of St. John, but a statement of Euse-tary contains five distinct objections bius has been interpreted as repre-made against the Apocalypse by senting Caius to have rejected the "Caius the heretic," together with the Apocalypse and attributed it to Cerin- answers to these objections made by thus. For he tells us 1 that among the Hippolytus. Dionysius of Alexandria heretical writings rejected by Caius had stated that some of his predeceswas a book of Revelations purporting sors who rejected the Apocalypse had to be written by a great apostle, but gone over the whole of the book, critiascribed by Caius to Cerinthus, in cising every chapter. Dr. Gwynn's which the author professes to have extracts make it pretty clear that Caius been shown by angels that after the was one of those whom Dionysius had resurrection Christ's kingdom should in his mind; for it is exactly in this be earthly, that men should inhabit detailed criticism that Caius deals in Jerusalem, should be the slaves of lusts these extracts. We do not know and pleasures, and should spend a thou- whether Hippolytus had given Barsasand years in wedding festivities. Yet lîbî any authority for describing Caius there were strong reasons for rejecting as a heretic, and it is quite possible the interpretation that under this de- that the Church of Rome, at the beginscription we are to recognize the book ning of the third century, may have that we know under the name of the tolerated among its presbyters differApocalypse. The author of that book ences of opinion as to the reception of does not himself claim to be a great St. John's Apocalypse, such as apostle; he nowhere describes millen-known to have existed among orthodox nial happiness as consisting in sensual men for more than a century later. gratifications; and he holds, concern- Yet as far as the new evidence goes it ing our Lord's divinity, a doctrine tends to increase suspicion as to the quite opposite to that which in all ac- sufficiency of the proof on which it had counts is attributed to Cerinthus. It been asserted that Caius was a presbywas further urged that Caius, a pres-ter of the Roman Church. byter of the Roman Church, was not likely to have written against a book which we otherwise know to have been received by that Church.

Yet within the last five years unexpected light has been thrown on the personality of Caius, and it has become certain that, whatever may have been his relation to the Roman Church, he was not only distinct from Hippolytus, but was in controversy with him, and on this very subject of the Johannine writings. The new evidence was published by Dr. Gwynn in 1888,2 from a British Museum manuscript of a Syriac commentary on the Apocalypse by a twelfth-century writer, Dionysius Barsalîbî, which had not previously been edited, and apparently not even read by any Syriac scholar acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity. The commen

1 H. E. iii. 28.

2 In Hermathena, vol. vi., p. 397, vol. vii., p. 137; see also Harnack, "Die Gwynn 'schen Cujus- und Hippolytus-Fragmente," in Texte und Untersuchungen, Band v. Heft 3; Zahn, Gesch. d. neut.

Kanons, Band ii, Hälfte ii. Abth. ii. 973.

are

II. The Syriac extracts from Hippolytus just mentioned enable us to recognize that Epiphanius has been drawing from Hippolytus in the section. of his work on heresies in which he deals with the opponents of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John. Another small contribution to our knowledge of Hippolytus has been made in the next "find" we have to record, viz., a complete copy of the fourth book of his commentary on Daniel, which found in the library of a Greek theological college in an island in the Sea of Marmora. The fourth book of the commentary, being that which deals with the prophetic chapters vi.-xii., is the portion of the work which had most attraction for Christian readers, and so

was

many extracts from it had been tran- | cover.

The chief novelty in the chapters previously unknown is that they give us reason to ascribe to Hippolytus the fixing of our Lord's conception and his nativity to March 25 and December 25 respectively, as we still celebrate them. In an earlier work he had fixed the conception for April 8; and his influence on the calendar calculations of the Roman Church was so great that it had not been easy to guess why his date had not been adopted. Now we know that the correction was made by Hippolytus himself, and explanations have been offered of the chronological considerations that prompted the change.

Simultaneously with Bryennius's recovery of Clement's Epistles a Syriac translation came to light which gave an independent authority for the text.1 Something of the same kind has taken place with respect to this commentary on Daniel, but the second authority still awaits publication.

The fruit of his visit was the scribed that the new discovery adds but recovery of a work, not indeed of little to what had been already known much importance as throwing light on of Hippolytus's system of prophetic any disputed questions of doctrine or interpretation. history, but yet of high interest as adding to our scanty store of the products of Christian thought in the second cen tury. Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History" (iv. 4), when he comes to treat of the reign of Hadrian, states that an apology had been addressed to that emperor by Quadratus, of which several copies were extant, and he himself had one. He then quotes from it one sentence exhibiting the early date of this apology; for the author states that subjects of some of our Lord's miracles had survived to his own time. Eusebius goes on to state that another apology had been presented to the same emperor by Aristides, of which also several copies were extant; but he does not say that he had got a copy himself, and he makes no extract from it. In this work he gives no further information about Aristides; but in his "Chronicle" he calls Quadratus a hearer of the apostles, and describes Aristides as an Athenian philosopher. Jerome and other writers who mention those two apologists inspire no confidence that they knew anything more than they had learned from Eusebius. Quadratus has by some been identified with one whom we know to have been Bishop of Athens in the second century, but apparently at too late a date to make it probable that he could have met any survivor of the Apostolic age; and reasons have been given for thinking that the apologist was more likely to have been an Asiatic than an Athenian. What reason there was for calling this Aristides an Athenian is unknown. An old French traveller brought home news that a copy of his apology had been preserved in a monastery a few miles from Athens, but search thereupon made for it in that neighborhood proved unsuccessful.

III. The third acquisition we have to mention comes from a source to which we have been indebted before namely, the same convent on Mount Sinai where Tischendorf found the Sinaitic MS. It was visited in 1889 by Mr. Rendel Harris, who found there such intelligent caretakers of their literary treasures as to make us believe that if Tischendorf did not exaggerate his own merit in rescuing Bible manuscripts from lighting fires, the monks must have wonderfully improved in cultivation during the last forty years. Certain it is that their appreciation of the value of their manuscripts has so far advanced that Mr. Harris, foreseeing that there was no likelihood of his being permitted, like Tischendorf, to carry off a valuable manuscript, wisely went provided with "ink-horns and photographic apparatus," in order to be able to convey to the Western world full knowledge of what he might dis

1 Published in autotype in Bishop Lightfoot's "Clement of Rome" (1890), vol. i.

The first trustworthy tidings of it came from a different quarter. We omitted to tell in our last article that It was published by him in Texts and Studies,

vol. i.

the Mechitarist monastery at Venice, light on the New Testament canon which had furnished an Armenian used by Aristides, because New Testatranslation of Ephrem's commentary ment quotations are, as a general rule, on Tatian's " Diatessaron," also published in 1879 an Armenian translation of a fragment which purported to be the opening of the "Apology of Aristides." Doubts were raised by some learned men as to the correctness of this title, but they have been set at rest by Mr. Harris's discovery among the Sinaitic treasures of a complete copy of a Syriac translation of the "Apology of Aristides."

who habitually used the Greek lan- or corrected what he took to be misguage, and that Greek remained for takes in the Latin. some time the liturgical language of We ourselves adopted Mr. Harris's that Church; but it had been sup- opinion in a notice of his discovery posed that we could find in northern which appeared in this review at the Africa the beginning of Latin Chris- time, for we thought that, in the abtianity and the birthplace of the Latin sence of evidence how far the African translation of the Bible. Yet it has Church was bilingual (or possibly tribeen contended that these opinions lingual) in the second century, we were were too hastily formed, that the Ro- not in a position to deny that Greek man settlers in Africa were not likely Acts might have been liturgically read to be very different in culture and edu- in the commemoration of martyrdoms, cation from those who remained in and that we therefore were not entitled Italy, and that the African Church to disregard the evidence of superior probably began, like the Roman, by antiquity which Mr. Harris found in the being a Greek-speaking Church. Greek Greek form. Mr. Robinson, however, words are found in that most precious relic of the early African Church, the account of the martyrdom of Perpetua; and the great African Tertullian was not only able to read Greek, but wrote some treatises in that language. Usener's discovery seemed to throw new light on the first language of the African Church; and a controversy arose Was this Greek text of the Scillitan martyrdoms, which was confessedly older than the current Latin texts, the parent of all the Latin versions, or was it itself a translation from a lost Latin original ? Usener and Hilgenfeld took the latter view; Aubé, Renan, and others took the former view, and Bishop Lightfoot, though with some hesitation, was disposed to agree with them.

This controversy was renewed by a new find. Mr. Rendel Harris made in the library of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem the surprising discovery of a Greek version of the Acts of Perpetua, which we have just mentioned, and which had been justly valued, not only as one of the most affecting and most authentic stories of a Christian martyrdom, but as one of the earliest specimens of Latin Church literature. Mr. Harris was of opinion that this Greek text was the original from which the previously known Latin texts had been translated, and he pointed out passages where the Greek cleared up obscurities

He published it as a separate little voiume, "The Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas." London, 1890.

though admitting the Greek form to be older than the current Latin texts, was persuaded from internal evidence that it was itself a translation from an original Latin which he believed research might discover. And he verified his anticipation by himself finding older Latin texts both of the Acts of Perpetua and of the Scillitan martyrdoms. Mr. Harris has consequently abandoned his opinion of the priority of the Greek of the former acts, and with regard to the latter Mr. Robinson thinks that "it is scarcely probable that the theory of a Greek original will be revived after the publication of the present Latin text."

Now to speak first of the earlier document, the Scillitan Acts, there can be no doubt that the Greek and Latin forms are not independent. In any criticism of martyrdoms great use is to be made of the study "Les Actes des Martyrs," which Le Blant offered as a supplement to Ruinart's "Acta Sincera." From the details there presented of the methods of ordinary Roman magisterial investigation we see at once that both the Greek and Latin Scillitan Acts take up the story in the middle. We do not find the ordinary opening of identification of the accused person by asking his name, father's name, country, and rank. There is no indictment and no questioning on the subject of the charge, but in both ver|sions the report of the trial begins with 2 Published by him, Texts and Studies, vol. i., pt. ii.

the judge's offer of the emperor's par- | martyrs is named, and the exquisite don if the prisoners will return to a phrase 'regnant cum Patre et Filio et better mind. The Greek and Latin re- Spiritu Sancto' has been rejected.” ports of the questions and answers that "It is impossible to believe that the followed are in complete correspond- Latin could have been produced by abence, the most important difference breviation of the Greek." being that in the Greek acts the mar- With regard to this we have to say tyrs are spoken of with the prefix ayos, that if the Greek is an expansion of the ó йylos Σπεpāтos, etc., where the Latin Latin it is an expansion made by some simply has "Speratus," etc. We can- one having knowledge independent of not doubt that the Latin here more the Latin, which contains no note of truly represents the sources whence the place whence the martyrs came or the account was derived. The Roman of that where they were buried. Thus courts were provided with a staff of if the Latin be supposed to contain the official reporters who at trials took down form of the martyrdom annually read the questions of the magistrates and the in the Church of Carthage, nothing answers made by the accused. Chris- forbids us to suppose the Greek to be a tians were often able to obtain, either contemporary document drawn up for by favor or by purchase, these official minutes of the proceedings at the examination of their confessors, and it is needless to say that the official acts would contain no such title as yoç. But these official minutes have not only been the basis of some of the most authentic acts of early martyrdoms, but they have also furnished a model to which the forgers of spurious acts have frequently conformed. And this prevents the absence of such titles from being in itself a decisive proof of superior antiquity. For instance, one of the shorter Acts of Perpetua, the comparative lateness of which is acknowledged by everybody, contains no such titles.

But the most important difference is in the conclusion. In the Latin it was, "Et ita omnes simul martyrio coronati sunt, et regnant cum Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto per omnia secula seculorum. Amen." The Greek is érɛhciwonσαν τῷ ξίφει, μηνὶ Ἰουλίῳ ις· ἦσαν οὖν ὁρμώμενοι οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπὸ Ἰσχλὴ τῆς Νουμηδίας, κατάκεινται δὲ πλησίον Καρθαγέννης μητροπόλεως· ἐμαρτύρησαν δὲ ἐπὶ Πέρσαντος καὶ Κλαυδιανοῦ τῶν ὑπάτων καὶ Σατουρνίνου ἀνθυπάτου, καθ' ἡμᾶς δὲ βασιλεύοντος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ πρέπει πᾶσα δόξα, κ. τ. λ.1

On these endings Mr. Robinson remarks: "The close of the piece has been altered and expanded in the Greek, in which the locality of the

1 Texts and Studies, vol. i., pt. ii., pp. 116-17.

the use of Christians elsewhere. But
when Mr. Robinson speaks of this
Greek as an expansion of the Latin he
strangely omits to notice that the orig-
inal of this Greek conclusion is to be
sought not in the Latin but in the Mar-
tyrdom of Polycarp, which had been
published some twenty years before,
and which served as a model for many
subsequent stories of martyrdoms.
This martyrdom ends with giving the
date ανθυπατεύοντος Στατίου Κοδράτου βασιλεύ
οντος δὲ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα,
K. T. 2. It is impossible to doubt whence
the African martyrologist borrowed his
contrast between the changing sway of
earthly rulers and the eternal reign of
Christ. Now, though we do not con-
test the originality of the main body
of the Latin acts, we are not without
doubt as to the conclusion; for the for-
mula "regnante Christo," of which
Polycarp's martyrdom affords the earli-
est example, came to be extensively
adopted. Lightfoot 2 gives a number of
examples from Ruinart's “ Acta Sin-
cera,” and he refers to Blondel,
"De
Formulae regnante Christo in Vete-
rum Monumentis Usu,” who fills some
twenty pages (pp. 371, sqq.) with in-
stances of the use of the formula.
sibly if Eusebius had copied for us the
conclusion of the Lyons martyrdoms it
might be found that they ended in the
same way. The formula " regnante "

2 Ignatius, i. 636.

Pos