arrangement and a monotonous repetition, of which the writer seems himself not unconscious; as where he assures the Philippians that to repeat the same things was no grievance to him or them (ch. iii. 1), and when enforcing with a tear (iii. 18) remonstrances already made. There is an absence of special motive and clear definition of the intended adversaries1 (uncertainly alluded to whether in Rome or in Philippi), who are denounced with a bitterness of invective ill agreeing with the conciliatory disposition evinced by the apostle himself in his later letters, and serving only the purpose of introducing the person of the supposed writer in advantageous contrast with the pretensions of the parties denounced. The unrecompensed independence asserted in Corinthians (i. 9, 15), conflicts with the regular donations here attributed to the Philippians; and the apostle's retaliatory hypothetical boasting is parodied by the later writer in a way making the whole paragraph appear forced and out of place. But there is one circumstance which more especially betrays a post-apostolic origin, namely, the allusion to Clemens Romanus. The account of the furtherance of the Gospel in Rome through St. Paul's captivity, may be natural. enough; but this is mixed up with other data, especially the above-mentioned circumstance, giving an apocryphal air to the whole. It is stated that St. Paul, who, according to Acts xxviii. 16, was committed

What can be more vague than the description, iii. 18? and it may be asked whether the "evil workers" of iii. 2, are anything more than a copy of 2 Cor. xi. 13 ?

2 Comp. the expression "dogs" and the use of κατατομη for περιτομη.

3 Baur's Paulus, p. 465, and 2 Cor. xi. 18, the expression "glorying after the flesh," being mistaken by the writer of Philippians for a glorying in cir cumcision, etc.;-the "nep eyw" of ver. 23 is repeated in the "eyw μaλλov” here, iii. 4.

4 Ch. iv. 10-16. The writer exaggerates the exceptional case mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 9, assuming an original arrangement and continued liberality of the Philippians during the whole time since his quitting Macedonia, and gratuitously adding certain instances of relief supposed to have been sent to Thessalonica, but strangely enough omitting the details of the principal assistance received at Corinth.

5 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18, with Philip. iii. 4, etc.

• Phil. i. 12.

2

to the custody of the captain of the guard, had created a favourable impression in regard to Christianity throughout the Prætorium and the public generally ; at the close we are given to understand that among the converts were included several of "Cæsar's household;" and there can be little doubt that this statement refers to the Clement mentioned among the "fellow-labourers" of the apostle in ch. iv. 3. Now the self-refuting legend of Clement is a growth of the second century. It has of late been repeatedly and thoroughly discussed; the result being that the only historical basis of the story is the Flavius Clemens mentioned by Suetonius as having been executed by his near relative Domitian for "irreligion," indolence, and unfitness for public affairs. These epithets are the Roman way of describing a Christian; 3 and the importance naturally attached to the death of so illustrious a victima man of consular dignity-sufficiently accounts for the legendary enlargement and distortion of the real circumstances. Prodigies are reported to have alarmed Rome for eight months following his execution; ere long the whole circumstances were transferred to apostolic times, the cousin of Domitian became a relative of Tiberius, supposed, in spite of the conflicting data of the first (so-styled) Clementine epistle, to have been appointed bishop of Rome by his friend and companion St .Peter. Later ideas as to episcopal propriety could not allow the imaginary bishop to have been the consular husband of Domitilla; his person was, therefore, divided, the consul retaining his wife and family name of Flavius, and leaving the residuary "Clement" with the honours of martyrdom to be exclusively

1 Not "in other places," as the English has it.

2 Hilgenfeld's Apostol. Väter. 1853. Lipsius de Clem. Rom. Epistolâ primâ, 1853. Volkmar, in the Tübingen Jahrbücher, vol. xv. p. 297. 1856. 3 "Contemptissima inertia," says Suetonius. Dio Cassius, 67, 14, explains the charge of "abeoтns" by the words, "nen Twv Iovdaiwy;" on which see Volkmar, ib. p. 307.

4 Which supplies the strongest evidence that there were no Roman bishops till after A.D. 140. See Volkmar, ibid. p. 300, etc.

appropriated by the bishop. And then the Christian story itself split into two conflicting phases; Pauline tradition making Clement fourth in order after Peter instead of his immediate successor. Yet his apostolic character was insisted on in spite of chronology, and he was ultimately claimed as Paul's disciple as well as Peter's. And thus Clement appears as Pauline helpmate or "ovvepyos" in "Philippians;" just as St. Paul is elsewhere made to claim Mark as fellow-labourer, and Peter to make overtures through the Paulinist Silvanus, so here the name of Clement becomes a symbol of that Roman Catholic syncretism of the second century, in which the ideas of Peter and Paul were popularly harmonised and blended. It is needless to say that the cousin of Domitian could not have been really St. Paul's companion. But at the date of the epistle the legend of Clement was already current ; the cause of Christianity was generally flourishing, and hence the repeated self-congratulations of the writer, who in the circumstances of the consular Clemens finds a colourable and creditable opening for the gospel in Rome. From the Prætorium it would naturally extend to the palace, thence to the whole city;2 and Clement, amplified into plurality as "they of Cæsar's household," salutes the Philippians in the name of the metropolitan church.

The Growth of Asiatic Christianity.

The change which ended in Catholicism proceeded simultaneously in fact and in idea, as an organization and as a theory. Scarcely had St. Paul opened the way for unlimited Gentile conversion by means of his doctrine of "grace," than the stricter party eagerly availed themselves

1 Eusebius, H. E. iii. 13, 15, calculates Clement the bishop to have been cotemporary with the consul. Epiphanius tries to reconcile the two conflicting traditions by making Linus and Anacletus the episcopal colleagues of St. Peter himself!

2 " λοιποις πασι.”

of the opportunity to give to their own views a coordinate extension by superadding to the simple requirement of baptism Judaical forms and conditions. St. Paul's own letters shew how diligently his footsteps were followed up by persons wishing to substitute a new yoke for gospel freedom; tradition symbolically recording this Judaical reaction in the story of Peter pursuing Simon Magus, and eventually superseding St. Paul as apostle of the Gentiles.? A thorough coalition was impossible so long as men's minds were confused by the idea of dissension between the apostles; and hence while dismissing as unhistorical the inversion of character and language attributed to Peter and Paul in Acts, we should bear in mind that this unhistorical misrepresentation was itself an historical necessity, modifying the retrospect of the past into accord with the requisitions of the present.3 It must also be recollected that St. Paul himself, while rejecting Mosaic law, by no means repudiated spiritual or universal law, the general continuity of revelation, or the connection of Christianity with the Old Testament; so that there existed from the first a basis of conciliation and approximation. Proceeding on this hint the Epistle of James endeavours to adjust the ideas of faith and works which St. Paul had contrasted and opposed, and to appropriate whatever seemed practically applicable in Pauline theory under the comprehensive name of "royal law," the law of love or of liberty, etc. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in common with other secon

1 See Gal. iii. 27.

4

2 Clem. Homilies 3, 59, and the prefixed Epistola Clementis, ch. i. A similar case really occurred at Ephesus in the installation of John after St. Paul's retreat. Euseb. H. E. 3, 23 and 31, etc.

3 Baur, Christenthum v. Kirche, i. pp. 111-114.-Hence the parallelism as well as interchange of character between the apostles, the entire suppression of the Antioch dispute, the visionary appointment in both instances, the concession in the case of Timothy of what was refused on the part of Titus, etc.

On "Hebrews," see Baur's Christenthum v. Kirche, vol. i. pp. 96 and 292. Also K. R. Köstlin, Der Evang. u. die Briefe Johannis, pp. 352, 387; and three papers in the Theol. Jahrbücher for 1853 and 1854, vols. 12 and 13.

dary Pauline, Petrine, and Clementine writings,1 treats Christianity on the same footing of a spiritual or perfect Judaism which it is already assumed to be in Revelations ; employing the allegorical method of Alexandrian theology to elevate the reactionary Judaist to the conception of a higher faith; asserting the free principle of St. Paul even under Judaical symbols, and establishing the universality of the religion on the supreme personal claims of the founder. Christian theory here takes objective ground; it is no longer an internal change, or primarily even a law, but a sacrificial reconciliation effected through a priest; although a new system, it is only so in the sense of completing the old under a new leader. This Judaically modified Paulinism exercised a wide influence; it recurs not only in the speculative recognition of a latent Christianity under Judaical types in the epistle of Barnabas, but also in several Roman works of somewhat later date, such as the first Petrine and first Clementine epistles, in which faith and works, before advocated more or less apart, are carefully poised and coordinated. In Asia as well as in Rome the stubbornness of Judaism yielded; compromise and concession did their work; and to the series of Roman writings issued for the purpose of promoting amalgamation under the names of Luke, Clement, or Peter, corresponds a parallel series of literary efforts presumably emanating from Eastern sources under the titular sanction of Paul and of John. Interweaving Pauline elements with Judaical, organising with speculative tendencies, the latter form a natural introduction to the essentially catholic idealism of which the fourth gospel may be regarded as the completion. Asiatic idealism had two types; the sensuous fanaticism and chiliasm of the Montanist, and the more refined metaphysical speculations engendering the theological disputes which eventually subsided in the Athan

1 Comp. Philip. iii. 3; 1 Peter ii. 9, 10; 1 Clement, ch. 32.

2 See especially 1 Clem. ch. 32, 33.