Try out the new Click here!

Ecclesiastical History

§ 231. From these vicissitudes already realized, the author ingeniously prognosticates a fourth age, yet to come, in which the equilibrium shall be restored and afterwards maintained, not, as in the first age, by accident or special divine interposition, but by conscious co-operation of the Church itself, enlightened by its previous experience.

§ 232. Entirely different in form and principle, but equally ingenious and one-sided, is the ethnological distinction last proposed by Kurtz, and resting on the theory of three successive forms of civilization, through which the Church is to pass, the Oriental (or Jewish), the Classical or (Greco-Roman), and the Modern (or Germanic in the wide sense of the term including Anglo-Saxon); the first form corresponding to the Old Testament history and the beginning of the Apostolical; the second reaching to the close of the eighth century; and the third belonging to the Modern Ages, the Middle Ages being the transition from the Greco-Roman to the Germanic form of civilization, under which there • are included intellectual culture and social condi


§ 233. As no one of these partial and one-sided views of the difference between the three great periods is sufficient of itself to represent them to the mind, it may be well to combine the truth involved in them with what we know besides as to the character of these three ages, in a general description.

§ 234. The first great feature of the Ancient Period is the rapid simultaneous extension of the Church, and propagation of the gospel, in various directions, but with an impetus decreasing as we draw near to the Middle Ages.

§ 235. Another is the long-continued state of persecution, followed by relief, patronage, establish

ment or union with the state, and finally enslavement by it and subjection to it.

§ 236. A third characteristic is the gradual expansion and development of church-organization, with an accompanying effort after outward unity, which seems at the close of the first age to be attained, by the consummation of the monarchical development in the primacy of Rome, or the commencement of the papal power, under Gregory the Great.

§ 237. A fourth feature of the Ancient Church is its conflict with error, first in the open and avowed hostility of Judaism and Heathenism, and then in the more covert and insidious enmity of heresies, arising from the mixture of various forms of error with Christianity itself, leading, before the end of this first age, to the discussion and settlement of all the most essential doctrines on their present basis.

§ 238. The last characteristic of the First Age, is the absence of a fixed law or type of Christian experience, there being ample proof that personal religion did exist and flourish, but with a freedom and variety of inner life peculiar to the times, including many eccentricities and aberrations, not without some tokens of incipient corruption.

§ 239. The first great negative distinction of the Middle Age is this, that it originated nothing good, but only evil, .while both good and bad things of an older date were still continued, although seldom without some exaggeration or corruption.

§ 240. The unity which seemed to be secured by the erection of the papal see, begins immediately to be dissolved by means of the Great Schism between East and "West.

§ 241. The theological or doctrinal distinction of the Middle Age, is the vast expenditure of thought and labor on the mere elaboration of results already gained in new and strange forms, more especially the mystic and scholastic, and the tendency to give these forms a stereotype or petrified rigidity, which, far from lessening or conciliating heresy and error, made them more numerous and desperate than ever.

§ 242. The worst peculiarity of this age is the vast increase of superstition in its various forms, with its invariable accompaniment, moral depravation, both of theory and practice.

§ 243. Its only redeeming or consolatory feature is the under-current of determined opposition to these evils, the reformatory tendency or movement, running through the Middle Ages, never entirely wanting, although varying in strength and clearness, sometimes appearing even in the dominant authorities, at others only among those who were regarded as opponents and directors, if not formally condemned as heretics and schismatics.

§ 244. The first great feature of the Third or Modern Age is the reaction against these great evils, the secession of a large part of the Latin Church, and the assertion of the right of private judgment, with a more or less complete return to apostolical simplicity and purity, all which is summed up in the word Reformation.

§ 245. Another feature not to be neglected, is the influence exerted by this great reaction on the residuary church itself for good and evil, for good in the correction of some errors and abuses, for evil in the aggravation and perpetuation of others.

§ 246. The theology of this age, as distinguished from that of the two others, is learned and critical, with tendencies to scepticism, more or less determined.

§ 247. In addition to the old division of the Greek and Latin Church, and the new division of the latter introduced by the Reformation, this period is characterized by further subdivisions, such as that of the Protestant body into Lutheran and Calvinistic; and of these parts into others, by secession, disruption, or excision.

§ 248. Besides this tendency to subdivision, springing from the use or abuse of the right of private judgment, within the pale of Christianity itself, the third age is distinguished by a rank growth of heresies, both old and new, and by a singular variety of anti-Christian errors, or new forms of infidelity, disowning the authority of Scripture, and abandoning the Christian name.

§ 249. An intermediate division between that of the Centuries and that of the Three Ages, may be obtained by grouping the former, so as at the same time to divide the latter, not by arbitrary lines, but by discriminating things that really differ

§ 250. Thus the Early Age, or Ancient History, may be equally divided, supposing it to consist of six centuries (§ 223), by a line drawn at the close of the third century; the first half differing from the second as a period of persecution from one of establishment; as a period of rapid from one of slower propagation; as a period during which the church was working off heretical admixtures, from one in which it was positively settling the great doctrines of religion.

§ 251. The seventh and eighth centuries maybe regarded as a kind of debatable or neutral ground, like a lane, or narrow strip of litigated land between two farms, which may be added to either without materially affecting any thing but its extent.

§ 252. The divisions of the Middle Ages are not so obvious, but a definite basis for them is afforded by the extreme depression of the Church in the 10th century, and by the premonitions of the Reformation in the 14th and 15th.

§ 253. Upon this basis, the Middle Ages may be divided into three unequal parts; the first including centuries VII.—X. (or, according to Hase and Kurtz IX.—.X) during which there was a gradual decline from the position of the ancient Church to its lowest condition in the 10th century; the second including centuries XI.—XIII., during which there was a rise, but in a different direction, a new kind of activity and life, and during which the great peculiar movements of the Age, the Papacy, Scholasticism, Monachism, reached their height and full development; the third including centuries XIV.—XV., during which these same great interests declined, and the reformatory tendency grew proportionally strong and visible. Though the Last or Modern Age comprises only three and a half centuries, each of which has a character or aspect of its own, it may still be divided into two larger portions, each of which has a distinctive character; the first consisting of the 16th and 17th, and characterized by the Reformation and its positive effects, both on the Protestant and TTnreformed churches; the other consisting of the 18th and 19th, and characterized by the more negative effects of the same causes. (See below, §§ 273, 274.)

§ 254. Besides all these divisions, it is well to have some characteristic features of each century associated with it in the memory, the points selected being few in number, and, as far as possible, peculiar to the periods with which they are connected.

§ 255. As a mnemonic aid, some use may be made of the Latin nomenclature commonly ascribed to Cave (§ 113), and more or less modified by later writers, viz., 1. Seculum Apostolicum. 2. Gnosticum. 3. Novatianum (v. Cypriarmm). 4. Ariamim. 5. Nestorianum (Pelagiarum, v. Augustinianum). 6. Entychianum. 7. Monothleticum (v. Muhammedanicum). 8. Iconoclasticum. 9. Photianum (v. Obscurum). 10. Obscurum (v. Tenebrioscum). 11. Hildebrandicum. 12. "Waldense. 13. Scholasticum. 11. "Wiclifianum. 15. Synodale. 16. Reformatum.

§ 256. In characterizing the first century more particularly, due regard must be bad to its unique position, as the period of transition* from an old to a new world, from tbe Jewish to the Christian Church, and from Biblical to Ecclesiastical History, only the smaller part of it belonging strictly to the latter, while the whole may be divided into three nearly equal parts, or into the ministries* of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, of Peter and Paul, and of the Apostle John; with the additional associated names of Nero and Domitian as persecutors, and of Simon Magus and Cerinthus as Heresiarchs.

§ 257. The second century presents the opening of the great twofold conflict of the Church, intellectual and physical, with persecution and brute force

on one hand, on the other with Judaism and Heathenism as open enemies, and with heresies arising from their fusion or amalgamation with Christian doctrine; both which conflicts may be associated with the names of Trajan and the Antonines as persecutors; Marcus Aurelius and Celsus as heathen opponents of the truth; Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin, as martyrs; the latter also representing the Christian Apologists or champions of the truth against its heathen enemies, and the Christian Philosophers, or Platonizing theologians, whose excesses partly caused the Gnostic heresies, of which the great opponent was Tertullian, though himself involved in the very different error of the Montanists.

§ 258. The third century is marked by its disciplinary schisms, represented by Novatian; its Catholicism, represented by Cyprian; its Greek or Alexandrian theology and learning represented by Origen, who was also the most eminent opponent of the Monenchian heresies, to which may be added Manicheeism, as a doctrinal feature of the age.

§ 259. The fourth century is marked by the end of persecution under Constantine; the end of paganism under Theodosius; the division of the empire between his sons; the first and second general councils, occasioned by the Arian and Semiarian heresies, of which the chief opponents were Athanasius and the three Cappadocian doctors (Basil and the Gregories), who also favoured and contributed to propagate the new system of ascetic and monastic life.

§ 260. As prominent features of the fifth century may be named the Pelagian, Nestorian, and Eutychian heresies; the third and fourth oecumenical councils, at which they were condemned; Chrysostom, the greatest preacher, Augustin, the greatest theologian; and Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the age; the downfall of the western Roman empire; and the conversion of the Franks to Christianity.

§ 261. In the sixth century the series of controversies and of councils is continued by the Monophysite error and the fifth oecumenical council; while additional landmarks are afforded by the legislation and the conquests of Justinian, and by the full development of the hierarchy, in the foundation of the papal power under Gregory the First (or Great).

§ 262. The series of ancient doctrinal controversies closes with that of the Monothelites, and the

series of ancient councils with the Sixth, and the Quinisextum; but a more important feature of the age is the rise and progress of Mahometanism.

§ 263. This new religion made still further progress in the eight century by the Moorish conquest of Spain, but was repelled from France by Charles Martel, whose son, Charlemagne, revived the Western Empire, and laid the foundation of the temporal power of the Pope by his donations; while the Germans were brought within the pale of the Church chiefly by the labours of Boniface, thence called their Apostle.

§ 264. In the ninth century, the new pretensions of the Papal See were fortified by forged decretals, under the auspices of Nicolas I., who, also, interfered in the eastern strife detween Photius and Ignatius, and thus contributed to the great schism; while the western church was agitated by the predestinarian controversy begun by Godescalcus, and the broaching of the doctrine of transubstantiation by Paschasius Eadbert; the reformatory tendency being represented by Claudius of Turin.

§ 265. The 10th century is the lowest depression of the Church at large, and of the papacy in particular, which was a mere slave of political parties; so that we have to look for great names to the world, such as Otho the Great in Germany, and Hugh Capet, the founder of a new dynasty in France; a degradation only partially redeemed by the monastic organization of Clngny, and the nominal conversion of the Scandinavian and Sclavonian races.

§ 266. The 11th century opens with a general panic in relation to the end of the world, followed by a general reaction; and with a partial restoration of the papacy by Gabert or Sylvester II.; followed by some signs of intellectual life in the Berengarian controversy; which is connected, in its turn, with the rise of Hildebrand, afterwards Gregory YIL, the founder of the papal theocracy, who carried it out in theory, and in practice as far as he was suffered by the violent resistance of the German Emperors, particularly Henry I"V\

§ 267. The 12th century is marked, on one hand, by its chivalry, crusades, and military orders; on the other, by the conflict between mysticism and rationalism, represented by Bernard and Abelard; the first development of scholastic theology, represented by the " Sentences" of Peter Lombard; and a new reformatory movement, represented by Peter Waldo, the reputed founder qf the Waldenses; while the new pretensions of the Papacy were manfully sustained by Alexander III.

§ 268. In the 13th century, all the great medieval interests were carried to their height; the Papal Power by Innocent III.; the Scholastic Theology by Thomas Aquinas; the Monastic Organization by St. Francis and St. Dominic; with the last of whom, or his immediate successors, we may associate the Inquisition.

§ 269. In the 14th century begins the decline of the scholastic theology, with a corresponding rise of mysticism; the end of the Papal Theocracy with Boniface VIII., followed by the Babylonish Captivity and Papal schism; the rise of a vernacular literature in Italy, connected with the great names of Dante and Petrarch; and a powerful attempt at reformation made by Wiclif and the Lollards.

§ 270. In the 15th century, the same work is continued or renewed in Bohemia by John Huss and Jerome of Prague; in France, by the Reforming School of Paris; and in the church at large, by the great Reforming Councils, but without immediate success, although the great end was, more or less, promoted by certain secular events, such as the end of the Greek Empire, the Revival of Letters, the Invention of Printing, and the Discovery of America.

§ 271. The great feature of the 16th century is the Reformation, in its two main branches, German and Swiss, together with its introduction into various countries; whether temporary, as in Spain and Italy; or partial, as in France, Hungary, and Southern Germany; or permanent, as in Northern Germany, Holland, England, Scotland; or exclusive, as in Sweden and Denmark; while in the Unreformed Church, the great features are the Organization of the Jesuits and the Council of Trent.

§ 272. The 17th century is marked by the consolidation of the Protestant churches both in creed and discipline; the religious war of Thirty Years, which ended in the establishment of Protestant rights at the Peace of "Westphalia; the Great Rebellion, Commonwealth, and English Revolution, and the introduction of the church into America by colonization.

§ 273. The 18th century may be characterized as a period of revival, revolution, and reaction, the prominent traits of which are Pietism, Moravianism, Methodism, English Deism, French

Philosophy, and German Rationalism; the great Revolutions of America and France.

§ 274. The 6ame features may be traced, through the first half of the 19th century, in the rise and fall of Napoleon; the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire by the Greek Revolution, and of the Spanish Empire by that of Mexico and South America; the second and third French revolutions, and the one now going on in China; the disruption of the Scotch and several American churches; the rise of Unitarianism, Universalism, Irvingism, Puseyism, Socialism, Communism, Mormonism, Spiritualism; while the great redeeming feature of the age is the frequent and extensive revival of religion, and the great benevolent movement in the Protestant churches for the circulation of the Scriptures, and diffusion of religious knowledge, reformation of morals, and eventual conversion of the world, by missionary enterprises, comprehending in their scope Pagans, Mahometans, Jews, and those living under the corrupted forms of Christianity.

§ 275. The centurial and other chronological arrangements, which proceed upon the principle of uniform conventional divisions, have been superseded, in the modem schools of ecclesiastical historiography, by periodologies, or schemes made up of periods, defined, without regard to length or uniformity, by epochs, i. e. turning points or critical junctures, "where the current of events, or tide of history, reaches the high-water mark, and the reflux or ebb begins.

§ 276. If the tide or current, to pursue this figure, were a single one, or if the many currents reached their height at once, it would be easy to adopt one general and comprehensive periodology; but as the high tide of one stream or coast is not necessarily or always that of every other, so the crises of history may be variously chosen, and the exercise of this choice by the modern writers, has led to a great diversity of periodologies, or actual arrangements founded on this principle.

§ 277. The exclusive use of any one of these not only makes the others unavailable, but deprives us of the positive advantages attending their comparative or joint use, which are chiefly two; first, increased facility in reading or referring to the words in which they are embodied; and secondly, the aid which they afford in choosing epochs for ourselves, by showing what events have been pointed out as such by eminent historians.

§ 278. In selecting from a multitude of periodologies, devised in modern times, especially in Germany, our choice may be guided by several distinct considerations, such as the celebrity or eminence of the inventor, the extensive use of the arrangement by others, and its intrinsic convenience or utility.

§ 279. When thus selected, they may be arranged for actual comparison, to most advantage, in the order of their dates, as this enables us to trace the gradual process by which they grew out of and improved upon each other.

§ 280. It will be sufficient for our present purpose to confine our view, at least in the first instance, to the periodologies of Gieseler, Neander, Guericke (Jacobi), Hase, Kurtz, and Schaff, as fairly representing the improved modern methods, and affording us the use of what is really most valuable in them all.

§ 281. Among these, Gieseler is entitled to precedence, not only as one of the most eminent, but also as the oldest; for although he speaks of the periodological method as already generally introduced, and of its actual results as already very various, it is easy to perceive from his own arrange

ment, that the previous attempts were comparatively rude and unsuccessful.

§ 282. In order to illustrate and exemplify the process by which all periodologies are framed, it may be well to give a more particular description of the one proposed by Gieseler, than will be necessary in the case of any other, as the principle and modus operandi are substantially the same in all.

§ 283. As a preliminary fact of some importance, it may here be stated, that the modern periodologies vary from each other as to the terminus a quo or starting point of Ecclesiastical History; some going back to the Apostolic Age, or to the Life of Christ, and even beyond his birth; while others begin at the close of the New Testament history, e. g. Neander, who has treated the Evangelical and Apostolical History in independent works. On this account, the terminus a quern will be considered as a variable line or point, and only stated where it is essential to the completeness or the symmetry of the arrangement.

§ 284. The periodology of Gieseler is determined by the choice of three great turning points or junctures, which he designates as primary epochs :—I. The sole reign of Oonstantine, without a rival or a colleague, from the year 324. II. The outbreak of the Iconoclastic or Image Controversy in the year 726. III. The Reformation, from Luther's first public acts as a Reformer, in the year 1517.

§ 285. Before and between these primary epochs, Gieseler assumes others, of less prominence, but still distinctly marked, in his opinion, as salient points and critical junctures. These are eight in number, equally distributed among the intervals already marked out by the others.

§ 286. Anterior to the first great epoch, the sole reign of Constantino, the minor or intermediate points are the accession of the Emperor Adrian (A. D. 117), and that of Septimius Severus (193). Between the first and second (the Iconoclastic controversy), he assumes, as secondary epochs, the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the Monothelite controversy, with the contemporaneous rise of the Mahometan religion (622). Between the second and third (the Reformation), his subsidiary epochs are the Pontificate of Nicolas I., and the Pseudodecretals forged with his connivance (858), and the transfer of the Papal See from Rome to Avignon (1035). Between his third grand epoch and his own time, he assumes, as intermediate points, the Peace of Westphalia (1648), and the fall of JSTapoleon (1814).

§ 287. By the major and minor epochs thus assumed, the whole field, is divided into four great periods, and each of these subdivided into three others, making twelve in al]

§ 288. Gieseler's first great period extends from the beginning of the subject to the sole reign of Constantine (324); his second to the outbreak of the Image controversy (726); bis third to the Reformation (1517); his fourth to the date of his last volume (1848).

§ 289. The first subdivision of his first great period ends with Adrian (117); the second with Septimius Severus (193); the third with Constantine (324).

§ 290. The first subdivision of his second great period ends with the Council of Chalcedon (451); the second with Mahomet (622); the third with the Iconoclasts (726).

§ 291. The first subdivision of his third great period ends with Nicolas I. (858); the second with the transfer of the Papal See to Avignon (1305); the third with the Reformation (1517).

§ 292. The first subdivision of his fourth great period ends with the peace of "Westphalia (1648); the second with the fall of Napoleon (1814); the third with his own times (1848).

§ 293. These subdivisions may be also arranged in a continued series, with some advantage to the eye and memory. 1. To Adrian (117). 2. To Septimius Severus (193). 3. To Constantine (324). 4. To the Council of Chalcedon (451). 5. To Mahomet (622). 6. To the Iconoclasts (726). 7. To Nicolas I. (858). 8. To the transfer of the Papal See (1305). 9. To the Reformation (1517). 10. To the Peace of Westphalia (1648). 11. To the fall of Napoleon (1814). 12. To our own times (1848).

§ 294. This periodology bears upon its face sufficient indications of its being an early, although not a first, attempt at such arrangements; so that it has met with little currency among later writers, either as a whole, or with respect to some of its particular distinctions and divisions.

§ 295. Specific faults, which have been charged upon it, are the excessive number of its subdivisions, and the arbitrary character of some of his distinctions; for example, the selection of the Image Controversy as one of his great epochs, although less important in its general historical relations than some others which might have been selected; and the same objection has been made to several of his subdivisions, for example, to the first, second, fourth, seventh, eighth. (§ 293.)

§ 296. Few if any of these criticisms can be made upon Meander's Periodology, which greatly excels Gieseler's in simplicity and symmetry, as well as in the choice of the particular divisions; whether this superiority arises from his having designedly improved upon his predecessor, or, which is made more probable by the remarkable diversity between them, from an independent exercise of taste and judgment.

§ 297. Instead of Gieseler's four great periods and twelve subdivisions, Neander assumes six great periods, without any (chronological) subdivisions. His first period reaches to the end of the Diocletian Persecution, on the accession of Constantine the Great (A. D. 312); the second to the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590); the third to the death of Charlemagne (814); the fourth to Hildebrand or Gregory VII. (1073); the fifth to Boniface TILL (1294); the sixth to Luther or the Reformation (1517).

§ 298. Guericke, one of Neander's most faithful followers (§ 131), adopts his periods, completes them by adding, as a seventh, from the Reformation to the date of his own last edition (1846), and groups the seven in three Ages, the first instance known to me of this arrangement. (§§ 213, 214).

§ 299. Guericke's division into Ages is unequal and irregular, assigning two of Neander's periods to the first Age, four to the second, and making the third co-extensive with the seventh period, added by himself.

§ 300. The same division into Ages is adopted by Neander's other follower and condenser, Jacobi, and the same subdivision of the first or Early Age, beyond which his published work has not yet gone. (§ 132.)

§ 301. The next periodology, in point of time, is that of Hase, originally published a year after Guericke's, agreeing with it in the general distribution, but exhibiting a great improvement on it in simplicity and symmetry, as might have been expected from the tastes and habits of the author, who appears to care at least as much for manner as for matter, for the form as for the substance, of Church History. (§ 133.)

§ 302. Hase, like Guericke, divides the whole into Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Church History, but takes as the dividing line between the first and second, not the end of the sixth century, or the pontificate of Gregory the Great (590), but the institution of the German or new Western Empire by the coronation of Charlemagne (800). (See § 224.)

§ 303. Each of his ages or great periods is divided into two by a single intermediate epoch; the first by Constantino (312); the second by Innocent III. (1216); the third by the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

§ 301. This periodology of Ilase is adopted, with a slight modification, by another popular historian, Kurtz (§ 135), who, in his earlier and smaller works, down to the last edition (1856), divides into the same three Ages, bnt as a line of subdivision in the second, for the death of Innocent III. (1216), substitutes the accession of Boniface VIII. (1294), an epoch belonging to the same century, but marking another stage in the progress of the papacy, and probably adopted for the sake of a closer assimilation to Neander's method. (§ 297.)

§ 305. In Kurtz's larger work, which is not yet finished, he adopts a different arrangement, founded on the theory of three civilizations (§ 232), according to which the work, so far as it has yet been published, and so far as it relates to Ecclesiastical History in the strict sense (§ 32), is divided into two great Phases, so called, and not Periods or Ages, because not entirely successive but to some extent collateral or parallel, and therefore properly described as Phases, or partly contemporary aspects of the same objective matter.

§ 306. The first Phase, according to this scheme, is the developement of Christianity under the ancient classic form of civilization, from the end of the Apostolic Age to the downfall of the Eastern or Greek Empire (1453). The second Phase is its developement under the medieval or Germanic form of civilization, from the fourth to the fifteeth century inclusive.

§ 307. Each of these Phases is chronologically subdivided by two minor or intermediate lines; the first by the end of the Diocletian persecution (312), and by that of the series of ancient councils (692); the second by the close of the ninth and twelfth centuries respectively.

§ 308. The most finished of these modern, because combining the advantages and shunning the defects of those which preceded it, is that of Schaff, in which the general arrangement is the same with that of Kurtz and Hase, and the subdivision no less symmetrical in form, while in fulness of detail it is neither so minute as Gieseler nor so meagre as Hase.

§ 309. Schaff divides the whole into three Ages: I. The Primitive or Grseco-Latin Church, from Pen. tecost to Gregory the Great (590). II. The Medieval Church, or Romano-Germanic Catholicism, from Gregory the Great to Luther (1517). HI. The Modern or Evangelical Protestant Church, in conflict with the Church of Rome, from Luther to our own time (1853).

§ 310. Each of these Ages he divides into three periods; the first into the period of the Apostolical church until the death of John (100); that of the Persecuted Church to Constantine (311); and that of the Established Church of the Grseco-Roman Empire, to Gregory the Great (590).

§ 311. The second he divides into the Rise of the Middle Age, or the planting of the church among the Germanic races, till the appearance of Hildebrand (1049); the Height of the Middle Age (Papacy, Monachism, Scholasticism, Mysticism), to Boniface VIII. (1303); and the decline of the Middle Age, and preparation for approaching changes, until Luther (1517).

§ 312. The third he divides into the period of the Reformation, or Productive Protestantism and Reacting Romanism (century XVI.); that of Orthodox-confessional and scholastic Protestantism, in conflict with ultramontane Jesuitism and semiProtestant Jansenism (to the middle of century XVILT.); and that of negative subjective Protestantism—Rationalism and Sectarianism—with premonitions of a new or fourth age (to the middle of the 19th century).

§ 313. These smaller periods, like those of Gieseler (§ 293), may be also arranged in a continued series: 1. To the death of John (100). 2. To Constantino (311). 3. To Gregory the Great (590). 4. To Hildebrand (1049). 5. To Boniface VIII. (1294). 6. To Luther (1517). 7. To the end of the 16th century. 8. To the middle of the 18th. 9. To the middle of the 19th.

§ 314. "With these select periodologies, when thoroughly mastered and familiar, it may be improving to compare some others, in a more rapid, and less thorough manner, for the purpose of observing both their general agreement, and the points, whether great or small, in which they differ.

§ 315. Engelhardt assumes five great epochs, I. The conversion of Constantine, and consequent establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire. XI. The rise of Mahometanism, and consequent contraction of the Church, particularly in the East. III. The reaction of the West against this hostile power in the Crusades, and the elevation of the hierarchy to a monarchy. TV. The Reformation, as the beginning of a new ago and a thorough change throughout the Church. "V. The securing of the civil rights of Protestants, in the Peace of Westphalia as a condition of their free developement.

§ 316. With these epochs he defines six periods: 1. From Christ to Constantine (625). 2. From Constantine to Mahomet (600). 3. From Mahomet to Gregory VII. (1073). 4. From Gregory to Luther (1517). 5. From the Reformation to the Peace of "Westphalia (1648). 6. From the Peace of Westphalia to his own time (1830).

§ 317. The simplest periodology is that of Thiele, who assumes the three divisions which are

common to almost all arrangements: I. From Christ to Constantine. II. From Constantine to Luther. III. From Luther to his own time (1840).

§ 318. Lobegott Lange has five periods, corresponding to as many stages in the progress of the hierarchy. The first extends to the Council of Nice (325); the second to the developement of the Romish monocratical hierarchy, under Gregory the Great (590); the third to its completion under Gregory the Seventh (in the last third of the eleventh century); the fourth to its decline and fall in many states of Europe at the Reformation (in the first third of the sixteenth century); the fifth from the Reformation to his own time (1846).

§ 319. Two of these periods are subdivided: the first into (1) the period of Primitive Christianity (Urchristenthum) until the developement of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and (2) the interval between that and the developement of the Aristocratical Hierarchy; the fourth into the (1) Decline and (2) Fall of the Romish Monocratic Hierarchy.

§ 320. Niedner, one of the most profound and accurate modern German Church Historians, but, at the same time, one of the most obscure and intricate, adopts the division into three great periods or Ages, but terminates the first in the middle of the eighth century, and the second at the end of the 15th; subdividing the three ages very unequally, the first, besides the Apostolical and earlier history, into (1) the conflict with Graeco-Roman heathenism (second and third centuries), (2) with oriental heathenism (fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries); (3) with Islam and Heathendom in the East and West (seventh and eighth centuries); the Second or Middle Age into the Foundation of the Medieval Church (from the middle of the eighth to the middle of the 11th century), its completion (from the middle of the 11th to the end of the 13th), and its decline (during the llth and 15th); the Hiird or Modern Age into (1) the Reformation, or the conflict of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (during the 16th century); (2) the Ecclesiastical and Doctrinal developement of both (to the middle of the 18th century); (3) the scientific and sceptical developement of Protestantism (to the middle of the 19th century).

§ 321. Lindner, a younger writer of great merit, assumes three Ages, the first being that of the developement of Christianity in the Grajco-Roman form (during the first eight centuries); the second the strife of the Graeco-Roman and Germanic civilization (during the next seven centuries); the third the triumph of Germanic culture in the Keformation (during the last three centuries).

§ 322. He divides each age into two smaller periods, and characterizes each of these, first "politically," then "dogmatically ;" his first period, extending to 311, being that of the church under heathen persecution, and employed in excluding the Judaic and heathen element from its theology; the second, extending to 814, that of its establishment and ultimate subjection to the state.

§ 323. In the Middle Ages, his first period, extending to 1294, is that of the subjection of the state to the church, and of the civil to the canon law, and also that of the scholastic reproduction of theology, together with the first signs of reaction and reformatory movement; his second period, extending to 1517, is that of the emancipation of the state from the thraldom of the hierarchy, and the developement of nationalities, and also that of conflict between the Roman and Germanic mind in doctrinal discussion, with still clearer marks of a reforming tendency.

§ 324. In the third Age, Lindner's first division, extending to 1648, is the period of Protestant triumph over Popish oppression, but subjection to the Protestant state, and of purified doctrine in conflict -with. Roman stiffness and enthusiastic laxity; his second period is that of pietistical reaction against church and state, and effort after free organization, together with the conflict of the true doctrine with the extreme forms of pietism and rationalism.

§ 325. Fricke retains the usual distinction of three Ages, but terminates the first at Charlemagne's original accession to the throne (768), and describes it as comprising the rise of Christianity till the settlement of the great doctrines and of the constitution in the form of papal monarchy; the second as the period or age of doctrinal stagnation and of papal usurpation, with opposition and reaction, both in church and state; the third as the age of advancing freedom and political security, popish reaction and revival, Protestant orthodox rigidity, and general effort after peace and union not yet realized.

§ 326. The German Roman Catholic Church historian Abzog (§ 136) also adopts the favourite division into three Ages and six periods, the first age being that of the Church in the Grseco-Roman Empire, and comprising the first seven centuries; the second that of the Church in the Germanic and Slavonic races, from the fourth to the 15th cen

tury, inclusive; the third from the ""Western Schism," as he calls the Reformation, to the present time. The first age he divides, as usual, by Constantine (313); the second he divides by the accession of Gregory VII. (1073), and subdivides by the death of Charlemagne (814), and Boniface VIII. (1303); the third age he divides by the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

§ 327. Very different from this, and evidently calculated for the meridian of France not Germany, is the periodology of the ultramontane French historian Postel (§ 136), who assumes eleven periods, 1. From Christ to Constantino (313). 2. To the fall of the Western Empire (476). 3. To Mahomet (622.) 4. To the death of Charlemagne (814). 5. To the first crusade (1095). 6. To the death of St. Louis (1270). 7. To the fall of the Eastern Empire (1453). 8. To the close of the Council of Trent (1563), including the Reformation (§ 217). 9. To the death of Louis XIV. (1715). 10. To the elevation of Pius VII. (1800). 11. To the elevation of Pius IX. (1846).

§ 328. Of the recent English writers on Church History (§ 141), Hardwick treats only of the Middle Ages and the Reformation; Blunt of the first three centuries; Bobertson of the first six, which he divides like ISTeander, whose periods are also adopted by Waddington. (§ 140.)

§ 329. Somewhat different is the periodology of Palmer (§ 142), though he likewise assumes five great periods without subdivision: I. That of the Pure and Persecuted Church (to 320). II. That of Heresies and Holy CEcumenical Councils (to 680). HI. That of Ignorance, "Worldliness, and Superstition, with pious reaction and extensive conversions (to 1054). IV. That of Schism between the East and West, and of the height and decline of the Papal usurpation (to 1517). "V. That of Reformation and Resistance, Schism and Infidelity (to 1839).

§ 330. The periodology of JMilman (§ 139), is confused by extreme minuteness and by complication with a topical arrangement, so that it is not easily compared with those already mentioned, but deserves attention, not only on account of his general celebrity, but as a key to his two important works upon Church History.

§ 331. Milman's first work (§ 139) extends from the birth of Christ to the abolition of Paganism in the Roman Empire, and is divided into books and chapters, partly on a chronical and partly on a topical method. His second work, the History of Latin Christianity, extends to the Pontificate of Nicolas V. and is divided by the author into fourteen Periods, as he calls them, although some of them are not strictly Periods but Topics.

§ 332. The first of these "Periods" extends to the Pontificate of Damasus and his two successors (366-401); the second to Leo the Great (461); the third to the death of Gregory the Great (604); the fourth to the coronation of Charlemagne (800); the fifth to the end of his dynasty (996); the sixth includes the series of German Pontiffs (1061); the seventh that of Italian Pontiffs, beginning with Gregory VII. (1073); the eighth the strife about investiture (during the 12th century); the ninth the height of the Papacy, to the formation of the Canon Law, under Gregory IX. (1238); the tenth the conflict of the Popes and Emperors (to the death of Innocent IY. 1254); the eleventh the triumph of the Papacy until broken under Boniface VIII. (who died 1303); the twelfth the Babylonian Captivity till 1370; the thirteenth the Papal schism, the reforming councils, and attempts at union with the Greeks; the fourteenth medieval art and revival of letters. A concluding topic is the advance of reformation and the rivalry of Latin and Teutonic Christianity.

§ 333. From the definition previously given (§ 275) of the periodological arrangement, it will be seen that it makes use of epochs only to define its periods, as the surveyor plants his stakes for the purpose of his measurements or observations, and .when these are finished, removes or leaves them, which he would not if the stakes had an intrinsic value, or were useful for another purpose.

§ 334. Now the epochs used in framing periodologies are also valuable in themselves, or independently of this use, as salient and turning points in history, to know which is a wide step towards the knowledge of the history itself, but to select which the beginner is incompetent, unless assisted by the judgment of the best historians, as expressed in the selection of particular epochs as the basis or the framework of their periodologies.

§ 335. In order to apply them to this use, it will be found a salutary exercise to separate them from the periodologies of which they form a part, especially when this is done, not by mere transcription or dictation, but by the personal exertions of the individual student, to encourage which the following suggestions are presented, drawn from personal experience.

§ 330. Let all the epochs be collected from as many distinct periodologies as may be thought desirable, for instance from the twenty which have been described in the preceding paragraphs (§§ 284 -332) or from the six selected specimens first stated, and placed in a continued series, without reference to their position in the several periodological arrangements.

§ 337. Then let this aggregate or gross amount be reduced by eliminating all that does not properly fall under the description of an epoch, as for instance when a century, or half a century, its first third, or its last third, are employed as periodological distinctions, these being not real epochs, but expedients borrowed from the old centurial method.

§ 338. Let the list thus shortened be reduced still further by consolidating dates which really represent one epoch—such as the six dates in the reign of Constantine, his accession (311), his decrees of toleration (312, 313), the beginning of his sole reign (323, 324), and the first (Ecumenical Council (325); or the two dates in the life of Gregory the Great, his accession (590) and his death (604); or the corresponding points in the history of Boniface YIII. (1294 and 1303); or the three in that of Charlemagne, his original accession (768), his coronation as Emperor (800), and his death (814); or the two in that of Gregory VII., his original appearance (1049), and his election to the Papacy (1073); or the two dates assigned to the beginning of the Reformation (the beginning of the century and the year 1517).

§ 339. The epochs thus reduced in number, may be then distributed by centuries, not as a permanent arrangement, but for the purpose of observing the difference between the centuries, as to the frequency or paucity of critical or turning points, some having none in the preceding periodologies (viz. the 1st, 3d, and 12th), some only one (viz. the 6th, 10th, and 17th), some two (viz. the 2d, 9th, 15th, 16th, and 18th), some three (viz. the 8th and 14th), some four (viz. the 5th, 7th, and 19th), some five (viz. the 11th and 13th), and one seven (viz. the 4th, if every date be separately counted), but if all that really belong together be consolidated, only two. These differences, although to some extent fortuitous, must have some basis in the true relations of the several centimes to one another.

§ 340. Another method of comparison is to observe how many of the given periodologies agree in recognizing any epoch, which may be regarded as an indication of the extent to which it is acknowledged by historians as a turning point or critiaal juncture.

§ 341. By the application of this process to the periodologies which have been described, it will be found that the Reformation has a place in twelve, the reign of Constantine in ten, that of Charlemagne in nine, the pontificate of Boniface VIII. in eight, that of Gregory VII. in seven, that of Gregory the Great in six, and the Peace of Westphalia in an equal number.

§ 342. Next to the epochs which arc thus found in from half a dozen to a dozen modern periodologies, and may therefore be regarded as the most extensively acknowledged, we may place a second class, containing such as have a place in three periodologies, as the third French Revolution, or in two, as the appearance of Mahomet in the seventh century, the close of the series of great councils near the end of the same, and the fall of the Greek Empire in the middle of the fifteenth.

§ 343. To these two classes may be added a residuary class of indefinite extent, containing all those epochs which are found in only one periodology, and which are therefore recommended only by the voice of individual historians, but which may nevertheless be real junctures in the history, and therefore valuable aids in understanding and retaining it.

§ 344. From the periodologies described above, omitting some dates which seem to be ill-chosen and unsuited to the end proposed, especially in Milman's list (§ 332), we may obtain the following residuary catalogue, arranged in chronological order. The reign of Adrian (117), Septimius Severus (193), Pontificate of Damasus (366), Council of Chalcedon (451), Leo the Great (461), Fall of the "Western Empire (476), Iconoclasm (726), Nicolas I. (858), End of Carlovingian Dynasty (996), Breach between East and West (1054), First Crusade (1095), Death of Innocent III. (1216), Gregory IX. and the Canon Law (1238), Death of St. Louis (1270), Babylonish Captivity (1305), Papal Schism (1375), End of Tridentine Council (1563), Death of Louis XIY. (1715), Accession of Pius VII. (1800), Fall of Napoleon (1814), Second French Revolution (1830), Accession of Pius IX. (1846).

§ 345. The best mode of using the epochs thus arranged and classed, is first to master those of the first order, as most generally recognized; and then, when these are perfectly familiar, to pursue the same course with the second, after which the resid

nary class can be gradually added, and at the same time indefinitely enlarged.

§ 346. Another useful method of the same land is to frame successively lists or tables, each containing nineteen dates, or one for every century, the choice of which, if made by the student himself, involves an exercise of mind which must be useful in proportion to the difficulties that attend it.

§ 347. The following may be taken as a specimen of such a table, not to be permanently rested in, but often and indefinitely varied. Century I. the fall of Jerusalem (70), II. Martyrdom of Justin (163), III. Decian Persecution (250), IV. Council of Nice (325), Y. Fall of Western Empire (476), YI. Gregory the Great (590), YII. Mahomet (622), YIII. Iconoclasm (726), IX. Death of Charlemagne (814), X. Accession of Otho the Great (936), XI. Gregory YII. (1073), XII. Alexander III. (1159), XIII. Boniface YIII. (1294), XIY. Wiclif (1360), XY. Fall of Eastern Empire (1453), XYI. Luther (1517), XYII. Peace of Westphalia (1648), XYIH. "Wesley (1732), XIX. Fall of Napoleon (1814).

§ 348. When the points in such a list are really salient, they will indicate, in some degree, the great changes as they follow one another; as for instance

in the table just presented, although not framed with any such design, we find martyrdom (century II.) and persecution (III.) followed by the first (Ecumenical Council (IV.); the degradation of the Church in the ninth and 10th centuries suggested by the choice of emperors to represent them; the subsequent rise of the papacy by the choice of three popes to represent as many centuries (XI. XII. XIII.), its decline and the growth of the reformatory tendency, by the position here assigned to Wiclif (XIV.), &c, &c.

§ 349. Such tables may be constructed either on the principle of varying the epochs, i. e. choosing sometimes one kind of event and then another; or on that of sameness, making all the points in any given table similar to one another, e. g. making out a series of great councils or assemblies, beginning with the Council at Jerusalem in the first century, and ending with the First Free Church Assembly in the nineteenth; or, finally, avoiding both extremes, as in the specimen first given.

§ 350. The materials for such lists may be drawn, in the first instance, from the periodologies already given; then from the topical details to be given hereafter; thirdly, from books of history, whether thoroughly studied or skimmed over for this very purpose; and lastly from the chronological tables, found in most such books or elsewhere, which last, however, unless used with moderation, will deprive the student of the benefit arising from his own exertions.

§ 351. Having taken our first or chronological survey of the whole field, we may now proceed, in execution of our plan (§ 207), to the second or topical survey of the same ground, beginning, as before, with the definition of terms, suggested by their etymology.

§ 352. From the Greek Two? meaning place, comes (1) the adjective topical, used in medicine as the equivalent of local, from the Latin locus, and (2) the noun topic, applied by the ancient writers in a peculiar technical sense to certain parts of rhetoric and logic, as in the topics of Aristotle and Cicero, and in theology to the usual divisions (loci communes) of the system of doctrine (whence our popular usage of commonplace for that which is familiar, trite, or hackneyed), but in history and other sciences to their subdivisions or constituent parts.

§ 353. The name is not properly applied to insulated facts, as such considered, which are rather anecdotes, in the technical sense of the term, as denoting, primarily, inedited, unpublished facts, and then detached or separate historical materials; the accessory idea of something humorous or entertaining being altogether popular and adventitious.

§ 354. The same fact or event which, in itself considered, is an anecdote, as just denned, may be a topic when regarded as holding a specific place in history considered as a systematic whole.

§ 355. But although the meaning of the word has been determined, a question still presents itself, in reference to the thing which it denotes. "What constitutes a topic? and how are the topics of Church History in particular to be determined?

§ 356. Kot every individual fact—nor even every great event—can be regarded as constituting a distinct historical topic; because such fact or event may be inseparable from others, or at least from its own minor and accompanying circumstances; just as in a landscape, a particular object, as a tree or house, may be so situated with respect to others, that it cannot be surveyed apart, or constitute a separate object of vision. This is sometimes true of a whole series of successive events or a whole congeries of contemporary facts, which must be viewed together, in order to constitute a definite historical topic.

§ 357. We may now complete the definition of a topic, so far as it is necessary for our purpose, as a fact, or a series or a group of facts, forming one definite object of historical investigation, and occupying a definite place in history, considered as a systematic whole.

§ 358. The essential element in this complex idea, that of distinct objectivity, may vary in the case of different persons, some being able or accustomed to take in more at a single view than others; so that no selection or arrangement of topics is to be regarded as alone admissible exclusively of every other.

§ 359. Even in one and the same topical arrangement, it is best not to aim at an exact uniformity, either in quantity or quality, but to let it be controlled by circumstances, the topic being sometimes one event, such as the death of Julius Caesar, and at other times a series or system of events, such as the Reformation or the French Revolution.

§ 360. This liberty of choice, and flexibility of method, far from being a defect or disadvantage, as compared with mathematical rigour and exactness, is one of the great charms of historical study, and its loss one of the worst effects of all exclusive methods.

§ 361. There are two methods of selecting and arranging historical topics, which may be distinguished as the Analytic and Synthetic, in the strict etymological sense and application of those terms.

§ 362. The synthetic method begins with the minute details, and groups them, first in smaller, then in larger combinations, so as finally to form great masses; while the analytic method takes these masses, and divides and subdivides, eliminates and simplifies, until it reaches the constituent elements with which the synthesis began.

§ 363. "While both these processes are useful in their proper place, and may be both employed alternately, though not together, the last is better suited to our purpose, since by descending from generals to particulars, a basis is secured for the future study of details; whereas minute attention to the latter could extend to but a few, even of these, without imparting any general views whatever.

§ 364. For the study of a lifetime, or for original investigations, similar to those of Gieseler or Neander, the synthetic method may be best, but not for a brief academical course, wholly preparatory in its purpose.

§ 365. Another distinction which may possibly be useful is, that between tn o ways of viewing the particular topics when determined or selected; either, on the one hand, as mere subdivisions of an organic whole, without individual vitality or separate existence, like the counties in a State, or the departments in France; or, on the other hand, as so many organic wholes, forming a greater whole by federal combination, like the Swiss cantons or the States of our Union.

§ 366. Though both these views involve some truth, and may be turned to good account, the first is better suited to the exact sciences than to history, which consists in the aggregation of innumerable facts, not necessarily dependent on each other, and yet all related, and susceptible of rational as well as arbitrary combination.

§ 367. Instead, therefore, of assuming certain periods, and then cutting these into strips or slices by a uniform or rubrical division, we may let each topic reach as far as it will, or as we find convenient, using chronological divisions, not to cut them up, but simply to mark the surface, like the shadow on a dial.

§ 368. Ecclesiastical History, thus viewed, is a

congeries of minor histories, each of which is, in a certain sense, complete within itself, but in another sense, incomplete without the rest.

§ 369. The number, size, and form of these minor histories is not determined by the nature of the subject, or by any other extrinsic necessity, but is variable and discretionary, so that no exclusive method is either practicable or desirable.

§ 370. So great is this variety and liberty of combination, that the same event may enter into more than one of these particular histories, or may be treated both as a separate topic and as a component of one more extensive.

§ 371. It would be easy to divide the whole field of Ecclesiastical History into a few great topics or minor histories, running through its entire chronological dimensions; such as the history of Missions or of Church Extension, that of Church Organization, that of Doctrine, &c. But this would be only a slight modification of the rubrical method, on a larger scale, and therefore more unmanageable than when divided into centuries or periods.

§ 372. The same objection does not lie against some other similar divisions, such as the biographical division into lives, or personal histories, or that into the history of Councils, Controversies, Churches; all which have their own advantages, but none of which can possibly be made to comprehend all the materials or topics of Church History.

§ 373. The best method therefore is, instead of any uniform and rigid rule of distribution and arrangement, to select the topics for ourselves, taking sometimes one event and sometimes many, as the subject of investigation, and dividing and combining them to suit our own convenience, and the end which we have immediately in view.

§ 374. Hie general arrangement must of course be chronological; because all history, from its very nature, is so; because this order throws the most light on the mutual relation of events; and because it gives the most aid to the student's memory.

§ 375. In selecting the topics of Ecclesiastical History, it is best to begin with some connecting link between it and Biblical History—some event whose causes reach back and their effects forward, so as to touch both great divisions of the subject.

§ 376. Such an event is the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, only six or seven years after the close of the New Testament history, and yet many years before the probable date of the Apocalypse.

§ 377. But besides its date, it is also recommended by the connection of its causes and effects with the history of the Church.

§ 378. The proximate causes of this great catastrophe were the growing fanaticism and insubordination of the zealots, on one hand, and the cowardly but cruel domination of the Roman procurators on the other; both which causes seem to have grown worse and worse after the death of Christ, as if in execution of a special divine judgment.

§ 379. Our principal authority in reference to this great event is Flavius Josephus, a Jew of sacerdotal lineage, and a commander in the Jewish war, but afterwards highly favoured by the Romans, and therefore accused by his own people of apostasy, and regarded by many Christians also as unworthy of belief, while others go to the opposite extreme of preferring his testimony to that of the Scriptures; the truth, as usual in such cases, lying between the two.

§ 380. The providential instruments of this destruction were the Roman armies, first under Vespasian, and when he was recalled to Rome by the death of Yitellius, under his son Titus, the delicise humani generis, who used to say "Perdidi diem " when he had performed no act of beneficence; a character probably exaggerated by the heathen .writers, and measured by the heathen standard, but the comparative excellence of which is proved by his conduct in this siege, when Jews and Gentiles . seemed to have changed places, the impious desperation of the former being strangely contrasted with the moderation and humanity of Titus.

§ 381. The details of this event may be found in Josephus, Prideaux, Milman, Kurtz, and others; we are concerned only with its religious and ecclesiastical effects.

§ 382. Its effects upon the Jews has reference to their government, their religion, and their persecutions.

§ 383. The political effect was to destroy the Hebrew state or commonwealth, virtually at once, finally and formally, under Adrian, when an insurrection, under a false Messiah, called Barlochba, led to the demolition of the city, the erection of another under the name of Capitolina, and the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine, since which time they have had no existence as a nation or a body politic.

§ 384. As the Hebrew Church was a theocracy,

in -which church and state were not onlj united but identified, the Jewish religion, as distinguished from the Christian, fell with the state, having no local sanctuary, and the ceremonial service being almost entirely abandoned; Providence thus stamping Jewish unbelief as not only wicked but absurd, by making the continuance of the temporary system practically impossible.

§ 385. It was not an exchange of ceremonial for spiritual worship, since this existed before, and the Jews themselves admit the continued obligation of the former, and expect its restoration under the Messiah.

§ 3S6. A third effect upon the Jews was the cessation of their persecutions, the spirit of which however was perpetuated in their schools and controversies, with a rancour which has been abundantly repaid by Christians.

§ 387. The primary effect of the destruction of Jerusalem on the Christian Church was to put an end to the Judaic controversy, by rendering the observance of the Jewish law impossible.

§ 388. Some Jewish Christians still adhered to it, with more or less tenacity, and thus gave rise to

Jewish-Christian sects, the first of which we have any information.

§ 389. These were distinguished from the body of Christians by their observance of the law, and from the Jews by owning the Hessiahship of Jesus.

§ 390. They differed among themselves as to the necessity of the law, the person of Christ, and the authority of Paul.

§ 391. Some denied the absolute necessity of the law; some affirmed it only of Jewish converts; while others made it absolute and universal.

§ 392. Some regarded Christ as a mere man, others as something more, preternaturally born, and endowed with extraordinary gifts; others as a divine person.

§ 393. Some rejected Paul as an apostate, others owned him as an apostle.

§ 394. Our information as to these Jewish Christians is derrived from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome; but it is very fragmentary and obscure.

§ 395. It is common to assume two sects, differing in the intensity of their Judaic prejudices, the JSasareans and Ebionites.

§ 396. The Nasareans or N"azarenes, a name originally given to all followers of Christ (Acts 24, 6), were the less Jewish class, who held the lowest views as to the law, and the highest as to Christ and Paul.

§ 397. The name of Ebionite is derived by Tertullian from a man named Ebion, a very common ancient practice when the real derivation was unknown; but by Origen more correctly from the Hebrew }i->hx poor; whether assumed by themselves as being "poor in spirit," or the Lord's Poor (like the Pauperes of the Middle Ages); or given in contempt by others, as belonging- to the lower orders, or perhaps with reference to the poverty of the Mother Church, which some ascribe to the community of goods.

§ 398. The Ebionites were the more Jewish class, who held the lowest views of Christ and Paul, and insisted on the observance of the law as necessaiy to sal vation.

§ 399. "When they arose is not positively known, perhaps immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem—they were still in existence in the second century—perhaps much longer, and perhaps were merged in other sects (e. g. the Elcesaites).

§ 400. The gospel of the Kasareans and Ebion

ites is mentioned by the Fathers, but -whether as a creed or as a book is uncertain. Some identify it with the Gospel of the Hebrews, and others with the original of Matthew; which leads us to another topic.

§ 401. Second connecting link—Definition of Ecclesiastical History (§§ 32, 33).—Terminus a quo —close of history in Canon. Hence the question— When was the Canon closed? Details belong to Introduction—or to New Testament History—but outlines to beginning of Ecclesiastical History.

§ 402. Objective close of Canon—when last book written—reign of Domitian—near the end of the first century.—Subjective close of the Canon— when the question was finally determined in and by the Church.

§ 403. Eusebian classification—A. Homologumena—4 Gospels—Acts—13 Epistles of Paul—1 of Peter—1 of John. B. Antilegomena—(a) Hebrews (but only as to authors). (5) Apocalypse—first owned—then disowned by rationalists and antichiliasts—then re-owned, (c) James (considered by some antipauline)—2d Peter—2d and 3d John—. Jude—all short, and little quotable matter. C. Notha—wholly apocryphal and spurious.

§ 404. Doubts gradually cleared up—Church became unanimous—not by authority of councils —these as yet only local—and mere witnesses—not judges—special Council of Laodicea (A. D. 360)— and Council of Hippo (393)—our present Canon, established by the 3d Council at Carthage (397).

§ 405. Not a mere passive acquiescence—or random choice—modern German fallacy—criticism unknown to the ancient Church—one of its most important functions—to separate the Canon from the mass of competitors—the vo^a of Eusebius (§ 403).

§ 406. These of early origin—even Luke alludes to previous unauthorized attempts to write the Life of Christ—though not necessarily false—yet such would naturally spring up with the true. But

§ 407. Apocryphal literature nourished chiefly in the second century—much of it now lost—but enough left to show its character and origin—which was chiefly heretical—a rank growth from the soil of error—sp. Jewish-Christian sects and gnostics— Epiphanius speaks of " thousands" of gnostic apocrypha—Irenseus (more j udicious, moderate, and ancient) of an "inenarrabilis multitudo apocryphorum et perperum Scripturarum," among the Valentinians alone.

§ 408. Some not heretical—only pious frauds— vaticinia post eventum—or intended to fill chasms in Canonical, books—now impossible—bnt then facilitated by unsettled Canon.

§ 409. Some claimed a place in Old Testament —some in New Testament Canon—Apocryphal » Gospels—Acts—Epistles—Apocalypses—Principal collective editors—Fabricius—Thilo—Tischend orf.

§ 410. Classification of Apocrypbal Gospels—I. Those claiming to be complete histories of Christ, e. g. Gospel of the Hebrews—Peter—the Egyptians —Marcion—All probably heretical corruptions of the 4 canonical gospels. All now lost.

§ 411. IT. Supplementary Gospels—(1.) Of the infancy of Christ, e. g. (a) Protevangelium Jacobi Minoris—early history of Virgin—birth of Christ— comparatively simple and without exaggeration— Greek like that of the New Testament—Date very early—read at the festivals of Mary in the Eastern Church.

§ 412. (2.) Evangelium Eativitatis Marise—same general character—Latin preface by two bishops represents Matthew as the author—and Jerome as the translator. Collection of very old aprocryphal traditions. .-

§ 413. 3. Gospel of Joachim and Anna—parentage and birth of Virgin—infancy of Christ—flight to Egypt—infant miracles—Latin—purports to be by James. This also a collection of still older legends.

§ 414. 4. Gospel of Joseph the carpenter—Arabic translated from the Coptic—Life and death of Joseph—Moralizing—probably not older than the fourth century.

§ 415. 5. Gospel of Christ's infancy—Arabic translation from Syriac—full of absurd miracles. 6. Gospel of Thomas—Life of Christ from fifth to twelfth year—still more extravagant and silly.

§ 416. I. Supplementary accounts of his Passion, e. g. (1.) Gospel of Eicodemus—written in Greek— formal record of trial before Pilate—and resurrection of two sons of Simeon—dated in reign of Theodosius—first part purports to be derived from Hebrew work of Nicodemus—second part from older apocrypha—First mentioned in 13th century.

§ 417. (2.) Acts of Pilate—{a) such a book mentioned by Justin Martyr—Tertullian—Eusebius— Epiphanius—Pilate's report concerning Christ to Tiberius; with Tiberius's proposition to the Senate and letter to his mother—(b) Under Maximin—a

heathen forgery—same title—blashpemous calumnies of Christ—read in schools by order of emperor—(c) A third book—same title—still extant— much later—Latin report of Pilate to Tiberius— with account of Pilate's punishment—also Epistle of Lentulus to Senate—with minute description of Christ's person—first mentioned in the Middle Ages.

§ 418. II. Apocryphal acts—mostly of gnostic origin—numerous in third and fourth centuries— 13 in Teschendorf s collection—chiefly of the third century—some re-written with modification of gnosticism—all worthless—latest and largest—Historia Certaminis Apostolorum—purports to be written in Hebrew by Abdias, disciple of the Apostles and first Bishop of Babylon—Greek by Eutropius—and Latin by Julius Africanus—really not older than ninth century—found in the 16th century—rejected by Paul IV.—Baronius, Bellarmin, and Tillemont.

§ 419. III. Apocryphal Epistles—(a) Christ and Abgarus—King of Edessa—preserved in archives— seen there by Eusebius—request to be healed— promise to send disciple—(h) Paid to the Laodiceans (Col. 4, 16),—only in Latin—a mere cento of scriptural phrases—(c) Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5, 9), with their answer, both extant in Armenian—(cZ) Paul to Seneca—old tradition of correspondence (Augustine and Jerome)—13 short letters extant—(e) letter of Ignatius to Virgin Mary—asking information about Christ—and her answer referring him to John—first mentioned by Bernard in 12th century—(f) letters of the Virgin to the people of Messina, Florence, &c.

§420. IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses. (1.) Of Peter (Clem. Alex.) signs of judgment—(2.) Ascension of Paul (2 Cor. 12,) Aug. "fabulis plena stultissima prsesumtione." Epiphanius says Cainite (3.) Thomas—(4.) Stephen—(5.) another of John—all wretched copies of canonical Apocalypse.

§ 421. V. Apocryphal prophecies. (1.) Old Testament, (a) Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs— Imitation of Gen. 49—Mysteries of the other world—Prophecies of Christ—rejection of Jews— fine style—mentioned by Origen—(b) Apocalypse of Moses—only two quotations in Syncellus—rejects circumcision—(c) Ascension of Isaiah—Imitations of Paul's conversation with Angel—Messianic Prophecies—Quoted by Origen, Epiphanius—Jerome— Greek lost—Latin version extant at Venice—Ethiopic at Oxford.

§ 422. (2.) Heathen prophecies—(a) Sibylline books—Etymology of name (2to? [Doric for Jto?] Bovkrj)—Varro quoted by Lactantius—Ten Sibyls —Chief at Cuma—Tarquin—3 books—burnt in Capitol—under Marius and Sylla (B. C. 183)—replaced by collection—burnt again under Nero (A. D. 64)—Sibylline books now extant—Homeric verse —by daughter-in-law of Noah—evidently by Christians—-prophecies of Christ and Antichrist—Rome —Church—end of world—eruption of Vesuvius (A. D. 79)—sign of judgment—Nero's reappearance —Something later—gradual collection—second and third centuries—cited by Apologists—hence called Sibyllists—Celsus charged with forging—Disappeared with Paganism in fourth century—reappeared in 16th—only eight known till Mai discovered xi.-xiv.—best edition Alexandre's (1842)—(b) Hystaspes (Gushtasp) old Persian King—Christian prophecies—quoted by Justin Martyr and Clem. Alex.—(c) Hermes Trismegistus—Egyptian sage.

§ 423. IV. Disciplinary Pseudepigrapha—intended to give apostolical authority to ecclesiastical usages of third and fourth centuries—(1.) Apostolical polity or discipline—in Greek, third century— Acts of Apostolical Council—All exhort and legislate—Cephas besides Peter—also Martha and Mary Tt-Part as old as beginning of second century?

§ 4:24. (2.) Apostolical Constitutions—eight books —duties of laity and clergy—worship—widows and deaconesses—treatment of poor—martyrs—festivals—-heresies—Mosaic law—liturgy—charismata —ordinations—tythes—six books form one whole— called "Apostolic doctrine " in old versions—and in book itself—not ultra hierarchical—seventh and eighth each complete in itself—internal evidence of Syrian origin—last of third century—or beginning of fourth—Earlier than Council of Nice—quoted by Eusebius and Athanasius as " Doctrine of Apostles "—Cited as authority by Epiphanius—rejected by Concilium Quinisextum (692) as corrupted—but received in Eastern Church—unknown in "West till 16th century—rejected by Baronius and Daille— now generally given up.

§ 425. (3.) Apostolical Canons—Appendix to Constitutions (§ 424), but also in separate formGreek—Syriac—Ethiopic —Arabic—Longer form 85 canons—shorter 50—peremptory tone—apostolical authority—not doctrinal but disciplinary—made known in "West by Dionysius Exiguus (end of fifth century)—rejected as apocryphal by Pope Hormisdas—gradually current—recognized by Pseudo Isidore in East—imposed by Concilium Quinisextum.

§ 426. All this illustrates history of canon— shows critical process—New Testament homogeneous—and superior—not only to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha—but to

§ 427. Apostolical Fathers—third connecting link—earliest uninspired Christian writers—contemporaries and disciples of Apostles; Mark and Luke excluded as inspired.

§ 428. Simplicity and piety—without inspiration—divine or human—Hence genuineness of extant writings questioned—because early disposition to claim apostolical origin for later usages and doctrines (§ 423)—no canon to prevent such frauds— not affecting rule of faith.

§ 429. But on the other hand—modern disposition to exaggerate critical misgivings—Too much expected from Apostolical Fathers—whereas great gulf—immense descent from Apostles to Apostolical Fathers.

§ 430. Guericke says this surprising only to Papists, who think successors no less inspired than Apostles, or to Rationalists, who think Apostles no more inspired than successors.

§ 431. Providential purpose of this inequality— to draw a broad line between the canon and all other writings. If Origen, Athanasius, or Augustin had immediately succeeded the Apostles—they might have rivalled them—but this prevented by a pause—during which the life of the Church was rather practical than intellectual.

§ 432. Collective edition of Cotelerius—recent one of Hefele. Translation by Archbishop Wake; number usually reckoned seven—three disciples of Paul—three of John—and one anonymous—Paul as Apostle of Gentiles—John as last survivor.

§ 433. I. School of Paul—all supposed to be named in his epistles.—1. Clemens Romanus (Phil. 4, 3)—early bishop—and martyr (Pufinus)—(a) Epistle to Corinthians—in Greek—exhortation to union and humility—read in churches—then lost sight of —1628—Codex Alexandrinus—with LXX. and New Testament—presented by Cyril Lucaris to Charles I.—(b) Same manuscript, fragment of second epistle to Corinthians—but no epistle—and probably not by Clement.—(c) Pseudepigrapha—(d) Apostolical Constitutions and Canons, (§§ 424, 425).—(e) Clementina and Recognitions.—(/") Some pseudodecretals.

§ 434. (2.) Barnabas—named in Galatians and Acts—one epistle extant—known to Clement of Alexandria—lost since ninth century—found in 17th —first four and a half chapters only in old Latin version—allegorizes Old Testament—later than Fall of Jerusalem—depreciates ceremonial law—but pious —and some excellent ideas—reckoned apocryphal by Eusebius and Jerome (i. e. not inspired or canonical)—spurious by Neander—genuine by Gieseler.

§435. (3.) Hermas (Kom. 16, 14) "the Shepherd " complete only in old Latin version—Angel as Shepherd instructs Hermas—three books: I. Four visions (church as woman); + II. Twelve mandates (of Angel to Hermas); + III. Ten similitudes—Abstruse and mystical—but read in churches—Origen and IrenaBUS call it inspired—Muratori Fragment (Caius ?) ascribes to another Hermas—brother of Pius, bishop of Rome (c. A. D. 150).

§ 436. II. School of John—belonging to his later ministry—age not mentioned in the Scriptures.—(1.) Ignatius—bishop of Antioch—martyred under Trajan (§ 490)—15 epistles extant, 8 acknowledged to be spurious (5 Greek + 3 Latin)—7 in Greek— written on way to Rome—1 to Poly carp—5 to churches in Asia Minor and 1 to church in Rome— warning against heresies and discord—exhortations to rally round the bishops as representatives of Christ—Hence appealed to in episcopal controversy —One question as to long and short recension. whether long interpolated—or short curtailed. Third recension—discovered by Tatham (1838), edited by Cureton—glorified by Bunsen—refuted by Baur—only three epistles—in Syriac—less prelatical—but also less trinitarian—meagre garbling of the seven—Anglicans hold to long form—Germans to short—Inconclusive as to prelacy—(a) because bishop may mean presbyter—{b) if diocesan, a new invention.

§ 437. (2.) Polycarp—disciple of John—bishop of Smyrna—martyr under Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 168, § 494).—Epistles to churches under persecution —only one preserved—to the Philippians—Greek only in fragments—entire only in old Latin version —many citations from New Testament—important witness as to Canon.

§ 438. (3.) Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia—disciple of John (Irenseus)—Martyr under Marcus Aurelius (?)—collector of Christ's AOFIA —credulous and injudicious (o-yuyepo? vow, Eus.) but great influence—promoted Chiliasm—Only meagre fragments—preserved by Irenasus and Eusebius.

§ 439. III. Anonymous—Epistle to Diognetus— Description or Defence of Christianity—addressed to a heathen—Long ascribed to Justin Martyr—but very unlike—older—professed disciple of Apostles— more elegant—laxer as to Judaism—heathen gods nullities, not demons—First disproved by Tillemont —reaffirmed by Otto—(Excellent Patristic exercise —Hefele's edition (§ 432)—Biblical Repertory, Jan. 1853.

§ 440. Early propagation of Christianity—another connecting link with apostolical times—absolute and relative historical importance. New Testament, chiefly Peter and Paul.

§ 441. Remarkable dearth of information—almost a blank—perhaps to be explained by rapid and simultaneous movement—if slower and successive, might be traced more easily.

§ 442. Edessa—Christian king—Abgarus (170)— Arabia—India—Bartholomew ?—Thomas ?—Pautsenus—Origen—Gaul from Asia Minor—Britain from the same ?—or from Rome ?—Eleutherus and Lucius —Claims of various nations mostly fabulous.

§ 443. Mode of propagation—as at first—by establishing radiating centres—Rome the last in the New Testament—then Alexandria and Carthage.

§ 444. Twofold conflict of the Church in the first centuries (§ 257)—Intellectual and physical—Intellectual conflict—(1) with avowed enemies—(2) with disguised enemies—A. Judaism (§ 391).

§ 445. B. Heathenism—(a) its origin—segregation of the chosen people—the rest left to walk in their own ways—(5) its tendencies to atheism and pantheism—to superstition—to materialism—to natnre-worship—to despotism.

§ 446. Twofold preparation for Christianity, (1) among the Jews—salvation for men—(2) among the gentiles—men for salvation; (a) negative—convince of need—and worthlessness of human contrivances— (b) positive—with actual cultivation—preparation of language—as the garb of truth—Greek—most perfect language—and when Christ came—the most prevalent—and therefore proper vehicle of oecumenical revelation.

§ 447. State of heathenism at the advent— effete—sense of want never greater—means of satisfying it never less.

§ 448. Barbarous religions, i. e. neither Greek nor Roman—comparativly little known—Eastern theosophi es—Buddhism—Parsism—western Druidism—spiritual tyranny—power destroyed in first century. Other barbarous religions, military or savage.

§ 449. Greek and Roman Heathenism—originally not the same—the Roman sterner and purer —but assimilated after fall of Carthage and Corinth —increase of wealth and luxury—influence of Greek teachers—question as to Greek art—whether corrupting or redeeming (Tholuck and Jacobs).

§ 450. Sense of spiritual want unsatisfied— mania for new religions—fostered by new conquests —rites and mysteries imported from Egypt and the East —Dea Syra —Mithras—Syncretism—highest ranks—even Emperors—Heliogabalus—Alexander Severus. (§§ 500, 501).

§ 451. Relation of Philosophy to Mythology— (1) Antagonistic—condemned and ridiculed it—(2) Compromise—defended and explained it—symbolical interpretation—(3) Amalgamation—philosophy np longer speculation—but religion—especially after rise of Christianity.

§ 452. The greatest schools of Greek Philosophy extinct or metamorphosed, e. g. those of Plato and Aristotle still survived, and prevalent at Advent—those of (1) Epicurus—happiness the highest good—no Providence—the gods indifferent to man's conduct and condition— and (2) Zeno (Stoics) pain no evil—fate—indifferentism—apathy—No. 1 suited the Greeks—No. 2 the Romans. (See Acts 17, 18.)

§ 453. Heathen view of Christianity—at first contemptuous—as barbarous fanaticism—or offshoot of Judaism—then jealous—when it spread and became powerful—as new form of philosophy—all that was good in it known before—only in new form—But this led necessarily to

§ 454. Reform of Heathenism—(like that of Popery after the Reformation)—by reviving old systems—sp. that of Pythagoras—but no longer esoteric—popular—Goetes—Magoi—chief representative

§ 455. Apollonius of Tyana—lived through the first century—perhaps an enthusiast more than an impostor—oldest authorities speak of him as a Goes —but the next age exalted him as an antichrist— religious teacher and thaumaturge—sp. his biographer, Philostratus—but effect transient.

§ 456. Revival of old Mysteries—Eleusinian— Dionysian—Oriental—Egyptian—purer theology? —or mere freemasonry ?—Still a failure—could not replace Christianity.

§ 457. Last effort—the Eclectic Philosophy—its principle—take what is good in all systems—not only of philosophy—but of religion—thus sure to be better than any one—(a common fallacy—excels each only in detail—but has no unity or substantive existence; illustrate by eclectic building or machine)—Christianity itself placed, under contribution—but not its essentials—then would have been Christian, and chiefly in heretical corrupted form.

§ 458. Basis of course not Christian—but Heathen Philosophy most like it—Platonism—hence JVeoplatonism—supported by whole strength of Heathenism—in decline of classic age—Forerunners—Plutarch (+120)—profound—serious—sometimes almost Christian—favourite ancient with unlearned readers now—Apuleius (c. 170)—Maximus Tyrius (c. 190.)

§ 459. Proper founder of system—Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (c. 243)—said to have been born and bred a Christian—seduced into heathenism by study of philosophy. Principal disciples and successors: Plotinus—also an Egyptian (c. 270) —Porphyry of Tyre (+ 304)—Jamblichus of Chalcis (+ 333)—witnessed fall of Heathenism.

§ 460. End of third century—universal among educated heathen—superseded other systems—necessary part of education—studied by many Christians—led to some corruptions.

§ 461. Outline of system—two sets of gods—different spheres—mundane and extramundane—demons, good and bad—icoo-fios Potjto? or rational universe—material universe made by demiurge—oliroXXot might be satisfied with local and ancestral gods —oi cnrovBaioi should seek to know and be united with 6 vovs or To ev—by ascesis—contemplation— and theurgy.

§ 462. Effect on Christianity—led many to it— others satisfied without it—some led to oppose it— early tone of heathen writers towards Christianity —Tacitus—S uetonius—Pliny—Marcus Aurelius— offended by enthusiasm. Of less note: Fronto— Crescens—Galen.

§ 463. Lucian—satirist of mythology—cynicism —and Christianity—promoted undesignedly by bearing witness to Christian fortitude and Philadelphia.—His history of Peregrinus Proteus—aimed more at cynicism than at Christianity—founded in fact—(Peregrinus Proteus mentioned by A. Gellius—Tatian—Athenagoras—Tertullian)—but embellished fiction—with traits from Christian history —e. g. martyrdom of Polycarp.

§ 464. First formal attack on Christianity—by Celsus—probably Epicurean, with Platonic mark— AAHQH2 AOrOX—only known from Origen's refutation—some wit—but shallow— ignorant — malignant—makes Christ an ordinary Goes.

§ 465. Porphyry (§ 459)—nobler and ablerfifteen books (KATA CHRISTINIAN/2N LOGOI) —only a few fragments in Eusebius—sceptical criticism—allegorical interpretation—contradictions —Moses and Christ—Peter and Paul—anachronisms—Daniel. Forerunner of rationalism—also wrote in defence of Heathenism (" Philosophy from the Oracles ")—large fragments in Eusebius.

§ 466. Hierocles—governor of Bithynia under Diocletian—both persecutor and polemic writer— (AOrOIQIAAAH&ElZIIPOXXPrtTIANOrS) —best part borrowed from predecessors—eked out with calumnious fables about Christ and Christians —prefers Apollonius of Tyana.

§ 467. These attacks called forth the best Christian writers of the age—sp. under Antonines—in Apologies—or regular defences of Christianity— some public or official—some popular or private.

Of both, these some are lost—and some still extant.

§ 468. Oldest apologists no longer extant— (1) Quadratus—disciple of Apostles (Irensens)— Bishop of Athens (Eusebius)—reputed prophet— had seen men healed or raised to life by Christ —presented Apology to Adrian—lost since the seventh century—last mentioned by Photius—(2) Ariston of Pella—" Jason and Papiscus "—argument from prophecy—sneered at by Celsus—defended by Origen.

§ 469. (3) Melito of Sardis—witness to Canon —presented apology to Marcus Aurelius—praised by Eusebius and Jerome—original lost—Syriac version found and published with an English translation in 1855, by Cureton. (4) Claudius Apottinaris—bishop of Hierapolis—praised by Eusebius and Jerome—now lost. (5) Miltiades—-a rhetorician—presented apology to Marcus Aurelius— praised by Eusebius and Jerome—now lost.

§ 470. LT. Apologists still extant: (1) Justin Martyr—born at Shechem in Samaria—heathen parentage and education—studied philosophy— tried all schools—but unsatisfied—at last instructed by an aged Christian—retained his philosopher's mantle—but travelled as a sort of missionary— hated by the heathen—put to death at Rome (163-167)—at the instance of Crescens the Cynic (§ 462.)

§ 471. Two Apologies of Justin—first and longest to Antoninus Pius—second to Marcus Aurelius—a third against the Jews (Dialogue with Trypho)—Against the heathen IIEPI MONAPXIAX)—refuted from their own philosophers. Some books of doubtful origin—two Exhortations to the Greeks. Book against heresies now lost—many pseudopigrapha—e. g. Epistle to Diognetus (§ 439).

§ 472. Tatian—disciple of Justin—author of first harmony (Diatessaron)—A OTOXIIPO 2 HELLENAS—treats Greek heathenism with indiscriminate contempt. Afterwards became a Gnostic.

§ 473. (3.) Athenagoras—personal history unknown—Presbeia (intercession) peri Christianun— clear and logical—negative and positive defence—another work defends the resurrection against heathen objections.—(4) Theophilus ofAntioch—three books to Antolycus—a learned heathen friend—among the best apologies—shows great knowledge of Greek literature. Born a heathen—converted by reading the Scriptures—author of other exegetical and controversial works—now lost. (5) Hermias—history unknown—AIAZTPMOZ TI2N EEfl &IA020$flN—satirical attack on heathenism—variously described as "geistvoll" (Kurtz) and "geistlos" (Jacobi). [Tertullian, Origen, Minucius Felix ?j

§ 474 General character of these Apologies— repel calumnies—atheism, rnisanthrophy—Thyesean feasts—incest—show the true character of Christianity—and expose the absurdity and wickedness of heathenism—thus they dispelled many errors and prejudices—and diffused much light— both as to Heathenism and Christianity.

§ 475. But good end frequently promoted by bad means—e. g. (a) appeal to false authorities— Sibylline books—Hystaspes—Hermes Trismegistus —(b) identifying Christianity with the old Greek philosophy—(c) erroneous views of the relation between Judaism and Christianity—depreciation of the Ceremonial law—even as a temporary institution—(d) deficient views of spiritual Christianity— too superficial and external.

§ 476. Other side of great twofold conflict (§ 444). Persecution—coextensive with first three centuries.—Providential purpose or final cause— 1. To sift the Church and exclude hypocritical professors. 2. To harden and fortify it by endurance. Peculiarly necessary in the first age, as the forming period of the Church.

§ 477. Primary source of Persecution—the Jews —begins in New Testament—Persecution of Christ by the Pharisees—as the dominant party—which he especially denounced—and of the Apostles by the Sadducees—because they preached the resurrection.

§ 478. The first martyr, Stephen—the second, James, the son of Zebedee—both led to the diffusion of the gospel—Persecution by Saul and of Paul (active and passive)—Jewish hatred embittered by the death of Christ—-the Zealots.

§ 479. First check to Jewish persecution—the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (§ 387). Renewed under Bar . Cochba (or Bar Coziba)— aided by Rabbi Akiba—insurrection—three years war—Christians persecuted by both parties—put down by Julius Severus — Palestine wasted — Jerusalem razed—Boman colony—^Elia Capitolina —temple of Yenus—Jews banished for ages (Tert. and Jerome)—Circumcision and Sabbath forbidden —end of Jewish persecution.

§ 480. Secondary source of Persecution—Heathenism—necessary hostility to exclusive religion— law of Ten Tables—only one religio licita—i. e. in Rome and Italy—tolerated religion of foreign conquests.

§ 481. Less tolerant to Judaism—because exclusive—still less to Christianity—because more aggressive and successful—and without prestige of nationality and antiquity—(compare Turkish and Prussian toleration).

§ 482. Popular prejudice against the Chrstians —(a) as Atheists—because no images or temples— (b) as licentious—on account of secret and nocturnal meetings—Lord's Supper a Thyestean feast!— (c) as unpatriotic—because declined civil and military service—not as unlawful per se—but as leading to idolatry—(d) as misanthropical—because abstained from public amusements—and thought more of the future than the present.