« AnteriorContinuar »
language of the second century, a composition might not be both a homily and an epistle, if it was a homily despatched from some foreign Church to be read in a Christian assembly. We have seen how much there is in the genuine epistle of St. Clement which bears this character; and how a Eucharistic prayer, which is a part of a bishop's home service-still less likely than a sermon to form part of an epistle to a foreign Church-might yet be embodied in such a piece.
It seems to have been the custom of that time that Churches should welcome, and constantly read in the assembly, letters from foreign bishops full of plain-spoken admonition. Perhaps this was a continuation of the custom of the synagogue which invited from strangers any word of exhortation to the people. In the same chapter of Eusebius (lib. iv. cap. 23) which contains the communication from Dionysius of Corinth, describing the welcome which his Church gives to the letter from that of Rome, there is contained a long list of foreign Churches to which Dionysius himself wrote. passage may thus be summarized:
'He extended his sacred labours not only to his own people but to those abroad in those catholic epistles which he wrote to various Churches, one of which was to the Lacedemonians, containing instructions in the orthodox faith; another to the Athenians, urging them to faith and to a life in accordance with the Gospel, in which respect he reproves the negligence of the Athenians. Another epistle of his to the Nicomedians is extant against the heresy of Marcion. He wrote another to the Gortynians and the rest of the Churches of Crete. In the same volume is contained an epistle to the Gnossians, in which he admonishes their bishop, Pinytus, not to place upon the neck of the disciples the heavy weight of compulsory celibacy.'
It was, therefore, plainly the custom of the time that bishops should write admonitions to other Churches, and that these should be received with gratitude. Might not the homily to the Corinthians have come to them in this way?
Dr. Lightfoot is of the opinion that it was a homily delivered in Corinth itself by some native ecclesiastic. Harnack maintains that it emanated from Rome, and the Bishop dis. agrees with the opinion of the German scholar; but we cannot say that the arguments by which he recommends his own appear to us decisive. The allusions to the Isthmian games do not prove much in view of the fact that St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, uses similar images, which might well operate as suggestions to a future writer to the same Church. We do not see that a native would have been VOL. XXXII.-NO. LXIII.
more likely than a foreigner to mention (as the homily does) the landing of visitors to the games without naming the port at which they arrive. On the contrary, it would seem to be rather for natives than for strangers to designate the port of debarkation. And we must go on to say that when the preacher makes a moral allegory, and bids his hearers to resort to the games and contend, KaTaTXEúowμev does not seem to be the word which he would have used for resort,' if he had been writing upon the soil of the contest to people who had nothing to do but walk down and engage. We hardly suppose any compound of λɛîν can have ever lost its original meaning so entirely as to be a natural expression to persons who have a short land journey in their minds, even when metaphorically used. But if it were so, what becomes of the argument that the port of arrival should have been named when it was said that strangers 'land' (καтаTλέovou) for the games.? Would it be natural to say to an English congregation that many foreigners 'land' for the Derby, and would it not be still more unnatural to proceed and urge these English themselves to 'land' for the Christian race? To our humble judgment there seem strong objections to supposing that a discourse so little remarkable in itself was either selected out of all the native homilies delivered at Corinth for preservation and for association with the honoured epistle of Clement, or that it was transmitted without authority from Rome, and received with such high honour in the Greek city. Surely the supposition of transmission by authority from Rome gives the most plausible account of the association of the piece with the epistle from the true Clement, which had formerly come from the same quarter, and at the same time of the term epistle, so universally applied to it in early times. It would ill become us to identify it with the epistle of the Roman Church in the time of Soter, when the learned author of that theory has himself withdrawn it. But, in spite of our respect for the great authorities who have refused to the little work the term epistle, since Bryennios revealed it as a homily, we feel some confidence in claiming the name for it still, in view of the fact that it was so called by the people of the second and third century, whose language Eusebius records, and by PseudoJustin and others in later times, all of whom possessed it in its integrity as we now do. The abruptness of the opening suggests the possibility that it may have originally been preceded by some introduction; but whether this were so or not the fact that, though a homily, it was from the first regarded as an epistle remains the same.
We have thus ventured to express our difference with Bishop Lightfoot on a few points. They are but minor matters, and even upon these it may well be that he is right and we wrong; in the judgment of our own minds, antecedent presumption is all against us. We believe there never was a scholar whose thoroughness of work and balance of mind deserved more absolute confidence. There is a spiritual instinct in the studies which he pursued, answering to the use of the imagination in science, and a religious sympathy with the authors expounded, corresponding to common sense or tact in literary criticism. He possessed them both. He had the industry of the most laborious collector of authorities, with an intellect to master and marshal them each in its place, and he possessed powers of feeling and of soul that were never overpowered by his learning. He was one of those blessed scholars whose books will long benefit the reading world, not merely because he knew a great deal and thought correctly, but because he was good.
One cannot but wonder whether he has met his Ignatius and his Clement in Paradise. If so there will be little need on either side to forget or to unlearn any of the religious habits that were theirs in the Church militant, in order to place them in the most perfect sympathy in the Church triumphant. Great indeed were the contrasts in outward circumstances between the Roman bishop of the first century and the English of the nineteenth, the one a freedman and the minister of a poor and despised community, the other a peer of the wealthiest and proudest nobility in the world; the one possessed of little science or literature, except the knowledge of the Bible and the tradition of Christ in His Church, the other provided abundantly with every resource that a scholar could possess, whether in opportunity of knowledge or in education to use it; the one very near in time to the Divine Source of light and life, yet only upon the threshold of the inevitable developments of Christian thought and reflection, the other separated from Christ after the flesh by nineteen tumultuous centuries, but heir to the last results of all the enquiries and disputes of so long and active a period. And yet the community of mind between the two is larger by an infinite degree than all their differences. Their worship is the same as to its objects, and the same as to its means and expressions. Their sacraments are the same and practised in the same form. Their sources of truth and guidance are the same. None of those corruptions which have marred portions of
the Church's history had any hold upon either, though the reason of this in the one case was that they had not yet arisen, in the other that a painful process of reformation had torn them off. In respect of faith in God and in the Saviour, of the doctrine of the sacraments, and of tradition, and of the Bible, in value for Church order, and at the same time for evangelical fervour and personal piety, in simplicity of life, and zeal for the spread of the kingdom of Christ, there is really no difference between the two. They belong to the same type, and the same seal of the Holy Ghost is stamped upon them. They were linked together by the apostolical succession, by the organic life of the Church, and by access to the same heavenly grace; they cherished the same faith and the same hope, on the fruition of which they have both entered.
ART. IV. PERPETUA.
The Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas; the original Greek text now first edited from a MS. in the Library of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, by J. RENDEL HARRIS, formerly Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, and now Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature in Haverford College: and SETH K. GIFFORD, Professor of Greek in Haverford College, Pennsylvania. (London, 1890.)
A LEGEND of the Apostle John (of no greater antiquity, it must be owned, than the fifth century) represents the aged Apostle as accused of unworthy trifling by a hunter, who had found him fondling a tame partridge, and as defending himself by the reply that the hunter's own bow if not sometimes unbent would lose its elasticity. But at the present day neque semper arcum tendit Apollo is a text on which it is not necessary to preach sermons. The general conviction of the necessity for occasional relaxation is quite as strong as anyone can desire. The poorest clerk, not content with the provision that Sir John Lubbock has made for his amusement, will stipulate with his master for two or three weeks total holiday, and would hear with incredulous scorn of the slavery to work of the prosperous linendraper a century ago, whose wife could complain to him that though wedded they had been these twice ten tedious years, yet they no holiday had seen.'
Nor is it only that a good slice of time is now required to
be formally given up to relaxation; amusement also claims a large share of the time that is supposed to be devoted to work. The vacations given at our schools and colleges might be supposed to be ample enough, but of the time spent in residence by students, taking them all round, the part devoted to study would bear a small proportion to that given to recreation. In fact a good case could be made for maintaining that the object for which a boy is sent to a great school is that he may be made a proficient in games, it being understood that if he has any surplus leisure he may employ some of it in learning Greek and Latin. Certainly a candidate for a mastership in a great school will be likely to find a record of high university distinctions insufficient to win him success, if he is obliged to own that he has no skill in out-of-door exercises.
But there are young men who have no taste for out-of-door exercises, and who might with perfect truth be described as hard readers; surely this is a class which we might expect to find consisting exclusively of the proverbial dull boys, whose life is all work and no play. But we remember that many years ago, on reading at what an early age Archbishop Ussher could claim to have read through all the Fathers, we remarked to a friend what an exceptionally hard reader the Archbishop must have been. Not so,' was the reply, 'at the present day many men and many women read more. Very possibly you read more yourself. Just count up the amount of your day's reading, beginning with a newspaper or two in the morning, magazine and review articles or other light literature, besides the reading that you designate by the name of study, and I dare say it will be found that you get through more reading in a day than ever the Archbishop did.' Bishop Butler complained of the evil effect of the great number of books and papers of amusement which, of one kind or another, daily come in one's way,' as occasioning our 'idle way of reading and considering things.' By this means time, even in solitude, is happily got rid of without the pain of attention; neither is any part of it more put to the account of idleness (one can scarce forbear saying, is spent with less thought) than great part of that which is spent in reading.' In the nearly two centuries which have elapsed since Butler wrote, not only has there been an enormous increase in the supply of light literature which he thought so abundant, but there has been an equal increase in the amount of ability employed in its manufacture, and consequently in the consideration in which it is held. Time was when, in theory at least, it was accepted doctrine that none but the young and frivolous were