¹ The explanatio symboli ad initiandos, etc., Texts and Studies X, 1952.

² Explan. symb. 3, ed. Connolly, p. 7.

³ Cf., e.g., Gospel of Bartholomew II, M. R. James, The apocryphal N.T., 1926, 170 f.; Schneemelcher, E. Hennecke-W., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I, 3rd ed., 1959, 364 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Hahn-Harnack, Bibl. der Symbole, 3rd ed., 1897, 51 f.

⁵ J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1950, 217 f., has tried to prove that the Creed of Caesarea was not the basis for the Nicene Creed. This theory starts from the assumption that the technique of Creed-making was already at that time fully developed in the Eastern Church, a view which I find hard to accept. It also conflicts with Eusebius' own statement in Opitz, Urk. 22. These are the reasons why I still hesitate to abandon the earlier view on the origin of the Nicene Creed, as expressed above.

⁶ Hahn-Harnack, op. cit., 127 f., have made an effort at re-constituting “the earliest baptismal Creed of the Oriental Church.” The sources quoted are predominantly Syrian, whilst the presumed formula has also been laced with a few Egyptian additions. Thus this attempt should be treated with considerable reserve. The formula produced seems to exclude Antiochene monarchianism as well as Origenian subordinationism somewhat too definitely, and differs widely from Greek formulae (Creeds?) of the 2nd cent., ibid., 1 f. Origen's “Creed” in De principiis is again different, as are the formulae from Asia Minor, ibid., II f.

⁷ H. A. Blair, A Creed before the Creeds, 1955.

⁸ J. N. D. Kelly, op. cit., 17 f.

⁹ Their views may be found set out in an article by Lichtenstein, E., Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. LXI, 1950, 1 fGoogle Scholar.—C. H. Dodd in New Testament Essays, 1939, 106 f., has given another meaning to the term of “New Testament catechism,” more closely related to historical fact.

¹⁰ The method of teaching amongst the Jews in N. T. time was memorizing, cf., W. Bousset-Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums, 3rd ed. 1926, 168. The fact that the Gospels were still learnt by heart in the sixth cent, is shown by two Coptic papyri, nr.51 and 52 in Till, W., Die koptischen Bürgschaftsurkunden, Bull, de la Société d'archéologie copte, XIV 1958, 198 fGoogle Scholar. Iren., Adv. Haer. III.4.1, cf., Politische Metaphysik II, 1959, 96, n.1, provides evidence that such was also the case in Gaul in the second cent.

¹¹ Campenhausen, H. v., Tradition und Leben, 1960, 58 n. 37Google Scholar, assumes that St. Paul, in this passage recorded Galilean visitations. I cannot find his argument conclusive, but I agree with him that in any case St. Paul's information came from Jerusalem.

¹² This follows from παρέλαβον i. Cor. XI.23.

¹³ Gal. I.io. — As to the character of the Pauline εὐαγγέλιον we may refer to J. Schniewind, Euangelion II, 1931, 183, “im Alten Testament der souveräne Gott, der selbst in die Geschichte hineintritt, und der mebaśśer, der ihn verkündigt; im Hellenismus der Gott-Kaiser, der kultisch verehrt wird, und das εὐαγγέλιον, das ihn proklamiert.” Neither W. Schneemelcher nor his critic, A. D. Nock, J. T. S., 1960, 64 f., have referred to Schniewind's work without which the meaning of εὐαγγέλιον cannot be established satisfactorily. It seems to me that Nock is justified when warning against too much emphasis being put on the “sacred” character of the word, but that he is mistaken in assuming that εὐαγγέλιον may be just any “good news.” It follows also from Schniewind that St. Paul's adversaries denied probably the Divinity of Christ, and this links up with the character of the ἐτερονεὐαγγέλιον as outlined by J. Schoeps in W. D. Davies & D. Daube, The Background of the N.T., 116–118. In his book Paulus, 1959, 73 f., Schoeps has omitted the discussion of this aspect of the controversy between St. Paul and the Judaizers.— It may also be permissible to refer to the Pauline use of “my Gospel,” Rom. II.16, or “our Gospel,” ii. Cor. IV.3, especially in connection with ibid. XI4–5, in order that the Apostle may appear to have given to the term εὐαγγέλιον the meaning of “the quintessence of his message,” and to have presupposed the same meaning for the ἐτερον εὐαγγέλιον of his adversaries.

¹⁴ So Knopf-Lietzmann-Weinel, Einführung in das N.T., 3rd ed., 1930, 78.

¹⁵ This is the traditional assumption which, however, is considered “highly improbable” by the astronomers quoted by J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 195s, 12 n.3. Jeremias pleads for A.D. 30.

¹⁶ Gal. 1.8. — Obviously St. Paul thought of the possibility of more than one false Gospel springing up, when he omitted the definite article; but his message would be blunted if it were not stressed that his immediate concern was with his Jerusalem adversaries.

¹⁷ Rom. XI, 13.

¹⁸ Gal. I.17 f.

¹⁹ ii. Cor. XI.5; XII.11 f.

²⁰ ii. Cor. XI.is, cf. E. Käsemann, Die Legitimität des Apostels, 1956, 12 f.

²¹ Cf. the “certain people who came from James,” Gal. II.12, where the word τινέϛ is used in a somewhat derogatory sense.

²² Cf., e.g., E. Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Kolosser, 1930, 29, referring to the term σύνδουλϛ. But this term, which in Pauline literature occurs only in Col. 1.7; IV.7, and in the second instance is used for Tychicus who is described as διάκονοϛ καί σύνδουλοϛ. The addition of πιστòϛ διάκονοϛ is explained best by assuming that only Tychicus had been a member of St. Paul's team.

²³ Col. I.23.

²⁴ Phm. 23.

²⁵ Col. 1.8.

^{page 80 note 1} Cf. our Politische Metaphysik II, 1959, 36 f.

^{page 80 note 2} This distinction between the “the Gospel” and its missionary exegesis has been neglected in the appreciation of ii. Cor. by H. J. Schoeps, Paulus, 1959, 73 f.

^{page 80 note 3} Gal. II.11 f. — Without entering upon the controversy whether this clash took place before or after the so-called council of the Apostles, I would like to express my appreciation of the charming little study by Pere H. M. Feret O.P., Pierre et Paul à Antioch et à Jérusalem, Paris, 1955. Père Féret pleads for “l'incident d' Antioch” having taken place before the council, in a way which in any case makes it psychologically understandable without any great violence being applied to the sources. The question why St. Paul did not mention that he convinced Peter and Barnabas — if he and not the council succeeded in doing so — is, however, not clearly answered by Père Féret.

^{page 80 note 4} ii. Cor. XI.5; XII.ii.

^{page 80 note 5} Eὐαγγελιξóμενοι τòν κύριον 'Iησοῦν. Note the verb, which is intentionally chosen.

^{page 81 note 6} This Church seems to have had numerous Gentile members, whom Claudius did not expel in A.D. 50, like Aquila and Priscilla.

^{page 81 note 7} ActsXVIII.24.

^{page 81 note 8} Cf. J. H. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History, 1955, 116 f.

^{page 81 note 9} Acts XVIII.25 Moffatt. — It is noteworthy that Apollos did not receive rebaptism at the hands of Aquila and Priscilla, but only instruction; but we cannot enter here into this question.

^{page 81 note 10} i. Cor. III.6 Moffatt.

^{page 81 note 11} Acts XIX.i.

^{page 81 note 12} So still, without a word of explanation, E. Hänchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1957, 493 f. Cf. how J. Thomas, Le mouvement baptiste, 1935, 97 f., tries, vainly I think, to separate completely Acts XIX.1–13 from its context in order to establish the “disciples” as members of “la secte Johannite.” The correct view is not only held by Lake-Jackson, The Beginnings, throughout, but also by F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 2nd ed. 1952, 353. — The incorrect interpretation is, of course, largely responsible for the weight attached to the Mandaic sources in the interpretation of the N.T.; but it would be a vicious circle, if these sources were now invoked to prove the interpretation as correct.

^{page 82 note 13} This consideration makes it probable that the disciples were Alexandrians, unless gematrical interpretation of the number twelve is preferred, and they are seen as representatives of Judaeo-Christianity, needing the baptism of the Spirit. E. Hanchen, I.e., has managed to miss all the salient points of the incident, treating it as a mere report of fact, unrelated to anything preceding or following. The connection with Apollos, however, had been stated already by Overbeck in W. L. M. de Wette, Kurze Erklärung der Apostelgeschichte, 4th ed., 1870, 302, who did not, however, question the traditional “disciples of S.John Baptist.”

^{page 82 note 14} Acts. XXI.8 f. — On the Caesarean antagonism to Jerusalem cf. S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, 1951, 178, “Philip, a distinguished representative of the anti-Judaic movement.” The Jerusalem Church is represented in Acts XXI.20 as pro-Judaic.

^{page 82 note 15} Another question that has to be asked, but cannot be answered here, is just this: Why did Luke, whose “sense of detachment with which the destruction of Jerusalem is contemplated,” is stressed by S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, 1951, 206, and by whom “nothing explicit is said of the fortunes of the Christian community there,” ibid. 207, set such great store by the correct relations between St. Paul and James of Jerusalem, if the conflict at Antioch between St. Paul and St. Barnabas had resulted in a final break with the Church at Jerusalem, as E. Haenchen, op. cit., 422 f., seems to indicate?

^{page 83 note 16} Mark XIV.28 Moffatt.

^{page 83 note 17} Matth. XXVIII.16 f.

^{page 83 note 18} Matth. XXVIII.7.

^{page 83 note 19} Matth. XXVIII.10. — I believe that vv. 8–10 are meant to pay respect to the “Jerusalem Gospel.” There seems to me to be little doubt that the whole last chapter of Matth. has undergone more than one revision before receiving its canonical form, but this cannot be shown here. I feel, however, somewhat hesitant to accept the evidence offered by G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1948, 48 f., for his thesis that vv. 8–10 were written by the evangelist, since it makes too little of the separate character of v.8.

^{page 83 note 20} i. Cor. XV.if.

^{page 83 note 21} Luke XXIV. —I have repeatedly, cf., Theol. Zeitschr. II, 1946, 424, n.4; Politische Metaphysik II, 1959, 28 n.i, referred to the intentional artificiality of the Emmaus story, Luke XXIV.13 f., which shows a close similarity to the report on the appearance of the deified Romulus, Dion. Hal. II.63.3 f., cf. Livy 1.16.5 f., and thus to the whole literary genre of self-revelation of deified humans.

^{page 83 note 22} Luke XXIV.50 f.; Acts I.9 f. —I subscribe to all that J. G. Davies, He ascended into Heaven, 1958, 41, n.5, has stated with regard to one of the more common attempts at harmonizing the two texts.

^{page 84 note 23} Only a scholar as convinced of the Lukan origin of the speeches in Acts, as M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 1956, 167 f., could neglect the obvious theological and, I think, also linguistic singularity of Acts VII.2–53. The most carefully considered statement of the problem of St. Stephen's sermon I have found in W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles, 1948, 24, n.1. E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1957, 243 f., gives an outline of the recent history of the interpretation of the sermon, mainly by German theologians, and on p. 247, suggests that Luke adopted a “neutral” exposition of sacred history, and changed it by interpolations in order to make it suit the occasion. I cannot help finding his approach rather arbitrary. Still more recent is Barnard, L. W., Stephen, S. and early Alexandrian Christianity, N.T.S. VII, 1960, 31 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 84 note 24} Acts VIII.9 f.

^{page 84 note 25} Acts VIII.13 Moffatt.

^{page 84 note 26} Acts VIII.16. — Here the remark “they had simply been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus,” raises the most difficult question, in whose name the “disciples” at Ephesus, Acts XIX.i f., were re-baptized by St. Paul? Since St. John Baptist did not baptize in his own name — how could he? — the hypothesis that they were his disciples would not help. Eίϛ τò 'Iωάννου βάπτισμα, Acts XIX.3, is, however, a curious formula, coined in analogy to εἰν τò δνομα 'Iησοῦ, but it belongs to St. Luke, not to the disciples. — We would also like to know whether the eunuch of Queen Candace received the Spirit in his baptism, or whether the Spirit made His presence known only by translating St. Philip to Caesarea, Acts VIII.39?

^{page 85 note 27} This imposition of hands appears in a rather curious light when it is brought into relation to Clem. Alex., Excerpta e Theodoto XXII.5, ed. Casey, 56, 245 f., διò καὶ τῆ Ξειροθεσία λέγουσιν ἐπὶ τέλουν εὶϛ λύτρωσιν ἀγγελικήν, cf. Heb. IX.12.

^{page 85 note 28} This is meant as a reply to R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, 1958, 99. — I believe, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, that St. Luke drew on information obtained from St. Philip through a “Philip document” for his account on the Seven in Acts VI-VIII.

^{page 85 note 29} Acts VII.20 f.

^{page 85 note 30} Acts VIII.18 f.

^{page 86 note 31} Acts VIII.24.— E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1957, 262, regards this verse as a “harmless Lukan formulation, underlining the dangerous power of the word of the Apostle,” an attempt to escape from the question why no reply is given to the demand “pray for me.” The question was posed already by Overbeck in W. L. M. de Wette, Kurze Erklarung der Apostelgeschichte, 4th ed. 1870, 126 n. Here indeed lay the burning question of “second penance,” cf. Heb. VI.4–6, and it seems at least worth asking whether or not St. Luke was aware of it.— The fact that the Valentinians, at any rate, paid attention to this question may be seen from Clem. Alex., Excerpta e Theodoto LXXXIII, Casey 90, 707.

^{page 86 note 32} John IV.40–42.

^{page 86 note 33} John VIII.48.

^{page 86 note 34} W. F. Albright in W. D. Davies & D. Daube, The Background of the N.T, 1956, has shown that Aenon near Salim, John III.23, is to be found in Samaria.

^{page 86 note 35} Only the Third Gospel records the rejection of Jesus by the Samaritan village, Luke IX.52, but cf. also Jesus' command, Matth. X.6, “do not enter a Samaritan town.”

^{page 86 note 36} Acts VIII.13. —The suggestion that it was St. Philip, not St. Peter, who “gains his greatest triumph when his most successful opponent, Simon Magus, tries in vain to purchase from him the secret of his power,” E. Haenchen, op. cit., 265, is a product of uncritical imagination. Acts say nothing of an opposition of Simon against St. Philip. Dr. Haenchen, I feel, has paid too little attention to the argument proposed by R. F. Casey, Beginnings of Christianity V, 151 f.

^{page 87 note 37} Acts VI.5.

^{page 87 note 38} Rev. II.6f.; 14 f.

^{page 87 note 39} Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I.26.3; III.10.6. Clem. Alex., Strom. III.4.25, quoted by Euseb., E. H. III.29.

^{page 87 note 40} It seems that M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, The Moffatt N.T. Comm., 5th impr. 1952, 33 f., accepts the Patristic evidence too unreservedly, whilst E. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Joh., Handb. z. N.T. 16, 1926, 29, rejects it too readily. For there are not many cases of Saints being turned into sinners by the early Fathers, although, of course, the treatment meted out to St. Paul in the Ps. Clementines comes to mind. Cf. also Bo Reicke, Glaube und Leben der Urgemeinde, AT ANT, 32, 1957, 121 n.10. Dr. A. D. Nock has referred me to P. Janzon, Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 21, 1956, 82 f., but I cannot find this publication in Manchester, neither do I read Swedish. — W. Bousset, Die Offenbarung des Joh., 6th ed. 1906, 205 f., deserves attention because he shows a faint trace unking the Nicolaitans to Samaria.

^{page 88 note 41} M. Kiddle, op. cit., 18, has over-stated the universal significance of the “Seven Letters,” cf. the more cautious and elaborate analysis by E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., 37 f. The local character of the “Seven Letters” is clearly discernible, especially with regard to the martyrs mentioned, cf. Joh. Weiss, Das Urchristentum, 1917,627.

^{page 88 note 42} Rev. II. 20–22. — For the identical character of the groups cf. W. Bousset, op. cit., 206, to whose remarks, however, a little caution has to be added. These early Christian Gnostics should not be regarded as self-contained groups like tht Irvingites or the Jehovah's witnesses. The boundaries were quite fluid, and the most that can be said of them is that they accepted in their life and doctrine the views of the same teacher, Nicolaus.

^{page 88 note 43} Rev. II.2.—-W. Bousset, op. cit., 204, rightly identifies the “false apostles” with the teachers of the Nicolaitans.

^{page 88 note 44} ii. Cor. XI.13.

^{page 88 note 45} Cf., infra, p. 99.

^{page 88 note 46} i. Clem. XLII.2–3, cf. Tertullian, De praescr. 37; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.1.1, and similar texts which R. Knopf, Handb. z. N.T. Erg. Bd., 1920, 116, has quoted.

^{page 89 note 47} Rev. II.6 Moffatt.

^{page 89 note 48} Rev. II.15 Moffatt. — Whether or not a distinction has to be made between the “works,” τὰ ἐργα, of the Nicolaitans in II.6, and their “tenets,” διδαΞή, in II.15, is at least uncertain. Clem. Alex., Strom. III.4.25, it is true, characterizes them as an antinomian, immoral Gnostic sect, and W. Bousset, op. cit., 206, suggests that Clement's quotation, if such it is, παραΞρήσασθαι τῆ σαρκὶ δεῖ, may be of Nicolaitan origin. In this case their “works” would have given more cause for a separation than their mere — modern — doctrine. However, Bousset's theory rests on slender foundations. For at least of Irenaeus', Adv. Haer. 1.23, more detailed accusations of promiscuity and eating of sacrificial meat, it is evident that they were derived solely from Rev. II.20; and it seems improbable that Clement should have had knowledge of their foremost doctrine. Consequently the formal “testing of the spirit,” i. John IV.1 f., of the “false apostles” at Ephesus, suggested by M. Kiddle, op. cit., 22, is also uncertain. For it presupposes that they were expelled for bad doctrine, and not as Rev. II.6 makes clear, for bad manners.

^{page 89 note 49} The parable of the wheat and the tares, Matth. XIII.24 f., should be brought to mind, even if it is uncertain whether the author of Rev. knew the First Gospel.

^{page 90 note 50} Matth. XXVIII.19–20, cf. E. Klostermann, Das Matthäus-Evangelium, Handb. z. N.T. 4, 2nd ed. 1927, 232.

^{page 90 note 51} Acts VIII.37.— It seems significant to me that the earliest witness to the use of this Roman legal rite (stipulatio) in Baptism, cf. Festschr. Guido Kisch, 1955, 147 f., should be Vetus Latina, whereas the earliest Greek ms. exhibiting the verse is only Laudianus (E) of the sixth cent.

^{page 90 note 52} Cf. Church Quart. Rev., 1944, 115 f.

^{page 90 note 53} iii. John 9. — 'O φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν takes its place in a long series of caustic remarks on the πρωτοκαθεδρία of the bishops, and may have a connection with Matth. XXIII.6 par. This, however, has not been noted by either C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, The Moffatt N.T. Comm., 1946, 161 f., or H. Windisch, Die kathol. Briefe, Handb. z. N.T. 15, 2nd ed. 1930, 141 f. It is mentioned here only in order to show that the situation was a typical one. Otherwise the question of the relations between the Synoptists and the Johannine literature is quite sufficiently obscure, and I would not add to that by claiming any direct or indirect interdependence between the two texts.

^{page 90 note 54} iii. John 10.

^{page 91 note 55} So also, if only among several other possibilities, C. H. Dodd, op. cit., 162 f.

^{page 91 note 56} i. Ti. I.9, δικαίω νóμοϛ oὐ κεῖται. This conviction was so general among the Greeks under the Romans, cf. Polit. Metaphysik II, 1959, 37 f., that we need not enter into the question whether or not Diotrephes could have had any knowledge of the Pastoral Epistles.

^{page 91 note 57} The fact that ἐπιδέΞεσθαι occurs in the N.T. only in iii. John (and is not even discussed by Grundmann in Kittel, Worterb. II.49 f.), does not diminish its importance as a technical term, especially in Jewish circles, cf. the passages from Ecclus. and I/II. Mace, quoted by W. Bauer, Worterb. z. N.T., 4th ed. 1952, 528. Luke preferred ἀποδέΞεσθαι, with the same meaning, probably because it was somewhat more common in Greek circles.

^{page 91 note 58} Rom. XII.13; Heb. XIII.2; i. Tim. III.2.

^{page 91 note 59} Cf., e.g., how in the Actus S. Sylvestri the Saint is the only Christian at Rome who “receives the Egyptian martyr Timotheus in his house,” Bull, of the John Rylands Lib., 1960, 294.

^{page 91 note 60} ii. John io Moffatt. — The interpretation given presupposes, of course, that the author of ii. and iii. John is one and the same person, a theory which seems threatened by certain inconsistencies in the history of the canonization of the two Epistles. C. H. Dodd, op. cit., LXVI, after fully examining these difficulties, nevertheless pronounces in favor of the identity of the author, and I accept his authority.

^{page 92 note 61} iii. John 10 Moffatt.

^{page 92 note 62} It has been suggested that at any rate excommunication for moral lapses took place in the Primitive Church. In favor of this view three passages might be quoted: Matth. XVTII.17; Acts V.i f.; and i. Cor. V.5. As regards the Matthean passage, I would refer to Billerbeck V.i, 298, and esp. 329 f., “nowhere can it he shown that the synagogal banishment served as a means of excluding obstreperous elements from the synagogue, etc.” As regards St. Paul's “consigning that person to Satan … in order that his spirit may be saved,” I feel that this is still in line with the synagogal banishment. Billerbeck III, 358 f., omitting “in order that, etc.” is probably off the right track here. Finally, it is the Divine action by which Ananias and Saphira are punished, not a judicial murder at the hands of St. Peter. It thus appears at least highly doubtful whether the Primitive Church arrogated to itself the right of complete expulsion of a baptized person on moral grounds. This is, however, not the place to align this finding with the “power of the keys” or with the problem of second penance.

^{page 93 note 1} Bauer, W., Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, Beitr. z. histor. Theologie, 1934Google Scholar. — The only detailed appreciation of the book in English which I have found, is that of H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth, 1954, 37 f., which to my great regret does not seem to me to do Bauer's book justice, as in the case of East-Syria, so particularly in the case of Egypt.

^{page 93 note 2} Cf. the way in which W. Bauer, op. cit., 3 f. speaks of “die Kirchenlehre” as if the earthly existence of the Church had already had a theological significance for the earliest Christians. I suggest that just the opposite is true. If, as the reference in i. Cor. XI.19 seems to indicate, the agraphon “there will be schisms and heresies,” E. Klostermann, Apocrypha III, nr. 33, KI. Texte 11, Cambridge 1905, 8, belongs to the earliest kerygma, it appears that the formation of organized groups was suspect in earliest Christianity, and the true Church was not to be seen in such a light at all. The parallel with Israel, and the nations, cf. Peterson, E., Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis, 1959, 51 f.Google Scholar, which from the time of i. Clem. XXX.i, may have provided the pattern of Church organization, originally stressed the exclusive Divine prerogative in the election of the Christians, cf. Gal. IV.24/5; VI.16.

^{page 94 note 3} W. Bauer, op. cit., 6 f., 49 f.

^{page 94 note 4} F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, 1904, cf. esp. pp. 10 f., on the conversion of king Abgar of Edessa.

^{page 94 note 5} F. C. Burkitt, op. cit., 25 f.

^{page 94 note 6} W. Bauer, op. cit., 25 f.

^{page 94 note 7} So W. Bauer, op. cit., 29 f.

^{page 95 note 8} W. Bauer, op. cit., 26 f.

^{page 95 note 9} It appears from the earliest use of ἐγκρατήϛ in a disparaging sense by Iren., Adv. Haer. I.28, cf. Clem. Alex., Paed. II.2. etc.; Hippol, Ref. VIII.20, that no clearly denned group of heretics was visualized by it; and Irenaeus, for instance, comprises under it the followers of Satornil and Marcion indiscriminately. It is quite uncertain whether any store may be set by Jerome's assertion, De vir. ill. XXIX, Tatianus … novam condidit haeresin quae Encratitarum dicilur. I feel sure that this has been formulated upon lines of thought which only arose from experiences of the post-Constantinian period.

^{page 95 note 10} W. Bauer, op. cit. 26. — The acerbity of the conflict is reflected in Adamantius, Dial. 1.8, where the Marcionite says: “I am called Christian, and if you (the Catholic) call me a Marcionite, then I will call you a Socratian.” The name and person of Palût seem to have been omitted on purpose by the Catholic author of the Dialogue.

^{page 96 note 11} Cf. in place of many the complaint by E. R. Hardy, Christian Egypt, 1952, 11, “the obscurity that surrounds its (the Church of Alexandria's) early days, ends with the episcopate of Demetrius (190–233).” On the artificiality of the Alexandrian succession-list cf., however, E. Caspar, Die älteste römische Bischofsliste, Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Ges., geisteswiss. Kl. II nr. 4, 1926, 153 f. I feel sure that even the accession-date of Demetrius is suspect.

^{page 96 note 12} W. Bauer, op. cit., 49 f.

^{page 96 note 13} Cf. also my remarks about the rejection of the Jerusalem doctrine of the Holy Spirit by Alexandrian Christianity in Studia Theologica XII, 1958, 68 n.3; 73 n.2.

^{page 96 note 14} W. Bauer, op. cit., 55 f. — It may be stated that the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” exhibited a very individual doctrine of the Holy Spirit, cf. E. Hennecke- W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I, 3rd ed. 1959, 108 nr. 3, cf. the parallel in Epist. Apost. 14, ed. Duensing, ibid., 133, where Christ Himself is the angel of the annunciation and enters Mary's womb, P.Vielhauer, who in this edition is responsible for collecting and arranging the fragments of the three Judaeo-Christian Gospels, has also rightly stated, p. 104, “the fact that the Easter stories in the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' differ widely from the canonical reports, is clear”; but has not there referred to the analogy between its frg. 7, op. cit., 108, and i. Cor. XV.7. It may be asked, therefore, whether this parallel to the report of the appearance of the risen Lord before James, and the tremendous respect for James in the “Gospel according to Thomas” log. 12, which obviously derives from it, do not point to an earlier date than that suggested by Vielhauer, p. 107, the first half of the 2nd cent.

^{page 96 note 15} W. Bauer, op. cit., 54 f.—W. Schneemelcher in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, op. cit., 109, dashes our hopes that the find of Nag'Hammadi may help on our knowledge of this Gospel beyond that which W. Bauer, I.e., has stated.

^{page 97 note 16} Cf. the use of ecclesia in the Gnostic “Sophia of Jesus Christ,” ed. Walter C. Till, Die gnostischen Schriften, etc., T. U. 60, 1955, 260 f., which is similar to that made in the excommunication rite of the 3rd cent. “Pistis Sophia” 105, ed. C. Schmidt, 2nd ed. by W. Till, 1954, 173 f. This in its turn finds a parallel in Epist. Apost. 48, Hennecke-Schneemelcher p. 154, and may not depend immediately upon Matth. XVIII.15–17, but upon the “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” which was either a corruption or an imitation of the canonical First Gospel. — I hear now that Prof. Morton Smith of Columbia University, New York, has discovered a letter by Clement of Alexandria on papyrus, quoting from a non-canonical version of the Gospel according to Mark. Markan quotations are on the whole rare in Egyptian Christian literature; but I do not feel that such a find, and still less the use of the Fourth Gospel in Egypt, cf. H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth, 1954, 53 f., will constitute an argument either for or against the assumption that the separation of the Catholics from the Gnosics in Egypt bad taken place in Alexandria at any time before the episcopate of Demetrius. There can be no doubt at any rate that the succession line of Alexandrian bishops from St. Mark down to Demetrius is altogether fictitious.

^{page 97 note 17} G. Bardy, whom M. R. James, The Apocryphal N.T., 1926, 485, has quoted without comment, has questioned the orthodoxy of the Epist. Apost., which C. Schmidt, Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern, 1919, had maintained. It is supported by the attack upon Simon Magus and Cerinthus, Epist. Apost. 1 f., who may be regarded as the representatives of Gnosticism in general, since they are allegedly the only Gnostic contemporaries of the Apostles, and also by the numbering of Gnosis among the five foolish virgins, Epist. Apost. 43 fin. It is, on the other hand, seriously put into question because of the analogies with the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” which are to be found in the Epist. Apost. 48. These analogies also point to an Egyptian origin of the Epist. Apost.

^{page 98 note 18} Cf. Casey, R. P., The excerpta ex Theodoto, Studies and Documents I, 1934, 4 n.iGoogle Scholar.

^{page 98 note 19} A selection from Clement's more extensive quotations may be found in W. Volker, Quellen zur Gesch. d. Gnosis, 1932, cf. also Th. Hopfner, Fontes hist, rel. Aegypt., 1922–25, 365 f.

^{page 98 note 20} This view would be untenable if A. Ehrhard, Die Kirche der Martyrer, 1932, 49, were right in maintaining that this persecution was solely directed against Christian catechumens. This assertion, however, falls with the recognition that the addition to the report of Septimius Severus' prohibition of conversion to Judaism, Hist. Aug., Severus XXVIII.1, idem et de Christianis, is no more than a shameless interpolation. The reasons for this verdict are a) the inanity of the addition: Christianity was prohibited altogether, what purpose could be served by adding a special prohibition of joining it? Papinianus, Severus' minister of Justice, was anything but such a fool, b) The form idem et de is common for so-called “glosses” in Roman legal sources.

^{page 98 note 21} Cf. the fragments of Heracleon collected by W. Volker, op. cit., 63–86.

^{page 98 note 22} Amongst these I count the fact that the Epist. Apost., although it has at the beginning, in para. 3, an evident credal formula, uses the agraphon, “there will be schisms and heresies” in para. 29, Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 142, just in the sense in which we have interpreted it supra, p. 93, n.2.

^{page 98 note 23} I consider as clearly attacking what is to be read in Apocr. Joh. 68, 13 f., ed. W. Till, 177, “but I said: 'Christ, those who have not recognised the All, what are their souls or where will they go'?” the saying in the Gospel of Thomas, log. 67, “Jesus says: Whoever knows the All but fails to know himself lacks everything.”

^{page 99 note 24} Cf. how Euseb., E. H. VI.2.13 f., tries to explain the fact that Origen, apparently without hesitation, accepted after the persecution of A.D. 202 the patronage of the “renowned Alexandrian haeresiarch” Paul and his patroness, cf. W. Bauer, op. cit., 62 f. For the assurance that Origen never consented to pray with Paul, is obviously an attempt of the pious Eusebius to make the bitter truth a little more palatable to his contemporaries.

^{page 99 note 25} W. Schneemelcher in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, cit., 32, calls this a “loaned authority.” Whilst fully agreeing with his distinction between an earlier and a later type of apocryphal Gospel, I consider this an unfortunate term, cf., e.g., Valentinus (?), Gospel of Truth, ed. K. Grobel, 1960, 198, “Having been in the place of rest,” for the authorization claimed by these Gnostics.

^{page 99 note 25} Ch. Puech in Hennecke-Schneelmelcher, op. cit., 158 f., enumerates more than thirty of such “Gnostic Gospels and related documents,” the largest part of which is contained in the codices of Nag'Hammadi. — One wonders about the relation between this library and the monastery of Pachomius at Chenoboscion, near whose site the find was made, cf. Ch. Puech in F. L. Cross, The Jung Codex, 1955, 13.

^{page 99 note 27} The “Gospel according to the Hebrews” may have been a mixture of the two types: Frg. 1–2, 7, are of the narrative type of the canonical Gospels, frg. 3–5 of the Gnostic sayings type. Similarly the Epist. Apost. exhibits in 4–12 the pre-Resurrection narrative type, and after that (13–51) the post-Resurrection sayings type.

^{page 100 note 28} Acts XIX.2 Moffatt. — Foakes-Jackson, The Acts of t h e Apostles, The Moffatt N.T. Comm., 1931, 176, very pertinently asks, “whether the doctrine of the Spirit and Baptism here implied is that of St. Paul”? But he seems not to have found sufficient confirmatory evidence for this in the Pauline letters. I should say that St. Luke wanted it to appear as the unanimous doctrine of the Twelve and St. Paul, but not of the Churches founded independently, e.g., at Samaria.

^{page 100 note 29} It seems to me no longer possible to adduce Clem. Alex., Excerpta e Theodoto XXIV, ed. Casey, 58, 269, in favor of the opposite view, since we have learned from Apocr. Joh., 47, 1 f., ed. W. Till, T.U. 60, 1955, 135, that the Valentinians had their own theory of the “outpouring of the Spirit,” which is quite different from that in Acts II.1 f. But even the “Catholics” in Egypt showed great reserve towards Pentecost. It is perhaps not altogether surprising to see the Epist. Apost., which is of doubtful Catholicity, quoting the promise of the Holy Spirit, as in Acts 1.8, in its para. 30, Hennecke-Schneemelcher, cit. 143 f., yet never referring to Pentecost; but this fact assumes a special significance when we see from Stahlin's Index that Clement of Alexandria never quoted Acts II.i f. either. — Reference may also be made to the question of the Arian daemon in an enlargement of the Historia Lausiaca (not to be found in Dom C. Butler's edition, quoted here after E. Preuschen, Palladius und Rufinus, 1897, 118,9 f.) in the Life of Evagrius: “He said, 'concerning the holy spirit and the body of Christ, is this truly of Mary?' And the Abbot Evagrius replied, ‘The Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor created. For everything created occupies a limited space, etc.’,” cf. also Clem. Alex., Excerpta e Theodoto LX.i, ed. Casey, 78, 556 f.— Equally puzzling is the fact that the epiclesis in the liturgy of Serapion calls for the descent of the Logos upon the elements, cf. Clem. Alex., cit. XIII.1–3, p. 50, 153 f. A special enquiry into the development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Alexandrian theology would, I believe, pay a rich dividend.

^{page 100 note 30} W. Bauer, op. cit., 65–80.

^{page 101 note 31} B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Church, 1929, 144 f. Dr. Bauer does not seem to have referred to Streeter's book at all.

^{page 101 note 32} A useful example of the docetic protest against the Catholics may be found in Acts of John 100 fin., ed. M. Bonnet, reprint 1955, 201, 10 f.

^{page 101 note 33} W. Bauer, op. cit., 69, says, “Ignatius had come to know, loathe, and fear ‘the mad dogs,’ ‘the beasts in human form,’ as he calls them, in his home town.” This does not follow from Ign., Eph. VII.i and Smyrn. IV.i, the texts to which Bauer refers.

^{page 101 note 34} W. Bauer, op. cit., 70, refers also to Satornil and Cerdo as “Syrians,” but that probably meant East-Syrians; and the story of Epiphanius that Basilides had imported the Gnosticism, which he had learned from Menander at Antioch, to Alexandria, Haer. XXIII.i, will not bear critical inspection.

^{page 101 note 35} Ign., Eph.XII.2.

^{page 101 note 36} Ign., Magn. VIII; Philad. VI f.

^{page 102 note 37} Ign., Trail. VI.

^{page 102 note 38} Cf., e.g., Ign., Eph., 11,3.

^{page 102 note 39} The two credal formulae from the 3rd cent. Didascalia, Const. Apost. VI.n & 14, quoted after Hahn-Harnack, Bibl. d. Symbole, 3rd ed. 1897, 13 f., which are of Antiochene origin, and were valid for centuries in the Church there, exhibit no similarity at all with Ignatius' Creed. F. J. Badcock, The History of the Creeds, 2nd ed. 1938, 47, offers a reconstruction of the Antiochene baptismal Creed which, I think, is highly misleading. Of B.'s sources, to be found in Hahn- Harnack, op. cit., mostly at p. 141 f., only the Didascalia is pre-Nicene, and of its characteristic additions as ενα μóνον θεóν τῶν ώντων δημιονργóν, ἐνòϛ Παρακλήτον and omissions, as the virgin birth and Pontius Pilate (both prominent in Ignatius) no mention is made by Badcock, not even in a footnote.

^{page 102 note 40} If, of course, this part is arbitrarily omitted from the quotations of Ign., Tral. IX; Smyrn. I.1–2, as in J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1950, 68 f., the understanding of one of the important factors in the formation of the Creeds is lost, and the significance of occasional triadic formulations as in Ign., Magn. XIII.i, is highly over-emphasized.

^{page 102 note 41} It is significant that Pontius Pilate is mentioned in both the elaborate credal formulae by Ignatius, probably in imitation of i. Tim. VI.13.

^{page 102 note 42} W. Bauer, op. cit., 81–98. — I am doubtful with regard to the Asianic origin of several of B.'s sources, especially of Jude — and ii. Peter -— of which the earliest witnesses, according to Windisch, H., Die Kathol. Briefe, Handb. z. N.T. 15, 2nd ed. 1930, 38Google Scholar, are from the West, Canon Muratori and Tertullian, and from Alexandria. The Asianic origin of the Pastoral Epistles is not altogether beyond doubt either. Since Ignatius and Tatian, cf. Dibelius, M., Die Pastoralbriefe, Handb. z. N.T. 13, 2nd ed. 1931, 6Google Scholar, used them, they may well have their origin in Syria. If, on the other hand, i. Peter were not of Roman origin, as is now widely assumed, cf., e.g., O. Cullmann, Peter, Disciple — Apostle — Martyr, 1952, 82 f., but written in the South of Asia Minor, the famous problem of the omission of this region in the address of this Epistle, of which Dr. Bauer, op. cit., 82 f., makes so much, would find a natural solution.

^{page 102 note 43} R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, 1958, 97 f., has treated the Asiatic Gnosticism in its entirety as “earlier Gnosticism,” and ibid., 116 f., the “later Gnosticism” as almost exclusively Egyptian. The regional difference between the two schools is overlooked. But the regional differences between “Gnostics” were, I believe, at least as marked as the regional differences among the Catholics.

^{page 102 note 44} Cf. the proof offered for this in our “The Apostolic Succession,” 1953, 68 f.

^{page 104 note 45} Cf. M. R. James, The Apocryphal N.T., 1926, 228.

^{page 104 note 46} M. R. James, op. cit., 270. — The reprint of R. Lipsius-M. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1959, however welcome, must not blind us to the fact that a new edition, at least of the Acts of Paul, incorporating in particular all the new papyrological evidence, is an absolute necessity. Cf. also E. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis, 1959, 189 f.

^{page 104 note 47} W. Schepelern, Der Montanismus und die phrygischen Kulte, 1929, cf. Aland, K., Z. N.T. W. 46, 1955, 109 fGoogle Scholar., whose scepticism with regard to the connections between Montanism and the Phrygian cults established by Schepelern seems to me to be too radical. It is, on the other hand, useful to be reminded of the fact that millenarianism is an Asiatic doctrine, ibid., 113 f. — An evident parallel between the Attis mythos in Pausanias VII.17.10–12 and in Arnobius V.5–7 may be found in H. Hepding, Attis, RVV.i, 1903, 37 f.

^{page 104 note 48} I notice with regret that J. Lebreton in Lebreton Zeiller, De la fin du 2' siecle a la paix constantinienne, 1946, 35., has nowhere even quoted it.

^{page 105 note 49} On the reason for this cf. our article “Imperium und humanitas” in Studium generale, 1961, 646 f.

^{page 105 note 50} W. Bauer, op. cit., 73 f., has given a colorful description of Polycarp's various difficulties. This now led him to a conflict with Harnack about Polycarp's controversy with Marcion. In this conflict honors are about even, both parties holding too extreme views. Dr. Bauer has shown no evidence that Marcionitism, as distinct from a somewhat vague Gnosticism which was quite ready to reject at least one of its fathers, Cerinthus, was wide-spread in 2nd cent. Asia Minor. Harnack has failed to show that this relative insignificance of Marcionitism in the regions west of the river Halys, was to any great extent due to Polycarp's efforts.

^{page 105 note 51} Cf. W. Schepelern, op. cit., 79 f., especially on the “prophetic” character of the Phrygian religion.

^{page 105 note 52} The sources for Montanus' pagan priesthood are an express statement to the effect in Didym., De trin. III, 41, cf. Bonwetsch, N., Texte z. Gesch. d. Montanismus, Kl. Texte 129, 1914, 23Google Scholar, and his description as abscissum et semivirum Montanum in Jerome, Epist. ad Marcellum XLI.4, ed. J. Labourt II, 1951, 89. The anti-schismatic fervor of the Church Fathers did not cool down in the course of the 4th cent., and we have to use our discretion with regard to their assertions. It seems, however, unmethodical to reject their statements without giving the reasons for so doing, as in K. Müller-v. Campenhausen, Kirchengesch. I.i, 3rd ed., 1938 f., 172 n.2.

^{page 106 note 53} Did. XI.1 f.

^{page 106 note 54} Dodd, C. H., The Johannine Epistles, The Moffat Comm., 1946, LXVIIIGoogle Scholar, stresses the fact that ii. & iii. John “were written in the same province of Asia, and very likely addressed to the same churches” as Revelation. Cf. also our reference to the — anti-Montanist — list of succession of Christian prophets in Asia Minor, The Apostolic Succession, 1953, 69.

^{page 106 note 55} W. Bauer, op. cit., 136–149, discussing Euseb., E. H. V. 16–18.

^{page 106 note 56} W. Bauer, op. cit., 148.

^{page 107 note 57} W. Bauer, op. cit., 136, gives the last decade of the 2nd cent., as the date of both writings.

^{page 107 note 58} Melito seems to have written three tracts dealing with Montanism, the titles of which have been preserved by Euseb., E. H. IV.26.2, “On conduct of life and prophecy,” “On the Church,” and “On prophecy,” and it is remarkable that Tertullian is represented as “praising his elegant rhetoric” by Jerome, De vir. iD. 24. On Apollinaris cf. Euseb., E. H. V. 19.1 f.

^{page 107 note 59} Euseb., E. H. V.18.14.

^{page 107 note 60} Euseb., E.H. 11.25.6.

^{page 107 note 61} For a complete collection of relevant sources cf. Leipoldt, J., Gesch. d. neutest. Kanons. I, 1907, 43–47Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 1} i. Cor. XIV.33, cf. Hermas, mand. I.1.

^{page 109 note 2} Cf. R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, 1958, 99. — As to the exact type of Simon's “Gnosticism,” cf. the quotation from L. Cerfaux, ibid., 109 n. 5.

^{page 109 note 3} W. Bauer, op. cit., 99 f.

^{page 110 note 4} G. La Piana, Harv. Theol. Rev., 1925, 276 f.

^{page 110 note 5} I do not refer to such productions of an excited imagination as G. Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century, Bampton Lectures, 1913, or H. D. M. Spence-Jones, The early Christians in Rome, 1910, although traces of their influence may be found, e.g., in R. Smith Wilson, Marcion, 1933, 19 f.; but rather to an attitude which is expressed even in such a meritorious treatise as H. E. Symonds, The Church Universal and the See of Rome, 1939, 51 f., or in that great book by E. Caspar, Gesch. d. Papsttums I, 1930, 2 f., both of which, like Dr. Bauer, treat i. Clement as the representative document of early Roman Church policy, although it seems that for almost a century it found no successor, and an equivalent perhaps only in the correspondence between the two Dionysii of Rome and Alexandria in the second half of the third century.

^{page 110 note 6} Cf. K. Grobel, The Gospel of Truth, 1960, 12 f.

^{page 110 note 7} Tertullian, De praescr. 30.

^{page 110 note 8} Tertullian cit.; K. Grobel, I.e., tries to make sense of the remark, which in the first instance refers to Marcion whose banishment from the Roman Church is, of course, an established fact, cf. E. C. Blackman, Marcion and his Influence, 1948, 1 f., but was caused by his resignation, if we may trust Epiphan., Panar. XLII.2. In the case of Valentinus Tertullian may have done no more than to venture a conclusion by analogy.

^{page 111 note 9} Hennas, mand. XL — M. Dibelius, Handb. z. N.T., Erg. Bd., 1923, 538, assumes that προφητεύειν in mand. XI.12 has the meaning of “predict the future.” This I find hard to believe not only because of the analogy of Did.XI.12, but particularly because of the wide-spread conviction among the ancients that it was immoral to teach for money. Did. XIII.i, quoted by M. Dibelius, op. cit., 539, seems to me to deal with a very different situation, and to have no bearing upon our case.

^{page 111 note 10} Ign., Eph. VIII.i; Smyrn. IV.i, may indeed refer to migrating “prophets” as R. Knopf, Handb. z. N.T., Erg. Bd., 1920, 206, assumes, but the Judaeo-Christian teachers who are mentioned in Ign., Philad. VI.i, were evidently resident ones.

^{page 111 note 11} Even in the course of the 3rd cent, an uncertainty about the authority of Clement of Rome seems still to have existed in the East-Syrian Church: The Doctrina Addai maintains that Palut was consecrated first bishop of Edesa at the hands of Serapion of Antioch, who in turn had received consecration from Zephyrinus of Rome, “whom Simon Cephas … had selected as his successor,” W. Bauer, op. cit., 22. This description seems to me to clash somehow with that of “Clement, the disciple of Simon Cephas” in the East-Syrian Acts of Clement, ed. A. Mingana, Some early Judaeo-Christian Documents, The Bull, of the John Rylands Library 4,1917, 10.

^{page 112 note 12} Cf., e.g., the quotation from A. Loisy in S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Church and the Papacy, 1928, 16 f., who adopts it.

^{page 112 note 13} A very cautious assessment of the authority of the Church at Rome according to i. Clem., to which on the whole I would subscribe, may be found in W. K. Lowther, Clarke, The First Epistle of Clement, 1937, 18 f.

^{page 112 note 14} i. Clem. I.i, “owing to the sudden and repeated misfortunes which have befallen us, brethren, we are somewhat late, we think, in concerning ourselves with the matters disputed among you….”

^{page 112 note 15} Cf. Euseb., E. H. IV.29.11.

^{page 113 note 16} i. Clem. LIV. 3, cf. our Politische Metaphysik II, 1959, 56 n.5.— “To receive” is here expressed by the simplex δἐΞεσθαι cf. supra, p. 91, 11.55. It is nevertheless certain that the canonical duty of hospitality is referred to here as in iii. John 10.

^{page 113 note 17} A. Harnack, Einführung in die alte Kirchengesch., 1929, 92; Lietzmann, H., Gesch. d. alten Kirche I, 1932, 201Google Scholar, both quoted with approval by W. Bauer, op. dt., 100, who, however, continues, “das ‘Amt’ war in Gefahr und Rom stellt sich schützend davor.” To liberal Lutheranism, of course, the ministry appears as adiaphoron, and not as a doctrinal issue. But was that really the attitude of the early Church?

^{page 113 note 18} W. Bauer, op. cit., 101 f., cf. S. L. Greenslade, Schism in the early Church, 1953, 99 f

^{page 114 note 19} It is salutary for those stressing too much the importance of the liturgy for the development of the Church to consider the fact that the Roman liturgy was, at least in parts, celebrated in Greek till the middle of the 4th cent., cf. Klauser, Th., Miscellanea Mercati I, 1946, 467 fGoogle Scholar., quoted from Mohrmann, Chr., Etudes sur le latin des Chretiens, 1958, 54 n.7Google Scholar, whilst the Latin Bible had been in existence for almost 200 years. For it follows from this that the Roman Church neither feared nor suffered any harm from this practice for maintaining her primacy over the West; but translations of the Bible into the vernacular, Gallic or Berber, tongues would have been dangerous, and were never encouraged. — The Latin version, including the O.T. had existed at Rome since the second half of the 2nd cent., as Chr. Mohrmann, op. cit., 109 f., has shown. Whether or not there had been an independent Latin version of the Bible originating from Africa, I am not certain, but the results of Bardy, G., La question des langues dans l'église ancienne I, 1948, 58 fGoogle Scholar., should not be treated as final.

^{page 114 note 20} It appears from Tertullian, Adv. Prax.i, that Pope Eleutherus had actually taken a stand against Montanism, cf. Evans, E., Tertullian's treatise against Praxeas, 1948, 76Google Scholar, but that his successor, Victor I, was almost prevailed upon to reverse this policy. The interpretation of the veiled allusion in Tertullian's words, et praecessorum eius auctoritates dejendendo, cf. E. Evans, op. cit., 185, is still a very thorny task.

^{page 114 note 21} Euseb., E. H. V.3, was evidently reluctant to give a verbatim quotation from the martyrs' letter although, no doubt, it was extant in Pamphilus' library. This observation supports the view of E. Evans, op. cit., 76 n. 1, which has been adopted here.

^{page 115 note 22} E. Evans, op. cit., 10. His suggestion, somewhat hesitantly made, that Praxeas “is a nick-name designed to cover some well-known person, possibly Calixtus, who afterwards became Pope,” seems unacceptable if we believe Tertullian that Praxeas came from the East.

^{page 115 note 23} The appreciation of Zephyrinus' attitude in the monarchian controversy between Hippolytus and Callistus by Dom G. Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition, 1937, XXIII f., is meant to be, and to my mind is, representative for the general attitude to doctrine taken by the Popes of this time.

^{page 115 note 24} Krüger, G., Handb. d. Kirchengesch. I, 2nd ed. 1923, 84 n.iGoogle Scholar, says that it is “probable” that Victor excommunicated the Montanists. Surely, scepticism is not criticism.

^{page 115 note 25} Cf. G. La Piana, Harv. Theol. Rev., 1925, 276 f.; S. L. Greenslade, Schism in the early Church, 1953, 99 f.

^{page 115 note 26} Irenaeus in Euseb., E. H. V.24.16.—I disagree with the discussion of this incident by earlier historians of the Church, still to be found in S. L. Greenslade, op. cit., 99, because I do not believe that the feast of Easter was at that time annually kept at Rome.

^{page 115 note 27} If Holl, K., Ges. Aufsätze II, 1928, 194Google Scholar, should be right, which I doubt, even the earliest British Church would have embraced already at this time the Quarto deciman cause, and thus have asserted its independence from the Church at Rome.

^{page 116 note 28} W. Bauer, op. cit., 115 f.

^{page 116 note 29} Euseb., E. H. V.22.2 f. — It appears from our analysis of Polycrates' letter, The Apostolic” Succession, 1953, 66 f., that Polycrates, and presumably the entire Catholic Church in Asia Minor, had as yet at best only a somewhat hazy conception of the doctrine of the Apostolic succession of bishops.

^{page 116 note 30} Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.3.2, cf. our The Apostolic Succession, 38 f.

^{page 117 note 31} Cf. K. Muller-v. Campenhausen, Kirchengesch., 3rd ed. 1938, I.i, 226 f.

^{page 117 note 32} The facts have been carefully assembled and discussed by Holl, K., Gesammelte Aufsätze II, 1928, 215 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 117 note 33} Tertullian, De praescr. 36, cf. Cyprian, De unitate 4; Epist. LIX.5, and B. J. Kidd, The Roman Primacy, 1936, 29, n.i.

^{page 117 note 34} I would suggest that the attitude of Irenaeus, himself an Asiatic, who by this time had made public his recognition of the Roman primacy, Adv. Haer. III.3.1, but nevertheless now “fittingly exhorted him not to cut off whole Churches of God … and he wrote to many other bishops on the same subject,” Euseb., E. H. V.24.11 f., cf. H. E. Symonds, C. R., The Church Universal and the See of Rome, 1939, 54 f., was probably the cause for the petering out of the conflict. A similar view is held by Krüger, G., Handb. d. Kirchengesch. I, 2nd ed. 1923, 89, n.3Google Scholar, who even assumes that by Irenaeus' intervention “peace was restored,” a fact which is not recorded by Eusebius, our only source.

^{page 117 note 35} Cyprian, Epist. LXXXV.

^{page 118 note 36} The strongest signs of the Roman influence upon the Church universal are not to be found in the actions of the Roman Popes, nor in Rome's literary production, although not only the Pseudo-Clementines, but also the numerous writings ascribed to Justin Martyr in the East witness to its considerable influence upon Christian thought there, but its great attractiveness for so many prominent Christians, orthodox as well as heterodox: Marcion, Valentinus, Hegesippus, Justin, Polycarp, Tatian, and many more came on a visit or for a more prolonged stay.

^{page 118 note 37} As far as I can see W. Bauer, op. cit., has omitted to deal with Justin, i. Apol.26; 58, and the curious refund of Marcion's donation by the Church at Rome, Tertullian, De praescr. 30, cf. J. Stevenson, A new Eusebius, 1957, 98 f.

^{page 118 note 38} F. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, 1894–1900.

^{page 118 note 39} F. J. Badcock, The History of the Creed, 2nd ed. 1938, 1 f.

^{page 118 note 40} J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1950, 63. — It may, however, be remarked first, that the idea of the Apostolicity of the regula fidei was probably evolved in the Roman Church; and secondly that Hermas, mand. I.i, shows a remarkable similarity with the first article of the Apostles' Creed, both, of course, dependent upon the First Commandment.

^{page 119 note 41} Cf. our Holy Baptism and Roman Law in Festschr. f. Guido Kisch, 1955, 147 f.

^{page 119 note 42} Luke XII.12.