ON SS. CRISPUS AND GAIUS, AT CORINTH,
AT CORINTH.
In the first century, its first half already elapsed.
SYLLOGE.
The memory of the Saints in the classical Martyrologies; whence this was drawn, and whether our Gaius is distinct from Gaius the Macedonian, of whom the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and from the Gaius to whom the Apostle John wrote his third epistle.
Crispus, at Corinth. (Saint)
Gaius, at Corinth. (S.)
BY C. B.
The author of the Little Roman Martyrology commemorates Crispus and Gaius today in these words: At Corinth, of Crispus and Gaius. This is the first and the oldest of all the notices of our Saints in the Martyrologies. The Saints, whose memory, inscribed today in the classical Martyrologies, Afterward several other classical martyrologists, who flourished later, transferred this notice, somewhat altered, into the sacred calendars compiled by themselves. Older than all of these is Ado. He, in the little book which he prefixed to the Martyrology he compiled — the one on the festivals of the holy Apostles and of the rest who were disciples or near successors of the Apostles themselves — announces the Saints today in these words: The birthday of SS. Crispus and Gaius, whom the blessed Apostle says he baptized among the Corinthians. Of which Gaius the same Apostle makes mention to the Romans: "Gaius my host, and of the whole Church, saluteth you." Of whom also blessed John makes mention, writing an epistle to him: "The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth." But in the Martyrology itself which he wove together, he does so in these words: At Corinth, the birthday of the holy Crispus and Gaius, of whom the blessed Apostle Paul makes mention in writing to the Corinthians. This later announcement of Ado, Usuard transcribed fully and word for word, and Notker almost so. Nor have only the classical martyrologists already named made mention of SS. Crispus and Gaius today, but also several more recent writers. The words of each of them need not be transcribed here, since they teach nothing not already known from elsewhere; yet I should not wish to omit the announcement of the present-day Roman Martyrology, which agrees almost word for word with the Adonian announcement last transcribed here.
[2] It runs thus: At Corinth, the birthday of the holy Crispus and Gaius, was drawn originally from Holy Scripture, of whom holy Paul the Apostle makes mention in writing to the Corinthians. Now this memory of the Saints, which is celebrated today both in the older and in the more recent sacred calendars of the martyrologists, was drawn originally from the purest fountain of Sacred Scripture itself. So Ado and the other hagiographers who followed him have all judged by unanimous consent. It is permissible to gather this from the addition which all and each of them appended to the announcement of the Little Roman Martyrology transcribed here above, concerning the mention of the Saints made by Paul the Apostle when writing to the Corinthians. And indeed St. Paul the Apostle, as he himself teaches in the first chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, baptized Crispus and Gaius at Corinth, and that with his own hands — something the Apostle did but rarely, since he left to others the burden of baptizing, so that he might devote himself solely to the preaching of the Gospel. Wherefore, since our Saints are announced together today at Corinth or of Corinth, they are undoubtedly not different from the Crispus and Gaius of whom Paul makes mention in his first epistle to the Corinthians; and accordingly the memory of them which the sacred calendars already praised celebrate today was drawn originally from Sacred Scripture. Nor do I think this only concerning the memory or announcement of the Saints in the Martyrologies, but also that they are for this reason joined together, that is, that they have one and the same present day consecrated in the Church as their birthday, because in the aforesaid first epistle to the Corinthians both are said to have been baptized by the Apostle at Corinth. That opinion stands, since no other sufficiently probable reason for the conjunction presents itself. For it does not appear likely to me that one and the same present day is assigned as solemn for the memory of the Saints in the Martyrologies because both were on this day first born to heaven by their happy departure from among the living.
[3] they did not depart this life before the year 50 of the Christian era. Nor is there any cause why this should appear strange to anyone. For Saints are often found inscribed in the sacred calendars on other days than those on which they died; and, given the silence of ancient monuments and writers on this matter, it is altogether unknown on what day both our Saints departed from among the living. Moreover, for the same reason that the day is obscure, so also is the year in which the Saints died, nor does anything sufficiently solid present itself by which I might in any way determine it. Nevertheless I have noted above in the margin "the first century, its first half already elapsed," because it is at least certain and beyond doubt that the Saints did not die earlier, as I now briefly show. Paul the Apostle, as is agreed among most learned men, came first to Corinth for the sake of preaching the Gospel in the year fifty-two of the Christian era, as that year was already drawing to its close, and there, as Luke testifies in Acts 18, ℣ XI, he remained a year and a half. Wherefore, since within that span of eighteen months, as is clear from chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Corinthians, he washed Crispus and Gaius in the lustral waters of Baptism, it follows that they did not exchange this mortal life for the immortal one before the first half of the first century of the Christian era had passed.
[4] Further, since from what has been said Crispus and Gaius were initiated by baptism within the year and a half What besides is found recorded concerning Crispus. in which Paul stayed at Corinth, after he had first come thither toward the end of the year 52, there is no doubt that this took place either in that very year 52 or in one of the two following. And thus I have now brought forward what I have found to be recorded in general concerning both Crispus and Gaius. I now proceed to the things that pertain by name to the one and to the other Saint. Our Crispus — that is, he who in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 1, is declared to have been baptized by Paul the Apostle — is not, in the unanimous opinion of all the learned so far as I know, distinct from Crispus the ruler of the synagogue, of whom honorable mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 18, where the deeds done by Paul at Corinth are chiefly treated, in these words: And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Further, a certain Crispus who was made by the Apostles bishop of Aegina, an island in the Aegean Sea and the Saronic Gulf, is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, book 7, chapter 46, and some think that that Crispus is not different from ours. And this indeed appears not unlike the truth; yet since it is not certain, I have not assigned the title of bishop to our Crispus; nor should I have done so even if it were expressly asserted in the aforesaid Constitutions that our Crispus had been bishop of Aegina. For although these enjoy the highest prerogative of antiquity, they were nevertheless not dictated by the Apostles to Clement I, the Supreme Pontiff, as some once believed, and they are found infected with more than one blemish by which their credit is not a little weakened; so that even if they expressly handed down the Aeginetan episcopate of Crispus, they would not on that account make it certain.
[5] For the rest, there is nothing else which antiquity records concerning Crispus. Gaius is most probably the same as Gaius, Paul's host, As regards Gaius, he is most probably not different from the Gaius of whom the Apostle Paul makes mention in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 16, ℣ 23, in these words: Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. For our Gaius, although perhaps born elsewhere than at Corinth, was at least by household or habitation a Corinthian. This is understood from these words which are found concerning Crispus and Gaius in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 1, ℣ 14: I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius. Now Paul's Epistle to the Romans, as it will be permissible to gather from what is to be said below, was written long after the baptism conferred by Paul upon Gaius; and accordingly, since the Apostle at that time, when he wrote the said Epistle to the Romans, was by the unanimous consent of all at Corinth, our Gaius was most probably not different from the Gaius whom in that letter he names his host, that is, with whom he was then lodging at Corinth. Besides, the learned men of this century and of the last who have treated that matter all by unanimous consent make our Gaius — that is, him whom, as has been said, the Apostle baptized at Corinth together with Crispus — the same as Gaius, Paul's host. Wherefore, since it is an argument of truth that a thing should seem so to all, it is most probable indeed that our Gaius is not distinct from the Gaius who received the Apostle into his hospitality at Corinth.
[6] who is here praised by Chrysostom, Since this is so, whatever is found committed to writing concerning Gaius, Paul's host, most probably belongs to our Gaius; and accordingly it is pleasant to transcribe here what has seemed worthy of note among these things. St. Chrysostom, in his thirty-second Homily on the Epistle to the Romans, writes thus upon this text of Paul already transcribed here above, Gaius mine host saluteth you, etc., concerning Gaius the host of Paul, and therefore most probably concerning our Gaius: Do you see what a great crown he wove for him, by testifying to so great a hospitality, and by gathering the whole Church into his house? For he here calls "host" the man who receives guests. But when you hear that he was Paul's host, do not praise him only for his hospitality, but also for the uprightness of his life. Not
for he would not have lodged with him, had that man not been worthy of his virtue. For one who took care to go even beyond many of Christ's precepts would not have transgressed this law, by which it was commanded that hosts be examined [*] and that one lodge with the worthy.
So does Chrysostom praise Gaius, Paul's host, and therefore, from what has been said, most probably our Gaius; intimating, that is, that he was outstanding not only in liberality but also in charity and in the pursuit of the other virtues; and furthermore that he lent his house to the Apostle for use, that he might gather in it the Christians living at Corinth for the sacred assemblies. Further, Ambrose, the Syriac, and the Greek read, with a slight change made in the text of Paul transcribed just here: Gaius mine host and of the whole Church saluteth you. Hence Bede, who had a reading similar to this before his eyes, in explaining the third Epistle of the Apostle John, records thus concerning Gaius, Paul's host, whom (as will appear from what is to be said) he makes the same as our Gaius, in these words, which together with some others must be transcribed here again below: For since the word "host" is customarily applied both to him who receives and to him who is received, he was the host of the whole Church, because he kindly received all who came to him, both the preachers, that is, and the hearers of the word.
[7] and who most probably was bishop of Thessalonica, Origen, on the thirteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, had almost gone before Bede. For in that place, upon these words of Paul, Gaius mine host and of the whole Church saluteth you, he presently adds: This is the Gaius of whom elsewhere (Paul the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1) he says: "I thank my God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius." He seems therefore to indicate concerning him (that is, the Gaius whom Paul baptized) that he was a hospitable man, who not only received into his lodging Paul and every individual who lodged at Corinth, but himself furnished in his house a meeting-place for the whole Church. So Origen; and presently, concerning our Gaius also, that is, concerning the Gaius baptized by Paul, whom he most plainly makes the same as Gaius the host of Paul (consider his words already transcribed here), he adds this: It is indeed handed down by the tradition of our elders that this Gaius was bishop of the church of Thessalonica. There flourished therefore in Origen's age a tradition by which Gaius, baptized by the Apostle, or his host, was said to have been bishop of Thessalonica. Origen flourished in the third century of the Christian era, and departed from among the living not later than the year 253, as is now sufficiently agreed among the learned. Now if Gaius was in fact ever bishop of Thessalonica, he was most certainly not promoted to that dignity before the first half of the first century had already passed, seeing that, as has been said, he was baptized only in the year 52 or in one of the two following; and accordingly the tradition by which Gaius was in Origen's age said to have been bishop of Thessalonica had to do with a matter scarcely a century and a half old. Whence indeed the Thessalonian episcopate of Gaius comes out to me as most probable; yet it does not on that account appear certain, because the tradition recorded by Origen, however near it may be to the event, was merely popular; and such tradition is often caught straying from the truth. And this is why I have not assigned the title of bishop to Gaius either.
[8] Further, since, as I have already said, Origen by the words transcribed here in the preceding number makes our Gaius the same as Gaius the host of Paul, he is one and the same; but on the contrary from Gaius the Macedonian, and since Bede also agrees with Origen in this matter, as you will easily gather from his words to be transcribed here at n. XI, our opinion is hence also confirmed, by which we maintain that our Gaius is not different from Gaius, Paul's host. And so not only from what has been said above, but partly from this too, it is indeed, as I have already asserted before, quite probable that our Gaius is not distinct from Gaius, Paul's host. But ought not our Gaius also to be distinguished from Gaius the Macedonian, who set out with Paul for Ephesus, and there with Aristarchus, as is narrated in Acts, chapter 19, was endangered in the riot stirred up against the Apostle by Demetrius the silversmith or goldsmith about the year, as is commonly held, 57? Tillemont, in vol. 1 of his Monuments, in the twenty-ninth Annotation on Paul, affirms that there is no ground for the distinction. Baillet and some others unhesitatingly make our Gaius the same as the Gaius who was endangered at Ephesus, and therefore assert that our Gaius, who as has been said was certainly by household a Corinthian, departed from Corinth with Paul into Asia in the year 54, leaving behind the business with which he was occupied there. But our Gaius most probably did not follow Paul the Apostle when the latter departed from Corinth into Asia in the year 54. I prove the matter thus: Paul about the year 57, as the common opinion of the learned holds, wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians; but he did not write to the Romans before he had sent this one to the Corinthians, by the consent of Tillemont himself and of all other learned men. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was therefore composed either in the year 58, as Tillemont will have it, or at any rate not before the year 57.
[9] Now in this Epistle, which, as likewise by the unanimous opinion of the learned, he drew up while he was again staying at Corinth, as is here proved, the Apostle supplies this text, already more than once recited above: Gaius mine host and the whole Church saluteth you, or, as the Greek reads, and of the whole Church; and by these words, as has already been said above, it is clearly intimated that Paul the Apostle at that time, when he was writing at Corinth to the Romans, was lodging with Gaius — so that the latter, whose house also served the Christians in place of an oratory or church, was then still dwelling at Corinth, and accordingly most probably had not followed Paul from Corinth into Asia in the year 54, leaving house and business behind. Now since indeed Gaius the Macedonian, inasmuch as about the year, as is commonly thought, 57 he was endangered with Paul in the riot at Ephesus, had followed the Apostle into Asia, there is good reason why he should be pronounced distinct — contrary to what Tillemont, as has been said, supposes — from Gaius the host of Paul, that is, from the Gaius baptized by Paul, and therefore from ours. Further, that it may appear yet more clearly that our Gaius is most probably different from Gaius the Macedonian, I prove the matter thus as well: the Gaius who is mentioned in Acts, chapter 19, and the Gaius of whom mention is made in Acts, chapter 20, are one and the same. For in both places he is reckoned with Aristarchus among the Apostle's companions; nor is it an obstacle that in chapter 19 he is called a Macedonian, but in chapter 20 a Derbean. For in that very twentieth chapter of Acts, in which Luke makes mention of Gaius of Derbe, he at the same time also intimates that he was a Thessalonian, and accordingly, since Thessalonica is situated in Macedonia, a Macedonian as well. Tillemont indeed says, in the Annotation praised above, that in the very place in which we think it intimated in Acts 19 that Gaius of Derbe was a Thessalonian, it seems also to be intimated that Timothy was a Thessalonian, and yet that it is admitted by Chrysostom that Timothy is not on that account called a Thessalonian by Luke.
[10] he is different; But, saving the reverence we owe to Chrysostom, Luke clearly indicates that both Timothy and Gaius of Derbe or Derbium were Thessalonians, as will become plain to one who considers his words. Here they are: And there accompanied him (Paul the Apostle) Sopater of Beroea, the son of Pyrrhus; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. And thus indeed, since Luke here indicates that Gaius, whom he calls a Derbean, was a Thessalonian, it must be that he was on one account a Derbean, on another a Thessalonian. Hence he was by origin or birth a Derbean, that is, sprung from the Asian city of Derbe, but by household a Thessalonian — or the reverse. Whichever be determined, since indeed from what has been said Gaius of Derbe was according to Luke in Acts chapter 20 a Thessalonian and therefore a Macedonian, our opinion is confirmed even from this, by which we judge that the Gaius who in Acts 19 is called by Luke a Macedonian is the same as the Gaius who by the same Luke in Acts 20 is called a Derbean. Now since by the common consent of all the learned our Gaius, that is, Gaius the host of Paul, is distinct from Gaius of Derbe, it must be that he is also distinct from Gaius the Macedonian, that is, from the Gaius who in Acts 19 is called a Macedonian.
[11] which perhaps also holds concerning the Gaius to whom the Apostle John wrote. It remains that I now inquire whether our Gaius is likewise distinct from the Gaius to whom John wrote his third Epistle. Bede, on the third Epistle of John, having recited this verse of it, The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth, writes thus: Who or of what sort that Gaius was, is shown in the course of the Epistle. Namely, because he both heaped up with good works the faith of Christ which he had received, and, if he himself was by no means sufficient for preaching the word, yet rejoiced to sustain out of his means those who did preach. And we judge this to be the Gaius of whom Paul makes mention in the Epistle to the Romans, saying: "Gaius mine host and of the whole church saluteth you." For since the word "host" is customarily applied both to him who receives and to him who is received, he was the host of the whole Church, because he kindly received all who came to him, both the preachers, that is, and the hearers of the word; as also the following parts of this Epistle plainly declare. Whence John too loves him in the truth, that is, not for the sake of temporal advantages, but solely with a view to the everlasting goods which he sees him love. And that Gaius was of Corinth seems clear from this, that Paul, while staying in that city, wrote the Epistle to the Romans, whom he also salutes in his name. But in the Epistle to the Corinthians also he makes mention of Gaius as of a citizen of Corinth, saying, "I thank my God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius: lest any should say that ye were baptized in my name." Thus far Bede, plainly making our Gaius — that is, the Gaius baptized by Paul at Corinth — the same, as will be evident to one who considers it, as the Gaius to whom John wrote his third Epistle. Tillemont on the contrary, in his Annotation 29 praised above, thinks our Gaius to be different from the Gaius to whom John wrote. But since he brings forward no convincing reason for his opinion, perhaps indeed — yet I know not whether more probably — the opinion of Bede strays from the truth, an opinion to which nevertheless Ado, in the words recited at n. 1, and several others adhere.
Annotata* to examine