to himself. But this omission is easily explained from the decided aversion of heathen authors to Christianity, who could not but regard it as fatal to relate what would appear to give Christians the right side in the matter, and thereby awaken sympathy in their favour. Still, there are not wanting plain enough notices, which, when properly explained, perfectly supply the defect of particular accounts.

-tation hose aud

The chief passage here is that of Dio Cassius, B. lvii. p. 1112, Reim. : "In this same year Domitian put to death, beside many others, the consul Flavius Clemens, although he was his uncle, and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor. Both were accused of impiety, for which also many others were condemned, having gone astray after the customs of the Jews. But Domitilla was only banished to Pandatereia." mutilates the que That Clemens was a Christian, there can be no doubt. The dohere. Christians were in the earlier periods of gospel history classed with the Jews, and as Reimarus remarks, "very few among the Romans at that time went over to Judaism proper, especially among the persons of note, but many to Christianity." So also Tillemont: "Situated as the Jews then were, it is quite improbable that a consul, who was uncle to the emperor, should have espoused their religion." Besides, the sister's daughter of Flavius Clemens is known to have been a distinguished Christian (the Flavia Domatilla in Eusebius, Ch. Hist. iii. 18, and in Jerome's Chron.) and possibly it was to her that Flavius owed his first religious impressions. Finally, Suetonius designates the same Flavius as a man of "despicable inactivity." This was a

Poena, augustosque per aditus et obstructos, non secus ac per apertas fores et invitantia limina prorupit; longeque tune illi divinitas sua.

1 Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ ἔτει ἄλλους τε πολλοὺς καὶ τὸν Φλάβιον Κλήμεντα ὑπατεύοντα καίπερ ἀνεψιὸν ὄντα, καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ αὐτὴν συγγενῆ ἑαυτοῦ Φλαβίαν Δομιτίλλαν ἔχοντα κατέσφαξεν ὁ Δομετιανός. Επηνέχθη δὲ ἀμφοῖν ἔγκλημα ἀθεότητος, ὑφ ̓ ἧς καὶ ἄλλοι ἐς τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἤθη ἐξοκέλλοντες πολλοὶ κατεδικάσθησαν. Καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀπέθανον, οἱ δὲ τῶν γοῦν οὐσιῶν ἐστερήθησαν· ἡ δὲ Δομιτίλλα ὑπερωρίσθη μόνον εἰς Πανδατέρειαν.

2 Εν ἔτει πεντεκαιδακάτῳ Δομετιανοῦ Φλαβίαν Δομιτίλλαν, ἐξ ἀδελφῆς γεγονυῖαν Φλαβίου Κλήμεντος, ἑνὸς τῶν τηνικάδε ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ὑπάτων, τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν εἰς νῆσον Ποντίαν κατὰ τιμωρίαν δεδόσθαι. We must take care to distinguish between the two Flavias Domatillas, the one the wife, the other the niece of Clemens. Without sufficient reason Scaliger has identified the two, and would correct Eusebius from Dio.

3 Domit. c. 15: Flavium Clementum patruelem suum, contemptissimae inertiae cujus

reproach which was frequently cast upon the Christians, because they withdrew from the corrupt civil life as it existed in heathendom, and thought more of their citizenship in heaven than in the Roman commonwealth.' This reproach did not apply to the Jews.

How the accusation of "impiety" is to be understood, is clear from what immediately precedes, where we learn that a person who had been accused did homage to Domitian, and named him frequently Lord and God-a title under which he had already been addressed by others. It may farther be understood from what is said at p. 1107: "So much, however, was conceded to him, that almost the whole world, as far as subject to his dominion, was filled with his images and statues, both in silver and gold;" and from all that has been said of Domitian's self-deification; since he would scarcely allow any other god to stand beside himself, and the one divinity which had a place in his heart was his own pretended one. To the same result we are conducted by the passage quoted from Suetonius. According to this author Clemens was put to death on account of a very slender suspicion." From the connection this suspicion could only be that of resistance to authority. And the suspicion and the accusation of impiety are seen to harmonise, the moment we suppose that Clemens ventured to disavow the emperor as his lord and god, and do homage to his statues, on the ground of fidelity to his heavenly king.

That Domitian looked upon Christianity with a jealous eye, may also be inferred from what Eusebius has related in his Church History, iii. 19, 20, from Hegesippus, as to Domitian causing the relatives of Christ to be sent for to Rome, because he was afraid of the coming of Christ.

It is clear as day, then, that for all that respects the conflict of the world-power with the kingdom of Christ, we obtain an ex

filios etiamnum parvulos successores palam destinaverat, et abolito priore nomine alterum Vespasianum appellari juserat, alterum Domitianum, repente ex tenuissima suspicione tantum non ipso ejus consulatu interemit.

1 Pitiscus on Sueton. 1. c.: Contemptissimae inertiae cum hunc Flavium vocat noster, eo ipso Christianum fuisse demonstrat. De hoc injuriae in Christianos titulo Tert. in apol. c. 42: Infructuosi in negotiis dicimur.

2 As Martial in like manner said to Domitian: Hoc satis est, ipsi caetera mando Deo. See Havercamp on Tertullian's Apol. p. 176.

cellent historical starting-point, when we understand the Apocalypse to have been composed under Domitian, while such is entirely wanting on any other hypothesis.

The Revelation supposes, that, at the period of its composition, the Antichristian action of the world-power was accompanied by the Antichristian operation of the world-wisdom; that this last had already taken up a decided opinion against Christianity, implying of course that it had now become a power in public life. In proof of this see ch. xiii. 11, ss., according to which the false prophet persuades to the worship of the beast, gives spirit to the image of the beast, and effects that those who would not worship the image should be killed. Here, again, we are left without any definite accounts, and for the reasons already mentioned. We find notices, however, which leave no reasonable doubt that under Domitian the pretensions of the Roman emperor against Christ obtained support in a species of false worldly wisdom, which condescended to garnish those pretensions, and to give them a dazzling appearance, more unquestionably from hatred to Christ, than from avaricious flattery. The most remarkable notice of the kind, and that which furnishes the key for understanding others of a less definite nature, occurs in Philostratus' life of Apollonius, B. vii. 4. After relating how Domitian persecuted the philosophers, he continues, "But some also were led to discourse in a manner that was serviceable to the delinquencies," tending to vindicate the emperor's misconduct by giving a scientific colour to his divine pretensions. He boasts of his hero, that he had kept free from any such delinquency, for, "having taken wisdom for his mistress, he was free from dependence on Domitian, . . fearing nothing in respect to himself, but moved with pity on account of what was fraught with destruction to others." There were, therefore, philosophers who, by their discourses in respect to the emperor's claims, brought others into trouble; and who could these be but the Christians, the only persons that set themselves with determined energy against such claims? After considering this passage, one can scarcely doubt, when it is else

ניי

1 *Ενιοι δ' ἐς λόγους ἀπενεχθῆναι ξυμβούλους τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων.

2 Τὴν σοφίαν δέσποιναν πεποιημένος ἐλεύθερος ἦν τῆς Δομετιανού φορᾶς, . δεδιώς μὲν οὐδὲν ἴδιον, ἃ δὲ ἑτέρους ἀπώλλυ ἐλεῶν.

where related how the Stoic Palfurius Sura under Domitian had acted the part of a very bitter delator, and was in consequence condemned after the emperor's death, that this philosopher pursued the vile business in his capacity as a philosopher, employing his philosophy and eloquence for the persecution of Christianity, and for garnishing the antichristian claims of the emperor.1 Dio Cassius names, among many delators who were condemned to death under Nerva, another philosopher, Seras. From all this what Pliny says of Nerva's measures against the delators, appears in a new light."

IV. The Revelation was composed at a time when there was an organized bloody persecution, which extended over all Christendom. Ch. xiii. 7 is alone sufficient to prove this, according to which the beast makes war with the saints and overcomes them; and power is given him over all tribes, and peoples, and tongues, and nations, Christians over the whole earth. It appears also from xiii. 8, according to which all, that dwell on the earth, worship the beast; ii. 13, which speaks of the martyr-crown being won far from the centre of the Roman state, and under the direction of the magistracy, acting as Satan's instrument (xiii. 3); vi. 9, where the prophet sees under the altar the souls of those, who had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they had; xvii. 6, where he sees the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus; xvi. 6, according to which they have shed the blood of saints and prophets; xviii. 20, in which God is said to avenge upon the new Babylon saints, and apostles, and prophets, while in ver. 24 the blood of saints and of prophets is declared to have been found in her. Finally, ch. xx. 4, where the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God re

1 Schol. ad Juvenel. iv. 53. Palfurius Sura consularis in agone cum virgine La cedemonia sub Nerone luctatus est. Post inde a Vespasiano senatu motus, transivit ad stoicam sectam, in qua cum praevaleret, et eloquentia et artis poeticae gloria, abusus familiaritate Domitiani, acerbissime partes delationis exercuit: quo interfecto senatu accusante damnatus est.

2 Lib. 68, c. 1: Πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν συκοφαντησάντων θάνατον κατεδικάσθησαν, ἐν οἷς καὶ Σέρας ἦν ὁ φιλόσοφος.

3 After having praised Nerva for his energetic measures against the delators, he continues: Id hoc magis arduum fuit, quod imperator Nerva, te filio, te successore dignissimus, perquam magna quaedam edicto Titi adstruxerat, nihilque reliquisse nisi tibi videbatur, qui tam multa excogitasti, ut si ante te nihil esset inventum.

vive again, and those who had not worshipped the beast, nor his image, nor had received his mark upon their forehead and their hand. No doubt, the future is in these passages represented as present, but only in so far as it was to be a continuation of the present. There is never found a trace of what for the time being existed only within local boundaries, appearing afterwards as a heavy tribulation or general persecution extending to the whole of Christendom. Comp. besides ch. vii. 14.

There is a onesidedness in the representation given of Christ. Throughout we see only the aspect he presents to the enemies of his kingdom, and indeed specially the heathen enemies; the Jews appear only as insignificant opponents, as tails of smoking firebrands, that were briefly despatched in the epistles. And this consideration, coupled with the longing desire that is manifested toward the coming of Christ, and the lively faith in respect to the nearness of his approach; all lead to the conviction, that a general conflict of heathenism and Christianity, a conflict of life and death, had already entered.

Now, that such a bloody persecution existed under Domitian, can certainly be proved, and nothing but the confusion of a Dodwell could deny it.' This is just what might have been expected from the relation in which Christianity stood to the claim of divinity put forth by Domitian, which he urged with unsparing rigour. "It was enough," says Suetonius, "that any word or deed against the majesty of the emperor was objected against any one;" and as majesty is here meant, the mere confession of Christianity must have appeared as a capital offence against it. But we possess explicit testimonies even from heathen writers, although, for the reasons already mentioned, these are cautious and reserved in their words. In one of the passages formerly quoted, Dio Cassius says that Domitian put to death "many others" besides the Flavius Clemens, whose death itself inferred the martyrdom of many companions; for when the emperor con

1 See against him, as maintaining in his Dissertatio de paucitate martyrum that the persecution under Domitian never proceeded so far as to inflict tortures, to say nothing of actual blood-shed, Pagi crit. i., p. 83, and Ruinart in his Fraefatio in Acta Martyrum iii,

2 Domit. c. 12: Satis erat objici qualecunque factum dictumque adversus majestatem principis.