Introduction

ON CERTAIN ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES CONSULTED IN
THE PREPARATION OF THIS VOLUME.

THE period covered by the present volume is, after the three or four years of the public life of Jesus, the most extraordinary in the entire development of Christianity. Here, by a singular touch of the great unconscious Artist who appears to rule in the seeming caprice of historic evolution, we shall see Jesus and Nero - Christ and Antichrist - set, as it were, in contrast, face to face, like heaven and hell. The Christian consciousness is now full-grown. Hitherto it has known little else than the law of love: Jewish intolerance, though harsh, could not fret away the bond of grateful attachment cherished in the heart of the infant Church for her mother the Synagogue, from whom she is still hardly sundered. Now at length the Christian has before him an object of hate and terror. Over against the memory of Jesus rises a monstrous form, the ideal of evil, as He had been the ideal of holiness. Held in reserve, -like Enoch or Elias, to play his part in the last great tragedy of the world, Nero completes the cycle of Christian mythology: he inspires the first sacred book of the new canon; by a frightful massacre he lays the corner-stone of Romish primacy, and opens the way to that revolution which is to make of Rome a second Jerusalem, a holy city. At the same time, by a mysterious coincidence not infrequent in great crises of human destiny, Jerusalem is overthrown; the Temple disappears; Christianity, disburdened of a restraint already painful and advancing to a broadening freedom, follows out its own destinies apart from conquered Judaism.

     The later epistles of Paul, the epistle to the Hebrews, and those ascribed to Peter and James, with the Apocalypse, are chief among the canonical documents of this period. Valuable testimony comes to us, besides, from the first epistle of the Roman Clement, and from the historians Tacitus and Josephus. At many a point, notably the death of the Apostles and the relations of John with the churches in Asia, our picture must lie in shadow; upon others we may gather rays of real light. Almost all the material facts of the earliest Christian history are obscure; what we can see clearly is the eager enthusiasm, the superhuman boldness, the scorn of circumstance, which make this the most powerful effort towards the ideal still treasured in human memory.

     In the Introduction to "Saint Paul" I have treated of the genuineness of the Letters ascribed to that chief of the Apostles. The four referred to in this volume - "Philippians," "Colossians," "Philemon," and "Ephesians" - offer some ground of doubt. The objections brought against "Philippians" are of so small account that I have scarcely urged them. As we shall see hereafter, "Colossians" gives more ground for scruple, while "Ephesians" stands quite by itself among the Pauline writings. In spite of its grave difficulties, however, I still hold "Colossians" to be genuine. The interpolations 'recently alleged by able critics are not apparent. [1] On this point Holtzmann's treatment is worthy of its learned author; but the way, too common in Germany, of assuming an a priori type to serve as the absolute criterion of a writer's genuineness is very hazardous. We cannot, indeed, deny that interpolation and fabrication were common enough, in the so-called apostolic writings, during the first two Christian centuries ; but, in a matter like this, it is impossible to draw a sharp line between true and false, genuine and spurious. We say confidently that the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians are genuine; we say just as confidently that those to Timothy and Titus are apocryphal. In the border ground between, we but grope our way. The chief fault of the so-called  Tubingen school, dating from F. C. Baur, has been to conceive the Jews of the first century, in the mass as fed on logic and rigid in their deductions. Peter, Paul, even Jesus, in the writings of this school, argue like Protestant professors in a German university; each has his own doctrine; each has but one, which be keeps always just the same. The truth is, those noble men, the true heroes of this story, often change their view and contradict themselves; in the course of their life they, assume three or four varying theories ; at one time they borrow views from their opponents, which at another time they sharply contradict. Seen from our point of view, these men are open to quick impressions, personal, irritable, changeful; what makes fixity in opinion, science or pure reason, is wholly unknown to them. Like Jews of every time, they have angry disputes among themselves, yet make together a very compact body. To understand them, we must clear ourselves of the pedantry inseparable from all academic methods; we must rather study the petty groups and cliques of the religious world, the Congregations of England and America, and in particular what goes on in the founding of all religious Orders. In this regard the theological faculties in German universities - the best in the world to supply the enormous toil needed to bring into shape the chaos of documents bearing on these obscure beginnings - are the worst in the world to undertake the task of a real history. For history is the interpretation of an unfolding life, ail expanding germ, while theology (so to speak) reads life backward. Attending merely to what confirms or invalidates his doctrine, even the most liberal of theologians is unconsciously an advocate: his aim is to defend or else refute. The aim of the historian is simply to tell the fact. He finds a value in what may be in substance false, in documents even spurious; for they paint the soul, and are often truer than barren fact. In his view it were the greatest of errors to regard as defenders of abstract opinions those good and simpleminded dreamers, whose dreams through all these ages have been a consolation and a joy.

     What I have said of "Colossians," and especially of "Ephesians," must be said emphatically of the first epistle ascribed to Peter, and of those of James and Jude- [2] The second of Peter (so called) is certainly apocryphal. We see at a glance that it is an artificial compound, an imitation made up of scraps of apostolic writings, especially the epistle of Jude. [3] I do not urge this point, as I do not suppose "Second Peter" has a single defender among true critics. But its very falsity -- having as its main object to inspire patience in the faithful weary with long waiting for the reappearing of Christ -in a sense confirms the genuineness of "First Peter." Though apocryphal it is still a very, ancient writing, whose author fully believes in the other as really the work of Peter, making his own a "second" to it (see ch. iii. 1) . [4] First Peter," on the other hand, is one of the earliest and most frequently cited, as genuine, among all the New Testament writings. [5] Only one serious objection has been made, - namely, to passages taken (it is thought) from certain letters of Paul, particularly the so-called "Ephesians." [6] But the copyist whom Peter must have employed (if the letter is really his) may well have allowed himself to borrow thus. In all times, preachers and journalists have laid hands without scruple on phrases that have come to be part of the common stock and are, as we say, "in the air." So Paul's amanuensis, who wrote "Ephesians," copied freely from "Colossians." Epistolary writing is very apt to show a good deal that has been so taken from earlier like compositions. [7]

     Suspicion has been raised by the passage 1 Pet. v. 1-4, ch recalls the pious but somewhat feeble admonitions, wholly priestly in tone, of the spurious epistles to Timothy and Titus. Besides, the insistence with which the writer depicts himself [in v. 1] as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ" stirs doubts like those raised by the persistent assertions of an eye-witness in the writings falsely ascribed to John. Still, we should not stick at this. There are many tokens of genuineness as well. For example, the advance towards a hierarchy is hardly noticeable. Not only there is no hint of a bishopric (for the phrase "bishop of your souls" in ii. 25 proves that the word has as yet no official meaning), but each church has not even a Presbyter: it has "presbyters," or "elders," with nothing to imply that they make a distinct official body. [8] A point worth noting is that the writer, [9] when when laying stress on the self-surrender of Jesus on the cross, omits the striking feature given by Luke ["Father, forgive them," etc.], leading us to think that when he wrote the legendary narrative was not yet full-grown.

     The eclectic and reconciling tendencies observed in the epistle of Peter bear against its genuineness only in the view of those who, like Baur and his school, regard the difference of Peter and Paul as flat hostility. If party bate in the primitive church was as deep as this school thinks, reconciliation would never have come about. Peter was not, like James, a stiff-necked Jew. In composing this history we must not think merely of "Galatians" and the pseudo-Clementine homilies ; we must remember, too, the "Acts of the Apostles." An historian's skill should exhibit the event so as no way to belittle party strifes, which were doubtless profounder than we could even think; yet so as to let us see how such strifes were soothed and fused into a noble harmony.

     The epistle of James comes to the bar of criticism under like conditions with that of Peter. The difficulties of detail alleged against it are of little account. A more serious matter is the broad charge that writings of fictitious authorship were easily produced at a time when there was no sound test of genuineness, and no scruple at pious frauds. For writers like Paul, who by common consent have left us genuine writings, and whose biography is fairly well known, there are two sure tests, - comparison of doubtful works with those universally acknowledged genuine, and inquiry whether the document in dispute answers to the biographical data in our possession. But if the case is that of an author from whom we have only a few doubtful pages, and whose life is little known, we must decide mostly on grounds of feeling, which are not imperative. If we are of easy judgment, we may take much that is false for true ; if too rigid, we may reject much that is true as false. For such questions the theologian, who thinks to walk by certainties, is (I say again) a bad judge. The critical historian has a quiet conscience when be has done his best to mark the various steps of certain, probable, plausible, possible. If at all capable, he may succeed in being true in the general colour, while as to special statements he makes free with his question-marks and his may-be's.

     One thing I have found in favour of writings too strictly thrown out by critics of a certain school, -such as the first epistle of Peter, with those of James and Jude, -is the way they fit in with a narrative organically knit together. While the second ascribed to Peter, with those alleged to be from Paul to Timothy and Titus, have no place in the pattern of a connected story, the three I have mentioned fit themselves to it (as I may say) of their own accord. The features of detail in them anticipate facts known through outside testimony, and are embraced easily among them. "Peter" well corresponds with what we know, chiefly from Tacitus, of the situation of Christians at Rome about A. D. 63 or 64. "James," again, is a perfect picture of the Ebionim at Jerusalem in the years just before the great revolt, quite like the information given us by Josephus. [10] There is nothing to be gained by a theory that it was written by another James, not "the Lord's brother." True, this epistle was not admitted, in the early centuries, so unanimously as that of Peter; [11] but the hesitation would seem to have been rather on dogmatic grounds than on critical. The Greek Fathers had little liking for the Jewish Christian writings: that is the real reason.

     It may be remarked, as to the evidence regarding these minor apostolic writings, that they were composed before the fall of Jerusalem. This event so altered the situation as between Jew and Christian that we can easily distinguish between a document later than the catastrophe of A. D. 70 and one belonging to the period while Herod's temple was yet standing. Descriptions which clearly refer to class-jealousies in Jerusalem society, such as we find in "James" (v. 1- 6), would be unmeaning if made later than the revolt of A. D. 66, which ended the rule of the Sadducees.

     From the fact that there were pseudo-apostolic writings -- such as the letters to Timothy and Titus, "Second Peter," and the epistle of Barnabas, whose practice is to imitate or dilute older compositions - it follows that there were writings genuinely apostolic held in reverence, which it was sought to multiply. [12] As every Arabic poet of the classic period bad his Kasida, a complete expression of his personality, so every apostle had his "epistle," more or less genuine, which was supposed to preserve the fine flower of his thought.

     I have elsewhere spoken of the epistle to the Hebrews. [13] I have shown that this work is not by, Paul, as has been held in some lines of Christian tradition; and that its probable date may be fixed at about A. D. 66. 1 have now to consider whether we may be sure of its real author, where it was written, and who were the "Hebrews" to whom by title it is addressed.

   Circumstantial points are these: The writer speaks to the church addressed in the tone of a well-known master, - indeed, almost in a tone of reproach. The church has long since accepted the faith, but has fallen away in doctrine; so that it needs elementary instruction, and cannot comprehend the higher theology. [14] Further, this church has shown and still shows proofs of courage and devotion, especially in service to the saints. ["Ye have ministered to the saints and do minister."] It had endured cruel persecutions in the day when it received the full light of faith, when it was "made a gazing stock." [15] That was but a little while ago; for those now members of the church had part in the merits of that persecution - sympathising with the confessors, visiting those in prison, and, above all, bearing bravely the loss of their goods. In that trial, however, there were some deserters, and there was question whether such apostates could rejoin the church. It would seem that some were even now in prison (xiii.3). There have been noble leaders (hgoumenoi), preachers of the Word, whose end was glorious and inspiring (xiii. 7). But still there are chiefs well known to the writer (ver. 17, 24), who has himself had knowledge of the church, and seems to have held a high post of service in it; he means to return to it, and wishes his return to be as soon as possible (ver. 19). He and those to whom be writes are acquainted with Timothy, who has been a prisoner in some other place ; but is now at liberty; he hopes that Timothy may come and join him, that they may visit this church of the "Hebrews" together (ver. 23). The epistle ends with the words, "Those away from (apo) Italy salute you," which must mean those who are just now absent from Italy. [16]

     What chiefly distinguishes this writer is his incessant use of the [Jewish] scriptures, with a subtile and allegorical mode of exposition, and a Greek style more ample, more classic, less dry, but also less natural than that in most apostolic writings. He has slight acquaintance with the ritual of the temple at Jerusalem (ix. 1-5), which, however, strongly impresses him. He uses only the Alexandrian version, and reasons from errors in the Greek copyists (x. 5, 37, 38). He is not a Jew of Jerusalem, but a Hellenist, related to the school of Paul (iii. 23) ; and represents himself as having been a bearer, not of Jesus, but of those who bad heard him, and as a witness of the signs and wonders " manifested by the apostles by "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (ii. 3, 4). Still, be has high rank in the church: he speaks with authority (v. 11, 12 ; vi. 11, 12 ; x. 24, 25 ; xiii. pass.) ; is held in great respect by those to whom he writes (xiii. 19-24); and Timothy seems to be his inferior. The mere fact of addressing an epistle to an important church shows him to be a man of consequence, one of name and high standing among the apostles.

     Still, all this is not enough to determine the authorship. It has been variously ascribed to Barnabas, Luke, Silas, Apollos, and Clement of Rome. The likeliest of all is Barnabas. This has the authority of Tertullian, who speaks of it as a well-known fact; [17] and it is contradicted by not a single feature offered by the epistle. Barnabas was a Hellenist of Cyprus, at once linked with Paul and independent of him, known and esteemed by all. This view, further, suggests a reason for ascribing the composition to Paul: it was the destiny of Barnabas to be in a manner lost in the halo of the great apostle; and, if he did leave any writing, as seems not unlikely, we should naturally seek it among those of Paul.

     The church to which this letter is addressed may be fixed on with some likelihood. From what has been already said, our choice lies, with little doubt, between Rome and Jerusalem. Alexandria has been suggested, but oil slight grounds. First, there is no proof that Alexandria had a church as early as A. D. 66. Even if it had, it could have no relation with the school of Paul, or any knowledge of Timothy ; while such passages as v. 12, x. 32-34, and others would be wholly inappropriate. The title, "to the Hebrews," makes us think at once of Jerusalem. [18] But this is not enough. Passages like v. 11-14, vi. 11, 12, and even vi. 10 ("minister to the saints") [19] are nonsense if we suppose them addressed by a follower of the apostles to the mother church of all, the source of all instruction. What is said of Timothy in xiii. 23 is no more intelligible ; persons so committed as were the writer and Timothy to the party of Paul could not have sent to that church a missive implying special intimacy with their affairs. How, for instance, could the writer - with his exegesis founded wholly on the Septuagint, his imperfect Jewish knowledge, his slight acquaintance with the temple service -have dared to lecture so loftily those past masters of the field, men who talked Hebrew (very nearly), who lived every day close to the Temple, and who knew much better than be all he could say to them ? How, indeed, could he address them as catechumens, barely initiated, and incapable of deep theology ? On the other hand, if we suppose those addressed to be the faithful in Rome, all fits to a marvel.. Such passages as vi. 10, x. 32-34, xiii. 3, 7, allude to Nero's persecution; xiii. 7 refers to the death of Peter and Paul ; the expression, "those away from Italy," is fully justified, since it is natural that the writer should send to those in Rome the salutations of the Italian colony about him. Add that the first epistle of the Roman Clement (certainly a Roman composition) borrows consecutively from "Hebrews," and evidently models its exposition upon that. [20]

     One difficulty remains: Why does the title say "to the Hebrews"? Such titles, we know, are not always apostolic: they were sometimes late additions, and even erroneous, as we see in the case of "Ephesians." "Hebrews" was written, under the stress of persecution, to the church that suffered most. In several places (as in xiii. 23) the writer evidently expresses himself guardedly. Perhaps the inscription "to the Hebrews" was a password, to save the letter from being, put to all evil use. Possibly the title came from the letter's being regarded in the second century as a confutation of the Ebionites, who were called "Judaisers." It is noteworthy that the church of Rome always had special light on this epistle ; here it first appeared, and here it was first brought into use. While Alexandria is ready to call it Paul's, the church at Rome always maintains that it is not his, and that it is wrongly joined to his genuine writings. [21]

     From what place was "Hebrews" written ? This is harder to answer. The expression "those away from Italy" shows that the writer was not in that country. It is certain, too, that he wrote from an important town where there was a colony of Italian Christians closely allied with those of Rome, who had probably escaped the persecution Of A. D. 64. We shall see that the stream of those who so escaped flowed towards Ephesus, where the church bad had as its first nucleus two Jews from Rome, Aquila and Priscilla, and had always continued in direct relations with Rome. Thus we are led to think that it was here the epistle was written. The words in xiii. 232 it is true, are perplexing in that case: in what city, neither Rome nor Ephesus, yet closely connected with both, bad Timothy been imprisoned ? Whatever we may conjecture, this is a riddle hard to answer.

     The most important document of this period is the Apocalypse. An attentive reading of chaps. xv.-xvii. will show, I think, that its date is fixed more positively than that of any other writing in the canon. [22] It may even be determined within a few days. The place where it was written may also be plausibly assigned. Who was its author is far more uncertain. As to this, I think, we cannot speak with confidence. The writer gives his name at the very beginning: "I, John, your brother and companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Christ." [23] But here two questions occur: 1. Is the claim genuine, or is it one of the pious frauds common to all apocalyptic writers ? In other words, is it not an anonymous writing ascribed to John the apostle, as a man of highest authority in the churches, whose views are here communicated in visions ? 2. Granting the claim to be sincere, is not the writer another John than the apostle ?

     To begin with the second question, as the easier to decide. The John who speaks or is thought to speak in the Apocalypse expresses himself with such emphasis; he is so sure of being known and of not being confounded with any other; he knows so well the secret things of the churches, and meets them with so firm a bearing, - that we can hardly fail to see in him an apostle, or else a dignitary of very high rank in the Church. But in the second half of the first century there was no other of that name who approached such dignity. John Mark is here quite out of the question, whatever Hitzig may say. Mark never had consecutive relations with the churches in Asia, such as to embolden him to address them in this tone. There is, indeed, one "John the Elder," a dubious personage, a sort of double of the apostle, who haunts like a spectre the record of the church at Ephesus, and gives much trouble to the critics. [24] Though his very existence has been denied, and though we cannot positively refute the theory of those who make him a personified shadow of the apostle, I incline to think that he had an identity apart; [25] but I absolutely deny that he wrote the Apocalypse in A. D. 68 or 69, as maintained by Ewald. Such a man would not have been known to us merely through an obscure passage of Papias or an apologetic writing of Dionysius. We should find his name in the Gospels, or Acts, or an Epistle. He would be a man from Jerusalem. The writer of the Apocalypse is the best versed in Scripture, most attached to the Temple, most Hebraic, of all the New Testament writers. Such a man cannot have had his training out of Palestine; he must have been a native of Judaea ; at the bottom of his heart he clings to the Church of Israel. If there was any such person as John the Elder, he was a disciple of John in his extreme old age. Admitting that the passage in the "Apostolical Constitutions " (vii. 46) refers to him, and that it has any value, he would be the apostle's successor in the episcopate of Ephesus. Papias seems to have been close beside him, at least his contemporary. [26] We may even admit that he sometimes held the pen for his master, and that he may have been the composer of the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John. The second and third (so called), in which the writer calls himself "the Elder, would seem to be his own work, acknowledged as such. [27] But surely, if we admit that John the Elder counts for anything in the second class of Johannine writings (the Gospel and Epistles), be has no part in the composition of the Apocalypse. If anything is plain, it is that the two cannot have come from the same hand. This was evident to Dionysius of Alexandria, in the latter half of the third century, whose essay on the point is a model of learned and critical dissertation. [28] Of all the New Testament writings, the Apocalypse is the most Jewish, and the Fourth Gospel the least so. Thus the word "Jew," which in that Gospel always means "enemy of Jesus," is in the Apocalypse the highest title of honour (ii. 9, iii. 9). Admitting that the Apostle John is the author of any of the writings traditionally ascribed to him, it is certainly the Apocalypse, not the Gospel. The former corresponds perfectly to the settled opinion which he seems to have held in the dispute between Paul and the Jewish Christians, while the latter does not. The efforts made in the third century by some of the Greek Fathers to assign the Apocalypse to "John the Elder" [29] result from the aversion then felt for that book among the orthodox teachers. [30] They could not endure that an apostle should be thought the writer of a book whose style they found barbarous and its spirit stamped with Jewish bitterness. Their opinion was an induction a priori, worthless in itself, expressing neither tradition nor critical judgment.

     If, then, the expression "I, John," in the first chapter, is genuine, the Apocalypse is certainly from the hand of the Apostle John. But it is of the essence of an apocalypse to be pseudonymous. The writers of "Daniel," "Enoch," "Baruch," and "Esdras," all assume those names as their own. The Church of the second century accepted an apocalypse of Peter, certainly apocryphal, just as they did that of John. [31] If the writer gives his true name in the Apocalypse of our canon, it is a surprising exception to the rule. Let us grant the exception: in fact, this book differs essentially from other similar writings that have come down to us. Most of these are ascribed to writers who flourished (or were supposed to flourish) five or six centuries, or even [as Enoch, "the seventh from Adam"] some thousands of years before. Those of the second century were ascribed to men of the apostolic age. The "Shepherd" and the pseudo-Clementines are some fifty or sixty years after their assumed writers. So it was, probably, with the apocalypse of Peter; at least nothing shows that it makes any exception as to topic or author. On the other hand, the Apocalypse of the canon, if it is pseudonymous, seems to have been ascribed to John in his lifetime, or very soon after his death. Were it not for the first three chapters, this would be strictly possible. But can we suppose that whoever assumed the name had the boldness to address his apocryphal work to the "seven churches" which stood in near relations with the apostle ? Or if we deny these relations, as Scholten does, we fall into a still greater difficulty; for then we must admit that the composer, with unparalleled fatuity, in writing to churches that bad never known the apostle, represents him as having been at Patmos, close by Ephesus,- in fact, so near, and so dependent on its port, that if he did go there it must have been by way of Ephesus, as acquainted with their nearest secrets, and as holding full authority over them. Would these churches, which (as Scholten holds) well knew that John had never been in or near Asia, have let themselves be taken in by so crude a pretence ? One thing stands out clear in any hypothesis, - that the Apostle John was for some years the head of the churches in Asia. [32] This being granted, it is hard not to admit that he was really the author of this book; for, since its date is precisely fixed, we find no room for forgery. If the apostle was living in Asia in January, A. D. 69, or had merely been there, the first four chapters are unthinkable as the work of another hand. Supposing (as Scholten does) that he died at the beginning of this year, which does not seem to have been the fact, we do not escape the difficulty. The book is written as if the revelator were still alive; it is to be circulated at once among the Asiatic churches ; if the apostle were dead the fraud would be too glaring. What would they have said at Ephesus in February, at receiving such a book, claiming to be from an apostle whom they knew to be no longer living, and whom (as Scholten thinks) they had never Been?

     The book itself, on a closer view, rather confirms than weakens this opinion. The Apostle John seems, next after James, to have been the most ardent of the Judaising Christians, while the Apocalypse breathes a bitter hatred against Paul and all who were lax in keeping the Jewish Law. The book strikingly reflects the violent and fanatical temper of this apostle (see below, chap. xv.). It is indeed the work of that "son of thunder," that stormy Boanerges, who would have forbidden the use of his Master's name to any outside the narrow circle of the disciples; who, if he could, would have rained fire and brimstone upon the inhospitable Samaritans. The description of the celestial Court, with its material splendour of thrones and crowns, is indeed that of one who, when young, bad aspired to sit with his brother on thrones at the right and left of the Messiah-King. The writer of the Apocalypse has his mind engrossed by the two objects, Rome (chaps. xiii.-xviii.) and Jerusalem (chaps. xi-xii.). He appears to have seen Rome, with its temples, statues, and lavish imperial idolatry; and we may easily suppose that John journeyed thither in company with Peter. What regards Jerusalem is yet more striking The writer constantly returns upon "the beloved city," thinks only of her, is familiar with the sufferings of the church there during the Jewish revolt, as we see in the fine image of the woman and her flight into the wilderness (xii. 13-17): we feel that he had been a pillar of this church, an enthusiastic devotee of the Jewish party. The tradition of Asia Minor seems, just so, to have kept the memory of John as that of a rigid Judaiser. In the Paschal controversy, which so vexed the Church during the latter half of the second century, the churches in Asia rely chiefly on the authority of John in celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan, according to the Jewish law. Polycarp in 160 and Polycrates in 190 appeal to the same authority to defend their antique custom against the innovators who, relying on the Fourth Gospel, insisted that Jesus, "the true passover," did not eat the paschal lamb with his disciples the night before his death, and who transferred the feast to the day of the resurrection. [33]

     The language of the Apocalypse is a further reason for ascribing the book to a member of the church at Jerusalem. It is wholly different from that in the other New Testament books. It was doubtless written in Greek, [34] but in Greek moulded upon Hebrew, - Hebrew in its style of thought, hardly to be understood and felt by those ignorant of Hebrew. Besides sacramental terms (ix. 11, xvi. 16) and "the number of the beast," which are in Hebrew, like forms appear in every line. [35] The writer is surprisingly saturated with the prophetic writings and earlier apocalypses; clearly, he knows them by heart. He is familiar with the Greek version of the [Jewish] sacred books; but in his citations the Hebrew text comes into his mind. [36] How different from the style of Paul, Luke, the writer of "Hebrews," or even the Synoptics ! Only a man who bad passed years at Jerusalem, in the schools about the Temple, could be so steeped in the Scripture, or share so keenly the passions and hopes of that rebellious people, with its hatred of Rome.

     Another point not to be overlooked is that the Apocalypse has some features kindred with those of the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles. Thus, the expression "the Word of God" (xix. 13), so characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, is first found here. The image of "living waters" is common to the two. [37] The expression "Lamb of God" in the Fourth Gospel (i. 29, 36) recalls the frequent designation of Christ as "Lamb " in the Apocalypse. Both apply to the Messiah the words "me whom they have pierced" (Zech. xii. 10), and translate it in the same way (i. 7; xix. 37),- a rendering which differs from the Septuagint, but answers to the Hebrew. I by no means infer that the two books are from the same hand ; but it is significant that the Gospel (which surely has some connection with the Apostle John) shows in its style and imagery something akin to a book which there are strong grounds for attributing to that apostle.

    Church tradition has hesitated upon this point. Even in the middle of the second century the Apocalypse seems not to have had the importance we might expect for a composition which had been given out as a solemn manifesto from the pen of an apostle. It is doubtful whether Papias accepted it as the writing of John. He, like the author of the Apocalypse, was a millenarian ; but he seems to have held this doctrine from "unwritten tradition." If be bad cited this book in proof, Eusebius would have said so, eager as he was to gather every evidence from that ancient writer as to the apostolic record. Nor is the testimony of Andrew or of Aretas [38] clear upon this point. The author of the "Shepherd of Hermas," it would seem (Vis. iv., Sim. ix.), knew and imitated the Apocalypse; but it does not follow that he regarded it as a work of the apostle. Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century, first plainly asserts that authorship (Tryph. 81) ; but be came forth from none of the great churches, and is accordingly of slight authority as to tradition. Melito, commented on certain passages of the book, Theophilus of Antioch, and Apollonius, who used it freely in their polemics, [39] seem to have had the same opinion of it with Justin. The same may be said of the Canon of Muratori. [40] After A. D. 200 the general opinion is that the "John" of the Apocalypse is really the apostle. Irenaeus (Adv. Hoer., pass.), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. iii. 14, iv.. 5), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 13; Poed. ii. 12), Origen (Hatt. xvi. 6; Joh. i. 141 ii. 4; cf. Euseb. vi. 25), Hippolytus (Philos. vii. 36) have no hesitation. Still, the contrary opinion is constantly upheld. To those who parted more and more widely from the early Judaic Christianity and millenarianism, the Apocalypse was a dangerous book, impossible to defend, unworthy of an apostle, containing prophecies that were never fulfilled. Marcion, Cerdo, and the Gnostics rejected it wholly; [41] the "Apostolic Constitutions" omit it in their canon (ii. 57, vii. 47) ; the old Syriac version (Peshito) has it not. The opponents of the Montanist reveries, such as the priest Caius (Euseb. iii. 28) [42] and the Alogi (Epiph. li. 3, 4, 32-35) claimed to find it the work of Cerinthus. Finally, in the latter half of the third century, the Alexandrian school, in hostility to the millenarianism revived by Valerian's persecution, criticised the book with excessive rigour and undisguised dislike ; Dionysius, the bishop, proved completely that it could not be by the author of the Fourth Gospel, and brought into vogue the theory of John the Elder. [43] In the fourth century the Church was divided in opinion (Euseb. iii. 24; Jer. Epist. 129). Eusebius, though doubtful, is on the whole unfriendly to the theory that it was written by the son of Zebedee. Gregory Nazianzen and almost all the Christian scholars of his time refused to see an apostle's handiwork in a book so sharply opposed to their taste, their notions of apologetics, and their prejudice as scholars. We may say that, if this party had had control, the Apocalypse would have been put in the same rank with the " Shepherd" and the Antilegomena, of which the Greek text is almost wholly lost. Happily, it was too late for such exclusion to prevail. Thanks to able opposition, a book containing bitter attacks on Paul was kept side by side with Paul's own writings, making up a volume supposed to proceed from one and the same inspired source.

     Now, has this obstinate protest, making so marked a feature in Church history, any great weight in the view of independent criticism ? We cannot say. Certainly Dionysius was right in maintaining that the same hand could not have written both the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. But, in face of that dilemma, the modern critic gives a different answer from that of the third century. The genuineness of the Apocalypse is far more probable than that of the Gospel ; and, if we must assign any share to a supposed "John the Elder," that share is far likelier to be the Gospel and epistles. What motive had the opponents of Montanism in the third century, or those Christians of the fourth, educated in the Greek schools of Alexandria, Caesarea, and Antioch, to deny that the Apocalypse was really the work of the Apostle John ? Was it a tradition or memory preserved in the churches ? Not at all. Their reasons were purely those of a priori dogma. First, if the Apocalypse should be ascribed to the apostle, it was almost impossible for a man of sense and learning to admit the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, and to doubt this would be thought an attack upon Christianity itself. Besides, the supposed visions of John seemed to be a source of errors ever renewed, - of a perpetual recrudescence of Judaic Christianity, wild prophecy, and rash millenarianism. What reply could be made to the Montanists and similar mystics, who were consistent believers in the Apocalypse ? or to those troops of enthusiasts who rushed upon martyrdom, intoxicated by the wild poetry of that old book of the year 69 ? The only reply could be that this book, the fountain-head of all their delusions, was not the work of an apostle. The reason that led Caius, Dionysius, and so many others to deny that the Apocalypse was from John was precisely that which leads us to the opposite conclusion. The book is Judeo-Christian, Ebionite; it is the work of an enthusiast drunk with hate against the Roman empire and the pagan world ; it forbids all reconciliation with that empire and that world; its messianic doctrine is purely material ; it affirms the thousand years' reign of saints and martyrs ; it asserts the end of the world to be close at hand. These reasons -- in which reasonable Christians, following the direction of Paul, and later of the Alexandrian school, found unanswerable difficulties -- are for us the marks of antiquity and of apostolic genuineness. We are not fightened at Ebionism or Montanism; as simple historians, we assert that the adherents of these sects, rejected by the 46 orthodoxy " of their time, were the true successors of Jesus, of the Twelve, and of "the household of the Master." The rational direction which Christianity has followed, through a moderated gnosis, the belated victory of the Pauline school, and above all the ascendency of such men as Clement of Alexandria and Origen, should not make us forget the circumstances of its origin. The delusions, impossibilities, materialising views, paradoxes, monstrosities, which shocked Eusebius when he read the old Ebionite and millenarian writers like Papias, were the real primitive Christianity. That the dreams of these lofty enthusiasts might become a religion capable to live, men of good sense and fine intelligence -such as the Greeks who became Christians in the third century - must take in hand the task of those old visionaries, to modify, chastise, and prune it of its overgrowth. In this task of theirs, the most authentic monuments of the early childlike simplicity became embarrassing testimony, which they tried to thrust back into oblivion. That happened which always happens at the origin of a religious movement, which we notice in particular during the first century or two of the Franciscan Order: the founders were overmastered by the new-comers; the true successors of the fathers soon came to be "suspects" and heretics. Hence, as we often have occasion to insist, the favourite scriptures of the Ebionite and millenarian Judeo-Christianity - "Enoch", "Baruch," "Assumption of Moses," "Ascension of Isaiah," the fourth Esdras, the "Shepherd of Hernias," the "Epistle of Barnabas" - were better preserved in Latin or Oriental versions than in the Greek text. Hence, too, the more or less complete loss of the Greek text of Papias and Irenaeus. The "orthodox" Greek Church has always shown itself extremely intolerant of such books, and has systematically suppressed them.

     Thus the reasons for ascribing the Apocalypse to the Apostle John remain strong; and I think that those who shall read this history will be struck at the way in which everything is made clear and connected in this view. But, in a world where notions of literary property were so different from ours, a work might belong to an author in various degrees. Did the Apostle John himself write the manifesto of A. D. 69 ? This we may surely doubt. It is enough for my theory if be knew it, approved it, and allowed it to circulate in his name. Thus we should explain the first three verses, which seem to be from another hand than the Seer's ; as well as passages like xviii. 20 and xxi. 14, which lead us to think of a different pen. So in Ephesians ii. 20 we feel sure that an amanuensis or an imitator has come between us and Paul. We have to be on our guard against the abuse made of apostolic names to give currency to apocryphal compositions. [44] Many things in the Apocalypse are ill adapted to an immediate disciple of Jesus. [45] We are surprised to find one who was of the inner circle in which the gospel was wrought out exhibiting his former friend as a glorified Messiah, sitting oil God's throne, ruling the nations, -so wholly different from him of Galilee that the Seer trembles at sight of him and "falls at his feet as dead" (i. 17). One who had known the real Jesus would scarcely, even at the end of six and thirty years, have undergone such a mental revolution. Mary of Magdala, on beholding the risen Jesus, exclaims, "My Master!" while John, on seeing the heavens opened, must find him whom he loved transformed into the dread Messiah. It is no less surprising to see from the pen of one of the chief figures in the gospel idyll a composition purely artificial, a mere copy, showing in every line a cold imitation of the ancient prophetic visions. The picture of the Galilaean fishermen given us by the Synoptics by no means represents to us men of the study, diligent readers of old books, pedantic rabbins. Is the picture by the Synoptics, then, the false one ? and was the company that gathered about Jesus a good deal more pedantic, more scholastic, more like the Scribes and Pharisees, than one could possibly gather from Matthew, Mark, and Luke ?

     If we admit the view I have suggested, - that John rather adopted the Apocalypse than wrote it with his own band, we have the further advantage of accounting for the limited reception of the book during three quarters of the century following its composition. Very likely the author himself, after the year 70, - seeing Jerusalem taken, the Flavian emperors firm on their throne, the Empire reconstructed, and the world persisting to exist in spite of the three-and-a-half years' term he had allowed it, - checked the circulation of his work. The Apocalypse, in fact, did not reach its highest importance till near the middle of the second century, when millenarianism. became a point of dispute in the church when, especially, persecutions again gave to outcries against the Beast " their meaning and their fitness, -as we see in the letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne in Eusebius (v. 1, 10, 58). The fortune of the Apocalypse was thus bound up with the alternations of peace and conflict in the Church. Each persecution gave it new currency ; when the persecution was stayed, its true day of peril came, and it had nearly been banished from the canon as a misleading and seditious pamphlet.

     Two traditions which I have accepted as plausible in this volume - the coming of Peter to Rome, and the residence of John at Ephesus - have been the subject of much controversy, and are discussed in an appendix. I have there considered Scholten's recent treatise on the apostle's abode in Asia, with the attention due to all the writings of this eminent Dutch critic. The conclusions to which I have come (which, however, I hold as merely probable) will, no doubt, -like the use I have made of the Fourth Gospel in writing the "Life of Jesus," -move the scorn of a young, self-confident school, in whose eyes every point is proved so that it be negative ; a school that peremptorily taxes with ignorance those who do not accept its exaggerations on sight. I beg the thoughtful, serious reader to believe that I have enough respect for him to neglect nothing that may serve in the search for truth in the line of study I undertake. But it is my maxim that history is one thing and disquisition is another. History cannot be well taken in hand until erudition has heaped up whole libraries of memoirs and critical essays. But, when history comes to be disengaged from this scaffolding, all it owes the reader is to point out the original source on which each statement rests. In these volumes devoted to the beginnings of Christian history, the notes fill a third of the page; but if I had been obliged to add the bibliography, citations from modern authors, and detailed discussions of the views held, they would have covered at least three-quarters. True, the method I have followed assumes the reader to be familiar with the results of critical study in the Old and New Testaments, a claim which few of my countrymen can make. But how many works of value could there be, if a writer must first be sure of a public to understand him fully'? I say, too, that even one with no knowledge of German, if he is acquainted with what has been written in our language upon the subject, can perfectly well follow my argument. The excellent collection of essays in the Revue de theologie (published till recently at Strasburg), is an encyclopedia of modern exegesis, not relieving us, it is true, from the duty of exploring the German and Dutch scholars, but for half a century reporting all great discussions of theological erudition. [46] I have always insisted that Germany has earned lasting glory by founding the science of biblical criticism, with the researches appertaining thereto ; and this, with sufficient emphasis to be above the charge of ignoring the obligations I have a hundred times acknowledged. German exegesis has its faults, which ever so liberal a theologian cannot avoid; but the patience, persistency, and good faith it has displayed are worthy of all praise. Many a noble building- stone has Germany added in the intellectual structure of mankind ; but, among them all, biblical science is, perhaps, that which has been chiseled with the greatest care, and which bears most completely the stamp of the workman's hand.

     I would here record my special gratitude to those accomplished Italian scholars, who were my inestimable guides throughout a recent journey in Italy. It will appear in the following pages at how many points this journey touched the topics it treats. Though no stranger to Italy, I was athirst to greet once more that land so full of memories, the richly endowed mother of every new intellectual birth. According to Rabbinical tradition, there was at Rome, during the long eclipse of beauty which we call the Middle Age, an ancient image, kept in a secret spot, so beautiful that the Romans would come by night to kiss it stealthily. Of such embraces, 'twas said, Antichrist was born. [47] This child of the marble image was verily a son of Italy. All the great protests of man's conscience against the extravagances of Christendom came of old from the bosom of this land; and from this they will come again in future time.

     I will confess that my delight in history, the singular joy in beholding the spectacle displayed on the theatre of the world, has especially entranced me in this volume. I have had such joy in writing it that I ask no other reward than I have found in the task itself. Often have I reproached myself for taking so much pleasure in my study, while my unhappy country was wasting in long agony; but my conscience is clear of blame. When in the elections of 1869 1 solicited the votes of my fellowcitizens, all my placards bore conspicuously this inscription: "No Revolution! no War! War would be as fatal as Revolution." In September, 1870, 1 implored the enlightened minds of Germany and Europe to reflect on the frightful peril that menaced civilisation. During the siege of Paris, in November, I risked great unpopularity by advocating an Assembly, with powers to treat for peace. In the elections of 1871, I replied to the overtures made me, "Such a charge can be neither sought nor refused." When order was restored, I bestowed all my attention upon the reforms which I considered most urgent for the salvation of the State. I have done what I could. We owe it to our country to be frank with her; we need employ no flatteries or tricks to win her to accept our service or accord with our views.

     Moreover, while this volume is primarily addressed to inquirers and men of taste, it will, perhaps, teach more than one lesson. Here we shall see crime carried to its height, and protest lifted against it in accents saintly and sublime. Such a sight will have its religious use. I believe as fully as ever that religion is not a mere illusion of our nature; that it answers to something objectively real; that he who follows its inspirations is the truly inspired man. To simplify religion is not to undermine it, but often, rather, to make it strong. The little Protestant sects of our day, like Christianity at its birth, are here to prove it. The great error of Romanism is to think that we can contend against the advance of materialism with an intricate dogmatic system, burdening ourselves more heavily each day with some fresh marvel.

     The people will henceforth endure only a religion without miracle; but such a religion might yet be a living one if those who have the care of souls would accept the degree of positivism that has gained a hold on the mental temper of the working class; and if, reducing dogma to its lowest terms, they would make worship a means of moral training and helpful co-operation. Above the Family, beyond the State, mankind needs the Church. The stability of the American Union, with its amazing democracy, is found only in its innumerable sects. If (as we may suppose) Ultramontane Catholicism can no longer win back to its temples the population of great cities, personal effort must create those little centres where the poor an weak may find instruction, moral help, friendly guidance, sometimes material aid. Civil society - call it village, district, province, state, or fatherland owes something to the betterment of the individual ; but it acts only within strict limits. The family owes more; but it is often weak, sometimes wholly helpless. Associations formed upon a moral foundation can alone bestow on every man that comes into the world a living bond uniting him with the Past, duties toward the Future, examples to be followed, a heritage of Virtue to be received and handed down, a tradition of Self-sacrifice which he has to carry on.

1. H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, Leipzig, 1872.

2. Of the latter, see "Saint Paul," chap. x., near the end.

3. Compare especially 2 Pet. ii. with Jude. Such passages as i. 14, 16, 18; and iii. 1, 2, 5-7, 15, 16, also clearly prove it spurious. Its style, further, - as Jerome has remarked in Epist. ad Hedib. 11 ; cf. De viris illustr. 1, -is no way like that of 1 Peter. Fi Dally, it is not cited before the third century. Irenaeus (Adv. H(er. iv. 9, 2) and Origen (in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25; cf. iii. 25) ignore or exclude it.

4. Supposed imitations of 1 Peter, found in "Timothy " and "Titus," touching the duties of women and of elders, are not so clear. But Compare 1 Tim. ii. 9-15, iii. 11, with I Pet. iii. 1-4, v. 1-4; Tit. i. 5-9.

5 Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39, Polycarp, Epist. I (cf. 1 Pet. i. 8; Euseb. iv. 14); Irenpeus, Adv. Hcer. iv. 9,2; 16, 5 (cf. Euseb. v. 8); Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 18, iv. 7; Tertall. Scorp. 12; Origen in Euseb. vi. 25; Euseb. iii. 25.

6 See below, pp. 108, 109.

7 Besides the canonical epistles, see those of Clem. Rom., Ignatius, and Polycarp.

8. PresButerouj en umin (Vat. and Sin. MSS.); the common reading is tous en umin..

9 1 Peter ii. 23; cf. Luke xxiii. 34.

10. See below, pp. 52-53.

11. Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. x., xi. (cf. Jas. H. 21, 23, 25); Hermas," Mand. xii. 5 (cf. Jas. iv. 7); Iren. Adv. Rcer. iv. 16, 2 (cf. Jas. ii. 23); these writers seem to have known the epistle. Origen (In Joh. xix. 6), Eusebins (H. E. H. 23), and Jerome (De vhis illustr. 2) express doubts.

12. See 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16, where the Pauline epistles are expressly named as sacred writings.

13. Saint Paul, Introd., pp. 62-61.

14. See v. 11-14; vi. 11, 12; x. 24, 25; xiii., throughout.

15. Qeatrijomenoi ("exhibited on the stage"), x. 33-34; xii. 4-8, 23.

16. Compare oi, e.n th/ Asi,a, 2 Tim. i. 15; h, e.n aBulwni ounelektni. Pet. v. 13. (But see Acts xvii. 13.)

17. De Pudic. 20: Exstat enim et Barnabm titulus ad Hebrceos. These words show that the manuscript in the hands of Tertullian was inscribed with the name of Barnabas. (Cf. Jerome, De viris illustr. 5.) Tertullian's assertion has been wrongly regarded as a mere conjecture, put forth to give authority to a writing that favoured his Montanist notions. On the argument from the stichometry of the Codex claromontanus, see Introd. to "Saint Paul," note on pp. 53-4. The "epistle of Barnabas," commonly so called, is apocryphal, written about A. D. 110.

18. Compare Acts vi. I ; Iren. Adv. Hmr. III. i. 1; Euseb. H. E. iii. 24,25.