Gwatkin. Early Church History To A.D. 313. 1912. Volume 2.

EARLY CHURCH HISTORY
MACiMlLLAN AND CO., Limited

LONDON • BOMBAY CALCUTTA
•
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO
• •
DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA. Ltd.
TORONTO
EARLY
CHURCH HISTORY
TO A.D. 313
BY
HENRY MELVILL GWATKIN

} LATE GIFKORD
DIXIE PROF£SSOK OF KCCLESIASTICAL HISl ORY, CAMBRIDGE LECTURER, EDINBURGH
AUTHOR OF 'selections FROM EARLY WRITERS ILLUSTRATIVE OF
CHURCH HISTORY TO THE TIME OF CONSTANTINe'
IN TWO VÔLUMES
VOL. II
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
I 9 I 2
COPYRIGHT
First Edition 1909.
Second Edition 1912.
''"»
>5 '
l .^ o
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XIV
PAGE
Jewish Influences 1
CHAPTER XV
Gnosticism 19
CHAPTER XVI
MONTANISM 73
CHAPTER XVH
Irenaeus 97
CHAPTER XVni
The Eastern Emperors 114
CHAPTER XIX
The School of Alexandria 154
CHAPTER XX
Origen 180
V
vi CHURCH HISTORY
CHAPTER XXI
PAGE
The Roman Church . . . . . . . .213
CHAPTER XXII
Africa — Tertullian 232
CHAPTER XXIII
Decius and Valerian . . . . . . .251
CHAPTER XXIV
The Discipline Questions 274
CHAPTER XXV
The Long Peace 306
CHAPTER XXVI
The Great Persecution ....... 326
Table of Emperors 368
INDEX 371
MAP
Map op Roman Empire in its Greatest Extent. End of Volume
;
CHAPTER XIV
JEWISH INFLUENCES
The revelation of the Christ is not a law of out-

ward conduct which can be laid down once for all,
but a historical fact of inexhaustible significance.
For the very reason that its essence is universal, its
conception and expression by men must be partial,
according to diversities of race and character. Hence
the vast variety of Christianity. While other systems
are hampered by fundamental laws and particular in-
stitutions, the Gospel has but two rites ordained of
Christ, and those are of the simplest. Given the love
of God and man quickened and enlightened by the
love of Christ, we cannot go far wrong.
But this variety has another side. Christianity did
not win the throne of the world without a struggle
and if each of its rivals was defeated in its turn, they
all contrived to retain a good deal of their power in
Christian forms. If each of them yielded to the
inward might of Christianity, each of them deeply
modified its outward historical expression. It is idle
to complain for instance of the historical necessity
under which Christian doctrine was expressed in the
language of Greek philosophy, and afterwards of
Roman law. But language and thought influence
VOL. II 1 B
2 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
each other, and jointly modify the doctrine. So along

with the outward warfare of conversions resulting in
the transfer of individuals, there was a subtler internal
discord which issued in the splitting off of sects and
the formation of schools of thought. Thus in the
apostolic age the Jewish converts brought into the
churches many a scruple of Jewish legalism, the
Gentiles many a scandal of Gentile lawlessness.
The three great rivals of the Gospel were Judaism,
and what we may call Orientalism and Hellenism. ^
We are not in this connexion giving the terms any

local reference, or regarding them as definite religions.
They are rather convenient expressions for modes of
thought and groups of tendencies pervading many
worships and philosophies according to differences of
race and personal character. Buddhism in the Far
East cannot well be added as a fourth rival. It was
already a great and ancient faith, and can boast of
older and larger councils than the Christian but it :
scarcely came in contact with the West, and such

influence as it had on Christian thought was chiefly
through Manichaeism ;^ whereas Judaism, Orientalism
and Hellenism are never absent from the history of
the Christian church. The three tendencies are
generally distinct and easily separable in the mixed
systems which grew up after the Greek and Eoman
conquests in Asia. Greece and Rome themselves,
greatly as they differ from each other, are generically
^ Though there are serious objections to the use of Orientalisvi in this
meaning, it is hard to find a better Avord. It has the advantage of indicating
the rough general contrast of Europe and Asia, and it is not made unsuit-
able by the fact that the working of dualism in Persia had an exceptional
character.
2 Thus the attempt of J, Kennedy {Journ. Roijal Asiatic Society Apr.
1902) to trace Buddhism in the system of Basilides seems more interesting
than convincing.
XIV JEWISH INFLUENCES 3
alike when the comparison with Israel or Persia.

is
Even doubt is
in the disputed case of Essenism, the
not about the existence of such an element as is here
called Oriental only whether it might not have
;
been of native Jewish growth. So too the Oriental

element is plain enough in Gnosticism but it is an ;
open question whether or not it always came in by

way of Eastern thought.
It will be convenient to begin with a broad general
account of the three tendencies, so as to shew the
nature of their several influences on Christianity
before endeavouring to trace them historically.
Judaism then was (so to say) a form of Deism.
God had revealed himself in his unity and holiness
and separation from sin but the nature of the revela-
;
tion pointed forward as much as any special prophecy

to something better. If God is holy, a confessedly
imperfect revelation cannot be his last word in history.
This thought was a great qualification of the Deism,
and it was clearly seen by the prophets, especially
Jeremiah but the Jew of a later age refused to see it.
;
^
Knowing that sin is the root of evil, and mistaking

the Law which was meant to reveal sin ^ for the means
of overcoming sin, he clung timidly to the letter, and
thought only of " making a hedge round it." The
Law of the Lord is a dangerous pit forsooth, and
needs to be fenced. So an age of growing formalism
shrank more and more from the glorious and awful
Name, while men of more sober piety retraced the
ancient records in quest of mediating angels or a
mystic Word. In short, the Jew refused to see the
local and temporary purpose implied in every special
adaptation of the Law to his own special circum-
1 Jer. xxxi. 31 sq. ^ Rom. vii. 13.
stances,and overlooked even the plain fact that it

was physically impossible for the Jews of the Dis-
persion to observe So he proclaimed its eternity
it.
just when it was ready to vanish away. But a

God conceived in terms of law is not a God who
delighteth in mercy, but a hard taskmaster whose
holiness can only be satisfied with works of law.
So human pride found its outlet in a gnosis of
revelation —
in the knowledge of the learned, how
to do those works.
Thus the Jewish converts tended to bring in the
Pharisaic conception of the Law as eternal. The
Gospel was no new covenant, but a mere cleansing of
the old and salvation was still by works of law.
;
So there was no need of a mediator and lawgiver

higher than Moses. Jesus of Nazareth might be a
prophet, he might be the Messiah and the king of
Israel, but he could not be more. He was still the
servant of the Law, not its master. He could not
be the end of the Law, the everlasting Priest, or in
any full sense the Son of God.
What is here called Orientalism is not a local
religion but a permanent tendency of human nature
which is well developed in the Easb, but may shew
itself anywhere. In early Christian times it was a
resultant of complex forces. In addition to wide-
spread superstitions like demon -worship, it had a
Chaldean element of star-worship, theogonies, charms
and soothsaying a Syrian element of stern asceti-
;
cism and gross licentiousness by turns an Egyptian

;
element of mystery, of ceremonial, and of looking

for judgment to come. All these are plain in sundry
of the Gnostic sects, and most of them take a colour
from the Greek world around them but the deepest
;
:
influence of was a Persian element of Dualism, and

all
this is what we shall chiefly have to keep in view.

Orientalism then begins with the question,
Whence is evil ? This is a false start, for clearly
the first question should have been, What is evil ?
Now physical evil is that part of the order of things

which is or may be unpleasant to ourselves, whereas
moral evil is disorder of our own creation. Closely
as the two are connected and largely in experience,
as physical evil is caused by moral evil, the two are
utterly diSerent in character, and any endeavour to
lump them together under the common name of
"evil" is pure confusion of thought. So the
ancients generally came to a dilemma. Either evil
is somehow unreal, or the good God is not the author
of all things. The only escape is to deny that God

is good and this was rightly refused, for it is worse
:
than a confusion of thought. Accepting then the

dilemma, the Greeks generally leaned to Pantheism,
which maintains the goodness of God by explaining
away the reality of evil, making it a necessary factor
or a necessary stage in the process of growth.
Oriental thought turned the other way, to dual-
ism. If God is good and "evil" real, the simplest
plan is to confront the good God with an indepen-
dent though perhaps inferior evil power of some
sort.
Only now is the question asked. What is evil ?
Which part of creation is good, and which is bad ?
The Oriental felt that the spiritual nature is the

higher, mistook the contrast of higher and lower for
one of good and bad, and came to the conclusion
that matter is evil. Christianity declares that the
world is good, except so far as sin has disordered it
Orientalism pronounces it essentially bad. If then

evil resides in matter, the good not only God is
separate as in Judaism from the world of matter, but

positively opposed to it.
The inference is clear. If the world is essentially

evil, the good God cannot be its maker, and we must
have some demiurge or other for the work of creation.
That demiurge may be an evil being or at best a
bungler, but cannot be truly good. Again, if there
be a redemption as the Gospel tells us, it is a
redemption not from sin but from evil, that is, from
matter. Hence the redeemer cannot have come in
flesh, for flesh is matter, and therefore evil nor can ;
it be any part of his work to redeem the body. Yet

again, if matter is evil, it is our duty to escape from
it. As we cannot well go out of the world, the next
best thing is to shew our contempt of the body by
wallowing in vice as a thing indiff'erent. Some of
the Cynics tried that plan, and were well hissed for
it. Greek moderation and Roman gravity could
overlook a good deal, but they drew the line at a
Bacchanalia held more than occasionally. In Syria
public feeling might be difi"erent but most of the ;
Gnostics took the one method left to combat the —

body with ascetic practice. Thus human pride
found its outlet in a gnosis of asceticism which
divided mankind very sharply into saints and sinners.
The double standard was an evident necessity, if the
world was not to come to an end of itself.
Hellenism deified the world which Orientalism
pronounced so evil. The guiding power was placed
inside it instead of outside, so that the unity of
creation was secured by making the world operate
itself. This guiding power might be distributed
through the parts of the world, or it might pervade

the world as a whole. In one case we have the many
gods of the polytheists, in the other the mundane soul
of pantheism. The one was the vulgar, the other the
philosophical form of Hellenism. They agreed how-
ever in recognizing no true God outside the world.
The gods of the polytheists were only demigods of
this world's order, and the mundane soul was not
a personal being at all. So also the problem of evil
was kept inside the limits of the wôrld. In the
cruder polytheisms evil did but represent among men
the anarchy of Olympus ; and when this became too
grotesque, the philosophers found it a place as a
necessary stage or a necessary factor of the world's
development. In the question was
either case,
physical rather Thus while the gods
than moral.
required nothing more than the customary sacrifices
accurately performed, pantheism demanded only
knowledge, so that human pride found its outlet in
a gnosis of education and philosophy.
So heathen converts brought in with them a
tendency to look on Christ as a demigod of the
Hellenic type, as a hero and a benefactor, but not
as the Son of God. The Gospel would be regarded,
not as a spiritual revelation of life in him, but as a
mystery dispensed by priests, and chiefly demanding
right belief and accurate performance of the ritual.
In this wây Hellenism came near to some aspects of
Orientalism.
The direct contest with Judaism belongs chiefly to
the apostolic age, that with Orientalism to the Gnostic
period, and that with Hellenism to the third and
fourth centuries. But it must be remembered that
all three are permanent elements in history, so that
their influenceon Christian thought has never ceased

— Judaism instance is visible enough in the
for
Puritans, OrientaHsm in the monks, Hellenism in
the church revolution of the Nicene age and all :
three enter largely into Catholicism, inside and out-

side the church of Eome.
We can deal at once with Judaism and Gnosticism ;
but the influence of Hellenism cannot be fully

discussed before the Nicene age.
Of the contest with Judaism we have already traced

the part which lies within the apostolic age. It
began with Stephen, and became acute when first
Barnabas and then Peter sanctioned the active preach-

ing of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Its first great
landmark is the apostolic conference in 50, which
freed the Gentile converts from the obligation of the
Law. Henceforth St. Paul's work was pertinaciously
opposed by the Judaizers, whether they leaned to
Pharisaism as in Galatia, or to Essenism as at Colossae.
The next great epoch of the contest is the retreat to
Pella in 66, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem.
Henceforth the Judaizers could not even properly
keep the Law themselves, much less force it on others.
The separation was no longer only from Pharisees and
Sadducees, but from " the Jews " generally of the —
Israel of God from the synagogue of Satan. So the
breach went on widening till the revolt of Bar-Cochab
in 132 brought on a third great crisis. The Christians
stood aside again, and were bitterly persecuted for
refusing to join the war. When the contest was over,
a new Jerusalem rose on the ruins of the old but it :
—
was a Gentile and a heathen city the Roman colony
of Aelia Capitolina —
and the Jews were not allowed
even to set foot in it, so that when the Christians

returned they returned as Gentiles.
The destruction of the temple must have forced,
the Jewish Christians to reconsider their position.
To the unbelieving Jews the synagogues and the
traditions had long been the practical centre of re-
ligion, so that the cessation of the temple services
made little difference. Sacrifices were discontinued,
a few adjustments were made, and then things settled

down comfortably into a sort of stereotyped Pharisa-
ism which has continued ever since. But the Chris-
tian Jews in their retreat at Pella could not evade the
" destroyed this place"
question, whether he who had
had not also "changed the customs which Moses
had delivered." Had not St. Paul's warnings come
'
true ? If the Law could no longer be kept without

further Pharasaic evasions, was not this an intimation
from heaven that it need no longer be kept at all ?
Many of must have joined the increasing
them
majority of Gentile Christians, and thenceforth lived
as Gentiles. The dwindling remnant rapidly sank
into trans-Jordanic sects of small importance to the
church at large. Greek thought instead of Jewish
was becoming the atmosphere in which the churches
lived. Hellenistic thought gave place to purely
Hellenic, and Jewish Proselytism was rapidly sup-
planted by the Christian missions which more fully
" The
satisfied the spiritual needs of the Gentiles.
religion of fulfilment destroyed the religion of
^
promise."
Some of the numerous Judaizing sects were so far
moderate that men like Justin were willing to receive
them as brethren, though others refused. Their

1
Acts vi. 14.
^ Holier (v. Schubert) K.G. 78.
10 CHURCH HISTORY CHAP.
positions seem to have been nearly that held by

James the Lord's brother, but with the important
difference that they maintained it after the fall of
Jerusalem. They endeavoured to keep the Law
(circumcision and the sabbath
in particular, but
not the traditions) as a national custom still binding
on Jews, or at least on themselves, though not to
be imposed on Gentile Christians. Their doctrine
of the Lord's Person is disputed. They seem to
have accepted his birth from a virgin
but it is ;
not clear how they took this to imply a higher

far
nature than that of men. Upon the whole, the
position of these Nazarenes, as Epiphanius calls them,
was an illogical and unsuccessful attempt to be Jews
and Christians at once.The Jews cursed them with
the rest of the Minim or heretics, and the Christians
more than doubted of them. It is no small sign of
the vitality of Jewish ideas, that the Nazarenes were
not extinct in Peraea near the end of the fourth
century.
The Judaizing spirit is stronger in Ebionism,^
which indeed is rafcher a Jewish than a Christian
heresy. The Ebionites fall into two divisions, corre-
sponding to Pharisees and Essenes among the Jews.
The Pharisaic form of Ebionism was the earlier. In
this the Law was held to be universal and eternal,
so that salvation was by works. This implied the
rejection of St. Paul, whom they denounced as an
apostate, and the chief corrupter of the word of
^ From But it must remain an open question whether

fv2ii the needy.
they so called themselves as the "poor in spirit " whom the Lord pronounced
blessed: or whether it was an abusive name given them by the Jews, and
afterwards accepted by themselves, like the XpiaTLavol generally, or the
Gueux of Holland. Ebion is not found before Ps. -Tert. (not in Irenaeus or
Origen) as a personal founder of the sect, and seems mythical.
XIV JEWISH INFLUENCES ii
God. Their slanders against him were many. Gentile

Christians of course they did not acknowledge.
Jesus
Nazareth was the son of Joseph and Mary, so that

of
it his
the miraculous birth was rejected, and with
pre-existence and divine worship. At his Baptism
the Spirit of Jehovah lighted on him, so that it is
roughly equivalent to the Jewish legend that Messiah

shafl not know his office till Elijah comes to
anoint
him. To the canonical narrative the Gospel accord-

ing to the Hebrews added the fire kindled on Jordan,
and the words from heaven, Thou art my son, this
day have I begotten thee. But the man Jesus was
never more than a man like other men so that ;
when the Spirit forsook him, only a common man

suffered on the cross, and shall come again
hereafter
to reign a thousand years on earth.

In this we must notice the contact of Ebionism
with Gnosticism. The stumbling-block of that age
was not so the Lord's divinity as his cruci-
much
fixion. Because he sufi'ered, said the Jew, he was
not divine. Because he was divine, replied the
Gnostic, he did not sufi'er. Thus the Judaizers and
the Gnostics had a common interest in explaining
away his sufi'erings, for they were agreed that
divinity and suflering are inconsistent with each

other. So they introduced a higher power as the
real Christ. The Ebionites made the Spirit of the
Lord (in the Jewish sense) light on a common man,
of
so that the sufferings of the cross were only those
a common man. The Gnostics clothed a heavenly
power with the appearance of manhood, so that
those sufferings were only in appearance. In either

case, it is denied that the Kedeemer suffered at all.
But Gnosticism was the growing power in that

age, while Judaism was declining. Ebionism gradu-

ally passed from the Pharisaic to an Essene form,
in which Gnostic elements are stronger. How far
Pharisaic Ebionites grew "broader" as they grew
older, or how far the Essene Ebionite schools were
new, is more than we can say but at all events they
:
hold at the end of the second century something like

the place the others had held at its beginning.
Essene Ebionism, like Essenism itself, is a com-
plicated and obscure question. Pharisaism is a
definite system fairly well known to us, so that we
can see what sort of ideas converted Pharisees were
likely to bring into the church
but Essenism stands
;
for an obscure
complex of Jewish and Oriental
thought. We cannot even say for certain whether
the Essenes were Orientalizing Jews or Judaizing
Orientals.
Our knowledge of the Essene Ebionites comes
mostly from the fragments of the Book of Elchasai,
the Clementine Homihes and Recognitions, and the
accounts of Hippolytus, Origen and Epiphanius. The
Book of Elchasai (hidden power) was brought to Rome
in the time of Callistus by Alcibiades of Apamea, who
obtained from the Seres (Chinese) ''who belonged
it
to Parthia," and delivered it to Sobiai (his sworn

followers) by the direction of an angel 96 miles high
who had appeared to Elchasai in the third year of
Trajan (a.d. 100). That angel was the Son of God,
and a female of the same size was the Holy Spirit. ^
He prescribed circumcision and the sabbath, but lus-
trations instead of sacrifice. Callistus was then re-
laxing the rule of penance but Alcibiades " thinking
;
1 The Aramaic colouring is plain in the words Elchasai and Sobiai,

and
in the feminine gender given to the Holy Spirit.
himself the better cheat," quite outdid him. He said

that a new baptism for the remission of sins had been
proclaimed. The very worst of sinners had only " to
be immersed (and that in his clothes) a second time
in the name of the great and most high God, and in
the name of his Son, the great king, and to call upon
the seven witnesses written in this book —
the heaven
and the water and the holy spirits and the angels of
prayer and the oil and the salt and the earth." The
same baptism was also good for the bite of a mad dog.
Alcibiades was a quack pure and simple the :
Clementines are only romances of a similar school.

The plot is quite in the modern style, which indeed
is the style of the Greek novels generally. Clement
tells the story himself to James the Lord's brother, and
about the end of the fourth century it was translated

into Latin by Kuffinus, on his usual plan of leaving
out offensive passages. Clement then was a noble
Koman related to the emperor, converted by Barnabas
at Rome. Following him to Caesarea he meets Peter ;
and then the adventures begin. They turn largely on

the evil doings of Simon Magus (an evident caricature
of St. Paul) who withstands Peter at Caesarea, and
afterwards pursues him with all the arts of slander
and magic. But the human interest lies chiefly in
the restoration to Clement of his lost relations. First
his mother Mattidia is discovered by Peter in a
beggar-woman on the steps of a temple at Antaradus ;
then she recognizes her other two sons in Nicetas and

Aquila, two disciples of Simon who had gone over to
Peter. After this Peter meets on the sea-shore an
old man who maintains that all things are governed
by the influence of the stars but when he tells the
;
story of his own life in proof of it, he turns out to be

Faustinianus the father of Clement. So Clement's

relatives are all happily restored to him, and all duly
baptized one after another by Peter. This is the
main story, though there are some subordinate legends,
like that of the ordination of Zacchaeus.
But the romance is the vehicle of a theory of
religion, somewhat toned down from that indicated by
the fragments of the Book of Elchasai, but in outline
the same. It is a vast scheme of reconciliation for
Jews and Christians and Gnostics. It starts from
" Christianity as old as the Creation," though the
particular version of Christianity recognized as the
one original and true revelation is not that patronized
by Matthew Tindal. Yet the two have points of
likeness, for they both claim to be a return to
primitive simplicity. If the Clementines agree with
the Pharisaic Ebionites in making the Law an
essential part of Christianity, they do not mean the
Law as the Jews had it, but the Law criticized on
Essene principles, by cutting out sacrifice as a moral
difficulty, and stories like the Fall as libels on the
patriarchs. Tindal might have approved so far but :
then they part company with him, keeping rigidly

to circumcision (though not for heathens) and the
sabbath, devising atoning lustrations of their own,
making much of ascetic observances, and commanding
abstinence from wine and animal food. Again, the
identity of true religion in all ages is made to depend
on a series of incarnations of the AYord or Wisdom of
God, of whom Adam was the first and Jesus the last.
Thus the uniqueness of the Incarnation was denied,
and with it that of the Lord's Person, so that the
Gospel is not a new revelation, but simply a re-
publication of the one primaeval religion. Hence the

Essene Ebionites rivalled the Pharisaic in hatred of

St. Paul.
We need not trace them further. The special
interest of the Clementines is that we see in a system
opposed to Gnosticism the working, not so much of
Gnosticism itself as of a spirit allied to Gnosticism,
or rather perhaps of a way of thinking wider than
Gnosticism, though well expressed in Gnosticism. It
ishowever worth notice that while the Clementines
make Peter the Apostle of the Gentiles, James the
Lord's brother is represented as the true vicar of
Christ in supreme command of the churches. They
contribute only indirectly to the later legend of Peter
by bringing him to Rome and making his activity
so conspicuous that his shadowy superior was easily
forgotten.
If the Judaizing sects were important than the less
Gnostic, the reason is partly that Judaizing doubts of
our Lord's deity were neither so deep nor so specious
as Gnostic doubts of his manhood, partly also that
Jewish influences were checked by the bitter hatred
which grew up between Jews and Christians. The
Jews hated worse than heathens these heretics and
renegades who had not only forsaken Moses and the
fathers, but gone and worshipped a vile wretch of a
crucified impostor. Better go into a heathen temple
to pray, said a proverb of later times, than into a
house of the Minim. Nor were the Minim behind in
hate. It is the oppression of the poor which stirs the
wrath of James but his climax is, Ye condemned, ye
;
slew the Just :doth he not resist you ? St. John has ^
shaken off the dust of Judaism, and with him " the
Jews " are always the enemy. Barnabas taunts them
^ James v. 6.
i6 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
with having mistaken their own Law from first to

last,the Teaching calls them " the hypocrites," and
even Aristides lays a malicious emphasis on " pierced
by the Jews."
Yet every now and then they met in friendly
controversy. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho seems
to report an actual discussion. But Trypho is no ^
common Jew. He accosts Justin in the colonnade at

Ephesus, telling him how he had learned from a
philosopher to be courteous to all who wore the
philosopher's cloak. Justin is surprised that a Jew
should study the philosophers when he has the law
and the prophets. " But are not the philosophers
also seekers after God ? " Presently Justin tells the
story of his —
own life how he too had sought long
for God in vain. Of his teachers, the Stoic knew
nothing, the Peripatetic only wanted his money, and
the Pythagorean required an absurd amount of
learning, and a long Then came a
initiation.
Platonist, who gave him any rate a worthier

at
conception of God. While he was thinking over
these things, he fell in with an old man by the sea-
shore, who shewed him that philosophy gives no clear
knowledge of God, and referred him to the writings of
the prophets, " for these things cannot be understood,
unless God and his Christ give us understanding."
The old man went his way, and Justin saw him no
more but the fire was kindled in his soul, and it
:
was not long before he became a Christian.

Trypho replies courteously. It was good to study
philosophy, but it is not good now to trust in a man.
So he advises him in all friendship to be circumcised
^
Some see in Trypho the great R. Tarphon,who may have fled like Trypho
from the wars of Hadrian's time. But what is known of R. Tarphon is very
unlike the tolerant philosophical Judaism of Trypho.
and keep the Law. We must not run after Christs,

for we do not know who the Christ is, and he does
not know himself till Elijah comes and anoints him.
Trypho admires the Gospels, for he had taken care to
read them, and only doubts whether any one is able
to keep such lofty precepts. But he really cannot
understand how men who make profession of piety
can neglect a Law which they do not deny to be
divine, or how they can put their trust in one who is
not only nothing more than a man, but actually a
crucified man. This leads to a two days' discussion
ranging over the whole of the Old Testament, and
bringing out most of the stock passages of prophecy.
Of particular interpretations we have had samples
in the Demonstration of Irenaeus ;
^
but the main
line of Justin'sargument is fairly clear. He has first
to shew that though the Law is divine, it is not
eternal. Next he has to prove that Jesus of Nazareth
—
was more than a man that he is truly divine, and
that his incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and
ascension were all foretold. This brings him upon
delicate ground, and once or twice his charges against
the Jews are almost too much for Trypho's courtesy.
It remains for him to set forth the conversion of the
Gentiles, the true Israel, and the rejection of the
Jews if they will not accept the new covenant of
Christ. In the end Trypho declares himself greatly
edified by the discussion, politely wishes him a
prosperous voyage, and asks to be remembered as a
friend.
But Trypho was an exceptional Jew. As a rule,
there were nomore malicious enemies of the Gospel
than the Jews. They were the very "workshop of
1 See Ch. xi.
VOL. II C
8
1 CHURCH HISTORY chap, xiv
persecution," always ready to perpetrate or instigate

or help in murder and outrage. It was a holy work
— in Polycarp's case it was even better than keeping
the sabbath. It was as the Lord had said, Every
one that killeth you will think he is offering service
to God.
Jewish Influences
Coinmentaries on N.T., esp. Lightfoot's Excursus on St. Paul and the
Three in Ep. Gal. Hort Judaistic Christianity, Arts in D. C.B. on Justin etc.
CHAPTER XV
GNOSTICISM
Vast as is the subject of Gnosticism, it forms no

more than a chapter from the long history of
Oriental influences on the civilization of the European
nations. Those influences need to be traced historic-
ally, for the questions raised by Orientalism are
problems of all ages, and its answers to them are

due to permanent leanings of human nature found in
men of all nations. Latent they may be or obscured
by other tendencies, but never absent. If then we
seem to find traces of Orientalism in say the
observances of the Pythagoreans, in Plato's theory of
creation, or in the worship of the Essenes, we must
not hastily conclude that thereis no accounting for
them without direct influence from Eastern peoples.

Though the earlier thought of Greece and Israel was
strongly opposed to Orientalism, the moral questions
itraises were not ignored —
witness the Greek Nemesis
—
and the book of Job but upon the whole they were
answered in another way. The direct influence of
the East hardly becomes important before its
conquest by Alexander and even in later times we
;
cannot set down all Oriental thinking as an importa-

tion from the East. In the political sphere for
instance the Empire at Eavenna and the mediaeval
19
Papacy are strongly marked with Orientalism which

must have been chiefly of Western growth. In fact,
Orientalism may come to the surface in any age or
country where society or a part of it is infected with
the weary hopelessness of Asia.
*
Three main stages of the history lie before us.
The first is the influence of Orientalism on Greek
thought in Stoicism, and even in the later phases of
the Neoplatonic reaction, which as Plotinus left it
was chiefly Greek. A second stage of influence
on Judaism appears in Essenism, whatever be its
historical origin. Then in the false teachers at
Colossae we see it passing into a third stage of
influence on Christianity, represented by Gnosticism,
and even in the reaction of the Clementines. Further
stages of influence in Mahometanism, and again on
Western Europe through the Crusades, are beyond
our limits. Thus the movement as a whole is older
than the Gospel, and has no necessary connexion
with Christianity. It is the sort of eclecticism which
grows up in every age of religious ferment. Some-
thing of the sort is very common, for instance, in
Japan, where men take as much or as little as they
please of Christianity, and fill it out with Buddhism
or anything else that may Ancient
be convenient.
Eclecticism was at heathen or Jewish, and only
first
takes the particular form of Gnosticism at the point

where it begins to be influenced by the Christian
belief that the redemption is through Christ.^
Gnosticism may therefore be provisionally described
as a number of schools of philosophy, Oriental in
general character, but taking in the idea of a
redemption through Christ, and further modified
1 Well put by Harnack What is Christianity? E.Tr. 205-7.
XV GNOSTICISM 21
in sects by a third element whicli may

different
be Judaism, Hellenism or Christianity. In this way
we at least start from something strongly marked in
the Gnostic systems, though even this is nearly
wanting in the Basilides of Hippolytus, whereas the
mere etymology {yvcoa-L^;, and esoteric teaching) not
only gives us something by no means peculiar to
Gnosticism, but would compel us to exclude Marcion
and to include Clement of Alexandria, and perhaps
the church itself when the disciplina arcani became
prevalent. If we exclude Buddhism ourselves, we
do so on the ground that it is not more directly
connected with Christianity than it is with Druidism,
though distant influences on both sides are not
unlikely, so that in this way it may touch the fringe
of Gnosticism.
Here it is to be noted that the Gnostics took over
only the idea of a redemption through Christ, not
the full Christian doctrine, for they made it rather
a redemption of the philosophers from matter than a
redemption of mankind from sin. In fact, Gnosticism
was rather a philosophy than a religion, as being
commonly more interested in systems of the universe
than in relations of worship. If it was not without
moral earnestness of a common-sense middle-class
kind, especially in its more Christian schools, its
chief efforts were directed to philosophical questions

like that of the origin of evil. It was much more
at home cosmogonies than in a world of sinners.
in
It was the first of the long series of heterodox
philosophies inside and outside the church which
could not refuse to see the centre of the world's
history in " that Jesus whom they crucified." Yet
it sprang chiefly from the intellectual pride of the
ancient world, and its patronage of the Gospel

sometimes carried a touch of the old heathen
contempt. In most of the Gnostic schools
fact,
attacked the Gospel on three sides at once, denying

its historical basis, its claim to authority, and its
doctrine of the spiritual freedom and equality of

men. There was some reason for a reaction against
the timid, over practical, traditional and somewhat
Judaizing Christianity of the subapostolic age but ;
the main attack was on the Gospel itself. The

Gnostics mostly kept to the ancient ideals of specula-
tion and of an intellectual aristocracy, so that they
were as much opposed as any heathens to the
" inwardness " of Christianity, with its ultra-
democratic appeal to the image of men. God in all
The very name of Gnostics denoted the men of
knowledge, the wise men, the philosophers, the
who knew the world of reality, not
superior persons
merely the appearances which were as much as
the profanum vulgus could understand. Esoteric
teaching was common in ancient times and when ;
it was applied to a revelation, it became the teaching

of a secret meaning beyond the reach of common
people. The contrast of true and false knowledge is
implied in our Saviour's claim to reveal the truth,
and is expressly drawn by St. Paul and St. John ^ ;
but the Ophites and Carpocrates appear to have been

the first who called themselves Gnostics, and from
them the name spread to others, of whom some
deserved it less than they did. Marcion, for instance,
rejected the theory of esoteric teaching. Thus the
spiritual equality of Christianity
was overthrown by
a gnosis of speculation, the open tradition of the
^ e.g. 1 Cor. ii. iii. 1 Ti. v. 20.
XV GNOSTICISM 23
churches by a secret tradition of the Gnostics. This

they often supported with books of their own which
they called apocryphal or esoteric, though their enemies
took up the word in a bad sense. Some of these may
not have been of Gnostic origin, like the docetic
Gospels of Peter and Philip, and the Acts of Paul
and Thecla. The latter was composed in the second
century by a presbyter in Asia, who was deposed for
writing it, and it at any rate commended itself to the
Gnostics by its depreciation of marriage. Others
were distinctively Gnostic, like the ascetic Gospel of
Matthias used by the Valentinians, and the Cainite
Gospel of Judas Iscariot, which made the Betrayal a
meritorious deed and they seem to have had other
:
" Gospels " which were rather theological treatises

than Gospels in any proper sense.
But their general resource was in strange theories
of accommodation — that while our Lord spoke the
language of common Christianity to the common
people, he was privately teaching something higher,
Valentinianism for example, to some select disciples.
Philosophy was the solid reality, the facts of revela-
tion no more than a mass of parables and symbols
which pointed to it. In truth, the principles of
interpretation were in so unsettled a state that the
Gnostics could always find what they wanted in
Scripture, just as some of the heathens found every-
thing in Homer. Their exegesis was utterly arbitrary.
The parables in particular lent themselves readily to
allegorizing methods of interpretation which could
make anything mean anything.^
Our chief orthodox authorities are passages of Justin, the great works of
^
Irenaeus, Hippoly tus and Epiphanius, sundry treatises of Tertullian, and the
summaries of Ps.-Tert. ( = Victorinus of Pettau, cir. 300) at the end of the de
Praescr., and of Philaster of Brescia, late in the fourth century.
Let us begin with a general survey of Gnosticism,

rather striking a rough average of opinions common
to most of the sects than endeavouring to describe
the doctrines of any one sect. There will be some
advantages in first viewing the movement as a whole
without regard to details and exceptions.
The problem then of the Gnostics was rather
philosophical than religious. Given the fact of Christ
and the new creation coming from him, it is required
to find its place in the logical development of the
universe. It is Hegel's problem, and the answer, like
Hegel's, is a philosophy in the garb of religion.
The first step is to explain — what the Gospel leaves
a mystery — the origin of a spiritual and therefore on
Gnostic principles a pure world. As the Gnostics
started from the usual abstract conception of God as
a being above all attributes, the transition from the
infinite to the finite was usually explained by a
necessary process of self-limitation of the Supreme.
Lipsius in 1865 held that Ps.-Tert., Epiph. Phil, all used (A), a book of
32 heresies from Dositheus to Noetus, written by Hippolytus 190-195
at the suggestion (as Photius says) of Irenaeus. He also maintained that Ir.
and Hipp, used the lost Syntagma of Justin, which he mentions Apol. i. 26.
Harnack in 1873 corrected the date of (A) to 199-217 (or 200-210 A. C.L. i. 223)
in the time of Zephyrinus putting his larger Refutatio [Philosophumena) dr.
230 (or rather earlier A.G.L.), and held that the use of the Si)»'Ta7/Aa was not
proved. Salmon in 1885 raised the question whether the Gnostic works
quoted by Hipp, were not all by one hand, and therefore forgeries. Kuntze
came to the conclusion that it is impossible to restore the 'Lvvrayixa, so
that we cannot go behind the statements of Ir., which moreover he makes
on personal knowledge. Epiph. depends entirely on Ir., while Ps.-Tert. and
Phil, used (A), which however must have been a meagre and insignificant
production.
Putting together all our sources of information, the right conclusions
would seem to be (1) that (A) was a work of some size, used by Epiph. as well
as by Ps.-Tert. and Phil. (2) that both Ir. and Hipp, used genuine Gnostic
;
works and used them honestly, but did not always rightly understand them,
or properly distinguish between a founder's teaching and developments (often
radical changes) made by his followers. We all know the controversialist's
habit of ascribing the eccentricities of a section to the whole party.
XV GNOSTICISM 25
Occasionally they assigned it a motive, forgetting

that every motive implies an attribute of some sort.
Generally then we have a series of necessary emana-
tions, each giving rise to others further from the
source and therefore supposed to be weaker, till at
last we reach the possibility of contact with
matter.
The next thing to be explained is the possibility of
a material and therefore on Gnostic principles an evil
world. This again the Gospel leaves a mystery.

Our doctrine of ''creation out of nothing" means
only that matter has no existence independent of the
will of God, or more precisely points to such a
development from the unseen according to his will
that while by faith we apprehend the fact, we can by
reason form no conception of the process as a natural
evolution. Science has nothing to say about origins.
But on the Gnostic principle that God is the active
cause of everything he permits, we cannot trace evil
(physical and moral evil are any

lumped together) to
human or other freewill and therefore matter must

;
be allowed more or less of a real independence beyond

God's control. At this point however we get a
moderate and an extreme doctrine, very roughly
corresponding to Gieseler's division of the Gnostics
into Egyptian and Syrian sects. In general, the
'
Alexandrian Gnostics were influenced by Greek

thought, and specifically by the Platonic conception
of matter as something dead and unsubstantial. In

this case it could offer no more than a passive
resist-
ance, and the pure finite emanation spark was

rather
imprisoned in it than corrupted by it. The Syrian

Gnostics were influenced by the more advanced dual-
istic thought of the East, which commonly

looked on
matter as an active power of evil encroaching on the
kingdom of light, and infecting it with an abominable

mixture.
Corresponding logically, though perhaps not always
actually, to thesetwo views of the nature of matter
were two forms of asceticism, a moderate and an
extreme. The moderate asceticism, which prevailed
chiefly among the Gnostics who were less hostile to
Judaism, did not necessarily or always go very far
beyond what may be required by true Christian
unselfishness but in principle it difiered entirely.
:
Instead of the loving spirit which thankfully receives

the pleasures of life as no God's teaching than
less
its sorrows, and refuses them only on definite grounds
of danger to self or offence to others, it is animated
by the and ungrateful cowardice whose first
selfish
impulse is to think vaguely that every creature of
God is bad, and to be refused, that he may not tempt
us with it, for we know
that he is a hard man.
When the body taken for the sinful element, the
is
gravest dangers of immorality are close at hand as

a natural from unnatural and therefore
reaction
ungodly austerity. They were very real even among
the more moderate sects, and the scandals were
often of the grossest when asceticism took its extreme
form. This indeed is a case where extremes meet.
The Gnostics who leaned to Christianity had a stern
moral purpose, and pushed austerity to an extreme.
Marcion made marriage a bar to Baptism, and Tatian
roundly denounced it as seduction and fornication,
j
The more pagan sects and some of the quacks pre- I
ferred to shew their independence of the body by I
following all its passions as things of no moral
significance whatever. It was no great thing, said
some of them, to restrain desire; the real victory
XV GNOSTICISM 27
was to indulge it to the uttermost, and yet keep the

spirit pure. matter
All these forms of hostility to
have one doctrine in common that the evil of it is —
original, and beyond the power of redemption to
remove. Though Gnosticism might strive, and some-
times did strive with no little earnestness and purity
to rescue a people from the world, it could never
cherish any such glorious hope as St. Paul's, of the
restoration of the whole creation.
The Gnostics were generally agreed in distinguish-
ing the demiurge or creator from the Supreme, and
in identifying him with the God of the Old Testament.
So here again there were two views a moderate and —
an extreme. In some sects the demiurge is the clumsy
instrument of the Supreme, in others an unconscious
one, and the world is gone wrong because he misman-
aged his work. He may be one of a group of angels,
perhaps the highest of angels but the redeemer who ;
comes to mend his bungled work ought to be higher

still. To a certain distance the theory is only an
extension of Judaism, for the later Jew^s in their
anxiety to keep God from contact with the world
had introduced a ministry of angels for the creation
and the giving of the Law,^ though they never
allowed it to obscure the fundamental doctrine that
God is the true Creator. Now we lift these angels
if
a step higher, so as to make them more or less

independent, we from Judaism to
have passed
Gnosticism, removed from the
and are not far
Neoplatonic hierarchy of gods and demons, for there
is now no reason why we should not develop the
angels indefinitely. From another point of view the
^ Acts vii. 53, Gal. iii. 19 (see Lightfoot) resting on Deut. xxxii. 8, Ps.
Ixviii, 17 {]n:\p -s^h, lit. thousands of repetition).
theory is opposed to Judaism, for though the Old

Testament recognized as the highest revelation of
is
its own time, it is only accepted with the important

reserve that the God of the Jews was not the Supreme
as they supposed. In they place it lower than
facffc,
Islam does. In the extreme view the opposition to

Judaism is The demiurge is positively
sharper
still.
evil, and revengeful, so that some of the most

jealous
advanced sects read the Old Testament backward,
with Pharaoh and Ahab for saints, Moses and Elijah
for sinners, and the God of the Jews very fairly
answering to our ideas of the devil.
Corresponding again were two views of the Person
of Christ —
a moderate and an extreme. In the one,
his manhood was allowed to be real, but nothing more
than the instrument of the higher power which dwelt
in him, with no significance or value of its own.
Sometimes the higher Christ was supposed to come
upon the lower at his baptism and to leave him
before the crucifixion —
a theory which differs from
Ebionism only on the nature of the higher Christ.
On the more advanced and consistent view, the
Incarnation was visionary from first to last. If he
seemed to have a body, it was not real and if he ;
seemed to eat and drink and suffer pain, it was no

more than seeming. The one thing evident was that
the redeemer who came
to deliver us from matter
could not come in a material body.
Before we come to the classification of the Gnostic
sects, we shall have to speak of Simon Magus, " the
hero of the romance of heresy," whom Irenaeus
considers the author of
all the heresies. We find him
in the Acts regarded
by the people of Samaria as " the
Power of God which is called Great," and playing the
XV . GNOSTICISM 29
impostor with great success. Justin tells us that he

was a Samaritan of Gitta, that he came to Eome in
the days of Claudius Caesar, worked miracles and was
honoured as a god, so that the Senate and people set
up a statue to him inscribed simoni dec sancto on the
island of the Tiber/ and lilost of the Samaritans still
worshipped him. Irenaeus also tells us that Simon
gave himself out to be the Highest Power, who
appeared to the Jews as the Son, came down to the
Samaritans as the Father, and dwelt among the
Gentiles as the Holy Spirit. One Helena, whom he
found living as a harlot at Tyre, was the " first
conception " of his
mind, the mother of all, the Ennoia.
This Highest Power conceived the idea of by her means
creating angels and archangels so she went down :
and brought them forth, and they in their turn made

the world. But they made it badly, and through
envy and in their ignorance of the Supreme they
suffered not Ennoia to return to heaven, but kept her
here on earth, suffering shame and continual trans-
migration from one woman's body to another. At
one time she was the Helen of the Trojan war, and at
last she sank into a harlot at Tyre. However, these
angels gave the Law and inspired the prophets for
the purpose of keeping men in slavery. Therefore
the Highest Power came down, passing through the
world of angels and changing his form at every stage
till he appeared in Judaea as a man who seemed to
suffer and did not, and now revealed himself in Simon

for the deliverance of Ennoia (the lost sheep) and of
the men that were his own. So the Simonians
cultivated magic and evil arts, and gave themselves
^ This is a clear mistake, for when the statue was found in 1574, the
inscription proved to be semoni sanco deo fidio — a Sabine god.
up to uncleanness, " for they were saved

by grace and
not by just works, so that they were free to do what
—
they pleased" ^just and unjust being distinctions
made by the angels, which they were not bound to
regard. They also worshipped statues of Simon and
Helena in the forms of Zeus and Athena.
Justin is in the main a good witness against his
own countrymen, though he is wrong about the statue,
and may be mistaken in bringing Simon to Rome at
all. Of this however we must not be too sure, for
Rome was the natural resort of such impostors. Be
that as it may, this is the point which the romancers
fastened on, though they shifted his visit from the
reign of Claudius to that of Nero, in order to bring
the Magus into collision with Peter. The germ of
the story — the bare statement that Peter withstood
him at Rome — can be traced back Hippolytus
as far as ;
but for the full romance of Simon's miracles and defeat

we must go to the Clementines, and the Acts of Peter
and Paul.
Keeping to history, we shall see that the system is
almost as little Gnostic as it is Christian. True, there

is a good deal in it which reminds us of Gnosticism.
It startsby reducing revelation to an affair of
intellect, it has a mythology of demiurgic powers,
it deals with the moral law and with Judaism as
many of the Gnostics did, and its Patripassian Trinity

is but we see very little of the Christian
significant :
element which is an essential part of Gnosticism.
The descent of the Highest Power may be suggested

by the Incarnation, and the designation of Ennoia as
the lost sheep is certainly Christian but the coming :
of the Lord is a subordinate event, not the centre of

the whole process as Gnostics and Christians agreed
XV GNOSTICISM 31
to make it. Moreover, Simon's own claim to be the

Highest Power is enough to stamp the system as a
direct rival to the Gospel, not a Gnostic interpretation
of it/
This is even more evident in
Simon's disciple
Menander, who was also a Samaritan. As he taught
at Antioch, Irenaeus may be right in making him the
personal link joining Simon to Saturninus and the
Gnostics proper. His doctrine was much the same as
Simon's, except that he made the Supreme unknown,
and gave himself out as the Saviour, sent to teach
men the magic which would enable them to overcome
the demiurgic angels. Baptism was in his own name,
and carried the promise, not of resurrection only, but
of immortal youth on earth. This last statement
may be a misunderstanding of his teaching but it is :
not summarily disproved by the fact that the sect

survived its founder. Menander's followers may have
beei as robust in faith as those of Joanna Southcott.
With Menander we may also class theshadowy figures
of Dositheus and Cleobius, of whom next to nothing
is known. All these seem to belong rather to the age
of false Messiahs than to that of Gnosticism.
Now that we are coming to the Gnostics proper, it
isimportant to notice that they were rather schools of
thought inside the churches than sects outside them.
They seldom cared to form churches of their own, and
even Marcion seems always to have aimed at peace
with the bishops. They were quite content with
^ Simon Magus most by A. C. Headlam (Art. in Hastings'

fully discussed
D.B.), but he does not meet Salmon's difficulty (Art. in D.C.B.) that if
Justin's Simon is a real Gnostic, as they both suppose, he must be much later
than the Simon of the Acts. But I see nothing on Simon's system beyond a
generalized Orientalism and an incidental use of Christianity which may well
belong to the first century. There is no specific mark of Gnosticism upon it.
common Christianity for common people. It was all
very well so far as it went, and tlie unlearned could

not be expected to get beyond it but they must ;
themselves deal with it in an enlightened spirit, and

restate its doctrines more philosophically. Common
Christians were the natural men ; they were the
spiritual, who knew the mysteries of the kingdom of
God. The object was to keep the power of the Gospel,
and yet to rise above the limitations which common
Christianity placed on culture and common life,^ so
there was no need for any secession. Accordingly,
though many individuals may have formed ephemeral
schools and coteries of Gnostics, only the Valentinians
and the Marcionites appear to have grown into sects
of lasting historical importance. The Valentinians
are found at least as late as Julian's time the :
Marcionites lasted still longer, and may even have

contributed something to the origin of the Paulicians
in the seventh century.
We now have before us the difficult question of
the classification of the Gnostic " sects." Clement of
Alexandria divided them into ascetic and licentious
sects ; Theodoret into monistic and dualistic. Neander
classifies them as either not unfriendly to Judaism or
entirely hostile to it. Gieseler contents himself with
a arrangement of Alexandrian and
geographical
Syrian which as we have seen roughly
Gnostics,
corresponds to a division into moderate and extreme,
though it provides no place for Marcion. Others
prefer to group them chronologically and this method ;
This is the point of complaints like those of Agrippa Castor (a;;. Ens. iv.
^
7)that Basilides taught that there was no harm in eating eidcoXSdvra or in

"unguarded" denial of the faith in time of persecution or those of Anon.
:
ap. Eus. V. 28 against reckless criticism and devotion to heathen learning.

On the other hand (Eus. v. 16) the Marcionites had many martyrs.
XV GNOSTICISM 33
also has great advantages, though shew the

it fails to
affinities of divergent lines of development. Baur
refineson Neander, dividing the sects into those who
accepted both Judaism and heathenism as revelations
of a lower order, those who so accepted Judaism only,
and those who rejected both. The objection to it is
that the second class is made for the Clementines,
which are better connected with Ebionism, while
Marcion stands alone in the third.
In fact, an entirely satisfactory classification is
impossible. If Gnosticism were only a complex of
definite sects, the difficulty might be overcome but ;
it is rather a general term like Protestantism, and
equally stands for prevalent opinions and a general

attitude, not for a definite system of doctrine like
Marcionism or Lutheranism. As no single character
marks all the Gnostics and no others, so also no single
character always brings together allied sects and no
others. We must take all characters into account,
and do the best we can. Just as Cerinthus and
Tatian lie on the outskirts of Gnosticism itself, so
other sects will have a doubtful place among our
classes, divide them as we may and if a teacher is
;
rightly placed in one class, his disciples will sometimes

pass into another. Perhaps we shall do best if we
start from our definition of Gnosticism, and classify
the sects according as the third element is Judaism,
Hellenism or Christianity. This is Baur s plan, but

with a diff"erence. We eliminate the Oriental frame-
work and the idea of redemption through Christ, and
look at the general character of what remains. The
difficulty will be in deciding whether some feature of
a system belongs to the Oriental framework or to the
third element. Thus old wives' fables may come in
VOL. II D
anywhere : but where shall we place the endless

genealogies? Upon the whole, they seem rather
Judaic than Oriental. Even if the Jews got the hint
from the East, the Gnostics appear to have received
it from the Jews. Thus we can make a fairly regular
series. We begin with Cerinthus, who stands on the

border line between Ebionism and Gnosticism, and
Saturninus, in whom the mythological element is
more fully developed.The Greek influence is much
stronger in Yalentinus and Basilides, though the dis-
ciples of the latter reverted more or less to Judaizing
ideas. In the Ophites and Carpocrates the Greek
element is dominant, and almost smothers the
Christian. We close with the decidedly Christian
Gnostics, Marcion and Tatian, though the last is as
much an eccentric churchman as a Gnostic in the
proper sense.
Cerinthus then flourished in Asia near the end of
the first century. We may pass over the traditions
which attach his name to almost every Judaizer in
the New Testament but the story of St. John fleeing
:
from the baths because Cerinthus was there is told

by Irenaeus on the authority of Polycarp. He does
not say that he heard it himself, but it is quite
in character with all that we know of St. John.
Cerinthus is on the meeting ground of Ebionites and
Gnostics, and may fairly be classed with either. He
begins with an unknown Supreme, and refers the
work of creation to " powers widely separated from
the Authority that is over all, and ignorant of the
God who is over all." One of these inferior angels he
singles out as the God of the Jews, who gave the
Law. Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, and
difl"ered from other men only in greater wisdom and
XV GNOSTICISM 35
righteousness. On him came down at his baptism

the Christ in the form of a dove sent down from the
Supreme and then he began to preach the unknown
;
Father and to work miracles. But the Christ departed

from him before the crucifixion, so that it was only-
Jesus who suffered and rose again, and shall return
to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years of sensuous
pleasures before the consummation.-^
Jerome has a story that the Fourth Gospel was
written against Cerinthus but St. John evidently
:
has a much wider purpose, though he may be glancing

at Cerinthus (among others) in his definition of the
deceiver and the antichrist as he that confesseth not
Jesus Christ as come in flesh. On the other hand,
the Apocalypse agreed so well with the Chiliasm of
Cerinthus that some were found who accused him of
having forged the book. The vestige of truth in the
charge is that both the Apocalypse and Cerinthus are
moving in the primitive environment of Jewish ideas
and naive literalism from which Chiliasm arose.
Saturninus (or Satornilus) was a native of Antioch,
and taught in Syria about the time w^hen Basilides
was flourishing in Egypt. His system is nearly that
of Cerinthus, with the mythology more developed,
and apparently no Chiliasm. We have as before an
unknown Father, who made angels, archangels,
powers, authorities. The world was made by seven
angels, and man too. A bright image was let down
for a moment from the supreme power, and they
could not detain it. So they said. Let us make man
after the image and after the likeness.^ But when
^ Epiphanius outdoes himself in blundering about Cerinthus : but the
above (mainly from Irenaeus) seems the most likely account.
'^
Gen. i. 26 /car' eUova /cat Kad' bfioiwatv, omitting rjixer^pav.
they had made him, he could not stand upright, but

crawled like a worm, till the Power above had mercy
on him, because he was made in the divine image,
and sent a spark of life which made him live. After
death that spark runs back to its kindred, while the
rest of him is resolved into its elements. The Saviour
was without birth or body or figure, and only in
appearance a man, and the God of the Jews was one
of the angels and because it was the Father's will
:
to destroy the God of the Jews and the rest of the

archons, therefore the Christ came to save them that
had the spark of life. For the angels had formed a
bad sort of men as well as a good one, and because
the demons helped the bad, therefore came the
Saviour. Saturninus further held that marriage and
procreation are from Satan, and most of his followers
also abstained from animal food. The prophecies
were given partly by the demiurgic angels, partly
by their enemy Satan.
This is the outline given by Irenaeus and from it ;
we see how Saturninus is the link between Simon

and Menander on one side, and the Ophites in one
direction, Basilides and Valentinus in another. The
system itself is weak enough. It would have been
more coherent if Saturninus had made the demiurgic
angels purely righteous like Marcion's God of the
Jews : but he has so fully traced evil to them that
Satan issuperfluous, and must be regarded as an idle
relic of Jewish ideas.
We come now to sects which shew stronger signs
of the influence of Greek philosophy — those named
after Valentinus and Basilides. Valentinus was the
greatest of the Gnostics — an acute thinker with a
touch of mysticism, and a philosopher's delight in
XV GNOSTICISM 37
contemplating things sub specie aeternitatis. Local

tradition in the time of Epiphanius made him a native
of the coast of Egypt and, if so, his philosophical
;
training was most likely received at Alexandria.

However, he came to Eome during the episcopate
of Hyginus, and flourished there till that of Pius
— roughly, under the emperor Pius (138-161).
Tertullian says that he broke off" from the church
because he was disappointed of a bishopric perhaps —
that of Rome in 138 —
but this is too common a
story about heresiarchs to be accepted without better
evidence. enough that he made orthodox
It is likely
professions, and time was needed to discover his un-
soundness. Much of his teaching was excellent, and
his peculiarities were often only hinted.^ Some of
the fragments quoted by Clement and Hip poly tus
are enigmatical.
Valentinus, says Victorinus, " teaches a pleroma
and thirty aeons, and these he arranges in syzygies
or couples. The first of them are Bythos and Sige,
from whom came forth a seed, and in it Mind and
Truth. From these burst forth Word and Life, and
from these again came Man and Church. From
these two came twelve aeons, and ten more from
Word and Life, making thirty aeons, so that the
pleroma consists of eight and ten and twelve. The
thirtieth aeon desired to see Bythos, and came up
to the higher parts of the pleroma for the purpose,
and was not able to bear the sight of his greatness,
but fainted and would have dissolved away if he
whom they call Horus had not been sent to
strengthen her, which he did by pronouncing the
^ Tert. adv. Val. 1 "Nihil magis curant, quam occultare, quod praedicant
. . titulis et argumentis verae religionis . . . per ambiguitates bilingues."
word lao. This aeon, whom he calls Achamoth,

fell a prey to certain passions of desire, and from
these passions brought forth matter — the offspring
of her terror and fear and grief and tears. This is
the reason why heaven and earth and all things in

them are weak and fragile and transitory and mortal.
For from her terror, says he, came the darkness, from
her fear and ignorance the spirit of wickedness
and malice, and from her grief and tears the springs,
the rivers and the sea. Christ was sent from the
First Father, namely Bythos. He had not the
substance of our body, but brought a spiritual body
from heaven, passing through the virgin Mary like
water through a pipe, receiving nothing from her.
The resurrection of this flesh of ours he denies. Of
the law and the prophets he approves some parts
and rejects others. He has also a Gospel of his
own in addition to ours."
^
Victorinus does not pretend to give this as more

than an outline which leaves many questions of
importance unanswered and he has certainly made
;
it a dreary outline.Yet even these dry bones are

enough to shew the vastness of the plan. But we
miss the iridescent colours of eloquence and poetry
which made it the most seductive of all the Gnostic
systems. For its own age it had a fascination of
mystic grandeur like that of Pantheism for ours.
One point stands out at once. Love was the source
of the spiritual world, for the First Father, says he,
" was all love, and love is not love, if there be not
that w^hich is loved "
and love presumptuous love
:
—
— is the source of the material and evil world. It is
but another poetic vesture for. Ye shall be as gods,
1 Ps.-Tert. Praescr. 49. The Gospel will be that of Matthias.
:
GNOSTICISM 39
knowing good and evil. But with all his Jewish

fables and endless genealogies, Valentinus moves in
a world of Platonic transcendentalism, and draws
from this the inspiration for his bold endeavour to
place the origin of evil in the higher or spiritual
sphere. an imposing system yet its epitaph,
It is :
like that of Pantheism, might be written from its

own Pistis SoijJiia —
" I was watching far off, and
I saw a light, and I thought, I will go there, and
reach the light. And I went ; and I found myself
in darkness."
The outline given by Victorinus would seem fairly
to represent the original systembut its lacunae ;
will have to be filled up from the varying accounts of

Irenaeus and Hippolytus, which would seem to stand
rather for the schools of Valentinianism — the Italian
—
and the Eastern which arose in the next generation.
We need not attempt to trace their intricate details,
but we cannot pass over the question of the Person
of Christ, on which Victorinus tells us practically
nothing, except that the Incarnation was unreal.
It appears then that the Eight (or Ogdoad) the
Ten, and the Twelve aeons stood in groups at ^
increasing distances from Bythos, who is known

only to his direct offspring Mind or Monogenes.
But with the distance increased the desire to know,
till in the last aeon Sophia it became a passion.
She brought forth a formless offspring and fell into

great distress and this was the origin of material
;
substance. Hereupon Bythos through Monogenes

The Valentinians were not agreed on the computation of the aeons.
^
Some included Bythos and Sige, and made them the parents of the rest.
Others added Christ and the Holy Spirit, reducing Sige to a nonentity, and
—
making Bythos alone produce the whole thirty like the sow in Virgil,
comments Tertullian.
;
put forth Horus, whom they call Cross'

and
Eedeemer, who stopped Sophia and purified
her
of her desire before admitting her to
the Pleroma,
while he crucified (i.e. fenced off) her
desire which
remained outside, a spiritual substance without
form.
After this Monogenes according to the
providence
of Bythos put forth a last couple of
aeons male and
female— Christ and the Holy Spirit.^ Christ taught
the aeons that they must be content to
know that
Bythos is infinite and incomprehensible, and
can
only be seen or heard or known through
Monogenes
while the Holy Spirit completed the
harmony of
the aeons by making each like each. In their joy
at this happy result, all the aeons
joined to produce
Jesus or Soter, the perfect beauty and
constellation
of the Pleroma, and with him a guard
of angels. As
it is written, In him dwelleth
all the Pleroma of the
deity. ^
Then the higher Christ had mercy on the desire
of Sophia, which they call Achamoth, and
stretched
beyond the Cross (fence) to give her form, though
not
knowledge.^ So she too endeavoured to follow Christ
back into the Pleroma, and she too was stopped
by
Horus with the magic name lao, and fell a prey
to
passions from which the elements arose, and
Satan
or Cosmocrator ' with his evil angels
and when she ;
turned to Christ who had given her life, there

arose
the Demiurge— an animal nature like herself, not a
spiritual. As
Christ would not leave the Pleroma
again at her prayer, he sent instead the Paraclete
or
As 6pos is a boundary, so aravpos here is not a single
1 stake but a. fence of
stakes to guard the Pleroma.
2 The feminine gender of the
Holy Spirit among all the Judaizers is from
the feminine Hebrew nh.
Col. ii. 9. 4 Kar omLav, ov /card ^
yvCsaip. Eph. vi. 12.
XV GNOSTICISM 41
Soter ^
with a retinue of angels, and
power delivered all
to him by Bythos and the aeons. He gave her know-

ledge, and set her free from her passions, which
became the ideal substance of matter. After this she
conceived the spiritual principle in the image of the
angels. Thus we have the virtual " origin of matter,
soul and spirit. She also put forth the seven
(heavens) which however are not the orbits of the
planets, but are personified as angels like the
Demiurge himself, who proceeded to the creation of
the actual world in complete ignorance of any being
higher than himself. After this the creation of man.
First a body of transcendental matter, then a soul of
life, and afterwards a material body. The spirit was
infused by Achamoth unknown to the Demiurge, and
only into the elect. For the sake of these came the
aeon Christ for their salvation. He had the spiritual
Christ from Achamoth, the animal Christ from the
Demiurge, but a heavenly body made with unspeak-
able art to be seen and handled and to be capable of
suffering but he received no matter at all, for matter
:
cannot receive salvation. As for men, they are in

three classes. The carnal man is beyond the reach
of salvation ; the natural man (the common Christian)
may he makes the good choice,
be saved, but only if
and even then is not admitted to the Pleroma, but

only to a middle region. The spiritual man (and by
the spiritual man they mean themselves) is not only
alone capable of full salvation, but cannot forfeit it
by any sins whatever that he may commit. He is

saved by nature, as Clement says. Forgiveness there
is none.
This is the account given by Irenaeus, which
Jesus the Paraclete as 1 Joh. ii.* 1. ^ dvudfxei.
;
seems to represent the ideas of the Italian school of

Valentinians. The modern reader may think the
long story too fantastic to be worth serious attention :
but we shall find meaning enough in it, and no little

depth of thinking, if we remember that it is given as
mythology and poetry, not as articles of religion.
The Eastern used personifications much as the
Western uses abstractions, as symbols of things he
could not understand. So the Eight highest aeons
shadow forth what were supposed to be the highest
attributes of deity, while the Ten and the Twelve
express those lower attributes which seem to bring
him nearer to contact with the world. The Person
and work commonly assigned to Christ is divided
between Monogenes, Christ, and Jesus or Soter,
while the cross, which is for us the symbol of atone-
ment, is turned into the fence which guards the
Pleroma against intrusion from the grosser worlds
below. The verbal agreement with the Gospels is
great as Irenaeus says, they used similar words with
:
different meanings. The system is evidently a Gnostic

reading of St. John's Prologue, in which indeed
Ptolemaeus has no difficulty in finding the whole
Ogdoad. To put the matter shortly, Yalentinianism
is a restatement or spiritual interpretation of
good as some very recent ones,
Christianity, quite as
and perhaps no further from historical truth. Only
its poetry is now out of fashion.
The chief representatives of Valentinianism in the
next were Ptolemaeus, Heracleon, and
generation
Marcus, who belonged
to the Western school, while
the Eastern produced Theodotus, Axionicus, and
Bardaisan of Edessa. Of these, Ptolemaeus and
Heracleon take an honourable place among the first
;
XV GNOSTICISM 43
commentators on the New Testament, while Marcus

is represented by Irenaeus as a seducer of women and
a quack of the worst sort. Theodotus is known to
us from extracts preserved in very bad condition
with the works of Clement of Alexandria, while the
chief importance of Axionicus is that he helps to fix
the position of Bardaisan.
Ptolemaeus was the head of the Western school in
the time of Irenaeus, who gives an extract from his
commentary on St. John's Prologue. He may be
quoting a good deal more from Ptolemaeus, and
indeed his whole account of Valentinianism seems to
be of its Ptolemaic form but this is all that we can
;
be sure of. also known to us from his

Ptolemaeus is
Letter to Flora, preserved by Epiphanius, which gives

an interesting view of Old Testament criticism in
Gnostic hands. The Mosaic Law, says he, cannot
come from the Supreme, because it is not perfect;
but neither can it come from the devil, because it
forbids wickedness. Our Lord plainly intimates that
itcontains laws of three different sorts. There are
laws given by God, like that which forbids divorce
laws devised by Moses, like that which allows it for
fear of something worse and laws invented by the
;
elders, like those which make the fifth commandment

of none effect. Of these three classes, the divine laws
fall We have the purely
again into three sections.
moral commands (the law in the strict sense) which
the Lord came not to destroy but to fulfil. Others,
like the law of retaliation, were so mixed up with
evil that they had to be abolished. Others were
types and symbols, which the Saviour has transferred
from the visible and sensible to things unseen and
spiritual. To this class belong sacrifice, circumcision.
the sabbath, fasting, the passover, and such -like.

The names remain, but the things are changed, for
the Saviour has replaced the sacrifices of beasts by
spiritual praise and thanksgiving, and fellowship and
well-doing to our neighbour.^ Similarly he commands
circumcision, not of the flesh but of the heart, not
sabbatical rest, but rest from evil works ; and fasting,
not from meats, but from sin. Outward fasting we
practise because it may be of some help to the soul
if done with reason, not for the sake of imitation,
or custom, or because a day has been appointed for
it, and if done to remind ourselves of the true fast.
The Law then was given neither by God nor by the

devil, but by the Demiurge who stands between them,
whom we call the Midst. He is neither good nor
bad nor unrighteous, but properly righteous. He is
less than God, because he is begotten, but he is
greater than the devil, who is corruption and dark-

ness. Let not Flora think that these are coexistent
with the one true God. She shall learn another time
the full doctrine of the Midst which we have received
from the apostolic tradition along with the command
to judge all discourses by the rule of our Saviour's
teaching.
The is acute, though there is no clear
analysis
between the statutes which were not good
distinction
ordained by God and those devised by Moses. This
second section of the divine laws is the weak point of
the whole theory. If Ptolemaeus had ascribed them
all to Moses and the elders, the rest would have been
so purely divine that there would have been no need

to bring in the Midst, who is only Marcion's righteous
God, and an altogether unthinkable conception. The
1 The reference to Hebr. xiii. 15, 16 is important.
XV GNOSTICISM 45
truth he was wanted for other purposes, and

is,
utilized to explain the imperfection of the Law. In

general, Ptolemaeus is sober and sensible enough, as
in his discussion of fasting : but the Gnostics were
always at their best in exoteric writings/
Heracleon was a contemporary of Ptolemaeus, or
perhaps older, if he was personally known to
Valentinus. He made his reputation, not as the head
of a school, but as a commentator. We know his
works only from the quotations made by Clement
and Origen. Clement"^ gives Heracleon's comment
on Lu. xii. 8 to this effect. There is one confession
of Christ in life, another in words before a magistrate.
This latter is what is commonly called confession ;
yet it may be made by a hypocrite. Moreover, it is

not required of all. Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi ^
and others never were martyrs. But the Lord is here
speaking of confession by works suitable to faith.
This he requires of all, and the other will follow upon
it if need be. Therefore does he contrast " confessing
in me" with "denying me" for the true confession
can only be made by those who are in Christ, and only
those who are not in Christ can deny him. More-
over, confession " before men " is not simply before
unbelievers, but before men generally.
This again is a fine piece of exposition, though
Heracleon has pushed the preposition too far and it :
was much needed for times when martyrdom was too

often allowed to cover a multitude of sins. The same
1 Harnack T.U.'^ xiv. (1904) is inclined to identify Ptolemaeus with the
teacher of the Christian woman condemned by Lollius Urbicus (Justin Apol.
ii. 2 : Eus. iv. 17). In this case he would be a martyr ^LXaX-qdr} Kal ovk
:
airaTTfKbv ov8e \pev5o\6you ttjv yvd}fXT]v 6vTa is a kindly judgment of him, but
not unlikely from Justin,
2 Clem. Al. Strom, iv. 9 p. 595 P.
3 Is this Lebbaeus, or is he distinguishing Levi from Matthew ?
minute care runs through commentary on St.

his
John, as we see it Thus he
in Origen's quotations.
notes that All things were made through him (hid not
vTTo) that the buyers and sellers were in the outer
court of the temple {lepov not vaof;) and that salvation

is of the Jews, not in them. But his allegorical
interpretations are of the usual sort —neither better
—
nor worse than others except when he tries to read
Valentinianism into the Gospel. Thus the nobleman
is the Demiurge, the woman of Samaria's adulterous
husbands are the matter in which spiritual men are
entangled, and the whip of small cords is the power
of the Spirit. Upon the whole however the Valentinian
mythology is not very prominent in the fragments of
Heracleon which have come down to us.
We need not discuss the opinions which Marcus
thought fit to profess. His place is not with the
heretics, but with Alexander of Abonoteichos and
the rest of the quacks. Turning then to the Eastern
school and passing over the difiicult questions con-
nected with Theodotus, we come to the latest of the
great Gnostics, and one of the most interesting of
them, Bardaisan of Edessa. By his time the primacy
of Christendom had long passed from the Syrian
churches to the Greek and if the Latin churches
:
were rising to claim their place in history, the Syrian

were sinking into comparative obscurity. It was the
age of Greek supremacy, when even Latin literature
was represented almost solely by the Christians for
a century and a half after Juvenal. So Syriac was
mostly imitative, and Syriac writers are few. The
chief are Tatian the Assyrian, Bardaisan and his
Marcionite opponent, the Assyrian Prepon and of :
these only Tatian thinks of throwing down the

XV GNOSTICISM 47
audacious challenge, that the barbarians are better

than the Greeks.
Out in the Mesopotamian desert, some two hundred
miles to the east of Antioch, lay the city of Edessa,
the capital of Osrhoene. It had a strong position
beside the torrent of the Daisan, and was a military
outpost of great importance for either Rome or
Parthia, and owned a shifting allegiance to both.
It was ruled for three centuries by a series of kings,
mostly named Abgar, till 217, when Abgar bar-Manu
was treacherously seized by Caracalla, and Osrhoene
was made a Roman province. Christianity must
have reached Edessa very early (though the famous
letters of Christ and Abgar Uchama are apocryphal)
and flourished so greatly that the last Abgar is said
to have been a Christian. Bardaisan was born July
11, 154 or 155, in a high rank of life, for he was
brought up with an Abgar, perhaps bar-Manu, per-
haps one of his predecessors. He seems to have
held a great position at the court till the Roman
conquest. After the fall of bar-Manu, he appears
first as a writer of Armenian history, then as an
investigator of Indian religion in El Gabal's time.
He died in 223.
Bardaisan's numerous works are lost. The Book
of the Laivs of Nations ascribed to him was written
by his disciple Philip, so that it cannot be taken
as exactly representing his own opinions, while the
Bardesanist hymns which became the model of Syriac
poetry seem to be the work of his son Harmonius,
who had We cannot
a Greek education at Athens.
even be sure whether he turned from Valentinianism
to orthodoxy, or from orthodoxy to Valentinianism :
only his heresy is certain, and his orthodoxy was at

—
best not of the soundest. The evidence is scanty and

obscure, but it points to a docetic and generally
Gnostic way of thinking, and in particular to a modi-
fied Chaldaean fatalism, as if the stars had a real
influence, though not to the exclusion of nature and
freewill, for men with the same horoscope turn out
diff'erently, and men with different horoscopes have
the same national customs. This is the argument

put into his mouth in the Laws, and may not be
far from his actual beliefs The general tone of
Gnosticism is clear, though there are no distinctive
traces of Valentinianism. It may have been no
more than an intermediate stage between heathenism
and orthodoxy, even if it left its mark for life, like
Augustine's Manichaeism.
Bardaisan was a Syrian, and had little influence
on the Greek world, though some of his works were
translated into Greek. But his memory was cher-
ished in Syria. When Ephraem Syrus reached Edessa
more than a century later, he found the city " griev-
ously infested with heresies, especially that of Bar-
daisan." His chief trouble was with the hymns,
for the Bardesanists, like the Methodists,drew their
inspiration from their hymns
and we have samples
;
enough to shew something of their quality. The

Hymn of the Soul, given in the Acts of Judas
Thomas, is much the best religious allegory of early
Christian times. Its general outline is this.
When I was a boy in the kingdom of my father's
house, my father and my mother sent me on a
journey from the East, our country. They furnished
me richly from their treasures, but they took ofl" the
^ Eus. iv. 30. Bardaisan addressed a book on Fate " to Antoninus "
hardly Marcus or Caracalla, though it may be El Gabal or a private person,
or just possibly Severus, who was an expert in astrology.
XV GNOSTICISM 49
vesture of light which was their loving gift, and
the robe of purple they had fitted to my stature.
And they made a covenant with me, and wrote it
in my heart, that I might not forget it. If thou
wilt go down to Egypt and bring the pearl that is
which the serpent guards, thou shalt have
in the sea,
thy vesture of light again and be our heir with thy
brother our Second, who reigneth with us. I left
the East with two companions, for I was young, and
the dangers of the way were many. I passed the
borders of Maishan,i reached the land of Babylon,
entered Sarbug, and came into Egypt and there ;
my companions me. I put on the dress of the

left
country, that they might not suspect me. But they
gave me of their meats to eat, and I forgot that I
was a king's son, and served their king, neither did
I remember the pearl, but fell into a deep sleep.
But my father and my mother knew what had be-

fallen me, and they called a council of all the great
men They counselled that I was not
of the East.
to be left in Egypt, and they wrote me a letter,
and all subscribed it. From thy father, the King
of kings, and from thy mother, the Queen of the
East, and from thy brother our Second,^ to our son
in Egypt, greeting. Awake, arise from thy sleep.
Eemember that thou art a king's son. See into
what slavery thou art fallen. Eemember the pearl.
Remember thy that thy name may
vesture of light :
be written the book of heroes, and that thou

in
mayest inherit our kingdom with thy brother our
Second. The king sealed it with his right hand, to
guard it from the wicked children of Babylon and
^ Mesene at the head of the Persian Gulf, where Trajan saw the ships
leaving for India.
2 Note the Trinity. The Queen of course is the Holy Spirit.
VOL. II E
so CHURCH HISTORY chap.
the rebels of Sarbug. It flew in an eagle's form

and lighted down before me. And it was written
in the letter even as it was written in my heart.
So I remembered that I was a king's son, and I
remembered the pearl, and I enchanted the dragon
with my father's name, and my mother's, and my
brother's. I took the pearl, and essayed me to
return to my father's house. I left the filthy dress
of the country behind,^ and the letter went before
me, guiding me with its light. So I went past
Sarbug, and kept Babylon on my left, and reached
Maishan, the mart of merchants by the sea. Then
from the mountains of Hyrcania my father and my
mother sent me back again my vesture of light and ;
behold, it was all like me, and I was all like it.
It blazed with jewels and with diamonds, and all
over it King of kings was figured.
the image of the
I took and put it on me and adorned myself with
it
its beauty. I went up to the gate of the palace,
I bowed my head and worshipped the glory of my

father who had sent it to me, and I spoke with the
princes, and I was with him in his kingdom, and
they gave him glory, that he had done that which
he had promised me.
The Hymn of the Soul is Eastern the Pilgrim's ;
Progress is Western. The one is pervaded with the

Eastern's joy, that he is made in the image of
God ; the other reflects the sad consciousness of the
Western, that sin has marred that image. Each is
flecked with traces of its own sectarianism, and each
rises where sects are all forgotten.
to the heights
Bardaisan's eyes are on the eternal counsel, Bunyan's
on the deeps of human wickedness. Bardaisan's is
^ No resurrection of the body.
XV GNOSTICISM 51
the grander plan : yet after all, it is Bunyan who

brings his pilgrim to the cross of Christ.
Basilides taught at Alexandria in the time of
Hadrian, so that he must have flourished about the
same time as Valentinus, who came to Eome at a
later stf\ge of his career. He called himself a disciple
of Glaucias, who was said to have been an
" interpreter " of Peter, as Mark was. He wrote
four and twenty books of commentaries (Exegetica)
on "the Gospel" — doubtless meaning not so much
the narrative as the spiritual mysteries he found in
it. We are not precisely told w^hat written Gospels
he used ; only that his account of all things after
(not including) the birth of Jesus agreed with that
found in our Gospels. The statement of Origen,
that he " had the impudence to write a Gospel
according to Basilides," appears to be a mistake.
Before we can go further, we have to face the
difficulty, that one account of Basilides is given by
Irenaeus and by writers dependent on the Compendium
of Hippolytus, another by Hippolytus in his later
and larger work, and that these two accounts entirely
disagree. The system ascribed to him by Irenaeus
is dualistic and more or less of the Valentinian sort,
while that described by Hippolytus is pantheistic
and strongly Greek. As they both used Basilidian
books, they must be describing diff'erent develop-
ments of the teaching. But is either of them the
system of Basilides himself ? and if so, which ? To
decide the question, we turn to Clement, who used
the Exegetica^ and seems constantly appealing to
its author. His evidence is rather scanty, but upon
the whole it seems to leave little room for doubt
that Hippolytus is describing the system of Basilides,
Irenaeus that of the Basilidians he found in Gaul

half a century later.
In the beginning, There was, when there was
nothing and the nothing was not even one of the
;
things that are, but frankly nothing at all. Even

the " was an accommodation, for that which is
" is
unspeakable is above every name, and cannot even be

called unspeakable. There was nothing no matter, —
no substance, nothing unsubstantial, nor simple, nor
compound, nor intelligible, nor sensible, nor man, nor
angels, nor God. Then a not-being God willed (with-
out intelligence or feeling or counsel or purpose or
passion or desire) to make a world. " Willed " is
an accommodation again, and the world is not the

world of space, but a seed of a world containing all
things in it. Thus a not -being God made a not-
being world of things that were not. From the seed
came a triple Sonship, whereof one was light, which
flew straight up to the not-being God, whom all things
desire. A second was gross, and flew up too, taking
the Holy Spirit as wings. But when they neared the
not-being God, the Holy Spirit, as an inferior being,
could go no further, but remained behind as a firma-
ment, dividing the world from things above the
world. The third Sonship needed purification, and
remained in the seed. From this seed came forth the
Great Archon, in power and beauty inexpressible.
He lifted himself up to the firmament, and in his
ignorance of anything beyond it, believed himself to
be the supreme lord and master, and set about the
making of the heavenly or ethereal world. He also
had a son much better and wiser than himself (for
such was the will of the not -being God) and set
him on his right hand. This is the Ogdoad, where
XV GNOSTICISM 53
the Great Archon is seated. Then from the seed

arose another Archon, much less than the first
Archon, but inexpressible too and greater than all

else except the Sonship left behind and he too had a :
son better and wiser than himself. His place is the

Hebdomad, and he is the creator of all aerial things.
But in the seed, which is our earth, all things come to
pass by nature, and it has neither ruler nor providence
—
nor creator only the plan which the not-being God
planned when he made the seed.
So when the world and the things above the world
were finished, it was necessary that the Sonship left
behind should be revealed and join the others. So
the Great Archon reigned in ignorance of the mystery
which to former generations was not made known.
And the other Archon reigned too. He it was who
said to Moses, I am God of Abraham, Isaac and
the
Jacob, and the name of God (the Great Archon) I
declared not to them,^ and he inspired all the prophets.
But when the time was come for us the children of
God to be revealed, the Gospel reached every rule and
authority and lordship and name that named. But
is
nothing came down from above : the thoughts of the

Sonship below penetrated upward to the Holy Spirit,
who revealed them to the son of the Great Archon,

and he to the Great Archon himself, who now learned
that he was not the Supreme. So he feared, and con-
fessed his pride. Then the son of the Great Archon
revealed it to the son of the other Archon, and he to
his father, who also feared and confessed. So the
whole Hebdomad received the light. Then from the
Hebdomad it came down on Jesus the son of Mary.
This is what is written, Holy Spirit shall come upon
^ Exod. vi. 3, as they read it.
thee — that which comes from the Sonship through the

limitary Spirit to theOgdoad and the Hebdomad and
reaches as far as Mary. So he was enhghtened, being
kindled along with the light that shone upon him no —
doubt the fire on Jordan at his baptism. So every
Sonship must ascend after Jesus above the limitary
Spirit to the first Sonship. After this God will bring
on the world the Great Ignorance, that all things may
remain as they are by nature, and desire nothing
beyond, for the desire of things beyond is the source
of pain. It will overtake the Archon of the
Hebdomad, and even the Great Archon himself and :
this is the restoration of all things.

Basilides begins from the Platonic and generally
philosophical transcendentalism, which is itself in the
main one of the ways of thinking we have classed
as Oriental, and develops it out in approved philo-
sophical style with a highest realm of not-being, and
three descending realms of aether, air and earth,
of which only the lowest is material. So far the
system is philosophical, not religious. We reach the
Gnosticism only when we come to a doctrine of the
elect, and the work of Christ to rescue them.
Irenaeus gives a very diff*erent account of the
Basilidian system. First Mind was born from the
ingenerate Father then from Mind Logos, from
;
Logos Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis,

and from these again the powers, principalities and
angels who made the first heaven. From these came
the angels of a second heaven, and so on till 365
successive heavens were made. The lowest of these
is the heaven we and these lowest angels are
see ;
the creators of the world and of men. They were

the authors of the prophecies, and the Law in
XV GNOSTICISM 55
particular was given by their Archon, who is the

God of the Jews. And
because he desired to subject
the rest of the nations to the Jews, the rest of the
angels and their peoples rebelled against him. But
when the ingenerate and ineffable Father saw that
the Jews were perishing, he sent his first-begotten
Mind, even him who is called Christ, to deliver
them that beheved on him from the power of the
demiurgic angels. So he appeared on earth as a man,
though he was not really such, and did mighty
works. It was not he who suffered on the cross,
but Simon of Cyrene in his likeness, while Jesus
taking Simon's form stood unseen and mocked the
Jews, and afterward ascended unseen to the Father.
Wherefore if we confess him who was crucified, we
are still in bondage to the creators of the body,
whereas we are free if we deny the Crucified.
These Basilidians formed an esoteric school with
guarded mysteries. They said that they were no
longer Jews, but something more than Christians.
They were so puffed up with their hidden knowledge
that they ate without scruple things offered to idols,
denied Christ in time of persecution, and lived just
like heathens. They used magic and incantations
and invocations and all sorts of curious arts, and
counted outward acts indifferent, even if they were
acts of promiscuous immorality. Salvation of course
is limited to the soul. These are hostile accounts,
and may be overcoloured but there is no reason to
;
doubt their general truth.

and these Basilidians have little in
Basilides
common beyond the use of abstract names without
reference to sex, and a general tendency to secrecy.
We have here an extreme case of disciples altering
S6 CHURCH HISTORY CHAP.
their master's doctrine till it can hardly be recognized.

The strong pantheism of BasiHdes is gone, and the
marked Greek character of his teaching is replaced
by something much more hke the Judaizing and
Valentinian tone dominant in the Gnostic schools of
the time. Even the ethical teaching of Basilides was
too high for his followers. Blameless as he might be
himself, his doctrine of election and requirement of
silence easily lent itself to the widespread tendency
to form esoteric schools of heathen living and heathen
immorality. Great as the difference is, it is no more
than can be accounted for by the contrast of the
original teaching with the influences around it.
We come now to schools of a more heathen sort,
so heathen indeed that they can hardly be counted
for Christian even in the loose sense of the word
which would include Basilides. Chief of these are
the Ophites and Carpocrates. The Ophites (or
Gnostics proper) appear early, and stand rather for
a number of coteries than for a definite school. The
difference in the accounts of them given by Irenaeus,
by Hippolytus, and by Clement and Origen, may be
explained partly by lapse of time, partly by real
differences of different coteries, partly by the reliance
of Hippolytus on books which may have repre-
sented nothing more than personal opinions of the
writers. We need not ourselves go beyond the
account of Irenaeus.
The honour paid to the serpent is not peculiar to
the Ophites, for there are traces of it among other
Gnostics. It is not even the most important part of
their system : but it is the part which gave the
deepest offence to the Christians. It suited well the
extreme opposition to Judaism, which turned the
XV GNOSTICISM 57
Old Testament upside down, thinking that if the

Creator was bad, the serpent must be good. But it
actually arose rather from heathen sources and these ;
are to be found not in Greek philosophy, but in the

baser paganismus of serpent- worship, so common in
the superstitions and in the mysteries of Greece, and
of the East as far as India. That however we cannot
follow here ; and indeed it belongs almost as much to
archaeology as to history. The Ophites then had a
Trinity — the God of all whom they called the First
Man, his Conception or the Second Man, and under
these a female Holy Spirit moving on the face of the
waters. Of her the First and Second Man begat the
Third Man, even Christ, who flew upward with his
mother. But the light was more than she could
bear, and a spark of it fell downward as Sophia or
Prunikos on the waters, and assumed a body which
prevented her from flying up to heaven, though
presently she reached a middle region between the
waters and heaven. From her contact with the
waters was born laldabaoth, and from him came
without mother a series of six powers. These seven
created the seven heavens and when the six strove
;
with laldabaoth, from the dregs of matter he begot

the Nous of serpent form, from whom are spirit and
soul,but also wickedness and death. Then laldabaoth
gave himself out for the Supreme, despite his
mother's warning from on high. But when the six
powers had created man, and laldabaoth had breathed
into him the breath of life, he gave thanks to
the First Man, and not to laldabaoth. Whereupon
laldabaoth created a woman to destroy him and the ;
sixpowers were enamoured of her, and made her the

mother of the angels. Then Prunikos sent the
serpent to persuade Adam and Eve to transgress

the command of laldabaoth ; so they ate, received
knowledge of the higher powers, and revolted from
laldabaoth, who drove them down from paradise to
earth. The Old Testament becomes a long battle of
mankind secretly helped by Prunikos, against
laldabaoth and his powers. At last the Holy Spirit
had mercy on Prunikos ; and Christ was sent down
through the seven heavens to the earth, where a
pure vessel was prepared for him in Jesus, who was
born of a virgin. Then Christ was united as bride-
groom and bride with his sister Prunikos, and they
entered into Jesus, who thus became Jesus Christ,
and began to work miracles and to declare himself
the Son of the First Man. But only Jesus was
crucified, for Christ and Prunikos had departed from
him. He survived eighteen months, teaching his
doctrine to a select few. And now that Christ is
received into heaven, he sits at the right hand of

laldabaoth, receiving the souls that are his, and
emptying of kingdom of laldabaoth.
light the
A sorry rigmarole and yet there is method in
;
the madness. The serpent plays but a small part,

though in some coteries it was identified with
Prunikos herself But in a broad way the system
reminds us of the Valentinian.There is a complicated
cosmogony of the same sort, and laldabaoth roughly
corresponds to the Great Archon. But the Great
Archon sins in ignorance laldabaoth sins against
:
light, and is essentially evil. We miss also the

poetic colouring and the touches of Greek philo-
sophy the Ophite system is Eastern and prosaic.
:
Though we are nowhere directly told the date

of Carpocrates, we know that his follower Marcellina
XV GNOSTICISM 59
came to Eome in the time of Anicetus, " and ruined

many." We may therefore pretty safely fix
Carpocrates himself a little earlier — say 140-150.
He begins in the usual way with a Supreme and
demiurgic angels, the first of whom is '*
the
Adversary." ^
He soon reaches a thorough-going
licentiousness. The Law is the work of the angels,
and the distinctions of right and wrong are arbitrary.
It is the Gnostic's duty to defy them, for he is
not saved by works, but by faith and love. Jesus
was only a man like other men, and owed his power
to his better reminiscence of the things he had seen
with —
God in a former life a clear piece of Platonism.
Other men may do as much if they remember as
much, and even surpass the works of Jesus with
works of magic. But the demiurgic angels have
the right (on complaint of the Adversary) to detain
every soul for new transmigrations till it " has paid
the uttermost farthing " by exhausting all the possi-
bilities of sin ; and it is only a few strong souls like
Jesus who are do all wickedness in one
able to
lifetime. So the followers of Carpocrates were
grossly immoral, and brought much discredit on
the Christian name. So far Irenaeus.
Carpocrates married a woman of Cephallene, and
had a son called Epiphanes, who died at the age
of seventeen. This Epiphanes was a forward youth,
who did credit to his father's worthy teaching, and
after his death had a temple, and was worshipped
in his mother's town of Same with ofierings every
new moon. He wrote a book " On Justice," from
which Clement of Alexandria gives an extract.
Epiphanes tells us that God's justice is founded on
1 Mt. V. 25.
6o CHURCH HISTORY chap.
equality. Heaven covers all, the stars shine on all

and no man can rob his neighbour of sunlight, or
seize for himself a double portion. It is not God
who makes a between rich and poor,
difference
learned and simple, male and female, freeman and
slave, ruler and subject. Men created laws and
invented property to destroy the communism of God.
Their meum and tuum mar the harmony of the
universe. Laws have made the thief and the
adulterer — for woman should not belong to one
man. It is the ordinance of God that love must
be free.
Irenaeus himself seems to have some doubt whether

his account of these men is not too bad to be true.
Of their immorality there need be no
practical
question but perhaps they did not go quite so far
;
in theory as Epiphanes. This young man has been

explained as a confusion with the moon -god, and it
is not impossible that Clement has ascribed to him
the work of an older writer but upon the whole
;
the story hangs together, and seems historical. No

doubt Epiphanes is a strange creature to be made a
god but the Greeks of his time were not squeamish
;
in their choice of gods. He is not worse than

Antinous.
Marcion of Sinope flourished at Eome in the
time of bishop Anicetus but his first arrival in the
;
city must have been much earlier. He was a well-

to-do shipmaster, and presented a considerable sum
ofmoney to the church. Presently he fell into bad
company —that of the Syrian Cerdo, who had already
reached Rome
in the days of bishop Hyginus. He
taught that the God of the Old Testament, being
only righteous, is not the good Supreme, who was
XV GNOSTICISM 6i
unknown till the coming of Christ. Marcion worked

out this idea, " blaspheming shamelessly " the God
of the Jews as a worker of evil and a lover of
wars, and moreover changeable and inconsistent in
his commands. Such doctrine found no favour at
Rome Marcion was expelled, and his money was
:
returned to him. After this he seems to have been

a great wanderer (perhaps on his business) before
settling down in Rome in the time of Anicetus. At
some time or other he met Polycarp, and asked
him to recognize him. " I recognize — the Firstborn
'
of Satan."
Polycarp was not far wrong, for Marcion was
counted astill more dangerous enemy than Valentinus.
Almost every church writer assails him, from Justin

onward ; and with good reason. Nothing shews
better the vagueness of the term Gnostic than its
application to such a man as Marcion, who entirely

denied the difiference of the Gnostic from the common
Christian which the word implies. Marcion's was
a spirit of devout and sober realism which rejected
myths and allegories, and sought to build on the letter
of St. Paul. His bald literalism was utterly unlike
the poetry of Valentinus and the logic of Basilides,
and was for that reason the more attractive to the
2^rofanum vulgus of the unimaginative, especially
1 We need not notice the story told by Ps.-Tert. (more fully Epiph.) that
Marcion was the son of a bishop, and was expelled by his own father for
seduction before he came to Rome. The story is not told by Irenaeus or by
Tertullian (not a likely man to pass it over) and it agrees with neither his
asceticism nor his reception at Rome, nor yet with the earnest Christian
feeling we see in him. It may be too literal a rendering of the charge that
he corrupted the church.
The date of his famous meeting with Polycarp is not certain. We know
that Marcion was flourishing at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and we know
that Polycarp came to Rome in the time of Anicetus, and we naturally
connect the two facts : but we cannot be certain.
—
among the women, prominence of women is

for the
quite a feature of Marcionism. What most impressed
him in the Gospel was its novelty, and its contrast
with the imperfections of the world and Judaism.
Surely they cannot have the same author. The hard
and righteous God of the Old Testament cannot be
the good Supreme. He is limited — does not know
—
where to find Adam in the garden creates evil, stirs
up wars, changes his mind and if none but the Son
:
knows the true Supreme, the prophets cannot have

known him. True, the God of the Jews is the creator,
or rather the fashioner of this world, for matter is
not of his creation, but an eternal evil which he has

not power to conquer nor can he give more than a
:
limited reward to men, or rather to the Jews only

and even on them he imposes a law which they cannot
keep. Above him stands the good Supreme in his
heavenly world, unknown in past ages. Suddenly,
as it is written in the beginning of the Gospel of
Marcion, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar the
Son of God came down (from heaven) and taught in
the synagogue at Capernaum. He came in the like-
ness of man, but the likeness was only apparent and ;
he came to reveal the unknown Father. He was not

the Christ promised by the Creator, who was to be a
great conqueror, and to conquer for the Jews only,
whereas the Son of God was to suffer, and to suffer
for the sins of the whole world. He came not to fulfil
the Law but to destroy it, and therefore the Creator
stirred up the Jews to crucify him. His teaching
was a teaching of faith and love, and of ascetic
practice, for the body has no share in salvation. The
Marcionites renounced flesh and wine and marriage,
receiving married persons only as catechumens. The
XV GNOSTICISM 63
austerity of their morals is acknowledged even by
Tertullian, and confirmed by the number of their

martyrs, for they had none of the Basilidian untruth.
No wonder they were counted the most dangerous of
all the Gnostic sects.
On
this theory the Christianity of the time must
have been much falsified by Judaizers, and needed a
good deal of amendment. Marcion set aside the Old
Testament of course, and with it the Fourth Gospel,
the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. Of
the rest he selected two, which he called the Gospel
and the Apostle. His Gospel was our St. Luke,
though not under that name, purified of everything
which connects our Lord with nature and with
history. Leaving out the first two chapters and
sundry other passages, he was able to retain about
two thirds of it and the minute analysis of his results
;
by Tertullian and Epiphanius enables us not only to

fix the contents of his Gospel wdth scarcely half a
dozen verses left uncertain, but to see that he had it
in a Western text. The theory that Marcion's is the
original Gospel and ours an expansion of it is de-
cisively refuted by the evidence of Irenaeus and the
rest, by the state of the text, by the evident reasons
for the omissions, and by the uniformity of the
language throughout our Gospel. In Tertullian's
words, Marcion criticized with a penknife.^ The
Apostle consisted of ten of St. Paul's Epistles,
arranged nearly in chronological order. The Pastoral
Epistles were wanting ; also the references to Abraham
in the Galatians and the last two chapters of the
Romans ; and that to the Ephesians was inscribed to
the Laodicenes.
^ Tert. Praescr. 38 exserta et palam machaera, non stilo usus est.
The Marcionites formed a separate sect, organized

apparently on the model of the other churches. The
sacraments were as usual, except that baptism was
refused to married persons, and perhaps occasionally
performed by women. In the Lord's Supper they
had water instead of wine, and seemed to have allowed
the catechumens to witness the ceremony. They
probably fasted like the stricter churchmen, but they
shewed their opposition to the Jews by choosing the
sabbath for a fast day.
Marcion's theory cannot be called successful. In
some ways indeed it is more open to objection than
most of the Gnostic systems. For instance, it
destroys not only our Lord's manhood, but even his
truthfulness, for no criticism can get rid of the fact
that he claimed (on Marcion's theory, claimed falsely)
to be the Christ sent by the God of the Jews. But
the most radical objection is that the separation
of righteousness from goodness turns both into vices. ^
Righteousness without goodness is merciless hardness,
goodness without righteousness is weak good nature
which slides quite easily into cruelty. The good
God never punishes : he only leaves the men who
are by nature carnal to the mercies of the merciless
Creator. This is just as bad as the worst form of
Calvinism.
It was at a real difficulty that Marcion broke
down, so we need not count him like Tertullian, as
worse than all the horrid beasts of Scythia. The
^ Tert. Marcionem i. 22 Talis et in deum Marcionis sententia
adv.
dicenda mali permissorem, iniuriae fautoreni, gratiae lenocinatorem,
est,
benignitatis praevaricatorem, quam non statim caussae suae exhibuit plane,;
si natura bonus, exhibiturus, et non accessione, si ingenio optimus et non

disciplina, si ab aevo deus et non a Tiberio, imo, quod verius, a Cerdone et
Marcione.
Id. 27 deum veritatis praevaricatorem etc.
XV GNOSTICISM 65
contrast of the New

Testament with the Old has
been a stumbling-block in all ages. The Jews
declared that they came from different authors, and
refused the New Testament. Marcion agreed, but
rejected the Old. Orthodox writers held that the
two were not inconsistent with each other, but they
only reconciled them by a free use of allegory. To
ourselves both these methods are closed. Improved
criticism has shewn that allegory is an unsound
method, and improved science has made a final
dualism of good and evil untenable. Whatever the
world may be, it is built on a single plan. We should
be in a worse case than they that came before us,
if the improvement of criticism and science together
had not set in a new light the historical growth

of the revelation, so that we can accept the Old
Testament as a stage of it, imperfect, but good till
that which is perfect came. This is the doctrine
of the New Testament itself, as in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and a dim perception of it was enough
to save the Early Church from the dangers of
Marcion's audacious criticism.
We have seen among the Apologists
already
Tatian the Assyrian, the " founder " of the Encratites.
Though he was not of Marcion's school, he may
here be classed with him as a writer of similar spirit
and similar principles. He was a disciple of Justin,
and it was not till after Justin s death that he broke
with the church and returned to Assyria. Eusebius
places it in 172; but the dates in his Chronicle are
often rough. Tatian recognized oneGod with aeons
in the Valentinian style but he agreed with Marcion
;
in his sharp opposition of the Creator to the Supreme,

in his general tone of practical and ascetic devotion,
VOL. II F
;
and specially in his prohibition of wine and flesh

and marriage. Like Marcion, he was counted a
heretic in the West ; but unlike Marcion, he was
honoured in the Syrian churches as the author of
the Diatessaron, or harmony of the Gospels, which
was much used in Syria till the fifth century, and
strongly influenced the text of the dampharreshe
which replaced it. The dispute over its character
which raged some thirty years ago has been set at
rest by the discovery in an Armenian translation
of Ephraem's commentary, dating from the fourth
century, and since then of free translations of the
Diatessaron itself into Arabic and Latin. We see
now that it was a harmony or continuous narrative
pieced together from our four Gospels, apparently
in a Western text, but without any uncanonical
material. It began with the Prologue of St. John's
Gospel, and left out the genealogies and everything
else that implies our Lord's descent from David.
The Marcionites had their divisions like others
and they are rather maliciously exaggerated by our
chief informant Rhodon, who having himself been
a disciple of Tatian, was set against tenets which
resembled those of his former master. Thus Syneros
and the Assyrian Prepon were not really diverging
from Marcion when they spoke of three first principles
instead of two, for Marcion himself might very well
have recognized one in his eternal evil matter.
Apelles however drew nearer to the church. He
confessed but one unknown God, making the Creator
a great angel in the style of the early Gnostics, who
had made this world on the model of the heavenly
world, and made it badly, and repented of it. The
God of the Jews was a still lower being. Apelles had
XV GNOSTICISM 6y
taken over in full measure Marcion's dislike of the

Old Testament, and devoted a large part of his
numerous writings to the " mistakes of Moses." He
was an old man when Rhodon met him, and much
respected. " And when I said, Where is your
demonstration that there is but one first principle,
if the prophets are self- convicted of falsehood, for

they disagree with each other and tell lies and are
not consistent with themselves ? he answered that
he did not know. And when I adjured him to tell
me the truth, he swore that he spoke truly. He did
not know how there is one ingenerate God, but so
he believed it is. Then I mocked him. You call
yourself a teacher, and cannot prove what you teach."
Rhodon tells the story without seeing that his own
temper contrasts badly with the charity of Apelles,

who declared that " those who put their trust in
the Crucified will be saved, if only they are found
in good works." On another point also, Apelles
came nearer to the church, for he held that the
Lord's body was real, though heavenly, so that his
sufferings were real.
After all,we owe something to the Gnostics.

There is no mean thinking in some of their strange
theories, and no little moral earnestness in others.
We cannot mistake the lofty tone of Marcion, the
noble charity of Apelles, or the genuine horror with
which Basilides and Yalentinus repudiate the possi-
bility thatGod may be the author of wrong and out-
rage.-^ Again, the asceticism of the Gnostics was as
good as that of the monks. Mischievous as it was, it
was no more than theirs the conduct of godless men.
Marcion may have been the Firstborn of Satan for
^ Fragments of Basilides and Valentinus in Stieren's Irenaeus pp. 903, 912.
perverting the oracles of God the last man

; but he is
who can be accused of perverting them to serve his

own lusts. The Gnostics contributed a good deal to
the thoughts and language of the growing theology
of the church, and (though for thiswe owe them few
many directions the forerunners of
thanks) they were in
mediaeval developments. Among them, for instance,
we find the first traces of images, Mariolatry and
transubstantiation, and of the gorgeous heathen
ceremonialism which overcame the churches in the
fourth century. Imperfect as their exegesis was, they
wrote commentaries like those of Basilides and
Heracleon, discussed the criticism of the New Testa-
ment, like Tatian and Marcion, and studied at large
both doctrine and ethics. Some however of their
most lasting work was of a literary sort, and of a more
doubtful character. It was they more than others
who shaped the apostolic history into ascetic romances
whose influence is hardly even yet extinct, and they
whose speculations chiefly softened the contrast of
Christian literature with that of the world around.
Let there be no mistake the contest was vital.
:
Gnosticism undermined Christian monotheism by its

distinction of the Creator from the Supreme, Christian
morals by its opposition of the philosopher to the
unlearned, Christian by its separation of
practice
knowledge from action and it
; cut away the very
basis of the Gospel whenever it explained away its
history. In every case it had got hold of truth on
—
one side the reality of evil in the world, the function
of knowledge in religion, the difi'erence between the
letter and the spirit but fragments of truth are not
:
enough for a Gospel which is false if all truth is not

summed up in Christ. Therefore there could be no
XV GNOSTICISM 69
peace between the Gnostic illuminati and the Christian

churches.
This maybe the place for such notice of Manichaeism
as we shall find needful. It may be treated shortly,
for it isan obscure subject which Western students
can hardly discuss at first hand, and it is not very
nearly connected with Christianity before the Nicene

age. Manichaeism then is separated from Gnosticism
by the fact that it places Mani above Christ. It is
rather a rival religion like Islam than a version of
Christianity. It arose later than Gnosticism, lay
further East, and while agreed with Gnosticism in
it
having Persian dualism for its chief element, it differed

by allowing be materialized by a second
this to
element of Chaldean cosmology, and throwing
Christianity even more into the background than
Carpocrates had done. Perhaps it was known to
Mani, as it was to Mahomet, chiefly in its more
degraded forms. A further influence of Buddhism is
more than possible, but does not seem fully proved.
Mani^ was born cir. 216 near Ctesiphon. His
fatherwas a Persian of rank, a settler from Ecbatana,
and his mother was related to the Parthian Arsacidae.
He laid his doctrine before Sapor I. (240-269) in that
king's early and then undertook extensive
years,
travels in the direction of India and China. In
Sapor's last years he returned to Persia and was
arrested, but managed to escape. Under Hormuz I.
he was in favour at the court but Bahram I. crucified
;
him [cir. 276) and began a vigorous persecution of

^ In my account of Mani
and his doctrine I have thought it better in most
things frankly to follow Schubert E.G. 309-312 than to meddle with
v.
original sources which require a knowledge of sundry Eastern languages.
The latest account of Mani (with list of books) is in Gibb and Montgomery's
edition of Augustine's Confessions p. xxi.
his followers. Their headquarters were in the East,

between Taurus and Media, where they had affinity
with Marcionites and others. They began to trouble
the Empire about 280, and the first mention of them
in the law books is the edict of Diocletian in 296 ;
but they did not become important before the time

of Constantine. Diocletian burned " their abominable
books " but in the next generation the learned count
;
Musonianus translated them into Greek by Constan-

tine's command.^
The system begins with a Persian dualism of light
and darkness, in contrast as good and evil not ;
however as ideal principles, but rather as primary

elements. The First Man, begotten by the King of
Light, is worsted by the powers of darkness, and is
not rescued without leaving some of the light im-
prisoned in the realm of darkness. A part of this is
recovered and placed in the sun, moon, and stars
when the God of Light creates the material world.
To make sure of the rest of it, Satan begets Adam,
and puts it into him. But as this makes the light
prevail in him, he sets beside him Eve, in whom the
darkness prevails. In spite of the warnings of the
spirits of light, especially Jesus, Adam gives way to
sensual desire, and begets Seth. Thereupon begins
a struggle for the possession of men between the
demons and the spirits of light. Moses and the
prophets and the Jewish Messiah were servants of
Satan. To the prophets of light belong Seth, Noah,
Abraham, Zoroaster, Jesus, and Paul but Jesus was :
a spirit of light in the mere appearance of a man, and

the last and greatest of them all was Mani the
Paraclete. In the Elect, who wholly follow after
^ Ammianus xv. 13. 2.
;
XV GNOSTICISM 71
Mani, there is so complete a separation of light and

darkness that their souls are able to ascend straight
to the kingdom of light but common believers can
;
only follow them after severe trials. In the end, the

souls of the unredeemed and the bodies of all men are
assigned to the kingdom of darkness, and the kingdom
of light is finally separated from it.
The Elect were distinguished from the Hearers or

—
Catechumens by three signs by the signaculum oris
were forbidden foul words, eating of things with life,
and drinking of wine by the signaculum manuum,
;
all business with the things of the material world
which could be avoided by the signaculum sinus,

;
all sexual intercourse. They also had an elaborate

system of washings, fastings, and times of prayer
and amongst their prayers were some to Mani. The
catechumens were a sort of proselytes, required to
observe only the " ten commandments " against
idolatry, witchcraft, murder, whoredom, lying, etc.,
to serve the Elect, to give them their herbs, and to
ask their prayers and blessings.
The was governed by the ascending orders of
sect
Elders, Bishops, and Teachers and above them all
;
there seems to have been a Pope, or Successor of

Mani, at Babylon. The public worship was of the
usual sort, but Baptism was with oil, and the Com-
munion with bread only, and the day of the Founder's
death was observed in March.
It will be seen that nothing here is rather Christian
than Mithraic, except the names of Jesus and Paul
and the Paraclete. Even the idea of redemption,
which the Gnostics connected with Christ, is here
assigned to Mani. Except perhaps in its two
sacraments, the system is at almost every point less
72 CHURCH HISTORY chap, xv
Christian than Islam — in its dualism, in its rejection

of Judaism, in its asceticism, in its double standard,
and in the almost divine position assigned to Mani.
Books
Mansel Gnostics ; Arts, by Hort and Salmon in i).C.^. ; 'Qvooke Fragments
of Heracleon in Texts and Studies Bevan, A. A. Hymn of the Soul in Texts
;
and Studies Buonaiuti, E. Lo Gnosticismo Roma 1907 (excellent sketch)

; ;
Peake, Basilides in Hastings' Diet. Rel. and Ethics ; Schmidt, Carl. Koptisch-
Gnostische Schriften (for Syrian Gnostics).
CHAPTER XVI
MONTANISM
In the same sense as Gnosticism is Christianity

perverted by learning and speculation, Montanism
is Christianity perverted by fear of learning and
speculation. While the one refines away the Gospel

into a philosophy, the other debases it into a coarse
revivalism, equally opposed to the intellectual pride
of the Gnostics and to the dignified traditionalism
of the subapostolic church.
The author of Montanism was a convert, perhaps
a converted priest of Cybele, its birthplace Ardabau -^
in Mysia, on the border of Phrygia, and its date may

be roughly fixed near the middle of the second
century.^ Now Phrygia was the centre of the
movement the —Montanists were often called
Phrygians ^
—
and the religion of Phrygia, high up the
Asiatic tableland, was very unlike that of the Greek
cities which lay on the coast and along some of the
1 Harnack suggests KdpSaâ. The village is unknown.
^ The question is obscure, and historians are divided on it. We have cir.
130 de Soyres, cir. 156 Bonwetsch and Harnack {Chronologic i. 365 sq.) cir.
172 Volter and Hilgenfeld. The first date seems too early, the last is much
too late, for Maximilla's death seems fixed near 179 and as she was the last
;
of the three pillars of Montanism, its origin must lie certainly behind 172,
and perhaps behind 156. It would be settled if we knew when Gratus was
proconsul of Asia.
3 ol Kara ^pvyas, or in Latin Cataphryges.
73
lowland valleys. It was a hotbed of superstitions in

heathen times, and afterward of Christian heresies.
It was the Holy Land of the Montanists, the adopted
home of the Novatians, the headquarters of Marcellus ;
and even orthodoxy differed in spirit from the

its
Greek. ^ The heathen superstitions (like those of

Syria) tended at once to licence and asceticism but ;
no immorality stains the austere puritanism of the

Christian sects in Phrygia, and even their asceticism
was as far as possible from the abominations of Attis
and Cybele. If the Montanists foreshadowed in one
direction the bold prophecy of the early Quakers, in
another they recall the timid legalism of the monks
and the Evangelicals.
Montanus himself seems to have been as insignifi-
cant a person as ever made a name in history ; but
he must have had strong followers, especially in the
prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla. Through them
the Paraclete spoke for the last time before Christ's
coming and the descent of the new Jerusalem on
Pepuza in Phrygia. " After me no prophet more, but
the end," said Maximilla and indeed the persecution
:
under Marcus might seem the sign of his coming, Hke

that of Nero a century before. Therefore it behoved
them to have their loins girded and their lights
burning, like servants waiting for their Lord's return.
The churches were remiss, and needed bracing up.
They were delegating the universal call of Christian
men and women to mere officials, and settling down
among the pomps and vanities almost as comfortably
as if they were so many heathen clubs. The remedy
was manifest. As the Spirit of Prophecy had called
the churches into existence, so nothing but the Spirit
^ e.g. the case of Glycerius. Ramsay Ch. in the Roman Empire, 443.
;
XVI MONTANISM 75
of Prophecy could renew them to the stricter life

which was fitting for strangers and pilgrims in these
last times. But the future must be greater than the
past. As the Law excelled the religion of Nature

and the Gospel excelled the Law, so must the dis-
pensation of the Paraclete excel the Gospel, and be
the crown and consummation of the whole. Then at
last the church would have left its youth behind, and
reachedits manhood.
was not that the Montanists wanted to separate

It
from the church. Their first ideal was rather an
association within the church— a Society of Friends or
Methodists — which might be an imperium in imperio,
but was not an open enemy. In Phrygia, where
whole churches joined them, they regularly organized
it with stewards and financial arrangements.
If the
church was worldly it was not heretical, and they

valued its ministrations — after their own. They had
no reason for separation, at least the New until
Prophecy was definitely rejected. Nor were the

bishops on their side eager for division. Some
bishops may have cast them out, and others gave
deep offence by trying to exorcise the prophetesses like
demoniacs; but others again leaned a good deal them-
selves to the Montanists, and a few went still further
in Chiliast fanaticism. So there was no great
question of separation for the present. But such
societies, even when the second generation softens
their first crudities, can seldom hold their
ground
without developing into sects. Those without resent
their claim to be better than the church, and those
within push their peculiarities to separation. So it
has been with Quakers, Methodists and the Salvation
Army, all of whom have become practically sects
and so it was presently with the Montanists. They

began as a local society with active prophets and on
the watch for Christ's return they settled down at :
last as a widespread sect with watch relaxed and

prophets occasional or none, distinguished from the
churches chiefly by Novatian discipline and general
rusticity.
The strength of the earlier Montanists was in their
vivid belief that the Holy
was a power thatSpirit
had not ceased to work spiritual wonders in the church.
But a restoration is always an exaggeration. They
claimed not simply to continue the apostolic line of
prophets after Quadratus and Ammia, but to have a
New Prophecy of more than apostolic splendour and
authority. The oracles of Montanus and the
prophetesses were the heralds of Christ's return to
reign a thousand years on earth and in that august ;
presence worldly distinctions must be levelled, all

all
worldly living forborne. The gift of prophecy came

at his sovereign will, as well to
women as to men.
This was orthodox, for Paul had not allowed
if St.
women to teach, neither had he forbidden them to
prophesy.^ So women play almost as great a part in
Montanism as in Phrygian heathenism. And if the
gift might come to any one, then all must be holy to
receive it. Nor would the holiness of the Gospel
suffice. Like the Law, the Gospel had allowed some
things only for the hardness of men's hearts, and in
the higher dispensation of the Paraclete such con-
cessions must be withdrawn. " The flesh had had its
play " :
^ now the spirit must rule.
Gnosticism, Montanism and subapostolic Christi-
^ 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 1 Tim. ii. 12, 1 Cor. xi. 5.

2 Tert. de Pud. 6 Luserit ante Christum caro.
XVI MONTANISM 77
anity represent three permanent tendencies of human

nature, standing roughly for liberalism, for mysticism,
and for conservatism, with their characteristic dangers
of speculation without regard to facts, of feeling with-
out regard to practice, and of practice without regard
to the inward witness. Each of them can therefore
be studied in its opposition to the other two. Gnos-
ticism and Montanism contrasted sharply, while the
church endeavoured to steer between, though it leaned
more to the Montanist side than to the Gnostic.
In principle Montanism is the exact reverse of
Gnosticism. Just as the Gnostics referred everything
to man, so the Montanists referred everything to
God. Neither the one nor the other could rise to
the conception of inspiration as the meeting of God
and man, as equally the insight of holiness and its
divine reward. They degraded it, the one to godless
human reasoning, the other to a magic power over-
riding human nature. On one theory man does what
he pleases, and God is forgotten on the other, God :
does what he wills, and man is no more than a pen in

his hand. The prophet is entirely passive. He speaks
*'
in the Spirit by ecstatic vision," or as the Paraclete
says by Montanus, " Behold, a man is as a lyre, and
I hover round as the plectrum : the man sleeps, and
I watch ; behold it is the Lord who transports the
hearts of men, and gives them [new ?] hearts." So
Maximilla, "The Lord me under compulsion,
sent
willing and not willing." To men who started with
^
such a conception of God and man and revelation,

human learning could not seem anything else than a
These are the authoritative oracles of Montanism, and must not be set
^
more ignorant Montanists. Maximilla's words resemble

aside as beliefs of the
1 Cor. ix. 16, but (if she is not contradicting Montanus) her point is that
she is passive in God's hands, not simply that the call is irresistible.
delusion and a snare ; and the Gnostics were con-

demned at once for attempting to judge of revelation
by reason, instead of accepting without question the
plain meaning of the holy words delivered once for
allfrom heaven. If St. John said a thousand years,
must it not be a thousand years ? So Gnosticism was
impious presumption pure and simple, and the more
completely they could contradict it, the safer they
would be.
Nevertheless, the Montanists had more in common
with the enemy than they knew. The likeness was
partly in the conception of revelation, partly in the
conception of holiness. For Christians, the Person of
Christ is the full and final summing-up of truth,
so thatno development is possible but a fuller
knowledge of that which was in Christ from the
first. But the Gnostics with their speculation and
the Montanists with their ecstasy agreed in adding
to the Gospel things that are not in Christ, and some-
times plainly contradict his teaching. They made
very different additions, but they agreed that the
Person of Christ is not a final revelation.
They agreed again in the conception of holiness
as ascetic,and in the resulting contrast between the
enlightened or spiritual —
man meaning themselves
— and the vulgar or natural man, which was their
description of their neighbours. Extremes meet, as
usual. The Montanists might be saints, the Gnostics
illuminati but both stood in nearly the same relation
;
to common churchmen. Both yielded more than the

church of their time to the widespread ascetic reaction
from a materialist age, and both in their several ways
were more influenced by the aristocratic spirit of the
ancient world.
XVI MONTANISM 79
The Montanism to the church is more
relation of
complicated, it was by no means one of
because
blind antagonism. The Montanists were no philo-
sophers, but simple country folk who accepted the
historical tradition of the churches exactly as they
found it. In doctrine they were rigidly orthodox,
and even in practice they made no great changes.
Hardly one of their peculiarities but is defended by
second-century writers of unquestioned orthodoxy.
Late authors charge them with heresies and foul
immoralities but the heresies are on questions
:
which in their time wêre unsettled, and the im-

moralities are only the usual slanders, summarily
refuted by the fact that nobody mentions them for
two hundred years. In fact, the churches had too
much in common with the Montanists to oppose
them very zealously. It was not at first denied
that prophecy, and that ecstatic prophecy, might
come at any time, even to women. Nor did it
seem of itself unlikely that the Holy Spirit should
extend the laudable custom of fasting, or impose
a sterner punishment on gross offenders, or forbid
the more or less discredited practice of second
marriage. Nobody doubted that Christ's coming
might be very near, or that the thousand years'
reign of the saints might prove literal. Even the
defiant spirit of martyrdom preached by the
Montanists would have had an enthusiastic admirer
in Ignatius. At first it seemed answer enough to say
that these particular prophets were false prophets : the
questions of principle only came to the surface gradu-
ally,and were never fully understood in early times.
The Montanists had a good deal to say for their
view of the world. They may have been too much
8o CHURCH HISTORY CHAP.
of pessimists, as reformers of the conservative sort

commonly are; but the moral inferiority of their
own age was dramatic, if not entirely
to the apostolic
real. Apostles and prophets raised up by God had
given place to bishops and elders appointed by men ;
and the laity were putting off the royal dignity of

the universal priesthood on officials. If we cannot
safely say how
this state of things was a real
far
dechne from the past, the Montanists were certainly
right in thinking it unsound; and they looked to
the right quarter for the remedy, in an outpouring
of the Spirit from on high. Nor were they mistaken
in their belief that such an outpouring might be as
real a power of life in their time as it ever was at
Pentecost. But the natural man will not believe
in the Spirit of Pentecost unless he sees the gifts
of Pentecost. The man of little faith must have
signs and wonders of one
sort or another. True,
the Montanists were not specially greedy of miracle :
such marvels as they tell of are rather special judg-.

ments on wickedness than proper miracles.^ But
so much the more they looked for the visible sign
of prophecy, and that in its commonly accepted 2
^ Like Tertullian's tales de Sped. 26 of one woman who returned from the
theatre with a demon, and of another who did not survive her visit five days,
or de Idol. 15 of a man grievously punished in a vision because his slaves had
crowned his door with flowers, though he was himself away, and rebuked
them when he came back.
2 It seems evident that the Montanists only stated
the current view of
prophecy in their own time when they made it ecstatic. Athenagoras
entirely agrees with them, Justin comes dangerously near them, and so
do others, from the Teaching onward. There is really nothing on the other
side till after the rise of Montanism. Then we have the treatise of Miltiades
(if that be the right reading Eus. v. 16.) wepl toO [xt) Mv Trpo(t>T]Tr)v
iv
iKardaei, \a\eiu ; and Clement of Alexandria makes ecstasy the mark of a
false prophet. This ecstatic view is simply the heathen fxavreia and its
;
prevalence in spite of St. Paul's warning (1 Cor. xiv. esp. 32.) is significant
in many directions.
XVI MONTANISM 8i
form of ecstasy. Combining this with the belief

still not uncommon that Christ would very soon
return, they got a dispensation of the Paraclete
resting on the Gospel no doubt, but superior to
it and at certain points amending it.
However
orthodox the Montanist might be,^ his first allegiance
was given to the Paraclete and the ''New Law,"
not to Christ and the Gospel.
What then was the message of the Paraclete,
and wherein did the righteousness of the New Law
exceed the righteousness of the Gospel ? The points
of difference are three, concerning fasting, marriao-e
and church discipline. These we will take in order.
The early Christians took over from Judaism the
practice of fasting, and the bishops even commanded
fasts, though they followed Christ's teaching ^ to the
extent of leaving a good deal of liberty to the

individual. The full scheme of strict piety (probably
carried out by few) was to keep Easter with a festal
season till Pentecost, to hold stationes (partial fasts)
on Wednesdays and Fridays, and to keep the fast
of Good Friday,^ which was already developing in
the direction of Lent. To this the Montanists added
two weeks (less Saturday and Sunday) of dry meats.^
Later ^Titers mention other fasts, and they may be
right for later Montanists; but these are all that
Tertullian admits and his witness is decisive
; for his
own time. These however the Paraclete made a law.
^ Tert. de Jej. 1 Hi paracleto controversiam faciunt, propter hoc novae

prophetiae recusantur, non quod alium deum praediceiit Montanus at
Priscilla et Maximilla, non quod Jesum Christum solvant (1 Joh. iv. 3 \{iu)
nee quod aliquam fidei et speiregulam evertant, sed quod plane doceant
saepius jejunare, quam nubere.
2 Mt. ix. 14-17 is decisive, that a church which makes fasting a law is
acting ultra vires. 3 êrt. de Jej. 14.
* The ^TjpotpayiaL meant abstinence from soups and succulent fruits.
VOL. II G
With regard to marriage, the Montanists leaned

more than the church to asceticism. If they did not
forbidit like some of the Gnostics, they seem to have
been more decided than the church in ranking marriage

below virginity. Tertullian already has something of
that unwholesome dwelling on the physical fact which
did so much harm and many of his
in later times ;
arguments against a second marriage are just as good

against a first. He expresses nobly the Christian view
of marriage as a blessing ;
yet the ascetic view is
never far off, that it is little better than fornication

with a sort of licence meant only for the weak.
Second marriage however the Montanists definitely
forbade. It was very commonly regarded as a more
or less discreditable concession to the flesh, and
Athenagoras goes the length of calling it a respectable
adultery. The position indicated in this phrase is
that of the Montanists, who forbade it on the ground

that marriage is a contract for eternity. Here again
the Paraclete contradicted Christ, for the point of his
answer to the Sadducees is precisely this, that marriage
is a relation for this life only, " till death us do part."
So too St. Paul takes it, stating that the widow is free
to marry again, and actually wishing the younger
widows to do so.^
Concerning penance we can now take up the whole
:
subject again. Christ's teaching is clear. Forgiveness

is free, in the sense that repentance (the new mind,
not torments of remorse, and still less satisfaction) is
all that God requires —and unlimited, in the sense

that it is as free as ever to the man who has sinned
until seventy times seven. Furthermore, if God's
^ Lu. XX. 34-36, Rom. vii. 2, 1 Tim. v. 14 (widows especially, as the

context shews).
XVI MONTANISM 83
forgivenessis the model he sets forth to men, and if
God's punishments are only " the goodness that leadeth

us to repentance," and even in the other world are
purely remedial,^ it follows that church discipline has
no right to go beyond the reformation of the offender.
As soon as we are sure of that, others will cease to
need protection from his bad influence. This is the
principle on which St. Paul deals with the Corinthian
ofi'ender. If they are satisfied of his repentance, he
directs them to restore him unconditionally, warning
them against driving him to despair and if he delivers ;
Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan, it is not that

they may be damned, but " that they may learn not
^
to blaspheme."
But was too simple for men who
Christ's teaching
lived under Caesar's rule, and measured God's mercy
by Caesar's justice. However, all were agreed that
the church has no concern with sins committed before
baptism, except to warn the convert against them,
and to make him give up any evidently sinful ways of
living. Even after Baptism, it was as impossible for
the church as for the state to punish sins as sin, and
therefore all sins. All that could be done was to
single out some sins as gross scandals, and expel these
worst ofi'enders till they came to a better mind.
Before long, penitence was required to be shewn in the
outward form of penance sackcloth and ashes, mourn-—
ing, fasting, asking intercessionof the brethren,
beseeching the elders ^
—and Tertullian only expresses
^ Rom. ii. 4. Mt. xxv. 46 els KdXaaip (not Tifiwplav) alibvLov. KdXacris is
—
remedial even in Acts iv. 21 teach them not to tell lies about a resurrection,
as Caiaphas would have said.
2 2 Cor. ii. 5-11, 1 Tim. i. 20.
^ Tert. de Poen. 9. The 6\edpos ttjs (xapKos to which St. Paul delivers the
Corinthian offender was taken to be penance.
the current opinion when (here again contradicting

Christ's repeated teaching) he refuses to believe that
penitence can be real without penance. But proofs
of penitence before long became punishment so —
—
long for such a sin and the idea that these ascetic
observances are of themselves meritorious easily led
to a belief that penance was not simply a satisfaction
but a satisfaction, not only to the church for the
scandal caused, but to God for the sin committed.
So grew up that fatal confusion of crime and sin
which made possible the inhuman penitential system
of the third and fourth centuries, and even now in
Latin countries practically replaces the idea of sin
against God by that of disobedience to the church.
Penance was imposed by the church itself, and
naturally by the bishop when he became its repre-
sentative. In Tertullian's time he seems to have
dealt summarily with the lighter offences. The
confessors however, who held a quasi-official position
in the church, had a great influence till Cyprian's
time, and their intercession was not lightly refused.
But, at least in the third century, it seems to have
been the bishop who pronounced the sentence, and
the bishop who received back the penitent by the
laying-on of hands when the penance was completed.
There seems to have been little doubt before
Novatian's time, that the church " had authority to
forgive " ^ any sin whatever. So much even the
Montanists formally allowed. But on what conditions ?
1 Satisfactio is a form of solutio — the destruction of an obligation, and

does not of itself mean that the penance is an equivalent or payment for
the sin.
2 The dangerous ambiguity will be noticed. Does the church forgive the
scandal against itself or the sin against God ? But we can leave it till it
comes to the front in Cyprian's time.

— ;;
XVI MONTANISM 85
The tendency has always been to limit Christ's free

gift to the grace of Baptism, and after it to make
forgiveness depend on some sort of good works
which is one way of denying that Christ died for our
sins. And surely God's honour requires satisfaction
as much and the more exacting
as Caesar's honour,
the good works of penance can be made, the better
it will be vindicated. The natural man takes much
better care of it than God himself. So there was a
strong party of opinion that if gross offenders were
not to be summarily expelled, was at any rate it
impossible to make their penance too severe. So

utterly did they forget St. Paul's warning. So far
as we can judge from our scanty information, the
confessors rather inclined to leniency, and the bishops
generally moderated between them and the zealots
but the general issue of the discipline controversies
was that while even the worst sinners were in the
end admitted to penance, this penance was made so
cruelly severe that in the fourth century its chief
resultswere the discouragement of baptism, the
manufacture of hypocrites, and the general embitter-
ment of party spirit.
Meanwhile said the Paraclete by the Montanist
prophets, " The church has power to forgive sins
but I will not do it, lest men commit other sins." ^
This refusal to use the power of forgiveness made it

necessary to divide the graver sins into remissible and
irremissible. It was agreed that God might forgive
both but it was not expedient for the church to
;
forgive the latter. But on what principle were they

to make the division ? It is a return to paganism
when one outward act is declared to be in itself more
1 Tert. de Pud. 21.
—
sinful than another but if an essentially absurd

:
division is to be made, it can only be done by assimi-

lating sin to crime, selecting the acts which do most
harm, and perhaps taking a hint from our Lord's
list of the unclean things that proceed out of the
heart/ So they got their catalogue of seven *' more

heinous and utterly ruinous sins which cannot be
forgiven —
murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of the faith,
blasphemy, and of course adultery and fornication,
and any other violation of the temple of God. For
these sins Christ will plead no more these sins no
;
man that is born of God will ever commit, and no

man who has committed them shall be a child of
God." ^ If this is not a slander on Christ's mercy,
it is hard to say what would be. This however is the
Montanist position, and it makes nugatory their ad-
mission that God may forgive even these sins. Here
again the Paraclete has contradicted Christ.^
These three would seem to be the only points on
which the Montanists altered the recognized practice
of their own time. Tertullian's objection to Infant
Baptism is not a fourth, for we have seen that Infant
Baptism was an open question long after Tertullian's
time. But it is to be noted that his arguments
e.g. Why should such a burden be laid on infants ?
depend largely on the broad distinction, drawn more

broadly by Montanists than by others, between sin
before and after Baptism. If the matter is put on
that ground, we must simply choose between trust in
1 2 Tg^t ^g p^^^
Mt. XV. 19. ^^
^ It is worth notice that the seven "capital" sins (which include those
"deadly " sins which the Church of Rome will not forgive without confession
to a priest) are not identical with the seven " irremissible " sins of the
Montanists, which the church cannot prudently forgive at all. They agree
in a practical denial of Christ's mercy but they have little more in common.
;
XVI MONTANISM 87
him who welcomed the little children, and took them

up Hn his arms and blessed them and the Montanist ;
fear that of such as sin afterBaptism, he may not be

willing to save to the uttermost all that come to him.
Is there any limit to his mercy but impenitence ?
Upon the whole, Montanism was blameless as
touching and not very schismatic in
orthodoxy,
practice —
less so than Methodism near the end of
Wesley's lifetime. It had real merits as a protest
which was needed on behalf of spiritual religion
against the growth of a mechanical officialism and
the layman's forsaking of his royal calling to a higher
priesthood than that which offers sacrifices for sin.
It had seeming merits also, for there must have been

many who looked more or less kindly on its busy
revivalism, its enthusiastic expectation of the Lord's
return, and its sturdy defiance of an ungodly state.
Its ecstatic theory of prophecy seemed to many no
more than the honour due to God, while its asceti-
cism, its extra fasts, its penitential rigour and its
condemnation of second marriage would be at worst
mistakes in the right direction. The most doubtful
practice was the employment of women and even :
this might be defended, for the Montanists did not

suffer them to teach in church or to perform any
ministerial act whatever and surely there was no
;
great harm in letting them tell their spiritual experi-

ences — after service only —to a select few.^
^ Tert. Firg. vel. 9 ôn permittitur mulieri in ecdesia, loqui, sed nee
docere, nee tinguere, nee offerre, nee ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis
officii This in his Montanist days before this Praescr.
sortem sibi vindicare. :
41 Ipsae mulieres haereticae, quam procaces ! quae audeant docere, contendere,

exoreismos agere, curationes repromittere, forsitan et tingere. He gives the
Montanist practice (some would call it an evasion) in de Anima 9 Est hodie
sorer aimd nos revelationum charismate sortita, quas in ecdesia inter
dominica soUemnia per ecstasin in spiritu patitur ; conversatur cum aûjelis,
Even thiswas full of danger, told as it was in

regular meetings and not in the
natural intercourse
of life ; but the deadly mischief
was done when they
were encouraged to look for visions, and those visions
(after "diligent testing" by
sympathetic hearers)
were allowed not only to forbid or
enjoin in the
Spirit's name things which Christ
left unforbidden or
uncommanded, but to forbid or enjoin on
principles
directly opposed to Christ's
teaching. This was
anarchy. It set aside the Gospel as effectually as
Gnosticism, and we rather wonder why it did not
more generally lead to crying scandals.
The Mon-
tanists would seem to have
been like the early
Methodists, essentially a sane and
earnest people
with occasional excesses kept in
bounds by strong
and sober chiefs. They had their martyrs
too, some
not of the sort who provoke their
fate by fanatic
insolence. Blandina herself is not a nobler martyr
than the Montanist Perpetua. With all their faults,
they were a living force in
Christendom. They had
mdeed the Spirit of Christ, but not as they
fancied,
in their mischievous ecstasy.
The men of their own time did them
both more
and less than justice. Setting aside
partizans and
heresy-hunters like ApoUonius, we find
that common
opinion passed over too leniently
the practice and even
the theory of Montanism, finding
the chief offence
in Its claims to spiritual
authority. This was just
offence, both to Greek
moderation and to Christian
soberness. Yet clearer Christian thought would not
interdum cum dommo, et videt et audit sacramenta
Post transacla
" "^ """ "'^'"^ ""*'"« f°' "«'™^'

foUn vat and doubtless
J
XVI MONTANISM 89
have failed to discover in Montanism, behind its
theory that the Spirit in the church may rightly set

aside Christ's teaching, the subtler endeavour of ascetic
scepticism in all ages to improve that teaching in the
direction of greater fancied purity and holiness.
We can see at once the powerful attraction of
Montanism for the Phrygian country-people. It
seemed to give them the life that is in Christ, and to
give it in their own Phrygian form of wild revivalism.
So from its holy centre at Pepuza Montanism
spread rapidly through the Phrygian villages. But
Phrygian nature is human nature too, and a deep
wave of spiritual excitement was running through
the Empire in the tranquil days of Titus Antoninus.
Wandering philosophers gathered crowds to their
sermons from the steps of the temples, wandering
priests of Cybele and Isis held " missions " in every
village, and the Montanists only gave a less unworthy
answer to the widespread craving for a religion of
feeling. So the doctrine spread in Asia too, and with
little change from Asia to Thrace and Gaul and
Eome and Africa. They must have reached Kome

and the Ehone Valley before 177, when the confessors
of Lyons and Vienne sent Irenaeus with a letter
against them to Eleutherus of Rome.
^
In Africa we
find Montanists in abundance about 203 (Perpetua,
Tertullian) and may fairly suppose that they had not
found Carthage harder to reach than Lyons. It will
be noted at once that the spread of Montanism was
in the West, for we hear little of it in Greece and
* A decision which Eusebius v. 3 calls evXaîj Kal dpdoSoôTdrrjv must have
been against the Montanists, not in their favour. The confessors cannot
have had much sympathy even with the asceticism, if " it was revealed to
Attalus" (Eus. 1. 1.) that Alcibiades (name disputed) was "not doing well in
refusing the creatures of God."
beyond the Taurus. Phrygians and Eastern Celts

were an island in the Greek World. Their affinities
were with the West. In strong emotionalism they
were near akin to Moors and Western Celts, and their
legalism was not alien to Eome herself. The historical
Montanism lies chiefly in this Western
significance of
affinity. In the East it was reinforced in the next
century by Novatianism from the West, and enabled
to hold its
ground for a couple of hundred years longer
on the tableland of Asia but in the end it passed
;
away without leaving any serious traces on the Greek

world around it. Like Christianity itself, it perished
from the land of its birth; but while Christianity
took a Greek form, Montanism became Western by
adoption, and became Western with very little change.
with Western thought, won over the first
It fell in
great Western writer, and has left its traces in the
Western churches deep and clear to our own time.
There are three great stages in the history of
Montanism —an
Asiatic, a Roman, and an African.
As soon as reached Asia, the churches held many
it
conferences over the new opinions,^ and we can hear

the echoes of much stormy controversy in the writers
quoted by Eusebius. The decisions of the conferences
are said to have been unfavourable ; but they were
not decisive.Either the rejection and expulsion of
the Montanistsis overstated,^ or there was a strong
party on the other side. The next stage is the

discussion of Montanism in 177 by Bishop Eleutherus
at Rome. As all opinions found their way sooner or
later to that great centre of discussion, we need not
1 Anon. ap. Eus. v. 16. The details given by the Lihellus Synodicus are
late and uncertain.
2 Anon, supra. He is quite capable of representing local or partial expul-
sions as general.
;
XVI MONTANISM 91
assume that the Montanists were appealing from

Asiatic decisions to thejudgment of the central church
of Christendom. The thing is not unlikely, but we
cannot be sure. Of the discussion we know only
that the confessors in Gaul sent a letter against ^ the
Montanists by the hand of Irenaeus. The decision
however of the church at Eome cannot well have
been altogether against Montanism, for we know that
it was more or less an open question at Kome till its
definite rejection in The third

Tertullian's time.
stage of the history is mainly African, and gathers
round Tertullian. It was he who made Montanism a
great and lasting power in the church which rejected it
so we can leave its further history till we come to him.
The first great result of the Montanist controversy

was that Chiliasm fell more or less into discredit,
and the unsettling expectation of Christ's immediate
return was commonly laid aside." So far, this was
pure gain. Montanist Chiliasm descended naturally
from the apocalyptic aspirations which surrounded
the Lord and his disciples and it suited the naive
;
efi'ort of early times to take the revelation as literally

as possible. But it had deeper roots than these.
When the natural man is in earnest, he is apt
to be impatient. In common life he mistakes rude-
ness for honesty, and force for strength ; in politics
he cuts the knot by calhng for a dictator : and when
^ Supra.
^ It was probably much less unsettling in the first century than in the
second. Warneck Living Forces 276 acutely says, "The eschatological
outlook had great results in the early church it makes little impression
;
on any heathen Christians I have known. The reason may be that many
preachers are themselves little atfected by it but the deepest reason
:
probably is that the greatness of the gift they have received makes them
calm in prospect of the judgment of the world. The simple child-like trust
in the strong Saviour hardly allows fear of the final judgment."
he comes to religion, he expects to see with his

own eyes some sudden and dramatic intervention
from on high to right the wrongs of the world and
do poetic justice on its evil-doers. The Lord himself
was under no such illusion. More than once he
plainly hinted that his church would have a long
career before his second coming. That coming
would be sudden, and the day was unknown to
the Son himself; but at all events it was not in
any near future.^ So too St. Paul warns the Thessa-
lonians that the day is not at hand, so that they
must not let any immediate expectation of it disturb
the higher duties of the common work of life. In
the main his warning was obeyed, for though such an
expectation was a real factor of Christian life in early
times, was never more than a subordinate factor.
it
Whatever the theory might be, the practice of the

churches was another matter. If there were occasional
outbursts, there was no general enthusiasm of that sort.
But crude literalism and unspiritual impatience
insisted nevertheless on looking for the Presence in
the clouds of heaven as a piece of news that might
be reported any day. It was a distinct gain for
Christian life when this unwarranted hope was
checked by the failure of the New Prophecy. It
was only checked. Iranaeus is as crude as Papias
^ As in the Seed growing silently, or the Unjust Judge. In the latter
(Lu. xviii. 8) iv rdxeimust mean suddenly, not soon, for the whole parable
turns on the fact that the avenging would be long delayed. If then we take
Apoc. i. 1 the same way, we bring both into line with his many warnings
that his coming will be sudden.
St. John certainly contemplates his coming not only as a historical event
(vi. 51) but as a continuous process (vi. 33, i. 9, governing Apoc. i. 8). If
so, the apostles were not mistaken when they expected one great coming
(the judgment of Jerusalem) in their own lifetime. But St. Paul at any
rate had discovered the false perspective of the question in Mk. xiii. 4 before
he wrote 2 Thess.
XVI MONTANISM 93
on this matter, and there was a good deal of

Chiliasm in the rustic churches of the next age.
Indeed it is a common feature of spiritual excitement
in all ages, and has littered the whole course of
church history with false predictions that the end
was very near. But the gain was not without its loss.
Men who refuse to advance to the higher cannot

even keep the lower as a living faith. If the last
Coming and the last Judgment were rightly relegated
to some distant future, so much the harder was
it to see that Christ has comings and judgments
here and now — that not only the great scenes of
history but the common things of common life are
as truly comings and judgments of the Lord as is
the dawning of the day of doom. The failure of
Montanism did much to fix on Western Christendom
that deist conception of God as a King departed
to a far country which and
empties the world
common life of that which is divine and holy, and
restores it but in part, through the mediation of
the church his representative, and by the ministry
of sacraments and works of law.
A second result which the Montanist controversy
left behind was a deep distrust of Prophetism in
all its forms. In this way the third century was

an age of disillusion like the eighteenth in England.
The fiery preachings of Puritanism were flouted as
enthusiasm and in course of time that word was
;
given a wider meaning, as men passed from a rejection

of claims to special and immediate inspiration to
a general condemnation of all impassioned speaking
in religion. If things did not go so far as this in
early times, they went in this direction, and the
distrust of enthusiasm lasted longer. It was as
:
hard as ever to believe in the Spirit of Pentecost

without the signs of Pentecost. The failure of
Montanism did much to discredit every form of
prophecy and the failure of Prophecy barred
;
every plea of inspiration, and helped to bar every

plea of conscience which was not consistent with
the actual order of the church. It threw even
preaching into the background for a thousand years,
and helped to form the mediaeval conception of the
priest's duty —
to say masses and to be a spiritual
director, but by no means to preach. There were
great preachers in the —
West Ambrose, Augustine,
Leo ; but these were all bishops, and all early
but preaching was not common after their time
before the twelfth century, except for missionary or
crusading purposes, and even in the later middle ages
it was done by bishops and friars. It may be
chiefly
that the Latin church did wisely for the times of
ignorance yet an important side of Christian teach-
:
ing was obscured after the failure of Montanism, and

never came to light again till mendicants and mystics
began to prepare the way for the preaching of the
times of the Keformation.
A third result must be noted. After the apostles
were gone, the prophet remained a link with the
past, for there could be no break with it while the
words of the Spirit came from the lips of living men.
But when prophets also were extinct, the church
began to draw broad and deep that contrast of the
apostolic age with later times which ever since has
fascinated it. Henceforth that age shone out with
unearthly splendour, consecrated alike by marvels
that were real, and by a seamless unity that was
imaginary. It seemed treason to the wonder-working
XVI MONTANISM 95
Spirit of the past to imagine that " greater works

than were being done in the humdrum toil of
these "
a degenerate age. But men who will not see the
greater works must have the lesser and if they
:
cannot get true miracles, they will manufacture false.

So from the third and fourth centuries we see a new
craving for marvels, no doubt rooted in the past, but
still different in kind from the old romance and
superstition which the Christians could hardly help

sharing with their neighbours. After Constantine's
time the church could freely convert to pious uses
the rich stores of heathen legend and superstition.
But the brighter the halo of legendary purity that
shone around the apostolic age, the greater the stress
that had to be laid on the regular ministry of the
church and on its connexion with that age. Now
that the ministry of gifts was at an end, the official
ministry seemed the one mediator with an absent
King, the one power that could bring him back to
bless his church. So they began to magnify their
office: and they did well, if Christ is not with the
two or three, unless they are gathered in the bishop's
name. Step by step from this age onward Christ's
minister is advanced forsooth to a dignity Christ
never gave him. First he is turned into a priest to
offer sacrifices, then a material sacrifice is invented
forhim to ofi'er, then the whole work of the Spirit is
shut up into his ministrations. No grace but in the
visible church, no salvation outside it. Nothing
remained but to " compel them to come in." The
entire mediaeval system from the Papacy downward
is no more than a natural development of the
unbelief which knows no working of the Spirit but
one transmitted by outward ordinances from a
96 CHURCH HISTORY chap, xvi
distant pastand to this development the

: failure of
Montanism gave a greater impulse than the defeat of
the Gnostics or the conversion of Constantine.
Books
De Soyres Montanism and the Primitive Church ; Bonwetsch Montanismus,
See also Ch. XXII.
CHAPTER XVII
IRENAEUS
With the last quarter of the second century came a

crisis in the church. New dangers were pressing
which the old forms of teaching did not fully meet.
Now that there were Christians who called themselves
philosophers, Christianity was discussed like philo-
sophy, and became a theme of eager controversy.
There were Gnostics of all sorts inside and outside
the churches, revelling in the luxuriance of allegorical
interpretation, and Montanists within and without
the churches met them with a fanatic literalism,
while educated and thoughtful heathens looked on
with mixed and curious interest, comparing not only
the sects with each other but Christians generally
with the Stoics and Cynics who also preached an
overcoming of the world, and with the adherents
of those Eastern worships which like the Gospel
promised everlasting life to all believers.
Meanwhile the spirit of the subapostolic churches
was the spirit of the apocalyptic church of Ephesus.
In works and in labour and in patience it was
blameless but it had left its first love.
; Its tone was
given by the elders who overlived St. John. They
spoke not only with the natural influence of age and
dignity, but as the last survivors of apostolic times
VOL. II 97 H
and seemingly the last holders of their miraculous

gifts. Men like Polycarp looked more commonly
backward to their memories of St. John than to the
strange thoughts that were stirring a younger genera-
tion. They stood like soldiers at their posts. The
Lord had set them there, and it was not for them to
ask him why. Their task was to preach and iterate
the historic Gospel, and to hand down the witness
delivered to them of the things which Christ had
said and done and this they were content to do
:
without following far the deeper thoughts of apostolic

writers. Polycarp was right enough in his rejection
of Marcion but he was not the man to see that the
;
church had something to learn, even from that First-

born of Satan.
To do them justice, they did learn from the
contest with heresy a good deal that was practical.
We have seen how the resistance to false teaching
was organized in institutions. We have seen how
the loose government of the apostolic age was centred
in the bishops, how the sacred books were formed
into the canon of a New Testament, how the essential
facts of the apostolic teaching were summed up in
simple professions of faith and diligently taught,
how the bishop in every church was made the official
guardian of the historic tradition, and how the
churches learned to confer together when points of
doubt arose. It was fully understood that they
were bound each and all to guard the deposit of
the faith, and these measures greatly strengthened
their organization for the purpose. But the difficulty

was one which no mere institutions could fully
overcome. It was a great thing to organize and
fix the traditional teaching and bring home the facts
XVII IRENAEUS 99
of the Gospel to all its converts : but the interpreta-'
tion of the facts was not thereby settled. What was
to be done if Valentinus found an esoteric meaning
in the record of the Gospels, or if Marcion set it
aside as a mutilated or false account of Christ ?
They claimed to be at least as good Christians as

others, and their claim called for a reasonable answer.
Excommunication was only the logic of a majority,
which is form of the argumentum haculinum.
a
Authority is not evidence, but at best a call to
consideration and a presumption of evidence and ;
in this case the authority itself was the matter

in dispute. No theories of Christianity but those
which set truth and reason at defiance can
evade the appeal to history and criticism for the
verification and interpretation of current teaching.
Tradition was outworn the moment its meaning was
disputed and there was no resource but to fall
;
back on the written documents of the Old and New

Testament which came with the revelation. There
was now no other means of ascertaining what Christ
had really delivered to his church. The appeal then
from tradition to Scripture is the constant method
of the Greek writers from Irenaeus and the School
of Alexandria till the decay of free thought after
the fifth Each new opinion as it came
century.
forward was tested by Scripture and according as ;
it stood the test was either accepted like Origen's
theory of the eternal generation, or rejected like

Gnosticism and Arianism.
The problem was threefold. In the first place,
it was not fully settled what the authoritative docu-
ments were. In the case of the Gospels, any doubt

might have been serious, for almost all other memory
lOO CHURCH HISTORY chap.
of Christ seems to have perished early. The scraps

of genuine tradition otherwise preserved are astonish-
ingly meagre. We
have ourselves a fringe of
uncertainty round Canon, even of the New
the
Testament, for few students will venture to place
the Second Epistle of Peter quite on a level with
that to the Romans. But in the second century
there was more or less uncertainty about five catholic
Epistles and that to the Hebrews, though the
Apocalypse does not seem to have been questioned
till Chiliasm fell into discredit and various sects
;
of Gnostics quoted apocryphal books of their own,

or disputed (though hardly on critical grounds) some
of the commonly accepted books. Even their
opponents do not always seem clear about the
authority to be assigned to the Shepherd or the
Teaching. The four Gospels however, the Acts,
the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, two catholic
Epistles (1 Pet. and 1 John) and the Apocalypse,
were acknowledged by almost all teachers but
Marcion so that though there was still a good
;
deal of work to be done, the range of doubt was

not enormous.
In the second place, principles of interpretation
had to be settled. Assuming for instance the
authority of St. John's Gospel, how far must we
limit ourselves to the literal meaning of his words ?
If allegory is to be admitted at all, why not the

Valentinian theory of aeons ? Of course it contradicts
the current but does it also contradict
tradition :
Scripture ? If so, how can we shew that it does ?

Questions like these were part of the general
education question of the time, about the interpreta-
tion of sacred books. The heathens had exactly
XVII IRENAEUS loi
the same trouble with Homer, for he was not to

them an ancient poet only, but an inspired teacher,
whom they used very much as we use our Bible.
Homer was the text -book of the schools, and a
quotation from Homer was commonly clinching.
But how was he to be interpreted ? There were a
few who kept severely to the letter ; others found
rationalizing explanations for the scandals of a
literal interpretation, and others made allegory a
key to everything. It seemed no more than proper
respect for an inspired teacher, to take for granted
that his words must have some deeper meaning,
especially when otherwise they would be trifling or
immoral. Moreover, the use of allegory enabled
them not only to get rid of a good many scandals
about the gods, but to read into Homer almost
anything they wanted in the way of morals or
philosophy, or sometimes even science, much as some
friends of ours find everything in the Bible.
Allegorical methods suited equally the tendency of
the later philosophers to move the gods out of the
way, and the devout endeavours of men like Plutarch
of Chaeronea to revive their worship in a purer form.
They had been freely applied by Philo to the Old
Testament and the rabbis were as ready as the
;
allegorists to draw out mysteries of every sort from

words and letters. So the Christians fell in with
the stream. Though there is no genuine allegory
in the New Testament, St. Paul's application of the
story of Hagar comes very near to allegory, and
the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews is easily
confused with allegory by careless readers. But
from Barnabas and Clement onward its use is
constant. The more speculative of the Gnostics

I02 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
revelled in without limit and even the

allegory ;
most reverent of their opponents could not help

feeling that if there is any revelation at all in
Scripture, it must not be limited to what was
consciously present to the mind of the writers. If
allegorism was forbidden, they must give up the Old
Testament to Marcion. There must be some dis-
tinction between the letter and the spirit ; and till
it was more clearly seen that revelation is progressive,

allegory was the best way of reconciling the admitted
divinity of Scripture with its undeniable imperfec-
tions. It gave the necessary protest on behalf of
truth and right, that what is certainly unworthy
of God is in any case incredible. It was a stage
in the history of exegesis, good till something better
was discovered. True, it turned the Old Testament
into a book of pious riddles, and parts of the New
fared little better but it was really the best that
:
could be done. So if we leave out extremes like

Marcion and the Montanists, there was a general
agreement for the use of allegory. But then came
the question, how it was to be used, and what limits
were to be assigned to it. The Gnostics had given a
very successful demonstration that limits of some sort
were needed. What were they to be, and where were
they to be placed ?
The third problem was wider still. As usual, the
Gnostics had essayed it already and as usual, their
;
work was more beacon than guidance. What is the

relation of the Gospel to human learning generally ?
A mere philosophy might be content to float in the

clouds, a mere religion to grovel on the earth but ;
a revelation from heaven is bound to satisfy the

intellectual as well as the moral needs of men by
XVII IRENAEUS 103
giving some reasonable account of ttie world of

thought into which it comes. It may be that man
is unable by searching to find out God but if ;
revelation is must be unless God is

possible, as it
unable to find out man, no fact of this world

can be meaningless. A revelation which appeals to
the image of God in man is bound to satisfy the
intellect to the extent of shewing something of the
unity of plan which the unity of God implies in
history and nature as well as in the life of the
individual.
This then was the great threefold problem which
faced the churches. had been pushed aside for
It
two generations, partly by the practical needs of
Christian life in the growing churches, partly by
the conservative timidity w^hich shrank from going
beyond the letter of the traditional teaching, but
partly also by sheer need of time before a measure
could be attempted of the stupendous facts of the
historic incarnation. If love could recognize the
true light at once, reason needed time to ponder
them. Nowhowever the question could no longer
be put off". It was already clear that churches which
dare not face this world's learning are well on the
way to lose that world's life. The problem had been
shaping for some time, and a good deal of preparation
had already been made for it. The literature of the
middle of the second century (except Justin) is
mostly lost but we may glance at the chief writers

;
who prepared the way for Irenaeus.

Papias of Hierapolis appears to have been some-
what older than Polycarp, so that he may be dated
roughly 60-140. He was a disciple of John the
Lord's disciple but it is not clear whether this John
;
was the apostle or the elder. ^ In either case he was

a friend of Polycarp, and much respected by Irenaeus
and others as "an ancient man," and a great
champion of Chiliasm. Eusebius has a low opinion
of him but Eusebius was impatient of his Chiliasm,
;
and plainly does him less than justice. He wrote

nothing but five books of Expositions of passages
of Scripture relating to the Lord.^ Some of these
may have been Old Testament prophecies, but others
were certainly taken from our Gospels. On the first
two he makes important statements, and his use of
the First Epistle of St. John is sufiicient proof
(besides other evidence) that he also used the fourth
Grospel. Of the third there is no trace ; but we can-
not expect to see everything in the half-page or so of
fragments now extant. The importance of Papias is
that he is the first orthodox commentator, and that

he illustrated his comments with traditional sayings
of the Lord, which he had gathered from the hearers
of the Lord's disciples, ofwhom Andrew and Peter,
Philip and Thomas and James, John and Matthew
and others were dead, while Aristion and the elder
John were still alive. This must have been cir. 100.
He was quite right in thinking that if he could get
genuine traditions of the Lord, they would be more
^ Irenaeus says was the apostle, but Eusebius quotes his Preface, which
it
points to the elder and Eusebius is the more accurate ^v^•iter of the two.
;
On the other hand, Irenaeus may have had other information, and we might
accept it without hesitation if we could be sure that it came from Polycarp.
^ Chief fragments in Eus. iii. 39 \oyiwv KvpiaKuip i^Tryrjcreis can only mean
"Commentaries on cannot be
(certain) oracles relating to the Lord." It
translated " a narrative of the words of the Lord " —
which would require tQu
\6y(j}v rod Kvplov dirjyrjaLs. E. A. Abbott and others have entirely failed to
shake Lightfoot's position here. The theory that he was writing a rival
Gospel is not worth discussing. His contemptuous reference to the state-
ments of books and to "the gentlemen who had so much to say " is much
better referred to the treatise of Basilides On the Gospel in four-and-twenty
books than to our Gospels,
XVII IRENAEUS 105
to the purpose than the endless books of Basilides

and the Gnostics. His work was most likely very
unequal. A story which Irenaeus seems to quote
from Papias is, as Eusebius would say, more or less
fabulous but if Ewald is rio^ht in believino^ that the
:
story of the woman taken in adultery is that which

Papias chose to illustrate the next words,^ Ye judge
after the flesh I judge no man, we must admit that
;
it is admirably chosen.
Justin's importance in this direction lies partly
in his development of the doctrine of the Logos on
the lines of Greek thought, partly in his treatise on
Heresies, which set the example and gave much of
the material to the later works of Irenaeus, Hippolytus
and others. Heresiology now came in as a depart-
ment of history.
Hegesippus, apparently a converted Jew, visited
sundry churches (including Corinth) about the middle
of the second century, coming to Eome in the time
of Anicetus, and living there till that of Eleutherus
{cir. 160-180). His work seems to have been rather
polemical against heretics than directly historical,
though it contained important historical material.
From it Eusebius quotes accounts of James the Lord's
brother, of Simeon the son of Clopas, of the grandsons
of Jude, of Antinous, and of the origins of heresy.
There is no reason for counting him an Ebionite.
Thus Hegesippus was a precursor rather of Eusebius
himself than of Irenaeus, though the first beginnings
of Church History may be seen in the chronicler
Bruttius,^ who " lived near the time " of the persecu-
tion of Domitian, and therefore before Hegesippus.
Claudius Apollinaris was a successor, perhaps the
^ Joh. viii. 15. ^ On Bruttius, Liglitfoot Clement i. 46 sq.
io6 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
immediate successor, of Papias at Hierapolis. He

wrote against Montanus, and an Apology to the
emperor Marcus. He gave the Christian version of
the Thundering Legion, whether in the Apology or
elsewhere. His importance in this connexion is in
his discussion of the disagreement of the Gospels
concerning the day of the Crucifixion. Similarly the
writer of the Fragment of Muratori on the Canon,
which is best placed near this date {cir. 170) lays
stress on the difi'erence in the principia ^
of the
Gospels, and explains that it does not concern
our faith, because the main points of the narrative
are the same in all.
Dionysius of Corinth {cir. 170) is known to us as

the writer of letters to sundry churches, in which he
commented on passages of Scripture. But the best
representative of literary activity in this period is
Melito of Sardis (under Marcus). He lived in the

odour of sanctity, and is counted by Polycrates in
190 as the latest of the " great spirits of Asia." The
titles of twenty-two of his works, given by Eusebius,^
cover an enormous range. Some of them are directly
controversial, against heathens, Montanists, and
Marcion, others deal with a variety of anthropological
and dogmatic questions, and others again are exe-
getical and practical. Only a few fragments remain.
The chief of these are a passage from his Apology to
the emperor Marcus, in which he represents the
Empire and the church as twin growths, and pleads
for peace between them his catalogue of the scriptures
:
of " the Old Testament" (implying a New Testament

Canon) and the first sentence of his treatise Con-
:
^ Are these simply points of view or rather beginnings —that the Gospels
begin so differently ? ^ Eus. iv. 26.
XVII IRENAEUS 107
cerning Easter, in whicli he states that the dispute

broke out at Laodicea about the time wheu bishop
Sagaris was a martyr.
There was therefore much more literary activity in
the generation before Irenaeus than we might suppose
from its scanty remains. But after all it seems to
have been at best fragmentary and it was no longer
;
enough to clear up isolated questions without a more

comprehensive scheme. The G-nostics had fairly
raised the questions but though they had done
;
something for the exegesis of Scripture, their work

was in general a failure, because they never fairly
reckoned with history and human nature. Irenaeus
appears to have been the first who took the whole
problem in a broad way, and strove to solve it by
criticism and not by speculation.
In some ways Irenaeus stands midway between the
simplicity of subapostolic teaching and the philosophy
of the Alexandrian School. As a disciple of Poly carp,
he leans more to the former, and indeed has less than
Justin of the Alexandrian, and more of the Western
tone of thought. The Koman Clement's moderation
is more congfenial to him than the Alexandrian
Clement's wide sympathy. Yet he is a much deeper
thinker than Justin. If he speaks less of the Logos
as the teacher of the nations, he sees much more
clearly the meaning of the Incarnation as bringing
new life to nations and to men. Christ became like
us that he might sum up all creation in himself. So
Irenaeus understands the problem of his own time
very much better than his predecessors. Though he
has no liking for the speculations of the Gnostics, and
hardly understands their subtle ways of thinking, he
does his best to describe their systems truly, sparing
io8 CHURCH HISTORY CHAP.
no pains to get his information accurate, and then

fairly meets them on the ground of Scripture, discuss-
ing the historical origin of the canonical books, and
shewing in detail their inconsistency with the Gnostic
theories.
We may take it that Irenaeus was a native of
Asia, and that he was born about AVe do not 130.'
know whether his family belonged to
but Smyrna ;
he came under the influence of Polycarp in early

life, and remained under it for a
considerable time.
He seems to have left Smyrna before Polycarp's death
in 155. That he was in Rome at the time may be
doubtful, but the decided Roman cast of his thought
makes it likely that his visits to the city
were neither
few nor short. We
next find him in 177 as a
presbyter at Lyons in Gaul under Pothinus the
bishop, whose long life of more than ninety years
linked on to the last apostles in Asia.' When
^ The age of Irenaeus on one side (a) by his connexion with Poly-
is fixed
carp iv which cannot mean less than early manhood, so
TTJ TrpibTTj i]fxu>v i]\iKl<;L,
that he must have been say eighteen or twenty some time before
155 (b) by ;
the elderly tone of his letter to Florinus, which implies an age of scarcely
less than sixty in 189. On the other side, we have no hint that Florinus
was then extremely old and Florinus was at least half a dozen years older
;
than Irenaeus. He need not have been much more, for half a dozen years
are enough to make the difference between the growing boy and
the promis-
ing young official. These indications converge about 130.
Much difficulty has been caused by his words to Florinus ap. Eus. v. 20
elSovydp <x€ irais ^tl ibv h r^ Ka.T(j) 'Acrlq. Trapa UoXvKdpirii} âjULirpQs irpdrrovTa
ev TTJ âaiXiKTJ avXrj Kai freipwfievov evdoKifJieLU Trap
avTc$. If this means that
the emperor was himself in Asia, the choice will lie between Hadrian
in 129,
which is much too early, and Pius in 154, which seems too late. We
may
however, (a) suppose an unrecorded visit of Pius about 141, or
(b) follow
Lightfoot's suggestion {Ign. i. 448) that the proconsular court of T. Aurelius
Fulvus in 136 might be called imperial half a century later, because Fulvus
became emperor in 138 as T. Antoninus Pius. But surely this is too early.
It would seem better (c) to take iv ry âaiXiKy avXrj as not
of necessity implying
the emperor's own presence (so Lipsius in D.O,B. Art. " Irenaeus ").
Then it
will be nearly what the epitaphs of a later time express
by militavit in
palatio of a civilian— that Florinus was then a promising young
official.
2 There is no early authority for the
statement that Pothinus also came
XVII IRENAEUS 109
Pothinus perished in the persecution, Irenaeus took

his place. He seems to have held it for twenty years
or more, and to have died in peace.
Irenaeus is an eminently representative man,
giving evidence as he does from personal knowledge
of Asia,Rome, and Gaul, and resting on the teaching
of Polycarp (who had certainly known St. John) of
Pothinus, and of another elder who belonged to
the ancient worthies.^ Papias he does not seem to
have known personally, though he was familiar with
his book. A better witness to the beliefs and
practices current in the middle of the second century
can hardly be imagined. So his action when Blastus
raised the Easter Question at Rome about 190 was
that of a mediator. On one side he wrote to rebuke
Blastus for stirring up strife on the other he sent :
a grave admonition to Victor of Rome, with whom

he personally agreed, reminding him that the
question was not one of essentials, so that it was
not right to refuse communion to the Easterns for
nothing more than a diversity of practice, especially
one on which their predecessors Polycarp and
Anicetus had been content to dififer.
But Gnosticism did touch essentials, and in its
Valentinian form was making progress in Gaul, so
that Irenaeus threw himself heartily into the con-
troversy. Not that Irenaeus was a mere zealot.
He looks on heresy with neither the impulsive horror
of Polycarp nor with the bitter scorn of TertuUian,
from Asia ; but it is quite likely. In any case he must have been old
enough (as far as years went) to remember apostles.
^ Some of his references are doubtless to the written work of Papias. But
at least two passages —
Talia quaedam enarrans presbyter reficiehat nos et
(a)
dicebat (b) Hujusmodi quoque senior apostolorum discipulus disputabat —
imply personal intercourse, and therefore a presbyter other than Papias.
It may of course be Polycarp, but Irenaeus does not say so.
no CHURCH HISTORY chap.
but with the deliberate aversion of a student who

has convinced himself of its mischievous and often
immoral tendency. —
His great work the five books
of the Refutation of Gnosticism {eXeyô^; koX avarpoirr)
—
TT)^ yjrevSoovv/jLov yvcoaeco^;) cannot be more precisely
dated than by the fact that the third book was
written before the death of Eleutherus of Rome cir.
189. We have the original only of a part of the
first book, and of sundry fragments (mostly im-
portant) preserved chiefly by Hippolytus and

Eusebius. Fortunately the work is complete in a
rude Latin translation used by Tertullian, and
therefore nearly contemporary. So closely does it
follow the original that we can often restore the
Greek with a very small margin of uncertainty.
He begins with general remarks on the Gnostics
as " bad interpreters of things well said," and soon
comes to Valentinianism, giving slight accounts of
other schools. He denounces its dualism, its
arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, its mercenary
and immoral practice, and its too practical distinction
between the spiritual and the natural man. In the
second book he comes to close quarters with the
Valentinians, and in the third he develops his
argument from Scripture. We know, says he, the
doctrine of our Salvation only through those by
whom it was delivered to us, first in preaching, then
in written works. He then describes the origin of
the four Gospels, and goes on to the argument from
tradition. Whether the Lord taught Valentinianism
or orthodoxy, he must have delivered it to his
disciples, and they to theirs, and so on. For instance,
here is the succession of the bishops of Rome ;and
the single life of Polycarp actually covered the
;
XVII IRENAEUS III
whole distance from apostolic times to our own.

Now we all teach orthodoxy. If the Lord taught
Yalentinianism, there must have been a change
somewhere and the Gnostics are bound to shew
;
when and by whom it was made. He illustrates

the exclusive authority of four Gospels and no more
by the famous simile of the four quarters of the
heavens. Upon the whole, his appeal is to the four
Gospels as verified by criticism, and to their doctrine
as handed down by an unbroken succession of bishops
as teachers in the churches.
The fourth book is on the same lines ; but here
he chiefly has in view Marcion's doctrine that the
Father revealed by Christ was not the God of the
Jews, so that his general theme is the relation of
the Law to the Gospel. But in the course of his
argument he touches many other questions, like
the nature of inspiration, the work of the Spirit,
the reality of freedom, the purpose of the Incarnation.
And all along the way he scatters, not indeed the
brilliant epigrams of a Tertullian, but sentences which
fairly rival them as food for thought. Perhaps no
later writer has given a more striking view of the
Lord's Supper as our great sacrifice of thanksgiving
for the gift of life in this world and that to come
**
but the altar is in heaven, for thither we direct
our prayers." For as the earthly bread after con-
secration is no longer common bread but bread with
a blessing —
an earthly and a heavenly element so —
our bodies receiving that blessing are no longer
corruptible, but have the hope of resurrection to
life eternal. As the bread joins our spirits to our
mortal bodies, so the blessing joins them to the
everliving Lord. How can the flesh perish when
it feeds on Christ by thanksgiving ? ^

The fifth book
goes on with the resurrection of the body, and passes
on to a Chiliastic exposition of the last things, illus-
trated from Papias. He discusses the Number of the

Beast, noticing the various reading (616 for 666)
and proposing solutions — ETANBAS, LATEINOS,
TEITAN — but But it is a
adopting none of them.
little earlier that he gives his measured judgment
of future punishment as eternal, because the good
things of God being eternal, the loss of them must
also be eternal.^ He is not enough of a mystic
to ask whether the eternal may not be measured by
something than time.
else
Of the other works of Irenaeus we need say but
little. None of them have reached us complete but
the recently discovered Demonstration of the Apos-
tolical Preaching, which we have discussed already.
We have a piece of his letter to Florinus, and frag-
ments it would seem of his de Ogdoade, of his
treatise against Blastus, and of other works. But
the only fragments which call for special notice
are those published by Pfaff in 1715 from a MS.
in the Eoyal Library at Turin. They seem very
much in the style of Irenaeus but Pfaff's account ;
of the MS. is not satisfactory, and it had somehow

vanished from the Library in 1749. Harnack sets
them down as forged by Pfaff; but perhaps it is
safer simply to leave them under grave suspicion.
There is however one more document which may
just possibly be the work of Irenaeus the Letter of —
the churches of Lyons and Vienne. True, it is not
ascribed to him by Eusebius but he may have;
written in the name of the churches like Clement,

1
Haer. iv. 18, v. 2. 2 7j^^_ y^ 27.
XVII IRENAEUS 113
without ever naming himself. Nor does it agree
with the modest disclaimer of literary skill at the
opening of the Refutation. But after all, the letter
is no way rhetorical :power is that of simplicity
its
and and self-control and it is
sincerity, of dignity :
just this dignity and self-control which is so marked

in Irenaeus. He might very well have written the
letter, but it would be going much beyond the
evidence to say that he did write it.
Books
See on Ch. XV.
VOL. II
CHAPTER XVIII
THE EASTERN EMPERORS
After Commodus the Empire enters on a new stage

of its history. From Vespasian's time to that of
Marcus it had been ruled by a series of good
administrators, them peaceable but Trajan,
all of
and all but Domitiau willing to govern in harmony
with the Senate and society. History can scarcely
shew such another line of rulers as the four successors
of Nerva, who so worthily sustained the honour of
the Empire for more than eighty years. Nor did the
wasteful reign of Commodus appear to have done
any incurable The provinces were loyal, the
evil.
legions irresistible as ever. They had renewed the

glories of Trajan beyond the Tigris, and avenged
the disgrace of Elegeia by the sack of Ctesiphon. If
the G-ermans had reached the Hadriatic for a moment
in the days of the great pestilence, they had long since
had their answer on the Elbe. There was neither
thought nor dream as yet that Rome would ever bow
for need to the barbarians. If the Empire was visibly
overstrained, even Commodus had suffered no great
disaster ;and now that he had to be put out of the
way like Domitian, there was a Nerva ready to take
his place in the consul Helvius Pertinax.
Though Commodus was put out of the way
114
CHAP, xviii THE EASTERN EMPERORS 115
successfully enough, death was like Nero's in

his
letting loose the forces of anarchy. Pertinax turned
out a Galba, not a Nerva. He was a brave and
worthy general, and his resolute economy might have
done wonders in quieter times. Even in his short
reign, he did enough to shew that the Empire was
still far from bankruptcy. One of his edicts allowed
any one who pleased to take up uncultivated land
and have it for his own (tax-free for ten years) on
condition of cultivating it.^ But Pertinax was not a
true statesman. He looked to the senate and people
of the republic, and hurried on his reforms without
seeing that there was a military problem behind the
financial. The praetorian guards were masters of the
situation and after the pampering of Commodus,
;
it was a fatal error to provoke them with sordid
parsimony before he had made sure of his position.

The new Augustus could only face the mutineers
with Galba's courage, and meet his fate with Galba's
dignity. In eighty-seven days from the murder of
Commodus, the throne of the world was vacant
again.
From this point the course of events might almost
have been foreseen. The praetorians were on the
spot, and promptly sold the purple to the highest
bidder. The purchaser was a respectable official
named Didius Julianus, who had succeeded Pertinax
in the consulship and in the proconsulate of Africa.
But Didius was not the man to succeed him in the
Empire also. He shewed no great ability, and sank
almost without an effort under the infamy of his
elevation. In sixty -five days he too had passed
away.
^ Like Hadrian before him : such a policy is significant.
ii6 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
The legions lay almost as they did in Nero's time.

Three great armies lined the three great frontiers
of the Rhine (with Britain), the Danube, and the
Euphrates, and were now commanded by Clodius
Albinus, Septimius Severus, and Pescennius Niger.
There were seven legions on the Rhine, nine on the
Euphrates but the six or seven on the Danube had
;
now grown into twelve, so that Severus was not

only the nearest but the strongest of the rivals.
He marched straight on Rome, put down Didius
and secured the senate, disbanded the praetorians,
temporized with Albinus, and in a month marched
eastward to fight with Niger. The strife was deadly,
but the army of Syria was never a match for the
legions of the Danube. Niger was driven steadily
back, till the battle of Issus (Nov. 194) made Severus
master of the East. Only Byzantium remained,
where Caecilius Capella held out desperately for
nearly two years after Niger's death. The destruc-
tion of its walls by Severus was regretted half a
century later, when the Bosphorus lay open to the
Goths. Only Albinus and the army of the Rhine
had still to be reckoned with and their defeat in the
;
great battle of Lyons (Feb. 197) left Severus master

of the Empire.
Lucius Septimius Severus was a soldier raised to
power by the soldiers, and frankly dependent on
them. The revolt of Avidius Cassius had shewn
their contempt even for Marcus and now they had
;
an emperor after their own heart. No philosopher

was Severus, nor sot nor weakling senator, but an
iron soldier who could guard the majesty of Rome.
He shares with Aurelian the glory of recovering both
Syria and Gaul from civil war; but he is the only
XVIII THE EASTERN EMPERORS 117
emperor who in one campaign pushed down the

and in another rose
Tigris to the sack of Ctesiphon,
almost from his deathbed to fight his way through
the Caledonian morasses to the shores of the northern
sea. His reign was grim and terrible. If he flattered
the senate, it was only for a moment. He scarcely
cared to hide his contempt and hatred of those
elegant and obsequious nobles, and put to death more
than forty of them without trial. Never yet had the
Empire been so ruled with a naked sword. Yet the
great soldier was very far from being a mere soldier.
He judged causes as diligently as Marcus, filled his
council with great lawyers like Papinian and Paul,
and has left his mark on almost every page of the
Digest. African though he was, with Phoenician for
his native language, and an accent he never got rid
of,he mastered Latin and Greek, studied at Athens,

wrote his own memoirs, and shewed a good deal of
taste for literature, and even for sight-seeing in Egypt.
There is a touch of Hadrian's restlessness in his
words, " I have been all things, and nothing has last
answered."
The Christians were no great losers by the death
of Commodus. No doubt they had their share of the
troubles, as at the siege of Byzantium,^ but nobody
had much leisure to persecute them during the civil
wars. Though not likely that Pertinax was

it is
thinking much about them when he stopped the

quaestiones majestatis, his action must have given
them some relief. Nor was Severus himself specially
1
ad Scap. 3 Caecilius Capella in illo exitu Byzantino : Christiani
Tert.
gaudete ! The excitement of a desperate defence may well liave
exclamavit.
roused heathen superstition and the Christians in the city were very likely
:
lukewarm in the matter. They cannot have had much interest in refusing
to accept Severus as de facto emperor.
ii8 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
unfriendly to them. If he was decently respectful to

the gods, he gave his real belief to the stars, married
Julia Domna on the word of the astrologers, and was
himself no mean astrologer. The old Eoman ideas
which had caused so much persecution were foreign to
a Phoenician of Africa with a Syrian empress at his
side —and that empress a liberal eclectic like Julia
Domna. Severus was moreover at enmity with the
Senate, which was the focus of Eoman conservatism.
He had no more quarrel with the Christians than
with any one else who lived peaceably, and did not
meddle with sedition. He allowed them about his
person, protected them from the mob, and was not
moved even by the scandal of senatorial men and
women whom he knew to be Christians. So says
Tertullian ^ and there are facts enough to shew that
;
his account is fairly true.

So the peace continued, such as it was, and subject
to local breaches, as in Africa in 197. If Severus did
not set the law in action against the Christians,
neither did he repeal it. They remained exposed as
before to popular fury, and the governors did much
as they pleased in the way of mitigating it or other-
wise. If the Christians were better off than in the
days of Marcus, they were by no means unmolested.
The persecutions in Africa were serious enough to call
forth more than one of Tertullian's writings, including
of course his great Apology in 197 : and its dijfference
of tone from Justin's is not entirely a matter of personal

^ His son Caracalla {h. 188) had a Christian nurse (Tert. ad Scap. 4) and
a Jewish playmate {Hist. Aug. Car. 1). Severus himself was healed with oil
by Proculus a Christian, whom he invited to the palace and kept till his
death. Men and women of senatorial rank were known to be Christians, yet
praised and protected by him (Tert. I.e.). Prosenes the procurator patri-
monii of Commodus seems to have been undisturbed till his death in 217
(Wilmanns 1285, discussed by Friedlander Sittengesch. i. 188).
character. In some ways however Hippolytus de

Antichristo, written just before Severus began active
persecution in 202, is even more significant of
Christian feeling. There had always been two
tendencies in relation to the Empire. The two great
apostles preached submission and obedience, and were
followed by Clement of Eome the wTiter of the:
Apocalypse breathes defiance, and is followed by

Ignatius. Upon the whole however the church of
the second century respected the persecuting Empire
as a power ordained of God. Ignatius and the
Montanists are clearly in a minority. If apologists
like Justin tend to overstate their friendliness, the
sufi'erers at Lyons and Vienne shew no traces of dis-
loyalty. To Melito the Empire is the foster-sister of
the Church, born at the same time and growing up
along with it, while Irenaeus closely follows the lines
of St. Paul, and sets aside the dangerous question of
the number of the Beast. The Empire is still to him
a power that works for righteousness. But now
comes a change. The long years of utter insecurity
are telling on Christian temper. If Tertullian still
repeats the language of St. Paul, he repeats it with
an accent unknown to Irenaeus, and Hippolytus (his
work seems esoteric) takes a sterner view than his
master did. The Empire is not indeed Antichrist, for
the judgments of the world are only partial hitherto,
so that the end is not yet. But Rome is the fourth
beast of Daniel, the restraining power of St. Paul.
Two centuries of her empire are past already, and she
will break up into nations long before the other three
are finished and from those nations cometh Anti-
;
christ. The number of the apocalyptic beast cannot

be anything else than AATEINOS. Even now the
Empire is the image of Antichrist's

kingdom; its
Caesar-worship is the spirit of Antichrist,
its gathering
of the nations into one realm is
a devilish caricature
of the all-gathering church of God.
Here is a defiance
less passionate indeed than
that of Ignatius, but more
thoughtful and quite as resolute:
and we may be
sure that Hippolytus only put in
words the thoughts
of many.'
Upon the whole however the churches had
tolerable
peace for the last twenty years of the
second century •
and some of them even obtained legal

recognition in'
an indirect way. We have seen the likeness
of the
Christian churches to the clubs
which abounded in
the Empire. The general law was that clubs of the
poor {collegia tenuiorum) might meet monthly for a
levy of contributions, and oftener
for purely religious
purposes,—provided always that there
was no breach
of the senatus consultum
against forbidden clubs
Whether this law had become obsolete
or not Severus
renewed it in a rescript of his own,
not later than
198. Here was a chance for an able man like
Victor
of Eome or Tertullian. These collegia tenuiorum
were mostly burial clubs, and burial
clubs needed no
special permission from the
authorities. If therefore
the churches were constituted into
burial clubs they
would as such obtain legal rights,
including that of
holding property; nor would this
corporate recogni-
tion be affected by the fact that
individuals practised
an unlawful worship. So Tertullian » pictures the
churches as clubs. " We are a corporation,
not a
*""!'''." ™'"^''"' '° "^'^""^^ generally
the eschatology of
HilL'T'""'
* 1°
appoytus, or even to distinguish carefully
the statements of his
from those of his commentary on
Daniel, which was written during
the
sterner view of things. a
Tert. Apol. 39.
gang of plotters. We meet for prayer, and we pray

for the emperor and the good estate of the Eoman
world. Our presidents get their place by merit, not
by money, for we do not sell things divine. Such
common chest as we have is maintained by monthly
contributions, moderate and voluntary, for neither do
we buy and it is not spent on feasting,
things divine :
but on the relief and burial of the poor, on our

orphans and old folk, and on our people who are in
trouble for their faith. Even our feasts are sober and
religious. If all this is like the forbidden clubs, then
we deserve to be forbidden along with them."
The church of Eome as a burial club ! It was a
strange guise, though less strange than that of the
revolutionary club, assumed by Oberlin for the church
of the Ban de la Eoche. Nor was it so strange in
early times. The care of the dead was a very solemn
duty with the ancients, and Koman law protected
without regard to persons every place where they were
laid. The bodies of criminals were seldom refused
to relations, or even to strangers like Nicodemus and
Joseph and it was the very last outrage of persecu-
;
tion to scatter the ashes of the martyrs

^
to defeat —
forsooth their hope of resurrection from the dead.
Jews and Christians buried their dead instead of
burning them, and buried them amongst their own
people. Thus the vaults of notable Christians like
" Lucina " or Antonius Restitutus became burial
places for their relations and dependants and before ;
church buildings became common, these burial places

were the chief visible possessions of the Christians.
The mobs which cried " Away with their burial places"
^
In the persecution of Lyons and Vienne Eus. v. 1 ad fin. and occasional
cases in Diocletian's time Ditto viii. 7, Mart. Pal. 9.
in Tertullian's had churches to destroy less than

time ^
half a century later. ^ Thus the guise of burial clubs

was nob so strange then as it would be now.
As soon as Severus was free from danoêr in the
West, he found it necessary to spend nearly five years
(summer 197-May 202) in the East. The Parthian war
was his main business but the Jews also had given
;
trouble serious enough to furnish an excuse for the

Senate to decree a Jewish triumph to his son Caracalla.
Hadrian had endeavoured to stamp out Judaism by
entirely forbidding circumcision, but Pius had limited
the penalty to proselytes, and Severus now renewed
his law in 202.^ " He also forbade conversion to
Christianity." Of course the old laws remained in

force, and the new rescript might help to revive
them but in itself it struck at none but converts.
;
It marks a certain change in the policy of the

emperors, as though they were beginning to think it
the first necessity to stop the further spread of the
unlawful worship. Thus it is the first of the special
measures against particular classes of Christians
which so broadly distinguish the persecutions of the
third century from those of the second.
Our records of the persecution are as usual most
^ Tert. ad Scap. 3 Areae non sint.
2 Passing over Clem. Al. p. i^ eKKXrjaias as no more conclusive than
228
1 Cor. xi. 18 iv iKKXrjalg., we find the first traces of chm'ches in (1) Tert. Pud.
4 non modo limine, verum omni ecclesiae tecto submovemus (2) The great
church at Edessa destroyed by a flood in 201 (3) Hist. Aug. Alexander 49
(cannot be dated nearer than 222-235) (4) Min. Felix Oct. 9 if we read
sacraria (also Alexander's time) and (5) Origen in Mattli. Comm. Ser. 39
ecclesiae incensae sunt (under Maximin 235-238).
^ Hist. Aug. Sev. 17 Judacos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. This must be
limited to actual circumcision, for we read Eus. vi. 12 of one Domninus, who
betook himself in time of persecution to "Jewish ideXodprjaKeia " (not dprjaKeia)
which seems to mean that he became a proselyte of the looser sort, who were
not circumcised.
Then Spartian adds idem etiam Ghristianis sanxit.
;
imperfect. We
hear of Natalius as a confessor at
Rome/ and Asclepiades at Antioch ' but the only
martyrs better known to us belong to Alexandria
and Africa and in both groups we see clearly the
;
new aim of persecution to put down conversions.

The policy had succeeded against the Jews why :
should it not be equally successful with the Christians ?

Severus forgot first that Jews cared much less than
Christians about proselytes, then that Christianity
satisfied the monotheistic drift like Judaism, and
satisfied it better.
At Alexandria the catechetical school bore the
brunt of battle. Clement stood his ground manfully,

though he " saw martyrs daily" but presently there ;
came a great scattering, and when there seemed no

more work him to do in Alexandria, he retired to
for
Palestine.^ The post of danger was seized by a
youth of eighteen but that youth was Origen. His
:
father Leonides was one of the first victims the year

to
before, and Origen would have rushed into court
declare himself a Christian, if his mother had not
prudently hid his clothes. As the property of
Leonides was confiscated, his family was reduced
to poverty, and Origen became for a while dependent
on a rich lady of Alexandria, though even then he
refused to worship with Paul of Antioch, her chaplain
and adopted son, whose heresy he detested. But he
had not been Clement's disciple for nothing. When
the catechetical school was closed, some zealous
heathen students — among them the future bishop
1 Eus. V. 28.
2 Neumann p. 166 adds Alexander (of Jerusalem) but it
Eus. vi. 11. :
seems better to put him later.

later is sufficient proof that this was no
3
The consideration he enjoyed
unworthy flight.
Heraclas —
applied to him for teaching; and before
long he was formally appointed head of the school by
bishop Demetrius. His disciples were in great danger :
seven of them were put to death. Women were not

spared, for Herais the catechumen was burned. Origen
himself challenged his fate,and escaped with difficulty
from the mob : but the authorities must have shut
their eyes to his defiance.
To this time belongs the story of Potamiaena, which
was a famous memory in the time of Eusebius.
When after many was threatened with
tortures she
dishonour, she "words which they
replied with
consider impious," and was haled away straight to
execution —a slow death of boiling
pitch poured over
her. On the way
she was shielded from the hustling
and insults of the crowd by Basilides the officer in
charge, who was himself
a disciple of Origen, though
still a heathen. She thanked him for his kindness,
and promised to reward him before long. Some time
after this, BasiHdes was asked for an oath on some
business or other, and answered that it was not lawful
for him to swear, because he was a Christian. When
they found that he was in earnest, they brought him
into court, and he was remanded to prison, where he
told the brethren thecauseof his sudden and astonishing
change. Potamiaena had appeared to him three days
after her death, placed on his head a crown of victory,
and told him that she had obtained favour for him
with the Lord, and would soon receive him. So they
baptized him, and he was beheaded next day. And
she appeared to others also, and converted them too.^
1 Eus. vi. 5. Eusebius vouches for these stories, and there is nothing
unlikely in them.
As Roman law did not allow the execution of a virgin, dishonour was
the
legal preliminary to a capital sentence.
The daughter of Sejanus is one case
In Africa the persecution claimed a still nobler

victim than Leonides. Some time before Mar.
7, 203
a group of five catechumens was seized. Vibia
Perpetua was a young matron, Revocatus a slave
—
with Felicitas his "companion" Roman law disdained
to call her his wife. The others were Saturninus and
Secundulus. A few days later their friend Saturus
joined them of his own accord for Montanist
;
enthusiasm was high in Africa, and the persecution

did not calm it. Perpetua's was a divided house.
Her mother and aunt and two surviving brothers
were Christians, so that her old father stood alone in
his heathenism, and his distress was time after time
her sorest trial. As we hear nothing of her husband,
we may set him down as heathen too. For a while
Perpetua herself tells her simple story of their baptism
in the first days of their detention, and " the one
prayer for endurance which the Spirit gave me after
it." Then to prison. Such darkness and heat, and !
crowding, and rudeness of the soldiers. But " the

blessed deacons who ministered to us " bought them
a daily airing in a better part of the prison ; and
when she got her infant to stay with her, " it straight-
way became a palace to me." Then her brother bade
her ask a vision from the Lord to shew how these
things should end. She asked ; and that night she
saw a ladder reaching up to heaven, beset with swords
in point. Awell-meaning heathen judge might even think he had done a

good work, ifthe threat saved life by securing obedience to the law.
As regards Basilides, there is nothing unlikely in his gentleness to
Potamiaena, in the statement that he was Origen's disciple while still a
heathen, in his refusal to swear, or in the vision of Potamiaena to him and
others. Her death may well have made an immense impression on those
prepared to receive it.
Neumann Rom. Staat 165, 292 rejects the stories. His argument seems
sufficiently answered by Augar Die Frau in romischen Christenprozess.
;;
and knives, and guarded by a dragon at its foot.

Saturus went up first then Perpetua, stepping on
;
the dragon's head and the Good Shepherd welcomed

;
them in the gardens above. The trial follows, and

the procurator Hilarianus condemns them all to the
beasts. Then a vision of her little brother Dinocrates
in evil case, who was dead of cancer. So she prayed
for him ;
"
and on the day we were kept in the stocks/'
she saw him again drinking the water of baptism and
rejoicing. The last night but one she hears herself
called to the amphitheatre. No beasts are there, but
a hideous Egyptian wrestles with her. She treads
him underfoot, and leaves like a conquering gladiator
by the Gate of Life. " So I understood that I was not
to fight with beasts, but with the devil but I knew ;
that I should have the victory." Saturus has a

bolder vision. The victory is won, and angels bear
away their spirits to a paradise of trees, where the
host of heaven is waiting for them. There they find
the martyrs who were burned before them and in ;
"a place whose walls were as built of light" the

Ancient of Days receives them, and wipes away their
tears. But Optatus the Bishop mourned outside
and when Perpetua began to talk with him in Greek,
the angels drove him away, saying, Let these alone
and if ye have quarrels amongst you, forgive one
another. And they rebuked him, saying, Amend
thy people, for they quarrel like the factions of the
circus.
Perpetua lays down her pen the day before the
games — "let him write the rest who will" and —
Tertullian himself^ takes up the story. Secundulus
^ So Robinson Texts and Studies i. 47 ; and his case seems as well made
out as we can expect.
died in prison, and"by God's grace escaped the beasts."

Felicitas was great with child, and they sorely feared
that " their good companion " would not be delivered
in time to suffer with them but on their earnest
;
prayer she brought forth a girl two days before the

games, " which a certain sister reared as her own."
The " free supper " of the
condemned on their last
night they turned into an agape and when gazers
;
—
crowded in Mark us well, said Saturus, that you
may know us in the day of judgment. " The day of
their victory shone forth and they went out to the
;
amphitheatre as if to heaven, trembling it might be

with joy, but not with fear," Perpetua with bright
step and flashing eyes, Felicitas rejoicing to come
" straight from the midwife to the gladiator." To
Hilarianus, as they swept in triumph past him,
" Thou art our judge : —
God is thine" a defiance for
which they were scourged at once. Saturninus was
torn by one bear, but another meant for Saturus would
not come out of his den. " For the girls, the devil had
prepared a savage cow to suit their sex " but even :
the savage mob was horrified to see the milk trickling

from the young mother's breasts. So they were given
gowns. Perpetua was tossed first and as she came
;
to herself, she drew her gown over her and fastened

her hair, " for it was not fitting that a martyr should
seem to mourn." Then she raised Felicitas, and the
two stood hand in hand, the matron and the slave,
alike faithful unto death. The mob itself was touched.
They were remanded to the Gate of Life, as if
their victory were won, though not that they might
live, and a bold catechumen ministered to them.
When will they want us for that cow ? said

Perpetua, as waking from an ecstasy. In the last
round of the games Saturus was covered with blood

by the first bite of a leopard. Salvum lotum ! Good
luck of your bath was the brutal jest. At last the
!
butchery. They rose and gave each other the kiss of

peace, came to the slaughter, and passed under the
knife in silence. Only Perpetua cried out at the
first clumsy stroke, and then guided the raw gladiator's
unsteady hand to her throat. " It may be that so
great a woman could not have been killed, had not

she herself been willing."
There something here even more significant than
is
the lofty courage of Perpetua, which forms the front

of the story. From first to last she never dreams
that Kevocatus and Felicitas are less than her equals
and companions in Christ. Enthusiasm might have
nerved the matron and the slave apart but no mere :
enthusiasm could have joined their hands in death.

The mischievous eccentricities of Montanism are as
dust in the balance while we watch the mighty work-
ing of the power of another world in which not only
the vulgar fear of death is overcome, but the deepest
social division of the ancient world is utterly forgotten.
It were well if we could rest here at the noble
story of Perpetua, for the student has no harder task
than that of seeing a time of persecution in the clear
light of truth. The dangers of a false perspective are
as real as those of prejudice, and less generally recog-
nized. We do well to fix our eyes on its heroic
scenes, for the man who looks coldly on them is far
sunk in baseness. By all means let the martyr stand
out in his glory, and let many a weakness be forgiven
him he needs it
if but let not history forget that
:
persecution has a squalid background of cowardice,

disorder, bitterness and fanatic enthusiasm. Its
;
general influence is bad. weeds out tlie time-

If it
servers and the weak, it hardens the strong for evil
as well as for good. The break-up of regular church
government is the opportunity of unquiet spirits and ;
if the old quarrels are sometimes forgotten in the
grandeur of the contest, new disputes more often grow

up round them. The sobering influence of regular
religious life is ill replaced by the excitement of secret
meetings and the demoralizing strain of an ever-
present sense of danger. Small wonder if manly
resolution passes into wilfulness — if men fling out
defiance to persecutors and false brethren, and judge
hardly the weakness they have themselves overcome
— if they strengthen themselves with pride and bitter-
ness, and allow free course to the enthusiasm which

seems needed to sustain them in their heavy trial.
This is the familiar background of every persecution :
and though some of its features are better seen in

the times of Decius and Diocletian, we can trace most
of them in those of Severus. The great discipline
questions were only just raised as yet by Montanism
but we have seen the confusion of the church of
Alexandria, the defiances of Origen, the visions of
Perpetua and her companions. We read also of other
strange enthusiasms. Judas the commentator brought
down the seventy weeks of Daniel to the tenth year
of Severus, and there stopped as he thought just
before Antichrist's coming had the stirring
: so deeply
of the persecution disturbed the minds of men.^ A
bishop in Syria led out his flock to the wilderness
to await Christ's coming so they wandered in the
;
mountains till the governor seized them for brigands,

and only the eff'orts of his Christian wife prevented a
^ Eus. vi. 7.
VOL. II K
widespread persecution. Another in Pontus was

three times warned in a dream that the day of judg-
ment would come the next year ; so they left their
lands untilled or sold their goods till the return of the
year covered their prophet with shame. But by that
time many of them were beggars.^
Hard as the trial was for the African churches, it
passed away like others. The rescript of Severus was
gradually forgotten, and in his last years there was
peace. The grim emperor died in Feb. 211, and left
his sons at deadly enmity. They had some thoughts
of dividing the Empire at the Hellespont, but Roman
feeling was not yet ripe for this. Before long the
knot was cut by murder so Geta died, and Bassianus
:
reigned (211-217). Severus Antoninus, to give him

name, utterly belied the gentle promise of
his official
his childhood. He was a mere soldier, " more cruel
than his cruel father." His murders were wholesale
among the Roman nobles, and great was the massacre
with which he punished the scurrilous mob of
Alexandria. He cared only for the soldiers, spared
no money to secure their favour, and was hated by
the rest of the world.
As regards the Christians, things drifted. Cara-
calla (to give himnickname) began by recalling
his
the exiles and some of these may have been
:
Christians. If there is a doubtful story that he put

to death bishop Alexander of Baccanae in Etruria, we
have no reason to set him down as a special enemy of
the Christians.^ The only serious persecution came
in Africa, early in his reign, and seems to have
^
Hippolytus in Dan. iv. 18, 19.
-^
The story as it stands in so gross a legend that a residuum of truth is
hardly worth the search.

—
originated in the great camp at Lambaesis. On the

occasion of a largess, the soldiers used to come up
with crowns on their heads to receive it. Even the
Christians did the same, though the wearing of crowns
was a pagan custom, disapproved by so moderate a
man as Clement of Alexandria. Only one of them
refused to wear his crown, carried it in his hand,
avowed himself a Christian, and was no doubt
punished according to law. Tertullian enthusiastic-
ally defends him de Corona, though
in his treatise
we can was mostly against
see that Christian opinion
him. But when persecution spread to Carthage itself,
he addressed a sober remonstrance to the proconsul
Scapula. **
We are not afraid of you, but rejoice in
condemnation rather than acquittal. It is for your
own sake that I write. We worship the one true God
of Nature, and you do wrong to make us sacrifice to
your gods, for it is the natural right of every man to
worship what he believes in. We are good citizens
—
who pray for the emperor we never were mixed up
with Albinus, or Niger, or Cassius and reverence—
him as greater than the gods his creatures, and second
only to the true God. Nor will you slay the innocent
with impunity. Signs are not wanting of the wrath
of heaven. Remember the rains which ruined last
year's harvest, the northern lights which lighted up
the walls of Carthage, the eclipse which scared the
assembly at Utica. Remember the fate of our first
persecutor Vigellius Saturninus, who lost his sight
of Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cappadocia, who
was eaten of worms — of Caecilius Capella, who
perished in the ruin of Byzantium. So you gave
Mavilus of Hadrumetum to the beasts, and then
—
came the rains may it be a warning to you. In any
—
case you need not be so cruel. Even stern judges

have shrank from work of this sort. Cincius Severus
for example taught the Christians how to answer in
court. Asper declared his disgust in open court, and
let a man go when the torture was hardly begun,
and that without making him sacrifice. Pudens tore
up the accusation when he found that a man had been
riotously seized, and refused to hear the case.
Severus himself deliberately protected us, and so did
Marcus after his deliverance in Germany. We are
blameless and our reward is that you burn us.
; The
governors of Numidia and Mauretania are content
with the lawful punishment of the sword. But look
to yourself, for we are not afraid. Even Arrius
Antoninus was daunted when the Christians in Asia
defied him in a body. What will you do if the
Christians of Carthage defy you in their thousands ?
You will have to decimate the city. Spare yourself, if
you will not spare us. Our Master you cannot touch,
but those you count your masters are only mortal
men. But our sect shall never fail. The more it is
smitten, the more it grows, for every one who is moved
by our patience to inquiry straightway becomes our
follower."
The most striking feature of the age of Severus is
the change in heathenism which prepared it for its

last great conflict under the standard of Neoplatonism
with the Gospel. The earlier stages of it are repre-
sented by the four great women of the house of
—
Severus Julia Domna and her sister Julia Maesa, and
Maesa's daughters Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea.
They belonged to the old royal family of the priests
of El Gabal, the sun -god of Emesa in Syria and ;
xviii THE EASTERN EMPERORS 133
though their house was fallen from its high estate,

thej were still a power in the land. Julia Domna
had beauty and culture, ambition and ability, and
was no cipher of an empress even by the side of
Septimius Severus. She contended on equal terms
with the favourite Plautianus, and surrounded the
emperor with Syrian counsellors. Paul and Ulpian
were her countrymen, and Papinian was her relative.
But while Severus lived, she was rather the centre of
a literary circle of an eclectic sort, whose chief ornament
was the sophist Philostratus, whom she commissioned
to write the life of ApoUonius of Tyana. Her power
reached its height when Severus was dead. She saw
indeed her favourite son Geta slaughtered in her arms ;
but she did not therefore refuse to come to a sort of

understanding with Caracalla. He let her govern as
she pleased, provided she found him money, and did
not meddle with his life among the soldiers. So it is
to Julia and her Syrian lawyers that we must ascribe
the extension of the Koman franchise in 212 to all
free inhabitants of the Empire. It was done for
mere fiscal purposes, but none the less it marks an
epoch. The work of obliterating the difi'erence between
Romans and provincials begun by Julius Caesar was
completed by Julia Domna. If Rome had long been
the world, henceforth also the world was Rome. But
Julia's most important activity was on the side of
religion ; and to understand this we must survey the
state of heathenism in her times.
The scepticism of the decaying republic was only
the religious unrest of an age of change, so that it
vanished as the Empire settled down. Even in the
upper classes it was not universal, and the masses it
scarcely reached at all. It never disturbed the stately
round of the ancient ceremonials. The old gods of

Kome never ceased to be supreme above the crowd
of upstarts. There were flamens, and augurs, and
pontiffs as of old and the proudest senators felt
;
honoured by admission to their sacred colleges. The

knights of Rome rode year by year to Vesta's door,
and the holy virgins still watched the perpetual fire
on Vesta's hearth. The Arval Brethren still performed
their immemorial sacrifices, and the Salii danced to
chants whose ancient cadences no living man could
understand. When the cloud of scepticism had
passed away, the old gods of Rome seemed standing
where they stood before. Many a nation had been
blotted out from under heaven, but the primaeval
rituals were scarcely changed. Pagan Rome too could
cry her Semper eadem.
Nevertheless, a mighty change had overtaken
them. They went into the cloud as gods of the city,
and they came out as gods of the Empire. The
worships of the world were melting down together,
as in some vast crucible. There was a great variety
among them. The many-breasted Artemis of Ephesus
was not the virgin Artemis of Athens, the Ashtoreth
of Carthage was not the Juno of Italy, and the Baals
of Heliopolis and Emesa were very unlike the Roman
Jupiter. So there was a great confusion when Greek
and Latin names were given wholesale to the gods of
all the nations. It was partly under cover of these
civilized names that the crowd of Eastern gods came
in— the Mater Deum from Phrygia, then Isis and
Serapis from Egypt, and later still the Sun-god
Mithra from the further East. As the gods of
Greece had invaded Rome since the time of the
Tarquins, so now the gods of the East were being
fused with those of Greece and Rome together. The

merchants, the soldiers, and the slaves brought in
strange worships in spite of the earlier emperors ;
and the later emperors themselves went after them.

Commodus and the house of Severus were devoted to
Serapis, and every man did that which was right in
his own eyes in choosing to himself gods from the
motley crowd of national divinities. " They sought
them gods from all quarters, and made them their

own." Only two forms of worship were everywhere
the same —Christianity, which was not the worship
of a national god, and was for that reason in particular
forbidden the other was the official worship of Rome
:
and of the dead and living Caesars.

If the first century was partly sceptical, the second
and third centuries not only were religious, but
became more and more religious. Serious men turned
more and more to religion in the deepening gloom of
the declining Empire, and the common people listened
gladly to the sermons of the wandering philosophers,
and the " missions " of the wandering priests of divers
mysteries. They looked peradventure for something
more reasonable than polytheism, certainly for some-
thing more definite than scepticism, more comforting
—
than philosophy something that would give them
purity in life, patience in the time of trouble, and
above all assurance of atonement in the hour of death.
In a word, the search for a new religion, which had
been going on since Plato's time, was coming to an
issue. What was it to be ?
The old philosophies were dead. Sceptics and Epi-
cureans were becoming impossible, and Stoicism was
a failure. There were no Stoics after Marcus. The
movement was on three main lines. Some strove to
cleanse the old mythologies and return to the simple

faith of the old heroic times, others sought comfort
in the warmer worships of the East, while a few
forswore the gods, and gave themselves heart and soul
to the Galilean. The first line is conservative, the
second implies a considerable change, while the third
is a revolution, though a revolution which alone could
truly satisfy their needs.
The conservative movement can be traced back to
the first century in ApoUonius of Tyana, who died at
a great age in the reign of Nerva. If there be any

truth in the romance of Philostratus, we may see in
ApoUonius a religious reformer who preaches one
Supreme to be worshipped above and through the lower
gods. Sacrifices might be offered to these, but not to
the Supreme. He is the Ineffable, who needs nothing
at our hands, and accepts neither sacrifice nor offering.
A moral life is needed to clear our sight, Pythagorean
asceticism to give the higher intuition ; for communion
with the Supreme is not by prayer, but by the
"higher word" of ecstasy and trance. Here is
Eclecticism sketched out already, with its lofty
doctrine of one transcendent God confused and defiled
by this unlimited licence to worship other gods " before
him," and at best made sterile by this fencing-off of
all approach to him but by the way of ecstasy. A
few mystics may be able to live in that thin moun-
tain air, but meaner men will always prefer the warm
and pestilential swamps of superstition. Eclecticism
might be monotheistic in theory, but for most men it
was in practice as crass a polytheism as anything that
had gone before it. They chose them gods according
to their fancies, and the grand monotheism was for-
gotten.
The devout and cultured Plutarch of Chaeronea

(cir. 48-125) was neither a mystic nor one of the
meaner men yet he followed similar lines, though

;
with a difference. The Supreme is there, but his

power is limited as in Plato by the intractable qualities
of matter. The gods are there, and they are all good,
but their worship is more than a duty it is a joy —
and a blessing. Ecstasy is there, but it is only one
way out of many in which the Supreme reveals himself
to men and the preparation for things divine is not
;
by Pythagorean asceticism, but by the detachment

and quiet of a moderate and reasonable Platonism.
Though Plutarch is not counted among the saints, no
writer of the ancient world comes nearer to the
Christian model of kindliness and stainless purity in
common life without ascetic pride and sourness. The
trouble was that the scandals of worship could not all
be explained away, and the scandals of mythology
could not be allegorized into something edifying,
all
so that he had to introduce an order of demons to do

the dirty work of heaven which is unworthy of the
gods. These are the authors of all the scandals, and
they will harm us if they are not propitiated with
the ancient ceremonies. Thus even Plutarch is unable

to escape the deliberate worship of spirits of evil.
We may pass over others, like Nigrinus, Dion

Chrysostom, Apuleius, Numenius, who were all labour-
ing in their several ways for the reform of heathenism.
Even Apuleius may fairly take a place, though a low
place, in the list. He is made indeed of rather base
metal, and utterly lacks the lofty purity of Plutarch ;
yet still he strove to throw a passionate devotion into

the service of his gods.
Speaking generally, the divine immanence preached
—
by the Stoics was giving place to the dualism of a

reviving Platonism. The Oriental thought which
Stoicism had limited to ethics was now overspreading
theology too, and was presently to dominate politics
also for a thousand years and more. As the Empire
was the pis aller of ancient society, so Byzantinism
was the pis aller of the Empire, and the Papacy the
pis aller of Latin Christianity. Meanwhile men felt
more and more that there must somewhere be some
divine Power which cannot finally refuse all answer
to the great and bitter cry that comes up from earth
to heaven. If Olympus was unworthy to represent
him and reason unable to find him out, and even
Caesar s earthly providence could not reveal him, it
did not follow that he could not be reached at all.
Philosophy and superstition must be more thoroughly
examined and even barbarian thought was not to be
;
despised in this dire necessity. So the last great

effort of the ancient world to find out God by
search-
ing took two directions, and yet was one. On one
side it essayed the heights of heaven ; on the other
it called infernal powers to aid :
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
There was a real connexion between the philosopher

and the theurgist (or magician). They had the same
general view of religion, constantly tended each
to
imitate the other's methods, and finally coalesced
in
the vastest system of religion ever devised by human
thought. The later Neoplatonists felt that philosophy
IS a poor thing without some more direct access to
the gods, while the de mysteriis aspires to be
a
defence of theurgy on grounds of reason. The
philosopher's awe of truth passed easily into
the
incantations of the theurgist. To the one, the old

philosophies were broken lights of higher truth ; to
the other, the old worships were symbols of a better.
In that age of decay, everything seemed to speak
dimly of a mysterious Supreme far off from men,
represented by philosophers as his prophets, by gods
and demons as his agents in the world satraps and —
proconsuls, as Celsus calls them. Even Christianity
might (with some straining) be fitted into such a
scheme as this. So the current of the time set back
to monotheism, but to a monotheism never fully
disentangled from the maze of polytheism. No
heathen thought ever reached the first word of true
—
monotheism I am the Lord thy God thou shalt :
—
have no other gods before me in my presence.
In fact, there was a power in these Eastern
worships which no deistic monotheism was likely
to overcome. There may have been much sophistry
among the philosophers, much ignorant superstition
in all classes ; but the movement as a whole was a
vast advance on the old unspiritual religion of the
state. Aspirations to a higher life and cravings for
truecommunion with higher powers were things
unknown to the religion of Numa and these the ;
Eastern worships in measure satisfied.

their In
this they were all much of a muchness. Thus the
devout women who worshipped Isis were very like
the devout women of Roman Catholic countries.
With a good deal of running after fashions, a
little asceticism and much formalism and ignorance,
though probably much less bigotry, their religion
was in the main genuine and zealous, and often a
cleansing power in life.
In the second century the worships of Isis and
I40 CHURCH HISTORY CHAP.
Serapis were predominant, but that of Mithra

came to the front in the third.
There was a true
moral element in the worship of Mithra the all-
seeing, the author and protector of life, Mithra the
purifier, the giver of immortality. A great catholic
church of Mithra overspread the lands from Persia
to Britain, especially along the great rivers where
the legions lay. It had regular and irregular clergy,
ascetics and mendicant friars, and divers orders of
faithful men. It had regular divine service three
times daily, and a yearly round of festivals culminat-
ing in the Birthday of Mithra (Dec. 25), with
meetings for worship and processions of noisy
votaries. It had its mysteries too, and surrounded
them with the impressive splendour of stately rituals
and vested priests and blazing lights. It had a
catechumenate of fasting and preparation for a
sacrament of baptism, while the mystic seal of
Mithra marked on the candidate's brow, in token
of his promise to be a "soldier" of Mithra to his
life's But he refused the offered crown, for
end.
"Mithra was his crown." Then came a common
meal and sacrament of bread and water (afterwards
of wine) at the "holy table," in memory of the
last meal of Mithra here on earth, before the Sun's
bright chariot carried him away to heaven. It had
confession too, with penance and absolutions it ;
had sprinklings of holy water and anointings with

holy oil, and in uncouth lustrations of the blood
of bulls and goats it recognized a promise of re-
generation to life eternal.
What wonder if men preferred the magnificence
of Isis and Mithra to the beggarly worship of the
early Christians ? At last the divergent aspirations
of superstition and philosophy seemed to blend in

adoration of the all-seeing Sun as the worthiest
image of the Supreme. Mithra, Baal, Helios, Jupiter
— as men might chance to call him,
iroW&v ovo/judrcov /jLOp<f)rj /jua,
the Sun-god reigned in heathenism, and gathered round

him all the failing powers of the ancient world to
final battlewith the power that is not of this world.
In the sign of King Sun the last heroes of heathenism
from Aurelian to Julian went forth to battle and ;
Constantine himself took many years to learn that

the Sun -god's cross of light is not the cross of
Christ.
We may
draw a veil over the hideous immoralities
often mixed up with the worship of Mithra, worthily
represented in the doings of the emperor El Gabal.
They were but the old abominations of Baal and
Ashtoreth in the plain of Aven. Mithraism had too
much disorder and indiscipline, too much asceticism
and quackery, too much trust in outward forms, to be
other than largely immoral in practice, though its tone
seems to have improved in the fourth century. Even
itstheory will not bear comparison with the Gospel.
Mithraism was indeed a stately tree but it welcomed ;
every unclean and hateful bird to shelter in its

branches. Mithra was not a jealous god, and
allowed his votaries to practise any foul worships
alongside of his own.^ The very grandeur of
Mithraism was a fatal weakness, for it never was
able to make the Supreme stand out clear from the
crowd of lesser gods who seemed to swell his train.
1
Thus the Tauroholia belonged rather to the worship of the Magna
Mater.
It had no effective principle of unity, but was

practically little more than a confused agglomeration
of all the superstitions, quotquot toto orhe coluntur.
Above all, between Christ and Mithra is the gulf
of death. It is historically evident that the power
of the Gospel is in the cross of Christ ; and just this
was wanting in Mithraism. Whenever the wise men
of the world were pleased to construct a Gospel, they
always left out this —
and they were quite rio-ht
in doing is no sin of the world which
so, if there
needs to be taken away. If Mithra has his Last
Supper, he ascends to heaven straightway after it.
Can we wonder that the Unconquered Sun went
down before the Galilean ?
But the fullest illustration of the
scandal of the
cross may
be found in the Life of Apollonius, written
by Philostratus at the command of Julia Domna. It
is practically the Gospel rewritten to satisfy such
objections as those of Celsus and that it was more
:
or less intended for something of the sort seems

hardly Apollonius is not a Jewish
doubtful.^
carpenter,but a well-born Greek who learns his
wisdom (so far as he needs to learn it) in the
approved way, from the sages of India and Ethiopia.
He knows the thoughts of men, and (unlike Christ)
is continually predicting the fortunes of those he
meets. Many of his miracles read almost like those
of Jesus of Nazareth ; but they are not told in the
bald way of the Evangelists they are decked out
:
with an immense amount of elegant rhetoric. But

the most striking contrast is in the closing scenes.
Apollonius is not betrayed by a false disciple (as if
he could not have seen through a Judas) but accused

^ So in fact it was used by Hierocles in the Great Persecution.
xviii THE EASTERN EMPERORS 143
like Socrates by enemies before Domitian, and allows

himself to be shaved and put in fetters. In prison
he takes his feet out of the fetters for a moment to
shew Damis that he can do it, and sends him on to
meet him at Dicaearchia. At the trial he rebukes
Domitian in open court, and when challenged to save
himself by miracle, vanishes before the eyes of all the
grandees of Rome. In the evening he appears to
Damis at Dicaearchia, and soon afterwards mysteri-
ously disappears from the earth. This at once recalls
the objection of Celsus, that Jesus ought to have
vanished from the cross, and Origen's reply, that if
it had been so written, Celsus would have objected
again, that he ought to have vanished before. Both

in statements and omissions, the contrast of the Life
of Apollonius with the Gospels is the contrast of
heathen pride and rhetoric with the simple truth-
fulness and insight of the Christian writers.
The Eastern frontier of the Empire was insecure

through most of the third century. Parthia was
dangerous even when she was torn by civil war, and
the restored Persian kingdom (from 226) was for two
generations an overmatch for Rome. Besides this,
the peoples beyond Mount Taurus were restless, from
Armenia to Egypt, and some were willing to look
eastward for deliverance from Rome. Things did
not settle down till after the peace of 297. Caracalla
dealt with the situation in his own vigorous way.
First he cowed Egypt with a great massacre at
Alexandria; then he seized Abgar bar Manu of
Edessa by treachery, and made a province of his
kingdom then he captured Vologaeses of Armenia,
;
and sent him prisoner to Rome. By this time he

was involved in war with Parthia but he could ;

^
not do much more than desecrate the tombs of the

Parthian kings at Arbela before he was assassinated by
the craft of the Praetorian Praefect Macrinus (Apr. 8,
217). As the other Praefect Oclatinius Adventus
refused the purple, Macrinus was hailed emperor.
M. Opellius Macrinus was a Mauritanian of low
birth and moderate ability. He suffered a great
defeat from the Parthians, and had to obtain peace
by payment of a great sum of money, and on
conditions which practically meant the surrender of
Armenia. His policy however was wise and healing.
He stopped the prosecutions, and endeavoured to
reform the army. But instead of disbanding the
soldiers, he kept them in winter quarters in Syria,
and they grew disaffected. Julia Domna sought a
voluntary death after the fall of her house, but her sister
Julia retired to Emesa with her two daughters,
Maesa
Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea, and their two
young and Alexianus, the future em-
sons, Bassianus
perors El Gabal (Heliogabalus) and Severus Alexander.
Bassianus the son of Soaemias held the family priest-
hood of El Gabal, the Sun-god of Emesa and his ;
handsome form was very much admired. So when a

rumour was spread (and Maesa proved it with golden
arguments) that he was really the son of Caracalla,
the idol of the soldiers, they caught it up with en-
thusiasm, and proclaimed him emperor. Macrinus
fled like Antonius at Actium, in the crisis of a hard-
fouo-ht battle, and El Gabal reigned in his stead.
To the student of church history El Gabal is
^
Dio Ixxviii. 1 and Herodian iv. agree that he demanded the daughter
of Artabanus with a view to annexing Parthia. The great massacre ascribed
to him by Herodian is quite in character with him but the silence of Dio
;
seems fatal.
a man of special interest, because he is the first

emperor with a definitely religious policy. Augustus
found religion a useful support for the state but El :
Gabal sought first the kingdom of Baal. His mother

was a Jezebel for whoredoms in the palace, and he
was himself a very saint of the foul Canaanite sort.
He was the priest of El Gabal, and valued the
empire of the world only as a means of bringing all
men to the worship of his god. In this he was a
precursor of Constantine, who would certainly have
been glad to see the whole world Christian. Of
course there is difierence enough between the third
and fourth centuries, between Christianity and Syrian
Sun-worship, between Constantine and a vicious boy,
though they had the same general aim of making
an Eastern worship supreme. Therefore there was a
difi"erence in their methods. Constantine stood for
monotheism and for virtue, denouncing idols and
destroying immoral temples, but officially respectful
to heathenism, and only committed to Christianity
on his deathbed. El Cabal's was a frantic syncretism.
He brought the sacred relics of Rome, the palladium
itself included, to the splendid temple of the Sun-god
on the Palatine, married him with infinite pomp to
the Ashtoreth (Juno Caelestis) of Carthage, and
placed all Olympus in subjection to him.
the gods of
Constantine avoided Rome, and never lost the respect
of the army El Gabal flaunted his Syrian super-
:
stition before the Senate, and exhibited his unmanly

abominations to the soldiers. Roman pride revolted
against a Caesar who wore the diadem and demanded
Eastern adoration ; and Roman decency was shocked
by the enormities of a fouler beast than Commodus
or Nero. The army became restive. At first they
VOL. II L
^;
were with removing the vile creatures who

satisfied
" made him a greater fool than he was already " ;
but when he provoked a fresh mutiny, they killed

him as incorrigible (March 222).
The Christians remained in peace, for El Gabal
had little to do with them. Even the legend-mongers
have resisted the temptation to turn him into a bloody
persecutor. A single saying connects him with them.
He said that the religion of the Jews and the
Samaritans, and the worship of the Christians, ought
to be transferred to the temple of the Sun- god.
This may have been meant for a friendly invitation
but it is enough to shew that El Gabal would soon
have come to persecution, if the Christians had been
unfortunate enough to attract his serious attention.
Alexianus and Mamaea contrast brightly with El
Gabal and Soaemias. No scandal taints Mamaea's
fame and hardly another of the long line of emperors
;
is as amiable as the unfortunate Severus Alexander
— for this was the imperial title given to Alexianus.

He was not fourteen so he grew up under the
;
guidance of Mamaea and the Senate and they must ;
have governed fairly well, for the years of regency

were years of peace. In fact, the senatorial restora-
tion lasted to the end of Alexander's reign, for he did
everything in concert with the Senate and its com-
mittees, and gave an important share in the conduct
it
of affairs. Alexander's high sense of duty is like that

of Marcus, and there is a touch of pedantry in it,
though he was no Stoic. A gracious and kindly

sovereign he was implacable only to thieves and
;
peculators, and to the creatures of " the unclean
^ Vita Heliog. 3 Jud. et Sam. religiones et Christianam devotioiiem. The

change of word may possibly be significant.
beast," as he called El Gabal. Nor did his high

literary culture make him any the less a brave and
hardy soldier, thoughMarcus he was a poor
like
general. His chief public weakness was his too open
dependence on his mother, for he was neither remiss
with the army nor wanting in moral courage. On
the contrary, his discipline was only too severe and ;
his severity seems to have helped his ruin. Yet after

all it was rather the violence of weakness than the
firmness of strength, for it did not keep order. The

soldiers fought with the citizens for days together in
the streets of Kome, and slaughtered the Praefect
Ulpian in the emperor's own presence and he could ;
not punish the murderer without making him governor

of Egypt in order to get him away from Eome.
Alexander could retrench the squanderings of El
Gabal ; but he was not the born ruler needed to
restore the discipline of the army destroyed by
Severus and Caracalla, and such chance as he had
was ruined by his failure in the Persian war. His
end is obscure the one thing certain is that he
:
perished with his mother in a mutiny near Mainz

(March 235).
Severus Alexander contrasted as a Eoman with El
Gabal and his foreign superstitions. The black stone
went back to Emesa, the image of Juno Caelestis was
restored to Carthage, the palladium returned to the
keeping of the Vestals —
if it had ever left their
keeping, for they boasted of having given El Gabal a

counterfeit. Alexander's was blame-
ofiicial religion
less, for he went up weekly to the Capitol, and was
often at the temples but his personal devotion was

;
given rather to the saints and heroes of the past. In

his private chapel, along with the deified emperors,
— a
were statues of Apollonius, of Christ, of Abraham,

of Orpheus, and of others like them and these he ;
devoutly worshipped every morning.^

Alexander was genuinely religious, though his
eclecticism was not quite of the usual sort. When
cooks and Christians disputed a piece of waste ground,
he awarded it to the Christians, on the ground that
any sort of divine worship ^ was better than a cook-
shop. If he is no Christian, he knows something
about the Christians, and takes a friendly interest in
their religion. We have got a long way from the one
contemptuous allusion of Marcus to their " mere
obstinacy." Christianity is now too strong for a
conspiracy of silence, though it is still ignored by
Dio, and even by Macrobius at the end of the fourth
century. Hippolytus addresses an Exhortation to the
empress Severina, probably the Vestal Julia Aquilia
Severa, married and divorced by El Gabal.^ Origen
was sent for by Mamaea at Antioch (rather 232 than
218) and stayed with her for some time. Alexander
cannot have seen much of martyrs, though the
legends give him a few, including St. Cecilia. One
"
"
saying he learned from Jews or Christians What
thou wouldst not have done to thyself, do not thou to
—
another he often used himself, and often chose for
when punishments were going
the crier's proclamation
on. So too he posted up the names of intended
governors and invited objections to them, saying it
was a scandal that Jews and Christians did this in
^ Vita Alex. 29 si facultas esset, id est, si non cum uxore cubuisset —

curious touch of asceticism in the genial Alexander.
- ib. 49 melius esse, ut quemMmmodiimcumque illic deus colatur. Rather
a god than God.
^ The Syriac Fragments are k'dd m'? {irpbs Mafx/j-alav) but there is no
evidence that Mamaea had the name Severina. See Caspari Quellen 392-3.
the ordination of their priests, while it was not done
at the appointment of governors, to whom the lives

and fortunes of men were entrusted. The Christians
flourished in the palace, and flattered themselves (at
least in the next generation) that Alexander was one
of themselves.
The mutiny in which Alexander perished was the
signal for half a century of confusion. The new
emperor was a soldier like Septimius Severus, but
without a vestige of culture. C. Julius Verus
Maximinus (235-238) was a rude Thracian peasant,
the son of a Gothic father and an Alan mother.
Strange tales are told of his gigantic size and
strength ^ and there must have been some founda-
;
tion for them. Maximin owed his first promotion

to Severus, kept honourably aloof from the usurper
Macrinus and the vile El Gabal, and proved himself
one of Alexander's best generals. Of his reign we
have none but hostile accounts yet a bitter enemy
:
admits that he " sometimes did justice," and tells us

how he refused Eastern adoration in the true old
Koman style. " The gods forbid that a free man
should kiss my feet." His rough manliness contrasted

well with Alexander's culture and El Gabal's vileness.
If he never came to Rome like a civilized emperor, he
smote the Germans with such a destruction as kept
the Rhine fairly quiet for the next twenty years.
But he was nothing more than a good soldier. Both
his position and his own character urged him to reverse
the policy of Alexander, and therefore to pamper the
soldiers like Caracalla, and to govern by cruelty and
terror. The Senate accepted him only because they
^ Thus we need not believe that he commonly drank five gallons of wine
and ate forty (sometimes sixty) pounds of meat.
;
ISO CHURCH HISTORY chap.
were not able to fight him. They hated him from

the first for his barbarian birth and general rusticity,
and he despised them for culture and cowardice.
Herodian and Capitolinus are no doubt unfair to him
but there can be no question that Maximin was bad
enough at best, and that well-grounded suspicion
made him a savage tyrant.
To the Christians he could not but be hostile.
True, he had little of the aristocrat's contempt for
them, perhaps no serious policy of any sort but he ;
hated all men who had been in favour with Alexander.

Yet he did not raise a bloody persecution. We hear
of no executions. We are told that Pontianus and
Hippolytus (apparently the rival bishops of Rome)
were exiled to the malarious island of Sardinia, and
that Pontianus, and apparently Hippolytus also, died
there. Wesomething more from Origen's
learn
Exhortatio ad martyrium. His friends Ambrosius
and Protoctetus were arrested but the former at any ;
rate seems to have escaped without losing even his

property. There were also the usual outrages, as
when the mob revenged an earthquake on the
Christians by burning their churches and there was ;
a persecution inCappadocia under the praeses

Serenianus. For these however Maximin was not
directly responsible. His own attack was limited to
the officials ^
of the churches and this is significant
:
of a change in the character of persecution. Hitherto

^ Eus. vi. 28 Ma^Lfuvos . . Kara k6top tov irpbs rbv 'AXe^dvdpov oIkov ck
irXeibvtav iricTTCov avvedrHbTa, diooy/xov iyelpas, rods tQiv iKK\T]cnu>p apxovras
ixbvovs cos airiovs rrjs /card to evayyeXiov dibacrKoXias dvaipeicrOaL irpoardTTei..
Neumann {Rom. Staat 211) shews from the usage of Eus. that these HpxovTes
are not the bishops only, but the clergy generally. Thus Maximin was the
precursor of Decius in his particular attack on the clergy, which Valerian
and Diocletian (each in his second edict) developed into special measures
against them.
the clergy had run no greater danger than others,

except in so far as that they were likely to be better
known than others : henceforth they were deliberately
singled out for attack. As Severus had struck at the
converts, so now Maximin and his successors struck at
tlie clergy.
But it soon ceased to matter what Maximin did or
left undone. Early in 238 there was a rising in
Africa in favour of the old proconsul Gordian, which
the Senate hailed with delight. It was put down as
soon as the third legion marched on Carthage from
Lambaesis ; but now
the Senate was committed to a
struggle and death with Maximin.
of life The
empress strove in vain to mediate. Maximin was
devoted more majoriim to the infernal gods, his
creatures in Rome were butchered, and the defence of
Italy was organized. So ably was this done that we
can hardly mistake the generalship of the princeps
senatus, the future emperor Valerian. Two emperors
were chosen, Pupienus and Balbinus, the one a rough
soldier of low birth, to conduct the war, the other an
elegant senator for civil affairs. Military and civil
powers were at last divided as the Senate always
wished to divide them and no practical change was
;
made when the army in Rome insisted on adding to

them young Gordian, the proconsul's grandson, a boy
of fourteen, as a third emperor. Maximin came
down on Italy, breathing revenge and slaughter but ;
the country was laid waste before him, Aquileia held

out stoutly, and before long the hardships of the
campaign led to a mutiny. Maximin was killed by
his own soldiers.
The Senate did not long enjoy its victory. Within
three months another mutiny carried off Pupienus
and Balbinus, and young Gordion reigned alone (238-

244). The reign is obscure, for here ends the
narrative of Herodian, and here begins a gap reaching
to the capture of Valerian in the Historia Augusta.
As we hear nothing of Gordian's dealings with the
Christians, we may safely take it that he troubled
himself very little about them. The one outstanding
fact is that hiswant of success in the Persian war
enabled his Praejectus Praetorio Philip to supplant
him (early in 244).
M. Julius Philippus (244-249) was the son of an
Arab sheikh, and is the last of the Oriental emperors.
Nearly all his successors came from the Illyrian
countries where the legions of the Danube were
recruited. His reign also is obscure. We hear of a
few mutinies and rival emperors but the chief new ;
feature of it is the increasing pressure of the Goths on

the Danube, and its only conspicuous event is the
magnificent festival of the thousandth year of Kome
in 248. To the Christians he was so friendly that
rumours arose that he was a Christian himself They
are mentioned a dozen years or so after his death by
Dionysius of Alexandria,^ and later by Eusebius,
though neither seems to warrant them and here the :
silence of Eusebius is decisive, for he knew the letters

of Origen to Philip and his wife Otacilia Severa,
which must have made it quite clear whether the
emperor was Christian or heathen. Considering the
eagerness of the Christians to claim every emperor as
friendly, it was only natural that a friendly emperor
who corresponded with Origen should be claimed as a
convert. Philip was certainly not baptized : and if
^ ap. Eus. vii. 10 ol XexO^vres dvacpavdop Xpi<Triavol yeyovivai. cannot mean

any but Alexander and Philip.
we do not entirely reject the story told by Eusebius

and Leon tins ^
of his exclusion from the church by
Babylas at Antioch for the murder of Gordian, we
cannot accept it in anything like this form. Philip
was a heathen in his official action and if curiosity :
led him to the church at Easter, the simple fact that

he was not baptized would explain his exclusion from
the more solemn parts of the service.
Here then we see Christianity almost on the steps
of the throne : the heathen reaction is yet to come.
^ Eus.
V. 34. Leontius in Chron. Pasch 503 Bonn. Eus. begins Karixî
X670J,and names neither Antioch nor Babylas. Chrysostom (who wrote at
Antioch) names Babylas, but not Philip.
Books
Reville Jean Religion a Rome sous les Siveres Paris 1886 ;
Neumann K. J.
Staat u. Kirche Ms auf Diocletian Bd. I (all publ.) Leipz. 1890 Cumont ;
Textes et Monuments 1896 (for Mithraism) Robinson J. A. Perpetua in Texts

;
and Studies; Bigg C. Neoplatonism ; The Church's Task in the Roman

Empire Dill S. Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius Fuchs C.
; ;
Gesch. des Kaisers L. Septimius Severus Wien 1884 Schultz 0. Der romische
;
Kaiser Caracalla Leipz. 1909 Canney Ajjollonius in Hastings' B.R.S. and

;
Ethics Cumont Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism 1911.

;
CHAPTER XIX
THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA
The relation of Alexandria to Greece is like that of

Constantinople to Rome, as her greatest colony, and
nearly her last. In his choice of a site, the genius of
Alexander may rival that of Constantine. Alexandria
lay near the Canopic mouth of the Nile, on a tongue
of land between Lake Mareotis and the sea. Opposite
was the Pharos Island, connected with the city by a
huge mole nearly a mile long, with a port on each
side. It was the largest commercial city of the East.
Antioch might nearly equal it in size and surpass it
in the beauty of its situation and the splendour of
its buildings, though all Syria could shew nothing
to match the mighty pile of the Serapeum. But

nowhere in the wide world could so vast and multi-
farious a crowd be found of traders and sailors and
craftsmen of every sort. If most of them were
Greeks, Jews or Egyptians, hardly a language spoken
under heaven was missing from the Babel of the
quays of Alexandria. She had many a merchantman
carried by the monsoons to India, and many a great
corn-ship sailing into Italy.Her commerce ranged
from Barygaza to the Pillars. Her populace was
the most turbulent in the Empire as scurrilous as
;
that of Antioch, but with an Egyptian savagery

154
;
CH. XIX THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA 155
of own. Caracalla's great massacre in 216 was

its
not unprovoked. Heathen Alexandria tore in pieces

Philopator's concubines Christian Alexandria tore
;
in pieces bishop George and the philosopher Hypatia.

The mob was always ready for murderous outrage
— to hunt the Jews in Caligula's time, to lynch
the Christians in Philip's days, to slaughter prisoners
in the siege of the Serapeum under Theodosius. The
herdsmen of the Delta were hardly less ferocious
once they cut up and ate a Roman centurion and :
similar doings were not unknown in the religious

feuds of the cities further up the Nile.^ So the
government had to keep a jealous eye on Egypt,
for Eome depended on her corn supplies. Augustus
gave her no lordly senator as legatus, but a mere prae-
fectus of equestrian rank, and allowed no senator
to set foot in the province without permission,
Egypt was Caesar's business only. Under stricter
administration there was less room for lawless riots
against the Christians, so that the tumults in Philip's
time (248) are the more ominous of the coming
Decian reaction. Meanwhile philosophy and learning
flourished from the first round the great Library of
Alexandria and the college of the Museum with the
Fellows who ate at its table. In the Greek age the
learning of the ancient world was fairly summed up
at Alexandria by Eratosthenes and Aristarchus, and
in Roman times by Ptolemy and Athenaeus. The
tradition of learning was worthily continued on the
heathen side by Ammonius Saccas (Plotinus rather
belongs to Rome) and Hypatia on the Christian by
;
Clement and Origen, Athanasius and Cyril and its ;
last traces only died away with John Philoponus in

^ Ombi and Tentyra Juv. Sat. xv.
the sixth century. So long was Alexandria a chosen

home of learning. And if thought was free through-
out the Empire for those who conformed to the
Koman ceremonies, it was nowhere more expansive
than at Alexandria. Greece had thrown open her
doors to the world, and even barbarian religions
were eagerly discussed in the cosmopolitan city by
the Nile.
The early history of the church in Alexandria is
obscure. It claimed St. Mark

for its founder but ;
we have no on the matter. However,

clear evidence
the Gospel made rapid progress in the busy turmoil
of this " ant-hill of men," and was more than usually
influenced by the heathen thought around it. Thus
Alexandria was a natural centre for Gnosticism. It
was the home of Basilides, of Carpocrates, of Valen-
tinus. They seemed to have made the church their
own :yet from the church of Alexandria came
the movement which conquered Gnosticism. We
must look back to the beginning to see what that
movement was.
When am the way, the

Christ our Saviour says, I
truth and the he claims to be himself the way in
life,
which all must walk, the truth for which all must
seek, the life by which all must live. Hard as the
saying is, it cannot mean less than this. He must
be served with mind as well as heart and soul, if he
is not only a teacher of truth, but himself the final
truth which informs and constitutes all truth in
heaven and earth. Thus the Gospel is theoretical as
well as practical, though most of all a power of life.
It had an intellectual element from the first. The
inquirer needed some intellectual effort even to follow
;
XIX THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA 157
the story of the Saviour's life, or to get some notion
of the Trinity whose name he desired to be

in
baptized. So much teaching as this was needed for
the humblest applicant. But if this was as much as
the officials of the church were bound to give to all,
individuals here and there would feel called on like
Aquila and Priscilla to expound the way of God
—
more perfectly to some and they were quite free to
do it, for there was no idea yet that only the clergy
ought to be teachers. It was but an outcome of the
missionary zeal inseparable from healthy Christian
life. So Christian teachers gathered scholars round
them like the heathen philosophers. In some places
no very advanced teaching might be needed but at ;
Alexandria the inquirer would sometimes be a culti-

vated student like Pantaenus or Clement, whose
questions might touch the deepest mysteries of the
Gospel. In this case the teacher also would have to
be a cultivated student, a match for the literary men
of the Museum. Hence the school tended to assume
a literary form, and seems to have had no official
connexion with the clergy till it was taken up by
bishop Demetrius in 203.^
Four times in four distant ages the truth of Christ
has had to be defended from a great and deadly
enemy inside his church. Each time the Spirit of
Christ has pointed away from a church entangled
in traditionalism to the living voice of Scripture
and each time fresh strength has come from a fresh
So de Faye CUm. d'Alex. He points out (a) how Clement p. 322 had
^
to " hunt out his Sicilian bee (Pantaenus) hidden in Egypt " {iv My. drjpdaas
XeXrjdora) — which seems to shew that he was not an official teacher, {b) the
informal way in which the restored school in 202 gathered round Origen, as
the first capable teacher the heathen inquirers could meet with.
These considerations seem to shew that the school arose in an informal
way. Similar needs gave rise to similar schools at Antioch, Edessa, Caesarea.
revelation of the ever -living Person of whom

Scripture speaks. The first of these crises was the
contest with Gnosticism, second that with
the
Arianism the;Reformation was the third the fourth ;
is the great scientific controversy opened by the

Deists, which seems gathering to its hottest battle in
our own time. In every age of revolution God is
putting forth to the world some new revelation and ;
the church that will not receive it —

from that church
shall be taken even that it hath. It may keep its
worldly pomp, its priests may be as gods, its state-
craft a marvel to the world but its life is gone. To

;
the second century was given a wider view of Christ

which hallowed all knowledge to the fourth a higher
;
view of Christ in the divine fulness of his eternal

Sonship to the sixteenth a nearer view of Christ as
;
dealing singly with us all, not through some infallible

human authority and now to the twentieth century
;
is borne a deeper view of Christ as not the giver and
revealer only, but the personal ground of truth and

law in earth and heaven. Thus the School of
Alexandria marks the first of the four great returns
to Christ which have kept his church a living power
to this day.
Its central thought was already given by St. Paul
to the Colossians — that all aspirations are fulfilled in
Christ. Though the false teachers at Colossae are
Judaizers, not Gnostics, they shew us the ideas from
which Gnosticism arose in the next oreneration. Like
the more earnest of the Gnostics, they had a deep sense
of the fulness of God, of the greatness of the chasm
between God and man, of the need of knowledge, of
the duty of rising to the unseen. All this was good
and true but they went wrong through forgetting
;
that it is all fulfilled He it is who

in Christ already.
God and fills the chasm without
reveals the fulness of
the help of angels. In him all the treasures of
knowledge are hidden, and in him we can rise to
the unseen without an ascetic " philosophy," which
indeed is valueless to check the carnal nature.^
This is the general answer of the Gospel to
Gnosticism and the thoughts allied to it in every age,
and the Alexandrians had only to work it out with
reference to the particular needs of their own time.
The problem, as we have seen, always involves the
relation of the Gospel to the current ideas of religion
and philosophy and at the end of the second century
;
this was necessarily a Greek problem. Christendom

was by this time chiefly Greek, for the Latin churches
of the West were in their infancy, and the Syrian
churches eastward had sunk into outliers of the central
mass and both Latins and Syrians leaned on Greek
;
thought. Greek was the language of commerce, and

Christianity moved on the lines of commerce, so that
all the leading churches, Carthage excepted, were
Greek. Education (except in law) was wholly Greek
in method and mostly Greek in substance, so that
literature in the second century was almost entirely
Greek, except in Roman Africa. Philosophy also wâs
Greek, for Kome shewed no originality in that
direction. Cicero adapted Panaetius, the emperor
Marcus put down his private thoughts in Greek.
The Latins had a hard struggle with their stiff un-
spiritual language before they could even formulate
their faith in terms of Koman law. The Greeks on
the other hand had cultivated philosophy for centuries,
and wielded a language of unrivalled subtlety and
1 Col. ii, 23 (Lightfoot).
i6o CHURCH HISTORY chap
precision. If it had lost something of its elegance

and classic purity since the great days of Athens, it
had gained in richness and was as flexible as ever.
Like English in our own time, which has lost some-
thing of its Elizabethan strength and dignity, it tended
to simpler constructions and shorter sentences, and
was therefore all the better fitted to be the common
language of culture all over the Empire. It was
historically unavoidable that the old balance of
Israelite and Greek and Roman should be as distinctly
overweighted by the Greek in the second century as
by the Latin in the thirteenth only, the mistakes —
of the Greeks were somewhat less disastrous.
The Gospel was helped even more by the crumbling
of the Greek mythology than by the crumbling of the
Greek language. The Greeks had always drawn gods
and men together, and in doing so they were more
right than they knew but they so mismanaged their
;
theology that if the world was full of gods, the gods

were full of human weakness and human vice. There
might have been something divine in the idea of gods
From above
Descending to enjoy our mortal love.
Did not the Lord himself enjoy, and promise to

reward the love of those who had continued with him
in his temptations ? But the Greeks were thinking
of sense :the legends which joined gods and men in
lawless amours were utterly debasing. They were a
scandal to serious men from Xenophanes onward, and
gave the man in the street his excuse for ''
thinking
that lust is godliness." ^
Their demoralizing influence
is no way exaggerated by the Apologists. Again,
^ Clem. Al. Protr. p. 53.

XIX THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA i6i
the consecration of tlie dead to deity may imply some

recognition that benevolence and self-sacrifice are not
lessdivine than the intellect and beauty which the
Greeks were now more ready to worship/ Every
now and then it may have been so, for the heroes are
sometimes better than the gods. But the deification
of living men did as much as the legends to debase
the idea of God to the level of common sinners. It
is positively lower than beast - worship ; for if the
beasts were the likeness of gods, they were not
commonly supposed to be themselves gods as the men
were. Besides, as Clement says on behalf of the
Egyptians, " Even if they are beasts, they are at any
rate free from " the foulest vices of men.^ The custom
was old enough but
in the in East
Greece it was ;
very significantly begun by the deification of Lysander

after the fall of 403 B.C. Plato replied by
Athens in
sharply separating the gods from the world of practical
things and in this the later philosophers mostly
;
followed him, for the God whom the Stoics brought

back into the world was not in the image of man, but
a mere personification of Fate. But the current of
political servility and vulgar flattery was too strong
for the philosophers, so that deification soon became
a cheap compliment for the great. Home understood
better than the Greeks Homer's old problem of the
difference between gods and men, for deus is a much
more definite word than 6e6^, though she too had
deified legendary kings. But Komulus was the last
of them, and she never deified the heroes of the
^ Well put by Firmicus Maternus de err ore Prof. Rel. 7, amat enim
Graecorum leuitas eos qui sibi aliquid contulerint uel qui consilio aut uirtute
se iuverint diuinis appellare nominihus, et sic ah ipsis heneficiorinn gratia
repensatur, ut deos dicant, dees esse credant, qui sibi aliquando profuerint.
^ Clem. Al. Protr. p. 33 et Koi drjpla, dW oi) iioixi-i^^ k.t.X.
VOL. II M
1 62 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
republic. Flamininus was a god in Greece but;
Scipio was no more than a man at Eome, and even

Sulla was only Felix, not Augustus. So Eome
followed slowly, and in the main reserved the honour
to the emperor alone of living men, for in him her
glory was incarnate. A few of his near relations
might have that glory reflected on them but the ;
worship of a mere favourite like Antinous was rather

Eastern and Greek than Roman. That of the emperor
himself was doubtless fashion but it was also a
;
genuine worship sustained by a real belief If deifica-

tion was pressed on the dictator Caesar by a servile
senate, it was almost forced on his successors by the
grateful provinces. Now if this characteristically
Greek confusion of men with gods, and of the worship
due to God with the honour due to men, became the
greatest of hindrances to the Gospel, the truth which
underlay it proved one of its greatest helps, because
the Greeks were prepared to see the possibility of the
Incarnation, and to realize the old gospel of Genesis,
In the image of God made he man, on which the
revelation through Christ, and in the end all knowledge
whatever depends. For this reason the Greeks were
able to deal much better with the problem than the
Latins. If they never quite got over Plato's error of
resolving sin into ignorance, they at least began at
the right end, with the sinless man and not with
fallen men, and from the eternal deeps of Wisdom
rather than from the intruder and destroyer Sin.
We may now trace the life and work of Clement
at Alexandria. Origen represents a further develop-
ment, and is best reserved for a later chapter.
Athenagoras the Apologist is said to have been
the first great Alexandrian teacher but a story
;
which on the authority of Philip of Side is at

rests
best doubtful. We are on firm ground when we come
to Pantaenus {cir. 180) though even of him we know
but little. He may have been a Sicilian by birth ^ ;
but in any case his heathen training was that of a

Stoic philosopher. At one time he went to preach
in "India" —
a term loosely used of almost any
country that could be reached by way of the Eed
Sea —where he is said to have found Christians
already settled, with a Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew
brought to them by the apostle Bartholomew. His
writings have perished almost to the last fragment,
and of his work at Alexandria we know little more
than that Clement was his pupil and the teacher of :
Clement must have been a man of power.

Titus Flavins Clemens was a Greek, apparently an
Athenian, and may have been a descendant of some
freedman of Flavins Clemens the cousin of Domitian,
consul in 95. A son of heathen parents, born cir. 150,
he searched for truth in sundry lands, wandering from
Greece to Southern Italy, and thence in the East,
and studied under divers teachers before he lighted
on the and best of them lying hidden at
last
Alexandria, where he " hunted out the true Sicilian
Bee " Pantaenus.^ Here then at Alexandria he settled
down as a teacher and became a presbyter of the
church, and here he did his life's work, not leaving
the city till he had trained the still greater Origen,
who was to take his place. His life was that of a
quiet student, which gives little scope for a biographer.
We do not even know whether he had a wife. But
1 Clement
p. 322 St/ceXt/cTj t(^ 6vtl tj fiiXirra. But it may be no more
than a metaplior.
2 Clem. Alex. p. 322. The allusion is almost certainly to Pantaenus.
when the terror of persecution returned in 202, and

the school was scattered, and he saw martyrs falling
round him he had no call of duty to remain at
daily,
Alexandria. A
few years later, about 211, his old
friend Alexander of Jerusalem mentions him as still
living in a letter to Origen, and perhaps later still,
sends him to the church of Antioch with a letter of
congratulation on the election of its new bishop
Asclepiades. After this we hear no more of him.
Clement has better than Pantaenus, for
fared
several of his writings are preserved the Protrepticus —
in one book to the heathen, the Paedagogus or Tutor
in three books for the ordinary Christian, and the
Stromateis or Miscellanies in eight for the Gnostic or
advanced Christian. To these must be added the
Quis dives salvetur, from which Eusebius quotes the
story of St. John and the brigand and the obscure ;
Excerpta ex Theodoto. These are all that need now

concern us.^ The work, says he, of the divine Logos
is to bring men by steps first out of heathenism to
the knowledge of Christ, then to the practice of right

living, then to the full knowledge of truth. First he
exhorts, then he trains, then he teaches. The
Protrepticus and the Tutor represent the first two
stages, but Clement never reached the third, for the
St7'omateis (or Carpet bags) is no book of doctrine.
Speaking roughly, for so rambling a work is not easily
described, it is on the training needed by the advanced
Christian for the teaching to follow. It corresponds
rather to the Tutor, which on the training of the
is
common Christian for his humbler station but it is ;
^ Only one other work by Clement is of any consequence — the 'Tirorvirwaeis

—
or Outlines, in at least seven books a commentary on the books of N.T.,
including Jude and the other Catholic Epistles, and adding Barnabas and the
Apocalypse of Peter. Fragments only : fullest account in Eus. vi. 14.
naturally thrown into a different form, and deals

more with character and principles, less with com-
mands and practice. In fact, it was an afterthought,
and rambled on to an unforeseen length. In the
sixth and seventh books he encroaches on his un-
written Third Part by drawing his portrait of the
ideal Christian, much as the Stoics used to draw
their portrait of the wise man. The eighth however
is a treatise on logic, which may have been meant to
form part of the doctrinal work, but in any case has
nothino; to do with the first seven books.
Clement is by no means a great writer, if greatness
requires a clear and definite system worked out with
logical thoroughness. In this respect he compares
badly with some of the Latins. Cyprian, for instance,
is clear and logical enough. Given his premises, there
is not much fault to be found with his conclusions.
He changed on the practical

indeed his position
question of the lapsi, and altered more than once
his practical measures accordingly but his theo- ;
logical system is in the main as clear and self-
consistent as Calvin's. From first to last it is
emphatically " definite teaching," whatever else it be.
Quite otherwise Clement's. He is very commonly a

hazy, and not always
little logical. He is not given
to the analysis of ideas, and accordingly falls into
sundry inconsistencies, occasionally even dehvering
downright contradictory opinions. After due allow-
ance for the intentional desultoriness and unfinished
condition of the Stromateis, which seems never to
have been finally revised, and for his eclectic and
therefore fragmentary and heterogeneous philosophy,
it must be admitted that Clement's mind is very far
from orderly. Again, his learning is great, though
—
much of it (like other learning of his time) is not first-
hand/ and it is a little too much for him, so that

there good deal of pure pedantry about his
is a
excellent advice on the conduct of life. Here also the
comparison is not to Clement's advantage. In a few-
cases Cyprian shews very bad taste but he scarcely ;
ever fails in practical good sense, or lets his learning

run away with him. The difference is that of the
lawyer from the academic teacher, of the man of the
world from the theorist.
For Clement is a student and a mystic, not a
practical statesman. He has a harder task than
Cyprian, for his thoughts are incomparably deeper,
and harder to form into a harmonious combination.
A logical system is easily constructed by forcing
everything into subordination to a single dogma, or
by putting a convenient quantity of truth into legal
form, and ignoring the rest. Any sect can do as
much as this ; and the narrower the shibboleth, the
better it serves the purpose. The difficulty begins
when we try to grasp the many-sided mystery.

Words and thoughts break down, and the vail of sin
is over us. Truth may be fully expressed in life, but not
in logical forms. We may have true knowledge but ;
the truth we apprehend in life we cannot comprehend

in words. Narrow thought may be perfectly clear;
but on the noblest a summer haze must always rest.
The logical completeness of a system is enough to
prove that it is not only imperfect as all thought
must be, but well satisfied with its imperfection
which is the note of Pharisaism in all ages.
Clement was a philosopher in the time of his
ignorance, and remained a philosopher when he had
^ Bigg Chr. Platonists p. 46. Bibliography in de Faye CUm. 312,
found like Justin true philosophy in Christ.

But he
is more of an apologist philosophy than Justin.
for
Earlier writers either left philosophy on one side or
strove to shew that the Gospel is consistent with it,
but piety had now taken alarm at the rise of Gnosticism
— a great and growing danger —
so that Clement was
in opposition to the general feeling of his own time.
He represents not the church even of Alexandria, but
the best thought inside the church. The Gnostics
had subordinated religion to philosophy, and with
such disastrous results that the simpler sort of
Christians would now have nothing to do with philo-
sophy or and looked on learning generally as
logic,
than a hindrance to piety.
little else In strength and
weakness, the average Christian of Alexandria was
not unlike the narrower Evangelical of a century ago.
He had the same reality, the same charity, the same
love of long dull services, the same strange enthusi-
asms, the same timid clinging to rule, the same
cowering terror of every new thought. From learn-
ing, says Clement, he abstained " like the beasts which
have no understanding." He feared it like the song
it should enchant him.
of the Sirens, lest Had not
St.Paul spoken meanly of the wisdom of the world,
and warned us against philosophy and vain deceit ?
What was the need of learning ? Would not bare
faith suffice ? Celsus hardly caricatures these men
when he represents the Christians as saying, Do not
examine only believe.
; Learning is a bad thing.
The greater the fool, the greater the sinner, the better
the convert he makes. If words like these are a

slander on Christ, they do no great injustice to the
Orthodoxasts of Alexandria. Western pietism was
even more cowardly, as we see from Tertullian's
argument that search for truth is a mere confession of

apostasy, because we found truth at our conversion
and have no need to seek further, unless we have lost
it again/ So limited and definite a thing does truth
seem to him.
Clement could deal fairly with this narrow fear,
for he recognized the truth behind it the supreme —
value of the revelation, and the real danger of sinking
it in philosophy like the Gnostics. He therefore
secures the supremacy of revelation at the outset, by
his definition of philosophy. He means by
no it
particular system, but allany school

doctrines of
*'
which teach righteousness and scientific knowledge
of piety." " He is himself an eclectic. His idea of
God is almost as much Platonic as Christian, his
doctrine of the Logos is deeply coloured by Philo, and
his morality floats between Christian love and Stoic

airdOeia.
He knows indeed quite well the imperfection of

philosophy. At best its guidance is but partial, for
only Christianity covers the whole of life. Moreover,
it is full of the devil's sowings. The Sophistic art
of which the Greeks are so proud is the wisdom of
the world against which St. Paul warns us ; for it is
careless of truth, and tends to rhetoric and strife.
Rightly did Plato call it an evil art, and Aristotle
complain that it undertook the whole work of wisdom

without doing it.^ The Greeks are hunters of phrases
and admirers of oratorical tricks. They go astray
after music, geometry, grammar and especially
^ Tert. Praescr. 8-11. This however is not his usual position. It is only
one of the mischievous sophisms of the de Praescr.
^ p. 338 5LKaL0(XTL)vif]v /xera, evaeôvs eiriaTi^/xrjs iKdiddaKovcra. Clement eared
only for the ethical side of philosophy.
rhetoric — they are bewitched with these servant-girls,

and neglect Philosophy their mistress.^ Clement
quite understands the faults of education in his own
time, though he is himself too much of a rhetorician
to escape them.
But of true philosophy for he does not count the —
ungodly Epicureans and such-like " tares " he always —
speaks with profound respect. Even w^here he does
not follow Plato, he counts him " something like
inspired," and never criticizes him. Plato himself

never held more firmly the first axiom of philosophy
— the supremacy of truth. " The true death is that
which separates the not from the body, but from
soul,
truth." No Christian writer before him, and few for
ages after him saw" so clearly the first postulate of
philosophy —the unity of truth in all its range.
" The way of truth is one, and into it as a never-
failing river flow the streams on either side."^ In
love of truth Clement is no whit behind the chiefest
of the heathen ; for the Lord had not borne witness to
the truth in vain. We
cannot go wrong, says he, if
we refer all good things to Providence, whether they
be Christian or heathen. Was not the skill of
Bezaleel the gift of God ?
^ Is not this wisdom mani-
fold ? ^ Now philosophy makes men is good, for it
good therefore it comes from God. To

: deny this is
almost to deny particular providence, and to make
the devil more benevolent than God. True, the law
was given direct from heaven but philosophy was :
equally given by God, though it was not given through

angels, but in the way of consequence from his
1 2 3
p. 330.
p. 332. p_ 331,
^ p. 331 iroKviroLKLXov tt]v coîav rod deov iroXvfiepus koI iroXvTpdirws 5id
riX^'qs, Sia e-maTrjfxrjs, dia irlarews, 8ia irpocp-qTelas, rrjv eavriji iydeiKvvfx^vrjv
duvafiiu eis t7]v riixeripav eiiepyeaiav.
primary was given to the Greeks

gift of reason. It
just as the law was given to the Jews/ to be

a train-
stepping-stone— for the
ing and a preparation— a
Gospel, so that it was a real revelation and a
justify-
ing' covenant with God, giving them a true knowledge

of him, even if it was a dim knowledge. Just as
common help towards Philosophy their

studies
mistress, so philosophy itself help towards
does
wisdom, for philosophy is the study of wisdom, and
wisdom is the knowledge of things divine and human,
and their causes. If then human learning has its
use in things divine, piety must be a
reasonable
Gnostics
service; so that Clement agrees with the
against Orthodoxasts in thinking that the
the
a
Gospel may be and ought to be presented in
philosophical form. The true Gnostic, he says, must
be a man of learning. If his own words ring differ-
ently from Scripture, he tells us' that they draw

life
and inspiration from Scripture and truly represent

its meaning.
So philosophical indeed is Clement that some have
done him the injustice of doubting whether he is not
more philosopher than Christian. The glowing
peroration of his Protrepticus ought to have made
that reproach impossible:^ yet his heart is more
1 ' p. 762. ' p. 829.

p. 823.
Christianity? E.Tr. 216. " We can still feel from
his
4 Harnack What is
absolutely steeped in speculative
writings that this scholar, although he was
to a boundless sea of
ideas and as a thinker reduced the Christian religion
of his being— won peace and joy from
'doctrines'— a Greek in every fibre
the Gospel, and he can also express what he has
won and testify of the power
It is as a new man that he appears, one
who has pressed
of the living God.
philosophy, through authority and speculation,
on through the whole range of
liberty of the children ot
through all the externals of religion, to the glorious
his doctrine of freedom,
God. His faith in Providence, his faith in Christ,
is expressed in language that betrays
the Greek, and
his ethics— everything
yet everything is new and genuinely Christian."
Christian than his reason. He starts from the

current philosophical conception of God as the highest
abstraction and simplicity, to be reached by removing
not only body parts and passions, but all relations
and He has no natural relation for instance
qualities.
to ourselves and the proof of his goodness is that he
;
cares for us notwithstanding, for we have nothing to

do with his essence or nature, but are simply creatures
of his will.^ Such a God ought to be utterly inscrut-
able but Clement does not see that this doctrine
:
flatly contradicts the Gospel. Were such the true

conception of deity, there could be no historic Incar-
nation. He is equally shocked by the Stoic doctrine
of God's immanence ''even in the basest matter,"
and by the Epicurean denial of any gods who care for
the world at all. Nay rather, God is good, as Plato

said. If he permits evil, he is not therefore its author
as the Gnostics maintained he would be, for the fault
of it is in ourselves. There is no predestination to
good or bad. The will is free both ways till it either
reaches the highest state in perfect following of grace,
or sinks to the lowest in perfect slavery to sin. We
sin as Adam sinned, and for the same reasons of
ignorance and fleshly weakness but our sin is no
;
way dependent on his. It is wholly our own fault,
and God is in no sense its author. But we must not

think with the Stoics — he might have added the Lord
himself —that God's virtue is like ours.^ If he is good,
he is not good by nature (for that would subject him
to necessity) he wills to be good.^
but because
Clement has not overcome like Athanasius the
dilemma, that we must choose between caprice and
fate.
1
p. 467. 2
p, 798. Cp. Matt. v. 48. * p. 855.
But given a purely transcendent Grod, he needs a

mediator of some sort to connect him with the
world. In the Timaeus of Plato the Soul of the
world partakes of both the ideal and the material
world. Some of the later Jews filled the gap with
angels, and most of the later philosophers filled it
with demons, as ministers on earth of the Supreme.
But Philo took up the Stoic doctrine of divine
forces working in the world, and identified them
with the Platonic ideas. Then he summed them
up in the Logos, which is the mind and will of
Grod, the creator and indwelling sustainer of the
world. The conception was more Platonic and Stoic
than Jewish, though it has points of contact with
the Old Testament and the Targums. But was
the Logos divine or creature, attribute or person ?
Philo wavers helplessly before the dilemma, that
if the Logos is God, he is a second God and if ;
not, then God acts himself after all. So he leaves

the question unsettled. The one thing certain is
that the Logos cannot be in any sense human.
Then comes St. John, starting not from the Greek
side, but from the Jewish ^n nidnd (Memra), which is
the medium of God's communication with men, and
sets the philosophers at defiance one and all by his
witness that the Logos was incarnate in Jesus of
Nazareth. Clement combines the philosophical
vagueness of Philo with the historical precision of
St. John but while Philo is thinking chiefly of
:
cosmology and metaphysics, Clement follows St.

John in looking on the Logos rather as the revealer
ofGod and the teacher and trainer and saviour of
—
men. His manhood is a little hazy Clement is not
free from docetism —but his premundane personality
;
is definite, and his work stands out clearly in the

gift of knowledge and immortality the Greek con- ^
—
ception of eternal life.
Clement was too much of a philosopher to dispute

the Gnostic distinction between knowledge and faith
but he accepted it with an important reserve. The
two were related as knowledge to opinion in Plato,
that is as reality to appearance. But whereas with
the Gnostics the reality had no organic relation to
the appearance, Clement held firmly to the historic
revelation, and allowed no speculation to tamper
with its Faith, he says,^ is the compendious
facts.
knowledge of essentials, and knowledge is the strong

and sure demonstration of what is received by faith.
It is a higher stage, for faith in Clement (unlike
St. Paul's) is a religion of hope and fear, whereas
knowledge works by love yet faith is necessary
:
for all men, and also sufficient. He quite overlooks

the inference, that a religion which is not of love
is enough for salvation —
much less does he deliber-
ately maintain it like the modern church of Rome.
Indeed he gives higher views of faith, as "a
deliberate anticipation or assent of piety," or as
" a power of God, being the force of truth." ^ These
come nearer to St. Paul but Clement wavers as ;
usual. The Tutor s training may be austere and

puritan, but it is not ascetic. Spiritual men are
not a select few " saved by nature," as the Gnostics
held. All that have put away sin are spiritual men,
for we were all enlightened in Baptism, and received
^ On Clemeut's doctrine of the Person of Christ Bigg Chr. Platonists
63-75. We need not here pursue it further.
2 p. 865.
^ p. 432 irpoXTjxf/LS eKovaios, deocreêias avyKarddeffis, quoting Hebr. xi. 1,
and p. —
434 Tpoaipiaeus KaTopdu/ma all Stoic words. So too p. 454.
the knowledge of God/ no doubt

The knowledge is
only in germ; but everything is in that germ, as

the tree is in the grain of mustard seed. He that
hath the Son hath already life eternal. There is
no such difference of children and perfect as the

Gnostics fancy. We are all children as being under
the Tutor's guidance, who trains the true Gnostic
with mysteries, the faithful with good hopes, the
impenitent with correction. Yet we are all perfect,
for we have all received the perfect gift. Every one
can *' philosophize," whether man or woman, child
or Greek or barbarian, learned or simple.
slave,
The youngest is not too young, and the oldest is
not past learning. Virtue is the same for all, and
every man of righteous purpose belongs to the
church.^
Knowledge must on faith
rest
— ye believe
" if
not, neither shall ye understand"^ — and be worked
out in life. It has to be won not by mystic trance
but by thoughtful toil, and perfected by patient
and earnest practice. " He that will enter the shrine

must be pure." Sin before baptism was done in
ignorance, and its forgiveness is the light given in
Baptism, by which we avoid sin for it is no true ;
repentance which needs often to ask forgiveness for

offending often. Though Clement seems nowhere
formally to discuss the doctrine of the Atonement,
he rightly sees that forgiveness has to root out sin,
not simply to remit its punishment. That punish-
ment indeed he regards like Plato as purely remedial.
It is for the good of him that is punished "it leads :
1
pp. 112, 116.
2 pp. 590, 899. Contrast the Latin extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
'^
Isa. vii. 9, Ixx.
to conversion, and desires rather the repentance of

the sinner than his death." ^
And he rightly sees
also that atonementnot needed to appease an is
angry God, but to give sinners full assurance of

his love, and strength to conquer sin. "Every-
where the barrier is not God's wrath, but man's
"^
impurity."
Thus the moral difiference of Clement's ideal
Gnostic from the ideal of the Gnostics is the differ-
ence of light and darkness. He was a false Gnostic
who taught that we are to overcome sin with sin, as
if we could live in sin without being defiled by sin.^
Even the common Christian of the Tutor avoids sin,

if only from fear ; and the true Gnostic has a higher
motive. Fear, says Clement, by which we abstain
from sin is the first stage of Christian life; then
comes hope, by which we aspire to the best things ;
and love is the final stage. We become Christian

by the first, Gnostic by the second, and the third
is Gnostic perfection,'^ for perfect love casteth out
fear. Knowledge not only purifies the heart, as
the Stoics tell us, but opens out the deep things
of Scripture, and gives a higher character to good-
ness. The true Gnostic's life is all prayer, though
not always uttered prayer, for he prays in all his
works; all virtue, for his every act is a moral
success ^ all steady progress beyond earthly passions
;
and desires, till he ceases not only to commit sin

but to feel temptation. His aim is not moderation
in them, but deliverance from them.^ At last nothing-
remains to disturb him but the bare needs of nature ;
1
pp. 139, 764. 2 Bigg Qf^j,^ Platonists 74.
3 p. 490. ^
pp. 457, 866.
^ 796 KaTSpOufia, the Stoic word.
p.
^ p. 778 : not Peripatetic fierpioirddeta, but Stoic airddeia.
and the perfect Gnostic, the Lord himself, was free

from even these. He felt neither joy nor sorrow,
and ate and drank not for need, but only to confute
docetism^ —
and to confute it in vain, so far as this
passage of Clement is concerned.
The Gnostic is passionless as a Stoic Philosopher,
loving as a Christian saint. He will not pray for
earthly things he is well content with all that comes
;
to pass. To the image of God in which we were

created he adds the likeness of God which we have to
win for ourselves ; and this likeness Clement under-
stands in a Christian way of moral likeness, without
clearly seeing its difference from the intellectual like-
ness preached by Platonism. The Gnostic omits

nothing that can help him to win that likeness. He
is used to poor fare and independence. He is grave
and sober, few necessaries and troubling
needing
himself no further, and not seeking even these as
specially desirable, for he counts knowledge the one
thing needful. He is patient, lives justly, rules his
passions, " cuts away desire," swears rarely, speaks
the truth unless a be needed in a medicinal way,^
lie
and is beneficent in word and deed to the utmost of

his power. He is a holy priest of God who needs no
ordination by men to offer the spiritual sacrifice of
prayer, and a true elder of the church, though he sit
not in the elder's chair. His entire life is a holy
festival, with prayer and praise and reading of the
Scriptures before meals, psalms and hymns at meals
and and prayer again by night.^ '*He
at bed-time,
then who has moderated his passions and then
first
trained himself to be passionless, and developed to

the beneficence of Gnostic perfection, is equal to the
1
p. 775.
^ p. 863. =^
pp. 860-61.
angels here on earth. Luminous already, and like

the sun shining in the practice of beneficence he
speeds by righteous knowledge through the love of
God to the holy mansion, to be an abiding light, un-
changeable for evermore." ^ He is " a god walking in
flesh," ^ a knower of God, and a sharer of his immor-
tality. ''
This is the true athlete, who in the great
racecourse of this fair world wins the crown of true
victory over all passions. The president of the games
is God all-sovereign, the giver of the prizes is the
only-begotten Son of God, while angels and gods are
spectators, and the contest in all its varied forms is
not against blood and but against the spiritual

flesh,
powers of stormy passions working through the flesh.

He that overcomes in these great struggles and over-
throws the tempter in the contests he seems to bring
upon him is the winner of immortality. For God's
decision is not to be deceived when he pronounces his
most righteous judgment." ^
Upon the whole, Clement's teaching is like Marcion's
in being a return to St. Paul ; but it is not a blind
reaction from Judaism like Marcion's. It is like the
Eeformation in returning to St. Paul but Clement ;
is not narrowed and embittered as the Protestants

were by their hard and demoralizing struggle with the
bottomless treachery of the catholic reaction. If the
Orthodoxasts are poor creatures beside the Puritans,
the Gnostics themselves were less profoundly immoral
than the Jesuits. Thanks partly to the Roman peace,
partly to the freedom of thought at Alexandria, partly
to his own studious and uncontroversial temper,
Clement was able to combine intensity of Christian
purpose with a philosophical detachment hardly
1 2 894. ^ p. 839.
pp. 792, 866. p.
VOL. II N
possible in modern Europe till the wars of religion

began to abate. not accidental that the next
It is
great return to Plato followed the Peace of Westphalia.
So his work is a many-sided endeavour by careful and
scholarly study of Scripture and philosophy to bring
all human learning into its due connexion with the
revelation through the Word, and so to work out

more fully the universal significance of the revelation
itself. The problem which the Gnostics attacked by
speculation in the interest of cosmogony Clement
essayed by philosophy in the interest of religion and ;
with better results. If he could not shape his

materials into a clear and rounded system like
Cyprian's, he has left us guiding thoughts of a
higher order than carnal theories of carnal churches.
The plan was a noble one, and it is not surprising
that Clement could not fully work it out. But his
mistakes are personal failures rather than faults in
the plan itself In the first place, his mind is neither
very clear nor very orderly nor very practical. In
short, he is neither reasoner enough nor man of the
world enough. Then again his scholarship was weak,
for he had not even Origen's slight knowledge of
Hebrew, so that he could not use the Old Testament
to much purpose, or generally get beyond the un-
sound allegorical exegesis of his time. Above all, he
could not shake off the weaknesses of Greek philosophy.
With all his insistence on the image of God in man,
he still thinks of God too much as purely trans-
cendent. So, though his true
is a noble Gnostic
character, but for the hideous blot of the " medicinal
lie" — itself a legacy of the philosophers he is too —
intellectual, too detached from the relations of life,
too much given to the Stoic dirdOeoa. Surely he has
not reckoned with the guile of sin who strives rather

to overcome it by direct and solitary efforts than to
crowd it out by faithful use of his appointed training
in common life. With all his greatness, Clement
reflects everywhere the weakness of his own time.
The philosophical conception of God as purely trans-
cendent struggles in him with the immanence implied
by the Incarnation, the emptiness of abstract being
with the goodness revealed in Christ, the aristocratic
spiritof heathenism with the universalism of the
Gospel, Platonic contempt of the body with its
Christian consecration, Greek confidence in education

with the subtleness of sin. Though Clement had
perhaps a wider view than later writers of the vast
range of difficulties, he was not the man to see his
way through them. No man
ever more nobly
welcomed the true whose ever-present coming
light
lighteth every man but a darker and ruder age than
;
Clement's was needed to bring home to men by dire

experience the gospel of the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world.
Books
Bigg C. Christian Platonists of Alexandria Westcott (Bp.), Art. Origen in
;
D.O.B. de Faye C. CUmcnt d'Alexandrie, Paris 1898 Clement The Seventh

; ;
Book of the Stromateis Ed. Hort and Mayor.

CHAPTER XX
ORIGEN
If the greatness of a man is to be measured by the

fascination of his ideas for the best men of later
ages, Origen will rank second to Augustine only, if
to him, in the history of Christian thought. His
daring speculations were not left unchallenged even
in his and soon became the subject of
lifetime,
controversies which are spread over the next three
hundred years. In the fourth century indeed
Nicenes and Arians were equally anxious to claim
for their own
side the great Alexandrian scholar.
Eusebius devoted to him, Athanasius mentions
is
him with all respect, the Cappadocians go very

much on Origen's lines, while Hilary and Ambrose
in the West,and Augustine through them, were
influenced by him. Marcellus and Epiphanius are
not much to balance these. But from the reign of
Arcadius onward Origen became more and more
suspected. The controversies are a dreary and often
a disgraceful history but the judgment of a declin-
:
ing church was truly given by the anathemas

launched against him in Justinian's time. Yet his
influence never perished. In a long course of ages
almost every great Christian thinker has more or
less turned to thoughts which were thoughts of
i8o
—
CHAP. XX ORIGEN i8i
Origen and the signs of our own time seem to

;
shew that the advance of the future will rather

follow the lines of Origen and Athanasius than those
of Cyprian and Augustine.
The transition from the second century to the
third is well marked by the fact that Origen
despite his heathen —
name is the first great writer
of Christian birth. ^ The Christians were ceasing to
be sojourners in the world looking daily for the
coming of the Lord. They were settling down as
citizens of the Empire, and in the peace thereof
they had their peace. The defiance of Ignatius was
hardly echoed but in times of persecution, and not
often then. Even Tertullian prayed for the delay
of the great catastrophe that was to end the age.^
Visions were becoming possible of a world which
was not entirely hostile, and of a victory over it
which was not purely spiritual. Christian and
heathen thought were influencing each other more
actively, and the time was come for a more
systematic and philosophical presentation of Christian
doctrine. The subapostolic writers seldom touched
it directly, the Apologists only dealt with its defence
against enemies, and even Clement of Alexandria
had rather rambled over the vast field than
endeavoured to plan it out. Origen was the first
who attempted to survey the whole scope of revela-
tion and work out systematically its relation to the
whole range of human knowledge.
For the Gospel is neither a religion nor a philo-
sophy but a revelation and the revelation is Christ
:
— in his Person, not simply through his teaching.
^ Polycarp (and perhaps Polycrates) are hardly worth excepting.

2 Tert. Apol. 39 pro mora finis.
—
But if not to remain a barren mysticism of

it is
personal feeling and nothing more, some sort of a

religion will be needed to connect it with human
life, and some sort of a philosophy to bring it into
relation with human thought. And the more explicit
the philosophy the better, for there is always more
danger in taking principles for granted than in
thinking them out. To put it shortly, the Gospel
is of a Son of God made man for us men and for
our salvation ; and this is folly to the natural man.

So even those who accepted it often thought it
needed toning down. Either he was not in any
full sense the Son of God, or else he did not truly
become man. So we see the two great forces whose
action and reaction determined the main lines of
Christian thought in the Eastern churches which
took the lead from the second century to the seventh
or eighth.
and complicated history and when
It is a long ;
we watch it year by year its details are intermin-

able but we see the progress as we pass from one
;
age to the next. One result is reached after another,

and then the contest is renewed on a narrower field.
The whole scene divides into two main parts
a Trinitarian period ending at the Council of
Constantinople in 381, and a Christological which
comes down we will say to the fall of the last
Monothelete emperor in 713. The first period
divides into three sections very roughly correspond-
ing to the second, third and fourth centuries. First
Ebionism and Gnosticism are diametrically opposed.
Of the two natures in Christ, Ebionism entirely
denies the reality of the divine. Gnosticism that
of the human. In a second stage Ebionite and
XX ORIGEN 183
Patripassian Monarchianism are the combatants, and

each admits the reality of the other element while
reducing its significance as much as possible. A
third stageshews Arianism and Sabellianism (or
at least Arianism) each striving to do justice to
the other side, yet each so emphasizing its own
side that the efibrt is an utter failure. Thus by
the time of the Council of Constantinople it was
fully agreed that Christ was truly divine and truly
human and the contest had to be fought out on
;
the narrower Christological field. Given the two

natures, what was their relation to each other ?
Those who would have denied the divine nature in
past times now put it as far from the human as
they could, that the lesser might not be over-
powered by the splendour of the greater and those ;
who in past ages would have denied the human

nature now mutilated it or joined it as closely as
they could to the divine, for the very purpose that
the lesser might be lost in the greater.
In the last years of the second century the first
of these stages was coming to an end, and the

defeat of Ebionism on one side, and of Gnosticism
on the other, was preparing the way for the decisive
conflict of the Nicene age. The Lord's own disciples
may have been slow to see the stupendous truth
that the carpenter of Nazareth was indeed the Son
of God, for us men and for our salvation come down
from heaven but when they did see it, they
;
preached it not as a dogma they had agreed upon,

but as a fact they had witnessed. It was that which
they had heard, which they had seen with their eyes,
which they had gazed on and their hands had
handled of the word of life. The thing was true,
and must be true, whatever might be the philo-

sophical difficulties involved in it.
So the Christians began from the fixed position,

that " we must think of Christ as God," and worship
him as such. But when they passed from personal
knowledge to tradition, they found it harder to forget
that history has a philosophical side. Some simply
refused now and some
the question, as some do ;
found some do now, in the suggestion of the

relief, as
Gnostics, that what had been taken for history was
mostly parable but in the course of the third
;
century the difficulty shaped itself into a tremendous

dilemma. Either Christ is in the fullest sense divine,
or else he is not. If he is, the Christians worship
two gods if he is not, they worship a creature.
:
Either way there was no escape from the charge of

polytheism. Hitherto they had chiefly insisted on
the true deity of Christ in answer to Ebionites who
denied it entirely, and to Gnostics whose conception of
deity did not rise above the heathen. But now they
had to make If they ceased to worship
their choice.
Christ, they ought to give up calling themselves
Christians if they worshipped even the highest of
:
creatures, they confessed themselves idolaters. On

one plan the Gospel was emptied of everything that
distinguishes it from philosophy, while the other
sank it straight to paganism. The Christians how-
ever had no intention of taking either plan. Christian
logic was strong, that if a divine Person is needed
for creation, redemption must be beyond the power
of a being who is less than in the fullest sense divine ;
Christian testimony was unwavering, that the Man

of Nazareth had claimed to be the Son of God, and
proved it by doing the works of God and Christian ;
XX ORIGEN 185
experience, that life divine is flowing from the risen

Son of Man, is a final certainty for those who have
it. Yet it was impossible to set aside reason by
refusing indefinitely to deal with the teaching of the
philosophers and the common sense of the vulgar,
that one who is man cannot be God and if he were,
;
he would be a second god.

In the course of the second century there was a
general reaction of Christians and pagans in the direc-
tion of monotheism, and Christians generally were
coming round to the belief that the deity of Christ must
be subordinated to the unity of God. This might be
done on two theories, leaning respectively to Ebionism
and to Gnosticism, but not going the full length of
either, for neither the manhood nor the deity was
now denied outright. If they started from the
historic manhood of Jesus, they might explain the
deity by some divine power dwelling in him or if :
they started from the deity, they might explain his

Person as no more than a temporal and temporary
manifestation of the one God, the Father. On one
theory the divine power had no organic relation to
the man Jesus on the other his manhood stood in
;
no organic relation to the one God revealed in him.

The first class (dynamistic monarchians) are
chiefly represented by the Alogi, Theodotus, and
Artemon. The Alogi of Asia have their name from
their rejection of the Logos doctrine of St. John, and
of his writings generally —
an anomalous position in
the early Church. Like the Gnostics, they claimed
to be sound Christians and like most of the Gnostics,
;
they do not seem to have been ejected from the

churches, though Epiphanius of course counts them
heretics, and puns on their name {dXoyoc, irrational).
They seem have been influenced rather by opposi-

to
tion to the Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete than
by the differences they noticed between the Fourth
Gospel and the Synoptists. But they never were a
school of any importance.
Theodotus the leather-worker came from Byzan-
tium to Rome about 190. His doctrine was almost
Ebionite. Jesus was a mere man, most pious and
righteous, born of the Virgin Mary by the over-
shadowing of the Holy Spirit. On him came the
Holy Spirit, the Son of God, at his Baptism and so ;
he became the Christ, and worked miracles. But he

was not God, though some of them said that he was
so after his resurrection. Bishop Victor excom-
municated them but in the time of Zephyrinus his
;
followers set up a church of their own under the

guidance of Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a
banker, and had for their bishop a confessor named
Natalius at a salary of 150 denarii monthly till —
some visions frightened him back into the church.
Still they formed a school. As says the writer
quoted by Eusebius,^ *' They fearlessly criticized
[pepahiovpyrjKaai) Scripture, set aside the rule of the
ancient faith, and knew not Christ in their search,
not for what Scripture says, but for some pretence of
argument in proof of their ungodliness and on this —
they worked laboriously. They forsake the
. . .
Scriptures of God and practise geometry, as we

might expect from men who are from the earth and
speak from the earth, and know not him that cometh
from above. Euclid is studied with anxious care by
some of them, Aristotle and Theophrastus are much
looked up to, and Galen (this is a fact) ^ is actually
1 Eus. V. 28. ^ Eus. i'crws de re certa as Mart. Pal. ix. 13.
XX ORIGEN 187
worshipped by some of them. That those who use

the arts of the unbelievers to establish their own
heresy, and adulterate the simple faith of the
Scriptures with the craft of the ungodly do not even
come near to faith, is more than I need say. There-
fore they laid hands on the Scriptures without fear,
professing to correct them." All this is astonishingly
modern, though the Orthodoxasts of Alexandria
would have quite appreciated it.
Little is known of Artemon, though he seems to
have been living cir. 267, when the synod which
deposed Paul of Samosata sarcastically bade him
write his letters of commendation to Artemon. He
seems however to have maintained not only that
Christ was a mere man, but that this was the
doctrine of the churches till Victor's time. A
completer inversion of history can hardly be imagined
— it seems of itself to prove that he lived long after
Victor's time.
We now turn to the other class (modalistic
monarchians) who denied the distinction of the Son
of God from the Father, making Christ an appearance
of the one God in some special form. Noetus of
Smyrna, taught that " the
late in the second century,
Father himself endured birth, suffering, and death
in the flesh," so that his followers were called
Patripassians. Of this way of thinking was the
confessor Praxeas, who came to Eome apparently in
the time of Bishop Eleutherus,^ and not only stirred
him up against the Montanists, but pushed him in
his dislike of Theodotus into something like Patri-
passianism. So, says TertuUian, " Praxeas managed
^ It is an open question between Eleutherus and Victor, at least as regards

Montanism.
two businesses for the devil in Rome. He drove out

Prophecy and brought in heresy, put to flight the
Paraclete and crucified the Father." When he came
on from Rome to Carthage, he was attacked by
Tertullian, who then held the intermediate stage of
accepting the Montanist oracles without leaving the
church. Meanwhile the disciples of Praxeas at
Rome gained over bishop Zephyrinus, and the
presbyter Callistus, who managed him. But this
caused so much confusion in the church that Callistus
was forced to take up a mediating position when he
became bishop himself in 217.
The original teaching of Sabellius is not easy to
trace, for he became the chief anathema of the con-
servatives in the next century, so that everything of
a modalistic sort was counted Sabellian. In spite of
his date in the time of Callistus, Sabellius belongs
rather to the Nicene cycle, for he extended modalism
to the whole Trinity. According to him, the one
God is the father, who expands himself into the Son
and the Holy Spirit or sometimes it is the one God
;
who speaks at different times as Father, Son, or Holy

Spirit, so that there are three aspects of one divine
Person, like body, soul, and Spirit in man, or three
activities of the one divine Person, like the roundness,
light, and heat of the sun. How far he himself
with those of the Old
identified these different times
and New Testaments and the church respectively is
more than we can say. But in any case the Trinity
is purely economic and temporal, and corresponds no
doubt to the needs of this world, but to nothing in

the eternal world.
This then was the state in which Origen found the
problem. The chief advance since the time of
XX ORIGEN 189
Irenaeus was had brought it into

that TertuUian
closer connexion with history by gathering it round
the eternal Sonship rather than the doctrine of the
Logos. This also made more clear his premundane
and real personality, though it also fell in with the
tendency to press the subordination of the Son to a
denial of his true deity. If Origen failed to solve
the he cleared up some of its worst
problem,
and brought the question to a point
difficulties,
from which the next great thinker was able to see

his way through it. Athanasius had only to go one
step beyond Origen, though that step was the most
momentous in the entire history of Christian thought,
for by it the dominant heathen conception of God as
abstract and simple was renounced as inconsistent
with the historic facts of the Gospel. But the great
work of Origen was not so much his particular
theories like the eternal generation of the Son of God
or the pretemporal fall of souls as the vast foundation
laid by his unwearied toil for the studies of many
generations. As
commentator, as scientific
critic, as
theologian, he struck out lines which the scholars

who came after him could not choose but follow. If
his name was anathematized, his influence remained
even in the middle ages. It is as evident in the
teaching of Ambrose and Augustine as in the sensuous
mysticism that was built upon his treatment of the
Song of Solomon and much of the best thought of
:
happier times is a conscious or unconscious return to

thoughts first thrown out by Origen.
A student's life is not likely to be eventful, and
we can soon run through the chief facts of it.
We have already traced his life to the execution

of his father in 202. As the property of Leonides
— ;
was confiscated, Origen found himself destitute with

six younger brothers, of whom we hear no more. His
first refuge was with a wealthy lady of Alexandria
but he cannot have been very comfortable there, for

he "observed the rule of the church'" too strictly
to meet with civility the heretic Paul of Antioch,
whom she harboured as her philosopher or chaplain
and adopted son. Origen however had received a
careful training in the ordinary liberal education of
the time so that he was able before long to make his
living by teaching secular literature.

He was soon called to a more special work. The
catechetical school had been dispersed by the perse-
cution, and the departure of Clement left it without
a teacher. So some heathens applied to Origen for
Christian teaching, and a new school grew up round
him. Six of his disciples— one of them a woman
perished in the persecution, but the school grew
larger and not long remain on the
larger. It did
old informal footing, for bishop Demetrius now

brought it into official connexion with the church.
The need of supervision was greater than in Clement's
time, for Origen was still a youth of eighteen, and
sadly wanting m wisdom and moderation. He
courted his father's fate by the open and public
support he gave to the martyrs, and so provoked the
mob that he could not have escaped if the authorities
had cared to take him. He also practised the
severest living on a pension of four
asceticism,
obols a day, which he had procured by the sale of
his books of secular literature. He pushed his
austerities till his constitution nearly broke down,
1
Eus. vi, 2. The hatred of heretics was quite strong enough in the
third century to explain the persecutions of the fourth

XX ORIGEN 191
even taking literally the Lord's words of those who

have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake,^ and carried it out in a literal sense
upon himself. These were excesses of youthful zeal,
and seem to have caused little offence at the time.
Bishop Demetrius would seem rather to have given
him encouragement. Perhaps his judgment wâs not
very different from that of Eusebius, whose admira-
tion is tempered in this one case with a clear though
mild disapproval. Yet the act was condemned not
only by Koman law but by the better feeling of
Christian men expressed by the Nicene Council.^
Origen himself wâs brought by the teaching of life
to a better mind on this question, but he never got
rid of the general ascetic taint. he utterly lackedIf
the Christian cheerfulness of Clement, the reason is
not simply that he had a deeper sense of sin, but
also that he was less of a Greek than Clement on
a class of questions w^here the mind of Christ was
less unworthily represented by the better sort of
heathenism than by the asceticism which wâs clouding
over the churches.
Meanwhile work expanded. Men and women
his
flocked to him from morning till night, and in the
end he was forced to divide the work, giving the
more elementary part of it to his disciple Heraclas,
and keeping the more advanced students for himself.
So passed some thirty years of unremitting toil.
Origen wâs still in favour with bishop Demetrius,
and reputation spread far beyond the bounds

his
of Egypt. At one time he was summoned to confer
with the governor of Arabia,^ at another he was
1 Mt. xix. 12. ^ Canon 1.
^ Mamaea's summons is perhaps best placed about 232.

at Rome ; and again when he left Alexandria for

awhile (216) during the tumults of Caracalla's time,
and stayed at Caesarea, the Palestinian bishops asked
him to expound Scripture publicly before them.
Demetrius took deep offence at this, declaring it
quite irregular that a layman should expound in

the presence of bishops. It may already have been
the custom at Alexandria that he should not : but
there was no such rule in Palestine, and Origen's
friends, Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of
Caesarea, had no difficulty in naming other churches
where the practice was allowed.^ Demetrius treated
it as insubordination, and angrily recalled him to
Alexandria but presently things seemed to settle

;
down much as they were before.

His work still —
widened Origen was now a referee
of churches and a spiritual counsellor of high
authorities. It seemed unfitting that so great a
man should be no more than a layman yet years ;
passed on, and Demetrius never ordained him.

However, about 230 Origen took a journey to Greece
on the business of the churches, and in the course of
it was ordained by his friends at Caesarea. Demetrius
was quite right in counting this a much worse offence
than the other, for itwas a public censure on him-
self.Whatever his reasons might be for an omission
which must have been deliberate, they were here
openly set aside. What they were, we do not know.
Origen's rash act may have been one of them,
^ be noted that the question is of the layman's right to expound
It will
in the presence of bishops, not of his right to preach at all. The latter
seems to have been undisputed till the fifth century, and was granted in
principle even in the middle ages, for monks were licensed to preach, and
monks were often laymen.
In any case an Alexandrian custom was not binding on Palestinian
bishops, or on Origen either when he was at Caesarea.
XX ORIGEN 193
though it might seem to have been long ago

condoned but more likely the old bishop had never
;
quite trusted his brilliant catechist. The relations

of an eminent man to his official superior are delicate
at best, and have been
in this case there seems to
neither on one side nor forbearance on the
tact
other. Origen's discourtesy let loose the envy of
Demetrius. But when he called a council of bishops
and presbyters, they refused to go beyond the
just and obvious decision, that Origen must leave
Alexandria. Had this contented Demetrius, all
would have been well. But it did not content

Demetrius. He called another council of bishops
only, and packed it till he obtained an excommuni-
cation of Orioren —
and a division in the churches.
The sentence was enforced in Egypt and recognized
in the West but it was disregarded by the churches
;
of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia, in which

^
Origen was best known.
So Origen betook himself to Caesarea in 231 ;
and thenceforth Caesarea was his usual home. He

^ The excommunication an obscure question, because Eusebius
of Origen is
which is lost, so that we

refers us for information to his AiJology for Origen,
have to depend on scraps preserved by Photius. The misdeed of Origen's
youth was no doubt brought u}) against him but it cannot have been the
;
real reason, or at least the effective reason for the action of Demetrius.
Most likely both sides were much to blame. Origen's conduct is not likely
to have been a first case of discourtesy, while the rancorous violence of
Demetrius looks like an explosion of long-cherished jealousy.
The strongest point against Origen is the fact that he was not recalled
by his own disciple Heraclas, who so soon succeeded Demetrius as bishop.
Heraclas may for aught we know have been an active enemy of Origen ;
or he may only have thought that he could not recall him without fresh
troubles from the Orthodoxasts or from Origen's own indiscretion. This
last was probably good reason for the action of Heraclas, and we may hope
it was his motive.
Neither did Dionysius recall him when he became bishop in 247. But
we cannot lay stress on this, for the lapse of seventeen years must have
greatly changed the situation.
VOL. II O
must have left the city for a short time in 232,

if this was the time of his visit to the empress
Mamaea at Antioch. A few years later we find him
fled from the persecution of Maximin
to the
Cappadocian Caesarea. With the return of peace
he resumed his work in Palestine, corresponding
with the emperor Philip and the empress Otacilia
Severa, and going to a council in Arabia, where
he convinced Beryllus of Bostra of the error of his
ways and brought him back to orthodoxy. Of his
sufferings in the Decian persecution we must speak
hereafter.
Origen was well satisfied to be a student and
teacher. His lectures were unwritten, for he had no
wish to be a literary man, and no desire to leave
anything behind in writing. It was not till 218 that
he found a wealthy friend in one Ambrosius, whom

he had from Gnosticism.
converted Ambrosius
pressed him to write, and provided him with seven
stenographers who worked with him by turns,
besides seven copyists and sundry girls to make fair
copies. So from 223 onwards came out a marvellous
series of works. Epiphanius tells us that there were
six thousand of them but it is at any rate certain
;
that the extensive works remaining are only a small

part of what was written for him. They fall into the
three main divisions of textual criticism, exegesis and
doctrine.
Textual criticism was as much needed then as it
is now. The text even of the New Testament wâs
in a bad state, and Origen's revised copies were in
'
much esteem for a long time. Yet he does not seem

to have reached a genuinely critical method, tending
as he did to lean on majorities of MSS., and to make
—
XX ORIGEN 195
the language more But his most remark-

classical.
able work was done on the Old Testament. The
Hexapla, upon which he laboured for many years,
gave in six parallel columns the Hebrew, the Hebrew
in Greek letters, the LXX, and the translations of
Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. So vast a work
as this is of course lost ; but fortunately the LXX
column was copied at Caesarea by Eusebius, and of
this considerable fragments remain.
The exegetical works consist partly of Scholia on
difficult passages, partly of Homilies, or series of
sermons going through most of the books of the
commentaries proper, dealing at length
Bible, partly of
with exegesis. The chief of these, and the most
characteristic of the writer, is the commentary on St.
John ; though that on St. Matthew is preserved in
part, and that to the Romans in a Latin translation
by Ruffinus.
Of his chief doctrinal work, the
de Principiis
(liepl ap^Mv), we have to speak presently, his
shall
contra Celsum we have already seen in connexion
with the Apologists, and his practical works, de
Oratione and the Exhortatio ad martyrium, we
need only mention.
A work which cannot well be classed is the
Philocalia, a collection of extracts from his writings
made in the next century (before 379) by Basil and
Gregory of Nazianzus. It treats first of Scripture
of inspiration, and of the rude and unclassical style
which conceals great mysteries of its difficulties, and
;
of the duty of studying even the passages over which

the heretics have made cavils, and of the need of
philosophy and other preparatory discipline. Then
come answers to some of the objections of Celsus as
;
that Scripture is meanly written, that Christianity

is full of heresies, that the Christians preach folly
and ignorance, that Jesus cannot be God if he had a
mortal body, that the world is made rather for beasts
than for men. Then come chapters on freewill and
on fate, that matter is not the cause of evil, that
foreknowledge does not destroy freewill, and dis-
cussions of difficulties hke the hardening of Pharaoh's
heart, not of him that willeth.
and It is
With learning, with all his width of view,
all his
with all his boldness in speculation, with all the

subtle fervour of his piety, even Origen has his
limitations. Besides his want of imagination, he
was hampered in some directions by the slightness of
his scholarship and the current overestimate
Hebrew
of the LXX, and in all directions by the allegorism,
the transcendental philosophy and the ascetic lean-
ings of the time. The methods of criticism had still
to be settled, and no one man can do the work of

centuries. But Origen was everywhere the pioneer
and even the haste of his dictation an intellect
in
so learned and so subtle could not move without
scattering thoughts to be ripened in later ages, Hke
the famous motto of Butler's Analogy. Whatever
shew no more true-hearted,
his faults, all history can
pure-minded and laborious seeker after truth than
Origen.
must not be supposed that Origen stood alone
It
in the world, any more than Shakespeare did. With
all his greatness, he was only the greatest of many
students in his time. Schools like those of Alexandria
had o-rown up in Edessa, Bardaisan's home, and at
Caesarea. Alexander of Jerusalem formed a library
in his own city of Aelia Capitolina —to give it its
XX ORIGEN 197
official name. The other Caesarea in Cappadocia was

the refuge first of Clement, afterwards of Origen
himself; and Asia was still a home of Christian
thought and controversy, though its pre-eminence in
the second century had passed away. The interest
of Christendom, gathered no longer to Ephesus and
Smyrna, but to the great cities of Kome, Carthage,
and Alexandria, and even the foundation of Con-
stantinople never brought it back to Asia.
One of these scholars is worth mention here.
Sextus Julius Africanus was an old officer of Septimius
Severus, who lived at Emmaus in Palestine in the
time of El Gabal and Severus Alexander. He seems
to have been a man and was attracted to
of rank,
Alexandria by the fame of Heraclas, and came into
relations with Origen himself. His Keo-rot has the
distinction of being the only known work of early
Christian literature which is not directly religious.
Its fragments touch all sorts of questions, and shew
an omnivorous learning and an omnivorous credulity
worthy of the elder Pliny. Perhaps he was not yet
a Christian when he wrote it. But Africanus did
better work than this. If he was not absolutely the
first Christian chronographer, he stands midway
between Bruttius and Eusebius. His five books
brought down the chronicle of the world to the reign
of El Gabal, and was much used by Eusebius and
later writers. There was also a letter of his to
Aristides on the disagreement between the geneal-
ogies of our Lord ; and a letter to Origen on the
History of Susanna. Africanus disputes its genuine-
ness on thoroughly critical grounds, and has much
the advantage of Origen, who merely pleads the
authority of the LXX, and is not shaken even by the
double pun,^ which to most minds is clinching proof

that it was written in Greek.
Origen was beyond comparison the greatest scholar
and the greatest teacher of Clement was
his time. If
the father of Christian literature, Origen was the

first who systematically surveyed the vast field and
set the problems and traced the lines of future work

on exegesis, dogmatics and homiletics. The Eastern
writers did very little that had not been sketched
out by Origen. Yet his mere learning, vast as it was,
by no means forms his highest qualification, for there
is something that must rank even higher than his
subtle intellect and marvellous fertility of thought.

No man since Plato had formed a nobler conception
of education. It was not for Origen either the battle
of empty declamation and idle sophistry the Greeks
so often made it, or the undigested mass of marketable
information which seems the modern fashion, but a
systematic training of all the mental powers for the
highest of all Like Socrates, he thought it
studies.
more important to root out prejudices and clear up
confusions of thought than to communicate as many
facts as possible. He believed like Clement, though
with a clearer perception than Clement, not only that
all truth in heaven and earth comes from Christ and
leads up to Christ, but that the fulness of human

nature needed to reach the fulness of truth, and
is
that the fulness of truth is needed to reach the

fulness of Christ. No doubt his conception of human
nature was debased alike by Greek intellectualism
and by the ascetic ideals of his time. But this
means only that he was a man of his own age, and
could not shake off" all its limitations. Even Plotinus
^ Hist. Sus. 54-59 irplvov . . irpiaai . . axûov . . ax'-'^^'-'
XX ORIGEN 199
fared worse, though he is the greatest of Greek

thinkers after Aristotle. At all events Origen was
one who strove to bring learning in its widest range
to bear upon the work of training all the faculties of
human nature.
So Origen's conception of education was of the
widest. He had laid his own foundations broad and
deep. He was no mean student of literature and
scripture before his father's death and then for nearly
fifty years he laboured on with adamantine energy.
His inspiration was a pure and fearless love of truth,
and every gift of intellect was his, except imagination.
With all his subtle thoughtfulness and fertile fancy,
he had nothing of the imagination which makes the
past a living present. Perhaps the toil of teaching
chilled it, as it often does. But he soon learned to
put Scripture before philosophy, and draw all his
studies this way, selling his books of secular literature
for a pension of four obols a day, on which he was
able to live.^ And his studies were sundry. Heretics
and heathens came to his lectures, and he read heretic
and heathen books, to the scandal of many. He
even undertook the toil of learning Hebrew, though
he never got beyond a superficial acquaintance with
it, which will not for a moment compare with the
scholarship of Jerome. To perfect himself in philo-

sophy, he attended the lectures of Ammonius Saccas,
the first of the Neoplatonists. As Porphyry says
from his heathen point of view, " Origen was a Greek
brought up on Greek literature, but wrecked himself
on the barbarian doctrine (Christianity) to which he
^ Sixpence a day is decent fare for an ascetic in a cheap country like
Egypt, and represents a fair capital sum. Origen must have made some
money by teaching.
went and sold himself and his learning, living like

a Christian and contrary to the laws ; but in his
opinion of things earthly and divine he played the
Greek, though he subordinated Greek learning to
foreign fables. For he constantly studied Plato,
Longinus, and others (including the chief Pytha-
goreans), and he used the writings of Chaeremon the
Stoic, and of Cornutus and from these he learned
;
that figurative method of interpreting the Greek

^
mysteries which he applied to the Jewish Scriptures."
He might no doubt have learned it from the
Stoics, but we have no reason to think he did. With
Philo and Clement before him, he had no occasion to
look for heathen models. The point to notice is
that Porphyry treats Christianity exactly as the
Apologists treated heathenism. He will allow no
excuse of allegory for the scandals of the Bible, and
is as anxious to derive the good things of the Gospel
from philosophy as the Apologists are to trace back

—
the good things of philosophy to Moses And this is
something more than a tu quoque, for the arguments
of controversialists on all sides are shaped by the
exegesis of their own time, so that they always have
a good deal in common, especially in the things they
take for granted.
Education in the Eastern provinces of the Empire
was not unlike the education of our own Public
Schools some half a century ago, before the intrusion
of Science on the old Classical training, which indeed
had been shaped on Greek models in the sixteenth
century, and had since been little changed. Great
were much the
as the differences were, the principles
same. There was of course no Greek Testament on
^ ap. Eus. vi. 19.
XX ORIGEN 201
Sundays and no Nowell's Catechism for Monday

mornings. There was also no Latin, for Latin in
the East was studied rather for the practical uses
of officials and lawyers than as a general means of
education, and the Greek which remained was not
the dead language it is to us, so that there wâs no
translation from and into Greek. Yet both Transla-
tion and Composition were well represented in the
schools. What answered to Translation was the lower
stage of teaching, which they called Grammar. It
was much more than w^hat we call grammar, for it
included the study of language, of antiquities, and
of exegesis, especially of the passages in which the
poets gave their moral teaching. In short, it meant
all those questions of scholarship and subject-matter
which a modern editor would elucidate with notes or

references. It was in theory an excellent grounding :
in practice it was treated very perfunctorily. The

chief stress was laid on the Rhetoric which formed
the second part of the course. This consisted of
recitations, compositionsand discourses, and answêred
very fairly to the Composition side of the Public
School, for the compositions and discourses had to be
on classical subjects and in classical language. We
know what the zealots of Composition were some
fifty years ago —boys wdth a marvellous command of
Greek and Latin words, and not only ignorant but
contemptuous of everything else. The education of
the third century must have tended in the same
direction ;and two further circumstances increased
the evil. One was the greater attention paid to the
arts and tricks of rhetoric and oratory for the other,
:
these elegant amusements were more the fashion of

grown men than they ever were in England. They
were the serious occupation of senators, and the

admiration of the literary coteries. Pliny and
Symmachus were quite as proud of their literary
trifles as of the work they did for the state. We
read of a Praetorian Praefect of Illyricum, who liked
nothing better than to come and preside all day at
some great literary tournament of this kind and he :
was not singular in his taste. Words were every-

thing, matter and the evil went on in-
nothing ;
creasing. A system which began by resolving

education into rhetoric and sophistry naturally ended
in smothering rhetoric itself under the meaningless
afi*ectations and absurd bombast which make its last
representatives almost unreadable. It is a relief to
turn from the empty conundrums and literary in-
sincerities ofEnnodius to the rude Latin of Gregory
of Tours, who at any rate has something to tell us.
The Christians had the same education as their
neighbours. Many were converts and there was not
;
yet much distrust of heathen education for Christian

children. The schools were open to all comers, for
heathenism had no articles of faith, while even the
Orthodoxasts of Alexandria distrusted rather learn-
ing generally than heathen education in particular.
The chief difference was the instruction given to
catechumens and the educative influence of the
Sunday and these went far to balance the
services :
general defects of the system. Truth was not to the

Christian a thing to be speculated upon and argued
over and trifled with, but a thing revealed once for
all in Christ. So he had a more definite and concrete
standard of truth than the heathen, and a higher and
more practical sense of duty to truth for none but —
the Christian had to witness of truth at the risk of
XX ORIGEN 203
life. He might set forth truth with all the arts of

rhetoric ; but truth he would set forth, for he could
not play the sophist.
So Origen saw clearly the central weakness of
education. The time was spent in polishing tools for
work, and the work was never done. So broadly, his
plan was to take the usual course of Grammar and
Khetoric, and then add first Philosophy, and then
Theology as the only studies worthy to complete all
this preparation. If he did not escape the danger on
the side of rhetoric, at any rate he greatly mitigated
it by subordinating the Ehetoric to the study of truth
in its highest forms.

Origen'smethod has now to be more fully
described.^ Having abandoned secular literature, he
had to do with inquirers and students, and could
frankly lead up all his teaching to Theology. He
began with logic and the training of thought, study-
ing the character of his disciples, criticizing their
crude ideas, laying open the fallacies which misled
them, and guiding them into habits of accurate and
careful thinking. It was not a pleasant process for
them, but they loved him notwithstanding. So
Gregory tells us and he speaks from experience.
;
The second period was devoted to Physics, beginning

with geometry and arithmetic, and going on to
astronomy. The third stage was philosophy, or
rather moral science, for he took it like the Stoics
on the practical side nor did he confine himself to
:
Greek thinkers, but used barbarian help whenever

he found it useful. This then was the training he
deemed necessary before beginning the study of
Theology.
^ Chief account by Gregory of Neocaesarea,
Of course it was intended for students only under

Origen's own supervision. No doubt many of tlie
simpler sort received only the plain teaching they
might have had anywhere.
Origen's doctrine we shall best survey by seeing
how he states it in his de Principiis. Though this,
as we have seen, was written at an early stage of his
literary activity, it gives his ripe opinions, and so
fully covers the ground that we can get no more than
secondary additions and corrections from the rest of
his works, chiefly from the commentary on St. John.
Unfortunately it is preserved in the Latin of Ruffinus,
who was apt to think that anything heterodox was a
corruption, and needed to be set right. We can how^-
ever check his divagations by the Greek of certain
passages preserved in the Philocalia and in the Acts
of the Councils, and by Origen's deliverances else-
where. Upon is no great margin of
the whole, there
doubt as to what his opinions really were.
He begins by professing his belief in the teaching
of the church, and that nothing outside that teaching
can be received as an article of faith. What questions
then are settled by it, and what left open ? Origen
replies by setting forth the rule of faith. Now the
rule of faith is not a creed. A creed is a summary of
necessary Christian teaching sanctioned by authority
for local or general use as a profession of Christian
faith or a standard of Christian teaching, whereas a
rule of faith is summary set forth by private
a similar
persons in their own words for the edification of their
readers. Irenaeus and Tertullian had given sundry
rules of faith ; and now Origen gives another. Its
substance is this.
The apostles plainly taught — First, that there is

XX ORIGEN 205
but one God, the creator of all things out of nothing,

a just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and the author of Law and Gospel, Old and
New Testament. In the second place, Jesus Christ
who came was begotten of the Father
into the world
before every creature. He was the minister of
creation and at the end of the ages he emptied
:
himself and was incarnate, becoming man while still

remaining God as he was before. His body was like
ours, except that it was born of the Virgin and the
Holy Spirit. He truly suffered, truly died, truly rose
again and ascended into heaven. Thirdly, the apostolic
tradition associates the Holy Spirit in honour and
dignity with the Father and the Son. Whether the
Holy Spirit is begotten, or whether he is to be
regarded as a Son of God, is an open question the :
one thing taught mthout hesitation is that he is the

giver of all inspiration both before and after Christ's
coming.
The church teaches also that the soul is endowed
with a life of its own, and shall hereafter pass into
eternal life or eternal fire according as its work shall
be. Another undisputed part of church teaching is
the freedom of the will. Outside powers may urge
us to good or evil but they cannot constrain us,
;
whatever the astrologers may say. The church

leaves it undecided, whether the soul is transmitted
by generation, or originates in some other way and ;
in the latter case, whether it is ingenerate or not, or

whether it is infused into the body from without.
As touching the devil and his angels, the church
teaches their existence, but not their nature or the
manner of their existence, though it is most commonly
believed that the devil was once an angel, and that
2o6 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
his angels are angels seduced by him. Another point

of church teaching is that this world was created at a
definite time, and will one day be dissolved by its
native corruption. But what there was before this

world, or what there will be after it, is left uncertain.
The Holy Spirit has given to the Scriptures not only

that meaning which is manifest, but a spiritual mean-
ing which is commonly overlooked. The whole church
is agreed that the Law is spiritual but its spiritual
:
meaning is unknown, except to those endowed by the

Holy Spirit with wisdom and knowledge. Though
the word incorporeal (aacofjuaToî) is not found in
Scripture, it is a well-known conception of the
philosophers : but if it be asked whether God is
incorporeal, we cannot certainly answer the question.
Finally, whether sun, moon and stars are animated
beings or not, is more than we can be sure of.
The converse of Origen's rule of faith is his
classification of heretics. The heretic is one who
professes belief in Christ, and yet errs on some funda-
mental question. First, there are Gnostics who make
the Creator (who is the God of the Old Testament)
some other being than the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Next come three groups of heresies concerning
the Person of Christ. Ebionites and Valentinians
deny his divinity,and even his pre-existence, making
him only a son of Joseph and Mary. Others

(Docetists) accept the virgin birth and the rest of the
history, but reduce them to appearance without reality.
Others again {e.g. Beryllus of Bostra) hold that he
had no personal existence before the incarnation, and
no divinity of his own after it, so that the Person
incarnate was the Father.
really Then there are
others who make two Gods of the Holy Spirit, by
XX ORIGEN 207
distinguishing the inspiration of the Old Testament

from that of the New. All these make shipwreck of
faith upon the doctrine of the Trinity and to these :
we must add the dualists who hold that all souls are
not of the same nature, making an original difference
between the spiritual and the natural man, and so
denying the freedom of the will. These six groups
of heretics correspond very nearly to the questions he
treats as settled in his rule of faith, for he does not
seem to think it possible for persons professing belief
in Christ to deny the life of the soul, the existence of
the devil and his angels, the finite duration of this
world, or the existence of a spiritual sense of Scripture.
On this last point he was not far wrong in fact, for
Marcion was an undoubted heretic, and the Montanists
were at best suspected.
The first thing that strikes us in Origen's rule of
faith is its incompleteness as a scheme of doctrine.
Like all the Eastern creeds, it hardly gets beyond the
doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Nothing
is decided about the Sacraments, the Atonement or
Justification, or even about the church to whose
tradition he appeals. All these are controversies of
other ages, in which the Greeks took little or no part.
Even the one question — that of which looks
free will —
like an anticipation of Latin controversies, is not
really such, for the heretics in view are Gnostics, not*
Pelagians, and the question at issue is not whether
all men are disabled by original sin, but whether some
men were created incapable of receiving the things of

God.
Origen's rule of faith is given as the Confession of
the Christian man, in the same sense as the Articles
and Liturgy are the Confession of the English cleric.
If it gives a decision, that is binding : if not, the

question is open, and a man is no heretic for any
opinion he may have upon it. So we look for the
special features of Origen's own theology to the four
questions which he expressly states to be open. Two
of these will not detain us. Origen made no great
advance on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and ;
indeed to ourselves the relation denoted by procession

is an even greater mystery than that denoted by
generation —except that we believe it to be different.

Again, was a
it fair question for the ancients, whether
sun, moon and animated beings. It is so
stars are
implied in much primitive belief, and such was the
opinion of the Greek philosophers from Thales to
Plato, and perhaps of Aristotle too. The Stoics and
Philo had something of the sort, and this was the
old Chaldaean doctrine which even more than Persian
dualism shaped the heathenism of the third century.
Origen himself leaned tliat way, though for the West
the matter was settled by the prudence of Augustine,
who pointed out that Scripture leaves the question
undecided. But the other two questions, on the
origin of the soul and the existence of past and future
worlds, bring us to the heart of Origen's own theology.
Origen starts from the fact that this world is
created and therefore has a beginning and end in time.
But we cannot suppose that God does nothing outside
those limits. If he is iravroKpdrwp (all-ruling, not
almighty) he must always have subjects to rule.
Hence there must be an indefinite series of created
worlds covering the whole range of time from begin-
ning to end. And as worlds, so souls must have been
created in the beginning — and created equal, for
inequality is injustice not to be imputed to God.

XX ORIGEN 209
—
The present inequality the difference of angels and
—
men and devils must be caused by the free action
of the souls in the successive worlds they have passed
through. In world God rewards each soul
each
according as its work has been in the last world.
One exceptional soul held to God with such perfect
faithfulness that it could be chosen for the soul of
the incarnate Lord himself. In general however
the souls which held to God are angels who now do
nothing evil, while those which fell away are devils
who now do nothing good, and between them are
men who do both good and evil. But however souls
may rise or fall, they cannot in any case lose their
freedom. An angel will fall if he gets tired of good-
ness, and the devil himself has the possibility of
rising, though some even of human sinners have no
forgiveness in this world or the next world. So the
whole is one vast universe of immortal souls rising
and falling each by itself in successive worlds.
This is not the Pythagorean transmigration of
souls, for Oriên draws a clear line between man and
beast. A bad man may sink into a devil, but he
cannot be born again as a beast. A more serious
objection can be made, that there is no finality in a
process where the highest is never above the fear of
falling, and the lowest never below the hope of rising,
and where for all that yet appears, a fall is as likely
as a rise. Such a system is like the recurring cycles
of the Stoics, which build up nothing that will not be
destroyed by the next conflagration. Taken by itself,
it is no better than the reincarnations of the Buddhist
harma, except that Justice is personal and not

impersonal. It mocks the Christian hope of resurrec-
tion to life eternal, and shuts out the promise of the
VOL. II P
2IO CHURCH HISTORY chap.
restoration of all things. Had he allowed for the

cumulative force of habit, he might have been able to
shew that there is something higher as well as some-
thing lower than freedom. In the end, the good
might have been for ever fixed in goodness, but
also the evil for ever fixed in evil. He does
indeed occasionally speak of the punishment of the
wicked as never ending but the main current of his
;
thought sets quite another way. And if he had

further allowed for the fact that creation is for good
—
and not for evil for God and not for Satan he —
might have maintained that while goodness may be
eternal, wickedness cannot endure for ever.
It will be noted that his main scheme is vitiated
by a false conception of divine justice, as if it were
not enough for a man to be judged by what he. has
and not by what he has not, but each must have no
more and no less than his neighbour, except in just
reward or punishment of his doings in the past.
Instead of setting this right, he tacks on a corrective,
which at any rate makes the scheme Christian. That
corrective is his faith in the infinite and boundless
virtue of the Atonement. The mechanical process of
divine justice —
for it is nothing more is not his —
whole philosophy of religion. High over all rules the
love of God which guides men not as for this life only,
but for the endless ages of the future, and searches out
the deepest sickness with the sharpest remedies, as
every good physician does. How this consists with
the unbending law of justice is more than we can
say but no Christian man can doubt that so it is.
;
Christ died not for men only, but for angels and for
devils also. The ransom was duly paid to Satan ;
and who will now set limits to the mighty working

XX ORIGEN 211
of redeeming love ? The process that seemed

mechanical is a process of purification worked out
from age to age and cycle to cycle and the love which
;
leaves the ninety and nine sheep at their pasture to

seek for the one that is lost will never rest till in this
world or another or in yet another of the worlds to
come the very last of the souls that sinned is for ever
gathered to the Saviour's arms.
Though Origen's thought is so largely shaped by
opposition to the fatalism of the Gnostics, his main
scheme reminds us of the Gnostic cosmologies. It is
marked by the same aspiration to other worlds, the
same intellectualism, the same contempt for the body,
and the same endeavour to save God's justice. It
has all the philosophical advantages of thorough-
going individualism, and gives fair explanations of

original sin and of this world's inequalities and we can ;
appreciate better than our fathers its stern insistence

that every man's lot in the present is the fruit of his
doings in the past. A scientific unbeliever of our
time might almost adopt the scheme for his own, if
once he came to see that natural consequence is as
direct a work of God as any miracle can be. On the
other hand, it has all the philosophical difficulties of
an unqualified individualism. It allows nothing for
inheritance, takes no account of mankind as an

organic whole, makes the body no more than a coat
which wears out and is cast aside, and has to tone
down the idea of sin like the philosophers to some-
thing purely negative. Origen does not even make
the best of his own principles, for with all his
insistence on human freedom, he does not see like
St. Paul that the variety of men makes their variety
of lot a question not of divine justice, but of fitness
;
2 12 CHURCH HISTORY chap, xx
for divine purposes. These are serious objections

and not one of them is removed by his Christian
confidence in the unbounded power of the Atonement.
That remains an excrescence on the scheme, though
we cannot doubt that it was nearer to the life by
which he lived. The heart may make harmless the
errors of the head, but it cannot of itself correct them.
Taken as a whole however Origen's is a noble scheme

for all its faults, and just its noblest feature is its
worst offence to men of little faith. Its grand

confidence in all-embracing all-redeeming love divine
was too bold even for the larger number of Eastern
churchmen, while the timid legalism of the West
hardly understood it enough to anathematize it. I
think Cyprian never mentions Origen and his silence :
is significant.
Books
Westcott (Bp, ) Art. " Origen " in D. C. B. ; Trat (S. J. ) Origme Paris 1907 ;
Keim Celsus.
CHAPTEK XXI
THE ROMAN CHURCH
Hitherto our work has been mostly in the East.

The writers we have had to mention were all Easterns
but Clement and Hernias, and even they wrote in
Greek. Now however we come to Western writers
and a Western form of Christian thought. We are
not yet called upon to deal with it fully and indeed
;
we cannot till we have seen more of the characteristic

developments of East and West. Suffice it for the
present to say that Greek and Latin Christianity bear
the marks of Greek and Latin religion and literature,
and are related to each other accordingly. The
one is philosophical and speculative, seeking after
knowledge, and tending to resolve revelation into
philosophy. The other is and practical, holding
legal
to the faith once received,
and tending to convert the
revelation into law. Gnosticism and Arianism are
characteristic of one, Montanism and Pelagianism
of the other. The Greek divines and bishops who
culminate in Origen and Athanasius are the true
successors of the Greek philosophers and orators;
while the Latin bishops and divines, from Tertullian,
Cyprian, and Augustine to Leo and Gregory, carry on
the succession of Eoman lawyers and statesmen
towards the mediaeval popes.
213
Where then was the first great centre of Latin

Christianity ? We look to the church of Rome, and
we look in vain. Its history indeed to the end of
the second century Clement and Hermas
is obscure.
belonged to it, and Ignatius wrote to it but they ;
tell us very little about it. We have a list of bishops,

of whom Telesphorus only was a martyr. We have
also the visit of Poly carp, a sentence or two from the
answer of Dionysius to Soter, and a few references to
the arrival of heretics like Cerdon, Marcion, Valen-
tinus, and Marcellina : and this is about all that we
are directly told. Even the laborious work of recent
years has been spent on the early history rather of
the creed than of the church of Eome.
Nevertheless, we can say for certain that the church
of Eome was more Greek than Latin, and remained
so for a long time. St. Paul writes in Greek to
Eome, Clement writes in Greek from Eome and ;
almost every document connected with the Eoman

church before the Nicene age was written in Greek.
The chief exceptions are the works of Novatian, and
a few of the genuine letters and spurious treatises
which have come down to us among the writings of
Cyprian. The early bishops of Eome bear Greek
names, with Clement, Pius, and Victor the only
exceptions in the first fifteen. Even the Liturgy
was at first in Greek, as we see from survivals like
Kyrie eleison and we hear of no great Latin
;
^
preacher at Eome before Leo I.

But if the church of Eome was not the centre of
—
Latin Christianity we shall find that across the sea
at Carthage —
it was the centre of Christendom as a
^ When Polycarp held the service at Rome, he would probably hold it in

Greek,
XXI THE ROMAN CHURCH 215
whole. was fully recognized by

Its central position
Irenaeus, and became more and more definite as time
went on "till the rise of Constantinople. In the first
place, Kome was the capital, and the only apostolic
see in the West/ So she exercised the full influence
of a great and wealthy church with a noble fame for
world-wide charity. From the first the practice was —
old even in Soter's time — she sent her gifts to the poor
and to the confessors in the mines all over the Empire.'-''
Then again, the Roman church gained strength from
its close relation to the emperor. The palace was
always its stronghold, and " they of Caesar's house-
hold " were its chiefest leaders. Scenes which did not
mean much in the provinces might at Rome be the
signal for the ever - threatening struggle of life and
death with heathenism. Moreover, Rome was the
natural link of East and West. As a Greek colony
in the Latin capital, it was the representative of
Western Christianity to the Easterns, and the
interpreter of Eastern thought to the Latin West.
For all these reasons Rome was the natural centre of
discussion. Her orthodoxy was unstained. What-
ever heresies might flow like the Syrian Orontes to
the great city, no heresy ever issued thence. The
strangers of every land who found their way to Rome
and the tombs of the great apostles were welcomed
from St. Peter's throne with the majestic blessing of
a universal father. " The church of God which so-
journeth in Rome was the immemorial counsellor of

"
^ Plutarch de Rovianoritm Fortuna 316 r. Rome made by Ti^x^ and

Hpovota into iraaiv dvdpu}7roLS ecrriav lepav ws aXqOGjs Kal ovrjaidiopau Kal ireXa/xa
/noPL/xov Kal CTOLX^lov aldiov, virocpepo/xevois toTs TTpdy/jLacriu d-yKvpTjôXtov adXov
Kal irXdPTjs, &s <f>7]aL Arj/xoKpiros.
Ath. Hist, Ar. 34, p. 288 /U^XP' '^'^^ ^>^^^ "^W [J-o.viav i^^Tetvav Kal ovx 6'rt
dwoaroXiKos iari dpbvos ydiadrjaav, oi)d' otl fMrjTpoTroXts ij 'Fco/xr] ttjs 'Vcj/xapias
iariv evXa^rjdrja-av. " Eus. iv, 23.

:
2i6 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
all the churches and the voice of counsel slowly

;
passed into that of command. When Rome spoke

in Eastern controversies, she commonly had the West
behind her and then her voice was decisive.
; She
spoke for the West on Arianism and Monophysitism,
and therefore she conquered she spoke only for ;
herself on Pelagianism and the Three Chapters, and

then she was powerless.
There are legends in abundance about the begin-
nings of the Gospel in Rome, but the truth is lost in
It was not brought there
impenetrable obscurity.
by one of the Twelve, and probably not by the
strangers of Rome returning from the Day of
Pentecost. More likely it came with some nameless
Jewish traders whom business brought to Rome.
The first trace of it may be the " continual disturb-
ances" in the Jewish community in the time of
Claudius (cir. 52). If "at the instigation of Chrestus"
is a confused report of disputes about the Christ, we
may be pretty sure that Christianity was the bone of
contention. Our next trace comes from an unexpected
quarter. Tacitus tells us how Pomponia Graecina,
the wife of Aulus Plautius, the first Koman general
in was accused in 57 of " foreign supersti-

Britain,
tion," and handed over to the judgment of her
husband and relations, by whom she was acquitted.
This Pomponia had put on mourning in 43 for Julia
the daughter of Drusus, one of Messalina's victims,
and was admired for her courage in doing so. For
forty years she lived a "melancholy" life.^ Whether
she was indeed the Lucina of the catacombs must be
left in doubt; but her "melancholy" life is just the
description Tacitus might give of Christianity, and no
1 Tac. Ann. xiii. 32.
other " foreign superstition " is likely to have brought

her into dano-er.
We get our next view of the Koman church from
St. Paul's Epistle mixed body of Jews
of 58. It is a
and Gentiles, perhaps numbers, and
in nearly equal
can boast of "notable apostles" in Andronicus and
Junias. But it is not yet organized as a single
church it consists
: rather of a number of small
"churches" which have grown up in different parts
of the city. St. Paul's visit (61-63) must have done
as much for the consolidation of the church as for the
spread of the Gospel. We can already recognize its
strongholds in the palace and the Praetorium. Then

came the fiery trial of the Neronian persecution, and
St. Peter's visit in its later stages. After this we
have nothing for five and twenty years but the- -
shadowy names of Linus and Cletus, who appear as

its first bishops in the list of Hegesippus.^
We learn very little from Clement in 96. He
speaks indeed of " the sudden and repeated calamities
that have befallen us," and significantly reminds the
Corinthians that "we are in the same lists" of
persecution as " the good apostles " and Nero's
victims : but for the rest, we can only say that
the Koman church was in better order than the
Corinthian, and that the bishop appears nowhere in
the letter.church which speaks throughout,
It is the
and even the church claims no jurisdiction over
Corinth. In the language of the diplomatists, it
does not intervene, but simply tenders its good offices
for the restoration of order.
^ Lightfoot Early Rovian Succession in Clement i. 201-345. Irenaeus calls

Cletus Anencletus ; which may have been his real name.
We may pass over the apocryphal Acts of Linus.
—
Some twenty years later Ignatius^ addresses the

church of Kome as " having the presidency in the
district of the Eomans .... having the presidency
in love" i.e. as the chief church in that district,
and as famous The words refer
for its good works.
to the church, not to the bishop, and they do not
seem to imply jurisdiction over even the neighbour-
ing or suburbicarian churches. There is no sign of a
bishop in the letter, much less of a universal bishop.
For the we gather only that there were Chris-
rest,
tians with influence at Kome, and that there was no
active persecution going on at the time.
Of the next six bishops —Euarestus, Alexander,
Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius — who cover the
firsthalf of the second century, we know only that
Telesphorus was a martyr, and that Pius held " the
chair of the church of the city of Eome" while his
brother Hermas wrote the Shepherd.'^ If Hermas
was a slave, as he represents himself, his brother the
bishop was most likely a slave too, or at best a
^ Ign. Rom. 1 irjTLS irpoKad-qTaL iv totto; x'^9''-^^ 'Fcvfxaiwv .... irpoKad-qixevr]
TTJs dydvrjs. It will be noted that x^P''-°^ is a small district, and that the
presidency is of love, not law.
Bardenhewer would do well to give some proof of his round assertion
that "the word dydirr] often signifies in Ignatius the entire community of
Christians" {Patrology 33 E.Tr.).
^ This statement of the Muratorian Fragment would fix the Shcj)herd dr.
140, and suits generally the character of the book. The difficulty is that
Hermas is directed to send the vision to Clement for communication to the
churches. Either {a) Clement is the writer's contemporary, and we must
shift the date to dr. 100. So Zahn
and there is no strong internal evi-
:
dence against this. Or (6) there must have been a second Clement acting as
Foreign Secretary to the church of Kome. This is not impossible, especially
as Clement must have been a fairly common name in the church but upon ;
the whole, it is not likely. Or (c) Hermas deliberately lays the scene of his
vision some forty years back. This seems the best alternative ; but whether
we adopt (&) or (c), the Shepherd will be evidence for the state of the Roman
church dr. 140. An earlier date is forbidden by the reference to Pius, a
later by the absence of any allusion to Gnosticism, which became very active
in Rome a few years later.
freedman. Yet from the Shepherd we get little

information about the church of Rome. Even its
government is not clearly indicated, for though

Hermas usually speaks of the elders as its rulers,
there are a few places where he may be referring to
bishops, though even here it is never certain that he
means bishops in the later sense of the word. His
own would have been described half a
opinions
century later as leaning to Montanism. He makes
much of fasting, allows but one repentance, and
evidently looks forward to a great persecution and
the end of the age. Of course this is not Montanist
docfcrine, for Montanism did not yet exist but it ;
shews more or less of the Montanist temper. We

cannot say how far this temper prevailed in the
Roman church only that it was not dominant.
;
Hermas no doubt speaks for a party but he clearly ;
does not speak for the church of Rome in general.

Meanwhile Rome was becoming the centre of
discussion. Thither came every man who had a
new doctrine to propound, and there he strove to
obtain recognition for it. The Syrian Cerdo came in
the episcopate of Hyginus, Valentinus and Marcion
a little later, and Marcellina " destroyed many " in
the time of Anicetus. Thither came also, for sojourn
or for residence, Justin and his disciple Tatian,
Hegesippus, Polycarp and his disciples Florinus and
Irenaeus, and perhaps the enigmatical Avircius of
Hieropolis.^ There cannot have been many forms
^ The doubt not whether Avircius came to Rome, but whether he was
is
On one side stand Ramsay, Lightfoot, Zahn, Hogarth,

Christian or heathen.
Duchesne; on the other Harnack {T.U. xii. Abercius Inschrift) and von
Schubert {K.G. 191).
The question is delicate. If Avircius is a heathen, his language is
—
deeply coloured by Christianity the Shepherd, the Fish, Paul as companion
(or example) the wine and the bread —
for Harnack does not seem successful
of thought, Christian or heathen, which had not

adherents in Rome.
The next three bishops are known to us by their
relations to other churches : of the church of Rome
itself in their time we hear next to nothing. Ani-
cetus is known only by his friendly dispute with
Polycarp, Soter by his Letter to the church of
Corinth, which was publicly read like Clement's.
The answer of Dionysius praises the church of Rome
for its ancient custom of world-wide liberality, and
for the fatherly welcome received by " the brethren
who go up " to Rome.^ He also speaks of Rome and
Corinth as being the joint foundation of the two
great apostles.Clement had already joined their
names, and so had Ignatius, but this is the first
distinct statement that the church of Rome had
them for its founders. It cannot be strictly true,
for we know that it was not in the proper sense
founded by either of them, though both may have
done much to organize it. But from this time forth
it is the accepted story.
The next bishop Eleutherus had been deacon to
Anicetus —the first of the long line of archdeacons
of Rome which reaches down to Hildebrand. In
his time Irenaeus brings out vividly the primacy
of Rome as the focus of discussion among the
in shewing that these are not Christian. On the other hand, if he is a
Christian, he gives his words touches of heathen colouring, and avoids clear
and definite Christian language. Upon the whole, he seems much more
likely to have been a Christian. He is writing poetry, good or bad and in
;
that age Christian ideas could hardly be put into poetry without borrowing
the poetic dress from heathenism. Moreover, it was prudence in an age of
persecution not to j)ut them on public monuments without veiling them
under phrases which might pass as heathen and that this was very
;
commonly done we see from the inscriptions at Eumenea. And if Avircius

was a Christian at all, nothing seems gained by supposing him heterodox.
1 Eus. iv. 23.
churches. His argument, as we saw before, is that

if the apostles taught Gnosticism, some later bishop
in each church must have gone astray into common

Christianity. Now look over our lists of bishops,
and tell us who they were. But it would be too
long to give the lists of all the churches so we ;
give only that of " the very great and ancient and
universally known church founded and established
at Rome by
the two most glorious apostles, Peter
and Paul. For unto this church, on account of
. . .
its more powerful lead, every church (meaning the
faithful who come from all quarters) must needs

resort; since in it that tradition which comes from
the apostles has always been preserved by those
who come from all quarters." ^
After the Gnostics the Montanists came to Rome.
They must have been making a stir in 177, for in
that year Irenaeus was sent by the confessors at
Irenaeus Haer. iii. 3 Ad hanc enim ecclesiam proj)ter potentiorera (or
^
potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos
qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ah his, qui sunt undique, conservata
est ea quae est ah apostolis traditio.
The Greek is lost, and it is not easy to say whether principalitas refers
to age or dignity : but in any case it is impossible to translate— " With this
church must agree every church, meaning the faithful who are everywhere."
First, convenire ad is strange Latin for to agree with. Second, necesse est
(not oportet) is not of that which ought to be, but of that which must be so,
and cannot be otherwise. Now it was plain necessity that the faithful would
often have business in Rome but it is absurd to say that a church can7iot
;
disagree with Rome. Next, it is not uhique but undique. The faithful are
not living everywhere, but coming from all quarters— to Rome, no doubt.
Again, the last clause is not to be omitted, or got rid of by putting on in qua
the impossible meaning in communion with {e.g. Bardenhewer Patr. 121 E. Tr.)
nor is there any sense in referring it to omnem ecclesiam without putting
unnatural meanings on necesse est and convenire ad. It is clearly local and ;
the meaning is that the faith of the Roman church is continually refreshed
and kept true by the strangers from all parts of the world, whom their
occasions bring to Rome.
See Bright Roman See in the Early Church 30-36. So Langen Gesch. rom.
Kirche i. 171. Their Greek parallels seem conclusive on the meaning of
convenire ad.
Lyons with a letter to Eleutherus. The letter must

have been in the main against the Montanists,
though perhaps not very decidedly so. The position
taken by Eleutherus is a disputed question. Ter-
tullian tells us that a bishop of Rome had already
recognized the Montanist prophets and drawn up
letters of peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia
when he was persuaded by the confessor Praxeas to
recall them. Praxeas brought an evil report of the
prophets from Asia, and appealed to the authority of
(more than one of) the bishop's predecessors. That
bishop may be either Eleutherus or Victor and it is ;
not easy to decide between them. Upon the whole

however it is unlikely that the question of the
prophets did not come to an issue at Rome till a
dozen years or more after Maximilla s death and :
this consideration seems to turn the scale in favour

of Eleutherus.^
Bishop Victor (189-199) is the first of the grand
seriesof statesmen who have held the Roman see.
He ranks in line with Julius I. and Leo the Great,
with Calixtus II. and Hadrian IV, with Sixtus V.
and Leo XIII. We have seen his intercession with
Marcia, and the skilful use he made of the rescript
of Severus. Yet he made a great mistake in dealing
with the Easter Question, which Anicetus and Poly-
carp had left unsettled. Up to that time the Roman
bishops had kept the Sunday, but left the strangers
who came to Rome to do as they pleased. Soter
and Eleutherus would seem to have been less friendly
to the Quartodecimans ; but the controversy did
not blaze up at Rome till the peace of the church
was disturbed by a Quartodeciman zealot named
^ Tert. Prax. 1, discussed by Harnack A.C.L. i. 375.
Blastus. By time the Quartodecimans had fallen

this
out with each other, and many councils in sundry
regions had pronounced for the Sunday. Victor had
nearly all the churches behind him, except those of
Asia : yet he met with general condemnation when
he tried to make the prevailing custom a law of
the church.
was a thorough Roman, it does not
If Victor
follow that he was a modern pope born out of due
time. He is not laying down the law, that a custom
must be observed by all churches because it is the
Roman custom. The dispute was very troublesome,
especially in such a resort of strangers as Rome was,
and the provocations of Blastus had not made things
easier. And now that the Quartodecimans had been
so generally condemned, Victor had some reason for
thinking the time come to put an end to the old
scandal by enforcing the all but universal custom of
Christian churches on the few that insisted on going
their own way. He forgot only what most of his
successors have forgotten, that there can be no true
unity without diversity. The preachers of uniformity
have always been the chief makers of division.
Our information about the Roman church in the
first quarter of the third century comes mostly from
Hippolytus. Tertullian gives important help, but

Eusebius does not seem to know much more than the
names of Zephyrinus and Callistus, and the work of
Gains against Proclus the Montanist. He mentions
Hippolytus, but does not know where he was bishop,
and gives the titles of some of his works, though he
does not appear to have read them —
in fact, Hippo-
lytus is the most obscure of all the early church
writers, and the worst of the many difiiculties con-
nected with him gather round his relation to the

Roman see.
Hippolytus then was born not much before 160,

for he lived till nearly 236 nor much after 170,
;
for he was an influential presbyter at Rome under

Zephyrinus (199-217). His birthplace and family
are unknown, and of his education we can only say
that he was a disciple of Irenaeus no doubt at —
Lyons, dr. 185-195. But his learning was enormous,
wherever he got it he has no equal but Tertullian
:
among the early Westerns. He was in favour with

bishop Victor but under Zephyrinus he was in
;
opposition to the dominant influence of Callistus.

About here {dr. 200-210) may be the date of his
Syntagma, or account of 32 heresies from Dositheus
to Noetus, which was directly or indirectly used by
Ps. -Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster. Callistus
became bishop (217-222) on the death of Zephyrinus ;
and Hippolytus gives a very hostile account of his

life and policy. Of the next bishops, Urbanus (222-
dr. 230) and Pontianus (dr. 230-235) we hear very
little, though most likely it was Pontianus who held
the Synod at Eome which ratified the condemnation

of Origen at Alexandria. During this interval
Hippolytus wrote his Refutatio [Fhilosophmriena)
which may be taken as a much enlarged edition of
the Syntagma with new material and considerable
changes, as we have seen with reference to Basilides.
At last we come to an entry in the Liberian List
of 354. "The bishop Pontianus and the Presbyter
Hippolytus were deported to Sardinia, a pestilential
island, in the consulship of Severus and Quintianus
(235). In that island Pontianus laid down his
ofiice Sept. 28, and Anteros was chosen in his place
Nov. 21 of the same year." The deportation was
of course by Maximin, not by Alexander. Exiles in
Sardinia were not expected to live long so it was ;
probably in the next year (Aug. 13) that bishop

Fabian, who had already succeeded Anteros, laid to
rest the remains of Pontianus in the cemetery of
Callistus, and those of Hippolytus by the via Tibur-
tina. On
that spot a statue (perfect except the
head) was found in 1551. The bishop is seated in
his chair, and round it are inscribed the names of
his works, his Easter cycle of sixteen years, and a
calculation by it of Easter for seven cycles (222-333).
As the cycle went wrong from 237, this must be
the latest date for the statue — an altogether unique
honour for a Christian of early times.
But now comes the question. Who was Hippolytus ?
A bishop certainly, for so he tells us but of what
:
city Nobody seems to know.

? His connexions are
with Eome, and less certainly with Portus at the
mouth of the Tiber. But he was certainly not bishop
^
of Rome; and the silence of Damasus (366-385) and

Jerome is unaccountable, if he was bishop of Portus.
So Lightfoot made him bishop, not of Portus, but
of the foreign population in Portus.
But though
the theory is seems untenable.
Lightfoot's, Such
it
a position as he assigns to Hippolytus would be
not "exceptional" only, but unique in early church
history. But the fatal objection is that the Liberian
List and Damasus call him presbyter, not bishop.^
1 We maydismiss the Bostra and Aden theories as mere blunders.
2Lightfoot {Clement i, 435) endeavours to parry this by making presbyter
a title of honour, like The venerable Bede, or as he calls his own teacher
Irenaeus the blessed presbyter. But surely Pontianus episcopus et Hippolytus
presbyter is a contrast of office ; and the definite H. presbyter in an official
notice is not parallel either to the general oi irpea^îrepoi. or to the particular
6 /xaKaptos irpeaîuTepo^.
VOL. II
Q
—
Further, Hippolytus us that " on the death of

tells
Zephjrinus, Callistus thought he had got what he

was hunting after, and rejected Sabellius for fear of
me," and how the rascal had the impudence to " set
up a school in opposition to the church," and per-
sistently speaks of his " school," as he would speak of
the school of any heretic. All is fairly clear if
Hippolytus was the rival of Callistus for the Eoman
see itself —the first antipope. In that case outsiders
would take his own word for it that he was a bishop,
while officially he would be no more than a presbyter
at Kome. The only real difficulty is that the schism
is not mentioned by later writers and this is not ;
insuperable. The schism must have lasted till 235,

as we from the way the rival bishops are coupled
see
in exile. Yet Hippolytus must have been reconciled
in the end to the Roman church, for she counts no
other antipope among her worthies. The natural
inference is that the two bishops resigned together in
Sardinia. If the schism was ended in this friendly
way, its memory would soon be effaced by the rise
of Novatianism, with which indeed pope Damasus
confounds it.^
Clearly the guiding power in Rome was Callistus,
not Hippolytus. If Hippolytus had the learning,
Callistus had the statesmanship, and carried the
church with him. The account of him given by
Hippolytus is nearly as follows :
The heresy of Noetus was supported by Callistus,

^ Lightfoot's other argument is that Hippolytus would not have failed
definitely to state his claim to the Roman
see. But was it not enough to call
Callistus pointedly the head of a mere school in opposition to the church ?
Nor was it necessary for him to deny that Callistus was the "lawfully
constituted bishop of Rome." His contention was that however lawfully
constituted a bishop might be, he lost all moral claim to his office by such
offences as those of Callistus, and ought to be deposed.
a crafty schemer who governed the ignorant Zephy-

rinus, and was hunting for the succession to his chair.
He actually got Zephyrinus to make publicly a
Patripassian declaration, and called us ditheists for
opposing it. So we will tell the story of his life, that
it may discredit his heresy. Callistus then kept
a bank for his master Carpophorus, a Christian of
Caesar s household. When he " had made all the
deposits to vanish," he tried first flight, then suicide,
but was seized and sent to the mill like a wicked
slave. As death was better than this, he promised to
get back some of the money, and tried to get the
credit of a martyr by making a disturbance in a
Jewish synagogue. The praefect Fuscianus did not
put him to death, but he did the next thing to it.
He scourged him and sent him to penal servitude for
life in the mines of Sardinia. Some time afterward
Marcia, willing to do a good work — for she was the
pious concubine of —
Commodus sent for the blessed
Victor, who was then bishop, and obtained from him
the names of the confessors in Sardinia. Callistus of
course was not on the list, but he contrived by
prayers and entreaties to get his freedom with the
rest. Victor was much annoyed at his return, and
endeavoured to abate the scandal by sending him to
live at Antium on an allowance. After Victor's death,
Zephyrinus brought him back from Antium, set him
in charge of the cemetery, and made him his chief
adviser —and flatterer. On the death of Zephyrinus,
thinking he had got the bishopric he was hunting for,
he expelled Sabellius for unsound teaching but this :
he only did for fear of me, and to get rid of the

current charge of heresy against himself. When hard
pressed on both sides, he scattered blasphemies right
and left, blundering badly between Sabellius and

Theodotus, and set up a scbool of his own in opposi-
tion to the church. He was the first who devised a
way of yielding to men in their sensual pleasures by
saying that by him sins were forgiven to all men. So
the bad consciences, the outcasts of the sects and our
own excommunicates, filled his school. He laid down
the law that if a bishop sinned, even a sin unto death,
he ought not to be deposed. In his time began
twice-married and thrice-married men to be made
bishops, elders and deacons ; and if one of the clergy
married, he kept his office as ifhe had not sinned.
For this Callistus quoted, Who art thou that judgest
another man's servant. Let the tares grow together
—
with the wheat the sinners in the church and the —
clean and unclean beasts in the ark, saying it must
be so in the church. So he got a good school of
sinners. He even allowed women who did not wish
to lose their rank by a legal marriage with a man
below them to have any one they pleased (whether
slave or free) for a companion, and counted that
a marriage. In his time was first impudently
attempted a second baptism.
This is an enemy's account, and no doubt does
Callistus a good deal of injustice yet it seems
;
honestly given, and the broad facts must have been

too notorious to be much falsified. We may take it
then that Callistus was a slave, and that he was un-
fortunate —
Hippolytus does not say fraudulent in —
his banking. The brawl in the synagogue must be
somehow misrepresented, for it is clear that Callistus
was most commonly counted a true confessor. He
may or may not have been on Victor's listbut if he
;
was not, there must have been many who thought

;
had been done him. Nor need his removal

injustice
toAntium imply any special dislike on Victor's part.
The bankrupt was in any case best out of the way,
and he could hardly be employed in Rome against the
will of his old master Carpophorus. It is not every
bankrupt who fails for want of talent and his in- ;
fluence over Zephyrinus is better explained by real

ability than by mere gifts and flattery, if only because
a favourite of that sort is too generally obnoxious to
have a chance of the succession.
Like most of the Roman bishops, Callistus was
more statesman than saint. The very violence of
Hippolytus proves that he was a successful bishop
and the changes he made may not have been unwise.
First comes his action with regard to penance and ;
on this we have the evidence of Tertullian. " I hear
that an edict has been published, and indeed a

decisive one. The Pontifex Maximus forsooth, the
bishop of bishops, issues his edict : I remit the sins of
adultery and fornication to those who have done
their penance." ^
That is to say, Callistus has issued
a declaration as authoritative in substance as an
emperor's edict, and even more summary (et quidem
peremptorium) in tone. In this he sets forth his
personal dignity as bishop of Rome, in virtue of which
he presumes to restore church communion to all who
have committed sins of the flesh (a few abominations
no doubt excepted) if they have shewn their penitence
in the prescribedform of penance {exomologesis).

Thus unchastity is removed from the Hst of unpardon-
able sins, leaving only idolatry and murder. The
change was doubtless good policy, for it brought the
sinners to the church of Callistus. It seemed a sad
J
Tert. de Pud. i.
decline to rigorists like Hippolytus, who would per-

manently refuse communion to all gross sinners. The
contest had still to be fought out over the Lapsi but
:
the change would have to be made, if the church was

ever to be more than a pietistic sect. After all, it
was one step nearer to the spirit of Christ when
sinners were received, even to inhuman penance, than
when they were for ever shut out and surrendered to
the powers of evil.
Another change made by Callistus marks the first
clear divergence of church and civil law on social
questions. The Roman law of marriage reflected the
strong class feeling which survived the Empire. A
man might marry his freed woman, and a woman
might marry her freedman, though such marriages
were not considered very decent ; but there could
be no marriage of a slave, even with another slave.
Senators however and their near relations were not
allowed to marry low women, much less freed women
or slaves. The law was no doubt difiicult to enforce,
for the relation of a concuhina (morganatic wife) was
outwardly very like an immoral relation which
Society did not seriously condemn. Callistus now
decreed that if a woman of high rank formed a
permanent connexion with a man of low birth, with
a freedman, even with a slave, such connexion
or
should be recognized by the church as a lawful
marriage. Here again Callistus was in advance of
his time. Unequal marriages and marriages with
freedmen might pass with more moderate men than
Hippolytus, and the marriages of slaves among them-
selves were recognized (subject to master's sanction)
but even Christian opinion was not yet prepared to
sanction marriages between slave and free.
;
The other complaints of Hippolytus are also

coloured by his rigoristic leanings. Thus he states
the extreme practice of forbidding the ordination of
digamists and the marriage of ordained persons as
if it were the undisputed law of the church. His
complaint that Callistus forbade the deposition of a
bishop guilty of deadly sin probably means that
Callistus did not agree with him on what constitutes
deadly sin. The second baptism which was attempted
(Hippolytus does not say by Callistus) must be the
rebaptism of heretics who came over to the church
and the attempt must have been a failure, for we can-
not set aside the clear and definite statement of bishop
Stephen, that rebaptism neither was nor ever had
been the custom of the church of Rome.
Books
Lightfoot Apostolic Fathers ; Langen Gesch. der romischen Kirche ;

Rolffs
Indulgenzedict d. Kallistus.
CHAPTER XXII
AFRICA —TERTULLIAN
Separated from Europe only by the sea, but from
Egypt and the Soudan by some twelve hundred miles
of desert, lies what the Arabs call the Island of the
West. Behind the rocky coast which faces Spain is
a belt of fertile lands, and beyond it the hills slope
upward to the Atlas range, then southward and
downward to the Sahara. In prehistoric times the
mountains ran without a break from Spain to Sicily
and Crete, and even to the Taurus and the Lebanon ;
but now their ends sink down to meet the coast

where it turns abruptly south to the Syrtes. This
trend of the coastwhat gives its matchless gran-
is
deur to the site of Even Constantinople

Carthage.
has no more commanding position than the Queen
of the West beside her noble bay, overlooking the
Italian seas from the shelter of the Hermaean Cape,
and resting on the thickly peopled valley of the
Bagradas behind her, in fertility unsurpassed by that
of the Nile itself.
If the historical connexions of Egypt are with

Asia, north-western Africa belongs even geographically
to Europe. The separation from Spain and Sicily is
a thing of yesterday, so that plants and animals differ
very little across the sea. Even the foreign element
232
CHAP. XXII AFRICA—TERTULLIAN 233
in Koman Africa is much more Asiatic ttian

Ethiopian.^ The desert is the barrier, not the sea.
Even the climates intermingle. Algiers is as wet as
Europe, while the glowing coast of Murcia ripens
dates like the African oases. ^ The Berber aborigines
look like Europeans, and are utterly unlike the
Semite or the negro, or even the Egyptian. Their
tall and sinewy forms, often with blue eyes and flaxen
hair,have given rise to many a legend of children

of the Vandals in the recesses of Mount Aures,
or of Gothic fugitives in the Canaries : yet their
vivid and emotional temper reminds us rather
of Gauls or Phrygians than of the solid Teutons. It
is not for want of courage that they never played a
leading part in history. The Numidian cavalry
turned the scales of war for Hannibal at Cannae, for
Rome at Zama, and nearly gave her a Moorish
emperor in the ruthless Lusius Quietus. After five-
and-twenty centuries of foreign rule, they still remain
the basis of the population and Islam itself has;
never been able to seduce them into Arab nomadism

and polygamy.
The Phoenicians were the first of their foreign
masters. They came power was
as traders, and their
never strong except along the coast and round
Carthage. They were hard masters, cruel and selfish,
so that the fall of Carthage was a great deliverance
for the Berbers, who under the dynasty of Massinissa
nearly developed into a nation. Yet Phoenician
literature and civilization survived for ages by the
^
Most e.g. of the Mollusca of Algeria are found in Spain or Sicily, and the
rest resemble those of the Anatolia and Syria but with those of the Soudan
;
they have almost nothing in common.

2 Bp. Collins tells me that they need careful irrigation, and are not equal
to the African. Still, even this seems more than can be done on the African
coast.
sea, from Leptis Magna to the Pillars. The emperor

Severus spoke Phoenician, his sister spoke no Latin,
and even in Augustine's time Phoenician was the
language of the rustics near Hippo. The Alonim
and Alonoth of Carthage were still worshipped in
Eoman times, public sacrifices of children lasted " till
the proconsulship of Tiberius," ^

and El Gabal brought
the Queen of Heaven to Rome as a bride for Jupiter
Capitolinus.
The Romans came in as destroyers, with more than
Punic treachery and for ; a whole century the ruins
of Carthage were a parable of a neglected province.
In spite of Caius Gracchus, the finest site in Africa
remained a waste. Only after Juba's presumption
had been crushed at Thapsus was the dictator Caesar
able to cover it with a Roman colony. Roman
Carthage grew fast like Roman Corinth, and before
the third century stood next to Rome herself as the
greatest city of the West. A new life was in the
land. Roman roads ran from Carthage to the Pillars
and to the edge of the desert, and even across it to
Alexandria. Roman yeomen tilled the fertile soil,
and Roman nobles settled in their midst. If Rome

had won her conquest foully, she learned to use it
nobly. Africa rivalled even Gaul in the number of
her cities, and in the splendour of their buildings.
Only the native tribes of Aures and the desert were
neglected. Vast camps indeed like Lambaesis and
Gemellae held the frontier, and Roman forays might
pierce far south across the Atlas or to Fezzan but no :
eff'ort was made to civilize the dweller of the desert.
So back he came " like the desert sands " whenever

^ Tert. Apol. 9, best interpreted of a proconsul in the second century, served
perhaps by Tertullian's father.
—
XXII AFRICA— TERTULLIAN 235
Kome was weak, and his iDCursions nearly ruined the

province long before the Vandals conquered it.
Meanwhile Roman Carthage was a splendid restora-
tion of the old Phoenician city. Eshmun and Tanith
came back to temples on the Byrsa, the quays were
once more full of commerce, and the ships of Carthage
covered the seas as in the olden time. No garrison
was there, which held Africa was
for the legion
quartered at Lambaesis Constantine removed it
till
to the rock of Cirta. But a Roman proconsul had

his palace on the Byrsa, and the city was Roman
not Phoenician, not Greek like the other great cities
of the Empire, but Roman. Not its lawyers only,
but its rhetoricians and philosophers (poets it had
none) wrote Latin, and a stately amphitheatre pro-
vided Roman pleasure for its people. Yet with all
this, Carthage was not quite like Rome. The Greek
element of its life may have been smaller, but the
dominant Latin was never quite natural. The minc-
ing elegance of Apuleius and the rugged boldness of
Tertullian are alike in this. From Phoenician^ per-
adventure or Berber came a certain un-Roman strain
of intensity which ran through the superstition and
sensuality of the place — for Carthage was as vicious
and Athletes and
as frivolous as other great cities.
singers, and rope-dancers were the men it
actors
delighted to honour. The great ladies had more
^ The Phoenician element in African Christianity seems underestimated by
Benson Cyprian xxxv. True, Cyprian's bishops (and martjrrs too) nearly
p.
all bear names. But (1) Some of the earlier martyrs (Namphamo,
Roman
Miggin, Guddenis, Nartzallus) are clearly natives. (2) Some who bear
Roman names may have had native fathers, as we frequently see in the Sufetes
of the towns. (3) Some such influence seems needed to explain the admitted
peculiarities of African Christianity. If the African church was so thoroughly
Roman, why was it not more like the Roman ? The weakness of Donatism
at Rome may
be as significant as that of Arianism. I am not seeking to
deny Benson's general position only to qualify it.
;
influence than their sisters at Alexandria, and were

not behind them The great
in careless luxury.
landlords gave themselves, not indeed commonly to
gross excesses, but even less to manly virtue. They
lived for elegance and selfish pleasure.^ Meanwhile
capital was locked up in palaces of luxury, free
labourers were disappearing, and the yeomen's farms
were swallowed up in ever-growing stretches of
grazing land. Slavery and rotten economics and
rampant vice were preparing the way for the nomads
of the south.
How
and when Christianity came to Roman
Africa is unknown. We may guess that it came
from Rome, and we may be sure that it came early,
and that it had Greek beginnings but information ;
we have none about its origin, or even about the

first century or more of its history. Fronto of Cirta
tells us little, and may have Italy more in view than
Africa, while Minucius Felix is better placed after

Tertullian than before him. The reference of Apuleius
to the Christians is disputed, but in any case he gives
us little that is definite. So we first get sight of the
African churches in the proconsulship of Vigellius
Saturninus, which covers the opening of the reign of
^ As samples of the great Roman
nobles, we may take the description of
the two Gordians in Africa by Capitolinus Gordiani tres 6 {Gordianus) erat
. . canitie decora et pompali vultu
. oculis ore fronte verendus
. . . . . .
moribus ita moderatus ut nihil possis dicere, quod ille aut cupide aut in-
modeste aut nimie fecerit . . . vini parens, cibi parcissimus, vestiiu
nitidus, lavandi cupidus, ita ut et quarto et quinto lavaret aesiate, hieme
secundo.
19 {Gordianus junior) fuit vini cupidior semper tamen undecumque conditi
,
. . . cihi parous . . . mulierum cupidissimus (scandalous details) . , . vixit

in deliciis, in hortis, in balneis, in amoenissimis nemoribus . . . vestitu
cultissimus, servis et omnibus suis carus.
They were much the same a century or two later e.g. in Gaul, Dill Roman
Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire 115-223 " Very pleasant,
but somewliat self-indulgent and frivolous."
—;

Commodus. The first of the African martyrs was
Namphamo of Madaura, a Phoenician by origin ; and
a few days later came the Scillitans (July 17, 180).
Some years after this, we find Christianity flourishing
with astonishing vigour. The original Greek element
is long ago swamped, and the churches, like Carthage
are in the main Latin, with a strain of Phoenician.

itself,
The Christians were not only numerous in the cities

— there may have been some thousands in Carthage
but had spread to the villages, and reached the native
Berbers and the edge of the desert. But the Africa
of this age is Tertullian's Africa. Fronto and
Apuleius are insignificant beside him, and Cyprian
himself is no more than a pale copy of the Master." '*
Tertullian has no equal in Latin Christendom before

Augustine.
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born
about 155-160. His father was a centurion^ and a
heathen : of his mother he tells us nothing. He had
the usual literary education, of course beginning with
Homer : but for Latin the fashion of the time was
archaic. Fronto preferred Ennius and Cato to Virgil
and Cicero. Then came rhetoric, both Greek and
Latin, for Tertullian wrote in both languages after- :
wards the legal studies which have left their mark

on almost every page of his work. Whether he was
the great lawyer Tertullianus whom we meet in the
Corpus Juris is more than we can say. He read the
poets, and cared littlethem, practised rhetoric,
for
and despised it, studied philosophy, and railed at it
but all his conceptions are
shaped by law and
Stoicism. Then he seems to have been in Rome
throughout the reign of Commodus, or at any rate
^ Jerome de Vir. ill. 53.
at its beginning and end ; and at some time he seems

to have paid a visit to Greece.
So far Tertullian was a heathen, frequenting the
games, perhaps more or less of a Mithraist, and
living much the same life as others. The date of
his conversion may
be about 195, but afterwards he
became an elder of the church. His wife was also
Christian, but we do not know whether he married
her as such.
His conversion seems to have been caused rather
by the sight of Christian constancy than by any
search for truth in Justin's style, or by the reading
of Christian books —
for he tells us that nobody reads
them till he is already a Christian. However, it
came as a shock which filled him with a deep horror
of all the works and ways of heathenism, a nervous
dread of everything that might countenance idolatry,
and a firm determination to keep the church free
from everything even pointing to that greatest of all
sins. So Tertullian was a rigorist from the first, and
a prince among rigorists. In weight of learning he is
no unworthy match for Clement of Alexandria, in

literary skill and force of character he far surpasses
him, and in strength of conviction he is not behind
him. He lacks only Clement's fairness, moderation
and width of view. Augustine himself is not more
full of the vivid phrases that live for everand all ;
history can shew no greater master of irony and

invective. For Tertullian has neither charity nor
even common justice for an opponent, and nothing
of Clement's reverence for truth as the mystery of
God which we can truly know, but only know in
part. Controversial questions are quite clear to him.
Truth is an item of church property, and he is counsel
for the defence against heretics and heathens. So

he everywhere the keen lawyer who uses every
is
argument that will tell, and appeals to every passion

that will serve his purpose. Irony and sarcasm and
paradox and downright special pleading alternate
with grand bursts of eloquence and long stretches of
solid reasoning. His stern uncompromising sentences
come like blows of a hammer crushing everything
before them for mercy is a word he understood no
:
better than the Stoics. He was a Montanist in temper

long before he accepted the oracles of the New
Prophecy. Tertullian was no friend of publicans
and sinners. To him the Gospel is a rigid law, and
the heinous sinner is once for all beyond the reach of
mercy. Christ will plead no more for him,^ and wrath
shall come upon him to the uttermost. Forgiveness
is not until seventy times seven, but after Baptism
not even once. The heretics he fought were many and
dangerous ;
yet is not Tertullian himself among the
worst of them, when he slanders Christ as merciless ?
This is Tertullian in his usual and characteristic
mood ; but it is only fair to say that he is com-
paratively mild in some of his earlier and more

devotional writings, where he has no special enemies
in view, and shews himself fully sensible of the evil
done him by his gusts of passion. Even as late as
218 his remonstrance to Scapula is written with
perfect dignity. But in general the bad habit
steadily grows on him, till his latest works are
monuments of Montanist narrowness and want of
charity. Yet even these are full of power only :
Tertullian could have written them, and Tertullian

only in the bitterness of his old age.
^ de Pudicitia 19 (Montanist).
The date of his adoption of Montanism is uncertain,

but it did not for some years lead to a rupture with
the church. The time of his death is equally un-

certain but we must put it well after 220, if Jerome
;
is right in telling us that he lived to extreme old age.

There isno reason to suppose that he was a martyr.
We will now review some of his treatises, taking
those which may throw light on the man himself and
on the times in which he lived.
We will begin with Tertullian at his best, in the
de Oratione. Jesus Christ, the Spirit, Word, and
Eeason of God, gave a new form of prayer to the
disciples of the Testament, because the old ordinances
no longer held good, now that the new grace had
renewed all things from carnal to spiritual. Short as
it is, it is a summary of the entire Gospel. Then he
goes through it clause by clause. We take a sample.
" After God's name, God's will, and God's kingdom,
he makes a place for prayer for earthly needs, for the

Lord had already laid down the rule. Seek ye first
the kingdom, and then all these things shall be added
to you though we rather understand. Give us this
;
day our daily bread, in a spiritual sense. For Christ

is our bread, because Christ is life and bread is life.
I am, saith he, the bread of life, and a little before.

The bread is the Word of the living God, which
came down from heaven. Again, his body is
counted to be in bread —This is my body. There-
fore in asking for our daily bread, we ask for a
perpetual continuance in Christ, and that we may
never be separated from his body. But because the
word may be taken in a carnal sense, it must not be
so taken without regard to religion, and specially to

the spiritual discipline, for he commands that bread
be asked for, whicli is the one thing believers need,

for after the rest the Gentiles seek." His summing-
up is too brilliant to be omitted. " How many
duties are here ticked off. The honour of God in
Father, the testimony of faith in Name, the offering
of obedience in Will, the remembrance of hope in
Kingdom, the prayer for life in Bread, the confession
Lead
of debts in Forgive, the dread of temptation in
us not. What wonder ? Only God could teach how
he wished to be prayed to." After this, we may add
other prayers, but we must be free, not only from
anger against a brother, but from all disturbance of
mind. But we need not first wash our hands like
the Jews (who notwithstanding are never clean) or
take off our cloaks as the heathens do. Nor is there
any reason for sitting down when we have finished,
unless it be a childish imitation of Hermas. Again,
we ought not to make known our fasting by
forbearing the kiss of peace, though it is another
matter at the Passover (Good Friday) when we all
fast openly. So too it is a mistake, though a

common one, to abstain from the sacrificial prayers
on the half- fasts or stationes, on the ground that the
fast will be broken by receiving the Lord's body. If
the fast is a service devoted to God, will not the
Thanksgiving bind it closer to God ? Will not your
station be more solemn if you have stood at God's
altar ? But if you take the bread and reserve it to
eat at home, you can attend the sacrifice without
breaking the fast.^ Women without exception must
be veiled at the common prayers. There are a few
1 It will be noted here (1) that the fast is here at most a laudable custom,
not a binding ordinance, (2) that this reservation differs entirely from the
later custom. Instead of depending on the doctrine of the Real Presence, it
is rather inconsistent with it. But neither does it agree very well with the
VOL. II R
who abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath ; but for

ourselves, we follow the tradition of standing only on
the day of the Lord's resurrection and in the season of
Pentecost. As for prayer at the third, sixth and
ninth hours of the day, these are good habits, though
there is no precept enjoining them : still it is becom-
ing for believers not to take food or enter the bath
without prayer. After mentioning some minor prac-
tices, he concludes with a noble description of the
efficacy of prayer, beginning, Prayer is the spiritual
victim which has abolished the ancient sacrifices.
We take next a rather later work, which deals

with more thorny questions, where however Tertullian
still (by comparison) shews good sense. The subject
of the de Idololatria is the limits of Christian liberty
in common life in a heathen world ; and this, like
the observance of Sunday in later times, is a hard

question for those who determine Christian duty by
legal rules. He begins then by saying that idolatry
is the worst sin of mankind, because it includes all
others. The idolater is a murderer of himself, an

adulterer and a robber of God. Idol-makers must
not be admitted to the church, for God forbids us
even to make an idol, for making one is worshipping
it. The brazen serpent is the exception which proves
the rule. Yet these men are received in the church,
and even chosen for the ministry The Jews laid !
"
hands on Christ but once these men wound him :
daily," when they deliver the Lord's body with

unclean hands. These hands deserve to be cut off.^
The astrologer is as bad, and the schoolmaster or
idea of communion, on which it does depend. In short, it seems a supersti-

tion pure and simple.
^ Probably these cases were few : but the scandal would be great.
teacher of literature no better, for he has to explain

all about the gods, and to keep their festivals. The
disciple however is not bound to do either, and some
literature we must have. It is therefore lawful to
learn, but not to teach literature.^ In general, no
art or trade which is a help to sin is free from the
stain of sin. One of his instances is the seller of
incense.^ As for the festivals of the heathen, both
faith and discipline forbid us to rejoice then ; and if
money is usually paid or received on those days, we
must choose other days. The command to rejoice
with them that do rejoice refers to brethren, not to
heathens. Illuminations on state occasions are idolatry
too. Let your works shine but now
" Christ said. ;
all our shops and gates shine."The lamps before

your doors and the laurels on your door-posts are an
honour to the multitudinous gods who preside over
entrances. I know of a brother who was grievously
punished in a vision, because his slaves had crowned
his door yet he was away from home, and on his
:
return reproved them. So strict (he might have said

unjust) is God in dealing with us. But as regards
private festivals, of putting on the toga virilis,
betrothals, weddings, namings, I is no think there
danger in the whiff of idolatry mixed up with them.
All these are innocent —
God curses nothing in the
way of dress, except a man in woman's clothes. We
may attend even if there is a sacrifice, provided we
do not come for the sacrifice. But as for helping
at a sacrifice, as by handing the wine or prompting
the sacrificer, that is flat idolatry. Any public
^ Exactly Julian's position, that Christians must not teach the classics.
It is aform of the general fallacy, that it is dishonest to teach anything we
do not take literally.
2 Yet he says de Cor. 10 that he uses incense to abate a stink.
office is quite impossible for a Christian. Can tie
avoid sacrificing or countenancing sacrifice, farming

out victims, providing for the care and revenue of
temples, games and presiding over them,
giving
not even taking oaths or judging any man for life
or character, or punishing any man ? The thing is
impossible. Similarly the soldier and even if he :
can escape compliances with idolatry, the soldier's

promise is inconsistent with the baptismal promise.
The centurion may have been a believer but in ;
disarming Peter the Lord disarmed every soldier

from that time forth. ^ When the law forbids us to
name false gods, it does not mean such casual mention
as, I live in Isis Street ; nor does it forbid me to call
a man Saturnus, if such be his name. It is the
naming them as gods which is the sin. Thus we
must not say. By Hercules and if the heathen say, :
Jupiter be angry with you, we must not answer,

Nay, with you. Christ lays down the law that
we are not to swear at all, and it is not enough
to forbear swearing in words. An oath written
in a deed is still an oath
you sign it,; and if
you cannot say that you have not sworn. " Amidst
these rocks and inlets, these shallows and straits
of idolatry Faith makes her voyage with her sails
filled by the Spirit of God, safe if cautious, secure if
watchful."
We come now to his " most plausible and most
mischievous book," the de Praescriptionihus. Its
perversities are more serious than those of the de
Idololatria, because he is not now seeking a middle
course between carelessness and scrupulosity in
^ He forgets Cornelius. In Apol. 42 he speaks of Christian soldiers as a

matter of course.
^
Christian practice, but resting the whole defence of

Christian doctrine against the heretics on a gross
fallacy of argument. He abandoned this fallacy
(along with some others he here lays down) when he
joined the Montanists : but it is so simple and so
plausible to the natural man that it has always been
the staple of distinctively catholic theology. He
begins then with general denunciations of heresy, and
traces its doctrines to philosophy. Thus the Valen-
tinian aeons come from Plato. The God of Marcion
is Stoic. When the soul is said to perish, that is
a note taken from the Epicureans, and when the

restoration of the flesh is denied, that is the common
belief of all the philosophers. From the philosophers
—
come the curious questions Whence is evil, and
why ? Whence is man, and how ? and the latest —
problem of Valentinus Whence is God? — From
enthymesis and ectroma, of course. What have
Athens and Jerusalem in common ? the academy and
the church ? heretics and Christians ? We who be-
lieve in Christ need ask no further questions, for we
believe that there is nothing further which we ought
to believe. " Seek, and ye shall find," was spoken
only to the Jews and in any case, we who have

;
found the truth cannot seek further without confessing

that we have lost it. If we keep the rule of faith,
other questions are open to curiosity, and minister
only to curiosity. Heretics must not be allowed to
appeal to Scripture, for when the apostle commands
us to reprove them, he forbids us to argue with
them : and indeed such argument leads to nothing
but confusion of mind and loss of temper.
^ Roughly, the Apostles' Creed plus the inspiration of the Old
Testament
and eternal fire for the profani.
We shall method if we
get a more satisfactory
take it as a Whose property then is
matter of law.
Scripture ? Jesus Christ sent his apostles who
founded churches and from these churches we have
;
our tradition of his teaching. Here then we enter

our demurrer {jpraescriptio) that (whatever the
heretics may have to say) no teachers can be received
but those Christ sent, no doctrine accepted but what
is proved by means of those churches. All contrary
teaching may be summarily set down as false. The
apostles knew everything, and taught everything,
and the churches did not mistake their teaching.
If Galatians and Corinthians went wrong, no doubt
they were set right and they cannot all have
:
gone wrong together unless the apostles taught them

wrong.
Truth is older than error, and the churches are
older than Marcion and Valentinus. If these men
are new apostles, let them produce their new gospel,
and prove it with miracles. If they are disciples of
the old, let them tell us the origin of their churches,
and trace back the succession of their bishops to some
apostle, or to some companion of the apostles who did
not turn heretic. We can do it, they cannot and :
as for their doctrines, they are precisely those exposed

and denounced by the apostles. If this be so, heretics
must not be allowed to appeal to Scripture, for we
can shew on independent grounds that they have
nothing to do with Scripture. For if they are
heretics, they are not Christians and if they are not
;
Christians, they have no right to Christian Scriptures.

These are our property we have long been in
;
possession by what right do you disturb us ? We

:
are the heirs of the apostles. We keep the deposit

— '
according to the terms they laid down in their

testament, you they disinherited as strangers and
enemies. Heresies are inspired by the devil, and
come very near to idolatry, for they are just as much
his work. After further complaints of the way in
which they treat Scripture — " Marcion criticizes with
a pen-knife" —he gives a lively account of their
disorderly worship, no doubt referring chiefly to the
Marcionites. " In the first place, it is uncertain who
is catechumen, who full Christian. They come up

together,^ they pray together —heathens also, if any
come in. They throw their holy things to dogs and
their pearls (though they are but shams) to the swine.
They have it that the destruction of order is
will
simplicity, and our care of order they call pandering.
They give the kiss of peace indiscriminately to all,
for with all their dififerences, they make no difference
amongst themselves, so long as they are all agreed in
their conspiracy against one truth. They all
the
promise knowledge. Their catechumens are perfect '
before they are fully taught. Even their women

how pert they are ! They have the impudence to
teach, to dispute, to exorcise, to promise cures,
perhaps also to baptize. Their ordinations are
random, hasty, unstable. Sometimes they choose
neophytes, sometimes men of the world, sometimes
our renegades —to
bind them by vanity, since by
truth they cannot. Promotion is nowhere easier
than in the camp of rebels, where the mere fact of
being there is a merit. So one is bishop to-day,
another to-morrow a man is deacon to-day, reader
;
to-morrow elder to-day, layman to-morrow, for they

;
^ To see the "mysteries" only, for even Marcion could not have allowed
heathens to partake of them.

—
put sacerdotal functions even on laymen." They

have no reverence even for their own chairmen and ;
this is why they are scarcely troubled with schisms

because they have no obedience. Schism itself is
their only unity. Most of them have not even
churches — forlorn creatures that they are. We all
know their dealings with magicians in plenty,

vagabonds, astrologers, and philosophers all of them —
gentlemen given to curiosity. This is their reading
of. Seek and ye shall find. The work concludes
with a piece of irony audacious even for Tertullian.
Our Lord himself addresses the heretics " I com-
—
mitted my gospel and the rule of discipline once for
all to my apostles but as you forsooth were not
;
likely to believe it, I thought it well to make some

changes here and there. I promised a resurrection,
even of the flesh but on second thoughts, perhaps
;
I could not fulfil it. I declared myself born of a
virgin but afterward I thought that rather scandalous.

;
I called him Father, who makes the sun and the

rains ; but another father has adopted me now, to my
great advantage. I forbade you to listen to heretics ;
but in that I blundered."

All is magnificent
this as declamation and in-
vective and large parts of it are quite true, though
;
he has evidently mixed up the misdeeds of difierent

sects as a satire on heresy generally. But the fallacy
of the argument is evident. He assumes first that
the revelation is a definite body of doctrines and
practices so fully given to the apostles and delivered
by them to the churches that the Holy Spirit cannot
have any fresh light to throw on it, or at any rate will
give none to those who for any reason are outside the
visible churches. He further takes for granted
;
precisely the question at issue — that the actual

teaching of the churches exactly represents that of
the apostles. In a word, he ignores history, and that
on both sides —the teaching of God in history, and
the varieties and changes of men summed up in
history. Again, he assumes that tradition is always
in accord with Scripture but he requires this to be
;
believed without proof, for there is no way of proving
it without the appeal to Scripture which he forbids.

The and practical mischiefs of the argument
direct
might have been less if tradition had been limited
to those historic facts of which every particular
church is a witness and keeper, though even then
Christianity would have been rested on a false
basis and made impossible of rational reception
but the extension of tradition to sundry doctrines
and practices without allowing them to be verified
by Scripture and sound learning is nothing short
of a rejection of Christ in favour of the par-
ticular church authority we think fit to choose for
ourselves.
In truth, the de Fraescriptionihus is a piece of
special pleading, and Tertullian does himself less than
justice in it. In other works he continually meets the
heretics on the ground of Scripture, and challenges
them to prove their doctrines from Scripture. His
five books against Marcion begin with a little abuse
— Marcion worse than all the horrid beasts of Scythia
— but soon become a continuous argument from
Scripture. A few years later, when his acceptance
of the oracles of the Paraclete had practically
made him a schismatic, he shattered the sophistry
of the de Fraescriptionihus with a single great
saying, which echoed in the Latin Church for
250 CHURCH HISTORY chap, xxn
centuries — Our Lord called himself Truth, not

Custom.^ Even Tertullian learned something in
schism.
^ Tert. de Virg. vel. 1.
Books
Neander * Antignosticus ; Noeldechen Tertullian Gotha 1890 ; Glover
Conflict of Religions,
CHAPTER XXIII
DECIUS AND VALERIAN
For more than half a century the churches had a

tolerable peace, from the reign of Commodus to that
of Philip. Doubtless the fires of persecution only
smouldered, and ever and anon some outbreak, even
in the friendly reign of Philip, reminded them that
Rome was still their Yet the situation
enemy.
seemed improving. The Christians were more in
number, and better known. They belonged to all
ranks of society, and claimed the ablest literary men
of the time. They were no Brahmins or hermits,
but lived in the world and frequented the streets
and markets like other men.^ They were found to
be worthy citizens like their neighbours, but for a
few quakerish eccentricities. So the old scandals died
away, and the violence of mobs abated. We hear
of no riots after the time of Callus, and the
later persecutions of Valerian and Diocletian were
set on foot by the government. Meanwhile the
Christians found favour in the highest quarters.
First Commodus, then Severus and his successors
leaned to Eastern worships. So they were left un-
molested, and rather protected than otherwise. The
1 Tert. Apol. 42
251
only break is the short reign of Maximin ; and after

that Philip returned to the Eastern policy. The
surface signs were those of peaceful progress : yet
the hardest struggles were still to come.
Even time a careful observer might
in Philip's
have seen that danger was near. Earnest men like
Cyprian would read the signs of coming judgment in
scandalous bishops, caballing clergy and a laity quite
at home in a world of rampant sin. Some storm of
persecution was needed to cleanse the church. There
was truth view of things, though it was too
in this
darkly coloured. An
outsider might have seen almost
as much. Toleration rested not on law, but on the
favour of Syrian emperors and the Syrian emperors
;
had not been successful. El Gabal had been swept

away for his insolent defiance of Roman feeling and ;
the cautious eclecticism which Alexander failed to

carry through was not likely to fare better in Philip's
more ambitious hands. The Empire was visibly sink-
ing into some abyss of disaster. Macrinus, Alexander
and Gordian had all been failures in the East and ;
the steady pressure of the Goths on the Danube

was hardly less alarming than the growth of Persia.
Even the splendid festival of the thousandth year
of Rome in 248 had a touch of sadness in it as
a reminder of a glorious past, and must have stirred
many hearts to indignation against the un-Roman
degeneracy which seemed ruining the Empire — and
against the Christians most of all as the worst of
degenerates. Murderous 249 at Alexandria^
riots in
were a sign of things to come. The heathen reaction
only wanted a leader and a mutiny in Pannonia
;
supplied one. Philip fell in battle at Verona (249,

1 Eus. vi. 41.
XXIII DECIUS AND VALERIAN 253
about Sept.^) and Trajanus Decius reigned in his

^
stead.
The new emperor was no barbarian Hke Maximin.
Without reaching the saintly fame of Marcus which
overawed the Christians, Decius appears to have
been a noble type of Roman virtue. His military
reputation was hardly shattered by the catastrophe
of the Gothic war and we have no reason to doubt
;
his dignity and general mildness, and earnest wish

to restore the grand old Roman virtues. Zosimus
gives a splendid character, and even the
him
Christians have nothing against him but the
persecution —
and that was the natural expression
of his Roman zeal.^ He was a Trajan fallen on
evil days, and he endeavoured to go back to the
systems of a better time. Soldier though he was,
Decius worked in harmony with the senate, and
^ Philip was living Aug. 29 : Decius is reigning Oct. 16.
2 Some words seem needed on the thorny question of the credibility of
Pollio and Vopiscus — for the other writers of the Hist. Aug. concern us less.
We may attempt of Dessau to make the whole

set aside at once the
series the work of one forger in the time of Theodosius. There is no reason
to doubt that the Lives were written in the times of Diocletian and Con-
stantine, and put together in their present form cir. 330. It is agreed on
all hands that they are as poor stuff as ever passed for history, and that
Pollio and Vopiscus wrote the poorest stuff of all. But is it poor history or
little better than romance ?
As the letters of the kings on the capture of Valerian are evident forgeries,
there is no a priori reason why the rest of the letters and documents should
not be forgeries but it does not summarily follow that they are forgeries.
:
Each case must be taken on its own evidence, and even a forgery is often
good evidence on side questions. But I fear the conclusion will very
commonly be adverse.
A however must be entered against some of the arguments.
protest
Thus the conversation of the praefect Tiberianus with Vopiscus at the
Hilaria is dismissed as invention because Tiberianus was not praefect at the
Hilaria. Surely it is not common sense to take for granted that a most
inaccurate writer cannot possibly have put down the wrong festival.
2 Decius not led (Eus. vi. 39) by hatred of Philip. He seems (Zos. i. 21)
to have been quite loyal to Philip, and was set up by the army against his
will.
:
even endeavoured^ to restore the censorship in the

person of Valerian.^ The mere attempt is enough to
stamp him as a dreamer like Julian. In fact, under
the name of a republican censor he was creating a
second senatorial emperor for civil affairs.^
Very soon an edict (the first edict against the

Christians) struck the churches the most terrible
blow they had ever yet sustained. Its exact wording
is unknown but it must have required all persons
;
generally to sacrifice before a certain day. The

object was to make as few martyrs as was possible,
if only Christianity was rooted out. For this pur-
pose there was an ascending scale of compulsion,
^ Trebellius Pollio Vol. 5, 6 dates the election of Valerian by the senate

Oct. 27, 251. Schiller R6m.
i. 807 rightly shifts this to 250, on the
Gesch.
ground that Decius was dead before Aug. 29, 251. To his arguments may
be added the impossibility (if Decius was alive as late as Oct. 27) of getting
in the reigns of Gallus and .^milianus before the return of the third legion
to Africa. It was sent back by Valerian, and a squadron of it reached
Gemellae Oct. 23, 253. This by the way is one of the arguments which fix
Valerian's own election to the Empire for 253 and not 254.
2 This division of powers, reserving civil affairs to the senate, was always
the senatorial ideal. There was something like it under Pupienus and
Balbinus and it is very strongly shewn by the letters (genuine or not) in
;
Vopiscus Tacitus 18, 19. The fact that Decius permitted it is enough to
shew his senatorial leanings.
^ The Decian persecution is ascribed by v. Schubert (Moller K.G.^ 286)
to Valerian as Censor, while Decius is taken for a mere soldier, busy with
the Goths throughout his reign, who practically had nothing to do with it.
Against this view
1. Decius was at Rome during the active part of the persecution, and it
dropped when he left for the front in Oct. 250.

2. Valerian was a general in the field at the time of his election as
Censor in Oct. 250 and if he then returned to Rome, he carried on no

:
active persecution.
3. If Valerian was the real persecutor, v. Schubert has to admit that
"he gave the lie to his whole past" by his friendliness to the Christians
when he became emperor. Yet even when he turned persecutor again, the
Christians never hinted that he had been their worst enemy before.
4. The persecution of Valerian is such a contrast to that of Decius, not
only in spirit but in some special characters, that the two can hardly be the
work of the same hand.
leading up to the severest tortures. A stedfast

refusal was not at first always followed by execu-
tion, except in the case of bishops. When all tor-
tures had been exhausted on Celerinus, he was kept
nineteen days in the stocks, and then set free.^ A
while later the confessors were by the emperor's order
simply left to die of famine in prison.^ The persecu-
tion was quite as horrible in character as that of
Diocletian, though its victims appear to have been
fewer, for we hear of no wholesale massacres like that
of the city in Phrygia.
We need not follow it into details. It reached all
women, and even boys were not spared.

classes, for
But the main attack, like Maximin's, was on the
clergy. Bishop Fabian of Rome was one of the first
victims (Jan. 20, 250) and the persecution prevented
any choice of a successor for more than a year.
Cornelius was not elected till Mar. 5, 251, after
Decius had left Rome for the Gothic war. Babylas
of Antioch died in prison, and so likewise the old
confessor Alexander of Jerusalem, and even the
charmed life of Origen was struck at last. His age
and learning were not spared. He was not indeed
put to death, but carefully kept alive under refined
and long-continued tortures, of which he died soon
after the end of the persecution. Dionysius of
Alexandria was rescued from the soldiers by some
country people Gregory of Neocaesarea and Cyprian
;
—
of Carthage hid themselves though not for want of
courage.
The Decian persecution is the first which can
fairly be called general. Others originated in re-
^ Cyprian Ep. 39. So the boy Dioscorus at Alexandria Eus. vi. 41.
Other cases. '^
Cyprian Ep. 22.
scripts to particular officials, and were too short or

too unequal or limited to special classes : but Decius
issued a general edict and put it in vigorous execution
throughout the Empire. His plan of operation is
shewn by
some recently discovered Lihelli, or
certificates of sound heathenism put in by some
villagers and their wives near Alexandria.^ They
are addressed to the local commissioners who were
added to the local magistrates in order to enforce
the sacrijSces. They
state that the undersigned have
always sacrificed to the gods, and now " in your
presence, according to the commands " have poured
libations and tasted of the victims ; in witness
whereof they desire the commissioners to countersign
the document.
This is systematic and thorough work, reaching
to villages, to individuals,^ and even to women. It
succeeded well at first, as persecutions usually do
when the government has common sense enough to
make recantation easy. It is far harder to resist at
first than at a later stage, when each successive
martyr swells the growing tide of enthusiasm which

often gives new strength to those who began with
utter failure. At first apostates are many, martyrs
few. So in the Decian persecution. It was skilfully
planned, it took the churches by surprise, and it
found many unworthy brethren whom the long peace
had tempted into them. So the crowd of renegades
was particularly scandalous. These were of sundry
sorts, for the authorities cared little how a man
1 Th.L.Z. 1894 pp. 38, 162. The former lihellus is dated June 26, which
must be in 250. More than twenty have now been discovered, and are edited
by Paul M. Meyer, Die Lihelli aus der decianischen Christenverfolgung^ Berlin
1910. All dates preserved are June-July 250.
^ Dion. Al. ap. Eus. vi. 41 dvof-caarl KoXov/nevoi.
denied Christ, so that he did it in one way or

another. There were actual apostates who offered
sacrifice open court to the gods or the emperor
in
[sacrificati) or cast incense on the altar (thurijicati)
and commonly poured libations and ate of the victims.
Some of them did it willingly, or even impudently,^
rushing it might be to the forum of their own accord,
" others came pale and trembling, as if they were
themselves going to be the victims, so that the whole

crowd mocked them as plain cowards who dared
neither die nor sacrifice." ^ Others gave way after
a few days' imprisonment, and others again yielded
only to severe torture. There was also a class of
virtual apostates who without doing in person any-
thing directly idolatrous, either put in for themselves
or accepted from the magistrate certificates that they
had sacrificed (lihellatici),^ or else had their names
enrolled as having sacrificed {accepta facientes).^ If
a slave or a heathen friend made satisfactory declara-
tions on behalf of somebody who " was unable to
appear," the magistrate was not likely to examine
them too closely. Thus there were many ways of
evasion. In Diocletian's time some were brought to
the altars and dismissed, or allowed (perhaps for a
consideration) to slip past them without sacrificing,
while others had their protests silenced by violence,
perhaps not unkindly meant.^ The virtual apostates
appear to have been much fewer at Alexandria, where
the riots in Philip's time had warned the waverers, than
at Carthage, where the ofi'enders were in thousands,
and gave rise to more than one serious controversy.
^ Like Repostus of Tuburnuc, who persuaded most of his flock to follow
his example. Cyprian Ep. 59. 10.
2 Dion. Al. ap. Eus. vi. 14.
3 Cyprian IJp. 55. •*
Cyprian I^. 30. ^ Eus. viii. 3.
VOL. II S
The Decian persecution made a deeper impression

on the churches than any other since Nero's time.
Once more the whole power of the Empire seemed
put forth to crush them. Small wonder if it gave
new life to the old fearful expectation of Nero's return
and the end of the world. Commodianus (of Gaza ?)
is an obscure and neglected writer jet he gives us ;
a view of Christian thought which we cannot get

from more elegant authors. As he seems a well-
read man, we must not set down the rudeness of
his verses to pure want of culture like the prose of
Celerinus. Both in their uncouth form (they scan by
accent only) and in their rustic language they rather
seem a deliberate appeal to the common people like
that of Gregory of Tours. ^ The first interest of the
Carmen Apologeticum is that it is the earliest
Christian poem in Latin which we can date. It
seems to fall in the year 250.^ Next is the writer's
rather colourless doctrine, which in some ways
resembles the popular Christianity of the Nicene
age. He holds indeed firmly, the divinity of Christ
^ Greg. Tur. Proem. philosophantem rhetorem intellegunt pauci, loquentem

;
rusticum muUi is the reason he gives for writing rustic Latin.

2 Ebert dates the Carmen in 249. But if the persecution is imminent (or
already begun) we must place it at the end of the year, or in the next year
if written in Syria.
The first book of the Instructiones was written earlier, yet after Cyprian's
first —
two books of Testimonia say not before 247. The second was later,
and pace Ebert, I cannot help seeing in Acr. 6 a distinct reference to the
Novatian quarrels. The suhdola pax of Acr. 25 may be the last months of
Decius : hardly the early years of Valerian, still less those of Gallienus, in
which pe7-secutio Jiagrat would be absurd.
See Ebert Litt. d. Mittelalters i. 88 and Ahhandlung : also Harnack
A.C.L. ii. 433.
It is right to add that H. Brewer (S.J.) in his elaborate Kommodian von
Gaza (Paderborn 1906) dates the writer cir. 466, after the death of the
emperor Libius Severus. His arguments will need a work almost as
elaborate as his own to do them full justice but my own impression of
;
them {pace Dr. Sanday) is not favourable.

—indeed his more Sabellian than

heterodoxy is far
Arian but he lays the stress on monotheism and
;
morality. Just now however we have to do with

his rude Chiliasm. The six thousand years, he says,
are ending and the seventh persecution ^ is the sign
;
of the end. It is already knocking at the door.

But soon the Goths will burst across the Danube,
and with them comes Apollyon their king to put
down by arms the persecution of the saints. Eome
is captured. Goths and Christians are as brethren,
but the senators and the rest of the idolaters suffer
persecution five months. Then comes a Cyrus back
from even the old Nero who slew the two
hell,
apostles, to deliver the senate. Away with the

enemies of Rome ! cries the senate to Nero ; and
thereupon a dreadful persecution rages for the
appointed three years and a half. Then the Jewish
Antichrist brings from the East the swift and ruth-
less Persians and a mighty host. The Euphrates is
dried up before them. He slays Nero and his two
Caesars, and compels the Roman army to worship
him. Back they come in fury, slaughter every
man in Rome and burn the city with fire, so that
no trace of it is left. " So she mourns for ever
who boasted she should live for ever." ^ Then the
conqueror goes to Judaea, works lying wonders, and
isjoined by the Jews. He declares himself immortal.
As Nero ruined Rome, so this Persian ruins the
world. At last the Jews repent and turn to the
Most High, who brings back the lost ten tribes from
beyond Persia. Of these an idyllic description is
given. No lies are there, nor any hatred. No
The Decian persecution is the seventh in the list of Orosius but
1 ;
Commodianus rather means the "seventh" for the completing number.

^ 1. 923 luget in aeternum, quae se jactahat aeterna.
mourning of parents for children lost, nor sorrow

for the dead like ours. They eat no living flesh,
and shed no blood. No foul sins are found among
them, no fevers hurt them, nor bitter cold. They
are righteous and strong because they keep the law
with a true heart. At the head of these God makes
his progress to Judaea. The whole creation blossoms
and rejoices, and welcomes them with fountains
springing everywhere. The clouds bow down to
shade them from the sun, the hills are levelled under
their feet. Away rushes Antichrist to the quarters
of the North to gather his hosts to battle ; but angels
fight and overcome him, and cast him into the lake
of His captains are made slaves to the righteous.
fire.
Then God comes to Zion, fire from heaven destroys

the wicked, and the trumpet sounds for judgment.^
Uncouth and fantastic as the vision is, it shews
us a new turn of Christian thought. Hitherto St.
John's defiance of the Empire has hardly found an

echo but in Ignatius. For others, the powers that be
are ordained of God. Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and
even Tertullian, sharply distinguish Caesar from the
Antichrist who is to follow him. Be the Empire
what it may, it is still the restraining power which
hinders the revelation of the Man of Sin, the bulwark
which delays the horrors of the end of the world.
With all his thirst for vengeance on the heathen, even
Tertullian shews no disloyalty to the Empire. But
now we note a change.
long, How
Lord ? is ever
the cry of the and when the fight is
persecuted :
hardest, the spirit of the Covenanters and the

Camisards is not far ofi". The high-wrought feeling
and the stern apocalyptic denunciations of Comnio-
1 Carmen 791-1002 (condensed).
dianus are not uncommon in history the sign of the

:
times is not so much these in themselves as the fact

that there are Christians who turn with hope and
longing to barbarian invaders, and delight in looking
forward to the destruction of Kome by Goths and
Persians.
Still we must not make too much of it. The
Christian churches might be wanting in public spirit,
but they were never generally disloyal. The spirit
of rebellion was called out by the persecution of
Decius, and died away with it. Even in Diocletian's
time its traces are faint, and none can be found in
the reign of Julian. Melito's teaching was always
more congenial to the churches than that of Ignatius ;
and in the fourth century it became in the hands of

Prudentius a philosophy of history. " The Scipios
worked for Christ," the glorious career of Eome

was ordained of God, and the Christian Empire
was its worthy consummation. But to return to
Commodianus.
The trumpet had sounded indeed, though not for

the day of doom. The world was not passing away,
nor even Rome —
only the enemy of Christ. Had
Decius lived longer, it may be that his vigour would
have brought the long contest with the church to an
earlier decision, and a worthier Caesar than Galerius
would have signed the capitulation of the Empire.
But Decius was not given time to work out the
persecution to its natural result. The Gothic war
demanded his attention and the persecution was
;
practically at an end the moment he left Rome for

the army in the autumn of 250. This is significant.
Had there been much genuine popular hatred of the
;
Christians,some attempt would have been made to

keep it Instead of this, it drops by common
up.
consent. The Eoman confessors are set free before
March 251, and by April Cyprian is back in Carthage,
and holding a council. Public opinion was coming-
round at last to the conclusion that the Christians
were harmless people. The riots in Philip's time
were nearly the last of the riots against them. We
shall see a few more when the pestilence breaks out
but after these we hear no more clamours of mobs for
Christian blood.
The Goths ought not to have been very serious
enemies. Their numbers availed little against Roman
discipline, and fortified towns they never could take
without treachery inside the walls. Mutiny and
treachery were the danger, rather than the enemy.
Decius had scarcely left Italy when Julius Valens
was proclaimed emperor by the mob at Rome. The
policy of Decius was the senate's, not the mob's.
Valens was soon put down but the Goths repulsed
;
Decius from their camp, and soon after surprised and

scattered his army. Thereupon Priscus the governor
of Macedonia betrayed Philippopolis to them, and set
up for emperor. Once more Decius attacked the
Goths as they were returning with their plunder
through the marshes of the Dobrudscha and once
;
more treachery decided the battle. Trebonianus

Gallus the governor of Moesia (it is said) held back
his troops, and the rest of the army was cut to
pieces. Decius fell fighting, and his body was never
found (Summer 251).
No such disaster had befallen Rome since Varus
and his legions were destroyed in Germany and this
;
time an emperor was among the slain. The wreck

;
of the army gathered to Trebonianus Gallus as the

nearest capable man
and the senate gave him
;
Hostilianus the young son of Decius as a nominal

colleague. Gallus must have been a good soldier,
and he had beaten the Goths before but instead of ;
fighting them now, he patched up a shameful peace,

and hastened to Kome. There he found a dreadful
pestilence. Unlike the plague of 167, which the
legions of Marcus brought back from the East, this
one came down the Nile on Egypt, and thence spread
westward, returning on the wasted provinces at
intervals for twenty years. It was equal to the
former plague in virulence. It swept away more than
half the population of Alexandria and in one of its ;
returns five thousand people are said to have died at

E-ome in a single day. Wars and famines helped the
ruin but the worst of the work was done by the
;
plague. The Empire never recovered, for the rotten

economics and still more the rotten morals of
heathenism made the repair of its ravages impossible.
Even the interruption of industry and the destruction
of capital ^
were less ruinous than the blight upon the
human harvest.
Whatever might be his merits as a soldier, Gallus
was a weak emperor, and soon became unpopular.
At first he gained some applause by his care for
the burial of the meanest victims of the plague
but before long all sort of charges against him
were eagerly welcomed. He had betrayed Decius,
he had paid tribute to barbarians, he had poisoned
Hostilianus —who died in the midst of the pestilence.
Though Gallus was hardly strong enough to have
^ Perhaps Fiistel de Coulanges V Invasion germanique 191 makes a little
too much of these. His analysis of them is masterly.

a policy of his own like Decius, the Christians did

not escape persecution. Their action in the plague,
at under the guidance of Dionysius and
least
Cyprian at Alexandria and Carthage, is a noble story
of tenderness and courage. Among the heathen,
despair andand selfishness ran riot.
greed In
Carthage forgery and poisoning and corruption of
justice were the order of the day, and robbery and
murder disdained concealment, for no man thought
of punishing them.^ In Alexandria men deserted
their friends at the first signs of sickness, and fled
from their nearest relations, and cast out the sick
half dead in the streets, and left the dead unburied
like refuse —
anything whatever to escape contact
with death.^ In the midst of all and this cowardice
selfishness, the shewed hope and
Christians alone
courage, clinging to each other, and boldly visiting
the sick, and ministering to them continually. They
cared not for the burial only but for the nursing,
and that not of Christian sick alone, but of all
They paid the penalty of well-
without distinction.
doing in such crowds of deaths, that as they said,
the greeting of mere civility, "I am thine off-
scouring," was turned into a grim reality.^ Mean-

while the hasty multitude saw only that the
Christians refused to ofi*er the atoning sacrifices to
Apollo Salutaris which an imperial command enjoined
on all Once more the cry was raised, " Cyprian
men.
to the beasts," and his old friend Demetrianus dis-
tinguished himself at Carthage as an inhuman
^ Cyprian ad Demetr. 11. '^
Dionysius ap. Eus. vii. 22.
^ 1 Cor. iv. 13. It iatempting to take Trepi^prjfxa with Benson Cyprian
244 as a nickname in heathen use: but the words (Dionysius I.e.) to
drjfxQSes prjô-, ixbvrjs ael boKovv <pi\o(ppoavi''r}s ^xâdac, seem to require the
meaning given above.
—
persecutor. Elsewhere the storm seems to have been

less violent, and we cannot be sure that it reached
Egypt at all. Eome however was exiled
Cornelius of
with many and other bishops may have
of his flock,
shared his fate. His successor Lucius was relegated,
though this was after Gallus was dead, but promptly
restored by Valerian.^
Before long the Goths came back into Moesia, but
only to be defeated by the new governor Aemilianus,
who was thereupon saluted emperor, and made straight
for Rome. Gallus marched out as far as Interamna,
sending Valerian over the Alps to collect another
army. But there was no serious fighting. Gallus
was killed (May 253) by his own soldiers, and
Aemilianus wrote to the senate that he left the
government to them, and would be their general
the very division of powers the senate was always
aiming Meanwhile Valerian had been hailed
at.
emperor in Rhaetia and he too made straight for

;
Rome. Again there was no fighting. The army

took Aemilianus at his word, that he was only the
senate's general, judged him unfit to reign, and sent
his head to Valerian (Aug. 253).
Publius Licinius Valerianus was an elderly senator
of ancient family and blameless life a model of —
Roman dignity and antique virtue. He must have
made his mark in Alexander's time, for he was
princeps senatus as early as 238, when the senate
wâs defending Italy against Maximin." When Decius
^ Dion. Al. (Eus. does not say that it reached Egypt, for tovs iepoijs
vii. 1.)
av8pas . . . ifKaaev may

perhaps be satisfied by the exile of two successive
bishops of Rome, Cornelius died in exile at Centuracellae, and his successor
Lucius was chosen June 25, 253. His immediate relegation must have been
the work of the senatorial party in the three months of Aemilianus, his
restoration that of Valerian. He was buried Mar. 5, 254.
- Capitolinus Gordiani 9.
—
left the choice of a censor to the senate, they hailed

Valerian by acclamation as the worthiest of the
Eomans. So far he might seem the very man to
take up the policy of Decius. But Valerian was
a soldier too, and more soldier than senator. At
one time he held the command of the third legion
one of the highest distinctions in the service/ He
was in the camp with Decius at the time of his
election to the censorship, and next appears as a
general of Gallus ; and now he is raised to power by
the three united armies as their protest against the
sloth of Gallus and the subservience of Aemilianus
to the senate. All parties may have accepted him
gladly but the fact remains, that Valerian represents
;
not the senatorial policy of Decius, but the military

opposition to it.^
Valerian was an able ruler, and the disasters of

his reign must not blind us to the greatness of his
work. Unfortunate as he was himself, he laid a
foundation others could build on. The need of the
moment was to restore the discipline of the army ;
and much was done for it by Valerian. No emperor

ever had a keener eye for merit in his officers, and
none ever gathered round him a more brilliant school
of generals. Much of his work was undone by his
^ So he seems to say himself, Vopiscus Prohus 5. Even if the letter is
forged, it may be trusted on this point.
" This view of Valerian seems forced upon us by the circumstances of his
elevation. It also best explains (1) the utter difference between his treat-
ment of the Christians and that of Decius. He begins by restoring the
exiles, shews them marked favour for several years, and when he does turn
against them, he persecutes in a very different temper. It also explains (2)
the wisdom he shewed in his choice of generals. In this perhaps no emperor
ever excelled him. After all allowances, Claudius, Aurelian and Probus,
Macrianus, Ballista and Successianus, Regalianus, Ingenuus, Postumus and
Aureolus are a group of generals who would have done honour to any age of
the Empire, and they were all trained by Valerian.
successor, the clever and erratic Gallienus, whose

suspicions and implacable cruelty drove nearly every
able governor to revolt in simple self-defence : yet
Claudius and Aurelian survived the civil wars to
restore the sunken Empire.
In his real relation to the Christians, Valerian
reminds us of Severus and Diocletian. If he had no
sympathy with Christians as such, he was willing to
be on the most friendly terms with individuals. He
began with the recall of Lucius and the exiles.
Before long his house was full of Christians, who

were so kindly treated that they called it a house of
God. " Not even the emperors who were said to have
openly become Christians (these must be Alexander

and Philip) shewed them such open good-will and
^
favour."
Presently there came a change —Dionysius ascribes
it to the influence of Macrianus his finance minister.
Macrianus was one of the most distinguished soldiers
of his time, "the first of the generals" of Valerian;
and he misled the old emperor into Egyptian magic
and unholy rites of homicidal superstition. So says
Dionysius and indeed there was much to which
;
Macrianus might have appealed. The Empire was

in a dreadful state when Valerian marched eastward
in though the worst was yet to come. Its
257,
frontiers were broken through on all sides. The
Franks had forced their way right through Gaul
into Spain. Dacia was lost in 256. The Goths on
land swept over Illyricum and Macedonia by sea ;
they captured Trebizond and threatened to join

hands with Sapor, who had taken Antioch in 256,
^ Dion. Al. a'p. Eus, vii. 10. The picture may be a little overdone : but
it must be substantially true.
and was making a Persian province of Armenia.

Even Africa was raided by the Berbers of Mount
Aures and the desert. In the midst of calamities
which gave tenfold force to the old appeal of Celsus,
that every good citizen should support the emperor
with all his strength, the great corporations of the
Christians even yet maintained their selfish isolation.
Not hand would they lift to save a sinking world.
a
Nay, some of them were more than half inclined to
welcome Goths and Persians as heaven-sent avengers
of their slaughtered saints —the traitorous miscreants
whom the justice of the past had fitly punished.
Was it not high time to put some check on these
disloyal societies ?
Decius had begun with this conviction Valerian :
only came round to it, and therefore worked it out

differently. Though his first rescript (in 257) is
lost, we can see its general purport. He begins like

Decius by ordering that " all persons not following
the Roman religion must conform to the Roman
ceremonies." But we find no endeavour to compel
obedience by torture ; and for the first time the
penalty of disobedience is not death. Though bishops
are specially aimed at, as in the time of Decius, the
better class of them
like Dionysius and Cyprian
escaped with deportation,^ while meaner victims, at
least in Numidia, had to suffer the usual hardships of
penal servitude in the mines. Cyprian's own exile
was to Curubis, a lonely but not unpleasant seaside
town some forty miles from Carthage. The edict
further directed that the Christians were not to hold
assemblies or to enter cemeteries on pain of death.
This last provision was new. The government had
^ Not including confiscation. Benson Cyprian 466 n.
at last found out the catacombs. Hitherto they had

been largely protected by the general reverence of
heathenism for the burial of the dead but now the :
Christians were to be hunted out of their last
retreats.
The latter part of the edict must have been loosely
executed, for we hear of no capital sentences, though

some of the exiles died in the mines. But persecutors
cannot stop where they please; and Valerian was
soon driven on to a severer measure. Xystus of
Kome had somehow escaped arrest and now (June :
29, 258) he ventured to transfer the remains of

the
two great apostles from the Vatican and the Ostian

Koad to the catacombs. This open honour to ring-
leaders of the sect was a bold step at any time, and
just now a peculiarly audacious defiance of the edict
which forbade the Christians even to enter the
catacombs.^
The second rescript which reached
of Valerian,
Rome early in August, seems to be his answer to the
challenge Xystus had thrown down. It orders "that
bishops, presbyters and deacons be punished

summarily; but that senators, egregii viri and
Roman knights should lose their dignity, and more-
over be deprived of their property; and if they
persisted in being Christians when their means were
taken away, they should also lose their heads; that
matrons should be deprived of their property, and
sent into banishment; but that they of Caesar's
household,^ whoever of them had either confessed
479-487.
^
In this paragraph and the next I closely follow Benson Cyprian
If Valerian was within eighteen days of Rome, the case seems clear.
2 The Caesariani were lower oflacials of the Fiscus in the times of Diocletian
and Constantine but we are in the year 258, and it is not easy to see
:
why
special punishment.
this one class of minor officials should be singled out for
before or should now confess, should have their

property confiscated, and be entered on the lists and
sent in chains to Caesar's estates " ^
— to the worst
form of slavery.
Severe as this rescript is, it is far from coming up
to the edict of Decius. It inflicts death on none but
clergy and men of rank, and lets off common Christians
(at least so far) unpunished. On the other hand it
is the first graduated scale of penalties we have met

with ; and the influence of panic may be traced in its
reversal of the principle of Roman law, that men of
rank ought to escape with lighter and less shameful
punishments than the common people suffered for
the same offences. Valerian's aim is plainly to
destroy the Christian corporations, and to root out
Christianity from the higher classes. It would cease
to be dangerous if it could be reduced to a floating

superstition of the vulgar.
This edict at all events was meant for use. It
had scarcely reached Rome when Bishop Xystus was
found teaching in the catacombs, and put to death on
the same spot with four of his seven deacons. But
even a bishop of Rome may be overshadowed by a
more illustrious martyr. Cyprian was summoned
from Curubis to Carthage by the new proconsul
Galerius Maximus. But when Galerius found himself
too unwell to leave Utica, he sent for Cyprian to
come there. As this did not suit Cyprian's plans, he
hid himself. He was quite ready for death, but at
Carthage among his people, not at Utica. When the
proconsul reached Carthage, Cyprian was arrested
in his own house, and brought before him next
morning (Sept. 14). The trial was short, for the
^ Cyprian Ep. 80.
offence was flagrant and avowed and soon the dying :
Galerius read the sentence " that Thascius Cyprianus

be beheaded with the sword." A great company
followed to the place of execution, for all men felt
that a great career was ending. Even the executioner

was overawed and utterly unnerved, and the com-
manding centurion had to give the fatal stroke.^ So
fell Cyprian and the proconsul Galerius Maximus
;
died a few days later.

We know little of the persecution elsewhere. This
time however there seem to have been very few
renegades. Decius had thoroughly weeded the
churches and since his time there had not been
;
enough of settled peace to attract many converts of

the unstable sort. It was ended like that of Decius
by a great catastrophe. Sapor had captured Nisibis
and Carrhae, and was besieging Edessa when Valerian
came to his relief. The campaign is obscure but we ;
hear of defeats, of treacheries, of the ravages of the

plague ; and at was reduced to parley
last Valerian
with Sapor, who seized him by treachery. The
emperor was never heard of more. Eumours came
of his unworthy treatment but whatever the truth ;
of these may be, Valerian was henceforth dead to

Kome. After him came his son Gallienus.
For awhile the East seemed lost. The Persians
captured Antioch again, then Tarsus, then came
streaming through the passes of Mount Taurus down
on Caesarea Mazaca. There they found a brave
resistance but the place was taken by treachery,
;
and flying squadrons of cavalry spread terror and

destruction to the shores of the Propontis and Aegean.
But these were only raids. Roman courage was
^ A detail first noted by Benson Cyprian 506.
unbroken, and Sapor himself hardly dreamed of

solid conquests. Edessa stood like an island in the
sea —neither Persian nor Saracen could ever storm
her virgin walls —
the legion camped at Samosata
formed a rallying post, and before long Ballista
checked the Persians in Cilicia. So Sapor gave the
order for retreat. Then rose Odenathus, chief of the
senate of Palmyra, gathered to him the Arabs of the
desert and the wrecks of the legions, drove Sapor
across the Euphrates, recovered Carrhae and Nisibis,
chased him down the Tigris, and routed him before
the walls of Ctesiphon itself The exploit was worthy
of Trajan or Severus. Odenathus had saved the
East.
Hardly less splendid was the work of Postumus,
who set up for emperor in Gaul. Franks and
Alamanni were driven out, the line of the Khine
secured, peace and prosperity recovered. It was a
Gaulish Empire yet not such a Gaulish Empire as
;
Civilis would have set up two hundred years before,

for Gaul was Koman now, but a Roman Transalpine
Empire which lasted till Aurelian's time.
In general cleverness and versatility, the emperor
Gallienus reminds us of Hadrian and he was not :
wanting in energy and courage. His defeats of

Insfenuus and Aureolus are no mean achievement.
Yet after all allowance for hostile evidence, Gallienus
was a poor burlesque of Hadrian. His fits of sloth
were ignoble and long, while his cruel suspicions
forced his generals into revolt, and his implacable
revenge drove every revolter to desperation. So
confusion became worse confounded. Postumus held
the West, and Zenobia the widow of Odenathus was
" Queen of the East " but from Asia to the Alps
;
the provinces were overrun by Goths and Alamanni,

devastated by the plague and torn by civil war. The
Gothic vikings came past the ruined walls of
Byzantium, at one time to devastate Bithynia, at
another to the sack of Ephesus and Athens, and only
stopped in sight of Italy. Slave-risings in Sicily,
tumults in Alexandria, a permanent rebellion in
Isauria, are but episodes of the tragedy. The Empire
seemed melting away. At last in 268 the generals
took serious counsel for a second time. Gallienus
was put out of the way like Aemilianus, and the
task of restoring the shattered Empire was placed in
the hands of Claudius.
The Christians at any rate owed something to
Gallienus. If he was no special friend of theirs, much
less was he their enemy. The empress Salonina may
have been a Christian. The rescripts of Valerian
were at once revoked, and more than revoked, by a
public edict. but we can see its purport
This is lost ;
from the rescript which put it in force in Egypt

^
after the defeat of Macrianus in 261. The address.

To the bishops, of itself recognizes the government of
the churches, and the restoration of the places of
worship (and afterwards of the burial-places) can
only have been made to the corporations of the
Christians. Here then at last was practical tolera-
tion and though the common law of the Empire
:
was not repealed, and might be made an excuse for

occasional persecution, there seemed little reason to
fear that it would ever again be generally put in force.
1 Eus. vii. 13.
Books
Benson Cyprian ; Schoenaich Die Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Decius
Jauer 1907.
VOL. II T
CHAPTER XXIV
THE DISCIPLINE QUESTIONS
Before we come to Cyprian, let us look back on

the growth of church government in the second
century and the first forty years third.

of the
Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists have long

since disappeared, unless the Prophet may
still be
traced in the humble Reader; and the Ignatian
ideal is so far realized that a single bishop

stands
at the head of the presbyters and deacons of each

city. All Christian meetings except of heretics are
under his authority, and that eucharist is held valid
which is offered by him or with his permission.' He
is also the official guardian of doctrine
(in this sense
the successor of the apostles) and the chief adminis-
trator of the church in his city the centre of its

;
unity, and its representative to other churches and

the outer world. The presbyters have lost something
of their independence, for they have long ceased to
govern without the bishop; but they have taken
over from him the chief part of the pastoral work
of the growing churches, and still co-operate with
him (as indeed they do to this day) in the ordination
of their colleagues. The deacons are drawn closer
to the bishop by the growth of church business, while
^ Ign. Smyrn. 8.
274
;
CH. XXIV THE DISCIPLINE QUESTIONS 275
the widows are beginning to give place to virgins

but the laity retain most of their former power, for
even the bishop is commonly chosen by the entire
church. But the eucharistic priesthood of the laity is
becoming forgotten in an official (not yet a sacerdotal)

ministry, and the rule is beginning to form which
ended in the layman's exclusion from the government
of the church. Thus the bishop has become a king
in his church, though so far only a constitutional
king, for his presbyters are still an effective council,
the laity speak with weight, and the confessors in
time of persecution have a great and independent
influence.
But we are on the eve of changes. The first
great contribution of Latin thought to Christian

history was a new theory of the ministry and of
the church in general, which forms the greatest break
between the apostolic age and the Keformation.
The Nicene decision, which seemed at the time so
revolutionary, was only a necessary protection for
a vital doctrine and even the Hildebrandine papacy,
;
utterly as it is opposed to Cyprian's own teaching,^

was after all the form into which his theory was
finally thrown by the logic of circumstances but ;
the theory itself is nothing less than a recast of

the Gospel in heathen moulds. In one sense indeed
it was only a continuation of the process we have
already traced. If the laity were losing their

personal interest in church affairs, it was best that
the bishop should become a Tudor despot, little
hampered by constitutional forms. It is also likely
enough, humanly speaking, that the strong con-
federation of the churches which called out the last
^ To discuss the Roman forgeries after Benson would be to slay the slain.
2/6 CHURCH HISTORY chap.
attacks of the Empire was also their best defence

against it, just as the papacy was the best defence
of the Western churches from feudal anarchy. But
Cyprian claims for the bishop a sacrificing (no
longer a purely eucharistic) priesthood, and a jus
divinum essentially different from the divine sanction
given to the " powers that be " of every orderly
government.
Both claims were new. The New Testament
givesno hint of any such priesthood to be held
by Christian men, though there was no other
worship in the world without it.^ Even the
Pastoral Epistles nowhere mention it as a function
of the Christian ministry, and the Epistle to the
Hebrews repeatedly and expressly reserves it for
the Lord himself.Clement of Eome indeed compares
the Christian ministry to the Jewish priesthood,
but only as a model of order the names and the :
offices he carefully distinguishes. Ignatius and

Polycarp are silent and Justin's comparison is not
;
^ Icannot follow the logic of Mr. B. J. Kidd's reply {Journ. Theol. Studies
xii. 483) that theNew Testament does indicate " a sacrificing priesthood to
be held by Christian men." The question is of a sacrificing priesthood,
implying something else than the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving
which all Christians are bound to offer, though none but ministers may offer
it officially. It will be enough to notice three of Mr. Kidd's main arguments.
(1) Granted (what may be true in matters of religion) that XeirovpyeXy

"always means ministering in an office," we cannot summarily take for
granted that the office of the prophets and teachers in Acts xiii. 2 was not
prophecy and teaching, but a sacrificing priesthood. (2) Granted again
that priesthood is a possible function of stewardship, he still needs to prove
that a sacrificing priesthood is a necessary function of stewardship before he
can argue : —
Stewards, therefore priests. (3) His parallel of the table of
the Lord with the table of demons is rightly taken from St. Paul but it :
directly contradicts the argument he founds on it. The heathens did not
sacrifice on their table, but feasted on it in memory of a sacrifice already
offered on an altar elsewhere. If therefore St. Paul is right, we do not
sacrifice on the Lord's table, but feast on it in thanksgiving for a sacrifice
already offered on an altar elsewhere.
XXIV THE DISCIPLINE QUESTIONS 277
of the presbyter but of the layman, and that not

to the priest but to the high priest. Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria recognize only a moral priest-
hood of saintliness, not an official priesthood of
sacrifice and this is substantially Origen's view,
;
though he sometimes calls the bishops priests, and

(only once, and then with hesitation) equates
presbyters and deacons to priests and Levites. The
direction in the Teaching, to give the firstlings to
the prophets, "for they are your high priests," will
not bear the weight of a literal application even
to the prophets ; and the statement of Poly crates
that St. John " was made a priest, and wore the
mitre," is almost certainly metaphorical. So we
come to Tertullian, the first writer who habitually
uses priestly words of the Christian ministry, and
even to draw conclusions from the Jewish priesthood,
though Hippolytus follows before long. Yet his
view of it cannot be really sacerdotal, for he not only
lays heavy stress on the priesthood of the laity, but
insists that the functions of the ministry belong
of right to the whole congregation, and are only
entrusted to officials for convenience ; so that the
bishop cannot be more than the mouthpiece of his
church.-^ As regards the jus divimim, it will be
enough to repeat that even Ignatius never claims
it for him.
1 The statement of the case in Lightfoot's Exc. on the Christian Ministry

is still unshaken. Thus Gore Chr. Ministry 196-200 seems to think it enough
to prove (what nobody disputes) that the presbyter may be called a priest
in some sense ; —
and then does he really slide over the essential difference
between the eucharistic and the sacrificing priest without noticing it ? Surely
there is also a difference between historical developments which (like the
abolition of slavery) only carry out the plain teaching of Scripture, and
those which run counter to its elementary ideas, like Mariolatry, image-
worship, or the Cyprianic theory.
—
But if it was not easy to turn the bishop

into a sacrificing was even harder to
priest, it
provide him with the something material which

a priest must have to offer. Scripture admits no
sacrifice that Christian men can bring but that of
thanksgiving : and this is the deliberate language
of all Christian writers before the Nicene age
Cyprian excepted —whenever they speak of sacrifice/
It is their constant boast that they have no material
temple nor altar nor sacrifice. When therefore they
speak of the bread and wine provided for the Lord's
Supper as an offering or sacrifice, they must mean
that it is an offerino: of thanksgiving. So in fact
they always explain it, as shewing forth the union
of body and which the Holy Spirit con-
spirit, in
secrates our food to nourish the body, and through

the body nourishes our spiritual life of thanksgiving.
Indeed, it cannot be anything else than a thank-
offering, so long as it is offered by the people or
in their name. So no attempt was ever made to
change it : the novelty was in making it a mere
preparation for the real sacrifice. Hitherto the
bishop in the people's name presents the elements as
a thank-offering ; but now he goes on to offer them
a second time as a sacrifice. This theory we first
trace in Cyprian, though even he hardly gets beyond

a rehearsal or imitation of the sacrifice on Golgotha.
1 It may suffice to quote Irenaeus Haer. iv. 18. 6 Offerimus autem ei,
own quasi ioidigenti, sed gratias agentes (evxo-pi-O'rovvTes) dominationi ejus, et

sanctificantes creaturam .... Sic et ideo nos quoque offerre vuU munus ad
altare frequenter sine intermissione. Est ergo altare in caelis, illuc enim
preces nostrae et oUationes nostrae diriguntur, et templum, etc. Tertullian
adv. Jud. 5 Quod non terrenis sacrijiciis sed spiritalihus Deo litandum
sit, ita legimus (Ps. li. 19. 14) Itaque quomodo carnalia sacrificia reprohata
intelleguntur (Isa. i. 11) ita spiritalia accepta praedicantur (Isa. v, 11 sq.,
Mai. i. 11).
The doctrine is a commonplace. The Apologists insist on it as a
the church
However, in Cyprian the new theory of
is welldeveloped. He did not invent it to meet the
for it is clearly
needs of the Novatian controversy,
;' and indeed there is
laid down in his earliest letters
troubled himself to
no sign that he ever seriously
think out the ideas on which it depends.^ He takes
man from the air about him,

them like a practical
but self-evident,
assumes them to be not only true
practical applica-
and concerns himself only with their
Yet they are not only new but
essentially
tions.
masked in his own
heathen, though the mischief is
charity and complete
case by lofty gifts of practical
sincerity. Cyprian is a saint— none can doubt it—
general conception of religion is
more heathen
yet his
As the heathen god's favour is
than Christian.
so God's grace is
strictly limited to his worshippers,
strictly limited to the visible
church. "He cannot
have God for his Father who has not the church for
outside the
his mother. If he could escape who was
ark, he too will escape who is

abroad and outside the
church The Lord warns us, saying, He that is not
with me is against me."
' For the " aliens " there is
and it is frequently
principal difference of the Gospel
from heathenism;
emphasized even in the Nicene Age.
Cyprian Ep. 1 qu<,7ulo singuK divim
•
mccrdoUo honorah et
, , .
m
,,,^,-„„
•
clenco
deservire et preabu. adgne
miniJerio constituti non nin altari el sacrificiis
orationibus vacare debeant. _ <<
i- -un
to the sin of Koran)
.
Ep 3 (Contempt of the bishop compared

. .
Dominus elegit, diaconos autem .
Apostolos id est episcopos et praepositos

. .
apostoli sibi constituerunt episcopatus

sm et ecclesiae mimstros. Quod si nos
contra
qui episcopos facit, possunt et
aliquid audere contra Deum possumus
nos audere diaconi a quibus fiunt.
2 How little Cyprian can be regarded as a serious
thinker may be seen
Regna autem non merito accidunt, sed sorte variantur.

from Quod Idola 5
V.o^^^^nce
It does not occur to him
that this is an utter denial of
30 as early as Testi.n. in. 86
3 Cyprian de Unitate 6. He quotes Mt. xii.
eadem traditwnepermaneat
(scUsZ non faciendum, etiamsi in una fide et in personal
to the church of our Lord s
qui recedit). Note the quiet transfer
nothing but wrath and the damnation of hell fire for

ever.^ No thought comes to Cyprian that a Spirit
of God may be moving over the face of the darkness
of this world's ignorance and sin. As the idol's
favour was dispensed by his priests, so God's grace

is dispensed by the bishops —
for Cyprian counts the
bishops alone as priests, while the presbyters are
merely the Levites who minister at the altar. ^ No
thought comes to Cyprian that it was the very work
of Christ to do away all human mediators who might
presume to offer sacrifice for their fellow -sinners. As
a Roman magistrate held a defined authority by
regular transmission from its lastholder, so must it
be, and so forsooth it always must have been, in the
Christian ministry. Thus sound doctrine ceases to
approve the ministration, and the outward succession
guarantees the soundness of the doctrine, so that the
legal questions of a valid successionbecome vital. No
thought comes to Cyprian that he who raised up
Elijah the Tishbite, or the Forerunner, may any day
raise up a Luther or a Wesley to do the work un-
faithful bishops have left undone.
Cyprian starts from the unity of the church and :
this is not a spiritual unity of faith and hope in its

ever-living Head, but the visible unity of a visible
society. It was first built on one, Peter to wit, that
claim. The right quotation would have been Mk. ix. 40 ; but I do not find
that he ever uses it.
1 Cyprian ad Demetr. 22 quoting Mai. iv. 1 (with alienigenae for the Vulg.
superbi), 24.
2 This important point must be noticed. He is generally careful to use
sacerdotal words only of the bishop, Levitical of the presbyter. So Benson
Cyprian 33 C. H. Turner, Camb. Med. Hist. i. 157. At the same time there
;
are a few cases where he uses vacerdos of the presbyter and apparently even
{de Lapsis 25) of the deacon, so that in these instances it seems to be used in
a general way of the clergy, not as a deliberate claim of sacrificial powers
for presbyters. I owe this point to Mr. A. C. Jennings of King's Stanley.
it might be shewn to be one, though an equal

authority was afterwards given to all the apostles.
The church is one, and the episcopate is one and
undivided, for each part of it is held by each bishop
for the whole/ Thus there is a government ordained
of God — an aristocracy of coequal bishops, for within
the limits of faith and unity, every bishop was
independent in his own diocese. God's grace is
given through the bishops and to the church alone.

They are his priests who alone can offer sacrifice,
while the presbyters minister as Levites : and " the
sacrifice we offer is the Passion of the Lord." " The
bishop's power
from above, not from below
is ; and
he rather represents God to the people than the
people to God. So instead of being elected by
the people in the presence of the presbyters and the
neighbouring bishops, he must now be elected by the
bishops of the province in the presence of the people,
according to the law of Moses. ^ In fact, the Christian
priesthood differs from the Jewish in nothing but its
permanence. The old law of the priest was meant

all along for the bishop, and resistance to him is the
sin of Korah. He is Judge in Christ's place * and ;
whoso is an alien from the bishop is also an alien

from Christ. A wise bishop will " do nothing with-
out the counsel of his presbyters and deacons, and
the consent of the people"^ — such was Cyprian's
own rule from the first —but this is grace, not right,
for he is not accountable to them. He listens as a
Tudor king listens to his Council ; but in the end he
decides the matter for himself.
1 Cyprian de Unitate 5. 2 -Qq^ ^^^ 63^ 17^
^ Cyprian Eip. 67. 4 quoting Num. xx.
;
25, 26.
* Ihid. 59. 5 ; and vice sacra, as was said of the Emperor's
vice Christi,
deputy. Note this and the bishops of the province above, ^ Ihid. 14.
The Cyprianic theory has long since drifted from

its Cyprianic moorings. No church but Rome now
lays down the doctrine that there is no salvation
beyond its own limits. No church now holds that
all outside baptism is null. No church now counts
the presbyter as a Levite. On the Roman theory
he is only the bishop's deputy ; but it is still the
essence of his office to be a priest, and not a Levite.
No church now declares all bishops equal, for even
the orthodox East is organized in patriarchates,
mostly by national churches. all does any
Least of
modern church require its bishops to be elected by
their comprovincials in the presence of their people.
Could Cyprian have foreseen these changes, he might
have lamented them as revolutionary yet they were ;
but the modifications made in this theory by the

logic of circumstances. The extension of the priest-
hood to presbyters was a necessity, when the bishop
ceased to be the chief pastor of a manageable con-
gregation in a city and became the spiritual ruler of
a vast establishment. The inequality of bishops did
but recognize the fact that Rome was greater than
Yelitrae, Caesarea than Sasima. Even the change from
election by comprovincials to nomination by pope or
king was the natural result of conflicts that were
bound to arise between a catholic church and parti-
cular governments. Subject then to necessary changes
and natural developments, the Cyprianic theory as
modified by Augustine and completed by Roman
bishops has shaped the history of the Western church
for centuries, and deeply influenced both the orthodox
East which never accepted it, and the protestant
North which rejected it. Some of its rigid conceptions
are as clear in Calvinism as in the church of Rome.
;
Ms nearest modern likeness

For Cyprian himself,
of our great English
churchmen. They
is in some
intense activity, yet of grave
are born rulers— men of
gentleness, men of princely
dignity and
and winning
to judge
perfect temper as quick as any lawyer
;
organizers as any merchant-

of men, and as skilful
prince. Such was Cyprian. Yet somehow we feel
never quite get at the real
man. He moves
that we
and takes the deeper
in matters of administration,
It is not merely that he
does
questions for granted.
he will not face them
not like to study principles:
when they call for a decision. He takes his system
unexamined, and allows himself to be absorbed
it m
not quite Christ's. Pro ecclesm
and the system is
With all his
Dei is more in his heart than h Xpcar.S.
noblest fire of
winning qualities, we partly miss the
all which shines so

gloriously in many a lesser man.
gifts of intellect
Cyprian had no such commanding
his piety yet he does not
as Athanasius to obscure
:
is saint as well as
ruler.
so often make us feel that he
tell us anything
Early Christian writers rarely
definite about the thoughts
and struggles of their
heathen days. Their eyes are fixed on the light
before them, and seldom turn
back to the darkness
words from Tatiari,
they have left. We get a few
and Commodianus but only
Clement of Alexandria, ;
Justin tells the tale of his

conversion— how the old
the living
man by the seashore kindled in his soul
fire If than this, we shall find it only
we want more
of Eome. So Thascius
in the romance of Clement
Cyprianus meets us only as a convert.
know We
neither his parents nor the place
and year of his
sort of a
birth nor does he tell us himself what
;
heathen he had been or how he became a Christian.

He lives in the new life received in baptism/ and
thinks no more of the old. We may say without
much risk of error that he was born of well-to-do
parents about 200 but we know for certain only
:
that about 246 he was a lawyer in Carthage with a

fame of eloquence and a character for culture and
refinement which he never lost even in heathen
society. It was only a dirty joke which called him
Coprianus. The conversion of such a leader of men
was an event in Africa, and the old presbyter
Caecilian might sing his Nunc dimittis when he had
brought Cyprian into the fold. The new convert
began by selling most of his farms ^ for the poor.
His beautiful gardens followed, though they were
bought by friends and restored to him. Meanwhile
he studied Scripture, and what seems to be his first
work was two books, soon followed by a third, of
Testimonia from Scripture.^ He was also a diligent
student of his great predecessor Tertullian. Little
as he had of Tertullian's massive power of thought,
no man was better fitted than Cyprian to translate
" the Master's " rugged sentences into elegant and
flowing Latin.
Bishop Donatus died soon after. Cyprian was
still a novice, and some objected on that ground but ;
many thought him clearly marked out for the post

by his energy and practical wisdom. Public opinion
was soon made up, and his own resistance was
vain. So Cyprian was duly consecrated "Pope" of
1 ad Don. 4.
2 Vita 2, reading tola prope praedia e conj. Westcott in Benson Cypr.

8 note.
^ As Benson says, the collectionwould task even a lawyer's memory — if
he made it himself. But Rendel Harris {Expositor Nov. 1908) holds it to

be copied from some earlier manual.
Carthage, and took possession of the bishop's chair/

Unfortunately five influential presbyters remained
unsatisfied, and formed an organized and pertinacious
opposition.
It was no sinecure that Cyprian had undertaken.
Carthage was as full of enthusiasms and as full of
scandals as ever, and was not improved by the long
peace it had enjoyed since the early years of Cara-
calla. Almost the first thing he had to deal with was
a grave abuse of holy women and holy men living in
the same houses or even in the same rooms together
in a spiritual relation which nothing but marriage
can set free from scandal. No more dangerous form
of enthusiasm can be imagined. cannot greatly We
"
blame Cyprian if he forgot himself," and wrote for
once in his an angry letter ^ but he put down
life :
the practice by methods whose energy was only equal

to their indecency. Before long the work of peaceful
reform was interrupted by the Decian persecution;
and Cyprian went straight into hiding (January 250).
This was a bold step, for it looked like cowardice,
and at first was taken for cowardice, as by the Koman
presbyters. Yet though Cyprian for the moment
compared badly with their martyred Fabian, he was
right in thinking that just then his life was more
useful than his death. If Decius aimed at disorgan-
izing the churches by striking first at the bishops,
1 Between June 248 and Easter 249.
2 E]p, 4 Pomponio.
The continual recurrence of the scandal of the avpeia-aKTOi {subintrodudae,
agapetae) from about Cyprian's time when purposes began to harden into
vows, ismost significant. Cyprian, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose and
Chrysostom had to deal with it officially. Council after council condemns
it {e.g. Antioch cir. 267, Elvira, Nicaea), and in the fifth
century the civil
power was called in to enforce the prohibition yet the practice continued.
;
If unnatural vows are made, there is no avoiding scandals without bolts

and bars.
itwas not wise for the bishops to play into his hands
by throwing their lives away. Cyprian's time was
not yet come.
Meanwhile questions were arising which called for
his utmost wisdom. The crowd of renegades, as we
have seen, was very great at Carthage. But many of
these had only been carried away by the first panic,
so that before long a crowd of suppliants was moving
heaven and earth to get back into the church they
had renounced. Some wiped out their disgrace by
facing the magistrate afresh, and were honoured as
true martyrs for a courageous death. Others meekly
accepted their ignominious penance, though there
was no certainty that the church would ever shew
them grace. But many were less patient. Might not
some intercession avail ? Weight had always been
given to any letters a martyr might leave behind,
recommending particular cases to the bishop's favour-
able consideration at the return of peace. This was
the old custom, reasonable and orderly, though even
this was liable to abuses;^ but before long the mal-
content presbyters took upon them summarily to
restore the ofi*enders, without waiting for the bishop's
consideration, or even for the martyr's death. Worse
abuses followed. Some indeed of the confessors were
modest enough. Mappalicus left letters only for his
mother and sister, Saturninus gave none at all, and
Celerinus interceded only for his fallen " sisters,"
Tecusa ^ and Candida. Others were less scrupulous.
One liucian issued letters in numbers, first in the

name of Aurelius, an illiterate confessor, then in that of
Abuses pictured by Tert. de Pud. 23.

1
Cyprian Ep. 21. See Benson Cyprian 74. We cannot be quite sure
2 ap.
that they were more than spiritual sisters of Celerinus.

Paul, a martyr who had left him directions

(so lie said)
to use his name. A single letter sometimes included a

whole household, and letters were issued in thousands,
and even found their way into the market. The
answer to Cyprians repeated requests "that some
regard be had to the law of the Lord and the Gospel
was a truly comprehensive letter by Lucian's hand.
" All the confessors toPope Cyprian, greeting. We
do you to wit that we all have given peace to all
persons who shall bring you a satisfactory account of
their doings since their offence and we desire that ;
this decree be by you communicated to the other

^
bishops."
This was a reductio ad ahsurdum of the whole
system of letters. Even if it were wise and right to

pass over all offences on the simple condition of later
good behaviour, it was not right for the confessors to
take upon them the government of the churches. Of
course the offenders ignored the clause which seemed
to reserve a discretion to the bishops, and besieged
them with clamours for immediate restoration. The
weaker bishops yielded— it was invidious to dis-
criminate cases— and the stronger found every discord
in their churches inflamed to fever heat by
Lucian's
reckless amnesty.
The root of the mischief lay deeper than Cyprian
or any of his enemies clearly saw. The restoration of
a penitent the pardon of the
necessarily conveys
church for any offence against itself but does it :
equally convey God's forgiveness of the sin? Distinct

as the two ideas are, they were (and are) much
confused.
No doubt the better class of Lucian's friends had a
Cyprian (in this connexion) generally means the

1
"The Gospel" in
strict discipline. ^ xhe letter is Cyprian Ep. 23. He discusses it Ep. 27.
— ;
right feeling that there are no limits to God's mercy,

just as the Novatians at the other extreme were right
in saying that the church is holy : yet neither Cyprian
nor any of his enemies could see through the dilemma.
If Christ receiveth sinners, there must be plenty of
them in the church yet how can that be, if the
:
church The error was the error of the

holy?
is
Western church. The Lord's personal claim he that — *'
is not with me is against me," had been construed into

he that is not with us is against us and his solemn :
—
warning he that disbelieveth is condemned, was
turned into a doctrine that whoever dies outside a
certain visible society shall without doubt perish ever-
lastingly. Outside the church there was no salvation.
Justin indeed believed that God had not left himself
without a witness among the heathen, and the
Alexandrians made the maxim harmless by their
refusal to limit the church to the visible society but :
to the Latins (Augustine perhaps excepted) all this was

mere evasion. Cyprian, for instance, wâs in this way
quite as hard as any Calvin ist. Baptism would save
the infant, and martyrdom the catechumen, for the
'* "
baptism of blood ranked even higher than Christ's
ordinance of water : but as for one who never heard
the Gospel, or one who wandered into heresy, or died
out of communion with the bishops of the church
no innocence, no virtue, no repentance, not even death
for Christ would in the least avail to save him from
the everlasting fire of hell. On this theory, church
pardon and divine forgiveness are closely linked to-
gether. The negative side is obvious, that God
forgives none to whom the church refuses pardon
and the positive side lay very near in practice, that
whomsoever the church pardons, God forgives.
Small wonder if men's brains reeled, when they

took to themselves the awful power of dispensing to
their fellow-sinners a pardon without which there
was no forgiveness in the world to come. Cyprian
leaned at first to severity.-^ It was the tradition of
the past, it had the support of Tertullian, and it
undeniably represented a principle that needed to be

maintained against the indiscriminating laxity of the
confessors. But he was too wise to be pushed into
an extreme by his own supporters. As they leaned
forward towards rigour, Cyprian drew^ back towards
mercy. If he was as fully committed as any one to the
false theory of the church which wâs the root of the
mischief, he had more wisdom than others to pick his
way from one step to another. First he reserves the
whole question meanwhile restoring
for quieter times,
only those who had letters, and those only in the
hour of death, but excluding none from hope. Later
on he establishes a clear distinction between the
grosser ofi'enders and the rest, and in the end he
secured the ordinary enactment of a pardon in terms
almost as comprehensive as those of Lucian's lawless
amnesty.
Meanwhile he was a fugitive bishop at a difficult
with confessors and offenders and a strong party
crisis,
of his own presbyters allied against him. Nor was

his provisional plan likely to escape objections. It
was of course must be reserved

clear that all the cases
for quieter times, if any such distinction was to be
made among the offenders as justice required. But
if the letters of the confessors were to have any
^ Testimonia iii. 28 non posse in ecclesia remitti ei qui in Deum deliquerit

(quoting Mt. xii. 32, Mk. iii. 28, 1 Sam. ii. 25) is exactly what Novatian
might have written.
VOL. II U
—
weight at all, the party of laxity might fairly

complain that there was no logic in limiting it to the
hour of death. Zealots of another sort would find
offence in his noble confidence that God would care
even for those who died outside the peace of the
church. Cyprian was at any rate learning something
from the awful scenes around him would only he :
had never fallen back from the Crede et manducasti

to which the storm of persecution had lifted him.
But if his plan was not quite logical, it answered the
needs of the moment so well that even the Koman
church was glad to follow his lead.
Presently things became more settled. The laity
of Carthage steadily supported him, the bishops of
Africa and Italy declared in favour of his policy, and
the persecution abated as soon as Decius left Rome
for the frontier in the autumn
So a twofold
of 250.
schism began to form, of the extremes on either side
— a party of laxity at Carthage, which restored all
offenders without distinction, and a party of rigour
at Rome, which shut out all without distinction.
The head of the opposition at Carthage was Cyprian's
old enemy the presbyter Novatus, a man of unsteady
and unruly character, whom nothing but the
opportune outbreak of the persecution had saved
from an investigation which might have led to his
deposition from office.^ Now, with the help of his
active deacon Felicissimus, he made his church a
centre of open rebellion against the bishop. The
leader of the Roman schism was a more serious
character —
the austere and learned Novatian
^ This seems as much as can safely be said, for the charges in Cyprian Ep.
52 are best disregarded. Yet the facts known of Novatus are not in his favour.
One of the charges to be investigated (we need notassumeits truth likeCyprian)
was that he had given his wife a kick which caused her to miscarry.
perhaps the ablest of the presbyters who ruled the

church during the long vacancy which followed
Fabian's death. If he had received only clinical
baptism in a dangerous illness, his eloquence and
orthodoxy justified Fabian in making him an exception
to the custom forbidding such converts to be ordained.
We know nothing against Novatian nothing but the —
ascetic bitterness which has wrecked his fame.^ He
had accepted Cyprian's plan with the rest of the
Roman presbyters, but of late he had grown more
severe. Presently came the long-delayed election of a
new bishop (cir. Mar. 5, 251).' As usual, Rome passed
over her ablest man and
this time with good reason,
;
for the choice of Novatian would have committed her

to a policy of rigour. The election fell on Cornelius,
a Roman of high family, perhaps a kinsman of the
future empress Salonina, who had quietly risen from
one church office to another, filling them all with
dignity and making no mistakes. But
was he
essentially a second-rate man, neither a statesman
like Cyprian, nor a scholar like Novatian.
Meanwhile Cyprian had returned to Carthage, and
was holding a council. They had recognized Cornelius
and condemned Felicissimus, when startling news was
brought from Rome. Novatus had gone there and
promptly joined Novatian ^ and the confessors (they
!
were out of prison by this time) had been won over

to elect Novatian bishop of Rome. His envoys were
turned out of the council, and the question of the
1 Cornelius ap. Eus. vi. 42 seems even more unfair to Novatian than
Cyprian is to Novatus.
^ Benson CyjJrian 127.
^ There is but one explanation of this sudden change of party. Novatus

cared nothing about the renegades, only how to check the growing power of
the bishop. So Benson Cyprian 137.
renegades was taken up. By time there was a

this
general feeling that the rule of penance till the hour
of death was too severe for any but the worst offenders.
It was neither charity nor policy to be so hard on
men who had sinned from weakness, and might again
soon need all the help the church could give them.
So it was agreed that only those who had sacrificed
should not be restored till the hour of death. In
other cases extenuating circumstances were to be taken
was always to be a long penance,
into account, but there
and even then the bishop was not to restore them
without a public application. As for such as refused
to accept their penance, they were not to be restored
even in the hour of death.
This will not seem a lenient decision, if we
remember the severity of penance. Yet in three
different directions it marks a clear advance on older
ideas. First, it rules against the rigorists that even
apostasy (and more any other sin)
still is within the
power of the church to pardon. Then it recognizes
degrees of guilt in the sin. Lastly it takes the
matter entirely out of the hands of individual con-
fessors or presbyters, and commits it to the bishop
as the one constitutional head of the community.
But it will be noticed that no change is made in the
character of penance, or in the rule that a cleric who
has once done penance must remain for the rest of
his life a layman.
at Rome were finally establishing
Meanwhile events
the contended for by Ignatius, that all the
rule
Christians in a city must be subject to a single
bishop. The breach of this shocked Cyprian more
than anything else in the election of Novatian. It
is more the breach of order than the twofold breach
THE DISCIPLINE QUESTIONS 293
of charity in the fact and the motives of the schism

which stirs his utmost horror. To the Eoman con-
fessors he "intense and almost crushing
tells his
grief to hear that against God's ordinance, against
the law of the Gospel, against the unity of the
catholic foundation, they have consented to the
setting-up of another bishop— that which is (a thing
neither divine nor human found

law allows) to
another church, to tear in pieces Christ's members,

to rend the Lord's flock to the dividing of the soul and
body with their factiousness." ' On this ground— that
there can be but one bishop, and this proved to be
Cornelius — the confessors returned to his communion,
and were received with open arms. On one ground
or another. Christian opinion was declaring itself
against Novatian. It is better represented by the
grave pleadings of Dionysius of Alexandria than by

the reckless tirades of such an evil-minded partizan
In answer to Novatian's excuse that
as Cornelius.
he had accepted the bishopric unwillingly, "This,
—
says he, youprove by retiring willingly.
will
Suffering in order to prevent division is not less
glorious (in my opinion it is more so) than suffering
for refusing to worshipyou can make the
idols. If
brethren come back to unity, your good work will

be greater than your failure and while your failure
;
will be forgotten, your good work shall have praise.
But ifyou cannot overcome their disobedience, at
least deliver your own soul." In this letter he is

^
only saying that the division is a plain breach of

charity but writing a few years later (when the
:
issues were clearer) to the presbyter Dionysius, who

was one day himself to be bishop of Eome, he sums
1 Cyprian Ep. 46.
"^
ccp- Eus. vi.45.
up the doctrinal dispute words which link on the

in
Novatianist question to the controversy on rebaptism.
"We hate Novatian with good reason, in that he
divided the church and led some of the brethren
into impieties and blasphemies, and brought in a
most unholy doctrine concerning God, and slanders
our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ as merciless.
In addition to all this he rejects the holy washing,
and overthrows the faith and confession which goes
before it, and utterly banishes from them the Holy
Spirit, even if there were any hope at all that he
would remain with them or return to them." The ^
last sentence would seem a condemnation of the

Novatianist refusal to recognize orthodox baptism.
If so, the judgment of Dionysius is the judgment of
history on Novatian.
To return to Carthage. Though the council had
softened the punishment of offenders,it was still
cruelly severe. All cases were condemned to a long

period of misery ; and to the sacrificers no hope was
given till the hour of death. In their case no
distinctions The weakness which yielded
were made.
only to repeated tortures was dealt with like the
impudence which gloried in apostasy, if only the
outward act it ended in was sacrifice. Though this
was better than Novatianism, it almost equally
" slandered our most compassionate Lord Jesus
Christ as merciless." It drove many to desperation,
and created a mass of greater misery than men could
bear to see. They were not heartless, only entangled
in a false theory, and the suffering of their fallen
brethren was a real sorrow to them. If Cyprian
could not rise above the misconception of the church
'
Ibid. vii. 8.
which caused and alone made possible these inhuman

penances, he was not unmindful of the bishop's duty
to bind up the broken, bring again the outcasts and
seek the lost. Was it right to expose them un-
protected to the danger of another persecution ? So
when the tumults in the time of Gailus seemed to
bring that danger near, a new council (May 252)
issued a general all who had continued
amnesty to
steadfast until now in penance, " that they might be
armed for the impending conflict." ' Thus Lucian's

aim was vindicated in the end, though to the utter
condemnation of his action. Lucian raised the
question by his lawless offer of impunity Cyprian ;
settled it by the regular issue of a lawful pardon.

The last phrase, "that they may be armed for
the impending conflict," goes to the bottom of the
matter. Neither the Lord's teaching nor St. Paul's
example warrants the use of excommunication as
pure and simple punishment. The defiant sinner
shuts himself out but if he makes a serious and
:
apparently sincere request for restoration, we have

no right to delay it further than may be needed to
make reasonably sure of his sincerity. If any grace
at all given in the ordinance, the repentant sinner
is
" to arm him
is the man who most sorely needs it,
against impending temptations." He is not only a

fit person for the Lord's Table, but the only fit
person, for we do not ourselves presume to come
there except so far as we too are repentant sinners.^
1 Cypriau Ep. 57.
2 Paul's direction "not even to eat" with open sinners who are
St.
Christians, refers to the impenitent only, for he tells the
Corinthians to
his repentance.
restore at once a very gross offender, if they are satisfied of
There is no reason for taking this as an exceptional indulgence.
If it be answered that the churches generally have used excommunication
as simple punishment, the reply is easy. Every practice of every church
Felicissimus felt the blow, and tried a counterblow.

A junta of five tainted bishops (among them Repostus
of Tuburnue) made Fortunatus bishop of Carthage
in opposition to Cyprian. The scandal was too
great and the party collapsed at once. Crowds
;
went over to Cyprian, and we hear no more of

Felicissimus.
Novatian fared better, One important bishop,
Fabius of Antioch, was inclined to favour him, and
Dionysius and others had much ado to hold him back
for the short remainder of his life. His successor
accepted the position of Cyprian and Cornelius (March
252). But Novatianism was not thereby suppressed.
The ideal holiness it strove to realize in the visible
church has a charm for every age of stirring life. If
it falls in with human pride, and is near akin to the
spirit of persecution, it is also near akin to those

final facts of Christian certainty which it goes far to
undo by want of charity. It may be the weakness
of the most prosaic natures, or it may do duty for
the thing austere and high which quick and vivid
natures need to give unity to the ever -changing
phases of spiritual excitement. And in the throes
of a grim and desperate struggle with some over-
mastering power of evil, when Calvinism or asceticism
is let loose from the depths of human nature according
as hope is strong or weak, the spirit of Puritanism is
never far Hildebrand and Calvin are alike in

off.
this, and few great churchmen have quite escaped it.

Novatianism was not likely to die out in such an age
depends on an interpretation of Scripture — that either there is not anything
to the contrary in Scripture, or that if there we are at liberty to disregard
is,
it. And if the churches have undeniably gone wrong generally on points of
criticism, there is no reason why they should not also go wrong generally on
points of interpretation.
as the third century. If it never greatly flourished

in Eome, it found more genial quarters among the
Gauls of Asia, and remained strong in Africa till
it was absorbed by its more rigid and fanatical
successor, Donatism.
Cyprian had guided Rome in the contest with

If
the and worked in union wîth Rome
confessors,
against the rigorists of Novatian, it was not long
before questions arose w^hich divided Rome and
Carthage, and plainly shewed how little the churches
admitted any Roman jurisdiction. Lucius of Rome
died in May 254, and his successor Stephen was
involved in a series of disputes with Cyprian. The
first of these is sufficiently significant. Two Spanish
bishops, Basilides of Leon and Martialis of Merida,
had accepted lihelli in the persecution, and been
guilty of further heathen sin : so they were deposed
from their office, and others were duly elected in
their place. Presently they went to Rome, and
Stephen recognised them as the lawful bishops of
—
Leon and Merida their apostasy notwithstanding.
Thereupon the aggrieved churches appealed to
Cyprian and their appeal was accepted without
;
hesitation. An African council summarily reversed

the Roman decision, on the ground that " our
colleague Stephen was deceived, being a long way
off and ignorant of the and of the truth." ^ It
facts
does not even occur to them that Stephen has any
authority that needs to be reckoned with.
The next dispute 255) was over Marcian of
(in
Aries, who not only excluded all the lajpsi even in
the hour of death, but (like the Donatists of the next
^ Cyprian Ep. 67. 5.
century) renounced communion with the churches

which restored them. Faustinus of Lyons wrote to
Stephen, and also to Cyprian and when Stephen
;
did nothing, he wrote again to Cyprian, who took up

the matter and pressed it on Stephen. "It is our
duty," says he, " as governors of the church to con-
sider the matter and find a remedy." ^ So he instructs
Stephen to write first "a very full letter" to the
Gaulish bishops, that they should stop the insolence
of Marcian as the insolence of Novatian had been
stopped — by excommunication, which would at once
vacate the see.Stephen was also to write to the
laity of Aries, to remind them of their duty to elect
a new bishop in Marcian's place and in due time ;
he was to inform Cyprian who was chosen. The

only primacy here allowed to Rome is that of near-
ness to Gaul. It was not Stephen's duty but that
of the Gaulish churches to remedy the grievance ;
and it was no more Stephen s duty than that of

Cyprian or any other bishop to remind them of it,
except that he was the nearest great bishop to Gaul,
and therefore the most convenient person to do it.
The third dispute was on the rebaptism of heretics ;
and this raised important questions. If an act of

baptism were performed by a person outside the
church, it had to be completed by the laying-on of
hands — so far all parties were agreed but was it —
therefore null ? On this there was no general agree-
ment in Cyprian's time. In Africa heretical baptism
seems to have been first condemned about 213,^
at a council held by Agrippinus of Carthage. The
1 Ibid. 68.
- Benson Cyinian 335-348 for this date and the next.
THE DISCIPLINE QUESTIONS 299
practice of rebaptism been brought to

may have
Eome in the time of Callistus but we cannot ;
suppose it to have been more than an occasional

abuse, in the face of Stephen's distinct declaration
that it had never been allowed in the Koman church.
Even in Africa the decision of the council seems to
have been forgotten though it was still observed
;
in Numidia. In the East the principle seems to

have settled, that "all baptism must be rejected,
which is outside the church." ' Councils at Iconium^
and Synnada {cir. 230) rejected it in the full belief
that they were only continuing old customs, and
Dionysius of Alexandria that similar decisions
tells us '
were made in many districts by other councils of the

same period. Upon the w^hole then there was a
custom of rebaptizing in Asia within Mount Taurus,
and a custom of not rebaptizing at Rome; while
Dionysius (as we shall see) held a mediating position,
and Africa was divided.
But Africa was not for long divided. The
Novatianists made the question urgent by rebaptiz-
ing converts from the church. If the Novatianists
treated the baptism of the church as null, might not
the church reply by declaring Novatianist baptism

null ? No, replied Stephen. The man who tolerated
lapsed bishops in Spain and an ultra- No vatianist
bishop in Gaul was not likely to reverse the old
custom of his church by annulling Novatianist
baptism. Instead of this, he was ready to admit
even that of Marcion, and
*'
the rest of the heretical
pests." This aroused Cyprian. His mind was clear.
If there no grace outside the church, no baptism
is
outside the church can confer grace. If Marcion is

'
1
Firmilian ap. Cypr. Ep. 75. 19.
^ ap. Eus. vii.
"
a particularly Novatian cannot

pestilent heretic,
plead his orthodoxy, for the fact remains that he is
out of the church, and therefore has no grace to give.
He may " ape the church," but his baptism is only
" lying water." ^ As for the heretics who do not
rebaptize —
a nice model truly for Stephen to hold
up to us "But if any one reply that Novatian
I
holds the same law as the church, uses the same creed
in baptism, and recognizes the same Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, let him know that we have neither the
same use of the creed nor the same questioning as
schismatics for when they ask. Dost thou believe in
;
the forgiveness of sins and life eternal through the

holy church, they lie, because they have no church.
Then again with their own voice they confess that no
forgiveness of sins is given but through the holy
church and as they have not this they make it
:
plain that with them no sins can be forgiven."

The controversy ran a fairly simple course.
Cyprian is on the matter first by a
questioned
layman named Magnus, whom he answers himself;
then by eighteen Numidian bishops, who are answered
by the majority of a council of thirty-three African
bishops — for all did not agree. A third question
came from Quintus, a Mauritanian bishop, who was
also answered by Cyprian. Next year a council of
seventy-one African and Numidian bishops decided
that " those who are washed outside the church, and
defiled among heretics and schismatics with the stain
of profane water must be baptized when they come
to us and to the church, which is one." They prove
the incapacity of those outside the church by the
^ Jer. XV. 18 as quoted by Cyprian Ep. 73. 6 aqua mendax non habens
fidem. Cyprian Ep. 69, 7 (condensed).
"^
command (Lev. xxi. 21),hath a No man that

blemish shall come near to offer gifts to God, and
other like passages. Howbeit " we compel no man
and lay down no law, since every bishop has
freedom to govern his church according to his own
judgment, whereof he shall give account to the
Lord." ^ Once more the question was asked of
Cyprian by the Mauritanian bishop Jubaianus, whom
he answered in an elaborate letter ^ which gives his
final views. This letter he laid before a third council
which met Sept. 1, 256, of eighty-seven bishops from
Africa, Numidia and Mauritania, with presbyters and
deacons, and a great number present of the laity.
Then, "It remains for us each to state what he

thinks, judging no man, and removing no man from
his right of communion if he thinks otherwise. For
none of us makes himself a bishop of bishops, or
obliges his colleagues by a tyrannous terror to any
necessity of obedience."' Then the bishops gave
their opinions in order — the whole number of them
unanimous for rebaptism. The variety of argument
and temper is remarkable ; but in the conclusion they
are all agreed.^
1
Ibid. 72.
2 jjjici^ 73. 3 Cyprian Sentt. Epp.
^ few specimens may be given
A :
12. If the blind lead the blind, etc. quoted again by 82.
:
24. Are heretics Christians or not ? If so, why are they

not in the church ?
If not, let them become Christians.

37. We know that heretics are worse than heathens.
60. Christ instituted the church, the devil heresy.
62. " God heareth not a sinner." How
can a heretic, who is a sinner, be
heard in baptism ?
70. A heretic cannot give what he has not : much more has a schismatic
lostwhat he had.
Benson Cyprian 424 for the most characteristic utterance of his whole
anti-Scriptural, un-
work, explaining the error of the Council— "uncharitable,
laity, among whom broader
catholic, and unanimous "—by the silence of the
were at work. I am afraid this is too favourable to the
laity.
principles
If from conciliatory, Stephen was

Cyprian was far
thoroughly insolent, quarrelling at one time with
''
the Easterns, at another with the Africans. A

deputation of bishops from Carthage he received with
patience enough and gentleness, for he refused even
common conversation with them, and was moreover
so mindful of love and charity that he forbade the
brotherhood to receive them in their houses. This
was the way he kept the unity of the spirit in the
bond of peace." ^ The speaker here is Firmilian of
Caesarea in Cappadocia and his sarcasm was well
;
deserved. Firmilian ranked with Dionysius of

Alexandria and Gregory of Neocaesarea two other —
disciples of Origen —
among the great leaders of the
Eastern church. Of this man Stephen wrote to
Dionysius, as well as " about Helenus of Tarsus, and
all the nations of Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia
and those next bordering on them, threatening to

break off communion with them also for the same
^
reason, that (says he) they rebaptize heretics."
Much Firmilian cares for that threat. His arguments
are mostly borrowed from Cyprian but he confirms ;
the custom of Africa by that of Asia, and tells a story

of a woman some two-and-twenty years ago, after
Alexander's time," who was gave herself
in ecstasy,
out for a prophetess, and deceived many. Would
Stephen say that baptism is valid if administered by
such a demoniac as that ? At Roman " custom " he
scoffs. Christ called himself truth, not custom.^
1 a'p. Cyprian Ep. 75, 25.

^ Dionysius ap. Eus. vii. 5 ws ovhe iKelvoL% KotvuvrjcTwu viz., as he had already
threatened the Africans.
^ The argument comes through Cyprian from Tertullian de virg. vel. 1.
In exactly the same way it is quoted by Gregory VII. to Wimund of Aversa

(Jaffe Moil Gregoriana 576).
Rome lias made many changes since the apostles'

time, and there are many diversities of custom yet ;
they have never caused any such breach of peace and

unity as Stephen is now making. I am rightly angry
at Stephen's manifest folly, that one who boasts
the rank of his bishopric, and maintains that he
holds Peter's chair by right succession should bring
in many other rocks and set up new buildings of
many churches. In excommunicating all these
churches, he has only excommunicated himself.^
Firmilian denounces Roman insolence with un-
measured scorn Dionysius of Alexandria meets it
;
—
with grave entreaty all the graver for the fact that
in practice he agreed with Stephen. Clement had
spoken of heretical baptism as "strange water," ^ but
Dionysius did not rebaptize "those who had made
profession in Imptism, whether in pretence or in
truth, of" the Trinity.^ When an old convert of
times dating back perhaps to Demetrius found out
that his own heretical baptism had been quite unlike
the orthodox, Dionysius refused to rebaptize him,
telling him that a communion of many years was
and that he would not venture to unsettle
sufficient,
him by a regular baptism. So it was not to Stephen's

practice that Dionysius objected, but to his want of
charity in forcing it on the Easterns. It was a
serious thing to disturb the Pentecostal peace and
harmony that had been restored to the churches.
Rebaptism was no new custom in Africa, nor (so it
proved) in Asia either. It was enjoined by many
councils and practised in many populous churches ;
1 Cyprian Ep. 75 is a translation of Firmilian's letter.

2 Clem. Al. Strom, i. 19 vbwp dWorpiov t6 /SdTrrtcr/Lia to aipCTiKov.
3 Dion. Al. ap. Eus. vii. 5-9 (fragments of several letters).
—
and " I cannot endure to unsettle their opinions

and
stir up strife and contention, for says he, Thou shalt
^
not remove thy neighbour's landmark."
Stephen died in peace (Aug. 2, 257) and his
successor Xystus dropped the quarrel. Perhaps it
was forgotten in the outbreak of Valerian's persecu-
tion but every church seems to have kept its own
;
custom. At Aries in 314 the Eoman view (that

of Dionysius of Alexandria) prevailed, that even
heretical baptism is valid if given in the name of the
Trinity but its nullity was a settled question in the
;
—
East and Africa ^ as witness the one haj^tism of
Eastern creeds, and the Nicene command to re-
baptize the Paulianists (followers of Paul of
Samosata), who certainly used the name of the
Trinity.^ When the question settled down, the
baptism of schismatics (if with water and in the
name of the Trinity) was recognized, while that of
heretics was rejected in the East, and theoretically
accepted in the West, for Rome rebaptizes only on
the theory that heretics are sure to be careless. The
church of England has deliberately (since 1604)
withdrawn the former sanction for baptism by others
than its own ministers, but nowhere pronounces such
baptism invalid.
^ Thus Can. Apost. 46, 47. Athanasius Or. c. Ar. ii. 42, 43 (Arians,
Manichees, Montanists). Cyril Procatech. 7. Basil Ep. 188 (but Novatians
only schismatics, so left to local custom) Ep. 199. 47 (Encratitesetc, reading
ov T(^ avT(^ Marcionites). Didymuscê Trin. ii. 15 (Eunomians, Montanists).
'.
Optatus i. 12. Also Can. 7 C. P. (381) which though spurious is not a century
later (Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, and all others except Arians,
Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimans and Apollinarians).
2 Dion. Al. to Xystus of Rome— newly discovered fragment translated
from the Armenian by F. C. Conybeare, Engl. Historical Review, January

1910, p. 115.
^ Can. 19. The Roman gloss — '* Paulianists ; therefore not others
'"
is not what the Council meant.

The question really at issue was of the un worthi-
ness of the minister, whether it hinders the effect
of the sacraments. The stricter sects have always
inclined to answer Yes, in the most general way.
Cyprian replied that separation from the church is
the only hindrance, while the church of Kome rightly
held that even that is no hindrance.
VOL. II
CHAPTEE XXV
THE LONG PEACE
The long peace (260-303) which followed the edict

of Gallienus is almost as obscure as the subapostolic
age. We really know more of the seventh century,
which the obscurest part of the middle ages.
is No
great character properly belongs to the period, and
its records are of the scantiest. We have a few
chapters about Dionysius of Alexandria and Paul
of Samosata, notices of Manes and of Anatolius of
Laodicea, accounts more or less legendary of Gregory
the Wonderworker and of Gregory the Illuminator,
lists of bishops, a few fragments of Pierius and
Theognostus, and some inscriptions. This is nearly
all. Fortunately the period is not a very long one,
and we can form some idea of the changes going
on by comparing the times of Origen and Cyprian
before it with the Nicene age after it.
The story of the Empire will not detain us long,

for none of the emperors between Gallienus and
Diocletian (268-284) is known to have had any
direct dealings with the Christians, Aurelian ex-
cepted. They are not likely to have been friendly
rulers. Claudius, Aurelian, Probus,^ and Cams were
1
To the time of Probus we may refer Trophimus the martyr (of the
Pisidian Antioch), who suffered at Synnada. Inscription discussed by
306
CHAP. XXV THE LONG PEACE 307
great soldiers, Tacitus was an old senator, Carinus

a vicious tyrant : there remains only the cultured
Numerian, of whom very little is known. But the
most hostile of rulers could not refuse to see that
the barbarians and the mutinies were a much more
pressing danger than the Christians. Even Marcus
in his worst distresses had no such tremendous task
as that which now confronted Claudius. The state
of things was bad enough in Valerian's time but ;
it was much worse now. For nearly twenty years

(249-268) the sword and the famine and the noisome
beast ^ and the pestilence had been doing their worst.
The Empire must have lost half its population, and
perhaps quite as much of its scanty fixed capital.
The Euphrates and the Ehine were guarded for the
moment by Zenobia and Victorina, though neither
the Queen of the East nor the Gaulish legions could
be trusted. Zenobia had her ambitions, and a
Gaulish Caesar was bound to march on Kome when
he could do it. But the danger on the Danube was
greater than ever. The Goths were overflowing all
the Balkan region, and Claudius cannot have had
very much more than the resources of Italy at his
disposal. But the result was decisive. The Goths
were completely routed near Naissus, and " the
provinces were filled with barbarian slaves and
Gothic serfs." The conversion of prisoners into
serfs was the settled policy of the emperors, and
must have given the provinces a large infusion of
Teutonic blood.
Ramsay in Uxpositor Seventh Ser. vol. ix. 481 (June 1910). The general
peace would not prevent occasional executions, especially of soldiers.
^ The noisome beast must be taken literally. We find some of the
richest parts of Gaul (the Medoc and the Cote d'Or) abandoned to the
beasts in the time of Diocletian.
Here then was the great blow struck for the

first
restoration of the Empire. But Claudius did not

to finish the Gothic war, so that the
main
even live
part of the work had to be done by his
successor.
soldiers in
That successor was one of the greatest
the entire history of Rome. Lucius Domitius Aureli-
anus reigned but five years (270-275) yet by
the
end of those five years he had recovered both East

and West, and was obeyed from Palmyra to Carlisle.
His proud title of Restitutor Orhis does him no more
than justice. In his career of conquest he was like
Severus; like Severus also in his excessive cruelty,
but unlike Severus in being little more than a
great soldier. Some terrible examples may have
been needed to keep in hand that brutal soldiery :
but in Diocletian's judgment Aurelian was too cruel

for an emperor, and ought never to have been more
than a general.
However, he began with a work of peace. By
giving up Trajan's Dacia to the Goths, he secured
an alliance which covered the lower Danube for a
century. Two short wars excepted, there was no
more trouble with the Goths till 376. Then he
turned upon Zenobia, who had taken the oppor-
tunity of the Gothic war for the conquest of Egypt.
In fact, it was time to suppress her, for she was
more Syrian than Roman. A battle near Emesa
enabled him to besiege Palmyra and capture Zenobia
in her attempt to escape. Leaving Probus to com-
plete his work by the conquest of Egypt, Aurelian
returned to the West. The Gaulish Caesarship was
most unstable. A mutinous army had set up and
slaughtered a whole series of emperors and though
;
Victorina was " Mother of the Camp " now a —

XXV THE LONG PEACE 309
common empresses—through several reigns,

title for
she had been put to death by Tetricus, who now

ruled in daily terror of his mutinous soldiery. He
was only too glad to be conquered or delivered
by Aurelian, who made him a Corrector in Italy.
Then Aurelian shewed his want of statesmanship.
Instead of giving the Empire the rest it so sorely
needed, he marched against the Persians. But by
this time his cruelty had made him intolerable, and
he was assassinated as he was nearing Byzantium
(March 275).
Aurelian was a devoted worshipper of the Sun,
to whom he built a splendid temple in Eome, so
that he was not likely to look kindly on the Chris-
tians. The one saying about them recorded of
him does not sound friendly —when he rebukes the

Senate for their delay in consulting the Sibylline
books, "as if they were debating in a Christian
church, not in a temple of all the gods." Still in
the main he does not seem to have molested them.

He decided for them, as we shall see, the question
of the bishopric of Antioch. At the end of his
reign however there wêre at any rate rumours of
his intention to renew the persecution. Whether

the edict was actually issued is not clear but in any ;
case its operation was cut short by Aurelian's death.

Three times the council of officers had chosen
great soldiers — Valerian, Claudius, Aurelian — but
now they turned to the civilians. The Senate was
still in theory the giver of the purple ;
and its credit
must have risen as that of the emperor declined in

the anarchy: and it had done good work of late
in the defence and in
of Italy against Maximin,
the recent Marcomannic inroad, which had nearly
;
:
3IO CHURCH HISTORY chap
defeated Aurelian himself at Placentia. So it seemed

a hopeful plan when the council of officers invited
the Senate to name an emperor and assume the
supreme direction and they agreed to do so when
;
they were were in earnest.

satisfied that the officers
Clearly the right policy for them was to choose the
ablest and most vigorous man they could find in
the Curia. But this is precisely what such an
assembly never does. Rank and age come first
and they chose their worthy old princeps Tacitus.
The mistake was fatal. Tacitus was loyally accepted
by the army, and was not wanting in activity
but he soon sank under the fatigues of the camp.
This time the army chose for itself, and chose
Probus the general of the East, one of the best of
Aurelian's lieutenants. The Senate might have
preferred Florianus the brother of Tacitus but ;
Probus was respectful to them, and allowed the

new government to continue. But when he too
perished in a mutiny (282) his successor Cams put
an end to it. Cams marched against Persia with his
younger son Numerian, leaving Carinus the elder to
govern in Rome. In the midst of a thunderstorm
near Ctesiphon (so runs the story) it was announced
that Carus was dead, and young Numerian led back
the army under the guidance of his father-in-law,
the Praetorian Praefect Arrius Aper. Presently
Numerian was found dead in his litter, and the
officers chose the Comes domesticorum Diocletian,
who at once slew Aper with his own hand as the
murderer of Numerian (Sept. 17, 284). It only
remained to decide between Diocletian and Carinus.
The armies met near Margus (285) and the Western
legions were fast winning the day when Carinus was
killed by an officer whose wife lie had violated.

Diocletian remained, to be even more than Aurelian
the restorer of the Empire.
Our knowledge of church history during the Long
Peace is almost limited to the East and in the East ;
the disciples and followers of Origen take the lead.

To its early years belong Dionysius of Alexandria,
Firmilian of Caesarea Mazaca, and Gregory of
Neocaesarea ; a little later the succession of the
Alexandrian school is carried on by Theognostus and
Pierius, while Pamphilus of the Palestinian Caesarea
brings us to the edge of the Nicene age, and his
friend Eusebius was a friend of Constantine, and
overlived him.
Though Dionysius of Alexandria {cir. 197-265)
belongs rather to the time of Decius and Valerian,
he may be taken here as the greatest of church
leaders in the first years of the Peace. He seems to
have been a man of some rank, which he lost when
his habit of reading books of all sorts led him to
Christianity.In after years he tells Philemon the
Koman elder how "one of the brethren the elders"
warned him against reading heretical books, and told
him they would do him harm (and he was quite
right, too)but " there came a vision sent from God
which strengthened me, and a word of command
came to me, expressly saying, Kead all the books
that come into your hands, for you are well able to
correct and try each statement and this was also ;
the original cause of your conversion. I accepted
the vision as being in agreement with the apostolic
utterance which says to the stronger brethren. Shew

^
yourselves tried money-changers."
1
The narrower sort of Christians always thought it wrong to read heretical
When bishop Demetrius died in 232, Dionysius

succeeded Heraclas as head of the catechetical school,
and afterwards as bishop in 247. He soon found
Outrages began
himself in the thick of persecution.
even and must have been connived
in Philip's time,
at by the Praefect. They ceased on Philip's death,
but then came the edict of Decius. Without an
hour's delay the Praefect Sabinus sent an officer to
arrest Dionysius. The man hunted everywhere for
four days, never dreaming that the bishop would
stay quietly in his own house. Then " at God's
command," he left with his children ^ and others, but
was captured by the soldiers and brought to Taposiris,
some fifteen miles from Alexandria, where he was
rescued by a wedding party of rustics. He remained
in hiding for the rest of the persecution, and the
authorities appear to have searched no further for
him.^ On his return he was much troubled with the
pestilence and with the tumults, which made it
" easier to pass from the East to the West than from
one quarter of the city to another." When the

persecution was resumed by Valerian in 257, Dionysius
and some of his were brought before the
clergy
Praefect Aemilianus. Dionysius gives the whole
story from the official records. Aemilianus begins
by promising them full security (such is the clemency
of the emperors) if they will only " do the natural
thing" by worshipping the gods who preserve the
orheathen books. Serapion of Antioch has to explain that he only borrowed
them for a purpose ; Origen and Dionysius have to defend themselves for
doing it, and the Syriac Didaskalia (c. 2) expressly forbids heathen literature.
1 ol TraXdes may be pupils : hardly servants, for Dionysius dedicates his
Uepi (pvaews to one of them (Eus. vii. 26).
2 Here we see some reasons for the failure of the Decian persecution. The
authorities were remiss, and the rustics sympathized with prisoners generally
— for there is no reason to think it was a wedding party of Christians.
Empire and " forgetting the unnatural gods." Diony-

sius replies that all men do not worship all gods, but
each those he thinksfit. We worship the one God,
and pray to him for the emperors. ''Well, who
hinders you from worshipping him, if he is a god,
along with the natural gods?" "We worship no

other." Aemilianus replies by exiling them to
Cephro in Libya, " where neither you nor others
will be allowed to hold meetings, or to enter the so-
called cemeteries." With that, he ordered them to
go to the place at once, not allowing Dionysius a
day's delay for sickness. But Dionysius not only
held meetings at Cephro, and converted many of the
heathen, but kept up the meetings at Alexandria.
So Aemilianus divided the party, quartering them in
villages of the Mareotis —
which enabled their friends
at Alexandria to pay them frequent visits.
Dionysius was released from exile by the edict of

Gallienus, and spent the last five years of his life in
such peace as was allowed him by the pestilence and
the continued civil strife at Alexandria. In 265 he
excused himself from attending the council to be
held at Antioch against Paul of Samosata. His
excuse of old age and sickness was only too true he :
died before the council's work was done.

In his own time no man spoke with greater
weight in Eastern Christendom than Dionysius He :
was more than a man of learning and a master of

clear and simple writing. His discussion of the
authorship of the Apocalypse is of itself enough to
place him among the best and soundest critics of
ancient times. But the noblest thing in Dionysius
is his moderation and soberness. We have seen it
already in his accounts of his own and

sufferings, in
his dealings with Novatian and with Stephen of

Rome, and it is equally conspicuous elsewhere. He
has no word of railing for Aemilianus, and is not
scurrilous even against Macrianus, whom he regards
as the instigator of Valerian to evil. But nowhere
does he shew himself better than in his plea for
gentleness with penitents. We, says he, reverse the
Saviour's action. He sought out the sheep that was
lost : we give it a kick when it returns. But such
severity is bad even for ourselves. For even as we do
good or evil to others we fill our own hearts with divine
virtues or with wild passions. In the one case we
shallhave peace and be companions of good angels
both here and hereafter in the other we shall lose
:
G-od's peace and our own, and be with the tormenting

demons both here and after death. Let us therefore
not reject penitents but receive them gladly, and
count them with those that never strayed, and so
fill up that which is lacking.^ To Dionysius every-
where the sin of sins is that of the man who " slanders
Christ as merciless."
We
have seen Firmilian of Caesarea Mazaca in
with Cyprian against Stephen of Rome, and
alliance
we shall meet him again when we come to the
councils Paul of Samosata
against but Gregory :
(Thaumaturgus) of Neocaesarea needs mention here.

Gregory was a native of Neocaesarea, and a heathen.
But when he went to study law at Berytus, he fell
under the influence of Origen, and remained five
years with him. To his parting speech we owe our
best information on Origen's methods of teaching,
and on his own life so far. On his return he was
chosen quite young for the bishopric of Neocaesarea :
1 Letter vii. (Feltoe p. 63).

;; ;
and after that he is almost lost in a cloud of legend.

The chief purveyor of legend is Gregory of Nyssa,
who wrote a Life of him more than a century later
from the information of his grandmother Macrina
and the old lady had a taste for the marvellous.
However, it is clear that our Gregory was a great
bishop more or less in the style of Dionysius. Like
Dionysius, he hid himself in the Decian persecution,
and strove to calm the troubles left behind by that
of Valerian. If he was less hindered by civil strife
than Dionysius, he had to face the horrors of Gothic
inroads, most safely dated after the fall of Trebizond
in 256. Great numbers of captives were carried off
but they spread some knowledge of Christianity
among the Goths. The time however was not quite
come for a Gothic mission Gregory's fame in history
:
is as the chief organizer of the churches in Pontus.

Though we need not believe that he found only
seventeen Christians in Neocaesarea, and left only
seventeen heathens, we cannot doubt that his work
made an enormous change even in his own time. In
the next age it is indirectly represented by the
conversion Armenia and the rise of the new
of
Nicene party which gathered round the three great
Cappadocians.
Christian and Christian learning grew
schools
in the later years of the Long Peace. There were
Dorotheus and Lucian at Antioch, Pierius and
Theognostus at Alexandria, Hieracas in Egypt
but the typical scholar of the time is Pamphilus
of Caesarea. Like Dionysius, he gave up good
worldly prospects to become a Christian student.
He learned of Pierius at Alexandria, and on his
return became an elder of the church of Caesarea.

;
There he devoted his life to austere study, and to

the collection of a library, chiefly of manuscripts
of Scripture and commentaries thereupon. Some
of these were copied by Pamphilus himself, others
by the band of students he gathered round him.
A copy of Origen's commentary on the Twelve
Prophets in five -and -twenty volumes came down
to Jerome in the autograph of Pamphilus. The
inspiration came from Origan, for Pamphilus was
his devoted follower. For years Pamphilus and
the historian Eusebius worked together and when
;
they were arrested in the last great persecution,

Pamphilus devoted his two years of imprisonment
to writing a Defence of Origen. Five books were
completed when Pamphilus became a martyr (309).
Eusebius added a sixth, and thenceforth called him-
self Pamphili —the friend of Pamphilus.
Even as Catholicism and Protestantism both
rightly claim Augustine for their spiritual father,
so Athanasius and Eusebius, Arius and Paul of
Samosata only developed principles which lay side
by side unreconciled in the works of Origen. The
dilemma of the Person of Christ was growing sharper
in the third century. If he is God, we have two
gods and if he is not God, we worship a creature.
;
Origen cleared one side of the difficulty by his

theory of the eternal generation, and essayed to clear
another by his doctrine of the human soul of Christ
but the dilemma was more than he could resolve.
All that he could do was to insist at once on the
deity of Christ and on his subordination to the
Father. It might for awhile seem possible to
reconcile these positions by counting Christ a
secondary God, and this was a common tendency
at the opening of the Nicene age, as with Eusebius.

But sooner or later there was no escape from the
conclusion that a secondary God is unthinkable, and
would any case be a second god. The use of such
in
a desperate expedient was enough to shew that the
problem was nearly ready for its solution at Nicaea.
Meanwhile, if the two sides of Origen's teaching
could not be held on equal terms, one or the other
must be dominant. Given the current conception
of the divine as transcendent and simple, the deity
of Christ led straight to Sabellianism. If he was
God, he must be some form, appearance or modifica-

tion of the Father. On the other hand, Arianism
in the next age gave a final demonstration that he
could not be subordinated to the Father without
reducing him to a creature. Sabellius himself,
though he lived quite early in the third century,
belongs rather to the Nicene age, for he developed
a Patripassion theory of the Person of Christ into
a full system of the Trinity. His own doctrine is
not easy to ascertain but he seems to have stood
;
on third-century ground in making the Father the

one God. This God appears in the Old Testament
as the Father,and expands himself {irXarvveTaL) in
the New as the Son, and in the Church as the
Holy Spirit. Thus the Trinity he reaches is only
a Trinity of temporary appearances without any
eternal background. It has three faces to the world,
and that is all.

As Paul of Samosata is known to us only from
the accounts of his enemies, we must use them with
some reserve. But the public facts of the case
cannot be outrageously falsified in an ofiicial docu-
ment like the letter of deposition, even if the
3i8 CHURCH HISTORY chap
glossesput on them are prejudiced. Paul then

was bishop of Antioch from cir. 260, and soon
became notorious. A council was called in 265,
which Dionysius of Alexandria was prevented from
attending by an illness which proved fatal. But
Firmilian of Cappadocia came this time and to a
second council. We hear that Paul got off both
times by sophistical excuses and promises of amend-
ment. A third council was held cir. 267, after
Firmilian' s deathand now Paul's sophistics were
;
unmasked by the presbyter Malchion. So he was

deposed but it was a startling stretch of authority
;
when the council appointed Domnus in his place.

Paul must have been well supported by flock his
when he refused to recognize the sentence and ;
he was also a procurator ducenarius, a high official

in great favour with Zenobia, so that he could not be
dispossessed of the church property till after her fall
in 272. Then the bishops appealed to Aurelian, and
he gave " a very reasonable decision," that the lawful
bishop of Antioch was the one in communion with

the bishops of Rome and Italy. This was Domnus ;
and Paul was ejected.

Aurelian might be reasonable enough but the ;
process marks two momentous facts in the growth

of the church. The first is that the council did
what no council seems ever to have done before.
They not only renounced Paul's communion but
deposed him, and not only deposed him but appointed
a successor, apparently without regard to the rights
of the church of Antioch. The second fact which
came out was that questions of property can only
be decided by the state and the state could not
;
decide them without laying down its own definition

:
of orthodoxy. Constantine replaced Aurelian's defini-

tion by requiring subscription to the Nicene Creed
but Theodosius added to this the demand that the
bishop must be in communion with certain chief
bishops of the East —which is in principle Aurelian's
decision again. In all cases the emperor necessarily
decided what the state recognized as orthodoxy.
But to return to the letter of deposition addressed
by Helen us of Tarsus and the rest to Dionysius
of Eome, Maximus of Alexandria, and the whole
catholic church under heaven. They tell us that
Paul was more ducenarius than bishop, that he
grew rich by oppression, and that he was a great
lover of worldly pomp and luxury. He appeared in
public with a guard, and had a tribunal and private
room like a magistrate. In church he behaved like
a sophist, and put a stop to the hymns to Christ
as recent innovations. Instead of them he had
hymns to himself on Easter Day, to which he listened
with much deliorht. He would not admit that the
Son of God came down from heaven, but said, " Jesus
Christ from beneath," whereas his flatterers averred
is
that was himself an angel from heaven. He

he
connived at the subintroductae of the clergy, even
when the scandal was proved. In fact he carries
about with him two beautiful women, whose relation
to him is most suspicious. Had he been sound in
the faith, we should have called him to account for
these but his heresy is
things ; for good reason
deposing him without investigating his further mis-
deeds. So we have appointed Domnus in his place,
with whom you may exchange commendatory letters.
As for Paul, he may write to Artemas.^
^ Eus. vii. 30, apparently Artemon.
Though the story of the hymns to himself in

church on Easter Day seems quite incredible, and
some of the other stories may be groundless or
exaggerated, we can hardly doubt that Paul was
thoroughly worldly and unscrupulous. But what
was his heresy ? The bishops only glance at it,
though they say that it made other grounds of
deposition superfluous.Paul seems to have held
firmly the unity of God and the manhood of Christ,
and to have made the Logos the connecting link.
But the Logos of Paul was not a divine Person only —
the Reason and Wisdom of God which were the
principles of his working and therefore
in the world,
called the Son. This impersonal Logos from above
dwelt in Christ from below, not personally {ovatajBco^)
but as a quality [Kara TroLorijra). As this made no
union of God and man in Christ, Paul adopted Origen's
conception of a human soul joined with God in un-
wavering love and unity of will, and through the
working of the Logos he made it become divine.
This theory was a general failure. It admitted
neither a personal Logos nor an eternal Son, nor a
true union of God and man in Christ. There was a
point in the sarcastic reference to Artemas, who made
Christ nothing more than a man. Paul thoroughly
roused the antagonism of the churches, and his name
was a name of horror for the next century. One of
the more lasting results of the controversy was the
condemnation of the word ofMoovatov by one of the
councils held against him — for this proved in-
convenient when the same word was proposed as a
test of orthodoxy at Nicaea. It is not clear how the
condemnation came about. Athanasius tells us that
Paul objected to it as materialist, and the council
accepted his objection. But Athanasius wrote in
exile, and without his books Hilary and Epiphanius

:
report that Paul accepted it in a Sabellian sense, and

therefore the council rejected it. Athanasius^ refuses
to set one council against the other as the greater or
the older, but endeavours to shew that while the
bishops at Antioch condemned it in one sense, the
Fathers of Nicaea enforced it in another.
Paul of Samosata was the last of the great heretics
before the rise of Arianism. Heresies must have
arisen in the obscure thirty years which followed,
but the traces they have left in history are faint.
After that, schisms rather than heresies were the
monsters that came up from the stormy sea of
persecution. We hear more of separatists like
Donatists and Meletians than of such heterodox

thinkers — if heterodox they were —
as Hieracas and
Lucian of Antioch.
Here then on the edge of the last great persecution

let us once more sum up the progress of the Gospel.
In the course of the third century it had reached
every corner of the Empire. We can trace churches to
Britain and the Pillars westward, and again to Pontus
and Armenia, and far beyond the Persian frontier.
Eighty-six bishops in Cyprian s Council bear witness
to its spread in Africa ; and in the next generation
Marcellus of Tingis answers for the far West of

Mauritania. In Spain we find bishops at Merida, and
at Leon below the Asturian mountains as early as the
time of Decius and the nineteen bishops at Elvira
;
{cir. 306) represent the whole country from Saragossa

to the Algarves. Christians were fewer in Atlantic
1 Ath. de Syn. 45.
VOL. II Y
— ;
Gaul; yet we get a fair sprinkling at Aries in 314.

With them come three British bishops, from London,
York and possibly Lincoln, for the name is corrupt.
The Christians in "
mentioned by Irenaeus
Germany "
now appear as organized churches, with bishops at

Koln and Trier. In Northern Italy the ground is
covered sixty bishops meet Cornelius to discuss the
:
Novatian question. We may presume that there

were churches in the strongly Roman province of
Noricum, for we meet with bishops and martyrs in
the valley of the Save at Siscia and Sirmium, and at
Petavio on the Drave. no trace of Christians
There is
on the lower Danube, though they were fully settled

in Macedonia and Thrace, and had found their way
at least as captives —
to the Goths of the Crimea.
The coast of Pontus had been reached by the end of
the first century. Though the Gospel made slow
progress eastward till the time of Gregory of
Neocaesarea (c^V. 245-270), it had gained a footing
in Armenia in the time of Dionysius of Alexandria,
but the chief work was done by Gregory the Illumin-
ator after the restoration of Tiridates in 287, and the
decisive victory was won before the Empire yielded.
We have already seen Christian communities in Persia
and the churches found in India by Theophilus of Diu
date back long before his visit cir. 356. Christians
were numerous in Syria, and even the province of
Arabia had bishops enough to hold councils. We
have a Christian inscription of this period at Cyrene,
and a translation of the Gospels was needed before
this in the Thebaid, which moreover furnished martyrs
in abundance for Maximin Daza.'
1 I think this account will be found well within historical bounds ;

though
it might be much extended if doubtful Acta were used.
Of course this vast expanse of country was by

no means uniformly overspread. Any attempt to
estimate the number of the Christians or the propor-
tion it bore to the heathens in the Empire would be
lost labour. Some things however may safely be laid
down. The first is that the Christians were a minority.
In parts they were numerous, and in a few places the
bulk of the people may have been Christian, though
the only case we know is the Phrygian city of
Eumenea but upon the whole they must have been
;
far outnumbered by the heathens. Again, they were

more numerous in the East less so in the West,
;
except in Africa. The 1500 widows and needy

persons in Eome in Cyprian's time imply a Christian
^
population of perhaps 50,000. Their numbers were

greater now but they cannot even yet have been
;
more than a small minority in Eome. Christianity

always tended to flourish wherever culture flourished.
Thus the cities seem always to have been more
Christian than the country. A century later, when
heathenism was dying out of the cities, the villagers
were still paganir
But if the Christians were a minority in every
province, that minority carried weight far beyond its
numbers. In this we may compare the Protestants
in France to-day. The Gospel attracted the best
elements of society, both industrial and moral. Its
converts came most freely from the artisans, the re-
tailers and the owners of small property who were not
^ Cornelius ap. Eus. vi. 41. This reckons them at 3 per cent. May not
this be too low a ratio ? If so, 50,000 will be too high a figure. See
Lightfoot Hist. Essays 77.
^ Paganus was a civilian as opposed to an official, who was in theory a
soldier (militavit in palatio: of the viri inlustres, only the P.U. wore the
toga). The word was used of heathens from the second lialf of the fourth
century.
—
—
above healthy labour the very classes on which the
economic soundness of a state depends. The slaves
were hindered by the difficulties of their position, the
upper classes by social prejudice. All classes indeed
found their way into the churches — we have seen
Kevocatus and Felicitas from one end of the scale,
Cornelius and the empress Salonina from the other
but all our evidence goes to shew that the vast
majority of the Christians were neither rich nor needy.
Again, the churches drew in from all classes the best
moral elements of society. True, the years of peace
were filling them with waverers and unworthy mem-
bers. But weaklings of this kind count for nothing
in the day of trial. They make scandals they can
;
do no more. The effective strength of the churches

was in their nucleus of sound and resolute Christians.
If anywhere in the Empire a man was willing to
renounce pride as well as vice, and give himself
without reserve to truth and mercy, such a man was
likely to bear the seal of Christ, and such a man
was not likely to quail before the fires of persecution.
Such then was the Church of Christ when the
Empire challenged it to final battle. The old question,
Christ or Caesar ? was now to be decided once for all.
Yet even from the standpoint of those from whom the
secret of Christian life is hidden, the issue was hardly
doubtful. Strong as the Empire seemed, its moral
strength had mostly gone over to the Christians. Its
power radiated from a single centre, whereas the
Christians had a centre of life in every city. And
the best of that life (its lower forms do not count in
such a crisis) was far above the highest heathen level.
Decius and Valerian had fought in vain against the
churches, and the prudence of Diocletian shrank for
twenty years from the growing difficulty of resisting
them. Would a Galerius be able to crush them out

in bloodshed ?
Books
Feltoe Dionysius of Alexandria; Radford

Two Teachers of Alexandria
(Theognostus and Pierius)
;
Harnack Aushreitung.
CHAPTER XXVI
THE GREAT PERSECUTION
We must not picture the elections of emperors by

the army as so many scenes of clamour and disorder.
They were more commonly held by councils of officers
— serious men who often combined civil with military
experience,and strove to do the best they could for
the army and the Empire. They had one clear policy
when they set aside Aemilianus and Gallienus,
choosing brilliant soldiers in Valerian, Claudius and
Aurelian ; another when they tried the experiment
of asking the Senate to govern. In 284 they took
a third plan. Diocletian was not chosen for his
military skill, real as it was,^ but for general wisdom
and ability. As he said himself, soldiership like
Aurelian's was not then the greatest need of the
Empire. Only a statesman could put an end to the
mutinies ; and behind the mutinies lay the dilemma
which finally wrecked the Empire, and civilization
with it.
The Roman army was never equal to its gigantic
task of guarding some six thousand miles of frontier,
from the Euphrates to Carlisle and back again. True,
^ The charge of military incompetence made by Lactantius
de Mort. Pers. 7
— —
against a comes domesticorum trained in the school of Aurelian is absurd.
As well make it against Napoleon's marshals. Carus too was not a Canicalla :
and Diocletian was not a Macrinus.

326
CHAP. XXVI THE GREAT PERSECUTION 327
no enemy could meet it in the shock of battle. If

the Germans broke through the cordon of the Rhine,
they soon had their answer on the Neckar or the
Elbe; and if Parthia snatched a victory from the
army of the Euphrates, she was always overborne by
the legions of the Danube. But while one frontier
was victoriously defended, another lay unguarded.
Hadrian's thirty legions no longer sufficed. Yet how
could the army be increased without a further impulse
to the spirit of mutiny which had cut off at least
fourteen emperors in sixty years, and claimants
without number ? Diocletian solved that problem ;
but there was a harder one behind it. The increased

army and the vast civil service with which he
balanced it were at best a heavy burden ;
and bad
taxation made it crushing. In the last period of the
Empire all policy was shaped by dire financial need.
Taxpayers could not be spared so society was more
:
and more fixed in castes, the army more and more

filled with barbarians who were not taxpayers. They
were good fighters, less mutinous than their pre-
decessors, and generally willing to serve the Empire.

But here came in the Roman's old contempt of the
barbarian. Even Theodosius could hardly keep the
peace between them —the massacre Thessalonica
of
was not unprovoked— and the great Roman mutiny

at Pavia 408 which overthrew Stilicho was decisive.
in
When the Empire of the West refused to be defended
by barbarians, it had to pass away.
Diocletian's reign is upon the whole obscure.
The Historia Augusta comes to an end with his
accession, and the Zosimus covers nearly
lost part of
the whole of his reign, so that we have to put

together what we can from the codes, the inscriptions,
the panegyrists, the " epitomators," and the Chris-

tians. Of the latter, Eusebius and Lactantius lived
under him, and are so far very competent witnesses :
but their interest is ecclesiastical, and their temper

is naturally embittered by the persecution. Eusebius
indeed is no lover of scandal. After denouncing once
for all "unspeakable hypocrisy and dissimulation,
pushed to the extreme of wickedness," ^ he gives fair
warning that he means to tell no stories of Christian
divisions and apostasies. He does not even go out
of his way to blacken Diocletian. Upon the whole,
he is a good witness. We can allow for indignation,
and we find no trace of malice or untruth. But
Lactantius ^ is a partizan pamphleteer. His text is
Grod's promise to " cause the evil beasts to cease out
of the land," ^ the evil beasts being Diocletian and his
colleagues. Yet there
no sign of untruth even in
is
Lactantius. He only devours every scandal greedily,

puts the worst meaning on all Diocletian's acts, and
^ Eus. viii. 1. 7. The account may be over-coloured as regards the
favour of Diocletian, the prosperity of the churches, and the bitterness of
their dissensions. But its substantial truth is beyond question, and its
transparent sincerity ought to have disarmed criticism.
So too in the next chapters he gives us fair notice that he means to tell
us of the martyrs, and not of the renegades, so that he cannot fairly be
charged with suppressing the scandals. As for the bitter language in which
he speaks of the persecutors, it is not unnatural. When will our pedants
learn to allow something for the oppression that maketh a wise man mad ?
2 The pamphlet de Mortihus Persecutor urn
(written end of 314 or not
later than middle of 315) seems a genuine work of Lact. The objections of
Brandt, tJher d. Entstehungsverhaltnisse d. Prosaschriften d. Lact. 1891 are
not convincing. As Bury points out in his edition of Gibbon i. 482-4 (1909),
the one serious difficulty is the statement that Lactantius returned to Gaul
in 308 as tutor to Crispus Caesar. So Jerome but though the title may
:
be proleptic, for Crispus was not Caesar till 317, there are still the diffi-
culties that Constantine would not have chosen a Christian tutor for his
son before 312, and that Crispus was hardly out of the nursery in 308.
3 Ezek. xxxiv. 25. More precisely, the evil beasts are Diocletian,
Maximian, Galerius and Maximin Daza. Maxentius is not of the number,
nor of course Constantius and Licinius.
XXVI THE GREAT PERSECUTION 329
makes him out a tyrant, a coward, and a madman,

without stopping to consider that the great emperor
cannot have been fool as well as knave.
The main changes which the Empire underwent
are clear, though we cannot always distinguish
Diocletian's part of the work from Constantine's.
The first step wâs to strengthen the supreme power.
As we have seen, the Senate aimed at weakening it
by placing the highest military and civil authority in
different hands Diocletian strengthened it by making
:
his old comrade Maximian a separate Augustus

for the West, and further strengthened it in 293
by choosing two subordinate emperors or Caesars.^
Constantius was placed in Gaul, with the task of
recovering from Carausius, while Galerius
Britain
was retained for service in the East generally. Con-
stantius was an eclectic, a man of some culture, and
a gentle ruler, while Galerius was like Maximian, a
brutal soldier and a fierce pagan. All four imitated
the pomp of Eastern sultans, all four ignored the
Senate and avoided Kome ; and the four together,
united as they were by common reverence for
Diocletian while he lived, formed a college of
emperors which was never seriously shaken by
mutinies. But if the supreme power was strength-
ened by division, subordinate powers were weakened.
The great provinces were cut up into fragments,
the great legions were divided, civil authority was
separated from military. Ofiicials generally were set
to check each other in a way which tended rather
to the emperor's personal security than to the
^ We mayperhaps see the first sketch of Diocletian's policy in the
words ascribed to Macrianus in Hist. Aug. Trig. Tyr. 12 juvenes aliqui sunt
quaerendi, nee unus sed duo vel tres fortissimi, qui ex diversis partibus orhis
humani rem p. restituant.
efficiency of the public service. Burdensome how-

ever as the vast estabhshment was, and in the end
ruinous, it and gave
kept the peace fairly well,
the Empire a century of respite in the West. The
emperor was now as absolute as a Tsar but like the
;
Tsar, he gradually lost control of the machine. The

interested resistance of bureaucracy and landowners
foiled every effort at reform. The empire fell at
last, largely because it had convinced its subjects
that the outrages of barbarians could not be more
intolerable than the oppressions of civilized govern-
ment.
Diocletian's reforms were in themselves rather
favourable than otherwise to the Christians. They
gained as much as their neighbours by the restoration
of order, and suffered only as others suffered from
the bad finance and arbitrary officialism of the new
system. But they had a gain of their own in the
weakening of the old Koman ideals. The Senate
had always been the focus of heathenism and now ;
it was practically set aside by a ruler who treated
Italy as a province, and developed out on new lines

the universalism of the Empire which it had in
common with the Church. True, the universal
religion aimed at by Diocletian was only the old
paganism and emperor -worship but by this time
:
any one might see that if he failed like others in

making it a living power, nothing remained but
Christianity. The idea of a Christian Caesar was
not now so far from practical politics as it seemed
to Tertullian.
This however was a question for the future
Meanwhile, for nearly twenty years (284-303) the
Christians had no reason to complain. They flourished
as they never had flourished and built stately

before,
churches in the cities for the crowds who flocked
together. They found their way into high civil
and the courtesy of heathenism excused them
offices,
heathen ceremonies. The scruples were more on their

own side. Thus the Council of Elvira forbids a man
to attend the church during his year of office, in
which he had to judge cases of life and death, and
to overlook the Temples. In Diocletian's palace they
abounded. His chamberlains were Chris-
trusted
tians, and his wife and daughter were more than
rumoured to be Christians, though that daughter
was the wife of Galerius. But now that the fear of
persecution seemed to have passed away for ever,
the churches gathered numljers of unworthy followers,
and so disgraced themselves with disputes (all but
fightings) and episcopal quarrels and intrigues that
the storm which burst on them seemed a fitting
punishment for their " unspeakable hypocrisy." The ^
scandals were much the same before Constantine as

after him.
There are legends as usual of persecution in the
years of peace, like the cruelties of Rictius Varus in
Gaul, or Maximian's butchery of the whole Thebaean
legion in Rhaetia ;which we may add the execution
to
of Alban in Britain, and perhaps that of the Quattuor
coronati by Diocletian. But there do seem to have
been some Christians punished in the army, though
rather for insubordination than for their faith. Thus
Maximilian and the centurion Marcellus had con-
temptuously renounced the service, and Cassianus
had approved such conduct in open court. These
were under Maximian in 295 and if others were of ;
1 Eus. Ic.
like mind, Galerius had some reason for turning

Christians out of the army some years later. He
dismissed officers refused to sacrifice, and civil
who
servants he " treatedmost disgracefully," even threat-
ening some of them with death.^ But he certainly did
not carry out his threats and it was quite under- ;
stood that an officer might any day be required to

sacrifice or leave the service. Hostile as Galerius
was, his action does not seem to have raised any
immediate fear of a more serious persecution.
Diocletian reminds us of Severus in his dealings
with the Christians. He let them alone, and may
have been really attached to individuals yet he was :
not so friendly as he seemed. All accounts of him

indicate a man of serious religion there is no stain —
on his private life —and one of the last great men of
the old Eoman type. He was no monotheist like
Constantius, but full of the superstitions of the
camp ; and his superstition, unlike that of Severus,
turned to the gods rather than the stars. He began
his reign with the prophecy of the " Druidess " at
Tongres, took the name of Jovius, counted himself a
special minister of the gods, and consulted the old
oracle of Apollo at Miletus on the question of the
persecution. Such a man was as far as possible from
being only "not yet a Christian."^ If he was
driven to a final choice between the Galilean and the
fifods, he could not hesitate a moment.
1 Eus. viii. Appendix.
2 The "Letter of Theonas to Lucian" the Librarian, from which I take
the phrase nondum Chr. religioni ascriptus, is a forgery of Jerome Vignier.
It was denounced as such in 1886 by Batiffol, Bulletin critique, vii. 155.

Harnack replied Th.L.Z. 1886 col. 319, suggesting an earlier date (say
Valerian's time) and a Greek original, but allowing it to be very suspicious.
Later study has satisfied him that the court presumed by the Letter is not
Diocletian's, but that of Louis XIV. See Th.L.Z. 1904 col. 81.
;
But Diocletian was a wise man, and therefore in

no hurry to deliver an ultimatum to the churches.
In any case he was too busy to do anything till his
hands were freed in 297 by the peace with Persia
and even then followed five years more of quiet. He
might well hesitate. Some of the ablest of his prede-
cessors had utterly failed to put down the Christians ;
and if the Empire was stronger now than in the days

of Decius and Valerian, so were they. Their advance
in the last forty years was enormous. They were not
scattered groups of skulking rebels who might some-
times be overlooked, but a great and strongly organ-
ized society which openly defied all Koman principles
of order and religion. Diocletian may long have
hoped that the monster would not have to be grappled
with in his time but if the need arose, his Manichaean
:
Edict of 296 ^ was warning enough that he would do

1 Mason {Pers.
of Diocl. 279) endeavours to clear Diocletian by shifting the
date to 308, and assuming that Galerius had restored him against his will at
Carnuntum in 307 as a purely nominal partner in the Empire.
In Haenel's text the edict runs hnp-p. Maximiaims, Diocletianus et
Maximinus nohilissimi A. A. A. Juliano proconsuU Africae. . . . Dat.
pridie Kal. Aprilis, Alexandriae.
Given this text and looking no further, there is a fair case for explaining
the preference of Maximian to Diocletian (in this law alone out of some 1200)
by referring it to the younger Maximian {i.e. Galerius) and dating it after
Maximin Daza made himself Augustus in 308.
But (1) the reading is certainly corrupt (Huschke). The MS. evidence is
confused, but not in its and Mommsen boldly reads the usual Impp.
favour ;
Diocletianus et Maximianus A. A. et Constantius et Maximianus nob. C.C.

which gives 293-305 as the possible limits of date.
However that may be, (2) the reading is impossible. Diocletian might
give orders to a proconsul of Africa, but neither Galerius nor Maximin, for
Africa under Alexander and Maxentius was subject to neither of them. So
Mason proposes an imaginary Proconsul Armeniae. A proconsul of Asia
would at least have had an existence but the dilemma
: is hopeless. Galerius
ruled Asia, but was certainly never at Alexandria after 308. Maximin might
date from Alexandria, but was not master of Asia till Galerius was dead ;
and of Achaia he was never master at all.

We are thus driven back to Diocletian, and can safely take the date Mar.
31, 296 after the suppression of Archillaeus in Egypt. Maximian was then
his work with a strong hand. If men were forsaking

the old worship of the gods and going astray after
novel and disgraceful superstitions, some of them
brought in from Persia, such worthless persons must
be punished for endeavouring in their blindness to
destroy the good gifts which the mercy of the gods
has granted to us. So the leaders of the heretics
are to be burned, " together with their abominable
books." Their followers are to be beheaded, or if
they are men of rank, to be sent to the mines : and

in all cases their property is to be confiscated.
An excellent way of dealing with the Christians,
thought some of Diocletian's counsellors and indeed ;
the Christians were much more dangerous offenders

than the Manichees. Galerius and Maximian hated
them, and the court was full of soothsayers and
Neoplatonists like Hierocles who clamoured for blood.
Philosophy and superstition were made friends to-
gether as they drew to final battle with the church
of Christ. Still Diocletian refused to give the signal,
till some time 302-3 he came to the
in the winter of
conclusion that the struggle could no longer be
avoided. He had spent a good deal of time in the
East since 299, and come in direct collision with the
Christians. One day the sacrifice was a failure. The
gods would give no omens and after awhile the ;
chief haruspex declared that they were offended by

the presence of profane persons. This touched
Diocletian closely. He commanded that all persons
in the palace should be required to sacrifice and if ;
they refused, they were to be scourged before they
busy in Africa with the Quinqiiegentiani, This date also suits well the
hostile allusions to Persia. It is as well to add that one of the two years
2P5-6 aijd 296-7 is open for the proconsulship of Julianus in Africa.
were dismissed the service. At the same time he

sent orders to the provincial governors that the
soldiers (as well as the officers) must sacrifice or leave
the service.^ However, he went no further at the
time ; and even these orders were not fully carried
out. Christians still held high office at Nicomedia,
and the army did not cease to furnish martyrs. It
looks more like an explosion of superstitious terror
than a settled policy. Diocletian's last hesitation is
said to have been overcome by Gralerius after his

return to Nicomedia. This is likely, for Galerius is
counted the worst of the Evil Beasts but we may ;
be sure that it was not overcome by dint of worrying.

Diocletian was not a man to venture on the most
work of
difficult his reign withoutreason shewn,
though he asked final guidance from the oracle at
^ I follow here the clear note of time in Lact. m.j9, 10 {Cum ageret in
partibus Orientis) distinguishing Diocletian's command on one side from the
earlier doings of Galerius, who disgraced the officers without scourging, and
on the other from the edict of Maximin Daza, who would not let them leave
the army.
To this period we may refer the persecution (Eus. Chron.) by Veturius a
Tnagister militum (title proleptic) who may be the nameless aTpaTOTreSdpxv^
(not <TTpaT7]\dTT]s) of Eus. viii. 4. 3. Eus. also viii. 1. 8 confirms Lactantius
by saying that the persecution began with the army —which must be before
the First Edict.
We can name one sufferer with little risk of error. Eus. Mart. Pal. 11
tells of the Cappadocian Seleucus, tCov diro arpaTelas rts He was
6/xo\oyr}Tris.
in the picked troops (? Jovii) of the Empire, and held high rank in them.
After the scourging "at the beginning of the persecution," he devoted
himself to works of charity, and was one of the last of the martyrs.
Maximin's edict is known only from the recently discovered inscription of
bishop Eugenius of Laodicea (discussed by Calder and Ramsay Expositor
Seventh Ser. v. 385-4191 Dec. 1908). Eugenius fared worse than Seleucus.
He was not simply scourged and dismissed, but "endured innumerable
torments " without being allowed to leave. But he was a man of rank
(married a senator's daughter) and got off at last. Ramsay's discussion is
masterly yet we may doubt whether Christian disaffection in the army was
:
serious enough in 311 to extract the edict of toleration from Galerius. If the
danger was serious anywhere, it was in Maximin's dominions and we see ;
little sign of it there before 313.

Miletus :
did venture, his policy was
and when lie
in send-
not that of Galerius, who saw no difficulty
ing straight to the fire every one
who refused to
sacrifice.
The signal was given on the morning of the

Terminalia (Feb. 23, 303) by the demolition of the
great church at Nicomedia. Next day the first
Edict of the Persecution was issued. The churches
were to be destroyed, the Scriptures to be burned.
Officials were to lose all civil rights whatever,
and
Caesariani to be reduced to slavery.' It is policy,
—
not mercy we may trust the author of the Mani-
chaean Edict for that— if there is no bloodshed here.
careful revision of Valerian's. It
The edict is a
1 Lact. de mort. pers. 13. The cliief difficulty is in the last
Eus. viii. 2,
Toi)s de h oiKerlais eXevdepias arepeXadai, answering to the previous

clause . .
Tovs ixkv TLfjLrjs Kriiger, Preuszische Jahrb. 1889 takes it to

eTTeCKwi^-^vovs.
mean that Christian slaves lost the possibility of freedom : but iXevdepias
(XTepe-Laeac (not ar^peadai) implies free men. Mason Pers. DiocL 343,
it of private persons,
followed by Harnack Th.L.Z. 1877 p. 169, interprets
further clause
and Harnack completes the edict from Rufinus by adding a
depriving slaves of the possibility of freedom. Heinichen
and M'Giffert ad
loc. reply that toi>s iv olKeTiacs
{qui infamilia sunt) is too clumsy for private
persons,who did not always belong to a familia. They q\\ot& inter alia
c. Dorotheus and Gorgonius erepots a/â TrXetocrt r??? âaiXiK^s olKertas,
6 of
contrasted with the
as shewing that it means the underlings, the Hofleute,
iireiX-nfifxhoi, or ol iv apxo.h Kai r)yefioviais). The
great officials (oi rt^tT??
absence of the article shews that the attendants of provincial governors

are also contemplated. They also quote the parallel of the Caesariani in
Valerian's edict, and add that it is difficult to explain the
omission of the
theory, and that Diocletian was not likely to attempt
clergy on any other
slavery, and that in
so vast a scheme as that of reducing all Christians to
he did not do it. These arguments seem decisive also to v.
Schubert
fact
{KG. 394).
It may be safer to omit the further statement of
Lactantius 7n.p. 13,
outside the
that Christians generally religionis illius homines were placed
them, remedies of law refused them.
law— all charges admissible against all
That would be true for the degraded officials and the Caesariani reduced
to
slavery and the indirect results of the Edict may often have come to some-
;
thing like this for other Christians. But the statement is not confirmed by
the more careful words of Eusebius, and seems quite inconsistent
with the
caution of Diocletian and his evident policy of striking only at the
civil
service.
substitutes complete outlawry for death as the

punishment of officials, and says nothing of sum-
marily executing the clergy, of confiscating and
exiling the great ladies, or of enslaving Caesariani
who had long ceased to be Christians. On the other
hand, it enforces Valerian's prohibition of Christian
worship by destroying the churches, and introduces
a new of burning the Scriptures, which had
policy ^
important results on their text and on the Canon.

But there is nothing in it against private Christians,
or even against the clergy, and nothing that could
make martyrs, unless they refused to give up the
sacred books. The policy is Valerian's, though there
is no sign of panic yet. The Christians might be
put down without bloodshed if they were deprived
of their books, debarred their public meetings, and
thoroughly rooted out of the bureaucracy.
But the Christians were not more willing to be
put down than the Protestants of Mary's time.
Though they generally obeyed within the limits of
conscience and submitted beyond them, deep resent-
ment was universal, intemperate language common,
fierce defiance not rare. No sooner was the edict
posted up at Nicomedia than some Christian tore it
down with bitter irony. " More victories forsooth,
over Groths and Sarmatians." The offender was
burned according to law for treason. The next
thing was a fire in the palace, and another a fort-
—
night later both of course set down to the Christians.
A panic followed. Galerius took himself off in a
hurry, lest the miscreants should burn him alive.
Diocletian was wild with rage and suspicion, used
^ New as against the Christians. Hadrian had burned the copies of the
Law, and Diocletian himself those of the Manichaean books.
VOL. II Z
—
torture daily, put to death his favourite Christian

chamberlains, and burned whole families in one fire ;
but the cause was never found out.' Presently came

news of commotions in Melitene and Syria, of course
ascribed to the Christians, and even of a rival emperor
set up for a moment at Antioch. Strong measures
were needed against preachers of sedition and a ;
second edict ordered the imprisonment of all Christian
clergy.
there was to be no bloodshed for religion
Still
:
and the emperor's moderation was rewarded by the

sight of numbers returning to a better mind. Things
quieted down before the autumn, so that when he
went to Eome for the great festival of his Yicennalia
(Nov. 21) he thought it safe to do an act of grace
for grace it was from his point of view. A third
edict allowed the imprisoned clergy to go free on

condition of sacrificing but it also allowed the use
;
of all tortures to compel them. So the overcrowded

prisons emptied fast. Some sacrificed, some got ofi*
in various honourable and dishonourable ways with-
out sacrificing, and the rest remained, in some cases
1
Accident or lightning may have kindled one fire, but a second is less
likely. Supposing it designed, Christians may have hoped to frighten
Diocletian from persecution, Galerius to frighten him into
persecution.
Schiller leans to the first theory;but the second is the more likely of the
two, for the servants of Galerius were not examined. After all, accident is
not 'impossible. The late spring, I am told, is the time for
thunderstorms
in Asia.
the
Lactantius at Nicomedia was an eyewitness of the horrible cruelty of
panic and the worst feature of all, the wholesale burnings {m.p. 15 gre-
;
gatim circumdato igni ambiebantur) is confirmed by Eusebius viii. 6, by

his
of similar doings in Phrygia, and by Ramsay's discovery {Cities

account c. 9
poor
and Bprics. of Phrygia ii. 505) of the great massacre at Eumenea. It is
horrible. Exag-
criticism to doubt such things merely because they are
gerated as they have been thought, I fear they must be set down
for sober
truth. They may however belong rather to the panic than to the more
deliberate stages of the persecution.
till the edict of Galerius in 311. Donatus was

tortured nine times in the interval/
Rome and Diocletian disagreed. No love was lost
between the grave statesman and the licentious mob,
for even his triumph compared badly with the "jolly
times" of Carinus. So (Dec. 20) he left hastily,
without even waiting to enter on his consulship on
the Kalends of January. Then came fourteen months
of illness and when he appeared again in public
;
(Mar. 1, 305) he could hardly be recognized. Mean-

while Maximian at Rome was presiding over the ludi
saeculares, and took advantage of the cries of, Down
with the Christians, and the ready approval of the
Senate to issue a fourth edict, by which " it was
ordered that all persons without exception in their
respective cities should offer sacrifice and make
^
libations to the gods."
This was new. Diocletian had avoided blood-
shed for religion : Maximian liked nothing better.
Diocletian aimed skilful blows at the churches, the
books and the clergy : Maximian's only idea was to
^ Lactantius m.p. 16. tells us how Roraanus saw
Eusebius Mart. Pal. 2
Christians sacrificing a-coprjdou and that he was the only person
at Caesarea,
left in prison at Antioch at the amnesty. The rest escaped and the case of
;
Eusebius himself shews that they sometimes escaped honourably. The

methods of Roman prisons were lax and the stories in Eus. viii. 3 shew the
;
lengths to which the officials went (sometimes, perhaps, in a sort of rude

mercy) to get the jails emptied.
2 Eus. Mart. Pal. 3.
I follow Mason {Pers. Diod. 212) with some hesitation in accepting

the historical data of the Passio S. Savini. The edict is vouched for by
Eusel)ius, the ludi saeculares in 304 by Zosimus ii. 7 and if we allow three
;
days for them as in 248, and make them clear days before the birthday of
Rome Apr. 21, when Philip held them, we come to the date Apr. 18.
But Mason has overlooked the difficulty that Eugenius Hermogenianus
—
was not then P.U. the usual president of the Senate and the natural inter-
mediary between the emperor and the mob. Another reading makes him
Pf.P., which is a very unlikely office for a great Roman noble. But a mis-
take in his title does not disprove an otherwise likely story.
force on every private Christian the choice between

apostasy and death. But it was not all Maximian's
doing. Diocletian may not have been quite laid
aside by illness till later in the year and if so, ;
Maximian's edict would not have been carried out in

Palestine if Diocletian had not been at least willing
to try the experiment. The persecution had been
very successful so far —
persecutions usually do
succeed at first —
and he may well have thought
it time to give up tactics and venture a frontal
attack like that of Decius. Be that as it may, the

new policy was hopeless from the first, because it could
not be thoroughly carried out. It was wrecked on the
conscience and humanity of heathenism. Only some
of the officials had any liking for such dirty work,
and even the mob was not very zealous. It was all
very well to have some sport with the beasts every
now and then but when brutal torture of decent
;
neighbours became an every-day afi"air, they voted it

" vulgar, and grossly overdone." Within two years
^
this very mob of Rome had swung so completely

round that Maxentius could win favour with them
by stopping the persecution in Italy and before it ;
ended in the East, heathens at Alexandria were

hiding the fugitives in their own houses. Heathenism
produced some bad miscreants, and did hideous things
by fits and starts but Galerius and Daza were at
;
worst no worse than Carlo Borromeo and Pius V, and

they were never canonized.
Diocletian had long contemplated retirement, if
we may judge by the splendour of his buildings
at Salona, but his abdication (May 1, 305) was a
surprise to the world. It was a surprise also, or at
1 Eus. Mart. Pal 3. 3.
least a disappointment, to his colleagueMaximian,

who had to same day at Milan,
abdicate the
Constantius and Galerius now became Augusti. But
who were to be the new Caesars ? Diocletian
first,
and Galerius had daughters only Maximian and ;
Constantius had each a grown-up son. Maxentius

the son of Maximian had most of his father's vices
with few of his merits, so that his exclusion surprised
nobody. But Constantine the son of Constantius
was an and Diocletian seemed
officer of tried merit,
reserving for him a place in the succession. He had

kept him at the court, betrothed him to Fausta the
daughter of Maximian, and must have given some
public intimation of his intention, for coins were
struck about this time at Alexandria with the legend
Constantinus Caesar} But when the time came, the
Caesars announced were both connexions of Galerius
— his old comrade Severus, and his nephew Maximin
Daia or Daza. They were not incapables. Severus
was a good officer and if Daza was as brutal as his
;
uncle and more malicious, he had also more shrewd-

ness. His last attack on the churches was as ably
planned as Diocletian's own. Severus replaced
Maximian in Italy, Africa and Spain, but Daza did
not replace Diocletian in the East. He received
Egypt and Syria, while Asia inside Taurus increased
the position of Galerius.
Constantius was now the first Augustus ; but his
health was declining, and Galerius might fairly hope
1 Count de Westphalen Rev. Numism. 1887, 20-39 : discussed by Schiller

Rorn. Kaiserzeit ii. This confirms Lactantius m.p. 19, who tells us
167.
how all expected to hear Constantine announced as Caesar.
Diocletid-n must have changed his plan at the last moment. If we suppose
that he was reserving Constantine to succeed his father, the actual choice of
Caesars can be explained without ascribing any undue influence to Galerius.
soon to complete his control of the Empire by setting

up some nominee of his own in Gaul and Britain.
Two unexpected events defeated his plans. First,
Constantine escaped to his father, and on the death
of Constantius at York (July 25, 306) was hailed
emperor by the army of Britain, headed by Crocus
the Alemannic king —
the first imperial election
guided by barbarians. After his first fury, Galerius
acknowledged him, but only as Caesar, giving the
title of Augustus to Severus. It mattered little.
Constantine had the power, and the title came a
little later.
Three months later (Oct. 28, 306) the discontent

of Kome was exploded by an attempt of Galerius to
impose on the city the full taxation of the provinces.
Praetorians and Senate set up Maxentius for Caesar,
and invited his father to resume the purple.
Maximian wanted nothing better, and his military
skill enabled him to repel Severus and force him to
surrender on honourable terms. But Maxentius^

"made siccar" by putting him to death when
Galerius himself invaded Italy. Galerius also was
driven out of the country, narrowly escaping capture.
In his distress, he turned for counsel to Diocletian, and
held a meeting with him at Carnuntum (Nov. 307).
Thither also came Maximian, who by this time had
quarrelled with his son, and been obliged to leave
Italy. Diocletian could, not help much ; but he
removed one difficulty by forcing Maximian to
abdicate again. The old man betook himself to
Gaul wîth his daughter Fausta, whom he gave in
marriage to Constantine. Severus was replaced as
^ As Schiller points out, Maximian could not have appeared u-t Carnuntum
if the execution of Severus had been his work.
Augustus by Licinius, another old comrade of

Galerius, who gave up to him the Illyrian pro-
vinces. So next four years we have an
for the
uneasy tetrarchy of four emperors Galerius, Daza, —
Constantine and Licinius ; besides Maxentius, whom
none them recognized, and Alexander, who
of
revolted from him for a couple of years (308-310)
in Africa. Maximian was put out of the way when
he seized the purple a third time, and tried to
displace Constantine.
We can now trace the history of the persecution.
In Gaul and Britain it was not serious. Constantius
pulled down a few churches, but did nothing more.
Even the books were not given up; and he abandoned
all pretence of persecution as soon as his hands were
free. In the rest of the Empire the edicts were at
first vigorously carried out. The work was done in
Italy by Maximian and under his orders
himself,
by Dacianus in Spain and Anulinus in Africa. After
his abdication it slackened, and it was definitely
stopped by Maxentius, who even restored the
confiscated church property when he recovered Africa
in 310. Worthless as he was, he is not counted
among the Evil Beasts.
The East was less fortunate and the difierence ;
was made by the character of its rulers, not by any

greater " fanaticism of the Christians." Syria was -^
^ Schiller Jiom. Kaiserzeit ii. 160. Like Gibbon, he makes too much of
Christian "fanaticism." Itismisleading totell us p. 155 that "Christianity
denied the heathen state ... in the second and third century forbade the
faithful all share in a heathen administration, and counted military service
pure and simple sin." Christians only " denied the state " as English non-
conformists deny it now, by refusing it all authority in religion. Speratus
the Scillitan martyr, who "I allow not this world's rule," went on,
said,
"but I pay my taxes, because God is a king of kings." The other two points
were private opinions then, as they are private opinions now. The Christians
generally were not more eccentric then than they are now.
;
hardly more " fanatic " than Africa, and the Egyptian
martyrs could not be more defiant than the Spanish.
Even in the East however, Licinius was never an
active persecutor, and Galerius himself presently
tired of the work of blood. He had not done well
as senior Augustus, and withdrew to the more useful
occupation of cutting down trees and draining
swamps in the regions of the Danube, so that the
persecution was relaxed in Asia. Its full fury fell
on Maximin Daza's provinces of Egypt and Syria

and there too it was kept up longer than elsewhere.
Shortly, the persecution lasted in Gaul and Britain
till Constantius became Augustus in 305, in Italy
and Africa till the revolt of Maxentius in 306 in ;
Asia it was finally stopped by the edict of Galerius

in April 311, in Egypt and Syria not till after
Maximin's defeat at the end of April 313.
Of the character and methods of the persecution,
there is little that needs to be said. Horrible as the
accounts are, they seem to be substantially true. It
is likely enough that Eusebius has exaggerated the
number of the victims in a few of his rhetorical
passages, though one of the worst of his tales, the
burning of a whole community in a Phrygian
village, is confirmed not only by Lactantius,^ but by
recent discoveries at Eumenea but there is no reason
;
to doubt that the tortures he mentions were actually

inflicted. Such had always been the treatment of
slaves in Koman law courts, and the Empire steadily
extended it to the higher classes. It was sharpened
in that age by the blind violence of a weak Executive,
which was lessand less able to make sure of catching
offenders, and therefore more and more in the habit
^ Lact. Div. Inst. v. 11.
of making terrible examples of those it did catch :
and it was further sharpened against the Christians

by the savage hatred of some of the officials, and by
their growing consciousness of failure. And if the
cruelty was often moderated, it was not uncommonly
increased, by loose methods of administration/ Nor
need we mistrust the general impression we get, that
the persecution shocked the better sort of heathens
not only by its inhumanity, but by the number of its
victims. No doubt a vast mass of legend grew
up
in ages which cultivated an unhealthy taste for the
physical facts of martyrdom but the authentic
;
narratives imply an enormous amount of suffering

not directly recorded. It is uncritical to take for
granted, as some writers seem to do, that there were
no executions but those Eusebius by name records,^
and no sufferers from persecution but those actually
brought into court.
After all, the worst mischief of persecution, like
that of slavery, is not the suffering of the few, but
the demoralization of the many. The heroic scenes
in court must not be allowed to obscure the growth
of spiritual pride and quarrelling and general con-
fusion in the churches. Persecution always brings to
the front the men who manufacture scruples, make
divisions, and are hard on the weak and fallen. In
this case, the new scruple concerned the burning of
the books. All parties were agreed that the canonical
books must be defended at every hazard, and stigma-
1 For samples. On one side the significant words of the oflBcers to Felix
of Aptunga, *'
Books, books have you no useless books to spare ? " and the
;
refusal of Auulinus to listen to information that Mensurius of Carthage had

not given up all the books. On the other, the illegal seourgings of the
woman at Caesarea by an underling Eus. Mart. Pal. 9.
'^
Especially when Mart. Pal. 8 he distinctly tells us that there were many
others.
tized as traditores those who gave them up. But

was it right to give up other books ? The question
became acute in Africa, where Mensurius of Carthage
gave orders to remove canonical books from the
churches, and leave the officers to seize those that
—
were read only for edification which often satisfied
them. Out of this arose the Donatist controversy,
which figures so largely in the history of the next
century. Extreme men first made it an ofience to
give up books of any sort. Then they disputed the
election of Caecilian, the successor of Mensurius, be-
cause he had been consecrated by Felix of Aptunga,
who had given up books, though not canonical books
—that is to say, they advanced to the position that
the unworthiness of such a traditor made all his
ministerial acts invalid. Then when it was decided
against them that Felix was not a traditor, they
separated from the church. And as they did not
simply separate like the Novatians on the ground
that the church was acting ultra vires, but denounced
its action as apostasy pure and simple, they took up
the further position that a church which allows the
ministrations of such traditores is no longer a church
at all. The Donatist controversy was therefore much

more than the Novatian.
bitter
Things were not so bad elsewhere, but there must
have been much confusion. With churches destroyed,
books burned, and clergy in prison, it was impossible
^
to keep things orderly. Eusebius expressly tells us
that he passes over " the greed of power on the part
of many, the hasty and unlawful ordinations, the
divisions among the confessors themselves, and all
the schemes which the lovers of novelty and faction
1 Mart. Pal. 12.
so zealously devised against the remnants of the

churches, inventing one new device after another, and
forcing it on without sparing, in the midst of the
calamities of the persecution." Even Rome did not
escape. AVhen bishop Marcellus (307-9) endeavoured
to restore order after the persecution, a strong rigor-
istic party refused its consent to the restoration of
penitents, and in the time of his successor Eusebius
formed a schism under one Heraclius. Maxentius
exiled both bishops, apparently as disturbers of the
peace. The schism was healed, no doubt by the
defeat of the rigorists, in the time of the next bishop,
Miltiades or Melchiades.
In Egypt, where the persecution was fiercer and
continued longer, Peter of Alexandria held a moderate
position. He condemned fanaticism, advised flight
when and was willing to restore penitents
possible,
without waiting for the end of the persecution. But
when he went into hiding like Cyprian, Meletius of
Lycopolis took upon himself the government of the
churches, entirely disregarding Peter's commissaries,
encouraging fanaticism and making irregular appoint-
ments in all the churches. As these views agreed
better than Peter's with the temper of the native
Copts, a serious division arose in Egypt when peace
was restored. The Nicene Council healed the actual
schism but the bitterness resulting from it lasted
;
far into the long reign ofAthanasius at Alexandria.

Our best picture of the persecution is given by
Eusebius on the Martyrs of Palestine, a small work
commonly inserted between the eighth and ninth books
of his History. It is the evidence of an eye-witness,
and differs from the History generally in its excellent
arrangement. It refers only to Palestine, though we
know that similar scenes were going on all over the

Empire except in Gaul and Britain. As the first
edict did not reach Palestine till April 303, it must

have been somehow delayed. The first victim (June
7) was Procopius, a reader of the church at Caesarea.
It is not clear whether his case arose under the first
edict or the second but either way it was quite
;
irregular. Neither the one nor the other authorized

a demand of sacrifice to the gods or libation to the
emperors, and after all, he was not beheaded for his
refusal, but for quoting Homer's ovk dyaOov iroXv-
KotpavLTj —
a dangerous text in Diocletian's time, and
doubly dangerous now that the authorities wanted to
make up a charge of treason. Then came the arrest
of the clergy under the second edict and the tortures
inflicted under the third, to make them sacrifice.
Some yielded, some got ofi" in the usual ways, for
the authorities were anxious to empty the jails, and
in the end only two were beheaded, for the treason of
declaring that they had no king but Christ. With
the fourth edict a dreadful time began. Neither
youths nor women were spared. But it is a shame
even to speak of those years of horror.
By 308 it was becoming evident that the persecu-
tion was a failure. It had long ceased in the West,
and was not very active even where Galerius ruled.
At last Maximin came to the conclusion that it was
prudent to avoid public burnings. So a fifth edict
commanded that the Christians should have the left
foot disabled and the right eye cut out and its socket
seared, and then be sent to slavery in the mines,
where further cruelty could be used without attracting
toomuch sympathy. Once thirty-nine of them were
put to death in one day. But public executions did
^
not cease even then ; and a reissue of the fourth edict

brought forth fresh victims. But no efforts could
keep up for long the full horror of the persecution.
The last of the Palestinian martyrs was given to the
beasts Mar. 3, 310.
The deliverance began in the next year. The Evil
Beast was passing to his account. Galerius was
stricken with a mortal sickness (in which the Chris-
tians read the wrath of heaven) and issued an edict
of toleration (Apr. 311) a few days before his death.
Its purport is :
—
Galerius, Constantine and Licinius to their sub-
jects, greeting. Amongst our other efforts for the
public good, we formerly desired so to reform the
state in accordance with the old laws and public
discipline of the Komans that the Christians also,
who had given up the manner of life ^ laid down by
their own ancestors, might return to a better mind.
For these Christians had reasoned so strangely, and
become so possessed with self-will and folly, that they
were not following those institutes of the ancients
which perhaps their own ancestors had first estab-
lished,^ but were making laws for themselves after
their own good -will and pleasure, and by divers
means collecting assemblies of divers peoples/ When
therefore we issued our command that they should
betake themselves to the institutes of the ancients,''
^ The Latin (simply as Edictum Galerii) in Lact. m.p. 34 : translated
Kara to dwarov in Eus. R.K viii. 17. He renders discipUnam iwLaTrjfMTjv,
and adds after deturhati sunt the excellent gloss Travroiovs Oavdrovs viri(pepov.
1 have shortened a few sentences in my own translation.
2 Parentum suorum sedam. Seda is not here aipea-is religious persuasion
(Eus.) but general manner of life, as freq.
^ Ilia vderum quae forsitan primum parentes eorundem con-
instihcta,
stituerant. Forsitan with parentes, not with constituerant {Ind. not Suhj.). :
4 Per diver sa varios populos congregarent i. e. it was not a national worship.
^ Mulii periculo subiugati (and yielded), multi etiam deturhati sunt.

;
3 so CHURCH HISTORY chap.
many of them were overcome by the danger and

many were utterly ruined and when further a great
;
^
number of them held to their persuasion, and we saw

that they neither gave due reverence to our gods nor
worshipped their own god, we thought fit to extend
to them our accustomed clemency, that it may be
lawful for Christians to exist again ^ and to hold their
assemblies, provided they do nothing contrary to the
discipline. In another letter we will give particular
instructions to our ofiicials. In accordance then
with this our indulgence it will be the duty of the
Christians to make prayer to their god for our
welfare, for the welfare of the state, and for their
own.
There no repentance here. The persecution was
is
well meant but there was a serious oversight.

; The
thought is so intensely heathen that we shall need
some care to trace it. Galerius seems to say, " We
never quarrelled with the Christians for worshipping
their own god, but for not worshipping our gods also :
and it was right and good that we should try to

bring them back to a truly Eoman way of life. But
we forgot one thing. In compelling the Christians
to worship our gods we made it impossible for them
to worship their own god and this was not our ;
intention. We never meant to deprive him of his

—
proper worship only to see that our own gods were
not deprived of theirs. He is also a god who has
lately shewn a good deal of power, so that he may be
able to help us now in our extremity, if we set right
the wrong we are doing him. We still regret the
self-willed and undutiful action of the Christians
^ atque (not etsi) and still more serious evil.
reciting a third
^ Ut denuo sint Christiani. The opposite would be Non licet esse vos.
but even so, we are satisfied that it is better to let

them worship their god in their own way than to
continue doing what prevents him from being wor-
shipped at all and for this our clemency we hope
;
they will be duly grateful to us."

Thus understood, the edict gives a dignified and
fairly trueaccount of the persecution from the official
heathen point of view. Galerius is not making in-
consistent and absurd excuses for it,^ but confessing
a serious oversight, and frankly asking the Christians
for their intercession with their god. The long con-
test of nearly 250 years is at last decided. Nero
took up the sword of persecution, and now Galerius
lays it down. The victory is not yet complete, for
Maximin's action remains to be seen and there may :
have been another limitation. Galerius is not now

unfriendly, but grants on his own heathen principles
that the Christians must be treated as a nation,^ and
therefore allowed to worship their god in their own
way. So far the toleration is ungrudging, and the
letter of instructions to the officials is not likely to
1 I really cannot follow Keim and others, who make Galerius say that
the Christians had broken out into sects, and the persecution was only
meant to bring them back to primitive Christianity, iit denuo sint Christiani
— to make them genuine Christians again.
Could Galerius possibly mean anything but the good old customs of
heathen Rome in such phrases as iuxta leges veteres et x>uhlicam disciplinam
— —
Eomanoru'm parentum suoruin sectam ad honas mentes redirent ilia —
veterum i7istituta, quae forsitan primuTn parentes eorundem constituerant ?
Again, as to many Christians, there was a fair doubt {forsitan) whether
their barbarian ancestors first set up Roman heathenism but there could be
;
no doubt at that the ancestors of the Christians first set up Christianity.

all
Galerius was a brute, and therefore a short-sighted statesman but when
;
we can get a perfectly clear and consistent sense without straining his
words, we need not take another meaning which makes him a public liar or
an absolute fool — or both. Even weaker is von Schubert's theory {KG. 298)
that the edict designedly ambiguous.
is
2 So they are expressly called in the instructions of Sabinus, and again
in Maximin's Edict of Toleration.

—
have contained " many hard conditions." ^

But
Galerius holds to the old theory, that every nation
has its god, and every god is entitled to the worship
of his own nation. But unlike Licinius, he gives no
hint that this toleration extends beyond those who
were Catholic Christians and on his principle, we
;
should rather expect that it would not. However,

the advance was very great. Had Galerius only
repeated the action of Gallienus, the change of
circumstances would have made an enormous
difference. The Peace of Vervins in 1598 simply
repeated the conditions of Cateau Cambresis in 1559 ;
but between them lay the great failure of Philip II.

So here, between Gallienus and Galerius lay the
failure of Diocletian and Maximin and Julian were
;
not likely to succeed in a task which had been too

hard for Diocletian, and grown harder since. But
while Gallienus only undid the persecution, Galerius
gave legal toleration. For the first time Christianity
was recognized as a religio licita, with all the rights
therein implied.
We have noticed that the edict does not bear
shall
Maximin's name. As the Empire was not divided
—
only the imperial power it is unlikely that Galerius
and Licinius omitted to insert it. Rather it was
erased after his fall. The edict was most distasteful
to him, and yet he could not disregard it so he ;
published it, not as an edict, or even as a rescript,

but simply as an instruction issued by his Praefectus
Praetorio Sabinus to the praesides of the provinces.
And in this it appears with serious changes. It
similarly justifies the persecution, but the reason for
^ The Letter of Licinius, as we shall see, is not referring in this phrase to
the edict of Galerius, but to Maximin's later doings.

—
stopping it is simply that Maximin does not wish to
bring the Christians into so great danger, since they

cannot be reclaimed from their obstinacy. The
conclusion is not ut denuo sint Christiani, but that
directions are to be given to the curators and praetors
of the cities and the overseers of the villages, that
they are not bound to give further attention to the
matter. This is not the toleration of Galerius it is :
a mere which gives no sort of security that

respite
the persecution will not be resumed at the next
convenient time. However, it was enough. The
officials were not sorry to release the confessors from
the prisons and the mines, and —

for the moment
there was general rejoicing, not unshared by the
heathens themselves.
The edict of Galerius was published at Nicomedia
Apr. 30, 311, and the emperor died a few days later
After a sharp quarrel between Licinius and Maximin,
they divided his dominions, Maximin taking the
Asiatic provinces. In less than six months he began
a fresh persecution, though not quite on the old lines.
Craft was needed, now that brute slaughter was
impossible and to do Maximin justice, his policy
:
was even abler than Diocletian's. His first step

indeed, forbidding meetings at the tombs of the
martyrs, was a bit of petty malice reminding us of his
endeavour two or three years before to starve out the
Christians by ordering all food sold in the market to
be first defiled with idols. Nor did he go beyond the
older Maximin (235-238) in striking at the Christian
leaders. So far as we know, his victims were men
—
of mark Anthimus of Nicomedia, Silvanus of Emesa,
Peter of Alexandria, and the learned elder Lucian of
Antioch.
VOL. II 2 a
It is in other measures that we trace the three

lines of skilful policy distinctive of Maximin's last
persecution. The first is the plan of systematically
stirring up, not mobs to lynch the Christians, but
the municipal authorities to repress them. His chief
agent was Theotecnus, an active persecutor in
past years, and now a great charlatan at Antioch.
came in, from Antioch first, either instigated
Petitions
by Maximin himself or presented in reliance on his
known wishes. Some objected to the building of a
church within the walls, others asked permission to
expel the Christians entirely from the city and its
territory. Such piety was heartily welcomed, and the

gracious answers of the Lord Augustus were inscribed
on pillars by his loyal citizens in perpetuam rei
memoriam}
The nextwas to bring the chaos of heathenism
step
into better order. The priests of the official gods
had never formed a clergy like those of the Eastern
worships and the Christians. The priests of Eome
and Augustus were magnates, and first and chiefly
magnates. A few of the gods had priests at Rome
and elsewhere, but the old royal houses were extinct
in most of the cities, and left no regular successors.
In many cases, any one who knew the ritual, or said
he did, or had been commissioned in a dream to
restore it, would come forward and act as priest.
After all, the priests were in no greater confusion
than the gods themselves. Could not a hint be
taken from the strong organization of the Christians,
with their bishops and clergy, and regular arrange-
^ Eusebius x. 7 gives in full the inscription set up at Tyre. It has quite

amodern ring. "Now that Christianity is altogether exploded etc. etc."
The gods are a paraphrase for Science.
ments for worship ? Could they not be confronted

with a great catholic church of heathenism ? So,
says Lactantius/ he appointed a high priest for each
city from among its magnates. His duty was to
offer sacrifices daily to all the gods, and with the
help of the old priests to hinder the Christians from
building churches or holding public or private
meetings and he had authority to arrest them and
;
compel them to offer sacrifice and to bring them

before the courts. Moreover, he established in each
province a man of higher rank as Superintendent. It
—
was a clever imitation if there had been any life in
it. One feature of the scheme was of itself enough
to make it a failure. Maximin has not got over the
old aristocratic spirit of heathenism, which ruled that
priests must not be prohati seniores, but magnates.
After this, education had to be put on a sound
heathen footing. Some Acts of Pilate were found
useful. They were not a very skilful composition,
for they dated the Crucifixion before Pilate became
procurator of Judaea. But they were full of slanders
on Christ and that was enough.
; So they were set
up everywhere by authority for public edification,
much as the Bible was set up by Henry VIII and :
it was further ordered that they should be studied
and diligently learned in all the schools. Maximin

had discovered the merits of " definite teaching " in
religion. If a child is trained up from his tenderest
years in hatred and disgust for some very pestilent
error (in this case Christianity) he is very likely to
give up all serious belief in religion ; but he will
seldom fall into the more deadly sin of going astray
after that particular heresy.
^ Lact. vi.p. 36.
Given twenty years of resolute government,

his
Maximin might have done wonders but he did not ;
get as many months to carry out his policy.

There were now four emperors Constantine, —
Maxentius, Licinius, Maximin— corresponding to the
four great praefectures of the Gauls, Italy, Illyricum

and the East in later time, except that Maxentius,
held Spain, and Licinius Thrace. Their relations to
each other were naturally determined by their geo-
graphical position, for Constantine stretched across
Italy to Licinius, and Maximin across Illyricum to
Maxentius. So also Constantine was more and more
a monotheist and well disposed to the Christians, and
Licinius had never been an active persecutor whereas ;
Maximin was their chief enemy, and Maxentius was

not friendly. He had stopped the persecution only
because the public opinion of heathenism was dis-
gusted by it. Standing as he did for Eome, the
Senate, and everything reactionary, he could not but
be in principle hostile to them.
The personal contrast of the Western rulers was
very great. Constantine was blameless in private
life, careful of his subjects, and active in the work of
^
government, though even the heathens blamed him
when he gave Frankish kings to the beasts, along
with their followers by thousands. Maxentius was
oppressive and slothful, and seemed to value his
imperial dignity only as an opportunity for unlimited
adultery. Yet he had his ambition, and gathered
forces to crush Constantine, while Maximin was to
deal with Licinius.

Constantine did not wait to be attacked by over-
of the Panegyrists vi. vii. 12 is too laboured to be

1
The applause 4,
genuine.
;
whelming numbers. Breaking up his camp at

Colmar, he pushed rapidly across the Alps with a
seasoned army, though a small one, for he would not
leave the Rhine unguarded. First he stormed Susa :
then came a cavalry fight near Turin, in which the

Gauls overcame the formidable cataphracti horse —
—
and rider clad in mail ^ of Maxentius. After a few
days of needed rest at Milan, he made straight for
Verona and there he found in Ruricius Pompeianus
;
a foeman worthy of his steel. Right well did

Pompeianus hold Verona for his unworthy master,
and he escaped from the siege only to gather an
army for its relief. Then another great battle was
fought. Pompeianus was killed, Verona surrendered^
and Constantine marched at once on Rome. He could
not have besieged the city with far inferior forces
but at the last moment Maxentius came out (Oct.
27, 312) a few miles to Saxa Rubra, and offered
battle with the Tiber behind him and the Mulvian
bridge for his retreat." Once again the Numidians
gave way before the Gaulish cavalry, the Praetorian
guard fell fighting where it stood, and the rest of the
army was driven headlong down the steep banks into
the river. Maxentius perished in the wâters, and
Constantine was hailed by Rome as her deliverer
from his " pestiferous tyranny."
Though the war was not a war of religion,
Constantine's cause was the cause of the Christians
and their hopes must have risen higher at each
successive step of this wonderful career of victory.
Had not God raised up a Cyrus from the West ? and
1 Description in Ammianus, xvi. 10. 8.
2 Yet V. Moltke is said to have approved his strategy. Napoleon did the
same thing at Leipsic and with disastrous consequences, when the bridge of
;
the Elster blew up.

would he not subdue the nations before him? It

was a crisis too for Const antine himself. Somewhere
between Colmar and Saxa Kubra came the vision of
the Shining Cross. Shortly after noonday he saw in
the sky a cross of light, with the words Hoc vince,
and the army saw it too and in a dream that night
;
Christ bade him take it for his standard. So

Constantine himself told Eusebius, and confirmed it
with an oath, and so Eusebius recorded it in 338;^

and there is no need to charge either of them with
deceit. Lactantius^ has the story as early as 315 ;
but he puts the cross in the night vision. That

something of the sort happened seems clear from the
heathen Nazarius' in 321. Yet neither need we
take it like Eusebius, as a miracle. The cross in the
sky may very well have been some halo, like the
three crosses for his three lost companions, which
Whymper saw he came down after the accident
as
on the Matterhorn in 1865: the rest would be
Constantine's interpretation of it. But here it must
be noted that the cross was not a distinctively Christian
symbol, but one of the ambiguities so characteristic
of Constantine. He was beyond all doubt a clear
monotheist, but he does not seem himself to have
been quite certain (at least till 323) whether his one
God was the God of the Christians or Sol invictus.
The Gauls had fought of old beneath the Sun-god's
1 Eus. F.O. i. 28, 29. He does not mention it in his H.E. : but we do
not know when Constantine told him.
2 Lact. m.p. 44. His evidence need not be discredited by the similar
vision he gives (c. 46) to the old heathen Licinius.If Constantine had one
vision, why should not Licinius take the hint, and claim another ? It might
be a good stroke of policy.
3 Fan. X. 14. Schiller {Mm. Kais. ii. 204) is reckless. He ignores
Lactantius, charges Eusebius with falsehood {angehUch Konstantin selbst)
and gratuitously discredits Nazarius as christianisierende. This is special
pleading.
cross of light ; so while the Christians would see in
the Labarum the cross of Christ, the heathen soldiers
would simply be receiving back an ancient standard.
Maximin soon received from Constantine the news
of Saxa Kubra. As his connexion with Maxentius
was known, the letter is not likely to have been
friendly but the fact he had to reckon with was
:
that he had lost his ally, and must do something to

keep the Christians quiet while he made his attack
on Licinius. So before the end of 312 he issued a
rescript to Sabinus. It is a strange document, and
Mason's summary of it is not too severe. "First he
justifies bloody persecution, then plumes himself on
having stopped it, next apologizes for having set it
again on foot, then denies that it was going on, and
lastly orders it to cease." ^
He actually tells us that
no Christian was exiled or insulted " after he first
came into the East " in 305.

Neither Christian nor
heathen could find any meaning in such a mass of
inconsistencies, except that Maximin was a prodigious
liar. With all his cleverness, he never stopped to
consider that a malicious and crafty persecutor like
himself could not hope to conciliate the Christians
without the plainest and and the
fullest assurances,
most resolute action on them. Even then they would
have been slow to trust him to issue such a mysti-:
fication as this was only playing the buffoon.

Constantine remained two months in Eome,
abolishing the Praetorian Guard, introducing the
Galerian taxation, and preparing for his meeting
with Licinius at Milan in Jan. 313. Its public
occasion was the marriage of Licinius to his sister
Constantia ; but the two rulers especially discussed
^ Pers. Diocl. 334. I see no escape from his conclusion.
the subject of religion, in view of Maximin's persistent

evasion of the Galerian edict. Their own edict (the
Edict of Milan) is lost ; but Licinius recites ^ the
substance of it a few months later. They had long
ago given complete liberty in religion to all men,
and particularly to the Christians : but the rescript
issued in pursuance of this edict had encumbered it
with so many detailed conditions that the Christians

were deterred from availing themselves of it. So on
the auspicious occasion of their meeting at Milan,
they thought fit especially to treat of religion, and to
grant full power to Christians as well as others to
follow whatever religion they please to think best
suited to them ; that so, whatever divinity there is
in heaven^ may be able to look with favour on the

emperors and their subjects. And these decisions
would seem to have been embodied in an edict now
lost.'
The wedding festivities were rudely interrupted

^ I am taking it that the passage Cum felicitur . . . henevolentiamque
praestare iu the Litterae Licinii (Lact. m.p. 48) is a preamble reciting their
decisions at Milan, so that the Letter properly begins at Quare scire
Dicationem tuam convenit.
Eusebius x. 5 has it in Greek, with variations generally for the worse.
But he calls it avriypatpov jSaaiXiKuv (KojvaT. Kai Aik.) diaTaêuv, and prefixes
to the preamble of Lactantius another. " Considering long ago that freedom
of worship ought not to be denied, but that authority should be given to
every one by his own understanding and will to attend to things divine as he
purposes himself, we had commanded all men, and the Christians in
particular, each to preserve the faith of his own sect. But since in the rescript
{avTiypacpTj) in which such liberty was granted them, many various conditions
{aipâeis) appeared to be set forth in detail (cracpQs), some perhaps of them
were after a short time deterred from such observance."
" Our command " will therefore be the edict of Galerius, the rescript that
of Maximin.
2 No English can do justice to the magnificent vagueness of 8 ti -rrori iari
d€i.6Tr]T0S Kai ovpaviov irpdy/xaTos, as Eus. translates it.
3 The issue of an edict from Milan seems proved by the heading in Eus.
X. 5 avTl'ypa4>ov (copy) âaiXiKuv diardêcop (edict) where the context shews
that /3a<r. refers to Constantine as well as Licinius. But what he actually
by the news that Maximin was on the move. A

sudden attack in the depth of winter might repeat
the success of Constantine. So Byzantium fell, and
Heraclea. Presently Licinius met him near Hadria-
nople with so inferior an army that he tried to
negotiate. But the battle (Apr. 30, 313) was
decisive. By suudown the next day Maximin was
a fugitive at Nicomedia across the Bosphorus, 160
miles away. He could not even defend Asia, but
was thrown back on Taurus. As he could not hope
to maintain himself in Egypt and Syria without
conciliating the Christians, he made up his mind to
do it effectually. This time he issued no rescript to
Sabinus, but an edict to all his subjects. Its purport
is — Our constant care for our subjects and their
welfare is well known to all. When therefore it
became plain to our knowledge, that under pretence

of the command of Diocletian and Maximian abolish-
ing the meetings of the Christians, many oppressions
and spoliations were perpetrated by the officials, and
that these abuses, so painful to all good rulers, were
growing worse in course of time, we sent letters last

year (the rescript to Sabinus) to the governors of the
provinces, in which we decreed that
any one wished if
to follow such a nation^ or to observe the same

worship, he might do so without hindrance. But
even now we cannot help seeing that some of our
judges have mistaken our commands and caused our
subjects to doubt our meaning and hesitate to use the
gives in Greek is the Litterae Licinii of Lact. — the dvTLypa(f)7] {rescriptu7n) in
which Licinius recites it and gives orders to carry it out.

The substitution is natural. Maximin of course did not publish the edict
in the East, where Lact. and Eus. lived and very likely neither did Licinius
;
trouble to publish it afresh. If so, it would be represented to them by the

rescript of Licinius which they give, ^ ^dvei.
—
freedom we had granted them. In order then to

remove all suspicion of doubt or fear, we have com-
manded this decree to be published, that it may be

plain to all, that such as wish to follow this sect and
worship are by this grant of ours at liberty to do so
— namely, to adopt and to practise this religion.
They are also allowed to build Lord's Houses. We
also decree that ifany houses or lands belonged of
right to the Christians, and have been confiscated
either to our treasury or by the cities that these —
are to be restored to belong by right again to the
Christians.
If Maximin does not speak so truly as Galerius
had done, he speaks with as much dignity, and is
quite straightforward this time. He might be

trusted now that he had no choice. It mattered
The
little. edict cannot have been published beyond
Egypt and Syria, which still remained to Maximin.
On death about June 313, Licinius of course
his
ignored it, and published his own rescript instead.
This rescript was posted at Mcomedia June 313. It
begins, as we have seen, by reciting the conclusions

reached at Milan. Then it goes on
Wherefore you must know our pleasure that all
the conditions contained in letters formerly sent to

your ofiice concerning the Christians shall be utterly
annulled, and that every one of those who are agreed
in desiring to observe the Christian religion shall
observe the same without any trouble or annoyance.
The same liberty of confession and of worship is
extended to other religions, so that every one shall

have freedom in the worship he has chosen, for Ave
will have no distinction made against any rank or
religion. This also we have determined concerning
XXVI THE GREAT PERSECUTION 3^3
the Christians — that

the places where they formerly
if
assembled (concerning which special orders were given

in the former letter) have been sold by our treasury
or by any others, they shall be restored freely,
without delay or equivocation, to the Christians.

Present owners shall give them up at once, and shall
obtain relief from our bounty by petition to the
Vicarius praefectorum. All these shall be restored
at once and without delay by your mediation to the
corporation of the Christians. So also of all other
possessions which belonged of right to the Christians.
You will publish these commands and diligently per-
form them.
A similar rescript of Constantine to Anulinus the
proconsul of Africa commands the restoration of church
property, but to the catholic church only, not to
heretics. The limitation is deliberate : Constantine
repeats it in another letter to Anulinus, granting
exemption from political offices to the clergy *'
of the
^
catholic church, over which Caecilianus presides."
Comparing together the edicts of Galerius, of
Maximin, and of Constantine and Licinius, they are
allagreed in frank allowance of Christian worship :
but Galerius allows it on the old heathen principle

that every god is entitled to the worship of his own
people, Maximin allows it of his imperial clemency
wîthout stating any principle at all, but Constantine
and Licinius lay down the new principle, that every
man is entitled to choose his religion and to practise
it in his own way. A very Christian principle no
^ Eus. X. 5, 7. Anulinus was no longer proconsul in Oct. 313 ; so the
letters must be earlier.
T] Kad. iKKk. cannot be taken for the Christians in general. This is not its
usual sense ; and Constantine had had trouble enough with the Donatists to
impress the difference on him.
;
doubt ; no sign that they came to it from

but there is
any Christian ideas of the supremacy of conscience.

For Licinius it was manifest policy to tolerate the
Christians, and for Constantine it may also have
been something more but they overshot their mark
;
when they laid down a principle which implied

toleration of heretics. They did not understand
what they were doing. Before long Constantine
persecuted heretics, and Licinius did not even hold
to the toleration of Christians. Still the principle
was declared, the omnipotent state recognized a
domain of conscience beyond its jurisdiction, and
there was a good deal of toleration in the fourth
century. True, heathenism — every nation its god,
and every god his nation — was soon restored, with
the one modification that the catholic church is the
only nation which has any right to exist. Neverthe-
less, the Edict of Milan, like the decision of Nicaea,
marks an epoch of thought political as well as
relioîous, though the world has been slow to realize
either the one or the other.
" Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered."

The great deliverance had fallen like the fire of
heaven, the tyrants had vanished away, the scenes of
shame and horror were for ever ended. Well might
the old rhetorician burst out in savage triumph over
the fall of the Pharaohs of heathenism. " The Lord
hath heard our prayers. The men that strove with

God low; the men who overthrew his churches
lie
have themselves fallen with a mightier overthrow

the men who slew the righteous with torments have
perished under the blows of heaven in torments well
deserved though long delayed — yet delayed only
that posterity might learn the full terrors of God's

venofeance on his enemies." ^ The old man's words
are impressive yet a higher and a more Christian
;
note struck by the young deacon Athanasius. His

is
de Incarnatione is the noble preface of a heroic life.

He too had seen the horrors of the persecution, and
the slaughter of his early teachers was an abiding
memory but his eyes are fixed on the eternal Word,
:
and he never for a moment lowers them to revenge

on men of yesterday. " The powers of sin are over-
thrown. The old fear of death is gone. Our children

tread it underfoot, our women mock at it. Even the
barbarians have laid aside their fightings and their
murders, and learned in Christ a new life of peace
and purity. Heathenism is fallen, the wisdom of
the world turned to folly, the oracles are dumb,
is
the demons are confounded. The works of Christ

are more in number than the sea, his victories are
countless as the waves, his presence is brighter than
the sunlight." ^
No enthusiasm of modern times,
not even when
Bliss was it in that (ia\vn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven,
can surpass the tremulous excitement and exulting

hope of those first years of world-wide victory, when
the kingdoms of the world seemed already to have
become the kingdom of our God.
The fair vision soon clouded over but the Edict ;
of Milan marks a great scene ended on the stage

of history. The victory was even greater than it
seemed, for heathenism scarcely looked like a beaten
enemy. It was still strong in the imposing memories
1 Lactantius m.p. 1.
2 Athanasius de Inc. ad fin.

;
of past ages. Greek philosophy and literature,

Roman law and education, Oriental mysteries and
magic, were all its own, and the spirit of the old
society was
heathen to the last. A formidable
rearguard covered the slow retreat of heathenism
and in the time of the great catastrophe, when men
saw the everlasting Empire breaking up around them,
none but the boldest of the Christians could shake off
misgivings, that there might still be power in the
wrath of the immortal gods. Yet for all this, the
old order of the world was doomed. The weary
Empire seemed to feel a touch of new life on the day
of the great Council's meeting. New life indeed it
was and therefore it was more than that age of

;
waverers and half-believers would receive and there- ;
fore it could only give the Roman world another

hundred years of respite before the bursting of the
northern deluge.
For in another and a deeper sense, the victory
seemed greater than it was. It was not the end of
toil, but the opening of a still mightier conflict. The
reward of works well done is greater works than
these to do. If Caesar was conquered, the natural
man remained. Even as the Christianshad saved
a people from the world, so now they were called to
the greater work of saving the wôrld itself. For
sixteen centuries the church of God has toiled, and
not in vain and the mighty task looms up year by
;
year before us vaster and more complex than ever.

But the Shining Cross of Constantine is more than a
legend of the past and a parable of the future. It
stands for the conquest of the Empire and the :
conquest of the Empire is a visible and enduring

earnest of our sure and certain hope that sooner or
later, in one way or another as our own good Lord

shall please, the empires of the world which are
passing away shall give up their place and office to
the everlasting Empire of the love of Christ which

passeth not away.
TABLE OF EMPEROES
B.C. 27.
TABLE OF EMPERORS 369
A.D. 244. Philip.

249. Decius.
251. Gallus.
253. Aemilianus.
Valerian.
258. Gallienus.
268. Claudius.
270. Aurelian.
275. Tacitus.
276. Probus.
282. Carus, Carinus and Numerian.
284-305. Diocletian.
285-305. Maximian (in the West).
293-306. Constantius Gaul and Britain).
(in
293-311. Galerius (in lUyricum, and from 305 in Asia).
305-307. Severus (in Illyricum).
305-313. Maximin Daza (in Syria and Egypt, and from
311 in Asia).
306-337. Constantine (in Gaul and Britain, from 312 in
the West, from 315 in Illyricum, from 323

sole emperor).
306-312. Maxentius (in Italy).
308-323. Licinius (in Illyricum, from 311 in Thrace,

from 313 in Asia; loses Illyricum in 315).
VOL. II 2 B
ondoii. Macmillaii & Co., Limiled.
INDEX
Entries without number of volume belong to Volume 1.
Abgar bar Manu (king of Edessa 179- 196-199 ; use of, ii. 100-102 ;
216) 172, ii. 47 seized by Cara-

; Porphyry on, 200
calla, 142 Almsgiving, Jewish and Christian, 247
Abgar Uchama, correspondence with Alogi, 112 71., ii. 185
Christ, 171, ii. 47 Alonim of Carthage, ii. 234
Achamoth, ii. 40 Ambrosius, friend of Origen, ii. 150 ;
Acta S. Savini, ii. 339 presses him to write, 194
Acte, freedwomau of Nero, 222 Ammonius Saccas, philosopher, ii.
Acts of Pilate, ii. 355 155, 199
Adventus, Oclatinius, Pf.P. ii. 144 Andrew (apostle) in Asia, 61, 109
Aemilianus (emperor 253) ii. 265 Andronicus and Junias, apostles, 65
Aemilianus, Praef. of Egypt, ii. 312 Angels (Jewish doctrine) ii. 27, 172
Aequita^, 24 Angels, of the seven churches, 71, 72
Africanus, Sextus Julius (chrouo- Anicetus, bp. of Rome, meeting with
grapher) ii. 197 Polycarp, 147, 264, ii. 109, 220
Agathouice, martyr, 117 w. Anteros, bp. of Rome, ii. 224
Agricola (Roman general) 223 Anthimus, bp. of Nicomedia, martyr,
Akiba, rabbi, 136 ii. 353
Albinus (D. Septimus Clodius, emperor Anthusa (mother of Chrysostom) 252

in Gaul 193-197) ii. 116 Antichrist, Nero as, 90 doctrine of
;
Alcibiades the vegetarian, 157-160 Irenaeus and Hippolytus, ii. 119,

Alcibiades the quack, ii. 12 260 of Commodiauus, 258-261
;
Alexander the Great, 21 Antinous, 207, ii. 162

Alexander, bp. of Baccanae, martyr, Antoninus Pius (Titus Aurelius
ii. 130 Antoninus, emperor 138-161) 140,
Alexander (emperor in Africa 308-310) 141 Christians under, 144
;
ii. 343 Antoninus, Arrius, proconsul of Asia,

Alexander, martyr at Lyons, 157-162 ii. 131
Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, ii. 191 ;

Apelles (Marcionite) ii. 66, 67
martyr, 254 Apocalypse, angels of, 71, 72 perse- ;
Alexander Severus, see Severus, cution in, 81, 82 n.; contrast with
Alexander Gospel, 109 ascribed to Cerinthus,
;
Alexander of Abonoteichos (quack) ii. ii. 35
46 Apocalypse of Enoch, 48
Alexandria, Jews at, 39 origin of
; Apocryphal writings, 100, 282, ii. 23
church obscure, 61, ii. 156 ; account Apollinaris, Claudius, bp. of Hierapolis,
of the city, 154-156 ; School of, 264
ch. xix. passim Orthodoxasts of,
; Apollonius, martyr, 168, 169
167 Apollonius (heresy-hunter) ii. 88
Alexis Michaelovitch (Tsar 1645-1678) Apollonius of Tyana, ii. 133, 136 ; Life
268 of, 142, 143
Allegorism, samples from Irenaeus, Apostles, dispersion of, 60 authority ;
371
17-2- CHURCH HISTORY
of, 63 65 ; the Two at Rome, 81, 82 ;
Bardaisan of Edessa, 172, ii. 42 ;
name discredited, 97 ; in Teaching, account of, 46-48 196 ;
104 Barnabas, 56, 57, 58

Apuleius of Madaura, Golden Ass, 9 ;
Barnabas, Epistle of, 98, 101, 105,
176, 214 ii. 235, 236; 246, ii. 15
Ardabau, birthplace of Montanus, ii. 73 Basilides, martyr, ii. 124, 125
Aristides, Apologist, 141, 176, ii. 16 Basilides (Gnostic) ii. 21 ; system of,
Aristion, 109 51-56; 68
Aristotle, 21 Basilides and Martialis (Spanish
Aries, Couucil of, on rebaptism, ii. 304 bishops) case of, 306
Arnobius (Apologist 305-308) 177 Beasts, evil, in Gaul, ii. 307 n. (the
on argument from miracle 194 emperors) 328
ignorance of Scripture, 195 ; 201 Benedicta (a Christian ?) 153 n.
conversion of, 226 Berbers, ii. 233
Artemon 185, 187, 319
(-as) ii. Berenice (Agrippa's sister) 40, 90
Asceticism in early times, 240-248 Beryllus (bp. of Bostra) 305, ii. 194,
Asclepiades, confessor, ii. 123 206
Asia, advance of (b.c. 327-a.d. 1683) Bethar, capture of, 137
21 Bible in the Church, 280-284
Asinarii tantum sumus, 207 Biblias, martyr at Lyons, 159
Asper, a governor, ii. 132 Bishops, in Ap. age, Q&, 69-72 in ;
Athanasius, Festal Letters of, 267, 303 ;

Teaching, 103; origin of, 287-298;
on councils, 307 ii. 180 on Person ; ; and penance, ii. 84 in early third ;
of Christ, ii. 189 on condemnation ; century, 274, 275 on Cyprianic ;
of oixooiuaLov, 320 Theory, 276-282

Atheism, charge of, 122, 188 Blandina (slave girl), martyr, 159-163,
Athenagoras, Apologist, 176 on ; 234
digamists, 244 ; ii. 162 Blastus, Quartodeciman, ii. 109, 223
Athens, empire of, 19 state in Ap. age, ; Britain, Roman conquest, 34, Christians
34 emperors as archons, 92 ; per-
; in(Tert.) 173, (C. Aries) ii. 321
secution at, 144 Bruttius, chronicler, ii. 105, 197
Attains, martyr at Lyons, 158, 160, Buddhism, ii. 2
162 Bunyan, John, 235
Atticus, consular, 131 Burial, refusal of at Lyons, 163 ;
Attis, ii. 74 clubs, ii. 120, 121 269 ;
Aurelian Domitius Aurelianus,

(L. Byzantium, Christians at (in 196), 172,
emperor 270-275) decision on Paul ii. 116, 117
of Samosata, ii. 307, 318 sun- ;
worshipper, 141, 309 reign of, ; Caecilian (bp. of Carthage) ii. 346
308, 309 Caecilian, presbyter, ii. 284
Authority, heathen, 216 sq.', Christian, Caesariani (Valerian) ii. 269,
231 sq. (Diocletian) 336
Avircius at Rome, ii. 219 Cainites, immoral, 187
ddeoL of Christians, 122 Caius {Caligula, emperor 37-41) 47
(XTrdêta, ii. 175-177 Caius of Rome quoted, 81
Callistus (bp. of Rome 217-222) 170,
Babylas (bp. of Antioch) and Philip, 233, ii. 188 ; account 224-231
of,
ii. 153 martyr, 255
; Canon of N.T., formation 280-284
of, ;
Baptism, in Teaching, 102 account of, ; Marcion's, ii. 63 ; limits in second

248-258, in Justin, 250, of infants, century, 99
250, 254, clinical, 252 (Novatian), Capella, Caecilius, at Byzantium, ii.
ii.290 and creeds,

; i. 282 ; in 116
book of Elchasai, ii. 12 ; Perpetua's Caracalla (M. Aurelius Severus Antoni-
vision, 125 nus, emperor 211-217) ii. 47, 122 ;
See also Infant Baptism, Rebaptism reign of, 130-132 Persian war, 143,
;
Barbarians, Roman hatred of, 19, ii. 144 ; 192

327 Carpocrates (Gnostic) ii. 59
Bar-Cochab (false Messiah cAr. 133) Carpophorus, owner of Callistus, ii.
54. 136 227, 229

INDEX 373
Carthage, Roman colony, 32 ; account 176 ; view of heathenism 177 sq. ;
of, ii. 232-236 analysis of Frotrepticus, 202-206,
Cams, Carinas, Numerian (emperors 242 ; Christianity and the mysteries,
282-284) ii. 310 274 : in persecution of Severus, ii.
"Cat" School (India) 268 123 ; account of, 163-179
157 ; ;
Cataphracti, ii. 357 181, 191 and Tertullian, 238 not

; ;
Catechumens, 248, 257 Marcionite, ; sacerdotal, 277

ii. 64, 247 Manichaean, 71 per-
; ;
Clement of Rome, 98, 106-108, 246,
secuted by Severus, i. 248, ii. 122 ;
277 on episcopacy, 292 ii. 107
; ; ;
202 on Roman Church, 216 not ;
Catholic Church, conception of the, sacerdotal, 276

299 first mentions, 300
; Second Epistle, 106, 257 ; quoted, ii.
Cato (the younger) 23 184
Celerinus, confessor, ii. 255 illiterate, ;
Clementines, 8, 249 account of, ii. ;
258 286 ;
13-15 30 ;
Celsus, heathen writer, 174 date and ; Colossians, Epistle to, ii. 158
character, 183-186 appeal to ; Commodianus, 236 ; account of, ii. 258-
Christians, 190 261
Centurions, at Capernaum, 32, 310 ;
Commodus (Marcus Aurelius Com-
others, 223 ii. 244 ; modus, emperor 180-192) his reign,
Cerdo, heretic, ii. 60, 219 165-171, ii. 114 devoted to ;
Cerinthus, and St. John, 112 system ; Serapis, 135

of, ii. 34 Conference, Apostolic, at Jerusalem, 57
Cestius Gallus, defeat by Jews, 88 CoTiserva, 218 n., ii. 125
Charity, Christian, 228 Constantine Con-
(Flavius Valerius
Children, position (heathen) 217, stantinus, emperor
306-337) 122,
(Christian) 233 217, 306, 308, ii. 141 ; passed
Chiliasm, ii. 79 and Montanism, 91-
;
over by Diocletian, 341 succeeds in ;
93 of Irenaeus, 112 decay of, 181

; ; Gaul, 342 ; reign of, 356-364 the ;
Chorepiscojn, 70, 309 Shining Cross, 358

"Chrestus," ii. 216 Constantius (emperor 293-306) death
Christian Life, argument from, 200, of, ii. 342 ; no persecutor, 343
211 general account of, 212 sq.
;
Conversion, different ways of, 226
Christian Ministry, see Church Govern- Corinth, Roman colony, 32 no bishop ;
ment in Clement's time, 292

Christian Worship, 255-277 originality ; Cornelius, bp. of Rome, ii. 255 ; exiled
of, 268-286 Tertullian's account of,
; 265 ; election of, 291
ii. 120 Councils, growth of, 306-308 on ;
Christianas ad leonem, 189, 209 Montanism, ii. 90 Cyprian's view ;
Christmas Day, not early, 267 of, 300

Church Government, in Ap. age, 64- Creeds, origin of, 284-286 difference ;
72, 260 later, 286-302

; ; in earlier from rules of faith, ii. 204, 207;
third century,ii. 274-275 ; Cyprianic use by Novatian, 299
Theory, 275-283 Crispina, Bruttia, wife of Commodus,
Churches (buildings) modelled on 168, 170
basilicas, 259 ; first traces of, 261, Crocus, Alemannic king, ii. 342
ii. 122 Cross, use of symbol, 275 ; of Con-
Circumcision forbidden, ii. 122 stantine, ii. 358
Class feeling, heathen, 215 Cybele, 223, ii. 73, 74 ; "missions," 89
Claudian (poet, cir. 400) on work of Cyprian (bp, of Carthage 247-258) 177
Rome, 52 conversion of, 226 acLFidum, 250 ;
Claudius (emperor 41-54) expels Jews theory of councils, 306, 309

from Rome, 40, 61 compared with Clement, ii. 164 in ;
Claudius Gothicus (emperor 268-270) Decian persecution, 255 exile and ;
ii. 273 reign of, 308

; death, 268-271 account of, chap, ;
Claudius Apollinaris, bp. of Hierapolis, xxiv. passim

account of, ii. 105 Mentioned, i. 247, 270
Clement of Alexandria, quotes Teach-
ing, 101, story of St. John, 112 ; Damasus (bp. of Rome 366-385) ii. 225
; ;
374 CHURCH HISTORY

Damis, disciple of Apollonius, ii. 143 Druids, 115; "druidess" at Tongres,
Dt mysteriis Aegyptiorum, ii. 138 ii. 332
Deacons, in Ap. age, 66-68 Aaj/ai'Ses Koi At/3/cat, 80 n.
Dead, commemoration of the, 300
worship of the, ii. 161 Easter question, 263-267, ii. 222
Deadly Sins, the Seven, ii. 86 Eastern worships, 25, 26, ii. 137-142
Deciiis (C. Messius Quintus Trajanus, Ebionism, Pharisaic and Essene, ii. 9-
emperor 249-251) reign of, ii. 253- 15 ; and Cerinthus, 34
262 lapsi under, 285 sq. 312
; ; Eclecticism, ii. 136, 139 of Severus ;
Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, ii. 190- Alexander, 147, 252

193 Edessa, Christianity at, 171, ii. 47
Demiurge (Gnostic) ii. 27, ch. xv. seized by Caracalla, 143
passim Education, and Origen's method, ii.
Demons, belief in (Christian) 177 198-204 Tertullian on, 242

;
Didache, see Teaching El Gabal or Heliogabalus (M. Aurelius

Digamists, 243 sq. ; tolerated by Antoninus, emperor 218-222) 20,
Callistus, ii. 228 223, ii. 48 n. reign of, 144-146
; ;
Dinocrates, ii. 126 234 252;
Diocletian (C. Aurelius Valerius Elchasai, Book of, ii. 12

Diocletianus, emperor 284-305), Elders, in Ap. age, 66-69
Manichaean edict 116, 119, ii. 70 ;
Elegeia, disaster at, 152, ii. 114
judgment of Aurelian, 308, 326 ;
Eleutherus, bp. of Rome, 160, ii. 89,
election of, 310 reign of, 326-341
; ; 90, 187, 188, 219 and Montanism,
;
at Carnuntum, 342 222

Diognetus, writer to, 176 account ; Elvira, Council of, forbids images,
of Christian life, 212 188; on immolatio, 191 n.; forbids
Dionysius (bp. of Alexandria, 247-265) marriage of clergy, 245 249 on ; ;
on authorship of Apocalypse, 9, ii. Christian ofiBcials, ii. 331

313 conversion of, i. 226 Philip a
; ; Encratites, 242, ii. 65
Christian, ii. 151; 193 n.; in Epictetus, 23
Decian persecution, 255, 312 ; on Epicureans, 22, 35 ; "tares," ii. 169
Novatian, 294, 314 ; on rebaptism, Epiphanes (sou of Carpocrates) ii. 59
299, 302; account of, 311-314; Epiphanius (bp. of Salamis t403)
318 account of Gnostics, ii. 24 n. ; letter
Dionysius (bp. of Corinth cir. 170) of Ptolemaeus to Flora, 43
81 ; on penance, 230 ; letters of, 304, Epiphany, 267
ii. 106, 220 Episcopacy, not in N.T., 69-72 ; origin
Dionysius the Areopagite, 274 of, 287-298
Dionysius (bp. of Rome 259-269) ii. Eucharist, see LwcCs Supper
293-319 Euelpistus, martjT, 234
Disciplina arcani, 272-274, ii. 21 Eugenius, bp. of Laodicea, confessor,
Discipline, 230, 257 Marcionite want
; ii. 335 n.
of, ii. 247 ch. xxiv. passim
; Eulalia, martyr,116
See Penance, Eumenea, city of, 155 Christians ; in,
Disloyalty, charge of, 79, 119, 120 ;
ii. 323 massacre of, 338 n.
;
discussed, 189-191 Eusebius (bp. of Caesarea c. 270-339)

Dispersion (of the Jews) 17 general accuracy, 8 as Apologist, ;
Divorce, 217 177 ; impatience of Papias, ii. 104 ;

Docetism, ii. 11, ch. xv. passim, ii. Philip not a Christian, 152 ; 180 ;
206 191 ; ignorance about Hippolytus,
Domitian (emperor 81-96) 20 ; reign 223, 225 connexion with Pamphilus,
;
of, 93-95 311, 317 ; on Diocletian, 328 n.

Domitilla (Domitian's niece) a 331 ; on confusion during persecu-
Christian, 95 tion, 346 ; Martyrs of Palestine^
Domnus, bp. of Antioch, appointed by 347
Council, 303, ii. 318 Evil, problem of, ii. 4 ; Gnostic solu-
Donatists, ii. 346 tion, 25,67
Donatus (bp. of Carthage t248) ii. Exorcism, 253
284 Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, ii. 288
; ;;
INDEX 375
Fabian, bp. of Rome, 252, ii. 225 Glabrio, Acilius {dr. 95) perhaps
martyr, 255, 285 ; ordains Novatian, Christian, 95 n.
291 Glabrio, Acilius [cir. 193) perhaps
Fabius, bp. of Antioch, leans to Christian, 169 n.
Novatian, ii. 296 Gloria in excelsis and Polycarp, 149,
Fanaticism, Christian, discouraged, 256 275 ;
116, 117 of Quintus, 147

; "Gnostic," The True, ii. 175-177
Fasting, in Teaching, 102 in N.T. ; Gnosticism, influence on Ebionism, ii.
and early times, 263 of Montanists,

; 11; ch. XV. passim and Montanism,
;
ii. 79, 81 ; 241 ii. 77, 78 a centre at Alexandria,

;
Fausta, daughter of Maximian, ii. 341 ;

155 ; and history, 173
marries Constantine, 342 Gordian, I. and II. (emperors 238) ii.
Faustinianus, father of Clement, ii. 14 151 description of, ii. 236 n.

;
Faustinus, bp. of Lyons, ii. 298 Gordian III. (emperor 238-244) ii.
Felicissimus, deacon of Carthage, ii. 151, 152

290, 296 "Gospel," in Cyprian, ii. 287 n.
Felicitas, martyr, 234, ii. 125-128 Goths, in Commodiauus, ii. 259 ;
Felix, procurator of Judaea, 31, 34 defeat Decius, 262 defeated by ;
Felix, bp. of Aptunga, not a traditor, Claudius and Aurelian, 307, 308
ii. 346, 347 Greece, condition in Ap. age, 34-37
Festus, procurator of Judaea, 31, 85 Greek Language, spread of, 33 ; crum-
Firmilian, bp. of Caesarea (Cappadocia), bling of, ii. 159 ; early use in Roman
on Stephen of Rome, ii. 302, 303 ;
Church, 214
314 Greek Mythology, decay of, 18, ii. 159
Flamininus, T. Quinctius, deified in Greek and Latin Christianity, ii. 213
Greece, ii. 162 Gregory of Nazianzus, advises delay of
Flavins Clemens (consul 95) a Christian, Baptism, 252
95, 106, 175 Gregory (Thaumaturgus, bp. of
Flora, letter of Ptolemaeus to, ii. 43 Neocaesarea) 224 account; of
Florinus, letter of Irenaeus to, 145 n., Origen's teaching, ii. 203 255 ;
ii.108 n., 219 account of, 314

Formatae, 303 n. Gregory, bp. of Tours {dr. 594) class
Fortunatus made bishop of Carthage, ii. feeling, 216 rustic style, 236
;
296 7vcD(rts, ii. 21, 22

Fourth Gospel, authorship, 110 w., ii.
35 Hadrian Hadrianus, emperor
(P. Aelius
Fox, George, 235 117-138) account of, 135-140;
Freedmen, position of, 219 marriage ;
rescript to Minucius Fundanus, 142 ;
with, ii. 230 ii.117, 272

Fronto of Cirta, 139, 154, 181, 183, Harnack, Dr. Adolf, on letter of Irenaeus
187, ii. 236 archaic taste of, 237
; to Florinus, 145 w.; on Clement, ii.
Fuscianus, P.U., ii. 227 169 71.
Hatch, E., on Christian ministry, 68 n.
Galerius (emperor 293-311) ii. 325 ;
Hebrew, ignorance of, 195 «, ; Origen's
cleanses the army, 332, 335 at ; study of, ii. 194, 195, 199
Carnuntum, 342 tires of persecution,
; Hebrews, Epistle to the, authorship
344 edict of toleration, 349-352
; ;
unknown, 62 argument of, 87 not
; ;
death, 353 sacerdotal, ii. 276

Galerius Maximus, proconsul of Africa, Hegesippus, on murder of James, 86 n.
ii. 270 on St. John in Asia, 112 ; account
Gallienus (emperor 260-268) 138 ;
of, ii. 105
reign of, ii. 271-273, 352 Helena (Tyre) ii. 29
Gallus (Trebonianus, emperor 251-253) Helenus, bp. of Tarsus, ii. 302
reign of, ii. 262-265 Heliogabalus, see El Oabal
Gentiles, training of, 18-27 preaching ;
Hellenism, influence on Christianity,
to, 55-59 ii. 6
"Germany," Christians in, 173, ii. Helvidius Priscus, 93
322 Heraclas (bp. of Alexandria 232-247)
Geta (emperor 211) ii. 130 ii. 191, 193 w., 197, 312
;
376 CHURCH HISTORY

Heracleon (Valentinian) ii. 42 ;
letter to Florinus, 145 n.; 158 ;
Commentary of, 45, 68 bears letter to Eleutherus, 160, ii.
Herais, martyr, ii. 124 89 ;on Bern, of Apost. Preaching,

Heretics, classification by Irenaeus, i. 196-199 on Easter Question, ;
199 ; by Origen, ii. 206, 207 ;

hatred 265 on
; Four Gospels, 282
of, ii. 190 ; furnished by philo- mistakes Elders of Ephesus, 291 n.
sophers, 245 travels, 303 on Simon Magus, ii. ;
Hernias, on penance, 230 236 ; on ; 28, 31 account of Saturninus, 35 ;

;
double standard, 246 282 n.; 293 ; ;

of Valentinus, 39 of Basilides, 51- ;
date of, ii. 218 n. on Roman church, ;

54 of Carpocrates and Epiphaues,
;
218, 219 imitation of, 241 ;

59 92, ch. xvii. passim on Roman
; ;
Herminianus, Claudius Lucius, per- primacy, 221 not sacerdotal, 277 ;
secutor, 118, 167, ii. 131 Isis, 25, 115 n., 156, 223 "missions," ;
Herod the Great, 29, 44 ii. 89, 134 women votaries of, 139
;
Herod Agrippa, 40, 87, 89, 92 Islam, 22, ii. 233

Hesterni sumus, 208 Issus, battle of (194) ii. 116
Hieracas, ascetic, 245 Izates (king of Adiabene) 42
Hierocles, heathen, ii. 142 w., 334 IXGTS, symbol, 275
Hilary (bp. of Poitiers, cir. 353-368),
96 James, the 71, 72
Lord's brother, ;
Hippolytus, 70 n., 233; on digamists, murder in Clementines,

of, 85, 86 ;
244 ; 267 Syntarjma, ii. 24 w., 224

; ;
ii.15
30 account of Basilides, 51-54 de
; ;
Jerusalem, destruction by Titus, 88
Antichristo, account of, 119 stories ;
Jewish Christians, 85-87
of enthusiasm, 129, 130 to Severina, ;
Jews, training of the, 16-18 in ;
148 150; account of, 223-231 ; ;

Roman Empire, 37-50 Roman ;
whether sacerdotal, 277 war (Titus) 83-90 Roman Avar ;
Histaria Augusta, 9 ; Letter of Hadrian (Hadrian) 135 relations to ;
to Servianus, 138 n.; credibility of, Christians, 148, ii. 15-18

ii. 253 n. Johanan ben Zaccai (pres. of Sanhedrin)
Holy Spirit, feminine (Gnostics) ii. 12, 136
49, 57 John (the elder) 109, 111 w.
Hort, F. J. A., on Christian ministry, John of Gischala (Jewish chief, 66-
68 n. 70) 54
Hyacinthus, Roman Presbyter, 170 John Philoponus, ii. 155
Hymn of the Soul, ii. 48 Jubaianus (Mauritanian bishop) ii. 301
Hymns, Christian, 256 ; Bardesanist, Judaism, influence on Christianity, ii. 3,
ii. 48 8-18 connexions with Gnosticism,
;
Hymns to Christ, 129, ii. 320 11, 27

Hystaspes, a prophet, 195 Judas Maccabaeus, treaty with Rome,
29
laldabaoth, ii. 57 Judas the commentator, ii. 129
Ignatius, bp. of Antioch, 99 general ;
Jude, the Lord's brother, grandsons of,
account 131-134 146, 160 7i.
of, ;
before Domitian, 94
246 and Empire, 289 on episco
; ;
Julia Domna (wife of Sept. Severus)
pacy, 293-295, catholic church, 300 217, 118 government of, 132,
ii. ;
on Roman church, 293, ii. 218 133 142 death of, 144
; ;
274 not sacerdotal, 276 292

; ;
Julia Maesa, ii. 132 at Emesa, 144 ;
Images Jews had none, 42 Christians ; Julia Mamaea (mother of Severus Al.)
had none, 188 217, ii. 132, 144, 146-149, 194
Immanence, Stoic doctrine of, ii. 171 Julia Soaemias (mother of El Gabal) ii.
India, Christianity in, 60 n. ii. 322 , ;
132, 144, 145
"cat" and "monkey" schools, i. Julian (emperor 361-363) 5, 118;
268 Pantaenus in, ii. 163
;
compared with Marcus, 151 270 ;
Infant Baptism, 249, 250 objected to, ;

Julianus Didius (emperor 193) ii. 115
251, ii. 86 Juno Caelestis, ii. 146
Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons (c. 130-200), Jus gentium, 24
general accuracy, 8 ; mistake on Ap. Justin Martyr, execution of, 155, date
age, 99 ; and Fourth Gospel, 112 n.; of, 176, view of heathenism, 177 sq. ;
INDEX 377
and argument from mii-acle, 193 ;
Lyons and Vienne, martyrs of, 157-
conversion of, 226 ; account of 164 account possibly by Irenaeus,
;
Baptism, 249, 250 ; 256 ; no ii. 112 on penance, i. 230

; Letter ;
"reserve" in, 274; travels, 303; to Eleutherus, 160, ii. 89

Dialogue with Trypho, ii. 16-18 ;
on Simon Magus, 29 and Tatian, ;

Macrianus, general of Valerian, ii. 267,
65 ; 105, 107 not sacerdotal, 276 ; 273, 314
Macrina, grandmother of Gregory of
Karma (Buddhist) ii. 209 Nyssa, ii. 315
Kyrie eleison, ii. 214 Macrinus, M. Opellius (emperor 217-
218) ii. 144
Lactantius (Apologist cir. 303-315) Magicians, skill of, 192
177 ; on the Evil Beasts, ii. 328 ;
Malchion, presbyter, 305 unmasks ;
de mortibus, i. 276 (genuineness) Paul of Samosata, ii. 318

ii. 328 n. Mamaea (Mammaea), see Julia M.
Laity in government, 229,
church Manichaeism, ii. 2 account of, 69-72 ; ;
305 ; ii. 192

right to preach, edict of Diocletian, 333
Lapsi, ii. 256, 257, 286 sq. Mappalicus, martyr, ii. 286
Latin language, spread of, 34 Marcellina (Gnostic) ii. 58, 219
Learning, Christian view of, ch. xi. Marcellus (bp. of Rome 307-309) ii.
passim ; 235 ii. 167 ; 347

Lent, development of, ii. 81 Marcellus, bp. of Ancyra, 285
Leonides, father of Origen, ii. 123, 189 Marcellus, of Tingis, martyr, ii. 331
Leontopolis, Temple of, 39, 89 Marcia, concubine of Commodus, 170,
Lessing's dictum, 10 171, ii. 227
Letters, Commendatory, etc., 303, 304 ;
Marcian, bp. of Aries (ultra-Novatian-
Festal (Ath.) 267, 304 to churches, ; ist) ii. 297
304 of confessors, ii. 286; abolished,
; Marcion, 8 ; meeting with Polycarp,
291 147, ii. 61 ; account of, 60-65, 68 ;
Leucius Charinus {discipulus diaholi) in Irenaeus (Bk. IV.) Ill; 245;
8, ii. 23 criticizes with a pen - knife, 247 ;
Libelli-atici, ii. 256, 257 treatment ; indiscipline, 247
by Cyprian, 285 - 295 case of ; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (emperor
Spanish bishops, 297 161-180) 23, 116 n. 126 reign of, ; ;
Liberiau List, ii. 224 150-164; ii. 148

Licinius (emperor 307-323) appointed, Marcus (Valentinian quack) ii. 42, 46
ii. 343 ; marriage with Constantia, Marriage, Christian view of, 232 de- ;
359 defeat of Maximin, 361

; 363 ; nounced by Marcion and Tatian, 242,
Logos (Word) in Philo, 44 ; doctrine ii. 26 Tertullian on, i. 243 sq., ii.
;
generally, ii. 172 82 Roman law of, ii. 230 ; mixed,

;
Lord's Day, see Simday inconveniences of, i. 232, 238 second, ;
Lord's Supper, in Teaching, 102, 103, 243 forbidden by Moutanists, ii.

;
257 solvent of class feeling, 225

; ; 79, 82 of slaves, i. 232, ii. 230
; ;
exclusion from, 230, not to be made after ordination, i. 243, 245, per-
a punishment, ii. 295 account of, ; mitted by Callistus, ii. 228 ; unequal,
i. 257-260 doctrine of Irenaeus,
; ii. 230
ii. Ill stationes no excuse for
;
Marseille (Massilia), 33, 157
absence, 241 revolutionized by ; Mart. Poly carpi, 147 n.
sacerdotalism, 278 Masada, siege of, 74, 89
Lucian (confessor 250) reckless Matthias, apostle, 65 apocryphal ;
amnesty, ii. 286, 295 Gospel of, ii. 23, 38 n.

Lucian (of Antioch, martyr, 313) ii. 353 Mattidia, mother of Clement, ii. 13
Lucilla, sister of Commodus, 166. 170 Maturus, martyr at Lyons, 159, 161
"Lucina," ii. 121 Mavilus of Hadrumetum, martyr, ii.
Lucius, bp. ofRome, ii. 265, 267, 297 131
Lusius Quietus (Trajan's general), 139, Maxentius (emperor 306-312) ii. 340,
ii. 233 341 made emperor, 342 ; exiles
;
" Lying water," ii. 300 rival bishops of Rome, 347 policy ;
Lyons,"^ battle of (197) ii. 116 of, 356 defeat by Constantine, 357
;
,
378 CHURCH HISTORY

Maximian (emperor 285-305) ii. 334 ;
Nicaea, Council of, rejects celibacy
issuesFourth Edict, 339 at Car- ; of clergy, 245 305, 307 ; and ;
nuntum, 342 put to death, 343 ;

Meletians,310; rebaptizes Paulianists,
Maximilla, prophetess, ii. 74 ii. 304
Maximin (C. Julius Verus Maximinus, Niger (Pescennius, emperor in Syria,

emperor 235-238) reign of, ii. 149- 193-194) ii. 116
151 ; 194; 353 Noetus of Smyrna, ii. 187
Maximin (Daza, emperor 305-313) Noricum, Christians in, ii. 322
accession, ii, 341 persecution by, ;
Novatian (presb. of Rome) and
344, 348, 352-364 Novatianists, 252 ii. 84 290- ; ;
Maximus of Madaura (heathen writer) 297, 346

168 n. Novatus (presb. of Carthage) 245, ii.
Meletius, bp. of Lycopolis, forms 290 joius Novatian, 291
;
schism, ii. 347 Number of the Beast, in Irenaeus, ii.
Melito, bp. of Sardis, Church and 112 ; in Hippolytus, 119

Empire twins, 116 7i. ; 266 account ;
of, ii. 106 ; 119 Oaths, by Caesar's Genius, 123, 208 ;
Memra (Jewish) ii. 171 unlawful (Basilides) ii, 124 (Tert.)

Menander (Gnostic) ii. 31 244
Mensurius, bp. of Carthage, ii. 346 Oberlin, ii. 121
Messianic hope, in Philo, 44 Jewish, 48 ; Offertory, 258 in
; Ii-enaeus, ii. 113
Milan, Edict of (313) 5, 124 ii. 360- ; Ophites, account of, ii. 56-59
364 Optatus in Perpetua's vision, ii. 126
Militia dei vivi, 233, 236, 310 Orientalism, ii. 2 ; influence on
Minim (Christians) ii. 9, 15 Christianity, 4-6 ; ch. xv. passim
Minucius Felix (Apologist 222-235?) Origen (185-254) c. Celsum, 176 on ;
177 outline of Octavius, 181 sq.

; argument from miracle, 193 from ;
Minucius, Fundanus, rescript of spread of Christianity, 201 250 ; ;
Hadrian to, 142 on infant Baptism, 251 travels, ;
Miracle, Argument from, in Apologists, 303 in persecution of Severus, ii.

;
192-194 123 150, 152

; and Mamaea, 148,
;
Mithra, 25, 156 ; commimion of, 177 ; 194 ;account of, ch. xx. passim ;
267 ii. 134

; ; account of Mithraism, condemnation at Rome, 224 in ;
139-142 Decian persecution, 255 not really ;
" Monkey " School (India) 268 sacerdotal, 277 defence ;by
Monnica (mother of Augustine) 252 Pamphilus, 316 development of
;
Montanism, 117 letter of Lyons and ; his theology, 316 sq.

Vienne confessors, 160 ch. xvi. ; (Origen),c. Celsum, 183-186; Philocalia,
passim tendency of Hermas, ii.
; ii. 195 de Principiis, ii. 204-207
;
219 at Rome,
; 221, 222 of ; Orthodoxasts of Alexandria, ii. 167 ;
Tertullian, 239 similar narrowness, 311 n.
Muratori, Fragment of, 61, 112, 293, Orthodoxy, imperial definitions of, ii.
ii. 106 on date of Hermas, 218 n.
; 318, 319
^
Mystery, and Christianity, 273-275 ofioomLov condemned at Antioch, ii.

320
Naissus, battle of, ii. 307
Namphamo of Madaura, martyr, 168, Pamphilus, scholar of Caesarea, ii.
ii. 235 n., 237 311 account of, 315, 316
;
Narcissus, bp. of Jerusalem, 70 n., 246, Pantaenus of Alexandria, ii. 157,

264 account of, 163
jVatalitia of martyrs, 268 Papias (bp. of Hierapolis) 1 1 ?i. 1 1 1 ?i. ,
Natalius, confessor, ii. 123, 186 282 ; account of, ii. 103-105 109, ;
Nazareues, 10 ii. 112

Nero (emperor 54-68) persecution by, Papinian, Roman lawyer, ii. 117, 133,
73-83 as Antichrist, 90 (Barnabas)
; P atria potestas,217
104 (Commodianus), ii. 259 buried ; Patripassianism, ii. 187 supported by ;
by Acte, i. 222 Callistus, 227

Nerva M. Cocceius (emperor 96-98), Paul of Antioch (heretic cir. 202) ii,
127 123, 190
INDEX 379
Paul of Samosata, bp. of Antioch, 303 Philosophy, solvent of old religion, 20-
305, 307, ii. 187 account of, ii. 317;
24 ; in Ap. age, 35 reply of ;
sq. Apologists, 202 dominance of, ii, ;
Paulianists, 304 ii. 159 Clement's view of, 168 sq.

; ;
Paul of Thebes, 246 Tertullian on, 245

Paul (Roman lawyer) ii. 117, 133 Philostratus, sophist, ii. 133 ; Life of
Pella, retreat to, 88 Apollonius, 142
Pelops, bones of, at Olympia, 8 Phoenician language in Africa, 34 ;
Penance, in second century, 230 in ; spoken by Severus, ii. 117 survival ;
Montanist times, ii. 82 ; of Callistus, of, 233

228 Phrygia, Montanism in, ii. 73, 75, 89
Perennis {Pf.P. 180-185), 166; and Pinytus, bp. of Cnossus, 304
Apollonius, 169 Pius, bp, of Rome, ii. 214, 218
Pericopa adulterae, Q. from Papias ? Plato, 21, ii. 169, 171, 172, 174;
ii. 105 "medicinal" lie, 176 ; 198
Perpetua, martyr, 234 baptism of, ; Platianus, Pf.P., favourite of Severus,
252 mosaic of, 276 account of, ii.
; ; ii. 133
125-128 Pliny (the younger) correspondence
Persecution, by Nero, 73-83 by ; with Trajan, 124 n., 128-131
Domitian, 94-96 general account of,
;
Plotinus, ii. 198
115-126 by Trajan, 124 n. of
; ; Plutarch of Chaeronea, ii. 137
Jews, by Hadrian, 136 by Marcus, ; Poly carp (bp. of Smyrna) 112 n., 116,
154-164 under Commodus, 166-
; 133 account of, 145-149 ; baptized
;
169 under Severus and Caracalla,

;
in infancy, 250 Gloria in excelsis,
;
ii. 122-132 by Maximin, 151

; in ; 149 256
; and Anicetus, 264
; ;
Philip's time, 155, 251 by Decius, ; 266, ii. 109, 214, 220 ; i. 282, 297 ;
254-257 286 sq., 312 by Valerian,

; ; and Marcion, ii. 61, 63 98 and ; ;
267-273, 312 by Aurelian, 309 by

; ; Irenaeus, 108 ; not sacerdotal, 276
Diocletian, 331-341 by Maximin ; Polycrates (bp. of Ephesus) 113 n.,
Daza, 344, 353 155, 235 letter to Victor, 265 ; ii.
;
Persians defeat Severus Alexander, ii. 277

147 defeat Gordian, 152 ; 252 ;
; Pompeianus, Claudius (son-in-law of
capture Valerian, 271 ; repulsed emperor Marcus), 165, 169 7i,
by Odenathus, 272 ;
peace with Pompeianus, Ruricius, defends Verona,
(Diocletian) 333 ii. 357
Person of Christ 54 history of the ;

Pomponia Graecina, dr. 57 a Christian, ;
doctrine, ii. 181-188 ; human soul 76, 175 account of, ii. 216
;
(Origen) 209 ; Commodianus, 258- Poutianus, bp. of Rome, ii. 150, 224
261 Pouticus, martyr at Lyons, 162
Pertinax, Helvius (emperor 193) ii. "Pope" of Carthage, ii. 284, 285, 287
115 Poppaea (Nero's wife) 31, 40, 42
Pestilence under Marcus, 152, under Porphyry on Origen, ii. 199, 200
Gallus, ii. 263 Postumus, Gaulish Caesar, ii. 272
Peter, bp, of Alexandria, 82 n. ; in Potamiaena, martyr, ii. 124
persecution, ii. 347 martyr, 353 ; Pothinus (bp. of Lyons) martyr, 159 ;
Pfaffian Fragments of Irenaeus, ii. 112 ii. 108
Pharisees, 45, 84 Praxeas, confessor, ii. 187, 222

Philip (M. Julius Philip pus, emperor, Prayer, Tertullian on, ii. 240-242, see
244-249), reign of, ii. 152, 153 ; also Christian Worship
194 ; riots under, 251 Prepon, ii. 46, 66
Philip (apostle) at Hierapolis, 61, Presbyters, see Elders
109, 265 Priesthood, Christian and Cyprianic,
Philip (of the Seven) 67 270, 276-278
ii.
Philip (Asiarch in Mart. Pol.) 148 Priscilla, Montanist prophetess, ii. I^sq.
Philip (Bardesanist) ii. 47 Priscus, rebel, ii. 262
Philip of Side, ii. 163 Probus (emperor 276-282) ii. 308, 310
Philippi, Roman colony, 32 church ; at, Procopius, martyr at Caesarea, ii. 348
66 ; no bishop at,293 Procopius, historian, 51 w.
Philo, 44, 48, ii. 172 Procurators of Judaea, 47, 84
38o CHURCH HISTORY
Prophecy, argument from. 194-200 ;
Rusticus, Junius, 141 ; condemns
ecstatic, ii.80 n. Justin, 155
Prophet, (N.T.) 66; in Teaching,
103 287,
; ii. 94 ;
(Montanist) ii. Sabellianism, ii. 183, 188, 226 ;
74-95 described, 317
Proselytes, 42, 43 Sabinus, Praefect of Egypt, ii. 312
Prunikos, ii, 57 Sacerdotalism, first clear in Cyprian,
Ptolemaeus, martyr, 144 ii. 276-278
Ptolemaeus (Valentinian) ii. 42 letter ;
Sagaris, bp. of Laodicea, martyr, 155,
to Flora 43 266, ii. 107
Pudens, a governor, ii. 132 St. John, 59 ; at Ephesus, 109-113,
Pupienus and Balbinus (emperors 265 intercourse
; with Polycarp,
238) ii. 151 145 n.\ and episcopacy, 294, 298;
UepcaTepa in Mart. Pol., 147 whether teacher of Papias, ii. 104
St. Paul, work of, 57-59 at Rome, 61
; ;
Quadratus, Apologist, 141, 176 on our ;

little understood in Early Church, 97,
Lord's miracles, 193 98 110
; historical
; insight, 179 ;
Quadratus, and Ammia, 287 on slavery, 233

Quartodecimans, 264-268, ii. 223 St. Peter (apostle) at Antioch, 58 ; at
Quattuor Coronati, martyrs, ii. 331 Rome, 82 n. 60,
Quintus (Phrygian fiinatic) 147 Sanctus, martyr at Lyons, 159, 161
Quintus (Maiiritanian bishop) ii, 300 Sardica, Council of, 307
Satisfactio (Tert, ) 247
Rebaptism, ii. 228, 231 Controversy, ;
Saturninus (or Satornilus) Gnostic,
298-305 system of, ii. 35
Redemption, Gnostic idea of, ii. 21 ;
Saturninus Vigellius (proc, of Africa
Origen's doctrine of, ii. 210, 211 180) 167, ii. 131, 236
Religion of Rome, unspiritual character, Saturus, martyr, ii, 125-128
19 Saxa Rubra, battle of, ii, 357
Relics of Polycarp, 149 ; at Lyons, Scandals against the Christians, 76,
163; 188 186 Tertullian's answer, 207
;
Repostus, apostate bp. of Tuburnuc, Scapula proconsul, 176, 276, ii. 131
ii. 257 n., 296 Scillitan martyrs. Acts of, 167 ii. 237 ;
Reservation of elements, in Justin, Secundulus, martyr, ii. 125-128

260 Semen est sanquis Christianorum, 210
"Reserve," 274 ; ascribed to our Lord, Semo Sancus, ii. 29
ii. 23 Serapion, bp, of Antioch, ii, 312 n.
Revocatus, martyr, ii. 125-128 Serapis, worship of, ii. 135
Rhodon, ii. &Q, 67 Sermon on the Mount, not centre of
Roman Church, origin obscure, 61 ;
the Gospel, 54
notorious in Nero's time, 76 in ; Seven, The (Acts vi. ) 67
Clement's letter, 106, ii. 217 was ;
Severa, Otacilia, empress, ii. 152, 194
Clement bishop, i. 293 302 ch. ; ;
Severus, Alexander (emperor 222-235)
xxi. passim ; Ignatius on, 293, ii. 261 ii. 144 reign of, 146-149
; ;
218 Hermas on, 219

; Irenaeus ; Severus L. Septimius (emperor, 193-
on, 221 211) 261 ii. 48 n.; reign of, 116-
;
Roman Emperor, worship of, 27 30, ; 123, 130 ; Aurelian compared to, 308
ii. 161-162 Severus (emperor 305-307) ii. 341, 342
Roman Empire, 27 description, 28- ;
Severus, Cincius, a governor, ii. 132
54 ; in false position, 121 in second ;
Shema, Shemoneh Esreh, 41
century, 126 Simon Magus, ii. 13 ; system of, 28-30
Roman Law, solvent of old religion, Slaves, position (heathen) 217-223 ;
24, 25 (Israel) 220 (Christian) Blandina,

;
Roman Legions, 31 legio fubninea, ;

159-163 ; 230, 233-235 ; under
156 distribution under Commodus,
;
heathen masters, 238 case of
;
ii. 116 Felicitas, ii. 125, 128 marriage ;
Rome and Israel, 46-50, 83-90 with, ii. 230

Rule of faith (Origen) ii. 204-207, Sobieski, John (King of Poland 1674-
(Tert.) 245 1696) 21
INDEX 381
Society, account of, 213 sq. Valentinus, ii. 37 on marriage, 82

; ;
Soter, bp. of Eome, 170 ; ii. 215 ;

on penance, 84 against infant
;
account of, 220 baptism, 86 on Empire, 119

;
;
Spain, Christians in, 114, 173, ii. 297, account of Christian worship, 120 ;
321 pro mora 181 ; on Praxeas
finis,
Speratus, Scillitan martyr, 167 187 189
; account of, 237-250 ; not
;
Spread of Christianity, in Ap. age, 62 ;

really sacerdotal, 277 ; 284 289 ; ;
at end of first century, 113 at end ; Apology, i. 176 on scandals, 187

;
;
of second, 171 at end of third, ii.

;
analysis of, 206-210 ii. 118 de
; ;
321 Corona, i. 176, ii. 130 •,ad Scapulam,

Stationes, 261, ii. 81, 241 i. 176, 276, ii. 130 ; de Spectaculis,
Stephen (Acts) 55 i. 276 Testimonium aninuie, i. 200
;
;
Stephen (bp. of Rome 253-257) 301 ;

Acts of Perpetua (?) ii. 126 de ;
and Spanish bishops, ii. 297 and ; Praescr. sophisms of, ii. 168 account ;
Marcian of Aries, 297 and re- ; of, 244-250 de Oratione, ii. 240-
;
baptism, 298-304 242 de Idololatria, ii. 242-244

;
Stoicism, strength and weakness, 22-24; Testimoniuvi animae, argument from,

in Ap. age, 35 of the emperor ;
200
Marcus, 151 in Tertullian, 254 in
; ;
Theodotus (6 aKvreijs) ii. 185, 228
Clement, ii. 171, 175-177 Theodotus (Valentinian) ii. 42, 46
Suhintroducta, scandal of, and Cyprian, Theonas to Lucian, a forged letter, ii.
ii.285-286 connived at by Paul of
; 332 71.
Samosata, 319 Theophilus (bp. of Antioch cir. 180)
Succession, apostolic, first pressed by 171, 176
Cyprian, ii. 280 Theophilus of Diu (India) ii. 322
Sulla, L. Cornelius, Felix, ii. 162 Theotecnus {cir. 311) revives the
Sunday, in Teaching, 103 ;255 ;
scandals, 187, ii. 354
observance of, 262-263 Thomas (Apostle) in India, 60 n.
Superstition, Christians not specially Thraseas, bp. of Eumenea, martyr, 155,
given to, 235 266
Susanna, History of, criticism of Thundering Legion, story of, 156, ii.
Julius Africanus, ii. 197 106
Symbols of devotion, 275 Tiberianus, not P.U., ii. 253 n.
Symeon, son of Clopas, martyr, 181 Timothy and Titus, not bishops, 71
Synagogue Service, 40-42, 255, 256 Titus (emperor 79-81) destroyer of
Syneros, ii. 66 Jerusalem, 40, 88 93 ;
Syrian churches, ii. 46 Toleration, Edict of Galerius, ii. 349-

352 ; of Milan, 360-364 ; of Maximin,
Tacitus, 8, 20, 76 ; account of Neronian 361
persecution, 78 sq. 187, 214 ; Trades, which lawful, 230, 236 ;
Tacitus (emperor 275-6) ii. 310 Tertullian on, ii. 242-244
Tatian the Assyrian, 172, 176 as ; Traditio {redditio) Syviboli, 253
Apologist, 180 conversion of, 226
; ;
Tradition, 280-284, 301 outworn, ii. ;
denounces marriage 242, Diates- ; 99 ; as used by Papias, 104 argu- ;
saron, 282, ii. 46 account of, 65 ; ment of Irenaeus, 110 argument of ;
Tauroholium, ii. 140, 142 n. Tertullian, 246

Teaching of the Apostles, 101-106 on ; Traditores, ii. 346
charity, 228 on double standard,
; Trajan (M. Ulpius Trajanus, emperor
245 on Baptism, 252 on Jews, ii.
; ; 98-117) 127-134
15 not sacerdotal, 277
; Transmigration of souls, Origen not
Tecusa, sister of Celerinus, ii. 286 Pythagorean, ii. 209
Telesphorus, bp. of Rome, martjT, 143, Travel in early times, 302
ii. 214, 218 Trypho the Jew, ii. 16-18
Tertullian (ciV. 150-225) picture of Turbo, Marcius {Pf.P.), 141
52 116 n., 123, 155
civilisation, ; ;
dehs, indefiniteness of, ii. 161
contrast with Clement, 178, 203 ;
214 conversion of, 226 objects to

; ; Ulpian, Roman lawyer, ii. 133, 147
Infant Baptism, 251 account of ; Urbanus, bp. of Rome, 224 ii.
Baptism, 252 travels, 303 on

; ; Urbicus, Lollius, P.U., 144
382 CHURCH HISTORY
VaJentinus (Gnostic) and his school, Victorinus, bp. of Pettau, ii. 24 n.;
ii. 36-51 in Gaul, 109 ; 245
; account of Valentinus, 37
Valerian (P. Licinius Valerianus,
emperor 253-260) ii. 151 Censor, ;
Women, as missionaries, 62 position
254 reign of, 265-271 312 ; edict
; ;
;
(heathen) 216 position (Christian)

imitated by Diocletian, 336, 337 ;
231 pertness of heretics, ii. 247

;
Varus, Eictius, ii. 331 ;
Montanist prophetesses, ch. xvi.

Verus, Lucius (emperor 161-167) 150
passim
Vespasian (emperor 70-79) 88, 89,
Word, see Logos
91 sq., 135
Vettius, Epagathus at Lyons, 158
Veturius, ynag. viil. persecutor, ii. 335 n. Xenophanes, ii. 160
Vice sacra, used of bishops, 311 Xystus, bp. of Rome, martyr, ii. 269,
Vicisti Galilaee, 5 270 ; 304
Victi victores, 5
Victor (bp. of Rome 189-199) and Zealots, 46, 49, 84 ; hold Masada,
Marcia, 170 on Easter question,
; 89
264-266, 301, ii. 109 excom- ; Zenobia {regina orientis dr. 270),
municates Theodotus, 186 account ; 217, ii. 272, 307 ; defeat of, 308 ;
of, 222, 223, 227 supports Paul of Samosata, 318

Victorina (mater castrorum dr. 265), Zephyriuus (bp. of Rome 199-217)
217, ii. 307, 308 24 n., ii. 186, 224, 227, 229
THE END
Printed by R. & R. Ci.akk, Limited, Edinburgh.

Date Due
mm7 CLAPP
^ 3 5002 00217 VJOtW

6340
Gwatkin, Henry Melvill
Early church history to A.D.
313
BR 165 .G9 1912 2
Gwatkin^ Henry Melvill^

1844-1916.
Early church history to A. D.

313

Gwatkin. Early Church History To A.D. 313. 1912. Volume 2.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gwatkin. Early Church History To A.D. 313. 1912. Volume 2.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gwatkin. Early Church History To A.D. 313. 1912. Volume 2.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARLY CHURCH HISTORY

MACiMlLLAN AND CO., Limited

DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO

HENRY MELVILL GWATKIN

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

Africa — Tertullian 232

Decius and Valerian . . . . . . .251

Table of Emperors 368

The revelation of the Christ is not a law of out-

each other, and jointly modify the doctrine. So along

We are not in this connexion giving the terms any

scarcely came in contact with the West, and such

alike when the comparison with Israel or Persia.

been of native Jewish growth. So too the Oriental

open question whether or not it always came in by

tion pointed forward as much as any special prophecy

Knowing that sin is the root of evil, and mistaking

stances,and overlooked even the plain fact that it

just when it was ready to vanish away. But a

So there was no need of a mediator and lawgiver

cism and gross licentiousness by turns an Egyptian

element of mystery, of ceremonial, and of looking

XIV JEWISH INFLUENCES 5

influence of was a Persian element of Dualism, and

this is what we shall chiefly have to keep in view.

Now physical evil is that part of the order of things

of all things. The only escape is to deny that God

than a confusion of thought. Accepting then the

Only now is the question asked. What is evil ?

Which part of creation is good, and which is bad ?

The Oriental felt that the spiritual nature is the

Orientalism pronounces it essentially bad. If then

separate as in Judaism from the world of matter, but

The inference is clear. If the world is essentially

it be any part of his work to redeem the body. Yet

Gnostics took the one method left to combat the —

through the parts of the world, or it might pervade

their influenceon Christian thought has never ceased

three enter largely into Catholicism, inside and out-

but the influence of Hellenism cannot be fully

Of the contest with Judaism we have already traced

began with Stephen, and became acute when first

Barnabas and then Peter sanctioned the active preach-

even to set foot in it, so that when the Christians

a few adjustments were made, and then things settled

true ? If the Law could no longer be kept without

moderate that men like Justin were willing to receive

them as brethren, though others refused. Their

positions seem to have been nearly that held by

not clear how they took this to imply a higher

^ From But it must remain an open question whether

God. Their slanders against him were many. Gentile

Nazareth was the son of Joseph and Mary, so that

roughly equivalent to the Jewish legend that Messiah

him. To the canonical narrative the Gospel accord-

when the Spirit forsook him, only a common man

to reign a thousand years on earth.

away his sufi'erings, for they were agreed that

divinity and suflering are inconsistent with each