XIX.]

THE TESTIMONY OF HEGESIPPUS.

353

with the law, and the prophets,* and the Lord. He adds that to Anicetus succeeded Soter, and to Soter Eleutherus, who had been deacon to Anicetus. Thus it appears that the work from which Eusebius made his extract was published in the episcopate of Eleutherus-the same episcopate as that in which the work of Irenæus was published. But it may reasonably be inferred that Hegesippus had published his list of bishops in the time of Anicetus, to which, in the later work, he merely adds the names of the two bishops, Soter and Eleutherus, who had succeeded Anicetus. Nothing more than what is here quoted is directly known of the list of Hegesippus; but Bishop Lightfoot has lately (Academy, May 21, 1887) given reasons, which to me appear convincing, for thinking that we have indirect means of knowledge of it.

Epiphanius (Hær. xxvii. 6) gives a list of Roman bishops, beginning with Peter and Paul, and ending with Anicetus. This list entirely agrees with that of Irenæus, except that Anencletus is here called Cletus. Also, besides the mere list of names, Epiphanius shows, in this section, that he had information as to the duration of episcopates, which, it may be presumed, he drew from the same source as that whence he derived the list of names. Now, the chapter in question begins, 'There came to us one Marcellina, who had been deceived by these [viz. the Carpocratians], and who perverted many in the times of Anicetus, bishop of Rome, the successor of Pius and of the above-mentioned. Many critics had inferred from the phrase 'to us' that Epiphanius, who is habitually clumsy in his use of his authorities, has here incorporated in his work a sentence taken bodily from an older writer, who must have written in Rome where Marcellina taught her heresy. This inference is confirmed by the phrase 'the above-mentioned,' for in what precedes, Epiphanius had made no mention of Pius or his predecessors: it is afterwards that

* Γενόμενος δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην μέχρις ανικήτου, οὗ διάκονος ἦν Ελεύθερος. Καὶ παρὰ ̓Ανικήτου διαδέχεται Σωτὴρ, μεθ ̓ ὃν Ελεύθερος. Ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει, ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ Kúpios. It must be remembered that hostility to the Old Testament was a marked feature of the leading Gnostic sects.

he goes on to explain this sentence by giving a list of Roman bishops. Lipsius had conjectured that Hippolytus was the writer from whom Epiphanius borrowed this sentence; but Bishop Lightfoot puts forward the preferable claims of Hegesippus, who, we know, was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and whose work contained a list of Roman bishops ending with that prelate. Lightfoot points out a further coincidence, which seems to me enough to remove all doubt as to the correctness of his suggestion. In the same context Epiphanius quotes a passage from the epistle of Clement of Rome, with which epistle he would seem, however, to have no direct acquaintance; for he states that he found the quotation, v Tσ vжоμνпμаτιομоîç. Now, Eusebius (u. s., see also iv. 8) calls the books of Hegesippus ὑπομνήματα (Ηγήσιππος ἐν πέντε τοῖς εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσιν ὑπομνήμασιν),* and states that the passage already quoted, in which Hegesippus mentions his visit to Rome, followed μετά τινα περὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς αὐτῷ εἰρημένα. There seems, then, good reason to think that the list given by Irenæus just reproduces for us the list made by Hegesippus some twenty years before, except that the latter list may not improbably have noted durations of episcopates, which Irenæus omits as irrelevant to his purpose. Döllinger, indeed (ii. 150), considers that Irenæus certainly did not know Hegesippus's book, or he would have appealed to it against the heretics;' but the coincidence appears to me so close as to exclude the supposition that the authorities are independent; and it is possible that what Irenæus knew was not the book published in the episcopate of Eleutherus by Hegesippus, but the list which he had made, and probably had published, in the episcopate of Anicetus. In any case we arrive at the result, that in any investigation as to the origin of episcopacy, we must take it as a fact that a traveller to Rome, about 160, found the Church ruled by a bishop (Anicetus), and that the Roman

In another passage (xxix. 4), where Epiphanius quotes inoμvnμatioμol as his authority, there is reason to think that Hegesippus is also intended; for the passage relates to a tradition concerning James, our Lord's brother, of whom Hegesippus wrote largely (Euseb., H. E., ii. 23).

XIX.]

INFLUENCE OF THE CLEMENTINES.

355

Church then believed that, since the Apostles' times, it had been governed by bishops, whose names were then preserved.

To return now to the story of Peter's Roman episcopate, the real inventor of that story was an editor of the Clementine Romance, of which I spoke when lecturing on the New Testament Canon. This work was brought to Rome at the very end of the second or beginning of the third century; and it had then prefixed a letter from Clement to James at Jerusalem, telling how Peter had ordained him, and set him in his own chair of teaching as bishop of Rome. Though the doctrinal teaching of the Clementines was rejected as heretical, the narrative part of the book was readily believed; and in particular this story of Clement's ordination by Peter was felt to be so honourable to the Church of Rome that it was at once adopted there, and has been the traditional Roman account ever since.

But the adoption of this fable sadly perplexed the chronology. For, according to the list of Irenæus, Clement was but the third Roman bishop since the Apostles; and this is confirmed by the internal evidence of Clement's epistle, which, according to the judgment of the best critics, cannot be earlier than about A.D. 97. It was felt that unless Clement could be pushed back to an earlier period, his ordination by Peter would not be chronologically possible. Accordingly, another list of Roman bishops was published, which puts up Clement to the second, and pushes down Anacletus to the third place. This double list has been very perplexing to historical inquirers; but that the earlier order of Irenæus is really correct is proved by a kind of evidence which I count peculiarly trustworthy. In the Roman Liturgy to this day the names of its first bishops are commemorated in the order of Irenæus, viz., Linus, Anacletus, Clement. If this

My own opinion is that this innovation was made by Hippolytus, the first in the Roman Church to take up the study of chronology-a science, however, in which he deserves credit for zeal and industry, rather than for skill. His list appears to have been published in the third decade of the third century-a time when the story of Clement's ordination by Peter had come to be fully believed in.

were the original order we can understand its being preserved in the Church of Rome (which was very conservative in liturgical matters), notwithstanding that subsequent chronologers of eminence placed Clement second. But if Clement had been really originally in the second place, it is quite impossible that the name of Anencletus, who is unknown to Church history, should have been placed before him. These Clementine legends have so filled with fable the whole history of St. Peter, that I should even think the story of Peter's coming to Rome at all to be open to question, were it not, as I already said, that no rival Church claims the martyrdom.

The Clementine letter itself, which represents Clement as ordained by Peter, and as succeeding Peter in his chair as chief teacher of the Church, does not expressly speak of Peter as bishop of Rome. Tertullian, in the early part of the third century, had heard and believed the story of Clement's ordination by Peter, for he speaks (De Præscrip. 32) of Polycarp having been placed by John over the Church of Smyrna; and Clement, by Peter, over the Church of Rome. But it does not seem to have dawned on Tertullian that Peter was bishop of Rome any more than John was bishop of Smyrna.

We can only give conjectural answers to the questions, Who first counted Peter as bishop of Rome? and, How came the duration of his episcopate to be fixed at twenty-five years? but I will tell you what seems to me most probable. Were it not that there is no better authority for believing Peter to have been bishop of Rome at all than for believing that he came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, many learned Roman Catholics would be glad to be rid of this inconvenient addition to the story. They have found the bringing St. Peter to Rome so early as the year 42 to be attended with chronological difficulties sufficiently perplexing. First, they have had to push back the date of the imprisonment of Peter by Herod, which independent chronologers, with general consent, assign to the year 44. Then they have to bring back Peter to Jerusalem, to be present at the Council of Jerusalem, the proceedings

XIX.]

THE CHRONOLOGY OF HIPPOLYTUS.

357

at which are related (Acts xv.). Then they want him at Rome again, in order that the edict of Claudius mentioned (Acts xviii.) may provide him with a decent excuse for leaving his see, and undertaking those missionary labours in 'Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,' which appear to have continued so long that non-Episcopalians would be justified in concluding that a Church could get on very well without a bishop. If the commencement of the Roman episcopate could be placed at a later date, the Roman advocates would certainly find their task much easier.

Now Hippolytus was the first Christian scientific chronologer at Rome. Before his time, lists of Roman bishops had been made, and notes of the duration of episcopates had been preserved; but I consider that it was Hippolytus who first put these dates together, with the view of showing how the whole interval between our Lord's time and his own was to be accounted for. My belief is that, in working his way chronologically back, he placed the accession of Linus. twenty-six years after our Lord's Ascension. You may take it as a fact that, in the early part of the third century, men had come to find it impossible to conceive the idea of a Church without a bishop. So to the question, What about the twenty-six years before the accession of Linus? Was there no Roman Church then? Hippolytus answered that there was, and that it had St. Peter as its bishop; and my belief is that the duration of twenty-five years was intended to indicate that the Roman Church was founded the year after our Lord's Ascension.

Now you, perhaps, hardly understand how much chronology has been helped by the use of a fixed era, such as 'Anno Domini,' and how difficult early chronologers who did not use this assistance found it to make their sums total agree when they added together lengths of episcopates, and lengths of emperors' reigns for the same period, the durations being

Substantially this view is taken by von Döllinger in the passage already cited from his First Age of the Church. Elsewhere he seems to think that the twentyfive years was intended to represent the interval between Peter's imprisonment by Herod and his martyrdom.