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 contempt