)  Zur  Berechnung  des  Geburtstags  Jesu 
bei  Clemens  Alexandnnus :  (7)  Zu  S.  260  dieses  Bandes^H.  Willrich 


FpERIODTCALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    479 

[Zur  Versuchung  Jesu — J,  Leipoldt  Bruchstiick  von  zwei  griecbisch- 
I  koptischen  Handschriften  des  Neuen  Testaments— E.  Preuschen  Einc 
I  Tridentiner  Bibelhandschrift. 

I  February  1904  (Vol.  v,  No.  i).     E.  Preuschen  Todesjahr  und 

*Todestag  Jesu — W.  Bousset  Die  Wiedererkennungs-Fabel  in  den 
pseudokleinentinischen  Schriften,  den  Menachmen  des  Plautus  und 
Shakespeares  Komodie  der  Irrungen — G.  Hollmann  Die  Unechtheit 
•des  zweiten  Thessalonicherbriefs— F.  C.  Conybeare  The  Date  of 
LEuthalius— P.   Drews   Untersuchungen    zor    Didache — Miscellanea  : 

E,  SciTWARTZ  Der  verfiuchte  Feigenbaum — E.  Vischer  Die  Entstehung 
Ider  Zahl  666»  I— P.  Corssen  Die  Entstehung  der  Zahl  666.  IL 

Zeitschrifi  fur  Kirchengeschichiey  October  1903  (Vol.  xxiv,  No.  3; 
I  Gotha,  F.  A.  Perthes).  W.  Orr  Zwei  Fragen  zur  alteren  Papstgeschichte 
,  ^J.  Dietterle  Die  Summaeconfessomm  {si%*e  de casibus  conscientiae) 
—  H.  Brunner  Tbeopbilus  Neuberger — O.  Scheel  Bemerkungen  zur 
[Bewertung  des  Enchiridions  Augustins — P.  Kalkoff  Der  Inquisitions- 
;  prozess  des  Antwerpener  Humanisten  Nikolaus  von  Herzogenbusch — 
•  G,  Berbig  Die  deulsche  Augsburgisehe  Konfession  nach  der  bisher 
[  iinbekannten  Coburger  Handschrift 

December  1903  (Vol.  xxiv,  No.  4).  W.  Goetz  Die  Quellen  zur 
Geschichte  des  hi  Franz  von  Assisi — J*  Dietterle  Die  Summae  con- 
fessorum. — ^H.  Brunner  Tbeopbilus  Neuberger — Analekten :  G.  Ken- 
TENiCH  Noch  einmal  'Die  Handschriften  der  Imitatio  Christi  und  die 
Autorschaft  des  Thomas  *— G.  Bossert  Zur  Biographie  des  Esslinger 
Reformators  Jakob  Otter^ — H.  Hermeunk:  Papst  Klemens  XII  und  die 
Kirchengiiter  in  protestanUschen  Landen — Hauck  und  Hellmann 
Miszellen. 

February  1904  (Vol.  xxv,  No.  i).  H.  Thopdschian  Die  An- 
fange  des  armenischen  Monchtums,  mit  Quellenkritik — W.  Goetz  Die 
Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  hL  Franz  von  Assisi — B.  Bess  Frankreich 
und  sein  Papst  von  1378  bis  1394—?,  Kalkoff Zu  Luthers  romischera 
Prozess— Analekten  :  A.  E.  Burn  Neue  Texte  zur  Geschichte  des  apo- 
stolischen  Symbols^O. Clemen  Zur Witten berg er  Universitatsgeschichte 
— ^K.  MtJLLER  Zum  Briefwechsel  Calvins  mit  Frankreich, 

Theologische  Studienund  Kritikcn,  October  1903(1904,  No.  i  ;  Gotha, 

F.  A.  Perthes).  Berbig  Urkundliches  zur  Reformationsgeschicbte — 
Albrecht  Mitteilungen  aus  den  Akten  der  Naumburger  Reformations- 
geschichte — DAXERZur  Lehre  von  derchristlichenGewissheit — MLtller 
Textkriiische  Studienzum  Buche  Hosea — ^Kirn  Ein  Vorschlag  zu  Jako- 
bus  iv,  5 — Mirbt  Evangdische  MissiomUhre  (Warneck). 

January  1904  (1904,  No.  2),  Baumann  Die  Kehrverstiicke  im 
Buche  Jesaja— Conradv  Die  Flucht  nach  Agyplen  und  die  Riickkehr 
von  dort  in  den  apokryphcn  Kindheitsgeschichien  Jesu — Bauer  Die 
Bedeutung  geschichtlicher  Tatsachen  fiir  den  religiosen  Glauben  Giin- 
ther  Johannes  Keplers  *  Unterricht  vom  heil.  Sakrament  des  Abend- 
mahls  *^Clemen  Zur  Melhode  der  Erklarung  des  Apostolikunis^ 
Leipoldt  Der  Bcgriff  mert/um  in  Anselms  von  Canterbury  Versdhnungs- 
lehre — Steuernacel  Critica  Biblica  (Cheyne). 


4ap        THE  JOUUKAL  OF  THEOIXXaCAL  SI1JIM^» 

Ntm  kirtkSdk  ZdHthrifi,  pumj  1904  (^oL 
and  Ld|Ba^  A,  Dedbot;.    IL 
TfLr  Zjudi  2^  t^cbffingiTM  liif  lat 
Got  <ks  Aabdnun  n 
ICadotf  EadMPi  ptdkmofimdbt  FiiiMlwf rtir iii^  der  mdipan 

Febntaiy  1904  (\'<iL  XT.  Xa  2).  BeihDmW< 
turns  tmd  die  hiftonsdie  FiMwiiiii^  I — IL  EacoJUMm  Dfc.  lb.  Jok 
Tob.  Beck:  zn  leaieiii  100  Gtbunaagt.'-T.  Smom  Kant  ak  Kbd 
msleger— Th.  Kolde  P.  Demfle  and  waat  Bfirlum|rfuug  T^i^fcfy  aid 
der  cvan^eliidieo  Kircfae. 

Mjwdi  1904  (VoL  xv;  No.  3).  Bcxh  Dm  Woen  dc 
tomf  tind  die  biitcxiidie  Foncfaung  II — ^Th.  Zlbx  Znr 
•cfaidite  des  Aposteb  P^os — ^Th.  Koldz  P.  Demfle  and  seine  B^ 
fchimpfung  Lmben  tind  der  evaxigdiscfaen  Kircbe — P.  Tschjuxezt 
Eioe  neue  Legende  ober  Lotben  Lied '  Eioe  fote  Boig  ist  onserGott'. 


The  Journal 

of 

Theological   Studies 


Z-UVt^   1904 

A  MODERN   THEORY  OF  THE   FALL*. 

For  a  long  time  past — and  not  least  since  the  AbW  Loisy 
published  his  little  book  on  the  The  Gospel  and  the  Church — 
we  have  had  it  urged  upon  us  that  the  Christian  faith  needs  to 
be  presented  afresh,  in  terms  suited  to  the  thought  and  know- 
ledge of  our  time,  and  that  to  adhere  to  ancient  modes  of  for- 
mulating it,  is  to  court  disaster  for  what  Christians  most  prize. 
So  familiar  are  we  in  England  with  this  way  of  speaking,  that 
it  is  difficult  not  sometimes  to  be  a  little  impatient  with  it.  The 
hearer  considers  the  assertion  to  be  a  commonplace  and  a  truism 
in  itself,  and  waits  to  hear  the  new  statement  which  is  to  be 
such  an  improvement  upon  the  old. 

Among  those  who  have  laboured  the  most  earnestly  to  con- 
vert the  truism  into  a  reality,  and  to  apply  the  general  proposition 
to  a  particular  doctrine,  is  Mr  F.  R.  Tennant  of  Gonville  and 
Caius  College.  His  Hulsean  Lectures  on  The  Origin  and  Pro- 
pagation of  Sin,  followed  by  a  more  extended  and  mainly 
historical  work  on  The  Fall  and  Original  Sin,  give  abundant 
matejial  for  reflexion  on  the  subject  with  which  they  deal ;  and 
believers  who  take  an  interest  in  the  philosophy  of  their  religion 
cannot  afford  not  to  read  those  works.  The  style  of  them  is 
clear  and  telling ;  the  learning  which  they  disclose  is  most  re- 
markable. The  author  is  a  man  who  has  earned  the  right  to  be 
heard  on  topics  such  as  these,  by  his  eminence  both  in  Natural 
Science  and  in  Philosophy.  His  position  is  that  of  a  sincere  and 
devout  Christian  ;  and  no  one  can  read  his  books  without  feeling 
the  dignity  and  high  purpose  with  which  Mr  Tennant  writes. 
'  A  paper  read  to  the  Reading  Branch  of  the  Central  Society  of  Sacred  Study. 
VOL.  V.  I  i 


482 


THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Even  when  his  argument  fails  to  carry  conviction,  it  impress^ 
the  reader  with  deep  respect  for  one  who  has  courageously 
grappled  with  a  difficult  task, — a  task  for  which  he  is  much  better 
qualified  than  most  of  his  critics  can  ever  hope  to  be.  I  for  one 
am  profoundly  conscious  that  this  is  so* 

The  general  belief  of  Christians, — at  any  rate  of  Western 
Christians  and  since  the  time  of  Augustine^ — has  been  that  the 
first  human  beings  lived  for  some  undefined  length  of  time  in 
a  state  of  innocence,  from  which,  under  stress  of  temptation,  they 
fell,  and  that  in  consequence  of  their  fall  all  subsequent  genera- 
tions of  mankind  have  been  sinful  by  heredity,  and  He  under 
condemnation  from  the  outset.  There  have  been  various  waiys 
of  propounding  this  doctrine  in  one  part  of  it  or  another  ;  but, 
broadly  speaking,  the  belief,  as  I  have  stated  it,  has  been  the 
belief  of  Christendom. 

It  has  become  difficult  to  retain  this  belief  in  modem  times. 
In  particular,  *  several  natural  sciences ',  as  Mr  Tennant  says,  are 
combined  against  that  which  forms  the  '  fundamental  basis  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Fall  \  viz,  the  notion  that  mankind  at  its  be- 
ginning existed  in  a  state  of  original  righteousness.  *  Literaiy 
criticism  \  he  says/and  historical  exegesis,  Comparative  Religion 
and  Race- Psychology,  Geology  and  Anthropology  all  contribute 
materially  to  the  cumulative  evidence  on  this  head.*  ^  And  if  we 
could  maintain  the  theory  of  a  state  of  original  righteousness,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  understand  how  the  transition  from  that 
state  could  be  brought  about,  or  how  a  single  act  of  sin  could 
shatter  and  ruin  the  whole  nature  of  the  doer.  Even  if  we  could 
be  convinced  that  our  first  parents  had  actually  accomplished 
such  a  disastrous  change  in  themselves,  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
*  how  the  results  of  the  Fall  upon  the  nature  of  our  first  parents 
could  be  transmitted  to  their  posterity  by  natural  descent '  \ 

The  counter-theory  of  mans  original  condition  now  propounded 
to  us  is  one  which  is  based  upon  evoUition  and  evolution  alone. 
'  What  if  he  were  flesh  before  spirit ;  lawless,  impulse-governed 
organism  J  fulfilling  as  such  the  nature  necessarily  his,  and  there- 
fore the  life  God  willed  for  him  in  his  earliest  age,  until  his  moral 
consciousness  was  awakened,  to  start  him,  heavily  weighted  with 
the  inherited  load,  not  indeed  of  abnormal  and  corrupted  nature, 

^  Nulseati  Leetuns  pp«  36,  37.  *  li&u/.  p.  31. 


A   MODERN   THEORY   OF  THE    FALL 


483 


mt  of  non-moral  and  necessary  animal  instinct  and  self-assertive 
rndency,  on  that  race-long  struggle  of  flesh  with  spirit  and  spirit 
rith  fiesh,  which  for  lis,  alas !  becomes  but  another  name  for  the 
life  of  sin.     On  such  a  view,  man's  moral  evil  would  be  the  con- 
sequenceof  no  defection  from  hb  endowment,  natural  or  miraculous, 
►at  the  start ;  it  would  bespeak  rather  the  present  non-attainment 
►f  his  final  goal*  * 
The  text,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  of  Mr  Tennant's  dissertations  is 
^contained  in  a  sentence  or  two  of  Archdeacon  Wilson's,  expressed 
^ith  all  the  vigour  and  forcibleness  which  we  are  accustomed  to 
expect  from  him.    '  Man  fell  according  to  science/  says  the 
Archdeacon,  'when  he  first  became  conscious  of  the  conflict  of 
freedom  and  conscience.     To  the  evolutionist  sin  is  not  an  in- 
novation, but  is  the  survival  or  misuse  of  habits  and  tendencies 
that  were  incidental  to  an  earlier  stage  in  development,  whether 
of  the  individual  or  the  race,  and  were  not  originally  sinful,  but 
were  actually  useful.     Their  sinfulness  lies  in  their  anachronism: 
in  their   resistance  to  the   evolutionary  and   Divine  force  that 
makes  for  moral  development  and  righteousness/^ 

This  is  the  theory  which  I  propose  briefly  to  discuss.  It  will 
obviously  be  impossible  to  examine  it  in  all  its  parts  and  bearings 
within  the  time  at  our  disposal ;  and  what  I  say  must  be  con- 
sidered, not  as  a  refutation — or  even  as  an  attempt  at  a  refutation — 
of  the  theory,  but  only  as  the  ofifer  of  some  considerations  which, 
it  seems  to  me,  must  be  more  fully  weighed  before  the  new 
theory  can  be  adopted. 

In  passing,  before  examining  Mr  Tennanfs  developement  of 
his  text,  I  will  venture  one  criticism  upon  the  text  itself,  I  am 
not  sure  whether  Dr  Wilson  states  his  position  as  clearly  as  he 
might  when  he  says  that  sin  is  *the  survival  or  misuse*  of 
certain  habits.  '  Survival  and  misuse '  are  not  words  which 
belong  to  the  same  logical  class.  The  wrongfulness  of  a  survival 
may  lie  in  its  anachronism,— as  for  instance,  when  the  grown 
man  refuses  to  put  away  childish  things,  and  to  think  and  act  as 
a  grown  man.  But  *  misuse  '  is  a  wholly  different  thing  from 
continued  use.  It  is  a  thing  which  is  not  to  be  defined  by 
dates.  Anachronism  cannot  describe  it,  A  misuse  of  a  faculty 
is  a  misuse  at  any  stage  in  the  agent's  career.    Two  quite  distinct 

1  //.  L.  p.  II.  >  !&</.  p.  83. 

1 1  2 


m 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

of  stiui  arc  deoctcd  by  the  terms  'snnmral  ^nd 
Hie  Christian  who  is  an  anti^evolatiooist — if  such  there 
are — will  quite  agree  with  the  Christian  evohitjooist,  that  sui  a 
the  '  mistife  of  habita  and  tendencies  that '  oooe  *  were  actnaliy 
weful  \ — though  poMibly  the  laogus^  may  seem  to  him  a  Utik 
miaced.  St  Aagasttne  himself  might  subsoibe  to  the  statement: 
but  he  would  refuse  to  say  that  the  sinfulness  of  both  classes  of 
sina  Iks  la  their  anachronism. 

I  pass  to  Mr  Tcnnant's  works. 

I,  I  think  that  we  shall  all  be  ready  to  admit  that  the  earljr 
chapters  of  Genesis  are  not  in  the  strict  sense  history.  Whether 
the  writer  who  threw  them  into  thdr  present  form  believed  thea 
to  be  history  or  not*  may  be  disputed  ;  but  that  they  are  not 
history,  in  the  sense  of  a  plain  statement  of  definite  facts  wfaich 
occurred  at  a  given  date,  related  to  us  on  the  authority  of  persons 
who  were  present  and  cognizant  of  the  facts  when  they  occurred,— 
thif,  I  lay,  will  probably  be  admitted  by  most  of  us.  I  may  add 
that  few  people  would  now  believe  that  the  story  of  the  Fall  was 
directly  and  independently  revealed  to  Moses  or  some  other  writer 
by  God,  Comparison  with  the  folklore  and  the  speculations 
of  Gentile  nations  renders  such  a  view  untenable.  Mr  Tcnnant 
sums  up  his  discussion  of  this  question  by  saying  that  *  it 
must  be  considered  as  utterly  unfaithful  to  the  cumulative  and 
conclusive  results  of  modern  study,  still  to  seek  for  even  a  kertiel 
of  historical  truth,  and  a  basis  for  a  theological  doctrine  of  human 
nature,  in  such  a  narrative  as  the  Fall-story  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis*  *. 

I  vcivturc  to  think  that  in  this  short  summary  Mr  Tennant 
has  joined  together  two  things  which  ought  not  by  rights  to  be 
joined.  It  is  one  thing  to  seek  in  the  narrative  for  a  *  kernel  of 
historical  truth  * ;  it  is  another  to  seek  in  it  for  *  a  basis  for  a 
^  theological  doctrine  of  human  nature '.  I  am  quite  prepared  to 
say  that  we  must  not  seek  for  historical  truth  in  the  story  of  the 
Fall,  though  here  I  may  remark  in  passing  that  we  must  dis- 
tinguish between  two  different  senses  in  which  the  words  'historical 
truth  *  may  be  used.  It  may  be  used  to  signify  what  is  recorded 
for  us  on  sufficient  documentary  or  oral  evidence,  or  it  may  be 
used  lo  signify  what  actually  occurred,  whether  known  to  us  or 

^b  ^  FaU  and  Origimti  Sm  p.  78. 


i 


A   MODERN  THEORY   OF   THE    FALL 


485 


! 


unknown,  and,  if  known,  whatever  may  be  the  source  of  our 
knowledge.  The  former  is  the  right  sense  of  the  phrase  ;  and  in 
this  sense  I  repeat  that  we  must  not  seek  for  even  a  kernel  of 
historical  truth  in  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis:  but  I  am  not 
prepared  to  say  that  we  may  not  look  to  it  for  religious  truth. 
I  think  that  the  Christian  doctrine  of  man  must  to  the  end  of 
time  be  largely  based  upon  that  chapter.  In  this  respect,  the 
story  of  the  Fall  stands  on  much  the  same  footing  as  the  account 
of  Creation  in  the  first  chapter,  although  the  two  chapters  may 
be  derived  from  different  sources.  In  the  first  chapter,  no  less 
than  in  the  third»  we  should  do  wrong  to  look  for  historical  truth. 
It  is  not  the  historian,  any  more  than  the  physiologist,  who  tells 
us  in  that  chapter  how  man  came  to  be  what  he  is.  But  it  forms 
an  inalienable  part  of  Christian  doctrine,  or  rather  it  is  the 
foundation  of  it  all,  that  God  created  man  in  His  own  image. 
I  do  not  know  what  religious  truth  is,  if  that  account  of  man's 
origin  is  not  religious  truth.  The  whole  teaching  of  the  Gospels 
and  Epistles  would  be  shattered  if  that  view  of  man  s  origin 
were  taken  away.  And  in  the  same  manner  I  cannot  but  feel 
that  the  teaching  that  man  at  his  first  creation  was,  in  his  place 
in  nature, '  very  good ',  and  then  by  his  own  act  came  to  be  far 
otherwise,  is  rightly  used  as  *  a  basis  for  a  theological  doctrine  of 
man  *.  It  is,  to  my  mind,  a  matter  of  little  importance,  though  of 
much  interest,  from  what  quarters  the  accounts  in  these  chapters  of 
Genesis  came  ;  but  it  was,  I  believe,  the  true  prophetic  spirit  which 
gave  to  the  Israelite  teachers  the  insight  to  select  or  to  develope 
out  of  the  floating  legends  of  antiquity  these  particular  accounts 
of  the  beginnings  of  the  human  race,  just  because  they  contain 
so  noble  a  doctrine  of  man.  That  man  was  made  in  the  image 
of  God  ;  that  man  and  his  world,  as  they  came  from  their  Maker's 
hand,  were  '  very  good ' ;  these  beliefs — however  we  may  interpret 
them — form  an  unfailing '  Gospel  of  Creation  '.  Indeed,  I  suppose 
that  Mr  Tennant  himself  does  not  challenge  either  of  these 
propositions,  though  he  disputes  the  form  %vhich  they  have 
assumed  in  Christian  theology.  They  still  are  to  him  a  basis 
of  theological  doctrine  concerning  man.  He  only  thinks  that 
man  is  still  •  very  good  \  as  he  was  in  the  beginnings  though  each 
human  being  falls  from  the  *  goodness '  in  which  he  is  born. 
IL     Mr  Tennant  has,  in  my  opinion,  very  largely  made  good 


486         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


his  contentions  with  regard  to  the  teaching  of  St  Paul  upon  the 
transmission  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  offspring.  In  the  first  place 
the  sources  of  St  Pauls  doctrine  may,  as  he  says,  be  found  rather 
in  the  current  ideas  of  his  time  than  in  the  text  of  Genesis. 
*(Our)  doctrines  of  the  Fall  and  of  Original  Sin',  Mr  Tennant 
says,  *have  their  beginnings,  as  doctrines,  neither  in  the  Old 
Testament  nor  in  the  New,  but  rather  in  the  Jewish  speculation 
and  the  uncanonical  literature  of  the  age  which  intervened  between 
them/  *  I  am  not  sure  whether  the  statement  is  not  a  little  tew 
sweeping.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  Mr  Tennant 's  ar^racnt 
is  in  danger  of  falling  to  the  level  of  special  pleading  when  be 
deals  with  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  man.  The  book  of 
Genesis,  in  particular,  seems  to  me  to  imply  much  more  of 
a  connexion  between  Adam's  sin  and  the  corruption  of  the 
ancient  world  than  Mr  Tennant  is  willing  to  admit  He  appears 
to  catch  too  eagerly  at  anything  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
might  possibly  indicate  other  notions  of  the  origin  of  man  than 
those  contained  in  the  book  of  Genesis  ;  and  this  eagerness  leads 
him  to  see  *  obvious  allusions*  and  '  undoubted  accounts  *  *,  where 
to  other  readers  the  interpretations  which  he  adopts  appear 
fantastic  and  improbable  in  the  extreme.  Nevertheless,  it  may 
be  safely  affirmed  that  the  Old  Testament  contains  a  far  less 
consistent  and  formulated  teaching  about  the  origin  of  human 
sin  than  has  often  been  supposed  ;  and  Mr  Tennant  has  done 
good  service  in  bringing  this  fact  into  view. 

But  I  would  observe  on  the  other  hand  that  the  Christian 
student  is  not,  after  all,  much  concerned  to  know  what  were  the 
sources  of  St  Paul's  doctrine.  It  would  make  little  difference  to 
us  if  it  were  proved  that  some  part  of  that  doctrine  were  derived 
from  still  less  venerable  quarters*  Suppose  that  St  Paul,  like 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Wisdom,  was  affected  by  an  acquaintance 
with  Hellenic  philosophy.  The  belief  so  derived  would  be  none 
the  worse  for  its  origin.  Our  confidence  in  the  insight  and 
inspiration  of  St  Paul  is  such  that  the  fact  of  his  embracing  and 
enforcing  a  belief  would  strongly  commend  the  belief  to  our 
acceptance,  from  whatever  quarter  it  might  be  shewn  to  come. 
If  St  Paul  was  to  a  considerable  extent  influenced,  as  Mr  Tennant 
thinks,  by  apocryphal  and  pseudepigraphic  Jewish  writings,  or 


>  F.  and  O.  S*  p.  aya. 


ibui,  pp,  6i,  63i 


A   MODERN   THEORY   OF   THE   FALL 


487 


by  traditional  teaching  associated  with  them,  the  fact  will  dis- 
pose us  to  value  those  writings  more  highly,  and  not  St  Paul  less. 
But  the  doctrine  of  St  Paul  himself  is  by  no  means  so  certain 
and  so  definite  as  has  been  often  thought  With  Mr  Tennant's 
exegesis  of  St  Paul  I  am  inclined  to  agree  at  almost  every  point. 
Perhaps  the  only  passage  where  I  demur  is  the  well-known 
passage  in  Hph.  ii  3  Koi  fffJi^Oa  rii^va  <f}VfT€i  ^py^^  ^s  ical  ol  KotitoL 
Even  there  I  assent  to  what  he  says,  and  only  quarrel  with  what 
he  does  not  say.  The  word  (pva-ti  in  that  passage,  as  Mr  Tennant 
indicates,  is  not  intended  by  St  Paul  to  cover  a  whole  theory 
of  the  mode  in  which  sin  is  transmitted  from  generation  to 
generation »  It  does  not  mean  'by  heredity',  scarcely  even  *  by 
birth  '.  It  stands  tacitly  contrasted  with  a  word  like  $4<rft,  *  by 
adoption ',   *  by   intentional   transference  from   one   position   to 

»  another'.  *Pv(r€t  refers,  to  use  Mr  Tennant's  own  language,  'to 
the  natural  state  before  conversion,  apart  from  the  grace  of  God  *. 
But  all  is  not  said  when  this  fact  is  pointed  out.  The  position 
of  the  word  (fivan  in  the  sentence,  an  unimportant  position  in 
itself,  has  the  effect — the  intended  effect— of  throwing  into  greater 
prominence  the  two  words  which  it  divides,  riKva  iJpyijy  ;  and 
although  the  words  T^Kva  ^pyv^  do  not  define,  any  more  than 
^xKrtt,  the  mode  in  which  sin  is  transmitted,  which  would  be 
foreign  to  St  Paul's  purpose,  yet  they  emphatically  declare  that 
the  persons  spoken  of  were  *  born  to  wrath  *,  Ti^va  opyiii  is 
a  phrase  which  may  be  contrasted  with  viol  r^s  ^iraOdas  im- 
■  mediately  before.  I  cannot  hold  with  the  Dean  of  Westminster 
that  the  meaning  of  viol  and  riKva  is  precisely  the  same,  because 
cither  of  them  might  represent  a  common  term  in  Aramaic. 

/T4Kifop  denotes  a  birth  connexion,  vl6s  denotes  a  status  ;  and  there 
is  an  instinct  which  guides  St  Paul  to  choose  now  the  one  word 
and  now  the  other.  But  even  if  r^Ki/a,  strengthened  by  tpvaa, 
did  not  indicate  that  the  persons  spoken  of  were  objects  of  God*s 
wrath  from  birth,  there  is  still  the  word  7)(x^&a  and  there  is  still 
the  context.  The  Jewish  descent  of  these  persons— for  St  Paul 
is  for  the  moment  speaking  of  himself  and  other  believers  be- 
longing to  tlie  chosen  race — made  no  distinction  in  one  respect 
between  them  and  the  mass  of  mankind.  They  were  *  by  nature 
children  of  wrath  even  as  the  rest  *  ;  and  it  is  a  mistake  to  sup- 
pose that  St  Paul  means  that  their  evil  lives,  of  which  he  speaks 


488         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

SO  vehemently,  had  made  them  so.  *EyewJ|A€^a  Mrould  in  thai 
case  have  been  a  better  word  than  Tip.iBa.  Rather  the  opposite 
They  were  not  naturally  'children  of  wrath*  because  they  had 
lived  bad  lives  ;  their  bad  lives  were  the  evidence  that  they^  likt 
the  rest,  were  *  naturally  children  of  wrath  \  I  have  laboured  this 
point  at  some  length  because  Mr  Tennant*s  brief  treatment  of 
the  passage  is  an  example  of  the  tendency  which  is  sometime 
discernible  in  this  chapter  of  his  book  to  minimize  the  teaching 
of  St  Paul  on  the  natural  and  universal  corruption  of  mankind. 
Taking  that  teaching  in  its  broad  outlines,  it  contains  more  than 
Mr  Tennant  seems  willing  to  admit. 

III.  The  scientific  theory  of  evolution  must  necessarily  aifcct 
our  views  of  the  beginnings  of  man  in  the  world.  Probably  all 
of  us  are  ready  to  accept  the  belief  that  the  life  of  maji  is  con- 
tinuous with  that  of  lower  animals,  and  has  at  a  very  early  period 
been  developed  out  of  it.  But  while  we  frankly  accept  that 
belief,  it  is  still  possible  to  question  whether  all  the  facts  of 
nature  are  to  be  explained  by  evolution,  and  by  evolution  alone, 
I  submit  that  there  is  good  reason  to  think  that  the  history  of 
the  world  contains  some  moments  of  new  departure,  which  were 
not  the  work  of  evolution^  though  evolution  lends  itself  to  them* 
Two  moments,  at  least,  of  new  departure  a  Christian  must 
recognize.  The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  was  not  the  result 
of  evolution.  It  was  the  introduction  of  a  wholly  new  factor 
from  without — or  shall  we  say  from  within  ? — into  a  world  pre- 
pared by  evolution  to  receive  it.  The  original  act  of  creation 
was  not  the  result  of  evolution,  but  the  starting-point  of  the 
whole  cosmic  process.  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  science  offers  no 
contradiction — rather  the  opposite — to  the  biblical  view  that 
such  a  beginning  there  was,  and  that  the  world  of  matter  and 
force  is  not  eternal  in  the  sense  of  stretching  back  and  back 
through  time  that  is  without  limit. 

If,  then,  we  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  some  points  in  the 
history  of  the  world  at  which  a  thing  took  place  effected  by  no 
evolution,  is  it  disloyal  to  the  teaching  of  science  to  suppose  that 
there  may  have  been  more  such  points?  At  present,  we  are 
unable  to  shew  any  examples  of  life  which  are  not  derived  from 
life  anterior  to  them.  Yet  life  was  certainly  at  one  time  im- 
possible upon  this  planet.     Science  is  very  confident  that  it  will 


A   MODERN   THEORY   OF   THE   FALL  489 

be  able  to  account  for  the  beginning  of  life  on  the  principle  of 
evolution.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that  science  will  never  do 
so.  But  at  present  it  is  not  done.  Science  here  walks  by  faith. 
It  is  at  least  open  to  us  to  think  that  the  first  beginning  of  life 
upon  the  earth  was  a  creative  touch,  which  introduced  a  new 
element  into  the  world  made  ready  for  its  habitation.  The  same 
thing  may  be  said  of  human  existence.  If  it  is  ever  proved  that 
the  mental  and  spiritual  faculties  of  man  are  as  purely  a  product 
of  evolution  as  his  body,  the  Christian  will  find  no  difficulty  in 
receiving  the  truth.  But  so  great  and  unbridged  at  present  is  the 
division  between  self-conscious  man  and  the  animals  most  akin 
to  him,  that  it  is  no  treason  against  science  to  believe  that  the 
introduction  of  human  powers  into  a  physical  organism  capable 
of  serving  as  a  basis  for  them,  was  a  new  thing,  a  sudden  inter- 
position, a  creative  moment,  for  which  evolution  prepared,  but 
which  was  no  necessary  result  of  evolution. 

I  do  not  aflirm  that  this  was  so  ;  I  only  express  my  belief 
that  it  is  still  possible  for  a  man  to  believe  that  it  was  so.  And 
supposing  it  to  be  the  case,  then  it  is  not  only  possible  but 
natural  and  pious  to  imagine,  that  the  first  man,  or  the  first  men, 
with  their  divine  endowments  fresh  upon  them,  were  in  a  different 
moral  position  from  that  which  we  occupy,  and  that,  although  it 
would  be  unnecessary  and  unreasonable  to  imagine  that  they 
were  perfectly  holy  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Christian  strives 
to  be  so,  yet  their  moral  instincts  were  sound,  their  lives  were 
governed  by  them,  and  they  were  innocent  in  a  different  sense 
from  that  in  which  *  the  ape  and  tiger  *  may  be  called  innocent. 

IV.  But,  it  is  argued,  even  if  we  can  imagine  the  first 
specimens  of  humanity  as  having  existed  in  such  a  state,  and 
as  having  fallen  from  it,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  their  fall 
can  have  been  such  as  to  affect  their  progeny.  The  only  way  in 
which  the  physiologist  can  imagine  it  to  have  done  so,  is  to 
suppose  that  the  fall  was  an  act  of  so  violent  a  character  as 
to  alter  the  physical  organization  of  man.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  according  to  the  theory  which  now  offers  itself,  the  first  sin 
must  have  been  of  a  very  different  character.  The  knowledge  of 
what  is  morally  right  and  wrong  is  a  matter  of  slow  growth ; 
and  as  sin  consists  in  transgressing  a  law  which  the  conscience  of 
the  sinner  recognizes  as  authoritative,  it  is  most  tmlikely  that  the 


490 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


first  breach  of  that  law  would  be  such  an  act  as  to  impair  the 

very  physique  of  him  who  did  it.  *The  origin  of  sin'. 
Mr  Tennant  says,  Mike  other  so-called  origins  was  a  gradual 
process  rather  than  an  abrupt  and  inexplicable  plunge* ...  The 
sinfulness  of  sin  would  gradually  increase  from  a  zero  ;  and  the 
first  sin,  if  the  words  have  any  meaning,  instead  of  beii^  the  most 
heinous,  and  the  most  momentous  in  the  race's  history,  would 
rather  be  the  least  significant  of  all'  ^ 

To  these  weighty  allegations  I  would  with  great  deference, 
and  in  a  purely  tentative  manner,  submit  a  few  considerations 
in  reply,  reserving  to  myself,  as  well  as  to  others,  the  right  to 
change  my  mind,  upon  cause  shewn. 

(i)  I  know  of  no  reason  why  we  should  not  accept  Mr 
Tennant's  view  of  the  relative  magnitude  of  the  first  sin.  The 
very  imagery  which  is  used  in  Genesis  to  describe  it  is  that  of 
a  childish  fault.  The  history  of  sin  does  not  begin  \vith  tlie 
fratricide  of  Cain,  but  with  the  longing  look  at  a  forbidden  fruit 
It  is  part  of  the  imagery  of  the  story  that  the  first  gratification  of 
that  longing  was  immediately  followed  by  the  sense  of  shame, 
and  alienation  from  God,  and  expulsion  from  the  happy  Garden. 
We  may,  if  we  are  so  led,  interpret  that  imagery  of  the 
instantaneous  fall  of  a  man  and  his  wife  to  stand  for  a  slow  and 
gradual  deterioration  of  a  race.  Their  earliest  sin  may  well 
have  consisted  in  allowing  impulses  which  were  inherited  from 
their  animal  ancestry,  and  which  in  their  animal  ancestry  were 
blameless,  to  prevail  over  higher  impulses  which  belonged  to 
them  as  men,  and  which  indeed  made  them  men  as  distinguished 
from  the  animals  that  they  or  their  fathers  were  before.  The 
fall  may  have  been  a  process  rather  than  an  act ;  but  to  use  such 
words  as  those  which  I  have  quoted — '  the  first  sin,  if  the  words 
have  any  meaning' — is  to  imply  that  there  is  no  real  line  of 
demarcation  between  right  and  wrong,  and  that  if  there  is  one, 
the  first  sinner  could  not  have  been  expected  not  to  overstep 
it :  in  other  words,  first  sins  are  not  sinful,  and  men  found  them* 
selves  sinners  through  no  fault  of  their  own.  Here,  I  submit,  is 
a  confusion  of  thought  which  is  much  to  be  regretted- 

(a)  It  is  well  known  that  the  masters  of  science  have  not 
yet  been  able  to  decide  for  certain  whether  *  acquired  modifica- 

*  H.  L.  p.  91. 


A    MODERN   THEORY   OF   THE   FALL 


491 


tions '  can  be  transmitted  from  parent  to  offspring — whether,  in 
le  case  before  us,  the  children  of  an  Adam  and  Eve  could 
themselves  modified  as  a  direct  result  of  thetr  parents*  fall, 
will  not  attempt  to  argue  the  point  upon  the  assumption  that 
le  story  in  Genesis  is  historical — an  assumption  which  I  have 
[ready  disclaimed*  But  if  the  fall  may  be  interpreted  in  the 
^ay  that  has  been  suggested,  as  a  gradual  process,  lasting,  it 
lay  be,  through  many  generations,  it  would  not,  I  believe, 
unscientific  to  suppose  that  at  length  the  race  itself  might 
profoundly  modified  by  successive  resistances  to  the  nobler 
ipulses ;  and  that  as^  by  the  laws  of  nature  itself,  special 
)dily  characteristics  imprinted  themselves  by  degrees  upon 
rarious  strains  of  animal  life,  and  one  became  a  race  of  elephants, 
rhile  another  became  a  race  of  whales^  so  humanity  at  large 
;ame  to  bear  a  certain  ethical  impress,  not  derived  merely  by 
Imitation  from  the  state  of  society  into  which  the  individual  finds 
limself  bom,  but  by  each  member  bringing  with  him  into  the  world 
mdencies  and  aptitudes,  proclivities  and  insensibilities,  which  are 
le  result  of  habits  formed  by  generations  of  his  human  ancestry. 
And  even  if  it  should  be  held  impossible  for  acquired  modifi- 
cations to  be  transmitted  in  the  present  state  of  things  by 
natural  generation,  I  would  submit  that  this  need  not  always 
have  been  the  case.  In  earlier  conditions  of  existence  much 
may  have  been  possible  which  we  cannot  observe  to  take  place 
now.  This  is  the  very  plea  which  the  evolutionist  urges  in 
favour  of  the  view  that  the  original  production  of  life,  for 
instance,  was  at  its  own  date  a  necessity  of  evolution.  '  We  do 
not  maintain ',  says  the  philosopher  Lotze,  '  that  all  which  the 
elements  can  accomplish  is  to  be  measured  by  the  narrow 
possibilities  still  left  open  by  the  rigidity  which  the  most 
essential  natural  relations  have  attained.  In  earlier  stages  of 
cosmic  devclopement,  when  (everything  being  yet  in  process  of 
formation)  there  was  both  greater  celerity  of  change  and  also 
a  prevalence  of  modes  of  connexion  which  did  not  afterwards 
recur,  it  may  perhaps  have  been  the  case  that  the  elements 
produced  effects  different  in  nature  and  magnitude  from  those 
'.o  which  the  present  course  of  Nature  gives  rise,  limited  as  this 
is  to  the  maintenance  of  uniform  conditions/  ^     In  accordance 

*  Micrxxasmus  ii  p.  136  (E.T.). 


5ory 

}  ana 


492         THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

with  this  observation  of  Lotze,  I  ask  whether  moral  effects,  or 
effects  which  are  both  moral  and  physical,  may  not  have  bcco 
possible  in  the  first  plastic  stages  of  human  history  which  would 
no  longer  be  possible  now. 

(3)  It  forms  part  of  the  modern  theory  which  we  are  dis- 
cussing that  nothing  can  be  called  sinful  which  is  not  a  conscious 
and  wilful  refusal  to  comply  with  a  recognized  law.  In  other 
words,  nothing  can  be  morally  wrong  except  for  those  who 
know  that  it  is  wrong.  In  this  way,  the  champions  of  the  theory 
can  see  no  meaning  in  attributing  any  sinful  character  to  an 
infant.  At  about  the  age  of  three  years,  according-  to  a  stat^ 
ment  which  Mr  Teimant  seems  to  regard  with  approval,  *  m 
sentiment '  begins  to  make  its  appearance  in  the  young  child 
Before  that  time  it  is  incapable  of  sin.  *  It  is  the  basal  propo- 
sition of  the  theory  of  sin  which  is  now  being  elaborated*, 
Mr  Tennant  says,  *  that  until  the  will  has  emerged,  and  the  life 
begins  to  be  self- conducted,  no  germ  of  evil  can  be  said  to  exist 
in  the  individual.  The  young  child  in  following  the  impulses 
and  instincts  which  it  is  as  yet  unable  to  direct  or  cofitrol,  is 
entirely  fulfilling  its  life's  purpose.  With  the  dawn  of  will  and 
reason  morality  first  becomes  a  possibility.  And  until  moral 
sentiment  appears,  the  existence  of  sfn  is  of  course  excluded/ ' 

Lest  any  one  should  suppose  from  this  passage  that  Mr  Tennant 
has  an  optimistic  opinion  of  the  ways  of  little  children,  and 
thinks  that  they  all  behave  like  little  angels,  I  must  say  that,  on 
the  contrary,  he  speaks  of  'children's  impatience  of  restniint, 
their  wilfulness  and  passionate  temper,  their  unconscious  cruelty, 
their  greed  and  envy  and  self-pleasing  *  *.  He  calls  them  *  pure 
little  animals  ',  and  says  that  '  the  young  child  presents  some- 
times an  appalling  spectacle  of  self-centredness  in  the  satisfaction 
of  its  impulses  and  appetites,  and  of  passionate  resentment  to 
restraint  on  their  indulgence  '  *.  But  it  is  a  mistake^  according  to 
the  new  theory,  to  suppose  that  there  is  anything  wrong  in  all 
this.  'The  naturalist  reads  there  only  a  sign  of  future  sanity 
and  vigour/  *The  apparent  faults  of  infantile  age  are  in  fact 
organic  necessities.  There  must  be  what  looks  to  older  eyes  so 
much  like  unmitigated  selfishness/ ^ 


< 


»  //.  L,  104. 


thai.  p»  97. 


ibid,  p.  103. 


ibid,  p,  97. 


ibid.  p.  95. 


A  MODERN  THEORY  OF  THE  FALL 


493 


I  would  only  ask  in  reference  to  this  view  of  infancy,  what  its 
ipholders  have  to  say  about  the  sacred  infancy  of  Jesus  Christ. 
(He  came,  as  we  have  learned  from  Irenaeus,  to  sanctify  all  ages, 
ifancy  included,  by  passing  through  them  Himself.  Can  wc 
imagine  that  the  blessed  Babe  gave  *  signs  of  future  sanity  and 
jvigour'  by  presenting  appalling  spectacles  of  self- cent  redness 
id  resentment?  Is  it  only  a  perverse  and  unreasonable 
fprejudice  that  makes  us  shrink  from  the  thought?  I  ask  again, 
rhat  would  be  the  nature  of  an  education  conducted  on  the 
irinciple  that  the  child  is  a  non-moral  being  till  it  reaches 
le  age  of  three  ?  For  my  own  part  I  am  convinced  by  observa- 
ion,  no  less  than  by  other  methods,  that  there  are  movements  of 
[conscience  long  before  the  child  knows  the  meaning  of  the  words 
which  formulate  the  law  for  it^  that  it  recognizes  when,  as 
we  say,  it  has  been  naughty— partly,  no  doubt,  by  the  looks  and 
demeanour  of  its  parents,  but  partly  also  by  some  responsive 
motion  within  itself — that  it  has  impulses  and  instincts  of  love 
and  trust  which  run  counter  to  the  impulses  and  instincts  of  self- 
will  and  sclf-assertion^ — and  that  a  perfect  childhood,  at  any 
rate  when  lived  under  good  and  wise  direction,  would  be  free 
from  those  storms  in  which  *  the  naturalist '  sees  nothing  but 
what  is  wholesome.  That  Christian  teachers  have  often  ex- 
aggerated the  depth  of  human  corruption,  and  have  often  planted 
at  the  wrong  point  the  boundary  between  what  normally  belongs 
to  man  as  an  animal  being  and  what  belongs  to  him  as  a  fallen 
and  sinful  one,  this  I  readily  admit  ;  but  I  cannot  think  that 
all  the  phenomena  which  shock  and  grieve  us  in  the  ways  of 
little  children  are  necessary  tokens  of  their  animal  well-being, 
and  should  be  welcomed  as  such — or  that  we  should  have 
observed  them  in  the  one  human  life  which  we  believe  to  have 
been  perfect  throughout* 

(4)  Mr  Tennant  finds  it  difficult  to  see  how  a  *  nature'  can  be 
said  to  be  sinful  and  corrupt.  He  complains — I  will  not  say 
that  he  complains  unjustly*— of  the  loose  and  confused  way  in 
which  the  word  '  nature  *  is  often  used.  I  should  wish  to  be 
free  from  the  ambiguity  which  he  condemns.  His  own  defi- 
nition of  what  human  nature  means  is  to  me  quite  satisfactory. 
It  denotes  *  the  sum  of  the  equipments,  actual  and  potential, 
with  which  a  man  is  born:  his  congenital  endowments,  in  fact, 


494 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


as  distinguished  from  what  is  afterwards  bestowed  upon  )aa^ 
or  acquired  by  him,  from  his  surroundings  and  his  education  tnd 
experience  '^  This  is  the  nature  which  according  to  trajditioiu] 
Christianity  is  sinful.  Mr  Tennant  does  not  see  how  siafulnei 
can  attach  to  it,  when  *  sinfulness  \  as  he  truly  says,  *  altadffl 
exclusively  to  the  consent  of  the  will  itself  *. 

It  is  with  great  diffidence  that  I  criticize  the  language  of  so 
clear  and  philosophical  a  writer  as  Mr  Tennant ;  but  I  caaflflt 
but  feel  that  he  has  been  misled  into  his  denial  of  a  sinful  natwt 
by  taking  too  narrow  a  view  of  what  constitutes  sin,  especiiDy 
with  regard  to  two  particular  points. 

(a)  He  can  only  conceive  of  sin  as  an  '  act  of  will  * '.  Hat 
he  is  partly  right,  in  my  opinion,  and  partly  wrong.  That  sin 
resides  in  the  will,  and  the  will  only,  I  heartily  agree ;  it  wcwld 
be  pure  Manichaeism  to  place  it  elsewhere ;  but  it  seems  to 
me  that  will  is  not  to  be  seen  only  in  *  acts  of  will '.  It  would 
lead  to  what  I  might  call  an  atomistic  view  of  life  if  k 
estimating  moral  values  we  were  to  confine  our  attention  to 
express  and  definite  volitions.  There  are  such  things  as  moral 
states  and  attitudes  to  be  considered,  as  well  as  distinct  move* 
ments  of  will.  Such  states  and  attitudes  are  of  course  recog- 
nized at  that  advanced  stage  of  moral  progress  or  declension 
where  good  or  bad  habits  and  character  have  been  formed.  We 
do  not  in  these  cases  measure  a  man's  meed  of  blame  or  praise 
solely  by  his  acts  of  will.  There  are  times  in  the  life  of  tlie 
most  confirmed  drunkard  when  his  will  is  not  actively  going 
out  towards  the  intoxicant ;  for  instance,  when  he  is  asleep, 
or  when  some  other  dominant  passion  has  possession  of  him,  the 
drink  is  forgotten.  But  at  such  times  he  is  not  ethically  to  be 
considered  as  holding  a  position  free  from  blame,  even  with 
regard  to  the  drink.  His  will,  though  quiescent  so  far  as  the 
drink  is  concerned,  is  nevertheless  set  in  a  wrong  direction  in  the 
matter.  When  the  temptation  to  drink  comes  again,  he  is 
certain  to  yield  to  it.  The  Christian  is  not  wrong  in  saying  that 
that  drunkard  is  sinful  all  the  time,  not  only  when  he  sets 
himself  to  commit  excess,  but  also  in  the  intervals  w^hen  his 
volition  in  that  respect  is  in  abeyance. 

Something  of  the  same  kind  may  not  unreasonably  be  said 

»  N.  L.  p*  17a.  •  ibid.  p.  170.  •  ibid.  p.  169  folt 


A   MODERK  THEORY   OF  THE   FALL 


495 


^ 

n 


an  infant  at  the  hour  of  its  birth,  before  it  has  done  either 
d  or  ill.  Habit  and  character  have  not  yet  been  formed  ;  but 
e  still  dormant  faculty  of  will  may  not  be  wholly  neutral, 
r  all  that,  in  its  attitude  towards  moral  good  and  evil.  One 
ho  possessed  the  gift  of  insight — one  who  could  see  the  oak  in 
e  acom^ — might  be  able  to  discern  from  the  outset  which  way 
at  undeveloped  being  is  sure  to  exercise  its  coming  powers, 
less  influences  from  without  acquire  a  mastery  over  it.  As 
e  child  is  father  of  the  man,  so  the  babe  is  father  of  the  child, 
is  very  nature, '  the  sum  of  the  equipments  actual  and  potential^ 
ith  which  he  is  bom',  includes  moral  elements  no  less  than 
tellectual  ones.  He  is  bom  to  be  a  coward  or  a  profligate, 
much  as  another  is  born  to  be  a  poet  or  a  calculating  boy. 
vcr  and  above  that  common  stock  of  non-moral  impulses  and 
stincts  which  belong  to  him  as  an  animal  among  animals,  he 
as  already  the  propensity  to  use  those  endowments  in  such 
nd  such  a  way ;  and  so,  even  from  birth,  he  may  justly  be 
garded  with  moral  approval  or  disapproval— unhappily  in 
ery  instance  that  we  know  of,  but  One,  with  some  degree  of 
disapproval. 

(d)  Mr  Tennant  again  and  again  insists  that  nothing  can  be 
sinful  which  is  not  consciously  so.  '  Apart  from  the  conscious 
olition  of  a  person  there  is  no  such  thing  as  moral  goodness  or 
badness.'  ^  The  definition  of  sin  makes  it  '  a  transgression,  of 
the  law  in  the  sense  of  Ms  (the  doer's)  law,  what  is  known 
and  recognized  by  him  individually  as  constituting  a  moral 
sanction  *  \ 

It  is  perhaps  in  this  insistence  that  the  new  theory  comes 
more  gravely  and  practically  into  conflict  with  Christian  teaching 
in  general  than  at  any  other  point.  The  Bible  by  no  means 
identifies  sin  with  guilt,  '  Sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no 
law  * ;  but  sin  is  there,  whether  imputed  or  not.  The  sin  which 
is  committed  ignorantly  in  unbelief  is  forgiven  on  that  account, 
but  it  needs  forgiveness,  and  it  involves  a  life-long  penitence. 
And  although  the  guilt  of  sin  may  be  indefinitely  diminished 
by  the  sin  being  unwittingly  done,  yet  even  the  guilt  is  not 
wholly  done  away:  the  man  who  commits  things  worthy  of 
stripes  without  being  aware  of  the  character  of  them  receives  few 
»  //.  L,  p.  i6i.  » ihui. 


496         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


stripes  in  comparison  with  other  sinners,  but  he  receives  stnpft  I 
Thus  even  guilt  is  not  wholly  dependent  upon  consciousness,  aod  I 
sin  is  by  no  means  conterminous  with  guilt.  I 

It  is  impossible  really  to  maintain  that  the  sinfijlness  of  i£  I 
action  is  wholly  to  be  measured  by  tlie  doer's  standard  of  t\^  1 
and  wrong,  and  by  his  sense  of  transgression  at   the  time  d\ 
doing   iL    A  single  proof  of  this  is  sufficient.      It  is  the  vv^i 
known  tendency   of  indulgence  in  sin,  to  harden   the  sinncf'i 
heart,  and  to  make  him  less  sensitive  to  the  moral  quality  of  his 
actions.     The  sin  which  at  first  he  committed  with  misgiving  and 
hesitation,  and  perhaps  with  subsequent  remorse,  he  comes  to 
do   half  mechanically,  with  no  struggle  of  conscience,  until  al 
last,  in  the  words  of  the  Psalm,  he  *  imagineth  mischief  as  a  law'. 
Is  his  last  sin,  committed  when  his  conscience  ceases  to  remind 
him  that  he  is  doing  wrong,  or  when  in  its  perversion  it  tells  hini 
that  he  is  doing  right,  to  be  regarded  as  less  sinful,  and  less 
liable  to  just   punishment  than  the  sin   committed  when  coo- 
science  was  tender  and  the  true  canon  of  action  stood  vividly 
before  it  ?    That  would  be  no  just  judgement.      The  hardeaed 
offender  is  guilty,  not  only  of  the  sinful  deed  which  he  so  lightly 
commits,  but  of  the  injury  done  to  himself  by  w^hich  it   becomes 
possible  for  him  to  sin  so  lightly. 

I  admit  that  with  regard  to  the  moral  disabilities  with  which 
we  all,  according  to  ihe  traditional  belief,  begin  life,  we  are  not 
to  be  accounted  guilty  for  them,  like  the  sinner  who  has 
hardened  his  own  conscience.  It  is  no  fault  of  our  own  if  we  ait 
bom  in  sin.  That  is  our  misfortune.  Only  when  we  consent  to 
the  evil  warp  in  our  nature,  and  begin,  as  Mr  Tennant  sstyh 
to  weave  sinful  acts  into  sinful  habit  and  sinful  character,  do 
we  become  justly  subject  to  punishment  for  it  ^.  But  we  may 
begin  at  a  very  early  point  in  life  either  to  consent  to  be  w^hat 
we  are  by  nature,  or  by  God  s  grace  to  rise  to  something  belter 
No  clear  consciousness  of  the  issues  is  needed  to  make  a  differ- 
ence between  our  movements  of  will — ^some  movements  right  and 
others  wrong.  Sin  consists  in  the  will  to  do  wrong  things,  and 
there  is  (strictly)  no  such  thing  as  an  involuntary  sin ;  but  the 
wrong  thing  may  be  done  without  knowing  how  wrong  it  is. 

The  fact  is,  I  believe,  that  there  is  an  '  ought '  and  an  *  ought 

*  itiV/.  p.  168. 


A    MODERN   THEORY   OF   THE    FALL  497 

not '  independent  of  the  feelings  and  opinions  of  this  man  or 
that,  and  perhaps  extending  further  than  most  of  us  suppose. 
We  are  not  justified,  I  think,  in  treating  as  a  fentastic  Jewish 
speculation  the  belief  expressed  by  St  Paul  that  human  sin  is 
a  fact  of  cosmic  significance  ^  Is  it  entirely  a  poetical  figure 
of  speech  when  Jesus  *  rebukes  *  the  wind  and  the  fever ;  or 
when  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  speaks  of  the  *  curse '  awaiting 
the  ground  which,  in  spite  of  advantages  and  culture,  fails  to 
bear  fruit  ?  Is  it  (to  use  Ruskin's  phrase)  nothing  but  a  *  pathetic 
fallacy '  to  see  something  that  *  ought  *  not  to  be  in  the  needless 
cruelties  of  a  cat  with  a  mouse,  or  in  the  evasion  of  parental 
duties  on  the  part  of  the  cuckoo?  True,  the  creatures  know 
no  better,  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  blame  them  for  what,  as 
St  Paul  says,  they  are  made  subject  to  •  not  willingly  * ;  but 
wherever  the  blame  may  lie  there  is  sin  somewhere  to  account 
for  it.  To  come  a  step  higher,  it  would  be  absurd  to  blame  the 
individual  South  Sea  Islander  for  taking  part  in  the  cannibal 
feast  which  the  custom  of  his  village  prescribes,  in  the  same 
degree  as  if  the  thing  were  done  by  Englishmen.  The  blame 
is  hard  to  locate ;  but  no  one  can  well  doubt  that  things  have 
gone  very  far  wrong  where  cannibalism  exists,  and  that  the 
custom  is  a  wicked  custom  which  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  or 
excused,  and  that  the  whole  tribe  or  nation  which  tolerates  it 
is  heavily  loaded  with  sin. 

The  Christian  is  not  much  concerned  to  distribute  and  appor- 
tion the  blame  of  sin  amongst  the  units  who  compose  mankind. 
That  is  a  task  which  he  is  wisely  warned  to  leave  to  an  intelli- 
gence above  his  own.  Nor  does  it  greatly  concern  him  to  say 
how  much  of  the  sin  in  the  world  is  to  be  traced  to  a  depravity 
of  nature  transmitted  by  physical  descent,  and  how  much  to 
what  is  called  social  heredity.  It  is  enough  to  say  that 
humanity  is  both  outwardly  and  inwardly  one.  Mankind  is 
a  single,  living  whole,  out  of  which  and  into  which  the  individual 
man  is  born.  In  both  ways  he  partakes  of  the  life  of  the  race, 
and  in  both  ways,  as  I  believe,  of  the  sin  which  penetrates  the 
life  of  the  race.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  probable  that 
all  our  sins  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  vicious  surroundings  into 
which  we  come,  and  that  we  come  into  them  capable  indeed 

»  F,  and  O.  S,  p.  371. 
VOL.  V.  K  k 


498         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

of  sin,  but  sinless.  It  will  always,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  be 
the  simplest  explanation  of  the  acknowledged  universality  of 
sin,  as  well  as  that  which  expresses  best  the  penitential  ex- 
perience of  good  men,  to  say  with  the  Psalmist  *  Behold,  I  was 
shapen  in  wickedness;  and  in  sin  hath  my  mother  conceived 
me*.  If,  according  to  the  striking  expression  of  Baruch,  *eadi 
one  of  us  has  been  the  Adam  of  his  own  soul  *  *,  and  has  started 
from  the  same  neutral  position — morally  speaking — as  his  first 
human  ancestors,  it  becomes  beyond  all  calculation  of  chances 
improbable  that  no  single  human  being,  except  the  One  who  was 
also  more  than  human,  should  have  lived  without  sin.  But 
however  else  the  fact  may  be  explained,  I  cannot  believe  that 
the  Christian  consciousness  will  ever  reconcile  itself  to  a  theofy 
which  endeavours  to  account  for  the  universality  of  sin  by  really 
denying  its  sinfulness. 

A.  J.  Mason. 

>  Quoted  in  F.  and  O,  5.  p.  217. 


499 


THE  POSITION  OF  THE  LAITY  IN 
THE  CHURCH. 

The  Report  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  the  Convocation  of 
Canterbury  on  the  Position  of  the  Laity  has  been  before  the 
public  now  for  many  months  without  any  serious  attempt  at 
independent  criticism  of  it,  as  a  whole. 

The  Report  is  constructed  to  support  a  scheme  of  Church 
bodies  in  which  the  laity  are  to  be  represented  by  laymen,  and 
their  representatives  would  not  materially  differ  from  the  lay 
elders  of  the  Scotch  establishment.  The  theory  of  the  Church 
of  England  is  that  the  clerical  Convocations  are  that '  Church  by 
representation*  (Canon  139  A. D.  1604),  which  implies  that  her 
clergy  represent  her  laity.  That  theory  rests  on  the  primitive 
fundamental  fact,  that  in  the  choice  of  their  clergy  of  all  orders 
the  laity  are  entitled  to  a  substantial  suffrage. 

The  theory  seems  to  involve  the  further  assumption  that,  by 
the  action  of  the  Crown  or  other  patron,  public  or  private,  and 
by  virtue  of  the  appeal  or  challenge  conveyed  in  the  *  Si  quis ' 
document,  the  demand  of  that  suffrage  is  adequately  met. 

As  regards  lay  suffrage  in  the  election  of  a  bishop,  the  Report 
contains  the  following  remarks  : — 

*  The  bishop  was  emphatically  the  chosen  representative  of  the 
brotherhood.  It  is  obvious  that,  when  this  is  a  reality,  bishops, 
as  such,  represent  churches  in  a  very  special  sense.  When  it  is 
not  a  reality,  there  is  the  more  need  of  other  modes  of  touch 
with  the  brotherhood,  if  the  brotherhood  is  to  be  represented  by 
them,  not  by  fiction  but  in  fact  *  (p.  12). 

The  suffrage  of  the  laity  in  the  election  of  all  church  officers,  if 
it  ever  existed  in  fact,  must  have  existed  as  a  right,  fundamental 
and  indelible.  That  it  did  exist  in  fact,  at  any  rate  as  regards 
bishops,  is  attested  by  the  Report  itself,  a  few  lines  above  those 
just    quoted,   recognizing   *  their  (the   laity's)  position    in    the 

Kk  a 


500         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES  I 

election  of  bishops  as  a  fact  of  primary  importance*,  &c  Tul 
words  which  I  italicize  in  these  extracts  shew  that  the  Ctffi-I 
mittee  regard  it  as  an  open  question  whether  the  lay  man  s  oldei  I 
right  ill  Church  government  is  to  be  treated  as  a  reality  or  aol  I 

On  p.  7  we  read,  'When  a  Church  is  addressed,  the  addresil 
to  the  brethren  corporately' — apparently  in   total   rorgetfulocsi  I 
of  Him  who,  'walking  in  the  midst  of  the  Churches  of  Aszi,! 
addresses  each  by  and  through  its  individual  *  angel  *  (Rev,  i— iM 
Interpreters  differ  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  *  angel  * ;  ifl 
whatever  else  it  may  mean,  it  cannot  mean  *  the  brctlinen  cor*] 
porately*.     Yet  His  words  addressed  to  those  angels  are  to  be 
received  as  what  *  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  Churches* .    Again, tD 
descend  to  the  level  of  human  agency,  can  any  one  read  tk 
whole  narrative  of  St  PauTs  last  recorded  visit  and  parting chai|« 
to  the  'elders'  of  Ephesu5,  without  feeling  that  he  treats  then, 
not  merely  as  office-holders,  but  as  actual  representatives  of'tk 
brethren  corporately'  (Acts  xx,  especially  w.  20,  31,  35)? 

Nor  does  the  Report  shew  an  adequate  grasp  of  what  ifl 
apostolic  and  sub-apostolic  history  may  be  taken  as  an  el6 
mentary  fact,  viz,  that  where  any  choice  of  any  official  persofl 
is  concerned,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  even  there  where 
the  office  might  seem,  to  our  notions,  to  be  perfunctory  only,  the 
lay  voice  finds  its  natural  and  necessary  utterance. 

This  function  is  so  strongly  marked  in  the  two  conspicuous 
and  decisive  precedents  of  the  early  apostolic  ministry,  that  it 
might  seem  as  though  they  were  selected  by  the  Holy  Spirit's 
action  as  types  to  be  stamped  on  all  Church  history  from  the 
beginning.  They  are,  the  choice  of  the  twelfth  Apostle  (Acts  \  15 
ad  fin.)y  and  the  selection  of  the  seven  assistants  or  deacons 
(vi  i~6).  In  the  former  case  the  'one  hundred  and  twenty*  weit 
parties  to  whatever  was  done  in  the  final  selection  of  St  Matthias; 
although  what  the  exact  mode  of  procedure  was,  may  perhaps  be 
uncertain.  Indeed,  to  place  this  unmistakeably  on  record  is 
probably  one  reason  why  that  total  of  brethren  is  definitely 
stated.  In  the  second  case  the  whole  procedure  is  clear.  Popular 
election  from  below  concurring  with  apostolic  sanction  and  com- 
mission  from  above,  authority  setting  thus  its  seal  upon  the  suffrage 
of  the  multitude  concerned,  gave  the  surest  omens  for  the  harmony 
of  all. 


L 


J 


XT       THE   POSITION   OF   THE   LAITY   IN   THE   CHURCH     501 

g.  The  latter  alone  of  these  instances,  as  *  likely  to  be  typical 
j^and  exemplary',  is  briefly  touched  in  the  Report,  p.  11.  Both 
_  together  should  have  guided  discreet  commentators  in  Acts  xv  22. 
-.  There  the  R.  V.  corrects  an  error  of  the  A.  V.  by  rendering 
*  Then  it  seemed  good  to  the  Apostles  and  Elders  with  the 
.  "whole  Church  to  choose  men  out  of  their  own  company^  and 
send  them  *,  &c.  Why  is  it  that  'the  whole  Church',  including 
the  entire  unofficial  brotherhood,  here  first  comes  in  for  a  share 
in  the  proceedings?  Not^  as  the  Report  suggests,  to  share  in 
authorizing  the  decree,  but  because  the  function  exercised  is 
elective  here — that  of  choosing  ofEcial  persons  to  convey  and 
attest  it.  And  to  this  the  words  which  follow  in  v.  25  seem  to 
recur,  *  It  seemed  good  to  us  having  come  to  one  accord  to  choose 
out  men,'  &c.  The  choice  of  the  envoys  had  the  '  accord '  of  the 
united  assembly  behind  it.  Viewed  in  this  light  the  earlier 
examples  of  ch.  i  and  ch.  vi  coincide  with  that  of  xv  22,  25,  and 
all  cohere  in  one  triple  context  of  precedent.  The  same  principle 
speaks  out  in  St  Paul's  claiming  for  the  brethren  who  were  on 
their  way  to  Corinth  (2  Cor.  viii  16-24),  the  status  of  *  envoys 
(* apostles')  of  the  Churches,*  not  like  Titus  (v.  16)  personal 
legates  of  his  own.  Of  one  in  particular,  *  whose  praise  is  in  the 
Gospel  throughout  all  the  Churches',  he  adds,  *and  not  that 
only,  but  who  was  also  chosen  of  the  Churches  to  travel  with  us ' 
on  this  very  errand  (vv.  18,  19);  and  adds  emphatically  of  the 
entire  company  that  *  they  are  the  messengers  of  the  Churches, 
the  glory  of  Christ ' — Christ's  own  dignitaries  or  order  of  merit, 
we  might  render  this  phrase  of  startling  emphasis.  What  made 
them  so  ?  Nothing  but  the  one  principle  of  popular  ifllloice  in 
the  Apostolic  Church.  They  have  the  suffrage  of  Christ's  Body, 
and  that  conveys  a  patent  of  nobility.  The  vox  popnli  was  on 
this  behalf,  when  unanimous,  the  vox  Dei,  St  Paul's  language 
flashes  out  with  new  life  and  force  when  this  is  recognized.  But 
this  is  what  the  Report  slurs  over  in  Acts  xv  22,  in  order  to 
ascribe  to  the  laity  a  ^/^^.r/'-share  in  authorizing  the  decree,  which 
is  a  wholly  separate  matter,  and  is  therefore  not  conveyed  in  the 
narrative  until  we  reach  v.  28.     '  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 

'  The  Greek  here  is  \i  adrcvv, '  out  of  themselves*,  and  rendered  simply  so  is  more 
forcible  than  by  the  more  vague  phrase  'their  own  company' — a  curious  expression 
for  the  whole  Church  met  representatively. 


502         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


1 

he  J 

i 


Ghost  and  to  us',  i.e.  the  Apostles  and  Elders  to  whom  the 
appeal  had  been  carried.  Plain  as  is  the  force  of  this  majestic 
grouping,  it  is  again  the  supreme  point  which  the  Report  exactly 
misses ;  for  it  says  *  the  whole  body  in  general  was  present  and 
concurred ',  relying  on  v.  22,  which,  as  shewn  above,  has  a  wholly 
different  reference,  viz.  to  the  choice  of  envoys.  In  support  as  it 
seems  of  the  same  error,  we  further  read  that — 

'  There  was  much  argument  before  St  Peter  spoke.  The  effect 
of  his  speech  was  that  *'all  the  multitude  kept  silence'*^  .  .  .  "Kept 
silence"  in  this  context  (especially  when  compared  with  tlie  much 
disputing  of  v.  7),  seems  to  mean  *'  desisted  from  disputing  ".  The 
indications  then  are  against  supposing  that  the  brethren  we 
excluded  either  from  presence  or  from  utterance  at  the  meeting; 

(pp.  7-8.) 

There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  phrase  quoted  *  The  whole  body 
cofta4rred\  The  stranger  in  the  gallery  and  the  public  out  of 
doors  may  *  concur'  with  the  debater  in  the  House;  but  voice 
and  vote  belong  to  the  latter  only.  To  think  *that  the  brethren 
were  excluded '  by  any  formal  regulation  *  from  utterance '  would 
probably  be  false ;  nevertheless,  that  the  discussion  was  in  fact 
shared  by  those  only  who  framed  the  decree,  viz.  the  Apostks 
and  Elders,  lies  on  the  face  of  the  narrative.  But  as  the  sense 
attached  to  t<Tiyi]<T€  in  v.  12  by  the  Report  rests  on  a  linguistic 
idiom  overlooked,  it  is  proper  to  shew  by  a  few  examples  why 
that  sense  seems  unwarrantable.  St  Luke  for  'desisted  from 
disputing'  uses  a  different  verb,  ^aiixaC*^  not  (nyaui-^  see  e.g. 
Acts  xi  J  8,  where  the  circumstances  are  very  similar,  only  the 
occasion  less  public,  The  very  same  speaker,  St  Peter,  is  there 
pleading  virtually  the  very  same  cause,  but  on  more  personal 
grounds,  and  to  an  audience  of  Jewish  believers  only  (ib,  v.  2)^ 
not  mixed,  as  here.  See,  again,  St  Luke  xiv  ^,  where  our  Lord 
puts  a  question  to  the  Pharisees,  who  '  were  watching  him  \  and 
who,  it  is  implied,  should  or  might  have  answered,  but  did  not 
In  both  cases  St  Luke  says  the  persons  concerned  ^<TV)^a<rai»,  Sec 
further  Acts  xxi  14,  where  he  says  of  himself  and  company,  h 
being  unable  to  dissuade  St  Paul  from  his  rash  venture  (as  they| 
deemed  it)  to  Jerusalem,  ^av)(a(Ta}xiv — which  might  be  ren- 
dered by  the  exact  phrai>c  of  the  Report,  we  *  desisted  from 


I 
I 


'£<ri7i7<7<  nail'  rd  irX^^of^  Acts  xv  la. 


THE   POSITION    OF   THE   LAITY   IN    THE   CHURCH     503 

disputing  *  ^.  It  is  worth  notice  also  that  except  once  by  St  Paul  2, 
with  whom  St  Luke  has  many  analogies  of  language,  its  use 
in  the  New  Testament  is  limited  to  the  latter  writer.  It  is  not 
only  his  favourite  word  in  this  sense,  but  it  is  all  but  peculiar 
to  him. 

On  the  other  hand,  criydcoj  the  verb  here  found  (Acts  xv  12), 
bears  in  St  Luke  a  different  shade  of  meaning.  It  is  used,  with 
its  noun  o-ty??,  to  express  a  hush  in  some  outbreak  of  exclamations; 
see  Acts  xii  17,  where  the  inmates'  evident  outcry,  startled  by 
St  Peter's  sudden  appearance,  is  by  him  checked  with  a  motion 
of  hand — <riyay,  a  motion  repeated  by  St  Paul  in  Acts  xxi  40, 
where  the  effect  is  *  a  great  hush  *.  In  St  Luke  xviii  39  the  best 
editors  prefer  to  read  the  same  word,  expressing  that  the  shouting 
of  the  blind  man  after  Jesus  should  be  hushed  ^  Now  this 
exactly  represents  what  took  place  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem 
in  Acts  XV  I  a*.  The  habits  of  ancient  public  assemblies  are 
best  exemplified  in  those  of  the  Athenian  Ecclesia,  To  follow 
favourite  speakers  or  approved  sentiments  with  cheers,  sometimes 
vociferous,  was  an  ancient  custom  *  and  is  still  a  custom. 

Probably  in  no  popular  assembly  of  the  ancient  world  were 
these  demonstrations  of  sympathy  wholly  unknown ;  and  certainly 
among  Asiatic  Greeks  or  Syro-Greeks  they  would  not  be  wanting. 
This  is  the  natural  meaning  then  of  the  *  hush  *  which  came  upon 
the  '  multitude ',  when  St  Barnabas  and  St  Paul  began  to  speak 
(Acts  XV  I  a).  The  hum  or  buz  of  applause  which  had  followed 
St  Peter's  address  was  arrested.  The  same  is  probably  to  be 
understood  in  v.  13,  where  *  after  they  were  hushed'  introduces 
St  James's  summing  up  of  the  debate — '  they '  including  probably 

^  The  word  is  found  in  this  exact  sense  in  the  LXX  Version ;  see  Neh.  v  8, 
where  Nehemiah  says  of  his  opponents,  they  iiaioxiiaav  koX  ohx  *^po<ra»  rbv  X<^oy, 
'  desisted  and  could  not  find  anything  to  say ' ;  also  Job  xxxii  6,  where  Elihu 
explains  his  backwardness  in  taking  up  the  argument  against  his  seniors  by  the 
same  word. 

«  I  Thess.  iv  II  'to  be  quiet',  A.V.  and  R.V. 

*  The  only  exceptional  use  by  St  Luke  is  in  ix  36,  where  *  said  nothing  about 
it '  (the  Transfiguration)  or,  as  we  might  familiarly  render  '  hushed  it  up ',  is  the 
meaning. 

*  It  is  worth  notice  also  that  the  tense  of  lalyriaif  denoting  the  action  of  the 
moment,  is  strictly  proper  to  this  sense,  in  contrast  especially  with  ^^movov 
following. 

*  See  Liddell  and  Scott's  Ltx.  under  $opv0ivf  $6fn/0os,  and  the  references  there 
given. 


504 


THE   JOURNAL    OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


all  present,  speakers  and  applauding  hearers  together.  Having 
suppressed  the  real  lay  function  in  the  election  of  the  envoys,  the 
Keport  thus  finds  room  for  an  imaginary  lay  function  in  shaxtng 
the  debate  ;  instead  of  which  what  the  words  convey  is  that  tk 
laity  were  interested  and  approving,  even  applauding,  listenen 
only. 

No  doubt  tJie  emotion  proper  to  a  great  crisis  would  per- 
vade the  whole  brotherhood,  and  in  some  such  emotional 
overflow  of  assent  as  is  here  supposed,  their  feelings  would 
find  vent.  Such  escapes  of  enthusiasm,  although  formally  super- 
fluous, and  adding  nothing  of  authoritative  weight,  are  not 
ierefore  valueless.  In  them  the  flush  of  spontaneous  emotion 
!cms  to  pervade  the  entire  body  and  vibrnte  even  to  the 
extremities. 

The  principle  of  elective  suffrage  in  the  choice  of  presiding 
officials  is  attested  by  the  epistle  of  St  Clement  to  the  Church 
of  Corinth,  and  indeed  is  strongly  claimed  for  that  document 
in  the  Report  itself,  which  also  cites,  but  hardly  with  adequate 
fullness,  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  (sect.  25) — ^a  docu- 
ment which  strongly  founds  upon  this  fact  the  duty  of  highly 
respecting  those  thus  elected.     These  are  followed  at  no  long 
interval  by  the  testimony  of  St  Ignatius,  the  martyred  Bishop 
of  Antioch,  urging  St  Poly  carp  of  Smyrna  *  to  convene  his  council 
and  elect  a  nuncio  (Bio^poyios)  to  Syria,  to  assure  the  AntiocheflC 
Church  of  their  unfailing  love.     By  the  stress  which  he  lays  on 
election  in  this  inferior  and  occasional  office,  he  in  effect  sub- 
stantiates the  case  for  the  whole  hierarchy.     Amidst  much  that 
is  obscure,  intricate,  and  fluctuating  in  title  and  function,  as  regards 
apostles  (in  the  secondary  sense),  prophets  and  teachers,  bishops, 
presbyters  and  deacons^  the  fact  which  stands  out  bold  and  broad 
is  that,  wherever  in  the  apostolic  and  sub-apostolic  age  wc  meet 
with  a  permanent  ministry,  there  the  elective  voice  of  the  laity 
finds  its  place,  and  the  representative  character  thence  arising  is 
primary  and  indissoluble.     St  Paul  in  i  Tim.  iii  7  appears  to 
assume  it,  in  his  directions  about  his  bishop-presbyter ;  for  he 
who  must  have  a  good  report  of  *  them  which  are  without  *  (the 
Church)  could  not  dispense  with  the  supporting  voice  of  them 
which  were  within. 

^  Ad  Fdycarp,  y  ;  cf«  ad  Smyrn,  11,  ad  Fhiiadelpk^  10. 


THE   POSITION   OF   THE    LAITY   IN   THE   CHURCH     505 

This  highly  representative  system,  in  which  the  clergy  were 
merely  the  cream  of  the  laity,  seems  to  be  the  ecclesiastical  ideal 
of  the  first  and  following  ages ;  which  ideal  the  Report  seemingly 
fails  to  grasp  in  remarking  (p.  16)  that  'the  attempt  to  include 
the  laity  without  any  machinery  of  representation'  (meaning 
in  Cyprian's  time)  *  was  not  likely  to  be  permanently  successful '. 
Cyprian  is  as  clear  with  regard  to  the  basis  of  the  presbyterate 
lying  ordinarily  m  lay  franchise  (although  with  occasional  and 
rare  exceptions,  noticed  in  the  Report  itself  p.  la,  par.  i),  as  he 
is  with  regard  to  that  of  the  episcopate.  He  is  also  positive  in 
tracing  this  custom  to  apostolic  practice:  see  £/.  Ixvii  4,  5 
'  nee  hoc  in  episcoporum  tantum  et  sacerdotum,  sed  et  in 
diaconorum  ordinationibus  observasse  apostolos  animadvertimus. 
.  .  ,  Propter  quod  diligenter  de  traditione  divina  et  apostolica 
observatione  servandum  est  \  &c. 

He  had  indeed  just  above  {ib.  3  end)  reminded  the  laity  that 
they  should  withdraw  from  the  smivX  praepositus  and  sacrilegious 
sacerdos^  because  the  laity  itself  *  maxime  habeat  potestatem  vel 
eligendi  dignos  sacerdotes  vel  indignos  recusandi'.  The  words 
*  et  sacerdotum  \  interposed  between  episcoporum  and  diaconorum^ 
can  only  refer  to  the  presbyterate,  and  shew  that  the  sacerdos 
is  intended  to  be  similarly  distinct  from  the  praepositus  in 
the  passage  just  before.  Thus  the  representative  system 
was  complete;  and  not  only  so — it  seems  conscious  of  its 
completeness.  This  explains  canon  139,  as  cited  above. 
Amidst  whatever  shortcomings  of  fact,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land recognizes  its  ideal  as  the  apostolic  norm  to  which 
Cyprian  refers. 

But  there  is  and  always  was  one  lay  function  which,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  it  seems  impossible  to  depute  even  to  the  most 
effective  and  sympathetic  representatives — that  of  giving  practical 
effect  to  a  sentence  of  excommunication  by  authority.  *  With 
such  an  one  no  not  to  eat  *  remains  a  hrutum  fulmen  unless  the 
actual  *  thousands  of  Israel  *,  the  men  who  have  doors  open  and 
tables  spread,  take  action  upon  it  by  closing  the  door  and 
banning  from  the  board.  This  was  felt  by  St  Paul  as  much  as 
by  St  Cyprian — to  whom  we  shall  next  come — and  therefore 
the  Apostle  speaks  of  it  (2  Cor.  ii  6)  as  a  *  sentence  inflicted 
by  the  majority '  (rwj;  irAcK^ywy).     The  position  of  affairs  imder 


5o6         THE    JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Cyprian,  owing  to  certain  special  difficulties,  tasked  to  the  utmost 
his  mixture  of  winning  persuasiveness  and  weighty  authoritr. 
But  before  touching  upon  those  difficulties,  one  should  pact 
out  that  the  Report,  where  it  claims  (p.  9)  that  *  at  the  coundli 
of  bishops  the  laity  were  present,  not  in  silence  but  for  active 
discussion  and  effective  influence'  (with  references  to  Cypr.i 
Ep,  XX  3,  Iv  6,  Ixiv  I,  xvii  3,  xiv  2,  xxxiv  4)  and  that  *thef 
could  and  did  oppose  and  contradict '  (with  reference  to  lixij 

*  obnitente  plcbe  et  contradicente  *),  seems  to  misjudge  and  mis- 
represent the  real  facts  of  the  case.      A  '  council '   of  Afrioxi 

*  bishops  *  must  mean  the  council  of  the  province  or  of  same 
large  area  of  it ;  e.  g.  thirty-seven  bishops  led  by  Cyprian  address 
Ep.  Ixvii  as  a  reply  to  certain  clergy  and  laity  w^ho  had  wriltca 
to  consult  them.  We  might  fairly  assume  this  to  be  a  provincial 
council.  How  any  significant  portion  of  the  laity  of  thirty-sc\tn 
dioceses  could  meet  for  '  active  discussion  and  effective  influence' 
in  or  about  250  A,D.  in  Africa,  it  is  not  easy  to  imag^'ne.  Nor 
is  this  what  Cyprian  means  when  he  speaks  of  his  original 
plan  of  *  doing  nothing  without  your  (the  clergy's)  counsel  and 
the  consent  of  the  laity  *  {Ep,  xiv  4) ;  or  when  he  speaks  of 
a  'process  to  be  fully  gone  through  in  detail,  not  only  with 
my  colleagues'  (the  bishops),  *but  with  the  whole  lay  body 
itself  (xxxiv  4). 

The  title  of  the  letter  Ixvii  above  referred  to,  suggests  his 
method  in  general.  He  and  his  thirty-six  colleagues  there  reply 
to  a  letter  received  from  '  Felix  a  presbyter,  and  the  congregatiemi 
localized  at  Legio  and  Asturica,  and  to  Aelius  a  deacon  and  a 
congregation  at  Emerita '.  The  phrases  plebibus  cansistentHms 
,  ,  ,  et  pkhi  are  not  otherwise  intelligible.  These  local  bodies  of 
laity  under  tlieir  pastors  had  written  to  consult  Cyprian  and 
the  bishops.  Obviously  therefore,  it  would  be  equally  easy 
for  these  latter  to  consult  each  such  local  body  under  pastoral 
leading;  and  the  sequel  will  shew  that  this, and  not  any  presence 
of  the  laity  in  council,  is  what  he  means  when  he  speaks  of 
obtaining  the  consent  &c.  of  the  pkbs  ipsa  universa^  because 
the  parts  would  equal  the  whole. 

The  force  of  excommunication  depending,  as  shewn  above, 
in  the  last  resort  upon  the  general  community  sympathizing 
with  the  sentence,  and  the  laity  forming  everywhere  the  vast 


THE    POSITION   OF   THE   LAITY   IN   THE   CHURCH     507 

majority,  caused  unusual  difficulties  in  the  case  of  the  lapsi^  in 
the  African  Church. 

Here  we  have  a  highly  exceptional,  perhaps  unique,  con- 
currence of  circumstances.  And  to  deduce  from  the  steps  taken 
to  meet  them  an  argument  for  the  normal  state  of  relations 
in  Church  government  seems  highly  hazardous.  And  the  hazard 
is  the  greater  when  we  remember  that  the  entire  aspect  of  the 
case  as  presented  by  Cyprian  is  not  deliberative,  but  judicial. 
He  calls  it  a  iudiciuniy  a,  cognitio  singulorum.  The  latter  term 
is  well  known  in  Roman  law  and  history,  from  Cic.  Verr,  ii  a,  25 ; 

^  This  term  was  applied  to  those  who  in  various  degrees  had  given  way  under 
the  persecution  which  is  connected  with  the  name  of  the  Emperor  Decius,  but 
considerably  outlasted  his  short  reign.    We  learn  that 

(i)  These  lapsi  constituted  the  major  part  of  the  laity  themselves  in,  probably, 
every  diocese  and  local  congregation  ;  '  plebem  nostram  ex  maxima  parte  prostravit' 
i^Ep.  xiv  I,  cf.  xi  i)  : 

(a)  A  portion  of  the  clergy,  but  probably  a  minority,  had  shared  the  defection ; 
'  per  lapsum  quorundam  presbyterorum  nostrorum '  {JEp,  xl,  cf.  xiv  i)  : 

(3)  A  series  of  attempts  had  been  made  to  overbear  all  discipline  by  the  mere 
weight  of  numbers ;  '  ut  pacem  . .  .  extorquere  violento  impetu  niterentur '  {Ep.  xx 
3,  cf.  XV  3,  IViii  13) : 

(4)  Among  the  clergy  a  party  had,  unadvisedly  and  without  observing  the  rules 
of  discipline,  granted  readmission  to  communion — '  the  peace  of  the  Church ' — to 
many  of  these  lapsi  on  too  easy  terms,  against  the  counsel  of  Cyprian  (£>.  xv  i, 
xvi  I,  3) : 

(5)  A  seditious  faction  led  by  Novatus  and  Felicissimus  were  on  the  watch  to 
form  a  schism  out  of  the  discontented  and  impatient  among  the  lapsi  {Ep.  Hi  3,  lix  i)  : 

(6)  A  promiscuous  and  unscrupulous  use  had  been  made  of  the  letters  of 
intercession  (Jibelli)  on  behalf  of  these  lapsi  \  '  confessores  quoque  importuna  .  .  . 
deprecatione  corrumpere,  ut  sine  ullo  discrimine  atque  examine  singulorum  darentur 
cotidie  libellorum  millia  contra  evangelii  legem*  {Ep.  xx  a,  cf.  xxii  a,  xxvii  i,  a). 

(7)  Cyprian  also  was,  as  he  confesses  to  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  personally 
compromised,  by  having  granted  'peace'  to  some  whose  subsequent  conduct 
had  shewn  them  unworthy  of  his  lenity,  indulged  in  opposition  to  the  popular 
voice  which  favoured  severity ;  *  unus  atque  alius  obnitente  plebe  et  contradicente, 
mea  tamen  facilitate  suscepti  peiores  exstiterunt  quam  prius  fuerant  *  (^Ep.  lix  15); 
and  another  bishop,  Therapius,  had  taken  a  similar  course  (Ixiv  i)  to  the  embarrass- 
ment of  discipline. 

(8)  But  the  gravest  feature  of  all  the  complication  was  that,  whereas  the  ultima 
ratio  of  discipline  depends  so  largely  on  the  action  of  the  lay  body  in  enforcing 
sentence,  here  we  find  that  laity  divided  against  itself— a  minority  of  stantes  against 
a  majority  of  lapsi.  The  minority  were  strong  in  the  moral  power  gathered  from 
constancy  unflinching  under  trial ;  the  majority  had  only  the  strength  of  numbers 
and  noise.  The  minority  were  disposed  to  the  extreme  of  severity,  but  in  the  face 
of  numbers  this  was  not  easily  maintained.  The  majority  were  clamouring  for 
concessions,  on  terms  which,  it  was  felt,  were  likely  to  compromise  Christian 
character,  and  depress  the  spiritual  standard  of  the  whole  Church. 


5o8         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

also  Livy  i  49  mentions  cagnitiottes  capitdiiunt  rerutn  ^,  If  tk 
lay  share  in  the  decisions  reached  were  even  larger  than  appears, 
no  conclusion  regarding  their  share  in  general  Church  govern- 
mcnt»  or  in  general  concihar  action,  could  safely  be  founded  on 
the  fact.  But  I  think  it  will  also  appear  that  the  Report  lus 
transferred  to  action  in  Council  what  really  took  ptace  elsewhere; 
and  formed  a  wholly  distinct  function  there. 

It  becomes  of  the  greatest  importance  to  trace  from  Cyprian's 
letters  what  the  process  of  discipline  actually  was,  what  were  the 
exact  steps  taken  by  which  reconciliation  was  effected,  and 
the  *  peace  of  the  Church'  assured. 

Cyprian  {Ep,  Iv  4)  states  his  resolution  to  postpone  judgement 
on  the  hipsi  until  Divine  mercy  restored  quiet  and  respite  to  the 
persecuted  so  far  as  to  allow  the  bishops  to  meet.  Then  {tbi(L  6J 
he  states  that  accordingly  a  copiostts  episcoporum  nunurus  had 
met,  and  concluded  that  the  causes,  inclinations,  and  exigencies 
of  individual  cases  [singuloruin)  should  be  examined.  Again^ 
to  Cornelius,  then  lately  chosen  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  writes 
(£/.  iix  14):  *It  was  agreed  by  all  of  us  (bishops),  and  is 
equally  just  and  right,  that  the  cause  of  each  individual  lapsed 
should  there  be  heard  where  his  fault  was  committed  '»  and  *  there 
each  should  plead  his  cause  where  he  may  have  the  accusers  and 
witnesses  of  his  delinquency'.  Now  the  notion  of  this  being 
carried  out  by  a  panoramic  'panel'  of  the  lay  body  of  the 
province  of  Africa  is  of  course  absurd  Such  a  lez^/e  en  massi 
was  never  seen  since  the  Day  of  Pentecost ;  and  lay  representatives 
— except  the  clergy— there  were  none.  But  take  Cyprian's  words 
in  their  simplest  sense  and  no  difficulty  is  possible.  He  means 
to  empanel  each  delinquent  among  and  before  what  we  should 
call  his  fellow  parishioners.  In  the  above  quotation  from  £p.  Iix 
14  a  link  was  skipped  designedly,  to  be  adduced  now.  Its  effect 
is  that  *  each  pastor  has  a  part  of  the  flock  assigned  to  him,  for 
him  to  guide  and  govern,  and  to  give  account  for  to  the  Lord  \ 
So  then  every  parochial  congregation,  the  local  pUbs  under 
its  parish  priest  was  for  this  purpose  a  '  Court  Christian ',  as  our 
own  forefathers  used  to  call  it.  Here  in  detail  the  cognitio 
singulorum  went  on.    Here  the  causae  singulorum  would  be  tried, 

*  It  is  also  the  term  by  which  Pliny  id  his  well  known  epistle  to  Trajaa  describes 
the  proecss  which  he  pursued  iigElnst  the  Christians  of  Biihynla. 


■  THE   POSITION    or   THE    LAITY   IN    THE   CHURCH      509 

■  where  every  face  was  known  on  the  spot,  and  every  fact  was 
H  indeed  recent  and  notorioiis.  Here  the  dwindled  flock  of  the 
H  Stan  Us  laid  were  disposed  on  the  whole  to  main  tain  a  stern 
H  front  of  severity;  while  in  Rome,  only  just  across  the  water, 
H  a  schismatic  party  was  forming  under  Novatian,  on  the  sternest 
B  lines  of  puritanic  rigour,  having  for  its  watchword  *no  peace 
H  for  any  once  lapsed '.  St  Paul's  golden  words  in  Gal,  vi  i 
H  *  Brethren^  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  that  are  spiritual 
H  restore  such  an  one  in  the  spirit  of  meekness ',&c,,  were  in  danger 
H  of  losing  their  power  in  the  headstrong  fumes  of  party-strife.  The 
^ft  fewer  the  siantes  left,  the  more  numerous  obviously  the  lapsi^ 
^■and  the  greater,  we  may  be  sure,  the  tendency  to  be  severe. 
Ha  body  of  delinquents,  outnumbering  probably  the  jury  which 
^Vsat  to  try  them  as  Hve  to  three  on  the  average,  would  knock  at 
Hthe  door  of  the  local  church^,  and  be  introduced  as  penitents, 
^presenting  any  letters  of  confessors,  and  accompanied  doubtless 

in  some  cases  by  actual  confessors,  pleading  on  their  behalf;  nay 

k often,  we  must  suppose,  tendering  those  unauthorized  iibclH  by 
which  'peace'  had  been,  as  it  were,  by  connivence  or  even 
collusion,  unadvisedly  granted  already — in  some  instances  even 
.  by  Cyprian  himself  (see  the  passage  '  mea  tamen  facilitate  sus- 
ccpti '  &Cm  lix  15,  as  already  quoted  in  a  note  above).  Here  we 
^ktnay  be  sure  the  hot  African  temperament  would  shew  itself 
^^in  the  ohniiente  plebe  et  coniradkcnie  (ibid,)^ — in  hostile  murmurs 
and  perhaps  angry  shouts,  expressing  the  scandalized  sense  of 
the  local  piebs  at  Christian  principle  compromised.  No  wonder 
it  taxed  to  the  utmost  the  long  experience  and  personal  influence 
of  Cyprian  to  retain  and  enforce  an  ascendency  over  such  elements 
of  repugnance  and  discord.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  with 
this  burden  on  his  back,  he  had  to  go  round  in  person  to  each 
plebs — holding  in  fact  an  exhaustive  visitation,  or  at  any  rate 
omitting  none  where  feelings  ran  high  and  peace  was  in  jeopardy. 
This  one  may  infer  from  his  words  to  Cornelius  (lix  15) 
expressing  the  extreme  difficulty  he  found  in  wringing  such  con- 
cession from  the  exasperated  laity :  *  plebi  vix  persuadeo,  immo 
extorquco,  ut  tales  patiantur  admitti  *  (ibid,).  What  an  instructive 
and  memorable  series  of  local  struggles  we  have  before  us  here  1 

*  'Ad  ecdesiam  pulsenl,  ut  rccipi  iltuc  posaint  ubi  fuerunt'  Ep.  Ixv  5;  cf.  •  Nc 
puisetur  ad  ecclesiam  Chmti*  lix  13  (end). 


5IO  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

How  the  function  of  the  laity,  including  that  of  witness  with 
that  of  juror  (as  so  often  instanced  in  our  own  older  forrro 
trial),  stands  out  supreme  and  indisputable,  whether  incriminatii^ 
or  compurgating  and  condoning.  Now  this  is  exactly  what  tk 
Committee  in  their  Report  have  entirely  mistaken.  For  lack 
of  insight  into  the  spirit  of  the  age,  they  transfer  to  some 
provincial  Council  what  went  on  in  the  local  congregations. 
It  is  as  if  in  the  Scotch  Establishment  one  were  to  confouud 
the  parochial  Kirk  Session  with  the  General  Assembly.  But 
lastly,  there  was  a  Council  held  to  confirm  and  ratify  the  con- 
clusions arrived  at  all  round.  And  here  all  the  elements  were 
rallied,  united,  and  consolidated,  in  a  guarantee  for  the  durability 
of  *  the  Church's  peace* — bishops,  presbyters,  deacons  and  stanUs 
lai£t\  viewed  as  for  this  purpose  the  equivalent  of  the  /Wn 
universa,  which  in  their  voices  had  given  its  verdict ;  and  of 
course  pledged  by  their  presence  to  that  effective  support  of 
the  Church's  discipline,  which,  as  above  contended,  must  ever 
in  the  last  resort  lie  absolutely  and  unreservedly  in  the  power 
of  the  laity.  But  beyond  this  no  ground  appears  for  the  claim 
advanced  for  them  in  the  Report  (p.  15) — one  of  a  '  very  large 
and  real,  though  secondary,  place  in  the  whole  guidance  and 
government  and  practical  administration  of  the  Church  of  Christ '^ 
The  remaining  four  chapters  of  the  Report  may  be  dealt  with  in 
lesser  detail,  as  they  all.  in  a  clear  march  of  developement,  involve 
the  same  principle — that  of  (p.  16)  *  the  long  ambiguity  between 

*  In  the  Allocution  which  appears  tn  Ep.  xxxiii  the  Church  is  said  to  be  constituted 

'  in  episcopo  ct  ctero  et  in  omnibus  stantibus*  (cf.  xix  >);  more  fully  in  E^  xx%\  6. 
Certain  clergy  address  Cyprian,  echoing,  it  seems,  his  advice  to  them  for  settling 
such  questions,  *  consultts  omnibus  cpiscopis  prcabyteris  diaconibus  conrcssohbua  et 
ipsis  stantibus  laicis'^ ;  and  the  words  of  tlie  Roman  clergy  to  him  {£p.  xxz  5)  are 
identtcal.  Thus  the  concord  of  all  ranks  by  free  expression  was  established  and 
ihe  Pax  Ecthsia*  secured  for  and  by  each  and  all — but  not  without  exceptional 
although  the  amnesty  was  general,  as  may  be  gathered  from  llx  15  (alre&dy  in 
part  quoted):  '  quibusdam  ita  aut  crimina  sua  obsistunt,  aut  fratrcs  obstinate  et 
iirmiter  rcnituntur,  ut  recipi  omnino  non  possint'.  This  exactly  illustrates  the 
principle,  that  in  a  sentence  of  excommunication  the  laity  have  the  last  word. 

But  in  Cyprian's  day  we  trace  nothing  of  the  morbid  distrust  and  superdltofis 
suspicion  which  pervades  the  attitude  of  laity  and  clergy  in  our  later  period. 
Therefore  at  a  Council  the  latly  might  be  present  not  only  without  aay  seciae 
of  intru3ion,  but  were  probably  welcomed  with  open  doors;  thronging  the 
*  galJerics  V,  or  their  ancient  analogues,  as  in  our  own  Houses  of  Parliament,  as 
eager  and  interested  listeners. 


THE    POSITION    OF   THE    LAITY    IN    THE    CHURCH     5I 


M 


e  corporate  brotherhood  (the  laity  proper)  and  the  Christianized 
tate-powcr  *.  The  form  of  that  State-power  was  an  absolute 
iespotism,  in  which  all  constitutional  checks  were  lost ;  besides 
hich  'a  kind  of  divinity  attached  to  his  (the  emperor's)  person 
vesting  it  with  an  influence  which  perhaps  transcended  all  the 
St  *  of  those  various  authorities  and  offices,  which  once  tended 
balance  each  other,  but  were  now  all  lodged  in  his  hands  with 
prescription  of  over  three  centuries  (p.  19).  Now  the  constitu* 
on  of  the  Church  never  had  been  one  of  absolutism,  but  rested 
a  broad  basis  of  democratic  election  under  strict  discipline, 
total  loss  of  symmetry,  balance,  and  harmony  was  the  result  of 
lUch  a  Church  fusing  itself  with  such  a  State-power.  Here  we 
ve  the  origin  of  'prelacy*  in  its  proper  sense.  The  bishops 
ere  almost  forced  to  become  Church  monarchs,  while  laxity  of 
iscipline  made  the  lay  suffrage  unmanageable.  The  State- 
wer,  if  it  included  in  any  degree  the  corporate  brotherhood, 
uld  not  express  it  as  a  spiritual  entity,  but  only  as  a  political 
le ;  and,  moreover^  included  with  it  the  vast  unsifted  mass  of 
mi-pagan  half  converts  who  'worshipped  the  rising  sun*— the 
/  invktus  borne  upon  Constantine's  coins  with  his  ^fhgy. 
iebuhr  has  remarked  how^ — 

*  Entire  cities  became  Christian  with  the  same  frivolity  with 
hich  they  proclaimed  a  new  ruler,  the  population  remaining 
thoroughly  bad  as  it  had  been  t>efore.  It  was  the  greatest 
misfortune  for  the  world  and  for  Christianity  that  Constantine 
made  the  latter  become  so  quickly  the  universal  religion;  the 
hierarchy  grew  worse  and  worse  ;  there  still  existed  indeed  popes 
like  Leo  the  Great,  but  at  the  same  time  many  bishops  were 
worthless.'  ^ 

The  Church  in  effect  took  over  the  old  pagan  conception  of 
a  quasi-deified  despot,  veiled,  of  course,  under  certain  decencies 
of  outward  reserve.  We  are  dazzled  by  the  scene  of  Theodosius 
a  penitent  at  the  gate  of  Milan  Cathedral,  but  we  make  a  false 
assumption  if  we  take  it  to  represent  the  norm.  A  civil  power 
so  headed,  as  soon  as  it  entered  into  relations  with  the  spiritual, 
began  necessarily  to  intrude  and  usurp ;  but  the  gravest  fact  was 
that  it  perpetuated  the  confusion  between  the  Christian  laity  and 
the  gross  licentious  proletariate  of  the  Empire. 

'  Niebuhr's  Ltd.  an  Hist,  of  Romt^  edited  by  Dr.  L.  SchmitZj  3rd  ed.  1870, 
P»  793  (^)- 


5ia         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


It  is,  however,  of  the  conditions  existing  betufc-een  Chad 
and  State  within  the  Roman  Empire  that  the  Report  proott 
to  say : 

*  We  have  assumed  that  the  Church  was  guided  by  dlml 
Providence  into  its  acceptance  of  the  alliance  with  the  S*^\ 
and  particularly  into  its  acceptance  of  the  opportunity,  tbextbf! 
provided,  of  meetings  for  counsel  on  a  large  scale/  * 

Indeed,  there  is  no  plainer  fact  on  the  face  of  histor>'  than 
the  Occumcnic  Councils  of  the  fourth  and   fifth  centuries 
organized   to  represent  3oi/t  Church  and   State;    and  that, 
consequence,  to  view  them  as  representing  the  Church  only,  ill 
a  capital  error.     Yet  this  is  what  the  Report  actually  docs.   Iti 
supposed   lay  members  (of  whom  more  presently)    u^re  that 
aa  representing  the  State,     To  treat  them  as  Christian  Ia)Tncfl, 
voicing  the    lay  element   there,   is  to  reproduce    in   its  rooft 
mischievously  deceptive  form  '  the  ambiguity  *,  stigmatiicd  » 
such  in  the  above  quotation  from  the  Report  itself  (p,  i6). 

This  confusion  indeed  between  the  laity  as  churchmen  and 
grandee    personages    attending   Church   Councils,    presiding  il 
Church  Courts  (or  those  which   should    have   been    such), 
exercising  other  intrusive  functions  in  the  body  spiritual,  U 
every  instance  alleged  in  the  following  and  far   larger  portion' 
of  the  Report.     These  personages  were  chosen,  either  for  their 
important  secular  position,  or  through  the  favouritism  of  a  despot 
to  whom  they  had  become  necessary  agents  in  all  affairs  of  statej 
They  are  betrayed  by  their  very  titles  as  optimat€s^  as  pala^^ 


to  tbe 


*  Qualifications  certainly  follow:— How  the  result  'oti  the  one  wde  cnlir|*i 
iJid  on  the  other  obscured  the  functions  of  Christian  laymen '  :  how  to  tbe 
Emperor  was  allowed  a  halo  of  prerogative,  *  like  that  of  Jewiah  monarchs 
the  House  of  David " :  bow  '  tt  became  aim  oat  impossible  for  the  brot 
corporate  spirit  of  co-operation  between  clerg:y  and  laity  ...  to  continue 
old  simplicity":  how  the  'conversion'  of  Constantine  *  became  much 
beneficial  than  enthusiasts  at  the  time  hoped  it  would  be  * :  bow  *  over 
above  the  absorption  of  the  powers  of  Christian  laymen,  there  was  a  gradtui 
assumption  by  the  Emperors  of  much  that  belonged  to  the  clerical  oflSce  *  t  bow 
the  arrangements  for  keeping  good  order  at  a  council  'obviously  gave  the  seculir 
power  enormous  influence  over  the  issue' :  how  the  resulting  position,  as  summed 
up  in  a  quotation  from  Archbishop  Bramhall,  went  to  vest  in  the  Emperors  all 
functions  except  those  of  actual  worship,  sacraments^  and  preaching,  so  that 
each  could  virtually  say  ^VBglis*  iist  moC  i  how  'the  "divinity"  constantlj 
ascribed  to  their  letters  is  at  the  same  ttme  a  survival  of  heathen  impierialissi  * 
(pp,  tS'ii),'=The5e  krge  deductioaa  In  cfTect  conHrm  the  wise  words  of  NidMihr 
quoted  above. 


^         THE   POSITION   OF   THE   LAITY   IN   THE   CHURCH     513 

y  senioresy  as  principes,  comiies^  duces^  viri  illustres,  &c.  In  one 
^  (a  Spanish)  instance,  *it  is  implied  that  they  (the  laymen  so 
present)  will  be  chosen  by  the  Council ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact 
^,  .  .  .  they  seem  to  have  been  generally  chosen  by  the  king' 
t  (P*  3°)-  ^^  short,  however  chosen,  they  were  there  for  political 
ri  reasons.  The  adoption  of  the  Church  by  the  Empire  was  a 
;  political  measure.  The  best  title  of  Constantine  to  the  title  of 
'^  •  the  Great  *  lay  in  his  political  insight  into  the  essential  demorali- 
z  zation  of  all  the  elements  of  Roman  grandeur,  and  his  recognition 
;:  of  the  fact  that  nothing  but  Christianity  could  purify  and  re- 
z   generate  it.     Agreeably  to  this  we  read  (p.  24) : 

'The  imperial  conception  of  Councils  was  probably  always 
that  which  Constantine  had  in  his  mind  when  he  summoned 
bishops  to  Aries  and  Nicaea,  that  they  were  assemblies  of  divinely 
aided  experts  fit  to  advise  him  how  to  treat  a  difficult  contro- 
versy. Hence  his  relation  to  a  Church  Council  was,  in  his 
opinion,  not  so  much  a  matter  of  principle,  as  one  dictated  by 
his  own  sense  of  expediency.' 

This  view  prevailing  in  the  cabinet  of  empire  all  along,  the 
state  officials  present  at  Councils  have  no  connexion  with  the 
laity  as  a  spiritual  entity,  and  only  represent  certain  interests 
present  to  the  mind  of  the  master  of  the  legions.  The  same  is 
the  real  character  of  those  present  at  the  Spanish  and  other 
Councils,  in  kingdoms  which  arose  later  from  the  empire's  wreck. 
In  short,  by  the  above  quotation  the  whole  case  for  the  lay- 
presence  at  Councils  is  effectively  given  away.  But  these  Court 
officials,  by  their  presence  there,  gave  a  guarantee  more  or  less 
effectual  for  the  confirmation  and  maintenance  of  the  Conciliar 
decisions  by  the  secular  authority.  At  the  same  time,  being 
laymen  still,  although  as  it  were  per  acctdens^  they  were  the 
means  of  diffusing  among  the  general  public  both  the  decisions 
reached  and  the  reasons  why.  An  age  like  our  own,  crammed 
with  newspapers  and  reporters,  can  ill  estimate  the  value  of 
such  channels  of  information  in  a  period  barren  of  those  useful 
agencies. 

From  the  pre-Norman  English  Church  the  Report  cites  the 
case 'of  Bishop  Wilfrid  of  York  as  evincing  ^the  powerful,  we 
may  almost  say  the  conclusive  intervention  of  laity,  and  .  .  .  the 
treatment  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  very  highest  importance 
in  the  great  councils  of  a  kingdom  of  the  Heptarchy '  (p.  33). 
VOL.  V.  L  1 


5T4  THE    JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

It   seems   strange  that  the  Committee  should    fail   to  sec  that 
because   they  are  so   plainly  the   latter,  therefore  they  cannrt 
be  the  former.     Only  by  themselves  perpetrating  the  conftistoc  I 
of  which  they  complain,  between  the  laity  of  the  Church  aod  I 
the  political  organization  of  the  secular  State,  can  they  sustaia 
their  contention.    If  'the  decree  of  the  king  aiid  his  counseUofs', 
by  which  'Wilfrid  was  sent  to  prison*,  does  not  represent  that 
State,  there  is  nothing  in  history  which  can  ;  and  *  the  consent  rf  | 
the  bishops  to  their  act  *  shews  that  the  authorities  in  Church  and  I 
State  acted  concurrently  (p.  34) ;  but  as  to  any  lay  right  as  sodi 
it  proves  nothing  at  all.    Again  we  read  (p.  36)  that^ — 

*The  Legatine  Councils  of  A.  D.  787,  which  in  their  very  nature 
were  entirely  ecclesiastical,  were  attended  by  kings  and  ealdormen, 
as  w^ell  as  by  bishops  and  abbots,  and  must  therefore  be  numbered 
among  true  Witenagemots.' 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  late  Earl  of  Selborne  has  expended 
over  twenty  pages  in  disproving  exactly  that  which  the  Committee 
here  assert  (Ancient  Facts  and  Fictions  ch.  III).  Among  his 
lordship's  remarks  is  the  following  on  p.  159  fed.  18S8): 

*  In  these  proceedings  there  seems  to  be  nothing  inconsistent 
with  the  nature  of  legatine  synods,  at  which  the  active  part  w-as 
that  of  the  Pope  by  his  legates,  others  who  were  present  beii^ 
passive,  and  merely  promising  dutiful  obedience.  For  such  a 
purpose,  bishops  who  were  strangers  to  the  province  might  very 
well  be  present.  .  .  .  But  how  could  these  strange  bishops  take 
part  in  an  act  of  civil  legislation  for  the  Kingdom  of  Northumbria? 
How  could  bishops  of  Kent,  East  Anglia,  and  Wessex  take  part 
in  a  Witenagemot  passing  secular  laws  for  the  kingdom  of 
Mercia  ? ' 

And  he  concludes  thus : 

*  I  think  I  have  established  by  the  simple  process  of  shewing 
what  the  form  and  substance  of  these  Injunctions,  from  beginning 
to  end,  really  is,  their  true  nature  and  character ;  and  that  further 
argument  against  the  proposition  that  they  or  any  of  them  were 
legislative  enactments  by  kings  and  Witenagemots  of  any  Anglo* 
Saxon  kingdom  or  kingdoms  would  be  superfluous'  (p.  167)* 

The  authority  of  the  late  Earl  of  Selborne  stands  deservedly 
high  as  an  acute  investigator  %vith  a  highly  trained  legal  intellect 
One  would  suppose  from  the  way  in  which  the  above  subject  is 
dealt  with  in  the  Report  that  he  had  never  touched  it,  or  else  that 
the  Committee  had  never  heard  of  him. 


THE   POSITION    OF    THE    LAITY   IN    THE    CHURCH     515 

But  again,  assuming  for  argument's  sake  that  his  lordship  was 
rong,  the  argument  then  stands  thus :  *  because  these  were  the 
ts  of  the  Witenagemots,  therefore  they  were  the  acts  of  the 
^  laity  of  the  Church  present  in   its  councils  by  traditional  lay 
right.'     But  that  is  exactly  what  their  being  the  acts  of  a  Witen- 
agemot  would  exactly  not  prove,  but   ^ixprove.     Indeed^  the 
mtual  interpenetration  of  Church  and  State  in  this  pre-Norman 
jriod  was  so  complete,  that  our  historians,  from  Soames  and 
urner  to  Bishop  Stubbs,  find  it  impossible  to  draw  a  line  between 
lem.    But,  the  fusion  being  thus  complete^  to  resolve  the  blended 
elements  into  clerical  and  lay,  is  obviously  a  false  analysis. 
The   net   result    reached    is;    (i)  the  evidence   in   favour   of 
le  elective   rights   of  laity  and   clergy,  for   the   period   down 
the  conversion    of  Constantine,   is    overwhelming ;    and    (2) 
>r  the  same  period  any  alleged  evidence  for  the  presence  of 
lymen    as   effective    members   of  Church   councils   disappears 
:fore  investigation.     But  with  the  converted  Empire,  a  change 
tually  sets  in :    {a)  the  Emperor  and  his  officials,  later  the 
:ing  and  his  magnates,  intrude  Into   positions  of  influence  in 
Councils ;  and,  having  a  lay  siaius  only^  yield  a  pretence  to  the 
jlaim  of  lay  suffrage  there,  which  resolves  itself,  when  examined, 
ito  a  representation  of  the  secular  power ;  and  (b)  the  Emperor 
tnd,  later,  the  kings  usurp  into  their  hands  the  nominations  to 
il  the  important,  and  sometimes  to  absolutely  all,  the  sees  of 
icir  dominion. 

This  latter  process  was  necessarily  a  slow  and  gradual  one,  for 

le  roots  of  free  election  were  deep  in  the  soil  of  Chnstendom. 

Several  of  the   Roman  bishops  of  the  fifth  century  attest  the 

lacity  of  the  right.     It  may  sufiice  to  quote  Celestin  Ep,  ii 

5 :  *  Nullus  invitis  detur  episcopus.     Cleri,  plebis  et  ordinis 

[sc.  episcopalis)  dcsiderium  requtratur,'     A  capitulary  of  Charles 

le  Great  is  cited  as  prescribing  the  same  condition,  which  is 

echoed  by  the  voice  of  not  a  few  canons  of  Councils  and  dicta  of 

distinguished  fathers.     Yet  in  all  the  leading  kingdoms  of  the 

[West  that  voice  became  gradually  stifled  by  royal  usurpation, 

►or  by  the  intrusion  of  such  oligarchies  as  the  chapter  of  a  cathedral 

or  the  members  of  a  monastery  into  the  functions  of  clergy  and 

laity  at  large. 

Thus  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  remain  to  this  day 

Lla 


5l6         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

severed  organically  from  their  natural  root  in  the  clergy  imi 
people,  as  on  the  whole  do  the  clergy  of  the  parishes  from  theirs: 
and  this  in  spite  of  the  overwhelming  attestation  of  all  ChristiiD 
antiquity  to  the  vigour  and  tenacity  of  that  organism  of  the 
'  threefold  cord  not  quickly  broken '.  On  the  other  hand  it  b 
sought  to  introduce  a  new  factor  of  laymen  representing  laymen 
into  the  official  mechanism  of  the  Church  in  spite  of  the  total 
silence  of  all  the  ages  regarding  it.  On  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom 
of  that  introduction  it  is  foreign  to  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to 
raise  any  question^  It  is  enough  to  have  exposed  the  illusory 
character  of  the  support  sought  in  Scripture  and  Church  Histon* 
for  the  *idea  of  real  lay  partnership  in  government  *  (p*  i6). 

The  Report  (p.  ii)  seems  to  misrepresent  nn  incident  given  by  tbe  Clmreh 
historian  Socrates  as  prelusive  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea— *  When  he  (Socnil«s( 
says  that  there  came  with  the  bishops  a  number  of  lay  dialecticians  ready  tojota  la 
argument  on  both  sides,  it  seems  fair  to  infer  that  ante-Nicene  precedents  iudi 
assumptions  are  rather  illustrated  than  contradicted  by  the  fact/ 

Those  *  lay  dialecticians*  were  one  of  those  numerous  professional  classes  whicb 
the  favourite  study  of  Vrhetoric'  had  evolved  in  Greek  and  later  Roman  society. 
They  were  in  fact  practitioners  looking  out  for  business.  Socrates  adds  that  shortly 
before  the  bishops  assembled  at  Nicaea  they  gave  public  exercitations  in  the 
arguments  {wpoaywai  rwv  K6yw)f  no  doubt  on  cither  side.  T^cy  found  public 
interest  lively  on  the  question  awaiting  discussion,  and  probably  netted  fees  from 
their  audiences.  This  went  on  until  a  layman,  one  of  the  'confessors',  a  maa 
of  much  simplicity  of  character,  rebuked  the  dialecticians,  by  contrasting  their 
standards  and  methods  with  those  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  This  turned  public 
opinion  against  them  and  led  them  to  abandon  their  argumentations.  But  all  this 
took  place  outside  the  Council  doors,  and  indeed  before  they  were  opened.  Tbe 
words  of  the  Report  would  seem  to  regard  it,  not  as  a  piece  of  professional  adver* 
tisementf  which  it  really  was,  but  as  a  proposed  medium  for  conducting  tbe 
discussions  in  the  Council.  This  is  only  so  far  true  as  that  the  dialect jdans 
were  ready  to  '  hold  a  brief*  for  the  bishops  and  clergy  on  either  side.  To  regard 
it  as  somehow  maintaining  a  claim  of  the  lay  voice  to  be  heard  there  s«ems  a  rather 
grotesque  mistake.  Of  course  they  were  classed  as  *  laymen  \  in  the  Acgalive 
sense  of  having  no  clerical  stahtSf  although  they  had  accepted  the  itnperial  religion. 

Henry  Hayman 


517 


THE   HISTORICAL  SETTING 

OF  THE   SECOND   AND  THIRD   EPISTLES 

OF  ST  JOHN. 

IL 

§  4.    The  Second  Epistle,     Who  was  the  Elect  Lady? 

Dr.  Westcott  has  said  that  *it  is,  on  the  whole,  best  to 
recognize  that  the  problem  of  the  address  is  insoluble  with  our 
present  knowledge*.  It  seems  to  me  far  preferable  to  attempt 
still  to  discover  a  solution.  If  others  disagree  with  my  results, 
I  trust  they  will  continue  the  search  for  a  better. 

'The  Elder  to  one  who  is  an  elect  lady  and  her  children,  whom 
I  love  in  Truth ;  and  not  I  only,  but  also  all  they  that  know  the 
Truth/ 

She  must  be  indeed  a  very  important  lady,  for  all  they  that 
know  the  truth  love  her. 

So  celebrated  a  person 2^e  can  hardly  be  hidden  from  our 
view  even  by  the  thick  mists  which  cover  the  first  century. 
Was  it  one  of  the  daughters  of  Philip  (the  deacon  or  the  Apostle, 
no  matter  which)  ?  They  lived  at  Hierapolis,  and  Clement  tells 
us  that  their  father  gave  them  in  marriage.  One  of  them  is 
said  to  have  died  at  Ephesus ;  hence  the  words :  *  The  children 
of  thine  elect  sister  salute  thee ' ;  for  St  John  is  writing  from 
Ephesus  to  Hierapolis. 

More  important,  surely,  would  be  Tryphaena,  the  Queen- 
dowager,  who  protected  Thecla  at  Ephesus.  She  may  have 
been  beloved  by  all  [in  Asia]  who  knew  the  Truth.  But  who 
was  her  elect  sister?  Tryphosa?  Or  are  not  the  Tryphaena 
and  Tryphosa  of  Rom.  xvi  la  Roman  ladies?  And  who  were 
her  children  ?  It  is  hardly  likely  that  the  ex-Queen  of  Pontus 
had  Christian  children. 


5l8         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


If  we  look  elsewhere,  in  Palestine  we  might  think  of  thf 
mother  of  John  Mark,  whose  house  was  once  the  meeting-pUo: 
of  the  faithful,  or  the  wife  of  Peter  who  was  (so  Dr  Bigg  assiirt> 
us)  a  most  important  personage  in  early  Church  life.  I  do  not 
think  it  would  be  easy  to  support  such  suggestions. 

If  we  turn  to  Rome,  Pomponia  Graecina  may  have  been  dead, 
but  St  Flavia  Domitilla,  niece  of  Vespasian,  and  exiled  by  Domi- 
tian,  might  arrest  our  fancy.      She  must  surely  have  disposed 
of  great  wealth,  and  her  alms  to  distant  churches  (if  she  ga« 
any)  might  be  the  ground   for  the  statement    of  Dionysius  of 
Corinth  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Romans  '  from  the  begin- 
ning' (ff  ^px^s^j  &,p\TJdtPt  vaTpoTrapdboTov  iBoi  Sca0t;X<irroirre(,  Eos. 
//.  E.  iv  23)  to  show  generosity  to  the  rest  of  the  churches.    This 
would  have  caused  her  to  be  loved  *  by  all  them  that  know  the 
Truth  *.     But  we  have  no  record  of  any  such  thing.      And  who 
were  her  'children*?     Her  freedmcn  Nereus  and  Achilleus?  or 
her  cousin  or  frcedman,  Clement  of  Rome?    And  can  she  have 
had  Christian  nephews  and  nieces  living  at  Ephesus? 

It  seems  to  me  quite  clear  that  the  problem  is  really  insoluble 
on  such  lines  as  these.  We  can  never  find  a  lady  beloved  io 
all  the  churches,  who  had  children  with  her,  and  who  had  also 
sister's  children  at  Ephesus.  and  whom  St  John  intended  shortly 
to  visit*  And  if  such  a  lady  existed,  we  shall  never  guess  why 
St  John  should  have  written  her  a  little  letter  recommending 
the  practice  of  charity  and  the  avoidance  of  heresy  in  very 
general  terms.  It  is  neither  the  letter  of  a  friend  nor  that  of 
a  spiritual  director.  Some  special  meaning  must  lurk  under 
these  generalities,  else  one  cannot  see  why  such  an  epistle  should 
be  sent  at  all. 


§  5.    Tfte  Elect  Lady  is  a  Church. 

The  word  ckXckto's  is  once  applied  to  an  individual  in  the 
New  Testament,  *^m^Qv  tov  hXeKTbv  iv  KvftCm  (Rom,  xvi  13 
St  Clement  {ad  Cor.  52  2)  applies  the  adjective  to  David,  ani 
St  Ignatius  to  his  companion  Rhcus  Agathopous  {Fkilad,  xi  1 
But  the  common  use  of  the  word  was  in  the  expression  ^kAckto} 
TOV  0eoi?,  so  frequent  in  St  Paul,  St  Clement,  and  Hermas*  A 
Church  consisting  of  the  '  elect  of  God '  receives  the  same 
attribute.     St  Peter  speaks  of  ^  iV  Ba^vXmvi  trwcKXefcr?  (1  PcL 


1 

i 


4 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF   II   and   III    ST  JOHN        519 

V  13),  and  St  Ignatius  calls  the  Trallian  Church  U\€kt^  koX 
A^t(J0€os.  But  St  John,  who  employs  the  word  twice  in  this 
epistle,  uses  it  nowhere  else  except  in  a  single  place  of  the 
Apocalypse  (xvii  14),  kXtjtoI  koI  ckAcktoI  koX  iriaroC,  said  of 
those  who  are  with  the  Lamb.  It  is  therefore  not  a  Johannine 
word. 

The  idea  that  it  is  a  proper  name  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the 
observation  that  there  must  in  that  case  have  been  two  sisters 
with  the  same  name  '  Electa '. 

Let  us  assume  that  a  Church  is  intended.  The  advice  given 
becomes  much  more  suitable,  and  the  messages  more  compre- 
hensible. 

§  6,    T/ie  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Second  Epistle. 

'The  Elder  to  one  who  is  an  elect  lady,  and  her  children,  whom 
I  love  in  Truth;  and  not  I  only,  but  also  all  they  that  know  the 
Truth ;  for  the  Truth's  sake  which  abideth  in  us — and  it  shall  be  with 
us  for  ever :  grace,  mercy,  peace,  shall  be  with  us  from  God  the  Father, 
and  from  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  the  Father,  in  truth  and  love.' 

The  children  of  the  Church  need  no  explanation.  It  is  a 
Church  which  St  John  loves,  and  a  famous  Church,  for  it  is 
loved  by  all  that  know  the  Truth. 

The  greeting  is  very  noticeable.  All  the  epistles  to  Churches 
in  the  New  Testament  (nine  of  St  Paul,  viz.  Rom.,  i  and  a  Cor., 
Gal.,  Eph.,  Phil.,  Col.,  i  and  %  Thess.,  and  two  of  St  Peter),  have 
the  greeting  'grace  and  peace'.  But  in  both  the  letters  to 
Timothy  and  in  that  to  Titus,  St  Paul  says, '  grace,  mercy,  and 
peace',  as  does  St  John  to  the  elect  lady^.  Shall  we  argue 
from  this  that  a  lady  is  really  meant,  because  this  was  the  recog- 
nized form  of  address  for  private  letters  ?  If  any  one  could  be 
satisfied  with  such  an  argument,  he  might  be  refuted  with  the 
awkward  fact  that  St  Paul  writes  to  Philemon  simply  'grace 
and  peace',  while  St  John  says  nothing  of  the  sort  to  Gains. 
The  simple  explanation  is  that  in  his  ten  earlier  epistles  St  Paul 
used  x&pis  KoX  €lprit/r},  and  that  the  addition  of  ik€os  is  peculiar 
to  his  three  latest  greetings.  The  connexion  of  3  John  with  the 
Pastoral  epistles  will  come  before  us  presently. 

'  The  only  other  parallel  is  Jude,  *  mercy  unto  you,  and  peace  and  charity  be 
multiplied  \  but  here  '  grace '  is  omitted,  and  *  charity  *  inserted,  against  all 
precedent. 


520         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


*  I  rejoice  greatly  that  I  have  found  of  thy  children  walking  in  Truth, 
even  as  we  received  commandment  from  the  Faih«-.* 

St  John  has  found  some  of  the  Church's  children  walking  in 
truth.     This  does  not  mean  that  they  believed  rightly  ;  it  would 
be  a  poor  praise  to  say  that  some  of  the  Christians  in  a  Churdi 
arc  found  to  be  orthodox.     The  same  phrase  twice  used  in  the 
third  epistle  we  found  to  mean  that  Gaius  had  been  doing  a  good 
action.    Here  the  meaning  is  plainly :  '  I  rejoiced  greatly  when 
I  heard  that  some  of  your  children  had  practised  some  remark- 
able virtue,  according  to  the  Father's  commandment/^     What 
was  this  particular  act  of  virtue?     It  was  not  brotherly  love, 
iydTTTj^  as  in  the  case  of  Gaius,  for  that  was  the  *  new  command ' 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  would  hardly  be  called  a  command  of  the 
Father,  and  St  John  gives  it  immediately  afterwards-      Nor  are 
any  of  the  Commandments  of  the  old  law  meant :  it  is  a  com- 
mand which  *we',  that  is  Christians,  have  received,     St  John 
has  a  way  of  referring  back  from  one  passage  to  another  by  the 
use  of  certain  catchwords.     This  is  above  all  noticeable  in  his 
first  epistle,  a  careful  study  of  which  reveals  a  system  of  con- 
tinual reference  to  words  of  our  Lord  reported  in  the  Gospel 
But  then  the  first  epistle  is  without  doubt  (as  Lightfoot,  amongst 
others,  has  pointed  out,  Essays  on  Sup,  ReL  pp.  187,  188),  an 
introduction   or   envoi  to  the  Gospel.     Yet,  even  here,   in   the 
second  epistle,  we  may  venture  to  interpret  St  John  by  St  John. 
In  the  Gospel  our  Lord  says:  'Therefore  doth  the  Father  love 
Me :  because  1  lay  down  my  life  that  I  may  take  it  again.     No 
man  taketh  it  from  Me;  but  I  lay  it  down  of  Myself,  and  I  have 
power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  up  again. 
This  commandment  have  I  received  of  My  Father'  (x  17,  18), 
Tavniv  TTji/  ivTo\^lf   iKa^Qv  7ra/>d  tov  Ilarpos  p,ov:    this  is   nearly 
the    same    as    our    Ka^u^r    IvroXriif    ikd^ofi^u    ttapa    rov    FlaT^'s, 
For  the  command  is  to  all  Christians,  upon  occasion,  as  well  as 
to  Christ :  '  In  this  we  have  known  the  charity  of  God,  in  that 
He  hath  laid  down  His  life  for  us ;  and  we  ought  to  lay  down 

*  It  is  only  in  a  and  3  John  that  wrfHwarnv  h  6Xjj$(lq  occurs,  but  it  is  parallel  to 
the  walking  in  light  or  darkness  of  the  first  Epistle  (i  6»  7^  ii  it),  of  the  Gospel 
(viii  T  J,  xii  35),  and  perhaps  of  Ihe  Apocalypse  (xxi  14).  It  certainly  refers  to  right 
conduct  according  to  right  teaching,  and  not  to  right  belief.  The  Hebraistic 
RieUphor  vtptwartiw  is  used  more  variously  and  freely  by  St  Paul  thin  by  St  John. 


HISTORICAL   SETTING    OF    II    and    III    ST    JOHN        521 


^ 


►ur  lives  for  the  brethren/     It  is,  then,  a  possible  hypothesis 
lat  St  John  had  rejoiced  in  hearing  of  the  glorious  martyrdom 
>f  some  of  the  sons  of  the  Church  to  which  he  writes. 

*  And  now  I  pray  thee,  Lady,  not  as  writing  a  new  commandment  to 
ee,  but  that  which  we  had  from  the  beginning,  that  we  love  one 
other.  And  this  is  love,  that  we  should  walk  according  to  His 
mmandments.  This  is  the  commandment,  even  as  ye  heard  from  the 
ginning,  that  ye  should  walk  in  it  (love).' 

That  St  John  (who  in  his  old  age^  according  to  St  Jerome  \ 
uld  say  nothing  to  his  children  but  'love  one  another',  when 
rried  to  the  Church  to  address  thera)*  should  mention  the  '  new 
mmandment',  is  of  no  special  significance.  But  it  would 
urely  be  umiecessary  to  tell  a  mother  and  her  children  to  love 
ne  another,  unless  family  quarrels  were  anticipated  or  had 
ccurred,  while  it  can  never  be  supererogatory  to  remind  a  Church 
the  command  of  the  Lord  which,  si  solum  Jiat,  sufficit, 

*  Which  we  had  from  the  beginning ',  *  as  ye  heard  from  the 
ginning'.    This  can  hardly  mean  'the  time  when  the  Church 

as  founded',  on  account  of  the  Sve''*.     It  appears  to  imply 
t  this  Church  was  founded  *  in  the  beginning  \  that  is,  either 
n  the  day  of  Pentecost  (in  which  case  only  Jerusalem  could  be 
eant),  or  at  least  at  the  dispersion  of  the  Apostles,  twelve  years 
ter,  which  might  be  looked  upon  as  practically  '  the  beginning '. 
hen,  of  the   great   churches,   Antioch   and   Rome   come   into 
ompelition.     There  are  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  Roman 
adition  in  160-70  placed  the  coming  of  Peter  in  the  twelfth 
ear  after  the  Passion,  and  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul  twenty- 
five  years  later  ^     If  this  tradition  was  true,  it  is  not  a  mere 
coincidence  that  St  Irenaeus,  with  the  (dated)  list  of  Roman 


*  Cofnm,  in  GaJ.  vi  11,  Bk.  lii  vol.  vii  p.  529, 

'  'Which  we  had  from  the  beginning'  would  naturally  mean  'which  wc  Apostles 
heard  from  Christ*  j  and  *as  jc  heard  from  the  beginning''  would  mean  *  which  you 
heard  when  the  Gospel  was  first  preached  to  you '.  But  by  this  we  gel  two 
different  meanings  for  '  from  the  beginning  \  and  further,  it  ia  not  easy  to  exclude 
the  elect  lady  from  the  '  we  \  I  therefore  prefer  the  view  in  the  text,  th»t  the 
writer,  about  a.  d.  90-5,  can  look  back  to  the  years  39  and  41  as  '  Ibc  beginning  \ 

'  I  urged  this  in  the  Rivu*  Brnedictini^  1901-3^  on  the  chronology  of  the  Roman 
catalogues.  When  I  wrote  the  first  of  the  three  articleSt  I  was  strongly  prejudiced 
against  both  of  these  dates,  and  against  the  twenty-five  years'  episcopate.  In  the 
second  article  1  gave  the  reasons  which  chajiged  my  optniion,  and  they  may 
convince  others  also. 


522         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

bishops  before  him,  calls  the  Roman  Church  antiqtiissifna  [Hm, 
lit  3),  Anyhow,  it  had  been  founded  many  years  when  St  Paul 
wrote  to  the  Romans,  and  was  already  famous  for  its  faith. 

*  Because  many  deceivers  are  gone  out  *  into  the  world,  even  they 
that  confess  not  Jesus  Christ  coming  in  flesh :  this  is  the  deceiver  i&d 

the  antichrist.' 

The  same  heresy  is  denounced  as  in  i  John  iv  2  (c£  John 
i  14).  It  is  the  Docetism  of  Cerinthus,  which  was  still  the  main 
danger  in  Asia  in  the  time  of  St  Ignatius,  just  after  the  death 
of  St  John.  The  false  teachers  had  been  members  of  the  Asiatic 
churches,  but  they  left  their  brethren  and  *  went  forth  into  the 
world  '.     Elsewhere  St  John  describes  their  apostasy  more  i\^\'j- 

*  They  went  out  from  us^  but  they  were  not  of  us  ;  for  if  the)* 
had  been  of  us,  they  would  have  remained  with  us  ;  but  it  was 
in  order  that  it  might  be  made  plain  that  they  were  not  of  us» 
all  of  them'  (i  John  ii  19).  Having  no  more  footing  in  the 
Asiatic  churches,  they  had  evidently  turned  their  attention 
clscwhcrCj  and  St  John  expects  them  to  make  an  attempt  to 
get  from  another  important  Church  that  recognition  which  they 
had  been  refused  at  Ephesus, 

*Look  to  yourselves,  that  you  may  not  lose  (destroy)  the  things 
which  you  have  wrought ',  but  may  receive  a  full  reward.  Every  out 
that  goeth  forward  and  abideth  not  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  hath  nol 
God ;  he  that  abideth  in  the  teaching,  the  same  hath  both  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  If  any  one  cometh  unto  you»  and  beareth  not  this 
teaching,  receive  him  not  into  your  house,  and  give  him  no  greeting j 
for  !ie  that  giveth  him  greeting  hath  fellowship  with  his  evil  works/ 

The  Church  is  warned  not  to  receive  the  heretics  if  they  come 

*  Into  your  house '  has  a  mystical  sense,  and  so  has  *  give  him 
no  greeting '.  They  are  not  to  be  received  to  Church  member- 
ship, to  the  kiss  of  peace  and  to  Communion,  else  the  Church 
herself  will  be  answerable  for  their  heresy,  and  dehlcd  therewith 

'Though  I  have  many  things  to  write  to  you,  I  would  not  with 
paper  and  ink  ;  but  1  hope  to  be  present  with  you,  and  to  speak  fiace  to 
face,  that  your  joy  may  be  fulfilled.  The  children  of  thine  elect  sister 
greet  thee.' 

*  Reading  if^Aflo*',  with  NAB.  Iren.  Lucif. 

*  Reading  flfrfdffaa$€  with  t<  A.  What  they  had  wrought  was  the  *  walking  ia 
truth'. 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF   II   AND   III   ST  JOHN        523 

The  elect  sister  will  be  the  Church  of  Ephesus.  Perhaps 
St  John  would  have  given  the  names  of  the  heretics,  if  he  had 
not  been  afraid  of  his  letter  getting  into  wrong  hands. 

We  have  arrived  so  far  at  the  result  that  the  letter  has  two 
objects — to  congratulate  a  Church  on  the  virtue  (martyrdom  ?) 
of  some  of  her  children,  and  to  warn  her  against  receiving  certain 
heretics  who  were  thought  to  have  left  Asia  for  the  purpose 
of  gaining  her  to  their  views. 

§  7.  The  close  connexion  between  the  Second  and  Third  Epistle Sy 
and  of  both  with  2  Tim.  and  1  Peter. 

The  second  and  third  epistles  have  a  close  likeness  to  the  first, 
but  their  connexion  with  one  another  is  closer  still. 

a  John  3  John 


I.  6  Trp€a'PvT€pos  . . .  o^s  ^yo) 

4.  ^xdpriv  kCap  (on  ei//)f)Ka . . .) 
ircpLTrarovvTas  h  iXrjdeCt^, 

12.  HoXka  ixj^v  vfJilv  ypd(t>€iv 
OVK  ifiovkrjOrjv  ha  \dpTov  koI 
fiikavos*  dWci  ikvC^oo  ytvdcrOai 
irpds  vfias,  Kal  ardpia  vpds  (TTopia 
kakijaat.  *  A<nT6,C€TaC  ore  (ra 
riKva  .  .  .). 


T.  6  'np€€rp-6T€poi  ,  .  »  hv  ^ya> 

3.  ^\dp/r\v  yap  kCav  .  .  .  KaOm 
<TV  kv  ikrjO€C<f  ir€pnraT€L9* 

13.  IToXXa  €lxpv  ypdyjfai  troi^ 
dkk*  ov  Oikoi  hiCL  jxikavos  Kal 
KakdfJLov  0-04  ypd<l>€iv'  ^kirCC(o 
bk  €v64(os  <r€  lb€iVf  Koi  ardpia 
irpbs  ardpLa  kdk'/j(rop,€v»  'Acnri- 
CovraC  a€  (ol  <l>ikot). 


The  subject-matter  which  forms  the  body  of  the  epistles  is 
different,  but  the  commencement  and  the  conclusion  of  each  letter 
have  a  remarkable  coincidence  of  formulas.  The  habit  of  writing 
just  in  this  way  would  surely  not  last  for  years,  in  one  who 
probably  did  not  write  a  great  quantity  of  letters.  I  think  we 
may  presume  that  the  two  letters  are  separated  by  no  great 
distance  of  time. 

There  is  another  curious  coincidence.  We  have  seen  that  the 
emphasis  of  the  testimony  to  Demetrius  was  occasioned  by  a 
contrary  estimate  of  him  in  2  Timothy.  In  the  second  epistle 
we  find  another  connexion  with  the  Pastoral  epistles  in  the 
formula  *  grace,  mercy,  truth*. 

Yet  another  coincidence: — there  is  a  manifest  reluctance  to 
mention  the  place  whence  Demas  'went  out  for  thfc   Name's 


••^ 


OCSUfAL  OF  THEOLCX^ICAL    STUDIES 

asic  =«n  that  Rome  i»Tis  intended.    In  the 
^sjiaily  a  detenninatioQ  not  to  mentioii  its 
ot:he -elect  lady'. 

ckAckt^  Kvpta  cannot   but  remind  Bf 

of  I  Peter ;  is  not  there  a  rcminisccB! 

jx  •  John  ?     At  all  events  3  John  has  anothcrft 

with  I  Peter,  which  needs  some  cxplanaw. 

unses^  w  the  Christians  of  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappt 

i  Bithynia.     We  may  understand  by  *Galato 

which  St  Paul  thus  named   according  to  fte 

,  dKory\     The  description  is  thus  intended  a 

J5r  dK  whole  of  the  Roman  part  of  the  peninsnli 

era  parts  had  been  evangelized  by  St  Pal 

parts  probably  by  his  disciples,  for  tte 

been  there  is  only  a  guess  of  Origen's.    Perhaps 

the  letter,  is  the  Silvanus  of  2  Cor.  and 

the  Silas  of  Acts ;   and  he  may  have  bcff 

work   ever    since   he    disappon 


522 

bishop 

iiiS)-     •' 
wrote  \^ 

•  Bcci . 
that  cont' 
the  aniir>^ 

The  stu** 

114).     h^ 
danger  ii|^ 
ofSt  Juh-1,. 
churches,  l.. 
world',     f^ 
*  They  weni 
had  been  «^ 
in  order  t\y^ 
all  of  them 
Asiatic   chu, 
elsewhere,  au 

get  from  ana.  a^  iaft  dwing  his  first  imprisonment,  sent  to  Aa» 

had  been  reft:  i^gg^  ^  advice  and  consolation.      St   Peter  writes 

*Look  to  yo'ca*****"**  ^  those  that  had  since  growTi  up,  and 

which  you  havt  ^irpnM*  tO  find  that  he  has  consulted  the  fortncr 

that  goeth  iorwi*    •ittU  ••  m^  what  the  founder  of  the  churdies 

be  irilalllL  admonition  ^  for  St  Peter  probably 

:hciii  pfenonally,  and  had  possibly  never  been 

'.e  obvions  explanation  of  the  extraordinary 

■\  St  Plnl  s  circular  letter  to  the  Ephesians 

1  that  of  St  Peter  to  the  same  address. 

Peter  to  write?     It  is  very  important 

onsob  ikim  in  a  time  of  persecution, 

hem  io  endure  under  a  persecutum 

.iry  to  think  of  St  Peter  as  setUed  in  Rome, 

-Teat  organization,  and  receiving  constant 

!^osrible  to  believe  that  one  apostle  knew 

care  what  his  brethren  were  doing  or 

-ettinf  every  epistle  that  circulated  in 

tion  •,  &c.  Intemat.  Critical.  Comnu, 

sense. 

MC  date  (64-5)  I  have  assigned 


God ;  he  that 
and  the  Son. 
teaching,  recoil 
for  he  that  gi\ » 

The  Chun 
*  Into  your  1- 
no  greeting  \ 
ship,  to  the  \ 
herself  will  be 

'Though  I  y 
paper  and  ink ;  i 
face,  that  your  jo 
greet  thee.' 

1  Reading  \ir\K^o.v 
«  Reading  flpritfo*^'^ 
truth*. 


HISTORICAL   SETTING   OF   II    and   III  ST  JOHN        525 

which  appears  to  be  impending.  There  is  nothing  to  shew  that 
the  Asiatics  had  suffered  at  all,  up  till  now,  but  there  is  much 
said  to  brace  them  up  to  bear  what  they  may  have  reason  to 
expect. 

I  have  already  said  that  I  do  not  think  that  St  Peter  and 
St  Paul  were  martyred  in  64  during  the  first  fury  of  the 
Neronian  persecution.  But  I  believe  (with  Mommsen  and  most 
of  the  chief  authorities,  against  Ramsay)  that  the  name  of 
Christian  was  made  a  legal  crime  from  that  year  onwards. 
The  persecution  of  64  raged  at  Rome  only ;  but  it  endangered 
the  Christians  throughout  the  world.  Peter  was  very  likely 
not  in  Rome  in  64,  but  the  persecution  brought  him  back,  and 
Mark  came  also  (i  Peter  v  13)  having  been  brought  by  Timothy 
from  Ephesus,  as  St  Paul  requested  (a  Tim.  iv  11).  St  Paul 
may  also  have  hurried  to  Rome  at  the  news  of  the  awful 
horrors  wrought  by  Nero  after  the  fire.  Perhaps  he  arrived 
before  St  Peter,  and  for  this  reason  does  not  mention  him  in 
his  epistles  *. 

Titus  and  i  Tim.  were  no  doubt  written  before  the  per- 
secution, so  that  St  Paul  may  have  been  in  Rome  all  the 
time.  If  %  Tim.  was  written  as  early  as  64,  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  supposing  that  St  Paul  was  mistaken  in  expecting  the  crown 
of  martyrdom  at  once.  He  had  been  mistaken  on  a  former 
occasion  when  he  supposed  at  Miletus  (Acts  xx)  that  the 
Ephesians  would  see  him  no  more,  for  in  %  Tim.  iv  21  we 
find  he  has  been  again  to  Miletus. 

St  Peter,  believing  that  the  persecution  would  spread,  wrote 
a  long  letter  to  the  Churches  of  Asia,  whose  Christian  population 
probably  greatly  outnumbered  that  of  the  whole  of  the  rest  of 
the  Roman  world.  The  *  Christian  name '  was  now  forbidden,  as 
it  was  in  Pliny's  time,  who  asks  Trajan  whether  *  nomen  ipsum  si 
flagitiis  careat '  is  really  to  be  punished^  or  whether  'flagitia  cohae- 
rentia  nomini  *  are  not  rather  intended.  Trajan's  answer  makes 
it  plain  that  the  name  itself  was  legally  a  sufficient  crime. 

>  We  might  also  interpret  his  silence  as  the  earliest  example  of  prudent  care 
which  arose  from  the  danger  of  Peter,  who  must  have  been  known  to  the  govern- ' 
ment  by  name.    (The  persons  mentioned  by  St  Paul  were  in  less  danger,  being, 
like  himself,  Roman  citizens,  and  perhaps  of  high  rank.)     But  such  an  assumption 
would  be  veiy  precarious. 


I 


526         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

This  throws  a  brighter  light  on  i  Peter  iv  14,  i6  :  *  If  you  be 
reproached  for  the  Name  of  Christ,  you  shall  be  blessed  .  . .  biit 
if  (he  suffer)  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be  ashamed/  The  whole 
accusation  would  be  *  he  is  a  Christian  \  And  the  passage  ia 
3  John  becomes  actually  a  case  in  point:  *They  went  out  for 
the  Name's  sake'  from  Rome,  under  the  persecution  of  Nera 
We  are  not  so  much  to  understand  *  for  the  name  of  Christ* 
(as  in  so  many  passages  of  the  Gospels '  for  My  Name's  sake) 
but  '  for  the  name  of  Christian '. 

Now  it  is  impossible  that  a  circular  letter  of  St  Peter  to  the 
Churches  of  Asia  should  be  unknown  to  St  John,  when  he  lived 
at  Ephesus  as  the  ruler  of  those  churches.  If  he  wrote  to  Rocnc, 
it  would  naturally  come  into  his  head  to  think  of  the  letter  once 
sent  from  Rome  to  Asia,  and  to  recollect  the  way  in  wbidi 
St  Peter  had  avoided  mentioning  the  place  from  which  be 
wrote.  St  John  also  knew  that  he  must  name  no  iiames,  and 
he  takes  up  St  Peter's  idea  and  plays  with  it :  '  The  fellow-elect 
in  Babylon  greets  us,  docs  she?  I  have  to  write  to  her, — I  will 
greet  the  elect  lady  and  her  children,  and  send  her  the  salutation 
of  her  elect  sister  in  Ephesus/ 

This  seems  to  give  the  clue  we  need  in  a  very  simple  fashion* 
In  I  Peter  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  *  the  fellow- 
elect  *♦  He  is  writing  to  churches,  and  *  that  which  is  elect  also 
with  them '  is  not  a  lady  but  a  church ;  the  recipients  of  the 
epistle  could  make  no  mistake.  Further,  they  knew  whert 
St  Peter  was,  and  this  would  interpret  the  mystery  of*  Babylon'. 
Besides  (as  Dr,  Bigg  has  pointed  out)  Silvanus  was  not  deaf 
and  dumb. 

But  St  John's  letter  presents  an  enigma,  and  without  a  key  it 
could  hardly  be  guessed  ;  the  bearer  would  have  to  explain  the 
whole,  and  the  metaphor  would  fall  rather  flat. 

If  we  imagine  that  it  is  sent  to  those  who  knew  well  St  Peter's 
earlier  epistle  \  and  who  were  aware  that  *the  fellow-elect  in 
Babylon  '  referred  to  themselves,  they  had  the  key  in  their  hands, 
and  misinterpretation  would  be  impossible. 

And  now  comes  in  as  a  confirmation  a  remark  already  made: 

'  r  Peter  was  known  to  Clement  of  Rome  and  Hernias  of  Rom.e  ;  while  its  citation 
by  Papias  (Euscb.  H.  Er  m  39)  will  answer  fgr  its  circulation  in  the  Jobacmnc 
circle* 


m 


HISTORICAL    SETTING    OF    11    and    III    ST    JOHN        527 

ficAejcTOff  is  not  a  Johannine  word.      St  John's  vocabulary  in  the 

spcls  and  the  three  epistles  is  strangely  limited.     This  word 

:curs   nowhere  else   in  them.     There   roust  be  some  special 

son  for  its  use.      It  is  borrowed.     It  can  be  borrowed  only 

>m  the  one  similar  passage,  that  of  St  Peter 

It  need  not  follow  that  the  reply  was  sent  soon.    The  longer 

le  interval,  the  better  known  would  be  the  epistle  of  Peter, 

it  was  still  ringing  in  St  John's  ears  in  PatrooSj  when  he  saw 

.ome  as  Babylon,  according  to  the  mystical  language  suggested 

»y  St  Peter :  *  A  mystery  ;  Babylon  the  great,  the  mother  of  the 

roroications,  and  the  abominations  of  the  earth.     And  I  saw  the 

roman  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  saints,  and  with  the  blood  of 

le  martyrs  of  Jesus*  (Apoc.  xvii  5).     'Rejoice  over  her^  thou 

leaven,  and  ye  holy  apostles  and  prophets  ;  for  God  hath  judged 

^our  judgement  upon  her'  {ik  xviii  20).     The  holy  apostles  are, 

►f  course,  St  Peter  and  St  Paul,  martyred  in  Rome  thirty  years 

ireviously.     What  was  their  judgement  against  her?     I  think 

Peter  v  13  suggests  part  of  the  reply.    In  calling  Rome  Babylon 

fas  the  Jews  had  often  done)  the  Apostle  had   suggested  the 

ipplication  to  her  not  merely  of  the  character  of  Babybn,  but  of 

ledoom  of  Babylon,  as  foretold  by  Isaiah,  and  St  John  works  out 

the  idea  (in  language  inspired  by  Isaiah  and  by  Ezekiel*s  prophecy 

against  Tyre)  in  his  vivid  xviiith  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse. 

We  may  now  turn  to  the  coincidences  with  2  Tim.  If  a  and 
3  John  were  written  about  the  same  time,  St  John  will  have  been 
forced  to  look  for  a  copy  of  3  Tim.,  to  see  what  St  Paul  had  said 
against  Demetrius,  nay,  the  enemies  of  Demetrius  will  have 
thrust  it  upon  his  notice.  Here  was  another  letter  from  Rome  to 
Ephesus.  Just  as  he  had  returned  the  greeting  of  the  *  fellow- 
elect  '  by  saluting  her  back  as  the  '  elect  lady ',  so  he  repeats  the 
peculiar  greeting  of  Si  Paul  to  Timothy, '  grace,  mercy ^  peace'. 
Is  this  too  far-fetched  and  fanciful  ?  Was  it  not  perhaps  a  mere 
coincidence  that  St  John  adds  '  mercy  '  to  the  familiar  '  grace  and 
peace 'i*  The  reply  is  rather  startling.  'Ea<oj  is  again  a  fiiraf 
kty6ix€vop  in  St  John,  though  it  is  fairly  common  in  Matthew, 
Luke,  Paul,  and  James.  Why  should  St  John  use  so  unac- 
customed a  word  (he  never  uses  cAc^o) ;  cAeciyos  occurs  only  once, 
and  that  in  the  Apocalypse^  which  has  a  different  vocabulary), 
unless  he  was  borrowing  ? 


528         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


To  sum  up.  There  are  remarkable  coincidences  betwceo 
2  John  and  3  John  in  the  epistolary  formulas ;  the  exprcsiioB 
fifpi-nuTfiv  iv  MijUfi^  is  peculiar  to  these  epistles  ;  each  ofthos 
has  subtle  coincidences  or  connexions  with  a  Tim.,  and  with 
1  Peter.  All  thi^  confirms  in  a  remarkable  way  the  contention 
of  Dr  Zahn,  that  the  two  letters  were  written  by  the  Apostle  00 
the  same  day,  and  sent  by  the  same  messenger  *.  We  have  seen 
that  Demas  and  his  companion  or  companions  were  travelling 
towards  the  West.  They  were  to  stop  a  night  at  Thessalonica, 
and  Gaius  would  speed  them  on  the  journey  along  the  Egnatian 
way  to  Rome,  where  they  would  deliver  3  John  to  St  Clement 
It  will  not  be,  then,  a  mere  accident  that  these  two  letters  have 
survived  together  Demetrius,  of  course,  kept  a  copy  of  the 
valuable  testimonial  he  had  obtained,  and  the  companion  letter 
was  naturally  preserved  with  it.  The  letter  to  a  Church  took 
rank  as  no.  2,  before  that  to  an  individual. 

The  two  visits  promised  by  St  John,  '  that  v/t  may  speak  mouth 
to  mouth',  were  evidently  to  be  realized  in  a  single  journey. 
Diotrephes  had  not  expected  St  John  to  interfere  in  Macedonia ; 
but  he  was  unaware  that  the  Apostle  wished,  like  St  Paul,  *ts> 
see  Rome',  and  that  he  intended  to  take  Thessalonica  on  the 
way. 

§  8.     Clement  of  Alexandria  interpreted  the  *  EUct  Lady  *  or 
the  Church  of  Rome, 

The  oldest  interpretation  of  our  epistle  is  that  preserved  in 
the  Latin  Adumbraiiones  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  he 
appears  most  certainly  to  understand  the  epistle  as  addressed  to 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

*  Secunda  loannis  Epistok  quae  ad  virgines  scripta  est  simplicissiins. 
Scripta  vero  est  ad  quamdam  Babyloniam  Electam  nomine,  significat 
autem  electionem  Ecclesiae  sanctae.' 

Now  there  is  no  mention  of  Babylon  !n  St  John's  epistle.  Is, 
therefore,  Clement  confusing  it  with  i  Peter?     I  think  it  impos- 

^  EminiuMg  ii  p.  58 1.  Zahn  has  further  supposed  that  2  John  is  actualljf 
referred  to  in  3  John  9 :  *  1  wrote  a  few  words  to  the  Church.'  We  hnve^  how* 
ever,  seen  in  analysing  3  John  that  tills  certainly  refers  to  the  letter  of  introduction 
which  Demetrius  had  taken  to  Thessalonica  on  his  former  visit,  and  which 
Diotrephes  had  spurned. 


HISTORICAL    SETXrNG   OF   II    AND    HI    ST  JOHN        529 

sible  to  suspect  him  of  such  stupidity*  In  the  Adumhratio  on 
Peter  there  is  no  comment  on  the  words  do-iraferai  t^ay  7  hf 
\xk^vkt^vi  oT/i/^KAeKfTjj  but  only  on  the  words  which  follow  koL 
[(fpxos  0  vlo9  ^Qv\  'Salutat  vos  Marcus  filius  meus',  and  on  this 
Element  says  that  Mark  was  persuaded  by  the  Romans  to 
:ommit  to  writing  what  Peter  preached.  Either  this  must  be 
iken  to  imply  the  explanation  that  n  uvv^Kk^KTq  is  the  Church 
►f  Rome  or  else  some  definite  statement  to  the  same  effect  had 
ireceded  in  the  original  Greek,  of  which  the  Latin  may  here 
an  abbreviation. 

For  ad  virgines  we  should  certainly  read  ad  virginem.    This 
ras  later  corrupted  not  merely  into  -napBimv^,  but  into  UAfiBov^ ; 
lence  the  ad  Parthos  of  St  Augustine  and  others  *. 
Why  ad  virginem^  since  the  elect  lady  has  children  ?     Clearly 
[because  Clement  is  about  to  explain  that  a  church  is  meant. 

The  translation,  or  paraphrase,  is  inaccurate  or  corrupt,  and 
fwe  may  perhaps  make  another  correction,  by  placing  a  comma 
[after  EUctam^  and  reading  *  nomine  autem  significat '.    The  sense 
ill  be: 

*  The  second  epistle  of  John,  which  is  addressed  to  a  virgin,  is  most 
5y  to  understand.     It  is  written  to  a  certain  Electa  of  Babylon,  and 
f.by  this  name  he  signifies  the  election  of  the  holy  Church  [there] ' ; 

and  the  Greek  may  have  been :  *H  roG  'Iaj(it'a>ow  Sevr^^a  itrioroXij 
■W/jdy  i^ApBiVQV  ypa(p(ifTa  aTrkorATT]  (or  aTrXova-rdTTj)  ^(mv,  *Eypd(f}Tj 
litv  ovv  TTpos  Tiva  Ba^vktarl^a  'EKXeKTijp'  rijj  b^  Srofiari  crr/jutocVet  TTjy 
•njs  ayias  ^xxAi^cr^y  iKkoyrjp,  The  Latin  is  probably  servilely  literal, 
giving  even  the  order  of  the  words  of  the  Greek  The  awkward- 
ness of  nomine  for  hoc  nomim  is  explained  if  the  Greek  had 
simply  the  article  without  roiJri^. 

Clement  says  Babylon,  not  Rome,  because  he  is  naturally 
thinking  of  the  similar  passage  of  St  Peter.  But  he  knows  that 
his  readers  will  be  aware  that  Rome  is  meant,  for  either  he  has 
just  stated,  in  commenting  on  i  Peter,  that  Babylon  means 
Rome,  or  else  (if  nothing  has  dropped  out  there  in  the  Latin)  he 


*  In  his  third  vol.  of  Fotschtmgtn^  pp.  100-103,  Zahn  takes  the  converse  view,  that 
wop0ivovt  i»  a  corruption  of  UapBovr,  But  his  explanation  of  tlapOovs  is  impossible, 
since  Clcraent  certainly  identified  the  ffwtKKtKrfi  of  1  Peter  with  the  Church  of 
Rome*  See  Bardcnhcwer  Grsch,  dtr  altkitxh.  Litt.  vol.  a  pp.  47,  48,  note,  who 
boweirer  renounces  the  task  of  explaining  ad  Babyloniam  tUctam  nQmin*. 

VOL.  V.  Mm 


530         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

had  assumed  in  that  place  also  that  the  reader  would  wda 
interpretation,  and  had  mentioned  what  Mark  did  at  Rome  lit^ 
out  explaining  the  connexion  ^, 


}  9.     The  silence  about  the  Roman  Ckurck, 

In  commenting  on  the  third  epistle  I  have  already  stated  ihx 
there  is  a  conspiracy  of  silence  with  regard  to  the  Roman  Osaxt 
from  the  persecution  of  Nero  in  64  until  the  rescript  of  Hadrii! 
to  Mtnucius  Fund  anus,  which,  while  not  rescinding  the  estab- 
lished principle,  inaugurated  a  period  of  comparative  tolcntiwi 
(between  117  and  138).  It  is  true  that  Hermas  mentiotf 
St  Clement,  and  the  early  part  of  his  work  in  which  the  mcntioa 
occurs  may  conceivably  have  been  written  in  the  episcopate  of 
Clement  *,  for  Hermas  was  evidently  a  young  man  at  the  time, 
with  small  children.  But  his  book  as  a  whole  was  publishd 
later. 

It  was  not  unnatural  that  greater  precautions  should  be  needed 
in  the  capital  than  elsewhere.  There  are  other  instances  rf 
catacombs  (as  Syracuse,  Padua,  &c.),  but  the  extraordinary 
developement  of  these  underground  labyrinths  at  Rome  is 
unparalleled,  and  would  be  incredible  if  we  merely  knew  of  It 
from  ancient  writers  and  not  by  ocular  demonstration  *\  Every 
decree  which  emanated  from  Rome  would  be  put  in  force  thdt 
first,  and  more  energetically  than  elsewhere.  We  see  the  rcsaltf 
in  the  mystery  to  which  Tacitus  is  witness  as  surrounding  the 

*  A  conBrroation  of  this  suggestion  that  something  has  dropped  out  is  to 
found  in  Euscb.  //.  £".  ii  15,  who  gives  a  traditional  account  of  St  Mark*s  Gospel^' 
which  he  has  made  up  from  this  passage  of  Clement  and  from  the  passage  of 
which  he  quotes,  iii  39.  He  states  that  *  they  say "  that  St  Peter  meant  Rome  by 
the  name  Baby  ton.  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  Clement  and  Papias  said 
so  ;  but  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  this  piece  of  information,  which  he  gires  as 
an  afterthought,  came  from  one  of  the  sources  he  had  just  quoted,  vix.  from  the 
Hypotypoacs  of  Clement,  Harnack  has  taken  a  view  som.ewhat  adverse  to  th» 
suggestion  (Ihoug^h  he  speaks  of  Papias,  not  of  Clement)  in  the  Znischrifi  fAit 
N.  T.  IVtssens^^h.  1902,  2  *  Pscudopapianischcs  \ 

'  So  Harnack  thinks.    The  young  slave  may  have  persuaded  Grapte  to  read 
vision  to  the  old  women,  but  the  presiding  presbyters  are  not  likely  to  have  c 
sented  to  listen  to  him,  nor  will  Clement  have  actually  sent  his  volume  to  the  other 
churches  1  (see  J^evta  Bmid.  1903,  p.  155% 

'  Though  not  primarily  intended  for  hi  ding- places,  they  were  certainly  tised 
the  concealment  of  Christian  rites. 


HISTORICAL    SETTING    OF   11    AND   III    ST   JOHN        531 

Ihristians.  In  1 15-17  he  %vritcs  that  Christianity  is  an*exitia- 
iiHs  superstitio  ',  numbered  among  things  *  atrocia  aut  pudenda  \ 
^at  Christians  were  convicted  of  'odium  human!  generis  ',  they 
ire '  sontes,  et  novissima  exempla  menti  *.  The  great  and  careful 
iistorian  thinks  he  knows  all  about  them,  yet  he  knows  nothing, 
few  different  things  were  in  Bithynia  and  Pontus,  we  learn  from 
liny,  the  intimate  friend  of  Tacitus,  writing  a  few  years  earlier 
ider  the  same  emperor.  The  numbers  of  the  Christians  were 
lere  so  great  that  the  temples  were  becoming  deserted,  and  the 
>lemnities  had  been  discontinued.  Pliny  says  it  would  be  an 
(possibility  to  punish  such  a  multitude,  and  besides  they 
ippeared  to  be  harmless.  He  knows  of  their  early  meetings  for 
le  *  sacrament  *  (which  he  naturally  supposed  to  be  an  oath), 
id  their  high  moral  teaching.  But  another  friend  of  Pliny, 
Juetonius,  not  in  Asia  but  at  Rome,  thinks  that  *  Chrestus '  was 
le  leader  of  the  Jews  whom  Claudius  banished  from  Rome,  that 
le  Christians  under  Nero  practised  magic  ('  superstitionis  novae 
maleficae  *),  It  may  or  may  not  be  true  that  Seneca,  before 
le  persecution  of  Nero,  had  made  the  acquaintance  of  St  Paul ; 
It  it  is  evident  that  under  Trajan  the  Christians  were  an  obscure 
in  Rome,  and  that  the  great  and  the  learned  in  the  capital 
lew  nothing  of  their  religion.  Their  numbers  were  also  prob- 
tly  not  enough  to  make  them  formidable,  though  there  must 
lavc  been  many  more  Christians  in  the  capital  than  the  heathens 
Lad  any  idea  of. 
There  are  other  instances  of  this  secrecy.  The  sin  of  the 
lildren  of  Hermas,  for  which  he  ought  to  have  punished  them, 
apparently  that  they  got  under  the  influence  of  some  pagans, 
some  bad  words,  betrayed  the  fact  that  their  parents  were 
Christians^,  and  joined  with  heathen  children  in  vicious  practices. 
This  is  represented  as  taking  place  in  the  time  of  Clement,  who 
died  in  99.  Again,  apart  from  the  letter  of  Clement,  we  know 
absolutely  nothing  of  the  Roman  bishops  of  this  period,  except 
their  dates,— of  Linus,  Anencletus,  Clement,  Evaristus,  Alexander, 


*  Vis.  ii  3,  2  TtJ  awipfta  txov^  'Epf^,  ^irfjffav  cfr  riiv  e^J^,  Kal  l^kaafp^M^ffav  «ts 
r^K  itvpioy  ttal  wpoi^Hay  roin  yovus  avrS/v  iv  vovjipl^  /x(7<iX|j'  teat  ijKovaav  frpod6rtu 
ycufiwv  tfol  wpotdpTtt  ovK  inpfkrj&fiatof y  m,tA,  Perhaps  the  fault  of  Hermas*s  wife 
(od«  dWx<rai  T^t  y\diaffrfs)  is  also  that  she  was  in  danger  of  betraying  her  faith. 
*Uttowrav  vpoZ^rm  probably  means  'got  the  reputation  of  traitors '  with  the  Christian!. 

M  m  2 


532         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

Sixttis  *.    The  latter  succeeded  in  the  first  year  of  H; 
emerges  from  the  mist  in  the  mention  of  him  by  St  Ii 
(Fragra.  of  Ep.  to  Victor,  ap.  Euseb.  H,  E,  v  04),  with 
the  Paschal  question. 

In  connexion  with  this  secret  chaiacto-  of  the  petspcntjl 
Roman  Chnrch,  we  must  notioe  the  foUofrii^  remarlobit 
examples  of  silence: 

I.  When  St  Ignatius  wrote  to  the  Romsuis,  he  took  caitttj 
mention  no  names,  not  even  that  of  the  bishops  which  he 
have  known  *  (before  117). 

3.  When  St  Clement  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  he  wrote  il^ 
the  name  of  his  Church,  but  suppressed  his  own  name  (c.  95). 

3.  When  St  John  wrote  his  Apocalypse  he  gave  to  Kome  tk 
mystic  name  of  Babylon  (c  95)  *. 

4-  In  the  third  epistle  of  St  John  there  is  a  careful  avoidaiQ 
of  the  name  of  Rome,  and  a  very  guarded  reference  to  the  per- 
secution there. 

5.  While  I  Peter  gives  the  names  of  the  churches  to  whkii  t 
is  sent,  the  place  from  which  it  \s  sent  is  *  Babylon  '  (c-  67  ?). 

6.  It  is  natural  to  quote  1  John  as  a  sixth  instance  of  the 
avoidance  of  the  name  of  Rome,  and  to  see  in  the  *  Elect  Lady' 
the  Roman  Church. 


§  la    Additwfud  Cmsideratwns* 

1.  Caspari  has  given  a  very  full  list  of  heretics,  who  went  to 
Rome  in  the  course  of  the  second  century  and  the  first  years 
of  the  third,  to  make  converts  and  to  get  recognition  *     It  i* 


'  Yet  the  mention  in  the  Canon  of  the  Mass,  of  Liatxs,  Cletns,  Clefl»eBt  (t 
thb  order  to  imply  a  date  earlier  than  Hippoljta3>,  sng^^ts  tliwt  all  tfats  cttvfii 
secrecy  did  not  prevent  these  three  at  least  frooi  becoming  martyrs. 

*  Of  coarse  there  was  one,  as  I  hsTe  more  than  once  axfned  dsewkere  ^fiw* 
Hamack;  for  St  Ignatius  says  Uiat  without  a  bishop  and  prieats  tmn\^tk  d 
maXthm  {TmS.  Itt  l)* 

*  The  Apocalypse  is  written  in  exiles  before  Uie  death  of  OaaitiaB.  TW  wills' 
is  coosequently  so  ^anled  in  his  language  thAt  he  mentioas  ao  aiocfte  Ckiislma  bf 
name  except  Antipas,  who  was  no  doobt  dead.  He  aw>idks  the  nairi  of  the 
bisliops  of  the  chuixhes,  of  the  altar  of  Augastns  and  Roone  at  Pevisaiitns*  of  'fhtf 
woman  Jeiebel  \  of  Peter  and  Paal,  slaia  at  Rooie,  Ibc,  Jfcc*  So  «t  tte  taf 
beginniiig  of  the  Dedan  persectttion,  the  Roman  priesls  and  draooma  aenl  a  leas' 
u»  the  Church  of  Carthage  without  address  or  sahitation— a  letter  wbiA  thtf  wexe 
pqawbly  ashamed  mfterwaxds  to  own  as  tbdrs  ^Cypciuv  J^.  8)w 

*  Qt»tHm  aar  CaadL  Ja  TmmftjmhdU  vot  iti  p.  310  sqq. 


SH^ 


HISTORICAL    SETTING    OF   II    and    m    ST   JOHN        533 


ft, 


curious  that  nearly  all  of  them  began  in  Asia  Minor.     If  the 
foregoing'  conjectures  are  right,  one  more  item  will  be  added  to 
e  long  catalogue,  and  somewhat  earlier  than  any  of  the  others  ; 
will  be  seen  that   the  Cerinthians,  like  the   heresies  which 
cceeded  them,  started  among  the  populous  and   prosperous 
hristian  communities  of  Asia,  and  when  they  had  gained  a  party 
the  one  hand,  and  yet  had  failed  on  the  other  to  infect  the 
ain  body  of  Christians,  they  migrated  to  the  capital,  to  try 
eir  fortune  there. 

a.  'The  Elect  Lady,  whom  I  love  in  the  truth,  and  also  all 

ey  that  have  known  the  Truth.'    If  these  words  apply  to  Rome, 

hich  St  John  had  doubtless  never  visited,  they  are  a  curious 

rallel  to  the  affection  expressed  long  before  by  St  Paul  for  the 

hurch  in  the  capital,  which  he  had  never  seen :  '  I  must  also  see 

ome'  (Acts  xix  ai),  *Your  faith  is  spoken  of  in  the  whole 

orld ',  '  God  is  my  witness  .  .  .  that  without  ceasing  I  make 

commemoration  of  you  always  in  my  prayers  .  .  /  (Rom,  i  8-9), 

ere  we  have  both  the  personal  love  of  the  Apostle,  and  that  of 

e  whole  world.     Again  St  John  writes :   *  For  I  hope  that 

shall  be  with  you,  and  speak  face  to  face,  tliat yotir  joy  may  be 

'uii\     How  like  St  Paul's:    'If  by  any  means  now  at  length 

I  may  have  a  prosperous  journey  by  the  will  of  God  to  come 

unto  you ;  for  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  unto  you  some 

spiritual  grace  to  strengthen  you'  (Rom.  i  10-11);  and  again; 

'  i  hope  that  as  I  pass  I  shall  see  you  .  .  »  and  I  know  that  when 

come  to  you,  I  shall  come  in  the  abundance  of  the  blessing  of 

the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ '. 

3.  These  exact  parallels  (which  I  give  for  curiosity,  not  for 
argument)  are  remarkable  enough.  But  the  sequel  is  stranger 
stilU  St  Paul  did  indeed  see  his  desire  fulfilled.  He  went  to 
Rome,  but  in  bonds.  And  St  John,  if  we  follow  the  story  of 
Tcrtullian,  also  saw  his  wish  accomplished.  He  was  sent  for  by 
the  tyrant  Domitian,  as  the  only  surviving  disciple  of  Jesus 
Christy  and  he  too  went  on  the  desired  journey  at  the  will  of  the 
emperor.  Truly  man  proposes,  and  God  disposes.  The  '  spiritual 
gift '  and  *  abundant  blessing '  which  Paul  gave,  were  his  martyr's 
death  ;  and  that  the  joy  of  the  Romans  *  might  be  full ',  not  only 
the  Princes  of  the  Apostles,  but  also  the  beloved  Disciple,  were 
to  bear  witness  to  the  faith  before  her  rulers. 


534         'HIE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

4.  The  date  of  these  two  epistles  will  be  before  St  John's  tiial 
before  Domitian,  that  is  to  say,  not  later  than  95,  and  probably 
earlier.  The  martyrs  (if  martyrs  are  referred  to)  may  have 
been  the  earliest  martyrs  under  Domitian,  or  they  may  have 
been  unknown  martjrrs  of  an  earlier  date^  or  even  simply  those 
of  the  Neronian  persecution. 

John  Chapman. 


535 


DOCUMENTS 


THE  SYRIAN  LITURGIES  OF  THE 
PRESANCTIFIED.     III. 

EAST  SYRIAN,  OR  PERSUN. 

This  liturgy,  now  obsolete,  is  contained  in  two  manuscripts:  Add.  1988 
in  the  Cambridge  University  Library,  dated  A.  Gr.  1870  (a.  d.  1559), 
and  written  by  Isho*yabh,  metropolitan  of  Nisibis,  Mardin,  and  Armenia; 
and  Add.  7 181  in  the  British  Museum  collection,  finished  at  Gazartha 

A.  Gr.  1 88 1  (a.d.  1570),  and  not  so  fully  detailed  as  the  preceding. 
In  the  British  Museum  text,  it  is  attributed  to  'Abhdisho*,  bishop 
metropolitan  of  Elam,  or  Gandisapor,  the  writer  of  an  Exposition  of 
the  Mysteries,  under  the  catholicos  Sabhrisho*  IV  (a.  d.  1222-5):  in 
the  Cambridge  MS  the  authorship  is  assigned  to  Israel,  bishop  of 
Kashkar  (Wasit)  in  the  patriarchal  province  of  Seleucia  (+a.d.  877), 

The  rite  is  constructed  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Jacobite  Pre- 
sanctified,  from  which  the  idea  may  have  been  borrowed  by  the 
Nestorians  of  the  plains,  and  is  adapted  to  the  normal  Persian  liturgy. 
The  anaphoral  prayer,  from  the  fact  that  it  is  covered  by  the  karozutha 
(Brightman  Liturgies  Eastern  and  Western  p.  271.  19),  would  seem  to 
correspond  to  the  *  First  g^hantha '  of  the  Mass,  and  of  Baptism.  The 
absence  of  the  lections  is  customary  in  the  ferial  I^urbana  (Assemani 

B,  O,  m  [2]  p.  316). 

The  use  of  the  Persian  Presanctified  is  obscure.  The  Orthodox  and 
Jacobite  practice  is  precluded  by  the  condemnation  of  Elias  bar  Shinaya 
of  Nisibis  (v.  note  2,  p.  369).  George  of  Arbela  (fl.  a.d.  960),  in  his 
Questions  on  the  ministry  of  the  altar y  states  that  '  because  the  priests 
cannot  watch  over  the  Treasure  that  remains  to  them,  they  distribute  it 
among  the  people/  and  at  the  present  day  the  Nestorians  do  not  permit 
reservation,  in  accordance  with  Canon  XX  of  the  catholicos  John  V 
bar  Abgare  (a.d.  900) :  v.  Assemani  B.  O.  iii  (i)  p.  244.  Yet  Isho*  bar 
Non  (  +  A.  D.  826)  asserts  that  some  doctors  allow  the  Body  to  remain 
for  three  days  in  case  of  necessity  (ib.  p.  244),  and  John  himself  in 
Canon  XXIII  prescribes  the  course  to  be  followed  in  the  reservation  of 
the  mysteries  after  Mass:  if  the  Body  alone  remain,  it  is  to  be  left  upon 
the  altar  with  lights  before  it ;  if  both  species,  '  through  lack  of  one  to 


536         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


order  (i.  e.  consume)  them,  let  him,  who  is  thdr  minister,  know  that 
must  stand  upon  his  feet,  until  the  time  of  the  ordering  (liakAQJ,  U 
consumption),  whether  it  be  night  or  day.'  Barhebraeus  also  mecdom 
a  Canon  of  *  the  Persians,'  according  to  which  the  altar,  on  which  the 
kurbana  remains,  is  not  to  be  left  without  a  light  throughout  the  mgfl 
The  present  rite  would  therefore  seem  to  provide  for  the  contingencf  of 
the  Body  alone  remaining ;  for  the  consecration  of  a  new  chatice  by  Ae 
'Signing  \  rendered  necessary  by  the  previous  consumption  of  the  Blood, 
would  not  be  needed,  were  both  species  to  remain. 

There  is  some  obscurity  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  JJ^  'Treasure'. 
George  of  Arbela,  and  John  bar  Abgare  (Canon  XX)  seem  to  imply 
that  it  is  the  host  itself,  and  this  is  home  out  by  the  fact  that  the 
)j^]^^  is  also  called  U'foA  i^.^^.  Though  Isho'yabh  of  ArzoD  statei 
that  the  host  is  reserved  in  the  l^f  ll^ao,  it  would  seem  from  the 
rubric  of  the  Cambridge  text  that  11^  is  the  vessel  considered  iS 
containing  the  host,  further  on  called  ISAas,  a  word  of  some  vague- 
ness, but  usually,  at  least  among  the  Jacobites,  a  synonym  of  *pat«j^' 
i,  e.  a  flat  dish,  turned  up  at  the  sides.  The  precise  meaning  is  furth«r 
obscured  by  the  use  in  the  title  of  the  *  Signing'  (p.  539,  h*ne  i)  of 
UihDo/,  which  normally  implies  equivalence. 

A  difficulty  also  arises  in  the  rubric  *when  the  Treasure  remains 
in  the  night,  in  which  the  Holy  Thing  is  baked'.  The  'Signing  of  the 
Chalice'  would  seem  superfluous,  for  the  baking  of  the  bread  imme- 
diately precedes  the  celebration  of  Mass,  at  which  the  elements, 
remaining  over  from  the  previous  day  could  be  consumed  :  and  the  use 
of  such  a  liturgy  on  the  same  day  as  the  offering  of  the  Kurbana,  even 
by  a  different  priest,  is  alien  to  the  genius  of  the  modern  Nestorian 
rite.  Perhaps,  if  careless  composition  on  the  part  of  the  wTiter  be 
admitted,  the  rubric  may  be  translated  *when  the  Treasure  is  super- 
abundant on  a  night  in  which  the  Holy  Thing  is  baked  ',  i.  e.  when  too 
many  loaves  have  been  prepared  at  the  baking.  The  parallel  sentence 
in  the  next  rubric  seems  to  be  against  this  rendering,  and  in  the  abseiKC 
of  any  certain  information,  the  natural  meaning  of  the  Syriac  has  been 
given  in  the  translation. 

The  '  true  bukhre»  or  p^risatha '  are  the  consecrated  hosts,  as  opposed 
to  the  unconsecrated  loaves,  used  as  eulogiae. 

According  to  the  directions  at  the  end  of  the  Cambridge  text,  the 
catholicos  Ishoyabh  (IH, +  a,d.  660)  permits  the  deacon  in  cases  of 
necessity  to  'sign  the  chalice'  in  the  absence  of  the  priest  {cL/aumal 
of  Theological  Studies  vol.  iv  p,  70,  Oct.  1902),  In  the  formula  given 
the  consignation  is  with  *  the  propitiatory  coal,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  tlie  resi\  differing  from  that  in  the  texts. 
At  the  end,  the  deacon  is  to  give  communion  to  the  people. 


DOCUMENTS  537 

The  second  'Signing',  by  means  of  the  consectated  chalice,  given 
below,  was  provided  for  occasions,  on  which  the  size  of  the  congre- 
gation called  for  the  hallowing  of  a  fresh  chalice.  The  hitherto 
unexplained  direction  before  the  proem  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the 
Takhsa:  juk,^  [^iot  ^•m,fR»  )l?  \mo  %^l  ^o  'and  if  there  be  chalices 
which  they  are  not  hallowing,  he  signs  them  here'  (Brightman  Zt'tt. 
JS,  6*  W,  p.  295)  may  possibly  refer  to  this  ceremony. 

A  '  signing '  is  also  prescribed  in  cases  where  the  chalice  has  been 
'polluted'  during  communion  by  the  touch  of  a  woman,  the  priest 
being  directed  to  sign  it  with  a  consecrated  particle,  before  carrying  it 
back  to  the  altar,  saying :  '  This  chalice  is  signed  with  the  holy  Body, 
in  the  name,'  &c.  (Denzinger  jRif,  Orient  i  p.  85).  '  Signings '  are  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Persian  rite,  being  employed,  among  other 
occasions,  at  the  *  Renovation  of  the  holy  leaven '. 

The  text  is  that  of  the  Gimbridge  MS,  the  chief- variations  in  that 
of  the  British  Museum  collection  being  added  in  foot-notes.  The 
numbers  in  the  translation  refer  to  the  Persian  liturgy  in  Liturgies 
Eastern  and  Western,  The  brackets  in  the  anaphoral  prayer  indicate 
passages  obliterated  in  Add.  7 181. 

H.  W.  CODRINGTON. 


i 


538         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

L 

j.,^^^  ]U^  ^jLif  bo  ^t  ojo*  .llj^y  V-po/  pnay  Ua4»>o»f  Uaaj' 
^4aaI  :|^of  .a^^^  "V^i.^^  «#s.:fi^   m^^y^?   4  Lai o^  o«^  lalUs! 


<PROTHESIS) 


lo^i. 


O^fip 


lo  «;4:^< 


•^O     f»  I    I   M  > 


Ow 


^rfhJOf  y*^^*^ 


k>.< 


*r 


^^^^ 


(enarxis) 


liJ^lo    «#;.2D    ^Ukl    *Jl^o 

^^^.a&^ff  LdojLd  «^/  )oi>k/  1*^^  ]pu»l  )jA£od' 
<MASS   OF  THE  CATECHUMENS) 


{the  prayers) 


♦  B     Jfir    "^.^0    Ur^O     .aJ.»    Ui.^     0/    ,  j    ymf     ti\\^,»f    1^^*.^^.^     ^ 


sm 


DOCUMENTS  539 

I. 

*  The  order  of  the  Signing  of  the  Chalice,  or  of  the  Treasure,  that  is, 
when  the  Treasure  remains  in  the  night,  in  which  the  Holy  Thing  is 
baked ;  ordered  by  mar  Israel  the  sharp  of  wit,  bishop  of  Kashkar. 

Jnrsty  it  is  not  right  that  the  Treasure  should  stay  the  nighty  except 
from  necessity:  and  when  it  happens  to  stay  the  nighty  let  there  not  be 

therein  anything  that  is  ^kneaded  at  all^  except  the  true  bukhre^  or 
p*risatha  ;  {but  let  not  the  chalice  stay  the  night  in  any  way)  a  light  not 

departing  from  before  it, 

(PROTHESIS) 

And  in  the  mornings  the  presbyter  goes  up,  and  the  deacon^  and  orders 
the  altar  according  to  custom^  and  brings  forth  the  vessel  in  which  is  the 
Holy  Thingy  and  arranges  the  bukhre  in  the  paten,  and  sets  it  on  the 
altar ,  and  covers  it  with  the  veil,  saying: 

Pardon  our  offences  by  thy  grace,  and  blot  them  out ;  make  our  short- 
comings to  pass  away  in  the  copious  abundance  of  thy  mercifulness, 
pardoning  all  by  the  grace  and  mercies  of  Christ  the  hope  of  our  nature 
for  ever. 

and  the  deacon  answers:  Amen. 

and  he  mixes  the  chalice  according  to  custom,  and  the  deacon  holds  it  in 
his  hands, 

(enarxis) 

*  And  he  stands  towards  the  altar; 

and  they  begin :  Our  Father,  who  art  in  heaven  (252.  14). 
and  he  prays:  *  Glory,  O  my  Lord,  and  honour. 
*and he  begins:  Have  mercy  on  me,  O  God,  after  [Fs,  51].     By  the 
hyssop  of  thy  mercies,  [may  our  stains  be  made  white,  O  merciful  one.] 
and  then:  Thee,  Lord  of  all  (254.  28). 

(MASS  OF  THE  CATECHUMENS) 
and,  Holy  (255.  17). 

(the  prayers) 
^and  both  Karozwatha  (262.  4 :  263.  20). 

1  Again  another  Signing,  when  the  chalice  is  lacking .  .  .  that  they  sign  the 
unconsecrated  chalice  with  ...  by  mar  'Abhdisho',  bishop  of  Elam. 
'  or^  ministered. 

*  Add.  718 1  here  begins.    First ^  the  pritst  offtrs  a  gtnufltction  befon  tht  altar, 

*  The  adorable  and  glorious  (253,  note). 

*  Marmitha.  Have  mercy  on  me  after  thy  great  goodness,  or  Lord,  who  [Ps,  51] ; 
and k* prays:  And  for  all  (354.  note). 

*  and  thi  karoxutha  Father  of  mercies,  and  its  companion. 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 
(incunation) 


<id«ikf  oLst/   li^^tfiA^e  iJcU 


(THE  MASS   OF  THE   FAITHFIJL> 

(OFFERTORV) 


(the  anaphora) 


]La^^  Is^ULo  lulo  ♦  ^*.Ir>f  ^J^l  U^oo  f «^  Lf 


Oftd     ^-^P' 


e^jsA^to  aA.^Uo  .y^*><^'c  ^^^  I^^A^o  Hjq^NS    .^o^*  ^^  *Uol^ 

Km  4>to  .|oi>^?  to-iv^o  ■  \   «^|l/  lU^^o  A\**f  oo»  .]l»^  |l^W!! 

lUrOiO   Ij^oi    .^J^f    ^    b^r   'i^'^-'    IW^c^   Ln  ..^Sf    Luk^tf    .^lo«i^/ 
[^7  loooo^]'  .bo*  luj^bo   ILx^ls^^    [^^-^  '^-*^]    ^    'T'^X^ 

*it»»r\\m    loll  M^Z«|k30  .^m^AJO   yo^4ft;o  ^I^  l?^o   .^  ^to  }oAt  y>9 

^iNi">o  U.e*   .WfOAf  |Le;^B 

deest.  * 
.■ti>*^  «#4^a0  ^^doio  tJp}e  moi  y^r  .^  |o»^r  Ui^o  n^  Opoo  * 

7  i*^^  f  lofr^o  |l4^^i»   wijo  Lbb« 
Add  7181  adds:  oii.j  * 

^)j**J     jfdt    |fioo»^  IjLo    «iAO    tw'^yV^    ««A    UiOd    |L/«*d    tt(ttd    * 

Add.  7181  omits.  ^  Add.  71S1  adds:   >*-^j^^^y  * 


DOCUMENTS  541 

(inclination) 

^and  the  deacon  says:  Bow  down  your  heads  (266.  36). 
■  and  he  prays  according  to  the  Tahhsa  (267.  3.  16). 

<THE  MASS  OF  THE  FAITHFUL) 
(offertory) 

^And  they  say  the  Anthem  of  the  Mysteries: 

The  Body  of  Christ  and  his  precious  Blood  (267.  33).  Glory.  O  holy 
one,  whose  [will  is  rested]  in  the  saints,  [pardon,  O  my  Lord,  the  short- 
comings and  sins  of  thy  servants.] 

and  then  he  sets  the  chalice  on  the  altar  under  the  veil  (267.  29). 

(the  anaphora) 

And  the  deacon  says :  Let  us  '  And  the  priest  worships  hefore 
pray.  Peace  be  with  us^  (271. 19).     the  altar  thru  times:  and  he  repeats 

quietly  this  prayer: 

After  thy  commandment,  O  our  Lord  Jesus  Christy  who  hast  bidden 
us  by  thine  holy  apostles  to  make  with  bread  and  wine  memorial  of 
thy  dispensation  towards  us,  and  commemoration  of  thy  worshipful 
death  and  of  thy  glorious  resurrection,  we  also  thy  wretched  and  weak 
and  miserable  servants^  before  thy  majesty  offer  bread  and  wine  on 
thine  altar,  and  they  have  been  hallowed  and  completed  and  perfected 
by  the  brooding  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  bread  by  his  working  has 
become  thy  ^  living  ^  Body,  which  was  given  for  the  life  of  the  world,  and 
the  wine  by  his  operation  thy  Blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  was 
shed  for  many  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins :  now  also,  O  Lord,  we  sign 
this  chalice  with  thy  Body,  the  fount  of  life,  beseeching  thy  Godhead, 
'  O  my  Lord^  that  as  by  the  wound  of  the  spear  blood  came  forth  from 
thy  side,  so  also  now  by  ^thy*  will  may  this  mixture  be  perfected  by 
the  might  of  thy  Body,  so  as  to  become  thy  propitiatory  Blood,  that  we 
may  hve  ^  by  the  eating  of  thy  Body  and  be  pardoned  ^  by  the  drinking 
of  thy  Blood,  and  be  in  thee  and  thou  in  us,  and  that  we  may  give 
thanks  to  thee,  and  worship  and  glorify  ^  thee  and  ^  through  thee  the 

^  deest 

*  and  he  prays:  O  Lord  God  of  hosts,  thine  is  (367.  3):  and  he  aaya:  And  grant 
unto  us,  O  my  Lord,  in  thy  compassion  (267.  16). 

'  Anthem,  Holy  and  terrible  is  [his  name].  And  there  is  no  end  [of  his  great- 
ness]. O  holy  one,  whose  will  is  rested  in  the  saints,  pardon,  O  my  Lord,  the 
shortcomings  and  sins  of  thy  servants.  ^  Add.  7181  adds  :  '  Pray  ye '. 

*  And  the  pritst  offers  a  genuflection  hefore  the  aitar,  and  rises,  and  repeats  this 
f^hantha  quietly. 

*  Add.  7181  adds :  '  who  offer  \  '  Add.  7x81  omits. 


542 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 
(fraction  and  consignation) 


>;JMD     »rt»«d»0 


•  ^   l^jj).^    i^2C(    V    fO    *U^M^   )i^^^^    «^£ajO   ^f*(    ^^»    ^fr^ao^ 

tJpto  U.^a*y  o(f-l>t  Is^A^  ^^^^"^   P^»o 

«ft>fc     P/     «^)     It-*     O'0»     pAA^I     li^f   ^^4.^      .)i^   "^J^     p«,^     Dd* 

Mp/  «D  .I^ol^^^A  o**«iaf   l^oa^ 


laoMf    UflPOw^    ^ooeu    ,^«*Bft  v>\n  a  !...(»■»      i^-^y    ei^ofo    ^j^^ 
.ll/  ^.Qb^fO    ^If   r<i*#..>V>y   ]b«.&^.J3   oilp^o    ^    •)ci»^f  Ua^o^o 


Add.  7 1 81  omits. 


)i»i>"»p^S     *AMjO    ^>l>f    h^i    *^^D^    ^ 


»^^^}     .^ODX:^     y  ^^^^ 


^*^Df  J^-Ad   e»:ATO  |L»   01^^   * 


DOCUMENTS  543 

Father j  who  sent  thee,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  now  and  at  all  times: 
and  he  lifts  up  his  voice :  for  ever  and  ever. 
and  the  deacon  answers:  Amen. 

(fraction  and  consignation) 

^And  then  he  lifts  the  veily  and  worships  before  the  altar  three  times^ 
and  hisses  the  right  and  the  left  and  the  midst,  saying  at  (each)  worshipping, 
quietly:  (289.  37) 

*  We  worship,  O  my  Lord,  thine  undivided  Godhead  and  humanity. 

'  and  then  he  stretches  forth  his  hand  and  takes  the  uppermost  bukhra, 
but  he  does  not  say:  The  mercifulness  of  thy  grace  (289.  30):  but  at 
once  says: 

Glory  to  thine  holy  name,  O  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  adoration 
to  thy  sovereignty.  For  thou  art  the  living  and  lifegiving  bread,  that 
came  down  from  heaven  and  gave  life  to  the  whole  world :  and  they 
that  eat  of  it  die  not,  and  they  that  receive  it  are  saved  and  live  and 
are  pardoned  for  ever. 

and  he  proceeds:  Glory  to  thee,  O  my  Lord :  gloiy  to  thee,  O  my 
Lord :  glory  to  thee,  O  my  Lord,  for  thine  unspeakable  gift  towards  us 
for  ever.    Amen  (290.  19b). 

and  he  does  not  say :  We  draw  nigh,  and  the  rest  (290.  25  b),  but  at 
the  same  time,  at  the  word  *  Amen  *,  he  breaks  the  bukhra,  there  being  no 
invocation  of  the  Trinity. 

and  he  signs  the  chalice  with  the  half  that  is  in  his  right  hand, 
and  says: 

This  chalice  is  signed  with  the  lifegiving  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  ever. 

and  they  answer:  Amen. 

'  and  he  does  not  sign  on  the  Body,  because  the  Body  has  been  signed 
once\  but  he  puts  the  bukhra  that  is  in  his  hand  on  the  table  ^,  saying: 

*  The  Body  and  the  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  give  us  life 
be  for  the  pardon  of  offences  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  to  us  and  to 
the  holy  Church  of  Christ  here  and  in  every  place  now  and  at  all 
times  ^ 

*  And  hi  worships  thru  times ,  and  kissts  ths  altar, 
«  Add.  7181  omits. 

*  And  then  hi  takis  thi  bubhra  in  his  hand^  though  hi  dois  not  say:  The  merciful- 
ness of  thy  grace,  but  hi  says :  Glory  to  thine  holy  name,  O  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
at  all  times  for  ever.    Amen. 

*  i.  e.  at  the  previous  mass.  '  i.  e.  paten. 

*  The  Living  Body  and  the  precious  Blood,  &c. 

'  And  hi  signs  on  thi  chaha,  and  thiy  answir,  Amen. 


544         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAJL    STUDIES 

(the  blessikg) 

<THE   LORD*S   PRAVER) 

'  l^^\*«»a     ^^^^    ^^^^30    }«AJO« 

(elevation,  communion,  and  thanksgiving) 


IL 


4  IdiA-*^  1**;^^  ^GMk^    V«^^f  o«lr>S*j{    *poi^  i^oiCiV.V    i^^  i^^o.^ 
h^myv  U>!o  )i^!  U-ho  )»*?  ^^>-^  ^^  Uo»^?  JL^     .a^o 

.U&d  "V^  ^lo  » 

.|^i  P*cgL3f  ) 1  ^Usk» 

,a«  0*^6  fJAd  ^^.Xf  }.a&«^ol  p^  \m^  ^^^!  |.^*.o>  oJoiO  ^ 


DOCUMENTS  545 

(the  blessing) 
and  he  worships  and  proceeds:  The  grace  of  our  Lord*  (293.  17). 

(the  lord*s  prayer) 
And  the  deacon  proclaims  :  Let  us  all  with  awe*  (293.  27). 

(elevation,  communion,  and  thanksgiving) 

^  And  he  completes  everything  from  here^  and  beyond^  as  is  set  forth  in 
the  mysteries. 

IL 

*  The  Signing  upon  the  Chalice  on  a  day  of  want,  before  it  goes  up 
to  the  altar. 

First,  the  priest  says  over  it:  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  a/i^/ 
the  rest;  and  he  signs  upon  it. 

And  he  proceeds:  May  the  divine  might,  which  hath  come  down  upon 
the  holy  mysteries  of  the  propitiatory  Body  and  Blood,  and  hath  blessed 
them,  and  hallowed  them,  come  down  upon  this  mixture,  and  make 
it  the  communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  \  in  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  the  rest. 

And  he  signs  upon  it :  and  then  he  brings  it  near  towards  the  altar, 
and  signs  it  with  the  consecrated  chalice,  and  says: 

This  mixture  is  signed  and  hallowed  and  joined  with  the  propitiatory 
Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the 
rest, 

and  afterwards  he  sets  it  on  the  altar,  and  gives  it  to  the  deacon,  who 
gives  the  people  to  drink  *. 

It  is  ended,  and  to  our  Lord  be  glory.     Amen. 

^  and  hi  signs  on  tht  chalict, 

*  And  thin  :  And  account  us  worthy,  O  our  Lord  (295.  35). 

*  jind  thin  :  The  holy  thing  to  the  holy  is  fitting  in  perfectioo. 
tuid  thty  ansunr:  One  holy  Father,  one,  and  thi  nsi. 

Ended  is  the  Signing  over  the  Chalice  :  and  to  God  be  glory  for  ever.    Amen. 

*  [Again]  we  write  the  Signing  upon  the  Chalice,  before  it  goes  up  to  the  altar, 
■when  it  b  wanting?  [on  a  day]  of  a  great  congregation. 

*  And  this  is  the  Signing  upon  the  Chalice.  Ended  is  the  Signing  upon  the 
Chalice  ;  and  to  Jah  be  glory. 


VOL.  V.  N  n 


546         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


A  HOMILY  OF  ST  EPHREM. 

The  MS  in  which  the  following  Homily  is  found  is  in  the  Uhnry 
of  the  India  Office  {Ethiop,  and  Syr.,  No.  9).  Prof.  Wright,  who  ca- 
mined  it  in  1886,  describes  it  as  follows  :  *  Paper,  about  8|  inches  by  6J; 
444  leaves,  2  columns,  20  to  29  lines.  Leaves  are  wanting  at  the  beginning 
and  end,  as  well  as  after  ff.  40  (eleven)  and  49  (ten).  The  qoiie 
are  of  6,  8,  10,  12,  14,  and  16  leaves,  though  10  predominates;  they 
are  signed  with  letters.  This  volume  is  written  by  two  hands,  in  good, 
regular  Nestorian  characters,  from  the  year  1698  to  the  year  1713  ajl^ 
(A,  G.  2024). 

For  a  further  description  reference  may  be  made  to  G.  Hoffinuui'^ 
Opuscula  Nestoriana  p.  iii. 

Amongst  the  contents  of  the  MS  arc  : — 

The  Arabic  and  Syriac  Lexicon  of  Etias  bar  Shenaza,  Bishop  d 
Nisibis :  cf.  Lagarde,  Praetermissorum  Libri  Duo;  an  explanation  of 
difficult  words,  Syrian  and  Greek,  in  the  Saghdirian^  by  Gabriel  KamsCi 
Metropolitan  of  Mosul  (cf.  Assem.  B.  O,  (iii  i  p.  566);  Universal  Canos, 
by  John  bar  Zobi  (Assem.  B.  O.  iii  1  307) ;  Bar-Hebraeus,  r^isii^ 
r^A&cuao  .icUQo:t  (cf.  Hoffman's  AustUge  p.  231  note  1897,  and  Ass. 
B,  O.  i\  269  note  i) ;  John  bar  Zobi,  discourse  in  seven-syllable  metre 
on  four  philosophical  problems;  Isho'-bokht,  Metropolitan  of  Rcii- 
Ardashir  (cf,  N5ldeke  Gisch,  d,  Ferser  und  Araber  p,  19),  on  Ten 
Categories  (not  mentioned  by  Assemani  in  B.  O.  iii  i  pp.  194*5) » 
writings  of  David  bar  Paul  of  Beth  Rabban  (Assem.  B.  O,  ii  J4j\ 
cf.  Duval  La  Liticrature  Syriaque  pp.  380,  406) ;  selections  from  the 
Capita  Scientiae  of  Evagrius,  with  the  commentary  of  Rabban-aphni- 
Maran  (Assem.  B.  0,i\\  i  187) ;  dialogue  between  Joseph  Hazzayaand 
disciple  ;  the  book  of  amusing  and  facetious  stories  of  Bar- Hebraetis,  the 
subscription  to  which  gives  the  date  sap^i^  ;  extract  from  the  work  d 
Mar  Abhd-Isho\  Bishop  of  Nisibis,  entitled  '  Ordinatio  iudiciorum  et 
legum  ecclesiasticarum '  (Assem.  B.  O.  iii   i   360). 

It  was  from  this  MS  that  G.  Hoffmann  published  (i)  The  Canons 
of  Rabban  Honain  and  Rabban  'Anan-Isho',  (2)  Expositions  of  difficult 
words  in  ihs  Old  and  New  Testaments,  in  his  Opuscula  Ntsioriana, 


The  Homily  or  Hymn  is  of  interest  as  professing  to  deal  with  the 
opinions  of  the  mysterious  and  interesting  person  Bardaisin.  But 
it  will  been  seen  that  it  does  not  add  much  to  our  knowledge  of  what 
BardaisSn  actually  taught.     The  quanel  which  the  author  picks  with 


DOCUMENTS 


547 


le  famous  thinker  is  over  the  use  of  the  word  r^U^r^.    The  former 
rould  restrict  the  name  to  the  One  Deity,  while  his  opponent  appar- 
ently does  not  shrmk  from  employing  the  word  to  designate  created 
things,  e.  g.  fire. 

As  to  the  authorship  of  the  homily  an  objection  to  its  ascription 
Ephrem  might  be  raised  on  the  score  of  the  metre.  Ephrem  does 
lot  seem  to  have  commonly  used  the  twelve-syllable  verse.  Indeed 
was  supposed  that  it  was  invented  by  Jacob  of  SarQg  (Assem.  B,  O, 
li  I  p.  3,  and  Cod  Vat.  389).  Assemani,  however,  seems  to  think  that 
is  metre,  together  with  those  of  five  and  seven  syllables,  goes  back 
Bardaisan  or  Harmonius  (B.  O.  i  61).  And  even  if  the  evidence 
>r  this  opinion  is  slender,  we  certainly  have  occasional  twelve-syllable 
ics  in  Ephrem  (cf  Lamy  Hymni  et  Sermotus  vol.  iii  p.  13),  so  that 
authorship  of  Ephrem  need  not  be  precluded  by  the  metre  which 
used. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  general  style  and  contents  of  the  Homily 
ipport  the  ascription  of  the  MS* 

It  is  from  Ephrem  that  we  derive  most  of  our  knowledge  of  Bardaisan, 

Hilgenfeld*  says  *so  ist  und  bleibt  die  Hauptquelle  Ephrem'.    And 

is  in  the  works  of  Ephrem  that  we  find  the  closest  parallel  to  the 

objections  raised  against  the  heretic  in  this  hymn.    Thus  he  writes 

h  Syr.  et  Lai.  Rom,  vol.  ii  p.  443  D)  :— 

f^    ^axXr^   ^iAin    P^.VJtCi    ....    _-^>Ti-3    ii-T^ 

[Bardaisan  asserted  and  affirmed  that  two  Gods  could  not  possibly 
.  And  if  not  (two)  Gods,  then  there  are  not  (two)  Ithye.  .  .  .  They 
:t  four  Ithye  according  to  the  four  quarters,  one  they  set  in  the  deep,, 
(Other  in  the  height,  &c.] 

And    again   (p.   444),  *  Marcion  and   Bardaisan   falsely   assert   the 
blasphemy  that  the  Creator  is  not  One  *, 


Op. 


.1  ,ci9ci:wi,w 


(For  Ephrem's  use  of  r<»iuf<  cf.  p.  554  c.)  And  elsewhere  {p.  532) 
a  heretic  is  referred  to  as  recognizing  as  i^^'fX^  air,  fire,  water 
Hahn  and  Hilgenfeld  suppose  this  to  be  Bardaisin. 

It  is  noticeable  too  that  the  author  devotes  much  more  space  to  the 


^  Bavd§5ants  dtr  UUU gHOstiktr  {^t\^^\%^  l%^4^  p.  39. 
N  n  2 


548         THE   JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGlCAl-    STUDIES 

exposition  of  the  right  belief  than  to  the  examination  of  the  erro< 
of  his  opponent.  This  is  quite  in  Ephrem*s  manner ;  so  the  very  (u 
that  we  learn  so  little  about  Bardaisan  is  some  evidence  that  th 
ascription  of  the  homily  to  Ephrem  is  not  incorrect. 

The  general  style  of  the  attack  and  the  treatment  of  the  particnli 
case  accordingly  both  point  in  the  same  direction,  supporting  ik 
authorship  of  Ephrem. 


>^    ^an^    \-iDr\\   >i^i^r^  »i2a.*t  r^i^^r^jsn   ^oh\ 

.  r^%i>   GvA   OcciO   .^.14   crA   ccni   r^AuK'  om   S*» 
•cQ-^ozl   rcUiLSOi.   ^Vm   oii^oo   f^iz.  ocno   ccdO 

•^  ftCDO&Uf^'   tn^V**-"^    CflXiS^l    OJCD    r^^r^ 

.^  r^^%3   A^   013   ^.i   3^  r^^oi   i-^^aA 
:  «^CQj^e»i   A^^   r^lioii   r^X^   ^>a>Qn    wf^ 

*10j^|A  ot  ^.s«   ^iiftif^.i  A^  r^oia    ii^aA 

.^AliV.t  1&  A&  KldCuA   K '"'  ^^  crA  ^A.^W.1   v^f^ 


DOCUMENTS 


549 


v^cri^o.l   \s\   r^t^f^  ^r^    ^.\r^  ^CD 


tCPO^&OCIS 


1^3  K!iaA   r<lsi  ciA   m^< 


"^" 


f^O 


<•  yCiPCUl  VAflP 


Aa=3  TiU\    r^VuO   rc'cralr^   t^'cA 


»CI3    «CiGO^OAt,l 


-Sq   r^zJ<<'   i<:^4f<'  ^J33 


.^ 


f<l  fc.V3 


1<lCI3CUO    f<i^3    r<^Tft1     f<li 


i^.t 


^' 


id^i<   cra^sa^n   jsv^    %-^r^    r^^ 


coz.^ 


ra 


oA 


OOP    AtOl.T 


f^x^V^a   TJr^   r<la^   ^   f<i< 


.ajL^ 


rdieul  rdLsto 


^V.\A».l 


icial^  f<u'i   r^cisi 


ria   Ar^ 


vyCl^ic*   ^ 


.  3|1m    f^ 


*^^ 


"\" 


^VM^  -^r^  r^mcu^  oco  .^1.^0 


v^our^    ^^^r<.i   T^^^a   %^3    %^^   ^^^ 


013   Oco 


.i%& 


^^ 


IsT   A&   cra^.so   f^fti^   f^i 


^ 


lAl! 


^HAirC"  A^\   f^t\^\   f^oco   oco   )o,ifi.i   vyf^ 


iOIa. 


ii«  r£l 


^ 


X&l 


\  ,< 


>i.-|n    1^^   f<iW 


<Xfia\ 


.1    r^lTAM 


^»i: 


^^ 


CO 


f<tl 


q3diiT»»*w 


pd^:W  f^-^a.u   ^ 


03 


r^^spoz-o^  v^c^i^   ic^   v^i^ 


T 


V^L^ 


co^cu^X^ol 


Ul    «CI3 


1^  i^ 


o^re* 


v>« 


a  1*1    r^UtOI 


^tJL^nd 


,1  rdJE^i 


,PAtfi 


^  So  MS  points.     MS  has  ^  of  m^vas^ASn  in  red*     The  omission  of  ^ 
would  make  the  scansion  right. 


550         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


•  CD^o^r^  A^   ^{i   fjR"  f^:i  f^^f^ 

<•  ^.%sn  r<\   ^   ^rt^i   .1^   ^^nfo   r^ia.i   cues 
.  o^  K'Ju'tai   lUi   f^tciaai   f^ocru.i  f^cnar^   i^ioK^ 

<*  y^^sn  f^   ^^a  ij.^K'   «jioui  r^lAAJi   o.ia* 

,  T<.:^ir<ts   f^'-fCa    r^i^^   oi^iul    ^.SqCU   ^r^    r^oo 

•:■  T<^\g,boi>  ."Ufa  r<A^ii^  *fCi3  ^&^aeu   A^  f^cs^ 

.^  fti«»:ia   r^iOl   f^L^i   r^^  ^*i  T<dei^,i   f^^i%i3 

.^  f^i3   f<be^   r<lci  f<jb^Q€i   T^ioj  *^f^  T^*4i*r^  ^j^ 
•:-  ^,,000*1^ w  com  ^it\  i<Vkr^  i<^tf^  ^aoo 


I 


^^g  cial  v^:i^  Kl^e  ^  Akli^  r^3^ 


« 


.jL^-iuii   r^.^   racial f^   r^Q   cnw^l   f<^.T 


V^r 


^-^.lisi 


DOCUMENTS 


551 


Translation, 


Again,  a  hymn  of  Mar  Ephrem  against  Bardaisan. 
There  is  One  Being,  who  knows  Himself  and  sees  Himself.     And 
[e  dwells  in  Himself,  and  from  Himself  sets  forth.     Glory  to  His 
lame.     This  is  a  Being  who  by  His  own  will  is  in  every  place,  who 
invisible  and  visible,  manifest  and  secret.     He  is  above  and  below. 
Mingling  and  condescending  by  His  grace  among  the  lower  (beings) ; 
jftier  and  more  exalted,  as  befits  His  glory,  than  the  higher.     The 
'ift  cannot  exceed  his  swiftness,  nor  the  slow  outlast  his  patience. 
He  is  before  all  and  after  all,  and  in  the  midst  of  all.     He  is  like  the 
ja,  in  that  all  creation  moves  in  Him,     As  the  water  besets  the  fish 
all  their  movements,   so  also  does   God  beset  all   created  things, 
id  as  the  water  is  clad  with  the  fish  at  every  moment,  (so)  the  Creator 
clad  with  everything  which  is  made,  both  great  and  small.     And 
the  fish  are  hidden  in  the  water,  (so)  there  is  hidden  in  God  height 
id  depth,  far  and  near,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof.     And  as  the 
iter  meets  the  fish  everywhere  it  goes,  so  God  meets  every  one  who 
ilks.     And  as  the  water  touches  the  fish  at  every  turn  it  makes, 
[so)  God  accompanies  and  sees  every  man  in  all  his  deeds. 

Men  cannot  move  from  earth  which  is  their  chariot,  neither  does 

ly  one  go  far  from  the  Just  One  who  is  his  associate.    The  Good  One 

united   to  all   His  possessions,  which  are  everywhere,  as  the  soul 

united  to  the  body,  and  light  to  the  eyes.     A  man  is  not  able  to 

lee  from  his  soul,  for  it  is  with  him.     Nor  is  a  man  hid  from  the 

Good,  for  He  besets  bira.    As  the  water  surrounds  the  fish,  and  it 

feels  it,  so  also  do  all  natures  feel  God. 

He  is  diffused  through  the  air,  and  with  thy  breath  enters  into  thy 
midst.  He  is  mingled  with  the  light,  and  enters,  when  thou  seest,  into 
thine  eyes.  He  is  mingled  with  thy  spirit,  and  examines  thee  from 
within,  as  to  what  thou  art  In  thy  soul  He  dwells,  and  nothing  which 
is  in  thy  heart  is  hid  from  Him.  As  the  mind  precedes  the  body  in 
every  place,  so  He  examines  thy  soul  before  thou  dost  examine  it. 
And  as  the  thought  greatly  precedes  the  deed,  so  His  thought  knows 
beforehand  what  thou  wilt  plan.  Compared  with  His  impalpability 
thy  sou!  is  body  and  thy  spirit  flesh.  Soul  of  thy  soul,  spirit  of  thy 
spirit,  is  He  who  created  thee,  far  from  all,  and  mingled  with  all,  and 
manifest  above  all,  a  great  wonder  and  a  hidden  marvel  unfathomable. 
He  is  the  Being  concerning  whose  essence  no  man  is  able  to  explain. 
This  is  the  Power  whose  depth  is  inexpressible.  Among  things  seen 
and  among  things  hidden  there  is  none  to  be  compared  to  Him,  This 
is  He  who   created  and  formed   from   nothing   everything  which  is. 


552         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

God  said,  *  Let  there  be  light ! '  Lo !  it  is  created  *.  He  made  < 
ness,  and  it  became  night.  Observe!  It  is  made*.  Fire  in  su 
water  in  rocks,  The  Being  created  them.  There  is  one  Power 
raised  them  from  nothing.  Behold,  even  to-day,  fire  is  not  in  a  s 
house  in  the  earth.  For  lo!  it  is  continually  created  by  meat 
flints.  It  is  the  Being  who  ordains  its  existence  by  means  of 
who  holds  it.  When  He  wishes  He  lights  it,  when  He  wishes 
quenches  it  by  way  of  appeal  against  the  obstinate.  In  a  great  { 
by  the  rubbing  of  a  stick  fire  is  kindled.  The  flame  devours,  it  g 
strong,  at  last  sinks  down.  If  fire  and  water  are  Beings  and 
creatures,  then  before  the  earth  (was),  where  were  their  roots 
Whoso  would  destroy  his  life,  opens  his  mouth  to  speak  concei 
everything.  Whoso  hateth  himself,  and  would  not  circumscribe 
holds  it  great  impiety  that  one  should  think  himself  overwise. 
if  he  thinks  he  has  said  the  last  thing  he  has  reached  heathei 
Oh,  Bardais^n,  whose  mind  is  liquid  like  his  name ! 

A.  S.  Duncan  Joni 

*  Lit  U  created  thing*.  *  Lit  <a  made  thing*. 


INSCRIPTIONS    FROM    SHENOUTE'S    MONASTE 

The  following  texts — only,  I  am  told,  a  small  part  of  the  nu 
still  unstudied— were  copied  during  the  past  spring  by  Canon  \ 
Oldfield  on  two  visits  to  the  White  Monastery '.  As  Canon  Ok 
disclaims  any  knowledge  of  Coptic,  the  accuracy  of  his  copies  is 
remarkable,  especially  considering  the  dirty  condition  of  the  inscrip 
and  the  bad  light  in  which  some  of  them  stand. 

The  inscriptions  may  be  described  in  two  groups  :  (A)  those  ; 
beside  the  five  niches  of  the  north  apse  of  the  church  *,  and  upon 
of  the  small  walls  between  this  and  the  central  apse,  and  upor 
domed  roof  of  that  apse ;  (B)  those  in  the  small  room  to  the  noi 
the  central  apse ',  entered  from  the  north  apse  by  a  narrow  pas 
and  called  by  Canon  Oldfield  *  the  Secret  Chamber '.  I  here  nu 
the  five  niches  a  to  c,  counting  from  the  most  eastern.  The  inscrip 
here  are  upon  either  the  plastered  facing  of  the  interior  of  the  i 
or  on  the  intervening  brickwork.     They  are  written  partly  in  I 

*  The  best  published  account  and  plan  of  the  building :  W.  de  Bock  Mai 
pour  atrvir  a  i'archioiogii  8cc.  (1901)  39  ff ;  also,  Gayet  L'Atrt  Coptg  14a. 
Shenoute,  v.  Leipoldt's  book  {cf.  this  Journal  v  139). 

>  Ih  in  De  B.'s  plan.  Mk  in  De  B.*s  plan. 


DOCUMENTS  553 

partly  in  red ;  some  apparently  with  a  reed  pen,  others  with  a  brush. 
Where  the  plaster  has  been  chipped  ofif  there  are  signs  of  earlier 
lettering.  It  is  much  to  be  hoped  that  the  government  commission 
charged  with  the  restoration  of  the  Christian  buildings  in  Egypt,  will 
find  means  to  examine  and  record  these  texts,  which  may  well  be  of 
importance  for  the  history  of  the  monastery.  (One  of  these  earlier 
inscriptions  appears  below  as  A  11.) 

Several  of  those  in  group  A  are  dated,  actually  or  by  implication,  in 
the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.  As  I  have  no  palaeographical 
evidence,  I  can  merely  hazard  the  conjecture  that  the  remainder  are  of 
the  same  period.  From  these  dated  texts  we  learn  that  the  frescoes 
in  the  domes  of  the  three  apses — for  all  are,  apparently,  of  one  style  * 
— were  executed  at  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  that 
certain  structural  restorations  were  carried  out  about  the  middle  of  the 
thirteenth,  though  what  exactly  the  latter  were  it  is  not  easy  now  to 
determine  ^.  We  further  obtain  information  regarding  several  heads  of 
the  monastery,  while  two  texts  (A  i  and  2)  shew  the  tradition  as  to  the 
facts  of  Shenoute's  career  then  officially  accepted. 

Group  B,  combined  with  Canon  Oldfield's  account  of  his  interviews 
with  the  monks,  establishes  one  fact  of  interest :  namely,  that  the  famous 
library  of  the  monastery,  the  source  of  so  great  a  part  of  the  remains  of 
Sa'idic  literature,  was  stored  in  the  *  secret  chamber  *,  in  the  north-east 
comer  of  the  building*.  Whether  by  the  '  keep '  (jh-^),  mentioned  by 
AbQ  S&lih,  this  room  is  intended  we  cannot  tell  \  A  three-shelved  book- 
chest  stood,  according  to  the  same  writer  \  in  the  church  in  the  eighth 
century,  but  not  necessarily,  of  course,  in  this  room.  The  lists  of  books 
inscribed  on  the  several  walls  (B  12  to  27)  may  indicate  the  relative 
positions  once  occupied  by  special  chests  or  shelves.  Thus  it  would 
seem  that  the  New  Testament  MSS  were  ranged  along  the  north  side 
of  the  room,  the  homiletic  and  historical  works  along  the  east,  the 
biographical  along  the  west.  Against  the  south  wall,  where  only  one 
text  is  legible,  may  have  stood  the  Old  Testament  MSS. 

In  printing  the  texts  I  indicate  tentative  completions  of  gaps  by 
square  brackets^  probable  misreadings  in  the  copies  still  requiring  emen- 
dation by  siCy  letters  doubtful  in  the  copies  and  my  suggested  readings 
of  such  by  dots  below  them.     The  copies  do  not  allow  of  the  exact 

'  De  Bock  questions  the  age  of  the  apses  themselves  {pp.  at,  56). 

*  Cf.  Mr.  Peers^s  note,  appended  to  this  article. 

*  Not,  as  De  B.  thought,  the  room  in  the  south-east  corner.  It  is  clearly  to 
this  'secret '  room  that  Maspero's  description  {Mission Jranf,  vi  p.  i)  refers. 

*  Fol.  8a  6.  The  'keep*  was  used  elsewhere  as  library;  v,  Horner's  Bohairic 
Gospels  vol.  i,  Ix.  Sacristy,  vestry,  and  library  are  sometimes  one ;  v.  Can.  Basil. 
No.  96. 

»  Fol.  83  6. 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDI 

length  of  the  gaps  being  estimated ;  the  brackets  therefore  em 
approximate  spaces. 


Between  niches  a  and  p.    Enclosed  in  a  simple  line  border, 
black  ink,  alternating  at  asterisks.    LI.  i,  a  in  ornamental  leti 

€11  onojutdk.'^i  TOT  n^^Tpoc  r^ 
[tott  tiU]  w^  tot  iK^\H  nn^^TOc* 


H    RTpiA^KH    n»  [COTj^    ItTlofic    [  ]  •" 

Q60H  e  itpojui[ne  £]itTcqA.g^e*,  ,  new 
niWT  ai.n^  [n^ia]X  jaumi^.  npo[i]  a.T'^ 

sic 

sic 
[AA]jjtoq  AtlTpc*  ^^T  n^pxK^^^Tpi'TjHc]  g^r 

[t<5'!'x1  nb.n^  H€pT?V^OC   n*.pxH«'i«cROTi[£>c] 

sic 

10   [ti]Tno\i  p&HOTe*  j^iinTonfoc  imj^a^]c«ioc 

sic 

[e€0^]opoc  necTpd^THXAiT[Hc  g^iiT]nXic 
RltiiclTa^n-^inoirnoTlic  mor  eij. .  »  .  pojjoir 

'jfc   Jpt   iKlFlii    d^TTRU^T   MA[n  .   .   .  *]  AlAl 

rid^CTHpi    AftltncOOTg^    €TO    IfllO^    4^T<0 

sic 

[^]Tr2^&c<idk'^€  juuAoc  £itpe  junco  np[ojjt] 
Hc  ,jui,p  g^onqd^j^c*  ^Tw  i^qjuiTon  jui[*Ao]q 
ncoT]  ^  juin€fioT  ennn  jp;  jpi 
akira>  T€n€  AAnq^w^^e  THpq 

['xinjneq'sno  ^di.T€q^n«hn[^ircic] 

[€]t8«^^  ^on.tiecp 
] .  . .  iHRcg* 

]  .   •  [jLft€]pROirp[l    '^]iaR[p&}c^OC 
]t1    JUtTUAOnd^CTHpiOlt 

]q  dJULKn"" 


DOCUMENTS  555 

SIC 

*In  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost 

....  upon  him  the  holy  ax9/*»*  •  •  •  •  Sunday  (icvpioinj) the 

7th  (?)  day  of  T6be,  [when  he  had]  completed  nine  years  of  his  life  • ... . 
Our  Father  Apa  Pgol  and  Apa  Pshoi  did  give  [him  ?]  the  holy  crx5/Aa 
and  he  was  ordained  (xctporovciv)  priest '  {trpeap,)  and  archimandrite  at 
the  hands  of  Apa  Cyril,  the  archbishop  of  the  city  (ttoK.)  Alexandria, 
in  the  roiros  of  saint  (2yeos)  Theodore  Strat^lat^,  in  the  city  (iroX.) 
Constantinople  *,  (at)  the  end  of .  .  .  years  .  .  . ',  era  (j(p6vix)  of  the 
Martyrs  (fmfrr.).  And  [this  holy?]  monastery  and  the  great  place-of- 
assembly  were  built  and  consecrated  {Aywitiv)  in  the  io6th  year .  . . 
of  his  life.  And  he  went  to  rest  on  the  7th  day  of  the  month  Ep^p  *, 
(year)  .  .  .,  era  (xp.)  of  the  Martyrs  (/*.).  And  the  number  (of  years) 
of  his  whole  life,  from  his  birth  till  his  death  {ivdirava-ii^  .  .  .  [years  ^ 
and]  two  months.*  LI.  23-5  commemorate  the  artist  ((orypo^of), 
Mercurius,  possibly  the  same  as  he  who  in  a.m.  1017  =  a.  d.  1301 
inscribed  his  name  in  the  neighbouring  Red  Monastery*.  LI.  26-8 
shew  the  beginning  of  a  text  similar  to  No.  A  8. 

This  repeats  the  received  tradition  as  to  Shenoute's  career,  except 
as  to  the  place  of  his  ordination.    But  cf.  the  next  number. 

A  2. 

In  (?)  niche  p. 

n[lfl]OT   CTOTdid^A 

d^ndw  ogetioirre  ^n 

^  ^hJUJLb,  could  be  read.  '  v.  Leipoldt  Sdimut*  40  n.  5. 

»  Op,  at.  13a  n.  5. 

*  Beyond  the  frequent  mention  of  this  r^rot  in  the  spurious  '  Sermon  of  Cyril ' 
(Zoega  a8,  Miss.franf,  iv  165),  I  can  only  find  one  reference  to  it :  v.  Marin  Moiius 
d*  ConstantinopU  1 5.  For  Cyril's  and  Shenoute's  alleged  visit  to  Constantinople, 
before  the  Council,  v.  Miss,franf.  iv  173. 

'  This  should  be  a.  m.  147  «  a.d.  431,  the  year  of  Shenoute's  visit  to  Ephesus. 

*  Leipoldt  44. 

^  But  there  is  hardly  space  in  1.  ao  for  the  year.  This  age  seems  to  be  that 
given  by  the  Arab.  Life  {Mission  iv  467)  :  109  years,  a  months.  Ladeuze  and 
Leipoldt  {Sctunuti  47)  regard  this  as  erroneous. 

*  V.  De  Bock  Materiaux  p.  65, 


556         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

tt[jJl]A«.«4p]Tep[o]c    KTiJ^ 
[Tlikn«iCT2kClC   €UTpojj:ne 

[jAn^p]«jiOTrT[€]  «kTt>)  €UT^kq 
[juiTon  juuuoq]  g^[it]TAji.eg^aj6c 
[AJitiige]  tt[pojut'ne  tt<xioRXe 
[itcoT  ^  jj.njefcoT  lenHH 

]v\one[ 

w 

*  And  our  holy  father  Apa  Shenoute  was  bom  in  the  sixty*fifth  (yc*r), 
in  the  era  (xp.)  of  the  Martyrs  (/xop.)  **  And  Easter  (avatrraa-i^)  of  that 
year  was  the  28th  day  of  Parmoute.  And  he  went  to  rest  in  the 
[ijyoth  (?)  year  of  Diocle(tian),  [on  the  7th  day  of]  the  month  Iepep*i 
[and  he  was]  buried  (?)  on  the  7th  day  .  .  .  .' 

These  data  as  to  S.'s  birth  confirm  one  another  :  a.  m,  65  =  a.d.  34^ 
when  Easter  did  in  fact  fall  on  April  23  =  Parmoute  28.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  reconcile  this  with  any  of  the  calculations  based  upon 
older,  though  less  precise,  texts '. 


A3. 

Beside  the  large  painting  of  Christ  in  the  dome  of  the  central  apse. 
As  the  text  is  accessible  *,  1  give  only  a  translation. 

•  Theodore,  painter  {£cDypa<^s),  of  Terbebibe*: — ^May  the  Lord,  Jesus, 

'  *  Fifth*  is  uncertain  ;  but  there  seems  no  space  for  npOAinC.  For  the  system 
of  numeration  (*  the  3d  twenty  and  5')  t».  Pichl  in  Af^,  Z.  xxxxii  130.  In  Clar. 
Press  frag.  65  also  *  eightieth '  is  expressed  thus. 

'  Copy  has  tjulCTUjCiC.  *  v.  Leipoldt  SckenuU  4a  ff. 

•  In  de  Bock  Maicn'aux  58,  and  Turaief  Matrr,  po  archtoi  ckrist,  190a,  No*  51. 

•  Terbc  may  be  Ar.  iiJ?,  a  villagt:  west  of  Kolosana  (Abu  Sdlih  746),  Bat 
Jjjdl  *— J>i»  near  Ashtnunain  occurs  in  the  Acts  of  Ptolemy  (Paris,  Arabe  150 
f.  10a),  In  Coptic  Tcthe  is  found  once  but  cannot  be  localized  (AmcUneau  Geogr» 
493).  It  conuins  the  element  epfc£  ?*auXir,  £iifce  is  obscure  ;  ct  T  knh.  *c«vc/ 
Presumably  the  Armenian  artist  resided  there. 


DOCUMENTS  557 

the  Christ,  bless  and  preserve  the  life  of  our  God-loving,  charity 
(dyaTTiyyioving  brother,  the  archdeacon  Shenoute,  the  monk  of  this 
monastery  (/jwvoar.),  the  son  of  the  late  {futKopto^)  Papnoute.  For  he 
it  was  did  provide  for  this  picture  {Xifnjv  *),  in  the  days  of  our  father, 
Abba  Paul  \  the  archimandrite ;  my  father  ZekiSl  being  the  second  * 
(in  authority),  Jesus  (?)  the  Christ  being  king  over  us  *.  Era  {xpovtf)  of 
the  Martyrs  (fuxprvpwv)  840 '  =  a.  d.  i  i  24. 

On  the  opposite  side  of  the  painting,  an  Armenian  text  forms  a 
pendant  to  this '.  It  too  commemorates  Theodore,  *  painter  and  scribe ', 
native  of  Kesun  in  Armenia,  and  states  that  the  work  was  executed  in 
the  time  of  Bishop  Gregory,  *  nephew  of  Gregory  called  Vahram  *.  The 
uncle  here  is  the  Catholicus  of  1065-1105 ;  the  nephew  the  bishop  of 
the  then  numerous  Armenian  colony  in  Egypt,  mentioned  by  the 
patriarchal  chronicler  •  and  by  Abii  Silih^ 


A  4. 
In  niche  p, 

diTco  liTdiCi  I  eg^oTn  €ni[  ]  |  jAOitdwCTcpion  |  €Kcoir 
-xon^Tjii  I  qTG  jAni€&OT  I  lennn  2^n^po[AAn€]  |  tm  j^  jpt 
?ni5  I  €1  •  009  .  .  I  na^iOTe  ne  |  '^^tci'^  |  n^Hpe  en  | 
2^€n€e£\X[d^]  I  npcAACdi  |  Aid^XoT  I  epecK .  •  |  ngnpe  | 

Aftllidw .  I     I  line  illegible. 

*  And  I  entered  this  .  . .  monastery  (jwvcurr,)  on  the  24th  day  of  the 
month  Iep6p  *,  in  this  year  of  the  era  (x^)  of  the  Martyrs  (/iopr.)  953 
(=  A.  D.  1237) .  .  .  .my  fathers  David,  son  of  Hibat  AllAh',  the  man 
of  Samalot  (?)  ^®,  .  .  .  son  of  Mina  being  .  .  .  . ' 

The  year  mentioned  is  the  same  as  in  the  next 

*  C/.  von  Lemm  in  Bull,  dt  VAcad.  imp.  1900,  57. 

*  Was  in  office  twelve  years  earlier;  v.  the  colophon  of  A.D.  ma,  Brit  Mus. 
Or.  3581  B.  69. 

'  f .  e.  SfVTtpipiot. 

*  Reading,  in  Turaief's  copy,  14.  ^^^,  so.  n«JOT  7IKIh\  (o,  a  a.  epeic 
ne^Ct  33.  e^p&i  esoti.    I  use  a  photograph  kindly  lent  by  Prof.  Strzygowski. 

'  Translated  by  Dashian  in  Strzygowski*8  KUinasun  p.  aoa  ;  v.  also  his  Dom  mu 
Aachtn  4a. 

*  Renaudot  Hisi.  460,  491.  *  Ff.  a  a  note,  47  b. 

*  This  spelling  is  characteristic  ;  v.  No.  A  a. 

*  Perhaps  here  a  translation  of  'Theodore*. 

^  Fifteen  miles  north  of  Minyeh ;  but  the  reading  is  doubtful. 


558         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

As- 

In  niche  fi, 

n^^p^^HcnicRO  I  HOC  iJib^  RipiWoc  cp€^pic[T]aToX- 
XoT  I  o  ttemcftonoc  cxnoXic  cioottt  £n^pojiUie  )  tm 

tic 

^ponOIT   JA^^pTOpOT   ?HF    hrna    €lf  [  T2k.1UUlOOir    €l    CTOT- 

T«^Xn€p5(^e  nnikk  |  K^wocdi^p  cwTnoXic  cioott  encoir  1?  | 
cjumiefcoT  icnHit  ^.tco  ^ti  ennnoTi  |  cn^juie  Tpon^^t 
ncoTT    3dLnTiK^T€.    cjuiTiieAoT  I  icnHii    ^Ta>    T&.n«^cT&cic 

CltTpOAlJie    I    CTAJUA^TTre     COT     «OTT^.qTe     cauu€£o[t]| 

na^pAJioirTc     ^^TUi    juiiien[c]oc    T^wita^cTakCic    |    cot    ^ric 

CULlldipjJLOTT€      KTi}^      JULtl€ncOC     COT[«i]     |     CJUtTtd^pAJLOTTe 

tic 

*^Ti*>  juiHcncoT   «0T  e[AJtnikp]  |  aaottc   «^tu>   AJinencoc 

COT  TIT  ejuna^pAj^oTTc]  I  ^^T(o  jAnencoc  cot   «OT[At]€ 

TIT  ejUl[n]A,tpAtOTT€]  ]  ii^TCii  AJ.tf€ncOC  COT  Afte[itT]c[^]t9q 
[ejULIldi.pAftOTT€j  I  A^T<*i  AJLtienCOC  COT  ^efAAOTn  ejuuidi^p- 
AtOTTC]  I  ^TUl   JULttCttCOC    COT   rXO[TOT€  .  *  .  .   . 

'  And  this  good-work  {aya$6v)  was  done  by  the  care  of  our  father 
the  archbishop,  Abba  Cyril*,  Christodulus  being  bishop  of  the  city 
{wok,)  Siut,  in  this  (w)  year  of  the  era  (^p*)  of  the  Martyrs  (ftapr,)  953 
(=  A.  D,  iij7).  And  the  water  {i.e.  the  inundation)  reached  the 
lake(?) '  of  the  ,  .  .  *  of  the  city  of  Siut  on  the  13th  day  of  the  month 
lep^pj  and  it  reached  our  little  village  of  Tronche*  on  the  i^di 
day  of  the  month  lepep*  And  Easier  (dmorao-w)  of  that  year  (was  on) 
the  24lh  day  of  the  month  Parmoute*.  And  afterwards' — here 
follows  a  list  of  Easter  dateSj  in  successive  years  • :  9th  Parmoute, 
ist  Parm,,  20th  Parm.,  5th  Parro.,  2Sth  [Parro.],  ijtli  [Farm.], 
8th  [Parm.],  21st  [Parm.]. 

The  practical  object  of  thus  recording  the  dates  of  coming  Easters  is 
not  clear. 

*  Cyril  b.  L*U*Vt  I335H3-  *  *^A  preceded  by  I  int. 

■  *  Castles  *^yAj ,  whatever  that  may  here  mean  ;  or  (less  likely )^^Lji  *  tMUars*, 
m  word  used  by  tbn  DukmAk  (v  23)  in  describing  Siut. 

*  Udrunkah,  Doronka,  about  two-and'A'tialf  miles  soulh-wesi;  of  Siut.     Cf.  A9. 

*  1".  *.  April  19,  wbich  is  correct, 

*  Tbeae  correspond  to  Apr.  4,  Mar.  37,  Apr.  15,  Mar»  31,  Apr  ao,  la,  3,  and  i6, 
which  arc  the  correct  datca  for  1 338  to  1145. 


DOCUMENTS 


559 


^■On  small  wall  S.  of  entrance  to  'secret  chamber'.  ^H 

H  [^                            >€ .  n[             ]\  H 

■  ■ 

H|^                            d^TjUt)  n^p^HA^^Tpi(TH]e '  ^H 

H  [jjt]ni[         ].  I ,  juTSEnoTT  -  -xcnToq  j^[iTn]T€q  ^M 

H  cnoip^ji  -  di.qqipooTU]  HTeicjTO  itcT[         ]€d^q  ^M 

H  'SttjOR  €nn£&2^ii  *  £itiiic€iiTe  n€Kir[nH]  ^H 

H  ajwiniRTriiH  €TJUin€TrKuiT€  T^opn  [Ajien]  ^M 

H>  dwq'xoKc  eboX  *  ^ncoir  He  juincAoT  [eTen€]  ^M 

[  feoT  eooT*a^  on  •  d^q^xcK  tr€ot€[i  ^itTipojuJic]  ^H 

H  'I'^i  dft  <tpi  [erased]  ^tiitej^ooT  Juaien[it»T]  ^M 

H  ^Mi^  d^e&nAcioc  nind^Tpi^p^HC   ttp2k[R0T€  cpc  d^£]  ^| 

"  A^k  liocKt^  nocioTdkToc  o  ncnicKonoc  €T[noAic]  ^^ 

IS  n^^noc  '  ikirti)  uxoq  neitTA^q jiTooTq  njjjji&.q  jufnncciutT    ^J 

ITHlpOJf  :  U|i^llTOirCJUinTOT  *  J^Wnig^OOT    €T^O0AJt[€    kt]  ^H 

AAttTcpo  itnTOTpi:*oc  -  iKTm  nTdJii2^c<&eoii  u^tone  £nT         ^^ 
sic 
jui€^R'x  npoAAn€  niojT  &Mik  loi^i^niiHc  eqo  ii&.p^HC«oc  c^ 

3o    TMpion  n^na.  juluittchc  AAnnco^c  A^nnoTre  Td.g^iLt[€q  fn] 
ncg^oo^  jjuietiiiaT  ikMnk  RirpiWoc  -scitToq  iienT&.q[&.&.q  Mxn] 
L      pccAvTcpoc  •  A.Ta>   ii&p;jQHc«oc   €^cTitftit«w>nH   jAnemtiiT   aa 
H  n[pot^HTHc] 

^     ewna.  igitOTTC  •  j*ATpcTO'ar«^AaRd.g^  ottwaji  ttniAJidw  MjLn[n         ] 
A^TTj^e  d^TUuiik  (^la'Kn  ebdX '  iiToq  twc  juinnioTC  juin[itlecit[HT 

sic 

25    dkjTr^]*iT    nK€con  •  cpcHWOirre    nnc  ^cj'ojut    n^^q    nq^   n4^[q 

nipRitiRott  *  nqeMio  ttii€q'Xdh%[e 
Jneqpoeic  encciiHT  [ 


I 


560        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

'  And  by  the  foresight  {TrpovtMi)  and  lotre  (aya-inj)  of  God  Almighty 
(irarTOK.),  it  seemed  good  to  [NN, . . . ,  the .....]  and  archimandrite. . .. 
For  he  it  was,  in  his  zeal  (a-rravS^),  did  pro\ide  these  four  columns  {1)\ 
finishing  the  canopies  {or  ceilings*)  in  the  two  tabernacles  (triopi^Vl  zat 
the  chambers  (la'^ny*)  that  are  beside  them.  The  first  he  finished  ca 
the  29th  day  of  this  same  (?)  month  Thoth;  the  other  in  this  [year,', 
cm  (x^.)  of  the  Martyrs  (jtoffr.)  .  ...»  in  the  days  of  our  father,  Abbi 
Athanasius,  the  Patriarch  {*verp.)  of  Alexandria  %  the  most  swnilf 
(ooxmroc)  Abba  Joseph  being  bishop  of  the  city  (mAiv)  ^mm 
(Achmtm).  And  he  it  was  (jr.  Joseph)  assisted  him  with  all  [the 
brethren],  till  they  had  constructed  thera,  in  the  evil  (///.  perrertedl 
days  of  the  kingship  of  the  Turks  (rot/iyos*).  And  this  good-*od 
(aya^v)  was  done  in  the  twent>'-fourth  year  that  our  lather  Abba  Joha 
was  director  (apxny^^)  of  this  congregation  (mrva-ywy^^  And  he  wii| 
first  a  monk  in  the  monastery  {futv.)  of  Apa  Moses  ■.  Afterwards  GoJ 
called  him  (?),  in  (?)  the  days  of  our  father,  Abba  CjTil  • ;  for  he  it  m 
[made  ?  him]  priest  (rrfKafi.)  and  director  {apxqy^)  ^ot  the  congre^gitict 
(in-v.)  of  our  father,  the  prophet  (irpo<^»),  Apa  Shenouie.  After  that  tbcj 
earthquake*"  had  swallowed  the  buildings  (or  rooms  or  dwellings)  audi 
[the]  . . .  ,  Chey  found  the  place  uncovered";  and  he  and  the  faihoi 
and  the  brethren  did  [make]  them  again.  May  the  God  of  hearen 
strengthen  him  and  give  him  a  peaceful  {ttpfjvucw)  life  and  subdue  his 
enemies  .  .  ,  he  watch  over  the  brethren  .  « .  .' 

*  The  fem.  pronoun,  if  correct*  forbids  arvkot.     Perhaps  ^t^X  17. 

*  A  rare  word ;  i*.  Ps.  cxvti  27  —  irv«d{tt)y,  which  the  Tnmdon  (#rf.  von  Lesinr 
p.  16)  translates  'the  heights',  -J^^^-  '"  Zocga  618,  referring  to  the  haa|uip 
of  the  Tabernacle,  it  may  be  'curtain".  The  primary  meaming  is  *to  cov«r*; 
<jf.  Ps.  civ  1. 

•  Here  probably  the  space  wherein  an  altar  stands;  cf.  AbQ  Silih  C  J«.  ?:> 
(dome  over  it),  306  (attar  in  it),  ^,ia  (north  and  south  s.)»  33  a  lits  threshold)* 
61  b  (—sanctuary).  In  Mission  frani^.  iv  458  it  is  the  sanctuary,  shut  in  by  dofl«t 
The  northern  and  southern  apses  suggeisl  themselves,  as  the  side-altArs  may  b«fc 
stood  there,  and  Zocga  pp.  107,  108  (leasons  read  in  the  southern  9«^)  aoppoctt] 
this. 

*  w.  von  Lcmm,  Bull.  d$  VAc  Imp.  xiii  159.     Cf,  Arab.  y3  (also  iUJX  w  i«l 
Aba  Salih  3  a. 

*  Athanasius  III»  1350-61. 

•  i.#,  the  Bahri  Mamluks.  An  inscription  of  A.D.  1173  {Rm,  dt  TVml  Iiu  til) 
refers  to  the  AyyCibid  rule  in  the  same  words, 

'  C/  A  7. 

•  At  Belyana ;  v,  my  notes  on  the  graflSti  there  in  M.  A,  Murray  Tlu 
1904. 

•  The  notorious  Cjrril  b,  Laklak,  13.^5-43. 
**  A  new  word,/efM.  like  other  compounds  of  OTijaJJU    A  great  eaflhqoakc 

Ilia  is  recorded  {S^yiutx.  TQt  3;  Renaudot  Hist.  490I. 
*^  Cf,  Leyden  M5S  copies  443  jua  CT(^o\en  eAoX. 


DOCUMENTS  561 

Assuming  that  A  7  is  of  the  same  year  as  this  text,  the  date  of 
John's  instalment  as  director  (?  abbot)  would  be  1335,  the  first  year 
of  Cyril's  patriarchate.  Presumably  John  is  also  the  archimandrite  com- 
memorated in  the  first  lines  here. 


A  7. 
Between  niches  a  and  p, 

nnoTTe  poeic  enong^  AftnetiicoT  |  nd^p^fUA^TpiTHc  * 
&Md^  uo^  I  ^enToq  neitTd^qqi  pooTugf  |  lAitneciiHTr 
THpoir   en^s'iitRcoT  |  n'«i^ciiT€  itcRirttH  •  Ainitc2Ji^(o7^  | 

sic  

niROti  AAttti€ctiH7r  THp^  |  djumn  nooT  ndii  ^  luuiuiip  | 

*God,  watch  over  the  life  of  our  father  the  archimandrite,  Abba 
John.  For  he  it  was  did,  with  all  the  brethren,  provide  for  the 
building  of  the  {or  these)  two  tabernacles  (cnoTn}),  after  the  uncovering 
of  their*  canopies  (or  ceilings).  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  give  unto  him 
a  peaceful  (ctpiTvtxov)  life  and  (unto)  all  the  brethren.  Amen.  To-day 
is  the  7th  of  Emshir,  era  (xp.)  of  the  Martyrs  (ftopr.)  975*  (=a.d. 

"59)-' 
Apparently  records  the  same  work  as  that  in  A  6. 

A  8. 
In  niche  h. 

dwRHIg^K     I     C    .    W       e092€O7rdwT^OAUl€      CTpeHRCOg^T      TOg^ 

juLiuuuLO  A.II  I  orr^'T^OMX  '^e.  g^ioAne  €TpeTg^OT€  ia- 
nnovre  |  tcoj^  aihtajiotiic  AUicuiAAd^  •  ot[oi]  na^i  &itOR  | 
'X€09d^peoTu>eigg[  ogcone  n<:^i09oon  d^n  |  necg^d^i  tidJuiOTrn 

sic 

ehoK  •  iiT€ii(3'i«  T«iR(o  I  g^ntiTii^oc  ♦  a^pi  ndJuecT 
nd^^d^ne  tid^KOTC  |  uiiiii«kCiiHT  d^tioR  nieAiHit  ncTTeXic  | 
nieT<To^6  g^nnqnp&^ic  nid^Tjjui^di  |  AAnip^ti  ^cpcoAte 
Aid^XicTdk  '2K€*:ii[iiR(oii]  |  a  line  erased  |  npc  HTnc  ajuul&i- 


*  Reading  nneT-. 

*  The  printed  sign  for  900  but  distantly  resembles  that  written. 
VOL.  V.  00 


562         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 
n€^pc    A^TOiW    €T€cnKT€    |  TCIIOTT    'i.C    CICOTlCTl    JJUAOTTI 

i^Tu>  €1^  n€T«   MOTiijo  |  jAiA€Tdii\of2^  ujiwOTrcnc  encOT 
n2<iOT£  I  jttitnawcunT  AinoTon  wiaa  €Tit*.coig   n  .  .  ] .  ^oc 

•aenue    €R€  p!  nRiiiw    iiAOjL^kq    g^iTunig^H^    AJLTin[i<i>T  | 

TpTU  g^ioTcon  <x€^jULKit  |  %i\s]  qe  cq[€]igain€  nooT  lui 

COT  '5  [mmji]  I  €feoT  enHn  3^  ijipL]  Z  .  .  |  Space. 

Then  eight  lines,  very  imperfect  The  first  contains  o'rco^oc,  the 
third  OTptojuLC  ^qpniuCLe,  the  fifth  cnicToXii. 

\  .  ,  . '  If  it  be  impossible  that  fire  should  mix  with  water,  so  ii  it 
also  impossible  that  the  fear  of  God  should  mix  with  the  pleasure 
of  the  body  {awfxa.}.  Woe  is  me  I  For  a  time  will  be  when  I  shill 
not  be  The  writing  shall  endure;  the  hands  shall  perish  in  the 
tombs  *,  Remember  me  in  kindness  (ayd7rrj\  my  fathers  and  my 
brethren,  me,  the  poor  and  vile  (ctVfAr;?),  that  is  feeble  in  his  deeds 
(TT/jofts),  unworthy  of  the  name  of  man,  much  more  (/taXwrra)  of 
deacon  .  .  , «  priest  (Trpctr/?.)  of  the  Christ-loving  city  (iroX.)  Latoo  which 
is  Snfi  (Esneh).  So  (Se)  now  I  do  entreat  you  and  make  to  you 
a  thousand  obeisances  (fitrdvoift)  many  times,  my  fathers  and  my 
brethren  and  every  one  who  shall  read  ....',  that  he  say  with  kindness 
(dy.)  of  iieart  and  good  thoughts  :  God,  do  thou  shew  Thy  mercy  upon 
him,  through  the  prayers  of  our  holy  father  the  prophet  (rpo^) 
Apa  Shenoute,  Say  with  us,  all  ye  together:  Amen  21  (times)*,  99 (« 
Am6n),  so  be  it.  To-day  is  the  7th  of  the  month  Ep^p,  era  {j^p,)  of  the 
Martyrs  (jiap.)  9 .  .  ,' 

The  date  falls  between  1184  and  1284. 


A  9. 

In  niche  /?. 

«».pi   nduu€Te   tfdkR2w  |  ne   AtioR   nig^eR€  |  g^JAHitd^    i^Tw 
nipeju.  I  MXb^ti^    j^juinuofec    na^  |  TeAAoj*.   jjuuottc    poq  | 

*  This  line  may  end  a  former  text. 

'  This  formula  in  a  scribe's  colophon  of  a.d.  ma,  from  this  monastery^  Brit 
Mus.  Or.  3581  B.  69 ;  and  something  similar  in  Arabic,  Hyvernat  Album  p^  i6. 

*  R*k  or  K^.     Cf.dc  Bock  Matiruivx  p.  65,  and  Turaicf  MaitHatit  No.  55, 


7  DOCUMENTS  563 

^   np€At.Tpoiui  •  Hc   imioXic  I  [cijoom*  otoi  [w]*.!  ^e^d^- 

;  sic 

'  Remember  me  in  kindness  {iyoTni),  me,  the  poor  in  grace,  the  rich 
in  sin,  that  am  not  worthy  to  be  called  deacon,  John,  son  of  the  late 
(jiaKopios)  Raphael,  the  inhabitant  of  Tronp^s  *  of  the  city  {vok.)  Siout 
Woe  is  me!  For  a  time  will  be  when  I  shall  not  be.  The  writing 
shall  endure,  the  hands  shall  perish  .  .  .  . ^' 


A  10. 

Beside  a  much-begrimed  painting,  over  the  door  leading  to  the 
'secret  chamber*. 

n<yt   ic   nej^  cqe  |  S^s^pe^   enioitg^  (  [utjnnTdig^o   cpa^  | 

Tq  *  Ainetii(o[T]  |  CTTdwiHT  ^  1 6&  c^i6djui(0ii  I  nenpeclrv- 

T€  I  poc  iwTto  iiAAO  I  ii«^5^oc  WTeXi  I  oc  nicimR[p]&|  t^eTc  • 

d^T(o  n|cd^2^  iieRu>T  *  I  n^Hp€   RdwTd^lcd^p^  Aftnd^p[;)^i]  I 

f]kidjioti  *  xl^'^^]  I  n^ftp^  jAn[n2^nd^]  |  6iRT(op  npjji^  | 

noXic    AtAiAi^pc    I   o^Aim    ^€nToq    2]m]   I   neq[AJL]e 

€2^o7rH    €TmoT[Te]  •  2.4   I   ^m    poo7r[gg[]  •  AtJi[iXujtHti 

A4 1  n«ip5^H«^K«^Fc[Xoc  Afti^^jcX]  I  «[eq]€conc  €«[  | 

pZi .  no  [  I  nq^[  |  €ipHtiH  g^itiic  [  |  [tiia>T] 

&Md^   o^enoTrre  [  |  JTd^c  ....  d^cFiott  *  AJuuLon[diCTH- 

pion]  I  ]  ^ojut  na^q  •  djuoin  [  | 

*  May  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  watch  over  the  life  and  firm  establishment 
of  our  honoiured  father,  Abba  Phaebammon,  the  priest  {vp€crp.)  and 
perfect  (tcXccos)  monk,  the  writer  (ovyypcu^evs *)  and  master  builder*, 
the  son  according  to  the  flesh  (xara  crdp()  of  the  archdeacon  ((ipx^S.), 
ChaSl  (?),  son  of  the  papa  Victor,  inhabitant  of  the  Christ-loving  city 

*  (7.  A  5,  Tronchc.     Presumably  the  copy  here  is  in  error.  •  Q".  A  8, 

'  In  the  Paris  scaia  44,  p.  ^&  ^1  this  (-i^l^i)  occurs  among  ecclesiastical 
officers,  between  KoXXtoyp&tpos  (^^LJl)  and  Cejyp6/^os. 

*  Cf.  0*^2  itt^nTHie  Zoega  549,  Tex""TKC  nc^g  Rossi  Papiri  di  Torino 
II  i  70.  ^ 

Oca 


THE  JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

(iro\.)  Shmin  (Panopolis).     For  he»  in  his  love  toward  God pt> 

vided  [this  picture  of  J  the  archangel  (apx^ay.)  [Michael  ?] ;  that  [be 
might  ?]  pray  for  ....  [father],  Abba  Shenoute  •  . .  .  holy  {if»\ 
monastery  , ,  .  .  Amen.' 


Between  niches  5  and  t,  on  a  space  where  the  upper,  later  plaster  b? 
fallen  away. 

Re  juH  i^[n^o9pT\^€ir  •  oii*^ 

TOT  npocono  t]  cot  ^►n[ol 

TOT   -3kOT^O[T]    COT 

n diiTXoiauL  *  n 

Apparently  an  inexact  quotation  from  a  Psalm  '. 


B. 


North  waD. 

UBOTV 


ne 


The  following  numbers  are  in  the  '  secret  chamber 

B  12.     UCTp^€T^^lH?^e    I   \ioii      T^Tentt    1 

ajiunuo<7  I  nig^TR€   nn«^   RAik.TT€  j  tt   iiik7V.HT    hot  n^a 

efeoXj  'the  Four-gospels*.  Their  number,  -59,  the  small  and  laigc 
(together).  The  poor  TraTra  Claudius,  son  (ulds)  of  Pal6u ' ;  forgirt 
me.*  The  first  numeral  is  illegible.  So  large  a  number  of  gospels  s 
remarkable. 

•ic 

B  13.    Tp*^€T&.m«Aiow    rtROTi  I  nuo^   n    k^trociom- 

'The  Four*gospels,  the  small  and  the  large  (together),  50]  those 
without  bindings  (?)*,  10.* 

B  14.     tiR&.eoAiROU  jjiniienp^k^ic  —  nd^itte   it^np&jK 

tti^nocToXoc,  'The  Catholic  (Epistles)  and  the  Acts — These  a« 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles '. 

East  wall:  B  15.    iiXoROC  lt^.p^€€niCROnoc  JUiivuuyuJiO' 

'  Cf.  Pb,  xxvi  (xxvii)  9. 
'  Tirpait«7-y/Aioy. 

'  Presumably  the  writer  of  these  inscriptions  or  the  UbrariAn.     Cf,  B  30, 
*  Generally  'sheaths*,     t  do  not  know  of  evidence  tbat  Coptic  like 
books  were  ever  encased  in  leathern  slip- cases. 


DOCUMENTS  565 

CTH  [a  line  erased]  [roJt  llM  eAoX,  *The  discourses  (X<^09)  of  the 
archbishops  and  the  . . .  Forgive  me  *. 

sic 

B  16.  n«ip3QH€niCROnoT,  *(The  writings  of)  the  Arch- 
bishops '  \ 

B  17.  n&p^HenicRonoc  r-^  ^toocott, 'The  Archbishops'. 
The  remainder  unintelligible.  Perhaps  begins  with  figures  indicating 
the  number  of  volumes. 

B  18.    nsu)juLe  |  tig^Tc^copid^  |  nenicToT^  |  tid^naw  <^d^- 

B  19.  ng^opoc  I  [n]RTnpid^noc.  By  combining  these  two— 
I  have  no  information  as  to  their  sequence  on  the  wall — we  might 
read,  'The  Book  of  Ordinances  (opos),  The  History  of  Cyprian  (of 
Antioch),  The  Epistles  of  Apa  Epiphanios  (?)  *. 

B  20.  d^pi  TUJuieTre  ndjid^nc 

nig^TRC  fm^L  RXa^TTC 

A£]icxin 

Commemorates  Claudius,  son  of  PalSu,  as  in  B  12.  But  here  it 
would  seem  that  Miskin  is  his  grandfather.  Or  perhaps  nothing  is 
wanting  and  Miskin  is  (as  in  B  22)  another  name  of  Paldu. 

West  wall :  B  21.  On  the  right  of  B.  22.  Little  is  legible.  Lives 
of  saints :  '  Apa  Paul ',  'Apa  B6sa ',  'Apa  Shenoute '  can  be  read. 

B  22. 

sic 

nd^n€  if6io[c]  nti[n€]T07rdift  rot   iid^i   €&o[X]   |   nig^TRc 

uc 

c€epoc    d^ndw    nicHneioc    Ko^d^niuic    rioXoaaAoc    ksi^ 

iteci^.i  ild^nd^[  ]   d^ndk   '^etto&ioc  [2ji]&  A&&eeoc 

RcpiWoc  iAni[  ]  n^qAKoe  [n]rie[i(OT]  u^enoTTC  h 

sic  sic 

d^ndw  no\^(o  n&nocTo\oc  bji^  ASLd^e  ng^TRe 

'  These  are  the  Lives  (fiiwi)  of  the  Saints — Forgive  me,  the  poor  iraira 
^  Perhaps  the  Festal  and  other  Letters  of  the  Alexandrine  patriarchs. 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Claudius,  son  (vJw)  of  Miskin  * :  Apa  B^a  •,  the  patriarch  Sevcms*. 
Apa  Pisenthius^  John  Colobus,  Apa  Pamin,  Archellides*,  Apa  Eliii', 
Apa  Abraham  \  the  .  * .  of  Apa  -  » ♦ ,  Apa  Eenobius  ',  Apa  Matihfr*, 
Cyril  and  . . . ,  the  , . .  our  father  (?)  Shenoute  8  (copies),  Apa  ApoUo', 
the  Apostles  ",  Apa  Matthew  the  Poor/ 

A  book  list  similar  to  the  next.    Fragments  of  seveml  of  them  aat 
preserved. 


B23. 


tk 


juLdk^pKoc  2kni^  iULiO€CHc  &  dvHd^  cuuKott   ^^^^  Renpi^noc 

sic 

g^UlAJl   JULnj^Op[ci<l]lOC    AJtUOeOTOpOG    n€TKOTT^jfcTe   Ajuiyc- 

[n€]tttU>T    iwTIiV    ^nOTT€ 

*The  Lives  (fim)  of  the  Saints:  Apa  Pachom  20  (copies),  .Ap 
Ep  .  .  . ",  Apa  Marcus,  Apa  Moses "  2  (copies),  Apa  Simon  **,  Sp^ 
Cjrprianus",  Apa  SamueP*,  Apa  Theodorus",  Apa  Hennime">AJi 
Pah5m  with  Horsiesius  and  Theodorus",  The  twenty-four  Eldfls*, 

*■  ,-V  — ^-  The  same  scribe  probably  in  B  ao,  though  the  father^s  naoie  tibet 
is  dilFerent.  '  No  life  of  B,  is  known. 

'  Perhaps  the  worlc^  complete  in  Ethiopic^  of  which  there  are  Coptic  fragiDei^ 
V,  this  JouRWAL  V  130  note. 

*  Fragments  of  a  Sa'id.  Life,  but  on  papyrus  (Crum  Cofit.  Qshr.  xiU  note).  ^ 
parchment  fragments  arc  known, 

'  No  life  as  yet  recognized  {cf.  Synax,  14th  Tubeh). 

*  I  cannot  identify  this.  ^  Abraham  of  Pboou. 

'  One  of  Sbenoute's  disciples  and  (?)  successors ;  Fragts.  Paris  1IS.I19"£^1^ 

*  Not  M.  the  Poor  ;  v.  below.  "  1  Of  Bawit     No  life  known. 
*'  !  Apocryphal  Acts. 

*'  Epime  (martyr)  would  fill  the  gap.     A  Bohairic  Passio^  Zoega  p.  u. 

1'  Of  Abydos  or  BelyanA  {v.  my  notes  in  M.  A.  Murray  TA*  Ostnwftj  i^). 

1*  T  The  Canaanitef  whose  body  was  said  to  lie  in  the  Whtt«  Monaslerj  (A^ 
Sftlih  8i  a). 

i^  Of  Antioch.  Fragts.  td.  von  Lem.  **  Of  KalamAn. 

1'  I  Stratetates  or  Anatolcus. 

^*  }  Hcrroinos;  v.  Aba  S4Hh  736  note.  An  anchorite  so  named  occurs  10  ssBt 
Apopbthcgmata,  Brit.  Mus.  Or.  6004. 

^  Presumably  Ibis  is  the  combined  version  of  the  Lives ;  v.  Ladetue  Pakkmrn^^; 
Butler  Lausiae  Hist.  T  391, 

'<*  Fragts.  of  Encomia  by  Produs  and  (Cyril  t)  of  Jerusalem,  Misstomjnuif,  I  4 
Clar.  Press  No.  4a,  Brit,  Mus.  Or.  3581  A.  93. 


DOCUMENTS  567 

Apa  B^sa  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (crtafia),  and  our 
father  Apa  Shenoute*/ 

Almost  all  these  works  are  still  partly  extant  among  the  fragments 
brought  from  the  White  Monastery. 

B  24.  On  the  left  of  B  23.  Little  is  legible.  Apparently  a 
list  of  Lives  or  possibly  Encomiums,  *.  .  .  the  ship(?)',  'Raphael', 
'  Za[charias]  the  priest '  can  be  read. 

B  25.  if&ioc  [n]2Jidi  AJLCOTCHC,  'The  Lives  of  Apa  Moses'. 
Does  this  refer  to  various  biographies  or  merely  to  the  number  of 
copies  ? 

B  26.  <^d^T€i<^  neppo  -r?,  'King  David,  thirteen  (copies)'. 
If  this  is  the  Psalter,  it  is  an  unusual  way  of  designating  it. 

B  27.  UMlte  ncooTg^,  'These  are  the  Synods'.  But  the 
word  has  not  usually  this  meaning.  It  is  often  used  by  Shenoute  for 
*  congregation ',  crwayoyyij. 

B  28.  Commemorates  perhaps  the  scribe  or  librarian.  *  Remember 
me  in  charity  {ayamj),  my  fathers  and  my  brethren,  every  one  that  shall 
read  («V).     I,  the  sinful '  [ 

B  29,  30,  31  are  the  protective  charms,  above  alluded  to;  traces 
of  another  copy  are  recognizable  on  the  south  wall.  The  copies 
are  intended  to  be  identical;  certain  divergences  in  orthography 
may  shew  that  they  were  written  from  dictation,  by  different 
scribes.  That  they  are  in  Arabic,  though  in  Coptic  characters,  is 
clear  from  the  one  phrase  which  can  be  transcribed  and  trans- 
lated with  certainty  («j6po^  &c.,  11.  3,  4).  In  L  i  Moses  appears  to 
be  either  adjured  or  (as  often  in  such  texts)  to  be  the  narrator,  and  in 
1.  2  perhaps  his  *  curse '  occurs*.  I  cannot  discern  against  what  intruders 
the  incantation  is  directed ;  in  1.  2  perhaps  '  the  worm '  and  '  die  *  are 
to  be  read.  In  1.  3  the  words  *  the  living,  who  dieth  not '  might  be 
an  allusion  to  Mk.  ix  48.  They  are  followed  immediately  by  a  new 
sentence :  '  Go  forth  from  this  house '.  At  the  end  of  1.  4  the  being 
addressed  is  committed  to  the  flames.  L.  5  ends  perhaps  with  '  men 
and  stones.'  L.  6  consists  of  imperatives  (and  perhaps  vocatives), 
bidding  the  unwelcome  visitor  be  gone. 

*  Or  read  [nJROT  nnecioAXA  e^p«J  JUL[ne]iu()i>T,  *The  decease  of  our  father 
8lc.\  which  might  refer  to  Bftsa's  Life  of  S. 

'  In  a  colophon  from  the  White  Monastery  (Brit.  Mus.  Or.  3581  B.  70)  a  remover 
of  the  volume  is  threatened  with  all  the  curses  of  Hoses  and  the  Law. 


508         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Little  can  be  said  of  the  system  of  transcription  followed  u 
more  as  to  the  exact  value  of  the  words  has  been  ascertained.  Tl 
aspirates  are  employed,  including  noticeably  the  Bohairic  ^  e)  se 
to  be  represented  by  x>  ^^  ^^  ^^^  Cambridge  fragment  \  ».  a 
sponds  clearly  to  ^\  while  «,  which  represents  it  in  the  Cambri 
frag^  does  not  occur,     n  represents  v  ^  usual,  and  •»  occastonallj 

The  text  of  B  29  is  here  given,  with  all  variants  from  the  ot 
below  it  The  division  of  lines  is  that  of  B  29  ;  the  other  texts  di 
where  vertical  strokes  are  here  inserted.  There  are  a  few  doul 
points  in  Canon  Oldiield's  readings,  due  to  ambiguity  in  the  so 
notably  where  r  and  i  c  are  confused. 

^  Ed.  Casanova  in  BmU,  dt  Flnst.franf.  (Cairo)  I  x. 

'  This  recalls  the  transcriptions  in  Stem's  alchemistic  tract  {Aeg,  Z,,  1885, 
which  likewise  came  from  Achmlm.    It  wiU  be  remembered  that,  in  the  mou 
Shenoute— or  rather,  of  his  copyists— the  sound  of  ^  seeois  practically  ides 
with  those  of  r  and  r. 


B  29.   di<^IAft2^€^^HJUUULOirCH^€WHJULeqe^€d^\€2^dw7r 

B30.     TVji  a&I  I 

B  31.     '^le      \  K  k 

s 

29.  TI  •  IJQ^HH  •  OTdid^cpAaOTrCH  .  .  €IR«wI€TOTT  .  OTT 

30.  iRX        *l     ^^^pA&       H'^eei  I  jjLoire 

31.  iRj^        •  I     ^tt .  ^SkSL       Hi^ceicg^d^i  jmoTrr 

29.  n€2^awdiR€\2^€€I€ We^^X  €  I  €  AAO'TTdj6pO(3'Am 

30.  H']ki\€{iea&  AJLiig^e 

31.  R  I        €'«^'\i€iJi  Hng^e 

29.  TecXAAW^eXoTrceiWei^pii^iceciciiTrA* 

30.  X I   e  I  ^     djiecROiiAA 

31.  \  I     €  ^         Ice€ROTJUL 

*  Ks*y^  r^  r^'      *  *"^  r^      '  ^>^^  ^-^  ^^^  t^ 


DOCUMENTS  569 

1  s 

39.  ncna^pcnoireicoTpTcg^ciiiiHcoTeiX  •  i^zk  . .  g^ 

30.  n  I     €ROTT€g^€n  T  .  .  J  .  ^d^pCg^  | 

31.  If  I   eicoTTTig^en         ireeK^}^      2. 

29.  j^oTq^^iqiTAic^j^iTAtcogj^iT  I  d^po^d^po^d^po^ 

30.  5^0TrqiTA«         IT  I  IT 

31.  x'*4     A*-      I  t| 

*  t  From  JlaA,  «  pyi.\. 


Mr.  C.  R.  Peers,  who  has  made  on  the  spot  an  architectural  study 
of  the  White  Monastery,  the  results  of  which  he  will  shortly  publish 
(in  Archaeological  Journal^  1904),  has  kindly  sent  me  the  following  obser- 
vations upon  the  two  inscriptions  A  6  and  7 : — *  The  texts  seem  to 
refer  to  the  building  and  not  the  fittings  :  the  work  is  clearly  something 
fairly  large.  An  earthquake  shook  down  the  roof  of  the  church — not 
the  canopy  of  an  altar — and  a  new  roof  had  to  be  provided.  Timber 
of  sufficient  size  was  probably  unattainable;  but  bricks  were  always 
plentiful.  So  the  new  roof  took  the  form  of  brick  domes — the 
'canopies'  or  'ceilings*  of  the  texts.  And,  in  order  to  lessen  the 
diameter  of  the  domes,  they  were  made  to  spring  from  piers  and  arches 
of  brick,  built  within  the  lines  of  the  old  walls.  The  four  *  columns '  * 
mentioned  in  A  6  are  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  four  massive 
brick  piers  which  carry  the  dome  over  the  eastern  bay  of  the  church. 
The  inscription  in  question  appears  to  be  upon  the  north-eastern  of 
these  piers.  Whether  the  work  finished  on  the  29th  of  Thoth  was  this 
pier  or  the  dome  over  the  eastern  bay  is  not  clear ;  it  seems  more  likely 
that  it  was  the  dome  •.  The  two  orio;vcu  would  be  the  two  bays  of  the 
church  then  roofed  in  :  that  is,  the  eastern  bay  and  that  next  it  to  the 
west.  These  are  still  thus  covered,  and  are  the  only  part  of  the 
building  still  in  use  as  a  church." 

W.  E.  Crum. 

^  I  must  emphasize  the  uncertainty  of  the  reading  here. — [W.  E.  C] 
'  Such  a  small  affair  as  the  leg  of  an  altar-canopy  would  not  have  been  worth 
recording. 


570        THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES 

THE   OLD   LATIN  TEXTS  OF  THE    MINOR 
PROPHETS.    IV, 
Haggal 

I 

6  *  Seminaslis  mulia  et  inlulistis  minima  .... 

1;  * Haec  dictt  Dominus  OumspoKa^ 

CO  quod  domus  mea  deserta  est,  vos  autem  sectamini 

10  in  domum  suam,  "  proplerca  absiinebit  caelum  a  rore  et  ten* 
It  Irahei  procreationes suas,  " ct  inducam  gladium  snpo^  teiTiiiiet 

ffumcntum  ct  super  vinum  et  super  oleum  et  super  bominei  et 

11  pccora  ct  super  omncs  labores  manuum  eorum,     *»  Et  adifit  lo^ 
babel  tilius  Salathiel  de  tribu  luda  et  Ie$us  6tius  losedech 
magnus  et  omnes  qui  superfiuerunt  de  populo  toos  IXjmini  Dei 
et  vcrbum  Aggui  pcophetae^  qtxmani  loiaxt  ahm  Damiiia  ad  i 
ct  timuit  ptcbs  ■  fnoel  Dd 


n 


insttt  id  inedio  Ttstsuu 


^Wil;  f\Ki^    II 


In 


■iaa 


ct  spmtus 


II  I  ^w.  fi  tt  lt-14  Aact. 


c^ 


IX. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  571 

13  "  Si  alligaverit  homo  carnem  sanctam  in  summo  vestimento  et 
tetigerit  summitas  vestimenti  aliquam  creaturam  panis  aut  vini  aut 
olei,  si  sanctificatur  ?  Et  responderunt  sacerdotes  et  dixenint :  Non. 

13  "  £t  dixit  Dominus :  Si  tetigerit  inquinatus  in  anima  horum  aliquid, 

14  si  inquinabitur?  Et  dixerunt  sacerdotes:  Inquinabitur.  '*Et  dixit 
Dominus  :  Si  et  populus  hie,  et  sic  gens  ista, 

omnis  qui  illic  accesserit  inquinabitur 

31  '^ Ego  commovebo  caelum  et  terram,  Tyeom$is, 

33  mare  et  aridam  ....        ^.        ...        et 

convertam  currus  et  sessores,  et  descendent  equi  et  sessores  eorum 

33  unusquisque  in  gladio  ad  fratrem  suum.     **  In  illo  die,  dicit  Dominus 

omnipotens,  accipiam  te  Zorobabel,  filium  Salathiel  serviim  meum, 

et  ponam  te  signaculum,  quoniam  te  elegi,  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens. 

Zechariah. 


14  ^*  Et  ait  mihi  angelus  qui  in  me  loquebatur TtrtuUiof 

15  Zelatus  sum  Hierusalem  et  Sion  zelo  magno,  "*  et  ira  magna  ego  irascor  Luc  Col. 
super  gentes  quae  se  superponunt  vobis ;   propter  quod  [Tycomus,] 

ego  quidem  iratus  sum  m6dice,  ipsi  autem  adiecenint  in  mala.  Tyeoniua, 


II 

II  14  Coll.  Carth.  Gtsta  cdviii  II  31-33  Tycon.  Rtg,  Stpt 

Zechariah,    I  14  Tert  De  eatm  ChtisH  xiv  I  14,  15  Lucit  Cal.  Dt  sand. 

Athan,  i  36  I  15  Tycon.  Reg.  Sepi, 

(«xc  49  ro/Aov)  13.  vestimento] -i-ovrov®       vestimenti] + avrov  (K        aliquam 

creaturam  panis  aut  vini]  aprov  ri  efuftaros  17  oivov  ffi  aprov  rj  otymtit^,  K**  *  C**)  17 1^, 
t[ow]  oivov  r  •^  (efnjfiaros  M  *•  *)  olei]  + 17  voKrox  fipo/fuiTos  (fi  si]  om  H  ? 

(posiea  rtvoc)  sanctificatur]  aytaaOrjatrtu  (Sc  13.  Dominus]  Aypuot  (St 

hrft^os  K  r  inquinatus]  +  <um0aprM  (S^  H  |^  M  (om  M  ^  ^  26  40  106)  9  oKoBaprot 

A  Q  in  anima  horum  aliquid]  cm  ^fo/x^  cvt  vavrot  rovrcuy  (Gfi  ^fvxij  crt  ^x^ 

avo  wavr,  rotrr.  A  ^X7  *"  ^XO^ ^'^  tott .  tout.  Q  sacerdotes]  +  mu  civor  (Sc%^ 
{om  68  87)  14.  dixit  Dominus]  avtKpiBi^  Ayyeuot  f&  {Ayytot  M)  +  ira<  fiir«v  (Sc 

Si  et]  ovTws  (Sc  sic  et  Cc  hie]  iste  Cc  et  sic  gens  ista]  Cc=F  omnis . . . 
inquinabitur]  et  si  illuc  accesserit  inquin.  Cc  km  os  far  C77(af}  cmi  /uar^afTcu  (Si 
KOI  OS  tav  iff.  ijua»e.  Q  31.  ego]  pr  <ri  airo^  2/  {exe  48  158  288)  com- 

movebo] auoi  ffiB  ^  1^  ((rc«r«  40  42  288  810  Compl  tnaot  K  «•  (?«>)  terram]  +  mu  ® 
33.  descendent]  ora/3i7<roKrai  A  Q^  (X'lm/Sijs.  [sic]  Q^  22  26  51  106  (147  ex  corr. 
m.  rec.)  283  icaTafi.  GH  {exe  22  51  147  288)  %  {exe  26  106)  33.  meum]-i- 

X«7<(  Kv/Not  (Si  signaculum]  on  a<ppaytda  <Sr  2/  {*xe  147)  |^  {exe  106)  tis  a^.  A 

106  147 

I.  14.  Hierusalem  et  Sion]  /r  IL|^        zelo  magno]  om  49  15.  vobis]  om  ® 

quidem]  om  L  modice]  minima  L  oXtya  (fi  -adiecerunt]  composuerunt  L 

ovrcvcffcKTo  ® 


Tvfomms. 

Cyprian, 

Sptculum, 
Cyprian. 


572         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Sptcntum,        7|8  'In  Sion  fugite  qui  conmoramini  filiam  Babylonis.     '  Quia  baec  did 

Dominus  omnipotens :   post  honorem  misit  me  super  gentes  qm 

spoliaveruni  vos,  quia  qui  tangil  vos  sicut  qui  tangit  pupillam  ocuH 

9  ipsius ;   "  ecce  ego  iniciam  manum  meam  super  eos,   et  eniut  b 

pracdam  bis  qui  serviunt  illis,  et  scient  quoniam  Dominus  omnipotens 

misit  me H 

I  ^  ^'  Timeat  a  facie  Domini  omnis  terra  quoniam  exsurrexit  dc  onbfl 
bus  Sanctis.  ^ 

IIL  I  ^  Et  ostendit  mibi  Dominus  lesum  sacerdotem  ilium  magnuo 
stantem  ante  faciem  angeli  Domini,  et  diabolus  stabat  ad  dexteraai 
3  eius  adversari  ei.    '  Et  dixit  Dominus  ad  diabolum  :    imperet  in  te 

3  Dominus  qui  elegit  Hierusalem        .         .         .  *[Cy/na«.]Et 
lesus  erat  indutus  vestimenta  sordida,  et  stabat  ante  faciem  ipsios 

4  angelL     *  Et  respondit  et  ait  ad  eos  qui  stabani  ante  tacienj  das, 
dicens :  auferte  vestimenta  sordida  ab  eo.     Et  dixit  ad  eum  :  eooe 

5  abstuli  iniquitates  tuas.     Et  induite  eum   poderem,    *et   inpomte 
cidarim  mundam  super  caput  eius  .         .         .  ,         '^^^1 

8* ecce  ego  add  uco  puerum  mcojl 

9  ortus  nomen  ei  est.    •  Quoniam  lapis  quern  dedi  ante  faciem  I«a 
super  lapidem  ipsum  unum  septem  ocuU  sunt 

IV 

TycoMius.          9  •  Manus  Zorobabel  fundavenint  domura  banc  et  manus  eius 
ficient  earn 


II  7-9  Spic  a  II  8  Tert,  Adv,  Mare,  iv  35  II   13  Tycoo.  R^.  StfL 

III  I  Cypr.  Testim,  u  13  III  a  Spic.  U  III  3-5  Cj^pr,  7«iJ^.  a 
III  8,  9  Cypr.  Ttstim,  d  16           IV  9  Tycon.  Rt^.  Sfpi. 


n.  8.  qui  itmg\tad/mt  com,]  qtit  teligerit  vosac  a\  puptllam  oculi  mei  tangvt  Tt 
9.  cccc]  prStoTi  ©IL  (*Jrf  96  lS5)Jl?ow  Q  {hah  0^9)  in  praedatn  .  . .  illis]  m^ 
TWi  hovXt^miair  ttwroii  (Sr IL  (tJet  6'2  147  233)  tf/mXa  Toif  ^vKtvcaaiv  avrotr  f^AQW 
attuXa  roit  CKvXfvovtfiv  atrrott  62  147  (^iwrovs)  illis]  aurqi  T  scient}  jwiaigftfii 

(K  yvtaffovrai  H  *  (-a^ffBt  K  ^  ^)  49  13.  oxxmis  terra]  va<7a  troff  ^         sancdil^ 

MUfTOV  (S( 

IIL  I.  ilium]   om  S  2,  Dominus   3'']^Stafiokt  »(u   mri/iij^tu   Ki/ptm  v 

<foi  ®  3.  erat]  om  22  51  ipsius]  om  ^  angeli]  +iv  Q  4*  9F^ 

stabftnt]  TOW  taTjjKora  Q  auferte]  a^eX»  Q  (At  r<  Q  ^)  abstttU]  ««•  a«o  f»»  % 

(*jnr  48  158  238)  ^  (exc  26  49  106)  5.  cidarim]  pr  furpay  «iu  1,  (ci^  48  15) 

283)  1^  {exr  26  87  91)  8.  ortus]  al  Oriens  C  AyaroXjj¥  &  nomeo  esjlci] 

cmSH  {hab  36)  jj^  (hab  49)  9.  ipsum]  rov  & 

IV.  9.  fundavcrunt  ad  fin.  com,']  om  Q*  (habQ'***)      fundavcrunl]  t4€fuKtm9vC^ 


] 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  573 

14  ^* Illi  duo  filii  opimitatis  adsistunt  Tniunuu 

Domino  universae  terrae. 
V.  I  *  £t  conversus  adlev^vi  oculos  meos  et  vidi  et  ecce  falcem  Speatlum 

2  volantem  ' statura  cubitorum  viginti  et 

3  latitudo  cubitorum  decem.    *  £t  dixit  mihi :   hoc  est  maledictum 
quod  exiit  ad  maleficos  qui  sunt  super  faciem  totius  terrae ;   quia 

4  omnis  fur  et  periurus  ex  ea  usque  ad  mortem  punietur  * . 

£t  proferam  illam,  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens,  et  introibit 
in  domum  furis  et  in  domum  periurantis  in  nomine  meo  in  mendacio, 
et  requiescet  in  media  domo  eius,  et  consummabit  eum  et  materiam 
eius  et  lapidem  eius 


VII 

9  *  Haec  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens :  indicium  iustum  iudicate,  et 

10  misericordiam  et  pietatem  £acite  unusquisque  ad  fratrem  suum,  ^^  et 
viduam  et  orfanum  et  proselytum  et  pauperem  per  potentiam  nolite 
obprimere  et  malitiam  unusquisque  fratris  sui  ne  remempremini  in 

11  cordibus  vestris.     ^^[Zuc.  Ca/,]  Et  dissuaserunt  ne  observarent  ct^**^'^^- 
I  a  dederunt  dorsum  stultitiae  et  aures  suas  "et  cor  suum  statuerunt 

insuadibile  ne  oboedirent,  degravaverunt  ut  npn  oboedirent  legem 

meam 

13  ^' si  clamabunt  et  non 

exaudiam  eos,  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens 

VIII 


IV  14  Tert.  Adv.  Man.  iv  2  a  V  1-4  Spic.  Ixxiv  VII  9,  10  Sp^.  x 

VII  9-13  Lucif.  Cal.  De  sand.  Athan.  i  37  VII  10  tert  Adv.  Marc,  iv  16 

14.  IlIi]-i-«<nFr62  147 

V.  I.  Conversus  adlevavi]  t-narpt^  not  ripa  (Sr  a.  statura]  fttjKmts  (Ec^% 

firjKos  jaiAQT  latitudo]  wKarovs  ®B %  (gxc  147  288)  ^  {exe  49)  wKarot  AQV 

3.  est]  om  i&  {kab  26  106)  3.  ad  maleficos  qui  sunt]  oZ  om  qui  sunt  5  om  (Sr 

totius]  alom  S        et  periurus]  om  (&  4.  illam]  avro  <SIL  {txe  62  147)  H 

(om  87  91)  avra  A  ^  introibit]  ttetXtvcoiMi  A  furis  et  in  domum]  alomS 

materiam]  ra  (v\a  (&        lapidem]  rovs  kiBovs  fSc 

VII.  9.  L«5  9.  omnipotens]  +  XfTetfv  1^ r  iudicate]  ir/Mrrroi  K*  («yNKiTai 
l^co,e.6)  fratrem]  »\i7<Tioi' IL  10.  per  potentiam]  om  (fi  obprimere] 

nocere  L  malitiam  ad /in.  com.']  malitiam  unusquisque  non  reminiscatur  fratris 

sui  in  corde  suo  L  ne  unusquisque  malitiae  fratris  sui  meminerit  sed  nee  proximi 
Ttrt  rememoremini]  ftyijaiKwstiToi  (B  ^  larqaiKOKUT*  %,  in  cordibus  vestris] 

rov  o3«X^v  avrw  Q  11.  dorsum]  +  avrwr  %  et  aures  suas]  *  t0apway  rov 

fit}  ucoKovtiv  (Sfi  ii  A  13.  cor  suum]  ras  xapitas  avrajv  H*  (rrpf  icap^ay  avrw 

l(e.a,  c.b^  degravaverunt  ut  non  oboedirent]  om  (ffir  13.  si]  ovrwr  ffi 

ovroi  Q^  eos]  om  ffiB  -^  (^kab  J^AQV) 


Qip^im, 


574        THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

15  *" animac 

16  quies^ci)tote ;  "haec  sunt  verba  quae  facialis  :  loquimini  veritatem 
tijiusquisque  ad  proximum  suum  et  indicium  pacilicum  et  iustura 

17  indicate  in  portis  vestris, "  et  unusquisque  malitiam  proximi  tui  nolite 
cogitare  in  cordibus  vestris,  et  iusiurandum  falsum  nolite  diligerc; 
quomam  haec  omnia  odi,  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens 

19** 

pacem  et  veritatem  diligite 

DC 

9  •  Dicite  filiae  Sion :    Ecce  rex  tuus  venit  tibi^  iustus  et  salvans,  mitts 

sedens  super  asinum  indomituro . 

X. , 

II  "Et  transibunt  per  mare  angustum  et  percutient  in  man  fluctus,  et 

arefacient  omnes  altitudines  fluminum,  et  confundetur  omnis  iniuria 

la  Assyrioruro,  et  sceptrum  Aegypli  auferetur.     "Et  confortabo  eos 

in   Domino   Deo  ipsorum,  et  in   nomine  eius  gloriabuntur,  diat 

Dominus »         . 

XI .,..,, 

16  "Ecce  ego  suscito  pastorem  in  terra  qui  quod  aversum  est  non 
visitabit        .......      et  cames  electo 

mandocabit,  et  talos  iUomm  torquebit  .        .        *         ,         . 

XIL  10  ^* Et  intuebuntur  in  me  in 

VIII  15-17  Lucif.  Cftl  Df  samd,  A  than,  i  37  VIII  17  Tert.  Adv,  Marc,  iv  16; 

5/w.  xl  Vin  19  Ladf.  Cal.  De  sanct,  Athan,  i  ^j  IX  9  Cypr  Tesim. 

ii  39  X  iij  la  Cypr.  Ttstim.  il.  6  X  la  Sptc,  ii  XI  16  Cypr.  Ad 

Novat,  xiv  XII  10  Cypr.  Tfsttm,  ii  ao  Tcrt.  Dg  Rtsurrec  Cam,  xxri ; 

Adv.  Marc,  Ui  7  ;  Adv,  lud,  iv 

Vin.  15.  animae  quiescitote]  $aftaur%  <St  i6.  et  iodicium^  pr  oXf^9c«oy  C 

68  87  pr  aXrtOvt  63  91  147  pacificum]  ^ttatow  A  106  et  tttsttizn]  owt  61 

{txc  36)  f^  (rxf  49  68)  iudicale]  n^ivtrt  %AQ  tcptimr*  B%  17.   tui]  o/ini 

L  Ttri  aWToy  ©i*  22  86  68         nolite  cogitare]  unusquisque  ne  recog;itet  TtH        tof- 
iurandum]  iuramentuni  S         quoniani]  quia  5         odi]  odivi  S  19.  pacem  ct 

veritatem]  his  srr  H  veritatem]  tr  © 

IX.  9.  Dicilc  filiae  Sion]  x^/w  tr^/w  OvyxTtp  "Iuqjv  {"S^taiv  J^HAQ^r)  tt^pawt 
$vyaT*p  l«pov(TaXi}ft  6r  mitts  scdens]  avros  wpavi  teat  tm^ij^rjiewt  1&  a»tmK 
iodomitum]  vno^irytof  Ktu  ttwXoy  P€oy  ffi 

X.  It.  coniandcixir}  a(p(up*$jjarrat  G  f^  f<i^ip*^^fTtu '^  13*  coDfort&bo] 
confirmabo  S 

XI.  16.  Ecce]  fir  Stort  G  om  62  147  ego]  om  ®b  22  86  51  {hab  H^^ 
rcu\  Q)           pflstorein]  +  ampof  H^^  (rur$  ras)  +  an^if>o¥  IL  Don  visitabit]  «w 
fvicrier^i^rai  ffir         torquebit]  tttrpufu  |^  A  tHerpt^fti  S  % 

XIL  10.  Videbunt  cnim  cum  qui  confixerunt  ai  Tunc  et  cogtioscent  eum  qui 
compugerunt  it/  £t  tunc  cogooscent  eum  quern  pupugeruot  Tnl  in  me]  ^  (!)  om 


I 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  575 

quern  transfixenint 

XIII Tiriuttian. 

t '  Exurge  romphaea  in  pastores      .....    et  evelMte 

oves,  et  superducam  manum  meam  in  pastores      .... 
9  * uram  illos  sicut 

uritur  argentum,  et  probabo  illos  sicut  probatur  aurum  . 

XIV. 

II  " habitabit  Tyeomus, 

I  a  in  Hierusalem  confidens,  ^'et  haec  erit  strages  qua  caedet  Dominus 
populos,  quotquot  militaverunt  adversus  Hierusalem :  tabescent 
cames  eorum  stantibus  eis  super  pedes  suos,  et  oculi  eorum  fluent 

13  a  foraminibus  eorum,  et  lingua  eorum  tabescet  in  ore  eorum.  '^  £t 
erit  in  ilia  die  alienatio  magna  super  illos,  et  adprehendet  unus- 
quisque  manum  proximi  sui,   et  implicabitur  manus  eius  manui 

14  proximi  eius.  ^*  £t  ludas  proeliabitur  in  Hierusalem,  et  coUiget 
vires  omnium  populorum,  aurum  et  argentum  et  vestem  in  multitu- 

15  dinem  nimis.  ^'  £t  haec  erit  strages  equorum  et  mulorum  et 
camelorum  et  asinorum  et  omnium  pecorum  quae  sunt  in  castris 

16  illis,  secundum  stragem  istam.  ^£t  erit  quicumque  relicti  fuerint 
ex  omnibus  gentibus  venientibus  super  Hierusalem  et  ascendent 
quotquot  annis  adorare  regem  Dominum  omnipotentem,  celebrare 
diem  festum  scenopegiae 

MaLACHI. 

I 

a  ' lacob  dilexi,  CypHan, 

XIII  7  Tert  D*  Fuga  in  persee.  xi  XIII  9  Tert  Dt  Fuga  in  ptrsic,  iii 

XIV  11-16  Tycon.  Rig,  Quart,         XIV  14  Tert  Adv.  Mare,  iii  13;  Adv,  lud,  ix 
Malaehi.    I  a,  3  Cypr.  Dt  Mont  Sin,  tt  Sum,  vi 

w  c[£]c[jr<yn7<ray]  r  26  68  87  in  quern  transfixenint]  a»9  wf  iearwp(xri9tarro  (&  J^ 

XIII.  7.  pastores  l®  -I-  ^v  <Sr  |^  tw  votuwoM  K  ^  ^  row  voi/uuva  A  Q^  ror  vm/Mva 
Q^T  evellite] ^a<rKopni<r$i}TW K «• »  StaffKopmeetjTwrea'  K  "•  * T  ^affKOpmffBffffb | rai 
A  {tKtnmaart  B)  oves]  -¥  rrjs  voi/anji  A  superducam]  cwiorpf^  IL  K  ^  ^ 
(cTo^ctf  m  Jl^)  pastores  a^]  rovs  fwtpovs  B  vointvas  rous  /wepovs  %H^*  {improb. 
posiea  rtvoc,  K  X)  row  votfifvas  Jl^  A  QT 

XIV.  II.  in]  ont  (S  ii|  la.  confidens  . .  .  adversus  Hierusalem]  om  K* 
{hab  v€woi9oTos  [-tow  ipsi  ut  vid  corr]  .  . .  ««  lA^JI  t^^'^)  I  a.  populos]  pr 
wtarras  (Sr  stantibus]  tanjKorts  K*  (-ra»r  K ^  ^  (Sr)  eis]  om  BH%  (hob  A  ^) 
a]  €K  CEr  airo  A  1 3.  alienatio]  -I-  Kvfuov  6c  (fxc  106)  adprehendet]  tnkrift^ 
ilfoyrm  GH  *viXrj\ffmu  f^  twikrifjaf/mt  AT  14.  Et  ludas  praetendet  apud 
Hierusalem  et  congregabit  omnem  valentiam  populorum  per  circuitum  aurum  et 
argentum  Tert  populorum]  KVKKoBtv  ®  nimis]  pr  ttrni  62  147  15.  Et  i**] 
om  A            16.  celebrare]  ^  ircu  6r 

I.  a.  lacob  dilexi]  /r  (S  -1-  Ac7<t  i?  M  6.  suum]  +  ^firfiriatrai  2/  K  ^  *  {posita 


576 


THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Luc.  Cat. 

Coll.  Carth. 


Spfcuium. 
Cyprian. 


3  *  Esau  autem  odio  habui 

6  •  Filius  honorificat  patrem  et  servus  dominum  suum  ;  et  si  pater  sum 
ego,  ubi  est  honor  meus  ?  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens.  \^CpU,  Carik] 
Vos,  o  sacerdotes,  qui  profanatis  nomen  meum  et  dixfstis,  in  quo  pro- 

7  fanavimus  nomen  tuum  ?  '  Et  ponentes  in  altari  meo  panes  pollatos; 
et  dixistis,  in  quo  polluimus  illos?  In  eo  ut  diceretis,  mcas* 
Domini  bcnedicta  est  et  quae  superponebantur  annullastis 

lo  ^" Non  est  mihi  voltmtas 

circa  vos,  dicit  Dominus,  et  sacrificium  acceptum  non  habebo  a. 
II  manibus  vestns  ;  ^'  quoniam  a  solis  ortu  et  usque  in  occasu  clarifia- 
tum  est  nomen  meum  apud  gentes,  in  omni  loco  odores  tncaa 
offeruntur  nomini  meo  et  sacrificium  mundum,  quoniam  magnam 
est  nomen  meum  apud  gentes,  dicit  Dominus,  et  sacrificium  ic- 
ceptum  non  habebo  ex  manibus  vestris. 

14  **  Maledictus  homo  qui  potens  erat,  et  erat  in  grege  eius  maseoloi, 
et  votum  eius  super  ilium,  et  immolat  inquinatura  Domino;  [Cy^ndti] 
rex  magnus  sum  ego,  dicit  Dominus,  et  nomen  meum  inlustre  est 
apud  gentes. 


I  6  Lucif.  Cal.  Dt  sanH,  A  than,  i  37 
xlvi  I    10    Sp€c.   xlvi  I    10, 

Mart,   iii   aa ;    Adv.  lud.  v ;    Coll.  Cftrth. 
Testim.  W  19 


I  6,  7  Coll.  Carth.  Gtsts  cclviii ;  Sf$t. 

II  Cypr.    Ttstim^  i    16;    Tert.  ^A. 
Gt^a  Iv  I    14  Sfm,   Itxj    Cjpr. 


( 


rod)  o]  o»#f  5  <E  profiuulis]  Gdlitis  S  in  quo]  in  qua  re  S 

fiuiavimus]  fefeUirous  S  7.  Et]  om  S  ©  ponentes]  offcreotes  S         ia 

Altari  meo]  ad  altadum  meum  S  et  dixistis]  in  mg.  ras  asttrisc  B^  hoA- 

dicta]  fiKioyrj^tyji  ©^  {-v^  B*)  '^  §(ovSeyaffi€t^  IL  {^c  62  tvKxrfrjfUwif)  K**'****0 
et  quae  superponebantur]  in  m^,  rasasUriscBt  tcai  ra  tmBtytx  K*  {-Situvo  l^*-*) 
annuUastts]  fffwfiara  t^ovStva/vrai  H"-^  ^'poiUa  nvoc,  f^ov^ywrart)  0p>ont»ani  <^ovi«ft- 
fuya  fSfAQ  lo.  circa  vos]  in  vobis  Cc  om  S  «v  vfuy  <5  Dominus]  +o«- 

nipotcns  Cc  S -^  vavroKfuarotp  (ffir  et  sacrifidum]  sacrificia  Tiri  acceptum]  •■• 
Cc  S  Tiri  i&  habebo]  accipiara  CcS  reciplam  Ttrt  v/MxrJSffojMii  <5r  ex]  de  Cr 

II.  a  solis  ortu]  ab  ortu  solis  Cc  ab  oriente  sole  Ttrt  et  1*]  om  Cc  Ttrt  A Q 
in  occasu]  ad  occasum  Cc  in  occidentem  {al  in  occasum)  Ttrt  tart  biftrfia/y  G^am^tt 
clarificatum]  glohficatum  (a/ clarificatum)  Ttrt  apud  gentes  l°]  in  g-cntibasCr 

in  nationibus  {al  in  omnibus  gentibus)  TVrf +  et  Cc  Ttrt  (iBvfat  bis  Q*)  in  i*]^ 

pr  tt  G  odores  incensi  offeruntur]  incensum  offertur  Cc  offeruntur  (o/od'er^i-H 

tur)  sacrificia  munda  Ttrt  &vtuaput  wpoaay^rxu  ^%  (txc  22  51  ^^  fun  wpoaay.)^^ 
OvfuCfut  vpoaa-yaytTt  tin  A  Ovfuafia  npoaayayfT€  Q*  ^^  {'ajtrct,  Q^)  Qomtni  meo] 

om  22  61  quoniam  3'.  .  .  apud  gentes  i°]  om  Ttrt         apud  Rentes  2"]  in  gto- 

tibus  Cc  Dominus]  Hhomnipotcns  Cc  +  irayTotepaTup  G  et  sacrificiuxn  2* — W 

Jin.  rorw.]  al  om  C  om  Cc  Ttrt  G  14.  Maledictus]  prmt  (B         homo]  om  G 

{tjcc36)j^  {hab  Compl)  eral  2^]  + at/rot  A  26  eius  l^]omA  imraolal' 
Bvffi  H  {0V41  <E)  inqulnaturo]  ^itfp6appnva  %  (-/Mvor  Cv  |l|)  TtaL^frhvn 

ego]  om  62  H7  Dominus]  +  na»nro*^Ta//>  fflr 


^e^u 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  577 

11.  I,  a  *  Et  niinc  praeceptum  hoc  ad  vos  est,  o  sacerdotes.    *  Si  non  Cyprian. 
audieritis  et  si  non  posueritis  in  corde  vestro   ut  detis   honorem 
nomini  meo,  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens,    immittam  in    vos  male- 
dictionem,  et  raaledicam  benedictionem  vestram      .... 

5  *  Testamentum  meom  fuit  cum  vita  et  pace,  et  dedi  illi  timorera  ut 
6*timeret  me  a  facie  nominis  mei  proficisci  ilium.     *Lex  veritatis  in 

ore  eius,  et  iniustitia  non  est  inventa  in  lahiis  eius,  in  pace  linguae 
7  corrrgens  ambulavit  nobiscum,  et  multos  avertit  ab  iniustitia.     ^  Quo- 

niam  labia  sacerdotis  servabunt  scientiam,  et  legem  exquirent  ab  ore 

eius^  quoniam  angelus  Domini  Omnipotentis  est    . 


to  ^^  Nonne  Deus  unus  condidit  nos  ?    Nonne  pater  unus  est  omnium 

nostrum  ?   quid  utique  dereliquistis  unusqursque  fratrem  suom  . 
:i  *^  Derelictus  est  luda  et  abominatio  facta  est  in  Israel  et  in  Hieru- 
salem,  quoniam  profanavit  ludas  sancta  Domini,  in  quibus  dilexit, 
\i2  et  afTeclavit  deos  alienos.     "  Exterminabit  Domiims  hominem  qui 
facit  haec,  et  humilis  in  tabernaculis  lacob 


17  "  Exacerbatis  Deum  in  verbis  vestris,  et  dixistis,  in  qua  re  exacer-  Luc.  Cal 
bavimus  eum  ?    In  eo  quod  dicatis  :   omnis  qui  facit  malum  bonuni 
est  coram  Deo»  et  in  ipsis  benedtcet,     Et  ubi  est  Deus  iustitiae? 

IIL  I  ' Et  subito  venit  Sp*culum. 

in  templo  suo  Dominus  quem  vos  quaeritis,  et  angelus  testament! 
quern  vos  vultis ;  . . 

3  '  Et  sedit  conHans  et  expurgans  sicut  aurum  et  argentum  et  emun-  Cyprian, 

II  1,  a  Cypr.  Ep.  lix  13;  Ixxiv  8  11  5  Cypr.  Tesdm,  iii  ao  II  5-7 

CypT,  Testim.  11  5  II  10  Cypr.  T€Stim.i\\  3  11  ii,  u  Cypr.  Testim.i  i 

11  17  Ludf.  CaL  Di  sand,  Aihan.  i  38        HI  i  Spec,  ii        III  5  Cypr.  Testim.  iii  57 

11.  J.  est]  am  ©  o  sacerdotes]  w  t*p*tt  ffiE  {exc  22  S8  51  m  uput)  f^  (#« 
106)  Tovf  i4p4it  r  106  3.  audierkis]  vitwetywrift*  AV  SQA9  106  si  non  3*] 

om  K  *■  *  {postea  ras)  posuerilis]  0€<T&i  N  *■•**•  *'  *  in  cordc]  «r  toij  uafAais  K  *•  * 
(jKisifa  ntpos,  c«  rr/r  ftofitiav)  omnipotens]  ai  om  C  immittam]  ai  inmittani  C 
«iawo<ffri\\w  K  (-£TT«A<w  H^'^t*^  *)  5.  mcum]  ai  om  C  {om  311)         vita]  pr  avrov 

ilU]  at  illis  C  timorcm]  tr  ^fim  ffi  ^  (om  tv  ILH'^-^)  ul  timcrct]  ai  timere  C 
rae]  o»H  B  {kab  B^^  i^^>)  a  facie]  pr  ttoi  G  proficisci  ilium]  al  om  C 

6.  in  ore]  ^riyi'  G  linguae]  al  om  Com  ffi  nobiscum]  fiir  «^ovS  7.  Om- 
nipotentis] al  om  C  10.  Nonne  1"°  .  «  .  nostrum]  ovx*  frijp  «i9  tr^vrwr  vyM^  ovxt 
ffi  fit  iimc^v  vftas  J<  "•*  nos]  vftas  CS  «l]  om  ©  quid  ulfque]  ti  on  G 
dioTi  r  II.  dcos]  pr  fir  G  {om  K  ^'  ^)  i  a,  et  humilis]  tiui  Jtai  rantifaidrf 
iQJ^  tan  at*  «<u  rawttroiOif  1,N^*"  lacob]  al  am  C  17.  Exacerbatis]  «  wo/jo- 
^vi^oKTCf  ®        eum]  om  AV  1^  i%  \m  233  a*  87  91        benedicct]  pr  avrttt  (5 

HI.  I.  vcnit]  17^11  ©        soo]  foirrot/  ^°  IL  )l^  ovtou  A  ^^  T  om  Q*        3.  Et  i"J 

VOL.  V.  P  p 


578         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 
dabit  filios  Levi 


7  ^ Reverdmini  ad  oc 

et  ego  revertar  ad  vos,  dicit  Dominus    .         .  ,         .         •      . 

Spe€utnm.      8  8  Si  subplantablt  homo  Dominum  quia  vos  subplantastis  roe.   ft 
dixistts,  in  quo  subplantavimus  te?    Quia  dedmae  meaeet  pnmitur 
9  vobiscum   sunt     •  Et   dissimulantes   vos   disstmulastis,  et  vos  at 
10  subplantastis,  .,.***  et  intulisiis  vos  pignera  in  thensauns  vestnSj  «f 
erit  rapina  in  domibus  vestris        ..... 

Lut.  Cak       II  *'  Gravastis  adversum  me  consilia  vestra  dicit  Dominus  omnipoWffii 

14  et  dixistis,  in  qua  re  detraximus  de  te?  ^*quia  dixistts,  vanus  «t 
omnis  qui  servit  Deo,  et  quid  amplius  quod  custodivimus  ptaecqia 
illius,  et  ambulavimus  deprecantes  ante  conspectu  Domini  omnipo 
tentis  ? 

15  '*Et  nunc  nos  magnificamus  alienos,  et  renovantur  omnes  facieiites 

16  iniqua,  et  restiterunt  Deo,  et  salvati  sunt  '*  Haec  detraxerunt  qm 
timent  Deum  unusquisque  ad  proximum  suum,  et  intendit  Dominci 
et  exaudivit,  et  scripsit  librum  memorialem   coram  se  timentibQi 

i^  Dominum  ct  metuentibus  nomen  suum.  "  Et  erit  mihi,  dici 
Dominus  omnipotens,  in  die  qua  ego  facio,  in  possessione,  et  eHgto 
eos  quemadmodum  eligit  homo  filium  suum  bene  servtentem  sbt 

18  "  Et  conversi  videbitis  quantum  sit  inter  iustum  et  iniustum,  intff 
servientem  Deo  et  non  servientem. 

Ill  7  Cypr.  Ad  Vig.  i ;  De  bo»o pat.  iv  III  8-10  Spte.  lix 

Lucif.  Cal.  Dt  snnct  Athan,  i  38 

o»«  <S®  cxpurgans]  tca$aptttT«  H*  (-^r^cuv  H  **  *r  *■  *)  sicut  aurum} 

Xpvaiov  ob«l  adpJnx  B^  (w»«b>  mg         gurum  ct  argentum]  tr  C5  ftrg«ratuo] 

©»  JU  A  (om  1.  txc  62  147)  emundabit]  Ka&apLU  E  »•  {-ptat  K  ?)  Q  T 

Autt  H*  (AfVH  ffi^lLl^t**''*)  Am  A  Q^  7,  Revcrtimini]  ^m^rrpa^urn  At 

49  106  ego]  om  (S         ct  ego  revertar  ad  vos]  al  om  C  Dominus]  -hllwi^^ 

HfxtTmp  Cr  8.  Si]  tiT}u  C|B  ci  H  |!}  Dominum]  etor  dSt  suhplzntMs6s] 

*T4piu(frt  iS  firrfpyiCtrt  Q*  {wrtpv^  Q*)  dixistis]  §puTt   ffis  («tirarc  EHK'' 

AQ"  r)  meae]  om  ®  primitiae]  a/>xai  N*  (o*ti/>x«*  N*"*  *•  ''*)  ^  ^^ 

airaulastis]  +  ««  ovra  32  61  fl2  147  +  m  avro  B5  166       vos  roc]  tr^J^  i©.  ves] 

om  CSt         pigTJcra]  pr  »ai^a  4E  E  (*xc  62  14  7)  J|{         thensaum]  iw  9c«^«tipr  K  *•* 
(postra  Tovs  $Tj<TavfK>vt)  vestris]  om  {&  {Aitb  %  J^)  erit]  0m  H  I  (posita  natii) 

rapina]  +  avrw  ^  -f  avraw  K*^  ^  {postea  rai)  In  domibus  vestris]  c«r  rw  ot«w  orfiB 

ffi  26  106  13.  consilia]  tow  Xo7wt  ffi         omnipotens]  om  (5  ||J  14.  q^jia] 

om  Sr  est  omnis  qui  servit]  o  SovXcMttv  ^  E  {txc  35  war  0  9<n;\rva/r>  Jj^         et  }*] 

'f&aTi^E  15.  omnes]  o*M  (51^         fadentcs]  rotwKTtt  6w  scr  ^        ct 

o»M  E ^  Qr  16.  Dcum] TOf  Kttpttjit  G  omtevH^  **''  (AaA K')         intendit]  i8« 

17.  erit]  iffoyrtu  C&  mihi]  ^ow  fct*  *^  (/im  K')         eligit]  atpfrici  Q*  ^prrtiit 

bciJc]omS  18.  Et  J*]  om  «•  (An^K*"-*)        quantum  sit]  ow  ft         in' 

pr  Qv^tfitaov  (!&        inter  3°]  ^  xcu  iflr         son  servientem]  /^  ayofuopi^  |L  4  «rf«  E 
Compi 


Luo]  pr^M 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  579 

IV.  1  ^  Ecce  dies  Domini  venit  ardens  velut  clibanus,   enintque  Cyprian. 

omnes  alienigenae  et  omnes  iniqui  stipula,  et  succendet  illos  ad- 

veniens  dies,  dicit  Dominus  [Lucif.  Co/,]  et  non  derelinquetur  ex  eis  Luc,  Cai. 
a  radix  nee  vitis.     *Vobis  autem  timentibus  meum  nomen  orietur  sol  Cyprian, 

iustitiae  et  sanitas  in  alis  eius 

4  .        .        .         *  Et  ecce  mittam  vobis  Helian  Thesbiten        .        .  TeriuiUan. 


rV  I  Cypr.  Tistim.  ii  38;  Ad  Denut.  as;  Lucif.  CaL  Di  sanct.  Athan,  i  38 
rV  a  Cypr.  Ad  Vig.  6  ;  De  Pascha  Computus  19 ;  Tycon.  Rtg,  Sept.  iv  4 ;  Tert  De 
Ammav 

IV.  I.  Quia  ecce  dies  venit  Domini  ardens  sicut  clibanus  et  uret  eos  et  erunt 
omnes  alienigenae  et  omnes  qui  faciunt  scelera  ut  sarmenta  et  succendet  eos  dies 
Domini  quae  venit  dicit  Dominus  omnipotens  L  Ecce]  pr  &ori  (Scfj^prori 

%H:^*^  om  A*  (Ikori  i9ov  in  mg.  et  sup  ras  A^  ?)  Domini]  om  6t®  1/  enintque] 
pr  Km  ^Xe^f  I  avrmn  f&  %  (exc  62  147)  |^  iniqui]  pr  oi  votowrts  f&  Dominus]  + 
UarroKparoip  (&  ex]  om  l^K^  ^  'a.  Timentibus  oritur  sol  iustitiae  et  sanitas 
in  pinnis  eius  T  Vobis  .  . .  orietur]  icai  avartXti  vftof  roir  ^0ovfi€vois  to  orofta 

Itov  (Si  timentibus]  al  qui  timetis  C  meum  nomen]  al  nomen  Domini  C 
orietur]  oZ-t- vobis  C  sanitas]  al  curatio  C  alis]  al  pinnis  C  eius]  avraty 
A  106  4.  Et]  am  r        mittam]  pr  tyv  (St  awoartWv  Q  22  86  49  51 

W.  O.  E.  Oesterley. 


NOTES  ON  THE  DIDACHE. 
I. 

On  Baptism  by  Affusion. 

Where  and  when  did  Baptism  by  Affusion  come  to  be  regarded  as 
perfectly  adequate  and  legitimate  ?  We  need  not  pursue  the  question 
beyond  the  first  five  centuries. 

1.  Tertullian  de  Cor,  MiL  3  says  *ter  mergitamur*.  In  several 
places  he  uses  the  word  *  tinguo ',  which  means  *  to  dip '  (Virg.  Georg, 
i  246  *  Arctos  Oceani  metuentes  aequore  tingui ') ;  or  to  dip  cloth  in 
vats  and  so  '  to  dye  \  The  word  does  not  appear  to  be  used  of  bathing. 
Dipping  which  imparts  a  colour  or  character  seems  to  be  its  common 
sense,  and  hence  it  came  to  be  used  of  Baptism. 

2,  In  the  third  century  Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  says  that  the 
whole  of  the  clergy  and  many  of  the  laity  of  that  church  objected  to 
the  ordination  of  Novatian  (Eus.  If.  E,  vi  43,  17)  ^i  f^i  l^v  ^v  tok. 
hr\   kXivtj^  3ia  vocrov  n€piX})BhrTa   {=^ perfusum),    wnrtp   kqX   oirro9,    ei9 

tsX^p6v  Ttva  ytvwBoL    It  has  been  thought  that  the  ground  of  the 

P  p  a 


580         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

objection  is  to  be  found  in  the  words  Bw.  »wor,  and  that  what 
objectors  really  meant  was  that  Novatian  had  been  baptized  only 
because  he  was  sick,  from  fear  and  not  in  faith.  For  this  reason  the 
later  canon  of  Neocaesarea  (12)  lays  it  down  as  a  general  rule  thai 
c/inki  ought  not  to  be  ordained.  But  this  does  not  appear  to  be  the 
meaning  of  Cornelius.  Just  before  he  says  iv  airrj  r^  kXivtj  ^  ixtm 
7r€fA)(y$tU  iXcLJ^tv'  €i  yc  )(pfij  Xcyctv  rov  rotovrov  ctAT^t^cKOi.  What  he 
dislikes  is  the  informality  and  apparent  irreverence  of  administenqg 
Baptism  by  affusion  to  a  person  lying  on  a  bed.  It  is  to  be  noticed  thai 
Novatian  had  not  delayed  his  Baptism  (this  is  the  offence  against  i-hich 
the  Neocaesarean  canon  is  aimed),  for  his  sickness  and  his  conversion 
coincided  in  point  of  time.  Cornelius  goes  on  to  say  that  Nontian 
had  not  after  his  recovery  received  the  ox^paytV ;  this  was  another 
additional  defect.  But  the  fact  that  he  had  been  baptized  by  affusion 
was  in  itself  an  irregularity. 

3.  In  this  Cornelius  quite  agrees  with  Magnus,  an  African  Christiin, 
who  wrote  to  Cyprian  to  ask  him  whether  those  who  had  been  baptized  in 
sickness  were  *  legitimi  christiani,  eo  quod  aqua  salutari  non  loti  siin: 
sed  perfusi '.  Here  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  what  Magnus  objects 
to  is  the  form  of  Affusion.  Cyprian  replies  (£p.  69)  that  it  makes  no 
difference  '  quod  adspergi  vel  perfundi  videntur  aegri  ',  Let  us  oottoe 
that  he  uses  adspergi  and  perfundi  as  synonyms,  and  that  he  does  not 
add,  as  he  certainly  would  have  done  if  it  had  been  true,  that  he  kne» 
cases  when  people  who  were  not  sick  had  been  baptized  by  affosioo. 
Later  on  in  this  same  Epistle  he  writes  '  non  interrogentur  utrumne  loti 
sint  an  perfusi,  utrumne  cUnici  sint  an  peripatetici ',  thus  identifying  the 
peripateticus  with  the  lotus,  Cyprian  corresponded  with  the  Bishops  of 
Rome,  Gaul,  and  Spain  in  the  West,  and  with  Firmilian  of  Cappadocii 
in  the  East,  and  was  well  acquainted  wih  the  different  usages  of  the 
two  divisions  of  the  Church  in  respect  of  re-baptism.  But  he  does  not 
appear  to  be  aware  of  any  difference  in  the  method  of  administration. 

4.  So  far  things  appear  to  be  quite  clear.  It  has,  however,  bcw 
thought  by  high  authorities  that  we  have  a  picture  of  Baptism  by 
Affusion,  dating  from  the  second  century,  and  therefore  long  before 
Magnus  wrote  to  Cyprian,  in  the  Roman  catacombs.  Let  us  pave  the 
way  for  its  consideration  by  observing  that  in  the  Canons  of  Ilippolyt» 
(Achelis,  p.  96)  the  priest  is  directed  to  keep  his  hand  upon  the  hci4 
of  the  baptized  throughout  the  tliree  immersions,  an  attitude  whkh 
would  be  difficult  in  the  case  of  baptism  by  affusion,  for  it  was  the  right 
hand,  Tertullian  puts  the  rule  differently,  de  BapL  8  *dehinc  (after 
immersion)  manus  imponitur  per  benedictionem  advocans  ei  inviiam 
sacrum  spiritum.'  Now  in  the  fresco  in  question  (it  is  in  the  Chapel  of 
the  Sacrament  in  the  Cemetery  of  Callistus),  this  appears  to  be  the 


\ 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


581 


joment  selected  for  representation.  The  reader  may  consult  the 
shromo-lithographs  given  by  de  Rossi  Roma  Sotierranea  ii  plate  i6, 
id  by  Wilpert  Dk  Makreien  der  Kaiakomben  Rotm  ii  plate  27.  The 
rene  is  a  river  wth  rocky  bank.  The  Baptist,  naked  save  for  an  apron 
mnd  his  loins,  touches  with  outstretched  right  hand  the  head  of  our 
>rd,  round  which  water  is  seen  flying  off  in  great  quantities.  Behind 
le  Baptist  is  the  Dove  (not  in  de  Rossi),  The  I^rd  is  standing  in 
le  river.  In  Wilpert's  reproduction  the  right  foot  of  the  Baptist  is  in 
le  water,  the  left  is  raised  as  if  he  were  just  stepping  on  to  the  bank. 
In  that  of  de  Rossi  both  his  feet  are  visible  and  he  appears  to  have  just 
»erged. 

Wilpert  gives  four  other  pictures  representmg  Baptism  of  which  three 
re  quite  parallel  to  this,  except  that  they  do  not  attempt  to  draw  the 
tter  dripping  from  the  head  (plate  39— second  ceittury,  plate  58 — 
tird  century,  plate  228^ — ^fourth  century).  In  all  the  moment  chosen 
for  representation  is  the  same,  and  the  priest  is  seen  laying  his  hand  on 
le  head  of  the  baptized.  It  appears  to  me  that  Mr  Marriott  (in 
}ktionary  of  Christian  Antiquities^  article  Baptism)^  de  Rossi,  and 
^ilpert  are  quite  mistaken  in  supposing  that  what  we  have  in  the  first 
fresco  is  a  picture  of  Baptism  by  affusion.  The  moment  selected  by 
le  artist  is  that  which  immediately  follows  the  act  of  Baptism,  and  the 
ttcture  does  not  tell  either  one  way  or  the  other. 

5.  Perpetua  and  some  of  her  companions  were  baptized  in  prison : 
was  Donatianus  (Passio  S.  Montani  in  Ruinart) :  not  necessarily  by 

tusion  ;  there  was  a  iabrum  aquarum  in  the  jaiL  All  these  cases  are 
irican  ;  in  the  East  martyrs  appear  to  have  been  taught  that  the 
iptism  of  blood  sufficed.  In  the  Acts  of  St  Laurence  a  soldier  is 
iptized  in  prison  from  a  pitcher,  but  the  Acts  are  later.  Such  cases 
rere  quite  extraordinary. 

6.  Early  in  the  fourth  century  we  find  a  passing  phrase  in  Lactantius 
div.  inst,  iv  15  *ut  gentcs  baptismo,  id  est  .  .  .  purifici  roris  perfusione 
salvaret '.  We  can  hardly  build  an  argument  on  these  words.  Lactantius 
is  a  styh'st,  whose  language  is  largely  affected  by  reminiscences  of  Virgil. 
Now  Virgil  uses  perfuftdo  of  dipping  sheep — Gtorg.  iii  445  'Dulcibus 
idcirco  fluviis  pecus  omne  magistri  Perfundunt ' ;  cp.  with  this  Georg, 
i  272  '  Balantumque  gregem  fluvio  mersare  salubri ',  It  is  not  quite 
certain  what  lactantius  means,  but,  if  he  means  that  Baptism  might  in 
all  cases  be  administered  by  perfusio  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  he 
does  not  agree  with  Cornelius,  Cyprian,  or  Magnus. 

7.  AlK)ut  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
appears  to  contemplate  Baptism  by  immersion  only.  The  font  is  the 
KoXv/i^jJ^po,  the  baptized  go  down  into  the  water  and  rise  up  from  it 
(MiTo^vctFj  iij^aSvfty),  the  immersion  signifies  the  burial  of  Christ.    While 


582         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


under  the  water,  the  baptized  see  nothing,  as  if  it  were  night ;  wba  I 
they  emerge  they  see  again  clearly  as  in  the  day  (C  M.  ii  4),    Cp.C 
xvii  13. 

8.  Basil,  in  Cappadocia,  writes  de  S.  S^  15  otoifci  y«ip  a^<urmui^ 
voart  T(uv  paTrrL^Ofiivwv  ra  cuij^ra  ...  to  vSmp  Mnnp  iw  rw^  ro  or»^ 
Trapah€)(o}txvov^  words  which  would  seem  to  be  conclusive  in  £&?oi>xw 
immersion,  if  it  were  not  for  the  next  quotation. 

9.  For  Basil's  brother,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Caf,  Or,  xxx?  (toL  i 
p,  98  D  ed.  Paris  1638),  writes  avrX  yrj^  ro  vSit>p  hrix€afJi€r<K  m  wSl 
TO  trToixtiov:  again  (ibid.  p.  99  D)  to  C&top  rpU  ^ixco/ackoc  lau  vQ^ 
^yafidvrt^  <tiro  tov  v&xtw  :  again  in  Bap/.  Christi  (vol,  iii  372  B)  ^ 
yap  TO  truyyo'C?  T^s  y^  iTTXiixCiQV  ra  iJ5ajp  c/9;;(o^cKOt  cxctVui  €aLrroi<«  cynful- 
TTTOficv :   and  again  (ibid,  p.  376  D)  vSart  yap  dKyi^di;  ro  irup  rpkw  hn^ 

Tk7)6fVri, 

Gregory  agrees  with  all  the  other  authorities  in  requiring  the  candidiie 
to  go  into  the  water  and  stand  there.  But  the  water  is  then  apparently 
poured,  from  the  hand»  or  rather  from  a  vessel  (eiripfcrf,  cmuo-JU^]^  in 
considerable  quantity,  so  that  the  man  may  be  said  to  *  go  under  the 
element',  to  *hide  himself  in  the  water'.  Further,  as  in  the  pbnse 
last  quoted  he  is  speaking  of  the  baptism  in  Jordan,  he  regards  oar 
Lord  Himself  as  having  been  baptized  in  this  manner.  In  this  he  is 
followed  by  the  Ravenna  mosaics  (see  Marriott^s  article  Baptism  m  ' 
D.  C,  A. ;  the  date  is  said  to  be  about  450)  in  which  the  Baptist  is  seen 
jjouring  water  from  a  scallop  on  the  Lord's  head.  It  is  just  possible 
that  the  expressions  of  Basil,  strong  as  they  appear,  are  to  be  under- 
stood in  this  way.  But  the  words  of  Cyril,  that  while  under  the  water 
the  man  '  sees  nothing  as  in  the  night ',  would  in  this  case  be  a  lalhtf  ^ 
violent  hyperbole*  ■ 

10.  About  the  end  of  the  fourth  or  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  we 
have  Chr)'sostom— /«  Ep,  i  ad  Car.  Bom,  xl  (vol.  x  p.  379  C,  Pins 
1738} — TO  yap  ^airrii€(T$ai  Koi  KaToZmaBoi  cTtq  avay€v€iv  njs  €h  aio^ 
jcaTtt/Sdcrcws  coTt  fTVfjLpokov  Kat  t^^  iKtl$€v  aKoSov.  Here  again  the  wonis 
are  most  easily  understood  of  immersion,  1 

11.  About  the  same  period  Jerome  adv,  Luciferianos  (vol.  ii  p.  i$a,  ■ 
Venice  1767)  says  *  Nam  et  multa  alia,  quae  per  traditionem  in  ^ 
Ecclesiis  observantur,  velut  in  lavacro  ter  caput  mergitare  '.  The  wods 
are  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Luciferian,  but  as  a  statement  of  un- 
disputed fact. 

12.  Later  we  have  Theodoret,  who  speaks  of  those  who  are  baptized 
by  Arians  as  paTm^oiieyoL  fiaXXov  8i  fivBtiopfvot  (Schultze,  vol.  i  part  1, 
p.  985). 

Again  J^o^r.  Milf,  iv  35  (Schultze,  vol.  iv  part  i,  p.  356),  he  gives  1 
curious  description  of  Baptism  as  practised  by  the  Eunomians,    Th€y 


% 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


583 


^Violate  Tov  av€Ka6€V  vapa  rov  Kuptov  icat  rwv  awooToXtuv  TTOLpaBoBeyra  Btcrfiov, 

[They  immerse  (jcaraSvctv,  ^airrttuv)  only  once  *  into   the  death   of 

:hnst  *.     '  They  baptize  and  wet  with  the  water  only  as  far  as  the  breast, 

md  forbid  the  water  to  be  applied  to  the  other  parts  as  unclean.     For 

lis  reason,  when  they  baptized  in  a  font  (ttvcAo?),  they  made  the  man 

jtand  outside  it,  and  plunged  his  head  as  far  as  the  breast  once  into  the 

rater.'    Another  of  their  methods  was  to  swathe  the  body  from  the  feet 

to  the  breast  in  a  consecrated  bandage  (Tniwa),  and  then  pour  water 

[irp«r<^€pov<rt  rov  v^to?  t^k  Kardyvu-iv)  on  the  head  and  shoulders.    We 

lay  gather  from  this  that,  in  the  belief  of  Theodoret,  the  ^ttr/Aos  of 

Saptism  required  that  there  should  be  three  applications  of  the  water, 

It  the  man  should  not  stand  outside  the  font,  that  the  water  should 

ive  the  whole  body.     But  further  Theodoret  appears  to  have  in  his 

iiind  not  perfusion  but  immersion  as  the  right  form.     Certainly  ^vBCitw 

a  strong  word. 

13.  Add  Zeno  Veron,  (Galland,  v  148)  'Vos  constanter  immergite 
.  .  Balneator  praecinctus  ,  .  .  Nudi  demergiraini  .  .  .  Superfluentis 
inis  undae  subiecti.' 

The  conclusions  which  I  draw  are — (i)  That  down  to  the  time  of 

lyprian  Baptism  was  administered  by  immersion,  except  in  the  case  of 

lick  people.    (2)  That  Baptism,  not  by  mere  sprinkling  but  by  a  very 

:opious  affusion  of  water,  came  into  use,  at  any  rate  in  certain  churches, 

in  the  fourth  century.     (3)  That,  even  in  this  case,  the  candidate  went 

ito  the  water,  and  stood  there  during  the  administration  of  the  rite. 

(4)  That  immersion  continued  to  be  the  general  use. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  Didacke,  In  chapter  vii  i  it  is  directed  that 
Baptism  shall  be  administered  as  a  rule  by  three  immersions  *  in  living 
water '.  Harnack  is  right,  I  think,  in  holding  that  by  living  water  is 
meant  ninning  water.     In  the  next  section  we  read — *  But  if  thou  hast 

•not  living  water,  baptize  in  other  water,  and,  if  thou  canst  not  in  cold, 
then  in  warm.*  Living  water  was  not  essential,  see  TertuUian  de  Bapi.  4 
*  Nulla  distinctio  est,  mari  quis  an  in  stagno,  flumine  an  in  fonte,  lacu 
^an  alveo  diluatur  ^  But  the  feeling  that  the  water  ought,  if  possible, 
^■to  be  in  movement  was  very  strong.  See  Canons  0/  Hippolyiui  (Achelis) 
p.  94  *consistant  prope  fluctuantera  aquam  maris  puram  paratam 
sacram '.  Even  when  a  font  was  used  it  was  so  managed  that  the  water 
flowed  in  and  out.  See  the  Egyptian  Church  Order  {iMdem),  But  it 
is  noticeable  that  the  compiler  of  the  Didache  introduces  a  new  point  of 
casuistr)'.  In  the  case  of  invalids  warm  water  might  be  used.  In  the 
third  section  he  goes  a  step  further.  'Ear  Se  afi^ortpa  fjitj  ixs^f  €K)^€ov  ctf 
■n/v  tcfx^aXijv  rph  v6a>^.  *  If  thou  havc  neither  hot  nor  cold  water  in 
sufficient  quantity  {I  suppose  that  this  is  what  he  means),  then  it  will 
suffice  to  pour  water  three  times  upon  the  head.'    The  rule  may  be 


584         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

relaxed  simply  on  the  ground  that  no  sufficient  supply  of  water  for  ti« 
more  regular  mode  of  administration  is  at  hand,  whether  the  candidaic 
is  sick  or  whole.  Bryennius  thought  that  the  compiler  must  hiw 
meant  to  restrict  this  indulgence  to  extreme  cases,  iat^  dvdyioj  hnirr§  «» 
paiFTia-fiaTo^'  But  Schaif  and  Hamack  do  not  find  this  proviso  in  tk 
text,  and  indeed  it  is  not  there, 

'  Here ',  says  Hamack,  *  we  have  the  oldest  testimony  for  the  lawfal- 
ness  of  Baptism  by  aspersion  ;  it  is  especially  important  to  notice  thil 
the  author  betrays  not  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  its  validity.'  It  is  tnie 
that  he  has  no  doubt  upon  the  point,  and  it  is  also  true  that  in  this  he 
takes  a  very  wise  and  liberal  view.  But  in  the  middle  of  the  tbifd 
century  Magnus  and  many  others  would  have  doubted  whether  a  person 
baptized  in  this  way,  even  under  stress  of  necessity,  was  kgitmm 
christianus^  and  even  Cyprian  and  Cornelius,  and  probably  TertuUka 
also,  would  hardly  have  said  that  the  difference  between  immersion  (or, 
if  the  reader  chooses,  such  a  perfusion  as  Gregory  of  Nyssa  describes) 
and  the  pouring  of  a  small  quantity  of  water  on  the  head  of  a  sid 
person  lying  on  a  bed,  or  of  a  whole  person  standing  on  the  groui4 
made  *  nulla  distinctio  '- 

To  us  modems  the  teaching  of  the  Didache  on  this  point  seems  quite 
unobjectionable.  But  this  is  not  the  impression  which  it  would  haft 
produced  in  the  ante-Nicene  church.  It  struck  the  editor  of  the 
Constitutionts  apostalkae  as  novel  and  risky  j  hence,  when  he  camei 
probably  after  no  great  lapse  of  time,  to  work  over  this  passage  of  the 
Didachty  he  refused  to  consider  the  possibility  of  an  insufficient  supply 
of  water.  *  First,'  he  says,  *  thou  shalt  anoint  with  holy  oil^  then  thofl 
Shalt  baptize  with  water,  and  lastly  thou  shalt  seal  with  ointment . . . 
But  if  there  be  neither  oil  nor  ointment,  the  water  is  sufficient '  {JCmttt 
AfiosL  vii  22)« 


II. 

On   CERTAtN   POINTS    IN   THE   FlRST  CHAPTER. 

The  Didache  is  of  course  a  compilation,  like  the  Apostolical  O 
Order^  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus^  the  Egyptian  Church  Order,  the 
Didascaliay  the  Apostolical  Constitutions ^  the  Testamentum  Lhmim, 
AIJ  such  collections  contain  materials  of  very  different  dates,  some  d( 
great  antiquity.  In  this  they  all  resemble  our  own  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  The  date  at  which  the  collection  was  made  is  fixed  not  by 
the  earliest  material  but  by  the  latest.  Thus  the  date  of  any  ediliofi 
of  our  Common  Prayer  is  ascertained  not  by  the  Gloria  in  ExctlstS) 
but  by  the  name  of  the  sovereign. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


585 


One  comparatively  modern  feature  of  the  Didacke  is  Baptism  by 
iflFusion.  Others  may  be  detected  in  Ihe  first  chapter.  I  may  be 
irdoned  for  writing  out  at  some  length  familiar  passages  upon  which 
le  argument  turns. 

Hermas,  *E»ToAy/  B' :  *Epya^ou  ro  dyadot^,  kwl  Ik  rmv  kottiov  trov,  Snf  o 

los  ^tSiiMTLV  erot,  wao'iv  v(rr€povfUvoi^  hiSov  awXw^f  ju^  St<rra^(uv  rivt  SJit 

Tivi  fxr}  8wi»      iraaiv  S/8ov*  -rracriv  yap  o  0€O5  hiBo<r$at>  6i\tt  cV  twv  tBiu)V 

jfiaTiav.      ot  o?r  Xafij3dvovT€^  dLWO^w<rov(riv  Aoyoy  rw  Bctii  Start  ikaj^ov 

It  ei5  rr  ot  fi€v  yap  kap.^dvoi^€^  BXi^ofJitvai  ov  Signer (?jJ<7o»tou,  ol  8<  iv 

}Kpl(FU    kafl/3dv0VT€S    TLdOVfTlV    SiVl/l'.       O    Otf   8t8oV9    d^tpO?   CtTTlV"    u>«   yofi 

Jcv  TTopa  ToZ  Kvpiov  Tjjv  ^laKoviav  TcAf crai  dirXtLtf  avrrpr  ereXctrcVj  ^i^^cj^ 
cptVu)*'  Tivi  SiW  17  /jtTjr  Suii  iyiv€TO  otv  tf  SiaKovia  avrrj  oTrXw^  TtXttrBfura 
>^o^  vapa  TO)  0e«5k  o  ow  ovru)S  d7rXiu$  ^taKovSiv  tw  0cct»  ^i^NTfTOi,  ^v- 
ro-f  ow  TT^v  eKroXi7v  Tairrr/F,  cS?  aot  XcXoAijrKa. 

The  reader  will  observe  here  (i)  that  there  are  no  Biblical  quotations, 
[2)  that  the  ivtoXrj  is  the  Mandate  of  the  Angel  of  Repentance,  (3)  that 
r^t  stress  is  laid  upon  the  repealed  word  dirXais,     Almsgiving  is  an 
ibsolute  duty ;  the  giver  is  to  ask  no  questions,  the  responsibility  lies 
itirely  upon  the  recipient, 

Didascalia  (Verona  Fragfmnh^  Hauler,  no.  xxxvii  p.  53):  'Vae 
lutem  his  qui  habent  et  cum  dolo  accipiunt  aut  qui  possunt  sibi  iuuare 
accipiunt.  Unusquisque  uero  de  accipientibus  dabit  rationem  domino 
>eo  in  die  iudicii,  quare  acceperit.  Si  enim  in  orfanitate  constitutus 
it  aut  \Xi  paupertate  aut  per  senecturis  defectionem  aut  propter 
legritudinis  infirmitatem  aut  propter  filiorum,  quia  multi  sunt,  nutri- 
lenta  accipit,  qui  talis,  inquit,  est  et  laudabitur:  altar  is  enim  Dei 
leputatus  est  et  honorabttur,  quoniam  sine  dubitatione  pro  his  qui  dant 
llli  frequenter  orat.  .  .  .  Qui  habent  autem  et  in  hypocrisi  accipiunt, 
lut  iterum  cum  sint  pigri  et  cum  debeant  operari  et  iuuare  sibi  et 
liis,  ipsi  accipientes  praestabunt  rationem.  . ,  ,  Qui  ergo  dat  simpliciter 
>mnibus,  bene  dat,  sicut  est  illi,  et  est  innocens.  Qui  autera  propter 
ibulationem  accipit,  se  pascet  scitus  et  bene  accipit  et  a  Deo  in  uita 
jterna  constitutus  glorificabitur.' 

Compare  Mrs  Gibson's  translation  of  the  Syriac  text,  p.  80. 
Probably  it  will  not  be  disputed  that  the  author  of  the  Didascalia 
^is  here  amplifying  what  Hermas  had  said.  It  will  be  observed  that  he 
has  both  the  dirXujs  [simpHciter)  and  the  d^oiot  {innocens)  of  Hennas, 
not  to  dwell  upon  other  points.  The  new  features  which  he  introduces 
are  (i)  the  IVoe,  (2)  the  Day  of  Judgement,  (5)  the  Widows  and  Orphans, 
(4)  who  are  the  Altar  of  God  (Heb.  xiii  10  ;  Polycarp.  Phil  4;  Tert. 
ad  Ux.  i  7),  (5)  the  recipient  will  pray  for  the  giver.  I  do  not  under- 
stand qui  talis,  inquii^  est  et  laudabitur.  The  w*ord  inquit  is  not  found 
in  the  Syriac,  nor  in  the  ConsHtutimes  ApostoUcat  (iv  3)1  where  the 


S96         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


Didascalia  is  very  closely  reproduced.     But  it  will  be  observed  tb! 
the  Didascalia  still  holds  that  Almsgiving  is  an  absolute  duty. 

The  Consiitutimes  AposloHcai  again  expands  the  I>idascaHa. 
most  important  change  is  to  be  found  in  the  b^inning  of  the  p^^- 
passage  (iv  3),  htit,  ifol  h  icuptof  fuiKoptov  cTirtv  tlvai  rov  SuSorra  tfwyt  n*  ^- 
^dvotrra.     xat  yap  ttptfrai  irdXii^  im  avTOv  Oval  rdi^  l^oi'O'iF  icat  ir  »to»;'  ' 
Xa^avovctv  rj  <Swa/i^ois  fi(nf$€iv  iavrots:  Kai  Kafxpdy€iy  mxp'  irtpMf  jSo    • 
/jjyow   hidrtpo^  yhp  d7ro&^<rct  K6yo¥  icvpit^  tu)  Ott}  iv  ^fi.€p^  icpunm€*    h 
we  have  first  a  quotation  from  Acts  xx  35,  and  then  the  compiler  gixs 
on  to  quote  the  Didascalia  verbally  as  scripture.     But  still  Almsginng 
is  enforced  without  restriction. 

But  where  did  the  Woe  and  the  prayers  of  the  recipient  come  &om? 
From  Clement  of  Alexandria.  See  the  Fragment  (Dindorf  foL  ii 
p.  492  ;  Zahn  Forschungcn  iii  pp.  49,  50 ;  Rcsch  Agra/^ha  p.  99).  We 
have  two  quotations  of  the  same  passage  of  Clement,  one  in  Anasusfos 
{this  is  given  only  by  Zahn)  and  another  in  the  Catetui  of  NiceUs  oc 
Matt.  V  42.  Let  us  take  the  latter  first.  Hoajfriov  iXfiffUMrvyat,  oAU 
ftera  tipur€<i>^  teal  Toic  a^toi?,  Lva  cvpu/zcv  drrairoSofux  irapa  tov  {^w^ 
oval  Sc  TOiC  <x^tKrt  Kai  cv  vTro^purft  Xap-fSdvovcriy  ^  &ifyafi€¥Oii  ficn^ 
lavToh  KoX  kapiPdv€tv  wap  hrip*av  fiovXap-ivoi^.  o  yap  €)(toy  xal  hi  *»»• 
Kpurtv  rj  dpytav  kapLpdvtov  KaraKpiOTjatrau 

In  Anastasius  Quaes f,  14  the  passage  runs  thus:  *EAci7/iO0W(  £« 
Troi€iy  o  koyov  (Matt.  V  42)  ^ijcrt,  dkXa  fitra,  Kpt<r€tiiq  koI  Twf  ifia^ 
wcnrtp  yap  6  yftu/ryo*  <nr«tpct  ovk  €h  dvXd^  yrfv  dAA*  tts  Trjy  ^yalShJir,h 
a{rTia  MapFTTO^^oprfO^t  ovrt^  Set  crrrc^pciF  r^v  tvrroiiav  eis  cvXa^Scts  moL  wurvjar 
TCJcovs,  iva  T^?  dw'  aiTun'  f\'Kapwia<%  Sta  rmv  €v;(<t)y  iwirvjQJ^,  ytypairni  yofr 
€viroiTf}<rov  cv»cr€y3ct«  Kai  cvpTjtrew  dvrawdhofjia^  xal  tl  f^rj  inr  avrov,  dAAa  ir«^ 
Tw  v^wrrw  (Sir,  xii  2).  Nicetas  appears  to  have  omitted  several  clauses 
and  to  have  carried  on  the  quotation  a  little  farther.  In  Clement,  thov 
we  find  for  ihe  first  time  the  prayers  of  the  recipient  (this  is  his  reflson 
for  giving  only  to  people  whose  prayers  are  likely  to  be  heard),  and  the 
phrase  Oval  Si.  rots  l)(OV<rL  Kai  iv  inroKpCa-tt  Xap^pdvoviri,  which,  havtOg 
been  borrowed  from  him  by  the  Didascalia^  is  quoted  from  that  boofc 
as  scripture  by  the  Cons iitu Hones  ApostoHcae,  Clement  no  doobc  irtS 
thinking  of  Hermas,  an  author  with  whom  he  was  familiar,  thoi^gh  the 
only  phrase  which  he  has  borrowed  is  iv  woKpto-ct  kafx^avtiv, 

Resch  {Agrapha  p.  146)  thought  that  the  editor  of  the  ConstihUmti 
in  this  place  (iv  3)  made  use  of  three  sourceSi  the  Didache^  the  DO^ 
scalia^  and  an  extra-canonical  gospel.  For  the  admission  of  the  last- 
named  source  he  gives  two  reasons :  (i)  that  the  Woe  is  given  rn  the 
Constiiutiones  in  fuller  form  than  in  the  Didascalia  (this»  howevoy 
is  an  error  due  to  the  fact  that  Resch  did  not  employ  the  full  text  of 
the  latter  document);  (2)  that  in  the  ConstituHones  the  Wot  is  tntrodtioed 


I 


A 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


587 


the  words  Kal  yap  cipr^rat  irdXiv  vv  avrov  (that  IS  to  say,  by  the  Lord). 

;ept  for  this  fact  there  is  no  reason  for  thinking  that  the  editor 

the  Constitutiones  had  here  in  his  mind  more  than  one  book,  and 

Lt  one  the  Didascalia,    The  tLpvfru.1  is  probably  nothing  more  than 

hasty  inference,  suggested  by  a  loose  recollection  of  the  Woes  in 

Luke^s  Gospel.     How  easily  such  a  slip  might  occur  will  appear  from 

le  insertion  of  the  inquU  in  the  text  of  the  Vtrana  Fragmetits, 

We  may  now  pass  on  to  the  Didncke  (i  5,  6) :  Ilavrt  to*  atVovvrt  trc 

)i%  Koi  fxii  ttTTutTef  ira<ri  yap  ^cAci  B^ocrOax  o  Tvariip  €k  tcuv  iSimv  X'^P^' 

r/ixtriov.     MaKa/wos  6  StSoi'S   Kara  W/v  hToXrjv   aB^os  yap  loTiV*    ovcl  T^ 

L^dvovTi'    €1  ft€v  yiipf  )(p€.iav  <;j^6jv  kafi^ay€i  Ttg,  aOwo^  Itrrai'    o  Sc  fiif 

tiaV    i^tJiV    tUHTfl    StJCTJIV,     IvoTL    cXa^C     Kat     €tS    Tt,     IV     <TVVO)(^    Si    yCVO/ICFO? 

rcTttt  TTfpt  iitv  expose,  Kot  ovK  c^cAevcrcTat  CKci^ev  ft^^i^  ov  aTro&p 
Toy  Hcr^dTov  KoBpdvrqV'      *AAAa  koX  mpl  tovtov  &c  tipfrjratr'  iSpwu-aTit)  ff  cXcj/- 

In  this  last  sentence  the  emendation  of  Bryennius  (l^fmadrm  for 
iTiu)  has  been  confirmed  by  a  passage  of  Cassiodorus,  to  which 
*rofessor  Loofs  first  directed  attention.  It  will  be  found  in  the 
^xposi/j'o  in  Psal,  xl  and  runs  thus  ;  '  Omni  petenti  te  tribue.  Scri- 
)tum  est  etiam  Desudet  eleemosyna  in  manu  tua  donee  inuenias  iustum 
[cui  earn  tradas.  Sed  si  omnes  iustos  quaerimus,  imperatam  constringimus 
Lrgitatem.  .  . .  Sufficit  nobis  ut  nos  dare  aliquid  malis  artibus  nescia- 
lus,  .  .  .  Qui  sic  dederit,  etsi  iustis  non  det,  iuste  tamen  omnibus 
rogabit/  Resch  is  probably  right  in  thinking  {A^apha  p.  288)  that 
le  way  in  which  Cassiodorus  insists  upon  the  word  iustum  shews  that 
le  is  quoting  not  from  the  Didachty  but  from  some  common  source, 
lis  however  is  immaterial ;  in  the  Didachc  itself  the  precept  is  given 
a  quotation,  and  the  book  from  which  it  is  drawn  can  hardly  be 
the  first  antiquity,  for  it  contains  a  criticism  and  a  limitation  of 
mr  Lord's  command,  which  had  not  occurred  to  2  Clement  (see 
ip.  16). 

We  have  then  in  this  passage  of  the  Didacfie  (i)  a  quotation  from 
St  Luke  (vi  30),  (2)  close  verbal  resemblances  to  Hermas,  including 
in  particular  the  uncommon  word  a^ulos,  which  in  the  Didache  is 
doubled,  (3)  the  IVoe  {Clem.  Alex.,  Didascaiia,  Const.  App,)  in  a 
shortened  form,  (4)  a  quotation  from  St  Matthew  (v  26),  (5)  a  quotation 
probably  from  some  extra-canonical  Gospel  of  latish  date. 

Three  of  these  phrases  are  manifestly  quotations,  and  the  last  can 
hardly  be  older  than  the  second  century.  The  Woe  may  be  older  than 
Clement,  but  there  is  no  good  reason  for  thinking  that  it  is ;  and  as  to 
Hermas,  it  is  only  necessary  to  point  oyt  that  his  simple  iracriv  SiSou 
is  in  the  Didacht  changed  into  a  definite  quotation  from  the  Gospel 
tut  it  may  also  be  suspected  that  the  Kara  W/v  hnokriv^  which  in  the 


THE  JOURNAL   Of   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


which 


Didaehe  is  made  to  refer  to  Luke  vi  30,  was  suggested  by  the  ^Vi 
rifv  ivTokyfv  ravrrpf  of  Hermas. 

It  is  worth  adding  that  the  curious  variation  on  Luke  vi  27,  which 
occurs  in  Didache  \  3,  v/acic  S<  dyairarc  rove  /uo-ovvraf  v/Aa«  icat  mr^ 
ix'^pov,  is  found  also  in  the  Didastalia ;  see  Mrs  Gibson's  Tninsla 
p.  3  \  Verona  Fragmtnts  p.  4  '  diligiie  odientes  uos  et  orate  pro 
dicentibus  uos  et  inimicum  nullum  habebilis'.  Here  it  might  be 
supposed  that  the  DidascaUa  is  following  the  Didiuhe,  But  just  abo»c 
in  the  same  verse,  we  have  a  very  remarkable  perversion  of  Scripture 
in  the  words  vT^orfvtTt  Si  Wkp  r<iv  timKovrwv  hftm.  For  the  explanatioo 
of  this  precept  we  must  turn  to  chap,  xxi  of  the  £>idascaJm;  see 
especially  the  words  'Therefore  know,  brethren,  that  our  fast  which 
we  keep  in  the  Passover  because  our  brethren  have  not  obeyed,  ye 
shall  keep  even  if  they  hate  you ',  but  the  whole  of  this  chapter  under- 
lies the  audacious  change  which  the  Didacke  has  made  in  the  Sennoo 
on  the  Mount.  The  Wednesday  and  Friday  fasts,  and  the  fast  of  Holf 
Week  are  all  to  be  kept  on  behalf  of  the  Jews,  This  is  not  10  be 
regarded  as  a  mark  of  sympathy  with  the  Jews.  The  author  of  the 
Didacke  has  a  strong  dislike  of  the  Jews  whom  he  calls  'hypocrites'; 
see  viii  *Let  not  your  fasts  be  with  the  hypocrites,  for  they  fast  n 
the  second  day  of  the  week  and  on  the  fifth  *.  He  condemns  Quano 
decimanism,  and  for  a  parallel  to  his  language  we  must  txirn  to  the  wordi 
of  the  Emperor  Constantine  (Socrates  i  9)  'Let  there  be  nothing  ifi 
common  between  you  and  the  most  hateful  mob  of  the  Jews*.  Such 
things  were  not  said  in  the  first  century  (not  even  by  Barnabas),  nor 
even  in  the  second.  Even  the  Didascalia  (see  Mrs  Gibson's  Trans- 
lation p.  96)  is  not  as  fierce  as  the  Didacke;  it  speaks  of  ihe  Jens 
as  '  brethren  *,  and  adds  *  It  is  required  of  us  therefore  to  have  pity  upoo 
them,  and  to  believe,  and  to  fast  and  pray  for  them '.  Here,  again,  it 
might  be  replied  that  the  DidascaUa  is  expanding  the  hint  given  in  the 
Didacke.  But  the  opposite  presumption  is  exceedingly  strong,  and 
in  any  case  the  corruption  of  the  text  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
cannot  be  earlier  than  the  insertion  of  n^rrrrvcty  in  MatL  xvii  31,  Mtfl 
Lx  29,  Acts  X  30.  It  is  surely  later;  otherwise  it  w*ould  have  left 
some  traces  in  the  Apparatus  Criticus. 

Attention  may  here  be  directed  to  another  point.     In  Didackt  9  ttA 
Eucharistic  Cup  is  called  *  the  Holy  Vine  of  David*.     It  is  an  expression 
which  causes  some  surprise,  for  there  is  reason  for  thinking  that 
compiler  agreed  with  Barnabas  [yCvx  10,  11),  Tatian  (TTieod.  Haer. 
\  20),  and  the  Monophysites  (Theod.  Inconfusus^  Schultze  vol.  iv 
I  p.  96)  in  believing  that  our  Lord  was  not  the  Son  of  David  aocotding 
to  the  flesh.     At  any  rate  he  speaks  of  Him  as  *God  of  David*  (ch- 
see  Harnack's  note).     But  commentators  have  asked   why  Viue 


sioa_ 


10 


r.  NOTES  AND   STUDIES  589 

s?  ofJDavid}  because  there  is  nothing  in  the  Hebrew  psalms  from  which 
such  a  phrase  could  easily  be  formed  The  answer  to  this  question 
:j  is  supplied  by  Origen  (in  Lib,  lud,  Horn,  vi  2,  Lomm.  xi  258)  *ante- 
ry  quam  verae  vitis,  quae  ascendit  de  radice  David,  sanguine  inebriemur  \ 
r  Origen  is  clearly  referring  to  the  Greek  psalm  zxii  (xxiii)  5  to  von^ptov 
r    OW}  /uBwTKov  MS  Kpdriarov, 

Clement  has  the  same  phrase  (Q.  D.  S.  29),  ovros  6  rov  €Xvo¥  to  ot/ia 
\  T^  <i|iircXov  Tfjs  Aa^i8  itcx^a^  ruiMv  hrX  ras  rvrpuaitm.^  ^fnrxps,  h  rh  Ik 
OTrkaefxy^^  vo-fpo^  tXauxv  irpoa'€y€yKtav  kcu  lirtSo^iXcvo/icvos.  Clement 
18  here  speaking  of  the  Lord  as  the  Physician  and  allegorizing  the 
parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan.  He  may,  of  course,  have  seen  the 
J>id(uhe  prayer  or  one  like  it — the  prayer  is  in  all  probability  older  than 
the  Didache  as  a  whole.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  phrase  may  have 
been  taken  up  from  Clement  into  the  prayer,  and  this  seems  to  me  the 
more  probable  view.  We  have  seen  that  there  is  some  substantial 
reason  for  thinking  that  the  words  *  Woe  to  him  that  receiveth '  were 
borrowed  by  the  Didache  from  Clement,  and  traces  of  Alexandrine 
influence  upon  the  Liturgy  (in  the  emphasis  laid  upon  'knowledge' 
and  in  the  comparative  neglect  of  the  Atonement)  may  be  found  in 
Didache  9,  10,  or  in  the  Sacramentary  of  Sarapion  of  Thmuis  (see  de 
Faye  Ciiment  d'Aiexandrie  p.  252 ;  F.  E.  Brightman,  /,  T.  S,  vol  i). 
But  we  greatly  want  a  critical  examination  of  the  Didache  in  its  liturgical 
relations. 

C.  Bigg. 


STROPHICAL  STRUCTURE  IN  ST  JUDE'S  EPISTLE. 

In  1896  Prof.  David  Henry  Miiller  of  Vienna  published  a  book 
on  the  original  structure  of  the  Prophets  \  shewing  how  far  poetical 
forms  predominated  in  ancient  Semitic  literature,  from  the  Cuneiform 
inscriptions  down  to  the  Suras  of  the  Koran.  A  great  many  publi- 
cations have  appeared  since,  treating  biblical  books  from  the  same 
point  of  view.  Special  mention  must  be  made  of  the  work  of  the 
Rev.  F.  K.  Zenner,  SJ.',  who,  independently  of  Prof.  Miiller*s  dis- 
covery, had  noticed  the  same  fundamental  principle  of  responsio  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms.  In  England  it  was  chiefly  R.  G.  Moulton  who, 
by  his  various  writings*,  called  attention  to  the  literary  aspect  of  the 
different  books  embodied  in  Holy  Scripture. 

'  Dit  Prophiim  in  ihrtr  ursprHngUchnt  Form  Wien  (Holder),  1896. 

*  Dig  Chorgisdnge  im  Buche  der  Psalmtn  Freiburg  (Herder),  1896. 

*  Th*  Literary  Study  of  tht  Bible  London  (labister),  1896,  and  ed.  1899 ;  and 
A  Short  Introduction  to  tin  Literaturt  of  tht  BibU^  1901. 


590         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


As  Prof.  Muller*s  enquiries  extended  over  the  whole  of  the  Semitic 
literature  (with  the  apparent  exception  of  Syriac),  it  was  but  natunl 
that  he  should  have  looked  to  the  New  Testament,  in  order  to  find 
a  connecting  link  between  the  Hymns  of  Babel  and  Assur  and  thi 
Prophets  on  one  side,  and  the  Prophet  of  Islam  on  the  other.  Thm 
he  pointed  out  several  passages  from  the  Gospels,  especially  from  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mounts  as  shewing  a  f>arallel  and  somewhat  stropbiol 
structure.  But  there  seem  to  be  better  instances  of  this;,  which  ODia- 
prise  entire  books  of  the  New  Covenant.  Quite  recently  Prof  Blass* 
after  a  preliminary  study  of  the  rhythmical  system  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ^  has  given  us  the  whole  text  of  it,  shewing  its  rhythms'. 
Since  Mr  J.  B.  Mayor's  excellent  edition  of  The  Epistie  o/StJames^i^ 
New  Testament  scholars  are  aware  of  the  many  traits  of  literary  ut 
contained  throughout  this  notable  document  from  the  pen  of  this 
*  brother  of  the  Lord '. 

It  is  well  known  to  all  that  a  bond  of  literary  parentage,  as  it  were, 
connects  the  Episth  to  the  Hebrnos  and  the  Catholic  Episties^  exccj* 
St  John's;  a  fact  which  made  Deissmann  distinguish  them,  by  the 
common  name  oi episiU§,  from  St  Paul's  letters,  properly  so  called*.  1 
have  tried,  in  two  articles  in  the  Zeitschrift fur  katholische  Theologie\  to 
expound  the  whole  poetical  structure  of  the  Epistle  of  St  James.  Ifl 
this  paper  I  intend  to  do  the  same  for  the  pastoral  writing  of  his  brother 
St  Jude.  The  analogy  between  the  two  is,  in  fact,  a  very  strong  one^ 
although  there  are  differences,  such  as  we  should  expect  to  find  in 
different  authors  belonging  to  the  same  literary  school. 

That  an  answer  to  a  question  of  history  may  not  rest  solely  on  i 
more  or  less  hypothetical  view,  let  us  first  lay  before  the  reader  wb« 
positive  tradition  has  to  say  on  the  point  in  question.  Having  arranged 
the  whole  of  James  and  Jude,  and  provisionally  also  t  Peter»  in  trrty^ 
verses  and  stanzas,  I  went  on  to  compare  the  editions  of  our  oldest 
biblical  MSS,  and  found,  chiefly  in  A^  nearly  all  the  divisions  of  veises 
marked  by  separating  points,  and  the  greater  divisions  by  the  kind  of 
alinea  which  those  codices  employ.  To  a  lesser  extent  the  same  is  to 
be  seen  in  B  and  C;  least  of  all,  but  not  wanting  altogether,  in  tt 

I  am  well  aware  that  this  punctuation,  often  in  a  very  general  wiy, 
is  said  to  have  been  added  by  a  later  hand.  With  regard  to  the  Gospd 
text,  which  has  been  the  object  of  far  more  discussion  than  the  rest 


*  lluotog,  Studien  tind  Kritiken^  1903,  p.  420  ff. 

*  {Barnabas-)  Britfan  die  Hrbraer  HaJIe,  1903. 
■  London  (Mttcmilkn),  189a,  and  ed.  1897. 

*  Bibthtudten  p.  i9off,  Engl,  tranal.  Edinburgh   (Clark),  1901 ;    p,  3  ff. 
*  Epistolary  Litcrattjre  '  in  Encytl.  BtbJ. 

*  Innsbruck  (Rauch),  1904,  pp.  37-57,  295-330, 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


591 


>f  the  New  Testament,  this  alleged  deficiency  of  original  punctuation 

my  hold  its  ground ;  in  the  Epistles,  and  partly  already  in  Acts,  these 

ivisions  are  ranch  more  nurnerous  and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  in  the  main 

lue  to  the  very  scribes  of  our  codices,  who  took  them  over  from  the 

its  they  copied.     At  all  events  the  spaces  left  vacant  ^  cannot  but 

ir  a  first*hand  origin,  even  if  the  dots  should  have  been  added  later. 

am  referring  first  of  all  to  ^,  for  which  I  have  compared  Woide's 

Lition  with  the  Facsimile  edited  by  the  British  Museum  for  the  whole 

of  James  ;  for  Jude  I  had  Woide  only.     In  a  few  instances  in  St 

imes  Woide  has  left  out  a  point,  clearly  visible  in  the  photograph ical 

'production,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  a  few  points  in  Woide, 

Fhere  the  Facsimile  has  only  a  space.     In  N,  for  which  we  must  rely 

Ipon  Tischendorf's  edition,  there  are  very  few  points.    In  ^  they  seem 

be   due  to   the  same  hand  which  retouched  the  whole  writing*; 

icvertheless,  here  also  there  are  small  spaces  left  vacant  by  the  first 

ind. 

Thus  the  codex  Alexandrinus  directly  shews  certain  divisions  of  our 

[t  of  St  Jude  as  well  as  of  St  James's  Epistle  to  have  been  in  existence 

least  in  the  fifth  century ;  and  the  Vaticanus  seems  to  lead  us  back 

far  as  the  fourth  century.     But  since  traces  of  these  divisions  recur 

MSS  presenting  an  independent  text,  there  is  an  a  priori  probability 

lat  they  come  down  from  a  much  earlier  time,  in  fact  finally  from 

common   original.     This   probability  is   strengthened   by  the  very 

rcidental  character  presented  by  the  distribution  of  these  dividing 

»ints,  if  each  MS  is  taken  by  itself.     No  reason  can  be  given  for 

itting  one  in  one  place  and  leaving  it  out  in  so  many  other  places 

rhere  the  same  conditions   appear   to   demand  a  point.     Moreover, 

we  compare  the  points  taken  from  the  different  codices,  they  fit  in 

rith  one  another  admirably,  and  therefore  seem  to  be  the  remains  of 

system,  of  which  each  MS  has  preserved  more  or  less  numerous  traces. 

Our  vellum  MSS  are  the  successors  of  papyrus-rolls,  and  seem  to 

Lve  superseded  the  classical  book-material  in  the  course  of  the  third 

intury.     Now,  according  to  Mr  F.  Kenyon,  'aids  to  the  reader,  such 

accents,  breathings,  and   punctuation,   are  not  so  wholly  wanting 

papyri  as  they  are  in  the  vellum  manuscripts  of  the  uncial  period  .  .  • 

jveral  literary  papyri  have  a  rudimentary  system   of  punctuation*.' 

*  For  B  they  were  already  noticed  by  Ttschendorr 

'  Probably;  so  E.  Maundc  Thompson  Handbook  o/Gngk  and  Latin  Palaeography 
>ndon  (Tiilbncr),  1893,  p.  150.  C.  R.  Gregory  Prolegomfna  to  thi  Novum  Tesia- 
\tum  Gmt€e  by  Tischmdotf^  8th  cd,  Leipzig  (Hinrichs),  1894,  p.  359,  assigns 
lis  to  sacc.  X  or  xL 

•  Handbook  io  the  Textual  Criticism  of  thi  Niw  Ttstamtnt  London  (Macmillan), 
1901,  p.  32.  Cf.  id.  Palaeography  of  Greek  Pdpyri  Oxford  (Clarendon  Press), 
1899,  p.  17  f.    And  Thompson,  op,  at,  p,  6^  (, 


59^  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  use  of  the  paragrapkas^  still  to  be  found  i:^  I 
seems  no  longer  to  be  understood  by  the  scribe  of  A"^,  Ail  prubi 
bilities  therefore  seem  to  point  back  to  the  papyrus  period  of  the  Nct 
Testament  textual  tradition  as  acquainted  with  a  system  of  dividq 
points  in  the  Catholic  Epistles, 

Although  these  divisions  very  frequently  coincide  with  the  syntactioi 
clauses  of  the  sentences,  they  nevertheless  seem  rather  to  be  emplopJ 
for  other  than  for  grammatical  purposes.  As  we  know  from  St  Jerome*, 
it  was  the  custom,  for  the  sake  of  delivery  in  the  schools  of  rhetorc, 
to  divide  the  classical  orators  into  cola  and  cammata,  and  St  Jerome 
himself  applied  the  system  to  the  Prophets,  without  intending  to  mike 
them  poetry  or  verses.  The  Prophets  have  turned  out  to  be  wriuen 
in  verses.  As  for  the  New  Testament  epistles  the  traditional  sections 
are  believed  to  be  marks  for  public  reading,  and  therefore  of  a  secoodirf 
origin.  The  names  of  Euthalius  and  Ammonius  tell  us  what  tiwy 
generally  are  considered  to  be.  They  may  be  reading  marks,  but  re 
they  nothing  more  than  that?  The  isolated  divisions  are  iudeed 
unable  to  teach  us  anything  more  about  their  nature.  But  may  they 
not  do  so  if  taken  as  a  system  ?  The  points  may  have  been  introdiwad 
for  that  purpose ;  but  if  we  view  them  in  conjunction  with  the  original 
composition  of  the  writings,  the  divisions^  indicated  by  these  pointy 
appear  to  have  their  origin  in  the  author's  mind. 

Taking  the  sections  according  to  their  meaning  as  a  basis  we  get  fil^ 
four  (fifty-five)  lines  or  verses  in  St  Jude.  Of  these  ten  are  not  indkated 
by  a  point  in  A  \  but  in  one  place  (v.  24*)  there  is  a  lacuna  in  ibc 
text  \  in  one  (6*)  there  is  a  space  without  a  point ;  in  four  cases  (w.  f^ 
7*,  15*1  17^)  there  is  the  end  of  a  line;  and  in  three  places  only 
(vv.  3^  7^  17*,  34*)  we  are  altogether  left  without  any  sign  of  divisioo 
in  this  codex.  In  thirty-four  places  B  confirms  the  division  found  » 
A^  whereas  W  has  a  mark  in  seven  places  only. 

There  are,  however,  other  points  in  A^  and  even  seven  in  J?,  wludJ 
do  not  fit  in  with  the  end  of  a  verse.  Thus  A  frequently,  though  nfli 
regularly,  puts  a  point  before  k^L  The  same  is  to  be  found  b  the 
text  of  James.  Deducting  these  cases,  fourteen  points  remain,  Miif 
within  a  line  or  verse.  Most  of  these  separate  either  single  woidSi 
as  w.  \2^  and  19,  the  co-ordinate  adjectives,  or  short  clauses,  e.  g.  4*iftef 
irpoysypafx^ivoiy  6°  after  aiSiots,  8^  after  aBerovfrw,  lo^  after  ivumym 
&c.  For  the  points  which  appear  in  v.  5*,  after  5?raf,  and  ii^  after 
BaXott/A,  no  reason,  it  would  seem,  can  be  given.  For  1 1*^  see  below*,  to 
120  the  two  a's  succeeding  one  another  immediately  account  for  the  poiot- 

'  Thotiip5on,  I'btd,  p.  69, 

'  Praef.  tn  Hbr.  fsaiae,  Migne  P,  L.  xxviii|  771  B. 

*  Division  of  ffrf xoi- 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  593 

The  result  is,  I  think,  that  we  may  safely  take  the  sections  in  ^  as 
giving  in  the  main  the  verses  upon  which  the  stanzas  are  constructed — 
provided  that  there  are  such  things  as  stanzas  in  the  epistle.  It  is 
again  the  codex  Alexandrinus  that  has  preserved  traces  of  the  strophical 
8)rstem,  but  only  imperfectly.  Besides  the  points  dividing  verses,  there 
are  the  alineas  coinciding  with  the  strophical  divisions,  as  indicated 
by  the  meaning  and  the  style.  In  eleven  cases  (out  of  fifteen)  they 
are  as  we  should  expect  to  find  them,  in  four  cases  the  alinea  is  wanting 
(before  w.  7,  ii,  16,  20),  and  in  two  cases  there  is  one  evidently 
redundant  (w.  i2»  and  13*). 

After  consideration  of  these  data  in  the  oldest  MSS,  the  more 
hypothetical  a  priori  view  of  our  thesis  becomes  a  question  of  inter- 
preting an  established  fact  of  positive  tradition. 

Sections  and  lines  have  been  preserved  in  sufficient  completeness 
to  restore  the  whole  system  by  filling  up  the  gaps  according  to  the 
analogy  of  those  directly  preserved.  If  we  do  this,  we  find  a  regular 
sequence  of  lines  {verses)  within  the  sections  as  well  as  of  the  sections 
themselves.  But  there  is  another  element,  and  this  a  fundamental 
one  of  all  Hebrew  poetry — the  parallelism  of  artxoi  within  the  lines. 
The  external  evidence  for  this,  it  is  true,  is  very  scarce.  Out  of  the 
twenty-four  points  in  A  not  marking  the  end  of  a  line,  19  (30)  may 
and  should  be  taken  as  dividing  the  ortxoi,  four  (five)  only  remaining 
for  which  the  verse-system  gives  no  account.  It  follows  that  those 
divisions  will  contain  to  some  extent  a  hypothetical  and  subjective 
element.  Possibly  even  a  stichos-point  may  in  one  case  or  another 
have  been  taken  for  a  verse-point ;  but  this  a  priori  uncertainty  cannot 
afiect  the  whole  arrangement  in  any  way,  and  in  most  cases  the  internal 
reasons  amply  supply  what  is  wanting  to  the  external  proof.  Again, 
the  parallelism  of  <mxot,  we  must  allow,  is  comparatively  seldom  of 
the  strictest  kind,  Lowth's  synonymous  parallelism,  or  even  the  antithetic^ 
but,  as  in  other  didactic  writers,  e.  g.  many  passages  of  Ecclesiasticus, 
and  very  generally  in  the  Psalterium  Salomonis^  the  synthetic  prevails, 
although  the  other  kinds  are  not  altogether  wanting.  Thus  w.  i  and  2 
themselves  are  fair  examples  of  the  parallelismus  membrorum.  The 
change  of  distichs  and  tristichs  in  the  verse  increases  the  difficulty 
of  reconstruction.  The  final  decision  as  to  whether  St  Jude's  Epistle 
is  to  range  with  the  poetical  writings  of  Hebrew  literature  in  Greek 
dress  lies  with  the  inner  criteria  of  the  text.  This  I  take  from 
Westcott-Hort's  edition. 

That  there  are  abrupt  transitions,  and  therefore  sections  intended 
by  the  author,  nobody  reading  the  epistle  can  fail  to  notice,  even 
if  the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  the  preserved  points  and  alineas 
were  dismissed  altogether.    At  once  we  may  detach  the  address  (w. 

VOL.  V.  Q  q 


594         THE  JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

I,  2),  and  the  canfiutum  (vr.  24,  35),  from  the  omn  body  of  the  kt&s; 
the  address  itself  being  divided  into  three,  d>e  amdmsicn  into  foo; 
or  possibly  five,  verses.  Again^  there  is  an  imir^dmcH^H  <Ty.  3,  ^\  gifi^ 
the  reason  for  which  the  letter  is  written,  divided  into  twkae  tte 
verses.  Another  mark  of  division  is  v,  11,  where  the  apostk^  ifer 
an  objective  exposition^  directly  attacks  those  who  have  pfovoked  te 
warnings,  directing  against  theni  '  the  only  Vae !  proootinced  by  in 
apostle  \     Here  again  we  have  three  verses. 

Taming  first  to  what  precedes  v.  1 1,  we  find  four  facts  meotioiKd: 
two  instances  of  Divine  judgement  on  haman  sin<  the  sin  of  unbefitf 
and  the  sin  of  immorality  (w.  5  and  7) ;  two  (acts  again  connected 
with  the  sin  and  punishment  of  the  angels  (w.  6  and  9X  facts  also 
which  apparently  are  concerned  with  immorality  and  unbelief.  TTaa 
hnes  here  are  dedicated  to  each  of  the  four  facts ;  but  the  two  litw 
(vv.  7  and  9)  are  followed  each  by  two  lines  (w,  8  and  10)  compinoft 
in  clearly  parallel  forms,  the  present  sinners,  against  whom  St  Jode 
warns  the  faithful,  with  those  who  have  been  chastised  so  severdf 
by  Divine  justice, 

^Vhat  follows  after  v.  1 1  is  partly  a  double  reproach  against  these 
enemies  of  Christ,  of  five  verses  each  (w*  12,  13  and  14.  15),  aod  tiO 
verses  resuming  the  whole  (v.  16),  and  pointing  back  to  v.  12  byi 
marked  anaphora,  forming  thus  a  transition  to  the  neact  group.  After 
this  there  remain  two  sets  of  admonitions  directed  to  the  fiuthftl 
formed,  like  the  two  reproaches,  by  2  X  5  verses  (w.  17—19  and  20-11)' 

Having  traced  out  the  lines  on  which  the  whole  epistle  is  construdetj 
we  may  arrange  the  text  itself,  after  what  has  been  stated,  in  the 
ing  manner : 

NB.  •  marks  the  points,  'R  the  alineas  in  the  codex 
ed  Woidc. 

I         *lou5a? 

'ItjktoD  Xpicrrou  SovAo?, 


2  iXcos  Vfjuv  Kcu  tlpiqvr}  ^ 


teal  'lifa-ov  Xpurru  ren^ptifsmtis 


3        *  Ay  a-rrrjroif 

ypatfttiv  Vfilv 
tti'cty^cT/i'  €crxoy  ypdtf/at  Vfuv 
T§  ttTTo^  ■B-apa6o6€iCFjj 


W€pl  TTJ^  KOIVTJ^  ^fJLuiV  (Ttimjpia^*  * 

TrapaKoXu^v  ivayiovt^€<r^ai 


Jlap€ur€^V7}iFav  yap  rivc9  av     ot  iraAm  7rpoy€ypafLfi€vot  • 
Bpumoij  *l^  TOVTO  TO  Kpifia^  atrtPntt  * 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  595 

rrjv  rov  0€ov  "^fuov  x^-P'-''^  irapan^ci^cs  c2$  ^cXyctov* 

KoX  Tov  fiovov  Sftnrvnjy  •  icoil  itv-     *Ii;<row  Hpurrov  iipvovfuvou  S 


5  'Yrrofjonja'aA,  Sk  v/ias  fiovXofJuu,  ci&Sras  iirai  ^  vdyra ',  * 
OTt  KvpvK  XaJov  *  iK  yfji  Alywmv  owas 
TO  Scvrc/oov  Tovs   fiif  vMrrev-  dvcSXccrcv.  S 

6  'AyycXovs  tc  tovs  ft^  rjiprprojinra^  rrp^  lavTiov  <Sf>X^  ^*^ 
dXAa  diroXi^oKTas  to  ZStov  oUi/Ti^piov  • 
CIS  Kpuriv  fuydXrji  ^fUpw  Scct/mhs  dtStots  * 


7  *ns  SoSofia  ^  leat  Tofwppa  ^         k€U  at  ircpi  avrds  voXciS, 

TOV  ofiowv  rpoirov  TovTOts  iKwopr    KoX  iirtKBowTox  6n-ur<a  (rofMc^s  frcpas, 
vevo-oo-at* 

TrpoKciKTCu  Sciy/ia  rrvpoi  aUovCov 

hiicqv  vvlyowrai,  S 

8  *0/touo9  fUvTOi  K(u  OVT04  ^ianrFca{oficvoi 

(rdpKa  fuv  /uatvotKriv,  ^  KvptoTi^Ta  Si  d^CTOvcrtv,  * 

8d^s  82  pXxur^rjIuiwrw,  S 

9  *0  Si  Mi^a^X  6  dpx^yy*^^»       ^^  ''^  Sia^oXip  Buucpwofuvos 

SuXiyrro  ircpi  tov  Monxrcais  (ra)/iaTOS,* 
ovK  froXfii/crcv  KpCcriv  ^cvcyjcctv  pXaorfyrffuiK,  * 

dAAa  cTircv*  ^tTt/ii^avu  <roi  Kvpuoi,  S. 

10       OvToi  8i  00-a /tiv  OVK  oZSocriv      pXatTK^fuowriy,* 

6a-a  Bk  ^vo-ticfos  <us  Toi  dXoya  {[<pa  ^TrtaTavrai,^ 

^  Tovrois  ifyOtCpovrtiu^ 


1 1        Ovcu  avTois,  OTi  rp  6S<p  tov  KoIk  hrop€vOrf(ray,  • 

jcol  rp  TrXdvjy  tov  BoXaa/t  •  fiurOov  l^^xy&rjo'ai^^  • 

Kcu  T^  dvrtXoytlji  tov  Kopi  dircoXovro.  X 


1 2        Ovroi  curiv  ot  ^  Tois  dydirais  cnriXaScs  oin'cv(i>;(ov/tCKOi, 

v/Mov  d^o^<D9  ^avTovs  iroifiatvovTcS)  ^ 

V€<l>lXat  avuSpoi  xnro  dyifuov  iro/XK^pd/tcveu,  * 

ScvSpa  f^Oivorjriapwa  •  oUo/nra  •  Sis  diro^ai^VTa         iKpLCtaOivra,  * 

^  At  <I&  2'A<^t  inSrra — ctS.  l/x.  tovto  cf.  Tischendorf,  ^  A.  /. 
*  AI.  5ti  tcvfHot  &im^  Ka6¥  cL  Tischendorf ;  Sn  6  Xadr  . . .  (r^voos  c£  Hort,  Abfot  oh 
Stlict  RiodingSf  u  A.  /. 

Qqa 


596         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES            1 

13   KVfiara  aypta  $aXa(nnj% 

hn^pH^mi  T^  icwTMroldXMCrS 

dcrrcpcs  irXav^ax 

oTs  i  (0^  To5  oiKordv 

€t?  aturi'a  rmJpiTTa**  X 

IpZofuc^  iM  •ASak^       •Et^x  J^^' 

iZoV  7f\$€V  KVfHO^ 

eV  aytm«  fivpi^irtv  a^rou,* 

1 5  iroiytrat  KpUrtv  Kara,  jravriav  ' 

Kal  iXdyiai  wdyrat 

Toi^  d<rc)9«?E 

ir€pi  wavnav  rwv  Iprfav  ofrtfitia^ 

tuK  r^ifirjiTav  * 

avTufV 

jcal  ircpt  iraFTcuv  ruv  <rKkfip!av 

«[»v  AoXTyo-av  war'  auroS* 

1 6       OvTot  tia-LV  yoyywrrot,  fHfiJ^fU 

jtara  ras  lirt^/i.i!a«  aw-«ur  iropci«;«wt  * 

/iotpm,* 

itat     TO     (TTOftja,     avTu>v     \akti 

l9av/jui^ovT«^  rpotTonra 

^ tir«poyica,  * 

(L^cXuis  X^^*  ^ 

^^^^r          1 7        *Y/ifrf  ^'f  iynirqrotf 

^^^^K 

Toil'  irfHKtfifrffXfvuiV 

^^^^^V          viro  rcpv  dirQ<rroA«»y 

Tov  tcvpwv  ijfj^tliv  liTCTov  Xpurrot' 

^^^^1            I  $  oTi  cXryoK  v^v" 

hr  i(r)(arov  )(p6vov  • 

^^H 

jfcovrai  f/zjrat^TOA* 

^^^H                 Kara  ra^  cai^oi  v  ^ir  id  v/iui9  TOpcvo- 

ra>»'  ourc^<iwv.  • 

^^^^H                                         JtiCVOi 

^^^H          1 9  ovrcM  fto-u"  oi  aToSioptfovrcv 

^^tto«i  • 

^^1 

^^^H          20       *Yikth  ^<i  liyamTTtK, 

l7roiico&)/iov»^c¥  catn-ovs 

^^H 

rjj  dyiojTfiTyj  v/xwv  iruTTCi,  * 

^^^^^^^    21   JK  TTi'co/iari  dyu^  irpoo-ruxo/Jtcvoti 

ftti^ov?  CF  dyaTTT}  $(ov  rr^fftfrxn^ 

^^^^^^H           irpocrSc^o^fvoi  to  cXcoc  rov  icv 

'Iij<rov  XptoToC  • 

^^^^^^^                                pioV  IJfJMiV 

tW  ^ur^v  atti^nov.* 

^^^H           23   Mil  ov%    pXv   cXcarc'    ^WLKpivo- 

crcifcTc  Ik  jrvf»5  ofwrofoif^,  * 

^^^H 

^^^H            2  J  otf  8«  cAcarf  ck  <^oiS({»i  ^ 

^<TOVPr€«  Itat  TOK  owt>  rys  oro^^mx 

^H 

IcnrtXdjfto^v  X^roti^.  2 

^^^^H                             dTTTaia-Toi^  * 

avToS  • 

^^^H               ^  Cr.  Hon,  Sft*cf  Rtadings.     There  is  no  need  to  take  either  the  first  wh  «s 

^^^H           relative  or  tbe  first  lAtart  as  indicative ; 

lAfarc  .  .  .  (Tdv^trc  is  a  simple  asyndeton* 

NOTES   AND   STUDIES  597 

afuofiov9  cv  dyaXXiocret 
25  fiovif^  Oe^  (nurrjpi,  ^fuav  Bi^  ^Irfo-ov  Xpurrov  rw  tcvpiov  ^imv 

Sd^a  ^  fA/eyaXoavvrf  Kparos  koX  l^owria  * 

vpo  iravros  rov  ouuvos  ^  xol  vvv^  ^    kcu  cis  rtavrw  xiAJi  aJutivav  Afiiiv- 

or :  vpo  vavTo^  rov  oiwvos  •  koI  vw  • 

icac  €h  iravras  rovs  otuvas.  Afi-qv. 

The  address  (v.  12)  determines  as  the  recipients  of  the  letter  those 
who  not  only  have  been  ca/led,  but  also  preserved  in  Jesus  Christy  this 
being  the  distinctive  epithet. 

Then  follows  an  introduction  (w.  3,  4),  giving  the  reason  why  the 
apostle  is  about  to  write  his  epistle :  seducers  have  crept  in  who  (i)  turn 
the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness  and  who  (2)  deny  our  only  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.    These  are  the  two  points  to  be  treated. 

The  first  part  (w.  5-10)  is  the  objective  exposition^  proving  by 
examples  how  dangerous  these  two  sins  are.  In  the  two  cases  given 
first  nothing  is  done  but  to  put  the  sin  and  its  punishment  before  the 
readers.  The  order,  however,  in  which  the  facts  are  mentioned  is 
opposite  to  the  order  of  the  enumeration  in  the  introduction :  there 
immorality  is  pointed  out  first  and  the  unbelief  and  blasphemy  follow ; 
here  the  first  is  an  example  of  unbelief  (the  Israelites),  the  second 
of  self-degradation  (the  angels).  Of  the  other  instances  (w.  7  and  9) 
an  explicit  application  is  made,  comparing  the  seducers'  sin  with  the 
examples  proposed.  Again  there  is  an  inversion  of  order :  here  the 
sin  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  precedes,  and  the  unbelieving  blasphemy 
is  stigmatized  by  an  illustratio  a  contrario  (St  Michael),  which  is  all 
the  more  effective.  As  the  first  application  (v.  8)  includes  a  transition 
to  the  second  example,  so  the  second  (v.  10)  concludes  this  passage 
by  pointing  back  to  its  preceding  section.  Here  we  have,  therefore, 
a  good  example  of  concatenatio  between  the  two  sections  as  well 
as  of  inclusiOy  two  features  so  familiar  to  Semitic  poetry. 

Verse  1 1  concludes  this  demonstrative  part  by  a  vehement  denounce- 
ment of  Divine  vengeance,  maintaining,  however,  the  objective  colouring 
by  alluding  to  three  further  examples  of  sin  and  punishment :  Cain, 
Balaam,  and  Core.  As  Mangold*  points  out  (after  Ritschl),  what  is 
common  to  all  of  these  three  is  the  connexion  of  their  sin  with  Divine 
worship;  so  the  seducers  appear  to  have  been  religious  leaders  and 
teachers,  not  only  members  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  seducing 
others  by  their  bad  example.  The  same  seems  to  be  indicated  else- 
where. 

'  AL  Zh^a  Koi  lUfoXocivri, 

'  F.  Bleek  EinUUung  in  das  Ntut  Tesiamtnt  4th  ed.  Berlin  (Reimer),  1886, 
p.  7aa  f,  note. 


598 


THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 


Before  analysing  the  second  part  of  the  epistle,  the  admomiiMi, 
it  may  be  noticed  that  hitherto  a  stanza  of  three  lines  is  predomtmii; 
represented  by  six  instances  j  and  in  the  two  other  cases  the  fite  hno 
are  grouped  into  three  and  two.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  ibe  sa« 
two  sins  are  mentioned  at  least  three  times^  the  order  being  eveiy  time 
inverted  ^ 

Passing  on  to  the  admomtianSt  in  the  first  part  (w.  12,  13),  the  aoii«r 
first  describes  the  desolate  condition  of  those  against  whom  he  wann 
his  readers,  heaping  up  similes  from  nature,  repeating  again  their  twofold 
sin  in  the  last  two  lines.  Then  he  goes  on  to  announce  the  judgeoeflt 
to  come  upon  them,  touching  again,  in  the  two  last  lines  out  of  ik 
five,  upon  the  double  crime.  And  a  further  repetition,  that  these  iw 
the  sins  of  the  false  prophets  he  is  fighting  against,  separates  these  tw 
stanzas  of  five  verses  from  the  other  couple  which  contain  his  adfiee 
to  the  *  beloved*.  In  the  former  there  was  a  somewhat  obscoe 
anaphora  (responsio) -.  (v.  12)  ovtqI  tlanv,  (v.  14)  iTrpo<^i^€\HTtv  Sk  «« 
Tovrots  and  (v.  16)  ovroi  curtv;  here  it  is  quite  clear:  (v.  17)  i'ftG^  Ut 
dyaTn/TOi  and  again  (v,  20)  v^cTs  Sc,  dyamfTvi  The  first  fii'c  lines  bet 
also  are  against  immorality  and  concupiscence  of  the  flesh,  the  bitw 
insist  on  faith  and  worship  of  God,  in  fact  of  the  whole  Blessed  Trinity 
(v.  21);  and  the  last  line,  turning  back  to  the  defilement  of  the  flesh, 
forms  an  even  clearer  inciusU  than  the  mere  formal  anapbom  in 
w.  12  and  16  of  the  preceding  stanzas. 

Verses  24  and  25  are  the  epilogue,  into  which,  even  to  the  end,  the 
two  things  needful  to  the  brethren,  steadfastness  in  faith  bef&rt  G^i 
glory  and  unspotttdntss  in  joy,  the  opposite  to  the  often  mentioned 
twofold  sin^  are  introduced  for  the  last  lime,  thus  pervading  the  whole 
writing  from  the  iniroducHom  (vv.  5,  4),  in  which  we  may  find  the  iiist 
trace  of  it,  down  to  the  very  last  sentence,  the  concluding  doxolpgf 
(w.  24,  25). 

After  the  foregoing  analysis,  we  think  no  serious  difficulty  can  be 
brought  to  disprove  the  existence  and  main  hues  of  the  strophical 
structure, 

A  few  remarks  may  be  added  comparing  St  Jude's  epistle  with 
St  James,  in  which  X  first  observed  the  same  fundamental  rules  of 
artistic  composition  as  have  been  just  shown  in  Jude,     Both  epi^es 


begin  with  a  detnonstraiive  part  (Jas.  ii   i-iv  12  j   and   Jude  5-11).  I 
followed  by  a  series  of  admonitions  (Jas.  iv  15-v  18;  and  Jude  12-25).  ' 
In  both  cases  the  admonitions  are  grouped  into  two  pairs,  the  former 
two  being  directed  against  those  who  imperil  the  *  brethren '  (Jas,  i? 
13-17;  v  1-6;  Jude  12,  13 i  14,  15),  and  the  latter  to  the  'brethren* 

^  Only  by  Mjingold,  op,  at,  723  note,  has  atteaEiozi  been  called  to  this  htt,  o^ 

there  only  to  a  part  of  iL 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


599 


themselves  (Jas.  v  7-12;   13-18;   Jude  17-19;    20-23),     Again,  in 

both  epistles  an  intr&duciwn  precedes  the  treatise,  in  which  the  particular 

Apropos itions  are  slightly  indicated  (Jas,  i  2-8;  Jude  3,  4).     An  address 

[(Jas,  i  I  ;  Jude  i,  2),  and  a  conclusion  {Jas>  v  19,  20;  Jude  24,  25)^  are 

Ldded  to  both  of  them.     Further,  there  is  in  both  the  same  inversion  of 

[order  of  the  parts  between  iht  enuniiaiio  and  the  treatise  itself,  which  in 

;h  case  goes  over  the  questions  under  discussion  twice  {Jas.  ii  i-iii  14, 

id  iii  is-iv,  8»;  Jude  5,  6,  and  7-10),  the  second  time  being  in 

liastic    position   in   comparison   with    the    first.      Concatenaiio    and 

\inclusio  are  found  in  both  epistles,  more  frequently  in  James,     The 

[same  abrupt  transitions  strike  the  reader  in  both  letters.     In  fact,  the 

indamental  laws  are  the  same. 

But  there  are  differences  as  well  as  likenesses.     St  James's  writing 

[is  more  than  four  times  as  long  as  St  Jude's  {108  vv. :  25),  and  is  in 

jnsequence  more  complicated.     The  subjects  treated   by  St  James 

in  his  demonstrative  pari  2xz  three  (ii  i-ii  ;  ii  12-26;  iii  1-14— again, 

\\\\  15-18;  iv  1-3;  iv  4-8*).     St  Jude  has  only  two  (v.  5;  6;  again,  7, 

ffi ;  9,  10).     The  greatest  difTerence,  however,  if  the  composition  is  con- 

tdered  as  a  whole,  consists  in  the  insertion  of  a  prtparatory  pari  (i  8- 

f85)  in  James,  between  the  introduction  and  the  treatment  of  his  proper 

[subject,  leading   up   to   the  enuntiatio  partium.     This  is  given,  not 

[as  in  Jude  (v.  4**  0),  at  the  end  of  the  introduction^  but  separated  from 

jthe  other  parts  (i  26,  27)^  in  the  same  way  as  the  resuming  lines  after 

-the  second  treatment  of  the  main  questions  (Jas.  iv  8^-12  ;  Jude  v  11).  ' 

in  the  other  hand  St  Jude  has  inserted  two  lines  between  the  re- 

[proaches  against  the  enemies  and  the  exhortations  to  his  readers  {v.  16), 

'whereas  in  James  (v  6)  at  this  part  the  formula  of  transition  belongs 

.to  the  second  reproach  itself.     This  comparison  of  the  arrangement 

[shews  that  the  two  epistles  throughout  run  parallel  to  one  another; 

low  far,  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  comparative  scheme ; 


I 
I 


Address,                       Jas.  i  i. 

Jude  I,  2 

Introduction,                     „    i  2-8 

u    3i  4 

Preparatory  Part^           „    19-25 

Announcement^                 ,,   i  26,  27 

— 

First  Treatment,              „    ii  i-ii ;  12-16; 

iii  1 

-14 1,     5.6 

Second  Treatment^           „    iii  15-18;  iv  1-3 

i  4- 

-8-^  „     7,8;  9,  10 

Kesuming  Admonition^    „   iv  8**-i  2 

,1     " 

Jieproaches,                      „    iv  13-17;  v  1-6 

».     ",13;  14,15 

Transition,                       „               — 

H          16 

Exhortations^                  „   v  7-12,  13-18 

„          17-19; aO-23 

Conclusion^                     „   v  19,  20 

M         24,25 

The  diHerence  in  the  arrangement  of  the  logical  parts,  is  greater  than 


60O  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


the  diflerencc  in  the  internal  structure  of  these  pans  themselves;  tine 
of  St  Jude  being  nearly  all  built  up  by  one  or  two  single  and  sm^ 
stanzas,  while  in  James  they  are  most  of  them  groups  of  Haiia^ 
united  by  an  arti6ciai  order ;  and  again  in  most  cases  the  stmat  m 
of  a  more  complicated  construction,  by  which  the  greater  number  d 
lines  coalesce  into  a  strophical  unit. 

Except  the  address,  the  two  resuming  parts  (w.  ii  and  16),  andtht 
conclusioHy  all  parts  in  Jude  are  couples  of  two  parallel  stacuis;  ibe 
introduction^  \\\t  first  and  again  the  second  treatment^  the  rtprwtdks  wA 
the  exhortations.  In  James  the  introduction  has  three  stanzis^  ik 
preparatory  part  five,  the  treatment  of  \h^  first  point  three,  the  titAVnxA 
of  the  second  and  third  points  five  stanaas  each  ;  in  the  second  trtafmttl 
the  three  points  join  together  to  form  one  part  of  three  stanzas  owt^ 
spending  to  the  first  treatment  of  the  first  point.  The  two  rtprmki 
as  well  as  the  two  exhortations  are  composed  of  two  stanzas  (tpgrtber 
eight  stanzas).  Generally  those  of  an  odd  number,  except  to  sow 
extent  those  of  the  third  point  in  the  first  treatment,  are  symmctricaJly 
disposed  round  a  central  stanza ;  and  only  in  the  arrangement  of  ^ 
reproaches  and  exhortations  in  pairs  do  we  find  parallelism  as  the  leading 
principle. 

When  we  consider  the  construction  of  the  stanzas  themselves  from 
the  lines,  we  find  in  St  Jude*s  Epistle  that  all  stanzas  are  simple,  except 
the  two  composite  ones  in  the  second  treatment  (vv.  7,  8 ;  9,  10).  The 
three  lines  scarcely  admit  of  any  subdivision  ;  much  less  the  two  ventt 
(v.  16);  the  four  verses  of  the  conclusion  might  be  divided  into  2+t; 
and  among  the  six  instances  of  five  lines  forming  a  stanza,  four  tiroes 
vij!,  in  each  of  the  two  reproaches  and  exhortations,  there  is  no  sub* 
division  possible*  Only  the  two  cases  above  mentioned  (vv,  7,  %\ 
9,  10)  are  composed  after  the  formula  3  +  2,  This  is  quite  di/r«tot 
from  what  we  find  in  James.  There  the  stanzas  consisting  of  ftrc 
verses  are  far  more  numerous;  and  they  exhibit  nearly  all  posal^ 
structures  :  i  +  3  +  i,  2+1  +  2,  1  +  2  +  2,  2+2  +  1,  In  the  same  way 
alt  stanzas  of  four  lines  may  be,  and  most  of  them  must  be,  sub- 
divided into  2  +  2,  This  complication  of  the  strophical  structure 
of  course  affords  a  very  important  means  of  verifying  the  existence 
of  stanzas  in  the  epistle,  and  increases  certainty  in  dividing  them  one 
against  the  other  ^ 

A  few  words  must  yet  be  devoted  to  the  formation  of  the  vers^  and 
their  components,  the  trrix^i.  In  this  matter  James  supplies  us  with 
help  that  is  wanting  in  Jude.  Besides  the  concatenation  connecting 
the  stanzas,  there  is  another,  not  all  through  the  epistle,  but  through 

'  For  particulars  I  must  refer  to  tiie  articles  mentioned  in  the  ZtiiKhrip  fir 
kathoitscht  Tktoiogigf  1904. 


i 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  6oi 

a  number  of  stanzas,  by  which  the  crrixoi  are  bound  together:  the 
repetition  of  the  same  word,  or  a  word  representing  the  same  idea. 
The  best  example  of  this  is  furnished  by  the  opening  verses  of  the 
introduction^  i  2  ff.  By  x^pav  this  part  is  connected  with  the  concluding 
Xaip€iv  of  the  address;  then  follows  vtipaarfioi^^KCfjuoVf  xnrofiovi^inrQ- 
fMvq,  Tc\ea>v-re\ciov,  Xctvo/MvoK-Xciircrai,  &c.  Another  example  is  to  be 
seen  in  i  13,  14. 

The  distribution  of  distichs  and  tristichs,  although  not  irregular, 
does  not  seem  to  follow  a  strict  rule  throughout.  Tristichs  are 
foimd  in  the  two  opening  lines  of  the  address;  again  in  the  first 
line  of  the  introduction;  in  the  last  of  the  first  treatment;  and  in  the 
second  treatment^  stanza  i  in  the  third  and  fifth,  stanza  ii  in  the  first 
and  fifth  lines.  In  the  two  reproaches  the  lines  i,  3,  and  5  are  made 
up  out  of  tristichs,  the  lines  between  them,  2  and  4,  are  distichs.  The 
transition  consists  of  one  distich  and  one  tristich.  The  exhortations 
are  built  upon  the  same  pi^ciple.  In  the  conclusion^  whether  we 
divide  it  into  four  or  five  verses,  there  is  a  tristich  in  the  first  line  only. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  division  into  ortxoi  rests  on  a  sub- 
jective element  to  a  larger  extent  than  any  other  part  of  this  essay. 

A  most  striking  feature  in  St  Jude's  verses  is  that  they  sometimes 
seem  to  form  a  ariyyi  out  of  one  word.  Thus  in  the  very  first  two 
lines: 

'lov&is  I  *\rfrov  JUpiarov  BovXos  \  d5cA,<^s  8k  ^laKtafiov 
rots  iv  $€f  irarpi  ^yavrifUvoi^  |  koI  *lrj(rov  Xpurrf^  rerfipfqiUvovs  \  kXi^ 
TOts  .  .  . 

Strange  as  this  sounds,  both  Profl  Miiller  and  Mr  Moulton  in  their 
verse-divisions  maintained  the  same. 

The  division  of  the  orcxot  is,  as  has  been  said,  nearly  throughout 
unsupported  by  external  evidence.  But  nobody,  reading  the  lines  as 
they  have  been  divided  in  the  text  above,  will  fail  to  notice  the  powerful 
rhythm,  which  most  markedly  solemnizes  the  threatening  thunders  as 
of  a  prophet  of  old,  pervading  this  short  epistle. 

What  conclusions  may  be  inferred  from  the  facts  revealed  by  this 
study  is  a  question  outside  the  purpose  of  the  present  article.  Cer- 
tainly St  Jude's  Epistle  has  not  lost  anything  of  its  worth  and  weight 
by  the  recognition  of  the  artistic  skill  which  has  guided  the  writer  in  its 
composition. 

H.  J.  Gladder,  S.J. 


602         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


ST   MATTHEW'S   PARALLEL  NARRATIVES. 


In  the  search  for  a  clue  to  the  divergences  of  Mt.  viii  aod  ix  ircm 
the  other  synoptists,  a  comparison  of  the  paragraphs  of  St  Matthew^ 
gospel  has  yielded  a  curious  series  of  coincidences — in  subject-nutter 
and  in  phraseology — between  two  sections  of  the  gospel  j  one  near  the 
beginning  (parts  of  Mt.  viii  and  ix),  the  other  at  the  end  (part  of  Mt  xxw 
and  xxviii).  Those  two  portions  of  the  gospel  may,  for  convenience^  be 
termed  respectively  the  *  Earlier  *  and  the  *  Later  *  sections. 

The  following  is  a  table  of  contents  of  eti/t€r  section : 


Mt  viii    S-13;    xxvii54 
„   viii  14,  15-   x3cvii5S,56 


A  centurion's  faith  .... 
Woman's  Ministry  .... 
Evening  scene.  Fulfilment  of  Isa.  liii, 

followed  by  'The  Son  of  Man 

bath  not  where  to  lay  His  head' 

and  The  dead  burying  the  dead 
pjya^  o-tLO-fioi  .  ,  .  .  .       „    viii  23-27 

Jesus  meeting  two  coming  from  the 

tombs.    Report  carried  into  the 

city  .... 

The  power  of  the  Son  of  Man 


viii  16-22 


xxvii  57-66 
xxviii  i-S 


viii  28-34  ;  anniii  9-15 
ix  1-8      ;  xxviii  1^20 


One's  first  impulse  is  to  look  upon  the  coincidences  as  a  strange  frcik 
of  chanccj  and  upon  the  above  table  of  contents  as  partly  the  result  of 
choosing  from  among  many  possible  headings  for  each  paragraph  ooe 
that  also  suited  its  companion.  But  a  comparison  of  the  corresponding 
narratives  with  one  another,  and  with  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark  iod 
Luke,  makes  it  difficult  to  dismiss  the  coincidences  as  accidental  They 
are  more  satisfactorily  explained  by  the  theory  that  the  author  of  the 
first  gospel,  in  composing  these  two  sections,  so  chose  his  subject-matter 
and  worded  his  narrative  as  to  make  each  paragraph  in  the  one  sectioo 
a  companion  picture  to  the  corresponding  paragraph  in  the  other 
section.  From  the  following  notes  on  each  couple  of  paragraphs,  it 
will  be  seen  that  where  Matthew  contains  matter  not  found  in  Mark  or 
Luke,  or  where  Matthew  differs  from  Mark  and  Luke  in  the  order  or  ia 
the  details  of  incidents  found  in  these  gospels,  the  foregoing  theoiy  is 
generally  the  key  to  his  peculiarities. 

It  is  not  taken  for  granted  in  these  notes  that  either  Mark  or  Luke 
was  among  Matthew*s  sources.  But,  inasmuch  as  the  features  that 
make  Matthew's  sections  '  parallel  *  are  for  the  most  part  absent  from 
Mark   and   Luke,   Mark  and   Luke  may,   for  the  purposes  of  this 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


603 


kvestigation,  be  looked  upon  as  containing  a  more  primitive  fomi  of 
le  narrative. 

Mt.  viii  5-13;   xxvii  54- 

For  the  *  Earlier '  section  Matthew  had  to  find  an  incident  that  would 

lake  a  companion  picture  to  xxvii  54,  and  his  choice  naturally  fell  on 

le  account  of  a  centurion's  faith,  recorded  also  in  Luke. 

Matthew  recast  the  story,  leaving  out  the  Jewish  intercessors,  and 

laking  the  Gentile  come  himself  to  Jesus ;  thus  concentrating  attention 

ipon  ih^/aiik  of  the  centurion. 

Again,  while,  according  to  Luke,  the  centurion  at  the  cross  declared 
Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man';    according  to  Matthew  the 
icified  One  drew  from  the  centurion  the  lofty  confession  of  faith, 
[•Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God*, 

Once  more,  Matthew,  differing  from  Luke,  makes  the  faith  of  the 

:enturion  in  the  'Earlier'  section  prophetic  of  the  final  ingathering  of 

[the  Gentiles ;  and,  as  if  to  shew  that  on  Calvary  that  prophecy  was 

ilready  being  fulfilled,  Matthew  tells  how  not  only  the  centurion,  but 

rliis  companions  with  him,  declared  their  faith  in  the  Son  of  God. 

Mt,  viii  14,  15 ;  xxvii  55,  ^6, 

In  all  three  Synoptists,  the  watch  of  the  ministering  women  follows 
Ithe  paragraph  relating  to  the  centurion  at  the  cross.  For  a  companion 
jtubject  in  the  *  Earlier'  section  Matthew  chose  the  cure  and  ministry  of 
Jeter's  wife's  mother.  Only  two  adjustments  by  Matthew  fall  to  be 
loted.  The  first  is  airrw  at  the  end  of  viii  15  (that  being  now  the 
:cepted  reading)^  where  Mark  and  Luke  have  'ministered  unto  ihem\ 
'he  other  adjustment  is  in  the  *  Later*  section,  Luke  does  not  refer 
the  women  on  Calvary  as  '  ministering '.  Mark  names  three  of  them 
as  having  ministered  to  Jesus  in  Galilee.  Matthew  speaks  of  *many 
women  .  .  .  which  followed  Jesus  from  Galilee  ministering  unto  Him '. 
The  result  of  these  changes  is  that  in  Matthew  we  have  one  woman 
ministering  to  Jesus  at  Capernaum  ;  while  on  Calvary  many  women 
wait  ready  to  minister  to  the  crucified  Christ. 

F  Mt.  viii  i6-aa;  xxvii  57-66. 

In  all  three  Synoptic  Gospels,  the  mention  of  the  women  watching 
the  crucifixion  is  followed  by  the  account  of  the  burial ;  in  all  three  the 
»lory  of  the  cure  of  Peter's  wife's  mother  is  followed  by  the  healing  of 
many  on  the  evening  of  the  same  day. 

Matthew  had  not  here  to  search  among  the  incidents  of  the  early 
tninistry  for  a  companion  subject  to  the  corresponding  paragraph  in  the 
*  Later'  section.     He  accepted  the  historical  sequence,  and  proceeded 


6o4         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

to  adapt  his  materials  to  his  purpose.  Beginning  each  paragraph  wim 
o^mc  i*  y€vofi€V7jv,  he  shewed  the  two  coniraslcd  scenes  to  be  alike  is 
one  striking  feature.  He  made  Jesus  in  His  acts  of  healing  at  Capenumn 
fulfil  Isa,  liii  4*  This  is  a  striking  application  of  these  Old  Testameal 
words.  In  i  Peter  ii  24  we  find  the  same  words  applied  to  Jesus  od 
the  cross ;  and  that  is  now,  and  probably  was  at  the  date  of  tk 
composition  of  Matthew,  the  common  apphcation  of  the  wortli 
Matthew,  boldly  applying  this  prophecy  to  the  cure  of  disease,  depicted 
Jesus  in  Capernaum — as  on  Calvary — *  bearing  our  griefs  and  carrying 
our  sorrows  *.  After  this  Old  Testament  quotation,  Matthew  introdoosd 
two  incidents  recorded  by  Luke  in  a  different  connexion.  The  fiist  of 
these  closes  with  our  Lord's  declaration  'The  Son  of  Man  hath  oot 
where  to  lay  His  head '.  The  companion  paragraph  tells  of  Jesus  being 
carried  from  the  cross  to  Joseph's  tomb,  Matthew  alone  stating  who  the 
owner  was.  Thus  Matthew,  by  inserting  viii  iS-20,  noakes  Jesus  iX 
Capernaum  point  forward  to  the  day  when  His  body  would  be  laid  ifl 
a  tomb  that  was  not  His  own. 

In  the  *  Earlier'  section  we  next  find  the  incident  that  leads  up  III 
our  Lord's  command  *  Follow  Me,  and  let  the  dead  bury  their  deadV 
It  was  fitting  that  Matthew  should  introduce  some  mention  of  buriil 
into  this  paragraph,  which  is  set  over  against  the  burial  of  Jesus*  Bot 
he  did  more  than  that;  he  inserted  as  a  conclusion  to  the  buriil 
paragraph  in  the  '  Later '  section  an  incident  not  recorded  by  the  other 
evangelists.  The  chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  after  calling  Jesos  1 
deceiver,  and  speaking  of  His  disciples  as  capable  of  gross  deceit,  do 
their  best  to  make  the  sepulchre  sure.  The  *  Earlier '  paragraph,  where 
the  disciple  is  commanded  to  '  let  the  dead  bury  their  dead  *,  tcUs  of 
a  latent  opposition  to  Jesus  and  His  followers — latent,  but  realized  by 
oor  Lord.  In  the  *  Later  *  paragraph,  the  *  dead '  religious  leaders  help 
with  the  burial  of  Jesus,  the  latent  opposition  having  developed  into 
bitter  hostility  and  open  malice. 

Thus  in  each  of  the  evening  scenes,  we  have  our  Lord  sharing  oar 
infirmities,  and  fulfilling  the  Messianic  prophecies  in  the  midst  of  povcitj 
and  opposition. 

Mt.  viii  33-27  ;   xxviii  x-8. 

Matthew,  following  the  usual  order  in  the  *  Later '  section,  chose  for 

the  '  Earlier '  section  the  stilling  of  the  storm  as  a  companion  subject 
to  the  resurrection.  Comparing  Matthew's  account  of  the  resurrection 
with  Mark  and  Luke,  we  find  that  the  chief  peculiarity  of  Matthew  is 
at  xxviii  2  koI  t^cn',  o-cio-^to?  iyivtro  ^c'-yas.  This  *  great  earthqtuke '  IS 
mentioned  only  by  Matthew,  and  he  does  not  record  any  results 
>roduced  by  the  'earthquake',  for  k  was  the  angel,  as  is  enpressly 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  605 

stated,  that  rolled  away  the  stone.  But  Matthew  uses  the  saiQe  phrase 
at  viii  24  in  describing  the  storm  on  the  lake  koX  IBov,  o-cur/iog  /icyac 
lycFcro  (a  few  MSB  including  V  have  lymn  fUyas).  Mark  and  Luke 
have  AotAo^,  not  aturftjoi.  Matthew  has  thus  changed  the  name  for  the 
storm  on  the  lake,  and  has  introduced  'a  great  earthquake'  at  the 
resurrection  in  order  to  adjust  these  two  paragraphs  to  his  purpose  and 
make  them  companion  pictures. 

It  seems  at  first  sight  somewhat  bold  to  account  for  Matthew's 
'earthquake'  by  his  peculiar  method  of  composition,  and  to  suggest 
that,  but  for  the  mention  of  a  <rcur/Ao$  at  viii  24,  we  should  have  had  no 
o-ciir/Aos  at  xxviii  2.  But  has  Matthew  recorded  the  occurrence  of  a 
'  great  earthquake '  at  the  tomb  ?  In  all  probability  he  has  not ;  for 
Matthew  himself  defines  clearly  what  kind  of  o-cur/ios  took  place  before 
the  resurrection : — 

xxviii  2  And  behold  there  was  a  great  agitation  (o-ccirfi^) 

xxviii  2  For  the  angel  of  the  Lord  descended  . .  . 

xxviii  4  And  for  fear  of  him  the  keepers  were  agitated  (io'tttrBriartw) ; 

or  <T€uriLoi  and  ictiaOrfo-ay  might  be  translated  respectively  'shaking' 
and  '  shook ',  or  *  storm '  and  *  were  storm-tossed '. 

Whatever  English  noun  is  used  for  o-cur/iog,  we  should  use  a  verb 
from  the  same  English  root  for  IfTtUrBrfrav. 

Matthew  had  set  over  against  one  another  in  his  parallel  narratives 
two  events — the  stilling  of  the  storm  and  the  resurrection — and  he  had 
to  bring  out  the  points  of  resemblance.  He  had  spoken  of  the  commo- 
tion on  the  lake :  and  when  he  comes  to  the  resurrection  he  points  out 
that  there  was  a  commotion  here  too,  but  he  goes  on  to  explain  that  the 
storm  which  our  Lord  calmed  by  His  victory  over  death  was  the  storm 
in  the  breasts  of '  the  keepers '  (the  two  Marys,  &c.). 

In  the  *  Earlier'  section,  Jesus  lies  fast  asleep  during  the  storm,  with 
His  disciples  in  mortal  terror  around  Him  :  then  He  rises  and  by  His 
power  over  winds  and  sea  makes  a  great  calm.  In  the  '  Later '  section 
He  is  wrapped  in  the  deeper  sleep  of  death,  with  those  around  Him 
panic-stricken ;  again  He  rises,  and  His  victory  over  death  makes  a  great 
joy  succeed  the  panic. 

Mt.  viii  28-34;   xxviii  9-15. 

Matthew  here  followed  the  historical  sequence  in  the  'Earlier' 
section,  with  the  result  that  in  the  '  Later '  section  he  had  to  introduce 
material  not  found  in  Mark  or  Luke  ('  Mark '  xvi  9  merely  mentions  that 
Jesus  '  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene  out  of  whom  He  had  cast  seven 
devils ').    Though  Mark  and  Luke  do  not  record  the  conversation  of 


6o6         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Jesus  with  the  women,  yet  they  mention  the  presence  of  womeD  K 
the  tomb.  Matthew  alone  has  twa  women.  Corresponding  witli  tha 
number,  Matthew  tells  of  two  demoniacs  at  viii  28^  whUe  Mazk  aad 
Luke  mention  only  one. 

By  these  adjustments  Matthew,  both  in  Tiii  a  8  and  xxviii  9,  shews « 
Jesus  meeting  two  coming  from  the  place  of  tombs. 

Comparing  the  three  accounts  of  the  casting  out  of  the  devils,  w 
find  that  Matthew  differs  from  Mark  and  Luke  in  not  describing  liic 
condition  of  the  possessed  after  the  devils  had  gone  out.  It  is  froni 
Mark  and  Luke  we  learn  that  the  cured  demoniac  sat  clothed  and  is 
his  fight  mind  at  the  feet  of  Jesus ;  that  the  report  of  his  ha^'ng  bea 
*  healed '  was  carried  into  the  city ;  and  that  he  made  a  request  of  Jesos 
and  received  from  Jesus  a  commission,  which  both  go  to  prove  tin 
perfect  sanity  succeeded  the  expulsion.  Matthew,  however,  abmpdy 
breaks  off  the  history  of  his  demoniacs  at  the  point  where  the  legion 
went  out  of  them.  The  reason  for  the  seeming  incompleteness  of  his 
narrative  is  that  he  devotes  two  paragraphs,  one  at  the  beginning,  the 
other  at  the  end  of  his  gospel,  to  the  subject  of  Christ's  cure  of  those 
possessed  with  many  devils. 

In  the  *  Earlier '  paragraph,  he  lays  stress  on  the  malignity  of  the 
disease,  holding  over  for  his  'Later'  paragraph  (a)  the  marks  of 
submission  which  the  presence  of  the  Healer  elicited  (Mark  v  6  ^poor 
tcvvTfTtv  avTi^  Luke  viii  28  irpoa^mtrrv  avrw),  (ff)  the  description  of  tbc 
changed  mental  condition,  and  (y)  the  commission  given  by  Jesus  after 
the  cure  (Mark  v  19  xntayt  .  .  .  Trpo<  tov«  <rovs  kox  cEirayyctAor  .  >  .I^ 
When  Matthew  in  the  '  Later'  paragraph  (xxviii  9,  10)  comes  to  tell  of 
Jesus  meeting  the  two  women  (one  at  least  of  whom  had  been  delivered 
by  Him  from  many  devils),  he  depicts  t/iem  holding  their  risen  Lord  bf 
the  feet  and  worshipping  Him  {Uparrfirav  airrov  tov«  tro&i9  kqjL  irpoow- 
vTfcrav  ttLiTui)  and  receiving  the  commission  (vTraycrc  <iirtryy«tXaT«  rw 
dSeXt^ots  fmv  .  .  ^).  Matthew's  method  of  parallel  narratives  thus 
enabled  him  to  prove  the  completeness,  and  especially  the  permanemty 
of  Christ's  demonic  cures. 

In  all  three  gospels  we  have  an  addendum  to  the  demonic  cure  in  the 
shape  of  a  report  carried  into  the  neighbouring  city.  Matthew  takes 
advantage  of  this  report  of  the  swine-herds  and  its  results  to  insert  i 
corresponding  report  in  his  '  Later '  section.  Very  similar  phrases  in 
viii  33  (aTTcX^ovre?  cts  r^v  irdAiv  dTnjyy^tAav  Traioa)  and  xxviii  1 1  (cX^oi>7vt 
€^5  -niv  ftukw  dmTyyetAav   .   .   .    [ajirajn-a)   introduce  US  tO  two  groups  of 

men  who  receive  the  news  of  our  Lord's  manifestations  of  power  in 
much  the  same  spirit ;  and  Christ's  influence  upon  men  of  the  type 
represented  by  the  Gergesenes  and  the  high  priests  is  tellingly  con* 
trasted  with  His  influence  over  the  demoniacs  He  has  healed. 


i 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


607 


re 


Mt.  ix  1-8  J  xxviii  i6-ao. 

Matthew's  gospel  ends  with  a  report  of  our  Lord's  address  to  the 
ren  disciples  in  Galilee.  The  leading  thought  in  the  address  is  our 
)rd's  authority.  The  opening  words  are  :  *  All  authority  is  given  unto 
[e  in  heaven  and  in  earth ' :  and  because  of  Christ's  authority,  the 
isciples  were  to  evangelize  all  nations. 

For  the  '  Earlier '  section,  Matthew  chose  as  a  parallel  subject  the 
ire  of  the  palsied  man ;  Jesus  having  expressly  stated,  to  some  who 
loubted  His  authority,  the  object  for  which  He  wrought  this  miracle: 
lat  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgive 
ins'.  And  Matthew,  diverging  from  Mark  and  Luke,  tells  of  the 
mltitudes  who  witnessed  what  had  been  done  'glorifying  God,  which 
id  given  such  authority \in\Q  men*.  Thus  the  evangelist  is  enabled  by 
lis  parallel  narratives  to  lay  stress  on  the  truth  that  the  authority  by  which 
le  paralytic  was  cured  and  pardoned  in  the  early  Galilean  ministry  is 
le  same  divine  authority  which  is  with  us  *  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
>f  the  world  ^ 

Mt.  viii  2-4 ;  xxvit  51-53. 

The  parallel  nanatives  have  been  traced  from  viii  5  and  xxvii  54  on 

ix  8  and  xxviii  20.  Can  they  be  traced  backward  from  viii  5  and 
xxvii  54? 

The  cure  of  the  leper  seems  to  fall  naturally  into  the  same  section  as 
the  incidents  recorded  in  viii  5  to  ix  8.  But  if  the  cure  of  the  leper  is 
to  be  included  in  the  'Earlier'  section,  then  the  'Later'  section  must 

elude  a  paragraph  before  xxvii  54;  and  xxvii  51^ — immediately  after 
our  Lord's  death — is  a  probable  starting-point  for  a  new  section  of  the 
gospei  Now  do  the  paragraphs  viii  2-4  and  xxvii  51-53— telling 
respectively  of  the  cure  of  the  leper  and  the  rending  of  the  temple 
veil.  &c.— illustrate  each  other  ?  Is  the  second  the  complement  of  the 
rst? 

A  writer  on  the  vexed  problem  of  the  arrangement  of  materials  in 
Mt  viii,  ix  shews  that  Matthew  gave  the  leper  story  the  place  of  honour 
*  because  of  the  illustration  of  the  resi>ectful  attitude  of  Jesus  towards 
the  Mosaic  law  which  is  supplied  by  the  reference  to  the  priesthood  \ 

But  if  Matthew  was  at  one  with  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  as  to  the  final  relation  of  Jesus  towards  the  Mosaic  law,  the 
teaching  of  the  leper  incident,  taken  alone,  must  have  seemed  to 
Matthew  himself  incomplete  and  misleading.  In  Mt.  xxvii  51-53, 
accordingly^  we  see  the  Mosaic  system  waxed  old  and  vanishing  away, 
and  our  high  priest  entered  not  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands^ 
but  into  heaven  itself.    The  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple  would 


6o8  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

suggest  to  Jewish  Christians  that  the  tempk  sacrifices  and  atonemers 
had  been  rendered  useless  by  the  death  of  Jesus ;  and  the  resurrecti* 
of  many  bodies  of  the  saints  and  their  appearance  in  the  A^city  voaiB  ^ 
be  looked  on  as  the  firstfniils  of  the  high  priesthood  of  Christ,  aod  u  i 
a  proof  of  the  cleansing  life-giving  power  of  His  atoning  socriiice. 

The  {Darallel  narratives  are  thus  traceable  back  to  kuI  t&v  (viii  2  and 
xxvii  51),  a  phrase  often  employed  to  mark  an  important  off-€tart; 
and  the  following  entry  falls  to  be  inserted  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Table  of  Contents: — Relation  of  Jesus  to  the  priesthood,  Mt  viii  ^-i. 
xxvii  5i-'3» 

By  a  selection  of  incidents  from  the  earlier  part  of  Christ*s  raiatrj] 
paralleled  with  the  incidents  in  the  narrative  of  the  ResufTectioa 
the  evangelist  has  shewn  that  the  ministry  of  our  Lord  before  ds^ 
and  His  ministry  after  death  were  harmonious  parts  of  one  great 
work ;  and  that  Jesus  the  miracle  worker  of  Galilee  was  alrewJy 
preparing  the  way  for  the  final  victory  of  the  Christ,  In  each  of  ifae 
companion  pictures  where  Jesus  is  the  central  figure  His  ntmbtis  i& 
brighter  in  the  *  Later  *  than  in  the  *  Eariier '  section.  Matthew  was  not 
content  merely  to  place  over  against  one  another  paragraphs  him^ 
a  common  subject ;  he  worked  up  his  materials^ — in  both  sections — to 
as  to  bring  out  clearly  the  greater  power  and  increased  influence  of  ik 
risen  Lord. 

Thomas  Milne. 


REASONS  FOR  REGARDING  HILARIUS  (AMBROSI- 

ASTER)  AS  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  MERCATI* 
TURNER  ANECDOTON. 

In  reading  over  the  anonymous  commentary  on  part  of  St  Mitthe* 
published  by  Mr  C.  H.  Turner  in  the  Journal  of  Tfuologita!  ^a£ti 
for  January,  1904',  and  by  Dr  G.  Mercati  in  Studi  e  Tssti  (Rome,  1903)*, 
I  was  struck  by  the  numerous  resemblances  which  the  language  of  the 
document  bears  to  the  commentaries  and  Quaesiianes  of  Ambrosiastcr, 
to  the  style  of  which  1  have  had  occasion  to  give  attention  for  some 
time  past 

*  An  '  Exegetical  Fragment  of  the  Third  Century '  (pp.  918-41).  ^  have  to  thank 
the  author  for  a  copy  of  the  article. 

•  No,  II  {  =  P'aria  Sacra,  Fasc,  i).  Of  the  two  appended  Ire&tises,  I  am  very 
doubtful  about  the  de  tribtts  mensuris^  but  the  de  Ptiro  Apastoh  msiy  very  well 
emanate  from  the  same  author. 


( 


I 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


609 


W 

"" 


Being  disposed  at  first  to  attribute  my  observation  of  these  resem- 
ces  to  the  prolonged  study  I  had  given  to  Ambrosiaster,  I  wrote 
paper  to  prove  that  Ambrosiaster,  who  once  mentions  Victorinus  (of 
ttau),  was  a  very  close  student  of  that  author  ;  and  this  opinion  I  still 
Idj  believing  that  it  best  explains  some  phenomena  noted  below, 
hinting  it  advisable,  before  going  to  press,  to  make  some  acquaintance 
th  the  already  existing  works  of  Victorinus,  I  read  through  the  De 
rica  Muftdi^  which  has  been  preserved  to  us  in  a  solitary  Lambeth 
uscript.  I  was  astonished  to  find  that  the  numerous  points  of 
ntact  I  had  found  between  the  new  document  and  the  works  of 
mbrosiaster  were  not  shared  by  the  tract  on  Creation  in  the  slightest 
gree.  The  same  result  was  arrived  at  from  a  perusal  of  the  con- 
uding  part  of  his  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  published  by 
r  Haussleiter  in  the  T/t^o/ogisc/tes  Literafurblatt  of  1895.  It  would 
ve  been  premature  to  extend  the  examination  to  the  commentaries 
the  Apocalypse  itself,  though  I  have  examined  the  Hieronymian 
sion  even  in  MSS.  We  must  first  have  Dr  Haussleiter's  Vienna 
ition  before  us.  But  enough  remains  in  the  De  Fabrica  Mundi  and 
e  last  part  of  the  commentary  to  shew  that  the  style  of  the  real 
ictorinus  is  alJ  that  Jerome  called  it.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
e  new  work  is  a  running  commentary,  and  is  therefore  at  a  dis- 
vantage  when  compared  with  a  formal  treatise  like  that  on  Creation, 
claim  that  its  style  is  far  too  good  for  Victorinus,  whose  training  was 
ore  Greek  than  Latin,  that  it  is  in  fact  the  work  of  Hilary  (the  Am- 
rosiasler),  one  of  the  truest  Romans  of  the  fourth  century,  a  writer  in 
hose  elevation  to  his  rightful  position  I  hope  to  take  some  part. 
Mr  Turner's  arguments  in  support  of  a  date  in  the  late  third,  or  the 
rly  fourth  century,  lack  neither  learning  nor  ingenuity,  but  cannot, 
am  afraid,  be  allowed  to  stand.     The  explanation  of  Apoc*  xiv  9 

ORAVIT   QVIS   BESTIAM    ET   SIGNVM    EIVS    ACCEPIT  IN   FRONTE   AVT    IN 

ANV  svA  given  in  ch.  xix  1.  8  does  not  necessarily  prove  that  the 
ocument '  emanates  from  the  age  of  persecutions '.  If  it  does,  I  should 
attribute  it  to  the  later  years  of  Julian,  being  quite  willing  to  regard  it 
as  earlier  in  time  than  either  the  Pauline  commentaries  or  the  Quae- 
\tiant$.  But  surely  this  is  unnecessary.  The  recollection  of  persecutions 
must  have  been  vivid  enough  to  the  Christians  for  long  after  they  had 
ceased,  as  were  the  sufferings  of  the  Scottish  Covenanters  to  their 
descendants.  Further,  Ambrosiaster's  comment  on  2  Thess,  i  6-9 
speaks  as  if  persecutors  were  alive  even  at  the  lime  of  writing.  This  is 
what  he  says  :  *  quid  tarn  iustum  quam  ut  hi,  qui  in  saeculo  deprimunt 
bonos  et  exlorres  eos  faciunt  persecutionibus,  in  futuro  eadem  patiantur 
quae  faciunt .  .  .  cum  coeperit  (dominus)  uenire  ...  ad  dandam  uin- 
dictam  in  paganos'  cet.    See  also  on  verse  7  the  reference  to  Julian: 

VOL.  V.  R  r 


rocn  w^ 


610  THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

'  qui  arte  quadam  et  subtilitate  coeptam  persecutionem  implere  oci 
potuit '.  The  division  of  humanity  into  Musti*,  *peccatores\  lad 
*impii'  is  shewn  below  to  be  found  in  the  Quaestiones^^  and  I  qi^ 
admit  that  '  this  prominence  of  the  heathen  as  a  separate  class  in  tbt 
eschatological  conception  of  the  writer  points  us  back  to  the 
when  heathenism  was  still  dominant',  if  for  'dominant'  some  mikiff 
word  be  substituted.  Heathenism  was  still  a  great  force  in 
Blaster's  day*.  Witness  his  two  most  powerful  writings,  the 
Paganos  (Qu.  cxiv)  and  the  Dc  Fato  (Qu.  cxv),  and  the  lettfifi 
Symmachus.  A  further  argument  is  drawn  by  Mr  Turner  from 
fact  that  ^Chiliasm  is  still  an  absorbing  topic  of  interest '.  Thepassags 
printed  below  destroy  this  argument  completely,  as  we  find  that  iboot 
the  year  380  chiliasm  expressed  itself  in  almost  the  identical  words 
the  new  tract. 

I  have  no  hesitation  whatever  in  regarding  the  new  documenl 
a  Latin  original,  not  a  translation  from  the  Greek-      I   think  it 
probable  that  the  author  used  Victorinus  of  Pettau  himself^  aod 
parallels  produced  below  will  at  least  prove  that,  if  this  document  is 
a  Latin  original,  then  neither  are  the  commentaries  on  the 
epistleSj  nor  the  QuaesHoms  Vtierii  et  Noui  TeUaffunti^  in  spite  of  fli^ 
hostility  shewn  to  Greeks  by  their  author  and  the  notoriously  Rt 
characteristics  of  his  works. 

The  argument  drawn  from  the  character  of  the  biblical  text  wc 
lose  its  force  if  it  could  be  shewn  that  in  Rome  in  the  latter  part  of  1 
fourth  century  a  form  of  text  was  employed  which  is  much  closer  to  thtf 
of  the  third  century  than  is  generally  supposed.  There  is  need  oif 
a  systematic  examination,  based  on  carefully  collected  manuscript 
evidence,  of  the  biblical  quotations  in  all  the  Roman  writers  between 
the  times  of  Novatian  and  Jerome.  The  result  of  such  an  examioatiQCi 
would,  I  think,  go  to  shew  that  this  text  is  in  many  ways  nearer  to  that 
used  by  Cyprian  than  it  is,  say,  to  that  of  Lucifer.  I  have  been  raudi 
struck  with  this  fact  in  working  on  the  text  of  the  Pauline  epistles.  It 
is  unfortunate  that  the  gospel  quotations  in  the  commentaries  and 
Quaes  (tones  are  brief,  and  that  only  three  are  available  for  our  prescfit 
purpose.  Those  which  do  occur  shew  striking  agreements  with  the 
text  presented  by  the  Ainbrosian  MS,  and  point  to  a  biblical  text  Jt 
least  as  ancient  as  it  shews.  Where  the  two  differ,  it  is  by  no  mcUS 
certain  that  the  Amhrosian  MS  is  right,  and  my  MSS  of  the  com- 
mentaries and  Quaestiones  wrong.  The  MS,  in  spite  of  its  early  dsts; 
is  very  carelessly  written.      The  text   I   print   below   is    that   of  ibft 

*  Dom  Morin  informs  me  It  is  not  uncommon  In  UitiQ  Christian  authors. 

•  See    especially   Prof.    F.   Cumont    in  the   Rtvut   ttkistoir*   H 
rwlisitusts  viii  C  1903)1  417  ff- 


01  UK 

ofd| 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES  6ll 

Ambrosian  MS.  In  the  critical  notes,  which  owe  much  to  Mr  Turner's 
collections,  appear  all  differences  between  Ambrosiaster's  text  and  that 
of  the  Ambrosian  MS.  The  other  symbols  in  the  notes  explain  them- 
selves. 

Math,  xxiv  20 

orate  autem  ne  fiat  fuga  uestra  hieme  uel  sabbato 
autem  om  Cypr.  Ambrst. 
Math,  xxiv  23 

ecce  hie  est  Christus  aut  illic  ne  credatis 

est  om,  ab  d  Cypr.  Auct.  rebapt.  Ambrst.  aut  ecce  illic  a  Cypr. 

Ambrst.  nolite  credere  ab  dt  Cypr.  Auct.  rebapt.  Ambrst. 

Math,  xxiv  43 

lugilate  itaque^  quia  nescitis  qua  hora  uel  die  dominus 
uester  uenturus  est 

ergo  abjf-^  uel  die  om,  a  bff^  Ambrst. 

Let  me  now  set  side  by  side  several  passages  from  the  known  works 
of  Ambrosiaster  and  the  anecdoton.  These  will  convince  every  person 
who  reads  them  attentively  that  they  all  come  from  the  same  author. 
I  would  in  particular  direct  attention  to  the  passage  from  QuaesHo  cvi, 
where  the  numerous  readings  recovered  from  the  old  MSS  shew  at 
once  the  great  liberties  which  the  first  editor  took  with  the  text,  and 
also  a  much  closer  approximation  to  the  anecdoton  than  does  the 
printed  text. 

in  Math.  c.  12  pr.  Ambrst.  Quaest  cvi.  de  libro  genesis 

salbator    ergo    inpleto    sexto  (ante  finem) 

millesimo  anno  uenturus  est,  praeterea  quia  sex  diebus  opus  con- 

ut  septimum  millesimum  an-  summatum  est,  totius  mundi  aetatem 

num  hie  regnet.    cuius  sabba-  in  se  continet,  ut  sex  dierum  opera  sex 

turn    habet    figuram,    id    est  milium  annorum  haberent  figuram  . .  . 

requiei  imaginem,  ut  quantum  ut  autem  ante  hominem  pecora  fierent  5 

distat  umbra  a  ueritate  tantum  .  .  .  sexto  autem  die  homo  fieret,  haec 

distet  et  requies  a  requie  et  res  fecit,  quia  sexto  millesimo  anno 

uita  a  uita,  quia  ilia  aeterna  aduentus    Christi    hominem    fecit   ne 

erit  haec  tempuralis  est.    ideo  morti  esset  obnoxius.  .  .  .  illud  uero 

requies   ilia   totius    mundani  quod  septimo  die  requieuit  ab  operibus  10 

operis  cessatio  est.     nam  con-  ,  q^g  ^,^       ^  ^^  ^st  Migtu       7  in 

siderandum     quia    unus    dies      sexto  millenario  annorum  Migfu 

'  This  precious  iiaqiu,  which  is  not  in  the  printed  text  (a  qu.  N.T.  6a  Migne 
P.  L.  XXXV  3410),  I  have  recovered  from  MS  Paris  B,N.  lai.  1^333,  which  is 
a  splendid  MS,  though  of  the  twelfth  century.  The  same  verse  ap.  i  Th.  5,  i 
is  different,  being  there  a  quotation  from  memory. 

R  r  a 


6l2         THE  JOURNAL  OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


miUe  aiinorum  6gura  est :  tan- 
turn  ergo  intererit  inter  re- 
quiem it  nquitm.  haec  utiquc 
requies  in  saeculo  data  est  ad 
momentum  ucl  diem,  ilia  re- 
quies  in  regno  Chriati  actemo 
aeterna. 

c.  13,  7- 
sex  enim  dies  sex  mitla  an* 
norum  habent  figuram  quibus 
agitur  mundus.  Septimus  uero, 
id  est  sabbatum,  septimi  mille- 
simi  umbra  est,  qui  cessationcra 
roundanis  operibus  futuram 
septimo  millesimo  anno  in* 
cipiente  significat. 

in  Math,  c  14,  14  seq. 

{ci.  p,  220). 

post    mille    annos    resurgent 

quidem, ,  .  .  non  tamen  uno  in 

loco      PECCATORES      et      IMPIl 

erunt  donec  consvmmentvr 

5  MILLE   ANNI   (pS,    i    I,    5)    ... 

non   enim    potest  ut   pecca- 

TORBS  RESVRGANT  IN  CONSILIO 

JVSTORVM,  quia  iusti  resurgent 
ut  mille  annts  regnent  cum 
10  salbatore :  ideo  in  hoc  CON- 
siLio  PECCATORES  csse  non 
possunt  aut  si  impii  simul 
resurgent  cum  Sanctis,  quanto 
magis  peccatores?    .  .  .  ideo 

15  nee   PECCATORES    RESVRGENT 

cum  iustis,  quia  post  mille 
annos  iudicium  erit  omnium 
mortuorum,  ut  impii  pereant, 
peccatores  a u tern  pro  modo 
ao  delictorum  poenas  expendant. 

c.  19,  5 

nunc  enmi  tria  genera  homi- 
num  sunt,  impiorum,  pecca- 
torum,  sanctorum. 


stus,  hoc  signtficavit,  quia 
to  millesimo  anno  in  septtiBOl 
requiesceiet,  cessante  iam 
omai  opere  saeculari. 

[  I  sl^ficat  Mignt     I J  1 


Quaest.  cxv.  dk  fato 
ccrtc  hoc  factum  a  mundi 
est  numquam,  nisi  in  Scytia 
ne   forte  dicerent    quia   cum 
innouatur  post   annos    mille 
gentos  sexaginta    sic    haec    eiM 
qutppe  cum  mundus  iam  sexto 
anno  agatur. 


1 


Ambrst.  Quaesi.  ex.  de  psaj 
Migne  ixxv  p*  2330,  % 

BEATVS    VIR    QVI     IN    VIA 

NON  STETIT.  SI  autem  *stet< 
iam  *  bcatus ',  sed  reus  digni 
ad  emendationem  aliquam  ei 
tur  habere  spem,  quia  non 
sed  *peccator'  est.  si  auti 
fuerit    qui   non    abiit    in 

IMPIORVM,     ET     IN     VIA     PEC< 

NON  Stat,  duplid  genere  bea 
nee  enim  potest  esse  beati 
consilio  peccatorum  non  eat, 
peccatorum  stet :  quia  si 
ditioni,  poenae  tamen  obnox 
dehinc  adiecit  et  in  cathei> 

TILENTIAE     NON     SEDIT.         hanC 

bcatitudinem    esse,    quae    bia^ 
gradibus    constat,    et    triplici 
munitur :    td  est,   ut    neque 
silio   impiorum   eatur,    neque 
peccatorum  stetur,  neque  in 
pestilentiae   sedeatur.      sed 
genera  tantum  habeantur  impi< 

4  enim  aliquun  Mignt  9 

II  consilium  Migmt  x8  consilji 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


613 


in  Math.  c.  i. 

ORATE  AVTEM  NE  FIAT  FVGA 
VESTRA  HIEME  VEL  SABBATO, 

id  est  ne  cum  fiiga  fit  inpe- 
dimentum  patiamini.  orare 
autem  est  semper  sollicitum 
esse  et  auxilium  dei  inplorare, 
ne  inpedimentis  constrictus 
tempore  quo  fugiendum  est 
terrenis  nexibus  obligetur. 
semper  autem  inpedimenta 
fiigienda  sunt :  idciico  sic  nos 
constituere  debemus  ut  cum 
fugae  dies  uenerit  liberi  et  ad 
fugam  apti  inueniamur.  hieme 
autem  et  sabbato  cum  dicit, 
quid  aliud  significat  quam 
tempus  quo  fugere  non  po- 
test, id  est  ne  cum  fuga  fit 
inpedimenta  et  hiemis  et  sab- 
bati  in  nobis  inueniantur,  qui- 
bus  inpediti  fugere  non  possu- 
mus  ?  biems  autem  ad  fugien- 
dum uel  latendum  intuta  et 
minus  utilis  est:  sabbatum 
uero  ultra  iter  facere  quam 
lex  iubet  secundum  ludaeos 


peccatorum  in  reprehensione,  quae 
supra  memorata  sunt,  hoc  tertium  cui 
adscribi  uoluit  quod  adiedt  dicens  et  25 

IN  CATHEDRA  PESTILENTIAS  NON  SBDIT : 

impiorum  aut  peccatorum  ? 

Migne  p.  2332, 19. 
in  hoc  psalmo  tria  genera  hominum 
significat,  impiorum  et  peccatorum  et 


lustorum 


30 


33  comprehensione  eonim  M^ne       34  cui] 
+  generi  Migm  37  -ne  an  M^gfie        38 

psalmista  anie  in  M^fw  trium  hominum 

genera  Migpu     39  omprei  Mtgnt 

2  Qu.  N.  T.  19  (Migne  P.  Z. 
XXXV  2396). 

QVARE  SALVATOR  ORATE  AIT  SB  FIAT 
FVGA  VESTRA  HIEME  VEL  SABBATO, 
CVM  TEMPVS  PERSECVTIONIS  HVIVS 
DIFFERRI  NON  POSSIT,  DICENTE  APO- 
STOLO  Qyi  REVELABITVR  IN  SVO  TEM. 
PORE,  ET  IN  ACTIS  APOSTOLORVM  DE- 
FINIBNS INQVIT  TEMPORA  ET  TBRMINOS 
HABITATIONIS  EORVM^  ET  CVR  HIEME 
FVGIENDVM  VEL  SABBATO  EXIRE  NON 
LICEAT  SIGNIFICAT? 

Hieme  tuta  fuga  non  est:  frigora 
enim  sunt,  imbres  assidui,  ninguit,  gelat, 
flumina  exeunt:  ideoque  fugientibus 
pergraue  est.  latere  enim  in  siluis  non 
possunt  neque  in  montibus  neque  in 
speluncis.  sabbato  autem  iuxta  ludaeos 
longius  a  ciuitate  exire  non  licet,  nee 
altum  ascendere,  ac  per  hoc  fugere 
sabbato  non  potest,  quo  modo  autem 
haec  tempora  fugam  tutam  non  faciunt 
propter  inpedimenta  supra  dicta ;  ita  et 
fuga  nostra  tuta  non  erit,  si  nos  obli- 
gatos  inpedimentis  camalibus  inuenerit 
praedicta  persecutio.  detinent  enim  ho- 
mines quasi  compedes  desideria  saecu- 


>  All  these  passages  are  edited  from  the  MSS.     I  have  not  thought  it  necessary 
to  give  Migne's  readings  in  the  case  of  2  qu.  N.  T.  19. 


6l4         THE   JOURNAL    OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


not!  sinit  non  ergo  sabbatt 
lege  uti  nos  praecipit,  quod 
iam  soluttam  est,  sed  ne  actus 
nostri  cum  fuga  fit  hiemi  et 
sabbato     conparentur,     sicut 

PRAEGNANTIVM    ET    NVTRIEN- 

TivM.  potest  et  sic  intellegi, 
quia  'nouissima  persecutio est' 

m    HIEME    VEL    SAfiBATO    Slg- 

nificata  sit :  sabbatum  enim 
nouissimus  dies  est  et  hiems 
nouissimum  tempiis  est. 


laria  et  facilitates  mundanae,  nee  ft 
ductionem  diabolt  possunt  effugat 
ideo  ergo  orandum  est  ne  tempore  qco 
fugiendum  est  hierais  et  sabbati  in 
nobis  ratio  inueniatur,  sed  ut  libens 
nos  ab  his  inpedimentis  dei  praestn 
auxilium,  ut  non  sit  quod  nos  desideno 
sui  captos  mancipet  mundo.  qtioniani 
ergo  de  nouissima  persecutione  Joqi» 
batur  saluator,  quae  futura  est  tempore 
antichristi,  ideo  hiemenn  posuit,  qoii 
nouissimum  tempus  est,  et  sabbafioo 
similiter,  quia  postremus  dies  est,  ut 
sicut  his  temporibus  aspem  ct  difficOis 
fiiga  est,  ita  significaret  illo  tempore 
tarn  graues  futuras  persecutiones  cs 
pressuras,  ut  uix  aliquis  eas 
efliigere. 


in  Math,  c  8, 11.  i7ff. 
(cf.  c.  2, 11.  11-13), 
qui  rapto  (Mercati's  rapfu  is 
confirmed  by  the  other  pas- 
sage) ipso  terrore  mortem  sicut 
soporem  patientur  tcum  por- 
tati  dumt  ad  dominum  per- 
ueniunt  reuiuiscentes  resur- 
gentes.  pseudoprofetae  autem 
cum  principe  suo  amichristo 
et  qui  sponte  adorauerunt  eum 
olim  perfidi  iussu  domini 
capti,  hoc  est  spiritv  oris 
Eivs,  cui  se  putauerunt  posse 

RESrSTERE,  VIVI  MISSI  SVNT 
IN  STAGNVM    IGNIS  ARDENTIS. 

ceteri  uero,  qui  seducti  ab  eis 
fuerant,  gladio   domrni   qvi 

EX  ORE  EIVS  PROCEDIT  COnfo- 

dientur,  id  est  uerbo  domini 
sine  uoluntate  morientur  per 
ignem,  an  i  ma  bus  eorum  re» 
ceptis  in  tartanim.  iustus  enim 
dominus   eos    qui    noo   sunt 


in  I  Cor.  15,  55. 

in  aduentu  tamen  domini  ct  sancti 
resurgent,  et  qui  uiui  fuerint  inucnfii, 
OBviAM  RAPiENTVR  domino  in  aeia  (« 
iegefidum  aere  ?),  mortem  quasi  sopor«m 
passuri ;  in  ipso  enim  raptu  et  mortem 
et  resurrectionem  habebunt,  sicut  ai 
Thessalonicensesidem  apostolus  scnbii. 
tempore  enim  antichristi  aut  apostatae 
erunt,  aut  rei,  aut  in  latibulis  am  in 
poena  positi  ceteri  gentiles,  quos  domi- 
nus lesus  cum  duce  ipsorum  ama- 
christo  in  aduentu  suo  interfid^t 
SPIRITV  ORIS  svi  id  est  russu  eius  igm 
exurentur  per  angelos  uirtutis  eius. 

in  I  Thess.  4,  14-17 
*  resurgentibus  *  ergo  'primis  qui  jn 
Christo  mortui  sunt,  deinde  nos  qai 
uiuimus  rapiemurunacum  illis/  baiulii 
nubibus,  •  obuiam  Christo  in  aera  ;  at 
cum  domino  omnes  ueniani  ad  pn>e- 
Hum,  et  quos  occiderat  uideai  uiu«; 
quia,    sicut    domino    fomulatae 


I 


^^^ 


NOTES  AND  STUDIES  615 

seducti    sed    olim    eiusdem  nubes,  ita  et  his   quos  fratres  suos 

uoluntatis  fuerunt,  uehemen-  dignatus  est  appellare.    *et  sic  semper 

tius  poenas  perpeti  facit.  cum  domino  erimus.'    in  ipso  enim 

in  Math.  c.  14, 1.  20.  raptu    mors    proueniet   et   quasi  per 

uiui  enim  quasi  soporcm  mor-  soporem,  ut  egressa  anima  in  momento 

tem  passi  statim  reuiuiscunt,  reddatur  cet. 
et  hoc  erit  resurrexisse. 

Let  me  now  deal  with  the  language  of  the  document.  The  method 
adopted  is  to  go  through  it  fxx>m  beginning  to  end,  selecting  expressions 
in  the  order  of  their  occurrence,  and  illustrating  them  from  the  works  of 
Ambrosiaster.  Where  the  same  expression  occurs  more  than  once, 
the  additional  occurrences  are  given  under  the  first  instance.  Inter- 
spersed are  some  notes  on  the  text.  In  two  cases  proposed  emenda- 
tions are  shewn  to  be  unnecessary,  in  a  third  the  text  is  successfully 
defended  from  the  suspicion  of  corruption.  I  have  little  doubt  that  the 
instances  could  be  increased,  but  I  have  no  wish  to  crowd  too  many 
pages.  If,  however,  my  conclusions  are  not  accepted,  I  am  prepared, 
for  example,  to  investigate  the  uses  of  particles  fully,  for,  as  W6lfHin 
says,  'aus  diesen  sogen.  unschuldigen  und  sich  massenhaft  wieder- 
holenden  W6rtlein  die  Identitat  eines  Autors  zu  beweisen  gewohnt  ist ' '. 
I  have  confined  myself  here  to  the  occurrence  of  qui  (adv.),  quifpe  cum^ 
si  quo  minus,  quanta  magiSy  quid  est  ut  /,  porro  autem,  quo  modo  ergo,  ac 
per  hoc,  simili  modo,  aliquando — aliquando,  numquid},  all  of  which  were 
selected  by  me  years  ago  as  expressions  speciaUy  characteristic  of 
Ambrosiaster. 

impedimentis  constrictus :  i,  3  :  I  have  not  noted  it  with  impedimentis, 
but  with  similar  words  it  occurs  69  B,  81  D,  230  B,  236  B,  489  B ';  qu. 
59,  112  &c. 

actus  (not  acta) :  i,  12  :  in  Ambrosiaster  actus  is,  I  think,  invariable, 
except  sometimes  in  the  abL  of  the  title  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 

humana  fragilitas :  2.  2  :  fragilitatis  humanae  qu.  108  &c. ;  fragili- 
tatem  humani  generis  qu.  102 ;  fragile  ^(fyitfx  humanum  302  A ;  qu.  102 ; 
126. 

iugis  pressura  :  2,  7  ;  iugis  and  pressura  both  occur,  perhaps  not  in 
combination. 

diabolus — mcUignitatis  suae  apostasiam :  3,  5 ;  Lucifer  casum  et 
apostasiam  significans  157  B ;  (diabolus) /ar/^^x  apostasiae  suae  uolens 
tfficere  homines  454  A ;  cuUentientes  apostasiae  eius  (1.  e,  diaboli)  506  C ; 

>  ArtkhfUr  laUiniadte  Lexikographit  xi  (1900)  p.  577. 

*  The  numbers  refer  to  the  columns  of  Migne  P,  L,  xvii  (conun.)  and  xxxv 
(Quaest). 


6i6        THE  JOURMAL  OF  THEOLCX^ICAL    STUDIES 


iqtt.  t ;  dtthflhim 
qu.  98- 

nui/fos  uuU  $ocU$  ptriUhm  mdftmwwi  S  9  (^  J«  ^)  (^M«As)ir 
iciacium  tusn'truani  H  perdktom  mum  adqaiicict:  pimimiw  locioB  q^v.z 
(the  oew   Padova  poctioo^  to  be  pud^dkcd  in  the 
gramdiUr  komin4S  (dioMbu)  mada  ptenrt^ 
talmmm^  dam  crimims  tm  aockw  miilUM  Miemdk 
oi  si  grouts  sii^  si  semm  moltot  mideai  m  geAemma  at,  qo.  127  (p^  2 
Gaudentius  senn.    18  (Mtgne  sx  97SA)  has 
magnum  sf^uidem  iuppliciis  suit  dia^lus  ptUai  hoc  esse  rtmeSMm^  d 
poeDflrum  soctos  multoe  adqaiiat. 

eamtrariam  (absolutely :   sidi  most  ncit  be    added)    n/ 
contnuiam  idt  nan  praeUrmittat  5,  15 ;   mq^am  fmod  si 
contrariam  2  qit  N.  T.  62,  and  often. 

proposiium  :  5,  16  ;  tl.  21-22  :  very  often  in  both 
Qua€stion€S\  I  have  noted  fifteen  examples  in  the  fonner,  and  faof  ■ 
the  latter.  Ambrosiaster  nerer  has  the  pluiaL  There  \%  a  dose  ptiaDd 
to  this  passage  in  qu.  1 1 5  (p.  234$)  ut  mati  propositi  impleazst  ooioistatai* 

conpreisui  (perhaps  suggested  by  Eph.  6^  16):  3,  17;  saemsi^t^ 
cAhstus)  uentttrum  dominum  ad  se  comprimendtim  48a A;  ^mudim 
aduerearionim  comprimit  tela  qtu  92 ;  ad  comprimendos  eos  qttibus  vol 
469  C;  qu.  115  ier\  115  tcr, 

in  tadem  uoluntatt  perdurat :  3,  17:  in  open  sibi  decreio  perdnitfl 
60  A  ]  in  cotpto  malo  perdurant  145  D ;  in  fide  cius  perditrat  571  C ;  io 
(sententia)  perdurantes  qu.  65,  &c. 

hi  qui  in  latibulis  drgunt ;  3.  26  :  aui  in  latibulis  oiti  in  poena  positi 
ceteri  gentiles  2S6  C. 

oculata  fide :  4,  3  :  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  confinn  Mr  Turner's  oofr 
jecture  by  appeal  to  Ambrosiaster,  qu.  68  {b)  pr. :  apocafypsis  cumfitlan 
maia  et  tribuialiones  ,  .  .  testaretur^  exemplare  etiam poenarum  unimsemas^ 
que  peccati  oculata  fide  defnomirans. 

spiritali  uigore  :  4,  1 2  ;  cf,  5,  2  ;  intelledum  nostrum  spiritali  erigiskf 
tiigore  qu.  107  j  infirmans  spiritaJeiti  suum  uigorem  219  C; 
spiritali  uigentes  qu.  20. 

offidum^  of  the  sun  or  moon :  6,  t ;  9,  2  :  iux  quae  in  officio 
qu.  3;  106  (p.  2319)  5cc, 

apertumest,  .  ,  guiai  6,  5;  140 A;  157 C;  214 A;  266 A;  296 C; 
35^  S  J  352  I^ ;  356  S  ;  361  A;  qu.  44  (col  2242). 

nuili  dubium  [est)  (Hter.  Aug.) :  6,  6 ;  12,  11 ;  with  quia  81  D  ;  other- 
wise 58  A  ;  86  A;  qu,  120  and  often. 

qui  enim  fieri  potest  ut ,  ,  .  decidat  r  6,  9  :  the  MS  reads  ^in^  as  my 
MSS  of  the  Quaestiones  also  do  almost  invariably,  while  the  elder 
Bodleian  MS  of  the  Commentaries  has  qui  at  least  once.     There  are 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  617 

two  alternatives :  either  ^in  had  so  changed  its  meaning,  that  it  now 
meant  practically  the  opposite  of  what  it  used  to  mean,  or  the  scribes 
were  ignorant  of  the  old  instrumental  abl.  qui^  common  in  classical 
authors  = '  how ',  and  supposed  it  an  error.  It  is  safer  to  hold  the  latter 
view,  especially  as  the  same  expression  occurs  as  kte  as  Boetius  (e.  g. 
Cons.  Phil,  nil  7  pr.  v  3  (Peiper)).  Examples  of  this  use  are : — qui 
enim  fieri  potest  ut ...  sit  509  D ;  qui  fieri  potest  ut .  . .  non  habtat 
qu.  102  (p.  2306) ;  qui  enim  fieri  potest  ut . .  .  sit  qu.  84. 

quippe  cum  sciant:  6,  11 ;  quippe  cum — sit  17,  15 ;  so  forty-five  times 
in  the  Commentaries,  and  thirty-three  times  in  the  QuaesHones ;  also  in 
Hier. 

cessare:  6,  11;  9»  3 ;  9i  9;  9j  i4)  &c.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
frequent  words  in  Ambrosiaster.  Examples  are  49  B;  55  D;  67  B; 
85  B;  C  quaier)  qu.  ^passim*,  50  bis-,  69  bis. 

siquominusi  6,  23;  10,  36.  This  expression  has  hitherto  been 
produced  only  from  the  Old  Latin  of  the  Bible.  It  occurs,  however, 
fifteen  times  in  the  Commentaries,  and  four  times  in  the  QuaesHones, 

inanitur  fides :  6,  22.  Ambrosiaster  is  specially  fond  of  inanio 
(metaph.) :  examples  are : — ne  gratiae  beneficium  inanire  uideamur  1 1 3  B ; 
hie  inanit  faium  qu.  115  (p.  2356) ;  ut  gioriam  diaboli  inaniret  103  D 
(codd.)  cet. 

daminus  ...  cui  famulantur  caelorum  nubes :  7,  3 ;  sicut  domino 
famulatae  sunt  nubes  475  C ;  post  crucem  enim  manifestata  persona  et 
uirtute  sua  saluator /a/a/»,  famulantibus  nyjM'^y}&^  cucendit  gloriosus  in 
caelos  498  D. 

supra  memuratis  \  7,7;  16,12;  144  D;  287  D ;  444  C;  471  D;  qu. 
95  pm. ;  102  am,  and  with  extraordinary  frequency,  while  supra  dictus 
is  almost  entirely  absent 

subreptor :  7,  9 ;  subreptionem  9,  20 ;  commonet  eos  ne  aliqua  subre- 
ptione  ad  inlicita  deducantur  473  D ;  potest  aditum  habere  subreptio  qu. 
113;  d.deeisin  quibus  subreptum  est  iiiis  ut  delinquerent  qu.  in;  quo 
modo  subreptum  estfatis  ut , ,  ,  decreuerit  qu.  115  (p.  2356). 

morti  gehennae  adiudicetur  (certainly  right) :  8,  9 ;  non  utique  sine 
carpore  adiudicabitur  bono  aut  malo  311  C;  cf.  98A;  qu.  34;  127 
pm  ;  2  qu.  mixt.  6. 

(On  I  Thess.  iv  16-17)  id  est  a  ministris  nubibus:  8,  11 ;  {Christum) 
cum  came  adsumptum  in  caelos  ministra  hube  468  B  (in  i  Thess. 
ii  9-10), 

inter  cetera  (before  a  scripture  quotation):  9,  i;  10,  14;  11,  2. 
This  use,  found  sporadically  in  other  authors,  is  almost  wearisome  by 
its  constant  recurrence  in  Ambrosiaster :  examples  are  65  A ;  76  A ; 
129  C;  qu.  91  quater;  qu.  97  septiens, 

contuendum  est:    9,  i;  contuendum  est  unum  esse  sensum    102  A; 


6l8         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


contuendum  itcique  est  quia  non  a  Pihto  .  .  .  crudfixus  est  qa.  65 ;  C0»- 
luendum  ttenim  est  quo  modo  dictum  sit  qu.  125  (p,  2375). 

qvanto  magis '.  9,  it;   10,  13;   14,  24;   17,  14;   60  C ;  67  A;  90  A; 
94  C ;   96  A  his ;   qu.  27  j   58  ;   45  ;   46  ;    91  ;    97  quater^  and  very 
quently,     I  have  thirty-one  examples  from  the  Quaationes  :  there 
be  about  fifty,  at  least,  in  the  Commentaries. 

gioHosos :    9,  18  ;   Rom.  8,  21  ap,  12,  12  ;  there  are  a  number  of 
stances  in  combination  with  apparere^  as  well  as  others,  t.g, :  gi 
uidtntur  ei  honorati  68  C  ;  h&c  est  uert  diuitem  fieri  tt  glonosum  qu.  Si* 

quid  ergo  est  ut ,  .  ,  uideatur , .  ,  cum  constet  Afoysen  ,  ,  ♦  n^m  esumsfl 
10,  I  (cf.  10,  4).  The  build  of  this  sentence  is  like  that  of  the  titles  of 
various  Quaes tiones,  e.  g.  37  quid  est  ut  missa  mors  in  lao^  uemeriii^ 
Israhel^  cum  Jacob  ipse  dictus  sit  Israkely  57  quid  est  ut  cum  in  MaMit 
scriptum  sit,  Marcus  hoc  .  .  .  scripium  adserat^  85  quid  est  ut  cum  constcJ 
.  .  .,  euangelista  quattuordecira  dicat.  si  in  lege  nemo  iustificatur,  quid  est 
ut  maledicatur,  cet  374  B ;  cf.  213  B  ;  306  A ;  363  A  ;  366  C  ;  qit  61 
(tit.) ;  r  1 2  ex. ;  1 1 5  (p.  2354) :  cum  conskt  occurs  altogether  eleven  tini«s 
in  the  Commentaries,  fourteen  times  in  ihe  QuaesHanes. 

quibusdam  uideatur :    10,  i  ;   sieui  quihusdam  uidttur  i6»  8 ;   pd 
quibusdam  inpossihik  uidetur  16,  11  ((f.  91  B  ;  205  C ;  qu.  6  ;  97);  qu*- 
busdam  ittrum  uidetur  quia  qui fomicatur  cet.  227  B  ;  quibusdam 
uidetur  qu.  106,  cet.     This  is  our  author's  way  of  referring  to  tliosefton 
whom  he  differs. 

corpore  morti  obfwxio:  10,  11 ;  cf.  11,  25  (the  whole  of  this  line  is 
reproduced  in  Ambrst.,  but  I  cannot  find  the  exact  reference) ;  fact^* 
obnoxium  morti  infemi  108  B  (codd);  {homo)  iam  obnoxius  fra/morti 
infemae  493  C  ;  hominem  fecit  ne  morti  esset  obnoxius  qu.  106  ex. 

pcrro  autem  (Cypr.,  Boet  Cons.  Phil.  Ill  1 1  p.  79,  74  Peiper)  :  to,  2a. 
four  times  in  the  Commentaries,  twelve  times  in  the  Quaestiamet. 

auidi  .  *  .  ad  bona  ttrrat  edenda  :  Ambrst.  has  auarus  ad  bonum. 

cum  domino  ctrte  futuri  sunt  eius  praesentia  infustrati  i  10,  27-281 
(Christus)  non  solum  praesentia  sua  inlustmuit  eas  {nuptias)  uerum  e&am 
cet,  qu.  1 27  (p.  2379) ;  mundus  .  . .  signis  ac prodigiis  inlustratus  qu,  117 ; 
literally  qu.  97  (p.  2291 ) ;  cf.  aspersw  enim  hyssopi  inlustratio  futud^tm  isi 
qu.  112. 

examen  :  10,  21 ;  17,  7  ;  ut  examen  area  se  iudicis  mitiget  qu.  ui ; 
also  67  B,  151  A,  166  B,  193  B ;  257  B  &c,,  generally  of  the  judgement 
to  come  ;  omnia  dicta  examinari  et  sic  iudicari  478  A  ;  cum  coeptrii  mk 
tribunal  (Christi)  examinatio  singulis  adprobare  471 B.  These  ut 
judicial  terms. 

passioni  et  infirmitati  subiacere\  10,  31  ;  uitiis  ef  /xeccatis  subiace- 
bamus  1 12  C  {cum  ipse  .  .  ,  periculis  cottidie  et  morti  subiaceat  291  A)  \ 
iniuriis  subiacent  qiL  176  cet 


^^^^ 


-  NOTES   AND  STUDIES  619 

•        dignumdeo:  10,  33;  75B;  208C;  qu.  46;  77;  112;  117. 

rationi  ipsi  congruum :  10, 34 ;  congruum  . . .  creaturae  71  C ;  perftdiae 
suae  congruas  poenas  exsohiani  qu.  126 ;  congruum  est  ,  , ,  deuoHssime 
dei  sacerdotem  .  .  .  exhortari populum  qu.  120  cet. 

exclusa  est  edendi  ratio :  10,  37  ;  exclusa  est  ergo  Nouatiani  impie 
canposita  adsertio  qu.  102  (p.  2304,  26) ;  exclusa  est  adseueraUo  iua  qa. 
102  (p.  2307);  rztio  fatorum  .  .  .  exclusa  est  qu.  115  (p.  2357);  cf. 
88  B;  104  C;  221  B;  229A;  qu.  100;  122;  127  cet. 

guo  modo  ergo  , .  .  habehunt .  .  .  odtn  consfet:  ii,  6 ;  quo  modo  idem 
Salomon  .  . .  inquit .  .  .,  cum  alio  loco  dicat  qu.  34  tit. ;  cf.  qu.  43  tit., 
49  tit,  58  tit.,  61  tit,  63  tit,  67  tit  cet 

nullius  egere  :  11,  11 ;  twice  at  least  of  God  :  inaestimabilis^  infinitus, 
perfeciuSy  nullius  egens,  aetemus  cet  qu.  i  (p.  2215);  deus  certe  per- 
fectio  est  et  nullius  egens  qu.  48  tit. :  so  also  127  D;  163  A;  400 D  ; 
qu.  81 ;  92  ;  123  &c.,  where  indie,  and  subj.  occur. 

ac  per  hoc\  11,  27;  this  expression,  which  Hier.,  Aug.  and  others 
use  occasionally,  is  very  characteristic  of  Ambrosiaster,  as  Dom  Morin 
pointed  out  in  the  Revue  dhistoire  et  de  litth'ature  religieuses  for 
1899  p.  102.  The  fact  that  it  occurs  once  only  in  this  document  need 
be  no  bar  to  the  acceptance  of  my  theory  of  authorship :  the  phrase 
docs  not  occur  once  between  205  B  and  217  C,  a  part  which  I  turned 
up  at  random  as  a  test 

usibus  humanis  proficiunt  in  corruptelam  12,  18  ;  quae  usibus  omnium 
concessit  communiter  417  C ;  ut  ad  eius  iniuriam  proficiant,  cd>  eis,  quae 
usibus  nostris  instituit,  abstinendum  docent  499  C ;  annua  munera  quae 
eUmentorum  ministerio  humanis  usibus  exhiberi  decreuit  qu.  83 ;  omnia 
semina  usibus  neeessaria^  nisi dissoluia  Juerint,  renascirursus  nonpoterunt 
qu.  114  (p.  2345,  37-38):  proficere  used  of  a  down-grade  course  is 
specially  characteristic,  e,  g,  in  peius,  ad  iniuriam,  in  iniuriam,  ad  exitium, 
ad  perditionem,  ad  detrimentum,  in  interitum,  cet.  all  occur  in  Ambrst. 

diabolo  . , ,  se  comnwuentex    13,  3;  cum  se  commouerit  lex  qu.  115 

(P-  2354). 

meliorabuntur  13,  4 ;  95  B ;  282  C  bis  \  527  B ;  440  B ;  qu.  i  bis ; 
12;  60;  116;  i23^>;  127  septiens.  It  is  used  intransitively  in  422  D, 
a  use  unknown  to  any  lexicon,  and  comparable  to  the  same  author's  use 
of  corrigere,  deteriorare^  emendare^  and  reformare.  For  details  on  such 
matters,  I  must  refer  to  chapter  iii  of  my  forthcoming  Study  of 
Ambrosiaster, 

ut  omnia  ad  pristinum  statum  .  . .  redderentur  13,  15  ;  ad  pristinum 
redditus  statum  qu.  123  pr.;  tr/reddamur  ad  pristinum  statum  Adae 
qu.  127m;  ad  pristinum  statum  redditus  est  qu.  102.  So  also  with 
redire,  reformare,  reparare,  reuocare, 

unum  enim  diem  fecit  deus  ex  quo  ceteri  curricula  sortirentur  13,  17 ; 


620         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

unum  enim  (eum  Migne)  diem  fecit  ex  quo  celeri  curricula  sortirentE: 
qu.  95  (p.  2289,  31-32);  dominkus  di»  .  .  .  semper  in  se  canuersuip 
curricula  imphta  sepiimana  primus  est  qu*  107  pr ;  iuxta  numerum  a 
curricula  dierum  septem  qu,  29  ;  effccius  curriculorura  esus  (i.  e,  lunie) 
qu*  84  ;  tempora  unius  hebdomadae  curricuh's  numerantur  qu.  84  ;  ftsli 
curricula  dierum  septem  qu.  95  ;  Curriatiis  in  qu.  106  (p,  2319,  1) 
should  be  iitulis, 

nmiii  mode  (beginning  a  clause):  14,  8j  99 A;  102 C;  104 A; 
127  B;  141  B;  163  Acet;  qu.  7;  20;  37  ;  52;  91  j  97  ;  102  cet 

uerdis  nudis  crtdenies  14,  15  ;  cum  nudis  uerbis  credidimus  OMtom 
rebus  qu.  114  (p.  2344);  hi  non  uerbis  nudis,  sed  uiriute  operum  spin- 
talium  dignas  se  cstendertni  ah  apostate  uisitaH  2 1 8  C ;  nudis  ntfiis 
also  aoi  C;  qu.  3  (p.  2218);  iii  (p.  2335);  114  (p.  2342)  (p.  2344V 

ut  finiatur  malum  illorum  in  gehenna  quae  est  mors  secunda :  14,  35  jj 
est  et  alia  mors  quae  secunda  dicitur  in  gehenna  97  B  &c. 

u(ss  elect ionis  (as  a  substitute  for  apostolus  Pau/us  in  introdudos 
quotations)  14,  36;  419  C;  qu.  2]  106;  115  (p.  2348)  cet  This 8 
found  at  least  once  in  Augustine,  and  oftener  in  Ambrose. 

congruum  est  (followed  by  the  accusative  and  infinitive)  15,  7;  cod- 
gruum  est .  .  .  dei  sacerdotem  exhortari  populum  qu.  1 20,  and  doubdes 
oftener. 

sub  nomine  dei  et  patris  :  15,  9 ;  cf.  15^  10  ;  15,  1 1 ;  this  auth<7r 
sub  nomine  regularly ;  never,  or  hardly  ever,  nomine  simply, 

sollicitos  semper  tt  uigilantes  17,  6;  solliciti  et  parati  19,  33;  the 
sollicitus  is  commonly  strengthened  by  another  adjective,  e.g,  sollicitos 
et  uigilantes  2  qu.  N.  T.  62  ;   soliicitis  et  deuotis  qu.  95 ;    sollicitus  el 
fidelis  qu.  iii  j  diligentes  et  sollicitos  qu.  102.  fl 

aliquando — aliquando  17,  10;  50  A  ;    126  A,  B;  i94Dc€L;  qu.  1;" 
66;  80;  97 ;  99  cet, 

de  eius  accipit  17,  1 1 :  also  in  Ambrst. 

numquid  17,  15.  Ambrosiaster  never  has  num  or  numquidmNm^ 
always  numquid^  It  is  unnecessary  to  give  examples,  in  the  face  of 
rule. 

pigros  et  segnes  1 8,  2.     Such  combinations,  especially  with  adje<li 
expressing  praise  or  blame,  are  a  feature  of  our  author.     I  have  three 
pages  of  examples. 

diligentes  et  studiosos  18,  2 ;  diligentibus  ac  sedulis  qti,  10 ;  diligeobts 
et  sollicitos  qu.  102. 

unius  fuerant  professionis  19,  13;  cum  s\n\  unius  professionis  191 
mundis  hie  diuersae  professionis  continet  homines  qu.  102  (p.  2310), 
.  .  .  alterius  essent  et  professionis  et  conuersationis  qu.  108,  etc* 

ut  nemo  sibi  de  hoc  blandiretur  19,  20 :  physica  ratione  de  qua 
blanditur  282  B ;  ne  sibi  uel  de  eo  ipso  blandiatiir  iniquitas  qu.  97. 


i 


3 


ivetl 


fe 


NOTES  AND   STUDIES 


621 


ut  meritum  cofUocetur  19,  23  (there  is  nothing  wrong  with  the  text 
here) :  JiVmeritum  ^f^i>  conlocat,  dum  in  tribulationibus paHens  inuenitur 
133 A;  non  quia  mala  sunt,  sed  quia  parua  sunt  ad  mcritum  con- 
locandum  440  A ;  uti  maius  meritum  conlocares  2  qu.  niixt.  6.  There 
are  in  Ambrosiaster  twelve  other  examples  of  this  phrase,  most  of 
which  are  in  the  full  form  meritum  sibi  conlocare  apud  deum  (e.  g.  98  B; 
150  B ;  168  A).  The  phrase  is  unknown  to  any  dictionary,  like  many 
others  of  the  usages  here  alluded  to.  It  means  to  *  pile  up  (deposit) 
credit  for  ourself  with  God  (by  doing  good  deeds) ',  and  suggests  the 
Koman  trader. 

A.  SOUTER. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST  ABOUT  DIVORCE. 


The  object  of  this  paper  is  to  determine  (i)  the  difference  in  sense 
in  fjMixtCa  (and  the  allied  words)  in  the  New  Testament  and  'adultery' 
in  our  English  modem  use  of  the  word.  (2)  How  far  modern  ecclesi- 
astical legislation  is  based  on  Christ's  teaching.  (3)  Whether  any  light 
is  thrown  by  these  verses  on  the  composition  of  the  Sermon. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  difficulty  of  seizing  the  meaning  of  Christ's 
teaching  on  this  subject  it  is  advisable  to  range  the  versions  of  the 
principal  sentence  side  by  side  *  (R.  V.) — 


Mt.  V  3a. 
A. 


But  I  say  unto  you 
that  everyone  that 
putteth  away  his  wife, 
savingf  for  the  cause 
of  fornication,  maketh 
her  an  adulteress;  and 
whosoever  shall  marry 
her  when  she  is  put 
awaycommitteth  adul- 
tery. 


Mt.  xix  9. 
B. 


And  I  say  unto  you 
whosoever  shall  put 
away  his  wife,  except 
for  fornication,  and 
shall  marry  another 
committeth  adultery; 
and  he  that  marrieth 
her  when  she  is  put 
awaycommitteth  adul- 
tery. 


Mk.  X  II,  13. 
C. 


Whosoever  shall 
put  away  his  wife, 
and  marry  another, 
committeth  adultery 
against  her.  And  if 
she  herself  shall  put 
away  her  husband  and 
marry  another,  she 
committeth  adultery. 


Lk.  xvi  18. 
D. 


Everyone  that  put- 
teth away  his  wife  and 
marrieth  another  com- 
mitteth adultery ;  and 
he  that  marrieth  one 
that  is  put  away  from 
a  husband  committeth 
adultery. 


*  I  have  thought  it  best  to  leave  questions  of  textual  criticism  on  one  side,  for  the 
reason  that  where  the  principal  MSS  differ  the  main  drift  of  the  teaching  is  not 
seriously  modified :  e.  g.  when  B  omits  the  words  of  the  T.  R.  in  Mt  xix  9  itat 
70fii}<n?  dWijPf  Dr.  Gore  is  surely  right  in  saying  (Sfrwon  on  thi  Mount  p.  a  16) 
that  the  sense  remains  the  same.  There  remains  however  the  kind  of  criticism 
which  would  delete  the  important  excepting-dause  in  the  two  Matthew  passages. 


622         THE   JOURNAL    OF  THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

It  is  plain  from  the  wording  of  ail  fotir  passages  that  there  are 
important  aspects  of  the  subject  of  mairiage  with  which  our  Lord 
dealing.  He  says  nothing  about  the  obligation  to  strict  fidelity  a$  it's 
technically  called^  nor  of  the  genera!  principles  of  conduct  which  shoi^ 
be  observed  by  married  people  towards  each  other.  The  theme  of  Ifc 
leaching  is  the  permissibility  or  not  of  divorce  a  vinculo :  i.  e.  not  moi 
separaiion,  but  separation  so  complete  that  the  marriage  oootncl  il 
wholly  null  and  void,  and  both  parties  are  free  to  marry  agam.  iflj 
the  general  sense  to  be  gathered  from  all  four  passages  is  that  Cbrisi  ii 
the  main  reverts  to  the  stricter  view  of  this  question  which  '  hath  beei 
from  the  beginning ',  viz,  that  the  marriage  contract  can  never  be  tf 
if  it  had  not  been,  nor  can  the  parties  to  it  look  upon  themadvesK 
wholly  absolved  from  its  obligation,  except  in  the  case  when  tbevft 
has  been  guilty  of  infidelity,  when  it  is  implied  that  the  husband  is  i«c 
This  exception  is  given  by  A  and  B,  not  hinted  at  by  C  and  D. 

The  phraseology  of  A  requires  close  attention.  At  first  sight  « 
seems  to  contain  more  than  one  impossible  statement.  Apptmi^ 
a  woman  is  made  an  adulteress  not  by  the  commission  of  the  sin  tf 
fornication  after  marriage  but  by  being  put  away  for  trivial  reasaos 
and  the  questions  force  themselves  on  the  reader  (i)  is  she  anyibe 
less  an  adulteress  if  she  is  divorced  for  the  gni%*e  reason  ?  (a)  if  «b£ 
is  divorced  for  a  trivial  reason,  why  is  the  guilt  hers  aiMi  not  ber 
husband's  ? 

The  explanation  depends  partly  on  the  modem  restricted  use  of  tk 
word  '  adultery  *  compared  with  the  Greek  word  which  it  renders 
Gospels.     In  all  the  four  passages  given  above  /^otxcvw  (or  the  ki 
forms  of  the  verb)  means  to  violate  the  marriage  bond  without 


ottse 


A  and  B.  on  grounds  of  unsnitability.  One  of  the  most  recent  critics,  Prot  Bicos 
(  Tht  Strmon  oh  tin  Mount  p.  1 77),  s«ys  the  words  are  '  certainly  a  g^loss ',  and  appc^ 
to  the  authority  of  Luke  and  to  the  g'eneral  principle  that  Jesus  *  refuses  to  ocetfi 
the  scat  of  the  law-giver  or  ma^stratc  in  the  imperfect  conditions  of  the  wtirii*- 
and  that  ^  tlie  exception  irap<rris  ki^fov  irof^'cliat  transforms  the  principle'  ,Le,  of« 
ideal  standard :  *  into  a  rule,  and  involves  Jesus  in  the  rabbinic  debate  betweea  de 
schools  of  Shammai  and  Hille!*.  The  grounds  of  this  distinction  arc  aot  clear,  b 
laying  down  the  unqualified  principle  of  the  indissolubility  of  marriage,  Jesus  repoiM 
and  abrogated  human  divorce  laws,  and  what  is  that  but  tegislatiog  I  Again*  li^ 
exception  is,  I  admit,  a  piece  of  legislation  :  but  it  is  silso  the  a£Smiatioii  ofapriB* 
ciplc,  viz.  that  the  divine  ordinance  of  matrimony  is  only  abro^ted  hjr 
sin.  Even  if  this  last  remark  be  disputed  it  remains  that  those  who 
our  Lord's  teaching  of  all  legislative  element  must  cut  out  w.  31,  ^a  aad  pordA 
altogether. 

In  the  same  page  Prof.  Bacon  approves  of  Wendt's  substitution  of  the  Locai 
reading  ftotx^vu  (in  xvi  18  for  woih  aitri^v  ft^t^ivS^yat^  on  the  ground  flft  Mb 
simpler.  Certainly  it  is  ;  but  in  the  absence  of  any  textual  reason  to  the 
the  more  difficult  reading  ia  to  be  preferred. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES  623 

reference  to  the  definite  act  of  post-nuptial  fornication,  which  is  denoted 
in  A  and  B  by  vopvtia.  But  our  word  *  adultery '  is  restricted  to  the 
one  way  of  violating  the  bond,  which  in  A  and  B  is  called  fornication, 
and  hence  the  English  rendering  is  very  confusing.  As  a  matter  of 
£act  excluding  John  viii  3  there  is  no  passage  in  the  New  Testament 
where  the  words  fuuxcuz,  fu>tx^  ^^d  fLOLxewa  necessarily  refer  at  all  to 
the  sinful  act  (vopytia)  except  strangely  enough  verse  28  of  this  chapter^ 
just  before  our  passage^.  In  A,  B,  C,  D  the  meaning  of  adultery  is  simply 
such  ignoring  of  the  bond  as  a  man  is  guilty  of  who  formally  puts  away 
his  wife  and  regards  himself  as  unconnected  with  her  by  any  contract 
B,  C  and  D  state  hypothftical  cases  in  which  the  man  manifests  this 
view  of  the  situation  by  marrying  again :  and  the  sin  of  adultery  consists 
in  his  treating  the  original  contract  as  null  and  void  when  it  is  not. 
The  word  for  *  to  put  away  *  does  not  mean  simply  to  send  out  of  the 
house  to  live  apart,  but  to  divorce  formally  under  the  impression  that 
the  first  conttact  is  thereby  wholly  dissolved.    Therefore  when  in  A 

^  This  statement,  as  far  as  I  can  determine,  is  strictly  accurate.  If  John  viii  3 
is  included  in  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists,  the  word  adultery  (the  noun  and  the 
verb)  must  be  taken  in  its  modem  compound  sense  of  sin  against  marriage 
consummated  in  a  particular  act  In  classical  Greek  the  verb  and  noun  are  used 
occasionally  as  synonsrms  of  ftop»t^  and  wopvtla  (cf.  Ar.  Pax  958).  But  for  the 
most  part  the  usages  of  these  words  seem  to  apply  indifferently  to  wopvtla  and  what 
we  term  adultery  (so  Liddell  &  Scott).  May  not  the  sense  given  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  always  covers  the  breaking  of  the  marriage  bond,  be  an  indication 
of  the  reverence  felt  for  marriage  ?  The  exact  difference  between  the  three  uses 
I  would  mark  thus : 

Moix«^a  (class.  Gk.),  the  sin  of  the  flesh  :  properly  by  one  married. 

Adultery  (mod.  Eng.),  the  sin  of  the  flesh :  certainly  by  one  married. 

Moixtia  (N.  T.),  violation  of  the  marriage  bond  by  the  sin  of  the  flesh  or 
otherwise. 

But  it  is  important  to  remark  further  that  in  all  the  Gospel  uses  of  the  words 
pnotxaKh,  IJUHxSurOatj  /iotx^laj  ^ioix<t{<(r,  except  two,  the  idea  of  the  sin  of  the  flesh  is 
not  necessarily  included,  the  meaning  being  simply  that  of  violation  of  the  bond. 
The  two  passages  are  John  viii  3  (4),  and  Mt.  v  38.  The  former  has  been  dealt 
with.  In  the  latter  the  word  /JUHxtiHoj  either  «  vopvtvotf  or  the  modem  '  adultery ', 
and  the  question  depends  on  whether  the  woman  spoken  of  is  supposed  to  be 
another's  wife  (so  Zahn  emphatically  p.  233;  B.  Weiss  p.  114;  Stier  p.  ia8, 
vol.  i,  but  dubiously  in  a  qualified  and  confused  note  followed  by  Alford).  This  is 
hardly  doubtful.  The  whole  passage  is  on  the  sin  of  adultery,  not  fornication,  and 
though  ethical  precepts  against  the  latter  may  be  gathered  from  the  passage  (see 
Stier)  by  inference,  the  meaning  of  the  word  /lotx^vo)  is  to  be  settled  by  the  plain 
sense  with  which  v.  27  begins.  Also  there  is  the  whole  difference  as  regards  the 
truth  of  the  prohibition  in  the  one  case  and  the  other.  Human  love  is  necessarily 
complex,  and  the  animal  element  cannot  be  wholly  excluded  from  the  lawful 
passion  of  a  man  for  a  maid.  But  if  7vr<u>ra  here  is  taken  for  '  another's  wife ', 
the  sense  is  perfectly  distinct  and  logical.  The  word  therefore  is  used  here  only  in 
the  Gospels  (exc  John  viii  3  and  4)  as  '  adultery '  in  modem  English. 


624         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

nothing  is  said  about  the  husband  marrying  again,  the  meaning  of 
text  is  unaltered.     It  is  implied  that  a  husband  who  goes  through  dr 
formality  of  divorce  with  the  intention  of  putting  an  end  to  the  contn^ 
thereby  is  guilty  of  that  special  behaviour  towazxis  the  contract  wtucha 
called  adultery  \     If  he  marries  again  be  only  translates  this  false 
of  his  position  into  action. 

Further,  in  A,  B  and  D,  Christ  says  that  if  a  third  pany  similarly 
the  false  view  of  the  contract,  and  shews  that  he  does  so  by  marrymg 
divorced  wife,  he  too  is  guilty  of  adultery.  In  C  the  guiltiness  of  tbe 
wife  who  so  behaves  is  stated.  If  she  takes  the  active  part  and  di^xinM 
her  husband— no  reason  being  here  given  as  sufficient — and  mames 


I 


again, 


she  is  an  adulteress. 


still 


So  far  the  meaning  is  fairly  plain.  But  a  very  difficult  expressjao 
is  used  in  A.  The  husband  who  thus  lightly  thinks  to  dissolve  tbe 
marriage  contract  by  divorcing  his  wife  is  not  said  simply  to  commit 
adultery,  but  to  'make  her  commit  adultery*.  Now  this  expnsaaa. 
which  is  in  any  case  obscure^  is  quite  unintelligible  unless  the  aboi? 
restricted  view  of  adultery  is  adhered  to,  and  the  modem  assodations  of 
the  word  put  on  one  side.  The  woman  is  made  an  adtilteress  ncc 
because  she  has  been  unfaithful  to  the  contract ;  /Aa/  suppfisitm  i 
express/}*  barred— bnl  because  she  is  placed  in  a  position  of  beio^ 
different  in  the  eye  of  the  law  from  what  she  is  in  feet :  or  diflaot 
in  the  view  of  man  from  what  she  is  in  God's  sight  According  to  the 
one  she  is  a  freed  woman,  not  a  wife :  according  to  the  other  she  is  still 
a  wife,  still  bound  to  her  husband. 

The  glaring  contradiction  between  truth  and  apf)earance  oonstit 
a  false  or  adulterous  position.     The  woman  is  not  said  to  leMm 
adulteress  voluntarily  and  deliberately,  but  to  be  made  one  :  so  that  the 
expression  would  cover  the  case  of  a  wife  who  has  done  nothing  but  fail 
to  retain  her  husband's  love,  and  then  has  been  quite  unwillingly  •  pal 
away  *.   She  is  made  an  adulteress^  or,  more  strictly,  to  commit  adalttff 
It  is  as  if  the  mere  fact  of  her  existence,  apart  from  any  wrong  thoogjbll 
she  may  have  harboured  in  her  mind,  is  an  offence  against  the  di 
law ;  she  is  made  in  her  person  to  embody  the  revolt  of  society 
the  purity  and   completeness  of  the  marriage  union.       For  m 
*  hardness  of  their  hearts '  men   have  ordained  the  legal   instmmdit 
of  divorce  and  attached  to  it  a  meaning  forbidden  by  God. 
have  construed   it   as  though   the  cumbrous   formalities    of  the 
obliterated  wholly  the  Sacred  bond  which  preceded  it :   and  wh 
husband  wantonly  and  in  obedience  to  hts  own  whim  declares 
the  whole  world  that  his  life  partner  is  wholly  sundered  from  him  and  fi 
free  for  re-marriage,  he  declares  a  he,  and  she,  however  much  in  ha 
'  In  C  it  is  called  "adultery  against  her*,  the  wife. 


'J 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


625 


she  may  dissent  from  this,  is  made  in  virtue  of  her  false  position 
share  in  the  community's  disloyalty  to  God's  decree.  The  wife  may 
her  own  private  capacity  disown  her  husband's  action  by  refusing 
marry  again,  but  nothing  can  alter  the  fact  that  the  legal  position 
ito  which  her  husband  has  forced  her  is  that  by  which  society  has 
>rmally  and  deliberately  uttered  its  refusal  to  fall  in  with  the  divine 
[uirements  as  to  marriage'. 

An  important  corollary  from  this  interpretation  remains  to  be  drawn, 
all  civilized  societies  the  question  of  the  re-marriage  of  divorced 
arsons  is  a  burning  one.  As  is  well  known  there  is  a  difference  in  the 
iw  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Church  on  the  point.  In  the  former 
\e  re- marriage  of  the  *  innocent  party  *  is  allowed,  and  though  not 
srmitted  by  the  canons  of  the  Western  Church  it  has  been  recognized 
the  resolutions  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1888.  But  whatever 
»ere  is  to  be  said  for  this  concession  it  ought  not  to  be  based  on  the 
Lching  of  Christ  as  recorded  for  us.  According  to  C  and  D  nothing 
m  dissolve  the  marriage  bond :  according  to  A  and  B  the  one  sin, 
illed  fornication  after  marriage,  can  do  so.  But  there  is  not  a  word  to 
imply  that  after  divorce  consequent  on  this  sin^  the  re-marriage  of  the 
jguilty  party  is  forbidden  any  more  than  that  of  the  innocent  \  It  is 
lot  said  anywhere  that  to  marry  the  guilty  divorced  woman  is  to  commit 

There  is  only  one  other  conceivable  sense  of  iroi#£  av^y  fioix^iv$^vm :   that  is, 

^Oiuscth  her  to  commit  adultery'  by  making:  it  practically  certain  that  she  will 

larry  again.     But  this  is  not  practically  certain.    Moreover  it  ignores  the  meaning 

AvoXvai.    The  giiilt  of  AwAXufft^  consists  in  a  formal  assertion  of  a  freedom  which 

vod  has  declared  to  he  non-existent :  and  this  particular  guilt  is  unafTected  by  any 

^quel.     By  adultery  Christ  means  the  attempt  to  dissolve  the  indissoluble  :  what 

mean  is  the  act  which  really  does  dissolve  it, 

■  In  Dr  Gore's  Serwow  on  Mr  Mount  (Appendix  iii  p.  2i6)  the  foltowing  passages 

ir:  'What  has  happened  since  then  (the  time  of  the  post-Reformation  canons) 

that  the  opinion  of  a  great  number  of  the  best  English  divines  and  commentators 

[on  St  Matthew  has  been  expressed  in  favour  of  allowing  the  re-marriage  of  the 

M  innocent  party"  after  divorce  for  adultery.*     And  on  p.  aiS  :  *  Our  Lord  appears 

thia  matter  to  be  legislating  rather  than  laying  down  a  principle .  .  .  He  appears 

be   sanctioning  in  the  case  of  an   innocent  and  deeply  aggrieved  person  a 

Uspensation  which  violates  the  logic  of  the  marriage  tic  on  grounds  of  equity  :  but 

tis  carries  with  it  no  necessary  consequence  of  a  similar  dispensation  in  favour  of 

le  chief  offender,' 

I  think,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Matthew  texts  give 
tctly  equal  right  to  both  the  innocent  and  guilty  parties  to  marry  again^  in  so  far 

M  the  re-marriage  of  either  the  one  or  the  other  is  not  what  our  Lord  in  these 
words  is  defining  to  be  adultery.  Of  course  there  may  be  principles  which  He  has 
enunciAted  elsewhere  which  justify  a  distinction  ;  but  no  such  principle  is  to  be 
found  here. 

II  would  be  equally  true  to  say  that  the  right  to  re-marry  is  withheld  equally 
from  the  innocent  and  the  guilty  party.  All  I  contend  for  is  that  inequality,  in  this 
respect,  between  the  two  cannot  be  justified  from  these  verses, 

VOL,  V,  S  3 


626         THE   JOURNAL  OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


adultery :  but  it  is  said,  in  A  and  B,  that  to  marry  an  innocent  <i 
woman  is  adultery.  Accordingly,  though  there  may  be  much  to 
for  the  relaxation  above  referred  to ;  though  the  social  conscience  HMf 
be  perfectly  right  in  drawing  a  distinction  between  the  guilty  and  lie 
innocent  party,  there  is  no  warrant  whatever  for  it  in  these 
which  give  all  our  Lord's  teaching  on  the  subject.  That 
declares  the  re-marriage  of  either  party  following  on  unjustifiiht 
divorce  to  be  adultery :  perhaps  we  may  infer  that  re-marmg^  d 
tither  party  following  on  justifiable  divorce  is  not  adultery.  If  a  tfaiid 
party  chooses  to  marry  one  who  has  made  havoc  of  one  mamag^ 
contract  and  has  snapped  it  by  the  commission  of  the  great  siOf  be 
takes  upon  himself  the  responsibility  of  union  with  a  criminal  The 
guiltiness  of  doing  this  must  depend  on  whether  the  divorced  penoo  • 
repentant  or  not.  But  whatever  the  guiltiness  may  be,  nothing  wbittf^ 
is  said  about  it  in  the  two  passages  in  St  Matthew '. 

Let  us  now  take  notice  what  exactly  the  Church  has  done  m  dnvof 
a  distinction  between  the  innocent  and  guilty  party  in  respect  of  Ibt 
legitimizing  re-marriage.  She  has  relied  on  the  C  and  D  passagtes  ti 
far  as  the  guilty  party  is  concerned  and  on  A  and  B  in  regard  to  Ac 
innocent  party,  A  and  B  imply  that  divorce  consequent  on  conjugri 
infidelity  is  the  human  pronouncement  of  a  dissolution  already  effected 
which  leaves  both  parties  free  to  marry  again.  C  and  D  if  taken 
separately  from  A  and  B  forbid  any  re-marriage  to  both  parties.  Tk 
Roman  Church  has  taken  up  the  intelligible  position  that  all  re^matriigc 
in  the  life-time  of  the  divorced  partner  is  forbidden.  This,  bowcwi, 
ignores  A  and  B.  The  Eastern  and  the  English  Churches  have  nflt 
ignored  A  and  B  but  have  gone  only  halfway  in  recognizing  the  wofdt 
And  yet  though  not  based  on  the  Gospel  teaching  this  positioa  is 
defensible.  The  principle  on  which  we  act  is  to  recognue  that  Ae 
Gospel  teaching  only  deals  with  a  restricted  portion  of  the  subject,  fit. 
the  defining  of  the  scope  of  the  word  adultery :  but  that  there  is  the 
great  crime  of  snapping  the  marriage-tie,  the  punishment  of  which 
not  here  specified,  though  its  heinousness  is  strongly  stated :  and  i 
has  to  be  dealt  with  by  the  Church,  Though  Christ  excludes  it 
His  definition  of  adultery,  He  implies  that  it  is  a  crime  of  the 
magnitude  \  and  the  punishment  inBicted  by  the  Church  is  to  deprive 


i 


'  The  particular  »in  of  adultery  which  Christ  is  defining  b  committed  in 
wftjra:    (i)   by  the  man  or  woman  who  divorces  the  roftrriage  partner  oft  sk> 

aaaumption  ol'  freedom,  when  nothing  serious  enough  has  occurred  ta  wmnmBi  €\ 
(j)  by  the  third  party  who  marries  the  divorced  person  ;  (3)  by  the  partner  who  « 
wrongly  divorced.  Nothing  is  said  about  iroprrla  being  adultery  ia  the  9etSt 
indicated,  nor  about  the  guilt  of  it  generally  :  nor  is  it  stated  that  the  n%^n  guikjli 
voptfita  should  be  treated  in  the  same  way  as  the  woman. 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


the  sinner  of  that  liberty  of  re-marriage  to  which  on  a  narrow  reading  of 
:hrist's  teaching  he  would  be  legally  entitled. 
The  critical  questions  which  have  arisen  in  connexion  with  these 
irses  have  been  mainly  concerned  with  the  excepting  clause  in  A  and 
But  there  is  another  question  to  which  less  attention  has  been 
iven,  that  is  whether  vv.  31,  32  are  not  wrongly  placed  here.  An 
jument  in  favour  of  an  affirmative  answer  is  to  be  found  in  the  sharp 
lifTerence  of  meaning  of  fioix^ia  in  w,  28  and  32.  A  paraphrase  of 
28  would  be  'Ye  have  heard  .  .  .  thou  shalt  not  commit  the  sin 
rhich  breaks  the  marriage  bond :  But  I  say  that  this  sin  which  you  call 
lultery  is  committed  when  anything  is  purposely  done  to  stimulate 
lire,  even  if  the  desire  be  not  translated  into  action.'  Here  we 
lotice  fioix^ia  is  expanded  in  one  direction :  it  is  made  to  include 
itecedent  actions  likely  to  cause  the  commission  of  the  sin  itself,  and 
jftain  to  produce  a  corrupt  state  of  feeling  ;  the  inference  being  that 
lan  must  curb  his  thoughts,  not  only  his  actions.  Christ  might  have 
losen  another  word  than  'adultery'.  But  it  was  His  method  to 
J  ploy  familiar  old  commandments  rather  than  to  invent  new  categories 
)f  sins. 

But  when  we  come  to  v.  32  we  are  dealing  with  a  subject  only  faintly 
wnnected  with  that  of  v.  28.  The  word  ^mx«ta  is  expanded  in  an 
>pposite  direction.  Instead  of  bringing  out  further  the  idea  of  individual 
lilt  and  the  relation  of  sinful  thought  and  action,  Christ  estposes  the 
iisloyal  behaviour  of  mankind  in  trying  to  separate  those  whom  God 
lad  joined  :  and  in  so  doing  He  revives  the  early  Scriptural  idea  of  the 
;rmanence  of  wedlock.  The  share  taken  by  different  parties  to  the 
)ntract  in  the  abortive  attempt  to  annul  it  is  indicated  ;  and  the  only 
lint  of  contact  with  v.  28  is  in  the  implication  of  that  verse  that 
unicalion  (i.e.  the  modern  *  adultery  ')  alone  can  sever  the  bond  which 
^has  been  knit  by  divine  operation  and  hallowed  by  divine  decree.  The 
in  which  in  v.  28  was  analysed  in  respect  of  the  comparative  guilt  of 
'il  thought  and  action,  is  only  glanced  at  in  v.  32  in  its  relation  to  the 
ffdi nance  of  matrimony.  This  change  in  the  meaning  of  p>ij^cta  seems 
to  point  to  a  dislocation  of  vv.  31  and  32, 

It  would  be  tempting  to  some  to  go  further  and  say  that  if  w.  31,  32 
[_do  not  belong  to  this  context  they  are  merely  a  version  of  C,  and  hence 
the  TraptKTv^  clause  is  an  interpolation.  But  for  this  there  is  no  evidence. 
It  is  very  probable  that  in  regard  to  different  versions  of  apparently  the 
same  words,  the  disciples  asked  their  Lord  for  an  explanation  of  some 
saying,  as  we  know  ihey  did  on  more  than  one  occasion  (Mk.  iv  10; 
Mt.  xiii  26).  Indeed  in  Mk.  x  24  an  unspoken  question  draws  from 
Him  just  such  a  modification  of  His  original  saying  as  we  find  in  two 
parallel  versions.     I  would  suggest  that  we  have  in  ihis  passage  the 

S  s  2 


628         THE  JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 


% 


genesis  of  many  a  diverse  report*    It  is  not  unUkely  that  the  had 
saying    and  the    modification  were  subsequently   both   preserred 
writing,  and  some  of  the  phenomena  of  the  S>*noptic  Gospels 
thus  be  explained. 

E,    LVTTELTtW. 


ST  MARK  AND  DIVORCE- 


:i 


4 


All  three  Synoptic  Gospels  report  a  saying  of  Jesus  to  the  dfect 
that  whoever  puts  away  his  wife  and  marries  another  commits  adultery^ 
but  the  saying  is  given  with  characteristic  differences.  Matthew  and  Mirl 
give  the  saying  in  connexion  with  a  question  asked  of  our  Lord  by 
adversaries  when  He  was  the  other  side  of  Jordan  on  the  way  to 
Jerusalem  (Mark  x  11,  12  =  Matt  xix  9);  with  some  change  of 
wording  it  had  been  already  given  by  Matthew  as  part  of  the  Scnnoo 
on  the  Mount  (Matt,  v  31,  32),  while  Luke  gives  it  only  in  a  detached 
form  practically  without  context  (Luke  xvi  18).  It  is  a  natunl  pre* 
Iiminary  inference  that  the  saying  had  a  place  in  both  the  chief  souros 
of  our  Gospels,  viz.  in  the  lost  document  commonly  called  the  'Logta', 
as  well  as  in  Mark  (or  UrMarcus),  Moreover  Matthew  inserts  in  both 
places  an  exception  ^^  i-rrl  iropvtuf^  or  equivalent  words  :  it  is  cndot 
that  the  stringent  rule  given  by  Mark^  or  his  source,  needed  soot 
modiB cation  when  regarded  as  the  basis  for  the  law  of  a  Christan 
society. 

According  to  Mark  the  woman  who  divorces  her  husband  is  dcdartd 
to  have  committed  adultery  as  well  as  the  man  who  divorces  bis  wife. 
This  condemnation  of  the  woman  is  not  found  in  the  other  Gospdi 
and  is  pretty  generally  assumed  to  be  a  secondary  addition,  'batfd 
on  Roman  Law',  says  Dr  Schmiedel  in  £tuy.  Biblica^  1851,  It  il 
supposed  to  have  been  monstrous  and  unheard  of  that  a  Jewess  should 
divorce  her  husband. 

Monstrous  it  was,  no  doubt,  but  not  quite  unheard  of.  I  irenture  to 
think  that  to  appreciate  the  historical  meaning  of  the  passage  wc  niOtf 
apply  the  familiar  maxim  cfunhez  la/emme.  Not  that  we  have  to  look 
very  far :  we  know  the  woman  and  her  history — her  name  was  Henxiias. 
Her  husband,  whom  she  left  in  order  to  live  with  Antipas,  was  the  roan 
whom  Mark  calls  'Philip'  but  Josephus  only  knew  as  'Herod*. 
Antipas  also  was  guilty  '.  he  had  put  away  the  daughter  of  the  AialMa 
king  Aretas  to  take  up  with  Herodias  his  half-brother's  wife,  she  hendf 
being  his  half-niece. 

A  curious  side-light  can  be  thrown  on  the  public  actions  of  our  Lord 
from  this  point  of  view.     In  the  estimation  of  many   the 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


639 


*rophet  was  first  and  foremost  the  successor  of  John  the  Baptist,  who 
id  lost  his  life  in  protesting  against  the  loose  pagan  morals  of  Antipas 
id  Herodias.  On  the  news  of  the  mnrder  of  John  our  Lord  had 
tired  at  once  to  *a  desert  place'  (Mark  vi  31),  and  soon  afterwards 
find  Him  and  His  disciples  taking  a  quite  extended  journey  to  the 
north  away  from  the  dominions  of  Antipas  (Mark  vii  24  ff).  Scarcely 
is  He  back  than  we  find  Him  again  on  a  journey  in  the  district  of 
*aesarea  Philippi,  i,  e.  the  NE,  district  of  Herod  the  Great's  realm, 
outside  Antipas's  tetrarchy  (Mark  viii  27-ix  29).  After  a  stay  there, 
important  indeed  for  the  inner  circle  of  disciples  but  short  In  time. 
He  passes  through  Galilee  on  His  way  to  Jerusalem,  *and  He  would 

I  not  that  any  man  should  know  it^  (Mark  ix  30).  This  policy  of 
^ncealment  lasts  until  He  comes  *  into  the  borders  of  Judaea  *,  There 
be  is  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  Antipas;  'multitudes  come  together 
imto  Him  again  and,  as  He  was  wont,  He  taught  them  again '(Mark  x  i). 
I  It  was  no  part  of  our  Lord's  plan  to  get  embroiled  wiih  the  civil 
power,  especially  just  before  this  Passover,  but  for  that  very  reason 
I  questions  about  Divorce  might  be  used  to  entangle  Him  into  incon- 
^Bpenient  pronouncements.  He  was  now  once  more  teaching  publicly, 
^^md  some  of  those  who  heard— Matthew  calls  them  Pharisees — took  this 
occasion  to  ask  whether  it  were  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife. 
Probably  neither  legal  curiosity  nor  scruples  of  conscience  prompted 
the  questioners,  but  no  doubt  it  seemed  an  excellent  test  question. 
The  answer  can  scarcely  have  pleased.  It  offered  no  palliation  for 
the  loose  Roman  manners  of  the  Herods,  but  the  course  of  conduct 
commanded  was  based  on  the  natural  constitution  of  man  as  opposed 
to  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  the  teaching  which  reads  most  like  a  special 
condemnation  of  Herodias  was  reserved  for  the  circle  of  disciples 
indoors.      Here  as  elsewhere  our  Lord   had  as  little  taste  for  the 

k leaven  of  the  Pharisees  as  for  the  leaven  of  Herod. 
While  treating  of  this  subject  I  should  like  to  say  a  word  in  con- 
tlusion  on  Mark  viii  15*  A  few  weeks  before  the  utterance  on  Divorce 
which  we  have  been  considering,  just  before  Jesus  started  from  Bethsaida 
to  go  to  the  villages  of  Caesarea  Philippi,  the  disciples  had  come  in 
the  boat  to  the  place  called  Dalmanutha  or  Magadan,  an  unknown 
spot  not  so  very  far  from  Tiberias.  They  were  met  by  *  Pharisees  * 
who  ask  for  a  *sign',  which  is  refused  (Mark  viii  10-12).  When  they 
have  hurriedly  re-embarked  to  go  to  the  border  town  of  Bethsaida  on 
the  north  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  Jesus  bids  the  disciples  beware  of  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  leaven  of  Herod  (Mark  viii  15).  Why 
Herod?  The  sudden  move  to  Bethsaida,  so  sudden  that  they  forget 
to  provision  the  boat,  suggests  a  flight  from  imminent  danger.  May 
we  not  combine  this  narrative  of  Mark  with  the  detached  anecdote 


630         THE    JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

Luke  xiii  31-33?  According  to  this  passage  the  Pharisees  sif 
thee  out  and  go  hence,  for  Herod  would  fain  kill  thee  *.  The 
gives  the  reason  for  the  actual  course  taken  by  our  Lord,  He  acoqti 
the  warning  and  leaves  the  territory  of  Antipas,  concealing  Hinarif 
and  keeping  quiet  when  it  was  necessary  to  pass  through  GaBce, 
because  He  was  determined  that  the  inevitable  crisis  should 
at  Jerusalem  and  nowhere  else.  If  this  general  view  be 
it  affords  a  firesh  and  welcome  proof  that  the  Gospel  accordiog  to 
St  Mark  is  a  document  in  touch  with  the  facts  of  history,  and  vA 
merely  concerned  with  the  ethical  needs  of  some  Christian  comnuisili 
of  later  limes. 

F,  C  Buwcm. 


READINGS  SEEMINGLY  CONFLATE  IN  THE  M 
OF  THE  LAUSIAC  HISTORY. 


] 


lecuc 

Pftflt 

r  ffiT 


There  is  no  need  to  dwell  on  the  importance  of  the  role 
by  Conflate  Readings  in  textual  work  in  general,  and  in  the  tattn^ 
criticism  of  the  New  Testament  in  particular.  That  Conflation  k 
a  corruption  of  frequent  occurrence  is  unquestionable,  and  the  deduc 
lions  drawn  from  it,  when  it  is  detected,  are  in  general  valid* 
Note  is  intended  only  to  serve  as  a  warning  of  the  circtimspcction 
is  necessary  in  the  employment  of  one  of  the  textual  critic's  best  ii 
ments. 

In  the  passages  to  be  discussed  all  the  references  are  to  the  reoest 
edition  of  the  Historia  Lausiaca  (Cambridge  Texis  and  Studits  VI 
and  the  nomenclature  is  that  which  is  there  employed.  In  ordo" 
to  understand  and  control  what  follows,  it  would  be  necessary- 
examine  the  full  apparatus  to  the  various  passages,  and  to  master 
discussions  in  the  Introduction  on  the  character  and  relations  of  the 
MSS  and  versions ;  but  I  hope  to  be  able  here  to  supply  information 
which  will  roughly  but  sufficiently  indicate  the  textual  facts^  and  make 
intelligible  the  line  of  argument  in  each  case.  The  terms  *  best  MS* 
and  *  second  best  MS '  are  of  course  relative,  and  vary  in  denoCalioo 
according  to  the  MSS  extant  for  each  passage. 

(1)  P.  41.  14. 

T^v  IwuTKO'jrtav  /icra  to  tvitw&ai  i^p'xofkivmv 

best  MS  (VV,  p.  173)  and  all  the  versions  (two  Latin,  two 
Twy  IwifTKorsrmv  /tfra  rrpf  <7rib-icc^ir  i^tfiXO^uivnAV 

second  best  MS  (P). 
Twk  fVicTKoirtav  ficra  rr)v  iwixrK€\^i¥  €V^^iviiiV  KOI  /ACT^  TTJF  cvj^i^r  i{ 

inferior  MSS  (B). 


NOTES    AND    STUDIES 


631 


I  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  reading  of  W  and  the  versions  is  the 
true  one.  The  variant  iirta-Kt\piv  has  come  from  L  1 2,  where  we  read : 
ivLnipn^a-ai  I'Trra  ^ttktkottwv  dyttuv  iTrL(TK€\pw.  Now  the  corrupt  or  meta- 
iphrastic  form  of  the  text  found  in  the  '  inferior  MSS  * — the  vast  inajority 
—and  called  B,  was  already  formed  certainly  in  the  sixth  century,  and 
almost  certainly  in  the  fifth.  On  ihe  other  hand,  W  and  P  are  closely 
akin,  having  in  common  a  number  of  corruptions  found  nowhere  else 
and  clearly  of  a  relatively  late  origin ;  some  of  them  indeed  are  due  to 
^contamination  from  a  B  text,  so  that  the  proximate  archetype  of  VV  P 
B^is  posterior  in  date  to  the  archetype  of  B.  Hence  it  follows  that  any 
I  divergence  of  P  from  W  in  Ihe  way  of  corruption  is  later  than  the 
formation  of  the  B  text.  And  therefore  the  iTrurKtiptv  in  the  B  MSS 
cannot  have  been  derived  from  P,  nor  was  the  B  reading  confiated  out 
of  those  of  W  and  P.  The  B  reading  is  made  up,  after  the  manner 
characteristic  of  the  metaphraslic  reviser,  out  of  the  true  reading 
(preserved  in  W)  and  the  Jiri<7*rci^4v  of  1.  12.  The  reading  of  P  either  is 
due  to  the  influence  of  B,  a  phenomenon  whereof  clear  traces  are  to  be 
found  elsewhere  in  P ;  or  else,  as  seems  more  probable,  iirltnctfiv  has 
come  in  from  L  i2»  so  that  its  presence  in  P  and  in  B  is  a  case  of  mere 
coincidence  in  error. 

It  is  certain  that  we  are  not  here  in  the  presence  of  a  Conflate 
Reading  in  B. 

^  b)  P-  89,  3,  4- 
f^  arova  rots  aTovturipoi^  cT^ftjptJf  Vy** 

best  MS  (P)  and  Ethiopic  version  (apparently). 
▼tt  aroi^  rots  oirnjTticcin-epois  cyxtcjpt{e  tpya 

second  best  MSS  (TO  47)  and  Sozomen  (m  Sc  cvj^o^  roU  <£<r*Mw- 

ri  Srova  tois    f  dro^wrcpo*?  Kal  acrKyfTucniripoK  fy;(€tf>ti<  <pya 
■t  do'^^€V€(^^C|POcs 
inferior  MSS  (B)  and  Latin  and  Syriac  versions. 
Here  arovonipo^i  being  supported  by  P  and  a  good  independent 
witness,  must  be  accepted  as  belonging  to  the  text ;  and  the  attestation 
of  atrtc7p-LKii^ipot%—iht  three  next  best  MSS  (which  are  unrelated  10 
each  other)^  and  Sozomen,  the  earliest  witness  to  the  text— compels 
us  to  accept  it  also  as  belonging  to  the  text.    The  support  given  to 
the  double  reading  by  the  two  versions  is  strong ;  and  I  think  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  Sozomen  also  had  the  double  reading  before 
him,  in  view  of  his  treatment  of  a  similar  sentence  a  little  lower  down  : 
p.  91,  1-3  :  icoi  TOi?  f^lv  awkov^r*fMi%  teat  aKtpaioripoi^  crt^ijo-ctc  rh  iSnOt 
Soz.  dirXovtrrtpov?  fi€v  lurra  d^oKoXovvTa?, 

T0«  Si  &vtr)(€fMrTipoi^  kox  aKo\itoT€poi%  wpoaditt^  to  (l* 
Soz.  (TKoXiovt  ^  Cr^  i' 


THE  JOORXAL   OF  TBfiOLOGICAl. 
Bif  a  pnr  oCGfccfc  MS5  aid 


IfTsy  of 
•oifaaitittf 


that  plaoe  it  befoiMl 

(slio  IbeSfciK  n 

■licie  tbe  tvD  pBSi 

to  naeac  a  pctfedif 


b  fbood  m  the 
not  to  be 


tfaedoBbie 
bH  alKi  io  two 

CBMiflg,  vludi   his 

Greek  MSS. 


(3)  P.  «i«V  S- 

fhe  bc9t  MSS  (P  T  A  V  C)  and  SsTriK 
TtKarrf  —  hr  avrf  r^  ifpifuf  ro^ccf 

inferior  MSS  (B)  and  Latin  yrtnkxL 

one  sut^group  of  the  inferior  MSS  (14-18)^ 

one  sub-group  of  the  inferior  MSS  (la,  13). 

In  this  case  the  apparent  conflation  has  arisen  in  certain 
of  the  inferior  (B)  MSS  and  has  no  claim  to  represent  even 
B  text.    The  sub-groups  of  B  represented  by  MSS  12,  13 
are  closely  related,  and  are  the  common  ofisprin^  of  a  siisgle 
having  a  number  of  corruptions  in  common.     In  the  c 
I  at  first  thought  that  the  reading  of  12,  13  was  evidently 
of  the  normal  B  reading  roj^t^  and  the  reading  of  14-3 
tty/wv  KyfitvB€i^.     But  fuller  examination  of  the  text  of  14—1 
It  to  be  an  abridged  redaction,  rewritten  on  the  principle 
away  superfluous  words  and  clauses;  and  I  have  no  doubt 
also  the  text  of  14-18  has  been  formed  from  that  of  la,  13 

out  Kol  ra^ctc* 

(4)  P.  131.  a. 

best  and  third  best  MSS  (P  and  A),  some  of  the  inferio? 

and  a  Latin  version  (I). 

some  of  the  inferior  MSS  (B  t)  and  a  Latin  version  (1  J. 


NOTES   AND    STUDIES 


633 


nrj 


&T€^Ht  —  —  — 


Tjj  avTOv  fi-yjfrpi  irjj  avrjj  ^p-t-pa. 


I 
I 


second  best  MS  (T),  some  of  the  inferior  MSS  (B+),  and  the 
Symc  version. 

The  agreement  of  T  and  the  Syriac  version  shews  that  the  double 
reading  existed  in  the  sixth,  probably  in  the  fifth  century.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  original  reading  of  the  B  text ;  so  that 
the  absence  of  one  or  other  clause  in  certain  B  MSS  is  due  to  omission, 
doubtless  on  account  of  the  extreme  harshness  of  the  full  text.  To 
the  same  cause  must,  I  think,  be  attributed  the  absence  of  either  clause 
in  P  and  A  and  the  two  Latin  versions.  Here,  therefore,  again  there 
seems  little  doubt  that  the  double  reading  is  not  conflate  but  original, 
and  has  been  broken  up  into  its  parts. 

(5)  P.  152,  10-12. 

iAeyo*  Tjifu.v  qti  Novs  airtXTTttf  B€ov  iwoia^  ^  kttjvos  ytVcrat  ij  Baifjuav*  kox 
rriv  JU.CV  ivi$vfjuay  llXtyt  myvtiSnj,  tov  ^f  Ov^jov  BfUfAOVtii)BTj 
the  two  best  MSS  (W  and  P). 
cXfycv  Tj/jtiF  oTt  NoOs  awtxrrai  6'€ov  iwoCa^  nrfprnirre*  hri^vfj-i^'  kgI  tV  jhcv 
im&vfjuav  tAr)i^e  KrrjvtjjSrjT  tok  Si  Bvifiov  ^aifjLOViui^ri 

the  third  best  MS  (T),  and  the  fourth  (A,  but  with  a  slight  variant), 
and  the  Syriac  version  (but  om.  tov  5c  0,  Sat/it.). 
lArycv  -^fuv  Sri  NoiJs  dTrocrras  Otov  iwota^  tj  Baifitav  yLvtrai  ^  icrijvo^.     r^fiwv 
tt  <i^tXoTr€vuTovvT<tiv  TO¥  Tp6wov  tv  tlTr€V^  ikty€v  ovToti  OTt  Novs  dTTOirras 
B€ov  (iwotai)  ii  dvayjoy?  TrcptirtirTCt  hriBvpX^  1)  &vfi^'   koX  rrj[¥  fiiv  hn$v 
jfiiay  Ikeytv  ttvat  ienjvu«Si|,  tof  Si  $vfwv  BatfjiOvitiitBrji 
inferior  MSS  (B)  and  Latin  version. 

The  passage  before  us  has  perplexed  me  not  a  little.    In  the  first 

dnifl  of  the  text  I  adopted  the  double  reading— which  is  not  precisely 
that  of  the  metaphrastic  text  (B),  but  a  reconstruction  of  that  of  the 
MS  used  by  the  metaphrastic  reviser  for  his  rewriting  of  the  text: 
this  was  in  the  fifth  century  (see  Introduction  pp.  Ixii,  xxxiii-xxxiv, 
nliii»  xliv).  Nextj  on  discovering  W  and  finding  that  it  agreed  with 
P,  I  preferred  the  reading  of  W  and  P,  and  that  is  the  one 
that  stands  in  the  text.  Later  on^  when  reviewing  the  evidence  as 
a  whole  in  the  Introduction^  I  reverted  to  the  double  reading,  regarding 
the  other  two  as  due  to  its  breaking  asunder  on  account  of  the 
repetition :  and  so  in  the  List  of  Alterations  and  Corrections  (p.  180), 
I  direct  its  adoption.  Now  I  find  myself  wavering  again ;  for  the  longer 
reading  may  well  be  an  explanatory  expansion  of  the  reading  of  W  and 
P,  intended  to  bring  out  more  definitely  the  nexus  between  the  two 
clauses  of  W  P. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  the  reading  of  T  A  s 
could  have  originated  independently  and  have  so  well  fitted  in  with 


CJsrc 


THE  CITE&POLATiaXS   R   ST  CYMtlAX^ 

Z>iE   USJTATE  ECCLESIAE. 


WmtUL  I  jfli  paieM  to  Mc  Wjtm  te/.  71  S.  Jl^pcS  1904  p 
P^  fm  r/v«r4faaenag;  Jipfmrr'mkm  ai  mj  vod:  on  CjpnaDic  qua 
1  Mm  fft  iM^mfimmog  en  tbe  Edikx's  kindf»  is  onler  to  replf  id 

I  iAmk  thM  my  Ml  fcnk  Afficfle  en  Aftiqne  00  meme  ^  J 
df.  Wm^ti  qadiq^/ttm  qai  pmme  6ake  a  bien'  was  too  genenL 
§orry. 

Hut  I  certamly  comider  that  I  'ftrengdiened  mj  case  bj  a  n 
•^fch  for  likencMet '.  It  is  very  difficult  to  imagiiie  a  forger  so  < 
All  to  combine  hannoniotisly  in  one  sentence  so  many  of  St  Cyp 
imn  expressions  as  occur  in  the  substituted  passage.  There  is  ceT 
Iff  i\m  |i«eudo<J)rprianic  treatises  no  passage  so  CyjHianose  in  chai 
•  wItniTSS  the  paitora  muid,  gnx  uhus,  una  caihedm,  primaiuSy  um 
famtmiffftt^  super  quern  fundata  est  ecclesia.  To  me  it  seems  01 
thr>sf!  ofXAiional  passages  where  a  writer^s  style  is  umnistakeable. 
this  may  be  a  matter  of  feeling. 


f' 


NOTES   AND   STUDIES 


635 


\ 


So  far  my  defence  is  half-hearted.     Not  so  with  the  rest.    What 

Hows  in  Mr.  Watson's  paper  is  based  on  a  misapprehension  of  my 

eaning  and  of  the  facts. 

St  Cyprian  wrote  to  the  Roman  confessors,  as  soon  as  he  heard  of 

eir  secession   fxom    Novatian,  a   letter   of  congratulation  (Ep.  54), 

which  he  appended  copies  of  the  I}f  Lapsh  and  the  Dt  Unitate. 

It  was  in  this  copy  that  Dom  Chapman  holds  the  change  was  made 

by  the  author.  .  .  .  The  first  point  to  strike  a  student  is  the  importance 

and  the  publicity  of  the  transaction.'     I  am  afraid  it  must  be  my  fault 

if  the  student's  first  impression  of  my  meaning  is  something  I  never 

cant.  I  tried  to  shew  that  the  change  made  by  the  author  in  c.  19 
de  that  chapter  apply  to  confessors  and  only  to  confessors.  It  is 
inconceivable  that  the  person  who  altered  the  passage,  whether 
St  Cyprian  or  an  anonymous  forger,  should  have  wished  to  publish 
the  passage  in  this  form  after  the  return  of  the  confessors  to  unity. 
Still  less  would  the  confessors  themselves  have  wished  it.  My  con- 
tention  was  that  St  Cyprian  made  the  alterations  simply  to  meet  the 
case  of  Maximus  and  his  companions  in  a  single  copy  which  he  sent  to 
Ihem. 

But  Mr.  Watson  takes  a  different  view,  perhaps  forgetting  c,   19. 

*  It  was  to  the  credit  of  the  confessors  [?]  and  to  the  obvious  advantage 
of  Cornelius  that  this  budget  from  Carthage  should  be  circulated  as 
widely  as  possible.'  But  Ep.  54  was  not  sent  under  cover  to  Cornelius, 
as  Ep.  46  had  been,  and  he  probably  never  saw  the  copy  of  De  Uniiate. 

*  This  authoritative  antidote  would  surely  be  disseminated  by  all  the 
means  which  the  world-wide  connexions  of  the  Roman  Church  put  at 
Cornelius's  disposal.  And  we  should  expect,  if  the  earlier  version 
remained  in  existence^  to  find  that  it  had  escaped  oblivion  as  narrowly 
as  the  African  type  of  the  Old  Latin  Bible  has  done.*  Let  us  suppose 
that  St  Cyprian  really  meant  the  correction  as  *  an  authoritative  antidote 
to  Novatianism '  (though  this  is  not  in  the  least  my  view) ;  how  can 
Mr.  Watson  know  that  corrected  copies  were  not  disseminated  every- 
where by  Cornelius?  It  is  certain,  let  me  remind  him,  that  ail  our 
very  numerous  MSS  of  the  treatise  on  Unity  simply  go  back  to  the  first 
collection  of  St  Cyprian's  writings,  which  was  known  to  Pontius,  and 
which  must  have  been  made  in  Africa  just  after  (or  even  just  before) 
St  Cyprian's  death'.    The  treatises  contained  in  this  collection  must 


'  This  edition  contained  i,  iv,  vi.  v^  vii,  x,  viij,  xi,  xii,  xiii,  6,  to,  39,  37,  11,  38, 
39  ;  1  am  flad  to  see  that  Hans  von  Soden  has  independently  arrived  at  the  same 
conclusion,  Z>('r  Cypriaftisck*  Bne/sammlung^  1904,  pp.  52-5,  I  may  mention  that 
this  industrious  young  author  considers  my  thesis  as  to  the  interpolations  as 
'ausreichend    begrindet'    (p.  31,  note,  and   p.  30a),       Cp.  Hamack   ChronoL  ii 


636         THE   JOURNAL   OF   THEOLOGICAI-    STUDIES 

have  had  a  large  circtibtion  before  they  wexe  thus  €x>lJectcd, 
know  absolutely  nothing  about  this.  The  circulation  oi  a  ' 
edition '  of  the  De  UniiaU^  such  as  Mr.  WatsoQ  suppoea,  nigbt  fav? 
been  the  largest  in  the  world,  and  yet  have  left  no  trace.  Paoiiii^ 
Lucifer,  the  Cheltenham  list,  all  testify  only  to  the  ongtnal  AfticB 
collection  handed  down  in  our  MSS.  It  would  surdy  be  nodis| 
wonderful  if  this  Carthaginian  edition  had  contained  the  oi^giflil 
Carthaginian  form  of  the  Di  UmiaU^  even  had  a  rival  fona  beei 
far  more  common  in  the  rest  of  the  world.  This  siinple  ronadffHif 
destroys  the  whole  of  Mr  Watson's  elaborate  objection  to  a  ccHijedSl^ 
which  was,  after  all^  never  made  by  any  one. 

*Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  acquiesce  in  the  old<£uhioiied 
that  there  has  really  been  an  tnterpolatioo  ? '  I  think  not,  ootil 
reason  has  been  given,  some  drcumstances  suggested,  for  sudi  tt 
ingenious  performance.  The  interpolation  in  c.  4  is  not  nnpfy  » 
favour  of  Papalism  \  it  is  against  the  Novatians  or  (just  coocehafal^ 
if  it  can  be  so  late)  the  Donatists.  But  the  changes  in  c  19  have  t»  be 
accounted  for,  and  how  would  Mr.  Watson  pcopose  to 
them? 

John 


sdvMfl 
ilntffl 


NOTE  ON  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  HYMNS 
HILARY. 

Since  my  paper  on  the  Hymns  of  Hilary  appeared 
number  of  the  Journal,  I  have  received  a  very  careful 
the  text  of  the  Arerzo  MS  from  Mr  A*  S.  Walpole,  who  vi 
a  volume  on  the  earliest  Latin  hymns.    I  subjoin  the  princtpal  passages 
in  which  Mr  Walpole  corrects  Signor  Gamurrini's  reading  of  the  MS- 
The  MS  has 
I  32  transforroans  se,  ul  est,  uiuam  in  imaginem 
42  Deusque  uerus  substitit  ex  Deo 
54  alter  quae  cum  sit  mixtus  in  altero 
57  paret  sed  genitus  Patri 
63  condensque  primum  saecula 
Hit  fefelUt  saeuam  Verbum  factum  te  caro 
13  gaudens  pendentem  camis  ligno  cum  cruets 
ni    1  Adae  camis  gloriam  et  cadud  corporis 

22  inter  turbas,  quae  frequenles  mergebanttir,  accipit 
29  quaerit  audax  tempus  quod  sit> 

A*  J.  Ma90IC. 


RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


(i)  English* 

Church  Qidarteriy  Review,  April  1904  (VoL  Iviitt  No.  115: 
[pottiswoode  &  Co.).     William  Ewart  Gladstone — Christian  Sodalism 

in  France— The  Church  and  Dissent  in  Wales  during  the  Nineteenth 
Century— Robert  Campbell  Moberly^The  Silesian  Horseherd — The 
*eople  and  the  Puritan  Movement — The  Yezidis  :  a  Strange  Survival — 
^he  Popish  Plot — The  British  and  Foreign   Bible  Society^ — The  Abbe 

Loisy :    Criticism  and  Catholicism— Japan  and  Western  Ideas— Short 

Notices, 

77te  Hibbert  Joumai,  April  1904  (Vol  ii,  No,  3 :  Williams  & 
Norgate).  H.  Jones  The  Moral  Aspect  of  the  Fiscal  Question — Oliver 
^— Lodge  Suggestions  towards  the  Re-interpretation  of  Christian  Doctrine— 
^BiENSLEY  Henson  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ— W.  Boyd  Car- 
^fcENTER  Gladstone  as  a  Moral  and  Religious  Personality —Andrew  Lang 
^p^r  Myers's  Theory  of  'the  Subliminal  Self— C.  J,  KEVSERThe  Axiom 
^Vof  Infinity :  a  New  Presupposition  of  Thought— W.  Jethro  Brown 
^The  Passing  of  Conviction — H,  Winckler  North  Arabia  and  the  Bible  : 
a  Defence — Discussions— Reviews. 

The  Jewish  Quarterly  Raiieiv,  April  1904  (Vol.  xvi,  No.  63  : 
Macmillan  &  Co.).  S.  Schechter  Genizah  Fragments— M.  N.  Adler 
The  Itinerary  of  Benjamin  of  Tudela— A.  Cowley  Samaritana — D. 
Philipson  The  Reform  Movement  in  Judaism,  III — W,  Bacher  Zur 
jiidisch-persischen  Litteratur. — F.  C.  BtiRKiTT  The  Nash  Papyrus : 
a  new  photograph — E.  N.  Adler  A  letter  of  Menasseh  Ben  Israel — 
H.  HiRSCHFELD  The  Arabic  portion  of  the  Cairo  Genizah  at  Cam- 
bridge, V — Critical  Notices— Notes. 

»Th€  Expository  April  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  52  :  H odder  & 
Stoughton).  W.  M.  Ramsay  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches — 
J.  Chapman  The  Seven  Churches  of  Asia— N.  J.  D.  White  The 
Testimony  of  Jesus  is  the  Spirit  of  Prophecy— S.  L  Curtiss  Some 
Religious  Usages  of  the  Dh5ab  and  Ruala  Arabs,  and  their  Old  Testament 
Parallels — W.  L.  Davidson  The  Bible  Story  of  Creation  : — a  Phase  of 
the  Theistic  Argument — W.  H.  Bennett  The  Life  of  Christ  according 

•  to  St  Mark — J-  H.  Moulton  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek. 
May  1904  (Sixth  Series,  No.  53).  W.  M.  Ramsay  The  Letter 
to  Smyrna— W.  E.  Barnes  Psalm  bcix— E.  E.  Kellett  St,  Paul  the 
Poet— T.  H,  Weir  The  Koran  and  the  *  Books  of  Moses  *— J.  H. 
Moulton  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek— T.  Barns  The 
Catholic  Epistles  of  Themison— S.  R.  Driver  Translations  from  the 
Prophets  ;  Jeremiah  xxv, 

June  1904  (Sbcth  Series,  No.  54).  W.  M.  Ramsay  The  Letter 
to  the  Church  in  Pergamum — J,  H.  Bernard  The  Death  of  Judas — 
G,  Milligan  The  Authenticity  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians— J.  B.  Mayor  Notes  on  the  Text  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude— J.  H. 
Moulton  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek. 


I 

t 

i 

t 

I 


638         THE   JOURNAL   OF    THEOLOGICAL    STUDIES 

(2)  American. 

77U  American  Journal  of  Theology^  April  1 904  (Vol.  viii,  Ko.  I 
Chicago  University  Press).  G.  A.  Coe  The  Philosophy  of  the  Moie- 
ment  for  Religious  Education— W»  Dewar  What  is  a  Miracle  ?— A  E 
Sayce  The  L^al  Code  of  Babylonia— S.  H.  Bishop  A  Point  of  Vicwfcf 
the  Study  of  Reh'gion— H.  A.  Redpath  A  New  Theory  as  to  the  i»o< 
the  Divine  Names  in  the  Pentateuch — C.  S,  Patton  Critical  Notcttk 
Pkce  of  God  in  Human  Evolution — Recent  Theological  Literature. 

The  Princeton  Tkeohgical  RevifW^  April  1904  (Vol.  ii,  No.  t 
Philadelphia,  MacCalla  &  Co.).  D.  S.  Schaff  Thomas  Aquinas  sod 
Leo  XIII— T.  G.  Darling  The  Apostle  Paul  and  the  Second  Adfcnt— 
P.  van  Dyke  Thomas  Cromwell— R.  D.  Wii^on  Royal  Titles  in 
Antiquity :  an  Essay  in  Crtticism^E.  B.  Hodge  The  Story  of  Ac 
Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church— B.  B.  Warfieij>  The  Proposed 
Union  with  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians— H,  C.  Mikton  Intuilife 
Perception — Recent  Literature. 

(3)  French  and  Belgian. 

Revue  Benedictine^  April  1904  (Vol.  xxi»  No.  2  :  AbtMiye  de 
sous) — L  Schuster  Les  Ancetres  de  saint  Gregoire  et  leur  s^pdture 
famille  4  Saint-Paul  de  Rome— G.  Morin  Une  pri^re  inedite  atiribu^ 
\  saint  Augustin — U.  Berli^re  Les  evSques  auxiliaires  de  Cambtii  d* 
xvi*  au  xix«  siMe— M.  FESTUGifeRE  Questions  de  philosophic  de  li 
nature — H.  Herwegen  Les  coUaborateurs  de  sainte  Hfldcgsurde— 
Bulletin  bibliogiaphiquc. 

Reime  Biblique^  April  1904  (Nouvelle  s^rie,  i*^  ann^e,  no.  2  :  Paris,' 
Lecoffre).  Sanctissimi  Domini  nostri  Pii  divina  providentia  Paptc 
Litterae  apostolicae  de  academicis  in  sacra  scriptura  gradibus  a  cooi- 
missione  biblica  conferendis — Commissio  pontificia  *de  re  biblica'— 
E,  Revillout  L'evangile  des  xii  apotres  recemment  d^ourert— 
Lagrange  La  religion  des  Perses— Van  Hoonacker  La  propbto 
relative  ^  la  naissance  dTmmanu-el — Melanges :  Vincent  La  ayptc 
de  sainte  Anne  4  Jerusalem  :  X  Un  papyrus  h^breu  pre-massoretiqtie 
Mercati  De  versione  bibliorum  arabica  A.  167 1  edita  :  Lagrangi 
Deux  commentaires  des  Psaumes — Chronique :  Savignac  Epitaphe  de 
la  diaconesse  Sophie  ;  Ossuaires  juifs  j  Tuiles  romaines  ;  Varia :  ABZlfl 
Nouvelles  inscriptions  grecques  de  Bersabee— Recensions — Bulletin.    ™ 

Anakda  Bollandiana^  June  1904  (Vol.  xxiii,  fasc.  2,  3  :  Brussels,  I4i 
Rue  dt'^  Ursulines).  A.  Poncelet  Catalogus  codicum  hagiogiaphi- 
corum  latinorum  bibliothecae  publicae  Rotomagensis :  Appendix — M. 
Manitius  Collationes  ad  SS.  Augustinum,  Leonem,  Caesariuni,  Barond 
visionem — H.  Delehaye  Passio  sanctorum  sexaginta  martyrum — R 
PouPARDiN  Vie  de  S.  Remain  du  Mans  attribuee  ^  Gregoire  de  Tours-^ 
G.  MoRiN  La  plusancienne  Vie  de  S.  Ursmer :  Po^me  acrostiche  ined(| 
de  S.  Ermin,  son  successeur — E.  Hocedez  Nicolai  de  Fara  praefatio  in 
Vitam  S.  lohannis  a  Capistrano — Bulletin  des  publicaiioas  hagio- 
graphiques — U,  Chevalier  F0L39  (p.  609-624)  Supplementi  ad  Repei- 
torium  Hymnologicum— Foil,  lo-ia  (p.  81-112)  Indicis  geo 
tomos  i-xx  Analectonim. 


Iture&fl 

dtt 
li 


PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES    639 


I      cor 
^Ltin 


k 


I 


Revue  (PHtsioire  et  de  Liiierature  Religieuses,  May-June  1904  (Vol. 
ix.  No*  3:  Paris,  74,  Boulevard  Saint-Germain),  G,  Morin  *  Sanc- 
torum Communionem* — J,  Turmel  Le  dogme  du  pech^  originel  dans 
ffiglise  grecque  aprfes  saint  Augustin — H.  M.  Hemmer  Chronique 
d'histoire  ecclesiastique  :  Ouvrages  gen^raux  ;  Hagiographie  ;  Institu- 
tions ;   Angleterre  \  AUemagne ;   llalie  ;   France — J.  Dalbret  Litt^ra- 

re  religieuse  modcrne. 

Rt^ue  de  r Orient  Chrifien^  Jan.  1904  {Vol.  ix,  No,  i :  Paris,  82,  Rue 
Bonaparte).  P.,de  Meester  Le  dogme  de  I'lmmaculie  Conception  et 
la  doctrine  de  FEglise  grecque— A.  Mallon  Les  Th^otokies  ou  Office 
de  la  sainte  Vierge  dans  !e  rit  copte — H.  Lammens  Un  pofete  royal  ^ 
la  cour  des  Ommiades  de  Damas  {/«)— £lie  Batareikh  La  forme 
constfcratoire  du  Sacrament  de  I'ordre  dans  I'^glise  grecque  d'apr^s 
iin   manuscrit  du   xii«  si^cle— I.  Guidi  Textes  orientaux   inedits   du 

rtyre  de  Judas  Cyriaque,  ev^que  de  Jerusalem  :  L  Texte  syriaque— 
L,  Jalabert  Les  colonies  d'Orientaux  en  Occident  du  v«  au  viii*'  siijcle 
— F,  TouRNEBiZE  Histoire  politique  et  religieuse  de  TArm^nie  {suiie) — 
Melanges  :  i.  L.  Petit  Bulle  du  patriarche  Melrophane  sur  le  mariage : 
ii.  H.  Lammens  Un  commentaire  inedit  sur  la  bagarre  au  S.  Sepulcre  en 
1 698 — Bibliographie. 

Revue  dhhhire  uclhictstique^  April  1904  (Vol.  v,  No.  2  :  Lou  vain, 
40  Rue  de  Namur).  C.  Van  Crombrugghe  La  doctrine  christologique 
et  soteriologique  de  saint  Augustin  et  ses  rapports  avec  le  n^o-platonisme 
— G.  MoRiN  Pelage  ou  Fastidius  ? — F,  M*  Jacquin  La  question  de  la 
predestination  aux  v^  et  vi«  si^cles  i  Saint  Augustin— Melanges  :  G. 
MoRiN  Lettre  inedite  de  Pascal  II,  notifiant  la  deposition  de  Turold, 
eveque  de  Bayeux,  puis  moine  du  Bee  (8  Oct.  1104) — Comptes  rendus — 
Chronique^-Bibliographie. 


(4)  German* 

Theologische  Quarialschrifi^  1904  (VoK  Ixxxvi,  No.  5:  Tubingen, 
H.  Laupp).  Vetter  Das  Buch  Tobias  und  die  Achikar-Sage— Kjrsch 
Zur  Geschichte der  Zensunerung  des  F.  Norbert— H.Koch  Nachklangc 
2ur  areopagilischen  Frage— A.  Koch  Daniel  Concina  und  die  sog. 
reinen  Ponalgesetze — FuNtc  Zum  Opus  tmperfectum  in  Maitkaeum — 
Funk  Das  achte  Buch  der  apostolischen  Konstilutionen  in  der  kopti- 
schen  Ueberlieferung— Rezensionen. 

Zeitschrifi  fUr  Theologie  und  Kirche^  May  1904  (Vol.  xiv,  No.  3 : 
Tiibingen  and  Leipzig,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr).  P.  Volz  Was  wir  von  den 
babylonischen  Ausgrabungen  lernen — R.  Otto  Die  Ueberwindung  der 
mechanislischen  Lehre  vom  Leben  in  der  heutigen  Naturwissenschaft. 

Zcitschrifi  fiir  wissenschaftliche  T/teahgie,  April  1904  (Vol.  xlvii, 
N.  F,  xii,  No,  2  :  Leipzig,  O,  R.  Reisland),  W,  Weber  Die  Com- 
position der  Weisheit  Salomons— A.  Kl5pper  Die  durch  naiiirliche 
OfTenbarung  vermittelte  Gotteserkenntnis  der  Heiden  bei  Paulus,  Rom, 
i.  i8fl;— A,  HiLCENPELD  Der  Evangelist  Marcus  und  Julius  Well- 
hausen  :  erster  Artikel — A,  FIilcenfeld  Der  Konigssohn  und  die  Perk 
— M.  PoHLENZ  Die  griechische  Philosophic  im  Dienstc  der  christlichen 


640         THE  JOURNAL   OF  THEOLOGICAL   STUDIES 

lUfcrstchungslehre— J.  Draseke  Patristische  Beitrage :  i.  Zu  Mtsjaoi 
^nfessor«  2.  Zu  Johannes  von  Damaskus— H.  Hiix;Exf£LD  Gii8^ 
Warda — A.  Hilgenfeld  Emmaus  — Anzeigen, 

Zeiischrift  fur  die  neuicstamcnt/ufu  IVisscnschaff  mmd  Se  Kmakia 
Urchristentums,  May  1904  (Vol.  v,  No,  2:  Giessen,  J.  RickcrV  (i 
HoLTZMANN  Das  Abendmahl  im  Urchnstentum — H.  W.\m  Sia* 
Magus  in  der  altchristlichen  Literatur— G.  Kleiw  Zur  EiiiutefuiiC  ^ 
Evangelien  aus  Talraud  und  Midrasch — J.  A.  CKAMe&  Die  caa 
Apologie  Juslins— Misrdlen :  G.  Kruger  Der  getaufte  Lo«e:  L 
Ne:stle  Die  funf  Manner  des  samaritanischen  Weibes:  E.  Nesiu 
Einc  Spur  des  Christentums  in  Pompeji  ? 

Zeitschrift  fur  Kirckengesckichie,  May  1904  (Vol.  xxv,  No.  t\  Gctift 
F.  A,  Perthes).  R.  GErcES  I>ie  Bussstreitigkeiten  in  Rom  am  die 
Mine  des  dritten  Jahrhunderts — W,  K5hler  BoniCatius  in  Hcsseaaad 
das  hessische  Bistum  Buraburg — M.  Broscm  Bonifaz  VIII  uod  & 
Republik  Florenz — J.  Dietterle  Die  Summae  can/essorum  (Fotts.y- 
P.  Kalkoff  Zu  Luthers  romischem  Prozess,  I — O.Veeck  Die  An&ajB 
des  Pietismus  in  Bremen— Analekten  :  DuNCKERZwei  AktemtttckelB 
Reformationsgeschichte  Heilbronns  aus  der  Zeit  des  Augsbuiger  RaA** 
tages  1530,  L 

Theohgische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  April  1904  (1904,  No.  3  :  Goli^ 
F.  A  Perthes),  Laue  Nochmals  die  Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder  im  Dectefr 
jesaja — Treitel  Die  religions-  und  kulturgeschichtliche  Stellung  Pyoi 
— Scheel  Zu  Augustlns  Anschauung  von  der  Erlosung  durch  Chrtfta 
— Berbig  Urkundliches  zur  Reformationsgeschichte^ — Rcienskmcn; 
KoNiG  The  Note-Line  (Kennedy) :  Kawerau  Luther  und  LuihoH* 
in  der  ersten  Entwicfulung  (Denifle). 

Neue  kirchlkhe  Zeitschrift^  April  1904  (Vol.  xv,  No.  4 :  Erlangen  tm^ 
Leipzig,  A.  Deichert).  Beth  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums  und  d« 
historische  Forschung,  III — R.  H.  GrCtzmacher  Die  Fordening  cinff 
inodernen  positiven  Theologie  unter  Beriicksichtigung  von  SedMH]^ 
Th,  Kaftan,  Bousset,  Weinel— W.  Lotz  Der  Bund  vom  Sinai»  VI— Tl- 
Zahn  Neues  und  Altes  iiber  den  Isagogiker  Euthalius — G.  WoHi-DdiW' 
Geschichtliches  zur  Kelchfrage. 

May  1904  (Vol.  xv,  No.  5)  Beth  Das  Wesen  des  r  kis 

und  die  historische  Forschung,  IV— R.  H.  Grutzmacher  D;  n{ 

einer  modemen  positiven  Theologie  unter  Beriicksichtigung  von  Scebui^. 
Th.  Kaftan,  Bousset,  VVeinet — Th.  Zahn  Neues  und  Altes  iibcr  den 
Isagogiker  Euthalius  (Schluss)— D.  Wbiss  Der  Jakobusbrief  irod  dir 
neuere  Kritik. 

June  1904  (Vol.  xv>  No.  6).  D.  Weiss  Der  Jakobusbrief  tad 
dleneuere  Kritik — R.  H.  GrCtzmacher  Die  Forderung  einer  modeflifli 
positiven  Theologie  unter  BerQcksichtigung  von  Seeburg,  Th.  Kaftan. 
Bousset,  Wcinel— Beth  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums  und  die  histonidie 
Forschung,  V— Couard  Altchristliche  Sagen  iiber  das  Lebcn  (kt 
Apostel. 


a*^  A 


uCry^ 


^.  o-i.Tbe  yournal 

P  'J' 

Theological  Studies 


Vol.  V 


PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 


OCTOBER,   1903 


No.  17 


I 


CONTENTS 

•AGAINST  THE  STREAM,"    By  the  Riv.  J.  Beverjogi,  B.D. 

THE  GREEK  MONASTERIES  IN  SOUTH  ITALY.    lit.     By  the  Rtv 

TH'  F  CAPERNAUM.    By  tbe  Rtv,  W.  Sj^koav,  D.D. 

I  DOC                S : 
SOMS    RECENTLY    DISCOVERED    FRAGMENTS    OF    IrISH     SACRAHENTAfLlSS 
By  the  Rev.  H,  M.  Bakkister     
KOmS  AND  STUDIES: 
The  Old  Latin  Tkets  or  th£  Mikor  PitopuKis.   I.    By  \!tk^  Riv, 
W.  O.  E.  Oesterlev,  B.D. 
A  Re-collation  or  Codex  k  or  the  Old  Latin  Gospels.     By  C.  H 
TtlRMSR            
1       Further  Notes  on  Codex  *.    By  F,  C.  Burkitt 
^ft.Soia  Further  Notes  on  the  MSS  or  t^s  WRiriNGa  or  Sr.  Athama 
^f      aiua.    By  the  Rev,  K- Lake 
'        Notes  on  the  Scccession  or  the  Bishops  £^l  St,  Anorkws.   IL    By 
the  Right  Rtv.  John  Dowdbn^  D,D.     
Tax  Cmristologt  or  Cupi£Nt  of  Aixxakdru.     By  the  Riv.  Vi 
Ermoni         ,, „, ^..        ,. 
Tmr  Earuest  Imosjc  or  tmk  Imquisition  at  Vcnici.    By  R,  L.  Poole 
REVIEW  : 

A  Study  in  the  History  or  EcYrriAN  MoNASTtctsu  \S<kt*mt$  van 
Atnpi  and  die  Entstthun^  dts  naftonat  ^gyptisthtn  Chrt3f(»fMm<, 
J.  Lcipoldt).     By  W.  E.  Crum     . 

CHRONICLE: 

pATRisTicA.     By  C.  H,  Turner 

Hagiograpiiica,     By  Dom  Boti>er 
RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


rAaa 

1 


22 
42 


49 
76 

100 

115 

128 
127 


134 
147 
1S7 


^^H  lonDon 

^H  MACMILLAN    AND    CO.,    Limited 

^^F  NEW  YORK:   TUX  MAC&IILtAH  OQ. 

Price  as*  6d.  net.    Annual  Subdcriptioo,  Post  Frao,  ess.  oeL 


MACM/LLAN  d:  CO/S 
NEW  THEOLOGICAL  WORKS. 


ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS.    A  Rewied 

Text  And  TruisIttion<  with  £xpo«itioQ  &iid  Notc&     By  J.  Akmitagk  Romaoi^ 
D.D.,  VtMXk  of  Westminster.    8tOi  121. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS.    The  Greek  Tat. 

with  Notet  uhI  Ettajrs  by  the  Ule  BUhop  Wcstcott.    8*0.  [/m  Itt  frat. 


CHRISTIAN  SOCLVL  UNION  ADDRESSES.     By  the  late 

Brookb.Foss  Westcott,  D.D.,  D.CX.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Darlmm.    Cro«n  ^w.  it- 
net. 


COMMON  PRAYERS  FOR  FAMILY  USE.     By  Brooks 

Fgss  VVestcott,  D.D,,  D.C.L.,  sometime  Lord  Bishop  of  DuAim.     Crown  *«, 
w,  net  _ 

SECOND  EDITION,  R£VISLD  AND  ENLARGED, 

A    SYNOPSIS    OF    THE   GOSPELS  IN   GREEK.     With 

wioits  Readings  tind  Critical  Notes.     By  the  Rev.  ARTRt^lt  WrigUT^  B.D^  Vlce^ 
Pmidcnt  of  Qncens'  College,  Cambridge'  Demy  4I0,  loi;.  net* 


VOLUME  VI  NOW  READY, 

I  mSTORY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH*    Edited  hf 

the  Ute  Dean  Stephens  and  the  Rer.  W.  Hunt,  M.A,     In   Ei^ht  VdnMH 
Crown  8vo,  with  Maps. 

Vol.  VI.  The  English  Church  from  the  Accession  of  Charles  I  to  the 
Death  of  Anne  (1625-1714),  By  the  R<^.  W.  H.  Hnrrov,  RD. 
With  Map.     Crown  8vo,  71.  W- 

♦,»  Privwusly  PukHshid,  Vois.  I'IV\  Jj.  f>d,  mch^ 


JUDAISM  AS  CREED  AND  LIFE.      By  the  Rev,  MoRRK 

Joseph,     Extra  Crown  8vo,  5/.  net. 
DAILY  CffROSICLE,^'ll  wHI  doabtlesu  be  highly  valued  in  Jtnptali  cir  la' 

which  deserves  to  be  macb  more  widely  reAd.      Its  tODC  if  exedfent,  aod  it  i  tiO'  1 

Jodatam,  as  a  relij^ion  or  to-day,  better  undknitood  and  appreciated.  .        T'  j<ii<r 

cnae  of  great  imensst.*  ^ ^ 

THE  SOUL.     A  Study  and  an  Argument.     By  David  Sv^reT 

Croivn  8vo,  41.  6^^.  net, 
CHURCH  TIMES,"*  We  bope  all  tbinkiou  men  wiir  five  k»d  to  Mr.  Srmc's  wort,  for  wlkftb^ 
hit  CQudustons  arc  adopted  or  oot,  we  believe  his  defence  of  the  theory  of  cntnd,  or  soiV  *^  ^ 
basis  of  all  existences  i»  caJctttalcd  to  destroy  mach  of  the  loose  tbeoriiing  which  fttnca  atic 
the  name  of  maieriallsm.* 

MIRACLES  AND  SUPERNATURAL  RELIGION.  ByjAMES 

MoRKJS  W  HITON,  Ph.D.  Vale.     Fcap.  Svo,  3J.  net. 
EXAMINER—' Ercn  thote  n ho  may  disagree  with  Dr.  Whiton'«  trrjiunent  of  ftanJcular 
will  tin<j:  in  his  book  many  illQminatia|r  passaged  which  itft  the  Lhottplils  lo  greater  horights.  .  .  . 
l>ook  t«  s  model  of  facidiiy.  .  .  .  This  Is  not  a  book  pHtris  virgimhusqtm,  but  atronfuiesl  lar  < 
and  fhoracn  perplcMd  by  the  problems  of  the  day^especialty  those  raised  \fy  ihb  grOOTl  it 
•«ienli|)c  apfril.' 


;acmlll^n  &  co.»  limited.  London. 


MACM/LLAN  6t  CO.*S  LIST. 


• 


I 
^ 


^ 


Works  by  Bishop  Lightfoot,  B*D, 

THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS.    Part  I,    St.  Clement  or  Rome.    Revised 

Texts,  with  Introdactions,  Notes,   Dissertatioas,  and  Translationf,     Two  Vols.^ 
8to,  33J. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS*  Part  II.  St.  Ignatius,  St.  Polycahp. 
Revised  Texts^  with  Introductions^  Notes,  DisBertations,  and  Tr.usLitlons.  Three 
Volt-,  8vo,  48J. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS.  Abridged  Edition,  with  short  Introductions, 
Greek  Text,  and  English  Translation.     8vo,  i6j. 

NOTES  ON  EPISTLES  OF  ST,  PAUL  from  Unpublished  Comment arics, 
8vo,  1 2 J. 

ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLES  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS  AND  TO  PHILEMON*      j^ 

A  Rerised  Text,  with  Introductions,  Notes,  and  Dissert ition^.     8vo,  ta^. 

ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATL^NS,     A  Revised  Text,  with 

Introduction^  Notes,  and  Dissertations.     8vo,  12/. 

ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPlANa  A  Revised  Text,  with 
Introdnction,  Notes,  and  Disicrlations.    Svo,  12s. 

DISSERTATIONS  ON  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE,  Reprinted  from  Editions 
of  St.  Pftors  Epistles.    Svo,  i  \s. 

ON  A  FRESH  REVISION   OF  THE   ENGLISH   NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Crown  8vo,  7^.  6d. 

ORDINATION  ADDRESSES  AND  COUNSELS  TO  CLERGY.  Crown 
8vo,  6j. 

LEADERS  IN  THE  NORTHERN  CHURCH,  Sermons  Preached  in  the 
Diocese  of  Darham.    Crown  8vo,  6s, 

CAMBRIDGE  SERMONS.     Crown  8vo,  ^. 

SERMONS  PREACHED  IN  ST*  PAUL'S  CATHEDRAL.    Crown  8vo,  6j. 

SERMONS  PREACHED  ON  SPECIAL  OCCASIONS.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

ESSAYS  ON  THE  WORK  ENTITLED  *  SUPERNATURAL  RELIGION,* 
Reprinted  from  '  The  Contemporary  Review.*    8tq,  6/.  net. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY.    Crown  8vo,  3J.  net. 

HISTORICAL  ESSAYS.    Globe  8vo,  4/,  net.  I  Tki  Eversity  Scriis. 

BIBLICAL  ESSAYS.    8vo,  I2J. 

INDEX  OF  NOTEWORTHY  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  FOUND  IN  THE 
CLEMENTINE   WRITINGS,  commoolf  caUed  the  Homilies  of  ClemeoL 

8vo,  5J. 

BISHOP  LIGHTFOOT.  Reprinted  from  *The  Quarterly  Review/  With 
ft  riefntory  Note  by  the  Bishop  of  Darham.    With  Portrait.    Crown  8vo»  y.  dd. 


MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  UMYT1EI),  \.0^\:>^^ 


Published  byT.  &T.CLARK9  Edinburgh^ 


THE  NOTE-LINE  IN  THE  HEBRrv        iirTi  r  r 

or  *  PM?q  *      By  jAMfcS  KJtHNEOV,  D.D.,   I 

Tliia  trcatiw  i*  tJic  rrsuJt    of  f    ^r--      !   . 
Heljrew  Text  of  thr  OIJ  Te^arr, 
have  been  purposety  pbccd  bi-s 

iDAde  ai  the  entire  Scriptures,  »m>.  ...v  ^ -.■..  n.>..ji.-.  .^kn  i,j.^  y<jx.^:^j.  ;.--. 
Teatajni^t  as  a  conlributton  toward*  a  better  nnderiULndkfig;  of  c«ruiii» 
the  Massoretic  Text*. 

OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.     By  Prof.  H,  P.  Smitti,  1 
U.S.A.    (Ncn  Volumf^  of  *Thi»   Iniornfitional  Tbtological  LibrarT.*1i    P' 
•Tb^  r -  '•  -  ■'-. ■■ ■' •---  '»--  


Ffc^' 


*•  »J'  r^'l'.l     -.*     I  I 


H 


"—From  the  Prcfac<c. 


i-'i  irvrii'.   tvioirtAJ  •cjTErc  UlL' 


vOPHECY.      By  the  Ute  Prof,  A.    n. 


with  B: 
eiceptii 
for  A  or^ 

OLD   I 

L.L  V  hmi-  r,  A.  Pai£*so?i,  D  U 

THE  t  Lfi  OF  CHRISTIANITY.      A  Stn^v 

By  Ptu(  W.  ADAUS  Brown.  D  IX.  New  \ 

*  A  remarkable  liouk,  .  .      There  is  no  bor.:  .4  |J|aiJ«MMc  l^ailylil^l^Bii 

to  the  Enji^^liiah  stuilcnt.'— Dr,  H-xstlngi  in  the  *";  *.c...,.  /j.  4  ^^r.,^. 

THE    BOOK    OF    NUMBERS.        New    volume    of    'The 

CotftoirfliArj'  •)    By  Prof.  G.  Bl'CBak.w  Grav,  D.D.,  Oifortl    With  Mi,-    ^.^ 

*  Indlspcn*a.blc  to  every  Enj^Itsh  ttxuitnt'-^AMrcA  Bells, 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST,  PETER  AND  ST.  JUOE,     By  r.i*.t*t 

D.O.,  Canon  of  Chrift  ChnrcH,  Oxfor>l    ('The  IniematioaaJ  CnttoU  Coomirr 
'  Tbere  i«  tio  other  commeniafv  m  EnjjHsh  on  St.  Peter  and  St,  J«de  of  equal  ttf 

DR«  HASTINGS*  D!  V^Y  OF  THE  BIBLE.    4  Volv 

j8i.F.  each.    Also  in  var  locco  Bin<lift|pi,  p;icc-i  pn  a^ij^licatiofi.      Fu 
SpcdmcD  P>  ■     "^      '■■■■ 

*  We  have  n*  .   DicUoMrf  (0  WOnhaH^  of  ll»  BiV 
wtu-kof  the  kin                                                 .         ja, 

Edinburgh:  T.  &  T.  CLARK,  36  George  Street* 

SPHERE.-^*  Out  0/  ihf  bist  of  ikt  lUtmry  organt: 

3d      €ljP  l&ilOt     3d 

A  WEEKLY  REVIEW 

or 

POLITICS,  LITERATURE,  and   LEARNING 

Every  Saturday.       Price  Threeponce. 


Offices:  a  EXETER  STREET.  STRAND,  W-C 


ik 


Journal  of  Theological  Studies. 

COmMtTTEB  OP  DiRBCTiONi 

Rev.  Dr.  INCE,  Rcgitis  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford- 
Rev.  Dn  Sv'F^'^    ''- Hus  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridfe, 
Rev,  Dr,  D\  jjus  Pjrjlessor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Ki: ..  .^k,  The  Lady  Margaret*'^  i?.^^^rio^  ;..  nfviiuty,  C^oaX 

Rev.  Dr.  Lock,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  l:  !. 

Very  Rev,  Dr.  J.  Arshtage  ROBINSON,  Deau  ^i   ..c- -ler;  Utc  S'i>ni«Jii 

Professor  of  Divimiy,  Cambridge. 
Rev,  Dr.  SandaV,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 
Rev.  Dr.  Stanton,  Ely  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

BorrosiS: 
Rev.  H.  k,  Wilson,  u^'^^aAtxv  c^NXt^t^.o-vfetd. 

W,  Em  ERV  B  AW.NES  ,t>  A> ., W>iVs«kSi^ ttA<tsv»<AXiWvtL\Vi  .'^  ^.tiboUAc,  c*4.*  ^  a 


PrinitI  ^*  »»^'  Ci^«oma^4  IhA^  ^^l'^t^^.^t  W^-k.x\W^.Pwv.X^  t«  ty.  v 


The  yournal 


of 


Theological  Studies 


PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 


Vol  V 


JANUARY,   1904 


No.  18 


CONTENTS 

fkGM. 

THE    REACTION     OF     MODERN     SCIENTIFIC    THOUGHT    ON 

THEOLOGICAL  STUDY.     By  the  Rev.  VV.  Cusningiiam,  D.D.      ...       161 

A  PLEA  FOR  SCHOLASTIC  THEOLOGY.     By  J.  OTallon  Pope,  SJ.       174 

THE  GREEK  MONASTERIES  IN  SOUTH  ITALY,    IV\     By  the  Rev. 
K.  Lake  

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  TRIENNIAL  CYCLE  ON  THE  PSALTER. 
By  the  Rev,  E.  G.  King,  D,D 

I  THE     PURPOSE    OF    THE    TRANSFIGURATION.      By    the    Rt\'. 
A.  T.  Fkykk     ... 
DOCUMENTS: 
A.V  EXEGETICAL  FRAGMENT  OF  THE  ThIRS  CeHTURY*     Bj  C.  H,  TuRWER 
KOTES  AND  STUDIES: 
Ttt«  Oli>  Lati.h  Texts  or  thi  Minoa  PnopHrre-  IL     By  ihe  Rev. 
W.  O.  E.  Oesterley,  B.D 
Notes  on  the  Succession  or  the  Btanops  or  Sr  Amdaews*   HI.    By 
f           the  Right  Rev.  John  DowDEN,  D.D 
A  RHYTiiiiJCAL   Prater   ik   the   Book  of  Cerhc      By  the  Rev. 
R  A  Wilson         
The   Lection-Systeii   or   the   Coosz;  Macedosiahus.     By  W,  C. 
Braithwaite          *.. 
Clabsndon  Press  Greek  Testaments.     By  £.  Nestle,  1>J) 

1      K£VIEWS: 

B        A  Teet-Book  or  North- Semitic  Inscriptioks  (G,  A.  Cooks).    By 

^B  A.  A.  Bevan 

H        The  Bible  in  the  NiNrrcEiiTH  Cewtury  (J.  Estlw  Carpemter).    By 

^»^      the  Rev.  R.  L.  Ottley      , ♦. 

^^^LThe   Expansion    of   CiiRtSTiANiTY   (A.    Harnack).      By   the   Rev. 

^^B     ^-  ^-  Watson  

^^^^  Soke  Apocryphal  Acts  of  Apostles.    By  Dr.  M.  R.  James 
^H        A  Monastic  Chartvlart  (Bishop  Dowdew).     By  R*  L.  Pooll 
^B        Individualism  and  AtrrHORtTY  ((7o</  and  tkt  Inclipidu'ity  and  AuUiOtiiy 
B  m  the  Chunh.     Dr.  Strong),    By  the  Rev.  C.  J.  Shebucane 

"chronicle: 

i  Old  Testament.    By  Uie  Rev.  W,  E,  Barnes,  D.D.,  and  the  Rev. 

■  C.  H.W.Johns      

J^  ASSTRIOLOGY      AND      THE      COOE      OF      (jAMMUMABt.  By     thc      RiV. 

^^  C.  H.W.Johns   


189 
203 
214 
ai8 

243 

253 

274 

281 

284 

2S9 
2i)2 

2&9 

305 
310 


RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES      31?  - 


Ronton 
MACMILLAN    AKB    COn  \-vvi\'^^\i 

NEW  YORK:  THl  MKOUUAIK  Ift. 


Published  byT.  &T.CLARKy  Edinburgh. 


By  the  late  Professor  A.  B.  DAVIDSON*  D.O.,  LL.O,,  LiU-D, 

1,  OLD  TESTAMENT   PROPHECY.    Edited  by  Piol  J.  A.  Faixisok, 

'  Aft  an  ^tcf<ele  •'*  •' 
coaRDcndattea  b 
«BC  of  tkt  OMWl  r*  >rLs  DOLftd^  to  Otd  Te«tamcot  IkeraUtfc  in  reonat rtiaw.  U  it  • 

iaMnKiiTelMo^  --...     .  ^..  <. 

2.  WAITING  UPON  OOD.  A  Ftmberand  Fiiuil  SelectioaofSenDons.  Pctt»ra,«K 

Thtrc  h  in  ihii  mlamc  a  mott  TAn^^'^  tI"."!  ot  ofilir:  ititHor*«ebeic«at  mrorlE.   The iQ4fvU«ld 
applkationv,  the  ncgstirc  litutrati  ^ndUie«iblJe 

nnd  BOliTv.  pnnretMt  th  »  scbcJaj  v 


-r-d  wTitmi^  Profenor  Daridann  was  probtMy  ojuivalled- * . 
liarm  an'lbnlliancy  of  the  literarf  ciyle.    T*e  volBme  m  a 


i 


S2 


cofomonly  cilled  *  Pie)* 

P«»l  SroL  xc  &£  adL 


I 


THENorr  *  *vr  r  tt'         ki^nv  script:- 

or  '  ^-  V  College  Ubrirv 

♦  Every  <-  i  J  this karned  and  .   v^ 
OLD  TESTAMENT  HI5TORV.     By  Prof.  H.  P.  Smitw,  nn.,  Amhcnt  Cofleje, 

U.S  JV.    (New  VoWme  of  'Tlte  IntertiarictiaJ  Tbeolo|pcal  ISttrmrj,')    F\>st  *ro,  ra*. 
'  The  porpoK  of  thi«  roltune  is  to  put  inio  narrative  form  the  resaka  of  rroeflt  Old  X^amm 
•tttdy,  .  .  .  Am  ia  aecnlar  hirtorr  new  treatise^  air  poured  frocn  the  Preaa  ya^x  by  rear  to  h  aaa  l» 
wtth  Biblical  and  e«clr«ia»iimi  ^i<rr>rt      No  «c««nce  it  tti&r  complete,  and  ISiblical  »aam  k  ■ 
ciceptk>Ti  to  the  tule-    The  r  ome  rrspecta  ttartlta^  rcmltaef  rccidBt  Bbblieal 

for  a  new  historical  rrcon^tru  u  the  Preface* 

THE    BOOK    OF    NUAu  (New   volume   of    *  The    I&taiattcflil  C 

ComTDcuiaTy.*)    By  Prof.  G  buiifAnAHGnAT,  D  D.  0»ford.    With  llap^    8na,  tu. 

'Indiipensabtc  to  every  Enji;li»Fi  MmicnU'— Oiiir<4  /?ifi'/j'. 

HAMMURABI'S  COUE  OF  LAWS.    B.C,  22^$  924^.    The  OMeit  Code 

Law*  in  thr,  world.    TransUlcd  by  C  H.  W.  JORXS,  li-A^  Quen«»'  Coliegc^  CcflBtc^pt, 
Svo,  ij.  1^.  net. 

*  The  mt»t  important "'  fin'l  *'  in  io  -^igy-    For  its  bearinga  apoa  the  Oid  Ti 

ment  it  i*  a  partjcularly  wckomc  i\<->  -t. 

THE  ESSENCE  OF  CHRl:^  i  i ...  .  i  : .      A  Study  in  the  History  tif  Dcfiwfc* 
By  Prof.  W.  AnA«S  Browtii,  D.D.,  New  Yorlt.    Pcmw  8w>,  df,  net- 
'  A  remarkable  book.  ,  .  .  There  is  no  Uo^k  of  recent  issue  in  AxneHca  tbat  ta  mgre  iikcl/  to  ufyO* 
to  the  Pn^Ii^h  ttudcnt  '— Dr.  Hasiin|*B  in  the  Ex^itory  TimtM. 

LEXICON  SYRl  ACUM,     by  C.  Brockelmann.    With  Preface  by  Prof.  Kikiasfc 

In  handsome  Rotbtarghc  bin  !^ri;;.  X'jj.  net. 

'Will  be  wrlcotned  on  all  '  Mng  ^hsit  hailon^been  the  cnoct eoupleBoai  k.mmtk 

&emittcBibUogTaphy/-Prof.  \ui>y.  D  D. 

New  D;..;..^.  _,"aALOGUE  Frks  ox  AfplicAtiox, 

EdinburirH:  T.  &  T.  CLARK*  38  George  Street. 

tCbe  ©uarbiaiL 

with  wJUcli  la  Uicorporated  *  (JbC  CbUtCbWOmait/ 


THE  GUARDIAN  \s  a  Weekly  Journal  of  Politics,  Literatt 
Education,  and  the  Fine  Arts,  for  Churchmea  and  Chui 
women,  dealing  with  the  Ecclesiastical  and  many  of  the  seoiltf 
sides  of  social  and  industrial  activity.     Whilst  Ecclesiastical  am! 
Political  Subjects  are  treated  from  a  definite  Church  standi 
its  Correspondence  columns  are  open  to  all  shades  of  opini^ 
Special  reports  are  given  of  all  important  matters  connected 
the  Church  and  Education. 

The  Guardian  is  issued  every  Wednesday  at  i  p.ra.,  price  jif^,  by 
3  J</.,  and  is  supplied  regularly,  post-free,  direct  from  the  office,  to  Subscri! 
paying  in  advance  only,  at— per  Quarter  (13  numbers),  35.  91^. ;  per  Half*; 
(26  numbers),  75.  6d.  \  per  Year  (52  numbers),  155,    To  Subscribers 
— 17s.  per  annum.    It  may  also  be  obtained  from  any  Newsagent, 

Advertisements  should  reiich  the  GfTice  not  later  tliMi  11  »,a.  »a  TiiiM4aj. 
nuot  must  be  made  in  advance  on  the  following  Scale;— 

ThrM  Xiliies  and  irnder        ...        ...        Fotir  SliUll&rs. 

Svery  Addltioaia  ]«lii*  jriaapeae*. 

Oa  an  ayerage  foor  words  may  be  reckoned  for  the  6rst  line,  and  eight  words  for  1 
line  afterwards ;  but  Advertisements  are  charged  according  to  space  occnpicd. 

In  all  cases  where  replies  to  advert in^'ments;  are  to  be  forwarded  from  the  OCotl 
addltionitl  charge  of  6d.  is  made  on  each  insertion. 

Notices  of  Testimonials,  Btrths,  Marriages,  and  Deatlii  are  inserted  at  80.  9A*  ocft  fi* 
Iwo  lines,  and  a  Shilling  for  evcr>'  additional  Uoc. 

All  litters  rtspecling  Adveriisements  and SuhcHptiom  should  -       ^  *         >  PllUiAt*. 
*  Tl&«  Oua^TAiaxi'  01&q«^  b  ^tuc\«^i£^  ^\x%%t.  Strand^  W,a    l>\  ostal  <.)r^a», 

on  ihc  Po«l  OtJvcc,  ^<S^}  "Syt^aiA^  iX^tavJv'i  \*:  \^^ttV'=^'^'^^^^  ^A.hifc->  li/vJLi  i  i  Orbcnan' 


JUST  READY.        AN  IDEAL  GIFT-BOOK 

A  handsome  folio  (i6|  by  la^  b.),  ftitisticAlly  bound  m  white  clotb,  gilt,  16l.  net 

(Postage  9d.  extra), 

THE  GOSPEL  in  the 
OLD  TESTAIVIENT. 

24  ORIGINAL  COLOURED  PICTURES  BY 

HAROLD  COPPING 

(Mounted  od  stout  artistic  paper). 

With  Descriptive  Letterpress  by 

THE   LORD   BISHOP  OF  DURHAM. 

Uoiform  with  '  Scene*  in  the  Life  of  our  Lord.'     (l6s.  net,) 
The  drawings  embody  some  results  of  Mr.  Copping's  visit  to  the  East  in  1905.     His 
conception  of  the  ioddeot  or  personage  depicted  ia  often  ns  striking  in  its  independence 
and  originality  as  it  is  rich  in  its  spiritual  suggest iveness,  whilst  the  details  of  landscape, 
clothing  and  surroundings  are  the  rcsnlts  of  careful  slndy  on  the  spot. 

TAe  MamtHg  BtfitAjn :— '  Mr,  Coi»plny  luu  been  expresaBl^  to  Palestine  to  examine  the  actual  scenea 
of  Bible  incidcnta.    The  result  is  a  icxies  of  liuJc  Scriptural  idy1l«  perfectly  illiuitratcd  and  described,* 
Tk*  CJkrittian  World u^y^ :— '  Altogether  as  a  gifC-book  noUiing  Viandsotoer  could  be  dealred.' 

PUBLISHED    BY   THE    RELIGIOUS  TRACT  SOCIETY, 
4  Bouvene  Street,  London,  E.C*. 


THE  LEADINQ  NEWSPAPER  FOR  CHURCHMEN. 

tCbe  (3uar6ian. 

The  most  representative,  and  almost  the  oldest,  Church  paper* 
being  first  published  in  1846  to  rally  the  forces  of  the  Church,  then 
demoralized  by  the  secession  of  John  Henry  Newman,  and  sup* 
ported  then  and  ever  since  by  the  most  distinguished  Churchmen 
and  Scholars,  lay  and  clerical,  of  the  day.  In  its  columns  many 
famous  reviews  have  appeared -as,  for  instance,  those  of  'Ecce 
Homo'  and  New^man's  'Apologia'  by  Dean  Church— and  the 
adequate  notice  of  contemporary  literature  is  still  one  of  its  fore- 
most features.  Its  articles  on  political  and  current  topics  command 
general  respect  and  attention,  while  the  correspondence  columns 
are  open  to  expressions  of  all  shades  of  opinion. 


3d. 


EVERY  WEDNESDAY. 


3d. 


OFFICES;  29  KING  STREET,  OO^JtHT  <^k^^^\\>H\^^ 


I 


1 


L 


WILLIAMS  &  NQRGATE 

Now  Re«<^y,  a  Vols,,  with  Maps,  25s.  net 

THE  MISSION  AND  EXPANSION  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  THT 
FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES.    By  Adolv  Hajlnack,  DJDl    TnMi«iM 

■ad  Edited  by  Rev.  James  Mopfatt,  D.D. 

-  ^   ' ' u««i  M>  cbaoged  And  ftdd«4  to  »J  to  reqaire  aa  eotirdy  ne»  trawfa 
•  J  (nftMt  «od  in  lui  nrw  form  it  will  r&nK  as  a  ataiii'l&id  work  on  tki*  i 


Tl.,   _^_     -, 


Theological  Translation    Libpary. 

Subscriben  obtntn  Three  Vols,  for  229.  6d.  post  free,  payable  tti  admoce. 
Separately,  the  Voluoacs  cost  10a.  6tt.  net*  po$Uge  extn. 
Su^riftHims  f&r  tht prtkcommg ytctr  now  dm,  ami  xt*iP.  inci^dt : — 

Now  Kea<1y,     500  p<)ges  Demy  Svo.     lOs.  6d,  net. 
ETHICS  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.    By  Dr  Thkodok  vok  Uai 

f'rofessor  of  New  Testament  Dotjnjfiiici  and  Ethics  at  Tiibingen. 

In  ihe  Pre^, 

PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY:  its  Writings  and  Teachings 

their  Historical  Connection.    Vot.  IL  Hij^torical  Books^    By  Orro 
D.D.,  late  Professor  of  I'ractical  Theolo^'  in  the  Unii^irsily  of  Bexlia. 

TMg  Third  WstuHie  /»>  camjktfU  thit  Sutwyiptiam  kms  n^t yti  UeM  dtddfdvfvw. 

Crown  Theological  Library. 

Author  jtist  awarded  the  NOBFX  PRIZE  for  Uteramnr. 
TUST  READY.    Crown  8vo,  doth.  So. 
THE  LIFE  OF  THE  SPIRIT.     By  Rudolf  Euckek,  Proibacc  of 

sophy  in  J^Ba. 

Dp.  Harnack's  New  Testament  Studies. 

Vol.  IlL    JUST  REAPV.    Crown  8vo,  cloth,  00. 
THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.    By  Adolf  Haknack,  DP, 
of  Church  History  in  the  Untveraity  of  BeiUn. 

EARLIER   VOLUMES  OF  STtm/SS— 

Vol.  I.    Crown  8vo,  cloth,  68.  f  VoL  H,    Crown  8vo,  c'-.n,  oft. 

LUKE  THE  PHYSICIAN.         I      THE  SAYINGS  OF  JESUS 

JANUARY  NUMBER  REAPV.     28.  6d.  ntt;  28.  9d.  port  fiw. 

THE  HIBBERT  JOURNA 

PA'JNClP.4l   COXTENT.S. 
Some  Recent  Inveatigatioos  by  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research.     By  Lhr  Rijlt  H<ll 

G.  \V.  BALFt>irR, 
New  Facts  on  our  Survivnl  of  Death.     By  Principal  JOHN  GilujaX. 
The  Doctrine  of  the  Earth-Sonl  and  of  Beinga  intermediate  between  Man  lod  OoA. 

Professor  WILLIAM  JamEj. 
Psychotherftpcntics  and  Religion.     By  Dr.  Henry  RUTORRS  M^RSKaix. 
The  Social  Conscience  of  the  Future.     By  Miss  ViDA  ScUDDIK. 
Is  the  Old  Testament  a  suitable  basis  for  Moral  Instruction  ?     By  th«  Rigbt  Rer. 

Bishop  of  Tasmania. 
The  Central  Problem  of  the  Interaattonnl  Congress  on  Monti  Educalion.     Bjr 

J.  H.  MiriRHEAD, 

Je«ns  or  Christ?    An  Appeal  for  C  \.     By  the  Ret.  R.  Roi 

The  Message  of  Modem  Matbemri  'logy.     By  ProfcjBor  •  f.i. 

A  Great  Reform  in  the  Treatment  oi  ^.i.....j.ils.     Pv  '^''  -  ^  •  "'^  • 

Christian  Missions  as  affected  by  Uberai  TUeolog; 

Rcligiou.«}  and  Social  Aipccts  of  the  C«ll  of  Ancc 

Farnell. 
With  a  number  of  Discnssions,  Signed  Reviewi,  and  Ribtiogrtiphy  of  IteecBt 

I  WtLLlAHS  &  NORGATE,  14  HENRIETTA  ST.,  COTENT  6ARDKH,L0KD< 


The  yournal 

of 

'heological  Studies 


PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 


APRIL,  1904 


No.  19 


CONTENTS 

IE  INJUNCTIONS  OF  SILENCE  IN  THE  GOSPELS.    By  the  Rev. 

W.  Sanday,  D.D 

IE  EARLY  CHURCH  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS.     By  F.  C 

BURKtTT  

[E  AUSTIN  CANONS  IN  ENGLAND  IN  THE  TWELFTH 
CENTURY.     By  the  Re\'.  Canon  T.  Scott  Holmss 

TE  HISTORICAL  SETTING  OF  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD 
EPISTLES  OF  ST  JOHN.     By  Dom  J.  Chapman   ... 

DOCUMENTS: 

The    Syrian    Liturgies    of   the    Presancttfieo.    II.    By   H,    W. 

CODRINGTON „ 

NOTES  AND  STUDIES: 

Th«  Old  Latih  Tkts  or  thx  Mikor  Prophets.  III.    By  the  Rrv, 

W.  O.  E.  Oesterley,  B.D 

The  Metrical   Endings   or  the    Leonine  Sacramentary.     By  the 

Rev.  H.  a.  Wilson         

The  Poemandres  of  Hcrkes  Trismegistus,     By  Frank  Grangw*. 
The  First  Latin  Christian  Poet.     By  the  Rev.  A.  J.  Mason,  D.D, 
The  Interpolations   in  St  Cyprian's   Dt  Unitah  Eccltsiae,     By  the 

Rrv.  E.  W.  Watson         ...        ..,        

Remarkable  Readings  m  the  Palestiniaj»  Svriac  Lectionary.    By 

Professor  J.  T,  Marshall         

The  Scribe  of  the  Leicester  Codex.     By  Dr  M,  R.  James 

Jachin  and  Boaz,     By  the  Rev.  W,  E.  Barnes,  D.D.  

On  Ro)ians  IX  5  and  Mark  xiv  61,     By  F.  C.  Burkitt       

The  Justification  of  Wisdom^     By  the  Rev.  A,  T.  Burbrioge 

On  the    Use   of  the    Qmcunque   vuli    rN   the   Book   or   Common 

Prayer.     By  the  late  Henky  Braoshaw       

Clarendon  Press  Greek  Testaments,     By  E,  Nestle,  D.D 

Notes  on  the  Bishops  or  St  Andrews  :  Addenda  rr  Corrigenda. 

By  the  Right  Rev.  John  Dowden 

REVIEWS  : 

The  Philosophy  of  Religion  {Grundpmhtemt  dtr  ReligionsphihiophH 

Dr  a.  Dorner).     By  the  Riv.  F.  R.  Tennant.  B.D 

The  Doctrines  of  the  Fall  and  Original  Sik  (,F.  R.  Txnnant). 

By  the  Rev.  C.  Bigg,  D.D ,.        

The  Life  of  Sev^rus  hy  Zacharias  the  Scholastic  (M.  A,  Kucener). 

By  E.  W.  Brooks  .  

Miscellanea    , 

RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


FAGB 

821 

aso 

343 
867 

860 

378 

386 
896 
413 

432 

487 
415 
447 
461 
455 

458 
461 

462 

464 

166 

469 
47(r 
475 


MACMILLAN    AND    CO.,    Limited 

NEW  YOKK :   THE  MACUll.\AH  0>. 

Annual  SubsctHUoti,  Vqi^Tx%^Og»'- 


MACMILLAN  &  CO:S 

NEW  AND  FORTHCOMING  THEOLOGICAL  WOffi 


ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS.    A  Revi«d  Tefi 

mn^i  Tr«Mktiort,  with  Expotltioo  and  Note*.    By  J.  AfiMiT.iGB  Rohixsom,  DD^  Daa<if»«* 
mintter.    8vo,  lit, 
*  We  can  acarccly  pvc  bi^^cr  praise  to  Dr.  RohinKm"}  '*  Ephe^an*  '*  than  that  mhifh  is 
vxprrsioa  of  oar  opinion  that  if  is  warthv  of  a  place  beitde  th-r  Comin«ntarie«  of  LifltffoelW* 
and  Swrtc.    And  an  expontioe  of  this  Rptstk  nn  the  acal^  of  tfw^r  writing*  was  niadi  »*««* 
•obrmcn  of  jadj^ement,  accuracy  of  wHolarBhip.  larifenrsB  of  view  and  complelciiia*  of 
work 


the  teaching  of  St.  Paul*  the  work  which  m  now  In  oaf  hands  leares  nothin|[  to  br>  d^tSred. 
whieh  is  hi  every  way  to  excellent,  and  which  in  rverr  pace  RiTca  m  a  fn^  HitiThc  into 
aad  parpoac  of  what  is,  from  at  least  one  point  of  virw,  the  grcateat  of  Sc  PsAr*  Epitflefc 

THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  ST.  JOHN.    The  Greek  TexL  with  Infl 

tltiction.  Notes,  aod  Indices.     By  H.  B,  SwETR^  D.D,.  Regina  Profcawr  of  tKTtnitT«£* 
bndgT,  Hvo.  [fmmffm 

THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  UNIVERSE,      By  J.  Aumssoh  Ptn* 

Author  of  *  Essay*  on  the  Mystrry  of  MaUer.'     8vo,  tor.  net.  (js*^ 

THE    CHRISTLAN    IDEA    OF    ATONEMENT.      Antrus  LrtOT« 

ddtvewd  at  Rceenfi  Park  CoUcgf  in  1003.  By  T.ViMCBirT  TvuMS,DX>,  (St.  AodirwNV  ^»5) 
of  Rawdon  Colleije.    Cro«Ti  8vo.  7s.  6</.  l?**""^ 

THE    FAITH    OF    A    CHRISTIAN.    By  a  Disciple-    Crown  N, 

,V.  6*/.  net.  r^*""^ 

HISTORY    OF    THE     CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    FROM   THE 

REFORMATION  TO  THE  PRESENT  TIME.    By  Vcn.  S.  CH££THAJt,  D.D.    Cipw>^ 

ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS.    TheGn^Tcft 

With  IntTodaction  and  Notes.     By  the  Jatc  BrOOCS  Foss  Whstcott,  D-D.,  Lflrd  B^B»  * 
Durham.    8vo.  [/mlktf^m 

POLITICS   AND  RELIGION  IN   ANCIENT  ISRAEL.    An  TnW^ 

dqction  to  the  Study  of  the  Old  Testament.    By  the  Rev.  J.  C.  ToDO,  ILA.  CaaialtisC*i»<' 
St.  Saviomr's  Cathedral,  Natal.    Crown  8vo,  ts. 
'  Whatever  view  the  biblical  historian  rtiav  taVeof  Mr  Todd's  very  •mdi^  titAlnat  d the afaf^ 
be  b  at  aay  rate  a  fresh  and  forcible  writer."— TVnw*. 


VOLUMES  I-IV  and  VI  NOW  READY. 

A   NEW  HISTORY  OF  THE   ENGLISH   CHURCH. 

Edited  b v  the  late  Dean  Stepwehs,  and  the  Ri»v.  Wii.LtAM  Hmr.  D.Litt. 
In  Eig^ht  Voluroes,  uniform  bindinj;.     With  Maps.     CrowTS  8to, 
The  EQ(1lBb  Ctiorch  from  ita  Foondatioii  to  th*  Korxtiitti  Cotiqnett  ($9H^ 

By  rhe  Rev,  WILLIAM  HuHT,  D.Litt.    Second  Impreanon.    With  Two  Mapt    Ji- » 
The  English  Church  from  the  Norman  Con^neat  to  the  Accession  of  Bdwmiiil 

<io6<5-l37a).     By  the  Ute  De^n  StePHKHS.     With  a  Map,     yj.  ftd 
The  Enaliah  Church  In  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Centuriea  (1^79-14^^ 

By  th^  Ri.-v.  Can  tin  Capes,    7  s,  dd. 
The  English  Church  in  the  Slxteeoth  Century,  from  the  Accession  of  Heory  Vltt 

to  the  Death  of  Mary.    By  Iambs  Gaiuunew.  C.B  ,  Hon.  LLJ>.  With  a  Msp.  rt** 
The  EngUah  Church  in  the  Retstia  of  Elisabeth  and  James  L    By  the  Rr<  W  H 

F«EKK.  f/i»i**^»» 

The  EngUsh  Chtirch  from  the  Accession  of  Charles  I  to  tbc  Death  of  hm 
(1035'17I4X     By  thr  Rev,  Wth.iam  Holoem  Hirrroir.  B.D.    With  a  Ma|^    *^*>^ 

The  English  Chtirch  In  the  Eighteenth  Century.  By  the  Rer.  Caaoa  Ov««H».  D^* 
and  thr  Rev.  FkederIC  Reltu*.  {fmprtpm'^^^ 

The  English  Church  in  the  Nineteenth  Centmy.  Br  P.  W.CoRmH.MA.''^ 
Provost  ol  Eton  Coltege.  '  [/s   *    -  -— 


Vol.        I. 

u     n. 

M  in. 
M    nr, 

H  VL 
..  VIL 
..  VltL 


REPRESENTATIVE    MODERN    PREACHERS.      By   Liro  CK 

Bbastow%  D.D.^  Professor  of  Practical  Theolojjy  in  Yale  University.    Crown  8vo,  6ji  6^  •■<• 

CHRIST.    By  S.  D.  M'Coxnf.ll,  D.D.,  LL,D.,  Rector  of  All  Souls'  CbiiKfc, 

New  York.    Crown  8vo,  gilf  top,  5*.  net. 


10 


l/LM:mLLA.N  &  CO.,  LIMITED,  LONDON. 


MACMILLAN'S 


English  XEbeological  l^tbrar?. 

^P  General  Editor  : 

■  The  Rev.  FREDERICK  RELTON,  Vicar  of  St.  Andrew^ 
^L  Stoke  Newington. 

I  * 

■a  Serious  Call  to  a  Devout  and  Holy  Life.     By 

H  William  Law,  A»M,  A  New  Edition,  with  Preface  and  Notes  by 
^L  J.  H.  Overton,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Lincoln  and  Rector  of  Gumley. 
^P        8vo,  4J-.  6d,  net. 

Chunk  Quariirly  Review,^-*  The  best  edition  that  has  ever  been  published.* 

Of  the  Laws  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity.     The  Fifth 

Book.   By  Richard  Hooker.   Edited  by  the  Rev.  Ronald  Baynk,  MA., 
^H        Vicar  of  Holy  Trinitv,  Greenwich.     8vo,  lox.  6d.  net. 

^"^        Dniiy  News, — *  This  probably  is  the  best  edition  of  Hooker's  famous  classic.    Mr. 
Bayne's  introductory  explanations  are  of  great  value,  aiid  enable  the  reader  to  more  fully 
I,      ttnderslaud  the  arguments  of  Hooker.* 

Maxims  of  Piety  and  of  Christianity.     By  Thomas 

f  Wilson,  D.D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man,  A  New  Edition,  with 
Preface  and  Notes  by  Frederick  Reltok,  A.K.C,  Vicar  of  St.  Andrew's, 
Stoke  Newington.     8vo,  3J.  6d.  net. 


Guardian. — ^*Mr.  Reltoa's  edition  will  be  found  well  worth  poss^sing;  it  is  pleaaant 
the  eye,  and  bears  legible  marks  of  industry  and  sttidy,' 


The  Works  of  Bishop  Butler.    A  New  Edition,  with 

Introduction  and   Notes.     By  the  Very  Rev.  J.  H.  Bernard,  D.D., 
Fellow  of  Trinity  College  and  Dean  of  St.  Patrick's.     2  vols,     8vo, 
4 J.  6d.  net  each  volume. 
Vol.  I.— ^Sermons,  Charges,  Fragnieats,  and  Correspondence. 
,,  II.— The  Analogy  of  Religion,  Natural  and  Revealedi  to  the  Constltu- 
tton  and  Course  of  Nature*  to  which  are  added  two  brief  dissertations: 
(1)  Of  Personal  Identity ;  (3)  Of  the  Nature  of  Virtue. 
/Vfo/.— 'One  could  hardly  desire  a  better  working  edition  than  thia  which  Dr.  Bernard 
has  givcB  ns.  .  .  .  Sure  to  become  the  standard  edition  for  students.' 

The  Conference  between  William  Laud  and  Mr.. 

»        Fisher  the  Jesuit.   With  an  answer  to  such  exceptions  as  A.  C.  takes 
against  ^.    By  the  said  Most  Reverend  Father  in  God,  William,  Lord 
^^^     -ijiSHOP  OF  Canterbi;ry.    a  New  Edition  with  Introduction  and 
^    *jles  by  the  Rev.  C,  H.  Siiipkinson,  M.A»  Balliol  College,  Oxford. 
8vo,  4/.  hd,  net. 
Church  Rttfitw,—*  Most  admirably  edited^  indeed.  Mr.  Simpkiason't  wof k  U  a  model 
^^      of  what  sach  editing  should  be/ 

^  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd.,  -LONDON. 


Published  byTi  &iaCLARI\y  Edinburg 


i 


i 

MbMt     I 


SELECTIONS  FROM  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THEISKL    Sonic  Ite^ 

CALOkCOiT,   ^  .onion.  hn4  H.  SL  llACiaxtiOSB.   M.A,  DAi. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  TllE  OLD  TESTAMENT.     By  the  \x*e  SVdL  A.  R. 
D/iviDso!i,  D.D..  LUD.    Edited  by  Pnocip&l  SALVunt,  D  D.    (I.ttbrkattokax.  TvaawiUi^, 
LtBRJIRY.t        Ready  about  M»y  *i. 

BY  NILE  AND   EUPHRATES.     A  Record  of  Discorery  and  Adxrotm. 

H.  VALKitTtitS  GSSKX.    lUoatnited  by  oret  Ttitrt^  OngtAftl  Ptiiieo{;t«phai»  New  Vim  al d»~ 
Moondit  and  •erertl  M«p».  {M  Mr 

ThU  i«  fl  liigWv  tmportant  and  interesthiu  Volamr,    Mr    Crete  if  the  ooIyEogM 
•HTYrd                               Expedition,  and.  Getting  t>>  rodeot  MMrt kM.  he  to 

afilfe,  1                                 ^nt  the  firrt  romrct  hist-  'brweric   6eiD<Sea  Ikr9^ 

Moir  '                               .Jit%  upon  the  Nippur  excr  recht,  ts  dciJs«t(fc  Hr^vK 

Of  Tfot'r^AOl  Uht'Ar's  IVcHe,  and  Doctors  Gren>dl  ntui  iiunr,  i«^hen  ibe  jaubor  AaatfEcd  lW> 
Qfrrhyiicba*  and  Deshasbeh.  

FAITH  AND  KNOWLEDGE,    By  the  Rev.  W.  R,  Lxci:,  M.A^  Hettfurd  ColUp. 
Oxford.  {tmtkiPtm^ 

'CHRISTUS   IN    ECCLESIA.'     By  tlie   Rev.  Hastino$   RashhalU 

Fellow  of  New  College.  Oiiord.  |j 

T'  '       Tn  the  first  two  Volamea  of  a  new  short  seriM  of  Senri-  * 

f  ScMolar  as  PrtacM^r.     It  is  somftimes  said  that  ihe  > 
.■thing  towirds  destroying  that  impression.    "ThrSemrn. 
noi  [rom  ni''  aiign;  of  cloqaencc  in  tbem  so  ranch  as  on  acconnt  of  their  insignt  mio  tn*  I7^ai«f^  si 
Bible  and  their  6Uicce«»  in  bringing  It  to  bear  apon  the  questions  or  oiur  day. 


NEW   LIGHT  ON  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS.    By  Prof,  C.  A. 

D.Litt^  New  VorW-     Now  teady,  post  8ro,  price  4*.  6</-  net. 


BKfOCS) 


ST     J 

90SI,I»fl 


DESCARTES.  SPINOZA,  AND  THE  NEW  PHILOSOPHY,     \\j 

IVfiKAcil,  D.D.,  Aberdeen,    Price  is- 

DR  HASTINGS*  DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    4  vols.    Trice  b  dock," 

aSj-  fAch,     Also  in  Virion*  half-morocco  bindings.     Prices  on  applicaXion.     Pall 
Specimen  Fagr,  free  on  application. 
N.B.— The  Extra  Volume,  containine  a  nutxil<r  of  large  sad  important  «nkt'<^tO(vi 
Inuex&s  to  the  whok  work,  and  special  Ma^)*,  is  in  the  Press,  ajid  wilt  be  pat»liaK«il  ia  Jmek 

OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY.    ^^  the  kie  ProC  A  B.  DAVtBOSr, 

LL.D.    One  large  \'pL,  tor,  61/  net. 
'  Nowhere  l>a'Fe  the  prophets  of  Israel  fovnd  ao  sympathetic  ■o  expoiwtf  m  te 
Prof,  Davidson.'— £>^iA>ry  Times. 

THE  RELIGIONS  OF  ANCIENT  EGYPT  AND  BABYLON 

Egyptnan  and   Babylonian  Conception  of  ihc  Ditttie.     By  E*ft*i.  A.    H.    S. 
Oxford    Post  8vo,  8j.  net. 
'Extremely  intrresiing.  »  ,  .  One  can  have  no  jfuide  in  tbese  rocnpJex  Mibjeets 
rnore  considerate  of  his  readers'  difficulties.*— J^/^c/j/ar- 

HAMMURABI'S  CODE  OF  LAWS.  BX,  aaSs-aa+a.    The  Oldest  Co^  i4 
Lawa  tn  the  world.    Translated  by  C,  H,  W    JoHits,  MA.,  Lectarer  cm  A««Ti{oli>£j', 
College,  Cambridge.     Crown  Svo,  if,  6J.  net. 
*  The  most  important  '*  find  "  in  the  annals  of  Assyriolo^y.    Fw  Us  beaiia|*«  upon  tW  OicI 

rocnt  it  is  a  parCicuUrly  welcoroe  docarocnt,'— <*iMr)rf/«i», 

EXPLORATIONS    IN  BIBLE  LANDS   DURING  THE  NINETE 

CENTURY.     Edited  by  Prof.  H.  V.  HtLPRfiCHi.    Larpje  Stu,  is*  (U  utt, 
A  work  of  Special  Importance.    Containing  Over  700 pagcs^  uad  entkbed  by  over  joa  PlMVt 
4  Map?.  * 

THE  HISTORICAL  NEW  TESTAMENT.     BebL'  tb- 

Testainent,  arrnnt^T-i  "m  the  order  of  its   l.jtrrnrv  GrriuTti  anvt  .irr, 
D«  *    "         '       i-lalion.     Edited,  u! 

ar  s  MorrATT,  D,D. 

'Tlir  in  the  crcdentiaia  *> 

a  lonu  tiiuf  .•  — /i>7/fjvi   M  VcJt:-;^.  '  'm,w 

THE  WORDS  OF  JESUS.      Con^    jfed  in  the  Light  of  Pg>st-Biblkia 


ENlH 

\umJr 


Writings  and  the  Aramaic  Lxneniige.    By  Prm.  G,  DAUiAyt, 


COMPUTE  CATAlOQUe  POST  F^ES 


BiiVnburs&V%".  *t\  €k.T.  CUAJRK,  3S  Qeorg:©  Street. 
London :  5\mpV\n^  l\M^VvB>\,w«.t^^\aTv^>fsSi^v^Ou^  Lirolti 


Printi^  *<  t^  \3»i\vw»srrt 


^%3csa^  O v»tyi«>^  Vy  Wts^xtn  Vi.  «ci ,  ?  H-**.**  v*  vh«  'U. 


PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY 


'QL.  V 


JULY,  1904 


No.  20 


CONTENTS 

PAOB 

A   MODERN    THEORY    OF    THE    FALL        By    the    R«v.    A    J. 

Mason,    D.D,  ,        ...       481 

THE    POSITION    OF   THE    LAITV    IN    THE   CHURCH.      By   the 

LATK   Rtv.  H.    Hayman,  D.D .,.      499 

THE    HISTORICAL    SETTIXG    OF    THE    SECOND    AND    THIRD 

EPISTLES  OF  ST  JOHN.      U.  By  the  Rev,  J.  CKAPMAti,  O.S.B.      617 

DOCUMENTS  : 

The   Syrian   Liturgies   op  the    Prcsakctifiso.    IIL     By  H.    W, 

CODRIWCTOW 585 

A  Homily  of  St  Ephhsm.     By  the  Rev,  A,  S,  Duncan  Jonis     ...      64fl 

Inscriptions  from  Shemouts*s  Monasteky.    By  W.  E.  Cbum        ...      652 

NOTES  AND  STUDIES: 

The  OtD  Latin  Texts  or  th*  MmoR  Psopbits.  IV*    By  the  Riv. 

W.  O.  E.  Oesterley,  B.D 670 

Notes  on  thx  Didacue.     By  the  Rev*  C  Bigg,  D.D»  579 

SmopHicAt    Structure    in    St    JuDt's    Epistle,       By    the    Rev, 

H.  J.  Gladder,  S.J 68J 

St  Matthew's  Parallel  NAitsiATtves.     By  the  Rev,  Thouas  Milne      W)2 

The  Authorship  op  the  Mcrcati-Tuiiner  Anecdotok.    By  the  Rev* 

A.  SOUTER «08 

The  Teaching  or  Christ  about  Divorce.     By  the  Rev.  the  Hon. 

E.   Ly,   2XTON  ,,.       621 

St  Mar     ajio  Divorce.     By  F.  C.  Burkitt  e28 

Reading  ^Lemiucgly    conflate    in     the    MSS    or    the     LAUii.\c 
HistorT    By  the  Rev.  E.  C.  Butler,  O.S.B 680 

Tti«  Interpolations  jn  St  Cyprian^s  Di  Umtatt  Ecclttku,     By  iJie 

Rev.  j.  Chapman,  O.S^B. ...      684 

The  Text  or  the  Hvmns  or  Hilary*    By  the  Rev.  A.  J.  Mason,  D.D.      686 

RECENT  PERIODICALS  RELATING  TO  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES      687 


MA  CM  ILL  AN    AND    CO,,    l.VU\TiL\^ 

H&W  YQICIC:    THE,  WXCMlUAU_W?^ 


Now  R^ady.    In  €iotk^  sBs.;  w  ital/morwco,  ^45.,  35Sw^  36^^ 
THE    EXTRA    VOLUME    OF 

THE  DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE, 

VA\l<A  by  j,  H ASTI^'GS.  D*D, 
Tills  Vota  me  c«ntAin»  Important  Articleft  l»v  Specudi«fs  on  ^urh  Siil>K<r«4  s»— IV  Rrfr^ 

of   C- '      ^    ■'     ^'       -      f*-'-' "'     f.    ,.:,       i:,     ..         .     I    r.    .    .        ^        .  ir 

of  Authors  f:>ve»  the  name  of  rvi<ry  r«J^ioa  «ho  luu  tooinbttted  to  the  Fi«<c  Votaac^  «4  iM 
ofbii  contributionx. 

It  coatalus sp«cially  drawn  MAPS,  retisedhr  T"-  '  ^ ..   ^  i  r,.  .  ,.  , .        >  .  ^eti.<d^ 

RoadSyatem  orPale^ne,  the  Aacieot  EA«t.  <  \mi>m 

in  50  A.D.  iFii 


TAm  AMD  XVOWX.BiyOB.  Bj  tht  Rev.  W.  R.  iHGR,  M.A..  Hertford  Oiifft, 
Oifcrril.     Post  fivo,  4s.  6d.  net. 

0XBISTV8  nr  XCGX.SIKII..    By  the  Rcr.  Hastings  Rashdall.  BJLAu  Qsibi 

BBI.SCTIOV8  FBOM  THB  UTBKATinUI  OP  TMBIBM.  ,^me  Ptwd|ii 
Typct  of  Religioiu  Thought.  With  Inirodoctory  and  BxpUDJUorr  Not««  By  fTof.  ALfXa 
CAUiE^corr,  M.A.,  D.I) .  King's  College,  London,  ud  Prof  H.  R*  UxcmtROsii,  MA-,  Dili. 

Edinburgh.    Price  js-  6d.  net. 

TWB    THBOI.OOT    OF    TBB    0U>    VBSTAKBVT.     By   the   UU  VnL  A.  K. 

DAVlDSOse,  D.D„  LL.D.    Edlta]  liy  PriiidpAf  Salvoitd.  VJ>.    {Utiu^MATWItJa,  TrnmOBStA 
LlBKAXY.)    Pri«  tajr. 

OLD  TB&TAMBn  PROPSBOT.  By  the  late  Trof.  A.  B,  Davidson,  D.a.  IXH 
10^.  6i/.  art. 

THB  BB8BVCB  OF  CKBXBrXAVITT.  By  Prof.  W.  Adams  Bsowx,  DD,N(V 
York.    Po«  8vo,  6f ,  tttt. 

EDINBURGFI  :  T.  &  T.  CLARK,  3^  Gcojige  Stuiet. 

LONDON;  SIMPKIN,  MARSHALL,  HAMILTON,  KENT  &  CO».  Ua 

COMMITTEE  OF  DIRECTION: 

Rev.  Dr*  Ince,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Swete,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Dri\^r,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford 

Rev*  Dr.  Bigg,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Dr.  Barnes,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge, 

F.  C.  BuRKiTT,  Lecturer  in  Palaeograpby,  Carnbridge. 

Rev*  Dr.  Headlau,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London 

Rev.  Dr.  Kirkpatricjc,  The  Lady  Margaret's  Reader  in  \Jis!\vk\v^t  Cain- 
bridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lock,  Dean  Ireland's  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford, 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  Master  of  Pembroke  College^  Cambridge. 

Very  Rev.  Dr,  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  Dean  of  Westminster;  lale  Norrisiiol 
Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Dr.  Sanday,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxiard. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stanton,  Ely  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge, 

Vejy  Rev.  Dr.  Strong,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

C.  H.  Turner,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


EDITORS: 

Rev.  J.  F.  BCTUV3^i:-BxKtR>  Pembroke  College,  Cambncigc. 
Rev.  F.  E.  BK\GHiviNt*.'S»Va^"^3X^\\C^\\t5g^fe,^iS;c.x4, 


^^       MACMILLAN'S  ^ 

Englisb  ZEbeoIogical  Xibiarg. 

i  ^ 

I  General  Editor : 

.  The  Rev.  FREDERICK  RELTON,  Vicar  of  St  Andrew's, 
I  Stoke  Newington. 

A  Serious  Call  to  a  Devout  and  Holy  Life.     By 

William  Law,  A.IM.     A  New  Edition,  with   Prefiice  and   Notes  by 
J.  H,  Overton,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Lincoln  and   Rector  of  Gumley, 
8vo,  4J.  6</.  net* 
I         Church  Quarterly  Hetnciv,—*  The  best  edition  that  has  ever  been  published.* 

Of  the  Laws  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity.     The  Fifth 

Book.   By  Richard  Hooker.   Edited  by  the  Rev.  Ronald  Baynk,  MA., 
Vicar  of  Holy  Trinity,  Greenwich,     8vo,  los,  6d.  net. 

Daify  Ncan. — 'This  prokibly  is  the  best  edition  of  Hooker's  famotif  classic  Mr 
\  Bayne's  introductory  explanations  arc  of  great  Value,  and  enable  the  reader  to  more  fully 
understand  the  arguments  of  Hooker.* 

Maxims  of  Piety  and  of  Cliristtanity.     By  Thomas 

Wilson,  D.D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man.  A  New  Edition,  with 
I  Preface  and  Notes  by  Frederick  Relton,  A.K.C,  Vicar  of  St.  Andrew's, 
'         Stoke  Nevrington.     8vo,  31.  6d,  net. 

Guardian. — '^fr.  ReUon's  edition  will  be  found  well"  worth  possessing;  it  is  pleftiant 
to  the  eye^  and  bears  legible  marks  of  industry  and  study.' 

The  Works  of  Bishop  Butler.     A  New  Edition,  with 

Introduction  and  Notes.     By  the  Very  Rev.  J.  H.  Bernarq.  D.D., 
,         Fellow  of  Trinity  College  and  Dean  of  St.  Patrick's.     2  vols,     8vo. 
41.  6d.  net  each  volume. 
Vol.  I.^Seritions,  Charges,  Frag:ment5,  and  Correspondence. 
„   H.— -The  Analogy  of  Religion,  Natural  and  Revealed*  to  the  ConstUu- 
I  tlofi  and  Course  of  Nature,  to  Mhich  Arc  added  two  biicf  (Hiisertftiiuut: 

I  (t)  Of  Peraonal  identity ;  (3)  Of  the  Nature  of  Virtue. 

Guardian, — *  Nobody  could  wftnt  any  better  edition  of  the  great  theologian,* 

The  Conference  between  William  Laud  and  Mr. 

Fisher  the  Jesuit.  With  an  answer  to  Buch  exceptions  as  A.  C.  takes 
I         against  il.    By  the  said  Mo&l  Reverend  Fulhtr  in  God,  Wiuljam,  Lord 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  A  New  Edition  witlj  Introduclion  and 
I         Notes  by  the  Rev.  C.  H.  Simi'kinson,  M.A,  Balliol  College,  Oxford. 

8vo,  4  J.  6^.  net. 

Chunh  fy'n^irtv.—'  Most  admirably  edited,  iade«d.  Mr.  SimpVioson  s  work  ^  t  model 
^f  what  sach  ^lttitlg  should  be.' 

r  ^ 

L       MACMILLAN  &  CO..  Lm,  LONDON. 


MACMILLAN    &   CO.'S 
NEW  &  FORTHCOMING  THEOLOGICAL  WORK! 


SECOND   EDITION. 

ST.   PAUL'S   EPISTLE    TO   THE    EPHESIAJfS.      A   Revised  Test 

'r..„,T..    ...    .,.;.'.  '  -position  and  Notes,     By  J,  ARMtTAGfc  Roirt?fSax,  D.Dl, 

,     II  J, 
€•  ■  '  lolnme  coders  a  gooJ  i<?Al  of  (rcNind  «tie]|  bas  not  boca  corrfcl  <•_ 

not  ncjirly  »j  rxJI  cot^fcd  licfore** 


THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  ST.  JOHN.     The  Gredc   Text,   wiifa   1    r 

Note*,    and    Indicei.      By  li,  B,  Swetk,  D.D.,   Rrgios  FioEesor  of   Imuu 
Caitilirldge.  \^fm  tkt 

ST,  PAULS  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS.     The  Gf«lt  Text.     W 
Iniroduction  nnd  Notts.     By  the  late  Brooks  Foss  Wkstcott,  D.D-^  LorI  vHof 

of  Dnrham.     J^vo.  [/w  (Xj-  /rrri 

PETERBOROUGH  SERMONS.    By  Brooo  Foss  Westoott.  D.Ti 

Lord  Hishnp  of  Durham.     Crown  8vo.  [/ 

ON  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  AND  CRITICISM,  be  .^ses  ami  S<ttt 

lh«  Right  Kcv.  H   II  R\XE.  D.D„  Bishop  of  Wijoche  .vra  Stti, 

{Jm  a 

ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND,  being  Sermofis  «nd  Aa<ir«s4M  t^^ 
Ivi^jht  Rev.  H.  K.  R\^.E,  D.D  .  Bishop  of  Wincheiler.     Crown  8t6u        \Jn  /I^^H 

SERMONS  PREACHED  AT  THE  TEMPLE  CHURCH  AKD  flB 
WHERE,  By  the  late  Rev.  Alfrkd  Ajnckh,  M.A.,  Master  oTtlieTa^^H 
Cnnon  of  Bristot-     Crown  l8vo.  T/u  /I^^^H 

CHRISTIAN  CHARACTER.  Bcir^  ?ome  Lcrtwrrs  on  the  Kl«rof3jts  of  f^^H 
Ethics.  By  the  Rrv.  J.  K*  Ji.1-Jngwi>rth»  M..\r,  D.D.,  Author  oC  P^^^3iilH 
Human  and  Diviiu,  h'eaion  ami  R'r:>t'!atton,  &'r.     Kvo.  r/jj  ^/irif^l 

SEEKING  LIFE.   AI*D  OTHER  SERMONS.      By  tiie  Right   Rev.   hi«»4 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  FROM   THE   RCBol 

MATION  TO  THE  PRESENT  TIME.     By  S.  CHBETHAif,    n.njBH 

dfacofj  and  Cjin«»fj  r)f  Kcfche^ter,     Crown  8vo.  r/j,  /|^^^| 

THE  VALUE  OF  THE  BIBLE,  and  olher  Scmon*  f  »ooj-ti>04V    Wli&^^H 

to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London.     By  H    HensLEY  HeNsox.  B.H,.  C*i><mj  «if^^| 
minster,     Crowrn  8vo,     6;.  ^^^| 

ANGUS   LECTlfRES,    t«>o^  ^^ 

THE  CHRISTIAN  IDEA  OF  ATONEMENT.     I>ectiir«  dcflvcred  u  Ke?tJi 

Pirk  CoUejic  in  190.^^.     By  T.  ViNCiNT  TvMMii.  D.D.  (St.  Andrew*),  PrtamillP 
Kawdon  <*ol1eijc.     Crown  ^vo.     7/.  6</.  ' 

ChrixHiftt  H  Vr/rf.— *A  srtronif  and  3iiiniUAttn|;  study  or»  sabject  whose  ftttractioa  \m  AfiTv  cAsml^i! 

by  its  dlrtJcuMv.'  *wwx  ^«»»^»j 

THE  FAITH  OF  A  CHRISTIAN,     By  A  nt-<tcn»LK.     Cm^wn  l^rrK     M-MmlI 

t''''  ^  -  ili^  firs!  (M  arktiowkdj^e  that  bi«  iK  -^ OfllTMS^^^^I 

THl  I    N   OF  THE   UNIVERSE.    !  ..,.  ,    Pfo^^T^WI 

Author  ot  ^  New  Theories  o-d  the  Old  Faith/  '  The  Mytterv  of  Matter  *  •5? 

PflifTion  nf  Te^TTs,"  ,^r.     f^vn      irr.  nrt.  '         *  * 

Thrl  I 

r<*allv  r-M.,.>!i]iM-  i.L  curite.piian  of  tlui  -Uprrnj':  cirit'l"  "  ^  *'   iH 

SELECTED  %S  OF  JONATHAN  EDWARDS,     Ed«t4    ^tb  lilij 

dud\un  awi  .Not.s^  hy  Pmf.  IT,  NoBMAN  CARntNKR.     t6i»o,  is.  net,   *  ^ 

DUX  CHRlSTliS,     hxi  Ci^^\\me  SiUA^  tit  U^n,      By   \VtU.TAii   ^JLUOT  Gufl^l 
Globe  8vi>,  doth^is.M.wtX;  ^T^»\i.f»d.\«x.  ^^^H 


MAC^\1-VK^    %L  ^^  .  \A^TOL\^,  VKy\x<::ra..