The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-10-15
Peters. but that they may or may not DO cor

Canon Farrar accepts tho genuneness OF the
Second and Third Epistles of John. though the
Syrian Church did not acknowledge them. and
many Of tho fathers. including Origcn and
Eusebius. ranked them among the disputed
books Of the Canon. 81. jerome says that
there were many who assigned them to the
authorship. not Of the Apostle John. but of
John the Presbyter. and the same opinion was
expressed by Erasmus and Grotius. and has
been maintained by some later scholars. In
an excursus. Canon Farrar has erdeavored to
rcfuto this notion by demonstrating that
thoro never was such n person as John tho
Prosbytcr. In contradistnction from John the
Apostle. Tho two he thinks were one.
As to the canoncity of tho Epis,le Of st.
James there is somo doubt but it Is especially
the authorship which has been the subject OF
dispute Clement OF Alexandria. though he
wrote on the Catholic Epistles does not appear
to have known IL, ana Tcrtullian ~ silent about
it, 1t IL not mentioned in the Muratorian
Canon. and 1t is rejected by Theodore of Mop
sucstia. On the other hand. the Syrian Church
undoubtedly received it carly. yet it was not
until tho fourth century that it was generally
ncceptedby the Greek and Latin churches and
1t was first placed in the Canon by the Council
of Carthage in A. ID. 397. Luther took con-
temptuous view of this Epistle calling IL u
NcrltuDio StluW-cplSllO Wn"n comparing III
with St. Pauls letters and declared that he
accounted it 10 DO no apostles writing"
Erasmus. Grotius, Schciormachcr. DE Vito,
Rcuss Bauer. Schwicger. Davidson. and many
others refuse or hesitate to accept It. Canon
Farrar however. insists on treatng 1t as tho
work of James the Lords brother. and sets
forth his reasons at considerable length.
emitting to state, however. in anything like
proper detail the grounds of the objections
raised against tho orthodox theory. He also
proclaims tho authenticity OF the Epistle Of
st. Jude, although 1t Is missing in tho Pcshito
Syriac version was ranked by Eusebius among
the disputed books and as st. Jerome tells us.
was rejected by most men In his day. Tho
Jude who. according to tho orthodox belief. was
the author Of this Epstlc. was not, We need
scarcely say. ono OF tho twelve Apostles. but
one of the four brothers of Jesus. who as the
Gospel narrative discloses. refused to believe
in the divine mission Of Christ during his life
time, but were converted after the resurrec-
ton. Tradition is almost wholly silent about
this brother Of Jesus and tho only story in
which his name occurs is ono preserved In
Eusebius. and quoted by Canon Farrar. Ac-
cording to this legend. Domitian's jealousy
was excited by rumcrs that some Of the earth
ly family Of Him whom Christians adored as
the King Of the Universe were still living
in Palestine. Prophecies about the advent
OF the great kingdom. which was to take its
rise In the East. had been prevalent in the days
Of Nero. and were not entirely set ut rest by
the elevation of vcspasan to the empire from
the command of the army in Syria. Rendered
nervous and timid by the consciousness Of his
manifold crimes. Domitian determined to in
duirc into tho matter. and ordered some Of
these Relations of the Lord as they we're
nnllot hy THAR OF NJ, ba hrort,ht
into his presence. They were grandsons Of
Jude. the brother Of the James who, after the
martyrdom Of James. the son Of Zebedec, be-
came Bishop of Jerusalem, and they were,
therefore. grandnephews of Christ. But when
Domitian ascertancd that they only possessed
few acres of land. and saw that they held no
higher rank than that OF other peasants Of
Palestine. and that their hands were horny
with daily labor he dismissed them to their
humble homes unframed and with dsdain.
1t seems to us that the most valuable part OF
Canon Farrar's book is not the controversial
portion. in which he seems to feel constrained
by his position in the Anglican Church to de-
fend the genuineness and sacred character Of
certain documents. whose right to figure in the
Scriptura canon has been strenuously disput-
cd. He is far more satisfactory In the first four
chapters. which present remarkably clear
and striking view OF the social condition OF
Roman society in the age of Nero. who accord
ing to the hypothesis accepted by the author.
was the Antichrst Of the Apocalypse. For
breadth and accuracy of scholarship. for the
insight and imaginative power which enable q
painter or writer to Iesuscitate the past HIS
picture OF Roman life at tho era when Paul
sought to escape his Jewish prosecutors by an
appeal to Caesar, is worthy to be compared with
the most admirable work OF Renan in the same
field. One cannot help tracing in certain lines
Of the impressive photograph n parallel to the
aesthetic cxtrayaganccs of our own day. coupled
now. rs like hyper-reNnemcnts were then. with
the most brutulizing realistic tendencies. He
diates upon the frightful enormitcs perpe-
trated in tho persecution of the Christians
under Nero when. rs We know on unimpencha
be authority, young girls. disguised In the
skins Of bcnrs or wolves were torn 10 pieces
and devoured by famshed dogs while mon.
tied to stakes and drenched with pitch, were
set on fire and made to serve az ghastly torch
lights in the imperial gardens. Canon Farrar
points out that the specific atrocty Of such
suectacles unknown TO the earlier ages which
the Contemporaries Of Nero and Seneca called
barbarous. was due to the cold-blooded selfish
moss. the hideous realism Of n super-reilned.
dclica tc. aesthetic age. To please these de-
bauched handles and sanguinary connoisseurs.
art must know nothing Of morality; must
frankly accept and blithely rejoice ina healthy
animalism: must compute life by the num-
Der of lis few widest pulsations must
reckon that life is worthless without tho most
thrilling experiences of horror or delight. In
compliance with these principles. the drama
reached 4 pitch OF realism which has never
been approached elsewhere; comedy must be
enacted shame. and tragedy genuine blood
shed. Thus in the play Of Afranius. called
The Coniiagration." II house was really
burned. and its furniture actually plundered.
In the pantomime called Iaureolus" an actor
was veritnbiy crhcied and really mangled by
II bear. When the hcroism OF Mutius Scnvola
was represented on the staac. n condemned
criminal was selected ion the actors part. and
was compelled to thrust his hand without IA
groan into the flame and stand moionlcss
while ii was being burned. Promc,heus must
DO really chained to his rock-Dirce DO in very
fact tossed and gorcd by the wild bull
-Icnrus really try to hy, and in the
attempt fall and he dashed to death
and the actor forced to play Hercules
must ascend tho funeral pyre, and there in
very truth be burned alive. Herocally, in gold
aui purple slaves and criminals must play out
tlpir mart nh In, Namps pnVplop them. Such