' ill •YJ^Lffi-winviEiasinnr- S 11 iiiii " ,iif*'j|j"-»t"i'iiiiiiiiirntiiiiiiiwiig DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY GIFT OF Professor Benjamin W. Bacon HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE rh£^£o. HISTORY EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES BY DR. GUSTAV KRUGER i \ ( PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT GIESSEN TRANSLATED BY REV. CHARLES R. GILLETT, A.M. LIBRARIAN OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN NEW YORK WITH CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS BY THE AUTHOR THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON : MACMILLAN & CO., Ltj^ I897 All rights reserved Copyright, 1897, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Nortoooti ^trea J. S. dishing & Co. Berwick & Smith N"i«'i...d .Mass. U.S.A. PREFACE The account of the history of early Christian litera ture, contained in the following pages, does not lay claim to novelty. It simply professes to be a compila tion of facts already known, based upon e reexamina tion of them. It seemed to me important and profitable that the mass of material for the history of this litera ture, which has been accumulated by the unstinted ^diligence of almost countless workers during the last decades, should be made accessible in somewhat sifted form to those whose labors lie in a different field, but who have long sought for such help in finding their bearings. The primary purpose of the book, however, -is to furnish a manual to serve as a basis for lectures and as a student's handbook. In the directions given to secure a uniform mode of presentation in the " Out line" series (Grundriss der theologischen Wissenschaften) -to which this book belongs, it was required that the accounts should be as condensed and brief as possible, while being at the same time smooth and readable ; that they should be adapted to the practical needs of the learner (but not for memorizing), and that they should be clearly arranged and free from polemic. Such a book also requires that the author's personality should be held in abeyance. Consequently it was neces sary to suppress many observations and characteriza tions, in order that the work of the lecture room might VI PREFACE not be forestalled. As a result, the reader will find many a paragraph which might serve as the subject of a whole lecture. This book differs from the more recent handbooks on Patrology, both Catholic and Protestant, not only in many details of its conception of the subject, but in its arrangement and limitation of the treatment. It has been my special purpose to emphasize the literary point of view, since a history of literature has no occasion to explain the theological or ecclesiastical importance of a writer. I have also endeavored to substitute an organic method of treatment in place of a mechanical sequence based on chronology and biography, though I dare not hope that I have realized the ideal that has hovered before me. In my manner of conceiving of the sub ject I have adhered to the views expounded by Friedrich Nitzsch, now professor of Systematic Theology at Kiel, and by Franz Overbeck, professor of Church History at Basel (cf. § i). I am not aware of the existence, in English, of a book like the present. The work of C. T. Cruttwell is excellent in many respects, but it was intended for a different class of readers, being a book for continuous perusal rather than a text-book. It does not take suffi cient note of the results and hypotheses of the most recent investigations, and indeed, it was not the author's intention to do so. The references here made to the latest researches will give my book, perhaps, a special value for English-speaking people. The names of those who have rendered eminent services in this field are already well known, and on every page this volume in dicates what I have learned from Harnack, Hilgenfeld, and Zahn, from Lightfoot and Westcott. PREFACE On one point I beg the reader's indulgence for a moment ; namely, the inclusion of the New Testament Scriptures in the following account. In various reviews of the book, especially in English, this feature has been condemned, or at least declared undesirable. But two questions must be considered in this connection : first, whether the New Testament Scriptures may properly be treated at all in a history of early Christian literature, that is, in connection with writings which are not in cluded in our canon ; and second, whether the author's peculiar views concerning the circumstances which gave rise to the New Testament writings, are capable of justification. The answer to the first is closely con nected with the views which we entertain in general upon religious questions. If, after the fashion of our forefathers', we hold to an inspiration of the Holy Scriptures in such a sense as to make the Holy Ghost wield the pens of their authors, we shall be inclined to regard it as sacrilege to subject them in any way to the methods of historical investigation. The author, on the contrary, is of the opinion that the value and sub limity of these writings lose nothing by being submitted to these processes; that for many, possibly, a distinct gain is involved. The second question can only be answered after one has obtained a view of the whole subject of primitive Christianity, its writings and teach ings, based upon the sources. The author does not claim to be infallible. He is quite conscious of the immense difficulties involved in the investigation of the New Testament by our lack of material. He be lieves himself to be free from traditional prejudices, critical or ecclesiastical. If he is mistaken in this respect, he at least always holds himself ready to re- Preface ceive better instruction. The positive tone and the lack of detailed explanation which characterize the re marks on the New Testament writings may be displeas ing to some, but they are merely the result of the fact that it was necessary to be brief because of the many excellent treatises which we already possess. In the citation of literature, the reader will find enu merated all that is necessary for a thorough study of the subject. The latest works are also mentioned even when their permanent value may appear somewhat doubtful. Treatises on the history of dogma are men tioned, in accordance with the plan of the book, only when they contain original material bearing upon the history of the literature. The chronological conspectus is intended to portray the gradual progress of literary productivity in the several provinces of the Empire. Finally, I wish to thank the translator for the pains which he has taken, and in the same connection I would express the hope that the volume may not be devoid of profit to the English-speaking reader. GUSTAV KRUGER. GlESSEN. TRANSLATOR'S NOTE The translator's purpose in the following pages has been to render the thoughts of the original work into idiomatic English, while adhering as closely as possible to the author's own language. This task has involved some difficulty at various points on account of the brevity of style and the condensation of material which the projectors of the series required of the contributors. It has been a matter of surprise that the author was able to crowd so much information upon a single page or into a single paragraph, and the extraordinary potency of his system of abbreviations has received frequent illustration. These qualities, while increasing the task of the translator, are of great advantage to the reader, and are beyond praise. Sometimes it has been found necessary to break up the long sentences of the origi nal, but this scarcely calls for apology. The footnotes of the present volume originally ap peared as part of the text, being enclosed in brackets. In transferring them to the foot of the page the trans lator has not been a mere copyist, but has taken the liberty of adding an occasional reference in order to greater clearness. It has also been thought advisable to make some additions to the citations of literature, especially in the case of English books. The thanks of the reader are due to Dr. Kriiger for the readiness with which he has acceded to the transla- TRANSLATOR'S NOTE tor's request for corrections and additions to the text. Some important alterations have been made, and many references to later works have found a place in this vol ume which entitle it to be regarded as the second edi tion of the Gesckichte. It is scarcely necessary for the translator to say any thing in regard to the author's views. His responsi bility does not extend to these, but ceases when he has reproduced them faithfully in English. But there can be no doubt that Dr. Kriiger has rendered an important service in calling attention to the organic connection of the various remnants of the early Christian literature of which he treats. CHARLES R. GILLETT. Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . Translator's Note List of Abbreviations Introduction . § i. The Subject . § 2. Transmission; Compilations; Aids to Study I. Transmission: Eusebius; Photius; Xp^ffets : 'lepd. Sacra Parallelu. ; Catenae. 2. Jerome and Others. 3. Catholic and Protestant Compilations of the Seventeenth and Eigh teenth Centuries. 4. More Recent Works. 5. History of Greek and Roman Literature. 6. Collections. 7. Helps. 8. Collections of the Works of Ecclesiastical Writers. 9. Translations. DIVISION I PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE § 3. General 11 1. Transmission; The New Testament. 2. Its Forms. 3. Primitive Christian and Jewish Literature. CHAPTER I. — EPISTLES § 4. The Pauline and Pseudo-Pauline Epistles . . 1 5 I. The Epistles included in the New Testament. 2. Epistle to the Alexandrians and the Laodiceans. Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians. Correspondence be tween Paul and Seneca. § 5. The Catholic Epistles . . . , . . . .18 CONTENTS PAGE § 6. The Epistle of Barnabas 18 I. Transmission. 2. Attestation. 3. Author. Time and Place of Composition. 4. Contents, Character, Unity. § 7. The First Epistle of Clement 21 I. Transmission. 2. Attestation. 3. Circumstances of Com position. 4. Contents and Character. § 8. The Epistle of Polycarp 25 I. Transmission. z. Attestation ; Unity. 3. Contents. 4. Fragments ascribed to Polycarp. § 9. The Epistles of Ignatius 28 1. Transmission. 2. Attestation. 3. Contents. Personal ity of the Author. 4. Doubts as to Genuineness. 5. Refu tation of Doubts. CHAPTER II. — APOCALYPSES § 10. The Apocalypse of John 35 § 11. The Apocalypse of Peter 36 1. Attestations. 2. The Akhmtn Manuscript. 3. Circum stances of Composition. § 12. The Shepherd of Hermas . 38 1. Transmission. 2. Attestation. 3. Purpose, Form, Char acter of the Work. 4. Contents. 5. Time of Composi tion; Unity. CHAPTER III. — HISTORICAL BOOKS I. The Gospels § 13. The Beginnings: Papias 46 1. The Logia. 2. Papias. 3. The Rainer Papyrus. § 14. The Synoptic Gospels 48 § 15. The Gospel of John 49 § 16. Apocryphal Gospels 50 I. The Gospel of the Hebrews. 2. The Gospel of Peter. 3. The Gospel of the Egyptians. 4. The Gospels of Andrew, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Matthias, and Philip. The Traditiones Matthiae. 5. The Gospel of Thomas. 6. The Protevangel of James. 7. The Acta Pilati. CONTENTS xiii II. The Acts of the Apostles PAGE § 17. The Acts of the Apostles 57 CHAPTER IV. — DOCTRINAL WRITINGS § 18. The So-called Roman Symbol 59 § 19. The " Preaching " of Peter . . ... 60 I. The Kerygma Petri and the Didascalia Petri. 2. The Character of the " Preaching." 3. Circumstances of Com position. Paulli Praedicatio. § 20. The So-called Second Epistle of Clement ... 62 I. Transmission and Attestation. 2. Contents and Circum stances of Composition. § 21. The Teaching of the Apostles .... 63 1. Transmission. Contents. 2. Attestation. 3. Compo nents. Authorship. DIVISION II GNOSTIC LITERATURE § 22. General 68 CHAPTER I.— THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE § 23. Basilides and Isidore 7° 1. Basilides. 2. Isidore. 3. Incantationes. § 24. Valentinus and his School 71 I. Valentinus. z. Ptolemseus, Heracleon. 3. The Excerpta Theodoti. § 25. Bardesanes 75 1. Life and Personality. 2. Writings. § 26. The Carpocratians 77 § 27. Marcion and Apelles . . . . . • • -77 I. Marcion's Life. 2. The Gospel and the Apostle. 3. The Antitheses. 4. Apelles. 5. Psalms. Liber Propositi Finis. § 28. Ophitic (" Gnostic ") Writings . . ... 82 I. Ophitic Writings. 2. Writings of the Severians, Sethites, Archontici : (a) Pistis- Sophia, (b) Papyrus Brucianus. § 29. Julius Cassianus 86 Xiv CONTENTS CHAPTER II. — ROMANCES PAGE § 30. Acts 88 I. General. 2. Acts of Peter. 3. Acts of John. 4. Acts of Thomas. 5. Acts of Andrew. Supplementary § 31. Symmachus '. 96 DIVISION III LITERATURE OF THE CHURCH First Section. Patristic Literature in the Age of the Apologists and during the Conflict with Gnosticism § 32. General 97 I. Apologetic Literature. 2. Anti -Jewish Literature. 3. Anti-Heretical Literature. 4. The Pastoral Epistles. CHAPTER I. — APOLOGETIC LITERATURE § 33- Quadratus 100 § 34. Aristides 101 1. Transmission of the Apology. 2. Contents and Charac ter. 3. The Epistle and the Homily. § 35. Aristo of Pella 104 § 36. Justin 105 I. Life and Literary Character. 2. Transmission. 3. Gen uine Writings : (a) The Syntagma; (b) The Apologies; (c) Dialogue with Trypho. Writings which may be gen uine : (a) de Resurrectione ; (b) Cohortatio ; (c) Oratio ; (d) Fragments; (e) The Apology of Photius. 4. Spurious Writings : (a) de Monarchia , (b) Confutatio Dogmatum Aristotelis ; (c) and (d) Quaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles, and Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos ; (e) Epistle to Zenas and Serenus; (f) Expositio Rectae Fidei. 5. A670S 7repi irpovoias. Hepi tov ttclvtos. Exposi tion of the Apocalypse. 6. Reference to the Epistle to Diognetus. CONTENTS XV PAGE § 37. Tatian ... . 117 I. Life. 2. Oratio ad Graecos. Literary Character. 3. Lost Writings. 4. The Diatessaron. § 38. Miltiades ... 121 § 39. Apollinaris 122 § 40. Melito . . 123 I. Life and Personality. 2. Literary Character. Transmis sion. 3. Writings mentioned by Eusebius. 4. Eis t6 wdffos. 5. Fragments in Catenae. 6. Syriac Fragments. 7. The Syriac Apology. 8. Later Writings. § 41. Athenagoras 130 I. Life. 2. (a) Supplicatio, and (b) de Resurreclione. Characteristics. § 42. Theophilus 132 I. Circumstances of Composition of the Books ad Autoly- cum. Theophilus of Antioch. 2. Contents of the ad Autolycum. 3. Lost Writings. The Gospel Commentary. Supplementary § 43. The Epistle to Diognetus 135 § 44. Hermias !37 §45. Minucius Felix 138 1. Transmission and Contents of the Octavius. 2. Relation to Other Writings. 3. Time of Composition. 4. De Fato. CHAPTER II. — ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE § 46. Agrippa Castor '43 § 47. Rhodo J43 § 48. Musanus *44 § 49. Philip of Gortyna '44 § 50. Modestus '44 § 51. Hegesippus J45 1. Life. 2. The Hypomnemata. § 52. Iren^us . '46 I. Life. 2. Characteristics. Adversus Haereses. 3. Lost Writings. Fragments. 4. Pfaff s Fragments. § 53. Montanists and Anti-Montanists . ... 152 I, Montanistic Writings. 2. Anti-Montanistic Writings. CONTENTS CHAPTER III. — EPISCOPAL AND SYNODAL WRITINGS PAGE § 54. The Roman Bishops 155 Soter. Eleutherus. Victor. § 55. Dionysius of Corinth 156 § 56. Serapion of Antioch 157 § 57. Writings in the Paschal Controversy .... 158 Second Section. Patristic Literature in the Age of the Rise of Theological Science § 58. General 159 I. Christian Science. 2. Catechetical School of Alexandria. 3. Scientific Tendencies Elsewhere in the East. 4. The West. CHAPTER I. — THE ORIENTALS I. The Alexandrians § 59. Pant^nus 162 § 60. Clement 162 1. Life. 2. Characteristics. 3. Principal Works : (a) The Protrepticos ; (b) The Paedagogus ; (c) Stromata. 4. Quis Dives ? 5. Fragments. 6. Title. 7. Disputed Writings. § 61. Origen 173 I. Sources. 2. Life. 3. Characteristics. 4. Transmission. 5. Labors in Textual Criticism. 6. Exegetical Writings : (a) The Scholia; (b) The Homilies; (c) Commentaries. 7. Apologetic, 8. Dogmatic, and 9. Devotional Writings. 10. Epistles. 11. Disputed Writings. § 62. Trypho 205 § 63. Dionysius 205 1. Life. 2. Characteristics. Transmission. 3. Treatises. 4. Epistles and Deliverances. 5. Uncertain and Forged Writings. § 64. Anatolius 216 § 65. Theognostus 217 § 66. Pierius 217 CONTENTS xvii PAGE § 67. Phileas, Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus . . .219 § 68. Petrus (Peter) 219 § 69. Alexander 221 § 70. HlERAX 223 Supplementary § 71. Judas 223 § 72. Heraclitus, Maximus, Candidus, Apion, Sextus, Ara- bianus 224 § 73. Ammonius 224 § 74. Theonas 225 II. Writers of Asia Minor § 75. Gregorius Thaumaturgus 226 1. Sources. 2. Life. 3. Genuine Writings : (a) The Pane gyric; (b) *E/c0ecris wlareajs; (c) 'En-io-ToX?/ ko.vovikt\\ (d) M-erdtppaats; (e) To Theopompus; (f) To yElianus. 4. Writings apparently or certainly Spurious : (a) Kara p.4pos Trfcrris; (b) To 1'hilagrius; (c) Qepl fux?s. (d) 'A.vade)uiTi.o-p.oL ; (e) Homilies. 5. Fragments. 6. Disputed Writings. § 76. Methodius . • -235 1. Life. 2. Transmission. Characteristics. 3. Genuine Writings: (a) 'Zvp.irho-iov; (b) Tiepl aire^ovcrlov; (c) De Vita; (d) Ilepi dvao-rdo-em ; (e) De Cibis ; (f) De Lepra; (g) De Sanguisuga. 4. Fragments. 5. Lost, and 6. Spurious Writings. § 77. Firmilianus 242 III. Writers of Syria and Palestine § 78. Paul of Samosata • 243 § 79. Lucian 244 § 80. Anonymous : Dialogus de Recta Fide 245 § 81. Alexander of Jerusalem 247 § 82. Julius Africanus 248 I. Life. 2. Characteristics. 3. Writings: (a) Chronicle; (b) Kecrrof; (c) Letter on the History of Susanna; (d) Epistle to Aristides. 4. Disputed Writings. XV111 CONTENTS PAGE § 83. Pamphilus 253 § 84. Beryllus of Bostra in Arabia 255 CHAPTER II. — THE OCCIDENTALS I. African Writers § 85. Tertullian . ... .... 256 I. Life. 2. Characteristics. 3. Transmission. 4. De Pallio. 5. Apologetic Writings. 6. Adversus Judaeos. 7. Anti- Heretical Writings. 8. De Anima. 9. Writings on Questions of Morals and Church Discipline. 10. Lost, and 11. Spurious Writings. § 86. Cyprian . . 280 1. Life. 2. Characteristics. Transmission. 3. Treatises. 4. Letters. 5. Writings of Doubtful Genuineness : (a.) De Spectaculis ; (b) De bono Pudicitiae ; (c) De Laude Marlyrii. 6. Spurious Writings. § 87. Arnobius 304 1. Transmission and Contents of the Book Adversus Na- tiones. 2. His Character as an Author. Sources. Attes tation. § 88. Lactantius ... 307 1. Life. 2. Characteristics. Transmission. 3. Writings during his Heathen Period. 4. Writings during his Chris tian Period. 5. Lost Writings. 6. De Mortibus Persecu- torum. 7. Poems. Supplementary § 89. commodianus 1. Life. 2. Characteristics. 3. (a) Instructions ; (b) Car men Apologeticum. II. Roman Writers § 90. Caius 320 § 91. Hippolytus 321 1. Life. 2. Transmission. Characteristics. 3. Exegetical Writings. 4. Sermons. 5. Polemical; 6. Dogmatic; 7. Chronographical, and 8. Ecclesiastical Writings. 9. Poems (?). 10. Spurious Writings. 317 CONTENTS xix PAGE § 92. NOVATIANUS 344 I. Life. 2. Characteristics. 3. (a) De Trinitate; (b) De Cibis Judaicis. 4. Lost Writings. 5. Writings probably by Novatian : (a) Letters; (b) De Spectaculis, and De Bono Pudiciliae. III. The Remaining Occidental Writers § 93. Victorinus of Pettau 347 1. Writings. 2. Adversus Omnes Haereses. § 94. Reticius of Autun 349 CHAPTER III. — EPISCOPAL AND SYNODAL WRITINGS § 95. The Roman Bishops 350 Zephyrinus. Callixtus. Pontianus. Cornelius. Stephanus. Sixtus II. Dionysius. Felix. § 96. Acts of Synods 352 1. Lost. 2. Extant Acts of Synods. Third Section. Ecclesiastical Literature § 97. Symbols and Creeds 355 § 98. Church-Orders 356 I. The Didascalia. 2. Ecclesiastical Canons. 3. Duae Viae, vel Judicium sec. Petrum. 4. The Egyptian Canons. Supplementary § 99. The Pseudo-Clementine Epistles De Virginitatt . . 361 Fourth Section. Legends 100. General 363 ioi. The Legend of Abgarus 364 102. The Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul . . . 365 1. Acts of Paul. 2. Acts of Peter. 3. Acts of Paul and Thecla. 103. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies . 371 I. Transmission. *¦ Contents. 3. Circumstances of Com position. 4. Attestation. XX CONTENTS Fifth Section. Martyrologies PAGE § 104. General .... ... 378 § 105. From Antoninus Pius to Septimius Severus . . 380 I. Polycarp. 2. Carpus. 3. Justin. 4. Lyons and Vienne. 5. The Scillitan Martyrs. 6. ApoUonius. 7. Perpetua and Felicitas. § 106. From Decius to Licinius 385 Index 393 Chronological Conspectus after 409 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AA. Acta Apost. Apocry., edd. Lipsius et Bonnet (cf. § 30). AG. R. A. Lipsius, Apokryph. Apostelgeschichten (cf. § 30, Literature). ALG. Archiv fur lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, edited by E. Wolfflin. ANF. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the writings of the Fathers. Edited by A. C. Cox, D.D. (§ 2. 9 b). AS. Pitra, Analecta Sacra (cf. § 2. 8 b). ASGW. Abhandlungen der konigl. sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften. BG. Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca (§ 2. 3 b). When the volume is not named, Vol. VII is understood. BKV. Bibliolhek der Kirchenv'dter (cf. § 2. 9 a). BPL. Schoenemann, Bibliotheca, Vol. I (cf. § 2. 3 b). BS. Richardson, Bibliographical Synopsis (cf. § 2. 7 c). CSE. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (§ 2. 8 a). DCB. Dictionary of Christian Biography (cf. § 2. 6 a), Vol. I, 1877; II, 1880; III, 1882; IV, 1887. DLZ. Deutsche Lilleralurzeitung. Founded by M. Roediger; edited by P. Hinneberg. Egh. Lipsius, Erganzungshefte (cf. § 30, Literature). FGK. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Kanons, etc. (§ 2. 6 V), Vol. I, 1881; II, 1883; III, 1884; IV, 1891; V, 1893. GGA. Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. GNK. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (§ 2. 6 b), Vol. I, I, 1888; I, 2, 1889; H, I, 1890; II, 2, 1892. HJG. Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorresgesellschaft. Edited by H. Grauert, L. Pastor, and G. Schnurer. HZ. Historische Zeitschrift. Edited by H. von Sybel and Fr. Meinecke. JclPh. Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie {Neue Jahrbiicher fur Philologie und P'ddagogih). Edited by A. Fleckeisen and R. Richter. JdTh. Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie. Edited by K. Th. A. I.iebner, T. A. Dorner, et al. XXU LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS JprTh.Kath. KLex.LCB. LFC.LG.Lo. NC. NJdTh.NKZ.NPB. PG. PKZ.PL.RE. RhM. RQuH. RS.SAW.SBBA.SQu.SpR.SpS.StKr. TSt. Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie. Edited by Hase, Lipsius, Pfleiderer, Schrader. Der Katholik ; Zeitschrift fiir katholische Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben. Edited by J. M. Raich. Wetzler and Welte, Kirchenlexikon (cf. § 2. 6 a), Vol. I, 1882; II, 1883; III, 1884; IV, 1886; V, 1888; VI, 1889; VII, 1 891; VIII, 1893. Litterarisches Centralblatt. Founded by Fr. Zarncke; edited by E. Zarncke. Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (cf. § 2. 9 b). Harnack, Litteraturgeschichte (cf. § 2. 4 b). Lommatzsch's edition of Origen (§ 61). Maius, Nova Collectio (cf. § 2. 8 b). Neue Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie. Edited by L. Lemme. Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift. Edited by G. Holzhauser. Maius, Nova Pairum Bibliotheca (cf. § 2. 8 4). Migne, Patrologia Graeca (cf. § 2. 8 a), Vol. I, 1886; Vol. II- V, 1857; VI, 1884; VII, 1882; VIII-XI, 1857; XII-XIV, 1862; XV, XVI, 1,1862; XVI, 2, 3, 1863; XVII-XVIII, 1857. Protestantische Kirchenzeitung. Edited by (H. Krause, F. W. Schmidt, and) J. Websky. Migne, Patrologia Latina (cf. § 2. 8 a), Vol. I, II, 1866; III, IV, 1865; V-VII, 1844. Realenzyklopadie fiir Theologie und Kirche (§ 2. 6 a). Second edition, Vol. I, 1877; II, III, 1878; IV, V, 1879; VI, VII, 1880; VIII, IX, 1881; X, 1882; XI, XII, 1883; XIII, XIV, 1884; XV, XVI, 1885; XVII, 1886; XVIII, 1888. Rheinisches Museum. Edited by O. Ribbeck and F. Buecheler. Revue des Questions historiques. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae (cf. § 2. 8 b). Sitzungsberichte der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien. Sitzungsberichte der konigl. preussischen Akademie der Wissen schaften zu Berlin. Sammlung kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften. Edited by G. Kriiger, Freiburg, 189 1 ff. Maius, Spicilegium Romanum (cf. § 2. 8 U). Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense (cf. § 2. 8 b). Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Edited by (E. Riehm and) J. Kostlin, and E. Kautzsch. Texts and Studies (cf. § 2. 6 b~). LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS TU. Texte und Untersuchungen (§ 2. 6 b). ThJ. Theologische Jahrbiicher. Edited by F. Chr. Baur and E. Zeller. ThLB. Theologische Litteraturblatt. Edited by Chr. E. Luthardt. ThLZ. Theologische Lilteratttrzeitung. Edited by A. Harnack and E. Schiirer. Theologische Quartalschrift. Edited by von Kober, von Funk, et al. Theologische Studien. Edited by F. E. Daubanton et al. Theologische Tijdschrift. Edited by F. W. B. van Bell et al. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus (cf. § 2. 2). Wochenschrift fiir classische Philologie. Edited by G. Andresen, H. Draheim, and F. Harder. Zeitschrift fur die historische Theologie. Edited by (Chr. F. IUgen, Chr. W. Niedner, and) K. F. A. Kahnis. Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. Edited by Th. Brieger and B. Bess. Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie. Innsbruck. Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben. Edited by Chr. E. Luthardt. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie. Edited by A. Hilgen- feld. Where the names of Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Irenaeus occur without the mention of any particular work, the references are uniformly to the Panarion, the Church History, and the work Adversus Haereses respec tively. The citations of Irenaeus follow the chapters in the edition of Stier, and those of Clement in that of Dindorf. ThQu.ThSt. ThT. VJ- WclPh. ZhTh. ZKG. ZkTh.ZkWL, ZwTh. INTRODUCTION § I. The Subject Literature: H. J. Pestalozzi, Grtindlinien der Geschichte der kirchlichen Litteratur der ersten seeks Jahrhunderte, Gottingen, 1811. G. C. F. Liicke, in GGA, 1841, nos. 186, 187, 1849-62 (Review of Moehler's Patrologie). F. Nitzsch, Geschichtliches und Methodologisch.es zur Patristik, in JdTh, X, 1865, 37-63. F. Over beck, Ueber die Anfange der patristischen Litteratur, in HZ, XLVIII (XII), 1882, 417-472. A. Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Litteratur, etc. (cf. § 2. 8. c), 220-230. J. A. Deissmann, Prolegomena zu den biblischen Briefen, in Biblische Studien, Marburg, 1895, 187-252. The history of early Christian literature is a guide to a correct understanding and appreciation of the literary productions to which the spirit of Christianity gave rise. It treats these works, both singly and in their mutual formal relations, from a purely literary point of view, without reference to their ecclesiastical or theological importance. Such a history is, therefore, to be distin guished from Patrology, which proceeds upon a purely dogmatic conception of the " Church Fathers," and which ranks as a special discipline belonging to Catho lic theology by reason of its choice and treatment of its materials. § 2. Transmission, Compilations, Helps 1. The Christian literature of the first three centuries has been directly handed down to us only in a very fragmentary form, owing to the fact that a later age INTRODUCTION soon outgrew the conceptions of an earlier time. Pos terity has treated with pious reverence only the works of certain Fathers who were held in permanent high esteem. Our obligations are, therefore, the greater toward those who, by their copious quotations, have preserved to us fragments of the older literature. The importance of the 'TLiacXrjcnacrTiKr) 'Irrropia of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (d. 340) for the history of early Christian literature, consists particularly in this feature, as well as in the biographical details which it gives. Photius (Patriarch of Constantinople, circa 981) in his 'Airoypacfirj ical rrvvapi8fir)ai'i twv ave. Bpv- emos, Koivo-ravr. 1875. (First edition of the complete epistle.) O. de Gebhardt and A. Harnack (§ 3), I, 1, 2d edit., 1876. A. Hilgenfeld (§ 3), I, 2d edit. 1876. F. X. Funk (§ 3), I, 2d edit. 1887. J. B. Lightfoot (§ 3), Part I, 2 vols., Lond. 1890 (contains an autotype of the Codex Constantinop.). (2) Of the Latin transla tion: G. Morin in Anecdota Maredsolana,Vo\. II, Maredsous, 1894. Cf. thereon, A. Harnack in ThLZ, XIX, 1894, 159-162, and SBBA, 1 cf_ § 21. 3. 2 See, however, Weiss, 94-119. 22 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 1894, 261-273,601-621. J. Haussleiter in ThLB, XV, 1894, 169- 174. Th. Zahn in ThLB, XV, 1894, 195-200. E. Woelfflein in ALG, IX, 1894, 81-100. G. Courtois, VEpitre de Clement de Rome, Montauban, 1894. — Translations: J. Chr. Mayer (§ 3), Roberts and Donaldson, ANF, I, pp. 5-21 (§ 2. 9. b). J. Keith, ANF, IX, 229-248. (Revised from a more recently discovered manuscript.) Literature : The prolegomena and commentaries in the various editions, especially that of Lightfoot. R. A. Lipsius, De Clem. Rom. Epistola ad Corinthios priore Disquisitio, Lips. 1854. G. Salmon in DCB, I, 554-559. Hasenclever, Christliche Prosely- ten der hohercu Stdnde im ersten Jahrhundert, in JprTh, VIII, 1882, 66-78, 230-271. W. Wrede, Untersuchungen zum ersten Clemens- briefe, Gottingen, 1891. — Fabricius, BG, IV, 828-830. Richardson, BS, 1-5. Harnack, LG, 39-47. 1. The so-called first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, K.X^p.evTO'; Trpo<; KopLvOww; d, has been handed down in a threefold transmission : (1) Greek: (a) in the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century, as an appendix to the New Testament. A portion (from Chap. 57; ^ ifK.7\a6rj(TOV ... to 64, 1 . . . iitov 6 irav- TeoVT?/?) is wanting, (b) In the Codex Constantinop. (1056 a.d.), discovered by Bryennios in 1875, and now in the Patriarchal Library at Jerusalem. (2) Latin : in a translation which Harnack considers to be Roman, and Haussleiter African, in its origin. Probably it was made as early as the second century (Zahn : fifth cen tury). It is found in the Codex Florinens. of the eleventh century, and was discovered by Morin. (3) Syriac : in an unpublished translation, being a part of the New Testament,1 placed after the Catholic and before the Pauline Epistles.2 2. The Epistle was used by Polycarp 3 without any 1 Codex Cantabr. Add. MSS. 1700 (a.d. 1 170). 2 Cf. Lightfoot, 2d edit. I, 129-146. 3 Cf. Harnack's edition, XXIV-XXVII. FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT 23 explicit reference. It is first mentioned by Hegesippus,1 who, however, does not name Clement as the author any more than does Irenaeus.2 Clement is named as the author by Dionysius of Corinth3 and by Clement of Alexandria,4 the latter of whom frequently made use of the Epistle,5 both tacitly and expressly. He also reckoned it among the sacred writings. The same is the case also with Origen.6 Eusebius held the epistle in high esteem, though he did not place it in any com parison with the New Testament scriptures.7 For at testation of the epistle see Lightfoot 8 and Harnack.9 3. In the dedication the Roman church avows itself to be the sender of the epistle. Clement's name does not occur in it, but no valid proof can be adduced against the view that the Clement, who appears in the tradition of the Roman Catholic church as the third or fourth bishop of Rome, wrote it by order of the congregation. The identification of this Clement with the consul Flavius Clement, against whom his cousin, the Emperor Domitian, instituted proceedings on account of his shameful inactivity, suggests itself at once; but it is more or less contradicted by the fact that the epistle displays a finished and exact knowledge and a keen appreciation of the Old Testament. This leads one to conclude that the author was not a pagan by birth, still less a man of high rank, but more probably a Hellenis- 1 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Ill, 16; IV, 22, 1. 2 Adversus Haer. Ill, 3, 3; cf. Eusebius, V, 6, 2 ff. 8 Eusebius, IV, 23, 9 ff. 4 Stromal. IV, 17, 105. 6 Cf. Harnack, LG, 41 f. 6De Principiis, II, 3, 6; Select, in Ezech. VIII, 3; in Joann. VI, 36. 7 III, 16, 37; 4, 38; cf. Ill, 3, 25; cf. also Jerome, De Viris. 15, etc.; Photius, Codex, 113 and 126. 8 I, 2d edit. 148-200. q LG, 40-47. 24 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE tic Jew, perhaps a freedman of the consul (thus Light foot; otherwise, Lipsius, Harnack, Hilgenfeld, and many others). Besides, if at this early date a high Roman official had held a distinguished position in the church, tradition would hardly have allowed the fact to escape unmentioned. In order to determine the date of com position, it is important to note that besides the per secution that took place under Nero,1 a second is presupposed as having occurred in the immediate past:2 a fact that points to the last years of the first century.3 4. The authenticity and integrity of the epistle have only been impugned occasionally and on weak grounds.4 The writing is an exhortation occasioned by the con troversies within the Corinthian church. The Roman church, throwing her authority into the balance, not without some consciousness of its weight, explains to her sister congregation that the unchristian behavior of certain younger members toward their elders and superiors cannot but injure the good repute of the Co rinthian Christians.5 Variations on this theme, exhor tations to discipline and good order, warnings against envy and jealousy, with the citation of numerous ex amples from ancient and later times, form the substance of a composition which, in spite of the smoothness and correctness of its diction,6 is wearisome on account of its length. With rather abrupt transition the prayer used in the Roman congregation is recorded.7 Quota- 1 Chap. V, 6. 2 Chap. VII, 1 ; cf. I, 1. 3 Cf. Hegesippus in Eusebius, III, 16. 4 Cf. Harnack's edition, XLIX f. 6 Cf. I-III, 37; XLIV, 6; XLV, 3; XLVI, 5, 9; XLVII, 6; LIV, I; LVII, 1. 6 Cf. Photius, 126. ' Chaps. LIX, 3-LXI, 3. EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 25 tions from the Old Testament occupy nearly a quarter of the whole epistle ; and use was also made of Pauline Epistles, the Epistles to the Hebrews, and apparently of the first Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of James, as well as of other writings that cannot now be deter mined.1 5. The following writings have been falsely ascribed to, or wittingly forged under the name of Clement : (1) The so-called second Epistle of Clement;2 (2) the two Epistles to James;3 (3) the two Epistles de Vir- ginitate ;* (4) canonical compositions (BLarayal 8t,a KX»7/xefTO?,5 Apostolic Constitutions). § 8. The Epistle of Polycarp Editions: J. Faber, Paris, 1498 (Latin only). P. Halloix, ///. Eccl. Orient. Scriptorum . . . Vitae et Documenta, I, Duaci, 1633, 525-532. J. Usserius, Oxon. 1644; cf. J. H. Backhouse (§ 6). Theo. Zahn (§ 3), II, 1876. F. X. Funk (§ 3), II, 1881. J. B. Lightfoot (§ 3), Part II, Lond., 1885 (2d edit., 1889). A. Hilgen feld in ZwTh, XXIX, 1886, 180-206. — Translations: J. Chr. Mayer (§ 3). Roberts and Donaldson, ANF, I, pp. 33-36. Literature : The prolegomena and notes of the various editions, particularly Lightfoot, I, 417-459- 53°-7°4; H, 987-998. Also, Ritschl, A., Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (2d edit.), Bonn, 1857, 584-600. G. Volkmar, Epistidam Polycarpi Smyrnaei genuinam . . . Zurich, 1885 ; cf. A. Harnack in ThLZ, XI, 1886, 53-55. G. Salmon in DCB, IV, 423-431. Theo. Zahn, Zur Bio graphic des Polykarpus und Lrendus in FGK, IV, 249-279. J. M. Cotterill, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Homi lies of Antiochus Palaestinensis in the Journ. of Phi'lol., XIX, 1891, 241-285. Compare also the literature cited at § 9. — Fabricius, BG, 47-52. Richardson, BS, 7-10. Harnack, LG, 69-74. iCf. XVII, 6; XXIII, 3 «¦; XXVI, 2; XXVII, 5; XLVI, 2; L, 4. 2 Cf. § 20. 3 § 103. 4 § 99- 5 § ?»• 26 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE i. An Epistle to the Philippians has been preserved under the name of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who, having been a disciple of John (the Presbyter) and a contemporary of Papias,1 died on Feb. 23, i55,2at the age of eighty-six 3 or even older.4 The Epistle is extant (1) in Greek, in a fragmentary form, together with the Epistle of Barnabas, in eight (nine) manuscripts (all de scended from one archetype). In all these, the last chapters following Chap. 9. 2 (5V ^/xa? vito . . .) are want ing. (2) in Greek, in two fragments preserved by Euse bius,6 which contain the whole of Chapter 9 and Chapter 13 except the last sentence. (3) in Latin, in a somewhat free and not entirely correct translation, collected to gether with the spurious or interpolated Epistles of Ignatius. Attempts at re-translations of the missing chapters into Greek will be found in Zahn and Lightfoot. 2. Irenaeus bears witness in his letter to Florinus6 that Polycarp 7 wrote several Epistles both to congrega tions and to individuals ; and he mentions one addressed to the Philippians, in a manner that seems to compel us to understand his words as referring to the Epistle now extant. Nevertheless, the decision as to the genu ine or spurious character of this Epistle as well as the determination of its date of composition, depends upon the solution of like problems touching the Epistles of Ignatius, with which it is closely connected by unmis takable references.8 Any explanation of these relations 1 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V, 33. 4. Cf. Papias in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. HI, 39- 4- 2 Lightfoot, I, 629-702; II, 987-998 ; 2d edit., I, 646-722; III, 404- 415. Cf., however, Reville, Origines (cf. § 9, below), 454, note. 3 Martyr. Polycarp. 9. 6 cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 20. 8. 4 Zahn. ' Adv. Haer. Ill, 3. 4. 5 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 36, 13-15. 8 Cf. Chaps. 9 and 13 and the introduction. EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 27 by distinguishing between a genuine nucleus and a re daction 1 is inadmissible for internal reasons (e.g. use of the Epistle of Clement throughout and uniformity of style) in spite of the difficulties which remain on the assumption of its unity.2 Identification of the author with the author of the Epistles of Ignatius is quite impossible. According to Jerome3 (a doubtful au thority) the Epistle was still employed in divine service in his own time. It is possible that even Antiochus of St. Saba (seventh century) quoted sections from it in his Pandectes. 3. The Epistle was occasioned by a communication made by the church at Philippi to Polycarp. The re quest of the Philippians that he should strengthen them in their faith and conduct is met by the bishop by a reference to the foundations of their faith and to the duties binding upon every Christian, but particularly upon those who bear office. At the same time he recommends a strict though gentle treatment in a case of apostasy that had been mentioned by the Philippians. The composition abounds in quotations and reminis cences of Gospel literature, the Epistles of Paul, includ ing the Pastoral Epistles, the first Epistle of John and, more especially, the first Epistle of Peter; apparently, also, the Acts of the Apostles. The first Epistle of Clement is also freely used. 4. Five fragments, in the form of answers to Biblical questions, which are ascribed to Polycarp, were discov ered by Feuardentius and published in the notes to his edition of Irenaeus.4 With the exception of a single 1 Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld. 3 De Viris Illust. 17. 2 Cf. particularly Hilgenfeld. 4 1639, Adv. Haer. Ill, 3. 4. 28 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE sentence they are regarded as genuine by Zahn,1 while Lightfoot2 and Harnack3 reject them. Harnack con siders that they may have been written at the beginning of the third century. On the martyrdom of Polycarp (Martyrium Polycarpi) see § 98. § 9. The Epistles cf Ignatius Editions: J. Faber, Paris, 1498 (12 epistles of the longer Latin recension [= L2], without the letter of Maria to Polycarp). S. Champerius, Colon. 1536 (13 epistles L2). V. Paceus, Dillingen, 1557 (13 epistles of the longer Greek recension [= G2]). C. Ges- nerus, Tigur. 1559 (13 epistles, G2, L2). J. Usserius, Oxon. 1644 (first edition [of the shorter Latin recension =] L1). J. Vossius, Amstelod. 1646 (first edition [of the shorter Greek recension =] G1, without the Epistle to the Romans). Th. Ruinart, Paris, 1689 (first edition of the Epistle to the Romans). Constantinople, 1783 (first edition of the Armenian translation, reprinted by G. Peter- mann, Lips. 1849). W. Cureton, The ancient Syriac version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, etc. Lond. 1845, a"d Corpus Ignatianum, Lond. 1849 (first edition of the three Syriac epistles). Migne, PG, V, 643-960. Theo. Zahn (§ 3), II, 1876. F. X. Funk (§ 3), II, 1881. P. de Lagarde (extract from the Abhandlungen der G'otting. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. XXIX), GSttingen, 1882 (the shorter Latin recension, L1). J. B. Lightfoot (§ 3), Part II, Lond. 1885 ; 2d edit. 1889. G. A. Simcox, St. Ignatius and the new Syriac Gospels, Academy, 1894, Nov. 24, 424. — Translations: J. Chr. Mayer (§ 3). Roberts and Donaldson, ANF, 1, 49-131. (Eph., Magnes., Trail., Rom., Philad., Smyrn., Polycarp, Syriac Ep., Spu rious Ep., Mart.) Literature : J. Ussher, Dissertatio de Ignatio et Polycarpo, 1644. (Works, edited by Elrington, VII, 87-295.) J. Dallaeus, De scriptis, quae sub Dionys. Areop. et Ignat. Antioch. nominibus circumfe- runtur, libri II, Genev. 1666. J. Pearson, Vindiciae Ignatianae. Cantab. 1672. Oxon. 1852 (PG, 37-472). R. Rothe, Die Anfange der Christlichen Kirche, etc. I, Wittenb. 1837, 713-784. W. Cure- 1 GNK, I, 2, 782. s LG; 73, 2 II, 1003. (Second edition, 1889, III, 421.) EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 2$ ton, Vindiciae Ignatianae, Lond. 1846. C. C. J. v. Bunsen, Igna tius von Antiochien und seine Zeit, Hamb. 1847. F. Chr. Baur, Die ignat. Brief e und ihr neuester Kritiker, Tubingen, 1848. H. Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit des. Textes des /gnat. Wurzb. 1849. (Latin in PG, 601-624.) A. Ritschl (§ 8), 1st edit., Bonn, 1850, 577-589. G. Uhlhorn, in ZhTh, XXI, 1851, 3-65, 247- 341 (cf. also RE, VI, 688-694). R. A. Lipsius, in ZhTh, XXVI, 1856, 3-160, and in Abhandlungen fur die Kande des Morgenlandes, I> 5> 1859. A. Merx, Meletemata Ignatiana, Halle, 1861. Theo. Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873. E. Renan, Les evan- giles, Paris, 1877, XV-XXXV (cf. also Journal des Savants, 1874, 38). A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius von Antiochien, etc. Lpz. 1878 (cf. Hart in Lightfoot, 461-466, and the whole section of Light foot). R. T. Smith in DCB, III, 209-222. F. X. Funk, Die Echt- heit der ignat. Briefe, etc., Tubingen, 1883, and in KLex, VI, 581-590. W. D. Killen, The Ignatian Epistles entirely spurious. Edin. 1886. D. Volter, Die ignat. Briefe, etc. Tubingen, 1892. See besides the prolegomena and notes in the various editions, particularly Light foot. The literature on the origin of Episcopacy and of the Catholic church should also be compared, particularly J. Re*ville, in Rev. de VHist. des Relig. XXII, 1890, 1-26, 123-160, 267-288. Also sepa rately, Paris, 1891 : Idem, Les Origines de V Episcopal, Paris, 1894, 442-481. See also the literature on the Apostolical Constitutions and their sources, particularly F. X. Funk, in ThQu, LXII, 1880, 355-384, and Die apostolischen Konstitutionen, Rottenb. 1891, 281- 355. A. Harnack, in TU, II, 1, 2, 1884 (Edition of the Didache'), 241-268, and in StKr, LXVI, 1893, 460-484. — Fabricus, BG, 32-44. Richardson, BS, 10-15. Harnack, LG, 75-86. 1. A number of epistles have been preserved bearing the name of Ignatius Theophorus,1 who, according to tradition, is known as the second (third) bishop of An- tioch2 and is reputed to have met a martyr's death at Rome under Trajan.3 These Epistles exist (1) in a 1 Cf. Lightfoot, I, 22-28. 2 Origen, Horn, in Lucam, VI, I ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Ill, 22, Chroni- corum, anno Abrahami 2085 [Migne, PG, 19: 545 f.]. 3 Eusebius, Chronicor. Lib. II. anno Abrahami 2123 [Migne, PG, 19: 553 c-]> cf- Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V, 28. 4. 30 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE short form which embraces seven Epistles addressed to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Phila- delphians, Smyrnseans, and to Polycarp : (a) in Greek (G1), six being contained in a manuscript1 at Florence (probably of the eleventh century), the missing Epistle to the Romans being found as part of the text of the Martyrion (Colbert) in the National Library at Paris2 (belonging probably to the tenth century) : (b) in Latin (L1) in a translation made by Robert Grosseteste, about 1250 a.d.3 : (c) in Armenian, in a translation made from the Syriac in the fifth century at the earliest.4 (2) In Syriac [S], in a still shorter form, as compared with G1 and L1, containing the Epistles to the Ephesians, Romans, and Polycarp. (3) In an interpolated and enlarged form, containing a number of additional epistles. (a) In Greek (G2) 13 epistles ; of Mary of Cassobola and of Ignatius to Mary, to the Trallians, Magnesians, Tar- sians, Philippians, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, to Poly carp, the Antiochians, Hero, the Ephesians, and to the Romans. These are preserved in 10 (n) manuscripts. (b) in Latin (L2), containing those named above (with the exception of the letter of Mary of Cassabola), and also the Laus Heronis, two epistles to the Apostle John, one to Mary, and one from Mary to Ignatius : all pre served in 13 manuscripts. The epistle of Mary of Cassobola is preserved only in the Codex Caiensis (see above). It may be regarded as generally admitted that only the contents of the shorter recensions G1 (and L1) 1 Cod. Medic. Laur. Plut. LVII, 7. a Codex Paris. 1451 [cf. Lightfoot, I, 75. 2]. 8 Codex Montacutian. [now lost] and Codex Caiensis 395, 1440 A.D., at Cambridge. 4 Thus Petermann; Lightfoot regards it as later. EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 31 are available for an investigation and estimate of the literary remains of Ignatius. Even in his day, Ussher showed that a relationship existed between the longer recension G2 (and L2) and the Apostolic Constitutions, which was explicable only on the assumption of a com mon redactor; and opinions only vary as to whether the redactor (who labored either in the first part of the fifth century or in the second half of the fourth) was a semi-Arian (Zahn, Harnack), an Apollinarian (Funk), or a reconciler of the two (Lightfoot). The view that the shortest form in Syriac (S) was the original one, as is maintained by Bunsen, Ritschl, and Lipsius, was denied by Denzinger and Uhlhorn, and finally refuted by Zahn and Lightfoot. The fact that the Epistle to the Romans has been handed down separately is pos sibly accounted for by the fact that it was not contained in the first collection of Epistles made in Asia Minor.1 2. The fact that Ignatius wrote several epistles was attested by Polycarp, who, at the same time, sent such as were in his possession to the Philippians.2 Irenaeus quoted a sentence from the Epistle to the Romans3 without mentioning the author.4 Acquaintance with Ignatius is to be assumed in the case of Clement of Alexandria ; 5 and Origen quoted Rom. iii. 3 ; 6 vii. 2,7 and Eph. xix. i.8 In the last two instances he named the martyr-bishop, Ignatius, as the author. Eusebius quoted Eph. xix. 1 ; 9 Rom. v. ; Smyrn. iii. 1, 2, and 1 Epist. Poly carpi ad Philipp. 13. 2. 3 4. I. 2 Cf. his Epistle, Chap. 13. 2. 4 Adv. Haer. V, 28. 4. s Cf. Paedagogus, II, 8. 63 [Eph. xvii. 1]; Excerpta Theodoti, 74 [Eph. xix. 2]; Paedagogus, I, 6. 38 [Trail, viii. 1]. 6 Oral. 20. 8 Horn. VI, in Lucam. 7 In Canticum Cant, prolegom. 9 Quaestiones ad Stephanum, I. 32 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Rom. iv. i : : and Athanasius quoted and commented on Eph. vii. 2.2 Jerome3 had not read the Epistles. At the time of the Monophysite controversies, quota tions from Ignatius were frequently used with effect. Attestations (in part of doubtful character) are given by Zahn 4 and Lightfoot.5 3. The seven epistles of the shorter recension purport to have been written by Ignatius from Smyrna or from Troas and Naples during his journey to Rome under the escort and guard of soldiers. Their object was to return thanks for the loving welcome that he had received in these cities ; but their chief aim was to give exhortations against schismatical movements and against Docetism and Judaism. The Epistle to the Romans was meant to announce the arrival of the bishop, and it gave utterance to his ardent desire for martyrdom. It is presupposed in these epistles that a bishop was at the head of each separate congregation (see, however, the Epistle to the Romans), and the greatest stress is laid upon the maintenance of this order. The epistles are written with an extravagant, almost histrionic, pathos, and in an original but artifi cial style. They lead one to imagine the writer as a man possessing deep religious feeling, much theological naivete, and subject to passionate emotion and excite ment. There is much which recalls various passages of Scripture, but actual quotations are few. E. v. d. Goltz 6 1 Eccl. Hist. Ill, 36. 7-12. Cf. V, 8. 9, and III, 38. I, 5. 2 Epistola de synodis Arimini et Seleuciae, 47. 3 Cf. De Viris Illust. 16, etc. 4 II, pp. 320-373- 6 I, 127-221 [2d edit. 1889, I, 135-232]. 6 In his work on Ignatius von Antiochien als Christen und Theologen, in TU, XII, 3, 1894. EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 33 has carefully investigated the literary relations between the Ignatian epistles and other portions of early Chris tian literature, with the result that we must assume that Ignatius was acquainted with the principal epistles of Paul, and, most probably, with the Pauline (?) Epistle to the Ephesians, but not with the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, the Epistles of Peter, the Epistle of James, or with the fourth Gospel, in spite of his spiritual affinity with it. 4. The doubts that have been raised as to the genu ineness of the Epistles may be grouped under three heads: (1) The situation presupposed in the Epistles, the systematic method of their composition, and their whole literary character make them appear like the work of a forger ; (2) The church polity presupposed in the Epistles ; and (3) The heresies which they combat are inconceivable in the time of Trajan, to which tradi tion has assigned the martyrdom of Ignatius. The motive of the forgery is alleged to have been a desire to glorify the dignity of monarchical episcopacy to the congregations of Asia Minor ; and the time of Ignatius is assigned as the terminus ad qucm of the epistles ; i.e. the epoch in which the Catholic idea of the episco pate may be considered as everywhere realized. Under these circumstances the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians would appear to have been written as a companion piece to facilitate the circulation of the forgery. 5. The first argument may be met by reference to the fact that the situation presents no other improbabil ities than are often met with in authenticatedj that the alleged systematic character of tbfgolsntmi&itib*. is fully explained by the situation ; thaj^he lTtera^ktom 34 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE would be no more intelligible in the case of a forger than in the case of the author assigned by tradition, and that, on the other hand, there are countless con crete traits that make any theory of forgery well-nigh untenable. The force of the second and third argu ments cannot be denied off-hand. Nevertheless, it should be considered (i) that our knowledge of the development both of church polity and of doctrine is far too uncertain for us to draw absolute conclusions from it, and that, therefore, any judgment as to that development may be drawn more correctly from the original documents than vice versa; (2) that the Epistles contain undeniable archaisms which are hardly conceiv able even as late as 150 a.d.; and (3) that these doubts presuppose that the traditional date of Ignatius, more especially the date of his martyrdom, is correct, whereas serious objections can be raised at this point. The Martyria Ignatii can lay no claim to historical worth, and the statements of Eusebius are of doubtful value, seeing that the list of Antiochian bishops, which he used, itself shows evident traces of an artificial chronol ogy. It thus appears to be at least not impossible that a later date may be given for the martyrdom of Ignatius (Harnack ; see, however, Hort). The natural result of this assumption would be to assign the Epistle of Poly carp also to a later date. CHAPTER II APOCALYPSES § 10. The Apocalypse of John More than any other book in the New Testament, the Apocalypse of John shows a Jewish cast. The domain of Jewish apocalyptic thought was real to its author, and the evidences of a Christian spirit and a Christian temper, which are scattered like pearls throughout the whole Apocalypse, contrast strangely with the visions of an extravagant fancy, breathing hate and vengeance, which form the substratum of the book. The riddles which this Apocalypse offers to historico- literary criticism seem to be almost as difficult to solve as the problems which its contents presented as long as pious belief saw future history prophesied in it. The book is by no means uniform in its contents, written down at the prompting of the Spirit; but the author has incorporated foreign material clumsily and not with out manifest self-contradiction. It also appears undeni able that Jewish material may be found among the rest. Nothing in the book points to the Apostle as the author, and the tradition (in itself not contemptible) may rest upon a confusion of the Apostle with the Presbyter. We must apparently be content with this statement: a Christian, named John, wrote the Apocalypse in Asia Minor toward the end of the first century, during the reign of Domitian. 35 36 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE » — § n. The Apocalypse of Peter Editions : A. Hilgenfeld (§ 3) IV, 2d edit. 1884, 71-74. U. Bouri- ant, in Mimoires publih par les membres de la mission archhlogique francaise au Caire, IX, 1, Paris, 1892. Cf. the photographic fac simile of the manuscript in Tom. IX, 3, 1893. A. Harnack, in SBBA, 1892, XLV, XLVI, 949-955 ; in TU, IX, 2, 1893, second edition. J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, Lond. 1892. A. Lods, Paris (1892), 93. F. X. Funk, in ThQu, LXXV, 1893, 278-288 (263-265). O. v. Gebhardt, Lpz. 1893 (contains photographic facsimile). Rutherford, A., ANF, IX, 141 f. Literature : Besides the introductions and annotations in the edi tions mentioned above, see Theo. Zahn, in GNK, II, 2, 810-820 (written before the discovery of the manuscript). E. Bratke, in ThLB, XIV, 1893, 99-102, 113-115, and his Hands chriftliche Ueberlieferung und Bruchst'iicke der arabisch-dthiopischen Petrus- apokalypse, in ZwTh, XXXVI, 1, 1893, 454-493. A. Dieterich, Nekyia, Lpz. 1893. A. Harnack, Die Petrusapokalypse in der alten abendldndischen Kirche, in TU, XIII, 1, 1895, 71-73. — Harnack, LG, 29-33- 1. An ' KiroKaXv^iv 'EXXiyvanr 6eo\oyiKal ypa 4 Cf. Codex n. 6 I*- ln. 3- 6. 7 Cf. particularly, Epist. Fesl. 39, anno 365. 3 Cf. the Muratorian Fragment, v. 73-80; Jerome, De Viris Illus. 10, etc.; Rufinus, Cassian {Collat. VIII, 7; XIII, 12). 9 Cf. Visiones, V, and passim. 42 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE energetic appeal to all Christendom1 for a speedy abandonment of the lax and sinful mode of life into which it had sunk. As regards its form, it is to be classed with the Apocalypses. The author wrote by reason of a divine revelation, and in consequence of a special commission, like a prophet inspired by the divine spirit. But the aim and character of the work plainly distinguish it from the Apocalypses of John and Peter, and indeed from any of the apocalyptic writings whose authors seized upon some name famous in earlier times in order to accredit their own communications. In this sense the book is not a literary fiction, no matter how fanciful the garb in which it is presented. Hermas (Herma, or Hermes2) was, possibly, born in Arcadia,3 and in his youth was sold as a slave and taken to Rome, where he was freed, and settled with his family.4 He was a brother of Pius, the bishop.5 He wrote without special culture,6 in a naive and childlike style, diffuse and circumstantial, but popular and graphic. His lan guage, if it does not imply Jewish extraction, at least indicates a Jewish education, or familiar intercourse with the Jewish elements of the church. We cannot determine with certainty what Christian (or Jewish) writings he had read ; his knowledge of synoptic tradi tion, apocalyptic literature, and certain epistles,7 as well as of the original Didache? and the Kerygma Petri? i Vis. II, 4. 3. 2 Cf. Id. I, 1. 4, etc. 3 Cf. Similitudes, IX, 1, and Robinson (following Harris), 30-36. 4 Cf. the Introduction. 6 Cf. Catalog. Liberian. Anno 354, and the Muratorian Fragment, v. 76 ff. 6 Cf. Visions, II, 4. I. 8 Cf. § 21. 3. 7 Eph., I Pet., James(?). 9 § 19. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 43 may have been gathered from the readings and teach ings which formed part of the service of the church. 4. This extensive book is divided into three parts : five Visions (6pdaei? fxdv (to. TraiBiKa tov icvpiov, infancy of our Lord Jesus), has been preserved in several recensions, two Greek, one Latin, and one Syriac. The present text must repre sent a shortened form of the original narrative.3 It is mentioned by Origen4 and Eusebius,5 and according to Hippolytus 6 it was read by the Naassenes. Accord ing to Irenaeus,7 the stories related by the Marcosians concerning the child Jesus may have been derived from this source. In the Pistis-Sophias also, this gospel seems to have been used.9 In it Jesus appears as a miracle-worker and magician when a child of five to eight (twelve) years. The author professes to be an Israelite, but both his language and his matter make this impossible. It cannot be proved certainly that the work originated in Gnostic circles, but this is strongly suggested by the circles in which it was read. It is not impossible that Justin 10 had read the book. 1 § 3°- 5- 2 Stromata, VII, 17. 108 (cf. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, VII, 20) ; II, 9. 45; III, 4- 26; IV, 6. 35; VII, 13. 82. 3 Stichometry of Nicephorus. 7 Adv. Haer. I, 20. 1. 4 Horn. I in Luc. 8 § 28. 6 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 25. 6. 9 p- 69 ff. (Schwarze-Petermann). 6 Philos. V, 7. 10 Dial, cum Trypho, 88. 56 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Editions: J. C. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. I, Lips. 1832, LXXIII-XCI, 275-315. C. Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 2d edit., Lips. 1876, XXXVI-XLVIII, 140-180. W. Wright, Con tributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the N. T. Lond. 1865. Translations: K. F. Borberg, Die apokryphischen Evangelien und Apostelgeschichten, Stuttgart, 1841, 57-84. Cf. also Theo. Zahn, GNK, II, 2. 768-773. Alex. Walker in ANF, VIII, 395 ff. Richardson, BS, 98. Harnack, LG, 15-17. 6. The so-called Protevangel of James, 'H icnopLa 'Icuccbfiov irepl t?j? yevprjcrecos M.apia<;, has been preserved complete in the original in numerous manuscripts,1 and the concluding portion is contained in a Syriac transla tion. The present text represents a later redaction, and it is possible that the references to it made by Justin 2 and Clement,3 together with the quotation from the Bt/3Xo? 'laKtofiov, made by Origen,4 presuppose an older text. The book was very frequently used by the later Fathers.5 The narrative is couched in simple lan guage, and extends from the birth of Mary to the slaughter of the Innocents at Bethlehem. In so far as the story is confined within the limits of the canonical narrative, it appears to be a diffuse paraphrase of the matter contained in Matthew and Luke ; but written sources cari hardly have been used for the tale of Anna and Mary. The author was probably of Jewish birth, and may have written, in Egypt or in Asia Minor, in the first decade of the second century.6 1 Harnack, LG, 19. 2 Apol. I, 33; Dial. 78, 100. 8 Stromata, VII, 1 6. 93. 4 Comm. Matt. X, 17, in the edition of Lommatzsch, III, 45. 6 Cf. citations from the literature of the fourth to the eleventh century, made by Thilo and Tischendorf. 8 So Zahn. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 57 Editions: Th. Bibliander, Basil. 1552 (Latin). M. Neander, Basil. 1564. J. C. Thilo, see above, XLV-LXXIII, 159-273. W. Wright, see above. C. Tischendorf, see above, XI-XXIV, 1-50. Translations : Alex. Walker, ANF, VIII, 361 ff. K. F. Borberg, see above, 1-56. F. C. Conybeare (translation from an Armenian manuscript in the Library of the Mechitarists in Venice) Amer. Jnl. of Theol. I, 1897, pp. 424-442. Cf. A. Hilgenfeld in ZwTh, XII, 1865, 339 f . ; XIV, 1867, 87 note; L. Conrady, Das Protevang. Jacobi in neuer Beleuclitung in StKr, LXII, 1889, 728-784. Zahn, 774-780. A. Behrendts, Studien iiber Zacharias-Apokryphen und Zacharias-Legenden. Lpz. 1895. Richardson, BS, 96 f. Harnack, LG, 19-21. 7. As early as the time of Justin,1 appeal was made to certain alleged official Acts concerned with the trial of Jesus (to. eirl HoptIov UiXdrov yepofiepa dicTa). It is quite possible that Justin had before him something similar to the "TirofivqiiaTa tov icvpiov f)p.5yp 'Irjcrov Hpicr- tov irpa^depra eirl Hovtlov IIiXaTov, an account of the Passion, decked out with legendary details and inter spersed with speeches by the principal actors. This work, however, can scarcely have originated before the fourth century. Compare with it the Gospel of Peter. II. The Acts of the Apostles § 17. The Acts of the Apostles, incorporated in the New Testament Canon, were a direct continuation of the Gospel according to Luke, and were written by the same author and from the same point of view. The story of the life and work of the Lord was followed by an account of the deeds of his Apostles in whom his holy spirit continued to live. The actual occurrences of the Apostolic Age, and especially the controversies 1 Apol. I, 35. 48, 58 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE which dominated it, were no longer known to the author. He made a faithful use, as he had done in his first book, of the sources which he could obtain, but for the earlier history tradition furnished him principally with legends, and it requires some pains to sift out from the rest whatever is of authentic value in the first half of the book. On the other hand, the second half is founded upon a source of the first order, the so-called "we-source," containing an account of Paul's journeys told by a companion of the Apostle, presumably Luke. The general character of the book (which, furthermore, cannot be traced in ecclesiastical literature with any certainty before the time of Irenaeus) renders it improb able that it was written during the first century. Where it was written cannot be determined. CHAPTER IV DOCTRINAL WRITINGS § 1 8. The So-called Roman Symbol Literature : C. P. Caspari, Ungedruckte . . . Quellen zur Ge schichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, III. Christiania, 1875. A. Hahn (G. L. Hahn), Bibliothek der Symbole und Glau- bensregeln der alten Kirche. Breslau, 1877. 2d edit, (texts). A. Harnack (§ 3), I, 2, 2d edit. 1878, 1 15-142 (Testimony from the second century) ; Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Berl. (1892), 1894, 25th edit. W. Bornemann, Das Taufsymbol Justins der Mdrtyrer, in ZKG, III, 1879, 1-27. Theo. Zahn, Das apostolische Symbolum. Erlangen and Lpz. 1893; cf. A. Jlilicher, in Christ. Welt, VII, 1893, 246-252, 268-274, and A. Harnack, in Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, IV, 1894, 130-166. S. Baeumer, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss . Mainz, 1893. CI. Blume, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss. Freib. 1893. L. Lemme, in NJdTh, II, 1893, 1-53. J. Haussleiter, Zur Vorgeschichte des apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses . Marburg, 1893. F. Katten- busch, Das apostolische Symbol, I, Lpz. 1894; cf. F. Loofs, in GGA, 1894, 665-680. C. Clemen, in NKZ, VI, 1895, 323-336. Harnack, LG, 1 1 5 f . In the time of Justin Martyr, i.e. about 150 a.d. at the latest, the Roman church possessed a formal baptis mal creed, written in Greek ; the earliest form of the so-called Apostles' Creed. When and where it origi nated cannot be determined with certainty. All at tempts to reconstruct its previous history on the basis of the earliest Christian documents have hitherto proved 59 60 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE futile ; though the possibility remains that it may have originated about ioo a.d. Possibly Rome was the place where it took shape, but the formula may equally well have been imported from the East. Its wording can be restored with almost absolute certainty, (i) in Greek, from the formulae (a) in the letter of Marcellus of Ancyra and Julius of Rome (337-338? 341? a.d.) preserved by Epiphanius,1 and (b) in the so-called Psal- terium Aethelstani% of the eighth or ninth century ; and (2) in Latin, from the formulae (a) in an Oxford manu script3 of the seventh century; (b) in a manuscript in the British Museum4 of the eighth century, and (c) in the Expositio Symb. Apost. of Rufinus of Aquileia (died 410). The legend that this symbol was composed by the Apostles in common soon after the first Pentecost was possibly well known at Rome as early as the third century, though it is first mentioned by Rufinus in con nection with an erroneous exposition of the symbol. The baptismal confessions of the other Western churches can be traced back to the Roman symbol. § 19. The "Preaching" of Peter Literature: A. Hilgenfeld (§ 3), IV, 2d edit. 1884, 51-65; same, in ZwTh, XXXVI, ii, 1893, 518-541. J. R. Harris, in TSt. I, 1. (The Apology of Aristides), 1891, 86-99. Theo. Zahn, GNK, II, 820-832. E. v. Dobschiitz, in TU, XI, 1, 1893. Harnack, LG, 25-28, 29. 1. Clement5 of Alexandria has preserved a number 1 Panarion, LXXII, 2. 2 Cod. Biblioth. Cotton. Mus. Britt. [Galba A, XVIII]. 8 Cod. Laud. 35, Biblioth. Bodlei. 4 Codex Mus. Brit. 2 A, XX. 6 Cf. Stromata, I, 29. 182; II, 15. 68; VI, 5. 39-43; VI, 6. 48; VI, 7. 58; VI, 15. 128; Eclogae, 58. PREACHING OF PETER 6 1 of longer or shorter fragments of the lie'rpov Ktfpvyfia, which had previously been employed by Heracleon,1 the Valentinian, and apparently by ApoUonius,2 the Anti- Montanist. While Clement spoke of this writing with high respect, Origen x expressed doubts as to its genu ineness, though without giving a definite opinion, and Eusebius3 rejected it as apocryphal. The Petri Doc- trina, ILerpov AiSaaKaXla, is very probably identical with this Preaching. Some passages from it have been preserved by Origen,4 by Gregory Nazianzen,5 and in the Sacra Parallela? Compare also Origen "' and pos sibly CEcumenius.8 2. From these fragments it appears that the writing was a missionary sermon, placed in the mouth of Peter and addressed to the heathen. If the fragments may be read in the light of the Apology of Aristides,9 it is possible that an exposition of the true idea of God formed the introductory portion. Then followed dis cussions and refutations of Greek and Jewish belief, while a laudatory account of Christian ethics may have formed the conclusion. Such a plan would denote that the work was a forerunner of the apologetic literature. There is no basis for the conjecture that it formed a continuation of (Hilgenfeld), or an analogue (v. Dob- schiitz) to, the Acts of the Apostles. 3. As the Preaching was very probably used in the Apology of Aristides, it probably was composed as early 1 Cf. Origen, injoann. XIII, 17. 8 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 3. 2. 2 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 18. 14. 4 De principiis, praef. 8. 6 Oral. 14 (old, 16), Epist. 16 (old, 20). 6 John of Damascus, Opera, edition of Le Quien, II, 336 A and 475. 7 Horn, in Lev. 10. 8 Comm. ad Jacob. 5, 16; Opera II, 478. 9 § 34. 2- 62 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE as the first quarter of the second century. If the rela tionship of the Preaching to the Shepherd of Hermas could be traced back with certainty to a use of it in the Shepherd, then it must have originated during the first century, and nothing conclusive can be adduced against this view. The place of composition may have been either Egypt or Greece (Hilgenfeld). The supposed relations of the Preaching to the KT/pvyfiara YieTpov of the pseudo-Clementine literature, allow of no certain explanation. From the statements of Clement of Alexandria,1 Pseudo-Cyprian 2 (Paulli praedicatio), and Lactantius,3 Hilgenfeld considers it allowable to assert that the Preaching was originally known as Herpov ical TlavXov Krjpvyfia. § 20. The So-called Second Epistle of Clement Editions, Translation, and Literature, see § 7. Also, Hagemann, in ThQu, XLIII, 1861, 509-531. A. Harnack, in ZKG, I, 1877, 264- 283, 329-364; Idem, Ueber den Ursprung des Lectoramts, etc., in TU, II, 5, 1886, 82-84; transl. by L. A. Wheatley, in Harnack's Sources of the Apost. Canons, Lond. 1895. — Harnack, LG, 47-49. J. Keith, in ANF, IX, 251-256 (revised translation). 1. The manuscript transmission of the so-called Second Epistle of Clement is the same as that of the First Epistle,4 though the Codex Alexandrinus contains only the Chapters 1-12, 5 (tovto . . . ). The writing is first mentioned by Eusebius, who described it as an epistle,5 though presumably he had not read it. Je rome6 simply copied Eusebius. Excepting the index of the Codex Alexandrinus, it is first mentioned as the 1 Stromata, VI, 5. 42 ff. 4 § 7, 1. 2 De repaptismo, 17. 6 mst, £cc[_ jii, 38. 4. 3 Divinae Institutiones, IV, 21. 2. 6 De Viris Illust. 15. TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES 63 Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in the Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, 74, of Pseudo-Justin.1 2. Since the discovery of the complete text, there is no longer any doubt that we have to do, not with an epistle, but with a homily,2 which may have been read 3 to the congregation by the lector (Harnack). The preacher exhorts to the fulfilment of Christ's commands by showing "that therein consists the true confession of Jesus which corresponds to the greatness of redemp tion ; that therein is expressed opposition to the world, and that therefor the reward of resurrection and of a future life is assured." 4 No conjectures can be formed as to the personality of the author. Even Photius5 knew that he could not have been Clement of Rome. Corinth (Lightfoot) and Rome (Harnack) have been indicated as the place of its composition. The author's theology and the possibility of his having used the Gospel to the Egyptians 6 appear to make it impossible that the date of composition could have been later than the middle of the second century. §21. The Teaching of the Apostles Editions: $. Bpve'wos, Koivo-ravT. 1883. A. Hilgenfeld (§ 3), IV, 2d edit. 1884. A. Harnack, in TU, II, 1, 2, 1884 (Greek and German) ; reprinted 1893. A. Wunsche, Lpz. 1884. (Greek and German.) P. Sabatier, Paris, 1885. H. D. M. Spence, Lond. 1885. Hitchcock and Brown, 2d edit., N. Y. 1885. Ph. Schaff, N. Y. (1885) 1889, 3d edit. F. X. Funk (§ 3), Tubingen, 1887 (Greek and Latin). J. R. Harris, Baltimore, 1887 (with fac-simile of the entire manuscript). — Translation : I. H. Hall and J. T. Napier, 1 Cf. Justin, Opera, III, p. 108, 3d edit. Otto, 1880. Lightfoot, I, 1, p. 178 f. 2 Cf. 15. 2; 17. 3; 19- i- 6 Codex' "3- 8 Cf. 19. 1. 6 § l6- 3- 4 Ritschl, Altkatholische Kirche, 2d edit. p. 286 f. 64 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ANF, VIII, 377-382. (Several of the editions mentioned above contain translations.) Literature : The prolegomena and notes in the above editions. Most careful collection of the literature by Schaff ; cf. also S. Bau- mer, in Litterar. Handiv. XXVII, 1888, 393-398, 425-430. Theo. Zahn, FGK, III, 278-319; Idem, Justinus und die Lehre der zw'olf Apostel, in ZKG, VIII, 1885, 66-84. A. Krawutzcky, in ThQu, LXVI, 1884, 547-606; Ldem, in KLex, III, 1869-1872. L. Masse- bieau, Eenseignement des douze apdtres, Paris, 1884. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XXVIII, 1885, 73-102. H. Holtzmann, Die Didache und Hire Nebenformen, in JprTh, XI, 1885, 154-166. C. Fr. Arnold, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchenrecht, 1885, 407-454. J. R. Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles and the Sibylline Books, Camb. 1885. E. Bratke, Die Einheitlichkeit der Didache, in JprTh, XII, 1886, 302-312. Ch. Taylor, The Teaching, etc., with Illustrations from the Talmud, Camb. 1886. B. B. Warfield, Texts, Sources, and Contents of The Two Ways, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1886, 100-160. A. C. McGiffert, The Didache viewed in its relations to other writ ings, in Andover Review, V, 1886, 430-442. A. Harnack, Die Apostellehre und die jiidischen beiden Wege, Lpz. 1886 (with texts; cf. RE, XVII, 656-675) ; Idem, in ThLZ, XI, 1886, 271-273, 344- 347, XII, 1887, 32-34. F. X. Funk, Zur alten lateinischen Ueber setzung der Doctrina apostolorum, in ThQu, LXVIII, 1886, 650-655 ; Idem, Zur Apostellehre und apostolischer Kirchenordnung, in ThQu, LXIX, 1887, 276-306, 355-374. G. Wohlenberg, Die Lehre der zw'olf Apostel in ihr em Verhdltnis zum neutestamenllichen Schrift- tum, Erlangen, 1888. P. Batiffol, Le Syntagma Doctrinae, dit de Saint Athanase, in Studia Patristica, II, Paris, 1890, 1 17-160. H. Amoneit, Die Apostellehre und ihr Verhdltnis zu verwandten Schriften, in Untersuchungen zur alten Kirchengeschichte, Program, Wehlau, 1892. P. Savi, La " dottrina degli ApostoW 'Roma, 1893 (from Studi e documenti di storia e diritto, XIII, 1892) ; cf. F. X. Funk, in ThQu, LXXVI, 1894, p. 703 ff. L. E. Iselin and A. Heusler, Eine bisheru nbekannte Version des ersten Teiles der "Apos tellehre," in TU, XIII, 1, 1895. Richardson, BS, 83-86. Harnack, LG, 86-92. 1. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, AiBaxv twv BwBeica cnroaToXcop (Aihayfi tcvplov hbh tSip SwSeKa airo- TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES 65 aroXcop tois eOvecrip), is preserved in the Codex Hierosol} (Constantinople) of the year 1056 a.d. It was first made known in print in 1883, and since then has be come the subject of an almost unlimited literature. It was a sort of guide to Christian practice and church life, and was intended to be used in the instruction preliminary to baptism. The first part (1-6) presents, under the image of the two paths of life and of death, the moral precepts with which the catechumen was to be made acquainted before baptism ; while the second part (or the last two parts) was addressed to those who had received baptism, and treated of acts of worship (7-10 ; baptism, fasts, the eucharist) and of the " offices " in the church, i.e. of prophets, apostles, teachers, bishops, and deacons (11-1 5). It closed with an exhortation in which reference was made to the second coming of the Lord (16). 2. Eusebius2 enumerates the so-called o"ioa%at to>p airocnoXwp in the last group of the Scriptures [the "rejected writings"], and in the list of Athanasius,3 the so-called hihayr) tcqp airorrroXoav follows Judith and Tobit, and precedes the Shepherd of Hermas. In the List of the Sixty Canonical Books,4 the ireplohoi zeal Si&axal twv airoaToXmp are mentioned between the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas; and the Stichometry of Nicephorus mentions the hilaxh reap cvttocttoXoop (200 stichoi) after the Gospel of Thomas, and before the Epistle of Clement. Funk 5 has shown the existence of traces of the Didache in the writings of Optatus of Milevis (Mileum). From the West, only one 1 § 6. 1. * Zahn, GNK, II, 292. 2 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 25. 6 ThQu, LXXVI, 1894, 601-604. 8 Epist.fest. 39. 66 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE unequivocal attestation is known : viz. in the writing de Aleatoribus1 of Pseudo-Cyprian (doctrinae Apostolorum); Rufinus, in his transcript of the canonical list2 of Athanasius, put a writing called Duae viae vel judi cium secundum Petrum 3 in place of the SiBaxv- Since the discovery of the text, it appears that the sentence quoted by Clement4 as Holy Scripture is found in the Didache ;5 that besides Clement,6 Origen,7 Dionysius,8 and perhaps Gregory of Nyssa9 were also acquainted with the Didache ; and that it was much used in the Pseudo-Athanasian writing irepl TrapOePias.10 3. The question as to the time and place of com position of the Teaching of the Apostles, as also its relation to other writings, can only be answered when the preliminary problem as to its component parts has been solved. The form of the document as it is contained in the manuscript may be regarded as a redaction of earlier copies. Probably it is to be traced back to a Jewish catechism for proselytes, which con tained the first five chapters and a part of the sixth (in the form of The Two Ways), and, presumably, also considerable portions of the succeeding chapters : com mands as to food, instruction, and the general prac tices of worship (6, 8), teachers (11-1 3), celebration of 1 Chap. 4. 8 § gg_ 3_ 2 Exposit. in Symb. Apost. 36-38. 4 Stromata, I, 20. 100. 5 3- 5- 6 Cf. also Prolreplicos, 10, 109; Paedagogus, II, 10. 89; III, 12. 89; Quis divis, 29. 7 Horn. VI in Jud,; edition of Lommatzsch, XI, 258. Cf. also Princ. Ill, 2. 7. 8 Sacra Parallela, edition of Le Quien, 674. 9 Ep. 2, Migne, PG, XLVI, 1012. 10 Migne, PG, XXVIII, 251-282. TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES 67 the Sabbath (14-15), other gatherings for divine wor ship (16), and the crown of the same, readiness for the Messianic kingdom. These instructions underwent Christian revision, probably in Egypt (=the original Didache) ; and out of this revision there grew up, prob ably in Syria,1 earlier even than 150 a.d., the form preserved in our manuscript ( = Didache). The older form (various recensions ?) probably underlay the frag ment of a Latin translation in the Codex Melliceusis2 of the twelfth century,3 the citation in the treatise de Aleatoribus, the recension contained in the Ecclesias tical Canons,4 and also that in the Pseudo-Athanasian 2,vPTayp,a SicW/eaXia?5 and the closely allied Pseudo- Athanasian Fides Mcaena.6 This same form may have been used in the concluding chapters7 of the Epistle of Barnabas, in case these chapters do not go back to the original source. Hermas,8 like Aristides,9 also probably had read the writing in this or in a similar form. On the other hand, the recension of it in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions10 was based upon a text almost exactly identical with that of the manuscript. 1 Cf. chap. 9. 10. 2 Codex Mellicensis, Qu. 52, Saec. XII. 8 v. Gebhardt, in Harnack's TU, II, 2, pp. 275-286. Cf. also Funk. 4 § 98. 2. 6 Migne, PG, XXVIII, 1. 637-1644. 6 Migne, PG, XXVIII, 835-846. 7 17-20. 8 § 12. 9 § 34- 10 § 98- 3- DIVISION II GNOSTIC LITERATURE Literature : R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios Wien, 1865 ; Idem, Die Qztellen der dltesten Ketzergeschichte, Lpz. 1875. A. Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticzsmus, Lpz. 1873 ; Idem in ZhTh, XLIV, 1874, 143-226. A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzer geschichte des Urchristentums, Lpz. 1884; Idem, Judentzim und Judenchristentum, Lpz. 1886. J. Kunze, De historiae gnosticismi fontibus novae quaestiones criticae, Lips. 1894; cf. Harnack, in ThLZ, XIX, 1894, 340 f. § 22. General With few exceptions, our knowledge of Gnostic liter ature is derived solely from those fragments which Catholic theologians and ecclesiastics included in their works that they might combat and refute them. Al though these remains allow us only very scanty insight into the nature and contents of Gnostic literature, they nevertheless suffice to produce the impression that it must have been most important and varied. To be sure, the leaders of Gnostic sects were not all authors. We are not told on good authority that either Cleobius and Dositheus, or Simon, Menander, Satornilus, Ce rinthus, and others, left literary works behind them.1 We have no tangible evidence that others, such as 1 See, however, Origen, in Johan. XIII, 27; Constitutiones apost. VI, 16. Fabricius, BG, 176 f. Harnack, LG, 152-157. 68 GNOSTIC WRITERS 69 Hermogenes,1 were authors. But the principal Gnostic leaders, notably Basilides, Valentinus, and their disci ples, anticipated, both in form and matter, much that played a part in Patristic literature ; and the singular class of edifying tales [which later attained great vogue] seems to have been fostered first in Gnostic circles. 1 Harnack, LG, 200. CHAPTER I THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE §23. Basilides and Isidore Fragments : J. E. Grabe, Spicilegium (§ 2. 8. b), II, 1699, 35-43. A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchrzstentums, Lpz. 1884, 207-218; cf. F. A. Hort, in DCB, II, 268-281. — Fabricius, BG, 177 f. Harnack, LG, 157-161. 1. Basilides, a pupil of Glaucias, who is alleged to have been the interpreter of Peter,1 was a teacher in Alexandria2 in the time of Hadrian.3 That he had been in Antioch with Satornilus, a pupil of Menander, is an assertion of Epiphanius4 which cannot now be verified. We gather from the Acta Archelai of the fourth century, that he preached among the Persians.5 Origen 6 says of him, possibly incorrectly, that he wrote a gospel of his own, TZvayyeXiop Kara HaaiXiSriP. It is certain that he wrote twenty-four fiifiXia on the Gospel,7 which, according to Clement of Alexandria,8 were en- 1 Clement, Stromata, VII, 17. 107. 2 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I, 24. 1, and, following him, Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 7. 3. 8 Clement, loc. cit. Eusebius, Chronic, ad ann. 133. 4 Panarion, XXIII, 1. 6 Chap. 55. 0 Horn. I in Luc. V, edit, of Lommatzsch, V, 86; cf. 87. 7 Agrippa Castor, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 7. 7. 8 Stromata, IV, 12. 83. 7° BASILIDES ISIDORE VALENTINUS "J\ titled '~EI;T}yr)TtKd. Fragments from Books XIII and XXIII have been preserved by Clement and in the Acta Archelai, and these serve materially to brighten the picture of Basilides which his opponents drew of him. Compare also the sentence in Origen's Comm. in epist. ad Rom. V.1 2. Isidore, the son of Basilides, wrote the following three works, fragments of which have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria : (a) Uepl Trpocrcj)vov^ i/ru^?.2 By this is meant the lower soul in man, with all belong ing to it,3 which is to be ruled by the rational soul. (b) '~Ei!;r]yT]Tifca tow Trpocjj^Tov Uapxoip* (in at least two books), which attempts, among other things, to prove the Oriental origin of Greek learning. (c) 'Rdacd.5 This extensive fragment is connected with an expla nation of a saying of the Lord analogous to Matt. xix. 10 f., and it proves that the author's ethics were of a strict type. According to Epiphanius,6 Isidore wrote certain ILa.pcupeTi.Kd, which, supposing the state ment to be correct, may be identical with the 'Hdiicd. 3. Irenseus7 mentions the Incantationes of the follow ers of Basilides. Concerning the II a/aaooerei? Mardlov, which they held in high esteem, see § 16, 4. § 24. Valentinus and his School Literature : G. Heinrici, Die valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift, Berl. 1871. — Fabricius, BG, 178 f. Harnack, LG, 174-184. 1. Valentinus, according to a statement of Clement,8 was a pupil of Theodas, who was a disciple (ypcbpifiot) 1 Edition of Lommatzsch, VI, 336. 6 Stromata, III, I. 1-3- 2 Stromata, II, 20. 113. 6 Panarion, XXXII, 3. 3 Cf. § 60. 7. d. 2. 7 Adv. Haer. I, 24. 3. 4 Stromata, VI, 6. 53. 8 Stromata, VII, 17. 106. 72 GNOSTIC LITERATURE of Paul. He was born somewhere on the north coast of Egypt, was educated as a Greek in Alexandria,1 and possibly came under the influence of Basilides. Accord ing to Irena?us,2 he went to Rome in the time of Hyginus (about 136-140 a.d.), flourished there under Pius (about 140-155 a.d.), and remained till the time of Anicetus (1 54/5-166/7 a.d.). Tertullian,3 who praises his genius and eloquence, asserts that his break with the church was occasioned by his being overlooked in the appoint ment to an (the Roman) episcopal see. The place and time of his death are unknown. The statement that he went from Rome to Cyprus, that he might there with draw from the church,4 is to be received with caution. Clement5 has preserved fragments with anthropological, psychological, and Christological contents, taken from the Letters of Valentinus (i-maToXr) tk irepl ra>p irpoaap- TTjfidrcop [sc. rrj? ^^Xi??] irpbs 'AyaOoiroSa); also frag ments of Homilies,6 which give some conception of the author's rhetorical power, together with their evident relationship to Pauline and Johannine thought. The Valentinian fragment preserved by Hippolytus 7 pos sibly came also from a homily. Tertullian8 bears wit ness to Psalms composed by Valentinus, and a fragment is given by Hippolytus.9 No writing entitled 2o<£ia10 ever existed. Irenaeus u knew of an Evangelium Veri- 1 Epiphanius, Panarion, XXXI, 2. 2 Adv. Haer. Ill, 4. 3; cf. Eusebius, Chronic, ad ann. 138 and 144. 8 Adv. Valent. 4. 4 Epiphanius, Panarion, XXXI, 7. 6 Stromata, II, 8. 36; 20. 114; III, 7. 59. 6 Stromata, IV, 13. 91; VI, 6. 52. 8 Came Christi, 17. 20. 7 Philosophumena, VI, 42. 9 Philos. VI, 37. 10 Grabe, Spicilegium, II, 49, following Tertullian, Adv. Valent. 1. 11 Adv. Haer. Ill, 11. 9; cf. Pseudo-Tertullian, 12. SCHOOL OF VALENTINUS 73 tatis of the Valentinians, though he did not ascribe it to Valentinus. Fragments are collected in A. Hilgenfeld's Die Ketzer geschichte, 1884, 292-307. Cf. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XXIII, 1880, 280-300. Cf. XXVI, 1883, 356 f. R. A. Lipsius, in DCB, IV, 1076-1099 (in German, in JprTh, XIII, 1887, 585-658). 2. According to Hippolytus,1 the numerous disciples of Valentinus were divided into an Italian and an Oriental branch (iTaXuoTi/cr) and ava-ToXitcr) SiBaaicaXia). Ptolemseus and Heracleon were authors of the Italian school. Ptolemseus, as to the circumstances of whose life we know nothing, wrote a Letter to a highly cult ured woman, named Flora, to allay her doubts concern ing the Mosaic law, on the strength of a distinction between its eternal and its temporal parts. Irenaeus2 appears to have known of other writings (virofip^ara) of Ptolemaeus (Explanation of the Prologue to John's Gospel).3 Heracleon, whom Clement4 ranks as the most illustrious of the Valentinians, may have been a direct pupil of Valentinus,5 although Tertullian makes him out to have been a follower of Ptolemaeus.6 The state ment of Praedestinatus 7 that Heracleon was a Sicilian probably arose from confusing him with Heraclius. Heracleon left behind 'TiroiiP^ara,8 which contained comments on passages of the Gospels of Matthew (?) and Luke,9 but more especially on the Gospel of John. 1 Philosophumena, VI, 35. 8 Zahn. 2 Adv. Haer. I, 1-8. 4. Cf. particularly, I. 8. 5. 4 Slromata,IV, 9.71. 6 Origen, injoann. II, 8; edition of Lommatzsch, I, 117. 6 Adv. Valent. 4. ' Chap. 1 6 [Migne, PL, LIII, 592]. 8 Origen, injoann. VI, 8; edition of Lommatzsch, IV, 117. 9 Two fragments in Clement's Eclogae proph. § 25, edition of Potter, 995; and Stromata, IV, 9. 73. 74 GNOSTIC LITERATURE Origen, in his commentary on John, included extensive excerpts from Heracleon's expositions, which betray, indeed, a purely dogmatic method of exegesis, but one which is deep and also often in accord with the spirit of the Gospel. Florinus also belonged to the Italian school, and he wrote "a detestable book."1 Ptolemaei Epist. ad Florani, in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, I, 922-936; and in A. Hilgenfeld's article, in ZwTh, XXIV, 1881, 214-230 ; cf. Theo. Zahn, GNK, II, 2. 956-961 . — Heracleon : Frag ments, in Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte, 1884, 472-505, and A. E. Brooke in TSt, I, 4, 1891 (with introduction and extensive notes). Cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die Zeit des Markion und des Herakleon, in ZwTh, X, 1867, 75-183. 3. The Excerpts of Theodotus, 'E/c ra>p ©eoooVou ical rfjai>e- /otio-et?2 (no fragment of which has been preserved), Apelles recorded the revelations of Philumene, a prophetess of the sect. It cannot be determined whether Apelles' Gospel3 was identical with that of Marcion, or whether it represented a further elabora tion of it. A. Harnack, De Apellis gnosi monarchica, Lips. 1874 ; and Sieben neue Bruchstiicke der Syllogismen des Apelles, in TU, VI, 3, 1890, 109-120. 5. The writer of the Muratorian Fragment4 and Anonymus Arabicus5 knew of certain Psalms of Mar cion (Marcionites); the latter was acquainted also with a Liber propositi Finis. Esnic, the Armenian, borrowed some interesting notices from a dogmatic work of the Marcionites (fourth century). Harnack, in ZwTh, XIX, 1876, 80-120, passim. §28. Ophitic (" Gnostic") Writings 1. In the large group of Ophites and "Gnostics," in the narrower sense, numerous writings were in circula tion, of which almost nothing has survived except the titles. Irenaeus,6 Hippolytus, and Epiphanius (vv. 11.) in their accounts of the "Gnostics," Ophites, Cainites, Sethites, Severians, Naassenes, Peratae, Docetae, and of the Gnostic Justin and Monoimus, used a number of 1 Cf. also Rhodo, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 13. See also § 47, below 2 Tertullian, Praescrip. Haer. 30. 8 Jerome, Comm. in Matth. Prooem. following Origen. 4 V, 82-84. 6 Praef. ad Cone. Nic. Mansi, II, 1057. 6 Adv. Haer. I, 29-31. GNOSTIC WRITINGS 83 sources of which they have given us no further descrip tion. Irenaeus 1 mentions the use by the Cainites of a Gospel of Judas, in their opinion the only one of the disciples who understood Jesus ; and a Gospel of Eve was used by the " Gnostics " and perhaps by the Pera- tae.2 Gospels of Thomas, Philip, and other Apostles3 were used by other "Gnostics."4 Epiphanius5 also mentions " many books " written and used by the "Gnostics," among them being the following: 'EpcoTr/- crei? Mapia? /xeydXat and fuicpai, the former containing matter that was obscene and altogether foreign to genu ine tradition ; the Teppa Mapia? (progeny ? of Mary containing a cynical account of the death of Zacharias) the ' AiroKaXv-freLS rod 'ABafi et? top 'laXBa/3ad>9, which was also in use among others besides ; et? opofia tov 2??0 (see below). A work, ' AvafiaTiicop UavXov, was in cir culation among the Cainites and " Gnostics." 6 Accord ing to Epiphanius7 the Sethites had seven books bear ing the name of Seth, other books entitled 'AXXoyepels, an Apocalypse of Abraham, some books bearing the name of Moses, and, according to Hippolytus,8 a Uapd- cfrpacm "IrjO. The Archontici 9 used a large and a small book of " IvfjLcpcopla," the book 'AXXoyepels (see above), an 'Apa/3anicbp 'Haalov, etc. Hippolytus10 has pre served a fragment of the Hymns of the Naassenes, also a Psalm.11 This sect made use of the 'Airocpacns fieydXr).n 1 Adv. Haer. I, 31. I. 2 Epiphanius, Haer. XXVI, 2, 3, 5 ; in the third section there is a fragment of an apocalyptic character. Cf. also Hippolytus, Philosoph. V, 16. 3 Cf. § 16. 4-5. 8 Philosoph. V, 22. 4 Epiphanius, loc. cit. and Hippolytus. 9 Epiphanius, Haer. XL. 5 Haer. XXVI, 8. 12. 10 Philosoph. V, 6. 6 Epiphanius, Haer. XXXVIII, 2. n Idem, V, 10. 7 Haer. XXXIX, 5. 12 Idem, V, 9. 84 GNOSTIC LITERATURE In connection with the above list, which does not profess to be complete, see Harnack, LG, 162-171, 662 f. A. Behrendts (§ 16. 6), 32-37- 2. The only Gnostic writings that have been pre served complete have been handed down in Coptic translations. They consist of the literary productions of the Severians, Sethites, and Archontici, who, in contrast with the lascivious Nicolaitans, Cainites, etc., sought to found their life and doctrine upon a strict moral basis. (a) The so-called LT urm-So^t'a,1 in four books, is not a literary unit; the fourth book is evidently different from the others and appears to be older than they ; the first three books are apparently identical with the 'E/)<»T?jo-et? Mapias /Micpal (see above), or at least, a recension of the same.2 All the books are in the form of dialogues (question and answer) between the risen Jesus and his disciples, more especially Mary Magda lene. The main emphasis is laid upon the answering of practical questions "as to the conditions and hindrances, the degrees and stages of blessedness " (Koestlin). In terest in questions of systematic theology is kept in the background. The central idea is that of the fall from and the return to the Infinite. Books I and II con tain the history of So<£ta, the type of that which is to be accomplished in humanity, (Books III and IV.) The work in its existing form very probably originated in the second half of the third century. Among its sources, besides extensive use of the literature of the Old and New Testaments, two large Books of Jeu are mentioned. Scattered throughout are Psalms, partly 1 Codex Askew. Brit. Mus. Saec. V-VI. Title not original. 2 Renan, Harnack. GNOSTIC WRITINGS 85 composed by the author himself, partly selected ; for instance, the Odes of Solomon.1 Editions: M. G. Schwartze and J. H. Petermann, Pistis-Sophia. Gotha, 1851, 53 (Coptic and Latin). Literature: F. Miinter, Odae gnosticae Salomoni tributae, 1812. K. R. Kdstlin, Das gnostische System der Pistis-Sophia in ThJ, XIII, 1854, 1-104, 137-196. E. Renan, Marc-Aurele. Paris, 1882, p. 120, note 3. R. A. Lipsius in DCB, IV, 405-415. A. Harnack in TU, VII, 2, 1891. (b) Certain writings, without titles, contained in the Papyrus Brucianus (Oxford ; of the fifth or sixth cen tury) may have been taken from the tomb of a " Gnos tic." According to Schmidt there are two works which are jumbled together in the manuscript, but which are to be distinguished from each other. Originally they were written in Greek and translated into Coptic. The first, whose conclusion is wanting, has been identified by Schmidt with the two Books of Jeu (see above) as the book of the great Ao'70? Kara p.var"r\piop. Schmidt, therefore, thinks that it was written about the middle of the third century at the latest. The second (which lacks both beginning and conclusion) is referred by Schmidt to the second century, between 170 and 200 a.d. The two Books of Jeu (and the Pistis-Sophia), accord ing to Schmidt, would represent productions of the Severians. The second, the title of which is unknown, belonged to the Sethites and Archontici. Between the system developed in this work and that which was opposed by Plotinus,2 there existed a remarkable simi- 1 Miinter; cf. Harnack, TU, VII, 2. 35-49; revised Latin transla tion. 2 Ennead, II, 9; cf. Porphyry, Vita Plolini, 16, ol wepl 'A8a£ei? ©ca/^a,12 were, ac cording to Epiphanius, in use among the Encratites 13 and the Apostolici ; 14 according to Augustine 15 and Turibius,16 among the Manichaeans and the Priscil- 1 VI, in Zahn, Idem, 238-252. 2 AG, I, 469-485, following the Codex Paris. 1468, and Codex Vatican. 654; cf. Zahn, Idem, 188, 12-190, 22. 8 Orat. VII injoann. Ev., Mai, NPB, V, 4. 72-77. 4 De Praescriptione, 36; De Monogamia, 17. 6 Cf. also the Muratorian Fragment, 9-16. 0 Zahn, FGK, III, 87, 97. 9 Fabricius, Cod.Apocr. N. T., II, 531-590. 7 Cf. § 60. 5. c. 1" § 40. 8.b. 8 Zahn, 1-192. 11 Fabricius, III, 604-623. 12 Printed by J. C. Thilo and M. Bonnet (see above); cf. Lipsius, AG, I, 225-347. Preuschen, in Harnack, LG, 123 f. 18 Panarion, XLVII, 1. « Idem, LXI, I. 16 Contra Faustum Manich. XXII, 79, etc. 16 Epist. ad Idacium, etc., 5. See above. ACTS OF THOMAS 93 lianists.1 Their length, given in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, amounted to 1300 (1700) stichoi. Consid erable portions of the Gnostic original have been pre served intact in Catholic recensions.2 The Acts, which from beginning to end are a sermon on abstinence from all sexual indulgence, relate the journey of the Apostle to India, his residence in the city of Andrapolis, and the occurrences at the marriage feast of the king's daughter (I, 1-16) ; the building of the heavenly palace and the conversion of the Indian king, Gundaphorus (II, i7_29) ; the raising and the conversion of the wanton youth who had been killed by a dragon (III, 30-38) ; the story of the talking ass's colt (IV) ; the deliverance of the woman afflicted by an unclean spirit (V, 39-47) ; various heal ings and conversions (VI, 48-58, VII, VIII) ; the several imprisonments of the Apostle and his miraculous deliv erances (IX) ; further conversions, followed finally by that of the wife of King Mazdai (X, XI), on account of which the Apostle was once more imprisoned and again miraculously freed, until at last, after celebrating the Lord's Supper with the converts (XII), he was thrust through with lances by the king's order (Maprv- piop). It can be shown that many of the proper names which occur in the book are historical.3 Gundaphorus is the Indo-Parthian king Gondaphares, who, according to von Gutschmid, reigned from 7 to 29 a.d., or, accord ing to von Sallet and Dillmann, at the close of the first century (died about 80 a.d.). Reliable traditions may have been at the author's service. The Apocalypse of Peter4 may have provided the model for the description of Hell (VI, 52-54). The Acts must have originated 1 Cf. Photius, loc. cit. 3 Cf. Lipsius, AG, I, 278-281. 2 Codex Paris, graec. 1510. 4 21-34; Harris' edit. 94 GNOSTIC LITERATURE after 232 a.d. (removal of the remains of Thomas to Edessa; AG, II, 2, 425). The hymns written by Barde sanes a were apparently added later : (a) the beautiful hymn relating to the fortunes of the soul, preserved only in Syriac,2 and (b) a second hymn and two prayers of consecration, which, though they may have been like wise originally Syriac, are now preserved uninterpolated in a Greek translation3 only, the Syriac being much altered. The view that the Acts were originally com posed in Syriac has been maintained by Macke, but controverted by Lipsius.4 A. v. Gutschmid, Die Konigsnamen, etc., see above. F. v. Sallet, Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen in Baktrien und Indien, 1879, 157-166. A. Dillmann, in Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka demie, 1879, 421- W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts, II. Lond. 1871, 238-245. Theo. Nbldeke, in Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenldnd- ischen Gesellschaft, XXV, 1871, 678. Idem, in Lipsius, AG, II, 2, 423-425. C. Macke, in ThQu, LVI, 1874, 1-70. 5. The Acts of Andrew, Il/sdlfei? 'ApBpeov,5 were read by the Encratites,6 the Apostolici,7 the Origenists,8 the Manichaeans,9 and the Priscillianists.10 Only small frag ments of (or references to) the original Acts have been preserved. These relate to the story of Maximilla, the 1 Burgess, Hymns of Ephraem Syrus, Lond. 1853, pp. xxviii-xl. Noldeke; Macke; Lipsius, AG, I, 209 f., 309-311, 318-321. 2 Wright; German, by Macke, and Lipsius, AG, I, 292-296. 8 Bonnet, I, 6 f.; II, 27; V, 44. 4 AG, I, 345. Cf. also II, 2, 423-425. 6 Cf. Lipsius, AG, I, 543-622; Egh. 28-31. Preuschen, LG, 127 f. 6 Epiphanius, Panarion, XLVII, I. 7 Idem, LXI, I. 8 Mem> LXIII, 2. 9 Philastrius, de Haer. 88, see above : Agapius, quoted by Photius, Codex, 179 [Migne, PG, CIII, 521 f.]; Timotheus, de acced. ad s. ecclesiam, quoted by Fabricius, Codex apocry. I, 139. 10 Turibius, loc. cit. No. 3, above. ACTS OF ANDREW 95 wife of Egetes,1 and to Andrew's prayer that he might not be taken down from the cross.2 Innocent I3 names Nexocharides and Leonidas as its authors ; and in this he may have been guided by trustworthy tradition.4 Of the date of composition we have no more definite indication than the fact that the book is first mentioned by Eusebius.5 Various Catholic recensions, which are divisible into several separate Acts, each with its own transmissional history, borrowed from Gnostic Acts now lost : (a) The Acts of Andrew and Matthew in the city of the Cannibals.6 The story, which breaks off abruptly, is continued in (b) the Acts of Peter and Andrew.7 These are contained in a text in which there are gaps, and they also break off abruptly. The book relates the deeds of the two Apostles in the city of the barbarians. Finally (c), Pseudo-Abdias, in the Virtutes Andreae,6 relates the journey of the Apostle from Pontus to Greece, his deeds and crucifixion. The martyrdom was also the subject of later recensions.9 ' Evodius(?), De Fide contra Manichaeos, 38, in Migne, PL, XLII, 1 150 [Augustini Opera, VIII, App. 31]. 2 Pseudo-Augustine, De vera el falsa poenitenlia, 22. Opera, VI, App. 716 [Migne, PL, XLI, 1120]. 3 Epist. 6, 13. 4 Zahn, GNK, II, 858, note 1. Von Gutschmid conjectures that the name was Xenocharides; cf. Lipsius, AG. II, 2, p. 430. 6 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 25. 6. 6 J. C. Thilo, Acta sand, apostolorum Andraei et Matthiae, et commen- tatio de eorundem origine. Halle, 1846. C. Tischendorf, Acta apost. apocry. XLII-LIX, 132-166. 7 C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae, Lips. 1856, App. 161-167, following the Codex Bodlei. Barocc. 180. The Ethiopic version, giving Thaddeus instead of Andrew, is in Malan's Conflicts of the Holy Apostles, 221-229; for the Slavic, cf. Bonwetsch, in ZKG, V, 1882, 506-509. 8 Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., II, 4S7~5l6- 9 Cf. Lipsius, AG, I, 563-567. SUPPLEMENTARY § 31. Symmachus Harnack, LG, 112-114. The Ebionite Symmachus, who was still living in the time of Septimius Severus, wrote, besides his trans lation of the Old Testament, a work entitled "Tirofiprj- p.ara, which contained a polemic against the Gospel of Matthew,1 and which may have been read even by Palladius,2 of the fifth century. Ebed Jesu, in the fourteenth century, was acquainted with works of Sym machus in Syriac translations, and he mentions the title of one, De Distinctione Praeceptorum? 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 17. 2 Hist. Lausiaca, 147. 3 Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, III, 1728, 17. 96 DIVISION III LITERATURE OF THE CHURCH FIRST SECTION Patristic Literature in the Age of the Apolo gists AND DURING THE CONFLICT WITH GNOSTICISM § 32. General Literature: E. Rohde, Der Griechische Roman, Lpz. 1876. (Chapter 3, Die Griechische Sophistik.) E. Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, Lond. 1890. Griechentum zmd Christentum, German translation by Preuschen, Freib. i/B, 1892. Fourth Lecture : " Greek and Christian Rhetoric." A. Harnack, Die antijiidische Litteratur in der alten Kirche, in TU, I, 3, 1883, pp. 56-74. — Cf. also the literature preceding § 22. 1. In the second century the effort to make known the truth, purity, and excellence of the Christian reli gion to the civil power and to the educated part of so ciety, led to the formation of an Apologetic literature. Those who thus wrote had found in Christianity, in its faith and hope and love, that which they had sought in vain in the philosophy and theology of the time. Their literary training was that of the Greek Sophists, whose art was in its second bloom just at that period. As in their case, so in that of the Christian Sophists, it is difficult to determine where rhetoric ends and phi losophy begins ; and it is equally true that their works h 97 98 LITERATURE OF THE CHURCH were less adapted to quiet reading than to oral delivery. In their conception of divine things they approximately coincided with the leaders of the popular philosophy, and of this they were in part (Justin) clearly conscious. Where they remained fixed in their intentional opposi tion to Hellenic culture (Tatian), their writings bear the stamp of their origin. Their polemic is often super ficial, being directed against externalities or to knocking down men of straw. After the time of Justin the chief weapon in the apologetic armory was the argument that Judaism and Christianity surpass the heathen religions in age, and, therefore, in excellence : an argument de rived from Jewish apologetics, and even there supported by manifold fabrications. The result of this, and of a second argument, according to which everything proph esied in the Old Testament had been fulfilled in the New, was that the Old Testament came to be held in the highest esteem, while appeal to the Gospels and the apostolic writings took secondary place. 2. The controversial writings against Judaism, which, so far as they are known, were always in the form of dialogues,1 were a mere supplement to the literature addressed to heathen readers. It was not so much a question of serious controversy, for which there was very little occasion, as of the demonstration, interesting alike to Christians and pagans (see above), that the Old Testament had been superseded by the New. It was little more than a literary artifice that a Jew was intro duced into the dialogue to defend his religion ; a task which he performed, for the most part, in a very inade quate manner. 3. The departures, real or supposed, from Christian A cf. § 35; 36. 2. c. APOLOGETIC WRITINGS 99 belief, which were proclaimed in the Gnostic and Mon- tanistic movements, gave rise to Anti-heretical writings. These, pre-eminently, became the literary monuments of the Catholic church : a church which was develop ing by consciously rejecting all that was foreign to itself; which had, nevertheless, learned much from its adversary, and which, on account of this very opposi tion, was compelled to handle the Christian truths of salvation in a scientific-theological fashion. 4. The writings that were called forth by the pastoral activity of the Bishops appear like echoes of the apos tolic and sub-apostolic periods, and also as a presage of the future. Such they were whether they were occu pied with general or special exhortations, or with the settlement of disputes which concerned the internal relations of church or churches. CHAPTER I APOLOGETIC LITERATURE Editions: Pr.Maranus, Par. 1742. Migne, PG, V, VI. Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum, Saec. II, ed. J.C.Th. Eques de Otto, Vol. I-V,8Jena, 1876-81; VI-IX, 1851-72. A new and complete edition is appearing in TU. Cf. also §§ 34, 36, 41. Literature: J. Donaldson (§ 2. 4. b), Vol. 3. H. Dembowski, Die Quellen der christlichen Apologetzk, Lpz. 1878, I. Die Apologie Tatians. A. Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apolo- geten des zweiten Jahrhunderts , etc., in TU, I, 1-2, 1882; cf. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XXVI, 1883, 1-45. O. v. Gebhardt, Zur handschrzftlzchen Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten (Are- thas-Codex) in TU, I, 3, 1883. § 33- Quadratus Fragments: Otto, IX, 333-341. Translation: P. B. Pratten, ANF, VIII, 749. Literature: A. Harnack, loc. cit. 100-109. Tn- Zahn, in NKZ, VI, 1891, 281-287. Diirr, Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian,Wien,\8&i,42f.,6gf, — Fabricius, BG. 154L Richardson, BS. 109. Harnack, LG, 95 f. Quadratus, the disciple of the Apostles, according to Eusebius 1 presented to the Emperor Hadrian, probably at Athens (125-126 a.d.), a defence of Christianity. It was still in existence when Eusebius wrote.2 The con tents of the fragment preserved by Eusebius3 make 1 Chronicon ad Annum Abrahami 2410; Jerome, 2142 [Migne, PG, XIX, 557]. 2 Hist. Eccl. IV, 3. I. 8 Idem, IV, 3. 2. Cf. also, the Fragment of Papias, given by de Boor, inTU, V, 2, 1889, p. 170. 100 QUADRATUS ARISTIDES IOI it appear possible that this " disciple of the Apostles " was identical with the early Christian prophet of the same name.1 On the other hand, identification with Quadratus, the Bishop of Athens,2 is excluded by the context according to Photius ; 3 even Eusebius, Bishop of Thessalonica (about 600 a.d.), appealed to Quadratus against the Aphtharto-docetic (monophysite) monk Andreas. § 34. Aristides Editions: (1) of the Armenian text: S. Aristides . . . ser- mones duo, edd. Mechitaristae, Venet. 1878. P. Martin, in AS, IV, 6-1 1, 282-287 : German by F. v. Himpel, in ThQu, LXII, 1880, 1 10-122 ; afterward printed by R. Seeberg, Der Apologet Aristides (see below), 62-67. 0) of the Greek and Syriac text : J. R. Harris and J. A. Robinson, in TSt, I, 1, 1891 (cf. A. Harnack, in ThLZ, XVI, 1891, 301-309, 325-329). Theo. Zahn, in ThLB, XIII, 1892, 1-6. O. v. Gebhardt, in DLZ, XIII, 1892, 938-941. R. Raabe, in TU, IX, 1, 1892 (transl. from Syriac). J. Schonfelder, in ThQu, LXXIV, 1892, 531-557 (transl. from Syriac). R. See berg, in FGK, V, 159-414 (restoration of the original text, accord ing to the Syriac and the Greek and Armenian fragments). E. Hennecke, in TU, IV, 3, 1893 (attempted reconstruction). R. Seeberg, Der Apologet Aristides, Erlangen, 1894. (Apology, Epistle, Homily.) — Translation: D. M. Kay, in ANF, IX, 259- 279- Literature : The prolegomena and notes to the various editions. P. Vetter, in ThQU, LXIV, 1882. A. Harnack, in RE, XVII, 675- 681. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XXXVI, I, 1893, 103-105 ; II, 1893, 539 f. E. Egli, Idem, I, 99-103 (date of composition). E. Nestle, Idem, I, 368-370. Theo. Zahn, FGK, V, 4T5-437 (Epistle and Hom ily). L. Lemme, in NJDTh, II, 1893, 303-34°- E. Hennecke, in ZwTh, XXXVI, II, 1893, 42-126 (original form of the text). F. Lauchert, in Revue internat. de theol. II, 1894, 278-299. G. Kriiger, 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Ill, 37. 1. Cf. V, 17. 3. 2 Cf. Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 23. 3; Jerome, De Viris Illust. 19, and Epist. 70, 4. 0 Codex, 162, Bekker's edit. 106. 102 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE in ZwTh, XXXVII, 1894, 206-223, (Aristides and Diognetus). P. Pape, in TU, XII, 2, 1894 (Sermon, and fragment of the Epistle). P. Vetter, in ThQu, LXXVI, 1894, 529-539 (following G. Kalem- kiar, refers to the acquaintance of the Armenian Esnik with the Apology of Aristides). — Fabricius, BG, 155. Harnack, LG, 96-99. 1. The Apology of the Athenian philosopher, Aris tides, which was widely circulated in the time of Eusebius,1 has been lost in its original form. The following means are available for its reconstruction : (1) A Greek recension in the legend of Barlaam and Joasaph;2 (2) a Syriac translation;3 (3) a fragment of an Armenian translation, in two manuscripts4 which contain the first two chapters. The relation of these texts has not been made entirely clear, though it may be considered probable that in the Greek the original text has been much trimmed in order to adapt it to the legend, and, more especially, that it has been abridged ; while the Syriac seems in general to be a true but quite paraphrastic translation, and the Armenian to be closely allied to the Syriac, though directly derived from a Greek text. The statement of Eusebius,5 not based, however, on personal inspection, that the Apology was presented to the Emperor Hadrian, probably at Athens (125-126 a.d.6) would be contradicted by the second heading in the Syriac text, if this unmistakably indi cated that Antoninus Pius was the recipient. Jerome 7 cannot be regarded as an independent witness. 1 Cf. Hist. Eccl. IV, 3. 3. 2 Edition of Boissonade, Paris, 1832, pp. 239-250. 8 Codex Sinait. Syr. XVI. 4 Codex Venet. ann. 981, and Codex Edschmiaz. of the eleventh century. 5 Hist. Eccl. IV, 3. 3. 6 Chron. ad Annum Abrahami, 2140; Jerome, 2142. 7 De Viris Illust. 20; cf. Epist. 70, 4. APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES 103 2. The Apology is simply and clearly arranged. An exposition of the true idea of God (Chap. I) is followed by an inquiry as to who among men have followed truth and who error in regard to God (Chap. II ff.). For the purposes of this inquiry, mankind is divided into four (two) classes, — Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians ; and they are pictured to the emperor according to their origin (Chap. II) and character. The errors of the Barbarians are described in Chapters III— VII, and those of the Greeks in Chapters VIII-XIII. Chapter XII contains a digression on the Egyptians. Chapter XIV discusses the merits and faults of the Jews, and Chapters XV-XVII constitute a fervent song in praise of Christian belief and Christian morality. The polemic against heathenism is monotonous, diffuse, and superficial. The element of revelation is denied to the Jewish religion, and the arguments from antiquity and prophecy are not yet adduced. Of the Old Testa ment, only the Apocrypha (Tobit) are employed, and the Gospel tradition is hardly noticed. On the contrary, reference is made to Paul, and possibly to the fourth Gospel.1 The Kerygma Petri and the Didache (the latter not in its present shape) appear to have been known to Aristides. Apparently the Apology was little read. The resemblances found in later apolo gists2 are no proof that it was used by them;3 but Celsus may have had the writing before him. The resemblances between the Apology and the Epistle to Diognetus make it conceivable that they may have been works of the same author.4 3. Armenian tradition refers two other pieces to 1 Cf. II, 6, in Seeberg. 8 See, however, § 36. 3. c; 40. 7; 85. 11. a. 2 Seeberg, p. 232, A. 4 Cf. § 43- 104 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE Aristides, — an Epistle addressed to all philosophers (Epistola Aristidae philosophi ad omnes philosophos), and a Homily on the cry of the thief on the cross and the answer of the Crucified (Luke xxiii. 42 f.). Only an insignificant fragment of the Epistle has been pre served. In opposition to Zahn and Seeberg, Pape has shown the anti-Nestorian character of the Homily (and of the Epistle).1 § 35. Aristo of Pella Literature : J. E. Grabe, Spicilegium (§ 2. 8. b), II, 2d edit. 1700, pp. 127-133. Routh, RS, I, 93-109. Otto, Corpus Apologet. Christ. IX, 1872, 349-363. A. Harnack, Die Altercatio Sitnon. Jud. et Theoph. Christ., in TU, I, 3, 1883 (cf. I, 1-2, 1882, 115-130). A. C. McGiffert, A dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, N. Y. 1889, 33 f. E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jildischen Volkes, etc., I. 2d edit. 1890, 51-53 [English translation, Hist, of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I, .1, pp. 69-72]. P. Corssen, Die Altercatio Simon. Jud. et Theoph. Christ., Berl. 1890. Theo. Zahn, Ueber die " Altercatio legis inter Sittzon. Jud. et Theoph. Christ.'1'' des Euagrizts und deren altere Grundlage, in FGK, IV, 308-329. — Fabricius, BG, 156-158. Richardson, BS, 109 f. Har nack, LG, 92-96. Origen 2 defended a little book, entitled Taowo? koX Tlairlo-Kov apnXoyia irepl ~Kpicrrov, against the reproaches of Celsus. In this work a Christian disputes with a Jew on the basis of the Jewish Scriptures, and shows that the prophecies concerning the Christ are applicable to Jesus. Of this book Celsus, the author of the letter De Judaica Incredulitate,z which has been preserved among the writings of Cyprian, states that it closed with the 1 Cf. Harnack, in TU, I, 1-2, 1882, p. 114. a Contra Celsum, IV, 51 f., edit, of Lommatzsch, XIX, 81 f. 8 Cf. § 86. 6. e. ARISTO JUSTIN 105 conversion by the Jewish Christian of his opponent, who is characterized as an Alexandrian Jew. From one of the two passages quoted by Jerome 1 from the writing which he knew as the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, it appears that the author of the dialogue made use of Aquila's version of the Bible. Consequently, the state ment of Maximus Confessor,2 that Aristo of Pella was the author of the dialogue,3 is not improbable, inasmuch as Eusebius 4 knew of a writing of Aristo, in which the war of Barcochba was mentioned. On the other hand, the assertion of Clement of Alexandria that Luke wrote the book5 is merely a superficial conjecture. The date of composition may, accordingly, be fixed between 135 and 1 70 a.d. This, however, does not make it impossi ble that it may have been used in Justin's dialogue with Trypho (Zahn), and it is probable that it was employed by Tertullian,6 Pseudo-Tertullian,7 and Cyprian.8 The hope that the 'ApriXoyla would be found to have been preserved in its essential features in Evagrius' Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christian^ (written ± 430 a.d.) has been fulfilled only in a moderate degree. § 36. Justin Editions: See § 33. R. Stephanus, Paris, 155 1. C. Otto, I-V, 3d edit. 1876-1881. Translations: S'dmmtliche Werke der Kirchenvdter, Kempten, 1 Quaest. hebr. in lib. Genes, edit, of Lagarde, 3; cf. also Comm. in Gal. iii. 13; Opera, edit, of Vallarsius, VII, 436. 2 Scholia ad theol. myst. Dionys. Areop., Cap. 1, edit, of [Balth.] Corderius, 17. 3 Cf. also Chronicon Paschale ad ann. 134; edit. Dindorf, I, 477. 4 Hist. Eccl. IV, 6. 3. 7 Adv. Jud. 9-13. 6 Cf. Maximus, loc. cit. 8 Teslimonia. « Adv. Praxcan,xn& Adv. Jud. 1-8. 9 Editionof Harnack, 1883, 15-49. 106 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE 1830, I, II, 1-138 {ApoL, Dial., Orat., Cohort.). Dods and Reith in ANF, I, 163-306 {ApoL, Dial., Orat., Cohort., Monarch., Resur- rec. Fragm. Martyr.). The Works now extant of Justin Martyr. translated with notes and indexes in LFC, XL, Oxf. 1861. Literature : C. Semisch, Justin der Mdrtyrer, 2 Theile., Bresl 1840-42. C. Otto in Ersch und Gruber's Enzyklopddie, 2 Sect., 30 Theil., 1853, 39-76. B. Aube, Saint Justin. Paris, 1861 (1875) M. v. Engelhardt, Das Christentum Justins des Martyrers, Erlangen. 1878; same in RE, VII, 318-321. A. Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten, etc., TU, I, I, 2, 1882, 130-195. H. S Holland in DCB, III, 560-587. Fabricius, BG, 52-75. Richardson, BS, 21-26. Harnack, LG, 99-114. 1. Justin, philosopher and martyr,1 was born of heathen parents2 about 100 a.d. at Flavia Neapolis, the ancient Shechem, now Nab(u)lus, in Palestinian Syria (Samaria). It is possible that he became a Christian3 at Ephesus under Hadrian,4 and that he there obtained a knowledge of rabbinical theology through intercourse with Jews and their associates. Under Antoninus Pius he labored, not without opposition (on the part of the Cynic Crescens), as a teacher and apologist for Chris tianity in his own lecture room.5 The extant and ap parently trustworthy "Acts" of the martyr6 refer the date of his death to the prefecture of Rusticus, i.e. between 163 and 167 a.d. Justin was the first and the most eminent of those who strove to effect a reconcil iation between Christianity and non-Christian culture. As an author he was lovable and of broad sympathies, but his style was diffuse and frequently tedious. 1 Tertullian, Adv. Valent. 5. 2 Dialog. 28; Otto, 94, 18. 8 Cf. the account in Dialog. 2-8; Apology, II, 12. 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 8. 6. 5 Cf. Tatian, Orat. 19; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 16. 1; Photius, Codex, 125. 6 Cf. § 105, 3. JUSTIN 107 Zahn in ThLZ, I, 1876, 443-446 (literature for the determination of the year of his death), and in ZKG, VIII, 1886, 37-66 (residence at Ephesus) ; cf. § 106. 4, below. 2. A peculiarly evil fate has attended Justin's literary remains ; for while his genuine works for the most part were early lost, his famous name was made to cover a number of writings which, both on internal and external evidence, cannot have belonged to him. The following are to be regarded as genuine in the order in which they are vouched for by Justin himself, or by other witnesses. (a) His l^wraypa Kara iracrfop r£>p yeyevrjftepayp alpe- crecop, quoted by the author himself in his Apology,1 is no longer extant. As to its contents, it is only known that it was written in opposition to Simon Magus, Me- nander, Marcion (perhaps also the Valentinians, the Basilidians and the Satornilians). It is at least uncer tain whether it was used by later anti-heretical writers, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. This writing Eusebius2 had not seen. Literature: at § 22. (b) His ( 1 ) 'AiroXoyla inrep Xpicmapcop irpos 'Aprmplpop top Evcrefir}, and (2) 'AiroXoyla virep Xpianapwp irpd? rr/v 'PafialcQP avyKXrjrop, are only extant in one manuscript3 (excepting only a portion of the first Apology in a manuscript of the fifteenth century),4 and singularly enough the second Apology precedes the first. The gap in the second chapter of the second Apology is covered by a citation by Eusebius,5 who is also an im- 1 I, 26. 4 In Codex Ottob. Gr. 274, saec. XV. 2 Hist. Eccl. IV, 11. 10. 6 Hist. Eccl. IV, 17. 2-13. 8 Codex Paris. 450, anni 1364. 108 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE portant witness to various portions of the text. The trustworthiness of the text is open to considerable ques tion, but the genuineness of the writing is undoubted.1 There are no sufficient grounds for the assumption that the two apologies were originally one, and consequently that the one which Eusebius 2 calls the second has been lost (Harnack). Similarly the second is not to be re garded as a mere supplement to the first (Zahn). We have nothing by which we can certainly determine the date of composition of the first Apology. The usual assumption that it was written about 150 a.d.3 is con tradicted by the dedication, among other things, which apparently presupposes the year 138 (139 a.d.) as the date. As to the second Apology, Eusebius 4 asserts that it was presented to Marcus Aurelius, whereas the testimony of the writing itself5 is to the effect that Antoninus Pius was still alive. In the First Apology, Justin begins with the reflection that it is unjust to make the Christians responsible for their name, and in the first part, down to Chapter 13, he defends his brethren in the faith against the charges of godlessness and hostility to the state. He then brings forward the positive proof of the truth of his religion, based on the effects of the new faith, and more espe cially on the excellence of its moral teaching. To this he adds a comparison of Christian and heathen doctrines, in which the latter are represented, with naive assurance, as the work of evil spirits. The backbone of the proof of the truth of Christianity appears in the detailed dem onstration of the fulfilment in Christianity of the pre- 1 Cf. Justin's Dialogue, 120; Otto's edit. 432, 13-15. 2 Hist. IV, 18. 2. 4 Hist. Eccl. IV, 18. 2. 8 Veil, 153-155 A.D. 6 Chapter 2, Otto, 202, 4-5. JUSTIN'S APOLOGIES IO9 dictions of the Old Covenant prophets, who were more ancient than heathen poets and philosophers (Chaps. 13-60). In the third part of the Apology it is shown from the usages of divine service that the Christians have in truth consecrated themselves to God (Chaps. 61-67). The whole is closed by an appeal to the princes, in which reference is made to the edict issued by Hadrian in favor of the Christians (Chap. 68). In the Second Apology Justin takes occasion to show from a recent proceeding against Christians in Rome, that the persecutions themselves serve to make the innocence of the Christians apparent. Justin appears to have made scarcely any use of early Christian writings outside of the New Testament (Didache f). Later apologists fre quently took counsel of him, but subsequent to Eusebius he seems to have been little read, and only the Sacra Parallela show any independent acquaintance with him.1 Editions (besides complete editions of the Apologists and of Justin): C. Gutberlet, Lpz. 1883, 3d edit. G. Kruger in SQu, I, Freib. 1 891. — Translation: P. A. Richard in BKV, 1871. H. Veil, Strassb. 1894 (with introduction and notes). Roberts and Donald son, ANF, I. 163-193. Literature: On the text, L. Paul, in JclPh, CXLIII, 1891, 455~ 464. B. Grundl, De interpoll. ex S. Justin. ApoL II, expungendis, Au°\ Vindel. 1891. On the question of the mutual relations of the two Apologies, and on the date of composition, cf. F. Chr. Ball, in ZhTh, XII, 1842, 3-47- G. Volkmar, in ThJ, XIV, 1855, 227-282, 412-467. Theo. Zahn, in ThLZ, as above. H. Usener, Religions geschichtliche Untersuchungen, I, 1889, 101 f., 106-108. G. Kruger, in JprTh, XVI, 1890, 579-593, and in ThLZ, XVII, 1892, 297-300. J. A. Cramer in ThSt, LXIV, 1891, 3!7-357, 4oi-43°- H. Veil, Strassb. 1894, XXII-XXXII. Relation to the Didache ; Theo. Zahn in ZKG, VIII, 1886, 66-84. 1 Otto, II, 595 ""¦ IIO APOLOGETIC LITERATURE (c) The Dialogue with Trypho, Hpd? Tpvcfrcopa 'lovBalop BiaXoyo^ (Dialogus cum Tryphone), contained in the Codex Paris. 450, is to be regarded as genuine on both external and internal grounds (e.g. its use by Irenaeus ; its likeness to the Apology in the exposition of Biblical passages). The text is not without mutilations. Be sides the introduction to the work, and the dedication to M. Pompeius,1 a considerable part has been lost from Chapter 74 (fragments in the Sacra Parallela ?). Origi nally the work comprised two books.2 As to the date of composition, it can only be made out with certainty that it was written later than the first Apology? Un mistakable reminiscences of the author's residence at Ephesus have been incorporated in the dialogue, which is constructed with a certain graphic power and artistic grace. Rabbi Tarphon probably supplied the name given to the character, Trypho.4 Justin begins by tell ing the story of his own conversion (Chaps. 2-8). The disputation proper is divided into two parts, the first of which contains a description of and criticism upon the Jewish law (Chaps. 8-48), while from Chapter 49 on ward, objections derived from the divine adoration paid to Christ by believers are refuted by means of volumi nous citations from the predictions of the prophets. The Dialogue was much used by Irenaeus and Tertul lian, but otherwise it was apparently less read than the Apologies. (d) The following writings, cited by Eusebius,5 have been lost, or cannot be certainly identified with any of 1 Cf. Chap. 141, close. 2 Sacra Parallela, Codex Reg. Paris. 923, fol. 73. 8 Chap. 120, Otto's edit., 432, 13 f. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 18. 3 f. 4 Zahn, ZKG, VIII, 1886, 37-66. JUSTIN m Justin's extant writings : (i) Iwrayfia irpo<; MapKicova, used by Irenaeus ; : (2) A070? 7r/)d? °EUt/m?,2 containing prolix discussions of the themes most in debate between Christian and Greek philosophers, and a description of the nature of evil spirits ; (3) "Ea^^o? 7r/w "EXX?/tc ; (4) rrepl Oeov fiopapxtw;,3 the proof of which was derived from Biblical and Greek writers ; (5) *PdXrri<; ; (6) Tlepl yfrvxr]'i.i The possibility is not excluded that as early as Eusebius a spurious tradition obtained in regard to these writings ; and Eusebius himself states that more works were current under the name of Justin than he had read. 3. Reasons can be given in favor of the genuineness of the following writings, which a later tradition ascribed to Justin : — (a) Tlepl apao-rdaeaos (De Resurrectione), preserved in a fragmentary form in a codex of the twelfth century.5 Even Procopius of Gaza, about 500 a.d., quotes from a writing of Justin which bears this title, and it can be shown to be at least credible that a work of Justin, rrepl apaardaea<;, may have been in the hands of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Methodius. It cannot be shown that the style of the extant fragments makes it impossible that Justin may have written them. The book contains a refutation of hostile objections, and a positive proof of the actuality of the resurrection, based, more especially, upon the resurrection and second coming of Christ. 1 Adv. Haer. IV, 6. 2; V, 26. 2. 2 Cf. Tatian, Orat. ad Graec. Cap. 18; Schwartz, 20, 15-17. 8 Cf. § 36, 4. a. 4 Harnack, LG, no p. 5 Codex Rupef. of the Sacra Parallela (twelfth cent.). Cf. Cod. Coisl. 276, fol. 1-78, and Cod. Hieros. fol. 80 f. 112 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE Theo. Zahn in ZKG, VIII, 1886, 20-37. W. Bousset, Die Evan- gelienzitate bet Justin d. Mdrtyrer. Gottingen, 1891, 123-127. ¦ (b) The Aoyos irapaiPeriKo'i irp6<; "EXXrjpa? (Cohortatio ad Gentiles) which is contained in the Codex Paris. 451, of 914 a.d., and other manuscripts, was cited as the work of Justin by Stephanus Gobarus,1 as early as the fifth century, and in the Sacra Parallela of the sixth century. The question of its genuineness could be more easily solved if it could be shown that the writing was already used by Julius Africanus.2 In this case its composition might confidently be assigned to the second century. In its style and language, as in its dogmatic contents, it differs considerably from those works of Justin which are recognized as genuine. Yet it still remains possible that the writing was identical with one of those mentioned by Eusebius. The author was acquainted with Egypt and Italy (cf. Chapters 19 and 37). Volter's attempt to discover its author in Apollinaris of Hierapolis 3 is as little convincing as that of Draeseke and Asmus to show that Apollinaris of Laodicea was the author, and that the work was directed against the edict of Julian in 362 a.d. The essential content of the book consists in the proof that the truth was not known to the Greek poets and philosophers, and that whatever of good may be found in their writings was derived from the prophets. It can be easily imagined that the appearance of the Cohortatio was occasioned by the Pseudo-Plutarchian extract from the Placita of Aetius 4 (made about the middle of the 1 Photius, Codex, 232; Bekker, 290. 2 Thus von Gutschmid; the opposite view, Schiirer, Neumann, and Draeseke. 8 Cf. § 39. 4 So Diels. JUSTIN 1 1 3 second century), which was probably widely circulated as a convenient manual, and which was evidently attacked in this treatise.1 C. Ashton, Justini philosophi et martyris Apologiae pro Chris- tianis, 1768, p. 293. A. von Gutschmid in JclPh, LXXXI, i860, 703-708 {Kleine Schriften, II, 1890, 196-203). E. Schiirer in ZKG, II, 1878, 319-331. D. Volter in ZwTh, XXVI, 1883, 180-215. C. J. Neumann in ThLZ, VIII, 1883, 582-585. J. Draeseke in ZKG, VII, 1885, 257-302, and Apollinarios von Laodicea in TU, VII, 1892, 83-99 i cf. A. Julicher in GGA, 1893, 82-84. — H. Diels, Doxographi graeci, Berol. 1879, 17; cf. 66. J. R. Asmus in ZwTh, XXXVIII, 1895, 115-155. (c) IIpo? "EXXr]va<; (Oratio ad Graecos) has been trans mitted in Greek in the Codex Argent. Gr. 9, of the thirteenth or fourteenth century (burned in 1870), and in an extended Syriac recension in a codex of the sixth or seventh century,2 in the British Museum. In the latter, however, it is attributed, not to Justin, but to a certain Ambrosius, who is described as an eminent Greek. This powerful little treatise cannot be identical with any of the writings mentioned by Eusebius, and can hardly be the work of Justin. It is not necessary, however, on this account, to suppose that it was written after the second century. It appears to stand in close relationship (common source for both ?) to the Oratio of Tatian, and it contains some noteworthy parallels to the Apology of Aristides. E. B. Birks, in DCB, II, 162-167 (Ambrosius, author of IIpos "EXXrjvas, and of the Epistle to Diognetus). J. Draeseke in JprTh, XI, 1885, 144-153 (author, ApoUonius). (d) The tradition as to certain Fragments of writings ascribed to Justin, is either confused, obscure, or corrupt. 1 Cf. also § 44. z Codex Nitr. Mus. Brit. 987 add. 14658, saec. VI-VII. I 114 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE They have been variously supposed to belong to. an Apology,1 or to a writing, Il/ad? "EXA^ra?,2 or Kara'EXXrj- pcop,3 or, finally, to be of unknown origin.4 (e) It cannot be finally determined what work we are to understand by the 'ArroXoyla virep Xptariapwp ical Kara 'EXXrjpap Kal Kara 'lovBaicop, which Photius 5 men tions as composed by Justin (together with two other writings6), but distinct from the Apologies known to us. It is quite uncertain whether Photius had any independent acquaintance with the genuine works of Justin which he enumerates in conformity with the list given by Eusebius. 4. The following writings are certainly spurious : — (a) The writing Tlepl deov p,opapxla<; (de Monarchia) (preserved in the Codex Paris. 450, 1364 a.d.)7 does not correspond to the description given by Eusebius (see above, 2. d), inasmuch as it brings forward its proofs solely from a number of expressions of Greek poets (for the most part forged), without any regard to the Bible. The style also differs in a marked way from that of Justin. The terminus ad quern of the date of its composition is determined by the date of the archetype of Codex Paris. 450, which must have been written considerably before 1364 a.d. (Harnack). (b) The ' AparpoTrrj Boy/AarwP rtpayp ' ApiaroreXtKotP 1 Sacra Parallela, Otto, Frag. X, possibly belonging to Gregory of Nyssa; Sacra Parallela, Otto, Frag. XIII. 2 Sacra Parallela, Otto, Frag. XIV; Cod. Paris, 450 bis, Otto, IV, 214-223. 8 Leont. Byz. Adv. Eutychian. et Nestor, lib. II, Cod. Bodl. A, 33, Otto, V. * Sacra Parallela, Otto, Frag. VI and VII; Antonius Melissa, I. 19; II, 6. 43. Otto, Frag. XV-XVIII. 6 Photius, Codex, 125. 6 Cf. § 36. 4. b-d. ' Codex Argentor. 9. saec. XIII-XIV. Cf. § 36. 3. c. JUSTIN U5 (Confutatio dogmatum Aristotelis), contained in the Codex Paris. 450 (a.d. 1364), and possibly identical with the writing mentioned by Photius,1 is a purely philosophical work, addressed to a certain Presbyter Paul, and was probably not written earlier than the sixth century. (c) and (d) The 'Eparrjcrei,'; XpicrriapiKal irpbs row 'EXXtjiw? (Quaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles), and the Epmrrjo-eis eXXrjPiKal rrpof tou? Xpicrriapovs irepl rov aaafiarov ical irepl rov 6eov Kal rrepl t^? dpao-rdcreco<; r&p peKp&p ( Quaestiones Gentilium ad Christianos), con tained in the Codex Paris. 450, were apparently written by the same author, certainly not before 400 a.d. 'AiroKpiaei'i 7rpd? row 6pdoB6^ov<; irepl tlp&p avayKaicoP ^rjrrjfidrcop (Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos) are a scholarly repertory touching important theological and ecclesiastical questions. In it Irenaeus, Origen, and others are cited. The work presupposes the activity of the Antiochian school, though it dates from the fifth century.2 The work cited by Photius, ^Airopi&p Kara rrfi eicrefieias Kecj>aXaid)Bei<; eVtXwra?, may be identical with or related to one of the writings at the head of this section (c and d). (e) The Epistle to Zenas and Serenus, ascribed to Justin, and contained in the Codices Paris. 451, 450, and many other manuscripts (also in Syriac recension), is of indeterminable origin. The statement that it was the work of a certain Justin of the seventh century, who was superior of the monastery of Anastasius, near Jerusalem, cannot be verified. The Epistle contains rules for Christian conduct according to the ascetic 1 Photius, Codex, 125. 2 Quaest. 71. Cf. W. Gass, in ZhTh, XII, 1842, 4, 35-154. IT 6 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE ideal, and its author possessed knowledge of Greek comedy and tragedy, apparently at first hand.1 (/) While the foregoing writings have been merely ascribed to Justin without originally professing to be his work, the "EK0eo-i<; irepl tj)? bpdoBo^ov irlareaf fj irepl rpidBo<; (Expositio rectae fidei) is a forgery. It is extant in twenty-three manuscripts,2 and in a Syriac recension. This work has been transmitted in two forms, the shorter of which appears to have been the original (Harnack thinks otherwise). As early as Leontius of Byzantium, in the sixth century, the longer form was cited as the work of Justin ; and since it is an attack on the Nestorians and Eutychians, the date of its com position may be fixed at about 500 a.d. Draeseke has sought to show that the shorter form represents the writing of Apollinaris of Laodicea Tlepl rpidBo1;, but his hypothesis is open to grave doubt. J. Draeseke, in ZwTh, XXVI, 1883, 481-497 ; ZKG, VI, 1884, 1-45, 503-549 ; also his Apollinaris von Laodicea, in TU, VII, 1892, 158-182; cf. A. Jlilicher, in GGA, 1893, 85-86. F. X. Funk, in ThQu, LXXVIII, 1896, 116-147, 224-250. 5. Of the 11/909 Evpdcnop o-oio~rr)P irepl irpopolxvi Kal irio-reca Xo'709 nothing further is known than that it was ascribed to Justin by Maximus Confessor.3 According to Photius,4 a writing entitled Tlepl rov 7ra>p. 4. It was apparently in the latest period of his life- 1 Schwartz, TU, IV, 1, 16. 13; cf. Kalkmann, 516. 2 Schwartz, Idem, 41. 13 f- 6 HUt EccL IV' 29' 6' 8 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 13. 8. 6 Orat. 16; Schwartz, 17. 4 Stromata, III, 12. 81. 120 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE time (Harnack and Moller think differently) that Tatian undertook to amalgamate the various Gospel accounts in a compendious and harmonious form, in order to avoid repetitions and contradictions. In so doing, he handled the text with great freedom, omitted both genealogies of Jesus, and arranged the pericopes in an order which suited his own purposes, the whole begin ning with the first verses of the Fourth Gospel. This Diatessaron, EvayyeXiop Bia recro-dpcop1 written in Syriac (Greek ?), passed current in the Syrian church for two centuries as the only book of the Gospels, and was used as such in the homilies of Aphraates (between 336 and 346 a.d.) and in the Doctrina Addai? Not till the sec ond half of the fourth century were successful efforts made to displace it by the separate Gospels. The traces of this struggle are recognizable in the Commentary (theological scholia) written by Ephraem Syrus (+378 a.d.) to the Diatessaron.3 Theodoret of Cyrrhus was compelled to confiscate (about 450 a.d.) hundreds of copies of the work in his congregations ; 4 and even in the fourteenth century it found honorable mention.5 The Syriac Text (preserved in an Armenian transla tion), which is woven into the commentary of Ephraem, offers a good though inadequate clue for its reconstruc tion. An Arabic translation from the twelfth century, made from a Syriac copy of the ninth, has been pre served. It corresponds in all essential points with the order of Ephraem's text, and appears to be nearer to 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 29. 6. 2 Cf. 101. 3 Cf. also Dionysius Bar-Salibi; Assemanni (§ 2. 8. b) I, 57; II, 159. 4 Haereticarum fabularum Compendium, I, 20. 6 Ebed-Jesu, Praefat. Nomocan. MILTIADES 121 the original than the post-Hieronymian Gospel-harmony which Victor of Capua, between 541 and 547 a.d., caused to be incorporated with the Vulgate text in the Codex Fuldensis.. Editions : E. Ranke, Codex Fuldensis, Marb. 1868. J. Aucher and G. Moesinger, Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a S. Ephraeiizo, Venet. 1876. The reconstruction of the text, Zahn, FGK, I, 1 12-219. A. Ciasca, Tatiani evangeliorum harmoniae arabice, Rom. 1888. [J. H. Hill . . . The Diatessaron of Tatian, Edinb. 1894.] H. W. Hogg, ANF, IX, 35-138. Literature: A. Harnack, in ZKG, IV, 1881, 471-505. Theo. Zahn, FGK, I, 1881 (cf. Frz. Overbeck, in ThLZ, VII, 1882, 102- 109); II, 1883, 286-299; GNK> n> 2> 530-53°> and in NKZ, IX, 1894, 85-120. J. P. P. Martin, in RQuH, XLIV, 1888, 5-50. J. R. Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian, Lond. 1890; cf. A. Har nack, in ThLZ, XVI, 1891, 355 f. J. R. Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraim Syrus upon the Diatessaron. S. Hemp hill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, Lond. 1888. Th. Zahn, NKZ, V, 1894, 85-120; cf. ZKG, XVI, 1895, 166 f. H. Goussen, Studia Theologica (some new fragments of the Diatessaron), Lpz. 1895, 62- 67 ; cf. Th. Zahn, in ThLB, XVI, 1895, 497~5oo. § 38. Miltiades Literature : C. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum, IX, 1872, 364-373 (earlier works are noted there). A. Harnack, TU, I, 1882, 278-282. R. Seeberg, in FGK, V, 237-240. — Fabricius, BG, 165 f. Harnack, LG, 255 f. Miltiades, the rhetorician,1 probably a native of Asia Minor, wrote during the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. He is mentioned by Tertullian1 as an anti-Gnostic writer between Justin and Irenaeus ; and by the author of The Little Labyrinth? as an orthodox writer between Justin and Tatian. Of his writings, 1 Tertullian, Valent. 5. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 28. 4. 122 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE nothing has been preserved. The following are known only by their titles or subject matter : — (a) An anti-Montanistic writing,1 Tlepl rov pr) Belp irpofyrynqp ep iKcrrdaei XeyeLP, which is cited by the anonymous anti-Montanistic writer in Eusebius.2 (b) An anti-Gnostic (anti-Valentinian) writing.3 (c) Two books 11/309 "EXXryzw. (d) Two books IIpo9 'lovBaiovs. (e) An Apology for Christianity ('Tirep t?j9 Kara Xpianapovs cj)iXoo-ovo-ea}<; apOpdrrrov* (J) Tlepl 7rXdaea><;. (g) and (h) Tlepl viraKorj? irio-reco1; alcr0r]rr)pia>p. This title is evidently incorrect, and probably should be divided into two : Tlepl vira/cofj<; irlareax; and Ilepl alo-6rj- rrjplcop. (i) Tlepl ¦^rvxrj'S Kal o-cbfiaros (77 wo? should be omitted).6 (k) Tlepl Xovrpov; an interesting fragment. The same fragment which Pitra found in a Vatican Codex7 has been shown by J. M. Mercati8 to exist in a Codex at Florence.9 It is given by Pitra in his Analecta Sacra.10 In this writing analogies to baptism are drawn from artisan and natural life, and the baptism of Jesus is compared to the dipping of sun, moon, and stars into 5 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 26. 4'. Cf. VI, 13. 9. 2 Cf. G. Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontan. Streits. Lpz. 1891, 84-88. Theo. Zahn, FGK, V, 1893, 26, and the literature discussed by each. 3 Jerome, De Vita Prophetarum ; so also Otto, 376, No. 5. 4 So Rufinus and Syriac. Some MSS. of Eusebius give trlcrem. 8 Jerome gives De Sensibus and De Fide ; Rufinus, De Oboedientia Fidei and De Sensibus. 8 For title, see No. 6 below. a Codex Ambros. 1, 9. Supp. ann. 1 142. 7 Codex Vatican, graec. 2022. 10 Analecta Sacra, II, 3-5. 8 ThQu, LXXVI, 1894, 597-600. 126 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE the ocean. It was probably directed against the Mar cionites (Thomas). (/) Tlepl aXrjdeia1;. (tn) Tlepl Krlo~ea>s Kal yepeaecos Xpio-rov. (n) Ao'709 avrov irepl irpocjjrjrela':1 The construction of avrov is uncertain ; it is not impossible to construe it with Xo'709 (Otto, Harnack). (0) Tlepl p,aro<; Kal els ro ird6o<;,s which was used by Hippolytus4 and worked into a sermon by Alexander of Alexandria. Mai, NPB, II, 1854, 529, 540, SpR, III, 1840, 699-705. W. Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, Lond. 1855, 52-54. SpS, I, 3-5 ; II, IX, and LVI f. Ill, 417. P. de Lagarde, Anal. Syr. Lips, et Lond. 1858, 189. Otto, 419-423. AS, IV, 197, 323 f., 432. Cf. G. Kriiger, in ZwTh, XXXI, 1888, 434-448, and the literature there cited and discussed. Cf. § 69. a. 7. The Syriac Apology, contained in a codex in the British Museum 5 and ascribed in its heading to Melito, cannot be identified with this writer's Apology, since the passages attested by Eusebius (and the Chronicon Paschale) are not to be found in it (Jacobi). Neither are there any grounds for identifying it with the Melito nian writing Tlepl aXrjdelas (Ewald holds the opposite view). The writing was addressed (see the close) to Antoninus ; a name which may be understood to mean Antoninus Pius, or perhaps even Caracalla or Helioga balus. It remains possible that the Syriac scribe wrote Melito by mistake for Miltiades6 (note, however, his 1 Pitra, SpS, II, LXIII f. Otto, 416-418. ,3 See above, 3. i. and 4. 2 Scholia on Gen. xxii. 13. Cf. Piper, 65-68. 4 De paschale. 5 Cod. Nitr. Misc. Mus. Britt. nunc 14658, saec. VI. v. VII. 6 Seeberg's view. Cf. § 38. melito 129 intimate acquaintance with Syrian conditions), or that, since the work is composed in excellent Syriac, it may not be a translation at all (Noldeke). The Apology exhibits a plain connection with that of Aristides (whether with Justin's also, is doubtful) ; the idolatry of those who worship the elements and pray to many gods is contrasted with the true idea of God (truth and error in contrast). Editions: Syriac and English: W. Cureton, Spicil. Syr. 1855, 41-51 (22-31). Syriac and Latin: 0110,423-432,497-512. Ger man: Welte, in ThQu, XLVI, 1862, 392-410. V. Grone, in BKV, 1873. P. B. Pratten, ANF. VIII, 751-62. Literature : J. L. Jacobi, in Dezitsch. Zeitschr. f chr. Wissensch. und chr. Leben, VII, 1856, 105-108. G. H. A. Ewald, in GGA, 1856, nr. 658. Th. Noldeke, in JprTh, XIII, 1878, 345 ff. R. See berg, in FGK, V, 237-240. 8. (a) The fragment of an Epistle of Melito to Eu- trepius, edited by Pitra,1 from an Armenian codex, has no connection with the bishop of Sardis. (b) The name of Melito may be concealed in that of Mellitus, who is mentioned as the author of a book De Passione S. Joannis Evangelistae (of the fourth century ?). (c) In the prologue to a recension of the book De transitu beatae Mariae (virginis), the author calls himself Melito, servus Christi, episcopus ecclesiae Sardensis. The prologue is of post-Augustinian origin. (d) Melito (Milotho, Milito) is named in one manu script as the author of a Catena in Apocalypsin, which was made about 1300 a.d. by an anonymous writer.2 1 AS, IV, 16, 292. 2 Following Harnack, LG, 252-254. Cf. literature cited there. K 130 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE § 41. Athenagoras Editions: Cf. citations preceding, § 33. P. Nannius, Paris and Lovan. 1541 {De Resurrectione). C. Gesner, Tiguri, 1557 (Suppli- catio). Otto, Corpus apol. VII, 1857. E. Schwartz, in TU, IV, 2, 1891. Cf. E. Preuschen, in ThLZ, XVII, 1892, 543-546. — Trans lations : A Bieringer, in BKV, 1875. B- p- Pratten, in ANF, II, 129-162. (Plea for the Christians ; Resurrection.) Literature: C. Otto, in ZhTh, XXVI, 1856, 637-644. Markel, De Athenag. libro apologetico qui Tlpecr/3. ir. Xptor. inscr. Konigsb. 1857. Fdrster, Ueber die Glaubwiirdigkeit der von Athenagoras iiberlieferten kunstgeschichtlichen Notizen, in the Gymizas. Pro gramme on the earliest pictures of Hera, Breslau, 1868, 29 ff. H. Diels, Doxographi graeci, Berol. 1879, 90. G. Loesche, in JprTh, VIII, 1882, 168-178. A. Harnack, TU, I, 1-2, 175-189. Theo. Zahn, FGK, III, 60. — Fabricius, BG, 95-101. Richardson, BS, 36- 38. Harnack, LG, 526-558. 1. Athenagoras, first called the Athenian in a late manuscript tradition (by an emendator of the Paris Codex 451 of the eleventh century), wrote during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. He may have been the same person as the Athenagoras to whom the Alexan drian Boethus1 (after 180 a.d.) dedicated his book Tlepl rwp irapa, TlXdrapi airopov/xeuap (Zahn). The particu lars about him given by the compiler who made excerpts from Philip of Side2 [Pamphylia], are for the most part worthless, and the statement that he was the leading superintendent or teacher in the Alexandrian catecheti cal school may be doubted. 2. Two works of Athenagoras have been preserved : 3 (a) Tlpecrfiela irepl ~K.pianava>v (Supplicatio, legatio pro 1 Photius, Codex, 154, 155. 2 Cf. Dodwell, Dissertat. in Irenaeum. 1689, App. 488 f. 8 In the Codex Paris. 451, of 914 A.D., and numerous manuscripts de pendent on it. ATHENAGORAS 131 Christianis), addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and L. Commodus, and consequently written later than 176, and previous to 180, probably in 177. The address has not been preserved complete, and the name of the author was unknown to the transcriber of the Paris Codex 451. After an introduction, in which he exposes the difference between the treatment of Chris tians and the justice exercised by the rulers in other cases (Chaps. 1-3), the apologist defends his fellow- believers against accusations of atheism (Chaps. 4-30), and immorality (Thyestian banquets and Oedipean nup tials ; Chaps. 3 1-36). The work ends with a reiterated appeal to the emperors. (b) The Tlepl apaardo-ew1; (de Resurrectione), attested by Athenagoras himself,1 contains, after the introduc tion, a refutation of hostile objections to the resur rection of the body (Chaps. 2-10), and a philosophical proof of it based upon the purpose of man's creation (Chaps. 12-13), his nature (Chaps. 14-17). and destiny (Chaps. 18-25). There is no reason to doubt that both writings were by the same hand. Each proclaims the Christian Platonist who, in spite of the stress he lays on the revealed character of Christianity, makes a greater use of philosophical material than Justin. Athenagoras was a writer of taste, and, compared with Justin and Tatian, he was distinguished by a clear and simple method of arrangement. He differs from the latter author, more especially in subordinating controversy to positive argument, and in not laying himself open to the reproach of an inadequate comprehension of his opponent's views. Thus the first part of his Apology 1 Supplicatio, at the close of Chap. 36 in Otto's edition; and at the beginning of Chap. 37 in that of Schwartz. 132 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE contains an occasional brilliant exposition of the Christian belief in God, in philosophical form, and the last part sets forth most admirably, over against silly calumnies, the endeavor of Christians after morality. Athenag oras' work on the Resurrection is distinguished more especially from that of Justin (?) by the absence of any reference to Christ's resurrection as an argument. Athenagoras displays acquaintance with classical writers, but like Tatian he mistreats the history of art (Forster). There are resemblances to Old and New Testament passages ; Justin's Apology was used (there is doubt with regard to that of Aristides), but no use of Tatian's Oratio can be proved. Athenagoras was read but little, partly on account of his strictly philosophic attitude. It is possible (as Ebert, Bieringer, Loesche, and Harnack maintain) that Minucius Felix was acquainted with his writings, but this is not capable of proof. Methodius of Olympus cited a passage from the Supplicatio, naming the author.1 On the other hand, to men like the Alexandrians, his crass doctrine of the resurrection may have been offensive. § 42. Theophilus Editions : See references preceding, § 33. J. Frisius-Gesner, Tiguri, 1546. C. Otto, Corpus, VIII, 1861. — Translations: J. Leitl, in BKV, 1872. Marcus Dods, in ANF, II, 89-121 (to Autolycus). Literature: L. Paul in JclPh, CXIII, 1876, 114-116 (Text). A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius von Antiochien, Lpz. 1878, 42-44 ; Idem, TU, I, 1-2, 1882, 282-298; ZKG, XI, 1889, 1-21. C. Erbes, in JprTh, V, 1879, 464-485, 618-653; XIV, 1888, 611-632. A. B. Cook, Theophilus, etc., II, 7, in The Classical Review, 1894, 246-248. Fabricius, BG, 101-106. Richardson, BS, 35 f. Harnack, LG, 496-502. 1 Edition of Bonwetsch, 1, 1 29 f. ; cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, LXIV, 20 f. ; Photius, Codex, 234, edition of Bekker, 293. THEOPHILUS 133 1. The three books, SeocpiXov irpd'; AvtoXvkop, which are preserved in a manuscript1 of the eleventh century and in others which depend on it, were known, possibly, to Tertullian,2 Minucius Felix,3 and Julius Africanus ; 4 probably, also, to Novatian,5 and certainly to Lactantius,6 Eusebius,7 and to the writer of the Sacra Parallela.8 There is confusion as to the author.9 Eusebius alone attributes the Ad Autolycum to Theophilus, who, accord ing to the Chronicon (ad annum Abrahami 2185, 2193), is said to have been the (sixth) bishop of Antioch, from 169-177 a.d. If Eusebius is correct in regard to the author (the opposite position is taken by Erbes, though without sufficient reason), the statement of the Chroni cle is erroneous, since the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 a.d.) is mentioned10 in the third book. The author was an Oriental, born not far from the Euphrates and the Tigris,11 educated as a Hellenist, but possessed of Hebrew knowledge,12 and not till manhood converted from heathenism to Christianity.13 That he wrote during the reign of Commodus appears from the fact that the death of this emperor is not mentioned in the chrono logical survey in the third book. 2. The three books are mutually independent of each other. The first is the record of a disquisition on the Christian doctrine of God and the resurrection, for 1 Codex Marcian. 496. saec. XL 3 Edition of Dombart, XII, N. I, 133. 2 Cf. Otto, 360. 4 Gelzer, I, 22-23. 5 Cf. Ad Autolycum, I, I, Otto, 10, 3 ff., with De Trinitate, 2. 6 Div. Instit. I, 23. 7 Hist. Eccl. IV, 21. 1; and following Eusebius, Jerome, De Viris Illust. 25. 8 Le Quien, I, 787; cf. 785. n Ad Autol. II, 24. 9 E.g. Gennadius, Viri Illust. 34. 12 Idem, II, 12, 24; III, 19. 1° Otto, III, 27. 13 Idem, I, 14. 134 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE the benefit of an otherwise unknown person, Autolycus. The second, prepared at the request of Autolycus, is an elaboration and amplification of the same, in that it gives a survey of the "creation, and of all other things," l as they were foretold by the prophets. The third is a treatise presenting the argument for Chris tianity and its sacred writings, drawn from their an tiquity. This last was possibly circulated separately.2 Original thought is wanting in the work of this author : he confined himself strictly to the arguments of his older prototypes (Justin). His language and statement seldom rise above the level of the pedantic. The way in which the New Testament writings are used3 evinces an advanced stage in the formation of the canon. 3. The following writings have been lost: — (a) A work, the first book of which was entitled Tlepl lo-ropiwp, cited elsewhere by the author himself (vv. 11.). The citations made by John Malalas4 from a chronog- rapher, Theophilus,5 were derived, possibly, from this book; (b) A ~2vyypafj,(jLa irpos rrjp a'ipealP 'Epfioyepovs,6 which, possibly, was employed by Tertullian and Hippolytus (so Harnack); (c) A Ao'709 Kara, Map/aWo9,6 possibly known to Irenaeus (so Harnack), Tertullian, and Adamantius ; 7 (d) KaT7j^7/Ti«:a /0t/3Xia ; 6 (e) A commentary on Proverbs, the existence of which is attested only by Jerome ; 8 1 Otto, 78. 1. 2 Lactantius, loc. cit. 8 Cf. citations from John {Ad. Autol. II, 22) and Paul {Idem, III, 14). 4 Edit, of Dindorf, 29. 4, etc. 8 Zahn, FGK, II, 6. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 24. I . ' Zahn, in ZKG, IX, 1888, 235; GNK, II, 420. 8 Viri Illust. 25. THEOPHILUS EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS 1 35 (/) Jerome1 was acquainted with a commentary on the Gospel, written by Theophilus. Zahn and Hauck2 maintain that the Gospel commentary attributed to Theophilus (which was first edited by De la Bigne, and afterwards proved by Harnack to exist in a manu script of the seventh century at Brussels, and found by Pitra in two other manuscripts) is, in general, identi cal with the work mentioned by Jerome, and it was already in the hands of Commodianus. Zahn con siders that he has proved it to have been the work of Theophilus of Antioch ; whereas Harnack, on the contrary, defends the view that the commentary is a conglomerate from the works of the earlier Latin Fathers, composed in the West about 500 a.d. (Borne- mann : between 450 and 700 a.d.) In its present form the work is not a unit. Editions: De la Bigne, Sacra bibliotheca (§ 2. 8. a), V, 1575, 169-196. C. Otto, Corpus Apol. Christ. VIII, 278-324. Theo. Zahn, FGK, II, 1883, 29-85 ; cf. A. Harnack, in TU, I, 4, 1884, 164. J. B. Pitra, AS, II, 624-634. Literature: Theo. Zahn, FGK, II, 1883; III, 1884, 198-277; ZkWL, V, 1884, 626-628. A. Harnack, in TU, I, 4, 1883, 97-175 ; ThLZ, XI, 1886, 404, 405. A. Hauck, in ZkWL, V, 1884, 561-568. W. Sanday in Studia Biblica, etc. I, Oxf. 1885, 89-101. W. Borne- mann, in ZKG, X, 1889, 169-252. SUPPLEMENTARY § 43. The Epistle to Diognetus Editions: See citations preceding, § 33 and 36. H. Stephanus, Paris, 1592. C. Otto, Corpus Apol. Christ. Ill, 158-211. O. v. Gebhardt, in Patr. Apost. Opera, I, 2, 2d edit., Lpz. 1878, 154-164. 1 De Viris Illust. 25. Epist. 121, 6, Vallarsi, I, 866, Praef. Comm. ad Matth. 2 Against Hauck, see Bornemann, 136 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE F. X. Funk, in Opera Pair. Apost. I, Tubingen, 1881, 310-333.— Translations: J. C. Mayer, in BKV, 1869. H. Kihn (see below), 155-168. Roberts and Donaldson, ANF, I, 25-30. Literature : See citations preceding, § 36. C. Otto, De Epist. ad Diognet. Jena, 1852. J. Donaldson (cf. § 2. 4. b), II, 1866, 126 ff. Frz. Overbeck, Ueber den pseudo-justin. Brief atz Diognet (Basel, Universitdts-Program, 1872), in Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, I, Chemnitz, 1875, :~92 ! of- Theo. Zahn, in GGA, 1873, 106-116. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XVI, 1873, 270-286. R. A. Lipsius, in LCB, 1873, 1249-51. Theo. Keim, in PKZ, 1873, 285-289, 309-314. A. Harnack, in Prolegomena to von Gebhardt's edition, 1878. E. B. Birks, in DCB, II, 162-167. K. J. Neumann, in ZKG, IV, 1881, 284-287. H. Doulcet, in RQuH, XXVIII, 1880,601-612. J. Draeseke, in JprTh, VII, 1881, 213-283, 414-484 (Apelles, the author) ; cf. F. Overbeck, in ThLZ, VII, 1882, 28-33. H. Kihn, Der Ur sprung des Briefs an Diognet, Freib. 1882 ; cf. A. Harnack, in ThLZ, VIII, 1883, 100-102. J. A. Robinson, in TSt, I, 1, 1891, 95-97. R. Seeberg, in FGK, V, 240- 243. G. Kriiger, in ZwTh, XXXVII, 1894, 206-223. Fabricius, BG, 65 f. Richardson, BS, 3-5. Harnack, LG, 757 f. The Strassburg codex 1 of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, which was burned in 1870, contained a writing (Epistle) 11/509 Aioyprjrop, which it ascribed to Justin,2 the author of the treatise Tlpd? "EXX^iw?, which pre ceded it in the manuscript. The attempt to defend the attestation given by the manuscript (Otto) may be regarded as abortive, but just as little has it proved pos sible to make the Epistle intelligible as a product of the third century (Zahn, Harnack, and Seeberg), or of the period following Constantine (Overbeck), or as a humanistic attempt " to write a good declamation in the old style " (Donaldson, p. 142). Very probably the Epistle belongs to the second century, and on internal evidence it is possible that it was written before the war 1 Codex Argent. 9, saec. XIII-XIV. 2 Cf. § 36. 3. c. EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS HERMIAS 1 37 of Barcochba (before 135 a.d.). The striking resem blance between the Apology of Aristides and the Epis tle has led to the assumption of an identity of authors (Doulcet, Kihn, and Kruger). On this supposition we may recognize in the person addressed the teacher of Marcus Aurelius. The author's purpose was to answer certain precisely formulated questions raised by Diog- netus as to the character and essence of the Christian worship of God and love of one's neighbor, and to re move his doubts as to why Christianity had come into the world now for the first time. After a superficial treatment of Greek idolatry (Chap. 2) and of the per verted form in which the Jews worship the one God (Chaps. 3, 4), there follows a touching description of Christian belief and of Christian practice, which is everywhere interwoven with reminiscences of Pauline and Johannine thoughts. The two final chapters (1 1, 12) do not belong to the Epistle, but were added later by another hand. § 44. Hermias Editions: See citations preceding, § 33. J. Oporinus, Basil, 1553, 402-406. W. F. Wenzel, Lugd. Bat. 1840. C. Otto, Corpus Apol. Christ. IX, 1872, 1-3 1 ; cf. XI-LI. H. Diels, Doxographi graeci, Berl. 1879, 649-656; cf. 259-263. — Translations: J. Leitl, in BKV, 1873. Fabricius, BG, 114-116 (119). Harnack, LG, 782 f. A short treatise entitled 'Eppetov (piXocrocpov Biao-vpp,6<; t£p efa) (j>iXoa6 3- 2 De Viris Illust. 58, cf. 53; see also Epist. 70. 5. * Chap. 7, 4. 6 Cf. Corpus Inscript. Latin. VIII, 6996. 6 Cf., however, the conjecture of Baehrens on 1, 5. 7 De Viris Illust. 58; cf. Epist. 70, 5. 142 APOLOGETIC LITERATURE genuineness. Presumably it was a forgery, suggested by the statement made in the Octavius1 that the author intended to write more at length concerning Fate, in another place. 1 36, 2. CHAPTER II ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE Cf. the literature cited before § 22, and the writings mentioned at §§ 36. 2. a, d. 1 ; 38 b ; and 40. 3. k. § 46. Agrippa Castor Routh, RS, I, 85-90. — Fabricius, BG, 155 f. Harnack, LG, 114 f. Eusebius x had read a work by Agrippa Castor, entitled "EXeyxos Kara. Tiao-iXeiBov, a fragment of which he gives.2 § 47. Rhodo Routh, RS, I, 437-446. B. P. Pratten, in ANF, VIII, 766. H. Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde (§ 40. 3. a), 224-233. — -Fabri cius, BG, 164. Harnack, LG, 599. Rhodo,3 of Asia Minor, was a disciple of Tatian at Rome. Eusebius mentions three of his writings, two of which he had read : — (a) A work, dedicated to Callistio, and directed against Marcion, his school, and Apelles. The two interesting fragments preserved by Eusebius treat of the divisions among the Marcionites, and of a controversy between Rhodo and Apelles which is very characteristic of the contrast between apologetic and Gnostic theology. i Hist. Eccl. IV, 7. 6/ 2 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 21, and Theodoret, Haer. fab. I, 4. 8 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 13. 143 144 ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE (b) "Tir6p,prjfj,a ek rrjP igarffiepop. (c) A writing directed against Tatian's Problemata. Jerome1 asserts, without reason, that Rhodo was the anonymous anti-Montanistic writer cited by Eusebius.2 Voigt attempts to prove that Rhodo was the author of the anti-Montanistic source used by Epiphanius.3 § 48. Musanus Theo. Zahn, FGK, I, 287; GNK, II, 2, 438. — Fabricius, BG, 164 f. Harnack, LG, 760. According to Eusebius,4 Musanus, a contemporary (and fellow-countryman ?) of Apollinaris, Melito, Modestus, and Irenaeus,6 wrote a work against the Encratites, which no one besides Eusebius appears to have seen.6 § 49. Philip of Gortyna Fabricius, BG, 168. Harnack, LG, 237. Philip, Bishop of Gortyna, in Crete, wrote, in the time of Marcus Aurelius (or Commodus ?), a book against Marcion, of which Eusebius7 alone appears to have possessed any independent knowledge.8 § 50. Modestus Fabricius, BG, 165. Harnack, LG, 759. According to Eusebius,9 a certain Modestus, a con temporary of Philip and Irenaeus, wrote a book against Marcion.10 1 De Viris Illust. 37, cf. 39. » Panarion, XLVIII, 2-13. 2 Hist. Eccl. V, 16. 4 Eccl. Hist. IV, 28. 5 Idem, IV, 21. Otherwise Chron. ad ann. Abrahami 2220. Sever. XL 6 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 31, and Theodoret, Haer. fab. I, 21. 7 Hist. Eccl. IV, 25; cf. 21 and 23. 5. 9 Hist. Eccl. IV, 25; cf. 21. 8 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 30. 10 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 32. HEGESIPPUS 145 § 51. Hegesippus Routh, RS, I, 205-284. B. P. Pratten, in ANF, VIII, 762-765. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XIX, 1876, 177-229. Theo. Zahn, in ZKG, II, 1878, 288-291, and ThLB, XIV, 1893, 495"497- C. Weizsacker, in RE, V, 695-700. C. de Boor, in TU, V, 2, 1889, 165-184. Ph. Meyer, in ZKG, XI, 1889, 155-158. Frz. Overbeck, Ueber die Anfdnge der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung. Basel, 1892, 6-13, 17-22. E. Bratke, in ThLB, XV, 1894, 65-67. — Fabricius, BG, 158-160. Richardson, BS, inf. Harnack, LG, 483-485. 1. Hegesippus, an Oriental, probably a Jew, and at all events well acquainted with Syriac and Hebrew, stopped 1 in Corinth and in Rome, while travelling in the West, in the time of the Bishop Anicetus, 154(156)- 166 (167) a.d. According to his own statement,2 he was still living at the time of Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 174 (i75)-i89 a.d. The statement of the Chron icon Paschale? that he died during the reign of Com modus (180-192 a.d.) is perhaps a mere combination of the accounts given by Eusebius. 2. Hegesippus wrote a work, probably entitled 'T7ro- liprjp,ara,i which consisted of five books from which Eusebius 5 has given some extensive fragments. The one conjecture, that this work was a sort of church history, is as untenable6 as the other, that Hegesippus intended to give statistics of his time, or an account of his travels. The fragments make it appear quite likely that Hegesippus' purpose was to give the true tradition of the apostolic preaching in its simplest form,7 in opposi- 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 22. 2 Idem, § 3. 3 Edition of Dindorf, 490. 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 22. 1 ; cf. II. 23. 4. 6 Idem, II, 23 : III, 11, 16, 20, 32 : IV, 8, 22. 6 Cf. Weizsacker and Overbeck. ' Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 8, 2. L I46 ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE tion to the doctrine of Gnosis. The historical sections introduced into the work were also meant to serve the purpose of this demonstration. The fragments give no occasion for the assumption that Hegesippus either belonged to, or was closely connected with, a Jewish- Christian sect; they rather show him to have been a forerunner of Irenaeus. Eusebius1 is almost the sole witness to his work. Besides Eusebius, only Philippus of Side2 and Stephanus Gobarus3 are to be so con sidered, although we need not suppose that even they had seen the complete work. On the possibility that the entire writings of Hegesippus were extant in the sixteenth century, see the remarks of Zahn, Meyer, and Bratke. § 52. Irenaus Editions: D. Erasmus, Basel, 1526, and after (Latin). N. Gal- Iasius, Genev. 1570 (contains also the Greek fragments). F. Feuardentius, Paris, 1576, and later. J. E. Grabe, Oxon. 1702. R. Massuet, Paris, 1712, 34. A. Stieren, 2 vols. Lips. 1848-53. Migne, PG, VII, 433-1322. W. W. Harvey, 2 vols. Camb. 1857; cf. Monumenta syriaca, edit. G. Moesinger, II, 8 f. (Syriac), 10 f. (Latin text). Pitra, AS, II, 188-217. — Translations: H. Hayd, 2 vols, in BKV, 1872-73. Roberts and Donaldson, ANF, I, 315- 578 (Against Heresies, and Fragments). J. Keble, in LFC, XLII, Oxf. 1872 (Extant Works). Literature : A. Stieren, in Ersch and Gruber's Allgem. Enzyklop., etc., 2d section, 23d part, Lpz. 1844, 357-386. H. Ziegler, Irenaus der Bischof von Lyon, Berl. 1871. R. A. Lipsius, in HZ, XXVIII, 1872, 241-295, and in DCB, II, 252-279. C. Leimbach, in Zeitsch. f. Luth. Theol. und Kirche, XXXIV, 1873, 614-629. O. v. Geb hardt, in ZhTh, XLV, 1875, 368-370. Theo. Zahn, in ZKG, II, 1878, 288-291 ; RE, VII, 129-240 ; FGK, IV, 249-283 ; ThLB, XIV, 1893, 495-497. F. Loofs, Irenaushandschriften, Lpz. 1888. Ph. 1 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 22. 2 Cf De Boor, 169. 8 Cf. Photius, Codex, 232 ; Bekker, 288. IRENAEUS 147 Meyer, in ZKG, XI, 1889, 155-158. A. Papadopulos-Kerameus, AvdXeKTa "Iepoo-oAu/iiTiK^s STa^uoXo-ytas I, Petersb. 1891, 387-389; cf. J. Haussleiter, in ZKG, XIV, 1893-94, 69-73. Fabricius, BG, 75-87. Richardson, BS, 26-29. Preuschen, in Harnack's LG, 263-288. 1. Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor, at a date that can scarcely be fixed earlier than 120 a.d., and certainly not later than 130.1 According to his own statement, he was a disciple of Polycarp (died 155) and of other presbyters, " who had seen John, the disciple of the Lord."2 We are credibly informed that he was in Rome in 155. 3 At the time of the persecution of the Christians in Lyons and Vienne (177 a.d.), he was a presbyter in Lyons. Having been commissioned by the Confessors, he journeyed to Rome to see Bishop Eleutherus upon matters relating to the Montanists. After his return he became bishop, succeeding Pothinus, who had perished in the persecution. In this capacity he wrote to Victor, Bishop of Rome (that is, after 189 a.d.), in connection with the controversies in regard to the date of Easter. The date of his death is unknown : the statement that he died a martyr's death originated in the fifth century.4 2. Irenaeus never devoted himself to a scholastic pur suit of heathen or Christian philosophy, and he felt that he was not a born author.6 Although, in his position 1 Zahn, 115; Leimbach, 126 ; v. Gebhardt, 126-130 ; Lipsius, 130 a.d. 2 Adv. Haer. II, 22. 5, Stieren's text. Cf. also III, 3, 4; V, 5. 1 ; 30. I> 33-35 3<>- 2; and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 20. 3 Supplement of Martyrdom of Polycarp in Codex Mosqu. 4 Jerome, Comm. in Isa. 64 (410 A.D.), but not yet in De Viris Illust. 35 (392 A.D.). Pseudo-Justin, Quaest. et Respon. 115, Otto, 188. Greg ory of Tours, Hist. Francorum, I, 29 (27). 5 I, Praef. I48 ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE as bishop, occasion was not wanting for his taking up the pen, he himself disclaims all readiness in expressing himself.1 His principal work was his book against the heretics, under the title "EXeyxos Kal ciparpoirrj t»}9 ¦^revBapvfiov ypmaews? The shortened title, ivpos alpe'crei?, is given by Cyril of Jerusalem ; 3 Adversus Haereses, by Jerome.4 Numerous and extensive fragments of the original have been preserved by Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and others. On the ^possibility that the original was extant as late as the sixteenth century, see Zahn. The work is extant as a whole only in a Latin translation (in nineteen manuscripts of very varying value : Loots), which probably was known to Tertullian. The slavish fidelity of this version compensates to a certain degree for the loss of the original text. It is uncertain whether the fragments preserved in Syriac 5 justify the conclusion that there was a complete Syriac version made. The work was written in Gaul when Eleutherus was bishop of Rome ; 6 that is, between 1 74 (175) and 189 a.d., but probably not till after 180 a.d. The author's original intention was to expose (eXeyxop. That this writing contained Sermons seems to be proved by the fragments in the Sacra Parallela7 and in a Catena.8 (i) Some fragments of his Aoyoi 7t/jo9 Arjfiijrpiov Bid- kopop Btaiwj? irepl iriareax;, attested by Maximus Con fessor,9 have been preserved.10 (k) According to the heading of a Syriac fragment,11 Irenaeus wrote a Commentary on the Song of Songs in several parts. (/) A book, Ilept t??9 aytas rpidBo<;, has been ascribed to Irenaeus, but probably only by mistake.12 (m) Irenaeus intended to write a special treatise 1 Sermo. VII, De Eleemos. Combefis. II, 554. Frag. Grace. IV, Har vey. Cf. also AS, II, 197, N. 3. 2 Syr. Frag. XXVIII, Harvey. Cf. AS, IV, 27, 300. 3 Preuschen, LG, 593 f. Cf. Theo. Zahn, FGK, IV, 283-308. 4 Cf. Frag. Syr. XXVII, Harvey. 6 Hist. Eccl. V, 26. 6 Hist. V, 26. Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 35. 7 Harvey, Frag. Grace. XL 8 Harvey, Frag. XLl. 9 Combefis. II, 72. w Harvey, Frag. Grace. V; Lat. VI; AS, II, 202. " Harvey, Frag. Syr. XXVI. J2 Sac. Parallela; Codex Coisl. 276 f., 138 a. 152 ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE against Marcion,1 but it is not known whether he exe cuted his plan.2 4. The origin of the four fragments 3 published by Pfaff as the work of Irenaeus is uncertain. While the third might have been by Irenaeus (Zahn), the supposi tion that he wrote the second is excluded by the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews is cited as Pauline.4 It is not impossible that all four fragments belong to the second century, though Funk5 defends the view that the second fragment was written after 400 a.d.6 Ch. M. Pfaff in the Giornale de Letterati d"1 Italia, XVI, 1714, 228-245, and in Syntagma dissert, theol. 1720, 573 f. A. Stieren, Opera Irenaez, II, 381-528. Theo. Zahn, FGK, III, 1884, 280 f. ; IV, 1891, 285, 4. — Harnack, LG, 760 f. § 53. Montanists and Anti-Montanists Routh, RS, I, 465-485, II, 183-217. G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Ge schichte des Montanismus, Erlangen, 1881, 197-200. Theo. Zahn, Die Chronologie des Montanismus, in FGK, V, 1-57 passim. — Fabricius, BG, 164, 180 f. Harnack, LG, 238-243. 1. Our knowledge of Montanistic writings is limited to the following. In the Decretal of Gelasius,7 certain Opuscula Montani, Priscillae et Maximillae were inter dicted. By these were meant, possibly, " Oracular Say ings " such as have been preserved singly by various writers, e.g. Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Didy- mus.8 It is possible that the Montanist Asterius Ur- 1 I, 27. 4; III, 12. 12, edit, of Stieren. 2 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. IV, 25, and Theodoret, Haer. fab. 1, 25. Cf. {g) above. 3 Harvey, Frag. XXXV-XXXVIII. * Cf. Quotation from Irenaeus by Stephanus Gobarus (Photius, Codex, 232. Bekker's edit. 291). 6 ThQu, LXXVI, 1894, 702 f. 6 See also his edition of the Didache (XIV). 7 VI, 43. 8 Cf. Bonwetsch, and LG, 238 f. MONTANISTIC WRITINGS 1 53 banus 1 prepared a collection of such oracles. Themison,2 the Montanist, wrote a catholic epistle after the manner of the Apostles.3 The writing of Miltiades against the Montanists called forth a rejoinder.4 2. Not much is known, either, concerning anti- Montanistic writings. (a) Eusebius5 preserved nine fragments — some of them extensive — from the work of a man (Anonymus Eusebianus) who wrote thirteen or fourteen years after the death of Maximilla (197 a.d.), but whose identity cannot be established. Jerome6 conjectured that the author was Rhodo ; Rufinus, that he was Apollinaris of Hierapolis. (b) Eusebius7 has preserved six fragments, and gives certain notes from a work of ApoUonius, who wrote forty years after the appearance of Montanus (197?). According to Jerome,8 Tertullian directed the seventh book of his work Tlepl iKardaem9 against this Apol- lonius. (c) Concerning the anti-Montanistic writings of Mil tiades and Apollinaris, see below.10 (d) According to a remark by Praedestinatus,11 which cannot now be further verified, Soter, Bishop of Rome,12 is said to have written against the Montanists, and Ter- 1 Anti-Montanist, in Eusebius, Hist. V, 16-17; ANF, VII, 335-337. 2 Anti-Montanist, in Eusebius, V, 16-17. 3 ApoUonius, in Eusebius, Hist. V, 18. 5. 4 Anti-Montanist, in Eusebius, Hist. V, 17. I; cf. also Jerome, Ep. 41 (133- 4)- 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 16-17. 6 Jerome, 39; cf. 37; Eusebius, Hist., loc. cit. 7 Eusebius, Hist. V, 18. "> Cf. § 38. a; 39. a. 8 De Viris Illust. 40. n 26. 9 Cf. § 85. 10. a, 12 § 54- 154 ANTI-HERETICAL LITERATURE tullian is said to have opposed him as he did Apol- lonius. (e) The Alogi, so called by Epiphanius, also wrote against the Montanists and the Gnostics, and he made extracts from their writings in his Panarion1 (/) Epiphanius2 made use of an anonymous anti- Montanistic writing. Among the various hypotheses3 as to its author, the best founded is that of Voigt, who claims the book for Rhodo.4 It is possible that Epipha nius made use of still another ancient source.5 (g) Didymus 6 made use of an ancient writing in opposition to Patripassian Monarchianism, which is attributed by Voigt to Hippolytus (irepl %apio-/itaTG>i'), and by Harnack to Clement (irepl irpocpqrela'i). 1 Cf. Haer. II. 2 Panarion, XLVIII, 2-13. 3 Bonwetsch, Hippolytus; Hilgenfeld, ApoUonius; Lipsius, the anony mous writer mentioned by Eusebius. 4 Cf. § 47. 5 Haer. XLIX, I. 6 Trinitat. Ill, 41. Cf. II, 15; III, 18, 19, 23, 38. CHAPTER III EPISCOPAL AND SYNODAL WRITINGS § 54. The Roman Bishops C. P. Caspari, Ungedruckte . . . Quellen (§ 18), pp. 31-35. A. Harnack, Der pseudocyprianische Traktat de aleatoribus, in TU, V, 1, 1888. P. de Lagarde, Septuagintastudien, in Abhandlungen der kon. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, XXXVII, 1891, 85. — Fabricius, BG, 162. Harnack, LG, 589 f. ; 591 f. ; 595 f. Among the Roman bishops of the first century, only Victor attempted authorship. Soter (166/ 167- 174 or 175 a.d.)1 was probably the author of the writing men tioned by Dionysius 2 as sent from the Roman congrega tion to the Corinthians. Eleutherus (175-189 a.d.) was author of the pacific epistles addressed to Montanistic congregations, which Tertullian 3 mentions. Of Victor, (188-99), an African, Jerome 4 observes that, with ApoUo nius,5 and before Tertullian, he was the first Latin writer of Christendom. Eusebius was acquainted with a letter of the Roman congregation in the Paschal controversy, which is said to have exhibited Victor's characteristics.6 The writing in question was a circular letter (with which the writing of Victor mentioned by Polycrates 7 probably was identical ; Caspari holds a different view), and the 1 Cf. § 53. 2. d. 6 § 105. 6. 2 In Eusebius, Hist. IV, 23. II. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 23. 3 (2). 8 Adv. Praxean, 1. 7 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 24. 8. 4 De Viris Illust. 53. 155 156 EPISCOPAL AND SYNODAL WRITINGS Epistle by which Victor excluded the Asiatic churches from communion was also a circular letter. Even in the time of Jerome, certain mediocria de religione volu- mina, written by Victor, are said to have been extant.1 Harnack is inclined to recognize in him the author of the pseudo-Cyprianic tractate De Aleatoribusj2 and La- garde considers it possible that the fragment of a Latin apology in the Codex Fuldensis of Tertullian's Apologeti- cus,z was by him. §55. Dionysius of Corinth Routh, RS, I, 177-201. — Fabricius, BG, 162 f. Richardson, BS, 112. Harnack, LG, 235 f. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, a contemporary of Soter of Rome, wrote a number of Epistles to various churches. They were early collected, perhaps by him self ; and Eusebius,4 who had read them, gives a detailed account of them. They were as follows: (1) To the Lacedaemonians ; 5 (2) to the Athenians ; 6 (3) to the Nicomedians ; 7 (4) to the church of Gortyna and the other churches in Crete;8 (5) to the church of Amastris and the remaining churches of Pontus ; 9 (6) to the Cnossians,10 and to the Romans.11 The Epistle to Chrysophora 12 appears to have stood apart from this collection. Eusebius gives four small pieces 1 Chron. ad ann. 2209 Abr. Pert. 1 = 193; cf. also Jerome, De Viris Illust. 34. 2 § 86. 6. ... 8 Idem, § 5. 8 § 85. 5. a. s Idem, § 6. 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 23. 1° Idem, §§ 7-8. 6 Idem, § 2. 11 Idem, §§ 9-12. 6 Idem, § 2. 12 Idem, § 13. 7 Idem, § 4. DIONYSIUS SERAPION 1 57 from the Epistle to the Romans,1 which was a letter of thanks. The bishops (?) of Pontus, Bacchylides, and Elpistus,2 and also Pinytus, bishop of Cnossus,3 replied to the letters addressed to their churches.4 § 56. Serapion of Antioch Routh, RS, I, 449-462. A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, etc., (§ 9), 46 f. — Fabricius, BG, 166 f. Richardson, BS, 114. Har nack, LG, 503 f. Eusebius 5 was acquainted with the following writings of Serapion, bishop of Antioch (perhaps [189] 192-209 A.D.).6 (a) An Epistle to Domninus, who had fallen away into Judaism. (b) An Epistle relating to Montanism, addressed to the "ecclesiastical men," Pontius and Caricus.7 (c) Other Epistles to various persons. (d) A Ao'709 irepl rov Xeyofiepov Kara Tier pop evayye- Xlov, addressed to the Church at Rhos(s)us, in warning against the Docetic contents of this Gospel of Peter. An extract from it is given by Eusebius.8 The remark of Socrates 9 that Serapion, in one of his writings, had described Christ as e^vxop, appears to be independent of Eusebius. 1 Cf. Eusebius, Chron. Sync. 665. 13; Jerome, Ad ann. Abrahami 2187; Commodus' eleventh year, a.d. 173, and Jerome, De Viris Illust. 21; Epist. 70. 4. 2 LG, 236. * Eusebius, IV, 23. 6-7. 8 BG, 164; LG, 237. 6 Hist. Eccl. VI, 12. 6 Eusebius, Chron. ad ann. Abrahami 2206; the eleventh year of the Emperor Commodus; cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 22; VI, n. 4. 7 Hist. Eccl. V, 19. 8 Hist. Eccl. VI, 12. 3-5; cf. § 16. 2. 9 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 7. 158 EPISCOPAL AND SYNODAL WRITINGS § 57. Writings in the Paschal Controversy The Paschal controversy occasioned some correspond ence between bishops and the churches. The following may be mentioned : — (a) Letters by the bishops Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem at the head of the Palestin ian bishops ; 1 (b) by Victor of Rome ; 2 (c) by Palmas, bishop of Amastris, at the head of the bishops of Pontus ; 3 (d) by the congregations of Gaul, under the leader ship of Irenaeus;4 (e) by the bishops of Osrhoene ; 6 (f) by Bacchylus, bishop of Corinth ; 6 (g) by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, two extracts of which, addressed to Victor of Rome, have been preserved.7 (h) Letters of protest by various bishops against the excommunication of the Asiatics by Victor.8 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 23. 3 (2) ; LG, 503. 2 Of. §54. 3 Eusebius, loc. cit.; BG, 169; LG, 237. 4 Eusebius, loc. cit. ; cf. § 52. 3. d. 6 Loc. cit. 4 (3) ; LG, 503. 6 Loc. cit. ; BG, 168 f. ; LG, 261. 7 Eusebius, V, 24. 2-7, 8; RS, II, 11-36; BG, 169 f.; LG, 260. 8 Eusebius, V, 24. 10; LG, 260. SECOND SECTION Patristic Literature in the Age of the Rise of Theological Science § 58. General H. E. F. Guerike, De schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica commentatio, I, Hal. Sax. 1824. (The second part, De interna scholae historia, contains an account of its theological achieve ments.) C. F. W. Hasselbach, De schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica, I, Stettin, 1826 (against Guerike). E. R. Redepenning, Origines, 2 vols. Bonn, 1841, I, 57-83. E. Vacherot, Histoire cri tique de Vecole d'Alexandrie, 2 vols., Lyon, 1846, 51. Ch. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxf. 1886, passim. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, 501-506 (3d edit. 591-596). A. Ehrhard, Die griechische Patriarchalbibliothek von Jerusalem, in Romzsche Quartalschrift, IV, 1891, 217-265, 329-331, 383 f. 1. The scientific exploitation of the sources and doc trines of Christian faith by the media and in the forms of current science, for the deepening of Christian know ledge, was a project which possibly was not entirely foreign to the ecclesiastical writers of even the second century, but in their literary productions, even those of Irenaeus, it holds a subordinate place. Among the Gnostics alone was it actively pursued, and their method was placed at the service of the church after the close of the second century. 2. It is in the patristic literature of the East more especially that interest in such scientific work appears. 159 160 LITERATURE OF THE THIRD CENTURY It was particularly in the Catechetical School of Alexan dria1 that it was fostered. This school was not in tended for the instruction of catechumens, nor was it a theological seminary, but it stood open to all members of the church whose horizon was wide enough and whose desire for knowledge was active enough to make them feel the need of deeper study or able to bear it. It was not closed to the heathen either, so far as they were really desirous to understand Christian thought. The origin of the institution and also its early history are obscure, but nothing forbids the supposition that it was founded or attached to the church on account of dangers threatened by Gnosticism. About the year 1 80 it had long existed as an ecclesiastical institution.2 It is more than doubtful whether Athenagoras, the Apolo gist, ever stood at its head,3 though this was certainly true of Pantaenus.4 But the school owed its special reputation to the activity of Clement5 and Origen,6 which marked an epoch in the history of Christian lit erature. Both of them, while loyal to the church, nevertheless in their whole method aspired beyond the limits set to Christian Gnosis by the Rule of Faith. Their tradition was long maintained in the Catechetical School. 3. Scientific aspirations did not remain limited to Alexandria and its school. It is possible that even Bardesanes 7 founded a school in Christian Edessa ; a school which was at its best in the third century, and possessed a celebrated teacher in the presbyter Maca- 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 10. I, 4; VI, 3. 3; 6. 1. 2 Idem, V, 10. I. 6 § 60. 8 §41. I. e § 61. 4 § 59. 7 § 25. CATECHETICAL SCHOOLS l6l rius.1 Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem,2 laid the founda tion of a theological library ; 3 both he and his colleague Theoctistus of Caesarea were favorably inclined to learn ing. A notable rival of the Alexandrian Catechetical School arose in the school founded by Origen at Caesarea in Palestine,4 the library of which, founded by Pam- philus,5 was renowned for centuries.6 The influence of the great Alexandrian, however, became dominant in Eastern theological literature, which was dependent upon him wherever an author's subject admitted. Even those who, like Methodius,7 were opposed to the re sults, were nevertheless indebted to it at least for their form. The unique independence of Julius Africanus8 was only an exception that proved the rule. 4. The Latin element became more and more the leading one in Western patristic literature from the third century onward, and two centuries later a know ledge of Greek had become the mark of unusual erudi tion.9 With Western writers of the third century the interests of learning were subordinated to those of apologetic, polemic, and ecclesiastical questions. Only the literary work of Hippolytus,10 who wrote in Greek, can be compared with that of the Alexandrians or of Julius Africanus. 1 LG, 533- 8 LG, 543-545- 2 §81. 7 §76. 3 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 20. 1. 8 §82. 4 § 61. 2. 9 Celestine I. Epist. VIII, 9. 6 §83. 10 § 91- CHAPTER I THE ORIENTALS I. The Alexandrians § 59- Pantanus Routh, RS, I, 375-383. Migne, PG, V, 1327-1332. Theo. Zahn, FGK, III, 156-174. B. P. Pratten, in ANF, VIII, 776-777. Fa bricius, BG, 167 f. Richardson, BS, 115 f. Harnack, LG, 291-296. Pantaenus, the Sicilian,1 according to Eusebius,2 was active as master of the Catechetical School of Alexan dria as early as the beginning of the reign of Commo dus (180 a.d.); and he died about 200 a.d. or shortly before. He is said to have expounded the treasures of divine teaching not only in his lectures but in his writ ings.3 This statement, which is scarcely correct, was enlarged by Jerome4 and later writers (Anastasius Sinaita, Maximus Confessor), who tell us, apparently without reason, that Pantaenus was the author of exe getical works upon Holy Scripture. § 60. Clement Editions: P. Victorius, Florent. 1555. F. Sylburg, Heidelb. 1592. and after. J. Potter, 2 vols. Oxf. 1715. R. S. Klotz, 4 vols. Lpz. 1831-1834. Migne, PG, VIII-IX. W. Dindorf, 4 vols. Oxf. 1869; cf. Lagarde, in GGA, 1870, XXI, 801-824 (Symmicta, I, Gdttingen, 1877, 10-24). A critical edition by E. Hiller (f) and 1 Clement, Stromata, I, I. II. 8 Idem, V, 10. 4. 2 Hist. Eccl. V, 10. I. 4 De Viris Illust. 36. 162 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 163 K. J. Neumann is announced (ThLZ, 1885, 535). On the text, cf. C. G. Cobet, Aiop$o}TLKa tis to. KAi^iei/Tos rov 'AXefaj/Spe'o)?, in Adytvs 'Ep^s, I, Lugd. Bat. 1866, 166-197 ; I, 2, 1867, 201-287, 425- 534. A. Nauck, critical observations, in Bull, de Vacad. impir. de St. Petersbourg, XII, 1868, 526-528; XVII, 1872, 267-270; XXII, 1877, 700. U. de Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Commentarzolus grazn- maticus, II, Ind. Schol. Gryphisw. 1880, 6-16. O. Stahlin, Obser- vationes criticae in Clem. Alex. Erlangen, 1890. Translations: L. Hopfenmuller and J. Wimmer, in BKV, 1875 {Quzs dives. Protrepticus . Paedagogus). Alex. Roberts, Jas. Don aldson, W. L. Alexander, and William Wilson, in ANF, II, 163- 604. (Exhortation ; Instr. ; Stromata ; Fragm. ; and Quis dives.) Literature: H. J. Reinkens, De Clem. Presb. Alex. Vratisl. 1851. B. F. Westcott, in DCB, I, 559-567. Theo. Zahn, Supplementum Clementinum, FGK, III, 1-176, 319-321 (cf. ZkWL, VI, 1885, 24-39). Cf. R. A. Lipsius in LCB, 1885, No. 8, and K. J. Neu mann, in ThLZ, X, 1885, 533-535. O. Stahlin, Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Handschriften des Clemens Alex. Nuremb. 1895, Fabricius, BG, 1 19-149. Richardson, BS, 38-42. Preuschen, LG, 296-327. 1. Titus Flavius Clement1 was probably born of heathen2 parents, possibly in Athens,3 about 150 a.d.; became a Christian, and enjoyed the society and instruc tion of prominent teachers while journeying in Greece, lower Italy, and the East. He finally settled4 with Pantaenus5 in Alexandria. It is possible that from 190 a.d. onward he was associated with Pantaenus as a teacher in the Catechetical School, and that after the death of Pantaenus he became its principal, and at the same time presbyter of the Alexandrian church.6 The persecution of the Christians (202 or 203 a.d.) 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 13. I. 2 Paedagog. I, I. 1 ; cf. II, 8. 62. 8 Epiphanius, Panarion, XXXII, 6; cf. also the arguments based upon his " Attic " Greek given by Dindorf and Cobet. 4 Stromata, I, I. 11. 6 § 59- 6 Paedagog. I, 6. 37. 164 ORIENTAL WRITERS drove him from Alexandria, whither he never returned. Before 211 a.d. he was with Bishop Alexander1 in Cicilia or Cappadocia. This same Alexander, in a letter to Origen,2 about 215 or 216 a.d., mentions Clement as deceased. 2. Judgment of Clement as a writer must not be biassed by the statement, true though it be, that he " belongs among those mosaic-writers who gather and piece together without being capable of independently comprehending the authors whom they misuse." 3 Undoubtedly Clement derived his knowledge of the numerous authors whom he cited, from anthologies and not at first hand, and in his use of them he proceeded uncritically and credulously (Jewish forgeries); and if he actually copied from Musonius, the tutor of Epictetus, in large sections of his Paedagogus and of the Stromata, as contended by Wendland, this fact must considerably shake our confidence in the independence, not only of the apologetic and polemic, but also of the practical and didactic details of his great work. But still Clement often enough shows himself to be a writer of elevated thought, and captivating eloquence which occasionally 4 rises to a poetic height, and gives evidence of the most ardent devotion to a purpose ideally conceived, and executed with genuine intelligence. At all events his work has not a parallel of equal worth in the Christian literature of the first centuries. In spite of his osten sible aversion to the arts of the Sophists,5 Clement 1 § 81. 3 Bernays, 312 (see below). 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 14. 9. 4 Cf. the beginning and close of the Protrepticus ; and more especially the seventh book of the Stromata. 6 E.g. Stromata, I, 10. 47 sq. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 165 delighted to write in soaring and rhetorical language. His style has been praised for its comparative purity,1 and it is everywhere obvious that he had read the works of Plato. He was well acquainted with early Christian literature,2 and he displayed candid judgment in his estimate of even heretical works. He had read the writings of Tatian, Melito, and Irenaeus. His great work was often mentioned with praise by later writers,3 and it was occasionally copied without acknowledgment (e.g. by Hippolytus, in his Chronicon, by Arnobius, and by Theodoret of Cyrrhus). Whether and to what ex tent it was copied by Tertullian is uncertain. V. Rose, Aristoteles pseudepigraphus, Lips. 1863, passim. J. Bernays, Zu Aristoteles und Clemens in Symbola Philologorum Bonn. in hon. Fr. Ritschellii coll. I, Lips. 1864, 301-312; again reprinted in Gesam. Abhandlungen, I, 1 51-164. Bernays, in SBBA, 1876, 607 {Strom. ll,2i. 137-146) . C. Merk, Clem. Alex, in seiner Abhdngig- keit von der griechischen Philosophic, Lpz. 1879. H. Diels, Doxo- graphi graeci, Berl. 1879, 129-132, 244 f. E. Maass, De biographis graecis qziaestiones selectae (Favorinus as the source of Strom. I, 14. 59-65), in Philolog. Untersuchungen, edited by A. Kiessling and U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, III, Berol. 1880, passim (cf. also opinion of Wilamowitz, Euripides Herakles, I, Berl. 1889, 171). F. Overbeck, Ueber die Anfdnge der patristischen Litteratur, in HZ, XLVIII (XII), 1882, 454-472- P- Wendland, Quaestiones Musonianae, Berl. 1886. E. Hiller, Zur Quellenkritik des Clem. Alex, in Hermes, XXI, 1886, 126-133. A. Scheck, De fontibus Clem. Alex. Aug. Vindel [Augsburg], 1889. M. Kremmer, De catalogis heurematum, Lips. 1890 {Strom. I, 74-80). Aem. Wend- ling, De Peplo Aristotelico Quaestiones selectae, Argentor. 1891 {passim).— E. Noeldechen, Tertullians Verhdltniss zu Clem, von Alex, in JprTh, XII, 1886, 279-301 . (Opposite view, P. Wendland, 1 Dindorf (see above), XXVII. 2 Cf. the list given by Bigg, Christian Platonists, p. 46. 8 Cf. particularly Photius, Codex, 109-m. 1 66 ORIENTAL WRITERS I.e., 48-54 ; cf. also P. de Lagarde, § 54, above.) Chi-onica minora, ed. C. Frick, I, Lips. 1893, V-XXV (§ 91, 7- c). R- Roehricht, De Cleuz. Alex. Arnobii in irridendo gentilium cultu deorum auctore, Hamb. 1893. C. Roos, De Theodoreto Clem, et Eusebii compilatore, Hal. Sax. 1883. Cf. also A. Schlatter, TU, XII, 1, 1894 (§ 71, below), on Strom. I, 21 . 109-147. Attestations are given by Dindorf and Preuschen. 3. The principal work of Clement consists of three writings which are connected, not indeed by a common title, but by the unifying fundamental idea of a pro gressive introduction to Christianity.1 (a) The ["Exhortation to the Heathen"], TTporpeirn- kos irpds "EXXrjPas,2 which is preserved in a manuscript in the National Library in Paris,3 was written, perhaps, previous to 189 a.d.,4 or possibly not till the author was engaged in teaching (195-200? a.d.).5 In form and contents it belongs among apologetic works, but it is often superior to them in its construction as well as in the energy of its diction. After a most effective intro duction (1. 1-10), he shows the folly and worthlessness of the religious doctrines and practices of the heathen, and the untrustworthiness of their philosophical and poetical wisdom (2. 1 1-7. y6). Reference is then made to the prophets as the primary witnesses to the truth ; and the goodness and mercy of God are proved from Scripture (8. 77-9. 88). He then proceeds to refute the objection that it is wrong to reject the practices handed down from the Fathers (10. 89-1 10). The divine revelation in the Logos is extolled in its several mani- 1 Paedagog. Introd.; cf. Strozn. VI, 7. 1. 2 On the title, see Paedagog. I, 1. 1-3; Strom. VII, 4. 22. Potter, on Protrep. I. 3 Codex Paris. 451, Ann. 914. B Demetreskos. 4 Zahn, cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, 28. 4. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 1 67 testations ; and the work ends with a description of the God-fearing Christian (11. m-12. 123). O. Hartlich, De exhortationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptorzim historia et indole, in the Leipz. Stzid. zur classischen Philologie, Lpz. 1889, 332 f. A. ATj/xr/TpeWos, KX^juevTos AXe£av8p£ XptcrToO, — rov dylov KXrj/j.epro'i) is not necessarily spurious, though it is rendered doubtful by the introduction, which was not by Clement. (c) The third writing, Kara rr)P aXrjdfj iXocrocf>iaP ypcocrriKcbp iiiro fiprjfidr cop (oktco) ~2,rpcop,arel<; 1 [Stromata], preserved in a manuscript of the eleventh century,2 was intended to complete and to crown,3 by means of the \o'7o? BiBao-KaXiKch^ the propaedeutic purpose embodied in the first two works. This plan was not strictly ad hered to, for Clement frequently fell back into exoteric and apologetic lines of thought, particularly in his dis cussions of marriage and martyrdom in the third and fourth books. The whole is wanting in clearness; and this fault is not sufficiently atoned for by reiterated reference to the title.5 At the end of the seventh book, the author is not much further advanced than at the beginning of the first. Clement takes as his starting-point the importance of philosophy for the pursuit of Christian knowledge (I, 2. 19-13. 58). In another place,6 he indicates that the chief aim of his treatise is to prove that the true Gnostic (whose character is described in the sixth and seventh books) is he who truly fears God. The work 1 Cf. I, 29. 182; HI, 18. no; IV, 1. 1. Also Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI, 13. 1; and Photius, Codex, in. 2 Codex Medic. Laur. plut. V. u. 3, saec. XI (commencement wanting). 3 VI, 1. 1. 6 E.g. IV, z. 4; VI, 1. 2: VII, 18. m. 4 Paedagog. I, I. 2. 6 VI, I. I, CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 1 69 thus becomes a defence of the scientific labors of the Catechetical School. The superiority of revelation to philosophy is specially emphasized,1 and the principles of the o-vp./3oXiKop etSo? 2 in the presentation of religious truths, are explained.3 Considerable space is taken up with discussing the plagiarisms (kXottt]) 4 of Greek poets and philosophers from Jewish, and consequently from Christian, wisdom.5 In what way Clement carried out the projected continuation, announced in the close of the seventh book, cannot be stated with entire certainty. Eusebius,6 the Sacra Parallela,7 and Photius8 certify that an eighth Stroma existed. A fragment of a treatise on questions of logic is preserved in the Codex Lauren. as the eighth Stroma. Zahn thinks that this fragment, as well as the other two pieces which follow it in the manuscript, 'Ek rS>p %eoB6rov Kal t?j? dparoXiK7)<; ko.X- ovp,eprj<; BiBaaKaXla<{ Kara rov? OvaXepripov XP°V0V^ eVtTo/xai and 'Ek tcop irpocjjijrcop eKXoyai,9 in fact belonged to the eighth Stroma, from which they were excerpted by an unknown hand. Von Arnim contends that all three pieces represent simply preliminary work, possibly, though not probably, intended for the unfinished eighth Stroma, in the form of excerpts from the works of heathen philosophical (sceptic, Stoic), and Gnostic (Val- entinian) writers, and with hardly any original additions of his own. On the meaning of the title, cf . Aulus Gellius, Nodes Atticae Praef. 6-8, edition of M. Hertz, I, 1883, 3. J. von Arnim, De octavo 1 Book II. 2 VI, 2. 4. 6 I, 15. 66-18. 90; 25- 165- ¦166; V, 3 Book V. 1 VI, 2. 4, 14. 89-141; etc. VI, 2. 4-4. 38, and p- xssim. 6 Hist. VI, 13. 1. 7 Codex Rupef. 8 Codex, ill. 9 § 24- 3' 170 ORIENTAL WRITERS Clettzentis Slromateoruzn libro : Ind. Schol. Rostock, 1894. The citations from the Stromata made by later writers are collected by Zahn (21-30), and Preuschen (313-315)- T. B. Mayor, Critical Notes on Cleznent of Alexandria 's Stromata I-II, in Class. Rev. 1894. 9> 385-391- 4. In the little book Tt? o aa>£6p,evo<; irXovcrios1 [Quis Dives] Clement illustrates his conception of riches 2 by an exposition of Mk. x. 17-31, in which the hidden sense,3 not the literal meaning of the words, is decisive : the question being determined, not by riches in them selves, but by their proper or improper use. The whole concludes 4 with the narrative of the Apostle John and the youth who was baptized, lost, and again rewon. The second Similitude of Hermas is used in Chapters 1 1-19 without acknowledgment. The date of compo sition cannot be determined in spite of Zahn's view.5 Editions : M. Ghislerius, Coznmentarii in Jeremiam III, Lugd. 1623, 262-282 (under the name of Origen; but see the preface). F. Combefisius, Auctariunz patruzzi novissimum, I, Paris, 1672, 163- 194. J. Fell, Oxon. 1683. C. Segaar, Traj. Rhen. 1816. K. Kds- ter, in SQu, VI, 1893. 5 . Fragments of the following have been preserved : — (a) Tlepl rov irdcrxa, directed against the Quartodeci- mans, and called forth by a work of Melito 6 with the same title. Fragments of it are found in the Chronicon Paschale7 in the 'lepd of Leontius and John,8 and in a 1 Codex Vatic. 623, of the fifteenth century. The archetype of this manuscript is the Codex Escurial il, III, 19, of the eleventh century. So Stahlin. For Chap. 42, cf. Eusebius, Hist. Ill, 23, and later manuscripts. 2 Paedagog. Ill, 6. 34-46. 3 Cf. Chaps. 5 (beginning) and 20 (beginning) . 4 Chap. 42. 6 Zahn, 37 f. See below, No. 7 a. 0 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 26. 4. Cf. also VI, 13. 3, 9. ' Dindorf, I, 14. 8 Lib. II. rerum sacrar. (Mai, NC, VII, 94, 98 f.). CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 171 work of Nicephorus.1 All the fragments are given by Zahn ; (b) JLavwv iKKXrjcriacrri.Kd^ fj 7rpo? tow? lov8ai£ovras, which was dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem.2 A fragment is contained in the supplement to Nice phorus ; 3 (c) The 'Tirorvircbo-ei<;,i in eight books,5 described by Photius,6 appear to have been a brief commentary on the whole Bible, including some portions of the early literature (Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter) which did not become part of the canon. Into this work dogmatic and historical disquisitions may have been introduced. Numerous fragments from it have been preserved by Eusebius,7 CEcumenius,8 Photius,9 and others. Accord ing to Zahn, the Adumbrationes dementis Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas,10 which have been preserved only in a Latin translation, formed part of the Hypotyposes. Bunsen contended that these themselves constituted the eighth book of the Stromata, and that consequently the fragment n assigned to this book by Zahn belonged to the Hypotyposes.12 1 Antirrhet. adv. Constant. Copronym. Ill, 26 (Mai, NPB, VI, 1. 91). Cf. also J. B. Pitra, Jur. Eccl. Graec. Hist, monum. I, 299. Zahn, 32-36. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 13. 3. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 38. 3 Antirrhet. adv. Constant. Copronym. III. Cf. D. N. Le Nourry, Ap paratus (§ 2. 3. a), I, 1334. Pitra, SpS, I, 351, and LXXI. J. A. Fab ricius, Opera Hippolyti (§ 91), II, 73. Zahn, 35-37. 4 On the title, see BG, V, 529. Zahn, 130. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 13. 2. 6 Codex, 109. 7 Hist. Eccl. I, 12. 1 sq.; II, 1. 3-5; 9. 2 sq.; 15; VI, 14. 2-4. 8 Commentarii in Acta Apostolorum, in omnes Pauli epistolas, in epis tolas catholicas omnes, edit. F. Morellus, Paris, 1631. Potter, 1014 sq. 9 Loc. cit. 10 Codex Laudun. 96, saec. IX; Berol. PAUL 1665, saec. XIII. 11 See No. 3. c, above. 12 Similarly, Westcott, DCB, I, 563. 172 ORIENTAL WRITERS The Adumbrationes are reprinted by Zahn, 64-103. Cf. the col lation of the Codex Berol. by Preuschen, 306 f. C. C. J. Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, I, 1854, 157-340. 6. The following are only known by their titles : — (a) AtaXe'£et? irepl prjareia'i Kal irepl KaraXaXlas, which is mentioned by Eusebius,1 and was possibly the same kind of work as the Quis dives ; 2 (b) TTporpeirriKO<; et? virofioprjp 7) irpo<; roiis pecoarl j3e- /3airTLo-p,epov;, also mentioned by Eusebius,3 may have belonged to the same category as the AiaXe£ei? ; 4 (c) Tlepl irpovoia<;, not mentioned by Eusebius. The fragments given by Maximus Confessor 5 and the state ment of Anastasius,6 lead to the conclusion that the writing, which consisted of at least two books, contained philosophical definitions. It is not settled beyond all doubt that Clement was the author.7 7. (a) It cannot be inferred with certainty from his own words8 whether Clement really wrote a treatise, Tlepl dpx>; Idem, XXI, 12. 3 Comm. in Matt. XV, 40; Lommatzsch, III, 357. ORIGEN 179 critical motive, and although he exhibited bias and in difference in his choice of readings,1 nevertheless his text of the New Testament (and the copies that were made from it) possessed an authoritative character,2 and it has not yet lost its importance as a witness to the text. The edition of the Old Testament, which he prepared with the aim of producing an accurate text of the Septuagint, is called the Hexapla (ra egairXa scil. ypdfip.ara) because it was arranged in six parallel columns: (1) the original text in Hebrew characters, (2) in a Greek transliteration, (3) the version of Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) Septuagint, (6) Theodotion. In the case of certain books, a previously unknown trans lation, discovered by Origen, was added, in a seventh column, and in the case of the Psalms there were two further columns with a sixth and seventh translation.3 The value even of this gigantic undertaking was limited not only by a superstitious veneration for the Septua gint, but also by its originator's inadequate knowledge of Hebrew. The work was begun in Alexandria, and completed in Tyre twenty-eight years later.4 Copies of it were not multiplied, on account of its huge com pass, and it has therefore perished. Only the Septua gint portion of the Hexapla, which was frequently copied, has been preserved, though in an incomplete form, in fragments and in the Syriac translation of Paul, bishop of Telia (617-618 a.d.). Origen himself 1 E.g. Comm. Joh. I, 40; Lommatzsch, I, 79. 2 Exemplaria Adamantii, in Jerome's Comm. ad Gal. Ill, I ; ad Malt. XXIV, 36. Cf. Codex Coisl. 202, Subscr. 3 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 16. Jerome, Comm. Tit. Ill, 9. Inex actly, Epiphanius, De mens, et ponderib. 7. 4 Epiphanius, Idem, 18; see, however, Field, XLVIII sq. 180 Oriental writers made 1 a separate edition of the four principal versions, the Tetrapla, which likewise has been lost. On works on N. T. textual criticism, see the Prolegomena of C. R. Gregory, to Tischendorf 's edition ; and the Prolegomena of Westcott and Hort. The best edition of the remains of the Hexa pla is that of F. Field, 2 vols., Oxf. 1875. See also Migne, PG, XV, XVI, 1, 2, 3; Paris, 1857-63. A. Ceriani, Monum. sacra et profana, VII, Mediol. 1874. P. de Lagarde, Veteris Testamenti ab Origene recensiti fragznenta apud Syros servata, Gottingen, 1880. G. Morin, in his edition of Jerome's Excerpta in Psalterium, in Anecdota Maredsol. Ill, 1. 95. C. H. Taylor, in DCB, III, 14-23. F. Bleek, Einleitung izi das A. T. ; sixth edition by J. Wellhausen, Berl. 1893, § 254. 6. Origen was the first important exegete in the history of the church. At least, it is no longer pos sible — Clement's writings excepted — to lay our hands upon the works of his predecessors, whom he himself occasionally mentioned.2 Heracleon, whose exposition of the Gospel of John Origen often attacked without justification and with ill-applied severity,3 belonged to the Valentinian school. Origen, however, became (not always to the advantage of the cause) the most influ ential of all early ecclesiastical exegetes, a whetstone for those who followed him ; 4 and traces of his influ ence may be found even down to the period of Human ism (Erasmus). 1 Eusebius, Idem, VI, 16. 4. Epiphanius, Idem, 19. 2 Homil. in Gen. V, 5; XV, 7; in Exod. XIII, 3; in Levit. VIII, 6; in Num. IX, 5; XXVI, 4; in Josh. XVI, 1, 5; in Jud. VIII, 4; in ferem. XI, 3; XIV, 5; in Luc. XXXIV. Comm. in Matt. X, 22; XIV, 2; XV, 1; XVII, 17, 28; in Matt. Comm. Ser. 31, 69, 75, 126; in Rom. IV, 10 (Lommatzsch, VI, 304); VI, 7 (Lommatzsch, VII, 40). 3 Injoh. II, 8, etc. 4 Gregorius Nyss., in Suidas' Lexicon, under "Origen." ORIGEN 181 J. A. Ernesti, De Origene interpretationis librorzim SS. Gram- maticae auctore [Lips. 1756], in: Opuscula philologzca et critica, Lugd. Batav. 1776, 288-323. See, on the other hand, J. G. Rosen- miiller, Historia interpretationis libror. sacror. Ill, Lips. 1807, particularly, 1 51—156, 161. 1. Three groups are to be distinguished1 among his exegetical works: Scholia, Homilies, and Commentaries. (a) 2%o'A.ta, Excerpts, probably identical with the 2?7fieie»o-ei?,2 or scarcely distinguishable from them, are brief exegetical remarks on difficult passages.3 What ever is now extant, chiefly in Catenae drawn from this source,4 requires further critical sifting. The list of Jerome mentions Excerpta on Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. (b) 'O/xtXtat, Homilies,5 were discourses during public worship,6 addressed both to the baptized and the un- baptized. Their subjects were usually suggested by the lesson, or were sometimes selected at the particular desire of members of the congregation,7 or of the one in charge of the service.8 They were not all literary productions in the proper sense (like Song of Songs, or Luke), many of them having been taken down by others from his extempore discourses.9 The author did 1 Jerome, Prolog, interpret. Origenis horn, in Ezech. Lommatzsch. XIV, 4 sq. 2 Jerome, Prooem. in prim. libr. Comm. in Isai. 8 Commaticus sermo, Jerome, Prefat. Comm. in Gal. 4 LG, 4°3-405- 6 On the name, see Redepenning, II, 241. 6 In Ezech. VI, 5 ; Lommatzsch, XIV, 86. ' Num. XV, I ; Idem, X, 168. 8 1 Sam. II; Idem, XI, 318. Ez. XIII, I; Idem, XIV, 160. 9 Pentateuch. Jeremiah. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 36. 1. Rufinus, Perorat. in Orig. Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. Lommatzsch, VII, 458 sq. P. Koetschau (in the Festschrift des Jenaer Gymnasiums zur ^oj'dhriger 1 82 ORIENTAL WRITERS not regard these writings as products of rhetorical art,1 but rather as intended for the instruction, and edification of the entire congregation ; 2 and on this very account he did not profess to have treated the divine mysteries either scientifically or exhaustively,3 being conscious that sacred and sublime truths may not be unveiled to every man. The homilies lack orderly arrangement, and their unity lies in the text treated.4 Typology and allegory predominate;5 the doctrine of the threefold sense of Scripture is frequently applied ; 6 and historical interpretation is absent.7 The style is " simple, without any ornamentation, sometimes diffuse, indeed, but no where prosy or dull." 8 The homilies were imitated fre quently in both the Greek and Latin church. They remain significant, also, in literary history, as the first actual examples of an orderly Christian discourse con nected with divine worship. The following have been preserved :9 — i. Genesis : delivered after 244 a.d. Two Greek fragments from the second homily,10 and seventeen in the translation of Rufinus,11 fubelfeier des Eisenachcr Gymnasiums am 18 Okt. 1894, 51-58), has shown that the long fragment in the Philocalia (XV, 19; Robinson, 84. 19-86. 3), which was suspected by himself (TU, VI, 1, 1889, 133) and Robinson {Philocalia, LII), certainly belongs to Origen; and he has made it probable that the fragment formed the second part of the exposition in the Contra Celsum, VI, 77, where it certainly does not now occur. 1 Rom. IX, 2; Lommatzsch, VII, 292. 2 Lev. I, I; Idem, IX, 173 sq. 8 Lev. IX, 4 and 10; Idem, IX, 222 and 364; Rom. X, II, Idem, VII, 408. 4 Cf. Contra Celsum, III, 52. 5 Song of Songs ; cf. also Joshua. 6 Cf. particularly, Gen. II, Lommatzsch, VIII, 130-147. ' Cf. particularly, Jeremiah. 10 Lommatzsch, VIII, 100-104. 8 So Redepenning. u Idem, VIII, 105-298. 0 Cf. Westcott, DCB, IV, 96-142. ORIGEN 183 are extant. Contents: (1) Chap. i. Creation; (2) vi. 13-16, con struction of the ark;1 (3) xvii. 1-14, circumcision of Abraham; (4) xviii. 1-2 1 visit of the three men to Abraham; (5) xix. Lot and his daughters ; (6) xx. Abimelech ; (7) xxi. birth of Isaac ; ejection of Ishmael; (8) xxii. 1-14, offering of Isaac; (9) xxii. 15-17, renewed promise to Abraham; (10) xxiv. Rebecca at the well; (11) xxv. 1-11, Abraham and Keturah; Isaac at the Well of the Living; (12) xxv. 21-26, xxvi. 12, birth of Esau and Jacob; (13) xxvi. 14-22, Isaac's well; (14) xxvi. 23-30, Isaac and Abime lech; (15) xiv. 25 f., return of the sons of Jacob from Egypt; (16) xlvii. 20 f., Joseph and Pharaoh ; (17) xlix. Jacob's blessing (ending is lost) . Jerome's list also mentions Localium Hannah; (18) ii. 1 Lommatzsch, XIV, 4-178. 3 Lommatzsch, V, 85-236. 2 Cf. Chap, ii.; Lommatzsch, II, 378. * Huet, Origeniana, etc. (see above), III, 2, 2. 7; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 138 sq. 1 88 ORIENTAL WRITERS 40-49, Jesus in the temple; (19) ii. 40-46, Jesus in the temple; (20) ii. 49-51, obedience of Jesus ; (21 ) iii. 1-4, call of the Baptist ; (22) iii. 5-8, call to repentance ; (23) iii. 9-12, tax-gatherers ; (24) iii. 16, baptism of water and fire; (25) iii. 15, the people regard the Baptist as the Messiah; (26) iii. 17, the winnowing; (27) iii. 18, the work of the Baptist ; (28) iii. 23 ff., genealogy (cf. Matthew) ; (29) iv. 1-4, the first temptation ; (30) iv. 5-8, second temptation ; (31) iv. 9-12, third temptation; (32) iv. 14-20 and (33) iv. 23-27, Jesus in Nazareth; (34) x. 25-37, the Samaritan; (35) xii. 58 f., peace with thine adversary; (36) xvii. 33-21 (inverted order), the kingdom of God is within you ; (37) xix. 29 ff., the ass's colt ; (38) xix. 41-45, the cleansing of the temple ; (39) xx. 27 ff., 20 ff. The questions of the high priests and the scribes. 18. Acts of the Apostles : date uncertain. Twenty-seven (seven teen) homilies according to Jerome's list. A Greek fragment of the fourth homily, on i. 16, is contained in the Philocalia?- 19. Corinthians : Jerome's list gives eleven homilies on 2 Cor. Apparently nothing has been preserved.2 They appear to have been delivered before the seventeenth homily on Luke,3 and after the Contra Celsum,4 i.e. after 248 a.d.5 20. Galatians: seven homilies according to Jerome's list ; noth ing preserved. 21. Thessalanz'ans : two homilies according to Jerome's list; nothing preserved. 22. Titus: one homily according to Jerome's list; nothing pre served. 23. Hebrews: eighteen homilies according to Jerome's list; two fragments given by Eusebius.6 Editions : Origenis Homiliae, 1475 ; published without the name of editor or place of publication. The Homilies on the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges, at Venice, 1503 and 1512. The Homilies on the Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Matthew (16 homilies), Luke (6), John (2), at Venice, 1513. The seven Homilies on Jere- 1 Philocalia, 7; Lommatzsch, V, 245 sq. 2 See Cramer, however. 3 Lommatzsch, V, 151. 4 Cf. VIII, 24; Lommatzsch, XX, 142. 5 Westcott, loc. cit. 118 a; Preuschen, LG, 374. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 25. 11 sq., 13 sq. ORIGEN 189 miah, not translated by Jerome, were published by M. Ghislerius (Greek — Codex Vatic. — and Latin) in Comm. injerem. Ill, Lugd. 1623. The nineteen Homilies on Jeremiah, bearing the name of Cyril, were published by B. Corderius (Greek — Codex Scorial. — and Latin), Antverp. 1648. The first edition of the homily v-rrip rrjs iyyaa-TpifjivOov, was published by L. Allatius, Lugd. 1629, 328- 344; the latest, by A. Jahn, in TU, II, 4, 1886, together with the reply of Eustathius. — Translations : Hozniliensammlung aus dezz erstezi sechs Jahrhunderten der christlichen Kirche, by L. Pelt, and H. Rheinwald, I, 1, Berl. 1829. (Horn. 15 and 16 on Jeremiah; Horn. 2 and portions of 9 and 39 on Luke.) J. C. W. Augusti, PredigUn. auf alle Sonn- und Festtage aus den Schriften der Kir- chenvdtern, new edit, I, 2, Coblence, 1833; II, 1, Cobl. 1846. H. Holtzmann, in Bunsen's Bibelwerk, VI, 1870, Bibelurkunden, II, 805-816. Die Predigt der Kirche, edited by G. Leonhardi, Vol. 22, edited by F. J. Winter, Lpz. 1893 (homilies 2 and 5 on Genesis, 2 on Leviticus, 1 on Song of Songs, 15, 16, and a part of 39 on Jeremiah, and 2, 7, and 8 on Luke). — Literature: See handbooks on the history of preaching. Redepenning, Origenes, II, 212-261. Westcott, DCB, IV, 104-118. E. Klostermann {Griechische Ex- cerpte aus Homilien des Origenes) has proved in TU, XII, 3, 1894, that Procopius of Gaza copied the first four and the last eleven of Origen's Homilies on Joshua, in his exXoyai (cf. § 2, 1). (c) The To'/iot1 were elaborate commentaries, which, in contrast with the more popular expositions in the homilies, were intended to make the contents of Holy Scripture intelligible to the educated and to those who desired prof ounder knowledge. Their exegetical method, nevertheless, did not differ fundamentally from that of the homilies. While painfully scrupulous in ascertain ing the literal sense of the words, the author was in different to the wider context, and was altogether dominated by a conception that was based upon dog matic assumptions, of which the" chief was a belief in 1 Th. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 27 f. 190 ORIENTAL WRITERS the inspiration of the very letters. The following have been preserved : — i. Genesis: The first eight books were written while Origen was still in Alexandria,1 the remainder in Caesarea. According to Eusebius 2 there were twelve books in all, according to Jerome,3 thirteen. Jerome's list gives fourteen. Two fragments in Latin, taken from the introduction, are given by Pamphilus,4 and one frag ment from the first book, by Eusebius in his work against Marcellus of Ancyra.5 Fragments from the third book are as follows : (a) in the Philocalia,^ and a short piece in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evan- gelica ;7 {b) Philocalia;*' {c) Eusebius' History? It is uncertain whether the last is a literal citation.10 According to a statement of Origen,11 the commentary extended to Chapter V, i . On its con tents see Origen, Contra Celsum.Yl Harnack 13 has shown that prob ably Ambrosius made use of the commentary in his de Paradiso. 2. Exodus: written before the commentary on the Song of Songs ; 14 that is, before 240 a.d. The name 2i7/u.etu>o-eis is applied to them in the Philocalia^ and they are called Excerpta in Jerome's list. Consequently it is not certain whether the five fragments that have been preserved in the Philocalia 16 belonged to a commentary or to scholia. 3. Leviticus : the date of composition is uncertain. In Jerome's list they are designated as Excerpta ; nothing extant. 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 24. 2. 2 Idem. • Jerome, Epist. 33 and 36, 9. 4 Pamphilus, Apologia, Praef . ; Lommatzsch, XXIX, 296 sq.; cf. VIII, 1-3- 6 Eusebius Caesar. Adv. Marcell. Ancyr. I, 4; Lommatzsch, VIII, 4; cf. Pamphilus, loc. cit. 3; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 328. 6 Philocalia, 23. 8 Philocalia, 14. 7 Praep. Evang. VI, n. 9 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 1. 1-3. 10 Cf. also Eusebius, Praep. Evang. VII, 20; and Socrates, Hist. Eccl. VII, 7, on Tome IX; Lommatzsch, VIII, 5-48. 11 Contra Celsum, VI, 49; cf. Jerome, Epist. 36. 9, in Opera, I, 165 in the edition of Vallarsi. 12 Contra Celsum, VI, 49-51. 13 TU, VI, 3, 1890, 119 f. 14 Cf. Prol. ad Cant. Cantic; Lommatzsch, XIV, 314. 16 Philocalia, 27, Robinson's edition, 252. 16 Philocalia, 27. ORIGEN 191 4. Psalms : according to Jerome's list there were (1) Excerpta in Psalmos a i. ad xv. By this was probably meant the commentary on the first twenty-five psalms, mentioned by Eusebius J as having been written while Origen was still in Alexandria. (2) Forty-six (accord ing to Redepenning, or forty-five according to Pitra) Books of Excerpts on thirty-six (thirty-five) psalms, as far as Psalm ciii. (3) Excerpta in totum Psalterizmz, perhaps identical with the En chiridion mentioned by the author of the Breviariztm in Psalle- rium? Numerous fragments are extant, whose connection with a commentary can only be established in a few cases.3 The date of (2) and (3) is uncertain. 5. Proverbs: according to Jerome's list, three books. Frag ments are given (from Catenae)^ in Lommatzsch's edition of Ori gen's works.6 6. Song of Songs : the first five books were composed in Athens (about 240 a.d), and the second five soon afterward in Caesarea.6 Jerome's list mentions ten books and two " quos insuper scripsit in adolescentta."1 A fragment from this youthful work,8 and also two others (Catenae) from the larger commentary,9 are contained in the Philocalia. Extracts are found in the works of Procopius of Gaza.10 Besides, there was a Latin recension in four books by Rufinus.11 Jerome12 considered that this commentary was Origen's best work. 7. Lamentatioizs : written in Alexandria.13 Jerome's list gives five books, but, according to Eusebius,14 there were originally more. 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 24. 2. 2 Appended to Jerome's seventh volume; Migne, PL, XXVI, 821 ff. 3 Cf. the fragments in Lommatzsch, XI, 351-379, 384-391, 440-453; XII, 10 sq., 47, 73, 350 sq. 4 Pamphilus, Apologia, 10. 6 Lommatzsch, XIII, 217-234; XXIV, 410-412. Cf. also Mai, NPB. 1-56. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 32. 2. 7 Cf. also Eusebius, loc. cit. ; Jerome, Prol. expos. Cant. Cantic. sec. Orig. ; Lommatzsch, XIV, 235 ; Epist. 37. 3. 8 Philocalia, 7; Lommatzsch, XIV, 233 sq. 9 Cramer, VIII, 115 f . ; Philocalia, 27. 10 Lommatzsch, XV, 91-108. n Idem, XIV, 287-437; XV, 1-90. 12 Prol. expos. Cant. Cantic. ; cf. note 7, above. 13 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 24. 2. 14 Idem. 192 ORIENTAL WRITERS Maximus Confessor 1 appears to have been acquainted with a tenth book. Extracts in Catenae are given by Lommatzsch.2 8. Isaiah : written about 235 a.d.3 Jerome's list makes thirty- six books, though Eusebius4 was acquainted with only thirty. Two fragments in Latin are preserved in the work of Pamphilus.5 9. Ezekzel: written after 235 a.d. and completed in Athens about 240 a.d.6 According to Eusebius,6 there were twenty-five books: Jerome's list gives twenty-four (Pitra and Redepenning, twenty-nine). A fragment from the twentieth book (on Chap. xxxiv. 17-19) is contained in the Philocalia? 10. The Minor Prophets: written after 244 a.d. According to Eusebius,8 Jerome,9 and Jerome's list, there were twenty-five books ; two on Hosea, two on Joel, six on Amos, one on Jonah, two on Micah, two on Nahum, three on Habakkuk, two on Zephaniah, one on Haggai, two on Zechariah, and two on Malachi. A fragment from Hosea (Chap, xii.) is contained in the Philocalia?'1 11. Matthew : written after 244 a.d., under Philip the Arabian,11 and after the commentary on Romans.1'2 It contained twenty-five books, according to Eusebius13 and Jerome's list. Books X-XVII have been preserved14 (Chap. xiii. 36-xxii. 33). Greek fragments from Books I and II are given by Eusebius16 and in the Philocalia?^ and others in Latin from Books I and VII, by Pamphilus.17 Besides, 1 Opera, ed. Corder. II, 315 D. 2 Lommatzsch, XIII, 167-216; cf. B. Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coislini- ana, 42. 3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 32. I. 4 Idem. 5 Pamphilus, Apologia, 5 and 7; Lommatzsch, XIII, 235-238 (XXIV, 370 sq., 385-387)- 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 32. 1 sq. 7 Philocalia, 1 1 ; Lommatzsch, XIV, 2 sq. 8 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 36. 2. 9 De Viris Illust. 75. 10 Philocalia, 8; Lommatzsch, XIII, 302-304. 11 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 26. 2. 12 Cf. XVII, 32. 18 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 26. 2. 14 Lommatzsch, III, 7-IV, 172. Books X-XIV have been translated by John Patrick, ANF, IX, 414-512. 16 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 25. 4 sq. 16 Philocalia, 6; Lommatzsch, III, 1-6. 17 Pamphilus, Apologia, 5 and 10; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 372, 405 sqq. (V, 307-3 'o). ORIGEN 193 there is a Latin recension in 145 sections (Matt. xvi. 13-xxvii. 63).1 12. Mark: In the Codex Paris. 939, a commentary on Mark is erroneously ascribed to Origen. 13. Lzike: containing five books, according to Jerome2 and Rufinus,3 but fifteen according to Jerome's list.4 14. John : The first five books were written in Alexandria,6 prob ably before 228 a.d. After the persecution under Maximus, that is, after 238 a.d., Origen labored further upon the work.6 Jerome's list gives thirty-two books ; Eusebius ' was still acquainted with twenty-two ; Jerome " gives the number as thirty-nine, and this may have been correct if Origen carried the commentary beyond Chap. xiii. 33. Book I, Chap. i. 1 a ; II, i. 1 b-y a; VI, i. 19-29; X, ii. 12-25 ; XIII, iv. 13-44; XIX (parts of), viii. 19-24; XX, viii. 37- 52; XXVIII, xi. 39-57; XXXII, xiii. 2-33.9 On the (seven) manuscripts, see the remarks of A. E. Brooke.10 The archetype is a manuscript of the thirteenth century.11 Fragments of Books IV and V (literary style of the Apostles ; excuses for too great diffuse- ness) are contained in the Philocalia,1'2 in Catenae, and in Eusebius' History?* Latin fragments are given by Pamphilus.14 The alleged citation from the second book, made by Pamphilus,15 is not found in the Greek text. [Books I, II, VI, and X, with fragments of IV and 1 Lommatzsch, IV, 173-V, 84 (from Chap. xxii. 34 on); cf. Cramer, Ein Prolog, in M. Crusius' Univ. Progr., Gottingen, 1735; also Redepen ning, II, 465 f. Lommatzsch, XX, VI-VIII. 2 Jerome, Prolog, in Horn. Orig. in Luc. 8 Rufinus, Adv. Hieronym. II, 19. 4 Cf. Cramer, loc. cit. (cf. Note 1 above); Redepenning, II, 466-469; Lommatzsch, XX, VIII-XII. 6 Cf. VI, I. 7 Idem, VI, 24. I. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 28. 8 Prolog, in Horn. Orig. in Luc. 9 Lommatzsch, I, 1-160, 173-375; II. i° A. E. Brooke (§ 24. 2), TSt, I, 4, 1891, 1-30. 11 Codex Monac. Grace. 191, saec. XIII. 12 Philocalia, 4-5. 13 Cf. Bratke (§ 2. I, above) ; Lommatzsch, I, 161-172; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 25. 7-10. 14 Pamphilus, Apologia, 5; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 356 sq. (V, 305 sq.); cf. also Eustathius, De Engastrimytho, 21 (Jahn, 60). 16 Pamphilus, Apologia, 5; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 361 sq. (V, 303 sq.). o 194 ORIENTAL WRITERS V, have been translated by Allan Menzies in ANF, IX, 297-408.] On the text of the second book, see J. L. Jacobi.1 15. Romans : written after 244 a.d., but before the commentary on Matthew. According to Jerome's list, it contained fifteen books. Two fragments from Books I and IX are contained in the Philo calia : 2 a sentence from III, 8,3 is found in Basil.4 Besides there is a free Latin recension, in ten books, made by Rufinus, in whose time the text was already corrupt.6 This recension was not based on the text of the Epistle used by Origen, but on an Itala text.6 The following commentaries were written during the later years of Origen's life : — 16. Galatians : according to Jerome's list, fifteen books; but, according to Jerome's introduction to his commentary on the Gala tians,7 there were five. Three Latin fragments from Book I are given by Pamphilus.8 17. Ephesians: Jerome's list gives three books. It was trans lated by Jerome himself,9 and a Latin fragment from Book III is found in his book against Rufinus.10 He also copied from Origen11 in his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (see the preface) . 18. Colossians : two books, according to Jerome's list. A Latin fragment from the third {sic) book is given by Pamphilus in his Apology?11 19. Philippians: one book, according to Jerome's list. Nothing extant. 20. Thessalonians : three books, according to Jerome's list, which possibly covered only the first Epistle. A Latin fragment from the 1 J. L. Jacobi, Halle, 1878; Crusius, etc. (see p. 193, note 1); Rede penning, Origenes. II, 469-472 ; Lommatzsch, XX, pp. XII-XVI. 2 Philocalia, 9 and 25 ; Lommatzsch, V, 247-260. 3 Lommatzsch, VI, 211. 4 Basil, De Spiritu sane. 73; cf. also Cramer. 5 Cf. Jerome, Adv. Rufin. I, 11, 20; II, 16, 18. Praedestinatus, I, 22, 43; Rufinus, De Adulteratione librorum Origenis; Lommatzsch, XXV, 382-400. 6 Westcott, DCB, IV, 116-117.3. 7 Prooem. Comm. in Epist. ad Gal. VII, 369, edition of Vallarsi. 8 Pamphilus, Apologia, 5; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 362-370 (V, 261-270). 9 Adv. Rufin. I, 16, 21; cf. Ill, 10. " Idem, I, 28; cf. Cramer. 11 Cf. Theo. Zahn, GNK, II, 2, 427 N. 2. 12 Pamphilus, Apologia, 5; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 372 sq. (V, 273 sq.). ORIGEN 195 third book (on 1 Thes. iv. 15-17) is given by Jerome in his Epistle to Minervius and Alexander.1 21. Titus: one book, according to Jerome's list. Five Latin fragments are given by Pamphilus.2 22. Philemon: one book, according to Jerome's list, from which a Latin fragment is given by Pamphilus.3 23. Hebrews: not given in Jerome's list. But four fragments of a commentary are found in Pamphilus' Apology? 24. Whether Origen commented on the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse^ is uncertain. Editions : The commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, in a Latin translation (erroneously ascribed to Jerome), Venice, 1506 and 15 12. The commentary on the Gospel of John, in a Latin translation, published by A. Ferrarius, Venice, 1551, and by J. Peri- onius about 1554. The first edition of extant original texts (with out the fragments in Catenae), by P. D. Huetius, Origenis in sacras Scripturas Commentaria quaecunque graece reperiri potuerunt, 2 vols., Rothomagi, 1668 (Paris, 1679; Cologne, 1685). A good summary of the contents of the commentaries on Matthew, John, and the Epistle to the Romans, with special notice of remarkable passages, is given by Westcott. On the relation of Procopius of Gaza to Origen, and of Origen to Philo's Quaestiones, see P. Wend land, Neuentdeckte Fragmente Philos, Berlin, 1891, 109-126. 7 (a). Of Origen's apologetical works, only the eight books Kara Ke'Xcrov (contra Celsum) are extant.6 The archetype of all the manuscripts that are known is a Vatican codex from the thirteenth century,7 which con tains a comparatively early and complete text. Con siderable portions also have been preserved in the 1 Jerome, Epist. ad Min. et Alex. 119. 9; Opera, I, 809-814, edit, of Vallarsi; Lommatzsch, V, 275-282; cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, II, 65. 2 Pamphilus, Idem, I and 9; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 313-319, 398 sq. (V, 283-292). 3 Pamphilus, Apol. 6; Lommatzsch, XXIV, 376 sqq. (V, 292-296). 4 Idem, 3 and 5; Idem, XXIV, 328, 357 sqq. (V, 297-300). 6 Cf. Comm. Ser. in Matt. 49. 6 Lommatzsch, XVIII-XX, 226. 7 Codex Vaticanus, 386, saec. XIII. 196 ORIENTAL WRITERS Philocalia. The book was written during the reign of Philip the Arabian, that is, after 244 a.d.,1 and very probably in 248 a.d. It was occasioned by the request of Ambrosius 2 that Origen should refute the charges and objections brought against Christianity3 by the heathen philosopher Celsus in his 'AXrj0fj<; A070? (between 177 and 180 a.d.). The apology takes up the opponent's propositions one by one. After an introduction, in which the main points are briefly cited and reviewed (I, 1-27), the remainder of the work falls into four parts: (1) Refutation of Jewish objections (I, 28- H> 79) > (2) °f tne objections made by Celsus himself against the foundations of Christian doctrine (III-IV); (3) and of those made against particular doctrines (VI-VII, 61); (4) refutation of Celsus' defence of the heathen state-religion (VII, 62-VIII, 71). This work is plainly distinguished from the apologetic pamphlets of the second century by the fact that it was not con structed simply to meet the needs of the passing mo ment, but that it embodied a scientific discussion with an experienced opponent ; was undertaken with all the aids furnished by criticism, history, and philosophy ; and that it was, though full of assumptions and prejudices, the most perfect apologetic performance from the stand point of the Christianity of the early church.4 Editions: A Latin translation of Christi persona, Rom. 1481. D. Hoeschelius, Aug. Vind. 1605. Guil. Spencerus, Cantab. 1658. W. Selwyn, Cambr. 1876 (only first four books) cf. F. Overbeck, in ThLZ, 1876, 477. — Translations: J. L. Mosheim, Hamb. 1745. J. Rohm, 2 vols, in BKV, 1876-77. Fred. Crombie, in ANF, IV, 395-669. 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 36. 2. 3 See the Prologue. 2 See § 61. 2, above. 4 Cf. Eusebius, Adv. Hierocl. I. ORIGEN 197 Literature : P. Koetschau, Die Textuberlieferung der Biicher des Origenes gegen Celsus, in TU, VI, 1, 1889. Cf. J. A. Robinson, On the Text of Origen against Celsus, in the Journal of Philology, XVIII, 1890, 288-296. F. Wallis, MSS. of Origen against Celsus, in the Classical Review, 1889, 392-398. P. Koetschau, Die Glie- derung des a\r)6r]S Ao-yos des Celsus, in JprTh, XVIII, 1892, 604- 632. K.J. Neumann, Der r'oznische Staat und die allgem. Kirche, I, Lpz. 1889, 265-273. The literature on Celsus, especially Theo. Keim, Celsus'' Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873. B. Aube", La polimique pdienne d la fin du deuxiime siicle, Paris, 1878. E. Pelagaud, Etude sur Celse, Lyon, 1878. The accounts of disputations with heretics have been lost, as follows : — (b) Zrjri]o-ei<;(Kal BiaXeg et?) irpd'i JSrjpvXXop (of Bostra);1 (c) Disputatio cum haeretico quodam? The disputa tion apparently took place in Athens ; (d) Dialogus adv. Candidzim Valentinianum ; 8 (e) AtaA.070? 7T/30? rov 'A[a ?~\yvcbp.ova Tidacrop;i (/) Anti-heretical Writings, without further descrip tion of their contents, are mentioned by Pamphilus,5 Epiphanius,6 Theodoret,7 and Nicephorus.8 On the Philosophumena and the Dialogus de recta fide, see below.9 8. The dogmatic writings of Origen have suffered most of all from the prejudices of narrow theological opponents; some have perished, and none has escaped unscathed. 1 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 33. 3. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 60. 2 Cf. Origen, Epist. ad quosdam carossuos Alexandriam, in Rufinus' De Adulteratione librorum Orig. Lommatzsch, XXV, 389. 3 Cf. Jerome's list and Jerome, Adv. Rufin. II, 9. 4 Cf. Julius Afric. Epist. ad Orig. de Susanna. Origen, Ep. ad Afric. 2. 5 Pamphilus, Apologia pro Orig. Pref. and 1. 6 Epiphanius, Haer. LXIV, 5. (Cf. LXVI, 21.) 7 Haer. Fab. I, 2, 4, 19, 21, 25; II, 2, 7; III, 1. 8 Hist. Eccl. X, 10. 9 § 91 and § 8o respectively. 198 ORIENTAL WRITERS (a) Tlepl apx&p, De Principiis, the principal dogmatic work of Origen, is known to posterity only in a mutilated form.1 A number of fragments of the original have been preserved in the Philocalia2 also by Marcellus of Ancyra,3 and in Justinian's letter to Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, anno 543.* The whole work is con tained in a Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia, made in 397 a.d., which, according to the translator's own confession (see the Prologue), is often only an arbitrary recasting of the original. It is to be regretted that the translation which Jerome made as an offset to that of Rufinus,5 and for which he claimed literal fidelity,6 has been lost with the exception of a considerable number of fragments contained in the Epistle to Avitus.7 The work was composed in Alexandria, probably not long before 230 a.d.,8 and treated of the fundamental doctrines of Christian theology,9 which were briefly summarized in the preface in accordance with the rule of faith. Although its execution, at least in the first three books, is dominated by the author's philosophical and theological views (I, the doctrine of pre-mundane existence ; II, of the world in its present condition ; III, of the freedom of the will), nevertheless the contents of each book, and more especially of the fourth (IV, Ex position of Scripture); show adherence to an original plan. This first systematic compendium of Christian doctrine remained the only dogmatic theology with any independent character belonging to the ancient church. 1 Lommatzsch, XXI. 6 Epist. 84, 12. 2 Philocalia, Chaps. 1 and 21. 7 Epist. 124. 3 Eusebius, Adv. Marc. Ancyr. I, 4. a Eusebius, Hist. VI, 24. 3. 4 Mansi, Coll. Cone. IX, 523-534. 9 Schnitzer, XXI sq. 6 Cf. Epist. 83-85. ORIGEN 199 Editions: E. R. Redepenning, Lips. 1836. An attempt at a reconstruction in German was made by K. F. Schnitzel-, Stuttg. 1835. — Translation: Frederick Crombie, in ANF, IV, 239-382. (b) ~2rpcop,arel<; \_Stromata~], containing ten books ac cording to Eusebius 1 and Jerome's list. Besides a Greek fragment,2 three Latin fragments are preserved in Jerome's work against Rufinus,3 and in his commentaries on Daniel4 and Galatians.5 Compare Origen's Com mentary on John,6 and Jerome's reference in his Com mentary on Daniel,7 to Origen's expositions in the tenth book (on Susanna and Bel).8 According to Jerome,9 in this work Origen tried (in imitation of Clement) to show the agreement of Christian with philosophic doc trines. Possibly the extracts from philosophical writ ings mentioned by Eusebius10 were related to the Stromata written while Origen was yet in Alexandria. An extract from this work, made by the presbyter Beatus, is said to exist in the library of the Escurial.11 (c) Tlepl apaardaecoi : two books, according to Euse bius 12 and Jerome's list ; Jerome, as quoted by Rufinus,13 speaks of two books and two dialogues ; and afterward 1 Eusebius, Hisl.V!, 24. 3. 2 Cramer, Catenae in Act. Apost. 10, on i. 12. 3 Jerome, Adv. Rufin. I, 18. 4 Idem, Comm. in Dan. ix. 14. {Opera, V, 691.) 6 Idem, Comm. in Epist. ad Galatas, III, on Gal. v. 13. {Opera, VII, 494 sq. Lommatzsch, XVII, 69 sq. 75-78. 6 Origen, Comm. in Joh. XIII, 45. 7 Jerome, Comm. in Dan. xiii. 1. ( Opera, V, 730-736.) Lommatzsch, XVII, 70-75. 8 Also see Jerome, Comm. in Jerem. IV. on Jer. xxii. 24 ff. {Opera, IV, 994.) Comm. in Dan. iv. 5. {Opera, V, 646.) Epist. 84. 3. Adv. Rufin. II, I. 9 Jerome, Epist. 70, 4. 10 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 18. 3. 11 Cf. Redepenning, Origenes, I, p. XIII, and II, p. IV. 12 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 24. 2. 13 Rufinus, Adv. Hier. II, 47. 200 ORIENTAL WRITERS in his book against John of Jerusalem,1 Jerome mentions four books. Two Greek fragments are preserved by Methodius (as quoted by Photius 2) and by Epiphanius 3 (following the excerpt of Methodius); and four Latin fragments are preserved by Pamphilus.4 Compare also the excerpt made by Jerome in his book against John of Jerusalem.5 The work was written at Alexandria before the irepl apxcop 6 and the Commentary on Lamen tations;7 that is, before 230 a.d. The contents of this book drew forth a reply from Methodius of Olympus, which embodied much of Origen's material. (d) A little book, De libero arbitrio, is mentioned by Origen himself,8 but we may assume that he had in mind merely the first section of the third book of his Tlepl apx&>p. (e) We can no longer determine the facts as to the writing Ilept cpvaecov, a fragment of which has been preserved by Victor of Capua.9 (/) The existence of a special 1,vyypap.p,driov on the " Sin against the Holy Ghost," may possibly be inferred from Athanasius' Four Epistles to Serapion.10 9. The fate of the works written for purposes of edification has been more fortunate, since the nature 1 Jerome, contra Joh. Hierosolym. 25. 2 Photius, Codex, 234. (Bekker, 300 ff.) 3 Epiphanius, Panarion, LXIV, 12-16. 4 Pamphilus, Apologia, 7. Lommatzsch, XVII, 55-58 (XXIV, 379- 3»5)- 5 Jerome, contra Joh. Hierosolym. 25, 26. (<9/«-o, II, 431-434. Lom matzsch, XVII, 60-64.) 6 Cf. II, 10. Redepenning, 223. Lommatzsch, XXI, 229. 7 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 24. 2. 8 Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. VII, 16; Lommatzsch, VII, 167. 9 Scholia veterum patrum (Pitra, SpS, 268) . 10 Athanasius, Epist. 4 ad Serapion., II, p. 709, Montfaucon. ORIGEN 20 1 of the subject scarcely furnished occasion for theologi cal heresy, but gave full play to the development of the rhetorical powers of a Christian personality. (a) Et? fiaprvpiov irporpeirriKO? Xoyos, Exhortatio ad martyrium, has been preserved in several manuscripts.1 This treatise was intended to exhort his friends Am brosius and Protoctetus, a presbyter at Caesarea, to steadfastness in the approaching persecution (under Maximinus, i.e. 235 a.d.).2 It is an enthusiastic hymn in praise of martyrdom, the pains of which purchase an exceeding reward, while martyrdom itself becomes, like baptism, a means for the forgiveness of one's own sins, and perhaps for those of others also. Editions : J. R. Wetstenius, Basil. 1674. New edition, in prepa ration, by P. Koetschau. — Translations: J. Kohlhofer, in BKV, 1874. (b) Tlepl exixrp, De Oratione, is preserved in a manu script at Trinity College, Cambridge;3 the conclusion, addressed to Ambrosius and the sister Tatiana, is found also in a codex at Paris.4 It was written before the commentary on Exodus,5 perhaps in 235 a.d., or possibly considerably earlier.6 In two parts, the author treats of prayer in general (Chaps. 3-17), and of the Lord's Prayer in particular (Chaps. 18-30). The conclusion (Chaps. 31-32) returns again to the subjects discussed 1 Codex Venet. 45, saec. XIV (lacks caption); Codex Paris. Suppl. Grace. 616, anno 1339, and Cod. Basil. A. Ill, 9, saec. XVI (used in printed text). Fragments are found in Codex Reg. Paris. Gr. 945, saec. XIV; Lommatzsch, XX, 227 (237)-3i6. 2 Neumann, Der romische Staat, etc., 228, N. 3. 8 Codex Cantab. Coll. S. Trinit. 4 Codex Reg. Paris, (formerly Colbert 3607). 6 Cf. Chap. 3; Lommatzsch, XVII, 97. * Lommatzsch, XVII, 79 (82)-297- 202 ORIENTAL WRITERS in the first part, which it treats yet further. In spite of the fact that the book is unnecessarily burdened with exegetical profundity and philosophical subtlety, it is full of truly edifying thoughts in original setting, and is pervaded with a spirit of genuine piety. It is the pearl among all the writings of the Alexandrians. The scholia by an unknown writer, which are added in the editions, stand in no relation to Origen's tractate. Editions: Oxon. 1686. J. R. Wetstenius, Basil. 1694. Guil. Reading, Lugd. 1728. — Translation: J. Kohlhofer, in BKV, 1874. 10. Only two of the numerous Letters of Origen, mentioned by Eusebius,1 and in Jerome's list, are extant in their integrity. (a) 'EiriaroXr] irpos ' AcppiKapop, preserved in numerous manuscripts,2 was occasioned by the critical doubts touch ing the history of Susanna,3 which Julius Africanus 4 had set forth in a letter to Origen during his stay in Nico- media. This extended reply to a terse letter is no very noteworthy witness to the author's critical acumen. It was written in Nicomedia,5 during the journey to Athens ; that is, probably about 240 a.d. Editions: D. Hoeschelius, Aug. Vind. 1602 (contains only the beginning). J. R. Wetstenius, Basil. 1674. Translated by F. Crombie, ANF, IV, 386-392. (b) IT/30? Tprjyoptop eiricrroX^ (preserved in the Philo calia),6 was, possibly,7 written soon after 238 a.d., with 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 36. 3. Cf. also VI, 28 and 39; and § 61. I, above. 2 Lommatzsch, XVII, 20-48. 4 Cf. § 82. 3, e. 8 Dan. xiii. LXX. 6 Cf. Chap. 15. 8 Philocalia, 13. Lommatzsch, XVII, 49-52; XXV, 66-69. 7 Draeseke differs as to date. ORIGEN 203 the fatherly purpose of turning Gregorius Thaumatur- gus,1 his former pupil, from the pursuit of worldly science, and of directing him towards labor in the ser vice of Christianity. Editions : See editions of the Philocalia, at § 61, 4, above. P. Koetschau, in SQu, IX, 1894, 40-44. Cf. J. Draeseke, in JprTh, VII, 1881, 102-126 (the epistle is printed on pp. 108-112). Trans lated by F. Crombie, in ANF, IV, 393-394, and by Allan Menzies, ANF, IX, 393-394. (c) Fragments of the following letters are extant : — 1. 11/30? npa irepl 'Afifipocriov, written from Athens.2 2. II/so? nm? /xe/Lt-uVa^eVov? avrq> Bia, rr/v irepl eKelva (soil, rci 'EXXijpcop p,a6i]fiara) crirovBrjP? 3. Ad quosdam caros suos Alexandriam Epistola.* According to Jerome, the letter contained an expostu lation with Bishop Demetrius on account of his excom munication, and complaints of the perversion of his writings.5 4. Il/oo? <3>a>Tiop Kal 'ApBpeap irpeo-fivre'povs eVtaToA.77.6 5. Epistola ad Gobarum, de undecima? 6. Epistola ad Firmilianum de his qui fugiant quaes- tionem? (d) The following letters are also mentioned : To the 1 § 75, below. 2 Cf. Suidas, Lexicon, under "Origen" (Bernh. II, 1, 1279. Jerome's Epist. 43. 1; Lommatzsch, XVII, 5). 3 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. VI, 12-14; Lommatzsch XVII, 6. 4 Cf. Jerome, Adv. Rufin. II, 18; Lommatzsch, XVII, 6 sq. Rufinus, De Adulterat. libror. Orig. , Idem, XVII, 8 sqq., XXV, 388-392. 6 Cf. also the fragment from Cod. Vindob. lat. 4512, saec. XV, fol. 286- 287 in Tabulae Codicorum mss. Vindob. III. 294. Denis, Codd. Theol. Lat. Vindob. I, 2. Cod. CCCCXLlL 6 Cf. Gallandi, XIV, App. p. 10. 7 Cf. Victor Capuanus, Scholia ex vet. Pair.; Pitra, SpS, I, 267. 8 Cf. idem, Pitra, SpS, I, 268. 204 ORIENTAL WRITERS emperor, Philip the Arabian,1 and to his wife Severa,2 to Fabian of Rome,3 to various bishops,4 to Beryllus of Bostra,5 and to Trypho 6 (or from Trypho to Origen ?). On the foregoing, see the remarks of Preuschen.7 ii. With regard to the following, the tradition is uncertain or obscure. (a) De Pascha. According to Victor of Capua8 and Anatolius Alexandrinus,9 Origen wrote a book with this title, in which were given the data necessary for calcu lating the date of Easter. The two fragments 10 given by the authors just named are not necessarily spurious. (b) De Nominibus Hebraicis. According to Jerome,11 this was an etymological list of Old Testament names, which Origen regarded as a work of Philo, and which " he completed by the addition of Hebrew names occur ring in the New Testament, or those that apparently could be derived from the Hebrew " (Zahn). What Jerome gives as his own work probably only supple mented Origen's material with insignificant additions. It is possible that the book on " Hebrew measures and weights," 12 mentioned by Pseudo-Justin,13 was identical with this work of Origen. 1 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. VI, 36. 3. 6 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 60. 2 Idem. 6 Idem, 57. 8 Idem ; cf. Jerome, Epist. 84. 10. 7 In Harnack, LG, 387-389. 4 Idem. 8 Cf. Victor Capuanus, Scholia ex vet. Patr. Pitra, SpS, I, 267. 9 De ratione Paschali ; De pace, in Jerome's list. 10 Pitra, SpS, I, 268. B. Krusch, Studien zur mittalterlichen Chronologic, Lpz. 1880, 317. 11 Praef. ad libr. interpret, hebraicor. nominum {Opera, III, 1 sqq. Vallarsi ; P. de Lagarde, Onomastica sacra, 1 887, p. 1 ; 2d edit. p. 26. 12 Cf. Theo. Zahn, GNK, II, 2; 948-953. 18 Quaestiones ad Orthodoxos, 86; Otto, III, 3d edit. 112, TRYPHO DIONYSIUS 205 (c) The tractate, De Phe litera1 was, possibly, only a part of the exposition of Ps. cxviii. (cxix.). (d) In Jerome's list the titles of the following treatises are also mentioned : De proverbiorum quibusdam quaes- tionibus ; de Pace (pascha ?) ; Exhortatoria (epistola ?) ad Pioniam ; de Jejunio ; de Monogamis et Trigamis homm. II ; In Tarso homm. II.2 § 62. Trypho Fabricius, BG, 289 sq. Harnack, LG, 405. Jerome 3 says of Trypho, a pupil of Origen, that he was well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. The proof of this statement is said to have been derived from his disquisitions, particularly his book De Vacca rufa (Num. xix., which Jerome gives erroneously as Deuteronomy), and his De Dichotomematibus (on Genesis xv. 9 ff.). No part of either writing is extant. § 63. Dionysius Editions : S. de Magistris, Rom. 1796. Routh, RS, III, 221-259 i IV, 393-454. Migne, PG, X, 1233-1344, 1575-1602. Translation: S. D. F. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 81-120. Literature : Frz. Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse von Alexandrien, Freib. i/B. 1867. Th. Forster, in ZhTh, XLI, 1871, 42-77. Fabricius, BG, 278-283. Richardson, BS, 66-68. Harnack, LG, 409-427. Dionysius, the great bishop of Alexandria4 and teacher of the Catholic church,5 was born of heathen parents, probably before the close of the second cen tury.6 Though already possessing a position of worldly 1 Jerome, Epist. 43. I; Cf. Rufinus, Adv. Hieron. II, 18. 2 Cf. Preuschen, in Harnack's LG, 386. 8 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 57. 6 Athanasius, Sentent. Diony. 6. 4 Eusebius, Hist. VII, preface. 6 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. VII, 27. 2. 206 ORIENTAL WRITERS honor, he renounced the prospect of a brilliant career for the sake of the Christian faith.1 He became a zealous pupil of Origen, and even after the death of his master,2 he remained devoted to him in faithful gratitude, though without any servile adherence to his words.3 As the successor of Heraclas he stood at the head of the Catechetical School 4 from 232 a.d. onward. According to Jerome (69) he was a presbyter. Appar ently he did not abandon the School5 when he was called in 247/248 to the episcopate.6 In the conviction that he could serve the church better by his life than by his death,7 he escaped the Decian persecution by flight (250/251 a.d.), but was banished by Valerian (after 257 a.d.), first to Libya, and afterward to Mareo- tis, though without severing his relation with his con gregation.8 Apparently it was early in 262 a.d. that the edict of toleration, issued by Gallienus, permitted his return,9 but want and danger, both to himself and to his congregation,10 made the last years of his life a period of laborious discipline and trial.11 Age and in firmity prevented him from taking part in the synod assembled at Antioch against Paul of Samosata,12 264/265, and he died soon afterward, in 265 a.d.13 2. The writings of Dionysius are a true reflex of a character at once clever, thoughtful, and averse to all extremes. Almost without exception 14 his writings were 1 Eusebius, Hist. VII, II. 18. » Cf. § 63, 3 b, below. 2 Cf. § 63, 4 f. 6 below. 4 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 29. 5 ; Jerome, De Viris Illust. 69. 6 Guerike, 71-74. 10 Idem, VII, 21-22. 6 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 48. " Idem, VII, 22. 6. 7 Idem, VI, 40. 3. 12 Idem, VII, 27. 2. 8 Idem, VII, 11. 13 Idem, VII, 28. 3. 9 Idem, VII, 13; 21. I. 14 See § 63, 3 a-b. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 207 called forth by some particular occasion ; for the most part they were in the form of letters. They were not products of learned leisure, but of practical needs, and were directed against religious enthusiasts (Nepos), ecclesiastical hotspurs (Germanus, Novatian), theologi cal (Dionysius of Rome), or ecclesiastical opponents (baptism by heretics). Only fragments of these writ ings have been preserved. Eusebius incorporated in the sixth and seventh books of his Church History, with praiseworthy minuteness, whatever seemed to him suit able for the characterization of a troublous time. 2. (a) The seven extensive fragments from a work Tlepl oWo-em?, preserved by Eusebius,1 may be considered preeminently as a monument to the learning of Diony sius. This treatise, which is in the form of a letter, probably dates from the period before the author be came a bishop,2 and it was intended, possibly, to serve as a guide to his son,3 Timotheus, who is designated as the recipient. It is " the earliest coherent refutation of Atomism, based on a Christian view of the world."4 The subject of the extant fragment refers particularly to the refutation of the theory of Democritus and Epi curus. Both plan and execution give evidence of the author's studies as well as of his literary gifts. G. Roch, Die Schrift des alexandrinischen Bischofs Dionysius des Grossen uber die Natur, Lpz. 1882. (Pp. 28-41 contains a 1 Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XIV, 23-27; cf. also the small fragments in the Sacra Parallela, Rupefucald, f. 55 {Opera, Johann. Damasc, LeQuien, II, 752) from Codex Vatic. 1553 (Magistris, 67; Mai, NC, VII, 98, 107, 108), and Codex Coisl. 276 f. 148 (Pitra, AS, II, p. XXXVII). 2 Roch, 18 f. 8 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 26. 2; cf. VI, 40. 3ft; Dittrich, 4 f. holds a different view. 4 Roch, 58. 208 ORIENTAL WRITERS translation of the fragments preserved by Eusebius). English translation by S. F. D. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 84-91. (b) According to his own statement,1 Dionysius wrote an exposition on the beginning of Ecclesiastes which was still known even to Procopius of Gaza in the fifth century, and which he used in his Catena on Ecclesi astes. There are no data for determining the date of its composition, but it also may belong to the period before the author became a bishop. According to Procopius,2 Dionysius opposed the allegorical interpre tation of the garments of skins, and other things in the Garden of Eden, whereas according to a fragment of uncertain origin, found in a Vatican manuscript,3 he himself employed the same interpretation. In any case the statement of Procopius, and the isolated remark of Anastasius Sinaita,4 that Dionysius wrote a book Kara 'Q,piye'pov<;, do not justify the inference that he was only a half-way admirer of Origen, and that he was there fore also a half-way opponent.6 (c) The two books Ilejoi iirayyeXiSp were directed against the chiliastic dreamings of Nepos, bishop of Arsinoe, which he committed to paper in an "E\eY%o? aXXrjyopiarcop.6 By the application of a spiritual method of interpretation, Dionysius set forth in the first book his own opinion concerning the promise, in order to treat in the second of the character and origin of the Johannine Apocalypse, to, which his opponents princi- 1 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. VII, 26. 3. 2 Comment, in Gen. Ill, 76. 8 Codex Vatic. 2022 (Pitra, AS, III, 597). 4 Quaestiones, 23; ed. Gretser, 266. 5 Otherwise, Harnack, LG, 422 f.; cf. 418 f.; cf. also. Pitra, SpS, I, p. XVI, 17-19. 6 Fabricius, BG, 290 ff.; Harnack, LG, 427 f. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 209 pally appealed.1 Eusebius has preserved five extensive extracts from the second book.2 The critical remarks contained therein, particularly those on the differences between the Gospel and the Apocalypse, are not without value even to-day in their clearness and brevity.3 The date of composition is uncertain : Dittrich places it be tween 253 and 257 a.d. (d) "EXeY^o? Kal airoXoyia (irpo<; "ZafieXXiop 4) was the title of a defence in four books, in which Dionysius showed his ability to clear himself from the suspicion of heterodox teachings brought against him by his Roman colleague who bore the same name.5 The fact that, notwithstanding this book, the Arians appealed to Dionysius, led Athanasius to write a book De sententia Dionysii in justification of his predecessor, in various passages of which he interwove extracts from the treatise of Dionysius.6 Other fragments are found in Eusebius 7 and Basil.8 The date of composition was 260/261 a.d. 4. Numerous Epistles and Deliverances bear witness to the active interest which the bishop took in ecclesias tical questions, to the skill which he exhibited in dealing with them, to the liveliness and graphic power of his treatment, and not least of all, to the esteem which he enjoyed even far outside of Alexandria and Egypt. 1 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 24. 3. 2 Idem, VII, 24, 25; cf. Ill, 28. 3-5. 3 See also the insignificant fragments from Codex Vaticanus 1553, (Mai, NC, VII, 99, 108). * Cf. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. VII, 18. 13. 5 Basil of Csesarea, Epist. 9. 6 See also the characterization in Chap. 14; and De decret. Nic. 25; De Syn. 44. 7 Eusebius, Praep. Evang. VII, 19. " Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 29, 72; cf. Mai, NC, VII, 96. p 2IO ORIENTAL WRITERS Our information as to the following writings comes principally from Eusebius. (a) One group of epistles deals with the question of the treatment of the Lapsed (Lapsi)1 In part they are headed irepl [Aerapoias,2 and it may be assumed that they all originated at about the same time (251-252 a.d.) and had nearly the same contents. ( 1 ) To the Brethren in Egypt : 3 none extant. (2) To Conon, bishop of Hermopolis ; 4 a fragment is given by Pitra.5 (3) To the church in Alexandria;6 designated as an eiricrroXr) eiriarpeirrCKr). (4) To the Brethren in Laodicea, whose bishop was Thelymidres.7 (5) To the Brethren in Armenia, whose bishop was Merozanes. (6) To the Romans.8 Nothing from those marked 3-6 is extant. (b) The following writings had special reference to the schism of Novatian. (1) To Novatian in Rome; most probably written in answer to his announcement of his entrance upon the Roman see (251 a.d.), with an entreaty to preserve the church from schism. It is possible that Eusebius has preserved the whole of it.9 (2) To the Roman Confessors, who adhered to Nova tian.10 It is not extant. (3) To Fabius (Fabian), bishop of Antioch ; probably 1 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 46. 1. 6 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 46. 2. 2 Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6. 7 Idem, VI, 46. 2. 8 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 46. I. 8 Idem, VI, 46. 5. 4 Idem, VI, 46. 2. 9 Idem, VI, 45. 6 SpS, I, 15 f. Cf. 17, XIV sq. 10 Idem, VI, 46. 5. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 211 written in 252 a.d., with the intention of dissuading his colleague from siding with Novatian. The fragments preserved by Eusebius1 relate the suffering and apostasy, the conflict and victory, of the Alexandrian Christians at the time of the Decian persecution. (4) To Cornelius, bishop of Rome, in reply to his letter concerning Novatian.2 It was written after the death of Fabian of Antioch; that is, probably in 253 a.d. Nothing besides the sentence on Alexander of Jerusalem3is extant. (5) To the Romans 7rept elptjvrj?.4 (6) To the Romans iiricrroXr] BtaKOPiKrj Bia 'liriroXvrov.h The meaning of the adjective is uncertain : Rufinus gives it as " de minis triis "; Valesius, " de officio dia- coni"; Gieseler, "a writing in the service of the church." Lightfoot6 conjectures that its contents were connected with the regulations made by Fabian of Rome, which are mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis. (7) and (8) To the Roman Confessors,7 after their return to the church.8 No portion of the writings numbered 5-8 is extant. It is possible that the fragment found in a Vatican codex,9 originally occurred in one of these letters. (c) The question of the validity of heretical baptism is discussed in the following letters (254, 257 a.d.). (1) To Stephanus, bishop of Rome.10 One of the fragments preserved by Eusebius u does not appear to touch this question. 1 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 41, 42, 44. 6 Idem, VI, 46. 5. 2 Idem, VI, 46. 3 sq. 6 Apost. Fathers : Clement, II, 372. 3 Idem, VI, 46. 4. 7 See No. 3, above. 4 Idem, VI, 46. 5. 8 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 46. 5. 9 Codex Vatican. 2022 (see 3 b above). 10 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 2, 4, 5. I, 2. 11 Idem, VI, 5. 1, 2. 212 ORIENTAL WRITERS (2) To Sixtus, bishop of Rome. Three fragments have been preserved by Eusebius.1 (3) To Philemon, presbyter at Rome. Three frag ments have been preserved by Eusebius.2 (4) To Dionysius, presbyter at Rome. A fragment is given by Eusebius.3 (5) To Sixtus, bishop of Rome. A fragment is given by Eusebius.4 (6) To Sixtus and the Roman congregation.6 The church at Alexandria is mentioned as joining in this letter. (7) and (8) Two short missives to Philemon and Dio nysius, mentioned by Eusebius.6 Though not mentioned in his enumeration of writings on heretical baptism, they may still have referred to this subject. (d) In the Sabellian controversy, Dionysius wrote the following letters : — (1) To Ammon, bishop of Berenice;7 (2) and (3) To Telesphorus and to Euphranor ; 8 (4) To Ammon and Euporus.9 It cannot be deter mined whether these letters were among those that Eusebius mentions elsewhere.10 At all events they were written before the Apology to Dionysius [of Rome], i.e. likely in 257 a.d.,11 and according to Athanasius12 they gave the occasion for the suspicions against the author.13 1 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 5. 4-6; 6. 7 Idem, VII, 26. I. 2 Idem, VII, 7. 1-5. 8 Idem, VII, 26. I. 8 Idem, VII, 8. Cf. 7. 6. 9 Idem, VII, 26. I. 4 Idem, VII, 9. 1-5. 10 Idem, VII, 6. 6 Idem, VII, 9. 6. " Cf. Idem. 6 Idem, VII, 5. 6. 12 Sentent. Dionys. 10, 13. Cf. Syn. 43. 13 Cf. Idem, 4. 18. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 21 3 (e) 'EopraariKal, Easter-Epistles : — (1) To Domitius and Didymus : erroneously referred by Eusebius1 to the time of the Valerian persecu tion. It was written before Easter, 251 a.d., from Dionysius' hiding-place in Libya. The extant frag ments2 relate the capture, release, and flight of the bishop. According to Eusebius,3 in this writing Diony sius established an Easter canon for eight years, main taining that the festival should not be celebrated before the vernal equinox ; (2) To Flavius ; 4 (3) To the Presbyters in Alexandria;5 (4) To various persons unnamed. According to Eusebius these letters fall in the years 258 to 261 a.d. ; (5) To the Alexandrians, at the time of the civil war and after his return from exile ; that is, before Easter, 262 a.d. ; 6 (6) To the Egyptian bishop Hierax (see unknown), during the civil war, but later than the preceding.7 The extensive extract given by Eusebius 8 describes the situ ation in Alexandria ; (7) To Hermammon and the Brethren in Egypt; toward the end of the ninth year of Gallienus, i.e. prob ably before Easter, 262 a.d.9 Eusebius has preserved fragments on Gallus,10 on Valerian and Gallienus,11 and on Gallienus ; n (8) To the Brethren (in Egypt ?) at the time of the 1 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 20. 7 Idem, VII, 21. 2. 2 Idem, VII, 11. 20-23, 24 sq. 8 Idem, VII, 21. 2-10. 3 Idem, VII, 20. 9 Idem, VII, 23. 4. 4 Idem, VII, 20. 10 Idem,V!!, 1. 5 Idem, VII, 20. u Idem, VII, 10. 2-4, 5 sq. 7-9. 6 Idem, VII, 21. I. 12 Idem, VII, 23. 1-3, 4- 214 ORIENTAL WRITERS plague, apparently before Easter, 263 a.d. Two frag ments are given by Eusebius;1 (9) To the Brethren in Egypt, after the plague.2 This was probably the regular Festal Epistle of the year; (10) Some fragments of uncertain origin.3 (f ) Accounts are given also of the following : — (1) To Origen (imprisoned at Tyre), irepl fiaprvpiov (written, 250-251 a.d.).4 Perhaps the two fragments from a catena by Nicetas of Serra, on the Gospel of Luke,5 are to be referred to this Epistle. The words 7rpd? 'Slpiyepr) are added by way of marginal gloss to the first of these fragments. Their subject is Gethsemane (so Harnack;6 Dittrich7 holds a different view, con tending that the fragments were derived from a com mentary on Matthew, or even on the four Gospels) ; (2) Letters to Basilides, bishop of the churches in Pen- tapolis.8 One of these letters, of uncertain date, gives information in reply to certain questions of Basilides touching the Easter celebration, and more especially the beginning of the Easter fast, together with an extended exposition of the Gospel narrative as to the time of the resurrection. The letter is included in the collections of canonical letters, and hence has been often printed ; first by Fronto Ducaeus in 1620 (1622 a.d.), but the best editions are those by Routh 9 and A. P. de Lagarde ; 10 (3) To the Bishop Germanus (see unknown). It was 1 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 22. 2-6, 7-10. 2 Idem, VII, 22. 11. 3 Cf. PG, X, 1342. Pitra, AS, II, XXXVII, and Harnack, LG, 419. 4 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 46. 2. 0 Codex Vatican. 1611; PG, X, 1597-1602. 6 Harnack, LG, 421. 8 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 22. 3. 7 Dittrich, Dionys. 40. 9 RS, III, 224-232. 10 Reliquiae juris Eccl. ant. Lips. 1856, 55-59. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 215 written in exile, during the Valerian persecution, as a vindication from the charge of cowardice. The letter was probably intended for a wider circle of readers. Fragments have been preserved by Eusebius ; x (4) To Antioch, in the matter of Paul of Samosata, 264 a.d.2 Although this letter was appended to the synodical epistle of the bishops assembled at Antioch, addressed to all catholic bishops,3 it has not been pre served ; and the letter of Dionysius to Paul, which is printed by Mansi,4 is not genuine ; (5) To Aphrodisius; five fragments are contained in a Vatican codex ; 5 (6) To Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, written after the death of Origen, as a eulogy. It is mentioned by Stephanus Gobarus.6 (g) It is no longer possible to ascertain the facts in regard to the following writings, which were in the form of letters : Tlepl aafifidrov,'' Tlepl yvppacrlov,8 Tlepl irei- pao-p.&p,9 and Tlepl ydp,cop.10 5. On uncertain or spurious writings, and especially on the relation of Dionysius to the Areopagitic litera ture, see Harnack.11 1 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 40; VII, n. 2 Idem, VII, 22. 2. 3 Idem, VII, 30. 3. 4 Concil. Collect. I, 1039-1047. 5 Codex Vatican. 1553. (Mai, NC, VII, 96, 98, 99, 102, 107.) 6 See Photius, Codex, 232. (Bekker, 291.) 7 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 22. n. 8 Idem, and for a fragment, see Codex Vatican. 1553 (Mai, NC, VII, 98). 9 Idem, VII, 26. 2. 16 A fragment is found in Codex Vatican. 1553 (Mai, NC, VII, 102). n LG, 419 (No. 5), 420 (10), 424-427 (12-14)- 2l6 ORIENTAL WRITERS § 64. Anatolius Fabricius, BG, III, 461-464; VII, 299 sq. Harnack, LG, 436 f. Anatolius, a native of Alexandria, left the city after the siege of Brucheium (262 a.d.) in which he had dis tinguished himself; was for a time the coadjutor of Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea; and from 268 (269 a.d.) on, was bishop of Laodicea.1 According to Eusebius,2 he was an accomplished scholar in philosophy and natural science, and his few works are remarkable for the wealth of knowledge which they display.3 Eusebius mentions the following : — (a) Tlepl rov irdcrxa, from which he preserved a con siderable extract.4 A Liber Anatoli de ratione paschali, in which the portion quoted by Eusebius occurs, also exists in Latin. Krusch considers the book to be spurious, and refers it to the sixth century, but Zahn defends its genuineness (against which no decisive proofs can be brought). The Liber Anatoli was printed in A. Bucher's De Doctrina tem- porzim Commentarz'us, etc., Antwerp, 1634, 433-449. Migne, PG, X, 207-222. Br. Krusch, Stzidien zur mitt elalter lichen Chronologie, Lpz. 1880,311-327; cf. Zahn, FGK, III, 177-196. [Translated by S. D. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 146-151.] A. Anscombe, in Engl. Hist. Rev. Jl. 1895, X, 515-535, and C. H. Turner, in Idem, October, 1895, pp. 699-710. (b) , Api6 p,r)riKal elaaycoyal, in ten books.6 Some frag ments are contained in the Theologumena Arithmeticae.6 1 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 32. 6-12. 4 Idem, VII, 32. 14-19. 2 Idem, VII, 32. 6. 6 Idem, VII, 32. 20. ! Idem, VII, 32. 13. 0 Paris, 1543, 9, 16, 24, 34, 56, 64. [For a translation of the fragments given by Fabricius, III, 462, see S. D. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 152-153.] THEOGNOSTUS PIERIUS 217 § 65. Theognostus Routh, RS, III, 407-422. Migne, PG, X, 235-242. — Transla tion: S. D. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 155-156. Fabricius, BG, 298 sq. Richardson, BS, 70. Harnack, LG, 437-439. Theognostus, principal of the Catechetical School of Alexandria,1 in which post he possibly succeeded Dio nysius and probably preceded Pierius,2 wrote a work, under the title 'Tirorvircocret,<;, in seven books. According to Photius,1 these treated the Loci of dogmatic theology in the following order : 1 . God the Father. 2. Son. 3. Holy Ghost. 4. Angels and de mons. 5 and 6. Incarnation of the Redeemer. 7. God's government of the world (irepl Oeov Brj/Movpylas). Pho tius gives a summary of the contents. Athanasius 3 and Gregory of Nyssa 4 cited two sentences ; the former with the avowed intention of defending the theologian, who was a follower of Origen, against the charge of holding subordinationist views. There is no reason for regard ing the passage cited by Athanasius as a disquisition on the sin against the Holy Ghost.5 Theognostus is not mentioned by Eusebius (or Jerome). § 66. Pierius Routh, RS, III, 425-435. Migne, PG, X, 231-246. C. de Boor, in TU, V, 2, 1888, 169 ff. ; cf. 179 ff. — Translation : S. D. Salmond in ANF, VI, 157. Fabricius, BG, 301. Richardson, BS, 70 f. Harnack, LG, 439-441 . 1 Cf. the title ki.tnt\ri]%, Photius, Codex, 106. 2 Otherwise, Philip of Side; cf. Dodwell, Dissertat. in Irenaeum, 1689. App. 488. 3 Epist. 4 ad Scrap, c. 1 1 ; Deer. Syn. Nic. 25. 4 Contra Eunomium, III; Orat. 3. 5 go Harnack, LG, 437. 218 ORIENTAL WRITERS According to Eusebius,1 Pierius was a presbyter at Alexandria, distinguished as an ascetic and scholar, under the episcopate of Theonas (282-300 a.d.). Ac cording to Philip of Side, he was the predecessor of Theognostus as principal of the Catechetical School;2 and according to Jerome,3 he lived in Rome after the Diocletian persecution. In a poem by the Alexandrian advocate, Theodorus,4 it is stated that Pierius, together with his brother Isidorus, fell martyr in the persecution. This may be so far true that he was made to suffer for his faith.5 Regarding his writings, the following par ticulars are known : — (a) According to Photius,6 Pierius wrote a book com prising twelve Aoyoi.7 Among them were at least two Adyoi et? to irdcrxa,8 a (Ao^yo?) et? rrjV apx^jP rov 'Hcrrje,9 a (Aoyo?) irepl tk)? 0eoroKov,w and another, et? ro Kara AovKav11 Philip also cites two short sentences from an unnamed writing of Pierius,12 which have reference to Mark vi. 17 (Matt. xiv. 3). These works earned for their author the title of the "young Origen." 13 (b) Philip of Side had read a Btb? rov dylov TlapcplXov by Pierius. By this Pamphilus the friend of Eusebius is meant, who, according to Photius,14 had been the pupil of Pierius. 1 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 32. 26; cf. ch. 30. 2 Cf. Photius, Codex, 118-119. s Cf. Photius, Codex, 119. 3 De Viris Illust. 76. 6 Cf. Photius, Codex, 118-119. 4 See Philip of Side (de Boor, 170). 7 Jerome, loc. cit., " diversi traclatus ; " Philip of Side, " (rirovBdapaTa." 8 Philip of Side : a small fragment in de Boor, 1 70. 9 Philip of Side; cf. Jerome, Praef. in Comm. ad Osea. The sentence on 1 Cor. i. 7, quoted by Jerome {Epist. 49, 3), probably belongs here. 10 Philip of Side. 13 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 76. 11 Photius, loc. cit. 14 Photius, Codex, 118. 12 de Boor, 16. 9. PHILEAS PETRUS 219 § 6y. Phileas, Hesychius, Pacltomius, Theodorus Routh, RS, IV, 85-111. Migne, PG, X, 1 559-1 567. — Fabricius, BG, 305 sq. Richardson, BS, 71. Harnack, LG, 441-443. Phileas, bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, and martyr under Diocletian, wrote a Letter to his congregations on the sufferings of the martyrs at Alexandria, from which Eusebius quoted a long section.1 A letter written in prison by the four bishops, Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, in reference to the Meletian schism, exists in a Latin translation.2 The author of a textual recension of the Septuagint and of the Gospels (of the New Testament ?) which attained considerable reputation in Egypt,3 may possibly be identified with this Hesychius. § 68. Petrus Fragments: Routh, RS, IV, 21-82. Migne, PG, XVIII, 467- 522. Lagarde, Reliqu. gr. 63-73. — Translations: by J. B. H. Hawkins, in ANF, VI, 261-283. — Fabricius, BG, IX, 316 sq. Richardson, BS, 74. Harnack, LG, 443-449. Petrus, bishop of Alexandria from 300 till the begin ning of 312 a.d.,4 was, according to Eusebius, a model bishop in his virtuous life and in his familiarity with Holy Scripture. He became a martyr, after having escaped the persecution of 306, whereby he had alien- 1 Eusebius, VIII, 16. 2-10; cf. VIII, 9. 1; 13- 7', and Jerome's De Viris Illust. 78. [Translated by S. D. Salmond, ANF, VI, 162-163.] 2 [Translated by S. D. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 163-164.] "Jerome, Praef. in Libr. Paralipom.; Adv. Rtifin. II, 27. In Isai. Iviii. 11; cf. Deer. Gelas. VI, 13. * Eusebius, Hist. VII, 32. 31; VIII, 13. 7; IX, 6. 2; Jerome, Chroni con ad annum 2320 Abrahami, 10 Dioclet. 220 ORIENTAL WRITERS ated a part of the congregation (Meletian schism). Ex cept for a few fragments his writings have been lost : — (a) Tlepl perapoias, written at the commencement of the year 306.1 Fourteen "Canons" are extant, setting forth the conditions under which the lapsed might be received again into the communion of the church. The writing is an eloquent witness to the wise toleration of the author. The section transmitted in some manuscripts as the fifteenth Canon, belonged to a treatise ; (b) Et? to irdaxa or irepl rov irdaxa, which was dedi cated to a certain Tricentius ; 2 (c) Tlepl 6e6rr]ro<;; three Greek fragments are pre served in the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus of 431 a.d., and four in Syriac are given by Pitra ; 3 (d) Tlepl dpaardo-ecos. Eight Syriac fragments are given by Pitra,4 the first of which is identical with one of the Greek fragments mentioned under (c) ; (e) Tlepl rrj? crcorrjpo^ rjficop eiriBrjfilas. A fragment is given by Leontius of Byzantium ; 5 (/) FlejOt -v/ru^? (in at least two books) is mentioned by Procopius of Gaza.6 Two fragments (given by Leon tius in his work against the Monophysites 7), which bear the superscription, eV rod irpmrov Xdyov irepl tow p.r]Be irpovirdpxeip rrjV -^rvx^v p-rjBe dfiaprtfcraaap rovro et? crcofia ftX7)8i)pai, were probably taken from this work.8 1 See the beginning. [Translated by J. B. H. Hawkins, in ANF, VI, 269-279.] 2 Mai, NC, I, 2, p. 222. 4 Idem, IV, 189-193, 426-429. 3 AS, IV, 187 sq.; 425 sq. 5 Liber I. contra Neslorian. et Eutychian. ; cf. contra Monophysitas, in Mai, NC, VII, 134, and Epist. Justiniani contra Monophysitas in Mai, NC, VII, 307. 6 Comm. in Gen. Ill, 76. 7 Mai, NC, VII, 85. 8 Cf. also Epist. Justiniani ad Mennam (Mansi, Concil. Collec. IX, ALEXANDER OF ALEXANDRIA 221 The extant fragments mentioned in c—f make it apparent that Petrus approached the questions he treated with independence. He differed in a character istic way from the Theologumena of Origen, particularly in the writings marked d and f (against the preexistence of the soul, fall before the creation of the world ; a dif ferent conception of the resurrection) ; but his mode of expression shows plainly enough that he, like Dionysius, was throughout influenced by the theology of Origen ; (g) A Letter of Petrus to the Alexandrians has been preserved in a Latin translation.1 It was written during the persecution of 306 a.d. on hearing of the machina tions of Meletius, against which he gives warning. (h) On doubtful and forged writings, see Harnack.2 § 69. Alexander Migne, PG, XVIII, 523-608. — Translation : J. B. H. Hawkins, in ANF, 291-302. — G. Kruger, Melito von Sardes oder Alexander von Alexandrienf, in ZwTh, XXXI, 1888, 434-448. — Fabricius, BG, IX, 257-259. Richardson, BS, 74 f. Preuschen, LG, 449-451. Of the writings of Alexander (bishop of Alexandria from 313 to 326 a.d., involved in the Arian controversy at its inception) nothing has come down to us except a sermon and part of his correspondence. (a) Ao'70? irepl i/ru^?)? Kal crcofiaro<; Kal et? to irdOos, has been preserved 3 in a Syriac translation.4 A frag ment of it has also been preserved in Arabic.6 The sermon is composed of two parts, the first of which con- 503 sq.), and Pitra, AS, III, 599. On a Syriac fragment, see Harnack, LG, 447. 1 Cf. Sc. Maffei, Osservazioni Letterari, III, Verona, 1738, 17 (Routh, RS, 51). 2 LG, 447-449. * Codex Vatican. Syr. 386. 3 Mai, NPB, II, 529-540. 6 Mai, SpR, III, 699. 222 ORIENTAL WRITERS tains lengthy observations on the relation of soul and body which might equally well occur in a psychological tractate, while the second undertakes to prove why it was necessary that the Lord should suffer, and what results His death had for mankind. The complicated manner in which the writing has been transmitted,1 makes it probable that Alexander modelled this sermon on a writing of Melito.2 (b) It is possible that four of the fragments of homi lies 3 in Syriac, published by Pitra,4 are spurious. (c) Out of the more than seventy letters which Alex ander is said 5 to have written in connection with Arian affairs, the following are extant : — i. A circular letter to all catholic bishops;6 2. A letter to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium ; given by Theodoret.7 A Syriac fragment also is extant.8 This likewise was probably a circular letter ; 3. Ka#at/3eo-t? 'Apelov,9 Depositio Arii, addressed to the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria and Mareotis ; 4. Portions of a letter to ^Eglon, given by Maximus Confessor ; 10 5. Other letters are also mentioned, viz. : to Philo- gonius, bishop of Antioch,11 to Eustathius, bishop of Bercea,12 to the Emperor Constantine,13 to Silvester, bishop of Rome,14 and to Arius.16 1 Kruger (see above), 434-437. 2 Cf. § 40. 6. 3 Fragments marked IV, VI, VII, VIII. 4 AS, IV, 199 sq.; 433 sq. K Epiphanius, Panarion, LX1X, 4. 6 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. I, 6; cf. Gelasius of Cyzicus, Hist. Cone. Nic. II, 3 (Mansi, Concil. Codec. II, 793-802). 7 Hist. Eccl. I, 4. !2 Loc. cit. 8 AS, IV, 200, 434, No. IX. 13 Epiphanius, Panarion, LXIX, 9. 9 Codex Paris. 474 al. 14 Liberius, Epist. 4, 4. 10 Opera, II, 152, 155 (Corder.). 15 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. I, 26. 11 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. I, 3 (end). HIERAX JUDAS 223 § 70. Hierax Harnack, LG, 467 f. According to Epiphanius,1 Hierax lived at Leon- topolis and was a man of great learning, experienced in medicine and other sciences, versed alike in Greek and Coptic literature, and eminent, finally, in the exposition of Holy Scripture. His Commentaries in the Greek and Coptic languages are said to have borne witness to his importance in the last-mentioned field.2 Some frag ments of his writings (?) against marriage are extant in Epiphanius' Panarion? It cannot be determined from Epiphanius4 whether he wrote a book of his own on the Holy Ghost, as Harnack thinks. Epiphanius men tions still another treatise on the Six Days' Work and Psalms.6 SUPPLEMENTARY § 71. Judas A. Schlatter, Der Chronograph aus dem zehntenjahre Antonins, in TU, XII, 1, 1894. Fabricius, BG, 176. Harnack, LG, 327; cf. 755 f- According to Eusebius,6 a certain Judas, of whom nothing further is known, arranged in a writing, Et? t«? irapd ra> AapifjX efiBofirjKOPra IjSSo^aSa?, some chrono logical calculations based on the prophecies in the book of Daniel. They extended as far as the tenth year of Severus (202 a.d.), and prophesied the Parousia of the Lord in the near future. Schlatter assumes a mistake 1 Epiphanius, Panarion, LXVII, 1. i Idem, LXVII, 3. 2 Idem, LXVII, 3; LV, 5. 5 Idem, LXVII, 3. 3 Idem, LXVII, 1-2. r- Eusebius, Hist. VI, 7; cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 52. 224 ORIENTAL WRITERS in Eusebius' statement, and identifies Judas with the Chronographer (from the tenth year of Antoninus Pius), whom Clement mentions,1 and whom he used for his calculations. Schlatter also thinks that he can be shown to be mentioned in Theophilus' letter to Autolycus,2 and by Tertullian,3 Origen,4 and Epiphanius.5 The Judas of Eusebius, however, wrote in a time of persecution. § 72. Heraclitus, Maximus, Candidus, Apion, Sextus, Arabianus Fabricius, BG, 172, 175 sq. Harnack, LG, 758 f., 786. Eusebius6 tells us that he had before him a large number of writings, some of them bearing the names of their authors, some of them anonymous. Passing over the latter, he mentions six of the former, which he is inclined to refer to the close of the reign of Com modus, or the beginning of that of Severus. These were the writings of Heraclitus, Et? rov dirdcrroXop ; of Maximus, Llept rrjs vXiji;7 of Candidus and Apion, Et? rrjv e^ar\p,epop ; of Sextus, Tlepl apaardcreco7]6ep et? top dyiop Tp-qyopiop top &av/j,arovpyov, by Gregory of Nyssa ; a panegyric of very slight value as a source.5 An account of his life (preserved in Syriac in a manuscript of the sixth century),6 possibly was de rived from an Ante-Nicene Greek original. 2. Theodorus, later called Gregorius,7 received from an admiring posterity the title of the " Wonder- Worker," Thaumaturgus.8 He was born about 213 a.d. of a dis tinguished family in Neocaesarea (Pontus). Educated as a heathen, though acquainted with Christianity from his fourteenth year, he studied jurisprudence. While on his way to Berytus (Beirut), where he intended to complete his study of Roman law, he became acquainted with Origen at Caesarea in Palestine (233 a.d.), and received from him an impulse toward philosophical and theological studies. He remained five years9 in his master's school, to whom, upon his departure (238), he reared a beautiful memorial of his gratitude in his 1 Hist. Eccl. VI, 30, VII, 14; 28.1; 30.2. 2 Spir. Sand. 29, 74; Epist. 28, I sq.; 204, 2; 207, 4; 210, 3, 5. 8 De Viris Illust. 65 ; Comm. in Eccles. 4; Epist. 70. 4. 4 Preuschen, LG, 434, 436. 6 Printed by Vossius, 234-427; Gallandi, III, 439-461. 6 Cod. Mus. Brit. Syr. Add. 14648 Saec. VI. 7 See the salutation in Origen's epistle, and Eusebius' Hist. VI, 30. 8 So named for the first in the title (not given by Gregory of Nyssa) to the Bios. 9 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 30. 228 WRITERS OF ASIA MINOR Panegyric. With the intention of entering upon the practice of the law, he returned to his native city. There he was chosen bishop, about 240 a.d., and be came, with his brother Athenodorus,1 the founder of the provincial church of Pontus. He remained its head for, possibly, three decades; and his influence may have been all the more profound because he did not lose himself in the turmoils of ecclesiastical politics. During the Decian persecution (250-251 a.d.), he, with a part of his congregation, fled to the mountains. At the time of the incursion of the Goths and Boradi into Pontus in 253-254 a.d., he proved himself a true shepherd.2 He took part in the first synod at Antioch against Paul of Samosata,3 264-265 a.d., but before the second he died, about 270 a.d. His memory remained sacred in the catholic church. On the chronology of his stay at Caesarea, see J. Draeseke, in JprTh, VII, 1881, 103-107, and an opposing view by P. Koetschau, in SQu, IX, 1894. 3. A busy churchman, completely occupied with ques tions of practical life, Gregory scarcely found time for authorship, and only little of undoubted genuineness has been transmitted to us. On the contrary, the famous name of the orthodox "wonder-worker" was used as a flag of protection for heretical productions. His best- known writing was the (a) Et? 'Qptyevrjv irpoacpcovrjTi- «o'? [/cat irap-qyvpiKos X.0'70? : iraprjyvpLKOP ey^ajOto-Tta? 4] , called by Gregory himself5 A.0'70? xaPla"rVPl0<>- It is preserved only in connection with Origen's work against 1 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 30; VII, 14. 8 Eusebius, Hist. VII, 30. 2. 2 See his Epistola canonica. 4 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 65. 6 Koetschau (see below), pp. 7, 18; 9, 16. GREGORIUS THAUMATURGUS 229 Celsus in a Vatican Codex1 and five other manuscripts. The speech, delivered upon his departure from Caesarea (see above), was no ordinary panegyric, but a tribute to the Alexandrian's method of teaching, which came, to be sure, from an enthusiastic pupil, but which was just and also minute in its details. In the introduction (§§ 1-30) the author excuses himself for being per suaded, by gratitude to his teacher, to deliver the address in spite of his limited experience. There then follows a thanksgiving to God through Christ, to his guardian angel, and to Origen (31-92), and after this an exact description of Origen's mode of instruction (93-183). His separation from his master draws forth his com plaints, but over against them he enumerates his grounds for consolation (184-202). At the close he asks for blessing and intercession (203-207). Apart from its importance, as a source of information as to the work of Origen,2 the address is a remarkable performance in itself, and in spite of a not infrequent heaviness of style, the rhetoric is but seldom artificial, the language good and flowing. Editions: D. Hoeschelius, Aug. Vindel, 1605, as a beginning of an edition of the Books against Celsus. J. A. Bengel, Stuttg. 1722. C. V. de la Rue, Opera Origenis, IV, Paris, 1759, APP- 55- 78. C. H. E. Lommatzsch, Opera Origenis, XXV, Berol. 1848, 339- 381. P. Koetschau, in SQu, IX, 1894. (b) "E«:0eo-t? 7rto-Te&)?, a short creed (extant in many manuscripts 3 in Greek, Syriac, and Latin), the genuine ness of which need not be impugned in spite of the fact that its earliest attestation is that of Gregory of 1 Codex Vaticanusgraec. 386. 8 Preuschen, LG, 429. 2 Cf. § 61. 1, above. 230 WRITERS OF ASIA MINOR Nyssa in his Life of Thaumaturgus. Since the formula is said to have been revealed to the author in a vision, it is also known as ' AiroKdXv\jri<; Tprjyopiov. C. P. Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Tauf- syzzibols zmd der Glaubezzsregel, Christiania, 1879, 1-64. F. Katten- busch, Das Apostolische Syzzzbol, I, Lpz. 1894, 338-342. The Syriac text in P. de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, Lips, et Lugd. 1858, and in Pitra, AS, IV, 81 ; cf. 345 sq. (c) 'Eirco-roXrj KavoviKr) was a communication to the bishops of Pontus, written after the incursion of the Goths and Boradi (Boranians) into Pontus and Bythynia, apparently in 254 a.d. It is extant in numerous manu scripts containing the canons of councils.1 The letter contains regulations for the treatment of those who had been guilty of transgressions against Christian discipline and morality during the incursion of the barbarians, whether committed under compulsion as prisoners or as voluntary abettors of the plunderers. The letter is important both as a first-hand account of the evil con ditions occasioned even among Christians by those days of terror, and as witness to the intelligent benignity of Gregory. Routh, RS, III, 256-264, 265-283. J. Draeseke, in JprTh, VII, 1881, 724-756 (Letter, see pp. 730-736). (d) A writing entitled MerdcppacrK et? rov 'EKKXrjcriao-- rrjv 'S.oXofjbiovTo^ is, indeed, ascribed in the manu scripts 2 to Gregory Nazianzen ; but, according to the testimony of Jerome 3 and Rufinus,4 it may equally well have been the work of Gregory the " Wonder- Worker," ] Preuschen, LG, 429 f. s De Viris Illust. 65 ; Comm. in Eccles. 4. 2 Preuschen, LG, 430. 4 Hist. Eccl. VII, 25. GREGORIUS THAUMATURGUS 231 particularly as the language resembles that of the Pane gyric. It consists simply of a periphrastic reproduc tion of the original. (e) The writing " To Theopompus on the Impassivity and the Passivity of God," is preserved in Syriac in a manuscript in the British Museum.1 It is "a sort of Platonic dialogue upon the question whether from the physical passivity of God there also follows, as a neces sary consequence, moral passivity as to the fate of the human race."2 Well-grounded doubts concerning its genuineness cannot be substantiated. Nothing is known as to the identity of Theopompus ; Draeseke's attempted identification of the Isocrates, mentioned in the writing, with the Gnostic Socrates,3 is not an improb able conjecture. The date of composition was after 240 A.D.4 P. de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, Lips, et Lond. 1858, 46-64 (Syriac text). V. Ryssel, Greg. Thaum. Lpz. 1880, 71-99 (in German), 118-124, 137 f., 150-157; cf. Draeseke, in JprTh, IX, 1883, 634- 640 (and in his Gesammelte patrist. Untersuchzmgen, Altona and Lpz. 1889, 162-168). Pitra, AS, IV, 103-120 (Syriac), 363-376 (Latin). (f) The AtaXeft? 7Tjoo? AlXiapop has been lost. Ac cording to Basil5 the purpose of Gregory was to lead his correspondent from heathenism to Christianity. The want of precision in the use of dogmatic expres sions and formulae, which, under the circumstances, is quite intelligible, does not justify appeal to Gregory as a supporter of the errors of Sabellianism. 1 Codex Mus. Britt. Syr. Addit. 12156. . 2 Overbeck. 8 The anonymous writing, de Recta Fide (see § 80), edition of Lom matzsch, XVI, 264. 4 Ryssel holds a different view. 6 Epist. 210, 5. 232 WRITERS OF ASIA MINOR (g) "An Ante-Nicene Homily"; published by J. C. Conybeare.1 4. The following writings are either probably or cer tainly spurious ; some of them were fraudulently attrib uted to Gregory. (a) 'H Kara /xe/jo? irians (extant in Greek and Syriac), is a trinitarian-christological confession, which "pre supposes the Arian, semi-Arian, and Pneumatomachian controversies, as well as the Apollinarian prelude to the christological conflict." 2 The treatise was written by Apollinaris (the younger) of Laodicea about 375 3 or 390 a.d.4 with the purpose of setting forth his concep tion of the Trinity and of the incarnation of Christ. Between 410 and 425 a.d. Apollinarians attributed it to Thaumaturgus. First published in Greek by Mai, NC, VII, 170-176. P. A. de Lagarde, Titi Bostrini contra Manich. libri IV. Syr. Berol. 1859, App. 103-113. J. Draeseke, Apollinarios von Laodicea, in TU, VII, 1892, 369-380. Syriac text, in Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, 1858, 31-42. Syriac and Latin, Pitra, AS, IV, 82-94, 346-356; cf. C. P. Caspari (3 b, above), 65-146. (b) To Philagrius, on Consubstantiality, is extant in Syriac. The Greek original of this trinitarian writing is found in Gregory Nazianzen's two hundred and forty- third epistle,5 where it is headed IIpo? Evdypcov p,6vax<>v irepl OeorrjTO';. Syriac text, in Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, 1858, 43-46. Syriac and Latin, in Pitra, AS, IV, 100-103, 360-363. German, by Ryssel, Greg. Thaum. Lpz. 1880, 65-70; cf. 100-118, 135 f., 147-150; cf. 1 Expositor, 1896, 3, 161-173. 4 Caspari. 2 Caspari, p. 69. 6 Formerly Orat. 45. 8 Draeseke, GREGORIUS THAUMATURGUS 233 J. Draeseke, in JprTh, VII, 1881, 379-384; VIII, 1882, 343-384, 553-568 (in his Gesammelte patrist. Untersuchungen, 1889, 103-162. (c) The Ao'70? KecpaXaicbBr/s irepl ^v^? irpov Tanavov, ascribed1 to Gregory in several manuscripts,2 is a trea tise on the nature of the soul. Its author omitted the Scriptures as a source of proof. Editions : Didacus Hurtadus, Venet. (cf. Ryssel, Greg. Thaum. p. 35). A Syriac fragment is given by Lagarde in his Analecta Syriaca, p. 31. (d) The ' Ava0T]p,aTio'iJLol tj irepl irlo-recos KecpdXaia t/3' were twelve statements of belief and excommunication. They related to the incarnation of Christ, and were di rected against Nestorian, Eutychian, and Apollinarian doctrines. First published in Latin by Turrianus, in A. Possevinus, Appara tus criticus, and afterward in Greek and Latin, by H. Canisius, Antiquae lectiones, III, Ingolst. 1603, 1. Syriac fragments, in Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, 1858, 65, 23-66, 18 ; 66, 27-67, 5. Pitra, AS, IV, 95-100, 357-360 ; cf. J. Draeseke, in Gesam. pair. Unter suchungen, 78-102 (Vitalius). (e) A number of Homilies, to wit : — (1-3) Et? top evayyeXia p})P rrj<; virepayias (iravayia<;) OeoroKov irapOepov t»)? Ma/3ta?, and (4) Et? rd dyia deocpdpeia, ascribed to Gregory in one codex.3 In very many manuscripts the third address is ascribed to John Chrysostom. The first exists in Syriac and Armenian ; 4 the second in Syriac ; 5 and the fourth in Syriac,6 attributed to Chrysostom. Draeseke would assign all three to Apollinaris of Laodicea. J. Draeseke, in JprTh, X, 1884, 657-704. 1 Codex Patm. 202 (p yevrjrcbp : preserved by Photius.7 It con tains, in the form of a dialogue, a refutation of Origen's doctrine of the eternity of the world. The Origenist herein opposed bears the (allegorical ?) name of Cen- taurus ; 8 (b) Kara Tlopcpvplov : frequently mentioned by Je- 1 11, 4. 4 Bonwetsch, 308-329. 2 8, 1. 6 Codex Coisl. 294 (cf. Bonwetsch, XXXI sq.). 8 Chap. I. 6 Bonwetsch, 330-339. 7 Codex, 235; Bekker, 301-304; Bonwetsch, 340-344. 8 Bonwetsch, 343, 1. METHODIUS OF OLYMPUS 24 1 rome,1 and described by him as very voluminous.2 Frag ments only are extant.3 Philostorgius 4 considered this writing inferior to that of Apollinaris upon the same subject. Use was made of Justin's Apology6 in the first fragment;6 (c) Tlepl fiaprvpcop : two small fragments are extant ; 7 (d) Fragments taken from a Commentary on Job are found in a number of manuscripts.8 5. The following writings are lost : — - (a) "On the Body": mentioned by Methodius him self ; 9 (b) De Pythonissa: mentioned by Jerome10 and de scribed as written against Origen (witch of Endor ?); n (c) Commentaries on Genesis and the Song of Songs ; mentioned by Jerome ; 12 (d) A dialogue entitled Xenon, mentioned by Socra tes,13 can scarcely be identical with his irepl tcop yevrjrcop, as Westcott thinks, since in it, according to Socrates' account, he speaks of Origen with admiration. 1 De Viris, 83; Epist. 48, 13; 70, 3; Comm. in Dan. praef. and Cap. xiii. 2 Epist. 70, 3. 8 Codex Monac. 498; Saec. X {Codex Dresdens. A. I, 2, and Codex Rupef. Bonwetsch, 345-348) • 4 Hist. Eccl. VIII, 14. 6 Apologia, I, 55. 6 Bonwetsch, 346, 17 ff. 7 Theodoret. Dial. I {Opera, IV, 55 f., Schulze), and in Cod. Coisl. 276 (Bonwetsch, 349). 8 Pitra, AS, III, 603-610 (Bonwetsch, 349-354)- 9 De Sanguisuga, 10, 4 (Bonwetsch, 339, 40). 16 De Viris Illust. 83. 11 Cf. reply of Eustathius of Antioch (§ 61. 6 b. 8). 12 Jerome, loc. cit.; cf. Pitra, AS, III, 617, and Preuschen, LG, 478. 18 Hist. Eccl. VI, 13. R 242 WRITERS OF ASIA MINOR 6. The following are spurious : — ¦ (a) The Oration Et? top 1,vp,ecopa Kal els ttjv "Apptjp, ry rj/j,epa tij? diraprijcreco';, Kal et? ttjp ay lap QeoroKOP, can not have originated as early as Methodius, because the festival of Hypapante (Purification or Candlemas) was not yet celebrated in 300 a.d. ; also because the work " has throughout at its command a theology with the strongly marked terminology of the later Greek church "; x Edition: P. P. Tiletanus, Paris, 1598. (b) The oration Et? rd fiai'a (in Ramos Palmarum) likewise plainly bears the stamp of a later period ; (c) The fragments of a Sermo in Ascensionem Domini nostrijesu Christi, preserved in Armenian,2 are spurious. § TJ. Firmilianus Firmilianus was bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia as early as 232 a.d.,3 and next to Dionysius of Alexandria was the most esteemed Oriental bishop of his time.4 He is known as a writer only through the letter which he sent to Cyprian of Carthage in the matter of hereti cal baptism. The letter was a reply to a lost writing of Cyprian, in which Cyprian's several arguments were considered. It is preserved in a Latin version which probably was not by Cyprian, and which, according to Ritschl, was interpolated with the intention of " lending Cyprian's thoughts to his Oriental colleague." Ernst, on the other hand, maintains the genuineness of the whole letter. Basil of Caesarea5 speaks of Ao7ot by 1 Bonwetsch, XXXVII. 2 Pitra, AS, IV, 207-209 (439-441). 8 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 26, 27; cf. VII, 14. 4 Idem, VII, 5. I ; 28. I ; 30. 3 sqq. 6 Liber de Spiritu Sancto, 29, 74. PAUL OF SAMOSATA 243 Firmilianus, and according to Moses of Chorene1 he wrote a book de Ecclesiae Persecutionibus. The letter to Cyprian is included among the works of Cyprian as Epist. 75 (edit. Hartel, II, 1868, 810-827). Cf. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago, Gott. 1885, 126-134. J. Ernst, in ZkTh, XVIII, 1894, 209-259. III. Writers of Syria and Palestine § 78. Paul of Samosata Mai, NC, VII, 68 sq., 299. Routh, RS, III, 287-367. A. Har nack, in RE, X, 193 f. — Fabricius, BG, 307 sq. Harnack, LG, 520- 525. Paul of Samosata, viceroy (ducenarius) in the Palmy- rene kingdom, was bishop of Antioch from about 260 to 268 a.d. He attempted to set forth and defend his theological and Christological views in his "tirop.vqjxara? some sections of which have been preserved by Leon- tius.3 Five fragments taken from the Aoyoi irpbs 2a/3t- pop, against the authenticity of which there is no inter nal evidence, are also to be found in a collection of Doctrinae patrum de verbi incarnatione, ascribed to the presbyter Anastasius. Finally, there are extant a num ber of fragments taken from the Disputation which took place at the (third) Synod of Antioch, 268 a.d., between Paul and Malchion, the principal of the rhetorical school at Antioch.4 They were derived from the short-hand report of the Acts of the Synod, and are found in Jus tinian ; 5 in the Contestatio ad clerum Constantinopoli- 1 Historia Armen. {saec. V ? VII, VIII ?). 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VII, 30. II. 3 Adversus Nestor, et Eutych. III. » Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VII, 29. 2 (Jerome, De Viris Illust. 71), trans lated by S. D. F. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 169-171. 6 Contra Monophys. (Mai, NC, VII, 299). 244 WRITERS OF SYRIA AND PALESTINE tanum ; 1 in the works of Leontius,2 and in Petrus Diaconus.3 § 79. Lucian Routh, RS, IV, 3-10, 1 1-17. C. P. Caspari, Ungedrztckte . Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsyznbols und der Glaubensregel, I, Christiania, 1866 (Preface). A. Harnack, in RE, VII, 767-772. P. de Lagarde, Librorum Vet. Test, canonicoruztz pars prior graece, Gdtting. 1883. J. Wellhausen, 6th edit, of F. Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berl. 1893, § 255. F. Kattenbusch, Das Apos. Symbol. I, Lpz. 1894, 252-273, 392-395. — Fabricius, BG, V, 361 sq., VII, 303-305. Harnack, LG, 526-531. Lucian, born at Samosata4 and presbyter of Antioch, separated himself from the communion of the catholic church probably after the deposition of Paul of Samo sata (268 a.d. ?) ; but he continued to be the most in fluential leader of a great theological school. On January 7, 312, he became a martyr in Nicomedia,5 and his martyrdom atoned in the eyes of posterity for his extra- ecclesiastical position. Jerome 6 praises his zealous labors upon the text of Holy Scripture; and the recension of the Septuagint, which he made, was recognized as the standard in the churches from Antioch to Constanti nople. Jerome records further that Lucian wrote Libelli de fide and several Letters. No part of the former is 1 Act. Syn. Eph.; Mansi, VI, 1 109. 2 Leontius, loc. cit. 8 De Incarnat. et grat. Dom. Chr. ad Fulgent. Ill, 78 (Latin). RS, III, 300-302. Cf. also fragments given by Pitra, AS, IV, 183 sq., 423 sq. (Syriac and Latin). 4 See Suidas, Lexicon, under " Lucian." 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VIII, 13. 2; IX, 6. 3; cf. the Nicomedian calendar. 6 De Viris Illust. 77 (cf. ad Damasum, Praef. in Evangelia ; ad Chromat., Praef. in Paralipom.; {Adversus Rufinuzzi, II, 27); Epist. 106. 2. DIALOGUS DE RECTA FIDE 245 extant unless a formula in the Apostolic Constitutions J may be referred to him, as Kattenbusch contends. A sentence from a Letter written from Nicomedia, and addressed to the Antiochians, is found in the Chronicon Paschale2 In his translation of Eusebius' Church His tory, Rufinus 3 has preserved a defence made by Lucian before the judge, which may very well be genuine. It was taken from Eusebius' Acts of the Martyrs. An ex position of Job ii. 9 f., attributed to Lucian, is found in an anonymous pseudo-Origenistic Arian Expositio libri Jobi (about 400 a.d.). § 80. Anonymous : Dialogus de Recta in Deum Fide Editions: (1) Of the Greek text, J. R. Wetstein, Basil, 1674. De la Rue (see § 61), I, 1733, 803-872; cf. praefatio, XII, and p. 800. Migne, PG, XI, 1711-1884. Lommatzsch, Origenis opera oznnia, XVI, 1844, 246-418. (2) Translation by Rufinus, C. P. Cas pari, Kirchenhistorische Anekdota, I, Christiania, 1883, 1-129; cf. preface, pp. III-V. — Literature: F. J. A. Hort in DCB,' I, 39-41- Theo. Zahn, in ZKG, IX, 1888, 193-239, and GNK, II, 2, 409-426. I. The AtaXeft? ^ ABa[t,avrCov, rov Kal 'Tlpiyepovs, irepl rfjs et? Seov 6p9rj<> irio-reax;, in five books, has been pre served in Greek, in seven manuscripts, derived from a single archetype; and in Latin, in the translation by Rufinus. This translation is a faithful reproduction of its original, whereas the Greek text represents an " ex tensive and, toward the close, a more and more complete revision," 4 which must have been undertaken between 330 and 337 a.d. Origen was regarded as its author even as early as the time of Basil and Gregory,5 and 1 Apost. Const. VII, 41. i Zahn, ZKG, IX, 207. 2 DindorPs edit. I, 516. 6 Philocalia, 24. 8 IX, 6 (on Eusebius, IX, 9). 246 WRITERS OF SYRIA AND PALESTINE also by Rufinus; the authorship being inferred from the introduction of Adamantius as interlocutor. On internal grounds, however, this is impossible, and, be sides, the dialogue nowhere indicates that the author meant to pass himself off as Origen. The fact that use was made of Methodius 1 does not, however, prevent the assumption that the author really proposed to make the great Alexandrian the vehicle of his own thoughts. There are no clues to the personality of the author. The work must have been written after about 300 a.d. (Methodius), and probably before the edict of Milan, 313 a.d. The place of composition was, perhaps, An tioch or its neighborhood. 2. The dialogue is composed of a disputation between Adamantius, an orthodox believer, and Megethius and Marcus, Marcionites, Marinus, a Bardesanite, and Dro- serius and Valens, Valentinians. Eutropius, a heathen who at the end is converted, acts as judge. In the first two books Megethius and Marcus defend their theory of three (or two) principles, on the ground of the op position between law and gospel, which they attempt to prove by passages taken from their (Marcionite) Tes tament. In the third, fourth, and fifth books Marinus defends his own theses in opposition to the catholic doc trines of the creation of the devil by God, the birth of Christ through the Virgin, and the resurrection of the flesh. The disputation with the Valentinians on the origin of evil, which is foisted into the fourth book, is a digression made purposely by the author, but one which falls outside of the scope of the book as a whole. In it the writings of Methodius on the freedom of the will and on the resurrection2 are copied. In the first dia- 1 Cf. No. 2, below. 2 See § 76. 3 b and d. ALEXANDER OF JERUSALEM 247 logue use was made of an anti-Marcionite writing which appears to have been known as early as the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian, and in which may be found, possibly, the writing of Theophilus of Antioch against Marcion.1 The dialogue is not a work of art, but it is remarkable for its comparative terseness. § 81. Alexander of Jerusalem Routh, RS, II, 161-179. Migne, PG, X, 203-206. — Transla tion: S. D. F. Salmond, ANF, VI, 154 (Fragm. Epist.). — Fabricius, BG, 287. Richardson, BS, 69 f. Harnack, LG, 505-507. Alexander, a pupil of Pantaenus and Clement at the same time with Origen,2 and bishop of an unknown see in Cappadocia,3 was called to Jerusalem as the coadjutor of Narcissus,4 and stood at the head of the congrega tion, at all events, in 216 a.d.5 He became a martyr in the Decian persecution.6 In the library which he founded at Jerusalem ' there existed a collection of his Letters, from which Eusebius has preserved the follow ing fragments: (1) The beginning and close of a con gratulatory epistle written from prison in Cappadocia,8 to the Antiochians on the occasion of the accession of Asclepiades9 to the bishopric; (2) A fragment of a letter to the Antinoites in Egypt, written while Narcissus was still alive ;10 (3) A fragment of a letter to Origen ; u 1 Zahn, 229-236. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 14. 8. 8 Idem. VI, 11. I sq. 4 Eusebius, Chronic, ad ann. Abrahami 2231, fourth year of Caracalla; Jerome, 2228, second of Caracalla. 6 Cf. § 61. 2. 6 Jerome, 2268 I; cf. Syncellus, 684, 6. 7 Cf. § 58. 3. 8 Cf. Eusebius, Chronic. 2219, tenth year of Severus; Jerome, 2220, twelfth year of Severus. 9 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. XI, II. 5 sq. i' Idem, VI, n. 3. " Idem, VI, 14. 8. 248 WRITERS OF SYRIA AND PALESTINE (4) Fragment of a letter from Alexander and Theoc- tistus of Caesarea to Demetrius of Alexandria in regard to lay preaching.1 § 82. Julius Africanus Editions: Gallandi, Biblioth. vet. pat. (see § 2, 8 a), II, 337-376. Routh, RS, II, 219-509. Migne, PG, X, 51-108, XI, 41-48.— Translation: S. D. F. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 125-140 (extant writings). — Literature: G. Salmon, in DCB, I, 53-57. A. Har nack, in RE, VII, 296-298. H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Afrikanus und die byzantinische Chronographie, 2 vols. Lpz. 1880-1885. H. Kihn, in KLex, VI, 2005-2009. — Fabricius, BG, IV, 240-246. Richardson, BS, 68 f. Preuschen, LG, 507-513. 1. Sextus Julius Africanus,2 was born, according to Suidas, in Libya ; apparently he was an officer,3 and set tled at Emmaus 4 (Nicopolis) in Palestine, probably after his return from the expedition of Septimius Severus against the Osrhoenians (in Mesopotamia) in 195 a.d.5 As envoy to Alexander Severus 6 he rendered service in connection with the constitution of Emmaus as a muni- cipium (or free town). There he lived till after 240 a.d.,7 holding a prominent position, but not as a bishop,8 and perhaps not even as a presbyter. He undertook many and extended journeys in Palestine and Syria, to Alex andria (about 211-215 a.d.),9 and to Asia Minor, and he 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 19. 17 sq.; cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 62. 2 On the name, see Eusebius, Chronic, ann. Abrahami 2237; cf. Suidas, Lexicon, under 'A0piKai<6s. 8 Gelzer. 4 Not identical with the Emmaus of Luke. 6 Cf. Syncellus, Chron. 669, 20 (Bonn edition). 6 Thus Syncellus, 676, 6—13. According to Eusebius, loc. cit., to Heliogabalus. 7 Cf. No. 3 c, below. 8 In spite of statements by Dionysius Bar-Salibi, and Ebed-Jesu. 9 Eusebius, Idem, VI, 31. 2. JULIUS AFRICANUS 249 stood in intimate relations with the royal house of Edessa, with Abgar VIII Bar Manu and his son. 2. So far as the literary remains of Julius Africanus allow an estimate, he appears as a man of sober judg ment, independent knowledge, and considerable power of delineation. The absurdities of the Cesti, to be sure, are scarcely superior to the nonsense which other writers produced in the same field. But his exegetical works, when compared with the learned elaborations of Origen, are models of scholarly sober-mindedness, and his chro- nography, which became the basis of all ecclesiastical and civil historiographic writings even down to the Middle Ages, must be regarded, in spite of its short comings, as one of the most preeminent productions of early Christian literature. 3. The following writings of Africanus, placed in their chronological order, are known : — (a) The Xpovoypacfriai,1 in five books,2 was completed in 221 a.d. The fragments extant in Eusebius,3 Syn cellus, and other writers, and the use made of it by the Byzantine historians, afford a sufficient idea of the char acter and arrangement of this earliest Christian history of the, world. The author's purpose was to give a com prehensive and exhaustive compilation of the data of sacred and profane history. In so doing, he presup posed the absolute trustworthiness of the statements of the Bible; but, while keeping ever in view the apolo getic aim pursued by Tatian, Theophilus, and Clement, of proving by chronological means the superior antiq- 1 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 21. j.. Concerning other unauthentic titles used by later writers, see Gelzer, 26. 2 Eusebius, Idem, and Chronicon, I, edit, of Schoene, 97, 98. 8 Praeparat. and Demonstrat. evangelica, 250 WRITERS OF SYRIA AND PALESTINE uity of Jewish history, he so widened this purpose that the " presentation and exact fixation of all chronological details became an end in itself." 1 The material of the five books appears to have been divided as follows : 2 (i) From the creation to the partition of the world (years 1-2661); (2) Down to Moses (2662-3707); (3) To the first Olympiad (3708-4727); (4) To the fall of the Persian Empire (4728-5172); (5) To the fourth year of Heliogabalus (5173-5723, 221 a.d.). From the third book onward the presentation is synchronistic, with par allel accounts of Biblical and secular events. Besides the works of Christian apologists he made use of chro nological handbooks as sources, more especially the chro- nography of Justus of Tiberias.3 The work does not appear to have contained originally a canon, that is, a tabulated summary of events in addition to the chronog- raphy. Eusebius owed much to Africanus in connec tion with his chronographical labors, but the Eusebian Chronicon, in the translation of Jerome, displaced the work of his predecessor in the West, while Byzantine historiography remained directly dependent upon the influence of Africanus. Gelzer is engaged upon a compilation of the fragments of the Chronicon. See, however, RS, 238-309. A. v. Gutschmid (see § 36. 3 b). E. Schwartz, Die Koniglisten des Eratosthenes und Kastor zzzit Exkursen ziber die Interpoldtionen bei Africanus und Ezisebius, in Abhandlungen der konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften zu Gdttingen, XI, 2, 1894. (b) The Keo-Tot fj irapdBo^a 4 was contained in fourteen 1 Gelzer, p. 23. 2 Idem, p. 29. 8 von Gutschmid. 4 On the first title (embroidered girdles), cf. Srpw^aTets, and the remark at § 60. 3 c; and on the second, Geoponica, I, I, p. 7. JULIUS AFRICANUS 25 1 books (according to Photius),1 or more probably in twenty-four (according to Suidas),2 and not in nine (ac cording to Syncellus).3 The work was dedicated to the emperor Alexander Severus, and consisted of an ency clopaedia upon questions of natural (agrarian) history and medicine, as well as of military and other matters. It was full of senseless and, in part, immoral super stitions. The following portions are extant: (1) An extract (apparently from the sixth and seventh books), bearing on military tactics,4 is included in the collection of the Tacticians. It contains forty-five chapters in chaotic order (for which a redactor is responsible), and is augmented by thirty-two chapters of foreign origin. (2) Thirty-nine fragments probably borrowed only indi rectly, which are contained in the TecoiroviKa, i.e. the collection of matter relating to agriculture, made by Con- stantinus Porphyrogenneta.5 This collection contains also many sections by Africanus, which are not marked as such. (3) A small fragment from the thirteenth book relating to purgatives, contained in two manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.6 (4) Sections that were used without mention of the author in the collection of the 'liririarpcKd, analogous to the Geoponica. (5) The section Tlepl o-ra0p,cov contained in three Paris manuscripts.7 (6) An excerpt, consisting mainly of se cret aphrodisiac prescriptions, preserved by M. Psellus, of the thirteenth century. That Julius Africanus was 1 Photius, Codex, 34. 2 Suidas, loc. cit. 4 (rrparriyriTiKd. 3 Cf. No. 3, below. 5 Gemoll, 278. 6 Codex Laur. LXXIV, 23, saec. XIV, and Codex Barocc. 224, saec. XV (Muller). 7 Lagarde. 252 WRITERS OF SYRIA AND PALESTINE the author is sufficiently attested by the witness of Eusebius,1 and by internal evidence.2 Veterum matheznaticoruzn opera, ed. M. Thevenot, Paris, 1693, 274-316, with the notes of J. Boivin, 339-360. — TewzroviKa, edit. J. N. Niclas, Lips. 178 1. W. GemoU, Untersuchzizigezz uber die Quellen, den Verfasser uzid die Verfassuzigszeit der Geopoziika, in the Berliner Studien fur klass. Philol. ztnd Arch'doL, by F. Ascher- son, I, 1883. — K. Muller, Zu Julius Africanus, in JprTh, VII, 1881, 759 f. — Tiov LTnnaTpiKiiiv fiifiXia Svo, edit. S. Grynaeus, Basil. 1537, 268. — P. de Lagarde, Syzzzmicta, I, 1877, 167-173. — P. Lambecius, Coznment. de Aug. Bibl. Caes. Vzzidob. VII, 222 sqq. — J. Klein, Zu dezi Ker/rot des Julius Africanus, in RhM, XXV, 1870, 447 f. (c) The IlejOt tjj? Kara Hcocrdvpap urropuvi eiriaroX't) irpbs 'Hpiyep-qp,z transmitted in manuscript along with the reply of Origen,4 was called forth by an assertion of the genuineness of the history of Susanna made by Origen in a religious discussion. The entirely pertinent criti cism employed by Africanus, and its terse expression, is the more plainly set off by the reply of the Alexandrian, with its wealth of words and poverty of thought. (d) The Letter to (an unknown) Aristides, which is preserved in a fragmentary form by Eusebius,6 in the Epitome of the Eusebian Quaestiones de differentia Evan geliorum, and in the Catenae, was intended to reconcile, on the basis of information given by relatives of Jesus, the discrepancies between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke by an appeal to the Levitical law of marriage. The author's exegetical sobriety and love of truth is here also very obvious in spite of the mistaken outcome, 1 Eusebius, Hist. IV, 31. I. 2 Cf. especially Geoponica, VII, 14. 3 Eusebius, Hist., loc. cit. ; Jerome, De Viris Illust. 63. Translation by F. Crombie, in ANF, IV, 385. 4 Cf. 61. 10 a. 6 Eusebius, Hist. I, 7. 2-15. PAMPHILUS 253 which, however, was quite acceptable to those who came after. F. Spitta, Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides. Halle, 1877 (attempt at reconstruction). 4. The statement that Africanus wrote Commentaries on the Gospels,1 or on other Scriptures of the New Tes tament,2 is not confirmed by any trustworthy testimony. Africanus was neither the translator of the Legends of the Apostles which pass under the name of Abdias, nor was he the author of the Acta Symphorosae in spite of manuscript attestation. Harnack regards it as possible that he translated Tertullian' s Apologeticus.3 § 83. Pamphilus Routh, RS, III, 487-499> S°°-5I3> IV, 339-392- Migne, PG, X, 1529-1558, XVII, 521-616 (among the works of Origen; cf. also Lommatzsch, XXIV, 268-412). L. A. Zacagnius, Collectanea (see § 2. 8 b), 428-441. J. A. Fabricius, Opera Hippolyti, II, Hamb. 1718, 205-217. B. Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coisliniana, Paris, 1715, 78-82. — Fabricius, BG, 301-303. Richardson, BS, 72. Preuschen, LG, 543-55°- The biography of Pamphilus, written by Eusebius,4 has been lost. Born in Phoenicia (Berytus?),5 of a prominent family, Pamphilus studied theology under Pierius in Alexandria,6 became a presbyter at Caesarea, and fell martyr, in the persecution under Maximinus.7 1 Dionysius Bar-Salibi. 2 Cf. Ebed-Jesu. 8 Cf. § 85. 5 a. 4 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 32. 3; VII, 32; VIII, 13. 6; Martyr. Palesiin. n,3- 5 Simeon. Metaphrast. 6 Photius, Codex, 118; cf. 119. 7 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 75. (309 a.d.) 254 WRITERS OF SYRIA AND PALESTINE The principal service rendered by Pamphilus was, per haps, the founding, or at any rate the organization, of the library at Caesarea,1 which he enriched with many manuscripts, among which were some works of Origen copied by himself. While in prison, 307-309 a.d., he wrote, with the support of his pupil and friend Eusebius, an 'AiroXoyla virep 'Tlptyevovs (irpb<; roiis iv p,erdXXoi<; Bed Xpto-ToV raXaLirwpovfj.e'vov;), in five books. After the death of the martyr, Eusebius added a sixth book. The work was intended to refute objections to the theology of Origen, by means of the citation of passages from his writings. It also contained a large amount of mate rial for the biography of the Alexandrian. Only the first book is extant in the untrustworthy translation of Rufinus ; a short survey of the whole is given by Photius.2 The assertation of Jerome that Eusebius was the real author of the whole work3 contradicts not only the statements of Eusebius 4 and Photius, but also Jerome's own earlier statement.5 Jerome6 mentions Letters to friends, and in so doing refers to Eusebius as his authority. The statement of Gennadius7 that Rufinus translated a writing by Pamphilus Adversus Mathematicos, probably is due to his confusing it with the Apology. The "E«:0eo-t? KecpaXalcop rcov Tlpd^ecov contains a brief statement of the contents of the Acts of the Apostles in forty sections ; it was first printed with out the author's name, preceding the Commentary of CEcumenius on the Acts, and afterward by Zacagni and 1 Cf. § 58. 3. 2 Photius, Codex, nS; cf. 117. 8 Contra Rufin. vv. 11 ; cf. Epist. 84, II. 4 Eccl. Hist. VI, 33. 4. 6 Contra Rufin. I, 9; II, 23. 6 De Viris Illust. 75. ' Jerome, De Viris Illust. 17. BERYLLUS OF BOSTRA 255 Fabricius as a work of Euthalius of Sulce. It has been claimed by Montfaucon1 for Pamphilus.2 § 84. Beryllus of Bostra in Arabia Fabricius, BG, 290. Harnack, LG, 514. Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, whose heterodox Monarchian views were refuted by Origen in a disputa tion,3 wrote Letters and Treatises, which, according to Eusebius,4 were preserved in the library at Jerusalem.6 1 Following Codex Coisl. 202. 2 Cf. Gallandi, Biblioth. vet. patr. (§ 2. 8 a), IV, p. III. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 166-168. 3 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. VI, 33. 1-3. 4 Idem, VI, 20. I. 5 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 60; Chronic, ad ann. Abrahami, 2244; Alex. Sever. 6. CHAPTER II THE OCCIDENTALS I. African Writers § 85. Tertullian Editions: B. Rhenanus, Basil. 1521, 1528, 1536 (Schoenemann, BPL, 17), 1539; cf. A. Horawitz, in SAW, LXXI, 1872, 662-674. M. Mesnartius (J. Gangneius), Paris, 1545. S. Gelenius, Basil. 1550. J. Pamelius, Antv. 1579 and after. Frc. Junius, Franeckerae, 1597. N. Rigaltius, Lutet. Paris (i628[9?]), 1634, and after. J. S. Semler, 6 tomi, Hal. et Magdeb- 1769-1776. Migne, PL, I, II. Frc Oehler, 3 tomi, Lips. 1853, 1854, 185 1 : edit, minor, Lips. 1854 ; cf. E Klussmann in ZwTh, III, i860, 82-100, 363-393, and Oehler's reply, Idem, IV, 1861, 204-211. A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, Part I, of CSE, Vol. XX, Vindob. 1890; cf. W. v. Hartel, Patris- tzsche Studien, four parts (from SAW), Wien, 1890. Translations: K. A. H. Kellner, 2 vols. Kdln, 1882. Selected writings in BKV, 1869, 72. S. Thelwall, P. Holmes, A. Roberts, and R. E. Wallis, in ANF, III-IV, 1-166. C. Dodgson, in LFC, X, Oxf. 1842 (Apologetic and Practical Treatises). Literature : A collection of valuable earlier dissertations by J. Pamelius, P. AUix, N. le Nourry, J. L. Mosheim, G. Centnerus, J. A. Noesselt, J. S. Sender, and J. Kaye, printed by Oehler in his third volume (see above). J. A. W. Neander, Antignostikus . Geist des Tertullian und Einleitung in dessen Schriften, Berl. 1825, 2d edit. 1849. C. Hesselberg, Tertullian's Lehre: Part 1, Leben und Schriften, Dorpat, 1848. H. Grotemeyer, Ueber Tertullian's Leben und Schriften, Kempen, 1863-1865. A. Hauck, Tertullian's Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. J. M. Fuller, in DCB, IV, 818-864. A. Harnack, in Encyclopaedia Britannzca, XXIII, 1888, 196-198. A. Ebert, Allgezzi. Gesch. der Litteratur (see § 2. 5), 32- 56. E. Noeldechen, Tertullian, Gotha, 1890 (the numerous essays 256 TERTULLIAN 25/ of this author, scattered in various periodicals, are used in the forego ing work, and also in that mentioned below under 3) . Schoenemann, BPL, 2-58. Richardson, BS, 42-47. Preuschen, LG, 669-687. 1. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus 1 was born at Carthage, not long before 160 a.d., as the son of a proconsular centurion ; 2 was probably an advocate (it is doubtful whether he was identical with the jurist of the same name), and embraced Christianity, possibly at Rome,3 previous to 197 a.d. He became a presbyter of the Carthaginian church, but between 202 and 207 a.d.,4 he- broke with the catholic communion in order to ally himself with the sect of the Montanists ; as a member of which he died probably after 220 a.d. On the relation of Tertullian to the jurist of the same name (author of de Castrezisi peculio [Dig. XXIX, 1, lex. 23, 33, XLIX, 17. 4], and Quaestiones [Dig. I, 3. 37, XLVIII, 2. 28]) see P. Kruger, Geschichte uzzd Litteratur der Qztellen des r'dmischen Rechts. Lpz. 1888, 203. 99. (O. Lenel, Palingenesia, II, 341.) What P. Kruger says against the identification of the two has little weight. 2. That radicalism in which every step forward sig nifies a break with the past distinguished Tertullian also as a writer. Possessing comprehensive culture and extraordinary knowledge in the domain of history, philosophy, and jurisprudence, he became, after his conversion to Christianity, a despiser of all aesthetic culture, and he gave frequent expression to his hatred toward secular science as folly in the sight of God. Nevertheless he became the most original, the most 1 Cf. De Baptismo, 20 ; De Virginibus velandis, 17 {Exhort, castitat. 13). Lactantius, Div. institut. V, I. 23. 2 Optatus, Schism. Donalist. I, 9; Jerome, De Viris Illust. 53. 8 Eusebius, Hist. II, 2. 4 Cf. Adv. Marcion. I, 15. S 258 AFRICAN WRITERS individual, and, next to Clement of Alexandria, the most important writer of the ante-Nicene period. The most original, since the freedom with which he adopted foreign ideas was only exceeded by the independence with which he made them serve his way of looking at things ; the most individual, since scarcely any other Christian writer has succeeded in impressing the stamp of his own individuality so indelibly upon his works. He became the founder of a Christian pamphlet-litera ture which at a later date became trivial. And as Latin Christian theology paid homage to the genius who coined so many ideas that even to-day have not suffered by abrasion, so in the history of Latin Chris tian literature he stands as the first, who, renouncing classical culture, created in new forms "a specifically Christian style." 1 He was an orator of the foremost rank, whose ruthless scorn of all compromise did not fit him to be an attorney of actual life ; whose more than powerful logic often threw contempt on all sound reason ; whose despotic dialectic always blinded, but seldom stood the test of calm reflection. He was a master of language in whom an impetuous disposition, a passion for brevity and terseness, a sensuous fancy and a wealth of plastic thought, a biting wit and a satirical humor, a supreme contempt for the common place, and an inexhaustible delight in novel forms of speech, all combined to produce a style, the breathless passion of which might carry the reader away, but at the same time was just as likely to bewilder him with its weight of exaggeration, and tire him by its wealth of grotesqueness. Cyprian recognized in him a master,2 1 Ebert, 33. 2 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 53. TERTULLIAN 259 but even in his day Lactantius1 complained that his lack of form and obscurity of style prevented him from receiving the recognition that was his due. Jerome well knew what he said when he advised a lady, his friend, not to compare the rill of his discourse with the river of Tertullian's.2 Indeed, one half of the famous verdict of Vincent of Lerins is true : quot paene verba, tot sententiae , but not the other : quot sensus, tot victo- riae. Even Isidore of Seville3 copied the African copiously, but in the Middle Ages his writings were scarcely read at all; it was the renaissance that first recalled him from the dead.4 J. G. V. Engelhardt, Ueber Tertullians schriftstellerischen Char- akter, in ZhTh, XXII, 1852, 316-319. Jos. Schmidt, De latinitate Tertulliani, Erlangen, 1870. P. Langen, De usu praepositionum Tertullianeo, I— III, Monast. 1868-1870. H. Roensch, Das nezte Testament Tertullians, Lpz. 1871. G. R. Hauschild, Die Grund- s'dtze uzzd Mittel der Sprachbildzmg bet Tertullian, Lpz. 1876 and 1 88 1. — Tertullian's relations to more ancient writers have not yet been sufficiently investigated; see, however, A. Harnack, in TU, I, 1, 2, 1882, 220-222 (Tatian), 249-251 (Melito). E. Noeldechen, in JprTh, XII, 1886, 279-301 (Clement), and,/*r contra, P. Wend land, Quaestiones Musonianae, 1886, 49-53. Compare also P. de Lagarde, Septuagintastudien (§ 54), 74- Erdm. Schwarz, in JclPh, XVI, Suppl., 1888, 405-437; and F. Wilhelm (cf. § 45) (Varro). For the literature on his relation to Minucius Felix, see § 45. J. Jung, Zu Tertullians auswdrtzgen Beziehungen in Wiener Studien, XIII, 1891, 231-244. — M. Klussmann, Excerpta Tertullianea in Isi- dori Hispalensis Etymologiis, Hamb. 1892. Attestations are given by Preuschen, LG, 679-687 ; cf. 668. 3. The transmission of Tertullian's writings, with the exception of the Apologeticus, which is extant in numer- 1 Div. Instit. V, 1. 23. 2 Epist. 64, 23, ad Fabiolam. 3 Origines, vv. 11. 4 Cf. Epist. Politiani (Preuschen, LG, 668). 260 AFRICAN WRITERS ous manuscripts,1 is in evil case. Besides three older manuscripts, 2 there are a number extant, dating from the fifteenth century, which appear, however, to rest upon the same archetype. The writings ad Nationes, Scorpiace, de Testimonio Animae, de Spectaculis, de Idolo- latria, de Anima, and de Oratione, have been preserved in the Codex Agobardinus only, while for the text of de Baptismo, de Pudicitia, and de Jejunio we are compelled to rely solely upon the editions of Mesnart (Gangneius), or Gelenius, and Pamelius. Finally, a large number of his writings has been lost (see below, No. 9). The con dition of the text, which is frequently corrupt and which is full of lacuna in the case of the ad Nationes, when taken together with the peculiar obscurity of Tertul lian's mode of expression, has afforded a wide and much cultivated field for learned conjecture. The chronology of the separate writings is involved in considerable difficulty, since unequivocal clues are seldom found. Hence in most cases we can only work on the basis of a pre-Montanistic (till 202/203, or 207/208 a.d.) and a Montanistic period, though even in this we do not possess an absolutely sure rule. On the subject of textual criticism, see, besides the works already cited, the following : — M. Haupt, Opuscula, III, 2, 1870, vv. 11. Paul de Lagarde, Symmicta, I, Gdttingen, 1877, 99 ff., II, 1880, 2 ff. ; Mittheiluzzgen, IV, 4 ff. M. Klussmann, Curarzim Tertullianearztm particulae Ires, Gotha, 1887 {Codex Agobard. ad Nationes). J. van der Vliet, Studia ecclesiastica : Tertullianus, I, Lugd. Bat. 1891 ; and in Mnemosyne, XX, 1892, 273-285 (de Pudicit., de Paenit.). E. 1 Codex Paris. 1623, saec. X; 1656, saec. XII; 1689, saec. XII, etc. See Preuschen, LG, 676 f. 2 Codex Agobardinus; Paris. 1622, saec. IX; Codex Montepessulan. 54, saec. XI ; Codex Seletstadiens. 88, saec. XI. TERTULLIAN 26 1 Klussmann, in WclPh, 1893, 145-149, 182-186. Aem. Kroymann, Quaestiones Tertulliazieae criticae, Oenipont. 1894. — On the subject of Chronology, see G. Uhlhorn, Fuzzdazzzenta Chronologiae Tertul- lianeae, Gdttingen, 1852. H. Kellner, in ThQu, HI, 1870, 547-566; LIII, 1871, 585-609. Kath. LIX, 1879, 2, 561-589; and Chrono logiae Tertullianeae supplezzzenta. Program. Bonn, 1890. G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Schriften Tertullians nach der Zeit ihrer Abfas- sung, Bonn, 1878. A. Harnack, in ZKG, II, 1878, 572-583. E. Noeldechen, Dze Abfassungszeit der Schriften Tertullians, in TU, V, 2, 1888. K. J. Neumann, Der r'omische Staat, etc. (see § 45), passim. J. Schmidt, in RhM, XLVI, 1 89 1, 77-98 {de Corona, ad Scapzilazzt, de Fztga, Scorpiace). E. Rolffs, Urkunden aus dem antimozitazzistischen Kaznpf des Abendlandes, in TU, XII, 4, 1895, passim. 4. In describing the separate works of Tertullian, precedence may be given to his de Pallio (composed in 208 or 209 a.d.),1 because this little work, which related to a personal affair of the author, cannot be classified with the other products of his literary activity. It con sists of a defence against the attacks made upon him by his fellow-citizens on account of his rejection of the toga for the pallium when he embraced Montanism. This writing, which Moehler2 calls a "sample of his genius showing how much he could say about that which was most insignificant," gave Tertullian oppor tunity to allow full play to his sarcastic humor, and exhibits him as a writer, on his most interesting, but at the same time, indeed, his darkest side. Editions: Frc. Junius, Lugd. Bat. 1595. E. Richerius, Paris, 1600. Th. Marcilius, Paris, 1614. CI. Salmasius, Lut. Paris, 1622; Lugd. 1656; Lugd. 1626 (with the commentary of J. L.-de la Cerda, BPL, I, 37). Literature: G. Boissier, in Rev. des Deux Mondes, XCIV, 1889, 1 Cf- Chap. 2; Oehler, I, 925. 2 Moehler, 734. 262 AFRICAN WRITERS Juil. 50-78; reprinted in his La fin du paganiszne, 2d edit., Paris, 1894, I, 259-304. 5. Among the Apologetic Treatises of Tertullian, the one that ranks highest and is probably the oldest, is (a) The Apologeticus or the Apologeticum} a defence of Christianity composed in the autumn of 197 A.D., at Carthage,2 and addressed to the praesides (antistites) of the provinces.3 It was the author's intention that it should replace the forbidden public oral defence,4 and it bears throughout the stamp of the advocate. The introduction (1-6) attempts to prove that the proceedings against the Christians, resting as they do upon ignorance of Christianity, cast reproach upon all principles of law ; and that if the laws of the State appear to justify such proceedings, they themselves will have to be abrogated. The Apology proper is divided into two principal parts. After a concise refutation of calumnies relating to Christian morality (7-9), the charge of atheism is re futed (10-27), and later, that of treason and enmity to the state (28-45). The positive purpose of the author appears plainly; viz. the presentation of the Christian faith, and the proof that the Christian man is a useful member of society. The conclusion (46-50) praises the absolute loftiness of Christianity as the religion of revelation in contrast to all human philosophy. A Greek translation, made probably about the beginning of the third century (whether by Julius Africanus is uncertain), was known as late as Eusebius' time,5 but it 1 On the title, see Oehler, I, in. 2 Cf. Chap. 9, Oehler, I, 145. 8 Chap. I, Oehler, III; Chap. 2, Oehler, 117, 120, etc. 4 Chap. I, Oehler, 113. 6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II, 2. 5 sq.; 25. 4; III, 20. 9; 33. 3 sq.; V, 5. 6 sq. TERTULLIAN 263 appears to have perished early. On the relation of the Apologeticus to the Octavius of Minucius Felix, see § 45. It is not impossible that a second redaction of the Apologeticus is extant.1 Among the editions are to be mentioned those of B. Benalius (printer), without place or date (Venet. 1483). U. Soinzinzeler, Mediol. 1493. B. Locatellus, Venet. 1494. B. Egnatius, Venet. 1515. S. Haverkampius, Lugd. Bat. 1718. Frc. Oehler, Lpz. 1849. Kayser, Paderb. 1865. F. Leonard, Namur, 1881. T. H. Bindley, Lond. 1889. Cf. A. Harnack, Die griechische Uebersetzung des Apologeticzis Tertzdliazis, in TU, VIII, 4, 1892. P. de Lagarde, Septuagintastudien (§ 54), 75-85. (b) The two books ad Nationes 2 form a polemic which was probably begun before the Apologeticus, z but which was scarcely published before it as a whole. It is a passionate controversial writing, filled with great bitter ness, addressed to a heathen people. The first book contains a refutation of complaints against the morality and worship of Christians, which presents a recension in some respects parallel to the first sixteen (omitting the tenth and eleventh), and the last chapters of the Apolo geticus, though it is conceived from a different point of view, and differs frequently in details, style, and mode of expression. The second book is a criticism of the heathen belief concerning the gods,4 its chief under lying source being the Libri rerum divinarum of M. Terentius Varro.5 On the text, see above at No. 3. Editions: J. Gothofredus, Aureliopoli, 1625. An edition printed at Geneva in 1624 (cf. Schoenemann, BPL, 37) does not exist (cf. 1 Cf. at Chap. 19 the peculiar tradition of the Codex Fuldensis. 2 Jerome, Epist. 70, 5 ; Contra Gentes. 8 I, 10; Reifferscheid and Wissowa, in CSE, XX, 74. 12. 4 Cf. Apologeticus, io-ii. 5 Cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VII, 1. 264 AFRICAN WRITERS W. v. Hartel, Patristische Studien (see above), Heft 2, p. 3). Frc. Oehler (with the Apologeticus). Lips. 1849. (c) The little writing, De Testimonio Animae, is an expansion of an idea only hinted at in the seventeenth chapter of the Apologeticus, which is most spiritual, sug gestive, and full of poetical beauty. The simple human soul, not yet over-refined by intellectual training, is summoned as a witness for Christianity, whose witness, like that of nature, is the voice of God. (d) The brief epistle, Ad Scapulam, addressed to the proconsul of the province of Africa, was written some time after the 14th of August, 212 a.d.,1 and was in tended to warn the governor, who had inaugurated an active persecution of the Christians, of the divine judg ment which had hitherto overtaken all persecutors of Christians, and which will inevitably overtake him also. In the second chapter excerpts are made from the Apologeticus . Edition: T. H. Bindley (with the De Praescriptione and Ad Mar tyres), Oxf. 1894. 6. A disputation between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte gave Tertullian occasion to join issue with the claims of the chosen people in his Adversus Judaeos. The second part of this writing (Chaps. 9-13), which is by an unknown hand, is only a clumsy compilation of the material relating to the person of Christ founded on Old Testament prophecy, which is presented in the Adversus Marcionem2 The first part (Chaps. 1-8), on the other hand, is a work of Tertullian, attested by Jerome3 and by its own peculiar characteristics. It is 1 So Schmidt. 3 Comm. Dan. 9 {Opera, V, 691). 2 III, 13, 18, 20, 23. TERTULLIAN 265 to be assigned to his pre-Montanistic period, and, per haps, to an early date.1 The author proves that the heathen are admitted to participation in the grace of God, which the Jews had forfeited by their own fault : the old covenant, the old law, the old circumcision, have given place to a new, which had been proclaimed by the Messiah of the Christians. The Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, by Aristo of Pella, was probably utilized in this work, even if it did not altogether give the occasion for its composition.2 J. S. Semler, Opera Tertulliani, V, 262-299. J- A. W. Neander, Antignosticus, Appendix. A. Harnack, TU, I, 3 (cf. § 35). P. Corssen (§ 35). On the chronological statements of Chapter 8, see A. Schlatter, TU, XII, 1 (cf. § 71), 15-19. Quite lately E. Noeldechen {Tertullians Gegeti die Juden auf Einheit, Echtheit, Entstehunggepriift, in TU, XII, 2, 1894), has undertaken the task of rescuing the second part also. 7. Among the Anti-Heretical Writings, the oldest was, (a) De Praescriptione (praescriptionibus) Haereti- corum (Adversus Haereticos). The expression in the title, borrowed from the Roman law and referring strictly to the defendant's exception based on limitation or possession, is used by Tertullian in the general sense of the demurrer, by virtue of which the complainant is non-suited.3 The work was written in the author's pre- Montanistic period, and originated about 200 a.d. It is an exposition of the catholic conception of authority and tradition, and is a classic of its kind. The princi pal portion of the book (Chaps. 15-40) discusses the demurrer (or demurrers) by reason of which heretics 1 Noeldechen, 195. 2 Cf. § 35. 3 Chaps. 21, 22, 35, 45. Cf. Adv. Marcion. I, I; Oehler, II, 49; Adv. Hermogenem, I ; Adv. Praxean, 2, etc, 266 AFRICAN WRITERS are non-suited a limine. Preceding this is an introduc tion (8-14), dealing with the general idea and distin guishing characteristics of heresy; the conclusion (41- 44) contains certain deductions drawn from the lack of morality and of ecclesiastical and religious zeal on the part of the heretics. Editions: J. Quintinus, Paris, 1561. Chr. Lupus, Bruxell. 1675 (with extensive commentary). E. Preuschen, in SQu, III, 1892. T. H. Bindley (with the Ad Martyres, and Ad Scapulazn), Oxf. 1894. (b) For many years Tertullian was engaged upon an exhaustive refutation of the greatest opponent of early catholic Christianity. The final redaction of his work is known as the five books Adversus Marcionem. The first form (apparently in one book x) was hastily written, and the author himself replaced it with a second, more complete edition, which was stolen from him by a "brother."2 The first book of the third edition was written in the fifteenth year of Septimius Severus, i.e. 207-208 a.d.,3 and the other four were separated from it by an interval which, however, cannot have covered many years.4 Against Marcion's doctrine of two Gods, Tertullian, in his first book, urges that a good God who is not at the same time a Creator, cannot exist ; in the second, that the Creator is the true God; the object of the third is to prove the identity of the Christ who appeared upon earth with the Christ foretold in the Old Testament. After this refutation of Marcion's theology and Christology, there follows in the fourth and fifth books an examination of Marcion's New Testa ment and also a critical exposition of his Antitheses. 1 Cf. 11, 1. 3 1, 15. 2 I, 1. 4 Cf. Hauck, 338 f. Noeldechen differs in his view. TERTULLIAN 267 (c) The writing, Adversus Hermogenem, which was composed not long after the De Praescriptione1 was directed against the doctrine of the eternity of matter maintained by the Carthaginian artists and philosophers. In the first portion (1-18), Tertullian unfolds the philo sophical and religious reasons which weigh against this assertion; he then exposes (19-34) tne iack °f convinc ing force of the arguments adduced by his opponent from Scripture ; and finally, with little wit and huge enjoyment, he reduces him ad absurdum (35-45). It is possible that the controversial treatise of Theophilus of Antioch 2 was employed in this writing.3 (d) The writing Adversus Valentinianos, which was written after the preceding,4 and which belongs to the author's Montanistic period,5 is an unedifying and vulgar repetition of the account given by Irenaeus in his Adver sus Haereses. It nowhere gives any evidence of any at tempt to understand the trend of his opponent's thought. (e) The Scorpiace (adversus gnosticos scorpiacum) pro fesses to be a remedy for the bites of the scorpions of the church ; that is, of the Gnostics, who, by their poison, seek to seduce Christians, particularly in the matter of steadfastness in persecution.. Tertullian proves that such steadfastness is a Christian duty, com manded by God. The situation presupposed in the work may correspond with the period of persecution under Scapula, and it may therefore have been com posed in the year 213 a.d. This would agree with the fact that the second book against Marcion seems to be presupposed in Chapter 5. 1 Cf. Chap. 1 (beginning). 8 Cf. Harnack, LG, 200 (Hermogenes). 2 § 42. 3 b. 4 Chap. 16; Oehler, II, 404. 6 Cf. the expression "Proclus nosier " in Chap. 5. 268 AFRICAN WRITERS (/) The work De Came Christi, probably written not long after the De Anima1 was directed against the docetism of Marcion, Apelles, and the Valentinians whose low estimate of the material compared with the spiritual made it impossible for them to accept an actual incarnation of the heavenly Christ. After a refutation of the heretics (2-16), there follows a positive proof from Scripture of Tertullian's materialistic line of thought ( 1 7-24). Closely connected with this work was (g) The De Resurrectione Carnis.2 This subject, which had often been discussed by the Apologists,3 Tertullian handled with great energy and reckless logic. The presentation of the Scriptural doctrine (18-62), which in the introduction was set forth as the only normative one, is preceded by the proof from reason (3-I7)- The conclusion contains a description of the resurrection body and its identity with the earthly body. This Tertullian attempted to base upon the words of Paul. It is possible that Justin's work on the resurrec tion furnished the author with his material.4 (h) Adversus Praxean was the last anti-heretical work which Tertullian wrote. It was composed cer tainly long after his defection from the church.5 It combated a phase of Patripassian Monarchianism which probably appeared for the first time under Callixtus; i.e. after 217 a.d. In opposition to heretical error, the author developed his doctrine of the subordinational (economic) Trinity. 1 See No. 8, below. 2 Cf. De Came Christi, I, 25, and De Resurrec. Carnis, 2 (Oehler, II, 469) : De Anima is mentioned in Chaps. 2 (Oehler, II, 470) and 17 {Idem, 488), and touched on in 42 {Idem, 521) and 45 {Idem, 524). 8 Cf. Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Irenteus. 4 Cf. § 36. 3 a. 6 Chap. 2. TERTULLIAN 269 Edition: E. Welchman, Cantabr. 1731. Literature : R. A. Lipsius, in JdTh, XIII, 1878, 701-724. On the possibility that the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus was used in the Adverszis Praxean, see P. Corssen (cf. § 35), 31-44. 8. The necessity of a thorough explanation of his ideas as to rational psychology led Tertullian to the composition of one of his most renowned treatises ; one which is distinguished by knowledge of the subject and by excellence of treatment, while it is also, it must be ad mitted, remarkable for many absurd and narrow asser tions. The De Anima was written later than the second book against Marcion,1 and at all events in the Monta- nistic period,2 and was directed not only against the idealistic and materialistic philosophers and the Gnostics (who were under the influence of the former), but more especially against all physicians and students of the natu ral sciences, who are often mentioned. For their refuta tion a four-volumed work of Soranus, a learned member of the sect of the Methodici and an earlier contemporary of Galen,3 may have served as a source. The material is treated in four sections: (1) On the nature of the soul and its powers (Chaps. 4-22); (2) On the source and formation of the soul (23-35); (3) On the develop ment of the soul and, more especially, its relation to evil (36-49); and (4) On the fate of the soul after death (50-58). 9. Tertullian addressed his attention as a writer, in a special degree, to questions of Christian morals and church discipline. A large number of treatises written in all periods of his life give evidence of this, as 1 Chap. 21 (Reifferscheid and Wissowa, CSE, XX, 335, 3). 2 Chap. 9. {Idem, 310, 17.) 8 Chap. 6. {Idem, 306, 24, 28.) 270 AFRICAN WRITERS well as of the rigor with which he uniformly answered these questions. The first were written in his official ecclesiastical capacity 1 (probably that of a presbyter) ; the last were inspired by the Montanist's raging hatred toward the alleged laxity of the catholic church in ques tions of discipline. Exact dates of composition are almost everywhere impossible. (a) The first group comprises four writings : De Bap- tismo, De Poenitentia, De Oratione, and De Patientia. The first three were addressed to catechumens,2 and cer tainly belonged to the beginning of Tertullian's literary activity. The fourth took shape, probably, not very much later.3 Noeldechen holds a different view with regard to it, however, and places it as late as 204 a.d. The first tractate expounds baptism as the necessary condition of the reception of salvation. It was occa sioned by the doubts that had arisen in the congregation in consequence of the disturbances caused by a member of the heretical party of Quintilla.4 The final chapters (17-20) were intended to bring to remembrance the rules for the bestowal and reception of baptism.5 The writing on Penance is divided into two parts, the first of which, after a discussion of the nature of repent ance, treats of the pre-baptismal penance of the sinner (1-6); while the second expounds the possibility and character of confession, the poenitentia secunda, that is, penance after baptism (7-12). The writing on Prayer consists of brief remarks upon the Lord's Prayer as the breviarium totius evangelii (1, close ; 2-8), and of longer 1 Cf Bonwetsch, 28. 2 Cf. Bapt. I; Poenit. 6; Orat. (whole subject). 8 Cf. Patientia, 12, with Poenit. 4 Baptism. 1, according to a more correct reading. 6 Cf. Chap. 17 (beginning). TERTULLIAN 27 1 instructions as to the time, place, nature, and method of prayer, closing with a lofty description of its effects (9-29). Especially characteristic of the author, who found solace in speaking of that which was not granted to himself (Chap. 1), is the spirited treatise on Patience, with its skilful personification of the Christian virtue whose chaste and pure image as the foster-daughter of God is contrasted, at the close, with the so-called " pa tience" of the heathen (Chaps. 15-16). Editions: Poenitentia, by E. Preuschen, in SQu, II, 1891 (to gether with the De Pztdicitid). Oratio, by G. Pancirolus, and L. A. Muratorius, in Mur. Anecdot. II, Patav. 1713, 1-56. Patiezzlia, Orius, Matrit. 1644. Literature : E. Preuschen, Tertullians Schriften de Poenitentia und de Pzidicitia, mit Riicksicht auf die Bussdisciplin untersucht, Giessen, 1890. (b) While the foregoing writings are couched in quiet and comparatively elevated language, a strident key is struck in the tractates De Spectaculis, De Idololatria, and De Cultu Feminarum, I and II. They were written at a time when minds were deeply stirred, a period of confessional friction, if not of bloody persecution of Christians by the heathen. They may all have been written before the Apologeticus (196-197 a.d.), and the De Spectaculis before the De Idololatria x and the first part of the De Cultu.2 The treatise on Shows (De Spectaculis) attempts to prove the assertion that the frequenting of plays is incompatible with true religion and real obedience toward the true God (Chap. 1). The reasons given by heathen and Christians in defence of such amusements are refuted by pointing out that all 1 See Chap. 13. 2 See Chap. 8. 272 AFRICAN WRITERS theatrical plays are associated with the worship of idols (Chaps. 2-13), and the deduction is drawn from the character of the plays themselves, that frequenting them stands in direct contradiction to Christian holiness (Chaps. 15-30). In the final chapter a description of the last judgment gives the author opportunity to vent his hatred of art in the most un-Christian manner. The writing on Idolatry transfers what was said of theatrical exhibitions to the whole field of the fine arts and of public life : the reefs and bays, the shallows and straits of idol-worship (Chap. 24), are so numerous that even a good Christian can steer his little bark safely through them only by the exercise of the utmost caution. Each of the two books on the Adornment of Women is com plete in itself : the first, called De Habitu Mulierum in the manuscripts (except the Codex Agobardinus), char acterizes female adornment as an invention of the devil, and proposes to prove that ornaments and fine clothes lead to ambition and prostitution ; but the author broke off before he arrived at this conclusion. The second book is milder and kindlier, though it is not more yield ing than the first. It does not follow the plan of the first book, but takes up certain isolated thoughts which occur in it, giving warnings against coquetry and fash ionable folly in a style that betrays a familiar knowledge of the arts of feminine toilet. Editions: De Spectaculis, E. Klussmann, Rudolphopol. 1877. Literature : E. Noeldechen, Die Quellen Tertullians in seinem Buch von dezi Schauspielen, in Philol. Suppl. VI, 2, 1894, 727- 766. (c) The brief exhortation, Ad Marty re s(martyras), was, according to Harris and Gifford, intended for Perpetua TERTULLIAN 273 and her companions.1 It was written either shortly be fore or after the Apologeticus2 (197 a.d.). It comforts those who were imprisoned during the persecution, with the thought that for them entrance into the prison signifies only an exit from a far worse one, and it urges them to suffer, for the sake of God and the truth, that which even a gladiator endures for the sake of empty fame. Edition: T. H. Bindley (together with the De Praescriptione and the Ad Scapulazzi), Oxf. 1894. (d) The similarity of subject justifies us in classifying together the three writings, Ad Uxorem, De Exhorta- tione Castitatis, and De Monogamia, although the first was written before his break with the church (about 203-207 a.d.) ; and the last, which must have preceded the second by a considerable interval, is to be assigned to a point toward the close of Tertullian's literary activity. In the books To his Wife the author expounds his view (giving the reasons therefor), that the re marriage of a widow, even if not absolutely forbidden, is nevertheless reprehensible, and conflicts with both the command of God and the idea of marriage (Book I). In any case, re-marriage with a heathen is inadmissible (Book II). He makes no concealment when he exalts the virginal condition above the married state (I, 3); and yet, at the close (II, 9), he is not, on this account, prevented from warmly praising the happiness of true marriage. The Exhortation to Chastity was addressed to a widowed colleague. It compares second marriage, 1 J. R. Harris and S. K. Gifford, The Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas. Lond. 1890, p. 31 (cf. § 105. 7). - Compare the close of the book. T 274 AFRICAN WRITERS as the result of sensual desire, to fornication ; and the author does not entirely omit a similar imputation with regard to the first (Chap. 9). Similar views are again presented in the treatise on Monogamy, only they are more pointed, and are augmented by the polemic of a " Pneumatic " against the " Psychics," who were willing to admit even to the episcopal office a man who had been twice married (Chap. 12). On the De Monogamia, see the views of Rolffs.1 (e) The tractate, De Corona Militis, sounds like an echo of the writings treated above (under b). It was occasioned by a Christian soldier's refusal to wear the laurel wreath according to custom ; and was written in August or September, 211 a.d., at a time when perse cution threatened.2 The delicate question as to whether he was justified in this course of action, Tertullian answers with a most decided affirmative ; and he in tensifies his affirmative to a demand that the Christian shall keep himself entirely aloof from the military pro fession (Chap. 11). (/) The persecution under Scapula was the occasion of the treatise, De Fuga in Persecutione, written toward the close of 212 a.d. The duty of the Christian, and especially of the clergy, under no circumstances to avoid persecution, is insisted upon uncompromisingly. (g) Tertullian had already discussed, and answered affirmatively, the question as to the veiling of virgins.3 After he became a Montanist, he again returned to the subject, in his De Virginibus velandis, treating it with great minuteness. Contrary to his oft-expressed view,4 1 E. Rolffs (§ 3, above), TU, XII, 4. 50-109. 2 Schmid, 81-84. 8 De Oratione, 21-22. 4 Cf. De Praescriptione, etc. TERTULLIAN 275 he would not admit the accusation of pracscriptio novi- tatis, which his opponents brought against him, but defended the practice which he advocated by pointing out its internal reasonableness, which habit could not offset (Chap. 2). The Paraclete, the Scriptures, and the discipline of the church were appealed to as final proofs. (h) The latest literary productions of Tertullian, De Jejunio adversus Physicos, and De Pudicitia, were replete with bitter, almost morbid, hatred toward the catholic church, which in the De Pudicitia was more marked on account of its violent attacks on the Roman church. The ascetic spirit which could scent lascivi- ousness in a second marriage was only able to char acterize the Catholics as gluttons when they observed moderation in fasting;1 and toward the close the polemic becomes indecorous. In spite of its want of modera tion, a more sympathetic vein is struck by the treatise on Modesty, which is an interesting companion-piece to that on Penance, with its energetic repudiation of the possibility of a second penance for mortal sins. The point of his polemic is directed against the " edict of the Pontifex Maximus " (that is, probably, of Callixtus, bishop of Rome, 217-222 a.d.), according to which the sins of adultery and fornication might be forgiven to those who did penance. Thereby the virgin bride of Christ must suffer hurt (Chap. 1); forgiveness belongs to God, not to the church (Chap. 3). The proof from Scripture occupied the principal part of the work (Chaps. 6-20), and in this matter the Old Testament had to yield to the New. The author recognized only the martyr's baptism of blood as expiation for sin : he 1 At the beginning of the book. 276 AFRICAN WRITERS did not admit the right of the confessor to forgive sins. Editions : of the De Pudicitia, E. Preuschen, in SQu, II, 1891 (with the De Poeziitentia) . Literature: E. Preuschen (see 9 a, above). E. Rolffs, TU, XI, 3, 1893 (cf. § 95. 2), and TU, XII, 4, 1895 (No. 3, above), 5-49. 10. The following writings have been lost : — (a) All that was written in Greek : viz. the recension of De Spectaculis 1 and De Virginibus velandis ; 2 the disquisition, De Baptismo Haereticorum ; 3 the great work, Tlepl e.Kcrrdo-eco'i (De Ecstasi) in six books, which were very probably written in Greek. Connected with these was a seventh book, Adversus Apolloniitm,i which, ac cording to Jerome, was directed, in the interest of the Montanists, against the church. Traces of it are found, apparently, in the anti-Montanistic controversial writing 5 used by Epiphanius in his Panarion.6 C. P. Caspari, Ozn Tert. graeske Skrifter, in Forthandlinger i Vedensk. Selsk. i Christiania, 1875, bl. 403. Th. Zahn, in GNK, I, 1, 49. A. Harnack, in TU, VIII, 4, 7 (cf. 5 a, above). H. G. Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde (cf. § 40. 3 a, above), 35-47, 108-m. (b) De Spe Fidelium, which was originally contained in the Codex Agobardinus, treats, according to Tertul lian7 himself, of the Christian future hope as contrasted 1 Cf. De Corona, 6 (Oehler, I, 430). 2 Cf. De Virginibus, 1 (Oehler, I, 883). 8 Cf. De Baptismo, 15 (Reiffeischeid and Wissowa, SCE, XX, 214, 1-7). 4 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 24, 40, 53. Cf. also Praedestinatus, 26; 86. 5 § S3- 2/. 0 Panarion, XLVIII, 2-13. ' Adv. Marcion. Ill, 24 (Oehler, II, 155 f.). TERTULLIAN 277 with that of the Jews, which is to be interpreted alle- gorically.1 (c) De Paradiso, originally embraced in the Codex Agobardinus, contained2 the remark that all souls, ex cept those of martyrs, are to await the day of the Lord in the nether world. (d) Adversus Apelleiacos (Apelliacos). Tertullian 3 him self attests the fact that he wrote a work under this or a similar title. Harnack4 considers it very likely that use was made of it in the Philosophumena. A. Harnack, De Apellis gnosi monarchica, Lips. 1874 (cf. § 27. 4), passim. (e) De Censu Animae (adversus Hermogenem) is men tioned in the De Animal It was directed against Her- mogenes' principle of the material origin of the soul. According to Harnack,6 this work was read even by Philastrius.7 (/) De Fato is mentioned in the De Anima% as a work which Tertullian had certainly in view, and a cita tion is given by Fulgentius Planciades.9 (g) De Aaron vestibus is mentioned by Jerome10 as contained in the list of Tertullian's writings, but he never saw it. 1 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 18; Comm. Ezech. XI, on xxxvi, I sqq. {Opera, V, 422); Comm. Isai. XVIII, Praef. {Opera, IV, 767, 768). 2 De Anima, 55 (Reifferscheid and Wissowa, CSE, XX, 389, 4 sq.). 3 De Carne Christi, 8 (Oehler, II, 442). 4 De Apellis, etc., p. 47. 6 De Anima, I (SCE, XX, 298). Cf. 3 {Idem, 303, 17 sqq.), II {Idem, 315, 22 sq.), 21 (335, 3), 22 (335, 14 sqq.), 24 {Idem, 337, 13 sq., 339, 18). 6 LG, 200. ' Haeres. LIV. 8 De Anima, 20. Reifferscheid and Wissowa, CSE, XX, 333, II sq. 9 Expositio sermon, antiqu. ad Chalcid., after Nonus Marcellus, Mercer's edit. 652. 10 Epist. 65, 23. 278 AFRICAN WRITERS (li) Jerome 1 asserts that Tertullian, in his youth, was engaged on the question, De Nuptiarum angustiis (ad amiciim philosophum). Although this is not in itself impossible,2 it is at the same time unlikely, since Tertul lian would scarcely have omitted to make some reference to it in one of his later writings on the same subject. (i) In the index to the Codex Agobardinus, the fol lowing writings are also mentioned, which must have been contained in the manuscript originally : De Carne et Anima, De Animae Summissione, and De Superstitione Saeculi. It is not impossible, however,3 that the last two were identical with the De Testimonio Animae and the De Idololatria, while the title of the first recalls a treatise by Melito with the same title.4 (k) On the possibility of a redaction of the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis having been made by Tertullian, see below.5 11. The following writings and poems, occasionally ascribed to Tertullian, were not by him : — ¦ (a) In a Vatican codex of the tenth century6 there follows after Beda's Chronicle, etc., a fragment of an apologetical writing, De execrandis gentium diis, which Juarez held to be undoubtedly by Tertullian, in spite of the variations in style which he noted. The origin of the fragment is, however, altogether uncertain, though in one passage7 there is a striking resemblance to Aristides.8 1 Ep. 22, 22; cf. Adv. Jovinian, I, 13. 2 Cf. Pamelius, in Oehler, III, 7. 8 Cf. the index as given by M. Klussmann, Curar. Tert. (cf. § 85. 3), p. 12 sq. 4 Cf. § 40. 3 1, above. 6 Cf. § 105. 7. 1 Oehler, II, 768, 8, to the end. 6 Codex Vatic. 3852, saec. X. 8 Aristides, IX, 7. (Seeberg.) TERTULLIAN 279 Edition: J. M. Suaresius, Rom. 1630. Literature : Oehler, II, 766-768. A. Reifferscheid, in SAW, LXIII, 1869, 740. (b) In a codex of the eleventh century,1 and in late manuscripts of the works of Tertullian, a tractate is found as a supplement to the De Pz'aescriptione Haereti- coruin, entitled Adversus omnes Haereses,2 which gives a summary view of all the heresies from Dositheus to Praxeas. The treatise is certainly not by Tertullian, but by some later writer, who possibly remodelled the Syntagma of Hippolytus. On the possibility that Vic- torinus of Pettau may have been the author, see below.3 (c ) On the works, De Trinitate and De Cibis Judaicis, by Novatian, see below.4 (d) The five books, Adversus Marcionem, written in bad Latin, and without any claim to be poetry, in spite of the hexameters, are no longer extant in manuscript. They very likely originated in the fourth century (Hil genfeld says in the third), in Africa (according to Oxd), or in Rome (Hiickstadt and Harnack). Editions: G. Fabricius, 1562. Oehler, II, 781-798. Literature : E. Hiickstadt, Ueber das pseudo-tertullianische Gedicht adversus Marcionezn, Lpz. 1875 ; cf. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XIX, 1876, 154-159, and A. Harnack, in ThLZ, I, 1876, 265 f. A. Oxe", Prolegoznena de carzztine adversus Marcionitas, Lpz. 1888 ; cf. A. Harnack, in ThLZ, XIII, 1888, 520 f. (e) Two poems, De Sodoma and De Jona, poetical compositions based on Gen. xix. and the Book of Jonah,5 are ascribed to Tertullian in various manuscripts.8 Ac- 1 Cod. Seletstadtiens. 88, saec. XI. 2 Oehler, II, 751-765. Cf. also Corpus Haereseolog. ed. Oehler, I, 1856, 269-279. 3 Cf. § 93. 2. 6 Fragments only, in Muller, 330 f. 4 Cf. § 92. 3 a, b. 6 Peiper, XVIII sq. 280 AFRICAN WRITERS cording to Peiper,1 they belonged to a writer of the sixth century; according to Ebert, they originated in the fourth.2 Editions: Guil. Morellius, Opera Cypriani (cf. § 86), 1561 {De Sodozzia). Fr. Juretus, Bibl. Patr. VIII (Jonah). Chr. Daumer, Lips. 1681. Oehler, II, 769-773. Guil. Hartel, in Opera Cypriani (cf. § 86), III, 1871, 289-301. R. Peiper, in CSE, XXII {Cypriani Galli poetae Heptateuchos, etc.), Vindob. 1891, 212-226. Literature : L. Muller, in RhM (new series), XXII, 1867, 329-344, XXVII, 1872, 486-488. A. Ebert, Allgezn. Gesch. der Litteratur (cf. § 2. 5), 122-124. M. Manitius, Geschichte der christlich-latei- nischen Poesie, Stuttg. 1891, 51-54. (/) The poem, De Genesi, which has also been ascribed to Tertullian (or Cyprian), according to Peiper, formed the beginning of a large work entitled Heptateuchos, written by a certain Cyprian who lived in Gaul, in the sixth century ; according to Ebert, it belonged to the fourth century. Editions: Guil. Morellius, 1561. Oehler, II, 774-776. Guil. Hartel, loc. cit. 283-288. R. Peiper, loc. cit. 1-7. Cf. A. Ebert, loc. cit. 119. (g) The poem, De Judicio Domini, published by G. Fabricius as a work of Tertullian, is of uncertain origin.3 § 86. Cyprian Editions: J. Andreas, Rom. 1471 : reprinted, Venet. 1471, 1483; Memmingae, 1477 ; Daventriae, 1477; Paris, 1500; Paris, 1512. D. Erasmus, Basil. 1520, 1530 ; Colon, 1544 (H. Gravius). L. Latinius (P. Manutius), Rom. 1563. Guil. Morellius, Paris, 1564. J. Pamelius, Antv. 1568 and after. N. Rigaltius Lutet. Paris. 1648. J. Fell, Oxon. 1682 and after. St. Baluzius and Pr. Maraus, Paris, 1726. Migne, PL, IV, 193-1312. Guil. Hartel, in CSE, III, Pars I-III, Vindob. ' XXVII sq. 2Cf. §86. 6h. 8 Oehler, II, 776-781. CYPRIAN 281 1868-71 ; cf. Lagarde, in GGA, 1871, 14, 521-543 (Syzzzzzzicta, I. 1887, 65-78). — Translations: U. Uhl, Jos. Niglutsch, A. Egger, in BKV, 2 vols. 1869-79. E. Wallis, in ANF, V, 267-596 (Life and Passion, Epistles, Treatises, Seventh Council of Carthage, Doubtful Writings). H. Carey, in LFC,XVII, Oxf. 1844 (Epist.) : C. Thorn ton, Idezn, III, Oxf. 1839 (Treatises). Literature: J. Pearson, Annates Cyprianici, Oxon. 1682 (reprinted in Fell's edition of the Opera, Oxf. 1700). F. W. Rettberg, Thasc. Caec. Cyprianus, Gott. 1831. E. W. Benson, in DCB, I, 739-755. J. Peters, Regensburg, 1877. B. Fechtrup, Der heilige Cyprian, I, Cyprians Leben,Wicns,\.ex, 1878. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago, Gott. 1885. Schoenemann, BPL, 77-134. Richardson, BS, 59-63, Harnack, LG, 688-723. 1. For a knowledge of Cyprian's life after his con version to Christianity, we have, besides his own works, an almost direct source in the Vita Caecilii Cypriani, ascribed to a deacon named Pontius.1 There is no rea son to doubt that it was written soon after the bishop's death. Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus2 was born, pos sibly, at Carthage, about 200 a.d., of a wealthy and prominent family ; he was a teacher of rhetoric at Carthage,3 and was won over to Christianity by a pres byter named Caecilius (Caecilianus) ; 4 was promoted rapidly (248-249 a.d.) to the episcopate, and presided over the Carthaginian church for a decade during a very troublous time, being very much involved in ques tions of ecclesiastical law and discipline (penance and heretical baptism). He escaped the Decian persecution by flight, but fell a victim to that under Valerian, on Sept. 14, 258.5 1 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 68. 2 Cf. Epist. LXVI, inscr.; Ep. 4, Hartel, 729, 15, and Benson, 739. 3 Lactantius, Div. Inst. V, I. 24; Jerome, Comm. Jon. 3. 4 Pontius' Vita, 4. Cf. Jerotae, De Viris Illust. 67. 6 Aft. procons. Hartel, CXIV, I sq.; Prudent. Peristeph. 13. 282 AFRICAN WRITERS 2. All of Cyprian's literary works were written in connection with his episcopal office ; almost all of his treatises and many of his letters have the character of pastoral epistles, and their form occasionally betrays the fact that they were intended as addresses. These writings are pervaded by a moderate, clear-sighted, and gentle spirit. Cyprian possessed none of that character which makes the reading of Tertullian so interesting and piquant, but he had other qualities instead, which the latter did not, more especially the art of presenting his thoughts in simple, smooth, and clear language, with a certain completeness of form, a style which was not wanting, on this account, in warmth and persua sive power. The strong attraction which his master's writings had for him 1 is reflected in the freedom with which he reproduced in his treatises whatever he had read ; but he was not, by reason of this, merely a copyist, for even where his dependence is greatest he shows an unmistakable individuality. His writings were collected at an early date, and were much read. Pontius' Vita already presupposes a collection of his tractates in chronological order.2 A list of writings which goes back to a copy made in 359 a.d., contains, after the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, twelve tractates of Cyprian and thirty-four letters to or by him.3 Even to-day his treatises and letters (for the most part separate) are preserved in numerous manu scripts, the earliest of which go back as far as the sixth century.4 Even Commodianus made frequent use of Cyprian's writings,5 though without mentioning his 1 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 53. 2 Goetz, 41 f.; Harnack, LG, 695 f. 3 Mommsen. 4 Cf. Hartel, Praef, and Harnack, LG, 697-701. & Domhart. CYPRIAN 283 name, and Lactantius celebrated him as the true herald of wisdom and truth.1 The plagiarist, Lucifer of Calaris, copied from him.2 Letters by Cyprian were preserved in the library at Caesarea.3 Though Eusebius himself shows but slight knowledge of Cyprian,4 numerous testimonies as to his person and writings are to be found in the works of Jerome and Augustine.5 At an early date his name was woven into the legend about the magician, Cyprian of Antioch. K. Goetz, Geschichte der Cyprianischen Litteratur bis zu der Zeit der ersten erhaltenezi Handschriften, Basel, 1891. Th. Momm- sen, Zur lateiziischen Stichometrze, in Herzzzes, XXI, 1886, 142-156; XXV, 1890, 636 ff. W. Sanday and C. H. Turner, The Cheltenhazn List of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaznent and of the Writings of Cyprian, in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, III, Oxf. 1891, 217-325. Cf. also Zahn, GNK, II, 1, 388 f. Th. Zahn, Cyprian von Antiochien und die deutsche Faustsage, Erlangen, 1882 (especially page 84 ff.) . 3. Like Tertullian, and often in imitation of him, Cyprian took certain apologetic, dogmatic, and practico- ecclesiastical themes as subjects of his treatises. The following, arranged in the order indicated by the Vita Pontii,6 are undoubtedly genuine : — (a) Ad Donatum (de gratia dei). This composition, whose addressee is not otherwise known, may have been penned before the Decian persecution, and it must have been written, as the introduction and conclusion show, in a period of quiet and peace. Its purpose was to set forth in a pure and clear light the new life after regen eration with its moral effects, as contrasted with the 1 Div. Inst. V, 1. 24. 4 Harnack, LG, 702. 2 Hartel, Harnack, and Goetz. 6 Idem, 704-713. 3 Eusebius, Hist. VI, 43. 3. 6 Chap. 7. 284 AFRICAN WRITERS night of heathenism and its moral degradation which were known to the author from personal experience. The form is poetic and pleasing ; but the style, adorned with many showy phrases that recall the rhetorician, aroused the displeasure of Augustine.1 Edition: J. G. Krabinger, Tubingen, 1859 (contains also Orat., Mortal., Demetr., Oper. et Eleem., Bon. pat., Zel. et liv.). Translation : E. Wallis, in ANF, V, 275-280. (b) De Habitu Virginum2 apparently, was written be fore the persecution, and reminds one of the expressions of Tertullian both in word and thought. It contains exhortations to females, but particularly3 to virgins vowed to chastity, to. refrain from all luxurious and worldly living, in order that it may not happen to them as to the daughters of Zion,4 and in order that, finally, in heaven they may become intercessors for the saints.5 Edition : J. G. Krabinger, see d, below ; cf. J. Haussleiter, Die Composition des Hirtenbriefs " ad virgines? in Comment. Woelffli. Lpz. 1 89 1, 382-386. (c) De Lapsis6 was written in 25 1 a.d., after the Decian persecution, and after Cyprian's return to his congre gation.7 In powerful and energetic language, which was deeply affected by the moral indignation of the author, he treats of a matter which events at Carthage had made a burning question : the restoration of the 1 Cf. Doct. Christ. IV, 16. 2 Cf. Jerome, Epist. 22, 22; 130, 19; Augustine, Doct. Christ. IV, 21. 47. 3 Cf. Chap. 3. 4 Isa. iii. 16, 24. 8 Cf. the conclusion. 6 Cf. Epist. 54, 3; Hartel, 623, 18 f.; Pacian, Ep. 3; Augustine, Epist. 98, 3; Defide et op. 19, 35; De bapt. IV, 9. 12; Fulgent., Ad Trasimund. II, 17. 7 See the Introduction. CYPRIAN 285 lapsed to ecclesiastical fellowship. This, Cyprian would make dependent upon penitent confession and the prac tice of severe penance. Edition: J. G. Krabinger; see d, below. (d) De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate1 was called forth in 251 a.d., by the schisms in Carthage, but particularly by the Novatian schism at Rome. It became the best known writing of Cyprian because in it the dogma that the church alone can confer salvation2 was set forth, though without any admixture of papal conceptions.3 Editions: J. Stephanus, Lond. 1632. G. Calixtus, Helmst. 1657. J. G. Krabinger, Tubingen, 1853 (together with De lapsis and De habitu virginum) . (e) De Dominica Oratione^ was written, possibly, in 252 a.d., and contains an extended exposition of the Lord's Prayer,5 prefaced by some general remarks and concluded with directions concerning the spirit of prayer, the connection of prayer with good works, and the times of prayer. The course of thought is similar to that in Tertullian's treatise, but the treatment is generally independent. Edition : Brixiae, 1483. Sine loco, 1528. J. G. Krabinger; cf. a, above. (/) Ad Demetrianum? defended, in elevated diction, 1 Cf. Epist. 54, 3; Hartel, 623, 19-22; Fulgent., Remissio peccatorum, I, 21 \de simplicitate praelatoruni]. 2 Cf. especially Chap. 6; Hartel, 214, 23 f. 3 Cf. Hartel, III, p. XLIII f. and the remarks on text-criticism, I, 212 ff. on the interpolations in Chap. 4. .4Cf. Hilarius, Comm. Matth. 5, I; Augustine, t. Julian. II, 3. 6; contra duas epist. Pelagii, IV, 9. 25; 10, 27, etc. 6 §§ 7-^7- 6 Cf. Lactantius, Divinae Inst., V, 4. 3; Jerome, Epist. 70, 3. 286 AFRICAN WRITERS the Christians against current heathen slanders, but particularly against the accusation that the atheism of Christians was chargeable with the hard times, famine, and pestilence ; an accusation that the addressee must have spread. Cyprian retorts, adding the remark that this old world itself must perish, and that the misery of the times is but the precursor of divine judgment, which is imminent. The conditions presupposed in the book make it possible that it was written in the year 253. Edition: J. G. Krabinger; cf. a, above. (g) De Mortalitate 1 was written under similar condi tions, in 253 or 254 a.d., and forms an excellent com panion to the address to Demetrian. Cyprian combated the faithlessness of those members of the congregation who could not understand why the faithful were not spared from pestilence, urging triumphant' assurance, demanding trustful subjection to God and his natural laws, and pointing to the imminent end of this world, and the promise of a better. Edition: J. G. Krabinger; cf. a, above. J. Tamiettius, August. Taur. 1887. (h) De Opere et Eleemosynis2 was apparently written at about the same time, and had the purpose of urging prosperous members- of the congregation to aid their fellow-believers who were suffering by reason of the prevailing want. His noble exhortations came to a 1 Cf. Augustine, contra duas Epist. Palagii, IV, 8. 22; 10. 27; contra Julian. II, 8. 25; Praed. Sand. 14, 26; Epist. 217, 22. 2 Cf. Jerome, Epist. 66, 5; Augustine, contra duas Epist. Pelagii, IV, 8. 21; 10. 27; contra Julian, II, 8. 25. CYPRIAN 287 climax in a striking introduction of Satan, and in an ironical presentation of his transitory benefits.1 Edition: J. G. Krabinger; cf. a, above. (i) De Bono Patientiae 2 was written at the time of the third council, or shortly before, that is, in the summer of 256 a.d., in reference to heretical baptism. It was in tended to show the writer's peaceable intention, and to quiet the minds that had been excited by the controversy, without, however, making mention of the burning ques tion. In spite of any dependence, this composition can not be designated as a " copy bordering on plagiarism," on Tertullian's Pudicitia; 3 on the contrary, Cyprian's style manifests itself plainly in its form, as well as in some peculiar arrangements of thought. Edition: J. Stephanus, Oxon. 1633. J. G. Krabinger; cf. a. (k) De Zelo et Livore^ sprang possibly from the same period. It portrays envy and jealousy, those poisonous plants propagated by the devil, with their destructive consequences, and exhorts to their suppression by means of contemplation of the heavenly kingdom. Edition: J. G. Krabinger; cf. a, above. (/) Ad Fortunatum de Exhortatione Martyrii.z This little work, regarded by the author as simply an outline,6 was prepared at the request of Fortunatus, and contained 1 Chap. 22. 2 Cf. Epist. 73, 26 ; Hartel, 798, 27-799, 2 ; Augustine, contra duas Epist. Pelagii, IV, 8. 22. " Ebert, 58. 4 Cf. Jerome, Comm. Gal. Ill, 5; Augustine, Bapt. IV, 8. II. 6 Cf. Jerome, Epist. 48, 19. 6 Praef. 3; Hartel, 318, II ff. AFRICAN WRITERS a collection of Biblical citations arranged according to a plan of Cyprian's own, warning Christians against idol atry,1 and the things of this world,2 exhorting them to endurance,3 and comforting them with the hope of eternal reward.4 Since there' is no reason in the case of this particular work for deviating from the chronological order given in the Vita Pontii, the period of prosecu tion presupposed in the Ad Fortunatum is to be under stood to be that under Valerian, and the composition may, therefore, be assigned to the year 257. Associated with the foregoing were two other com positions which, apparently, did not exist in the collec tion of Pontius ; the first of them is mentioned earliest in the list of 359 a.d., and the second by Jerome.5 (m) Ad Quirinum testimoniorum (adversus Judaeos) libri III& was undertaken at the wish of Quirinus, a spiritual son of Cyprian.7 The work sets forth the doc trine of divine salvation on the basis of passages from Holy Scripture, with a special arrangement of the same. Thus the first book treats of the displacement of Judaism and its institutions by Christianity ; the second was in tended to furnish proof of the Messiahship of Christ;8 the third, which probably was added later,9 contains the principles of Christian ethics that are derivable from Scripture. B. Dombart, Ueber die Bedeutung Commodians fur die Text- kritik der Testim. Cypr., in ZwTh, XXII, 1879, 374-389. J. Hauss- Mi-5- 4 §11-12. 2 § 6-7. Epist. 70, 5. 3 § 8-10. 6 Cf. Jerome, Dialog, adv. Pelag. I, 32; Augustine, contra duas Epist. Pelagii. IV, 8. 21; 9. 25, etc. 7 Cf., perhaps, Epist. 77, 3; Hartel, 835, 19. 8 Cf. Praefatio, Hartel, 35 f. 9 Praef Hartel, 101. CYPRIAN 289 leiter, Die Echtheit des dritten Buches der Testim., in Comm. Woelffl. Lips. 1891, 379-382. (n) The Tractate Quod Idola DU non sunt (de idolorum vauitate) is not mentioned in the Vita Pontii ; it is missing from the list of 359, and the manuscripts speak against, rather than in favor of, its genuineness.1 Not much were lost should it prove to be spurious, since the first nine chapters present a compilation from the Octavius of Minucius Felix,2 and the concluding chap ters were abridged from Tertullian's Apologeticus.3 Editions: Together with Minucius Felix, Lutet. Paris, 1643 (fol lowing Rigaltius). J. Haussleiter, in ThLB, XV, 1894, 482-486, considers the Quod idola dii non sunt to be of Roman origin, and, in all probability, a work of Novatian. 4. The Letters of Cyprian are not only an important source for the history of church life and of ecclesiastical law on account of their rich and manifold contents, but in large part they are important monuments to the lit erary activity of their author, since, not infrequently, they are in the form of treatises upon the topic in question. Of the eighty-one letters in the present col lection, sixty-six were written by Cyprian, and fifteen were addressed to him. In far the majority of cases, the chronology of their composition, as far as the year is concerned, presents no difficulties ; more precise as signments are mainly conjectural, and consequently their sequence cannot be absolutely fixed. Against the assignments made by Pearson, on which the following summary is based,4 objections have been raised by 1 Goetz, 129; cf. besides Jerome as cited above, Augustine, De unic. bapt. contra Petit. 4, 6, and De bapt. VI, 44. 87. 2 Cf. Minucius Felix, 20-27, 1^> 32- 3 Chaps. 21-23. 4 Cf. also Hartel, Vol. II. [The numeration of Pearson (1682) is fol- u 29O AFRICAN WRITERS Fechtrup, and particularly by Ritschl,1 which, in part, are worthy of notice. (a) References to contemporary conditions are wanting in the case of the first four letters ; they may fall previous to the Decian persecution. i. (R. II, W.2 65.) Cyprianus presbyteris et diaconibzis et plebi Furziis consistentibus salutetn. This letter has reference to a testa mentary appointment of a priest as guardian, contrary to the decree of an ancient African Synod. 2. (R. LXIV, W. 60.) Cypr. Eucratio salutem. Negative decision of the question of a bishop, whether an actor who had become a Christian might give instruction in his art. It is referred by Ritschl to the period after the establishment of the new concep tion of the church, about 254 a.d., and it is placed by Wolfflin and Weyman in connection with the work De Spectaculis (see 5 a, below). 3. (R. LXVI, W. 64.) Cypr. Rogatiano salut. Answer to the query of a bishop as to how he should proceed against a refractory deacon. Assigned by Ritschl to the period after the adjustment of the controversy with schismatics, about 254. 4. (R. LXV, W. 61.) Cyprianus, Caecilizis, Victor, Sedatus, Tertullus, cuzn presbyteris qui praesenies aderant Poznponio fratri salut. Synodical reply to the query of a bishop as to what treat ment is to be accorded to young women who practise unchastity. It may belong with De habitu virginuzn (cf. 3 b, above) . Ritschl puts it about 254 a.d. {b) A large number of the letters belong in the period of the Decian persecution and of Cyprian's absence from Carthage (250- 251 a.d.). 5. (R. IV, W. 4.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus lowed in the Oxford translation of the Fathers (H. Carey, LFC, 1844). For the convenience of the English reader the translator has added the numeration followed by E. Wallis, in ANF, V, noting the same by " W." The letters number eighty-two, No. 1 being the Ad Donatum. This numeration corresponds with that of Migne as far as Epistle 24; after that there is a difference of one on account of a misprint in the case of Epistle 25, which was perpetuated in the subsequent numeration. — Trans.] 1 Cited as R. in the following pages. 2 See note 4, p. 289. CYPRIAN 291 carissimis salut. Exhortation to discretion and to the maintenance of discipline and order. 250A.D. 6. (R. V, W. 80.) Cypr. Sergio et Rogatiano et ceteris confes- soribus in deo perpetuam sal. Encouragement of confessors to reso lute steadfastness. 250 a.d. 7. (R. Ill, W. 35.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus carissimis sal. Reasons for his absence, and request for care for the poor. 250 a.d. 8. (R. VI, W. 2.) [Address not preserved. Letter of the Roman Clergy to the Carthaginian. 250 a.d.] 9. (R. VII, W. 3.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus Romae con- sistentibzis fratribus sal. Felicitation upon the glorious death of bishop Fabian. 250 a.d. 10. (R. XII, W. 8.) Cypr. martyribus et confessoribus Jesu Christi domini nostri in Deo patre perpetuam sal. Praises the martyrs and confessors, and exhorts to resolute steadfastness. 250 a.d. ii. (R. XI, W. 7.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus sal. Persecution a divine punishment for disobedience and laxity, against which prayer is recommended as the best remedy. 250 a.d. 12. (R. X, W. 36.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus sal. Exhortation to care for confessors and to sedulous manifesta tion of the respect that belongs to martyrs. 250 a.d. 13. (R. VIII, W. 6.) Cypr. Rogatiano presbytero et ceteris con fessoribus fratribus sal. Exhortation to confessors to practise humility and good morals, and denunciation of past faults. 250 a.d. 14. (R. IX, W. 5.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus sal. Denunciation of the immorality of certain clergy, and exhor tation to the rest to care for the poor and the confessors during his necessary temporary absence. 250 a.d. 15. (R. XV, W. 10.) Cypr. martyribus et confessoribus carissizzzis fratribus sal. First discussion of the question of the treatment of the lapsed ; rejection of the claims of confessors ; demand for a rigid enforcement of penance. 250 a.d. 16. (R. XVI, W. 9.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus sal. Prohibition of the reception of the lapsed into the congrega tion simply upon the intercession of confessors. 250 a.d. 17. (R. XVII, W. n.) Cypr. fratribus in plebe consistentibus sal. Application to the laity of the exhortations of letters 15 and 16. 250 A.D. 2$2 AFRICAN WRITERS 18. (R. XVIII, W. 12.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratri bus sal. Prescriptions applicable to the lapsed when in casu znortis. 250 A.D. 19. (R. XIX, W. 13.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus sal. Repetition of the prescriptions given in 18; occasioned by a query. 250 A.D. 20. (R. XX, W. 14.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus Romae consistezitibus fratribzis sal. Justification of his flight, and account of proceedings in cases of the lapsed. 250 A.D. 21. (R. XIII, W. 20.) \Celerinus Luciano. The Roman con fessor entreats the Carthaginian to prepare libellos pads in the case of two lapsed females. 250 A.D.] 22. (R. XIV, W. 21.) \_Lucianus Celerino domino si dignus puero vocari collega in Christo sal. Answer to 21. 250 a.d.] 23. (R. XXIII, W. 16.) \Universi confessores Cypriano papati sal. Announcement that they have prepared libellos pads in favor of all lapsed persons, and are waiting Cyprian's assent. 250 a.d.] 24. (R. XXI, W. 18.) \Cypriano et compresbyteris Carthagine consistezitibus Caldonius sal. Declaration of a bishop upon the question of the lapsed. 250 a.d.] 25. (R. XXII, W. 19.) Cypr. Caldonio fratri sal. Answer, agreeing to 24. 250 A.D. 26. (R. XXIV, W. 17.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratri bus sal. Answer to 23, with a reference to the necessity of a post ponement of a decision. 250 a.d. 27. (R. XXV, W. 22.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibzis Romae consistentibus fratribus sal. Continuation of the account given in 20, in reply to a communication received from the Roman clergy (see Chap. 4). 250 a.d. 28. (R. XXVI, W. 24.) Cypr. Moysi et Maxizzzo presbyteris et ceteris confessoribus delectissimis fratribus sal. Praise of the ad dressees and of other confessors (cf. 27, 4) on account of their steadfastness and of their maintenance of discipline. 250 a.d. 29. (R. XXVII, W. 23.) Cypr. presbyteris et diacozzibus fratri bus sal. Notice of the ordination of a lector and of a sub-deacon. 250 a.d. 30. (R. XXVIII, W. 30.) [Cypriano papae presbyieri et diacozii Rozziae consistentes sal. Reply to 27, with assurance of continued observance of the practice of penance which had never been relaxed in the Roman congregations. 250 a.d. J Cf. § 92. 5. CYPRIAN 293 31. (R. XXIX, W. 25.) {Cypriano papae Moyses et Maximus presbyteri et Nicostratus et Rufinus et ceteri qui cum eis confessores sal. Reply to 28. 250 a.d.] 32. (R. XXX, W. 31.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus fratribus sal. Transmitting letters 27, 30, and 31 with a request for their further circulation. 250 a.d. 33. (R. XXXI, W. 26.) Adversus lapsos. The address is lost ; written by Cyprian to the lapsed in reply to an improper petition, and intended to admonish them and to urge them to patience and humility. 250 A.D. 34. (R. XXXII, W. 27.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus sal. Approbation of the exclusion of a presbyter and a deacon from the communion. 250 a.d. 35. (R. XXXIII, W. 28.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus Rozziae consistentibus fratribus sal. Letter to accompany 33, and the communication from the lapsed presupposed therein, together with a communication made to the clergy of Carthage upon the same matter. 250 a.d. 36. (R. XXXIV, W. 29.) [Cypriano papati presbyteri et dia- cones Rozziae consistentes sal. Answer to 35. 250 a.d.] Cf. § 92. 5. 37. (R. XXXV, W. 15.) Cypr. Moysi et Maxizzzo presbyteris et ceteris confessoribus fratribus sal. Praise for their steadfastness. 250 a.d. 38. (R. XXXVI, W. 32.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus itezzi plebi uziiversae sal. Notice of the ordination of Aurelius, a con fessor, as lector. 250 a.d. 39. (R. XXXVII, W. 33.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus et plebi universae fratribus sal. Notice of the ordination of Celerinus, a confessor, as lector. 250 a.d. 40. (R. XXXVIII, W. 34.) Cypr. presbyteris et diacoziibzis et plebi universae carissiznis ac desideratissizizis fratribus sal. Notice of the ordination of Numicidus, a confessor, as presbyter. 250 a.d. 41. (R. XXXIX, W. 37.) Cypr. Caldonio et Herculazw collegis item Rogatiano et Nuzzzidico coznpresbyteris sal. First mention of the schism of Felicissimus and of the expulsion of the schismatic and his adherents from church communion. 251 a.d. 42. (R. XL, W. 38.) [Caldonius cum Herczdano et Victore col legis item Rogatiano cum Nuznidico presbyteris. Notification that the commands of Cyprian had been executed. 251 a.d.] 43. (R. XLI, W. 39.) Cypr. plebi uziiversae sal. Warning 294 AFRICAN WRITERS against Felicissimus, with mention of the fact that his machinations would prevent the bishop's return to Carthage before Easter. 25 1 A.D. {c) Another group is composed of letters in which the Novatian schism has prominent place. 251-254 A.D. 44. (R. XLIII, W. 40.) Cypr. Cornelia fratri sal. Recogni tion of the election of Cornelius; repudiation of Novatian. 251 a.d. 45. (R. XLII, W. 41.) Cypr. Cornelio fratri sal. Excuses for the delay in recognizing Cornelius. Apparently written before 44. 251 a.d. 46. (R. XLV, W. 43.) Cypr. Maxizzio et Nicostrato et ceteris confessoribus sal. Exhortation to those who had seceded to Nova tian to return. 251 a.d. 47. (R. XLVI, W. 42.) Cypr. Cornelio fratri sal. Letter sent along with 46. 251 a.d. 48. (R. XLIV, W. 44.) Cypr. Cornelio fratri sal. Answer to the complaint of Cornelius that Cyprian had caused the congrega tion of Hadrumetum to write to the Roman clergy instead of Cor nelius. 251 A.D. 49. (R. XLVIII, W. 45.) [Cornelius Cypriano fratri sal. Ac count of occurrences at Rome : expulsion of those who had seceded to Novatian, and reception of repentant confessors. 251 A.D.] Cf- § 95- 50. (R. XLVII, W. 47.) [Cornelius Cypriano fratri sal. Notice that several adherents of Novatian had gone to Carthage. 251 a.d.] Cf. §95. 51. (R. L, W. 46.) Cypr. Cornelio fratri sal. Reply to 49. 251 A.D. 52. (R. LI, W. 48.) Cypr. Cornelio fratri sal. Reply to 50. 251 A.D. 53. (R. XLIX, W. 49.) [Cypriano fratri Maximus, Urbanzis, Sidoziius, Macarius, sal. Announcement of their return to the church (cf. 49). 251 A.D.] 54. (R. LII, W. 50.) Cypr. Maxizzio presbytero item Urbano et Sidonio et Macario fratribus sal. Reply to 53. 251 a.d. 55. (R. LIII, W. 51.) Cypr. Antoniano fratri sal. An ex tended communication to the Numidian bishop Antonianus, who, having first recognized Cornelius, afterward inclined to Novatian : justification of his own course in relation to the lapsed (Chaps. 1-7) ; justification of Cornelius (8-23) ; warning against Novatian (24-30). Written before the synod of 252 A.D. CYPRIAN 295 (d) During the years 252-254 a.d., Cyprian dealt with many subjects in a number of letters. 56. (R. LVII, W. 52.) Cypr. Fortuziato, Ahyzziuo, Optato, Privatiano, Donatulo, et F~elici fratribus sal. Reply to a query in regard to the lapsed. Apparently written before Easter, 253 (or 252). 57. (R. LVIII, W. 53.) Cypr. Liberalis Caldonius (39 names follow) Cornelio fratri sal. Synodical communication of a determina tion to receive into the communion all truly penitent lapsed persons, in view of the impending renewal of persecution. 253 or 252 a.d. 58. (R. LIX, W. 55.) Cypr. plebi Thibari consistenti sal. Letter of salutation, with reasons for declining an invitation. Reference to impending persecution. 253 or 252. 59. (R. LV, W. 54.) Cypr. Cornelio fratri sal. Extended refutation of the suspicions aroused by Felicissimus, who had gone to Rome, and had succeeded in impressing Cornelius. 252 a.d. 60. (R. LX, W. 56.) Cypr. Cornelio fratri sal. Congratula tions upon his exile. 253 or 252 a.d. 61. (R. LXII, W. 57.) Cypr. cum collegis Lucio fratri sal. Congratulations upon his return from exile. 253 A.D. 62. (R. LXI, W. 59.) Cypr. Jaziuario, Maximo, Proculo, Victori, Modiazio, Neznesiano, Nampulo, et Honorato fratribus sal. Letter to accompany a considerable contribution in aid of the congregations of the above-named Numidian bishops, which had suffered from depredations by robbers. 253 a.d. 63. (R. I, W. 62.) Cypr. Caecilio fratri sal. (de sacrazzzezilo calicis [dominici]). Letter occasioned by the mistaken practice that had sprung up in certain congregations, of employing water instead of wine in the sacrament. References to contemporary events are lacking. It is referred by Ritschl, on account of Chap. 13 (Hartel's edit. 711, 18-22), and of the way in which the duties of bishop are spoken of, to the period before the Decian persecution (?) 64. (R. LIV, W. 58.) Cypr. et ceteri collegae qui in cozicilio adfuerunt ziuznero LXVI Fido fratri sal. Synodal letter on the premature restoration of a lapsed presbyter, and on the question of the baptism of children. 252 or 253 a.d. Cf. § 96. 65. (R. LVI, W. 63.) Cypr. Epicteto fratri et plebi Assziras consistenti sal. Demand to the bishop of Assuras, who had done sacrifice in the persecution, to demit his office, and a warning against the lapsed who are impenitent. 253 a.d. 66. (R. LXIII, W. 68.) Cypr. qzti et Thascius Plorentio cui et 296 AFRICAN WRITERS Puppiano fratri sal. Reply to calumnies, apparently those of a layman. 254 A.D. {e) The following letters originated in the period of the contro versy with Stephen of Rome concerning heretical baptism. 67. (R. LXXII, W. 67.) Cypr. Caecilius, Primus (34 names follow) Felici presbytero et plebibus cozisistentibus ad Legionezzz et Asturicae itezn Aelio diacono et plebi Ezneritae consistentibus fratribus in domino sal. Synodical communication in reference to the deposition of the bishops Basilides and Martialis, and their restoration by Stephen of Rome, which Cyprian declares to be unjustifiable. Referred by Ritschl (p. 225) to the council held in the spring of 256. Cf. § 96. 68. (R. LXVII, W. 66.) Cypr. Stephano fratri sal. Exhorta tion to use every endeavor to fill again the see of Aries, which had been rendered vacant by the secession of Bishop Marcian to Nova- tianism. 254 a.d., and apparently before No. 67. 69. (R. LXVIII, W. 75.) Cypr. Magnofilio sal. First letter in reference to heretical baptism : denial of its validity, but accompanied with assent to the validity of clinical baptism. 254 a.d. 70. (R. LXIX, W. 69.) Cypr. Liberalis Caldonius (28 names follow) Januario (17 names follow) fratribus sal. Synodical writing on the subject of heretical baptism. 255 a.d. Cf. § 96. 71. (R. LXX, W. 70.) Cypr. Quinto fratri sal. Letter written to accompany 70, with a refutation of certain objections to Cyprian's notion of heretical baptism. 255 a.d. 72. (R. LXXIII, W. 71.) Cypr. et ceteri Stephano fratri sal. Announcement of the decision regarding heretical baptism, accom panied by copies of the letters 70 and 71. Attributed by Ritschl to the council of September, 256. Cf. § 96. 73. (R. LXXI, W. 72.) Cypr. Jubaiano fratri sal. The most extended treatment of heretical baptism ; with a refutation of a letter sent to Cyprian by Jubaianus (was it written by Stephen ? Ritschl, p. 116), and with sharp attacks upon the Roman bishop. 256 a.d. 74. (R. LXXIV, W. 73.) Cypr. Poznpeio fratri sal. Treatment of the same subject with still sharper polemic. 256. 75. (R. LXXV, W. 74.) [Firmilianus Cypriano fratri in dozziino sal.'] Cf. § 77. (/) The remaining letters belong to the period of Valerian's persecution (257-258 a.d.). CYPRIAN 297 76. (R. LXXVI, W. 76.) Cyprianus Nemesiano (10 names follow) coepiscopis, item coznpresbyteris et diaconibus et ceteris fra tribus in tnetallo constitutis zzzartyribus Dei patris oznziipolezitis et Jesu Christi doznizii nostri et Dei tonservatoris ziostri aeteriiain sal. Encouragement and consolation in view of the impossibility of then celebrating the divine sacrifice. 257 a.d. 77. (R. LXXVII,W. 77.) [Cypriano fratri Nezziesiazius Dativus Felix et Victor in domino aeternazzz sal. Reply to 76. 257.] 78. (R. LXXVIII, W. 78.) [Cypriazw fratri et collegae Lucius et qui cum eo sunt fratres omnes in deo sal. Reply to 76. 257 a.d.] 79. (R. LXXIX, W. 79.) [Cypriano carissimo et dilectissizno Felix, Jader, Polianus una cuzn presbyteris et oznziibus nobiscum comznorantibus apud metallum Siguensem aeterziam in Deo sal. Reply to 76. 257 a.d.J 80. (R. LXXX, W. 81.) Cypr. Successo fratri sal. Informing him concerning Valerian's second edict and the death of Sixtus, bishop of Rome (died Aug. 6, 258). 81. (R. LXXXI, W. 82.) Cypr. presbyteris et diaconibus et plebi universae sal. Written while fleeing from the officers of the Pro consul. At the close, a benediction upon the churches. A. Harnack, Die Briefe des r'dmischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz izn Jahre 250, in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl vozz Weizsacker gewidmet. Freib. 1892, pp. 1-36. 5. The three treatises that follow are enumerated among the spurious writings of Cyprian, though hith erto the impossibility of their genuineness has not been demonstrated. (a) De Spectaculis ; a summons to renounce heathen theatrical exhibitions, and to fix the eye upon the glorious spectacle which awaits the Christian in the future. The work has been preserved, apparently, in only three manuscripts, the oldest of which 1 dates from the fourteenth century, though it presupposes a source considerably earlier. The list of 359 a.d. does not 1 Codex Paris. 1658. 298 AFRICAN WRITERS mention it, and it is attested by no ancient writer. It is impossible to maintain the reasons alleged against its composition about the middle of the third century, apparently by a bishop who was separated from his congregation ; and it cannot be denied that it is closely allied to Cyprian's genuine writings, or that use was made in it of Tertullian's work bearing the same title. Wolfflin, consequently, decides in favor of its com position by Cyprian ; 1 while Weyman defends the authorship of Novatian, principally on the ground of considerable stylistic similarity. Demmler has sought to exploit these indications by an exact comparison of the usage of language. E. Wolfflin, in the Archiv fur Lat. Lexikographie und Gram- zziatik, VIII, 1893, 1-22. C. Weyman, in HJG., XIII, 1892, 737- 748; XIV, 1893, 330 f. J. Haussleiter, in ThLBl. XIII, 1892, 431-436; XV, 1894,481 f. A. Demmler, in ThQu, LXXVI, 1894, 223-271 ; also printed separately, Tubingen, 1894. On this, cf. C. Weyman, in WklPh, 1894, 1027-1032. (b) The tractate, De Bono Pudicitiae, must not be separated from the foregoing. It has been preserved in only three manuscripts,2 and it lacks ancient attesta tion. Matzinger has attempted to prove that it was written by Cyprian, basing his argument upon resem blances of style; and so striking is its dependence upon Tertullian that the theory thereby gains much force. With this view Hausleiter disagrees. Upon similar premises, Weyman has sought to establish Novatian's claim to be author of this tractate also. At all events, the author was a bishop 3 who was separated from his congregation at the time of composition. 1 Against this view, see Haussleiter. 3 Chap. 1, Hartel, 7 f. * Among others, the Codex Paris. 1656, xiv cent. CYPRIAN 299 S. Matzinger, Des heiligen Cyprian Traktat : De bono pudicitiae, Niirnberg, 1892. C. Weyman, J. Haussleiter, A. Demmler (see above) . (c) In contrast with the two foregoing treatises is a third, De Laude Martyrii, a sermon on the nature, signifi cance, and value of martyrdom.1 This seems certain of recognition as a composition of Cyprian on the basis of its excellent attestation : Lucifer used it extensively ; it is mentioned in the list of 359 a.d. ; Augustine2 was acquainted with it ; and it is preserved in all the manu scripts. If it could be proved3 that it was included among Cyprian's writings as early as the collection in the Vita Pontii, he might certainly be regarded as its author. This, however, has been disputed by Matzinger, and more recently Harnack has advocated Novatian's authorship.4 6. The following works, though ascribed to Cyprian, are certainly spurious : — (a) The tractate, Ad Novatianum, or more correctly, the treatise (sermon ?) on Novatian, addressed to the brethren. It has been preserved in only one manu script.5 It must have been composed immediately after the persecution6 under Gallus and Volusianus. Accord ing to Harnack,7 Sixtus II, of Rome, was the author. Its conclusion is lost. (b) The treatise, De Rebaptismate, which is no longer 1 Chap. 4, Hartel, 28, 16. 2 Contra Gaudent. I, 30, 34. 3 So Goetz (39), and Harnack (LG, 718). 4 Matzinger, 2 and 9. A. Harnack, in TU, XIII, 4, 1895. cf- c- Weyman, in Litl. Rundschau f. d. kathol. Deutschl. 1895, 3z9-333- 5 Codex Vossian. Lat. 40, X Cent. The editio princeps, Daventria, 1477, was based upon another manuscript. 6 Cf. Chap. 5; Hartel, 56, 20; Chap. 6; Hartel, 57, 27 f. ' A. Harnack, in TU, XIII, 1, 1895. 300 AFRICAN WRITERS extant in manuscript form, waged polemic from the standpoint of Roman practice, against Cyprian and other episcopal representatives of heretical baptism.1 Although it must be assigned to the third century at latest, it presupposes a considerable literature2 upon the subject. The author was a bishop. -With regard to the remark of Labbe that the tractate is ascribed by three Vatican manuscripts to the monk Ursinus, men tioned by Gennadius,3 see Harnack.4 In Chap. 17, the Paulli Praedicatio 5 is cited. Editions: N. Rigaltius, in Observationes ad s. Cypriani epistolas, Paris, 1648. Routh, RS, V, 283-328. (c) Under the title, De Aleatoribus (Adv. aleatores), there has been preserved in several manuscripts,6 a sermon against dice-playing, as being an invention of the Devil, and therefore idolatry. It is couched in awkward, but powerful and spirited language, and it is inspired by holy, moral earnestness. The author was a bishop who was deeply impressed by the conscious ness of the demands of his position and calling. To think, with Langen, of Cyprian in this connection, is impossible by reason of variations of style. On account of the relation of the writing to the canon of the Old and New Testaments, but particularly to the Shepherd of Hermas (and the Teaching of the Apostles), and also because of its position in regard to penance, Harnack favors a pre-Cyprianic date of composition ; and in view of the first chapter, he, following the lead of Pamelius 1 Cf. eg. Chap. i. Hartel, 70, 16 ff., 27 ff. 2 Cf. Hartel, 70, 3 ff. 4 LG, 718 f. 8 De Viris Illust. 27. 6 Hartel, 90, 20. Cf. § 19. 6 Codex Monac. 208, saec. IX. Trecens. 581, saec. VIII-IX. Regi- ncns. 118, saec. X. Paris. 13047, and others of later date. CYPRIAN 301 and others, thinks of a Roman bishop, proposing Victor 1 as its author (189-199 a.d.). Others,2 on the other hand, contend that its obvious relationship to Cyprian is explicable only on the supposition of frequent perusal and of an absolute familiarity with the writings of the Carthaginian bishop, though they are not willing to deny absolutely a connection with a Roman bishop.3 Never theless, the hypothesis of Harnack cannot be completely superseded except upon full investigation, which shall assume an African, non-Roman, origin for the writing. Editions : Cf. the texts given by Harnack in Texte und Unter- suchungezi, V, 1, pp. n-30. A. Miodonski, pp. 57-1 n (contains German translation). — -A. Hilgenfeld, pp. 12-26. Etude, etc. (see below), 15-22. — Literature: A. Harnack, Der pseudocyprianische Traktat de aleatoribus, in TU, V, 1, 1888 (list of numerous recen sions in Etude, etc., 12 f.). E. Wolfflin, in ALG, V, 1888, 487-499; and reply by A. Harnack, in ThLZ, XIV, 1889, 1-5. J. Hauss leiter, in ThLB, IX, 1889, 41 f., 49 f. (proof of dependence upon the third book of Cyprian's Testimonia : theory that Celerinus revised the writing to express the collective judgment of the Roman clergy) . A. C. McGiffert, in The Presbyterian Review, Jan. 1889 (proposes Callixtus as author). J. Langen, in HZ, LXI, 1889, 479 ff. (review of Harnack ; cf. also Deutscher Merkur, XX, No. 5). F. X. Funk, in HJG, X, 1889, 1-22. A. Miodonski, Anonyznus adv. aleatores, und die Briefe an Cyprian, Lucian, Celerinus, und an dezi Kar- thaginiensischen Klerus (Cypr. Epist. 8, 21-24), Erlangen and Lpz. 1889 (preface by E. Wolfflin). A. Hilgenfeld, Libellum de aleatori bus, Freiburg, i/B, 1890 (holds the author to have been a Novatianist, in the time of Constantine) . Etude critique sur P opuscule de aleato ribus, par les membres du se'minaire d'histoire eccle"siastique e"tabli a l'universite" catholique de Louvain, Louvain, 1891. J. Haussleiter, Beriihrungen zwischen der Schrift Cyprians "ad virgines" und 1 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 34. 2 Wolfflin and Miodonski; cf. particularly the Etude, etc. (see Litera ture), pp. 61-101. 3 Miodonski proposes Melchiades as the author. 302 AFRICAN WRITERS dem Anonyzzius ''adv. aleatores,^ in Coztzzn. Wolfflin, Lpz. 1891, 386-389. A. Miodonski, Kritik der dltesten lateinischen Predigt : "adv. aleatores11 (same, pp. 371-376). C. Callewaert, Une lettre perdue de S. Paul et le "De aleatoribus," Louvain, 1893. (d) De Pascha computus, which is preserved in one manuscript, was written before Easter, 243 a.d., in the fifth year of Gordianus,1 and contains computations of Easter, beginning with the Exodus, analogous to those in Hippolytus' dir6Bei%i<; yjpopcop rov irdaxa2 The author does not mention Hippolytus, and, though he works upon the same basis, any direct influence by Hippolytus is made improbable by the existence of important varia tions in details. The Scripture citations appear to point to an African origin, though Harnack regards its iden tity with Novatians' De Pascha as possible. G. Salmon, Chronicon Cyprianicum, in DCB, I, 508 f . (e) Three anti-Jewish writings, which have been at tributed to Cyprian, are of quite different origin. The treatise De duobus montibus (de monte Sina et Sion adv. Judaeos) is an attempt to prove by means of all sorts of allegorical absurdity, that Sinai and Zion are types of the Old and New Covenants. It contains antique features, and is preserved in the first three manuscripts mentioned above.3 Harnack4 regards it as possible that it was a translation from the Greek. The letter Ad Vigilium episcopum de judaica incredulitate,5 on the other hand, probably dates from the fifth century at the earliest, since it was addressed to Bishop Vigilius of Tapsus, and was sent to accompany a translation of the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus,6 which had been 1 Cf. Chap. 22. 4 Lit. Gesch. 719. 2 Cf. § 91. j a. 6 Codex Reginens. 118 al. 8 See note 6 on p. 300. 6 Cf. § 35 and the literature cited there. CYPRIAN 303 made by a certain Celsus.1 The third writing, Adversus Judaos, is mentioned as early as the list of 359 a.d., and it may be older than the time of Cyprian. The oldest manuscripts containing it are the same as those men tioned above.2 Harnack connects it with the name of Hippolytus,3 as a translation from the Greek, while Draeseke denies that it was written by Hippolytus. J . Draeseke, Zu Hippolytos'1 Demonstratio adversus Judaos, in JprTh, XII, 1886, 456-461. (/) The following writings, cited only by title, are post-Constantinian. They have not been minutely in vestigated as to their place of origin. (1) Oratio I and Oratio II. (2) De duodecim abusivis saeculi. (3) De singularitate clericorum. (g) The tractate De duplici Martyrio appears to be a bald forgery, which Lezius regards as a fabrication by Erasmus. Fr. Lezius, Der Verfasser des pseudocyprianischen Tractates de duplici martyr is. Ein Beitrag zur Characteristik des Erasizius, in NJdTh, IV, 1895, pp. 95-1 10, and 184-243. (h) Poems: (1) Genesis; (2) Sodoma; (3) De Jona ; (4) Ad senatorem ex Christiana religione ad idolorum servitutem conversum ; (5) De pascha (de cruce) ; (6) Ad Flavium Felicem de resurrectione mortuorum. These have no connection with the bishop of Carthage. On those, numbered 1-3, which have also been attributed to Tertullian, see above.4 (i) The Exhortatio de Paenitentia, which was first pub lished in 175 1, and which Hartel has not incorporated 1 Chap. 10, Hartel, 132. 16. 3 Lit. Gesch. 719; cf. § 91. 5 b. 2 See note 6 on p. 300. 4 See § 85. \\ e, f. 304 AFRICAN WRITERS in his edition, was directed against the Novatianists, and is composed of Biblical citations arranged after the plan of the work Ad Fortunatum. A comparison of the Biblical text with passages found in Hilary and Lucifer, leads to the conclusion that the work belongs to the close of the fourth century. Editions : Trombellius, in Anecdota Canon. Regzdar. S. Salvatoris evulg. torn. II, I, Bonn, 1751, 1-32. C. Wunderer, Bruchstiicke einer africaziischen Bibellibersetzung izi der pseudocyprianischen Schrift Exhortatio de paenitentia, Erlangen, 1 889 (text on pp. 1 1-29) . (k) On other forgeries under the name of Cyprian, see Harnack's History of Literature?- § 87. Arnobius Editions: Faustus Sabaeus Brixianus, Rom. I543(?). S. Ge- lenius, Basil. 1546. D. Erasmus (S. Gelenius), Basil. 1560. Bal- duinus, Lugd. Bat. 1569 (the first time without Minucius Felix). D. Heraldus, Paris, 1605. CI. Salmasius (A. Thysius), Ludg. Bat. 1651. J. C.Orelli, 3 vols. Lips. 1816-17. Migne, Patrol. Lat. IV, 349-1372. Frc. Oehler, in Bibl. patr. eccl., edid. E. G. Gersdorf, XII, Lips. 1846. A. Reifferscheid, in CSE, IV, Vindob. 1875. Translations : F. A. v. Besnard, Landshut, 1842 (contains a com prehensive commentary). A. H. Bryce and H. Campbell, in ANF, VI, 413-54°- Literature: P. K. Meyer, De ratione et arguznento Apologetici Arnobii, Hafniae, 1815. E. Klussmann, in Philologus, XXVI, 1867, 362-366. J. Jessen, Ueber Lucrez und sein Verhdltniss zu Catull und Sp'dteren, Kiel, 1872, p. 18. Frc. Wassenberg, Quaestiones Artiob. criticae, Monast, 1877 (text criticism). H. C. G. Moule, in DCB, I, 167. G. Kettner, Cornelius Labeo, Naumb'g, 1877. A. Reifferscheid, Analecta critica et gramznatica. Ind. Scholar. Vratisl. 1877-78 : Idem, Coziiectanea, Ind. Scholar. Vratisl. 1879-80, pp. 8-10. W. Kahl, in Philol. Suppl. V, 1889, 717-807 (distinguishes between two C. Labeos). J. Mulleneisen, De C. Labeo. fragtnentis, 1 Lit. Gesch. 722 f. ARNOBIUS 305 studiis, adsectatoribus. Marb. Chatt. 1889, pp. 34-40. A. Rdhricht, cf. § 60. 2. Also Die Seelezdehre des Arnobius, Hamb. 1893. Schoenemann, BPL, 147-172. Richardson, BS, 76 f. Harnack, LG, 735 f. (1) Arnobius1 was a teacher of rhetoric at Sicca in proconsular Africa during the reign of Diocletian, and after he embraced Christianity, in order to show that he was Christian,2 he wrote seven books Adversus Nationes,3 or adversus gentes according to Jerome. They have been preserved in a Paris codex.4 The accusation that was current5 among his contemporaries, to the effect that Christianity was chargeable with all the misery of the world, formed a starting point for an apology for Christianity (Books I— II) ; with this was combined a justification of belief in the eternal, uncreated, "first" God, and in Christ, who himself is God in human form, the instructor and benefactor of mankind, the miracu lous being who had destroyed idolatry, and had set proper bounds to human conceit. Mention of philoso phers gave occasion for a long excursus on the origina tion, nature, and destination of the soul.6 Since this topic was not germane to the plan of the book, its dis cussion evidently sprang from the necessity which the author felt, to give expression to his views in regard to these questions. Books III-VII contain a violent polemic against heathenism ; in Books III-V, attack is made on the polytheistic doctrine of God on account of its senselessness and immorality, and in Books VI-VII, 1 For the name, see Reifferscheid, 1879-80, p. 9. 2 Cf. Jerome, 79, and Chron. ann. Abr. 2343. 8 Thus the manuscript caption; cf. Jerome, 79. 4 Codex Paris. 1661, saec. IX {Codex Dij. 6831, possibly of the six teenth century, is simply a copy of the foregoing). 6 See above, § 86. 3/ 6 II, 14-62. x 306 AFRICAN WRITERS on the pagan services of temple and sacrifice. The confused character of the final chapter is explicable, perhaps, on the supposition that the author, under the pressure of external circumstances,1 broke off abruptly with some remarks hastily thrown together.2 The date of composition cannot be fixed exactly, but the year 303 3 is to be preferred to 296 a.d.4 (2) As a writer, Arnobius was only little better than the reputation given him by Jerome.5 He neither possessed a clear mind, nor did he wield a facile pen. He wrote hastily, tumultuously, and with little intelligence. Nev ertheless one cannot deny a certain amount of sympathy to his declamatory pathos, and it is possible to find many a pleasing passage in the midst of his long-winded tirades. Where the rhetorician assumed the role of the philosopher, as particularly in the second book, he does not give evidence of profound study. The didactic poem of Lucretius exercised great influence over him both in respect to form and matter, and from it he drew material for his opposition to the Platonic (Neoplatonic) philosophy. He had, nevertheless, read Plato also. The words of Holy Scripture are very seldom em ployed,6 and his conceptions at important points stand in contradiction thereto.7 Arnobius made use of the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria as source for his statements concerning Greek mythology, and for that of Rome he plundered the writings of Cornelius Labeo, who lived apparently after 250 a.d., and who was inter- 1 See above. 2 Reifferscheid's edit. XIV. Different view, Kettner, 34-40. 3 Book IV, 36. 4 Cf- II» 7«- 6 Cf. Oehler, XIV-XVIII. 6 Epist. 58, 10; but see Orelli. 7 Cf. especially II, 36. LACTANTIUS 307 ested not only in antiquarian, but also in religious and theological questions. Arnobius' polemic seems to have been directed frequently against the attempts of Labeo and his associates to restore the Neoplatonic philosophy. Among later writers, Jerome alone shows definite know ledge of Arnobius' work.1 Gelasius ranked it among the Apocrypha. Tritemius'2 additions to Jerome's ac count, including a statement concerning a composition De rhetorica institutione, is beyond our control. § 88. Lactantius Editions: Sublaci, 1465 (Conr. Sweynheim and Am. Pannartz), Romae, 1468 (same printers) . J. Andreas, Romae, 1470. Venet. 1471 (Ad. de Amberga). Venet. 1472 (Vindelinus de Spira). Venet. 1493 (Vine. Benolius). J. Parrhasius, Venet. 1509. J. B. Egnatius, Venet. 15 15. H. Fasitelius, Venet. 1535. Colon. 1544 (P. Quentel). J. L. Buenemann, Lips. 1739 (2 Tom., Hal. Sax. 1764; Bipont. 1786). O. F. Fritzsche in Bibl. patr. eccl., ed. E. G. Gersdorf, X, XI, 2 Tom., Lips. 1842-1844. Migne, Patrol. Lat. VI, VII. S. Brandt and G. Laubmann, in CSE, XIX, XXVII, Vindob. 1 890-1 893 (not yet complete). Translations: Wm. Fletcher, ANF, VII, 3-328 (Div. Inst., Epit., Anger of God, Workmanship of God, Persecutors, Fragm., Phoenix, and Passion of the Lord) . Literature: The older works of Le Nourry (Appar. II). St. Baluzius (Paris, 1679). P. Bauldri (Utr. 1692), in PL. P. Bertold, Prolegomezia zu Lactantius, Metten, 1861. E. Ebert, in RE, VIII, 364 ff. E. S. F. Foulkes, in Diet. Chr. Biogr. Ill, 613-617. O. Bardenhewer, in KLex. VII, 1310-1316. A. Mancini, Quaestiones Lactantianae, in Studi storici, II, 1893, 444-464, and in reply, S. Brandt, Adnotatiunculae Lad., Idem, 1894,65-70. — Schoenemann, BPL, 177-264. Richardson, BS, 77-81. Preuschen, LG, 736-744. 1. L. Caelius3 Firmianus Lactantius was born of heathen4 parents, about 260 a.d., in Africa (not Pice- 1 Cf. also Epist. 60, 10, and 70, 5. 3 Not Caecilius. 2 Cf. Script. Eccl. (§ 2. 2), 53. 4 Divinae Inst. I, 1.8. 308 AFRICAN WRITERS num). He was a rhetorician, a pupil of Arnobius, and was called by Diocletian, probably soon after 290, to the position of professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia, where, probably, he first embraced Christianity. After the beginning of the persecution he was compelled to relinquish his office ; Jerome says, on account of lack of pupils. He was certainly still in Nicomedia up to 305 a.d.,1 and in 307 2 he apparently already had re moved to Gaul (Treves), where, when an old man ac cording to the unsupported statement of Jerome, he became the instructor of Crispus the emperor. He died about 340.3 S. Brandt, Ueber das Leben des Lad. (SAW, CXX), separately printed, Wien, 1890. 2. Lactantius was distinguished among all early Latin Christian writers by the elegance and superiority of his style, which won for him the title of the Christian Cicero.4 He was possessed of taste, fine feeling, and facility ; but, like the Roman rhetorician, he was lacking in originality. Moreover, he was possessed of lovable modesty, and he was perfectly clear in regard to the limitations of his ability.6 With the exception of Je rome and Augustine, no ancient ecclesiastical writer surpassed him in knowledge of the classics, and he has preserved for us many a passage from writings that have otherwise perished. He appears to have had less familiarity with the Holy Scriptures : the numerous quo tations, particularly in the fourth book of the Divinae Institutions, were borrowed from Cyprian's Testimonia. 1 Cf. particularly, Idem, V, n. 15. 2 See, however, 4 b, and 6, below. 3 Cf. Jerome, 80, and Chron. ad ann. Abr. 2333. 4 Pico da Mirandula. 6 De opificio dei, toward the close. LACTANTIUS 309 As to Christian writers, he was acquainted with and used Theophilus of Antioch, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Points of contact with the works of his teacher Arnobius, from whom he differed in regard to his hostile attitude to Lucretius, are uncertain. The writings of Lactantius have been much read from the earliest times, and even Lucifer of Calaris extracted largely from him. Jerome quoted from him frequently. Even now he is extant in two hundred and twenty manuscripts, the oldest of which1 belong to the sixth and seventh centuries, and the first periods of the art of printing vied in various editions. Prolegomena and Indices of the edition of Brandt and Laubmann. H. Roensch, Beitrdge zur patristischezt Textgestalt uzid Latinitdt. II, Aus Lactantius, in ZhTh, XLI, 1871, 531-629. S. Brandt, Der St. Galler Palimpsest der Divinae Institutiones des Lad. (SAW, CVIII), Wien, 1885. Idem, Lactantius und Lucretius, in Jahr biicher f. Phitol. CXLIII, 1891, 225-259. Idem, De Lad. apud Prudentium vestigiis {Festschrift), Heidelb. 1894. 3. Jerome2 knew of three works which Lactantius wrote while still a pagan, but they have been lost. (a) The Symposium was a youthful composition, writ ten in Africa, in which " learned, perhaps grammatical questions, or possibly only a single one, were treated" 3 in the manner beloved by Greeks and Romans. In spite of the view of Heumann, Symphosius' collection of enigmas had nothing to do with this work. (b) The Hodoeporicum was a description of the jour ney from Africa to Nicomedia couched in hexameters. 1 Codex Bononiens. 701, and Codex Sangallens. rescript. 213, both of the sixth and seventh centuries. 2 De Viris Illust. 80. 3 Brandt, p. 130. 3IO AFRICAN WRITERS (c) The Grammaticus, which "took its rise from" his special studies in grammar and rhetoric, was written possibly in Africa, otherwise in Nicomedia." 1 For the above and for what follows, compare S. Brandt, Ueber die Ezitstehungsverh'dttnisse der Prosaschriftezi des Lad. und des Buches De mortibus persecutoruzn (SAW, CXXV), Wien, 1891, and the Prolegomena to the second volume of Lactantius' Works (CSE, XXVII, p XXXVIII f. and LXXXU) . — L. Caelii Firmiani Lactantii Syzizposium, sive Centuzzi epigrammata tristicha aenigmatica [first published by Pithou, 1500]. . . . Chr. Aug. Heumannus, Hanov. 1772. 4. The first product of the literary activity of Lac tantius after embracing Christianity was (a) The little treatise De Opificio Dei (vel formatione hominis, as it is called by Jerome), which was written after the commencement of the persecution 2 and before the Divinae Institutiones ; 3 that is, probably in 304 a.d. It was addressed to a former pupil, Demetrianus, and was intended to exhort him not to forget his highest good in the midst of the temporal goods that had been richly showered upon him. Its principal subject is a demonstration of divine providence based upon the adaptability and beauty of the human body.4 Follow ing are some psychological discussions,5 and preceding is a reference to the importance of human reason.6 Only a couple of side references indicate that the author was a Christian, and in the course of the argument use is not made of Christian conceptions. His claim to independence in the continuation of the discussion of the problem which had been inadequately handled by 1 Brandt, p. 124. 4 §§ 5-13- 2 Cf. 1. 1, 7; 20, 1. 6 §§ 16-19. 3 Cf. Div. Inst. II, 10. 15. 6 §§ 2-4- LACTANTIUS 3 1 1 Cicero,1 is ill founded in so far as it is susceptible of proof that Lactantius derived his philosophical material from others, and particularly from a hermetic writing that is no longer extant. In regard to an addition made to Chapter 19, see the following paragraph.2 S. Brandt, Ueber die Quellen von Lacti's Schrift De opificio dei, in the Wiener Studien, XIII, 1891, pp. 255-292. (b) The Divinae Institutiones (not Institutiones divinae) formed Lactantius' principal work. It was an apology for the Christian religion, and was called forth by heathen pamphlets.3 Its purpose was not limited to a defence, but, after the manner of Institutes of Roman law,4 it was to serve as a positive introduction to the substance of Christian teaching.5 It was begun in Nicomedia, probably in 304, and it was completed in Gaul,6 possibly as early as 307 or 308, at all events before 311 a.d. In the first book (de falsa religione) the popular polytheistic belief was controverted and monotheism asserted, the existence of divine providence being meantime assumed to have been proved. In the second book (de origine erroris) the source and cause of human corruption were shown to be the demons and their chief, the Devil, and in this connection use was made of very unchurchly mythological speculations. The third book (de falsa sapientia) denied that heathen philosophy contained wisdom or can lead to wisdom ; true wisdom consists in knowledge and adoration of God. The fourth book (de vera sapientia et religione) 1 See Chap. 1. * Cf. I, 1. 12. 2 Toward the close of b. 6 V, 4. 3. 3Cf. V, 2-4. 6V, 2.2; 11. 15. 312 AFRICAN WRITERS pushed this train of thought further on its positive side, by showing that a correct knowledge of God was to be obtained through Christ, the Logos of God and the teacher of men, to whom mankind owed, as the fifth book (de justitia) showed, its restoration to righteousness, which had disappeared from this world since the golden age of Saturn. True adoration of God, as the author proceeded to show in the sixth book (de vero cultu), con sisted in the practice of this righteousness; binding men to reverence toward God (religio) and to love for their fellowmen (humanitas), the duties of which can only be correctly determined by Christian, not by phil osophical ethics. The seventh book (de vita beatd) formed the crown of the whole, painting the divine reward for human virtuous action, eternal blessedness, in strong colors which recall the ancient chiliastic hopes. Examination of this work shows certainly that Lactan tius made use of other men's material more than appears on the surface, and in view of the imposing array of heathen and Christian authors from whom he persist ently borrowed, there is not over much of his own con structive thought remaining. Considered as to their form, however, his Institutiones constitute the most complete of all Christian apologies. The text was augmented apparently as early as the fourth century by a Christian admirer, who added some dualistic pas sages 1 which carry out certain tendencies of Lactantius in this direction. There were added also two longer addresses in praise of Constantine the Great.2 1 II, 8, elaborating § 7, and VII, 5 ; cf. also de opificio dci, 19, elaborat ing § 8. 2 I, 1. 12, and VII, 26. 10; cf. also the frequently inserted brief apos trophes to the Emperor. LACTANTIUS 313 J. G. Th. Mullerus, Quaestiones Lactantianae, Gdttingen, 1875. P. Meyer, Quaestionuzn Ladantianaruzzi particula prima, Jiilich, 1878, 1-4. S. Brandt, Ueber die dualistischen Zilsatze und die Kai- seranreden bei Lactantius, I, II (SAW, CXV1II, CXIX), Wien, 1889. (c) The Epitome Divinarum Institutionum has been preserved complete only in a Turin codex of the seventh century,1 from which it first became known in 171 1.2 It is not a mere mechanical abridgment of the larger work, but is a brief re-elaboration of the subject in one book, made at the request of " brother Pentadius " and dedicated to him. To be sure, it is closely allied to the principal work, but it contains many additions, altera tions, and transpositions. There are no sufficient grounds for doubting its authenticity.3 Editions: Chr. M. Pfaff, Paris, 17 12. J. Davisius, Cantabr. 17 18. Translations : P. H. Jansen, in BKV, 1875. At the close, the Sibyl line Books are introduced by way of proof. Wm. Fletcher, ANF, VII, 224 f. (d) The treatise, De Ira Dei? dedicated to a certain Donatus, is the fulfilment of an intention announced in the Institutiones? of showing, in opposition to the phil osophical assertion of the passionlessness of God, the necessity of divine wrath, without which penal justice is unthinkable. The date of composition is uncertain, but reference is twice made to the Divinae Institutiones!1' Translation: R. Storf, in BKV, 1875. Wm. Fletcher, ANF, VII, 359 ff- 1 Codex Taurin. Reg. Tabul. I b, VI, 28, saec. VII. 2 Maffei, Pfaff. 3 See Brandt, Entstehungsverhaltnisse, etc., pp. 2-10. 4 Cf. Jerome, Comm. in Ephes. II, 4. 6 II, 17. 5. 6 Chap. 2, 5-6, and 1 1, 2, 314 AFRICAN WRITERS 5. The following named writings, which Lactantius wrote after he became a Christian, and probably after the Divinae Institutiones, have been lost, probably owing to the predominance of secular contents. (a) Ad Asclepiadem1 libri duo2 Subject unknown. (b) Ad Probum epistularum libri quattuor? This work is assigned by Teuff el and Schwabe 4 to the pre- Christian period. It treated of metrical and geographi cal subjects, and apparently, also, of philosophical and theological questions.5 Fragments have been preserved by Jerome,6 and Rufinus the grammarian.7 (c) Ad Severum epistularum libri dtto;8 written in Gaul. (d) Ad Demetrianum9 epistularum libri duo.10 Ac cording to Jerome,11 Lactantius expressed himself, in these letters, in regard to the Holy Spirit in an offen sively dogmatic manner. (e) A fragment with a superscription, De Motibus Animae, and ascribed in a marginal gloss to Lactantius, exists in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library, at Milan.12 Its contents (doctrine of the emotions) do not stand in contradiction to genuine expressions of the 1 Cf. Divin. Instit. VII, 4. 17. 2 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 80. 8 Jerome, Idem, 80. 4 Cf. § 2. 5, above. 5 Cf. Damasus, Epist. ad Hieron., and Jerome, Epist. 35, I. 6 Comm. Galat. II, Praef. {Opera, VII, 425). 7 Gramm. Lat. edit. Putsche, VI, 564. 7-565. 2. Cf. Opera, edit. Brandt, '55 f-5 158 (Victorinus); 163; and also his Entstehungsverhaltnisse, etc., 125 f. 8 Jerome, 80 and in. 9 Cf. De opif. Dei, 1, I, and Divin. Inst. II, 10. 15. 10 Jerome, 80. 11 Comm. Galat. II, 4 {Opera, VII, 450), and Epist. 84, 7. 12 Codex F. 60 Sup., VIII-IX Century. LACTANTIUS 315 author,1 and hence may quite readily have originated in one of his writings now lost. L. A. Muratorius, Antiqu. Ital. Ill, 1740, 849. S. Brandt, Ueber das in dezzi patristischen Excerptezicodex F. 60 Sup. der Azzibrosiana enthaltene Fragment des Lactantius de motibus anizziae. {Gyzzin. Progr.) Heidelb. 1891 ; idezzi, Entstehungsverhaltnisse, etc., p. 127. 6. The book, De Mortibus Persecutorum, is preserved in only one manuscript,2 where it is ascribed to one L. Caecilius. It is an incendiary composition of most unpleasant character, full of fanaticism, exaggerations, and frightful descriptions of repulsive occurrences. After a brief description of previous persecutions of Christians, and of the fate of the persecutors, the author turns to contemporary events in the period of Diocletian, concerning whose horrors he speaks from the position of an eyewitness, not as a historian, but as a controversialist. The work was composed, probably, in 314 to 315 a.d. in Nicomedia. Seeck places it in Gaul, in 320-321. Lactantius' authorship of it has recently been attacked by Brandt, in opposition to Ebert, on weighty grounds ; and it would be excluded entirely if it could be established beyond all doubt, that Lactantius was in Gaul as early as 307-308 a.d. Then only would Brandt's arguments, based on grammar, style, and difference of temper between the indubitably genuine writings of Lactantius and the De Mortibus, be unassailable. The circumstance which especially favors its genuineness is that Jerome 3 was acquainted with a work of Lactantius entitled De Persecutione, and the consequent difficulty of supposing that soon after the 1 Cf. Div. Inst. VI, 14-17, and De Ira Dei, 15-20. 2 Codex Paris. Lat. 2627. 3 De Viris Illust. 80. 316 AFRICAN WRITERS author's death an anonymous writing should have been attributed to him by one who had good knowledge of his other writings. Editions : St. Baluzius, Miscellanea, II, Paris, 1679, 1-46, 345-363 ; also separately. M. Fr. Dubner, Paris, 1863. — Translations: P. H. Jansen, in BKV, 1875. Wm. Fletcher, in ANF, VII, 301 ff. — A. Ebert, Ueber den Verfasser des Buches de mortibus persecutoruzzi, in ASGW, V, 1870, 1 15-138. P. Meyer, Quaest. Lad. (cf. 4 b, above), 4-8. S. Brandt, Ezitstehuzigsverhdltnisse, etc., 22-123, and JclPh, 1893, 121-138, 203-223. (J.) Belser, in ThQu, LXXIV, 1892, 246-293, 439-464. O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Vol. I, Supplement, Berl. 1895, 426-430. 7. Several Poems are ascribed to Lactantius. (a) De Ave Phoenice1 The myth of the phoenix is related (in 85 distiches), in its later form, according to which the bird burns itself in order to rise again from its own ashes (a worm or chrysalis). An introduction describes the sojourn of the bird as a priest in the grove of Phcebus. The poem is well attested by tradition as belonging to Lactantius,2 but an unfinished controversy exists in regard to its genuineness. Earlier scholars were inclined to deny the poem to Lactantius, on account of the antique character of its fundamental conceptions ; while later scholars, such as Riese, Dechent, Manitius, and Loebe, claim that its harmony with Christian con ceptions are proof of its genuineness. Brandt maintains that Lactantius was its author, but he assigns the poem to his heathen period. The last supposition would be excluded if, as Harnack holds, the first epistle of Clement3 were employed in the poem. 1 Codex Paris. 13048, saec. VIII-IX. 8 Chap. 25. 2 Gregory of Tours, De cursibus ecclesiasticis. LACTANTIUS COMMODIANUS 3 1 7 A. Riese, in RhM, XXXI, 1876, 446-452. H. Dechent, in RhM, XXXV, 1880, 39-55. A. Ebert (cf. § 2. 5, above), 97-101. M. Manitius (§ 2. 5), 44-49. R. Loebe, Izi scriptorczn carzziiziis de Phoenice . . . observationes, in JprTh, XVIII, 1892, 34-65 (many references to the literature). S. Brandt, in RhM, XLVII, 1892, 390-403. A. Harnack, Neue Studien, etc. (cf. § 7, above), p. &f. (b) De Passione Domini, no longer extant in manu script, was written in hexameters, and, according to Brandt, was a humanistic production that originated between 1495 and 1500 a.d. In it Christ relates the story of his own life, suffering, and death, urging others to follow him by referring to the everlasting reward. S. Brandt, Ueber das Lad. zugeschriebene Gedicht de passione dozziini, in Coznzzi. W'olfflizi, Lpz. 1891, 77-84. Opera Lad. II, pp. XXII-XXXIII, where a fuller account of the earliest editions is given. The first publisher was probably the author. M. Manitius (cf. §2. 5), p. 49 f. (c) De Resurrectione (Domini), extant in numerous late manuscripts, and ascribed to Lactantius, was a work of Venantius Fortunatus, of the sixth century. Opera Lad. II, pp. XXXIII-XXXVIII. The latest edition of the poem, which has not been included by Brandt, is found in Opera Venantii Fortuziati, edit. F. Leo, Berol. 1881 {Monument. Germ. hist. Aud. antiquiss. IV, 1). SUPPLEMENTARY § 89. Commodianus Editions: E. Ludwig, 2 fascic. Lips. 1877-1878. B. Dombart, in CSE, XV, Vindob. 1887. — Translation : R. E. Wallis, in ANF, IV, 203-218 {Instructions). Literature: B. Dombart (cf. § 86. 3 m, above). Fr. Hanssen, De arte metrica Coznmodiazii, in Dissertat. phitol. V, Argentor. 1881, W. Meyer (cf. § 76. 3 a), 288-307. G. Boissier, Paris, 1886. 318 AFRICAN WRITERS A. Ebert (§ 2. 5, above), 88-95. M- Manitius (§ 2. 5 ; 85. n e, above), 28-42. Harnack, LG, 731. 1. The poems of Commodianus are our only source of information concerning him. Even Gennadius 1 knew nothing further, though his characterization of the poet, and Gelasius' condemnation, form the only ancient testi monials. Commodianus, born and educated as a heathen, was possibly a Jewish proselyte before he embraced Christianity. He appears to have labored as a bishop about the middle of the third century.2 The inference drawn from the superscription to the last of the Instruc tions, that he lived at Gaza, in Palestinian Syria, is probably incorrect. 2. Commodianus was the first Christian Latin poet, though not exactly by the grace of God. But it is to be borne in mind as over against the fact that he poetized in barbarous Latin and in halting hexameters, that he employed the language of the people, in order to be able to reach them, and that originality cannot be denied to his poetical forms (acrostics, strophes, rimes, and line-formations), as long as prototypes for the same cannot be found.3 The wretched state of preservation of the text of both poems renders their interpretation difficult, and besides it is obvious that clearness of thought must suffer, to say the least, by reason of a forced and unnatural style, in the absurd attempt to write poetry in acrostic hexameters (as in the Instruc tions). Traces are apparent in both poems, showing that he had read classical writers, particularly Virgil ; 4 the Biblical citations were taken from Cyprian's Testi- 1 De Viris Illust. 15. 2 Cf. the subscription in the codex of the Instructions . 8 Meyer, p. 306 f. Cf., however, pp. 369-379. 4 Dombart, III-VII. COMMODIANUS 319 monia1 and use was made of Hermas,2 Minucius, Ter tullian, and Cyprian. 3. (a) The Instructiones per litteras versuum primas have been preserved in a manuscript of the ninth cen tury,3 and in two others dependent4 upon it. The work consists of eighty acrostics of various length, composed in rhythmic hexameters, and is divided into two books which, apparently, are not correctly marked off in the manu script.5 The first book begins by satirizing the heathen gods, and then continues by attacking the superstition, the sensuality, and the worldly pleasures of the heathen. It proceeds thence to consider the Jews and their asso ciates, closing with a view of Antichrist and the end of time. The second book contains exhortations and reproofs for Christians of every age and station. Their form may have recommended them for memoriter com mitment. Since all three books of Cyprian's Tcstimonia were employed in both books 6 of the Instructiones, the earliest date that can be fixed for their composition is in the sixth decade of the third century (250-260 a.d.). Editions : N. Rigaltius, Tulli Leuc. 1649 (following a copy made by J. Sirmond). Migne, Patrol. Lat. V. (b) The Carmen Apologeticum (adversus Judaeos et Gentes), preserved in a manuscript of the eighth cen tury,7 contains 1060 verses (mutilated toward the close of the manuscript), which treat of the following sub jects8 in six sections: (1) Introduction, stating the 1 Dombart. 2 Harnack, in ThLZ, IV, 1879, 52 f. 3 Codex {Cheltenham) Berol. 1825, saec. IX. 4 So Rose. 6 So Ebert. 7 Codex Cheltenham, 12261, saec. VIII. 6 Dombart. " Roensch, 169 f. 320 ROMAN WRITERS poet's past life and his purpose in writing, together with an exhortation ; J (2) Doctrine of God, man, and Redeemer;2 (3) Meaning of the names "Son" and " Father " ; 3 (4) Hindrances that prevent the Gospel from forcing its way in the world ; 4 (5) Admonition to the Jews, and warning to heathen against entrance into Judaism, as well as against remaining in idolatry ; 5 (6) Description of the last things.6 The last subject was handled by the poet with special liking. In the treatment he borrowed from the Apocalypse, the Sibyl line Books, the Fourth Book of Ezra, and Jewish myths. The date of composition of the poem appears to be defi nitely fixed in the year 249 a.d. by a reference to im pending (Decian) persecution, and to the passage of the Goths over the Danube.7 In favor of this conclu sion is the fact that only the first two books of Cyprian's Testimonia are used. Editions: J. B. Pitra, in SpS, I, 1852, XVI-XXV, 21-49 and 537-543. H. Roensch, in ZhTh, XLII, 1872, 163-302 (with anno tations). A. Ebert, in ASGW, V, 1870, 387-420. C. Leimbach, Ueber Com/nod^s Carmen apol. adv.gentes et Judaeos. Schmalkald, 1871. II. Roman Writers § 90. Caius Routh, RS, II, 125-158. S. D. F. Salmond, in ANF, V, 601- 604 (Fragm.). G. Salmon, in 008,1,384-386. A. Harnack, in RE, III, 63 f. J. Gwynn, Hippolytus azid his "Heads against Cams? in Hermathena, VI, 1888, 397-418. A. Harnack, Die Gwynn'schen 1 L. 1-88. 6 617-790. 2 89-276. 6 791-1060. 8 277-578. 1 Vers. 808 ff. 4 579-616. CAIUS HIPPOLYTUS 321 Cajus- und Hippolytusfragzziente, in TU, VI, 3, 1890, 121-128. Th. Zahn, Hippolytus gegezi Cajus, in GNK, II, 2, 973-991 (cf. I, 24, N. 3). — Fabricius, BG, 284-286. Harnack, LG, 601-603. In the library at Jerusalem,1 Eusebius2 read a work in the form of a dialogue written at Rome under Zephy- rinus, by an ecclesiastical and highly educated man named Caius, against Proclus the Montanist, and he preserved a couple of sentences therefrom. The con jecture based upon these extracts that Caius attacked the Johannine Apocalypse as a work of Cerinthus, has been confirmed by the five brief fragments found in the recently discovered excerpts from Hippolytus' refutation of Caius. One may infer from Eusebius 3 that Diony sius of Alexandria was acquainted with the dialogue. The statements concerning Caius, made by Photius4 on the basis of scholia, are either false or unreliable.5 § 91. Hippolytus Editions: J. A. Fabricius, 2 Tom. Hamb. 1716-1718. Gallan- dius (cf. § 2. 8 a), II, 409-530. Migne, Patrol. Graec. X, 261 (S^3)-962. P. A. de Lagarde, Lips. Lond. 1858. Cf. Analecta Syriaca (§ 75. 3 e), pp. 79-91. G. N. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis, Hippolytus Werke, I, Exegetische uzid hozniletische Schriften, Lpz. 1897, in Die griechischezi christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, I, Lpz. 1897. Translations : J. H. Macmahon, in ANF, V, 9-258 (Haer., Exeg. Dogm. and Hist. Fragm. Spurious Pieces). Literature : The earlier literature has become antiquated for the most part, since the discovery of the Philosophuzziena. K. W. Haenell, Comztzentatio historico-critica de episcopo. . Gdtting. 1838. E. J. Kimmel, De Hippol. vita et scriptis, I, Jenae, 1839. 1 Cf. § 58. 3, above. 2 Cf. Hist. Eccl. VI, 20. 1-3; cf. II, 25. 6; III, 28. I f., 31. 4. 8 Hist. Eccl. VII, 25. 1-3. 6 Cf. § 91. 5 a,g, h, and i. 4 Codex, 48; Bekker, 11,40-12, 17. Y 322 ROMAN WRITERS Chr. C. J. Bunsen, Hippolyt. und seine Zeit, 2 vols. Lpz. 1852, 1853. J. DSllinger, Hippolyt. uzid Kallistus, Regensb. 1853. (Engl. transl., by A. Plummer, Edinb. 1876.) C. P. Caspari, Uzigedruckte Quellen (cf. § 18), III, Christiania, 1875, 377-4°9- J- Jacobi, in RE, VI, 139-149. G. Salmon, in DCB, III, 85-105. J. B. Lightfoot, Hippolytus of Partus, in 5. Clement of Rome (cf. § 7), II, 317-477. K. J. Neumann (§ 45), Der romische Staat, etc., pp. 257-264. G. Ficker, Studien zur Hippolytfrage, Lpz. 1893. — Fabricius, BG, 183-197. Richardson, BS, 55-58. Harnack, LG, 605-646. 1. The darkness which has shrouded the life of Hippolytus has been dissipated to some degree by the discovery of his Philosophumena. The data preserved by tradition may be combined with his own statements in this work as follows : Hippolytus was born of Greek- speaking parents, possibly at Rome ; in theology he was a pupil of Irenaeus ;' as a presbyter of the Roman church under Zephyrinus (199-217) he was distin guished for his learning. Presumably, questions of theology and church discipline brought him into sharp conflict with this bishop, or, at all events, with his suc cessor, Callixtus, and in consequence Hippolytus stood for a time as bishop at the head of a separate congre gation. In 235 a.d. he, together with the Roman bishop Pontianus, was exiled to Sardinia,2 and there, very probably, he died (Erbes holds a . different view). The Roman church commemorates him as a saint on the thirteenth of August, the anniversary of his burial (236, 237) on the Via Tiburtina.3 His canonization either presupposes a reconciliation before his death,4 or 1 Photius, Codex, 121. 2 Catalogus Liberianus a. 354. 8 Cf. Depositio Martyrum ; Catal. Liberian.; and Martyrol. Rozzian. under this day. 4 Inscript. Damas. ; Harnack, LG, 612. HIPPOLYTUS 323 is connected with the fact that his name gave occasion to continue the heathen festival of Virbius (the son of Theseus, who was transported to Aricia), under cover of a festival in honor of a Christian martyr.1 In view of the recognized importance of Hippolytus it is strange that even Eusebius, so soon afterward, knew nothing. further in regard to his person than that he was bishop of an unknown see,2 and it is also strange that almost every trace of knowledge of the Roman schism became lost.3 There are extant, nevertheless, numerous attes tations of his Roman episcopate,4 and the statement that he was bishop of Portus, repeated even by Light foot, did not make its appearance till the seventh cen tury.5 His namesake, Hippolytus of Thebes, whose period is quite uncertain,6 has been frequently con founded with him. Lists of attestations are given by Lightfoot, II, 318-365, and by Harnack, LG, 605-613. E. Erbes, Die Lebenszeit des Hippolytus, etc., in JprTh, XIV, 1888, 611-646. C. Weyman, Seneca und Prudentius, in Comment. Wolfflin, Lpz. 1891, 281-287. 2. The most notable witness to the literary activity of Hippolytus is the list of his writings on the statue erected to him at Rome, perhaps immediately after his death,7 and discovered again in 1551.8 The fact that this list is not complete is shown by the independent lists of 1 Cf. Prudentius, Peristephanon, XI ; De Passione S. Hippolyii. 2 Hist. Eccl. VI, 20. 2; cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 61. 3 Cf., however, Ficker, pp. 109-115. 4 Apollinaris of Laodicea : Greek manuscripts. 5 Chronicon Paschale ; cf., however, Gelzer (§ 82), II, I. N. I. 6 Cf. Fabricius, VII, 1 98-200; Ficker, p. 1 f. 7 So Ficker. * In the following pages this list is designated as V. or as the " Statue List." 324 ROMAN WRITERS Eusebius1 and Jerome.2 To judge by these data the literary productivity of Hippolytus was very varied and comprehensive, extending into exegetical, homiletical, apologetico-polemical, didactic, chronographical, and ec- clesiastico-legal domains. Unfortunately his writings have been preserved in so fragmentary a condition that it is scarcely possible to draw conclusions from them touching his intellectual and literary significance. His principal polemical work 3 lacks independence, and the weakness of his chronographical works is obvious,4 yet it was not without reason that his cycle was engraved upon his statue. As an exegete he trod paths of his own, and in spite of his lack of taste in the use of typology, he was distinguished by comparative sobriety. Photius5 was probably correct in praising the clear ness and perspicacity of his style, though he was not willing to accord him the title of "Attic." Quite prop erly he was an object of admiration in the Roman con gregation of the third century in which scientific studies were not cherished, and he was the first and only occi dental of this period whose many-sided erudition recalls that of the Alexandrians. Editions of the Statue List: J. Ficker, Die altchristlichen Bild- werke im christlichen Museum des Laterans, Lpz. 1890, pp. 166-175 (where, p. 174 f., exact data are given regarding older editions and literature), and A. Harnack, LG, 605-610. N. Bonwetsch, Die christliche vornicdnische Litteratur in altslavischen Handschriften, in LG, 893-897. 3. Exegetical Works : With a single exception,6 only 1 Eccl. Hist. VI, 22; denoted in following by E or Eusebius. 2 De Viris Illust. 61; denoted in following by J or Jerome. 3 See No. 5 g, below. 4 See the possibly too severe criticism of Gelzer [cf. § 82], II, 23. 6 Codex, 121, 202. ° Under/ below. HIPPOLYTUS 325 fragments of the exegetical writings of Hippolytus have been preserved, while some of them are only known by title. (a) Et? tyjp igarj/xepop ([V: Koo-^oyopia^ E. J.). To this writing belonged, apparently, a fragment on the location of the Garden of Eden, which is preserved in the Sacra Parallela1 Use was made of the commentary of Ambrose.2 (b) Et? rd p,era ttjp e%arjp.epop (E), apparently identi cal with (c) Et? rf)p TepeaipQ. and Leontius). A considerable fragment, preserved by Jerome,3 employs Isaac, Rebecca, Esau, and Jacob respectively as types of God the Father, of the Holy Spirit, of the Jews and the Devil, and of the church or Christ. It was used by Leontius and John.4 On the numerous Catena-ira.gments, see the remarks of H. Achelis.5 (d) In Exodum : (J.) The existence of this com mentary is not beyond all peradventure.6 (e) Et? to? evXoyia1; rod BaAad//,. A fragment, treat ing of Christ as the God-man, is preserved in Leontius' work against Nestorius and Eutyches.7 (f) Et? top 'TiXKapdp Kal et? rr)v" Appj]P. Four frag ments, possibly belonging to a homily, have been pre served by Theodoret.8 (g) Et? ttjp ijjaarpip,v0op.9 In a fragment edited by 1 Lagarde, § 20. 3 Cf. Jerome, Epist. 36, 19. 2 Cf. Jerome, Epist. 84, 7; 48, 19. , 4 Rerutn Sacrarum, II; Lagarde, § 19 (on Gen. ii. 7). 5 In Harnack's LG, 628-633. 6 cf- LG> 633> No- 2S- 7 Contra Nest, et Eutych. ; Lagarde, 51. 8 Dialog, contra Haeret. I, II (Lagarde, 53, 54). 9 So the Statue List. Jerome gives De Saul el Pythonissa ; Nicephorus, in Hist. Eccl., gives Hepl Saoi>\ Kal UtiBoivos. 326 ROMAN WRITERS S. de Magistris,1 as belonging to Hippolytus,2 there is given an interpretation of the apparition (a demon as Samuel) which differs from that of Origen.3 (h) Et? rov? i/raX/xoi;?.4 Theodoret5 cited passages from this exposition on the ii, xxiii, xxiv, and quite likely on the cxix Psalms. These quotations, however, may have originated in homilies quite as well. A large frag ment in the Codex Casaziatensis,6 which treats of the superscription, author, division, and order of the Psalms, is in whole, or in large part, not by Hippolytus,7 as is apparent from its disagreements with a fragment pre served in Syriac.8 (i) Tlepl irapoLp,i5)v? On the numerous Catena frag ments, see the remarks of H. Achelis.10 (k) De Ecclesiaste11 Nothing extant ; the fragment 12 ascribed to Hippolytus by Magistris, is simply the Responsio to Quaestio XLIII of Anastasius Sinaita. (/) Et? to a<> 6 and two Syriac fragments 7 were related thereto. The Syriac fragments seem to betray acquaint ance with Melito.8 Achelis thinks that he recognizes extracts from Hippolytus' homilies on Matt. iv. and xxv. in the fragment of homilies preserved in the Canones Hippolyti, xxx. A translation of the speech els to. ayta. Oeotpdveia, by F. J. Winter, in Predigt der Kirche, XXII, Lpz. 1893, 13-19. S. D. F. Salmond, in ANF, V, 234-237. — H. Achelis, Zwei Fragmente hippolytischer Predigten, in Die dltesten Quellen, etc. (see No. 8, below), Anhang, II. 1 Photius, Codex, 121. 4 Caspari, 382 h, 194. 2 Lagarde, p. 2. 6 Cf. Jerome; see No. 7 a-b, below. 8 Cf. No. 3 g, h, m, r, s, above. 6 Cone. Lateran. ann. 640, Lagarde, 143. 7 Hippolyti sermonis de pascha, AS, IV, 55 f., 323 f. [Lagarde, Anal. Syriaca, 88 f.]. 8 Cf. § 40. 6. HIPPOLYTUS 331 5. Hippolytus directed his polemical writings against heathen, Jews, and heretics. (a) In his Philosophumena,1 Hippolytus cites as his own a treatise Tlepl rr)ov|A€va, but it had been incorrectly attributed to Origen and printed among his writings. That Hippoly tus was the writer of this work, though it is not men tioned in the Statue List nor by Eusebius or Jerome, appears to be rendered certain by internal evidence, particularly by its references to the Syntagma, to the work irepl rr)<; rov iraprb<; ovcrta?,1 and to the Chronicon ; 2 by its undeniable relationship to writings that are recog nized to be genuine, such as the Noe'tus and Antichrist ; and by the impossibility of making any other authorship even probable. Theodoret and Photius 3 were acquainted with it, or perhaps with the tenth book only, under the title AafivpipOos* and erroneously supposed it to be a work of Caius. The author's purpose, expressed in the Prooemium, was to refute all heresies by proving that they had drawn all their wisdom from heathen philoso phy. For this purpose he presents, in the first book, the views of the Greek philosophers, using, however, scanty excerpts5 as his sources and betraying very meagre special knowledge. Nothing can be made of the con tents of the second and third books (mysteries, Babylo nian, Chaldean ?), for in the recapitulation in the tenth book just these missing books (and the fourth also) are passed over in silence.6 The fourth book, which lacks its beginning, treats of astrology and its alleged arts, use being made of Sextus Empiricus. Not till the fifth book does the presentation of heretical theories begin, con tinuing thence to the close of the ninth book. The first twenty-nine chapters of the tenth book contain a re capitulation of what has preceded, followed, after a 1 Cf. 5 a, above. 4 Cf. X, 5. 2 X, 39. 5 Cf. Diets, 145-154. 8 Codex, 48. 3 Cf., however, X, 6, at beginning. HIPPOLYTUS 335 lacuna in the manuscript, by a chronological sketch occupying Chapters 30 and 31. Chapters 32 to 34 contain Hippolytus' confession of faith. An in vestigation of the sources used for the delineation of the Gnostic system1 has shown that those sections in which Hippolytus copied from (Justin), Irenaeus, and Tertullian, together with some brief notices which the author wrote independently and upon personal knowl edge, are beyond suspicion, but that on the other hand a whole array of other statements rests upon the ac counts which Hippolytus must have taken from a forger. The sections of the ninth book which treat of the dis sensions inside the Roman congregation, are of particular interest.2 The date of composition is to be placed in the later years of the author's life, if the passage in X, 30, really has reference to the Chronicon. On the last point Salmon holds a different view. Editio princeps of the Philosophumena, by Jac. Gronovius, in Thesaurus graec. antiq. X, 1701, 257-291. Cf. the editions of Ori gen by De la Rue, I, 872-909, and Lommatzsch, XXV, 279-338. G. Roeper, Emendationsversuche zu Hippolyts Philosophuzziena, in Philologus, VII, 1852, 511-553, 606-637, 667. The latest edition by H. Diels, Doxographi graeci, Berol. 1879, 551-576, cf. 144-156. Editio priziceps of the complete work, by E. Miller, Oxon. 185 1. L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin, Gdttingen, 1859. P. Crake, Paris, i860. Literature : Cf. G. Volkmar, Hippolytus und die r'dmischen Zeit- genossen, Zurich, 1855. P. de Smedt, De audore Philosophouzzienon, in Dissertt. sell., Ghent, 1876. G. Salmon, The Cross-Referezices in the Philosophuzziena in Hermathena, XI, 1885, 389-402 : cf. A. Har nack, in ThLZ, X, 1885, 506 f. Th. Zahn, in GNK, I, I, 24, N. 2 : cf. also II, 2, 987. H. Stahelin, Die gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts in seiner Hauptschrift gegen-die Haretiker, in TU, VI, 3, 1890. 1 So Salmon and Stahelin. 2 Cf. No. 1, above. 336 ROMAN WRITERS (h) Eusebius1 has preserved considerable portions of a 'S.irovSaap.a p.erd rr)po<; atpe'crea)? was written by Caius. Very probably this composition is to be attributed to Hip polytus. (i) Among his polemical writings are to be enumerated also the two treatises in which Hippolytus defended the genuineness of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John, viz. : (i) 'Tirep rov Kara 'lazdpprjp eizayyeXiov Kal diroKaXv-^reco<; Kal dtpOapo-ias, which Jerome calls De resuri'ectione , Anastasius Sinaita1 made a quotation in regard to the angelic state of men after the resurrection.2 Theodoret3 has preserved two frag ments on the same subject, taken from an 'Ettio-toX?) 7rpo? Bao-tXtoa nm.4 Some fragments which apparently belong to the same writing are found in four Syriac manuscripts,5 though they are marked as belonging to a Sermo de resurrectione ad Mammaeam imperatricem. Very probably the name of the addressee was obtained by conjecture, and the writing itself was identical with one cited in the Statue List as TlporpeirriKo^ 7rpo? Se/Sr/pet- vav (probably Julia Aquilia Severa). If the notice in the Statue List is not a later addition to the original, Hippolytus must also have written6 Ilept 8eov Kal aapKO's dpao-rdaea><;. (c) Concerning a Ao'70? 7rept 6eoXoyia<;, we are only informed by means of a citation in the Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649 a.d. ; 7 and a writing, mentioned in the Statue List (a later addition ?) as Ilept rdya6ov Kal irodep to KaKOP, may have had anti-Marcionite contents, and have been identical with the treatise, TIpo? Map/a- wva.8 Ebed-Jesu mentions a work, ITept olxovofiuK.9 7. The following were the chronographical writings of Hippolytus : — (a) The 'A7rdo"ei£i? ^popoap rov iraxr^a Kal ra (Ka6d, Kara, Kara rd) ep r£> iripaKt, as it is given in the Statue 1 Hodeg. 23. 2 Chap. 9. 8 Eranist. dial. II and III, Opera, IV, 131, 232 sq. 4 Lagarde, 10. 6 Pitra, AS, IV, 61-64, 33° sq- [Lagarde, Anal. Syr. 87 sq.] 6 Achelis, in LG, 606. 3 cf. j e< above 7 Lagarde, 8. 9 Assemani (§ 2. 8 b), III, 15. HIPPOLYTUS 339 List, was very probably identical with the first of the writings, Ilept rov irdaxa, mentioned by Eusebius.1 Ac cording to Eusebius, it contained chronological notices and an Easter canon of sixteen years, which was reckoned from the first year of Alexander Severus. It is to be assumed, consequently, that the reckoning of the Easter festival according to a cycle of sixteen years for the period from 222 to 233 a.d., which is engraved on the statue, belongs to this work (perhaps as a second book). The fragment concerning the char acter and time of the passover observed by Christ, which has been preserved in the Chronicon Paschale2 was taken from the first book of a work, Ilepi rov dyiov irda%a. Compare also the epicrisis in the Chronicon of Elias of Nisibis (eleventh century).3 Salmon has made it prob able that the canon was put forth in 224 a.d. Compare also the pseudo-Cyprianic writing, De Pascha computus} (b) On the second of the writings mentioned by Eusebius, Ilept rov irdaxa, see above.5 (c) The work mentioned in the Statue List as 'X.popiKaw (/Si/3Xo? ?) is lost in the original, and only fragments remain, which have to be picked out from the later Byzantine chroniclers.6 It can be reconstructed, how ever, to a certain degree, on the basis of Latin transla tions or redactions: (1) from the Liber generationis (mundi), which has been handed down in two forms : (a) separately, in a number of manuscripts,7 (b) in the 15th section of the Chronographer of 354 a.d., who 1 Cf. Jerome and Syncellus. 2 I, 12 sq. edit. Dindorf. 8 Lagarde, Anal. Syr. 89 sq. Pitra, AS, IV, 56 sq., 324 sq. 4 § 86. 6 d. 5 Cf. No. 4, above. K Mommsen, 86 sq.; cf. Pitra, AS, II, 274-282. A list is given by Gutschmid, 378 (242). ' Mommsen, 78-81 ; Frick, CCX-CCXV. 346 ROMAN WRITERS goes back to a Chronicon of 334 J1 and (2) from the statements in so-called Barbarus Scaligeri2 Two recen sions of the original must have been used as the basis of these compilations, the longer of which, the Chronicon Alexandrinum, was probably the older.3 Hippolytus' Chronicle closed with the last year of Alexander Seve rus, and, perhaps, was his last work.4 On insufficient grounds, Frick has contended that Hippolytus' Chronicle did not form the basis of the Liber generationis ; but on the other hand, he has shown 5 that Hippolytus borrowed from Clement.6 Gutschmid, Mommsen,7 and Frick 8 assert that Hippolytus made use of the Chronog- raphy of Africanus. This conclusion is doubted by Salmon,9 not without reason. The list of bishops con tained in Hippolytus' chronicle may be extracted from the Chronographer of 354 a.d. (13th section). Cf. the Editions of the Liber generationis and of Barbarus Scali geri, by Th. Mommsen. in Chronica minora saec. IV, V, VI, VII {Monum. Germ. Aud. antiq. IX), I, Berl. 1892, 78-140; and C. Frick, in Chronica minora, I, Lips. 1893, i-m (184-264). First edit, by Canisius, in Led. antiqu. II, 1601, 154 sqq. Literature : A. v. Gutschmid, Zur Kritik des Siapepio-pb'; Trjs yr)s, in RhM, XIII, 1858, 377-408 (in his Kleine Schriften, V, 1894, 240-273) ; Idem, Untersuchungen uber den A. t. y., etc., in his Kleine Schriften, 585-717, pas sizn. G. Salmon, in DCB, I, 506-508 {Chronicon Canisianuzn) ; Idezn, in Hermathena, X, 1891, 161 sqq. (?). H. Gelzer (cf. § 82), II, 1-23. J. J. Hoeveler, Die Ex cerpta latina Barb. {Festschrift), Bonn, 1895, 193-214. 1 Manuscripts given by Mommsen, 17-33. 2 Chronicon Alexandrinum ; cf. besides Mommsen and Frick, Eusebius' Chron. libr. duo, edit. A. Schoene, I, 1875, App. 175-207. 8 So Mommsen. ' p. 86. 4 Cf. also, 5 g, above. 8 pp. XXXV-XL. » pp. VI-XXV. 9 DCB, I, 507. 6 Stromal. I, 21. 109-136. HIPPOLYTUS 341 8. Finally, the works of Hippolytus on ecclesiastical law are to be mentioned.1 (a) In the AiBacrKaXia tojp dyiojv airocrroXap irepl xapia- p,dra>p,2 with which the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions3 opens, there may be recognized with probability a more or less thorough redaction of a work of Hippolytus which appears in the Statue List as Ilepi ^aptcr/uaVaif diroaroXiKr} irapdSoai'i. The dis cussions contained therein concerning the significance of gifts of grace reach their climax in the statement that even the possession of a charism does not consti tute a man pious, and that consequently an ignorant or immoral bishop is no true bishop. According to Achelis, Hippolytus wrote this dissertation while still a member of the larger communion, aiming it against Zephyrinus, i.e. before 217 a.d. Cf . the Editions of the Apostolic Constitutions (Lagarde, 230-236) . H. Achelis (see b, below), Anhang I, 269-280. (b) In the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitu tions 4 there is a section 5 entitled AtaTa£et? rmv airwp dylcop diroaroXap irepl xetPOT0Vl^>v $tA 'iTrTroXvTou, which also represents a redaction of an older writing. Achelis, with good reason, assumes that the source was the (38) Canones Hippolyti which have been preserved in Arabic, though in a much revised form. He is probably incor rect, however, in identifying it with the diroaroXiKr) irapdBocns 6 of the Statue List, and in supposing that it had been worked into the Egyptian Canons7 before 1 Cf. Jerome, Epist. 71, 6. 8 Chaps. 1 and 2. 2 Manuscripts noted by Harnack, LG, 643. 4 Chaps. 4 sqq. 6 Manuscripts noted by Harnack, LG, 643. 6 See a, preceding. 7 § 98- 4- 342 ROMAN WRITERS its contents passed into the Constitutions. Funk, on the other hand, considers that the Canons were a late compilation based upon the Constitutions. If Achelis is right, it is possible, with him, to regard the Canons as the document that was intended to constitute the platform of the opposition-church in the conflict with Callixtus. The Canons,1 after an introduction,2 deal with the ordination of the clergy ; 3 rules concerning catechumens, women, baptism,4 fasting,5 oblations, and the love-feast (agape)? Paschal fasts,7 the healing of the sick,8 eucharistic service,9 daily morning worship,10 and finally, the observances of daily life.11 On the frag ments of sermons contained in Canon XXX, see above.12 Editions: D. B. de Haneberg, Canones S. Hippolyti arabice e codicibus romanis cuzn versione latina, annot. et proleg. Monach. 1870. Latin version, H. Vielhaber's improved form of Haneberg's translation, given by H. Achelis, pp. 38-137 (see below). — Trans lation: V. Grdne, in BKV, 1874. Literature: H. Achelis, Die dltesten Quellezi des orientalischen Kirchenrechts. Erstes Buck : Die Canones Hippolyti, in TU, VI, 4. 1891. — Idem, in ZKG, XV, 1894, 1-43. — F. X. Funk, Die apos- tolischezi Konstitutiozien, Rottenb. 1891, 254-280. Idem, in ThQu, LXXV, 1893, 594-666 ; and separately, Tubingen, 1893. A. Harnack (review of Funk, 1891), in StKr, LXVI, 1893, 403-420. 9. Poetical works of Hippolytus would be attested if anything could be made out of the entry in the Statue List, as follows: 'Xl[t]Sat [e]t? 7racra? td<; (Harnack : q>Sal BiaKocriai. irdaa'i ras 7parpa?). 1 Arrangement given by Achelis, 140-142. 2 Canon I. 8 XXIV. 8 Canons II-IX. 9 XXXVII, XXVIII, XXX. 4 X-XIX. 10 XXX. 6 XX, XXXII. » XXV-XXVII, XXIX, XXIII, XXXVIII. « XXXII-XXXVI. 12 See No. 4, above. 7 XXII. HIPPOLYTUS 343 See H. Achelis, Ueber Hippolyfs Odezi und seine Schrift "Zur grossen Ode,11 in G'dttizig. Naclirichten, Phil. Hist. Klasse, 1896, pp. 272-276. Also P. Battiffol, Les prUendues "Odae in Scripturas " de St. Hippolyte, in Rev. bibl. internat. V, 1896, 268-271. 10. The following, ascribed to Hippolytus, are proba bly or certainly spurious. (a) The eight fragments of Kara Br)pa>pos Kal'TTXiKos irepl OeoXoyias Kal a-apKOJaecof 1 Kara aroixeiov X070? 2 preserved by Anastasius Apocrisiarius, in which, per haps, the remains of the Theological Outlines of the Areopagite are to be found. Cf. J. Draseke, Beron und Pseudo-Hippolytus, in ZwTh, XXIX, 1886, 291-318. Idezn, Gesazzizzielte patristische Untersuchungen, Altona and Lpz. 1889, 56-77. Opposite view, J. Langen, in Rev. Intern, de Thiol. II, 1894, 34. (b) Airjyijai?. This relates to an attempt to violate a Christian virgin at Corinth, and to her rescue by a brave youth.3 Palladius4 had read it as the work of a 7wwpijiio? t&p diroaroXwp, named Hippolytus. It calls to mind the legends of the Diocletian period. (c) The Ao'70? 7rept t?j? o-WTeXeta? rov Koapiov Kal irepl rov dprixpiarov Kal et? rrjp Bevrepav irapovaiap rod Kvpiov r)p.o>p 'Irjcrov 'Kpiarov? is a long composition which circulated in many manuscripts and versions. " At the earliest, it belongs to the ninth century," and was first published by J. Picus in 1556.6 (d) Four (five) fragments with dogmatic contents, preserved in Armenian, and published by Pitra.7 1 Cf. No. 6 b, c, above. 4 Historia Laus. 148. 2 Lagarde, 4. 6 Lagarde, 14. 8 Idem, 144. 6 J. Picus, Paris, 1556; cf. Newostrujew (cf. 6 a, above). 7 Pitra, AS, IV, 70 sq. (336 sq.). 344 ROMAN WRITERS (e) Material which originated with Hippolytus may possibly be found in the fragments ascribed to an Hip polytus, in an anonymous Arabic Catena on the Penta teuch. The Catena, however, dates from the tenth century at the earliest. O. Bardenhewer (cf. 3 p, above), 30-40. P. de Lagarde, Mate- rialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs, Heft 2, Lpz. 1867. The commentary on Genesis, Migne, Patrol. Graec. X, 701- 712 ("Fragmenta dubia in Pentateuchum") belongs here. (/) Nothing certain can be said about the sentence with psychological contents, printed by Lagarde,1 nor concerning the fragment 7rept tojp t/3'. diroaroXcap, irov e/cao-To? avrSiv eKr\pv^ev Kal irov ereXeid>0r] given by Migne.2 Cf. Constitutiones Apost. edit. P. de Lagarde, 282-284, and N. Bonwetsch, in LG, 896 sq. § 92. Novatian Editions: M. Mesnartus (J. Gangneius), Paris, 1545 (among the works of Tertullian). E. Welchmanus, Oxon. 1724. J. Jackson, Lond. 1728. Migne, Patrol. Lat. Ill, 911-1000. Translation : R. E. Wallis, in ANF, V, 603-650 (Trinity, Meats). Literature: A. Harnack, in Herzog and Plitt, Realencyclop. XI, 652-667. G. T. Stokes, in DCB, IV, 58-60. — Schoenemann, BPL, 135-143. Richardson, BS, 63 sq. Preuschen, LG, 652-656. 1. Concerning the life and works of Novatian, there are extant only the testimonials of his opponents, which give wholly ex parte statements, or distorted accounts of the facts.3 Novatianus4 was of unknown extraction, 1 Lagarde, 145. 2 Migne, Patrol. Graec. X, 951-954. 3 Cf. Cyprian, Epist. 44, 45, 49, 52-55, 59, 60, 68, 69, 73. Epist. Cornelii in Eusebius, VI, 43. Ep. Dionys. Alex. 1. c. VI, 45. Pseudo- Cyprianus, ad Novatianum. 4 So Cyprian and the Latin tradition. Eusebius, VI, 43, gives Nooudvos; later writers, Naudros. NOVATIAN 345 possibly an African, not a Phrygian, in spite of the statement of Philostorgius.1 He was baptized during a severe illness, and was ordained presbyter by the Roman bishop, it is alleged, against the protest of the entire clergy, and of many of the laity. In March, 251, he was consecrated as bishop in opposition to Cornelius, and, at the head of a rigorous party, he became the originator of a great schism in which for a time the whole church was involved, and whose traces can be followed in the Orient even into the Middle Ages. The statement that he was a martyr under Valerian, rests solely upon the testimony of Socrates.2 2. Very little has been preserved from the numerous treatises and letters of Novatian,3 among the rest being his principal work in (now lost) manuscripts of Ter tullian. That which is extant confirms the assertion of Jerome4 that Novatian possessed an original literary style, and also the judgment of his opponent, Cyprian,5 who ascribed to him philosophical training and rhetori cal ability.6 A comprehensive and thorough investiga tion of Novatian's literary activity is still wanting. 3. There have been preserved : — (a) The composition De Trinitate (de regula fidei), which was early ascribed to Tertullian or Cyprian,7 may safely be claimed for Novatian on the testimony of Jerome.8 This work, which was written at all events 1 Hist. Eccl. VIII, 15. 2 Hist. Eccl. IV, 28. 3 Cf. their enumeration by Jerome, De Viris Illust. 70; cf. Epist. 10, 3, and 36, I. 4 Contra Rufinum, II, 19. 5 Epist. 55, 24. 6 Cf. also the spiteful remarks of Cornelius, loc. cit. 7 Cf. the controversy between Rufinus {de adult, librr. Orig. Lom matzsch, XXV, 395) and Jerome {Contra Rufin. II, 19). 8 De Viris Illust. 70. 346 ROMAN WRITERS before the schism, treats first of God and his attributes;1 second (coupled with a rejection of the theological theories of Sabellius), of Christ as the true God-man ; 2 and closes, after a brief exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost,3 with a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity against Monarchian objections.4 Theologically, the author was under the influence of Irenaeus and Ter tullian ; 5 his book, both in form and contents, was an important contribution, being the sole presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Western church before Augustine. Edition: Whiston, in Sermons and Essays, 1709. Translation: Chr. Fr. Rdssler, in Bibl. d. KVv. Ill, Lpz. 1777, 278-307 (Extract). R. E. Wallis, in ANF, V, 611-644. (b) The small treatise in epistolary form, De cibis fitdaicis (Novatianus plebi in evangelio stanti salutem) was written in a time of persecution ; 6 that is, probably, in 250 a.d., and does not presuppose the existence of the schism. Preceding it there had been two other writings which are also mentioned by Jerome ; viz. De Circumcisione and De Sabbato. These Jewish questions appear, consequently, to have been burning. Novatian treated the question of distinctions touching food, by showing that the divine prohibition held good for Jews, but that for Christians only one prohibition existed, that they should eat no meat offered to idols. 4. Nothing is known touching the circumstances under which the remaining works mentioned by Jerome were written : De Pascha, De Sacerdote, De Oratione 1 1-8. * 30-31. * 9-28. K Jerome, loc. cit. iTi.rop.iiii operis Tertulliani faciens. 3 29. 6 Chap. 1. VICTORINUS OF PETTAU 347 (the older manuscripts, except the Vatican, read thus ; the Vatican has ordinatione), De Tzistantia (irepl ra>v epecrrdircop), and De Attalo (multaque alia). Harnack conjectures that the first mentioned was identical with the Pseudo-Cyprianic writing De pascha computus.1 5. (a) In the collection of Cyprian's letters, two writings have been included, the first of which2 cer tainly,3 the second4 very probably, was written by No vatian as correspondent for the Roman congregation during the vacancy of the see after the martyr death of Fabian.5 (b) Weyman and Demmler6 have sought to show that the Pseudo-Cyprianic writings De Spectaculis and De bono pudicitiae proceeded from Novatian. Accord ing to Harnack, the work De laude martyrW1 also was written by Novatian. III. The Remaining Occidental Writers § 93. Victorinus of Pettau Editions : Theophyladi Ennarrationes in Pauli epp. edit. J. Loni- cerus, Paris, 1543 (Apoc). M. de la Bigne (cf. § 2. 8 a), VI, 713- 730 (edit. Colon. 1618, III, 136-142) (Apoc). A. Rivinus, Gotha, 1652 (Apocryphal writings). Max. Bibl. Patr. (cf. § 2. 8 a), III, 1677. Cave (cf. §2.4 b), I, 1688, 102-104. Gallandi (cf. §2.8 a), IV, 49-64. Migne, Patrol. Lat. V, 281-344. Routh, RS, III, 453- 473 (de fabrica zziundi). Translation : R. E. Wallis, ANF, VII, 341-368 (Creation, Apoc). Literature : J. Launoius, De Vidorino episcopo et mar tyre disser- tatio, Paris, 1653, 2d edit. 1664. J. Haussleiter, Die Kozzimentare des Victorinus, Tichonius und Hieronyizius zur Apokalypse, in 1 Cf. § 86. 6 d. 5 Cf. Harnack (§ 86. 4, close). 2 'Epist. 30. 6 Cf. § 86. 5 a-b. 3 Cf. Epist. 55, 5. 7 § 86. 5 c. 4 Epist. 36. 348 OCCIDENTAL WRITERS ZkWL, VII, 1886, 239-257. H. A. Wilson, in DCB, IV, 1128 sq. J . Haussleiter, Der chiliastische Schlussabschnitt im echten Apoka- lypsekomzzientar des Biscliofs Vid. von Pettau, in ThLB, XVI, 1895, 193-199. — Schoenemann, BPL, 144-147. Preuschen, LG, 731-735. 1. Victorinus, bishop of Petavio (Pettau, in Styria), fell a martyr in the Diocletian persecution.1 The statement of Cassiodorus 2 that in his earlier years he had been a rhetorician, probably arose from confounding him with Victorinus Afer, of the fourth century. Jerome 3 names him as author of commentaries on Genesis,4 Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Ecclesiastes,5 the Song, Matthew,6 and, finally, on the Apocalypse. In these, Victorinus had copied Origen,7 and Jerome 8 has more to say regarding the good intention, than concern ing the execution of these works, whose Latin betrays the born Greek. A single fragment, published by Cave from a Lambeth manuscript, is extant : De fabrica mundi. It may be genuine, and, in that case, it must be referred to the commentary on Genesis. There is also a com mentary on the Apocalypse, in a shorter9 and a longer 10 recension, by means of which perhaps the original work may be reconstructed after the removal of the portions that Jerome wove into it from the work of Tichonius. Attention is due to the remarks of Kattenbusch,11 who 1 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 74; Martyr. Roman. 2d November. 2 Inst. div. lit. 5 and 7. 3 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 74. 4 Cf. Epist. 36, 16. 6 Cf. Comm. Ezech. on iv, 13. Opera, V, 425. 6 Cf. Comm. Matth. praef, and Cassiodorus, loc. cit. 7 Jerome, Epist. 84, 7; 61, 2. 8 De Viris Illust. 74; cf. Epist. 58, 10; 70, 5; Contra Rufin. I, 2. 9 Published by Lonicerus and De la Bigne. 10 Published by Gallandi and Migne. 11 F. Kattenbusch (cf. § 18), p. 213 f. RETIC1US OF AUTUN 349 reckons with the possibility that even Tichonius himself remodelled the commentary. Recently Haussleiter has discovered the genuine conclusion of the commentary.1 2. In the last place, Jerome2 names among the works of Victorinus a treatise Adversus omnes haereses. It may be that it is contained in the Pseudo-Tertullian sup plement to De praescriptione haereticoriim, since Victo rinus, according to Jerome,3 copied Hippolytus, whose Syntagma presumably was used in that tractate.4 A striking relationship exists between the genuine portions of the commentary on the Apocalypse and the Pseudo- Tertullian poem Adversus Mazxioziem^ The other things printed (by Rivinus) under the name of Victorinus do not belong to him. § 94. Reticius of Autun Harnack, LG, 751 f. Reticius, bishop of Autun, took part as representative of the Emperor Constantine, in the Anti-donatist synod held at Rome in 313 a.d. He wrote a Commentary on the Song of Songs, in which, according to the statements of Jerome,6 a most curious sort of exegesis was prac tised. A sentence from a writing by him against Nova tian"1 has been preserved by Augustine.8 Harnack9 supposes that Reticius was the author of the Pseudo- Cyprianic writing Ad Novatianum. 1 In the Codex Ottobon. Lat. 3288 A. 2 De Viris Illust. 74. 3 Epist. 36, 16. * So Harnack; cf. § 85. II b, above. 5 Haussleiter, p. 254 ff. ; cf. also § 85. II d. 6 Epist. 37, I ; cf. 5. 2, and De Viris Illust. 82. 7 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 82. 8 Contra Julian. Pelag. I, 3, 7, and Op. imp. cont. Jul. I, 55. 9 LG, 718, 752. CHAPTER III EPISCOPAL AND SYNODAL WRITINGS §§63.4; 68. g; 69. c; 74; 75.2 c; 77; 81; 84; 86. 4. § 95. Roman Bishops 1. Nothing worthy of credence is known with regard to the literary activity of Zephyrinus (circa 199-217 a.d.). Optatus of Mileve1 alleges that he wrote against the heretics.2 2. Callixtus (217-222 a.d.) in an edict, which possi bly was prefaced with full reasons,3 declared fleshly sins to be venial, and the episcopal power of the keys to be indisputable. Tertullian's writing, De Pudicitia, in which Callixtus was attacked, furnishes material for the reconstruction of this edict, which possibly was written in Greek.4 J. B. De Rossi, in Bull. Archeol. Christ. 1866, 26. A. Harnack, in ZKG, II, 1878, 582. Herzog und Plitt, Realencykl. VIII, 420 ; X, 562. E. Preuschen (cf. § 85. 9 a), 48 f. E. Rolffs, Das Indulgenz- Edikt des r'dzziischen Bischofs Callist. in TU, XI, 3, 1893 (recon struction). — Harnack, LG, 603-605. 3. Pontianus (230-235 a.d.) appears to have put forth a writing in the matter of the condemnation of Origen.5 1 Schism. Donat. I, 9. 2 Cf. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, IX, 21 ; Harnack, LG, 597. 3 So Rolffs. 4Cf. §85. gh. 5 Cf. Jerome, Epist. 33, 4, (84, 10; Eusebius, VI, 36. 3) ; Harnack, LG, 648. 35° ROMAN BISHOPS 35 I 4. Eusebius1 mentions three2 letters of Cornelius (251-253), written in Greek to Fabius of Antioch, which he had read at the library in Caesarea. Eusebius 3 has preserved seven fragments (some of them extensive) of the third letter which was written in connection with Novatianist affairs. Besides, Cornelius wrote at least seven letters to Cyprian, two of which have been pre served,4 while the existence of the other five can be inferred from Cyprian's letters.5 Fabricius, BG, 191-293. Routh, RS, III, 19-89. Harnack, LG, 650-652. 5. Stephanus6 (254-257 a.d.) wrote to the Syrian and Arabian congregations,7 and also to the Oriental bishops,8 as well as to Cyprian,9 in the controversy in regard to heretical baptism. 6. Sixtus II (257-258 a.d.), according to Harnack,10 wrote the treatise ad Novatianum which stands under the name of Cyprian. 7. Athanasius ll has preserved a considerable frag ment taken from a writing of Dionysius (259-268 a.d.) against the Sabellians. In it the question of the gen eration of the Son by the Father is discussed. Besides, Dionysius wrote to his namesake, Dionysius of Alexan- 1 Hist. Eccl. VI, 43. 2 Jerome (De Viris Illust. 69) incorrectly says, four. 8 §§ 5-20. 6 Epist. 45, 1 ; 48, 1 ; 5°; 59. I~2- 4 Cyprian, Epist. 49 and 50. 6 Harnack, LG, 656-658. 7 Dionys. Alex, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. VII, 5. 2. 8 Idem, VII, 5. 4. 9 Epist. 74, 1 (a sentence is there given). 10 Cf. § 86. 6 a. 11 Decreta Synod. Nic. 26; cf. Sentent. Dionys. 13. 352 SYNODAL WRITINGS dria, in the same matter,1 and he addressed a letter of consolation to the congregation at Caesarea in Cappa docia.2 Fabricius, BG, 293 f. Routh, RS, III, 37i-4°3- Harnack, LG, 659. 8. A fragment (containing a confession of faith) belonging to a letter forged by the Apollinarists and ascribed to Felix (269-274) was read at the Synod of Ephesus, 449 a.d.3 § 96. Acts of Synods 1. Only meagre remains of the documents, connected with the acts of the numerous synods of the third cen tury, have come down to us. The following have been lost: The acts of the synods convened by Bishop Demetrius at Alexandria in 231 or 232 a.d. with a view to the condemnation of Origen ; 4 the acts of the synod held at Bostra (about 244 a.d), in reference to Beryllus,6 in which Origen took part6 (these Eusebius7 had seen8); the acts of an Arabian synod held about the same time, in reference to the Thnetopsychitae, in which also Origen took part ; 9 the acts of the synods in refer ence to Novatianist affairs, held at Rome in 251 10 and 252 a.d.11 and at Carthage in 25 1,12 and also various 1 Athanasius, Sentent. Dionys. 13. 2 Basil, Epist. 70. 8 Cf. C. P. Caspari (cf. § 75. 3 b), 1 1 1-1 23; —Harnack, LG, 659 f. 4 §61. 2. 6 § 84. 6 § 61. 7 b. 7 Hist. Eccl. VI, 33. 3; cf. Jerome, De Viris, 60; and Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Ill, 7. 8 Harnack, LG, 514 f. 9 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 37; August. Haer. LXXXIII; LG, 515. 10 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI, 43. 2; cf. Cyprian, Epist. 55, 6. 11 Cyprian, Epist. 52. ia Cyprian, Epist. 55, 6; 59, 13. ACTS OF SYNODS 353 African synods held in reference to the controversy on heretical baptism ; and finally the Acts of the first two synods directed against Paul of Samosata. 2. The following have been preserved : — (a) A writing in reference to the question of penance, directed to Cornelius of Rome in the year 25 3,1 by forty-two African bishops gathered under the presi dency of Cyprian ; (b) A writing in reference to infant baptism, com posed by Cyprian and fifty-six bishops, and directed to Fidus in the year 253 (252 ?) ;2 (c) A writing by Cyprian and thirty-six bishops to Legio and Emerita in Spain, in the year 256,3 in refer ence to the reinstatement of Bishops Basilides and Martialis ; (d) Two writings of the first and third (second) synods assembled at Carthage in connection with the controversy concerning heretical baptism, which were issued in the years 255-256^ (e) The protocol of the third Carthaginian synod, in connection with the baptismal controversy of the year 256, under the title Sententiae episcoporum num. LXXX VII de haereticis baptizandis ; 5 On the Carthaginian synods, see Routh, RS, III, 93-217. (/) A writing of Bishops Hymenaeus (of Jerusalem), Theophilus, Theotecnus (of Caesarea), Maximus, Pro clus, and Bolarius, to Paul of Samosata, composed before 268, in which they explain to him their belief, which 1 Cyprian, Epist. 57; cf. § 86. 4. 8 Cyprian, Epist. 67; cf. 86. 4. 8 Cyprian, Epist. 64; cf. § 86. 4. 4 Cyprian, Epist. 70-72; cf. § 86. 4. 6 Cyprian, Opera, ed. Hartel, I, 433-461 ; Harnack, LG, 728 f. 2A 354 SYNODAL WRITINGS they allege to have been derived from the Apostles.1 No manuscript is known ; 2 (g) A number of fragments from the writing in which the bishops assembled at Antioch (probably in 268), acquainted Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alex andria with the excommunication pronounced on Paul. According to Jerome's3 statement (which is probably worthless), the writing was composed by Malchion, the opponent of Paul.4 The fragments are given, part by Eusebius,5 part by Leontius ; 6 (h) With regard to the fragments of the disputation between Paul of Samosata and the presbyter Malchion, following the shorthand reports of the Acts of the Synod of Antioch, see above.7 1 On the names, cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VII, 30. 2. 2 Routh, RS, 289-299, LG, 525 f. 8 Jerome, De Viris Illust. 71. 4 Cf. § 78; translated by S. D. F. Salmond, in ANF, VI, 169-171. 5 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VII, 30. 6 Adversus Nestor, et Eutych. Ill; Routh, RS, 303-313; Harnack, LG, 520 f. 7 Cf. § 78. THIRD SECTION Ecclesiastical Literature in the Second and Third Centuries § 97- Symbols and Creeds Literature: See § 18. A. Harnack, Dogznengeschichte, 3d edit. (§ 2. 7. e), I, 320-337. C. P. Caspari, Hat die alexandrinische Kirche zur Zeit des Ctezziezis ein Taufbekenntniss besessen, oder nicht? in ZkWL, VII, 1886, 352-375. — Harnack, LG, 235, 262, 291, 551, 667. The African baptismal symbol, which can be recon structed from Tertullian's writings principally,1 is to be traced back to the Roman.2 On the other hand, the confession whose existence in Irenaeus'3 works can be proved, may have been an inheritance from Asia Minor. The question whether a fixed and formulated baptismal confession existed at Alexandria as early as the time of Clement4 may be answered in the affirmative with Caspari, rather than in the negative with Harnack. But still, the question as to the extent to which the Oriental national churches possessed baptismal confes sions in the third century, is, at the present state of in vestigation, as little ready for decisive answer as is the other question, whether the single demonstrable case5 of relationship between the Caesarean baptismal con- 1 Harnack, Patr. Apost. 118-123. 8 Harnack, Idem, 123-127. 2 Cf. Tertullian, Praescript. 36. 4 Stromata, VII, 15, 90. 6 See the Caesarean baptismal symbol; Hahn, § 116. 355 356 CHURCH-ORDERS fession and the Roman symbol, justifies the conclusion that the Oriental type of symbol was dependent upon the Roman, or is to be urged as showing that the Roman symbol originated in the East (Asia Minor). The sym bol of Gregory Thaumaturgus exhibits no kinship to the Roman.1 On the symbol of Lucian the martyr, see above.2 § 98. Church-Orders Harnack, LG, 28, 451-466, 515-518. The great law-book of the Greek (Oriental) church, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the collections of church- orders of the Copts, Ethiopians, and Arabians, were first compiled as such during and after the fourth cen tury. Scholarship is busy in ascertaining the sources that were employed in their construction ; some of them reaching back into the second and third centuries. So far as these efforts have met with success, their results must here receive attention. 1. Under the title Didascalia, i.e. catholic doctrine of the twelve Apostles and of the holy disciples of our Redeemer, there has been preserved in the Syriac lan guage 3 a church-order which, as is generally recognized, lies at the basis of the treatment of the same subjects in the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions. After some exhortations to Christians in general,4 it treats of the qualifications, duties, and rights of bishops,5 of matters in dispute between Christians,6 of gather ings for worship,7 of widows, deacons, deaconesses, and 1 Hahn, § 1 14; cf. § 75. 3 b, above. 5 Chaps. 4-9. 2 § 79, above. » Chaps. 10-n. 3 Codex Sangerm. Syr. 38. 7 Chaps. 12-13. 4 Chaps. 1-3. DIDASCALIA 357 orphans,1 of martyrs and the influence of martyrdom,2 of fasts,3 of the training of children,4 and of heresies,5 closing with a recapitulation of the principles of the Apostles in the composition of the Didascalia? and warnings against Jewish tendencies.7 This Didascalia originated in Syria or Palestine, but views vary in re gard to the date of its composition. Funk sees in the Syriac Didascalia an exact reproduction of the original Greek text, and considers it " approximately certain that the work originated before the middle of the third cen tury," and as "quite probable that it belonged even to the first quarter of the century." Harnack feels com pelled to "recognize, in the copy translated by the Syrians, a slight modification of the original Didas calia,"* and ascribes "the latter to the first half of the third century, the former to the second half." Katten busch suggests the query whether the Didascalia may not have been made by Lucian 9 for his congregation. The author was acquainted with the Didache (in what form is doubtful), the Epistles of Ignatius,10 and the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles ; u according to Funk, he had also read Justin and Hegesippus (?). The Arabian and Ethiopian Didascalia are of later origin and are not treated here.12 Editions: (P. de Lagarde), 1854 (Syriac). Idem (P. Bdtticher), in C. C. J. Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, II, Lond. 1854 (Re- translation into Greek, with use of the text of the Constitutions) . 1 Chaps. 14-18. 6 Chap. 23. 2 Chaps. 19-20. 6 Chaps. 24-25. 8 Chap. 21. 7 Chap. 26. 4 Chap. 22. 8 Cf. the Antinovatianist (?) sections in Chaps. 6-7. 9 Cf. § 79, above. n Funk, 74. 10 Cf. Zahn's edit., 336 f. 12 Funk, 207-242. 358 CHURCH-ORDERS Exact indication of contents (according to information furnished by Socin) in Funk, Die Apost. Konstit. (§ 81. 8 b), pp. 28-40. A. Harnack, StKr, 1893, 404 f. (cf. § 91. 8 b). F. Kattenbusch, Das Apost. Symbol. I, Lpz. 1894, p. 394. 2. The foremost place among the ecclesiastical writ ings which were highly esteemed by the Southern and Northern Egyptians, by the Ethiopians and by the Egyptian Arabians, from the period of the ancient church, was occupied by the Kaiwe? iKKXrjcnaariKol tS>v djiap diroo-roXcov, i.e. Ecclesiastical Canons : (Apos tolische Kirchenordnungen). The name given in the Codex Vindobonensis is At Biarayal al Bid K.Xrjp.epro<; Kal Kap6pe<; ckkX. t. d. a. ; and in the Ethiopian edition, Canones patrum apostolorum sanctorum quos constitue- runt ad ordinandam ecclesiam sanctam ; a title which also applies to the Egyptian Church-Order (No. 4, below). Its thirty 2 canons contain ethical 3 and ecclesi astical 4 prescriptions. They have been handed down (a) in Greek ; 5 (b) in Coptic, both in a Southern Egyp tian (Sahidic or Theban) and in a Northern Egyptian (Memphitic) edition, the latter being dependent upon the former ; (c) in Ethiopic, in a form also dependent upon the Theban ; 6 and (d) in Arabic, still unpublished. The moral regulations have been handed down sepa- 1 Known in Germany generally (though not uniformly) as Apostolische Kirchenordnungen (Apostolical Church-Orders, or Canons). The term, " Ecclesiastical Canons," approves itself as being nearest to the Greek, but English usage varies. These Canons are to be distinguished from the "Apostolical Canons" (erroneously called "Ecclesiastical Canons" in ANF, VII, 500-505), which are usually appended to the Apostolic Con stitutions. 2 So Lagarde, following the Theban edit. 3 4-14. 5 Codex Vindob. hist, graec. 45. 1 (1-3), 15-20. 6 Cf. however, Funk, 247. ECCLESIASTICAL CANONS 359 rately : (a) in Greek,1 in two manuscripts of the tenth and fourteenth centuries, and (b) in Syriac.2 It is sus ceptible of proof3 that in this form they do not represent the original of, but fragments from, the longer recen sions. According to Harnack's investigations, this church-order was a clumsy compilation from earlier writings, made in Egypt about 300 a.d., use having been made of the Didachei and the Epistle of Barna bas for the moral regulations, and of two disquisitions dating from the second century, for the canonical regu lations. The latter two are designated by Harnack as Karao-TOo-i? rov KXrjpov,5 and K.ardo-raai'i t>)9 eKKXrjcria'i.6 In these portions the Pastoral Epistles were much used. Editions: H. Ludolf, Cozzimezit. in hist. Aethiop. Francof. 1681, 314 sqq. (Ethiopic and Latin) ; cf. W. Fell, Canones Apostoloruzzi aethiopice, Lips. 1881. J. W. Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, I, Giessen, 1843, 107-132 (Greek). H. Tattam, The Apostolic Consti tutions or Canons of the Apostles, in Coptic, with an English Trans lation, Lond. 1848 (Memphitic version). A. P. de Lagarde, Reliquiae juris eccles. antiquissiiziae, Lips. 1856 (Greek, according to Codex Vindob., and with retranslation into Greek from Codex Sangerzn. Syr. 38 ; cf. remarks on the Theban edition in Codex Muss. Britt. 440, Sup. IX-XX). Idem, Aegyptiaca, Gdttingen, 1883 (Theban text, following the Codex Mus. Britt. Orient. 1320, Ann. 1006). J. B. Pitra, Juris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta, I, Rom. 1864, 75-88 (Codex Vindob. and Codex Ottob.). A. Hilgenfeld, in Nov. Test., etc. (§ 3), IV, 1866, 93-106; 2d edit. 1884, 110-121. O. de Gebhardt, in Pair. Apost. (§ 3), I, 2 (2d edit.), 1878, XXVIII- XXXI (Codex Mosqu.). F. X. Funk, in his edition of the Doct. 1 Codex Mosqu. graec. CXXV, saec X (Canons 4-14), and Codex Ottob. graec. 408, saec. XIV (4-13), where a fragment of the Didache is found, not contained in other recensions. 2 Codex Sangerzn. Syr. 38 (3-14). 8 So Harnack. 5 Canons 16-21. 4 The earliest Didache, cf. § 21. 3. 6 Canons 22-28. 360 CHURCH-ORDERS apost. (§ 21), 50-74. A. Harnack, in TU, II, 1-2, 1884, 225-237 (Greek), and TU, II, 5, 1886, 7-31 (Canons 16-28, Greek and German) . Literature : See the prolegomena and commentaries of the various editions, especially Bickell, pp. 87-97, 178 sqq. passim (gives the older literature [Vansleb. Ludolf ]), and Harnack, loc. cit. II, 1, 2, 193-241 (on the AtSa^ and the so-called Ecclesiastical Canons), II, 5 (on the sources of the so-called Ecclesiastical Canons). A. Krawutzcky, Ueber das altkirchliche Unterrichtsbuch: "Die zwei VVege oder die Entscheidung des Petrus,11 in ThQu, LXIV, 1882, 359-445. F. X. Funk (§ 81. 8 b), pp. 243 sq. 3. The facts cannot be determined with certainty in regard to the Duae Viae vel fudicium secundum Petrum (Petri), which Rufinus substituted in his Latin render ing of Athanasius'1 list of canonical writings, in place of the AiBaxv KaXovpiep-q toip diroaroXoop.2 The Didache cannot be meant, since at another place 3 Rufinus desig nates it correctly as Doctrina quae dicitur apostolorum.^ Apparently,5 reference is made to the Ecclesiastical Canons, and the second title is sufficiently explained by the " Judgment " of Peter in the thirtieth canon. 4. The so-called Egyptian Church-Order, that is, the thirty-two canons which follow the Ecclesiastical Canons in the Egyptian law-book, forms, according to Achelis,6 the intermediate step between the canons of Hippolytus and the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, and therefore must have originated, at the latest, in the first half of the fourth century. Funk7 differs from this view, holding that the Church-Order was an extract from the Constitutions. 1 Festal Epistle, 39. 2 Exposit. in symb. Apost. 38 : cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. I. 8 Transl. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Ill, 25. 4 Cf. the fragment given by v. Gebhardt. 6 Cf. § 91. 8 b. 6 Harnack holds otherwise. 7 Cf. § 91. 8 b, DE VIRGINITATE 36 1 SUPPLEMENTARY § 99. The Pseudo-Clementine Epistles De Virginitate Editions: J. J. Wetstenius, Lugd. Bat. 1752; Migne, PG, I, 379- 452 (following CI. Villecourt, Paris, 1853). J. Th. Beelen, Lovan. 1856, F. X. Funk, in Opera Patr. Apost. (cf. § 3), II, 1-27 (Latin). — Translations: P. Zingerle, Wien, 1827. B. P. Pratten, in ANF, VIII, 53-66. Literature : The prolegomena and commentaries connected with the editions. B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Cazion of the N. T., Cambridge and Lond., 5th edit. 1881, pp. 186 sq. J. M. Cotterill, Modern Criticiszn and Cle-.-i./ils Epistles to Virgins, Lond. 1884; cf. Harnack, in ThLZ, IX, 1884; 265-268. J. B. Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome (cf. § 3), I, 407-414. A. Harnack, Die pseudo-clement . Briefe de virginitate ztnd die Ent- stehung des M'dnchtums, in SBBA, 1891, 359-385. — Richardson, BS, 91 sq. Harnack, LG, 518 sq. Epiphanius 1 and Jerome 2 were acquainted with epis tles of Clement of Rome, in which he extolled virginity. Thereby are intended the two epistles, De Vizginitate, which have been preserved in a manuscript of the Syriac New Testament.3 These letters were written by an ascetic to ascetics, male and female, with the purpose of setting forth in brightest light the advantages of celi bate life, and of indicating the means and ways for avoiding its incidental dangers. Antiochus of Saba (as late as about 620 a.d.) inserted considerable sections of the Greek original in his Pandectes} A fragment5 is found in a British Museum codex 6 in Syriac, trans lated out of the Testimonies of the Fathers, of Timotheus 1 Epiphanius, Panarion, XXX, 15. 2 Jerome, Adv. Jovin. I, 12. Cf. Cotterill. 8 Codex Colleg. Remonstr. Amstelod. 184. ann. 1470. * Cotterill, 1 15-126. 5 I, 5 end-6 beginning. 6 Codex Mus. Britt. Addit. 12156. 362 PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS of Alexandria (457 a.d.). The position of the epistles in the Bible-codex shows that they enjoyed the greatest respect in Syria. The same is evidenced by the name which Epiphanius applied to them, 'ILirio-roXal eyKVKXiai, and by the testimony of Bar-Hebraeus, Bar-Salibi, and others. They were written in Syria (or Palestine). The date of composition is controverted. Clement cannot be seriously claimed to have been their author.1 But on the other hand, the letters bear signs of great an tiquity, so that their composition in the second century, as held by Westcott, or in the third, as held by Harnack, does not seem impossible, though the asceticism which they describe is as easily imaginable at the beginning of the fourth century as during the third. The argu ment derived from the silence of Eusebius may be met by the possible supposition that it was not till after Eusebius' time that the letters were classed with the works of Clement by a forger, who, imitating the Epistles to the Corinthians, and with the purpose of displacing them, made two out of what was originally one.2 The suggestion of Cotterill, that the letters may have been forged on the basis of the passages in Epiphanius and Jerome, deserves no serious consideration. 1 Contrary to the view of Beelen. 2 So Harnack. FOURTH SECTION Legends § IOO. In General The entire simplicity and purity of the canonical accounts of the life and deeds of Jesus and his Apostles, only become fully evident to one who compares them with the luxuriant legendary growths which in later centuries entwined themselves upon the original stem. Their roots have already been considered.1 These fables, indeed, with which believers, particularly those of the Oriental churches, embellished the life of Jesus, had not gained any fixed and recognizable literary form in the second and third centuries. The Abgarus- myth2 constitutes an unimportant exception. Instead, ecclesiastical phantasy had taken possession of the story of the lives of the Apostles in most complete fashion. It has already been seen 3 how far the Gnostics appear to have called this literature of romance into existence. In just this field the limits are very obscure where Gnostic and ecclesiastical elements merge together : in catholic recensions of the Acts of Thomas, John, and Andrew,4 much of Gnostic material has been preserved ; and vice versa, the catholic Acts of Peter and Paul 5 show many characteristics that remind one of Gnosticism. The Pseudo-Clementine writings,6 the circumstances of 1 § 1 6. 5-6, above. 8 §§ 22 and 30. ° § 102. 2 § 101. 4 See § 30. 363 6 § 103. 364 LEGENDS whose origin are doubtful, form the best example of the sort of literature that was read in the churches. § 1 01. The Legend of Abgarus Editions: of the Doctrina Addai: (1) Syriac (and English): W. Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christiaziity in Edessa, Lond. 1864 (incomplete). G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle, Lond. 1876. (2) Ar menian (and French) : J. R. Emin, Ltroubzia d^desse. Histoire d1Abgar, in Langlois' Collection des historiens anc. et mod. de VAr- zzienie, I, Paris, 1867. Alishan, Laboubnia, Lettre d'Abgar, Venezia, 1868; cf. Dashian, in Wien. Zeitsch. f d. Kuzide d. Morgenl. IV, Hefte 1-3. (3) Greek : C. Tischendorf (§ 30), 261-265 i cf- Lip sius (below), pp. 3-6. Literature : R. A. Lipsius, Die edessenische Abgarsage, Braunschw. 1880. Th. Zahn, Ueber die Lehre des Addai, FGK, I, 350-382. K. C. A. Matthes, Die edess. Abgarsage auf ihre Fortbildung unter- sucht, Lpz. 1882. L. J. Tixeront, Les origines de Piglise d1Edesse et la ttgende d'Abgar, Paris, 1888. R. A. Lipsius, in DCB (Thaddeus), IV, 875-880 ; Idezti, Apokry. Apostelgesch. (§ 30) ; Ergdzizungsheft, 105-108. S. Baumer, in ZkTh, XIII, 1889, 707-711. M. Bonet- Maury, in Rev. de Vhist. des Relig. 1887, 269-283. E. Nestle, de Sancta Cruce, Berl. 1889. R. Duval, Histoire pol. rel. et litt. d'Edesse, Paris, 1892. Richardson, BS, 105 sq. Harnack, LG, S 33-540. From the imperial archives at Edessa, Eusebius1 obtained information in regard to a Syriac writing in which the story of the wondrous healing of Abgarus the Fifth (Ukkama, i.e. the Black, 13-50 a.d.) was told. Abgarus by letter besought the personal assistance of Jesus, the miraculous physician, and Jesus, also by let ter, denied the request, but promised after his ascension to send one of his disciples. In fact, Thaddeus, being sent by Thomas (Jude) in compliance with a heavenly 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I, 13. ABGARUS 365 command, went to Edessa, cured the sick prince, and set about the conversion of the people to Christianity. Eusebius 1 reproduced this correspondence and the his tory of Thaddeus in literal translation. Whether that which he relates a little later2 from ancient accounts,3 in regard to the christianizing of Edessa, came from the same source or not, is uncertain, but quite probable. The legend probably originated not long subsequent to the historical entry of Christianity into Edessa, that is not long after 200 a.d.,4 but concerning the time when it took definite literary form, nothing certain can be said. An enlarged edition of the story exists in the so- called Doctrina Addai (Acta Thaddaei, Acta Edesseua), in which the story of the miracle-working picture of Christ is combined with the form of the legend as known to Eusebius. Since this story was not yet known in Edessa at about 385 a.d.,5 the Doctrina could not have originated before ± 400 ; and this conclusion is rendered probable by internal reasons as well.6 From the Syrians the story passed on to the Armenians,7 and it is also extant in a modified form in Greek. In the decretal of Gelasius,8 the letter of Jesus to Abgarus is rejected as apocryphal. § 102. The Acts of Peter and of Paul Literature and abbreviations, cf. § 30. Preuschen, LG, 128-131, I34-I37- 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I, 13. 5. 3 Idem, II, 1. 8. 2 Idem, II, I. 6 sq. 4 § 25. I. 5 Cf. Peregrinatio ad loca sancta, edit. Gamurrini, edit, major, 65-68, minor, 34-37. 0 Zahn holds otherwise. 7 Moses of Chorene. 8 VI, 54. 366 LEGENDS i. Tlpdgeis TlavXov1 are first cited by Origen,2 and, possibly, may have been known as early as Clement.3 Lactantius seems to have drawn his account of the preaching of Peter and Paul at Rome,4 from these Acts. Eusebius5 names the Acts, and Nicephorus Callisti6 owes to them his account of the sojourn of Paul at Ephesus, which is also cited from them by Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel.7 In the Catalogus Claro- montanus and in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the number of stichoi is given as 3560 and 3600 respec tively.8 As a whole, the Acts are lost. The martyr dom of Paul has been preserved in revised form : in (a) a shorter recension, ( 1 ) in Greek, in codices 9 of the ninth and following centuries, and in Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Coptic (incomplete) translations dependent upon the Greek; and (2) in Latin (incomplete);10 and in (b) a longer form,11 constituting the so-called Linus text.12 Con tents : Paul, who had raised a cup-bearer of the king from the dead, testifies before Nero in regard to the king whom he expects to come and to subdue all earthly kings. In consequence, Nero causes many Christians to be seized.13 Paul gives fuller information in regard 1 Cf. Lipsius, AG, II, 284-366; Egh, 47-54; AA, 23-44, 104-1 17; cf. 1 18-177, 178-222, 223-234. Zahn, GNK, II, 2, 865-891. 2 Comm. Joh. XX, 12 ; Lommatzsch, II, 222. Princ. I, 2. 3 ; Lom matzsch, XXI, 46. 8 Strom. VII, 11. 63; VI, 5. 42? 6 Hist. Eccl. Ill, 3. 5; 25. 4. 4 Divinae Inst. IV, 21. 2. 6 Hist. Eccl. II, 25. 7 Preuschen, 129, following Bonwetsch. 8 Cf. also the List of the sixty canonical books. 9 Codex Patm. 46, saec. IX, and Codex Ath. Vatop. 70, saec. X-XI. On the translations, see Lipsius, LIV sq. ; Preuschen, 130. 10 Codex Monac. 4334, saec. VIII-IX; 22020, saec XII ; 10642, saec. XV. 11 Zahn, 872-876; against Lipsius, AG, II, 1, 155-162. 12 AA, 23-44. ls Chaps. 1-3. ACTS OF PAUL AND PETER 367 to that king, to the prefect Longus and the centurion Cestus to whom he is delivered,1 and is then beheaded.2 By means of his appearance before the emperor, he effects the release of the Christians.3 From Luke and Titus, Longus and Cestus received the seal.4 The writing may have originated in Alexandria, Palestine, or Antioch, between 150 and 180 a.d.5 2. Jerome6 must have had the Catholic Acts of Peter7 in mind when he stated that the irepioBai Petri men tioned Peter's wife and daughter. Another of his re marks8 appears to have reference to a form of the Clementines different from that which is now extant. Lipsius 9 has found that the Catholic Acts (which are characteristically distinguished from the Gnostic by the harmonious cooperation of the two great apostles) were used by Cyril of Jerusalem,10 Sulpicius Severus,11 and Asterius of Amasea.12 The remnants that are extant in the so-called Marcellus texts treat of the Maprvpiov tcop dyia>p diroaroXcop Tlerpov Kal TlavXov. They exist in two (three) recensions : (a) in Greek, in a manuscript of the twelfth century,13 and in Latin in numerous man uscripts ; 14 in both cases without the account of Paul's journey;15 (b) in Greek (Latin [old Italian], and Sla vonic), in numerous manuscripts,16 containing the account 1 Chap. 4. 4 Chap. 7. 2 Chap. 5. 6 So Zahn. 3 Chap. 6. 6 Adv.Jovin. I, 26. 7 Cf. Lipsius, AG, II, 1, 284-366 ; Egh, 47-54 ; AA, 118-234. 8 Comm. ad. Gal. i. 18. 10 Catal. VI. » pp. 331-333. n Hist. Eccl. II, 28. 12 Horn, in app. prin. Petr. et Paul. (Combefis, Auctar. noviss. I, Paris, 1648, 168.) 13 Codex Marcian. cl. VII, 37, saec. XII. r> Chaps. 1-21. 14 AA, LXXV-LXXXIII. I0 AA, LXII-LXVII. 368 LEGENDS of the journey, and differing from (a) in detail at a num ber of places. The " Martyrdom " relates first the journey of Paul from the island of Melita to Rome; the murder of his companion Dioscurus, and the pun ishment visited upon Puteoli on account of this crime ; a vision of Paul in Appii Forum, and the announcement of his arrival to Peter.1 Then the conflicts with the Jews and the effect of the apostolic preaching upon the heathen priests are described.2 Next Simon Magus appears, and in his presence the emperor, who had been won over by him, examines the apostles as to their preaching.3 Simon seeks in vain to manifest his power by reading their thoughts.4 The trial is continued, and Simon repeatedly offers before the emperor, who is becoming impatient, to fly up toward heaven.5 When he ventures the attempt next day, he plunges down, in answer to the prayer of Peter.6 In spite of this miracle the apostles are condemned to die, Paul by beheading, and Peter by crucifixion with his head downward, after having told the brethren of his meeting with the Lord.7 He is interred on the Vatican, but the emperor flees from the enraged people.8 The deposit of the relics (in a place prepared for them) forms the conclusion.9 According to Lipsius, a writing of the second century whose apologetical purpose was to reconcile Petrine Jewish Christianity with Pauline heathen Christianity, formed the basis of these recensions ; but it is possible to ascribe to them a more innocent origin. 1 Chaps. 1-21. 6 Chaps. 72-77. 2 Chaps. 22-31. 1 Chaps. 78-83. 8 Chaps. 32-43. ~ 8 Chaps. 84-86. 4 Chaps. 42-48. 9 Chaps. 87-88. 6 Chaps. 49-71. ACTS OF PAUL aNd thEcla 369 3. The Acts of Paul and Thecla 1 are extant in (a) Greek, in a number of manuscripts ; 2 (b) in Latin, in various translations ; (c) in Slavonic (still unpublished) ; (d) in Syriac, from the fifth century ; (e) in Arabic ; 3 and (/) in Armenian.4 The work contains a story which is largely invented, but which, nevertheless, exhibits traces of a historical background.5 It relates the history of a young woman of respectable family in Iconium, who, captivated by the preaching of the apostle, left her father's house and her affianced lover, suffered much torment and persecution, and, finally, after having been wonderfully saved from the jaws of beasts, and commis sioned by Paul, successfully preached Christianity, at first at Iconium, and later, in Seleucia. According to Tertullian,6 the author was a presbyter of Asia Minor, who was deposed on account of his audacity. In telling the story, he had the purpose of making Paul the vehicle of his own conception of Christianity as a message of continence, and its reward — resurrection — based upon belief in one God and his Son, Jesus Christ ; and this lesson he sought to make effective through the example of Thecla. A starting-point was furnished to the author by the Acts of the Apostles, but mainly by the Pastoral Epistles, and it would appear that his intention was to contrast his own conception of Paul with the picture of him furnished by these Epistles. We do not possess these " Acts " in their original form, but in abbreviated, though not extensively altered, shape, and freed from 1 Maprvptov rrjs dylas . . . G^kXtjs. JJpdfeis IlauXou Kal O&cXijs, Jerome's name, Htplodai. Pauli et Theclae. 2 Lipsius, A A, XCIX sq. 3 Assemani (§ 2.8i), III, 286. 4 Conybeare, F. C, The Apologv and Acts of ApoUonius and Other Monu ments of Early Christianity. Lond. 1894, p. 49 sqq. 6 So von Gutschmid and Ramsay. 6 Bapt. 11. 2B 370 LEGENDS some, but not all, of the excrescences that are suspicious from an ecclesiastical point of view.1 Consequently, the determination of the circle to which the author belonged is not easy. To regard him, with Lipsius, as a Gnostic of ascetic tendencies, is forbidden by the similarity of his Christian conceptions to those which are known to have existed in the church of the second century.2 The date of composition is limited by the use of the Pastoral Epistles on one side, and Tertullian's mention of them on the other, and probably it is to be sought between 160 and 190 a.d. Zahn places it before 1 50 a.d. For references to the legend in the writings of the Fathers, see the works of Lipsius.3 The narra tive (appended to some manuscripts) of the deeds of Thecla in a cave at Seleucia in Isauria, and of how she vanished into the mountain away from her pursuers, has nothing to do with the original legend. Editions : B. Mombritius, Sanctuarium sive vitae sanctoruzn (cf. § 104), II, 303-306 (Latin). J. E. Grabe (§ 2. 8 b), I, 87 (95)-i28 (Greek and Latin). Bibl. Casin. Ill, Florileg. 271-276 (Latin). C. Tischendorf (cf. § 30), 40-63. W. Wright (cf. § 30. 4), II, 116- [45 (English translation from the Syriac). R. A. Lipsius, AA, 235-272. F. C. Conybeare (§ 105. 6), 49 (6i)-88, English translation from Armenian) . Literature : The prolegomena to the various editions. A. Ritschl (cf. § 8), 2d edit, pp 292-294. A. v. Gutschmid (§ 30). C. Schlau, Die Aden des Paulus und der Thecla uzid die dltere Thecla-Legende, Lpz. 1877; cf. Th. Zahn, in GGA, 1877, 1292-1308. J. Gwynn, in DCB, IV, 882-896. R. A. Lipsius (§ 30), AG, II, 1, 424-467; Egh, 61 sq., 104. G. Wohlenberg, Die Bedeutung der Thekla-Akten fur die neutestamentliche Forschung, in ZkWL, IX, 1888, 343-362. 1 Cf. Jerome, De Viris Illust. 7. 2 See the second Epistle of Clement. 3 Lipsius, 427 sq.; cf. also Peregrin, ad loc. sand. (edit. Gamurrini, edit. major, 74, minor, 43. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS 371 Th Zahn, GNK, II, 2, 892-910. W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roznan Empire before A.D. 170. Lond. 1894, 3d edit. 375-428. § 103. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies Editions: (1) The Homilies: J. B. Cotelerius (cf. § 3. init.). A. Schwegler, Stuttg. 1847. A. R. M. Dressel, Gdttingen, 1853. Migne, Patrol. Graec. I, 19-468 (text of Dressel). P. de Lagarde, Clezziezztina. Lpz. 1865. (The introduction was reprinted in Mit- theilungen, I, Gdttingen, 1884, 26-54.) O) The Recognitions: J. Sichardus, Basil. 1504 (according to Richardson), 1526, 1536. J. B. Cotelerius (cf. § 3). E. O. Gersdorf, in Bibl. Pair. Eccl. Lat. I, Lips. 1838. Migne, Patrol. Graec. I, 1201-1454. (3) The Epit ome: A. Turnebus, Paris, 1555. A. R. M. Dressel, Lips. 1859. The Syriac version of Recognitions I-III, and Homilies X-XII (not complete), XIII-XIV, was edited by P. de Lagarde, Lips. 1861. E. C. Richardson is engaged upon a critical edition of the Recognitions (LG, 229 sq.). Translation: Thomas Smith, in ANF, VIII, 73-346 (Recog. Horn.). Literature: J. L. Moshemius, De turbata per recentiores Platoni- cos ecclesia comzn. §§ XXXIV-XL, in the appendix to his translation of Ralph Cudworth's Sy sterna intellectuals, Jenae, 1733. F. C. Baur, Die christliche Gnosis, Tubingen, 1835. A. Schliemann, Die Cle- mentinezi nebst den verwandten Schriften, Hamb. 1844. A. Schweg ler (§ 27. 2), I, 364-406, 481-490. A. Hilgenfeld, Die clement. Recog. und Hozn. Jena, 1848. G. Uhlhorn, Die Homilieen und Re- cognit. des Clemens Rom., Gdtting. 1854: cf. A. Hilgenfeld, in ThJ, XIII, 1854, 483-535. J. Lehmann, Die clementin. Schriften znit be- sonderer Riicksicht auf ihr litter ar. Verhdltniss, Gotha, 1869; cf. Th. Zahn, in GGA, 1869, 905-917, and R. A. Lipsius, in PKZ, XIX, 1869, 477-482. R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen der r'dmischen Petrus- sage, Kiel, 1872. A. Hausrath, Neutestamentl. Zeitgeschichte, IV, 2d edit. Heidelb. 1877, 133-153. G. Salmon, in DCB, I, 567-578. G. Uhlhorn, in RE, III, 277-286. E. Renan, Marc-Aurele, Paris, 1882, 74-101. A. Harnack (§ 2. 7 c), 3d edit. 293-300. Ch. Bigg, The Clementine Homilies, in Studia Bibl. et Eccl. II, Oxf., 1890, 157-193. J. Langen, Die Clemen sromane, Gotha, 1890..— Rich ardson, BS, 92-95. Preuschen, LG, 212-231. 372 LEGENDS i. Under the name of Pseudo-Clementine writings in the narrower sense, the following works are included : — (a) K.XrjpiePTOpio-p,oi, Recognitiones), in ten books, the original being lost, but extant in numerous manuscripts4 containing the Latin translation by Ru finus.5 Books I-III are also extant in Syriac;6 (c) 'JLiriropirj (or K.Xrjp.epro<; eirtaKoirov 'P(op,r]<; irepl rmp irpd%ea>p, iiriBr)p.ia)P re Kal Kr/pvypidrcop Tlerpov eirirofirj) in a twofold form. 2. In the Homilies, Clement, whom Peter had installed as bishop of Rome shortly before his death, tells the story of his own career to James, the principal bishop of the church, as he had been directed by his dying master.7 After having sought for truth in vain in the schools of the philosophers, the intelligence that the Son of God had appeared in Judea impelled him to investigate the correctness of the wonderful report upon the spot.8 In Alexandria he met Barnabas, who introduced him to Peter at Caesarea. Peter immediately won him over to his doctrine and caused him to witness his disputation with Simon Magus.9 The interval, until the beginning of the war of words, Peter spent in initiating his pupil 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Ill, 38. 5. 2 Codex Paris, graec. 930, saec. XII, and Codex Ottobon. 443, saec. XIV. 3 Codex Mus. Brit. Syr. Add. 12150, ann. 411. 4 Preuschen, LG, 229 f. 7 Cf. the Second Epistle. 5 Lagarde, Clem. 1865, Introd. 27. 8 I, 1-7. 6 See above, note 3. 9 I, 8-22. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS 373 more nearly in his teachings.1 In the disputation, which lasted three days (though we have only an account of the first, which related to the statements of scripture concerning God), Peter overcame Simon, who fled, pur sued by Peter and Clement.2 They followed him a long time without overtaking him : in Sidon, Berytus, Biblus, Tripolis — he had already been in all of them.3 Finally they caught him up in Laodicea, and there the magician was completely routed in a debate (on knowledge of God by means of visions, and on the doctrine of the supreme God, and of evil) which lasted four days.4 Peter was able adroitly to turn a stratagem of the vanquished to his further hurt, and he lost his adherents also in Anti och. Peter, who everywhere upon his journey had founded and organized congregations, departed then to Antioch, evidently to continue his labors there after the same manner.5 Such is the thread of discourse, but it is interrupted by numerous episodes : a disputation between Clement and the Alexandrian grammarian Ap- pion ; 6 a long account by Clement concerning his own earlier life ; 7 the finding of his mother,8 of his brothers,9 and finally of his father ; 10 the conversion of his mother to Christianity, etc. The theological doctrines of Peter occupy most space, and the principal purpose of the ac count appears to have been to propagate these doctrines in the form of a tale. In this teaching Christianity appeared to be only an improved edition of the Mosaic religion, and the doctrine was that of Gnostic Jewish Christianity (Elchesaitism). The letter of Peter to James, 1 II-III, 29. 6 XX. » XIII. 2 III, 30-73. « IV, 6-27; VI. 10 XIV. 8 VII-XII, 2. 7V. 4 XVI-XIX. 8 XII. 374 LEGENDS which precedes all, adjures the latter to preserve the book thus sent to him inviolate from the non-elect, and with this demand James complies while making it known to his presbyters. The Recognitions treat the same ma terials with considerable deviations, especially in the didactic portions, partly by addition, partly by subtrac tion. At the close, the founding of the church at Anti och and the baptism of Clement's father by Peter are narrated. The book gained its name from the " Recog nitions " in the seventh book. The Epitome is a meagre abstract of the Homilies, enriched by foreign elements; such as extracts from the letter of Clement to James, from the Martyrdom of Clement according to Simeon Metaphrastes, and from a writing irepl rov Oavpiaros rov iyeyopdro<; et? iralBa virb rov dyiov iepop,dprvpo<; K.Xr)/Aepro<;, attributed to Ephraim, bishop of Chersonesus. 3. The riddle in literary history, occasioned by the obvious relationship between the Homilies and the Rec ognitions, cannot be solved by supposing one recension to be dependent upon the other.1 On the contrary, both give evidence of being elaborations of (one or) more originals, whose basal form may have been called Krjpvypba(ra) Tlerpov. In the mean time, the question 2 of the sources and unity of content of the two recen sions is not answered, and it cannot be advanced, except on the basis of an exact comparison of texts, and par ticularly of an investigation of the Biblical and extra- canonical citations.3 For this reason the question of the origin and purpose, the time and place of composi- 1 Hilgenfeld (1848) made the Homilies dependent on the Recogni tions, and Uhlman (1854) the Recognitions on the Homilies. 3 Uhlhorn (1878) ; cf. Hilgenfeld, Lehmann, and Lipsius. 8 Cf. particularly Lagarde, 1865; introduction. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS 375 tion, of the Pseudo-Clementine literature still awaits a final solution. Presupposing their unity, Baur 1 regarded them as a document of the Judaism, dominant in the primitive Roman congregation. Lipsius2 assumes that their oldest basis was the strongly anti-Pauline Acta Petri, which originated long before the middle of the second century, and that a fragment thereof, the Preach ing of Peter, was worked over about 140-145 a.d. in the anti-Gnostic interest. He thinks that the 'Apaypoopia- p,ol K.Xrjp,epro<; proceeded from these Acts, and were worked over again twice independently, even during the second century, in the Homilies (anti-Marcionite) and in the Recognitions (Jewish-Christian, with catho lic tendencies). Hilgenfeld has clung to his view,3 that the Recognitions and Homilies are to be traced back through the TlepioBai Tlerpov to a Tlerpov Krjpvypa, and that they are "a very fertile and rich mine for the his tory and development of Roman Jewish Christianity."4 Over against these and other views, Harnack defends the opinion that the Recognitions and Homilies in their present form did not belong to the second century, but, at the earliest, to the first half of the third ; 5 that they were not written by heretical Christians, but, most probably, by catholic Christians (on account of the views as to the canon, polity, theological position, etc.), with the purpose, not of formulating a theological sys tem, but of instructing to edification, and, besides, of 1 Cf. also Schwegler. 2 Cf. also A. Hausrath, Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2d edit., IV, 1877, 133-153. 3 Cf. Nov. Test. etc. (§ 3), 2d edit. IV, 51 f. 4 Hilgenfeld (1854, p. 535). ? Cf. also Lagarde (1865), and Zahn (GGA, 1876, 1436). 376 LEGENDS opposing heretical manifestations ; and, finally, that even the author of the Recognitions and Homilies appar ently was acquainted with their original Jewish-Chris tian sources only in their catholic form. Bigg regards the Homilies as an Ebionite recension of an older catholic original. The Pseudo-Clementine writings orig inated in Eastern Syria.1 Where and by whom they were worked over cannot be fixed, but good reasons can be adduced in favor of Rome.2 4. The oldest attestation of the Pseudo-Clementine writings is Origen, who in his commentary on Matthew3 cited some sentences similar to passages in both works.4 Eusebius5 was acquainted with a voluminous writing which contained Tlerpov Kal 'Aititiwpo<; BidXoyoi, and which must have stood in close relationship to the Clementines. In the Bardesanite dialogue De fato,6 a passage is copied7 from the Recognitions,8 unless, in deed, the dialogue formed the original. Basil and Gregory inserted a passage from the fourteenth (now the tenth) book of the Recognitions into the Philocalia.9 Epiphanius10 speaks of irepi6Boi<; KaXovp,epai'i rat? Bid K.Xrj(ieproyr) tcop dpxaioop p,aprvpi(op by Eusebius of Caesarea, in which that learned historian collected everything that he could ascertain,5 has been lost and only his work on the Palestinian martyrs 6 during Dio cletian's persecution is extant. 1 Martyr. Polycarp. 18. 8 So Duchesne and Harnack. 2 Manuscript of the year 412. 4 E.g. Simeon Metaphrastes. 6 Cf. Hist. Eccl. IV, 15. 47; V, proem.; 2; 4. 3; 21. 5. B B. Violet, Die palastinischen Mdrtyrer des Eusebius von Casarea, TU, XIV, 4, Lpz. 1896. 380 MARTYROLOGIES § 105. From Antoninus Pius to Septimius Severus 1. Passio Poly carpi. Eusebius inserted in his Church History1 literally or in abstract, the larger part of a letter written by the congregation of Smyrna to that of Philomelium (Phrygia), and to all other congregations of the holy catholic church,2 concerning the martyr- death of their bishop Polycarp and his associates, under the proconsulate of the L. Statius Quadratus on the 23d February, 155 a.d.3 The whole letter is extant in Greek in five manuscripts.4 There exists, besides, a Passio Polycarpi in numerous Latin manuscripts which are based in part on Rufinus' translation of Eusebius' account ; in part, on an independent but careless ver sion of a Greek original which differed from the recen sion now extant; and in part on both.5 Eusebius' account is also preserved in a Coptic version. The freshness and directness of the narrative speak for themselves, and neither form nor content gives suffi cient occasion for the assumption of forgery or inter polation. The additions to the manuscripts of the Martyrium, respecting date, dedication, and transmis sion,6 were appended later. Compare the editions (§ 3) of Zahn (XLVIII-LV, 132-168), and Lightfoot (I, 588-702; II, 935-998, 1005-1014). — Translation: Roberts and Donaldson, in ANF, I, 39-44. — A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius (§9). E. Ame'lineau, Les ades coptes du martyr e de St. Polycarpe in the Proceedings of the Soc. of Biblical Archaeology, X, 1888, 391-417. Cf. A. Harnack, in ThLZ, XIV, 1889, 30 sq. — Bollandus (Jan. 13), Jan. II, 691-707. Ruinart, 74-99. 1 Hist. Eccl. IV, 15. 2 So the manuscripts of the Martyrium ; Eusebius gives the address as "To the churches in Pontus." 8 Cf. § 8. I. 6 Harnack, 77-90. 4 Codd. Mosq. 159; Hieros. S. Sep. 1. all. 6 Chaps. 20-22. CARPUS JUSTIN 381 2. Passio Carpi, Papyli et Agathonicae. The Acts of Carpus, Papylus (of Thyatira), and Agathonice (whose martyr-death occurred at Pergamos,1 and is recorded by Eusebius after that of Polycarp and Pionius2), are pre served in a Paris codex.3 It contains no date, but the original record may be assigned with great probability to the time of Marcus Aurelius. Certain features, the locality, and not least of all, the fanaticism that appears in the conduct of Agathonice, and which the writer approves, combine to make the conclusion possible that the martyrs did not stand far removed from the radical Montanistic movement even if they were not themselves Montanists. A longer recension, which emanated from Simeon Metaphrastes, and which is extant in numerous manuscripts, incorrectly places the martyrdom in the time of Decius. Editions : B. Aube", in Revue archkol. 1881, 348 sqq. Idem, Veglise et VUat dans la seconde moitU du Ille siicle, Paris, 1885, 499-506. A. Harnack, in TU, III, 3, 4- 1888, 433"466. Cf. Th. Zahn, FGK, I, 279. J. B. Lightfoot (see above), I, 625 sq.— Boll. (Apl. 13), Apr. II, 120-125, 968-973. 3. Acta S. Justini philosophi et soc. ejus. Under the prefecture of Junius Rusticus, i.e. between 163 and 167 a.d., the Christian philosopher Justin4 and the Christians Charito, Charitus, Euelpistus, Hierax, Paon, and Liberianus were martyrs at Rome. The simple and plain 5 account apparently reproduces the steps of the proceedings faithfully. Eusebius appears not to have been acquainted with it. 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, 15. 48. 3 Codex Paris, graec. 1468. 2 Cf. § 106. 4 Cf. § 36. 5 MSS. : Codex Vatic. 655 Cod. Cryptens. 382 MARTYROLOGIES Editions: C. Otto, in Corpus, etc. (cf. § 33), III, 3d edit. 1879, 266-278 (cf. XLVI-L). — Boll. (Apl. 13) Apl. II, 104-1 19. Ruinart, 101-107. — Translation: M. Dods, in ANF, I, 305-306. 4. Epistola Ecclesiarum Viennensis et Lugdunensis. In the year 177,1 the congregations at Lugdunum (Lyons) and Vienne, in Gaul, were overtaken by severe oppres sion. They sent an account of their afflictions to the congregations of Asia Minor and Phrygia, most of which Eusebius inserted in his History.2 The writing contains a very lively and clear description of the per secution. Boll. (June 2) June I, 160-168. Ruinart, 107-117. 5. Acta proconsularia martyrium Scilitanorum. On the 17th of July, 180 a.d., at Carthage, the Christians, Speratus, Nartzallis, Cittinus, Donata, Secunda, and Hestia [VestiaJ, of Scili, were sentenced to death by the sword, and executed by the proconsul, P. Vigellius Saturninus. They are known as the Scillitan Martyrs. The Acts, which are distinguished by their brevity of form, are preserved in Latin and Greek. The Latin form 3 seems more closely allied to the original ; in con nection with it, the Greek form, which exists in a Paris codex,4 and in several Latin recensions,5 is to be taken into account. Editions and Literature: J. Mabillon (see § 104), IV, 153 (Codex Augiens.). C. Baronius, Annates eccl. ad ann. 202 (according to lost manuscripts). H. Usener, Acta mart. Scilit. graec. edita, Ind. Schol., 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V, introd.; see also the statement of the Chroni con, after Ann. Abr. 2183. 2 Hist. Eccl. V, 1-3. Transl., ANF, VIII, 778-784. 8 Codex. Mus. Britt. 1/880, saec. IX (cf. fragment in Cod. Augiens.). 4 Codex Paris, grace. 1470, Ann. 800. 6 E.g. Codex Carnot. 190, Bruxell. saec. XII. APOLLONIUS 383 Bonn, 1881. B. Aube", Les Chretiens dans V empire Rozziain, etc., Paris, 1881, 503-509 (Cod. Paris, suppl. lat. 2179 [Silos.]). Analecta Bollandiana (§ 2. 8 c), VIII. 1889, 5-8 (Cod. Carnot.). On the Codex BruxelL, cf. Catalogus, etc. (§ 104), I, 1, 50, 133. J. A. Robinson (see No. 7, below) in TSt, I, 2. 1891, 106-121 (Codex Mus. Britt., Codex Paris. 1470, Baron., Cod. Paris. 2179). In B Aubd's Etude sur un nouveau texte des martyrs Scillitains, Paris, 1881, pp. 22-39, the then known texts are printed. — Translation: Neumann, 72-74. J. A. Robinson, ANF, IX, 285. — Boll. (July 17), July IV, 204-216. Ruinart, 129-134 (Cod. Colbert.). 6. Eusebius relates1 that a cultivated man, named ApoUonius, well versed in philosophy, was executed in the time of Commodus, on account of his Christianity, after having defended his faith eloquently before the Senate and before his judge, Perennis (until 185, Prae- fectus praetorio). The Acts were incorporated by Eu sebius in his collection.2 His statements are verified by the "Martyrdom of St. ApoUonius, the Ascetic," which are extant in Armenian ; but the assertions of Jerome,3 that ApoUonius was a senator, and was condemned by the Senate, and also that he wrote an extended defence, are shown to be embellishments of the account of Eusebius. It is even doubted whether ApoUonius was a Roman citizen. It is not very clear from the Acts what rdle was played by the Senate in the proceedings, their beginning being lost. The defensive speech of ApoUonius is of interest on account of its relation to apologetical literature. It is possible that Tertullian was acquainted with it when he wrote his Apologeticus. The Bollandists found an interpolated Greek text in the Codex Paris. I2ig. Editions and Literature: F. C. C(onybeare) in The Guardian, 1893, June 18 (English translation), following the Armenian in the 1 Hist. Eccl. V, 21. 2 Cf. § 104. s De Viris Illust. 42. 384 MARTYROLOGIES collection of martyrologies published by the Mechitarists (Venice, 1874), I, 138-143. Idezn, The Apology and Acts of ApoUonius, and Other Monuznents of Early Christianity, Lond. 1894, 29-48. A. Har nack, in SBBA, 1893, 721-746 (German translation by Burchardi). R. Seeberg, in NKZ, IV, 1893, 836-872. E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Governznezit, Lond. 1894, 200-208. Th. Mommsen, in SBBA, 1894, 497-503. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZwTh, XXXVII, 1894, 58-91, 636 sqq. Anal. Boll. XIV, 1895, 284-294. 7. Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis. On the 7th of March, 203 (202) a.d., five catechumens, Vibia Perpetua, who belonged to a good family, Felicitas and Revocatus, both slaves, Saturus and Saturninus, suffered martyr- death under the governor Hilarianus, apparently at Carthage (not at Tuburbo or Thuburbo). An eye witness has given with dramatic power a most realistic and striking account of this martyrdom, interweaving therewith the visions of Perpetua and Saturus accord ing to their own accounts. The hypothesis that the author, who was evidently a Montanist, was no less a person than Tertullian,1 has been defended on good grounds by Robinson. The Revelation of John, and apparently the Shepherd of Hermas (but in no case the Apocalypse of Peter), exerted an influence upon these visions. The narrative is preserved in two forms : the older in both Greek2 and Latin.3 The peculiar relation between the two texts may perhaps be explained by the supposition of publication in both languages (Tertullian !). The later and shorter form has been preserved in Latin in numerous manuscripts. It incor rectly transfers the martyrdom to the period of Valerian 1 Cf. De Anima, 55. 2 Codex Hieros. S. Sep. 1. saec. X. 8 Codd. Compendiens. [Paris Lat. 17626"] saec. X; Casin. saec. XI (Salisb.); Ambrosian. C. 210, infr. saec. XI (still unpublished). PERPETUA PIONIUS 385 and Gallienus. Augustine was acquainted with the Acts.1 Editions and Literature : L. Holstenius, Rom. 1633 (Cod. Casin). B. Aube", Les Chritiens, etc. (cf. 5, above), 509-525 (shorter form). Catalogus, etc. (cf. § 104), I, 1. 158-161 (Idem). J. R. Harris and S. K. Gifford, The Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, Lond. 1890 (Cod. Hieros.) ; cf. Harnack, in ThLZ, XV, 1890, 403- 406. O. v. Gebhardt, in DLZ, XII, 1891, 121-123; L. Duchesne, in Cozzipt. rend, de VAcad. de Plnscrip. et belles-lettres, XIX, 1891, 39-54; and L. Massebieau, in Rev. de PHist. des Relig. XXIV, 1891, 97-101. J. A. Robinson, The Passion of S. Perpetua, ziewly editetdfrom the MSS., in TSt, I, 2, 1891 ; cf. A. Harnack, in ThLZ, XVII, 1892, 68-71 ; Th. Zahn, in ThLB, XIII, 1892, 41-45 ; Anal. Bolland. XI, 1892, 100-102, 369-373 (Un nouveau manuscript des Ades der Saintes Fe'liciU et Perpitue : Cod. Aznbros.) . — Translation : G. Kriiger, in Christliche Welt, III, 1890, 785-790 (abbreviated). — Boll. (Mar. 7) March I, 630-638. Ruinart, 134-167 (Compend. Salisb.). § 106. From Decius to Licinius In the following list are contained the names, given by Ruinart, Tillemont, the Dictionary of Christian Biography, and Preuschen, of those martyrs in connection with whom genuine acts, or acts that appear to possess a genuine basis, are extant. In most cases, an exact investigation is lacking. For manuscripts, etc., see Preuschen, in Harnack's Litteraturgeschichte. 1. Passio Pionii. After the martyrdom of Polycarp, and before that of Carpus and his companions, Eu sebius2 mentions that of the Marcionite Metrodorus, and that of Pionius, both of whom suffered martyr-death at Smyrna. While Eusebius has in mind the period of Marcus Aurelius, the Latin Acts 3 place the martyrdom of Pionius and his sister (?) Sabina, Asclepiades, the 1 Cf. the passages in Neumann, p. 300. 8 Two Codd. Colbert, all. 2 Hist. Eccl. IV, 15. 46-47. 2C 386 MARTYROLOGIES Montanist Macedonia, Lemnus and the (Marcionite) presbyter Metrodorus, under the second consulate of Decius (and Vettius Gratus), i.e. in the year 250 (March 12). It is possible that the unpublished Greek Acts 1 will show that Eusebius, who incorporated the Acts in his collection,2 in this case also3 was right, and that the Latin Acts are only a recension of the genuine text.4 Literature: Th. Zahn, Pair. Apost. (§3) D.L, 164-165. J. B. Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers (§ 3), I, 622-626, 695-702. An edition of the Greek Acts has been announced, by O. v. Gebhardt. — Boll. (Feb. 1) Febr. I, 37-46. Ruinart, 185-198. 2. Acta disputationis S. Achatii episc. et mart. Acha- tius (or Acacius), bishop of Antioch in Phrygia, martyr (confessor) under Decius. He has been confounded with Acacius, bishop of Melitene, in Armenia Secunda. Boll. (Mar. 31) Mart. Ill, 903-905. Ruinart, 199-202. 3. Acta S. Maximi mart. Maximus, martyr in Asia Minor (Ephesus ?) under Decius, proconsulate of Op- timus. Boll. (Apl. 30) Apl. Ill, 732 sq. Ruinart, 202-204. 4. Acta S. Luciani et Marciani. Lucianus, Marci- anus, Florius, martyrs in Nicomedia, under Decius, on Oct. 26. Compare Prudentius, Peristeph. 11. Boll. (Oct. 26) Oct. XI, 804-819. Ruinart, 210-214. 5. Acta S. Cypriani. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, met martyr-death, after a year's imprisonment, on Sept. 14, 258, under Valerian, Galerius Maximus being pro- 1 Cod. Venet Marc. 339, saec. XII. 3 As in the case of Carpus, which see . 2 Cf. § 104. 4 So Zahn. MARTYRS 387 consul. A number of manuscripts of the Acta procon- sularia, and an account in Cyprian's life, written by the deacon Pontius, have been preserved. Boll. (Sep. 14) Sept. IV, 191-348 (Vita, 325-332; Acta, 332- 335). Ruin. 243-264. Hartel (Opera Cypriani), III, pp. CX-CXIV (Ada proconsul.). 6. Acta SS. Fructuosi, Eulogii et Augurii martyrum. The oldest Spanish Acts. Fructuosus, bishop of Tarra gona, and two of his deacons, Eulogius and Augurius, became martyrs under Valerian and Gallienus (pro consuls, Aemilianus and Bassus), on Jan. 21, in the year 259, according to Augustine, who was acquainted with the Acts. See his Sermon, 273, and also Pruden tius, Peristeph. 6. Boll. (Jan. 21) Jan. II, 339-341. Ruinart, 264-267. 7. Passio SS. Jacobi, Mariani, etc. Jacobus, a dea con, and Marianus, a lector, martyrs under Valerian. Boll. (Apl. 30) Apl. Ill, 745-749. Ruinart, 267-274. 8. Passio SS. Montani, Lucii et aliorum martyrum Africanorum. Montanus and Lucius, martyrs at Car thage, soon after Cyprian, about 259. Boll. (Feb. 24) Febr. Ill, 454-459. Ruinart, 274-282. 9. Martyrium S. Nicephori. Nicephorus, martyr un der Valerian and Gallienus, about 260 ; place unknown. Boll. (Feb. 9) Febr. II, 283-288. Addit. 894 sq. Ruinart, 282-288. 10. Acta SS. MM. Claudii, Asterii et aliorum. Claudius, Asterius, Neo, brothers, martyrs at iEgea, in Cilicia, under the governor (praeses) Lycias, probably 303 (not 285). Boll. (Aug. 23) Aug. IV, 567-572. Ruinart, 308-311. 388 MARTYROLOGIES ii. Passio Genesii mimi. Genesius, a play-actor at Rome, martyr, 303 (285). Boll. (Aug. 25) Aug. V, 119-123. Ruinart, 311-313. 12. Passio Rogatiani et Donatiani. Rogatianus and Donatianus, of good family, brothers, martyrs at Nantes under Diocletian and Maximian. Boll. (May 24) May V, 279-281. Ruinart, 321-324. 13. Acta Maximiliani. Maximilianus, martyr at The- beste, in Numidia, under Diocletian, on March 12, 295, consulate of Tuscus and Anulinus. Ruinart, 339-342. 14. Acta Marcelli. Marcellus, centurion, martyr at Tingis (Tangier), in Mauretania, on Oct. 30 (298). Boll. (Oct. 30) Oct. XIII, 274-284. Ruinart, 342-344. 15. Passio Cassiani. Cassianus, court clerk, martyr at Tingis. The Acts form an appendix to those of Marcellus. Ruinart, 344 sq. 16. Passio S. Procopii. Procopius, lector and exor cist, born at Jerusalem, residing at Scythopolis, martyr on July 7, 303, at Caesarea in Palestine (cf. Eusebius, Mart. Pal. I, 1). Boll. (July 8) July II, 551-576. Ruinart, 380 sq. 17. Acta S. Felicis. Felix, bishop of Tubzoca (Thi- baris, in Numidia ?), martyr at Carthage under the pro consulate of Anulinus, on Aug. 30, 303. Boll. (Jan. 14) Jan. II, 233. Ruinart, 388-391. St. Baluzius, Miscellanea, II, Paris, 1679, 77-81- 18. Passio S. Savini. Savinus, martyr at Rome under Maximian. Baluzius, loc. cit. 47-55. MARTYRS 389 19. Acta SS. Saturnini, Dativi, et aliorum plurimorum martyrum in Africa. Saturninus, a presbyter, Dativus, a senator, and many other men and women from Abi- tina ; martyrs at Carthage under the proconsulate of Anulinus, on Feb. 11, 304. The acts were produced by the Donatists at the disputation in 411, and were acknowledged by the Catholics (Augustin. Brevic. collat. Ill, 32). Boll. (Feb. n) Febr. II, 513-519. Ruinart, 413-422. Baluzius, 56-76. 20. Acta SS. Agapes, Chioniae, Irenes, etc. Agape, Chionia, and Irene, from Thessalonica, martyrs on the first of April (so Ruinart), 304. Boll. (Apl. 3) Apl. I, 245-250. Ruinart, 422-427. 21. Acta SS. Didymi et Theodorae. Didymus and Theodora, martyrs at Alexandria (303 ? ) ; cf. Ambro sius, Virg. II, 4. Boll. (Apl. 28) Apl. Ill, 572-575. Ruinart, 427-432. 22. Passio S. Irenaei, Episc. Sirm. Irenaeus, bishop of Sirmium, in Pannonia, martyr under Diocletian and Maximian, on 25th March (6th April) (304). Boll. (Mart. 25) Mart. Ill, 555-557. . Ruinart, 432-434. 23. Passio S. Pollionis et aliorum martyrum. Pollio, lector at Cibalae in Pannonia, martyr at about the same time with Irenseus, on 28th (27th) April (304). Boll. (Apl. 28) Apl. Ill, 565-567. Ruinart, 434-436. 24. Acta S. Eupli diac. et mart. Euplius, deacon, martyr at Catania, in Sicily, under Diocletian and Max imian (304). Ruinart, 436-439. 390 MARTYROLOGIES 25. Passio S. Philippi episc. Philippus, bishop of Heraclea, martyr at Adrianopolis (304). Boll. (Oct. 22) Oct. IX, 537-553. (Palme"). Ruinart, 439-448. 26. Acta SS. Tarachi, Probi, et Andronici. Tarachus of Claudiopolis in Isauria, Roman citizen, previously a soldier ; Probus of Side (Perge) in Pamphylia, philoso pher ; Andronicus of Ephesus, of eminent family ; martyrs at Tarsus, under Diocletian and Maximian (304). Boll. (Oct. n) Oct. V, 560-584. Ruinart, 448-476. 27. Acta S. Crispinae mart. Crispina of Thagara; according to Augustine a member of a prominent and wealthy family; a martyr at Thebeste under the pro consul Anulinus, on Dec. 5 (304). (See Augustine, in Psalm. CXX. n. 13; CXXXVII, n. 3, 14, 17; cf. Serm. 286, 354.) Ruinart, 476-479. 28. Passio S. Sereni mart. Serenus, a Greek, gar dener, martyr at Sirmium, in Pannonia, under Max imian (307 ?). Boll. (Feb. 23) Febr. Ill, 364-366. Ruinart, 516-518. 29. Acta SS. Phileae et Philoromi. Phileas (bishop of Thmuis, cf. § 67) and Philoromus, subordinate officers, martyrs at Alexandria under the prefect Culcianus (306). Boll. (Feb. 4) Febr. I, 459-464. Ruinart, 518-521. 30. Passio S. Quirini episc. et mart. Quirinus, bishop of Siscia in Upper Pannonia, martyr under Dio cletian and Maximian ; cf . Eusebius, Chron. ad. ann. 310. Prudentius, Peristeph. 7. Boll. (June 4) June I, 380-384. Ruinart, 521-525. 31. Passio S. Petri Balsami. Petrus Balsamus of FORTY MARTYRS 39 1 Eleutheropolis, martyr at Aulana, in Samaria, under Galerius (311). Probably identical with Petrus Absela- mus, an ascetic, mentioned by Eusebius (Mart. Palest. 10, 2). Boll. (Jan. 3) Jan. I, 128 sq. Ruinart, 525-527. 32. Passio S. Quirionis, Candidi, Domni, etc. (quadra- ginta martyres). At Sebaste, in Armenia, forty Chris tians (the so-called "Forty Knights") are said to have become martyrs under Licinius, about 320 a.d.1 Ruinart omitted their Acts as spurious, and the Bollandists in serted the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Bonwetsch defended the possibility of their genuineness, and published in Greek 2 and old Slavonic 3 a Testament of the martyrs, wherein they gave directions concerning their remains. This is declared by Bonwetsch, in agree ment with Haussleiter, to be genuine. Editions of the Testaznent : P. Lambecius, Comment arii de biblio theca Caes. Vidobonensi, IV, Vienn. 1671 (Greek) ; 2d edit, (by A. F. Kollarius), IV, Vienn. 1778, 225 sqq. (Greek and Latin). M. Bon wetsch, in NKZ, III, 1892, 705 (7i3-72i)-726; cf. J. Haussleiter, Idezzi, 978-988. Boll. (Mar. 10) Mar. II, 12-29. 1 Cf. Basilius M. Orat. XIX. 2 Cod. Vrienn. Theol. X. 3 Codices of the Library of the Troilzio-Sergiew. Laura at Moscow, No. 180 (1859) and 755 (1628), saec. XV. INDEX Abdias, 92, 95, 253. Abgar VIII Bar Manu, 249. Abgarus of Edessa, 75, 363. Abgarus, Legend of, 364 f. Acacius of Melitene, 386. Achatius of Antioch (Phrygia), 386. Acta Agapes, Chioniae, etc. 389; Archelai, 70; Claudii, Asterii, etc. 387; Crispinae, 390; Cypriani, 386; Didymi et Theodorae, 389; disput. Achatii, 386; Edessena, 365; Eupli, 389; Felicis, 388; Fructuosi, Eulogii, etc. 387; Jus- tini, 381; Luciani et Marciani, 386; Marcelli, 388; Mart. Scili- tanorum, 382; Maximi mart. 386; Maximiliani, 388; Acta Nerei et Achillei, 90; Phileae et Philoromi, 390; Proconsularia, 387; Satur- nini, Dativi, etc. 389; Sympho- rosae, 253; Tarachi, Probi et Andronici, 390; Thaddaei, 365. Acts of Andrew, 55, 88, 89, 94, 363; of Andrew and Matthew, 95; of the Apostles, 13, 27, 57 f., 61, 188, 254,369; Gnostic, 88 ff.; of John, 88, 89, 90, 363; of Justin, 106; of Lateran Synod (649 A.D.), 338; of Martyrs, 379; of Paul, 89, 363, 366; of Paul and Thecla, 369 f.; of Peter, 89, 89, 363, 367, 375; of Peter and Andrew, 95 ; of Peter with Simon, 90; of Philip, 89; of Pilate, 57; of Synod of Ephesus (431 A.D.), 220; of Synods, 352 ff.; of Thomas, 38, 89, 363. Adamantius (see Dialogus de Recta Fide), 174, 245 f. Adelphius, 85. Aeglon, 222. Aelian, 231. Aelius, deacon, 296. Aemilianus, proconsul, 387. Aetius, Placita of, 112. African baptismal symbol, 355. Agape, martyr, 389. Agapius, 94. Agathonice, martyr, 381. Aglaophon, physician, 238, 239. Agrippa Castor, 70, 143. Ahymnus, 295. Alcinous the Platonist, 331. Aleatores, adv. See Pseudo-Cyprian. Alexander, of Alexandria, 124, 128, 221; bishop, 164; of Byzantium, 222; of Jerusalem, 161, 171, 175, 211, 247; Severus, 248, 251, 339, 34°- Alexandria, School of, 160 ff. Alexandrians, Epistle to, 16. Allegorical interpretation, 208, 277, 3°2> 3Z5- Allegory, Use of, 182. 'AWoyevtis, 83. Alogi, 154, 336. Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci. See Jason. Simonis et Theophili, 105. Amastris, Epistle to Church in, 156. Ambrose (Ambrosius), 51, 81, 190, 325. 3»9- Ambrosiaster, 90. 393 394 INDEX Ambrosius, friend of Origen, 176, 196, 201, 203; a Greek, 113; (Oratio ad Graecos), 113. Ammon of Berenice, 212. Ammonian sections, 225. Ammonius, of Alexandria, 224; Sac- cas, 175, 176, 225. Amos, 173, 192. 't\pa.(SaTmbv 'H&alov, 83; HavAov, 83. Anastasius, Apocrisiarius, 343; pres byter, 243; Sinaita, 124, 127, 162, 172, 208, 326, 338. Anatolius, Alexandrinus, 204; of Laodicea, 216. Andreas, of Crete, 239; Monophys- ite monk, ioi; presbyter, 203. Andrew, 52. Andronicus, martyr, 390. Anicetus of Rome, 72, 78, 145. Anonymus, Arabicus, 82; Eusebia- nus, 153. Anti-Donatist Synod (313 A.D.), 349. Anti-Gnostic Writings, 121 f., 267. Anti-Heretical Writings, 99, 134, 148, 121 f., 265, 267, 268, 279, 332> 333. 334, 349. 35°- Anti- Jewish Writings, 302, 319, 331, 346. See also Judaism. Anti-Marcionite Writings, III, 134, H3. 144. 247, 266, 269, 279, 333, 338, 349- Anti-Montanistic Writer (Eusebius), 122, 144. Anti-Montanistic Writings, 122, 125, 127. '44. 153 f-> 276,321. And-Novatianist Writings, 349, 357. Anti-Valentinian Writings, 267. Antichrist, 336 f. Antilegomena, 37, 41. Antinoites of Egypt, 247. Antiochian school, 115. Antiochians, Epistles to, 30, 245, 247. Antiochus of St. Saba, 27, 39, 361. Antiquity, Argument from, 98, 249. Antonianus, bishop, 294. Antoninus Pius, 76, 102, 106, 108, 121, 122, 123, 128, 224,380. Antonius (Melissa), 114, 239. Anulinus, proconsul, 388, 389, 390. Apelleiaci, 277. Apelles, 81 f., 119, 143, 268. Apelles' Gospel, 82. Aphraates, 17, 120. Aphrodisius, 215. Apion, 224. Apocalypse of Abraham, 83. 'AnOKaAtyzts rov 'A5c£/*, 83. Apocalypse of John, 14, 19, 35, 37, 39, 42, 195, 208, 209, 320, 321, 329. 336, 337. 348, 384; of Paul, 38; of Peter, 36 f., 42, 65, 93, 171, 384- Apocalypses, 13. Apocrypha (O.T.), 103. Apocryphal Gospels, 50 f. Apollinaris, of Hierapolis, 112, 122 f., 144. 153; °f Laodicea, 47 (?), 112, 116, 232, 233, 241, 323, 327. Apollinarian controversy, 232, 233. Apollinarians, 232, 352. ApoUonius, 113, 153, 154, 155, 276; Acta (martyr), 383; the Anti- Montanist, 61. Apologetic literature, 61, 97 ff., 100 ff., 383. Apology, of Aristo, 104 f. ; Arnobius, 305 ; Aristides (see also Aris tides), 102 f. ; Athenagoras, 131 ; Clement of Alex., 166; Dionysius, 209; (Epist. to Diognetus), 137; Hermias, 137 f. ; Irenaeus, 151 ; Justin, 107 ff. ; Lactantius, 311 ; Lucian, 245; Melito, 128; Mil tiades, 122; Minucius Felix, 139 f.; Origen, 195 ff. ; Quadratus, 100 f. ; Tatian, 118; Tertullian, 262 f.; Theophilus, 134; Victor, 156. 'A?r40a(ris ney&\ri, 83. Apostles' Creed, 59. INDEX 395 Apostolic Constitutions, 25, 31, 67, Bacchylides of Pontus, 157. 68, 245, 341 f., 356, 360 ; doctrine, Bacchylus of Corinth, 158. '45. '49. 354 ; writings, 98. Baptism, 125, 270. "Apostolical Canons," 358. Baptismal creed, Roman, 59. Apostolici, 88, 92, 94. Baptismal symbols, 355. Appion, Alexandrian grammarian, Barbarus Scaligeri, 340. 373. 37°- Barcochba, 105, 137. Aquila's version, 105, 179. Bardesanes, 75 f., 94, 160. Aquilinus, 85. Bardesanite writing (De fato), 76, Arabianus, 224. 376. Aramaic Gospel, 46. Bardesanites, 17, 88, 246. Archontici, 83, 84, 85. Barhebraeus, 75, 362. Areopagite literature, 215. Barlaam and Joasaph, 102. Arian controversy, 221, 222, 232. Barnabas, apostle, 19 ; Epistle of, Arians, 209. 18 ff., 26, 39, 65, 67, 171, 359. Aristides, 61, 67, 101 ff. ; Apology of, Basil of Caesarea, 178, 194, 209, 227, 103 f., 1 13, 129, 132, 137, 140, 278 ; 231, 242, 245, 352, 376, 391. Letter to, 252. Basilides, 55, 69, 70 f., 71, 72, 78, 143; Aristo of Pella, 104 f., 265. Bishop, 296, 353 ; of Pentapolis, Aristotle, 115. 214. Arius, 222. Basilidian incantations, 71. Arnobius, 138, 165, 304 ff., 308, 309. Basilidians, 55, 107. Artemon, 336. Bassus, proconsul, 387. Asceticism, 362; of Origen, 175. Beatus, presbyter, 199. Asclepiades, 314; bishop, 247; Beda, 54. martyr, 385. Beron, 343. Asterius, of Amasea, 367 ; martyr, Beryllus of Bostra, 197, 204,255, 352. 387; Urbanus, 152-3. Bible, 162, 249, 275, 288, 308. Athanasius, 32, 41, 45, 65, 200, 205, Bible, citations from, 304, 306. 209, 212, 217, 351, 352,360. Biblical textual criticism, 178, 244. Athenagoras, 130 f., 140, 160, 239. Bishops, 99, 356; of Rome, 155, Athenians, Epistle to, 156. 350 ; writings of, 350. Athenodorus, 228. Blastus, Roman, 150. Atomism, 207. Boethus the Alexandrian, 130. Atticus, 91. Bolarius, bishop, 353. Augurius, deacon, martyr, 387. Breviarium in Psalterium, 191. Augustine, 54, 88, 89, 91, 92, 95, 126, 150, 177, 185, 263, 283, 284, 285, Caecilius, 139 f. ; (Caecilianus), 281 ; 286, 287, 288, 289, 299, 308, 349, bishop, 290, 295, 296. 385. 387. 389, 390. Caecilius, L., 315. Augustus, 337. Caesarea, Library at, 254 ; School of, Aurelius, lector, 293. 161, 176. Autolycus, 133, 224. Caesarean baptismal symbol, 355. Auxentius, 239. Cainites, 82, 83, 84. Avitus, Epistle to, 198. Caius, 320 f., 329, 331, 334, 336. 39^ INDEX Caldonius, bishop, 292, 293, 295, 296. Calendarium ecclesiae Carthag., 379. Callimachus, 91. Callistio, 143. Callixtus, 268, 275, 301, 322, 342, 350. Candidus, 224; Valentinian, 197. Canon, 12, 134, 300. Canones Hippolyti, 330, 341, 360. Caracalla, 75, 128, 175, 247. Caricus, an " ecclesiastical man," 157- Carpocrates, 77. Carpocratians, 77. Carpus, martyr, 381, 385, 386. Carthaginian Calendar, 379. Cassianus, John, 41 ; Julius, 54, 86 f.; martyr, 388. Cassiodorus, 185, 186, 348. Catalogus Claromontanus, 20, 37, 366 ; Liberianus, 42, 44, 322. Catechetical School of Alexandria, 160 ff., 162, 163, 169, 175, 206, 217, 229. Catenae, 2, 124, 128, 151, 178, 181, 186, 191, 192, 193, 234, 252, 325, 326, 344- Catholic Church, 99; Epistles, 18, 22, 195. Celerinus, 292, 301 ; lector, 293. Celestine I., 161. Celibacy, 361. Celsus, 103, 104, 140, 178, 195 f., 229 ; — (Pseudo-Cyprian), De ju daica incredulitate, 302. Centaurus, 240. Cerdo, 78. Cerinthus, Jewish-Christian, 52, 68, 321. Cestus, centurion, 367. Charito, martyr, 381. Charitus, martyr, 381. Chastity, 236, 273. Chionia, martyr, 389. X/>jj 60, 62, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 86, 87, 90, 92, 105, 117, 119, 124, 154, 160, 162 ff., 175, 180, 199, 247, 249, 258, 259, 306, 340, 355, 362, 366; of Rome, 44(?), 62 f., 361, 376; First Epistle, 21 ff., 27, 62, 65, 316; Second Epistle, 25, 54, 62 f., 370. Cleobius, 68. Clinical baptism, 296. Cnossians, Epistle to, 156. Cohortatio ad Gentiles, 112, 138. Colossians, 15, 79, 118, 194. Commodianus, 89, 135, 282, 317 ff. Commodus, L., 131, 133, 144, 145, 157, 162, 224, 383. Confessions: Felix, 352; Gregory Thaum., 229, 232, 233, 356; Hip polytus, 335; Irenaeus, 355. See also Symbols. Conon of Hermopolis, 210. Constantine, 222, 312, 349. Constantinus Porphyrogenneta, 251. INDEX 397 Consubstantiality, 232. Corinthians, 15, 23 f., 79, 118, 119, 188; Apocryphal correspondence, 17. Cornelius, of Rome, 211, 294, 295, 345, 351, 353; Labeo, 306. Creed, Roman, 59. Creeds and symbols, 355. Crescens the Cynic, 106. Crete, Epistle to churches in, 156. Crispina, martyr, 390. Crispus, emperor, 308. Cyprian, of Antioch, 283; of Carth age, 104, 105, 140, 242, 258, 280 ff., 308, 309, 318, 319, 320, 344, 345, 347. 35'. 352. 353. 386 ff.; of Gaul, 280. Cyril of Jerusalem, 148, 186, 367, 390. Damasus, 314. Daniel, 199, 223, 327, 336, 337, 366. Dativus, bishop, 297. , senator, martyr, 389. De Aleatoribus (see Aleatores), 66, 67, 156, 300. De Fato, Dialogus, 76, 376. De Recta Fide. See Dialogus. De Virginitate, two epistles, 25, 361 f. Decian persecution, 206, 211, 228, 247, 281, 283, 284, 290 ff., 295, 320. Decius, 176, 381, 385, 386. Demetrianus, 285, 286-310, 314. Demetrius, of Alexandria, 175, 203, 248, 352; deacon, 150. Democritus, 207. Depositio Martyrum, 322, 379. Deuteronomy, 184. Dialogus de Recta Fide, 79, 81, 197, 231, 237, 238, 245 f. Diatessaron of Tatian, 120. Dicta probantia, 2. Didache, 14, 42, 63 f., 65, 103, 109, 3°o, 357, 359. 360. Didascalia, 341, 356. Didascalia Petri, 61. Didymus (various persons), 152, 154, 213, 389. Diocletian, 219, 305, 308, 315, 388, 389. 39°- Diocletian persecution, 218, 226, 235. 379- Diognetus, Epistle to, 103, 113, 117, 135 ff., 226. Dionysius, of Alexandria, 205, 217, 221, 242, 321, 351-2; the Areopa- gite, 343; Bar-Salibi, 120, 248, 253. 329. 33°. 362; of Corinth, 23, 66, 155, 156 f.; Roman presbyter, 212; of Rome, 207,209, 212, 351, 354- Dioscurus, 368. Docetae, 82, 86. Docetism, 32, 52, 157, 268. Doctrina Addai, 120, 365. Doctrine, Compendium of Christian, 198. Dogmatic system, Marcion's, 80. Dogmatic Writings : Hippolytus, 336 f.; Origen, 197 f. Domitian, 16, 23, 35, 44, 92, 127. Domitius, 213. Domninus, Epistle to, 157. Donata, martyr, 382. Donatianus, martyr, 388. Donatists, 389. Donatulus, 295. Donatus, 283, 290, 313. Dositheus, 68, 279, 332. Droserius, a Valentinian, 246. Drusiana, 91. DuaeViae, 21, 66, 360. Easter, canon, 339; controversy, 150, 151; date of, 302,338; Epistles, 213. Ebed Jesu, 96, 120, 248, 253, 336, 338- Ebionites, 51, 88, 376. 398 INDEX Ecclesiastes, 186, 208, 230, 326, 348. Ecclesiastical canons, 358, 360. Edessa, School of, 160. Egetes, 95. Egyptian, canons, 341 ; Church- Orders, 358, 360. Elchesaitism, 373. Eleutherus of Rome, 145, 147, 148, 155. Elias of Nisibis, 339. Elpistus of Pontus, 157. Emerita of Spain, 353. Encratites, 54, 86, 88, 91, 92, 94, 117. '44- Ephesians, Epistles to, 15, 30, 33, 42, 79, "8, 194- Ephraem Syrus, 17, 76, 81, 88, 120. Ephraim of Chersonesus, 374. Epictetus, 164; Bishop of Assuras, 295. Epicurus, 207. Epiphanes, 77. Epiphanius, xxiii, 2, 51, 52, 54, 60, 7°, 7'. 72, 76> 78, 79, 82, 83, 88, 89, 9i, 92, 94. "7. n8, 132, 144, 148, 152, 154, 174, 177, 179, 180, 197, 200, 223, 224, 236, 238, 276, 332, 333, 336, 361, 362, 376. Episcopacy, Monarchical, 33. Episcopal, order, 32, 44; writings, 350. Epistle to Diognetus, 135 f.; James, (Pseudo-Clementine), 372. Epistles, in Easter controversy, 158; (N.T.), 12; of Alexander (Alex.), 222; Alexander (Jerusalem), 247; Aristides, 104; Beryllus, 255; Clement, First, 21 ff.; Cyprian, 289; De Virginitate, 361 ; Diony sius (Alex. ) , 209 ; Dionysius (Cor inth) ,156; Ignatius, 28 ff. ; Julius Africanus, 252; Lucian, 244; Melito, 129; Novatian, 345; Ori gen, 202; Pamphilus, 254; Poly carp, 27; Serapion, 157; Valen tinus, 72. Epistola Eccles. Vien. et Lugdun., 382. Epitome, Pseudo-Clementine, 372, 374- Erasmus, 180, 303. Epwr-fjffeis Wapitis, 83, 84. Esnic the Armenian, 82. Eubulius, 236, 239. Eucratius, bishop, 290. Euelpistus, martyr, 381. Eugenius, 91. Eulogius, deacon, martyr, 387. Euphranor, 212. Euplius, deacon, martyr, 389. Euporus, 212. Eusebius, of Caesarea, xxiii, 2, 19, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31, 36, 41, 46, 47, 48, 5°, 52> 55, 61, 62, 65, 70, 72, 76, 81, 82, 87, 88, 89, 91, 95, 100, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, no, m, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 134, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 192, 193, 197, '98, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 235, 237, 242, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 262, 283, 321, 323, 324, 326, 327, 330, 332, 333. 334, 336, 339. 34°. 344. 35°. 35', 352, 354, 362, 364, 365, 366, 372, 376, 377, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 388, 390, 391; of Emesa, 128; of Thessalonica, 101. Eustachius, 240. Eustathius, of Antioch, 185, 193, 241 ; of Beroea, 222. INDEX 399 Euthalius of Sulce, 255. Fronto, M. Cornelius, 140, 141. Eutrepius, Epistle to, 129. Fructuosus of Tarragona, 387. Eutropius, a heathen, 246. Fulgentius Planciades, 277; of Eutyches, 325. Ruspe, 284, 285. Eutychians, 116, 233. Evagrius, 105, 232. Galatians, 15, 79, 188, 194, 199. Evangelium duodecim Apostolorum, Galen, 269. 51- Galerius, 391 ; Maximus, proconsul, Evodius, 95. 386. Excerpta Theodoti, 54, 74. Gallienus, 206, 213, 386, 387. Exegetical works : Hippolytus, 324 f.; Gallus, 213, 299. Julius Afric, 249; Origen, 181 f. Gelasius, 333; decretal of, 41, 54, Exodus, 183, 190, 201, 325, 348. 89, 152, 177, 3°7> 3"8, 365; of Ezekiel, 187, 192, 327, 348. Cyzicus, 222. Ezra IV., 320. Generation of the Son, 351. Genesis, 128, 173, 182, 190, 241, Fabian, of Antioch (see Fabius) ; of 279, 280, 325, 348. Rome, 204, 210, 291, 347. Genesius, martyr, 388. Fabius of Antioch, 210, 211, 351. Yivva. Maptas, 83. Fasting, 275. Gennadius, 3, 126, 133, 254, 300, Faustus, 88. 318. Felicissimus, 295 ; schism of, 293, TtuiroviKd, 251. 294. Germanus, bishop, 207, 214. Felicitas, martyr (see Perpetua), 384. Glaucias, 70. Felix, bishop, 295, 297; presbyter, Gnosis, Christian, 21, 167, 168. 296; of Rome, 352; Tubzoca, 388. Gnostic, Acts, 88 f.; Ebionism, 51; Female adornment, 272. Gospels, 83 ff. ; literature, 68 ff. Festal Epistle of Dionysius, 214. Gnosticism, 16, 44, 49, 146, 160, Fides Nicaena, 67. 335- Fidus, bishop, 295, 353. Gnostics, 55, 82, 83, 117, 154, 159, Fihrist, 77. 167, 169, 173, 267, 269, 363. See Firmilianus, 203; of Caesarea, 242 f., also Anti-Gnostic Writings. 296. Gobarus, 203. Flavius, 213; Clement, 23; Felix, God, Christian doctrine of, 133, 320; 3°3- polytheistic theory, 305, 311. Flora, 73. Gordianus, 302. Florentius, 295. Gortyna, Epistle to church in, 156. Florinus, 26; Florinus, 74; Roman Gospel, according to the Egyptians, presbyter, 150. 54, 63; according to the Hebrews, Florius, martyr, 386. 50 f.; of Andrew, 54; Barnabas, Forgeries, 16, 25, 28, 33, 114, 116, 54; Bartholomew, 54; Basilides, 203, 215, 228, 232, 234, 242, 278, 70; Eve, 83; Judas, 83; Matthias, 302, 304, 343, 362. 54 f.; Peter, 37, 52, 58, 157; Fortunatus, 287, 288, 295. Philip, 54, 83; Thomas, 55, 65, Forty Martyrs, 391. 83; the Twelve Apostles, 51. 400 INDEX Gospel harmony, of Ammonius, 225; Post-Hieronymian, 121 ; of Tatian, 120. Gospels, 13, 27, 46, 51, 53, 98, 120, 135, 214, 219, 253. Gregorion, 236. Gregory, Nazianzen, 61, 178, 230, 232, 245, 376; Nyssa, 66, 114, 180,217,227,229; Thaumaturgus, 174, 176, 203, 226 ff., 356; of Tours, 147, 316. Gundaphorus, Indian king, 93. Habakkuk, 192, 348. Hadrian, 70, 100, 102, 106, 109. Haggai, 192. Harmonius, 76. Heathen, charges against Christians, 286; writings against, m, 112, H3ff., 118, 123, 137, 166, 263, 305. 319, 331- Hebrew names, 204. Hebrews, Epistle to, 16, 25, 33, 79, 152, 188, 195. Hegesippus, 23, 50, 107, 146 f., 149, 357- Heliogabalus, 76, 128, 248, 250. Heraclas of Alexandria, 206. Heracleon the Valentinian, 61, 73, 180. Heraclitus, 224. Heraclius, 73. Herculanus, bishop, 293. Heretical baptism, 207, 211, 276, 287, 296, 300, 351, 353. Heretics, disputations with, 197; writings against (see Anti-hereti cal Writings). Hermammon of Egypt, 213. Hermas, Shepherd of, 19, 38 ff., 62, 65, 67, 170,300, 319,384. Hermes Trismegistus, 311. Hermias, 137. Hermogenes, 69, 267, 277, 334. Hestia, martyr, 382. Hesychius, bishop, 219. Hexapla, 179. Hierax, of Egypt, 213; of Leontopo- lis, 223; martyr, 381. Hilarianus, governor, 384. Hilary of Poitiers, 185, 285, 304. Hippolytus, 2, 44, 54, 55, 72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 107, 128, 134, 148, 154, 161, 165, 211, 279, 302, 303, 321, 321 ff., 349, 350, 366; of Thebes, 323. Homilies, 181; Pseudo-Clementine, 363, 367, 371 f.; of Valentinus, 72. Homily, of Aristides, 104; Clem ent (?), 63; Gregory Thaumatur gus, 232, 233; Hippolytus, 330. Honoratus, bishop, 295. Hosea, 192, 218. Hyginus of Rome, 72. Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, 353. Hymns, of Bardasanes, 76, 94; Clement, 168; Coptic, 86; Metho dius, 237; the Naassenes, 83. Hypapante, Festival of, 242. Iconoclastic controversy, 91. Idolatry, 272. 'lepa. See Leontius and John. Ignatius of Antioch, 29 ff. ; Epistles of, 26, 27, 28 ff., 149, 357. Ildefonsus of Toledo, 3. Impassivity of God, 231, 313. Incantations, Basilidian, 71. Incarnation, 268. Infant baptism, 353. Innocent I., 54, 89, 91, 95. Inspiration of Scripture, 173, 190. 'InmaTpiKd, 25 1. Irenaeus, 2, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31,41,47, 51, 55, 58, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 82,83, io7> rlo> m, 115, "7, 121, 134, H4, 146 f., 158, 159, 165, 247. 267, 322, 332, 333, 335, 337, 346; of Sirmium, martyr, 389. Irene, martyr, 389. Index 401 Isaiah, 186, 192, 327, 348. Isidore (Basilidian), 55,71; of Pe- lusium, 90; of Seville, 3, 259. Isidorus, 218. Isocrates, 231. Itala, 194. Jacob of Edessa, 329. Jacobus, deacon, martyr, 387. Jader, 297. James, bishop, 372; Epistle of, 18, 25, 33, 42; two Epistles to, 25. Januarius, bishop, 295, 296. Jason and Papiscus, dialogue, 104, 265, 269, 302. Jeremiah, 182, 186, 327. Jerome, 3, 17, 20, 23, 27, 32, 41, 51, 54, 62, 75, 76, 82, 102, 105, 116, 117, 125, 126, 131, 133, 134, 135, 141, 143, 144, 146, 148, 151, 153, «55> '57, '°2, I71. !75, !76> '77, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, '97- '98, 199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 217, 219, 224, 225, 227, 228, 230, 235, 241, 244, 247, 248, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 263, 264, 276, 277, 278, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 306, 307, 3°8, 3°9, 3io, 314, 315, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329. 33°. 331. 332, 333. 334, 336, 338, 339. 34i, 345, 346, 348, 349, 35°, 35 1, 352, 354, 360, 361, 367, 370, 377, 383. Jerome's list, 178, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199, 202, 204, 205. Jesus, 104, 332, 363, 364; discourses of, 149. Jeu, Books of, 84 f. Jewish material in Apocalypse, 35. Jews. See Anti-Jewish Writings. Job, 185, 241, 245. Joel, 192. Johannine theology, 137. John, Gospel of, 33, 48, 49 f., 53, 73, 103, 118, 120, 180, 187, 199, 209, 336; Epistles of, 18, 27; Apoca lypse of, 35, 37; apostle, 49, 147, 170; of Damascus, 2, 61, 239; of Jerusalem, 200; Malalas, 134; the Presbyter, 26, 35. Jonah, 192, 279. Joshua, 182, 184. Jubianus, bishop, 296. Judaism, 21, 32, 79, 320; at Rome, 375; literature of, 13; writings against, 98 f., 104, no, 137, 264, 277, 288, 302, 319, 331, 346. Judas (chronographer), 223. Jude, Epistle of, 18, 364. Judges, 185. Judicium secundum Petrum. See Duae Viae. Judith, 65. Julia Aquilia Severa, 338. Julian, 112. Julius, Africanus, 75, 112, 1 1 7-8, 133, 161, 197, 202, 248 f., 262, 340; Cassianus, 54, 86 f. ; of Rome, 60. Junius Rusticus, prefect, 381. Justin, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 78, 98, 105 f., 118, 121, 127, 129, 132, 134, 136, 140, 149, 239, 241, 268, 335, 357, 381; the Gnostic, 82; of the seventh century, 115. Justinian, 177, 198, 238, 243. Justus of Tiberias, 119, 250. Kario-raais rrjs iKKhtialas, 359. Kardcrrao-is rov KArjpov, 359. Kripbyfiara Uerpoti, 42, 62, 374. Kings, Books of, 185. Kosru, Armenian king, 76. Lacedaemonians, Epistle to, 156. Lactantius, 62, 133, 134, 141, 259. 281, 283, 285, 307 f., 366. Lamentations, 191, 200. 402 INDEX Lapsed, the, 210, 220, 230, 254, 284 f., 291, 292, 293, 294, 295. Laodiceans, Epistle to, 16, 79. Laus Heronis, 30. Legio of Spain, 353. Lemnus, martyr, 386. Leo I., 89, 91. Leonidas, 95. Leonides, 175. Leontius and John, 2, 170, 237, 239, 325- Leontius of Byzantium, 1 14, 116, 220, 235, 243, 244, 325, 354. Leucius Charinus, 89, 91, 92. Levi, 52. Leviticus, 183, 190, 239, 240, 348. Libelli pacis, 292. Liber Generationis, 339, 340. Liber Pontiticalis, 211. Liberalis, bishop, 295, 296. Liberianus, martyr, 381. Liberius of Rome, 222. Licinius, 385, 391. Linus, 90; Linus-text, 366. List of Sixty Canonical Books, 20, 65, 366. Logia of Papias, 46. t\6yia rov Kupiov, 46. Logos, 166, 167, 312. Longus, prefect, 367. Lord's Prayer, 201, 285. Lucian, 225 ; presbyter of Antioch, 244, 356, 357, 386. Lucianus, 292. Lucifer of Calaris, 283, 299, 304, 309. Lucius, bishop, 295, 297; martyr, 387- Lucretius, 306, 309. Luke, companion of Paul, 58, 105, 367; Gospel of, 48, 49, 56, 73, 78, 79, 181, 187, 188, 193, 214, 218, 329- Lycias, governor, 387. Lyons and Vienne, 147, 382. Macarius, bishop, 294; Magnes, 36; presbyter in Edessa, 160-1. Macedonia, Montanist, 386. Magnesians, Ignatius to, 30. Magnus, 296. Malachi, 192. Malchion, 243, 354. Mammaea, empress, 338. Manichaeans, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94. Manichaeism, 77. Marcellus, of Ancyra, 60, 190, 198; centurion, martyr, 388. Marcellus texts, 367. Marcian, 151; bishop, 296. Marcianus, martyr, 386. Marcion, 16, 76, 77 f., 107, 143, 144, 149, 152, 247, 266, 268, 269, 279, 333, 349- Marcion's Gospel, 79, 81, 82. Marcionite controversy, 124; Script ures, 79, 246, 266; writings (see also Anti-Marcionite Writings), 16. Marcionites, 78, 126, 143, 167, 246. Marcosians, 55. Marcus, 333; Aurelius, 108, 121, 122, 127, 130, 131, 133, 137, 141, 144, 381, 385; a Marcionite, 246. Marianus, lector, martyr, 387. Marinus, a Bardesanite, 246. Mark, Gospel of, 46, 48, 170, 193, 218. Marriage, 168, 223, 273. Martialis, bishop, 296, 253. Martyrdom, 168, 201, 214, 241, 272, 275, 287, 299, 303, 347; Apol- lonius, 383; Paul, 366; Peter, 90; Peter and Paul, 367; Polycarp, 147. Martyrium Ignatii, 30, 34; Nice- phori, 387; Polycarpi, 28, 379, 380; Romanum, 348. Martyrologies, 378 ff. Martyrologium Hieronymianum, 379; Romanum, 322. Martyrs, Acts of: lost, 379. INDEX 403 Mary of Cassobola, 30. Matthew, apostle, 55; Gospel of, 21, 46, 48, 51, 56, 71, 73, 96, 192, 194, 214, 328, 348, 376- Matthiae Traditiones, 55, 71. Maximian, 388, 389, 390. Maximilianus, martyr, 388. Maximilla, 94, 153. Maximums, 193, 201, 253. Maximus, 224, 237, 238; of Alex andria, 354; bishop (Numidia), 295; bishop, 353; confessor, 105, 116, 150, 151, 162, 172, 192, 222; martyr, 386; presbyter, 292 f., 294; Thrax, 176. Mazdai, king, 93. Megethius, a Marcionite, 246. Melchiades, 301. Meletian schism, 219, 220. Meletius, 221. Melito of Sardis, 92, 123 f., 144, 1 65, 170, 222, 259, 278, 330. Mellitus (Melito?), 129. Memian, 239. Menander, 68, 70, 107. Mennas of Constantinople, 198, 238. Merozanes of Armenia, 210. Messiahship of Christ, 288. Methodius of Olympus, 36, 132, 161, 200, 235 {., 246. Metrodorus, Marcionite, 385, 386. Micah, 192. Military profession, 274. Milotho (Melito?), 129. Miltiades, 121 f., 128, 153. Minor Prophets, 192. Minucius Felix, 132, 133, 138 f., 259, 263, 289, 309, 319. Modestus, 144. Modesty, 275, 298. Modianus, bishop, 295. Monarchianism, 333, 346. Monoimus, the Gnostic, 82. Monophysite controversies, 32. Monophysites, 220. Montanism, 157, 261. Montanist, controversy, 124; writer, 384- Montanists, 122, 147, 152 f., 155, 173, 257, 276, 381. See also Anti-Montanistic Writings. Montanus, 153; martyr, 387. Moses of Chorene, 75, 76, 243, 365. Moyses, presbyter, 292 f. Muratorian Fragment, 16, 36, 41, 42, 44, 82, 92. Musanus, 144. Musonius (Stoic), 164, 172. Naassenes, 54, 55, 82, 83. Nahum, 192. Nampulus, bishop, 295. Narcissus of Jerusalem, 158, 247. Nartzallis, martyr, 382. Natalis, M. Caecilius, 141. Nemesianus, bishop, 295, 297. Neo, martyr, 387. Neoplatonism, 306. Nepos, of Arsinoe, 207, 208. Nero, 24, 127, 366, 368. Nerva, 20. Nestorians, 116, 233. Nestorius, 325. New Testament, 11,84, 98, 109, 118, 134. 140, 148, 149. '73, 179, 253. 300. Nexocharides, 95. Nicaea, Second Council, 91. Nicephorus Callisti, 123, 197, 325, 326, 327, 330, 332, 333, 336, 366. Nicephorus, Stichometry of, 20, 37, 55, 65> 89. 90, 91, 93, 171, 366; — (Antirrhet), 1 71; martyr, 387. Nicetas of Serra, 214. Nicolaitans, 84. Nicomedians, Epistle to, 156. Nicostratus, confessor, 293, 294. Noetus, 332. Nonus Marcellus, 277. 404 INDEX Novatian, 133, 207, 279, 298, 299, 302, 344 ff., 349; schism of, 210 f., 285, 294, 345. See also Anti- Novatianist Writings. Novatianism, 296. Novatianist affairs, 351, 352. Novatianists, 304. Numbers, 184, 239. Numidicus, presbyter, 293. Octavius, 139. Odes of Solomon, 85. CEcumenius, 61, 171, 254. CEdipean nuptials, 131. Old Testament, 21, 25, 84, 98, 127, 149, 173, 179, 204, 300. Ophitic writings, 82 f. Optatus, bishop, 295 ; of Mileve, 65, 257, 35°- Optimus, proconsul, 386. Opuscula Montani, Priscillae et Maxi- millae, 152. Origen, 19, 23, 29, 31, 38, 41,44, 50, 51, 54. 55. 5°. 6l> 66> 68. 7°. 7'. 73, 74, 104, 115, 124, 126, 160, 164, 173 ff., 205, 206, 208, 214, 221, 224, 227, 228, 229, 236, 239, 240, 241, 245, 246, 247, 249, 252, 254, 255. 33o, 33°. 348. 35°, 352, 366. 376, 377- Origenists, 88, 94. Origin of evil, 246, 338. Pachomius, bishop, 219. Pacianus, 89, 284. Palatina, 40. Palestinian martyrs (Eusebius), 379. Palladius, 96, 173, 176, 343. Palmas of Amastris, 158. Pamphilus, 161, 174, 177, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200, 218, 253 f. Pantaenus, 160, 162, 163, 247. Paon, martyr, 381. Papias, 26, 46, 48, 100, 149. Papylus of Thyatira, martyr, 381. Papyrus, Brucianus, 85; Rainer, 47. napa 208, 220, 238; martyr, 388. 406 INDEX Prophecy, 173. Prophetical Writings, O.T., 109, 166, 264, 337- Protevangel of James, 56. Protoctetus, presbyter, 201. Proverbs, 134, 186, 191, 234, 240. Prudentius, 281, 323, 386, 387. Psalms, 179, 185, 191, 205, 223, 240, 326; of Bardesanes, 76; Gnostics, 84; Hierax, 223; Marcion, 82; the Naassenes, 83 ; Valentinus, 72. Psalterium Athelstani, 60. Psellus, Michael, 251. Pseudo- Abdias (Virtutes Andreae), 95- Pseudo-Athanasius (Fides Nicaena), 66; (Tlepl TapBwias) , 66; (Praec. ad Antiochum), 39; (Svvray. Si5a(r/f. ), 67. Pseudo-Augustine (De poenitentia), 95- Pseudo-Clement (Homilies, etc.), 371 f.; (Recognitions), 76, 371 f. (De Virginitate), 361 ff. Pseudo-Clementine Writings, 62, 363, 367, 37'- Pseudo-Cyprian (Ad Novatian.), 344, 349; (Adv. Aleatores), 41, 66, 156, 300; (Adv. Judaeos), 332; (De bono pudicitiae), 347; (Cel sus : De Jud. incredulit.), 302; (De Pascha computus), 339, 347; (De Rebaptism.), 62; De Specta culis), 347. Pseudo-Hegesippus (De bello Jud.), 89. Pseudo-Hippolytus (Dionys. Areop.) Adv. Beron., 343. Pseudo-Justin (Quaest. et Resp. ad Orthod.), 63, 147, 204. Pseudo-Melito (Apology), 122. Pseudo-Mellitus (De Passione Joann.), 92. Pseudo-Origen (Exposit. lib. Job.), 245. Pseudo-Plutarch (Placita), 112, 138. Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. Haeres), 72, 81, 150, 279, 332, 349; (Adv. Judaeos), 105, 263; (Adv. Mar cion.), 279, 349. Ptolemaeus, 73. Puppianus, 296. Quadratus, apologist, 100 f. ; early Christian prophet, 101 ; Bishop of Athens, IOI; L. Statius, pro consul, 390. Quartodecimans, 150, 170. Quintilla, 270. Quintus, bishop, 296. Quirinus, 288; bishop, martyr, 390. Recognitions, Pseudo-Clementine, 371 f. Recta Fide, De. See Dialogus, etc. Resurrection, in, 131, 133, 149, 173, 199, 214, 268, 317, 338, 3°9- Reticius of Autun, 349 f. Revelation, 169. Revocatus, martyr, 384. Rhodo, 78,81,82, 119, 143 f., 153, 154- Rhossus, Church at, 157. Rogatianus, bishop, 290; confes sor, 291; martyr, 388; presbyter, 293- Roman baptismal symbol, 856; bishops, 155, 350; church, 23 f., '55,335; symbol, 59. Romans, Epistle to, 15, 79, 118,192, 194; Dionysius of Corinth to, 156; Ignatius to, 30, 149. Rufinus of Aquileia, 41, 60, 66, 125, 126, 153, 174, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199, 203, 205, 211, 230, 245, 246, 254, 314, 345, 360, 376, 377, 380; confessor, 293; grammarian, 3H- INDEX 407 Rule of faith, 151, 160, 232, 345. Rusticus the prefect, 106. Sabellian controversy, 212 f. Sabellianism, 231. Sabellians, 54, 351. Sabellius, 209, 346. Sabina, martyr, 385. Sabinus, 243. Sacra Parallela, 2, 61, 109, no, 112, 114, 116, 133, 151, 169, 207, 237, 239,325- Samuel, Books of, 185. Satornilians, 107. Satornilus, 68, 70. Saturninus, martyr, 384; presbyter, martyr, 389; P. Vigellius, pro consul, 382. Saturus, martyr, 384. Savinus, martyr, 388. Scapula, 264, 267, 274. Scillitan martyrs, 382. Scholia, 181. Secunda, martyr, 382. Sedatus, bishop, 290. Semi-Arian controversy, 232. Seneca and Paul, correspondence, 17. Sententiae episcoporum, 353. Septuagint, 179, 219, 244. Serapion, Epistles to, 200; of Anti och, 52, 122, 157. Serenus, Epistle to Zenas and, 115. Serenus, martyr, 390. Sergius, confessor, 291; Paulus, 125. Servilius Paulus, proconsul, 125. Sethites, 82, 83, 84, 85. Severa, 204. Severians, 82, 84, 85. Severus, 314; Septimius, 96, 223, 224, 248, 266, 328, 337, 380. Sextus, 224; Empiricus, 334. Shepherd of Hermas, 38 ff. Sibylline Books, 37, 320, 357. Sidonius, 294. Simeon Metaphrastes, 253, 374, 379, _38i. Simon, a Gnostic, 68; Magus, 90, i°7, 368, 374- Sistelius, 240. Sixtus of Rome, 212, 297; II. of Rome, 299, 351; III. of Rome, 379- Smyrnaeans, Ignatius to, 30. Socrates, the Gnostic, 231 ; historian, 157, 190, 222, 235, 236, 241, 345, 352. Solomon, Odes of, 85. Song of Solomon, 151, 181, 182, 186, 190, 191, 241, 326, 348, 349. Sophists, 97; Christian, 138. Sophronius, 3. Soranus, 269. Soter of Rome, 123, 153, 155, 156. Spanish martyrs, 387. Speculum Augustini, 16. Speratus, martyr, 382. Spiritual interpretation, 208. Stephanus Gobarus, 112, 146, 152, 215. Stephen of Rome, 21 1, 296, 351. Successus, bishop, 297. Suidas, 203, 244, 248, 251. Sulpicius Severus, 367. %V/A(pwvio., &$. 2vvrayp.a didaGKaAlas, 67. Susanna, Story of, 199, 202, 252, 327. Sylvester, 222. Symbol, African, 355 ; Alexandrian, 3555 Caesarean, 355; Gregory Thaumaturgus, 229 f., 232, 233, 356; Irenaeus, 355; Lucian, 244, 356; Roman, 59, 356. Symbols and creeds (see Confes sions), 355. Symmachus, 96, 179, 309. Syncellus, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 329, 333, 339- Synodal writings, 350 ff. 408 INDEX Synods, African, 353; Alexandria (231-2 A.D.), 352; Antioch, Third, 243; Antioch (268), 354; Arabia, 352; Bostra (244), 352; Carth age (251), 352; Carthage (255-6), 353; Rome (251-2), 352. Synoptic gospels, 47, 48, 49, 50. Syrian martyrology, 379. Tales, Gnostic, 69, 88 ff. Tarachus, martyr, 390. Tarphon, Rabbi, no. Tarsians, Ignatius to, 30. Tatian, 98, 106, 113, 117 f., 121,131, 132, 143, 144, 165, 233, 249, 259. Tatiana, Sister, 201. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 63 f., 300. See Didache. Telesphorus, 212. Tertullian, 2, 41, 72, 73, 78, 80, 81, 82, 92, 105, 106, 107, no, m, 117, 121, 122, 124, 133, 134, 141, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 155, 156, 165, 224, 247, 253, 256 ff., 280, 283, 284, 287, 289, 298, 303, 309, 3i9. 335. 345- 346, 35°, 355. 37°. 383, 384- Tertullus, bishop, 290. Tetrapla, 180. Thaddeus, 95, 364 f. Thascius, 295. Theatrical shows, 271, 297. Thecla, 237, 369. Thelymidres of Laodicea, 210. Themison, Montanist, 153. Theoctistus of Caesarea, 161, 175,248. Theodas, 71, 74. Theodora, martyr, 389. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 51, 76, 120, 126, 143, 165, 197, 222, 241, 325, 326, 327, 329, 334, 336, 338- Theodorus, Alexandrian advocate, 218; bishop, 219; (Gregorius), 227; Studita, 92. Theodotion, 179. Theodotus, 74, 169; excerpts of, 74. Theognostus of Alexandria, 217, 218. Theologumena Arithmeticae, 216. Theology, Christian, 217, 311. Theonas, bishop of Alexandria, 218, 225. Theophilus, 249, 268; a certain, 337; of Antioch, 132 f., 140, 224, 247, 267, 309; bishop, 353; of Caesa rea, 158; chronographer, 134. Theophilus of Patara, 239. Theophylact, 51, 54. Theopompus, 231. Theotecnus of Caesarea, 215, 216, 353. Theseus, 323. Thessalonians, 15, 79, 188, 194. Thnetopsychitae, 352. Thomas, 364. Thyestian banquets, 131. Tichonius, 348. Timotheus, 207; of Alexandria, 94, 361-2. Timothy, 16. Titus, 16, 188, 195, 367. Tobit, 65, 103. Toleration, Gallienus' edict of, 206. Tradition, Catholic conception of, 265. Trajan, 29, 33, 44. Trallians, Ignatius to, 30. Transmission of early literature, I . Tricentius, 220. Trinity, 345 f. ; economic, 268. Tritemius of Sponheim, 3, 307. Trypho, 204, 205; dialogue with, 110. Turibius of Asturica, 91, 92, 94. Tuscus, consul, 388. Two Ways, The (see Duae Viae), 21, 66. Urbanus, 294. Ursinus, monk, 300. Valarses, Armenian king, 76. INDEX 409 Valens, a Valentinian, 238, 246. Vincent of Lerins, 259. Valentinianism, 75, 86. Vienne and Lyons, 382. Valentinians, 73 f., 148, 149, 150, 169, 246, 267, 268. See Anti-Valentin- ian Writings. Valentinus, 53, 69, 71 f., 73, 74, 78, 107, 169. Valerian, 206, 213, 281, 288, 297, Vigilius of Tapsus, 302. Virgil, 318. Virginitate, De, epistles, 361. Virgins, dress of, 274, 284. Virtutes Andreae, 95. Vitalius, 233. 345, 384, 386, 387- Valerian's persecution, 213, 215, 296. Valesius, 211. Varro, 259; M. Terentius, 263. Volusianus, 299. Vulgata, 39. Vulgate, 121. Veiling of virgins, 274. Venantius Fortunatus, 317. Vespasian, 20. Vestia, martyr, 382. Vettius Gratus, 386. Vibius, 323. Water used in sacrament, 295. " We-source " of Acts, 58. Witch of Endor, 185, 241, 325. Xenocharides, 95. Victor, bishop, 290, 293, 295, 297; of Capua, 121, 147, 150, 155, 158, 200, 203, 204, 301. Victorinus (De metris, etc.), 314; Afer, 348; of Pettau, 279, 347 f. Zechariah, 192, 328. Zenas and Serenus, Epistle to, 115. Zephaniah, 192. Zephyrinus, 321, 322, 341, 350. CHRONOLOGICAL CONSPECTUS. A.D. Syria and Palestine. Asia Minor. Greece, Egypt. Rome (Italy.) NORTH Africa. Occident. Unknown or Uncertain. Before 70. Ur-Matthew. X- 54-64 ±. Paul. (Paul.) After 70. Mark? Matthew. Luke. 75-ioo±. I. Peter. Barnabas. Hebrews. Towards close of first century. Apocalypse of John. About 100. Gospel and Epistles of John I. Clement. James. Bapt. Symbol. About 100? Preaching of Peter. Hermas. After 100. 1 Before 150. J Didache. Gospel of Peter. Apoc. of Peter. Gospel of Egyptians. Pastoral Epist. II. Clement. About 105-117? "I About 140? J Ignatius. Polycarp (d. 155). First decade sec ond century. Papias. 125-126. Quadratus. Aristides(?i38). About 130. Basilides. Agrippa Castor. About 150. Aristo of Pella. Valentinus. Marcion. Justin (d. 163-7) After 150. Acts of Paul and Thecla. Jude. II. Peter. Heracleon. Ptolemseus. Between 160 and 180. Tatian. Miltiades. Apollinaris.Melito. Dionysius of Corinth Philip of Gortyna. Tatian. Rhodo.Hegesippus. (Minucius Felix.) Scillitan mar tyrs (180). Lyons and Vienne. Irenaeus (d. 189 + ). Athenagoras.Musanus.Modestus. After 180. Theophilus to Autolycus. Pantaenus. —— About 200. Serapion (d. 209). Bardesanes. (d. 222). ApoUonius. Clement (d. -215). Caius. Tertullian (d. 2JZO+). Perpetua and Felicitas (203). About 220. Julius Africanus (d. 240 + ). Hippolytus (d. 235 + )- About 230. Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 250). Origen (d. 254). About 250. Gregory Thauma- turg. (d. 270±). Dionysius (d. 265). Cornelius(d. 253). Novatian. cyi (d. nan 258). Commodian. About 260. Paul of Samo sata (d. 268 + ). ") Theognostus \ and J Pierius. Dionysius (d. 268). After 270. Lucian (d.312). - Victorinus of Pettau. About 300. Methodius (d. 311). Petrus (d. 312). Arn< bius. After 300. '- Lactantius. Alexander (d. 326). 4— Reticius.Lactantius. THE GOSPEL FOR AN AGE OF DOUBT. By HENRY VAN DYKE. BEING THE YALE LECTURES ON PREACHING, 1896. i2mo. Price $1.75. " The volume is one of the solidest and most quickening of all those which bear the title of ' Yale Lectures on Preaching.' It is a grand book." — Rev. George B. Stevens, D.D., Professor of Theology, Yale. " It all is so brilliant, painstaking, and scholarly, that I have been swept along with an enjoyment not often felt. The last chapter, on the election to service, seems to me to announce, as almost no other utterance has done, the gospel of the present time." — Rev. Francis G. Peabody^ D.D., Professor of Christian Ethics, Harvard. "The book is going to do a splendid work for the entire Christian Ministry." — Rev. Lyman Abbott, D.D., Pastor of the Plymouth Church, Brooklyn. Editor- in-Chief of The Outlook. " Its literary charm and singular cogency will make it a most helpful and perma nently valuable contribution to our theological literature." — The Rt. Rev. Henry C. Potter, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of Neiv York. (In a personal letter to the author.) " A most timely book. It meets the questions which are stirring in the minds of many, especially of young men, with candor, with ability and in an attractive manner. The literary illustrations of the author's positions do more than add charm, they strengthen his points; and the copious notes in the appendix have pertinence and force as buttresses to his argume it. The work throughout is full of the spirit of Christ. It is the best one of a very few books I should venture to put in the hands of a young man troubled by doubts, with a reasonable assurance it would lead to a settled faith in the Gospel of Christ." — James O. Murray, D.D., Dean of Prince ton University. CHRISTIANITY AND IDEALISM. The Christian Ideal of Life in its Relation to the Greek and Jewish Ideals and to Modern Philosophy. By JOHN WATSON, LL.D., Professor of Moral Philosophy in Queen's University, Kingston, Can. i2mo. Price $1.25, net. " The author is a clear thinker and elegant writer on philosophical sutjects. The lover of philosophy will read it with pleasure, and the believer in idealism will rejoice to find so able an advocate of his theory."— Zion's Herald. " You will be stirred and uplifted by the trend of thought throughout the work and by the noble and inspiring views presented." — The Christian Uplook. " An able book, written in a clear comprehensive style, and shows earnest re search. . . . The simplicity and purity of style, the wide range of reading displayed, and the attempt to maintain the idealistic as opposed to the materialistic in philosophy command our attention." — New York Observer. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. OUTLINES OF SOCIAL THEOLOGY. By WM. DeWITT HYDE, D.D., President of Bowdoin College, and Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy. i2mo. Cloth. Pp. 260. Price $1.50. Part I. Theological ; II. Anthropological ; III. Sociological. " It contains something more than commonly well worth reading. The keynote of the volume, as we read it, is sounded in the first sentence of Chapter IV.: 'It is impossible to separate God from man or man from God. They are correlative terms.' The author plants himself firmly on this social conception of theology and holds it. The book is, all through, very much out of the ordinary line. It does not fly in the face of settled convictions, nor contradict the traditional creeds. The sub ject is set up for discussion in a different light and in new and delightfully suggestive relations." — The Independent. " The message of a twentieth century man to the twentieth century. President Hyde believes that the Christianity of Christ and His disciples was pre-eminently a social movement, and that the emphasis hitherto of an individualistic aspect of theology has been excessive, and disastrous to Christianity. This volume is m con sequence a contribution distinctively to social theology. " Readers of the author's luminous articles in magazines will not be surprised to find this book letting in new light from psychology and sociology upon some dark places of theology. The origin of man, the doctrine of original sin, the scope of prayer, the question of church unity, and the larger relations of theology to anthro pology and sociology are discussed with a freshness and frankness rarely found in theological treatises. Not a page could be spared, and not a page should be passed lightly over."— Philadelphia Citizen. " We have to thank Dr. Hyde for a peculiarly original, interesting, and suggestive study. Protestant Christianity is to be congratulated on possessing the allegiance of so wise and earnest a scholar as the author of this book." — The Church Standard. " A most welcome book. It is something far better and more desirable than its title would indicate. We think he deserves credit for something more thorough and lasting than he is willing to claim. At any rate, he traverses from end to end the whole region of religion, on the side both of theory and of practice, and explores it in the light of the science and thinking and spirit of our day. The author's gift of telling utterance, his fine feeling, and lofty purpose seem never to fail him. He shows that he has in rare degree the gifts of the preacher, and that these chapters were first spoken as sermons. They lose in print none of their reality and practical efficiency. It is a good omen that this first attempt at a thorough restatement ol Christian doctrine should command the service of the art to please and convince, and partake both of the 'grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.'" — The Congrega tionalist. " President Hyde has thus given us in this unpretentious little book, a stimulat ing restatement of old truth; a new starting-point for religious thought; an admi rable example of the modern passion for reality. , . . No man who is endeavoring to work his way through a traditional theology into the heart of Christian thought can afford to miss reading this work." — The Biblical World. " It is a long time since we have read a volume which has so thoroughly interested and pleased us. Our readers will do well to examine it for themselves if they wish to become acquainted with some of the best and most advanced thought of the day on the weighty subjects whereof it treats." — The New-Church Review. " The dominating idea of Dr. Hyde's book is indicated by its title, ' Outlines of Social Theology.' It is not sociology viewed theistically ; it is theology viewed socially. It does not, like Kidd's 'Social Evolution' or Diummond's 'Ascent of Man,' contribute one notably new and crystallizing thought to a familiar discussion. It is rather, as its title indicates, an ' outline.' But it is not a skeleton. It is full of life, of blood, of nerves. In it the author reflects, in fresh and vital statements, the latest, and what The Outlook regards as the best, theological thought of our time. But this he does not as a mere reporter; he is a thinker who has felt the influence of the Zeitgeist, and reproduces in remarkably clear statements truths which lie in modern consciousness, either as undefined experiences or as individual but not correlated truths." — The Outlook. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. SOCIAL EVOLUTION. BY BENJAMIN KIDD. New Edition, revised, with h, New Preface. Cloth. 8vo. $1.75. EXTRACTS FROM SOME OF THE PRESS NOTICES. " The name of Mr. Benjamin Kidd, author of a very striking work on ' Social Evolution,' is, so far as we know, new to the literary world ; but it is not often that a new and unknown writer makes his first appearance with a work so novel in conception, so fertile in suggestion, and on the whole so powerful in exposition as ' Social Evolution ' appears to us to be, ... a book which no serious thinker should neglect, and no reader can study without recognizing it as the work of a singularly penetrating and original mind." — The Times (London). " It is a study of the whole development of humanity in a new light, and it is sustained and strong and fresh throughout. ... It is a profound work which invites the attention of our ablest minds, and which will reward those who give it their careful and best thought. It marks out new lines of study, and is written in that calm and resolute tone which secures the confidence of the reader. It is undoubtedly the ablest book on social development that has been published for a long time." — Boston Herald. " Those who wish to follow the Bishop of Durham's advice to his clergy — 'to think over the questions of socialism, to discuss them with one an other reverently and patiently, but not to improvise hasty judgments ' — will find a most admirable introduction in Mr. Kidd's book on ' Social Evolution.' It is this because it not merely contains a comprehensive view of the very wide field of human progress, but is packed with suggestive thoughts for interpreting it aright. . . . We hope that the same clear and well-balanced judgment that has given us this hefpful essay will not stay here, but give us further guidance as to the principles which ought to govern right thinking on this the question of the day. We heartily commend this really valuable study to every student of the perplexing problems of socialism." — The Churchman. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. VERBUM DEI. THE YALE LECTURES ON PREACHING, 1893. By ROBERT F. HORTON, M.A. Price $1.50. " His intensely sensitive spirit makes him eager to be in the high est degree helpful to the faith and holy living of the people of his time. He knows well the thoughts, the questionings, the doubts, the longings, of the immense number of thoughtful people who are in danger of tumbling over some mistaken idea or unfounded preju dice before getting at the truth." — The Advance. "Such a book is not alone for the young theological student. It contains a revelation for every preacher, every layman, every under standing mind." — The Ram's Horn. " The author opens a fresh field." — Boston Traveler. HEREDITY AND CHRISTIAN PROBLEMS. By AMORY H. BRADFORD, D.D. i2mo. Cloth. Price $1.50. " It is a most timely corrective to the drift of popular exaggeration, and it is a most clear and forcible presentation of many widely mis understood truths." — From a letter to the author from Bishop Potter. "A popular and instructive discussion of the vexed question of heredity. . . . Dr. Bradford discusses it in a robust, intelligent, straightforward, and thoroughly Christian way, and his book will be a solid help to every student of human nature." — The Christian Advocate. " The really fine and characteristic feature in the scheme of reform presented by Dr. Bradford is his faith in Christianity as a divine and spiritual power in the world, set to operate along the lines of certain intelligent methods." — The Independent. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.