THE CHURCH IN ROME
IN THE FIRST CENTURY

iii

MCMXCIX

iv

THE BAMPTON LECTURES

FOR 1913

LECTURE
VIII

Daniel
11:3, 6: ‘And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt
himself, and magnify himself above every god till the indignation be
accomplished.’

During
the period which followed the accession of the Flavian dynasty to the
Imperial throne the Church in Rome seems to have lived in comparative
repose. For more than a quarter of a century after the martyrdom of St.
Paul there is no record of any violent persecution of the Christians. But
there is no reason to believe that the ban under which those professing
the Christian faith lay since the Neronian persecution of 65 A.D.
was in any way lightened or removed. The Christians were then condemned
for crimes which were summed up by Tacitus as constituting ‘hatred of the
human race,’ in other words they were condemned as enemies of the Roman
state and people. The mere confession of the Christian name henceforth in
itself entailed punishment. The principle of action, which Tertullian
calls the Neronian Institution, continued to be the settled policy
of the Roman government. This did not mean that the Christian so long as
he lived quietly and did nothing to bring himself under the notice of the
police was sought out and dragged before the magistrate. But it did mean
that he was an outlaw, liable as such at any moment to be dealt with
summarily by the authorities, as a mere matter of police administration.
No regular judicial trial was needed, the inquiry (cognitio)
was confined to the establishment of the charge of being a Christian, and
once established by the confession of the accused the death penalty
followed.

The
policy of the Flavian emperors, Vespasian, Titus, 207and—during
the first part of his reign—Domitian, was on the whole both towards Jews
and Christians one of singular moderation. After the merciless suppression
of the terrible revolt in Judaea and the destruction of Jerusalem and its
Temple, the position of the Jews in the empire was however no longer the
same. As a political entity, a nation in any sense of the word, they had
ceased to exist, they were but a number of separate communities scattered
throughout the Roman world. But Vespasian granted to them a continuation
of the religious privileges they had hitherto enjoyed on condition that
all Jews were registered and paid to Roman officials as a tax for the
maintenance of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus the didrachma that
they had previously contributed for the support of the Temple at
Jerusalem.[1]

But
the very fact of this registration for fiscal purposes served to
accentuate the distinction between Jew and Christian the more clearly. The
Christian Church could no longer find shelter under the shadow of the
privileges of the synagogues.

That
Titus was himself well aware of the difference, and that he was personally
hostile to Christianity, is shown by an interesting passage in the
fourth-century historian, Sulpicius Severus, which in the opinion of
scholars is generally regarded as an extract from one of the lost books of
Tacitus. It tells of a council held by Titus at the time of the final
storming of Jerusalem to decide whether the Temple should be destroyed or
not. Titus himself, it is reported, with some of his officers held that it
was necessary, ‘so as to abolish more completely the religion both of Jews
and Christians, since these religions, although opposed to 208each
other, both sprang from the same origin; the Christians had issued from
the Jews; if the root were taken away, the stem would quickly perish.’[2]

With
the destruction of the Temple and the crushing out of the revolt, however,
the situation was changed, moderate and statesmanlike views prevailed, the
Jews secured religious toleration and lenient treatment, and no systematic
persecution was directed against the Christians so long as Titus lived or
for some years after his untimely death.

There
is no contemporary Christian writing which throws any light upon the state
of the Church during this time, unless it be ‘The Shepherd’ of Hermas.
This remarkable work bears every mark from internal evidence of being a
product of the Flavian age. We have already seen in the last lecture that
the author speaks of a certain Clement, who, if not the well-known writer
of the ‘Epistle to the Corinthians,’ which is the general opinion, must be
a fictitious personage. Were it not for certain statements in the
documents known as the ‘Muratorian Fragment on the Canon’ and the
‘Liberian Catalogue’ probably few would have given to ‘The Shepherd’ a
later date than the beginning of the second century. The reference to
Hermas and his book by the Muratorian writer runs thus:[3]

‘. . .
very lately in our times Hermas wrote “The Shepherd” in the city of Rome
while his brother Pius, the bishop, was sitting in the chair of the Church
of the city of Rome, and therefore it ought to be read; but it
209cannot,
to the end of time, be placed either among the prophets who are complete
in number, nor among the Apostles for public lection to the people in
church.’ Zahn in his ‘Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons’ makes this
comment: ‘Careful and impartial reading of “The Shepherd” would have shown
the Fragmentist that the same must have been written a considerable time
before the episcopate of Pius. He who holds the book, despite the name of
Clement (Vis. ii. 4) and many other signs, as a work dating from
about 145, must hold it to be a pseud-epigraphic fiction, which the
Fragmentist throughout does not.’[4]
The statement in the Muratorian extract quoted above is in fact, from
whatever point of view it be regarded, a blunder of the writer who is
called by Zahn ‘the Fragmentist.’ The dilemma is one from which there
seems to be no possibility of escape.

Dr.
Lightfoot has very convincingly shown that this Muratorian document
contains a literal translation into Latin (somewhat corrupted in
transmission) of a Greek metrical original, and also that there are strong
reasons for assigning the authorship to Hippolytus. The literary activity
of this famous Roman writer during the closing years of the second and the
first quarter of the third century was very great. The ‘Muratorian Canon’
may probably be dated from 185 to 200 A.D.[5]

The
‘Liberian Catalogue,’ it is generally agreed, was largely dependent on a
later work of Hippolytus, the ‘Chronology.’ Now in the ‘Liberian
Catalogue’ to the notice of Pope Pius I the following statement is
appended: ‘under his pontificate his brother Hermes wrote a book in which
is contained the Mandate which an angel gave to him, when he came
to him in the garb 210of
a shepherd.[6]

The
two passages, Muratorian and Liberian, are derived in fact from a common
source, most probably Hippolytean. But an examination of the character of
this source may well make one distrustful of its strict accuracy as
regards names and dates. The ‘Liberian Catalogue’ contains a number of
strange errors. The deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul are stated to have
taken place in 55 A.D.
Clement succeeds Linus in 67 A.D.,
and Anencletus, the real successor of Linus, is duplicated and follows
Clement, first at Cletus, then as Anacletus. Clement’s death is recorded
as having occurred sixteen years before he became bishop according to the
generally received date.[7]

Nor
were the errors confined to the first-century episcopates. The Hippolytean
source is not even accurate about Pope Pius himself, who in the words of
the ‘Muratorian Fragment’ lived ‘very recently in our own times.’
Hegesippus and Irenaeus, both of whom stayed some time in Rome soon after
the death of Pius, both give the order of succession as Pius, Anicetus,
Soter, Eleutherus.[8]

The
‘Liberian Catalogue’ makes Pius the successor of Anicetus instead of the
predecessor. The conclusion then that we are compelled to draw is that
this particular piece of external evidence for the date of ‘The Shepherd’
cannot be accepted as authoritative in face of the internal evidence of
the book itself. Probability points to its having arisen through a
confusion between the name of the author and the title of his work. Bishop
Pius according to a very ancient tradition had a 211brother
named Pastor, who was a presbyter.[9]

Now
in the Latin version known as ‘Vulgate,’ which probably dates from the end
of the second century, the title of Hermas’ book is ‘Liber Pastoris.’[10]

This
version was thus contemporary with the ‘Muratorian Fragment.’ It required
but a single step therefore to identify the presbyter Pastor with the
author of the allegory. The ‘Liber Pontificalis,’ while embodying the
biographical notice of Pius I which is found in the ‘Liberian Catalogue,’
prefaces it by another paragraph in which this Pope is spoken of as ‘The
brother of Pastor.’ There is no attempt to fuse this statement with that
concerning Hermas—they are separated from one another by intervening
matter. Indeed in the two earliest forms of the ‘Liber Pontificalis’ that
we possess, the so-called ‘Felician’ and ‘Cononian’ abridgements, the
compiler of the ‘Cononian,’ evidently perceiving the incongruity of the
double reference to a brother, deliberately refuses to apply the term to
Hermas, the words ‘frater ipsius’ being omitted.[11]

212

The
earliest patristic references to ‘The Shepherd’ point to its having been
written considerably before the pontificate of Pius I (140–155
A.D.).
Irenaeus, whose sojourn in Rome took place less than twenty years after
the death of Pius, quotes the opening sentence of the ‘First Mandate’ as
Scripture—‘Well then spake the Scripture, which saith.’[12]

Before
a document could be thus—plainly, simply, and without periphrasis—accepted
as Scripture, it must needs have been of some considerable antiquity, and
indeed it may be regarded as evidence that Irenaeus looked upon Hermas as
an ‘Apostolical man,’ the Hermas in fact mentioned by St. Paul in his
Epistle to the Romans.

Clement
of Alexandria in Egypt and Tertullian in Western Africa, in writings which
date about twenty years later than that of Irenaeus just quoted, and
almost contemporary with the first publication of the ‘Muratorian Canon,’
both speak of ‘The Shepherd’ as ‘Scripture.’ Of Clement Dr. Salmon says[13]

:
‘The mutilated commencement of the “Stromateis’ opens in the middle of a
quotation from “The Shepherd” and about ten times elsewhere he cites the
book, always with a complete acceptance of the reality and divine
character of the revelations made to Hermas.’ 213Tertullian[14]

before
he became a Montanist in his treatise ‘De Oratione’ rebukes the custom of
sitting down for prayer, the origin of which he attributes to the opening
words of the fifth Vision of ‘The Shepherd.’ This assigns to ‘The
Shepherd’ an authority which could only belong to a book long received as
the work of an inspired man. Origen[15]

somewhat
later in the third century gives as his opinion (based no doubt on
tradition) that the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans was the
writer of ‘The Shepherd’ and adds ‘this scripture seems to me very useful
and as I think divinely inspired.’ Such testimonies—and there are none of
like date (save the ‘Muratorian Fragment’) of an adverse character—if not
conclusive, point unmistakeably to the work of Hermas having already about
it the hallowing consecration of age and the reverence due to a
sub-apostolic writing.

The
contents of this strange book are divided into two parts. The first part
contains a series of five Visions. In the last of these Visions a
noble-looking man in the garb of a Shepherd, and who is named the Angel of
Repentance, appears to Hermas, and bids him write down a series of
Precepts or Mandates, and of Parables or Similitudes,
214which
he had come to deliver to him. The second part of the work contains the
twelve Mandates and the ten Similitudes, which he received
from the mouth of the Shepherd. It is not my intention to discuss the
question whether the autobiographical details in this book belong to the
real life-story of a genuine Hermas, nor again the question whether the
two parts of the work are from the hand of the same author. There are few
in the present day who have doubts on either of these questions, and I
shall assume the unity of authorship of a man, who while conveying
instruction and warning, moral and doctrinal, under allegorical forms is
dealing all the time seriously with the religious experiences and
spiritual failings and trials of his own personal life and of the
contemporary life of the Christian Church in Rome.[16]

But
these assumptions being granted, it will at once be seen that the use that
can be made of ‘The Shepherd’ as an illuminating historical document
depends almost entirely upon its date.

It
has already been suggested that the Muratorian Fragmentist blundered in
his assertion that the work of Hermas was written during the episcopate of
his brother Pope Pius I, because he confused the author of ‘The Pastor’
with a well-known brother of the bishop, who actually bore that name. Now
the very first line of Hermas’ book compresses into the briefest compass
the life-story of the writer’s youth. ‘He who brought-me-up sold me into
Rome to a certain Rhoda.’[17]

This
implies that Hermas had either been born a slave in the house of the
vendor, who did not live at Rome, or what is from the form of the
expression—ὁ
θρέψας—quite
probable, that he had been a castaway 215child
whom the above-mentioned master had taken care of and brought up as a
slave. In the last case his parentage would be unknown and he would have
no brother. If, however, he were born a slave, three things must be
postulated before the Muratorian statement can be accepted: (1) that in
this slave household relationships were recognised; (2) that both Hermas
and his brother must have been sold in Rome and afterwards became
freedmen; (3) that the brother laid aside his original Greek slave name
for that of Pius. Negative evidence is never conclusive, but it is
certainly very strange that, if Hermas wrote his book during his brother’s
episcopate, there should not be a single reference to that brother’s
existence in a work in which the author several times speaks of his family
and, as has been said, repeatedly deals with the condition, organisation,
and affairs of the Church.

The
allusion to Clement as a living man, entrusted with the task of
communicating with foreign cities, seems to fix the date at which the
Visions were written, as being previous to the accession of the said
Clement to the episcopate, i.e. before 92 A.D.
How hopeless is the attempt to combine a belief in the historicity of this
personal reference to Clement, as a contemporary occupying an important
position in the Roman Church, with an acceptance even in a modified form
of the statement of the Muratorian Fragmentist is exemplified by Harnack
in his ‘Chronologie der Altchristlichen Literatur.’[18]

Harnack
will not admit for a moment that the paragraph about Clement and Grapte is
‘fiction,’[19]

so
he meets the difficulty first by extending the life of Clement to 110
A.D.,
then by imagining the ‘Shepherd’ to have been written in instalments
during a period of some thirty-five years, the original ‘little book’
consisting of a portion of Vision II only. But while admitting that the
work of Hermas shows evident traces of 216gradual
growth to completion, it seems to me quite clear that no great interval of
time can have separated the first portion written from the last. From
beginning to end the same conditions obtain throughout both as regards
Hermas personally and as regards the internal condition and the trials of
the Church. In that very Vision II which Harnack regards as the oldest
part of the book, ‘a great tribulation’ is announced as coming, and in
Vision IV the announcement is repeated; but although past persecutions are
described in the earliest ‘Visions’ and latest ‘Similitudes,’[20]

they
differ in no way in character, and there is nowhere any allusion to the
‘great tribulation’ as having come. Again in the ‘Visions’[21]

Hermas
is represented as having lost his wealth and been ruined because of the
wrong-doings of his family. This punishment has fallen upon him for his
neglect in not admonishing his children, who are invited to penitence and
are promised forgiveness, if from their heart they repent. In ‘Similitude
VII’ we learn that the children have repented from their heart, and Hermas
complains to the Shepherd Angel that nevertheless his afflictions have not
ceased. The reply is ‘Dost thou think that the sins of those who repent
are straightway remitted?‘ The very essence of this rejoinder lies in the
fact that the time of Hermas’ affliction—i.e. the period covered by the
book—had been short.

The
past persecutions described by Hermas agree with all we know of the
Neronian persecution and its consequences. In Vision III mention is made
of those who have suffered ‘scourges, imprisonments, great afflictions,
crosses, wild beasts for the Name’s sake.’[22]

In
Sim. IV. we read of ‘sufferers for the sake of the name of the Son of God,
who suffered willingly with their whole heart and gave up their lives.
These when brought before the authority and 217questioned
did not deny, but suffered readily’; of others as ‘fearful and hesitating,
who reasoned in their hearts whether they should deny or confess before
they suffered’; of others again—‘the double-minded’—who at the first
rumours of persecution ‘through cowardice sacrifice to idols and are
ashamed of the name of their Lord.’ We find in these references a
remarkable agreement with the references to the Neronian persecution in 1
Peter, Hebrews, the Apocalypse, 1 Clement and the ‘Annals’ of Tacitus,
both as to the punishments inflicted, and the various categories into
which the accused were divided, the willing and courageous martyrs, the
more timid and doubtful sufferers, and the renegades and apostates, who
denied their faith.[23]

It
may be gathered also from various passages of ‘The Shepherd’ that
persecution was not confined to the one violent outburst, but that at the
time when Hermas was writing those who professed the Christian faith were
living if not in peril yet in continual insecurity, liable at any moment
to be called upon to confess or deny their faith. Such was the state of
things which 218there
is good reason to believe subsisted throughout the first two decades of
Flavian rule.

The
constitution of the Church is a subject that has no direct interest for
Hermas. The almost chance references to it in the pages of ‘The Shepherd’
are however of considerable significance and value. The condition of
things, we find, has altered little since Pauline days. The charismatic
ministry of apostles, prophets, and teachers are working side by side with
the hierarchical officials—bishops, presbyters, and deacons. In Vision
III. 5, the white stones used for the building of the tower, which is the
Church, are described as being ‘The apostles, bishops, teachers, and
deacons, who have walked in godly gravity, and who have discharged their
duties as bishops, teachers, and deacons for the good of God’s elect. Some
of these have fallen asleep, some still are with us.’[24]

Now
this passage, which recalls the language of 1 Cor. xii. 28 and Eph. iv. 11, clearly implies that of the
original apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons there were some still
living when Hermas wrote. It will be noticed that Hermas omits from this
list ‘The prophets,’ and elsewhere throughout this work, but in Similitude
XI he treats at length of the difference between true and false prophets.
He was himself a prophet and he is at pains to claim for himself
inspiration and a position of authority. He does not classify ‘The
prophets’ with the apostles and teachers, because he regards the prophets
apparently as possessing gifts which place them in a category apart. From
a number of passages it may be seen that Hermas, as a prophet, both
claimed and exercised the right of delivering charges and admonitions to
the rulers of the Church, and of speaking publicly in the assemblies.[25]

Apostles
and teachers are mentioned several times in Similitude IX. In one curious
passage Hermas tells how those of these apostles and teachers ‘who had
fallen asleep 219in
the power and faith of the Son of God preached to those who had fallen
asleep before them and themselves gave them the seal of their preaching,’
i.e. baptised them.468468Sim.
ix. 16. 5: οὗτοι
οἱ
ἀπόστολοι
καὶ
οἱ
διδάσκαλοι
οἱ
κηρύξαντες
τὸ
ὄνομα
τοῦ
υἱοῦ
τοῦ
θεοῦ,
κοιμηθέντες
ἐν
δυνάμει
καὶ
πίστει
τοῦ
υἱοῦ
τοῦ
θεοῦ
ἐκήρυξαν
καὶ
τοῖς
προκεκοιμημένοις
καὶ
αὐτοὶ
ἔδωκαν
αὐτοῖς
τὴν
σφραγίδα
τοῦ
κηρύγματος.
In this
passage the numbers of these ‘apostles and teachers’ is given as forty,
and in the previous paragraph (4) the words ἡ
σφραγὶς
τὸ
ὕδωρ
ἐστίν
explain the meaning
of ‘The Seal.’ The ‘apostles’ throughout The Shepherd is used in the wider
sense of ‘missionaries’ except in Sim. ix. 17. 1.

From
this it has been inferred that all the Twelve Apostles were dead when
these words were written. But surely this is not so. The ‘apostles’ of
Hermas were the whole body of those chosen and sent out as missionaries by
the Churches. Only those who had ‘fallen asleep’ could follow in their
Master’s steps and preach to the dead. The position of the charismatic
ministry in the days of Hermas seems in fact to have changed little since
St. Paul wrote his First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Very
important historically, however, are certain hints which may be found in
‘The Shepherd’ about changes at work in the constitution of the official
hierarchy. Twice Hermas refers to the hierarchy under the general title of
‘chiefs of the Church,’469469οἱ
προηγούμενοι
. Vis. ii. 2. 6; iii. 9, 7. Compare 1
Clem. xxi. 6. οἱ
ἡγούμενοι
is found 1 Clem. i. 3 and
Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24.

using
the same Greek term as is employed in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in 1
Clement. Only once does the word presbyters occur as the designation of
this official class, when the aged woman, the Church, bids Hermas read the
book she has given him—‘to this city with the presbyters that preside over
the Church.’ And here the word for ‘those who preside’470470Vis.
ii. 4. 2: οἱ
προιστάμενοι
; see 1 Thess. v. 12; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 17.

is
a technical word found several times in the same sense in St. Paul’s
epistles. The references of Hermas therefore to the constitution of the
Church are thus thoroughly primitive, and the picture drawn by him of the
local organisation essentially the same as that which we find in the
Pauline epistles. It is clear for 220instance
that the title episcopus
was not yet confined to a single individual, but was still the common
designation of all presbyters who were charged with the cure of souls.
Nevertheless there are signs that an evolutionary movement was already in
progress, which was preparing the way for that transformation in the
signification of the word ' bishop,’ which we find already accomplished at
the time when Ignatius wrote his epistles towards the end of the first
decade of the second century. This seems to be the fair and legitimate
interpretation of certain passages of ‘The Shepherd,’ to which we will now
turn our attention.

Sternly
does the Prophet in Vision III rebuke the dissensions among those who sit
in the foremost seats.471471Vis.
iii. 7, 9: νῦν
οὖν
ἱμῖν
λέγω
τοῖς
προηγουμένοις
τῆς
ἐκκλησίας
κ9αὶ
τοῖς
πρωτοκαθεδρίταις·
μὴ
γίνεσθε
ὅμοιοι
τοῖς
φαρμακοῖς
. . .
βλέπετε
οὖν,
τέκνα,
μήποτε
αὗται
αἱ
διχοστασίαι
ὑμῶν
ἀποστερήσουσιν
τὴν
ζωὴν
ὑμῶν
. . .

Again
in Similitude VIII the Shepherd-Angel speaks of certain men ‘who, though
always faithful and good, were jealous one of another about the first
places and a certain dignity’472472Sim.
viii. 7. 4: ἔχοντες
ζῆλόν
τινα ἐν
ἀλλήλοις
περὶ
πρωτείων
καὶ
περὶ
δόξης
τινός
. Harnack ( Gesch. d. Altchrist. Lit . 1, ‘Chronologie,’ p. 175) after
quoting these passages writes: ‘ die zuletzt angeführten Stellen mögen
darauf hinweisen, dass der monarchische Episkopat damals in Anzug war;
aber von diesem selbst ist in dem Buche keine Spur zu finden. ’ It is
curious that a critic of the calibre of Harnack should not see that the
statement in the last clause does not and cannot weaken in the very least
the force of the admission previously made. Hermas felt it was his duty to
rebuke the rivalries and dissensions to which the growing power of the
bishop gave rise, but why should he, writing for Roman Christians of his
own day, and not for the enlightenment of far distant posterity, inform
his contemporaries of a fact which was a matter of common knowledge?

(δόξης
τινός).
‘But these,’ he continues, ‘are all foolish to contend thus for the first
places. Nevertheless, when they heard my commands, being good men they
cleansed themselves and repented quickly.’ Now knowing, as we do, on
grounds approaching to historical certainty that from the time of the
deaths of the apostles Peter and Paul a succession of presbyters occupied
a post of pre-eminence and dignity among their fellows—that of presiding
bishop and official head of the local Church—is it not permissible to read
between the lines that, around this office, heart 221burnings
and jealousies not unaccompanied by cabals and intrigues had arisen?
During the two long episcopates of Linus and Anencletus, each of twelve
years according to tradition, the office that they held had, we can
scarcely doubt, been gradually drawing to itself more and more of
initiative and authority, and becoming more monarchical in character. If
then Hermas wrote, as I am now contending he did, during the closing years
of Anencletus, the long immunity from violent persecution which the Church
in Rome had then enjoyed was precisely a period when in such a large and
mixed community, containing unstable and doubtful elements, strifes and
dissensions about precedence might arise, and ambitious presbyters be
found ready to assert with acrimony and self-assertion their equality of
privilege with one who was nominally only one of themselves, primus
inter pares it might be, but still a presbyter like the
rest.

The
immunity from persecution, to which I have referred, was, however, not
long to endure, and the severe trial through which the Church had to pass
before the end of Domitian’s reign would doubtless be more effective in
purifying and cleansing it from those jealous, self-seeking, and factious
elements of which Hermas speaks, than his rebukes and upbraidings. The
coming tribulation, which he predicted as being at hand, was no doubt that
tribulation473473St.
Matt. xxiv. 21, 29;
St. Mark, xiii. 24; compare 2 Thess. 4-10.

which
first-century Christianity expected would precede, in accordance with the
Lord’s words, the Second Advent and the final consummation of all things.
The prophecy proved true, however, though in a different sense from that
which the prophet intended.

Christian
writers have been accustomed to couple together the names of Nero and
Domitian, as the first two persecutors of the Church. It has already been
shown that although the attack of Nero on the Christians was but the
violent outburst of a tyrant, anxious to divert public odium from himself
against a body of sectaries who were generally hated and despised, it had
permanent results and 222marked
the real beginning of what was to be the continuous policy of the Roman
State. The persecution of the adherents of the Christian faith by Domitian
was far less direct, and did not, as may be gathered from the letter of
Pliny to Trajan about sixteen years later, establish any fresh precedents;
for had such fresh precedents been established they would not have escaped
the notice of this writer, who was a contemporary and, as his
correspondence proves, a close observer of current events.

The
origin of the persecution of Domitian was not so much religious as fiscal.
The Imperial treasury had been emptied by a series of extravagances. In
his search for fresh sources of income, Domitian bethought him of the tax
which Vespasian had in 70 A.D.
imposed upon the Jews, commanding them, as a condition for their religious
privileges being respected, to pay henceforth, as already stated, the
didrachma they had become accustomed to contribute for the support
of the Temple and its worship at Jerusalem to the Roman authority for the
maintenance of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Hitherto the collection
of this tax had been leniently carried out and had been only demanded from
those circumcised Jews who were professed members of the synagogues.
Domitian determined that all who lived more
Iudaico,
including the large class of ‘Godfearers’ and indeed all who to a greater
or less extent followed Jewish customs, should be liable, and a strict
inquisition was in consequence made.474474Suet.
Domitian , 12: ‘ Praeter caeteros Iudaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est;
ad quem deferebantur qui vel improfessi Iudaicam viverent vitam, vel,
dissimulata origine, imposita genti tributa non pependissent. ’ See
Martial, vii. 55. 7.

The
exact date is not accurately known, but what followed was the bringing to
the notice of the Government the existence of a body of people living
after the Jewish fashion but repudiating any connexion with the synagogues
and therefore having no right to shelter themselves behind the Jewish
privileges. Against them the charge of ‘atheism and Jewish manners’ was
accordingly preferred, and out of the fiscal demand there came a series of
arrests and trials in which many Christians suffered.223

It
must, however, be borne in mind that there does not seem to have been any
organised attack upon the Christian faith as such, but rather that a
number of individuals, both of high rank and of low, became for various
causes, during the reign of terror which marked the closing years of
Domitian’s rule, suspect to the government, and paid by their lives or
their exile, and in both cases by the confiscation of their property, the
penalty for exciting the fears, the jealousy, or the rapacity of the
tyrant.475475Suet.
Domitian , 3: ‘ Virtutes quoque in vitia deflexit; quantum coniectare
licet, super ingenii naturam inopia rapax, metu saevus. ’ Orosius, vii.
10: ‘ Nobilissimos e senatu, invidiae sirnul et praedae causa
. . . interfecit. ’

Moreover
to a man whose proclamations began with the words ‘our God and Lord
Domitian,’ and who ostentatiously made the restoration of the national
religion one of the aims of his policy, it was easy under the charges of
‘atheism and Jewish manners’ or ‘of being movers of innovations’476476Ibid
. 10: ‘ molitores novarum rerum. ’

to
strike at those who held aloof from taking part in Caesar-worship or in
the religious festivals and spectacles.

Very
little, practically nothing, is known of the extent to which the general
body of Christians suffered under Domitian. In as far as persecution fell
upon the humbler classes, it arose, as I have pointed out, not as part of
a systematic attack on the Christian religion as such, but as a result of
the stricter exaction of the didrachma tax. And it was by no means
confined to Rome. Wherever colonies of Jews were settled the fiscal
inquisition would be made, and thus the presence of Christian communities
brought to the official notice of the magistrates. In their case the
procedure would be summary. The mere confession of the Name was sufficient
to place the Christian outside the law. He would be asked either to deny
the faith or to suffer martyrdom, and among the large number of those who
were but half and half Christians, doubtless very many conformed to the
request and saved their lives. Eusebius in his ‘Chronicle’ quotes the
historian Bruttius as stating that many Christians suffered under
Domitian, but the expression 224is
a very vague one,477477According
to the Latin Hieronymian version (ed. Schöne, ii. p. 163): ’ Scribit
Bruttius plurimos Christianorum sub Domiciano fecisse martyrium, inter
quos et Flaviam Domitillam Flavii Clementis consulis ex sorore neptem in
insulam Pontianam relegatam quia se Christianam esse testata sit. ’ See
Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 108.

and
obviously the chief interest of the passage to Eusebius, as it is to us,
is its reference to the important fact that among the many high and
influential persons whom the tyrant visited with death or banishment were
certain of his own near relatives who were Christians. It is around the
names of a very small group of individuals that the chief interest of the
Domitianic persecution centres, an interest which has been greatly
increased by recent archaeological discoveries.

The
passage from the ‘Chronicle’ of Eusebius merely tells us the name of one
of these relatives of Domitian who, according to his authority Bruttius,
suffered banishment because she was a Christian. Her name was Flavia
Domitilla, and she is described in Jerome’s Latin version as ‘being a
niece of Flavius Clemens the consul by his sister.’ Her place of
banishment was the island of Pontia. The Armenian version of the
‘Chronicle’ suggests that there may be in this passage some corruption of
the text,478478In
the Latin translation of the Armenian version of the Chronicle (ed.
Schöne, ii. p. 160) we find: ‘ refert autem Brettius, multos Christianorum
sub Dometiano subiisse martyrium; Flavia vero Dometila et Flavus Clementis
consulis sororis filius in insulam Pontiam fugit quia se Christianum esse
professus est. ’ Lightfoot, ibid . p. 105. In the Syrian Epit. (ed.
Schöne, p. 214): ‘ Flaviam Domitillam, filiam sororis Clementis consulis.
’

nevertheless
its general correctness is confirmed strongly by the parallel passage from
the ‘History’ of Eusebius, where that writer basing his statement on the
evidence of heathen historians, prominent amongst whom would be the
Bruttius named in the ‘Chronicle,’ states that ‘in the fifteenth year of
Domitian amongst many others who suffered persecution was Flavia
Domitilla, a daughter of the sister of Flavius Clemens, one of the consuls
at Rome at that time, who for her witness to Christ was banished as a
punishment to the island of Pontia.’479479Eus.
Hist. Eccl . iii. 18.

225

Now
this evidence of Eusebius, when compared with certain passages in the
pages of Dion Cassius and Suetonius, requires very careful attention. Dion
writes (I quote the abridgement of Xiphilinus)—‘in this year (95
A.D.)
Domitian put to death Flavius Clemens, being then consul, his cousin, and
Flavia Domitilla, his relation and the wife of the same [Clemens]. Both
were condemned for the crime of “atheism.” On this charge were condemned
many others who had adopted Jewish customs; some were put to death, others
punished by confiscation. Domitilla was only transported to the island of
Pandateria.’480480Dion
Cassius, lxvii. 14: κἀν
τῷ
αὐτῷ
ἔτει
ἄλλους
τε
πολλοὺς
καὶ
τὸν
Φλαούϊον
Κλήμεντα
ὑπατεύοντα,
καίπερ
ἀνεψιὸν
ὄντα
καὶ
γεναῖκα
καὶ
αὐτὴν
συγγενῆ
ἑαυτοῦ
Φλαουΐαν
Δομιτίλλαν
ἔχοντα,
κατέσφαξεν
ὁ
Δομετιανός·
ἐπηνέχθη
δὲ
ἀμφοῖν
ἔγκλημα
ἀθεότητος,
ὑφ᾽
ἧς
καὶ
ἄλλοι
ἐς
τὰ
τῶν
Ἰουδαίων
ἔθη
ἐξοκέλλοντες
πολλοὶ
κατεδικάσθησαν,
καὶ
οἱ
μὲν
ἀπέθανον,
οἱ
δὲ
τῶν
γοῦν
οὐσιῶν
ἐστερήθησαν·
ἡ
δὲ
Δομιτίλλα
ὑπερωρίσθη
μόνον
ἐς
Πανδατερίαν.

Now
the relationship of this Domitilla to Domitian is revealed to us plainly
by Quintilian,481481Quint.
Inst. Orat . iv. prooem.: ‘ Cum mihi Domitianus Augustus sororis suae
nepotum delegavit curam. ’

who
was tutor to the sons of Flavius Clemens and who states that they were the
grandchildren of the Emperor’s sister, who also bore the name of Flavia
Domitilla. This daughter of Vespasian died before her father, but the name
of the grand-daughter appears on several extant inscriptions, from which
we learn that the Christian catacomb in which many members of the Flavian
family were buried, and which dates from the first century, was excavated
on her property.482482See
Appendix, Note F, The Cemeteries of Priscilla and Domitilla. C.I.L . vi.
948, 949, 8942, 16246.

There
can be no doubt that she was a Christian and that the faith of Christ had
been adopted by others closely related to Domitian. Whether Flavius
Clemens himself was actually a baptised Christian and suffered martyrdom,
it is very difficult to say. The complete silence of Eusebius and of
Christian legend and tradition would rather lead to the conclusion that,
though the consul may have been well-disposed towards Christianity and
even lived after the Christian manner, and so have incurred the charge of
‘atheism,’ yet this was not the real cause which 226led
to his being executed. Like his brother Flavius Sabinus before him he
stood too near the throne for the suspicious and childless tyrant to
endure the presence in Rome of those whose blood-relationship made them
possible rivals and successors. This is borne out by the statement of
Suetonius, who after describing the morbid state of fear and suspicion,
amounting almost to semi-madness, in which Domitian spent his last years,
living in constant dread of conspiracy and assassination,
proceeds—‘finally he suddenly put to death on the faintest suspicion, when
he had only just ceased to be consul, Flavius Clemens, his cousin-german,
a man of the most contemptible inactivity, whose sons, then of very tender
age, he had openly destined for his successors, and, discarding their
former names, had ordered one to be called Vespasian, the other Domitian.
By this violent act he very much hastened his own destruction.’483483Suetonius,
Domitian , 15–17: ‘ repente ex tenuissima suspicione tantum non in ipso
eius consulatu interemit. ’

It
was in fact by the hand of Stephanus, a freedman and steward of Domitilla,
Flavius Clemens’ wife, that the tyrant was stabbed a few months
later.

Now
Suetonius had previously given an account of the murder of Flavius
Sabinus, the elder brother of Flavius Clemens, by his cousin Domitian for
no other reason than a mistake of a herald, who on Sabinus being chosen at
the consular election, inadvertently proclaimed him to the people not as
consul but as imperator,484484Suetonius,
Domitian , 10.

and
in the passage quoted above the historian clearly implies that it was on
some similar very slender ground of political suspicion that Flavius
Clemens fell a victim to Domitian’s jealousy. Possibly his Christian
principles, however laxly held, may have compelled him during his tenure
of office to hold aloof from certain religious ceremonies and spectacles,
thus bringing down upon him the imperial anger. The words of Suetonius
that he was ‘a man of most contemptible inertia’485485‘
Contemptissimae inertiae. ’ Compare Tacitus’ words in reference to his
father, Hist . iii. 65: ‘ mitem virum abhorrere a sanguine et caedibus ’;
73: ‘ Flavium Sabinum inermem neque fugam coeptantem circumsistunt ’; 75:
after stating that Flavius Sabinus had served the state in thirty-five
campaigns and with distinction at home and abroad, Tacitus proceeds: ‘ in
fine vitae alii segnem, multi moderatum et civium sanguinis parcum
credidere. ’ It was a change of disposition that was observed at the close
of the life of this tried servant of the State. See Allard, Hist. d.
Persécutions , i. pp. 81–115 (ed. 1892).

represent
a 227charge
which was frequently brought against the Christians, because their
religious scruples prevented them from taking an active part in the
political life and still more in the cruel and vicious amusements of their
time. The same charge is brought by Tacitus against Flavius Sabinus, the
City Prefect during the latter years of Nero. He was the elder brother of
Vespasian and the father of the Sabinus and Clemens put to death by
Domitian. He perished in defending the Capitol against the German
mercenaries of Vitellius in 69 A.D.
Tacitus describes him as at the close of his life ‘mild in character,
averse to bloodshed, and sluggish.’ He must in his official capacity have
taken part in the persecution of 65 A.D.,
and the effect of what he witnessed may well have been the conversion
wholly or in part of the unwilling persecutor.

The
theory of the identity of Flavius Clemens the consul put to death in 95
A.D.
with Clement who was bishop of Rome at that period was at one time
seriously put forward by a number of eminent German scholars486486Lipsius,
Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Erbes, at one time Harnack.

but
it has now been generally abandoned. It was pointed out with a certain
amount of plausibility that the later Clementine legend ascribing to the
bishop a close connexion with the imperial family was due to the fact that
he was a mere duplication of the consul, and that it was unlikely that
there should be at once in Rome two persons bearing the same name, one of
whom occupied one of the highest official positions in the state, and the
other was the official head of the Christian community. Dr. Lightfoot was
able to show conclusively that this theory of duplication had no
foundation and was untenable, but his own solution of the mystery
surrounding Clement the bishop’s personality, ‘that he was a man of Jewish
descent, a freedman or the son of a freedman 228belonging
to the household of Flavius Clemens,’487487Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i, pp. 59–61.

is
equally if not more impossible. Dr. Lightfoot seems to have forgotten that
Flavius Clemens was quite a young man, probably not more than thirty, when
he died.488488Tac.
Hist . iii. 69: ‘ eoque, concubia nocte, suos liberos Sabinus, et
Domitianum, fratris filium in capitolium accivit. ’ The children of
Sabinus were quite young in 70 A.D. , and Clemens was younger than
Sabinus. His own sons were children under a tutor in 95 A.D. The fact that
he did not become consul till that date is of itself a proof of his youth.
The Flavian emperors as a rule reserved the consulships for members of
their own family.

Clement
the bishop, unless all that tradition relates of him be false, must have
been at least fifty in 95 A.D.
He could not in any case have been the son of a freedman of the younger
man. Again if a freedman he would not have adopted his master’s
cognomen,
but would have retained his own slave name as cognomen,
preceded by the nomen
Flavius.

It
is somewhat strange, however, that while so many attempts have been made
either to identify the two Clements mentioned above or at least to connect
them in some way with each other, the presence of a third contemporary
Clement, who undoubtedly played a much larger part in Roman public life
than either of the other two, has been overlooked. Yet I am now going to
ask you to fix your attention upon this man and his family relationships,
for I believe that by doing so we shall find the clue to the solution of
many difficulties and shall be able to clear up a number of doubtful
points in the history of Roman Christianity at the end of the first
century. Here in the lecture itself I can only indicate briefly and in
outline the hypothesis which I am putting forward, and am perforce
reserving for a special note in the Appendix the fuller discussion of
details and of the authorities on which the various statements and
suggestions are based.489489Appendix,
Note D, The Family of Clement the Bishop.

M.
Arrecinus Clemens was the son of M. Arrecinus Tertullus Clemens,
Praetorian Prefect under Caligula. From Josephus we learn that this
Tertullus Clemens was privy to the conspiracy which resulted in the murder
of that Emperor, and connived at it. From the same authority comes the
information that after the assassination Herod 229Agrippa
was allowed to act as an intermediary between the Praetorian troops and
the soldiery who obeyed the Senate. The result was that Claudius who had
been acclaimed Emperor in the camp became quietly possessed of the reins
of power without bloodshed. He owed thus his peaceful accession to the
throne in no small measure to the authority exercised by the Praetorian
Prefect. How great that authority and influence was may be gathered from
the fact that his son thirty years later was welcomed by the guards as
their Prefect because the memory of his father was still fresh among
them.

It
should be noted that it is from the Jewish historian, Josephus, only that
the information comes as to the parts played by Arrecinus Tertullus
Clemens and Herod Agrippa before and after Caligula’s death, and it seems
to me a perfectly legitimate inference that the Prefect was a friend of
Agrippa and may indeed like many other well-to-do Romans have felt the
attraction of the synagogue and to a greater or less extent been a
‘God-fearer.’ Be this as it may, it is certain that Titus Flavius
Vespasianus was a relative of Tertullus Clemens. Vespasian, Suetonius
tells us, was brought up from early childhood by his grandmother Tertulla,
a name which suggests not merely the bond of kinship between the Prefect
and the future Emperor but the likelihood that in their youth they were
closely associated. Evidence of the friendliness of the relations which
continued to subsist between the two men in later life is not wanting.
Titus, the son of Vespasian, was born in 39 A.D.
in very poor circumstances, but shortly after the accession of Claudius
both Vespasian himself and his elder brother T. Flavius Sabinus obtained
commands in the expedition to Britain under Aulus Plautius. In his
father’s absence we find Titus at Court, as the companion of Britannicus,
the son of Claudius. Can we not see here signs that Clemens to whom
Claudius owed so much had used his influence with the Emperor on behalf of
his kinsmen? As a further mark of the closeness of the relations between
them we find that Titus, while still little more than a boy, was married
to Arrecina Tertulla, daughter of Clemens. Domitian, the 230younger
son of Vespasian, was not born until 51 A.D.,
after his father’s return from Britain, and he seems to have found a home
with his uncle, T. Flavius Sabinus, during the years 57–69 A.D.,
when Vespasian was abroad and Sabinus filled the post of Prefect of the
City. This elder brother of Vespasian did not marry till late in life,
probably not until after he settled in Rome in 57 A.D.
at the close of his governorship of Moesia, for, as we have already seen,
his children were still young when he was murdered in December 69
A.D.
Domitian, then aged eighteen, was with his uncle in the Capitol, when it
was stormed by the Vitellian troops, and narrowly escaped with his life,
to be immediately afterwards saluted as Caesar and invested with consular
authority. One of his first acts was the appointment of his relative, M.
Arrecinus Clemens, who is described by Tacitus as being in very great
favour with Domitian, to the post of Praetorian Prefect, formerly held by
his father. This younger Arrecinus Clemens was afterwards twice consul
(suffect) in 73 A.D.
and 94 A.D.,
and from 8z A.D.
onwards a member of the Imperial Council. Shortly after his second
consulship he was suddenly condemned and put to death by Domitian, who, as
Suetonius tells us, treated him with every mark of regard up to the last.
The death of this active and prominent man can therefore have occurred
only about a year before that of Flavius Clemens.

It
is not surprising that there should be confusion and mistake on the part
of later Christian writers, who knew nothing of Clemens the consul of 94
A.D.,
the man of twenty-five years official experience, but attributed all
references in heathen writers to a consul of that name to Flavius Clemens,
thereby creating entanglements and difficulties. For instance it has been
seen that Eusebius, referring to Bruttius490490At
Torre Marancia, on the Via Ardeatina, on a plot of land adjoining the
entrance to the cemetery
of Domitilla,
a burial place of the Bruttian gens has been discovered. The historian was
probably Bruttius Praesens, the friend of Pliny the Younger. De Rossi,
Bull. Arch. crist . 1865, p. 24; 1875, p. 74. Marucchi, Roma Sotterranea
Cristiana
, N.S.
tone. i. 22–23, 29–30. See also App. Note F, Cemeteries of Priscilla and
Domitilla.

as
his authority, both in his ‘History’ and in his 231‘Chronicle,’
states that Flavia Domitilla, the niece [the sister’s child] of Flavius
Clemens, one of the consuls at that time, had been exiled because of her
profession of the Christian faith to the island of Pontia. There is no
mention in either passage of the death of Flavius Clemens. Further,
Jerome, in one of his epistles giving a description of the visit of a
certain Paula in 385 A.D.
to the island of Pontia, declares that she saw there the cells in which
Flavia Domitilla had spent a long exile.

On
the other hand Suetonius and Philostratus record the death of Flavius
Clemens without any hint of any punishment falling upon any Flavia
Domitilla. Dion Cassius, however, declares that both Flavius Clemens and
his wife Flavia Domitilla were accused of the crime of ‘atheism’ and that
he was executed, while his wife was banished to the island not of Pontia
but of Pandateria.

This
is all very puzzling, but there is yet another source of information
available to us—the legendary ‘Acts of Nereus and Achilles.’ These ‘Acts,’
though late in date and as regards many details pure fiction, rest
nevertheless on a solid basis of real fact, for a memorial of Nereus and
Achilles (according to the story the martyred chamberlains of a Flavia
Domitilla, whose mother Plautilla was the sister of Clemens the Consul)
has been found in the cemetery of Domitilla, where the ‘Acts’ tell us the
bodies were laid. Flavia Domitilla herself, so runs this narrative, had
been banished to the island of Pontia because as a Christian she wished to
live in virginity, and had refused to marry in accordance with the
Emperor’s commands. To say that such an incident is one common to early
Christian hagiography is no argument against its authenticity in this or
any particular instance. It is a simple matter of fact that the precepts
of St. Paul on the subject of virginity had a far-reaching influence, and
that during the age of persecution many Christian women did regard the
state of life commended by the Apostle as the highest ideal of
discipleship. Plautilla’s name, I can see no reason to doubt, was found in
the original source which furnished the 232materials
for the sixth-century ‘Acts of Nereus and Achilles.’ I am inclined,
however, to connect the disobedience and banishment of Domitilla the
virgin with the sudden disgrace and execution of Arrecinus Clemens, she
being his niece and Plautilla his sister. Eusebius states that the
Domitilla banished to the island of Pontia was the niece of Flavius
Clemens, and he quotes the contemporary historian Bruttius as his
authority. Apart from other reasons for believing that Eusebius must have
made a mistake, to which I shall refer directly, I think it more than
likely that he never saw the original narrative of Bruttius at all, but
only some Greek extract from it at second hand, in which the mother of
Domitilla was described, just as she is in ‘The Acts of Nereus and
Achilles,’ simply as the sister of Clemens the consul. He naturally would
interpret this as a reference to Flavius Clemens. The same error was
committed by the author of the ‘Chronicon Paschale,’ who records that
Flavius Clemens was consul both in 93 A.D.
and 95 A.D.,
whereas it is certain that he was consul for the first time in 95
A.D.,
the consul in 94 A.D. being Arrecinus Clemens.

There
is every mark (except the duplication of names) that the account given by
Dion Cassius of the execution of Flavius Clemens and the condemnation of
his wife, Domitian’s niece, to exile in the island of Pandateria is quite
distinct from that recorded by Eusebius on the authority of Bruttius, and
with fuller detail in ‘The Acts of Nereus and Achilles.’ Eusebius in
mentioning the name of Flavius Clemens could surely not have refrained
from speaking of his fate had the passage from Bruttius that was before
his eyes made any allusion to this last and crowning act of Domitian’s
cruelty. No, the incidents connected with the sentences on the two Flavia
Domitillas seem to have been separated by an interval of some twelve
months or more from each other.

Circumstantial
evidence is in favour of the conclusion I have adopted. In 95 A.D. Flavius
Clemens was, as I have said, still quite a young man. It is therefore
extremely 233improbable
that he should have had a niece of sufficient age and standing to have
aroused the resentment of Domitian, or that she should have been
accompanied into exile by two soldier-chamberlains, the historical reality
of whose martyrdom and subsequent burial in the cemetery of Domitilla
extant memorials testify. Dr. Lightfoot491491Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 51.

sees
a discrepancy in the representation of these two men both as soldiers of
the guard and as chamberlains of Domitilla. It is rather an undesigned
piece of confirmatory evidence, if, as I am assuming, this Domitilla were
the niece and the granddaughter of two Pretorian Prefects, one of whom had
just served the office of consul.

But
further light may, I think, be thrown upon her personality, which will
reveal still more clearly the causes for the confusion of names to which I
have referred. It never seems to have struck any of the numerous critics
and commentators who have dealt with these questions, that ‘Clemens’ was
not a cognomen
in use among the Flavian family. If the second son of T. Flavius Sabinus
received the cognomen
Clemens, the inference is that he derived it from his mother.

The
name of the wife of Flavius Sabinus, the brother of Vespasian, is not
recorded, but he married late in life, and if that wife were Plautilla,
daughter of the Praetorian Prefect, Tertullus Clemens, and sister of
Arrecinus Clemens the consul of 93 A.D.,
it seems to me that not merely the difficulties attaching to the scanty
historical references to the Domitianic persecutions, but also those
connected with the more or less legendary traditions relating to the same
period, will be largely removed. Let us examine some of the consequences
of the hypothesis that I have put forward as to Plautilla having been the
wife of Titus Flavius Sabinus, the Prefect of the City from 57 to 69
A.D.
According to ‘The Acts of Nereus and Achilles’ she was a Christian convert
and died the same year that St. Peter was martyred. Sabinus was murdered
in 69 A.D.
and as I have already pointed out there are hints in the narrative of
Tacitus that he, 234too,
may in his last years have imbibed Christian principles. The natural
guardian of his orphan children would be their uncle M. Arrecinus CIemens,
the Praetorian Prefect of 70 A.D.
The two sons as they grew up would no doubt pass under the direct care of
Vespasian himself, but the daughter, Flavia Domitilla, would remain with
her uncle, and would thus be rightly described not as the sister of
Flavius Clemens but as the niece of Arrecinus.

Again,
the name Plautilla suggested to De Rossi that her mother’s name was likely
to be ‘Plautia.’ This suggestion I shall adopt by the further assumption
that the wife of Tertullus Clemens was a sister of Aulus Plautius the
conqueror of Britain, and therefore a relative of Plautia Urgulanilla the
second wife of Claudius and sister-in-law to Pomponia Graecina, whose
conversion through Judaism to Christianity may be dated as having taken
place early in Claudius’ reign. That Tertullus Clemens either personally
or through his wife had some special Jewish connexion has already been
suggested as an explanation of the particular knowledge shown by Josephus
about the part played by this Praetorian Prefect at the time of the
assassination of Caligula; and if his wife were the sister of Aulus
Plautius not only is there a possibility that she may have shared the
religious views of Pomponia Graecina, but a further reason is adduced for
the appointment of both Vespasian and his brother Sabinus to posts in the
army of Britain under that general.

Thus
a scheme of relationship between the Flavian and Arrecinian families has
been drawn up, which has at least the not inconsiderable merit of
co-ordinating a number of isolated facts and bringing them into harmony
with one another. It will be found that it is able to answer to a further
and still more trying test of its general accuracy. I have suggested at
the close of the last lecture that Clement the Bishop was a younger
brother of M. Arrecinus Clemens the consul. It will be found, as I then
said, that such a suggestion was in no way a random conjecture. The high
position which the famous bishop held, according to 235all
the traditions that have come down to us, in the estimation of later
generations was due not to his being the author of the Epistle sent by the
Roman Church to the Church at Corinth, but to his being a personal
disciple of St. Peter and at the same time a man of distinguished birth
and family connexion. In the ‘Acts of Nereus and Achilles’ The bishop is
described as being ‘the son of a brother of Clemens the consul.’ The
relations between him and St. Peter, the evidence for which is strong and
convincing, render it more probable that he was the younger brother of
Arrecinus. This would be in accordance with what we find in the Clementine
‘Homilies’ and ‘Recognitions.’ In their accounts of the early life of the
bishop, which are derived from a common earlier source, Clement is
represented as the youngest of his family. In these romances, the
biographical chronology is hopeless. The names of the parents and brothers
of the bishop belong to the period of Hadrian and the Antonines, while his
conversion takes place in the reign of Tiberius. The statement, however,
that the father of Clement was a near relative and foster-brother of an
emperor and that his mother was likewise a kinswoman of Caesar can
scarcely be the pure invention of a writer of fiction. There could be no
object in a romancer going out of his way to make such an assertion unless
it had behind it a genuine historical tradition. If Clement, however, were
the son of Arrecinus Tertullus Clemens and of Plautia the sister of Aulus
Plautius, his father was a relative and possibly the foster-brother of
Vespasian, his mother a kinswoman of Claudius. It is an interesting
thought that with such parentage he may have gained his early knowledge of
the Jewish scriptures and of the principles of Christianity at the feet of
Pomponia Graecina.

Among
the victims of Domitian in 95 A.D.
was a member of one of the most illustrious families in Rome—M’ Acilius
Glabrio.492492Gsell,
Le Règne de l’Empereur Domitien , pp. 294–6; Allard, Hist. des
Persécutions , pp. 111–115.

While
he was consul in 91 A.D.
as the colleague of M. Ulpius Trajanus, the future emperor, he appears to
236have
excited the suspicion and dislike of Domitian, who in order to humiliate
and degrade him compelled Glabrio to fight with wild beasts in the
amphitheatre adjoining the imperial villa at Albanum. He was victorious
but was afterwards exiled. This punishment did not, however, satisfy the
vindictive spirit of the Emperor. Dion Cassius, after telling of the
execution of Flavius Clemens and the banishment of his wife upon the
charge of ‘atheism and Jewish manners,’ says that he also caused Acilius
Glabrio to be put to death for the same crimes. Suetonius likewise states
that Acilius Glabrio in his place of exile and several others of
senatorial and consular rank were executed as ‘instigators of
novelties’—molitores
rerum novarum.493493Dion
Cassius, lxvii. 12, 14; Suet. Domitian , 10, 19; Juvenal, iv. 93–103;
Fronto, Ep. ad M. Caesarem , v. 23.

The
character of these charges had for some time given rise to something more
than a suspicion that this M’ Acilius Glabrio may have been a Christian.
This suspicion has been converted almost into certainty by the discovery
in 1888 by De Rossi in the first-century cemetery of Priscilla of a
gamma-shaped crypt formerly richly adorned with frescoes, now in a state
of ruin, but containing many fragments of inscriptions showing that this
was a burial place of the Acilii Glabriones and other members of the
Acilian Gens.494494De
Rossi, Bull. di Arch. Crist . 1888–89, pp. 15–66, 103–133; Roma
Sotterranea , p. 319; Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome , pp. 4–8; Wahl,
Römische Quartalschrift , 1890, iv. pp. 305 ff; Marucchi, Arch. Chrétienne
, ii. pp. 422–7. See App. Note F, Cemeteries of Priscilla and Domitilla.

It
has been a great misfortune that in this catacomb, as in that of
Domitilla, so much wanton destruction should have been wrought by the
searchers for relics (especially at the beginning of the seventeenth
century) in ignorant disregard of the inestimable historical value of
these precious archaeological records of primitive Roman Christianity. The
name Priscilla was not uncommon in the Acilian family, and it is thought
that the particular Priscilla from whom the catacomb derives its name may
have been the mother of M’ Acilius Glabrio, the consul of 91 A.D.
These two cemeteries of Priscilla and Domitilla even in their present
devastated 237condition
bear witness, which cannot be gainsaid, to the hold which Christianity had
obtained among the upper classes in the reign of Domitian.

This
account of the Church in Rome in the first century has had to be
compressed into eight lectures. Now compression implies that certain
matters have been passed over lightly, others selected for special and
detailed treatment. This is a true description of the method that I have
followed, and it has consisted in choosing for more exhaustive and careful
examination precisely those questions and subjects round which
controversies have arisen and on which there have been and are strong
differences of opinion. It is, for instance, of vital importance to a
right understanding of the growth of Christianity in the centre of the
empire, that the contemporary documents which throw light upon it should
be correctly dated, and to this question of dates much attention, perhaps
some may think a disproportionate amount of attention, has been given.
That, however, depends entirely upon the results achieved by arguments
whose force and validity rest upon the patient unravelling and
disentanglement of a quantity of involved, obscure, and sometimes
apparently contradictory evidence. This I will venture to say, that while
only too deeply conscious of the limitations of my knowledge, it has been
my endeavour in these lectures freely, and without prejudice, to give
expression to the conclusions which close personal study of the
documentary and epigraphic evidence has led me to form, in the hope if not
of convincing or converting those who have adopted different views, at
least of stimulating inquiry and arousing fresh interest in some questions
that have been regarded as choses jugees, and to remind those who may do
me the honour of reading these pages, that experience has taught that
there are very few indeed even of the so-called ‘accepted results of
criticism’ which can be received without the mental reservation of a note
of interrogation.239

[1] Josephus,
Bell. Iud. vii. 6. 6; Dion Cassius, lxvi. 7. This conciliatory attitude of
Vespasian and Titus to the Jewish Diaspora was due in part to the fact
that the non-Palestinian Jews had taken no share in the revolt and that
they were financially useful, in part to the influence of Agrippa II and
his sister, who lived at Rome on terms of close intimacy with the Imperial
family. Vespasian had also special cause to be grateful to the Jew,
Tiberius Alexander, who was the first to proclaim him emperor at
Alexandria and who secured the allegiance to him of the legions in Egypt,
1 July 69. See Tac. Hist . ii. 79.

[2] Sulp.
Severus, Chron . ii. 30. 6: ‘ Fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius
deliberasse . . . at contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum
templum in primis censebant quo plenius Iudaeorum et Christianorum religio
tolleretur; quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, iisdem
auctoribus profectas: Christianos ex Iudaeis extitisse: radice sublata,
stirpem facile perituram. ’

[3]. . .
' pastorem uero nuperrim e temporibus nostris in urbe roma herma
conscripsit sedente cathe tra urbis romae aeclesiae pio e p s fratre eius
et ideo legi eum quidē oportet se pu plicare vero in eclesia populo neque
jnter apostolos in fine temporum potest.’ Zahn, Gesch. N.T. Kanons , p. 8;
both Zahn and Lightfoot render nuperrime by νεωστί
.

[4] ‘
Denn aufmerksame and unparteiische Lesung des Hirten würde dem Frg.
gezeigt haben dass derselbe geraume Zeit vor dem Episkopat des Pius
geschrieben sein will. Wer das Buch trotz des Namens Clemens ( Vis . ii.
4) and vieler anderer Anzeichen für ein Werk aus der Zeit vom 145 hielt,
musste es für eine pseudepigraphische Fiction halten, was der Frg.
durchaus nicht thut. ’—Zahn, Gesch. N.T. Kanons , ii. 113.

[5] Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. ii. pp. 405–13.

[6] ‘
Sub huius episcopatu frater eius Ermes librum scripsit, in quo mandatum
continetur, quod ei praecepit angelus, cum venit ad illum in habitu
pastoris. ’ Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 254. Lelong, Le
Pasteur d’Hermas , p. xxvi. Duchesne, Lib. Pont . vol. i. p. 4. Harnack,
Chronologie , pp. 175 and 258–9.

[7] In
76 A.D. instead of 92 A.D.

[8] Hegesippus
visited Rome when Anicetus was bishop and was acquainted with Soter and
Eleutherus. Eus. Hist. Eccl . iv. 22. Irenaeus also spent some time in
Rome, probably in the episcopate of Soter 169–175. In his work on Heresies
he gives the order of succession of the Roman bishops: ‘ . . .
then Pius, then Anicetus, then Soter; lastly the twelfth in order from the
Apostles, Eleutherus, who now holds the office of bishop.’ Eus. Hist. Eccl
. v. 6; Iren. Haer . iii. 3.

[9] The
Acts of Pastor and Timothy , though apocryphal, are of great antiquity.
The ecclesia Pudentiana , the foundation of which in the Baths of Novatus
by Pope Pius I is recorded in these Acts, still exists as the Church of
St. Pudentiana—see note in Lib. Pontificalis under biographical notice of
Pius. ‘ Hic ex rogatu beatae Praxedis dedicavit ecclesiam thermas Novati,
in vico Patricii, in honore sororis suae sanctae Potentianae, ubi et multa
dona obtulit; ubi saepius sacrificium domino offerens ministrabat. Immo et
fontem baptismi construi fecit. ’ According to tradition Pius erected this
Church into a titulus , and appointed as its presbyter his brother Pastor.
The provision of a baptismal font probably means that this church became
at this time the Metropolitan Church of Rome. Inscriptions have been found
in which this church is styled ‘ titulus Pudentis .’ In the excavations
now being carried out for the building of the new Ministry of the Interior
it is hoped that discoveries may be made throwing further light on these
traditions. Galland, Bibl. Patrum , i. 672; De Rossi, Bullettino , 1867,
pp. 49–58; Marucchi, Elém. d’Arch. Chrét. ii. pp. 381–3, iii. pp. 364–373;
Hefele ( Patrum Apost. Op . xcv) quotes from Galland ‘ Presbyter Pastor
titulum condidit et digne in Domino obiit. ’ See Appendix, Note C, The
Legend of Pudens.

[10] Lelong,
Le Pasteur d’Hermas (1912), Intr. cv: ‘ La Version Vulgate (L’) remontant
peut-être a la fin du II e siècle, en tout cas très ancienne
. . . nous est parvenue dans de nombreux manuscrits.
’

[11] Duchesne,
Lib. Pont . p. 58. The passage stands thus in the Felician Abridgement : ‘
Pius, natione Italus ex patre Rufino, frater Pastoris, de civitate
Aquileia, sedit ann. xviii, mens. iiii, dies iii. Fuit temporibus Antonii
Pii a consulatu Clari et Severi. Sub huius episcopatu frater ipsius Hermis
librum scripsit in quo mandatum continetur quod praecepit angelus Domini
cum venit ad eum in habitu pastoris et praecepit ei ut sanctum Paschae die
dominica celebraretur. ’ The Cononian Abridgement omits frater ipsius .
Pius is the first of the Roman bishops after Clement to bear a Latin name.
If he were, as stated above, an Italian by birth, it is in the last degree
unlikely that he was the brother of a slave who had the Greek name Hermas,
and who seems to hint that he was of foreign origin. There is no reference
to the Easter controversy in The Shepherd .

[12] Irenaeus,
Haer . iv. 20. 2: καλῶς
οὖν
εἶπεν
ἡ
γραφὴ ἡ
λέγουσα·
Πρῶτον
πάντων π
ίστευσον
. . . from Hermas, Mand . i. 1.

[13] Article
on ‘Hermas’ in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography .
Hilgenfeld in the prolegomena to his edition of Hermae Pastor 1881, p. v),
after giving a list of the passages in which Clement of A. quotes The
Shepherd , concludes: ‘. . . Clemens Alex. igitur integro
Pastore usus de divinis eius revelationibus ne dubitavit quidem neque
Hermam apostolorum temporibus posteriorem existimasse potest.
’

[14] Tertullian,
De Oratione , xii.: ‘ Quod assignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam,
non perspicio rationem, nisi quod pueri volunt. Quid enim, si Hermas ille
cuius scriptura fere Pastor inscribitur, transacta oratione non super
lectum assedisset, verum aliud quid fecisset, id quoque ad observationem
vindicaremus? ’ The actual words of the Latin version of the Pastor
referred to occur at the beginning of the Fifth Vision: ‘ quum orassem
domi, et consedissem supra lectum, intravit et quidam reverenda facie etc.
’ See Hefele, Patr. Apost. Op . p. 345. Hilgenfeld’s comment is ‘ non vero
”scripturae” auctoritatem ipsam sed solum argumentum inde haustum
[Tertullianus] impugnavit. ’ Proleg . iii. That Tertullian used the Latin
version of Hermas— i.e. the Vulgate version, and that this L iber Pastoris
was read publicly in the Churches of Provincial Africa at the opening of
the third century, is the opinion of Harnack. Introd. to edition of
Hermas’ Pastor by Gebhardt and Harnack, p. xlviii.

[15] Origen,
Comm. on Rom . xvi. 14: ‘ quae scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur et ut
puto divinitus inspirata. ’ Hefele, Proleg . xciii. Again in his Comm. on
Hosea Origen refers to the building of the tower in Hermas, Vis . iii. ii.
16, 17 in a passage beginning with καὶ
ἐν
τῷ
Ποιμένι
and ending with σημαίνει
ἡ
γραφή
. See Hilgenfeld, p. 15. This expresses his attitude to The Shepherd
throughout his works.

[16] The
question of the unity of the work has been set at rest by Link, Die
Einheit des Pastor Hermas  1888, and Baumgaertner, Die Einheit des
Hermas Buchs , 1889.

[17] ὁ
θρέψας με
πέπρακέν με
Ῥόδῃ
τινὶ
εἰς
Ῥώμην . Vis
. i. 1.
θρεττός = Lat.
verna , a slave born and brought up in a house. Hilgenfeld quotes
Pliny, ep. ad Traian . 66: ‘ quos vocavit θρεπτούς qui liberi
nati
expositi, deinde sublati a quibusdam et in servitute educati sunt. ’ The
preposition is here seems to be used as meaning that Hermas was brought to
Rome from elsewhere to be sold.

[18] Harnack,
Chronologie , pp. 262–7.

[19] Harnack,
Chronologie , p. 265: ‘ Dass diese Worte [the passage about Clement and
Grapte] eine “Fiction” seien, ist eine Annahme, die sich nicht begründen
and die sich nicht halten lässt, wenn man sie durchdenkt.

[20] Compare
Vis. ii. 2. 7 and iii. 2. 1, with Sim. viii. 3. 6, 7, and ix.
28.

[21] Vis.
i. 3, ii. 2. 2-5, 3.1; iii. 6. 7, with Sim. vii. τῶν
οὖν
μετανοούντων
εὐθὺς
[εὐθέως]
δοκεῖς
τὰς
ἁμαρτίας
ἀφίεσθαι
; ‘ Numquid ergo,’ ait, ‘protinus putas aboleri delicta eorum, qui agunt
poenitentiam? ’

[22] Vis. iii. 2. 1: μάστιγας,
φυλακάς,
θλίψεις
μεγάλας,
σταυρούς,
θηρία.
. See also Vis. ii. 2.

[23] Sim.
ix. 28, passim: ὅσοι
ἐπ᾽
ἐξουσίαν
ἀχθέντες
ἐξητάσθησαν
καὶ
οὐκ
ἡρνήσαντο
ἀλλ᾽
ἔπαθον
προθύμως
. . . ὅσοι
δὲ
δειλοὶ
καὶ
ἐν
δισταγμῷ
ἐγένοντο
καὶ
ἐλογίσαντο
ἐν
ταῖς
καρδίαις
αὐτῶν,
πότερον
ἀρνήσονται
ἢ
ὁμολογήσουρι
καὶ
ἔπαθον
. . . ὑμεῖς
δέ
οἱ
πάσχοντες
ἕνεκεν
τοῦ
ὀνόματος
δοξάζειν
ὀφείλετε
τόν
θεὸν
. . . δοκεῖτε
ἔργον
μέγα
πεποιηκέναι
ἐάν
τις ὑμῶν
διὰ
τὸν
θεὸν
πάθῃ.
Sim . ix. 19. 1: ἐκ
τοῦ
πρώτου
ὄρους
τοῦ
μέλανος
οἱ
πιστεύσαντες
τοιοῦτοί
εἰσιν·
ἀποστάται
καὶ
βλάσφημοι
εἰς
τὸν
Κύριον,
καὶ
πρόδοται
τῶν
δούλων
τοῦ
θεοῦ.
τούτοις
δὲ
μετάνοια
οὐκ
ἔστι,
θάνατος
δὲ
ἔστι.
Sim . viii.: τινὲς
δὲ
αὐτῶν
εἰς
τέλος
ἀπέστησαν·
οὗτοι
οὖν
μετάνοιαν
οὐκ
ἔχουσιν·
διὰ
γὰρ
τὰς
πραγματείας
αὐτῶν
ἐβλασφήμησαν
τὸν
Κύριον
καὶ
ἀπηρνήσαντο.
Compare 1 Pet. iii. 13-17: ἀλλ᾽
εἰ
πάσχοιτε
δήὰ
δικαιοσύνην,
μακάριοι.
τὸν
δὲ
φόβον
αὐτῶν
μὴ
φοβηθῆτε,
μηδὲ
ταραχθῆτε·
. . . ἔτοιμοι
δὲ
ἀεὶ
πρὸς
ἀπολογὶαν
παντὶ
τῷ
αἰτοῦντι
ὑμᾶς
, and iv. 12-19: εἰ
ὀνειδίζεσθε
ἐν
ὀνόματι
Χριστοῦ,
μακάριοι.
. . . εἰ
δὲ
ὡς
Χριστιανός,
μὴ
αἰσχυνέσθω,
δοξαζέτω
δὲ
τὸν
Θεὸν
ἐν
τῷ
μέρει
τούτῳ.
Heb. vi. 4-8: Ἀδύνατον
γὰρ
τοὺς
ἅπαξ
φωτισθέντας
. . . καὶ
παραπεσόντας,
πάλιν
ἀνακαινίζειν
εἰς
μετάνοιαν
. . . τὸ
τέλος
εἰς
καῦσιν.
x. 32: πολλὴν
ἄθλησιν
ὑπεμείνατε
παθημάτων
. . . ὀνειδισμοῖς
τε καί
θλίψεσι
θεατριζόμενοι·
. . . τὴν
ἁρπαγὴν
τῶν
ὑπαρχόντων
ὑμῶν
μετὰ
χαρᾶς
προσεδέξασθε.
Hermas himself appears to have been among those who had lost their
possessions for their faith. Vis. ii. 2 (1, 2); iii. 6 (6, 7). Rev. xii. 11: οὐκ
ἠγ̤πησαν
τὴν
ψυχὴν
αὐτῶν
ἀχρὶ
θανάτου.
Also xiv. 9-13, xx. 4, and 1 Clement v. and vi. Tacitus,
Ann . xv. 44: ‘ Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos
per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat . . . igitur
primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens.
. . .

[24] Vis. iii. 5: οὗτοί
εἰσιν
οἱ ἀπόστολοι
καὶ ἐπίσκοποι
καὶ
διδάσκαλοι
καὶ
διάκονοι
οἱ
πορευθέντες
κατὰ
τὴν
σεμνότητα
τοῦ
θεοῦ
καὶ ἐπισκοπήσαντες
καὶ
διδάξαντες
καὶ
διακονήσαντες
ἁγνῶς
καὶ
σεμνῶς
τοῖς
ἐκλεκτοῖς
τοῦ
θεοῦ,
οἱ
μὲν
κεκοιμημένοι,
οἱ
δὲ ἔτι
ὄντες.

[25] Vis.
ii. 2. 6; 4. 2-3; iii. 8. 11; 9. 7-10; Sim. ix. 31.
6.