13-CHAPTER 13. CHRISTIAN AUTHORITIES FOR THE FLAVIAN PERIOD.

CHAPTER 13. CHRISTIAN AUTHORITIES FOR THE FLAVIAN PERIOD. THE scanty indications which can be gathered from Pagan authorities, and from the few facts established by evidence independent of the contemporary Christian writers, are not sufficient to prove, though they certainly point the way to, the view which we have taken of the policy of the Flavian Emperors towards the Church. The real proof of that view lies in the indications of the feeling which was roused in the minds of the Christians by the Flavian action a feeling so intense as to be almost without parallel in history.

1. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.

If the view, which will be stated about 1 Peter, be found even approximately correct, it will afford a very strong, almost a conclusive, proof of the general accuracy of our theory on the relations of the State to the Church. On the other hand, the extreme views that i Peter belongs to a very early date, about A.D. 40-64, or to a very late date under Trajan are absolutely inconsistent with our theory; while the view that 1 Peter was written between 64 and 67, would involve a modification of our theory, and an admission of the view which we have deliberately rejected (sec p. 242), that the development from the condemnation of Christians for definite crimes, to the absolute proscription of the Name, took place before the conclusion of Nero’s reign.

It is not easy to state, in precise and brief terms, the view which is here taken of I Peter. There is great danger of over-emphasising one aspect, and omitting others entirely. I must therefore beg for indulgence, while I state once for all, that in this chapter our concern is with only one side of a group of documents which are, to an unusual degree, many-sided; and that, forced as I am to leave out of view much of the character of the documents, I am far from ignoring or disparaging that which I do not explicitly mention. My point is that, if the points which I lay stress on are not absolutely false, the inferences here stated must follow.

I shall first state shortly my view of the character of this Epistle, and shall thereafter criticize two different views: the criticism will serve to render more precise my own view and the reasons for it. The First Epistle of St. Peter is addressed to all the Christian communities of Asia Minor north of the Taurus. [Note: See above, pp. no, 187.] They are regarded as exposed to persecution (1 Peter 1:6), not merely in the form of dislike and malevolence on the part of neighbours, though that is, of course, an additional and trying element of the situation, but persecution to the death (1 Peter 4:15-16), after trial and question (1 Peter 3:15). [Note: The Greek, ἀπολογίαν and αἰτου + ̓ντι λόγον, is more precise than the English version. For other views, see below, p. 291 ff.] The persecution is general, and extends over the whole Church (1 Peter 1:9). The Christians are not merely tried when a private accuser comes forward against them, but are sought out for trial by the Roman officials (1 Peter 1:8, 1 Peter 3:15). [Note: A trial which involved the penalty of death could take place only before Roman officials of high rank. They that are sought out for such a trial must be sought out by order of Roman officials. ] They suffer for the Name (1 Peter 4:14-16) pure and simple; the trial takes the form of an inquiry into their religion, [Note:1 Peter 4:14-16refers obviously to trials issuing in death. Christians are to face gladly the accusation of bearing the Name and the death that it entails, and to fear only such crimes as would justify their execution. The passage loses much of its significance, unless the question put to the accused is of the type, “Are you a Christian?” The words, περὶτη + ̑ς Ḑν υ + ̓μἰ + ̑ν ἐλπίδος, 1 Peter 3:15, define the subject of the enquiry.] giving them the opportunity of “glorifying God in this Name." The picture is here complete. We have the fully developed kind of trial which we suppose to have been instituted about 75-80, and which was carried out by Pliny as part of the fixed policy of the Empire towards the Christians. These circumstances are essentially different from those of the Neronian period. The resulting action was indeed much the same; many Christians were in each case executed in barbarous ways; but the legal and political aspects of the situation were very different. But 1 Peter does not look back over a period of persecution. It rather looks forward to it as the condition in which the Christians have to live. The State is absolutely hostile, raging against them, seeking them out for destruction (1 Peter 1:8-9) ; but it is not yet regarded, as it is in later documents, as inexorably and inevitably, from its very nature, opposed to the Christians. By steadily avoiding all just cause of offence, by convincing the world of their good works, by strict obedience to the laws of the State, to the Emperor, and to the provincial governors, they may put their slanderers to silence, and emerge from their fiery trials (1 Peter 2:11-15). It is clear from this analysis of the situation that the writer stands at the beginning of the new period. He still clings to the idea that the Christians are persecuted because they are believed to be guilty of great crimes ; the old charges of the Neronian time are still in his memory, and he hopes that, if the absurdity of these charges be fully brought home to the minds of men, the persecution must be stopped. Hence he reiterates St. Paul’s advice. [Note: See above, p. 246.] The social order is not to be interfered with: slaves are to respect their masters in spite of bad treatment; divisions within the family on account of religion are to be avoided. This attitude belongs to one whose experience has been gained in the first period of Christianity, in the time of Claudius and Nero, and who is now at the beginning of a new period. He recognizes the fact that Christians now suffer as witnesses to the Name, and for the Name pure and simple; but he hardly realizes all that was thereby implied. The First Epistle of Peter then must have been written soon after Vespasian s resumption of the Neronian policy in a more precise and definite form. It implies relations between Church and State which are later than the Neronian period, but which have only recently begun.

If the date about A.D. So, to which we ascribe I Peter, is correct, either the author cannot be the Apostle Peter, or the usual view, according to which Peter perished at Rome in the Neronian persecution, is not correct Now while the tradition that St. Peter perished in Rome is strong and early, the tradition about the date of his death is not so clear. [Note: In the original lectures this date was treated as inconsistent with Petrine authorship. A conversation with Dr. Hort suggested the view now taken. In the rest of this paragraph I am indebted to Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 494 ft".] The earliest authority for the date is Origcn, who places his martyrdom under Nero before that of Paul. Tertullian also seems in one passage to assign it to the time of Nero ; but in another passage he mentions the tradition of the Roman Church that Clement was ordained by St. Peter. [Note: Origen in Eusebius, H.E., iii. 1; Tertullian, Scorp., 15 (about 215 A.D.); in de præscript, 32 (about 1 99), Noeldechen, Abfassungs-zeit d. Schr. Tert.), he mentions the Roman tradition.] The latter passage is the strongest evidence which we possess on the point, and it clearly proves that the Roman tradition during the latter part of the second century placed the martyrdom much later than the time of Nero. [Note: In the extreme uncertainty of the history of the early Roman episcopate it is not possible to fix an exact date for the ordination of Clement.] The tradition that he lived for a long time in Rome is also strong, and, as Dr. Harnack justly says, " it is difficult to suppose that so large a body of tradition has no foundation in fact." [Note: Harnack on Peter in the Encycl. Brit., ninth edition.] But conclusive reasons show that he cannot have been in Rome long before the Neronian persecution; and therefore a long residence there is impossible unless he lived to a much later date. The only early tradition with regard to St. Peter’s later life, then, is that which was accepted by the Roman Church during the second century and it is to the effect that St. Peter lived in Rome till long after the time of Nero. The tradition that he died under Nero is not a real tradition, but an historical theory, framed at the time when all recollection of the true relations between the State and the Christians had perished, and when it was believed that there had been two separate and single persecutions, one by Nero, and one by Domitian in his later years. As to the date of the Epistle there is no tradition, and it is merely a modern theory, keenly contested by many, that places the composition about A.D. 64.

It has been said that Clement, ad. Cor., 4, mentions Peter’s death before Paul’s, and that his order is naturally taken as chronological. I see no reason to think that in mentioning “the good apostles” Clement must be supposed to follow chronological order. It may have been the natural order for a Roman, even then, to mention Peter first. The passage is quite as effective in expression if Peter’s death was more recent than Paul’s. [Note: It is remarkable that Lightfoot, Clement, L, p. 344, should say, " Whether Tertullian, when he states that the Roman Church re corded Clement to have been ordained by St. Peter, was influenced, etc., or whether it was his own independent inference, etc., we have no means of determining." Surely we have means of determining viz., by believing Tertullian’s plain statement, that he is doing neither of the things suggested by Lightfoot, but is quoting the tradition current in Rome. His own “independent inference" seems rather to have been that Peter died under Nero, Scorp. 15.] The history of the spread of Christianity imperatively demands for I Peter a later date than A.D. 64. When it was written the new religion had been diffused over all the provinces of Asia Minor, north of Taurus. The impression that we get from Acts is, that the evangelisation of Asia Minor originated from St. Paul ; and that from his initiative the new religion gradually spread over the country through the action of many other missionaries (Acts 19:10). Moreover, missionaries not trained by him were at work in South Galatia and in Ephesus as early as 54-56 A.D. (Gal. 5:7-10; Acts 18:25). If we can assume that this account is not absolutely unhistorical, and that Christianity was extending along the main line of intercourse across the Empire between 50 and 60, it is inconceivable that, before A.D. 64, (1) it had spread away from that line across the country through the northern provinces ; (2) so much organization and intercommunication had grown up as is implied in I Peter, where a person writing from Rome is familiar with the condition and wants of the congregations, and advises them with some authority.

We have already seen that Christianity is not likely to have reached Amisos before A.D. 65 ; and if we assume that this great further development had taken place in time for 1 Peter to be written about 75-80, we are straining historical probability as far as the evidence will reasonably permit. So far as an opinion is possible, they that make Peter write to the congregations of Pontus during Nero’s reign remove the story of early Christianity from the sphere of history into that of the marvellous and supernatural; and it lies outside of the plan of this work to follow them.

It is no argument against the date when we consider Christianity to have reached Amisos, that it must have reached Rome as early as A.D. 55-6. In the state of the Empire Rome was easier to reach than Amisos; [Note: See Hist. Geogr., p. 26.] and all movements of thought spread first to Rome. Nor does it constitute any real objection to our dating that, in the Pastoral Epistles, the new religion is spoken of as spreading to Dalmatia and other places off the main line of communication. Assuming the genuineness of these Epistles, we must attribute this rapid spread of Christianity in the years following Paul’s release to his extraordinary activity and energy; and concurrently therewith we place the evangelisation of Amisos and the north coast of Asia Minor.

Moreover, the strong analogies which I Peter shows to James, Romans, and Ephesians, implying that the writer was familiar with all these letters, are more easily explicable if i Peter was composed about A.D. 80. Holtzmann indeed uses them as an argument against the Petrine authorship of the Epistle, and Lightfoot [Note: Clement, ii., p. 499.] has not cleared away the difficulty which they cause if the composition of I Peter is assigned to A.D. 63 or 64.

It seems difficult to explain this character in I Peter, and the influence which these three Epistles have exercised on it, except in the way which Holtzmann has done. These Epistles were known to the writer, and were esteemed by him as works of high authority and value. A certain lapse of time for the formation of this authoritative character seems required ; but it is entirely in keeping with the view we take of the organization of the Church during the Flavian period that these letters should have acquired that character before A.D. So (see p. 367). That this Epistle was written from Rome, I cannot doubt. It is impregnated with Roman thought to a degree beyond any other book in the Bible; the relation to the State and its officers forms an unusually large part of the whole. It seems, if I may venture to hold an opinion on such a point, to presuppose a more organized and inter-connected state of the entire Church than most documents included in the New Testament, more so than even the Pastoral Epistles. It is far advanced on the path that leads to the letter of Clement to the Corinthians. The reference to Rome as “Babylon” [Note: That Babylon should be understood as the Chaldaean city appears to conflict so entirely with all record and early tradition, as to hardly need discussion. But that a Jew, whose life had been spent in Palestine and Chaldaea, should write so romanised a. letter is even more improbable.] implies a developed state of symbolic expression approximating to that of the Apocalypse. The letter is addressed to “the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion “in Asia Minor. The congregations of Asia Minor were composed of persons that had been Pagans (1 Peter 4:2, 3). It is contrary to all reasonable probability that they contained any appreciably large Jewish clement ; and if Acts is a historical authority of any value whatever, the Jewish population was, as a body, strenuously opposed to the Christians of Asia Minor. How then can a Jew, like Peter, speak of these congregations by the Jewish title Diaspora? It is because, writing after the destruction of Jerusalem, and recognizing the utter change that had thereby been produced both for Judaism and for the possible development of Christianity, he now appreciated the unique position and the importance of the Asia Minor churches (see p. 171), and regarded them as the chief guarantee for the unity which had once in his view centered in Jerusalem, and was now scattered abroad (see p. 110).

There are several points in this Epistle which have a more vivid and forcible character, if we date it as late as A.D. 75-80; whereas if it belongs to a period earlier than A.D. 64, their natural force has to be, to some degree, modified. In the reference to the Devil (v. 8) we have a step towards the strongly developed idea of the World, which is described below (see 5). In this case the expression is more purely metaphorical and ethical; but the action of agents seeking and arresting Christians is included, and gives point and pertinence to the metaphor. The State, however, is not yet conceived as the irreconcilable enemy (see p. 296).

Again, the reference to hospitality (1 Peter 4:8, 9) has more force, if the Epistle was written after the Church had begun to appreciate, with full consciousness, the importance of intercommunication. Paul appreciated this very early, and insists on it frequently (Rom. 12:13, 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; cp. Heb. 13:2) ; but it is not so easy to imagine Peter appreciating it, until the destruction of Jerusalem made it clear that the local unity of a central sanctuary was ex changed for the ideal unity of constant intercourse and mutual welcome. [Note: Hence Clement urges on the Corinthians the duty of φιλοξενία, § 110-12, 35. See above, p. 10.] Otherwise we must take 1 Peter 4:8, 9, as merely urging in a general way the duty of hospitality, which hardly needs such prominence, considering the state of contemporary society. The date of I Peter seems clearly fixed. If it was written by St. Peter, reasons founded on his character and history confirms the late date. If it be proved that he died before A.D. 70, we should have to assign the composition (like 2 Peter) to another author.

2. LATER DATE ASSIGNED TO 1 PETER.

Many critics have fully realized that the Epistle does not suit the time of Nero, but, misled by the false interpretation of Pliny’s report to Trajan, have dated its composition too late. Holtzmann article in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon, iv., p. 296, may be taken as the best statement of the historical arguments on which this Epistle has been assigned to the period of Trajan or Hadrian.

1. "In the Epistle, iv. 15, the Christians of Bithynia and other provinces are warned against murder, theft, and other crimes; and, according to Pliny, the Christians of Bithynia were in the habit of taking an oath to avoid such crimes."

Such is one of Holtzmann s arguments, which would be irresistible, if he could add the proof that the Christians first began to avoid these crimes about 112. This essential part of his argument he has omitted.

2. "In the Epistle trials of Christians are alluded to, 1 Peter 3:15 and such trials were held by Pliny in Bithynia."

Again Holtzmann omits the essential part of his argument viz., the proof that such trials were first held by Pliny. When we find a series of trials of Christians before Roman officials, beginning with that of Jesus and reaching through the time of Paul and the whole of the first century, we can sec no cogency in Holtzmann s reasoning.

3. "In the Epistle it is implied that the issue in these trials turns on the simple question whether the accused is a Christian, and that question first came to the front under Trajan." The first part of this argument we fully accept. It states, in brief, the essential and critical point, which distinguishes the language of this Epistle from all earlier references to persecution. But we have seen that, while the trials of Trajan’s time were certainly conducted on this principle, the procedure was then settled by long usage.

Such are the reasons which lead Holtzmann and many others to date I Peter about 115-135. [Note: The rest of his reasons go to prove only the disagreement between the Epistle and the facts of the Neronian period. So far we cannot disagree from his conclusion, though his statement that during that period action against the Christians was confined to Rome is incorrect: we have seen (1) that it was inherent in the Imperial system that the Emperor s action should form a model for all provincial governors; (2) that Suetonius considered Nero to have laid down a permanent principle of action against the Christians.] We can see no validity in them. On the contrary, we observe that the tendency of Trajan’s rescript was to put an end to the state of things implied in the Epistle. He forbade the seeking out of Christians, which is expressly referred to in 1 Peter 3:15, 1 Peter 5:8. We cannot, indeed, prove that this prohibition, addressed to a single governor, immediately became universal ; but no one who has studied the character of Trajan will doubt, that the principle which he formulated to Pliny resulted from a consideration of the whole evidence as collected and arranged in the Imperial archives, and was the fixed rule of his policy. Moreover, Hadrian confirmed still more emphatically the prohibition. If I Peter is not earlier than A.D. 112, we cannot place it earlier than 161 (see below, p. 337), a date which requires no notice, and has never been seriously proposed.

3. OFFICIAL ACTION IMPLIED IN 1 PETER.

Many writers have sought to minimize and to explain away the references to persecution in this Epistle. Having accepted too readily the dominant view as to the relations between the Empire and the Church, they could not resist the argument that, if I Peter implies a developed persecution by the State, it must be as late as Trajan. Yet they rightly appreciated the marks of an early date in the Epistle, and, thereby feeling bound to place it in the first century, they naturally and inevitably estimated too lightly the references to persecution. As the best expression of this view, a few sentences may be quoted from Dr. Marcus Dods Introduction to thr New Testament, p. 200. My personal respect for the writer, and my high admiration for most of his work, make me reluctant in this case to differ from him so completely; but the same clearness, preciseness, and completeness of statement, which raise his work to high rank, make him in this case a perfect exponent of the view that sacrifices the natural force in order to preserve the orthodox dating. lie admits that " the letter was written to Christians, who were suffering for their religion " ; but maintains that " the persecution to which they were being subjected does not appear to have been instituted by the magistrate or governor of the district in which they lived, but to have been of a social kind. The} had refused to join their old associates in excess of riot (1 Peter 4:4), and were therefore calumniated. They were spoken of as evildoers (1 Peter 3:16, 1 Peter 2:12); and they were urged by Peter to prove by their conduct that these accusations were false. These accusations, therefore, were social calumnies, and not legal indictments. Indeed, Peter hints (1 Peter 3:13), that to be free from persecution they have only to continue in well-doing, each in his own position, whether as servant (1 Peter 2:18-25), as wife (1 Peter 3:1-6), or as husband (1 Peter 3:7). There is no allusion to trial neither before the authorities, nor to imprisonment, or to death. Even the strongest passage adduced in favour of these views (1 Peter 4:16) will not bear such an interpretation. It is reproach that they suffered as Christians, and the fear is that they would be ashamed of this reproach, and their deliverance from it was still to be by unmurmuring patience and continuance in well-doing (1 Peter 4:19)." In answer to this view, attention may be directed to the following points:

It would be a useful, but far too long, task to go over the whole Epistle, pointing out how vividly various passages in it express the character of Roman action against the Christians : the official action, and the terror caused by its awful surroundings, the pressure of public opinion and popular dislike, the open expression of opinion by the circle of spectators round the tribunal, and the social persecution which became powerful and serious as a concomitant to legal proceedings, but which would be of little consequence unless abetted and completed by official judgment. The alliance between popular and judicial action was necessary for any real persecution in the Roman Empire. This does not naturally occur to us; but it will be shown in Ch. 15 that the thoroughness of persecution was, to a very great extent, dependent on the cooperation of the populace. Such is the state of things that is presupposed throughout 1 Peter: the mixture of official and popular action is very clearly expressed. But the official action, as a necessary part of the situation, [Note: On this subject, as a whole, see below, p. 373. The developed language of James must not be quoted in this connexion. James wrote to Jews, whose situation was utterly different. (See p. 349) Peter wrote to Gentile Christians.] is clearly implied in the language of 1 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Peter 4:15, etc.; and to ignore it is to sacrifice much of the character of a letter, which is instructive beyond all others with regard to the position of the Christians in the Empire, after the development of official action had taken place. As to the argument which is founded by Dr. Dods on the advice to avoid persecution by continuance in well doing, I trust that a satisfactory explanation of the advice has been give on p. 281-2.

4. THE EVIDENCE OF THE APOCAEYPSE.

WE turn next to a work of notorious difficulty, the Apocalypse. Here the moving spirit of the vision is the sufferings of the Church. The scene lies wholly in the Eastern Provinces, and especially in Asia among the seven churches; for Rome is on the extreme horizon, and is conceived only as the distant metropolis where the martyrs are sent to suffer the death decreed against them. Only in this way, as Mommsen [Note: Provinces of the Roman Empire, ii. 199, of the English translation.] has pointed out, can the reference to Rome as the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and witnesses of Jesus be explained (xvii. 6). In this phrase there is implied a wide-spread persecution with many victims; and the sufferers are witnesses to the Name, not persons condemned, even though unjustly, for specific crimes. Many other passages imply that the Church was exposed to a long-continued persecution to the death (vi. 9; vii. 14; xii. ii; xiii. 15; xvi. 6; xvii. 6; xviii. 24; xx. 4, etc.); and the persecution is likely to last (vi. 11). The victims of this persecution are witnesses to the Name, or the word of God (ii. 13; vi. 9; xii. n; xvii. 6), which implies that their death springs directly from their acknowledgment of their religion, and not from conviction, even on false evidence, for specific crimes {flagitia}. But it is also implied that the persecutor is worshipped as a God by all people [Note: Incidentally we note that this expression is a typical instance of the fact which we have already observed (p. 236). The mind of the writer is practically restricted to the Roman world. The expression "all that dwell on the earth" has not the nature of an exaggeration, for it is in accord with the unconscious restrictions of the writer s view. He thinks, like a Roman, that genus humanum is the Roman world. The nations which did not worship the Emperor were never present to his mind.] except the Christians (xiii. 8), and that the martyrs are slain because they do not worship the Beast i.e., the Roman Emperor (xiii. 15). Hence their refusal to worship the Beast and their witness to their own God are united in one act; and this implies that worship of the Beast formed a test, the refusal of which was equivalent to a confession and witness. Here we touch on the feature which for our purposes is of the first importance viz., the absolute and irreconcilable opposition between the Church and the Empire. The latter is the very incarnation and manifestation of evil. The one characteristic, by which it concerns the Church, is the hatred and the firm resolution with which it seeks to destroy Christianity. There is no wish for reconciliation with the persecuting power, only for vengeance on it (vi. 9-11; ix. 4); there is no thought of the possibility of bringing the State to a milder policy by convincing it of the harmlessness of Christianity. The visions in the Apocalypse may be taken as an historical authority, for they arise directly out of the situation of the Church. Moreover, every detail of persecution that occurs in the visions may be paralleled from the messages to the churches which are prefixed to them. The messages indeed do not refer in such clear terms to persecution. But the single example of a martyr quoted by name, Antipas of Pergamos (Rev. 2:13), shows what is meant by the "patience" of Ephesus and the "tribulation" of Smyrna. Antipas remained for some reason (perhaps as being the first of his class) [Note: Neumann (p. 15) infers unjustifiably that Antipas was the only martyr that had as yet suffered at Pergamos] personally and individually in the memory of the Asian Church. Moreover, the persecution has been long-standing (ii. 13), and is to continue for a time (ii. 10). Again, the importance attached during this persecution to the worship of the Emperor, and the hatred for this special form of idolatry as the special enemy, have dictated the phrase addressed to the church of Pergamos, "Thou dwellest where the throne of Satan," i.e., the temple of Rome and Augustus, "is" (ii. 13). [Note: We may note in passing that this phrase belongs rather to the first century than the second. In the first century the supremacy of Pergamos in the Imperial cultus is certain or highly probable ; but in the second century it would rather appear that Ephesus succeeded to its place, and became the most important seat of the worship. ] But on the whole surprisingly little space or attention is given in these messages to the subject of persecution, and this same character attaches to all letters addressed to the early churches. [Note: Except, of course, on the supposition that i Peter was written before official action became regular. In that case surprisingly much space and attention are devoted to the subject in that Epistle.] Incidental allusions occur to the sufferings, but other subjects are more important to the writers. If the early Christians had given much thought to their persecutions, they would not have conquered the world. The elate of the Apocalypse, and the question whether it is a product of Jewish or of purely Christian feeling, have been much debated. The hypothesis has even been advanced by Vischer and others that the Apocalypse was originally composed about A.D. 70, as a pure Jewish and non-Christian work, which was enlarged and retouched about A.D. 95, so as to become a Christian work. But this extreme hypothesis can certainly not be adopted. The Christian character is so imbedded in the structure of the Apocalypse that it cannot be taken out of it even in the most superficial way, except by such gross violence as is unworthy of sound criticism. The experiment has been made by Vischer; and his work has the great value of showing conclusively that the thing is impossible. The Apocalypse is a Christian document from its inception to its completion. This does not, however, imply that John, in composing the Revelation, made no use of already existing Apocalypses. Vischer’s investigation has shown conclusively that John was greatly influenced by older Jewish works of this character; though he errs in regard to the manner in which John used them. The Revelation, as we have it, is not a revised edition of a Jewish document. It is the work of a Christian writer, who was familiar with Jewish Apocalypses, and adapted to his own purposes much that was contained in some one or more of them; but this writer treated the material with a mastery and freedom that made his work in its entirety a Christian document, however strong are the traces of the older form in parts of it.

Spitta, in his Offenbarung des Johannes, has justly appreciated the erroneous side of Vischer’s hypothesis. He considers that John’s Apocalypse was at first composed as an independent Christian document about A.D. 60, and that this Christian Apocalypse was enlarged by a redactor, who incorporated along with it two Jewish Apocalypses, one composed about B.C. 65, the other about A.D. 40. The redactor made considerable additions of his own to effect a harmonious junction between the fragments of these three works. This theory, while avoiding the difficulties into which Vischer fell, is involved in others even more serious. Its artificiality is so extreme as to make it incapable of proof and on the face of it improbable, since Spitta has not succeeded in finding any sufficiently clear marks to distinguish one document from another. The separation between the work of the two supposed Christian writers is especially hazardous and hypercritical.

According to Spitta, the last two chapters are a patch work of fragments from all four sources. Yet this patch work has always been considered to be one of the most poetic and highly wrought passages in the Bible. A patchwork which rises to that rank is no mere piecing together of fragments; it is an original work, in which ideas learned from various sources are fused into a truly original production.

Spitta’s theory, however, is at least a strong confirmation of the arguments which we have advanced against Vischer’s theory in its actual form ; and we are in agreement with much that is contained in each of them, while considering; that both require considerable modification. But the decisive argument against the actual form of Spitta’s theory is that the supposed first Christian document is quite unsuitable to the year 60. It is most improbable that the Christians of Asia were at that date so highly organized in numerous congregations as they were when the letters to the seven churches were composed; and it is contrary to all evidence that they were at that time exposed to serious persecution and actual execution. Spitta supposes (p. 477) that the churches of Asia were persecuted even to death by the Jews, and compelled to take the yoke of the law upon them; and he shows that, in the message sent to the churches, Jesus does not threaten the Jews with judgment, but encourages His faithful people to resist to death. The idea that in great cities of the Roman Empire, some of them the residence of high Roman officials, Ephesus, Pergamos, Smyrna, etc., the Jews could persecute and kill the Christians in the public and open way that is implied in the Apocalypse, does not require serious refutation. We need only recommend Dr. Spitta to devote a little more time to the study of Roman Imperial history and administration, in order to learn that, defective as was the Roman Empire in some respects, it was not so utterly unfit for the fundamental duties of government, as to allow the extreme license and organized riot that are implied by his theory.

But, even if the hypothesis be true, that the Apocalypse is the re-edition issued about 90-96 A.D. of an older work or works, whether composed by Jews or by Jewish Christians, it still continues authoritative for the later period.

If the Apocalypse was originally a Christian document, there can remain no doubt that the preceding exposition forces us to date it not earlier than about A. D. 90. [Note: The earliest authority extant viz., Irenaius dates it in the later years of Domitian, i.e., 90-96.] The external circumstances in which it is environed are those which characterize the fully developed policy of the Flavian Emperors, and are different from those of the Neronian period. It looks back, unlike I Peter, over a period of persecution. As a Christian document, the Apocalypse is an historical impossibility about A. D. 70. The Church did not at that time stand opposed to the Empire and “the World" in declared inexpiable war; the idea that Christianity might spread peaceably through the Empire was still dominant, as we see both in the Epistles of Paul [Note: His earlier Epistles to the Thessalonians do not show this character; but in the later Epistles there is a distinct progress towards it, until it becomes strongly marked in the Pastoral Epistles.] and in I Peter. Accordingly, if the Apocalypse is placed under Nero or Vespasian, the feeling that rules in it could be attributed only to the Jewish hatred against the Empire, which led to the rebellion of 67-70; and then it must lose the Christian character which we find to be inherent in it. Moreover, the circumstances and details are not in accordance with Jewish feeling. We must agree with Volter that these imply “a persecution which leads to imprisonment and death"; [Note: Streitschrift gegen Harnack und Vischer, p. 34. "Es ist vielmehr eine Verfolgung (cf. xii. 12) gemeint, die zu Gefängniss und Tod führt ( xiii. 9, 10, 15 )."] and no such relation existed between the Jews and the Empire. On the other hand, the Apocalypse is equally an historical impossibility much after the year 112, when Trajan revised and toned clown the harshness of the previous policy, [Note: Völter’s words, "nur bei Christen erklärt sich das und auch bei ihnen nur in der Zeit seit Trajan," are half right and half wrong. The error is founded on the strange misinterpretation of the two letters of Pliny and Trajan, which prevails so widely, and which Neumann has happily abandoned.] modifying it in execution without abrogating it in principle. As we shall see, there then began a gradual rapprochement between the Church and the Empire, and the idea that rules in the Epistles of Paul and Peter again became dominant in a much more advanced and defined form.

One marked development in the procedure against the Christians seems to have taken place between the composition of Peter and that of the Apocalypse. The worship of the Emperor is not alluded to in the former, whereas it is prominent in the latter. Precisely in the interval between them lies the accession of Domitian, and, as we have seen, it was his desire to be regarded as a god in human form, and to be styled domimis et deus. We shall probably not err in attributing to his influence the final development of procedure in regard to the Christians.

5. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. From the Apocalypse we naturally turn to the Epistles attributed to St. John. There can be no doubt that the same hand can be traced in the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel. No two works in the whole range of literature show clearer signs of the genius of one writer, and no other pair of works are so completely in a class by themselves, apart from the work of their own and of every other time. One work alone stands near them, the Apocalypse ; and while identity of authorship is very far from being so clear, as in the case of the Gospel and Epistle, yet there is a closer relation between the three works than exists between any of them and any fourth work. We must expect to find a close connection in time and circumstances of origin between the First Epistle and the Apocalypse. The First Epistle of John was in all probability addressed primarily to the circle of Asiatic Churches, of which Ephesus was the centre." [Note: Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 32.] It may be expected to contain some reference to the persecution of the Christians by Domitian. No explicit reference, however, occurs; and it has even been concluded that the situation was entirely different. "Outward dangers were overcome. The world was indeed perilous; but it was rather by its seductions than by its hostility. There is no trace of any recent or impending persecution." [Note: Westcott, p. 33.] Therefore, it may be argued, either they belong to a later date, or they prove that the author knew of no such persecution in Asia as we have found ourselves obliged to suppose.

We answer that even the attribution to a later date does not explain the attitude of the writer in respect of the relations with the Empire, unless we bring him down to a decidedly later date than the most extreme critics advocate. Throughout the second century, as will be shown in the following chapters, Christianity continued to be without any further proceedings, a sufficient ground for condemnation to death. A writer who was advising and admonishing any congregation during the second century must, if he referred at all to their relations with the State, refer to the proscription of the Church; and if he could admonish the congregation at that time without referring to their relations with the State, he might equally well do so during the first century. Herein then lies the real explanation. The author has no thought to spend on the relation of his congregations to the Empire and the law, his mind is entirely occupied with another subject viz., the inner life; and he has no thought of advising them as to their behaviour towards the State.

But, though he does not allude to persecution, he does not leave us in the dark as to the feeling with which he regarded the State. The State is summed up in “The World." As Bishop Westcott says, “In the Emperor the World [Note: Epistles of St. John, p. 255. I have slightly modified his phrase (which is "the world ") for the sake of uniformity.] found a personal embodiment and claimed Divine honour." Accordingly, when St. John says, " Marvel not, brethren, that [Note: I have modified the translation to bring out clearly that the hatred is assumed as a fact; a literal rendering of ei in English is apt to conceal this.] the World hateth you," and goes on to state that the passage from the World to Christianity is a passage from death to life, and from hatred of the Church to love of the Church, we shall see in the paragraph 1 John 3:13 ff., first, what was the attitude of the Empire towards the Church 90-100 A.D.; and secondly, how little thought St. John bestowed on it. The transcendentalism of his thought, and the remoteness of his position from that of the practical preacher who tells his congregation how they are to behave in the presence of the persecutor, cannot be better expressed than in the words of Westcott himself, p. 34: " According to his view, . . . the World [including the " Empire "] exists indeed, but more as a semblance than as a reality. It is overcome finally and for ever. It is on the point of vanishing. . . . And over against the World there is the Church. . . . By this, therefore, all that need be done to proclaim the Gospel to those without, is done naturally and effectively in virtue of its very existence. It must overcome the darkness by shining. ... St. Paul wrote while the conflict was undecided. St. John has seen its close." [Note: I would only add to this last sentence, “with the eye of a seer,” Epistles of St. John, p. 34. I have, as before, made the change of a capital in “the World."] Fully to appreciate the writer whose attitude is described in these words, and to realize his perfect in difference to, and want of concern with, the superficial aspect of the facts of the day, we must remember that he was writing under Domitian, who banished him to an islet in the Aegean Sea, and who was addressed by his subjects as " our Lord and God." When we do so, this paragraph, written to explain why missionary work is not urged by John as it was by Paul, also explains why the enmity of the Empire is treated so lightly, and occupies a hardly appreciable place in his mind.

We now see that the attitude of the Epistles to the Empire is the same as that of the Apocalypse; and we also realize that it would be a mistake to argue, from the absence of any explicit reference in them to persecution, that they were composed in a season of peace, when persecution was at an end. Any apparent discrepancy between the Epistles and the Apocalypse, in reference to the relations of Church and State, lies in the difference of their point of view. In the words we have just quoted, the first Epistle sees the World “only as a semblance, finally overcome, and on the point of vanishing." The Apocalypse explains how this is so, by the vision of the Divine scheme of things, in which the World, the persecutor, is conquered and evanescent, while permanence and reality belong only to the Church which the World has vainly tried to destroy in this vision the Empire and its action towards the Church must be expressly described. But neither in the Apocalypse nor in the Epistle is it described with the intention of advising Christians as to their behaviour in the face of persecution. The writer is always remote from that point of view, and on a higher plane of thought.

6. HEBREWS AND BARNABAS. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not throw little light on the relation between the State and the Church, nor does this subject throw much light on that enigmatic work. The persons addressed have been exposed to taunts and afflictions (x. 33), and have endured a great conflict. Yet the general tone, perhaps, implies that worse and more serious trials have been experienced by Christians elsewhere, and that the persons addressed may expect a more terrible trial in the immediate future. The whole spirit of the advice given them seems to be directed to prepare them for serious persecution, and therefore the writer must already be familiar with persecution of that type. By the language of Hebrews 12:4 this impression is confirmed. The persons addressed were up to the present not sufferers of persecution that had been carried as far as death. [Note: The sense which Wordsworth, for example, gets from this verse by pressing the force of the aorist seems to me quite unacceptable, for it is not consistent with οὔπω.] But the example of the heroes and heroines of old, who by faith were enabled to resist death and extreme torments, is urged upon them at such length, and with such earnestness, as to show that the writer considers them to be threatened by a similar fate. This summary practically assumes the point, and disregards the difficulty. It gives far too much definiteness to what is expressed in fainter outlines and in a less precise way. But, if it at all correctly represents the tone of the Epistle, the date of composition appears to be about 64-66. But, first, there is in the Epistle an absence of expressions which are specially and obviously appropriate to the character of the Neronian trials; and, secondly, a certain poverty of meaning is on this supposition attributed to Heb. 10:33 (ὸυειδισμοι + ̂ς τε καὶ θλίψεσιν θεατριζόμενοο), which may however be in keeping with the rather rhetorical style of this writer. Yet no other date suits better, for there is an equal absence of expressions that would be suitable if the letter were composed at some critical period of later history e.g., under Domitian. Moreover, it is probably easier to understand the want of definiteness in the writer’s attitude towards the State, if he belonged to an earlier period. Perhaps the reason for this difficulty of fitting the letter to any special date lies in its style, which is further away from the realities of life, and more rhetorical and abstract than the letters of St. Paul. The Epistle of Barnabas is assigned by Weizsacker and Lightfoot to the reign of Vespasian. The date is reckoned by them from the passage in which Daniel is quoted: "Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth and after them shall rise up a little horn, who shall lay low three of the kings in one." The writer quoted this to prove that the last day was approaching, for this sign was in actual fulfilment when he was writing. Weizsacker and Lightfoot differ in the details of their explanation, and the latter certainly is more satisfactory. In one respect they seem both to miss the truth. Both say that Vespasian is the tenth king i.e., the tenth Roman Emperor; but they differ about the three kings that are laid low by the little horn. Weizsacker finds them in Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, overthrown by Vespasian. The objections to this are obvious. Vespasian is made to do double duty, as one of the ten kings, and also as the little horn; moreover, Vespasian did not in any sense lay low Galba, but vindicated his memory. Lightfoot explains the little horn as the returning Nero, who was expected to destroy the three Flavii, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, conceived to reign together as Augustus and two Caesars. In this explanation a difficulty suggests itself. It is clearly implied that the three who are to be destroyed at a blow are all included in the ten, whereas on this explanation an eleventh and twelfth, viz., Titus and Domitian, have to be added to make up the three. But little change is needed. We have only to bear in mind that, in the time of Vespasian, Otho and Vitellius were not regarded as Emperors, for Vespasian claimed to succeed Galba directly, and to avenge his death on the two usurpers. [Note: It was a later idea to reckon Vitellius and Otho among the twelve Caesars. To do so in the time of the Flavian Emperors would have been treason.] Vespasian therefore was the eighth, Titus the ninth, and Domitian the tenth king ; and three kings reigning together between 70 and 79 were according to widespread belief destined all to perish together at the hands of the expected Nero. This remarkable situation fulfilled the sign of the prophet Daniel, and portended the approaching end of the world; and this part of the Epistle of Barnabas was therefore written under Vespasian. The subject of the Epistle gives little or no occasion for alluding to the relation of the Christians to the State. Only in the concluding part, "the TwoWays," is there any opening for such allusion; and here we find little or nothing bearing on the subject, except the advice to “be subject to masters as the image of God" (19). The impression here given is that the writer, like Paul and Peter, insists on the strict observance of the actually existing laws. The Christians are not to give any countenance to changes of the established order; they are to accept the present situation, and to remember that their own world is a different one.

7. THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT. The evidence of Clement, in the letter to the Corinthian Church, written, perhaps, about A. D. 97, [Note: Lightfoot argues convincingly that Clement wrote under Nerva, i., p. 352 ; but elsewhere he regularly speaks of the Epistle as composed in the latter years of Domitian.] is very important. After quoting from ancient Jewish history various examples of the evils wrought by jealousy, he proceeds:

"But let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation." He quotes at some length the sufferings of St. Peter and St. Paul; and he then proceeds: " Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect." The idea of two distinct and isolated persecutions is forced upon these words in accordance with the tradition of the second century, which mentions only two great persecutors, Nero and Domitian. [Note: Lightfoot, though on the whole he takes this view, remarks about the “vast multitude of the elect”that” the reference must be chiefly, though not solely, to the sufferers in the Neronian persecution.] But Clement is most naturally understood as referring to a continuous persecution throughout his own generation, keener perhaps at one time than at others.

It appears probable that after the death of Domitian, as after the persecution of Nero, there was a temporary cessation of a policy which had been carried to an extreme. There was in each case a certain revulsion of feeling, which is expressly attested in the earlier case by Tacitus, and which may be inferred in the second case both from Clement s expression " the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which befel us," [Note: Lightfoot translates as if the text were γινομένας, but in the text he reads γενομένας, which alone has MS.authority, and which he expressly prefers, i., p. 352, ii., p. 8, although the Syriac translation has a present.] and from the statement of Dion that Nerva dismissed those who were awaiting their trial on the charge of sacrilege. Hence Clement was apparently writing during a lull in the storm of persecution; while it was at its height, he had no time to attend to the reports which reached him about the Corinthian church. But Clement knows well that the present is only a momentary lull; he says in 6 that " we are in the same lists [with those who have been slain], and the same contest awaiteth us."

Clement has been interpreted [Note: By Gebhardt and Harnack, in Prolegomena to their edition of Clement, p. Ivii.] as implying that there had never been a persecution at Corinth: “a profound and rich peace had been given to all." But the context shows that here the thought in the writer s mind is not of persecutions. He is speaking of that peace and freedom from dissensions which formerly characterized the Church of Corinth, but which characterized it no longer.

8. THE LETTERS OF IGNATIUS.

One other work remains, which throws much light on the spirit of this time, but it is a work whose date and authenticity are more keenly contested than those of any other in Christian literature. The letters of Ignatius have certainly formed a subject for forgery to work upon on an extraordinary scale. But, after Lightfoot’s arguments, it is clear that the supposition of a forgery in the case of the seven central documents entails the belief that a talc coherent, probable in itself, and yet unusual in some points, was constructed as a basis, that the letters are written on this foundation, and, without ever formally referring to the incidents of this tale, presuppose them as having actually occurred ; that this tale disappeared from memory ; that it was flatly contradicted by a later forger, who remodeled the original forgery, and also by all tradition ; and that it remained for scholars in recent years, and especially for Lightfoot, to disentangle this tale from the obscure language of the genuine letters, and thus enable us to comprehend the skill of the most skilful forger known in history. He that is not prepared to admit all this is bound to admit the genuineness of what Lightfoot calls the Middle Recension.

Strange to say, it is not possible to prove from the actual words of Ignatius that a general persecution was going on at the time. The situation in which he was placed made any such allusion unnecessary. No exhortation to face persecution could strengthen the effect of his mere example. In his letter to the Romans, 5, Ignatius refers to previous cases in which the beasts had “refused through fear to touch" martyrs exposed to them. The passage does not, indeed, explicitly mention that the victims were Christians; but it is natural and probable that he should refer to martyrs. This shrinking of the beasts from human beings is often referred to in the best and most authentic Acts of Martyrs; and M. Le Blant has discussed the subject with his usual learning and critical sense. [Note: Actes des Martyrs, p. 86 and 95; see below, p. 404.] But if we accept this letter, no direct reference to persecution occurs; though there is a general implication that Ignatius is suffering the common lot of Christians. His attention is almost exclusively devoted in the other six letters to the affairs and the future of the churches to whom he writes. But even where he makes no express reference to it, Ignatius leaves the feeling in the reader’s mind that persecution and suffering are general. A subtle difference exists, in respect of our subject, between the two groups of letters, the four written from Smyrna, and the three from Troas. [Note: Incidentally we may notice this difference in thought as a proof of genuineness: it implies a difference of situation, such as is inexplicable on the theory of forgery.] In the latter nothing occurs for our purpose; the former abound in delicate phrases, the most explicit of which may be quoted. The life of the Christian is a life of suffering, the climax of his life and the crowning honour of which he gradually makes himself worthy is martyrdom, and Ignatius is far from confident that he is worthy of it (Trall., 4). Suffering and persecution are the education of the Christian, [Note: He repeats in a new sense the principle of Aeschylus, to suffer is to learn, Agam., 170, and often.] and through them he becomes a true disciple (Ephes., 3; Magn.) 8, 9). The teacher, then, is the person or church which has gone through most suffering, and shown true discipleship; and Ignatius distinguishes Ephesus and Rome as his teachers (Ephes., 3; Rout., 3). Ignatius is still in danger, not having as yet completely proved his steadfast ness, whereas Ephesus is proved and firmly fixed, the implication being that it has been specially distinguished by the number of its martyrs {Ephes., 12) ; and, moreover, Ephesus has been the highway of martyrs, the chief city of the province where many, even from other parts, appeared before the proconsul for trial, and at the same time the port whence they were sent to Rome (see p. 318). A detailed comparison is made in Magn., 8, 9, between the prophets and the Christians of the age. The prophets were persecuted, and the Christians endure patiently in order to become true disciples. When such is the principle of the Christian life, that suffering is the best training, it is the devil s teaching to make any compromise with the world, and to ask pardon for one who has been condemned, as the State would express it, or promoted to the crowning glory, as the Church should consider it (Trall., 4). The impression which had been produced by persecution on the feeling of the Christians towards the Empire is very strongly marked in the letters of Ignatius. Outside of the Apocalypse the irreconcilable opposition between the State and Christianity is nowhere more strongly expressed than in them; and there runs throughout both groups of writings the same identification of the State with the World, [Note: I do not mean that in these documents the World means the State, and nothing else: the State is the most definite, concrete, and pressing form in which all that is implied in the phrase the World” faces and opposes the Christians. The point of view in Ignatius and John is that the State is wholly summed up in "the World,” that it is absolutely and exclusively bad, and opposed to the Church.] and the same rejection of the slightest compromise with the World. The same magnificent audacity towards the State, the same refusal to accept what seemed to men to be the plain facts of the situation, [Note: ου + ̓δὲν φαινόμενον καλόν. -- Rom., 3.] the same perfect assurance of victory characterize both. In both the point of view is that the Church is the powerful party, and that the State is the criminal. The Church must act with the strong hand, not with gentle persuasion, in its dealings with the State. [Note: ου + ̓ πεισμονη + ̑ς τὸ ἔργον ἀλλὰμεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμὸς, ὅταν μιση + ̑ται ὑπὸκόσμου. -- Rom., 3.] Christians must not speak of Christ and desire the World. [Note: μὴλαλει +́τε ’Iησου + ̓ν Xριστὸν κοσμὸν δὲ ἐπιθυμεἰ + ̑τε. -- Rom., 7.] The opposition between the Church and the World is of course a commonplace of Christianity, and in itself would be no indication of the period to which the letters of Ignatius belong ; but it would be difficult to find at any time, except 90-112, a form so extreme as the thought reaches in Ignatius. He considers that even the slight recognition of the State, which is implied in asking for clemency to a condemned Christian, is treason to religion, and an unworthy compliance with the temptations of the World. The character and the thought of the letters of Ignatius, then, are those of a person whose mind had been formed in the period of the Flavian persecution, amid the same circumstances which led to the writing of the Apocalypse; but at the same time there are some subtle indications that the feeling of Ignatius was, in this respect, not entirely shared by the Church. The Church in Rome, in spite of its glorious past history, is, as Ignatius hints (Rom., 2), disposed to seek favour with men, and to gain influence at the expense of compromise with the world. The obscure paragraph in Trall., 4, seems to be a reply to a hope expressed by the Trallians through their messenger-bishop that a person as important and distinguished as Ignatius might, after all, be spared to the Church through the exertions of the influential Romans. [Note: This expression may have suggested the composition of the immediately following letter to the Romans (see Lightfoot, ii., p. 186). I assume that the order of the letters in Eusebius is chronological.] Moreover, Ignatius seems always to feel it necessary to explain his attitude in respect to martyrdom, and to justify it. Hence arises the violence of expression which has offended many readers ; for a man is sometimes apt to compensate by strength of expression for weakness of reasoning, and Ignatius felt that the reasoning which we hypothetically attribute to the Trallians might be generally considered truer than his own. The very influence attributed to the Roman Church indicates a time when the policy of the State was not as uncompromisingly hostile as we suppose it to have been before A.D. 112. If we were asked to specify the period which is best suited by these indications, we should have to name the conclusion of Trajan’s reign or the earlier years of Hadrian’s. We observe also that the Church in Antioch got peace from persecution soon after Ignatius was taken away; [Note: On this subject also there is a distinction between the letters from Smyrna and those from the Troad: cp. Philad., 10; Smyrna, 11; Poly.,7; Ephes., 21; Magn., 14; Trall., 13; Rom., 9.] and he heard this news at Troas. This indicates a sporadic, rather than a settled action; and takes us into the period of concession. The opinion with regard to the letters of Ignatius which has been advocated by Dr. Harnack is hardly consistent with this view. He quite admits the genuineness of the letters, but considers that there is no trustworthy evidence for dating Ignatius martyrdom in the reign of Trajan; he therefore places the journey to Rome and the composition of the letters about 130-40. [Note: The possible confusion between the successive Emperors Nerva Trajan and Trajan Hadrian (according to their official names) has been appealed to as favouring the substitution of Trajan for Hadrian in tradition. See Harnack in Theolog. Literature, 1891, col. 304n; he quotes the analogous case of the Apology of Aristides.] It seems, however, improbable, if Ignatius had written so late, that his tone should be so different from that of the Apology of Aristides, and so like that of the Apocalypse. The tone that was roused by the Flavian persecution might naturally continue for some years after the relaxation of its severity by Trajan about 112; but it is difficult to admit that letters composed about 135 should be unaffected by the new spirit, of which Hadrian was the most thorough exponent. If the evidence of our ancient authorities with regard to the date of Ignatius pointed to the later date, we should have to accept it, and modify the view which is expressed in these and the following chapters. But the evidence, though (as Dr. Harnack has shown) it is scanty and inconclusive, points to the same date which our view of the relations between Church and State indicates as most natural ; and therefore we adhere to the tradition, and date the letters not later than Trajan, and preferably between 112 and 117.

Ignatius is the only individual Christian who is described as having been sent for public exhibition in the amphitheatre at Rome. But it is a well-attested fact that criminals were often utilized in this way; and the condemned Christians were treated by the Government in the same way as other criminals. The wider popularity of sports, both shows of wild beasts (venationes) with other exhibitions of the Roman style, and athletic contests in the Greek style, was one of many results of the spread of Graeco-Roman civilization in the Eastern provinces during the second century. It is therefore probable that, in the age of the Antonines, criminals in the Eastern provinces were, with growing frequency, reserved for sports at home. There even grew up a custom among provincial governors of obliging one another in case of need with a gift of criminals for exhibition in the hunting scenes of the amphitheatre; and this custom had to be formally prohibited by a rescript of Severus and Caracalla 198-209 A.D. But in the time of Domitian and Trajan the case was different; such criminals were not much needed in the Eastern provinces, while they were in great request in Rome. [Note: Provincial governors were strictly forbidden from releasing criminals who had been condemned to the beasts, as a concession to the populace. Digest, 48, 19, and 31.] The enormous scale of the exhibitions in the Flavian amphitheatre, which is commonly known as the Coliseum, was probably the reason why this practice became so common at that time. The building was dedicated in A.D. 80, and Martial’s earliest extant work, the Liber Spectaculorum, describes some of the more remarkable sights which were shown on the occasion. The reign of Trajan was also distinguished for the great scale of these disgusting exhibitions, which were a recognized part of the means employed by the Imperial policy for amusing and instructing the people under its fatherly care (Lft, i. 354). But though Ignatius is the only individual case which is known to us, the evidence of the Apocalypse, as explained by Mommsen, is clear that this practice was a common one in the case of Christians; and we have one passing reference to it in a hitherto unexplained expression used by Ignatius in writing to the Church at Ephesus: " Ye are a high road of them that are on their way to die unto God." [Note: πάροδός ἐστε τω + ̑ν εω +́ς θεὸν ἀναιρουμέένων.-- Ephes., 12.] Ephesus was the chief port for the trade from the interior of Asia Minor, the leading city of Asia, and the place where the Roman governor was by regulation obliged to enter the province. Ignatius himself did not pass through it; but the road by which he traveled was apparently an unusual one, due to some special circumstances. In ordinary circumstances, probably, he would have been sent from Syria by sea direct to Italy; but he was conducted over land by Philadelphia, Smyrna, Troas, and Philippi to Rome. [Note: It is needless to conjecture, with Zahn ( Ign. v. Ant., p. 253, with whom Lightfoot is half disposed to agree, i., p. 362, ii., p. 211 ), that Ignatius sailed from Seleuceia to a Cilician or Pamphylian harbour. (1) The natural route to Philadelphia is by the Syrian and Cilician Gates; and, unless there is evidence for an unusual route, we must suppose that the regular road was followed. (2) The words of Eusebius, H. E., iii. 36, more naturally suggest the land route, whatever be the value of his evidence. (3) The words in Rom., 5, "by land and sea," are rightly explained by Lightfoot, ii., p. 211, as referring to the entire journey.] Ephesus is the sea-end of the road along which most of the criminals sent to Rome from the province of Asia would be led, and at Ephesus they would find ships to take them to Ostia. [Note: The expression which Ignatius uses about Ephesus is similar to that which Clement uses of Corinth, § I: τίς γαρ παρεπιδημήσας πρὸς ὑμα + ̑ς τὴν ὑμω + ̑ν . . . πίστιν ου + ̓κ ἐδοκίμασεν; on this passage Lightfoot remarks in his commentary: " Corinth was a natural halting-place on the journey between Rome and the East"; and in § 10 and § 35 he alludes to the frequent occasion which the Church at Corinth had, to show hospitality totravelers.]

NOTE. The date assigned in this chapter to 1 Peter depends entirely on the answer to the question proposed in the first paragraph on p. 242. I have answered the question in the negative. It is only right to warn the reader that Dr. Sanday in Expositor, June 1893, and Professor Mommsen in Expositor, July 1893, both answer the question in the affirmative. So would Lightfoot have done, as we may infer with certainty from his position mentioned on p. 193. So also was Dr. Hort inclined to do, as he told me in June 1892. So also does a reviewer in the Guardian, May 17, 1893. I wrote with full deliberation, and defend my position in Expositor, July 1893.